3
IMM
|
Ae
3 1761
12)
~
2
Oo
ec
Oo
=
uw
00. —=_=_=_
>
oH
w
c
Ww
>
2
pe
ACCORDING GO she Hearews
fe
L ait
aa
DWARD 3. uchoLson
5
.
\
‘HE GOSPEL —
ACCORDING TO ©
hy :
Hebyews , Coobe\ ot the.
A
45
THE GOSPET:
ACCORDING. TO
THE HEBREWS
ITS FRAGMENTS TRANSLATED AND ANNOTATED
‘WITH A
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL >
EVIDENCE RELATING TO IT
BY
EDWARD BYRON NICHOLSON, M.A.
LATE SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD
PRINCIPAL LIBRARIAN AND SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LONDON INSTITUTION
SM AAN IAN ACSIA Se BE
SNA CN Se ZAI ZO!)
js Er) 4 wt Zag SY)
EA) Y ab) <7) SSN
SRA AS AON :
LONDON
C. KEGAN PAUL’ & CO., 1 PATERNOSTER SQUARE
1879
HENRY HALL-HOUGHTON, M.A.
(WITHOUT KNOWING HIM OR ASKING HIS LEAVE)
¥ Bedicnte this Book
THE EIRST OUTCOME OF STUDIES TO WHICH I WAS LED BY HIS
| FOUNDATION, JOINTLY WITH THE LATE REV. JOHN HALL, B.D.,
OF THE ‘HALL-HOUGHTON PRIZES IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
FOREHWORDS.
a SO Ss
In writing an illustrative commentary (which will be pub-
lished next January) upon the Gospel according to Matthew,
I had to quote those fragments of the Gospel according to
the Hebrews which answer to Matt. vi. 11 and xxiii. 35.
This involved some notice of that work, and, as critical
Opinion about it was by no means unanimous, I resolved to
make a full examination of itin an appendix. The appendix,
however, soon becamé very awkwardly long, and was more-
over entirely out of character with the nature of my com-
mentary ; so that I determined to put it forth as a separate
book.
No apologies need be made for doing this. Hilgenfeld’s
edition shows that even in Germany the subject is far from
worked out; while the passage of *twenty-six lines in
Professor Westcott’s Canon of the New Testament which pur-
ports to present the opinions of antiquity about this lost
Gospel, and which has been reprinted without change twice
if not three times since the appearance of Hilgenfeld’s edition,
shows that in England even Hilgenfeld is all but unknown.
I have aimed at accuracy and logical method, and have
no excuses to make if I have fallen short of these aims. As
regards completeness, I have not indeed spent a lifetime in
ransacking the entire body of early Christian literature, or
even Syriac literature, in search of undiscovered quotations
* See Appendix A, ‘ Prof. Westcott’s Statement of the External
Evidence.’
Viil Forewords.
from and notices of the Gospel according to the Hebrews:
nay, I have not tried to acquaint myself with what has been
said by every modern, even every German writer upon the
subject. I have, indeed, presumed that Hilgenfeld would
have gathered from his forerunners whatever was worth
gathering in the way of illustration, and theory I did not
want. With these reservations I think I may claim to nave
studied completeness.
For the style of my translations I must ask indulgence.
Scrupulous exactness was so important that I have tried t
be as literal as might be without being altogether unreadable.
One thing I. do most earnestly beg, that no one will be
prejudiced against the claims of the Fragments to genuine
evangelical origin by their look in their English dress. If,
however, the Greek is read as well, or the notes containing
a verbal analysis, or if the equally literal translations made
by me from the canonical Gospels are en, I have no
fear of any such prejudice arising.
To any one who may have read and liked a little book in
which I expressed certain views about English writing, and in
which I tried to carry out those views as far as I dared, I
must also excuse the general style of the work: it was written
before, though published after the other, and I have had no
time to write it over again.
It is important to add in what spirit I have written.
The subject is one on which it is almost impossible to be
without a fore bias. One may be biased against the Gospel
according to the Hebrews by its absence from the Canon or
by suspicion of the sects who used it. One may be biased
for it by hostility to the Canon, by belief in an Aramaic
original of the Gospel according to Matthew, by prepossessions
in favour of the Nazarenes, by some of the Fragments them-
selves, and by a wish to recover-some genuine part of the
lost mass of early evangelic literature. I wish to say that I
have been biased by every one of this latter class of influences
except the first. But I have done my best to overcome this
Forewords. iX
bias, and have been painfully anxious to state nothing as
probable which was not so, and nothing as certain which
was only highly probable. Nor can I see what other deduc-
tions it was possible to make from the evidence before me.
If a copy of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or of
either of Jerome’s translations of it, should ever be recovered
—which, judging from the recoveries of the last forty years,
is by no means out of the question—my hypothesis might be
blown to the winds. But I do not see how any other hypo-
thesis was nearly so probable on the evidence presented by
the existing Fragments taken in conjunction with the exist-
ing evidence of ancient writers.
I have had much help from the thirty-three pages given
to this Gospel by Hilgenfeld in Fasciculus IV. of his Novwm
Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum (Lips. 1866). His ex-
amination of the external evidence is, however, but a sketch,
while his internal evidence (scattered through the notes) is
for the most part, I think, quite destitute of value. He
sees almost everywhere a form of narrative earlier than
that of the Greek Matthew, but his reasons seem to me in
the highest degree fanciful. There is no approach to syste-
matic verbal analysis, and the impetuosity of judgement
which affirms* that the Gospel according to the Hebrews
offers to those who are investigating the origin of the
canonical Gospels the long sought ‘ punctum Archimedis’
is characteristic of the entire work. But I have had from it
much help in many ways which I might not have got, at
least without great trouble, from other sources, and I record
_ the above criticisms only that those who cannot compare
the two works may not suspect me of much greater indebt-
edness than I like to acknowledge. I must also acknowledge
a heavy debt to his sections on the Gospel according to Peter,
* *Hebraeorum evangelium nobis evangeliorum originem in-
vestigantibus etiam nunc Archimedis punctum praebet, quod tot
viri docti in evangelio secundum Marcum frustra quaesiverunt,’
p. 15.
Xil fForewords.
For the verbal analysis of the Fragments I have of course .
used Bruder’s Concordance.
Not knowing any Aramaic, I have asked of my friend
the Rev. Dr. Hermann Adler, the well known Rabbi of the
Bayswater Synagogue, such questions as my written autho-
rities left me in doubt about, and I most gratefully acknow-
ledge his unvarying readiness to give me every information,
and his very kind interest in my work. .
To my fellow librarians, Mr. R. Harrison of the London
Library, the Rev. T. Hunter of Dr. Williams’s, and the Rev.
W.H. Milman of Sion College I owe thanks for many faci-
lities accorded me.
Lastly, and very far indeed from Schety I thank with
all my heart the subscribers without whom I dared not
chance the publication of my work. Specially thankful
ought I to be to those many high dignitaries of the Church
of England who, in the interests of critical theology, gave
their patronage to a book of whose conclusions and a writer
of whose religious opinions they knew nothing—simply
trusting in the statement of my prospectus that I entered
this field of literature ‘in the cause neither of orthodox
tradition nor of its impugners.’ I hope that they and all
others who read the book will find nothing in it to make
them suspect the sincerity of that statement, nothing to
make them suspect that it has been, even unconsciously,
influenced by any religious opinions whatever.
Lonpon Institution,
October, 1879.
SYNOPSIS.
PART I.
THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
Scope and method of the present work . oe
"Evidence of IRENAEUS 1
i CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA . F ; ; ‘ , 3
» . ORIGEN. | 3
< EUsEBIUS . ; : ; : : See
‘“ 3 to the use of this Gospel by Hzexsrprus 6
Does Eusebius bear witness to its use by PaprasP? ‘ : ay 4
Eyidence of EprpHantvs concerning the Nazarene text 8
nae ot eae e Ebionite text . 10
Was the Ebionite Gospel written in Greek or extant ina Greek version? 10
Explanation of the various beginnings of the Ebionite Gosp el 15
Evidence of JzromE 4 : * Sia ; ; i 17
Pr »» respecting OrreEn’s use of this Gospel 19
JULIAN THE PELAGIAN refers to Jerome and this Gospel . 22
THEODORE oF Mopsvzstia accuses Jerome of forging it . 22
Eyidence of TamoporEr . 22
x Bae. 23
» | NIKEPHORUs . s j 4 Sele an? - oth Bo ahead 23
Seputius Soorus quotesit . . . . . 23
Quotations from it in Codex Tischendorfianus III. . ‘ é ‘ 24
Not the same as the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles yen ta, Se
Summary. “er pei. ; ; ea Cag is Met Bd Se ke 26
XIV Synopses.
PART II.
THE FRAGMENTS.
Arranged in correspondence with the Gospel according to Matthew.
PAGE PAGE
Note ; , : . 28 | Fr. 19=Matt. xviii. 22. » ne 8
Fr. 1, Ebionite preface . . . 28 | Fr. 20= Matt. xix. 16-24 . . 49
Fr.2=Matt.i.5 . ‘ . 81 | Fr. 21=Matt.xxi.9 . Abe |
Fr. 3= Matt. ii. 15 ; . . 81 | Fr. 22=(Matt. xxi. end?) John
Fr, 4= Matt. ii. 28. . 82 vii. 53-yiii. 11 . . §2
Fr. 5=Matt.iii.1-7 . . . 83 | Fr, 23=Matt. xxili.385. . . 59
Fr.6=Matt.iii, . . . 86 | Fr.24=Matt.xxv.14-30. . 59
Fr. 7 = Matt. iii. 13-17. . . 88 | Fr, 25=Matt. xxvi.17,18 . . 60
Fr. 8=Matt. iii. (end). . 43 | Fr. 26=Matt. xxvi. 74 . . 61
Fr.9=Matt.iv.5 43 | Fr. 27=Matt.xxvii.16 . . 61
Fr.-10 = Matt. v. 22? 44 | Fr. 28=Matt. xxvii. 51 . . 62
Fr. 11 = Matt. v. 24? 44 | Fr. 29=Matt. xxviii. (1 Cor.
| ‘Fr, 12=Matt. vi. 11. 46] ay. 9) 95 6g eee 62
Fr, 13 = Matt. x. 25 . . 45°| Fr. 30=(Matt. xxviii.) pe
Fr. 14=Matt.x.P . , . 46 ear, OS i ; . 68
Fr. 15= Matt. xii. 10 . . . 46°) Fe SF . ea ; oe, ae
Fr. 16 = Matt. xii. 47-50 . - 46) Fr 32, A ‘ : he 3
Fr. 17 = Matt. xv. 24 . Soria Ae Bs es te : ‘ , AC age’ ff
Fr. 18=Matt.xvi.17 .. . 48
PART III.
THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIONS.
1. Character of this Gospel . ‘ . : ; : ; ; . 78
C ontrasts with Apocryphal Gospels . P ; j ; ee
Heretical corruptions of Epiphanius’s Ebionite copy . . . 78
Absence of such evidence against other copies . ; . 79
Estimate of the moral nature of Jesus and the extent of his iriahes 79 -
Synopses.
The Holy Spirit as the ‘ mother’ of Jesus .
Limited inspiration of the prophets
Anti-Ebionite view of their divine mission
Jerome’s doctrinal acceptance of this Gospel .
Application of similar tests to the canonical Gospels .
The Nazarenes as described by Mansel and Neander
2. Relations to other works
(a) Uncanonical— :
The Preaching of Peter
The Gospel according to Peter
(6) Canonical—
Critical analysis of each fect
Summary of results .
Not compiled from Matthew and Luke
Not the basis of Matthew or Luke
Writer's theory of identity of authorship with Matthew
Modern parallels
Temporary and partial purposes of the canonical Gospels
The note-book theory of Gospel-authorship
Writer’s theory of relation to Luke
Chronological relation to the canonical Matthew
Erasmian views . ;
General harmony of the external and internal evidence
Position of this Gospel in the second century ; j
Religion
Where other fragments of it may be hid
ADDENDA.
Comparison of Evsrsrus with IrEnazvs .
NixerHorvs OAtListus
Further note on Fr. 21.
‘ Marcianus ’ |
- Length of the Gospel patiatig to the Bikiows
. 101
. 103
. 103
. 104
. 104
. 105
» 105
. 106
Harmony of the writer’s theory with the Papiast and
. 107
- 108
. 110
Note on the methods and results of the author of thine natural
. 110
. 112
XV
PAGE
79
81
81
82
82
84
86
86
86
86
90
91
98
XVI Synopsis.
Hgmeo ow Pp
G.
APPENDICES.
‘ PAGE
. Professor Westcott’s statement of the external evidence . : , 117
. Papias and Matthew . ‘ : ' : ere ABD
. The Gospel of Carpocrates and Kostuthus ; ; : . 124
. Tatian’s Diatessaron . ; : : ; ; ; Aa ee
. Justin’s ‘memoirs of the Apostles’ . . ‘ ‘ ; ; . 138
. Analysis of external and internal evidence for and against the
genuineness of John vii. 53-viii, 11 . ; : : 4 cea b>13)
Jesus Bar-Abba_.. ; . . 141
H. Probable or possible fragments of the ‘Gospel according to the
Hebrews (with preliminary note on the quotations in the ‘ Second
Epistle of Clement’ and the Clementine Homilies) . ‘ » =, a8
THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS.
——_00-0-0—_—_.
el, I.
THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
‘Tue GOSPEL according to the Hebrews’ is the name of a
Gospel of which only some thirty known fragments have
come down to our day. It is my object to gather and examine
the statements and opinions of ancient writers about this
lost Gospel; to arrange, translate, and illustrate its frag-
ments ; lastly, to analyse the internal evidence presented by
the fragments, and, comparing it with the external evidence,
to see whether it enables us to shape any likely hypothesis
as to the character and origin of the work to which they be-
longed.
*IRENAEUS is the first extant writer who refers to the
Gospel according to the Hebrews. To make his reference
intelligible it is needful first to say that the early Church be-
lieved Matthew to have written his Gospel in ‘ Hebrew,’t
* Born and educated in Asia about 120-40 a.p., pupil of Poly-
carp and Papias, made Bishop of Lyon in 177, still living in 197,
Supposed to have been martyred in 202.
+ The real Hebrew had long been a dead speech, but the name
was commonly given to Syro-Chaldaic, or Aramaic—as it is now
generally termed. Thus, in Acts xxi. 40 and xxii. 2, Paul is said to
have spoken to the people ‘in the Hebrew tongue,’ and Jerome,
who speaks of the Gospel according to the Hebrews as ‘ written
indeed in the Chaldee and Syriac Parersnize, but with Hebrew letters’
(Dial. adv. Pelag. lib. iii.), elsewhere speaks of it as ‘ written in the
Hebrew language’ (Comm. in Isat. lib. iv.—on Is. xi. 2).
me Be:
2 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
that is, Aramaic. Papias, who can scarcely have written
later,and may have written a good deal earlier, than 140 a.p.,*
says that ‘Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew
speech, and each interpreted them as he was able.’ All
other ancient writers agree with Papias.{ ‘Of the Greek
translator they say nothing, but no one suggests that it was
Matthew himself,’ says Tregelles (Horne’s Introduction, iv.
420).
Irenaeus, then, writing about 180-90 a.p., says of the
Ebionites, a Palestinian sect, that ‘they use that Gospel only
which is according to Matthew.’$ We shall hereafter see
that the Gospel of the Ebionites was the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, that it was in Aramaic, was attributed to
Matthew, and was in existence at the time when Irenaeus
wrote. In a second place Irenaeus again speaks of the
Ebionites as ‘using that Gospel only which is according to
Matthew.’ || It is quite clear, therefor, that he believed
* His date will be considered when we come to the evidence of
Kusebius.
Tt Mar@aiocg pev ovv “EBpatde duadéxrm ra Adyta ovveypaWaro*
hpphvevoe 8 aira we HOobvaro Exaoro¢e (Husebius, Hist. Hecl. iii. 39).
Bishop Lightfoot, in the Contemporary Review for August 1875, has
cut the ground from under the feet of those who maintained that
by Adyra a lost collection of discourses, and not the present Gospel,
must be meant.
¢ Erasmus first challenged this belief. Most German critics are
Erasmians, while maybe most later English writers of mark are
Papiasts. Some remarks of my own from a neutral standpoint
‘will be found in Appendiw B, ‘ Papias and Matthew.’
§ Solo autem eo Evangelio quod est secundum Matthaeum
utuntur (Adv. Haer. i. 26, § 2).
|| A rather remarkable passage :—Ebionei etenim, eo Evangelio
quod est secundum Matthaeum solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur
non recte praesumentes de Domino. Marcion autem, id quod est
secundum Lucam circumcidens, ex his quae adhuc servantur penes
eum blasphemus in solum exsistentem Deum ostenditur (Adv. Haer.
iii. 11, § 7)—‘ For the Ebionites, using that Gospel only which is
according to Matthew, are convicted from that very Gospel of
holding wrong views about the Lord. Marcion again, mutilating
the Gospel which is according to Luke, is shown out of those parts
left in his edition to be a blasphemer against the only living God,’
Irenaeus. Clement of Alexandria.- Origen. 3
_ the Gospel according to the Hebrews to be of Matthaean
authorship, and, as he nowhere says that Matthew wrote two
Gospels, but, on the other hand, expressly limits the number
of genuine Gospels to four, he must have regarded it as one
work with the present Matthew.
{ CuemMEeNT or ALEXANDRIA writes—‘ As Matthias in the
Traditions, exhorting us, says, ‘‘ Marvel at what is before
thee,” supposing this the first step to ulterior knowledge ;
just as in the Gospel according to the Hebrews it is written “‘ He
that hath marveled shall reign, and he that hath reigned
shall rest.”? The formula ‘it is written’ is, as the writer
of Supernatural Religion says (4th ed. i. 286), ‘ generally
understood to indicate a quotation from Holy Scripture.’ **
tt OriaEn, after saying that ‘the Spirit also had being
through the Word .. . . even if certain words seem to draw
us to the opposite conclusion,’ goes on thus—‘ But if any one
admits: [indic. mood, mpocletar] the Gospel according to the
Hebrews,- where the Saviour Himself says Just now my
mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and bore
me wp on to the great mountain Tabor, he will raise a further
doubt how the Holy Spirit that had being through the Word
ean be mother of Christ. But these words and this difficulty
it is not hard to interpret. For, if he that doeth the will of
the Father in the heavens is his [i.e. Christ’s] brother and
It is evident that so far as Irenaeus knew the Ebionite Gospel was
not a corrupted Matthew. At the same time we cannot tell that
Trenaeus or those from whom he drew his information knew any-
thing more of the Ebionite Gospel than that the Ebionites them-
selves averred it to be the Gospel according to Matthew.
€| Died about 213-18 a.v. ;
** Tatrne O€ apy) TO Oavpdaoa Ta tpaypara, we WAdrwr év Oeat-
THTw NéEyer, Kal MarOiag év raic Hapaddcest rapaway ‘ Oatpacoy ra
mapdvra, Babudy rovroyv mpwrov tijc éwékerva yvw@oewc broréuevoc’ th
kay ro Kad’ “EBpaiove Evayyediy ‘‘O Oavpacac Bacirevoe’ yéyparrat
‘cal 6 Baowtebvoue [éx javarahcerac’ (Strom. ii. 9). The Traditions
of Matthias would seem to be the same as the Gospel attributed to
that Apostle.
tt Wrote 226-54 a.p.
4 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
sister and mother, and the name “brother of Christ” falls
primarily not only on the race of men, but also on those
diviner than it, it will not be more absurd than in the case
of any mother of Christ so entitled because of doing the will
of the Father in heaven that the Holy Spirit should be
mother [of Christ].’ * 3
‘In this passage there are two things to be observed.
First, that in the words ‘but if any one admits ’—édy 62
mpoolerat ris—the indicative mood is used, which according to
the rules of Greek grammar implies that the Gospel in ques-
tion was admitted by some people—these people being pre-
sumably within the circle of those whom Origen was address-
ing. Secondly, that Origen upholds and harmonizes to his
own theory the most peculiar phrase in the most peculiar
fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews which has
come down to us: and the conclusion is that either he was
disposed to admit that Gospel himself, or it was admitted by
so many other people that he did not like either to disagree
with it openly or to pass it by in silence.
The old Latin translator also incorporates in Origen’s
commentary on Matt. xix. an extract from the Gospel ac-
cording to the Hebrews, with the following prefix—‘It is
written in a certain Gospel which is called ‘‘according to the
Hebrews,” if, however, anyone is pleased to take that not as
authoritative, but as throwing light on the question before
us.’*+ Here the formula of quotations from Scripture is used
* Kal ro Ilvedpa dia rod Adyou éyévero ... . ei wal déberc revec
mepiomay hdc eig TO évayriov doxovow. "EBay dé rpooieraé tic ro Kad?
‘EBpaiove EvayyédXwy, év0a abroc 6 Lwrhp pnory *"Apre EXaE pe h Arp
pov ro “Ayo Ivevpa éy pig r&v rpry@y pov kal avhveyxé pe eic TO
dpoc TO péya TaBwp, érarophoe mac phrnp Xpiorod ro dua tov Adyou
yeyevnpévoy Iveta “Aywv etvac dbvara. Tatra dé ral rovro ob
xareror Epunvevoa, Ei yap 6 roy ro OéXnpa tov Iarpoc rov Ev roi¢
ovpavoic acedApoc Kal adeddr) Kal phrnp éoriy avrov, kal ~Odver rd
‘adedgo¢e Xprorod’ Svopa vd pdvoy éxl 7O rHy avOpwTwy yévog AO
kal éxl ra rovrou Oedrepa, odcév aromoy Eorar paddAov TaoNC ypnpari-
Covance pntpoc Xprorod Oca ro roveiv ro OéAnpa rod év ovpavoig Harpe
ro IIvedpa 76“Ayov iva pyrépa (Comm. in Jo. ii. § 63—Migne’s ed.
vol. iv. 133). |
+ Scriptum est in Evangelio quodam quod dicitur ‘secundum
Hebraeos ’"—si tamen placet alicui suscipere illud non ad auctorita-
Origen. Lusebtus. 5
—‘ it is written’; but a reservation is permitted to anyone
who doubts the authority of the work.
This prefix, and the quotation which follows it, are not,
however, in our Greek text of Origen, and may therefor be
due, if not to the Latin translator, at least to some Greek
reader who inscribed them on the margin of his copy, whence
the translator rendered them, supposing that they belonged
to his author’s text.
But, if it be true, as we shall see Jerome says, that the
Gospel according to the Hebrews ‘is often used by Origen,’
we are strongly impelled to accept the passage as genuine.
{ Husepius (Heel. Hist. iii. 25) mentions first the recog-
nised books of the New Testament; then those which were
disputed, but recognised by most people; and, lastly, those
that were spurious. He goes on as follows—‘ And nowadays
some have reckoned among these the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, which they of the Hebrews that have received
the Christ love beyond any other.’§ This implies (i.) that
_ this Gospel was the accepted textbook of the Jewish Christ-
ians in general; (ii.) that its genuineness had only lately been
questioned ; (iii.) that only a minority counted it spurious.
In c. 27 of the same book, speaking of that division of
the Ebionites which did not reject the divinity of Jesus, he
says that, ‘using that Gospel alone which is called the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, they took small account of
the rest.’ || From the context it looks as if he was borrowing
from and explaining or correcting Irenaeus. 7
Elsewhere (Theophan. iv. 12) he says—‘ The cause, there-
for, of the divisions of soul that came to pass in houses
Himself taught, as we have found in a place in the Gospel’
existing among the Jews in the Hebrew language, in which
tem sed ad manifestationem propositae quaestionis (Migne’s ed. vol.
i. 1294),
ft Died 340 a.p.
§ “Hon & €v robvrote revéc Kat ro cad’? “Epatove Evayyéduov xaré-
Ackay, @ padtora ‘EBpaiwy of roy Xpeordy wapadeédpevoe xalpovar,
|| Ebayyediy 0& povy 79 Ka? ‘EBpaiove Neyopéry Xpwperor Tey
Aoi wy optKxpoy Exod TO NOyor.
{ See Addenda.
6 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
it is said, &c.’* Here we see that Eusebius looks on the
sayings attributed to Jesus in this Gospel as authentic.
In another passage in the T'heophania he gives from ‘ the
Gospel which is come to us in Hebrew characters’ f a differ-
ent version of the Parable of the Talents.
It may be remarked that both Clement and Origen had
traveled in Palestine, and that Husebius was bishop of
Caesarea, in the library of which city (collected by his friend
Pamphilus) there was a copy of this Gospel, as Jerome tells
us.t{ We may therefor reasonably suppose that their quo-
tations are not merely second-hand, and that, had it been on
the face of it an apocryphal production, they would have
designated it as such.
It must be added that Eusebius asserts that Hrarsrppus
used the Gospel dccording to the Hebrews. ‘He also ad-
duces some things out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
and the Syriac, and particularly out of the Hebrew Jan-
geuage.’§ As the works of Hegesippus were then extant,
and are quoted by Eusebius himself, we can hardly suspect
this statement of being wrong. And unless it be so we have
in Hegesippus a still earlier witness than Irenaeus. For we
* This passage is quoted from p. 234 of Prof. Lee’s translation
of the Syriac version of the T’heophania, not being among the scanty
remnants of the original Greek. 7
T To cic hyde joy “EBpaixoic yapaxrijpow Evayyé\or (Migne’s ed.
vol. iv. 155). Prof. Westcott, Mr. Dodd, and the author of Stwper-
natural Religion make no mention of this fragment, which I owe to
Hilgenfeld, who says that it was first noticed by Fritsche.
t Catal. Script. Hecl. under ‘ Matthaeus.’
§ "Ex re rod kab’ "EBpatove Evayyediov cal rot Supraxod, cat idiwe éx
ric “EBpatdoc duadéxrov riva riOnow (Hist. Heel. iv. 22). The Syriac
may mean (i.) a Syriac version of the Old Testament, or of books of
the New; (ii.) the Aramaic speech—Aramaic and Hebrew being on
this hypothesis accurately distinguished by Eusebius in this passage
as they are by Jerome (Adv. Pelag. iii., quoted later) ; (iii.) some
- separate Syriac Gospel. But one is also inclined to conjecture
that a careless or meddling copyist has inserted the cai before rod
Xvpraxov 3 omitting cai the sentence reads: ‘ He also adduces some
things out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is in Syriac,
and particularly out of the Hebrew language.’
Eusebius (Hegesippus: Papas). 7
know him to have been a ripe theologian at least as early as
170 a.p., and Eusebius says that he lived ‘in the first suc-
cession to the Apostles,’ || which would place his birth at the
very beginning of the century. Being himself a Jewish
Christian, he would be fully acquainted with the book he
quoted.
HKusebius also mentions Papias in connexion with this
Gospel. ‘ Eusebius, says the author of Supernatural Re-
ligion (4th ed. i. 421), ‘informs us that Papias narrated
from the Gospel according to the Hebrews a story regarding
a woman accused before the Lord of many sins.’ This
statement needs to be qualified: what Eusebius does say is
as follows. After mentioning certain stories related by
Papias, he writes ** ‘ The same historian adds other incidents
as having come to him from unwritten tradition—both some
unknown parables of the Saviour and teachings of his, and
certain other things of a more fabulous character.tf . . . And
he also transfers to his own work other accounts, by the
aforesaid Aristion, of the Lord’s discourses, and traditions of
the Elder John. And, now that I have referred the student
to these, I must perforce add to those reports of his which
|| ‘O ‘Hyfourroe éxi rig tpwrne tev "Aroarédwy yevouevoc Cradoxiic
(Hist. Heel. ii. 23).
4] He is said to have died in the reign of Commodus, 180-92
A.D. :
*® Kai adda 0€ 6 abroc ovyypadgeve we éx Tapaddcewe aypadou Eic
avrov ijxovra maparebece, Eévac ré rivac rwapaBodag Tod Lwripog cat
didacxadiacg avrov, kai riva GidXAa pvOcKwrepa. . . . Kat &Adac oe TH
idig ypagn Tapadiowory “Apioriwvog tov mpda0_erv detnrwpévou TwY Tov
Kupiov Aéywy dunyhoee Kal 70d mpecBurépov “Iwavvou Tapaddeete. EQ’
ad¢ rove giouabeig avaréuparrec, avayKaiwe viv TpocIyocomat Tai¢
mpoekTeVeioaic avrov gwvaic mapacoow iy wept Mapxov rov ro Evay-
yéduov yeypagoroc éxréBece Ova rotrwy (Hist. Hecl. iii. 39).
TT It is equally correct to construe ‘ some strange parables of the
Saviour and teachings of his, and other things of a somewhat fabu-
lous character.’ But, as Eusebius quotes in example Papias’s state-
ments respecting the millennium, and attributes them to his mis-
understanding the accounts of the Ayostles, it seems natural to
suppose that he distinguishes the ‘ fabulous’ element from ‘the un-
known parables and teachings of Jesus.’
8 The Gospel according to the Hebrews,
have been already mentioned a tradition which he has
published in their name concerning Mark the writer of the
Gospel.’ Eusebius then gives Papias’s very sober accounts
of Mark and Matthew, adds that he quoted: passages from
the First Epistle of John and the First of Peter, and then
says ‘ And he has published also another relation of a woman
accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel
according to the Hebrews contains.’ *
Now he does not say that Papias quoted the story from
this Gospel, but only that he told a story which it contains.
Still he does not say ‘which the Gospel according to the
Hebrews also contains,’ and at any rate it is clear that a
story there found was at least as old as the time of a manft
who can hardly have written later than 140 a.p., and was
seemingly told by that man as authentic.
~ It will be seen that in the above passage Eusebius men-
tions the Gospel according to the Hebrews immediately after
four canonical books. He may, however, be only giving a
list of the literature, whether scriptural or not, with which
Papias appeared to be acquainted, as contrasted with the
‘unwritten tradition’ from which he drew so largely. Still
even in this case we might have expected him to imply some
distinction between this Gospel and the canonical books had
he looked on it as spurious. But that he did not so look on
it is to my mind clear enough from other passages given
above.
{ EpipHanius follows Eusebius in point of date. Like
* "ExréQecrac de kal &dAny ioropiay si yuvacde éxt roddatc dpap-
tia duaPAnOeiong Ext Tod Kuplov, fy rd Kal? "EBpaiove Evayyéduoy
meprexer (Hist. Eccl. iii. 39).
t Bishop Lightfoot, in the Cont. Rev. for Aug. 1875, shows that the
compiler of the Chronicon Pascale who states that Papias was mar-
tyred A.D. 164 has named him in mistake for Papylus. From the
facts that Papias was a hearer of Aristion and the Elder John, that
he knew the daughters of Philip, that he is called the companion of
Polycarp, and that Hasebius discusses him before Polycarp, Bishop
Lightfoot fairly concludes that he ‘ was probably born about a.p.
60-70.’ :
t Wrote in 376 a.p.
Eusebius (Papias). LEpiphantus. 9
Hegesippus he was of Jewish birth, and, like Clement,
Origen, and Eusebius, he had spent much time in Pales-
tine.
Epiphanius, then, speaking of the Nazarenes, says,
§‘And they have the Gospel according to Matthew, very full,
in Hebrew. For assuredly this is still kept among them, as
it was at outset written, in Hebrew letters. But I do not
know whether, ||at the same time, they have taken away the
genealogies from Abraham to Christ.’ It will be shown
by and by from the writings of Jerome that the Nazarenes
used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, that this was
written in Hebrew letters, and that it was regarded by
‘very many’ or ‘ most’ (plerique) as according to Matthew.
Hpiphanius fancied that the genealogies might be want-
ing, because he had found them absent from Ebionite copies,
and it is not creditable to him that at his see of Salamis in
Cyprus he did not take the trouble of getting information on
this point from his friends in Syria. —
It is clear that, if he had ever seen a Nazarene copy of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, he had not examined
it properly, and his evidence must be taken as mere hearsay.
Still it is the hearsay of a man who must have heard the
Nazarene Gospel many times spoken of in the countries in
which his life was spent, and who was so bitter a foe to
§ “Eyovor 6é ro kara MarOaioy Evayyé\uoy Anpéoraroy ‘EGpaiori*
map avroic yap cadsc rovr0, kaOwe é&& apxije éypagdn, ‘EGpaixoic ypap-
praccy ert owlerar. Odc oida Ce ei kal rac yeveadoyiag Tag amd "APpaap
dype Xpiorov repieidov (Haer, xxix. 9).
|| Kai, ‘also.’ ‘They too’ (like the Ebionites) would of course
require kai avrot. I was tempted to render ‘ And I do not know —
whether they have even &c.,’ but cai cannot mean ‘so much as,’
which would be the meaning of ‘even’ in this case: Madvig’s
Greek Syntax and Winer’s Grammar give no such instance. Bishop
Ellicott (quoted in a note by Dr. Moulton on p. 544 of his 1877 edi-
tion of Winer) does indeed reckon among the uses of cai in the New
Testament a ‘descensive’ use—referring to Gal. iii. 4 and Eph. v.
12. But in Gal. iii. 4 this interpretation is needless and is rejected
by (for example) Bishop Lightfoot, while in Eph. v. 12 cai Aéyecy,
‘even to speak of,’ although it can be paraphrased by ‘so much as
to speak of,’ means at its root ‘ not only to take part in and witness,
but ALso to speak of.’
IO The Gospel according to the [Hebrews.
adelaelens that he would not have failed to remember and
record anything which he had heard to its prejudice.
He goes on to speak of the Ebionites: ‘ And these too re-
ceive the Gospel according to Matthew; for this they too, as
also the Kerinthians and Merinthians, use to the exclusion
of the rest. And they call it “according to the Hebrews,”
to tell the truth because Matthew alone in the New Cove-
nant set both the exposition and preaching of the Gospel in
Hebrew speech and Hebrew characters.’ *
Presently he goes off ata tangent into a long story of a
Jew named Joseph, who found in a library ‘ the Gospel accord-
ing to John translated from Greek into Hebrew speech, and
the Acts of the Apostles—-nevertheless after these reading also
that according to Matthew, which was an original Hebrew
work.’ ¢ He then observes that he has been led into this
digression by the mention of Matthew’s ssh an, and comes
back to speak of the Ebionites.
Kpiphanius, therefor, although he knew of two books of
the New Testament having been translated into Hebrew,
never for a moment had any idea that the Gospel according
to the Hebrews was a translation from the Greek.
It is in connexion with these two passages that we shall
find it most convenient to consider the question of the lan-
* Kat déxovrac ev cal abrot ro Kara Mar@aiov Evayyé\uoy* rotre
yap kal avroi, o¢ Kal of kara Kipudoy cai MiprvOov, ypovra pov.
Kadotor 6€ abro ‘xara ‘EBpatove, we ra adnOi éorty eimety dre Mar-
Baio pénoc "EBpaiort cai ‘EBpaixoic rekp mony év TH Kay deadhey
Eroinoaro THY Tov evayyediov ExDeaiv re Kal Khpvypa (Haer. xxx. 3).
t To cara “Iwavyny Evayyédtov ard “EXAdoog éic “‘Efpatie ieelahl
peradnpbey nuiparo Kat Tac trév “Arosrédwy Mpdgecc, ov pujy adda Kat
ro kar MarOator ‘EBpaixoy gtoe dv éx robrwy avayvouc (Haer. xxx.
6). The correct reading gvce ov is kept. only in the Codex Mar-
cianus (V), which is 247 years older than any other known MS. of
Epiphanius, and has been thoroughly collated by Dindorf. All
editions before his give @vrov, ‘the Hebrew PLANT according to
Matthew,’ where ‘ plant’ was supposed to mean genealogical ‘ tree’
or ‘ stem ’—a sense however of which no other example was known
in the entire range of Greek literature.
Epiphanius: Language of his Ebtonite Gospel. 11
guage of Epiphanius’s Ebionite Gospel according to the
Hebrews.
In two passages which will be hereafter quoted, Epipha-
nius seems to treat two readings of the Ebionite Gospel as
if they were corruptions of a Greek text. This may be ex-
plained by supposing either that Epiphanius forgot himself
to be quoting from an Aramaic text, and not a Greek one, or
that the Ebionites used a Greek translation side by side with
the Aramaic.
Hilgenfeld and Prof. Westcott however overlook, or at
least disregard these possibilities, and rush to the conclusion
that the Ebionite Gospel was simply a Greek one. Hilgen-
feld, in addition, brings forward two very curious arguments
in favour of this view. |
The first [translate in full: ‘For he [Epiphanius | has in-
deed called their Gospel ‘“‘according to Matthew” and
‘*according to the Hebrews,” but he has not reported that
it was written in Hebrew. And so, beside that more ancient
and Hebrew (or Aramaic) Gospel of Matthew, he has borne
witness also to a Greek Gospel called “according to Matthew ”
and “according to the Hebrews,” though of later age.
Hegesippus seems already to have mentioned a Greek version
of the Gospel of the Hebrews; for Eusebius has reported
that he adduced some things “ from the Gospel according to
the Hebrews and the Syriac,” i.e. from the same Gospel in
Greek and Syriac (or Aramaic).’ t |
Nothing can be weaker than this mode of inference. To
be consistent, Hilgenfeld should have applied his argument
from the silence of Epiphanius to the Nazarene Gospel.
Epiphanius has told us that the Ebionite Gospel was called
t horum enim evangelium appellavit quidem xara Mar@aioyv et
ka’ ‘EBpaiove, sed hebraice scriptum esse non tradidit. itaque
praeter illud antiquius et hebraicum (vel aramaeum) Matthaei evan-
gelium Epiphanius etiam graecum evangelium dictum secundum
Matthaeum et secundum Hebraeos, serioris quidem aetatis, testatus
est. graece versum Hebraeorum evangelium iam Hegesippus in-
digitasse videtur, quem é« re rov xaQ’ “Efpuiove evayyeXiov Kal rod
Lupraxov, i.e. ex eodem evangelio, greco et syriaco (vel aramaeo),
nonnulla protulisse Eusebius tradidit—N. 7. extra Can. Recept.
iv. 7.
12 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
‘according to the Hebrews’; he has not told us that the
Nazarene Gospel was so called: therefor he ‘has borne
witness’ that it was not! Fortunately we have the pain
witness of Jerome that it was.
The deduction from Eusebius must fare equally ill. It
involves three assumptions—(i.) that ‘ the Syriac’ means ‘ the
Syriac Gospel’; (ii.) that, although both the Ebionite and
the Nazarene Gospels were called ‘ according to the Hebrews,’
Eusebius limited the name to the former, which, being (ac-
cording to Hilgenfeld) in Greek, had the less right to it;
(ili.) that, besides this Greek ‘Gospel according to the
Hebrews’ mentioned in three other places by Eusebius, he
speaks twice of a separate Aramaic Gospel (Hilgenfeld’s
‘Syriac ’) which he describes as ‘the Gospel existing among
the Jews in the Hebrew language,’ and ‘ the Gospel which is
come to us in Hebrew characters,’ neither taking the trouble
to tell his readers by what name this other Gospel was
known, nor to give them the explanation needed to prevent
them from confounding the two !
We shall hear by and by from Jerome that the Ebionites
used the same Aramaic Gospel as the Nazarenes. But, even
if we were able to explain away his definite statement, the
inference from Epiphanius would be that the Ebionite Gospel
was in Aramaic. He has said that the Nazarenes ‘ have the
Gospel according to Matthew, very full, in Hebrew. For
assuredly this is still preserved among them, as it was first
written, in Hebrew letters.’ He has gone straight from the
Nazarenes to the Ebionites, whose founder, he says, had held
the same opinions.* ‘ And these too,’ he has written, ‘ receive
the Gospel according to Matthew. ... And they call it
“according to the Hebrews,” to tell the truth because Mat-
thew alone in the New Covenant set both the exposition and
preaching of the Gospel in Hebrew speech and Hebrew
characters.’ He has gone on to tell of a man who read the
Gospel according to Matthew, ‘an original Hebrew work,’
and has then reverted to the Ebionites. He does not in so
many words say that the Ebionite Gospel was in ‘ Hebrew,’
but surely no one would suspect from the tenor of his narra-
tive that it was in Greek.
* Ta dpoa TOUTOLE pporhaac (Haer. xxx. 1).
Epiphanius: Language of his Ebionite Gospel. 13
Let us go on to what else Epiphanius has to say about
the Ebionite Gospel. A little further on he tells us that ‘in
their Gospel according to Matthew as it is named, yet not
entirely complete, but corrupted and docked—and they call
it [the] Hebrew [Gospel]—it is contained that t’—and he
proceeds to quote what was clearly the Preface to their Gos-
pel, which the reader will find at the beginning of the Frag-
ments.
At the end of it he goes on as follows, without the least
break—f ‘ ‘And John began baptizing, and there came out
unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jerusalem.
And John had raiment of camel’s hair and a leathern girdle
about his loins, and his food [was] wild honey, whereof the
taste was of the manna, like a cake [made] with oil ”—that
forsooth they may pervert the account of the truth into false-
hood, and in place of “locusts” [axpidwv, akridén] may put
‘cakes [éyxpidas, egkridas] [made] with honey.” §
On this Hilgenfeld says ‘It is clear that the Gospel of
the Ebionites was written at the first in Greek’; || Prof.
Westcott (Introduction, 466, note 2) that ‘the variation
shows that the Gospel was in Greek ;’ and Mr. Dodd (Sayings
ascribed to owr Lord, 78, note 38) that ‘they put éyxpidas for
axpioas.’
This view of the meaning of Epiphanius seems to me
just doubtful. In the Greek text of Matthew the word is
ft ’Ev ro your rap’ avroic Evayyedig kara Mardaiov ovopalopuévo,
odx OAw 6& wAnpectary, GAG veEevobevpEry Kal HKPwTnptacpévy—
‘“EBpaixdy dé rovro kahovarv—epdéperac dre k.7.r. (Maer. xxx. 13).
+ The Greek is given in a note to Fragment 5. Hilgenfeld re-
proves Dindorf for editing Kai éyérvero Twarrne ‘ “And John began.” ’
He says that it should be kai éyévero “Iwavvng ‘ and—“ John began,” ’
connecting ‘and’ with the words ‘it is contained that’ which in-
troduce the Preface. But after so long an intervening quotation as
the Preface a longer connecting link would have been used for
clearness—such as ‘and then it says.’ We shall see moreover that
this ‘and’ seems to have a connexion with Matt. iii. 1.
§ In the passage which he has just quoted he gives the word as
‘oil,’ not ‘honey,’ This variation is explained in a note to Fr. 5,
|| Ebionacorum evangelium primitus graece scriptum esse apparet
(36).
14 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
axpives, akrides (nom. pl.), in the passage given by Epi-
phanius it is éyxpls, egkris (nom. sing.): the two are not
so very much alike after all, and Epiphanius may merely
have meant that one thing was substituted for another
thing, and not one word for another word. Yet I confess
to thinking that the latter interpretation is the more
likely. |
But, in a passage quoted in the note to Fr. 25, he accuses
the Ebionites of having interpolated in a certain verse not
only the word yu), but the two letters ~ and». Here at least
his meaning is clear, and we must either believe that he was
criticizing his own translated quotations as if they were the
original, or else that the Ebionite Gospel according to the
Hebrews existed in a Greek form.
I do not regard the former of these alternatives as -alto-
gether absurd,* but the latter is of course the more likely——
especially as we know that the Ebionites put forward lengthy
works in Greek two centuries before the time at which Epi-
phanius wrote.
Epiphanius goes on to say: ‘And the beginning of their
Gospel has it that ‘‘It came to pass in the days of Herod
the King of Judaea there came John baptizing a baptism of
repentance in the Jordan river; who was said to be of the
family of Aaron the priest, son of Zacharias and Elisabet.
And all men came out to him.” And after much more it
adds that “‘ when the people had been baptized ” ’t—the rest
of the quotation will be found under Fr. 7.
Epiphanius presently quotes the beginning of the Ebionite
* Let the voice of the encyclopaedias be heard. The Hc. Britan-
nica says that Epiphanius ‘was utterly destitute of critical and
logical power’; the Hnglish Enc. that ‘as a bitter controversialist,
he often resorts to untrue arguments for the refutation of heretics’ ;
and Chambers’s Enc. that his ‘ want of honesty ’ is ‘ excessive.’
+ ‘H 6 apy) Tov map’ avroic Evayyediov éxet Ore ‘’Eyévero év raic
fpépare ‘Hpwdov rov Basréwe rife Tovdaiag hAOev “Iwavyne Banrigwy
Barriopa peravolac év TP ‘loptavyn worapm, O¢ Edfyero eivat Ex yévouc
"Aapwy rov iepéwe, taic Zayxapiov cal "EdidPer* cal éipxovro mpoc
abvrov mavrec.’ Kal pera ro eimeiv wo\a émipéper Ore‘ Tov Aaov Par-
risbévrog’ «.7.\. (Haer. xxx. 18).
Epiphanius: Beginnings to his Ebionite Gospel. 15
Gospel again with some variations: ‘*‘ It came to pass in the
days of Herod King of Judaea, Caiaphas being high priest,
there came one John by name, baptizing a baptism in the
river Jordan,” and so on.’ ¢
As Prof. Westcott says, ‘a comparison of the two quota-
tions illustrates the carelessness uf Epiphanius’ (Introduction,
466). Anyone must see moreover that, if there were only
one Kbionite version of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
and the above were the beginning of it, no room is left for
the passage before quoted by Epiphanius ‘and John began
baptizing &e.’
It is clear that different copies of the Ebionite Gospel had
different beginnings; but it by no means follows that there
were different versions of the body of it.
It is indeed easy to give an explanation of these different
beginnings. Those of the Nazaraeo-Ebionite body who de-
nied to Jesus a Divine birth, and rejected the first two chap-
ters of Matthew, found themselves left with a narrative
answering to Matt. iii. 1, ‘And § in those days.’ This had
to be altered, because ‘ those days’ would have no antece-
dent. Accordingly, some omitted them altogether—their
copies commenced ||‘ And John began baptizing,’ the con-
junction being retained,-apparently, as a link between the
4] Preface and the Gospel proper. Others altered ‘ those days ’
into ‘the days of Herod the King of Judaea,’ wrongly imagin-
ing the days in question to be those of Herod and Archelaus
(Matt. ii. 22), instead of those of the dwelling at Nazareth
(Matt. ii. 23): at the same time, in order to give a more
important form to the beginning of the docked Gospel, some
added a further specification of time, ‘ Caiaphas being high
priest,’ some a fuller notice of John—‘ who was said to be
of the family of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and
Elisabet.’
t ‘’Eyévero év raic Hpéparce “Hpwoov Bactdéwe ripe ‘Iovdalac, én
apxtepéwe Kardga, 4AOE rie “Iwavyne dvipart, Barrifwy Barriopa
peravoiac Ev TO TOTAp@ lopdavn,’ Kat ra ébijc (Haer. xxx. 14).
§ The received text omits ‘and,’ but the best editors insert it.
|| See above, p. 13.
{| See above, p. 13.
16 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
We have yet to consider a statement of Epiphanius with
regard to *Tatran: ‘And the “ Gospel through Four” is
said to have been made by him, which some call “ according
to the Hebrews.” ’ f
That Tatian can have written the Gospel according to
the Hebrews is out of the question. Irenaeus, who mentions
Tatian and his doctrines, and was his younger contemporary,
is not likely to have been led to believe that the Ebionite
Gospel was the Gospel according to Matthew when it was
really a compilation made out of four Gospels by Tatian.
Nor is it likely that Clement of Alexandria, who quotes
Tatian, would have cited one of his works as Scripture, not
knowing that it was from the pen of a late heresiarch. But
the fact that Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian himself, who
lived t+ ‘in the first succession to the Apostles,’ and died not
* Tatian was a pupil of Justin Martyr, whose death is placed
variously between 148 and 167 A.D., the former being the date
assigned by the latest investigator, Prof. Hort. After Justin’s
death, but how long we do not know, he went to Syria, where he
became a sectarian leader.
t Aéyerat O€ 7O dia recodpwy Evayyéduov bx’ abrov yeyerfjabat,
dep kata ‘EBpaiove rive kadovar (Haer. xlvi. 1). The printed text
reads EvayyeAiwy. On first tarning to it (from Hilgenfeld’s mere
reference) I at once saw that we ought to read EvayyéXor, and I
since find that Prof. Westcott (Canon, 290 n.) says, ‘Some perhaps
may be inclined to change ciayyediwy into evayyéduor,’ and that the
author of Supernatural Religion, and Dr. Sanday (from Credner) so
read without remark: Cf. Theodoret, Haer. Fab.i. 20, ‘He also put
together the so-called ‘‘ Gospel through Four” ’—Odroe kal rd duce
recodpwy kahovpevoy ouvvrébeey Evayyédcoy. There can be no doubt
that the full title of the work called in short 76 dua reoodpwy was
TO dua recodpwy Evayyédur, ‘the Gospel through Four,’ ie. the
Gospel as published through the mouths of Four (cf. the common
phrase in Matthew 70 pnbév tro rov Kupiov dia rod mpodnrod, ‘ that
which was spoken by the Lord tHroveH the prophet’). I know of
no other explanation of the title ‘ Dia-tessaron’ at once grammatical
and rational. Prof. Westcott (Canon, 290 n.) says ‘The term ora
recodpwy was used in music to express the concord of the fourth
(cv\aBy). This sense may throw some light upon the name.’ But
a concord of the fourth is not a concord of four notes, but only of
two.
+t See above, p. 7.
Epiphanius (Tatian). SFerome. 17
later than 192 a.p. and possibly as early as 180 a.p.,§ ‘ad-
duced some things’ from the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
is of itself proof enough that this cannot have been written
by Tatian.
The learning of JrRome, his long residence in Syria and
Palestine, and the fact that he first copied the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews and afterwards translated it into two
languages, render his evidence of paramount importance. I
shall take his notices of the Gospel in order of time.||
(1) Writing in 387 a.p. upon Hphes. v. 3, he says ‘As
also in the Hebrew Gospel we read of the Lord speaking to
- his disciples: saith he &e.’
(2) Writing before 392 a.p. upon Mic. vii. 6, he says
we eee And the daughter-in-law riseth wp against her mother-in-
law.” Which seems difficult to be understood metaphorically.
But he who has read the Song of Songs and has understood
the spouse of the soul to be the Word of God, and has be-
lieved the Gospel published according to the Hebrews which
we have lately translated, in which it is said in the person
of the Saviour, “‘ Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me
by one of my hairs,” will not hesitate to say that the Word of
God is sprung from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is
the spouse of the Word, has for mother-in-law the Holy
Spirit, who among the Hebrews is called in the feminine
gender Rua.’
§ See above, p. 6.
|| I have followed Clinton’s chronology of these writings of
Jerome.
q Ut in ehraios quoque Evangelio legimus Dominum ad
discipulos loquentem: Ht nunquam, inquit, laeti sitis, nisi quum
fratrem vestrum videritis in caritate (Comm. in Ephes. lib. iii.).
** Ht nurus consurgit adversus socrum suam. Quod iuxta trop-
ologiam intellectu videtur difficile. Sed qui legerit Canticum Can-
ticorwm et sponsum animae Dei Sermonem intellexerit, credideritque
Evangelio quod secundum Hebraeos editum nuper transtulimus, in
quo ex persona Salvatoris dicitur Modo tulit me mater mea, Sanctus
Spiritus, in uno capillorum meorum, non dubitabit dicere Sermonem
Dei ortum esse de Spiritu, et animam, quae sponsa Sermonis est,
habere socrum Sanctum Spiritum, qui apud Hebraeos genere dicitur
feminino Rua (Comm. in Mich. lib. ii.).
C
18 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Tt is pretty clear that Jerome thinks people ought to be-
lieve the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
(3) Writing his account of Matthew (Catal. Script. Eccl.)
in 892, he says* ‘ Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from
a, tax-gatherer came to be an Apostle, first of all the Evange-
lists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew
language and characters, for the benefit of those of the cir-
cumcision who had believed: who translated it into Greek is
not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself
is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which
the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. fI also was
allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian
city of Beroea to copy it. {In which it is to be remarked
that, wherever the Evangelist, eitner speaking in his own
person or in that of our Lord and Saviour, makes use of the
testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the
authority of the Seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew ;
of which testimonies are those two, Out of Egypt have I called
my Son, and that he shall be called Nazarene.’
And in his account of James he speaks of it as § ‘the
Gospel which is called “according to the Hebrews,” and was
* Matthaeus, qui et Levi, ex publicano Apostolus, primus in
Judaea propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant Hvangelium
Christi Hebraicis litteris verbisque composnit: quod quis postea in
Graecum transtulerit non satis certum est. Porro ipsum Hebraicum
habetur usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca quam Pamphilus
martyr studiosissime confecit. Mihi quoque a Nazaraeis qui in
Beroea urbe Syriae hoc volumine utuntur describendi facultas fuit.
In quo animadvertendum quod, ubiquumque Evangelista, sive ex
persona sua, sive ex persona Domini Salvatoris, veteris Scripturae
testimoniis abutitur, non sequatur Septuaginta translatorum auc-
toritatem sed Hebraicam ; e quibus illa duo sunt, Hx Aegypto vocavi
filium meum et Quoniam Nazaraeus vocabitur.
+ Probably before 379 a.p., after which date he is not known to
have been in the neighbourhood of Beroea.
t+ In notes to Fr. 2 and Fr. 3. the question whether the rest
of the passage refers to the Nazarene Gospel in particular, or to the
Gospel of Matthew at large, is fully discussed.
§ Evangelium quoque quod appellatur ‘secundum Hebraeos’ et
a me nuper in Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo
et Origenes saepe utitur. ©
Ferome (Origen). 19
lately translated by me into the Greek language and the
Latin, which also Origen often uses.’
The statement that Origen frequently quotes the Gospel
according to the Hebrews is most important. It is quoted
by name once only in his Greek text, and once also in a
Latin translation of his Homilies on Matthew. Jerome, how-
ever, who was a devoted student of Origen and had translated
his commentaries on the Song of Songs, on Jeremiah, on
Ezekiel, and on Luke, can scarcely be mistaken. There is
no need to suppose that Origen’s quotations from the Gospel
were in || hooks now lost, for his extant works contain several
sayings attributed by him to Jesus of which the source is
unknown: these will be given among the ‘Probable and
Possible Fragments’ (Appendix H).
- (4) Writing his Commentaries on Matthew in 398 a.p., he
compares five passages in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews with corresponding passages in the Greek Matthew.
In these instances he speaks of it (i.) as { ‘ the actual Hebrew,’
Matt. ii. 5; (ii.) ‘as ** ‘ the Gospel which is called “ according
|| It is, however, worth noting that all of Origen’s Homilies on
Matthew previous to c. xiii. 6 is lost. The missing portion may well
have contained references to the Gospel according to the Hebrews:
as has been said, the Latin translation of the extant part of the
Greek text actually does give one quotation from it, though whether
the translator found that in his MS. or interpolated it himself is
unknown.
@ Bethleem Iudaeae . .. . Librariorum hic error est. Putamus
enim ab Evangelista primum editum, sicut in ipso Hebraico legimus,
Iudae—non Iudaeae.—‘ Bethleem of Judaea ... . Here is a mistake
of the copyists. For we think that the Evangelist originally gave,
as we read in the actual Hebrew, of Juda—not of Judaea.’ I am
most anxious not to impress doubtful evidence; but to me this
passage seems most strongly to point to the Hebrew original of
Matthew and not merely the Hebrew of the Old Testament. So
Prof. Westcott and the author of Supernatural Religion, with De
Wette (doubtingly), Schwegler, and Ewald; against Delitzsch,
Credner, Hilgenfeld, and Dr. Sanday. In the notes on Fr. 2 and
Fr. 3 I have fully discussed the question whether Matt. i. 18-ii. 23
were present in or absent from Jerome’s copy of the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews.
** Tn Evangelio quod appellatur ‘secundum Hebraeos.’
c2
20 The Gospel according to the [Hebrews.
to the Hebrews,” ’ Matt. vi. 11; (iii.) as * ‘the Gospel which
the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which we lately translated
from the Hebrew language into Greek, and which is called
by very many [or most, ‘ plerisque ”] the original of Matthew,’
Matt. xii. 13; +‘the Gospel which the Nazarenes use,’
Matt. xxiii. 35 ; ; {the Gospel which is written according
to the Hebrews,’ Matt. xxvii. 16; §‘the Gospel of which
we often make mention,’ Matt. xxvii. 51.
The third of the above references is important as show-
ing, first, that the Nazarenes and Ebionites used the same
Aramaic Gospel; secondly, that the popular opinion of this
Gospel was that it was the original of Matthew.
(5) Writing to Hedybia, at some date after 398 A.p.,
Jerome speaks of || ‘the Gospel which is written in Hebrew
letters,’ referring to it for i a variation on the narrative of the
Crucifixion.
(6) Writing about 410 a.p. upon Is. xi. 2, he calls it
{ ‘the Gospel, written in the Hebrew language, which the
Nazarenes read. He quotes from it the account of the
descent of the Spirit and the voice from heaven at the
* In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraei et Ebionitae, quod nuper
in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a
plerisque Matthaei authenticum.
+ In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni.
+ In Evangelio quod scribitur iuxta Hebraeos.
§ In Evangelio cuius saepe facimus mentionem.
|| In Evangelio autem quod Hebraicis litteris scriptum est (Ep.
ad Hedyb. viii.).
{ Super huncigitur florem, qui de trunco et de radice lesse per
Mariam Virginem repente consurget, requiescet Spiritus Domini,
quia in ipso complacuit omnem plenitudinem divinitatis habitare
corporaliter—nequaquam per partes, ut in ceteris sanctis, sed, iuxta
Evangelium quod Hebraeo sermone conscriptum legunt Nazaraei
‘ Desoondet super eum omnis fons Spiritus Sancti’ (Comm. in Is.
lib. iv.) —‘ Upon this flower therefor, which shall suddenly arise
from the trunk and from the root of Jesse through the Virgin Mary,
the Spirit of the Lord shall rest, because it hath pleased him that in
him the entire fulness of the Godhead should dwell bodily—in no
wise partially, as in the rest of the ‘saints, but, according to the
Gospel, composed in the Hebrew language, which the Nazarenes read,
“The entire fountain of the Holy Spirit shall descend upon him.”’’
Ferome. 21
baptism of Jesus, in illustration and confirmation of the pro-
phecy before him.
(7) Writing in 413 a.p. on Ezek. xviii. 7, he calls it ** ‘ the
Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Nazarenes are
wont to read,’ and refers to it, immediately after the ‘ Apos-
tolic authority ’ of Paul, as confirming the moral injunction
of Ezekiel.
(8) Writing in 416 a.p. against the Pelagians, he says
Tf ‘In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written
indeed in the Chaldee and Syriac language, but in Hebrew
letters ; which the Nazarenes use to this day—according to
the Apostles, or, as very many [or most, ‘ plerique’] deem,
according to Matthew—which is also contained in the library
at Caesarea—the history tells &e.’
If the reader will turn to Fr. 1, the Preface to Ebionite
copies of this Gospel, he will see that it implies that the
Gospel was written either by the Apostles generally or by
Matthew—but does not clearly state which. We can un-
derstand, therefor, how some people, though seemingly not
most, fancied it to be the product of common Apostolic
authorship.{{
After the above passage, Jerome quotes Fr. 6 and Fr. 9,
** Quod autem iuxta Hebraicum dicitur, Ht hominem non con-
tristaverit, Apostolico congruit testimonio, Nolite contristare Spiritum
Sanctum qui habitat in vobis. Et in Evangelio quod inxta Hebraeos
Nazaraei legere consueverunt inter maxima ponitur crimina, qui.
fratris sui spiritum contristaverit (Comm. in Hzech. lib. vi.)—‘ But
the reading of the Hebrew text, And hath not grieved a man, agrees
with the witness of the Apostle, Grieve not the Holy Swpirit that
dwelleth in you. And in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which
the Nazarenes are wont to read, he who hath grieved the spirit of
his brother is put among the greatest criminals.’
TT In Lvangelio iwata Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syr oque
sermone sed Hebraicis litteris scriptum est, quo utuntur usque
hodie Nazareni—secundum Apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant,
iuxta Matthaeum—quod et in Caesariensi habetur bibliotheca—
narrat historia &c. (Dial. adv. Pelag. lib. iii.).
tf On the theory set up from this passage that Justin’s ‘Memoirs
of the Apostles’ were nothing more nor less than the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, see Appendix FH, ‘Justin’s “ Memoirs
of the Apostles.” ’
22 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
adding a statement from Ignatius to the effect that the
Apostles when chosen were sinners above all men. He
then says, * ‘If thou usest not these testimonies for authority,
use them at least for antiquity, as to what all churchmen
have felt.’ The contents of the Fragments in question are
so bold that, unless Jerome had had a very firm faith in the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, it is most unlikely that he
would have not only adopted them but stamped them with
his approbation in a controversial work.
We now pass to two of Jerome’s contemporaries and
adversaries—Julian the Pelagian, and Theodore of Mop-
suestia, who both mention him in connexion with the
Gospel according to the Hebrews.
JuLIAN the Pelagian in his controversy with Augustinef
uses the last-mentioned passage of Jerome against Augus-
tine, saying that Jerome ‘even tries by the testimony of a
(or the) fifth Gospel, which he says has been translated by
himself, to show &c.’ t
THEopoRE§ of Mopsuestia is reported by PHorttius to have
said that Jerome ‘ had forged an additional fifth Gospel, pre-
tending that he had found it in the bookcases of Eusebius of
Palestine.’ ||
These passages of course only show that their authors
knew nothing whatever about the Gospel according to the
Hebrews.
Next comes THEODORET,{ who states first of the Ebionites
* Quibus testimoniis si non uteris ad auctoritatem, utere saltem
ad antiquitatem, quid omnes ecclesiastici viri senserint.
t+ Not later than 430 a.p., when Augustine died.
t Cum ille in Dialogo illo... . etiam quinti Evangelii, quod
a se translatum dicit, testimonio nitatur ostendere &c. (Augustini
Opus Imperfectum contra Iulianum, lib. iv. c. 88.) I owe this re-
ference to Prof. Westcott.
§ Born about 350 a.p., died 428 or 429 a.p.
|| Tovrov (i.e. Jerome) 6&€ wéurroy EvayyéAwy mpocaratddoa
héyer (i.e. Theodore), év rate EvoeBiov rod Madaorivou PiPBrwOhcace
bromdarropevoy evpety (Bibl. clxxvii.). Photius died about 891 a.p.
{ Writing between 451 and 458 a.p.
Ferome. Six other Writers. 28
in general that ‘they receive only the Gospel according to
the Ebionites,** and afterwards, speaking of particular
Ebionites, that ‘they use only the Gospel according to
Matthew, tt
Bapa,tt at the beginning of the eighth century, does not
seem to have known any more of this Gospel than what he
learnt from Jerome. After speaking of Apocryphal Gospels,
he says ‘ Here it must be noted that the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, as it is called, is not to be reckoned among
apocryphal but among ecclesiastical histories: for it seemed
good even to the very translator of Holy Scripture, Jerome,
to use very many evidences from it, and to translate it into the
Latin and Greek language.’ §$ The words ecclesiastical and
histories are doubtless borrowed from our last passage of
Jerome.
At the end of the eighth, or beginning of the ninth, cen-
tury NIKEPHORUS |||| puts the Gospel according to the Hebrews
in his list of the disputed books of the New Testament—to-
gether with the Apocalypse of John, the (lost) Apocalypse of
Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas. He has a separate list
of apocryphal books. Credner, who has given much pains
to these lists, argues, not without reason, that they are
derived from some very much earlier Syriac authority, of
about the fifth century (Geschichte des Kanons, 1847, pp. 100
seqq. ).
About the same time SepuLius Scotus 4 refers to the oath
** Movoy dé ro kara EBwyvatove EvayyéAuoy déxovra (Haer. Fab.
ii. 1).
Tt Evayyediy dé ro cura MarOaior xéypnryrat pory (ib.).
tt Born about 672 a.p., died 735 a.p.
§$ Inter quae notandum quod dicitur Hvangelium iuata Hebraeos
non inter apocryphas sed inter ecclesiasticas numerandum historias:
nam et ipsi Sacrae Scripturae interpreti Hieronymo pleraque ex eo
testimonia usurpare, et ipsum in Latinum Graecumque visum est
transferre sermonem (In Luc. I. i.).
\|\| Patriarch of Constantinople, born abové 758 A.D., died 828 a.p.
@€ Flourished about 800 a.p.
24 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
of James (Fr. 29) with the words ‘ according as it is read in
the Gospel according to the Hebrews.’* As the incident is
related by Jerome, and Sedulius also wrote Explanations of:
Jerome’s Prefaces to the Gospels, there is little doubt that
this reference is only borrowed from him.
Finally, Copex TiscuenporF1ANvs ITI. (A), a Greek MS.
of the Gospels, dating from about the beginning of the ninth
century, contains in Matthew four marginal quotations of
corresponding passages in ‘ the Jewish (rd Iovdaixdv),’ one of
which is identical with one of Jerome’s quotations from the
Gospel according to the Hebrews.
We have seen that in one passage Jerome speaks of ‘ the
Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Nazarenes use to
this day—after the Apostles, or, as + most deem, according to
Matthew.’ Accordingly Hilgenfeld, the writer of Super-
natural Religion, and others identify it with the Gospel
according to the Twelve Apostles spoken of by Origen,
Ambrose, Jerome himself, and Theophylact. If this be so,
it tends to show that not one of these four believed in the
Matthaean origin of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Origen says ‘The Church has four Gospels, the heresies
very many, out of which a certain one is written according
to the Egyptians, another according to the Twelve Apostles
&c. &e.’t AmBrosE, writing before 400 a.p., says ‘And
there is current indeed another Gospel which the Twelve
Apostles are said to have written.’§ JErRomeE himself, writ-
* Sicut in Evangelio secundum Hebraeos legitur (In 1 Cor.
xv. 7).
tT In Evangelio iuxta Hebraeos quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni
—secundum Apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant, iuxta Matthaeum
(Adv. Pelag. ii. 2). Pleriqwe may mean only ‘ very many.’
¢ Keclesia quatuor habet Evangelia, haereses plurima, e quibus
quoddam scribitur secundum <Aegyptios, aliud juxta Duodecim
‘ Apostolos &e. &ec. (Hom. 7. in Luc.—extant in the Latin translation
only).
§ Ht aliud quidem fertur Evangelium quod Duodecim Apostolos
scripsisse dicuntur (Comm. in Luc.—prooem.).
Not + The Gospel of the T: welve Apostles’ 25
ing 398 a.D., says that many of the Gospels spoken of by
Luke remain, ‘which, published by diverse authors, have
been the starting-points of diverse heresies; as is that
according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, of
the Twelve Apostles also &c.’|| Lastly, THropHyxact, writ-
ing at the beginning of the seventh century, speaks of the
Gospel inscribed ‘ of the Twelve.’
This identification I cannot accept. Jerome does not
state that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was called
‘after (according to) the Apostles,’ he is only giving different
views as to its origin, and he expressly states that a common
Opinion attributed it to Matthew. If anyone should fancy
that ‘secundum Apostolos,’ as compared with ‘iuwata Hebraeos’
and ‘ wwata Matthaeum,’ implies that the title is being given,
he will find that Jerome elsewhere (Comm. on Micah vii. 6 and
Matt. vi. 11) calls it also ‘secundum Hebraeos,’ the object of
secundum in the passage before us being therefor only to pre-
vent the awkwardness of three iuxta’s so close together. Wher-
ever (four times) he expressly gives the name of the Gospel it is
‘according to the Hebrews’ (Comm. on Micah vii. 6, Matt.
vi. 11 and xxvii. 16, Catal. Script. Eccl. under ‘ Iacobus’).
That he would speak of the ‘ Gospel of the Twelve Apostles’
in the preface to his commentary on Matthew, and twice in
that Commentary say that this same Gospel was ‘ called’
‘according to the Hebrews,’ is most unlikely. Nor is it less
unlikely that he would twice in that Commentary (on Matt.
ii. 5 and xii. 13) uphold the Matthaean origin of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews and yet in the preface to the same
Commentary mention it as one of a number of Gospels ‘ which,
having been published by diverse authors, have been the
starting-points of diverse heresies.’
Of the remaining three authors, neither Ambrose nor
Theophylact, nor yet Origen, says a word to lead us to iden-
tify the two Gospels; Origen indeed once, if not twice,
quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews by its usual
name. from the time of Irenaeus, who lived before Origen,
|| Quae a diversis auctoribus edita diversarum haereseon fuere
principia ; ut est illud iuxta Aegyptios, et Thomam, et Matthiam,
Duodecim quoque Apostolorum, &c. (Comm. in Matth.—prooem.).
{| To ércypagopévwy tov Aweeca (In Luc.—prooem.).
26 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
to that of Jerome, who outlived Ambrose, the authorship of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews seems to have been
generally assigned to Matthew, and from the time of Clement,
Origen’s master, to Nikephorus, who lived 200 years after
Theophylact, its popular title seems to have been ‘ the Gospel
according to the Hebrews.’ It is therefor most unlikely
that this should be the work of which, without any further
explanation, Origen, Ambrose, and Theophylact speak as the
Gos pel according to the Twelve Apostles.
We may now sum up the external evidence regarding this
Gospel. We find that there existed among the Nazarenes
and Ebionites a Gospel commonly called the ‘ Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews,’ written in Aramaic, but with Hebrew
characters. That its authorship was attributed by some to
the Apostles in general, but by very many or most—including
clearly the Nazarenes and Ebionites themselves—to Matthew.
That it is spoken of as the Gospel according to Matthew by
Irenaeus about 190 a.p., and by Epiphanius and its translator
Jerome in the fourth century, though Epiphanius mentions
that the Ebionite copies were corrupted. That Papias
narrated a story found in it, if he did not quote it; that
Hegesippus quoted it; that it was cited as Scripture by
Clement of Alexandria; and was quoted by Origen—all of
whom wrote before the middle of the third century. That some
people were counting it spurious in the middle of the fourth
century, but that we do not know who they were or whether
their opinion was merely the result of prejudice against
a work circulating almost exclusively amongst sectarians.
That at the same time the Apocalypse of John was also
counted spurious by some. ‘That in a list of about 800 «.D.,
but derived, maybe, from one of about the fifth century, the
Gospel according to the Hebrews is called a disputed book,
but is not called spurious—the Apocalypse of John being
again classed with it.
It must be said that this Gospel is not found in any list
of accepted books: the omission would, however, be natural
if it was looked on as a mere Aramaic edition of the Gospel
according to Matthew. On the other hand, neither is it
found in any list of disputed books, save those of Husebius
Summary of External Evidence. 27
and Nikephorus above-mentioned.* Nor were its popular
claims to be looked on as an authentic Gospel coming from
Matthew challenged by a single ancient writer except
Theodore of Mopsuestia, who accused Jerome of ‘ having
forged an additional fifth Gospel, pretending that he had
found it in the bookcases of Eusebius of Palestine —a state-
ment which of course shows that he knew nothing whatever
of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
I shall now give an annotated rendering of the Fragments,
after which, in Part III., I shall estimate the internal
evidence afforded by them, and shall consider whether the
external and internal evidence combine to render likely any
conclusion about the origin of this Gospel.
* See, however, Addenda,
28 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
IT.
‘THE FRAGMENTS.
Norr.—I have arranged those Fragments which have
canonical parallels so as to correspond with the order of the
Gospel according to Matthew, inserting others at those points.
where they might be most easily dovetailed into the canonical
narrative. I have broken them up into verses for more con-
venient comparison with the canonical texts. In translating,
my aim has been to be as literal as possible, short of being
grossly unidiomatical *: otherwise the translation would have
been much closer than it is to the phraseology of the Authorized
Version. :
Fragments from Epiphanius are indicated by (Hbionite),
those from Jerome by (Nazarene), those from Codex Tischen-
dorfianus II1I.—presumably taken from Jerome’s translation
—by (Nazarene?). A quotation of Origen’s which seems to
have been common to the Gospel according to Matthew and
that of the ‘ Ebionites,’ is not indicated as (Hbionite) because
in writers before Epiphanius ‘ Ebionites’ seems to include
the Nazarenes, whom he is the first to mention under the
latter name.
FRAGMENTS OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE
HEBREWS.
f 1. Preface. 1. There was a certain man by name
(Ebionite.) :
* In two passages I have however kept ‘Lord’ as the transla-
tion of Kupe, where I should have liked ‘ Master’ or ‘ Sir,’ in order
not to weaken the parallelism between those passages and others in
the canonical books.
t+ Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13: (1) ‘Eyévero rece dvip dvépuart
"Inovde, kat avroe wo érav rpidkoyra, Oc éeheLaro jac. (2) Kal éXOur
cic Kagaprvaodp sici\Oev cic tiv oixiay Lipwvoce tov émcxAnbévroc
[lérpov, cal avoikac ro ordua abrod cime (3) ‘Tlapepyspevog mapa riy
Aipyny TeBepedeos eereEauny "Iwavyny cal “laéxwBor, viove Zeesaiov ,
The Ebtonrtte Preface. 29
Jesus, and he of tabout thirty years, who
chose us out.
2. And when he had come to § Caphar-
naum he || entered into the house of Simon
who was surnamed Peter, and opened his
mouth, and said
3. ‘Passing by the lake of Tiberias T
choseout** Johnand James, sons of Zebedee,
Kai Lipwva, cal’ Avdpéay cal Oaddatov cat Siuwva rov Znror}y Kat Tobdav
Tov "Ioxaptwrnv: (4) kal oé rov MarOatov cabeGopevoy éxt rov redwviov
éxddeon kal heorovInadc pot. (5) ‘Yude odv Botopue eivar decadtbo
amoarodoue eic prapripwoy rov ‘Topann.
t Cf. Luke ii.23. Hilgenfeld reads oy for we, ‘ being of thirty
years,’ but gives no authority for doing so, and I believe it to be
his own ill-advised conjecture: compare the wet of Luke, for which
Lipiphanius actually read wc, as do D and Hippolytus.
§ This (=Caphar Nahum, ‘Nahum’s village’) is the form of
the name adopted in the New Testament by modern editors: of the
earliesi MSS. s BD (and now and then C) support it against
A and (generally) C.
|| According to Mark iii. 19 Jesus and the Apostles went into a
house immediately after the appointment of the Twelve. From
Matt. vii. 14, Mark i. 29, and Luke iv. 38 we learn that Simon
had a house at Capharnahum.
{| Called ‘the sea of Tiberias’ in John xxi. 1 and ‘the sea of
Galilee of Tiberias’ in John vi. 1. Matthew calls it ‘the sea of
Galilee,’ iv. 18, xv. 29; Mark the same, i. 16, vii. 31; Luke ‘the
lake of Gennesaret,’ v.1. Luke always calls it ‘the lake,’ the others
always ‘ the sea.’ John, James, Simon, and Andrew were called on
the shores of the lake (see Matt: iv. 18-24, Mark i. 16-20, Luke v.
10,11). As there is a gap after the name of Andrew we do not
know whether the Ebionite Gospel assigned the calling of all the
other Apostles to the same neighbourhood, but Epiphanius’s omission
is best accounted for by supposing that he had before him a mere
row of names with connecting particles, unbroken by any new turn
of the narrative. )
** This order is very remarkable. There are four lists of Apostles
in the New Testament—Matt. x. 2, Mark iii. 16, Luke vi. 14, Acts i.
13. Matthew gives the order of the first four Apostles as Simon,
Andrew, James, and John. Luke in his Gospel gives the same order,
but in Acts alters it to Simon, John, James, and Andrew. Mark
has Simon, James, John, and Andrew. Iam unable to suggest any
30 The Gospel according to the [ebrews.
and Simon, and Andrew,*. . . and tThad-
daeus, and Simon the { Zealot, and Judas §
the Iscariot ;
4, ‘And thee || Matthew sitting at the
receipt of custom I called, and thou didst
follow me.
5. ‘I will, therefor, that ye be twelve
apostles for a testimony to Israel.’
reason why Simon should be put only third in the Ebionite Gospel
unless it be that, the Apostles linked by the tie of brotherhood
being mentioned by pairs, John and James were considered a more
important pair than Simon and Andrew.
* An example of the carelessness of Epiphanius, who has only
given us eight names, though the mention of ‘ twelve Apostles’ in
v. 5 shows that the names of four others were in the original.
t+ The name Thaddaios, ‘Thaddaeus,’ occurs in Mark iii. 18,
where however D and the Old Latin read Lebbaios, ‘ Lebbaens,’
which name (or Lebes or Levis) was also the reading of MSS.
spoken of by Origen. In Matt. x. 3, Thaddaios is also read by
& B, by some MSS. of the old Latin, by the Vulgate, and by the
Coptic versions: most MSS. also (C! is uncertain) read ‘ Lebbaeus
that was surnamed Thaddaeus,’ and so the Syriac versions (the
Curetonian is deficient here) with the Aethiopic and Armenian;
but D, with MSS. spoken of by Augustine, reads ‘ Lebbaeus ’ alone,
and this was the reading of Origen’s translator, of Rufinus (about
A.D. 400) and Hesychius (6th cent.).
t ‘The Cananaean’as he is called by Matt. and Mark (not
‘ Canaanite,’ as the A. V.). ‘Cananaean’ (from Kanean) was the
Aramaic name for that ultra-patriotic faction of Jews whom Jose.
phus, writing in Greek, calls the Zealots. We find Luke (vi. 15
and Acts i. 13) using the Greek equivalent.
§ Tov "Ioxaprorny, as the weight of MS. authority in Matt. x. 4,
John xii. 4, xiv. 22. “Icxapwrne and “Iexapw0 (Iskarioth)—the
latter of which is now the recognised reading in Mark iii. 19, xiv.
10, and Luke vi. 16—are the Graecized forms of Ish K’rioth, ‘man
of K’rioth,’ a town in the south of the tribe of Judah, possibly the
ruins called Kuryetein.
|| Matthew may just possibly be mentioned last as having been
called under different circumstances from the rest ; otherwise the
position of his name must be taken to imply that he was the writer
of the Gospel, whether its sole author or its editor on behalf of the
Apostles collectively.
The Ebtonite Preface. Matt. wt. 5, 15. 31
2. Matt. ii, 5, Bethlehem of Judah.
(Nazarene.)
** 3, Matt. ii, 15. Out of Egypt have I called my son.
(Nazarene.)
4} Jerome on Maitt. ii. 5, Librariorum hic error est. Putamus
enim ab Evangelista primum editum, sicut in ipso Hebraico legimus
Iudae, non Iudaeae— Here is a mistake of the copyists. For we
think that the Evangelist originally gave, as we read in the
actual Hebrew, of Judah—not of Judaea.’ Hilgenfeld and some
others hold that the Hebrew of the Old Testament is referred
to. Now (i.) Jerome, who believed in the Matthaean origin of that
Gospel, and had published his belief, would hardly have couched a
reference to the Hebrew of the Old Testament in words which, as
he would have seen, might be naturally taken as a reference to his
Aramaic Gospel; (ii.) itis remarkable that Jerome suggests not
‘Bethleem Iuda’ as the original reading, but ‘Bethleem Iudaz,’
‘or Judah.’ In every passage in the Old Testament where Beth-
lehem Judah is named, Jerome renders ‘ Bethleem Iuda,’ and in the ©
very verse of Matthew which he is commenting on he twice quotes
the prophecy of Micah as ‘Et tu Bethleem terra Inds.’ This
solitary use of ‘Iudan’ struck me as singular, and on enquiring
from the Rev. Dr. Hermagn Adler, I learn that, whereas the Hebrew
of the Old Testament always has ‘ Bethlehem Yehndah,’ the Aramaic
(in which the Gospel according to the Hebrews was written) would
probably represent the name as ‘ Bethlehem D1 Yehudah,’ ‘ Bethlehem
or Judah,’ ‘ Bethleem Iudan.’ Jerome’s reason for writing ‘ Indae’
in this solitary instance seems, therefor, to have been that he was
speaking not of the Hebrew of the Old Testament but of the Aramaic
Gospel according to the Hebrews. In Matth. ii. 1,5, Cureton gives
‘of Juda’ as the reading of the Curetonian Syriac ‘ with which the
Peshito concurs.’ Tischendorf gives ‘ Iuda’ (Bethlehem Iuda) as the
reading of both. But afew minutes with a Syriac grammar shows
me that Cureton is right at least as regards his own version, which
has the preposition di in front of Yuda*. Some MSS. of the Old
Latin and Vulgate also give Iudae, ‘ of Judah.’
** Jerome, Catal. Script. Hccles. under ‘ Matthaeus’ ; the passage
is quoted and translated above, p.18. Hilgenfeld and others, who
believe that the Gospel according to the Hebrews did not contain Matt.
i. 18-ii. 23, deny that the passage in Jerome proves that this and
the next quotation were found in his copy of the Nazarene Gospel.
The question hardly admits of argument, and I am quite content to
leave its decision to the reader. Those who have no previous
acquaintance with Jerome’s writings may indeed wonder why he
directs special attention to the fact that the O. T. quotations in the
32 The Gospel according to the Hebrews,
* 4, Matt. ii. 23. That he shall be called Nazarene.
(Nazarene.)
Nazarene Gospel agree with the Hebrew, seeing that the two in-
stances given occur in the canonical Matthew, where they agree
equally with the Hebrew. Jerome, however, never loses an oppor-
tunity of arguing for the higher authority of the original Hebrew
over the Septuagint version, and his object in the passage in ques-
tion may very well be to show that not only the Greek translation ~
of Matthew took its quotations from the Hebrew, but that so also
did the original Aramaic. MHilgenfeld’s ‘elaborate review of the
question,’ as Dr. Sanday calls it (Gospels, 141), consists almost en-
tirely of refutations to feeble arguments adduced by some of his
opponents, whom he has no difficulty in vanquishing. But the only
two which he brings forward on his own side afford them an equally
easy victory. One is, that this part of Matthew was rejected by
Kerinthus and Carpocrates, which would be a strong argument if
we knew that these heresiarchs used the Nazarene edition of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews: unhappily there is no evidence
that they used any edition of it whatever (see Appendix C, ‘ The
Gospel of Carpocrates and Kerinthus’). The other is that Epi-
phanius, when he confessed his ignorance,‘ whether the Nazarenes
have at the same time taken away the genealogies from Abraham to
Christ,’ has assumed that the rest of Matt. i. ii. was wanting from
their Gospel. I merely ask the reader to turn to the passage
(quoted above, p. 9), and remark in conclusion that, if my last
note is well founded, Hilgenfeld’s position breaks down altogether.
* The Greek of Matt. 11. 23, rendered by Jerome in the same
Latin by which he renders the parallel passage in the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews, needs not mean that there was any particular
prophecy ‘ He shall-be called Nazarene.’ It is true that the Greek
is ‘that he shall be called’ and not ‘that he should be called,’ but,
if any Greek scholar thinks that the use of the indicative means
that the actual words ‘he shall be called’ were found in the pro-
phets, a reference to Madvig’s Syntaw of the Greek Language,
Browne and Arnold’s translation, 1873, p. 110, or to Winer’s
Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, Moulton’s
translation, 1877, p. 376, will yield him plain examples to the con-
trary.
' The reference is to the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Zechariah respecting the Brancu. In the most striking of these,
Is. xi. 1, ‘And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,
and a branch out of his roots,’ the Hebrew word used for ‘ branch’
is Nitser, and the evangelic writer saw in this prophecy and those
Matt. tt. 23, 22. 1-7. oa
$6. Matti 1-7. 1, And [in those days?] John began
of Jeremiah and Zechariah (though they use a different Hebrew
word) a foreshadowing of the residence at Nazara, or looked on
the residence at Nazara as a predestined coincidence with the pro-
phecies.
It is generally held that there is a real etymological connexion
between Nazara and nétser. But, if reason to the contrary can be
shown, the following words of Farrar (Life of Christ, i. 64-5) will
still hold good: ‘The Old Testament is full of proofs that the
Hebrews—who in philology accepted the views of the Analogists—
attached immense and mystical importance to mere resemblances in
the sound of words. To mention but one single instance, the first
chapter of the prophet Micah turns almost entirely on such merely
external similarities in what, for lack of a better term, I can only
call the physiological quantity of sounds. St. Matthew, a Hebrew
of the Hebrews, would without any hesitation have seen a prophetic
fitness in Christ’s residence at this town of Galilee, because its
name recalled the title by which he was addressed in the prophecy
of Isaiah.’ .
But I am inclined to go still farther and acknowledge in the
words of our text a special reference also to Zech. vi. 12. The
Greek of our text is ‘ Nazarene shall he be called’: since we, or at
least the evangelic writer, have connected Nazara with nétser, let us
substitute ‘ Brancher ’—‘ Brancher shall he be called.’ Now com-
pare with this the literal Hebrew of Zech. vi. 12—‘ Branch [shall
be] his name.’ Js the parallel accidental ?
It is quite true that in Zech. vi. 12 the word is not nétser but
tsemach. But the evangelic writer would not the less hold this
prophecy fulfilled by the residence at Nazara. Hebrew, moreover,
was a dead language even then, and that writer, if he knew Hebrew
at all, was doubtless far more familiar with the Scriptures in his
Targum (Aramaic paraphrase); which Targum (unfortunately lost)
may have used the same word in Is. xi. 1 and Zech. vi. 12, just as
our Authorized Version has done. In that case; if he knew that the
original had nétser in the former place, he would naturally assume
it to be the word used in the latter as well.
+ The text outside the brackets represents the passage quoted by
Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 13)—(1) Kai éyévero “Iwavyne Barrigwr,
(2) Kai éij\Oov mpdcg abrov Papioator cai éEBarrioOnoay, cat waoa
hs sisbat ee (3) Kat elyev 6 “Iwavyne atone ard TpLyev Kaphdrov
kat Corny a. rachael TEpt THY dapur avrov Kal TO » Apap avrov—gnoi—
pédre eyptor, ov F yevous Hy rou parva, we éyxpic év éXaiw. The con-
1 For note see next page,
D
34 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Mark i. 4-6. baptizing [* a baptism of repentance in the
take i. 8, 3. Jordan river ?? ].
(Ebionite.)
2. tAnd there came out unto him
Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jeru-
salem.
8. And John had raiment of camel’s
hair and a leathern girdle about his loins,
and his food [was] [$locusts and?] wild
jectural insertions in brackets will be explained one by one. Epi-
phanius also gives two other versions of (1) (quoted above, pp. 14,
15), widely different, and bearing strong evidence of corruption.
t+ I have already remarked (p. 15) that the copy from which
the other Ebionite versions were altered seems to have contained
the words ‘in those days’ of Matt. iii. 1.
* So the longer Ebionite versions. ‘Baptism of repentance’
occurs in Mark i. 4, Luke iii. 3, Acts xiii. 24, xix. 4 But the
shorter reading is more likely to be the true one. -
~ Epiphanius (Haer, xxx. 15) charges the Ebionites with
rejecting all the prophets after Joshua, and with altering the
book called Journeys of Peter (Ilepiodo: Tlérpov) so as to suppress all
favourable mention of them. Had their Gospel originally some
passage answering to Matt. ili. 8, Mark i. 3, Luke iii. 4, and did
they for the same reason suppress it ?
-§ The Ebionite Gospel makes no mention of the locusts of Matt.
iii. 4. Hpiphanius so clearly and so often says that the Ebionites
kept from animal food ‘that we cannot refuse to believe him. He
charges them with introducing two words into Fr. 25 (correspond-
ing with Luke xxii. 15) so as to fix on Jesus the same antipathy to
it. He also says that, among other tamperings with the book called
‘Journeys of Peter,’ they represented Peter as ‘keeping from living
things and meats, like themselves also, and from every other food
made from flesh, since EKbion himself also and Ebionites keep from
these altogether’ (Haer. xxx. 15, éuiiywy re tov aro anréxeobat
Kal Kpe@y, We Kal abroi, Kai TaTHC AAAHe edwoiig Tic ATO capKoy Te-
Tounpeérne A€éyovar, éExevdhrep Kal abrog ’EGBiwy kat EBiwrirae ravredoe
rourwy anéxovrTat),
We have seen that some at least of the Ebionites tampered with
this very fragment (see above, p. 15), and also that the absence of
the quotation from Isaiah found in the Synoptics is suspicious. -
There is therefore strong ground for conjecturing that they had.
‘locusts’ in their Gospel, and designedly struck it out. But of this
it is nevertheless quite impossible to be certain. .
Matt. 222. 1~7. 35
honey, whereof the taste | was of the
manna, QYlike a cake [made] with oil
[honey ?]..
|| The oldest MS. of Epiphanius, Dindorf’s V, reads } for 7r—
‘whereof the taste [was] that of manna.’ Hither reading might
arise (through the medium of 7) out of the other, but the simpler
hypothesis is that 4 is a mistake for 7#—such mistakes being fre-
quent inthis MS. I have therefor, though with some doubts, placed
in the text the reading of the four later MSS.
@ Cf. the LXX version of Num. xi. 8, where it is said of manna
—xal hy } for) abrod weet yetpa éyxpl, 2 édaiov, and the pleasure
of it was as it were in taste a cake [made] of oil.’ The Hebrew
text is uncertain, and the Jerusalem Targum and some other ancient
authorities give ‘cakes [made] of honey.’ Now it is noticeable that
Hpiphanius in his remarks on the passage (quoted above, p. 13)
accuses the Ebionites of substituting ‘cakes [made] with honey’
for the ‘locusts’ of the canonical Gospel. It is true that honey did
enter into the making of the particular kind of cake called éyxpie,
still the mention of it does not seem relevant. One is strongly
tempted to think that the Ebionite MSS. exhibited the different
readings of Num. xi. 8, and that Kpiphanius, halting between the
two, followed one reading in his text and another in his note. This
Would be quite in Epiphanius’s loose way: we have already seen
that he gives two widely different versions of verse (1) of this
fragment, and even quotes one of those versions a second time with
further variations—seemingly without knowing what he is doing,
at any rate without any explanation to his puzzled reader.
The common explanation of ‘wild honey’ is ‘honey made by
wild bees.’ There have not, however, been wanting those who have
explained it as meaning that exudation from the leaves of trees and
shrubs, so common in Oriental countries (including the Jordan |
valley), which is gathered and used as we use butter or honey, and
which is called by the Arabs ‘manna.’ A passage of Diodorus
_ Siculus, who wrote about 8 B.c., seems to give the precise name
perde dypror, ‘ wild honey,’ to this exudation: writing of the Naba-
taean Arabs he says—adrot ce xp@r'rat rpopH Kpéaor Kal beige Kal
T@Y EK ric Yiic pvopevov Tule emerndeiote* gvérae yap map’ abrotg 70
mérepe Td THY O€vopwr, Kal pert TOAD TO KadObpEVOY HypLOY, @ XpHrTat
mor@ pe0’ voaroc (xix. 731)—‘ And they use for food flesh and milk,
and the provisions afforded by what grows from the earth: for the
pepper grows among them from the trees, and much honey, the
same that is called wild honey, which they use for a drink with:
water.’ Here, even if we render gveruc ‘is produced,’ one gets an
D2
36 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
*6. Matt. iii. 1. [And ?] t' behold the mother of the
(Nazarene.) | t! Lord and his brethren said to him ‘ John
impression that a vegetable honey is meant, and the fact that
Diodorus does not speak of it as merely ‘ wild,’ but ‘the same that
is called wild,’ tends to show that it was something quite different.
from ordinary wild honey. This is the view also of Wesseling,
Diodorus’s editor, who moreover identifies the ‘wild honey’ of
Matthew with that of his author. Suidas (about 1100 a.p.) in his
Lexicon writes without any hesitation—’Axpic. Eldoc Lwidéiov.
"“Haobee o€ axpidac 6 IIpdepopoc, cal péde aypwor, brep ard rev dévdpwr
exiguvayouevov Mavva roic méAdXore mpooayopeverac—‘ Locust. A
kind of tiny animal. ‘he Forerunner also ate locusts and wild
honey, which is gathered together from the trees and is commonly
called Manna.’ So Reland, the Orientalist, writes in his Palaestina
Iilustrata, i. 59, ‘Mel copiosum hic provenit, praeter illud quod
apes elaborant, in sylvis et manat ex arboribus’—‘Here honey,
besides that which the bees make, is produced in large quantity in
the woods and oozes from trees,’ and quotes to that effect Dios-
corides (i. 37) and Pliny (xv. 7, xxiii. 4) as well as Diodorus, pro-
ceeding to identify with this vegetable honcy that eaten by John
the Baptist. :
The concurrence of the Hbionite Gospel makes it probable that
this is the true view. Suppose the crucial words in that Gospel to be
a mere forgery of the very year in which Epiphanius copied them, and
they would still show the meaning put upon the words ‘ wild honey’
by natives of Palestine in 376 A.p. The fact that this meaning is
not the obvious one is only another point in its favour: it would ~
not have been put forward except on good grounds when there was
so much simpler an explanation ready to hand.
* Jerome, Adv. Pelag. iii., Ecce mater Domini et fratres eius
dicebant ei ‘ Ioannes Baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum :
eamus et baptizemur ab eo.’ Dixit autem eis ‘ Quid peccavi, ut
vadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi ignorantia
est.’ A like account was contained in a work entitled the Preaching
of Paul, and is thus referred to by the author of the Tractatus
de Rebaptismate, printed among Cyprian’s works (Venet. 1728,
p. 743) :—‘ Est autem adulterini huius, immo internecini baptismatis
si quis alius auctor, tum etiam quidam ab iisdem ipsis haereticis
propter eundem errorem confictus liber qui inscribitur Pauli Prae-
dicatio, in quo libro contra omnes Scripturas et de peccato proprio
confitentem invenies Christum, qui solus omnino nihil deliquit, et
ad accipiendum Ioannis baptisma paene invitum a matre sua Maria
+ For notes see next page.
Mate. 21. 37
the Baptist baptizeth §for remission of
sins: let us go and be baptized by him.’
2. But he said to them ||! ‘ Wherein
esse compulsum ; item cum baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse
visum, quod in Evangelio nullo est scriptum ’—‘ This counterfeit and
actually internecine baptism has been promulgated in particular by
a book forged by the same heretics in order to spread the same
error: this book is entitled the Preaching of Paul, and in it, in
opposition to all the Scriptures, you will find Christ, the only man
who was altogether without fault, both making confession respect-
ing his own sin, and that he was driven by his mother Mary almost
against his will to receive the baptism of John; also that when he
was baptized fire was seen upon the water, which is not written in
any Gospel.’ We shall see that the incident of the fire at the Bap-
tism was in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and it is natural
to believe that the Preaching took its history from the Gospel
rather than the Gospel its history from the Preaching. If so, and
if (as in Part IIT. we shall find cause to think) the latter was the
same book also known as the Preaching of Peter, we should have a
witness for the Nazarene Gospel at least as early as the third quarter
of the 2nd cent., when, as we know from Origen (In Ioann. xiii. 17),
Heracleon quoted the Preaching.
+ A word specially characteristic of Matthew, who has it 62
times, and Luke, who has it 56 or 57 times. Mark has it only 11
or 12 times, John only 4 times.
+ Matt., Luke, and John very frequently give ‘ Lord’ ( —master,
sir) as a form of speech to Jesus: Mark only once. In speaking of
him Matthew only uses the word once (i.e. xxi, 3=‘ the master hath
need of them’), except we admit xxviii. 6 (doubtful reading) ; and
Mark only once (xi. 3=Matt. xxi. 3), except we admit xvi. 19, 20
(verses of doubtful genuineness). But Luke so uses it 13 times
(besides xxiv. 3, doubtful reading), and John 9 times.
§ Mark i. 4 and Luke iii. 3 speak of John as ‘ preaching a bap-
_ tism of repentance for remission of sins’ (kyptcowy Panriopa pera-
voiac ei¢ ddeow dapapri@y), and Matt. iii. 6 says that the people
were baptized by John ‘ confessing their sins.’ ‘ Remission of sins’
is not a common phrase in the N. T.: it occurs only once in Matt.
(xxvi. 28 ‘for remission of sins’); twice in Mark (i. 4 ‘for re-
mission of sins,’ iii. 29 ‘hath not remission’); and three times in
Luke (i. 77 ‘in remission of their sins,’ ili. 3 ‘for remission of
sins,’ xxiv. 47 ‘remission of sins’), who however has it five times
in Acts (‘remission of sins ’—ii. 38, v. 31, x. 48, xiii. 38, xxvi. 18).
John never uses it. Paul has it only twice (Eph. i. 7 ‘the remis-
* For note see next page.
38 The Gospel according to the FHebrews.
have I sinned that I should go and be
baptized by him? * except perchance this
very thing that I have said is ignorance.’
+7. Matt. iii, 13-17. 1. [And ?], t when the people had been
sion of the transgressions,’ Col. i. 14 ‘the remission of the sins’),
and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews twice (‘ remission ’—
ix. 22,x.18). ‘To remit sins’ is a phrase used several times by
each Synoptic and in Acts, once in John (xx. 23) and twice in
1 John (i. 9, ii. 12), but nowhere else in the N. T.
| Cf. John viii. 46, ‘Which of you convicteth me in respect of
sin P’
* On the theology of this passage see Part III. Meanwhile, as
offering at least a partial analogy to the suggestion of a limited
knowledge on the part of Jesus, we may compare Luke ii. 52, ‘ And
Jesus increased in wispoM and in stature,’ and Mark xiii. 32, ‘ But
of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, NEITHER THE Son, but the Father.’
+ Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13, Kal pera 70 eimeiv moka Emcdépec
re (1) Tod Aavd Parriobérrog FAVE Kui "Inoove cat éBanriaOn wrod Tov
Iwavvov. (2) Kat &¢ avmdOev aro rod vdaroc Hrolynoay ot ovpavoi Kal
elcev TO wvevpa TO aytov Ev ElcEr mEpLorEpac KaTEOovane Kat eiceAOovone
sic atrév, (3) Kai dwr) [éyévero, omitted by Codex V] & rod
obparod Aéyovoa ‘ LU pov ei 6 vidg 6 ayarnrdc, év ool ebddxnoa + cal
radu, ‘’Eyo ofpepoy yeyévynxa os.” (4) Kai evOve¢ wepéehape rov
rérov doe péya, “O (edd. bv) kay 6 “Iwavyng Neyer abr@ Xv ric ci,
[Kipee, omitted by Codex V]; (5) Kai wadw pwr &€ ovpavod mpoc
abrév, ‘ Ovrde éorty 6 vide pov 6 ayarnrdc, é’ Oy evddcnoa.’ (6) Kal
‘rére’ onoiv ‘d’Iwavyne mpoorecwy air@ edeye “ A€opat, Kupre, ov pe
Baarioor.”’ (7) ‘O d€ écwdAvaer abrér, Aéywr ‘"Adec, dre odTwe EaTi
apéerov TAnpwOhvat tavra’—‘ And after saying a good many things
it adds that when the people &c.... (6) And “then”’ it says “John
fell down &c.”’ The reader will see that the passage probably began
with the conjunction and or now; he will also see I think that at
the beginning of v. 6 the conjunction may belong either to iw says
or to then John; or that it would even be possible to divide thus—
‘And’ (then it says) ‘John.’ Hilgenfeld prints v. 6 with the con-
junction and yv. 1 without any.
The words ‘after saying a good many things” show that there
was a considerable interval between this and the last fragment but
one. The corresponding interval in Matthew is given to a speech
by John, and the Ebionite Gospel may also have contained the last
fragment (Nazarene).
t Cf. Luke (iii. 21) only—Eyévero te tv 76 BarrioOjvat dravra
Matt. 22. 13-17. 39
Mark i. 9-11. baptized Jesus also came and was baptized
Luke iii. 21,22. hy John.
Baia” 2. § And as he went up the heavens
were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit
in shape of a dove descending and {enter-
ing into him.
rov Nady Kal “Inoot Barriabévroc, literally ‘And it came to pass when
all the people had been baptized, Jesus also having been baptized.’
§ This verse is far nearer to Matt. than to the other accounts,
with one very noticeable exception, ‘in shape of a dove’: cf. Luke —
iii. 22, ‘in a bodily shape like a dove.’. Hilgenfeld quotes Irenaeus
(copied also by Hippolytus), Epiphanius, and Theodoret, all of
whom say that Kerinthus and his sect held that the Spirit ‘ de-
scended into him in shape of a dove.’ We know that the Kerin-
thians used Matthew, if not the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
4] Prof. Westcott (Introduction, 467) renders ‘which came down
and came upon him.’ But ‘entering into him’ is the natural and
almost necessary rendering of cisedovone cic avrdy; in the N. T.
_ for instance there is not a single passage in which ¢ic is used merely
of motion to a person.
In Matt. iii. 16 D and Eusebius read épydpevor cic avréy, ‘coming
into him,’ instead of é. éx’ avrdy, ‘coming upon him,’ while C E
and some cursives have zpdc ‘ to,’ which points to cic as the original
reading. In Mark i.10 B D 13. 69.and a few others (followed by
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford) read cic. And in Lukeiii. 22 D,
the Old Latin, the revised Latin, and the Vulgate all have the same.
To my mind this version of the descent of the Holy Spirit is
the much more intelligible one. No evangelist says that the dove
flew away, and John (i. 32) tells us positively that ‘it abode
(guecver, ““remained’’) upon him,’ pointing to the Spirit ‘as not
removing from Jesus’ (Alford). It would thus become, at least
in appearance, fused in him. In this way the supernatural cha-
racter of the dove would be manifest ; but if on the other hand the
dove flew away there would be no evidence of its being more than a
mere dove. That Luke speaks of the Spirit as descending ‘ in bodily
shape of a dove’ does not in the least militate against such an ex-
planation of the evangelic tradition: bodily shape does not necessi-
tate bodily substance. .
The various MS. readings yield strong reason to believe that
‘into’ was the original reading in Matthew, and in Luke we find
2nd cent. authority for it—older than any for ‘upon’ (in the
parallel passage of Mark this authority is on the other side). But, —
40 Lhe Gospel according to the Hebrews.
3. And a voice out of the heaven, say-
ing, ‘Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I
am well pleased’: and again, * ‘I have this
day begotten thee.’
4, And straightway fa great light
although Eusebius and Jerome (in the Vulgate of Luke) adopt this
reading without suspicion, it was dangerously convenient for those
who maintained that the divine Christ entered into the man Jesus
at baptism: hence it would be glossed, and the gloss would pass
into the text, or the pious copyist, fearful of sowing error, might
even think it allowable to avoid that danger by changing a pre-
position.
- * Instead of ‘Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well
pleased’ in Luke iii. 22,‘Thou art my Son; I have this day be-
gotten thee’ is read by D, the Old Latin, Clement of Alexandria,
Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Faustus the Manichaean
(quoted by Augustine, Contra Faust. lib. xxiii.), and once by
Augustine without remark (Hnchir. ad Laurent. c. xlix.), who else-
where (De Consensu Evang. lib. ii. c. 14) says that it was found in
some MSS., but was said not to be in the older Greek copies.
Justin also in his accounts of the Baptism twice gives these as the
words spoken by the voice (Dial. cc. 88, 103): the second of these
references does not prove that he took them from a Gospel, but
strongly implies it:—Kal yup viroc 6 duaBorocg aya rq dvaBijvac
avroy aro TOU ToTAapov TOU "lopdavoy rij¢ gwritc airp exOeione ‘ Yide
pov ei ob" éyw ohpuspov yeyévvnkad oe’ Ev Tol¢ arouynporevpact Tor
"Arooridwy yéypatrat tpocehOwy abr@ Kai weipalwy péype rod eimeiv
avr@ ‘ IIpooxiynady por ’—‘ For this devil, at the same time that he
fie. Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, after the voice was
uttered to him ‘‘ Thou art my Son; I have this day begotten thee ”’
is recorded in the memoirs of the Apostles to have come to him
and tempted him so far as to say to him ‘‘ Worship me.”’’
In Matt. iii. 17 D, the Curetonian Syriac, Augustine, and the
Old Latin MS. a (Codex Vercellensis) read ‘Thou art’ for ‘ This is.’
t In Matt. iii. 15 the Old Latin MS. a, Codex Vercellensis,
adds ‘ And when he was being baptized a mighty light shone round
about from the water, so that all they were afraid that had come
thither,’ while g', Codex Sangermanensis, another MS. of the
same version, has ‘And when Jesus was being baptized a great
light kept shining from the water, so that all they were afraid that
had come thither.’ The Latin texts are—Ht cum baptizaretur
(g' Iesus) lumen ingens (g' magnum) circumfulsit (g! fulgebat) de
Matt. 122. 13-17. AI
shone around the place. And when John
aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant (g! congregati erant).
If translated from a lost Greek text, that might run as follows—
‘Kal Barrilopévov abrov (g! rov "Incov—or éy dé 7 BanrilecOar abrov
[g! rov "Inoovy]) wepeeAapbe (g! EXKap7e) GG péya Axo Tov ddaros,
Wore oPeicar wavrac Tove mapedOdvrac (g! ovvedOorrac). Both -
the above MSS. are very ancient and the Codex Vercellensis (4th
cent.) is counted the most valuable example of the Old Latin. —
Justin (Dial. c. 88) mentions the fire at Baptism in remarkable
words—xai rdre éXOdvro¢g rou “Inood émi roy “lopdayny morapor évOa 6
"lwavyne eBarrile, kateNOdyroe tov "Inood eri 70 Vowp Kal Tip aviPOn Ev
T@ Topdavy kat avadbyrog abrov ax0 Tov boaroe We mEpLoTEpay To“ Aytov
Ilvetpa éxinrijva éx’ abrov éypaay oi ‘Ardarohoe abrovd rovrov Tov
Xprorod hyeyv—‘ And then when Jesus had come to the Jordan river
where John was baptizing, when Jesus had gone down to the water
both a fire was kindled, and when he had gone up from the water
the Holy Spirit is recorded by the Apostles of this same our Christ
to have lighted upon him as a dove.’ Tuischendorf conjectures
av 7~0ac for &v7pOn, and would thus make ‘the Apostles’ responsible
also for the statement that ‘a fire was kindled.’
It will be seen from a note on p. 36 that the Preaching of Paul
related that ‘when he was baptized, fire was seen upon the water’
(cum baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum).
The fire is mentioned in the 7th Sibylline book, 1. 83: tduccy
ayvoic ‘Paivwy cov Bdariopa Ov ob mupdc éepadvOync—‘ with holy
waters sprinkling thy baptism—through which [or whom] thou
wast manifested out of fire.’ A
There can be little doubt that Juvencus alludes to it in his
account, ‘manifesta Dei praesentia claret,’ ‘the presence of God is
manifest in splendour,’ while the Syriac liturgy of Severus (early
6th cent.) says ‘Without fire, and without wood, did the waters
glow when the Son of God came to be baptized in Jordan’ (Dodd, 14).
The writer of Supernatural Religion (4th ed. i. 323) says
‘Credner has pointed out that the marked use which was made of
fire or lights at Baptism by the Church during early times
probably rose out of this tradition regarding the fire which
appeared in Jordan at the baptism of Jesus.’ It might, how-
ever, have been suggested by Matt. iii. 11, ‘he shall baptize you
with the Holy Spirit and with fire’—which consideration pre-
vents me from claiming in illustration the passage quoted by
Hilgenfeld from Eusebius (De Pasch. c. 4), d¢ tdaroc cat mupdc
‘Ayiov Ivevparoc avayevvnbérvrec, ‘having been regenerated through
water and fire of the Holy Spirit.’ Or, since baptism was called in
42 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
saw it he saith unto him *‘ Who art thou,
[ Lord ?] ??
5. And again a voice out of heaven
unto him, ‘This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased.’
6. Then John fell down before him and
said ‘I pray thee, Lord, baptize thou me.’
7. But he prevented him, saying ‘ Let
be; for thus it is becoming that all things
should be fulfilled.’
early days gwriopde, ‘illumination,’ we might regard the use of lights
as symbolical of spiritual enlightenment. The late Mr. Marriott,
however, in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian An-
tiguities, shows from Cyril of Jerusalem that in 347 a.p. baptism
took place at night, and, since there is nothing to show that
this was not the practice still earlier, very reasonably believes
the original use of lights to have been free from any symbolical
meaning.
Is it possible that a reference to this tradition lurks in 1 Pet.
iv. 14, ‘for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you’—éru
TO Tic Odéne Kat TO TOU OEod Tvevpa éb bude avataverac? The phrase
avaravecOa éxi teva, ‘to rest (ie. take rest) upon a person,’ is
found nowhere else in the N. T., but in the fragment which im-
mediately follows this we are told that a voice came from heaven
at the Baptism saying ‘My son, in all the prophets did I await
thee, that thou mightest come and I might rest in thee ’—requiescerem
in te. Can the Spirit of Glory mean the Spirit of the Shechinah
or visible glory of God? The previous verse confirms the idea
that a reference to some event in the life of Jesus may be intended :
—éddX\a Kalo Kowwwreire roic rod Xptorod raOhpacv yaipere iva cat
év TH aroxadvwWer rije ddéne airod xXapijre ayadduwopevor, ‘ but according
as ye share in the sufferings of the Christ rejoice that ye may rejoice
with pride in the revelation also of his glory.’ I do not press this, —
but it does not seem to me impossible: we shall hereafter find a
reference by Paul to a tradition of which except in the Gospel »
according to the Hebrews no other trace has been preserved.
* The very question (Tic ei, Kipte;) asked by Paul in response
to the heavenly voice, Acts ix. 5, xxii. 8, xxvi.15. In his case
also there was ‘much light’ (@é¢ ixardy, xxii. 6) ‘shining around’
him (wepi\dpay pe, xxvi. 13). Is the parallel accidental? But it
must be noted that Codex Venetus omits ‘ Lord.’
Matt. ttt. 13-17 and end, iv. 5. A3
f 8. Matt. iii. at end. 1. And it came to pass, when the Lord
(Pararme.) had come up from the water, the entire
fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and
trested upon him and said to him
2. ‘My §son, in all the prophets did I
await thee, that thou mightest come and I
might rest in thee ;
| 3. ‘For thou art my rest; thou art my
firstborn Son that || reignest for ever.’
q 9. Matt. iv. 5. in [-to?] Jerusalem.
Luke iv. 9.
(Nazarene ?)
+ Jerome, Oomm. in Isai. xi. 2, (1) Factum est autem, quum
ascendisset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti
et requievit super eum et dixit illi (2) ‘Fili mi, in omnibus prophetis
expectabam te, ut venires et requiescerem in te; (3) Tu es enim
requies mea; tu es filius meus primogenitus qui regnas in sempiter-
~ num,’
+ Is. xi. 2,‘ And the Spirit of the Lorp shall rest upon him,’
ie. the branch of Jesse. I have already quoted a parallel in 1 Pet.
iv. 14. ‘Rested upon him’ is the reading of the Curetonian Syriac
in Matt. iii. 16.
/ § See note on Fr. 30.
|| The only passage in the Gospels .in which Jesus is spoken of
as reigning is Luke i. 33, ‘he shall reign over the house of Jacob
for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.’
4 Tischendorf’s Cod. A, margin, To ‘lovdaixdy obk Exe ‘ Eie mv
dyiav modu,’ add’ ‘év Anp’—-‘ The Jewish has not “into the holy city”
but “in Jerusalem.” ’ On which Hilgenfeld, after his manner, rushes
to the conclusion that ‘Jesus is not miraculously conveyed out of
the desert into the holy city, as the canonical Matthew bas reported,
but is placed at Jerusalem on the summit of the temple.’ Accord-
ing, then, to Hilgenfeld the Gospel according to the Hebrews either
made Jerusalem, instead of the desert, the general scene of the
temptation, or else divided the temptation into two—one occurring
in the desert, and the other during some after visit of Jesus to
Jerusalem. There is, however, no need to draw this startling
conclusion from a single preposition whose context is lost. In the
first place, for aught we know, ‘in Jerusalem’ may have followed
the words ‘on a pinnacle of the temple.’ Secondly, reference to a
Greek lexicon or to Bruder’s Concordance would have shown
numerous instances of the use of éy ‘in’ with verbs conveying an
44 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
#10, Matt. v. 22. In the Gospel . . . according to the He-
* (Nazarene.) brews he is set down among the greatest
criminals who hath grieved the spirit of his
t brother.
$11.? Matt. v. 24, And be ye never joyful save when ye
(Nazarene.) have looked upon your brother in charity.
§12. Matt. vi. 11. [Our bread?] of the morrow [give us
Luke xi. 3. to-day ?] :
(Nazarene.)
idea of motion where we should look for ¢ic ‘into.’ Thirdly, in
Jerome’s Greek version of the Gospel, from which we may suppose
the quotations to come, the accompanying verb may have been
karariévar, ‘to set down,’ or some other verb which might be
naturally followed by ‘in
* Jerome, Comm. in Ezech. xviii. 7, In Evangelio quod iuxta
Hebraeos Nazaraei legere consueverunt inter maxima ponitur
crimina qui fratris sui spiritum contristaverit. Hilgenfeld refers
this and the next fragment to Matt. xviii. 6, 7, which must be a
clerical error for Matt. xviii. 16, 17 or thereabouts. That passage,
however, refers to the sins of a brother against oneself, whereas the
parallel in Matt. v. 22 is very remarkable.
+ Matthew uses ‘brother’ in this sense 15 times, Luke 6 times,
John twice, Mark never. In Acts and most of the Epistles it is
very common indeed.
~ Jerome, Oomm. in Ephes. v. 4, Ut in Hebraico quoque
Evangelio legimus Dominum ad discipulos loquentem: ‘ Et nun-
quam,’ inquit, ‘laeti sitis nisi quum fratrem vestrum videritis in
caritate.’ If this fragment came anywhere else it might possibly
be in Matt. xviii. between vv. 14 and 15.
§ Jerome, Comm. in Matt. vi. 11, In Evangelio quod appellatur
‘secundum Hebraeos’ pro ‘supersubstantiali pane’ reperi Mahar,
quod dicitur crastinwm—ut sit sensus ‘Panem nostrum crastinum,’
id est, futurum, ‘da nobis hodie ’—‘ In the Gospel which is called
“according to the Hebrews” instead of ‘‘ supersubstantial bread”’ I
found “ Mahar,” that is to say, “of the morrow,” making the sense
“Our bread of the morrow,” that is, of the future, “give us
to-day.”’’
After the exhaustive excursus of Bishop Lightfoot (On a fresh
Revision, App. I, 195-234) there ought no longer to be any doubt
that érutowrv (A. V. daily’) is an adjective pie: from (4)
éxwvoa (hepa), ‘ (the) following (day),’ ‘the morrow.’
Matt v. 22, 24 (2), vt. 11, x. 25 and end (?). 45,
| 13. Matt. x. 26, ili for the ene to be as the
q 14. ? Matt. x. after I will choose me the good, those good
83. . whom my ** Father in the heavens hath
given me.f f!
In conjecturally filling in the remainder of the sentence I have
not imagined that the translation of Jerome, ‘ Our bread of the
morrow give us to-day,’ is meant for a rendering of the Aramaic
passage. But, seeing that Matt. and Luke both give this order of
words, which is also somewhat unusual in Greek, I presume that it
represents the original Aramaic order.
|| Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 26, of the Ebionites, Bact 6é cai otror,
kara rov éxeivwy Anpwdn Adyor, ‘’ApKerov tHe paOnrH eivarc we 6
didacxadoc ’—‘ And they too say according to the silly argument of
the Kerinthians “ Enough &c.”’ He repeats the text in the same
form c. 30. He had previously mentioned (Haer. xxviii. 5) that the
Kerinthians quoted it ‘from the Gospel,’ and he then gives it with
iva yévnrac ‘that he be’* in place of civa ‘to be’: this agrees
verbatim with the Greek Matthew except that the latter adds airov,
‘his’ master.
4| Twice quoted in the Syriac version of Husebius’s Theophania
(of the Greek of which only fragments remain): see Prof. S. Lee’s
edition iv. 13, pp. 234, 235. en p..234 hy Syriac runs as follows :—
Lae a
which Lee translates ‘I will select to myself these things; very
very excellent are those whom my Father who is in heaven has
given me.’ In the second quotation, on p. 235, ‘these things’ IO
is omitted, and Lee translates ‘I will select to myself the very
excellent, those &c.’ Ewald’s version was ‘I choose me the good ;
the good are they whom my Father in heaven gave me,’ but
Hilgenfeld calls this inaccurate, and gives on the authority of Merx
the rendering I have placed, after him, in the text.
The quotation is first brought in with the words ‘ The cause,
therefor, of the divisions of soul which came to pass in houses
Himself taught, as we have found in a place in the Gospel existing
among the Jews in the Hebrew language, in which it is said &c.’
Eusebius is commenting on Matt. x. 34, Luke xii. 51.
* * “Heavenly Father,’ ‘Father in heaven’ are phrases almost
confined to Matt., where they occur 20 times—but in Mark only
twice, in Luke only once, and nowhere else in the N. T.
* For note see next page.
46 The Gospel according to the Hlebrews.
*15. Matt. xii, 10. I was a mason, seeking sustenance by
a iil. my hands: I beseech thee, Jesus, that thou
aoa restore me health, that I may not shame-
fully beg for food.
$16. Matt. xii. 47-50. 1. ... ‘Behold thy mother and thy
Mark iii. 82-5. _byethren stand without.’
Luke viii. 20, 21.
( Ebionite.) .
++ Cf. John xvii. 6, ‘the men which thou gavest me out of the
world, thine they were, and thou gavest them me,’ and ib. 9, ‘I
pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.’
* Jerome, Comm. in Matt. xii. 13, In Evangelio quo utuntur
Nazareni et Ebionitae .... homo iste qui aridam habet manum
caementarius scribitur, istiusmodi vocibus auxilium precans, ‘ Cae-
mentarius eram, manibus victum quaeritans: precor te, Iesu, ut mihi
restitues sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos ’—‘ In the Gospel
which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use... . that man who has
the dry hand is described as a mason, beseeching help in words of
this sort, “I was &.”’’
+ Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 14, [ddcv 0€ daprotyrar eivae aro
avOpwrov oHOev ard Tov Oyou ov Elpynxey 6 Vwrip év TO avayyedivac
abr@ (edd. atrév) dre (1) ‘’Idou % phrnp cov Kai ot adedpoi cov Ew
éorhxacy, Ore (2) ‘Tic pov gore phrnp cat adedgot ;’ (3) Kal éxreivac
THY xEtpa Ext Tove pabnrac éon ‘Odroé eiaty ot adedpot pov Kal h pjrnp,
ot mowvrvrec Ta OeAhpara tov warpdc pov’—‘ And again they [the
Ebionites| deny that he was man, forsooth from the word which
the Saviour spoke‘(when message was brought him “ Behold thy
mother and thy brethren stand without”’), ‘‘ Who is &.”’’
Codex V reads in (3) ‘my brethren and mother and brethren’
(cut &deXdoi—no ot), and this text Hilgenfeld prints, putting a
comma after pijrnp but none before oi rowdrvrec. He does not
vouchsafe the slightest justification of this splendid audacity, but
I suppose he construes ‘and brethren [are] they that do the wishes
of my Father.’ I am strongly prepossessed in favour of the MS.
which has revealed to us the true reading vce ov for piroy in
Haer. xxx. 6—to say nothing of its superior antiquity to the other
MSS.—but I really cannot accept this. Kat adeAgoi stands either
for cat ot aéeApoi Sand brethren’ accidentally repeated, or for cat
ai &dedgai ‘and sisters’ (cf. Mark iii. 35).
In (1) the ‘desiring to speak with thee’ of Matt. is omitted,
but there is no other difference. From Luke (viii. 20) there is a
little more difference, and from Mark (iii. 32) much more.
Matt: xit. 10, 47-50, xu::24. °°’ 47
2. .. . Whois my mother and bre- ~
thren ?’ 3
53. And he stretched out his hand over
the disciples, and said ‘These are my bre-
thren and mother, that do thet wishes of
my Father.’
§ 17. Matt. xv. 24. ‘I was not sent but unto the lost sheep
of the house of Israel.
In (2) Matt. has ‘who is my mother (% pojrnp pov) and who
are my brethren?’ Luke omits the clause altogether. Mark
has ‘Who is my mother (4 pfrnp pov) and my brethren ?’ which
is nearer.
In (3) Matt. differs widely ‘ Behold my mother and my brethren :
for whosoever doeth the wish (ro 0éAnua) of my Father which
is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother ’—not
to dwell on the slight differences between ‘the disciples’ and ‘his
disciples,’ é¢y and eizev, which might be due to Epiphanius. Mark
differs much more, but for ‘the wish’ (7d 0é\nua) B reads ‘the
wishes’ (ra OeAjpara).. Luke has ‘My mother and my brethren
are these, that hear and do the word of God’ (Marup pov cad adedqot
pov ovrol eiavy ot Tov NOyor Tov Ocod axovorTEC Kai ToLodyTEc), and does
not represent Jesus as pointing to any one.
In the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement, we are told (ix. 11)
that ‘the Lord said’ (eirev 6 Kipwc) ‘My brethren are these, that
do the wish of my Father * (AdeAgoi pov vbroi cio of rowtrrec
TO O€Anpa rov warpdc pov). This is far nearer to the Ebionite
Gospel.
¢ Cf. Acts xiii. 22 (‘my wishes’) and Eph. ii. 3 (‘the wishes
of the flesh”), the only places in the N. T. where the pl. OeAjpara
occurs, except in the various reading of B on Mark iii. 35. Accord.
ing to Tischendorf it is common in the LXX version of the Psalms
and Isaiah.
§ Origen, De Prine. iv. 22, "Exay gddoxy 6 Swrp ‘ Oi ameacradnv
ei pu) cic Ta mpdPaTra Ta atoAwAdra oiKov “IopahX,’ od éxhapBavomer
Tavra we of mrwyxol Ti dvavoig "EBwyvratoe sore uToAafety éxt rove
oapKivove IopanXirac Tponyouperwe TOY Xpioroy ev OeOnunkevar—
‘When the Saviour declares ‘I was not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel’ we do not take this as the poor-witted
Kbionites, so as to suppose that the Christ came and dwelt of fore
intent among the Israelites of the flesh.’ Origen in calling the
Ebionites ‘ poor-witted’ puns on their name, Hbionim, ‘the poor.’
The quotation agrees exactly with Matt. xv. 24.
48 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
*18, Matt. xvi. 17. Son of John.
(Nazarene ?)
$19. Matt. xviii. 22. 1. He saith ‘If thy brother hath sinned
Luke xxvii. 3,4. jn tword and hath made thee amends,
Sige tape seven times in a day receive him.’
2. §Simon his disciple said unto him
‘Seven times in a day ?’
3. The Lord answered and said unto
him ‘I tell thee also, unto seventy times
seven: for in the prophets likewise, after
that they were ||anointed by the Holy Spirit,
utterance of sin was found.’
* Tischendorf’s Codex A, margin, Td Tovdaixdy: ‘Yié Iwavvov’—
‘The Jewish: “son of John.”’ No doubt the Aramaic was Bar
Jochanan. There is hardly any question that the name, Jona, of
Simon’s father is not the same as Jonah, but is a contraction of
Jochanan, John. In all other places in the N. T. where the name of
Simon’s father occurs (John i. 43, xxi. 15, 16,17) recent editors
rightly read ‘son of John.’
+ Jerome, Adv. Pelag. iii. 2, Et in eodem volumine ‘“ Si pec-
caverit,” inquit, “ frater tuus in verbo et satis tibi fecerit, septies in
die suscipe eum.” Dixit illi Simon discipulus ejus *‘ Septies in die? ”
Respondit Dominus et dixit ei “‘Htiam ego dico tibi usque
geptuagies septies; etenim in prophetis quoque, postquam uncti
sunt Spiritu Sancto, inventus est sermo peccati.”’
+ Matthew and Luke (xvii. 4) do not limit the offense to offense
of speech. It is possible that Jerome rendered too literally here, and
that the proper rendering would be ‘in a thing,’ ‘in anything.’
In Hebrew ‘word’ is not seldom used in the sense of a subject of
speech, a ‘thing,’ just as our thing and the Latin res mean a subject
of thought. Dr. Hermann Adler tells me that this usage, though '
rarer in Aramaic, is not unknown to it.
§ This style occurs again in the next fragment; it is not found
in the Four Gospels. Peter is spoken of as plain ‘Simon’ only
once in Matthew and John, but 7 times in Mark and 8 times in
Luke. The title ‘disciple’ is a specially favourite one with John
(who uses it some 80 times), next with Matthew (about 80 times),
and Mark (45 times) ; whereas Luke has it only about 40 times, or
in proportion to his length only twice for every five times that
Matthew and Mark have it, and for every 7 times that John has it.
He also uses the title ‘ Apostle’ 6 times, while each of the others
has it only once.
| Cf. Acts x. 38, ‘God anointed him with the Holy Spirit.’
Matt. xvi. 17, xvitt. 22, xix, 16-24. AQ
q20.Matt.xix.16-24. (16) 1. ** The other of the rich men said
Mark x. 17-25. +o him ‘Master, what good thing shall I
iii, 18-25, F
Luke xviii. 18-25 Be axek Leia
(Nazarene.)
Luke uses the verb ‘anoint’ twice more—Gosp. iv. 18, Acts iv. 27;
it is only found twice again in the N. T.—not at all in the other
three Gospels.
€| Latin trans. of Origen (see above, p. 4), (1) Dixitad eum alter
divitam ‘Magister, quid bonum faciens vivam?’ (2) Dixit ei
‘Homo, legem [Migne has leges, sic] et prophetas fac.’ (3) Re-
spondit ad eum ‘Ieci.’ (4) Dixit ei ‘Vade, vende omnia quae
possides et divide pauperibus et veni, sequere me.’ (5) Coepit
autem dives scalpere caput suum, et non placuit ei. Et dixit ad
eum Dominus ‘Quomodo dicis “‘ Legem feci et prophetas’’? P—
quoniam scriptum est in lege ‘ Diliges proximum tuum sicut te
ipsum,” et ecce multi fratres tui, filii Abrahae, amicti sunt stercore,
morientes prae fame, et domus tua plena est multis bonis, et non
egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea ad eos.’ (6) Et conversus dixit
Simoni discipulo suo, sedenti apud se, ‘Simon, fili Iohannae,
facilius est camelum intrare per foramen acus quam divitem in
regnum caelorum.’ :
** The three Synoptic Gospels only mention one rich man—
indeed, only one man, rich or poor—as asking a question of Jesus
at this time. Hilgenfeld conjectures that in the Gospel according
to the Hebrews the entire passage ran somewhat as follows :—
“And behold there came to him two rich men. The one said “ Good
master ”’—But he said “ Call me not good : for he that is good is one, the
Father in the heavens.” The other Sc.’ Call me not good is the
reading of the Clementine Homilies (xviii. 3,17) in Matt. xix. 17,
and the Father im the heavens is added to the answer of Jesus by
them, by Justin (my Father &c.) once (Dial. 101—but God who made
all things, Apol. i. 16), and by the Marcosians (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.
I. xx. 2): these, however, say nothing of two questioners.
This number two may be thought to afford a straw’s weight of
presumption in favour of the Matthaean origin of this version. It
occurs in Matthew much more often than in the other Gospels, and
in vill. 28 and xx. 30 he has represented Jesus as healing two
demoniacs and two blind men where Mark and Luke only: mention
one: on the other hand he (with Mark) only speaks of one angel
at the sepulchre, where Luke and John mention two.
The now (rightly) accepted reading in Matt. xix. 16 is ‘ Master,’
not ‘Good Master,’ and in xix. 17 ‘Why askest thou me of the
good ? he that is good is One.’
E
50 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
(17) 2. He said unto him *‘ Man,
perform the law andf the prophets.’
(20) 3. He answered him ‘I have per-
formed them.’
(21) 4. He said unto him f{‘ Go, sell
all that thou hast and divide it to the poor,
and come, follow me.’
(22) 5. But the rich man began to
scratch his head, and it pleased him not.
And the Lord said unto him ‘ How sayest
thou “TI have performed the law and the
prophets”? seeing that it is written in
the law § “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself,’ and behold many of thy
brethren, || sons of Abraham, are clad with
dung, dying for hunger, and thy house is
full of much goods, and there goeth out
therefrom nought at all unto them.’
(23-4) 6. And he turned and said to
Simon his { disciple, ** sitting by him,
* This form of address is only found in Luke xii. 14, xxii.
58, 60.
+ This conjunction of the prophets, as the base of a code of life,
with the law is peculiar to Matthew: cf. vii. 12, ‘ Therefor, all
things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye
even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.’ And
xxii. 40, ‘On these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets.’
t Luke (xviii. 22) omits ‘ Go,’ but otherwise he is a little nearer
to the Gospel according to the Hebrews than are Matt. and Mark:
cf. his ravra doa exere with their cov ra brapyorra and dca éyetc ;
and his éuadoe with their ddc.
§ Cf. Matt. xix. 19. Mark and Luke omit this injunction.
|| Cf. Luke xix. 9, ‘son of Abraham,’ and xiii. 16, ‘daughter of
Abraham.’ John has ‘seed of Abraham’ twice and ‘children of
Abraham’ once.
{| See note on the last fragment. -
** Tt was the custom for the scholars of a Rabbi to sit on the
floor or benches, while the Rabbi himself sat a little above them on
a raised platform: thus Paul speaks of himself as brought up ‘at
the feet of Gamaliel’ (Acts xxii. 3). As regards the phrase
Matt. xix. 16-24, «x2. 9. 51
‘Simon, son oftf John, it is easier for a
camel to enter through the eye of a needle
than a rich man into the kingdom of the
heavens.’
21. t}Matt. xxi. 9. §$ 1 Hosanna ||||' in the heights.
Mark xi.-10.
Luke xix, 38.
John xii. 138.
(Nazarene.)
‘ sitting By,’ Hilgenfeld quotes Josephus (Bell. Iud. i. 6, 5), jjoay é
ovK ddiyou TapEecpevorrec abTo TOY pavOavdrvrwy ‘and there were not
a few of the scholars sitting by him’ (ie. Judas the Essaean).
Jesus himself certainly liked to teach, as a Rabbi, sitting: see
Matt. v. 1, xiti.1, 2, xv. 29 (xxiv. 3?), xxvi. 55, Mark iv. 1, ix. 35,
Luke vy. 3, John vi. 3. It may be observed that this little bit of
Jewish colouring is supplied by Matthew more often than in the
other three Evangelists together, and that he alone speaks of the
Scribes and Pharisees as ‘sitting in Moses’ seat’ (xxiii. 2).
Tt See note on Fragment 18. ‘Iohannae’ in Origen’s translator
points to a Greek "Iwavva: cf. Iwva.
tt Jerome in a letter to Pope Damasus (Martianay’s ed. iv.
148) after explaining the word Osanna proceeds thus :—Finally,
Matthew, who composed the Gospel in the Hebrew language, put
in these words, Osanna barrama, that is ‘Osanna in the heights,’
because when the Saviour was born salvation reached as far as
heaven, that is even to the heights, peace being made not only in
earth but also in heaven (Denique Matthaeus, qui Evangelium
Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, ita posuit, Osanna barrama, id est
‘Osanna in excelsis,’ quod Salvatore nascente salus in coelum usque,
id est, etiam ad excelsa pervenerit, pace facta non solum in terra
sed et in coelo). The date of the letter is about 380 a.p.
It seems to me (as to Anger and Hilgenfeld) almost certain that
Jerome is here quoting the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and
for three reasons (1) he was not the man to conjecture that Matthew
wrote barrama and then state it as a fact; (2) the introduction of the
word is so altogether irrelevant that I suppose him to have
introduced it simply as an example of what he believed to be the
veritable Aramaic of Matthew ; (3) it is almost certain (see note
on p. 18) that he had copied the Nazarene Gospel before he wrote
this letter to Damasus, and it is not to be believed that, holding his
opinion of it, he should say that Matthew wrote Aramaic words
which it did not contain. Yet see Addenda.
1 For notes see next page.
E 2
52 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
* 22, ? End of Matt. A story of a woman accused before Jesus
xxi. of many sins
(Nazarene ?)
Hilgenfeld prints as the original 8072 N2vwiIN and says that
Anger refers the second word to either the Hebrew 41973 or the
Chaldaic 81973.
The fragment corresponds verbatim with Matthew and Mark,
not so with Luke and John.
§§ ‘Hosanna,’ ‘O save,’ is from Ps. exviii. 25, one of the Hallel
psalms, sung about a week before the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem
and appointed to be sung again a week later at the Passover. But
according to the chronology of Matthew (against Mark) his entry
was immediately followed by the purification of the Temple, and
if we might trust this chronology and suppose also that he had
allowed his intention to become known, another very remarkable
explanation of their quoting this psalm would commend itself to our
acceptance. At the Feast of Dedication, which commemorated the
purification of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus, ‘ they bare branches,
and fair boughs, and palms also, and sang psalms’ (2 Mace. x. 6, 7),
and we know that Ps. exvili. was among the psalms sung at this feast.
It would thus appear as if the crowd hearing of the intention of
Jesus repeated the ceremonies of the Feast of Dedication.
||| That is ‘in heaven.’ Hilgenfeld adduces Ecclesiasticus xxvi.
16 (fAwe araréd\Awy év tiorug Kupiov ‘the sun rising in heights
of the Lord) and xliii. 9 (where the moon is spoken of as cddXoe
ovpavov, ddga aorpwrv, Kdopoc pwrilwy, év iwWiorore Kiptoc ‘beauty of
heaven, glory of stars, a shining ornament, lord in heights,’ .
where I of course prefer the reading of AC, kéopoc dwrifwy év
wiorote Kupéov ‘a shining ornament in heights of the Lord’); and
Luke ii. 14 (@déa év tisrore Ocg, A. V. ‘Glory to God in the
highest’) and particularly xix. 38, the description of this very scene,
where the cry of the multitude is given as év oipar@ eiphyn, cat dota
év bioroc, A. V. ‘peace in heaven and glory in the highest.’ The
meaning of the entire phrase may be ‘ Let Hosanna be sung in heaven.’
* Eusebius (Hist. eel. iii. 89) says that Papias ‘has published
also another relation of a woman accused of many sins before the
Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains’ (for
the Greek see p. 8, note).
The passage I have inserted above, as probably identical in sub-
stance at least with the narrative mentioned by Eusebius, is the
Story of the Woman taken in Adultery printed in our Bibles as John
vii. 53-vili. 11, but whose genuineness as a part of the Fourth
Gospel is disallowed by an overwhelming preponderance of critical
(Matt. xxi. end?) Fohn vit. 53-vit2. 11. 53
[substantially, it would seem, and perhaps
almost verbally, as follows :—
opinion. The recent textual editors, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford,
and Westcott and Hort, all deny it the same authorship. Of living
English writers of note only McClellan opposes, only Farrar hesi-
tates: Ellicott, Hammond, Lightfoot, Sanday, Scrivener, and even
Wordsworth, allow that the Story of the Woman taken in Adultery
is an interpolation. In Appendia F' I have given a minute analysis
of the evidence for and against it.
Several of the above writers conjecture that the story is the
same with that told by Papias. Mr. McClellan (New Test. 721)
objects that the woman spoken of by Papias was ‘ secretly accused ’
(dca BAnGeionc) of many sins, whereas the Woman taken in Adultery
was openly accused, and of one sin only. Now in the first place to
translate diafAnBeione ‘secretly accused’ .is to strain its meaning
unwarrantably, and in the second place, as Tischendorf says, the
words ‘from this time no longer sin’ seem to indicate that the
woman had been a frequent sinner. And it is impossible to escape
from the fact that Rufinus, in his translation of Eusebius, para-
phrased his author’s words so as to make him say that Papias
published ‘another relation concerning an [or the} adulterous
woman who was accused by the Jews before the Lord’ (aliam his-
toriam de muliere adultera quae accusata est a Iudaeis apud Domi-
num). Now if it can be said confidently of any man but Jerome
that he must have read through the Gospel according to the He-
brews that man is Rufinus. The fellow-student of Jerome at Aquileia,
he went with him to the East in 371 a.p., he was in Palestine be-
tween 377 and 397, up to 393 he was on the most cordial terms
with Jerome, and for the last seven years of that time the two were
living a little more than an hour’s walk from each other, Jerome at
Bethlehem, Rufinus at Jerusalem. Now it is almost certain that
Jerome had copied the Nazarene Gospel not later than 379 a.p., he
began to quote it in his commentaries in 387, and in 392 he speaks
of having lately rendered it into Greek and Latin. Is it to be
credited that he should render it into two languages for the reading
of all the civilized world, and that neither of these translations
should have been read by his intimate friend living some half-a-
dozen miles off? Mr. McClellan himself would not say so, and
putting together the evidence of Eusebius and Rufinus (who trans-
lated Eusebius about 408) I must regard it as absolutely certain that
the Gospel according to the Hebrews contained a story of an adulteress
accused before Jesus.
But, asks Mr. McClellan, if contained in the Gospel according
54 The Gospel according to the Febrews.
1. And they went each to his own
to the Hebrews, ‘how could it have been (with some trifling ex-
ceptions) universally transferred to the Gospel of St. John, and never
once to the more kindred Gospel of St. Matthew?’ Farrar seems to
feel the same difficulty as to its interpolation into John, and many
of those who repudiate the genuineness of the passage must have
stumbled over it in their own minds. The question can, I believe,
be answered satisfactorily, as follows.
If the reader turns to p. 7, he will see that Eusebius says that
Papias ‘also transfers to his own work other accounts, by the afore-
said Aristion, of the Lord’s discourses, and traditions of the Elder
Joun.’ Of course when he repeated one of the Elder John’s tradi-
tions he must have mentioned him by name, or Eusebius would not
have known whence they were derived. My theory is that Papias
in telling the Story of the Woman taken in Adultery said that it was
related by John, meaning the Elder; that some one else supposed
him to mean the Apostle, and added it to his own copy of the
Fourth Gospel, perhaps in the place where we now find it, or
perhaps as an appendix at the end of the Gospel, whence it may
have been transferred by the next copyist.
It is easy to see why this particular place was found for it. It
seemed to come most naturally just before viii. 15, where Jesus says
‘Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man’; and just after c.
vii., where there had been far more mention of ‘ Moses’ and ‘ the
law’ than in any other part of the Gospel—‘ Moses’ being named
4, times, and ‘ the law’ 5 times, against twice in any other chapter
—and there being no good opportunity of inserting it before v. 52.
Again Jesus is mentioned twice in c. vil. and once in ¢c. vill. as
teaching in the Temple, but nowhere else in the Gospel.
The story evidently belongs to the Passion-week, when ‘in the
day-time he was teaching in the Temple; and at night he went out,
and abode in the mount that is. called the Mount of Olives. And
all the people came early in the morning to him in the Temple, for
to hear him’ (Luke xxi. 37-8).
Hitzig would find room for this incident between Mark xii. 17
and 18, that is between the question of the Herodians and that of
the Sadducees: but this is contradicted by Matt. xxii. 28 which says
that the Sadducees came to him ‘ the same day’ as the Herodians.
It might be put after Matt. xxii., if that chapter did not end with
the statement that ‘neither durst any man from that day forth ask
him any more questions.’ But there seems no reason why we should
not give it a place in time between Matt. xxi. and xxii., that is
between the parables of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Wedding-
(Matt. xxt. end?) Fohn vit. 53-vei2. 11. 55
house, and * Jesus went to the Mount of
the Olives.
feast—especially as we are told in Mark xu. 12 that after the
former parable ‘ they left him and went their way.’ It would then
come before the questions of the Herodians, Sadducees, and Phari-
sees, immediately after which we find from Mark xii. 35 and 41 that
he was ‘teaching 1N THE TEMPLE’ and that he ‘ sat over against the
treasury ’"—facts which do not of course prove anything for this
theory, but are simply quoted to show its consistency with what we
know of the actions of Jesus on this particular day. |
As to the text of the passage, the number of various readings is
so unparalleled, and so many of the most ancient MSS., versions, and
Fathers fail us, that its exact determination is hopeless. I subjoin
the text which I frame, and which I have rendered as closely as
possible. The reader who compares it with the notes to this
passage in Tischendorf’s eighth edition will see that in every case
where he has definitely indicated one reading as preferable to the
rest I have been able to agree with him.
(1) Kat éxopetOnoay Exacrog tic rdv oikov avrod, Inoove o€ éxopevOn
cic 70” Opog rev ’EXarar.
(2) "“OpOpov cé waduy wapeyévero cic rd ‘Tepdy, kal Tae 6 Aadg ipxeEro
mpoc avroy, cal cabioac édidacKey avrove.
(3) “Ayovory dé ot ypappareic cal oi Dapioaion yuvatka éml poryela
KareAnppevny.
(4) Kal orfoarrec atriy év péow eizov avrg ‘ AcddoxaXe, atrn
yur Kkareiknrrac éx’ abropwpy porxevopérn *
(5) ‘’Ey 0€ ro vou hiv Moioiic évereitaro rag rovavrag \OaLery* |
av ovv th dévetc ;’
(6) Totro d& EXeyor meppaorrec airdy, iva Exwou Kxarnyopetv
avrov. be
(7) (O &€ "Inovte karw Kibac ro daxridy karéypager eic THY viv.
(8) ‘Qe 8€ éréuevoy épwroyrec abroy avéxuley kal eimev adroic
*"O dvapdprnroc tuady mpGroc én’ airiy tov diBoy Badrérw*’ Kal wadey
Karw koac Eypager eic THY viv. ©
(9) Ot &é dxovoarrec ekhpyorvro eic Kal’ cic, apbapevor amd TeV
mpecPurépwr, kal karedeipOn pdvoc 6 "Inoovc Kal } yuri év péow ovoa.
(10) ’Avandac 2 6 "Inootc cimey attra ‘Tiva, rod eiciv ; obdele
OE KaTEKpLYEY 5”
(11) ‘H 6¢ eirer ‘ Oddeic, cvpre.’? Eize d&€ 6 "Inoove ‘OE éyw oe
Karaxpiv@* ropevov kal ard rod viv penére dpdprave.’
* Matthew (xxi. 17) says that on the evening after the entry
into Jerusalem Jesus ‘ went ont of the city to Bethany and lodged
there,’ and subsequent passages imply that the lodging was not
56 The bi ol according to the Hebrews,
2. *And at dawn he came again into
the Temple, tand all the people came to
him, and {having sat down he taught
them.
3. And the § scribes and the Pharisees
bring || a woman taken up for adultery:
merely temporary. The same with Mark (xi. 11). But Luke
(xxi. 87, quoted above, and xxii. 39, ‘and went as he was wont to
the mount of [the] Olives’) is the only evangelist who vaguely
mentions this mountain, and not Bethany, as the lodging-place of
Jesus at night.
-* There are two close parallels to this verse in the writings of
Luke. The first is Luke xxi. 38, ‘ And all the people came at dawn
[A. V. early in the morning] to him in the Temple, for to hear
him’: came at dawn is expressed in the Greek by a single word
&pOpZe, the verb of dpOpoy ‘dawn.’ The second is Acts v. 21, ‘ they
entered into the Temple toward the dawn [A. V. early in the
morning] and taught’: here the word used is again dpOpor.
It is remarkable that, putting aside this fragment, no N. T.
writing, except those of Luke, contains the word oppor or any of its
kin: in addition to dp9pov and dpOpiZer Luke also has dpOpivdc¢
(xxiv. 22). Matthew, Mark, and John always use zpwit or zpwta,
Luke never. ; ;
t+ From here to the end of the verse is left out by seven cursives,
including several of the best (e.g. Cod. 16 and Cod. 39). Butas six
of these read at the beginning of the next verse cal mpoohveycay
av7o the omission may arise from the copyist glancing accidentally
from one «cat to another two lines below it. D omits ‘and having
sat down he taught them,’ but the copyist may have confounded
this sentence (cal—atrovc) with the one before (kal—aidrér).
+ As the Rabbis taught sitting, so, very often at least, did Jesus.
See Matt. v. 1 (‘and when he had sat down (A. V. when he was
set) his disciples CAME UNTO HIM, and he opened his mouth and
taught them’); xiii. 1, 2; xv. 29; (xxiv. 3?); xxvi. 55 (‘1 sat
daily with you. teaching IN THE TempLe’); Mark iv. 1; ix. 35;
Iuke v. 3; John vi. 3. Itis Matthew who is most Rind. of speci-
_ fying this attitude,
§ Matthew has scribes and Pharisees 6 times, Luke 3 times, and
Luke and Mark have each Pharisees and scribes once.
|| D has a very likely-lcoking reading—‘ a woman taken for sin’
(éxl cyaprig yuvaixa eiAnpévny)—which recalls at once Papias’s
‘woman accused of many sins,’ the ‘ adulterous and sinful generation’
(Matt. xxt. end?) Fohm vit. 53-vitt. 11. = 57
4, And having placed her in the midst
they said to him { ‘Teacher, this woman
hath been taken up in adultery, in the
very act;
5. ‘And in the law Moses commanded
us **to stone such: tf what therefor dost
thou say ?’
6. And this they said tf{trying him,
§§ that they may have whereby to accuse
him.
7. But Jesus having bent down kept
of Mark viii. 38, and the woman ‘ which was a sinner’ of Luke vii,
37. It is however without support.
q It is a great pity that the A. V. obscures the meaning of the
original by invariably giving the =i cache ‘Master’ as its
translation of éuddacKcadoc.
** This particular mode of death is not definitely prescribed in
the law for any form of adultery except that in which a woman
‘betrothed unto an husband’ is guilty: see Deut. xxi. 23-4. It
might however be inferred from Deut. xxii. 22, compared with the
foregoing and following verse, that a married woman committing
adultery was also to be killed by stoning.
It is not likely that they had any thought of really stoning this
woman. They might not put to death without leave from the
Roman governor, who would hardly give it in such cases as this.
++ D reads ‘but what dost thou say now P’
tt Matthew four times represents the Jews as trying (A. V.
always ‘ tempting’) Jesus (xvi. 1, xix. 3, xxii. 18, 35), Mark thrice
(viii. 11, x. 2, xii. 15), Luke twice (x. 25, xi. 16).
§$ Cf. Luke vi. 7, iva eipwot carnyopeiy adrod ‘that they may find
whereby to accuse him,’ and Matt. xii. 10, Mark ii. 2, ‘ that Hs
may accuse him.’
If he answered that they ought to stone her they might accuse
him to Pilate of counseling disobedience to his authority, if that
they ought not to stone her, they might accuse him to the people of
counseling violation of the law.
D leaves out this verse, but reads (4) thus, ‘And having
placed her in the midst the priests say, trying him, that they may
have accusation of him («carnyopiay atrov), Teacher &e.’ D how-
ever stands alone, except that there is a fair, but still insufficient,
amount of authority for the addition of the single word ‘trying’
in (4).
58 The Gospel according to the Hebrews,
* writing down with his finger upon the
ground,
8. But as they continued asking him
he unbent and said to them ‘ Let the ¢ sin-
less one of you first cast against her the
stone.’ And having bent down again he
kept writing upon the ground.
9. But they having heard went out
one by one, beginning from the elder ones,
and Jesus was left alone, and the woman in
the midst.
10. And Jesus having unbent said to
r ‘{ Mistress, where are they? Hath
none condemned thee?’
11. And she said ‘None, §sir. And
Jesus said ‘ Neither || will I condemn thee:
go, and from this time no longer sin.’ |
* Or ‘ drawing,’ another meaning of caraypader.
t+ Perhaps with reference to the special sin in question; see
above.
The person to be stoned was thrown down by one of the two
chief witnesses from an erection of twice the height of a man. If
he was killed by the fall, the actual stoning was omitted. If not,
after he had been turned on his back the other chief witness dashed
a stone on to his breast, and if this did not kill him the rest of the
bystanders stoned him. So this punishment is described in the
qe Sanhed. vi. 4.
t Tuva, a term of courtesy, used 5 times by John, twice by
Laika, and once by Matthew.
§ This or ‘master’ is of course the natural rendering of KUpLE,
the common N. T. form of deferential address, used by servants to
their masters (Matt. xiii. 27, xviii. 26, xxv. 20, 22, 24, Luke xiii. 8,
xiv. 22, xix. 16, 18, 20, 25), sons to their fathers (Matt. xxi. 30),
the Jewish leaders to Pilate (Matt. xxvii. 63), strangers to Philip
(John xii. 21), and Mary of Magdala to a gardener (John xx. 15).
|| The difference in the Greek between ‘do I condemn’ and
‘ will I condemn’ is merely one of accent—xaraxpivw and Karaxpiv@
—and the great majority of MSS. during the first few centuries
were written without accents. But, as far as MSS. and versions
are of avail in such a case, half the uncials, a large number of
cursives, and the Old Latin and Vulgate favour the future, which,
fancying it a little the better, I therefor adopt.
Matt. xx112. 35, xXV. 14-30. 59
q 23. Matt. xxiii. 35. Zacharias son of Joiada.
Luke xi. 51.
(Nazarene.) j :
**24, Matt. xxv. 14- The Gospel which comes to us mm Hebrew
50. characters has directed the threat not against
Luke xix. 11-27.
| Jerome, Comm. in Matt. xxiii. 35, In Evangelio quo utuntur
Nazareni pro filio Barachiae filium Ioiadae reperimus scriptum—
‘In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use we find “son of Joiada”’
written for ‘‘son of Barachias.”’’
No Zacharias son of Barachias is known except the minor
prophet of that name. There is no Jewish tradition that he died
a violent death, and there is not the slightest doubt that the
person referred to is the ‘Zechariah the son of Jehoiada’ of
2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21, who actually was stoned in the court of
the priests, between the altar of burnt offerings and the Temple
itself, and whose death forms the subject of one of the wildest
Talmudic legends. As the murder of Abel comes first in the Old
Testament so in the Jewish arrangement of the books the murder of
the son of Jehoiada came last.
The words ‘son of Barachias’ in Matt, xxiii. are indeed left out
by 8 and Eusebius, but are kept by VACD, the Latin versions, the
Thebaic, the Péshitta, by Irenaeus, and by Origen; the Curetonian
Syriac, which is deficient here, probably contained them also, for it
adds them to Luke xi. 51. Thus the testimony both of numbers
and antiquity compels us to keep the words, and to account for
them as best we can.
Tt is next to impossible that the original reading was simply
‘Zacharias.’ No authority previous to the 4th cent. omits the
words ‘son of Barachias.’ And the name ‘Zacharias’ of itself so
naturally suggests the minor prophet that a copyist who believed
him to be the person intended would scarcely think it needful to
indicate him more closely by adding ‘son of Barachias.’
On the other hand it seems most improbable that this glaring
mistake should be due to the Jewish writer himself.
I believe that the Gospel according to the Hebrews has kept the
original reading, and that the passage passed through three
different forms:—(1) Zacharias son of Jehoiada—so the original;
(2) Zacharias son of Barachias—so a very early copyist (or the
translator if the Greek Matthew be a translation), knowing only
the minor prophet, and correcting, as he thought, the mistake;
(8) Zacharias by itselfi—so some later copyists, correcting the real
mistake of No. 2.
** Eusebius, Zheophania (the Greek fragments in Migne’s
60 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
the hider, but against the * abandoned liver.
For it has «cluded three servants, one
Tt which devoured the substance with harlots
and flute-women, and one which multiplied,
and one which hid the talent: then that one
was t accepted, one only blamed, and one shut
up Mm prison.
§25. Matt. xxvi. 17, 1... . § Where wilt thou that we pre-
pian’ pare for thee the passover to eat?’
Mark xiv. 12. . : : °
Tauke-xsii 15. 2... . ‘Have I desired with desire to
( Ebonite.) eat this flesh the passover with you?’
edition of Eusebius, iv. 155), To cic hud tov ‘EBpaixotc yapaxrijpouw
EvayyéXuov riy aredo)y ov Kara Tov amoxpiarroc éEripyey GAG KaTa
Tov dowrwe élykdroc. Tpeic yap dovdove meptetxe, Tov pey KaTagaydrTa
Tv trapkty pera mopv@y Kal abdyrpidwy, Tov dé rodNaTAacLdcaI Ta,
Tov O& Kxaraxpiayra ro radavrov* eira Toy prev arodexOfvat, Toy dé
pepo0nva pover, roy o€ cvyk\ecOivat decpwrnply.
* Cf. Luke xv. 14 (of the Prodigal Son), Zév daowrwe ‘in
abandoned living.’ We cannot tell how far Eusebius is summarizing
the parable in language of his own or how far he has kept any of
the phrases of the original.
+ Cf. Luke xv. 30 (of the Prodigal Son), 6 caragaywy cov rov
Biov pera topyey ‘ which hath devoured thy living with harlots.’
t Or ‘received’—a phrase common in Matt. and Luke, but
particularly Luke.
§ Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 22, cal éroinoay rove pabyrac perv
Aéyorrac ‘ Tlod OéAere Eropwdowpéy cor TO Taocxa gayeiv’; Kal adrov
CpOev Néyorra ‘M)) éxcOupia ereOdpnoa xKpéac rovTo TO Taoya gayEiv
pe? tpov ;’—‘ And they have made the disciples say ‘‘ Where wilt
thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?” and him to
say “‘ Have I desired with desire to eat this flesh the passover with
you?” ’ Kpiphanius proceeds, ‘Arti rov yap eimeiy ‘’ErOupia
éreOvpnoa’ mpocterro TO Md) éxifinua . . . . Abrot d€ éxvypaarrec 70
Kpéac éavrove étAavynoar, padwovpyhoarreg Kat eimdvrec Mi) éx. &e.
‘For instead of saying “I have desired with desire” they have
added the adverb ju) . . But they, having introduced the word
Flesh, deceived Uhsinisliies ‘oxi fraudulently said “ Have I desired
&c.?”’ See also Addenda.
The first question, ‘Where wilt thou &c.?’ is ads same with that
in Matt. xxvi. 17. The second, ‘Have I desired &c.?’ is very near
to Luke xxii. 15, ‘ With desire I have desired to eat this passover
Matt. xxvi. 1 7, 18, 74, xxv. 16. 61
[? originally ‘ With desire I have desired to
eat this (omitting flesh the?) passover with
you. |
| 26. Matt. xxvi. 74. And he denied and swore and cursed.
Mark xiv. 71.
(Nazarene ?)
q 27. Matt. xxvii. 16, ~** The son of a master [of them? who
Mark xv.7. . had been condemned on account of sedition
Luke xxiii. 18.
John xviii. 40,
(Nazarene.)
and murder ?].
with you before I suffer’ (ExOupia éreAipnoa rotro ro raoya gayeiv
pe? tpev xpd tov pe wadeiv). Hpiphanius believed that they had
tampered with the words reported by Luke in order to make Jesus
express the same aversion from eating flesh which they themselves
entertained. We are strongly justified in suspecting that they did
so (see notes on Fr. 5 and Fr. 33), and I have therefor put in
brackets what may have been the original reading. I have only to’
add that the charge however probable cannot be proved.
|| Tischendorf’s Codex A, on the margin of Matt. xxvi. 74, To
"Tovoaixdy’ ‘kai hpvisaro Kat @pocey Kat Karnpdcaro ’—‘ The Jewish:
‘‘and he &e.”’
q Jerome, Comm. in Matt. xxvii. 16, ‘Iste in Evangelio quod
scribitur iuxta Hebraeos filius magistri eorum interpretatur, qui
propter seditionem et homicidium fuerat condemnatus ’—‘ In the
Gospel which is inscribed according to the Hebrews he is interpreted
the son of a master of them—who had been condemned on account
of sedition and murder.’
It is difficult to know how much of this is quoted from the
Gospel according to the Hebrews. MHilgenfeld excludes ‘of them’
but includes ‘who—murder.’ The words ‘of them’ seem to be
Jerome’s own, and that suggests that the following words are his
also. Moreover ‘interpreted’ points to ‘the son of a master’
(=Bar Rabban or Bar Abba) as being the only words quoted from
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, nor would Jerome have any
need to quote from it a statement that Barabbas ‘had been con-
demned on account of sedition and murder,’ when Luke xxiii,
19, says that Barabbas ‘for a certain sedition made in the city,
and for murder, was cast into prison.’ I therefor believe that
the words out of brackets represent the limit of Jerome’s
quotation.
** Taking his name either as Bar Rabban ‘son of a Rabbi’ or
Bar Abba ‘son of a Father.’ The word ‘ master’ perhaps favours
62 The Gospel according to the Hebrews,
*28. Matt. xxvii. 51. The lintel of the Temple, of immense
Mark xv. 38. size, was broken and fell down.
Luke xxiii. 45.
(Nazarene.)
$29. Matt. xxviii. 1. And when the Lord had given his
(Nazarene.)
the former, but Lightfoot in his Horae Hebraicae quotes from the
Talmuds Rabbi Nathan Barabba, Rabbi Samuel Barabba, and Abba
Barabba—the name Abba ‘ Father’ being used as a title of spiritual
reverence (cf. Matt. xxiii. 9, ‘call no man your father upon the
earth’) like Padre, Pere, Father, and the son of such a reverend
person being sometimes surnamed Bar Abba ‘son of the Father.’
In the N. T. there is next to no authority for the doubled 7, but the
Harklean Syriac (5th cent.) has it in Matt. (? elsewhere) and it is
the form found in the Acta Pilati.
Be these things as they may, there is no doubt that the name
Barabbas was rightly treated in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews as a mere surname, nor have I any donbt that the reading
‘Jesus Barabbas’ in Matt. xxvii. 16, 17, supplies his real circum-
cision-name, and I hope to satisfy those who care to pursue this
point in Appendia G. Does it not seem likely that the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, if it explained this man’s surname, also
gave his circumcision-name ?
* Jerome, Comm. in Matt. xxvii. 51, In Evangelio cuius saepe
fecimus mentionem, superliminare Templi infinitae magnitudinis
fractum esse atque divisum legimus—-‘ In the Gospel of which we
have often made mention we read that the lintel of the Temple,
of infinite size, was broken and splintered.’ Again (Ad Hedyb.
viii.), In Evangelio autem quod Hebraicis litteris scriptum est
legimus non velum Templi scissum sed superliminare Templi
mirae magnitudinis corruisse—‘In the Gospel, however, which is
written in Hebrew letters we read not that the veil of the Temple
was rent but that the lintel of the Temple of wondrous size fell
down.’ |
The only particular words of which we can be absolutely certain
are ‘lintel of the Temple’: whether the lintel of the Temple itself
or a lintel of one of the gateways of the Temple-courts, but the
former is the more natural inference from the expression.
+ Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccl. (under ‘Iacobus’), Evangelium
quoque quod appellatur ‘secundum Hebraeos’... . post resur-
rectionem Salvatoris refert (1) Dominus autem quum dedisset sin-
donem swum servo sacerdotis wit ad Iacobum et apparuit et. (2)
Turaverat enim Iacobus se non comesturum panem ab illa hora qua
biberat calicem Domini donec videret ewm resurgentem a mortuis.
Matt. xxvii. 51, xxvite. 63
Rursusque post paululam (3) Aferte, ait Dominus, mensam et
panem. Statimque additur (4) Tulit panem et benedixit ac fregit et
post dedit Iacobo Iusto et diait er ‘ Frater mi, comede panem tuum,
guia resurreait Filius Hominis a dormientibus’—‘ The Gospel also
which is called “according to the Hebrews” .. . . after the resur-
rection of the Saviour relates (1) And—from the dead. And again
after a little Bring, saith the Lord, a table and bread. And im-
mediately it is added He took wp—them that sleep.’
In the N. T. there is no mention of an appearance to James
except in 1 Cor. xv. 7, where, having already mentioned appearances
to Kephas, to ‘the Twelve,’ and to 500 brethren, Paul says
‘Then was he seen by James, then by all the Apostles’ ("Eze:ra
&60n laxwBy, Ererra roic “AroordXore Tao),
There can be no doubt that this James was not the son of
Zebedee (whom Paul never mentions and who had been dead many
years) but ‘James’ (Gal. 11. 9, 13) bishop of Jerusalem, called also
‘James the Lord’s brother’ (Gal. i.19). The words ‘then by all
the Apostles’ do not imply that this James was one of the Twelve,
but only that he was an Apostle (as he is also styled in Gal. i. 19)
—a much wider title, given in the N. T. to Paul, Barnabas, and
apparently (Rom. xvi. 7) to Andronicus and Junias: see Bishop
Lightfoot’s excursus ‘The name and office of an Apostle’ (Hp. to
the Galatians, 92).
The Gospel according to the Hebrews certainly suggests that
the appearance to James was earlier than others to which Paul
_ gives the priority: such difference in the chronological order of
incidents is common among the N. T. writers. There is seemingly
no other tradition of an appearance to James.
M. Nicolas and Mr. Baring Gould give references for the tradi-
tion to Gregory of Tours (latter part of 6th cent.), to the Historiae
Apostolicae of pseudo-Abdias (6th cent., but based to some extent
at least on legends quite as early as the 4th cent.), and to the
Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine.
Gregory of Tours (Hist. Francorum i. 21) writes ‘James the
Apostle is said, when he had seen the Lord now dead on the cross,
to have called to witness and sworn that he would never eat bread
unless he beheld the Lord rising again, At last on the third day
the Lord, returning with triumph from the spoil of Tartarus, show-
ing himself to James saith “ Rise, James, eat, for now I am risen
from the dead.” This is James the Just, whom they style the
brother of the Lord, because he was the son of Joseph, born of
another wife’ (Fertur Iacobus Apostolus, cum Dominum iam
mortuum vidisset in cruce, detestatum esse atque iurasse numquam
se comesturum panem nisi Dominum cerneret resurgentem. Tertia
64 The Gospel according to the. Hebrews.
demum die rediens Dominus, spoliato Tartaro cum _ triumpho,
Iacobo se ostendens ait ‘Surge Iacobe, comede, quia iam a
mortuis resurrexi.’ Hic est Iacobus Iustus, quem fratrem Domini
nuncupant, pro eo quod Ioseph fuerit filius, ex alia uxore pro-
genitus). |
Mr. Baring Gould (Lost and Hostile Gospels, 150) says that
Gregory ‘no doubt drew it,’ the story, ‘from St. Jerome.’ This
can only be on the supposition that Gregory quoted very roughly
from memory, for the words attributed to Jesus differ considerably,
while Gregory plainly says that James took this oath after seeing
Jesus dead on the cross.
The so-called Abdias (Hist. Apost. vi. 1) makes James the
brother of Simon the Cananaean and ‘ Judas of James.’ Of these
three brothers he says ‘James, the younger, was at all times
specially dear to Christ the Saviour, and burnt with so great a
yearning toward his master in return that when He was crucified
he would not take food before that he saw Him rising from the
dead, which he minded to have been foretold to him and his
brethren by Christ when He was still among the living. Wherefor
He chose to appear to him first of all, as also to Mary of Magdala
and Peter, that He might strengthen His disciple in faith; and,
that he might not bear long hunger, when a honeycomb was offered
Him, He invited James likewise to eat it’ (Quorum minor natu
Iacobus Christo Salvatori in primis semper dilectus tanto rursus
desiderio in magistrum flagrabat ut crucifixo eo cibum capere
noluerit priusquam a mortuis resurgentem videret, quod meminerat
sibi et fratribus a Christo agente in vivis fuisse praedictum. Quare ei
primum omnium ut et Mariae Magdalenae et Petro apparere voluit
ut discipulum in fide confirmaret: et, ne diutinum ieiunium toler-
aret, favo mellis oblato ad comedendum, insuper Iacobum invitavit).
Mr. Baring Gould’s translation of this passage is very far from
accurate, but, as he gives neither the original nor a reference, it
may be borrowed. ‘Abdias’ agrees with Gregory in dating
James’s oath from the crucifixion, but, unless he is unconsciously
blending this story with Luke xxiv. 42, the substitution of the
honeycomb shows that he drew his account from some other
unknown source.
Jacobus de Voragine (Legenda Aurea, xvii.) tells the story
thus :—‘ And on Preparation-day, after the Lord was dead, as
saith Josephus and Jerome in the book Of Illustrious Men, James
vowed a vow that he would not eat until he saw the Lord to have
risen from the dead. But on the very day of the resurrection,
when up to that day James had not tasted food, the Lord appeaved
to the same James and said to them that were with him ‘Seta
Matt. xxvite. 65
*linen cloth to the } servant of the priest
table and bread,’”’ then taking the bread he blessed and. gave to
James the Just, saying “ Rise, my brother, eat; for the Son of Man
is risen from the dead’’’ (In Parasceue autem, mortuo Domino,
sicut dicit Iosephus et Hieronymus in libro De Viris Iilustribus,
Iacobus votum €vit se non comesturum donec videret Dominum
a mortuis surrexisse. In ipsa autem die resurrectionis, cum usque
in diem illam Iacobus non gustasset cibum, eidem Dominus ap-
paruit ac eis qui cum eo erant dixit ‘ Ponite mensam et panem,’
deinde panem accipiens benedixit et dedit Iacobo Iusto, dicens
‘Surge, frater mi, comede ; quia Filius Hominis a mortuis surrexit.’
—Graesse’s text, 297).
Mr. Baring Gould tells us that this story passed into the work
of De Voragine from that of Gregory of Tours. But he gives
neither original nor translation of Gregory or De Voragine, and to
the latter not even a reference; it is very doubtful, therefor, |
whether he had read either account ; certainly he had not read both,
or he would have seen that De Voragine cannot possibly have
copied Gregory (i.) because his account is fuller and nearer to
_ Jerome; (ii.) because he says that the story is found in the De Viris
Illustribus of Jerome, whom Gregory does not mention.
The allusion to ‘Josephus’ as one of the authorities for the
story is capable of double explanation. The historian Josephus
actually does mention the death of James the Just, and this may
be simply a ‘shot’ on the part of De Voragine. But the person
intended may be the 2nd cent. Christian writer Hegesippus. The
name Hegesippus was in his case as in many others merely a
Graecized form of his original name Joseph, and the two names
were possibly interchanged to some extent, as in the time of De
Voragine himself there was current under the name of Lgesippus
a free version of part of Josephus’s Jewish War with additions from
his Antiquities and other sources. Now we know that Hegesippus
- wrote largely about James the Just, and his Memoirs were still in
existence at least as late as the 6th cent. It is the more probable
that-his account of James did include this story because we have
already seen that he used the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
The concurrence of De Voragine with Gregory in the insertion of
the word ‘Rise’ seems to point to the existence of some other
authority besides Jerome.
* The ‘linen cloth’ (Matt. xxvii. 59) in which the body was
wrapped by Joseph of Arimathaea.
+ ‘ The servant of the high priest ’—not a@ servant as the A. V.
twice has it—is mentioned in Matt. xxvi. 51, Mark xiv. 47, Luke
F
66 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
he went to * James and appeared unto
him. } ;
2. For James had fsworn that he
would not eat bread from that hour wherein
the had drunk the cup of the Lord until
he saw him rising again from the dead.
3... . ‘Bring a table and bread.’
4, ... [And ?] he took up the bread
xxii. 50, John xviii. 10. He had helped in the seizure of Jesus,
and had had his right ear cut off with a sword by Simon Peter,
but touched and healed by Jesus: his name was Malchus, i.e,
Maluch. One must guess in the absence of context that he had
been entrusted with the setting of the watch (mentioned by
Matt. only) over the tomb, had been witness to some of the
phaenomena of the resurrection, and had thrown himself at the feet
of Jesus.
* This mention of James the Lord’s brother without anything
to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee shows that this
passage must have been written after the martyrdom of the latter,
“ALD. 44,
+ Of. the oath of more than 40 men ‘neither to eat nor drink
till they had killed Paul’ (Acts xxiii. 12).
+ According to this reading James was either one and the same
with James the son of Alphaeus or else the Last Supper was not
confined to the Twelve.
The first supposition accords with the ‘ Hieronymian’ theory as
to the degree of relation between James and Jesus; but that theory,
apart from its extreme improbability, is not known to have been
held by any one whomsoever before 882-3 A.D., when Jerome
advanced it.
Of the second supposition we can only say that it is not ab-
solutely contradicted by the statement in Matt. xxvi. 20 that
Jesus sat down ‘with the Twelve,’ and in Luke xx. 14 ‘the
Apostles’ is now recognised as the true reading and not ‘the twelve
Apostles.’
The oath of James reads as if suggested by the declaration of
Jesus that he would drink no more of the fruit of the vine till he
drank it with them in the kingdom of God. James might not take.
the same oath because Jesus bade the rest drink the cup: but he
might take an oath against eating bread because the bread of the
Last Supper had already been eaten.
Bishop Lightfoot reads ‘wherein the Lord had drunk the cup *
| Matt. xxvite. 67
i.e. Dominus for Domini. He says (Ep. to the Galatians, 266)
‘IT have adopted the reading “‘ Dominus,” as the Greek translation
has Kvpcoc, and it also suits the context better; for the point of
time which we should naturally expect is not the institution of the
eucharist but the Lord’s death. Our Lord had more than once
spoken of His sufferings under the image of draining the cup
(Matt. xx. 22, 23, xxvi. 39, 42, Mark x. 38, 39, xiv. 36, Luke xxii. 42
—comp. Mart. Polyc. 14, év r@ rornpiy rov Xpicrov cov); and he is
represented as using this metaphor here.’ He thinks it probable
‘that a transcriber of Jerome carelessly wrote down the familiar
phrase ‘‘the cup of the Lord.’’’
It is true that ‘the point of time which we should naturally
expect is not the institution of the eucharist but the Lord’s death,’
and it might have been added that the latter is the point of time
actually indicated by Gregory and pseudo-Abdias. They however,
as we have seen, either wrote roughly from memory, or followed
some other authority, and I have above suggested how the oath
may be connected with the supper: at the supper Jesus spoke
plainly of his approaching death, and at least immediately after
it he is represented in Matt. xxvi. 382 as announcing his resur-
rection.
Again we should not expect an historical narrative to speak of
the death of Jesus ‘under the image of draining the cup’: this may
be the language of prophecy or rapt devotion, it is not natural to
history. In the N. T. the metaphor is only used by Jesus himself,
and by him only on sess occasions.
[Of course ‘the cup’ can hardly mean ‘the cup ’ of the eucharist,
if we read Dominus, for Matt. xxvi. 27-9, Mark xiv. 23-5, and Luke
xxii. 18-19 represent Jesus as refraining from it; nor can it be
strained to signify the anodyne mixture offered to him, as to other
condemned persons, on the way to execution, since Matt. xxvii. 34
and Mark xv. 23 distinctly state that he refused this mixture. |
But it is on textual grounds that I have the most confidence in
rejecting Dominus. So far as I can discover, that reading is not
known to exist in any Latin MS., and is only supposed by Bishop
Lightfoot to have existed at some time in some MS. because the
Greek translator has 0 Kuptoc (=Dominus) instead of rot Kupiov
(=Domini). But one need not read much of the Greek transla- ,
tion to see that (i.) it must have been made from a very corrupt
Latin MS.; or (ii.) the translator understood Latin very badly ;
or (iii.) he never looked twice at the sentences he was translating.
Only a few lines before, he actually renders apparuit ei, ‘ appeared
to him’ ie. James, by ijvoiev arm ‘opened to him’ as if the Latin
had been aperwit ei. Such a man’s translation, opposed, as I
¥F 2
68 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
and *blessed and broke and = afterward
gave to James the Just and said to him
‘My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son
of Man is risen from them that sleep.’
$30. (Matt. xxviii.) And, when he came to §'those about
Luke xxiy. 39, 40.
(Nazarene.)
presume, to all known MSS. of the original, has next to no authority”
Let me add that Sedulius Scotus, who flourished about the year
800, in a note on 1 Cor. xv. 7 says that the James there mentioned
was ‘the son of Alphaeus who took. witness that he would not eat
bread FROM THE SUPPER OF THE Lorp until he saw Christ rising
again: AS IS READ IN THE GosPEL AccoRDING To THE Huprews.’ I
have little doubt that Sedulius got this not merely from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews (which however would be quite
enough), but from Jerome himself, since he wrote Haplanations of
Jerome’s Prefaces to the Gospels, a work still extant. The original
of the above passage of Sedulius is Alphaei filio, qui se testa-
tus est a coena Domini non comesurum panem usquequo videret
Christum resurgentem: sicut in Hvangelio secundum Hebraeos
legitur. | ' |
* Blessed not 7 (as our A. V. wrongly supposes in the similar
passages Matt. xxvi. 26 and Luke xxiv. 30), but God. Graces both
before and after meat were enjoined by the oral law: the words of
the former varied with the character of the food, those of the latter
with the number of those present. In the Mishna, Berachoth, vii.
§ 3, may be seen many forms of grace after meat: they all begin
with the words ‘Let us bless’ or ‘Bless ye.’ From the note of
Maimonides to Berachoth, vi. § 8, it would seem that the blessing
before meat began with the words ‘ Blessed be thou O Lord our
God’: the Mishna itself (Berachoth, vi.§ 1) tells us that when
the food was bread the words ‘ who bringest forth bread from the
earth’ were inserted.
+ Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 23) says that
he was ‘named by all men Just from the times of the Lord even to
us’ (6 dvopacbetc br0 ravTwv Aixavoc rd rev TOU Kupiov xpdévwy péxpr
Kal ior). |
t Ignatius, Bp. ad Smyrn. c. 3,’Eyo yap cat pera thy dvaoracv
év capkl avroy olda kal misrevw Ovra. Kal, dre mpdc rove rept Mérpov
HAVEev, Eon abroic ‘AGBere, Wyragphoaré pe, kal ‘Were dre ovK eip
éapdviov aowparoyv. Kai evOuce abrov iflayro kal éxiorevoay, kparn-
1 For note see page 73.
(Matt. xvii.) Luke xxv. 39, 40. 69
Peter, he said to them ‘Take, feel me, and
Oévrec TH capKi avrod Kui To mvevpart. Aca rovro Kal Oavdrov xare-
dpdvncay, etpéOnoay o& brep Oavaroy, Mera dé rijv avaoracw ovvé-
payev avroic Ku ouveTLEY WC CapKLKOc, KaiwEep TrvEVpATKKHE HwpEVOC
7 Ilarpi—‘ For I both know that he was in the flesh after the
resurrection and believe that he is [in it]. And, when he had
come to those about Peter, he said to them ‘ Take, feel me, and
see that I am not a bodiless devil.” And straightway they touched
him and believed, being constrained by his flesh and spirit. Because
of this they despised even death, and were found superior to
death. And after the resurrection he ate and drank with them
as one in the flesh, though spiritually united to the Father.’
Eusebius (Hist. Hecl. ii. 36, § 11) says ‘And the same
[Ignatius] writing to Smyrnaeans has used sayings from a source
unknown to me, proceeding in some such words as these respecting
Christ : “‘ When—believed”’ (‘O & abroc Xpupvaiote ypagwr ovk vid’
érd0ev pnroig ovyKéxpnra rowaiTa Tiva wept Xprorod dvetiwv* “Eyo—
éxiorevoay [quoted with the sole variation éA#\vOev for jAOer]).
Jerome (Catal. Script. Hecl. § 16) says that Ignatius in the
above Epistle ‘also puts forth evidence respecting the person of
Christ from the Gospel which has been lately translated by me,
saying “‘ But I have both seen him in the flesh after the resurrec-
tion and believe that he is [init]. And, when he came to Peter
and to those who were with Peter, he said to them ‘ Behold, feel
and see me that I am not a bodiless devil.’ And straightway they
touched him and believed’’’ (in qua et de Evangelio quod nuper a
me translatum est super persona Christi ponit testimonium, dicens
‘Ego vero et post resurrectionem in carne eum vidi et credo quia
sit. Et, quando venit ad Petrum et ad cos qui cum Petro erant,
dixit eis ‘‘ Ecce, palpate et videte me quia non sum daemonium
incorporale.” Ht statim tetigerunt eum et crediderunt’).
Theodoret (Inconfusus, dial. II1.—opp. ed. Sirmond. Par. 1642,
vol. iv. 86) quotes Ignatius by name down to éziarevoar, ‘ believed,’
without variation.
As all students of Ignatius know, there have been long and
fierce controversies as to the epistles bearing his name. Bishop
Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review for Feb. 1875 looks upon it
as now certain that Ignatius wrote epistles, and that either the three
of the Syriac edition (which does not include that to Smyrnaeans)
or the shorter of the two Greek editions (which does) must be
taken to be his genuine work: he gives good reasons why the
seven epistles of this Greek edition, even if they be spurious, can
hardly have been later than the middle of the 2nd cent., and he adds
70 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
further reasons showing why, against his former opinions, he has
‘grave and increasing doubts whether, after all, they are not the
genuine utterances of Ignatius himself.’ From a note in Zahn’s
1876 edition of Ignatius I find not only that his championship
of these Greek letters had converted continental opposition but
that on Dec. 16, 1875, Bishop Lightfoot sent him a letter contain-
ing the words ‘since I wrote the article on Ignatius I have been
more and more impressed with the unity and priority of the seven
Epistles, as representing the genuine Ignatius.’ I therefor believe
that I am not going too far in assuming that in the judgement of
competent critics the genuineness of the Epistle to Smyrnaeans is
at last settled,
I now come to the words of Ignatius. If the first sentence is
to be rendered as I have rendered it, it is very clumsy Greek : but
I am obliged to give up my earlier rendering, ‘For I know and
believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection,’ on
account of the anti-climax, not to say that we should have looked
for airoy after mioredw instead of where itis. Both Jerome (who
seems not to have seen any Ignatian epistles but to have merely
translated from Eusebius) and the translator whose full Latin
version has come down to us seem to have been as much put out
as I am, for they both render ‘For I have both seen him in the
flesh after the resurrection and believe that he is [in it],’ which,
in the absence of any various reading «idov, is an impossible
solecism, Happily this sentence is no part of Ignatius’s quota-
tion.
The extent of the quotation itself is doubtful. It seems to
begin at the second sentence, by Ignatius’s saying not ‘ For’ but
‘And.’ Does it, however, include the words ‘ constrained by his
flesh and spirit’? With Eusebius and Theodoret, I think not; but
if this view be right it is a pity that Ignatius did not begin a new
sentence. Again the reading and translation of these last words
are very doubtful. The MS. has the very strange xpaGévrec ‘ having
mixed with,’ i.e. come in contact with ‘his flesh and spirit’ (07,
flesh and breath, but that in conjunction with oapé rvevpa must
almost necessarily mean ‘spirit,’ and that cap cai rvedpa ‘flesh and
spirit,’ or body and mind (as we should say) is a favourite phrase
with Ignatius). Voss reads xparnOévrec ‘ constrained by his flesh
and spirit,’ and this was clearly the reading, or conjecture, of the
Latin translator, who renders ‘convicti.’ The reading or con-
jecture which is at the root of the Armenian version was clearly
xpnOévrec and aipari, for Zahn gives its renderings as ‘sacra cena
usi’ and atari: to the Syriac translator from whom the Armenian
version was made the passage meant ‘using his flesh and blood,’
(Matt. xxviit.) Luke xxv. 39, 40. 71
i.e. making an eucharistic supper. Apart, however, from the fact
that we should have looked for ypwpevor rather than ypyOérrec, it is
hard to believe that the latter would have been altered to the much
less common xpafévrec, while the converse is likely enough. With
only unsatisfactory readings to choose from I felt inclined to read
kpéa Oévrec . . . aivdrr, ‘setting meat for’ the requirements of
‘his flesh and blood,’ seeing that the parallel passage Luke xxiv.
39, 40, is followed by a request of Jesus for food, which is there-
upon given him: but, not to say that the words ‘and blood’ would
seem superfluous, Ignatius immediately goes on to tell us in
words taken from Acts x. 41 that Jesus ate and drank after the
resurrection. As the least evil I therefor read xparnOévrec, out of
which (if written xpaQevrec) the reading of the Greek MS. would
easily arise.
Jerome (Comm. in Isai., lib. xviii. Prol.) also writes ‘ For,
when the Apostles thought him a spirit, or, according to_ the
Gospel of the Hebrews which the Nazarenes read ‘a bodiless
devil” (Quum enim Apostoli eum. putarent spiritum, vel, iuxta
Evangelium quod MHebraeorum lectitant Nazaraei, incorporale
daemonium ).’
Origen (De Princ., Prol. c. 8, extant only in a Latin translation )
says ‘But the stipe ntion aowpdrov, that is “bodiless,” is not only
unused and unknown in many other writers, but also in our writings.
If, however, any one should wish to quote to us from that little
book which is called the Teaching of Peter, where the Saviour seems
to say to the disciples “ I am not a bodiless devil,” in the first place
he is to be answered that that book is not reckoned among eccle-
siastical books, and to be shown that it is a writing neither of
Peter’s nor of any other person whomsoever who has been inspired
by the spirit of God’ (Appellatio autem dowpdrov, i.e. incorporel,
non solum apud multos alios verum etiam apud nostras scripturas
est inusitata et incognita. Si vero quis velit nobis proferre ex illo
libro qui Petri Doctrina appellatur, ubi Salvator videtur ad dis-
cipulos dicere ‘non sum daemonium incorporeum,’ primo responden-
dum est ei quoniam ille liber inter libros ecclesiasticos non habetur,
et ostendendum quia neque Petri est ista [so Zahn rightly for
‘ipsa’] scriptura neque alterius cuiusquam qui spiritu Dei fuerit
inspiratus).
Zahn (Ignatius von Antiochien, 601-2) thinks that Jerome in
the passage I first quoted from him wrote hastily, and that the
exact words of Ignatius were not to be found in the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews. He holds it much more likely that Ignatius
quoted the Teaching of Peter, and possible that he used neither one
nor the other, but a third work which had availed itself of the same
72 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
oral tradition. He says he has elsewhere shown that Ignatius twice
agrees with our Matthew against the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, and thinks it hardly conceivable that, considering his
position towards Jewish Christendom, he should, if he referred to
the Nazarene Gospel at all, do so only once. I cannot find that he
has shown the genuine Ignatius in agreement with our Matthew
against the Gospel according to the Hebrews more than once—
namely, where Ignatius says that Jesus was baptized by John ‘ that
all righteousness might be fulfilled by him’ (ira rAnpwhy raca
cxavoovrn bx’ abrov, Smyrn.i.1), Matthew having ‘to fulfil all
righteousness ’ while the Ebionite Gospel (see Fr. 7) had ‘ that all
things should be fulfilled.’ On the other hand it is at least worth
notice that of Ignatius’s 12 references to a Matthaean text there is
not one which is an unmistakeably exact quotation, while the words
used differ several times very markedly from our Matthew ; and that
in his Epistle to the Ephesians, xix. 2, Ignatius describes the ap-
pearance of the Star of the Nativity thus:—‘A star shone in
heaven above all the stars, and its light was unspeakable, and its
novelty afforded amazement. And all the rest of the stars, together
with sun and moon, became a group to the star, and of itself it
made its light exceed them all; and there was confusion as to
whence this novel and irregular phaenomenon occurred to them’
(Aorip év oipavd tXapwev brep wavrag Tove dorépac, Kal TO PHC adrod
avexharAnrov hy, kal Eeviopov mapetxev h Kawwdrne abrov, Ta dé ora
navra dorpa dpa hrdiy Kal cedhvyn xopog éyévero TO dorépt, abroc oe Fv
trepPadrAwv 76 OH abrod brép TavTa* Tapayxh rE hy THOEV FH KaLvdrNE H
avopovoc avroic). This can hardly be our Matthew—even our Matthew
heightened—and, though the Protevangelium of James § 21 tells
of ‘an immense star shining among the stars of the heaven and
dulling the other stars so that they were not to be seen’ (dorépa
rappeyeon AapWarra éy Toi dorpote Tov ovpdvov Kal auPd¥VovTA TovE
&dXove dorépag aore pu) haivecba abroic), yet we cannot trace that
book back to within a century and a quarter of Ignatius (if so
early), nor does it say anything about the amazing behaviour of the
other heavenly bodies. I do not deny that his account of the star
may be mere tradition, and that all of his other Matthaean references
may be references to our Matthew, but I say that there is some-
thing substantial to be said for the idea that, if he did use our
Matthew in referring to the baptism of Jesus, he also did use a
form of the Matthaean Gospel which was not exactly our Matthew.
I may add that it would not be one whit more surprising that
Ignatius should quote the Nazarene Gospel once only than that
knowing Acts, as he shows that he did, he should never once refer
to the Gospel according to Luke. |
(Matt. xxvnt.) Luke xxtv. 39, 40. 73
Lastly, if, as I believe and as Zahn algo seems to believe, Hil-
genfeld is right in identifying (see my Part III. ii. a) the Teaching
of Peter with the Preaching of Peter and that with the Preaching of
Peter and Paul and that again with the Preaching of Paul, we have
already (see F'r. 6) seen that it contained evangelic matter in com-
mon with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the presump-
tion is that if either borrowed from the other it was the Teaching
which borrowed from the Gospel and not vice versa (see Part III.
ii. a).
In no case would I have agreed to set aside the very precise
statement of Jerome that a passage substantially the same as that
of Ignatius was in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the pre-
sumption (derived from Irenaeus, from Eusebius’s statement about
Papias, and from the agreement of our Gospel with certain pecu-
liarities of Justin) in favour of the chronological priority of the
latter over the Teaching of Peter.
It may be added that Jerome has three variations from the text
of Ignatius—‘ to Peter and to those who were with Peter’ for ‘ to
those about Peter’; ‘Behold,’ for ‘ Take’; and ‘feel and see me.’
Of these the first and third look like mere differences of feeling in
translating, and the second may be a mere slip, suggested by ‘dere,
‘see’ or ‘behold,’ a few words later on, It is just possible that
Jerome was consciously or unconsciously correcting Ignatius’s quo-
tation by the Gospel according to the Hebrews; but the use of
‘Peter’ and not ‘Simon’ (see Fr. 19 and Fr. 20) or ‘ Kephas’
makes this less likely.
From the second of the two passages in Jerome there can be no
reasonable doubt that this is the same appearance of Jesus described
in Luke xxiv. 36 seqq., and the parallel in v. 39 of that chapter is
a close one—‘ handle me and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones according as ye behold me having’ (Wndadijoaré pe Kal tere,
dre wvevpa odpKag Kal doTEa ovK ExEL KAaDwE Ene Dewpeire EXoVTA).
§ The phrase which I thus literally render may also mean
‘ Peter and those about him.’ In Mark iv. 10, Luke xxii. 49, of wepi
avréy, ‘those about him,’ are distinguished from Jesus himself. In
Acts xiii. 13 ot rept roy Tlatdov includes Paul, and the same might
be said of xxi. 8 but that the words are there rightly left out by
_editorsas spurious. In John xi. 19 Tischendorf reads (with A and
the greater number, but much the less weight, of authorities) ric
mept MapOay cat Mapra—‘t And many of the Jews came to those
[ feminine, the women] about Martha and Mary’—and Alford is
almost inclined to do the same: the reading certainly seems far less
likely than the other to be due to the carelessness or stupidity of
a copyist. If the reading be right, then Martha and Mary are
74 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
see that I am not a bodiless * devil.’ And
straightway they touched him and be-
lieved.
(Of very doubtful connexion.)
$81. Just now my t{' mother the Holy Spirit
(Nazarene.)
certainly included (see v. 381). And there is no doubt that in the
passage before us Peter himself is included.
‘Those about Peter’ is not necessarily a synonym for ‘the
Apostles,’ though they are comprised init. According to Luke the
Rpperrence was to ‘ the Eleven and those with them’ (rove "Evdeca
Kal Tove ovv avroic, Vv. 33).
It is worth noticing that in Mark xvi. Codex L gives an alter-
native ending to the Gospel, which it says ‘is current in some
quarters’ (éperai ov), beginning thus, ‘And all that had been
bidden them they told in short to those about Peter’ (Ildvra dé ra
rapnyyéApéva toic wept roy Iérpoy ovytopwe ééjyyedar), referring to
the message sent in v. 7 to ‘his disciples and Peter’ (rote padnraic
avrov kai rg Hérpw). So too k of the Old Latin (Codex Bobbiensis,
Ath or 5th cent.), the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, and the
Aethiopic.
* All other translations of this passage that I have seen render
daudvoy ‘spirit,’ which is doubtless more elegant, but entirely
opposed to the usage of the N. T. and Christian writers, There is
nothing at all surprising in the expression ‘ bodiless devil,’ for the
Jews believed that the devils which possessed the living were some-
times the spirits of dead persons. “In the Curetonian Syriac ‘ devils’
is several times given as the translation of rvetpara, ‘ spirits.’
t+ Origen (Comm. in Iohann. ili. § 63), "Ea 6& mpooieraé rie 7d
ca’ ‘EPpaiove Evayyéduov, tvba abroce 6 Swrip ¢novy *”Apre EaBé pe h
Birnp pov ro "Aywoy Ivevpa év pia rev tpry@y pov Kal avhveyKé pe eic
70 Opac 70 péya TaBwp’—‘ But if any one admits the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews, where the Saviour himself says &c.’
He quotes it elsewhere (Homil. in Ier. xv.) without the words
‘by one of my hairs,’ but these are given by Jerome, who also
quotes the passage thus far (Comm. in Mic. vii. 6—in quo ex per-
sona Salvatoris dicitur ‘ Modo tulit me mater mea Spiritus Sanctus
in uno capillorum meorum’), likewise eugpmees that it was put
in the mouth of Jesus.
Hilgenfeld says (Nov. Test. extra Can. Recep. iv. 23) that this
* For note see page 76.
Uncertain. | 75
passage was commonly referred to the Temptation, but that Baur
(Manichiiisches Religionssystem, 485) had rightly assigned it to the
Transfiguration. On turning to Baur I find that he gets this con-
nexion by fitting together a bit of the Clementine Homilies, a bit of
Manichaeism, and a bit of Valentinianism, starting from the assump-
tion that the feminine nature attributed to the Holy Spirit postu-
lates an identity with the Gnostic Sophia. The answer to Baur is
not merely that the Fragments contain no trace of sympathy with
the Gnosticism of the Clementine Homilies, no Manichaeism, no
Valentinianism, but that the words ‘my mother, the Holy Spirit’
admit of an ideally simple explanation which is at the same time
consistent with the severest orthodoxy—an explanation which I
mention in my next note and fully justify in Part. III.i. I may add
that Mt. Tabor is in no way indicated by the canonical Gospels as
the scene of the Transfiguration ; in fact their narrative is quite
inconsistent with such a supposition, and the mountain undoubtedly
owes this traditional honour to its striking physical prominence.
Nor do we find it as the Mt. of the Transfiguration even in tradi-
tion before the middle of the 4th cent.
My own impulse first was and still is to connect this fragment
with the Temptation, which would appear to have taken place
somewhere between the Jordan and Nazareth, for Jesus was return-
ing (Luke iv. 1), he had come from Nazareth (Mark i. 9), and
Nazareth is the first town named (Matt. iv. 18, Luke iv. 16) as
visited by him after his return. And this suits the position of
Tabor, which does lie between the Jordan and Nazareth. In the
next place it is curious that the arrival of Jesus at the scene of the
Temptation is ascribed in Matthew and Luke to the personal action
of the Holy Spirit, whom the former represents as ‘leading’ him ‘up’
-and the latter as ‘leading’ or ‘driving’ him. One is very strongly
induced to think that where our Matthew says Jesus was ‘led up’
another early account may have had it that he was ‘borne up’:
indeed this may have been the meaning of an Aramaic original,
ambiguous possibly and therefor misconceived, or softened into
‘led up’ because by the Spirit was understood the Spirit received
into him at the Baptism, and acting from within him.
If connected with the Temptation, this passage might possibly
have formed part of an account of the speech of Jesus in the syna-
gogue of Nazareth (Luke iv. 16 seqq.) on his return. Or it may
have belonged to his answer to Satan in Matt. iv. 7. Adopting the
text of Matthew (A. V.) the request of Satan and answer of Jesus
would run thus :—‘ And saith unto him “If thou be the Son of God,
cast thyself down: for it is written, ‘He shall give his angels charge
concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at
76 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
*took me by one of my hairs and bore me
up on to the great mountain f Tabor.
any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.’” Jesus saith unto
him “It is written again, ‘Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy
God.’ Just now my mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of my
hairs and bere me up onto the great mountain Tabor.”’ Or the
order of the last two sentences might be reversed.
This hypothesis probably seems to the reader utterly fantastic
and improbable. But let us look at it more closely. Jesus is
asked to throw himself down in reliance on the promise of God,
to prove that he is Son of God, He replies that we are forbidden
to try God in this manner, and adds that he has already ex-
perienced the truth of God’s promise, since he had just been borne
up by a single hair on to Mt. Tabor.
The circumstantial evidence however is not strong enough to
warrant our assigning to this fragment any definite place in relation
either to the text of Matthew or the life of Jesus: I merely suggest
in all fearfulness this connexion for it, ;
t In Hebrew rwach ‘spirit’ is sometimes masculine, though
more commonly feminine ; but in Aramaic the corresponding word
rucha is feminine. Matt. i. 18 and Luke i. 35 assign to the Holy
Spirit the chief, and seemingly the sole, agency in the conception
of Jesus by Mary. See my remarks on the theology of this frag-
ment in Part ITI. i.
* Hilgenfeld notes the following analogous passages: (i.) Ezek.
vii. 8 (A. V.) ‘And he put forth the form of an hand, and took
me by a lock of mine head ; and the spirit lifted me up between the
earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to
Jerusalem’; (ii.) Bel and the Dragon, 36 (A. V.) ‘Then the angel
of the Lord took him by the crown, and bare him by the hair of his
head, and through the vehemency of his spirit set him in Babylon
over the den’; (iii.) Acts viii. 39,40 (A. V.) ‘ The Spirit of the
Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and
he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus.’
Hilgenfeld rightly observes that the antiquity of this fragment is
exalted, rather than (as some thought) detracted from, by the men-
tion of such an incident. Let me add to the passages compared by
him 1] Kings xviii. 12 (A. V.) ‘ And it shall come to pass, as soon
as I am gone from thee, that the Spirit of the Lord shall carry thee
whither I know not,’ and 2 Kings ii. 16 (A. V.) ‘lest peradventure
the Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up and cast him upon some
mountain, or into some valley.’
+ About seven miles EH, of Nazareth. A mound-shaped height
Uncertain. | 77
§ 32. He that hath marveled shall reign, and
he that hath reigned shall || rest.
q 33. Luke xiii. 3? Unless ye cease from sacrificing [spu-
(Ebionite.)
rious| the** wrath shall not cease from you.
of some 1,000 ft., rising by itself from the plain, and affording a
wide and far view. The name seems to mean ‘height.’
§ Clement of Alexandria, after citing Platoand the Traditions of
Matthias as testimonies to the value of wonder in stimulating en-
quiry, says ‘just as in the Gospel according to the Hebrews it is
written d&ec.’ (Strom. ii. 9—for the Greek see p. 3, note).
Hilgenfeld connects this fragment with Matt. xi. 8, ‘Come unto
me &c.’ The connexion is just possible, but I do not think likely.
|| ‘Rest’ in this spiritual sense is a term peculiar to Matthew,
who uses the noun in xi. 29 and the corresponding verb active in the
verse before. 2
@ Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 16), Backovor dé kai eXOdvra, cai bon-
ynodpevoy (we TO wap’ abroic Eiayyédtov repréxer) Ore hAOEV, Karadioar
rac Ouoiac, Kal av pry wabvonobe tov Overy ob rabcerar ad’ bud Fj
- dpyn—‘ And they say that he both came, and (as their so-called ©
Gospel has it) instructed them that he had come, to dissolve the
sacrifices, and ‘*‘ Unless &c.”’
It is surely impossible that Jesus ever uttered this threat, and
we have already (see notes on Fr. 5 and Fr. 25) found grave cause
to suspect the Hbionites of adapting their Gospel to suit their own
views. But only the word sacrificing needs be spurious.
Hilgenfeld would insert these words in that passage of the
Ebionite Gospel which answers to the place occupied by Matt. v. 23,
24, in the canonical Gospel! ‘To me it seems very possible that
they were part of a paragraph answering to Luke xiii. 1-8, where
Jesus takes for his text the death of ‘the Galileans whose blood
Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.’ Our fragment would then
answer to Luke xiii. 3 ‘ Nay, I say unto you, but except ye repent,
ye shall all in like manner be destroyed.’
** Matthew (ili. 7) and Luke (iii. 7) have each ‘the wrath’
once for ‘the wrath of God,’ and Luke also has ‘there shall be
wrath’ (xxi. 23). John has only ‘ the wrath of God’ (once, iii. 36),
which the others do not use.
78 The Gospel according to the Hlebrews.
III.
THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE, AND GENERAL
CONCLUSIONS.
Lut us now estimate the internal evidence afforded by the
Fragments as to (i.) the character of this Gospel; (ii.) its
relation to other works outside or inside of the canon.
(i.) The Gospel according to the Hebrews shows no ap-
proach to the character of the Apocryphal Gospels. Among
their foremost features are Mariolatry, miracle-mongering,
imaginative elaboration of incidents briefly sketched in the
Canonical Gospels, and a free invention of other incidents
out of canonical materials. Of the first two there is no
trace in the Fragments, and of the third and fourth only a
very slight suspicion. The mason’s speech, the speech of
Jesus to the rich man, and the appearance of Jesus to James,
might at first seem to be mere elaborations of canonical
incidents. The mason’s speech, however, is very brief, and
the plain form of address ‘Jesus’ hardly the most likely for
a forger to adopt. The story of the rich man seems to be
altogether independent of the canonical versions. The ap-
pearance of Jesus to James is told in language not less brief
than beautiful, and the Pauline Epistles are not the source
from which a Nazarene would be most likely to draw. There
is better cause to regard the Preface as a mere compilation
(and a very bald one) from canonical data: but we have to
remember that it comes to us from an Ebionite copy and not
a, Nazarene one, and that, while we have good reason to
charge the Ebionites with altering and interpolating, no
similar evidence exists against the Nazarenes. :
And here we come to the question whether the Gospel
according to the Hebrews was heretical, or betrays a design
to favour any peculiar views.
This must be fully admitted of Epiphanius’s Ebionite
copy. The first two chapters of Matthew were struck out
A pocryphal or Fleretical ? 79
from it because they were not to be reconciled with Ebionite
theories of the nature of Jesus. Nor can we doubt that
the denunciation of sacrifices put into the mouth of Jesus
(Fr. 33) is a pure forgery in support of their anti-sacrificial
views. His professed disinclination (opposed to Luke xxii. 15)
to eat ‘this FLESH the passover’ with his disciples looks
like a wilful perversion to suit their own strict vegetarianism,
and the non-mention of locusts as part of the Baptist’s food
becomes in this light very suspicious.
Nothing of this can be charged against Jerome’s Naza-
rene copy, or, indeed, against the copies quoted by other
Fathers. I have argued that Jerome’s copy contained Matt.
ii. 5,15, 23. There are, however, a few of the Nazarene
fragments which call for some remark.
In Fr. 6 Jesus, while asserting his sinlessness, is repre- —
sented as qualifying this assertion with the words ‘ except
perchance this very thing that I have said is ignorance.’
The question whether Jesus, as man, was able, consciously or
unconsciously, to sin is, I believe, one which has rarely been
discussed, and never been pronounced on by the Church.
That his knowledge, as man, increased with his years is
said in Luke ii. 52, and in Mark xiii. 32 a certain limitation
is assigned to it, such limitation, I may add, being recognised
by so orthodox a doctrinal teacher as Canon Liddon (Bampton
Lectures, 459, seqq.), who quotes on the same side Irenaeus,
Cyril, Athanasius, and Gregory Nazianzen.
In Fr. 31 Jesus calls the Holy Spirit his mother, and
Hilgenfeld remarks that Fr. 8, in which the Holy Spirit
addresses him as ‘my Son,’ is analogous. This is sufficient
to prove to M. de Pressensé that ‘we have here that eternal
female element which formed part of the primordial duality
of the Elkasaites, and which* they likened to the Holy
Spirit’ (Heresy and Christian Doctrine, 1873 ed. 155).
_ Mr. Baring Gould has similar observations, and says that
‘the words “my mother” are, it can scarcely be doubted, a
Gnostic interpolation’ (Lost and Hostile Gospels, 130, 131).
* Making the Holy Spirit, however, not the mother of Jesus,
but his sister: see Epiphanius, Haer. liii. cat ctvae ro “Aywoy Ivedpa
atedpiv abrov ‘and that the Holy Spirit was his sister.’
80 - The Gospel according to the flebrews.
Verily he must have a keen eye for heresy who can
discover it here. Does not Matt. i. 18 say that Mary ‘ was
found with child of the Holy Spirit,’ and Matt. i. 20 that
‘that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit’?
Does not Luke i. 85 say ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefor also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God’? Is not the word ‘ Spirit’
feminine in *Aramaic? And is it then a sign of heresy
that Jesus who spoke of the First Person of the Trinity as
his Father should be represented as speaking of the Holy
Spirit as his Mother? ‘We must not think,’ says t Jerome
(writing without any reference to the Gospel according to
the Hebrews), ‘ that there is sex in the Powers of God, since
even the Holy Spirit himself is spoken of according to the
peculiarities of the Hebrew language in the feminine gender
as Ruha; in Greek in the neuter, as ro IIvedua; in Latin in
the masculine, as Spiritus; whence we must understand,
when there is discussion about those above, and anything is
put in the masculine or feminine, that it is not so much sex
that is signified as it is the idiom of the language that is
being uttered. Since God himself, invisible and incor-
ruptible, is spoken of in almost every language in the mas-
culine gender, although sex does not apply to him.’ But
since Origen,{ who himself encountered and denounced
* Rucha. In Hebrew Ruach, which is sometimes masculine,
but generally feminine.
+ Ep. ad Damasum, De Seraphin et Caleulo (Martianay’s ed.
iii. 528), ‘Nec putandum sexum esse in Virtutibus Dei, quum
etiam ipse Spiritus Sanctus secundum proprietates linguae Hebraeae
feminino genere proferatur Ruha; Graece neutro ro Ivetpa; Latine
masculino Spiritus. Ex quo intelligendum est, quando de superiori-
bus disputatur et masculinum aliquid seu femininum ponitur, non
tam sexum significari quam idioma sonare linguae. Siquidem ipse
Deus invisibilis et incorruptibilis omnibus pene linguis profertur
genere masculino, qaum in eum non cadat sexus.’ By ‘ Hebrew’
Jerome means Aramaic, as in other places (see p. 1, note). Cf. to
the same effect Comm. in Isat. xl. 11 (lib. xi.), where this fragment
is me quoted.
t See the extract quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eecl. vi. 88) from
Origen’ s lost cctin on Ps. 82.
Heretical? SI
Elkesaism, adduces this fragment of the Gospel according to
the Hebrews twice, taking the trouble to §justify it at some
length, and Jerome also adduces it twice, I need not linger
further in its defense.
Fr. 19 is decidedly remarkable. It lays down two pro-
positions respecting the prophets, (1) that they were anointed
by the Holy Spirit, (2) that nevertheless ‘ utterance of sin’ is
found in them. |
To those who find in (2) a proof of heresy let me put
three questions. Is the expression of sinful feelings ‘ utter-
ance of sin’? If so, are feelings sinful which are dia-
metrically opposed to the moral teaching of Jesus? If so,
has any ingenuity of commentators || explained the ‘cursing
psalms ’ of the prophet David (see particularly Ps. cix. 6-20)
into harmony with the precepts of Matt. v. 44, and Luke
vi. 27-8?
The other proposition, (1) that the prophets were
anointed by the Holy Ghost, is important as showing that
the Nazarene Gospel was not tinged with that strong
aversion to the prophets (later than Joshua) which the
Ebionites (Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. § 18) are said to have
had. Nor is this the only passage in which the prophets
are honourably noticed in the Nazarene Gospel. In Fr. 8
the Holy Spirit is represented as expressing in ‘all the
prophets’ a yearning for the coming of Jesus, and in Fr. 20
the prophets are joined with the Law as standards of duty.
These are all the passages in the Nazarene Gospel against
which any but the most finikin criticism can be directed,
It would be easy to suggest that even these were inter-
polations, as M. Nicolas (tudes sur les Hvangiles Apocryphes)
and Mr. Baring Gould have already done. But I cannot
consent to see an interpolation in everything which on first
§ Hom. m Ioh. iii. § 63, on the ground that even men who do
the will of God are called by Jesus his mother and brethren.
|| ‘The Speaker’s Commentary,’ I observe, practically abandons
any such attempt. ‘Isa Christian spirit,’ it asks, ‘to be expected
always in the psalms? Would the words of Christ (Matt. v. 43,
44, &c.) have been uttered if the spirit which animated the Jewish
people, and was exhibited, not unfrequently, in their annals, had
been always that which He came to inculcate?’ (vol. 4, 424).
G
82 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
hearing seems to jar a little with the expressions or tone of
thought of the Canonical Gospels.
The Fathers of the Church, while the Gospel according
to the Hebrews was yet extant in its entirety, referred to it
always with respect, often with reverence: some of them
unhesitatingly accepted it as being what tradition affirmed
it to be—the work of Matthew—and even those who have
not put on record their expression of this opinion have not
questioned it. Is such an attitude consistent with the sup-
position that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was a
work of heretical tendencies? This applies with tenfold
force to Jerome. After copying it, would he, if he had seen
heresy in it, have translated it for public dissemination into
both Greek and Latin, and have continued to favour the
tradition of its Matthaean authorship ?
And Jerome, be it observed, not only quotes all three of
these passages without disapprobation; he actually quotes
two of them (Fr. 6 and Fr. 8) with approval. But, although
Jerome has never been suspected of lenience to heresy, some
of us must needs out-Jerome Jerome and demand uniformity
where he tolerated variety. The truth is that in all these
centuries the familiar moulds have sunk so deep into our
own minds that we are maybe a little too ready to reject
as spurious any fragment of early extra-canonical literature
which does not bear the same exact impress.
We shall better be able to correct this tendency if we
imagine for the moment that only three canonical Gospels
had come down to us, that the fourth had only been pre-
served among the Nazarenes, and that only a few fragments
of it were left.
Let us suppose that Matthew had been this lost Gospel,
and that among the fragments left out of it were 1i. 23 ‘ that
it might be fulfilled which was spoken by [through] the
prophets He shall [that he should] be called a Nazarene’;
v. 17 ‘Think not that Iam come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil’; x. 5, 6,
‘Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of
the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel’; xv. 24 ‘lam not sent but unto the
lost sheep of the house of Israel’; xvi. 18, 19 ‘I say also
fleretical ? 83
unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’
There is no need to look further through Matthew for
passages on which, if they came to us as fragments from a
Nazarene Gospel, we should not hesitate to fasten charges of
heretical tendency. In ii. 23 we should at least see the
use of an apocryphal book, even if we did not also perceive
an intention to magnify the name of Nazarene. Inv. 17,
x. 5,6, and xv. 24 we should find the extremest Judaizing
views. And in xvi. 18,19 we should see an impudent
forgery of the ultra-Petrine school of Ebionites, directed,
like other of their forgeries, against Paul and Pauline
Christians.
Or let us suppose Mark to have been the Nazarene
Gospel. From the fact that it began with the Baptism, we
should forthwith conclude that it was designed to support
the heresy that Jesus was mere man until the divine Christ
descended into him in the shape of a dove. And for xiii. 32,
‘Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father,’ we should have found no sufficient justification.
Similarly, if no account of the conception of Jesus had
come to us except as a fragment of a Nazarene Gospel,
and had such fragment said, as Matthew and Luke say, that
he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and, as Luke, that this
was the reason why he was called the Son of God, should we
not denounce this as the wildest heresy? Should wé not
ask where Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as his father or
mother, whether he did not rather imply that the Holy Spirit
proceeded from himself, whether he was not called the Son
of God because he was the Son of God the Father—whether
in fine we were not confronted either by rank Elkesaism or
by a heresy which confounded the Holy Spirit with God the
Father ?
I might isolate many more passages from the Canonical
Gospels to show in what sort of spirit we should be tempted
G 2
84 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
to regard any one of those Gospels if it came to us only in
fragments from an out of the way body of Christians not
entering into relations with the Church at large and
associated in our minds by local, national, and to a great
extent ceremonial affinity with the anti-Catholic sect of the
Ebionites proper.
So little has been written about the Nazarenes, and so
few people, I imagine, have had occasion to study their
history or doctrines, that I shall here quote what is said of
them by two ecclesiastical historians of such eminence and un-
questioned orthodoxy as Neander and the late Dean Mansel.
‘After the destruction of Jerusalem,’ writes Mansel
(Gnostic Heresies, 125), ‘this Jewish-Christian Church con-
tinued to exist in Pella and the neighbouring region beyond
the Jordan, to which it had withdrawn during the siege,* and
where it appears to have remained until the reign of Hadrian
when, after the revolt and destruction of Bar-Cochab and his
followers, the Roman city of Alia Capitolina was founded on
the ruins of the ancient Jerusalem.t In that city no Jew
was permitted to dwell, and the prohibition would naturally
extend to those Christians of Jewish origin who had not re-
nounced the customs of their forefathers.t This circumstance
led to a division in the Church, the Gentile members of it,
together with the less rigid Jewish Christians, establishing
* ¢Euseb, H. ZH. iii. 5.’
+ ‘Euseb. H. H.iv. 6. In chapter 5 Eusebius gives a list of
fifteen bishops of Jerusalem of Jewish race, down to the time of
the revolt in Hadrian’s reign; but these, though nominally bishops
of Jerusalem, could hardly have resided in that city, which remained
uninhabited except by a Roman garrison in its towers (Josephus,
B. J. vii. 1), till Barcochab seized it and attempted to rebuild the
temple. Neander (Ch. Hist. i. p. 475) says that the Church 1s said
to have returned to Jerusalem, but gives no authority for the state-
ment, and seems to doubt its truth (see p. 476). It is possible,
however, as Milman supposes (Hist. of Jews, ii. p. 431), that some
sort of rude town may have grown up on the wreck of the city ;
and, if so, it is possible that the Judaizing Christians may have
gone back to Pella after the edict of Hadrian. Cf. Neander, J. ec.
p. 476; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 304.’
+ ‘Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 16. Cf. Neander, Oh. Hist. i. p. 479 ;
Ritschl, Entstehung der Altk. Kirche, p. 257. |
The Nazarenes. 85
themselves at Jerusalem under a succession of bishops of
Gentile birth, § while the strict Judaizers remained at Pella,
where after the departure of their brethren they would
naturally enforce their own rites with greater strictness than
ever. Under these circumstances the Jewish Christian
settlement at Pella, retaining its old appellations of Nazarene
and Ebionite, which from terms of reproach had probably
become among themselves titles of honour, seems to have
gradually relapsed still more into Judaism, retaining a cer-
tain kind of acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, but
ceasing at last to acknowledge His Deity and pre-existence.
These heretical views would naturally be developed into more
consistency by some than by others, and thus gave rise to
the two divisions of the Ebionites, of whom the less heterodox,
or Nazarenes, were probably the earlier in point of time.’ ||
Speaking of the Gospel according to the Hebrews he
presently says (126) ‘In the fourth century, if not earlier,
there were two different recensions of it, one of which
omitted, while the other retained, the first two chapters of
St. Matthew. The former was used by the Ebionites proper, —
who denied the supernatural birth of our Lord. The latter
was accepted by the more orthodox Nazarenes.’ {|
Let us now turn to Neander, the chief of ecclesiastical
historians, who, curiously enough, was a Jew by birth and up
to his eighteenth year by religion also. After dismissing
the Ebionites, he says (History of the Christian Religion and
Church, Eng. trans. ii. 18) ‘In Jerome, on the contrary,
under the name of Nazarene (the original name given to all
Christians by the Jews, see Acts xxiv.5), we find the des-
cendants of those Jewish Christians of a ** genuine evangelic
_ disposition, who would not allow the existence of any contra-
diction between the apostles, the same people of whom we
found the last trace in Justin Martyr (see above). They
pointedly combated the regulations and the ceremonial
§ ‘Huseb. H. FH. iv. 6.’
|| ‘Cf Dorner, Person of Christ, i. p. 191 (Eng. Tr.) ; Neander,
Oh. Hist. i. p. 476.’
{| ‘Epiphan. Haer. xxix. 9, xxx. 14. Cf. Bleek, Hinl. p. 105;
Mosheim, De Rebus Chr. ante Const. 328.’
** Theitalics are Neander’s or his translator Mr. Rose’s—not mine.
86 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
worship of the Pharisees; and, while they themselves
observed the ceremonial law, they did not force it on the
heathen. They acknowledged the apostle Paul as a teacher
of Divine wisdom, whom God had peculiarly chosen for his
instrument, for the purpose of bringing the tidings of
salvation to the heathen nations. They lamented the. un-
belief of their own people, and longed for the time when
they also should be converted to the Lord whom they had
crucified, and renounce all their idols. Then nothing would
be done by the power of man, but every thing which Satan set
up in opposition to the kingdom of God would fall down by
the power of God, and all’ who had hitherto pleased them-
selves, in the fancy of their own wisdom, would be converted
to the Lord. They thought that they found this promise in
the prophecies of Isaiah (xxxi. 7,8*). The conclusion which
we are entitled to draw clearly from all this is, that from the
very times of the apostles various sorts of Jewish Christians
spread themselves abroad, which people have been led into
confusing with each other by the common names which were
given to them.’
These are the people, heirs of the church of Peter and
of James, from whom we have the most relics of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, and whose history and character,
I venture to think, furnish warrant in its favour rather than
against it. :
(ii.) We have now to inquire into the relations, if any,
between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other
works (a) uncanonical, or (b) canonical.
(a) The uncanonical book with which it has most (two
fragments) in common is that which was called tf sometimes
* ‘Hieronymi commentar. in Iesaiam, ed. Martianay, t. iii. p. 79,
83, 250, 261.’
t+ The identity of the works cited under the first two names is
inferred from the fact that Lactantius (iv. 21) says ‘The Master
revealed to them all those things which Peter and Paul preached at
Rome, and that preaching, written for remembrance, has survived ’
(Magister aperuit illis omnia quae Petrus et Paulus Romae praedi-
caverunt, et ea praedicatio in memoriam scripta permansit) ; and
that the author of the treatise De Rebaptismate, the only person
| a
Related to any Uncanonical Books ? $7
the Preaching of Peter, sometimes the Preaching of Paul,
sometimes the Teaching of Peter, and which professed to
give an account of the joint preaching of those two apostles
at Rome. It is first quoted by Heracleon, in a fragment of
his preserved by Origen. The date of Heracleon has not
been exactly determined, but it is fair to put him at 170 a.p.
—he may in fact have been a little older or younger, but
was at any rate contemporary with Hegesippus, the first
writer whom we certainly know to have quoted the Gospel
according to the Hebrews.
The substance of Fr. 6 and Fr. 30 was, as we have seen,
contained in this work, but if either borrowed from the other
the author of the Preaching of Peter must have borrowed
from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. His book was
what its name implies—a didactic work, not an evangelic
record, and the overwhelming presumption is that any
evangelic incidents which it shares with early Gospels were
borrowed from and not by them.
t The Gospel according to Peter is said by Theodoret
(Haer. Fab. ii. 2§) to have been used by the Nazarenes.
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vi. 12) preserves an account of it from
who cites a Preaching of Paul, says that it represents Peter and
Paul as meeting for the first time in Rome.
That the Teaching of Peter was the same as the Preaching of
Peter is inferred from the fact that neither Origen (who usés both
names) nor any one else has stated that there were two distinct
works with these respective titles.
If the three titles represent three works, or if the two Preach-
ings are one work and the Teaching another, any suspicion of bor-
rowing that attached to the Gospel according to the Hebrews would
be further weakened. For in the first place there would no longer
be the accumulative evidence of two Fragments agreeing with the
same book; for it was in the Preaching of Paul that the substance
of Fr. 6, and in the Teaching of Peter that the substance of Fr. 30
was to be found. And, as regards Fr. 6, if the Preaching of Paul
be not the sameas that of Peter, there is no evidence for its existence
before the 4th cent.: while, as regards Fr. 30, there is no evidence
for the existence of a Teaching of Peter, if it be not the same as his
Preaching, before about 225 a.p.
t Hilgenfeld, N. 7. extra Can. Rec. iv. 39-41.
§ Tod cadoupérm cara Iérpoy Evayyediy Kexpnpevor.
88 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
the pen of Serapion, Bp. of Antioch 191-213 a.p. Writing to
the church of Rhossus in Cilicia, Serapion says * ‘ For we,
brethren, receive both Peter and the other Apostles f as we
do Christ, but the writings falsely inscribed with their name
we refuse from experience, knowing that such have not been
delivered to us. For I when I was with you supposed that
all were inclined to a right faith, and, not having gone
through the Gospel produced by them in Peter’s name, I
said “If this is all that seems to give you discouragement,
let it be read.” But now, having learnt that their mind
began to lurk in a certain heresy t from what I had said, I
will hasten to come again to you; so that, brethren, look for
me speedily.” Then follows a very corrupt sentence which
may mean § * And you, brethren, after understanding of what
* “Hyeic yap, adedpoi, cat Ilérpoy cat rove c&ddove "AtoordXove aTo-
Cexoueba wc Xpuordy, ra de dvduare abréy Wevderiypaga we Eprerpor
mapatroupeba, yivwoKorrec Ore Ta TovadTa ov TapehaBoper, "Eyo yap
yevouevoc map’ tiv imevoovy rove mavrac dpOn micre mpoodéepecbar,
kal po) dueO@y 70 bn’ aitGv rpopepduevoy dvdpare Iérpov Evayyéduov
eizov Ore ‘ei rovrd éore povor TO Soxoiyv bpiv mapéyery puxpowvyiar,
avay.wwoxéo0w.’ Noy de paddy dre aipécer rev 6 vote abray éEvepudevev
é« ray AeyOévrwy por orovddtw Tadiy yevécOat mpd bydc, Ware, dded-
poi, mpoocokGré pe Ev Tayxer. “Hyeic Oé, adedAgol, karadaPdpevor droiac
jv aipéoewc 6 Mapxiaréc, kal EavT@ fvavrwiro po) voor a édade palh-
ceabe &F wy bpiv éypadn. ’EdvynOnpev yap wap’ &\Awv tov doxnody-
Twv avo TovTo TO Evayyéor, rovréore rHY duaddxwy THY KarapLapévor
abvrov, ovc Aoxnra¢g caotper—ra yap gpovipara ra mAElova éxeivwr
éort rije dudackadiac—xpnodpevor map’ avr@y oudOeiy cal evpeivy Ta per
mAsiova Tov Opfod hoyou Tov Lwrijpoc, ruva bé poaciecradpéva, a Kal
vreraéauey viv. Hilgenfeld makes no remark on the difficulties of
this text. ‘
t There is no need to change this, but in a passage part of which
is certainly corrupt one naturally suspects a peculiar expression
like ®¢ Xpwordv ‘as we do Christ.’ Is it possible that we should
read either wc Xprorot ‘as Christ’s’ or w¢ xpnoroi—aroteydpeba wc
xpnoroi ‘we receive in right-mindedness’ forming an antithesis to
we EuTepor Tapatrovpeba ‘ we refuse from experience’ P
~ Does he merely mean that the cheerfulness of his permission
led them to set greater store by a heretical Gospel, or can it be that
they fancied the words 70 doxoty in his answer were intended to
convey covert approbation of its Doketic principles ?
§ I conjecture ‘Yueic for “Hpsic, o¢ before cat, and probably fpiv
Ps ‘
oe eee
Related to any Uncanontcal Books ? . 89
heresy Marcianus was, will learn from what has been written
for you [or ? by us] how he contradicted even himself,
not knowing what he was saying.’ Then Serapion says
‘For from others of those who affected this same Gospel,
that is from the successors of those who first employed it,
whom we call Doketists (for the opinions are mainly of
the school of those men), from them we borrowed it and
were able to go through it and to find the larger part of
its contents of the right word of the Saviour, but some
things superadded, which we have also subjoined for your
benefit.’
|| As to who the otherwise unknown Marcianus was, I can.
only conjecture, with the utmost diffidence, that the Gospel
according to Peter professed to have been taken down from
Peter’s dictation—or translated from Peter’s autograph—by
a person of that name, whom Serapion believed to be the
real author of the Gospel. The name is curiously like that
of {| Mark (Marcus) whom early tradition represents as having
been Peier’s interpreter and as having written his Gospel
from notes of what he had heard Peter say.**
for ipiv. All three of the old readings look very like mistakes of
the ear made by a person copying from dictation (maybe from the
dictation of Eusebius himself to his clerk). ‘Ypeic¢ and ‘Hpeic, piv
and ipiv, were hardly to be distinguished by ear and are perpetually
confounded in N. T. MSS. In modern Greek there is also the only
slightest distinction of sound between o and w, the confusion of
which is likewise common in N. T. MSS., and it was easy for a tired
copyist to lose the sound of w¢ in the last syllable -d¢ of the pre-
ceding word, especially if (as also in modern Greek) the aspirate in
‘@¢ was not sounded. I since find that.Rufinus, who translated
Eusebius about 408 a.p., renders as if he read we cal. -
|| See however Addenda.
4 As are Lucanus, Lucianus, Leucius—the names of the assumed
author or authors of apocryphal books—to Luke.
** Tn relation to this subject it is instructive to compare two
passages in Supernatural Religion. In vol. i. 419 (4th ed.) the
author aims at showing the antiquity of the Gospel according to
Peter and the probability of Justin’s having referred to it: he there-
for says ‘We learn from Eusebius that Serapion, who became
Bishop of Antioch about 4.p. 190, composed a book on the “ Gospel
according to Peter” (epi rod Aeyouévov cara Térpov evayyedlov)
90 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
Eusebius himself (Hist. Hecl. iii. 8) mentions the Gospel
according to Peter among several works attributed to Peter
(including the Preaching) which ‘we do not know to have
been ever reckoned by tradition among catholic writings,
since no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has em-
ployed their testimony.’* In this, however, he is wrong, for
Origen refers to it (Hom. in Matt. x. 17) as asserting that
the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife,
a view of which he proceeds to declare himself a supporter.
It is unlucky that we have no further information about
this Gospel and that no specimen has been preserved of what
Serapion considered its Doketic interpolations—especially as
we know, from charges of forging certain various readings
brought against Marcion (see Prof. Westcott in Smith’s
Bible Dictionary, ii. 507), that such suspicions might go too
far. But, whatever its character, and whether or not it was
used by the Nazarenes, there is not the remotest trace of
any connexion between it and the Gospel according to the
Hebrews.
(b) We are now free to examine the relation (if any) of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews to books inside the
Canon of the New Testament. The only satisfactory way
of conducting this examination is to analyse the internal
which he found in circulation in his diocese.’ But in vol. ii, 167 he
writes ‘The fact that Serapion in the third century allowed the
Gospel of Peter to be used in the church of Rhossus shows at the
same time the consideration in which it was held and the incom-
pleteness of the canonical position of the New Testament ee
Note that when he wishes to exalt an uncanonical book it is ‘ Sera-
pion, who became bishop of Antioch about A.p. 190,’ but when his
object is to show ‘the rai ae Seago of the canonical position of
the New Testament writings’ it is ‘Serapion in the third century’ :
of course it is likely that the Gospel according to Peter was brought
- to Serapion at his first visitation of the church of Rhossus, and also
that this visitation took place at any rate during the first nine years
of his bishopric.
* Oud’ ddwe év KaBorArKaltc toper mapacedopéva, Ore pre apyalwy
pre roy Kal’ Hyde Tre ExxAnovaoriKoc ovyypageve Taig && avra@y ovve-
xpyoaro paprupiae.,
Relation to Canonical Books. QI
evidence afforded by each fragment in turn, and to tabulate
and sum up our results, after which, but not before, we shall
be entitled to draw conclusions.
Fr. 1 (Ebionite) has no evangelical parallel. It looks, as
I have already said, like ‘a mere compilation (and a very
bald one) from canonical data.’ The object of it—to attach
to the Gospel the stamp of direct apostolic authority—is in
any case suspicious. It agrees with the three Synoptics
when it mentions the call of twelve apostles, the fact that
Simon had a house at Capharnahum, and, if Levi and
Matthew be one (which I greatly doubt), the call of Matthew
(otherwise with Matthew only). With Matthew and John
alone it calls Iscariot ‘ the Iscariot’ (unless the article be due
to Epiphanius). With Mark alone it says that Jesus entered
a house after ordaining the Twelve, and with him alone
of them as Thaddaeus. With Luke alone it states the age
of Jesus, calls the sea of Galilee a ‘lake’ and Simon the
Cananaean ‘ the Zealot’: but in Aramaic one word represents
sea and lake, and Cananaean means Zealot, so that the Aramaic
original of the fragment (if it had one) would not show
these two peculiarities of Luke’s Gospel. Lastly, with John
alone it attaches to the’sea of Galilee the name of the town
‘ Tiberias.’ It is clear, therefor, that the author of this
fragment has not borrowed specially from any one of our
Gospels: but he is much to be suspected of having borrowed
impartially from at least two.
Fr. 2 (Nazarene) is quoted by Jerome as = Matt. ii. 5,
exactly as it stands in the Curetonian Syriac and other
authorities: Bethlehem is called ‘ Bethlehem of Judaea’ in
Matthew only, and is not mentioned in Mark.
Fr. 3 (Nazarene) = Matt. 11. 15, verbatim: there is no
parallel in the other Gospels.
Fr. 4 (Nazarene) = Matt. ii. 28, verbatim: there is no
parallel in the other Gospels.
Fr. 5 (Ebionite) agrees generally in substance with the
three Synoptics. Y. (1) in the shortest version bears a slight
trace of connexion with Matt. iii. 1 or its archetype, the two
longer versions a much stronger one. The longest version
also introduces mention, peculiar to Luke, of the parentage
92 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
of John the Baptist and the priesthood of ‘ Caiaphas.’ Both
the longer versions contain the phrase ‘ baptism of repentance,’
found in Mark and Luke once, and twice in Acts, and one of
them speaks of the ‘river’ Jordan, as does Mark i.5. Again
the words ‘began baptizing’ (éyévero Bartifwv) agree with
the reading in Mark i, 4 which, though probably wrong, is
that of the great majority of MSS. and versions. V. (2) =
Matt. iii. 5, and Mark i. 5: the mention of ‘ Pharisees’? =
Matt. iii. 7, John i. 24, and ‘all Jerusalem’ is peculiar to
Matthew, Mark having ‘all they of Jerusalem.’ V. (3) =
Matt. iii. 4 and Mark i. 6, with the omission, possibly due
to Ebionite vegetarianism, of ‘locusts.’ The prophecy in-
serted in Matt. iii. 3, Mark iii. 3, Luke iii. 4, John i. 23 is
omitted, also possibly out of hostility to the prophets: yet
there is-no such reason why Matt. ili. 2 should have been
left out, except maybe to agree with the form of Mark--an
unwise aim in a professedly Matthaean Gospel.
It is difficult to make much out of all this. The outline
of the passage according to the shortest copies agrees closely
with Mark, vv. (1) (2) (8) exactly corresponding in order with
Mark i. 4, 5,6. V.(2)is much more like Matthew, from
whom the beginning of v. (1) also seems to be abridged. Of
Luke and John there is no separate trace in the shortest
copies. In the longer version v. (1) contains traces of con-
nexion with Matthew (one), Mark (one), Luke (one), and a
phrase found in Mark and Luke’s writings only.
Altogether we must, I think, take the fragment as allied
more nearly to Matthew than to our other Gospels, and must
assign its omissions and additions to dogmatic dishonesty on
the part of the Ebionites, recognising the certainty that they
used Luke or a similar Gospel, and the full possibility that
they used Mark, for their purpose.
Fr. 6 (Nazarene) has no evangelical parallel. In v. (1)
‘behold’ is a word specially characteristic of Matthew and
Luke; the title ‘Lord’ used in speaking of Jesus is almost
though not quite peculiar to Luke and John; ‘ fer remission
of sins’ is applied to John’s baptism by Mark and Luke only,
though Matthew says that those baptized confessed their
sins ; ‘remission of sins’ occurs eight times in the writings of
Luke against seven times in all the other books of the N. T.
aici: a — ae
Relation to Canonical Books. 93
In v. (2) Jesus disclaiming sin reminds us of John viii. 46,
and the admission of a possible limitation of his knowledge
recalls Mark xiii. 32.
Altogether the verbal analysis suggests relations to
Luke.
Fr. 7 (Ebionite) runs parallel to Matt. iii. 13-17, Marki.
9-11, and Luke iii. 21, 22 (John i. 32, 33 being analogous
but not parallel). V. (1) agrees very nearly with Luke iii. 21.
Y. (2) is far nearer to Matt. 111. 16 than to the other accounts,
with the noticeable exception of the words ‘ in shape of a dove,’
which recall Luke. The important preposition ‘ into’ has
also the strongest support (D and all the Latin versions) in
Luke, but is also read by D and some other authorities in
both Mark and Matthew. In v. (3) the words of the voice
agree exactly with Luke alone, and the second utterance, ‘I
have this day begotten thee,’ answers to Justin’s form ‘Thou
art my Son: Ihave this day begotten thee,’ which is also
read in Luke by D, the Old Latin, Clement of Alexandria,
&e. &c. V. (4) gives the story of the light in Jordan which
is inserted by two Old Latin MSS. in Matt. iii. 15, and which
Justin mentions not only as a fact but, if we accept Tischen-
dorf’s very slight emendation, as a fact related by the
Apostles in their memoirs. The question ‘Who art thou,
[Lord] ?’ following a voice from heaven and a great light,
suggests that the language of Luke in his three accounts of
the conversion of Paul was influenced by this or some similar
account of the Baptism, or else that this account of the
Baptism was influenced by Luke’s account of the conversion
of Paul—which seems less likely. V. (5) in repeating the
voice gives the same words as Matthew. Vv. (6) and (7)
answer to Matt. iii. 14, 15, but are placed after the Baptism
instead of before it.
Here we have the most unmistakeable connexion both
with Matthew and Luke, and with them only. Moreover,
that form of the evangelical text with which the fragment
has most in common is one which, whether correct or not,
was certainly current as early as the first half of the second
century.
Are we then to regard this fragment as a compilation
from Matthew and Luke? It does indeed come to us from
94- The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
an Ebionite source, and we have seen good reason to doubt
the honesty of the Ebionite text; in Fr. 5, moreover, we
detected in some of the Ebionite copies signs that Luke, or
at least some kindred work to Luke, had been laid under
contribution. But, on the other hand, none of the suspected
Ebionite corruptions seem to have been made without an
object, whereas it is difficult to see what end the reviser of
a Matthaean ground-text had to gain by adopting Luke iii. 21
in preference to Matt. iii. 13, by transposing Matt. ili. 14, 15,
or by introducing the question of John and the last voice
from heaven. It was indeed necessary to transpose Matt.
iii. 14, 15 if John’s question and the heavenly answer
were inserted, but why insert them ?
Fr. 8 (Nazarene) has no evangelic parallel, but the resting
of the Spirit (with the supernatural light of Fr. 7) may just
possibly be alluded to in 1 Pet. iv. 14, while ‘rested upon
him’ is the reading of the Curetonian Syriac in Matt. iii. 16.
A single phrase, ‘ that reignest for ever,’ has its analogy in
Luke.
Fr. 9 (Nazarene ?) = Matt. iv. 5 and Luke iv. 9, speaking
of ‘ Jerusalem’ with the latter and not ‘the holy city’ with
the former. A Nazarene reviser of the canonical Matthew
would surely have kept ‘ the holy city.’
Fr. 10 (Nazarene) seems to = Matt. v. 22, and no other
passage. The metaphorical use of ‘brother’ is specially
characteristic of Matthew, as regards the Gospels.
Fr. 11 (Nazarene) does not=any passage in the Gospels.
The word ayar7, which would represent caritas in Greek, is
specially characteristic of John’s Gospel, which also contains
several injunctions to the disciples to love each other, but the
tenor of the fragment is far more suggestive of Matthew
(particularly) or Luke.
Fr. 12 (Nazarene) = Matt. vi. 11, Luke xi. 3, only.
Fr. 13 (Ebionite) = Matt. x. 25, only.
Fr. 14 is quoted by Eusebius in reference to Matt. x. 34,
Luke xii. 51. It has no evangelic parallel. ‘Whom my
Father in the heavens hath given me’ recalls John xvii. 6, ‘ the
men which thou gavest me out of the world : thine they were,
and thou gavest them me,’ spoken by Jesus to the ‘ Father,’
and ib. 9, ‘I pray not for the world, but for them which
Relation to Canonical Books. 95
thou hast given me.’ But ‘ Father in the heavens’ points very
strongly to Matthew, who is also more abundant than his
fellow Evangelists in precepts of good will to others.
Fr. 15 (Nazarene) is an additional detail to a story told
in Matt. xii. 9 seqq., Mark ili. 1 seqq., Luke vi. 6 seqq.
Victum ‘ sustenance’ may answer to Biov, a word used never
by Matthew or John, once by Mark, but four times by Luke;
but it may also correspond to tpog¢jv. The simple address
‘ Jesus’ is only found in Luke xxiii. 42 (best reading) ; Jesus
is addressed by name (with additional epithets) twice more
in Luke, and thrice in Mark, but not at all in John or
Matthew (according to the best reading of Matt. ix. 12).
‘ Shamefully beg for food’ recalls Luke xvi. 3, ‘to beg I am
ashamed.’ Altogether we have reason to suspect relations
‘ with Luke.
Fr. 16 (Ebionite) = Matt. xii. 47-50, Mark iii. 32-5,
Luke viii. 20, 21. V. (1) agrees most nearly with Matthew,
Luke not having the word ‘ behold,’ and Mark introducing
the sisters of Jesus. V. (2) isa shade nearer to Mark than
to Matthew; Luke omits the question. VV. (3) does not
point to any, but is a little nearer to Matthew than to the
others. Altogether there is most trace of connexion with
Matthew. |
Fr. 17 = Matt. xv. 24 (verbatim), only.
Fr. 18 (Nazarene?) = Matt. xvi. 17, only.
Fr. 19 (Nazarene) = Matt. xvii. 21, 22, Luke xvii. 3, 4,
and is much nearer the former. In v. (1) forgiveness is
made dependent on the contrition of the offender, as in
Luke. In vy. (2) Peter is introduced as questioning Jesus on
the subject: Luke omits all mention of him. Such a style
as ‘Simon his disciple’ is not found in our Gospels, but the
word ‘ disciple’ is muclii more frequent in Matthew than in
Luke (most frequent of all in John), while on the other
hand Peter is spoken of or to as plain ‘ Simon’ only once in
_ Matthew, but seven times in Mark and eight times in Luke
(once only in John). In Acts (four times) the second name
Peter is always added, as in 2 Pet.i.1. In v. (3) the number
‘ seventy times seven’ is peculiar to Matthew; the latter part
of the verse is not contained in either evanyelist, but ‘ anointed
by the Holy Spirit’ savours of Luke.
96 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
Fr. 20 (Nazarene) = with wide differences Matt. xix.
16-24, Mark x. 17-25, Luke xviii. 18-25. V.(1) shows that
a conversation with some other rich man had gone before it,
and suggests that the canonical accounts may have blended
these two conversations. The two rich men, as Hilgenfeld
says, recall Matthew’s two demoniacs (viii. 28) and two blind
men (xx. 30), where Mark and Luke only mention one;
while, on the other hand, he speaks of only one angel at the
sepulchre, but Luke and John of two. The absence of the
epithet ‘Good’ in addressing Jesus agrees with the best
reading of Matt. xix. 16. ‘Zwe’ in the sense of ‘ have
eternal life ’ is only found in Luke x. 28 among the Synoptics;
there are more instances in John: but ‘life’ in the sense
of ‘eternal life’ never occurs in Luke, but four times in
Matthew, twice in Mark, and of course very often in John.
‘Man’ in v. (2) is a form of address peculiar to Luke, the
conjunction of the prophets with the law as a code of life is
equally peculiar to Matthew. V. (4) is a little nearer to
Luke, who however omits ‘Go,’ than to the others. YV. (5)
retains the commandment ‘ Thow shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself,’ omitted by Mark and Luke. ‘ Sons of Abraham’ =
‘son of Abraham’ Luke xix. 9 and ‘daughter of Abraham,’
xiii. 16, while ‘seed of Abraham’ occurs twice in John
and ‘children of Abraham’ once. On ‘Simon his dis-
ciple,’ v. (6), see my remarks on the last fragment; ‘ sitting
by him’ is a detail recalling Matthew. Altogether that
part of the fragment which corresponds with the canonical
accounts agrees best with Matthew; so do two peculiarities
of matter, but the peculiarities of style recall Luke and John.
Fr. 21 (Nazarene) = Matt. xxi. 9 and Mark xi. 10 ver-
batim ; substantial parallels are also afforded by Luke xix. 38
and John xii. 13.
Fr. 22 (Nazarene?) may not be verbally represented by
John vii. 58-viii. 11. But, if it is, v. (1) strikingly agrees
with Luke xxi. 87 (substantially confirmed by Matthew),
while v. (2) offers a still more remarkable parallel to Luke
xxi. 38; the word ‘ dawn,’ dp@pov, is also peculiar to Luke ;
but ‘having sat down’ is much more a trait of Matthew. In
v. (3) ¢ the scribes and the Pharisees’ is also rather suggestive
of Matthew. ‘ Teacher,’ v. (4), is a little more common in
Relation to Canonical Books. 97
Mark and Luke. ‘ Trying him, v. (6), is more frequent in
Matthew and Mark than in Luke, but the form of the words
‘that they may have whereby to accuse him’ is more like Luke.
In v. (10) ‘ Mistress’ is specially Johannine (five times) ; Luke
has it twice to Matthew’s once. i tee
Fr. 23 (Nazarene) = Matt. xxiii. 35, Luke xi. 51, but the
latter passage does not mention Zacharias’s father. Here
the Greek Matthew contains a palpable error, but the Naza-
rene Gospel keeps what must almost certainly have been the
original reading. | |
Fr. 24 = Matt. xxv. 14-30, Luke xix. 11-27, with wide
variation from both. We do not know that Eusebius has
kept any part of the original wording; but with this reserv-
ation we may observe that ‘the abandoned liver? and ‘which
devoured the substance with harlots? are very like phrases in
Luke xv. 14, 30; and that ¢ accepted’ or ‘received’ is a term
common in both Matt. and Luke, but particularly the latter.
Fr. 25 (Ebionite) is very remarkable. VY. (1) = Matt.
xxvl. 17, Mark xiv. 12, and is nearer to the former. Luke
does not mention the question, but makes Jesus say to Peter
and John ‘Go and prepare us the passover, that we may
eat’ (xxii. 8). V. (2) undoubtedly corresponds to Luke xxii.
15, ‘With desire I have desired to eat this passover with
you before I suffer,’ but ‘before I suffer’ is omitted, ‘ this
passover’ becomes ‘this flesh the passover,’ and the affirm-
ation of Jesus is turned into a question expecting a negative
answer. We have seen strong cause to suspect the verse of
having been corrupted by the Ebionites, but the question re-
mains an open one whether it was borrowed from Luke.
Supposing that the verse formed no part of their original
Gospel, it is quite easy to understand why the Ebionites
should have thus borrowed it. The fact that Jesus ate of
the paschal lamb might be turned against Hbionite vege-
tarianism: they therefor wished to represent that he did
so with reluctance. This, however, was contradicted by
Luke xxii. 15. What more simple than to introduce into
Luke xxii. 15 the slight change needed to produce an entirely
opposite sense, and then to incorporate it into their Gospel,
retorting upon Luke any charge of corruption which might
be brought against them by the orthodox? ‘This is very
i
98 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
possible, but it is equally possible that the verse in Luke’s
form may have been contained in the Gospel according to
the Hebrews before the Ebionites corrupted it.
Fr. 26 (Nazarene?) = Matt. xxvi. 74, Mark xiv. 71, with
little variation. The incident of which it is a detail is also
related by Luke and John.
Fr. 27 (Nazarene) is part of a verse corresponding to
Matt. xxvii. 16, Mark xv. 7, Luke xxiii. 18, John xviii. 40.
As the name ‘ Barabbas’ is here distinctly treated as a sur-
name, the circumcision-name may also have been given, in
which case there is a probability of connexion with that form
of Matthew’s text which assigned to Barabbas the circum-
cision-name ‘Jesus.’ If the words ‘who had been con-
demned on account of sedition and murder’ are part of
Jerome’s quotation—which, however, I do not believe—they
are closely parallel to Luke xxiii. 19.
Fr. 28 (Nazarene) differs from Matt. xxvii. 51, Mark xv.
38, Luke xxiii. 45, but is part of a verse answering to them.
Fr. 29 (Nazarene) has no evangelic parallel, but almost
undoubtedly represents the story alluded to by Paul in
1 Cor. xv. 7. V.-(1) alludes to a fact mentioned by all four
evangelists, that the dead body of Jesus was wrapped in
linen: all of them, moreover, speak of ‘the’ servant of the
high-priest in connexion with the apprehension of Jesus.
Fr. 30 (Nazarene) = Luke xxiv. 39, substantially.
Fr. 31 (Nazarene) has no evangelic parallel. ‘The re-
lation assigned to Jesus and the Holy Spirit reminds us
somewhat of Matt. i. 18 and Luke i. 35.
Fr. 82 has no evangelic parallel. The spiritual use of
the word ‘rest’ is confined to Matthew.
Fr. 83 (Ebionite) has no evangelic parallel, but suggests
that the Ebionite Gospel contained a passage corresponding
to Luke xiii. 1-3, in which this fragment occupied the place
of.Luke xiii. 8. ‘The wrath’ suggests Luke or Matthew.
Now let us tabulate our results :—
(i.) Out of 33 Fragments the following 10 are entirely in-
dependent of the canonical narratives—nos. 1, 6, 8, 11, 14,
22, 29, 31, 32, 33. Of these 5 come to us from a Nazarene
source (6, 8, 11, 29, 31), 2 (both very suspicious) from an
ee — ee tl eC
—————— ee ee ee
Relation to Canonical Books. 99
EHbionite source (1, 33), and 3 from a source undetermined
(14, 22, 32)—one of which: (22) is probably Nazarene.
So large a proportion of peculiarities is remarkable if we
compare the Gospel according to the Hebrews with Matthew
or Mark, but not if we compare it with Luke, who has about
82 sections in common with them, but 387 peculiar to
himself.
The fragments above specified do not, taken together,
give convincing evidence of a connexion with any of the
canonical Gospels. But of the 5 Nazarene Fragments 2
(6, 8) present verbal analogies to {Luke, and 2 others (11,
31) some little substantial analogies to both Matthew and
Luke. Of the 2 Ebionite Fragments 1 suggests relation
to Luke (33), but one word at the least is spurious ; the other
(1) is almost equally suspicious, and may be a compound
from our Gospels. Of the 3 neutral fragments, Fr. 14 seems
to have been connected with Matthew and Luke, and is
analogous to passages in Matthew and John; Fr. 22 (if we
have the right text) most nearly approaches Luke, and next
to him Matthew; and Fr. 32 suggests Matthew.
First Deduction. The Gospel according to the Hebrews
contained matter entirely independent of the canonical
narratives. ‘The proportion of this matter would be nearly
1, if it were the same throughout the Gospel as in the
Fragments.
Second Deduction. The independent fragments show
parallels of thought and expression to the canonical narra-
tives, more especially those of Matthew and Luke.
(ii.) Out of the remaining 23 Fragments 2 only (Nazarene,
21 and 27) are parallel to passages contained in all four of
our Gospels, or to passages contained in John. The former
fragment is so very short that we cannot tell to which
evangelist it came nearest, but there is reason to suspect
that it was akin to one form of Matthew’s text, and if the
words included by Hilgenfeld should be admitted—which is
most doubtful—a decided parallel to Luke is established.
The other fragment agrees verbatim with Matthew and
_ Mark, only partially with Luke and John.
Six fragments (5, 7, 15, 16, 20, 28) are parallel to
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Of these 5, 7, 16 are Ebionite,
H 2
100 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
the other three Nazarene. Fr. 5 in its shortest form is ap-
parently allied to Matthew: in its longer forms it almost
proves that the Ebionites were capable of interpolating from
Luke or documents used by or derived from him, and
suggests the use of Markalso. Fr. 7 is closely allied to both
Matthew and Luke, and especially to second century texts
of these Gospels: it also contains an extraordinary parallel
to an incident thrice told in Acts. In Fr. 16 there is most
likeness to Matthew. In the Nazarene Fr. 15, which has
no corresponding verse in our Gospels, there is a likeness to
Luke’s phraseology. Fr. 20, where it runs parallel to the
canonical accounts, agrees best with Matthew, but in style
is nearer to Luke and John. Fr. 28 yields no evidence.
Third Deduction. There is no evidence that the Gospel
according to the Hebrews contained matter peculiar to or
derived from John.
Fourth Deduction. It contained matter substantially
common to the three Synoptists, the passages including this
matter forming about + of the Fragments.
Fifth Deduction. Such passages taken altogether show
special likeness to Matthew and Luke.
One fragment (26, Nazarene) is parallel to Matthew and
Mark only, and is equally near to each. Half of another
fragment (25, Ebionite) is also parallel to these two alone,
and is nearer to Matthew.
Sixth Deduction. There is no evidence that the Gospel
according to the Hebrews contained any matter peculiar to,
or derived from, Mark, except, maybe, in the erp
Ebionite Fr. 5.
Five fragments (9, 12, 19, 23, 24) are enscaliod: to Matthew
and Luke only. All tics are Nazarene, except the last—of
which the source is undetermined. Fr. 9 is nearer to Luke,
but no stress can be.laid on the one word ‘ Jerusalem.’ Fr.
12 is identical with both. Fr. 19 is nearer to Matthew, but
with distinct points of resemblance to Luke. Fr. 23 shows
ereater affinity to Matthew, and is free from the mistake of
the Greek. Fr. 24 points decidedly to Luke 7f Husebius has
kept the wording of his original.
Seventh Deduction. The Gospel according to the Hebrews
contained matter peculiar to Matthew and Luke, the passages
Relation to Canonical Books. IOI
containing such matter forming between + and + of the Frag-
ments.
Highth Deduction. Such matter, if borrowed at all, was
not borrowed from either exclusively.
Seven fragments (2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 17, 18) are parallel to
_ Matthew only. Of these 2, 3, 4, 10 are from a Nazarene
source; so probably is 18: 13 is Ebionite; 17 is of undeter-
mined origin. Fr. 10 agrees substantially with Matthew
and has one of his favourite words. The others agree
very closely indeed with Matthew, most of them verbatim.
Ninth Deduction. The Gospel according to the Hebrews
contained matter peculiar to Matthew, the passages contain-
ing such matter forming a little more than + of the Frag-
ments. | |
One fragment (30, Nazarene) is parallel to Luke only.
So is one half (suspicious) of another (25, Ebionite).
Tenth Deduction.. The Gospel according to the Hebrews
contained matter peculiar to Luke, the passages containing
such matter forming Hardly 1, of the Fragments.
We arrive then at a Connal (a) in great part independent
of the extant text of our Gospels, and (b) showing no signs
of relationship to Mark or John, but (c) bearing a very
marked affinity to Matthew, and (d) a less constant but still
obvious affinity to Luke. |
We have now to enquire whether the matter allied to
Matthew and Luke was derived from the Greek Matthew
(or an Aramaic Matthew of which the Greek was only a
translation) and Luke.
Those who hold this theory are compelled, by the great
preponderance of Matthew in the Fragments, supplemented
by the unanimity of tradition with regard to the Mat-
thaean character of the Gospel, to suppose that our present
Matthew formed the groundwork of it, and that the non-
Matthaean portions were merely incorporated into that
groundwork.
We shall, however, find that this theory, which for short- |
ness I call the ‘compilation-theory,’ fails to explain many of
the phaenomena of the Fragments. In Fr. 5, which seems
to be allied to Matthew, it does not very well solve the
omission of Matt. iii. 2, the transposition of Matt. iii. 5, or
102 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
the alteration of that verse and Matt. iii. 1. In Fr. 7 we fail
to see why Matt. iii. 13 was discarded in favour of Luke iii.
21; why John’s question and the second heavenly voice are
brought in; why the position of Matt. iii. 14, 15 is altered.
It was, indeed, needful to shift these last verses if John’s
question and the heavenly answer were inserted, but to
what end is this insertion? Again, as regards Luke, the
light on Jordan and John’s question are so strikingly like
the light at Paul’s conversion and his question that there
seems to be something more than mere coincidence between
the accounts. It appears, however, infinitely more prob-
able that the language of Luke should have been influenced
by his recollection of a similar previous incident in the
life of Jesus than that the supposed compiler of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews should have copied Luke’s de-
scription of a similar subsequent incident in the life of
Paul. In Fr. 9 why is Matthew’s ‘holy city’ (which in a
Jewish Gospel we should certainly expect to be kept) altered
to ‘Jerusalem’? If Fr. 10 answer textually, as it does in
substance, to Matt. v. 22, why the change of form? if, on
the other hand, the Gospel according to the Hebrews con-
tained another passage corresponding textually to Matt. v.
22, why was Fr. 10, a mere repetition of it in substance,
inserted at all? In Fr. 16 we might conjecture that the
omission of the words ‘desiring to speak with thee’ was
due to Epiphanius’s compressed relation of the incident,
but why the departure from Matthew xii. 50? In Fr. 19
why does the conversation on forgiveness begin with a
remark from Jesus instead of (as in Matthew) a question
from Peter? And, if Fr. 30 be borrowed from Luke, why
is not Luke’s text followed ?
To these questions the compilation-theory cannot, I think,
give answers: I might have asked more, but I have excluded
all to which even any sort of answer might be given.
Nor does the compilation-theory explain why, as we find
from the Stichometry of Nikephorus (see Addenda), the
Gospel according to the Hebrews was shorter than Luke or
Matthew. We know from the Fragments that our supposed
compiler sometimes recounted incidents at greater length
than either, and that he incorporated a large amount of
'
oa "
SS ee
ee
a ee
a | —
The Compilation-theory and tts Counter. 103
independent matter. We should have expected his com-
pilation to be longer than either; why is it shorter? He
must have omitted considerable portions of his groundwork ;
yet we see that he did not object to miracles, or parables, or
other discourses—what are we to suppose that he omitted,
and what were his motives for omission ?
The compilation-theory must therefor, I think, be dis-
missed, and we must seek some other explanation of the
agreement of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with |
Matthew and Luke.
Some one may possibly think that he finds that explana-
tion in the counter hypothesis that Matthew and Luke have
borrowed from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. But,
if so, why have they omitted matter for the most part en-
tirely unobjectionable and some of it (e.g. Fr. 8, Fr. 11, and
Fr. 29) quite equal in beauty to anything which they re-
tained? Why did they leave out those additional details
which the Gospel according to the Hebrews often supplies to
their narratives? Why does one evangelist sometimes’
adopt its version, while the other passes it by for a less
minute and picturesque account from another source? This
theory, like the former, must therefor be abandoned.
It is true that by supposing Matthew, Luke, and the
Gospel according to the Hebrews (or at least two of them)
to have undergone a long series of alterations and additions,
we might manipulate the existing facts so as to suit either
of the above theories—or indeed any theory whatsoever.
This style of criticism has, moreover, some distinguished
precedents in its favour. But for my own part I prefer to
wait, if need be, for the solution of a difficulty rather than to
evolve from my own consciousness a number of various editions
of which absolutely no record can be found.
I now come to my own hypothesis. And, since so little is
known, so much debated, respecting the sources and com-
position of the canonical Gospels, let me say beforehand that
it requires only one assumption, namely—that whenever,
wherever, and by whomsoever the canonical Gospel according
to Matthew was written, however varied may have been the
oral or documentary sources from which it was composed or
compiled, and whether it was first written in Greek or
104 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Aramaic, it shows the special handiwork of one particular
man. This much, I think, no one will dispute, and if I
agree not to assume that he was an Apostle, or that his
name really was Matthew, perhaps I may be allowed for con-
venience’s sake to call him ‘ Matthew.’
My hypothesis, then, is that Matthew wrote at different
times the canonical Gospel and ‘the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, or at least that large part of the latter which runs
parallel to the former.
The hypothesis will not appear absurd to anyone who
reads it by the light of everyday facts in authorship. Modern
writers put forth new editions of. their works, often adding
much, omitting much, varying much: sometimes even a book
is entirely rewritten. There is no reason why we should
refuse to believe that ancient authors exercised the same
liberty. Bishop Lightfoot, indeed, suggests (Revision, 29)
that Luke wrote two slightly different copies of his Gospel ;
and, whether this be so or not, it is at least certain that the
Ascension as told in Acts is a complete rewriting of the same
event as told in his Gospel. |
And in the case of Matthew many peculiar considerations
render such alterations both possible and probable. If he
had dreamt that 1800 years later a very partially Chris-
tianized world and a very divided Christianity would have no
other knowledge of the life of Jesus than what they had
gathered from himself and three of his contemporaries, he
would have written something more than a sketch which (to
compare it with a modern biography) fills only about thirty-
five ordinary octavo pages. Matthew expected that in his
own lifetime, or at least his own generation, all the tribes of
the earth should see the Son of Man coming on the clouds
of heaven with power and great glory, that angels with a
great sound of a trumpet should gather the elect from the
four winds, and that heaven and earth should pass away.
Meanwhile there were many witnesses of the life of Jesus
still living and communicating the history of his life to the
converted and the unconverted alike. It was an age too in
which ‘many took in hand’ to put that history in writing ;
nor were their narratives fantastic apocrypha—they were
accounts of ‘the things most surely believed’ among Chris-
A Genuine Edition of Matthew ? 105
tians, derived from ‘eyewitnesses and ministers of the
word,’ and the other evangelist who tells us this wrote
not to supersede but to confirm them. Moreover a mis-
sionary preacher can nearly always spread what he has to
say wider and faster than a writer; and in the days of
Aramaic and uncial Greek manuscripts this was still more
true than it is in these days of printing-presses. And
so, probably, Matthew never thought of composing a full
biography that should last for all time, but merely wrote
a brief sketch, perhaps for the information of some private
friend, as did Luke, or at the request of some particular
community.. By and by, possibly, another friend or another
community desired an account from him: perchance he had
kept no copy of the former one, or only rough notes—hence
omissions, variations, additions: perchance also he purposely
varied the contents somewhat, whether of his own fancy, or
according to the character of the persons for whom he was
writing, or with reference to the contents of other Gospels.
But, some one may say, we are told* that Mark’s Gospel
is a collection of notes of Peter’s lectures. May not Matthew
have been merely an oral teacher, and may not the Gospel
bearing his name be a collection of notes made by one or
more of his hearers, f and not actually written by him at all?
Then, I reply, the Gospel according to the Hebrews might
be another such collection made by other hearers, and pro-
bably at another time.
The relationship between the Gospel according to the
Hebrews and Luke is less hard-of definition. We have
nothing like the same quantity or quality of coincidence,
material or verbal, to account for. Casual agreement of
detail might be explained by supposing that either of the
two writers was influenced by recollections of the other: for
we have seen that neither can have written with the other’s
work actually before him. We have strong reason to suspect
such recollection in Luke’s accounts of the conversion of
Paul, and it is also worth notice that Paul, who seems to
* By Papias (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39).
tT Papias expressly refers to Matthew as a source of oral tra-
dition (Husebius, Hist. Hecl. iii. 88). The passage is bien and
translated in Appendia B.
106 Lhe Gospel according to the Hebrews.
have got his version of the Last Supper from his companion
Luke, mentions an appearance of Jesus to James after the
Resurrection. It is, however, quite needless to suppose that
either Luke or the writer of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews had ever seen the other’s work. Each may have
derived the corresponding matter from oral tradition or from
other of the ‘many’ written Gospels in circulation, Coinci-
dences of vocabulary admit the same easy explanation on
either hypothesis. All we can safely say is that many de-
tails and phrases in the Gospel according to the Hebrews
which are not found in the Greek Matthew are at least in
their ultimate source coeval with Luke.
I have not yet touched the difficult question of priority
between the canonical Matthew and the Gospel according to
the Hebrews. The fact that the latter twice speaks of ‘the
Lord’ is perhaps a sign of its later date: see note on Fr. 6.
If, however, the term ‘Lord’ be used in its strict original
sense ‘master,’ that would suggest that the Gospel was
written by a personal follower of Jesus. A later date is also
possibly indicated by the fresh incidents and additional
details which it supplies. It may, indeed, be urged that
Matthew’s memory’would be more complete when he wrote
his first work: on the other hand, the longer he lived the
more his recollection would be revived, or the fuller inform-
ation he would gain, by the publication of other men’s
Gospels, or the communication of their oral tradition. Again
the fact that the Greek Gospel does not contain a few words
and conspicuous phrases found in the Aramaic Gospel seems
to afford a slight additional argument for the priority of the
former: yet, if the Gospel according to the Hebrews were
recovered entire, we might find peculiarities in the canonical
Gospel to balance these. Applying the test of length, we
are inclined to regard the Aramaic Gospel as the earlier, it
being the shorter. Nevertheless, wherever we can compare
its relation of events with that of the Greek we find it fuller
and are led to suspect that it was shorter only through the
omission of parables or long discourses. In this case its
preference for incident would tend to show a later date: .
the further men got from the days of Jesus the more they
. demanded that information about the facts of his life which
eee
ia i ho Se a
Relation in Time to our Greek Matthew. 107
was gradually passing out of their reach—I have little doubt
that if two lost but genuine Gospels were at this date re-
covered, the one homiletic, the other narrative, the most
devotional Christian would set greater store by the latter.
Altogether, then, I think there is a slight amount of
presumption in favour of the priority of the canonical Gospel,
but some of the counter arguments given above, together -
with the less stereotyped character of the Aramaic Gospel,
disincline me from expressing a decided opinion.
The question whether the Greek Gospel is translated
from an Aramaic original remains, as far as my theory is
concerned. But, if it was first written in Aramaic, then the
fact that Matthew did actually compose in that language
makes his authorship of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
the more probable. And, if the Greek Gospel be not a
translation,* may not the Gospel according to the Hebrews
* Papias’s statement can hardly be a mere guess. But I put
the case thus interrogatively because a third theory is possible—
that the Greek Matthew had been translated into Aramaic and that
Papias mistook this translation for an original. To render this in
the least degree probable one must suppose that no other evangelist
had at that time been translated into Aramaic. Now in the Cure-
tonian Syriac, a version in Western Aramaic probably as old as the 2nd
cent., ‘the Gospel of St. Matthew differs in mode of expression and
various other particulars from what we find in the rest ’—according
to Tregelles (Smith’s Bib. Dic. iii. 1634). Again, the title of that
particular Gospel, and that only, contains a word which Tregelles
and others take to mean ‘ made clear,’ and which they suppose to
indicate a rendering from a less popular dialect into the vernacular.
If, however, it should denote a rendering into Western Aramaic not
from Hastern Aramaic but from Greek, then in the use of the word
at the heading of this one Gospel, and in the idiosyncrasies of the
translation, we may see an evidence that Matthew was translated
at a different time from the other evangelists, and since he is the
most Hebraistic he would naturally be translated first.
Cureton and Tregelles insist that the Curetonian Syriac is vir-
tually a translation of an original Matthew in Eastern Aramaic.
If they are right, my conclusions are not affected one whit. But
whether they are right or wrong, the Curetonian Syriac does show
several approximations to the text of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, and thereby lends it evidence, if not of correctness, at
108 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
have been Papias’s Aramaic original?—in which case we
should have the evidence of a man born in the Apostolic
age for the fact, or at least the pases. of its Matthaean
authorship.
We must not forget that the above conclusions have been
arrived at solely from internal evidence; we have yet to
compare them with-the external evidence. That has been
summed up already at the end of Part I., but I may with
advantage, for our present purpose, abstract it a little further
and say that it tends to show
(i.) that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Aramaic ;
(i1.) that the Greek Matthew is a translation from the
Aramaic Matthew ;
(iii.) that Matthew wrote the Gospel according to the
Hebrews ;
(iv.) that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the
Aramaic original of the Greek Matthew.
The conclusions I have deduced from internal evidence
agree with (i.) and (iii.), they are equally consistent with the
correctness or incorrectness of (ii.); they disagree with (iv.)
only. But here res ipsa loquitur: the Fragments speak for
themselves. The Greek Matthew, as it stands, and as it
stood in the second century, is not a translation of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews as it stood either in the
days of Epiphanius and Jerome or some two centuries
earlier. If the opinion of Epiphanius and Jerome be true,
either the Greek or the Aramaic work or both must have
undergone any number of additions, omissions, and alter-
ations. To maintain their opinion it was necessary for them
to give some evidence as to why, when, or by whom these
changes were effected. Their silence shows pretty clearly
that they had no such evidence to offer, and I think we may
assume without hesitation that, believing in an Aramaic
original of the Greek Matthew and finding an Aramaic
Gospel (ascribed to him by the tradition of centuries) bear-
ing much substantial and even verbal agreement with the
least of correspondence with an extremely ancient form of the
canonical Matthew’s text.
External Evidence compared. 109
Greek Gospel, they over hastily jumped to the conclusion
that the Aramaic must be somehow the original of the
Greek.
And here I might say farewell to my readers, but that I ~
wish to add a few short remarks as to the position of this
Gospel in the second century. In reviewing the external
evidence, we only traced the use of it as far back as to
Hegesippus, writing perhaps about 160 a.p., though we also
found that Papias narrated a story which he might have
borrowed from it. We have since seen that one of the
fragments is identical with a quotation in one of the Ig-
natian epistles, which, taking it for genuine, must be as
early as 115 a.p., and if spurious would scarcely be later
than the* middle of the same century. It is true that part
of the quotation was certainly to be found in ‘the Teaching
of Peter,’ and, of course, even otherwise we cannot prove
that it was made from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Similarly we have found Justin twice out of accord with the
established text of the canonical Gospels, but in accord with
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Here, however,
Justin is supported by a few early copies of Matthew and
Luke, and even if he were not we cannot prove that he used
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Still these things,
_ together with the { story told by Papias, are worth mention-
ing in arrest of judgement, if any one should allege that our
Aramaic Gospel was not used by writers of the earlier half
of the second century; and they at least afford as early con-
firmation of its credibility. It is further to be remarked
that where the Gospel according to the Hebrews differs
from the established text of our Matthew it is often sup-
ported to some extent by Codex Bezae, the Old Latin, or
_ the Curetonian Syriac, all of them undoubtedly sprung from
second century MSS. Now, if the peculiar readings of these
three authorities are right, the text of our Aramaic Gospel
gains in credibility; if they are wrong, the question arises
* See Bishop Lightfoot’s article in the Contemporary Review for
Feb. 1875.
+ See pp. 71-8, and also p. 87.
~ The story of the ‘woman accused of many sins before the
Lord.’
110 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
whether they may not have been introduced from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, and in that case whether the
persons who introduced them must not have regarded that
Gospel as both authoritative and Matthaean.
The reader who has not studied the history of the Canon
will nevertheless assume that far more ancient witness can
be brought for the authority and authorship of the canonical
Gospels than for the authority and authorship of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews. He will make a great mistake.
It is true that no writer before Irenaeus (about 180-190 a.p.)
speaks of our Aramaic Gospel as the work of Matthew, nor
does any writer before his older contemporary Hegesippus,
who probably wrote a little earlier, mention its existence.
But neither is the authorship or the existence of the Gospels
according to John and Luke mentioned by any writer*
certainly earlier than these.t The same might be said of
the other two canonical Gospels but that Papias (who can
hardly have written later than 140 a.p., and may have
written a good deal earlier) affirms that Matthew and Mark
wrote Gospels, and, as he says that Matthew’s Gospel was
first written by him in Hebrew, and as we know him to
have told a story which was found in the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, it becomes a question whether he was not
also an authority for our Aramaic Gospel.
But, some one will say, are there not in writers earlier
than Irenaeus{ a large number of seeming, though anony-
* The other writers in my mind are the author of the Canon
Muratorianus and Heracleon. But I regard it as morally certain
that Tatian, who was earlier than any of these, compiled his Dia-
tessaron from at least three of our Canonical Gospels, with either ©
the Canonical Matthew or the Gospel according to the Hebrews as
the fourth.
t There is no proof that the mention of Matthew’s Gospel by
Apollinaris is earlier. The Canon Muratorianus is defective at the
beginning, but, as it speaks of Luke’s and John’s Gospels as the
third and fourth, it is morally certain that the other two which it
comprehended were Matthew and Mark.
+ If any reader should have been misled by the author of Super-
natural Religion into denying or doubting this, I beg him to read
Bishop Lightfoot’s articles in the Contemporary Review, beginning .
Position tn Second Century. II
mous, quotations from and references to the canonical
Gospels? Granting the likelihood (and you ‘barely claim ag
much) that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is quoted
or referred to by Papias, Justin, and the author of a probably
genuine Ignatian epistle, you need far more to convince us
that your Aramaic Gospel can have been generally looked
upon as an Apostolic or even an authoritative writing.
To this I might reply by admitting that there are no
more quotations from or references to it, but pointing out
in Dec. 1874, and Dr. Sanday’s Gospels in the Second Century.
Those on the other hand who have not read the book may like to
know what is the author’s way of dealing with such early quota-
tions. First of all he brands the works containing them as spurious,
whenever he can find a good or a bad pretext for so doing: but in
any case he assigns to them the latest conceivable date. With
these reservations he proceeds to discuss the supposed quotations.
If they are at all free, he carefully abstains from enquiring whether
the works containing them show the same looseness in quoting from
the Old Testament; he equally neglects the analogies presented by
Old Testament quotations in the New, and by acknowledged loose
quotations from the Gospels in later writers; and dismissing as
absurd the idea of ‘quotation from memory’ he pronounces them
to have been taken from some lost Gospel. If on the other hand
the quotations are exact or very close, he will try to prove either
that they are interpolations or that the corresponding texts in our
Gospels have been interpolated. Or he will say that as the text
occurs in more than one of our Gospels it was evidently part of the
common stock of Gospel-writers, and may just as well have been in
lost Gospels also. Or he will urge that some apocryphal book
quoted elsewhere by the writer who is under consideration may
have furnished it. Having got rid of all quotations before Irenaeus
(180-190 a.p.) by one or more of these methods, and having pro-
nounced that the Gospels quoted by earlier writers and read (as we
know from Justin) in the weekly assemblies of Christians were un-
canonical, he does not explain when, why, or how these old and then
canonical Scriptures were degraded and the present Gospels (before
unknown) substituted—so suddenly and with such general agree-
ment that from Irenaeus onward we find them (except among
heretical sects) in almost absolute possession of the field, and no
other Gospel named in any subsequent list of canonical books. But
the writer does not perceive that he has achieved nothing beyond
a reductio ad absurdum of his own argument.
112 The Gospel according to the Flebrews,
that it was written in Aramaic, that there is not the least
proof that it had been translated, that most of the writers »
alluded to did not know Aramaic, and that in any case they
would probably avoid quoting a Gospel which those whom
they were addressing had not read and were not able to
read. 3
But there is another answer. Had any one of the
canonical Gospels been lost, or preserved only to the extent
of a few fragments, we should have been unable to detect all
these early references to it. In some cases we should have
treated what we now recognise to be a distinct reference to
that particular Gospel as a loose reference from memory to a
parallel passage in one of the three Gospels which alone
would have been preserved to us; and where no such parallel
existed we should have found ourselves at the end of our
tether. Now what might have happened to any one of the
canonical Gospels is precisely what has happened to the
Gospel according to the Hebrews. There are many yet un-
traced quotations and traditions, all of which may, and some
of which probably do belong to it. Of course, every one of
these may be taken from some other of the many lost
Gospels: still, not one of those Gospels held in the estima-
tion of the Fathers a place approaching that of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, nor are the known quotations
from any one of them to be-compared in number with the
known quotations from our Aramaic Gospel. Again, many —
of the apparent references to our Gospels are decidedly loose.
This looseness is exactly paralleled by the looseness with
which the Old Testament is often quoted by the same
writers (and in the New Testament), and with which the
New Testament itself is often quoted by later writers.* Still,
in some at least cf these cases the reference really may be to
* Tt must be clearly understood that wherever the parallels of
thought and language are fairly near I admit probability to be on
the side of the Canonical Gospels against all lost Gospels, but if
the quotations in question be not from the Canonical Gospels, pro-
bability is, I think, in each case in favour of the Gospel according
to the Hebrews against all other lost Gospels. I should not have
ventured the above suggestion at all if we did not know that the
Aramaic Gospel had strong canonical affinities.
Possible Quotations from tt. 113
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, especially where the
connexion seems to be with Matthew.
And now at last, having examined every aspect of my
subject which has suggested itself to me, I may close an in-
vestigation which will not have been undertaken in vain if
this Gospel should really be a work coeval with the canonical
records of the life of Jesus. If on the other hand my de-
ductions have been wrong and my conjectures groundless, I
shall, at least, have the satisfaction of furnishing to some
more sagacious critic that armoury of facts wherewith saving
Truth alive he is welcome to kill my theories.
ADDENDA.
P. 5. The following are the passages of Irenaeus and
Husebius to be compared :—
_TrEnAEvS, Adv. Haer. 1. 26§ 2 (extant in the old Latin
translation only), Solo autem eo quod est secundum Mat-
thaeum Evangelio utuntur, et Apostolum Paulum recusant,
apostatam eum Legis dicentes—‘ They use that Gospel only
which is according to Matthew, and refuse the Apostle Paul,
calling him an apostate from the Law.’
Husrsius, Hist. Hecl. ii. 27, Tod pev “ArrootdoXov racas
Tas Lictrcohdis apyntéas nyodvto sivas Selv, amootatny
atroxanodvtes tod Nopuov. Evayyedio 53 wove TO Kal?
‘EBpaiovs rEyouévp yp@pmevor THV NoiTaV opLKpOV éerroLobVTO
Noyov—‘ They held that all the epistles of the Apostle ought
to be refused, calling him an apostate from the Law: and,
using that Gospel alone which is called according to the
Hebrews, they took small account of the rest.’
P. 26. From p. 243 of Volkmar’s edition (1860) of
Credner’s Kanon, I find that a later Nikephorus, Nikephorus
Callistus, a Byzantine monk who wrote about 1330 a.p., puts
the Gospel according to the Hebrews among spurious books.
His list is, however, a mere paraphrase, with slight variations,
of the list of Eusebius.
I
114 Gospel according to the Hebrews,
The passage referring to the Gospel according to the
Hebrews runs thus: ‘ And nowadays let the Gospel according
to the Hebrews also be numbered among these [spurious books],
which they out of the Hebrews who came to Christ loved with
joyfulness beyond any other’ ("Hén & év tovros nal 76 Kal
‘EBpaiovs Evayyéduov apiOusioOw, & padiota ot && “EBpalwv
Xpict@ mpocrovtes Eyatpov acpevifovres—Hist. Hecl. ii. 46).
The reader who compares this with my first quotation
from Eusebius on p. 5 will be amused, and will agree that
the opinion of Nikephorus Callistus (who lived about 900
years after Theodoret, the last independent writer who men-
tions this Gospel, and about 500 years after the copyist of
Codex Tischendorfianus III., in which is found the last trace
of its existence) has not even a feather’s weight in the balance
of evidence.
P. 51, note on Fr.21. The following considerations make
me more doubtful. In the letter to Hedybia, § 4, Jerome
writes: ‘And the Evangelist Matthew, who composed the —
Gospel in the Hebrew speech, seems to me to have said [in
xxvii. 1] not so much in the evening as late, and he who
translated—deceived by the ambiguity of the word—to have
translated not late but in the evening. Although the custom
of men’s speech holds, that late signifies not evening but
after delay’ (Mihique videtur Evangelistam Matthaeum, qui
Evangelium Hebraico sermone conscripsit, non tam vespere
dixisse quam sero, et eum qui interpretatus est, verbi ambi-
guitate deceptum, non sero interpretatum esse, sed vespere.
Quamquam consuetudo humani sermonis teneat, sero non
vesperum significare sed tarde). Now, if the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews had late why did not Jerome quote it?
It seems to me, therefor, that as regards Matt. xxvii. 1 he
conjectures that Matthew wrote in Aramaic something which
was not in the Nazarene Gospel—perhaps assuming a double ©
Aramaic edition. He may have done so equally as regards
Matt. xxi. 9, and barrama may be merely what he thought a
safe guess at the original—introduced to show off his learn-
ing to his patron the Pope.
P. 60, 4th note. I have forgotten to fulfil the promise
Nikephorus Callistus: Fr. 21: ‘Marcianus. 115
given on p. 14 to quote the words in which Epiphanius
‘accuses the Ebionites of having interpolated in a ibe
verse not only the word yu, but the two letters w and ».’
After the first passage quoted from him on p. 60 he goes
on thus: I[d6ev 52 ov popabjceras 2 y avT@av padsuupyia, THs
dxorov0las kpafoteons btt TO pd Kai TO Ta ote TpoTbEeTa ;—
‘ But how shall their fraudulence scape detection, when the
context cries out that the » and the 7 are tacked on?’
Pp. 88-9. I should like for Mapxtavos, cal to read Map-
xlwv, ws cal. The difference in sound, setting aside accent,
would be expressed by Markiahnoss and Markiawn(h)awss,
which a tired copyist from dictation might easily confound.
Marcion was a Doketist; his orthodox opponents insisted
that his opinions were contradicted by his own Gospel; and
he was accused of interpolating Luke as well as mutilating
him. The charge of mutilation was, indeed, the chief indict-
ment; yet so long as Serapion’s flock read the original Luke
as well as Marcion’s Luke that bishop might think the inter-
polations alone dangerous.
But Marcion’s Gospel, which he called only ‘ the Gospel,’
was thoroughly anti-Judaistic, and he almost seems to have
repudiated all Apostles but Paul. And, though Eastern
Marcionites of a later date might just conceivably supply the
unhappy want of an author’s name to this Gospel by giving
it the name of Peter (although we should have expected that
of Paul, whom Marcion declared to have used it), yet a Gospel
which, so far as we know, was only a mutilated Luke can
hardly have included the statement which Origen seems to
attribute tu the Gospel according to Peter.
Still it is possible that the Gospel according to Peter was
in use among Syriac Marcionites (of whom we hear as late
as Theodoret) and that it bore some ascription which con-
nected it or its transcriber with Marcion.
Lardner (History of Heretics, bk. ii. 11, §6) supposes
_ Lucanus, Lucianus, or Leucius—the asserted forger of
Apocrypha—to have written the Gospel according to Peter,
he being a Marcionite, and Lardner taking Mapxiavés to
mean Marcion. And after tay divaddyov tov KcatapEapévov
avrod Lardner wirtes Mapxciavotd in brackets, construing, I
I 2
116 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
suppose, ‘the succession of teachers who began with him.’
But cardpyecOai twos seems to mean only ‘ to begin,’ not ‘ to
begin with ;’ and, though I do not like my own rendering of
the passage, Liddell and Scott and Sophocles offer me no
alternative.
I may add that, if the Gospel according to Peter did
contain the statement spoken of by Origen, that statement
seems intended to support the theory of Mary’s perpetual
virginity—a very odd intention in a Doketist book, though
we do hear from Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. i. 80, § 12) that Doke-
tist Ophites héld Jesus to have been born of a virgin.
P, 102. According to Credner (Kanon, 120) Nikephorus
(the earlier) states that the Gospel according to the Hebrews
contained As’, i.e. 2,006 oriyou. And Volkmar (Kanon, 243)
says that so Credner has written in the MS. of his work. But
all the MSS. of the Latin translation of the ninth century
agree in reading 2,200, and so Volkmar is almost certainly
right in saying that we ought to read fs’, i.e. 2,200.
In either case the Gospel according to the Hebrews would
be shorter than those according to Matthew and Luke, to the
former of which Nikephorus gives 2,500, and to the latter
2,600 oriyo..
APPENDICES.
A. Pror. Westcotr’s STaTEMENT OF THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
I swat first copy Prof. Westcott’s statement (Canon of the New
Testament, ed. 1875, p. 510) and make my remarks on it as I go.
‘One passage which occurred in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews is found in a letter of Ignatius, who does not however
quote the words as written, but only on traditional authority.’
Any reader might think that Ignatius gave tradition as his
authority ; it is, however, only Prof. Westcott’s inference that he
must have quoted from tradition. I will add that it is a very bad
inference, for the form of Ignatius’s words (see my first note to
Fr, 30) makes it all but certain that he was quoting a written docu-
ment—a conclusion strengthened by the fact that he goes on to
speak upon the same subject in words plainly adapted from Acts.
‘Papias again related a story “of a woman accused of many
crimes before our Lord, which was contained in the Gospel accord-
_ ing to the Hebrews,” but the words of Eusebius seem to imply that
he did not refer to that book as the source of the narrative.’
Quite fairly stated.
‘The evangelic quotations of Justin Martyr offer no support to
the notion that he used it as a coordinate authority with the
Canonical Gospels, but on the contrary distinguish a detail which
it contained from that which was written in the Apostolic memoirs.’
-I cannot dispute Prof. Westcott’s right to put the case thus—
though see my note on Fr. 7—and it is just to add that he gives a
foot-reference to a passage where he deals with the point more
fully.
‘Hegesippus is the first author who was certainly acquainted
118 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
with it; but there is nothing to show that he attributed to it any
peculiar authority.’
Quite fairly stated.
‘Clement of Alexandria and Origen both quote the book, but
both distinctly affirm that the four Canonical Gospels stood alone
as acknowledged records of the Lord’s life.’
No notice is taken of Irenaeus.
We are not told that Clement quotes it with the words ‘it is
written.’
Prof. Westcott leaves out of sight the fact that it was held by
Irenaeus (seemingly), Epiphanius, Jerome, and Theodoret (seem-
ingly), as well as by popular opinion among those who used it, to
be a mere Aramaic edition of a Canonical Gospel. If Clement and
Origen thought the same, they of course included it when they
spoke of the four Canonical Gospels.
‘piphanius regarded the “ Hebrew Gospel” as a heretical work
based on St. Matthew.’ '
No notice is taken of Eusebius, who twice quotes the Gospel
according to the Hebrews—once directly attributing the quoted
words to Jesus himself—and who implies that it was anciently held
canonical and that its canonicity was only beginning to be denied.
Speaking of the Hbionite ‘ Hebrew Gospel,’ Epiphanius once calls
it the Gospel according to Matthew, and once says that it was
‘named according to Matthew’ and that they did not use it ‘in com-
plete entirety, but corrupted and mutilated.’ Now, 7s the mean-
ing of Epiphanius fairly given in the words ‘based on St.
Matthew’ ?
Before speaking of the Ebionite Gospel Epiphanius says of the
Nazarenes that ‘they have the Gospel according to Matthew most
complete in Hebrew. For assuredly this is still kept among
them, according as it was at outset written, in Hebrew letters.’
‘Jerome has referred to it several times, and he translated it
into Latin, but he nowhere attributes to it any peculiar authority,
and calls St. John expressly the fourth and last Evangelist.’
In a foot-note Prof. Westcott gives references to nine, and speaks
of ‘the remaining passages.’ Still I think for ‘ several’ he might
have written ‘ thirteen.’
Jerome also translated it into Greek.
Jerome not only records twice over, without demur, the common
belief in its Matthaean authorship, but once distinctly states that
it was the original of the Greek Matthew.
Prof. Westcott on the External Evidence. 119
This being so, it cannot be of the slightest significance that he
‘calls St. John expressly the fourth and last Evangelist.’
‘Yet the fact that he appealed to that book as giving the testi-
mony of antiquity furnished occasion for an adversary to charge
him with making “a fifth Gospel ;”” and at a later time, in deference
to Jerome’s judgment, Bede reckoned it among the “‘ ecclesiastical”
rather than the “‘ Apocryphal writings.” ’
No notice is taken of Theodoret.
Bede, after speaking of Apocryphal Gospels, says ‘ Here it is to
be noted that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as it is called,
is not to be counted among apocryphal but among ecclesiastical
histories: for it seemed good even to the very translator of Holy
Scripture, Jerome, to use many evidences from it, and to translate
it into the Latin and Greek language.’ I think Prof. Westcott
makes Bede seem more doubtful than do Bede’s own words, but I
do not press this.
No notice is taken of Nikephorus.
If I were now to ask Prof. Westcott’s most partial friend ‘ Is
not this statement of the external evidence hopelessly unfair?’ I
should expect him to answer ‘ Well, if he did not know of more
evidence for it, how was he to give more evidence? Remember
that while you have professedly made a special study of this Gospel,
he has not.’ I might simply reply that, if Prof. Westcott had only
looked out his own foot-references to Ignatius and Jerome it was
impossible for him, judging and writing fairly, to represent their
evidence as he has done. But I find that the edition of Prof. West-
cott’s book which I have quoted is not only ‘ revised,’ and might
therefor have been expected to derive some benefit from Hilgenfeld’s
edition of the Gospel according to the Hebrews published no fewer
than eight years before, but it is revised, as the author says, partly
by the help of the adverse criticism of Supernatural Religion. Prof.
Westcott expresses himself much indebted to this criticism: he
seems to have read the book through: he gives nearly 40 pp. of
Preface to it: and of this number he gives nearly two pages to
criticizing some statements respecting the Gospel according to the
Hebrews many of which were indeed quite unfounded. Now, the
writer of Supernatural Religion puts forward the claims of, and his
own undue pretensions for, the Gospel according to the Hebrews
more fully in vol..i. pp. 420-6 than elsewhere, and a statement
about it on one of those pages Prof. Westcott quotes at length. If
Prof. Westcott read those pages and either took on trust (which he
would hardly do) the statements there made as to the evidence of
120 The Gospel according to the Febrews.
Irenaeus, Clement, Jerome, Theodoret, and Nikephorus, or looked
at the passages referred to in the foot-notes in support of those
statements, it was impossible for him, judging and writing fairly,
to misrepresent some of that evidence and leave out the rest.
As regards Nikephorus I may add that Prof. Westcott in his
own book prints Nikephorus’s canon and stichometry in fall.
Not even yet, however, are we in a position to pronounce on
Prof. Westcott’s statement the opinion that ought to be pronounced.
I invite the reader’s careful attention to the following amazing
facts :—
The editions of Prof. Westcott’s work on the Canon bear date
1855, 1860 (‘the whole essay has been carefully revised’), 1870
(‘ carefully revised throughout’), 1875 (‘revised ’).
The editions of Prof. Westcott’s Introduction to the Study of the
Gospels bear date 1860, 1867, 1872, 1875.
The latter work contains an Appendix—Appendix D—‘ On some
of the Apocryphal Gospels.’ The first two sections are given to
‘The Gospel avcording to the Hebrews’ and ‘ The Gospel of the
Kbionites.’ These sections fill rather more than five pages,
pp. 462-7 of the 1875 edition, and consist chiefly of a translation of
Fragments, with notes: in the notes the originals are given.
Beyond a few words stating that Papias needs not have used the
Gospel according to the Hebrews and that a certain quotation from
Hegesippus and certain words of Jerome are not to be referred to
it (in all of which views he is quite right), with 6} lines relating to
the witness of Epiphanius, Prof. Westcott says nothing about the
external evidence.
I have not compared all this word by word with the edition of
1860, and so, though I at a general glance see no change, there may
be some. I pledge myself, however, that all the statements which
I am now going to extract from the 1875 edition are word for word
in the edition of 1860. The small capitals are mine.
(1) On p. 462 we are referred to p. 457 fora Fragment. It is
the fragment from the T’heophania of Eusebius, and the important
parts are thus rendered by Prof. Westcott: ‘[Curisr] Huser
taught, as we have found in a place in the Gospel existing among
the Jews in the Hebrew language, in which it is said.’ In a note
the reference to Eusebius is given, and Prof. Westcott, by saying
‘this quotation seems to have been unnoticed,’ must himself have
been the discoverer of it.
(2) On p. 463 Prof. Westcott translates thus from Jerome:
‘The Gospel entitled according to the Hebrews, wHicH I LATELY TRANS-
LATED INTO GREEK and Latin.’ He gives in a note the reference
and the original.
Prof. Westcott on the External Evidence. 121
(3) On p. 464 he translates thus from Jerome: ‘In the Gospel
which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, WHICH I LATELY TRANSLATED
FROM THE HeBRew INTO GREEK.’ In a note he gives the reference
and original. |
(4) On p. 465, in the second section, headed ‘ The Gospel of the
Ebionites,’ he says ‘ Epiphanius speaks of the Nazarenes as “‘ HAVING
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MarrHEew IN A MOST COMPLETE FORM* IN
Hesrew,” though he immediately adds that he does not know
whether ¢ “ they removed the genealogies from Abraham to Christ.’ ’
In a note he gives the reference and original, including the original
of the following sentence, which he does not allude to in his text, ‘ For
assuredly this is still kept among them, according as it was at
outset written, in Hebrew letters.’
(5) He then adds in his text ‘IN coNTRAST WITH THIS STATEMENT
he says that the Ebionites had a Gospel called the Gospel according
to Matthew, not entire and perfectly complete, but falsified and
mutilated, which they call the Hebrew Gospel.’
We see from (1) that in 1860 he knew that Eusebius had quoted
words from the Gospel according to the Hebrews as the words of
‘[ Christ] Himself.’
We see from (2) and (3) that in 1860 he knew that Jerome had
translated that Gospel into Greek as well as Latin.
We see from (4) that in 1860¢ he knew the passage in which
Epiphanius practically says that the Gospel according to the
Hebrews was the original of the Greek Matthew.
Yet, although these are points of moment—the first and last of
the highest moment—in favour of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, he made no mention of one of them in the connected
statement of the external evidence which he published in his other
book in 1866, 1870, and 1875. The entire § text of that statement
remains exactly as it was printed in 1855.
* The 1860 ed. has a comma after ‘form.
t The 1860 ed. has the mark of quotation before ‘ removed.’
ft Nay, in 1851. For on p. 240 of his Elements of the Gospel Harmony
published in that year he says ‘Jerome, who translated into Greek and Latin a
copy of this Gospel.’
§ There is one addition in a foot-note. The statement about Bede has, and had
in the first edition, this note :—
‘6 Bede, Comm. im Lue. init. quoted on Hieron. adv. Pelag. iii. 2.’
Prof. Westcott has himself in a former note quoted ‘ Hieron. adv. Pelag. iii. 2,
but has not quoted Bede. As the note first stood one would therefor suppose that
he was referring to Credner, from whom he confessedly took his references to
Jerome.
To this note are now added the words ‘See Introduction to the Study of the
“122 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
On the other hand we.see from (5) that Prof. Westcott had
between 1855 and 1860 come to look on the Ebionite Gospel of
Kpiphanius as distinct from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Yet in the editions of his other book published in 1866, 1870,
and 1875 he still (as in 1855) applies to the latter Gospel the
damaging statement made by Epiphanius with reference to the
former only.
And now what does Prof. Westcott’s most partial friend say P
B. Papras anp Marruew.
I have not discussed whether the Papiasts are right in affirming
or the Erasmians in denying an Aramaic original of the Canonical
Gospel according to Matthew, and I have admitted that the
Aramaic Gospel spoken of by Papias may have been the Gospel
according to the Hebrews.
But I do not see how we can refuse to believe that Matthew
wrote some Aramaic Gospel. Independently of the mere antiquity —
of Papias, Eusebius has preserved another passage from his work
which makes it very difficult to suppose that he was mistaken
altogether on this point.
In the prospectus of this work which I sent out I stated that
I had ‘amended the translation of an important fragment of Papias
bearing on this question,’ meaning the passage which I am now
going to translate. I have since convinced myself that my correction
of the printed text was needless; but—as at the place in point
Prof. Westcott has not translated rightly ; and as he, the writer of
Supernatural Religion, and, to my surprise, Bishop Lightfoot, have
all missed the meaning of one interesting expression—I shall still
translate the passage and say what I have to say on it :—
* ¢ And J shall not hesitate to range for thee by the side of my
Gospels, App. D.” On looking there we find ‘ Hieron. adv. Pelag. iii. 2’ again
quoted, but no Bede. I presume, therefor, that this addition is a curiously dis-
guised direction to the reader to see the Appendix in question on the Gospel
according to the Hebrews generally—a very perfect instance of literary suicide.
Prof. Westcott in the Appendix in question not only separates the Nazarene
and the Ebionite Gospels, but says of ‘several passages professedly taken from’
the latter by Epipbanius that ‘they present so many inconsistencies that they
cannot have belonged originally to the same book.’ Let me deal with Prof. West-
cott’s writings as Epiphanius and time have dealt with the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, and the few fragments that I will leave shall carry overwhelming
conviction to Macaulay’s New Zealander that the History of the Canon of the
New Testament and the Introduction to the Study of the Gospels cannot have be-
longed to the same writer.
* Ovdx dxvhow 5é cot Kal boa ToTE Tapa THY mpecBuTEépwy KaArA@s Euaboy Kal KaA@s
Papias and Matthew. 123
interpretations all moreover that from time to time I carefully learnt
from the elders and carefully committed to memory, and to confirm
truth + as their proxy. For I did not take pleasure, as the vulgar
do, in those who were full of talk, but in those who taught the
truth ; nor in those who repeated the commandments of others, but
in those who repeated the commandments which the Lord delivered
to faith, and of which the source was truth itself. And if per-
chance there came any one who had been in the following of the
elders, I enquired the elders’ words—what Andrew, or what Peter
had said; or what Philip, or what Thomas, or James; or what
John or MarrHew or any other one of the Lord’s disciples; + and
euvnudvevoa cvykarardéa: Tais Epunvelass, SiaBeBatovmevos trip avray GAnvey. Ov
yap Tots TA TOAAG A€yovow Exatpor, domep of wodAol, GAAG Tots TAANOH SiddoKovory °
ovde Tots Tas GAAOTplas evToAds pynuovedovotw, GAA ToOls Tas mapa Tod Kuplov TH
miore: Sedouevas, Kal am’ adrijs waparywvoudvas ris GAnOelas. Ei dé ov kal wapn-
koAovOnkes Tis Tots mpecBuTépors EAOo1, Tos Tov mperBuTépwy avéKpivoy Adyous* Th
*Avdpéas, ) ri Tlérpos elev: 4) ri biAummos: 4} rl Owpas } IdewBos* 4) rl’ lwdvyns }) Mar-
Oaios H rts Erepos Tay TOD Kuplov padnta@y: & Te’ Aptotiwy kal 6 mpeaBvrepos Iwdvyns,
oi Tod Kupiov pabnral, Aێyovowv. Od yap Ta ex Tay BiBAlwy ToTodTdY WE wpedeiv
bredduBavov baov Ta mapa Coons pwvijs nad wevotons (Eusebius, Hist, Eccl. iii. 39).
t twép airay. Not ‘that it is true, as Prof. Westcott (Canon, 70), or ‘its
truth,’ as the author of Supernatural Religion (i. 445), or ‘their truth,’ as Bishop
Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., Aug. 1875).
{ Prof. Westcott here renders ‘as what’ (Canon, 69). He clearly had before
him an edition of Eusebius in which, as in that before me now, & re is run into are;
and not being able to make anything of this he conjectured that a following zi
was lost or was at least to be understood.
The writer of Supernatural Religion and Bishop Lightfoot, whichever reading
they had, construe rightly from & re, and this is Harnack’s reading in the edition
(1878) of the Fragments of Papias before me; it was also the reading of Rufinus
(for he renders quaeve), who translated Eusebius only about eighty years after
Eusebius wrote.
My difficulty with the text was that I did not believe in & being used where
one would look for riva. Harnack refers to 2 Clem. i. 2, where we have ov«
_ elddres mébev exAHOnuev wat brd Tivos nai eis bv Témov, Kal boa bmréuewev Incods
Xpiords mabeiy evexa judy. Here one might conjecture ofoy or explain eis
bv témoy as = Tov Témoy cis dv. Madvig (Gk. Syntax, Browne and Arnold’s
translation, 1873, p. 187) gives @euoronAijs ppdler TE vaverhpy Goris ear) wad 57
& pedye: (Thue. i. 137), but there one might render ‘and the reasons for which’:
he also gives A’ &s airlas 7a wep) rhy dxohy EvuBalver wabhuara, AexTéov (PI.,
Tim. 67), but there one might explain 87 &s airias as = ras airlas 8/ &s. But in
Soph. 47. 1259 (uaa ds ef pio) ds = ofos, and the case before us seems essen-
tially parallel—besides which we may render, not ‘ and what,’ but ‘and the things
which,’ as I have preferred to do. At the same time I think no one will deny
that, if the meaning of Papias be what it has hitherto been taken to be, kal rf or
vt 5€ or 2 Ti would have been more natural.
My correction was, reading ére, to put from that to Kupfov in brackets—render-
ing ‘or what John or Matthew or any other one of the Lord’s disciples (as Aristion
>.
124 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
the things that Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the
Lord, say. For I did not suppose that what was out of the books
was of so much benefit to me as what came from a living and
abiding voice.’
May not the ‘books’ be Gospels by anonymous authors or
authors who were not Apostles or companions of Jesus P
‘Each interpreted them as he was able’ seems to imply that
when Papias wrote there was a single accepted version.
Yet Papias may never have seen the Aramaic Gospel (? the
Gospel according to the Hebrews) and Matthew may have written
another in Greek, whit Papias mistook for a translation of the
former.
C. Tue GospeL oF CARPOCRATES AND KERINTHUS.
Hilgenfeld and the author of Supernational Religion (i. 421) say
that the heretics Carpocrates and Kerinthus used the Ebionite
Gospel, on the faith of the following passage of Epiphanius :—
‘But see how their | the Ebionites’] doctrine has been corrupted
at every point, how everything is halting and crooked and has
norightness. For Kerinthus and Carpocras, using forsooth the
same Gospel that they have, wish to show from the beginning of
the Gospel according to Matthew that the Christ is of the seed of
Joseph and Mary. But these are of another sort of mind. For
having cut away the genealogies in Matthew they begin by way of
commencement, as I have previously said, with the statement. that
‘Tt came to pass ”’ etc.’*
If this passage proved that Carpocrates and Kerinthus used the
Ebionite Gospel it would be a most important witness for the
and the Elder John, the disciple of the Lord) say.’ The objection to this is not
so much that Aéyouow, ‘say,’ ought to be Aéye, ‘says’—for it might be influenced
by the plural ‘ disciples,’ an inadvertence of which Shakspere and our everyday
talk yield many instances—but that ‘the disciples of the Lord’ would be an
altogether useless repetition.
The correction, had it been sound, would have been most important, because
it would then have been implied (by the use of the present tense) that not only
Aristion and the Elder John but John the Apostle and Matthew were still alive
when Papias was making his enquiries.
* Haer, xxx. 14. “Opa 8& rhv wap’ abtots raparemoinpéevny maytaxdbey didacKa-
Alay, m&s mdvra xwad, Aokd, Kal oddeulay dpOdrynTa ExovTa. ‘O mev yap KhpiwOos
kal Kaproxpas, T@ a’TG xpemevor wap avrots EvayyeAly, ard ris apxis Tod Kata
Mar@atoy EvayyeAlov BotAovta mapiotay ex orépuatos Iwohp Kat Mapas eivas roy
Xpiordy, Otro. 5& GAAa Tivd Siavoodyra, Tlapaxdpayres yap Tas mapa TE MarOaly
yevearoylas &pxovra: Thy apxhy woretcOat, ws mpoeirov, A€éyovTes Bri "Eyévero—the
quotation is given above, p. 16.
Carpocrates and Kerinthus. 125
antiquity of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, since Kerinthus
is reported to have been a contemporary of the Apostle John,
while f ‘the Fathers in general place Carpocrates before Cerinthus,’
‘Irenaeus seems to speak of his followers as the first who assumed
the name of @nosties,’ and ‘he is said, in conjunction with his son
Epiphanes, to have carried his heresy to its height in the reign of
Hadrian,’ ¢ i.e. between 117 and 138 a.p. -
But the words of Epiphanius do not seem to me to justify the
conclusion that these two early heretics used the Gospel according
to the Hebrews. In a former part of his work (Haer. xxviii. 5)
he has said that the school of Kerinthus ‘ use the Gospel according
to Matthew, in part and not entire, but for the sake of the genealogy
in the flesh.’§ He calls it simply the Gospel according to Matthew,
without saying that it was called, or was, the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, or that it was written in Hebrew characters. Again,
he has before told us that the Ebionites too ‘receive the Gospel
according to Matthew; for this they too, as also the Kerinthians
and Merinthians, use to the exclusion of the rest. And they
call it ‘‘ according to the Hebrews.”’|| From this we learn nothing
more than that the Kerinthians used the Gospel according to
Matthew. And in the passage before us the argument of Hpi-
phanius may be paraphrased as follows :—‘ See how perversely the
Ebionites have dealt with the text of Matthew. For such heretics
as the Kerinthians who use the same Gospel of Matthew have still
left the genealogies, which they submit as evidence of the human
birth of Christ. The Ebionites might have done the same had they
chosen, but such half measures are not to their taste—they have
cut away the genealogies altogether.’ He has already told us that
the Kerinthians use only Matthew, and that the Ebionites use only
Matthew ; now that for the purpose of strengthening his strictures
against the latter for their corruption of Matthew’s text he holds up
to them the contrary example (in this particular case) of the
+ These quotations are from Mansel’s Gnostic Heresies, 117, 118.
t Taking 127 a.p. as the mean, and concluding that Epiphanes, who died at
the age of 17, must have been at least 15 before he became a sectarian leader, we
get 112 a.p. as the approximate date of the birth of Epiphanes. At that time
Carpocrates may have been 20 or he may have been 60; taking 30 as a reasonable
age, we should carry back his birth to 82 a.p. But all that we can say is that
Carpocrates was almost certainly born not later than 100 a.p., and may have been
born as early as 50 A.D.
§ Xpavra yap TG Kara MarOaiov Kiayyerly, amd wépous kal obx) Aw, BAAD Bid
Thy yevearoylay Thy évoapKov (Haer. xxviii. 5).
| Kat Séxovrar pev kal adrol 7d Kare Mardatov EdayyéAuov’ rovT@ yap Kal
adroit, ds Kal of Kara Khpwv0ov kal MhpwOov, xpavrat udvw. Kadrovor d€ ard ‘ kara
‘EBpatous’ (Haer, xxx, 3).
126 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Kerinthians, who use ‘the same Gospel,’ is it not straining the
meaning of words to infer that the Kerinthian Matthew followed in
. all other respects the peculiarities of the Ebionite text ?
D. TarraAn’s DIATESSARON.
We have seen that the Gospel according to the Hebrews cannot
have been composed by Tatian. But the writer of Supernatural
Religion maintains that Tatian ‘did not actually compose any
Harmony at all, but simply made use of the same Gospel as his
master Justin, namely the Gospel according to the Hebrews’ (ii. 159).
Let us examine the statements of other early writers besides Epipha-
nius, and with them the theory built on them in Supernatural Religion.
Eusebius, then, tells us that ‘ Tatian having put together a certain
for, a sort of] connexion and combination [or, condensation], I
know not how, of the Gospels, named this the ‘ Dia tessaron ” ; and
it is current among some up to the present day.’* The writer of
Supernatural Religion says ‘It is clear that this information is not
to be relied on, for not only is it based upon mere hearsay, but it is
altogether indefinite as to the character of the contents, and the
writer admits his own ignorance (ov« oid’ érwc) regarding them’
(ii. 154).
Now, (i.) there is not a particle of evidence that Husebius’s
statement is based upon mere hearsay, and that he had never seen
the Diatessaron. Indeed, probability runs very strongly in the
other direction. Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea, and, even if the
library of Pamphilus at that place contained no copy of the
Diatessaron +, he can hardly have failed to see elsewhere a book so
popular in parts at least of Syria that (as we shall presently learn)
more than a hundred years later Theodoret found upwards of 200
copies current among the churches of his own diocese. (ii.) Eusebius
tells us quite clearly that Tatian dovetailed the narratives of the
Gospels into each other, forming out of them one combined history ;
and not even the author of Supernatural Religion will deny that by
‘the Gospels’ Eusebius means Matthew (possibly including the
Gospel according to the Hebrews), Mark, Luke, and John. His
information is therefor anything but ‘altogether indefinite as to the
character of its contents.’ (iii.) As to the assertion that Husebius
admits his ‘own ignorance (ov« oid’ érwe) regarding them,’ it should
be observed that he does not say ‘I do not know of what kind ’—
* ‘© Tarlavos ovvdderdy twa Kal cuvarywyhy odK 018 Brws tay Evayyerlov
cuv0els Td 81d Tecodpwy ToiTo mpotwvduacev’ b Kal wapd Tis eioéri viv Peper
( Hist. Eccl. iv. 29).
+ Which from the fact mentioned by Theodoret seems very unlikely.
Not Tatian’s Diatessaron. 127
referring to the character of the contents—but ‘I do not know
how,’ referring to the way in which Tatian ‘put together’ his
materials. We do not know how perplexing Tatian’s method
of compilation may have been. He may have adopted as the base
of his narrative sometimes the account of one evangelist, sometimes
that of another, where the character of the accounts afforded no
explanation of such varying preference: his work may have been
deficient in chronological system: and finally he may have omitted
salient portions of the Gospels which he professed to combine—a
charge which, with whatever justice, was (as we shall presently
see) actually brought against him.
Theodoret ¢ is, after Epiphanius, the next writer who mentions
the Diatessaron. ‘ He also,’ says Theodoret, ‘put together the so-called
*‘ Gospel through Four,” after having cut away the genealogies and
everything else that shows the Lord to have been born of the seed of
David according to the flesh. And this was used, not only by those
of his company, but also by those who followed the doctrines of the
Apostles, not perceiving the knavery of the compilation, but in their
simplicity having taken the book into use because it was concise.
And I myself also found more than 200 such books held in honour
in the churches among us, and having gathered them all together
I put them away and introduced in their stead the Gospels of the
four Evangelists.’ §
Upon this the writer of Supernatural Religion remarks ‘ Theo-
duret . . . . not only does not say that it is based upon our four
Gospels, but, on the contrary, points out that Tatian’s Gospel did
not contain the genealogies and passages tracing the descent of
Jesus through the race of David, which our Synoptics possess,
and he so much condemned the mischievous design of the work
_that he confiscated the copies in circulation in his diocese as here-
tical. Canon Westcott’s assertion that Theodoret regarded it as a
compilation of our four Gospels is most unfounded and arbitrary.
Omissions, as he himself points out, are natural to a Harmony, and
conciseness certainly would be the last quality for which it could
{ Bishop of Kyrus or Kyrrhus, in Syria. The passage quoted was written
between 451 and 458 a.p.
{ Obros katrd bia Teardpwy Karotuevoy cvyTédeikey EvaryyéAiov, Tas yeveadrorylas
mepikdvas Kal Ta %AAa boa ex orépuaros AaBld kata cdpKa yeyevnuevoy Toy Kupiov
Selxvucw. "Exphoayro dt robTw ov pdvov of Tis éxelvov cuupoplas AAG Kal of Tots
*ArrooToAtKots Emduevor Sd-yuact, Thy THs cvvOnKns Kakoupylay ovdK eyvwKdTeEs, GAN
arhovorepoyv ws cuvTéup TH BiBAlw xpnoduevor, Evpov dé xayw wAclous 7) Siakoclas
BiBrous Towabras év Tats map’ jhuiv éxxanotas reTyunuévas’ Kal mdcas cuvaryayov
arcOéunv Kal Ta TaY TeTTdpwy EdayyeAioTay ayTeohyayov EvayyéeAia (Haer. Fab.
i. 20).
128 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
have been so highly prized, if every part of the four Gospels had
been retained. The omission of the parts referred to, which are
equally omitted from the canonical fourth Gospel, could not have
been sufficient to merit the condemnation of the work as heretical,
and had Tatian’s Gospel not been different in various respects from
our four Gospels, such treatment would have been totally unwar-
rantable. The statement, moreover, that in place of Tatian’s
Gospel Theodoret “ introduced the Gospels of the four Evangelists,”
seems to indicate clearly that the displaced Gospel was not a
compilation from them, but different’ (ii. 157).
The above argument is one mere tissue of fallacies. Theodoret
says that Tatian ‘cut away’ the genealogies, and other passages.
From what does Theodoret mean, if not from our Gospels? Why,
our author himself, two pages further on, tells us that ‘although
Theodoret, writing in the fifth century, says in the usual arbitrary
manner of early Christian writers, that Tatian “ excised ” from his
Gospel the genealogies and certain passages found in the Synoptics,
he offers no proof of his assertion, and the utmost that can be
received is that Tatian’s Gospel did not contain them.’ Here the
author clearly admits by inadvertence what he had previously
denied. For, if Theodoret charges Tatian with excising passages —
from our Gospels, it is evident that he means his readers to under-
stand that they formed the base of Tatian’s work ; otherwise there
would be no ground for the charge.
Secondly, as Theodoret only brings this one accusation against
Tatian’s work, it is natural to suppose that this was the sole, or at
any rate the chief, reason why he condemned it.
Thirdly, Canon Westcott does not point out that ‘omissions are
natural to a Harmony’ in the abstract way implied. He does say
that Theodoret ‘speaks of omissions which were at least in part
natural in a Harmony,’ meaning, I suppose, that Tatian might
leave out the genealogies if he found himself unable to harmonize
the versions of Matthew and Luke satisfactorily.
Fourthly, no one, I imagine, has ever supposed that in Tatian’s
work ‘every part of the four Gospels’ was retained, if by this
phrase is meant the entire text of each of the four Gospels. Where
an incident was described by several evangelists, the ‘ Gospel
through Four’ would give a text compounded from each, but not
the full text of each separately. Such a combined narrative,
though it would be longer than any two of our Gospels, would be
much more concise than all four together.
Fifthly, there is not the slightest analogy between omissions in
the fourth Gospel and Tatian’s ‘Gospel through Four.’ The
writer of the former had a perfect right to limit the range of his
Not Tatian’s Diatessaron. 129.
narrative as he chose; the writer of the latter, if he professed to
connect and combine the Gospels, as Eusebius says he did, had no
such liberty. If he left out material texts respecting the person of
Jesus, he suppressed them, and, if he suppressed, denied or ques-
tioned them.
‘Sixthly, ‘the statement that in place of Tatian’s Gospel Theo-
doret ‘introduced the Gospels of the four Evangelists” ’ does not
indicate in the least that Tatian’s Gospel was not a compilation
from them. Theodoret simply tells us that he substituted the
- Gospels of the four Evangelists for the Gospel of Tatian,i.e. the
original Gospels of the Four for their mutilated summary, the
Gospel through Four.
We have not, however, yet done with our author, who goes on
to declare that ‘the name Diatessaron was not only not given by
Tatian himself to the work, but was merely the usual foregone
conclusion of the Christians of the third and fourth centuries, that
everything in the shape of evangelical literature must be dependent
on the Gospels adopted by the Church. Those, however, who
called the Gospel used by Tatian the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, must have read the work . . . . The work was in point
of fact found in wide circulation precisely in the places in which,
earlier, the Gospel according to the Hebrews was more particularly
current’ (ii. 158).
Of course the assertion that the name of the work was not
conferred on it by Tatian himself is in flat contradiction to the
words of Eusebius. Our author claims, indeed, the support of
Hpiphanius. ‘It must be observed,’ he writes, ‘that it is not said
that-Tatian himself gave this Gospel the name of Diatessaron, but,
on the contrary, the expression of Epiphanius implies that he did
not do so’ (ii. 155). Our author’s nose for implications, so dull
when the implications are inconvenient to his theories, is here
exquisitely fine. The words of Epiphanius are: ‘And the “ Gospel
through Four” is said to have been made by him, which some call
“according to the Hebrews.”’’ *
I am ata loss to know to what our author’s sneer about ‘the
usual foregone conclusion of the Christians of the third and fourth
centuries ’ refers, unless it be to their belief, shared by most recent
critics, that Marcion’s Gospel was a mutilated Luke. But the
only writers of those centuries who mention what we know to have
been the Gospel according to the Hebrews never call it ‘ the Gospel
*® Aéyerat 5& 7d Sid Tecodpwv Eiayyéruov in’ adrod yeyevijcOat, brep Kara
‘EBpatous tives kadodor (Haer. xlvi. 1).
K
130 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
through Four’ or ascribe it to Tatian, but call it *‘the Gospel
according to the Hebrews,’ + ‘ the Gospel existing among the Jews
in the Hebrew language,’ t ‘the Gospel which has come to us in
Hebrew characters,’ § ‘the Gospel according to Matthew,’ || ‘the
Hebrew Gospel,’ t ‘the Gospel which is written in Hebrew let-
ters,’ {J ‘ the Gospel according to the Hebrews ... . according to the
Apostles, or, as very many [07, most] deem, according to Matthew,’ **
‘the Gospel which is written in Hebrew and read by the Nazarenes,’++
‘the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use,’tt ‘ the Gospel
which the Nazarenes use.’ Strange that if the Gospel according
to the Hebrews were by some ascribed to Tatian and called the
Gospel through Four, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, who so
often refer to it, should either not know this fact or omit to men-
tion it. Strange that Christians of the third and the fourth cen-
turies should give the Gospel according to the Hebrews a title and
ascribe to it an origin totally different from the title given and the
origin ascribed by their own literary leaders. Strange that they
should cast about for a canonical relationship for it, when it was
already ascribed to Matthew §§ in the previous century, and in doing
so should invest a noted heretic with its authorship, while they
gave to a work which was apparently only a variant Matthew,
with here and there an affinity to Luke, and|||| which was not
as long as either of them, a title implying that it was an amal-
gamation of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John !
The assertion that ‘those . . . . who called the Gospel used by
Tatian the Gospel according to the Hebrews must have read the
work’ is, of course, purely arbitrary. The statement, too, that it
was ‘found in wide circulation precisely in the places in which,
earlier, the Gospel according to the Hebrews was more particularly
current,’ seems to have no more. ground than is afforded by the
fact that YJ Jerome was allowed to.copy the Gospel according to the
Hebrews by the Nazarenes in Beroea, who were in the habit of
using it. Now Beroea (Aleppo) was forty miles south of Theodoret’s
* Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius (4 times), Epiphanius, Jerome
(5 times).
+ Eusebius. { Eusebius.
§ Epiphanius (twice). Jerome says, ‘ which is called by very many [o7, most]
people the original of Matthew.’ ;
|| Epiphanius, Jerome. q Jerome. ** Jerome.
tt Jerome. tt Jerome. §§ By Irenaeus.
||| In the Stichometry of Nikephorus (see p. 116) Luke contained 2,600
ortxot, Matthew 2,509, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 2,200.
{J Catal. Script. Eccles. under ‘ Matthaeus.’ I have quoted and translated
the text on p. 18.
Not Tatian's Dratessaron. 131
cathedral town, and was not included in his diocese, having a
bishop of its own. I do not mean to say that the Nazarene Gospel
might not also have been used by some people twenty miles or so
further north, within the limits of Theodoret’s diocese; but I do
very strongly object to the statement that the work mentioned by
Theodoret was found ‘precisely in the places’ where the Gospel
according to the Hebrews had been ‘more particularly current.’
The fact of Jerome’s having copied that Gospel at Beroea does not
even prove that it was ‘more particularly current’ there ; Beroea
may have been only the first town where he had the opportunity
of copying it. For immediately after arriving in the East he
retired for four years to the desert of Chalcis, on the north side of
which Beroea was situated, at a distance of only twelve miles from
Chalcis itself.
The explanation of the fact that some people called Tatian’s
Gospel through Four the Gospel according to the Hebrews is
obviously that given by Professor Westcott (Canon, 319, note) :—
‘Both books were current in the same countries, and differed from
the Canonical Gospels *** by the omission of the genealogies. Few
writers out of Palestine could compare the books so as to determine
their real differences.’ To this let me add that Tatian +++ may even
have preferred to use the Aramaic ‘ Matthew,’ the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews, rather than the Greek one, for his compilation,
or ttt he may have used MSS. nearer to it than those on which we
now base our text. Upon either view the confusion of his work with
the Gospel according to the Hebrews becomes still more easy to
understand and excuse.
Before closing this examination it is necessary just to notice a
statement by $$$ Victor of Capua that Tatian called his Gospel
‘through Five’ (Diapente). The passage runs as follows :—|\|\||‘ From
his [Eusebius’s] history, too, | have found that Tatian, a most
learned man and orator of that time, compiled one Gospel out of
*** T only admit this of the Ebionite edition.
_ ttt Especially if he compiled his work after his migration from Rome to Syria.
ttt Even some of our extant MSS., as will be seen in the notes to the Fragments,
present one or two striking resemblances to the text of the Gospel according to
the Hebrews. Tatian, moreover, was the pupil of Justin, whose coincidences with
that Gospel will also be noticed, and who certainly used our Gospels, although he
may have used the Gospel according to the Hebrews as well. See Appendix E,
‘ Justin’s “‘ memoirs of the Apostles.” ’
§§§ Writing about 550 a.p.
\|\||| Ex historia quoque eius comperi quod Tatianus, vir eruditissimus et orator
illius temporis, unum ex quatuor compaginaverit Evangelium, cui titulum Diapente
imposuit (Praef. ad Anon, Harm. Evang.).
= 2
132 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
four, to which he put the title Diapente.’ Never has so puzzling
an assertion been more recklessly commented on.
First, Professor Westcott (Canon, 321, note) says ‘If there
be no error in his statement that Tatian’s Harmony was called
Diapente, the fifth Gospel alluded to in the name was probably that
according to the Hebrews, and the title was given in consequence
of the confusion already noticed.’ Westcott seems to have seen the
original passage of Victor of Capua in Credner’s Bevtrége, but he
does not quote it, and argues as if he had not seen it. For Victor
does not say that Tatian’s work ‘was called’ Diapente, ‘through
- Five,’ but that Tatian himself gave it this title, which quite dis-
poses of the suggestion that ‘the title was given’ by others ‘in
consequence of the confusion already noticed’ between his work
and the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Secondly, the writer of Supernatural Religion (ii. 153) says
‘Tatian’s Gospel, however, was not only called Diatessaron, but,
according to Victor of Capua, it was also called Diapente (dua wévre)
“‘by five,’ a complication which shows the incorrectness of the
ecclesiastical theory of its composition’; and again (ii. 161) ‘We
have seen that in the sixth century it was described by Victor of
Capua as Diapente, ‘by five,” instead of “‘ by four.’’ He also does
not quote the Latin, makes Victor say merely that it ‘was called’
Diapente, and in the second reference insinuates that it is ‘de-
scribed’ as a compilation of five Gospels, by Victor—who on the
contrary says that it was a compilation of four.
Thirdly, Dr. Sanday has taken on trust the statement in Swper-
natural Religion (which he gives as his authority), and boldly tells
us (Gospels, 240) that ‘ Victor of Capua in the sixth century speaks
of Tatian’s work as a “‘ Diapente” rather than a “ Diatessaron ”’
. (p. 242) The fifth work, alluded to by Victor of Capua,
may possibly have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews.’
This is the consequence of not looking out references; it would be
difficult to mislead the reader more completely as to what Victor
does say.
I am surprised that no one has perceived that Victor’s title
‘Diapente’ ‘through Five’ must be a mere slip of the pen. From
his own express words we know that he was acquainted with the
existence and character of Tatian’s work from Eusebius, and seem-
ingly (as he gives no other authority) him alone, and from En-
sebius’s account he distinctly describes it as a combination of four |
Gospels. Eusebius says that Tatian called his work ‘ Dia-tessaron’
‘through Fonr,’ and Victor, copying him, must have intended to
say the same. No doubi* when he took down the words of Eu-
* Or, which comes to the same thing, his MS. of Eusebius may have had the
ee
Fustin's ‘memos of the Apostles. 133
sebius he wrote va 0’ for da reoodpwy, and when working from his
own notes translated 0 into wévre, as if it were the letter for 5
instead of 4. Every one must be aware of making slips of this ©
kind now and then: I can give from my own experience a curiously
similar example. In rendering into English verse Odyss. v. 70—
Kpiivas & egeins mlovpes péov vdart AcvK@
Fountains four
In order ranged with sparkling water flowed—
I inadvertently translated ‘Fountains jive,’ and the mistake not
only slipped me in MS. but through the printer’s proofs. Had
Victor of Capua made this particular blunder, no doubt unsuspect-
ing critics would point out that his MS. of Homer must have read
not mioupec péov but wévr’ Eppeor.
E. Justin’s ‘MEMOIRS OF THE APOSTLES.’
The passage of Jerome quoted on p. 21 has been urged in favour
of a theory that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the same
with Justin’s ‘memoirs of the Apostles,’
I reject this theory, in the first place because I am convinced
that Justin used our existing Gospels, whether (as has been sug-
gested) in the form of a harmony or not, and whether (as I am
inclined to think) he used any further record or not. I would
willingly discuss this subject, but, as it occupies nearly 150 pp. of
Supernatural Religion, more than 80 in Prof. Westcott’s Canon of
the New Testament, and 50 in Dr. Sanday’s Gospels in the Second
Century, the discussion would seriously delay the present work,
besides taking up a most disproportionate amount of its space. I
recommend any one who wishes to master the question to read first
Supernatural Religion, then Prof. Westcott, then Swpernatural Re-
ligion again, and lastly Dr. Sanday.
But, whether or not Justin used our Gospels, I should hold that
the Gospel according to the Hebrews was not the same with (though
it might be included in) Justin’s ‘memoirs of the Apostles.’
The crucial proof of this is a passage t in which Justin, after
mentioning the ‘memoirs of the Apostles,’ adds, ‘ which are called
Gospels,’ showing that he grouped several evangelic works under
this designation. ‘ This clause,’ as Dr. Sanday happily expresses it,
‘has met with the usual fate of parenthetic statements which do
short form 6:4 8. And for that matter the slip of the pen may have been in the
MS. itself, which may have given d:a ¢’ for 5: &. [
t Of yap ’AméaToAn ev Tots yevouevais bm’ abtay drouynmoveduacww, & Kareirau
EvayyéAva,—Apol. i. 66.
734 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
not quite fall in with preconceived opinions, and is dismissed * as a
‘manifest interpolation, a gloss having crept into the text from the
margin.’ When a MS. is found that does not contain the words
‘which are called Gospels,’ the gloss-theory will deserve respect :
till then it has not a rag of reason to hide its nakedness.
The writer of Supernatural Religion does indeed argue as follows
(i. 294:):—‘ If Justin really stated that the Memoirs were called
Gospels, it seems incomprehensible that he should never call them
so himself. In no other place in his writings does he apply the
plural to them, but, on the contrary, we find Trypho referring to
the ‘‘ so-called Gospel,” which he states that he has carefully read,
and which, of course, can only be Justin’s ‘‘ Memoirs ;”
another part of the same dialogue Justin quotes passages which
are written ‘‘in the Gospel” (év r@ cbayyeXiw yéyparrac). The term
‘“‘Gospel”’ is nowhere else used by Justin in reference to a written
record.’ |
The explanation is not, however, far to find for any one who will
seek it. The entire body of facts known and recorded concerning
Jesus was spoken of as ‘the Gospel’; the particular writings which
contained portions of it had only lately come to be called ‘the Gos-
pel according to’ such and such a writer. Papias, for instance, in
speaking of works which he says Mark and Matthew wrote, does
not employ the word; to Mark’s book he gives no particular name,
but he calls Matthew’s book ‘oracles.’ He himself wrote a book
called ‘Exposition of Dominical Oracles’ (Aoyiwy Kupraxoy
"EEnynocc), which, with Bishop Lightfoot (Cont. Rev. for Aug.
1875), I believe to mean ‘Exposition of sacred books about the
Lord.’ When people spoke of the body of facts narrated in the
sacred records, they called it ‘the Gospel,’ when of the records
themselves they used the word ‘Oracles’ as Papias, or ‘Memoirs’
as Justin, or some other. But in course of time they got to call
them by the name of ‘ Gospels,’ and Justin alludes to this growing
custom: but for all that he himself preferred to use his own old-
fashioned term.
There is, I may add, no reason to suppose that the authorship
of the Gospel according to the Hebrews was attributed to the
Apostles generally in the 2nd or even 3rd cent. Irenaeus calls it
simply ‘that Gospel which is according to Matthew,’ and he wrote
* By the writer of Supernatural Religion :—‘The last expression & KaAdcirat
evaryyéAta, as many scholars have declared, is a manifest interpolation. It is, in
all probability, a gloss on the margin of some old MS. which some copyist after-
wards inserted in the text.’ Scholar is an unfortunate substitute for critic, as it
conveys the idea that the words are faulty from the point of view of pure ‘ scholar-
ship.’
and again, in _
Se
Evidence for and against Fohn vit. 53-vitt. 11. 135
less than 50 years, perhaps only 40, after Justin. Are we to believe
that he would have so described a work which in his boyhood + was
read on Sundays in Christian assemblies as ‘the Memoirs of the
Apostles’ ?
There are no proofs that Justin used the Gospel according to
the Hebrews at all: in two cases he accords with it in certain
peculiarities, but these same peculiarities are also found in MSS. of
Matthew and Luke which we know to represent a 2nd cent. type
of text. In neither of these cases is his agreement with the Gospel
according to the Hebrews exact, while in one he does agree verbatim
with the MSS. in question. I am not disputing that he may have
employed this Gospel among others, but I do say that, with no
evidence that he used it at all, it is childish to hold that he used it
to their exclusion.
F, ANALYSIS OF THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR AND
AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF JOHN vil. 53—viii. 11.
(i.) Exrernat Evyipence. (a) Text of Hatant MSS.
John vii. 53-viii. 11 is contained ‘without trace of suspicion’
(Scrivener) in 7 uncials, DEGHKUT, and 318 cursives, to which
may be added the first hands of 3 and the second hands of 9 cur-
sives.
It is omitted by 8 uncials)s NBACTLX{A, and 57 cursives,
while 4 other cursives (including Cod. 237, mentioned again below)
omit viii. 3-11.
It is ‘ obelized,’ i.e. marked as doubtful, in 3 uncials, MSA, and
42 cursives (including Cod. 33 and ev—y), and by the second hands
of 3 other cursives; while parts of it are so marked in 2 uncials, E
(viii. 2-11) and II (viii. 3-11), and 2 cursives (viii. 4-11). In one
cursive which contains the passage viii. 12 is also written after
vii. 52.
It is written at the end of the Gospel in Cod. 1 and 11 other
cursives (including Cod. 237, mentioned above), and part of it
(viii. 3-11) is so appended in 4 cursives (including one which had
‘previously omitted the entire passage).
It is inserted after vii. 36 in one cursive, and at the end of Luke
xxi. by 4 cursives (including Cod. 13 and Cod. 69).
Thus of 459 later authorities (cursive) no less than 129 omit,
ft Ta &rouvnpoveduara trav “AmooréAwy }} Ta ovyypdumata Tav Tlpopyntay dva-
ywaoKeTat méxpis &yxwpet.—Apol. i. 67.
{ X, however, is said by Dr. Burgon to be a mere commentary (with accom-
panying text) on the Gospels as publicly read.
136 The Gospel according to the Hebrens.
transfer, or obelize the passage, and among these are the 5 exceed-
ingly important cursives 1, 13, 33, 69 and ev—y.
Of the 20 earlier MSS. (uncial) no less than 13 omit or obelize
it. Among these are the 5 most ancient ones, NB of the 4th cent.,
and ACT of the 5th cent. ; D, the oldest MS. which contains it (5th
or 6th cent.), is celebrated for curious additions. The next oldest
MS., E (7th or 8th cent.), obelizes part of the passage, and the next,
L (8th cent.), omits all of it. The rest are all of the 9th or 10th
cent.
(b) Text of Versions.
The passage is contained in the Vulgate, the Jerusalem Syriac,
the Aethiopic, and later MSS. of the Armenian. The MSS. of the
Old Latin are divided, but the evidence for the passage overweighs.
It is omitted by the Italian Recension (i.e. f and q), Cureton’s
Syriac,* the Péshitta, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Thebaic, the
Gothic, and earlier MSS. of the Armenian. The earlier (against
the later) Memphitic MSS. are said to want it, and Mr. McClellan
(New Test., 720) allows this, but I do not know where the state-
ment is established and prefer to regard the evidence of the Mem-
phitic as uncertain.
The Latin versions, therefor, taken apart from the rest, tell for
the passage, the Syriac against it, the Egyptian against it, and the
residue against it. The balance of the combined evidence is against.
(c) Evidence of Harly Writers.
Among the Latin Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome
support it. Ambrose quotes or refers to it 4 times, clearly without
any doubt. Augustine does so 6 times, once mentioning it as a
peculiarity of John’s Gospel, once expounding it verse by verse in
his Commentary on John, and once stating that ‘some of little
* This version, as published by Cureton, was wanting between John vii. 37
and xiv. 10. But in the autumn of 1870 three more fragments were found, one
of which most happily comprises John vii. 37—viii. 19: it leaves out the entire
passage before us. The discovery happened after the publication of Tischendorf’s
last edition (1869), and, strangely enough, Dr. Scrivener was unaware of it when
in 1874 he published the 2nd ed. of his Introduction to the Criticism of the
New Testament. Mr. Hammond also, in 1876, distinctly states that the Cure-
tonian is defective here. Let me, therefor, say that the two other fragments
found are Luke xv. 22—xvi. 12, xvii. 1-23; that in 1872 Prof. W. Wright of Cam- ©
bridge printed, privately, 100 copies of the Syriac text, one of which is in the
British Museum; and that a translation into N. T. Greek will be found in Pt. ii.
of Mr. Crowfoot’s Fragmenta Evangelica. The fact that the Curetonian is not
defective here, but nevertheless leaves out the passage, is the more important be-
cause it is opposed to its allies D and the Old Latin: we should have supposed
a priori that the Curetonian would contain the story.
Evidence for and against Fohn vit. 53-Vitz. 1. 137
faith, or rather enemies to true faith—I imagine out of fear that
impunity of sin was granted to their wives—removed from their .
MSS. that which the Lord did respecting the forgiveness of the
adulteress.’ And Jerome, besides inserting it in the Vulgate, says
that it was found ‘in many both Greek and Latin manuscripts.’
Of these, however, Augustine, who was a poor Greek scholar, is
probably only a witness to the reading of the Latin copies: in which
case his words confirm my-belief that the Old Latin had the passage
but that the Italian Recension had not. And the words of Jerome
imply that the passage was wanting in most MSS.
On the other hand, Juvencus in his metrical paraphrase of the
Gospel history omits it. Tertullian does not mention it in his
treatise De Pudicitia, where it is said he must have referred to it
had he known it as a genuine portion of the text. Tischendorf
adds that Cyprian and Hilary had good occasion to allude to it,
had they chosen.
As for the Greek fathers, not one of them before Euthymius
(12th century) mentions these verses, and he says that ‘in the
accurate copies they are either not found or are marked doubtful,
wherefor they seem to be an interpolation and addition.’ Origen,
Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theophylact pass over them in their com-
mentaries, the first three closely connecting viii. 12 with vii. 53.
Nonnius omits the story in his poem, and Cosmas does not mention
it in the list of incidents peculiar to John. The Apostolic Consti-
tutions do refer to it, but without stating its source. Tischendorf
calls attention to the fact that Basil, who might well have quoted
it, has not done so.
The evidence of the Latin fathers is therefor doubtfully favour-
able, that of the Greek fathers overwhelmingly opposed to the
genuineness of the passage.
(d) Evidence of the Lectionaries.
Ambrose speaks of it as a ‘Gospel-lesson.’ There is evidence
of its use in the Greek servicebook as early as the beginning of the
9th century ; in no Greek lectionary, however, does it stand as
part of the lesson for Pentecost, being always read on the festival
of some female saint of doubtful antecedents. The great majority
of the Greek lectionaries contain it.+
The evidence from lectionaries is therefor decidedly in favour
t The Jerusalem Syriac lectionary has already been reckoned among the ver-
sions. It continues the Pentacostal lesson to viii. 2, but assigns viii. 3-11 to St.
Euphemia’s day.
138 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
of the genuineness of the passage. But this evidence is much later
than that to be derived from MSS. versions and fathers ; and the
singular appropriateness of the story to the history of certain female
saints easily accounts for its introduction into the services of the
Church.
(e) Evidence of Scholia.
A note in the margin of A (9th or perhaps 8th cent.), and
a great many cursives, runs thus:—‘ The verses marked doubt-
ful are not contained in some copies nor in Apollinarius, but are
contained entire in the ancient ones.’ Two other scholiasts say the
verses ‘are found in ancient copies’ and that they ‘are not con-
tained in the majority of copies, but are found in the more ancient.’
One scribe (of the 9th cent.) says the passage is ‘not con-
tained in the CoprS of the 2 re agart day,’ another that it ‘is found
in some copies.’
Two scholiasts pronounce against it, one because it ‘is not
found in the more accurate of the copies,’ the other because it is
‘not contained in the majority of copies, nor mentioned by the
divine fathers that have written commentaries—I mean John Chry-
sostom and Cyril of Alexandria—nor yet by Theodore of Mopsuestia
and the rest.’
The evidence to be derived from scholia is therefor divided, but
may be thought to tell rather in favour of the passage.
(ii.) Internat Eyipencs. I feel bound to admit that the force
of the internal evidence has been greatly overrated, The following
are Alford’s specifications :—
(a) That Jchn nowhere else mentions the Mt. of Olives.
McClellan (New Testament, 724) answers that each of the Synop-
tists mentions Gennesaret only once. There is no proof, however,
that they had due occasion for naming it more frequently, whereas
we should certainly have expected to find the Mt. of Olives
named in Jobn xii. or xviii., as Matthew and Mark each mention
it 8 times and Luke 4 times. Still it may be thought less
unlikely that John should name it here only than that he should
never name it at all.
(b) That, when John introduces a new place, it is his habit to give
explanations. McClellan answers that in xviii. 1 the brook Kedron
is introduced without explanation, and that in any case the Mt.
of Olives was too well known to need it. McClellan’s instance is
not conclusive, since ‘the winter-torrent Kedron’ is itself merely
_ mentioned to explain the situation of the garden to which Jesus
Evidence for and against Fohn vit. 53-vitt. 11. 139
withdrew: and ‘the sea of Galilee’ ought not to have needed the
addition (vi. 1) of the words ‘ which is the sea of Tiberias.’
(c) That ‘mopevowa with cic is not found elsewhere in John.’
This is not the fact: it is so found in vii.*35, only 18 verses
before.
(d) That dpOpoy is not found elsewhere in John. But itis only
found once in Luke’s Gospel, once in Acts, and nowhere else in the
N. T., and is a word which one would not expect to find more than
once in so short a book.
(e) That rapayivopar with cic is not found elsewhere in John.
Imagine one giving as evidence against the genuineness of an
English paragraph the fact that it contained the construction ‘came
into,’ whereas in the rest of the author’s book no example occurred
of ‘came into,’ but only of ‘came’ and ‘came to’! Cf. Matt., who
has this construction only once, and Luke, who has it not once in
his Gospel and yet 3 times in Acts.
(f) That John uses radc elsewhere in a, different sense, and would
have used dydoc here. But, as John only uses Aade in two other
places, it is not just to attribute to him alone among the evangelists
an exclusively narrow sense of the word. And in the second place
éx\oc in John never means more than ‘ crowd,’ whereas here he
may be describing the united impulse of all the people gathered
together at the feast of tabernacles. Lastly, 3 uncials and 20
cursives actually read dyXoc and not Aade, while 7 cursives omit
the entire sentence. |
(g) That such an expression as xabicac édidackey abrovc is not
found elsewhere in John.- True. But it is found (without adrovc)
only once in Luke, and McClellan reasonably asks, supposing that
Jesus did on occasions sit down and teach, whether it is ‘any more
inconsistent with S. John’s style than with S. Luke’s or with
any other writer’s once to say so.’ Let me add that D and 7
cursives omit the clause. ,
(h) That ‘itis not in John’s manner to relate that Jesus taught
them, without relating what He taught.’ But there is a marked
instance of his doing so in the previous chapter, vii. 14, ‘Jesus
went up into the Temple, and taught.’ )
(7) That ‘John does not usually connect with sé.’ But McClellan
has shown from other parts of John the complete fallacy of this
argument, and has observed that dé occurs 204 times in the Gospel
as against ody 206 times.
(j) That John never mentions oi ypappareic elsewhere, but usually
calls the opponents of Jesus oi "loveaia or oi apxovrec. It certainly is
remarkable that the name Scribes occurs nowhere else in this
Gospel, McClellan, who paraphrases it by ‘Doctors of the Law,’
140 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
says ‘ But the question was one of the Law.’ This answer seems at
first fairly satisfactory, but becomes less so when we observe
Gi.) that there was no dispute about the Law at all: the question
was not what the Law, but what Jesus prescribed ; Gi.) that in
cases where the legality of the acts of Jesus is questioned (v. 10-16,
ix. 13-16) the Scribes are not mentioned by John, who speaks of
‘the Jews’ and ‘the Pharisees.’ It is true that three’ cursives,
with Coptic and Armenian MSS., read ‘the cnipr-priests and the
Pharisees,’ and we cannot prove that this, which admirably suits
John’s usage, was uot the original reading. But the authority for
it is slender, and the fact of its being thoroughly Johannine will
explain its introduction: that ‘chief-priests’ was, on the other
hand, corrupted into ‘scribes’ is the less likely because in passages
of John where the ‘ chief-priests’ are mentioned ‘scribes’ is never
found as a various reading.
(k) That ‘ €yovatv avT@ éxmrespalov rec aurév savours much more
of the synoptic Gospels than of John.’ Clearly, because they con-
tain more incidents which admit of such an expression. The
use of the word wepaZw is not alien to John, who describes Jesus
as wepdlwy, trying, Philip with a question (vi. 6).
(1) That ‘the very fact of their questioning thus, “ Moses
commanded, .... but what sayest Thow?” belongs to the last
days of the Lord’s ministry, and cannot well be introduced chrono-
logically where it here stands.’ John, however, clothes the figure
of Jesus at Jerusalem at this stage of his career with as much
public importance as the Synoptists do in the week previous to his
death. And would not the same objection apply equally to iii. 13-17,
the account of the cleansing of the Temple ?
(m) That John nowhere introduces ‘these questions iaaek
the law of Moses and Jesus; but the synoptic Gospels often do.’
The same might be said of the miracle at Cana (ce. ii.) and that of
the nobleman’s son (c. iv.): miracles which do not serve as the
occasion for discourses are quite foreign to the general scope of the
Gospel.
(n) That ‘xrhv is only found here in John, Gosp. and Epp.’
True, but it is also found once, and once only, in Mark. And it is
only found once in the Apocalypse—which, if the Apocalypse was
written by the writer of the Gospel, is likewise a proof of its being
one of his words.
(0) That ‘xaraxpivw also is not found elsewhere in Soli who
uses kpivw in its strict sense for it.’ Equally true, but here again
we have a parallel in Luke, who also uses caraxpivw in two conse-
cutive verses (xi. 31, 32) but nowhere else.
Fesus Bar-Abba. 141
Reviewing these 15 items of the indictment, we find that 3
of them (c h 7) must be given up as against fact; that 5 (de g n 0)
are exactly applicable to other Gospels (e and g are otherwise
weak); and that 4 (f/1m) are untenable for various reasons.
Only 3 are left (a bj). I think that these (particularly the last)
do afford a presumption against Johannine authorship, though to
each of them there is some sort of answer not altogether beneath
notice.
To sum up—the external evidence must be held fatal to the
genuineness of the passage: the internal evidence, while insufficient
of itself to establish the same conclusion, must be taken to con-
firm it.
G. Jxrsus Bar-Apsa.
In Matt. xxvii. 16, 17 five cursive MSS. and the Jerusalem
Syriac and Armenian versions exhibit the reading ‘ Jesus Barabbas’
instead of ‘Barabbas.’ And 21 MSS. contain the following mar-
ginal note, variously ascribed to Chrysostom (who, however, is
silent on the subject in his Commentary) and Anastasius of Sinai
(who flourished toward the end of the 6th cent.) :—‘ In some very
ancient MSS. which I came across I found Barabbas himself also
called Jesus, so that in these the question of. Pilate ran thus—
“*Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? Jesus
Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?”’ For, as it seems,
Barabbas, which is interpreted ‘‘teacher’s son,’’ was the robber’s
sire-name—(Iladauwic ravu avrvypagore évruywy evpov Kal abrov rov
BapaBBav "Inooty Reyouevov. _Otrwe yoty etyev fh rod TWiddrov
mevore éxei— Tiva OédXere amd TeV Ovo arovCw bpiv, "Inoedy
tov BapaBBay i “Inooty rov deydpevov Xprordv’; ‘Qe yap Zouwer’
bide sat rou Anorov Hy 6 Bapa/3Gac, Oreo Epunveverac Seackddov -
vloc).
But the heaviest external evidence in favour of this esau is
furnished by the fact that Origen, according to the Latin of a pas-
sage now lost in the Greek, states that Ti wary MSS. it is not
contained that Barabbas was also called Jesus, and perhaps rightly,
so that the name Jesus would not belong to any sinner’ (In
multis exemplaribus non continetur quod Barabbas etiam Iesus
dicebatur, et forsitan recte, ut ne nomen Iesu conveniat alicni
iniquorum)—Oomm. in Matt. This of course implies that ‘Jesus
Barabbas’ was at that time the reading of most MSS.
The internal evidence in Matthew is to my mind very decidedly
in favour of ‘Jesus Barabbas.’ If ‘Barabbas’ alone were the
142 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
original reading, why was ‘Jesus’ inserted—a name that. would
naturally be avoided above all others? ‘Tregelles thinks that in
Matt. xxvii. 17 YMIN was accidentally written YMININ and that
another copyist mistook the second IN for IN, i.e. "Incody, ‘ Jesus.’
Now (1) the argument might be retorted on him that the
original reading was YMININ, then YMININ, and that finally the
second IN was treated as an accidental repetition and left out;
(2) the reading ‘Jesus Barabbas’ first occurs in v. 16, where no
such mistake as T'regelles supposes was possible; (3) surely a:
copyist who had read v. 16 without the word ‘Jesus’ would not
have changed IN to IN in v. 17 and then altered v. 16, to suit it,
but would have seen at once that the two superfluous letters were
an accidental,repetition and would have struck them out altogether.
There is every reason, on the other hand, why, if ‘Jesus Barab-
bas’ be the true reading, ‘Jesus’ should have been omitted. The
piety of early Christians—ignorant for the most part how common
that name formerly was among the Jews—supposed it impossible
for ‘a murderer, a revolter, and a robber’ to have had the same
circumcision-name as the Saviour: compare the above-quoted words
of Origen. In the second place, ‘ Barabbas’ might itself be mistaken
for a circumcision-name by any one ignorant of Aramaic, and then
‘Jesus’ would be struck out as a supposed accidental insertion.
In the third place, ‘Jesus’ might be omitted because absent from
other evangelists.
It is true that for a moment Matt. xxvii. 20 (‘ But the chief-
priests and the elders persuaded the crowds that they should ask
Barabbas but destroy Jesus’) seems to militate against the theory
that Barabbas also bore the name ‘Jesus.’ That verse, however,
is not a quotation of words used, but merely the evangelist’s account
to his readers.
Note too, from vv. 17, 22, that Pilate says ‘Jesus which is
called Christ,’ almost as if there were another Jesus from whom it
was needful to distinguish him.
Lastly, if Bar-Abba was not named ‘ Jesus,’ why do Mark, Luke,
and John exhibit so singular an unanimity in withholding his real
circumcision-name ? But, if that name was identical with that of
their Master, we can well understand why they withheld it,
Of course the name ‘Jesus’ may have been brought in from
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, supposing it to have been
found there: but two out of the three allies of that Gospel, namely
Codex Bezae and the Old Latin, have no trace of it—the third,
Cureton’s Syriac, is deficient in this part. Anyhow, if the same
man wrote Fr. 27 and Matt. xxvii. 16, 17, he would provably write
‘Jesus Barabbas’ in both places if at all.
Probable or Posstble Fragments. 143
H. Propaste on PosstptE FRAGMENTS OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING
To THE HEBREWS.
I have here included all such evangelic quotations in early ~
writers as seem to me referable with more or less probability to our
lost Gospel. The number of possible quotations might have been
enlarged almost indefinitely (see p. 112), but I have excluded all
those for which no better presumption can be urged than a slight
divergence from the canonical text. I must, however, explain why
I have inserted all the evangelic quotations but one in the so-
called Second Hpistle of Clement of Rome—a work dating about
130-60 A.D.
The one quotation which I have not admitted is a very peculiar
one, with no canonical affinities whatever, and Clement of Alex-
andria, who quotes it four times, says that it is found in the Gospel
according to the Egyptians. On the strength of this Hilgenfeld has
pitchforked into his edition of the supposed fragments of that
Gospel all the remaining evangelic quotations in the Second Epistle
of Clement of Rome, entirely regardless of these two facts: (1) that
each one of those quotations has a canonical parallel, (2) that this
is not the case with any fragment of the Gospel according to the
Egyptians. .
But, if all the rest of the evangelic quotations in the Second ~
Clementine Epistle correspond to passages in the canonical Gospels,
why have I given them here? I have been led to do so by the
phaenomena which the quotation numbered Fr. 43 presents. It is
most certainly not taken from any of our Gospels; at.the same time
it partly answers to passages in Matthew and Luke, and has certain
likenesses to each ; and lastly the correspondence is very far nearer
to Matthew than to Luke, because the two passages which both
evangelists have in common with it are. combined by Matthew into
the same discourse of Jesus while Luke separates them into different
discourses. In other words, we find in this quotation the three
striking features of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, (1) close
affinity with Matthew, (2) less close but still marked affinity with
Luke, (3) decided independence of both.
Two other of these quotations exhibit unquestionable inde-
pendence of our canonical Gospels—F’r. 41 and Fr. 57, the latter of
which is also found in Irenaeus, who regarded the Gospel according
to the Hebrews as Matthew’s, but did not accept, and consequently
would not quote, any other Gospel outside of our four—though he
may have quoted from tradition. I have therefor felt fully justified
in placing the rest of the quotations of this author among the pos-
sible Fragments, but they may equally well be more or less loose
144 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
quotations from memory of our present Gospels. It is curious that ©
every one has a parallel in Matthew (although sometimes the like-
ness to Luke is greater) and that at the same time he speaks of the —
nations as* ‘hearing from your mouth the Oracles (ra Ady.a) of
God,’ which name ‘the Oracles’ (ra Ady:a) is that given by Papias
to the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, and that he gives an evangelic
quotation as a sample of them. Ido not press this, but think it
worth mentioning.
I must remind the reader that the author of the Epistle quotes
words answering to part of Fr. 16 in a form nearer to them than is
presented by any other authority.
I have read some part of Mr. Cotterill’s Peregrinus Proteus, in
which he tries to show that a considerable number of Greek writ-
ings, secular and sacred, the latter including the two Epistles
bearing the name of Clement, were the work of a mediaeval forger,
or two or more forgers in concert, who went on the plan of using
words and phrases picked out of genuine writings but using them
in quite different surroundings—a plan which, because Henri
Hstienne professedly engaged in it as an amusement, is supposed to
have been employed (probably by him) to forge the writings in
question ‘simply for his own amusement, and for the sake of feeling
his own literary power, and from his love of that kind of often in-
nocent deceit which &. &.’ That a man should not only forge
(from whatever object), but, for the sake of indulging a whim
which he might as easily indulge without forging, should wilfully
give on every page and in almost every paragraph clues which
would lead to his own exposure and to his everlasting infamy, is
hard to believe. That, having forged three MSS. of a lost writer
* Ta vn ydp, axovovTa ek Tov oTdpmaros judy Ta Adyia. TOD Ocod, ds Kara Kab
peydAra Oavud ers @revra, KarapabdyTa Ta Epya juav Bri obk Eorw aka Toy pnud-
Ttwv Gv réyouev, evOev eis BAaohnulay TpérovTat, A€yovres elvar wdOdy Ta Kal
mArdvnv. “Otay yap &Kotowow rap hua bri A€yet 6 Oeds ‘Od Xadpis dui €i Gyaware
Tovs &yatavTas bas, AAG xapis Suly ei Gyamare Tovs exOpods Kal Tovs micodyTas
buds’ —radra bray axotowor, OavudCovaw Thy bwepBodrjy Tis ayabdtnTos* Bray Be
1Swow bri od pdvov Tovs micodyTas ovK GyamGpev GAN’ Sri odd Tobs &yamayras, KaTa~
yeroow iuev Ka Bracpnuctra 7d “Ovowa—‘ For the nations, hearing from our
mouth the Oracles of God, wonder at them for their beauty and grandeur; then,
having learnt our works, that they are not worthy of the words which we say,
they turn themselves from this to reviling, saying that it is some myth and
will of the wisp. For when they hear from us that God saith “It is no thank
to you if ye love them that love you, but it is thank to you if ye love enemies and
them that hate you”—when they hear these things they wonder at the over-
abounding goodness: but when they see that not only do we not love them that
hate us, but not even them that love us, they laugh us down and the Name is
reviled.’—xiii.
eee eee ee el
Probable or Possible Fragments. 145
of the highest interest to all the Christian world (as in the case of
the two Clementine Epistles), and having the means of giving im-
mediate publicity to them (as Hstienne had)-he should yet dispose
of them so that he would never enjoy the fruits, mental or pe-
cuniary, of his toilsome deceit—so that indeed not one of these
MSS. was printed till centuries after his death—is also hard to
believe. That some of the supposed ‘ parodies’ are so babyish that
one wonders how any man with a man’s brain would find pleasure
in making them Mr. Cotterill himself will hardly deny; nor does
it seem, as far as I have read, that he hag tested the amount of
undesigned coincidences of expression in a’number of provably
genuine writings. To qualify myself to speak decidedly on Mr.
Cotterill’s most laborious and ingenious book would claim an
amount of time which I cannot spare; but I wish to show that I
have not ignored it, and that I have prima facie reasons for holding
the received belief till those who shall gain the qualification to judge
give their judgement to Mr. Cotterill.
As to the passages taken from the Clementine Homilies—an
Ebionite work of the 2nd or early 3rd cent. quite unconnected with
the Clementine Epistles—I have inserted them on the ground that,
if they are not mere oral traditions, the Gospel according to the
Hebrews was the likeliest non-canonical source for the Ebionite
author of the Homilies to borrow from. The common theory that
he habitually used a form of the Ebionite Gospel has to face the
fact that wherever we can compare his quotations with the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, as in the case of Fr. 20 and Fr. 24, he
offers no approximation to it but follows the canonical narrative,
which in these instances happens to be widely different.
+34. ? : The son and the daughter shall inherit alike.
+ Hilgenfeld inserts these quotations in his edition, and seems to have no
doubt whatever that they belong to the Gospel according to the Hebrews. As he
gives no reason beyond saying that the latter of the two is too unlike the Greck
Matthew to have been translated from it, I did not, in face of my own objec-
tions, intend to take any notice of them. But, since the Rev. W. H. Lowe in his
Fragment of Talmud Babli P’sachim and Prof. Rawson Lumby in the Expositor
for April maintain that they are taken from an Aramaic Gospel, I have recon-
sidered the question, and feel that they should at least be included among the
possible Fragments.
The following translation of a story in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbath) I
take from Mr. Lowe (p. 68):—Imma Shalom (= Salome) was the wife of Rabbi
Eliezer [ben Hyrcanus], and the sister of Rabban Gamli’el [the younger]. There
was in his neighbourhood a certain Pilos¢fa, who had the name that he would
not take a bribe. They wished to have a laugh at him. So she brought hima
golden lamp [as a present], they went before him, and she said to him: ‘I wish
L
146 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
35. Matt. v. 17. I am not come to take away from the law of
Moses, nor to add to the law of Moses am I come.
that they should apportion unto me of the property of our family.’ He [the
Pilos*fa| said.to them: ‘Apportion it (to her).’ He [Rabban Gamli’el, her
brother] said to him: ‘ We have it written (var. lect. in the Law), Where there is
a son a daughter does not inherit. Heanswered him: ‘ From the day that ye were
removed from your land the Law of Moses was taken away and another Law
given, and in it it is written, The son and the daughter shall inherit alike.” Next
day he [Rabban Gamli’elj, in his turn, brought him a Lybian ass. He [the
Pilos¢fa| said to them: ‘I have looked further on in the book and it is written in
it, I am not come to take away from the Law of Moses, nor to add to the Law of
Moses am I come; and in it [the Law of Moses] it is written, where there is a son,
a daughter shall not inherit’ She [Imma Shalom] said to him [pointedly]: ‘Let
thy light shine like the lamp!’ Rabban Gamli’el said to her: ‘The ass has come
and trodden out the lamp !’ [i.e. the second bribe counteracted the effect of the first].
For Pilos¢fa ‘ philosopher’ Mr. Lowe would however read a form of ‘ episcopos,’
‘bishop,’ which the reading of the Munich MS. suggests to him, and for ‘ another
Law’ he reads, with the Oxford MS. ‘the law of the Evangelium.’
The Rabban Gamli’el of the above story was the grandson of the Gamli’el at
whose feet Paul sat, and became President of the Sanhedrin. His sister’s hus-
band Rabbi Eliezer was one of the most famous Rabbis of the day, but in the
Talmud he is said to have been charged before the Roman governor with Christian
leanings, and is also said to have quoted with approval a Christian interpretation
of Deut. xxiii. 18. And so Mr, Lowe plausibly suggests that his wife’s object in
bribing the Christian of the story was to counteract her husband’s friendliness to
Christians. He also points out that Paul, in 1 Cor. vi., directs Corinthian Chris-
tians to settle legal disputes before judges chosen from their own body. Internal
evidence, therefor, is in favour of the truth of the story. And ‘it is impossible,’
says Mr. Lowe, ‘that the whole should be pure invention—and the citations given
from such an imperfect knowledge of the Gospels and Epistles, as may be sup-
posed to have been possessed by the compilers of the Talmud Babli in the ivth and
vth centuries—for Rab, who (as we hope to prove on some other occasion) was the
vehicle of such traditions, must have brought the story back with him from Pales-
tine to Babylonia. And there it must have been embodied in the Babli (a propos
of the use of the word 995 4, and the treatment of books which in the estimation
of some Jews were semi-sacred) with the same good faith with which hundreds of
other stories, brought by him, were inserted. Thus it is but reasonable to con-
sider this as a tradition concerning Rabban Gamli’el, partially corrupted perhaps
through process of transmission, but still authentic in its main points.’
It seems to me quite possible that the first of the two quotations may be only
a distorted application of Gal. iii. 28, ‘There is not male or female: for all ye are
one [man] in Christ Jesus. For Gamli’el’s own quotation from the Old Testa-
ment is no true quotation, but only an inference from Num. xxvii. 8, ‘If a man
die, and have no son, then shall ye pass over his inheritance to his daughter.’ Or
we may call to mind that passage in the Second Clementine Epistle (xii. 2) ‘ For the
Lord himself, having been asked by some one when his kingdom should come,
said “ When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male
with the female neither male nor female” ’—a passage which Clement of Alex-
andria (Strom. iii. 9, 93) asserts to have been in the Gospel according to the
Egyptians. But the reference to Galatians is more natural, and we -have no-
‘
Probable or Possible Fragments. 147
- evidence of the existence of the Gospel according to the Egyptians before the time
when the Second Clementine Epistle was written—perhaps 60, perhaps 90 years
later than what we shall presently see is the likeliest date for this incident.
If, however, we might take as literally true the statement that our first quota-
tion was found in ‘the law of the Evangelium’ or even ‘another law’ it would
be impossible to look for its source in Gal. iii. 28. No Christian, assuredly no
Jewish Christian, would be likely to speak of an epistle of Paul as superseding
the law of Moses. And the statement that the second quotation was ‘further on
in the book’ is also against the correspondence of the former with Gal. iii. 28.
As to the second quotation, it is quite close enough to Matt. v. 17, ‘Think not
that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy
but to fulfil’ We know how variously the Gospels report sayings of Jesus: why
should we think that the oral tradition of non-Christian Jews would preserve a
Christian saying more exactly than the oral tradition of Christian Jews preserved
the sayings of Jesus?—more especially when in the former case the interval
before commission to writing was, as far as we know, much longer.
Let us now consider the time and place to which the incident should be re-
ferred. It must have happened after the destruction of Jerusalem in a.p. 70, or
at least after Vespasian’s edict of a.p. 72, whereby all the lands of the Jews were
put up for sale. And it must have happened before a.p, 123, when Rabban
Gamli’el died. But from a.p. 82 to his death Gamli’el was President of the San-
hedrin, and it seems very unlikely that he would compromise the dignity of that
post by acting as the story represents. We must therefor look for a date between
_ A.D. 70 and 82. Now the father of Imma and Gamli’el died in a.p. 70, and it is
reasonable to suppose that the particular pretext with which they went to the
Christian was suggested by their father’s death. So that we can hardly be wrong
in dating the incident about a.p, 71-3. The scene was almost undoubtedly
Jamnia, whither the Sanhedrin had gone before the siege of Jerusalem, and
whither Gamli’el also is known to have gone just after his father’s death.
And now let us consider whether the Christian is likely to have been a Jew
ora Gentile. There was indeed a Gentile settlement at Jamnia, but Imma and
Gamli’el are far more likely to have chosen a Jewish than a Gentile Christian for
an experiment of this kind. And it is to be noted that the Christian seems to
have held that the Jews were bound by their law so long as it was physically
possible for them to carry out its precepts in full—which was exactly the Judaeo-
Christian attitude. Lastly, if he was indeed a ‘ bishop,’ it is far more likely that
a Jew would be chosen as bishop among a population which was after all mainly
Jewish.
If so, Gamli’el would naturally quote to him the Rabbinical inference from Num.
xxvii. 8, in Aramaic, and he would as naturally quote in answer an Aramaic
Gospel if there was one to his purpose. . Of course we do not know that the Gospel
E- according to the Hebrews was then written, but if in the main the work of an
Apostle it probably was; and, if Luke, albeit writing perhaps. as many as ten
_ years later, knew ‘many’ Gospels, there is no reason why some of those Gospels
and among them the Gospel according to the Hebrews should not have been in
circulation at Jamnia before a.p. 70.
If a place in the Matthaean text before Matt. v. 17 had to be found for the
' first quotation, we might connect it with Matt. v. 3 or 10, ‘theits is the kingdom
_ of the heavens’ or better with Matt. v. 5, ‘they shall inherit the earth’
The originals of the two quotations are DAW SIND ‘n3) NI wo and
Smins Aw snes Sy spped dy omens neo NM po nnd xb
. L 2
148 The Gospel according to the FHebrews.
*36. ? Matt.v. near It is blessed rather to give than to receive.
the end,
+37. Matt. v. 46. [There is] not thank to you if ye love them
Luke y. 32, 35. that love you; but [there is] thank to youif ye
love enemies and them that hate you.
$38. Matt. vi. 24. No servant can serve two masters... . serve
Luke xvi. 13. oth God and mamon.
§ 39, Matt. vi. 33. Ask great things and little things shall be
added to you, and ask heavenly things and earthly
things shall be added to you.
* Acts, xx. 85—vnmoveve te TGV Adywv TOU Kuplov "Inaod, Sti adrds elrev
‘“Maxdpidv éorw maddoy diddvau 7) AauBdvey, ‘and to remember the words of the
Lord Jesus, that he said “It is blessed rather to give than to receive.”’ The
grounds for thinking that this may well have been found in our Gospel are (1) that
it occurs in a work written by Luke (2) that Paul was almost certainly familiar
with a tradition (see Fr. 29) found in this Gospel.
Compare also Clement of Rome, ii. 1, ‘more gladly giving than receiving’
(Hdvoy Siddvres 2) AauBdvoytes). The date of Clement’s epistle is probably 93-7 a.p.
+ ‘Second Epistle of Clement,’ xiii. 4—Aéye: 6 @cds ‘Ob xdpis duiv ci Gyaware
rods &yaravras tuas: GAAG xdpis buiv ei Gyamare Tos éxOpors Kal Tods uLocodvTas
buas,’ ‘God saith &e.’
Bishop Lightfoot takes the first part as a'loose quotation from Luke vi. 32,
‘If ye love them that love you, what manner of thank is there to you?’ (Ei éya-
rare Tovs &yamavras duis, tola duiv xdpis éorly;) and the latter part as a loose
quotation from Luke vi. 35, ‘But love your enemies ... and your reward
shall be much’ (TlA}v dyarare tods exOpois tpadv ... Ral fora 6 picbds sudv
mohts). He might also have suggested a reminiscence of Luke vi. 28, ‘ Love your
enemies, do good to them that hate you’ (Tots wicotow suas).
But compare also Matt. v. 46, ‘ For, if ye should love them that love you, viel
reward have ye’ (‘Edy yap &yarhonte Tovs ayaravras buts, tTlva micddy ExerTe ;)
and 44... ‘love your enemies’ (@yamrare rods éx@pods dudy), to which sqme 2nd
cent. authorities, though doubtless from Luke, add ‘do good to them that hate
you’ (Tots uicotow duas).
t ‘Second Epistle of Clement,’ vi. 1—Aéye: 5¢ 6 Kipios ‘Ovdels oinérns Sdvarat
duc) Kuplois Sovactev.’ "Edy jets O€A@pev Kal Oc@ Sovacdew kal pauwvG, &ovdupopov
hiv éorty, ‘ And the Lord saith “ No servant can serve two masters.” If we wish
to serve both God and mamon, it is unprofitable to us.’
Except for the word ‘both’ the quotations agree verbatim with Luke xvi. 13.
In Matt. vi. 24 ‘No man’ is undoubtedly the right reading.
§ Origen, De Orat., § 2—Elme yap 6 "Inoots rots wadntais abrod ‘Aireire Td
peydra kal To puiKpda duiv mpooreOhoera, Kal aireite Ta emovpdvia Kal TH emlyera
npootedjoerat duiy,’ ‘ For Jesus said to his disciples &c.’
Elsewhere (Against Celsus, vii.)-he thus alludes to the former part of the say-
ing :—‘ He [ie. the Christian] sends up his prayer to God not about common
things ; for he has learnt from Jesus to seek for nothing little (that is, sensuous),
but only reat things and truly divine’ (Avamgume ob wep) cav tuxdvTwv Thy
Se a ee ee a a —-
Probable or Possible Fragments. 149
40. Matt. vii. 21. Not every one that saith unto me ‘ Lord, lord’
. shall be saved, but he that {| doeth righteousness.
**41, Matt. vii. 23. If ye have been gathered with me in my ++!
Luke xiii. 26-7. bosom and do not my commandments, I will cast
you away and will say unto you ‘Depart from
me; I know you not whence ye are, workers of
iniquity.’
edxyv TE OcG’ Suale yap ard Tod “Inood wndév pixpdy, Tovtéctw aicOnrdy, (ynreiv,
GAAG wdva TA meydAa Kal GANOGs eta).
This part was quoted before Origen by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. i. 24,
.158—‘ For he [i.e. Jesus] saith ‘‘ Ask great things and little things shall be added
999
to you.
He also alludes to it elsewhere (Strom. iv. 6, 34). After quoting the latter
half of Matt. vi. 32 and the former half of Matt. vi. 33 he says ‘ for these things
are great; but the little things, and appertaining to sustenance, these things shall
be added to you’ (radra yap meydAa* ra 5é wicpd, Kal wep) rby Blov, Tadra mpoortebh-
wera duiv). ihe
Compare Matt. vi. 33, ‘ But seek first the kingdom [of God ?] and his righteous-
ness, and all these things shall be added to you’ (mpooreOqoerat dui),
The fact of this traditional saying being found in Origen (who used the Gospel
according to the Hebrews often) and Clement (who quoted it as Scripture), coupled
with the fact of our having a close parallel to the saying in Matthew, give it the
highest claim to be considered a fragment of our lost Gospel.
| ‘Second Epistle of Clement,’ iv. 2—Aéyer yap ‘Od mas 6 Aéywv mor Kipie,
kUpte’ cwPhoetat, GAAG 6 moldy Thy Siucaocdryny, ‘ For he saith &e.’
q ‘Righteousness’ is found 7 times in Matthew, never in Mark, twice in John,
“once in Luke, 4 times in Acts. ‘To do righteousness” is found in Matt. vi. 1
according to the true and now accepted reading, ‘to work righteousness’ is also
found in Luke x. 35.
** «Second Epistle of Clement,’ iv. 5—Eimey 6 Kipwos ‘’Edy ire wer’ euod
guvnypéevor ev TG KOATY pov Kal mh Tore Tas evTOAds mov, amroBadr@ suas Kal épa
“‘Yrdyere am euod’ odk olda tuas wédev eoré, epydrat dvoulas,”’. ‘The Lord
said &c.’
Matt. vii. 23 has ‘ And then will I avow to them that “I never knew you:
go away from me, ye that work iniquity ”’ (Kal rére duoroyhow abrois 8r1 ‘Ov5¢-
more eyvwy twas’ amoxwpeire am’ euod, of epyatduevor Thy avoulay’),
Luke xiii. 26-7 has ‘ Then shall ye begin to say “ We have eaten in front of
thee and drunk, and thou hast taught in our streets.” And he shall say “I say
to you, I know you not whence ye are; stand away from me all that work
iniquity’ (Tére Upteobe Aéyew ‘"Eddyouey évdmidy cov kal émlouer, kal ev tals
mAarelais hav edtdatas. Kal épet ‘ Aéyw iutv, odie oida tuas wédev eoré* aardatnte
dm’ éuod mavres épyaCduevor dvoutay’).
Now the words ‘If ye have been gathered with me in my bosom’ seem to me
to be conceivably derived from a source akin to that of Luke’s words ‘we have
eaten in front of thee and drunk.’ At an Oriental meal the company lay on
couches, several on a couch, the head of one in front of the breast of another,
1 For note see next page.
150 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
*42. Matt. ix. 13. I came not [or, am not come] to call just but
Mark. ii. 17. sinners.
Luke v. 32.
+43, Matt. x. 16,28. (1) ¢‘Ye shall be as $Tambkise in midst of
Luke x, 3, xii. 4. wolves,’
(2) And Peter answered him and saith ‘If
then the wolves rend the lambkins asunder P? ’
(3) Jesus said to Peter ‘ Let not the lambkins
after they are dead fear the wolves.’ || And do ye
and this is what is meant by John xiii, 23, the proper rendering of which is
‘There was lying in the bosom of Jesus one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.’
Viewed in the light of Luke’s version one would conjecture that the words ‘If
ye have been gathered with me in my bosom’ may mean ‘If ye have eaten and
drunk in front of me.’ It is just worth remarking that the word which I have
rendered ‘ gathered’ is one also applied to drawing close at a dinner-table, for an
instance of which the reader may turn to Fr. 52,
tt Found 3 times in Luke, twice in John, never in Mark or Matthew. See
particularly Luke xvi. 22-8, where Lazarus is in Abraham’s bosom.
* ‘Second Epistle of Clement,’ ii. 4—Kal érépa 58 ypaph Aéyer 871‘ OdK HAGov
Karéoat Sikatovs, GAAX Guaptwdovs, ‘And another Scripture also saith that &c.’
The agreement is verbatim with Mark, but in Matthew ‘ For’ is added, and Luke
(who presents not #A@ov but €AjAvéa) adds ‘ to repentance,’
t ‘Second Epistle of Clement,’ vy. 2—Aéye: yap 6 Kuépios (1) ‘““Eoeode ds dpvia
év péow Adnwy.’ (2) ’Amoxpibels d¢ 6 Tlérpos abT@ A€yer ‘Edy ody Siaorapdtwow of
Avo. Ta Gpvla;’ (3) Eimey 6 "Incots rG Térpy ‘Mh poBeloPwoay 7a apvia Tovs
AtKous meta TH GroPavety adTd. Kat bpuets uh. poBetobe rods dmroxrévvovtas buds Kat
pdtv tuiv Svvapévous moieiv. (4) "AAAX poBeicbe Thy pera 7d Garobaveiy suas
txovra ekovolay Wuxijs kal oepatos Tov Badciy eis Téevvay mupéds,’ ‘For the Lord
saith &e.’
{ Found in John xxi. 15 and 29 times in the Apocalypse (always rendered
‘lamb ’), but nowhere else in the N.T. | |
§ Matt. x. 16, ‘Behold I send you forth as sheep in midst of wolves’ (‘Idod
amooTéAAw buds ws mpdBara év wéow Adcwv). Luke x. 3 the same except that for
‘sheep’ we have ‘lambs’ (&pvas).
|| Matt. x. 28, (3) ‘And fear not at them that kill the body but cannot kill the
soul. (4) But fear rather him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna’
((8) Kal wh poBeiobe amd tév GroxtevydyTwy Td gaua, Thy BE Wuxhy wh Suvapévous
amoxreivat, (4) boBetabe 5é wGAAov Toy Suvduevoy Kal Wuxhy Kal coua arorécat
év Teévvn).
Luke xii. 4, (3) ‘And I say to you my friends, fear not at them that kill the
body and after that have not anything left to do. (4) But I will show you whom ye
may fear—fear him who after having killed hath authority to cast in into the Ge-
henna’ ((3) Aéyw 5€ buiv'rois pidois pov, wy poBnOjre ard Tay droKrevydyTwy Td Tua
Kal mera Tatra wh exdvTwy mepioodrepdy Ti Torhoa. (4) “Trodeliw St duiv riva
poBnOjre—poBhOnte Toy peta Td GmoKreivar ExovTa etovolay euBadreiv eis Thy
Téevvay):
‘And can do nought unto you,’ ‘after ye are dead,’ ‘hath authority,’ and
Probable or Possible Fragments. 151
not fear them that kill you and can do nought
unto you.
(4) But fear him who after ye are dead hath
authority over soul and body to cast into 4] Gehenna
of fire.
**44, Matt. x. 32. Him that confesseth me in face of men, I will
confess him in face of my Father.
tt45. Matt. xi. 29. Ye shall find rest.
- §$46, Matt. xii. The same day having beholden a man working
on the Sabbath he said to him ‘|||! Man, if thou
knowest what thou dost, blessed art thou: but,
if thou knowest not, thou art 44] accursed and
*** 9 transgressor of the law.’
+147. ? Matt.xiii.11. | Keep the mysteries for me and for the sons of
my house.
‘cast into’ are nearer to Luke: ‘But fear him who,’ ‘over soul and body,’ to
Matthew.
{ Matthew uses ‘the Gehenna of the fire’ twice, and Mark once. He uses ‘ the
Gehenna’ once, Mark twice, Luke once. He also uses ‘Gehenna’ without the
article 3 times—the others not at all.
** ¢ Second Epistle of Clement,’ iii. 2—Aéyer d& kal Abrds ‘Tdy duoroyhoartd pe
evémiov trav dvOpdmwv, Suoroyhow aitoy évémioy rod Marpds pov, ‘And Himself
too saith &¢c.’ Matthew has ‘Every one therefor who shall confess in me before
men, I also will confess him before my Father which is in [the] heavens’ (Mas ody
Baris Suoroyhoe: ev euol tumpocbey Tay avOpdrwr, buoroyhaw Kaye adToy Eumpoober
Tov Tlatpdés pov Tov év ovpavots).
tt ‘Second Epistle of Clement, vi. 7—‘ For doing the will of Christ we shall
find rest’ (Tlowodyres yap 7d 0éAnua TOD Xpiorod ebphoouey dvdravoty).
§§ D has this after Luke vi. 4. The Greek is T# adr# jimépg Ocarduerds tive
epyaCsuevoy TG caBBdry clrev adt@ ‘”AvOpwre, ei wey oidas Tl morets, waxdpios €i* €i
5e wh oldas, émixardparos Kal mapaBdrns Tod vduov.’ It may easily be, or may cor-
respond with, a fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Its source,
the Codex Bezae, and its occurrence in a text of Luke favour the supposition, and
we know from Fr. 15 that our Gospel did actually contain a narrative answering
to (and in some respects fuller than) Matt. xii, 10-18, the parallel passage to
Luke vi. 6-10.
\|\| This form of address is kd; in Fr, 20 and thrice in Luke.
{| The particular Greek word is found only twice in the N. T.—in two quo-
tations by Paul, in one of which it is borrowed from the Septuagint : but the very
similar éwdparos is found once in John.
wow © 4 transgressor of law’ is found in Rom. ii. 25, 27 and James ii. 11.
ttt Clementine Homilies, xix. 20, Meuvfueba Tod Kuplov quay Kal didacKdAov ws
évreAAduevos elev hiv ‘TX pvorhpia euol Kal rots viots Tod otkov mov pvadtare,’
‘ We remember our Lord and teacher that he said to us as a command “ Keep &c.”’
152 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
*48. Matt. xv. 8. This people honoureth me with the lips, but
Mark vii. 6. its heart is far offfrom me.
+49. Matt. xvi. 26. For what [is] the profit if one gain the entire
Mark viii. 36. | world and lose his soul P
Luke ix. 25.
{50. Matt, xviii. 7. The good must come, but blessed [is] he
Luke xvii. 1. through whom it cometh: in like wise need [is]
that the evil come, but woe [to him] through
whom it cometh.
So also Clement of Alexandria, Strom., v. 10, ‘He [%.e. the author of the
Epistle of Barnabas means “ For it was not from grudgingness that the Lord com-
manded in some [or, a certain] Gospel My mystery [is] for me and for the sons of
my house”’ (Od yap P0ovav, pnot, maphyyerev 6 Kipios &y tit EvaryyeAlp ‘ Mv-
othpioy eudy euol Kal Tots viots Tod otkov mod’).
The Ebionite Theodotion rendered in Is. xxiv. 16 ‘My mystery [is] for me,
my mystery [is] for me and mine’ (Td pvorhpidy pov éuol Kal rots euois). His
version was made in the 2nd cent. and it is of course possible that the interpreta-
tion may have been much older. .
I have compared this fragment with the verse in Matthew which says ‘ Be-
eause it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to
them it is not given.’
* «Second Epistle of Clement,’ ili, 4—’Ev rim 5 adtby duodoyoduer; ’Ev TE
moveiy & Aéyer Kal wh Tapakovew abrod Tay évToA@y Kal wh wdvoy xeElrAcow adTdY
Tiynav, GAN e& Ans Kapdlas Kal ef BAns Siavolas. Aeye: 5€ nal ev TP ‘Hoala ‘“O Aads
obtos Tois xelAcol me TILG, 7 5 Kapdla avTov méppw &mreotw dm euod, ‘ And wherein
do we confess him? In doing what he saith and not turning our ears from his
commandments, and in honouring him not with our lips only but out of entire
heart and out of entire mind. And he saithalsoin Isaiah “ This people honoureth
me with the lips, but its heart is far off from me.”’ The word ‘also’ seems to
show that our author found an injunction against mere lip-honour somewhere else,
and I ean only assume that he alluded to the use by Jesus (Matt. xv. 8, Mark
vii. 6) of the prophecy in Isaiah.
It is moreover quite certain that he quoted that prophecy from a Gospel-
version and not from the Septuagint. From the latter it differs widely, but from
Matt. xv. 8 only in abrod for aitay and &reorw for améxei, the literal rendering
of that verse being ‘ This people honoureth me with the lips, but their heart is far
off from me.’ Mark vii. 6 agrees with Matthew except that it has obros 6 Aabds for
the more unusual 6 Aads obrTos.
+ ‘Second Epistle of Clement,’ vi. 2—Ti yap 7d dperos edy Tis Ty BAov Kdcpov
Kepdhon, Thy 38 Yuxhy CnuiwO7 ; Matthew has ‘For what shall a man be profited
if he gain the world entire and lose his own soul’ (Ti yap apeanOjocera &vOpwros
day tov Kécpov BAov Kepdhon, Thy SE Wuxhv CnuiwOh). Mark is not quite so like,
and Luke much less so. I must not for a moment be understood as suggesting
that such slight variations indicate another source than our canonical Matthew.
+ Clementine Homilies, xii. 29—‘O rijs aAndelas rpophrns pn ‘TA ayabd erdety
Set: pauses dt, onoly, br ob Epxerat* duolws Kal Ta KaKd dvdryKn eADeiv, oval 5& BV
oo épxera,’ ‘ The prophet of truth said &e.’
Matthew has ‘ For need is that the stumbling-blocks come, only woe to the man
eae ot ee eae eee! eee Se ee ee eee
Probable or Possible Fragments. 153
$51. Matt. xviii.11. To save that which was perishing.
Luke xix. 10.
| 52. Matt. xx. after (1) But do ye seek from little to wax great,
v. 28.
Luke xiv. 8-11.
through whom the stumbling-block cometh’ (’Avaykh ydp eorw édOety Ta oKdy-
dada, TARY oval TH avOpday Bi 0b Td oKdvdarov Epxerat). Luke has ‘ For it is im-
possible that the stumbling-blocks should not come, but woe [to him] through whom
they come’ (Avévdexrdy éorw tod Ta oxdvdadra ph eAOeiv, odal 5& BV ob Epxerat).
_§ ‘Second Epistle of Clement,’ ii. 7, after the quotation given above as Fr, 42
—Todro Aéyer Sr1 Set rods doAAupEvous THCew. "Exeivo ydp eort péeya kal Pavpa-
ordyv—ov Ta éEotGra ornpiCew, GAAG TH WinrovTa’ oUTw Kal 6 Xprords HOEANTE THTU
7a GmoAAvmeva, ‘He means this, that he ought to save those who are being lost.
For it is that which is great and wonderful—not to establish that which stands
but that which is falling: so also Christ willed to save that which was perishing.’
I do not regard this as a necessary allusion to the words of Jesus in Matt. xviii.
11 and Luke xix. 10, but it may be derived from them.
Luke xix. 10 has ‘ For the son of man came to seek and save that which was
perished’ (c@cat Td &rodwdds), Matt. xviii. 11 has‘ For the son of man came to
save that which was perished’ (c@aa 7d dmroAwAds).
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott-and-Hort omit Matt. xviii, 11 as an in-
terpolation from Luke. It is omitted by NB, the Sahidie and Coptic versions,
Origen (seemingly), Eusebius, Juvencus, Hilary, and Jerome, It is found in D
and all MSS. (seemingly) but six, the Old Latin, Italic Recension, Vulgate, Cure-
tonian and Péshitta Syriac, and Chrysostom. Alford retains it in brackets.
If it were genuine I do not see how its disappearance is to be accounted for
(certainly not by ‘ homoioteleuton’), and am inclined to set it down as an early
marginal note from Luke, or possibly even from the Gospel according to the He-
brews since D, the Old Latin, and the Curetonian support it. It certainly goes with
the parable of the lost sheep better to my mind than with the story of Zacchaeus.
|| This passage is added after Matt. xx. 28 by the Curetonian Syriac, D, and
the Old Latin. The Curetonian Syriac as rendered by Cureton is as follows :—
(1) But you, seek ye that from little things ye may become great, and not from
great things may become little. (2) Whenever ye are invited to the house of a
supper, be not sitting down in the honoured place, lest should come he that is
more honoured than thou, and to thee the Lord of the supper should say, Come
near below, and thou be ashamed in the eyes of the guests. (3) But if thou sit
down in the little place, and he that is less than thou should come, and to thee the
Lord of the supper shall say, Come near, and come up and sit down, thou also
shalt have more glory in the eyes of the guests.
D has (1) ‘Yuets 5 Cnretre ex mexpod abtjoo Kal ex welovos fAarrov elvat.
(2) Eicepxduevor 5& kal rapaxdnbévres Serrvijcat wh avarrelvecOa eis rods ekéXovTas
tomous, unmore evdotdrepds cou emerOH Kal mpocedAOwy 6 SermvoxAntwp eiwh oor Ett
kdtw xeépel,’ Kal karaoxuvOjon. (3) "Edy 5& avamecijs cis toy Hrrova téroy, Kar
emerOf cov HrtTwv, epet vor 6 SermvoxAntwp ‘Xbvarye Err tvw,’ Kal ~orat cor TovtTo
xphomov. The English of which is:—(1) ey Ean se from little to wax
great and (sic) from greater to bealess. (2) And entering in and having been bidden
to sup, [seek] not to lie upon the chief places, lest ever a more honourable than
thou come afterward and having come up the supperbidder say to thee ‘Make
154 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
and * not from greater to become less.
(2) And, when ye are bidden to the house of a
supper, not to lie upon the chief places, lest there
come afterward a more honourable than thou and
the lord of the supper having come up say to thee
room still below,’ and thou be ashamed. (3) But, if thou lie upon the lesser place
and there come afterwards a lesser than thou, the supperbidder will say to thee
‘ Draw in higher,’ and this shall be of service to thee.
The Old Latin MSS. give substantially the same version as D, with a host of
minor variations of Latinity among themselves which seem to show that the pas-
sage was in many cases translated independently by the copyists and was not
found in the Latin MSS. before them. But there is no known MS. of the true.
Old Latin (as distinguished from the Italian recension) which does not contain the
passage. There is only one variation of the slightest importance: the Codex
Palatinus (e, 5th cent.) ends almost exactly as the Curetonian Syriac, ‘and then
shall there be to thee glory before the guests’—et tune erit tibi gloriam coram dis-
cumbentibus (seemingly altered from a former et tunc habebis—‘and then shalt
thou wey ’_etc.), All the MSS. render (nre?re by quaeritis ‘ ye seek’ not quaerite
‘ seek ye.’
The passage is paraphrased by Juvencus (4th cent.) in his metrical version of
the Gospels, he also rendering ‘ye seck.’ And from marginal notes in MSS. it
seems to have been known to Hilary in the same century.
The margin of two Syriac MSS., one of the Péshitta version and one of the
Philoxenian, contains the passage in Syriac answering as closely as may be to the
text of D, with the note that ‘it is found in Greek MSS. in this place, and has
therefor been added by us here also.’
The passage is very like Luke xiv. 8-11: but the difference between (1) and
Luke xiv. 11 is far too great to admit of our supposing that the one is a corrupt
memorial version of the other. The grounds for supposing that it may be a frag-
ment, or may answer to a fragment, of the Gospel according to the Hebrews are
(1) that it is found in some texts of Matthew (2) that it is found in the precise
group of texts—the Curetonian Syriac, D, and the Old Latin—which elsewhere
show an affinity with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (38) that it has a Lucan
counterpart.
The text from which I translate is a mixed one of my own compilation. It
does not pretend to anything like certainty; indeed, unless I were a Syriac
scholar and well acquainted with the peculiarities of the Curetonian, it would be
impossible for me to give an authoritative opinion as to the comparative merit
of some of its readings and those of D.
* All authorities except the Curetonian omit ‘not.’ The Greek (nretre will
then mean either ‘ do ye seek’ or ‘ye seek,’ and all the Latin translators take it
in the latter sense. But I cannot doubt that the Curetonian is right, the sense
being incomparably better.
+ The Greek words here and in (3) are those which are paraphrased into
‘sit down’ by the translators of the Authorized Version wherever they occur. The
company lay on long couches, and the paraphrase ‘sit down,’ besides obliterating
from the New Testament the trace of a Jewish custom and substituting an English
one in its place, entirely conceals the meaning of John xiii. 23 and introduces a
physical impossibility into Luke vii. 38.
Probable or Possible Fragments. 155
‘Make room lower’ and thou be ashamed in the
eyes of the guests.
(3) But, if thou lie upon the lesser place and
there come afterward a lesser than thou, the lord
of the supper will say to thee ‘ Draw in higher’ »
and thou shalt have more glory in the eyes of the
guests.
$53. Matt. xxii. 37. Out of entire heart and out of entire mind.
Mark xii. 30.
Luke x. 27:
$54. Matt.xxiv.5,11. False Christs, false prophets, false apostles,
[schisms ?], heresies, lovings of rule.
{ ‘Second Epistle of Clement,’ iii. 4, quoted under Fr. 48. These words must
not be taken as a direct allusion to the Septuagint of Deut. vi. 5, which has not
the words ‘out of entire heart,’ but as a reference to the quotation of that verse
as recorded in Matt. xxii. 87, Mark xii. 30, Luke x. 27, in connexion with which,
it may be added, the word ‘ commandment’ used by our author is also found,
Matthew has ‘in thy entire heart and in thy entire soul and in thy entire
mind’ (év dAn Th Kapdie cov Kad év 8An TH WuxH cov Kal ev 8An TH Stavolg cov),
Mark has ‘ out of thy entire heart and out of thy entire soul and out of thy entire
mind and out of thy entire strength’ (€ 8Ans Tijs KapSias cov Kal e BAns Tis
Yuxijs gov Kal et Sans Tijs Siavolas cov Kad e BAns Tis iaxvos gov). Luke has ‘ out
of thy entire heart and in thy entire soul and in thy entire strength and in thy
entire understanding’ (ef SAns rijs kapdlas cov nal ev 8An TH Wuxi gov Kal év bAn
TH loxv cov Kad év 8An TH Siavolg cov). ,
The preposition ‘out of’ would seem to point to Mark or Luke rather than
Matthew ; but ‘out of the heart’ is a favourite expression with our author, and
the short form of his reference is nearest to Matthew.
§ Clementine Homilies, xvi, 21, ”"Ecovra yap, ds 6 Kupios elmev, Pevdardoroaou,
Yevdeis mpopirat, aipéceis, pidapxtai, ‘For there shall be, as the Lord said, false
apostles, false prophets, heresies, lovings of rule.’
Cf. Justin, Dial., 85, eiwe yap... . ““Evovra oxtopara Ka aipéoeis” ‘For he
said ‘‘ There shall be schisms and heresies.”’ Cf. Dial., 51, ‘ And in the between
time of his coming, as I said before, he declared beforehand that there should be
heresies and false prophets in his name’ (Kal év 7G peratd rijs mapovolas abrov
XpovG, ws mpoepny, yevhoerOa aipéces Kal Wevdorpophras em) TG dvduart adrod
Tpoeutvuce),
The writer of Supernatural Religion, after Credner (seemingly), suggests that
this prophecy is referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. xi. 18-19, ‘I hear that schisms
(cxtovara) exist among you, and in some part I believe it—for there must be
heresies also («al aipéceis) among you, that the proved ones may become manifest
among you.’ This is ingenious.
Hegesippus, whom we know to have used the Gospel according to the He-
brews, speaks of ‘ false Christs, false prophets, false apostles’ (Pevdéxpiorol, Pevdo-
mpop7rat, yevdardorodot) but not in such a way as to imply that he was quoting.
The Apostolic Constitutions, vi. 13, say ‘For these are false Christs and false
156 The Gospel according to the Flebrews.
*55. Matt.xxiv.near For in such as I find you in such will I also
the end. judge you.
prophets and false apostles, deceivers and corrupters’ (Obra: ydp eiot yetdxpioves
kal Wevdorpopiira Kal YevdardaroAa, wAdvor Kal pOopets).
For the ‘lovings of rule’ cf. Clement of Rome, xliv. 1, ‘And our Apostles
knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of
the bishopric’ (Kat of "AmdoroAo judy &yvwoay 12 Tov Kuplov jay Inood Xpiorod
bri pis Cora em Tov dvduaros Tis érioKoms).
I am not in the least satisfied that any such single passage as the above oc-
curred in any evangelic writing: the phraseology of the Clementine Homilies is
quite consistent with the theory that only the sense of various prophecies of Jesus
is being given, but that the word ‘heresies’ was in some Gospel or other put into
the mouth of Jesus is probable from the double coincidence of Justin.
* Justin, Dial., 47—‘O ijérepos Kipios "Inoots Xpiords elev ‘Ev ois by buas
KarardBw, év Tovtois kal xpive,’ ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ said &e.’
Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives § 40) has slightly different Greek words—
’E@’ ofs yep dv etpw tuas, pnoiv, ém regrets kal kpwve, ‘For in such as I find you,
he saith, in such will I also judge you.’ But he attributes them to God the
Father.
In the earlier half of the 5th cent. Nilus writes ‘ “ For such as I find thee such
will I judge thee” saith the Lord’ (‘ Oiov yap efpw oe, rovodrdv oe kpwa’ pnolv 6
Kupios)—Anastasius, Quaest. 3, p. 34.
Johannes Climakos, in the latter half of the 6th cent., attributes to Ezekiel
the words ‘ ‘In what I find thee, in it will I also judge thee” said God’ (‘’Ey 6
eSpw ce, ev abT@ Kal kpw@ ae’ elev 6 @eds)—Scala Paradist, Grad. vii. p. 159.
At the end of the 8th cent. Elias, metropolitan of Crete, writes ‘For it hath
been said by God through some one of the eyed “Tn what I find thee, in such
soothly will I also judge thee” ’ (Elpnra: yap imd Tod Ocod did Twos TAY TpopynTay
“Ev & epw ce, ev rodtm 3) Kal KpwG oe’)—Leunclavius, Jus Greco-Romanum,
337.
Mr. Dodd refers to the fragment on Hades once falsely attributed to Josephus
and translated by Whiston among Josephus’s works. Whiston also published in
1737 a little treatise on the fragment, and from this treatise I find that the text
he translated is taken from p. 306 of David Humphreys’s translation of Athena-
goras, 1714; and that Humphreys says his text is copied from a MS. left by
Grabe. I mention these things because I lost hours in trying to find the Greek
—which is ‘ 颒 ofs dv efpw duds em rovrois Kp wap Exacta’ Bog 7d Tédos &mdy-
twv (‘“Ingsuch as I find you, in such will I judge you in everything” saith the End
of all’)}—for I found no. modern editions containing the tract on Hades at all,
and no old ones which did not stop short of the section containing this quota-
tion.
Grabe speaks of‘ others’ as quoting these words without naming their source
—of whom he mentions only Auctor Testamenti XL Martyrum Sebastenorum in
Lambecius’s Comment. de Bibl. Vindob. lib. iv. p.99, who says ‘’Ev @ yap etpw oe,
gnoty, ‘ev tovtm Kat kpw& (Lambecius xpivw) oe,’ ‘For in what I find thee,’ he
saith, ‘ in such will I [Lambecius ‘do I’] also judge thee.’
Johannes Climakos evidently looked on these words as a quotation from Ezek.
xxiv. 14 (Septuagint version), ‘‘ According to thy ways and according to thy
thoughts will I judge thee” saith the Lord.’
Probable or Posstble Fragments. , 157
+56. Matt. xxv.? Do ye become proved t! bankers.
before v. 14 or
after v. 30.
As given by Justin they might be rendered ‘For among such as I find you,
among such will I also judge you’ i.e. ye shall be judged by your companions.
The grounds for conjecturally assigning them to our lost Gospel are that they
are found in one Father who has certain affinities with it and in another who
quotes it as Scripture. I annex it to the parable of the servant who ‘shall begin
to smite his fellowservants and to eat and drink with the deetiken, and whose lord
shall come unexpectedly and punish him.
f Tiveode déx wot tpaweCtra:. In 1 Thess. v. 21 we have ‘And prove (doxmd-
(ere) all things, hold fast the good,’ and Cyril of Alexandria (who died 444 a.p.)
prefixes these words to that text, ascribing them to Paul (6 uaxdpios Tlatads. pnot,
the blessed Paul saith—Comm. on Is. iii. 3). Pamphilus (who died in 309), Basil
(who died in 380), and Cyril of Jerusalem (who died in 888) similarly prefix
them to it, though without any ascription of authorship: see Pamphilus, pref. to
Apology for Origen (extant ina Latin translation only); Basil on Is. i. 22, iii. 2,
vy. 20; and Cyril, Catech. vi. 36. Dionysius of Alexandria (writing about 256)
calls them an utterance of an ‘ Apostolic voice’ (’AmrooroAik# pwvh) : see Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl. vii. 7,§ 3. Clement of Alexandria, who refers to them fotir times (Strom.
i, 28, ii. 4, vi. 10, vii. 15), says once ‘ the Scripture .... counseleth (7 ypapy ...
mapa.vet) ‘but become proved bankers, proving out some things, but holding fast
the good”’ (i, 28), and elsewhere (vii. 15) he alludes to them immediately after a
reference to Paul, and follows the allusion by words which appear to be a free
paraphrase of the passage in Thessalonians—‘ discerning the genuine coin of the
Lord from the forgery.’
The work known as Iforis Sopla (middle of 3rd cent.?) represents Jesus as saying
‘I have said to you of old “ Be ye as wise bankers,” that is take the good, cast out
the evil.’ This work is in Coptic: the original will be found on p. 220 of Schwartze
and Petermann’s edition, Berlin, 1851 (Isee the word Tpaneze!T Hc),
and their Latin translation (p. 353) is ‘Respondens owrnp dixit Mariae: dixi vobis ~
olim: Estote sicut sapientes tpame(ira:, scilicet bonum suscipite, malum eiicite.’
Chrysostom (who died in 407) also quotes the words in connexion with the
passage in Thessalonians, in his sermon On Reading Acts in Pentecost § 2: but I
think the reader will agree that he implies that they were separate texts by
different writers—he says ‘For on this also i psnith “Do ye becomie proved
bankers,” not that ye may stand on the marketplaces and count silver coins, but
that ye may try words with all exactness. For this cause the Apostle Paul also
saith “ Prove all things, but hold fast the good only.”’ Itis a little doubtful
whether or not ‘God’ (6 @eds), the last person named, is the subject to the first
‘saith, or whether as in another place in the same sermon ‘Scripture’ is meant :
but that does not affect the apparent separation of authurship.
No MS. or version of Thessalonians has the slightest trace of our fragment.
And it is easy to see how the connexion arose: the word ddxmo:, ‘ proved,’ called
to mind the verb doxmd¢eww, ‘to prove,’ the technical term for testing the purity
of metals, used in the verse of Thessalonians.
The fist writers to quote our fragment are the Ebionite author of the Clemen-
tine Homilies somewhere about the middle of the 2nd cent., who quotes it three
1 For note see p. 159.
158 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
times (ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20), each time attributing it to Jesus (e.g. ‘our teacher
said’—6 d:ddonados judy éreyey, ii. 51) ; and the Gnostic Apelles (3rd quarter of
2nd cent.?), who, according to Epiphanius (Haer. xliy. 2), attributed it to Jesus
and ‘ the Gospel’— he said in the Gospel’ (pn év r@ Evayyealg).
Origen refers to our fragment no fewer than 11 times (Hom. iii in Lev., xii
(soon after middle) and «ix (near end) in Jer., ii in Ezech., Comm. in Matt. xvi. 1,
Xvii. 31, xxiii. 37, xxiv. 5 (the last two extant in a Latin translation only), Hom. i
in Luc., Hom. xx in Iohann. (viii. 46) and xxvii (xiii. 20)). In the last but one
he calls it ‘the command of Jesus’ (rhy évroAhy ’Incod).
Jerome (Ad Minervium et Alexandrum, Martianay’s edition iy. 220) calls these
words ‘the words of the Saviour’ (Salvatoris verba); he quotes 1 Thess. v. 21
immediately before as ‘that saying of the Apostle’ (illud Apostoli). He also
refers to them twice in his Comm. in Ephes. iii. (on Eph, iv. end, and vy. 10), once
in his Comm. in Philemon., 5, and once in his Apologia adv. Rufinum, i. 4.
Johannes Cassianus (writing about 420 a.p.) calls them once ‘the precept of
the Lord’ (praeceptum Domini, Collat. i. 20) and once ‘that comparison [or,
parable] in the Gospel’ (illam evangelicam parabolam, Collat. ii. 9).
Socrates (1st half of 5th cent.) writes ‘both Christ and his Apostle give us
word to become proved bankers, so as to prove all things, holding fast the good’
(mapeyyuaow ipiv 8 re Xpiords Kal 6 robrou ’Arécrodos ylverbat TpameCirar| s ?]
Soxoils?] bore 7a wavra donimdCey, Td Kardy karéxovtas, Hist. Keel. iii. 16).
The Caesarius of unknown date (but almost certainly not Caesarius of Na-
zianzus) who wrote the Quaestiones quotes the saying as ‘in Gospels’ (€v Evay-
yeAlots—sic): see Resp. ad Quaest. 140.
The Apostolic Constitutions (8rd cent:), Athanasius (writing about 358),
Gregory of Nazianzus (who died about 390), Ambrose (who died in 397), Palladius
(who died before 431 ?), Paulinus.of Nola (who died in 431), Procopius of Gaza
(who flourished about 520), Gregory the Great (writing 584-7), Johannes Damas-
scenus (who died after 755), Epiphanius Diaconus (writing in 787), Nikephorus
(who died in 828), and Petrus Siculus (whoever he may be) refer to the saying
without implying anything with regard to its souree—except that Palladius calls
it ‘Scripture ’—gnolv ypaph, ‘the Scripture saith’; Procopius (the words are
extant in a Latin translation only), after quoting as Paul’s 1 Thess. vy. 21, adds
‘For the saints are proved bankers,’ and Nikephorus (whose words are also extant
only in a Latin translation) speaks of it as a ‘divine oracle’ (divinum oraculum),
See Apost. Const. ii. 86; Athanasius, Hp. ad Solitarios ; Nazianzenus, ‘ Carmine
lambico, 18, p. 218’ (Cotélier’s reference, which I have not yet succeeded in
tracing); Ambrose, Explan. in Lwue., praef.; Palladius, De Vita Chrysostomi, 4;
Paulinus, Epist. 4; Procopius, in Lev. p. 331; Gregory, Moralia, xxxiii. 35
(Migne) ; Damascenus, Expos. Fid. Orthod. iv. 18; Epiphanius Diaconus, Panegyr.
ad Synod.; Nikephorus, Hist. x. 36; Petrus Siculus, Hist. at beginning.
That licentious translator Rufinus in his version of Eusebius coolly substituted
for these words 1 Thess. v. 21 in the quotation from Dionysius Alexandrinus.
Did he think them a mere faulty reminiscence of Paul’s words? but so devoted a
student of Origen, and one for so many years the friend and neighbour of Jerome,
must surely have come across them more than once before. And if so he must
have made the substitution not because he knew no such words, but because he
knew they were not an ‘ Apostolic utterance.’
That the lost work in which they occurred was the Gospel according to the
Hebrews is probable (1) from our first meeting with them in an Ebionite writing,
and (2) from their quotation by Origen. I do not. adduce Jerome, because he may
~~ | Se ae
Probable or Possible Fragments. 159
*57. 2? Matt. xxv. If ye have not f kept the little, who shall give
between vv. 30 you the great? For I say unto you that he who
and 31. is faithful in least is faithful also in much.
§ 58. Matt. xxvii. | wagging their heads and saying \
39-43. ‘'"" wagged their heads and said ‘anise
Mark xy. 29-32. ,
Luke xxiii. 85. Let him that raised up dead men deliver himself
have taken them from Origen, whom he had studied so much. Clement of Alex-
andria, who quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews as Scripture, yet joins
our fragment to the verse in Thessalonians, may be thought to afford a presump-
tion that it was not in the Gospel according to the Hebrews: but the untrust-
worthiness of his memory is evidenced by the very fact of his attributing it to
Paul, and, this granted, we might even consider that his knowledge of the saying
strengthens the probability of its having been contained in our lost Gospel.
t Rendered wrongly ‘ exchangers,’ as if KoAAvVBiorat, by Prof. Westcott and
‘money-changers’ by Mr. Dodd: ‘ exchangers’ is also the rendering of our version
in Matt. xxv. 27, where the Greek word is the same.
* “Second Epistle of Clement,’ viii. 5—Aéye: yap 6 Kipios év 7G Evayyerly ‘Ei
Td mipoy odk ernphoare, TO méya Tis tuly Bdoer; Adyw yap suiy Bri 6 mords ev
edAaxlorw Kal év TOAAG miorTds €or, ‘For the Lord saith in the Gospel &c.’
So Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. ii. 43 § 3 (the 2nd century Latin translation, the
Greek being lost), ‘ And therefor did the Lord say to those that were unthankful
toward him “If ye have not been faithful ina [o7, the] little, who will give you the
great?”’ (et ideo Dominus dicebat ingratis in eum existentibus ‘Si in modico
fideles non fuistis, quod magnum est quis dabit vobis ?’).
Cf. Luke xvi. 10-12, ‘He who is faithful in least is faithful in much, and he
who is unjust in least is unjust also in much. If therefor ye have not been faith-
ful in the unjust riches, who shall entrust to you the true? . And if ye have not
been faithful in another man’s, who shall give you your own?’ (‘O mords év
eraxlotw Kal év woAAG mords eorw....Ei obv ev TE Adiky wapwvG moto odK
eyéverde, Td GANOwoy Tis duty moredoe; Kal, ei ev TE verte: mwieTol ovK sh cca
Td tuérepov Tis Soret duty ;)
The passage in Luke is the siedivad ion of the parable of the Unjust Steward.
It is the opinion of many New Testament critics that Luke wrote another copy of
his work with occasional variations. It is possible that the author of the ‘ Second
Epistle of Clement’ took his quotation from a copy of Luke, and that Irenaeus
either did the same or borrowed it from our author.
At the same time the quotation also reminds us a little of Matt. xxv. 21,23,
‘Thou wert faithful over few things, I will set thee over many’ (Em éAlya js
migtdés, emt moAAGY oe KaTacThow). That passage is in the parable of the Talents,
which we know was found in a variant form in the Gospel according to the He-
brews—see Fr. 24. The passage in the ‘Second Epistle of Clement’ would serve
well enough as a moral from this other version of the parable.
+ The Greek verb is found 17 times in John, 8 times (i.e. in this sense) in
Matthew, once in Mark, never in Luke, but 10 times in Acts (7 times of keeping in
prison).
§ The passage in Matthew (to whom this is nearer than to Mark or Luke) is
as follows :—And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads and saying
‘ Thou that pullest down the Temple and in three days buildest it, save thyself, if
160 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
He called himself Son of God: let him
come down and walk about, let God save him.’
*59. Matt. xxvii. Saying ‘Woe untous! What hath been done
after v. 54.
thou art Son of God, and come down from the cross.’ In like wise also the chief
priests mocking, with the scribes and elders, said ‘Others he saved, himself he
cannot save. He is [so editors now read| King of Israel! Let him come down
now from the cross, and we will believe on him. He hath trusted on God: let
Him deliver him now if He desireth him—for he said that ‘‘I am Son of God.’’’
My supposed fragment is taken from two passages in which Justin refers to the
fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 7, 8, in the events at the Crucifixion. The first passage
is :—‘ And again when He saith “ They spake with lips, they wagged head, say-
ing ‘Let him deliver himself’” That all of which things were done by the Jews
to Christ ye can learn. For when he had been crucified they turned, out their
lips and wagged their heads, saying “ Let him that raised up dead men deliver him-
self” (ekéorpepoy Ta xelAn Kal exivovy Tas Kepadds, AéyovTes “ ‘O vexpods aveyelpas
puodobw éavtdy”)’—Apol. i. 38. ~The second passage is:—‘And as to what
follows—All they who beheld me they thrust out nostrils at me and spake with lips,
they wagged head : “ He hoped on the Lord: let Him deliver him, since He desireth
him” —he foretold the happening of the same things in like manner to him. For
those who beheld him crucified both wagged heads each of them and turned apart
their lips and with their nostrils sneering [8:epwodvres, sic: I would read d:a-
pwoovres| among themselves said in irony these things, which are also written
in the memoirs of his Apostles, “ He called himself Son of God: let him come down
and walk about, let God save him” (@Aeyov eipwvevduevor tadta & Kal év Tois
drouvnuwovedmact TOV "AmdaTdéAwy adTod yéypanrat, ““Tiby Ocod EavTdoy Ereye* KaTa-
Bas mweprmareltw, cwodtTw adtoy 6 @eds”’).’—Dial. 101.
Justin’s looseness of quotation from the Old Testament is very conspicuous,
and here we have an example of it. The Septuagint version of the Psalms, which
he was quoting, has All they that beheld me put out nostril at me, spake with lips,
wagged head: ‘ He hoped on the Lord, let Him deliver him, let Him save him, since
He desireth him, In neither passage does Justin cite this correctly, in the former
passage the misquotation is very bad indeed. And it is to my mind just as pro-
bable as not that the words which I have strung together as a ‘fragment’ are a
like misquotation from the canonical Gospels.
Supposing them to be taken from some lost Gospel, I should not regard the
additional words expressing the contemptuous facepulling of the bystanders as
any part of the quotation. Justin has a way of supplementing the canonical
narrative with details illustrating the fulfilment of prophecy. He never appeals
to any authority for these details, and I look on them as only plausible guesses of
his own, which it would not be difficult to parallel out of Renan or Farrar, and
which he did not intend to palm off on the reader as statements of Scripture any
more than they do. j
* After a verse corresponding to Matt. xxvii. 54, Luke xxiii. 48 proceeds
—‘ And all the people that came together to that sight, when they had beheld
what had been done, smote their breasts and returned.’
The Curetonian Syriac reads ‘were smiting upon their breast and saying
“Woe unto us! What is this! Woe unto us from our sins!”
we — Wi ae eh
a : “
Probable or Possible Fragments. 161
to-day! Woe unto us for our sins, for the deso-
lation of Jerusalem hath drawn nigh.’
+60. Luke xxiv. 25. Wherefor do ye not perceive the reasonableness
3 of the Scriptures ?
t61. John v. 46, Iam he concerning whom Moses prophesied,
saying ‘A prophet will the Lord our God raise
unto you from your brethren, even as me: him
hear ye in all things, and whosoever heareth not
that prophet shall die.’
§ 62. He that is near me is near the fire, and he
that is far from me is far from the kingdom.
The MS. g! of the Old Latin reads ‘ saying ‘‘ Woe unto us! What hath been
done to-day for our sins, for the desolation of Jerusalem hath drawn nigh.”’
In the Syriac ‘Doctrine of Addaeus the Apostle, p. 10 of Wright’s translation
in the Ante-Nicene Library, we read ‘ For, behold, unless they who crucified him
had known that he was the Son of God, they would not have proclaimed the
desolation of their city, nor would they have divulged the affliction of their pea in
erying, “‘Woe!”’ This work can hardly be later than the 8rd cent.
It is clear that ‘the Doctrine of Addaeus, the MS. g', and the Curetonian
Syriac are all indebted to some evangelic record not later than the 2nd cent.
Seeing that the Curetonian and Old Latin have such affinities with our lost
Gospel, and that the writer of ‘the Doctrine of Addaeus’ was far more likely to
have drawn this tradition from native than from foreign sources, it is justifiable
to guess that the passage formed part of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Whether the Curetonian had any such addition in Matthew we cannot tell, as itis |
deficient after xxiii. 25.
+ Clementine Homilies, iii. 50—Ac& ri od voetre 7d etAoyov THY ypapéar ;
It would seem to fit in very well in Luke xxiv. between vv. 25 and 26: ‘O
fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken, Wherefor do
ye not perceive the reasonableness of the Scriptures? Ought not Christ to have
suffered these things and to enter into his glory?’
The parallel cannot be with Mark xii. 24, for that had been quoted only a few
lines before.
t Clementine Homilies, iii. 583 —“Er: why ereyev ‘Eva elf mept ov Mwioijs
mpoephnrevoey eimay “Tpophrny eyepet duiv Kipios 6 @eds judy ex Tay ddeApav
iuadv, domep kal éué- abrod dxovere kata mdvra, ds dy SE wh akovan TOU mpophrov
exelvov Gmrodavetra,”’ ‘Nay further he said &c.’ The quotation is from Deut.
xviii. 15 and 19. These verses are also quoted in Acts iii, 22-8, but, although
in each Deut. xviii. 19 is quoted freely, the difference from Acts is very, marked.
§ Origen, Hom. im Ierem. iii. p. 778 (Latin translation, the Greek being
lost)—‘ I have read somewhere as if from the mouth of the Saviour—and I
should like to know whether some one has represented the person [or, drawn a
portrait] of the Saviour or whether he has brought to mind what is said and it be
true—however the Saviour himself says “ He that is near me is near the fire ;
he that is far from me is far from the kingdom” (Legi alicubi quasi Salvatore
M
162 The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
* 63, The evil one is the tempter.
+64. Give not a pretext to the evil one.
dicente—et quaero sive quis personam figurarit Salvatoris, sive in memoriam ad-
duxerit ac verum sit hoe quod dictum est—ait autem ipse Salvator “Qui iuxta
me est iuxta ignem est; qui longe a me longe est a regno”),’
Didymus (died 396 a.p.) in Ps. 88, 8—‘ Wherefor saith the Saviour ‘‘ He that
is near me is near the fire, and he that is far from me is far from the kingdom”
(51d pnoly 6 Swrhp ‘‘O eyyds mov eyyis Tod wupds, 6 St waxpdy am’ euod waxpay amd
THs Baotrelas’),’ ;
The fact of this saying being found in Origen is in favour of its connexion with
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but the terms in which he refers to it are
against this supposition unless he had forgotten where he read it. Didymus may
have borrowed it from Origen.
* Clementine Homilies, iii. 55—Tots 3& oiouévois Sri 6 Oeds weipdCer, as ai
ypapal Aéyovow pn ‘‘O movnpds eotw 6 Tmeipd(wv’—é kal adrov meipdoas, * And,
to those who think that God tempts, as the Scriptures say he said “‘ The evil one
is the tempter ”—- who tempted even him.’
The author of Supernatural Religion renders from the same Greek ‘ The evil
one is the tempter, who also tempted himself’ as the saying of Jesus. This is
one more instance of his notoriously bad scholarship: aitrdy not a’tdy would be
required to make his rendering possible. As the Clementine Homilies were un-
doubtedly written without breathings, he is welcome to make the necessary change,
but I doubt whether the devil can reasonably be said to have tempted himself:
the phrase ‘ to tempt oneself’ does not occur in the N.T. _
t Clementine Homilies, xix. 2—épn.... ‘My dére mpdpacw TG wovnps,’ ‘he
said &c.’ Paul (Eph. iv. 27) has an exact parallel, ‘And do not give a ground to
the devil.’ It is scarcely to be believed that the author of the Homilies, which are
written against Paul, should have inadvertently quoted his words as those of
Jesus.
LONDON : PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND ©O., NEW-STREET SQUARE
' AND PARLIAMENT STREET
ver ae
bas =a
BY THE SAME WRITER.
Will be published in January 1880,
A COMMENTARY
ON THE
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW.
This Commentary, which has taken some years in preparation, is the first (if it
find favour) of a series of Commentaries on the Gospels and Acts, which are meant
to be more complete in matters of textual criticism, translation, and illustration than
any yet published in English, and to be so free from the implication of any dogmatic
or anti-dogmatic views as to be equally acceptable to readers of the most opposite
religious beliefs.
Lately published, crown 8vo. cloth 3s. 6d.
ZH RIGHTS OF AN ANIMAL.
A NEW ESSAY IN ETHICS.
With Extracts from the Writings of Joun Lawrence.
‘Has the advantage of setting forth, without exaggeration, that man’s duty to his
neighbour extends to the lower animals, even to those which possess only the slightest
capacity for feeling pleasure or pain. . . . If he could induce clergymen and other
teachers of morality to show ignorant people how needful it is to study the wants of
all the living beings they have in their charge, he would have done much for the
happiness of the world.’ —Acaprmy.
‘Mr. Nicholson keeps his advocacy of animals’ rights well within certain limits of
common sense. . . . The extracts from Lawrence . . . are interesting additions toa
quaint and simple essay on this branch of ethics.’—BritisH QuaRTERLY Revinw.
‘A weighty little book, to which we desire to draw particular attention. .. We
urge the purchase and perusal of the book on the clergy, that they may work its
material into sermons and lectures, and so spread its teaching widely throughout the
country. —Cuurcu Tiss.
‘ As logical and sensible in prose as he is gracefully original and fancifully tender
in poetry. .. . If Mr. Nicholson’s own treatment of the question were not so well
worthy heedful attention as it is, we should commend the book to public acceptance
for the sake of these notes and extracts. —Daity TELegRAPH.
‘A very valuable history and statement of a question that we do not properly
understand.’—Epinsurea Datty Review.
‘In support of his views he has certainly brought forward arguments which
deserve consideration, and which, it is to be hoped, will not be thrown away upon
those to whom his essay is especially (sic) addressed.’—Fiexp. ‘
2
‘In fact, both the Essay and the Appendix are such as to claim, as a kind of
right, that they should be studied carefully. They together form one of the ablest
additions to works on the claims of animals to be kindly treated we have seen since
the late Sir Arthur Helps’s work.—Lanp anp WarTER.
‘Has reasoned out this subject with some carefulness, and, we think, success,’
Lirzrary Wor.p.
‘Characterised by great thoughtfulness, often by striking originality, and by a
thorough independence of mind. ... The great point in regard to such subjects as
the one before us is to get people seriously to think of them. This Mr. Nicholson
‘will do wherever his book may be read. He has, therefore, done a service both to
humanity, and to the living nature that is not humanity. The extracts in the
Appendix are admirable.’-—NoNnconFoRMIST.
‘ Much ability and logical force. . . . There is a tone of healthy common sense
and an absence of false sentiment about the essay, which make it a really valuable
contribution to the literature of the subject.’—Scorsman.
‘Original in character, written in an original manner, and with an original style
of its own... . Very racy, very piquant, and very telling is the line of argument
taken; it is by far the best book for “ prevention of cruelty to animals” we know;
of course of a much higher order than the Society’s well-meant tracts, placing the
subject on a broader, firmer, wider, basis, illustrating it in a far more effective and
real way, and very discreetly limiting it by other rights’. —Universiry Macazine.
Crown 8vo. cloth, 4s. 6d.
THE CHRIST-CHILD,
AND OTHER POEMS.
‘ Very bad verse—artificial and affected in language, crude and obscure in idea... .
Persons thus christened may be predestined to make themselves ridiculous, ... His
verses are rubbish, pure and simple, from beginning to end.— Wor tp.
‘No piece which does not possess some grace or tenderness, or touch of fancy or
of humour. . . . Proves the presence amongst us of a man of true poetical feeling
and culture,’—AcADEMY. |
‘ Among the writers of verse he would have an unusual prospect of distinction... .
Whatever style Mr. Nicholson chooses to employ he uses with grace and skill,’
SPECTATOR.
‘Far more originality is shown in Mr. Nicholson's “ The Christ-Child”. . . His
preface is a model of good sense. We think he has fairly estimated his own powers,
He seems to be quite aware, what the majority of poets are not aware of, that, to take —
any rank as a poet in these days, life must be dedicated to the Muses,’
WESTMINSTER Review.
C. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1 Paternoster Square, London
LIST OF
A
oe we eoAnN PACL .& CO.9
PUBLICATIONS.
THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY.
A Monthly Review.
EDITED By JAMES KNOWLES.
Price 25. 6d.
Vous, I. & II. PRICE 145. EACH, VOL. III. 175,, CONTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS
BY THE FOLLOWING WRITERS :—
RABBI HERMANN ADLER.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.
ARTHUR ARNOLD,
MATTHEW ARNOLD.
Rev. Dr. GEORGE PERCY BADGER, D.C.L.
REv. CANON BARRY.
Dr. H. CHARLTON BASTIAN.
Sir T. BAziey, M.P.
Mr. EDGAR BOwRING.
Mr. THOMAS BRAsSSEY, M.P.
Rev. J. BALDWIN Brown.
PROFESSOR GEORGE VON BUNSEN.
Dr. W. B. CARPENTER.
PROFESSOR CLIFFORD.
PROFESSOR COLVIN.
Rev. R. W. DALE.
Mr. EDWARD DICEY.
M. E. GRANT Durr, M.P.
ARCHIBALD FORBES.
JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE.
THE RicHT Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE,
M.P.
THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND
BRISTOL.
Mr. W. R. GREG.
Mr. FREDERIC HARRISON.
Mr. GEORGE J. HOLYOAKE.
Mr. R. H. Hutron.
PROFESSOR HUXLEY.
HENRY IRVING.
Sir JoHN LuBBocK.
Rev. MAtcotm MAcCOoLt.
Rev. A. H. MAcKoNocHIE,
CARDINAL MANNING.
Rev. Dr. MARTINEAU,
His HIGHNEss MIpHAT PASHA.
PROFESSOR HENRY MORLEY.
RicutT Hon. Lyon Piayratr, M.P.
Mr. GEORGE PoTTeErR.
W. R. S. RAtston,
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE.
PROFESSOR CROOM ROBERTSON,
Rev. J. GUINNEss RoceErs,
PROFESSOR RUSKIN.
THE VERY REV. THE DEAN oF ST;
PAUL’s,
LORD SELBORNE,
PROFESSOR GOLDWIN SMITH.
JAMES SPEDDING.
Ricut Hon. JaAMEs STANSFELD, M.P.
SIR JAMES FITzjJAMES STEPHEN,
ALFRED TENNYSON,
PROFESSOR TYNDALL.
SIR JULIUS VoGEL.
Sir THoMAs WATSON, M.D,
Dr. WARD,
Mr. FREDERICK WEDMORE.
THE VERY REV. THE DEAN oF WEST
MINSTER, ;
MAJor-GEN, SIR GARNET WOLSELEY,
THE RIGHT Hon. Cuas. WORDSWORTH,
&c. &e.
1 Paternoster Square,
London.
A LIST OF
© KEGar TAU & COCs
PUBLICATIONS.
ares
a4
ABDULLA (Hakayit)—AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A MALay M UNSHI. Trans-
lated by J. T. THomson, F.R.G.S. With Photo-lithograph Page of Abdulla’s
MS. Post 8vo. price 125. |
ADAMS (A. L.) M.A., MB. FERS. F.G.S—FIELD AND FOREST
RAMBLES OF A NATURALIST IN’ NEW BRUNSWICK. With Notes and
Observations on the Natural History of Eastern Canada. Illustrated. 8vo.
price 145. '
ADAMS (F. 0.) F-R.G.S.—THE History or JAPAN. From the Earliest
Period to the Present Time. New Edition, revised. 2 volumes. With Maps
and Plans. Demy 8vo. price 21s. each.
A. K. H. B—A Scotch ComMmuNION SuNDAY, to which are added
Certain Discourses from a University City. By the Author of ‘The
Recreations of a Country Parson,’ Second Edition. Crown 8vo, price 5s.
From A Quiet Pace. A New Volume of Sermons. Crown 8vo. cloth.
ALBERT (Mary).—HOoLLAND AND HER HEROES TO THE YEAR 1585.
An Adaptation from ‘Motley’s Rise of the Dutch Republic.’ Small crown
8vo. price 4s. 6d.
ALLEN (Rev. R.) M.A.—AxsrauaM ; HIS Lire, TIMES, AND TRAVELS,
3,800 years ago. With Map. Second Edition. Post 8vo, price 6s.
ALLEN (Grant) B.A.—PHYSIOLOGICAL AESTHETICS. Large post 8vo. 9s.
ANDERSON (Rev. C.) M.A.—NeEw ReavDINGS OF OLD PARABLES.
Demy 8vo. price 4s. 6d,
CuuRcH THOUGHT AND CHuRcH Work. Edited by. Second Edition.
Demy 8vo. price 7s. 6d,
Tue CuraTE or SHyrE. Second Edition. 8vo. price 75. 6d.
ANDERSON (R. C.) C.E.—TaBseEs FOR FACILITATING THE CALCULA-
TION OF EVERY DETAIL IN CONNECTION WITH EARTHEN AND MASONRY
Dams. Royal 8vo. price £2. 25.
ARCHER (Thomas)—Axsout My FatuHEr’s Business. Work amidst
the Sick, the Sad, and the Sorrowing. Crown 8vo, price 5s.
ARNOLD (Arthur)—Soctau Poritics. Demy 8vo. cloth.
9,78
4 A List of
— >
BAGEHOT (Walter)—Tue EnciisH Constitution. A New Edition,
Revised and Corrected, with an Introductory Dissertation: on Recent Changes
and Events. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
LoMBARD STREET. A Description of the Money Market. Seventh
Edition. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
SoME ARTICLES ON THE DEPRECIATION OF SILVER, AND TOPICS
CONNECTED WITH IT. Demy 8vo. price 5s.
BAGOT (Alan)—Acciwents 1N Mines: ‘Their Causes and Prevention.
Crown 8vo. price 6s.
BAKER (Sir Sherston, Bart.\—HA.uecr’s INTERNATIONAL Law ; or,
Rules Regulating the Intercourse of States in Peace and War. A New Edition,
revised, with Notes and Cases. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. price 38s.
BALDWIN (Capt. J. H.) F-Z.S. Bengal Staff Corps.—TueE LARGE AND
SMALL GAME OF BENGAL AND THE NORTH-WESTERN PROVINCES OF
INDIA. 4to. With numerous Illustrations. Second Edition. Price 21s.
BARNES (William)—AN OUTLINE OF ENGLISH SPEECHCRAFT. Crown
8vo. price 45.
BARTLEY(G. C. T.)—Domestic Economy: Thrift in Every-Day Life.
Taught in Dialogues suitable for children of all ages. Small Cr. 8vo. price 2s.
BAUR (Ferdinand) Dr. Ph., Professor in Maulbronn.—A PHILOLOGICAL
INTRODUCTION TO GREEK AND LATIN FOR STUDENTS. Translated and
adapted from the German. By C. KEGAN PAUL, M.A. Oxon., and the
Rev. E. D. STONE, M.A., late Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge, and
Assistant Master at Eton. Crown 8vo. price 65.
BAYNES (Rev. Canon R. H.)\—AtT THE COMMUNION Time. A Manual
for Holy Communion. With a preface by the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of
Derry and Raphoe. Cloth, price Is. 6d.
BECKER (Bernard H.)—TuHE ScIENTIFIC SOCIETIES OF LONDON.
Crown 8vo. price 5s.
BELLINGHAM (Henry) Barrister-at-Law—SociaL ASPECTS OF CATHO-
LICISM AND PROTESTANTISM IN THEIR CIVIL BEARING UPON NATIONS.
Translated and adapted from the French of M. le Baron de Haulleville. With
a preface by His Eminence Cardinal Manning. Crown 8vo price 6s.
BENNIE (Rev. J. NV.) M.A.—THE ETERNAL Lire. Sermons preached
during the last twelve years. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
BERNARD (Bayle)—SaMvueEt Lover, His Lire anp UNPUBLISHED
Works. In2vols. With a Steel Portrait. Post 8vo. price 21s.
BISCOE (A. C.)—Tue Ears. or Mippieron, Lords of Clermont and
of Fettercairn, and the Middleton Family. Crown 8vo. price 10s. 6d.
BISSET (A.)—HIisTory OF THE STRUGGLE FOR PARLIAMENTARY
GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. price 245.
BLANC (H.) M.D.—CHOLERA: How To Avorp aND TREAT IT.
Popular and Practical Notes. Crown 8vo. price 4s. 6d.
BONWICK (/.) #.R.G.S.—PyRamiD Facts anD Fanciges. Crown 8yo.
price 5s.
EcyPTIAN BELIEF AND MopDERN THOUGHT. Large Post 8vo. cloth,
price 10s, 6a,
C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Publications. 5
BOWEN (#1. C.) M.A., Head Master of the Grocers’ Company's Middle
Class School at Hackney.
STUDIES IN ENGLIsH, for the use of Modern Schools. Small crown
8vo. price Is. 6d.
BOWRING (L.) C.S./.—EASTERN EXPERIENCES. Illustrated with Maps
and Diagrams. Demy 8vo. price 16s,
BOWRING (Sir John).—AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL RECOLLECTIONS OF SIR
JoHN BowrinG. With Memoir by LEWIN B. Bowrinc. Demy 8vo. price 145.
BRADLEY (F. H.)—Eruicat Srupies. Critical Essays in Moral
Philosophy. Large post 8vo. price 9s.
Mr. Sipcwick’s HEDONISM : an Examination of the Main Argument
of ‘The Methods of Ethics.’ Demy 8vo. sewed, price 25. 6d.
BROOKE (Rev. S. A.) M.A., Chaplain in Ordinary to Her Majesty the
Queen, and Minister of Bedford Chapel, Bloomsbury.
LIFE AND LETTERS OF THE LATE REv, F. W. ROBERTSON, M.A.,
Edited by.
I. Uniform with the Sermons. 2 vols. With Steel Portrait. Price 7s. 6d.
II. Library Edition. 8vo. With Two Steel Portraits. Price 12s.
III. A Popular Edition. In I vol. 8vo. price 6s,
Tue Ficut or Fairu. Sermons preached on various occasions.
Third Edition. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d,
THEOLOGY IN THE ENGLISH PoEts.—Cowper, Coleridge, Wordsworth,
and Burns. Third Edition. Post 8vo. price gs.
CHRISTIN MoDERN Lire. Eleventh Edition. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
SERMONS. First Series. Ninth Edition. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
Sermons, Second Series. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. price 7s.
FREDERICK DENISON Maurice: The Life and Work of. A
Memorial Sermon. Crown 8vo. sewed, price Is.
BROOKE (W. G.) M.A.—TuHeE Pustic WorsHip REGULATION ACT.
With a Classified Statement of its Provisions, Notes, and Index. Third
Edition, revised and corrected. Crown 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
Six Privy CounciL JUDGMENTS—1f850~-72. Annotated by. Third
Edition. Crown 8vo. price 9s.
BROUN (/J. A.)—MAGNETIC OBSERVATIONS AT TREVANDRUM AND
AUGUSTIA MALLEY. Vol. 1. 4to. price 63s.
The Report from above, separately sewed, price 21s.
BROWN (Rev. J. Baldwin) B.A.—Tue HicHer Lire. Its Reality.
Experience, and Destiny. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. price 75. 6d.
DocTRINE OF ANNIHILATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL OF
LovE. Five Discourses. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. price 2s. 6d.
BROWN (/. Croumbie) LL.D.—REBOISEMENT IN FRANCE; or, Records
of the Replanting of the Alps, the Cevennes, and the Pyrenees with Trees,
Herbage, and Bush. Demy 8vo. price 12s. 6d.
THE HyDROLOGY OF SOUTHERN ArrRica.: Demy 8vo. price 1os. 6d.
6 | A List of ©
BROWNE (Rev. M. £.)—Untin tHE Day Dawn. Four Adven
Lectures. Crown 8vo. price 2s. 6d.
BURCKHARDT (Jacob)—TuHe Cry izaTIoN . OF THE PERIOD OF THE
RENAISSANCE IN ITALY. Authorised translation, by S. G. C. Middlemore.
2 vols. Demy 8vo. price 245.
‘BURTON (Mrs. Richard)—Tue INNER Lire or Syria, PALESTINE, AND
THE Hoty LAND. With Maps, Photographs, and Coloured Plates. 2 vols.
Second Edition. Demy 8vo. price 24s.
‘BURTON (Capt. Richard F-)—Tue Gotp MINES oF MIDIAN AND THE
RUINED MIDIANITE CiTiEs. A Fortnight’s Tour in North Western Arabia,
With numerous illustrations. Second Edition, _Demy 8vo. price 18s.
CARLISLE (A. D.) B.A.—ROUND THE WoRLD IN 1870. A Volume of
Travels, with Maps. New and Cheaper Edition. Demy 8vo. price 6s,
CARNE (Miss £. T.\—TueE Ream or TRuTH. Crown 8vo. price 5s. 6d.
CARPENTER (W. B.) LL.D., M.D., F.R.S., &c.—THE PRINCIPLES
OF MENTAL PHysIoLoGy. With their Applications to the Training and
Discipline of the Mind, and the Study of its Morbid Conditions. Illustrated.
Fourth Edition. 8vo. price 12s.
CHILDREN’S Toys, and some Elementary Lessons in General Knowledge
which they Teach. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
CHRISTOPHERSON (The Late Rev. Henry) M.A.
SERMONS. _ With an Introduction by John Rae, LL.D., F.S.A.
Second Series. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
CLODD (Edward) F.R.A.S—THE CHILDHOOD OF THE WORLD: a
Simple Account of Man in Early Times. Third Edition. Crown 8vo.
price 3s.
A Special Edition for Schools. | Price Is.
THE CHILDHOOD OF RELIGIONS. Including a Simple Account of the
Birth and Growth of Myths and Legends. Third Thousand. Crown 8vo,
price 55.
A Special Edition for Schools. Price 1s. 6d.
COLERIDGE (Sara)—PuHaAntasMion. A Fairy.Tale. With an Intro-
ductory Preface by the Right Hon. Lord Coleridge, of Ottery St. Mary. A
New Edition. Illustrated. . Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
MEMOIR AND LETTERS OF SARA COLERIDGE. Edited by her Daughter.
With Index. 2 vols. With Two Portraits. Third Edition, Revised and
Corrected. Crown 8vo. price 245.
Cheap Edition, With one Portrait. Price 7s. 6d,
COLLINS (Rev. R.) M.A.—Muissionary ENTERPRISE IN THE EAST.
With special reference to the Syrian Christians of Malabar, and the Results
of Modern Missions. With Four Illustrations. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
COOKE (Prof. J. P.) of the Harvard University —SciENTIFIC CULTURE.
- Crown 8vo. price Is.
COOPER (T. T:) #.R.G.S.—THE MIsHMEE Hitits: an Account of a
Journey made in an Attempt to Penetrate Thibet from Assam, to open New
Routes for Commerce. Second Edition, With Four Illustrations and Map.
Post 8vo. price 10s. 6d.
C. Kegan Paul & Cos Publications. 7
CORY (Lieut.-Col. Arthur)—THE EASTERN MENACE ; OR, SHADOWS OF
CoMING EvENTs. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
COX (Rev. Sir George W.) M.A., Bart.—A History oF GREECE FROM THE
EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE END OF THE PERSIAN WAR. 2 vols. Demy 8vo.
price 36s.
THE MyTHOLOGY OF THE ARYAN NATIONS. 2 vols. Demy 8vo.
price 28s,
A GENERAL HIstToRY OF GREECE FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE
DEATH OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT, with a sketch of the subsequent History
to the present time. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
TALES OF ANCIENT GREECE... Third Edition. Small crown 8vo.
price 6s.
SCHOOL History or GREECE. With Maps. Fcp. 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
THE GREAT PERSIAN WAR FROM THE History oF HERODOTUS.
New Edition. Fep. 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
A MANUAL OF MYTHOLOGY IN THE FORM OF QUESTION AND ANSWER,
Third Edition. Fcp. 8vo. price 3s.
COX (Rev. Samuel)—Satvator Munopt ; or, Is Christ the Saviour of all
; Men? Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
CROMPTON (Henry) — INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION. Feap. 8vo.
price 2s, 6d,
CURWEN (Henry)—Sorrow AND Sonc ; Studies of Literary Struggle.
Henry Miirger—Novalis—Alexander Petofi—Honoré de Balzac—Edgar Allan
Poe— André Chénier. 2 vols. crown 8vo. price I5s.
DANCE (Rev. C. D.)\—RECOLLECTIONS OF FouR YEARS IN VENEZUELA.
With Three Illustrations and a Map. Crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
DAVIDSON (Rev. Samuel) D.D., LL.D.—THE NEw TESTAMENT,
TRANSLATED FROM THE LATEST GREEK TEXT OF TISCHENDORF. A New
and thoroughly revised Edition. Post 8vo. price 10s. 6d.
CANON OF THE BIBLE: Its Formation, History, and Fluctuations.
Second Edition. Small crown 8vo. price 5s.
DAVIES (G. Christopher)—MovuntTain, MEADow, AND MERE: a Series
of Outdoor Sketches of Sport, Scenery, Adventures, and Natural History
With Sixteen Illustrations by Bosworth W. Harcourt. Crown 8yo. price 6s.
DAVIES (Rev. J. L.) M.A.—THEOLOGY AND Moratity. Essays on
Questions of Belief and Practice. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
DAWSON (Geo.), M.A—PRAVERS, WITH A DISCOURSE ON PRAYER.
.. Edited by his Wife. Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
SERMONS ON DISPUTED PoINTs AND SPECIAL Occasions, Edited by
his Wife. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
SERMONS ON DatLy Lire AND Duty. Edited by his Wife. Second
Edition. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
DE LESSEPS (ferdinand)—Tue Surz Cana : Letters Descriptive of
its Rise and Progress in 1854-1856. Translated by N. R. D’ANVERS, Demy
8vo. price ros, 6a,
8 A List of
DE REDCLIFFE (Viscount Stratford) P.C., R.G., G.C_B.—Wnuy am I
A CHRISTIAN? Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. price 3s.
DESPREZ (Philip S.) B.D.—DANIEL AND JoHN. Demy 8yvo. cloth.
DE TOCQUEVILLE (A.)\—CorRESPONDENCE AND CONVERSATIONS
OF, WITH NAssAU WILLIAM SENIOR, from 1834 to 1859. Edited by
M. C. M. SIMPSON. 2 vols. post 8vo. price 215.
DOWDEN (Edward) LI.D.—SHAKSPERE : a Critical Study of his Mind
and Art. Third Edition. Post 8vo. price 12s.
STUDIES IN LITERATURE, 1789-1877. Large Post 8vo. price 125.
DREW (Rev. G. S.) M.A.—ScriwturE LANDS IN CONNECTION WITH
THEIR History. Second Edition. 8vo. price tos. 6d.
NAZARETH: Its LiFE AND Lessons. Third Edition. Crown 8vo.
price 5s.
THE DivinE KinGpoM ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. 8vo.
price 10s. 6d. .
THE Son or Man: His Life and Ministry. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
DREWRY (G. 0.) M.D.—THE ComMon-SENSE MANAGEMENT OF THE
STOMACH. Fourth Edition. Fcp. 8vo. price 2s. 6d.
DREWRY(G. 0.) M.D., and BARTLETT (H. C.) Ph.D., FCS.
Cup AND PLATTER: or, Notes on Food and its Effects. Small 8vo.
price 2s. 6d.
EDEN (frederitkh)—TueE NILE witHouT A DrAcomaAN. Second Edition.
Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
ELSDALE (Henry)—Stupies 1n Tennyson’s Ipyiis. Crown 8vo.
price 55.
EssAyS ON THE ENDOWMENT OF RESEARCH. By Various Writers.
List of Contributors. —Mark Pattison, B.D.—James S. Cotton, B. A.—Charles
E. Appleton, D.C.L.—Archibald H. Sayce, M.A.—Henry Clifton Sorby,
F.R.S.—Thomas K. Cheyne, M.A.—W. T. Thiselton Dyer, M.A.—Henry
Nettleship, M.A. Square crown 8vo. price Ios. 6d.
EVANS (Mark)—TueE Story OF OUR FATHER’s Love, told to Children.
being a New and Cheaper Edition. _ With Four Illustrations. Fep. 8vo. price
Is, 6d,
A Book oF COMMON PRAYER AND WorSHIP FOR HovusEHOLD UsE,
compiled exclusively from the Holy Scriptures. Fecp. 8vo. price 2s. 6d.
THE GosPEL OF HoME Lire. Crown 8vo. cloth, price 4s. 6d.
EX-CIVILIAN.—LiFE IN THE MorussiL: or Civilian Life in Lower
Bengal. 2 vols. Large post 8vo. price 145.
FAVRE (Mons. j.\—TuHE GOVERNMENT OF THE NATIONAL DEFENCE.
From the 30th June to the 31st October, 1870. Translated by H. CLARK.
Demy 8vo. price Ios, 6d.
C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Publications. 9
FINN (The late Fames) M.R.A.S.—StTIRRING TIMEs ; or, Records from
Jerusalem Consular Chronicles of 1853 to 1856. Edited and Compiled by
his Widow ; with a Preface by the Viscountess STRANGFORD. 2 vols, Demy
8yvo. price 305.
FLEMING ( James) D.D.—Ear1y CHRISTIAN WITNESSES; or, Testimonies
of the First Centuries to the Truth of Christianity. Small Crown 8vo. cloth,
FoLKEsTone Rituat Case: the Arguments, Proceedings, Judgment, and
Report. Demy 8vo. price 25s.
FOOTMAN (Rev. H.) M.A.—¥Rom HoME anv Back ; or, Some Aspects
of Sin as seen in the Light of the Parable of the Prodigal. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
FOWLE (Rev. Edmund)—LaTIN PRIMER RULES MADE Easy. Crown
8vo. price 35.
FOWLE (kev. T: W.) M.A.—THE RECONCILIATION OF RELIGION AND
SCIENCE. Being Essays on Immortality, Inspiration, Miracles, and the Being
of Christ. Demy 8vo. price Ios. 6d.
FOX-BOURNE (H. R.)— Tue Lire or JoHN LOCKE, 1632-1704.
2 vols. demy 8vo. price 28s.
FRASER (Donald)—EXcHANGE TABLES OF STERLING AND INDIAN
RUPEE CURRENCY, upon a new and extended system, embracing Values from
One Farthing to One Hundred Thousand Pounds, and at rates progressing, in
Sixteenths of a Penny, from Is. 9d. to 2s. 3d. per Rupee. Royal 8vo. price
tos. 6d,
FRISWELL (7. Hain)—Tue Betrer SELF. Essays for Home Life.
Crown 8vo. price 6s.
FYTCHE (Lieut.-Gen. Albert) C.S.L. late Chief Commissioner of British
Burma. BURMA PAST AND PRESENT, with Personal Reminiscences of the
Country. With Steel Portraits, Chromolithographs, Engravings on Wood,
and Map. 2vols. Demy 8vo. cloth, price 30s.
GAMBIER (Capt. J. W.) R.N.—SErvis. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
GARDNER (/.) M.D.—ULoncevity: THE MEANS OF PROLONGING
LIFE AFTER MIDDLE AGE. Fourth Edition, revised and enlarged. Small
crown 8vo. price 45 :
GILBERT (Mrs.)—AvUTOBIOGRAPHY AND OTHER MeEmoriALs. Edited
by Josiah Gilbert. Third and Cheaper Edition. With Steel Portrait and
several Wood Engravings, Crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
GILL (Rev. W. W.) B.A —MYyTHS AND SONGS FROM THE SOUTH PAcIFIc.
With a Preface by F. Max Miiller, M.A., Professor of Comparative Philology
at Oxford. Post 8vo. price 9s.
GODKIN (/James)—Tue Reticious History or IRELAND: Primitive,
Papal, and Protestant. Including the Evangelical Missions, Catholic Agitations,
and Church Progress of the last half Century. 8vo. price 12s.
GODWIN (William)—Wi.u1AM Gopwin: His FRIENDS AND CONTEM-
PORARIES. With Portraits and Facsimiles of the Handwriting of Godwin and
his Wife. By C. KEGAN PAUL. 2 vols. Large post 8vo. price 28s.
THE GENIUS OF CHRISTIANITY UNVEILED. Being Essays never
before published. Edited, with a Preface, by C. Kegan Paul. Crown 8vo.
price 7s, 6d.
IO A List of
GOODENOUGH (Commodore J. G.) R.N., C.B., C.M.G.—MeEmorr of,
with Extracts from his Letters and Journals. Edited by his Widow. With
Steel Engraved Portrait. Square 8vo. cloth, 5s.
*,* Also a Library Edition with Maps, Woodcuts, and Steel Engraved Portrait.
Square post 8vo. price 14s.
GOODMAN (W.) Cusa, THE PEARL OF THE ANTILLES. Crown 8vo.
price 7s. 6d,
GOULD (kev. S. Baring) M.A.—THueE Vicar oF MorRwENSTow: a Memoir
of the Rev. R. S. Hawker. With Portrait. Third Edition, revised. Square
post 8vo. 10s, 6d. ;
GRANVILLE (A. B.) M.D., F-R.S., &¢.—AvTOBIOGRAPHY OF A. B.
GRANVILLE, F.R.S., &c. Edited, with a Brief Account of the Concluding
Years of his Life, by his youngest Daughter, Paulina B. Granville. 2 vols.
With a Portrait. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. price 32s.
GREY (John) of Dilston.—MeEmotrs.. By JosEPpHINE E. BuTLer.
New and Revised Edition. Crown 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
GRIFFITH (Rev. T:) A.Md.—Stuvies OF THE Divine Master. Demy
8vo, price 12s.
GRIFFITHS (Capt. Arthur)—MEMORIALS OF MILLBANK, AND CHAPTERS
IN PRISON History. With Illustrations by R. Goff and the Author, 2 vols.
post 8vo, price 215.
GRIMLE VY (Rev. H. N.) M.A., Professor of Mathematics in the University
College of Wales, and sometime Chaplain of Tremadoc Church.
TREMADOC SERMONS, CHIEFLY ON-THE SPIRITUAL Bopy, THE UNSEEN
WORLD, AND THE DIVINE HUMANITY. Second Edition, Crown 8vo. price 6s.
GRUNER (M. L.)—Stupirs or Buast FurNACE PHENOMENA. Trans-
lated by L. D. B. Gorpon, F.R.S.E., F.G.S. Demy 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
GURNEY (Rev. Archer)—Worvs oF FairH AND CHEER. A Mission
of Instruction and Suggestion. . Crown 8vo. price 6s.
HAECKEL (Prof. Ernst)—Tue History or Creation. — Translation
revised by Professor E. RAy LANKESTER, M.A., F.R.S. With Coloured Plates
and Genealogical Trees of the various groups of both plants and animals.
2 vols. Second Edition. Post 8vo. cloth, price 32s.
THE History OF THE EVOLUTION OF MAN. With numerous Illustra-
tions. 2vols. Post 8vo.
HIAKE (A. Egmont)—Paris ORIGINALS, with Twenty Etchings, by
Lton RICHETON. Large post 8vo. price 145.
HALLECK’S INTERNATIONAL Law; or, Rules Regulating the Inter-
course of States in Peace and War. A New Edition, revised, with Notes and
Cases, by Sir SHERSTON BAKER, Bart. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. price 38s.
HARCOURT (Capt. A. F. P.)—TueE SHAKESPEARE ArGosy. Containing
much of the wealth of Shakespeare’s Wisdom and Wit, alphabetically arranged
and classified. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Publications. Il
HAWEIS (Rev. H. R.) M.A.—CwurRRENT Coin. Materialism—The
Devil — Crime — Drunkenness — Pauperism — Emotion — Recreation — The
Sabbath. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
SPEECH IN SEASON. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. price gs.
THOUGHTS FOR THE TIMES. Eleventh Edition. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
UNSECTARIAN FamiLty PRAYERS for Morning and Evening for a
Week, with short selected passages from the Bible. Second Edition.
Square crown 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
_ ARROWS IN THE ArR. Conferences and Pleas. Crown 8vo. cloth.
HAYMAN (H.) D.D., late Head Master of Rugby School—Rucsy
SCHOOL SERMONS. With an Introductory Essay on the Indwelling of the
Holy Spirit. Crown 8vo. price 7s, 6d.
HELLWALD (Baron F. Von\—Tue Russians in CENTRAL ASIA.
A Critical Examination, down to the Present Time, of the Geography and
- History of Central Asia. Translated by Lieut.-Col. Theodore Wirgman,
LL.B. With Map. Large post 8vo. price 12s. ;
HINTON (/.)—TueE PLAcE oF THE Puysician. To which is added
. ESSAYS ON THE LAW OF HUMAN LIFE, AND ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN
ORGANIC AND INORGANIC WorLps, Second Edition., Crown 8vo.
price 3s. 6d.
PHYSIOLOGY FOR PractricaL Usr. By Various Writers. With
50 Illustrations, 2 vols. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. price 12s. 6d.
AN ATLAS OF DISEASES OF THE MEMBRANA TYMPANI. With Descrip-
tive Text. Post 8vo. price £6. 6s.
THE QUESTIONS OF AURAL SURGERY. With Illustrations. 2 vols.
Post 8vo. price £6.65,
LIFE AND LETTERS. Edited by Extticz Hopkins, with an Intro-
duction by Sir W. W. GULL, Bart., and Portrait engraved on Steel by C. H.
JEENS. Crown 8vo. price 8s. 6d.
CHAPTERS ON THE ART OF THINKING, and other Essays. Crown 8vo.
H. J. C—Tue Arr or Furnisuinc: A Popular Treatise on the
Principles of Furnishing, based on the Laws of Common Sense, Requirement, ~
and Picturesque Effect. Small crown 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
HOLROYD (Major W. R. M.)\—Tas-HiL uL Kaa ; or, Hindustani
made Easy. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
HOOPER (Mary)—ULittLe Dinners: How To SERVE THEM WITH
ELEGANCE AND Economy. Thirteenth Edition. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
COOKERY FOR INVALIDS, PERSONS OF DELICATE DIGESTION, AND
CHILDREN. Crown 8vo. price 35. 6d.
Every-Day Meats. Being Economical and Wholesome Recipes for
Breakfast, Luncheon, and Supper. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth, price 5s.
HIOPKINS (£itice)—LireE aND LETTERS OF JAMES HINTON, with an
Introduction by Sir W. W. GULL, Bart., and Portrait engraved on Steel by
C, H. JEENS. Crown 8vo. price 8s. 6d.
HOPKINS (M.)—Tue Port or REFUvcE ; or, Counsel and Aid to Ship-
masters in Difficulty, Doubt, or Distress, Second and Revised Edition.
Crown 8vo, price 6s.
5 eee A List of
HORNE (William) M.A.—REASON AND REVELATION : an Examination
into the Nature and Contents of Scripture Revelation, as compared with other
Forms of Truth. Demy 8vo. price 12s.
HIORNER (The Misses)—WA.KS IN FLORENCE. A New and thoroughly
Revised Edition. 2 vols. Crown 8vo, Cloth limp. With Illustrations.
VoL. I.—Churches, Streets, and Palaces. Price tos. 6d.
Vou. II.—Public Galleries and Museums. Price 5s.
HULL (Edmund C. P.\—Tue European 1n Inpia. With a Medical
Guide for Anglo-Indians. By R. S, Marr, M.D., F.R.C.S.E. Third
Edition, Revised and Corrected. Post 8vo. price 6s.
HIUTTON ( James)—MiIssionary LirE IN THE SOUTHERN SEAS. With
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
JACKSON (T. G.)—MopERN GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. Crown 8vo.
price 55.
JACOB (Maj.-Gen. Sir G. Le Grand) K.C.S.I., C.B.—WESTERN INDIA
BEFORE AND DURING THE MUTINIES. Pictures drawn from Life. Second
Edition, Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
JENKINS (£.) and RA VMOND ( /.) Esqs.—A LEGAL HANDBOOK FOR
ARCHITECTS, BUILDERS, AND BUILDING OWNERS. Second Edition, Revised.
Crown 8vo. price 6s.
JENKINS (Rev. R. C.) M.A.—THE PRIVILEGE OF PETER and the Claims
of the Roman Church confronted with the Scriptures, the Councils, and the
Testimony of the Popes themselves. Fcap. 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
JENNINGS (Mrs. Vaughan)—RAHvEL: HER LIFE AND LETTERS. With
a Portrait from the Painting by Daffinger. Square post 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
JONES (Lucy)— Puppincs anp SwEEtTs; being Three Hundred and
Sixty-five Receipts approved by experience. Crown 8vo. price 2s. 6d.
KAUFMANN (kev. M.) B.A.—Soctautsm : Its Nature, its Dangers, and
its Remedies considered. Crown 8vo. price 75. 6d.
KERNER (Dr. A.) Professor of Botany in the University of Innsbruck.--
FLOWERS AND THEIR UNBIDDEN GUESTS. Translation edited by W. OGLE,
M.A., M.B. With Illustrations. Square 8vo. cloth.
KIDD (Joseph) M.D.—TuE Laws or THERAPEUTICS ; or, the Science
and Art of Medicine. Crown 8vo, price 6s.
KINAHAWN (G. Henry) M.RIA., of H.M.’s Geological Survey.—TuHE
GEOLOGY OF IRELAND, with numerous Illustrations and a Geological Map of
Ireland. Square 8vo. cloth.
KING (Alice)—A CLUSTER oF Lives. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
KINGSLE V (Charles) M.A.—LETTERS AND MEMORIES OF HIS LIFE.
Edited by his WIFE. With Two Steel Engraved Portraits, and Illustrations
on Wood, and a Facsimile of his Handwriting. Thirteenth Edition. 2 vols.
Demy 8vo. price 36s.
ALL Saints’ Day, and other Sermons. Edited by the Rev. W.
HARRISON. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
TRUE WorpDs FOR BRAVE MEN. A Book for Soldiers’ and Sailors’
Libraries. Crown 8vo, price 2s, 6d.
C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Publications. 13
LACORDATRE (Rev. Pere)—Lire : Conferences delivered at Toulouse.
A New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
LAMBERT (Cowley) F.R.G.S.—A TRIP TO CASHMERE AND LADAK.
With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
LAURIE (/. S.)—EDUCATIONAL COURSE OF SECULAR Sender Books
FOR INDIA :—
THE First HINDUSTANI READER. Stiff linen wrapper, price 6d.
THE SEcoND HinDusTANI READER. Stiff linen wrapper, price 6d.
THE ORIENTAL (ENGLISH) READER. Book I., price 6¢.; II., price
74d. ; III., price 9d. ; 1V., price Is.
GEOGRAPHY OF INDIA; with Maps and Historical Appendix, tracing
the Growth of the British Empire in Hindustan. Fcap. 8vo. price Is. 6d.
L. D. S.—LETTERS FROM CHINA AND JAPAN. With Illustrated Title-page.
Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
LEE (kev. F. G.) D.C.L.—THE OTHER WorRLD; or, Glimpses of the
Supernatural. 2vols. A New Edition. Crown 8vo. price I5s.
LENOIR ( J.)\—Fayovum ; or, Artists in Egypt. A Tour with M. Gérome
and others. With 13 Illustrations. A New and Cheaper Edition. Crown
8vo. price 35. 6d. .
LIFE IN THE Morussiz ; or, Civilian Life in Lower Bengal. By an Ex-
Civilian. Large post 8vo. price 145.
LINDSAY (W. Lauder) M.D., F-RS.E., &¢.—MIND IN THE LOWER
ANIMALS IN HEALTH AND DISEASE. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. cloth.
Vol. I.—Mind in Health. Vol. II.—Mind in Disease.
LORIMER (Peter) D.D.—JOHN KNOX AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
His Work in her Pulpit, and his Influence upon her Liturgy, Articles, and
Parties. Demy 8vo. price 12s.
JOHN WICLIF AND HIs ENGLISH PRECURSORS. By GERHARD VICTOR
LECHLER. Translated from the German, with additional Notes. 2 vols.
Demy 8vo. price 21s.
LOTHIAN (Roxburghe)—DANTE AND BEATRICE FROM 1282 TO 1290.
A Romance. 2 vols. Post 8vo. price 24s.
LOVER (Samuel) R.H.A.—TueE Lire or SamMuet Lover, R.H.A.;
Artistic, Literary, and Musical. With Selections from his Unpublished Papers
and Correspondence. By BAYLE BERNARD. 2 vols. With a_ Portrait.
Post 8vo. price 21s.
LYONS (R. 7.) Surg.-Maj. Bengal Army.—A TREATISE ON RELAPSING
FEVER. Post 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
MACAULAY (/.) MD. Edin. —Tue TrutH apoutT IRELAND:
Tours of Observation in 1872 and 1875. With Remarks on Irish Public
Questions. Being a Second Edition of ‘Ireland in 1872,’ with a New and
Supplementary Preface. Crown 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
MACLACHLAN (A. NV. C.) M.A—Wi1tam Aucustus, DUKE oF
CUMBERLAND : being a Sketch of his Military Life and Character, chiefly as
exhibited in the General Orders of His Royal Highness, 1745-1747. With
Illustrations, Post 8vo. price 155.
14 A List of
MACNAUGHT (kev. John)—C&éna Domini: An Essay on the Lord’s
Supper, its Primitive Institution, Apostolic Uses, and Subsequent History.
Demy 8vo. price 145.
MAIR (R. S.) M.D., F-R.C.S£.—THE MeEpicaL GUIDE FOR ANGLO-
INDIANS. Being a Compendium of Advice to Europeans in India, relating
to the Preservation and Regulation of Health. With a Supplement on the
Management of Children in India. Second Edition. Crown 8vo, limp cloth,
price 3s. 6d.
MANNING (His Eminence Cardinal) — Essays ON RELIGION AND
LITERATURE. By various Writers. Third Series. “Demy 8vo. price 10s. 6d.
THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE Hoty SEE. With an Appendix contain-
ing the Papal Allocution and a translation. Crown 8vo. price 55.
THE TRUE STORY OF THE VATICAN CouNcIL. Crown 8vyo. price 5s.
MARRIOTT (Maj.-Gen. W. FF.) C.SZ—A GRAMMAR OF POLITICAL
Economy. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
MAUGHAN (W.C.)—TueE APs or ARABIA ; or, Travels through Egypt,
Sinai, Arabia, and the Holy Land. With Map. Second Edition. Demy
8yo. price 55.
MAURICE (C. £.)—ULives or ENGLISH PoPpuLAR LEADERS. No. 1.—
STEPHEN LANGTON. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d. No. 2.—TYLER, BALL, and
OLDCASTLE. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
MAZZINI ( Joseph) — A Memoir. By E. A. V. Two Photographic
Portraits. Second Edition, Crown 8vo, price 5s.
MEDLEY (Lieut.-Col. J. G.) R.E.—AN AuTUMN TouR IN THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
MICKLETHWAITE (/J. T.) #.S.A.—MopDERN ParisH CHURCHES :
Their Plan, Design, and Furniture. Crown 8vo., price 7s. 6d..
MILLER (£dward)—TueE History and DocrrINEs OF IRVINGISM ;
or, the so-called Catholic and Apostolic Church. 2 vols. Large post 8vo.
price 25s.
MILNE ( James)—Tas_ts OF EXCHANGE for the Conversion of Sterling
Money into Indian and Ceylon Currency, at Rates from 1s. 8d. to 2s. 3d. per
Rupee. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. Cloth, price £2. 2s.
MIVART (St. George) F.R.S—CONTEMPORARY Evo.ution: An Essay on
some recent Social Changes. Post 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
MOCKLER (£.)—A GRAMMAR OF THE BALOOCHEE LANGUAGE, as it is
spoken in Makran (Ancient Gedrosia), in the Persia-Arabic and Roman
characters. Fcap. 8vo. price 5s.
MOFFAT (&. §.)—Economy or Consumption: a Study in Political
Economy. Demy 8vo. price 18s.
THE PRINCIPLES OF A TIME Po.icy: being an Exposition of a
Method of Settling Disputes between Employers and Employed in regard to
Time and Wages, by a simple Process of Mercantile Barter, without recourse
to Strikes or Locks-out. Reprinted from ‘The Economy of Consumption,’
with a Preface and Appendix containing Observations on some Reviews of that
book, and a Re-criticism of the Theories of Ricardo and J. S, Mill on Rent,
Value, and Cost of Production. Demy 8vo. price 3s, 6d.
C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Publications. 5
MOLTKE (field-Marshal Von)—LETTERS FROM Russia. Translated by
RoBINA NAPIER. Crown 8vo, price 6s. .
MOORE (Rev. D.) M_A.—Curist AND His Cuurcu. By the Author
of ‘The Age and the Gospel,’ &c. Crown 8vo. price 35. 6d.
MORE (R. Jasper)\—UNpDER THE BALKANS. Notes ‘of a Visit to the
District of Philippopolis in 1876. With a Map, and Illustrations from Photo-
graphs. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
MORELL (J. R.)—Evciuip SIMPLIFIED IN METHOD AND LANGUAGE.
Being a Manual of Geometry. Compiled from the most important French
Works, approved by the University of Paris and the Minister of Public
Instruction. Fcap. 8vo. price 2s. 6d.
MORSE (£. S.) PhD.—First Book oF Zootocy. With numerous
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
MUSGRAVE (Anthony)—StTvuviEs IN PotiticaL Economy. Crown 8vo.
price 6s.
NEWMAN (J. £2.) D.D.—CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE WRITINGS OF.
Being Selections from his various Works. Arranged with the Author’s
personal Approval. Third Edition. With Portrait. Crown 8yo. price 6s.
*,* A Portrait of the Rev. Dr. J. H. Newman, mounted for framing, can be had
price 2s. 6d.
NICHOLAS (T.)—THE PEDIGREE OF THE ENGLISH Peopir. Fifth
Edition. Demy 8vo. price 16s.
NOBLE (/. A.)—THE PELicAN Papers. Reminiscences and Remains
of a Dweller in the Wilderness, Crown 8vo. price 6s.
NorMAN PEOPLE (THE), and their Existing Descendants in the British
Dominions and the United States of America. Demy 8vo. price 21s. .
NOTREGE ( John) A.M.—THE SpirituaL FuNcTION oF A PRESBYTER
IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Crown 8vo. red edges, price 3s. 6d.
OMEARA (Kathleen.)—FREDERIC OzANAM, Professor of the Sorbonne:
His Life and Work. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth.
ORIENTAL SPORTING MAGAZINE (THE). A Reprint of the first 5 Volumes,
in 2 Volumes. Demy 8vo. price 28s.
PARKER ( Joseph) D.D.—THE PaRAcLETE : An Essay on the Personality
and Ministry of the Holy Ghost, with some reference to current discussions.
Second Edition. Demy 8yo. price 12s,
PARSLOE (Foseph) — Our Rattways, Sketches, Historical and
Descriptive. With Practical Information as to Fares and Rates, &c., and a
Chapter on Railway Reform. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
PARR (Harriet)—Ecuors or A Famous YEAR. Crown 8vyo. price 8s. 6d.
PAUL (C. Kegan)—Wi11aM Gopwin: His Frienps anp ContTEM-
PORARIES. With Portraits and Facsimiles of the Handwriting of Godwin
and his Wife. 2 vols. Square post 8vo. price 28s. . |
‘THE GENIUS OF CHRISTIANITY UNVEILED. Being Essays by William
Godwin never before published. Edited, with a Preface, by C. Kegan Paul.
Crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
16 A List of
PAYNE (Prof. /. £.)—LEctuRES ON EpucaTIon. Price 6a. each.
II. Frébel and the Kindergarten System. Second Edition.
A Visit TO GERMAN SCHOOLS: ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN GERMANY.
Notes of a Professional Tour to inspect some of the Kindergartens, Primary
Schools, Public Girls’ Schools, and Schools for Technical Instruction in
Hamburgh, Berlin, Dresden, Weimar, Gotha, Eisenach, in the autumn of
1874. With Critical Discussions of the General Principles and Practice of
Kindergartens and other Schemes of Elementary Education. Crown 8vo.
price 4s. 6d.
PENRICE (Ma. J.) B.A.—A DIcTIONARY AND GLOSSARY OF THE
Ko-RAN. With Copious Grammatical References and Explanations of the
Text. 4to, price 215,
PERCEVAL (Rev. P.) —'Tamit PROVERBS, WITH THEIR ENGLISH
TRANSLATION. Containing upwards of Six Thousand Proverbs. Third
Edition. Demy 8vo. sewed, price 9s.
PESCHETL (Dr. Oscar) —TuHE Races oF MAN AND THEIR GEOGRAPHICAL
DISTRIBUTION. Large crown 8vo. price 9s.
PIGGOT (/.) #S.A., #-R.G.S.—PERSIA—ANCIENT AND MODERN.
Post 8vo. price 10s. 6d.
PLAVFAIR (Lieut-Col.), Her Britannic Majesty’s Consul-General in
Algiers.
TRAVELS IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF BRUCE IN ALGERIA AND TUNIS.
Tilustrated by facsimiles of Bruce’s original Drawings, Photographs, Maps, &c.
Royal 4to. cloth, bevelled boards, gilt leaves, price £3. 35.
POOR (H. V.)—Money anv its Laws : embracing a History of Monetary
Theories &c. Demy 8vo. price 21s,
POUSHKIN (A. S.)—Russtan Romance. ‘Translated from the Tales
of Belkin, &c. By Mrs. J. Buchan Telfer (#ée Mouravieff). Crown 8vo.
price 7s. 6d.
POWER (#.)—Ovr Invatips: How sHALL WE EMPLOY AND AMUSE
THEM? Fep. 8vo. price 2s. 6d.
PRESB YTER—UNFOLDINGS OF CHRISTIAN Hope. An Essay shewing
that the Doctrine contained in the Damnatory Clauses of the Creed com-
monly called Athanasian is Unscriptural, Small crown 8vo. price 4s. 6d.
PRICE (Prof. Bonamy) — CurRENCY AND BANKING. Crown §8yo.
price 6s,
CHAPTERS ON PRACTICAL POLITICAL Economy. Being the Substance
of Lectures delivered before the University of Oxford. Large post 8vo.
price 12s,
PROCTOR (Richard A.) B.A.—OwuR PLACE AMONG INFINITIES. A
Series of Essays contrasting our little abode in space and time with the
Infinities around us. To which are added Essays on ‘ Astrology,’ and ‘ The
Jewish Sabbath.’ Third Edition. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
THE EXPANSE OF Heaven. A Series of Essays on the Wonders of
the Firmament. With a Frontispiece. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Publications. 2
PROTEUS AND AMADEus. A Correspondence. Edited by AUBREY DE VERE.
Crown 8vo. price 5s.
PuNJAUB (THE) AND NorRTH-WESTERN FRONTIER OF INDIA. By an
Old Punjaubee. Crown 8vo. price 5:.
RAM (/James)—Tue PuiLosopuy or WAR, Small crown 8vo. price 3s 6¢
RAVENSHAW (John Henry) B.C.S.—GAtr: Its Ruins AnD INScRIP-
TIONS. Edited by his Widow. With 40 Photographic Illustrations, and 14
facsimiles of Inscriptions. Royal 4to.
READ (Carveth)—On THE THEORY oF Locic: An Essay. Crown 8vo.
price 6s.
RIBOT (Prof. Th.)\—EncuisH Psycuotocy. Second Edition. A
Revised and Corrected Translation from the latest French Edition. Large post
8vo. price 9s.
Herepity: A Psychological Study on its Phenomena, its Laws,
its Causes, and its Consequences. Large crown 8vo. price 9s.
RINK (Chevalier Dr. Henry)—GREENLAND : Its PEOPLE AND ITS PRo-
pucts. By the Chevalier Dr. HENRY RINK, President of the Greenland
Board of Trade. With sixteen Illustrations, drawn by the Eskimo, and a Map.
Edited by Dr. Robert Brown. Crown 8vo. price Ios. 6d.
RODWELL (G. F.) -.R.A.S., #C.S.—Etna: A History. or THE.
MOUNTAIN AND ITS ERUPTIONS. With Maps and Illustrations. Square 8vo.
cloth.
ROBERTSON (The late Rev. F. W.) M.A., of Brighton. —Lirk AND
LETTERS OF. Edited by the Rev. Stopford. Brooke, M.A., Chaplain in Ordinary
to the Queen.
I. Two vols., uniform with the Sermons. With Steel Portrait. Crown
8vo. price 7s. 6d.
II. Library Edition, in Demy 8vo. with Two Steel Portraits. Price 12s.
Ill. A Popular Edition, in 1 vol. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
Sermons. Four Series. Small crown 8vo. price 3s. 67. each.
Nores ON GENEsIS. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
Expository LECTURES ON ST. PAUL’s EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.
A New Edition. Small crown 8vo. price 5s.
LECTURES AND ADDRESSES, with other Literary Remains. A New
Edition. Crown 8vo. price 55.
An AnaAtysis OF Mr. TENNyson’s ‘IN Memoriam.’ (Dedicated by
Permission to the Poet-Laureate.) Fcp. 8vo. price 2s.
THE EDUCATION OF THE HuMAN Race. Translated from the German
of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. F cp. 8vo. price 2s. 6d.
The above Works can also be had, bound in half-morocco.
*,* A Portrait of the late Rev. F. W. Robertson, mounted for framing, can
be had, price 2s, 6d.
RUTHERFORD (/John)—Tue Secret History or THE Fentan Con-
SPIRACY: its Origin, Objects, and Ramifications. 2 vols.. Post 8vo. price 18s.
SCOTT (W. T.)\—ANTIQUITIES OF AN Essex ParisH ; or, Pages from the
History of Great Dunmow. Crown 8vo. price 5s. ; sewed, 45.
SCOTT (Robert H.)—WEATHER CHARTS AND STORM WARNINGS. _ IIlus-
trated. Crown 8vo, price 3s. 6d.
B
18 A List of
SENIOR (N. W.)—Atrxis De Tocqurvitte. Correspondence and
Conversations with Nassau W. Senior, from 1833 to 1859. Edited by M. C. M.
_ Simpson. 2 vols. Large post 8vo. price 215,
JOURNALS KEPT IN FRANCE AND ItaLy, From 1848 to 1852. With
a Sketch of the Revolution of 1848. Edited by his Daughter, M. C. M.
Simpson, 2 vols. Post 8vo. price 245, “4
SE VD (Ernest) F.S.S.—THE Fat IN THE PRICE or SILVER. Its Causes,
its Consequences, and their Possible Avoidance, with Special Reference to
India. Demy 8vo. sewed, price 25. 6d.
SHAKSPEARE (Charles)—Satint Paut at ATHENS. ~ Spiritual
Christianity in relation to some aspects of Modern Thought. Five Sermons
preached at St. Stephen’s Church, Westbourne Park, With’a Preface by the
Rev. Canon FARRAR.
SHELLE Y (Lady)—SHELLEY MEMORIALS FROM AUTHENTIC SOURCES.
With (now first printed) an Essay on Christianity by Percy “Bysshe Shelley.
With Portrait. Third Edition, Crown 8vo. price 5s. : *
SHILLITO (Rev. Joseph) —WoMANHOOD : “its Duties; Temptations, and
Privileges. A Book for Yourg Women. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
SHIPLEY (Rev. Orby) M.A.—CHURCH TRACTS: OR, STUDIES IN MODERN
‘PROBLEMS. By various Writers. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. price 5s. each.
PRINCIPLES OF THE FAITH IN RELATION.TO Stn. -Topics for T hought
in Times of Retreat. Eleven Addresses delivered during a Retreat of Three
Days to Persons living in the. World. Demy 8vo. /
SHUTE (Richard) M.A.—A Discourse on TrutrH. Large post 8yo.
price 9s.
SMEDLEY (M. B.\—BoarviInc-ouT. AND PAUPER SCHOOLS FOR GIRLS.
Crown 8vo. price 3s. 6d. ea
SMITH (Edward) M.D., LL.B., #.R.S.—HEALTH AND DISEASE, as
Influenced by the Daily, Seasonal, and other Cyclical Changes in the Human
System. A New Edition. Post 8vo. price 7s.-6d.
PRACTICAL DIETARY FOR FAMILIES, SCHOOLS, AND THE LABOURING
CiassEs. A New Edition. Post 8vo. price-3s. 6d.
‘TUBERCULAR. CONSUMPTION IN ITS EARLY AND REMEDIABLE STAGES.
Second Edition. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
SMITH (HHubert)—TeEent Lire with EnciisH Gipsies in Norway.
With Five full-page Engravings and Thirty-one smaller Illustrations by
Whymper and others, and Map of the Country showing Routes. Third
Edition. Revised and Corrected. Post 8vo. price 21s.
SOME TIME IN IRELAND. A Recollection. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
STEPHENS (Archibald John), IL.D.—TuHeE FOLKESTONE RITUAL
CASE. The Substance of the Argument delivered before the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy: Council on behalf of the Respondents. Demy 8vo.
cloth, price 6s, avo
STEVENSON (Rev. W. F.)\—Hymns FoR THE CHURCH AND HoME,
Selected and Edited by the Rev. W. Fleming Stevenson.
The most complete Hymn Book published. ; ea
The Hymn Book consists of Three Parts :—I. For Public Worship.-
II. For Family and Private Worship.—III, For Children.
*,* Published in various forms and prices, the latter ranging from 8d. to 6s.
sare ee full particulars will be furnished ‘on application to the
ublishers, . As
C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Publications. 19
STEVENSON (Robert _Louis)—AN INLAND VoyacE. With Frontis-
piece by Walter Crane. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
SULLY (James) M.A.— SENSATION AND InTuITION. Demy $8vo.
price 10s. 6d.
PESSIMISM’: a History and a Criticism. Demy 8vo. price 14s.
SUPERNATURAL IN Nature (THE). A Verification by Free Use of
Science. Demy 8vo, price 145.
SVYME (David)—Ovut.unes or AN InpDusTRIAL SCIENCE. Second
Edition, Crown 8yo. price 6s.
TELFER (J. Buchan) F-R.G.S., Commander R.N.—TuE CRIMEA AND
TRANS-CAUCASIA. With numerous Illustrations and Maps. Second Edition,
2 vols. Royal 8vo. medium 8vo. price 36s.
THOMPSON (Rev. A. S.\—Home Worps ror WANDERERS. A Volume
of Sermons. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
THOMSON (J. Turnbull)—SoctaL PRoBLEMS ; OR, AN INQUIRY INTO
THE LAWS OF INFLUENCE, With Diagrams, Demy 8vo. cloth.
TRAHERNE (Mrs. A.)\—Tue Romantic ANNALS OF A NAVAL
Famity. A New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
VAMBERY (Prof. A.)\—Boxuara: Its History and Conquest. Second
Edition. Demy 8vo. price 18s,
VILLART (Professor\—NiccoLo MACHIAVELLI AND HIS TIMEs. ‘Trans-
lated by Linda Villari. 2 vols. Large post 8vo.
VYNER (Lady Mary)—Every Day A Portion. Adapted from the
Bible and the Prayer Book, for the Private Devotions of those living in Widow-
hood. Collected and Edited by Lady Mary Vyner. Square crown 8vyo.
extra, price 55, —
WALDSTEIN (Charles) Ph.D.—THE BALANCE OF EMOTION AND
INTELLECT ; an Introductory Essay to the Study of Philosophy. Crown 8vo,
cloth.
WALLER (Rev. C. B.)\—Tue Apocatyrse, reviewed under the Light of
the Doctrine of the Unfolding Ages, and the Relation of All Things. Demy
8vo. price I2s.
WELLS (Capt. John C.) R.N.—SpPITZBERGEN—THE GATEWAY TO THE
POLYNIA; or, a Voyage to Spitzbergen. With numerous Illustrations by
__ Whymper and others, and Map. New and Cheaper Edition. Demy 8vo. price 6s.
WETMORE (W. S.)—ComMERCIAL TELEGRAPHIC CODE. Second
Edition. Post 4to. boards, price 42s.
WHITE (A. D.) LL.D.—WakFarE OF SCIENCE. With Prefatory Note
by Professor Tyndall. Crown 8vo., price 3s. 64. —
WHITNE Y (Prof. William Dwight)—ESsSENTIALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR,
_. for the Use of Schools. Crown 8vo. price 35. 6d.
WHITTLE (f. L.) A.M.—CatuouicisM AND THE VaTiIcAN. With a
Narrative of the Old Catholic Congress at. Munich. Second Edition. Crown
8vo. price 45. 6d.
WILBERFORCE (H. W.\—Tur CuurcH AND THE Empires. _His-
torical Periods. Preceded by a Memoir of the Author by John Henry
Newman, D.D. of the Oratory. With Portrait. Post 8vo. price tos. 6d.
B2
20 sei A List of
WILKINSON (7. Z.)\—Suort Lectures ON THE LAND Laws. De-
livered before the Working Men’s College. Crown 8vo. limp cloth, price 2s.
WILLIAMS (A. Lukyn\—Famines IN Invi ; their Causes and Possible
Prevention. The Essay for the Le Bas Prize, 1875. Demy 8yo. price 5s.
WILLIAMS (Chas.)—Tur ARMENIAN Campaicn. A Diary of the Cam-
paign of 1877 in Armenia and Koordistan. Large post 8vo. price Ios. 6d.
WILLIAMS (Rowland) D.D.—Ui1FE AND LETTERS OF; with Extracts
from his Note-Books. Edited by Mrs. Rowland Williams. With a Photo-
graphic Portrait. 2 vols, large post 8vo. price 245.
PsaLms, LITANIES, COUNSELS, AND COLLECTS FOR DeEvouT PERSONS.
Edited by his Widow. New and Popular Edition. Crown 8yo. price 3s. 6d.
StrAyY THOUGHTS COLLECTED FROM THE WRITINGS OF THE LATE
ROWLAND WILLIAMS, D.D, Edited by his Widow.
WILLIS (R.) M.D.—SERVETUS AND CALVIN: a Study of an Important
Epoch in the Early History of the Reformation. 8vo. price 16s.
Witi1AM Harvey. A History of the Discovery of the Circulation
of the Blood : with a Portrait of Harvey after Faithorne. Demy 8vo. cloth.
WILSON (H. Schiitz)—StupiEs AND Romances. Crown 8vyo. price 75. 6d.
WILSON (Lieut.-Col. C. T:)—JAMES THE SECOND AND THE DUKE OF
BERWICK. Demy 8vo. price 12s. 6d.
WINTERBOTHAAM (kev. R.) M.A., B.Sc.—SERMONS AND EXPOSITIONS.
Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
WOLLSTONECRAFT (Mary)—Letrers To Imtay. New Edition
with Prefatory Memoir by C. KEGAN PAUL, auther of ‘ William Godwin : His
Friends and Contemporaries,’ &c.. Crown 8vo.
WOOD (C. #.)—A YACHTING CRUISE IN THE SouTH SEAs. With six
Photographic Illustrations, Demy 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
WRIGHT (Rev. David) M.A.—WAITING FOR THE LIGHT, AND OTHER
SERMONS. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
WYLD (R. S.) F.R.S.Z.—THE PuHysics AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE
SENSES; or, the Mental and the Physical in their Mutual Relation. Illustrated
by several Plates. Demy 8vo. price 16s.
YONGE (C. D.)—History oF THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION OF 1688.
Crown 8vo. price 6s.
YOUMANS (£liza A.)—An Essay ON THE CULTURE OF THE OBSERVING
POWERS OF CHILDREN, especially in connection with the Study of Botany.
Edited, with Notes and a Supplement, by Joseph Payne, F.C. P., Author of
*‘ Lectures on the Science and Art of Education,’ &c. Crown 8vo, price 2s. 6d.
First Book or Borany. Designed to Cultivate the Observing
Powers of Children. With 300 Engravings. New and Enlarged Edition.
Crown 8vo. price 55.
YOUMAWNS (Edward L.) M.D.—A Cuiass Book or CHEMISTRY, on the
Basis of the New System. With 200 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Pubhcatons.
2I
THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC
SERIES.
I. Forms oF WATER: a Familiar Expo-
sition of the Origin and Phenomena of
Glaciers. By J. Tyndall, LL.D.,
F.R,S. With 25 Illustrations,
Seventh Edition. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
II. PHysiIcs AND PoLiTics; or, Thoughts
on the Application of the Principles
of ‘Natural Selection’ and ‘ Inheri-
tance’ to Political Society. By Walter
Bagehot. Fourth Edition, Crown
8vo. price 45.
III. Foops. By Edward Smith, M.D.,
LL.B., F.R.S. With numerous Illus-
trations. Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo.
price 55.
IV. MinD AND Bopy: the Theories of
their Relation. By-Alexander Bain,
LL.D. With Four Illustrations.
Sixth Edition. Crown 8vo. price 4s.
V. THE Stupy oF SocioLocy. By Her-
bert Spencer. Seventh Edition. Crown
8vo. price 55.
VI. ON THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
By Balfour Stewart, M.A., LL.D.,
F.R.S. With 14 Illustrations. Fifth
Edition. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
VII. ANIMAL LocoMoTiIon; or, Walking,
Swimming, and Flying. By J. B.
Pettigrew, M.D., F.R.S., &c. With
130 Illustrations. Second Edition.
Crown 8vo. price 55.
VIII. RESPONSIBILITY IN MENTAL
DIsEASE. By Henry Maudsley, M.D.
Third Edition. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
IX. THE NEw CHEMISTRY. By Professor
J. P. Cooke, of the Harvard Uni-
versity. With 31 Illustrations. Fourth
Edition. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
X. THE SCIENCE OF Law. By Professor
_ Sheldon Amos. Third Edition.
Crown 8vo, price 5s.
ANIMAL MECHANISM: a Treatise on
Terrestrial and Aerial Locomotion.
By Professor E. J. Marey. With 117
Illustrations. Second Edition. Crown
8vo, price 5s.
XI.
XII. THE DOCTRINE OF DESCENT AND
DARWINISM. By Professor Oscar
Schmidt (Strasburg University). With
26 Illustrations. Third Edition. Crown
S8vo. price 55.
XIII. THE HIsTrory OF THE. CONFLICT
BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE.
By J. W. Draper, M.D., LL.D.
Eleventh Edition. Crown 8vo.
price 5s.
XIV. Funei: their Nature, Influences,
Uses, &c. By M. C. Cooke, M.D.,
LL.D. Edited by the Rev. M. J.
Berkeley, M.A., F.L.S. With nu-
merous Illustrations. Second Edition.
Crown 8vo. price 5s.
XV. THE CHEMICAL EFFECTs OF LIGHT
AND PHOTOGRAPHY. By Dr. Her-
mann Vogel (Polytechnic Academy of
Berlin). Translation thoroughly re-
vised. With roo Illustrations. Third
Edition. Crown 8vo. price 55.
XVI. THE LIFE AND GROWTH OF LAN-
GUAGE. By William Dwight Whitney,
Professor of Sanscrit and Comparative
Philology in Yale College, Newhaven.
Second Edition, Crown 8vo. price 5s,
XVII. MONEY AND THE MECHANISM OF
EXCHANGE. By W. Stanley Jevons,
M.A., F.R.S. Fourth Edition.
Crown 8vo. price 5s.
XVIII. THE NATURE OF LIGHT. With
a General Account of Physical Optics.
By Dr. Eugene Lommel, Professor of
Physics in the University of Erlangen.
With 188 Illustrations and a Table
of Spectra in Chromo-lithography.
Second Edition. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
XIX. ANIMAL PARASITES AND MEss-
MATES. By Monsieur Van Beneden,
Professor of the University of Louvain,
Correspondent of the Institute of
France. With 83 Illustrations. Second
Edition. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
XX. FERMENTATION. By Professor
Schiitzenberger, Director of the Che-
mical Laboratory at the Sorbonne.
With 28 Illustrations. Second Edition.
Crown 8vo. price 55,
22
A List of —
XXI. THE Five SENSES OF MAN. By
Professor Bernstein, of the University
of “Halle. With gr Illustrations.
Second Edition. Crown 8vo. price 55.
XXII. THE THEORY OF SOUND IN ITS
RELATION TO Music. By Professor
Pietro Blaserna, of the Royal Univer-
sity of Rome. With numerous L[llus-
trations. Second Edition. Crown 8vo.
price 5s.
XXIII. Srupies In SPECTRUM ANALY-
sis. By J. Norman Lockyer. F.R.S.
With six photographic Illustrations of
Spectra, and numerous engravings on
Wood. Crown 8vo. Second Edition.
Price 6s. 6d.
Forthcoming Volumes.
Prof. W. Kincpon. Cuirrorp, M.A.
The First Principles of the Exact
Sciences explained to the Non-ma-
thematical.
W. B. CARPENTER, LL.D., F.R.S. The
Physical Geography of the Sea.
Sir Joun Luszock, Bart., F.R.S.. On
Ants and Bees.
Prof. W. T. THISELTON Dyer, B.A.,
. B.Sc. Form and Habit in Flowering
Plants.
Prof. MicHAEL Foster, M.D.
toplasm and the Cell Theory.
H. CHARLTON BASTIAN, M.D., F.R.S.
The Brain as an Organ of Mind.
P, Bert (Professor of Physiology, Paris).
Forms of Life and other Cosmical
Conditions. °
Pro-
Prof. A. C. Ramsay, LL.D., F.R.S.
Earth Sculpture: Hills, Valleys,
Mountains, Plains, Rivers, Lakes ;
how they were Produced, and how
they have been Destroyed.
Prof. T. H. Huxtry. The Crayfish :
an Introduction to the Study of
Zoology.
The Rev. A. SEccCHI, D.J., late Director
of the Observatory at Rome. The
Stars.
Prof. J. ROSENTHAL, of the University of
Erlangen. General Physiology of
Muscles and Nerves.
Prof. A. DE QUATREFAGES, Membre de
l'Institut. The Human Race.
Prof. THuRSTON. The Steam Engine.
With numerous Engravings.
FRANCIS GALTON, F.R.S. Psychometry.
J. W. Jupp, F.R.S. The Laws of
Volcanic Action:
Prof. F. N. BALFour, The Embryonic
Phases of Animal Life.
J. Luys, Physician to the Hospice de la
Salpétriére. ._.The Brain and _ its
Functions. With Illustrations,
Dr. CARL SEMPER. Animals and their
Conditions of Existence.
Prof. Wurtz. Atoms and the Atomic
Theory.
GEORGE J. RoMANES, F.L.S.
Intelligence. Se ty
ALFRED W.- BENNETT. A Handbook of
Cryptogamic Botany.
Animal
MILITARY WORKS.
ANDERSON (Col. R. P.)—VICTORIES
AND DEFEATS: an Attempt to ex-
plain the Causes. which have led to
them. An Officer’s Manual, Demy
8vo. price 145,
ARMY OF THE NORTH GERMAN CON-
FEDERATION; a_ Brief Description
of its Organisation, of the Different
Branches of the Service and their 7éle
in War, of its Mode-of Fighting, &c,
Translated from the Corrected Edition,
by permission of the Author, by
Colonel Edward Newdigate, Demy
8yo, price 55.
BLUME (Maj. W.)—THE OPERATIONS
OF THE GERMAN ARMIES IN FRANCE,
from Sedan to the end of the War of
1870-71. . With Map. From the
Journals of the Head-quarters Staff.
Translated by the late E. M. Jones,
Maj. 20th Foot, Prof. of Mil, Hist.,
Sandhurst. Demy 8vo. price 9s. - -
BOGUSLAWSKT (Capt. A. von)—Tac-
TICAL DEDUCTIONS FROM THE WAR
oF 1870-1. Translated by. Colonel
Sir Lumiey Graham, Bart., late 18th
(Royal Irish) Regiment. Third Edi-
tion, Revised. and Corrected, Demy
8vo. price 7s, (292
C. Kegan Paul & Cos Publications.
23
BRACKENBORY. (Lieut.-Col.) C.B.,
R.A.,° A.A.G. MiLirary HAND-
BOOKS ‘FOR REGIMENTAL OFFICERS.
I. Military Sketching and Recon-
naissance, by: Lieut.-Col. F. J. Hut-
chison, and Capt. H. G. MacGregor.
With 15 Plates. Small 8vo.: cloth,
price 6s. II. The Elements of
Modern Tactics, by Major Wilkinson
Shaw.. With numerous Plates.
BRIALMONT (Col. A.)\—Hasty IN-
TRENCHMENTS. Translated by Lieut.
Charles A.- Empson, R.A. With
Nine Plates... Demy 8vo. price 6s.
CLERY (C.) Capt.—Minor. TACTICS.
With 26 Maps and Plans. ‘ Third and
revised Edition. Demy 8vo. cloth,
price 16s.
DU VERNOTS (Col. von Verdy)—
STUDIES IN LEADING Troops. An
authorised and: accurate Translation by
Lieutenant H. J. T. Hildyard, 71st
Foot. Parts I. and II.’ Demy 8vo.
price 7s.
GOETZE (Capt. A. von)—OPERATIONS
OF THE GERMAN ENGINEERS DUR-
ING THE WAR OF 1870-1. Published
by Authority, and in accordance with
Official Documents. | Translated from
the German by Colonel G. Graham,
V.C., C.B.,. R.Ev> With 6) large
Maps. Demy 8vo. ‘price 2ts.
HARRISON (Lieut.-Col. R.) — THE
OFFICER’S MEMORANDUM. BooK FOR
PEACE AND War: Second Edition.
Oblong’ 32mo. roan, elastic band and
pencil, price 3s. 6d. 5 russia, 5s.
HELVIG (Capt. H.)—THE OPERATIONS
OF THE BAVARIAN ARMY CORPS.
‘Franslated by Captain G..S. Schwabe.
With Five large-Maps. In.2 vols.
Demy 8vo. price 245... 25,
TACTICAL, EXAMPLES; Vol,, I, The
Battalion, price 15s. Vol. Il. The
- Regiment and Brigade, price,1os. 6d.
Translated from the German.-by Col..
Sir Lumley Grahem. » With nearly
300 Diagrams. -Demy8vo. cloth.
HOFFBAUER (Capt.)\—TuHEe GERMAN
ARTILLERY IN THE BATTLES NEAR
Metz. Based on the Official Reports of
LAYMANN (Capt.)-- THE FRONTAL
ATTACK OF INFANTRY. ‘Translated
by Colonel Edward Newdigate. Crown
8vo. price 2s. 6d.» ri
NOTES ON CAVALRY TACTICS, ORGANI- .
SATION, &c. By a Cavalry Officer.
With Diagrams. Demy 8vo. cloth,
price 12s,
PAGE (Capi. S. F.)—-DISCIPLINE AND
DRILL. Cheaper Edition. Crown
8vo. price Is.
PuBLIc SCHOOLBOY: the Volunteer, the
Militiaman, and the Regular Soldier.
Crown 8vo. cloth, price 55.
RUSSELL (Major. Frank S,.)\—RUvUSSIAN
WARS. WITH. TURKEY, PAST. AND
PRESENT, With Maps. Second
Edition. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
SCHELL (Maj: von) —THE OPERATIONS
OF THE First ARMY UNDER. GEN.
VON GOEBEN,,. Translated by Col.
C. H. von. Wright.. Four Maps.
demy 8vo. price 9s.
THE OPERATIONS OF THE FIRST ARMY
UNDER GEN. VON STEINMETZ.
- Translated by Captain E. O. Hollist.
Demy 8vo. price Ios. 6d.
SCHELLENDORF (Major-Gen. B. von)
THE DUTIES .OF:..THE. GENERAL
STAFF. Translated from the German
by Lieutenant Hare. Vol. I. -Demy
8vo. cloth, ros. 6d,
SCHERFF (Maj. W..von)—STUDIES IN
THE NEW INFANTRY TACTICS.
Parts I. and‘II, Translated from the
German by Colonel Lumley Graham.
Demy 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
SHADWELL (Maj.-Gen.) C.B.—Movun-
‘TAIN WARFARE. Illustrated by the
Campaign of 1799 in Switzerland.
Being a Translation of the Swiss
Narrative compiled from the Works of
the~ Archduke Charles, ‘Jomini, and
others. ~ ‘Also ‘of ‘Notes ‘by General
H.. Dufour..on the.Campaign of the
Valtelline in 1635.. With. Appendix,
Maps, and ‘Introductory Remarks.
Demy 8vo. price 16s.
SHERMAN (Gen. W. T.)—MEMOIRS OF
GENERAL’ W: “T. SHERMAN, Com-
marnider ‘of the: Federal Forces in the
American Civil War. By- Himself.
2 vols. With. Map. . Demy 8yo. price
24s. Copyright English dition, —
24 A List of ~
STUBBS (Lieut.-Col. F. W.) — THE
REGIMENT OF BENGAL ARTILLERY.
The History of its Organisation, Equip-
ment, and War Services. Compiled
from Published Works, Official Re-
cords, and various Private Sources,
With numerous Maps and Illustrations.
2 vols. demy 8vo. price 32s.
STUMM (Lieut. Hugo), German Military
Attaché to the Khivan Expedition.—
RussiA’S ADVANCE © EASTWARD.
Based. on the Official Reports of.
Translated by Capt. C. E.H. VINCENT,
With Map. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
VINCENT (Capt. C. £. H.)—ELEMEN-
TARY MILITARY GEOGRAPHY, RE-
CONNOITRING, AND SKETCHING.
Compiled for Non-commissioned Offi-
cers and Soldiers of all Arms. Square
crown 8vo. price 2s. 6d.
WHITE (Capt. F. B. P.)\—THE Sus-
WARTENSLEBEN (Count H. von.)\—
THE OPERATIONS OF THE SOUTH
ARMY IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY,
1871. _ Compiled from the Official
War Documents of the Head-quar-
ters of the Southern Army. Trans-
lated by Colonel C. H. von Wright.
With Maps. Demy 8vyo. price 6s.
THE OPERATIONS OF THE FIRST ARMY
UNDER GEN. VON MANTEUFFEL.
Translated by Colonel C. H. von
Wright. Uniform with the above.
Demy 8vo. price 9s.
WICKHAM (Capt. E. H., R.A.)—IN-
FLUENCE OF FIREARMS UPON TAC-
Tics : Historical and Critical Investi-
gations. By an OFFICER OF SUPE-
RIOR RANK (in the German Army).
Translated by Captain E. H. Wick-
ham, R.A. Demy 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
WOINOVITS (Capt. J.) — AUSTRIAN
STANTIVE SENIORITY ARMY LIST— CAVALRY EXERCISE. ‘Translated by
MAJORS AND CAPTAINS, 8vo. sewed, Captain W. S. Cooke. Crown 8vo.
price 25. 6d, price 7s.
POETRY.
ABBEY (Henry)\—BALLADS OF GooD
DEEDS, and other Verses. Fcp. 8vo.
cloth gilt, price 5s.
ADAMS (W. D.— Lyrics oF LOovE,
from Shakespeare to Tennyson. Se-
lected and arranged by. Fcp. 8vo.
cloth extra, gilt edges, price 3s. 6d.
Also, a Cheaper Edition. Fep.
8vo. cloth, 2s. 6d.
ADAMS (Fohn) M.A.—StT. MAto’s
QUEsT, and other Poems, Fcp. 8vo.
price 55.
ADON—THROUGH STORM AND SuwUN-
SHINE, Illustrated by M, E. Edwards,
A. T. H. Paterson, and the Author.
Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
A. F. R.—TOLD IN TWILIGHT ; Stories
in Verse, Songs, &c. Fcp. 8vo.
price 3s. 6d,
AUBERTIN (7. F.)\—CAMOENS’ LUSIADS,
Portuguese Text, with Translation by.
Map and Portraits. 2 vols. Demy
8vo. price 30s.
AURORA : a Volume of Verse, Fecp. 8vo.
cloth, price 5s
BARING (T. C.) M.A., M.P.—PINDAR
IN ENGLISH RHYME. Being an At-
tempt to render the Epinikian Odes
with the principal remaining Frag-
ments of Pindar into English Rhymed
_ Verse. Small 4to. price 7s.
BAYNES (Rev. Canon R. H.) M.A.—
HoME SONGS FOR QuIET Hours,
Fourth Edition. Fep. 8vo. price 2s.6d.
This may also be had handsomely
bound in morocco with gilt edges,
BENNETT (Dr. W: C.)\—NARRATIVE
POEMS AND BALLADS. Fcp. 8vo.
sewed, in Coloured Wrapper, price Is.
SONGS FOR SaILors. Dedicated by
Special Request to H.R.H. the Duke
of Edinburgh. With Steel Portrait
and Illustrations. Crown 8vo. price
35. 6d.
An Edition in Illustrated Paper
Covers, price Is.
SONGS OF A SONG WRITER.
8vo. price 6s.
BOSWELL (R. B.) M.A. Oxon. —
METRICAL TRANSLATIONS FROM THE
GREEK AND LATIN PoETs, and other
Poems. Crown 8vo, price 5s,
Crown
C. Kegan Paul & Cos Publications.
25
BRYANT (W. C.)— Poems. Red-line
Edition. With 24 Illustrations and
Portrait of the Author. Crown 8vo.
cloth extra, price 7s. 6d.
A Cheap Edition, with Frontis-
piece. Small crown 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
BUCHANAN (Robt.)\—POETICAL WORKS.
Collected Edition, in 3 vols. with Por-
trait. Crown 8vo. price 6s. each,
MASTER-SPIRITS. Post 8vo. price 1os.6d.
BULKELEY (Rev. H. F.)—WALLED IN,
and other Poems. Crown 8vo. price 55.
CALDERON’S DRAMAS: the Wonder-
Working Magician—Life is a Dream
—the Purgatory of St. Patrick. Trans-
lated by Denis Florence MacCarthy.
Post 8vo. price 10s.
‘CARPENTER (£.)—NArcIssus, and
other Poems. Fcp. 8vo. price 5s.
COLLINS (Mortimer)—INN OF STRANGE
MEETINGS, and other Poems. Crown
8vo. cloth, price 55.
CORY (Lieut.-Col. Arthur) —IoNE: a
Poem in Four Parts. Fep. 8vo. cloth,
price 5s.
CosMos: a Poem. Fep. 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
CRESSWELL (Mrs. G.)\—THE KIno@’s
BANNER: Drama in Four Acts. Five
Illustrations. 4to. price 10s. 6d,
DENNIS (F.)—ENGLISH SONNETS. Col-
lected and Arranged. Elegantly
bound. Fcp. 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
DE VERE (Aubrey)—ALEXANDER THE
GREAT: a Dramatic Poem. Small
crown 8vo. price 5s.
THE INFANT BRIDAL, and other Poems.
A New and Enlarged Edition. Fep.
8vo. price 75. 6d.
THE LEGENDS OF ST. PATRICK, and
other Poems. Small crown 8vo. price
5S.
ST. THOMAS OF CANTERBURY : a Dra-
matic Poem. Large fcp. 8vo. price 5s.
ANTAR AND ZARA: an Eastern Romance.
INISFAIL, and other Poems, Medita-
tive and Lyrical. Fep. 8vo. price 6s.
THE FALL OF RORA, THE SEARCH
AFTER PROSERPINE, and other Poems,
Meditative and Lyrical. Fcp, 8vo. 6s,
DOBSON (Austin) — VIGNETTES IN
RHYME, and Vers de Société. Third
Edition, Fep. 8vo. price 55.
PROVERBS IN PORCELAIN. By the
Author of ‘Vignettes in Rhyme.’
Second Edition. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
DOWDEN (Edward) -LL.D.—Porms.
Third Edition. Fcp. 8vo. price 5s.
DOWNTON (Rev. H.) M.A.—Hymns
AND VERSES. Original and Trans-
lated. Small crown 8vo. cloth, price
35. 6d.
DURAND (Lady)\—IMITATIONS FROM
THE GERMAN OF SPITTA AND TER-
STEGEN. F cp. 8vo. price 4s.
EDWARDS (Rev. Basil) — Minor
CHORDS ; or, Songs for the Suffering :
a Volume of Verse. Fcp. 8vo. cloth,
price 3s. 6d.; paper, price, 2s. 6d.
ELLIOT (Lady Charlotte)—MEDUSA and -
other Poems. Crown 8vo. cloth, price
6s.
ELLIOTT (Ebenezer), The Corn Law
Rhymer.—PormMs. Edited by his son,
the Rev. Edwin Elliott, of St. John’s,
Antigua, 2 vols. crown 8vo. price 18s.
Epic oF HADES (THE). By the Author
of ‘Songs of Two Worlds.’ Fifth
and finally revised Edition. Fep. 8vo.
price 7s. 6d.
EROS AGONISTES : Poems.
Fep. 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
EVRE (Maj.-Gen. Sir V.) C.B., K.C.S.L.,
&c.—LAYS OF A KNIGHT-ERRANT
IN MANY LANDs. Square crown 8vo.
with Six Illustrations, price 7s. 6d.
FERRIS (Henry Weybridge) — PoEMs.
Fep. 8vo. price 5s.
By E. B. D.
‘GARDNER (H.)—SUNFLOWERS : a Book
of Verses. Fcp. 8vo. price 5s.
G. H. T.—VERSES, mostly written in
India. Crown 8vo, cloth, price 6s.
GOLDIE (Lieut. M. H. G.)\—HEBE: a
Tale. Fcp. 8vo. price 55.
HARCOURT (Capt. A. F. P.)—THE
SHAKESPEARE ARGOSY. Containing
much of the wealth of Shakespeare’s
Wisdom and Wit, alphabetically ar-
ranged and classified. Crewn 8vo.
price 6s.
26
A List of
HEWLETT (Henry G.)—A SHEAF OF
VERSE. Fep. 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
HOLMES (E. G. A.)—Porms, Fop. 8vo.
price 5s.
HOWARD. (Rev. G. -B.)— AN
LEGEND OF ST. PAUL’s.
price 45. 6d.
HOWELL (Fames)—A TALE OF THE
SEA, Sonnets, and other _ Poems.
Fcp. 8vo. price 5s.
HUGHES . (Allison) — PENELOPE, and
other Poems. Fcp. 8vo. price 4s. 6d.
INCHBOLD (Ff. W.)\—ANNuS AMORIS :
Sonnets. Fcp. 8vo. price 4s. 6d.
KING (Mrs. Hamilton) —THE DISCIPLES:
a New Poem. Third Edition, with
some Notes. Crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
ASPROMONTE, and other Poems. Second
Edition. Fep. 8vo. price 4s. 6d.
KNIGHT (A. Ff. CAF rs Fep. 8vo.
price 5s.
Lapy OF Lipari (THE): a Poem in
Three Cantos.. Fcp; 8yo. price 5s.
LOCKER (F.)—Lonpon -Lyrics. A
New and Revised Edition, with Addi-
tions and a Portrait of the Author.
Crown 8yo. cloth elegant, price 6s.
Also, an Edition for the People.
Fep. 8vo. price 2s. 6d, me
LUCAS (Alice)—-TRANSLATIONS* FROM
THE WORKS OF GERMAN POETS OF
THE 18TH AND I9TH CENTURIES,
Fcp. $vo, price 5s.
MAGNUSSON (Eirikr) M.A., and
PALMER (£. H.). M.A.—JOHAN
LUDVIG RUNEBERG’S LYRICAL SONGS,
IDYLLS, AND EPIGRAMS, aCe 80,
cloth, price 5s.
MIDDLETON (The Lady)\—BALLADS.
Square 16mo. cloth, price 3. 6d. |
MILLER (Robert) —THE “ROMANCE OF
Love. ‘Fcp. cloth, price 5s. =~
MORICE . (Rev. FF. D.) ’ MvA, — THE
OLYMPIAN..AND. PYTHIAN. ODES OF
PINDAR, A New Translation in Eng-
lish Verse. Crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
MORSHEAD (E. D.. A.) —THE AGA-
MEMNON. OF .AiSCHYLUS.. _ Trans-
lated into. English. Verse... With an
Introductory Essay. Crown 8vo,
cloth, price 5s, ©
OLD
Fep. 8yo.
NEW WRITER (A)—Soncs or Two
Wor ps. Third Edition. Complete
in One Volume. With Portrait. Fcp.
8vo. price 5s.
THE Epic oF Hangs. By the Author
of ‘Songs of Two Worlds.’ Fourth
and finally revised Edition. Fep. 8vo,
price 7s. 6d,
NICHOLSON (Edward B.) Librarian of
the London Institution—THE CHRIST
CHILD, and other Poems. Crown
8vo. cloth, price 4s. 6d.
NOAKE (Major R.. Compton) — THE
Brvovac ; or, Martial Lyrist. With
an. Appendix : Advice to the Soldier,
Fep. 8vo. price 5s. 6d.
NORRIS (Rev. Alfred) — THE INNER
AND OUTER LIFE POEMS, cask 8yvo.
cloth, price 6s.
PAUL (C. Kegan)—GOETHE's Faust. A
_ New Translation in Rhyme. Crown
8vo. price 6s.
PAYNE (Sakwlec Somes. OF LIFE AND
DEATH. Crown 8yo. cloth, price 5s.
PEACOCKE (Georgiana)—RAYS FROM
THE SOUTHERN CRrRosS:.. Poems.
Crown 8yvo. with Sixteen Full-page
Illustrations by the Rey. P. Walsh.
Crown 8vo, cloth elegant, price Ios. 6d.
PENNELL (H. Cholmondeley)—PEGASUS
RESADDLED. By the Author of ‘ Puck
on Pegasus,’ &c. &c. With Ten Full-
page Illustrations. by George Du —
Maurier. Second Edition. ae: 4to.
cloth elegant, 12s. 6d.
PFEIFFER (Emily) —GLAN ieakcu 3
His Silence and Song: a Poem.
Crown 8yo. price 6s.
GERARD’S MONUMENT. and other Poems.
Second Edition. Crown 8yo. cloth,
price 6s.
PorEMs. Crown 8vo. ‘cloth, price 6s.
POWLETT (Lieut, NV.) R.A,—EASTERN
LEGENDS AND STORIES IN .ENGLISH
VERSE. © ‘Crown 8vo. price 55.
RHOADES (Famés)—TIMOLEON: a Dra-
matic Poem. Fep, 8yo. price 55.
ROBINSON (A. Mary, EB )—A HANDFUL
OF HONEYSUCKLE, es Ps. 8yo. cloth,
oS 35. OD we ¥ fire
C. Kegan Paul & Co.’s Publications.
27
SCOTT (Patrick) THE DREAM AND
- THE: DEED, and other Poems. Fcp.
8vo. price 55..
Soncs oF Two WorRLDs. By the Author
of ‘The Epic of Hades.’ Fourth
Edition. Complete in one Volume,
with Portrait. . Fep. 8vo. cloth, price
75. Od.
Soncs For Music. By Four Friends.
Containing Songs by Reginald A. |
Gatty, Stephen H. Gatty, Greville J.
Chester, and Juliana Ewing. Square
crown 8vo. price 5s.
SPICER (H.)—OTHO’s DEATH WAGER :
, a Dark Page of History Illustrated.
In Five Acts. - Fep. 8vo. cloth, price
5S.
STAPLETON (Fohn)\—THE THAMES:
a Poem. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
STONEHEWER (Agnes)—MONACELLA:
a Legend of North Wales. A Poem.
Fep. 8vo. cloth, price 3s. 6d,
SWEET SILVERY SAYINGS OF SHAKE-
SPEARE, Crown 8vo. cloth gilt, price
7s. 6d,
TAYLOR (Rev. F. W. A.) M.A,—POEMS,
_. Fep. 8vo. price 5s.
TAYLOR (Sir 1/,)—Works Complete in
Five Volumes, Crown 8vo. cloth,
* price 30s. ie
TENNYSON (Alfred) — Works Com-
plete:—
THE IMPERIAL “LIBRARY EDITION.
Complete in 7 vols, demy 8vo. price
Ios. 6d. each; in Roxburgh binding,
12s. 6d. (See p. 32.)
AuTHoR’s EDITION. In Six Volumes.
Post 8vo. cloth gilt ; or half-morocco,
Roxburgh style. (See Z. 32.)
CABINET EDITION, 12 Volumes, Each
with Frontispiece. Fecp. 8vo. price
2s. 6d. each. (See p. 32.)
‘CABINET EDITION. 12 vols, Complete
in handsome Ornamental Case. (Sce
p. 32).
PocKET VOLUME EDITION. 13 vols.
in neat case, price 36s. .
Ditto, ditto, Extra cloth gilt, in case,
price 42s. (See p. 32.)
THE GUINEA EDITION OF THE
' POETICAL AND . DRAMATIC WorKs,
complete in 12 vols. neatly bound and
enclosed in box. Cloth, price 215.;
French morocco, price 31s. 6d,
TENNYSON (Alfred)—cont.
SHILLING EDITION OF THE POETICAL
Works. In 12 vols. pocket size,
Is. each, sewed.
THE CROWN EDITION. Complete in
I vol. strongly bound in cloth, price
6s..; cloth, extra gilt leaves, price
7s. 6d.; . Roxburgh, — half-morocco,
price 75. 6d,
*.* Can also be had in a variety of other
bindings.
Original Editions :—-
PoEMs. Small 8vo. price 6s.
MAupD, and other Poems. ‘Small 8vo,
price 3s. 6d.
THE PRINCESS. Small 8vo. price 35.6.
IDYLLS OF THE KING. Small 8vo,
price 55.
IDYLLS OF THE KincG. Complete.
Small 8vo. price 6s.
Tur Hoty GRAIL, and other Poems,
Small vo. price 45. 6d.
GARETH AND LYNETTE,
Small 8vo.
price 3s. ne
ENOCH ARDEN, &c. Small 8vo.. price
35. 6d.
IN MEMORIAM. Small 8vo. price 4s.
Harotp; a Drama. New Edition.
Crown 8vo. price 6s. .
QuEEN Mary: a Drama, New Edi-
tion, Crown 8vo. price 6s,
SELECTIONS FROM THE ABOVE WORKS,
Super royal 16mo. price 3s. 6d. ; cloth
gilt extra, price 4s.
SONGS FROM THE ABOVE WORKS.
16mo, cloth, price 2s. 6d.; cloth extra,
35. Od,
TENNYSON’S IDYLLS OF THE KING, and
other Poems. [Illustrated by Julia
Margaret Cameron. 2 vols. folio.
half-bound morocco, cloth sides, price
£6: 6s. each,
TENNYSON FOR THE YOUNG AND FOR
RECITATION. Specially arranged,
Fep. 8vo. Is. 6d.
THE TENNYSON BIRTHDAY Book. Edited
by Emily Shakespear. 32mo. cloth
limp, 2s. ; cloth extra, 3s,
28
A List of
THOMPSON (Alice C.)—PRELUDES: a
Volume of Poems. [Illustrated by
Elizabeth Thompson (Painter of ‘ The
Roll Call’). 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
THOUGHTS IN VERSE. Small crown 8vo.
price Is. 6d.
THRING (Rev. Godfrey), B.As—HYMNS
AND SACRED Lyrics. Fecp. 8vo.
price 55.
TODD (Herbert) M.A.—ARVAN ; or, the
Story of the Sword. A Poem. Crown
8vo. price 75. 6d.
TODHUNTER (Dr. F. ae LANee
oe other Poems. Crown 8vo. price
s. 6d.
TURNER (Rev. C. Tennyson)— SONNETS,
LyRICs, AND TRANSLATIONS. Crown
8vo. cloth, price 4s. 6d.
WATERFIELD (W.)— HYMNS FOR
Hoty Days AND SEASONS. 32mo.
cloth, price Is. 6d.
WAY (A.) M.A.—THE ODEs OF HORACE
LITERALLY TRANSLATED IN METRE.
Fecp. 8vo. price 25.
WILLOUGHBY (The Hon. Mrs.)\—On
THE NORTH WIND—THISTLEDOWN :
a Volume of Poems. Elegantly bound,
small crown 8vo. price 7s. 6d.
LIBRARY
BLUE Roses; or, Helen Malinofska’s
Marriage. By the Author of ‘ Véra.’
Fifth Edition. 2 vols. cloth, gilt tops,
12s.
CHAPMAN (Hon. Mrs. E. W.)—A
CONSTANT HEART: aStory. 2 vols.
cloth, gilt tops, 125.
HOCKLEY (W. B.)—TALES OF THE
ZENANA; or, a Nuwab’s Leisure
Hours. By the Author of ‘ Pandu-
rang Hari.’ With a Preface by Lord
Stanley of Alderley. 2 vols. crown
8vo. cloth, price 215.
MASTERMAWN (F.)\—WoRTH WAITING
For: a New Novel. 3vols. crown
8vo. cloth.
MORLEY (Susan)—MARGARET CHET-
WYND: a Novel. 3 vols. crown 8vo.
NOVELS.
PAUL (Margaret Agnes)—GENTLE AND
SIMPLE: a Story. 2vols. Crown 8vo.
gilt tops, price 12s.
SHAW (Flora L.)—CASTLE BLAIR: a
Story of Youthful Lives. 2 vols.
crown 8vo. cloth, price 12s.
STRETTON (Miss Hesba)—THROUGH A
NEEDLE’S EYE, 2 vols. crown 8vo.
gilt tops, price 12s.
TAYLOR (Colonel Meadows) C.S.1,
M.R.I.A.—SEETA: a Novel. 3 vols.
crown 8vo.
A NoBLE QUEEN. 3 vols. crown 8yo.
WITHIN SOUND OF THE SEA. By the
Author of ‘ Vera,’ &c. &c. 2 vols.
Crown 8vo. gilt tops, price 12s.
WORKS OF FICTION IN ONE VOLUME.
BETHAM-EDWARDS (Miss M.)
Kitty. Witha Frontispiece. Crown
8vo. price 6s.
BLUE RossEs; or, Helen Malinofska’s
Marriage. By the Author of ‘ Véra.’
New and Cheaper Edition. With
Frontispiece. Crown 8vo. cloth,
price 6s.
CLERK (Mrs. Godfrey)—1LAM EN NAs :
Historical Tales and Anecdotes of the
Times of the Early Khalifahs. Trans-
lated from the Arabic Originals. Illus-
trated with Historical and Explanatory
Notes,. Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s.
GARRETT (£.)—By STILL WATERS: a
Story for Quiet Hours. With Seven
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
HARDY (Thomas)--A PAIR OF BLUE
Author of ‘ Far from the Mad-
New Edition. Crown
EYES.
ding Crowd.’
8vo. price 6s.
HOWARD (Mary M.)\—BEATRICE AYL-
MER, and other Tales. Crown 8vo.
price 6s.
=<
4
C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Publications. 29
IGNOTUS—CULMSHIRE FOLK: a Novel. | SAUNDERS (Katherine)—cont:
New and Cheaper Edition. Crown | Joan MERRYWEATHER, and other
8vo. price 6s. Stories. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
MACDONALD (G.)—MAtcoLm. With
Portrait of the Author engraved on
Steel. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo.
price 6s.
THE MARQUIS OF LossIE. Second
Edition. With Frontispiece, Crown
8vo. cloth, price 6s.
_ ST. GEORGE AND ST. MICHAEL. Second
Edition. With Frontispiece. Crown
8vo. cloth, 6s.
MEREDITH (George) — ORDEAL OF
RICHARD FEVEREL. New Edition.
Crown 8vo. cloth, price 6s.
PALGRAVE (W. Gifford) HERMANN
AGHA: an Eastern Narrative. Third
Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth, price 6s.
PANDURANG HARI; or, Memoirs of a
Hindoo, With an Introductory Pre-
face by Sir H. Bartle E. Frere,
G.C.S.I., C.B. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
PAUL (Margaret Agnes)—GENTLE AND
SIMPLE: A Story. New and Cheaper
Edition, with Frontispiece. Crown
8vo. price 6s.
SAUNDERS (Fohn) —IsRAEL Mort,
OVERMAN: a Story of the Mine,
Crown 8vo. price 6s.
SAUNDERS (Katherine) — GIDEON’S
Rock, and other Stories. Crown 8vo.
price 65.
CHEAP
GIBBON (Charles)—For LACK oF GoLp.
With a Frontispiece. Crown 8vo.
Illustrated Boards, price 2s.
RoBIN GRAY. With a Frontispiece.
Crown 8vo, Illustrated boards, price 2s.
MARGARET AND ELIZABETH: a Story
of the Sea. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
SHAW (Flora L.) —CASTLE BLarr; 2
Story of Youthful Lives. New and
Cheaper Edition, with Frontispiece.
Crown 8vo. price 6s.
TAYLOR (Col. Meadows) C.S.1.,M.R TIA.
THE CONFESSIONS OF A THUG.
Crown 8vo. price 6s.
TARA: a Mahratta Tale.
price 6s.
CORNHILL LIBRARY of FICTION
Crown 8vo.
(Zhe). Crown 8vo. price 3s. 6d. per
volume.
HALF-A-DOZEN DAUGHTERS. By J.
Masterman.
THE House oF Rasy. ° By Mrs. G.
Hooper.
A FIGHT FOR LIFE. By Moy Thomas.
ROBIN GRAY. By Charles Gibbon.
ONE OF Two; or, The Left-Handed
Bride. By J. Hain Friswell.
Gop’s PROVIDENCE HOUSE.
G. L. Banks. New Edition.
For Lack oF GOLD. By Charles
Gibbon.
ABEL DRAKE’S WIFE.
ders.
HIRELL,
By Mrs.
By John Saun-
By John Saunders.
FICTION.
SAUNDERS (John) —HIRELL. With
Frontispiece. Crown 8vo. Illustrated
boards, price 2s.
ABEL DRAKE’s WIFE. With Frontis-
piece. Illustrated boards, price 2s.
BOOKS FOR
AuNT Mary’s BRAN Pig. Bythe Author
of ‘St. Olave’s.’ Illustrated. Price
35. 6d.
BARLEE (L£illen)—LockeD Ovr: a Tale
of the Strike. . With a Frontispiece.
Royal 16mo, price Is. 6@,.
THE YOUNG.
BONWICK (f) F.R.G.S.—THE TAs-
MANIAN LiLy. With Frontispiece.
Crown 8vo, price 5s.
MikE Howe, the Bushranger of Van
Diemen’s Land. With Frontispiece.
we Crown 8yo. price SS. toe
30
A List of
BRAVE MEN’s Footsteps. By the Editor
- of *Men who have Risen.’ A Book
of Example and Anecdote for Young
People. With Four Illustrations by
C. Doyle. Third Edition, Crown
8vo. price 35. 6d.
CHILDREN’s Toys, and some Elementary
Lessons in General Knowledge which
they teach. Illustrated. Crown 8yvo.
cloth, price 5s.
COLERIDGE (Sara)—PRETTY LESSONS
IN VERSE FOR Goop CHILDREN,
with some Lessons in Latin, in Easy
Rhyme. A’ New Edition. Illus-
trated... _Fep.. 8vo, cloth, price
35. 6d.
DANVERS (N. R.)—LitTLE MINNIE’S
TROUBLES : an Every-day Chronicle.
With 4 Illustrations by W. H. Hughes.
Fep. cloth, price 3s. 6d.
Prxir’s ADVENTURES; or, the Tale of
a Terrier. With: 21 Illustrations,
16mo. cloth, price 45, 6d.
NANNY. With numerous Illustrations.
Square 16mo. cloth.
DAVIES (G._ Christopher) MOUNTAIN,
- MEapow, AND MERE: a Series of
Outdoor Sketches of Sport, Scenery,
Adventures, and’ Natural _ History.
With Sixteen Illustrations by Bosworth
W. Harcourt. Crown 8vo. price 6s.
RAMBLES AND ADVENTURES OF OUR
ScHOOL Fietp Cius. With Four
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
DRUMMOND (Miss)—Tripr’s BuILp-
incs. A> Study from. Life, with
Frontispiece. Small crown 8vo. price
35. Od.
EDMONDS (Herbert) —WELL SPENT |
Lives: a Series of Modern Biogra-
phies,. Crown 8vo. price 55.
EVANS (Mark)—THE STORY OF OUR
FATHER’S Love, told to Children ;
‘ being a New and Enlarged Edition of
Theology for Children. With Four
Illustrations, - Feap. 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
FARQUHARSON (M.)
J, Erste DrinsMorE. Crown 8vo.
price 3s. 6d.
II. Exstr’s Grr~tHoop. Crown 8vo. -
price 35. 6d.
III. Eusie’s HoLipAys AT ROSELANDS.
Crown 8vyo. price 3s. 6d.
HERFORD (Brooke)—THE STORY OF
RELIGION IN ENGLAND: a Book for
Young Folk, Cr, 8vo. cloth, price 5s.
INGELOW ~— (Sean) — THE LITTLE
WONDER-HORN. With Fifteen Illus-
trations. Small 8vo. price 2s. 6d.
KER (David)—TuHE Boy SLAVE IN
BoKHARA: a Tale of Central Asia.
With Illustrations. Cr. 8vo. price 5s,
THE WILD HORSEMAN OF THE PAMPAS,
Illustrated. Crown 8vo. price 5s.
LEANDER (Richard) — FANTASTIC
SToRIEs. Translated from the German
by Paulina B. Granville. With Eight
Full-page Illustrations by M. E.
Fraser-Tytler. Crown 8yo. price 55.
LEE (Holme) —HER TITLE oF HONOUR.
A Book for Girls. New Edition.
With a Frontispiece. Crown 8vo.
price 5s.
LEWTS (Mary A.) —A RAT WITH THREE
TALES. With Four Illustrations by
Catherine F, Frere. Price 5s.
LITTLE MINNIE’s TROUBLES: an Every-
day Chronicle. With Four Illustra-
tions by W. H. Hughes. Fcap. price
35. 6d.
MC CLINTOCK. (L.)—SIR SPANGLE
AND THE Dincy HEn. _ Illustrated.
Square crown 8yo. price 2s, 6d.
MAC KENNA (S. ¥.)—PLUCKY. FEL-
tows. <A Book for Boys. With Six
Illustrations. Fourth Edition. Crown
8vo. price 3s. 6d.
AT SCHOOL WITH AN OLD DRAGOON.
With Six — Illustrations. Third
Edition, Crown 8vo. price 5s.
MALDEN (H. E.)—PRINCES AND PRIN-
CESSES : Two Fairy Tales. Illustrated
Small crown 8vo, price 2s. 6d.
MASTER Bossy. . By the Author of
‘¢Christina North.” With Six Illus-
trations, Fecp. 8vo; cloth. — .
C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Publications. 31
NAAKE (#7) —Suavonic_ Farry | STRETTON (Hesba)—cont.
‘TALES. From Russian, Servian, THE CREW OF THE DOLPHIN. _ Illus-
With
Crown 8yo. price
Polish, and Bohemian Sources.
Four Illustrations.
5s.
PELLETAN(£.)—THE DESERT PASTOR.
JEAN JAROUSSEAU. Translated from
the French. By Colonel E. P. De
L’Hoste. Witha Frontispiece. New
Edition. Fcap. 8vo. pricé 35. 6d.
REANEY (Mrs. G. S.)\—WAKING AND
WORKING; or, From Girlhood to
Womanhood.
Crown 8vo. price 55.
BLESSING AND BLESSED: a Story of
Girl Life. Crown 8vo. cloth, price 5s.
ENGLISH GrrRLs: Their Place and Power.
With Preface by the Rev. R. W. Dale.
SUNBEAM WILLIE, and other Stories.
Three Illustrations. Royal 16mo.
price Is, 6d.
SUNSHINE JENNY and other Stories.
3 Illustrations. Royal 16mo, cloth,
price Is. 6d.
ROSS (Mrs. £.), (*Nelsie Brook’)—
Dappy’s. Pet... A+ Sketch» from
Humble Life. With Six Illustrations.
Royal 16mo. price Is.
SADLER (S. W.) RN. —THE AFRICAN
CRUISER: a Midshipman’s Adventures
on the West Coast.. With Three
Illustrations. Second Edition. Crown
8vo. price 3s. 6d.
SEEKING HIS FORTUNE, and other Stories.
With Four Illustrations. Crown 8vo.
price 3s. 6d.
Seven AuTUMN LEAVES FROM Farry
LAND. Illustrated with Nine Etchings.
Square crown 8vo. price 35. 6d.
S TORR (Francis) and TU. RNER (Hawes).
—CANTERBURY CHIMES; or, Chaucer
Tales retold to Children. With Six
Illustrations from the Ellesmere MS.
Fcap. 8vo. cloth,
STRETTON (Hesba), Author of ‘Jessica’s
First Prayer.’
MiIcHEL Lorio’s Cross and other
Stories. - With Two Illustrations.
Royal ‘16mo. price 1s. 6d. -
Tue StorM OF LIFE. With Ten Illus-
trations. Twenty-first Thousand, Roy.
16mo, price Is, 6,
With a Frontispiece. —
trated. Fourteenth Thousand, Royal
16mo, price Is, 6d.
’ Cassy. Thirty-eighth Thousand. With
Six Illustrations. Royal 16mo. price
Is. 6d,
THE. KING’s. SERVANTS. Forty-third
Thousand. With Eight Illustrations.
Royal 16mo. price Is. 6d..
Lost GIP. Fifty-ninth Thousand.
With Six Illustrations. Royal 16mo.
price Is. 6d,
*.* Also a handsomely bound Edition, with
Twelve Illustrations, price 2s. 6d.
STRETTON (Hesba)—coni.
DAvip. LLoyp’s Last WILL. With
Four Illustrations. Royal 16mo,
price 2s. 6d, !
THE WONDERFUL LiFe. Thirteenth
‘Thousand. Feap.:8vo. price 2s. 6d.
A NIGHT AND A Day. With Frontis-
piece. --Fwelfth Thousand. Royal
16mo. limp cloth, price 6d.
FRIENDS TILL DEATH. With IIlustra-
tions and: Frontispiece. Twenty-
fourth Thousand. Royal 16mo. price
Is. 6d.; limp cloth, price 6d.
Two. CHRISTMAS STORIES. ‘With
Frontispiece. ‘Twenty-first Thousand,
Royal 16mo. limp cloth, price 6d.
MICHEL Lorio’s Cross, AND LEFT
ALONE. | With Frontispiece. Fifteenth
Thousand. Royal 16mo. limp cloth,
price 6a.
OLD TRANSOME. With Frontispiece.
Sixteenth Thousand. Royal 16mo.
limp cloth, price 6d.
*,* Taken from ‘The King’s Servants.’
THE WoRTH OF A Baby, and How
Apple-Tree Court was Won. With
Frontispiece. Nineteenth, Thousand.
Royal 16mo. limp cloth, price 6d.
SUNNYLAND STORIES.. By the Author ot
‘Aunt Mary’s Bran Pie.’ . Illustrated.
Small 8vo. price 3s. 6d.
WHITAKER (Florence)—CuristTy’s IN-
HERITANCE. A London Story. Illus-
trated. Royal 16mo. price Is. 6d,
ZIMMERN (H.)—STORIES IN PRECIOUS
Stones. With Six Illustrations.
Third Edition, Crown 8yo. price 55,
CONTENTS OF THE VARIOUS VOLUMES
IN THE COLLECTED EDITIONS OF
MR. TENNYSON’S WORKS.
_ Ho
THE IMPERIAL LIBRARY EDITION,
COMPLETE IN SEVEN OCTAVO VOLUMES.
Cloth, price tos. 6d. per vol.; 12s. 6¢. Roxburgh binding.
CONTENTS.
Vol. IL—MISCELLANEOUS POEMS.
IIl.—MISCELLANEOUS POEMS.
IIlL—PRINCESS, AND OTHER
POEMS.
Vol. IV.—IN MEMORIAM and MAUD.
V.—IDYLLS OF THE KING.
VI.—IDYLLS OF THE KING.
VII.—DRAMAS.
Printed in large, clear, old-faced'type, with a Steel Engraved Portrait of the Author, the set complete,
6d.
cloth, price 43. it 6d.
; or Roxburghe half-morocco, price
44. 75.
* The handsomest Edition published.
THE AUTHOR'S EDITION
IN SIX VOLUMES. Bound in cloth, 38s. 6d.
CONTENTS.
Vol.
IDYLLS. 6s.
IIL.—LOCKSLEY HALL, LUCRE-
TIUS, and other Poems. 6s.
III—THE IDYLLS OF THE KING,
complete. 7s.
I.—EARLY POEMS and ENGLISH | Vol. IV.—THE PRINCESS and MAUD. 6s.
V.—ENOCH ARDEN and IN
MEMORIAM. 6s.
VI.—_QUEEN MARY and HAROLD
7S.
This Edition can also be had bound in half-morocco, Roxburgh, price ts. 6d. per vol. extra.
ihdddeised BLN LT Lepr ten
COMPLETE IN TWELVE VOLUMES. Price 2s. 6d. each.
CoNTENTS.
Illustrated with
of Mr.
IL.—EARLY POEMS.
a Photographic Portrait
Tennyson.
Vol.
IIL.—ENGLISH IDYLLS, and other
a aay Ss. Containing : an Engraving
oO r
Tennyson’s Residence at
Aldworth.
IIIL.—LOCKSLEY HALL, and other
POEMS. With an wigs oO a
Picture of Farringford.
IV.—LUCRETIUS, and other POEMS.
Containing an "Engraving of a Scene
in the Garden at Swainston.
V.—IDYLLS OF THE KING. With
an Autotype of the Bust of Mr.
Tennyson by T. Woolner, R.A.
Vol. VIL—IDYLLS OF THE KING. Illus-
trated with an Engraved Portrait of
‘Elaine,’ from a Photographic Study
by Julia M. Cameron.
VII.—IDYLLS OF THE KING. Con-
taining an Engraving of ‘ Arthur,’
from a Photographic Study by Julia
M. Cameron.
VIIL—THE PRINCESS.
graved Frontispiece.
IX.—MAUD and ENOCH ARDEN.
With a Picture of ‘Maud,’ taken
from a Photographic Study by Julia
M. Cameron.
X.—IN MEMORIAM. With a Steel
Engraving of Arthur H. Hallam,
engraved from a picture in possession
of the Author, by J. C. Armytage.
With an En-
XI.—QUEEN MARY: a Drama. With
Frontispiece by Walter Crane.
XII.—HAROLD: aDrama. With Frontis-
piece by Walter Crane.
*," These Volumes may be had separately, or the Edition complete, in a handsome ornamental
case, price 32s.
THE MINIATURE EDITION,
IN THIRTEEN VOLUMES.
CONTENTS.
Vol. I.—POEMS.
IlL.—POEMS.
III.—-POEMS.
IV.—IDYLLS OF THE KING.
V.—IDYLLS OF THE KING.
. VI.—IDYLLS OF THE KING.
Vol. VIIL.—IDYLLS OF THE KING.
VIIL—IN MEMORIAM.
IX.—PRINCESS.
X.—MAUD.
XI.—ENOCH ARDEN.
XII.—QUEEN MARY.
VoL. XIIIL.—HAROLD.
Bound in imitation vellum, ornamented in gilt and gilt edges, in case, price 425.
This Edition can also be had in plain binding and case, price 36s.
ARAN RRO
Spottiswoode & Co., Printers, New-street Square, London
5c torts
if Sree
[iver of T Iniversity of To oe 7
Library
yy
DO NOT
REMOVE /
THE )
CARD
FROM
THIS
| POCKET
. Aeme Library Card Pocket —
Under Pat. **Ref, Index File”
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU
| '
‘
sie ~-e tet
ee ene a) 2 " ie ‘
Tanne :
Vets bee ae
aes weentng cee ES anne cee ene ee
ee re Tee ea ere rey Meee)
Veateas¢ eens 6>DicUkise a
oir eth seed GibWid eer wet
Sone aes s ce pune pes tm eee aut ae
Sen teeh Peden esis eee ®
eet om
*
&,
Denes ©
bree res oe
pore en ey, X : PE tee he eae @ a seme Se
Apt Tbe em ey
aewe
napnety : E 4 tee
ner en tee beet ae
Pry y Rene
peter Dernier tein
Tre here Abby Gat ate dee oe
. aos
VV ieee eee eae
ee Dah POO OETA EAA Nee od FER DTT TH
ERD yee Dd ee
Plas Fer ceuenateermr eee -
Sangeet 2 weer] Me Sad cudidconcusaadae
é Munealuawecuswaetdosss tens aoe
ree
vote le cate ene sees Biber yet ss is
preening
Premiere er ea
Pere eer re ries eee rer beep asene
p ve } . oe
Seok wna gece hE .
makers
Pewepap wnt ~
pears : pene
* es
inbegipe aes
ee ee
<4
ms
SU ea eet wu ae Ti yde eam
hase keke Gad vues leet ee tet ea : esi Wanargrer
4a oue EN od
det Gore Baa tens
Coperrerraae
Cary
pa
> Rete er ene SC
Bat nh oh eee
voy en reremere teen eres
= pery ee ire krent!
Bab sewn ie oe 7 1 Me Oke by 8 GS
wen ath Bo ee tiew
Eee gece ne Wuaseial sate meta Gaya del AIOE Ge vam
“Seer wclar coer eater eet ee Che AY ETC ww tel Maly reo
eeteery vererescrriinn Ort unt Leet
4 ee Stk tena he sis The ee a
nawes AA at hake wes Te OM
ve
ee etd deeb Baise w
ery ere ere oir)
perry perire ts
eee rn
Fees Petes ee a
x
Pore
2 tens
Sy Wrees
ee Semerer rents Cit
Serre errr. She in
or
MEAG GE Tee
WEY wet Ue EE GS
aia ceteti eres gamete tary ch ab ene bie Aouwne ss 8. Bakar 8
ee ARLE AS yest ee ale a met ASU
aS
Seow wirit seer aad ov)
er erie er rire eek aa wed Peeks RO ELIT ah ko *
«St
Oe ETN Fare Puce one
peanenretnen y Sry rors Pere hh
ane Perr tar en or bt Stat
Pa ane tent e eet a wi AAS
setenv th eho pre
'e rer) 5
" ao eo Ow ore ae-s bn 4-4 82 OB ada 9
reat pw eriee 7 rere e tiem rere ere is ey a
* tot
peeaenh ase wee
ee te ap had
Bere ¥
NeMawate GEN ENN GSS
v Me
oe.
earthed ree Ste Jem As Abt
el badeedeeeenn oy pad hanes eocpebenvit DS o# iota ne ante
duo beaepep ivey vaceneee evens bab sroneets “ > ned na’
46 te taNE RT wn
poner acegen sy eDsh aia 074) oh aha) siah y 0c 8s dye Ob) AL HEE a
se Ae ales
Niece -o-e.0 cb stesbet > .
ee nid
epee aes yp see evel b ye tone bee Pe Perec eh ED PIS:
Pere DOr Nn Tear g
Steps eeu meye Us
acne wee sraioe vererututetniciet ener
ry ED Ee Pde ee PHENS tENtenwenen ra Fe Purses ere buat Hees:
fepreireiaraterstamret rect ss pel apeinee aawanes
Seavey siati uo atengel onptinyeusies eraeomnnzwe essere tl Pw eg ueasaae ane
Teoeetetpe erecta eltsceereral wewrerssen eens a Auedausnns sree
Bane pe nee en hitters
er
nie eden oe
r
epee eres aes
Je pase ett eveed
mesereeetes Aha :
Varaeaet Aare be aeporres
reeee at gel na eee iee meaner
vee nceeeedensrretes
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11