By far the greater part of the quotations in the Clementine Homilies are taken from the discourses, but some few have reference to the narrative. There can hardly be said to be any material difference from our Gospels, though several apocryphal sayings and some apocryphal details are added. Thus the Clementine writer calls John a 'Hemerobaptist,' i.e. member of a sect which practised daily baptism [Endnote 167:1]. He talks about a rumour which became current in the reign of Tiberius about the 'vernal equinox,' that at the same season a king should arise in Judaea who should work miracles, making the blind to see, the lame to walk, healing every disease, including leprosy, and raising the dead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, with Mark, he calls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, 'Justa,' and that of her daughter 'Bernice;' he also limits the ministry of our Lord to one year [Endnote 168:1]. Otherwise, with the exception of the sayings marked as without parallel, all of the Clementine quotations have a more or less close resemblance to our Gospels.

We are struck at once by the small amount of exact coincidence, which is considerably less than that which is found in the quotations from the Old Testament. The proportion seems lower than it is, because many of the passages that have been entered in the above list do not profess to be quotations. Another phenomenon equally remarkable is the extent to which the writer of the Homilies has reproduced the peculiarities of particular extant Gospels. So far front being it a colourless text, as it is in some few places which present a parallel to our Synoptic Gospels, the Clementine version both frequently includes passages that are found only in some one of the canonical Gospels, and also, we may say usually, repeats the characteristic phrases by which one Gospel is distinguished from another. Thus we find that as many as eighteen passages reappear in the Homilies that are found only in St. Matthew; one of the extremely few that are found only in St. Mark; and six of those that are peculiar to St. Luke. Taking the first Gospel, we find that the Clementine Homilies contain (in an allusive form) the promises to the pure in heart; as a quotation, with close resemblance, the peculiar precepts in regard to oaths; the special admonition to moderation of language which, as we have seen, seems proved to be Matthaean by the clause [Greek: to gar perisson touton k.t.l.]; with close resemblance, again, the directions for secret prayer; identically, the somewhat remarkable phrase, [Greek: deute pros me pantes hoi kopiontes]; all but identically another phrase, also noteworthy, [Greek: pasa phuteia haen ouk ephuteusen ho pataer [mou] ho ouranios ekrizothaesetai]; with a resemblance that is closer in the text of B ([Greek: en to ourano] for [Greek: en ouranois]), the saying respecting the angels who behold the face of the Father; identically again, the text [Greek: polloi klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi]: in the shape of an allusion only, the wedding garment; with near agreement, 'the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.' All these are passages found only in the first Gospel, and in regard to which there is just so much presumption that they had no large circulation among non-extant Gospels, as they did not find their way into the two other Gospels that have come down to us.

There is, however, a passage that I have not mentioned here which contains (if the canonical reading is correct) a strong indication of the use of our actual St. Matthew. The whole history of this passage is highly curious. In the chapter which contains so many parables the Evangelist adds, by way of comment, that this form of address was adopted in order 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.' This is according to the received text, which attributes the quotation to 'the prophet' ([Greek: dia tou prophaetou]). It is really taken from Ps. lxxvii. 2, which is ascribed in the heading to Asaph, who, according to the usage of writers at this date, might be called a prophet, as he is in the Septuagint version of 2 Chron. xxix. 30. The phrase [Greek: ho prophaetaes legei] in quotations from the Psalms is not uncommon. The received reading is that of by far the majority of the MSS. and versions: the first hand of the Sinaitic, however, and the valuable cursives 1 and 33 with the Aethiopic (a version on which not much reliance can be placed) and m. of the Old Latin (Mai's 'Speculum,' presenting a mixed African text) [Endnote 170:1], insert [Greek: Haesaiou] before [Greek: tou prophaetou]. It also appears that Porphyry alleged this as an instance of false ascription. Eusebius admits that it was found in some, though not in the most accurate MSS., and Jerome says that in his day it was still the reading of 'many.'

All this is very fully and fairly stated in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 170:2], where it is maintained that [Greek: Haesaiou] is the original reading. The critical question is one of great difficulty; because, though the evidence of the Fathers is naturally suspected on account of their desire to explain away the mistake, and though we can easily imagine that the correction would be made very early and would rapidly gain ground, still the very great preponderance of critical authority is hard to get over, and as a rule Eusebius seems to be trustworthy in his estimate of MSS. Tischendorf (in his texts of 1864 and 1869) is, I believe, the only critic of late who has admitted [Greek: Haesaiou] into the text.

The false ascription may be easily paralleled; as in Mark i. 2, Matt. xxvii. 9, Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 28 (where a passage of Jeremiah is quoted as Isaiah), &c.

The relation of the Clementine and of the canonical quotations to each other and to the Septuagint will be represented thus:-

Clem. Hom. xviii. 15.

[Greek: Kai ton Haesaian eipein; Anoixo to stoma mou en parabolais kai exereuxomai kekrummena apo katabolaes kosmou.]

Matt. xiii. 35.

[Greek: Hopos plaerothe to rhaethen dia [Haesaiou?] tou prophaetou legontos; Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, ereuxomai kekrummena apo katabolaes kosmou] [om. [Greek: kosmou] a few of the best MSS.]

LXX. Ps. lxxvii. 2.

[Greek: Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, phthegxomai problaemata ap' archaes.]

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' contends for the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], and yet does not see in the Clementine passage a quotation from St. Matthew. He argues, with a strange domination by modern ideas, that the quotation cannot be from St. Matthew because of the difference of context, and declares it to be 'very probable that the passage with its erroneous reference was derived by both from another and common source.' Surely it is not necessary to go back to the second century to find parallels for the use of 'proof texts' without reference to the context; but, as we have seen, context counts for little or nothing in these early quotations,—verbal resemblance is much more important. The supposition of a common earlier source for both the Canonical and the Clementine text seems to me quite out of the question. There can be little doubt that the reference to the Psalm is due to the first Evangelist himself. Precisely up to this point he goes hand in hand with St. Mark, and the quotation is introduced in his own peculiar style and with his own peculiar formula, [Greek: hopos plaerothae to rhaethen].

I must, however, again repeat that the surest criterion of the use of a Gospel is to be sought in the presence of phrases or turns of expression which are shown to be characteristic and distinctive of that Gospel by a comparison with the synopsis of the other Gospels. This criterion can be abundantly applied in the case of the Clementine Homilies and St. Matthew. I will notice a little more at length some of the instances that have been marked in the above table. Let us first take the passage which has a parallel in Matt. v. 18 and in Luke xvi. 17. The three versions will stand thus:—

Matt. v. 18.

[Greek: Amaen gar lego humin; heos an parelthae ho ouranos kai hae gae iota en ae mia keraia ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou, heos an panta genaetai.]

Clem. Hom. iii. 51. Ep. Pet. c. 2.

[Greek: Ho ouranos kai hae gae pareleusontai, iota en ae mia keraia ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou] [Ep. Pet. adds [Greek: touto de eiraeken, hina ta panta genaetai]].

Luke xvi. 17.

[Greek: Eukopoteron de esti, ton ouranon kai taen gaen parelthein, ae tou nomou mian keraian pesein.]

It will be seen that in the Clementines the passage is quoted twice over, and each time with the variation [Greek pareleusontai] for [Greek: heos an parelthae]. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' argues from this that he is quoting from another Gospel [Endnote 172:1]. No doubt the fact does tell, so far as it goes, in that direction, but it is easy to attach too much weight to it. The phenomenon of repeated variation may be even said to be a common one in some writers. Dr. Westcott [Endnote 172:2] has adduced examples from Chrysostom, and they would be as easy to find in Epiphanius or Clement of Alexandria, where we can have no doubt that the canonical Gospels are being quoted. A slight and natural turn of expression such as this easily fixes itself in the memory. The author also insists that the passage in the Gospel quoted in the Clementines ended with the word [Green: nomou]; but I think it may be left to any impartial person to say whether the addition in the Epistle of Peter does not naturally point to a termination such as is found in the first canonical Gospel. Our critic seems unable to free himself from the standpoint (which he represents ably enough) of the modern Englishman, or else is little familiar with the fantastic trains and connections of reasoning which are characteristic of the Clementines.

Turning from these objections and comparing the Clementine quotation first with the text of St. Matthew and then with that of St. Luke, we cannot but be struck with its very close resemblance to the former and with the wide divergence of the latter. The passage is one where almost every word and syllable might easily and naturally be altered—as the third Gospel shows that they have been altered—and yet in the Clementines almost every peculiarity of the Matthaean version has been retained.

Another quotation which shows the delicacy of these verbal relations is that which corresponds to Matt. vi. 32 (= Luke xii. 30):—

Matt. vi. 32.

[Greek: Oide gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios, hoti chraezete touton hapanton.]

Clem. Hom. iii. 55.

[Greek: [ephae] Oiden gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios hoti chraezete touton hapanton, prin auton axiosaete] (cp. Matt. vi. 8).

Luke xii. 30.

[Greek: Humon de ho pataer oiden hoti chraezete touton.]

The natural inference from the exactness of this coincidence with the language of Matthew as compared with Luke, is not neutralised by the paraphrastic addition from Matt. vi. 8, because such additions and combinations, as will have been seen from our table of quotations from the Old Testament, are of frequent occurrence.

The quotation of Matt. v. 45 (= Luke vi. 35) is a good example of the way in which the pseudo-Clement deals with quotations. The passage is quoted as often as four times, with wide difference and indeed complete confusion of text. It is impossible to determine what text he really had before him; but through all this confusion there is traceable a leaning to the Matthaean type rather than the Lucan, ([Greek: [ho] pat[aer ho] en [tois] ouranois ... ton aelion autou anatellei epi agathous kai ponaerous]). It does, however, appear that he had some such phrase as [Greek: hueton pherei] or [Greek: parechei] for [Greek: brechei], and in one of his quotations he has the [Greek: ginesthe agathoi] (for [Greek: chraestoi]) [Greek: kai oiktirmones] of Justin. Justin, on the other hand, certainly had [Greek: brechei].

The, in any case, paraphrastic quotation or quotations which find a parallel in Matt. vii. 13, 14 and Luke xiii. 24 are important as seeming to indicate that, if not taken from our Gospel, they are taken from another in a later stage of formation. The characteristic Matthaean expressions [Greek: stenae] and [Greek: tethlimmenae] are retained, but the distinction between [Greek: pulae] and [Greek: hodos] has been lost, and both the epithets are applied indiscriminately to [Greek: hodos].

In the narrative of the confession of Peter, which belongs to the triple synopsis, and is assigned by Ewald to the 'Collection of Discourses,' [Endnote 174:1] by Weiss [Endnote 174:2] and Holtzmann [Endnote 175:1] to the original Gospel of St. Mark, the Clementine writer follows Matthew alone in the phrase [Greek: Su ei ho huios tou zontos Theou]. The synoptic parallels are—

Matt. xvi. 16.

[Greek: Su ei ho Christos, ho huios tou Theou tou zontos.]

Mark viii. 29.

[Greek: Su ei ho Christos.]

Luke ix. 20.

[Greek: ton Christon tou Theou.]

Holtzmann and Weiss seem to agree (the one explicitly, the other implicitly) in taking the words [Greek: ho huios tou Theou tou zontos] as an addition by the first Evangelist and as not a part of the text of the original document. In that case there would be the strongest reason to think that the pseudo-Clement had made use of the canonical Gospel. Ewald, however, we may infer, from his assigning the passage to the 'Collection of Discourses,' regards it as presented by St. Matthew most nearly in its original form, of which the other two synoptic versions would be abbreviations. If this were so, it would then be possible that the Clementine quotation was made directly from the original document or from a secondary document parallel to our first Gospel. The question that is opened out as to the composition of the Synoptics is one of great difficulty and complexity. In any case there is a balance of probability, more or less decided, in favour of the reference to our present Gospel.

Another very similar instance occurs in the next section of the synoptic narrative, the Transfiguration. Here again the Clementine Homilies insert a phrase which is only found in St. Matthew, [Greek: [Houtos estin mou ho huios ho agapaetos], eis hon] ([Greek: en ho] Matt.) [Greek: aeudokaesa]. Ewald and Holtzmann say nothing about the origin of this phrase; Weiss [Endnote 176:1] thinks it is probably due to the first Evangelist. In that case there would be an all but conclusive proof—in any case there will be a presumption—that our first Gospel has been followed.

But one of the most interesting, as well as the clearest, indications of the use of the first Synoptic is derived from the discourse directed against the Pharisees. It will be well to give the parallel passages in full:—

Matt. xxiii. 25, 26.

[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti katharizete to exothen tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, esothen de gemousin ex harpagaes kai adikias. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison proton to entos tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, hina genaetai kai to ektos auton katharon.]

Clem. Hom. xi. 29.

[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti katharizete tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to exothen, esothen de gemei rhupous. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison proton tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to esothen, hina genaetai kai ta exo auton kathara.]

Luke xi. 39.

[Greek: Nun humeis hoi Pharisaioi to exothen tou potaerion kai tou pinakos katharizete, to de esothen humon gemei harpagaes kai ponaerias. Aphrones ouch ho poiaesas to exothen kai to esothen epoiaese?]

Here there is a very remarkable transition in the first Gospel from the plural to the singular in the sudden turn of the address, [Greek: Pharisaie tuphle]. This derives no countenance from the third Gospel, but is exactly reproduced in the Clementine Homilies, which follow closely the Matthaean version throughout.

We may defer for the present the notice of a few passages which with a more or less close resemblance to St. Matthew also contain some of the peculiarities of St. Luke.

Taking into account the whole extent to which the special peculiarities of the first Gospel reappear in the Clementines, I think we shall be left in little doubt that that Gospel has been actually used by the writer.

The peculiar features of our present St. Mark are known to be extremely few, yet several of these are also found in the Clementine Homilies. In the quotation Mark x. 5, 6 (= Matt. xix. 8, 4) the order of Mark is followed, though the words are more nearly those of Matthew. In the divergent quotation Mark xii. 24 (= Matt. xxii. 29) the Clementines, with Mark, introduce [Greek: dia touto]. The concluding clause of the discussion about the Levirate marriage stands (according to the best readings) thus:—

Matt. xxii. 32.

[Greek: Ouk estin ho Theos nekron, alla zonton.]

Mark xii. 27.

[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.]

Luke xx. 38.

[Greek: Theos de ouk estin nekron, alla zonton.]

Clem. Hom. iii. 55.

[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.]

Here [Greek: Theos] is in Mark and the Clementines a predicate, in Matthew the subject. In the introduction to the Eschatological discourse the Clementines approach more nearly to St. Mark than to any other Gospel: [Greek: Horate] ([Greek: blepeis], Mark) [Greek: tas] ([Greek: megalas], Mark) [Greek: oikodomas tautas; amaen humin lego] (as Matt.) [Greek: lithos epi lithon ou mae aphethae ode, hos ou mae] (as Mark) [Greek: kathairethae] ([Greek: kataluthae], Mark; other Gospels, future). Instead of [Greek: tas oikodomas toutas] the other Gospels have [Greek: tauta—tauta panta].

But there are two stronger cases than these. The Clementines and Mark alone have the opening clause of the quotation from Deut. vi. 4, [Greek: Akoue, Israael, Kurios ho Theos haemon kurios eis estin]. In the synopsis of the first Gospel this is omitted (Matt. xxii. 37). There is a variation in the Clementine text, which for [Greek: haemon] has, according to Dressel, [Greek: sou], and, according to Cotelier, [Greek: humon]. Both these readings however are represented among the authorities for the canonical text: [Greek: sou] is found in c (Codex Colbertinus, one of the best copies of the Old Latin), in the Memphitic and Aethiopic versions, and in the Latin Fathers Cyprian and Hilary; [Greek: humon] (vester) has the authority of the Viennese fragment i, another representative of the primitive African form of the Old Latin [Endnote 178:1].

The objection to the inference that the quotation is made from St. Mark, derived from the context in which it appears in the Clementines, is really quite nugatory. It is true that the quotation is addressed to those 'who were beguiled to imagine many gods,' and that 'there is no hint of the assertion of many gods in the Gospel' [Endnote 178:2]; but just as little hint is there of the assertion 'that God is evil' in the quotation [Greek: mae me legete agathon] just before. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the Gospel from which the Clementines quote would contain any such assertion. In this particular case the mode of quotation cannot be said to be very unscrupulous; but even if it were more so we need not go back to antiquity for parallels: they are to be found in abundance in any ordinary collection of proof texts of the Church Catechism or of the Thirty-nine Articles, or in most works of popular controversy. I must confess to my surprise that such an objection could be made by an experienced critic.

Credner [Endnote 179:1] gives the last as the one decided approximation to our second Gospel, apparently overlooking the minor points mentioned above; but, at the time when he wrote, the concluding portion of the Homilies, which contains the other most striking instance, had not yet been published. With regard to this second instance, I must express my agreement with Canon Westcott [Endnote 179:2] against the author of 'Supernatural Religion.' The passage stands thus in the Clementines and the Gospel:—

Clem. Hom. xix. 20.

[Greek: Dio kai tois autou mathaetais kat' idian epelue taes ton ouranon basileias ta mustaeria.]

Mark iv. 34.

... [Greek: kat' idian de tois mathaetais autou epeluen panta] (compare iv. 11, [Greek: humin to mustaerion dedotai taes basileias tou Theou]).

The canonical reading, [Greek: tois mathaetais autou], rests chiefly upon Western authority (D, b, c, e, f, Vulg.) with A, 1, 33, &c. and is adopted by Tregelles—it should be noted before the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. The true reading is probably that which appears in this MS. along with B, C, L, [Greek: Delta symbol], [Greek: tois idiois mathaetais]. We have however already seen the leaning of the Clementines for Western readings.

When we compare the synopsis of St. Mark and St. Matthew together we should be inclined to set this down as a very decided instance of quotation from the former. The only circumstance that detracts from the certainty of this conclusion is that a quotation had been made just before which is certainly not from our canonical Gospels, [Greek: ta mustaeria emoi kai tois huiois tou oikou mou phulaxate]. This is rightly noted in 'Supernatural Religion.' All that we can say is that it is a drawback—it is just a makeweight in the opposite scale, as suggesting that the second quotation may be also from an apocryphal Gospel; but it does not by any means serve to counterbalance the presumption that the quotation is canonical. The coincidence of language is very marked. The peculiar compound [Greek: epiluo] occurs only once besides ([Greek: epilusis] also once) in the whole of the New Testament, and not at all in the Gospels.

With the third Gospel also there are coincidences. Of the passages peculiar to this Gospel the Clementine writer has the fall of Satan ([Greek: ton ponaeron], Clem.) like lightning from heaven, 'rejoice that your names are written in the book of life' (expanded with evident freedom), the unjust judge, Zacchaeus, the circumvallation of Jerusalem, and the prayer, for the forgiveness of the Jews, upon the cross. It is unlikely that these passages, which are wanting in all our extant Gospels, should have had any other source than our third Synoptic. The 'circumvallation' ([Greek: pericharakosousin] Clem., [Greek: peribalousin charaka] Luke) is especially important, as it is probable, and believed by many critics, that this particular detail was added by the Evangelist after the event. The parable of the unjust judge, though reproduced with something of the freedom to which we are accustomed in patristic narrative quotations both from the Old and New Testament, has yet remarkable similarities of style and diction ([Greek: ho kritaes taes adikias, poiaesei taen ekdikaesin ton boonton pros auton haemeras kai nuktos, Lego humin, poaesei... en tachei).]

We have to add to these another class of peculiarities which occur in places where the synoptic parallel has been preserved. Thus in the Sermon on the Mount we find the following:—

Matt. vii. 21.

[Greek: Ou pas ho legon moi, Kurie, Kurie, eiseleusetai eis taen basileian ton ouranon, all' ho poion to thelaema tou patros mou tou en ouranois]

Clem. Hom. viii. 7.

[Greek: Ti me legeis Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poieis a lego;]

Luke, vi. 46.

[Greek: Ti de me kaleite Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poeite a lego;]

This is one of a class of passages which form the cruces of Synoptic criticism. It is almost equally difficult to think and not to think that both the canonical parallels are drawn from the same original. The great majority of German critics maintain that they are, and most of these would seek that original in the 'Spruchsammlung' or 'Collection of Discourses' by the Apostle St. Matthew. This is usually (though not quite unanimously) held to have been preserved most intact in the first Gospel. But if so, the Lucan version represents a wide deviation from the original, and precisely in proportion to the extent of that deviation is the probability that the Clementine quotation is based upon it. The more the individuality of the Evangelist has entered into the form given to the saying the stronger is the presumption that his work lay before the writer of the Clementines. In any case the difference between the Matthaean and Lucan versions shows what various shapes the synoptic tradition naturally assumed, and makes it so much the less likely that the coincidence between St. Luke and the Clementines is merely accidental.

Another similar case, in which the issue is presented very clearly, is afforded by the quotation, 'The labourer is worthy of his hire.'

Matt. x. 11.

[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes taes trophaes autou estin.]

Clem. Hom. iii. 71.

[Greek: [lagisamenoi hoti] axios estin ho ergataes tou misthou autou;]

Luke x. 7.

[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes tou misthou autou esti.]

Here, if the Clementine writer had been following the first Gospel, he would have had [Greek: trophaes] and not [Greek: misthou]; and the assumption that there was here a non-extant Gospel coincident with St. Luke is entirely gratuitous and, to an extent, improbable.

Besides these, it will be seen, by the tables given above, that there are as many as eight passages in which the peculiarities not only of one but of both Gospels (the first and third) appear simultaneously. Perhaps it may be well to give examples of these before we make any comment upon them. We may thus take—

Matt. vii. 9-11.

[Greek: Ae tis estin ex humon anthropos, hon ean aitaesae ho huios autou arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; kai ean ichthun aitaesae mae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis ponaeroi ontes oidate domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer humon ho en tois ouranois dosei agatha tois aitousin auton;]

Clem. Hom. iii. 56.

[Greek: Tina aitaesei huios arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; ae kai ichthun aitaesei, mae ophin epidosei auto; ei oun humeis, ponaeroi ontes, oidate domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer humon ho ouranios dosei agatha tois aitoumenois auton kai tois poiousin to thelema autou;]

Luke xi. 11-13.

[Greek: Tina de ex humon ton matera aitaesei ho huios arton, mae lithon epidosei auto; ae kai ichthun, mae anti ichthuos ophin epidosei auto, ae kai ean aitaeoae oon, mae epidosei auto skorpion; ei oun humeis, ponaeroi humarchontes, oidate domata agatha didonai tois teknois humon, poso mallon ho pataer ho ex ouranou dosei pneuma hagion tois aitousin auton;]

In the earlier part of this quotation the Clementine writer seems to follow the third Gospel ([Greek: tina aitaesei, hae kai]); in the later part the first (omission of the antithesis between the egg and the scorpion, [Greek: ontes, dosei agatha]). The two Gospels are combined against the Clementines in [Greek: hex humon] and the simpler [Greek: tois aitousin auton]. The second example shall be—

Matt. x. 28.

[Greek: Kai mae thobeisthe hapo ton aposteinonton to soma, taen de psuchaen mae dunamenon aposteinan thobeisthe de mallon ton dunamaenon kai psuchaen kai soma apolesai en geennae.]

Clem. Hom. xviii. 5.

[Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo tou aposteinontos to soma tae de psuchae mae dunamenou ti poiaesai phobaethaete tou dunamenon kai soma kai psuchaen eis taen geennan tou puros balein. Nai, lego humin, touton phobaethaete.]

Luke xii. 4, 5. [Greek: Mae phobaethaete apo ton aposteinonton to soma kai meta tauta mae echonton perissoteron ti poiaesai. Hupodeixo de humin tina phobaethaete phobaethaete ton meta to aposteinai echonta exousian embalein eis ton geennan nai, lego humin, touton phobaethaete.]

In common with Matthew the Clementines have [Greek: tae de psuchae] (acc. Matt.) ... [Greek: dunamenon]([Greek: -on] Matt.), and [Greek: dunamenon kai soma kai psuchaen] (in inverted order, Matt.); in common with Luke [Greek: mae phobaethaete, ti poiaesai, [em]balein eis], and the clause [Greek: nai k.t.l.] The two Gospels agree against the Clementines in the plural [Greek: ton aposteinonton.]

One more longer quotation:—

Matt. xxiv. 45-51.

[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos doulos kai phronimos, hon katestaesen ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias autou tou dounai autois taen trophaen en kairo? makarios ho doulos ekeinos hon elthon ho kurios autou heuraesei houto poiounta ... Ean de eipae ho kakos doulos ekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei mou ho kurios, kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou esthiae de kai pinae meta ton methuonton, haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou en haemera hae ou prosdoka kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai dichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton hupokriton thaesei.]

Clem. Hom. iii. 60.

[Greek: Theou gar boulae anadeiknutai makarios ho anthropos ekeinos hon katastaesei ho kurios autou epi taes therapeias ton sundoulon hautou, tou didonai autois tas trophas en kairo auton, mae ennooumenon kai legonta en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho kurios mou elthein; kai arxaetai tuptein tous sundoulous autou, esthion kai pinon meta te pornon kai methuonton; kai haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou en hora hae ou prosdoka kai en haemera hae ou ginoskei, kai dichotomaesei auton, kai to apistoun autou meros meta ton hupokriton thaesei.]

Luke xii. 42-45.

[Greek: Tis ara estin ho pistos oikonomos kai phronimos, hon katastaesei ho kurios epi taes therapeias autou, tou didonai en kairo to sitometrion? makarios ho doulos ekeinos, hon elthon ho kurios autou heuraesei poiounta hautos ... Ean de eipae ho doulos ekeinos en tae kardia autou; chronizei ho kurios mou erchesthai; kai arxaetai tuptein tous paidas kai tas paidiskas, esthiein te kai pinein kai methuskesthai; haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou en haemera hae ou prosdoka, kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai dichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton apiston thaesei.]

I have given this passage in full, in spite of its length, because it is interesting and characteristic; it might indeed almost be said to be typical of the passages, not only in the Clementine Homilies, but also in other writers like Justin, which present this relation of double similarity to two of the Synoptics. It should be noticed that the passage in the Homilies is not introduced strictly as a quotation but is interwoven with the text. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the opening clause, [Greek: Makarios ... sundolous autou], recurs identically about thirty lines lower down. We observe that of the peculiarities of the first Synoptic the Clementines have [Greek: doulos] ([Greek: oikonomos], Luke), [Greek: [ho kurios] autou, taen trophaen] ([Greek: tas trophas], Clem.; Luke, characteristically, [Greek: to sitometrion]), the order of [Greek: en kairo, tous sundolous autou] ([Greek: tous paidas kai tas paidiskas], Luke), [Greek: meta ... methuonton], and [Greek: hupokriton] for [Greek: apiston]. Of the peculiarities of the third Synoptic the Clementines reproduce the future [Greek: katastaesei], the present [Greek: didonai], the insertion of [Greek: elthein] ([Greek: erchesthai], Luke) after [Greek: chronizei], the order of the words in this clause, and a trace of the word [Greek: apiston] in [Greek: to apistoun autou meros]. The two Gospels support each other in most of the places where the Clementines depart from them, and especially in the two verses, one of which is paraphrased and the other omitted.

Now the question arises, What is the origin of this phenomenon of double resemblance? It may be caused in three ways: either it may proceed from alternate quoting of our two present Gospels; or it may proceed from the quoting of a later harmony of those Gospels; or, lastly, it may proceed from the quotation of a document earlier than our two Synoptics, and containing both classes of peculiarities, those which have been dropped in the first Gospel as well as those which have been dropped in the third, as we find to be frequently the case with St. Mark.

Either of the first two of these hypotheses will clearly suit the phenomena; but they will hardly admit of the third. It does indeed derive a very slight countenance from the repetition of the language of the last quotation: this repetition, however, occurs at too short an interval to be of importance. But the theory that the Clementine writer is quoting from a document older than the two Synoptics, and indeed their common original, is excluded by the amount of matter that is common to the two Synoptics and either not found at all or found variantly in the Clementines. The coincidence between the Synoptics, we may assume, is derived from the fact that they both drew from a common original. The phraseology in which they agree is in all probability that of the original document itself. If therefore this phraseology is wanting in the Clementine quotations they are not likely to have been drawn directly from the document which underlies the Synoptics. This conclusion too is confirmed by particulars. In the first quotation we cannot set down quite positively the Clementine expansion of [Greek: tois aitousin auton] as a later form, though it most probably is so. But the strange and fantastic phrase in the last quotation, [Greek: to apistoun auton meros meta ton hupokriton thaesei], is almost certainly a combination of the [Greek: hupokriton] of Matthew with a distorted reminiscence of the [Greek: apiston] of Luke.

We have then the same kind of choice set before us as in the case of Justin. Either the Clementine writer quotes our present Gospels, or else he quotes some other composition later than them, and which implies them. In other words, if he does not bear witness to our Gospels at first hand, he does so at second hand, and by the interposition of a further intermediate stage. It is quite possible that he may have had access to such a tertiary document, and that it may be the same which is the source of his apocryphal quotations: that he did draw from apocryphal sources, partly perhaps oral, but probably in the main written, there can, I think, be little doubt. Neither is it easy to draw the line and say exactly what quotations shall be referred to such sources and what shall not. The facts do not permit us to claim the exclusive use of the canonical Gospels. But that they were used, mediately or immediately and to a greater or less degree, is, I believe, beyond question.



CHAPTER VII

BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS.

Still following the order of 'Supernatural Religion,' we pass with the critic to another group of heretical writers in the earlier part of the second century. In Basilides the Gnostic we have the first of a chain of writers who, though not holding the orthodox tradition of doctrine, yet called themselves Christians (except under the stress of persecution) and used the Christian books—whether or to what extent the extant documents of Christianity we must now endeavour to determine.

Basilides carries us back to an early date in point of time. He taught at Alexandria in the reign of Hadrian (117-137 A.D.). Hippolytus expounds at some length, and very much in their own words, the doctrines of Basilides and his school. There is a somewhat similar account by Epiphanius, and more incidental allusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

The notices that have come down to us of the writings of Basilides are confusing. Origen says that 'he had the effrontery to compose a Gospel and call it by his own name' [Endnote 188:1]. Eusebius quotes from Agrippa Castor, a contemporary and opponent from the orthodox side, a statement that 'he wrote four and twenty books (presumably of commentary) upon the Gospel' [Endnote 189:1]. Clement of Alexandria gives rather copious extracts from the twenty-third of these books, to which he gave the name of 'Exegetics' [Endnote 189:2].

Tischendorf assumes, in a manner that is not quite so 'arbitrary and erroneous' [Endnote 189:3] as his critic seems to suppose, that this Commentary was upon our four Gospels. It is not altogether clear how far Eusebius is using the words of Agrippa Castor and how far his own. If the latter, there can be no doubt that he understood the statement of Agrippa Castor as Tischendorf understands his, i.e. as referring to our present Gospels; but supposing his words to be those of the earlier writer, it is possible that, coming from the orthodox side, they may have been used in the sense which Tischendorf attributes to them. There can be no question that Irenaeus used [Greek: to euangelion] for the canonical Gospels collectively, and Justin Martyr may perhaps have done so. Tischendorf himself does not maintain that it refers to our Gospels exclusively. Practically the statements in regard to the Commentary of Basilides lead to nothing.

Neither does it appear any more clearly what was the nature of the Gospel that Basilides wrote. The term [Greek: euangelion] had a technical metaphysical sense in the Basilidian sect and was used to designate a part of the transcendental Gnostic revelations. The Gospel of Basilides may therefore, as Dr. Westcott suggests, reasonably enough, have had a philosophical rather than a historical character. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' censures Dr. Westcott for this suggestion [Endnote 189:4], but a few pages further on he seems to adopt it himself, though he applies it strangely to the language of Eusebius or Agrippa Castor and not to Basilides' own work.

In any case Hippolytus expressly says that, after the generation of Jesus, the Basilidians held 'the other events in the life of the Saviour followed as they are written in the Gospels' [Endnote 190:1]. There is no reason at all to suppose that there was a breach of continuity in this respect between Basilides and his school. And if his Gospel really contained substantially the same events as ours, it is a question of comparatively secondary importance whether he actually made use of those Gospels or no.

It is rather remarkable that Hippolytus and Epiphanius, who furnish the fullest accounts of the tenets of Basilides (and his followers), say nothing about his Gospel: neither does Irenaeus or Clement of Alexandria; the first mention of it is in Origen's Homily on St. Luke. This shows how unwarranted is the assumption made in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 190:2] that because Hippolytus says that Basilides appealed to a secret tradition he professed to have received from Matthias, and Eusebius that he set up certain imaginary prophets, 'Barcabbas and Barcoph,' he therefore had no other authorities. The statement that he 'absolutely ignores the canonical Gospels altogether' and does not 'recognise any such works as of authority,' is much in excess of the evidence. All that this really amounts to is that neither Hippolytus nor Eusebius say in so many words that Basilides did use our Gospels. It would be a fairer inference to argue from their silence, and still more from that of the 'malleus haereticorum' Epiphanius, that he did not in this depart from the orthodox custom; otherwise the Fathers would have been sure to charge him with it, as they did Marcion. It is really I believe a not very unsafe conclusion, for heretical as well as orthodox writers, that where the Fathers do not say to the contrary, they accepted the same documents as themselves.

The main questions that arise in regard to Basilides are two: (1) Are the quotations supposed to be made by him really his? (2) Are they quotations from our Gospels?

The doubt as to the authorship of the quotations applies chiefly to those which occur in the 'Refutation of the Heresies' by Hippolytus. This writer begins his account of the Basilidian tenets by saying, 'Let us see here how Basilides along with Isidore and his crew belie Matthias,' [Endnote 191:1] &c. He goes on using for the most part the singular [Greek: phaesin], but sometimes inserting the plural [Greek: kat' autous]. Accordingly, it has been urged that quotations which are referred to the head of the school really belong to his later followers, and the attempt has further been made to prove that the doctrines described in this section of the work of Hippolytus are later in their general character than those attributed to Basilides himself. This latter argument is very fine drawn, and will not bear any substantial weight. It is, however, probably true that a confusion is sometimes found between the 'eponymus,' as it were, of a school and his followers. Whether that has been the case here is a question that we have not sufficient data for deciding positively. The presumption is against it, but it must be admitted to be possible. It seems a forced and unnatural position to suppose that the disciples would go to one set of authorities and the master to another, and equally unnatural to think that a later critic, like Hippolytus, would confine himself to the works of these disciples and that in none of the passages in which quotations are introduced he has gone to the fountain head. We may decline to dogmatise; but probability is in favour of the supposition that some at least of the quotations given by Hippolytus come directly from Basilides.

Some of the quotations discussed in 'Supernatural Religion' are expressly assigned to the school of Basilides. Thus Clement of Alexandria, in stating the opinion which this school held on the subject of marriage, says that they referred to our Lord's saying, 'All men cannot receive this,' &c.

Strom. iii. I. 1.

[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, eisi gar eunouchoi oi men ek genetaes oi de ex anankaes.]

Matt. xix. 11, 12.

[Greek: Ou pantes chorousi ton logon touton, all' ois dedotai, eisin gar eunouchoi oitines ek kiolias maetros egennaethaesan outos, kai eisin eunouchoi oitines eunouchisthaesan hupo ton anthropon, k.t.l.]

The reference of this to St. Matthew is far from being so 'preposterous' [Endnote 192:1] as the critic imagines. The use of the word [Greek: chorein] in this sense is striking and peculiar: it has no parallel in the New Testament, and but slight and few parallels, as it appears from the lexicons and commentators, in previous literature. The whole phrase is a remarkable one and the verbal coincidence exact, the words that follow are an easy and natural abridgment. On the same principles on which it is denied that this is a quotation from St. Matthew it would be easy to prove a priori that many of the quotations in Clement of Alexandria could not be taken from the canonical Gospels which, we know, are so taken.

The fact that this passage is found among the Synoptics only in St. Matthew must not count for nothing. The very small number of additional facts and sayings that we are able to glean from the writers who, according to 'Supernatural Religion,' have used apocryphal Gospels so freely, seems to be proof that our present Gospels were (as we should expect) the fullest and most comprehensive of their kind. If, then, a passage is found only in one of them, it is fair to conclude, not positively, but probably, that it is drawn from some special source of information that was not widely diffused.

The same remarks hold good respecting another quotation found in Epiphanius, which also comes under the general head of [Greek: Basileidianoi], though it is introduced not only by the singular [Greek: phaesin] but by the definite [Greek: phaesin ho agurtaes]. Here the Basilidian quotation has a parallel also peculiar to St. Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount.

Epiph. Haer. 72 A.

[Greek: Mae bagaete tous margaritas emprosthen ton choiron, maede dote to hagion tois kusi.]

Matt vii. 6.

[Greek: Mae dote to hagion tois kusin, maede bagaete tous margaritas humon emprosthen ton choiron.] The excellent Alexandrine cursive I, with some others, has [Greek: dote] for [Greek: dote]

The transposition of clauses, such as we see here, is by no means an infrequent phenomenon. There is a remarkable instance of it—to go no further—in the text of the benedictions with which the Sermon on the Mount begins. In respect to the order of the two clauses, 'Blessed are they that mourn' and 'Blessed are the meek,' there is a broad division in the MSS. and other authorities. For the received order we find [Hebrew: aleph;], B, C, 1, the mass of uncials and cursives, b, f, Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., Aeth.; for the reversed order, 'Blessed are the meek' and 'Blessed are they that mourn,' are ranged D, 33, Vulg., a, c, f'1, g'1, h, k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., Bas. (?), Hil. The balance is probably on the side of the received reading, as the opposing authorities are mostly Western, but they too make a formidable array. The confusion in the text of St. Luke as to the early clauses of the Lord's Prayer is well known. But if such things are done in the green tree, if we find these variations in MSS. which profess to be exact transcripts of the same original copy, how much more may we expect to find them enter into mere quotations that are often evidently made from memory, and for the sake of the sense, not the words. In this instance however the verbal resemblance is very close. As I have frequently said, to speak of certainties in regard to any isolated passage that does not present exceptional phenomena is inadmissible, but I have little moral doubt that the quotation was really derived from St. Matthew, and there is quite a fair probability that it was made by Basilides himself.

The Hippolytean quotations, the ascription of which to Basilides or to his school we have left an open question, will assume a considerable importance when we come to treat of the external evidence for the fourth Gospel. Bearing upon the Synoptic Gospels, we find an allusion to the star of the Magi and an exact verbal quotation (introduced with [Greek: to eiraemenon]) of Luke i. 35, [Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistou episkiasei soi]. Both these have been already discussed with reference to Justin. All the other Gospels in which the star of the Magi is mentioned belong to a later stage of formation than St. Matthew. The very parallelism between St. Matthew and St. Luke shows that both Gospels were composed at a date when various traditions as to the early portions of the history were current. No doubt secondary, or rather tertiary, works, like the Protevangelium of James, came to be composed later; but it is not begging the question to say that if the allusion is made by Basilides, it is not likely that at that date he should quote any other Gospel than St. Matthew, simply because that is the earliest form in which the story of the Magi has come down to us.

The case is stronger in regard to the quotation from St. Luke. In Justin's account of the Annunciation to Mary there was a coincidence with the Protevangelium and a variation from the canonical text in the phrase [Greek: pneuma kuriou] for [Greek: pneuma hagion]; but in the Basilidian quotation the canonical text is reproduced syllable for syllable and letter for letter, which, when we consider how sensitive and delicate these verbal relations are, must be taken as a strong proof of identity. The reader may be reminded that the word [Greek: episkiazein], the phrase [Greek: dunamism hupsistou], and the construction [Greek: eperchesthai epi], are all characteristic of St. Luke: [Greek; episkiazein] occurs once in the triple synopsis and besides only here and in Acts v. 15: [Greek: hupsistos] occurs nine times in St. Luke's writings and only four times besides; it is used by the Evangelist especially in phrases like [Greek: uios, dunamis, prophaetaes, doulos hupsistou], to which the only parallel is [Greek: hiereus tou Theou tou hupsistou] in Heb. vii. 1. The construction of [Greek: eperchesthai] with [Greek: epi] and the accusative is found five times in the third Gospel and the Acts and not at all besides in the New Testament; indeed the participial form, [Greek: eperchomenos] (in the sense of 'future'), is the only shape in which the word appears (twice) outside the eight times that it occurs in St. Luke's writings. This is a body of evidence that makes it extremely difficult to deny that the Basilidian quotation has its original in the third Synoptic.

2.

The case in regard to Valentinus, the next great Gnostic leader, who came forward about the year 140 A.D., is very similar to that of Basilides, though the balance of the argument is slightly altered. It is, on the one hand, still clearer that the greater part of the evangelical references usually quoted are really from our present actual Gospels, but, on the other hand, there is a more distinct probability that these are to be assigned rather to the School of Valentinus than to Valentinus himself.

The supposed allusion to St. John we shall pass over for the present.

There is a string of allusions in the first book of Irenaeus, 'Adv. Haereses,' to the visit of Jesus as a child to the Passover (Luke ii. 42), the jot or tittle of Matt. v. 18, the healing of the issue of blood, the bearing of the cross (Luke xiv. 27 par.), the sending of a sword and not peace, 'his fan is in his hand,' the salt and light of the world, the healing of the centurion's servant, of Jairus' daughter, the exclamations upon the cross, the call of the unwilling disciples, Zacchaeus, Simon, &c. We may take it, I believe, as admitted, and it is indeed quite indisputable, that these are references to our present Gospels; but there is the further question whether they are to be attributed directly to Valentinus or to his followers, and I am quite prepared to admit that there are no sufficient grounds for direct attribution to the founder of the system. Irenaeus begins by saying that his authorities are certain 'commentaries of the disciples of Valentinus' and his own intercourse with some of them [Endnote 197:1]. He proceeds to announce his intention to give a 'brief and clear account of the opinions of those who were then teaching their false doctrines [Greek: nun paradidaskonton], that is, of Ptolemaeus and his followers, a branch of the school of Valentinus.' It is fair to infer that the description of the Valentinian system which follows is drawn chiefly from these sources. This need not, however, quite necessarily exclude works by Valentinus himself. It is at any rate clear that Irenaeus had some means of referring to the opinions of Valentinus as distinct from his school; because, after giving a sketch of the system, he proceeds to point out certain contradictions within the school itself, quoting first Valentinus expressly, then a disciple called Secundus, then 'another of their more distinguished and ambitious teachers,' then 'others,' then a further subdivision, finally returning to Ptolemaeus and his party again. On the whole, Irenaeus seems to have had a pretty complete knowledge of the writings and teaching of the Valentinians. We conclude therefore, that, while it cannot be alleged positively that any of the quotations or allusions were really made by Valentinus, it would be rash to assert that none of them were made by him, or that he did not use our present Gospels.

However this may be, we cannot do otherwise than demur to the statement implied in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 198:1], that the references in Irenaeus can only be employed as evidence for the Gnostic usage between the years 185-195 A.D. This is a specimen of a kind of position that is frequently taken up by critics upon that side, and that I cannot but think quite unreasonable and uncritical. Without going into the question of the date at which Irenaeus wrote at present, and assuming with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that his first three books were published before the death of Eleutherus in A.D. 190—the latest date possible for them,—it will be seen that the Gnostic teaching to which Irenaeus refers is supposed to begin at a time when his first book may very well have been concluded, and to end actually five years later than the latest date at which this portion of the work can have been published! Not only does the author allow no time at all for Irenaeus to compose his own work, not only does he allow none for him to become acquainted with the Gnostic doctrines, and for those doctrines themselves to become consolidated and expressed in writing, but he goes so far as to make Irenaeus testify to a state of things five years at least, and very probably ten, in advance of the time at which he was himself writing! No doubt there is an oversight somewhere, but this is the kind of oversight that ought not to be made.

This, however, is an extreme instance of the fault to which I was alluding—the tendency in the negative school to allow no time or very little for processes that in the natural course of things must certainly have required a more or less considerable interval. On a moderate computation, the indirect testimony of Irenaeus may be taken to refer—not to the period 185-195 A.D., which is out of the question—but to that from 160-180 A.D. This is not pressing the possibility, real as it is, that Valentinus himself, who flourished from 140-160 A.D., may have been included. We may agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that Irenaeus probably made the personal acquaintance of the Valentinian leaders, and obtained copies of their books, during his well-known visit to Rome in 178 A.D. [Endnote 199:1] The applications of Scripture would be taken chiefly from the books of which some would be recent but others of an earlier date, and it can surely be no exaggeration to place the formation of the body of doctrine which they contained in the period 160-175 A.D. above mentioned. I doubt whether a critic could be blamed who should go back ten years further, but we shall be keeping on the safe side if we take our terminus a quo as to which these Gnostic writings can be alleged in evidence at about the year 160.

A genuine fragment of a letter of Valentinus has been preserved by Clement of Alexandria in the second book of the Stromateis [Endnote 200:1]. This is thought to contain references to St. Matthew's Gospel by Dr. Westcott, and, strange to say, both to St. Matthew and St. Luke by Volkmar. These references, however, are not sufficiently clear to be pressed.

A much less equivocal case is supplied by Hippolytus—less equivocal at least so far as the reference goes. Among the passages which received a specially Gnostic interpretation is Luke i. 35, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is born (of thee) shall be called the Son of God.' This is quoted thus, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore that which is born of thee shall be called holy.'

Luke i. 35.

[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamis hupsistou episkiasei soi, dio kai to gennomenon [ek sou] hagion klaethaesetai huios Theon.]

Ref. Omn. Haes. vi. 35.

[Greek: Pneuma hagion epeleusetai epi se... kai dunamis hupsistou episkiasei soi... dio to gennomenon ek sou hagion klaethaesetai.]

That St. Luke has been the original here seems to be beyond a doubt. The omission of [Greek: huios Theou] is of very little importance, because from its position [Greek: hagion] would more naturally stand as a predicate, and the sentence would be quite as complete without the [Greek: huios Theou] as with it. On the other hand, it would be difficult to compress into so small a space so many words and expressions that are peculiarly characteristic of St. Luke. In addition to those which have just been noticed in connection with Basilides, there is the very remarkable [Greek: to gennomenon], which alone would be almost enough to stamp the whole passage.

We are still however pursued by the same ambiguity as in the case of Basilides. It is not certain that the quotation is made from the master and not from his scholars. There is no reason, indeed, why it should be made from the latter rather than the former; the point must in any case be left open: but it cannot be referred to the master with so much certainty as to be directly producible under his name.

And yet, from whomsoever the quotation may have been made, if only it has been given rightly by Hippolytus, it is a strong proof of the antiquity of the Gospel. The words [Greek: ek sou], will be noticed, are enclosed in brackets in the text of St. Luke as given above. They are a corruption, though an early and well-supported corruption, of the original. The authorities in their favour are C (first hand), the good cursives 1 and 33, one form of the Vulgate, a, c, e, m of the Old Latin, the Peshito Syriac, the Armenian and Aethiopic versions, Irenaeus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Epiphanius. On the other hand, for the omission are A. B, C (third hand), D, [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], and the rest of the uncials and cursives, another form of the Vulgate, b, f, ff, g'2, l of the Old Latin, the Harclean and Jerusalem Syriac, the Memphitic, Gothic, and some MSS. of the Armenian versions, Origen, Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria, and Eusebius. A text critic will see at once on which side the balance lies. It is impossible that [Greek: ek sou] could have been the reading of the autograph copy, and it is not, I believe, admitted into the text by any recent editor. But if it was present in the copy made use of by the Gnostic writer, whoever he was, that copy must have been already far enough removed from the original to admit of this corruption; in other words, it has lineage enough to throw the original some way behind it. We shall come to more of such phenomena in the next chapter.

I said just now that the quotation could not with certainty be referred to Valentinus, but it is at least considerably earlier than the contemporaries of Hippolytus. It appears that there was a division in the Valentinian School upon the interpretation of this very passage. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, representing the Western branch, took one side, while Axionicus and Bardesanes, representing the Eastern, took the other. Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were both, we know, contemporaries of Irenaeus, so that the quotation was used among the Valentinians at least in the time of Irenaeus, and very possibly earlier, for it usually takes a certain time for a subject to be brought into controversy. We must thus take the terminus ad quem for the quotation not later than 180 A.D. How much further back it goes we cannot say, but even then (if the Valentinian text is correctly preserved by Hippolytus) it presents features of corruption.

That the Valentinians made use of unwritten sources as well as of written, and that they possessed a Gospel of their own which they called the Gospel of Truth, does not affect the question of their use of the Synoptics. For these very same Valentinians undoubtedly did use the Synoptics, and not only them but also the fourth Gospel. It is immediately after he has spoken of the 'unwritten' tradition of the Valentinians that Irenaeus proceeds to give the numerous quotations from the Synoptics referred to above, while in the very same chapter, and within two sections of the place in which he alludes to the Gospel of Truth, he expressly says that these same Valentinians used the Gospel according to St. John freely (plenissime) [Endnote 203:1]. It should also be remembered that the alleged acceptance of the four Gospels by the Valentinians rests upon the statement of Irenaeus [Endnote 203:2] as well as upon that of the less scrupulous and accurate Tertullian. There is no good reason for doubting it.



CHAPTER VIII.

MARCION. [Endnote 204:1]

Of the various chapters in the controversy with which we are dealing, that which relates to the heretic Marcion is one of the most interesting and important; important, because of the comparative fixity of the data on which the question turns; interesting, because of the peculiar nature of the problem to be dealt with.

We may cut down the preliminary disquisitions as to the life and doctrines of Marcion, which have, indeed, a certain bearing upon the point at issue, but will be found given with sufficient fulness in 'Supernatural Religion,' or in any of the authorities. As in most other points relating to this period, there is some confusion in the chronological data, but these range within a comparatively limited area. The most important evidence is that of Justin, who, writing as a contemporary (about 147 A.D.) [Endnote 205:1], says that at that time Marcion had 'in every nation of men caused many to blaspheme' [Endnote 205:2]; and again speaks of the wide spread of his doctrines ([Greek: ho polloi peisthentes, k.t.l.]) [Endnote 205:3]. Taking these statements along with others in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, modern critics seem to be agreed that Marcion settled in Rome and began to teach his peculiar doctrines about 139-142 A.D. This is the date assigned in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 205:4]. Volkmar gives 138 A.D. [Endnote 205:5] Tischendorf, on the apologetic side, would throw back the date as far as 130, but this depends upon the date assigned by him to Justin's 'Apology,' and conflicts too much with the other testimony.

It is also agreed that Marcion himself did actually use a certain Gospel that is attributed to him. The exact contents and character of that Gospel are not quite so clear, and its relation to the Synoptic Gospels, and especially to our third Synoptic, which bears the name of St. Luke, is the point that we have to determine.

The Church writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, without exception, describe Marcion's Gospel as a mutilated or amputated version of St. Luke. They contrast his treatment of the evangelical tradition with that pursued by his fellow-Gnostic, Valentinus [Endnote 205:6]. Valentinus sought to prove his tenets by wresting the interpretation of the Apostolic writings; Marcion went more boldly to work, and, having first selected his Gospel, our third Synoptic, cut out the passages both in it and in ten Epistles of St. Paul, admitted by him to be genuine, which seemed to conflict with his own system. He is also said to have made additions, but these were in any case exceedingly slight.

The statement of the Church writers should hardly, perhaps, be put aside quite so summarily as is sometimes done. The life of Irenaeus overlapped that of Marcion considerably, and there seems to have been somewhat frequent communication between the Church at Lyons, where he was first presbyter and afterwards bishop, and that of Rome, where Marcion was settled; but Irenaeus [Endnote 206:1], as well as Tertullian and Epiphanius, alludes to the mutilation of St. Luke's Gospel by Marcion as a notorious fact. Too much stress, however, must not be laid upon this, because the Catholic writers were certainly apt to assume that their own view was the only one tenable.

The modern controversy is more important, though it has to go back to the ancient for its data. The question in debate may be stated thus. Did Marcion, as the Church writers say, really mutilate our so-called St. Luke (the name is not of importance, but we may use it as standing for our third Synoptic in its present shape)? Or, is it not possible that the converse may be true, and that Marcion's Gospel was the original and ours an interpolated version? The importance of this may, indeed, be exaggerated, because Marcion's Gospel is at any rate evidence for the existence at his date in a collected form of so much of the third Gospel (rather more than two-thirds) as he received. Still the issue is not inconsiderable: for, upon the second hypothesis, if the editor of our present Gospel made use of that which was in the possession of Marcion, his date may be—though it does not follow that it certainly would be—thrown into the middle of the second century, or even beyond, if the other external evidence would permit; whereas, upon the first hypothesis, the Synoptic Gospel would be proved to be current as early as 140 A.D.; and there will be room for considerations which may tend to date it much earlier. There will still be the third possibility that Marcion's Gospel may be altogether independent of our present Synoptic, and that it may represent a parallel recension of the evangelical tradition. This would leave the date of the canonical Gospel undetermined.

It is a fact worth noting that the controversy, at least in its later and more important stages, had been fought, and, to all appearance, fought out, within the Tuebingen school itself. Olshausen and Hahn, the two orthodox critics who were most prominently engaged in it, after a time retired and left the field entirely to the Tuebingen writers.

The earlier critics who impugned the traditional view appear to have leaned rather to the theory that Marcion's Gospel and the canonical Luke are, more or less, independent offshoots from the common ground-stock of the evangelical narratives. Ritschl, and after him Baur and Schwegler, adopted more decidedly the view that the canonical Gospel was constructed out of Marcion's by interpolations directed against that heretic's teaching. The reaction came from a quarter whence it would not quite naturally have been expected—from one whose name we have already seen associated with some daring theories, Volkmar, Professor of Theology at Zuerich. With him was allied the more sober-minded, laborious investigator, Hilgenfeld. Both these writers returned to the charge once and again. Volkmar's original paper was supplemented by an elaborate volume in 1852, and Hilgenfeld, in like manner, has reasserted his conclusions. Baur and Ritschl professed themselves convinced by the arguments brought forward, and retracted or greatly modified their views. So far as I am aware, Schwegler is the only writer whose opinion still stands as it was at first expressed; but for some years before his death, which occurred in 1857, he had left the theological field.

Without at all prejudging the question on this score, it is difficult not to feel a certain presumption in favour of a conclusion which has been reached after such elaborate argument, especially where, as here, there could be no suspicion of a merely apologetic tendency on either side. Are we, then, to think that our English critic has shown cause for reopening the discussion? There is room to doubt whether he would quite maintain as much as this himself. He has gone over the old ground, and reproduced the old arguments; but these arguments already lay before Hilgenfeld and Volkmar in their elaborate researches, and simply as a matter of scale the chapter in 'Supernatural Religion' can hardly profess to compete with these.

Supposing, for the moment, that the author has proved the points that he sets himself to prove, to what will this amount? He will have shown (a) that the patristic statement that Marcion mutilated St. Luke is not to be accepted at once without further question; (b) that we cannot depend with perfect accuracy upon the details of his Gospel, as reconstructed from the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius; (c) that it is difficult to explain the whole of Marcion's alleged omissions, on purely, dogmatic grounds—assuming the consistency of his method.

With the exception of the first, I do not think these points are proved to any important extent; but, even if they were, it would still, I believe, be possible to show that Marcion's Gospel was based upon our third Synoptic by arguments which hardly cross or touch them at all.

But, before we proceed further, it is well that we should have some idea as to the contents of the Marcionitic Gospel. And here we are brought into collision with the second of the propositions just enunciated. Are we able to reconstruct that Gospel from the materials available to us with any tolerable or sufficient approach to accuracy? I believe no one who has gone into the question carefully would deny that we can. Here it is necessary to define and guard our statements, so that they may cover exactly as much ground as they ought and no more.

Our author quotes largely, especially from Volkmar, to show that the evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius is not to be relied upon. When we refer to the chapter in which Volkmar deals with this subject [Endnote 209:1]—a chapter which is an admirable specimen of the closeness and thoroughness of German research—we do indeed find some such expressions, but to quote them alone would give an entirely erroneous impression of the conclusion to which the writer comes. He does not say that the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius are untrustworthy, simply and absolutely, but only that they need to be applied with caution on certain points. Such a point is especially the silence of these writers as proving, or being supposed to prove, the absence of the corresponding passage in Marcion's Gospel. It is argued, very justly, that such an inference is sometimes precarious. Again, in quoting longer passages, Epiphanius is in the habit of abridging or putting an &c. ([Greek: kai ta hexaes— kai ta loipa]), instead of quoting the whole. This does not give a complete guarantee for the intermediate portions, and leaves some uncertainty as to where the passage ends. Generally it is true that the object of the Fathers is not critical but dogmatic, to refute Marcion's system out of his own Gospel. But when all deductions have been made on these grounds, there are still ample materials for reconstructing that Gospel with such an amount of accuracy at least as can leave no doubt as to its character. The wonder is that we are able to do so, and that the statements of the Fathers should stand the test so well as they do. Epiphanius especially often shows the most painstaking care and minuteness of detail. He has reproduced the manuscript of Marcion's Gospel that he had before him, even to its clerical errors [Endnote 210:1]. He and Tertullian are writing quite independently, and yet they confirm each other in a remarkable manner. 'If we compare the two witnesses,' says Volkmar, 'we find the most satisfactory (sicher- stellendste) coincidence in their statements, entirely independent as they are, as well in regard to that which Marcion has in common with Luke, as in regard to very many of the points in which his text differed from the canonical. And this applies not only to simple omissions which Epiphanius expressly notes and Tertullian confirms by passing over what would otherwise have told against Marcion, but also to the minor variations of the text which Tertullian either happens to name or indicate by his translation, while they are confirmed by the direct statement of [the other] opponent who is equally bent on finding such differences' [Endnote 211:1]. Out of all the points on which they can be compared, there is a real divergence only in two. Of these, one Volkmar attributes to an oversight on the part of Epiphanius, and the other to a clerical omission in his manuscript [Endnote 211:2]. When we consider the cumbrousness of ancient MSS., the absence of divisions in the text, and the consequent difficulty of making exact references, this must needs be taken for a remarkable result. And the very fact that we have two—or, including Irenaeus, even three—independent authorities, makes the text of Marcion's Gospel, so far as those authorities are available, or, in other words, for the greater part of it, instead of being uncertain among quite the most certain of all the achievements of modern criticism [Endnote 211:3].

This is seen practically—to apply a simple test—in the large amount of agreement between critics of the most various schools as to the real contents of the Gospel. Our author indeed speaks much of the 'disagreement.' But by what standard does he judge? Or, has he ever estimated its extent? Putting aside merely verbal differences, the total number of whole verses affected will be represented in the following table:—

iv. 16-30: doubt as to exact extent of omissions affecting about half the verses.

38, 39: omitted according to Hahn; retained according to Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.

vii. 29-35: omitted, Hahn and Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.

x. 12-15: ditto ditto.

xiii. 6-10: omitted, Volkmar; retained, Hilgenfeld and Rettig.

xvii. 5-10: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.

14-19: doubt as to exact omissions.

xix. 47, 48: omitted, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; retained, Hahn and Anger.

xxii. 17, 18: doubtful.

23-27: omitted, Ritschl; retained, Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.

43, 44: ditto ditto.

xxiii. 39-42: ditto ditto.

47-49: omitted, Hahn; retained, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar.

xxiv. 47-53: uncertain [Endnote 212:1].

This would give, as a maximum estimate of variation, some 55 verses out of about 804, or, in other words, about seven per cent. But such an estimate would be in fact much too high, as there can be no doubt that the earlier researches of Hahn and Ritschl ought to be corrected by those of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar; and the difference between these two critics is quite insignificant. Taking the severest view that it is possible to take, no one will maintain that the differences between the critics are such as to affect the main issue, so that upon one hypothesis one theory would hold good, and upon another hypothesis another. It is a mere question of detail.

We may, then, reconstruct the Gospel used by Marcion with very considerable confidence that we have its real contents before us. In order to avoid any suspicion I will take the outline given in 'Supernatural Religion' (ii. p. 127), adding only the passage St. Luke vii. 29-35, which, according to the author's statement (a mistaken one, however) [Endnote 213:1], is 'generally agreed' to have been wanting in Marcion's Gospel. In that Gospel, then, the following portions of our present St. Luke were omitted:—

Chaps. i. and ii, including the prologue, the Nativity, and the birth of John the Baptist.

Chap. iii (with the exception of ver. 1), containing the baptism of our Lord, the preaching of St. John, and the genealogy.

iv. 1-13, 17-20, 24: the Temptation, the reading from Isaiah.

vii. 29-35: the gluttonous man.

xi. 29-32, 49-51: the sign of Jonas, and the blood of the prophets.

xiii. 1-9, 29-35: the slain Galileans, the fig-tree, Herod, Jerusalem.

xv. 11-32: the prodigal son.

xvii. 5-10: the servant at meat.

xviii. 31-34: announcement of the Passion.

xix. 29-48: the Triumphal Entry, woes of Jerusalem, cleansing of the Temple.

xx. 9-18, 37, 38: the wicked husbandmen; the God of Abraham.

xxi. 1-4, 18, 21, 22: the widow's mite; 'a hair of your head;' flight of the Church.

xxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51: the fruit of the vine, 'eat at my table,' 'buy a sword,' the high-priest's servant.

xxiv. 47-53: the last commission, the Ascension.

Here we have another remarkable phenomenon. The Gospel stands to our Synoptic entirely in the relation of defect. We may say entirely, for the additions are so insignificant—some thirty words in all, and those for the most part supported by other authority—that for practical purposes they need not be reckoned. With the exception of these thirty words inserted, and some, also slight, alterations of phrase, Marcion's Gospel presents simply an abridgment of our St. Luke.

Does not this almost at once exclude the idea that they can be independent works? If it does not, then let us compare the two in detail. There is some disturbance and re-arrangement in the first chapter of Marcion's Gospel, though the substance is that of the third Synoptic; but from this point onwards the two move step by step together but for the omissions and a single transposition (iv. 27 to xvii. 18). Out of fifty-three sections peculiar to St. Luke—from iv. 16 onwards—all but eight were found also in Marcion's Gospel. They are found, too, in precisely the same order. Curious and intricate as is the mosaic work of the third Gospel, all the intricacies of its pattern are reproduced in the Gospel of Marcion. Where Luke makes an insertion in the groundstock of the narrative, there Marcion makes an insertion also; where Luke omits part of the narrative, Marcion does the same. Among the documents peculiar to St. Luke are some of a very marked and individual character, which seem to have come from some private source of information. Such, for instance, would be the document viii. 1-3, which introduces names so entirely unknown to the rest of the evangelical tradition as Joanna and Susanna [Endnote 215:1]. A trace of the same, or an allied document, appears in chap. xxiv, where we have again the name Joanna, and afterwards that of the obscure disciple Cleopas. Again, the mention of Martha and Mary is common only to St. Luke and the fourth Gospel. Zacchaeus is peculiar to St. Luke. Yet, not only does each of the sections relating to these personages re-appear in Marcion's Gospel, but it re-appears precisely at the same place. A marked peculiarity in St. Luke's Gospel is the 'great intercalation' of discourses, ix. 51 to xviii. 14, evidently inserted without regard to chronological order. Yet this peculiarity, too, is faithfully reproduced in the Gospel of Marcion with the same disregard of chronology—the only change being the omission of about forty-one verses from a total of three hundred and eighty. When Luke has the other two Synoptics against him, as in the insertions Matt. xiv. 3-12, Mark vi. 17-29, and again Matt. xx. 20-28, Mark x. 35-45, and Matt. xxi. 20-22, Mark xi. 20-26, Marcion has them against him too. Where the third Synoptist breaks off from his companions (Luke ix. 17, 18) and leaves a gap, Marcion leaves one too. It has been noticed as characteristic of St. Luke that, where he has recorded a similar incident before, he omits what might seem to be a repetition of it: this characteristic is exactly reflected in Marcion, and that in regard to the very same incidents. Then, wherever the patristic statements give us the opportunity of comparing Marcion's text with the Synoptic—and this they do very largely indeed—the two are found to coincide with no greater variation than would be found between any two not directly related manuscripts of the same text. It would be easy to multiply these points, and to carry them to any degree of detail; if more precise and particular evidence is needed it shall be forthcoming, but in the meantime I think it may be asserted with confidence that two alternatives only are possible. Either Marcion's Gospel is an abridgment of our present St. Luke, or else our present St. Luke is an expansion by interpolation of Marcion's Gospel, or of a document co-extensive with it. No third hypothesis is tenable.

It remains, then, to enquire which of these two Gospels had the priority—Marcion's or Luke's; which is to stand first, both in order of time and of authenticity. This, too, is a point that there are ample data for determining.

(1.) And, first, let us consider what presumption is raised by any other part of Marcion's procedure. Is it likely that he would have cut down a document previously existing? or, have we reason for thinking that he would be scrupulous in keeping such a document intact?

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' himself makes use of this very argument; but I cannot help suspecting that his application of it has slipped in through an oversight or misapprehension. When first I came across the argument as employed by him, I was struck by it at once as important if only it was sound. But, upon examination, not only does it vanish into thin air as an argument in support of the thesis he is maintaining, but there remains in its place a positive argument that tells directly and strongly against that thesis. A passage is quoted from Canon Westcott, in which it is stated that while Tertullian and Epiphanius accuse Marcion of altering the text of the books which he received, so far as his treatment of the Epistles is concerned this is not borne out by the facts, out of seven readings noticed by Epiphanius two only being unsupported by other authority. It is argued from this that Marcion 'equally preserved without alteration the text which he found in his manuscript of the Gospel.' 'We have no reason to believe the accusation of the Fathers in regard to the Gospel—which we cannot fully test— better founded than that in regard to the Epistles, which we can test, and find unfounded' [Endnote 217:1]. No doubt the premisses of this argument are true, and so also is the conclusion, strictly as it stands. It is true that the Fathers accuse Marcion of tampering with the text in various places, both in the Epistles and in the Gospels where the allegation can be tested, and where it is found that the supposed perversion is simply a difference of reading, proved to be such by its presence in other authorities [Endnote 217:2]. But what is this to the point? It is not contended that Marcion altered to any considerable extent (though he did slightly even in the Epistles [Endnote 217:3]) the text which he retained, but that he mutilated and cut out whole passages from that text. He can be proved to have done this in regard to the Epistles, and therefore it is fair to infer that he dealt in the same way with the Gospel. This is the amended form in which the argument ought to stand. It is certain that Marcion made a large excision before Rom. xi. 33, and another after Rom. viii. 11; he also cut out the 'mentiones Abrahae' from Gal. iii. 7, 14, 16-18 [Endnote 218:1]. I say nothing about his excision of the last two chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, because on that point a controversy might be raised. But the genuineness of these other passages is undisputed and indisputable. It cannot be argued here that our text of the Epistle has suffered from later interpolation, and therefore, I repeat, it is so much the more probable that Marcion took from the text of the Gospel than that a later editor added to it.

(2.) In examining the internal evidence from the nature and structure of Marcion's Gospel, it has hitherto been the custom to lay most stress upon its dogmatic character. The controversy in Germany has turned chiefly on this. The critics have set themselves to show that the variations in Marcion's Gospel either could or could not be explained as omissions dictated by the exigencies of his dogmatic system. This was a task which suited well the subtlety and inventiveness of the German mind, and it has been handled with all the usual minuteness and elaboration. The result has been that not only have Volkmar and Hilgenfeld proved their point to their own satisfaction, but they also convinced Ritschl and partially Baur; and generally we may say that in Germany it seems to be agreed at the present time that the hypothesis of a mutilated Luke suits the dogmatic argument better than that of later Judaising interpolations.