THE GOSPELS IN THE SECOND CENTURY

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PART OF A WORK ENTITLED 'SUPERNATURAL RELIGION'

BY

W. SANDAY, M.A.

Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath, Warwickshire; and late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. Author of a Work on the Fourth Gospel.



LONDON: 1876.



I had hoped to inscribe in this book the revered and cherished name of my old head master, DR. PEARS of Repton. His consent had been very kindly and warmly given, and I was just on the point of sending the dedication to the printers when I received a telegram naming the day and hour of his funeral. His health had for some time since his resignation of Repton been seriously failing, but I had not anticipated that the end was so near. All who knew him will deplore his too early loss, and their regret will be shared by the wider circle of those who can appreciate a life in which there was nothing ignoble, nothing ungenerous, nothing unreal. I had long wished that he should receive some tribute of regard from one whom he had done his best by precept, and still more by example, to fit and train for his place and duty in the world. This pleasure and this honour have been denied me. I cannot place my book, as I had hoped, in his hand, but I may still lay it reverently upon his tomb.



CONTENTS

CHAP.

I. INTRODUCTORY

II. ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS

III. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

IV. JUSTIN MARTYR

V. HEGESIPPUS—PAPIAS

VI. THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES

VII. BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS

VIII. MARCION

IX. TATIAN—DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH

X. MELITO—APOLLINARIS—ATHENAGORAS—THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS

XI. PTOLOMAEUS AND HERACLEON—CELSUS—THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT

XII. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL

XIII. ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY

XIV. CONCLUSION

[ENDNOTES]

APPENDIX. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARCION'S GOSPEL

INDICES



PREFACE.

It will be well to explain at once that the following work has been written at the request and is published at the cost of the Christian Evidence Society, and that it may therefore be classed under the head of Apologetics. I am aware that this will be a drawback to it in the eyes of some, and I confess that it is not altogether a recommendation in my own.

Ideally speaking, Apologetics ought to have no existence distinct from the general and unanimous search for truth, and in so far as they tend to put any other consideration, no matter how high or pure in itself, in the place of truth, they must needs stand aside from the path of science.

But, on the other hand, the question of true belief itself is immensely wide. It is impossible to approach what is merely a branch of a vast subject without some general conclusions already formed as to the whole. The mind cannot, if it would, become a sheet of blank paper on which the writing is inscribed by an external process alone. It must needs have its praejudicia— i.e. judgments formed on grounds extrinsic to the special matter of enquiry—of one sort or another. Accordingly we find that an absolutely and strictly impartial temper never has existed and never will. If it did, its verdict would still be false, because it would represent an incomplete or half-suppressed humanity. There is no question that touches, directly or indirectly, on the moral and spiritual nature of man that can be settled by the bare reason. A certain amount of sympathy is necessary in order to estimate the weight of the forces that are to be analysed: yet that very sympathy itself becomes an extraneous influence, and the perfect balance and adjustment of the reason is disturbed.

But though impartiality, in the strict sense, is not to be had, there is another condition that may be rightly demanded—resolute honesty. This I hope may be attained as well from one point of view as from another, at least that there is no very great antecedent reason to the contrary. In past generations indeed there was such a reason. Strongly negative views could only be expressed at considerable personal risk and loss. But now, public opinion is so tolerant, especially among the reading and thinking classes, that both parties are practically upon much the same footing. Indeed for bold and strong and less sensitive minds negative views will have an attraction and will find support that will go far to neutralise any counterbalancing disadvantage.

On either side the remedy for the effects of bias must be found in a rigorous and searching criticism. If misleading statements and unsound arguments are allowed to pass unchallenged the fault will not lie only with their author.

It will be hardly necessary for me to say that the Christian Evidence Society is not responsible for the contents of this work, except in so far as may be involved in the original request that I should write it. I undertook the task at first with some hesitation, and I could not have undertaken it at all without stipulating for entire freedom. The Society very kindly and liberally granted me this, and I am conscious of having to some extent availed myself of it. I have not always stayed to consider whether the opinions expressed were in exact accordance with those of the majority of Christians. It will be enough if they should find points of contact in some minds, and the tentative element in them will perhaps be the more indulgently judged now that the reconciliation of the different branches of knowledge and belief is being so anxiously sought for.

The instrument of the enquiry had to be fashioned as the enquiry itself went on, and I suspect that the consequences of this will be apparent in some inequality and incompleteness in the earlier portions. For instance, I am afraid that the textual analysis of the quotations in Justin may seem somewhat less satisfactory than that of those in the Clementine Homilies, though Justin's quotations are the more important of the two. Still I hope that the treatment of the first may be, for the scale of the book, sufficiently adequate. There seemed to be a certain advantage in presenting the results of the enquiry in the order in which it was conducted. If time and strength are allowed me, I hope to be able to carry several of the investigations that are begun in this book some stages further.

I ought perhaps to explain that I was prevented by other engagements from beginning seriously to work upon the subject until the latter end of December in last year. The first of Dr. Lightfoot's articles in the Contemporary Review had then appeared. The next two articles (on the Silence of Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles) were also in advance of my own treatment of the same topics. From this point onwards I was usually the first to finish, and I have been compelled merely to allude to the progress of the controversy in notes. Seeing the turn that Dr. Lightfoot's review was taking, and knowing how utterly vain it would be for any one else to go over the same ground, I felt myself more at liberty to follow a natural bent in confining myself pretty closely to the internal aspect of the enquiry. My object has been chiefly to test in detail the alleged quotations from our Gospels, while Dr. Lightfoot has taken a wider sweep in collecting and bringing to bear the collateral matter of which his unrivalled knowledge of the early Christian literature gave him such command. It will be seen that in some cases, as notably in regard to the evidence of Papias, the external and the internal methods have led to an opposite result; and I shall look forward with much interest to the further discussion of this subject.

I should be sorry to ignore the debt I am under to the author of 'Supernatural Religion' for the copious materials he has supplied to criticism. I have also to thank him for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the sixth edition of his work. My obligations to other writers I hope will be found duly acknowledged. If I were to single out the one book to which I owed most, it would probably be Credner's 'Beitrage zur Einleitung in die Biblischen Schriften,' of which I have spoken somewhat fully in an early chapter. I have used a certain amount of discretion and economy in avoiding as a rule the works of previous apologists (such as Semisch, Riggenbach, Norton, Hofstede de Groot) and consulting rather those of an opposite school in such representatives as Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In this way, though I may very possibly have omitted some arguments which may be sound, I hope I shall have put forward few that have been already tried and found wanting.

As I have made rather large use of the argument supplied by text- criticism, I should perhaps say that to the best of my belief my attention was first drawn to its importance by a note in Dr. Lightfoot's work on Revision. The evidence adduced under this head will be found, I believe, to be independent of any particular theory of text-criticism. The idea of the Analytical Index is taken, with some change of plan, from Volkmar. It may serve to give a sort of coup d'oeil of the subject.

It is a pleasure to be able to mention another form of assistance from which it is one of the misfortunes of an anonymous writer to find himself cut off. The proofs of this book have been seen in their passage through the press by my friend the Rev. A.J. Mason, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, whose exact scholarship has been particularly valuable to me. On another side than that of scholarship I have derived the greatest benefit from the advice of my friend James Beddard, M.B., of Nottingham, who was among the first to help me to realise, and now does not suffer me to forget, what a book ought to be. The Index of References to the Gospels has also been made for me.

The chapter on Marcion has already appeared, substantially in its present form, as a contribution to the Fortnightly Review.

BARTON-ON-THE-HEATH, SHIPSTON-ON-STOUR, November, 1875.



[Greek epigraph: Ta de panta elenchoumena hupo tou photos phaneroutai pan gar to phaneroumenon phos estin.]



CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.

It would be natural in a work of this kind, which is a direct review of a particular book, to begin with an account of that book, and with some attempt to characterise it. Such had been my own intention, but there seems to be sufficient reason for pursuing a different course. On the one hand, an account of a book which has so recently appeared, which has been so fully reviewed, and which has excited so much attention, would appear to be superfluous; and, on the other hand, as the character of it has become the subject of somewhat sharp controversy, and as controversy— or at least the controversial temper—is the one thing that I wish to avoid, I have thought it well on the whole to abandon my first intention, and to confine myself as much as possible to a criticism of the argument and subject-matter, with a view to ascertain the real facts as to the formation of the Canon of the four Gospels.

I shall correct, where I am able to do so, such mistakes as may happen to come under my notice and have not already been pointed out by other reviewers, only dilating upon them where what seem to be false principles of criticism are involved. On the general subject of these mistakes—misleading references and the like—I think that enough has been said [Endnote 2:1]. Much is perhaps charged upon the individual which is rather due to the system of theological training and the habits of research that are common in England at the present day. Inaccuracies no doubt have been found, not a few. But, unfortunately, there is only one of our seats of learning where—in theology at least—the study of accuracy has quite the place that it deserves. Our best scholars and ablest men—with one or two conspicuous exceptions—do not write, and the work is left to be done by litterateurs and clergymen or laymen who have never undergone the severe preliminary discipline which scientific investigation requires. Thus a low standard is set; there are but few sound examples to follow, and it is a chance whether the student's attention is directed to these at the time when his habits of mind are being formed.

Again, it was claimed for 'Supernatural Religion' on its first appearance that it was impartial. The claim has been indignantly denied, and, I am afraid I must say, with justice. Any one conversant with the subject (I speak of the critical portion of the book) will see that it is deeply coloured by the author's prepossessions from beginning to end. Here again he has only imbibed the temper of the nation. Perhaps it is due to our political activity and the system of party-government that the spirit of party seems to have taken such a deep root in the English mind. An Englishman's political opinions are determined for him mainly (though sometimes in the way of reaction) by his antecedents and education, and his opinions on other subjects follow in their train. He takes them up with more of practical vigour and energy than breadth of reflection. There is a contagion of party-spirit in the air. And thus advocacy on one side is simply met by advocacy on the other. Such has at least been hitherto the history of English thought upon most great subjects. We may hope that at last this state of things is coming to an end. But until now, and even now, it has been difficult to find that quiet atmosphere in which alone true criticism can flourish.

Let it not be thought that these few remarks are made in a spirit of censoriousness. They are made by one who is only too conscious of being subject to the very same conditions, and who knows not how far he may need indulgence on the same score himself. How far his own work is tainted with the spirit of advocacy it is not for him to say. He knows well that the author whom he has set himself to criticise is at least a writer of remarkable vigour and ability, and that he cannot lay claim to these qualities; but he has confidence in the power of truth—whatever that truth may be— to assert itself in the end. An open and fair field and full and free criticism are all that is needed to eliminate the effects of individual strength or weakness. 'The opinions of good men are but knowledge in the making'—especially where they are based upon a survey of the original facts. Mistakes will be made and have currency for a time. But little by little truth emerges; it receives the suffrages of those who are competent to judge; gradually the controversy narrows; parts of it are closed up entirely, and a solid and permanent advance is made.

* * * * *

The author of 'Supernatural Religion' starts from a rigid and somewhat antiquated view of Revelation—Revelation is 'a direct and external communication by God to man of truths undiscoverable by human reason. The divine origin of this communication is proved by miracles. Miracles are proved by the record of Scripture, which, in its turn, is attested by the history of the Canon.—This is certainly the kind of theory which was in favour at the end of the last century, and found expression in works like Paley's Evidences. It belongs to a time of vigorous and clear but mechanical and narrow culture, when the philosophy of religion was made up of abrupt and violent contrasts; when Christianity (including under that name the Old Testament as well as the New) was thought to be simply true and all other religions simply false; when the revelation of divine truth was thought to be as sudden and complete as the act of creation; and when the presence of any local and temporary elements in the Christian documents or society was ignored.

The world has undergone a great change since then. A new and far- reaching philosophy is gradually displacing the old. The Christian sees that evolution is as much a law of religion as of nature. The Ethnic, or non-Christian, religions are no longer treated as outside the pale of the Divine government. Each falls into its place as part of a vast divinely appointed scheme, of the character of which we are beginning to have some faint glimmerings. Other religions are seen to be correlated to Christianity much as the other tentative efforts of nature are correlated to man. A divine operation, and what from our limited human point of view we should call a special divine operation, is not excluded but rather implied in the physical process by which man has been planted on the earth, and it is still more evidently implied in the corresponding process of his spiritual enlightenment. The deeper and more comprehensive view that we have been led to take as to the dealings of Providence has not by any means been followed by a depreciation of Christianity. Rather it appears on a loftier height than ever. The spiritual movements of recent times have opened men's eyes more and more to its supreme spiritual excellence. It is no longer possible to resolve it into a mere 'code of morals.' The Christian ethics grow organically out of the relations which Christianity assumes between God and man, and in their fulness are inseparable from those relations. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' speaks as if they were separable, as if a man could assume all the Christian graces merely by wishing to assume them. But he forgets the root of the whole Christian system, 'Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'

The old idea of the Aufklaerung that Christianity was nothing more than a code of morals, has now long ago been given up, and the self-complacency which characterised that movement has for the most part, though not entirely, passed away. The nineteenth century is not in very many quarters regarded as the goal of things. And it will hardly now be maintained that Christianity is adequately represented by any of the many sects and parties embraced under the name. When we turn from even the best of these, in its best and highest embodiment, to the picture that is put before us in the Gospels, how small does it seem! We feel that they all fall short of their ideal, and that there is a greater promise and potentiality of perfection in the root than has ever yet appeared in branch or flower.

No doubt theology follows philosophy. The special conception of the relation of man to God naturally takes its colour from the wider conception as to the nature of all knowledge and the relation of God to the universe. It has been so in every age, and it must needs be so now. Some readjustment, perhaps a considerable readjustment, of theological and scientific beliefs may be necessary. But there is, I think, a strong presumption that the changes involved in theology will be less radical than often seems to be supposed. When we look back upon history, the world has gone through many similar crises before. The discoveries of Darwin and the philosophies of Mill or Hegel do not mark a greater relative advance than the discoveries of Newton and the philosophies of Descartes and Locke. These latter certainly had an effect upon theology. At one time they seemed to shake it to its base; so much so that Bishop Butler wrote in the Advertisement to the first edition of his Analogy that 'it is come to be taken for granted that Christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry; but that it is now at length discovered to be fictitious.' Yet what do we see after a lapse of a hundred and forty years? It cannot be said that there is less religious life and activity now than there was then, or that there has been so far any serious breach in the continuity of Christian belief. An eye that has learnt to watch the larger movements of mankind will not allow itself to be disturbed by local oscillations. It is natural enough that some of our thinkers and writers should imagine that the last word has been spoken, and that they should be tempted to use the word 'Truth' as if it were their own peculiar possession. But Truth is really a much vaster and more unattainable thing. One man sees a fragment of it here and another there; but, as a whole, even in any of its smallest subdivisions, it exists not in the brain of any one individual, but in the gradual, and ever incomplete but ever self-completing, onward movement of the whole. 'If any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.' The forms of Christianity change, but Christianity itself endures. And it would seem as if we might well be content to wait until it was realised a little less imperfectly before we attempt to go farther afield.

Yet the work of adaptation must be done. The present generation has a task of its own to perform. It is needful for it to revise its opinions in view of the advances that have been made both in general knowledge and in special theological criticism. In so far as 'Supernatural Religion' has helped to do this, it has served the cause of true progress; but its main plan and design I cannot but regard as out of date and aimed in the air.

The Christian miracles, or what in our ignorance we call miracles, will not bear to be torn away from their context. If they are facts we must look at them in strict connection with that Ideal Life to which they seem to form the almost natural accompaniment. The Life itself is the great miracle. When we come to see it as it really is, and to enter, if even in some dim and groping way, into its inner recesses, we feel ourselves abashed and dumb. Yet this self-evidential character is found in portions of the narrative that are quite unmiraculous. These, perhaps, are in reality the most marvellous, though the miracles themselves will seem in place when their spiritual significance is understood and they are ranged in order round their common centre. Doubtless some elements of superstition may be mixed up in the record as it has come down to us. There is a manifest gap between the reality and the story of it. The Evangelists were for the most part 'Jews who sought after a sign.' Something of this wonder-seeking curiosity may very well have given a colour to their account of events in which the really transcendental element was less visible and tangible. We cannot now distinguish with any degree of accuracy between the subjective and the objective in the report. But that miracles, or what we call such, did in some shape take place, is, I believe, simply a matter of attested fact. When we consider it in its relation to the rest of the narrative, to tear out the miraculous bodily from the Gospels seems to me in the first instance a violation of history and criticism rather than of faith.

Still the author of 'Supernatural Religion' is, no doubt, justified in raising the question, Did miracles really happen? I only wish to protest against the idea that such a question can be adequately discussed as something isolated and distinct, in which all that is necessary is to produce and substantiate the documents as in a forensic process. Such a 'world-historical' event (if I may for the moment borrow an expressive Germanism) as the founding of Christianity cannot be thrown into a merely forensic form. Considerations of this kind may indeed enter in, but to suppose that they can be justly estimated by themselves alone is an error. And it is still more an error to suppose that the riddle of the universe, or rather that part of the riddle which to us is most important, the religious nature of man and, the objective facts and relations that correspond to it, can all be reduced to some four or five simple propositions which admit of being proved or disproved by a short and easy Q.E.D.

It would have been a far more profitable enquiry if the author had asked himself, What is Revelation? The time has come when this should be asked and an attempt to obtain a more scientific definition should be made. The comparative study of religions has gone far enough to admit of a comparison between the Ethnic religions and that which had its birth in Palestine—the religion of the Jews and Christians. Obviously, at the first blush, there is a difference: and that difference constitutes what we mean by Revelation. Let us have this as yet very imperfectly known quantity scientifically ascertained, without any attempt either to minimise or to exaggerate. I mean, let the field which Mr. Matthew Arnold has lately been traversing with much of his usual insight but in a light and popular manner, be seriously mapped out and explored. Pioneers have been at work, such as Dr. Kuenen, but not perhaps quite without a bias: let the same enquiry be taken up so widely as that the effects of bias may be eliminated; and instead of at once accepting the first crude results, let us wait until they are matured by time. This would be really fruitful and productive, and a positive addition to knowledge; but reasoning such as that in 'Supernatural Religion' is vitiated at the outset, because it starts with the assumption that we know perfectly well the meaning of a term of which our actual conception is vague and indeterminate in the extreme—Divine Revelation. [Endnote 10:1]

With these reservations as to the main drift and bearing of the argument, we may however meet the author of 'Supernatural Religion' on his own ground. It is a part of the question—though a more subordinate part apparently than he seems to suppose—to decide whether miracles did or did not really happen. Even of this part too it is but quite a minor subdivision that is included in the two volumes of his work that have hitherto appeared. In the first place, merely as a matter of historical attestation, the Gospels are not the strongest evidence for the Christian miracles. Only one of the four, in its present shape, is claimed as the work of an Apostle, and of that the genuineness is disputed. The Acts of the Apostles stand upon very much the same footing with the Synoptic Gospels, and of this book we are promised a further examination. But we possess at least some undoubted writings of one who was himself a chief actor in the events which followed immediately upon those recorded in the Gospels; and in these undoubted writings St. Paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the good faith of which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be endowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles, or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought both by him and by his contemporaries. He reminds the Corinthians that 'the signs of an Apostle were wrought among them ... in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds' ([Greek: en saemeious kai terasi kai dunamesi]—the usual words for the higher forms of miracle— 2 Cor. xii. 12). He tells the Romans that 'he will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought in him, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God' ([Greek: en dunamei saemeion kai teraton, en dunamei pneumator Theou], Rom. xv. 18, 19) He asks the Galatians whether 'he that ministereth to them the Spirit, and worketh miracles [Greek: ho energon dunameis] among them, doeth it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?' (Gal. iii. 5). In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, he goes somewhat elaborately into the exact place in the Christian economy that is to be assigned to the working of miracles and gifts of healing (1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29). Besides these allusions, St. Paul repeatedly refers to the cardinal miracles of the Resurrection and Ascension; he refers to them as notorious and unquestionable facts at a time when such an assertion might have been easily refuted. On one occasion he gives a very circumstantial account of the testimony on which the belief in the Resurrection rested (1 Cor. xv. 4-8). And, not only does he assert the Resurrection as a fact, but he builds upon it a whole scheme of doctrine: 'If Christ be not risen,' he says, 'then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.' We do not stay now to consider the exact philosophical weight of this evidence. It will be time enough to do this when it has received the critical discussion that may be presumed to be in store for it. But as external evidence, in the legal sense, it is probably the best that can be produced, and it has been entirely untouched so far.

Again, in considering the evidence for the age of the Synoptic Gospels, that which is derived from external sources is only a part, and not perhaps the more important part, of the whole. It points backwards indeed, and we shall see with what amount of force and range. But there is still an interval within which only approximate conclusions are possible. These conclusions need to be supplemented from the phenomena of the documents themselves. In the relation of the Gospels to the growth of the Christian society and the development of Christian doctrine, and especially to the great turning-point in the history, the taking of Jerusalem, there is very considerable internal evidence for determining the date within which they must have been composed. It is well known that many critics, without any apologetic object, have found a more or less exact criterion in the eschatological discourses (Matt. xxiv, Mark xiii, Luke xxi. 5-36), and to this large additions may be made. As I hope some day to have an opportunity of discussing the whole question of the origin and composition of the Synoptic Gospels, I shall not go into this at present: but in the mean time it should be remembered that all these further questions lie in the background, and that in tracing the formation of the Canon of the Gospels the whole of the evidence for miracles—even from this ab extra point of view—is very far from being exhausted.

There is yet another remaining reason which makes the present enquiry of less importance than might be supposed, derived from the particular way in which the author has dealt with this external evidence. In order to explain the prima facie evidence for our canonical Gospels, he has been compelled to assume the existence of other documents containing, so far as appears, the same or very similar matter. In other words, instead of four Gospels he would give us five or six or seven. I do not know that, merely as a matter of policy, and for apologetic purposes only, the best way to refute his conclusion would not be to admit his premisses and to insist upon the multiplication of the evidence for the facts of the Gospel history which his argument would seem to involve. I mention this however, not with any such object, but rather to show that the truth of Christianity is not intimately affected, and that there are no such great reasons for partiality on one side or on the other.

I confess that it was a relief to me when I found that this must be the case. I do not think the time has come when the central question can be approached with any safety. Rough and ready methods (such as I am afraid I must call the first part of 'Supernatural Religion') may indeed cut the Gordian knot, but they do not untie it. A number of preliminary questions will have to be determined with a greater degree of accuracy and with more general consent than has been done hitherto. The Jewish and Christian literature of the century before and of the two centuries after the birth of Christ must undergo a more searching examination, by minds of different nationality and training, both as to the date, text, and character of the several books. The whole balance of an argument may frequently be changed by some apparently minute and unimportant discovery; while, at present, from the mere want of consent as to the data, the state of many a question is necessarily chaotic. It is far better that all these points should be discussed as disinterestedly as possible. No work is so good as that which is done without sight of the object to which it is tending and where the workman has only his measure and rule to trust to. I am glad to think that the investigation which is to follow may be almost, if not quite, classed in this category; and I hope I may be able to conduct it with sufficient impartiality. Unconscious bias no man can escape, but from conscious bias I trust I shall be free.



CHAPTER II.

ON QUOTATIONS GENERALLY IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITERS.

The subject then proposed for our investigation is the extent to which the canonical Gospels are attested by the early Christian writers, or, in other words, the history of the process by which they became canonical. This will involve an enquiry into two things; first, the proof of the existence of the Gospels, and, secondly, the degree of authority attributed to them. Practically this second enquiry must be very subordinate to the first, because the data are much fewer; but it too shall be dealt with, cursorily, as the occasion arises, and we shall be in a position to speak upon it definitely before we conclude.

It will be convenient to follow the example that is set us in 'Supernatural Religion,' and to take the first three, or Synoptic, Gospels separately from the fourth.

* * * * *

At the outset the question will occur to us, On what principle is the enquiry to be conducted? What sort of rule or standard are we to assume? In order to prove either the existence or the authority of the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine the quotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations from them, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriously lax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, what degree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what does not, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source.

The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' indeed, has not felt the necessity for this preliminary step. He has taken up, as it were, at haphazard, the first standard that came to his hand; and, not unnaturally, this is found to be very much the standard of the present literary age, when both the mechanical and psychological conditions are quite different from those that prevailed at the beginning of the Christian era. He has thus been led to make a number of assertions which will require a great deal of qualification. The only sound and scientific method is to make an induction (if only a rough one) respecting the habit of early quotation generally, and then to apply it to the particular cases.

Here there will be three classes of quotation more or less directly in point: (1) the quotations from the Old Testament in the New; (2) the quotations from the Old Testament in the same early writers whose quotations from the New Testament are the point in question; (3) quotations from the New Testament, and more particularly from the Gospels, in the writers subsequent to these, at a time when the Canon of the Gospels was fixed and we can be quite sure that our present Gospels are being quoted.

This method of procedure however is not by any means so plain and straightforward as it might seem. The whole subject of Old Testament quotations is highly perplexing. Most of the quotations that we meet with are taken from the LXX version; and the text of that version was at this particular time especially uncertain and fluctuating. There is evidence to show that it must have existed in several forms which differed more or less from that of the extant MSS. It would be rash therefore to conclude at once, because we find a quotation differing from the present text of the LXX, that it differed from that which was used by the writer making the quotation. In some cases this can be proved from the same writer making the same quotation more than once and differently each time, or from another writer making it in agreement with our present text. But in other cases it seems probable that the writer had really a different text before him, because he quotes it more than once, or another writer quotes it, with the same variation. This however is again an uncertain criterion; for the second writer may be copying the first, or he may be influenced by an unconscious reminiscence of what the first had written. The early Christian writers copied each other to an extent that we should hardly be prepared for. Thus, for instance, there is a string of quotations in the first Epistle of Clement of Rome (cc. xiv, xv)—Ps. xxxvii. 36-38; Is. xxix. 13; Ps. lxii. 4, lxxviii. 36, 37, xxxi, 19, xii. 3-6; and these very quotations in the same order reappear in the Alexandrine Clement (Strom. iv. 6). Clement of Alexandria is indeed fond of copying his Roman namesake, and does so without acknowledgment. Tertullian and Epiphanius in like manner drew largely from the works of Irenaeus. But this confuses evidence that would otherwise be clear. For instance, in Eph. iv. 8 St. Paul quotes Ps. lxviii. 19, but with a marked variation from all the extant texts of the LXX. Thus:—

Ps. lxviii. 18 (19).

[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaloteusas aichmalosian, elabes domata en anthropon.]

[Greek: Aechmaloteusen ... en anthropon] [Hebrew: alef], perhaps from assimilation to N.T.

Eph. iv. 8.

[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaltoteusen aichmalosian, kai edoke domata tois anthropois.]

[Greek: kai] om. [Hebrew: alef]'1, A C'2 D'1, &c. It. Vulg. Memph. &c.; ins. B C'3 D'3 [Hebrew: alef]'4, &c.

Now we should naturally think that this was a very free quotation—so free that it substitutes 'giving' for 'receiving.' A free quotation perhaps it may be, but at any rate the very same variation is found in Justin (Dial. 39). And, strange to say, in five other passages which are quoted variantly by St. Paul, Justin also agrees with him, [Endnote 18:1] though cases on the other hand occur where Justin differs from St. Paul or holds a position midway between him and the LXX (e.g. 1 Cor. i. 19 compared with Just. Dial. cc. 123, 32, 78, where will be found some curious variations, agreement with LXX, partial agreement with LXX, partial agreement with St. Paul). Now what are we to say to these phenomena? Have St. Paul and Justin both a variant text of the LXX, or is Justin quoting mediately through St. Paul? Probability indeed seems to be on the side of the latter of these two alternatives, because in one place (Dial. cc. 95, 96) Justin quotes the two passages Deut. xxvii. 26 and Deut. xxi. 23 consecutively, and applies them just as they are applied in Gal. iii. 10, 13 [Endnote 18:2]. On the other hand, it is somewhat strange that Justin nowhere refers to the Epistles of St. Paul by name, and that the allusions to them in the genuine writings, except for these marked resemblances in the Old Testament quotations, are few and uncertain. The same relation is observed between the Pauline Epistles and that of Clement of Rome. In two places at least Clement agrees, or nearly agrees, with St. Paul, where both differ from the LXX; in c. xiii ([Greek: ho kanchomenos en Kurio kanchastho]; compare 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x, 16), and in c. xxxiv ([Greek: ophthalmhos ouk eiden k.t.l.]; compare 1 Cor. ii. 9). Again, in c. xxxvi Clement has the [Greek: puros phloga] of Heb. i. 7 for [Greek: pur phlegon] of the LXX. The rest of the parallelisms in Clement's Epistle are for the most part with Clement of Alexandria, who had evidently made a careful study of his predecessor. In one place, c. liii, there is a remarkable coincidence with Barnabas ([Greek: Mousae Mousae katabaethi to tachos k.t.l.]; compare Barn. cc. iv and xiv). In the Epistle of Barnabas itself there is a combined quotation from Gen. xv. 6, xvii. 5, which has evidently and certainly been affected by Rom. iv. 11. On the whole we may lean somewhat decidedly to the hypothesis of a mutual study of each other by the Christian writers, though the other hypothesis of the existence of different versions (whether oral and traditional or in any shape written) cannot be excluded. Probably both will have to be taken into account to explain all the facts.

Another disturbing influence, which will affect especially the quotations in the Gospels, is the possibility, perhaps even probability, that many of these are made, not directly from either Hebrew or LXX, but from or through Targums. This would seem to be the case especially with the remarkable applications of prophecy in St. Matthew. It must be admitted as possible that the Evangelist has followed some Jewish interpretation that seemed to bear a Christian construction. The quotation in Matt. ii. 6, with its curious insertion of the negative ([Greek: oudamos elachistae] for [Greek: oligostos]), reappears identically in Justin (Dial. c. 78). We shall probably have to touch upon this quotation when we come to consider Justin's relations to the canonical Gospels. It certainly seems upon the face of it the more probable supposition that he has here been influenced by the form of the text in St. Matthew, but he may be quoting from a Targum or from a peculiar text.

Any induction, then, in regard to the quotations from the LXX version will have to be used with caution and reserve. And yet I think it will be well to make such an induction roughly, especially in regard to the Apostolic Fathers whose writings we are to examine.

* * * * *

The quotations from the Old Testament in the New have, as it is well known, been made the subject of a volume by Mr. McCalman Turpie [Endnote 20:1], which, though perhaps not quite reaching a high level of scholarship, has yet evidently been put together with much care and pains, and will be sufficient for our purpose. The summary result of Mr. Turpie's investigation is this. Out of two hundred and seventy-five in all which may be considered to be quotations from the Old Testament, fifty-three agree literally both with the LXX and the Hebrew, ten with the Hebrew and not with the LXX, and thirty-seven with the LXX and not with the Hebrew, making in all just a hundred that are in literal (or nearly literal, for slight variations of order are not taken into account) agreement with some still extant authority. On the other hand, seventy-six passages differ both from the Hebrew and LXX where the two are together, ninety-nine differ from them where they diverge, and besides these, three, though introduced with marks of quotation, have no assignable original in the Old Testament at all. Leaving them for the present out of the question, we have a hundred instances of agreement against a hundred and seventy-five of difference; or, in other words, the proportion of difference to agreement is as seven to four.

This however must be taken with the caution given above; that is to say, it must not at once be inferred that because the quotation differs from extant authority therefore it necessarily differs from all non-extant authority as well. It should be added that the standard of agreement adopted by Mr. Turpie is somewhat higher than would be naturally held to be sufficient to refer a passage to a given source. His lists must therefore be used with these limitations.

Turning to them, we find that most of the possible forms of variation are exemplified within the bounds of the Canon itself. I proceed to give a few classified instances of these.

[Greek: Alpha symbol] Paraphrase. Many of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New are highly paraphrastic. We may take the following as somewhat marked examples: Matt. ii. 6, xii. 18-21, xiii. 35, xxvii. 9, 10; John viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 18; 1 Cor. xiv. 21; 2 Cor. ix. 7. Matt. xxvii. 9, 10 would perhaps mark an extreme point in freedom of quotation [Endnote 21:1], as will be seen when it is compared with the original:—

Matt. xxvii. 9. 10.

[Greek: [tote eplaerothae to phaethen dia tou prophaetou Hieremiou legontos] Kai elabon ta triakonta arguria, taen timaen tou tetimaemenou on etimaesanto apo nion Israael, kai edokan auta eis ton argon tou kerameos, katha sunetaxen moi Kurios.]

Zech. xi. 13.

[Greek: Kathes autous eis to choneutaerion, kai schepsomai ei dokimon estin, de tropon edokiamistheaen huper aotuon. Kai elabon tous triakonta argurous kai enebalon autous eis oikon Kuriou eis to choneutaerion.]

It can hardly be possible that the Evangelist has here been influenced by any Targum or version. The form of his text has apparently been determined by the historical event to which the prophecy is applied. The sense of the original has been entirely altered. There the prophet obeys the command to put the thirty pieces of silver, which he had received as his shepherd's hire, into the treasury [Greek: choneutaerion]. Here the hierarchical party refuse to put them into the treasury. The word 'potter' seems to be introduced from the Hebrew.

[Greek: Beta symbol] Quotations from Memory. Among the numerous paraphrastic quotations, there are some that have specially the appearance of having been made from memory, such as Acts vii. 37; Rom. ix. 9, 17, 25, 33, x. 6-8, xi. 3, xii. 19, xiv. 11; 1 Cor. i. 19, ii. 9; Rev. ii. 27. Of course it must always be a matter of guess-work what is quoted from memory and what is not, but in these quotations (and in others which are ranged under different heads) there is just that general identity of sense along with variety of expression which usually characterises such quotations. A simple instance would be—

Rom. ix. 25.

[Greek: [hos kai en to Osaee legei] Kaleso ton out laon mou laon mou kai taen ouk aegapaemenaen haegapaemenaen.]

Hosea ii. 23.

[Greek: Kai agapaeso taen ouk aegapaemenaen, kai ero to ou lao mou Daos mou ei se.]

[Greek: Gamma symbol] Paraphrase with Compression. There are many marked examples of this; such as Matt. xxii. 24 (par.); Mark iv. 12; John xii. 14, 15; Rom. iii. 15-17, x. 15; Heb. xii. 20. Take the first:—

Matt. xxii. 24. [Greek: [Mousaes eipen] Ean tis apothanae mae echon tekna, epigambreusei o adelphos autou taen gunaika autou kai anastaesei sperma to adelpho autou.]

Deut. xxv. 5. [Greek: Ean de katoikosin adelphoi epi to auto, kai apothanae eis ex auton, sperma de mae ae auto, ouk estai ae gunae tou tethnaekotos exo andri mae engizonti o adelphos tou andros autaes eiseleusetai pros autaen kai laepsetai autaen eauto gunaika kai sunoikaesei autae.]

It is highly probable that all the examples given under this head are really quotations from memory.

[Greek: Delta symbol] Paraphrase with Combination of Passages. This again is common; e.g. Luke iv. 19; John xv. 25, xix. 36; Acts xiii. 22; Rom. iii. 11-18, ix. 33, xi. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24. The passage Rom. iii. 11-18 is highly composite, and reminds us of long strings of quotations that are found in some of the Fathers; it is made up of Ps. xiv. 1, 2, v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7, Is. lix. 7, 8, Ps. xxxvi. 1. A shorter example is—

Rom. ix. 33. [Greek: [Kathos gegraptai] Idou tithaemi en Sion lithon proskommatos kai petran skandalou, kai o pisteuon ep auto ou kataischunthaesetai.]

Is. viii. 14. [Greek: kai ouch hos lithou proskammati sunantaesesthe, oude os petras ptomati.]

Is. xxviii. 16. [Greek: Idou ego emballo eis ta themelia Sion lithon..., kai o pisteuon ou mae kataischunthae.]

This fusion of passages is generally an act of 'unconscious celebration.' If we were to apply the standard assumed in 'Supernatural Religion,' it would be pronounced impossible that this and most of the passages above could have the originals to which they are certainly to be referred.

[Greek: Epsilon symbol] Addition. A few cases of addition may be quoted, e.g. [Greek: mae aposteraesaes] inserted in Mark x. 19, [Greek: kai eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9.

[Greek: Zeta symbol] Change of Sense and Context. But little regard—or what according to our modern habits would be considered little regard—is paid to the sense and original context of the passage quoted; e.g. in Matt. viii. 17 the idea of healing disease is substituted for that of vicarious suffering, in Matt. xi. 10 the persons are altered ([Greek: sou] for [Greek: mou]), in Acts vii. 43 we find [Greek: Babylonos] for [Greek: Damaskos], in 2 Cor. vi. 17 'I will receive you' is put for 'I will go before you,' in Heb. i. 7 'He maketh His angels spirits' for 'He maketh the winds His messengers.' This constant neglect of the context is a point that should be borne in mind.

[Greek: Eta symbol] Inversion. Sometimes the sense of the original is so far departed from that a seemingly opposite sense is substituted for it. Thus in Matt. ii. 6 [Greek: oudamos elachistae = oligostos] of Mic. v. 2, in Rom. xi. 26 [Greek: ek Sion = heneken Sion] LXX= 'to Sion' Heb. of Is. lix. 20, in Eph. iv. 8 [Greek: hedoken domata = helabes domata] of Ps. lxvii. 19.

[Greek: Theta symbol] Different Form of Sentence. The grammatical form of the sentence is altered in Matt. xxvi. 31 (from aorist to future), in Luke viii. 10 (from oratio recta to oratio obliqua), and in 1 Pet. iii. 10-12 (from the second person to the third). This is a kind of variation that we should naturally look for.

[Greek: Iota symbol] Mistaken Ascriptions or Nomenclature. The following passages are wrongly assigned:—Mal. iii. 1 to Isaiah according to the correct reading of Mark i. 2, and Zech. xi. 13 to Jeremiah in Matt. xxvii. 9, 10; Abiathar is apparently put for Abimelech in Mark ii. 26; in Acts vii. 16 there seems to be a confusion between the purchase of Machpelah near Hebron by Abraham and Jacob's purchase of land from Hamor the father of Shechem. These are obviously lapses of memory.

[Greek: Kappa symbol] Quotations of Doubtful Origin. There are a certain number of quotations, introduced as such, which can be assigned directly to no Old Testament original; Matt. ii. 23 ([Greek: Nazoraios klaethaesetai]), 1 Tim. v. 18 ('the labourer is worthy of his hire'), John vii. 38 ('out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water'), 42 (Christ should be born of Bethlehem where David was), Eph. v. 14 ('Awake thou that sleepest'). [Endnote 25:1]

It will be seen that, in spite of the reservations that we felt compelled to make at the outset, the greater number of the deviations noticed above can only be explained on a theory of free quotation, and remembering the extent to which the Jews relied upon memory and the mechanical difficulties of exact reference and verification, this is just what before the fact we should have expected.

* * * * *

The Old Testament quotations in the canonical books afford us a certain parallel to the object of our enquiry, but one still nearer will of course be presented by the Old Testament quotations in those books the New Testament quotations in which we are to investigate. I have thought it best to draw up tables of these in order to give an idea of the extent and character of the variation. In so tentative an enquiry as this, the standard throughout will hardly be so fixed and accurate as might be desirable; the tabular statement therefore must be taken to be approximate, but still I think it will be found sufficient for our purpose; certain points come out with considerable clearness, and there is always an advantage in drawing data from a wide enough area. The quotations are ranged under heads according to the degree of approximation to the text of the LXX. In cases where the classification has seemed doubtful an indicatory mark (+) has been used, showing by the side of the column on which it occurs to which of the other two classes the instance leans. All cases in which this sign is used to the left of the middle column may be considered as for practical purposes literal quotations. It may be assumed, where the contrary is not stated, that the quotations are direct and not of the nature of allusions; the marks of quotation are generally quite unmistakeable ([Greek: gegraptai, legei, eipen], &c). Brief notes are added in the margin to call attention to the more remarkable points, especially to the repetition of the same quotation in different writers and to the apparent bearing of the passage upon the general habit of quotation.

Taking the Apostolic Fathers in order, we come first to—

Clement of Rome (1 Ep. ad Cor.)

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks. Variant. 3 Deut. 32.14,15. also in Justin, Is. 3.5. al. differently. Is. 59. 14, al. 3. Wisd. 2.24. +4. Gen. 4.3-8. Acts 7.27, Ex. 2.14+ more exactly. 6. Gen. 2.23. 8. Ezek. 33.11 } Ezek. 18.30 }from Apocryphal Ps. 103.10,11. } or interpolated Jer. 3.19,22. } Ezekiel? Is. 1.18. } +8. Is. 1.16-20. 10. Gen. 12.1-3. +Gen. 13.14-16. Gen. 15.5,6. 12. Josh. 2.3-19. compression and paraphrase. 13. 1 Sam. 2,10. }similarly Jer. 9.23,24. } St. Paul, 1 Cor. 1.31, 2 Cor. 13. Is. 46.2. 10.17. 14. Prov. 2.21, from memory? 22. v.l. (Ps. 37. 39.) 14. Ps. 37.35-38. Matt. 15.8, Mark 15. Is. 29.13.* 7.6, with par- 15.{Ps. 78.36,37.* 15. Ps. 62.4.* tial similarity, {Ps. 31.19.* Clem. Alex., {Ps. 12.3-6.* following Clem. Rom. +16. Is. 53.1-12. quoted in full by 16. Ps. 22.6-8. Justin, also by 17. Gen. 18.27. other writers with text slightly different from Clement. 17. Job 1.1, v.l. Job 14.4,5, v.l. Clem. Alex. similarly. 17. Num. 12.7. Ex. 3.11; 4-10. [Greek: ego de Assumptio Mosis, eimi atmis apo Hilg., Eldad kuthras.] and Modad, Lft. 18. Ps. 89.21,v.l. }Clem. Alex. as 1 Sam. 13.14. } LXX. 18. Ps. 51.1-17. 20. Job 38.11. 21. Prov. 15.27. Clem. Alex. similarly; from memory? [Greek: 22. Ps. 34.11-17. legei gar pou.] 23. [Greek: from an Apo- palaiporoi eisin cryphal book, oi dipsuchoi Ass. Mos. or k.t.l.] Eld. and Mod. 23. Is. 13.22. }composition and Mal. 3.1. } compression. 26. Ps. 28.7. }composition Ps. 3-5. } from memory? [Greek: legei gar pou.] 27. Wisd. 12.12. }from memory? Wisd. 11.22. } cp. Eph. 1.19. P27. Ps. 19.1-3. 28. Ps. 139.7-10. from memory? [Greek: legei gar pou.] 29. Deut. 32.8,9. 29. Deut. 4.34. }from memory? Deut. 14.2. } or from an Num. 18.27. } Apocryphal 2 Chron. 31. } Book? 14. } Ezek. 48.12. } 30. Prov. 3.34. 30. Job. 11.2,3. LXX, not Heb. 32. Gen. 15.5 (Gen. 22.17. Gen. 26.4.) 33. Gen. 1.26-28. (omissions.) 34. Is. 40.10. }composition Is. 62.11. } from memory? Prov. 24.12. } Clem. Alex. after Clem. Rom. 34. Dan. 7.10. } curiously Is. 6.3+. } repeated transposition; see Lightfoot, ad. loc. 24. Is. 64.4. so in 1 Cor. 2.9. 35. Ps. 50.16-23. 36. Ps.104.4,v.l. Heb. 1.7. 36. Ps. 2.7,8. Heb. 1.5. Acts Ps. 110.1 13.33. 39. Job 4.16-5.5 (Job 15.15) 42. Is. 60.17. from memory? [Greek: legei gar pou.] 46. [Greek: from Apocryphal Kollasthe tois book, or Ecclus. agiois hoti oi vi. 34? Clem. kollomenoi Alex. autois hagiasthaesontai] 46. Ps. 18.26,27. context ignored. 48. Ps. 118,19,20. Clem. Alex. loosely. 50. Is. 26.20. } Ezek. 37.12. }from memory? 50. Ps. 32. 1,2. 52. Ps. 69.31,32. 52. Ps. 50.14,15.+ } Ps. 51.17. } 53. Deut.9.12-14. } Barnabas Ex. 32.7,8. } similarly. 11,31,32. } Compression. 54. Ps. 241. 56. Ps. 118.18. Prov. 3.12. Ps. 141.5. +56. Job 5.17-26, v.l. +57. Prov. 1.23- 31.

[*Footnote: The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also found in Clement of Alexandria.]

It will be observed that the longest passages are among those that are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e.g. Gen. xiii. 14-16; Job v. 17-26; Ps. xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17; Prov. i. 23-31; Is. i. 16-20, liii. 1-12). Others, such as Gen. xii. 1-3, Deut. ix. 12-14, Job iv. 16-v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 35-38, l. 16-23, have only slight variations. There are only two passages of more than three consecutive verses in length that present wide divergences. These are, Ps. cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by a vague reference [Greek: legei gar pou] and is evidently quoted from memory, and the historical narration Josh. ii. 3-19. This is perhaps what we should expect: in longer quotations it would be better worth the writer's while to refer to his cumbrous manuscript. These purely mechanical conditions are too much lost sight of. We must remember that the ancient writer had not a small compact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verify a reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case, and then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like our modern books but would have only the columns, and those perhaps not numbered, to guide him. We must remember too that the memory was much more practised and relied upon in ancient times, especially among the Jews.

The composition of two or more passages is frequent, and the fusion remarkably complete. Of all the cases in which two passages are compounded, always from different chapters and most commonly from different books, there is not, I believe, one in which there is any mark of division or an indication of any kind that a different source is being quoted from. The same would hold good (with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer strings of quotations in cc. viii, xxix, and (from [Greek: aegapaesan] to [Greek: en auto]) in c. xv. But here the question is complicated by the possibility, and in the first place at least perhaps probability, that the writer is quoting from some apocryphal work no longer extant. It may be interesting to give one or two short examples of the completeness with which the process of welding has been carried out. Thus in c. xvii, the following reply is put into the mouth of Moses when he receives his commission at the burning bush, [Greek: tis eimi ego hoti me pempeis; ego de eimi ischnophonos kai braduglossos.] The text of Exod. iii. 11 is [Greek: tis eimi ego, oti poreusomai;] the rest of the quotation is taken from Exod. iv. 10. In c. xxxiv Clement introduces 'the Scripture' as saying, [Greek: Muriai muriades pareistaekeisan auto kai chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai ekekragon agios, agios, agios, Kurios Sabaoth, plaeraes pasa hae ktisis taes doxaes autou.] The first part of this quotation comes from Dan. vii. 10; the second, from [Greek: kai ekekragon], which is part of the quotation, from Is. vi. 3. These examples have been taken almost at random; the others are blended quite as thoroughly.

Some of the cases of combination and some of the divergences of text may be accounted for by the assumption of lost apocryphal books or texts; but it would be wholly impossible, and in fact no one would think of so attempting to account for all. There can be little doubt that Clement quotes from memory, and none that he quotes at times very freely.

We come next to the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the quotations in which I proceed to tabulate in the same way:—

Barnabas.

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks. Variant. +2. Is. 1.11-14. note for exactness. 2. Jer. 7.22,23. } combination Zec. 8.17. } from memory? Ps. 51.19. strange addition. 3. Is. 58.4, 5. Is. 58.6-10. 4. Dan. 7.24 }very Dan. 7.7, 8. } divergent. Ex. 34.28. }combination Ex. 31.18. } from memory? 4. Deut. 9.12. see below. (Ex. 32.7). +Is. 5.21. +5. Is. 54.5,7. text of Cod. A. (omissions.) 5. Prov. 1.17. Gen. 1.26+. 5. Zech. 13.7. text of A. (Hilg.) Matt. 26.3. Ps. 22.21. from memory? 5. Ps. 119.120. paraphrastic Ps. 22.17. combination from memory? Is. 50. 6,7. (omissions.) ditto. 6. Is. 50.8,9. ditto. 6. Is. 28.16. first clause exact, second variant; in N.T. quotations, first variant, second exact. Is. 50.7. note repetition, nearer to LXX. 6. Ps. 118.22. so Matt. 21.42; 1 Pet. 11.7. 6. Ps. 22.17+ 6. Ps. 118.24. from memory? (order). note repetition, nearer to LXX. Ps. 118.12. Ps. 22.19. Is. 3.9, 10. Ex. 33.1. from memory? Gen. 1.26+. note repetition, Gen. 1.28. further from LXX. Ezek. 11.19; paraphrastic. 36.26. Ps. 41.3. Ps. 22.23. different version? Gen. 1.26, 28. paraphrastic fusion. 7. Lev. 23.29. paraphrastic. Lev. 16.7, sqq. with apocryphal Lev. 16.7. sqq. addition; cp. Just. and Tert. 9. Ps. 18.44. 9. Is. 33.13+. 9. Jer. 4.4. Jer. 7.2. Ps. 34.13. Is. 1.2. but with additions. Is. 1.10+. from memory? [Greek: archontes toutou] for [Gr. a. Zodomon.] Is. 40.3. addition. Jer. 4.3 ,4. }repetition, Jer. 7.26. } nearer to LXX. Jer. 9.26. Gen. 17.26, 27; inferred sense cf. 14.14. merely, but with marks of quotation. 10. Lev. 11, selected examples, Deut. 14. but with examples of quotation. Deut. 4.1. 10. Ps. 1.1. Lev. 11.3. 11. Jer. 2.12, 13. +Is. 16.1, 2. [Greek: Zina] for [Greek: Zion]. 11. Is. 45. 2, 3. [Greek: gnosae] A. ([Greek: gnosin] Barn., but in other points more divergent. +Is. 33.16-18. omissions. 11. Ps. 1.3-6. note for exactness. 11. Zeph. 3.19. markedly diverse. Ezek. 47.12. ditto. 12. Is. 65.2. 12. Num. 21.9, apparently a sqq. quotation. Deut. 27.15. from memory? Ex. 17.14. 12. Ps. 110.1. 12. Is. 45.1. [Greek: kurio] for [Greek: kuro]. 13. Gen.25.21,23. 13. Gen. 48.11-19. very paraphrastic. Gen. 15.6; combination; cf. 17.5. Rom. 4.11. 14. Ex. 24.18. note addition of [Greek: naesteuon.] Ex. 31.18. note also for additions. 14. Deut. 9.12- repetition with 17+. similar variation. (Ex. 32.7.) note reading of A. 14. Is. 42.6,7. [Greek: pepedaemenous] for [Greek: dedemenous (kai] om. A.). Is. 49.6,7. Is. 61. 1,2. Luke. 4.18,19 diverges. 15. Ex. 20.8; paraphrastic, Deut. 5.12. with addition. Jer. 17.24,25. very paraphrastic. Gen. 2.2. Ps. 90.4. [Greek: saemeron] for [Greek: exthes]. 15. Is. 1.13. 16. Is. 40.12. omissions. Is. 66.1. 16. Is. 49.17. completely paraphrastic. Dan. 9.24. ditto. 25, 27.

The same remarks that were made upon Clement will hold also for Barnabas, except that he permits himself still greater licence. The marginal notes will have called attention to his eccentricities. He is carried away by slight resemblances of sound; e.g. he puts [Greek: himatia] for [Greek: iamata] [Endnote 34:1], [Greek: Zina] for [Greek: Zion], [Greek: Kurio] for [Greek: Kuro]. He not only omits clauses, but also adds to the text freely; e.g. in Ps. li. 19 he makes the strange insertion which is given in brackets, [Greek: Thusia to Theo kardia suntetrimmenae, [osmae euodias to kurio kardia doxasousa ton peplakota autaen]]. He has also added words and clauses in several other places. There can be no question that he quotes largely from memory; several of his quotations are repeated more than once (Deu. ix. 12; Is. l. 7; Ps. xxii. 17; Gen. i. 28; Jer. iv. 4); and of these only one, Deut. ix. 12, reappears in the same form. Often he gives only the sense of a passage; sometimes he interprets, as in Is. i. 10, where he paraphrases [Greek: archontes Sodomon] by the simpler [Greek: archontes tou laou toutou]. He has curiously combined the sense of Gen. xvii. 26, 27 with Gen. xiv. l4—in the pursuit of the four kings, it is said that Abraham armed his servants three hundred and eighteen men; Barnabas says that he circumcised his household, in all three hundred and eighteen men. In several cases a resemblance may be noticed between Barnabas and the text of Cod. A, but this does not appear consistently throughout.

It may be well to give a few examples of the extent to which Barnabas can carry his freedom of quotation. Instances from the Book of Daniel should perhaps not be given, as the text of that book is known to have been in a peculiarly corrupt and unsettled state; so much so that, when translation of Theodotion was made towards the end of the second century, it was adopted as the standard text. Barnabas also combines passages, though not quite to such an extent or so elaborately as Clement, and he too inserts no mark of division. We will give an example of this, and at the same time of his paraphrastic method of quotation:—

Barnabas c. ix.

[Greek: [kai ti legei;] Peritmaethaete to sklaeron taes kardias humon, kai ton trachaelon humon ou mae sklaerunaete.]

Jer. iv. 3, 4 and vii. 26.

[Greek: Peritmaethaete to theo humon, kai peritemesthe taen sklaerokardian humon ... kai esklaerunan ton trachaelon auton...]

A similar case of paraphrase and combination, with nothing to mark the transition from one passage to the other, would be in c. xi, Jer. ii. 12, 13 and Is. xvi. 1, 2. For paraphrase we may take this, from the same chapter:—

Barnabas c. xi.

[Greek: [kai palin heteros prophaetaes legei] Kai aen hae gae Iakob epainoumenae para pasan taen gaen.]

Zeph. iii. 19.

[Greek: kai thaesomai autous eis kauchaema kai onomastous en pasae tae gae.]

Barnabas c. xv.

[Greek: [autous de moi marturei legon] Idou saemeron haemera estai hos chilia etae.]

Ps. xc. 4

[Greek: hoti chilia etae en ophthalmois sou hos hae haemera hae echthes haetis diaelthe.]

A very curious instance of freedom is the long narrative of Jacob blessing the two sons of Joseph in c. xiii (compare Gen. xlviii. 11-19). We note here (and elsewhere) a kind of dramatic tendency, a fondness for throwing statements into the form of dialogue rather than narrative. As a narrative this passage may be compared with the history of Rahab and the spies in Clement.

And yet, in spite of all this licence in quotation, there are some rather marked instances of exactness; e.g. Is. i. 11-14 in c. ii, the combined passages from Ps. xxii. 17, cxvii. 12, xxii. 19 in c. vi, and Ps. i. 3-6 in c. xi. It should also be remembered that in one case, Deut. ix. 12 in cc. iv and xiv, the same variation is repeated and is also found in Justin.

It tallies with what we should expect, supposing the writings attributed to Ignatius (the seven Epistles) to be genuine, that the quotations from the Old as well as from the New Testament in them are few and brief. A prisoner, travelling in custody to the place of execution, would naturally not fill his letters with long and elaborate references. The quotations from the Old Testament are as follows:—

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks. variant. Ad Eph. 5. Prov. 3.34 James. 4.6, 1 Pet. 5.5, as Ignatius. Ad Magn. 12. Prov. 18.17. Ad Trall. 8. Is. 52.5.

The Epistle to the Ephesians is found also in the Syriac version. The last quotation from Isaiah, which is however not introduced with any express marks of reference, is very freely given. The original is, [Greek: tade legei kurios, di' humas dia pantos to onoma mou blasphaemeitai en tois ethnesi], for which Ignatius has, [Greek: ouai gar di' ou epi mataiotaeti to onoma mou epi tinon blasphaemeitai].

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the Martyrium S. Ignatii contain the following quotations:—

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks. variant. Polycarp, 2. Ps. 2.11. Ad. Phil. 10. Tob. 4.11. } 12. Ps. 4.4; }in Latin but through } version only. Eph. 4.26. } Mart. S. Ign. 2. Lev. 26.12. 6. Prov. 10.24.

The quotation from Leviticus differs widely from the original, [Greek: Kai emperipataeso en humin kai esomai humon theos kai humeis esesthe moi laos], for which we read, [Greek: [gegraptai gar] Enoikaeso en autois kai emperipataeso].

The quotations from the Clementine Homilies may be thus presented:—

_Exact._ _Slightly _Variant._ _Remarks._ Hom. 3. 18. Deut. 32.7. 39. +Gen. 18.21. Gen. 3.22. 39. Gen 6.6. Gen. 8.21. omission. Gen. 22.1. 42. Gen. 3.3. 43. Gen. 6.6. 43. Gen. 22.1. not quite as above. +Gen. 18.21. as above. Gen. 15.13-16. v.l. comp. text of A; note for exactness. 44. Gen. 18.21. as LXX. 45. Num. 11.34 [Greek: bounoun (al.) epithumion] for [Greek: mnaemata taes epithumas]. 47. Deut. 34.4,5. 49. Gen. 49.10. cf. Credner, _Beit._ 2.53. Hom. 11. 22. Gen. 1.1. Hom. 16. 6. Gen. 3.22. twice with slightly different order. Gen. 3.5. 6. Ex. 22.28. 6. Deut. 4.34. ?mem. [Greek: allothi tou gegraptai]. Jer. 10.11. Deut. 13.6. ?mem. [Greek: allae pou]. Josh. 23.7. Deut. 10.17. Ps. 35.10. Ps. 50.1. Ps. 82.1. Deut. 10.14. Deut. 4.39. Deut. 10.17. repeated as above. Deut. 10.17. very paraphrastic. Hom. 16. 6. Deut. 4.39. 7. Deut. 6.13. Deut. 6.4. 8. Josh. 23.7. as above. 8. Exod. 22.18 + Jer. 10.11. Gen. 1.1. Ps. 19.2. 8. Ps. 102.26. Gen. 1.26. 13. Deut. 13.1-3, very free. 9, 5, 3. Hom. 17. 18. Num. 12.6. }paraphrastic Ex. 33.11. } combination. Hom. 18. 17. Is. 40.26,27. free quotation. Deut. 30.13. ditto. 18. Is. 1.3. Is. 1.4.

The example of the Clementine Homilies shows conspicuously the extremely deceptive character of the argument from silence. All the quotations from the Old Testament found in them are taken from five Homilies (iii, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii) out of nineteen, although the Homilies are lengthy compositions, filling, with the translation and various readings, four hundred and fourteen large octavo pages of Dressel's edition [Endnote 38:1]. Of the whole number of quotations all but seven are taken from two Homilies, iii and xvi. If Hom. xvi and Hom. xviii had been lost, there would have been no evidence that the author was acquainted with any book of the Old Testament besides the Pentateuch; and, if the five Homilies had been lost, there would have been nothing to show that he was acquainted with the Old Testament at all. Yet the loss of the two Homilies would have left a volume of three hundred and seventy-seven pages, and that of the five a volume of three hundred and fifteen pages. In other words, it is possible to read three hundred and fifteen pages of the Homilies with five breaks and come to no quotation from the Old Testament at all, or three hundred and fifteen pages with only two breaks and come to none outside the Pentateuch. But the reduced volume that we have supposed, containing the fourteen Homilies, would probably exceed in bulk the whole of the extant Christian literature of the second century up to the time of Irenaeus, with the single exception of the works of Justin; it will therefore be seen how precarious must needs be any inference from the silence, not of all these writings, but merely of a portion of them.

For the rest, the quotations in the Homilies may be said to observe a fair standard of exactness, one apparently higher than that in the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; at the same time it should be remembered that the quotations in the Homilies are much shorter, only two reaching a length of three verses, while the longest quotations in the Epistle are precisely those that are most exact. The most striking instance of accuracy of quotation is perhaps Gen. xv. 13-16 in Hom. iii. 43. On the other hand, there is marked freedom in the quotations from Deut. iv. 34, x. 17, xiii. 1-3, xiii. 6. xxx. 15, Is. xl. 26, 27, and the combined passage, Num. xii. 6 and Ex. xxiii. 11. There are several repetitions, but these occur too near to each other to permit of any inference.

Our examination of the Old Testament quotations in Justin is greatly facilitated by the collection and discussion of them in Credner's Beitraege [Endnote 39:1], a noble example of that true patient work which is indeed the reverse of showy, but forms the solid and well-laid foundation on which alone genuine knowledge can be built. Credner has collected and compared in the most elaborate manner the whole of Justin's quotations with the various readings in the MSS. of the LXX; so that we may state our results with a much greater confidence than in any other case (except perhaps Clement of Rome, where we have the equally accurate and scholarly guidance of Dr. Lightfoot [Endnote 40:1]) that we are not led astray by imperfect materials. I have availed myself freely of Credner's collection of variants, indicating the cases where the existence of documentary (or, in some places, inferential) evidence for Justin's readings has led to the quotation being placed in a different class from that to which it would at first sight seem to belong. I have also, as hitherto, not assumed an absolutely strict standard for admission to the first class of 'exact' quotations. Many of Justin's quotations are very long, and it seemed only right that in these the standard should be somewhat, though very slightly, relaxed. The chief point that we have to determine is the extent to which the writers of the first century were in the habit of freely paraphrasing or quoting from memory, and it may as a rule be assumed that all the instances in the first class and most (not quite all) of those in the second do not admit of such an explanation. I have been glad in every case where a truly scientific and most impartial writer like Credner gives his opinion, to make use of it instead of my own. I have the satisfaction to think that whatever may be the value of the other sections of this enquiry, this at least is thoroughly sound, and based upon a really exhaustive sifting of the data.

The quotations given below are from the undoubted works of Justin, the Dialogue against Tryphon and the First Apology; the Second Apology does not appear to contain any quotations either from the Old or New Testament.

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks. variant. Apol. 1.59, Gen. 1.1-3. Dial. 62, Gen. 1. 26-28. Dial. 102, Gen. free quotation 3.15. (Credner). D.62, Gen. 3.22. D.127, Gen. 7.16. D.139, Gen. 9. 24-27. D.127, Gen. 11.5. free quotation (Cr.) D.102, Gen. 11.6. D.92, Gen. 15.6. free quotation (Cr.) Dial.10, +Gen. 17.14. D.127, Gen. 17.22. D.56, +Gen. 18. ver. 2 repeated 1, 2. similarly. +Gen. 18. 13, 14. repeated, slightly more +Gen. 18. 16-23, divergent. 33. +Gen. 19. 1, 10, 16-28 (om. 26). marked exactness in the whole passage. D.56, Gen. 21. 9-12. D.120, Gen. 26.4. D.58, Gen. 28. 10-12. D.58, +(v.l.) Gen. 28. 13-19. +(v.l.) Gen. 31. 10-13. D.59, Gen. 35.1. free quotation (Cr.) D.58, Gen. 35. 6-10 (v.l.) D. 52, Gen. 49. repeated 8-12. similarly. D. 59, Ex. 2. 23. D. 60, Ex. 3.2-4+. A.1. 62, Ex. 3. 5. from memory (Cr.) D. 59, Ex. 3. 16. A. 1.63, Ex. 3.16 ver.16 freely (ter), 17. quoted (Cr.) [Greek: eirae- tai pou.] D. 126, Ex.6.2-4. D. 49, Ex. 17.16. free quotation (Cr.) D. 94, Ex. 20.4. ditto (Cr.) D. 75, Ex. 23.20, from Lectionary 21. (Cr.) D.16, Lev. 26.40, D. 20, Ex. 32. 6. free (Cr.) 41 (v.l.) D. 126, Num. 11. 23. A.1.60 (or. obl.), free (Cr.) D. 94, Num. 21. 8,9. D. 106, Num. 24. through Targum 17. (Cr.) D. 16, Deut. 10. from memory 16, 17. (Cr.) D.96, Deut. 21.23. both precisely Deut. 27.26. as St. Paul in Galatians, and quoted thence (Cr.) D. 126, Deut. 31. 2, 3 (v.l.) D. 74, Deut. 31. 16-18 (v.l.) D. 131, Deut. 32. 7-9 (tr.) D.20, Deut. 32.15. D. 119, Deut. 32. Targum (Cr.) 16-23. D. 130, Deut. 32. 43 (v.l.) D. 91, +Deut. 33. 13-17. A.1. 40, Ps. 1 and parts repeated. 2 entire. D.97, Ps. 3. 5, 6. repeated, more freely. D.114, Ps. 8.4. D.27, Ps. 14.3. D.28, Ps.18.44,45. D. 64, Ps.19.6 perhaps from (A.1.40, vv.1-5). different MSS., see Credner. D.97 ff., Ps. 22. quoted as 1-23. whole Psalm (bis). D.133 ff., Ps. 24 entire. D.141, Ps. 32. 2. D.38, Ps. 45.1-17. parts repeated. D.37, Ps. 47.6-9. D.22, Ps. 49 entire. D.34} {from Eph. 4.8, D.37} Ps. 68.8. { Targum. D.34, Ps. 72 entire. D. 124, Ps. 82 entire. D.73, Ps. 96 note Christian entire. interpolation in ver. 10. D.37, Ps. 99 entire. D. 83, Ps. 110. from memory D.32, Ps. 110 1-4. (Cr.) entire. D.110, Ps. 128.3. from memory D.85, Ps. 148. (Cr.) 1, 2. A.1. 37, Is. 1. 3, 4. A.1. 47, Is. 1.7 sense only (Jer. 2.15). (Cr.) D.140 (A.1. 53), Is. 1.9. A.1. 37, Is. 1. from memory 11-14. (Cr.) A.1. 44 (61), Is. omissions. 1.16-30. D.82, Is. 1. 23. from memory A.1. 39, Is. 2. (Cr.) 3,4. D.135, Is. 2. 5,6. Targum (Cr.) D. 133, Is. 3. 9-15 (v.l.) D.27, Is. 3.16. free quotation (Cr.) D.133, Is. 5. 18- repeated. 25 (v.l.) D.43 (66), Is. 7. repeated, with 10-17 (v.l.) slight variation. A.1.35, Is. 9.6. free (Cr.) D.87, Is. 11.1-3. [A.1.32, Is. 11.1; free combination Num. 24.17. (Cr.)] D.123, Is. 14.1. D.123, Is. 19.24, 25+. D.78, Is. 29.13,14. repeated (v.l), partly from memory. D.79, Is. 30.1-5. D.70, Is.33.13-19. D.69, Is. 35.1-7. A.1.48, Is. 35.5,6. free; cf. Matt. 11.5 (var.) D.50, Is. 39. 8, 40.1-17. D.125} Is.42.1-4. {cf. Matt. 12. D.135} { 17-21, Targum (Cr.) D.65, Is. 42.6-13 (v.l.) D.122, Is. 42.16. free (Cr.) D.123, Is. 42.19, 20. D.122, Is. 43.10. A.1.52, Is. 45. cf. Rom. 14.11. 24 (v.l.) D.121, Is. 49.6 (v.l.) D.122, Is. 49.8 (v.l.) D.102, Is. 50.4. A.1.38, Is. 50. Barn., Tert., 6-8. Cypr. D.11, Is. 51.4, 5. D.17, Is. 52.5 (v.l.) D.12, Is. 5 2, 10-15, 53.1-12, 54.1-6. A.1. 50, Is. 52. 13-53.12. D.138, Is. 54.9. very free. D.14, Is. 55.3-13. [D.12, Is. 55. 3-5. from memory (Cr.)] D.16, Is.57.1-4. repeated. D.15, Is.58.1-11 [Greek: (v.l.) himatia] for [Greek: iamata]; so Barn., Tert, Cyp., Amb., Aug. D.27, Is. 58. 13, 14. D.26, +Is. 62.10- [Greek: 10-63.6. susseismon] for [Greek: sussaemon]. D.25, Is. 63.15- 19, 64.1-12. D.24, Is. 65. 1-3. [A.1.49, Is. 65. from memory 1-3. (Cr.)] D.136, Is. 65.8. D.135, Is. 65.9-12 D.81, Is. 65.17-25 D.22, Is. 66.1. from memory (Cr.) D.85, Is. 66.5-11. D.44, Is. 66. 24 from memory (ter). (Cr.) D.114, Jer. 2.13; as from Is. 16.1; Jeremiah, Jer. 3.8. traditional combination; cf. Barn. 2. D.28, Jer. 4.3, 4 (v.l.) D.23, Jer. 7.21,22. free quotation (Cr.) D. 28, Jer. 9.25,26 [A.1.53, Jer. 9.26. quoted freely as from Isaiah.] D.72, Jer. 11.19. omissions. D. 78, Jer. 31.15 so Matt. 2.18 (38.15, LXX). through Targum (Cr.) D.123, Jer. 31.27 free quotation (38. 27). (Cr.) D.11, Jer. 31.31, 32 (38.31, 32). D.72. a passage quoted as from Jeremiah, which is not recognisable in our present texts. D. 82, Ezek. 3. free quotation 17-19. (Cr.) D.45} Ezek. 14. } repeated 44} 20; cf. 14, } similarly and 140} 16, 18. } equally } divergent from } LXX. D.77, Ezek. 16. 3. D.21, Ezek. 20. 19-26. D.123, Ezek. 36. 12. A.1.52, Ezek. very free (Cr.) 37. 7.

[Footnote: Justin has in Dial. 31 (also in Apol. 1. 51, ver. 13, from memory) a long quotation from Daniel, Dan. 7. 9-28; his text can only be compared with a single MS. of the LXX, Codex Chisianus; from this it differs considerably, but many of the differences reappear in the version of Theodotion; 7. 10, 13 are also similarly quoted in Rev., Mark, Clem. Rom.]

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks. variant. D.19, Hos. 1.9. D.102, Hos.10.6. referred to trial before Herod (Cr.) D.87, Joel 2.28. from memory (Cr.) D. 22, +Amos 5.18-6. 7 (v.l.) D. 107, Jonah 4. 10-11 (v.l. Heb.) D. 109, Micah 4. divergent from 1-7 (Heb.?) LXX. A.1.34} Micah 5.2. {precisely as D.78 } { Matt. 2.6. A.1.52, Zech. 2.6. {free quotations D. 137, Zech. 2. 8. { (Cr.) D. 115, Zach. 2. [D. 79, Zech. 3. freely (Cr.)] 10-3. 2 (Heb.?) 1, 2. D.106, Zach. 6.12. A.1.52, Zech. 12. repeated di- 11,12,10. versely [note reading of Christian ori- gin (Cr.) in ver. 10: so John 19.37; cp. Rev. 1.7]. D.43, Zech. 13. 7. diversely in Matt. 26.31, proof that Justin is not dependent on Matthew (Cr.) D.28, 41, Mal. 1. D. 117, Mal. 1. 10-12 (v.l.) 10-12. D.62, +Joshua 5. omissions. 13-15; 6.1, 2 (v.l.) D.118, 2 Sam. 7. from memory 14-16. (Cr.) D.39, 1 Kings 19. freely (Cr.); 14, 15, 18. cf. Rom. 11.3. A.1.55, Lam. 4. 20 (v.l.) D.79, Job 1.6. sense only (Cr.) D.61, +Prov. 8. coincidence 21-36. with Ire- naeus.

[Footnote: D. 72 a passage ostensibly from Ezra, but probably an apocryphal addition, perhaps from Preaching of Peter; same quotation in Lactantius.]

It is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter that Justin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted nine Psalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated) that it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty- three verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given with extraordinary fulness. These longer passages are generally quoted accurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of the LXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority for his reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out these varieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to the relations and comparative value of the different MSS., form perhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more marked divergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (1) quotation from memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in the shorter passages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialogue with Tryphon; (2) in Messianic passages the use of a Targum, not immediately by Justin himself but in some previous document from which he quotes, in order to introduce a more distinctly Christian interpretation; the coincidences between Justin and other Christian writers show that the text of the LXX had been thus modified in a Christian sense, generally through a closer comparison with and nearer return to the Hebrew, before his time. The instances of free quotation are not perhaps quite fully given in the above list, but it will be seen that though they form a marked phenomenon, still more marked is the amount of exactness. Any long, not Messianic, passage, it appears to be the rule with Justin to quote exactly. Among the passages quoted freely there seem to be none of greater length than four verses.