By W. Sanday, M.A.
[2:1] With regard to the references in vol. i. p. 259, n. 1, I had already observed, before the appearance of the preface to the sixth edition, that they were really intended to apply to the first part of the sentence annotated rather than the second. Still, as there is only one reference out of nine that really supports the proposition in immediate connection with which the references are made, the reader would be very apt to carry away a mistaken impression. The same must be said of the set of references defended on p. xl. sqq. of the new preface. The expressions used do not accurately represent the state of the facts. It is not careful writing, and I am afraid it must be said that the prejudice of the author has determined the side which the expression leans. But how difficult is it to make words express all the due shades and qualifications of meaning--how difficult especially for a mind that seems to be naturally distinguished by force rather than by exactness and delicacy of observation! We have all 'les défauts de nos qualités.'
[10:1] Much harm has been done by rashly pressing human metaphors and analogies; such as, that Revelation is a _message_ from God and therefore must be infallible, &c. This is just the sort of argument that the Deists used in the last century, insisting that a revelation, properly so called, _must_ be presented with conclusive proofs, _must_ be universal, _must_ be complete, and drawing the conclusion that Christianity is not such a revelation. This kind of reasoning has received its sentence once for all from Bishop Butler. We have nothing to do with what _must_ be (of which we are, by the nature of the case, incompetent judges), but simply with what _is_.
[18:1] Cf. Westcott, _Canon_, p. 152, n. 2 (3rd ed. 1870).
[18:2] See Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 60; also Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. 66 ('certainly' from St. Paul).
[20:1] _The Old Testament in the New_ (London and Edinburgh, 1868).
[21:1] Mr. M'Clellan (_The New Testament_, &c., vol. i. p. 606, n. c) makes the suggestion, which from his point of view is necessary, that 'S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by Jeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Testament, and of which the passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduction.' Cf. Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. 152.
[25:1] We do not stay to discuss the real origin of these quotations: the last is probably not from the Old Testament at all.
[27:1] The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also found in Clement of Alexandria.
[34:1] It should be noticed, however, that the same reading is found in Justin and other writers.
[38:1] _Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti_ (Gottingae, 1853).
[39:1] _Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften_ (Halle, 1832).
[40:1] _The Epistles of S. Clement of Rome_ (London and Cambridge, 1869).
[49:1] The Latin translation is not in most cases a sufficient guarantee for the original text. The Greek has been preserved in the shape of long extracts by Epiphanius and others. The edition used is that of Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853.
[49:2] Horne's _Introduction_ (ed. 1856), p. 333.
[52:1] Ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae, 1859. [The index given in vol. iii. p. 893 sqq. contains many inaccuracies, and is, indeed, of little use for identifying the passages of Scripture.]
[56:1] _Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria,_ p. 407 sqq.
[56:2] In the new Preface to his work on the Canon (4th edition, 1875), p. xxxii.
[58:1] _S.R._ i. p. 221, and note.
[59:1] _S.R._ i. p. 222, n. 3.
[59:2] _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ p. 74 (p. 82 _S.R._?).
[59:3] _Das nachapost. Zeitalter_, p. 126 sq.
[60:1] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 64; compare Fritzche, art. 'Judith' in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_.
[61:1] Vol. i. p. 221, n. I feel it due to the author to say that I have found his long lists of references, though not seldom faulty, very useful. I willingly acknowledge the justice of his claim to have 'fully laid before readers the actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has been made' (Preface to sixth edition, p. lxxx).
[65:1] i. p. 226.
[66:1] i. p. 228.
[69:1] _Der Ursprung_, p. 138.
[71:1] _The Apostolical Fathers_ (London, 1874), p. 273.
[71:2] The original Greek of this work is lost, but in the text as reconstructed by Hilgenfeld from five still extant versions (Latin, Syriac, Aethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the verse runs thus, [Greek: polloi men ektisthaesan, oligoi de sothaesontai] (_Messias Judaeorum_, p. 69).
[73:1] A curious instance of disregard of context is to be seen in Tertullian's reading of John i. 13, which he referred to _Christ_, accusing the Valentinians of falsification because they had the ordinary reading (cf. Rönsch, _Das Neue Testament Tertullian's_, pp. 252, 654). Compare also p. 24 above.
[73:2] _Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum_, Fasc. ii. p. 69.
[74:1] c. v.
[74:2] _S. R._ i. p. 250 sqq.
[76:1] Lardner, _Credibility, &c_., ii. p .23; Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 50, n. 5.
[77:1] Since this was written the author of 'Supernatural Religion' has replied in the preface to his sixth edition. He has stated his case in the ablest possible manner: still I do not think that there is anything to retract in what has been written above. There _would_ have been something to retract if Dr. Lightfoot had maintained positively the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles. As to the Syriac, the question seems to me to stand thus. On the one side are certain improbabilities--I admit, improbabilities, though not of the weightiest kind--which are met about half way by the parallel cases quoted. On the other hand, there is the express testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp quoted in its turn by Irenaeus. Now I cannot think that there is any improbability so great (considering our ignorance) as not to be outweighed by this external evidence.
[81:1] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec._, Fasc. iv. p. 15.
[81:2] Cf. _ibid._, pp. 56, 62, also p. 29.
[82:1] But see _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 838, from which it appears that M. Waddington has recently proved the date to be rather 155 or 156. Compare Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 72, where reference is made to an essay by Lipsius, _Der Märtyrertod Polycarp's_ in _Z. f. w. T._ 1874, ii. p. 180 f.
[82:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 3, 4.
[83:1] _Entstehung der alt-katholischen Kirche_, p. 586; Hefele, _Patrum Apostolicorum Opera_, p. lxxx.
[84:1] Cf. _S. R._ i. p. 278.
[84:2] _Ent. d. a. K._ pp. 593, 599.
[84:3] _Apostolical Fathers_, p. 227 sq.
[84:4] _Ursprung_, pp. 43, 131.
[85:1] [Greek: mnaemoneuontes de hon eipen ho kurios didaskon; mae krinete hina mae krithaete; aphiete kai aphethaesetai hymin; eleeite hina eleaethaete; en ho metro metreite, antimetraethaesetai hymin; kai hoti makarioi hoi ptochoi kai hoi diokomenoi heneken dikaiosynaes, hoti auton estin hae basileia tou Theou.]
[89:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, 1. p. 138, n. 2.
[89:2] _Einleilung in das N. T._ p. 66, where Lipsius' view is also quoted.
[89:3] Cf. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 88, n. 4.
[89:4] As appears to be suggested in _S. R._ i. p. 292. The reference in the note to Bleek, _Einl._ p. 637 (and Ewald?), does not seem to be exactly to the point.
[89:5] _Apol._ i. 67.
[90:1] _Dial. c. Tryph._ 103.
[90:2] _Apol._ i. 66; cf. _S.R._ i. p. 294.
[91:1] The evangelical references and allusions in Justin have been carefully collected by Credner and Hilgenfeld, and are here thrown together in a sort of running narrative.
[101:1] This was written before the appearance of Mr. M'Clellan's important work on the Four Gospels (_The New Testament_, vol. i, London, 1875), to which I have not yet had time to give the study that it deserves.
[103:1] Unless indeed it was found in one of the many forms of the Gospel (cf. _S.R._ i. P. 436, and p. 141 below). The section appears in none of the forms reproduced by Dr. Hilgenfeld (_N.T. extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv).
[107:1] In like manner Tertullian refers his readers to the 'autograph copies' of St. Paul's Epistles, and the very 'chairs of the Apostles,' preserved at Corinth and elsewhere. (_De Praescript. Haeret._ c. 36). Tertullian also refers to the census of Augustus, 'quem testem fidelissimum dominicae nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt' (_Adv. Marc._ iv. 7).
[110:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 261 sqq.
[110:2] _Evangelien Justin's u.s.w._, p. 270 sqq.
[110:3] The chief authority is Eus. _H. E._ vi. 12.
[110:4] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157.
[116:1] A somewhat similar classification has been made by De Wette, _Einleitung in das N. T._, pp. 104-110, in which however the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which I have assumed; several instances of variation which I had classed as decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I may consider this a proof that the classification above given has not been influenced by bias.
[119:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 237.
[119:2] _S.R._ i. p. 396 sqq.
[120:1] _Die drei ersten Evangelien_, Göttingen, 1850. [A second, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared.]
[120:2] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88.
[120:3] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, Berlin, 1872, p. 299.
[120:4] _Beiträge_, i. p. 219.
[120:5] Dr. Westcott well calls this 'the _prophetic_ sense of the present' (_On the Canon_, p. 128).
[122:1] 'This is meaningless,' writes Mr. Baring-Gould of the canonical text, rather hastily, and forgetting, as it would appear, the concluding cause (_Lost and Hostile Gospels_, p. 166); cp. _S.R._ i. p. 354, ii. p. 28.
[123:1] i. pp. 196, 227, 258.
[123:2] _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon_ (ed. Volkmar, Berlin, 1860), p. 16.
[124:1] _Adv. Haer._ 428 D.
[124:2] I am not quite clear that more is meant (as Meyer, Ellicott _Huls. Lect._ p. 339, n. 2, and others maintain) in the evangelical language than that the drops of sweat 'resembled blood;' [Greek: hosei] seems to qualify [Greek: haimatos] as much as [Greek: thromboi]. Compare especially the interesting parallels from medical writers quoted by McClellan _ad loc._
[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by Mr. McClellan to Philo i.164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase is however [Greek: isos angeloi (gegonos)].
[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 304 sqq.
[130:1] _Ev. Justin's_, p. 157.
[135:1] Scrivener, _Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T_. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874).
[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more than I did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony. The phenomena of variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributed to allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from different Gospels. But the data will need a closer weighing before this can be determined.
[138:1] _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 169 sqq.
[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argument which follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot's, and is, I believe, in the main sound (_Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst?_ p. 113 sqq., 4th edition, 1866).
[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition of _S. R._ that the argument from silence is practically waived. If the silence of Eusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he is silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular Gospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving that the Gospels in question _were_ acknowledged. The matter may well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence of Eusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them. I agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' that the point is not one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of by other writers, e.g. Strauss and Renan. [The author has missed Dr. Lightfoot's point on p. xxiii. What Eusebius bears testimony to is, _not_ his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth Gospel, but its _undisputed_ canonicity, i.e. a historical fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If I say that _Hamlet_ is an undisputed play of Shakspeare's, I mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare's myself, but that all the critics from Shakspeare's time downwards have believed it to be his.]
[140:1] _H. E._ iv. 22.
[141:1] _S. R._ i. p. 436.
[141:2] _Einleitung_, p. 103.
[141:3] _Das Nachapost. Zeit._ i. p. 238.
[141:4] _Beiträge_, i. p. 401.
[141:5] _Nov. Test. extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv. pp. 19, 20.
[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat parallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of Clement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek: aphiete, hina aphethae humin (kai aphethaesetai humin)].
[144:1] _Contemporary Review_, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf. Routh, _Reliquiae Sacrae_, i. p. 281 _ad fin._
[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the 'Ancient Syriac Versions' in Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that 'these words might be a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand' in the Curetonian text.
[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above.
[146:1] _H.E._ iii. 39.
[147:1] In Mr. M'Clellan's recent _Harmony_ I notice only two deviations from the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller's _Harmony_ (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which there are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20, xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson's English _Harmony_ three, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these passages vi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place of which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in _Cont. Rev._, Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf in proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot be maintained. But Tischendorf's Harmony is based on the assumption that St. Luke's use of [Greek: kathexaes] pledges him to a chronological order, and Anger adopts Griesbach's hypothesis that Mark is a compilation from Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious harmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.]
[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining the points of resemblance between the Gospels in different coloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each section.
[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Credner by Bleek and De Wette. The results will be found in Holtzmann, _Synopt. Ev._ p. 259 sqq.
[154:1] Cf. Holtzmann, _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, p. 255 sq.; Ebrard, _The Gospel History_ (Engl. trans.), p. 247; Bleek, _Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien_, i. p. 367. The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has much plausibility.
[155:1] _On the Canon_, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word will bear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot's recent investigations, in view of which the two sentences that follow should perhaps be cancelled; see _Cont. Rev._, Aug. 1875, p. 399 sqq.]
[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touch those of Dr. Lightfoot in the _Contemporary Review_ for August and October: neither do Dr. Lightfoot's arguments seem very much to affect them. The method of the one is chiefly external, that of the other almost entirely internal. I can only for the present leave what I had written; but I do not for a moment suppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particular standpoint that I have taken.]
[162:1] The lists given in _Supernatural Religion_ (ii. p. 2) seem to be correct so far as I am able to check them. In the second edition of his work on the Origin of the Old Catholic Church, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admit that the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side, sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonable warning in Reuss (_Gesch. h. S. N. T._ p. 254) that the Tübingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate the polemical aspect of the writing.
[162:2] It should be noticed that Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, though assigning the second place to the Homilies, both take the _terminus ad quem_ for this work no later than 180 A.D. It seems that a Syriac version, partly of the Homilies, partly of the Recognitions, exists in a MS. which itself was written in the year 411, and bears at that date marks of transcription from a still earlier copy (cf. Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 341, n. 1).
[163:1] This table is made, as in the case of Justin, with the help of the collection of passages in the works of Credner and Hilgenfeld.
[167:1] Or rather perhaps 'morning baptism.' (Cf. Lightfoot, _Colossians,_ p. 162 sqq., where the meaning of the name and the character and relations of the sect are fully discussed).
[168:1] _Hom._ i. 6; ii. 19, 23; iii. 73; iv. 1; xiii. 7; xvii. 19.
[170:1] So Tregelles expressly (_Introduction_, p. 240), after Wiseman; Scrivener (_Introd._, p. 308) adds (?); M'Clellan classes with 'Italic Family' (p. lxxiii). [On returning to this passage I incline rather more definitely to regard the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], from the group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption. Still the Clementine writer may have had it before him.]
[170:2] ii. p. 10 sqq.
[172:1] ii. p. 21.
[172:2] Preface to the fourth edition of _Canon_, p. xxxii.
[174:1] _Evangelien_, p. 31.
[174:2] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 282.
[175:1] _Synopt. Ev._ p. 193.
[176:1] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, p. 295.
[178:1] A friend has kindly extracted for me, from Holmes and Parsons, the authorities for the Septuagint text of Deut. vi. 4. For [Greek: sou] there are 'Const. App. 219, 354, 355; Ignat. Epp. 104, 112; Clem. Al. 68, 718; Chrys. i. 482 et saepe, al.' For _tuus_, 'Iren. (int.), Tert., Cypr., Ambr., Anonym. ap. Aug., Gaud., Brix., Alii Latini.' No authorities for [Greek: humon]. Was the change first introduced into the text of the New Testament?
[178:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 25.
[179:1] _Beiträge_, i. p. 326.
[179:2] _On the Canon_, p. 261, n. 2.
[188:1] _Hom._ 1. _in Lucam_.
[189:1] _H.E._ iv. 7.
[189:2] _Strom._ iv. 12.
[189:3] _S.R._ ii. p. 42.
[189:4] _Ibid._ n. 2; cp. p. 47.
[190:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii, 27.
[190:2] ii. p. 45.
[191:1] _Ref. Omn. Haer._ vii. 20.
[192:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 49.
[197:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Pref. 2.
[198:1] ii. p. 59.
[199:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq.
[200:1] _Strom._ ii. 20; see Westcott, _Canon_, p. 269; Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 152.
[203:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 7, 9.
[203:2] _Ibid._ iii. 12. 12.
[204:1] The corresponding chapter to this in 'Supernatural Religion' has been considerably altered, and indeed in part rewritten, in the sixth edition. The author very kindly sent me a copy of this after the appearance of my article in the _Fortnightly Review_, and I at once made use of it for the part of the work on which I was engaged; but I regret that my attention was not directed, as it should have been, to the changes in this chapter until it was too late to take quite sufficient account of them. The argument, however, I think I may say, is not materially affected. Several criticisms which I had been led to make in the _Fortnightly_ I now find had been anticipated, and these have been cancelled or a note added in the present work; I have also appended to the volume a supplemental note of greater length on the reconstruction of Marcion's text, the only point on which I believe there is really very much room for doubt.
[205:1] See above, p. 89.
[205:2] _Apol._ i. 26.
[205:3] _Ibid._ i. 58.
[205:4] ii. p. 80.
[205:5] _Der Ursprung_, p. 89.
[205:6] Cf. Tertullian, _De Praescript. Haeret._ c. 38.
[206:1] _Adv. Haer._ iv. 27. 2; 12. 12.
[209:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, pp. 28-54. [Volkmar's view is stated less inadequately in the sixth edition of _S. R._, but still not quite adequately. Perhaps it could hardly be otherwise where arguments that were originally adduced in favour of one conclusion are employed to support its opposite.]
[210:1] [Greek: oida] for [Greek: oidas] in Luke xiv. 20. Cf. Volkmar, p. 46.
[211:1] _Das Ev. Marcion's_, p. 45.
[211:2] _Ibid._ pp. 46-48.
[211:3] 'We have, in fact, no guarantee of the accuracy or trustworthiness of any of their statements' (_S.R._ ii. p. 100). We have just the remarkable coincidence spoken of above. It does not prove that Tertullian did not faithfully reproduce the text of Marcion to show, which is the real drift of the argument on the preceding page (_S.R._ ii. p. 99), that he had not the canonical Gospel before him; rather it removes the suspicion that he might have confused the text of Marcion's Gospel with the canonical.
[212:1] This table has been constructed from that of De Wette, _Einleitung_, pp. 123-132, compared with the works of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.
[213:1]: _S.R._ ii. p. 110, n. 3. The statement is mistaken in regard to Volkmar and Hilgenfeld. Both these writers would make Marcion retain this passage. It happens rather oddly that this is one of the sections on which the philological evidence for St. Luke's authorship is least abundant (see below).
[215:1] There is direct evidence for the presence in Marcion's Gospel of the passages relating to the personages here named, except Martha and Mary; see _Tert. Adv. Marc._ iv. 19, 37, 43.
[217:1] _S. R._ ii. 142 sq.
[217:2] This admission does not damage the credit of Tertullian and Epiphanius as witnesses; because what we want from them is a statement of the facts; the construction which they put upon the facts is a matter of no importance.
[217:3] The omission in 2 Cor. iv. 13 must be due to Marcion (_Epiph._ 321 c.); so probably an insertion in 1 Cor. ix. 8.
[218:1] Tert. _Adv. Marc._ v. 16: 'Haec si Marcion de industria erasit,' &c. V. 14: 'Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum intercisae scripturae.' V. 3: 'Ostenditur quid supra haeretica industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae,' &c. Cf. Bleek, _Einleitung_, p. 136; Hilgenfeld, _Evv. Justin's_, &c., p. 473.
[219:1] 'Anno xv. Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatus est' (Tert. _Adv. Marc._ i. 19).
[220:1] I give mainly the explanations of Volkmar, who, it should be remembered, is the very reverse of an apologist, indicating the points where they seem least satisfactory.
[220:2] It is highly probable that many of the points mentioned by Tertullian and Epiphanius as 'adulterations' were simply various readings in Marcion's Codex; such would be v. 14, x. 25, xvii. 2, and xxiii. 2, which are directly supported by other authority: xi. 2 and xii. 28 would probably belong to this class. So perhaps the insertion of iv. 27 in the history of the Samaritan leper. The phenomenon of a transposition of verses from one part of a Gospel to another is not an infrequent one in early MSS.
[223:1] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, 1863, pp. 302 sqq.
[224:1] Where a reference is given thus in brackets, it is confirmatory, from the part of the Gospel retained by Marcion.
[229:1] An analysis of the words which are only found in St. Luke, or very rarely found elsewhere, gives the following results.--The number of words found only in the portion of the Gospel retained by Marcion and in the Acts is 231; that of words found in these retained portions and not besides in the Gospels or the two other Synoptics is 58; and both these classes together for the portions omitted in Marcion's Gospel reach a total of 62, which is decidedly under the proportion that might have been expected. The list is diminished by a number of words which are found only in the omitted and retained portions, furnishing evidence, as above, that both proceed from the same hand.
[231:1] This list has been made from the valuable work of Rönsch, _Das Neue Testament Tertullian's_, 1871, and the critical editions, compared with the text of Marcion's Gospel as given by Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.
[231:2] It might be thought that Tertullian was giving his own text and not that of Marcion's Gospel, but this supposition is excluded both by the confirmation which he receives from Epiphanius, and also by the fact, which is generally admitted (see _S.R._ ii. p. 100), that he had not the canonical Luke, but only Marcion's Gospel before him.
[233:1] See Crowfoot, _Observations on the Collation in Greek of Cureton's Syriac Fragments of the Gospels_, 1872, p. 5; Scrivener, _Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, 2nd edition, 1874, p. 452.
[233:2] See Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 307 sq.; and Dr. Westcott's article on the 'Vulgate' in Smith's Dictionary. It should be noticed that Dr. Westcott's literation differs from that of Dr. Scrivener and Tregelles, which has been adopted here.
[235:1] Cf. Friedländer, _Sittengeschichte Roms_, iii. p. 315.
[238:1] See p. 89, above.
[238:2] _Strom._ iii. 12; compare _S.R._ ii. p. 151.
[239:1] [Greek: Ho mentoi ge proteros auton archaegos ho Tatianos sunapheian tina kai sunagogaen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion suntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasin, ho kai para tisin eiseti nun pheretai.] _H. E._ iv. 29.
[239:2] _Beiträge_, i. p. 441.
[240:1] _Haer._ 391 D (xlvi. 1).
[240:2] [Greek: Outos kai to dia tessaron kaloumenon suntetheiken euangelion, tas te genealogias perikopsas, kai ta alla, hosa ek spermatos Dabid kata sorka genennaemenon ton Kurion deiknusin. Echraesanto de touto ou monon oi taes ekeinou summorias, alla kai oi tous apostolikois epomenoi dogmasi, taen taes sunthaekaes kakourgian ouk egnokotes, all' aplousteron hos suntomo to biblio chraesamenoi. Euron de kago pleious ae diakosias biblous toiautas en tais par' haemin ekklaesiois tetimaemenas, kai pasas sunagagan apethemaen, kai ta ton tettaron euangeliston anteisaegagon euangelia] (_Haeret. Fab._ i. 20, quoted by Credner, _Beiträge_, i. p. 442).
[240:3] See _S.R._ ii. p. 15.
[241:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 162; compare Credner, _Beiträge_, i. p. 446 sqq.
[241:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8.
[241:3] _Beit_. i. p. 443.
[241:4] May not Tatian have given his name to a collection of materials begun, used, and left in a more or less advanced stage of compilation, by Justin? However, we can really do little more than note the resemblance: any theory we may form must be purely conjectural.
[242:1] [Greek: Epistolas gar adelphon axiosanton me grapsai egarapsa. Kai tautas oi tou diabolon apostoloi zizanion gegemikan, ha men exairountes, ha de prostithentes. Ois to ouai keitai. Ou thaumaston ara, ei kai ton kuriakon rhadiourgaesai tines epibeblaentai graphon, hopote tais ou toiautais epibebouleukasi.] _H.E._ iv. 23 (Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 181).
[243:1] [Greek: Allae d' epistolae tis autou pros Nikomaedeas pheretai en hae taen Markionos airesin polemon to taes alaetheias paristatai kanoni]. _H.E._ iv. 23_.
[244:1] [Greek: Akribos mathon ta taes palaias diathaekaes Biblia, hipotaxas epempsa soi.] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 (Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 119).
[245:1] Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 201.
[245:2] ii. p. 177.
[245:3] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 1 (cf. Rönsch, _Das neue Testament Tertullian's_, p. 48), 'duo deos dividens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius instrumenti--vel, _quod magis usui est dicere, testamenti_.'
[246:1] [Greek: Eisi toinun hoi di' hagnoian philoneikousi peri touton, sungnoston pragma peponthotes agnoia gar ou kataegorian anadechetai, alla didachaes prosdeitai. Kai legousin hoti tae id' to probaton meta ton mathaeton ephagen ho Kurios tae de mealier haemera ton azumon autos epathen; kai diaegountai Matthaion outo legein hos nenoaekasin; hothen asumphonos te nomo hae noaesis auton, kai stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia.] _Chron. Pasch._ in Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 160.
[247:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 188 sqq. The reference to Routh is given on p. 188, n. 1; that to Lardner in the same note should, I believe, be ii. p. 316, not p. 296.
[247:2] _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 167.
[249:1] The quotations from Athenagoras are transcribed from 'Supernatural Religion' and Lardner (_Credibility &c._, ii. p. 195 sq.). I have not access to the original work.
[251:1] _Credibility &c._, ii. p. 161.
[252:1] _Ep. Vien. et Lugd._ § 3 (in Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 297).
[252:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 203; _Evv. Justin's u.s.w._ p. 155.
[254:1] _Wann wurden u.s.w._ p. 48 sq.
[254:2] _Ursprung_, p. 130; _S.R._ ii. p. 222.
[255:1] Cf. Credner, _Beiträge_, ii. p. 254.
[256:1] _Adv. Haer._ i. Praef. 2.
[257:1] _Strom._ iv. 9.
[257:2] [Greek: Ton Oualentinou legomenon einai gnorimon Haerakleouna] ... Origen, _Comm. in Joh._ ii. p. 60 (quoted by Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 127).
[259:1] 'In affirming that [these quotations] are taken from the Gospel according to St. Matthew apologists exhibit their usual arbitrary haste,' &c. _S.R._ ii. p. 224.
[260:1] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, Zurich, 1873. For what follows, see especially p. 261 sqq.
[263:1] Keim, _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 262.
[263:2] _Ibid_. p. 228 sq.; Volkmar, _Ursprung_, p. 80.
[263:3] The text of this document is printed in full by Routh, _Rel. Sac_. i. pp. 394-396; Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 487 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N.T._ ad p. 40, n.; Credner, _Geschichte des Noutestamentlichen Kanon_, ed. Volkmar, p. 153 sqq., &c.
[264:1] See however Dr. Lightfoot in _Cont. Rev_., Oct. 1875, p. 837.
[265:1] _Ursprung_, p. 28.
[265:2] ii. p. 245.
[266:1] Cf. Credner, _Gesch. des Kanon_, p. 167.
[266:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 241.
[267:1] Quoted in _S.R._ ii. p. 247.
[269:1] _Adv. Haer_. ii, 22. 5, iii. 3.4.
[270:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. pp. 141-143.
[273:1] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_. i. pp. 143, 144.
[273:2] _On the Canon_, p. 182 sqq.
[275:1] [Greek: Ouch haedomai trophae phthoras, oude haedonais tou biou toutou. Arton Theou thelo, arton ouranion, arton zoaes, hos estin sarx Iaesou Christou tou Huiou tou Theou tou genomenou en hustero ek spermatos Dabid kai Abraam; kai poma Theou thelo to haima aoutou, ho estin agapae aphthartos kai aennaos zoae.] _Ep. ad Rom_. c. vii.
[275:2] [Greek: Alla to Pneuma ou planatai, apo Theou on; oiden gar pothen erchetai kai pou hupagei, kai ta drupta elenche]. _Ep. ad Philad_. c. vii.
[276:1] Cf. Lipsius in Schenkel's _Bibel-Lexicon_, i. p. 98.
[277:1] The second and third Epistles stand upon a somewhat different footing.
[277:2] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 269.
[278:1] _S.R._ ii p. 323.
[278:2] _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, i. p. 138 sq.
[280:1] Cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 302.
[280:2] So _Dial. c. Tryph_. 69; in _Apol._ i. 22 the MSS. of Justin read [Greek: ponaerous], which might stand, though some editors substitute or prefer [Greek: paerous]. In both quotations [Greek: ek genetaes] is added. The nearest parallel in the Synoptics is Mark ix. 21, [Greek: ek paidiothen] (of the paralytic boy).
[280:3] _Wann wurden u. s. w_. p. 34.
[283:1] ii. p. 308. [Has the author perhaps misunderstood Credner (_Beit_. i. p. 253), whose argument on this head is not indeed quite clear?]
[283:2] _The New Testament &c_., i. p. 709.
[284:1] See _Apol_. i. 23, 32, 63; ii. 10.
[284:2] [Greek: Hae de protae dunamis meta ton patera panton kai despotaen Theon kai uios ho logos estin.] This is not quite rightly translated by Tischendorf and in 'Supernatural Religion:' [Greek: uios], like [Greek: dunamis], is a predicate; 'the next Power who also stands in the relation of Son.'
[285:1] Prov. viii. 22-24, 27, 30.
[285:2] Wisd. vii. 25, 26; viii. 1, 4.
[286:1] Ecclus. xxiv. 9.
[286:2] Wisd. ix. 1, 2; xvi. 12; xviii. 15.
[287:1] Cf. Lipsius in _S. B. L._ i. p. 95 sqq.
[288:1] _Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T_. (Halle, 1863), p. 29; _Einleitung_, P. 43, n.
[288:2] _Der Ursprung unserer Evangelien_, p. 63.
[288:3] ii. p. 346.
[290:1] _S. R._ ii. p. 340.
[293:1] The force of the article ([Greek: tou paerou]) should be noticed, as showing that the incident (and therefore the Gospel) is assumed to be well known.
[293:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 341.
[295:1] Tischendorf, _Wann wurden_, p. 40; Westcott, _Canon_, p. 80.
[296:1] ii. p. 357 sqq.
[297:1] _Adv. Haer._ V. 36. 1, 2.
[297:2] _S. R._ ii. p. 329.
[298:1] Advanced by Routh (or rather Feuardentius in his notes on Irenaeus; cf. _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 31), and adopted by Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott. [The identification has since been ably and elaborately maintained by Dr. Lightfoot; see _Cont. Rev_. Oct. 1875, p. 841 sqq.]
[298:2] It is not necessary here to determine the sense in which these words are to be taken. I had elsewhere given my reasons for taking [Greek: erchomenon] with [Greek: anthropon], as A. V. (_Fourth Gospel_, p. 6, n.). Mr. M'Clellan is now to be added to the number of those who prefer to take it with [Greek: phos], and argues ably in favour of his opinion.
[299:1] The translation of this difficult passage has been left on purpose somewhat baldly literal. The idea seems to be that Basilides refused to accept projection or emanation as a hypothesis to account for the existence of created things. Compare Mansel, _Gnost. Her._ p. 148.
[301:1] _Adv. Haer._. iii. 11. 7.
[302:1] _Haer_. 216-222.
[302:2] It should however be noticed that these words are given only in the old Latin translation of Irenaeus and are wanting in the Greek as preserved by Epiphanius. Whether the words were accidentally omitted, or whether they were inserted inferentially, for greater clearness, by the translator, it is hard to say. In any case the bearing of the quotations must be very much the same. If not made by Ptolemaeus himself, they were made by a contemporary of Ptolemaeus, i.e. at least by a writer anterior to Irenaeus.
[302:3] _Adv. Haer_. ii. 4. 1; cf. _S.R._ ii. p. 211 sq.
[302:4] The somewhat copious fragments of Heracleon's Commentary are given in Stieren's edition of Irenaeus, p. 938 sqq. Origen says that Heracleon read 'Bethany' in John i. 28 (M'Clellan, i. p. 708).
[305:1] ii. p. 378.
[306:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 379.
[307:1] There is also perhaps a probable reference to St. John in Section 6, [Greek: taes aionioi paegaes tou hudatos taes zoaes tou exiontos ek taes naeduos tou Christou.]
[307:2] _Celsus' Wahres Wort_, p. 229.
[308:1] [Greek: ho taen hagian pleuran ekkentaetheis, ho ekcheas ek taes pleuras autou ta duo palin katharsia, hudor kai aima, logon kai pneuma]. See Routh, _Rel. Sac_. i. p. 161.
[308:2] Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. p. 196.
[315:1] Tregelles in Horne's _Introduction_, p. 334.
[315:2] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8.
[316:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1. 1.
[317:1] See Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., ii. pp. 223, 224, and Eus. _H.E._ ii. 15 (14 Lardner).
[317:2] Compare _H.E._ ii. 15 and vi. 14.
[317:3] _H.E._ vi. 14.
[317:4] _Strom._ iii. 13.
[318:1] For the meaning of this word ('schriftliche Beweisurkunde') see Rönsch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 48.
[318:2] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 2.
[318:2] _Ibid_. iv. 5.
[318:4] _Ibid_. v. 9.
[318:5] _Ibid_. iv. 2-5; compare v. 9, and Rönsch, pp. 53, 54.
[319:1] Eus. _H.E._ vi. 25.
[319:2] See M'Clellan on Luke i. 1-4. On the general position of Origen in regard to the Canon, compare Hilgenfeld, _Kanon_, p. 49.
[320:1] So Westcott in _S.D._ iii. 1692, n. Tregelles, in Horne's _Introduction_, p. 333, speaks of this translation as 'coeval, apparently, with Irenaeus himself.' We must not, however, omit to notice that Rönsch (p. 43, n.) is more reserved in his verdict on the ground that the translation of Irenaeus 'in its peculiarities and in its relation to Tertullian has not yet received a thorough investigation;' compare Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 797.
[320:2] Rönsch, _Das N.T. Tertullian's_, p. 43.
[321:1] Rönsch, _Itala und Vulgata_, pp. 2, 3.
[321:2] Horne's _Introduction_, p. 233.
[321:3] _Introduction_ (2nd ed.), pp. 300, 302, 450, 452.
[321:4] iii. p. 1690 b.
[322:1] Hilgenfeld, in his recent _Einleitung_, says expressly (p. 797) that 'the New Testament had already in the second century been translated into Latin.' This admission is not affected by the argument which follows, which goes to prove that the version used by Tertullian was not the 'Itala' properly so called.
[322:2] See Smith's Dictionary, iii. p. 1630 b.
[322:3] _Introduction_, p. 274.
[322:4] See Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. pp. 124 and 152.
[323:1] See Scrivener, _loc. cit_.
[323:2] See _New Testament_, &c., i. p. 635.
[323:3] _S.D._ iii. p. 1634 b.
[324:1] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 724.
[324:2] _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments_, p. 302.
[324:3] _Einleitung_, p. 804.
[324:4] See Tregelles, _loc. cit_.
[324:5] Cf. Hilgenfeld, _Einleitung_, p. 805. It hardly seems clear that Origen had _no_ MS. authority for his reading.
[324:6] _Introduction_, p. 530. But [Greek: oupo] is admitted into the text by Westcott and Hort.
[324:7] 'The text of the Curetonian Gospels is in itself a sufficient proof of the extreme antiquity of the Syriac Version. This, as has been already remarked, offers a striking resemblance to that of the Old Latin, and cannot be later than the middle or close of the second century. It would be difficult to point out a more interesting subject for criticism than the respective relations of the Old Latin and Syriac Versions to the Latin and Syriac Vulgates. But at present it is almost untouched.' Westcott, _On the Canon_ (3rd ed.), p. 218, n. 3.
[325:1] See Scrivener's _Introduction_, p. 324.
[325:2] Cf. Bleek, _Einleitung_, p. 735; Reuss, _Gesch. N.T._ p. 447.
[326:1] This is the date commonly accepted since Massuet, _Diss. in Irenaeum_, ii. 1. 2. Grabe had previously placed the date in A.D. 108, Dodwell as early as A.D. 97 (of. Stieren, _Irenaeus_, ii. pp. 32, 34, 182).
[326:2] Routh, _Rel. Sac._ i. p. 306.
[327:1] Eus. _H.E._ v. 11, vi. 6. Eusebius, in his, 'Chronicle,' speaks of Clement as eminent for his writings ([Greek suntatton dielampen]) in A.D. 194.
[327:2] The books called 'Stromateis' or 'Miscellanies' date from this reign. _H.E._ vi. 6.
[327:3] _Stromateis_, i. 1.
[327:4] _Adv. Marc._ iv. 5.
[327:5] _De Praescript. Haeret_. c. 36; see Scrivener, _Introduction_, p. 446.
[328:1] pp. 450, 451.
[328:2] p. 452. These facts may be held to show that the books were not regarded with the same veneration as now.
[329:1] v. 30. 1.
[330:1] _Adv. Haer._ iii. 11. 8.
[330:2] _Ib_. iii. 14. 2.
[331:1] Cf. _Adv. Haer._ iv. 13. 1.
[332:1] The varieties of reading in this verse are exhibited in full by Dr. Westcott, _On the Canon_, p. 120, notes 4 and 5.
[336:1] Matt. v. 28 is omitted as too ambiguous and confusing, though it is especially important for the point in question as showing that Tertullian himself had a variety of MSS. before him.
[336:2] St. Matthew's Gospel is wanting in this MS. to xxv. 6; two leaves are also lost, from John vi. 50 to viii. 52.
[346:1] _Strom_. ii. 20.
[347:1] In a volume entitled _The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel_, Macmillan, 1872. I may say with reference to this book--a 'firstling' of theological study-- that I am inclined now to think that I exaggerated somewhat the importance of minute details as an evidence of the work of an eye-witness. The whole of the arguments, however, summarised on pp. 287-293 seem to me to be still perfectly valid and sound, and the greater part of them--notably that which relates to the Messianic expectations--is quite untouched by 'Supernatural Religion.'
[348:1] It is instructive to compare the canons elaborately drawn up by Mr. M'Clellan (_N.T._ i. 375-389) with those tacitly assumed in 'Supernatural Religion.' The inference in the one case seems to be 'possible, therefore true,' in the other, 'not probable, or not confirmed, therefore false.' Surely neither of these tallies with experience.
[352:1] This, perhaps, is one that is apt to be overlooked. In order to be quite sure that the process of analysis is complete it must be supplemented and verified by the reversed process of synthesis. If a compound has been resolved into its elements, we cannot be sure that it has been resolved into _all_ its elements until the original compound has been produced by their recombination. Where this second reverse process fails, the inference is that some unknown element which was originally present has escaped in the analysis. The analysis may be true as far as it goes, but it is incomplete. The causes are 'verae causae,' but they are not all the causes in operation. So it seems to be with the analysis of the vital organism. We may be said to know entirely what air and water are because the chemist can produce them, but we only know very imperfectly the nature of life and will and conscience, because when the physiological analysis has been carried as far as it will go there still remains a large unknown element. Within this element may very well reside those distinctive properties which make man (as the moralist is _obliged_ to assume that he is) a responsible and religious being. The hypotheses which lie at the root of morals and religion are derived from another source than physiology, but physiology does not exclude them, and will not do so until it gives a far more verifiably complete account of human nature than it does at present.
[354:1] Mr. Browning has expressed this with his usual incisiveness and penetration:--
'I hear you recommend, I might at least
Eliminate, decrassify my faith ...
Still, when you bid me purify the same,
To such a process I discern no end,
Clearing off one excrescence to see two;
There's ever a next in size, now grown as big,
That meets the knife: I cut and cut again!
First cut the liquefaction, what comes last
But Fichte's clever cut at God himself?'
But also, on the other hand:--
The gain? how can we guard our unbelief?
Just when we are safest, there's a sunset-touch,
A fancy from a flower-bell, some one's death,
A chorus ending from Euripides,--
And that's enough for fifty hopes and fears,
As old and new at once as Nature's self,
To rap and knock and enter in our soul ...
All we have gained then by our unbelief
Is a life of doubt diversified by faith,
For one of faith diversified by doubt:
We called the chess-board white,--we call it black.'
Bishop Blongram's Apology
[359:1] As to the defects of the present edition, see Tischendorf, Prolegomena to _Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX Interpretes_, p. liii: 'Eae vero (collationes) quemadmodum in editis habentur non modo universae graviter differunt inter se fide atque accuratione, sed ad ipsos principales testes tam negligenter tamque male factae sunt ut etiam atque etiam dolendum sit tantos numos rara liberalitate per Angliam suppeditatos criticae sacrae parum profuisse.' Similarly Credner, in regard to the use of the Codex Alexandrinus, _Beiträge_, ii. 16: 'Wahrhaft unbegreiflich und unverzeihlich ist es, dass die Herausgeber der kostbaren Kritischen Ausgabe der LXX, welcher zu Oxford vor wenigen Jahren vollendet und von Holmes und Parsons besorgt worden ist, statt cine sorgfältige Vergleichung des in London aufbewahrten Cod. Alex. zu veranstalten, sich lediglich auf die Ausgabe von Grabe beschränkt haben, dessen Kritik vielfach nicht einmal verstanden worden ist.'
Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter
eBooks Home | Inspirational Articles | General Essays | Sermons | Library - Home | Baselios Church Home
A service of St. Basil's Syriac Orthodox Church, Ohio
Copyright © 2009-2020 - ICBS Group. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer
Website designed, built, and hosted by International Cyber Business Services, Inc., Hudson, Ohio