ὃ" να ΠΩ τὼ ee
T oad
=<... a ὅλ,
Oe Wit at
ἐὺ
Way
: ait at ox i! a)
Salva a
᾿ ("
" ᾿ ΠΝ ἢ,
Hi! 1613. ὁ τη.
ψ
VES ME ee
ΝΗ
ἌΝ
i;
i
aah ὯΝ #1 “
re) ot Hp RANI HH
᾿ V5 pees
a bias hs
ALY AY
ΠΥ ΝᾺ
Ἵ
= V4
tant) Ἢ"
ΓΝ
ΠΝ
3 δὰ
ἜΝ ti ἮΝ B δι
ἤν 4} Shed
"" 15 ΝΗ ΠΡ
ti Ψ
sear
tt Hat ἜΝ
ἌΚΩΝ ΗΝ ἢ ἌΝ
te {7 im
Hye
τ pan
ἐδ ἐν ty Anh Ν
are,
=
ys eae ον
jee
Ἢ th vat
Dey Ma
LAD ORR Ee
ΠΝ
τ
ty Atcha
ἜΘ ἢ ΑΙ
uC
;
St
ἜΗΙ
ΠΤ es
Per}
rh at
tei irae
4
ths Ua
ssi as
ἬΝ
ὩΞΞ ΞΕ ΤΕΣ
SS
=.
" uh
ib 7 io ee
‘ sole Ῥ, fils
a) ine
τς :
ἐν
te
ha nahin ron ἡ
ἘΠΕ cat ἮΝ
ΝΠ νι |
τ
ie
ἜΠΗ
Ἢ
[ἢ hie +i
τὸ;
ag
ἐν ἢ} ΜΕ "ἢ
ἭΡΗ ute Pe
ΤΩΝ ΠΩ ΕΠ ἢ
TGS Ee
cae ἢ
3 1 Arp lee
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008
httos://archive.org/details/canonicitycollecOOchar
«ΔΝ ΟΝ τ σὺ
ΘΝ ON ECITY
A COLLECTION OF EARLY TESTIMONIES
LO] fae CANONICAL BOOKS OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT
BASED ON
KIRCHHOFER’S *QUELLENSAMMLUNG ’
BY
A. H. ‘CHARTERIS, D.D.
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM AND BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH ; AND ONE
OF HER MAJESTY’S CHAPLAINS
WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS
EDINBURGH AND LONDON
MDCCCLXXX
All Denwhto mocornod
ΤΟ
WILLIAM PURDIE DICKSON, D.D.
TO WHOSE FRIENDSHIP I HAVE OWED MUCH IN MY STUDIES
FOR MANY YEARS,
AND TO
JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D.
WHO NEVER SPARES HIS OWN TIME WHEN HE CAN HELP A FRIEND,
AND WHO HAS MADE ME FREE OF HIS VALUABLE LIBRARY
WHILE I WORKED AT THIS BOOK,
I DESIRE TO INSCRIBE IT,
WISHING IT WERE MORE WORTHY.
PREFACE,
Tuts work is based on Kirchhofer’s ‘Quellensammlung,’
which has been out of print for some years. When I
began to prepare it, I hoped that Kirchhofer’s text might
be such a basis that my part would mainly be to revise his
extracts, with such merely occasional supplement as recent
researches and discoveries might render necessary. But it
was soon evident that a reissue must contain much more
than this; and from less to more, the work has grown
in my hands until it is substantially independent of the
‘Quellensammlung,’ although the text is still an attempt
to collect and classify, rather than to characterise, the pas-
sages on which controversy turns. The footnotes have
relation to Kirchhofer’s in only a few cases; the bio-
graphical notes and the Introduction are new. There is
a great change in the extracts themselves. New dis-
coveries of MSS, the shifting grounds of controversy, and
the special researches of individual scholars, have made
it indispensable for the student of theology to have ex-
tracts compiled with a view to the state of criticism in
our own day.
In attempting to make this compilation, 1 have used
8 PREFACE.
all the helps to which I had access. But it is a pleasant
duty to say even in the title-page that Kirchhofer’s book
is after all the basis of this, and to record here my sense
of the obligation under which all students of the subject
during the last forty years have been laid by his im-
partial and trustworthy collection of ancient testimonies.
Many of the other works that have been used are named
in the notes. I may say that my admiration of Lard-
ner (on whom Kirchhofer almost exclusively relied) has
been increased with increasing knowledge of parts of the
wide field over which his splendid labours extended.
There is even now no book on the whole so indispensable
as his. Canon Westcott’s works, which have made the
subject familiar in our country, are invaluable to every
student. I have also owed much throughout to the works
of Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Keim, Dr 8. Davidson, and the
author of ‘Supernatural Religion,’ Frequent reference is
made to the well-known books and articles of Dr Donald-
son, Bishop Lightfoot, and Dr Sanday; and to the works
of Continental scholars, as Weizsiicker, Wittichen, Volkmar,
Aubé, Overbeck, Waddington, Lipsius, Wieseler, Rénan,
Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn.
The standard editions of the various authors have been
used so far as possible; but as experience has taught me
how important it is to verify references easily, I have in
several of the more voluminous authors (as Origen, Athan-
asius, &c.) stated the page at which the passage will be
found in Migne’s edition, which is accessible to almost all
students. For Eusebius’s Church History, the text of
Burton has been on the whole the standard in the very —
numerous extracts, though Laemmer and Heinichen have
PREFACE. 9
been in use. Attention is drawn in the footnotes to the
more important cases of doubtful readings in the extracts.
In regard to most of the Epistles of the New Testament,
a prefatory note in each case indicates the state of the con-
troversy. In footnotes, also, will be found some biographical
notices of those authors to whom special reference is not
made in the Introduction. The Introduction itself seemed
to be indispensable, unless the footnotes were to be ex-
tended beyond all reasonable limits. It was originally
intended to have a chapter on the avowed grounds of the
reception of the Canon in Christendom, especially since the
Reformation (see note, p. 33), but I have found that it
would be too long for this Introduction, unless it were too
meagre to be of use. The series of extracts, pp. 18-31, will
to a certain extent tell their own story. I ask permission
to refer to an article on the subject of ‘‘ Canonicity ” in this
aspect in the ‘Brit. and For. Evang. Review, No. 75
(Feb. 1871). I regret not having in the Introduction an
examination of the testimony of Irenzeus, but it may be
learned from the extracts in the text.
In the course of my work on this book, which has to my
great reoeret been interrupted by causes that I could not
control, I have had much help from many friends. Among
old students I may especially mention the Rev. Thomas
Nicol, B.D., to whom I owe a great part of a first colla-
tion of the text of Kirchhofer with that of the standard
editions, the chapter on the Clementine Homilies, as also
the Analytical Index, and without whom this work would
never have been undertaken; the Rev. James Coullie, B.D.,
who made the careful, and, I think, exhaustive Index ; the
Rev. J. A. M‘Clymont, B.D.; the Rev. William Allardyce,
10 PREFACE.
M.A.; and the Rev. J. H. Crawford, M.A., who have all
kindly helped in collation and correction. From Mr R.
J. Cownie, M.A., I have had much willing work of the
same kind on the whole text after the first one hundred
pages. To Drs Donaldson, Sanday, Dickson, and Turpie,
and the Rev. Henry Cowan, B.D., I owe more than |
can here record in detail. To Professor Weizsiicker,
Tiibingen, the Rev. W. Pressel, Lustnau, and Professor
Christlieb, Bonn, for the encouragement which induced
me to undertake the work, and for cheering counsel
throughout, my best thanks are due, and I gladly tender
them.
That there are occasional errors in the text and in the
many references I fear is only too likely, though every
effort has been used to avoid them. Those who have
tried to do the same kind of work will be most ready
to excuse slips and errors where they occur. | am aware
that absolute uniformity in the mode of reference to par-
ticular authors has not been always maintained; but I
trust the passages may be usually found. It is my ambi-
tion and my hope that the book may prove useful not
only to students of theology in the class-room, but also
to ministers and others desirous of investigating for
themselves the problems to which so much attention is
turned in our times.
As ΕΔ δ᾿
October 1880.
TABLE OF CONTENTS,
INTRODUCTION.
. BARNABAS,
Epistle ascribed to Emenee held 3 in fen finan ener a Jew,
but not the Apostle, iii—date of Epistle uncertain, iv—written to a
Greek Church by a Greek, v—relation to John’s Gospel, Clement,
and the O. T., vi—parallel passages with Fourth Gospel, vii.
. CLEMENT OF Rome, :
First Epistle.—W orks ascribed τ ὉΠ ον viii ΜΒ5. of Epistle, vili
and ix—who Clement was, ix—evidence of his writing the Epistle ;
age of the Epistle, x—evidence as to Canon of N. T., xii—quota-
tions of O. T., xiii—quotations of N. T., xiv—doctrinal teaching,
xvi—relation to the truths of Christianity, xvil.
Second Epistle. —A Homily, not by Clement, xviii—place and date, xix
—testimony to Scripture, xx—conclusion as to, xxi—list of N. T.
references, xxii—other Epistles ascribed to Clement, xxiii.
. HERMAS, :
Characteristics of, sor ania in the early ἐπ" MSS of; state
of text, xxv.
. IGNATIUS, .
arabes of pistes, ΝΠ xxvii—objections to all the re-
censions, xxix—classified re in the Ignatian letters, xxx.
. POLYCARP,
The Epistle and the πος χχχῖν.-- date of Polyoarp’ 5 ΤΩΝ ane of the
Epistle, xxxv—quotations from N. T., xxxvi—classified quotations
from the Epistle and from the Mereyedarn of Polycarp, xxxvill.
. PAPIas,
Papias and his ἀπ τς τ τς: τῶ Ἵν asian to Matthew
and Mark, xliv. Note on the tradition of John in Ephesus.
. BASILIDES, :
Date and system of Basen aa palatine to the ὌΠ xlix—
does Hippolytus quote Basilides himself? 1—author of ‘Supernatural
Religion’ on Basilides, li. Note on the system of Basilides.
PAGE
viii
XXIV
XXvi
XXXiV
xli
xl vii
12
CONTENTS.
8. JusTIN Martyr, .
10.
ἘΠ
14.
15.
16.
ive
Justin a link between patehen age andl Then εἰ ἢ extant writ-
ings, lv—substantial agreement with N. T.; characteristics of his
mode of quotation, lvii—agreement with Apocryphal writers, lix—
conclusions, 1x—use of John’s Gospel ; use of Paul’s Epistles, lxii.
. CLEMENTINE HOoMILIES,
Homilies and Recognitions, eee of Matthew, τ ΠΣ and
Mark, lxvi—of John; of Apocryphal Gospels, Ixvii—of Acts and
Pauline Epistles, ea
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS,
The ee lxviii—Nazarenes and Bbionites, ieee fi Gospels 1
—Jerome’s conflicting statements, lxxi—possible reconciliation of
them, lxxii—the more important Clementine quotations, lxxiii—the
Ebionite Gospel, 1xxiv—conclusion as to Gospel of the Hebrews, Ixxv
—Gospel of the eee Ixxvi.
HEGESIPPUS, :
Eusebius on Hegesippus, ae champion of Clenanag a
his allusions to the canonical books, Ixxix.
MuRATORIAN CANON, :
Where found, 1xxix—value of the fragment, bxxx—summary ae Ixxxi.
. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA,
Date of Clement, Ixxxi—works, amines views of Ghee: lee
ORIGEN, :
Date of Origen, ee ee Jasaoie Ιχχχν.
THE PascHaL CONTROVERSY,
What it was, lIxxxv—Tiibingen use of τ eee {ἢ the Guia
from whom we learn its nature and progress, 1xxxvii—(2) the contro-
versy and the combatants at successive stages, \xxxviii—first period,
Ixxxix—second period, xci—third period (according to Eusebius),
xcii—the statements in ‘The Paschal Chronicle,’ xciii—conclusion,
ΧΟΥ͂.
ἈΡΟΟΒΥΡΗΑΙ͂, LITERATURE,
The claim and the dates of N. T. Aaa, ee ἘΠῚ τς
books not all heretical, xcvii—various meanings of ‘‘ Gospel” in
N. T. Apocrypha, xcviii—division of Apocrypha into Gospels, Dd
Epistles, Apocalypses, xcix—Apocryphal Gospels: Protevangel, c—
Gospel of Thomas ; of Nicodemus, ci—Gospels in names of Apostles ;
Gospels named after those who used them, cii— Harmonies, miscel-
laneous ; all imply the canonical books, ciii—discrepancies in differ-
ent editions of Apocryphal Gospels proofs of their want of author-
ity, civ—how the names perished from-memory; Apocryphal Acts,
ev—purpose of the Acts, evi—collections by Leucius and by Abdias;
Apocryphal Epistles ; Apocryphal Apocalypses, cvii.
Tne FourtH GosPEL, . 5
Comments on the catena of Ἐπ τε: in the πεν erage views
of the Fourth Gospel, cx—internal evidence that the Gospel was
written by an eyewitness, cxi—by a Jew of Palestine, cxii—by an
enlightened disciple ; a man of calm authority; one with a definite
purpose, cxiii—objections stated and considered, cxiv-cxvi.
ANALYTICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX,
liii
lxiii
lxvili
lxxvii
lxxix
]xxxi
Ixxxv
Ιχχχν
xevi
evil
exvili
CONTENTS.
I.—OLDEST TESTIMONIES TO A COLLECTION OF SACRED BOOKS.
. The Peshito Syriac. Second century,
Wants Apocalypse, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 Jolin:
. The Old Latin. Second century,
Wants Hebrews, 2 Peter, and (perhaps) Tone
. Muratorian Canon. Second century, A.p. 160-170,
Text according to Tregelles; text as probably to be read ; ΕΠ
to Gospels, thirteen Epistles of Paul, Acts (as Luke’s), Ai least two
Epistles of John, Jude, and ΠΡ Apocalypse of Peter.
. Canon of Origen (from Bus. EH. Vie 25), Av: 1184-253:
Four Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, 1 John, 1 Peter, and (as ne
accepted by all) 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter; Epistle to Hebrews
characterised, and its authorship discussed (jens and Jude else-
where included by Origen).
. Canon of Eusebius (H. E. III. 25, about A.p. 260-340),
Accepted—Four Gospels; Acts, Epp. of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter and
(perhaps) the Apocalypse.
Disputed—James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John.
Spurious—Apocalypse (perhaps).
. Codex Vaticanus. Fourth century,
Contains N. T. canon so far, but the MS is imperfect.
. Codex Sinaiticus, Fourth century,
Canonical books of N. T., with Acts in a peeulier position ; also Barna-
bas and Hermas.
. Canon of Athanasius. Middle of fourth century,
Exactly the same as our canon.
. Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius, .
List of O. T. and N. T. books; the Apocrypha mentioned ; narratives
of the composition of the Four Gospels.
IJ.— TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON (oF LATER DATE).
. Canon of the Laodicene Council, A.b. 364,
Apocalypse omitted.
. Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem. Middle of fourth century,
Apocalypse omitted.
. Canon of Third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397,
Books of N. T. first enumerated.
. Canon of Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia (born A.D. 367, died A.D. 403),
Includes Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.
. Canon of Jerome (born A.D. 329, died a.p. 420),
Epistle to Hebrews, in the opinion of the majority, τὸν St Paul
. Augustine (born A.D. 354, died a.D. 480),
Accepts received canon of N. T., but doubts nei of Hiabtewee
. Chrysostom (born A.D. 847, died re Ρ. 407),
Omits Apocalypse, and mentions three Catholic Epp.
τῷ
10
14
Ὁ
10.
CONTENTS.
. Codex Alexandrinus. End of fourth century,
Contains our canon with Clement’s Epp., and, eee in a diferent
grade, the Psalms of Solomon.
. Gelasius, a.D. 492,
His own decree contains the Canonical! N. T. ; a recension (Damasus)
contains details ascribing two Epp. of John to Presbyter John ; an-
other recension (Hormisdas) gives a list of heretical and schismatical
books.
Apostolical Constitutions. Fourth century,
Canonical books enumerated, and Apocryphal books Tenia
11. Canones Ecclesiastici qui Havas Apostolorum. Fourth century,
Books of Scripture enumerated, including in the N. T. some Apocrypha,
the two Epp. of Clement, and the S:arayai sent through Clement.
The Apocalypse is not included in the N. T.
12, Codex Claromontanus. Probably sixth century,
Containing the N. T. as in the Canon; but also a te wine Sak
Thessalonians, Hebrews, and Thiers ; and adds Pastor, Actus
Pauli, Rev. Petri.
13. Anastasius Sinaita, died a.p. 599, : : Σ
Divides the books into three classes—(1) Biblical’: (2) extra-Biblical ;
(3) Apocryphal.
14. Trullan Council, A.D. 692,
Approves of Athanasius and of ἘΣ ΠΝ Geren (nen ποτ
each other).
15. Nicephorus, died a.p. 828, ᾿ : : :
Apocalypse ranked among τ a Apocryphal books men-
tioned.
16. Canon of Council of Trent, A.D. 1546, : :
Enumerates books of Scripture, with Apocry pha of O. τι; ; text of Scrip-
ture fixed according to the Vulgate ; Scripture and tradition the rule
of faith.
17, Old Catholic Union Theses, 1874, : Ξ ᾿
Scripture the primary rule; tradition also qntheritntive
18. Cyril Lukar’s Confession. ἘΠ ΤΙ to the Greek Church, Α.Ὁ. 1629-33,
Canon of N. T. as in Protestant Churches ; supremacy of Scripture.
19, Council of Jerusalem, a.b. 1672,
Commonly accepted in the Grok ΕἸ τ εἰ till 1889; Ἐπ ἢ and the
Church equal.
. Philaret’s Longer Catechism, A.D. 1839,
Number of books stated ; Divine revelation in two Ἐπ τ. ee
dition and Holy See latter needful to keep the Divine
revelation unchangeable.
LUTHERAN TESTIMONY.
. Formula of Concord, a.p. 1577,
Art.i. 1,:2, 7, 85 aya the sole mle Bf ial
23
23
25
26
28
29
30
35
36
CONTENTS,
REFORMED CONFESSIONS.
22. Confession of Basle, A.D. 1536,
Canonical Scripture the only rule of life.
23. Confessio Helvetica Posterior, A.D. 1566, :
Scripture the Word of God, and self-authorising.
24. Confessio Fidei Gallicana, A.p. 1559, 4
Canonical Scripture the rule of faith, and ev feared by πιο inner witness
of the Spirit.
25. Old Scottish Confession, A.p. 1560,
Scripture does not owe its authority to men.
26. Confessio Bohaemica, A.D. 1535, -
Scripture received by the Fathers true and ane sense
27. Angliean Articles of Religion, A.D. 1562, . ᾿
All books canonical which were never doubted, and are onal re-
ceived ; Apocrypha may be read for instruction.
28. πὸ τ ρρίος Confession of Faith, 1643-47, :
Scriptures given by inspiration ; have authority from God ; sags argu-
ments evidencing them to be the Word of God; but full persuasion of
their infallible truth and divine authority due to the inward work of
the Holy Spirit.
11.-- ΤῊΝ NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.
1. Ignatius (date? see p. xxvi),
Quotations regarding ‘‘ the Gospel” endl “the Apostles.”
; Melito, a.p. 170 (Eus. H. E. IV. 26),
A new collection of books was known distinct fom the Ὁ. dy
3. Dionysius of Corinth, a.p. 170 (Kus. H. E. IV. 23),
Speaks of αἱ κυριακαὶ γραφαί.
4. Ireneus (about A.D. 180-190, see note, p. 422), (I. 3. 6; I. 6.3; II.
35. 4; III. 4. 1. 2, Ep. ad Florin.)
Speaks of ‘ Sperone ” and ‘‘apostolical” ΠῚ : τὸς the N. .
Scriptures, &c.
5. Tertullian, born A.D. 160; died between A.D. 220-40,
De prescript., 30, 32, 33—Seeds of Gnostic heresies Goedemsed aN τι,
36—Appeal to churches to which Apostolic Epp. had been written,
37, 38; heretics have no right to appeal to Scripture ; Marcion muti-
lated Scripture ; Valentinus perverted it, though using a ‘‘ complete
instrument.”
Adv. Marcionem, ΤΥ. 1, Marcion’s Antithesis; Apolog., 6. 3, loyalty
of Christians; De Monog., ο. 11, the ‘‘authentic Greek;” Adv.*
Praxean, c. 15, the Old and New Testaments.
6. Clement of Alexandria (head of catechetical school, A.D. 190-203),
Passages speaking of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὁ ἀπόστολος, αἱ κυριακαὶ γραφαί, ἡ
᾿ Κυρίου φωνή, &c.
7. Origen (Hom. on Gen. xiii. 2, on Josh. vii. 2),
Enumerates N. T. books.
8. Lactantius (Institut. IV. 20), died a.p. 325,
Division of Old and New Testaments.
τῷ
15
40
σι
τὸ
10
10.
ΠῚ
12.
CONTENTS.
IV.—THE GOSPELS.
. Papias (Eus. H. E. 111. 36), a.p. 70 to a.p. 150,
From Eusebius—Papias and Polycarp.
From Eusebius and Jerome—John survived till the times of Trajan ;
Papias and Polycarp were his hearers.
Trenzus on Papias’s millenarian views.
Eusebius on Papias and his mode of proceeding with his ‘‘ Exegeses,”’
the Logia.
Jerome on the same.
Later writers on Papias.
. Justin Martyr,
General references to sin ee and memoirs.
Passages in which he expressly cites his authorities. (Compare below,
p. 125.)
. Letter to Diognetus, c. 11,
Mentions εὐαγγέλια and ἀπόστολοι as ἘΠ in Christian Chine dee
note.
. The Evangelists of Trajan’s time (Eus. H. E. III. 37),
Speak of θεῖος λόγος, θεῖα εὐαγγέλια, &e.
. Quadratus (Eus. H. E. IV. 8),
Survival to his time (Hadrian) of some on “ cece had eee
wrought.
: ene
III. 1. Sole sods of ener composition of the Four Gospels.
III. 11, 7. Gospels used by Ebionites, Marcion, Valentinus, &e.
III. 11, 8, 9. Four Gospels ; the πο number; even heretics need
Gospels; Montanists? Gospel of Truth.
. The Presbyters,
Tren. ae 32, 1. One God oe Old Testament and τ eae John’s Goan
22, 5. Our Lord lived to old age.
- 36, 1, 2. Grades of spiritual existence and reward.
. Tatian (Eus. H. E. IV. 29), a.p. 170,
His Diatessaron ; Theodoret found more than 200 copies of Tatian’s
book.
. Theophilus, A.D. 180-193,
Puts prophets and apastlas on the same al as ΠῚ ae com-
mentaries on the four Gospels.
Clement of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. VI. 14),
Made expositions of all Scripture, including the hte eae
of Mark’s Gospel; also Rica of Egyptians.
Tertullian, : - :
Against Marcion, IV. ce. ΠῚ 8, as 5) s τ 5 Ὑτας of proceeding ;
his Gospel later than the το ἢ ᾿δὲ Luke ; John the first bishop ;
Mark Peter’s interpreter ; Luke’s Gospel ascribed to Paul.
Origen, : 3 :
Contra Cels. III. 473, characteristies of the Ἐπ in Lue. 111. 982,
the true Gospels, the lost, the heretical, and the Apocryphal Gos-
pels; in Joh, I. 4, 6, the Gospel the ‘“‘ first-fruits;” ibid. V. 98, the
four Gospels one.
53
59
65
65
66
66
81
13.
14.
16.
os
CONTENTS.
Dionysius of Alexandria, Ep. ad Basilid. (A.D. 247-265),
On disputes as to the time of Christ’s resurrection, says the four Gos-
pels agree in essentials,
Eusebius (H. E. III. 24) (about a.p. 260 to abont a.p. 340),
John’s narrative begins earlier in the ministry than the sy ππσποι:
John’s first Ep. undisputed ; the others and the Apoc. under discus-
sion; Dem. Evang. III. 5, Matthew’s Gospel and John’s agree;
Mark’s Gospel is ‘‘ Peter’s memoirs;” impossibility of forging such
Gospels ; the (supposititious ?) testimony of Josephus.
. Epiphanius (Her. II. 1. 51),
Matthew wrote in Hebrew; Mark one “of the ae -two ταν πεν
Luke wrote in some connection with Paul; John wrote after he was
ninety-two years old against ‘‘ Cerinthus, Ebion, and the rest.”
Jerome,
Comment. in Mat. Proem., the Ἐπ pone and the false and Ae
eryphal Gospels ; the four animal-symbols of the evangelists ; Pref.
in 1V. Evang., the order of the four evangelists.
V.—THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS AND THE SYNOPTISTS.
. Barnabas (date? see p. iii),
Quotation of Mat. xxii. 14, Ay ὡς ὙΕΥ ἐπται: ‘Mat. ix, 13.
. Clement of Rome (A.D. 93),
First Epistle. —C. 13, passage parallel w ith the Ser mon on the cme
9. 15, 1, quotation of O. T. through St Mark.
Second Epistle. —A. Citations agreeing with the synoptists.
B. Citations not agreeing with the synoptists.
. Hermas (A.D. 142),
Passages reminding us of the Gospels ; Mand. Ι. il, quoted by Trenens
as 7) γραφή.
. Ignatius,
Passages Deubling fis eee in ee Smyrn. II]. 1, from
Luke xxiv. 36, John xx. 22, or apocryphal anes
Polycarp (date A.D. 154? see p. xxxiv),
Phil. c. 2, 3, parallel with Sermon on Mount Gee also @ionent p: 105).
ΐ Meveyrdom of Polycarp (A.D. 154 2),
VI.—GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
(Compare also Sections IV. and V.)
. Papias (Eus. H. E. III. 40), :
Matthew wrote τὰ λόγια in Hebrew.
. Justin Martyr,
A. Citations and ees ae in our pGoacke
B. Citations wholly or partially not in our Gospels.
. Letter to Diognetus,
C. 9, Mat. vi. 25.
86
87
99
102
104
108
110
114
114
18
4. Hegesippus, : :
References to his work oa ΠΡ. in ἘΠ and Photiad
5. Tatian,
Onantion of an ἘΠῚ ΠΣ Ἔ ΕΝ staal i Glew! ee
6. Irenzus,
Matthew wrote for ΕΠ τ ἢ ees
7. Athenagoras,
Quointions from the sent mon on ἮΝ Mount to vindicate the οἰῶν ὦ of
Christians.
8. Theophilus,
Quotation from the ΒΕ ἰοῦ on the Monae
9. Pantenus, .
Pantzenus sani among the ΤΙΝ Matthew’ 5 Gosnell in DHebeeee cen
to them by Becta sae
10. Clement of Alexandria,
Matthew gives the genealogy of Mar Υ͂.
11. Tertullian, :
To the same effect as Clem. Niles
12, Clementine Homilies,
Passages showing various Seance of ἘΠΕῚ ἐπ ΠῚ aN canon.
19. One, ;
Matthew written ἮΣ the ΤΠ ΠῚ S. Vion rene te ee origin.
14. Julius Africanus,
Discrepancy in the pone toatee in n Matthew and cine
15. Eusebius, . 5
Matthew wrote in ΠΩΣ χά είῳ AN ee aad in the Gree need
οἰκείᾳ ἐκδόσει.
16. Cyril of Jerusalem,
Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
17. Epiphanius, : : ἔξ : : : : :
Matthew’s Gospel was called ‘‘ according to the Hebrews,’ because
written in Hebrew.
18. Jerome,
Matthew wrote in imicires = the someiine into ‘Grae τι ἜΤ τς the
original Hebrew was in acre in Jerome’s time; Jerome ae the
book in Berea.
VII.—GOSPEL OF MARK.
(See Note, p. 141.)
1. Papias,
Mark Peter’s το τ το: (cpmapevrhe):
2. Barnabas, Clement, Hermas,
Resurrection and ascension of Christ.
3. Justin Martyr, : :
Christ a carpenter ; πες memoirs of Peter (2); g Beri Ἐπ τς ἴο fie ;
disputed verses, Mark xvi. 9-20.
4, Ireneus,
CONTENTS.
Mark was Peter’s ‘‘ inter τος ΠῚ εν
191
182
133
134
134
134
136
137
138
139
139
139
141
142
143
145
i a i et
oF OF De
17.
18.
CONTENTS.
. Athenagoras,
Reference Mark x. 11, 6.
. Muratorian Canon,
See before, p. 5.
. Clement of Alexandria,
Narrative of the composition of Mar k’s Gospel (eee τῆς, Ῥ. 147).
. Hippolytus,
Mark the ἐπ χοβυδάαμευχοι:
. Tertullian, .
Mark Peter’s τ
. Origen,
. Clementine ἘΠ᾿ τα δα,
. Eusebius,
Eusebius says Mark’ 8 Cospels Sac Menai of Peter’ 5 ieee ses.’
. Epiphanius,
Mark, Peter’s follower, ae fe Goaneli in Rene
. Jerome,
Jerome’s version of Mark? 5 τοι εἶδα ἴο Pater
. Special testimonies to Mark xvi. 9-20,
VIII.—GOSPEL OF LUKE.
(See Notes, pp. 154, 163, 164, 165, 166.)
. Barnabas, .
. Clement of Rome, .
. Hermas,
. Protevangelium J ae.
. Justin Martyr,
References especially to aie wis years of Christ
. Letter of Christians of Vienne and Lyons,
. Trenzeus,
Luke was Paul’s δε λευθοι, and his Gospel 3 is τς Paul pre cached (see
note).
. Tatian,
. Athenagoras,
. Theophilus,
. Clement of Alexandria,
. Tertullian,
Paul was Luke’s ‘leminator.
. Julius Africanus,
. Origen,
Luke and Mark were of the τς: vine dieiplerte ; some say take was
Lucius, Rom. xvi. 21.
. Clementine Homilies,
. Eusebius,
Luke an Antiochene ; his one to Pant
Epiphanius,
Jerome, ;
Luke a physician.
154
155
155
156
156
158
159
162
162
162
162
162
163
163
163
164
165
165
CONTENTS.
IX.—GOSPEL OF JOHN
(See Introduction, Chap. XVII.)
. Papias,
Used 1 John; aaaihen Pantie τ τ ἘΠῚ anh MS Byes of
uncertain date.
. Barnabas, .
References and πα Gare p. 170).
. Clement of Rome (echoes),
2 Clem. (quotations) ; Jerome’s citation of 1 lens
. Ignatius,
. Basilides, .
Reference to John i., ii.
. Acts of Pilate,
John v. 2 (see note, p. 174).
. Polycarp,
. Martyrdom of Potycar Ps
. Hermas,
Note, p. 175.
. Justin Martyr,
Quotations and ποτ (568 τοις p- 178).
. Letter to Diognetus,
. Acts of Paul and Thecla,
. Letter of the Christians of γ-::. and Lyons,
. Tatian, :
: Rireneeon
. Theophilus,
Quotation by name.
. Muratorian Fragment,
. Irenzus, : , : :
John survived till Trajan’ 5 tones; wrote his Gospel in Ephesus ;
posed Cerinthus.
. Polycrates, :
. Clement of Alexandria,
. Tertullian,
. Clementine Homilies,
John 111., ix, x.
. Valentinus and Ptolemeus,
. Origen, :
. Dionysius of ἀπ:
. Eusebius,
. Epiphanius,
Why John rote; the Aiea
. Jerome,
John supplemented the Snares lived till Trajan’s time.
op-
167
168
170
171
173
173
174
174
174
176
179
180
180
180
181
182
182
182
183
184
- 184
184
185
185
185
185
186
187
NID OP 09 τῷ καὶ
CONTENTS.
THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY.
APPENDIX TO TESTIMONIES TO JOHN’S GOSPEL.
. Eusebius (H. E. V. 22, 25),
Narrative of the controversy in the boats of Tiviee: Irenzus’s reminis-
cences of Polycarp and Anicetus in connection ie it, cbid., IV. 26;
reference to Melito’s work.
. Hippolytus (Ref. Her. VIII. 18),.
The observers of the 14th day at issue with the Chute:
. The Paschal Chronicle, 5, 6, &c.,
Christ slain on the 14th ; alleen suenntiens τ om ΠῚ ἄρ
narius, Clement of MiGeandeias
. Epiphanius,
Various references to the po martsducimari
X.—THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
. Barnabas, :
. Clement of Rome, .
Hermas,
. Ignatius,
: ΠΕ :
. Martyrdom of Been Pp;
. Papias,
Supplementary tr eee
. Dionysius of Corinth,
. Justin Martyr,
. Letter to Diognetus, : :
. Letter from the Churches of View and Lyons :
. Hegesippus, :
. Syriac and Old eae Tenney,
. Muratorian Canon, -
. Acts of Paul and Thecla, .
. Irenzus (III. 14, 15),
Luke the companion of Paul.
= Vatian;
. Athenagoras, :
. Clement of Alexandria,
Luke wrote Acts, and translated ‘Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews.
. Tertullian,
Luke the author:
. Clementine Homilies,
. Clementine Recognitions, .
Various references, one to Paula as in nes reg al, τ
. Origen,
Luke the writer of Acts.
. Apostolical Constitutions,
Luke the author.
. Eusebius,
. Jerome,
Note on ἢ to the book.
189
193
195
196
196
196
196
197
197
197
197
198
198
198
199
199
199
199
200
202
202
202
208
208
204
205
205
205
206
bo
bo
CONTENTS.
XI.—THE EPISTLES.
Eusebius (H. E. III. 3), ; ἃ
The works of Peter (his ΤΠ Acts, Cospel evanaltin: , Apocalypse) ;
and of Paul (Hebrews disputed, Acts not accepted, τῆς Shepherd of
Hermas controverted).
XII.—THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.
. Clement of Rome, .
Paul at the limit of the πα, oe
2. Tatian (Eus. H. E. IV. 29),
Amended Paul.
3. Caius,
Did not count ΠΤ among Paul's Epistles.
4, Syriac and Old Latin Versions,
5. Muratorian Canon,
6. Origen,
7. Eusebius, j Σ
Paul’s history after the end of ers as s indicated in Ὁ Πα ὦ and
stated by other writers.
8. Jerome,
On the same subject, πῇ on Hebrews:
XIJI.—EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
1. Barnabas,
. Clement of Rome, .
First Epistle ; Second Epistle.
. Ignatius,
. Polycarp,
. dustin Martyr,
And note.
. Letter to Diognetus, :
. Letter of the Christians of Vienne aud τ
. Syriac and Old Latin Versions, ὃ
. Muratorian Canon,
. The Presbyters,
Of Irenzeus.
. Tatian,
. Ireneus,
Paul by name.
. Athenagoras,
. Theophilus,
. Clement of Alexandria,
. Tertullian,
On Rom. xv. and xvi.
. Origen,
MSS varying in ἀπ τ xvi. 25- 27. Note.
207
209
210
210
210
211
211
211
213
99 τὰ σὺ OCR 90 τὸ μι
NO σι μ CO De
CONTENTS.
XIV.—FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
. Barnabas, A
. Clement of Rome, .
Paul by name, &e.
. Hermas,
. Ignatius,
. Polycarp,
. Martyrdom of Boley
. Justin Martyr,
. Letter to Diognetus,
. The Presbyters,
Trenzus.
. Hegesippus,
On 1 Cor. ii. 9.
. Syriac and Old Latin Versions and Muratorian Canon,
. Tatian,
. Athenagoras,
. Theophilus,
. Irenzus,
. Clement of πι.
. Tertullian,
XV.—SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
. Clement of Rome,
. Ignatius,
Polycarp, .
. Letter to Dieedceas:
Athenagoras,
Theophilus,
. Syriac and Old Latin Versions ane Maveviecian Caen
Ireneus,
Paul by name.
. The Presbyters,
Paul by name.
. Clement of Alexandria,
. Tertullian,
XVI.—GALATIANS.
. Barnabas, :
. Clement of Rome, .
. Ignatius,
. Polycarp, .
. Justin Martyr,
. Letter to Diognetus,
. Syriac and Old Latin Versions ae Mineatorem Ganon
b bo
Φ
ΟΝ ΟΝ Wb ΤῸ]
ΒΘ ΙΘΙΘ Wh wb b pp
σὺ Od OY Or OF .
14.
10.
11
CONTENTS.
. Tatian,
Athenagoras,
. Irenzus,
. Clement of Mezararta,
. Acts of Paul and Thecla,
. Tertullian, :
. Clementine Homilies,
XVII.—EPHESIANS.
. Barnabas,
Note on genuineness.
. Clement of Rome, .
. Hermas,
. Ignatius,
. Polycarp,
The Epistle is ‘‘ Ser ee
. Syriac and Old Latin Versions and Muratorian Canon,
. Ireneus,
Names Paul to the Mphecans
. Theophilus,
. Clement of Alexandria,
. Tertullian,
To Ephesians, not to ἘΠ
. Clementine Homilies,
. Origen,
To the ἘΠῚ
. Epiphanius,
On Marcion’s Laodiceans compare Tertullian’ 5 ae ane see ie
p. 242.
Jerome,
XVIII.—PHILIPPIANS.
. Clement of Rome, .
. Ignatius,
: alge,
“The blessed ταῦ pinned (2) ἘΠῚ τὸ
. Martyrdom of Eee Ῥ,
. Justin Martyr,
. Letter to Diognetus, <
. Letter of Christians of Vienne ead Lyons,
. lreneus,
Paul to Bide ane
. Theophilus,
According to Jerome, quoted Philippians in Be Commentary on the
four τοῖσι in one.
Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian,
242
243
243
244
244
244
245
245°
245
245
246
246
RK OD OND OF WO τῷ μὶ
- μὰ
SOF Ww We
OMIA OP οὐ τὸ μὰ
ONIANPE WHE
CONTENTS.
XIX.—COLOSSIANS.
Note on Epistle,
. Barnabas, . :
. Clement of Rome, .
. Ignatius,
. Polycarp,
. Justin Martyr,
a Ratan;
. Syriac and Old τ nantes πῇ γεν ρεῖαῖ Gan
. Ireneus,
. Theophilus,
. Clement of Alexandria,
. Tertullian, .
XX.—FIRST THESSALONIANS.
Note on Epistle,
. Barnabas, :
. Clement of Rome, .
Ignatius,
Polycarp,
. Syriac, Old Latin, one Niaeatorian Caden
. Irenzus,
. Clement of Πρ
. Tertullian,
XXI.—SECOND THESSALONIANS.
Note on Epistle,
. Barnabas, .
. Polyearp,
. Justin Martyr,
. Ireneus,
. Clement of Mev an dria,
. Tertullian,
XXII.—FIRST TIMOTHY.
Note on the Pastoral Epistles,
. Barnabas, .
. Clement of Rome,
Ignatius,
. Polycarp,
Letter to πρησῖτητς
. Letter of the Christians of Vienne foul Tae
. Justin Martyr, : : :
. Hegesippus,
bo
σι
μι
μι
1, Syriac and Old Latin Versions, Muratorian Canon,
. Tertullian, .
bo
SOOM OH οὐ DO et
SHONAMNEWNHE
CONTENTS.
. Syriac, Old Latin, and Muratorian Canon,
. Athenagoras,
. Theophilus,
. Ireneus,
. Clement of Ἀππεξ πη,
. Tertullian,
. Jerome,
XXIII.—SECOND TIMOTHY.
. Barnabas, :
. Clement of Rome, .
Ignatius,
Polyearp,
Athenagoras,
- Trensous,
. Clement of Nisecohns
. Tertullian,
. Origen,
. Eusebius,
(See also p. 211. ᾿
XXIV.—TITUS.
. Barnabas,
. Clement of Rome,
. Ignatius,
. Irenzeus,
Tatian,
. Athenagoras,
. Theophilus,
. Justin Martyr,
. Clement of Alexandria,
. Tertullian,
XXV.—PHILEMON.
In Marcion’s Canon.
. Origen,
. Eusebius, .
. Jerome,
Defence against ἜΣ ge τ being a an sae Epistle.
XX VI.—HEBREWS.
Note on the Epistle,
7 barmnabas, . :
. Clement of Rome, .
. Ignatius,
259
259
259
259
259
260
260
262
262
262
262
263
263
263
264
264
264
266
266
266
266
267
267
267
267
267
268
269
269
269
270
270
272
272
272
274
“SIO OP WR
10.
OONAMEWH HE
CONTENTS.
. Polycarp,
. Hermas,
. Justin Martyr,
. Syriac and Old Latin πο ΠῚ Τα ΠΝ
. Trenzeus,
. Pantenus, .
. Clement of ΠΕ ἘΣ
. Tertullian,
. Caius (about A.D. 200),
. Hippolytus,
. Origen, :
. Dionysius of alex andvins :
. Cyprian,
. Eusebius,
. Athanasius, :
. Cyril of Jerusalem,
. Epiphanius,
. Theodoret, .
. Jerome,
XXVII.—THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Note on the Catholic Epistles,
. Clement of Alexandria,
. Origen,
. Dionysius of ecm
. Eusebius,
. Epiphanius,
. Jerome,
XXVIII.—JAMES.
Note on the Epistle,
. Clement of Rome, .
Hermas,
Ignatius,
. Polycarp,
. Syriac and Old πεῖς Teas imeetorne Catan,
. lreneus,
. Clement of ΓΞ ΕΝ
. Hippolytus,
. Tertullian,
Not oo
Origen,
Quotes by name ; see le antes,
. Eusebius,
. Athanasius,
. Cyril of J erusalem,
. Epiphanius,
. Jerome,
om © De
CONTENTS.
XXIX.— FIRST PETER.
Note on the Epistle,
. Barnabas, :
. Clement of Rome, .
. Hermas,
. Ignatius,
. Polycarp,
Clear use of 1 Peter.
. Papias,
Use of 1 Peter.
. Letter to Diognetus,
. Letter of the Christians of π᾿ and Lye
. Syriac and Old Latin Versions, and Muratorian Canon,
. Ireneus,
. Clement of Riese
. Tertullian,
See note.
. Origen,
. Cyprian,
. Eusebius,
. Athanasius,
. Cyril of J “apelin,
. Epiphanius,
. Jerome,
XXX.—SECOND PETER.
Note on the Epistle,
. Barnabas,
. Clement of Rome, .
See notes.
. Hermas,
. Ignatius,
See note, p. 313.
. Polycarp,
. Justin Martyr,
. Syriac and Old Latin γ᾿ ταὶ ΜΠ Ganon:
. Melito,
. Trenzeus,
. Theophilus,
. Clement of Alexandria,
See note.
. Origen,
. Firmilian, .
. Eusebius,
. Athanasius,
. Cyril of Jerusalem,
. Gregory of Nazianzum,
. Epiphanius,
. Jerome,
301
302
302
303
304
304
305
306
306
306
307
307
307
308
309
310
310
811
911
911
912
313
313
313
314
314
314
314
314
315
315
316
316
317
317
317
317
318
318
318
©
COND MR οὐ τῷ μαὶ
CONTENTS.
XXXI.—FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Note on the Epistle,
. Barnabas, Ξ
. Clement of Rome, .
. Hermas,
. Ignatius,
. Polycarp,
Clear quotation.
Papias, :
Used the Epistle.
. Justin Martyr,
. Letter to Diognetus,
. Letter of the Christians of Vienne πος Tame.
. Muratorian Canon,
Names two (perhaps ie) Epistles of J sh.
. Syriac and Old Latin Versions,
Contain it.
. Ireneus,
Quotes.
. Clement of Alexandria,
Quotes.
. Tertullian,
Quotes.
. Origen,
Quotes, see note.
. Dionysius of Alexandria, .
. Cyprian,
. Eusebius,
. Athanasius,
. Cyril of J τ
. Epiphanius,
. Jerome,
XXXII.—SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF
Note on the two Epistles, .
. Polycarp,
. Ignatius,
. Treneus,
. Clement of Mieariivia:
Origen,
. Dionysius of Wieertdric:
. Cyprian, :
. Alexander, Bishop is πη
. Eusebius,
: “-
. Laodicene peed A.D. 364,
. Cyril of Jerusalem,
. Epiphanius,
. Jerome,
em ΦΟΙΘ καὶ
τὸ ee
CONTENTS.
XXXIII.—JUDE.
Note on the Epistle,
. Barnabas, .
. Hermas,
. Polycarp, :
. Muratorian Canon,
Contains it.
. Syriac and Old Latin Versions,
Old Latin contains it, Syriac wants it.
. Ireneus,
Doubtful.
. Clement of Alexandria,
Quoted and commented on J San
. Tertullian,
On Book of Huoch and the ue fen made. a2
. Origen,
Quotes, see note.
. Eusebius,
. Athanasius,
. Cyril of Jerusalem,
. Epiphanius,
. Jerome,
XXXIV.—APOCALYPSE.
(For general note see p. 357.)
. Barnabas, :
. Clement of Rome, .
. Hermas,
See note.
. Ignatius,
. Papias,
See note.
. Justin Martyr,
Quotes as by the reat J ohn.
. Melito,
. Apollonius,
Quotes.
. Letter of the Christians of Vienne and Lyons,
Quotes.
. Irenzus,
Quotes by name as ἘΠΕ the Nees J pia 3 see ote:
. Athenagoras, 3 : ‘
. Theophilus,
. Clement of Alexandria,
Cites as Scripture.
. Tertullian, .
331
331
331
331
332
332
332
332
333
333
335
335
335
335
335
336
336
336
338
338
339
339
340
340
340
342 |
342
342
343
CONTENTS.
15. Caius, F
Mecribed it to πέος see note.
16. Muratorian Fragment,
aie
12.
Names it as John’s.
. Syriae (wants it) and Old Latin Versions (contain it),
. Origen, : : :
The Apostle J ἘΠΕ 5.
. Hippolytus,
Gospel and Apocalypse = the Apostle:
. Dionysius of Alexandria, .
Not by the Apostle ; see his sens ἼΤ in successive para-
graphs.
. Cyprian,
. Methodius, :
. Victorinus Petavionensis, .
. Pamphilus,
. Lactantius,
. Eusebius,
The rank of the bask ΤΠ]. see p. 11 and note.
. Athanasius,
. Cyril,
Omits the book.
. Epiphanius,
By John.
. Hilary,
. Jerome,
Note on Chapter XXXIV.,
ῬΑ ὙΠ
TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN.
. Tacitus (a.D. 61 to about A.p. 120),
. Martial (A.p. 60 to A.D. 100),
. Pliny’s letter asking directions from Ter
The Emperov’s reply to Pliny,
. Suetonius (a.p. 121),
. Letter of Hadrian to Minucius Bandanas ἯΙ τ Α.Ὁ. 180),
. Letter of Hadrian to Servianus,
. Antoninus Pius (Marcus Aurelius?) πρὸς τὸ παρὸν τῆς ᾿Αοΐαε (A.D p. 148 2),
. Lucian (A.D. 176), . ; Ξ
. Celsus (about a.p. 178),
See note ; on the Gospels ; τσ τς ἴο Matthew ; to Mark τ ΤΠ :
to J Tee to apocryphal narratives ; to the Epistles,
Porphyry (ead of third century), . :
Chrysostom on Celsus and Porphyry,
361
362
362
364
364
364
366
367
368
369
378
379
92
12
19,
14,
15.
16.
ΤῈ
. Heracleon (A.D. 140-160), .
CONTENTS,
PARI 111:
TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
. Simon Magus (contemporary of Paul),
Note on; Ireneus ; Hippolytus on Simon.
. Cerinthus (contemporary of John),
Note on; Epiphanius on.
. Naassenes or Ophites (first century),
Note on; Hippolytus on; subdivisions of Ophites, Pardee Seine
Justin.
. Basilides and Isidorus (a.p. 125), .
See Introduction ; testimonies from, and ἜΣ on.
. Marcion (about a. D. 140; see p. 75, nate),
1. Note on Marcion ; Justin on, p. 393; 2. Teeharty of τὸ Fathers
to the character ad object of Marcion’ s work, 394; 3. Contents
of Marcion’s Gospel (in comparison with Takers Gael 400 ;
4, Marcion and the Epistles, 408; 5. Marcion’s ADO ae 409.
. Carpocrates (contemporary of Basilides),
Note on ; testimonies by.
. Valentinus (A.D. 140),
Note on; testimonies by ; examples of Valentinian quotation or inter-
pretation, with notes.
39
Note on; testimonies to; and note on “ ἘΠ πο specimens of
πα: of Heracleon.
: Ptolemens (contemporary of Heracleon), .
Note on ; his position, and quotations of Scripture
Marcus, :
Note on Marcus etl Marcos eee socio of Ὥς. ‘Prepan
(a Marcionite).
. Docete,
Note on Doceti ead on ππ τ 3 ἘΠΡ ἢ 5 πε Ἐν Daceuc
quotations, :
Theodotus,
Note on Theodotua; eevee of ‘the name; use , of the ‘Gospel (J ΠΕ:
included) and the Epistles; Theodotus as quoted by Se
Apelles (contemporary of Marcion), : :
Note on Apelles; his quotations of aaa
Julius Cassianus, : ;
The Ebionites, : ἢ : ‘
Note on the Ebionites ; their treatment of Scripture.
The Montanists or Cataphrygians,
Note on the Montanists ; their tenets.
The Alogi, . "
Note on the Alogi ; Socata Asan in ες and Husebins ; testi-
mony of Berean!
&
383
384
411
413
419
422
424
425
426
429
431
431
434
436
CONTENTS.
18. Clementine Homilies,
Quotations in the Homilies from the Gospels anal from τὐππο τε sources
(most of the passages under descriptive headings); note on use made
of other books of the N. T. in the Homilies.
19. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
Note on ; quotations from.
[ Table of the Lists of the Heretics given by Ireneeus, Hippolytus, Epipha-
nius, Philastrius, Pseudo- Tertullian, and Theodoret], :
ἘΠ LY,
EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS.
1, GosPEL OF THE HEBREWS,
A. Testimonies to its existence, .
1. Ignatius,
. Hegesippus,
. Papias,
. Ireneus,
. Clement of ΕΝ
Origen, .
. Eusebius,
. Jerome, .
. Theodoret (A.D. 451- 458),
10. Nicephorus (A.D. 758-828),
11. Epiphanius,
B. Quotations from its Newarene or ie Ebionite ‘has De,
Jerome, Irenzeus, Eusebius, Origen, &c., .
. PROTEVANGELIUM JACOBI,
. Acts oF PILATE,
. GosPEL OF PETER, and aa
. GOSPEL OF EGYPTIANS,
PASSAGES OF UNKNOWN Onrauy OCCURRING IN Hany WR eERRS,
CONTR OR & PD
=)
σι em CO τῷ
445
447
451
451
451
451
452
452
452
452
453
453
455
455
456
456
464
464
466
468
470
oa
a
5
«
ri
ἀν HK KX u
Ls CY
INTRODUCTION.
I.—BARNABAS.
Txoucu we have no very early—certainly no contemporary—reference
to this Epistle, the first references with which we meet are both ex-
plicit and harmonious. Clement of Alexandria, who is said to have
written a short commentary upon it, and who certainly quotes it re-
peatedly, calls it the work of the Apostle Barnabas. Origen calls it the
Catholic Epistle of Barnabas. The “ Apostolical Constitutions” (date
uncertain) quote, or rather appropriate, chapters 18-20 of this Epistle.
It appears, therefore, that at the end of the second and beginning of the
third century the Alexandrian Church regarded this letter as genuine
and important. Neither Clement nor Origen can be fairly charged
with assigning to it a place among the canonical Scriptures. But when
we find it in the Cod. Sin. after the books of the New Testament, we
see grounds for ascribing to it liturgical if not canonical authority
in the estimation of the Alexandrian Church of the fourth century.
Eusebius (H. E. III. 26) numbers it among the spurious (ἐν τοῖς νόθοις).
It is doubtful whether he meant by this that the Epistle was not the
1 Hilgenfeld (Nov. Test. ex. Can. Rec., Fase. iv. p. 94) finds Barnabas, ὁ. 18,
21, in the fragmentary Due vie vel Judiciwm Petri. The same passage is also said
to be silently appropriated in Apost. Const., Book vii. 1-18. But the whole basis
is uncertain, and the dates are hypothetical. This ethical portion of Barnabas, ὁ. 18,
20, which is in some measure a paraphrase of the Sermon on the Mount, corre-
sponds to another paraphrase which is found amongst other matter in the Apost.
Const., and parts of it are also found in the short homilies ascribed to various Apos-
tles (John, Matthew, Peter, Andrew, Philip, Simon, James, Nathanael, Thomas,
Cephas, and Bartholomew) in αἱ διαταγαὶ ai διὰ Κλήμεντος καὶ κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ
τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων (see Hilg. Ν. T., Fasc. iv. p. 95 et 864.}, which Hilg. regards as
the Due vie vel Judicium Petri. But while in Barnabas, ὁ. 18, in Apost. Const.,
6. 1, and in those διαταγαί (which are a shorter and probably earlier form of the
Apostolical Constitutions), we have a formal beginning, ‘‘ There are two ways,” &c.,
we have not such a correspondence in detail as to be of much use in deciding
questions of date or authorship; and to appeal to that Due vie, &c., in order to de-
cide on the date of Barnabas, is like going from twilight to darkness for a clearer
view.
a
ll INTRODUCTION.
work of Barnabas, or merely that it was not canonical. Jerome, how-
ever, unhesitatingly calls it apocryphal, though he does not say that
it is not genuine. In the Western Church we have no proof (save the
existence of an old Latin version of the first seventeen chapters!) that
the Epistle had at any time a place in the regard of Christian com-
munities. It does not seem to have been known in the west before
the fourth century: it was forgotten even in the east after the seventh
or eighth.
The Cod. Sin. is the only complete Greek text which has been pub-
lished in full; but Hilgenfeld (1877) made known the readings in
another text discovered by Bryennios. The readings in the Cod. Sin.
are often corrupt, and in some cases appeal is made by editors to the
old Latin version for guidance. (See reference to Bryennios below,
p- v1.)
If we ask whether this Epistle is really the work of Paul’s comrade,
all the early positive testimony which we have makes us answer that
it is; but there is no little weight in the negative testimony, which
shows us that its reputation was always local, and even in the locality
short-lived. The witnesses (Clem. Alex., Origen, and Jerome) were
not contemporaries of Barnabas; and their evidence goes no further
than to assure us of the repute in which the production was held in
their day. Even in regard to Clement’s frequent use of it, we must
add that while he quotes, he holds himself at liberty to criticise and
blame it. There seems to have been in his mind, and still more pro-
bably in the minds of those who came after him, an instinctive convic-
tion that even though Barnabas might be the author, the Epistle was
not a rule for Christians. And this instinct continued to gain strength
until Alexandrian Christians forgot what the rest of Christendom con-
tinued to disregard.
Nor is the reason far to seek. The arguments in the Epistle are
such as would find their chief popularity in Alexandria; but even
there they could only be popular for a short time. They go to prove
the superiority of Christianity to Judaism ; of inner or mystical know-
ledge (γνῶσις) to the mere acceptance of the letter of the Old Testa-
ment; and what Paul in Galatians had done for all men, his friend was
supposed in Alexandria to have done by this epistle in a way specially
acceptable to mystics. The coincidence of the author’s. purpose with
that of good men in Alexandria prevented their testing his assertions,
or carefully estimating the probability of his being ‘“ Barnabas.” But
the temporary acceptance soon came to an end; and this, in all pro-
bability, because the early Church felt what modern critics have
almost unanimously agreed in stating. The Barnabas of the New
Testament was a Jew, a Levite, more Jewish in his leanings than
1 This Latin version has for title ‘‘ Epistola Barnabe :” see Gebhardt, Proleg.,
pixxx,
BARNABAS. lil
Paul (Gal. ii. 13); but the author of this Epistle denounces Jew-
ish sacrifices (c. 2) and Jewish fasts (c. 3) in a way foreign to Paul;
he declares (c. 4) that Jews lost their covenant rights when Moses
broke the tables of the law, &c. He attempts to describe the cere-
monies of the great day of atonement (c. 7), and to treat the red heifer
as a type of Christ (c. 8), but is so incorrect in his statements as to
show that he “ was neither accurately acquainted with the text of the
law, nor had even seen the celebration of the day of atonement.”1 His
position in regard to Judaism is therefore not that of Barnabas. And
another argument against his being the companion of Paul and of the
other Apostles may well be found in the famous passage where, desir-
ous of proving Christ’s power as a Saviour, he says, “ When He chose
His own apostles who were to preach His Gospel, He chose those who
were lawless beyond the bounds of all ordinary sin, that He might
show He came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν
ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομωτέρους, ἵνα δείξῃ ὅτι οὐκ ἦλθεν καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτω-
λούς---ο, 5). We can scarcely imagine that this was spoken of the other
Apostles by one who had known their goodness and truth, and who, if
he wrote the Epistle at all, wrote it after the destruction of Jerusalem,
when of them all only John survived.
It seems impossible in the face of such internal evidence to accept
the statements of Clem. Alex. and Origen; or if they are accepted as
to the author’s name, we are bound to suppose that this Barnabas was not
the companion of St Paul. But for critical purposes, it is perhaps more
important to come to some conclusion as to the date than as to the
authorship. If it were written by the Barnabas of whom we read in
our New Testament, it must be a production of the first century.
From the silence of the New Testament as to any proceedings of Bar-
nabas in the last period of St Paul’s life, we should not suppose that he
was alive at the siege of Jerusalem. This Epistle, however, is evident-
ly written after the fall of the temple—z.e., after a.p. 70.?
But this is all that is evident. Some critics have tried to show
that at the time when the Epistle was written, hopes were enter-
1 Donaldson, Apostolical Fathers (1874), p. 256. See the whole argument sum-
med up by Dr Donaldson.. : ᾿
2 We may here quote from c. 16 the passage on which the question of date chief-
ly turns. The last sentence is ambiguous, but the whole may be rendered as fol-
lows : ‘‘ Yet again I shall speak to you about the temple, how those ill-fated and
misguided creatures set their hopes upon the building, and not upon their God and
Creator, as though the mere building were the house of God.” Then he quotes
Isaiah xl. 12, Ixvi. 1, xlix. 17, to show how vain was the Jewish hope ; and goes on
to quote, ‘‘Again says the Lord, Behold, they who destroy this temple shall them-
selves build it. This is fulfilled, for because of their making war it was destroyed
by the enemies. And now also they, and the servants of the enemies, shall
build it anew from the foundation.” After a little he says, ‘‘ Let us ask whether
there is a temple of God ;” and he answers ‘‘ there is”—but he goes on to show
that it is ‘‘a spiritual temple built by the Lord.”
lv INTRODUCTION.
tained that the temple was about to be rebuilt by Jews in co-oper-
ation with Gentiles. It is quite true that he goes on to speak of
a spiritual temple ; but he is meanwhile speaking of a temple which
enemies could destroy, and Jews along with enemies could rebuild, and
this must be a material temple. The conclusion therefore is, that we
have a date early in Hadrian’s reign, before Hadrian turned against the
Jews. There is evidence that the Jews did expect him to favour them
about this time. Within the short period when this expectation was
cherished, our ‘‘ Barnabas” is supposed to have written,—7.e., about A.D.
120. It must be admitted that some straining is needed to make us
fix on that particular time. All that can be fairly concluded from the
passage is, that the author seems to have had some idea of a possible
reconstruction of the temple, when the Jews, along with servants of
Rome (or, according to another reading, themselves acting as servants
of Rome), would rebuild 1.7
There is another passage (c. 4) in which the author seems to give an
indication of his date by quoting Daniel vii. 4 and vii. 7, but here too
certainty fails us. That there are ten kings past, and that a little
king would rise to crush three, may be accepted as the meaning; but
who were the ten, and who was the eleventh? Who was the first, and
who were the τρεῖς ὑφ᾽ ἕν 1 Vespasian, Nerva, and Domitian have been
suggested as the eleventh; and the arguments for Domitian would be
clear if we could see how to say of Domitian in relation to his prede-
cessors ἐταπείνωσεν τρεῖς ὑφ᾽ ἕν." As things are, we must pass the apoc-
alyptic riddle by,—perhaps with a suspicion that “Barnabas” himself
had no very clear notion how to read it.
There is a reference in Origen (C. Cels., I. 63), who quotes from
Celsus some misrepresentation of the character of the Apostles, and
adds that Celsus probably picked up the idea from the passage in
Barnabas (ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἀνομώτεροι). This shows Origen’s be-
lief that “ Barnabas” was accessible to Celsus, and indicates for Bar-
nabas a date not later than the middle of the second century. But
the date of Celsus himself is not very certain, and we get from this
nothing more than a limit.
On the whole, therefore, we cannot be sure of the date. There is in
the whole tone of the Epistle, however, something that makes us feel
it necessary to regard Jerusalem as in ruins ;? and Adlia Capitolina,
1 1 cannot see that Hilgenfeld, N. T., p. 75 et seg., has succeeded in disposing of
all reference to the material temple ; or that Dr Donaldson’s arguments, p. 267 et seq.,
bring him to his conclusion, p. 273, for a date within the first quarter of the
second century.
2 The Sibylline Oracles, B. v., say, ‘‘ Τρεῖς ἄρξουσιν, 6 δὲ τρίτος ὀψὲ κρατήσει πάντων."
This comes after a description of the Roman emperors down to Hadrian, so that the
three are probably Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, and Commodus. A similar passage
occurs in B. viii., where it is said that three reigns come between Hadrian and the
end of the world. See Lardner, vol. ii. p. 337.
3 See Hefele, Proleg., p. xiii.
BARNABAS. Vv
A.D. 119, as not yet founded. And when we add this to the passage
(c. 4) describing an apparent expectation in the writer’s own mind that
the old temple would be built up again, we may probably conclude
with the majority of recent writers that A.p. 119 or a.p. 120 is after all
a likely time for it being written. But there is not really any very
cogent reason against going back to an earlier time soon after the
fall of Jerusalem, and so finding ourselves almost in the very age
of the Apostles.! That the apostolic Barnabas wrote it, is however an
untenable theory.
We next ask to whom the Epistle was addressed. It would take
us too long to recount all the opinions on this subject, and the argu-
ments by which they have been supported. We may say in a word,
that the author seems to have regarded his readers as an ordinary
Christian community,—his arguments being such as all needed, and all
might appreciate. He appears to have had a special church in view.
The majority were probably Gentiles by birth, but there is nothing to
prevent one believing that there was a Jewish element among them.”
That the writer himself was accustomed to use Greek we may
safely conjecture from c. 9, and from the same passage we may sup-
pose that he was under Alexandrian influence. When he argues that
Abraham circumcised 318 persons of his household, and that in doing
so he was looking forward to Jesus “ embodying the lessons taught by
three letters” (TIH λαβὼν τριῶν γραμμάτων δόγματα), he not only speaks
as a Greek, but makes Abraham’s thoughts run in the same mould!
“What, then, was the wisdom (γνῶσις) given in this? . . . The
eighteen are IH—there you have Jesus (Ἰησοῦς). And because the
cross was to express the grace (of our redemption) by the letter T,
he says also 300. Thus he shows Jesus in the two letters (IH), and
the cross in the one letter T.” “No one,” he complacently adds,
“ever learned a more capital bit of knowledge from me than this ;
but I know that ye are worthy.” From this passage we may conclude
that the writer was a Greek writing to Greeks, and probably a Greek
trained in the logomachy of Alexandria. It does not seem from the
Epistle as a whole that he was acquainted with any of the systems of
Christian Gnosticism ; but he represents significantly the tendencies to
overvalue γνῶσις, and to regard the allegorising of Old Testament his-
tory as an important branch of γνῶσις, which afterwards issued in these
systems. In answer to the question whether Barnabas quotes our
canonical Gospels, we may refer to the passages in our text. We have
1 Thus Lardner says A.D. 71 or 72. The passage, ὁ. 4, 14 (see our text, under
the head of Barnabas), seems to point to a time (not, indeed, when signs and wonders
were seen, but) when Israel was utterly abandoned ; and one thinks of the abandon-
ment as recent. ‘‘ Between the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the reduc-
tion of the remaining cities of Judea, of which Josephus has given an account after
the burning of the temple.” —Lardner.
2 Even c. 14, 5, and c. 16, 7, may be interpreted as confirming this.
vi INTRODUCTION.
as good evidence as can be reasonably required for his use of our St
Matthew in c. 4, 14—c. 5, 9; and the other passages, while probably
confirmatory of this usage, are not to be regarded as evidence of it.
The attempts to find references to Luke are not very successful. From
John there is not any absolute quotation, although there are several
interesting passages, in which the parallelism of thought is suggest-
ive! The correspondence in thought and theology between this
Epistle and the fourth Gospel—still more perhaps between Barnabas
and the first Epistle of John—is too striking to be left unnoticed.
“The ‘Son of God’ must manifest Himself in the flesh, and come
through death and the cross to His kingly power, must bring life and
divine abiding—that is in both compositions the ruling thought. He
existed before the foundation of the world, was the sender of the pro-
phets, the subject of prophecy, seen before by Abraham, and prefigured
in the person of Moses as Israel’s only hope.” So said Keim,” in words
which are not to be forgotten, though he himself may seem at a later
time to draw back somewhat from the conclusion to which they lead.*
Not only does Barnabas regard Christ’s incarnation in the same way as
John does, but the facts of Christ’s life as recorded by John seem to
be the indispensable basis of the theology of Barnabas. It is not pos-
sible to avoid this conclusion, by speaking of both as products of the
Alexandrian school, because the most Alexandrian portion of John—
the doctrine of the Logos—is conspicuous by its absence in Barnabas.
This leads us to observe further, that the Epistle of Barnabas is so
much more theological than Clement, as to have much the same re-
semblance to it which John has to the Synoptists. It is quite true
that he is not a clear theologian ; that his use of Old Testament types
is hard and over-refined, and that his general disquisitions are cum-
brous; and that, as we have seen, his knowledge of Old Testament
history and ritual is extremely inaccurate: but all this must not cause
us to forget how pure is his theology,—how unfaltering is his faith in
the one Almighty Maker and Ruler of all,—and how his constant endea-
vour is to show that the Son of God was incarnate, and taught, and
suffered, and died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both
of the dead and living. And when he comes‘ to teach the practical
duties of the Christian life, he shows a tenderness of feeling and a
beauty of expression that make us almost ready to think that he was
none other than the “good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of
faith,” of whom we read in Acts xi. 24.
1 See under head of ‘‘ John” the references to Barnabas.
2 Jesu v. Nazar. (1867), vol. i. pp. 141-143. Compare Keim’s Gesch. Jesu (1873),
p-. 41, where he makes the date of John a.p. 130.
3 See Geb. and Har., p. xl.
4 Although the second part (chaps. 18-21) is not in the old Latin version, the MS
authority and the internal resemblances seem to combine in justifying the conclu-
sion that it is an integral part of the Epistle.
i i .. -ἱ΄- {φὼ -
BARNABAS. vil
In conclusion, we may note that in the theology of this Epistle we
find no proof of a chasm between the Petrine and Pauline parties in
the Church. In the author’s views of “life,” of “life-giving,” of
Christ’s “blood,” of the “forgiveness of sin,” we have unstudied
agreement now with one, now with the other of the great Apostles.
In his view of the Old Testament he is too individual and absurd to
resemble any one of the canonical writers; but if some controversialist
conclude from this that he is merely “ultra Pauline,” he has to account
for the other passages where we seem to have an echo of the teach-
ings of John or James.
[The relation of Barnabas to the Fourth Gospel is to be studied as a
matter of thought and of theology, rather than of verbal quotation or
parallelism. (See Introduction, “ Barnabas.”) But the following pas-
sages are at least suggestive :—
C. 5, 6. αὐτὸς δὲ, ἵνα καταργήσῃ τὸν θάνατον καὶ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν δείξῃ, ὅτι
ἐν σαρκὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν φανερωθῆναι, ὑπέμεινεν.
ζῆν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (6. 6, ὃ ; 6. 8, ὅ; ὁ. 11, 10, 11). Compare John
vi. 51, 58, ὅτο,
6, 6. ἐπὶ τὸν ivaricudyv—John xix. 24, same quotation. See also Justin, Ap. I.
38.
6, 7. ἐν σαρκὶ ody αὐτοῦ μέλλοντος φανεροῦσθαι Kal πάσχειν, προεφανερώθη
τὸ πάθος. Compare John i. 31; 1 Johni. 2; iii. 5, 8; also 1 Tim.
iii. 16.
5,6;6,7.. . . φανερωθῆναι ἐν σαρκί. . . φανεροῦσθαι, ἕο. See John xix.
. 34.”
7; 2. εἰ οὖν ὃ bibs τοῦ Θεῦυ, ὧν Κύριος καὶ μέλλων κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς,
ἔπαθεν ἵνα ἣ πληγὴ αὐτοῦ ζωοποιήσῃ ἡμᾶς, πιστεύσωμεν STL ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ
Θεοῦ οὐκ ἠδύνατο παθεῖν εἰ μὴ δι’ ἡμᾶς. Compare John vy. 21, ff. See
ζωοποιήσει, C. 12, 5.
7, 9. κατακεντήσαντες. Compare John xix. 37.
11, 17. ζωοποιούμενοι ζήσομεν, &e.
19, 12. οὐ προσήξεις ἐπὶ προσευχὴν ἐν συνειδήσει movnpa=John ix. 31, ἁμαρτωλῶν
6 Θεὸς οὐκ ἀκούει.
21, 2. ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν εἰς os ἐργάσησθε-- [00 xii. 8, τυὺς πτωχοὺς πάντοτε
ἔχετε μεθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν.
21, 6. θεοδίδακτοι---διδακτοὶ (τοῦ) ©cov—John vi. 45. |
1 In regard to quotations from Old Testament Apocryphal Books, we may say that
the oniy one beyond doubt is from Sirach iv. 31 (see Barnabas, ὁ. 19, 9). The other
passages (Enoch inc. iv. 3, and c. xvi. 5; Esdras, c. xii. 1 ; and Sirach in ὁ. iv. 26)
are, for various reasons, not to be relied upon as quotations. See Donaldson, p.
304 et seq.
2 On τ other hand, it has been said that the words of Barnabas, ec. 5, 18 (“ἔδει
γὰρ ἵνα ἐπὶ ξύλου πάθῃ: λέγει yap ὃ προφητεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ" Φεῖσαί μου τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ
ῥομφαίας), could not have been written had the author known what John says of
the Roman soldier’s spear—John xix. 84. But this by no means follows.
Vill INTRODUCTION.
II.—CLEMENT OF ROME.
First Epistie.
CiemeEnt’s place in the traditions of the early Church is a very prom-
inent one. After the chief apostles, there is no man to whom the
Christians of the second and third centuries more frequently looked
back. Numerous works falsely ascribed to him were partly the
effect and partly the cause of his celebrity. Several Epistles! bear
his name ; certain “ Homilies” and “ Recognitions” also; a Liturgy ;
and the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions. There is now little
doubt that the only one of those works which can be fairly reckoned
as his is the epistle from “the Church at Rome to the Church at
Corinth,” commonly known as the First Epistle of Clement. We must
accept it as written by him in name of the Church, although no
trace of his personal authorship appears in its contents. It is through
out a letter from church to church. Its testimony to the canonical
Scriptures is specially important, because it is undoubtedly of very
early date.
Until lately, only one MS of this interesting letter was known to
exist, and it is incomplete. It forms part of the Codex Alexandrinus
(Cod. A) in the British Museum. There was a gap in its contents ;
but in 1875 critics and students were startled by the appearance of a
careful and complete edition published in Constantinople from a MS
discovered in the “library of the Holy Sepulchre ”’ in that city. Its
editor is Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Serre. Six new chap-
ters” (containing among other interesting matter a prayer of singular
beauty *) are added by this new MS to the text of Cod. A. In the same
book published by Bryennios is contained also a complete edition of the
so-called “Second Epistle of Clement,’ which is manifestly not an
Epistle, but a Homily. The learned and fortunate editor promised
to issue in due time the other works found in the same MS volume,
1 As we shall see afterwards, there are epistles in Greek, in Syriac, and in Latin
ascribed to Clement.
2 Chaps. 58 to 63.
3 The prayer—the oldest public prayer of the Christian Church—is partially incor-
porated in the ‘‘ Apostolical Constitutions.” Dr Donaldson (Theol. Rev., No. lvi.)
has pointed out that the prayer claims (c. 59, c. 68, see also c. 56) inspiration and au-
thority, and this in some degree accounts for the reverence paid to the epistle in the
early Church. The liturgies of the early Church resemble this prayer in many of their
phrases. See Lightfoot’s Clement, and also ‘ Princeton Review,’ April 1877, p. 340.
CLEMENT OF ROME. 1X
including ‘The Doctrine of the Apostles,’ ‘ Barnabas,’ !
natian Letters.’
Scarcely was this discovery realised when a Syriac MS of the “ Two
Epistles” was also found (1876) in Paris. We are now therefore in
possession of three MSS, with apparently quite independent. testi-
monies, whereby the text of this early Christian work—‘ Clement’s
First Epistle ’—can be fairly decided upon.
That it is indeed a very early work there can be no reasonable doubt.
Traditional testimony consistently establishes the existence and prom-
inence of a letter of ‘Clement to the Corinthians,” and furnishes us
also with a key to its characteristics, as written by him in name of his
Church. “The Epistle which you wrote to us by Clement” is the
description of it by Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, writing to the Romans
about a.p. 170. (Kus. H. E. IV. 23.)? It was habitually read in
the Church of Corinth in the end of the second century ; it was evi-
dently used by the author of the Epistle of Polycarp;? and both
Eusebius and Jerome tell us that it was still publicly read in some
churches in their times. Its position at the end of Cod. A as an
appendix to the New Testament, and the even higher honour paid
to it by the newly-found Syriac MS, which inserts it in the middle of
the New Testament after the Catholic Epistles, can be no ground of
surprise. We must conclude that what we have in our hands is the
Epistle so highly valued in the early Church.*
But still there remain two questions: (1) As to the existence of a
Clement with such a position as the general acceptance of his Epistle
seems to imply ; and (2) as to the reasons for ascribing to Clement the
authorship of this particular Epistle.
(1) That there was a Clement of note in the early Church we must
accept as a fact, notwithstanding the fabulous additions which have
been made to it. Ireneeus (B. III. 33) tells us that Peter and Paul
gave the office of oversight to Linus (mentioned in 2 Tim. iv. 21) ;
that he was succeeded by Anencletus; and that Clement, who had
seen the Apostles, and had conversed with them, and had been taught
by them, was third in succession. Even if we doubt some points of
this narrative, there are no good grounds for doubting the shorter state-
ment which we owe to Eusebius, that Clement succeeded Anencletus,
and the ‘Ig-
1 On Barnabas he sent his readings to Hilgenfeld, who published an edition mak-
ing use of them in 1877. See before, p. 1].
2 Cod. A has it as ‘ Clement’s First Epistle,” both in the subscription at the end of’
the epistle itself and in the Index of Books at the end of the New Testament. The
Cod. found by Bryennios has it also as ‘‘ Clement’s First Epistle ;” so too the Syriac.
3 See Hefele; Geb. and Har., Proleg., p. lvii. on
4 Τῇ the newly-found chapters is a notable reference to the Holy Trinity: ‘For
as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit liveth—the faith
and hope of the Elect—so assuredly,” &c. Until the edition of Bryennios appeared,
this was only known in a quotation by Basil, and was the occasion of much per-
plexity.
Χ INTRODUCTION.
whose bishopric of twelve years had begun at the same time as the
reign of Domitian.! EHlsewhere Eusebius says he died in the third
year of Trajan’s reign. This gives us 93 4.p. to 101 a.p. as the term
of Clement’s episcopate. Tertullian? also directly connects Clement
with Peter, saying, in his fervid way, that he was ordained by Peter ;—
saying it so as to lead some to suppose that Clement was the first
overseer of the Roman Church after the Apostles. This was a wide-
spread tradition in the Western Church at a later time ; but it probably
took its shape from the fact that his is the first prominent name in the
post-apostolic ministry.
(2) What, then, are our grounds for connecting this disciple of the
Apostles, and overseer of the Roman Church (whether he were the first
or not), with the Epistle under consideration ὃ ὃ
“ Hermas” (about 4.p. 140) says Clement’s function was to send works
to foreign Churches. There is some doubt as to whether this was the
Roman Clement; but Dionysius (A.p. 170) says Clement’s Epistle was
read in the Church of Corinth every Lord’s Day. Hegesippus, who was
at Corinth on his way to Rome about the year a.p. 140 5 (Pius being
Bishop), seems to have read the Epistle at Corinth, and there is no
good ground to doubt (although this is not explicitly said by Eusebius)
that he speaks of it as Clement’s.. He also says explicitly that the
commotions in the Corinthian Church occurred in Clement’s time ; and,
as Ireneus® is equally explicit on this point, we have the strongest
ground for connecting him with the Epistle, the subject of which is so
clearly those commotions. The words of Iveneus are: “ἐπὶ τούτου
σοῦ Κλήμεντος." Clement of Alexandria ὃ quotes it repeatedly, calling it
at one time Clement’s, at another the Epistle of the Romans to the
Corinthians. There is doubt as to Origen’s use of the Epistle, but none
as to his regard for Clement. Husebius sums up the evidence very
fairly by saying that “Clement was universally recognised as the
author of the first Epistle written by him to the Corinthians, bearing
to be by the Roman Church.” 7
Age of the Epistle.
As the date of Clement’s “ Episcopate ”’ (we may use this word with-
out attempting to fix its exact meaning) is a matter of controversy, we
cannot decide the date of the Epistle off-hand, by reference to the time
already fixed for his presidency of the Church of Rome. But from the
Epistle itself we learn that its despatch had been delayed by reason of
certain sudden and successive calamities which fell upon the writers (c.
1). It appears that this was not the persecution in which the Apostles
Lat ἘΠΕ ΤΠῚ. 91. 2 De Prescr. Heret., p. xxxii.
3 See Geb. and Har., p. lx. 4 See Geb. and Har., p. lx.
> B. III. 3; see Eus. H. ἘΠ V. 6. 6 Strom. I. 7, p. 388; IV. 17, 105, p. 610, &c.
“Bus. He ΕΠ ΠῚ 59:
CLEMENT OF ROME. ΧΙ
Peter and Paul met their end, for that end is elsewhere spoken of as
a matter of somewhat remote history (c. 5). It is not possible, there-
fore, to suppose that the Epistle dates from the time of Nero; and yet
it appears as if the generation of the writers had witnessed the depar-
ture of the Apostles. Their words are: “ But passing by all ancient
examples, let us come to the combatants nearest our own time. Let
us take the illustrious examples of our own generation” (c. 5, 1).
And then comes an account of Peter and Paul. We may suppose,
therefore, that it was written within some twenty or thirty years of
the Apostles’ time. This reference is confirmed by another passage,
which tells us that some of those bishops who had been appointed by
the Apostles, or other notable men, with the consent of the Church,
were dead, while others were still alive. In the newly discovered c.
63, it is said that the messengers are “‘men who have lived blamelessly
among us from youth to old age” (ὁ. 44, 2, 3).
In addition to those indications which its express statements give,
we must note one or two furnished by its silence. It is silent as to
Gnostic errors,! and must, therefore, have been written before the
beginning of the second century,—a date at which we know that Gnostic
teachers came to Rome. It is silent as to any persecutions of more
than a local character, and therefore must have been written before
the widespread suffering of Trajan’s time (a.p. 115). It is silent as to
the controversy regarding the relations of bishop and presbyter. From
these indications,” positive and negative, we may conclude that its
date cannot be earlier than 80, nor later than 100, of our era.
Now Hegesippus tells us that it was written in the time of Dom-
itian. If we refer to his reign the calamities spoken of, we get for our
date A.D. 93, or a year not long after.2 It is by no means improbable
that Clement, Bishop of Rome and writer of this Epistle, is the same
as Clement nephew of Vespasian, and consul of the city, who was
slain in the year 96 a.p. This is at least a much more likely iden-
tification than that which makes the Clement of the Epistle the per-
son praised by Paul in Phil. iv. ὃ. But, be it as it may, the date
and authorship may be regarded as settled in favour of the Roman
Clement, and the last decade of the century. The earlier date about
69 a.p. does not appear to be at all well supported, even on the show-
ing of its advocates; and it does not seem possible for them to meet
the objections already adduced.
1The word γνῶσις is repeatedly used without the technical meaning so common in
the second century. Compare c. 36, 2; ὁ. 40, 1; 6. 41, 4; ὁ. 48, 5. The last of
these passages is not very clear, but the others may rule its rendering: see 1 Cor.
xii. 8 for similar use of the word.
2 It is impossible to found upon the phrases ‘in the beginning of the Gospel,”’
“the ancient church of the Corinthians” (c. 47) as evidences for a late date, the
terms being obviously relative (see Phil. iv. 15).
3 See Gebhardt and Harnack, Proleg., § 7.
ΧΙ INTRODUCTION.
Evidence as to the Canon of the New Testament.
There can be no doubt that in respect of Scripture incidents, so far as
he refers to them, and in respect of Christian doctrine and morality,
Clement is entirely in accord with the New Testament. Nor can there
be any doubt of his knowing the writings of St Paul. “ Take up,”
he says, ‘the Epistle of the blessed Paul, the Apostle. What first of
all did he write to you in the beginning of the Gospel? Ofa truth he
spiritually enjoined you concerning himself, and Cephas and Apollos,
because that then also ye had formed partialities,”’ &c. (c. 47). Very
many passages may be adduced, in which his words seem echoes of
expressions in the other New Testament Epistles, as 1 Peter, Timothy,
and Titus. The resemblance to the Epistle to the Hebrews is so
marked as to have led to the theory that Clement wrote it as well
as this Epistle. To these general statements we may add that in
appealing to words of Jesus he uses expressions closely corresponding
with those in our Gospels.
But these general remarks bring us to the very centre of the battle-
field. Does Clement quote our canonical Gospels? or do his words
seem to come from some different thaugh kindred source ? Admitting, as
it is only fair to do, that his words give by no means continuous ver-
bal coincidence with the passages in the Gospels which they resemble,
we have to inquire whether the divergence is inconsistent with the
theory of quotation. And this again compels us to take up a prior
question—viz., how did men quote in those days, and, more especially,
how did Clement himself quote? Without entering fully on the sub-
ject of the mode of quotations, we may simply say that when men had
to consult rolls, and not books, they were not likely to refer to their
authority in every instance. As might be expected, therefore, we
find that quotations are most accurate when they are long—the
writers in such cases thinking it worth while to take down and copy
what they wished to quote. But even in such cases we do not find,
and we have no right to expect, such severely accurate quotations as
are required in modern controversy. The resemblance which is re-
quired before we can establish a quotation is therefore a matter of
degree ; and opinions held by modern critics as to the exact degree
on which we have a right to insist, vary with their preconceptions.
It seems to me, however, that in the case of Clement we have no need
to fall back upon general considerations. He quotes the Old Testa-
ment largely ; and, as we have the Septuagint in our hands, we can
see how he uses it. At a very early stage in the Epistle, he quotes
Deut. xxxii. 15, when he says, “ἐπετελέσθη τὸ γεγραμμένον," and yet,
after this solemn appeal, we find that he has taken very considerable
liberties with his original. In other cases he throws a number of
passages together, and often so changes them all as to lead to a doubt
CLEMENT OF ROME. ΧΙ
from how many he drew the materials so fused. Out of fifty-seven quo-
tations from the Old Testament, only seventeen are exact; and some
of the others are so widely variant as to make it doubtful whether
even a treacherous memory could be the cause of the divergence.
The following will show how Clement deals with the original in
slightly divergent quotation, and will also illustrate his citations of a
less accurate character :—
Ν 3 A
Clement, c. 52, 2.—®noiv yap ὃ ἐκλεκτὸς Δαυίδ- ᾿Εξομολογήσομαι τῷ
/ Ν / lal Ν /,
Κυρίῳ καὶ ἀρέσει αὐτῷ ὑπὲρ μόσχον νέον κέρατα ἐκφέροντα καὶ ὁπλάς ἰδέτωσαν
Ν Ν > , Ν / ’ cal ΄ tal 4 > ,
πτωχοὶ καὶ εὐφρανθήτωσαν. Kai πάλιν λέγει: Θῦσον τῷ θεῷ θυσίαν αἰνέσεως,
As “ὃ nae ,ὔ Ν > , Ν > , 7 > ε ΄, ,
καὶ ἀπόδος τῷ ὑψίστῳ τὰς εὐχάς σου" Kal ἐπικάλεσαί με ἐν ἡμέρᾳ θλίψεώς
Ὡς lA a an “-
σου, καὶ ἐξελοῦμαί σε, καὶ δοξάσεις με: θυσία γὰρ τῷ Θεῷ πνεῦμα συντετριμ-
μένον.
. =~ = IAA a
Ps. lxix. 31.— Αἰνέσω τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ pov per’ δῆς, μεγαλυνῶ
2X 3 ΓΕ ἘΝ τας Z “- Ares , , / 2 , Ν
αὑτὸν ἐν αἰνέσει. Καὶ ἀρέσει τῷ Θεῷ ὑπὲρ μόσχον νέον κέρατα ἐκφέροντα καὶ
ε c
ε , > 4 Ν Ν 3 ΄
ὅπλάς. ᾿Ιδέτωσαν πτωχοὶ καὶ εὐφρανθήτωσαν.
Ps. 1. 14, quoted exactly ; and Ps. li. 17 joined to it.
The following is of a very different character. It is startling in its
extraordinary combination, if combination it be :—
4 ,
Clement, c. 29, 4.- Καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ τόπῳ λέγει: ᾿Ιδοὺ Κύριος λαμβάνει
ε ἔθ > / 26 -“ Ψ Ni , ΕΣ A) A ἧπα ὴν αὐτοῦ
ἑἕαυτῳ ἔθνος ἐκ μέσου ἐθνῶν, ὥσπερ λαμβάνει ἄνθρωπος τὴν ἀπαρχὴν αὖ
“Ὁ -΄΄ ST α ’ > n~ > 7 A ec 4
τῆς ἅλω" καὶ ἐξελεύσεται Ex τοῦ ἔθνους ἐκείνου ἅγια ἁγίων.
There is no such passage, but it may be supposed to be a blending of—
see a” ΄ a A
Num. xviii. 27.—Kat λογισθήσεται ὑμῖν τὰ ἀφαιρέματα ὑμῶν ὡς σῖτος
5 Ν Bid Ν > , 5 x lal
ἀπὸ ἅλω, καὶ ἀφαίρεμα ἀπὸ ληνοῦ.
. Ὁ ΄-“ 5
Deut. iv. 34.—Ei ἐπείρασεν ὃ Θεὸς εἰσελθὼν λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ ἔθνος ἐκ
A See! /
μέσου ἔθνους ἐν πειρασμῷ, καὶ ἐν σημείοις, καὶ ἐν τέρασι, K.T.A.
- Az ΄ Χ ‘
2 Chron. xxxi. 14.—Kat Kopy ὃ τοῦ ᾿Ιεμνὰ ὁ Λευίτης ὃ πυλωρὸς κατὰ
> Ν ΟΝ a , A Ν 3 Ν ,ἅ Ν we BC? “ ων,
ἀνατολὰς ἐπὶ τῶν δομάτων, δοῦναι τὰς ἀπαρχὰς Κυρίου, καὶ τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων,
κιτιλ.
The following may be taken as a specimen of inaccurate quotation
from memory :—
3 Ν
Clement, ο. 8. 1, τὸ yeypappevov.mEdaye καὶ ἔπιεν, καὶ ἐπλατύνθη καὶ
ἐπαχύνθη καὶ ἀπελάκτισεν ὃ ἠγαπημένος.
1 1 had prepared a full list of Clement’s quotations from the Old Testament, with
the view of sustaining the position here taken up, but ere these sheets were printed
I found it had been already done by Dr Sanday—‘ Gospels in the Second Cent.,’ p. 26.
XiV INTRODUCTION.
Deut. xxxii. 15.—Kal ἔφαγεν Ἰακὼβ καὶ ἐνεπλήσθη, καὶ ἀπελάκτισεν ὁ
ἠγαπημένος, ἐλιπάνθη, ἐπαχύνθη, ἐπλατύνθη.
The following is a case of expansion of his original. Some suppose .
his authority to have been an apocryphal or interpolated Ezekiel; but
of the existence of such a book there is great doubt. See Lightfoot’s
“ Note.”
“ Ν i
Clement, ὁ. 8, 2.—Z6 yap ἐγὼ, λέγει Κύριος, οὐ βούλομαι τὸν
a ὯΝ ἈΝ ,
θάνατον τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ, ὡς τὴν METAVOLAV’ προστιθεὶς καὶ γνώμην
9 ΄ VA 5 3 ΄ὔ a A > , eta aks “- an
ἀγαθήν: Μετανοήσατε, οἶκος Ἰσραήλ, ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνομίας ὑμῶν" elroy τοῖς
a lal > a nw nw td
υἱοῖς τοῦ λαοῦ μου: Ἐὰν Gow at ἁμαρτίαι ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἕως τοῦ odpa-
νοῦ, καὶ ἐὰν ὦσιν πυρρότεραι κόκκου καὶ μελανώτεραι σάκκου, καὶ ἐπιστραφῆτε
/ 2 7 lol f Ν » »» 3 ΄ ε a ε a
πρός με ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας καὶ εἴπητε: Ilarep, ἐπακούσομαι ὑμῶν ws λαοῦ
ἁγίου.
eee ,
Ezek. xxxiii. 11.— Ζῶ ἐγὼ, τάδε λέγει Κύριος, οὐ βούλομαι τὸν
Ἂ A > aA ε 3 /, Ν 3 a > Ν fol ε cal
θάνατον τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς ὡς ἀποστρέψαι τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ
a a /
αὐτοῦ, Kal ζῆν αὐτόν.
Compare Ps. 0111. 10; Jer. 111. 19; Is. i. 18; Ezek. xviii. 30.
This, then, was Clement’s way of quoting the Old Testament. He
alters, he fuses; sometimes he quotes correctly ; sometimes we are in-
clined to suppose an apocryphal book to have been in his mind.
Let us now turn to
Clement's relation to New Testament Passages.
The references under John’s Gospel, p. 170, and notes, contain
enough to show his mode of quotation of the words of Jesus.
The first one (on page 104) from c. 13 is perplexing. If it is not
from one of the canonical Gospels, we know not whence it was taken.
To assume (1) that it is necessarily from some other written source, and
(2) that the source was the ‘‘ Gospel of the Hebrews,” or the “ Preach-
ing of Peter,” or the “‘ Gospel of the Nazarenes,” is to invent machinery
for disposing of the difficulty. And against the assumption of some
well-known written source, other than our Gospels (‘Sup. Rel.’), is
the fact that the same part of the Sermon on the Mount is quoted by
Polycarp with equal variations from our Gospels,! but not the same
variations as here. It is not a more remarkable change of the original
than those we have quoted from the Old Testament.
1 See Introduction on Polycarp; and Polycarp’s words in our text, p. 112, with
note on Polycarp’s use of his authority.
CLEMENT OF ROME. XV
On the whole, we conclude with Lightfoot that, “as Clement’s
quotations are often very loose, we need not go beyond the canonical
Gospels for the source of this passage.”
The extract from c. 46 (p. 105) seems to be a quotation from memory.
The passages combined are just such as would naturally be combined
in memory, although they are far apart in the Gospels. Compare
Mat. xxvi. 24, xviii. 6; Mark ix. 42; Luke xvi. 1, 2. Tertullian tells
us that Marcion’s Gospel contained in the beginning of chap. xvii. of
our St Luke the interpolation, “ Hxpedisse οἷ, si natus non fuisset,” &c.,
which may be an echo of this reading of Clement’s, or a proof of a
widespread traditional rendering.
The words (c. 44), “ And our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus
Christ that there shall be strife on account of the overseership,”! is
mainly remarkable because it is the precursor of many similar references
in subsequent writers. Justin quotes as a saying of Jesus, “There
shall be schisms and heresies.” 2. The Clementine Homilies make it more
explicit: “‘ There shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets,
heresies, desires for supremacy.”? And Hegesippus may refute them,
when he says, “From these came the false Christs, false prophets,
false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church.”* Those who refer
these passages to some current written Gospel, have to account for
the extreme freedom of the variations: and it does not seem possible
to do so without adopting the very principle on which they refuse to
proceed, when they object to canonical books as the probable source
of divergent quotations. (See text, p. 125, and note.)
There is a chapter (c. 24) on the Resurrection, which is full of
phrases suggesting the New Testament. It is said that the Lord
τὴν ἀπαρχὴν ἐποιήσατο τὸν Κύριον Iv Xv ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστήσας. We have
also ἐξῆλθεν ὃ σπείρων (Mat. xiii. 3), and a doctrinal use of the fact
that the seed from its death brings forth fruit (1 Cor. xv. 86; John xii.
24). And we have asolemn use of the words, ὃ ἀληθινὸς καὶ μόνος [Θεός],
which Keim? admits to be an allusion to John.
To cite here, or even to give a classification of the innumerable
phrases in Clement which suggest the New Testament, is beyond our
limits. The principal passages in full, and references to many more, will
be found in the text:° but no one can read the Epistle without seeing
1 “Kal of ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Iv Xv ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ
ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς."
3 “Έσονται σχίσματα καὶ αἱρέσεις."
8 «»Ἐσονται γὰρ ὡς ὁ Κύριος εἶπεν, ψευδαπόστολοι, ψευδεῖς προφῆται, αἱρέσεις, φιλαρ-
xlor.”—Hom. xvi. 21.
4 And τούτων ψευδόχριστοι, ψευδοπροφῆται, ψευδαπόστολοι, οἵτινες ἐμέρισαν τὴν
ἕνωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας." ---ιι5. H. EK. 1V. 22. At the same time the words of Hege-
sippus are as near to Mat. xxiv. 24.
5 See Jes. v. Naz., i. 141.
6 Special reference may be made to the numerous passages cited or referred to
under Heb., 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Tit., and 1 Pet.
Xvl INTRODUCTION.
that its author’s mind is steeped in the thoughts, doctrines, and associa-
tions which are preserved to us in Scripture. It is entirely beyond the
power of lists and figures to convey an idea of the strength of the
witness for the perpetuity of the first characteristics of Christianity,
which we find in the outpouring of the heart of this “ ep-apostolic”
teacher.! Only a perusal can give the impression,—but it is one which
can never be forgotten. The incarnation of the pre-existent Christ, who
had spoken before by the mouth of the Seers; and the blood by which
we are saved ; and the resurrection of the crucified Christ ; and the spirit
by which our life should be ruled,—of these truths the mind of Clement
is full. He closes what we may term a prose poem in c. 49 with
these words: ‘In love the Lord (ὃ δεσπότης) took us towards Himself ;
for the love which He had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord (Kipwos),
according to the will of God, gave His blood on our account, and His
flesh for our flesh, and His blood for our blood.”
Justification by Faith with works,—as the enlightened Christian
conscience has without formula set the doctrine clear before itself,j—
this is the teaching of Clement. We may hear St James and St Paul
speak with blended voice, although the tone of James is more distinct,
when Clement says (c. 30, 3): ‘ Let us therefore cleave to those to whom
grace has been given from God ; let us put on like-mindedness with them,
being lowly of mind, self-restraining, putting ourselves far apart from all
murmuring and evil speaking, being justified by works and not by words.”
Many of the phrases are Petrine also, so that we see in Clement the
disciple of all the chief apostles.”
Or we may hear what seems to be Clement’s own more personal
thought, following perhaps the “blessed Paul” (c. 32, 4): “ΑΙ the
saints of old were glorified and magnified, not through themselves, or their
works, or their righteous deeds which they achieved, but through His will.
And we therefore, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified
through ourselves, or through our wisdom, or prudence, or piety, or works
which we did in purity of heart, but through the faith through which the
Almighty God somehow justified all men from all ages: to whom be glory
everlasting.”
If we would see how Clement’s grateful heart made the Personal
Saviour the centre of his life, we only need to turn to ὁ. 36. If
we would see how he extends the application of Paul’s praise of love,
in words which remind us of the Lord Himself in John’s Gospel, and
of Peter as well, we find c. 49 full of meaning for us.”
1 Donaldson, Apostolic Fathers, p. 101.
2 Κολληθῶμεν---866 Acts v. 13, viii. 26, &c., as illustrating the close companion-
ship of the early Christians, Tamewoppovodyres—see Acts xx. 19; Col. ili, 12;
1 Pet. v. 5. "Eyxparevduevor—see 1 Cor. ix. 25. Ψιθυρισμοῦ---866. 2 Cor, xii. 20.
KatadaAiai—see 2 Cor. xii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 1 (not a classical word). Πόῤῥω ἑαυτοὺς
ποιοῦντες -- ΘΟ}. 1 Pet. ii. 1, ἀποθέμενοι, and Jamesi. 21, 22. ~Epyous δικαιούμενοι---
see James li. 24, ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται.
3 Compare the first words, ‘O ἔχων ἀγάπην ἐν Χριστῷ ποιησάτω τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ
CLEMENT OF ROME. Xvli
It is quite true that this correspondence between Clement (the
same applies to Polycarp) and the canonical writers, to which we here
refer, is not one of quotations which can be weighed or counted with
mathematical exactness ; but it is not for all that to be lightly esteemed.
If we had to construct the scheme of Christian Theology from those
writers, we should certainly have considerable difficulty, because of the
unstudied way in which they write, and also because of the vagueness
of their ideas on doctrine. Their aim is mainly ethical. They are
exhorting Christians to constancy in the faith; to brotherly kindness ;
to submission to lawful authority; they are teaching no doctrine
save by implication; and theology and criticism find little to claim in
their writings. But, on the other hand, they manifest in every page,
and almost in every line, the power of a religion based upon the
truths of our Gospel. The men have rested their faith upon Jesus
Christ as their Saviour; they have done that once for all; and now
they are occupied in living up to the requirements of Christianity in
daily life. It is not that they have no knowledge of Christian truth as
a system,—they founded upon St Paul’s Epistles, and therefore must
have had a theology,—but they are dealing with Christian life and prac-
tical religion. When regarded in this their true light, these Epistles
of Clement and Polycarp furnish an argument for the canon, by imply-
ing far more than they express.. They imply the previous acceptance
- of the existing documents and doctrines of the New Testament: and
the very fact that in the case of those to whom they were writing, as
in their own, they constantly assume that the religion of Jesus Christ
has been known and believed, is a powerful testimony to the acceptance
of the same facts, and the prevalence of the same truth. We may see
that Clement knew his readers to be more familiar with the life of
Jesus Christ than with the biographies of Old Testament saints ;
for when he speaks of Abraham or Moses or David, he thinks it
necessary to remind them of the general characters of the life, where-
as a simple allusion to the facts of the history of Jesus Christ is
enough.
If the Tiibingen theories as to the origin of Christianity, and to the
manufacture of canonical books, were well founded, or even possibly
correct, those writings of the ‘ Apostolical Fathers” could not have
been what they are. For at the very time when, according to Baur,
Christianity was torn with an internal conflict between the factions
of Peter and Paul; at the very time when the victorious Pauline
party were manufacturing letters and histories in the name and in
the supposed interests of the great Apostle of the Gentiles ;—at that
παραγγέλματα, with John xiv. 15, and 1 John v. 1. Compare ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος
ἁμαρτιῶν with 1 Pet. iv. 8. Compare ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐτελειώθησαν with 1 John ii. 5 and
1 John iv. 18. The burden of the chapter, as a whole, is evidently taken from
1 Cor. xiii,
b
ΧΥΠΙ INTRODUCTION.
very time appeared those letters of Clement and Polycarp, showing in
every unstudied line the general acceptance of the Gospel narratives,
and of the Epistles now found in our New Testament.
Seconp EPpiste.
A Homily of the second century falsely ascribed to Clement.
When all that we knew of the so-called “Second Epistle” was the
fragment found in Cod. A, it was difficult to say anything very certain
about it. But now that the whole has been found in Greek and in
Syriac, there can be no doubt of the truth of what was (since Grabe)
believed by many before, that it is not an Epistle, but a Homily. We
read in Justin and Tertullian, and we may perhaps infer from Pliny,
that after the reading of the Scriptures in the Christian congregations
of the second century, it was usual for the President, or some one de-
puted by him, to exhort the people : and who has not longed for some
specimen of the words which were spoken on such occasions—words
that nourished the simple but strong faith of the early Church ?
What was longed for is now in our hands.!_ Whether the Homilist was
a Presbyter, whose ordinary function was to teach, or some one speak-
ing on some exceptional occasion, may be doubtful (see chapters 17
and 19)—is indeed disputed among eminent critics ; but that it was an
address of the usual character, only so acceptable as to be widely cir-
culated and carefully preserved, we need not doubt at all.
Was it, then, the work of Clement? We can scarcely suppose that
Clement, when speaking for himself, would have spoken as one who
was accustomed to be exhorted by the Presbyters, yet this writer does
so speak (c. 17). This alone makes us conclude against the theory
that the Homily was Clement’s. Other reasons have been advanced
to the same effect, but they are of less moment. The theology of the
Homily is said to be of later date than that of Clement’s genuine
Epistle ; and the view of the New Testament is regarded as more
advanced. But arguments on this basis are precarious; and they can
be met by assertions on the other side, to the effect that we cannot
fairly compare the theology of a sermon with that of a letter, and
that the vagueness of the references to the New Testament Epistles,
and the apparent absence of a Bishop in the Church, indicate an even
earlier date than Clement’s day.
All that we can say for certain is, that the Homily does not seem to
be Clement’s,? but is of old date, and was so highly valued as to be
1 As in Clement’s Epistle we have the oldest public prayer of the Christian Chureh,
so in this Homily we have the oldest Christian sermon extant. See Jacobi, Stud.
u. Kritiken, 1876 (4).
2 Bryennios gallantly defends his thesis, that Clement is the author; but he has
nothing save a partial tradition on his side.
CLEMENT OF ROME. X1X
bound up with the Epistle of Clement, though how it came to be
ascribed to him as its author we can only conjecture. External evi-
dence of its antiquity is not of much assistance to us. Eusebius! is
the first to mention it: and his uncomplimentary remark is that,
though it is ascribed to Clement, he has no assurance of its having
been used in old times, and that it is by no means to be put on a
level with the first Epistle. In the fifth century the pseudo-Justin
calls it “‘Clement’s to the Corinthians.” The allusions in the sixth
century are so uncertain as to make nothing clear, save the fact that
it was not at that time universally accepted as Clement’s.
But if not Clement’s, whose was it? That we cannot say. Some
indeed find in its references to Scripture the same point of view as in
Barnabas ; others think it is so like Hermas, as to be by the same au-
thor; others would persuade us that it is the work of Clement of Alex-
andria.”_ It is easy to conjecture, but apparently impossible to ascertain.
But if by an unknown author, where did he speak it? In Rome, in
Corinth, or where? From its earliest known history, one is inclined
to suppose that it was addressed (as Clement’s letter was) to the
Corinthian Church ; and the allusions to the games go to favour the
same conclusion. The Homilist not only speaks with evidently full
knowledge of the proceedings in the contests, but his language im-
plies that he was near the spot at which the “crowds land to take
part in the games.”? That he wasa Gentile appears from his allusions
to the past history of his ‘ people” and his “church ”—ce. 1, 6; ο. 2,
1, 8. We have probability on our side, when we say that it was spoken
in Corinth, and therefore came eventually to be put alongside of Cle-
ment’s Epistle to the church in that place.
What is the date of the Homily? In this as in other questions
affecting the date of writings of the second century, we have to see
what form of Gnosticism seems to have been in the author's view.
Applying this test, we cannot fail to observe that he is a vigorous
assailant of that phase of Gnosticism which denied the resurrection of
the body,—or rather the resurrection of the flesh (τῆς σαρκός). The
earliest Gnosticism took that form; the fundamental dogma of all
Gnosticism, the sinfulness of matter, naturally produced it; we see
it even in the Pauline Epistles ; and we are led towards the conclusion,
that the preacher spoke at no later date than the beginning of the
second century. ΤῸ the same effect is the consideration that he uses
language which he would probably have avoided, had the speculations
of Valentinus and Marcion been known to him. For these reasons, it
ἘῊ ΠΕ ΤΙ 38.
2 See Hilg. Proleg., p. xlix. Several of the quotations undoubtedly call Clement of
Alexandria to mind. Dodwell first suggested this. The use of the Gospel of the
Egyptians is common to both the Homilist and the great Christian Sophist.
5. KatamAéovow—see Lightf., pp. 197, 306.
ΧΧ INTRODUCTION.
is natural to fix some time between a.p. 120 and a.p. 140 as the
date. But, on the other hand, we must remember that this was really
a popular sermon, not a philosophical treatise, nor even a written
Epistle ; and that its author had evidently in view the practical end
of warning men not to indulge in lusts which would defile the body
that is destined to rise again. The greatness of the present life, be-
cause in it the Christian works out the great salvation which Christ
purchased for him—that is the preacher’s theme, as against those who
held the Gnostic tenets of the incurable sinfulness of matter, and
the immortality of mind alone. We may well hesitate to conclude
that the preacher knew no subtler form of Gnosticism than that which
he vigorously denounces. It was still specially needful, as before, in
Corinth, to urge men to discipline the body, and to live according to
the purity of the Gospel (see c. 4, 6; 7, 15); and we can easily
believe that this pressing need filled the earnest teacher’s mind, so
that he would not dwell on the intricacies of speculations whose evil
results were more indirect or more remote, even though such specula-
tions might be known to him.
In short, although there is no reason to fix a date later than a.p.
120-140, there is not much in the views taken of Gnosticism to com-
pel us to come to that, or any other very definite conclusion. The
Homily might have been spoken a generation later, or even later still.
The mode of quoting Scripture furnishes, in point of fact, the only
valid argument for its being a work of the second century—and before
the last years of that century. No representative of the Catholic
Church in the end of the century would have stood in the same per-
plexing relation to the “Scriptures” and the “Gospel” and the
“‘words of the Lord” as this preacher, who quoted indiscriminately the
Old Testament and the New Testament and the Apocryphal books,
the canonical Gospels and the lost Gospel of the Egyptians.
When we look at one side, the testimony to our Scriptures is explicit
and ample. The author (c. 2) quotes Mat. ix. 13 as ypad¢7,—in this
reminding us of Barnabas; and he uses the same word for the Old
Testament (c. 6, 14). Words introduced (c. 8) with “Thus saith
the Lord in the Gospel” seem to be a blending of Luke xvi. 10 with
Mat. xxv. 21. “Thus saith the Lord” is his most usual formula for
the New Testament (cc. 3, 4; 6, 9); and he uses it for the Old Tes-
tament also (cc. 13, 15). In one place (c. 14) he alludes in general
terms to the Old and New Testament as τὰ βιβλία καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι,
saying that they are not the Church, because the Church is spiritual.
The reading is doubtful, but it is to this effect.1
1 Hilgenfeld inserts in c. 10 a passage bearing on the canon, in which the Old Tes-
tament and New Testament and the Sibyl are enumerated as Scriptures : af γραφαὶ
προφητῶν τε καὶ ἀποστόλων, ἔτι τε Kal τῆς σιβύλλης. His authority is found in some
extracts bearing the name of John of Damascus (eighth century). But even this re-
CLEMENT OF ROME, pO.
Nor is this all. In one notable passage, after quoting the Old
Testament as “Thus saith the Lord,” he goes on to cite the words of
Jesus Christ from the New Testament as “God saith” (ce. 18). In
another place he describes the reading of the Scriptures as hearing
the God of Truth: indeed his words are even stronger, and must be
quoted,—‘ Wherefore, brethren and sisters, after the God of Truth, I
now read! you an exhortation to attend to the things which have been
written, so that you may both save yourselves and him who readeth
among you” (c. 19). Inc. 13 he refers to λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, so as to show
that he means either the very words or the substance of the Christian
writings which Christians made known to the Gentiles. In this he
may be regarded as illustrating the much-disputed words of Papias
that Matthew wrote the λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ (Kus. H. E. III. 39). If there
be any ambiguity in the Homilist’s words—if we cannot say without
hesitation that he refers to the ‘Evangelical Record’ (Lightfoot),
rather than to its substance—we may undoubtedly say that there is
the same ambiguity as to substance and record in Rom. 11. 2, Heb. v.
12; and that, at all events, there is not good ground for believing (with
many modern critics) that λόγια in the case of Papias meant a collec-
tion of Christ’s sayings, as distinct from an account of His works.
So far all seems clear. But there is another side. The author (c.
4) quotes in some places as “ The Lord said” words which we do not
find in our Gospels (chaps. 4 and 5); and as he reports a dialogue be-
tween our Lord and some one which Clement of Alexandria ascribes
to the “Gospel according to the Egyptians,” it has been supposed
that some of his other passages are taken from the same source. In
another passage he refers to the prophetic word for a solemnly cited quo-
tation, which seems to come from some Old Testament apocryphal book.
The same passage with variations is quoted as γραφή in the Epistle of
Clement (c. 23). In other cases he seems to re-echo the books of Tobit
and Ecclesiasticus. There is no evidence that he knew the writings
of John: the Pauline Epistles to the Ephesians and to Timothy are
apparently quoted or echoed, but there is not any avowed founding
upon New Testament Epistles as authorities.
On the whole, we conclude with some perplexity that the Homily
was spoken at a period when a distinction between canonical and apo-
cryphal writings was not sharply drawn as regards the New Testament ;
that the time for doctrinal inferences from the Pauline Epistles had
not yet come; and that the use made of the Old Testament Apocrypha
cent authority is doubtful, and the origin of the extracts remains obscure. Some
ascribe them to other pseudo-Clementine writings. Recent experience does not dis-
pose us to deny the possibility of some gap in even our present form of the MS.
But see Bryennios, Proleg. ρξα΄, and Hilg. Pat. Apost., p. 85. ᾿ ἐγ τὴν
1 Bryennios emphatically notes that the speaker ‘“‘read,” and did not “deliver
his discourse (ἀνεγίνωσκεν οὐκ ἀπεστήθιξε).
XX INTRODUCTION.
and of the “ Egyptian” Gospel, as well as the general cast of thought,
warrant us in believing that, by education or by predilection, the un-
known preacher was in some special way connected with the Chris-
tian Church in Alexandria.
The darkness in which the date, place, and authorship are involved,
makes this ancient sermon more curious than valuable to the inquirer
into Canonicity.
The chief references to the New Testament are :—
C.
1. κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ vexpov.—Acts x. 42.
, 4. ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει ὅτι οὐκ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἅμαρ-
twXovs.— Mat. ix. 13; Mark ii. 17.
3, 2. λέγει δὲ καὶ αὐτός: τὸν ὁμολογήσαντά pe ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων,
ὁμολογήσω αὐτὸν ἐνώπιον τοῦ πατρός μου. --- Mat. x. 32
(free).
4, 2. λέγει γάρ" οὐ πᾶς 6 λέγων μοι, Κύριε, Κύριε, σωθήσεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ ποιῶν
τὴν δικαιοσύνην.---Μαῦ. vii. 21 (free).
6, 1. λέγει δὲ 6 Κύριος: οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν.
—Luke xvi. 13.
6, 2. τί yap τὸ ὄφελος, ἐάν τις TOV κόσμον ὅλον κερδήσῃ THY δὲ ψυχὴν
ζημιωθῇ ;—Mat. xvi. 26.
8, 5. λέγει yap 6 Κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ: εἰ τὸ μικρὸν οὐκ ἐτηρήσατε,
τὸ μέγα τίς ὑμῖν δώσει; λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχί-
στῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός eotw.—Luke xvi. 10; Mat. xxv.
21,
9, 5. Χριστὸς ὃ Κύριος, ὃ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὧν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο
odpé.—John i. 14.
9, 11. ἀδελφοί pov οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ποιοῦντες TO θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου.---
Mat. xii. 49.
11, 7. AnWopucba τὰς ἐπαγγελίας, ἃς οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν οὐδὲ ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν,
οὐδὲ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη.----Ἰ Cor. 11. 9, altered from
LXX.
13, ὃ. λόγια τοῦ Mcod.—Cf. Rom. 111, 2; Heb. v. 12.
13, 4. Ὅταν yap ἀκόυσωσι παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ὅτι λέγει ὃ Θεός: οὐ χάρις ὑμῖν εἰ
ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ἀλλὰ χάρις ὑμῖν εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε
τοὺς ἐχθροὺς καὶ τοὺς μισοῦντας tuas.—Luke vi. 32-35 (free).
, 2. (ἐκκλησία ζῶσα) σῶμά ἐστι Χριστοῦ.--- ΡΗ. 1, 23, &e.
4, ἀγάπη δὲ καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν .---Ἰ Peter iv. 8.
2. διώκειν δικαιοσύνην.----1 Tim. vi. 11, &e.
19, 2. ἐσκοτισμένοι τὴν διανοίαν.--- ΤΉ. iv. 18 (Clem. Ep. ὁ. 36).
5. τῷ μόνῳ Θεῷ dopatw.—1 Tim. i. 17.
CLEMENT OF ROME. XXill
The following may be regarded as echoes of the New Testament :—
C. 1, 5. ἀντιμισθίας, and also c. 15, 2.—Rom. i. 27; 2 Cor. vi. 13.
2, 8. ἐκάλεσεν yap ἡμᾶς οὐκ dvras.—Rom. iv. 17; 1 Cor. 1. 29.
1. also 2. ἀπολλυμένους ἡμᾶς ἔσωσεν.
6, 9. mapakAntos.—Luke xix. 10, &c.
8, 6. τηρεῖν adomAov.—1 Tim. vi. 14; James i. 27—here referring
to baptism as σφραγίς. Inc. 6, 9 it is τηρεῖν τὸ βάπτισμα
ἁγνὸν καὶ dyiavrov—see also ὁ. 7, 6. Compare 2 Cor. i.
22; Eph. iv. 30; Rev. ix. 4, for the New Testament
meaning of the seal and covenant.
14, 3. φθείρῃ, as in 1 Cor. iil, 17.
15, 1. ἑαυτὸν σώσει κἀμὲ τὸν συμβουλεύσαντα.---1 Tim. iv. 16. See
also c. 19.
μισθὸς yap οὐκ ἔστι μικρὸς πλανωμένην ψυχὴν καὶ ἀπολλυμένην
ἀποστρέψαι εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι.----«[ἀτηθ5 ν. 20.
19, 1. σκοπόν, as in Phil. iii. 14.
OrHER Epistles ASCRIBED TO CLEMENT.
Two Epistles on Virginity were published by Wetstein from the
Syriac (in which alone they exist) as an Appendix to his Greek Tes-
tament, 1752. They quote from the New Testament as found in the
Syrian Canon: and they are themselves bound up with 2 Peter, 2 and
3 John, and Jude, in an Appendix to the Syriac New Testament.
They seem to have been known to Epiphanius and Jerome, and were
probably written originally in Greek by some one connected with the
Eastern Church. Westcott assigns them to the middle of the second
century. All the books of the Peshito New Testament are quoted (save
Mark and Philemon, probably omitted by accident)—see Westcott,
Canon, p. 167; Lightfoot, Corinthians, p. 18. These two Epistles
were regarded by the Syrian Church as genuine works of Clement.
Epistle to James the Lord’s Brother, found prefixed to the Clementine
Homilies. It claims to give a narrative of Clement’s appointment by
Peter to be Bishop of Rome; and to furnish also the Apostle’s injunc-
tions as to Church government. It is found in an enlarged form
among the forged Papal Decretals. It may also date in its Greek
form from the second century; and its Latin version (Rufinus) is of
the fourth.
A Second Epistle to James. It is a forgery of much later date—pro-
bably of the fifth century. It refers to ritualistic minutiz, church
furniture, and such like. It is mentioned here because the Western
Church, which lost all traces of the genuine Epistles of Clement, and
1 See Antenicene Library, vol. xvil.
XXIV INTRODUCTION.
of the venerable Homily, seems to have regarded the two Epistles
to James as the genuine Epistles of Clement.
There were many other forgeries in Clement’s name during the
subsequent centuries—see Lightfoot, Clement, p. 21.
Ill.—HERMAS.
Tuis book bears but slightly upon our inquiry regarding the canon.
It is the work of the Bunyan of the Church of the second century. It
is a succession of visions and mystic teachings, called ‘ The Shepherd,”
because the author describes the angel who instructed him as “a man
of glorious aspect, dressed like a shepherd, with a white skin, a wallet
on his shoulders, and a staff in his hand.” + It is full of practical teach-
ing, and contains not a few passages which may be styled beautiful ;
but it is not an interesting book. It is a distinctively Christian, per-
haps Judeo-Christian, book, and is evidently written for those who,
knowing the doctrines of the Gospel, needed to have its pure moral
requirements impressed on them. One can believe that it served some-
what of the same purpose in its day as the miracle-plays and the sacred
allegories of the Reformation period did afterwards, or as the Ober-
Ammergau festival does in our own day. But for those who seek
unequivocal traces, not of Christianity only, but of the use of our
canonical books, or of other Christian books regarded as Scripture, there
is little in the Shepherd of Hermas. Through its theology one may
come to certain conclusions, but it is not our present purpose to follow
that path. It shows us a clear faith in the living God and in the
suffering and exalted Saviour, and we might show from it the continuity
of Christian doctrine. There are difficulties, however, even in the
theology. Whether Hermas clearly distinguished between Christ and
the Holy Ghost (Sim, IX. 1), or what he meant in every case by the
words “Son of God” as descriptive of Christ, we cannot here inquire.”
It is enough for us to say that there is only one quotation from the New
Testament that can be identified (Vis. 11. 2; Mat. x. 33), and one dis-
tinct allusion (Vis. II. 3) to an apocryphal book, when he says that
Heldad and Modad prophesied to the people in the wilderness.?
1 Vision V.
* For the theology of Hermas see Donaldson, ‘* Apostolical Fathers ” (1874). See
2 Clem. ο. 14, 4, 5, for identification of Christ and the Spirit.
8. The names are in Num. xi. 26, ἄς, The Apocryphal book is named in the
ΓΕ Synopsis of Athanasius.”
HERMAS. XXV
There are many passages which may fairly be taken as “echoes” of
words and thoughts of the New Testament. Especially are we re-
minded of James, and of Peter, and of the Apocalypse, though the
works of Paul are also frequently suggested.
The “ Shepherd” was highly thought of in the early Church, both in
east and west. There seems no good reason to doubt the statement ἢ
that it was written by Hermas while its author’s brother was Bishop
of Rome, so that it dates from about a.p. 142. That it belongs to
the ep-apostolic age in any closer way is most improbable.2 But
there is no doubt that if we have given the right date it attained to great
popularity very soon, for Irenzeus seems to quote it (though he does
not name it) with marked approval,—xaAvs οὖν εἶπεν ἣ γραφή. Clement
of Alexandria speaks of it as divinely spoken, and by revelation: and
Origen says, “I think it divinely inspired.” Tertullian, on the other
hand (after he became a Montanist), not only denounced it as the
book that “loves adulterers,” but says that even the synods of the
orthodox counted it spurious. His objection was that it allowed a
fallen Christian to be restored. It cannot have been an old book in
his time. (See Westcott, Canon, p. 179, for proofs of its being of the
age when Montanism began.) Eusebius sets it among the disputed
or the spurious books. (See H. E. III: 3, III. 25, and V. 8.)
The recent discovery of a part of Hermas in the Sinaitic codex has
so far furnished scholars with Hermas in Greek; from which, and
from the Leipsic codex, and the various Latin versions, Hilgenfeld
(1866) and Gebhardt and Harnack (1877) have set themselves to con-
struct the Greek in full. There is also an Aithiopic version (pub-
lished 1860), with a modern Latin rendering, of which use has been
1 Muratorian Canon. Hilgenfeld suggests that one so nearly connected with the
superintendents of the Church would not have rated them so soundly as ignorant and
emulous of each other (see Vis. III. 9, &c.; Hilgenf., Pat. Apost., Proleg. Hermas,
p- 15). It mayalso be doubted whether the author does not seem to be an uneducated
man, of hazy theology and imperfect powers of expression. But still the statement
of the Muratorian fragment may be adhered to.
2 It is hopeless to connect it with the Hermas of Rom. xvi. 14, although Origen
thinks it possible. It speaks of the death of the Apostles as past ; and it speaks of
Christians as tried by law, and judicially condemned to the wild beasts. Judicial
proceedings were subsequent to Trajan’s rescript, and possibly we may find in this
way that its earliest date is Hadrian’s reign (beginning A.D. 138). We thus con-
firm the Muratorian date.
3 See Hilgenfeld, Proleg., p. 1, and Donaldson, Apost. Fathers, p. 383, &c., for full
accounts of the forgery of a Greek version of part of the book by Simonides, and the
suspicions entertained of his work, and even of Tischendorf’s. This last reference
Westcott (Canon, p. 190) does not meet. (See Reuss, Gesch., s. 275.) Geb. and Har.
(Hermas, Proleg., 1877) point out the difficulties in the way of supposing the Greek
of Hermas (as we have it) to be a translation from the Latin. If Hermas wrote in
Greek, then the Greek and the Latin version of it have been lost ; if he wrote in
Latin, the original Latin and the first Greek of it have been lost: and to add to the
perplexity, the Greek which we have is not a rendering of either or both of the Latin
versions which we have (the very corrupt common Latin, and the Palatine MS, which
differs from the common one).
ΧΧΥῚ INTRODUCTION.
made; and there are numerous quotations in Greek critics, especially
Clem. Alex., pseudo-Athanasius, and Antiochus, a monk of the seventh
century. But the origin of the Greek of Hermas is still a problem
only partially solved.
IV.—_IGNATIUS.
THERE is great difficulty in making any use of the Ignatian testimony
to the canonical books, because it is very uncertain how much Ignatius,
Bishop of Antioch, actually wrote of what bears his name. If we
could assume that the early traditions of his death, in the time of Tra-
jan, A.D. 115, are true, his testimony would be specially valuable. He
was, in that case, not only the contemporary of the post-apostolic
Fathers, but was probably alive during, or soon after, Christ’s life on
earth.?
But the fifteen epistles ascribed to him have been, and still are, the
subject of infinite debate. Eight of them? are now universally admitted
to be spurious, as they are full of anachronisms, and of divergence from
the quotations during the first five centuries, and were not only unknown
to Eusebius, but, so far as can be seen, to all other Greek writers up to
the sixth century. But even when those are removed from the field,
disputes arise as to the seven which remain. There are seven enum-
erated by Eusebius,? and the notes and references which he gives cor-
respond with seven which are preserved in Greek, Latin, and Armenian.
But, first of all, we have two Greek recensions of them—a longer and
a shorter—one of which must, of course, be spurious. The form in
which they were known to exist when Calvin and others rightly de-
nounced them as spurious was what is now usually called the longer
recension. Voss published six of the shorter form in Greek (1646),
1 A tradition of uncertain origin describes him as the child whom Jesus took in
His arms (Mat. xviii. 3). But this seems to have arisen from mistaking Θεοφόρος,
the title which he gives himself, with Θεόφορος (carried by God). In the Martyr.
Ign. Colb., ¢. 2, it is said to mean ὁ Χριστὸν ἔχων ev στέρνοις.
* One to the Virgin Mary ; two to the Apostle John (these are only in Latin); one to
Mary of Cassobolac ; one each to Tarsians, Antiochians, Hero of Antioch, Philippians.
There are also one or two letters to Ignatius in the full pseudo-Ignatian collection.
3 The seven are addressed to Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadel-
phians, Smyrneans, Polycarp. Eusebius (H. E. III. 36) tells us about them, saying
that Ignatius wrote the first-named three from Smyrna, where Polycarp was; and not
only gives several references which are found in the letters we have, but quotes a long
passage in which Ignatius entreats the Romans not to prevent him from winning the
crown of martyrdom. He adds similarly that the others were written from Smyrna.
IGNATIUS. ΧΧΥ]]
and the seventh (to the Romans) was published afterwards by Ruinart
in 1689. All agree that the discovery of the shorter recension (in
Latin, by Usher, 1644; and in Greek, by Voss, 1646) gives a final blow
to claims to genuineness by the longer epistles. But while all agree
that the shorter letters—called by Lightfoot the Vosstan'—are better
than the longer, there remains the question whether the smaller them-
selves are genuine. Lardner says of it, ‘‘ Whatever positiveness some
may have shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very
difficult question.” At the same time, critics agreed with him that
it is “probable that they are in the main the genuine epistles of
Ignatius.”
So stood the controversy when Dr Cureton found among the treas-
ures brought from Nitria, and published (in 1845), “'The Ancient Syriac
version of the Epistles of St Ignatius to St Polycarp, the Ephesians,
and the Romans,” and argued that those three are all the extant genu-
ine works of Ignatius. In this Syriac recension not only is the num-
ber of epistles smaller, but each epistle itself is shorter, more rugged,
and more abrupt. The upholders of the “ Curetonian Epistles” think
the Greek form an expansion and corruption of the lost Greek originals
of those Syriac letters. Its opponents think the Syriac a capricious
or a devotional abridgment of the Greek.
In 1849 Petermann published an Armenian version of the Ignatian
Epistles, corresponding, so far as the three letters go, with the Syriac,
but containing all the seven Vossian epistles. It contains thirteen in
all—that is to say, six in addition to the Vossian. He argues that this
Armenian version was made from a Syriac version in the fifth century.
If this be true, then both a Greek and a Syriac version of more than
the seven epistles must have existed at a very early date.
Such, and so complicated, is the question of the Ignatian letters. The
latest theory, to which many critics? have declared their adherence, is
that the seven letters which we now have are those that were known
and accurately described by Eusebius, that they were translated into
Syriac soon after his time, and that the Curetonian epistles are merely
an extract from them. It is further supposed that they were inter-
polated by the pseudo-Ignatius about the period a.p. 360-380, and that
this is the origin of the longer recension.
1 Strictly speaking, as stated in the text, Voss had only the Greek of six; the
seventh (Romans) was published by Ruinart. This epistle, probably because ad-
dressed to a distant European church, is not found in the oldest MSS alongside of
the other six, which seem to have been collected in Asia at an early date. Polycarp
tells the Philippians, c. 13, that he has collected and sends all the Ignatian letters
he can find, and that they are full of faith and patience and all Christian edification.
The Roman one was not at hand—there was not time for it to have come back ; and
we owe its preservation to its being imbedded in a martyrology. ὍΝ
2 Zahn claims that he has won for his views the approval of Hilgenfeld, Lipsius,
Overbeck, Delitzsch, and others. See Pat. Apost. op. (Gebhardt, H arnack, and
Zahn), vol. ii. p. 6. He has certainly found a powerful ally in Lightfoot.
XXVIl INTRODUCTION.
Notwithstanding the apparent agreement of critics in thinking at
least the Curetonian letters genuine (because the quotations of the
second and third centuries are found in them), and the Vossian epistles
not later than the middle of the second century, mainly because of the
writer’s absolute silence on the controversies which distracted the
Church at a later date, we venture still to think that all the difficulties
are by no means solved.
The story on which the epistles rested, though not beyond doubt,! is
probably true. It seems to be a fact that Ignatius professed himself
to be a Christian while Trajan was in Antioch (4.p. 1167), and was
sent to Rome to the wild beasts. It is probably true that Ignatius
wrote various letters while upon this journey,—the earliest testimony
(Polycarp, Theophilus, Ireneeus, Origen, Lucian, Eusebius) is quite
enough to establish that fact; but the point upon which we are not
sure is the survival of those letters to our day in such a form that they
can be used as evidence of anything else. Polycarp in his epistle
refers to the letters; Irenaeus and Origen quote them explicitly ; but
when we use any passage, we are in doubt whether it has not been
manipulated. It is in the matter of quotation from Scripture that the
longer forms differ most from each other. The Curetonian text con-
tains no quotation from the Old Testament, and very few from the New.
The Vossian contains a number of quotations, the longer Greek form
very many. Which is the genuine form of these letters? I cannot
1 The authorities before Eusebius for the Ignatian authorship of the letters are
four in number. Polyearp (Phil. ec. 13, 9, i. 1) refers to Ignatius’s letter to the
Philippians. Ireneus (B. V. 28, 3) refers to Ign. ad Rom. ec. 4, 2, in this way: ὡς
εἶπέ, τις τῶν ἡμετέρων διὰ τὴν πρὸς Θεὸν μαρτυρίαν κατακριθεὶς πρὸς θηρία. Origen (Pro-
log. to Canticles) cites Ign. ad Rom. c. 7, 2: Denique memini aliquem sanctorum
dixisse, Ignatium nomine, de Christo. And in his sixth Hom. in Lue. he says:
Καλώς ἐν μιᾷ τῶν μάρτυρός Tivos ἐπιστολῶν γέγραπται---τὸν ᾿Ιγνάτιον λέγω, τὸν μετὰ
τὸν μακάριον Πέτρον τῆς ᾿Αντιυχείας δεύτερον ἐπίσκοπον τὸν ἐν τῷ διωγμῷ ἐν Ῥώμῃ
θηρίοις μαχησάμενον. When Eusebius takes up the subject, he (H. E. III. 36) refers
to the testimonies of Polycarp and Ireneus. He refers to the tradition which speaks
of Ignatius as sent from Syria to Rome, to be the prey of wild beasts, with his λόγος
δ᾽ ἔχει---ἃ phrase that seems, in his usage, to distinguish tradition from clearly his-
torical authority. In his Chronicle (after II. 23 Abr.), Eusebius mentions Ignatius
as martyr and second bishop of Antioch; and again he seems to speak of him as
second bishop of Antioch. But the lists of bishops are confused; and Eusebius seems,
in his Chronicle, to depend on Julius Africanus (A.D. 222), who makes Euodius the
first bishop of Antioch, and Ignatius the second, without counting Peter. Origen’s
notice, therefore, contradicts this; and Polycarp and Irenzus are too vague to be
much depended upon for the details of the Ignatian story. Founding on the above
facts, Harnack (Die Zeit des Ignatius, 1878) concludes that the tradition of Ignatius
suffering martyrdom under Trajan is a bare possibility, without certainty, without
even special probability (p. 71). The ingenious argument of Harnack, however, fails to
account for the references in Polycarp, Irenzeus, and Origen. They were founded on
some fuller narratives—not on mere chronicles ; and though we have not the details
known to them, we must be prepared to allow for their existence.
2 Wieseler (Christenverfolgungen der Ciisaren, 5. 126) still maintains that A.p.
is is the date. But he founds on Eus. Chron., which Eusebius himself does not
adhere to. ;
IGNATIUS, XX1X
help thinking that all of them suggest suspicions; that even in the
shortest form they contain anachronisms and high prelatical views
foreign to the spirit of the New Testament, and characteristic of a SYS-
tem of Church government which there had not been time to develop
since the last Epistles of St Paul were written. We read in Polyearp
of presbyters and deacons only; Clement speaks of bishops or overseers
and deacons: but we are in another atmosphere when we read those
“Letters of Ignatius,” who was not later than they. Take, for example,
the letter to Polycarp, as it is even in the Syriac version. It seems
to me so unnatural a letter to be addressed to the great saint and bishop
of Smyrna, that it would need very cogent external evidence for its gen-
uineness before being accepted. Speaking of a man who can remain
uninazried, he says (c. 5): “If he boasts, he is undone ; if he become ἡ
known apart from the bishop,! he has destroyed himself.” After a few
more words, he says, addressing not the bishop but the Church (6: 0)
“Look ye to the bishop, that God also may look upon you. May I be
instead of the souls of those who are subject to the bishops, presbyters,
deacons ; and may it be granted to me to have my lot with them in God.”
The whole tone of this letter is unlike Paul’s in addressing hig young’
friends Timothy and Titus; and it seems inconceivable that Ignatius
could have spoken so much de haut en bas in addressing Polycarp.
The Epistle to the Ephesians is full of similar expressions : they are to
“receive the bishop as Him that sent him” (c. 6).2 The Epistle to
the Romans is not in the same tone.
It is possible that one’s opinions on the general subject of the origin
‘of Episcopacy may warp his critical judgment. I can only say that I
have striven to divest myself of prejudice, and that after I have made
every effort at being dispassionate, those letters still seem to me to
have been either written or interpolated by one who was eager to
extend an episcopal system already in existence, and that they there-
fore represent a much later date than the first or second decade of the
second century.? The strongest argument on the other side is, that
the tremulous eagerness of the writer to confirm the authority of the
bishop indicates consciousness that he was far ahead of his readers in
his hierarchical views. But this does not prevail to establish an early
date, and is quite consistent with a late one.
1 Τῇ the Vossian form it is : ‘‘ If he be better known than the bishop, he is ruined ”
—‘ ἐὰν γνωσθῇ πλέον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, ἔφθαρται. "
5Τη Smyrn. ὁ. 8, is the first use of the phrase 7 καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία, which is said
to be ‘‘ wherever Christ Jesus is.” See Eus. H. Εἰ, LV. 7; Martyr. Pol. 8, &c.
3 See Dressel’s arguments (Proleg., p. xxvii), which remain in force, after all that
Zahn (in his Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873; and in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Pat.
Ap.) and Lightfoot (in the Cont. Rev., 1875) have said.
ΧΧΧ
INTRODUCTION.
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
Quotations.
1 Cor. ii. 14—The fleshly can-
not do spiritual things. (Per-
haps an echo.)
1. 1 Tim. ii. 1 — Pray without
ceasing. See also Ign. ad
ΒΟΙΤ ΟΣ Ὁ. 1. 9:
. Mat. iii. 7 -- The wrath to
come; 1 John ii. 18—‘*‘ Last
times.”
. Mat. xii. 33—The tree known
by its fruit.
. Apocalypse, xxi. 3—God in the
midst of us. See also 2 Cor.
vi. 16—(We are God’s tem-
ples).
. 1 Cor, vi. 9—Shall not inherit
the kingdom of God.
. Mat. xxvi. 7 —Spikenard on
the Lord’s head.
. 1 Cor. i. 20—The cross a stum-
bling-block, &c. ; Where is
the wise man, &c.
. Rom. i. 8, 4—Christ’s descent
from David, &c.
C28; 2!
C.
ile
to
21, 2.
16.
Echoes.
Eph. v. 2—Offering, &c. salu-
tation; Rom. xv. 29; Eph.
iv. 13. (Pleroma, πλήρωμα.)
Col. i. 7—-Refresh; 2 Tim. i. 16;
1 Cor. i. 10—unity of mind.
. 1 Cor. vi. 15; Eph. v. 30—
Members of Christ.
Mat. xviii. 16; Acts iii. 20.
. John xvii. 8—Christ the true
life. (See αἰπὺ τὸ ese)
Eph. iv. 3—one calling, &e.
. 1 Cor. iv. 13—Offscouring. See
ΘΕῸ δ. 1. ᾿ς
Eph. ii. 22—Stones of the tem-
ple; 1 Pet. ui. 3.
.. Rev. i. 8 and ἘΣ δ; 2 et
i. 5, 7—‘‘ Faith and love the
beginning and the end of
life — Faith the beginning,
love the end.”
. Heb. iv. 13—All things known
to God.
. Mat. ii. 1—The star.
. 1 Tim. i. 5, &,—The steward-
ship.
1 Tim. 1. 1—Christ our hope.
Heb. x. 28—How much more ?
Mark ix, 48.
EPISTLE TO THE MAGNESIANS.
Quotations,
C, 5, 1. Acts i. 25—‘‘ His own place.”
8, 2. John viii. 29—Who pleased in
all things Him that sent
Hin.
10, 2. Put away the old leaven. Ὑπέρ-
θεσθε οὖν τὴν κακὴν ζύμην (in
1 Cor. v. 7-ἐκκαθάρατε τὴν
παλαιὰν ζύμην, &e.)
C.
6,
14,
a
μι bo
Echoes.
John i. 2—Christ with the
Father. See also 1 Peter,
&e.
. Titus ii, 7—Type.
. John ν. 19, &c.—Christ ‘did
nothing without the Father.”
. John xvi, 28—Christ proceed-
ing from the Father.
. 1 Tim. i. 4; Gal. v. 4—Juda-
ism ; Titusi. 14; iii. 9; Heb.
xiii. 9—divergence into use-
less controversies.
. Col. ii, 16, 17 — Not sabbatis-
ing, but keeping the Lord’s
day.
. Rom. xv. 14—“‘Ye are full of
goodness.”
IGNATIUS.
Xxxi
EPISTLE TO THE TRALLIANS.
Quotations.
C.11, 1. Mat. xv. 13—A plant of the
Father. See also Philadel-
phians, 6. 3, 1.
EPISTLE TO
Quotations.
. 1 Cor. iv. 4—Not thereby jus-
tified.
7, 2. John iv. 14; vii. 38 — Living
water within.
7, 1. Prince of this world. See John
Miles xiv. 90): Xvi. Li.
Cea Cors vil. 25; XVe 8.
EPISTLE TO THE
Quotations.
Cee eipk, v. 8; John xii. 26; 1
Thess. v. 5—Children of the
light.
3, 3. 1 Cor. vi. 9—Inherit the king-
dom of God.
7,1. John iii. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 25 —
The hidden work of the Spirit.
7,2. Phil. ii. 3— Nothing through
strife,
8, 2. The Gospel the standard. See
ΕΠ. 0... 9,
the Father.
. John x. 7—Christ the door of
Echoes.
C. 1, 3. 1 Pet. v. 5
other.
2 Cor. xii. 6—I spare.
1 Tim. v. 14—‘‘ Giving no oc-
casion to the Gentiles.”
1 Cor. ix. 27—Lest I be unap-
proved, cast-away.
3. κατάστημα, Titus ii. 3.
Subject to one an-
3, 3.
hy 2h
12, 3.
THE ROMANS.
Echoes.
τ Ὁ... ΕΙΣ] τ 7. 2) Ah ἰν: 6 -Ξ
Libation.
4, 3. 1 Cor. vii. 22; ix. 1—The ser-
vant Christ’s freedman.
5, 1. 1 Cor. xv. 32—Fight with wild
beasts.
6, 1. Mat. xvi. 26—Better to die to
Christ than to rule over the
ends of the earth.
6. Phil. 1. 21—Christ the gain.
PHILADELPHIANS.
Echoes.
1, 1. Gal. i. 1—Not of men, ὅσο.
5, 1. Prophets, Gospel Apostles.
Also s. 2—The Gospel of our
common hope.
9,1. Gal. ii. 7 — Christ intrusted
with the Holy of Holies,
6. Mat, xxiii. 27—Tombs.
11. Rom. iv. 7 — Receive one an-
other.
σ.
EPISTLE TO THE SMYRN#ANS.
Quotations.
See also Ign. ad Eph. ec. 18,
20; Rom. i, 4—Christ of the
seed of David according to
the flesh.
Mat. iii. 15—Baptised of John
that all righteousness might
be fulfilled.
6, 1. Mat. xix. 12, See Trall. c. 11, 2.
ea ae
Echoes.
C. 4, 1. John xvii. 3, &c. — Christ the
true light.
18}, 21, i Where yrs ΤΠ:
called widows.
3. Acts x. 41.
10. 3 John, vv. 6, 8—Receiving be-
lievers.
11 — Virgins
ΧΧΧΙῚ INTRODUCTION.
EPIsTLE TO PoLycARP.
Quotations. Echoes.
C. 1. 1 Thess; v. 17-—-Pray, &e. See C. 4. 1 Tim) ν᾿ 8: νὴ ΝΠ
Eph. 2); Sabet, dino:
1, 3. Mat. viii. 17 — Ignatius here 5. Eph. v. 25 — Husbands love
quotes Isaiah through St Mat- Wives.
thew. 6, 2. Eph. vi. 11—Armour of God ;
DO Wiis 26 IG; 1 Thess. v. 8.
6. 2 Tim. ii. 4—Please Him.
1. ἘΠ:
Note.—In the Martyr. Ign. Colb., if it be genuine, are one or two valuable refer-
ences. (Imbedded in this we find Ign. ad Rom.)
C. 2. Εἷς yap ἔστιν θεὺς, ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν Kal Thy θάλασσαν καὶ
, Ἂς 79, > “ ea ro‘. ς c > ~ ¢ \ -
πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ εἷς Is Xs, 6 υἱὸς αὐτοῦ 6 μονογενὴ5--- τη, 1X. 5 ;
1 John iv. 9.
2. Τέγραπται yap: ᾿Ενοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω---2 Cor. vi. 16,
EPS CO RPACY:
EPHESIANS.
. Obedience to the bishop and presbytery a means of complete sanctification.
. Territorial bishoprics.
. Great power of bishops’ prayers.
. Joined to the bishop, as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as He is to
the Father. To be subject to the bishop, that they may be subject to
God.
6, 1. Look to the bishop as to the Lord Himself.
Or or oo bo
© po po Ὁ
v
To THE MAGNESIANS.
C. 4,6. The bishop presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters in the
place of the Sanhedrim of the apostles and the deacons.
13, 2. Obey the bishops and others as Christ His father according to the flesh,
and the apostles obeyed Christ and the Father and the Spirit, that
the unity may be both in the flesh and in the Spirit.
TRALLIANS.
C. 2, 2. Do nothing without the bishop; be obedient also to the presbytery, as
to the apostles of Jesus Christ. See alsoc. 3, 1.
7. He that does anything apart from the bishop and the presbytery and
the deacon, this man is not pure in his conscience. See whole chapter,
and also ὁ. 12. '
SMYRNAANS.
. Follow the bishop as Christ followed the Father, &c.
. Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be ; likeas wherever
Jesus Christ may be, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful
without the bishop either to baptise or to celebrate the love-feast ; but
whatever he may resolve, that also is well pleasing to God, that what-
ever is done may be secure and valid.
noe
IGNATIUS. XXXlli
IGNATIUS’S QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Verbatim. Closely corresponding. Variant.
Magnesians, ο. 12; Prov. Eph. c: 5; Prov. ii. 34 ‘Trallians)¢: 8, 2); Is: lii.
xviii. 17. —Oecds κύριος. 5. (See Rom. ii. 24 for
Eph. c. 15,1; Ps. xxxiii. almost exact quotation.
Ὁ: Ignatius changes the
Magnesians, c. 13, 1; Ps. statement by prefixing
i. 3. οὐαὶ.)
Smyrnezans, 6. 1, 2; Is.
v. 26.
V.—POLYCARP.
ΑΝ inquiry into the testimony of Polycarp need not range over a wide
field. Many works have been ascribed to him, but there is not now
any controversy regarding any of them save his letter to the Philip-
pians. There is also a venerable monument of antiquity of which
Eusebius has embodied a large portion in his narrative, and which is
likewise found by itself under the title of the ‘ Martyrdom of Polycarp.’
There can be no doubt of its great age, and of its containing some
touching details of the aged martyy’s fidelity to his faith. But it is
burdened with some miracles useless save for purposes of display ; its
anxiety about the date indicates a recent martyrologist ; and it pro-
fesses to relate scenes in the Roman theatre which a Christian can
with difficulty be supposed to have seen.! If we take it as it stands,
it must be regarded as the compilation of some pious and credulous
chronicler of an age later than the Martyr. But recent investigation
tends to separate the original document from the accretions,” and to
give fair grounds for accepting it as of the age of Polycarp.
But the Epistle which comes to us as Polycarp’s own is of more im-
portance. Who was Polycarp? The testimony of the early Christian
Church to his special position is clear, copious, and authentic. Irenzus,
in a touching letter to a friend of his own youth, shows how high was
Polycarp’s social position, and how honoured he was because of his
1 See an exhaustive and convincing discussion in Donaldson’s Apostolical Fathers
(1874), p. 198, &c.
2See Zahn, Pat. Apost., Proleg., p. xlix, &e. The famous dove (περιστερά) flying
from the wound in Polycarp’s body is supposed by Wordsworth to have been a clerical
error for περὶ στύρακα, descriptive of the blood flowing. Wieseler, however, throws
doubt on the possibility of regarding στύραξ as the handle of a ξίφος, and supposes
the words περιστερὰ καί to be an interpolation. Eusebius has omitted them.
c
ΧΧΧΙΝν INTRODUCTION.
having in his earlier days heard the truth from John and others who .
had seen the Lord, and how entirely his reminiscences harmonised
with the written records! of the Lord’s miracles and teaching.”
From Ireneus (B. III. 3), also, we have a formal and deliberate
testimony to the position of his old teacher, which we must quote in
full.8
‘And Polycarp, who was not only instructed by Apostles, and had intercourse
with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed for Asia by Apostles in the
church that is in Smyrna, an overseer, whom also we have seen in the beginning of
our life, for he remained a long time, and at an exceedingly old age, having borne
his testimony gloriously and most notably, departed this life, always taught these
things, which also he learned from the Apostles, which also he gave to the Church,
and which alone are true. To these doctrines testimony is also borne by all the
churches throughout Asia, and by those who have been up till this time the successors
of Polyearp, who was a much more trustworthy and secure witness of the truth than
Valentinus and Marcion and the rest, who held wicked opinions. He [Polycarp]
also sojourned at Rome in the time of Anicetus, converted many from the previously
mentioned heretics to the Church of God, having proclaimed that he had received
from the Apostles this as the one and only truth which he had delivered to the
Church. And there are those who heard him say that John, the disciple of the
Lord, having gone to bathe in Ephesus, on seeing Cerinthus inside, leaped from the
bathing establishment without bathing, and exclaimed, ‘ Let us flee, lest the baths
fall in, since Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is within.’ And Polycarp himself, when
Marcion one time met him and said, ‘Do you recognise us?’ answered, ‘ I recognise
the firstborn of Satan.’ Such was the caution which the Apostles and their dis-
ciples took not to have even verbal communication with those who perverted the
truth: as Paul also said, ‘A heretical man avoid after a first and second admonition,
knowing that such an one has been turned away, and sins, being self-condemned.”
In still another passage (Eus. H. E. V. 24), Ireneus gives some
further particulars of Polycarp’s sojourn at Rome in the time of Ani-
cetus,—showing that he was recognised as a representative of the
followers of the Apostle John. The passage itself falls to be considered
in another connection as bearing on what has become known as the
“Paschal Controversy ’’ (see text, p. 192). But for our present purposes
it is enough to use this passage of Ireneeus, and the references in Euse-
bius, as attesting that Polycarp was the disciple of the Apostle John.
So much for the personality of the author. When did he live and
die? As a pupil of John and other eye-witnesses, he must have been
old enough before the end of the first century to appreciate the teach-
ings of the Apostles ;* and as he died at the stake about the middle of
1 «(ἸΑπἤγελλε πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς."
? Treneus’s letter to Florinus: see Kus. H. EB. V. 20.
3 The translation is Dr Donaldson’s, —Apostolical Fathers, p. 192.
4 If we accept the tradition that just before his death he declared he had served
Christ eighty and six years, and admit (see below) that he was killed in A.D. 155, the
date of his birth is a.p. 69. If John lived till the time of Trajan, Polyearp was about
thirty years old when the aged Apostle died,
POLYCARP. XXXV '
the second century,! he is the most important living link between the
writers whose works are the foundation of Christianity, and those
others, such as Irenzus, whose works are the beginning of undoubted
Christian treatises on the canonical Scriptures. There is some doubt
as to the exact date of his death, contending critics upholding various
years between A.p. 140 and 168. The date most recently maintained is
A.D. 1553; but, as our footnote shows, its acceptance leaves us at issue
with some ancient authorities. There is not much difficulty in ascribing
to the Epistle a date some time near the middle of the second century.
In regard to the letter itself. Its importance has led to its being
very minutely scrutinised. Most of it exists in Greek; but part is
only in an old Latin version, and where we have both they do not
always correspond. This at the very outset awakens some suspi-
cion, and in this fact the most important objections to the letter have
their root. There is one objection founded on an alleged contradiction.
In chap. 9 the writer speaks of the patience which the Philippians
have seen before their eyes “in the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and
Rufus, and others,” ὁ those martyrs being evidently dead. But in chap.
13 he asks (according to the Latin) for some tidings of Ignatius and
those who are with himn—Ignatius being thus referred to as still alive.®
1 Contending critics have had new ground opened for them in the researches of M.
Waddington. In his ‘‘Mémoire sur la Chronologie de la vie du rhéteur Alius
Aristide” (Mem. of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Jan. 27, year
1867), he set himself to establish that the date of Polycarp’s martyrdom was February
155. It is impossible to exaggerate the respect with which every one must regard the
careful and exhaustive summary of valuable details—from literature, coins, and im-
perial edicts — which is presented in this memoir. In his ‘Fastes des Provinces
Asiatiques’ (1872), M. Waddington presents fuller details most methodically ar-
ranged (see on Quadratus, p. 220). The result is as already stated, and the majority
of critics accept it. The strong point of a general kind is that on the ordinary
date, A.D. 166, it is not possible to give Polycarp a mature age while the Apostle
John lived. ‘‘ Eighty and six years have I served Christ,” were Polycarp’s words ;
and whether we begin to reckon from his birth or his baptism, we have him a very
young man in the year Α.Ὁ. 100, about which time John died. Another point is that
Quadratus governed Asia A.D. 154, 155; and that in his time (if we are to take the
letter of the church of Smyrna as an authority) Polycarp suffered. The greater
number of scholars have followed Waddington very closely (Lipsius, Echhardt,
and Hilgenfeld differing only by a year, and saying A.D. 156), and thus discard
Eusebius, Jerome, and the Paschal Chronicle, which agree in fixing the martyrdom
after the accession of M. Aurelius (A.D. 161),—Eusebius making the date a.p, 166,
and Jerome A.D. 167. The day of the week and the day of the month in the Julian
year coincided every eleven years (Wieseler), and many of the marks of time would
suit either A.D. 155 or a.D. 166. Wieseler (Die Christenverfolgungen der Cisaren)
defends the date of Eusebius. He founds upon the common consent of antiquity that
Polycarp suffered in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and on the visit of Polycarp to
Rome in the episcopate of Anicetus, which began a.p. 157 or 158. Keim (Aus dem
Urchristenthum) protests against blindly following Waddington, and examines with
characteristic care and force the letter of the church of Smyrna. Lightfoot in Cont.
Rev., vol. xxv. p. 838, follows Waddington.
2“ Etrere κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς, od μόνον ἐν τοῖς μακαρίοις ᾿Ιγνατίῳ καὶ Ζωσίμῳ καὶ Ῥούφῳ,
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις τοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν ᾿ (or ἡμῶν), Cc. 9. Ξ
3. ἐς Ht de ipso Ignatio, et de his, qui cum eo sunt, quod certius agnoveritis, significate.”
XXXVI INTRODUCTION.
This sentence closes the chapter in the Latin,—the Greek, which
is preserved in Eus. H. E. III. 36, stopping short without it. De-
fenders of the genuineness of the letter, as a whole, admit that c. 13 is
not genuine, but an interpolation,—and indeed it is very like one}; or
say that the Greek only is genuine, this Latin addition being spurious;
or say that the Latin is a mistranslation,—that the Greek was probably
the indefinite phrase περὶ τῶν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, and that the Latin gui cum eo
sunt gives erroneously present time.! At all events the circumstances
do not warrant us in casting away the Epistle as a whole. Another
objection is founded on the apparent indications of date as inconsistent
with the authorship of Polycarp. Thus “Pray for kings” (Orate pro
regibus) is supposed to indicate a date in the time of the joint rule of
Marcus Antoninus and Verus; but, as a matter of fact, Justin Martyr
uses the word βασιλεῖς in reference to Antoninus Pius and M. Aurelius.
Besides, the injunction is probably general, as in 1 Pet. ii. 17; it
certainly reproduces the exhortation of 1 Tim. ii. 2, παρακαλῶ. .
ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις . . . ὑπέρ βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων.
Again, the references to heresies are said to aim so clearly at Doketes,
and especially at Marcionites, as to be too late for Polycarp ; but this
cannot be established.? It has been supposed that by thus finding
indications of a late date it would be possible to discredit the Epistle ;
but its genuineness is too well established to be overturned by such
arguments. As far as any literary production can be regarded as of
assured antiquity, this can; and although there may be some uncer-
tainty as to the very year of its origin, its being written by Polycarp
is quite certain. And if it really be Polycarp’s, the particular date of
writing is not of much moment. In any case, it will contain the testi-
mony of John’s disciple to the common creed of the Christian Church
from the beginning.
We are thus led to examine the passages in which Polycarp comes
into contact with the New Testament. But when we adduce particular
passages, we must not forget that not in such passages only, but in
its whole tone and texture, and in the spirit which it breathes, does
this Epistle remind us of the New Testament.
If we could depend upon the Latin version of c. 12 (the Greek
1 In the Greek are nine chapters—in the Latin are fourteen ; but the first chapter
is (except one sentence) preserved in the Greek of Eusebius. Lightfoot has shown
that the Latin version supplies in all such cases the substantive Latin verb, and, at
least in one case, uses swnt in reference to persons dead,—see Cont. Rev., vol. xxv.
p. 844. Compare Zahn’s notes in Geb. and Har., Pat. Ap. iz loc., and Zahn’s Ignatius,
p. 290. The difficulty in each case, however, is whether to give present or past time
to the substantive participle : of μετ’ αὐτοῦ, with ὄντες supplied, would not of itself
fix the time, the participle being indefinite.
2 Treneeus (B. III. 3, 4) tells us that Polycarp called Marcion the firstborn of Satan,
—mpwrdétokos τοῦ Σατανᾶ; and some have argued that the use of the same words in
reference to the denial that ‘‘ Jesus Christ came in the flesh” is the doing of a forger
using the phrase as a catchword to make the Epistle appear to be Polvcarp’s. But
there is nothing distinctive of Marcion in the heresy opposed in this Epistle.
POLYCARP. XxXxvu
unfortunately fails us), we should have two quotations,—one from Ps.
iv. 4and the other from Eph. iv. 26 joined together,—as being both
from the Scriptures, which are called in one clause Sacre litere, and
in another he Scripture.’
The principal passage is Ep. to Phil. c. 2, 3 (see p. 112 of our
text). The peculiarity of the passage is, that while it resembles both
Matthew and Luke, and indeed seems to be made up of them both, it
also resembles Clement, and more especially contains that clause ἐλεεῖτε
ἵνα ἐλεηθῆτε in Clement, which is not found in the same form in the Gos-
pels.2 The favourite idea of some, that a lost Gospel is quoted, would
really be acceptable here, were it not that Clement and Polycarp differ
from each other, as weil as from the canonical Gospels. Although they
contain that one striking clause in common, their own clauses are in such
different order that we cannot regard them as quoting from the same lost
source.? It seems most natural to believe that they quoted from memory,
and that Christian tradition had preserved that clause in this form,
or added it to the injunctions embodied in our written records of the
Sermon on the Mount.* We have a suggestively similar use by Polycarp
of 1 Pet. ii. 20, &c. (see passage in our text, p. 305, and note there).
It may further be noticed, that although the writer usually weaves the
words or thoughts of the New Testament into his sentences, there are
two breaks, and two express quotations or references. He cites the
words of Jesus with special solemnity: thus in c. 2 his words are,
“ As the Lord said teaching ;” and in ec. 7, “As the Lord said.” In
this he resembles Clement; and the practice is what we might expect
at their early date. These we may call breaks in his writing; the
following are quotations or references: “Do ye not know that the
saints shall judge the world, as Paul teaches?” (1 Cor. vi. 2) ; and again :
“In these Scriptures it is said, ‘Be ye angry and sin not; let not the
sun go down upon your wrath.’’’—Eph. iv. 26 and Ps. iv. 4.
There can be no doubt that Polycarp used freely and frequently the
First Epistle of Peter and the Epistles of Paul ; but it is needless to dwell
upon his citations. The reference to the First Epistle of John is so
important in its bearing on the date of the Fourth Gospel, that we
may refer to it here. We have a strong statement that he who doth
not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is Antichrist (c. 7),
and no one can deny that this is a fair condensation of the words of
John (1 John iv. 3). It moreover contains John’s familiar words: ἀντί-
1 The passage is very obscure, and apparently corrupt. See text under Ephesians,
and note, p. 239. Also p. 112.
2 See on the absence of this clause, following words from some MS authorities,
Dressel’s note, p. 399.
3 Cf. Sanday, ‘ Gospels in the Second Century,’ p. 85.
4 The fact that though the clauses in Polycarp are not in the same order as in
Clement, they are in the same form (comp. extracts, pp. 105, 112), is of some signifi-
cance ; the question is to what the significance amounts. The student will find it
interesting to compare the passages quuted in the paragraph.
ΧΧΧΥΠΙ INTRODUCTION.
χριστος, ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἐκ TOD διαβόλου. ‘There being little doubt
that the First Epistle is by the same author as the Gospel, this may
be regarded as evidence for the “Gospel of John.” It may be that
there was “‘ a formula in use in the early Church against various heretics,”
though no one knows about it; but the words of Polycarp, while
quite consistent with the theory that the disciple was freely using his
Master’s thoughts and expressions, are not so consistent with the for-
mal use of a “formula.” Besides, the constant fleemg to some un-
known work—an apocryphal Gospel, or a formula—for refuge from the
pressure of obvious arguments in favour of the theory of quotation
from our well-known canonical writings, is in itself uncritical.
Two remarkable allusions to St Paul are found, c. 3 :—
“These things, brethren, I write unto you concerning righteousness, —not because
I take anything upon myself, but because you have invited me to do so. For neither
I nor any such other one can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul.
He, when among you, accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth in the
presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a
letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you
up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and
preceded by love towards God and Christ, and our neighbours, is the mother of us
all. For if any one be inwardly possessed of those graces, he hath fulfilled the com-
mand of righteousness, since he that hath love is far from all sin.”
And again, c. 11 :—
‘¢Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world, as Paul teaches. But I
have neither seen nor heard of any such thing among you, in the midst of whom the
blessed Paul laboured, and who are commended in the beginning of his Epistle.
For he boasts of you in all those churches which alone knew the Lord; but we [of
Smyrna] had not yet known Him.” ? ‘
We could not ask stronger testimony, direct or indirect, to our New
Testament than this. Its author—the disciple of John, and the
teacher of Irenzeus—was a leading and representative man among the
Christians during his long life, and ‘in his old age,” as Irenzus says,
“had a glorious and splendid martyrdom.” To whom, then, does this
Saint testify? Not only to the Epistles of his own Master, but to
St Peter, and to the writings of St Paul. There is no trace of jeal-
ousy ; and he is one in spirit with all the “three mighty ones.” His
whole style closely resembles that of 1 Peter and of the later Epistles
of St Paul; and it would seem as if the last of our inspired writings
which moulded the faith of his youth, had also moulded his thought
and formed his style.
It may not be out of place, in a book primarily designed for students
of theology, to draw attention to a practical lesson. Polycarp—now
1 Probably an allusion to 2 Thess. i. 4, as wellas to Philippians: cf. 1 Thess. i. 8.
POLYCARP. ΧΧΧΙΧ
old and revered—was asked by the Philippians to write them a letter.
He accordingly exhorts them to Christian duty and faith; proclaiming
the truth as it is in Jesus, “ who”,(as he says in ὁ. 8) “bore our sins
in His own body on the tree,” and “ for our sakes was raised again from
the dead:” but his words are not so remarkable even for their tender
courtesy and touching humility, as for the fact that all his exhorta-
tions are based on the authority of Holy Scripture. It is not Poly-
carp as a man who speaks, but a fellow-sinner and fellow-Christian,
who has no right nor title to address them, save in so far as God gives
him grace to remind them of the revealed Word, which in his own
experience he has found to be true and precious beyond all price. Those
who are ministers of Christ, especially young ministers, may well take
that old man as their model, and say little on their own authority, but
let their hearers feel that it is God who beseeches them. [Ὁ is poor
preaching which makes people keep the personality of the preacher
inmind. We are called to be followers of Polycarp, as “he also was
of Christ.”
NOTE.
1. PoLycarp.
There are quotations in the text under the head of the various books of the New
Testament, showing that Polycarp certainly quotes 1 Peter, 1 John, and several of the ᾿
Epistles of Paul (indeed all of them, save perhaps Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Titus,
and certainly Philemon); that he most probably had the synoptic Gospels (Matthew in
particular) ; and that his use of the First Epistle of John may be supposed to carry a
recognition of the fourth Gospel. The references to James, Jude, and 2 Peter are
doubtful. I find no trace of the Apocalypse.
But in addition to quotations, we must notice what may be called echoes, or simi-
larities of tone and thought. The following table (I am by no means sure of its being
exhaustive, or of the apportionment being always correct) may indicate the amount
of quotations and echoes in this remarkable little letter :—
The salutation is—‘‘ Polycarp, and the Presbyters who are with him, to the Church
of God sojourning at Corinth, grace unto you and peace.”
παροικούσῃ, compare 1 Peter i. 17, ii. 11.
ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη, see 2 Tim. i. 2; Titusi. 4; 2 John iii.; and Gal. vi. 16.
This may not be a quotation, yet no one can doubt its being an echo of St
Paul’s form in words from Peter and Paul.
Quotations. Echoes.
C. 1. Direct quotation of Acts ii. 24; 1 OC. 1. Rom. vii. 4 (use of καρποφορέωλ) ;
Peter i. 8; Eph. ii. 8, 9. and Col. ii. 7 (ῥίζα βεβαία).
Pamlebet. dls + Es. ii, 11s 1. Pet: 1. 2. 1 Cor. xv. 28, or Phil. ii. 10 (¢
21, iv. 5, iii. 9. Synoptists ὑπετάγη τὰ πάντα); 1 Thess. v.
(Sermon on Mount). 22 (ἀπεχόμενοι πάσης ἀδικίας,
Omen 11 1. Χο. : 2 Thess, i. 4 (2); K.T.A.)
Rom. xiii. 9.
xl INTRODUCTION.
: Quotations. Echoes.
C. 4. 1 Tim. vi. 7, 10; Eph. vi. 11(2 C. 38. 2 Pet. iii. 15; 1 John passim (6
Cor. vi. 7). γὰρ ἔχων ἀγάπην).
be Gals va. 1.1 Tim. ai, 8; 2) Tim. 4. 1 Thess. v. 17 (ἐντυγχανούσας ἀδια-
Hel ele Pe tami Εἰ: ἃ (Ὅτνι: λείπτωΞ5); Heb. iv. 12, 18 (λογισ-
Ὁ. 10: μῶν οὔτε ἐννοιῶν, K.T.A.)
Ὁ Rom. oxime, 1,012. 001. wine all)" 5. Gal. v. 7 (common text ἀνακύπτε-
Rom. xiv. 10 (2 Cor. v. 10). σθαι); James 111. 2 (χαλιναγω-
ΤΟΝ vere; ΡΘΕ αν ΡΜ αἵ: yoorTes).
xxvi. 41 (perhaps also vi. 18). 6. Mat. vi. 12, 14 (duty of forgiving
8. 1 Pet. ii, 22, 24, &e.; 1 John iv. if we pray for forgiveness, ἀφιέ-
9. vat); Gal. iv. 18 (ζηλωταὶ περὶ τὸ
9. Phil. ii. 16 (Gal. ii. 2); 2 Tim. iv. καλόν).
10. 7. Jude ili.
10. 1 Pet. ii. 17 (Tobit iv. 10, xii. 9); 8. Actsv. 41; 1 Pet. iv. 14, 16 (suffer-
ΤΊ ΡΟ ows 19. ing on account of Christ’s name).
1 1 Cor vi. Ὁ Phi 1 δ; "Phess. i. 9. 2 Tim. il, 12 (they who suffered
4, in. 15: with Christ are now with Him).
12. Ps: iy. 4; Eph.iv. 26; Gal. i. 1; 11. 1 Tim. 111. 5 (quomodo alii hoc
1 Tim. ii. 2; Mat. v. 44. pronuntiant?); Col. 111. 5 (avari-
tia=tdololatreia) ; 1 Cor, xii. 26
(the body of Christ).
12. Mat. v. 48; Col. 1. 28; Eph. vi.
18; Phil. iii. 18.
2. MarryrpoMm ΟΕ PoLycarpP (p. xxxiii).
. περιέμενεν yap, ἵνα παραδοθῇ, ὡς καὶ ὁ Κύριος, ἵνα μιμηταὶ καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοῦ
γενώμεθα, μὴ μόνον σκοποῦντες τὸ καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ
A \ ΄. . “».
κατὰ τοὺ ς weAas—Phil. ii. 4.
. καὶ τοῖς τῆς καρδίας ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀνέβλεπον τὰ τηρούμενα τοῖς ὑπομείνασιν
ἀγαθὰ & οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν, οὔτε ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδεν, οὔτε ἐπὶ καρ-
δίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη, ἐκείνους δὲ ὑπεδείκνυτο ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, οἵπερ
μηκέτι ἄνθρωποι, ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη ἄγγελοι ἦσαν-- 1 Cor. ii. 9. (Note.—This
use of the prophetic words does not, like St Paul’s, refer to the pre-
sent gifts of the Spirit, but to the glories of a future heaven.)
. τῇ παρασκευῇ περὶ δείπνου ὥραν ἐξῆλθον διωγμῖται καὶ ἱππεῖς μετὰ τῶν
συνήθων αὐτοῖς ὅπλων, ὧς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν TpéxovtTes—Mat. xxvi. 55.
. κἀκεῖθεν δέ ἠδύνατο εἰς ἕτερον χωρίον ἀπελθεῖν ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐβουλήθη, εἰπών"
τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ γενέσθω---Λοἷδ xxi. 14.
. Ὁ δὲ Πολύκαρπος εἶπεν" σὲ μὲν καὶ λόγου ἠξίωσα" δεδιδάγμεθα γὰρ ἀρχαῖς καὶ
ἐξουσίαις ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τεταγμέναις τιμὴν κατὰ τὸ προσῆκον, τὴν μὴ βλάπ-
τουσαν ἡμᾶς, amovéweryv—Rom. xiii. 1, 7; 1 Pet. ii. 18.
. κύριε 6 θεὸς, ὃ παντοκράτωρ, ὃ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ Kal εὐλογητοῦ παιδός σου
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πατὴρ---Αοἰβ iii. 14, &e.
. εὐλογῶ σε ὅτι ἠξίωσάς με τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ ὥρας τάντης, τοῦ λαβεῖν μέρος ἐν
ἀριθμῷ τῶν μαρτύρων ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου εἰς ἀνάστασιν
ζωῆς αἰωνίου ψυχῆς τε καὶ σώματος ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ πνεύματος ἁγίου" ἐν οἷς
προσδεχθείην ἐνώπιόν σου σήμερον ἐν θυσίᾳ πίονι καὶ προσδεκτῇ, καθὼς
προητοίμασας καὶ προεφανέρωσας καὶ ἐπλήρωσας, ὃ ἀψευδὴς καὶ ἀληθινὸς
θεός---Μαῖ, xx. 22; John v. 29; xvii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 18.
PAPIAS. xli
VI.—PAPIAS.
Ir would be a great event in Biblical Criticism if the lost five books of
Papias were found in some library, as it is not impossible they may yet
be. Except their title, and a few scraps in Irenzeus and Eusebius, and
in writers long after their time, we really know nothing about the books
of this old chronicler. The title of his treatise was “an Exposition (or
Expositions) of the Oracles of the Lord” —Aoylwv Κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις (or
ἐξηγήσεις) ; and it seems to have been a collection of our Lord’s most
important sayings and doings, with Papias’s own commentary, and
certain additions to corroborate the commentary—these additions being
drawn from what Papias had collected as unwritten reminiscences.!
The importance of the book lies in the fact that Papias, like Polycarp,
was a link between the apostolic age and that of Ireneus. Irenzeus?
calls him “ Papias, a man of the olden time, the hearer of John and
companion of Polycarp.” As Irenzus himself was a native of Asia
Minor, and seems to have been at one time in Laodicea, it is neither im-
possible nor improbable that in his youth he had met the old Bishop of
Hierapolis.? Eusebius, indeed, throws doubt upon the words of Ire-
neus, denying that Papias himself ever claimed to be a hearer and eye-
witness of the holy Apostles. But Eusebius, with characteristic hon-
esty, enables us to judge for ourselves, and a judgment in accordance
with his is by no means unavoidable. Without here entering minute-
ly into the controversy, it is enough to say that the few sentences
which remain to us from Papias descriptive of his purpose may fairly
be taken to mean that he at first learned not a little from the Apostles
themselves,* and that afterwards, during his whole life, he had added
to his personal reminiscences those which he was able to collect from
other companions of the Apostles. His first words are, “I shall cer-
tainly not refuse to set down for you, along with my interpretations,
what things I well learned from the elders, and well recorded [or re-
1 Lightfoot, Cont. Rev., vol. xxvi. p. 399. Bishop Lightfoot’s discussion of the
subject seems to me so conclusive, that I merely refer to the results as securely
established.
ΒΝ ..59;.4:
3 See Geb. and Har., p. 189. The tradition rests mainly on Armenian author-
ity, and Jerome uses words which seem to be thus confirmed,—‘‘ Kefert Irenceus
Papie auditoris evangeliste Joannis discipulus.”
4 Compare Eus. Chronic. Ireneus and others relate that John remained in life
until the times of Trajan: μεθ᾿ ὅν Παππίας Ἱεραπολίτης καὶ Πολύκαρπος Σμύρνης ἐπί-
σκοπὸς ἀκουσταὶ ἐγνωρίζοντο. (See Geb. and Har. (Zahn), Pat. Ap., p. 187.)
xhi INTRODUCTION.
membered?], being well assured of the truth concerning them. For
I was in the habit of taking delight (not like the many) in those
having much to say, but in those teaching the things that are true:
nor in those recalling the precepts of strangers, but in those recalling
the things given by the Lord to faith [or, to make Christian verity],
and proceeding from the truth itself [or, from the very Truth,—see John
xiv. 6]. And if anywhere there chanced also to come one who had
been in company with the Elders {see Luke’s Preface], I inquired in-
to the words of the Elders: what Andrew or what Peter said, or what
Philip, or what Thomas (said), or James: or what John or Matthew or
some other one of the disciples of the Lord (said): which things [or,
what things] Aristion and John the Elder say. For I did not account
myself so much indebted to the things which come from books, as to
those which come from the living and abiding voice.” (Text, p. 54.)
There can be no reasonable doubt that, from a natural interpretation
of his words, we learn that at the time when Papias wrote, Aristion and
the Presbyter John were living and adding to his stock of reminis-
cences. At a later period in his narrative, Eusebius tells us that
Papias had received at least one wonderful narrative from the daugh-
ters of Philip the Apostle. There may be some doubt of his exact
date, but there can be none as to his living at the period when our
authorities are fewest, and every word they left unspeakably precious.
Still further, Eusebius tells us that Papias, “ who seemed very weak in
the mind,”? had given a literal and physical interpretation of certain
figurative prophecies spoken by our Lord. The subject of these pro-
phecies was the millennium: and Eusebius, who was a keen anti-
millennarian, denounces all those (he instances Irenzeus) who were so
led away “by respect for the antiquity of the man” as to follow his
weak-headed expositions. In another passage, however, Eusebius
calls him a very learned man.? There is some difficulty at first sight
in believing that Eusebius at one time thus praised and at another
thus disparaged Papias, and hence probably the omission of one of
those expressions in some MS authorities. But it is quite possible to
be a man of lore and yet not much of a thinker, so that Eusebius’s
estimate of the two sides of Papias’s character may be allowed to
remain, and is probably true. When, therefore, we find Papias giving
1 Ἐμνημόνευσα. We have this word used by Papias in the next sentence with
the meaning “record” or ‘‘ relate ;” and in the comments of Eusebius which follow,
we have it used in the same way,—‘‘ αὐτῶν μνημονεύσας." It may be taken in the
same sense here, and may intimate that Papias from an early date took notes of
what he heard from the Elders. If so, his ὅσα ποτὲ παρὰ των πρεσβυτέρων καλῶς
ἔμαθον καὶ καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα are-words of special importance. They deliberately
claim for his work all the accuracy of which pains and opportunity could make him
capable. Διαβεβαιούμενος will convey the same idea of ‘‘ well-grounded conviction ”
in his own mind.
5. “ἐ Σφόδρα γάρ τοι σμικρὸς ὧν τὸν νοῦν. . . atvera.”—H. E. III. 39.
3. “ῬΑνήρ τὰ πάντα ὕτι μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων." Ἡ, E. III. 86.
PAPIAS. xh
interesting particulars regarding the Gospels of Matthew and Mark,
the question with which we have mainly to do is not his intellect, but
his honesty. If he knew our Gospels, they must have been in men’s
hands in his day: for “weakness of intellect does not enable one to
speak of books as existing which are not in existence.”
This leads us to a somewhat more special inquiry as to what his
day was. If he were really a disciple of the Apostles, and if he lived
in Asia Minor at the time when John wrote his Gospel, he becomes
a man of great importance in the controversies regarding the fourth
Gospel, as well as regarding Matthew and Mark. We do not know
when he was born, nor do we know when he died,? but he must have
met many of the apostolic age; and we may regard the disciple of
John, the friend of Polycarp, the contemporary of Philip’s daughters, the
man who seemed to Irenzeus a “man of the early times” (ἀρχαῖος ἀνήρ),
the man who knew both the “elders” and their younger associates, as
having flourished during the first and second quarters of the second
century, and as having lived from about a.p. 70 to about a.p. 150.
All that we have of Papias’s writing will be found in our text. It
is all quite consistent with his character as a well-intentioned caterer
of tradition. It is not consistent with the theory that he was trying
to compile either a supplement to our Gospels in an authoritative sense,
or a substitute in any sense whatever. Nay, we must go further and
add that, so far as those extracts go, they seem conclusively to point
to a man who accepted the authoritative records of Christ’s life which
were accepted by the Church. If he speaks of the Gospels, it is to
give some traditions regarding their origin which were likely to be of
interest to future generations. If he speaks of the sayings of our
Lord, it is to give an exposition of them, and to back up his own ex-
position by traditional expansion and illustrative anecdote.?
And what, then, does this “man of the olden time” say about our
Gospels? In our text (p. 57) will be found proof that he gives ex-
plicit testimonies to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, to the first
Epistles of John and Peter, and to the Apocalypse of John. The
reference to the Acts of the Apostles is doubtful, but I think it prob-
ably is made by Eusebius himself, and not by Papias. After Light-
foot’s article on “The Silence of Eusebius” + there is no need to
assume that Papias’s references were confined to those books of the
1 Norton, Genuineness of Gospels, vol. i. p. 76. ᾿ f
2 The Paschal Chronicle (seventh century) has usually been regarded as fixing his
martyrdom in A.D. 164; but the chronicler or his transcriber has evidently made a
mistake in substituting ‘‘ Papias” for ‘‘ Papylus” in copying the narrative of Euse-
bius, so that we know nothing of the date of Papias’s death. See Lightfoot, as
above, p. 382.
3 Perhaps this is generalising rather too much from the long passage preserved by
Ireneus.
4 Cont. Rev., vol. xxv.
xliv INTRODUCTION.
canon. But there is abundant controversy as to the bearing of what
Papias has undoubtedly said.
The main points are (a) that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Heb-
rew, and (8) that Mark’s Gospel was composed from what Peter said
in the course of preaching ; (y) that the First Epistle of John was an
authority to Papias, and (8) an Epistle of Peter likewise. There is
also a statement by Eusebius that “Papias brings forward another
narrative about a woman accused of many crimes before the Lord.
Which story,” adds Eusebius, “the Gospel according to the Hebrews
contains.” Without entering on the controversy as to the rendering
of the passages, which will speak for themselves, we may say that the
notice of Matthew is far too fragmentary to bear much strain: and yet
it has been used as though it were a rounded treatise. As it stands,
it would naturally lead to an account of the origin of the Greek version
of St Matthew, which terminated the time of confusion, when “ every
man” (ἃ 6.,) every man who—like Papias himself ?—did not know Heb-
rew very well) “interpreted as he was able” the original Hebrew of
Matthew. As it stands,—and without reference to what may have
followed,—it tells us that at first Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and that
at that date there was some difficulty in many quarters in interpret-
ing him, because the language was Hebrew. It does not tell us
that this difficulty existed at the time when Papias wrote. It does
not tell us that Matthew’s λόγια, or oracles, were only sacred sayings ;—
for the natural meaning of λόγια is sacred oracles, whether containing
narrative or speech.! (See note, p. 57.) .
And as to Mark’s Gospel, Papias (p. 56) tells us that Mark wrote
with precision (ἀκριβῶς), but not in exact order (τάξει), the words and
works of Christ. There has been infinite dispute as to the meaning of
Papias’s apologetic reference to the want of exact order (τάξις, . .
σύνταξις) in Mark; but surely we might accept it as a fact that no one
definite principle of arrangement, whether from regard to time or to
subject, has yet been discovered for any one of our Gospels.? The
want of this is quite consistent with each Gospel having a beginning
and end determined by chronology. So far as Papias is concerned, we
are left to the conclusion of the Muratorian Chronicler that, notwith-
standing various differences, the essentials of the Christian faith are,
under the direction of one supreme Spirit, taught in all the several
books of our Gospels. It is to be noted, also, that when we read of
1 See Lightfoot, as above, p. 400.
5 The arguments (e.g., Sanday’s) to show that Mark’s Gospel is probably nearer to
the normal order than any other, seem to be beside the point. What Papias wants
to say is, that Mark does not profess to have the one only true order ; so that dis-
putes on that head (such as seem to have been going on) are unnecessary.
3 See Muratorian Fragment. It is there said that the differences are in the prin-
cipia, which we may: perhaps take to mean the heads of contents; and this may re-
fer to the subject or to the arrangement of those heads.
PAPIAS. xlv
Papias adducing testimonies from the First Epistle of John, we have
every reason to believe that he used the Fourth Gospel as John’s, for
the common authorship of the Gospel and Epistle is too obvious to be
seriously disputed.
NOTE.
The tradition that the Apostle John lived in Ephesus.
New interest has attached to the fragments of Papias since Keim’s publication of
his bold theory,’ in which Papias plays a prominent part. Although it bears chiefly
on the authorship of the fourth Gospel, and on some passages of Irenzeus in connec-
tion therewith, it nevertheless has its origin in Papias, and may therefore be fitly
considered at this stage. Keim admits, nay proves, the early date of the composi-
tion of the fourth Gospel, and places it in Trajan’s time, between A.p. 110 and 117.
As Ireneus expressly says (Book IT. 22, 5) that John lived till Trajan’s time—i.e.,
A.D. 98-117—we might suppose that the authorship of the fourth Gospel was at last
settled by the critics. But Keim, while holding by the date, denies that the son of
Zebedee is the Evangelist, and wishes to make out that another John, the Presbyter
John, of whose very existence not a few able writers are doubtful, is the veritable
hero of Church History in Asia Minor, and the true winner of the fame which has
been allowed to gather round the name of the son of Zebedee. He charges the mis-
_ take originally upon Irenzus, from whom he says all others copied; and in denying
that Papias knew John the Apostle, he also denies that Polycarp did. His position,
shortly stated, is a denial that the Apostle John was ever in Ephesus. He dwells
upon the absence of all allusion to John in Asia Minor by Ignatius and Polyearp in
their genuine writings, and then comes to deal with the well-known statements of
Papias, as contained in Eus. H. E. III. 39. He makes a great deal of Papias hay-
ing had no intercourse with the Apostle John, or with any other Apostle ; and asks
how, that being so, it is possible to believe that Polycarp, his neighbour and friend,
was so intimate with the son of Zebedee as tradition has made him out to be. The
true solution, according to Keim, is, that the teacher of Papias and of Polycarp, the
author of Papias’s chiliastic hallucinations, and the hero of the traditions of Asia
Minor, was not the son of Zebedee, but another John,—John the Presbyter.
We may sum up Keim’s position thus :—
1. Papias did not know any Apostle: this Keim takes from Eusebius.
2. Papias had once known Aristion and John the Presbyter.
3. Papias had learnt from them what the Apostles said (Keim says Papias does
not say this; but Keim infers it from other statements of Eusebius).
4, When Eusebius does mention John the Apostle, he puts him so low in the list
of Apostles as to show that John had no more to do with Asia Minor than Matthew
had.
5. John the Presbyter was the author of the chiliastic fantasies in the minds of
Papias, Irenzeus, and others.
To these it must be replied :—
1. That Keim is going too far in denying Papias’s personal acquaintance with an
Apostle. He may have known some of them, although his thirst for knowledge was
1 The references are to Keim’s Jesus v. Nazara (1867), vol. i. p. 143, &e. English
transl., vol. i. p. 207 (see p. vi. note 2). There is a full discussion in Max Krenkel’s
* Der Apostel Johannes,’ 1872.
xlv1 INTRODUCTION.
so great, that he had always tried to learn from everybody who knew them what
they had said about the Lord. It is quite possible to have known great men, and
yet to be indebted to others for many reminiscences of them. And we have seen
some reason to believe that this was so with Papias.
2. In point of fact, he does not say in the passage mainly founded on that he had
even seen Aristion and John the Presbyter.
3. He had learnt from everybody what the Apostles said ; and he seems to quote
Aristion and John the Presbyter as confirming the trustworthiness of his memo-
randa.
4, The low place of John in the list either means nothing or too much for Keim’s
purpose ; for if the list were taken for an order of merit, it would contradict the
teaching of the New Testament, that John was at least greater than Philip or
Thomas. Krenkel supposes that they were mentioned in the order of the date of their
death (e.g., Philip died much earlier than John). Lightfoot suggests that they were
mentioned in the same order as in John’s Gospel. Had John the Presbyter been as
famous as Keim supposes, would not Keim’s own principles lead us to expect him to
be earlier in the list of disciples than that obscure Aristion ? Can it be that John
and Matthew are mentioned together as being the two Evangelists ?
5. Eusebius does not refer the hallucinations of Papias to John, but says that
Papias misunderstood the apostolical expositions. Even if the ‘‘elders” quoted by
Irenzeus mean Papias, and such as he, any extravagances may be due to them, and
not to their teacher.! In addition, let us note the well-known fact that Irenzeus
says he knew Polycarp intimately. (See Irenzus’s letter to Florinus.) Is it con-
ceivable that he could be mistaken as to the John of whom his master was wont to
speak so constantly ? Is it possible that he would have written to a fellow-scholar (now
a Gnostic), reminding him of this John, if he were not sure that his correspondent
knew for certain which John he meant? Further, if Irenzeus were mistaken as to
Polycarp’s meaning, could he have continued under the mistake after reading
Papias’s book? We must conclude, after considering such questions as these, that
Polycarp intended his disciples to suppose that he spoke of the son of Zebedee, and
we cannot assume that the old man deliberately set himself to deceive them.
Finally, there is independent testimony in favour of John the Apostle having
been in Ephesus. Apollonius, the anti-Montanist (A.D. 170-180), believed in the
Ephesian residence of the Apostle John (Eus. H. E. V. 18) ; and Polycrates, Bishop of
Ephesus (A.D. 180), expressly refers to ‘‘ John who rested on the bosom of our Lord”
as being buried in Ephesus.?
Tradition takes strange shapes, as we see in the reminiscences of Irenzeus himself ;
but they are in matters of detail. History could never be written at all, if it were
possible for Irenzeus to be mistaken upon a subject so broad and momentous as Poly-
carp’s training under the Apostle John.
1 There is not even proof that Papias took the parable about ‘‘ ten thousand fold ”
literally, though Ireneus did.
2 Eusebius tells us (H. E. III. 39) of two μνήματα (tombs? or memorials 2) in
Ephesus; and the only doubt attaching to them seems to have regarded the Presby-
ter. In Ignatiusad Eph., ο. 11, 2 (Vossian), there is probable reference to Paul and
John in Ephesus, ἵνα ἐν κλήρῳ ᾿Εφεσίων εὑρεθῶ τῶν Χριστιανῶν, of καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις
πάντοτε συνῆσαν ἐν δυνάμει ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. See Zahn (‘ Acta Joannis,’ 1880, p. cliv.),
for ἃ new excursus on the tombs,
BASILIDES. xl vii
VII.—BASILIDES. ©
Ir is scarcely possible to sketch the position of Basilides in the his-
tory of evidence for the canonical books without indicating his position
as a philosophical teacher and the founder of a sect. He is said (Euseb.
H. E. IV.) to have written “twenty-four books upon the Gospel ;” and
controversy immediately begins as to what “the Gospel” was, and
what is meant by writing upon it? And the shortest answer to ques-
tions which spring up must include some notice of his general position.
Basilides was born in Syria, and was possibly, along with Saturninus,
a disciple of Menander. He went to Egypt, like Cerinthus, and was
known there about a.p. 125.1. He seems also to have taught the Per-
sians (see p. 390). He was the author of a notable Gnostic theory of
the universe, and he claimed for it that it truly represented the teach-
ing of Peter. His system is expounded at considerable length by
Trenzeus and by Hippolytus, and is often alluded to and confuted by
Clement of Alexandria.? It is not easy to reconstruct it from these
notices ; nor is it always possible to say how far his followers had gone
beyond his own lines.? But he seems to have sought to embrace all
the universe in one plan, of which Jesus Christ is the centre, and to
have broken down in the attempt to combine Egyptian speculation with
Scripture truth. He was anxious, with Egyptian sages, to maintain
that the supreme God cannot reveal Himself ;* he was equally anxious,
with Christians, to admit that the Old and New Testaments contain a
real and true revelation ; and so he invented “ Archons” great enough
to be authors of revelation. He did not take refuge in the notion of
the inherent evil of matter: he believed creation and providence to be
the works of God. He even said, “I would say anything rather than
blame Providence.”® The mysteries of the world he believed to be
1 There is concurrence from all sides in his having flourished in Hadrian’s reign,
A.D. 117-188.
2 See a collection of passages containing fragments of the writings of the Gnostics
to whom Irenzus alludes in Stieren’s Irenzus, vol. i. p. 901, &c.
3 Clem. Alex. (Strom. III. 1, p. 510) expressly says that the founders of the sect do
not sanction his contemporaries, the Basilideans, in their Antinomian tenet that sins
of incontinence do not hurt the perfect man, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ ταῦτα αὐτοῖς πράττειν συγχωροῦ-
σιν of προπάτορες τῶν δογμάτων. Lardner does not succeed in explaining this away.
See Lardner, vol. i. p. 543.
4 Probably it was owing to his Egyptian training that he is said (see Eus. H. E. IV.
11) to have spoken of Barcabbas and Barcoph as prophets, and others also. Isidore,
his son, also commented on Parchor—(Clem. Alex., Strom. VI. 6, p. 767).
> Clem. Alex., Strom. IV. 12, p. 600.
xlvili INTRODUCTION.
due to our inability to see causes and effects together. And yet when,
in his attempt to lessen the mystery of creation out of nothing, he says
that from the unknown supreme God there came a germ out of which
all existing things were evolved, he is forced to hold that in this germ
were several grades of being, of which the lowest seems to be some-
how bound up meanwhile with material existence from which it will
be eventually disengaged. It seems, therefore, as though the necessary
result of the unthinkable God producing the germ was the production
of the material world along with the spiritual. It seems as though
moral evil were only imperfection caused by the proximity of some
substance less refined than pure spirit. And from this tenet would
easily come many of the gross immoral consequences in practical con-
duct with which even Clement of Alexandria charges his school.?
Clement shows that a pure moral condition is not with the Basilideans a
result of God’s forgiveness and of the work of God in man, but of ante-
cedent necessity arising from the composition of the human nature in
the particular individual? In short, with Basilides, as with all who
magnify the influence of matter, the fact and the sense of sin were
obscured. Nevertheless Basilides scouted the idea of emanations,* and
thought that he had bridged the chasm between spirit and the universe
by the invention of his eggs or germs with resulting Archons—one the
head of an ogdoad, and the other of a hebdomad ; and he thought that
he had found a central place for Jesus Christ ® by representing Him as
the embodiment of the great Gospel with which the Archon’s Son
enlightened all the principalities and powers, and all different orders of
being, including man.
It is easy to see that his aim was to expand and explain the teach-
ing of John’s Gospel as to the creation by the Logos, and the mysterious
allusions in some of the Pauline Epistles to God reconciling all things
(τὰ πάντα) to Himself by Jesus Christ. His system was a philosophy,
not a religion: a philosophy, however, applying to practical life, and
not merely an intellectual exercitation.
1 Clem. Alex., Strom. III. 1, p. 510, &e. Bunsen (Hipp. 1, 111) thinks that Basi-
lides ‘‘ clung to the old philosophy of Egypt and Asia, that evil triumphs in this
world of ours.” But this does not seem to be accurate.
2 Tbid., 11. 20, p. 488. Οἱ δ᾽ ἀμφὶ Βασιλείδην προσαρτήματα τὰ πάθη καλεῖν εἰώθασιν.
3 See Clem. Alex., Strom. III. 1, p. 510, for an allegation that Isidorus recom-
mended a man to gratify pressing lusts in order that he might pray with more devout —
er text under John’s Gospel—Basilides.
5 <* Since it was needful that it should be revealed that we.are the children of God,
in expectation of whose revelation the creation groaned and habitually travailed in
pain, the Gospel came into the world and permeated all authority and power and
dominion, and every name that is named.”—Hipp. 7, 13.
6 Jerome says he rejected Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. This is probable enough
in itself, as the contents of those books must have stood in the way of his system ;
but other antagonists do not charge him with either rejecting or mutilating (however
much he perverted) any of the books of the New Testament. See Jerome, Pref. to
Comment. on Titus.
BASILIDES. xlix
He did not wish to be an opponent of the Gospel; and he professed
to represent the true doctrines of St Peter, which he had received
through his teacher Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.’ He (or his
followers for him) also claimed to expound the doctrine of Matthias,
who had received it privately from the Saviour Himself? In this, like
other Gnostics, he wished to find some excuse for his obvious disagree-
ment with the Gospel of Christ as ordinarily received among men. ‘The
twenty-four books of which Eusebius tells us—“ exegetical books”
Clement calls them ; ‘“tractates” according to Archelauns—seem to have
been discourses advocating his own philosophy of religion. The curious
paraphrases of important texts preserved by Hippolytus, and the equally
curious ethical consequences which roused the wrath of Clement, seem
to me to make this clear enough. And is there any improbability in the
supposition that he issued also some abridgment of this as his own view
of the Gospel—as Christianity according to Basilides?? Origen says:
“ Basilides was audacious enough to write a Gospel, and to call it by
his own name.” And Origen—or rather the Latin version of Origen’s
Homilies on Luke—remains our authority for this. Even if we take
Origen’s statement as fact, we cannot interpret this as meaning that
Basilides used a form of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,‘ or that
he set up any narrative as a rival to the canonical books, because we
do not hear anything about such a book from those who wrote most
fully of his system, and we do hear explicitly that he and his followers
adopted the same account of the Saviour’s life as other Christians did.
After an account of Jesus’ birth, Hippolytus (III. 27) says: “ After His
[Jesus’] birth had taken place as aforesaid, all things regarding the
Saviour, according to them [the Basilideans], took place as has been
written in the Gospels.” And Clement tells us that they observed
the night of the Lord’s baptism as a festival, spending it in special
reading.®
We conclude, therefore, from the allusions and quotations in early
writers, that Basilides was not known to reject any of the books of the
New Testament; that he set himself to reconcile the Christian Scrip-
tures with Egyptian philosophy; that he wrote an elaborate treatise
in twenty-four books on “the Gospel,” by which we suppose that he
meant the Christian’ system ;° that his system led to well-understood
1 Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. 17, p. 898.
2 See Hipp. VII. 20, and Clem. Alex., Strom. VII. 17. Some read ‘‘ Matthew ”
here. According to Clement, it was the boast of Basilides’s followers that he claimed
Glaucias for his teacher, —‘‘ κἂν Γλαυκίαν ἐπιγράφηται διδάσκαλον ὡς αὐχοῦσιν avtol,”—
whereas the claim to represent Matthew or Matthias may be the doing of his followers,
although this is not clear. Hippolytus distinctly says that both Basilides and Isidore
made this claim. He calls Isidore the ‘‘ genuine son and disciple” of Basilides.
3 BbayyéAuov ἐστὶ κατ᾽ αὑτοὺς ἣ τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων yvGous.”—Hipp. Her. 7, 27.
4 Sup. Rel., vol. ii. p. 43.
® Clem. Alex., Strom. I. 21, p. 408. f
6 Τ do not see that ‘we can go further than this from the words of Eusebius ; but
d
] INTRODUCTION.
consequences as to the evil of matter and the non-importance of bodily
indulgence, which, in the lives of his followers, produced flagrant im-
morality. When we go further, and ask what the written records were
from which he quoted, or on which he commented, we can not only say
that he accepts the facts of ordinary Christian narrative, but we have
also good grounds for believing that they were our canonical books,
because we find passages from Matthew and Luke and John. Those
passages are found in our text, with specific notes, and the reader is
referred to them. They refer to the Magi and the star (Mat. ii. 1); to
eunuchs and continence (Mat. xix. 11); to casting pearls before swine
(Mat. vii. 6); to the Holy Spirit overshadowing the mother of Jesus,
and the power of the Highest coming upon her (Luke i. 35); to the
saying of Jesus found in the Fourth Gospel, ‘“ Mine hour is not yet
come” (John ii. 4); and, above all, to the language of the Prologue,
“This is the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the
world” (John i. 9). There are numerous passages from the epistles
also. These references have additional importance from the fact that
they are preceded by such phrases as τὸ εἰρημένον, ὡς γέγραπται, ἣ γραφὴ
λέγει.} It is to be observed, also, that when we are told of the Basilideans
accepting the Gospel record, it is described as ‘‘ what is written in the
Gospels ;” 2 and when the Prologue to John is quoted, it is as “said in
the Gospels.” Do we go beyond the indications when we conclude
that while ‘the Gospel” meant the “ Christian system,” the Basilideans
acknowledged a plurality of books which correspond with our own, and
that they termed these, as we do, “the Gospels” ?
But it is said in reply that the quotations of Hippolytus are so in-
definite as to make it doubtful whether he quoted from Basilides him-
self or from some Basilidean of much later date.2 The value of the
quotations from John depends on the weight attached to this reply.
It does not seem to me possible to read Hipp. VIL. 22, with its distinct
we can certainly deny, on the strength of the passage, any theory that Basilides’s
work was a commentary on his own Gospel. Hippolytus (Ref. 7, 27) says: ‘* Gospel
is with the Basilideans the knowledge of supra-mundane things ;” and he goes on to
define these as the Holy Spirit and the Sonship, and adds: ‘‘ This, according to them,
is the Gospel,” τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. This meaning is also found in the passage quoted in
a previous note (see note 3), to the effect that the Gospel is the revelation that we
are the sons of God.
1 Thus, in one chapter, VII. 26 (p. 372, Duncker), we find τὸ εἰρημένον for Prov.
i. 7; Ps. xxxi. 5; Luke i. 35 (a strictly verbal quotation) ; 7 γραφὴ λέγει for 1 Cor.
li. 13; καθὼς γέγραπται for 2 Cor. xii. 4; besides an inweaving of Eph. iii. 3. And
vii. 22, puts in apposition, τὸ λεχθὲν ὑπὸ Μωσέως, ‘‘ Let there be light,” and τὸ λεγό-
μενον ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις, “ΗΘ was the true light,” &c. In this same chapter (22),
Ps. exxxii. 2 is cited as τὸ λεγόμενον.
2 Not ‘*in the Gospel,” as Sup. Rel., vol. i. p. 47.
3 Hipp., VII. 19, says that Basilides will be convicted of foisting Aristotelian philo-
sophy upon the Gospel, so that his followers will be made to see that they are pagans,
not true Christians at all. Then he goes on (VII. 20) to show how manifestly Basil-
ides, as well as Isidore and their whole sect, give the lie not only to Matthew, but
to the Saviour Himself.
BASILIDES. li
bearing on Basilides himself, as shown by the way Hippolytus intro-
duces him, and to suppose that any one but Basilides is meant as the
author by whom the Prologue to John (i. 9) is founded upon.! The
other quotation in ὁ. 27 naturally seems to be made by Basilides also,
even although, in the following sentence, the whole school (κατ᾽ αὐτούς)
are said to apply the doctrine to the spiritual man within the natural
man. But even if we give up the second, the first mentioned of the
citations from John by Basilides remains distinct. This is a question
of fact to which no doubt a reader’s prepossessions tend to shape his
reply, however much he may strive to be impartial. But I would sub-
mit that the difficulty of referring it to any other than Basilides is
enormous.” The fundamental written dogma of the school is at stake ;
Hippolytus is showing how that dogma was against the theory of
emanations: he is not dealing (as Clement often did) with practical con-
sequences, but with the very foundation itself; and if that foundation
was not laid by Basilides himself, by whom was it laid? Beyond the
trouble into which opponents of the authenticity of John are put by
Basilides’s quoting, is there any ground for believing that in the Basili-
dean school there was another great philosopher and writer subsequent to
the founder’s own day who was accepted, when Hippolytus wrote eighty
or a hundred years after, as the true representative and champion of
Basilidean philosophy ? We know of Basilides and his works ; we know
he had many followers, who are often spoken of as plural; but who is
this other notable one?* It can hardly have been Isidore, who was a
much inferior man to his father;* and we know not that any other
existed great enough.
But again, it is said that the very use of the formule, “ It is written,”
&c., shows that the citations are not made by Basilides, because in his
day such formule were not applied to the New Testament. Is not
this, however, to beg the question? If Basilides applied them, they
were so applied. “ But,” says the author of ‘Supernatural Religion,’
“the writings of pseudo-Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Papias,
1 Τῇ one passage (VII. 26) Hipp. seems to distinguish between the plniary Sees
of Basilides and the secondary ones (Abraxas, &c.) of his followers. See φησί and κατ᾽
αὐτούς. It is often said that in Hipp. V. 7 we have φασὶν of Ἕλληνες, and then soon
after Pindar quoted with φησί, though Pindar is not named. But is it not rather
- the representative of the Naassenes who is referred to? He was quoted with φησί in
the end of the previous chapter, and now it is not Pindar but this same man as using
the hymn (which the Greeks use) that is quoted.
2 <*Tauteur des Philosophoumena a sans doute fait cette analyse sur les ouvrages
originaux de Basilide.”,—Rénan, |’Eglise chrétienne, p. 158. ;
Hippolytus, at the end of the extract beginning ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσι, seems to specify
a single contemporary doctrine for which the word φησίν shows that he holds
Basilides himself responsible. After the reference to the star (VII. 27) with φησί, he
says: “Οὗτος ἐστὶν 6 κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς νενοημένος ἔσω ἄνθρωπος πνευματικός.
4 And the author of Sup. Rel. agrees with orthodox critics that Isidore cannot be
shown from his extant fragments to have used Scripture in the same way, or at all.
—Sup. Rel., vol. ii. p. 48.
—Te +s. σον.
li INTRODUCTION.
Hegesippus, and others of the Fathers, in several ways positively de-
monstrate that the New Testament writings were not admitted, even
amongst orthodox Fathers, to the rank of Holy Scripture until a very
much later period.”! It is not easy to say what he means in this con-
nection by pseudo-Ignatius or his date, secing that he refers the Ignatian
epistles elsewhere to the end of the second or beginning of the third cen-
tury,—“ if indeed they possess any value at all.” Is “ Ionatius,” after
all, a genuine witness for the usage in Basilides’s day? Or does he
mean to say that in the beginning of the third century men did not re-
gard the New Testament as Scripture? ΑΒ to Justin Martyr, he wrote
no commentary on the Gospel which has come to our day, nor did he
found a philosophical system on it; and his Apology to heathen, and
disputation with a Jew, are works of a very different kind from a treatise
intended to commend Christian philosophy to Christians. Reverent
quotations are natural in such a treatise—natural even if the reverence
were consciously hollow,—still more natural if Basilides had honestly
convinced himself that his philosophy was a framework in which the
Gospel truths could be combined in new beauty and power. On Poly-
carp—we presume the epistle bearing his name is meant—the author
heaps strong condemnation elsewhere, saying that “upon no internal
ground can any part of this epistle be pronounced genuine; there are
potent reasons for considering it spurious, and there is no evidence
of any value whatever supporting its authenticity. In any case it
could only be connected with the very latest years of Polycarp’s life,”
—i.e., some time after a.p. 160, when he was a deputy sent to Rome.
And how, then, can an unauthentic letter of, say a.p. 162, tell us how
a philosopher and legate, thirty years before, was likely to use written —
Gospels? As to the scraps of Papias, and the fragments of Hegesippus,
it is really beside the point to speak of them in this connection. We
might indeed found on Papias’s testimony to the existence of Matthew
and Mark before his time, and on what Hegesippus tells us of the
purity and sound doctrine of the Church everywhere in his day. We
might show from them how necessary it would be for Basilides to deal re-
spectfully with the Christian records if he wished to get a hearing from
contemporary Christians. But without taking any such positive ground,
we may well negatively remind ourselves that to quote fragments of
chroniclers and historians as guides in what must have been the mode
of quotation adopted by a philosophical exegete is unwarrantable.
We conclude, therefore, that Basilides knew, quoted, and commented
upon John’s Gospel about the end of the first quarter of the second
century.”
1 Sup. Rel., vol. ii. p. 55.
* There are also references to several of the Pauline Epistles. See Hort’s article
‘* Basilides”’ in Smith’s Dict. of Christian Biography, 1877.
JUSTIN MARTYR. li
NOTE ON THE SYSTEM OF BASILIDES.
There is some difficulty in reconciling Ireneus and Hippolytus in the accounts
they give of the system. Some (see Luthardt, St John, p. 100) give up the prob-
lem. But it may be suggested that Ireneus seems to begin lower down in the
stream of Basilides’s thought than Hippolytus. JIrenzus seems to strike in at the
stage of the Archons. Irenzus speaks of the ‘unknown Father,” who may be re-
garded as “‘the unknown God” in the account given by Hippolytus; but he says
that ‘“‘ Nous was the first-born of the unborn Father, and Nous is the Christ who
came at a later stage to bestow deliverance on them that believe in Him from the
power of those who made the world. He appeared then on earth as a man to the
nations of these powers, and wrought miracles.” In this Irenzeus seems to regard
the chief Archon as the unborn Father; and, omitting the incomprehensible super-
fluous speculations on the Deity and the germ, to begin at once with the supreme
Archon. We seem to have in his account an enumeration of the powers or attri-
butes that composed the Ogdoad of which Hippolytus speaks elliptically ; for although
Irenzeus does not speak of the Ogdoad, he does enumerate Nous, Logos, Phronesis,
Sophia, Dunamis, as successive generations—five in number; and we learn from
Clem. Alex. that Dikaiosune and Kirene were also in the list. These, with the Su-
preme Being, make an Ogdoad, and thus we have Irenzus in substantial agreement
with Hippolytus, although he gives rather the substance and issues than the founda-
tion of the speculations of Basilides. Hence those speculations appear more panthe-
istic in Hippolytus, more dualistic in Ireneeus,—the former being the intention of
the philosopher, but the latter the necessity which ruled him.
VIIL—JUSTIN MARTYR.
Justin Marryr,—a native of Samaria, apparently a Gentile by birth,
certainly uncircumcised; originally a student of philosophy (the Pla-
tonic in particular), afterwards attracted to the side of the Christians by
their disregard of carnal enjoyments and their contempt for death, and
finally, not only a believer in the Gospel, but a witness for it in various
parts of the earth, even unto death,—is especially important in the his-
tory of the canon, because of the position he occupies as equidistant
from the Apostle John on the one hand and Ireneus on the other.
In recent years the recovery of the long-lost work of Hippolytus, and
of the close of the Clementine Homilies, has made Justin’s testimony
less solitary than it seemed formerly to be. When the philosophical
Gnostic,! as reported by Hippolytus, founds upon John’s Gospel, and
the ultra-Judaic Christian? does the same, the contemporary (or sub-
1 Basilides, in Hipp. VII. 10. 2 Clem. Hom, XIX, 22.
liv INTRODUCTION.
sequent) testimony of Justin is no longer an isolated position open to
attack from all sides.
But still there is something special in Justin’s work which demands
close attention. His first “ Apology” was probably presented to the
Roman emperor between A.p. 139 and a.p. 146. It is about 40 years since
the Apostle John died; 30 or 40 years afterwards (a4.p. 177) Ireneeus
succeeded to the bishopric of Lyons. We do not know for certain the
date of Justin’s birth, but he was in all probability a contemporary of
both the Apostle and the great Gallican Bishop. The Asiatic and
the Roman Churches with which they were respectively associated
must have been familiarly known to him, for his “ Dialogue” was held
in Ephesus, and he lived also in Rome. He is a link, too, between
what we may call the direct line and many collateral sections of the
Christian Church. Being a native of Samaria, he speaks of the
great Samaritan heresiarch Simon, as one whose life and work in Rome
and in Samaria were familiarly known to him. Menander, the other
Samaritan heretic, had disciples still living who believed in his promise
that because of their adherence to him they should never die. And
though his work against the great heretic of Sinope is unfortunately
lost, we know that he was well aware of the nature of the heresy.
“ And there is Marcion, a native of Pontus, who is even at this day
alive and teaching his disciples to believe in some other God greater
than the Creator.” ἢ
It is even possible that Rome may have contained within its walls
at one and the same time Marcion, Cerdo, Tatian, Valentinus, and Justin
Martyr. We have knowledge of what Marcion’s Canon contained ; we
know that Tatian, Justin’s pupil, made a harmony of the four Gospels ;?
we know that Valentinus used a complete canon (integrum instrumen-
tum) ; we know how clear and full is the testimony of Justin’s younger
contemporary, Irenzus, to the existence and general reception of all
the principal parts of our canon; and we might expect to find Justin
giving evidence on the same side. If the Gospels and Epistles re-
ceived by Irenzeus were the same as Justin used, then is our chain
of testimony complete.
But here arises the question which has for a hundred years
bulked more largely than any other in the critical controversies re-
garding the history of the canon. There can be no doubt that Justin
makes large and interesting reference to the life and words of Jesus
Christ ; and there can be no doubt that he refers for evidence to writ-
1 Apol. I. c. 26. (Hort fixes a.p. 145 or 146 for the Apology.)
? Is it possible that Justin used a harmony, which the pupil afterwards developed
into the famous Diatessarén? or that Justin’s mode of quoting, by fusing the synoptic
narratives into such consistency as served his purpose, suggested to Tatian the idea
of thoroughly fusing them? It is doubtful if Tatian’s was a “‘ harmony” in the
sense of collocation. Certainly Tatian’s was not the same as Justin’s, because Ta-
tian omitted the genealogies, and the descent of Jesus from David.
a
JUSTIN MARTYR. lv
ten documents. There can be no doubt of the substantial conformity of
his version of evangelical history with that of our Gospels; but the
question is, whether the canonical Gospels are the sources of his quo-
tations? It has been alleged that he quoted from the now lost ‘“ Ur-
Evangelium” or primary Gospel, or that (Stroth) the mysterious
“Gospel of the Hebrews” is his authority. It has been alleged that
he quoted from apocryphal books, either in preference to, or along
with, the canonical: and, on the other hand, it has been alleged—more
accurately, we think—that he knew and habitually cited our canoni-
cal books, but that he cited them loosely from memory, and that he
did not hesitate on occasion to weave into his statement such addi-
tional particulars as he derived from tradition or from apocryphal
sources.
We turn to his writings to learn for ourselves. But the first fact
which strikes us is, that the peculiar nature of those works limits
very much the amount of direct testimony which they can give. His
genuine writings are now generally admitted to be three in number—
if indeed they be not two. There are two Apologies! (or more probably
two parts of one Apology) presented to a heathen emperor; and a
Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. The very nature of the case prevents
us from expecting, in such writings, references to the books of the
New Testament as inspired authorities. The object of the Apology is
to defend Christians from many foul accusations brought against their
life and character by the vulgar rumours of Rome. Justin proves that
Christians are honourable (c. 12) ; peace-loving and continent (c. 21) ;
good citizens (c. 17) ; followers of one whom ancient prophecies foretold
(c. 47); that they use a simple ritual (chaps. 65, 67), and practise
the most self-denying charity towards one another as brethren, and as
under the eye of one God and Maker of all. ‘ We continually remind
ourselves of these things, and the wealthy among us help the needy ;
and we always keep together: and for all things wherewith we are
supplied, we bless the Maker of all, through His Son Jesus Christ, and
through the Holy Ghost.”? It is obvious, when we consider the ob-
ject in the writer’s view, that there could be little direct quotation in
1 The first Apology is addressed to the Emperor Titus Aulius Adrianus Antoninus
Pius Augustus Cxsar. It probably dates from A.D. 139. Eusebius tells us that he
addressed another Apology to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and that he suffered
martyrdom during that emperor’s reign. The most certain indications of date we
can gather from his writings are allusions to the Jewish war under Barcocheba in
A.D. 131-136, of which he speaks as a recent event: see Apol. I. c. 31; Dial. ὁ. 1,
6. 9. He alludes to the death of Christ as an event of 150 years before ; and refers
to Hadrian’s decree, Apol. I. 47, Dial. c. 10, banishing the Jews from Jerusalem, and
to the deification of Antinous, Apol. I. ὁ. 29, as recentevents. The other works as-
cribed to him—‘‘ To Diognetus,” see Ὁ. 65, two Addresses to Greeks, and ‘‘ De Mon-
archia ”—are not now considered to be his, Nor is a fragmentary Treatise on the
Resurrection to be founded upon, though it may be quoted with reserve.
2 Compare Lucian’s description of the experiences of Peregrinus Proteus.
lvi INTRODUCTION.
the “ Apology,” and that all we can expect is a general agreement in
tone and apparent historical basis with our Scriptures. That agree-
ment we have beyond all question. But we have not such appeals to
the New Testament as Ireneus and Tertullian make when discussing
some point of doctrine; and we have no right to expect them. It is
the unvarying characteristic of Christian apologists not to quote the
Gospels by the titles in use among Christians. In other works they
did so quote the Gospels, but never in their “ Apologies” addressed to
the heathen. The argument that because Justin does not name our
evangelists, he did not know them, would, if applied to others, lead to
absurd results. It would prove that Tatian, who never names them
in his oration to the Gentiles, did not know them, though we know
that he wrote a harmony of the four; that Tertullian, who, in his
Apology, never names them, and seldom uses their language, did
not know them, though his other writings are a rich mine of distinct
quotation ; that even Cyprian did not know them, because in his de-
fence of Christianity, addressed to a heathen, he does not name them.!
We turn from the Apology to the Dialogue with Trypho, and we find
that it turns upon the Scriptures—but it is upon the Old Testament.
Justin represents himself as accosted by Trypho one day when he was
walking ; and in the conversation which ensued, it soon appeared that
although Trypho was a student of Greek philosophy, he was also a
Jewish fugitive from the recent war of Barcocheba. 'Trypho, represent-
ing the prejudice of his nation, charged all Christians with having ac-
cepted a baseless rumour as the foundation of their religion, and with
having formed a kind of Christ for themselves, so that they were
perishing thoughtlessly. Justin began to defend his creed; andas his
opponent and he had one point in common—acceptance of the Old
Testament Scriptures—the argument (see chaps. 32, 55, 56, 71) turns
upon it. Not that the Christian records were ignored, for Trypho had
read them (c. 10), and Justin therefore says that he does not think it
absurd to quote the short records of the Saviour’s doings along with
the prophecies.2_ But Justin uses the Christian books only as histori-
cal material for his position, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who lived
and died and rose again, is the Revealer of the Father and the Saviour
of men; and the aim of the Dialogue is to show that the true meaning
of the very words of the Prophets and Psalms and Pentateuch is ful-
filled in this Christ. It is clear that in an argument of this kind, ver-
bal dependence on the Gospels or Epistles of the New Testament is
not to be expected. But it is equally clear that if our sacred books be
the records of the truth, as held by the Church of the first days, we
shall find in this dialogue that the Christ of whom Justin discoursed
so copiously is the same as He of whom our evangelists wrote, and
1 See Norton on the Gospels, vol. i. p. 137.
2 Βραχέα τῶν ἐκείνου (sc. Swrijpos) λογία, c. 18. So, βραχεῖς λόγοι, Apol. I. 14.
JUSTIN MARTYR. lvii
whom Paul preached. Now that the Christ to whom Justin gave his
soul is the Redeemer whom we worship, we have abundant proof.
Jesus Christ, according to Justin, is the God who manifested Him-
self unto Israel of old, for no man ever saw the Father who is Lord of
all; He is the Word (see Dial. chaps. 146, 147, &c.); the Son of
God, who became man (Apol. I. 5); was born of a virgin, sheltered in
Egypt, grew up in obscurity until He was 30 years of age, taught,
healed, did miracles, was crucified, dead and buried, and the third day
rose again ; filled His disciples with knowledge, and gave them their
commission to teach all nations ; was the light to lighten the Gentiles,
and the glory of His people Israel. In short, the incidents of the
Saviour’s birth, life, death, and rising again, as the incarnate Son of
God, are actually stated or unquestionably implied in Justin’s writings.
His teaching also is beautifully represented (see Dial. 93, and also
Apol. I., chaps. 15, 16, 17, 18).
Thus there can be no doubt of the substantial agreement of Justin’s
Gospel with the Synoptic Gospels; but the question comes to turn
upon the form of Justin’s citations and references. Can it be that
Justin used the first form of the Gospel—zpoarov εὐαγγέλιον ---τιονν lost,
which was afterwards altered so as to take on, after much labour, the
form of our present Gospels ?
We shall most succinctly define what we believe to be the true
position in the controversy regarding Justin’s quotations, by noting
these three points.
1. While Justin based his proof of Christianity on the Old Testament
as a whole, he founded especially on Old Testament prophecy. His most
elaborate arguments are expositions of Psalms xxii. (Dial. 98-106),
ex. (c. 33), and lIxxii. (c. 34). To him almost all the Old Testa-
ment is Messianic. His quotations from the Old Testament prophecies :
are—as it is obviously indispensable that they should be—explicit,
accompanied (not always correctly) with the name of the author from
whom the quotation is made ; and while shorter passages seem to be
quoted from memory, the longer are verbally correct. It is noteworthy,
also, that the only book of the New Testament which he quotes by
name is the only prophetic book—the Apocalypse—from which he
cites the passage predicting the millennium.
2. He alluded to the Gospels as historical documents, though he did not
claim for them (it is not clear how his object in quoting would have
been served by doing so) the same position as for the Old Testament
prophecies. He appeals to them as historical documents under the
name of ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων. He describes them as con-
taining “all things which concern our Saviour Jesus Christ ”—Apol. II.
75. He says they “were written by the Apostles, and are called
Σ 1 Justin makes it clear, in his more detailed descriptions, that he means ‘‘ Me-
moirs by the Apostles,” not ‘‘ Memoirs of,” See below, p. 1xi.
lviil INTRODUCTION.
Gospels.” 1 He says they were read on Sundays to the congregations,
along with (and apparently on the same level as) the writings of the
prophets, and that oral public teaching of the audience was founded on
their contents—Apol. 1, 67. Nay more, in words which remind us of St
Luke’s Preface,” he says, “In the Memoirs which 1 affirm to have been
composed by his Apostles, and those who followed with them, it is
written that sweat fell from Him like drops of blood while He was
praying, and saying, Let this cup, if it be possible, pass from me ”—Dial.
c. 103.5 In these expressions separate works are apparently alluded
to: on other occasions the word eéayyéAuov* seems to be applied in the
same general way as by ourselves, to denote the tenor of the written
records of Christianity (see Dial. 10, 100). But when Justin is under
the necessity of advancing statements of facts which are recorded
in the Gospels, he refers to them as the authoritative books of the
Christians, lest it should be supposed that he is drawing on his own
imagination for his facts.®
In thus quoting the ‘ Memoirs,” Justin quotes books which were
not only accessible but also known to opponents, whether heathen or
Jewish. Trypho says he has read them. It is therefore clear that
there were in Justin’s day certain well-known historical documents
whose contents were “The Gospel;” which were themselves called
“Gospels ;” which were written by Apostles and their companions ;
and whose characteristics are indicated in Justin’s term ‘ Memoirs ”—
Memorabilia. Everything here seems to identify those Memoirs of
Justin’s with our canonical books. It is true he does not quote them
by name in his works which remain; but it would have been cumber-
some to do so. His one New Testament quotation, which he accom-
panies with the name of its author, is so extremely circuitous and cir-
cumstantial, as to show why he makes that kind of reference very
rarely. “And a certain man among ourselves, whose name was John,
one of the Apostles of Christ, in the Revelation which was made to
him, prophesied that those who believe in our Christ will spend a
thousand years in Jerusalem.” There is something very suggestive
in this circumlocution (Dial. 81).
3. Justin’s position in the history of the Church accounts for the nature
and limits of his quotations. His lifetime stretched across the period
1 It seems idle to discuss the assertion that this clause is an interpolation. There
is no ground for it, save that it is necessary to the theory that Justin’s ‘‘ Memoirs”
are not our Gospels. But since the assertion is made, the passage cannot of itself be
conclusive proof that Justin used our synoptics.
2 All the more so, that it occurs in connection with the mention of the sweat
which we find in Luke’s Gospel.
3 Thus Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4, 2) says Apostoli and Apostolici are the authors
of the instrwmentwm evangelicum.
4 The word in its Christian sense would not have been intelligible to a mere
Greek reader.
> See general references to authorities, p. 59; express citations, p. 62.
JUSTIN MARTYR. lix
which connected the traditions with the written records of the life of
Christ; for during it the men whose ears had heard the first oral
preaching of Christ’s Gospel died out, and it was therefore the time
when the indispensable necessity of written Gospels was first clearly
seen. We do not assume that he quoted our canonical Gospels ;
but it is right to notice that if he did use them, it was natural that
he should use them freely, not slavishly, and also that he should sup-
plement them with little items derived from traditional or apocryphal
sources. ΤῸ account for his using them freely, let us remember that
Justin must have met with many who had heard the first Apostles
preach,—hundreds, we may say, who knew John in Ephesus. And in
such circumstances, general allusions to the written records, rather
than strict verbal quotations from them, are what we may expect.
Nor need we wonder if he so supplements the canonical Gospels
as to agree with some apocryphal writers in forms of expression
which had come down to him and them by tradition. One or two
passages, too trifling to bear much strain, show this amount of
agreement with the Clementine Homilies. The text! shows that the
agreement is accompanied by striking divergences: and the passages
themselves are quoted in remarkably various ways by early authors,
both orthodox and heretical. One or two other passages contain inci-
dents the same as are recorded in our Gospels, but with additions of
no great moment, such as may have come to Justin from apocryphal
books or from oral tradition. That Jesus was born in a cave near the
village of Bethlehem; that the Magi came from Arabia; that Herod
slew all the children of Bethlehem ; that Jesus as a carpenter made
ploughs and yokes emblems of righteousness; that a fire was kindled
on the Jordan at the baptism of Jesus; that the voice from heaven
at the baptism said, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ;
that proofs of Jesus’ miracles, and the events of the day of the cruci-
fixion, are to be found recorded in an official register called the Acts of
Pilate,—these are the chief, indeed all the important, peculiarities of
Justin’s evangelical narrative. They are examined in detail in the
text; but the general remark may be made here, that with one exception
they are not said by Justin to be taken from the Memoirs, or from any
other book. That exception (p. 126), moreover, only alleges the authority
of the Memoirs for the part of the narrative which is not apocryphal.
Even, however, if each and all of them were shown to be quotations of
Justin from other than canonical sources,—nay, even if it were shown
that all of them, like all Justin’s other quotations, came from some
one apocryphal book now lost,—to what would it amount? Simply to
this, that the book was amazingly like our Gospels; that throughout
the whole marvellous history of Christ, its narrative is identical with
them in every point of any moment, and that its variations are in
1 Vide infra, p. Ιχν. note 3. 2 Vide infra, pp. 125-127.
ΙΧ INTRODUCTION.
trifles only ; that if we had it in our hands, it would (so far as we can
judge from those specimens) add less, infinitely less, to the historical
incidents than any one of our synoptists does. It is not therefore a
competing, a contradictory, or -an incompatible book; and its exist-
ence—if it were established—would only show how thoroughly consoli-
dated and consistent was the Gospel narrative accepted in the early
Church. But farther, as a matter of fact, the existence of any such
Gospel in Justin’s time cannot be established. That Jesus worked as
a carpenter may be inferred from St Mark, and it is of little moment
to suppose that Justin’s allusion (Dial. c. 88) to the ploughs he
made is drawn from the Gospel of Thomas, or from the Arabic Gospel
of the Infancy. The Ebionite Gospel contained the tradition of the
fire on the Jordan, but we have no proof that it contained the other
incidents wherewith Justin supplements the canonical narrative. It
may be that the Gospel of the Hebrews contained the saying, “In
what things soever I find you, in these also shall I judge you;” but of
this we have no proof. But the inference that any one of those books,
or some other which contained the materials of them all, was the book
which Justin quoted, is not warranted by evidence. It is imdeed an
assumption ; for we know nothing of any one of those books warranting
a belief that it was complete enough to be Justin’s authority. The
best known of them all—the Gospel of the Hebrews—omitted the
narrative which forms the first two chapters of St Matthew.’ It can-
not, therefore, have been to it that Justin was indebted.
From what has been stated, and especially from those three gene-
ral propositions, we therefore conclude that Justin was acquainted with
our synoptic narratives ; and that he was indebted to oral tradition, or
to those apocryphal Gospels which embodied it, for certain supplemen-
tary matters which we find in his writings. And this is exactly what
we should expect from one writing in the period between the days of
oral teaching and those of entire dependence on written evangelic
narratives.
The objections which are pressed against this conclusion rest mainly
on the name Justin gives to his authority, and on the want of verbal
correspondence between his expressions and the words of our can-
onical Gospels.
The name which Justin uses—‘‘ Memoirs ”’—is not, so far as we
know, the title of any book or collection of books used in the early
Church, It is not intended to be a title: it is a description, and as
such is quite correct.”
1 The Nazarene form omitted the chief parts ; the Ebionite the whole.
2 The argument that Justin must mean one work, not several works, is based on
a misconception. Ἐενοφῶντος ἀπομνημονεύματα was one book, but its genitive is
singular. When we have τῶν ἀποστόλων for the dependent genitive, we may conclude
that he means several works. In one place Justin speaks of ἐν τοῖς ἀπ. αὐτοῦ, when
the last word seems from the context to mean Peter. And by this phrase, ‘‘ Peter’s
JUSTIN MARTYR. ἹΧῚ
It is true that Justin’s quotations from our Gospels are not verbally
accurate. But neither are his quotations from the Old Testament.
He seems to have been familiar with the Psalms, probably from their
use in worship, and usually quotes them correctly. All his long
quotations are accurately given, probably because he unrolled his
volume to find them; but not so his smaller quotations and inciden-
tal allusions. He ascribes in one place (Apol. I. 76) to Zephaniah a
passage which is found in Zechariah, and to which he himself in
another place gives the correct reference. He speaks of Moses feed-
ing his unele’s flock (Apol. I. 95), and says that as the younger
Israelites in the wilderness grew, so did their clothes grow with them
(Dial. c. 131). In seventeen instances he has repeated the same quota-
tion; and in more than half of them there is a striking want of corre-
spondence, either in the words themselves or in their connection with
other words quoted. When he thus deals with the Old Testament,
and when he never even quotes his old master Plato verbatim, it is
unreasonable to expect that he would quote the Christian Books with
a verbal carefulness which was unknown to his contemporaries, and
foreign from the spirit of the age.
An examination of the passages which follow in the text will show
the coincidences between Justin and each of the synoptists. Those
from Matthew are most striking in the early history of Jesus, in which
the Judeo-Christian Gospels of an apocryphal kind are deficient ; the
most striking correspondence with Mark is the reference to the be-
stowal of the name of Boanerges on the sons of Zebedee ; the most
interesting approach to St Luke is in the fact of the mission of the
angel to Mary, and in the language narrating that fact. But there are
many others. Opinions may differ as to those coincidences being
quotations; but it seems to me that they are such quotations as we
might expect if Justin had our Gospels in his hand. He seldom quotes
without somewhat altering the language; and it has been observed
that his variations from the original are usually in the direction of
giving a more classical turn to the originally provincial Hellenistic
phraseology. This was probably, in part, an unconscious change ; in
part also intentional, as commending the Gospel to those for whom he
wrote.”
The question of Justin’s use of John’s Gospel is beset with some
Memoirs,” he probably describes Mark’s Gospel, which early tradition connected with
Peter. (See Dial. c. 106, and infra, p. 148. Cf. for the tradition, Tert. Cont. Mare.
4, 5, and Papias in Eus. III. 39.) He is referring to the change made by Jesus on
Simon’s name, and on those of the sons of Zebedee ; and the only passage containing
it is Mark iii. 17. This citation tells strongly against the conjecture that Justin
used a harmony. (See before, p. liv, note 2.)
1 «He quotes Plato seven times in his Apologies and Dialogues : not one of them
is verbatim.”’—N orton. ;
2 See reference to Prof. R. Lee’s MS paper on this subject in Donaldson’s Hist. of
Christian Literature, vol. ii. p. 331.
1Χ1] INTRODUCTION.
peculiar difficulties. The spiritual Gospel, written, as all tradition
tells us, after the other three, is in its nature a supplement to them ;
and an adversary, whether Jew or Christian, was not likely to be
affected in the first instance by arguments from it. Nevertheless,
there are passages in Justin’s writings so closely resembling John’s
Gospel as to command attention, and to justify those who regard them
as proofs of Justin’s acquaintance with the fourth Gospel. The most
recent writers are again taking up this position, which, though occupied
by Lardner and others, had been abandoned by writers of our own time
a few years ago. '
Take the curious disquisition on the Logos begotten by God in the
beginning (Dial. c. 61) as the medium of revelation in all ages of
history, who is not separated from the Father, and who is himself
God! Take the statements as to the new birth; as to the Word be-
coming flesh (Apol. ο. 66); the living water, and the celestial habi-
tation. With these it seems impossible to doubt that Justin gives us
echoes of the fourth Gospel.
It seems idle to discuss whether Justin knew Paul’s Epistles,—idle,
because if Justin knew Marcion’s work he knew Paul, and we have
his own words to show that he had grasped the core of Marcion’s
speculations. We learn from others that he wrote a book against
Marcion, now unfortunately lost. He knew also Valentinus’s heresy;
and the integrum instrumentum of that speculator, to which Tertullian
testifies, must have been known to him. The references given in our
text show incidental correspondence with Paul rather than quotation :
show also reasoning from the same point of view, and this is all that we
have reason to expect in the works of Justin which remain. Eusebius
tells us that Justin’s work on the ‘“ Sole Government of God” contained
proofs from our Scriptures (ἐκ τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν γραφῶν), and this also is what
we might expect. But to say that Justin did not know Paul’s Epis-
tles because he does not explicitly quote them in his Apologies and
Dialogues, is based on the assumption that when Justin’s primary
purpose was to convince a contemporary heathen or Jew, he must also
have had the secondary aim of showing how many books he knew,
with a view to the critical controversies of the nineteenth century.
In conclusion, it seems as though the controversy about Justin’s
knowledge of our Gospels could not be much longer prolonged. Jus-
tin quotes memoirs written by Apostles and their companions ; he calls
them Gospels; his words are the words we find in our sacred books ;
he says they were used in public worship along with the prophets
every Sunday; Trypho knew them; they are described as accessible
to heathen; Justin’s knowledge of Christian truth, whether fact or
doctrine, is bounded by their contents, for the little apocryphal items
are not worthy of being dwelt upon,—and if these things do not prove
1 See Drummond in Theol. Rev., April 1877 ; and text, p. 178.
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. Ixiii
that Justin was a reader of our Evangelists, it is hard to say what
would prove it.
But let us try to suppose that the opposite conclusion is adopted.
The position, then, is that Justin used and Trypho read a Gospel
which cannot be traced elsewhere or afterwards,—a Gospel different
from that which his contemporary Marcion knew and mutilated: a set
of books which so marvellously disappeared that Ireneeus (who had
possibly known Justin, and certainly wrote within 30 years of his death),
when he descanted on the four winds, the four quarters of the world,
and the four Gospels, knew nothing of them ; and that Justin, when he
quoted the apocryphal book or books, quoted so strangely that Euse-
bius, with all his love of gossip and all his historical lore, and many
another besides him, never knew that the quotations were not from
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. That is to say, that the Memoirs to
which Justin challenged the attention of the Roman emperor, senate,
and people, and which were, therefore, well known, had so completely
perished from the earth that Irenzeus, who was familiar with the affairs
of Asia, Rome, and Gaul, appealed to friend and foe to remark how
marvellous is God’s great providence in giving to Christendom and to
humanity the four Gospels—the four, neither more nor less—of Mat-
thew, Mark, Luke, and John.
IX.—CLEMENTINE HOMILIES.
(See Text, pp. 438-444.)
Tue apocryphal writing known as the Clementine Homilies is one of
the most original and important of the many passing under the name
of Clement. The name of Clement, as the voucher for the fictitious
autobiography conveying to us the narrative and the discussions styled
Homilies, gave early currency to the belief that they were the produc-
tion of the Bishop of Rome. Accordingly, Sozomen in the fifth cen-
tury, following Rufinus and Epiphanius earlier, speaks of Clement as
the earliest of ecclesiastical historians. The work is rather an ecclesi-
astical romance with a doctrinal purpose, having St Peter and Simon
Magus for its leading characters, and dealing freely with the facts of
the Gospel and apostolical histories. It is written in the interests of
Judxo-Christianity, and, in the opinion of most critics, belongs to the
middle of the second century. There were other forms of this writing.’
} Uhlhorn, Die Homilien, p. 75.
xiv INTRODUCTION.
The most important of these is the Clementine Recognitions. Whether
the Homilies or the Recognitions are the earlier, is a question which has
been much debated among critics.! The weight and variety of authori-
ties are on the side of the Homilies.2 The Recognitions, moreover, are
extant only in the Latin translations of Rufinus; and as their quota-
tions are more or less assimilated to the passages in the Gospels, they
are in their present form of little value for the purposes of our in-
quiry. We shall confine ourselves accordingly to the examination of
the Homilies. The value of this writing was partially apprehended by
Mosheim, and more fully by Neander, but it owes its prominence as a con-
troversial work to the use which Baur has made of it for his reconstruc-
tion of the early history of the Church.? Additional literary interest
has attached to it since Dressel’s discovery of a complete manuscript,
with the help of which some questions relating to the use of the Gos-
pels in the Homilies have been set at rest.
The value of the testimony of the Clementine Homilies to the use of
the Gospels is somewhat lessened by our want of certainty as to the
date of their composition. There are indications of some relationship
between them and the writings of Justin Martyr. There is such an
amount of similarity between the quotations in the Clementines and in
Justin, that Credner investigates the two together, and finds the use of
a Petri-Evangelium common to both.4 However this may be, the
phenomena of quotation generally are such as to support the view
that the Homilies belong to the middle of the second century. What,
then, are the Gospels used at that time, or about that time, within the
circle to which the author belongs ?
Matthew.—There cannot be a reasonable doubt as to the use of Mat-
thew’s Gospel. There are several quotations made from it, word for
word, and the passages quoted are in several instances peculiar to
Matthew—compare Hom. III. 52 with Mat. xi. 28 ; Hom. XIX. 7 with
Mat. xii. 34; Hom. XIX. 2 with Mat. v. 37. But besides these exact
quotations, there is a large number of quotations showing greater or
less agreement with St Matthew’s Gospel. There is one passage of
special interest as evidence of this agreement. In Hom. XVIII. 15,
Peter is made to quote against Simon Magus the substance of Ps.
Ixxvill. 2 (LXX., Ps. Ixxvii. 2), assigning it, however, not to Asaph, as
the LXX., but to Isaiah. Here are the words in the Homily: Kat τὸν
c 1) AL. Κ᾽ sé \ ΄ > a No ,
Ἡσαΐαν εἰπεῖν. ἀνοίξω τὸ στόμα pov ἐν παραβολαῖς καὶ ἐξερεύξομαι κεκ-
1 Uhlhorn, p. 16 ἐξέ seq.
2 Cf. Uhlhorn ; Sanday, ‘The Gospels in the Second Century,’ p. 162. See,
above all, Credner’s Beitrage, p. 280, for an argument in favour of the priority of the
Homilies, which Hilgenfeld in his ‘ Kritische Untersuchungen,’ p. 325, does not over-
throw, although he is followed by Ritschl, Volkmar, and Lipsius.
3 Baur, Die Christliche Gnosis.
4 Uhlhorn, p. 112 et seg.; Credner’s Beitriige, vol. i. pp. 330, 331.
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. lxv
ρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμους It is remarkable that Matthew has
assigned the substance of this quotation to “the prophet,”—whether
with or without Ἡ σαΐου is a point much discussed among textual critics.
Here is the quotation in Matthew: Ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ΠΣ διὰ [Ἢ σαΐου]
τοῦ προφήτου, λέγοντος" ἀνοίξω ἐ ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου" ἐρεύξομαι κεκ-
ρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (Mat. xiii. 35). Τὰ Matthew the Clemen-
tine writer may have found the reading with the false ascription, in-
stances of which are not rare—e.y., Mark 1, 25 Mat. xxvii. 9; Justin’s
Dial. c. 28. He certainly did not get his προς dares from the
LXX., else Ἡσαΐαν would be inexplicable. Observe also that his pe-
culiar word ἐξερεύξομαι corresponds mainly with Matthew’s ἐρεύξομαι, not
with LXX. φθέγξομαι ; and his κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου is lit-
erally Matthew’s as against LXX., προβλήματα ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς. Such striking
resemblances, taken together, furnish evidence for the use of Matthew’s
Gospel not to be explained away. It is true that many of the passages
given (see p. 438) bear only a partial resemblance to the corresponding
passages in the Gospels. But when one considers the nature of the
writing, one would not be surprised were there even fewer verbal coin-
cidences. The work is a romance, in which the facts! of the Gospel
history are freely handled, and in which the words of Jesus, as given
by the evangelists, might readily be found mutilated and misquoted.
Not to say that the writer certainly treats with much freedom quota-
tions from the Old Testament, except when an argument turning upon
a word, or reference to his authority in a long passage,? secures a
greater approach to exactness,—one can account for difference in form
amid substantial agreement by paraphrase in accordance with the
plan of the work, or combination of similar passages, or quotations
from memory. ‘The discussion carried on by Peter and Simon Magus
is so managed as to give occasion for quoting from memory or from
hearsay. Deut. xxxiv. 5, quoted in Hom. III. 47, is an illustration of
the Homilist’s Old Testament references. The verbal variations and
omissions point to the use of the Septuagint, and the character of
the resemblances speaks for the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew.
We may certainly affirm that the writer of the Homilies was accus-
tomed to the use of Matthew’s Gospel,—whether in its canonical form,
or as the Gospel of the Hebrews, we need not meanwhile inquire. But
it is needful to say in passing that the theory which assumes Justin
Martyr and the author of the Homilies to have quoted the same non-
canonical authority (whether it were the Gospel of the Hebrews, or the
Ebionite Gospel, or the Gospel of Peter) cannot survive an actual com-
parison of the passages quoted by both. That comparison shows as
ereat difference between the two as between Justin and the canonical
writings.?
1 See Hom. IV. 1; Hom. XVII. 19, ὅθ; 2 Cf. supra under ‘‘ Justin.”
3 Compare Hom. VII. 21 with Dial. ec. 125, 103; Hom. III. 55, XTX. 2, with
6
lxvi INTRODUCTION.
Iuke.—The use of Luke’s Gospel is also apparent, although the evi-
dence comes more from allusions than from exact quotation. There are
no quotations altogether verbatim. But Christ’s prayer for His cruci-
fiers (Hom. XI. 20); the emphatic repetition of the injunction to fear
God, and the lesson of patient waiting for God’s answer to prayer taught
by the parable of the unjust judge (Hom. XVII. 5); the story of Zacchzeus
(Hom. III. 63); the fall of the wicked one as lightning (Hom. XIX. 2);
names written in heaven (Hom. [X. 22),—are introduced with such di-
rectness as to point to the use of the third Gospel. When Hilgenfeld?
says that the Clementine writer was perhaps acquainted with Luke’s
Gospel, he fails to do justice to the evidence.2» We may with con-
- siderable confidence conclude, alike from the allusions themselves and
from the Lucan character they bear when reproduced in the Homilies,
that the use of Luke’s Gospel is reasonably made out.
One feature of the Lucan references is the way in which they are
mixed up with passages of Matthew’s Gospel. See, for example, Hom.
IIT. 56, where Mat. vii. 9-11 and Luke xi. 11-13 seem to be both in
the Homilist’s mind, and to be alternately drawn upon; Hom. XVIL. 5,
which combines Mat. x. 28 and Luke xu. 4, 5; and Hom. III. 60, where
both Mat. xxiv. 45-51 and Luke xii. 42-45 are used. The phenomena
of this double resemblance are such, according to Sanday,® as to ex-
clude an earlier document underlying our synoptics, and employed by
the Clementine writer. They seem to indicate either alternate quota-
tions from Matthew and Luke, with occasional expansions or omissions,
or the use of a harmony made at a later time.
Mark.—lIt is only since Dressel’s discovery of the concluding portion
of the Homilies in a Greek MS that the use of Mark has been definite-
ly ascertained. ‘There are in the earlier portions of the Homilies allu-
sions to the Gospel history pointing with a measure of probability to the
use of Mark. ‘The reference to the Syrophcenician woman (Hom. II.
19) gives Svpa Φοινίκισσα (Mark vii. 26); the summons, ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ,
Κύριος 6 Θεός σου Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν (Hom. IIT. 57), seems to be from Mark
(xii. 29); and Mark xii. 27 (Mat. xxii. 32), οὐκ ἔστιν Θεὸς νεκρῶν, ἀλλὰ
ζώντων, is found exactly reproduced in Hom. III. 55. The decisive
allusion is Hom. XIX. 20, where Mark iv. 34 is evidently in the eye of
the Homilist. The Homilist says, διὸ καὶ τοῖς αὐτοῦ μαθηταῖς κατ᾽ ἰδίαν
ἐπέλυε τῆς τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας τὰ μυστήρια, which exhibits striking
agreement with Mark’s κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὑτοῦ ἐπέλυε πάντα.
Apol. I. 16 ; Hom. III. 57 with Dial. c. 96 (cf. Apol. I. 15); Hom. III. 55, Apol.
I.15; Hom. XI. 35, Apol. I. 16; Hom. VIII. 4, Dial. c. 76; Hom. XVIII. 5, Apol.
I. 19; Hom. XVIII. 4, Apol. I. 63; Hom. XVIII. 3, Dial. c. 101; Hom. XV. 5,
Apol. I. 16; Hom. XIX. 2, Dial. c. 76; Hom. III. 18, Dial. c. 17; Hom. XI. 26,
Apo]. I. 61. See Westcott, Canon, 4th ed., p. 286, from whom this list is taken.
1 Krit. Unters., p. 388.
2 Uhlhorn, p. 121.
9 86:
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. Ixvii
The verb ἐπιλύω is used only once again in the New Testament, Acts
xix. 39, and the noun ézAvots appears in 2 Peter i. 20. It is diffi-
cult to explain away the force of this coincidence, and we may regard
it as raising to the highest degree of probability what was probable in
a lower degree before Dressel’s discovery,—the use of our second
Gospel by the Clementine writer.
John.—The discovery which has helped us to such a degree of cer-
tainty as regards the use of Mark, has largely increased the evidence
for the use of John. The slight allusions to the necessity of regenera-
tion (Hom. XI. 26), and to Christ’s words, “I am the door of the sheep,”
“My sheep hear my voice” (Hom. III. 52), and the still more slight
allusion to our Lord’s language in John viii. 44 (Hom. III. 25), were,
previous to Dressel’s discovery, barely sufficient to raise the use of the
fourth Gospel to the highest degree of probability. That evidence is
now supplemented by a direct and striking allusion to the man blind
from his birth (John ix. 1). The quotation of the disciple and the answer
of Jesus are quoted (Hom. XIX. 22) with slight variation and expansion.
The expression ἐκ γενετῆς is common to John and the Homilist ; εἰ οὗτος
ἥμαρτεν ἢ ot γονεῖς αὐτοῦ ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ, corresponds to τίς ἥμαρτεν,
οὗτος ἢ οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ of the Evangelist; and ἵνα δι᾽
αὐτοῦ φανερωθῇ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἀγνοίας ἰωμένη τὰ ἁμαρτήματα is just
such a variation of ἵνα φανερωθῇ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ as was required
by the Homilist’s argument as to sins of ignorance in the context. Taken
in connection with slighter allusions, this allusion goes far to set the
question of the use of John’s Gospel by the Clementine writer finally
at rest.
Apocryphal Gospel?—There are in the Clementine Homilies, as in
Justin, sayings attributed to Christ, and not to be found in our Gos-
pels (Hom. III. 50, 55; XIX. 20; and perhaps XII. 2). Credner? refers
these sayings to an apocryphal Gospel, which he takes to be the Gos-
pel of Peter. Hilgenfeld? thinks that Justin and the Clementine writer
used one and the same apocryphal Gospel. Uhlhorn’s? conclusion is,
that the use of an uncanonical Gospel document is proved, and that
the document is of a secondary character, probably from the stock of
the Gospel of the Hebrews. We can only say, as we have said of the
apocryphal allusions in Justin, that the Homilist may have got his sup-
plementary sayings and details from oral tradition, or from those apocry-
phal Gospels which contained it. The character of the writing gave
scope for the introduction of such traditional sayings of Jesus as might
still be passing from mouth to mouth, and the time of its composition
was in all probability the time when Christians were still partly de-
pendent for acquaintance with the life and words of Jesus upon oral
teaching, and not yet entirely dependent upon written narratives.
1 Beitriige, I. p. 331. 2 Krit. Unters., p. 388. 3 Die Homilien, p. 137.
lxviil INTRODUCTION.
Acts of the Apostles—The Homilist (Hom. III. 53) puts into the
mouth of Jesus a claim to be the personal fulfilment of Deut. xviii.
15,—a claim which Peter makes for Him, Acts iii. 22, and Stephen,
Acts vii. 87. It is doubtful whether this can be taken as a reference
to the book of Acts at all. It may be (as Credner suggests) based
upon John v. 46.
Paul's Epistles—There are two passages in which there are apparent
allusions to Pauline Epistles—Hom. XIX. 22 pointing to Gal. iv. 10;
Hom. XIX. 2 pointing to Eph. iv. 27. But the allusions are so indefin-
ite as not to disturb the received opinion that the Clementine Homilies
contain no references whatever to the Pauline Epistles. Indeed, the
nature of the writing is such as to exclude them. The writer is
a Judeo-Christian opposed to Paul ; and Simon Magus, whom he intro-
duces as Peter’s opponent, is the Apostle of the Gentiles in disguise.
X.—GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS.
(See Text, pp. 451-463.)
Amone the many problems of which we can only find a provisional or
probable solution, that of the Gospel of the Hebrews is undoubtedly
one. Of late years, critics of the negative school have raised this book
to a position of primary importance, as the fountain from which all our
Gospels flow. Hilgenfeld calls it the Archimedes-point which scholars
so long sought in the Gospel of Mark. But before we can so honour
it, we should need to know more about its characteristics and its his-
tory. Its structure is a hypothesis, and any theory as to its origin
very nearly the same.
The facts on which we have to exercise judgment are not many.
Complications arise from the apparent inconsistency of Jerome’s state-
ments with one another, and from the discrepancies between what is
quoted by him and what is quoted by Epiphanius as the account of
the Baptism in the Hebrew Gospel.?
It is, however, an admitted fact that several books more or less at
to St Matthew’s Gospel—or one book resembling that Gospel—cireu-
lated largely among several sects of Jewish Christians in the early
centuries. How early those books (or that book) existed, and how
1 Nov. Test. ex. Can. Rec., p. 13.
2 See and compare in the text Jerome and Epiphanius on Mat. iii. 14, &e.
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. lx1x
much change the copies underwent in the course of years, are matters of
dispute. It is easy to show that at the time when we hear most of
them by name, those books or copies did not agree with each other,
and that each one contained support for the special views of the sect
that used it. (See below on the Gospels of the Nazarenes, Ebionites,
and Egyptians. See in the text a note on the Gospel of Peter, which
may have been another recension of it.)
It is impossible to sketch even the outlines of the problem without
taking a hasty view of the sects among which the “Gospel of the
Hebrews” was found. The chief of these were the Nazarenes and
the Ebionites. A few words will indicate their characteristics.
The Nazarenes diverged least in doctrine from the ordinary catholic
type, of which Hegesippus speaks so strongly.! The name was ori-
ginally applied by the Jews to all Christians. Whatever the origin
of the word Nazarene,?—whatever the difference in meaning between
Nazarene and Nazarite, Nazirite and Nazorite, in early usage,—we may
accept as a fact that a sect of Christians did claim from an early date
down to the fifth century to be followers of Christ in special affinity
with “James the Just,” of whose character and death Eusebius has
preserved from Hegesippus so graphic an account.’ This very claim
of theirs intimates that, like James, they were consecrated to follow
Jesus as the Messiah; and, like James, combined Christianity with
observance of many of the practices of Judaism. James, with all his
reverence for Judaism, was essentially a Christian, and for his avowal
of his Christian faith lost his life. The Nazarenes, in short, were
Hebrew Christians, with strong abiding national peculiarities of faith
and ritual. They were chiefly found by the banks of the Jordan, in
Gilead and Bashan, and northwards towards Syria. They were not
“heretics ;” and there is no proof that they rejected all the New Testa-
ment save a Gospel of their own.4 They did not reject St Paul as an
apostate, and in this they differed from most of the Jewish sects.? In-
deed, while they clung to many points of Judaism, they do not seem
to have sought to impose the doctrine or practice of the Law on other
Christians.
The Ebionites originally were the Jewish Christians. As time went
on they became a sect, and, as Jerome says, were half Jew, half Chris-
1 See Introduction on Hegesippus.
2 From ΝΣ ἃ shoot or sprout, or from ap devoted or dedicated. See Kleuker,
δ. ..9 oar
Die Apokryphen, p. 928, &c.; 118, 183; Fabricius, Cod. Apoc., p. 370.
3 Both Hegesippus and Eusebius say that James was consecrated.
4 The passages from Epiph. Haer. 29, 7-9, &c. (see text and notes, p. 456), do not
necessarily mean this; and even though they did, would not settle the matter, as
Epiphanius apparently never saw the Nazarene book.
5 The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which is supposed to be an utterance of
this sect, contains under the head of ‘‘ Benjamin” a prediction of St Paul, as one
‘who is to arise beloved of the Lord, listening to His voice, enlightening all the
Gentiles with new knowledge.” See text, p. 446.
lxx INTRODUCTION.
tian. Some say they were called after a founder, Ebion; others that
their name means “ poor,” and that they were the descendants of the
impoverished Church of Jerusalem ; others that they bore the name of
“The Poor Men,” because their intellect or their views were low
(Eus. H. E. III. 27). That the name was originally given to all
Jewish Christians is seen in Eus. Onomasticon, sub voce χωβά, where
we read “ywoBa . . . ἐν ἡ εἰσὶν EBpata οἱ εἰς Χριστὸν πιστεύσαντες
᾿Ββιωναῖοι καλούμενοι." (See Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik des Epiphanios,
p- 123.) They recognised Christ as the Messiah, but refused to own
His divinity ; they rejected St Paul as an apostate ; and they clung to
what they called the Gospel of the Hebrews. The earlier Ebionites
regarded Christ as a mere man; the later introduced the Gnostic idea
of an Aon coming down on Jesus at His baptism. The Ebionitism of
which we read in the earlier Fathers, as Ireneeus and Hippolytus, was
of the first or Pharisaic form; that of which Epiphanius tells is the
second or Essenic form.! Their headquarters were by the banks of the
Jordan.
It would be absurd to suppose that all of them were of one type,
but they were substantially as described above.
Both Nazarenes and Ebionites used the Gospel of the Hebrews.
There can be no surprise in finding that this book resembled St Mat-
thew more than the other canonical Gospels. St Matthew’s Gospel in
its whole structure, and especially in its avowed relation to Old Tes-
tament prophecy and Old Testament types, was intended primarily
for Hebrew Christians. There is, moreover, a widespread tradition in
the Church, to which many Fathers bear witness, that Matthew’s book
was originally written in Hebrew.? It is a natural supposition that
the sects of Hebrew Christians would preserve the original text of
Matthew’s Gospel in their native tongue. The book, however, as they
had it, is lost—we imay say, hopelessly lost ; and we have only citations
from it, and descriptions of it by the early Fathers, to depend upon.
Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and above all Jerome, expressly
quote from it. Nay, Jerome, famous for his industry and his learning,
says, ‘‘ There is a Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which
I lately translated from the Hebrew tongue into Greek, and which is
called by many the authentic Gospel of Matthew” (Comment. in Mat.
xii. 34). From this there can be no doubt that it was a book which
differed so considerably from our canonical book as to need translation,
and to awaken controversy whether its form was the original one.
1 See Epiphanius, Haer. 30, 3. Epiphanius is the first to distinguish Ebionites
from Nazarenes as heretical sects. |
? See Ivenzeus in Possini Catena Patrum, text, p.129. Origen, Comment. in Joann.,
tom. iv. p. 132. Hus. H. E. III. 24; V.10. Cyril Hieros. Catech., p. 148.
3 See text, p. 451, for references under ‘‘ Gospel of the Hebrews: ” see on Origen’s
quotations, p. 137, note 2.
_ * See on this, Baur’s Evangelien, p. 475 ; Roberts on the Gospels, p. 399.
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. ΙΧΧῚ
In another passage (written a.p. 392) he says: “ Matthew, called
also Levi, who from a publican became an Apostle, first of all composed
the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words, in Judea, for behoof
of those of the circumcision who had believed ; and it is not quite cer-
tain who afterwards translated it into Greek. But the very Hebrew is
preserved to this day, in the Cesarean Library, which Pamphilus the
martyr with such care collected. I myself also was allowed the oppor-
tunity of copying it [seeing and examining it?] by the Nazarenes in
Beroea, who use this volume. In which it is to be observed that
throughout the Evangelist, when he uses the testimonies of the Old
Testament, either in his own person or in that of the Lord and Saviour,
does not follow the authority of the LXX. translators, but the Hebrew.
Of those the following are two examples: ‘Out of Egypt have I called
my Son’—ii. 15; and, ‘Since He shall be called a Nazarene ’—iii. 23.”!
That this is another book from that of which we have read in the
passage formerly quoted, is clear. The other he translated; this one
he has seen and examined (for this is all we are entitled to make of
“facultas describendi fuit”). The other was a competitor with our St
Matthew for the honour of being the original ; this one is our St Mat-
thew itself in its primary form in Hebrew. The former he had thought
it worth while to translate ; in the case of this one, he only needed to
compare it with our canonical book, so as to see that the quotations
which it makes from the Old Testament are from the original Old
Testament Hebrew, and do not correspond with the Greek of the LXX.
All this seems clear enough. But unfortunately Jerome is not al-
ways so distinct; and it appears that in his old age he virtually, if
not explicitly, retracted the somewhat hasty opinion he had given,
that the book which the Nazarenes in Bercea used, and which was iden-
tical with the original in Cesarea, was the very Gospel of Matthew in
Hebrew. Born a.p. 331, he died a.p. 420, at the age of 91, studying
and writing almost to the last, Hebrew being the study of his old age.
It was in A.p. 392 that he said the Nazarenes of Beroea had the genuine
original ; in later times, a.p. 410 to a.p. 415, he is more indefinite ;
and his last utterance on the subject, four or five years before his
death, is founded upon as a virtual retractation.?, His words are: “ In
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was written indeed in the
Chaldee-Syriac language, but in Hebrew characters, which the Naz-
arenes use as the Gospel according to the Apostles, or as the majority
think according to Matthew, which also is contained in the Library at
Cesarea, the narrative says,” &c. He quotes from it some passages
which are not in our canonical Gospel. He also says, “That Gospel
which is called the Gospel of the Hebrews, which was lately translated
by me into Greek and Latin, and was used frequently by Origen.”
De Vir: Ml, ec: 3. See text, p. 139:
2 See Roberts, Discussions on the Gospels, p. 401, &c.
ΙΧΧῚ INTRODUCTION.
There can be no doubt that difficulty arises from the fact that the
book which Jerome believed to be the very original of our St Matthew
was used by the Nazarenes in Bercea: while he speaks elsewliere as
though the other book (differing so much from our St Matthew that he
translated it) was used by all the Nazarenes, as well as by the Ebionites,
—in short, that it was distinctive of those sects to use it. And it is
possible that, in his mature judgment, he meant to intimate that the book
which the Nazarenes used was not the original Matthew. But we must
remember, on the other hand, that the Nazarenes did not all necessar-
ily use the same book. Those of Bercea? may, like their Macedonian
namesakes, have been honourably distinguished for inquiring into Serip-
ture, and so have retained a genuine copy, while the Nazarenes further
south by the banks of the Jordan may have had only an adulterated
one. And if we suppose that the Nazarenes did not all use the same
book, though all of them used a version of St Matthew more or less
like that we have, and written in Hebrew, or in a language which may
be popularly described as Hebrew, Jerome is not inconsistent with
himself in this part of the subject.
This supposition seems to meet the difficulties of the case so far.
To pursue the inquiry further would lead us into more remote
questions as to the original language of our canonical St Matthew. It
seems enough to say that the original existence of that book in Heb-
rew, its translation into Greek by some one unknown, and the ultimate
disappearance of the genuine original, are all possible enough separ-
ately or together, and are really quite distinct from the matter of
fact as to what we learn of the composition of the Gospel of the Heb-
rews when we first find it in trustworthy quotations. What we thus
learn enables us to see clearly that no critical Archimedes can find a
firm fulcrum in so shifting a substance. It rushes to and fro like
quicksilver. For, when we turn to the book which Nazarenes and
Ebionites are supposed to have used, we find that the Nazarene form
cannot have been the same as the Ebionite. When we try to lay hold
of the book which Jerome translated—as generally used by the Nazar-
enes—we find (as we might expect) that its narratives are not iden-
tical with those of our canonical Gospel, and that its form does not
seem to be the original which the other corrupts. When, therefore,
Jerome tells us that Nazarenes and Ebionites used that book, and
that many thought it the genuine St Matthew, he says what we can-
not accept as a literally accurate statement.
When we turn to the quotations in other Fathers—quotations prob-
ably containing the more notable and quotable portions—we find them
for the most part of small doctrinal importance, and not adding much
to our knowledge of facts, but nevertheless interesting, and quite un-
like the useless dilutions of the ‘ Apocryphal Gospels.”
1 A town in Syria—perhaps Aleppo.
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. Ixxiil
The words, “I am not a bodiless phantom,” ascribed to our Lord, are
not very different from those in the New Testament. These others,
“He that hath wondered shall rule, and he that hath ruled shall have
rest,” contain Christian philosophy in Gnostic phrase. And others
might be similarly used as illustrations.
We have ordinary traditional variation in the rich man “scratching
his head ;”! we have also an interesting traditional application of our
Lord’s words, when the rich man in the narrative already alluded to
is asked how he can be said to love his neighbour—for while his house
is full of good things, nothing goes out from it to relieve the squalor
and the hunger and the poverty among the children of Abraham
~ around his door.
But we have distinct doctrinal purpose, obviously of a Gnostic type,
in a number of other passages peculiar to this Gospel. We read that
the reply of Jesus to His mother and brethren, when they pressed Him
to go with them to be baptised of John unto the remission of sins,
was, “ What sin have I done that I should go and be baptised of Him ?
Unless it be that this very thing which I have said is ignorance.” In
this we have an obvious attempt to account for our Lord accepting bap-
tism at the hands of His forerunner without applying the simpler and
grander teaching of the canonical narrative, that “thus it became Him
to fulfil all righteousness.” We see the same Gnostic tendencies at
work in the sequel of the Nazarene narrative of the baptism: “‘ When
the Lord had gone up out of the water, the whole fountain of the Holy
Spirit descended upon Him, and rested on Him, and said to Hin,
“My Son, in all the prophets I waited for Thy coming, that I might
rest in Thee: for Thou art my rest: Thou art my first-born Son, who
reignest for ever.” This must be taken in connection with the pas-
sages in which the Holy Spirit is called the Mother of Jesus,—passages
which startled both Origen and Jerome in their day; and, as we have
seen in the notes to our text, led on from the early heresies of the
Gnostics into the Mariolatry of the later Christian Church.
We have on the other hand an interesting addition to the Canonical
narrative, and a probable explanation of a passage of St Paul, when we
find in this Gospel the story of our Lord’s appearance to James the
Just after His resurrection.
It is scarcely possible that any one who reads the passages preserved
from this long-lost Gospel will believe that they are an earlier form of
sacred narrative than the canonical St Matthew. They have every
mark of being a gradually altered recension of the original work
which is in the New Testament.
1 Also in the man with a withered hand saying that he was a mason ; and in the
statement that a lintel of prodigious size fell in, instead of the canonical narrative
that the veil of the temple was rent ; and in the well-known addition to the narra-
tive of the baptism, that fire blazed on the Jordan.
Ιχχὶν INTRODUCTION.
The Ebionite Gospel.
As we have seen, Jerome seems to have thought that the Nazarenes
and Ebionites used the same book. His quotations are from the
Nazarene form. Epiphanius, not nearly so trustworthy in matters of
opinion, but worthy of credit in such matters of fact as long verbal
quotations, uses the Ebionite form. We have, therefore, no means of
comparing the two sets of quotations, save where they chance to
describe the same event. The one being in Latin and the other in
Greek, verbal correspondence is scarcely ascertainable; but still we
are able to see that, in such a case as the narrative of the baptism of
Jesus, the two books cannot have been the same. I have already
quoted the Nazarene narrative, and it is enough here to refer for com-
parison to the long Ebionite extract at p. 457 of our text. The varia-
tions are not greater than those found in different manuscripts of such
apocryphal books as the Gospel of the Infancy, but they are incon-
sistent with the theory that we now possess (or can be sure that any
one ever possessed) in the Gospel of the Hebrews the original record
of the life of Jesus Christ.
In the text will be found a remarkable passage from Epiphanius,
intimating that the Gospel used by the Ebionites professed to be
written by the twelve apostles in a body, although the names of only
eight are given.
Without further detail we may say that the passages from Epiphanius,
if they are accepted, are to the effect that—
1. Matthew’s Gospel was in use among the Ebionites,! but mutilated
by the excision of the genealogies, and of the first two chapters as a
whole.”
2. The Ebionites said that Jesus Christ was not God’s Son, but as
one of the Archangels, though the chief of them. They supposed that
“Christ”? came at baptism upon the man Jesus: and they believed
Him a Saviour, to be not mere man, but to have had no father or
mother or brethren, in the ordinary sense. They quoted, “These
are my brethren, and my mother, who do the will of my Father.”
3. Although Jews, they ceased to offer sacrifice ;* they practised
circumcision as being from the patriarchs, and as being sanctioned by
Christ’s example.
1 See Ireneus, B. I. 26, 2, and B. III. 12, 7.
2 Epiphanius, Her. 30, 13 (comp. 29, 9).
3 In support of this they quoted as words of Jesus, ‘‘I came to abolish sacrifices ;
and if ye do not cease to sacrifice, wrath will not cease from you.”
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. Ixxv
Conclusions as to the Gospel of the Hebrews.
In conclusion, we have had ample proof that some book, professing
to be a consecutive account of our Lord’s life, was widely circulated
among the Jewish Christians, and that this book resembled the
canonical St Matthew. We find that it had various names,—that
it was the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Nazarene Gospel, the Ebionite
Gospel, when described by the name of those who used it; that it was
the Gospel of the Twelve, the original St Matthew, when its name was
drawn from something in itself.
If we are asked where we have the original form of this book, in the
few cases where we can compare different quotations, we must answer
that we cannot tell. Its various forms differ considerably from each
other, but we have not the means of deciding as to its earliest form.
When we have sects so like and yet so unlike as were the Nazarenes
and the Ebionites, we might expect that they would adopt the same
book at first, and afterwards (probably gradually) modify it to suit
themselves. The Ebionite alterations are mainly dogmatical or doc-
trinal ; the Nazarene are chiefly, though not entirely, traditional sup-
plements to the canonical narratives.
We have already found reason to accept the substantial accuracy of
Jerome’s words, and have come to the conclusion that the book for
which describendi facultas was granted to him by the Nazarenes of
Beroea was not the same as that which he translated ;—that the former
was our St Matthew in Hebrew; that the latter was St Matthew, adul-
terated during successive generations. We believe it to be probable
that the Bercean book was only used by a portion of the sect of the
Nazarenes, and the other by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites as a whole.
Whether Jerome was right in supposing that the book he saw in
Bercea was a Hebrew form of St Matthew, and that the book in the
Cesarean Library was another of the same, there can be no good reason
for doubting that he who spent his learned old age in Bethlehem knew
very well whether the book he translated was substantially the Gospel
used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites in his neighbourhood. There
is no reason, from anything that he has said, to regard that book as a
serious competitor for the honour of priority with our canonical Gospel.
But a word may now be said here as to its relation to the original
form of St Matthew. The conclusion to which I at present incline
is only given as the most probable, not as certain. Without en-
tering on the vexed question of the original language of St Mat-
thew, I must say that the current of antiquity runs strongly in
favour of its having been Hebrew. But if this were proved to be a
mistake of the ancients,! the book itself would show that it was at least
1 See Roberts’s Discussions, p. 396.
Ixxvi INTRODUCTION.
written for the Hebrews; and therefore we must believe that a Hebrew
translation of the Gospel was made at a very early period for the benefit
of those who were ignorant of the original Greek, or whose national
susceptibilities led them to prefer their national tongue. In any case,
we conclude that there was almost at the first a Hebrew form of St
Matthew's Gospel. This was naturally the book favoured by Jewish
Christians, whether orthodox or heretical; and this, therefore, became
the standard of the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. The former, though
cherishing it as specially their own, nevertheless gradually introduced
into it, perhaps from the margin, such supplementary traditions as that
the man whose hand was withered had been a mason. ‘The latter,
gradually drawing more apart from other communities, whether Jewish
or Christian, continued to adapt their Gospel to their changing tenets,
introducing such sayings as that which abolished sacrifice, or such
narratives as that which gave the sanction of the Lord and all His
apostles to their book.
Tur GospeL or THE Eeyprians (see p. 468)
was full of parables, allegories, and mysticism, and may be here men-
tioned because of the agreement of its views with those of another
Hebrew sect or organisation, the Essenes. Its title denotes that it was
current among the Egyptians, and its mystic teachings confirm the
claim of the title. It is not mentioned by Eusebius in his Eccl. Hist.,
nor is it in the decree of Gelasius. It is mentioned by Origen.! It is
used also by the author of the so-called “Second Epistle of Clement,”
and by Clement of Alexandria, but in his case so as to distinguish it
from the four Gospels handed down to us.
It is written with the manifest aim of maintaining the merit of
celibacy, and of showing the evils wrought in the world by the female
sex. In this respect the book corresponds to the tenets of the Essenes ;
and if there were Essenic Christians with a special “ Gospel,” this book
would exactly meet their case. There is difficulty, however, in con-
necting the Essenes with the locality of Egypt. It is probable that
they adopted some of the philosophy of Egyptian Judaism (see Geikie’s
‘Life of Christ,’ i. 363), but their views of the material universe, and
their central doctrines generally, were Zoroastrian (Lightfoot, Colos-
sians, p. 149), and as an organisation they were found by the shores of
the Dead Sea. They are not likely to have had local connection with
the “Gospel of the Egyptians.” Eusebius (H. E. II. 17) identifies the
Therapeute of Egypt with early Christians, but his argument (which is
a commentary upon Philo De Vit. Contempl.) is not now generally
1 As an attempt of the kind mentioned in St Luke’s preface, and as therefore dis-
tinguished from the four Gospels, which their authors did not attempt to take in hand
to make, but which were the result of their being moved by the Holy Ghost. See
p. 82.
HEGESIPPUS. Ixxvil
accepted. Many writers, founding on Philo and Josephus (Bell. Jud.
Il. 8), identify the Essenes with Christian monks originating in
Egypt. This opinion also is not now accepted; but is still not un-
worthy of consideration. About the Essenes there is little certain.
They were originally Jews ; and though many of them became Chris-
tians after the fall of Jerusalem, they would by so doing cease to be
Essenes. That such men would relish, perhaps fabricate, the mystic
Gospel is highly probable. But we cannot go further. We may say
that the tendency to asceticism which originated the Therapeute in
Egypt, and the Essenes in Syria, acted upon Christendom also : and
that it was to be expected that Egypt, the cradle of Christian mon-
asticism, should give a name to the new “ Gospel.”
XI.—HEGESIPPUS.
Licurroot’s essay on the silence of Eusebius (‘Contemporary Review,’
1875, p. 169) is one of the most important contributions to historical
criticism which have been made in our generation. In the case of
Hegesippus it has special value, and enables us to understand clearly
what formerly was not only obscure but inconsistent with itself. Huse-
bius, from whom we have almost all we know of him, says that he
quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and yet in the
pages of Eusebius himself are indirect proofs that his quotations were
not limited to it. This seemed contradictory, and certainly led many
critics into contradictions of fact. But we now learn from Lightfoot’s
careful and conclusive induction that Eusebius only laid himself out to
record or refer to the quotations of ancient authors when the book from
which they quoted was one in dispute, and that his silence upon the
subject of citations from a particular book is an indication that the book
was not disputed. When therefore the author of ‘Supernatural Reli-
gion’ says of Eus. H. E. IV. 22, that “Eusebius shows that he has
sought, and here details, all the sources from which Hegesippus quotes,
or regarding which he expresses opinions,” ? the statement is the reverse
of fact, though not unnatural up to the time of Lightfoot’s remarkable
essay. That the ancient historian enriched his pages with passages
from the Gospel of the Hebrews and from unwritten Jewish tradition,
is quite compatible with his habitually using the canonical books.
The position of Hegesippus in our inquiry is no longer difficult to
1 See Ellicott, Cambridge Essays, 1856, p. 169; Nicholson’s Gospel of the Heb-
Tews.
2 Sup. Rel., vol. i. p. 433.
lxxvill INTRODUCTION.
define ; and although his testimony is neither full nor explicit, it is
quite in accordance with what we have learned from other witnesses.
He was in-Rome some time between a.p. 157 and a.p. 168, and his
history did not leave his hands until after a.p. 177.1 He was renowned
as a champion of Christianity against its assailants,—to be counted in-
deed among the foremost, as Husebius tells us, after a most eloquent
chapter on the triumphs of the Gospel over heathenism and heresy and
false philosophy.2, Among his writings was a faithful history of the
apostolic teaching (ἀπλανῆ παράδοσιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος), unfor-
tunately lost, save that some fragments are preserved by Eusebius.
He travelled in many lands, had intercourse with many bishops, and
found everywhere the same doctrine in the Church of Christ—a doc-
trine proclaimed by “the law and the prophets and the Lord.”? He
stayed for some time at Corinth; and there is significance in his avowal
that the Church of Corinth continued in the true faith, and that he and
the Church in that place were refreshed with each other’s sound doc-
trine. It is strange that any one can write of this Hegesippus as hold-
ing only by Hebrew Scriptures and Hebreo-Christian Gospels, when
his own distinct statement is that the one doctrine which he found
everywhere was specially refreshing to him in the Church of Corinth,
which is well known to have been so Pauline. It is not correct to say
that Eusebius says, “The Gospel which he used in his writings was
that ‘according to the Hebrews ;’” * because Eusebius only says that
in his many writings this ancient historian took certain things (τινὰ
τίθησιν) from the Hebrew and Syriac Gospel (or Gospels), and from
Hebrew tradition, as it was natural for one born a Jew to do.®. And it
is worthy of notice, also, that he was no indiscriminate admirer of
extra-canonical books, for he took pains to decide upon the claims of
the apocryphal writings, and records his conclusion that some of them
were forged in his own time by heretics.
1 He says he was in Rome while Anicetus was bishop ; and he intimates that Eleu-
theros was bishop when he closes his record. Anicetus succeeded in A.D. 157, and
Eleutheros in A.D. 177. The Alexandrian Chronicle says he died in the time of
Commodus (who began to reign A.D. 192).
2 Eusebius (H. E. IV. 7, 8, and again IV. 22) names him in the same list with
Dionysius of Corinth and Ireneus, as the chief of those to whom we owe it that the
orthodoxy of the sound faith which comes from the Apostles has been transmitted in
writing (‘‘ ὧν καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς τῆς ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως ἡἣ τῆς ὑγιοῦς πίστεως ἔγγραφος
καἀτῆλθεν ὀρθοδοξία ᾽᾽).
3 Hus. H. E. ΤΥ, 22. He says: “Ἐν ἑκάστῃ δὲ διαδοχῇ, καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει
οὕτως ἔχει ὡς ὁ νόμος κηρύττει καὶ of προφῆται καὶ ὁ Κύριος."
4 Sup. Rel., vol. i. p. 483. In another passage (vol. i. p.-421) the anthor makes still
bolder assertions regarding Hegesippus. ‘‘The evidence of this ‘ ancient and apostolic
man’ is very important; and although he evidently attaches great value to tradition,
knew of no canonical Scriptures of the New Testament, and, like Justin, rejected the
Apostle Paul, he still regarded the Gospel according to the Hebrews with respect,
and made use of no other.”
> Τὴ this same connection Eusebius says Hegesippus put a high value on the apoc-
ryphal Wisdom of Solomon.
MURATORIAN CANON. lxxix
The passages in which the fragments of Hegesippus’s writings
suggest canonical books will be found in our text. We need only
say here that he alludes to Herod’s terror at Christ’s birth, which is
found in Mat. ii, and (as we learn from Epiphanius, Her. 30, 13)
this chapter of Matthew was one of those omitted in the Gospel of the
Hebrews. In his memorable description of the death of the strange
ascetic, James the Just (Hus. H. E. II. 23), we find an echo of Mat.
xxvi. 64,1 when he speaks of the Son of man on the right hand of the
mighty power, and about to come on the clouds of heaven. We find
the very words of our Lord’s prayer on the cross (Luke xxiii. 34) in
the last ery of James, “Father, forgive them (ἄφες αὐτοῖς), for they
know not what they do.” If later chroniclers report him rightly, he ob-
jects to Gnostic renderings of “ Eye hath not seen,” &c., and cites the
words of our Lord, “ Blessed are your eyes, for they see,” &c. (Mat.
xiii. 16; Luke x. 23); and not only so, but refers to our Gospels as
θεῖαι γραφαί.
It may even be that he alludes to John’s Gospel, when, in his ac-
count of James’s death, he says the crowd asked the saint what is the
door of Jesus.2 He seems to allude to Luke xix. 11 when recording
Domitian’s inquiry regarding Christ’s kingdom; and to 2 Tim. iv. 1
when he gives the answer that Christ would come in glory to judge
the quick and the dead, and render unto every man according to his
works. He weaves the words of the pastoral epistles into his narrative
when speaking of the way in which heretics dared to hold up their
heads after the Apostles passed away. See Eus. H. E. III. 32.°
XII.—MURATORIAN CANON.
Murarort, in the third vol. of ‘ Antiquitates Italicae Medii Atvi’ (1740),
published a MS, at that time in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, for-
merly in the monastery of Bobbio. His object was to show that
some men employed in old times to copy MSS were singularly un-
learned and unskilled ; but he was also aware that the MS was valuable
because of its connection with the canon of the New Testament. The
MS contained various fragments. It seems to have been the common-
1 Cf. Mat. chiefly ; but see also Mark and Luke.
τ 2 His words, ‘‘ From these arose false Christs, false prophets, false apostles,” re-
semble Mat. xxiv. 24 more than the Clementine version. See p. 125, note 1.
3 Bus. H. E. 11. 23. The answer is, that ‘‘ He was the Saviour.”
= Bus, H. ἘΠ. 111. 19, 20.
5 It is not certain that Eusebius uses the very words of Hegesippus, but we may
suppose that the statement is reported pretty much as he made it.
lxxx INTRODUCTION.
place-book of a monk, apparently of the eighth century. Muratori’s
own conjecture (generally approved by subsequent writers) was, “ cujus
antiquitas pene ad annos mille accedere mihi visa est.” ἢ
Amongst other things in the MS was a fragment on the canon be-
einning in the middle of a sentence, and breaking off abruptly. From
the reference to Hermas as “having written the ‘ Shepherd’ very re-
cently and in our own times, while Pius, his brother, was bishop of
Rome,” Muratori supposed Caius, a well-known presbyter of Rome, to be
the author of this fragment on the canon, and fixed the date at a.p.
196. As regards the date, this is a mistake, for Pius died about the
middle of the second century. Ifthe words “very recently and in our
own times” be true, and have their natural meaning, the date of the
original of the fragment is probably a.p. 160 or 170. Internal evidence
seems on the whole to confirm this conclusion. There is nothing to
identify the author. But the testimony is valuable as being early. It
is evidently a very illiterate transcript, and the transcriber appears to
have had before him a badly done translation of a Greek account of the
canon.2 The conjectures and controversies of scholars may be summed
up in the words of Tregelles, whose careful edition is the basis of the
text in this work: “Its evidence is not the less trustworthy from its
being a blundering and illiterate transcript of a rough and rustic trans-
lation of a Greek original.” ὃ
But while admitting this, we may be permitted to wonder at the
unanimity with which so many scholars of all shades of opinion accept
this anonymous fragment as genuine, though there is little warrant for
its date save its own claim, and everything about it is so incomplete.*
It seems to be compiled from dislocated pieces ; at all events, the con-
nection between the sentences is often obscure. The only use which
can be safely made of its testimony regarding some disputed point is
of a general kind. Those who hunt for minute details in it have to
read them into it, and then, by dint of corrections, they find them in
the adjusted text (see on this Reuss, Gesch., ὃ 310). It testifies be-
1 The convent of Bobbio was founded in the beginning of the seventh century by
Columban, an Irish (Scottish) monk. It is probable that the original MS was brought
to Europe from Africa during the persecution by the Vandals in the fifth century, or
owing to the spread of Islamism in the seventh. Some of the active monks of Bob-
bio made the extract (or transcript) and translation which remains, while the original
is lost. See Credner, Gesch., § 78.
2 There have been several attempts to reconstruct the Greek. See one in Hilg.
Einl., p. 97.
5 cee Can. Mur., p. 10. Hesse believes it to be in its original African Latin
(Das Muratorische Fragment, p. 39).
4 See Volkmar’s elaborate treatise denying even the corruptness of the text (Volk-
mar’s Credner’s Gesch. des N. T. Kanon, ὃ 164, &e.) He ascribes to it a Romish
origin about A.D. 190-200. See an able argument against the ordinary opinion in
Donaldson’s Hist. of Christ. Lit., vol. iii. p. 208, &e. Dr Donaldson regards the
fragment as of Latin (probably African) origin, ‘‘ towards the end of the first half of
the third century.”
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. ΙΧΧΧῚ
yond all doubt to two Gospels, and, by fair inference, we get its testi-
mony to the other two. It testifies also to thirteen epistles of St Paul ;
to the Acts of the Apostles as Luke’s; to at least two epistles (per-
haps three) of John; and to Jude’s epistle, and to the Apocalypse of
John.! The epistles of James and Peter are not mentioned, and there
is no certain reference to Hebrews.” On the other hand, a “ Book of
Wisdom” is named with acceptance in a perplexing way; and an Apoc-
alypse of Peter is accepted by the author, though (like John’s) not
approved of by all for reading in church. Two forged epistles (to
Laodiceans and Alexandrians) are named only to be denounced. Her-
mas is admitted to private, but not to public, use. Others of the many
claimants to recognition in the early Church are named, or obscurely
alluded to.’
On the whole, we must regard this famous fragment as an unsatis-
factory document. If the original be discovered some day, and in its
light the multifarious literature of the subject be read, we shall pro-
bably have an even more amusing proof of the futility of conjectures
than is furnished by the recent publication of the lost parts of the
“Epistles of Clement.”
XIII.—CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
Trrus Fiavius Ciemens, by birth an Athenian or Alexandrian, originally
a pagan,—a man who saw many lands and studied many subjects,—suc-
ceeded Pantznus as head of the catechetical school of Alexandria about
A.D. 189, and died about thirty years later. He was the teacher of
Origen, probably of Hippolytus. His ecclesiastical rank was that of
presbyter. Three of his works which remain are a series—(1) An
1 See for this the allusion to the letters to the seven churches, rather than the
reference to John’s along with Peter’s Apocalypse.
2 Bunsen conjectures that the allusion to the book written by the friends of Solo-
mon refers to the parallel case of the Epistle to the Hebrews as written by a com-
panion of Paul. Others find ‘‘ Hebrews” in the Epistle to the Alexandrians. See
text and notes. : :
3 To the text, which follows Tregelles, may be here added the conclusion as in
_ Hesse, beginning at line 2 of page 8 in our print—‘“*. . . . et ideo leyi eum qui-
dem oportet, se publicare vero in ecclesia neque inter prophetas completo numero neque
inter apostolos in finem temporum potest. . . . Arsinoi autem sew Valentini vel
Mitiadis nihil in totum recipimus. quin etiam novum psalmorum librum Marciont
conscripserunt. Una cum Basilide Asianum Catafrygum constitutorem [rejictmus].”
Following Van Gilse, he reads “‘semota passio” at our note 12 of p. 6. In these
are his most important changes. In our text a comma is omitted after fuit on line
10 of p. 6.
ἔς;
ΙΧΧΧΙ INTRODUCTION.
Exhortation to the Heathen; (2) The Instructor (παιδαγωγός), being an
Exposition of Christ’s Character and Precepts, for the benefit of those
who have been converted to Christianity ; (3) στρώματα or στρωματεῖς
(Miscellanies), a collection of notes on the higher Christian γνῶσις, in-
tended to delineate the perfect Christian. There is also a small tract,
“Who is the rich man that shall be saved?” He divided the Chris-
tian books into “the Gospel” and ‘the Apostle,’—a division which
Origen, after him, adopted. He acknowledged four Gospels, fourteen
of St Paul (Philemon, indeed, is not quoted). He ascribes the Acts to
Luke; quotes 1 and 2 John, 1 Peter, Jude, and the Apocalypse. Of
James, 2 Peter, and 3 John we have no recognition. He ascribes
Hebrews to Paul, and the Apocalypse to John.
His views of extra-canonical books are the chief difficulty. He
uses ecclesiastical writings, especiatly Barnabas, Clement of Rome,
and Hermas; also apocryphal books, such as the Preaching of Peter
(much used by Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides), the Sibylline Or-
acles, the Revelation of Peter, the Traditions of Matthias, and the Gos-
pel according to the Egyptians. Sometimes he seems to regard them
as historical authorities ; sometimes he quotes them by way of illustra-
tion, sometimes (Sibylline Oracles) as divinely inspired, and as pro-
phecy. In trying to understand his position, we have to remember
that he was, and gloried in being, an eclectic in everything. He was a
Christian littérateur rather than a theologian, a metaphysician rather
than a logician. When he quotes books he is not thereby asserting
their canonicity. It was one of his accusations against heretics that
they did not obey the Divine Scriptures, and kicked off the tradition
of the Church. There is no proof that he regarded the book called
“ Peter’s Preaching” as Peter’s own composition ; and though he quotes
the Gospel of the Egyptians, he does not own it as Scripture, or even
as authentic. The Sibylline Oracles he did indeed over-estimate, and
this is a peculiarity of Clement wherein he did not agree with the gen-
eral testimony of the Church.1. The apocryphal books were for the
most part written in his own Greek tongue, and were launched in the
society amid which his busy life was spent, so that it is easy to under-
stand how different was his estimate of them from that which Tertullian
found in the Latin Church, outside of all the movement which they
represented.
Clement’s view of γνώσις, as acquaintance with the higher meaning
of Scripture, claims also notice here. He believed that “a true tradi-
1 Justin quotes the Sibyl twice (Apol. I. 20, 44) along with Hystaspes, (noé ‘‘as
the Word of God,”’ Sup. Rel., vol. ii. p. 168, but) as he quotes in the same chapters the
Stoics, Plato, Menander, as authorities with some, and as illustrations. But Clement
goes much further. He calls the Roman Clement ‘‘ Apostle” (Strom, IV. 17, p. 610) ;
he calls Barnabas ‘‘ Apostle” (Strom. II. 6, p. 444, &c.), and ‘‘the apostolic”
(Strom. 11. 20, p. 489).
ORIGEN. Ixxxili
tion of the blessed doctrine ” was imparted by Christ to the chief Apos-
tles, and by them handed down to their successors in the Church; and
he claimed to have received it through Pantenus. This γνῶσις led to
much mysticism, but it also, in Clement’s case, was the core of excel-
lent exposition of faith and virtue. It was not contrary to Scripture,
not even supplementary to it, but a key to it. ‘They who are labour-
ing after excellence will not stop in their search for truth until they
receive proof from the Scriptures themselves.” His rule of faith is the
agreement of the Church, the apostles, and prophets. But he appeals
less to the objective authority of tradition than Tertullian and Ireneus.
His view was, that the Apostles possessed completely what other be-
levers receive partially. He still built all upon Scripture, the wise
master-builder being the instructed (Gnostic) Christian teacher. In
our text (from Hus. H. E. VI. 14,—see below under “Gospels ”) he speaks
of the four Gospels as standing by themselves. And whatever his
διηγήσεις were to which Eusebius (H. E. VI. 14) refers, the only non-
canonical books to which they were attached are Barnabas and the
Apocalypse of Peter. He wrote on all the ἀντιλεγόμεναι γραφαί, but (as
Lardner says) so did Le Clere.
XIV.—ORIGEN.
OrIGEN, born a.p. 184, was the “ father of Biblical Criticism.” He was
from his childhood devoted to the study of the Scriptures ; and, under
much privation—partly brought on him by others, and partly self-caused
—he kept the one end before him, with such success that he stands by
himself as the greatest and most laborious critic of antiquity. His
achievements and his methods of working have powerful influence
_even to the present ἄν. He was a pupil of Clement, and was head of
the catechetical school of Alexandria from the time he was eighteen
years of age until he was upwards of forty ; thereafter he lived in Caesarea.
He was not always stationary, but at various times made journeys to
Athens, Arabia, &c., teaching doctrine and criticism. On one of his
journeys he was ordained presbyter in Cesarea, and (probably on that
account) lost the favour of the bishop of Alexandria, by whose council
he was deprived of his post as teacher, and of his rank as presbyter.”
1 See Reuss, Gesch., ὃ 511, &e.
2 It might be alleged that his ordination gave just offence,—first, because he belonged
to another diocese ; and second, because he had (in unhappy misinterpretation of a
saying of our Lord’s) mutilated himself. His works, already published, might expose
him to the charge of heresy. Jealousy, however, seems to have had much to do with
ΙΧΧΧῚΥ INTRODUCTION.
But although he was accused of heresy by his enemies, the Churches
of Palestine, Arabia, and Achaia retained their reverence for him. He
suffered great hardships in the Decian persecution (4.p. 250), and died
in Tyre about A.p. 253.
He wrote on every book of Scripture—notes, commentaries, or homi-
lies, —5000 volumes in all, say some; more than any other man can
read, says Jerome, not unnaturally. Most of his works are lost. Some
of them survive in an unsatisfactory Latin translation by Rufinus, or in
renderings by Jerome ; but his great work against Celsus is complete,
and is a memorable record of an early struggle between the assailant
and the defender of Christianity. They were well matched in ability—
Celsus excelling in general information, while Origen was a master of
criticism. The extracts given in the following pages give a fair idea
of the chief points of the controversy.2, The most laborious of all his
undertakings was his collation of the versions of the Old Testament,
known as his Hexapla and Tetrapla. A work with parallel columns
in such elaborate fashion was not likely to be multiplied, and it has
been lost, except some fragments.
On the whole, we find from Eusebius’s elaborate statement that Ori-
gen received the four Gospels, the Acts, 13 Epp. of Paul, and Hebrews
(whether Paul’s or not), 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse (which he
regarded as the writing of John the Apostle). While his opinions are
thus far certain, there is doubt as to the other books. James and Jude
are not mentioned at all; and 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John are mentioned,
but said to be of disputed genuineness. If, however, we accept the
translations of his Homilies on Genesis and Joshua, we find that, when
speaking popularly, he treated James and Jude as integral parts of the
New Testament; that 2 Peter and ‘the epistles” of John occupy the
same rank; and that he ascribed fourteen epistles to St Paul.*
There is a passage in one of Origen’s Commentaries in which he
seems to make a threefold classification of sacred books.*. He is speak-
ing of the κήρυγμα Πέτρου, and says, “ ἐξετάζοντες περὶ τοῦ βιβλίου πότερόν
ποτε γνήσιόν ἐστιν ἢ νόθον ἢ μικτόν. The specialties of the book under
his consideration made the inquiry as to its being genuine or spurious, or .
part of both, only natural. It does not appear that Origen proceeded
upon such a classification in other cases. Elsewhere ὃ he states with-
Dionysius’s proceedings. See Hefele, Hist. of Councils, p. 87. On the true render-
ing of Mat. xix. 12, see Origen, Hom. in Mat., tom. xv. p. 651 (Migne, vol. iii. p.
1258).
1 See on his seven shorthand writers, his book-writers, and the girls who wrote the
fair copies, Eus. H. E. VI. 28.
2 See a lively account of Celsus’s work by J. A. Froude, ‘ Fraser’s Magazine,’ Feb.
1878.
3 See under ‘‘ New Testament as a whole,” p. 51.
4 See Reuss, Gesch., § 311, for an elaborate commentary upon it. See also Cred-
ren, Gesch., § 87.
> De Prine. Pref., vol. viii. p. 49.
THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. Ιχχχν
out qualification that the Predicatio Petri is an ecclesiastical book, not
written by Peter or by any one else divinely inspired.
Origen, as a public speaker and teacher, was well versed in current
literature, and both recognised and praised Christian books which are
not included in the canon. But he wrote no commentary on any book
not in our present canon. He mentions the Gospel of the Hebrews,
but with a half apology for using its narrative; the Gospels of Peter
and of James he mentions as Saistae a tradition ; and he cites a
phrase from the Acts of Paul. He calls “ Bardabaa? a Catholic Epistle ;
and in one passage (Latin) has it with “sicut in multis Scripturis
invenimus.” He mentions with favour the Epistle of Clement. His
opinion of Hermas is “que Scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur et ut puto
divinitus inspirata ;” but he elsewhere says that, though widely cir-
culated, it is not accepted by all. Origen did not confine inspiration
to canonical books: his generous spirit recognised all truth as from
God, without therefore admitting that its expression is authoritative.
XV.—THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY.
TueERE are few controversies which have made so great a noise as that
which is called the Paschal Controversy. It was a subject of consider-
able interest in the second century and thereafter; but it became one
of engrossing importance in the second and third quarters of the nine-
teenth century. The peculiarity of the revived interest is, that it did
not content itself with the same range as that within which the first
excitement was confined.
The Asiatic Christians of the second century were at issue with the rest
of Christendom as to the proper day for closing the fast which preceded the
observance of Easter. That was the subject of the original Paschal
Controversy.1 The Tiibingen scholars of the nineteenth century
endeavoured to make the controversy affect the genuineness of the
Gospel of John. The controversialists of the early Church never once
believed or imagined that the genuineness of John’s Gospel was at
stake during their dispute. Nay, it appears in the records of the con-
troversy that the Gospel was admitted about a.p. 170. And it can be
1 See text, p. 189, where Eusebius says the Asiatics “σελήνης τὴν τεσσαρεσκαι-
δεκάτην Sovro δεῖν em τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου πάσχα ἑορτῆς παραφυλάττεν . . . τὰς τῶν
ἀσιτιῶν ἐπιλύσεις ποιεῖσθαι :᾿ while the other Churches had another custom derived
from apostolic tradition,‘ ὡς μὴ δὲ ἑτέρᾳ προσήκειν παρὰ τὴν τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ
Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἡμέραν τὰς νηστείας ἐπιλύεσθαι.᾽"
[xxxvl INTRODUCTION.
proved from other evidence (see our text, p. 167, &c.) that it was admit-
ted long before.
The attempt of Baur and his followers is to show that in Asia Minor,
where John lived and died, his authority was quoted in favour of the
commemoration of Christ’s last supper! with His disciples on the 14th
Nisan,—a day when, according to his Gospel, the supper could not take
place, because the Gospel represents Him as dying on that day. In
other words, say Baur and his followers, the actual oral testimony of
John was that Christ died on the day when the Synoptists say He died,
the 15th; but the testimony of the Gospel falsely ascribed to him is
that Christ died the day before.
It would be easy to dwell on several peculiarities of this controversy
even as now stated. It is natural, for example, to remark on the
assumption that the traditional story is correct, and that the fourth
Gospel is the pretender; whereas one might easily hold by the other
view, that the local controversialists misinterpreted the Apostle’s prac-
tice, and that his real opinion must be learned from his book. It is
natural also to say that there is grave doubt whether discrepancy really
exists between John and the Synoptists, and that, in point of fact,
there is no such discrepancy ;? so that no argument from its existence
can be brought against the genuineness of the fourth Gospel. We
might almost protest against the assumption that the 14th was origi-
nally kept in Asia Minor as the day of Christ’s partaking of the Pass-
over, for it was really kept as the day of the Jewish Passover. Nor is
it easy to refrain from remarking that so grave questions as the truth-
fulness and authorship of the fourth Gospel are not fairly solved by
mere inferences from fragmentary notices of an obscure controversy.
But we need not tarry on the threshold. It will appear, when we
have concluded the inquiry on which we are about to enter, that the
controversy did not refer to the day of the Saviour’s death, but to the
proper day of closing a fast.2 It will appear that whether or not the
aged Apostle sanctioned a particular observance on a particular day, as
was alleged in Ephesus half a century after his death, the fact of such
1 The words quoted in last note, ‘‘ém τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου πάσχα ἑορτῆς, are the
strong point of this position, in so far as Eusebius is concerned.
2 It seems to me that Wieseler (Synopsis) has made out this case.
3 It may be well to translate here what Eusebius says about the controversy (he is
speaking of the days of Victor in the end of the second century, say A.D. 190):
«‘ There was considerable discussion in the days of these men, because the Churches
(παροικίαι) of all Asia, supposing that (ὡς ἄν) they followed a tradition of older date,
thought it necessary, on the occasion of the feast of the Christian Passover [passover
of salvation], to observe specially the 14th of the manth (the day on which the Jews
were enjoined to slay the lamb), and believed that it was altogether necessary on that
day, whatever day of the week it might happen to be, to terminate the fasts ; whereas it
was not the custom for the Churches in all the rest of the world to follow this mode,
because they observed the custom which, handed down from the days of the Apostles,
prevails till now—viz., that it is not fitting to terminate the fasts on any other day
than that of the Saviour’s resurrection” (H. ἘΝ, V. 23,—see text, p. 189).
THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. Ixxxvll
sanction does not touch the question as to the day when Jesus Christ
was crucified, still less the question as to the authorship of the Gospel
which bears John’s name.
It is very difficult to present the Paschal Controversy in its right
proportions. It is a complicated subject, and it involves a considerable
amount of detail.
The discussion which follows will be under the following heads, and
references to the extracts in our text will enable the student to confirm
or challenge our own statements :—
1°. The Authorities from whom we learn the Nature and Progress
of the Controversy.
2°. The Controversy and the Combatants at successive stages.
3°. Conclusions.
1. The Authorities from whom we learn the Nature and Progress of
the Paschal Controversy in the Early Church. (See text, pp. 189-
195.)
First, and chief of all, comes Husebius, who (H. E. V. 23,—see text,
p. 189) tells us of a dispute between Victor, the hot-headed bishop of
Rome (a.p. 190), and the Church of Asia Minor, regarding the observ-
ance of the 14th Nisan. Victor wanted the Asiatics to adopt the Western
custom of keeping Good Friday and Easter (ruling their observance
by the day of the week), and when they would not adopt it, he excom-
municated them! Among those who opposed Victor’s arrogant pro-
ceedings was Irenzus of Lyons, by birth and training an Asiatic Chris-
tian, though now a Western bishop. He approved of the Western
form of observance, but not of Victor’s attempt to coerce the Asiatics
into it.
In the course of his letter to Victor, Irenzeus (see p. 191) refers to a
period (some five-and-thirty years before) when his old master Polycarp
visited Rome, in the time of Anicetus. It appears that Polycarp and
Anicetus had discussed the subject of the observance at Easter, the
Roman insisting on the day of the week, the Asiatic on the day of the
month ; but although one could not persuade the other, they parted as
friends. In their eyes, and in the eyes of Irenzus, the dispute was not
of any vital moment.
Eusebius (H. E. IV. 26) refers to a work of Melito on the Passover,
which fixes its own date by speaking of a dispute in Laodicea regard-
ing the Passover during the proconsulate of Servilius Paulus—ze.,
about A.p. 175.
To Eusebius, therefore, we are indebted for information regarding
three periods of time—Polycarp’s time, about a.p. 160 ;+ Melito’s time,
1 On the date of Polycarp see p. xxxv, and note 1 there.
1xxxvlil INTRODUCTION.
A.D. 175; Victor’s time, a.v. 190. These are separated by intervals
of about fifteen years.
Hippolytus (p. 192) is another authority. Writing about a.p. 220,
he speaks of certain contemporaries who wished to observe the 14th
Nisan. He charges them with wilful subservience to the obsolete
ritual of Judaism, and with forgetfulness of the fact that the Jews
slew (ἀναιρεῖν) the true Passover.
Epiphanius (p. 195), about A.p. 368, treats of the “ Quarto-decimans ”’
he (or observers of the 14th Nisan—ze., the representatives of the old
Asiatic custom) as heretics. His argument is the usual argument of
the Western Church, that Christ, being the True Passover, must have
been slain on the day when the Jews killed the paschal lamb.
Last of all, we have ‘‘ The Paschal Chronicle” (see p. 193, note 5),
which professes to give extracts from early writers. The Tiibingen
scholars, though sceptical about things most surely received in the
Christian Scriptures, grasp at those extracts with an eager credulity
which is nothing less than amazing. On the Acts of Pilate see pp. 174 (and note), 464, 465. Tischendorf’s elaborate
argument in favour of his position that this is the book Justin knew, fails to make
out its existence in the third century. Eusebius does not say he had seen it.
cll INTRODUCTION.
We may further roughly group the lost apocryphal Gospels as—
I. Gospels forged in the names of Apostles.—Philip,! Bartholomew,?
Andrew, Peter, Thomas,® Judas Thaddzeus,° Judas Iscariot,’ Mat-
thias,® Barnabas,’ the Twelve Apostles.’
II. Gospels named after those who used them.—The Gospels of the
Hebrews, Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, come first under this head.#t
1 Gospel of Philip. —It is uncertain whether the Evangelist or Apostle was the pro-
fessed author. The book was a collection of ascetic Gnostic traditions inculeating
self-denial. Jesus is said to have taught Philip what the soul ought to say in ascend-
ing to heaven, and how to answer each one of the powers above. If any man had
begotten children, he must wait below till he could take his children with him. See
Epiph. Her. 26, 13.
2 Bartholomew.—Condemned by Gelasius. In his Pref. to Comment. on Mat. Jer-
ome speaks of it, and condemns it as untrue. , There is a story that Pantenus found
Bartholomew in India, preaching the advent of the Lord Jesus according to Matthew’s
Gospel, and that Pantenus brought the Gospel of Matthew, written in Hebrew, back
with him to Alexandria. (See text, p. 133.) It is possible that Bartholomew had
written out Matthew’s Gospel, and that his copy, with preface and alterations, after
passing through various hands, was called the Gospel of Bartholomew by those who
did not know its true history.
3 Andrew.—Condemned by Gelasius. It is perhaps the apocryphal Acts of An-
drew which came to bear the name of Andrew’s Gospel.
4 The Gospel of Peter, see p. 466.—Eusebius groups it with the Gospels of Thomas
and Matthias as unworthy of regard. Some identify it with the Gospel of Basilides.
5 Gospel of Thomas.—Besides the Gospel of the Infancy (to which reference is
made), there was another Gospel of Thomas written by one of the twelve scholars of
Manes (see p. 24). It was used by Gnostics and Manichees, and condemned by
several Fathers. Some think—but not very probably—that the two books were the
same.
6 Gospel of Judas Thaddeus.—Condemned by Gelasius. It has been conjectured
that the name is a mistake for Matthias.
7 Gospel of Judas Iscariot.—As noticed on pp. 385, 386, note 1, this Gospel was
full of hatred of the Jews and the Mosaic doctrines, and was in use among the
Cainites. One of the primary principles of the sect was, that before a man could be
saved he must make trial of every kind of vice.
8 Gospel of Matthias.—No undoubted fragment of this often-mentioned Gospel re-
mains. Several Gnostics founded upon writings ascribed to Matthias. Clem. Alex.
(Strom. VII. 17, p. 900) names the followers of Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides
as doing so,—see also Hipp. Her. VII. 20. The quotation of Clem. Alex. from the
Traditions of Matthias on the duties of an elect person (text, p. 452) is probably
from another book than the Gospel, if indeed it be from a book at all. Some sup-
pose that a book of Matthias is one of those to which St Luke refers in the Preface
to his Gospel. See Mill, Proleg. in N. T., § 53.
9 Gospel of Barnabas.—Condemned by Gelasius. No trace of this Gospel remains.
Some say Barnabas translated Matthew’s original Hebrew into Greek. We are told,
also, that his body was found with the Gospel of Matthew lying on his heart, written
in his own hand. There is a curious Mohammedan imposture professing to be the
Gospel of Barnabas. It tells of Jesus appearing to His mother and disciples to say
that it was not He but Judas who had died on the cross, and that the name of Jesus
would bear the reproach of a death of crucifixion until Mohammed appeared to deliver
all believers from error.
10 Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.—This is supposed to be a name for the Gospel of
the Hebrews in one of its many forms, and probably was the name used among the
Jews of Palestine. See Kleuker, § 952.
11 See under chapter x., p. lxviil.
APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE. ΟἿ]
Next we may enumerate the Gospels of the Encratites,! of the Mani-
chees,” of the Valentinians,® of Basilides,* Apelles,® Cerinthus,® Simon-
ians (or of Scythianus).’
Il. Harmonies.—Tatian’s Gospel, and those of Peter, Hesychius, and
Lucian, have been already mentioned. They seem to have come under
this head.
IV. Miscellaneous.—Gospel of Eve,* of Perfection,® of Seth, [of
Truth ].4
The foregoing is a general list and classification of the apocryphal
Gospels. ‘The value of those books to the student of canonicity does
not lie in their quotations from our canonical books, because all such
quotations are subject to suspicion, owing to our uncertainty of the
date of the apocryphal Gospels, and our certainty that they were much
altered after their first composition. Some quotations are given in our
text, and some have been indicated in the foregoing paragraphs. The
apocryphal books are valuable because
1. They imply the existence of the canonical books. They are in
their very nature supplementary. They attempt to speak of what the
New Testament does not tell: of the previous history of Mary, of the
childhood of Jesus, of His life while His body was in Joseph’s tomb,
1 The Gospel of the Encratites (‘‘the continent’’) is conjectured to have been Ta-
tian’s Diatessaron, because Tatian himself was an Encratite. But it may have been
the Gospel of the Egyptians, which certainly favoured Encratite views.
2 The Manichees used three books—Zév Εὐαγγέλιον, Gospel of Thomas, and Gos-
pel of Philip. The first was a Doctrine or Gospel of Life—the true Christian teach-
ing, according to Manes.
3 See p. 413 and note. The name of this book was the Gospel of Truth. It was a
book of Jewish Theosophy, not intended as a substitute for our Gospels, but as a
doctrinal treatise. See p. 70.
4 See on the Exegetics of Basilides, pp. 389, 390, and notes. See also pp. 82, 99.
> Apelles was mentioned by Jerome and by Origen. On his book and his position
generally see p. 430 and note.
ὁ See on Cerinthus, p. 384, note.
7 Scythianus was a predecessor of Manes. This book was a Manichean Gospel,
and was used by the Simonians (Photius). It was probably a statement of Mani-
chean doctrine, and contained a pretended narrative of our Lord’s life. Scythianus
wrote a “" Book of the Four Quarters of the World,” and its divisions were—l. The
Gospel; 2. The Quintessence (κεφαλαία) ; 8. The Mysteries (the Old Testament) ;
4, The Treasures (the New Testament). See Kleuker, § 985.
8 Eve.—Used by the Ophites, and pretending to be what the serpent taught the
woman. See p. 386, note. (Epiph. Her. 26.)
® Perfection.—Used by Gnostics. Some regard it as the same with the Gospel of
Philip, or that of Basilides, or that of Eve. (See Epiph. Her. 26.)
10 Seth.—Used by some Syrian Gnosties: see Ὁ. 386, note. Seth was reported to
have had divine beauty, and to have invented the Hebrew alphabet, and discovered
the celestial signs. He is alleged to have planted a bough of the tree of life of which
Moses got a branch in his miraculous rod.
1 This was the Gospel of the Valentinians. See note 3 above.
ΟΙν INTRODUCTION.
and of other and similar subjects of curiosity. But they would be
unintelligible if they stood alone. Considered in themselves, they are
incapable of constituting the Scriptures of a religion. The Jesus of
whom they tell is one well known and adored on the strength of other
narratives which describe the object of His life and teaching. None
of the three we have spoken of as the best of their kind could account
for its own existence, if the Gospel of Jesus Christ as we have it im
the canon were not presupposed. The existence of those apocrypha
in the second century is a testimony to the older date, and the au-
thority of our Gospels.
They do not so explicitly as Clement of Rome or Polycarp disclaim
all competition with the inspired writings, but they imply subordina-
tion in their whole texture.
2. The amazing discrepancies in the different MSS of the apocryphal
Gospels are proof that men felt themselves at liberty to manipulate
those books as they pleased. No sacred awe kept the hands of the
copyist and the chronicler from adjusting them to suit his own views.
No salvation was perilled on their veracity. Let them say what they
might, it could not essentially alter the course of history. It is true
that we have traced the Ebionite in one, the Marcosian in another :
but while one man twisted the tradition in one direction, another
twisted it in the very opposite, and all betray a consciousness that the
books are but outworks from which the inner citadel of Christian
Revelation may be assailed or protected. When a heretic of real
power wished to make a heretical book the very Bible of his sect, he
must, like Apelles or Marcion (or Basilides 2), take some one of the
four Gospels, and—either by dilution or abridgment—torture it to
serve his purposes. The Gnostics were the chief parents of apocryphal
writings, but the earliest Gnostics invented meanings and explana-
tions of facts, not the facts themselves. Their books were essentially
commentaries or essays, or philosophismg upon acknowledged Serip-
tures.
But when some leader of a subdivision of one of the great heresies
desired to distinguish himself, or to confirm in men’s minds the notions
of the school to which he belonged, he could do no better than issue
a new or a revised apocryphal Gospel. It took up subjects omitted
in the canonical books: it did not therefore come into direct com-
petition with them; and the reader or hearer was not on the alert
against such supplementary speculations. Among people predisposed
to receive it, the book had therefore ready acceptance. In course of
time another man manipulated the book for a slightly different pur-
pose: if of another country, he translated it with such omissions or
additions as he chose. Hence it is that we have in the extant apocry-
1 See Iven. B. IIT. 1, quoted p. 67. (‘‘ Tanta est autem circa Evangelia hee firmi-
tas,”’ &c.)
APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE. ον
phal Gospels various recensions of which we are uncertain whether to
speak as recensions or as different books. When we compare those diver-
gencies—say in the Gospel of Thomas and the pseudo-Matthew, or the
nativity of Mary—with the small points involved in the “disputed
passages” of Scripture, we have an argument of real weight. In the
one case the great changes show us that we have compositions which
it was no one’s business to protect from the editor’s caprice; and in
the other, from the anxiety to maintain the text, we see that we have
books which all Christendom accepted so heartily, and guarded so
faithfully, that it was not in an editor’s power to make material altera-
tions.
3. We may further and finally say, that wide as has been the influ-
ence of the apocryphal Gospels on Christian traditions and Christian
art,’ its nature was from the first such as to make it easy to understand
how the names of the books perished from memory. There was usu-
ally nothing in the traditional incident to alarm a believer in Scripture,
while the very name of the book as a pretender to canonical authority
was reprobated. One can easily see how few Christians would care
to quote or to acknowledge the books condemned in the Decree of
Gelasius, and yet how easily the traditions they contaimed would be
often embodied in sermons and works of art. When the canon was
regarded as complete, the older apocryphal books naturally fell into
disuse and were forgotten. Thus from the fourth century onwards
there was an increasing disregard of the names of the once famous
books, and from the sixth century they seem to have been forgotten.
The Papal Church has persisted in this disregard of the books, while
yielding more and more to the tendencies which they represent. It is
the Protestant Church which has exhumed them, and Protestant theo-
logians see most clearly their historical and apologetical value.
The apocryphal Acts are, with one exception, not so old or so impor-
tant for our purpose. The full list of those given in Tischendorf’s
1 The great preachers of the fourth century systematically used the incidents of
apocryphal history as ornaments of their sermons, and a similar use of them contin-
ues in the Unreformed Churches to the present day. The festivals of the Romish
Church are full of the Apocrypha. The ‘‘descent into hell” is a prominent feature
of the so-called Apostles’ Creed. There is nothing more usual in lives of saints than
power over wild beasts, such as is recorded in ‘‘ Thomas,” ὅθ. Christian art abounds
in still more numerous illustrations. Joseph is an old man, often holding a rod;
sometimes he has a mitre; sometimes an ox and ass are near, adoring Christ. In
Greek temples and monasteries, the annunciation is made while Mary is at the well
with a pitcher. The birthplace of Jesus is painted as full of holy light streaming from
the child. Though the crucified were naked, Jesus is always represented as having
a linen cloth while on the cross, and with the crown of thorns. The stories of the
Virgin’s Death (which belong, however, to the Acts rather than to the Gospels) are
often represented in Christian art. These are only specimens of the influence of
the Christian Apocrypha. See Tischendorf, De Origine et Usu, &c. ; and Nicolas,
Etudes sur les Evangiles apocryphes.
cvl INTRODUCTION.
collection is long: (1) Acts of Peter and Paul, (2) of Paul and Thecla,
(3) of Barnabas, (4) of Philip, (5) of Philip in Hellas, (6) of Andrew,
(7) of Andrew and Matthias, (8) Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew, (9)
of Thomas, (10) Consummation of Thomas, (11) Acts of Bartholomew,
(12) of Thaddeus, (13) of John. Of these, the Acts of Paul and Thecla
(see note, p. 180) is the most important, and probably dates from the
second century.1 Some of its quotations are given in the text, p. 180,
&e. It is superfluous to say that it testifies to the Pauline writings.
But the narrative in its present form contains many things to which one
naturally ascribes a date much later than the second century. There
is not only inculcation of celibacy in the strongest terms, but prayers
for the dead, a high view of the sacraments, and (in one version)
laudation of relics.
This leads us to notice the distinctive feature of the apocryphal
“ Acts.” Each book has a distinct purpose, which usually is to solve some
knotty question of Church Discipline or Government. We know how
many of the chief questions which emerge in the Church find their sol-
ution in St Luke’s narrative: and those uncanonical books seek to
occupy similar ground with Luke. The position of women in the
Church is evidently before the mind of the author of “ Paul and
Thecla,” and he seeks to secure that it shall be a prominent one.
Celibacy is greatly glorified in the same book. The “seal,” as it
is called, of the Sacrament, is much prized. In the Acts of Thomas,
baptism with oil is treated as a royal chrism; and Gnostic mysticism
is greatly enhanced in the accompanying incantations or prayers. The
Acts of Barnabas teach that “orders” are indelible: the Acts of
John that Christ’s humanity was a semblance. Some of the books
have an ethical purpose: in the Acts of Philip we have a powerful
warning against revenge; in the Acts of Andrew and Matthias the
cruelty of the unregenerate human heart is expounded.
But, on the whole, the purpose of each book is to show—not like
St Luke’s narrative, how the Gospel of Jesus Christ was brought to
bear on Jew and Gentile, on the mob, or on the potentate, but—how
some special, even minor, point was the burden of an Apostle’s teach-
ing and labour. In this the Apocrypha betray their later origin. The
central Christian doctrine is taken for granted; men’s minds are full
of some detail. Miracles have become portents or trials of strength—
are no longer subordinate agencies in the inculeation of spiritual truth.
The interest of each narrative also is usually limited and local, not
universal. Certainly no one of them ever gained—possibly none ever
sought—the regard of the Church of Christ as a whole.
1 See details in Tischendorf’s Prolegomena to his edition of the Acts, p. xxiii; or
in Jones on the Canon, vol. ii. p. 326. Jerome says the baptism of a lion was narrated
in this book. This is not in the copy which we have. This has thrown doubt on
the antiquity of the work in its present form.
APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE. cvll
In the second century there was a famous collection of apocryphal
Acts by Leucius Charinus (see text, p. 25), who seems to have been a
Gnostic, somewhat after the fashion of Marcion. His book, known as at
τῶν ἀποστόλων περίοδοι, contained Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas,
and Paul (so Photius). It is doubtful whether the extant “ Acts”
were ever portions of that book, which seems to have had some inter-
nal unity. Zahn (Acta Joannis, p. cxlii) dates “ Leucius” in a.p. 130."
There is an apostolical history in ten books ascribed to Abdias,
Bishop of Babylon. It is a clumsy forgery, probably not earlier than
the sixth century,—certainly not earlier than the fifth.?
The apocryphal Ertsrtes—such as Laodiceans, the Epistles to the
Corinthians and the Philippians (see p. 209, note), the letter of Jesus to
Abgar (Eus. H. E. I. 13), and the letters ascribed to Pilate (noticed
above)—are also to be passed with simple mention. The letters of
Paul to Seneca are an interesting forgery (see p. 209). The student
of Church History may be interested in Eusebius’s strong statements
regarding the correspondence of Jesus with Abgar.
The apocryphal Arocatypses of the New Testament do not fill so
important a place in the history of criticism, or in doctrinal controversy,
as do some of the Apocalypses of the Old Testament. The Apoc-
alypse of Paul professes to utter what Paul had seen: the Apocalypse
of John reads like a travesty of the canonical book, the chief point of
interest being recognition of each other in the future state of the good:
““Mary’s falling asleep” has in it, in several versions, substantially the
same story of all the Apostles being brought from their various scenes
of labour, even the dead from their graves. Passing by the others, we
may mention the Assumption of Moses,‘ which professes to be a charge
by Moses to Joshua, and ends abruptly. Some critics believe that if
we had it all, we should have the passage which Jude quoted; and an
incident to which Clem. Alex. refers (Strom. VII. 15), when he repre-
sents Joshua as seeing Moses double,—one part ascending with the
angels, one buried in the earth. Nay, they find that Moses was the
original of the phoenix,—his mortal part falling to the earth, his immor-
tal part rising to the skies. All this is pure hypothesis, though it
has attracted the clear mind of Hilgenfeld.°
1 See Fabricius, p. 970, and Kleuker, p. 1027, for what may have been another
book by Leucius (called ‘‘Leontius”). Zahn’s interesting arguments in behalf of
the fragments on John are insecure. He considers them fatal to the idea that there
ever was a Presbyter John. If his arguments hold good, there is a new link in the
proof of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. See Zahn, p. exlviii.
2 The author uses the Vulgate and Rufinus’s translation of the Clem. Recogn.
3 See on Old Testament Apocalypses, Dillmann in Herzog’s Encyclop., p. 306, ἄς.
4 Fabricius published some fragments ; in 1861 at Milan there was found a fuller
work, ‘ Fragmenta Assumptionis Moses.’
® See his Nov. Test. ex. Can. Rec.
ΟΝ INTRODUCTION.
XVIIL—THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
Ir is perhaps superfluous to make any comments upon the testimonies
to the fourth Gospel in the text of this work; but as that Catena con-
tains nearly all the citations on which stress has ever been laid in the
controversy of about half a century, it may be useful to the student to
have a few notes on what are really the most important points.
The Catena contains not a little which will not bear much pressure ;
but it also contains materials from which a strong chain may be con-
structed. If Papias ‘used testimonies” found in the first Epistle of
John, and if the Presbyters! who were his contemporaries quoted
from the Gospel, we have the earliest possible evidence for the exist-
ence and authority of the Johannine writings. For Papias was a
‘hearer of John” (Irenzeus), perhaps lived with him (see Anast. Sin.
on p. 59). See the Note on John at Ephesus, p. xlv.
We may be certain that Barnabas used the fourth Gospel. It scarcely
needs Keim’s powerful argument to this effect ; the passages themselves
make it pretty clear. There remains, of course, the question as to the
date of Barnabas ; and I do not think it can be put in the first century,
but it can scarcely have been later than twenty or thirty years after
John’s death.
The expressions in Clement of Rome are too vague, and those in
Ignatius of too uncertain date, to warrant our founding upon them.
But it is not possible to pass over the clear words of Polycarp; and the
theology and the tone of Hermas remind us of the fourth Gospel with
a perpetual suggestiveness which isolated quotations cannot adequately
represent.
Turning from the direct line of the Church, we have Basilides, a.p. 125,
whose words seem proved to be those we find in Hippolytus. About
the Clementine Homilies, there can no longer be any doubt as regards
distinct quotation, now that Dressel has discovered the complete MS
with the words of John ix. 20 emphatically used. There may well
be raised the question of the date of this book, but it is rather strange
to find doubt of its antiquity and value among those who impugn the
fourth Gospel! All that the Tiibingen scholars said of the great im-
portance of the Clementines before Dressel’s publication in 1853 is
1 Even if we do not follow Routh in regarding the ‘‘ Presbyters” as meaning
Papias in this case (and I regret having put it so in the text), the date of the testi-
mony quoted by Ireneus remains the same. See pp. 71, 72 of our text, and notes.
Compare Routh’s notes, Rel. Sac., pp. 17, 31, in which it is not clear whether Routh
meant Papias or the authorities on whom Papias relied.
THE FOURTH GOSPEL. ΟΙΧ
turned against them, now that the book witnesses for the Gospel they
assailed. The Acts of Pilate has been so freely used by its copyists
or possessors, that—like other apocryphal books—it is an insecure
witness; and, while it may be mentioned, it cannot be pressed. The
same is true of the Acts of John. See supra, p. evii.
There are few things made more clear of late than the rightful enrol-
ment of Justin Martyr among the witnesses for John’s Gospel. There
has been a growing appreciation of this fact, and the latest authors are
the most explicit.
That Heracleon and Ptolemzus must be reckoned on the same side
cannot be doubted. And the date of Heracleon makes the devotion of
that learned Gnostic to John, as to a text-book, very significant. In
this devotion he was not exceptional among his fellows. The earliest
Gnostics in the second century give us not only quotations from the
Gospel of John, and the first commentary upon it, but in the key-notes
of their various systems (Marcion excepted) we find indubitable proofs
of its influence. The ordinary teachers followed in the track of the
Synoptists, but the Gnostics took up, in imitation of the fourth Gospel,
those great problems of the relations of the Spiritual God and fallen
man, of light and darkness, of life and death, of the world and the
believer, of spirit and the body, which John has made so prominent.
The Muratorian fragment is as explicit as it can be. When we pass
the middle of the century, and come to the works of Tatian, Athenagoras,
and Theophilus (with a quotation by name), we are out of the region of
controversy.” At the same time we are bound to remember in this con-
nection that the evidence of Irenzus is not fairly estimated if we think
of his date alone. The weight of what he says comes from his direct.
connection with John through Polycarp. It is inconceivable that one
so learned and so intelligent could be mistaken in believing that his
beloved master Polycarp was the disciple of the beloved Apostle of
Jesus Christ.2 Yet this is the paradox which Keim‘ set himself to
’ establish, in attempting to overturn the long-accepted tradition of the
Church, and to prove that the Apostle John was never in Ephesus.
There is some examination of this elsewhere (see p. xlv). We may
here note that he fixed the date of the Gospel at a.p. 110-117, and we
may agree with Dr Samuel Davidson in his quaint confession that
“Keim’s date, a.p. 110-117, under Trajan, makes it exceedingly diffi-
cult to disprove Johaunine authorship.” °
1 In Dr Sanday’s book on the Gospels, to which I so often refer, is an able argument ;
and Professor Drummond’s article (see p. 178) strikes me as singularly conclusive.
2 The uncertain date of Celsus detracts from the value of his testimony, but it is
not to be overlooked (see p. 375).
3 See in page 182. In the first passage from Ireneus (B. III. 3, 4), the αὐτοῦ is
Polycarp, who is the authority for the anecdote.
4 Anticipated by Liitzelberger, who ascribed the authorship of the Gospel to
Andrew ; to some extent by Wittichen. See on Keim’s withdrawal, p. vi. note 2.
> Davidson, Introduction to New Testament, vol. ii. p. 426.
ΟΧ INTRODUCTION.
The natural conclusion from this rapid review is that we have as
early, if not as numerous, proofs of the existence of John’s Gospel as
of the existence of the Synoptists; and that in the whole stream of
Christian thought during the second century, we have more indubitable
proofs of its influence than of the influence of any other single book of
the New Testament. This is the testimony of the Church and of the
Heretics—given with a unanimity which is impressive. And what is
there on the other side? There are said to have been some individuals
in the end of the second century who refused to accept this book be-
cause of the unpalatable nature of its teaching regarding the Holy Spirit,
and Epiphanius tells us of a sect or party in Lybia excited to opposition.
They were not numerous, nor were they powerful; they did not rely ©
on any external evidence ; they are chiefly memorable because of the
happy nickname (Ἄλογοι or Alogi) by which Epiphanius (who is very
proud of it) hit them off as “irrational,” as well as rejecters of the
Gospel of the Logos or Word of God.
From the second century until quite a recent date, scarcely a voice
was ever lifted against the Johannine authorship. Luther was content
to give up the rest of the New Testament if he had John, Romans, and
1 Peter. Schleiermacher, and all whom he influenced, held by this
Gospel as the most precious spiritual teaching in Scripture. But a
change came about sixty yearsago. The solitary scholar (Bretschneider)
who (1820) advanced among critical “ probabilities” the idea that the
book was not written by John, but by some other critic in the beginning
or middle of the second century, was met with such firm opposition
that he published his recantation of his suggested doubts. But his
views were, nevertheless, soon after maintained by Strauss, and since
his ‘ Life of Jesus’ was published (1834-35), the fourth Gospel has been
the battle-ground of criticism. A much greater Wiirtemberger than
Strauss—F. C. Baur—maintained that the Gospel was written and
started into great popularity about a.p. 160. He ascribed the popu-
larity to the fact that the author had something to say that suited
everybody,—one party of heretics finding their views of the Holy Spirit,
another their cosmogony, another their opinions on the Paschal con-
troversy, while Paul’s followers found their master’s principles carried
out further and more fully than by themselves, and the whole Catholic
Church rejoiced in the exposition of Christianity as the one absolute
religion. In all this Baur did not take into account that every party
would have been sure to denounce the new book for what it contained
contrary to their special tenets. But, moreover, the sufficient answer
is the proof that the Gospel was actually in use long before the time at
which he supposes it to have been written. Keim pushed it back to
the days of Trajan, and all Christian tradition (see Irenzeus on p. 183)
vouches for John’s surviving till that reign. There is no possibility
of a book claiming to be John’s being written by some one else, and
THE FOURTH GOSPEL. ΟΧΙ
palmed off upon the Church as his. There would have risen up a host of
eager disciples to deny that their revered master ever wrote the book.
Thus much may be said on the external evidence and the history of
the controversy.
But in course of the controversy men’s minds have turned to the con-
tents of the Gospel, and have analysed them with microscopic care.
Though it does not fall within the plan of this book to deal at any
length with this aspect of the question, it may not be out of place to
indicate briefly what appear to be some results of the discussion.
1. One result has been to dispose of the idea that the book was
written by a secretary (even though Weizsiicker (1864) and Ewald
(1861) lend it their support), or by a committee of John’s congregation,
or by any other than an eye-witness. In the first chapter, the passing
over of the disciples from the Baptist to Jesus, and the many minute
notes of time (vv. 35, 39, 43), are recorded as by one who was recalling
the most memorable events of his own youth. The minute remembrance
of time and detailed incidents, and the familiar acquaintance with the
home and haunts of those whom he mentions (as of Philip in i. 43), are
seen throughout the book. See the time of the marriage, and the num-
ber of firkins (ii. 1, 6); the parenthetical mention of the other boats (vi.
23); the apparently superfluous naming of Ephraim (xi. 54) ; the minute
account of the coming of the Greeks, though no notice is taken of the
direct result of their application (xii. 20); the many little touches of
association with John the Baptist (vi. 59, x. 40); the spot of each of
two notable incidents (viii. 20, x. 23), &c. When such things as these
meet our eye, we see the eye-witness himself mingling little details
which have no significance, except that he did remember them, with
the momentous portions of his narrative; but we do not see things
which it would occur to a reporter to record, or which, indeed, it would
be natural for him to keep in mind. These little touches establish the
truth of the Evangelist’s claim: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us: and we beheld His glory ;” or in the beginning of his first
Epistle (for it cannot be doubted that the same man wrote it), “ That
which we have seen and heard declare we unto you.”
The remarkable sketches of character are evidently the work of one
who had known in daily intercourse the men and women of whom he
writes. We come to know Andrew and Philip and Nathanael and
Thomas, as well as we know Peter through the other evangelists ; and
of Peter himself we learn also much that is new and touching. Martha
1 Reference may be made to the commentaries of Meyer, Godet, Luthardt, Lange,
Watkins, Westcott, and to Weizsiicker’s ‘‘ Untersuchungen” (1864), Wittichen’s
‘Der geschichtliche Character des Evangeliums Johannis’ (1868), and his ‘ Leben
‘Jesu’ (1876), and to Dr Sanday’s ‘ Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth
Gospel’ (1872). In this book Dr Sanday has gathered all that was said before him,
and has fused it in a new treatise with much that is his own. In the paragraphs
given in these pages, I am most indebted to Wittichen and Weizsicker.
ex INTRODUCTION.
and Mary, and Mary of Magdala, acquire a new distinctness of outline.
The character of Nicodemus, in his progress towards the truth, and
that of Pilate, who seems to tremble and hesitate even when he is
fixed on the historic canvas, are sketched with the conscious power of
a close observer of them both.
In the same connection we may notice the touches of autobiography.
The continued notice of the Baptist has been often pointed out as
showing that the writer was one of the two disciples who passed over
from him to Jesus (i. 387). It is said that, after the fall of Jerusalem,
some of John the Baptist’s disciples aimed at being a permanent sect,
and that this Gospel, by one of themselves, was written to remind
them of their master’s real relation to the Redeemer of men. In this
Gospel he is only called “John.” Others might need to distinguish
him from the son of Zebedee; but when that son of Zebedee himself
was writing, he did not think of there being two of the name. And
the Evangelist is evidently one of the disciples whose slowness of
heart he sorrowfully recalls (xvi. 17; ii. 17-22). The scenes at the
successive meetings after the Resurrection are so described as to show
indirectly the character and position of the writer.
2. We see further that the author was a Jew of Palestine. His whole
tone of thought is formed on the Old Testament. That Hebrew of
Hebrews, Paul himself, was not more a Hebrew than this writer. The
Old Testament is the law (vii. 19), and also a prophecy of Christ (v. 29-
46). The figures and types of the Old Testament are more constantly
reproduced in this Gospel than in any other book of the New Testa-
ment save the Apocalypse. Jesus is the true temple (ii. 19), the true
brazen serpent (iii. 14), the good Shepherd (x. 11), the true manna, the
living water, the Paschal lamb. Only one who had breathed the at-
mosphere of Israel could have told, as this evangelist tells, how the
coming of Messiah was the centre of all Jewish thought. He is at
home in Jewish customs and arrangements, domestic, sacred, and na-
tional (vii. 37, x. 22, xix. 31), and in Jewish ritual and the controver-
sies which sprang from it (111. 25, vil. 22). No other writer has so
sharply limned the religious condition of the ruling party in Israel, with
“their ossified learning and their raw realism” (Wittichen), their
fanatical theory and inconsistent practice (vii. 34, vil. 15, viii. 32, iii. 4,
vi. 15, vil. 82, &c.) He has walked on the roads and been tossed on
the seas of Palestine, and his step is easy and sure when he is guiding
his readers among them (iv. 6, xi. 18, vi. 19-21). His simple sentences,
and his repetition of thought, show that “in the style of John the
clothing alone is Greek, the body is Hebrew.”! None but one who
was a Jew, as well as an eye-witness, could have entered into the very
soul of the nation, so as to represent all the various types of national
1 See on this subject Wittichen, ‘ Der geschichtliche Character des Evangeliums
Johannis’ for very full details. The phrase in the text is Godet’s.
THE FOURTH GOSPEL. exlll
character in the dramatic dialogues which are so frequent in the book.
The Baptist, Nicodemus, Nathanael, the blind man, the priests in the
temple, describe themselves in a few words.
3. Further, the author, though a Jew, was an enlightened disciple of
Christ. The Jews are still the flock of God, but Christ has other sheep
not of that fold. ‘He died not for that nation only.” ‘Salvation is of
the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers
shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth (iv. 22, 23). For 1800
years we have been advancing into the meaning of those words; and
even now we are only learning how much they mean.
It is thus that the use of the term “the Jews” is to be explained.
As he looks back, the disciple sees that it was on account of misguided
national feeling the opposition to his Master was so intense and so
prolonged ; and the most prominent features before his mind, as he
recalls the Incarnate Son of God in Israel, are on the one hand Jesus en-
deavouring to exalt the nation, and on the other hand the great mass
of that nation—the Jews—blindly resisting Him. This is strikingly
brought out (vii. 35) when the Jews are amazed at the idea of His
leaving Jerusalem to teach His brethren scattered among the heathen,
and with scorn suggest the supremely ridiculous idea, that He would
perhaps even teach the Greeks! ‘‘He came unto His own (τὰ ἴδια),
and His own (οἱ ἴδιοι) received Him not.” }
4. This leads us to notice the calm authority with which the Evan-
eelist writes. I confess to being unable to doubt that the writer had
a fuil knowledge of the synoptic narratives. The very first chapter,
with its sudden introduction of both Messiah and the Baptist, would be
unintelligible unless on the supposition that readers of his Gospel
were already familiar with the synoptic writers. But when he had
them before him, nothing but a full persuasion of his independent
right to speak could have led him to make a book so unlike theirs.
There is an evident and intentional supplementing of the other narra-
tives at the outset (iii. 24), for they begin the ministry of Jesus at the
time when John was cast into prison (Mark i. 14). He explains them
sometimes. The words, “Ὁ Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ... how often,” &c.
(Mat. xxiii. 37), suggest the repeated visits of which he alone tells us.
He sometimes needs them to explain his narrative: thus he alludes to
many miracles, and to crowds that came, though of those miracles he
has not said a word before (ii. 23, iv. 45, x. 37, xii. 37, &c.) In
simple consciousness of a right to speak, he sets himself to add to
what men already knew of that life which he bad seen.
5. He writes with a definite purpose. There has been much contro-
versy as to what that purpose was. But he has told us; and his own
words characterise his Gospel as one might expect that they would
' He speaks of ‘your law” (viii. 17, x. 34) to remind them how impossible it
was for them to disown the authority to which He appealed.
h
CX1V INTRODUCTION.
(xx. 81). He reports what will show that Jesus was the Incarnate
Son of God. We know that at the end of the first century this was a
needed counteractive of prevailing tendencies to error.
A very old tradition (Clem. Alex., see p. 75) says that John saw in
the synoptic narratives the body of the Gospel, and that he wished to
show its spirit. And this is true. He assumes that Christ’s life is
already known: but he writes for a Church which could now “ bear”
more than when the truth was first spoken and written.
It thus came to pass that he made incidents subordinate to speeches.
We are not told directly what was the effect on Nicodemus of the in-
terview by night,—the teaching regarding salvation by regeneration
engrossing the writer’s thoughts. Neither are we told whether the
Greeks who came to see Jesus did see and hear Him,—the attention of
the writer being fixed on the Saviour’s doctrine of self-sacrifice. It is
as though the ordinary incidents were sufficiently known, while com-
paratively little had been heard of the Saviour’s higher teaching.
For it is higher teaching, and therefore parables almost entirely
disappear. The Synoptists tell us, that while those who were low in
the spiritual scale could not understand more than the parables, the
disciples heard in private the explanation of those parables. Almost
all the discourses in the fourth Gospel are addressed either to instruc-
ted Jews or to sympathising disciples. If we compare the fourth
chapter of this Gospel with the explanation of the sower and of the
tares in Mat. xili., we find a wonderful resemblance. ‘The parable in
both cases becomes a metaphor worked into direct teaching and state-
ment. In some other cases in the fourth Gospel where ordinary hear-
ers were addressed, the circumstances at once suggested and explained
the figures which Christ employed. Thus it was as natural to speak
to Paschal pilgrims (chap. vi.) of food provided by God, as to tell the
woman by the well (chap. iv.) of living water.
If, then, the author of the fourth Gospel was an eye-witness of the
scenes he describes, dnd describes them so as to give us incidentally
his autobiography ;—if we learn from his narrative that he was a Jew
of Palestine, and an enlightened disciple of Christ; if we see that he
writes as one possessed of independent authority, and writes with a
definite purpose ; if we further learn that he was a favoured disciple of
Jesus, who wrote after the other narratives had been for some time in
the possession of the Church,—we are shut up to the conclusion that he
was John, the son of Zebedee, who survived the other Apostles, and lived
until the truth was menaced by errors which this Gospel was written
to counteract. This is in accordance with the old belief of the Church,
as was proved by the Catena of external evidence.
There are, however, some other points which we can best notice in
connection with the ordinary objections to this conclusion. It is said
that—
THE FOURTH GOSPEL. CXV
(a) “The discourses are longer in the fourth Gospel than in the
others.” But this is not so. The Sermon on the Mount, and
the last address to the general crowd of auditors,—both found
in St Matthew,—are longer than the discourses in our Gospel.
The real difference les in the greater number of incidents
_ recorded by the Synoptists.
(8) “The doctrine taught is different.’ But the difference is only
in detail and fulness. The whole doctrine of John as to the
mystery of the relations of Father and Son is contained in Mat.
xi. 25-30. And the closing counsels recorded by John be-
fore the Redeemer’s death may be found condensed in Mat.
xxvii. 18.
(y) “The form of Christ’s speeches is not the same.” It is true that
in the Synoptists they are usually brief, pointed, epigrammatic ;
in John usually (not always) expanded and more connected.
This may partly come from the fact that the Synoptists describe
the home life and the teaching in Galilee, while John records
the intercourse with doctors in Jerusalem, and with instructed
disciples. But I think that there is another consideration of
more importance. It is admitted by every one that in all the
Gospels all the discourses are much abridged. But how do
men give to others a fair idea of what a speaker says when
they do not give all he said? There are two ways. One is, to
report verbatim portions or passages of his address ; the other is,
to give an outline of the whole without any one sentence being
fully reproduced, though every expression may be (not neces-
sarily is) what the speaker used. Now the Synoptists report
by extract, John reports in outline.
(5) “The doctrine of the Logos is peculiar to John.” But that doc-
trine is confined to the Preface. It is avowedly the historian’s
own.
(ce) “The Greek of the fourth Gospel is pure.” It is. But John was
never a poor man; he had a house in Jerusalem, and must have
been accustomed to speak Greek in the capital all his days.1
His Greek is easy and natural; but it is the Greek of an edu-
cated Hebrew. It is less Hebrew than the Apocalypse ; but on
the supposition of common authorship, the interval between the
writing of the two works had been spent in the Greek city of
Ephesus. Cato at 80 learned Greek, and Plutarch almost as
late in life learned Latin. (See Disraeli’s ‘ Curiosities of Litera-
ture,’ vol. 1. p. 98). Jerome acquired Hebrew after he was 30 ;
and David Livingstone learned a wild tongue in Africa, and
forgot his own, after he had passed middle age.
1 See Caspari, ‘ Chronologisch - geographische Einleitung;’ and Dr Roberts’s
‘ Discussions,’ or his more recent, ‘ The Bible of our Lord.’
CXV1 INTRODUCTION.
(s) “John never names himself as the author.” It is true; but there
can be little doubt that he describes himself as the “ disciple
whom Jesus loved.” All we learn of the fragrant old age of
John in Ephesus! makes it likely that this descriptive title had
become a proper name of the venerable saint, and it was only
natural that he should use it to add authority to his great and
final testimony to the Master on whose bosom he had lain.
Sometimes one thinks that the egotism of the ambitious spirit
that had once asked, or prompted his mother to ask, the dis-
tinction of sitting with his brother on either hand of the Lord
when He came into His kingdom, had been mellowed into the
old man’s delight in claiming,—as he did claim, and that with
truth,—when he looked back through seventy years to the life
of Jesus of Nazareth, that it was he who had been nearest and
dearest of all to the Heart that was broken by the world’s sorrow
and sin. If this be still egotism, it is not the less a touch of
human nature which makes us feel John to be of our kindred.
There was only One in whom was no fault at all.
(¢) “The Jesus of the fourth Gospel is not the same as He of whom
the Synoptists tell.” I think the best answer to this is found
in the witness of Christendom through all the centuries. All
believing men have felt that the four narratives describe one
life—that of the “ God-Man” (Origen). The Church of Christ
was not built on an abstraction, or on an idea, but on a Personal
Saviour whom it has known through each one of the four Gos-
pels. And the Church has always recognised that the Saviour
must have been such a One as the fourth Gospel describes,—
dwelling in a light and in a shadow which never rested on any
other.
1 The story of the young robber, and the closing charge to his scholars to love one
another, are illustrations.
CXV1l
ANALYTICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX.
(θ4οτὴ Gy
“O1F-86¢ ‘Tedsoy)
sty 995. *(ayou)
e68 ‘FSI ‘Gl ‘ATT
6858 “ELT ἹΠ]ΤΙΔῚΧ
01 “Gg ΤΑΙ͂Σ ΠΕ
ὍσΨ ῬΟς
10% ὍΤΙ ἽΧ-ταχχχ
"PEG ἼΔΙ
‘OLL ‘TUIXXX -ἸΑΧΧ
ὍΘ “CLT
‘SOL ‘IAXX - AIXX
‘GLB ‘BBS ὍΔΙ
‘QOL-FOT “ATXX-TITA
"GIG
‘ecg 991 ‘GOT ἽΠλ-Τ
‘dryryg ‘wowed
“foo “ΠΑ “ssoyL 3 pur T
“uoy “tog ΖΦ pure T “ey
“7TA —poayepynm ose neg
jo soystdy wey f eyny peqey
-ynut 8 pestadumos ποθ stp
‘Iepeg 1 “oo “πάῃ “100 Ὁ
pue 1 “uoy ‘uyor ‘oyny “1511
‘Tadsox)
suyor FM souezyurenboe
jo soovaz pue ‘esdAteoody
‘uyor T “tejog 1 Ὑ1ΌΠῚ “1510
POLE TL
‘foyog [ “WI, 5 pue 1 “TU
“udq “peg “m0 T “woy “yey,
"ssotLT, T
“yg “ydg “109 T fayor “2077
‘asd ATeood y
‘lojag T ‘some “9100 ‘uyor
‘oynryT “1071 JO Suryovey pur
ISVUSULT 911 YIM SsooUEploUlo/
‘Iojog 1 ‘souve “ΑΘΉ ‘snq1y,
“uy 1 “ἸΔΉ “10p T“moy 5100
‘uyor Jo suoryorput ‘sqystydoudg
by ὦ
pue 1 “qo ‘uyor Soynry “2071
‘HOVE
‘dasa Θ5ΟΟΩ ΝΠ ΒΕ, MAN
‘sneUaTT pure τ|Π285}} PUT
ΒΘΟΤΙΘα9791. pus ‘suit
-eydidg pur uely[ny
-1dJ, UL sosessed oder]
‘ow ‘sniuvydidg ‘sn4
-Ajoddrpy UL sanesseg
‘SNIQasny ULS}USTLOVI 1
‘suviddt
“Td 911 09 epsidy uy
“*9UINU.S
sdvyred ‘s10qyeTT WAAEG
cproydoys 91,»
peyjeo Atose_[Ty uy
"1151 Ὁ oummuas ouCG
‘opsidq, uy
ΚΟΥ ZPL-Cel Ὁ
‘a'V GBT ‘2
'αΑὟ 061 ὉῸ2 Ὁ
“av
991 10 401 ΟΡΙ 9
᾿ΑὟΟΊ GTT 10 LOT Ὃ
“Y SPT Ὃ
‘av QOOT-06 Ὃ
‘a'V OGT 10 611 Ὃ
“MOLOIV]T
‘soprpseg,
‘seideg
‘daeoAJog
‘snIyeusy
“SBULIO FY
‘SMUVNAY GNV
‘INVLXY SHHOM
ΥΩ
“ΠΙΘΙΠΌΤΟΩ
*‘Svq BUIe
ἍΠΑΤΈ ΛΑ.
|
es a 8 EE EEE eS ee
‘yay, ay) 07 saunbyf nqnup 91} “ UONONpOLgUT 91} 07 Laft SPOLOUNU UNULO [DUS YT rie
ὝΠΝΟΣ 10 ANI, IHL OL SASSUNLIAA INVLXOdWNI LSOW 10 XMGNJT 'TVOIDOTONOUH() GNV 'TVOILATVNY
\
ANALYTICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX.
CXV111
‘866 ‘IST ‘TET
“2a LL
| *(ayou) BL “ὅδ
‘61S ‘OST “62 “ΔἸ
͵ Lee LG
Ὁ. ‘9GL ‘EET
FIL ‘6g ‘tIXx[-1]
‘PEP-SEP ‘FST TIX]
‘901 ‘TAX
‘PGV-CCP
CCP -6IP
*(aj0u)
Cp ‘“GIF-eIP ‘ATT
πο να
0f) ὅ
puv [ “Teg “uoy ‘agor “1071
‘sopstdq [e104
“seq JO asuas puv asensury 04
suoisnyye apqeqoad faynry “077
‘OD 1 “moy
‘yey Apqissod ‘uyor ssoap
-py ut ‘sjadsox 100} ayy 10
Auourepy 8 Atqeqoad ‘uoressozel(]
(‘snye‘uvoug) ‘qoy “5591, Z
“Tog “LOD T “Moy YyLA Vou
-puodsai109 yeyueprout ‘asdAT
-voody pue 9819 βοὴ anof ayy,
: (‘stoIsnq{[e 7180
-tuouvouy)) ‘sjedsoxy 100} ayy,
(‘SSUTZIIM [BOTOURD
-un jo 98} queirddy) ‘wry,
pue “ΓΔ 03 saystdq jo pure
‘ayW]T pue 2871 Jo asn apquqorg
109 “πάρῃ “180
“109 “ΤΟ “π0}" ‘yreyy “1511
ἽΠΙΟΡ
uo Ααθητθτατοο {τι “WITT, Z
“109 1 ΠΟΤ ‘uyor ‘ayn “2071
‘uyor 1 pue “Α9ΉΗ
“yudq 0 1 “woy ‘uyor
ὍΣΠΠ “2071 0} Βθοτιθα9}91 reayo
—uoury 9491 ἀπποὺ ayy ATqeq
-o1d—unjquawnysut μη...
“WorjoerInsey 91 WO
qovry, pure ‘Asojody uy
"SIqasng Ul syuOTUdSeL 1
‘SyOOLY 911}
0} ssoippy pure “ὍΝ
‘sniqasng, UI SsuOTSH{TW
"MOP Ὁ
‘oyd Ary, YYIA onsoT
Ὁ pur ‘sersofod y om J,
‘QOUBULOY [BULIIOOCT
Ὧ0 [eolsVIsepoy uy
"ΑἼΠΙΠΟῊ 8 ATCO
‘snydjoddryy pue
SNwudI[ Ul saoesseg
‘av DLT Ὁ
‘TV LET Ὁ
‘av OLT ‘9
‘SPL ‘a'v Ῥ910
v= ΟΡ ΘΠ Ὁ
'ΑὟ 091 Ὃ
‘GV ΞΠΟΡΙΓΟΟΙ Ὃ
ὍΘΙ
"᾿ΑἿΥ τι00}} 1948110Ν
ὍΘΙ
‘a'V UB} 1918}20Ν
‘GV O9T-OFT Ὃ
‘sv10seuayy Vy
‘snddisasa yy
“ΠΌΤ,
“Ape UTIsNE
‘omoytdy ‘su0Ty
-1usooayy = ‘STL
-MOFT eUTPUIUIETD
‘apystdy
puossg syuewely)
*SN@eUld[0} 4
“WoEaTOeIOT]
‘SnUTJUOTR A.
‘dasa SHOOG INANVISH], MIN
‘SHUVWAY ANV
‘INVLXY SHYOM
‘ALY
"MALIA MA
ΟΧΙΧ
ANALYTICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX.
“LLG “FL
“TIX XX] -IXXX[
ey)
‘X10! “TIAXXx]
‘(ajou) ρος
‘Bre: ΧΙΧΧΙ
%
GT
‘(ayou)
Ὁ, ‘ect 28: ‘eZ
| ‘pauleu jou ἹΠ9711 pure ‘pastu
-ϑοῦθα JOU 918 Yop ‘uyor Ὁ
pue ‘tajag 5. ‘somep ydaoxa “ΠΥ
‘paspayMouyoe you
‘qey ‘pauru you uowarlryg
‘asdAjwoody ‘uyor g pur
I (19294 1 ‘[ueg jo 9911514 Ὁ
9λ179λ11 “10. “Β]9 500) 1Π0Ὸ} oy,
‘Neg IS YIM souvzurenbor jo
ΒΘΟΘΑΊ a[qissod ‘spadsoxy 1Π0} ayy,
‘asd Ayeoody pur ‘uyor 1 19194
Τ 9518 ‘neg 49 10 saystdgq ayy
10 ysour pur ‘syoy ‘uyor ‘aynT
YIM uotsserdxa Jo ssousproutog
‘(dajag 10 ‘oody) ‘qazy 04 191
UIR}I00 OU pu ‘potoT}teUr you
lejag puv souree jo'ddy ‘asd. {]
-eoody ‘apne ‘uyor jo ‘ddg
‘saryy sdeyrod ‘omy ‘fneg 10
sapstdy τιθ92.1η1 “510 ‘spadsox
IMO} oy} souatezur Aq puv ATaIT
‘souree ATqeqoad
pue “ayog 5 “qoayH ydeoxe ΠΡ
ἽΠΙΟΡ g pur Z (19194
6 ‘apne ‘asdAyeoody ydaoxa ΠΥ
9194 1 pur “qozy osye ‘snqry,
“uty Too dryrgg “ydg “109
6 pueyT “moy ‘uyor ΘΠ “1877
‘apvd
“dusn SHOOq ΝΎ ΒΗ, MAN
"SOSTIVALT, [BIBAAG
"gals
ald 251ΠῈ98 astjeary,
‘uasug Aq passnd
-sIp se ΑἸ ΙΒΙΞΙα ΠΩ
JSuIVse astywaty, [Ro
-ruajod 8 jo suoT}I0g
‘sniqasua Aq
peadesoid “1151 uy
‘AV 616-681 Ὁ
‘dV G0Z-0VT 9
“CV 9521 Ὃ
‘av 11 ἢ
'ΑὙ OLT 10 Ο91 Ὃ
“eLIpUr
-XOTV JO yuowa[g
*sNeUar]
‘suspag
"suOATT 2 OUT A
jo sayoanyg 91
HOURS) UPTIOPINT
"αν “UOISIA Δ
-uad puodsss 91, ὉΠΠΌΤ ῬῚῸ ML
| "Δαν — uoTsda A (115
: | -ua0 puooes oy], | -ag) ovmdg oy,
|
‘snof[OINW
OJ passorppe 9510 9.7, ‘a'V 61-081 Ὁ ‘snqiydoary,,
‘SHUVNaY GNV ” | “ALY | ‘UAETT A
‘INVLXG SHHOM
ANALYTICAL AND. CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX.
"pge-z9e@ ‘dd “Ammyuag puoseg ayy ut sjadsox oyy,,
‘Kepueg aq, Aq waars xapuy [nyosn 971 10 uoryeydepe pue uorswo}xo Ue 81 XOpUT oAoq? 911, ἜΝ
66 ‘IZ
‘(ojou) GZ “GZ
ro
*(ajou) 96 “1
‘(a}0U) 61
(aout) ΕἸ
*(ajou)
Or log. “28° 91
‘(ajou) 98 ‘cre “98
|
“MOUBD ῬΘΛΙΘΟΘῊ 911
ὍΘΗ fo dryszoyyne
Suyqnop ‘aoury peateooy 911
‘myor g pue Z (9194
z ‘opne sou ‘asdAjeoody 910}
saqto LoAOU oy 181 ydeoxo ‘|TV
‘sano ΑἼ70Ό ΧΟ TOUR) VW
‘asd Aywood y 911 9λ885 “ΠΥ͂
"sy00q TvorMouRD INO ΤΥ
‘ssurytam peydsévody
Aueur pue ‘Ayyueredde ‘asd Teo
-ody ‘snotinds {uyor g pur 6
‘rajog 5 ‘opug ‘soure ¢ ‘poyndsrp
ς (ϑἀθ 194) osdAqeroody ‘10j0q
I ὍΠΟΡῚ πῦα jo ‘ddg ‘sjoy
‘sradsoxy 10} ‘paspo,Mouyoy
‘SOSSUID 9911} UT SYOOG UVIYSIAT)
‘uyor ayysody 911 τι8 1
qeyjoue 04 οϑάκχθοοῖν 911
Suiqtxose ynq “ποτιθ) s[oyAr 91,
‘[OFIQnop 918 uyOL 8
pur 5 pur “iojog 6 ‘ epue pue
‘soup ‘asddyeoodwy ‘uyor T
‘rayog [ “qaH ‘neg jo 591151
τι99411|} ‘syoV 981 “Β]9 500) ἀπὸ
ἜὍΠΟΡ g pur
Ζ (9194 5 ‘sowmve ydeoxe TV
‘goslJVaL], SHOLIVA
pue ΘΙ τιθτπῖπος
ἜΣαΟΛι 191|10 ΑἸιθῖπ
‘
pue SOLIVJWIUIULOL)
*stIOUL
-IdG PUL SOTIEJUSTUULO/)
‘goIsoIoy WO Sostqvad J,
"SYIOM SNOTIZ A
*‘syIOM Id
-{voIS puv 5194197| [e189]
‘syIOM IOUIUI pur
‘KIOISTFT [BOSVISOTOOGT
‘snIqosng UL SUOTsNT[e
puv (eso “ἃ 1π ‘Toa
“avg Ἰ9Ὲ s yoy)
(519479Γ1 JO 5}{ι0τΓ 87
‘SOLIRJTOUIULOD pur
SOSTJVOL], Θ91Ό] [RLOABG
‘sostqvary, aie, AUR
‘a'V OGP-6GE Ὃ
‘AV O€P-FGE Ὃ
“αὖ LOP pad
“ΑὟ €OP-L9E Ὃ
᾿“ΑὟ 9088. 916
᾿ΑὟ GLE-6E Ὃ
“αὟῪ OFE-OLG ὃ
ς
'ἋΑὙ 867 781 Ὃ
ΠΥ
e
OFZ 10 OGE-O9T Ὃ
——-3-
“auLOLA fr
“oUTISHONY
‘m0ysos kay)
‘sntuey did
ΠΟ] ΈΒΠ9 ¢ JO [LAD
‘snIsvuRy}y
‘snIqasngy
"eTIpUe
-XoTV 70 snisAuo1rcy
"UdSUIGO
*URITINIAA, J,
18 “69 19
‘6 6g ‘AXXX[-TITXX|
‘(a30u)
oF 816 ‘GL ‘oF
ΠΌΛΕΙ
‘aqaso SHOOG ΝΒ ΠῚ 1, MAN
‘SHUVNAY ANY
‘INVEXY SHUOM
“TLV
"AIL AA
ΘΟΘἈΑΝΟΝΙΟΘΙΤΥ.
1.
OLDEST TESTIMONIES TO A COLLECTION
OF
SACRED CHRISTIAN BOOKS.
1. Tue Syriac Verston (Pesurto).
THe Peshito (or ‘simple’) version of the Scripture seems to
have been from a very early age in common use throughout the
regions where Syriac was spoken. Notices in the New Testa-
ment show that Antioch was at the first one of the most im-
portant centres of Christian influence; and that the organising
power of the faith in Jesus so bound together the community
of believers in that city as to lead to their receiving the dis-
tinctive name of Christians (Acts xi. 19.26). The early legend
of Abgar, Toparch of Edessa, writing to Jesus Christ and receiving
an answer with the promise of an Apostle’s visit (Eus. H. KE. I.
13), shows how soon the Gospel was understood to have taken
root in those regions. It is now generally believed that at least
from the second century until the present day there has been
used by Syriac-speaking Christians that version of the N. T.
which is known as the Peshito. Scattered and hostile Churches
have the same book: MSS of all ages contain it in substantially
1
A OLDEST TESTIMONIES TO A COLLECTION.
the same form. Its list of Books is the same as our present
Canon, save that it wants the Apocalypse, Jude, 2 Peter, and
2&3 John. This may be regarded as the Testimony of the
Syrian Church in the second century.
2. Tue Oto Latim Version
is also of very remote antiquity. It was the Bible of the large
and vigorous African Church. It appears in the writings of the
Translator of Irenaeus. It had been so long current before
Tertullian’s time that its phrases moulded popular speech and
Christian thought in his day. The translation of λόγος in John’s
Gospel by Sermo was a proof of its rude simplicity which rather
distressed him. Its Canon did not originally contain Hebrews
(though it had been enriched by it before Tertullian’s time);
2 Peter was also wanting; and the testimony of the greater
part of the MSS is to the effect that James was not in it.?
This therefore is the testimony of the African Church of the
second century. While the Roman Church was using Greek,
the African shores of the Mediterranean were inhabited by a
Latin-speaking Christian people whose Canon was (save as re-
gards Hebrews, 2 Peter, and probably James) the same as our
own.
1 See Scrivener, Int. to Crit. of N. T. p. 273. Even those who claim for the
Curetonian Syriae an earlier date than they accord to the Peshito, admit that a
Syriac version did exist in the second century. Melito quotes an O.T. as ὁ
Σύρος (see Mill, Proleg. CXXVII.), and Euseb. H. Εἰ. IV. 22 says that Hegesippus
ἔχ te τοῦ xad “EBoutoug εὐαγγελίου καὶ tod Συριαχοῦ, χαὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς
“Efpatdoc διαλέκτου τινὰ τίϑησιν.
2 Tischendorf names 2 Codd. containing James.
MURATORIAN CANON.
»
ὃ. Murarorran Canon.
(Text according to Tregelles.*)
quibus tamen Interfuit et ita posuit.
u
TERTIO EUANGELII LIBRUM SECaNDO LUCAN
8 ὩΣ τ
Lucas Iste medicus post acensum XPI.
Cum eo Paulus quasi ut iuris studiosum.
Secundum adsumsisset numeni suo
b
ex opinione concriset dim tamen nec Ipse
ut
duidit in carne et idé pro asequi potuit.
Ita et ad natiuitate Iohannis incipet dicere.
QUARTI EUANGELIORUM IOHANNIS EX DECIPOLIS
cohortantibus condescipulis et eps suis
dixit conieiunate mihi: odie triduo et quid
cuique fuerit reuelatum alterutrum
nobis ennarremus eadem nocte reue
latum andreae ex apostolis ut recognis
centibus cuntis Johannis suo nomine
Cc e
cunta discribret et ideo licit uaria sin
culis euangeliorum libris principia
doceantur Nihil tamen differt creden
i
tium fedei cum uno ac principali spt de
clarata sint in omnibus omnia de natiui
tate de passione de resurrectione
r
de conuesatione cum decipulis suis
ac de gemino eius aduentu
Primo In humilitate dispectus quod fo
tw secundum potetate regali pre
clarum quod foturum est. quid ergo
mirum si Johannes tam constanter
sincula etia In epistulis suis proferat
1 See Introduction for an account of the Manuscript.
1 *
OLDEST TESTIMONIES TO A COLLECTION.
dicens In semeipsu Quae uidimus oculis
nostris et auribus audiuimus et manus
nostrae palpauerunt haec scripsimus
& uobis
Sic enim non solum uisurem sed auditorem
sed et scriptoré omnium mirabilit dni per ordi
nem profetetur Acta auté omniti apostolorum
sub uno libro scribta sunt Lucas obtime theofi
le comprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula
gerebantur sicute et semote passioné Petri
&
euidenter declarat Sed profectioné pauli ad (b) ur
bes ad spania proficescentis Epistulae autem
Pauli quae a quo loco uel qua ex causa directe
sint uolentatibus intellegere Ipse declarant?
Primi omnium corintheis scysmae heresis In
terdicens deInceps B callatis circumcisione
Romanis auté ornidine scripturarum sed ef
principium earum osd esse XPM Intimans
prolexius scripsit de quibus sincolis Neces
se est ad nobis desputari Cum ipse beatus
apostolus paulus sequens prodecessoris sui
n
Iohannis ordiné nonnisi comenati. semptaé
ii
eccleses scribat ordine tali a corenthios
prima. ad efesios seconda ad philippinses ter
tia ad colosensis quarta ad calatas quin
ta ad tensaolenecinsis sexta. ad romanos
h
septima Uerum core(i)ntheis et tesaolecen
sibus licet pro correbtione Iteretur una
tamen per omnem orbem terrae ecclesia
deffusa esse denoscitur Et Iohannis eni In a
pocalebsy licet septé eccleseis scribat
tamen omnibus dicit uerti ad filemonem una’
et at titti una et ad tymotheti duas pro affec
to et dilectione In honore tamen eclesiae ca
tholice In ordinatione eclesiastice
de(i)scepline scificate sunt Fertur etiam ad
σι
MURATORIAN CANON.
Laudecenses alia ad alexandrinos Pauli no
r
mine fincte ad hesem marcionis et alia plu
ra quae In chatholicam eclesiam recepi non
potest. Fel enim cum melle misceri non con
cruit epistola sane Iude et superscrictio
IJohannis duas In catholica habentur Et sapi
entia ab amicis salomonis in honoré ipsius
Scripta apocalapse etiam Iohanis et Pe
tri tantum recipe(ijmus quam quidam ex nos
tris legi In eclesia nolunt Pastorem uero
nuperrim e¢ temporibus nostris In urbe
roma herma conscripsit sedente cathe
r
tra urbis romae aeclesiae Pio eps frater
eius et ideo legi eum quidé Oportet se pu
plicare uero In eclesia populo Neque inter
profe tas conpletum numero Neque Inter
apostolos In finé temporum potest.
i
Arsinoi autem seu ualentini . uel mitiadezs
nihil In totum recipemus. Qui etiam nouti ‘
psalmorum librum marcioni conscripse
runt una cum basilide assianum catafry
s
cum contitutorem
(Text as probably to be read.)
........ #quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit. Tertium
Evangelii librum secundum Lucam. Lucas Aste medicus. post
ascensum ,Christi cum eum Paulus quasi εἰ ‘juris studiosum
3secundum adsumsisset nomine suo ex ‘opinione conscripsit —
Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne — et idem prout as-
sequi potuit: ita et a nativitate Joannis incepit dicere. *Quarti
1 This probably refers (as Eus. H. E. II. 39) to Mark’s Gospel.
2 juris studiosum: an obscure, probably corrupt reading. Hilgenfeld says the
original was δευτεραγωνιστής.
3 Secundum. Routh reads secum. Volkmar suggests that secundum is =
Nachfolger, helper.
4 Hx opinion. χαδὼς ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ, Luke i. 3. Some read ex ordine, for
χαϑεξῆς.
5 Quarti: supply auctor.
0 OLDEST TESTIMONIES TO A COLLECTION.
Evangeliorum ‘Joannes ex discipulis. Cohortantibus condisci-
pulis et episcopis suis dixit: Conjejunate mihi hodie triduum,
et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus.
Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis, ut recognoscen-
tibus cunctis, Joannes suo nomine cuncta describeret. 7Et ideo
licet varia singulis Evangeliorum libris principia doceantur nihil
tamen differt credentium fidei, cum uno ac principali spiritu de-
clarata sint in omnibus omnia de nativitate, de passione, de re-
surrectione, de conversatione cum discipulis suis, et de gemino
ejus adventu. %Primum in humilitate despectus, quod fuit se-
cundum potestate regali praeclarum, quod futurum est. Quid
ergo Mirum, si Joannes tam constanter_singula etiam in Epi-
stolis suis proferat dicens in °semetipso: Quae vidimus oculis
nostris, et auribus audwimus, et manus nostrae palpaverunt,
haec scripsimus vobis?/ Sic enim non solum visorem, sed et audi-
torem, sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium Domini per ordinem
profitetur. Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta
sunt. Lucas !°“optime Theophile~ comprehendit, 11quia sub
praesentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicut et 12semote ‘passionem
Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad
Spaniam proficiscentis. Epistolae autem Pauli, quae, a quo loco,
vel qua ex causa directae sint, volentibus intelligere ipsae de-
clarant. Primum omnium Corinthiis schisma haeresis interdicens,
deinceps 1%Galatis circumcisionem, Romanis autem ordine Scrip-
δ Joannes ex discipulis: to distinguish him from the Baptist before named.
Jerome gives a similar account.
7 ΜῈ ideo licet. This seems to refer to some remarks prefixed to the whole,
which are lost.
8 Primum — secundum. So Westcott. Routh and Volkmar retain Primo et
secundo. Wieseler reads quod futurus est in the following.
2 Semetipsum (Westcott). Comp. 1 Johni. 15 It may intimate a contrast be-
tween John’s personal testimony in his Epistle, and the conjoined testimony
which the Gospel is here said to be. Comp. John xxi. 24 but also xix. 35. The
quotation in the text is from 1 John i. 1, 3, not verbally.
10 “ontime Theophile” == a quotation, Luke i. 8, χράτιστε Θεόφιλε. Others
read optimo Theophilo: others optime Theophilo.
11 guia: some read quae for quia. sf
12 semote ἄς. Evidently corrupt. e martyrdom of Peter in Rome is ap-
parently implied here. Credner keeps Jdeclarat as the verb after semota by a
Graecism. Hilg. reads ‘‘stcut et semgéa passione Petri evidenter declarat sed et
profectione Pauli,” &e. Westcott suggests semota . . declarant: Routh remota : .
declarant.
13 Galatis. The MS has ‘“ Delnceps B. callactis.’ B marks Galatians as
second in order of the epee
MURATORIAN CANON. i
turarum, sed et principium earum esse Christum intimans, pro-
lixius scripsit; de quibus singulis 14necesse est a nobis dispu-
tari; cum ipse beatus Apostolus Paulus sequens prodecessoris
sui Joannis ordinem, nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat
ordine tali: Ad Corinthios prima, ad Ephesios secunda, ad Phi-
lippenses tertia, ad Colossenses quarta, ad Galatas quinta, ad
Thessalonicenses sexta, ad Romanos septima. Verum Corinthiis,
et Thessalonitensibus licet pro correptione iteretur, una tamen
per omnem orbem terrae ecclesia diffusa esse denoscitur., Et
Joannes enim in Apocalypsi licet septem ecclesiis scribat, tamen
omnibus dicit. Verum ad Philemonem unam, et ad Titum unam,
et ad Timotheum !°duas pro affectu et dilectione; in honore
tamen ecclesiae 1*catholicae, in ordinatione ecclesiasticae discipli-
nae sanctificatae sunt. Fertur etiam ad 1!7Laodicenses, alia ad
17Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine fictae ad haeresem 17 Marcionis,
et alia plura, quae in catholicam ecclesiam recipi non *®potest;
fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit. Epistola sane Judae,
et superscripti 1°Joannis 15duas in catholica habentur; et 2°Sa-
pientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta. Apoca-
lypses etiam Joannis, et Petri, tantum recipimus, quam quidam
ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt. Pastorem vero ?4nuperrime
14 necesse. Probably alluding to the bearing of the three Epp. on the cont
troversies of the writer’s day.
15 duas. In both instances of its occurrence duas is probably a singular noun
= ὦ parr.
16 Catholicae. Tregelles points to Acts ix. 31 as the origin of this phrase.
17 Laodicenses See fragments of an Epistle (Latin) to the Laodicenses (not
Alexandrinos | however so old as this) in Westcott, Canon, App. E. The
reference here is perhaps to Ephesians as in Marcion’s Canon. It is conjectured
that the Ep. to the Alexandrians here mentioned is the canonical ‘‘ Hebrews,” but
this again rests on a conjecture that the Hebrews addressed in that Epistle were
Alexandrians. Ad haeresem = Goes αἵρεσιν, bearing wpon the heresy: or supply
refutandam. ; ἣ
18 potest. Apparently a Graecism as a rendering of ἔξεστιν: or δυνατόν
ἐστιν. ;
19 Joannis. It is doubtful whether all the three of John are here alluded
to, the second being regarded as part of the first; or whether he regards himself
as having quoted the first already.
20 et Sapientia. Some read μὲς σαν in that case the allusion or comparison
is obscure. It is better to suppose t here is a gap in the original MS. ‘‘ Wis-
dom” was a name given to ‘‘Proverbs’’“as well as to the apocryphal book ‘ Wis-
dom of Solomon.” (See Treg.)
21 nuperrime, ἕο. Upon this passage the conclusions as to the date of the
fragment are based. Origen supposes that the ‘‘Shepherd” may be written by the
contemporary of Paul: but the statem in ym is explicit.
ὃ OLDEST TESTIMONIES TO A COLLECTION.
temporibus nostris in Urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente
cathedra Urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio Episcopo fratre ejus; et
ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare vero in ecclesia po-
pulo, neque inter Prophetas, completum numero, neque inter
Apostolos, in finem temporum potest. ?2Arsinoi autem, seu Va-
lentini, vel Mitiadis nihil in totum recipimus. Qui etiam novum
Psalmorum librum Marcioni conscripserunt una cum Basilide
Assianum Catafrygum constitutorem .... |
/
7
4. Tue Canon or OriGEN.
(Euseb. H. E. VI. 25.)
After giving Origen’s Catalogue of the ‘22 Books in use among the Hebrews,”
Eusebius says that Origen proceeds:
Ἔν δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν εἰς τὸ χατὰ Mardcior, τὸν ἐχχλησιαστι-
χὸν φυλάττων χανόνα, μόνα τέσσαρα εἰδέναι ἐυαγγέλεα μαρτύρεται,
ὧδέ πως γράφων"
Ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαϑὼν! περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων, ἃ καὶ
μόνα ἀναντίῤῥὙητά ἐστιν ἐν τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ὅτι
πρῶτον μὲν γέγραπται τὸ κατὰ τόν ποτε τελώνην, ὕστερον δὲ ἀπόστολον
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ματϑαῖον, ἐκδεδωκότα αὐτὸ τοῖς ἀπὸ ἸΙουδαϊσμοῦ πι-
στεύσασι, γράμμασιν Ἑβραϊκοῖς συντεταγμένον" δεύτερον δὲ τὸ κατὰ Mcg-
κον, ὡς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο ἀυτῷ, ποιήσαντα, ὃν καὶ υἱὸν ἐν τῇ καϑο-
λικῇ ἐπιστολῇ διὰ τούτων ὡμολόγησε φάσκων: ᾿Δσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν
Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ, καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἷός μου. καὶ τρίτον τὸ κατὰ Aov-
κᾶν, τὸ ὑπὸ Παύλου ἐπαινούμενον εὐαγγέλιον, τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐϑνῶν πε-
ποιηκότα" ἐπὶ πᾶσι τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην.
Καὶ ἐν τῷ πέιιπτω δὲ τῶν sic τὸ nacre Ἰωάννην: ἐξηγητιχκῶν
ὑπ p πέμτιτῳ ς τὸ xan yu? ἐξηγητικῶν,
Ν ~ A ~ > ~ ~ / ,
ὁ αὐτὸς ταῦτα περὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν τῶν ἀποστόλων φησίν"
ὋὉ δὲ ἱκανωϑεὶς διάκονος γενέσϑαι τῆς καινῆς διαϑήκης, οὐ γράμ-
ματος, ἀλλὰ πνεύματος, Παῦλος: 6 πεπληρωκὼς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἀπὸ
22 The conclusion is hopelessly unintelligible.
1 ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαϑὼν seem to be the words of Origen. The meaning
ascribed by Euseb. to παράδοσις may be seen H. E. III. 25. See the following
extract.
2 From Origen in Joann. v..3.
\
THE CANON OF ORIGEN. 9
¢ ‘ ΄ -Ἕ 23 ~ -
Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ κύκλω μέχρι τοῦ ᾿Ιλλυρικοῦ, οὐδὲ πάσαις ἔγραψεν αἷς
| 2 :
ἐδίδαξεν ἐκκλησίαις, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἷς ἔγραψεν, ὀλίγους στίχους ἐπέστειλε.
, \ CR) ee Or ~ τ 2 , S ͵ “ 2
Πέτρος δὲ, ἐφ᾽ ὦ οἰκοδομεῖται ἡ Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησία, ἧς πύλαι ἄδυυ οὐ
Ll , 2 ‘ σ ΄ , ” ~~! "
κατισχύσουσι, μίαν ἐπιστολὴν ομολογουμένην καταλέλοιπεν. Eotw δὲ καὶ
δευτέραν: ἀμφιβαάλλεται γάρ. Τί δεῖ περὶ τοῦ ἀναπεσόντος ἐπὶ τὸ
στῆϑος λέγειν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, Ιωάννου, ὃς εὐαγγέλιον ἕν καταλέλοιπεν,
σ ~ ΄ ~ ~ [4] 2." e / ~ ? ,
ὁμολογῶν δύνασϑαι τοσαῦτα ποιεῖν ἃ οὐδὲ ὁ κόσμος χωρῆσαι ἐδύνατο;
᾿ ~
Eyoawe δὲ nat τὴν “Anoxedvpiv, κελευσϑεὶς σιωπῆσαι καὶ μὴ γράψαι
‘ ~ ~ ΄
τὰς τῶν ἑπτὰ βροντῶν φωνάς. Καταλέλοιπε δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὴν πάνυ ὀλί-
, ” A ‘ La A , 2 \ > ΄ 4
γῶν στίχων. “Eotw δὲ καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην: ἐπεὶ ov πάντες φασὶ
> , ? ΄
γνησίους εἶναι ταύτας" πλὴν οὐκ εἰσὶ στίχων ἀμφότεραι Exatov.
Ἔ ΝΙΝ Ἴτυν py \ ~ ᾿ \ ‘E38 Deas κα ae An > a
TL πρὸς τούτοις σπιξρὶ τῆς πρὸς EPoaiovg ἐπιστολῆς ἕν ταῖς
’ ste 8 ς , - UY
δις αὑτὴν Ομιλίαις ταῦτα διαλαμβάνει"
“Ὅτι ὃ χαραχτὴρ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πρὸς “Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς, οὐκ ἔχει
τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ ἀποστόλου, ὁμολογήσαντος ἑαυτὸν ἰδιώτην
εἶναι τῷ λόγῳ, τουτέστι τῇ φράσει, ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ συνϑέσει τῆς
λέξεως λληνικωτέρα, πᾶς 0 ἐπιστάμενος κρίνειν φράσεως διαφορὰς,
δ ΄ ” ᾽ 7 ὧδ \ , ~ > ~ ΄ ΄
ομολογήῆσαι ἂν. [ἰαἀλιν τὲ αὖ ote τὰ νοήματα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ϑαυμασια
ἐστι, χαὶ οὐ δεύτερα τῶν ἀποστολικῶν γραμμάτων, καὶ τοῦτο ἂν συμ-
φήσαι εἶναι ἀληϑὲς, πᾶς 6 προσέχων τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῇ ἀποστολικῇ.
Τούτοις wed ἕτερα ἐπιφέρει λέγων"
? ‘ Awe ΄ ” >” ° \ ‘ ’ ee)
Ἐγὼ δὲ ἀποφαινόμενος εἴποιμ᾽ av, ὅτι τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ ἀπο-
e ’ , , «
στύλου ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἡ σύνϑεσις ἀπομνημονεύσαντος τινος ὃ
\ > , τος Α ~ ΄ cat Tip) Pine ΜᾺ 4 ‘
τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου i τις οὖν ἐκκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν
? λ ‘ Iie AiR yh (wd Mh) , b 2 A f O > \ > ~
ἐπιστολὴν ὡς Παύλου, αὕτη εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτω. Ov yao εἰκῆ
- yy , ur ,
οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασι. Τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας
5 ¢ Cc ar ΄
τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, τὸ μὲν ἀληϑὲς ϑεὸς οἶδεν. Ἡ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φϑάσασα ἵστο-
, ¢ ΄ \ ΄ Ὡ“ ΄ c ΄ oe ¢
gia, υπὸ τινων μὲν λεγόντων, ote Κλήμης ὁ yevouevog ἐπίσκοπος Po-
, ἔν Ἷ ΄, - ¢ , ‘
μαίων ἔγραψε τὴν ἐπιστολήν, ὑπό τινων δὲ, ὅτι “ουκᾶς ὁ γράψας τὸ
?
Εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὸς Πράξεις.
2 - {τ
Alia ταῦτα μὲν woe ἐχέτω."
᾿ 3 After τίνος the ordinary text has τὰ ἀποστολιχὰ, χαὶ ὡσπερεὶ σχολιογρα-
φήσαντος τὰ εἰρημένα x.T.d.
4 The testimony of Origen in those passages is to the following books of
the N. T.: The four Gospels (with notes as to the apostolic sanction to Mark
and Luke), the Pauline Epp. (not named in detail), the Apocalypse, 1 John,
1 Peter, and (as not accepted by all) 2 & 3 John, and 2 Peter. He refers also to
10 OLDEST TESTIMONIES TO A COLLECTION.
5. Canon or Evsestus.
(Euseb. H. E. Ill. 25.)
~ Cc ~ ~
Περὶ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων ϑείων γραφῶν χαὶ τῶν μὴ
τοιούτων.
/ ? ~ 3)
Ethoyov δ᾽ ἐνταῦϑα γενομένους ἀναχειαλαιώσασϑαι tag δη-
᾿ς ͵
λωϑείσας τῆς χαινῆς διαϑήκης γραφάς. Kat δὴ ταχτέον ἐν πρώ-
τ ~ ,
τοις τὴν ἁγίαν τῶν εὐαγγελίων τετραχτὺν, οἷς ἕπεται ἡ τῶν Πρά-
- ~ 3 ; y
ξεων τῶν Anoorolwy γραφή. Mera δὲ ταύτην τὰς Παύλου κατα-
Η z aus >
λεχτέον ἐπιστολὰς, αἷς ἑξῆς τὴν φερομένην ᾿Ιωάννου προτέραν, καὶ
ὁμοίως τὴν Πέλτρου χυρωτέον ἐπιστολήν. Ἐπὶ τούτοις ταχτέον,
” , eae) , 2 , eS Ν - Ν
( ποχάλιυ υάννου, σιξρὶ΄ ἕ
διγ8 (φανείη, τὴν «Αποχάλυψιν Iwavvov, περὶ ig τὰ δόξαντα χατὰ
Acts. The Epp. of James and Jude are referred to elsewhere. (See under ‘James’
and ‘Jude’.) His discussion of the authorship of ‘“‘Hebrews’”’ is noteworthy.
1 The views of Eusebius on the Canon as a whole are in this passage. His
opinions on the Gospels (H. E. III. 24) and on the Epistles (H. E. III. 3) are
given elsewhere. Here he seems to make two catalogues; the first dividing
Books into three classes: ὁμολογούμενα, ἀντιλεγόμενα, yoda; the second (or ex-
planatory list) adding a lower class, the deliberate forgeries published by here-
ties, and scarcely giving a place to νόθα. To the first class belong the 4 Gospels:
the Acts: the Epp. of Paul: 1 John, 1 Peter: and (if it seem good) the Apocalypse.
To the second belong James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John. In the third the only book
of our Canon is the Apocal. ‘if it seem good” so to rank it. In H. E. IIL 3
(quoted afterwards) he reckons 1 Peter: 14 of Paul (though the Roman Church
counts Hebrews not Pauline). Of the chief non-canonical books we shall treat
afterwards. The cyod. or accepted books are called in the second list adn ets,
ἄπλαστοι, ἀνωμολογημέναι γραφοὶ : the ἀντιλεγ. are defined as οὐχ ἐνδιάϑηχοι,
ἀλλὰ χαὶ ἀντιλεγόμεναι, ὅμως δὲ παρὰ πλείστοις τῶν ἐχχλησιαστικῶν γιγνωσχόμε-
ναι; the third class, Voda, is apparently not repeated, unless it be obscurely
glanced at when he says αὐτάς te ταύτας, but instead of dwelling upon it he
now adds the heretical books. By νόϑα, however, he evidently means books that
had no right to be in the Canon whether they be, or be not, the works of the
men whose names they bear. The Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter he
probably regarded as spurious; the Shepherd of Hermas may have been really
the work of its reputed author; but all these are νόϑα, uncanonical writings. See
H.E. ΠΙ. 8. By some (see Credn. Gesch. § 89 and Hilg. Einl. p. 116) this Cata-
logue is taken as containing two classes—the accepted and the disputed books—
the latter being subdivided according to the various grades of acceptation (or of
opposition) in the Church. By others (see Reuss Gesch. § 314) the classes are sup-
posed to be three—ouod., ἀντιλεγ. (νόϑα) and πρὸς τῶν αἷρετ. προφερ. Eusebius
probably did not rigidly define to himself the meaning of yoSa even in this pas-
sage: and elsewhere (H. E. II. 23) he says the Ep. of James νοϑεύεται, and ex-
plains that both James and Jude have few primitive testimonies in their fay-
our. In the same way he elsewhere calls Clem. Ep. I. to the Corr. ὅμολ., ie.,
undoubtedly Clement’s work; but gytth. as far as canonicity is concerned (H. E.
ΠῚ. 16, 38. VI. 13). ¢
CANON OF EUSEBIUS. 11
mt J ~ . ~
χαιρὸν ἐχϑησόμεϑα. Kei ταῦτα μὲν ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις. Τῶν δ᾽
> , , 2 ΒῚ c ~ ~ ς
ἀντιλεγομένων, γνωρίμων ὃ οὖν ὅμως τοῖς mohhoic, 1) λεγομένη
\ , ’ ‘
Ἰαχώβου φέρεται καὶ ἢ Iovda, ἢ te Πέτρου δευτέρα ἐπιστολὴ, χαὶ
G 2 - , 2 ~ ~
ἢ ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη Ιωάννου, εἴτε τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ
» ἊΝ, Ὁ “ 2 ~
τυγχάνουσαι, εἴτε χαὶ ἑτέρου ὁμωνύμου ἐχείνῳ.Σ Εν τοῖς νόϑοις
χατατετάχϑω γαὶ τῶν Παύλου πράξεων ἢ γραφὴ, ὃ τὲ λεγόμενος
1G ἄχϑω χαὶ τῶν υ πράξεων ἢ γραφὴ, ὃ τὲ λεγόμενος
WEG) , \ ,
Ποιμὴν, χαὶ 1 ἀποχάλυψις Πέτρου, xat 290g τούτοις ἢ φερομένη
U ~ γ « ν
Βαρνάβα ἐπιστολή, χαὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων αἱ λεγόμεναι διδαχαί" ἔτι
πῷ Ὁ »” , ae Lis "4 ener > Voc Τα 2 Γ Cee δ
γξ, ὡς ἔφην, ἢ Ιωάννου «Α΄ ποχάλυψις, εἰ φανείη, ἣν τινες, ὡς ἕζφην,
¢ ~ ce Nelo , - ς , “γχν WN
ἀϑετοῦσιν, ἕτεροι δὲ ἐγχρίνουσι τοῖς διιολογουμένοις. Ηδὴ δὲ ἐν
, Le \ es Qo? “pa , > , hu Gye , ξ το ,ὕ
τούτοις τινὲς χαὶ TO χαϑ' “Εβραίους εὐαγγέλιον ὃ χατέλεξαν, ᾧ μά-
ς ν - τ: Men Le
λιστα Ἑβραίων ot τὸν Χριστὸν παραδεξάμενοι χαίρουσι. Ταῦτα
val , ~ 3) ,ὔ ὌΝ ΒΩ 2 , Ἁ \ /
δὲ πάντα τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων ἂν εἴη. “αἸἰναγχαίως δὲ χαὶ τούτων
cr ,
ὅμως τὸν χατάλογον σιεποιήμεϑα, διαχρίναντες τάς τὲ χατὰ τὴν
ἊΝ ᾿- Σ Ξ \ , 2) € ~ . \ > , \ 2
ἐχχλησιαστιχὴν τεαράδοσιν ἀληϑεῖς χαὶ anhaotorg χαὶ ἀνωμολογη-
, \ \ \ » \ / 2 ’ q/ \
μένας γραφὰς, χαὶ τὰς ἄλλως παρὰ ταῦτας, οὐχ EvOLadTZOVE μεν,
? 2 y ~
ἀλλὰ nal ἀντιλεγομένας, ὅμως δὲ πιαρὰ σπιλείστοις τῶν ἐχχλησια-
~ ' y 2
στιχῶν γιγνωσχομένας, ἵν εἰδέναι. ἔχοιμεν αὐτάς τὲ ταύτας, χαὶ
> / ~ 2 ν ~ ~
τὰς ὀνόματι TOY ἀποστόλων πρὸς τῶν αἱρετικῶν σπροφερομένας,
a» «ς i; Ξ \ ~ Αἵ Ν IV re , ὟΝ Ἂ: \ ~ \ ,
ἤτοι ὡς Πέτρου, rat Θωμᾶ, χαὶ Mavdia, ἢ καὶ τινῶν maga τοῦ-
a” ) , ΄ ς > Vey? 5.9 , \
τοὺς ἄλλων εὐαγγέλια περιεχούσας, ὡς Avdgéov, καὶ Ιωαννου, χαὶ
- 2 «- Τὰ Io 2 ~
τῶν ἄλλων ἀποστόλων πράξεις, ὧν οὐδὲν οὐδαμιῶς ἐν συγγράμματι
~ ~ > 2
τῶν χατὰ τὰς διαδοχὰς ἐχχλησιαστιχῶν τις ἀνὴρ εἰς μνήμην ἀγα-
~ eos γς , a VAG ~ Y \ Sate \
γεῖν ἠξίωσεν. Πόῤῥω δέ που χαὶ 0 τῆς φράσεως παρὰ TO ἢϑος τὸ
' ~ 2 ~
ἀποστολιχὸν ἐναλλάττει χαραχτήρ᾽ ἣ TE γνώμη χαὶ ἢ τῶν ἐν αὑτοῖς
- - 3) ~ 3) t
φερομένων προαίρεσις, πλεῖστον ὅσον τῆς ἀληϑοῦς ορϑοδοξίας
Φ ca € ~ 2) ν»νἊν Ὗ ,
ἀπᾷδουσα, ὅτι δὴ αἱρετικῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀναπλάσματα τυγχάνει, σα-
- , Sire DIA) l¢ EN , 2 3... Ὁ
φῶς παρίστησιν" ὅϑεν οὐδ᾽ ἐν νόϑοις αὐτὰ καταταχτέον, ahh ὡς
a , \ ~ ,ὔ wv Ν ν ἌΣ \
ἄτοπα πάντη χαὶ δυσσεβῆ παραιτητέον. “Icey δὴ λοιττὸν χαὶ Erte
Cer C
τὴν ἑξῆς ἱστορίαν.
2 See Euseb. H. E. III. 39; and Introduction to this work for notice of ‘ Pres-
byter John.’
3 See ‘Gospel of Hebrews,’ z/ra.
12 OLDEST TESTIMONIES TO A COLLECTION.
6. Conex Varicanus (Cop. B).
Probably the oldest MS of the N. T. and certainly dating from
as early a time as the beginning of the fourth century. Its want
of the Ammonian sections and Eusebian Canons seems to point
to a date before Eusebius brought these into vogue;! and the
form of its letters and peculiar readings tend to the same result.
It is unfortunately defective from Heb. ix. 14. Its Books of the
N. T. (it has the O. T. complete save parts of Genesis and Psalms)
are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, Peter (2), John (3),
Jude, Romans, Corinthians (2), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, Thessalonians (2), Hebrews ....
7. Copex διναιτιοῦβ (Cop. δ),
discovered by Tischendorf in the convent of St Catharine on
Mount Sinai, and published in 1862, contains (in addition’ to
much of the O. T.) the New Testament as in our Canon in the
following order: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, Corinthians (2),
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians (2),
Hebrews, Timothy (2), Titus, Philemon, Acts, James, Peter (2),
John (3), Apocalypse.
Immediately after the Apocalypse, beginning on the same
page with its conclusion, is the Epistle of Barnabas complete,
followed by a considerable portion of the Shepherd of Hermas.
The paging of the original sheets shows that some leaves of the
MS which came between Barnabas and Hermas are lost. This
MS dates from about the middle of the fourth century. It has
been supposed that it may be one of the 50 copies prepared by
Eusebius at the order of the Emperor Constantine, but there are
objections to this view.
1 See Tischendorf’s reasoning against this conclusion, Cod. Vat. XXX. (1867).
CANON OF ATHANASIUS. 1
8. Canon or Arnanasivs. !
(Athan. Opp. Tom. Il. p. 38.)
Ex τῆς AH ἑορταστιχῆς ἐπιστολῆς. A.D. 365.
“AAW ἐπειδὴ περὶ μὲν τῶν αἹρετιχῶν ἐμνήσϑημεν, ὡς νεχρῶν,
σπιερὶ δὲ ἡμῶν ὡς ἐχόντων πρὸς σωτηρίαν τὰς ϑείας γραφάς" χαὶ
φοβοῦμαι μήπως, ὡς ἔγραψεν Κορινϑίοις Παῦλος, ὀλίγοι τῶν ἀχε-
ραίων ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος χαὶ τῆς ἁγνότητος πιλανηϑῶσιν ἀπὸ τῆς
1 The Alexandrian Church was the most learned in the world, especially
learned in Astronomy; and the Council of Nicaea imposed on its bishop as a duty
to determine for Christendom (as it had been his custom to determine for his
own diocese) the exact day for the celebration of each successive Easter. The
result of the reckoning was not only published to all the towns and monasteries
within the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria, but was also made known to
the Western Church through the Bishop of Rome, and to the Syrian Church through
the Bishop of Antioch. By fixing the date of Easter, this yearly Epistle fixed
the dates of all the Christian festivals of the year. From an early period the
letters had been of growing repute as Episcopal Pastorals; but the Nicene decree
made them officially binding. Athanasius was only a Deacon when that decree
was made, but he heard it given forth, and for more than 40 years (329-373)
amid all his occupations, even in his exile, he sent his “Festal Letter” to the
Christian world. A part of one of those letters is given in the text; and it may
be regarded as not only the opinion of Athanasius himself, but an official an-
nouncement of the common conclusions of Christendom on the subject of the
Canon. He refers to the number of heretical books which were current. He points
out that they were apt to deceive because they falsely claimed names kindred to
those of the true books. The true books are fountains of salvation. He enumerates
the books of the O. T. (Esther is omitted, and there are apocryphal additions to
Jeremiah), and his N. T. list is exactly that of our Canon, ‘‘to which no one may
add, and from which nothing may be taken away.” But there are other books,
of a lower grade, which neophytes may read with profit: the Wisdom of Solomon
(often quoted by Athanasius elsewhere), Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Teaching
of the Apostles, and Hermas. Far below them—and named only to be de-
nounced—are the apocryphal books made by heretics, false in title and in date,
constructed to deceive the unsuspicious. Many of the books reckoned in Athana-
sius’s second class were ordinarily read in churches at the time—read for in-
struction, or quoted by preachers and writers—yet not as Canonical Scripture. No
doubt, however, can be entertained that this practice led to confusion, which
Athanasius in his letter sought to reduce to order. It was not a task without
difficulty,—tdAun he calls it. He himself elsewhere quotes Hermas and the Teaching
of the Apostles, but never so as to contradict this solemn statement. We may
add that this Epistle is admitted to be genuine, and that its testimony to the
sacred books is to the same effect as all that we learn from the history of the
Nicene Council and from contemporary quotations. (See Euseb. H.E. V. 25; VII. 20;
Credner, Gesch. § 94.) Eusebius refers to Dionysius’s letters (VII. 20. 22) and
quotes largely from them, showing the high esteem in which they were held. The
Festal letters seem to have been collected for reference and use from the very
first; those of Dionysius, Athanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril being specially me-
morable. This by Athanasius does not exist in@ull, but the part on the Canon
14 OLDEST TESTIMONIES TO A COLLECTION.
ILAVO 10 , - wey ee " Ν ἢ ‘ ’ nh , « , wv ἕξ
πανουργίας τῶν ἀνϑρώπων χαὶ λοιπὸν ἐντυγχάνειν ἑτέροις ἄρξων-
ὧν t 2 Ε ’ ἊΣ, ΄ F ~ ¢ , -
ται τοῖς λεγομένοις ἀποχρύφοις, ἀπατώμενοι τῇ ὡμονυμίᾳ τῶν
~ Dp? ~ , Ὕ s ,
ἀληϑινῶν βιβλίων: παραχαλῶ ἀνέχεσϑαι, εἰ περὶ ὧν ἐπίστασϑε,
\ , 2 \ \
περὶ τούτων χἀγὼ μνημονεύων γράφω, διά TE τὴν ἀνάγχην χαὶ TO
᾽ὔ ~ ,
χρήσιμον τῆς ἐχχλησίας. Π]έλλων δὲ τούτων μνημονεύειν, χρήσομαι
\ / ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 -
πρὸς σύστασιν τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ τόλμης τῷ τόπῳ τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ
~ , \ > \ . \
Aorvnd, λέγων vai αὐτὸς" ἐπειδήπερ τινὲς ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξα-
« - \ > Ite ~ ~
σϑαι ἑαυτοῖς τὰ λεγόμενα ἀτιόχρυφα, χαὶ ἐπιμίξαι ταῦτα τῇ ϑεο-
, ~ \ 8G , \ ~
σινεύστῳ γραφῇ, περὶ HS ἐπληφορήϑημεν, χαϑὼς παρέδοσαν τοῖς
, € 2 »“.“Ὁ ~ 2 \ ~
πατράσιν OL AIL ἀρχῆς αὑτότιται χαὶ ὑτεηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου"
2 \ 2 ~ Ν
ἔδοξε χαμοὶ προτραπέντι παρὰ γνησίων ἀδελφῶν, χαὶ μαϑόντι
ay] a ΠΕ, TN No -ὕ \ . ,
ἄνωϑεν, ἑξῆς ἐχϑέσϑαι τὰ LavoviCOMEva χαὶ παραδοθέντα, πιστευ-
- 5 ' >
ϑέντα τὲ ϑεῖα εἰναι βιβλία" ἵνα ἕχλαστος, εἰ μὲν ἡπατήϑη, χατα-
~ ~ , c \ , ς
γνῷ τῶν πλανησάντων" ὁ δὲ καϑαρὸς διαμείνας, χαίρῃ πτάλιν ὕπο-
’
μιμνησχόμενος.
a U ~ \ ~ , , ~ 2 ‘~~ Ν
Ἔστι τοίνυν τῆς μὲν παλαιᾶς διαϑήχης βιβλία τῷ ἀριϑμῷ τὰ
, τὶ / ~ ay \ ~ Ἀ
MVE εἰχοσιδῦο᾽ τοσαῦτα γὰρ, ὡς ἔχουσα, χαὶ τὰ στοιχεῖα τὰ
> Cra ’ way ~ \ ed \ eas δὲ, ,
mao Ἑβραίοις εἰναι παραδέδοται. Τὴ δὲ τάξει χαὶ τῷ ὀνόματι
? ε΄ cr Ρ ~ +f i Me ΕΥ̓
ἐστιν ἕχαστον οὕτως" πρῶτον Γένεσις, εἶτα Ἔξοδος, εἶτα Aeviti-
A \ \ ~ 2 \ \ \ Ν , Cc ἘΠῚ
“OV, χαὶ μετὰ τοῦτο AoLIwol, χαὶ λοιττὸν τὸ “]ευτερονόμιον. Βξῆς
\ > ~ ~ ~ \ ~
δὲ τούτοις ἐστὶν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὃ tov Ναυῆ, χαὶ Κριταί. Καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο
~ r ~ ~ ,
7 Potd. Καὶ πάλιν ἑξῆς Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα βιβλία: χαὶ τούτων
Ἀ \ ~ Ρ ΠΥ > cr ki , 2 € ~ J \ \ ,
TO μὲν τιρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον εἰς ἕν βιβλίον ἀριϑιιεῖται" TO δὲ τρίτον
ς \ 9 ~ ald
χαὶ τέταρτον ὁμοίως εἰς ἕν" μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Παραλειπτομένων α΄ χαὶ
τ c , y ) x ἘΝῚ 2!
β΄, ὁμοίως εἰς ἕν βιβλίον ἀριϑμούμενα" εἶτα Ἔσδρας o καὶ β'
\ ~ ~ ς----
ὁμοίως εἰς ev, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα βίβλος ἹΡαλμῶν, χαὶ ξξῆς Παροι-
Ἷ 3 2 Χ NS > , \ ΄ 2
μίαι" εἴτα Εχχλησιαστὴς, καὶ “σμα ᾳφσμάτων. Πρὸς τούτοις ἔστι
, Irv Ν ~ ‘ v Ἱ ,
χαὶ Ιωβ, noi λοισπτὸν Προφῆται" ot μὲν δώδεχα εἰς ἕν βιβλίον
> , 3 of \ Ψ' ae
ἀριϑμούμενοι. Εἴτα “Hociag, “Iegeutag, nat σὺν αὐτῷ Bagovy,
~ > 2 2 \ \ , 2 ,
Θρῆνοι, Ἐπιστολὴ, καὶ wer αὐτὸν ᾿Ιεζεχιὴλ χαὶ Aavink. “Axor τού-
~ ~ ,
των τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαϑήχης ἵσταται.
is frequently quoted. Of the greater part of it ἃ Syriac translation was found along
with other Festal letters in the Nitrian MSS in the British Museum. There is a
German Translation of the Festal Letters by Larsow (1852), a Latin one by Mai
(1854), and an English one (1854) ‘‘Library of Fathers.” Athanasius appears to
have written 45 letters; and most of those which have come down to us
contain not only instructions as to their proper subject, but also (prefixed to
the paragraph containing the computation) exhortations to steadfastness in Christian
doctrine and practice. The text is after Migne’s Edition (1857), vol. ii. p. 1436.
See there the prefatory account, ἣν. 1339 (after Mai).
SYNOPSIS ASCRIBED TO ATHANASIUS. 15
‘ ~ ~ > ~ / ~
Τὰ δὲ τῆς χαινῆς ττάλιν οὐχ ὀχνητέον εἰπεῖν" ἔστι γὰρ ταῦτα.
’ \ ~ \ ~
Εὐαγγέλια τέσσαρα" xara Π]ατϑαῖον, χατὰ Maoxoyv, xara Aovzay,
Ay 9. , τ \ ~ Ita 2 δ 5
χατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην. Εἶτα μετὰ ταῦτα Πράξεις «ποστόλων, χαὶ ἐπι-
στολαὶ Καϑολιχαὶ χαλούμεναι τῶν ἀτιοστόλων ἕπτά" οὕτως μὲν
7 ie ah , , p γ' i 2 , , \ \ ΠΣ ΣῈ
ἸΙαχώβου α΄, Πέτρου δὲ β΄, eita Ιωᾶννου y, γαὶ μετὰ ταῦτας
2 ’ὔ 2 Ὁ
Ἰούδα α΄. Πρὸς τούτοις Παύλου ἀποστόλου εἰσὶν ἐπιστολαὶ δεχα-
τέσσαρες, τῇ τάξει γραφόμεναι οἵτως" πρώτη πρὸς Ρωμαίους"
Δ \ re oa! , \ Ν - \ τ , τ \
εἶτα πρὸς Κορινϑίους δύο: χαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πρὸς Γαλάτας" xat
ΞΕ Se CE Lt ΟΝ Efe Se Mihir Spee Η͂ \ \ Kok
ἑξῆς πρὸς Ἐφεσίοις" εἶτα πρὸς Mihinaryolovg χαὶ πρὸς Κολασ-
- Ν Ν -
σαεῖς" χαὶ μετὰ ταύτας τιρὸς Θεσσαλονιχεῖς δύο χαὶ ἣ πρὸς
c 2 τ \ Ney
Ἑβραίους - καὶ εὐϑὺς πρὸς μὲν Τιμόϑεον δύο" πρὸς δὲ Τίτον μία"
ν r 4 2
χαὶ τελευταία ἣ πρὸς Φιλήμονα. Καὶ πάλιν ᾿Ιωάννου “Α΄ ποχάλυψις.
~ ‘ ~ U ~ ~
Ταῦτα πηγαὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου, ὥστε τὸν διψῶντα τῶν ἐν τούτοις
- ~ 2 ν
ἐμφορεῖσϑαι λογίων" ἐν τούτοις μόνοις τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας διδασχα-
- 2 - νι λῆς ͵ .
λεῖον εὐαγγελίζεται. Mydeig τούτοις ἐπιβαλλέτω: μηδὲ τούτων
> we ς - ν
ἀφαιρείσϑω τι. Περὶ δὲ τούτων ὃ Κύριος Σαδδουχαίους μὲν ἐδυ-
- ν - 3
σώτσιει, λέγων" “Πλανᾶσϑε μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς." τοῖς δὲ [ου-
ν γι - 2 U
δαίοις παρήνει" “Ἐρευνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς" Ove αὐταί εἰσι αἱ μαρτυ-
- Ἂς 3 - 5) 2 2d? , , 2 ’ f le
ροῦσαι πιερὶ ἐμοῦ." Add ἕνεχά ye τελείονος ἀχριβειας πρροστίϑημι
- γ , ,
δὴ τοῦτο γράφων ἀναγχαίως" ὡς ὅτι ἐστὶ χαὶ ἕτερα βιβλία τού-
2 t- , \ ~
tov ἔξωϑεν, ov χανονιζόμενα μὲν, τετυπωμένα δὲ παρὰ τῶν σια-
2 τι [4
τέρων ἀναγινώσχεσϑαι τοῖς ἄρτι προςερχομένοις καὶ βουλομένοις
5 ~ A = 2 ζ , , - χ' , τ' λ ~ τ ” \ τ
χατηχεῖσϑαι τὸν τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγον" Σοφία Σολομῶντος, zat Σο-
> > ΕΞ
pla Σιρὰχ, καὶ Ἐσϑὴρ, καὶ ᾿Ιουδίϑ', καὶ Τωβίας, καὶ 4ιδαχὴ κα-
- > Cc , ca 3
λουμένη τῶν ᾿ποστόλων, χαὶ ὃ Ποιμήν. Καὶ ὅμως ἀγαπητοὶ
7 / ?
2 , ? 2 -
χαἀχείνων χανονιζομένων, χαὶ τούτων ἀαναγινωσχομένων, οὐδαμοῦ
- > 2 « - 2
τῶν ἀποχρύίφων μνήμη" ἀλλὰ αἱρετιχῶν ἔστιν ἐπίνοια, γραφόντων
c > “ . > ~
μὲν Ore ϑέλουσιν αὐτὰ, χαριζομένων δὲ χαὶ προςτιϑέντων αὑτοῖς
3 ς , 2, ᾽ ~
χρόνους, tv ὡς παλαιὰ προφέροντες, πρόφασιν ἔχωσιν amaray &%
Ἐ 2 ,
τούτου τοὺς ἀχεραίους.
9, Synopsis ΑΘΟΒΙΒΕΡ ΤῸ AtHanastus.!
~ ~ σ΄ ~ 2 >
Πᾶσα γραφὴ ἡμῶν Χριστιανῶν, ϑεόπνευστός ἐστιν. Οὐχ ao-
~ ,
ριστα δὲ, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὡρισμένα χαὶ χεχανονισμένα ἔχει TH βιβλία.
1 This Synopsis is not regarded as genuine. It is not mentioned by any
ancient author as the work of Athanasius. Jerome is silent upon it. It does not
agree in its list of books either of the Old Testament or of the New with those
10 OLDEST TESTIMONIES TO A COLLECTION.
Kai ἔστι τῆς μὲν Παλαιᾶς Moding ταῦτα" .... [Here follow
the Books of the O. T. including the Apocrypha (which however are
distinguished as μὴ χανογνιζόμενα), and making two of Esdras.]
Τὰ δὲ τῆς Καινῆς Διαϑήχης, πάλιν ὡρισμένα TE χαὶ χεκανονισμένα
βιβλία, ταῦτα: (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Seven Ca-
tholic Epp., Paul’s Epp. 14 in number [Hebrews being named
before the Pastoral Epp.], Apocalypse.) Τοσαῦτα χαὶ ta τῆς
Καινῆς 4Διαϑήκης βιβλία τά ye χανονιζόμενα, χαὶ τῆς πίστεως
~ \ ) -
ἡμῶν οἱονεὶ ἀχροϑίνια ἢ) ἄγχυραι. χαὶ ἐρείσματα" ὡς mag αὐτῶν
τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῶν χαὶ συγγενομένων ἐχείνῳ nal
c >) 7 - : , , NE Ὧν 5 Ν ,
bw αὐτοῦ μαϑητευϑέντων, γραφέντα χαὶ ἐχτεϑέντα. ᾿Επεὶ τοί γε
ὕστερον χατὰ τὴν ἐχείνων ἀχολουϑίαν χαὶ συμφωνίαν ἄλλα μυρία
NSD. gy ee R he 2& ATONE AG \ ~ \ xX ’
nal ἀναρίϑμητα βιβλία ἐξεχιονήϑησαν ὑττὸ τῶν χατὰ χαιροὺς μεγά-
λων χαὶ σοφωτάτων ϑεοφόρων Πατέρων εἰς μαρτυρίαν τῶν τιρο-
Ὗ ran 3 ~
λαβόντων χαὶ διαφώτισιν" Eel wy ov voy λόγος, ὡς παμπόλλων
nal ἀορίστων, χαὶ ἅμα πάντων τῆς αὐτῆς ἀχολουϑίας τοῖς πα-
λαιοῖς τούτοις ἐχομένων, nai τὰ αὐτὰ ἐξηγουμένων χαὶ αὐτῶν χαὶ
διασαφούντων. (Then follow detailed notices of the several books
of Scripture, after which the author speaks of the Apocrypha
and says), Τῆς Νέας πάλιν Ζιαϑήχης ἀντιλεγόμενα ταῦτα" Πε-
ρίοδοι Πέτρου, Περίοδοι ᾿Ιωάννου, Περίοδοι Θωμᾶ, Εὐαγγέλιον
χατὰ Θωμᾷ, Διδαχὴ ἀτιοστόλων, Κλιμιέντια, ἐξ ὧν μετεφράσϑη-
~ >
σαν ἐχλεγέντα τὰ ἀληϑέστερα χαὶ Iednvevora. Ταῦτα ta ave-
γινωσχόμιενα.
Ταῦτα τιάντα ἐξετέϑησαν μὲν ὅσον πρὸς εἴδησιν, παραγε-
\ y, γ
γραμμένα δὲ εἰσὶ πάντως xai νόϑα, χαὶ ἀπόβλητα. Καὶ οὐδὲν
τούτων, τῶν ἀποχρύφων μάλιστα, ἔγκριτον ἢ) ἐπεωφελὲς, ἐξαιρέτως
τῆς Νέας 4ιαϑήκης" ἀλλὰ πάντα δίχα τῶν ἀνωτέρω διαληφϑέντων,
- - - \ / 2
χαὶ ἐγχριϑέντων παρὰ τοῖς σιαλαιοῖς σοφοῖς χαὶ σπτατράσιν, ἄπο-
- ~ 2 yo) , [8 > ~ D/ te , wv Ν
χρυφῆς μᾶλλον ἢ ἀναγνώσεως ὡς ἀληϑῶς ἄξια" τά τὲ ἄλλα, καὶ
- \ ~ ,
αὐτὰ τὰ καλούμενα ἐν αὐτοῖς Εὐαγγέλια, ἐχτὸς τῶν παραδοϑέντων
- Cc ww
ἡμῖν τεσσάρων τούτων. Εὐαγγέλια γὰρ τέσσαρα ἐϑέσπισαν ἡμῖν
given in the previous extract from the Paschal letter. Among other points of
difference we may notice that the Synopsis does not mention Hermas, and does
mention the Clementines—in both respects being the opposite of the Festal Letter.
It has been attempted to find an allusion to this in a passage in Athanasius,
‘Apologia ad Constantium Imp.,” p. 236, when he speaks of sending πυχτία τῶν
Setwy γραφῶν. But πυχτία cannot mean a Synopsis. (See Migne, Proleg. p. CLXXVI.)
The Synopsis is supposed to be as late as the 9th century. The text is abridged
from Migne, vol. iv. p. 283, &e.4
CANON OF THE LAODICENE COUNCIL. 1
« ¢ \ / ~ (ef ~ ‘ 3 ὦ Ὁ}. ,
οἱ ἱεροὶ χανόνες τῆς ἁγίας χαϑολιχῆς χαὶ ἀποστολιχῆς Εχχλησίας"
\ \ O..” \ \ at \ \ ~ \ \
to χατὰ Mardatov, τὸ xara Maonov, to nara “ουχᾶν, xa τὸ
2 \ ~ 2 re
χατὰ Ιωάννην, χατὰ τὴν τιροφητείαν τῆς οτιτασίας, ng ἐϑεάσατο
ἸΙεζεχιὴλ, ὃ ἡτὴς περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων Χερουβίμ. Téoo
ἡ}. ὃ στιροφήτης περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων Χερουβίμ. Τέσσαρα γὰρ
id ῬῸ ΩΣ τ AG , Αι ΔΈΟΣ Ὁ ry , ἜΡΙΣ
εἶδε Χερουβὶμ οὗτος ὃ πιροφήτης" τὸ ἕν ὅμοιον ἀνϑρώπῳ, τουτέστι,
ΝΥ \ ~ >) / \ Wes, c , ,
τὸ χατὰ Π]ατϑαῖον Ευαγγέλιον" τὸ δεύτερον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ, τουτέστι
\ Ν , +) / Ν a a , ,
τὸ χατὰ Maoxov Εὐαγγέλιον: τὸ ahko ὅμοιον heovtt, τουτέστι
Ἂ Ν - +) , Ν \ , c 2 ~ ,
τὸ χατὰ “ουχᾶν Πὐαγγέλιον" τὸ δὲ τέταρτον ὅμοιον HET, τουτέστι
\ ae , 7) , \ \ ~ \ ’ c
τὸ χατὰ Lwavryy Ευαγγέλιον. Παρὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὰ τέσσαρα ἕτερον
>?
Εὐαγγέλιον οὐδέν.
ΩΣ - 2 2 ~ ~
To μὲν οὖν χατὰ Π]ατϑαῖον Εὐαγγέλιον ἐγράφη ba αὐτοῦ τοῦ
, : Lips ς he Or a \ 2¢ , PaCS 2 ‘\ Cc Ps
Mardaiov τῇ Εβραΐδι διαλέχτῳ, not ἐξεδόϑη ἐν “Ιερουσαλὴμ, ἢρ
/ AG Nee, / ' ~ > ~ ~ , \ Ν /
μηνεύϑη δὲ ὑπὸ ἸΙαχώβου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ tov Κυρίου τὸ χατὰ oaeze,
a = a ~ > ῃ
ὃς χαὶ πρῶτος ἐχειροτονήύϑη ἐτιίσχοτιος ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων
ἐν “Ιεροσολύμοις.
7 Cc ,
To δὲ χατὰ Π]άρχον Εὐαγγέλιον ὑπηγορεύϑη μὲν ὑπὸ Πέτρου
- ? - ,
tov ἀποστόλου, ἐν Ῥώμῃ, ἐξεδόϑη δὲ td ἸΠ]άρχου τοῦ μακαρίου
3) 2 ~ -
ἀποστόλου, “ai ἐχηρύχϑη vw αὐτοῦ ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ καὶ ἐν Al-
, Nga od: / NI ,
γύστῳ, χαὶ ἐν Πενταττόλει, καὶ “ιβύη.
~ Ul
Τὸ δὲ xara Aovzty Εὐαγγέλιον tanyogetIn μὲν ὑτιὸ Παύλου
- 2 / , \ \ Die 1¢ ς \ ad bed rs
tov ἀποστόλου, συνεγράφη δὲ χαὶ ἐξεδόϑη ὑπὸ “ουχᾶ τοῦ woxra-
, 3) , ἌΝ ~, c \ Ute ~ Ψ ,}
οίου απτοστόλου χαὶ ἰατροῦ" ὥςπερ χαὶ Πράξεις τῶν «Α΄ ποστόλων
c / \ ς , , ig 2 , , NUN! Ὁ
ὑχιηγόρευσε μὲν ὁμοίως Πέτρος ὃ ἀπόστολος, συνεγράψατο δὲ ὃ
λυ τ ἐς ~
αὐτὸς “ουχᾶς.
\ ὦ 9 2 2 2 - -
To δὲ χατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην Εὐαγγέλιον ὑπηγορεύϑη τε va αὐτοῦ τοῦ
2 ΓΙῸΣ 2 ,
ἁγίου ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου χαὶ ἠγαπημένου, Ὄντος ἐξορίστου ἐν
- - 2 - 2) Ty
Παάτμῳ τῇ νήσῳ, χαὶ ὑχιὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐξεδόϑη ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, διὰ Γαΐου
ae) ~ - ~ Ce ~
τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ χαὶ ξενοδόχου τῶν ἀποστόλων, περὶ ov καὶ Παῦλος
“Pi , ΄ ΞΕ Δ "A , ig ~ ~ ς , ; Ἔ \
ὡμαίοις γράφων φησί σττάζεται ὑμᾶς Γαῖος ὃ ξένος μου xae
ec ~ >
ὅλης τῆς Ἐχχλησίας.
18 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
II.
TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
1. Canon or THE Laopicenrt Councit a.p. 364.1!
Canons LIX, LX.
Ὅτι ov δεῖ ἰδιωτιχοὺς τναλμοὺς λέγεσϑαι ἐν τῇ ἐχχλησίᾳ, οὐδὲ
ἀχανόνιστα βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ χανονικὰ τῆς χαινὴς χαὶ τταλαιᾶς
διαϑήχης. --- Ὅσα δεῖ βιβλία ἀναγινώσχεσϑαι τῆς παλαιᾶς δια-
ϑήχης" a Γένεσις χόσμου, β' Ἔξοδος ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, γ΄ “Δευιτικὸν,
δ΄ ““ριϑμοὶ, ε΄ Δευτερονόμιον, ς΄ ᾿Ιησοῦς Ναυῆ, ζ΄ Κριταὶ, Pood,
η΄ Ἐσθὴρ, 3 Βασιλειῶν πρώτη χαὶ δευτέρα, ι΄ Βασιλειῶν τρίτη
Ν , , , ~ ‘ , oy
χαὶ τετάρτη, ια΄ Παραλειπόμενα πρῶτον χαὶ δεύτερον, ιβ΄ Ἔσδρας
σιρῶτον χαὶ δεύτερον, ιγ΄ βίβλος ἸΡαλμῶν ἑἕχατὸν πεντήχοντα,
ιδ΄ Παροιμίαι Σολομῶντος, ιε΄ ᾿Εχχλησιαστὴς, is’ ᾿“σμα ᾳσμάτων,
ιζ΄ “Lop, ιη΄ δώδεχα Προφῆται, uF Ησαΐας, x “Ιερεμίας καὶ Βα-
ροὺχ, Θρηνοὶ καὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ, κα΄ ᾿Ιεζεχιὴλ,, «8 Δανιήλ. --- Τὰ δὲ
τῆς καινῆς διαϑήχης ταῦτα Εὐαγγέλια τέσσαρα, κατὰ Πατϑαῖον,
χατὰ Π]Πάρχον, χατὰ “1ουχᾶν, κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην" Πράξεις ᾿ΑΙἸποστόλων,
2 \ ,
Ἐπιστολαὶ Καϑολιχαὶ ἑπτὰ οὕτως" ᾿Ιαχιύβου α΄, Πέτρου α' β΄, Ἴω-
ἄννου βγ΄, Ιούδα α΄. Ἐπιστολαὶ Παύλου δεχατέσσαρες " περὸς Ῥω-
, ’ x , ty! \ , 7 x > ,
μαίους α, πρὸς Κορινϑίους af, πρὸς Γαλάτας α΄, πρὸς Ἐφεσίους
, Ν , , \ ~ ’ ἈΝ
α΄, πιρὸς (διλιτιπησίους α΄, πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς α΄, πρὸς Θεσσαλονι--
χεῖς af’, πρὸς “Εβραίους α΄, πρὸς Τιμόϑεον α'β'΄, πρὸς Τίτον αἱ,
σιρὸς Φιλήμονα α΄.3
1 The Synod of Laodicea about A.D. 860 was only a local, probably an
Arian, Synod, attended by 20 or 30 bishops from Lydia and Phrygia. The 59th
Canon (ὅτι ov Set... . διαθήκης) is genuine; but the Catalogue which follows
is now generally admitted to be the work of a later age. It will be observed
that the Apocalypse is omitted. The decree was confirmed by the Quinisextine
(Trullan) Council of Constantinople A.D. 692, and again by the Council of Jeru-
salem A.D. 1672, which, after the commotion caused by Cyril Lukar, endeavoured
to settle the Canon. The Trullan Council based the acceptance of Scripture on
the decrees of the Councils of Carthage and Laodicea, and on the writings of
certain fathers. There was no special legate of Rome at the Council, although
the ordinary representatives of the Bishop of Rome were present; and the Roman
Chureh does not recognize all its decrees as binding. The same Council which
accepted the decrees of Carthage and Laodicea, accepted also the ‘Apostolical
Canons’’.
2 From Westcott’s text. See his interesting history of the text: Canon of
N. T., 3rd ed., p. 400. See also Hilg. Kinl., p.119. Credner, Gesch. ἃ. N. T. Ka-
non, 245. Bruns, Can. Apost. et,Concil. Saec., IV-VII. p. 77.
CANON OF CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 1
io)
2. Canon or (ὑπ, or Jerusacem.!
Catechis, IV, p. 36 ff.
Περὶ τῶν ϑειῶν γραφῶν.
~ ν € ~ ~
Ταῦτα δὲ διδάσχουσιν ἡμᾶς αἱ ϑεόπνευστοι γραφαὶ τῆς πα-
~ \ ~ , τῷ -
λαιᾶς τε χαὶ καινῆς διαϑήκης. Εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὃ τῶν δύο διαϑη-
- ς ‘ ~ ~ r ~ ~
χῶν Θεὸς, ὃ τὸν ἐν τῇ χαινῇ φανέντα Χριστὸν ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ σπιρο-
, « ΚΑῚ , ‘ ~ r ν
καταγγείλας, ὁ διὰ νόμου χαὶ τιροφητῶν εἰς Χριστὸν παιδαγω-
͵ \ \ ~ 4Q- \ ἢ Ὁ τ , > , c
γήσας. Πρὸ γὰρ τοῦ ἐλϑεῖν τὴν σείστιν, ὑπεὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεϑα,
ς , Gu ὦ = -
χαὶ ὃ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν. Κἄν ποτε
- ᾿Ξ ~ 2 ~ aN
τῶν αἱρετικῶν ἀχούσης τινὸς βλασφημοῦντος νόμον ἢ τιροφήτας,
γ ΕΞ oS ERP \ λέ Ξ a. 719 3 πὸ Z
αντιφϑέγξαι τὴν σωτηρίαν φωνὴν λέγων" Ova ἤλϑεν Ιησοὺς χατα-
~ 2 ~ ~
λῦσαι τὸν νόμον, ἀλλὰ τιληρῶσαι. Καὶ φιλομαϑῶς ἐπίγνωϑιε weed
ἧς ἐχχλησίας, ποῖαι μέν εἰσιν αἱ τῆ λαιᾶς διαϑήκης βίβλ
τῆς ἐχχλησίας, ποῖαι μέν εἰσιν αἱ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαϑήχης βίβλοι,
- ‘ ~ ~ ἮΝ - 2 2)
molar δὲ τῆς χαινῆς" χαί μοι μηδὲν TOY αἀτιοχρύφων ἀναγίνωσγχε.
ς \ \ \ ~ ς / \ ἊΝ \ , \ ν᾿ )
O γὰρ τὰ παρὰ τιᾶσιν δμολογούμενα μὴ εἰδὼς, TL στερὶ τὰ ἀμ-
φιβαλλόμενα ταλαιτιωρεῖς μάτην; ‘Avaylvwoxe τὰς ϑείας γραφὰς,
τὰς εἴχοσι δύο βίβλους τῆς τιαλαιᾶς διαϑήχης τὰς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐβδο-
μήκοντα δύο ἑρμηνευτῶν ἑρμηνευϑείσας. RS SMA γεν ὙΠ ΡΥ ας
δὲ καινῆς διαϑήκης, τὰ τέσσαρα Εὐαγγέλια" τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ψευὸ-
ἐπίγραφα χαὶ βλαβερὰ τυγχάνει. Ἐγραψαν nal Πανιχαῖοι. χατὰ
Θωμᾶν Εὐαγγέλιον, ὅπερ, ὥστιερ εὐωδίᾳ τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς προσω-
γυμίας, διαφϑείρει τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἁπλουστέρων. “Ἱέχου δὲ χαὶ
Ν U ~ aN Ἃ , ἣν , \ Ν ‘
τὰς Πράξεις τῶν δώδεχα ἀποστόλων" πρὸς τούτοις δὲ χαὶ τὰς
2
ἑπτὰ Ιαχώβου χαὶ Πέτρου ᾿Ιωάννου zai ᾿Ιούδα Καϑολικὰς Ἐπι-
στολάς" ἐπισφράγισμα δὲ τῶν πάντων χαὶ μαϑητῶν τὸ τελευ-
- ἂν “ ,ὔ Ὕ , \ \ ‘ Ul
ταῖον, τὰς Παύλου δεκατέσσαρας ἐπιστολάς. Τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ marta
Je , > , ΝΡ ΤΥ \ 2.) ΔΩ , NO)
ἕξω χείσϑω ἕν δευτέρῳ. Καὶ ὅσα μὲν ev δχχλησίαις μὴ ἄναγι-
γώσχεται, ταῦτα μηδὲ χατὰ σαυτὸν avayivworE, χαϑὼς eis
Kai περὶ μὲν τούτων, ταῦτα. 2
1 Cyril died A.D. 386. It will be observed that he includes without hesi-
tation in his N. T. all the books save the Apocalypse. Those which Eusebius
a few years before had described as Antilegomena seem in the interval to have
been accepted by all. Cyril founds his statements on the general agreement to
which the Church had come; and appeals from local or individual peculiarities to
that general consent. There is in the closing words a reference to some books
that may be read in some Churches but are only fitted for the ‘‘second rank;”
and others not read in Churches at all are to be avoided by the private fase
2 The Apocalypse must be in this second rank. Even in treating of Anti-
christ elsewhere Cyril does not quote the Apovalypse.
x
yi
20 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
3. Canon oF THE Tuirp Counci, or Cartuace a.p. 397.4
Canon XLVII.
2 Item placuit, ut praeter scripturas canonicas nihil in ec-
clesia legatur sub nomine divinarum scripturarum. Sunt autem
canonicae scripturae: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deute-
ronomium, Jesus Nave, Judicum, Ruth, Regnorum libri quatuor,
Paralipomenon libri duo, Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Salomonis
libri quinque, libri duodecim Prophetarum, Jesaias, Jeremias, Eze-
chiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Esdrae libri duo, Macha-
baeorum libri duo. Novi autem Testamenti Evangeliorum libri
quatuor, Actuum Apostolorum liber unus, Epistolae Pauli apo-
stoli tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebraeos una, Petri apostoli duae,
Joannis ap. tres, Judae ap. una, Apocalypsis Joannis liber unus.
Hoc etiam fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio * vel aliis earum
1 From Bruns, p. 133.
2 Between A.D. 390 and A.D. 419 six Councils were held in Africa, four
of them in Carthage (Bruns 111-151). This—the third of those—was held under
the presidency of Aurelius, Bp. of Carthage. Augustine (as Bishop of Hippo) was
present. So far as we know, it was the first Council of the Christian Church
which enumerated the Books of N. T. Scripture; for although the Laodicene De-
cree (given above) is earlier, the genuine portion does not contain the Catalogue.
It was not a general Council; it was only a local Council, attended by 44 Bishops,
all of whom subscribed the decree. It is not therefore an authoritative utterance
of the general Church. Its decree was not confirmed by any larger Council till
A.D. 692, when the Trullan Council (see note on Laodicene Decree) accepted it
for the Eastern Church. In the Western Church more than 1000 years passed
before the unfinished task of defining the Canon was resumed; and even then
(A.D. 1435) it was the solitary voice of a Pope (Eugenius) which proclaimed its
completion. Nearly 1200 years passed before a general Council (Trent) made a
decree on the subject, and its conclusions were much less accurate than those of
the little gathering in Carthage. The acceptance of a Canon of the N. T. does
not rest on the authority of the corporate Church. And it is not as to an Eecle-
siastical authority that we look back to the Council of Carthage; but we find in
its decree a statement of a well-ascertained fact—the general agreement of the
Church as to the nature and number of the Books of Canonical Scripture. The
decree bears on the face of it that the question was as to what should be read
in Churches; and that the answer was: Canonical Scripture alone, save that on
Days of the Saints the histories of their Martyrdoms might be read in addition
to the Canon. To prevent ambiguity, the names of the Books denoted ‘Canonical
Scripture” are added.
8 This reference to Boniface is supposed by some to have been originally a
marginal note which in course of time found its way into the text. Boniface was
not Bishop of Rome at the time of the Council. It is supposed that when the
African Canons were collected into one Code, this passage was a reference to him
and other representatives of foreign Churches, not intended to be taken as part of
the original decree. There are various readings, Consacerdoti, Coepiscopo, &e., in
his name, intimating that liberties were taken with the designation of Boniface,
CANON OF EPIPHANIUS. CANON OF JEROME. ak
partium episcopis pro confirmando isto canone innotescat, quia a
patribus ista accepimus in ecclesia legenda. Liceat enim legi pas-
siones martyrum, cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur.
TT
al Haeres. Fom:-*--p;-941 . bem 5
αν > \ EY aye ἌΞΕΙΝ , , \ ,
Εἰ yao ἧς ἐξ ἁγίου πνεύματος γεγεννημένος, χαὶ προφήταις
ἜΝ» , ε , oy au i Dew
χαὶ ἀποστόλοις μεμαϑητευμένος, Edel GE διελϑόντα am’ ἀρχῆς
γενέσεως χόσμου ἄχρι τῶν τῆς AioI}o χρόνων, ἐν εἴχοσι χαὶ ἑπτὰ
, ~ 2) ν ,
βίβλοις παλαιᾶς διαϑήχης, εἴχοσι δύο ἀριϑμουμένοις, τέτταρσι
ς > ν - -
δὲ ἁγίοις Εὐαγγελίοις, χαὶ ἐν τεσσαρσικαίδεχα Ἐπιστολαῖς τοῦ
να ἢ 2 - \ ‘ Χ -
ἁγίου απτοστόλου Παύλου, γχαὶ ἐν ταῖς τιρὸ τούτων χαὶ σὺν ταῖς
- 2 - +. ~ ~
ἐν τοῖς αὐτῶν χρόνοις Πράξεσι τῶν “Arcoovdhwv, Καϑολιχαῖς Ἐπι-
- 3 2 -
στολαῖς ᾿Ιαχώβου χαὶ Πέτρου χαὶ ᾿Ιωάννου nai ᾿Ιούδα, καὶ ἐν τῇ
τ» ) > ~ ~
tov Ιωάννου “Α΄ ποχαλύινιει, ἐν δὲ ταῖς Σοφίαις. Σολομῶντος τέ
φημι, nol υἱοῦ Seay, καὶ πάσαις ἁπλῶς γραφαῖς ϑείαις, καὶ
ς ~ ~ 1 > ~ x ~
ξαυτοῦ καταγνῶναι. OTL ὄνομα, ὅττερ οὐδαμοῦ ἐντέταχται. ἤλϑες ἡμῖν
, 2 2 \ \ ~ 2 > > \ 2 \ \ ὩΣ ΤΙ
φέρων, οὐχ ατιρεττὲς μὲν Θεῷ, αλλ εὐσεβὲς εἰς Θεὸν͵ τὸ τοῦ ἀγεν-
U »” . ~ δὰ ’ ~ τὸν Κα: ,
γήτου ὄνομα, μηδαμοῦ δὲ ἐν ϑειᾷ γραφῇ ῥηϑέν..
4. Canon or Epipnamius. ! wun
[6 0
5. Canon or JEROME.
Epist. 1. ad Paulinum (Opp. T. IV. p. 574).
Tangam et Novum breviter Testamentum. Matthaeus, Mar-
cus, Lucas et Joannes, quadriga Domini et verum Cherubim, quod
interpretatur scientiae multitudo, per totum corpus oculati sunt,
scintillae emicant, discurrunt fulgura, pedes habent rectos et in
sublime tendentes, terga pennata et ubique volitantia. Tenent
mutuo, et quasi rota in rota volvuntur, et pergunt quocunque eos
flatus Sancti Spiritus perduxerit.
‘But—assuming that the decree was in answer to a question—it may have been
some neighbouring local bishop who put the question, and whose name was
Boniface.
1 Epiphanius, born in Palestine, died bishop of Constantia in Cyprus A.D
403. His great work, Panarium or Refutation of all Heresies, shows much learning,
but is always diffuse, and often not trustworthy where his theories come in the
way of his historical vision. It has not borne the test of criticism and compa-
rison with other authorities nearly so well as Eusebius’s Eccl. Hist.
22 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
Paulus Apostolus ad septem ecclesias scribit (octava enim
ad Hebraeos a plerisque extra numerum ponitur), Timotheum in-
struit ac Titum, Philemonem pro fugitivo famulo deprecatur. Su-
per quo tacere melius puto, quam pauca scribere. Actus Apo-
stolorum nudam quidem sonare videntur historiam, et nascentis
ecclesiae infantiam texere: sed si noverimus scriptorem eorum
Lucam esse medicum, cujus laus est in evangelio, animadvertemus
pariter omnia verba illius, animae languentis esse medicinam.
Jacobus, Petrus, Joannes, Judas apostoli septem epistolas edide-
runt tam mysticas quam succinctas et breves pariter et longas:
breves in verbis, longas in sententiis, ut rarus sit qui non in ea-
rum lectione caecutiat. Apocalypsis Joannis tot habet sacramenta,
quot verba. Parum dixi pro merito voluminis. Laus omnis in-
ferior est: in verbis singulis multiplices latent intelligentiae.
6. Aucustine.!
Erit igitur divinarum scripturarum solertissimus indagator,
qui primo totas legerit notasque habuerit, et si nondum intellectu
jam tamen lectione, duntaxat eas quae appellantur Canonicae.
Nam caeteras securius leget fide veritatis instructus, ne praeoc-
cupent imbecillum animum, et periculosis mendaciis atque phan-
tasmatis eludentes praejudicent aliquid contra sanam intelligen-
tiam. In Canonicis autem Scripturis, ecclesiarum catholicarum
quamplurium auctoritatem sequatur; inter quas sane illae sint,
quae apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt.
Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis, ut eas quae
ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis Catholicis praeponat eis quas
quaedam non accipiunt: in eis vero quae non accipiuntur ab
omnibus, praeponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt eis
quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesiae tenent. Si autem
alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quanquam
hoc facile invenire non possit, aequalis tamen auctoritatis eas
1 Aug., De Doctrina Christiana, 11. 12.13. Augustine was Bishop of Hippo,
born A.D. 354, died A.D. 430. His opinion on Canonicity is not so valuable as
his contemporary Jerome’s. But in his voluminous writings he shows not only his
own opinion but the views current in his time. He accepted the received Canon
of the New Testament. He had doubts as to the authorship of Hebrews, but none
as to its Canonicity.
AUGUSTINE. CHRYSOSTOM. COD. ALEX. 23
habendas puto. Totus autem Canon Scripturarum in quo istam
considerationem versandam dicimus, his libris continetur.
[Here follow the Books of the O. T.]
Novi autem, quatuor libris Evangelii, secundum Matthaeum,
secundum Marcum, secundum Lucam, secundum Joannem; qua-
tuordecim Epistolis Pauli Apostoli, ad Romanos, ad Corinthios
duabus, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Thessalo-
nicenses duabus, ad Colossenses, ad Timotheum duabus, ad Ti-
tum, ad Philemonem, ad Hebraeos; Petri duabus; tribus Joannis;
una Judae et una Jacobi; Actibus Apostolorum libro uno, et
Apocalypsi Joannis libro uno.
In his omnibus libris timentes Deum et pietate mansueti
quaerunt voluntatem Dei.
7. Cnrysostrom.
Chrysostom (died A.D. 407), who had been a Presbyter in
Antioch before he was made Patriarch of Constantinople, never
cites the Apocalypse or the four Catholic Epistles which are ex-
cluded from the Syriac Canon. In a Synopsis ascribed to him the
Apocalypse is wanting, and the Catholic Epistles are expressly
mentioned as three in number.
8. Cop. ALEx.
Codex Alexandrinus (Cod. A). Date perhaps end of fourth
century, probably beginning of fifth. It contains all the N. T. in
the following list: Matt., Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Cath. Epp.
(James, Peter (2), John (3), Jude), Epp. of Paul (Rom., Cor. (2),
Gal., Eph., Phil., Coloss., Thess. (2), Hebrews, Timothy (2), Titus,
Philemon), Apocalypse of John, Clement’s Epp. (2), after which
come the words ὁμοῦ βιβλία, as though to intimate that the Ca-
non is closed, but another line adds Psalms of Solomon (18).
9. Getasius, a.p. 492.1
The Decree as connected with the name of Gelasiws runs
thus as regards the N. T:—
Item ordo Scripturarum Novi Testamenti, quem Sancta Ca-
1 The “Decree of Gelasius” (Decretum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis)
24 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
tholica Romana suscipit et veneratur ecclesia. Evangeliorum li-
bri rv, id est sec. Matthaeum lib. τ. sec. Marcum lib. 1, sec. La-
eam lib. 1, sec. Joannem lib.1 Item Actuum Apostolorum lib. 1.
Epistolae Pauli Apostoli num. xm.
Apocalypsis lib. Apostolicae epistelae num. yu. Petri apo-
stoli num. τ. Jacobi apostoli num. 1 Joannis apostoli num. mL
Judae. /
The Recension in the name of a Council under Damasus gives
the names of the Pauline Epistles, and ascribes one Epistle to
John the Apostle, two to John the Presbyter, and the Apocalypse
to John the Aposile.
The Recension in the name of Hormisdas gives the three
Johannine Epistles without distinction.
There is also a famous chapter containing the names of many
books which the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church does not at
all admit, because they are heretical or schismatical.2 Among
them are:
Acts: Itinerarium Petri Apostoli, quod appellatur Sancti Cle-
mentis, Actus Andreae, Thomae libr. x, Petri, Phi-
lippi.
Gospels: Evv. nomine Petri Apostoli, Matthiae, Jacobi Minoris,
Barnabae, Thomae (quibus Manichaei utuntur) Bar-
tholomaei, Andreae, Thaddaei, “Evv. quae falsavit
Lucianus, apocrypha; Evv. quae falsavit Isicius, ape-
crypha.”
Miscellaneous: De infantia Salvatoris et de Maria obstetrice ejus;
liber qui appellatur Pastoris, apocr.; libri omnes,
date (or perhaps some germ of it dates.) from Damasus (366-384); some of it is
as old as Gelasius, (492-496); bat its principal forms claim the name of Hormisdas
(514523), — probably altered im later times. It appears to rest om the
earlier testimonies of Athanasius and Jerome. The list of Biblical Books is not
found in all the MSS, bat seems to have been added by (or ascribed at a later
date to) Hormisdas, and sent to Spain, where it was much needed.
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS. 2
quos fecit Leucius (al. Lucius, Leutius) discipulus
diaboli; liber qui appellatur Fundamentum: liber
qui appellatur Thesaurus; liber de filiabus Adae-
Lepiogenesis; liber, qui appellatur Actus Theclae et
Panli; liber qui appellatur Nepotis (al. Nephotes)-;
liber proverbiorum Sancti Xysti, ab haereticis con-
scriptus, apocrypha.
Apocalypses: Pauli, Thomae, Stephani.
10. Aposrorican Constrrutions (διατάξεις: 1
Ld > « > Be > - >
IL 57. Meooc δ᾽ 6 ἀνογνώστης ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλοῦ τινος totes ἀτογε-
᾿ . ΄ A 5 - - ΄
»ωσχέτω τὰ ἡϊΖωσέως. Ket ... . μετὰ τοῦτο ΟἹ Toc-
ἕξεις αἱ ἡμέτεροι ἀναγινωσχέσϑωσον χοὶ Ἐπιστολαὶ Ποί-
~ ~ ς - a > ud " - > ᾿ ”
λον tov συνεργοῦ Tar, ἂς ἐπέστειλε τοῖς ἐχχλησίοις
> « - ᾿ - » - -
zed ὑφίγησιν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. Koi μετὰ τοῦτα
3 The Aposiolical Consiiiniions should perhaps searcely be quoied, 2s bang
am obvious forzery. Reuss refers the greater pari of them i the dd cenipry,
but they more belong, in whole @ im part, i the followme cemimry.
They claim io be sent by Clement, together with Barnabas, Timothy, and Mark.
rr ee Apes «ὦ ee Elsewhere they chim to be
written by the “iwelve Aposiles who are noi now iogeiber.” Wf iis ceim ip be
a formal ordmance of the Aposiles were only admitted, ihe qnesiion of the Canon
would be seifled! Bui the arst barely probable allmsioms io the work are mm the
se
of Eusebius amd of Athamasius, who speak of a book called the docimme
or doctrines) of the Apostles. Athanasius speaks of % {διδιγτ}) Ἐξ 5 book usefel
insireciing catechumens. Euscbims puts i (δ: δα. 5) among the spurions. Epi-
Ra
phamies speaks of a secit—ith= Andianms—who found om the Owes Tay 5τι-
στόλειν, a book counted doubifal (he says) by most people, bat sill not o-
worthy of regard, imasmoch as ii comisinms the whole order of Church Government.
Ewen, however, if we revarded the book which Epiphamis had m wiew 25
beng that io which Athanasius and Eusehims refer we have noi found any
proof of fis existence carlier than the fourth centmy, or the end of the third
|
F
extracts which Epiphaniws gives do not 22ree with ibe comienis
S come Gown to us. Furthermore, Epiphamis revards ii 2s
mention ij im bis own Est of Camonical Books. The Book,
ΠΕ Ύ Ύ----Ξ-Σ We observe also that 3: comiradicis the
:
ΐ
:
Ly
New
With
whee Joha wrote. [i nevertheless conisims, amid many chorchly directions of late
daie, noi
20 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
3 2 \ 2) a
διάχονος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἀναγινωσχέτω τὰ εὐαγγέλια, ἃ
Sk IN j (oY ν 9 7) , (ae? , a a
ἐγὼ Matdaiog χαὶ Ιωαννης παρεδώκαμεν ὑμῖν, χαὶ ἃ Ob
συνεργοὶ Παύλου παρειληφότες χατέλεινψαν ὑμῖν, “ουχᾶς
χαὶ Ἰάογος.
At a later stage the same work says:—
VI. 16. Ταῦτα πάντα ἐπεστείλαμεν ὑμῖν, ἵνα εἰδέναι ἔχοιτε τὴν
~ 2
ἡμετέραν (τῶν ἀποστόλων) γνώμην, οἵα τις ἐστί χαὶ τὰ
γ ae λει εὐ ς - ? X ~ δ) ~ C ,
EU ὀνόματι ἡμῶν παρὰ TOY ἀσεβῶν χρατυϑεντα βιβλία
\ > Ps > τι 5
μὴ παραδέχεσϑαι" OV γὰρ τοῖς ὀνόμασι χρὴ ὑμᾶς προσέ-
- 3 γ ~ ~
χειν τῶν ἀποστόλων, αλλὰ τῇ φύσει TOY πραγμάτων χαὶ
~ ἣ , 7 ὩΞ χὸ σ » Οἱὸ \ c c \ wy
τῇ γνώμῃ τῇ ἀδιαστρόφῳ. Οἴδαμεν γὰρ, ὅτι οἱ meet Σί-
\ , ? Dy ey
peova χαὶ Κλέοβιον, ἰώδη συντάξαντες βιβλία ἐπ’ ονό-
r ~ ~ ~ ) ~
μασι Χριστοῦ χαὶ τῶν μαϑητῶν αὐτοῦ, ττεριφέρουσιν εἰς
5) τὸ ~ ἐπ -
ἀπάτην ὑμῶν τῶν πεφιληχότων Χριστὸν χαὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς
ἌΣ ~ ~ ~
αὐτοῦ δούλους. Καὶ ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς δέ τινες συνέγρα-
> ᾿ \ 2
wav βιβλία ἀπόχρυφα ωσέως, χαὶ Ἐνὼχ, καὶ Addu,
2 he \ \ ~ ~
Ἡσαΐου te xai AaBid χαὶ “Πλία χαὶ τῶν τριῶν Πατριαρ-
~ C \ \ ~ > Q , ἢ / Tr ~ \
χῶν, φϑοροποιὰ καὶ τῆς ἀληϑείας ἐχϑρα. Τοιαῦτα nat
γῦν ἐποίησαν οἱ δυσώνυμοι διαβάλλοντες δημιουργίαν, γά-
μον, προνοίαν, τεχνογονίαν, νόμον, προφήτας" βαρβαρά
2 > >
τινὰ ὀνόματα ἐγγράφοντες χαὶ, ὡς αὐτοί φασιν, ἀγγέλων,
τὸ δ᾽ ἀληϑὲς εἰπεῖν δαιμόνων τῶν αὑτοῖς ὑπηχούντων"
ic > \ ~
ὧν ἀποφεύγετε τὴν διδασχαλίαν ἵνα μὴ μετάσχητε τῆς
- Ρ] Dd) Wi)
τιμωρίας TOY ALTA συγγραψψαμένων ee ἀπάτῃ χαὶ ἄπω-
~ ~ 7 ~ 2 -
λείᾳ τῶν πιστῶν χαὶ ἀμέμπττων τοῦ Κυρίου ]ησοῦ μα-
ϑητῶν.
11. Canones Ecciestastici gut picuntur ApostTotorum, c. 85.
Ἔστω δὲ ὑμῖν πᾶσι χληρικοῖς χαὶ λαϊχοῖς βιβλία σεβάσμια
nab ἅγια" τῆς μὲν παλαιᾶς διαϑήχης, Π]ωὐσέως πέντε, Γένεσις,
1 From Bunsen’s Analecta Antenicwna (1854). This Canon probably dates
from the fourth century. To this date we are led by the omission of the Apo-
calypse, which was not acceptable to the Eastern Christians at that time. The cu-
rious claim that the Constitutions were ‘‘inscribed to you the Bishops by me
Clement, in eight books, which ought not to be divulged before all,” connects
the Canons with the Constitutions, regarding which see last Note. The title as
given above, ‘‘Canones Eeclesiastici qui dicuntur Apostolorum,” is that given to the
Collection by Dionysius the Less, a priest who translated them from the Greek,
A.D. 500. It indicates the translator’s doubts of their genuineness; and he even
CANONES ECCLESIASTICI QUI DICUNTUR APOSTOLORUM. 27
a» “᾿ 2 2) ~ ~
Ἔξοδος, “ευϊτικὸν, -Aguduoi, χαὶ “Ἰευτερονόμιον, ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ Ναυὴ,
Uy ~ ~ ~ «ς ~
ἕν" τῶν Kotor, ἕν: τῆς “Povd, ἕν: Βασιλειῶν τέσσαρα: Παρα-
λειτιομένων τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν ἡμερῶν, δύο: Ἔσδρα, dto* Ἐσϑὴρ, ἕν"
2 Υ͂ 2 s \
Tovdet, ἕν" Ἰ]αχχαβαίων, τρία" Ιὼβ, ἕν- ἹΨΡαλμοὶ ξχατὸν σιεντή-
τ - ; » ‘ x
χοντα᾽ Σολομῶνος βιβλία τρία, Παροιμίαι, ᾿Εχκλησιαστὴς, “Aowe
> , ~ y ‘- Dy ~
ἀσμάτων: Προφῆται δεχαέξ. Ἔξωθεν δὲ ὑμῖν σιροςιστορείσϑω
Us τ ~ ~ ~
μανϑάνειν ὑμῶν τοὺς νέους τὴν σοφίαν τοῦ στολυμαϑοῦς Σιράχ᾽ ἡμέ-
, ~ ~ , >
τερα δέ, τουτέστι τῆς γαινῆς διαϑήχης, εὐαγγέλια τέσσαρα, Mar-
, ie ~ >
ϑαίου, Παρχου, “Τουχᾶ, Iwcarvvov: Παύλου ἐπιστολαὶ δεχατέσσα-
? \ 3 - 2 2
θὲς" Πέτρου ἐπιστολαὶ δύο" ᾿Ιωάννου, τρεῖς" ᾿Ιαχώβου, μία" ᾿Ιούδα,
ΒΚ , > : , ND Ghee Nl Colas sae
μία" Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολαὶ δύο" χαὶ αἱ Avavayat ὑμῶν τοῖς ἐπι-
Ἔ / * 2 ’ ~ , >) γ Ν Q,Q , /,
σχόποις δι ἐμοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐν οχτὼ βιβλίοις σιροςττεφωνημέναι,
cr 2 / NaN 2 -
5[ἃς ov χρὴ δημοσιεύειν ἐπὶ πάντων, διὰ τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς μυστικά"
€ ~ ~ 2
χαὶ αἱ Πράξεις ἡμῶν τῶν ἀποστόλων.
- - PRG ~ ΟῚ
Ταῦτα δὲ περὶ χανόνων διετάχϑη ὑμῖν παρ᾿ ἡμῶν, ὦ ἐπί-
5 τσ - \ ’ , 2 - { “ { Ἁ ’ / A,
σχοσοι. Yueig δὲ elévovteg αὐτοῖς, σωϑήσεσϑε, χαὶ εἰρήνην
Ch 2 - ἌΡΤΟΣ
ἕξετε" απιειϑοῦντες δὲ, χολασϑήσεσϑε, καὶ πόλεμον μετ΄ ἀλλήλων
doh c , - 2 oh , ~
αἴδιον ἕξετε, δίχην τῆς ἀνηχοΐας τὴν πρροσήχουσαν τιννῦντες.
12. Coprex CrLaromonTanus.
Codex Claromontanus! (Cod. D of Pauline Epp.) contains
between the Epistles Philemon and Hebrews a list entitled Ver-
sus Scribturarum Sanctarum, in which are all the books of the
O. T. (with Apocrypha in peculiar order). Its New Testament
list is Evangelia Mat., Joh., Marc., Luc.; Epist. Pauli, ad Ro-
manos, ad Chorintios 1. 2, ad Galatas, ad Efesios, ad Timothcum
1. 2, ad Colosenses, ad Filimonem, ad Petrum 1. 2, Jacobi, Jo-
hanni Epist. 1. 2.3, Judae Epist., Barnabae Epist., Johannis Re-
velatio, Actus Apostolorum, Pastoris, Actus Pauli, Revelatio Petri.?
adds, ‘‘quibus plurimi consensum non praebuere facilem.”’ In his collection they
were 50 in number; but about 50 years later they were published in Greek,
numbering 85, by John Scholasticus, afterwards Patriarch of Constantinople. The
Trullan Council in 692 decreed them to be genuine. See Hefele, Hist. of Councils
(Eng. trans.), p. 449. The Roman Church accepts 50, the Greek Church 85.
2 The words ἅς... μυστιχά are supposed to have been inserted after the
Trullan Council. See Credner Gesch. des N. T. Kanon, 235.
1 See Tischendorf’s edition.
2 This curious list wants both Epp. to Thess., Hebrews, and Philippians, while
the MS in which it finds a place contains them all. The date of the Codex is
probably of the sixth century. The date and origin of the list can only be con-
28 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
13. Anastasius Sinarta.!
Περὶ τῶν & βιβλίων, χαὶ ὅσα τούτων ἐχτός.
α΄. Γένεσις ς ὡς 6 ae es ee ee see ΞΞΞ ΕΕ
λε΄. εὐαγγέλιον xara ατϑαῖον, ids’. κατὰ άρχον, λζ΄. κατὰ
““οῦχαν, λη΄. κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην, λ΄. Πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων, μ΄.
᾿Ιαχώβου Ἐπιστολή, μα΄. Πέτρου, μιβ΄. Πέτρου, μγ΄. Ἰωάννου,
μδ΄. ᾿Ιωάννου, με΄. ᾿Ιωάνγου, με΄. Ἰούδα, ul’. Παύλου πρὸς ἹῬω-
μαίους, μη. πρὸς Κορινϑίους, wd. πρὸς Κορινϑίους β΄, ν΄.
πρὸς Γαλάτας, να΄. πρὸς Ἐφεσίους, νβ΄. πρὸς Φιλιτιπτησίους,
vy’. πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς, νδ΄. πρὸς Θεσσαλονιχεῖς, νε΄. πρὸς Θεσ-
σαλονιχεῖς β', νς΄. πρὸς Τιμόϑεον, νζ΄. τερὸς Τιμόϑεον β΄, νη΄.
πρὸς Τίτον, v9. πρὸς Φιλήμονα, ξ΄. πρὸς Ἑβραίους.
Καὶ ὅσα ἔξω τῶν ξ΄.
a. σοφία Σολομῶντος. . =» .- + + « «+ «
U. Ἡλία ἀποκάλυψις, ια΄. Ησαΐου ὅρασις.
Καὶ ὅσα ἀπόχρυφα.
α΄. ᾿“δάμ, β΄. Ἐνώχ, γ΄. “αμέχ, δ΄. Πατριάρχαι, ε΄. Ἰω-
σὴφ Προσευχή, ς΄. Ἐλδὰμ zai Modcu, ζ΄. Διαϑήκη ἸΠωσέως,
η΄. (wanting), 9΄. Ψαλμὸν Σολομῶντος, uv. Ἥλιου an. x. τ. d.
ιβ΄. Σοφονίου ἀποχάλυψις, ιγ΄. Ζαχαρίου ἀποκάλυψις, ιδ΄. Ἔσ-
ὅρα ἀποχάλυψις, ιε΄. ᾿Ιακώβου Ἱστορία, ις΄. Πέτρου ἀποχάλυψις,
ιζ΄. Περίοδοι χαὶ “ιδαχαὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων, wy. Βαρνάβα ἐπι-᾿
στολή, wu. Παύλου πράξεις, χ΄. Παύλου ἀποχάλυψις, κα΄. At-
δασχαλία Κλήμεντος, χβ΄. ᾿Ιγνατίου διδασχαλία, χγ΄. Πολυχάρ-
jectured. It would probably be useless to seek to account for omissions in it which
are more likely to have arisen from accident or ignorance than from intention or
knowledge. Tisch. (Proleg. p. XVI) says that the list was evidently made before
there was much discussion of the Canon; that its way of dealing with Hebrews
shows that it was made before Augustine’s day; and that it was most probably
of African origin. But the arguments scarcely apply, for Hebrews is not the only
omitted Epistle; and moreover the presence of non-canonical books in Cod. A
and in δὲ cannot be reconciled with (say) the Decree of the Council of Laodicea.
The presence or absence of books in a special list or MS is not always to be
explained by general considerations.
1 Anastasius Sinaita, Patriarch of Antioch, died 599. The Books are di-
vided into three classes: (1) Biblical (60 in number, ze., 34 of O. T. without
Apocr., 26 of N. T. without Apocalypse), (2) Extra Biblical, (3) Apoeryphal.
In the second class are The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Maccabees (4), Esther,
Judith, Tobit. See Credner Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, p. 240; Westcott Canon,
Ρ. 520.
TRULLAN COUNCIL. NICEPHORUS. 29
που διδασχαλία, “0. Εὐαγγέλιον xara Βαρνάβαν, κε΄. Εὐαγγέλιον
χατὰ Marvdiar. 3
14. Τμυύυμμαν Councit a.p. 692.1
Ἔδοξε χαὶ τοῦτο τῇ ἁγίᾳ ταύτῃ συνόδῳ χαάλλιστά τε χαὶ σπου-
δαιότατα" ὥστε μιένειν χαὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν βεβαίους χαὶ ἀσφαλεῖς
moog ψυχῶν ϑεραπείαν χαὶ ἰατρείαν παϑῶν τοὺς ὑττὸ τῶν πρὸ
ἡμῶν ἁγίων χαὶ μαχαρίων πατέρων δεχϑέντας χαὶ χυρωϑέντας,
ἀλλὰ μὴν χαὶ παραδοϑέντας ἡμῖν ὀνόματι τῶν ἁγίων χαὶ ἐνδόξων
᾿“΄ποστόλων ὀγδοηχόντα πέντε χανόνας. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐν τούτοις
τοῖς χανόσιν ἐντέταλται δέχεσϑαι ἡμᾶς τὰς τῶν αὐτῶν ἁγίων
᾿Αποστόλων διὰ Κλήμεντος “Π΄ατάξεις, αἷς τισι ττάλαι ὑπὸ τῶν
ἑτεροδόξων ἐπὶ λύμῃ τῆς ἐχχλησίας νόϑα τινὰ nai ξένα τῆς εὐ-
σεβείας παρενετέϑησαν, τὸ εὐπρεπὲς κάλλος τῶν ϑείων δογμάτων
ἡμῖν ἀμαυρώσαντα, τὴν τῶν τοιούτων Διατάξεων πιροσφόρως ἀπο-
βολὴν πεποιήμεϑα πρὸς τὴν τοῦ χριστιανιχωτάτου ποιμνίου οἱ-
χοδομὴν γχαὶ ἀσφάλειαν" οὐδαμῶς ἐγχρίνοντες τὰ τῆς αἱρετιχῆς
“ψευδολογίας χυήματα, καὶ τῇ γνησίᾳ τῶν ἀποστόλων χαὶ Oho-
χλήρῳ διδαχῇ τιαρενείροντες. Ἐπισφραγίζομεν δὲ χαὶ τοὺς λοι-
ποὺς πάντας ἱεροὺς χανόνας τοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων χαὶ μαχαρίων
πατέρων ἡμῶν ἐχτεϑέντας .... [Here come the names of the
Councils approved of, among which are those of Nicaea, of Lao-
dicea, and of Carthage. But this Trullan decree is not consistent
with itself; eg. the opinions of Athanasius are approved; but
Athanasius includes the Apocalypse in the N. T., while the Apo-
stolical Canons (also approved) excluded the Apocalypse. The
Apostolical Canons also included the Clementine Letters and Con-
stitutions, which again excluded the Catholic Epistles. |
15. Nicepyorus, a.p. 828.1
cl, δι κα ~ ἈΠ Ὁ 7 Ν ,
Ὅσαι εἰσὶ ϑεῖαι γραφαὶ ἐχχλησιαζόμεναι χαὶ χεχανονισμέναι.
Καὶ ἣ τούτων στιχομετρία οὕτως .....-
8 The Apocalypse of John is not in the list anywhere.
1 The seventh General Council, held at Constantinople. See Notes on Laod.
and Carth. Councils.
1 Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, (died A.D. 828), appended a sticho-
metry to his brief Chronography. His O. T. list has Baruch and wants Esther,
30 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
Τῆς νέας διαϑύήκης.
Εὐαγγέλιον χατὰ Mardetor στίχοι By’ [2000].
> ‘
Evayy. κατὰ Maoxov στ. β [2000].
Evayy. χατὰ “ουκᾶν ot. By’ [2600].
Etayy. κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην στ. Bt’ [2800 al. 2003].
Πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων στ. βω΄ [2800].
Παύλου ἐπιστολαὶ ιδ΄, στ. ev’ [0900].
Καϑολιχαὶ ζ΄, ᾿Ιαχώβου α', Πέτρου β', ᾿Ιωάννου γ΄, Ἰούδα α΄.
Ὁμοῦ τῆς νέας διαϑήχης βιβλία x's’.
Καὶ ὅσαι τῆς νέας ἀντιλέγονται.
᾿“ποχάλυψις ᾿Ιωάννου στίχοι ev’ [1400].
᾿Ἰποχάλυψις Πέτρου στ. τ΄ [800].
Βαρνάβα ἐπιστολὴ στ. ατξ΄' [1800].
Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ “Εβραίους στ. βε΄ [2200].
Καὶ ὅσα τῆς νέας ἀπόχρυφα.
Περίοδος Πέτρου στίχοι ‘Bw'v' [2150].
, > , 3 ’ τς
Tlegiodog Ιωαννου στ. PX [2600].
Περίοδος Θωμᾶν [sic] στ. ατ΄ [1900].
Etayy. κατὰ Θωμᾶν στ. av’ [1300].
“Ιιδαχὴ ἀποστόλων στ. σ΄’ [200].
Κλήμεντος α΄. β΄. στ. By’ [2600].
> , , \ ~ -
Tyvatiov, Πολυχάρπου, Ποιμένος χαὶ “Ἑρμᾷ [sic].
10. Canon or οὔναμ, or Trent, αν. 1546.2
Sacrosancta oecumenica et generalis Tridentina Synodus, in
Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata praesidentibus in ea eisdem
tribus Apostolicae Sedis legatis hoc sibi perpetuo ante omnia
proponens, ut sublatis erroribus puritas ipsa evangelii in ecclesia
conservetur, quod promissum ante per Prophetas in Scripturis
His list of N. T. Books agrees with our Canon—save that the Apocalypse is not
found in that division, but in the second class, or Antilegomena. His list may
be an older one revived. His division reminds us of Eusebius’s, but instead of
ὁμολογούμεναι γραφαί, he speaks of acceptance by the Church, and canonisation.
See Credner Gesch. des N. T. Kanon, p. 243; Westcott Canon, p. 522.
1 Chemnitz, Geneva (1614), Denzinger, Enchiridion (1865); Schaff, Creeds
(1877).
CANON OF COUNCIL OF TRENT. 31
sanctis, Dominus noster Jesus Christus Dei filius, proprio ore
primum promulgavit, deinde per suos Apostolos, tanquam fon-
tem omnis et salutaris veritatis et morum disciplinae omni crea-
turae praedicari jussit, perspiciensque hanc veritatem et disci-
plinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus,
quae ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apo-
stolis Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditae ad nos
usque pervenerunt; orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes
libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti (cum utriusque unus
Deus sit auctor), necnon traditiones illas tum ad fidem, tum ad
mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo vel a Spiritu
Sancto dictatas, et continua successione in Ecclesia Catholica con-
conseryatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit ac vene-
ratur. Sacrorum vero librorum indicem, huic decreto adscriben-
dum censuit; ne cui dubitatio suboriri possit, quinam sint qui ab
ipsa Synodo suscipiuntur. Sunt vero infra scripti Testamenti Ve-
teris. Quinque Moysis scilicet Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri,
Deuteronomium. Deinde Josue, Judicum, Ruth, quatuor Regum,
Paralipomenon duo, Esdrae duo, primus scilicet et secundus, qui
dicitur Nehemias, Thobias, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalterium Davi-
dicum ci Psalmorum. Parabclae, Ecclesiastes, Canticum Cantico-
rum, Sapientia, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Hieremias, Baruch, Ezechiel,
Daniel, duodecim prophetae minores, scilicet Osee, Joel, Amos,
Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Za-
charias, Malachias, duo Machabacorum, primus scilicet et secun-
dus. Testamenti Novi, quatuor Evangelia, secundum Matthaeum,
Marcum, Lucam, et Joannem, Acta Apostolorum a Luca evange-
lista conscripta. Quatuordecim epistolae beati Pauli apostoli, sci-
licet ad Romanos, ad Corinthios duae, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios,
ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses, ad Thessalonicenses duae, ad
Timotheum duae, ad Titum, ad Philemonem, ad Hebraeos, Petri
apostoli duae, Joannis apostoli tres, Jacobi una, Judae apostoli
una, et Apocalypsis Joannis apostoli. Si quis autem libros ipsos
integros, cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica
legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur,
pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit: et traditiones praedictas
sciens et prudens contempserit: anathema sit.
32 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
The Council of Trent also (Sessio 4, April 8, 1546) fixed the
text of scripture as in the Vulgate Edition:
5 Insuper eadem 8.8. Synodus considerans non parum utili-
tatis accedere posse Ecclesiae Dei si ex omnibus latinis editio-
nibus quae circumferuntur sacrorum librorum quaenam pro au-
thentica habenda sit, innotescat, statuit et declarat ut haec ipsa
vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa
ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prae-
dicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur, et ut nemo
illam rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat .... de-
crevit et statuit ut posthac Scriptura Sacra, potissimum vero
haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quam emendatissime impri-
matur.?
17. Oxp Ολτποιμα Unton! Tueses. 1874.
Art. I. We agree that the apocryphal or deuterocanonical books
of the Old Testament are not of the same canonicity as
the books contained in the Hebrew canon.
Art. III. We agree that the reading of Holy Scripture in the
vulgar tongue cannot be lawfully forbidden.
Art. IX. The Holy Scriptures being recognized as the primary rule
of Faith, we agree that the genuine tradition 1.6., the
unbroken transmission,—partly oral, partly in writing,—
2 See Denzinger Enchiridion, p. 226. Reuss, Geschichte, § 482. Schaff, Creeds
of Christendom, p. 82.
8 There is controversy as to the precise scope of this decree. It is pleaded
on the one hand that it only singles out the Vulgate from other Latin editions:
and decrees that a correct edition of it shall be published forthwith. It is repre-
sented on the other hand that the attempts of successive Popes [Sixtus V. 1590,
Clement VIII. 1592] to publish a standard edition show the object of the decree
to have been the fixing of the text of Scripture as against all comers. The decree
is certainly not so clear as Protestants sometimes represent it to be. But there
can be little freedom when any Latin text of the Vulgate is held as ‘‘authentie”
in all public controversies. Compare the prohibition of reading Scripture in the
Vulgar tongue except when special permission has been obtained (Pius IV. 1564).
The Clementine Vulgate, which was so soon needed to supersede the edition of
the Pope two years before, is still the standard in the Romish Church.
1 A conference of ‘“‘Old Catholics,” ‘Orthodox Russians and Greeks,” ‘‘Eng-
lish Episcopalians” and ‘‘American Episcopalians” held at Bonn in 1874 under the
presidency of Dr Déllinger, agreed upon certain Articles as embodying their com-
mon belief. (See Schaff, Greek and Latin Creeds, p. 545.) The English is au-
thoritative. The Theses are given here, as bearing on the previous Extract, though
they are of later date than the Extracts which follow.
CYRIL LUKAR’S CONFESSION. 33
of the doctrine delivered by Christ and the Apostles, is
an authoritative? source of teaching for all successive
generations of Christians. This tradition is partly to be
found in the consensus of the great ecclesiastical bodies
standing in historical continuity with the primitive Church,
partly to be gathered by scientific method from the
written documents of all centuries.
a ’ a.
18. Cyrit Lukar’s Conression. ὦ
cc \ Χ - “ ,ὔ - 5
ἱερὰν γραφὴν ποῖα βιβλία γχαλεῖς ; 3
Cc A \ 2 / es ὧν Η one a Ν / Ns Z : cr
Ἱερὰν γραφὴν marta τὰ χανονιχὰ βιβλία λέγομεν, ἅπερ ὡς
/ ~ , ς - \ ~ , \
κανόνα τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν KEL τῆς σωτηρίας παρελάβομεν χαὶ
as ~ rh G? « Ὧν fe, ς » hy \ ν
χρατοῦμεν, μάλισϑ' ote ϑεόπνευστον ἡμῖν σιροβάλλουσι τὴν δι-
ν > / ~ ~ ~
δασχαλίαν, καὶ αὐτάρχη χατηχῆσαι, φωτίσαι χαὶ τελειῶσαι τὸν τῇ
, r ~ » SN / ~
mover τιροσερχόμενον. Taira δὲ ta χανονιχὰ βιβλία τοσαῦτα
2 ἊΝ “3; , cr ς y
TOY ἀριϑμὸν εἶναι πιστεύομεν, ὅσα ἢ ἕν “αοδιχείᾳ σύνοδος ἀπε-
ς Sap ~ > ὙΕΕΡΕ
φήνατο, χαὶ ἢ τοῦ Χριστοῦ χαϑολικὴ χαὶ ὀρϑόδοξος ἐκχλησία ὑπὸ
~ , - ~
TOW παναγίου πνεύματος φωτισϑεῖσα μέχρι TOL παρόντος ὑὕσταγο-
, > / Ὁ ~
ρεύει. “Ἅτιερ δὲ ἀπόχρυφα λέγομεν, διὰ τοῦτο τὸ ἐπώνυμον ov-
” a x ~ \ ~ , ,
τῶς ἔχουσιν, OTL TO χῦρος παρὰ τοῦ παναγίου πνεύματος οὐχ
ς . , " ) / ~
ἔχουσιν ὡς τὰ χυρίως χαὶ ἀναμφιβόλως χανονικὰ βιβλία, ἐν οἷς
ς ~ 7 “. , , \ \ ς ,ὔ Ν « -
ἢ τοῦ Mwvoewg πεντατευχος, “al τὰ ἀγιογραφα χαὶ οἱ προφῆται,
2 German: Eine autoritative (gottgewollte) Erkenntnissquelle.
1 For the views of the Greek Church on Canonicity see Introduction. The
following note may give an outline. Cyril Lukar, a native of Crete, was succes-
sively Patriarch of Alexandria and of Constantinople. He published his ‘“ Orien-
talium Professio” at Geneva (Latin in 1629, Greek in 1633). This ‘‘Professio”’
was too Protestant in its tone for the Eastern Church, in name of which it was
issued; and accordingly it was denounced as Calvinistic by the ‘‘ Council of Jeru-
salem,’’ which met in 1672. Of that Council Dositheos was President, and his
Confession and Catechism were adopted. Cyril had proclaimed the supremacy of
Scripture and the right of every man to read the Word of God; Dositheos made
Seripture and the Church equal, and canonized those books of the O. T. which
Cyril ‘stupidly termed Apocrypha.” His manifestoes were regarded as the voice
of the Eastern Church on the subject of the Canon until 1839, when Philaret,
Metropolitan of Moscow, published a Catechism which is now generally used in
Russian schools and churches. This Catechism, while it exalts tradition as a guide
to the understanding of the Scripture and to the observance of a proper ritual,
nevertheless makes Scripture indispensable for securing the unchangeableness of
revelation. The Catalogue of O. T. Books is explicitly made to correspond with
the Hebrew Canon; and the N.T. agrees with our Canon, Hebrews being ascribed
to Paul.
2 From Kimmel, Lib. Symb. Ecc. Or. p. 42.
94 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
c c ὩΣ , c 9 , , > Ν -
ἅτινα ὥρισεν ἀναγινώσχεσϑαι ἣ ἐν “αοδιχείᾳ σύνοδος, ἀπὸ τῆς
παλαιᾶς διαϑήχης βιβλία εἴκοσι δύο" ατὸ δὲ τῆς νέας πιλουτοῦμεν
τοὺς τέσσαρας εὐαγγελιστὰς, τὰς πράξεις, τὰς ἐπιστολὰς μαχα-
\ Ἀν το 2
ρίου Παύλου, καὶ τὰς χαϑολιχὰς αἷς συνάπτομεν καὶ τὴν ἀποχά-
λυιννιν τοῦ ἠγαπημένου. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἶναι τὰ κανονιχκὰ βιβλία
“ iM
χρατοῦμεν χαὶ ταῦτα ἱερὰν γραφὴν λέγεσϑαι ὁμολογοῦμεν.
19. Councr or JerusaLem, Marcu 1612.
Dosithet Confessio.
Ἐρώτησις γ΄. Ἱερὰν γραφὴν ποῖα βιβλία καλεῖς;
Στοιχοῦντες τῷ χανόνι τῆς χαϑολιχῆς ἐχχλησίας, ἱερὰν γραφὴν
χαλοῦμεν ἐχεῖνα πάντα, ἅττερ ὃ Κύριλλος ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν “αοδικείᾳ
συνόδου ἐρανισάμενος ἀριϑμεῖ. Καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἅπτερ ἀσυνέτως
χαὶ ἀμαϑῶς, εἴτ᾽ οὖν ἐϑελοχαχούργως, ἀπόχρυφα κατωνόμασε"
τὴν Σοφίαν δηλαδὴ τοῦ Σολομῶντος, τὴν ᾿Ιουδὴϑ, τὸν Τωβίαν,
τὴν “Ιστορίαν τοῦ δράχοντος, τὴν “Ιστορίαν τῆς Σωσάννης, τοὺς
ἸΠαχχαβαίους, καὶ τὴν Σοφίαν τοῦ Σειράχ. ᾿Ημεῖς γὰρ μετὰ τῶν
ἄλλων τῆς ϑείας γραφῆς γνησίων βιβλίων καὶ ταῦτα γνήσια τῆς
γραφῆς μέρη χρίνομεν, ὅτι ἣ παραδόσασα ἀρχαία συνήϑεια καὶ
μάλιστα ἣ χαϑολιχὴ ἐχχλησία γνήσια εἶναι τὰ ἱερὰ εὐαγγέλια “at
τ᾽ ἄλλα τῆς γραφῆς βιβλία, καὶ ταῦτα εἶναι τῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς
μέρη ἀναμφιβόλως πιαρέδωχε" χαὶ τούτων ἣ ἄρνησις ἐχείνων ἐστὶν
ἀϑέτησις. Et δέ mov δοχεῖ μὴ ἀεὶ τιάντα ὑπὸ ττάντων συγχατα-
ριϑμεῖσϑαι, οὐδὲν ἧττον ὅμως χαὶ ταῦτα παρά τε συνόδων χαὶ
"πολλῶν ὅσων τῆς χαϑολιχῆς ἐκκλησίας :ταλαιοτάτων τε χαὶ ἐγχρί-
τῶν ϑεολόγων ἀριϑμεῖται χαὶ συγχαταριϑμεῖται τῇ πάσῃ γραφῇ,
ἃ σιάντα χαὶ ἡμεῖς χανονιχὰ βιβλία κρίνομεν, καὶ ταῦτα τὴν oe
γραφὴν εἶναι δμολογοῦμεν.
20. Puiaret’s Loncer Carecutsm! or tHe Orrnopox,
Catnotic, Eastern Cruurcn, Moscow, 1839.
(Question) 16. How is divine revelation spread among men and
preserved in the true Church?
By two channels—holy tradition and holy Scripture.
1 Kimmel, p. 467. The same Council sanctioned Mogilas’ Confession (1633).
1 See Schaff, Creeds of the Greek and Latin Churches, p. 445.
PHILARET’S LONGER CATECHISM. 90
17. What is meant by the name holy tradition?
By the name holy tradition is meant the doctrine of the
faith, the law of God, the sacraments, and the ritual as
handed down by the true believers and worshippers of
God by word and example from one to another, and from
generation to generation.
18. Is there any sure repository of holy tradition ?
All true believers united by the doctrine of the faith,
collectively and successively, by the will of God, compose
the Church; and she is the sure repository of holy tra-
dition, or as St. Paul expresses it, “Zhe Church of the
living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”—1 Tim.
ὯΠ 10.
St. Irenaeus writes thus: “We ought not to seek among
others the truth, which we may have for asking from
the Church: for in her, as in a rich treasure house, the
Apostles have laid up in its fulness all that pertains to
the truth, so that whosover seeketh may receive from
her the food of life. She is the door of life.” (Adv.
Haeres. lib. III. c. 4.)
19. What is that which you call holy Scripture?
Certain books written by the Spirit of God through men
sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles. These
books are commonly termed the Bible.
20. What does the word Bible mean?
24:
It is Greek, and means the books. The name signifies
that the sacred books deserve attention before all others.
Which is the more ancient, holy tradition or holy Scripture?
The most ancient and original instrument for spreading
divine revelation is holy tradition. .... The necessity
of tradition is further evident from this, that books can
be available only to a small part of mankind, but tra-
dition to all.
22.—Why, then, was holy Scripture given?
To this end, that divine revelation might be preserved
more exactly and unchangeably. In holy Scripture we
read the words of the Prophets and Apostles precisely
as if we were living with them and listening to them,
3 *
91.
94.
90.
44.
Ατί.
TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
although the latest of the sacred books were written a
thousand and some hundred years before our time.
Must we follow holy tradition, even when we possess holy
Scripture ?
We must follow that tradition which agrees with the di-
vine revelation and with holy Scripture, as is taught
us by holy Scripture itself. The Apostle Paul writes:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions
which ye have been taught, whether by word or our
epistle”—2 Thess. ii. 15.
How many are the books of the Old Testament Ὁ
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St.
John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing
therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the ori-
ginal Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. XXXIX de Test.,
J. Damasc. Theol. lib. IV. c. 17.)
Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration [the enu-
meration of St. Cyril and St. Athanasius] of the books of
the Old Testament, of the book of the Wisdom of the Son
of Sirach, and of certain others?
Because they do not exist in the Hebrew.
How are we to regard these last named books?
Athanasius the Great says that they have been appointed
of the Fathers to be read by proselytes who are pre-
paring for admission into the Church.
How many are the books of the New Tetament?
Twenty-seven.
LUTHERAN TESTIMONY.
21. Formuna Concorpiak. 1577.1
i:
. Credimus, confitemur et docemus, unicam regulam et nor-
mam, secundum quam omnia dogmata omnesque doctores
aestimari et judicari oporteat, nullam omnino aliam esse,
1 First published at Dresden, and translated into Latin by Osiander, 1580;
the authorized text 1584. See Hase, Libri symbolici, p. 570, and Proleg., p. CXXI.
Schaff’s Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches, p. 93.
9
FORMULA CONCORDIAE. CONF. BASIL. 3%
quam Prophetica et Apostolica scripta cum Veteris, tum
Novi Testamenti, sicut scriptum est: Ps. cxix. 105. Et Di-
vus Paulus inquit Gal. i. 8: Etiamsi &c.
2. Reliqua vero sive patrum sive neotericorum scripta, quocun-
que veniant nomine, sacris literis nequaquam sunt aequipa-
randa, sed universa illis ita subjicienda sunt, ut alia ratione
non recipiantur, nisi testium loco, qui doceant, quod etiam
post Apostolorum tempora, et in quibus partibus orbis, doc-
trina illa Prophetarum et Apostolorum sincerior conservata
Sit.
7. Hoc modo luculentum discrimen inter sacras Veteris et Novi
Testamenti literas, et omnia aliorum scripta retinetur: et
sola Sacra Scriptura judex, norma et regula agnoscitur, ad
quam, ceu ad Lydium lapidem, omnia dogmata exigenda sunt
et judicanda, an pia, an impia, an vera, an vero falsa sint.
8. Caetera autem Symbola, et alia scripta, quorum paulo ante
mentionem fecimus, non obtinent auctoritatem judicis: haec
enim dignitas solis sacris literis debetur: sed duntaxat pro
religione nostra testimonium dicunt eamque explicant, ac
ostendunt, quomodo singulis temporibus sacrae literae in ar-
ticulis controversis in ecclesia Dei a doctoribus, qui tum vix-
erunt, intellectae et explicatae fuerint, et quibus rationibus
dogmata cum Sacra Scriptura pugnantia rejecta et condem-
nata sint.
REFORMED CONFESSIONS.
22. Conr. Basit.} (Posterior) or Conr. Hetver. (PRior).
1590.
German. Die heilge gétliche biblische gschrifft die da ist das
wort gottes, von dem helgen geist inggeben, und durch
die propheten und apostell der welt fiirgetragen, ist die
aller alteste volkomnste und hichste leer, begrifft allein
alles das, das zu warer erkanntniiss liebe und eer gottes,
zu rechter warer fromkeit, und anrichtung eines fromen
eerbaren und gottsiligen lebens dienet.?
1 The Conf. Bas. Prior 1530 or 1531 has no chapter on Scripture.
2 Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum, p. 105, This Confession was made by
38 TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
Latin. Scriptura Canonica verbum dei, Spiritu 8. tradita, et per
prophetas apostolosque mundo proposita, omnium per-
fectissima antiquissima Philosophia, pietatem omnem,
omnem vitae rationem sola perfecte continet.®
23. Conressio Hetvetica Postrertor.! 1566.
Art. 1. Credimus et confitemur, Scripturas Canonicas sanctorum
Prophetarum et Apostolorum utriusque Testamenti ipsum
verum esse verbum Dei, et auctoritatem sufficientem ex
semetipsis, non ex hominibus habere. Nam Deus ipse
loquutus est Patribus, Prophetis, et Apostolis, et loqui-
tur adhuc nobis per Scripturas Sanctas.
24. Conressio Finer Gauuicana.t 1559.
(Confession of La Rochelle, 1571.)
French. Art. TV. Nous connaissons ces livres étre canoniques, et
la régle trés certaine de notre foi non tant par le com-
mun accord et consentement de lEglise, que par le te-
moignage et persuasion intéricure du Saint-Esprit, qui
nous les fait discerner d’avec les autres livres ecclésias-
tiques, sur lesquels, encore quils soient utiles, on ne
peut fonder aucun article de foi.
Art. V. Nous croyons que la Parole qui est contenue en ces
livres, est procédée de Dieu, duquel seul elle prend son
autorité, et non des hommes. Et d’autant quelle est
la régle de toute vérité, contenant tout ce qui est né-
cessaire pour le service de Dieu et de notre salut, il
nest pas loisible aux hommes, ni méme aux Anges, d’y
ajouter, diminuer, ou changer. D’ou il s’ensuit que ni
Bullinger, Leo Judae, and others. It was the first which represented the faith
of all the Reformed Swiss Cantons. The German and Latin versions do not ver-
bally agree, though both are authoritative.
3 Niemeyer, p. 115.
1 Schaff, Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches, p. 236.
1 Prepared by Calvin and De Chandieu; revised and approved by a Synod
at Paris 1559; delivered by Beza to Charles IX at Poissy, 1561; adopted by the
Synod of La Rochelle, 1571, and sanctioned by Henry IV. It is known as the
Confession of Rochelle. See Schaff, p. 356.
OLD SCOTTISH CONFESSION, CONFESSIO BOHOEMICA. 39
Pantiquité, ni les coutumes, ni la multitude, ni la sa-
gesse humaine, ni les jugements, ni les arréts, ni les
édits, ni les décrets, ni les conciles, ni les visions, ni
les miracles, ne doivent étre opposés a cette Ecriture
sainte, mais, au contraire, toutes choses doivent étre
examinées réglées et réformées selon elle.
25. Op Scorrisn Conresston.t 1560.
[After a statement of the marks of the true “kirks of God”.]
Art. 18. And sik kirks, we the inhabitantis of the Realme of
Scotland, professoris of Christ Jesus, professis our selfis
to have in our citties, towns and places reformed, for
the doctrine taucht in our kirkis, conteined in the
written Worde of God, to wit, in the buiks of the Auld
and New Testamentis, in those buikis we meane quhilk
of the ancient have been reputed canonicall.
Art. 19. “As we beleeve and confesse the Scriptures of God suf-
ficient to instruct and make the man of God perfite,
so do we affirme and avow the authoritie of the same
to be of God, and nether to depend on men nor an-
gelis. We affirme therefore that sik as allege the Scrip-
ture to have na uther authoritie but that quhilk it hes
received from the kirk to be blasphemous against God,
and injurious to the trew kirk, quhilk alwaies heares
and obeyis the voice of her awin Spouse and pastor
(2 Tim. iii. 16, 17) but takis not upon her to be maistres
over the samin.”?
26. Conressio Bonoremica!. 1535.
Art. I. Principio nostri omnes unanimi consensu docent scriptu-
ras sacras quae in Bibliis ipsis continentur, et a patri-
bus receptae auctoritateque Canonica donatae sunt, pro
inconcusse veris certissimisque habendas.
1 Published in 1560; afterwards translated into Latin.
2 Dunlop’s Confessions, II. 13.
1 Niemeyer, Coll. Conf. p. 787.
40
TESTIMONIES TO THE CANON.
27. Anenican Artictes or Renicion. 1562.
Art. VI. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand
those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament,
of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
[Here follow the Books of the O. T.]
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church
doth read for example of life and instruction of manners:
but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doc-
trine: such are these following. [Here follow the Books
of the O. T. Apocrypha. |
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are
commonly received, we do receive, and account them Ca-
nonical.?
28. Westminster Conression or λιτη. 1643-1647.
ie
III.
ΤΥ.
Υ.
Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God
written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New
Testaments, which are these—
(Here follow the names of the Books)
all which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule
of faith and life.
The Books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine
inspiration, are no part of the Scripture; and therefore are
of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any other-
wise approved, or made use of, than any other human
writings.
The authority of the holy Scripture for which it ought to
be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony
of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth
itself), the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received,
because it is the word of God.
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the
1 So also the Conf. Wirtembergica: Sacram Scripturam vocamus eos cano-
nicos libros V. et N. T. de quorum autoritate in ecclesia nunquam dubitatum est.
But the Antilegomena are excluded from its list. (Reuss, Gesch. § 335.)
2 There is no list of the Canonical Books of the N. Τὶ,
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH. 41
Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy Scripture,
and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doc-
trine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts,
the scope of the whole, (which is (Ὁ give all glory to God,)
the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salva-
tion, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire
perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly
evidence itself to be the word of God: yet notwithstanding
our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth
and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the
Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our
hearts.
42 THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.
HT.
THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.
1. Jenatius.
. - 2 eC c ~ > ,
Philad. 5. “Aah ἢ προσευχὴ ὑμῶν εἰς Θεόν we ατταρτίσει,
ον ony ζ χλη nh γῶν 4 ee 7 ws δ τὸ Ἐς 4 aes on
ἵνα ev ᾧ χλήρῳ ἡλεύϑην ἐπιτύχω, προσφιγὼν TO εὐαγγελίῳ ὡς
Vr ~ \ ~ 2 , Cc , ’ U
σαρχὶ Ingot, χαὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ὡς πρεσβυτερίῳ ἐχχλησίας.
r , 2 ~ \ \ \ 2 \ 2
Καὶ τοὺς προφήτας δὲ ἀγαπῶμιεν διὰ τὸ χαὶ αὐτοὺς εἰς TO εὐαγ-
, \ > =) \ 4 “ > a)
γέλιον natnyyEhnevan χαὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλσείζειν καὶ αὐτὸν ἀναμένειν"
> > ~ Ξ ἧς, DE
Ev ᾧ χαὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσώϑησαν, ἐν ἑνότητι Inoov Χριστοῦ ὄντες,
2 to eS c Nae ~ > ~
ἀξιαγάπητοι καὶ ἀαξιοϑαύίμαστοι ἅγιοι, ὑττὸ Inoov Χριστοῦ μεμαρ-
, \ ΐ τ ? . > 5) Ss ε - > ig
τυρημένοι HCL συνηριϑμημένοι ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τῆς κοινῆς ἐλ
᾽’
σείδος.1,
ine τ agi Ὁ τιν > , ,
Philad. ὃ. *Tlaoanch@ δὲ ὑμᾶς, μηδὲν nar ἐριϑείαν τεράσ-
ς 2) Td Ss
7 Ν ay / ΄
σειν, ἀλλὰ χατὰ χριστομαϑίαν: ἐπεὶ ἤχουσὰ τινων λεγόντων,
1 ‘Prophets’? here must mean the Prophetic authors of Books in the O. T.
“Gospel” probably means the contents of the Gospel; and the “Apostles” we take
to mean the apostolic founders of the Christian Church. These last renderings
are indefinite; but there are objections to any more definite interpretation of the
phrases used. At a later time “the Gospel’? and ‘the Apostle’ were familiar
terms, indicating the two great subdivisions of the New Testament; but we want
authority for ascribing that meaning to so early a writer as Ignatius. He pro-
bably meant by ‘‘Gospel”’ to denote the Christian truth contained in Christ’s life,
whether conveyed in writing or orally; and by ‘‘Apostles’’ to indicate a reference
to their writings, and at the same time to their traditional arrangements in and
for the Church. Elsewhere he likens the Presbytery to the synod or Sanhedrim
of Apostles (Magnesians ὁ. 6; Trallians c.2 and c. 8): and he seems here to speak
of the Apostles as a perpetual Presbytery whose opinion on all difficulties was
easily obtained and was to be implicitly followed. The following Extracts from
the Smyrnaean Epistle seem to be consistent with this rendering; and to make the
other from the Philadelphian more easily intelligible. Lardner (citing on the same
side Grabe, Mill and Le Clerc) ‘‘understands by the ‘Gospel’ the book or volume
of the Gospels; by ‘the Apostles’ the book or volume of their Epistles; as by
‘the Prophets’ the volume or whole canon of the New Testament.’’ See Lardner
vol. I. p. 322.
2 The readings in this difficult passage vary; ἀρχαῖα, ἄϑηχτα, οὐ πρόχειται,
being found. By using ἀρχεῖα (archives) a consistent meaning is given. It ap-
pears that Ignatius, in disputing with certain adversaries—heretics—found that
they insisted on appealing to the Archives—to the original Gospel records; and
that when he said ‘‘It is written,’ they retorted that this did not close the con-
troversy (πρόχειται, z.e., that is the point in dispute). Whereupon he recapitulates
the main facts on record which those heretics appear to have denied. It is clear,
therefore, that at this period disputants on both sides appealed to written standards.
It may be doubtful whether both appealed to the same standards; but it seems
most probable that they did, and that they differed as to the interpretations. The
IGNATIUS. MELITO. 43
ὅτι “ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχείοις εὕρω, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, οὐ πι-
στεύω"" Καὶ λέγοντός μου αὐτοῖς, ὅτι “γέγρατιται"" ἀτιεχρίϑησάν
μοι, ὅτι “πρύχειται." Ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός" τὰ
ἄϑιχτα ἀρχεῖα ὃ σταυρὸς αὐτοῦ χαὶ ὃ ϑάνατος χαὶ ἣ ἀνάστασις
αὐτοῦ, χαὶ ἢ πίστις ἣ Ov αὐτοῦ" ἐν οἷς ϑέλω ἐν τῇ τιροσευχῇ ὑμῶν
δικαιωϑῆγαι.
Old Latin version. Deprecor autem vos, nihil secundum con-
tentionem facere, sed secundum Christi disciplinam; quia audivi
quosdam dicentes quoniam si non in veteribus invenio, in Evan-
gelio non credo. Et dicente me ipsis, quoniam scriptum est, re-
sponderunt mihi, quoniam praejacet. Mihi autem principium est
Jesus Christus; inapproximabilia principia crux ipsius et mors,
et resurrectio ipsius, et fides quae per ipsum; in quibus volo
in oratione vestra justificari.
Philad. 9. Ἐξαίρετον δέ τι ἔχει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τὴν
σιαρουσίαν τοῦ σωτῆρος, Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὸ πάϑος
αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν. ΟἹ γὰρ ἀγαπητοὶ προφῆται χατήγγειλαν
εἰς αὐτόν" τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον ἀπάρτισμά ἔστιν ἀφϑαρσίας.
Smyrn. 5. Otc οὐχ ἔπεισαν αἱ πιροφητεῖαι, οὐδὲ 6 νόμος
Mooéug, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ μέχρι νῦν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, οὐδὲ τὰ ἡμέτερα
τῶν χατ᾽ ἄνδρα madi uated.
Smyrn. 7. Πρέπον οὖν ἐστὶν... τιροσέχειν τοῖς τιροφήταις,
ἐξαιρέτως δὲ τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, ἐν ᾧ τὸ τιάϑος ἡμῖν δεδήλωται,
χαὶ H ἀνάστασις τετελείωται.
2. Metiro.
Eus. HOES IPS 26:
Meditoy ᾿Ονησίμῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν. Ἐπειδὴ πολλάχις ἠξίω-
σας σπουδὴ τῇ πρὸς τὸν λόγον χρώμενος, γενέσϑαι σοι ἐκλογὰς
ἔχ TE τοῦ νόμου χαὶ τῶν τιροφητῶν περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος χαὶ πάσης
τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ μαϑεῖν τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν βι-
βλίων ἐβουλήϑης ἀχρίβειαν, τιύσα τὸν ἀριϑμὸν χαὶ ὅποῖα τὴν
τάξιν εἶεν, ἐσπούίδασα τὸ τοιοῖτο πρᾶξαι, ἐπιστάμενός σου τὸ
στιουδαῖον regi τὴν τιίστιν, χαὶ φιλομαϑὲς περὶ τὸν λόγον, ὅτι
reading οὐ πρόχειται may perhaps have been intended to say that such standard
writings ‘are not extant,’ or that the subject is not mentioned. But the other
reading seems to fit better into what follows.
44 THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.
, , ᾿ς ~ \ \ ~ 5 , \
μαλιστα savtwy ττόϑῳ τῷ σιρὸς Θεὸν ταῦτα τιροχρίνεις, περὶ
τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας ἀγωνιζόμενος. “Ave Jor οὖν εἰς τὴν ἀνα-
᾿ λὴ ἢ Ξ \ ce ~ Lee Ν mn / a { a rs Us € 3 ‘ ’ ᾿ς
τολὴν, χαὶ ἕως τοῦ τόπου γενόμενος ἔνϑα ἐχηρύχϑη καὶ ἐπράχϑη,
καὶ ἀχριβῶς μαϑὼν τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαϑήκχης βιβλία, ὑπο-
τάξας ἔπεμψά oo. [Here follow the Books of O. T., omittin
5 f ’
DI ς παν Gs \ \ Ν ,
‘sther; and then he adds] “ES wy zai τὰς ἐχλογὰς ἐποιησάμην
εἰς €& βιβλία διελών.
ὃ. Dionysius, Bisnop or Corintu.t
ASAD LO REARS
2. Ω ς > \ \ \ ~ , , ’ ~ G c
ἔτι δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς χαὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπιστολῶν ὡς ῥᾳδιουργη-
- ~ 2) ~ 2) ,
ϑεισῶν, ταῦτα φησίν. “Ἐπιστολὰς γὰρ ἀδελφῶν ἀξιωσάντων μὲ
1 The force of this passage lies in the inference that a new collection of
books was known from which the Old Testament (‘‘The old Books’) was dis-
tinguished. Eusebius begins the chapter by enumerating the works of Melito
upon various subjects of Christian philosophy and theology, among which he names
a work ‘‘on the Apocalypse of John.” He was bishop of Sardis in the time of
Marcus Aurelius. The author of Supernatural Religion, 11. 17 (and Sanday agrees
so far with him) points to 2 Cor. iii. 6.14 ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαϑή-
χΧῊς as proof that the ‘‘Old Covenant” is a phrase referring to ‘the doctrinal
view,’’ not to the Books. But this does not dispose of the argument founded on
τὰ παλαιὰ βιβλία as connected with ἡ παλαιὰ διαϑήχη. Does the author of Sup.
Rel. mean that there were no Books in the time of Melito recognized as con-
taining the New Covenant? He says the date of Melito falls after A.D. 176; and if
so, such a contention is impossible. There is not much known of his date except
that his Apology was addressed to the Emperor in A.D. 170. Polyerates (in
Kus. Ἡ. E. V. 24), in his letter to Victor, speaks of him as buried in Sardis, and
terms him ““Μελίτωνα τὸν εὐνοῦχον, τὸν ἐν ᾿Αγίῳ πνεύματι πάντα πολιτευσάμιενον,᾽"
and there has been much controversy as to whether he was literally or metapho-
rically a eunuch. On Melito and his writings see Donaldson, Hist. of Christian
Literature and Doctrine, III. 221.
1 Dionysius was Bishop of Corinth about A.D. 170. The extract is from
his letter to the Romans. The question here is whether by τῶν χυριαχῶν γρα-
φῶν he means the N. T. Scripture (see Lardner), the Gospels (see Donaldson),
or (as held in Sup. Rel. 11. 166) ‘‘the Scriptures of the Old Testament.’”’ For this
last no authority is adduced; and it is idle to refer to Justin’s accumulation of O. T.
Scriptures predicting Christ. The author goes on (Sup. Rel. II. p. 167) to show
that Serapion found the Gospel of Peter in the third century in Rhosse, and
that Theodoret found (423) Tatian’s Diatessaron ‘‘in esteem in our Churches ;”
but this argument tells against himself. Such books were found here and there
over the Church; but the question is whether there was all the while a consent
of the Church as a whole in favour of our N. T. Books. No one can deny that
there was such consent long before the fifth century. To prove that other than
Canonical Books existed in the time of Dionysius is superfluous; and if the writer’s
argument is valid in establishing a parallel between the case at that date and the
case in the fifth century, it would prove that the Church as a whole had at
both dates a Canon, although in some localities special favour was shown to un-
canonical books. Eusebius gives another quotation from Dionysius in the same
chapter, stating that the Epistle of Clement was daily read on the Lord’s Day in
DIONYSIUS. IRENAEUS. 45
’ » 7 \ , ~ 4 a) , . ὦ
γράψαι, ἔγραψα. Καὶ ταύτας οἱ τοῦ διαβόλου ἀπόστολοι ζιζανίων
ἈΣΕΡΑΗΝΕ ἡ aA ἃ δὲ Ae a δὲ 2 ἐ ἦν τὴ Ofc aan > Πα
γεγέμιχαν, ἃ μὲν ἑξαιροῦντες, ἃ δὲ τροστιϑέντες. Οἷς τὸ οὐαὶ
-- ᾽ ” 2) ‘ ~ ~ c y ~
χεῖται. Οὐ ϑαυμαστὸν ἄρα, εἰ καὶ TOY ZLOLALXOY ῥᾳδιουργῆσαί
’ / ~ Cc / ~ d
τινὲς ἐπιβέβληνται γραφῶν, ὁπότε χαὶ ταῖς οὐ τοιαύταις 87τ:ι-
βεβλήχασι."
4. Trenacus.
r 2 , ~ 2 ~ ~
B. I. ὃ. 6/ Kai ov μόνον ἔχ τῶν δυαγγελικῶν χαὶ τῶν
> ~ ~ Ν a We a ~ ,
ἀποστολικῶν!" “ξίρώνται τὰς ἀποδείξεις 7: οιείσϑαι, TKOATOE—
πα ΧΟ Σ ΠΟΙ ΩΝ TAR ΔΙ ΤΕ ΝΟ Δ Sinn ἘΣ δ πὶ
σίοντες τὰς ἑρμηνείας, ZAL ὁᾳδιουργοῦντες τὰς ἐξηγήσεις" ἀλλὰ χαὶ
Ἢ, , \ ~ ~ ~ , 2 -" ‘
EX VOMOV χαὶ περοφητῶν.. . . ¢ δεινῶς τῷ πλάσματι αὐτῶν χαὶι
Ὁ , ’ Ite γ 4 hse 2 ~ 2 XN
δολίως ἐφαρμόζοντες αἰχμαλώείζουσιν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληϑείας τοὺς μιὴ
CAN , \ , > c ‘ aii) , \ ,
ἑδραίαν τὴν τιίστιν εἰς eve Θεὸν Tlarege wavtoxgatoga χαὶ Els
c rt d ~ Ν \ ΩΝ - > ~ ν ,
ἕνα Κύριον Ιησοῖν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν tov Θεοῦ διαφυλάσσοντας.
[2] Ν SEN \ \ ᾿] , , DN ~ «
B. 1. 6. 8. Mo δὴ χαὶ τὰ ἀπειρημένα wavre ἀδεῶς οἱ τε-
Dah
λειότατοι πράττουσιν αὐτῶν, “περὶ ὧν καὶ γραφαὶ διαβεβαιοῦνται,
τοὺς ποιοῦντας αὐτὰ βασιλείαν Θεοῦ μὴ χληρονομήσειν.Σ Καὶ
γὰρ εἰδωλόϑυτα διαφόρως ἐσϑίουσι, μηδὲ μολύνεσϑαι bu’ “αὐτῶν
ἡγούμενοι.
B. IT. 35. 4. Quoniam autem dictis nostris consonat praedi-
catio apostolorum et domini magisterium et prophetarum annun-
tiatio et apostolorum dictatio et legislationis ministratio unum
eundemque omnium deum patrem laudantium. ... Sed ne pu-
temur fugere illam, quae ex Scripturis dominicis est probationem,
ipsis Scripturis multo manifestius et clarius hoc ipsum praedi-
cantibus, his tamen qui non prave intendunt eis proprium librum,
qui sequitur has Scripturas, reddentes ex Scripturis divinis pro-
bationes apponemus in medio omnibus amantibus veritatem.
Corinth; and if so, the supremacy of Paul’s doctrine was recognized. [See In-
troduction: Clement.] More important is it to compare the words of Dionysius
with those of his contemporaries Melito and Irenaeus, quoted in our text regarding
‘Scripture of the Lord.” Eusebius devotes a chapter (H. E. IV. 23) to Dionysius,
and we learn from it that he wrote many ‘Catholic Epistles” to other Churches
than his own. His letter to the Romans was written while Soter was Bishop.
1 These words point to a collection of ‘evangelical’ and ‘“‘apostolical ”’
writings. The extracts show that Irenaeus ealled the New Testament “ Seriptures,”’
like the Old. See also “ Dominicis Scripturis ewutriri’ (V. 20. 2). We have
also ϑεῖαι γραφαί (apparently referring to both Testaments), (II. 27. 1.) He
quotes also from the Presbyters (IV. 32. 1) special testimony to the unity of the
two Testaments.
2 The reference here is to the morals of the heretics, and the reference to
Gal. ν. 21 is maintained by the second clause.
40 THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.
B. IIT. 4.1. ἢ. Quid autem si neque apostoli quidem seriptu-
yas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis,
quam tradiderunt iis, quibus committebant ecclesias? Cui ordi-
nationi assentiunt multae gentes barbarorum eorum qui in Chris-
tum credunt, sine charta et atramento scriptam habentes per
Spiritum in cordibus suis salutem et veterem traditionem dili-
genter custodientes.
Ep. ad Florin. (Eus. H. E. V. 20). Ἐν iy ye μὴν προειρής
χαμεν τιρὸς τὸν Φλωρῖνον ὃ Εἰρηναῖος ἐπιστολῇ, αὖϑις τῆς ἅμα
Πολυχάρτιῳ συνουσίας αὐτοῦ μνημονεύει, λέγων. “... Καὶ ὡς
[Πολύχαρτιος] ἀπεμνημόνευε τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν [sc. τῶν ξωραχύ-
tov τὸν Κύριον] χαὶ περὶ τοῦ Κύριου τίνα ἦν ἃ παρ᾽ ἐχείνων
ἀχηχόει, χαὶ σπιερὶ τῶν δυναμέων αὐτοῦ, χαὶ περὶ τῆς διδασχα-
λίας, ὡς παρὰ αὐτοπτῶν τῆς ζωῆς tot λόγου παρειληρὼς ὃ Πο-
λύχαρτιος, ἀπήγγελλε πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς."
δ. Τεκτυιμμμαν.
De praescript. haereticor. c. 80. Si enim Marcion Novum Tes-
tamentum a Vetere separavit, posterior est eo quod separavit;
quia separare non posset, nisi quod unitum fuit.
Ibid. ¢.32. Ita omnes haereses ad utramque formam a nostris
Ecclesiis provocatae, probent se quaqua putant apostolicas. Sed
1 Tertullian: born about A.D. 160, died A.D. 220-240. He was a native of
Carthage, a married man, and (according to Jerome) a Presbyter. It is not
certain where he exercised his functions as Presbyter. In his later days he be-
came a Montanist, driven (says Jerome) from the Church by the harsh usage of
the Roman clergy. Some of his works were written after he left the Church. These
facts are almost all we know of his outer life. His character is written in his
books, impetuous, eloquent, sarcastic, an advocate rather than a judge. His aim
was to defend Christianity against the unworthy suspicions both of the rulers and
the ruled. So in his Apology he maintained against the heathen that Christians
had purer lives than they; in his ‘ddv. Judacos’ he proved the superiority of
the Gospel to the law; in his ‘De praescriptione haereticorum’ he showed how
Catholic Christians should deal with heretics; in his treatise ‘Adv. Marcionem’
he exposed the assumptions of the Gnostics. It is to be borne in mind that with
all his impetuosity he wrote systematically, and quoted very largely from
Scripture. In his treatises De Resurrectione, De Pudicitid, and Adv. Marcionem
he cites in regular sequence the Scripture passages bearing on the subject in hand.
When therefore he does not quote a passage or a book which we know to bear
on his subject, we may infer that he did not know it or did not use it. He uses
all the N. T. but James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John. Hebrews was not, however, part
of the Canon of the African Church, as is obvious from his mode of citation (see
below: ‘Hebrews’).° He quotes Jude as establishing the place of Enoch. See
Rénsch: Das Neue Testament Tertullians, for a compilation of his quotations.
TERTULLIAN. 47
adeo nec sunt, nec probare possunt quod non sunt, nec reci-
piuntur in pacem et communicationem ab Ecclesiis quoquo modo
apostolicis; scilicet ob diversitatem sacramenti nullo modo apos-
tolicae.
Ibid. c. 33. Adhibeo super haec ipsarum doctrinarum re-
cognitionem, quae tune sub apostolis fuerunt, ab iisdem apostolis
et demonstratae et dejeratae. Nam et sic facilius traducentur:
dum aut jam tunc fuisse deprehenduntur, aut ex illis quae jam
tunc fuerunt, seminia sumpsisse. Paulus in prima ad Corinthios
(xv. 12) notat negatores et dubitatores resurrectionis. Haec opi-
nio propria Sadducaeorum; partem ejus usurpat Marcion, et Apel-
les, et Valentinus, et si qui alii resurrectionem carnis infringunt.
Et ad Galatas (v. 2) scribens, invehitur in observatores et de-
fensores circumcisionis et legis: Hebionis haeresis sic est. Timo-
theum instruens (1 Tim. iv. 3), nuptiarum quoque interdictores
suggillat: ita instituunt Marcion, et Apelles ejus secutor. Aeque
tangit eos, qui dicerent factam jam resurrectionem (2 Tim. 11. 3):
id de se Valentiniani adseverant. Sed et cum genealogias inde-
terminatas nominat (1 Tim. i. 4), Valentinus agnoscitur: apud
quem Aeon ille nescio qui novi, et non unius nominis, generat e
sua Charite Sensum et Veritatem: et hi aeque procreant ex se
Sermonem et Vitam, dehinc et isti generant Hominem et Eccle-
siam: de qua prima ogdoade aeonum. Exinde decem alii, et
duodecim reliqui acones miris nominibus oriuntur, in meram fa-
bulam triginta aeonum. Idem apostolus, cum improbat elementis
servientes, aliquid Hermogenis ostendit, qui materiam non natam
introducens, Deo non nato eam comparat, et ita matrem elemen-
torum deam faciens, potest ei servire quam Deo comparat. Joan-
nes vero, in Apocalypsi (11. 20), idolothyta edentes et stupra com-
mittentes jubetur castigare: sunt et nunc alii Nicolaitae, Gaiana
haeresis dicitur. At in epistola eos maxime antichristos vocat,
qui Christum negarent in carnem yenisse, et qui non putarent Je-
sum esse Filium Dei: illud Marcion, hoc Hebion vindicavit. Si-
monianae autem magiae disciplina, angelis serviens, utique et ipsa
inter idololatrias deputabatur, et a Petro apostolo in ipso Simone
damnabatur.
Thid. ς. 34. Haec sunt, ut arbitror, genera doctrinarum ad-
ulterinarum, quae sub apostolis fuisse ab ipsis apostolis discimus:
48 THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.
et tamen nullam invenimus institutionem, inter tot diversitates
perversitatum, quae de Deo creatore universorum controversiam
moverit. Nemo alterum Deum ausus est suspicari.
Ibid. c. 36. Age jam, qui voles curiositatem melius exercere
in negotio salutis tuae, percurre Ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas
ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident,? apud
quas ipsae authenticae literae* eorum recitantur, sonantes yocem
et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Proxima est tibi Achaia,
habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philip-
pos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes
Ephesum. Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam, unde nobis
quoque auctoritas praesto est. Ista quam felix Ecclesia! cui to-
tam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt, ubi Pe-
trus passioni Dominicae adaequatur; ubi Paulus Joannis exitu
coronatur; ubi apostolus Joannes, posteaquam, in oleum igneum
demersus, nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur; videamus quid
didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque Ecclesiis contesse-
rarit. Unum Deum Dominum novit, Creatorem universitatis, et
Christum Jesum ex Virgine Maria, Filium Dei Creatoris, et carnis
resurrectionem: legem et prophetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis
literis miscet, et inde potat fidem.
Ibid. c. 37. Si haec ita se habent, ut veritas nobis adjudi-
cetur, quicumque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab apo-
stolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit, constat ratio
propositi nostri, definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad
ineundam de Scripturis provocationem, quos sine Scripturis pro-
bamus ad Scripturas non pertinere. Si enim haeretici sunt, Chri-
stiani esse non possunt, non a Christo habendo quod de sua elec-
tione sectati haereticorum nomine admittunt. Ita non Christiani,
nullum jus capiunt Christianarum literarum. Ad quos merito di-
cendum est: qui estis? quando, et unde venistis? quid in meo
agitis, non mei? quo denique, Marcion, jure silvam meam Cae-
dis? qua licentia, Valentine, fontes meos transyertis? qua potes-
tate, Apelles, limites meos commoves? Quid hic caeteri ad vo-
luntatem vestram seminatis et pascitis? Mea est possessio; olim
2 Al. praesidentur.
3 The meaning of ‘‘authenticae” is disputed. Original? unchanged? well war-
ranted by usage and testimony? See following extract from De Monogamidé for
the same word.
TERTULLIAN. 49
possideo: habeo origines firmas, ab ipsis auctoribus quorum fuit
res. Ego sum haeres apostolorum. Sicut caverunt testamento
suo, sicut fidei commiserunt, sicut adjuraverunt, ita teneo. Vos
certe exhaeredaverunt semper et abdicaverunt, ut extraneos, ut
inimicos. Unde autem extranei et inimici apostolis haeretici, nisi
ex diversitate doctrinae, quam unusquisque de suo arbitrio, ad-
versus apostolos aut protulit, aut recepit?
Ibid. c. 38. Illic igitur et Scripturarum et expositionum ad-
ulteratio deputanda est, ubi diversitas doctrinae invenitur. Qui-
bus fuit propositum aliter docendi, eos necessitas coégit aliter
disponendi instrumenta doctrinae.) ree enim non potuissent ali-
ter docere, nisi aliter haberent per quae docerent. Sicut illis
non potuisset succedere corruptela doctrinae sine corruptela in-
strumentorum ejus; ita et nobis integritas doctrinae non compe-
tisset sine integritate eorum, per quae doctrina tractatur. Et-
enim quid contrarium nobis in nostris? quid de proprio intulimus,
ut aliquid contrarium ei quod esset in Scripturis deprehensum,
detractione, vel adjectione, vel transmutatione remediaremus ?
Quod sumus, hoc sunt Scripturae ab initio suo; ex illis sumus,
antequam aliter fuit, antequam a vobis interpolarentur. Cum
autem omnis interpolatio posterior credenda sit, veniens utique
ex causa aemulationis, quae neque prior, neque domestica un-
quam est ejus quod aemulatur, tam incredibile est sapienti cui-
que, ut nos adulterum stilum intulisse videamur Scripturis, qui
sumus a principio et primi, quam illos non intulisse qui sunt et
posteri et adversi. Alius manu Scripturas, alius sensus exposi-
tione intervertit. Neque enim, si Valentinus integro instrumento
uti videtur, non callidiore ingenio, quam Marcion, manus intulit
veritati. Marcion enim exserte et palam machaera, non stilo usus
est; quoniam ad materiam suam caedem Scripturarum confecit.
Valentinus autem pepercit, quoniam non ad materiam Scripturas,
sed materiam ad Scripturas excogitavit: et tamen plus abstulit,
et plus adjecit, auferens proprietates singulorum quoque verbo-
rum, et adjiciens dispositiones non comparentium rerum.
Adv. Marcionem, 1V.1. Omnem sententiam et omnem para-
turam impii atque sacrilegi Marcionis ad ipsum jam Evange-
lium ejus provocamus, quod interpolando suum fecit. Et ut
fidem instrueret, dotem quamdam commentatus est illi, opus ex
4
"»
50 THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.
contrarietatum oppositionibus, Antitheses cognominatum, et ad
separationem Legis et Evangelii coactum, qua duos deos divi-
dens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius Instrumenti, vel (quod
magis usui est dicere) Testamenti; ut exinde Evangelio quoque
secundum antitheses credendo patrocinaretur.
Apologeticum, 6. 31. Adolati nunc sumus imperatori et men-
titi vota, quae diximus, ad evadendam scilicet vim. Plane pro-
ficit ista fallacia. Admittis nos enim probare quodcunque de-
fendimus. Qui ergo putaveris nihil nos de salute Caesarum cu-
rare, inspice Dei voces, literas nostras, quas neque ipsi suppri-
mimus et plerique casus ad extraneos transferunt. Scitote ex illis,
praeceptum esse nobis ad redundantiam benignitatis, etiam pro
inimicis Deum orare, et persecutoribus nostris bona precari. Qui
magis inimici et persecutores Christianorum, quam de quorum
majestate convenimur in crimen? Sed etiam nominatim et ma-
nifeste Orate, inquit, pro regibus, et pro principibus et potestati-
bus, ut omnia tranquilla sint vobis (1 Tim. 11. 2). Cum enim con-
cutitur imperium, concussis etiam ceteris membris ejus, utique et
nos, licet extranei a turbis aestimemur, in aliquo loco casus in-
yenimur.
De Monogamia, ὁ. 11. Sciamus plane non sic esse in Graeco
authentico quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut
callidam aut simplicem eversionem. δὲ autem dormierit vir ejus
quasi de futuro sonet ac per hoc videatur ad eam pertinere quae
jam in fide virum amiserit.
Adv. Praxeam, c. 15. Si hunc articulum quaestionibus Scrip-
turae veteris non expediam, de Novo Testamento sumam confir-
mationem nostrae interpretationis; ne quodcumque in Filium re-
puto, in Patrem proinde defendas. Ecce enim et in Evangeliis
et in Apostolis visibilem et invisibilem Deum deprehendo, sub
manifesta et personali distinctione conditionis utriusque.
6. Cremenr or Atexanprta.!
Strom. VII. (p. 836). pag γὰρ αὐτοὺς αἰχμαλωτίζειν, καὶ
ξαυτοὺς ἀναιρεῖν, τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνϑρωτιον, τὸν χατὰ τὰς ἐπιϑυ-
4 See 1 Cor. vii. 39. The Greek is ἐὰν δὲ χοιμηϑῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς.
1 The figures refer to Potter’s edition.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. ORIGEN. 51
μίας φϑειρόμενον, απτοχτιννύντας, “ai τὸν χαινὸν ἀνιστάντας zx
τοῦ ϑανάτου, τῆς τιαλαιᾶς διαστροφῆς, τό τε εὐαγγέλιον, ὅ τε
an ὄόστολος χελεύουσι.
Strom. VII. (p. 890). Καὶ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ τεχεῖν αὐτὴν μαιω-
ϑεῖσαν, φασί τινες wagdévoy εὑρεϑῆναι. Τοιαῦται δ᾽ ἡμῖν αἵ χυ-
QLaxal γραφαὶ, τὴν ἀλήϑειαν ἀπτοτίχτουσαι, καὶ μένουσαι σιαρ-
ϑένοι μετὰ τῆς ἐπιχρύψεως τῶν τῆς ἀληϑείας μυστηρίων.
Strom. VII. (p. 890). Ἔχομεν γὰρ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς διδασχα-
λίας τὸν Κύριον, διά τε τῶν προφητῶν, διὰ δὲ τοῦ εὐαγ-
γελίου, χαὶ διὰ τῶν μακαρίων ἀποστόλων, ττολυτρόπως χαὶ
πολυμερῶς ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰς τέλος ἡγούμενον τῆς γνώσεως. Τὴν ἀρχὴν
δ᾽ εἴ τις ἑτέρου δεῖσϑαι ὑπολάβοι, οὐχέτ᾽ ἂν ὄντως ἀρχὴ φυλαχ-
ϑείη. Ὃ μὲν οὖν ἐξ ξαυτοῦ πιστὸς τῇ κυριακῇ γραφῇ τε χαὶ
φωνῇ ἀξιόπιστος εἰχύτως ἂν διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀν-
ϑρώπων εὐεργεσίαν ἐνεργουμένῃ.
Strom. VIT. (p. 891). Εἰ δ᾽ οὐχ ἀρχεῖ μόνον ἁπλῶς eisety
τὸ δόξαν, ἀλλὰ πιστώσασϑαι δεῖ τὸ λεχϑὲν, οὐ τὴν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων
ἀναμένομεν μαρτυρίαν, ἀλλὰ τῇ τοῦ Κυρίου φωνῇ πιστού-
μεϑα τὸ ζητούμενον: ἣ πασῶν ἀποδείξεων ἐχεγγυωτέρα, μᾶλλον
δὲ ἢ μόνη ἀπόδειξις οὖσα τυγχάνει" χαϑ' ἣν ἐπιστήμην οἱ μὲν
ἐχιογευσάμενοι μόνον τῶν γραφῶν πιστοί.
7. Onicen.
Hom. on Gen. XIII. 2. p.95. Hoc ergo modo fodit puteos Isaac,
quos foderant pueri patris sui. Puer patris sui erat Moyses, qui
foderat puteum legis. Pueri patris sui erant David et Salomon et
prophetae et si qui alii sunt, qui libros scripserant Veteris Testa-
menti, quos terrena et sordida repleverat intelligentia Judaeorum.
Quam cum vellet purgare Isaac et ostendere, quia quaecunque
lex et prophetae dixerunt, de ipso dixerunt, rixati sunt cum eo
Philistini. Sed discedit ab eis. Non enim potest esse cum eis,
qui in puteis nolunt aquam habere, sed terram. Et dicit eis:
ecce relinquetur vobis domus vestra deserta (Mat. xxiii. 38). Fodit
ergo Isaac et novos puteos, imo pueri Isaac fodiunt. Pueri sunt
1 As this passage stands, Origen apparently implies that Paul was the author
of Hebrews, and he adds James and Jude to the list given as his by Eus. H.
E. VI. 25 (see before, page 9). If omnes be in the nom. (omnes N. T. puteos
fodiunt), there may be no reference to Hebrews.
4*
52 THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.
Isaac, Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas et Joannes. Pueri ejus sunt Petrus,
Jacobus et Judas: puer ejus est et apostolus Paulus, qui omnes
Novi Testamenti puteos fodiunt. Sed et pro his altercantur illi
qui terrena sapiunt, nec nova condi patiuntur, nec vetera pur-
gari. Evangelicis puteis contradicunt, apostolicis adversantur.
Et quoniam in omnibus contradicunt, in omnibus litigant, dicitur
ad eos: Quoniam indignos vos fecistis gratia Dei, ex hoc gam ad
gentes ibimus (Acts xiii. 46).
Hom. on Book of Joshua, VII. 2. p.412. 2 Veniens vero Dominus
noster Jesus Christus, cujus ille prior filius Nave designabat ad-
ventum, mittit sacerdotes apostolos suos portantes tubas ducti-
les, praedicationis magnificam coelestemque doctrinam. Sacerdo-
tali tuba primus in Evangelio suo Matthaeus increpuit, Marcus
quoque, Lucas et Joannes, suis singulis tubis sacerdotalibus ceci-
nerunt. Petrus etiam duabus epistolarum suarum personat tubis.
Jacobus quoque et Judas. Addit nihilominus adhuc et Joannes
tuba canere per epistolas suas et Apocalypsim et Lucas Aposto-
lorum gesta describens. Novissime autem ille veniens, qui dixit:
puto autem nos Deus novissimos apostolos ostendit (1 Cor. iv. 9)
et in quatuordecim epistolarum suarum fulminans tubis, muros
Jericho et omnes idololatriae machinas et philosophorum dogmata
usque ad fundamenta dejecit.
8. LacrTantius.
(Insizitut.’ IV. ce. 20.)
Verum scriptura omnis in duo Testamenta divisa est. Illud
quod adventum Domini passionemque Christi antecepit, 1.6., Lex
et Prophetae, Vetus dicitur. Ea vero, quae post resurrectionem
ejus scripta sunt, Novwm Testamentum nominantur. Judaei Veteri
utuntur, nos Novo. Sed tamen diversa non sunt, quia Novum
Veteris adimpletio est, et in utroque idem testator est Christus.
2 This passage bears the marks of being a translation, and a literal one. Rufinus
the translator is not always to be trusted. Lardner throws doubt on both this passage
and the preceding one, because they may have been altered by the translator or
by some one after him. Rufinus makes a special claim for his translation of this
part of Origen: ‘Illa, quae in Jesu Nave scripsimus, simpliciter expressimus ut
invenimus et non multo cum labore transtulimus.”
53
IV.
THE GOSPELS.’
1. Paptas.!
Eus. H. E. 111. 36. Διέπρεπέ ye μὴν χατὰ τούτους ἐπὶ τῆς
“σίας τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁμιλητὴς Πολύκαρπος, τῆς xara Σμύρναν
ἐχχλησίας πρὸς τῶν αὐτοτιτῶν καὶ ὑπηρετῶν τοῦ Κυρίου τὴν ἐσει--
σχοττὴν ἐγχεχειρισμένος. Καϑ' ov ἐγνωρίζετο Παπίας τῆς ἐν “1ε-
ραπόλει, σπταροιχίας “aL αὐτὸς ἐτείσχοστος.
Eus. Chronic. ad Olymp. 220. ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν ϑεολόγον καὶ ατιό-
στολον Εἰρηναῖος xe ἄλλοι ἱστοροῦσι σπταραμεῖναι τῷ βίῳ ἕως τῶν
χρόνων Τραϊανοῦ" wed ὃν Παπίας “Ιεραττολίτης χαὶ Πολύχαρπος
Σμύρνης ἐπτίσκοσιος ἀχουσταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐγνωρίζοντο.
Meron. ad Theodoram, 75. ὃ. Refert Irenaeus ... Papiae
auditoris evangelistae Ioannis discipulus.
Tren. V. 33.3. Praedicta itaque benedictio ad tempora regni
Sine contradictione pertinet, quando regnabunt justi surgentes a
mortuis: quando et creatura renovata et liberata multitudinem
fructificabit universae escae, ex rore caeli et ex fertilitate terrae:
quemadmodum presbyteri meminerunt, qui Ioannem discipulum
Domini viderunt, audisse se ab 60, quemadmodum de temporibus
illis docebat Dominus et dicebat.
“Venient dies in quibus vineae nascentur, singulae decem mil-
lia palmitum habentes et in uno palmite dena millia brachiorum,
et in uno vero palmite dena millia flagellorum, et in unoquoque
flagello dena millia botruum, et in unoquoque botro dena millia
acinorum, et unumquodque acinum expressum dabit viginti quin-
1 There might perhaps be printed here some fragments of a work ascribed
to Polyearp, called Responsiones, first published by Feuardentius, from a Catena
by Victor of Capua (sixth century). They are found in Feuardentius’s Notes on
Irenaeus, Haer. III. 3 (vol. 11. p. 862, Stieren’s Ed.). He says they were lately
found by him in an old MS written in very old characters. They point out the
different ways in which the four Evangelists begin their Gospels, &c. But they
are not accepted by scholars as genuine: even if they were Victor’s Catena they
are not believed to be Polycarp’s work. It is not thought worth while to print them.
1 In the following extracts the principal references to Papias are given.
At the outset are three testifying to his age and date; then comes Irenaeus’s Ex-
tract from his work; next are the notable passages from Eusebius founding on Ire-
naeus, followed by Jerome on the same subject. Some extracts from later writers
complete the series.
54 THE GOSPELS.
que metretas vini. Et cum eorum apprehenderit aliquis sanctorum
botrum, alius clamabit: Botrus ego melior sum, me sume, per me
Dominum benedic. Similiter et granum tritici decem millia spi-
carum generaturum et unamquamque spicam habituram decem
millia granorum et unumquodque granum quinque bilibres similae
clarae mundae: et reliqua autem poma et semina et herbam se-
cundum congruentiam iis consequentem: et omnia animalia iis
cibis utentia quae a terra accipiuntur, pacifica et consentanea
invicem fieri, subjecta hominibus cum omni subjectione.”
Ταῦτα δὲ χαὶ Hasiag ὃ ᾿Ιωάννου μὲν ἀχουστὴς, Πολυχάρπου
Val c ~ \ 2 - SIN ’ U 7 aay ΩΝ ~
δὲ ἑταΐρος γεγονὼς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνὴρ, ἐγγράφως ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ ἐν τῇ
Ul ~ c το U 2 \ 2 ~ / ͵
τετάρτῃ τῶν ξαυτοῦ βιβλίων" ἔστι γὰρ αὐτῷ πέντε βιβλία συντε-
ταγμένα. Et adiecit dicens:
“Haec autem credibilia sunt credentibus. Et Iuda” inquit
‘‘proeditore non credente et interrogante: quomodo ergo tales ge-
niturae a Domino perficientur? dixisse Dominum: ‘Videbunt qui
venient in illa’.”—
Kus. H. EF. IIT. 40.1 Τοῦ δὲ Tania συγγράμματα πέντε τὸν
> \ aA \ ~
ἀριϑμὸν φέρεται, ἃ χαὶ ἐπιγέγραπται λογίων χυριαχῶν ἐξηγήσεις.
ΤᾺΝ , \ piesa ~ ς , > ὦ , ’ Toe
Τούτων noe Εἰρηναῖος ὡς μόνων αὐτῷ γραφέντων μνημονεύει, ὧδέ
,
σιως λέγων"
Ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Παπίας ᾿Ιωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἕταῖ-
0g γεγονὼς, ἀρχαῖος ἀνὴρ, ἐγγράφως ἑπιμαρτυρεῖ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν
ἑαυτοῦ βιβλίων. Ἔστι γὰρ αὐτῷ πέντε βιβλία συντεταγμένα.
(4 ~ ~
Καὶ ὃ μὲν Εἰρηναῖος ταῦτα. Adbtog ye μὴν 6 Παπίας κατὰ τὸ
~ > ~ ‘ 2 > ~
προοίμιον τῶν αὑτοῦ λόγων ἀχροατὴν μὲν χαὶ αὐτόπτην οὐδαμῶς
~ ~ 2
ἑαυτὸν γενέσϑαι τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων ἐμφαίνει, τταρειληφέναι δὲ τὰ
- - ΧΕΙ
τῆς πίστεως παρὰ τῶν ἐχείνοις γνωρίμων διδάσχει, OL’ ὧν φησὶ
λέξεων"
Οὐκ ὀκνήσω δέ σοι καὶ ὅσα ποτὲ παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καλῶς
ἔμαϑον καὶ καλῶς guvynuovevon, συγκατατάξαι ταῖς ἑρμηνείαις, διαβε-
, " A ? ~ > , ? ‘ ~ ‘ ‘ ’ 2,
βαιούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἁληϑειαν. Ov ya τοῖς τὰ πολλὰ λέγουσιν ἔχαιρον
ὥσπερ of πολλοὶ, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τἀληϑῆ διδάσκουσιν, οὐδὲ τοῖς τὰς ἀλλο-
τρίας ἐντολὰς μνημονεύουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τὰς παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου τῇ πίστει
, AE Dad, δε. ~ , ~ 2 , ? , ‘
δεδομένας, καὶ ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς παραγινομένοις τῆς ἀληϑείας. Εἰ δέ που καὶ
1 See Introduction (Papias) for discussion of this passage.
PAPIAS. 55
΄ ~ ~
παρηκολουϑήκως τις τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἔλϑοι, τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
de 4 ΄ ED, ᾿ , t 5 , ,
avéxoivov λόγους ti ‘Avdgéag ἢ τί Πέτρος εἶπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος ἢ τί
~ νι ἢ ΄ τὰ ᾿ - ~
Θωμᾶς ἢ ᾿Ιάκωβος ἢ ti ᾿Ιωάννης ἢ Mattaiog ἤ τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ
~ ind ? ΄ ~ r
Κυρίου μαϑητῶν, & te ‘Aguotimy καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ᾿Ιωάννης tov Kv-
᾿ \ , ? \ rien OY ~ , ne, ’
θίου μαϑηταὶ λέγουσιν. Ov yao ta ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτον μὲ ὠφε-
~ ἰχ , δ, ‘ ΄ ~ ,
λεῖν ὑπελάμβανον, ὅσον ta παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης. 3
Ww \ ~ Dee ~ 2 -
Ἔνϑα χαὶ τταραστῆσαι ἄξιον δὶς χαταριϑμοῦντι αὐτῷ τὸ Ἴω-
, » τᾷ \ \ , , ee) ty \ /
avvov ovouc, wy τὸν μὲν χιρότερον Πέτρῳ χαὶ Ιαχώβῳ χαὶ Mar-
, ~ ~ 2 - ~
ϑαίῳ χαὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀποστόλοις συγχαταλέγει, σαφῶς δηλῶν
‘ 2) \ \ > ca 2 ,ὔ , Ν ,
τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν, τὸν δ᾽ ἕτερον Ιωάννην διαστείλας τὸν λόγον
« ‘ ~ > \
ἐν ἑτέροις παρὰ TOY TOY ἀποστόλων ἀριϑμὸν χατατάσσει, προ-
, > ~ 3 ~ 5} >
τάξας αὑτοῦ τὸν -Aolotiwva, σαφῶς τὲ αὐτὸν τιρεσβύτερον OVO-
U c ‘ ‘ > ν ᾿ > ~
wale. “Ὡς χαὶ διὰ τούτων ἀποδείχνυσϑαι τὴν ἱστορίαν ἀληϑῆ
~ , aN AY > , «ς , τοῦ fe ’ d , , 7
τῶν OVO χατὰ τὴν Aolay ὁμωνυμίᾳ χεχρῆσϑαι εἰρηχότων, δύο ὃ
? > , , , WG , 2 , ” ~ ,
ev Ἐφέσῳ γενέσϑαι μνήματα χαὶ ἕχάτερον Ιωαννου éte viv héye-
“δ, γ -- \ ~ a t
ota. Οἷς καὶ ἀναγχαῖον τιροσέχειν τὸν νοῦν" εἰχὸς γὰρ οὖν τὸν
/ ~ 3) >
δεύτερον, εἰ μή τις ϑέλοι τὸν πιρῶτον, τὴν eu ὀνόματος φερο-
> 2) c ~ ~
μένην «“ποχάλυιψιν ᾿Ιωάννου ξωραχέναι. Kai ὃ viv δὲ ἡμῖν δηλού-
~ >? ~ ) ~
μενος Παπίας τοὺς μέν τῶν ἀποστόλων λόγους waged τῶν αὐτοῖς
~ 7 \ ~
σιαρηχολουϑηχότων ὁμολογεῖ τιαρειληφέναι, -Aororiwvog δὲ χαὶ τοῦ
, 2 > « 39
χιρεσβυτέρου ᾿Ιωάννου αὐτήκοον ἑαυτόν φησι γενέσϑαι. Ονομαστὶ
- > ~ ~ > ~
γοῦν mohhomg αὐτῶν μνημονεύσας ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ συγγράμμασιν
2 ~ \ y ~ 2 - 3
τίϑησιν αὐτῶν xo παραδόσεις. Καὶ ταῦτα δ᾽ ἡμῖν οὐχ εἰς τὸ
a 7 ’ Pl - - ) ~ f}
ἄχρηστον εἰρήσϑω. AEioy dé ταῖς ἀποδοϑείσαις τοῦ Hania φω-
- , aa Ce B) ~ DY tate , = c
vais προσάνμαι λέξεις ἑτέρας αὐτοῦ, dt wy παραάδοξά τινα ἵστο-
- ἘΠ ἘΝ ς dN ὩΣ , γ ΗΝ MQ! rp \
get χαὶ ἄλλα, ὡς ἂν ἐχ παραδόσεως εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλϑόντα. Τὸ μὲν
2 While Eusebius says that Papias acquired his information from those who
were intimate with the Elders, the grounds on which he bases his opinion, and
which he frankly states in the text, do not warrant his contradicting Irenaeus as
he does. While Papias undoubtedly endeavoured to learn as much as possible
from the friends of the Elders, his first sentence seems to claim for himself that
he learned and recorded (see Introduction) what came to him direct from these
Elders. In this passage he uses the word ‘‘Elder” for those who were Apostles
—for Peter and Thomas, as well as for the more ambiguous Philip and James.
When he calls John an Elder as well as Aristion, he does not enable us to de-
cide on the question as to there being two Johns, one an Apostle, and one an
Elder only. But the Ephesian traditions which Eusebius records are probably con-
elusive as to there having been two notable Elders of that name in Ephesus. It
is, however, an unwarrantable inference that is drawn from this probability, when
critics say that Irenaeus and others mistook Polycarp in what he said of his old
leader, John, and that he really meant the Elder, while they supposed he meant
the Apostle, the son of Zebedee.
56 THE GOSPELS.
x \ > , ~
οὖν χατὰ τὴν Ιεράπολιν (ἰίλισίστον τὸν ἀπόστολον ἅμα ταῖς ϑυ-
γατράσι διατρῖιμαι, διὰ τῶν πιρόσϑεν δεδήλωται. “Ὡς δὲ χατὰ ὅτὸν
= \ ς , , Ἔ ΕΣ pee IE Qipsn , opie.
αὐτὸν ὃ Παπίας γενόμενος διήγησιν παρειληφέναι ϑαυμασίαν vio
~ ~ , , , Ν ~ /
τῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου ϑυγατέρων μνημονεύει, τὰ viv σημειωτξον. Ne-
~ > > a τ᾿ x
χροῦ γὰρ ἀνάστασιν χατ᾽ αὐτὸν γεγονυῖαν ἱστορεῖ, χαὶ αὖ πάλιν
ο , Fad ye) ~ \ > , ~
ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ιοὔστον τὸν ἐπιχληϑέντα Βαρσαββᾶν γε-
\ c / / γ , \ A > ‘ aes
yovos, ὡς δηλητήριον φάρμαχον ἐμπιόντος χαὶ μηδὲν ἀηδὲς δια
\ ~ r , ς , ~ \ AIRS ~ A
τὴν tov Κυρίου χάριν ὑπομείναντος. Τοῦτον dé tov Ιοῦστον μετα
\ ~ ~ > >
τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἀνάληψιν τοὺς ἱεροὺς ἀποστόλους μετὰ Mardia
- ’ Sed le > \ ~ , > , San Nuys pS
στῆσαί ve χαὶ ἐπεύξασϑαι ἀντὶ tov προδότου Lovdc ἐπὶ τὸν “hij-
- > , ~ > ~ > ~ ς ~ , Toe
ρον τῆς ἀνατιληρώσεως τοῦ αὐτῶν ἀαριϑμοῦ, 1) τῶν Πράξεων ὡδὲ
Wg ἱστορεῖ γραφή" "
Καὶ ἔστησαν δύο, Ἰωσὴφ τὸν καλούμενον Βαρσαββᾶν, ὃς ἐπεκλήϑ
Ἶ ᾽ | 0 ? /
Ἰοῦστος, καὶ Mattiav: καὶ προσευξάμενοι εἶπαν.
\ > 2} >
Καὶ ἄλλα δὲ ὃ αὐτὸς ὡσὰν ἐχ παραδόσεως ἀγράφου εἰς αὖ-
ς ς
τὸν ἥχοντα σπιαρέϑετο, ξένας τέ τινας παραβολὰς τοῦ σωτῆρος χαὶ
διδασχαλίας αὐτοῦ, χαί τινα ἄλλα μυστιχώτερα. Ἐν οἷς χαὶ χιλιάδα
τινα φησὶν ἐτῶν ἔσεσϑαι μετὰ τὴν ἐχ νεχρῶν ἀνάστασιν, σωμα-
τιχῶς τῆς Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἐπὶ ταυτησὶ τῆς γῆς ὑποστησομένης.
“A χαὶ ἡγοῦμαι τὰς ἀποστολιχὰς παρεχδεξάμενον διηγήσεις ὗὕστο-
λαβεῖν, τὰ ἐν ὑπτοδείγμασι πρὸς αὐτῶν μυστιχῶς εἰρημένα μὴ συν-
ἑωραχότα. Xpodean γάρ τοι σμιχρὸς τὸν νοῦν, ὡσὰν ἐχ τῶν av-
τοῦ λόγων τεχμηράμενον εἰττεῖν, φαίνεται" πλὴν χαὶ τοῖς μετ᾽
αὐτὸν τιλείστοις ὅσοις τῶν ἐχχλησιαστιχῶν τῆς ὁμοίας αὐτῷ δό-
Eng παραίτιος γέγονε, τὴν ἀρχαιότητα τἀνδρὸς προβεβλημένοις"
ὥσπερ οὖν Εἰρηναίῳ, χαὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τὰ ὕμοια φρονῶν ἀναπέ-
φηνεν." Καὶ ἄλλας δὲ τῇ ἰδίᾳ γραφῇ παραδίδωσιν “Aguoviwvog
τοῦ πρόσϑεν δεδηλωμένου τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου λόγων διηγήσεις χαὶ τοῦ
σπιρεσβυτέρου ᾿Ιωάννου παραδόσεις, ἐφ᾽ ἃς τοὺς φιλομαϑεῖς ave-
σιέμ ψαντες ἀναγχαίως νῦν πιροσϑήσοιιεν ταῖς τεροεχτεϑείσαις αὐτοῦ
φωναῖς παράδοσιν, ἣν περὶ Π]άρχου τοῦ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον γεγραφό-
τος ἐχτέϑειται διὰ τούτων"
Καὶ τοῦτο ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε. Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου
γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ
8 Or τοὺς αὐτούς.
4 The quotation from the Acts of the Apostles is probably made by Eusebius
himself, not by Papias.
5 On the further tradition of the ‘‘Elders’’ preserved by Irenaeus, see under
‘Trenaeus. ’
PAPIAS. 57
ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχϑέντα ἢ πραχϑέντα. Οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσε τοῦ
Κυρίου, οὔτε παρηκολούϑησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ, ὃς
‘ ‘ , > a ‘ ὃ ὃ ai 402 ᾽ -“ 6 ͵ ξ =
πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν
κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτε άρκος, οὕτως ἔνια
¢ ~
γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν. Ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μη-
δὲν ὧν ἤκουσε παραλιπεῖν, ἢ ψεύσασϑαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς.
pee = ‘ - ,
Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Hania περὶ τοῦ Magzov.§ Περὶ
δὲ τοῦ Mardatov ταῦτα εἴρηται"
Ματϑαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑ βραίδι διαλέκτω τὰ λόγια συνεγράψατο. Ἧρ-
, cy
μήνευσε δ᾽ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.
Wee; ᾿ς me ς SEBS eae? 2a as Ἢ (28 ΓᾺΡ ῃ F
ELONTOL ὃ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ao τῆς Ιωαννου me0tEQas
a ~ Nip) \ ~ , ς , > , ‘ ἊΣ ΚΛ
ἐχιιστολῆς, χαὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως" Ἐχτέϑειται δὲ χαὶ αλλην
« , ‘ ᾿ 5) ~ ς , πάν. Ἐν DEEN
ἱστορίαν τιερὶ γυναιχὸς, ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις διαβληϑείσης ἐπὶ
- , a \ ICH , B) , , \ ~
tov Κυρίου, ἣν τὸ καϑ' “Εβραίους εὐαγγέλιον περιέχει. Καὶ ταῦτα
ἌΣ τὸ ὦ 3 - -
δ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀναγχαίως πιρὸς τοῖς ἐχτεϑεῖσιν ἐπιτετηρήσϑω.
Hieronym. de vir. ill. 18. Papias, Joannis auditor, Hierapoli-
tanus in Asia Episcopus, quinque tantum scripsit volumina, quae
praenotavit “Explanatio Sermonum Domini.” In quibus quum se
in praefatione asserat “non varias opiniones sequi, sed apostolos
habere auctores” ait: “Considerabam quid Andreas, quid Petrus
dixissent, quid Philippus, quid Thomas, quid Jacobus, quid Joan-
nes, quid Matthaeus, vel alius quilibet discipulorum Domini; quid
etiam Aristion et senior Joannes, discipuli Domini, loquebantur.
Non enim tantum mihi libri ad legendum prosunt, quantum viva
vox, usque hodie in suis auctoribus personans.” Ex quo apparet
in ipso catalogo nominum, alium esse Joannem, qui inter apostolos
ponitur, et alium seniorem Joannem, quem post Aristionem enu-
merat. Hoc autem diximus propter superiorem opinionem, quam
® See Introduction. Papias seems merely to say that no rigid order was
followed by Mark. It is not improbable that he was defending Mark against a
charge brought against his authority on that account. See further traditions about
Mark under the head ‘“ Mark.”
7 Adyta, not necessarily “ Discourses,” as has of late been often alleged. Yet
Jerome translates the title “Explanatio Sermonum Domini.’’ The word λόγια
seems to be equivalent in early usage to ‘‘ Holy Scriptures,’ whether the contents
be sayings or narratives. See Rom. iii. 2; Heb. v. 12; 2 Clem. 13 (and Intro-
duction on 2Clem.). Papias does not say that in his time there was no approved
Greek version of Matthew’s Gospel. It may be fairly argued that his words mean
that the time for haphazard translations was past. It is Eusebius, not Papias,
who refers to the ‘“‘Gospel according to the Hebrews.”
58 THE GOSPELS.
a plerisque retulimus traditam, duas posteriores epistolas Joannis
non apostoli esse, sed presbyteri. Hic dicitur mille annorum Ju-
daicam edidisse δευτέρωσιν, quem secuti sunt Irenaeus et Apolli-
narius et caeteri, qui post resurrectionem aiunt in carne cum
sanctis Dominum regnaturum. Tertullianus quoque in libro de
spe fidelium et Victorinus Petabionensis et Lactantius hac opi-
nione ducuntur. [Opp. ed. Vallarsius T. II. p. 859.]
» 4 > > ~ 2 2 ,
From Catenae. ‘Anohwagiov.! Οὐχ ἀπέϑανε τῇ ἀγχόνῃ Tov-
> 2 art \ ν - ~ Ν -
δας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεβίω χαϑαιρεϑεὶς πιρὸ τοῦ ἀποπνιγῆναι. Καὶ τοῦτο
ν - - 2 , ,
δηλοῦσιν αἱ τῶν “Α΄ ποστόλων Πράξεις, ὅτι πρηνὴς γενόμενος ἐλά-
Ν \ , > ~ ~ \
“Noe μέσος, καὶ ἐξεχύϑη τὰ στιλάγχνα αὐτοῦ. Tovto δὲ σαφέστε-
« - , ς.ς}) Ν , ca > ~ /
ρον ἱστορεῖ Πατιίας ὃ Ἰωάννου μαϑητὴς λέγων οὕτως ἐν τῷ ὃ
mr pS a ‘ . τε no .
τῆς ἐξηγήσεως τῶν χυριαχῶν λόγων
Μέγα δὲ ἀσεβείας ὑπόδειγμα ἐν τούτῳ τῷ κόσμῳ περιεπάτησεν ὁ
7 ᾽ὃ 9 ‘ > Α - ‘ ΄ bs »“ δὲ δ 19 wr E
ovdag πρησϑεὶς ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον τὴν σάρκα, ὥστε μηδὲ ὁπόϑεν ἅμαξα
δαδίως διέρχεται ἐκεῖνον δύνασθαι διελϑεῖν, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ αὐτὸν μόνον
‘ ~ ~ ” > ~ ‘ \ ‘ , ~ 3 -
τὸν τῆς κεφαλῆς ὄγκον αὐτοῦ. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ βλέφαρα τῶν ὀφϑαλμῶν
αὐτοῦ φασὶ τοσοῦτον ἐξοιδῆσαι, ὡς αὐτὸν μὲν καϑόλου τὸ φῶς μὴ
βλέπειν, τοὺς ὀφϑαλμοὺς δὲ αὐτοῦ μηδὲ ὑπὸ ἰατροῦ [dia] διόπτρας
ὀφϑῆναι δύνασθαι: τοσοῦτον βάϑος εἶχεν ἀπὸ τῆς ἔξωϑεν ἐπιφανείας "
τὸ δὲ αἰδοῖον αὐτοῦ πάσης μὲν ἀσχημοσύνης ἀηδέστερον καὶ μεῖζον
φαίνεσϑαι, φέρεσϑαι δὲ dv αὐτοῦ ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ σώματος. Συρρέοντας
ἰχῶράς τε καὶ σκώληκας εἰς ὕβριν OF αὐτῶν μόνων τῶν ἀναγκαίων.
Meta πολλὰς δὲ βασάνους καὶ τιμωρίας ἐν ἰδίω, φασὶ, χωρίῳ τελευ-
τήσαντος, ἀπὸ τῆς ὀδμῆς ἔρημον καὶ ἀοίκητον τὸ χωρίον μέχρι τῆς
- , ? ? er , - , Td , ~ ‘
νῦν γενέσϑαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ μέχρι τῆς σήμερον δύνασθαί τινα ἐκεῖνον τὸν
τόπον παρελϑεῖν, ἐὰν μὴ τὰς ὄῖνας ταῖς χερσὶν ἐπιφράξῃ" τοσαύτη
διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔκρυσις ἐχώρησεν.
Hieronym. ad Lucinium, Ep. 71 (28) ¢. 5. Porro Josephi li-
bros et sanctorum Papiae et Polycarpi volumina, falsus ad te ru-
mor pertulit a me esse translata; quia nec otil mei nec virium
est, tantas res eadem in alteram linguam exprimere venustate.
1 Doubtful whether Apollinaris of Hierapolis (A.D. 180), or of Laodicea
(A.D. 390). The text is from Gebhardt and Harnack, Pat. Apost. I. 187, whose
note enumerates the sources from which Hilgenfeld and others have constructed it.
The extracts which follow, by way of Catena, of some of the principal testi-
monies to Papias, are according to G. ἃ H.’s text. Their complete Catena ‘ Pa-
piae Fragmenta cum testimoniis Veterum Scriptorum” may be consulted.
PAPIAS. JUSTIN MARTYR. 59
Andreas Caesariensis in Apoc. c. 34. serm. 12. Παππίας δὲ
οὕτως ἐπὶ λέξεως" “Ἐνίοις δὲ αὐτῶν, δηλαδὴ τῶν πάλαι ϑείων
ἀγγέλων, καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν γῆν διαχοσμήσεως ἔδωχεν ἄρχειν χαὶ
χαλῶς ἄρχειν παρηγγίησε." Καὶ ἑξῆς φησίν" “Εἰς οὐδὲν δέον
συνέβη τελευτῆσαι τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν." (Edit. Morel. Opp. St. Chry-
sost. p. 52.]
Anast. Sinaita. -AaSovreg τὰς ἀφορμὰς ἔκ Παπίου τοῦ πάνυ
(παναγίου 3) τοῦ “Ιεραπολίτου, τοῦ ἐν (σύν) τῷ ἐπιστηϑίῳ φοι-
τήσαντος, καὶ Κλήμεντος, Πανταίνου τῆς “4λεξανδρέων ἱερέως
χαὶ ᾿Φμμωνίου σοφωτάτου, τῶν ἀρχαίων χαὶ πρώτων συνῴδων
ἐξηγητῶν, εἰς Χριστὸν χαὶ τὴν ἐχχλησίαν πᾶσαν τὴν ἑξαήμερον
γοησάντων. [Contempl. anagog. in hexaém. lib. I. Β. PP. Par.
1589. T. I. p. 183.)
Veteres ergo ecclesiarum interpretes, Philo, inquam, philoso-
phus et tempore aequalis apostolis, et celebris Papias Hierapoli-
tanus Joannis evangelistae discipulus . . . et eorum asseclae spi-
ritualiter sunt contemplati de Christi ecclesia ea quae scripta sunt
de paradiso. [Lib. VII. p. 269.]
Chronic. pasch. ad Olymp. 235°. Σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ δὲ Πολυχάρπῳ,
nai ἄλλοι τ᾽ ἀπὸ Φιλαδελφείας μαρτυροῖσιν ἐν Σμύρνῃ" nai ἐν
Περγάμῳ δὲ ἕτεροι, ἐν οἷς ἦν χαὶ Παπίας καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ, ὧν
nai ἔγγραφα φέρονται τὰ μαρτύρια. [Ed. Dindorf. Vol. I. p. 481.]
Photius Biblioth. .... οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ Παπίαν τὸν ‘Ieoa-
πόλεως ἐπίσχοττον “ai μάρτυρα, οὐδὲ Εἰρηναῖον τὸν ὅσιον ἐτπτί-
σχοπον «“ουγδούνων (scil. ἀποδέχεται. Στέφανος), ἐν οἷς λέγουσιν
αἰσϑητῶν τινῶν βρωμάτων ἀπόλαυσιν εἶναι τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν βα-
σιλείαν. (Ed. Bekker 1824, p. 291.]
Mvp ee ites ἐμά ρα. ' | 4
2. Justin Marryr.!
General ΒΕΡΕΒΕΝΟΕΒ To “MeEmors.”
΄
Dial. c. 103. p. 331 D. (Memoirs written by Apostles and
their companions.) Ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ
1 Here follow some general references to the written documents on which
Justin Martyr claims to have founded his statements. They are usually called
ἀποεμνημονεύματα, sometimes εὐαγγέλιον. The passages in Justin more closely
resembling particular passages in the Gospels will be found under the respective
headings of the Gospels in a subsequent part of this work. And further on
will be found a full citation and analysis of the principal passages containing
00 THE GOSPELS.
φημὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ χαὶ τῶν ἐχείνοις πα-
, (2 c « ‘ Cc \ ,
ραχολουϑησάντων συντετάχϑαι, ὅτι ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ ϑρόμβοι
χατεχεῖτο, αὐτοῦ εὐχομένου χαὶ λέγοντος" Παρελϑέτω, εἰ δυνατὸν,
τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτος (See Luke i. 3 and Luke xxii. 44; Mat.
xxv. 359.)
Apol. I. c. 66. py. 98 B. (Memoirs called Gospels, and re-
garded as authoritative.) Οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς yevo-
μένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται Ev-
, c yy > , γ τὰ \ 3
αγγέλια, οὕτως παρέδωχαν ἔἐντετάλϑαι αὐτοῖς" τὸν In-
σοῦν λαβόντα ἄρτον, εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰτιεῖν" Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς
τὴν ἀνάμνησίν μου, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου" χαὶ τὸ στοτήριον
ὁμοίως λαβόντα καὶ εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰγιεῖν. Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ αἷμά
\ ΄ : > ~ ~ oe
μου" καὶ μόνοις αὐτοῖς μεταδοῦναι. (Luke xxii. 19; Mat.
xxvi. 28.)
Apol. I. c. 67. p. 98 D.? (Memoirs read in church.) Καὶ τῇ
τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάντων xara πόλεις 1) ἀγροὺς
μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, χαὶ τὰ ἀπο-
μνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν
UOOPHTOY ἀναγινώσκεται μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ.
Dial. c. 10. p. 221 Ο. (Trypho knew and read the Gospel.)
Ὑμῶν δὲ xai τὰ ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ εὐαγγελίῳ 3 ihe
μῶν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ heyouerg γγελίῳ ὅπαραγγέ
Ἂ Ν , 2 , ς Cc
ματα ϑαυμαστὰ οὕτως καὶ μεγάλα ἐπίσταμαι εἰναι, ὡς ὑπολαμ-
U Λ , lt > / ’ \ \ > / >
βάνειν μηδένα dvvaotoa φυλάξαι avra* ἐμοὶ γὰρ ἐμέλησεν ἐντυ-
χεῖν αὐτοῖς.
Dial. c. 100. p. 826 D. (Citation from Matthew as from τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον.) Kai ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ δὲ γέγραπται εἰπών"
ἢ : Ἢ πο ον dia ;
- Ν \
σιάντα μοι παραδέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός" χαὶ οὐδεὶς γινώσγει, τὸν
\ \ κ \ x τοὶ
πατέρα, EL μὴ ὃ υἱός" οὐδὲ τὸν υἱὸν, εἰ μὴ ὃ πατὴρ, χαὶ οἷς ἂν ὃ
4 4 .
υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ. (Mat. xi. 21.)
matter not in the Canonical Books. For convenience, the subject of each of the
following quotations is given as a heading.
2 Justin is here describing a common custom, so that we are to understand
that the Memoirs were usually read in Christian congregations along with the Old
Testament prophets on Sunday.
3 In this and the following passage the Gospel (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) means the
Gospel generally—the Gospel Record. Origen quotes Celsus as using it in the
same sense. See Orig. cont. Cels. 11. 27, and compare Iren. III. 1. 1: γραφὴ εὖ-
αγγελίου (see below, p. 67).
4 Justin has the same quotation (simply as words of Jesus) twice in Apoi.
I. 63. In every case he has the clauses in the same order, inverting St. Matthew.
In the Apol. he has ἔγνω. Matthew has παρεδόϑη, ἐπιγινώσχει, and βούληται . . .
JUSTIN MARTYR. 61
Apol. I. c. 33. p. 75 B. (Memoirs contain full accounts of
Jesus Christ.) “Καὶ 6 ἀποσταλεὶς δὲ τιρὸς αὐτὴν viv πιαρϑένον
κατ᾽ ἐχεῖνο τοῦ χαιροῦ ἄγγελος Θεοῦ, εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτὴν εἰτιών"
᾿Ιδοὺ συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐκ πινεύματος ἁγίου, χαὶ τέξῃ υἱὸν, χαὶ
υἱὸς ὑψίστου χληϑήσεται, χαὶ χαλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦν,
αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ αὐτὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν, ὡς οἱ
ἀπτομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν" οἷς ἐπιστεύσαμεν. (compare Luke
i. 81; Mat. i. 20, 21.)
Dial. ὁ. 104. p. 332 B. (Justin quotes from Memoirs the in-
cidents of the crucifixion.) Ὅπερ χαὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπτομνημονεύ-
μασι τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ γέγραπται γενόμενον.
Dial. ὁ. 105. p. 3832 C. (Memoirs (John?) were Justin’s
authorities.) Movoyertig yao ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος,
ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος χαὶ δύναμις γεγενημένος, καὶ ὕστερον ἂν-
ϑρωστος διὰ τῆς παρϑένου γενόμενος, ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπομνὴη-
μονευμάτων ἐμάϑομεν, προεδήλωσα χ.τ.}. (John i. 18.)
Dial. ὁ. 105. p. 333 B. (Justin studied the Memoirs.) Καὶ
γὰρ ἀποδιδοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐπὶ τῷ σταυρῷ εἶστε. Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖ-
ράς σου σπταρατίϑεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου ὡς χαὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀπιο-
μνημονευμάτων καὶ τοῦτο ἔμαϑον. (Luke xxiii. 40.)
Dial. ο. 100. p. 333 Ο. (The Memoirs condensed.) Ὅτε ἐσταυ-
ρώϑη καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτῶν διάγων ὕμνησε τὸν Θεὸν, ὡς καὶ ἐν τοῖς
ἀπομνημονεύμασι τῶν ἀποστόλων δηλοῦται γεγενημέ-
γον. (Luke xxiv. 25, 26; Mat. xxvi. 30.)
Dial. c. 88. p. 315 D. (Apostolic writings quoted for part of
a narrative.) Kai τότε ἐλϑόντος tov ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Ιορδάνην πο-
ταμὸν, ἔνϑα ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης ἐβάπτιζε, χατελϑόντος τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ
ὕδωρ χαὶ πῦρ ἀνήφϑη ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνη" χαὶ ἀναδύντος αὐτοῦ
ἀπὸ τοὺ ὕδατος ὡς περιστερὰν τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐπι-
πτῆναι ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν ἔγραψαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι αὐτοῦ τούτου
τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν." (Mat. iii. 16.)
Dial. ὁ. 106. p. 333 D. (St. Mark’s Gospel apparently quoted
as Peter’s.) Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομαχέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον ἕνα τῶν
ἀποστόλων, xal γεγράφϑαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν
ἀποχαλύψαι. The passage is quoted in various ways by early writers. See Iren.
1. 20. 3.
5 On the Apocryphal addition to this passage see on Mat. iii. 13.
602 THE GOSPELS.
7 ~ ‘ ~ ~
αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον. Καὶ τοῦτο, μετὰ τοῦ xai ἄλλους δύο
)ς \ € ‘ r. ea) yw , > / ~
ἀδελφοὺς, υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου ὄντας, μετωνομαχέναι ὀνόματι τοῦ Bo-
αγεργὲς, 0 ἐστιν υἱοὶ βροντῆς χ.τ.λ.5 (Mark iii. 16, 17.)
PassAGES IN WHICH JUSIIN EXPRESSLY CLAIMS TO CITE THE ΜΈΜΟΙΒΒ.
Apol. I. ¢. 66. p.98 B. !O γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις
iw αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ χαλεῖται εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως σπταρέ-
δωχαν ἐντετάλϑαι αὐτοῖς" τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν λαβόντα ἄρτον εὐχαριστή-
σαντα εἰτιεῖν: Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἀνάμνησίν μου, τοῦτό
ἔστι τὸ σῶμά μου" Kai τὸ πτοτήριον ὁμοίως λαβόντα zal
εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν: Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου, καὶ
μόνοις αὐτοῖς μεταδοῦναι. [Quoted also in previous section. |
(Luke xxii. 19; Mat. xxvi. 28.)
Dial. 6. 49. p. 269 4. 5 Διὸ nai ὃ ἡμέτερος Χριστὸς εἰρήκει
ἐπὶ γῆς τότε τοῖς λέγουσι στιρὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἠλίαν δεῖν ἐλϑεῖν"
Ἠλίας μὲν ἐλεύσεται χαὶ ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα" λέγω
δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι Ἠλίας ἤδη ἤλϑε, καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐὖ-
τὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ boa ἠϑέλησαν. Καὶ γέγρατι-
86. If αὐτοῦ refer to Christ, it is a solitary case of Justin making ἄπομν. go-
vern the Genitive of the subject. The passage is now usually understood to de-
scribe’ Mark’s Gospel as ‘ Peter’s Memoirs.” In Mark alone of our Gospels is
the incident recorded. Another reference to this is Dial. c.100. p. 327 B (see below,
“ Matthew’’).
1 See above. There can be no doubt that Justin does not here correctly
quote any one of our Canonical authorities. It is possible that he intended to
give (as he certainly does give) an account substantially corresponding to that
of the Memoirs, ‘‘not merely quotations of words, but concise narratives’’ (West-
cott, Canon, p. 116, third edition). But it is more probable that he intended to
give the very words and failed. In those days (as any minister’s experience will
testify in our own days) the words of institution when given from memory were
seldom quoted with perfect accuracy from any one source. Justin was too fa-
miliar with the words to think of turning to the Gospel MS for them; and yet
his very familiarity was not in favour of verbal accuracy. There is no need to
suppose (though there is no reason why we should not admit it if necessary) that
Justin’s own words are found in some one written authority. Hence it is a fal-
lacy to say ‘‘Justin is giving an account of the most solemn sacrament of his re-
ligion. Here if ever we might reasonably expect accuracy and care’’ (Supernatural
Religion, I p. 390, second edition). See Luke xxii. 17; 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, for words
most nearly Justin’s. Compare Mat. xxvi. 26; Mark xiv. 22.
2 This quotation (from Memoirs?) is verbally exact so far as regards the
last part (Mat. xvii. 13) introduced by γέγραπται. The earlier part has ἐλεύσεται
for ἔρχεται; and ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ for ἐποίησαν ἐν αὐτῷ, both being such changes
as Justin is in the habit of making, that the Greek may take a less peculiar form
than in the Gospels. The omission of ἐν before αὐτῷ is now confirmed by the
best MSS. This is also the reading of Mark ix. 13. Justin has the future ἐλεύ-
cocoa before in the same chapter. See also p. 268 Ὁ.
JUSTIN MARTYR. 63
ται, ὅτι Tove συνῆχαν οἱ μαϑηταὶ ὅτι περὶ Ἰωάννου
τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς. (Mat. xvii. 11-13.)
Dial. c. 100. p. 820 D. 8 Καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ δὲ γέγραπται
εἰπών: Πάντα μοι παραδέδοται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς, xat
οὐδεὶς γινώσχει τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὃ υἱὸς, οὐδὲ τὸν
υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὃ πατὴρ καὶ οἷς ἂν ὃ υἱὸς ἀποχαλύψῃ. (Mat.
ΧΙ Ιλ 6. x: 22.)
Dial. c. 101. p.328 B. 4Οἱ γὰρ ϑεωροῦντες αὐτὸν ἐσταυρωμέ-
γον nal χεφαλὰς ἕχαστος ἐχίνουν χαὶ τὰ χείλη διέστρεφον χαὶ τοῖς
μυξωτῆρσιν ἐν ἀλλήλοις διερινοῦντες ἔλεγον εἰρωνευόμενοι ταῦτα
ἃ χαὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπιομνημονεύμασι τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ γέγρατιται"
Υἱὸν Θεοῦ ξαυτὸν ἔλεγε, καταβὰς περιττατείτω" σωσάτω
αὐτὸν ὃ Θεύς. (Mat. xxvii. 39, 40, 43; Luke xxiii. 35.)
Dial. ¢. 103. p. 331 B. ὅ Καὶ γὰρ οὗτος ὃ διάβολος ἅμα τῷ
ἀναβῆναι αὐτὸν aod τοῦ πτοταμοῦ τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου, τῆς φωνῆς αὐτῷ
λεχϑείσης" Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηχά σε" ἐν τοῖς
ἀπομνημονεύμασι τῶν αττοστόλων γέγραττται τεροσελϑὼν αὐτῷ καὶ
πειράζων μέχρι τοῦ εἰγιεῖν αὐτῷ: Προσχύνησόν μοι" χαὶ ἀπο-
χρίνασϑαι αὐτῷ τὸν Χριστόν: Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ"
Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσχυνήσεις χαὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ
λατρεύσεις. (Mat. iv. 9,10; Luke iv. 7, 8.)
8 See note (4) in last section on this passage.
4 See also Apol. I. ὁ. 38. Justin is arguing from the fulfilment of Psalm xxii.,
where it is said that enemies pierced the sufferer’s hands and feet, and stared
upon him &c., and his words are an undeniable amplification of the canonical
account. It is not unreasonable to suppose that of those last deeds done at Jeru-
salem there were many accounts; and that Justin in these two passages con-
sciously or unconsciously departs from the Memoirs as we have them. But his
source we do not know. In the Apol. the words are, Καὶ πάλιν ὅταν λέγῃ ᾿Ελά-
λησαν ἐν χείλεσιν, ἐκίνησαν χεφαλὴν λέγοντες" “PucdoSw ξαυτόν. (Ps. xxii. Ἕ 8.)
“Ατιναπάντα ὅτι. γέγονεν ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων τῷ Χριστῷ, μαϑεῖν δύνασθε. Drav-
PWIEVTOS γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐξέστρεφον τὰ χείλη χαὶ ἐκίνουν τὰς χεφαλὰς λέγοντες: Ὁ
γεχροὺς ἀνεγείρας ῥυσάσσζω ξαυτόν.
5 A comparison of this narrative with the narratives of Matthew and Luke
shows various divergences of small moment. Thus ὀπίσω vou is inserted (as
in Cod. D), though contrary to the best MSS, and the Aorist προσχύνησον stands
instead of ἐὰν προσχυνήσῃς, and the words γέγραπται yao are omitted. This is
only like Justin’s usual inaccurate mode of quotation. On the ground of the in-
accuracies, it has been argued that Justin had another MS authority than our
Gospels before him here. But it so happens that Justin again quotes the same
passage (Dial. ο. 125. p. 354 Ὁ) saying, we “προεῖπον, προσῆλϑεν αὐτῷ ὁ διά-
βολος, and then goes on to speak of προσχυνῆσαι αὐτόν, giving as Christ’s final
answer γέγραπται" Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσχυνήσεις χαὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις.
Here he omits the ὀπίσω μου and inserts γέγραπται, a significant commentary on
the futility of arguing as though Justin were minutely accurate, or even strictly con-
sistent with himself, in his quotations.
64. THE GOSPELS.
Dial. ¢. 103. p. 331 D. ὁ Kai τὸ ‘Qoei ὕδωρ ἐξεχύϑη καὶ διε-
σχορτίσϑη πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ μου, ἐγενήϑη ἢ χαρδία μου ὡσεὶ κηρὸς
τηκόμενος EV μέσῳ τῆς χοιλίας μου, ὕττερ γέγονεν αὐτῷ ἐχείνης τῆς
νυχτὸς, OTE ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐξῆλϑον εἰς τὸ ὕρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν συλλαβεῖν
αὐτὸν, σεροαγγελία ἦν. Ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ φημι
ὑχτὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ χαὶ τῶν ἐχείνοις παραχολουϑησάντων
συντετάχϑαι, ὅτι ᾿δρὼς ὡσεὶ ϑρόμβοι χατεχεῖτο, αὐτοῦ εὐχο--
μένου χαὶ λέγοντος: Παρελϑέτω, εἰ δυνατόν, τὸ ποτήριον
τοῦτο. (Mat. xxvi. 39; comp. Luke xxii. 42.)
Dial. c. 105. p. 333 B. 7 Kat γὰρ ἀποδιδοὺς τὸ σπινεῦμα ἐπεὶ
τῷ σταυρῷ εἶπε" Πάτερ, εἰς ς χεῖράς σου παρατίϑεμαι τὸ
πνεῦμά μου" ὡς χαὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀπομνημονευμάτων “al τοῦτο ἔμα-
ϑον. (Luke xxiii. 46.)
Dial. c. 106. p. 333 B. 8 Ταῦτα εἰρηκέναι. ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημο-
γεύμασι γέγρατιται: Ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἣ διχαιοσύνη
πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων χαὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλ-
Inte εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. (Mat. v. 20.)
Dial. c. 107. p. 884 Β. 9 Καὶ ὅτι τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἔμελλεν
ἀναστήσεσϑαι μετὰ τὸ σταυρωϑῆναι, γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνη-
μονεύμασιν ὅτι OL ἀπτὸ τοῦ γένους ὑμῶν συζητοῦντες αὐτῷ ἔλεγον,
ὅτι AetEov ἡμῖν σημεῖον. Καὶ ἀπεχρίνατο αὐτοῖς" Γενεὰ mo-
νηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλὶς σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ, καὶ σημεῖον ov
δοθϑήαεται αὐτοῖς εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ. (Mat. xii. 39.)
6 See first passage, p. 59. The quotation from the Memoirs agrees with our
Gospel of Luke (Luke xxii. 44) for the sweat, save that αἵματος is omitted (ϑρόμβος
itself means a gout or clot of blood). The prayer of Jesus resembles Matthew
xxvi. 39 more closely than Luke. In Dial. ce. 99. p. 326 B, Justin quotes the
prayer again, but not in the same words, ηὔχετο λέγων πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν ἐστι, παρ-
ελϑέτω τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ. If therefore Justin quoted correctly from his
author in the one case, he did not in the other. This difficulty cannot be over-
come by those who suppose Justin to have followed his Gospel accurately. The
rest of the prayer was, according to Justin (Dial. ὁ. 99), Καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο εὐχό-
μενος λέγε: Μὴ ὡς ἐγὼ βούλομαι: ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σὺ ϑέλεις,, which agrees with neither
Matthew nor Luke, but is more like Matthew. Everything points to Justin’s com-
bining the narratives as suited himself or as his memory enabled him. No argu-
ment can be founded on the supposition that he was careful or successful in re-
producing his sources.
1 Verbatim from Luke xxiii. 46.
8 This quotation is exact, ὑμῶν ἡ διχαιοσύνη being the correct reading.
9 This is Mat. xii. 39 verbatim, save that Justin reads αὐτοῖς for αὐτῇ; and
that he does not add tod προφήτου after ᾿Γωνᾷ.
1
LETTER TO DIOGNETUS. THE EVANGELISTS AT TRAJAN’S TIME. 65
9
3. Lerrer to Dioenetus.!
Ο. 11. Εἴτα φόβος νόμου ἄδεται χαὶ τιροφητῶν χάρις γινώ-
σχεται χαὶ εὐαγγελίων πίστις ἵδρυται χαὶ ἀποστόλων παράδοσις
φυλάσσεται χαὶ ἐχχλησίας χάρις σχιρτῷ.
4. Tue Evanceuists at TRrAJAN’s TIME.
Eus. H. E. 11.37. Καὶ γὰρ δὴ πλεῖστοι τῶν τότε μαϑη-
τῶν σφοδροτέρῳ φιλοσοφίας ἔρωτι τιρὸς τοῦ ϑείου λόγου τὴν
ψυχὴν ἀναρπαζόμενοι, τὴν σωτήριον πρότερον ἀτιετιλήρουν πιαρα-
χέλευσιν, ἐνδεέσι νέμοντες τὰς οὐσίας, εἶτα δὲ ἀποδημίας στελ-
λόμενοι ἔργον ἐπιετέλουν εὐαγγελιστῶν, τοῖς ἔτι “τἄμτταν ἀνηχόοις
τοῦ τῆς στίστεως λόγου κηρύττειν τὸν Χριστὸν φιλοτιμούμενοι, καὶ
τὴν τῶν ϑείων εὐαγγελίων παραδιδόναι γραφήν."
1 The ‘Epistle to Diognetus’ was at one time ascribed to Justin Martyr on
the strength of a title apparently ascribing it to him in a MS of probably the
thirteenth or fourteenth century. It follows some works in Justin’s name, but not
now regarded as his. The Ep. to Diognetus makes ample use of Paul, and if it
were Justin’s would be very valuable. The external objections to the Justinian
authorship are: (1) It is not quoted or alluded to—so far as is known—by
any Christian writer of antiquity. (2) The MS itself (which was burned in the
fires of Strassburg during the recent Franco-German war) is of very dubious
authority. (It is not absolutely inconceivable that Henry Stephens, its editor, was
also its author. See Donaldson, Christian Literature, Il. 142.) Its value is dis-
puted on the following internal grounds: (1) Its style is not Justin’s. (2) Its use of
Seripture is not like Justin’s. (3) Its mode of dealing with the religions of Judea,
Greece, and Rome is not Justin’s. To (1) and (2) plausible replies may be
easily made; but (3) seems to me insurmountable. Justin’s respectful, though
faithful, handling of the great faiths with which Christianity contended is very
unlike the contemptuous tone of the writer of the Epistle. While the reference
in the text is given for the sake of completeness, it cannot be founded upon. The
date may be from the end of the second to the beginning of the fourth century;
or it may be the fiction of a later time. It follows Justin here, because of its
association with his works. The text is from Gebhardt and Harnack (1875).
The eleventh and twelfth chapters are supposed by some to be by a later hand
than the ten which precede. See Cotterill’s Peregrinus Proteus, p. 131.
1 There can be no doubt from the context that Eusebius is describing the
first age after the Apostles. The words with which he closes the paragraph and
introduces Ignatius and Clement of Rome are interesting to the student of eccle-
siastical offices, as well as useful for our present | purpose. He says: ᾿Αδυνάτου δὲ
ὄντος ἡμῖν ἅπαντας ἐξ “ὀνόματος ἀπαρισμεῖσσαι, ὅσοι ποτὲ χατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐχ-
χλησίας γεγόνασι ποιμένες ἢ χαὶ εὐαγγελισταὶ, τούτων εἰκότως ἐξ ὀνόματος γραφῇ
μόνων τὴν μνήμην χατεσέμεσα, ὧν ἔτι χαὶ νῦν εἰς ἡμᾶς St ὑπομνημάτων τῆς
ἀποστολιχῆς διδασχαλίας ἢ τα βεσησίς φέρεται. He says that very many mar-
vellous miracles were wrought (εἰσέτι tote) by those men. There is an interest-
ing passage in 2 Clement, c. 2, where after quoting Is. liv. 1 &e. the writer says:
᾿Επεὶ ἔρημος ἐδόκει εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ λαὸς ἡμῶν, νυνὶ δὲ πιστεύσαντες
5
00 THE GOSPELS.
5. Quapratus. !
ς = . ~ ς - \ ) -
Δι. H. E. 1V.3. Tov δὲ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν τὰ ἔργα ἀεὶ παρῆν.
᾿“ληϑῆ yao ἦν: οἱ ϑεραπευϑέν ic q 2% νεχρῶν, OL
HI} yao ἣν: οἱ ϑεραπευθϑέντες, οἱ ἀναστάντες Ex νεχρῶν, οἵ
2 2 Na ΞΣ \ >
οὐχ ὥφϑησαν μόνον ϑεραπευόμενοι, χαὶ ἀνιστάμενοι, HAAG χαὶ CEL
, z Jor 9 ~ / NS) ~ 2 \ N23
σιαρόντες" οὐδὲ ἐπιδημοῦντος μόνον τοῦ Σωτῆρος αλλὰ χαὶ ἀπαλ-
ἋΣ c
hayevtog, ἦσαν ἐπὶ χρόνον ἱκανὸν, ὥστε χαὶ εἰς τοὺς ἡμετέρους
, 2 ~ d
χρόνους τινὲς αὐτῶν ἀφίκοντο.
6. Irenaeus.
B. ITT. 1. Non enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae
cognovimus, quam per eos per quos evangelium pervenit ad nos:
quod quidem tune praeconaverunt, postea vero per Dei volunta-
tem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum et columnam
fidei nostrae futurum. Nec enim fas est dicere, quoniam ante
praedicaverunt quam perfectam haberent agnitionem; sicut qui-
dam audent dicere, gloriantes emendatores se esse apostolorum.
Postea enim quam surrexit Dominus noster a mortuis et induti
sunt supervenientis Spiritus Sancti virtutem ex alto, de omnibus
adimpleti sunt, et habuerunt perfectam agnitionem; exierunt in
fines terrae, ea quae a Deo nobis bona sunt evangelizantes, et
coelestem pacem hominibus annuntiantes, qui quidem et omnes
pariter et singuli eorum habentes evangelium Dei.
πλείονες ἐγενόμεθα τῶν δοχούντων ἔχειν Θεόν. By of Soxodvtes he no doubt
meant the Jews; and by λαός he seems from the context to have meant the
Christian community.
1 Quadratus presented his Apology to Hadrian, and it was known to Euse-
bius, who praises it in high terms. It was a vindication of the purity of the life
of Christians. From his statement that some of those on whom the Saviour’s mi-
racles had been wrought survived to his time, it is possible that he is the same
Quadratus of whom the historian speaks elsewhere as having the gift of prophecy
at the time when the daughters of Philip were similarly endowed (H. E. III. 37).
It is not certain that he was the Athenian Bishop mentioned in the letter of Dio-
nysius of Corinth (Kus. H. Εἰ. IV. 23). Nor indeed is anything more known of
him with certainty than what Eusebius says in introducing the extract in our text.
—He adds that Aristides also presented an Apology along with Quadratus (παρα-
πλησίως) which was extant in the possession of very many. At the same date
(the time of Hadrian) Agrippa Castor wrote against Basilides (Eus. H. E. IV. 7).
He was the first who wrote against heresy. The writings of Tatian, Athenagoras,
Theophilus, and Melito are quoted in our text. With those mentioned in this note
and the doubtful Hermias they make up the ‘Apologists.’ See Donaldson, ‘Hist.
of Christian Literature and Doctrine,’ II. 4.
IRENAEUS. 67
~ ~ . U ~ , >
τ μὲν δὴ Matdaiog ἐν τοῖς “Εβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέχτῳ αὐ-
~ \ - 2 ~ 7 ~
τῶν, χαὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγχεν εὐαγγελίου, vot Πέτρου χαὶ τοῦ Παύ-
λου ἐν “Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων καὶ ϑεμελιούντων τὴν ἐχχλησίαν.
Mera δὲ τὴν τού ἔξοδον, Π]άρχος 0 μαϑητὴς χαὶ ἑριιηνευτὴς
ἸΠετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον, Πάρχος ὃ μαϑητὴς χαὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς
\ ΒῚ / ’ ~
Πέτρου χαὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ἱπὸ Πέτρου χηρυισσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν
r ~ > >
σιαραδέδωχε. Καὶ “ουχᾶς δὲ ὃ ἀχόλουϑος Παύλου, τὸ ta’ ἐχείνου
2 Dyn 3
χηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ χατέϑετο. “Enecta Ιωάννης ὃ
Sot τς: ν᾿ = Dae ed
μαϑητὴς tov Kvelov, ὃ χαὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆϑος αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσὼν, χαὶ
? > 2 ~ 2 ν
αὐτὸς ἐξέδωχε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς Aotag διατρίβων.5
B. IT, 11. 7. Et haec quidem’ sunt principia Evangelii,
unum Deum fabricatorem hujus universitatis, eum qui et per
prophetas sit annunciatus, et qui per Moysem legis dispositio-
nem fecerit, patrem Domini nostri Jesu Christi annunciantia, et
praeter hunc alterum Deum nescientia, neque alterum Patrem.
Tanta est autem circa Evangelia haec firmitas, ut et ipsi haere-
tici testimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque
eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam. Ebionaei etenim eo
Evangelio, quod est secundum Matthaeum,* solo utentes, ex illo
ipso convincuntur, non recte praesumentes de Domino. Marcion
autem id quod est secundum Lucam circumcidens, ex his quae
adhuc servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum existentem Deum
ostenditur. Qui autem Jesum separant a Christo, et impassibi-
lem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod
secundum Marcum est praeferentes Evangelium, cum amore ve-
ritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino
sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes ad osten-
sionem conjugationum suarum, ex ipso detegentur nihil recte di-
centes, quemadmodum ostendimus in primo libro. Cum ergo hi
1 From Eus. H. E. V. 8.
2 See further Eus. H. E. II. 15; III. 24; VI.14. The traditions regarding
the origin of the Gospels vary. Regarding Matthew’s Gospel and its relation to
the Gospel of the Hebrews, see Introduction, ‘Gospel of Hebrews.’ As regards
Mark, whether ἔξοδον means death or departure from the city, Irenaeus is in conflict
with Eus. H. E. VI. 14, because Eusebius distinctly says Peter was made aware of
Mark’s Gospel. See also Il. 16. ἔχδοσιν for ἔξοδον is probably an attempt te
get over the difficulty. As regards Mark’s relation to Peter, and Luke’s to Paul,
traditionary testimony agrees, that in each case the Evangelist reduced to writing
the substance of his Master’s teaching. As regards John, see Introduction, and
the passages quoted below; and compare Clement’s account (below, p. 74).
8 See Introduction: ‘Gospel of Hebrews.’
5 *
68 THE GOSPELS.
qui contradicunt, nobis testimonium perhibeant, et utantur his,
firma et vera est nostra de illis ostensio.
B. 111. 11. 8. Neque autem plura numero quam haec sunt,
neque rursus pauciora capit esse Evangelia.+
2 \ , , - , ? Εἰς 5 , een
Exon . . . τέσσαρα χλίματα τοῦ κόσμου, EY ᾧ EOMEV" ELOL,
nai τέσσαρα χαϑολιχὰ σπινεύματα, χατέσπαρται δὲ ἣ ἐχχλησία ἐτεὶ
- - wal \ >
πάσης τῆς γῆς, στύλος δὲ χαὶ στήριγμα ἐχχλησίας TO εὐαγγέλιον,
~ ~ γ 2
nal πινεῦμα ζωῆς" εἰχότως τέσσαρας ἔχειν αὐτὴν στύλους, σταντα-
} 3 \ & ~ ἧς >
χόϑεν πινέοντας τὴν ἀφϑαρσίαν, χαὶ avalwrveorrtag τοὺς ἀνϑρώ-
2 ran \ U ~
πους. EE ὧν φανερὸν, ὅτι ὃ τῶν ἁπάντων τεχνίτης Adyog, ὃ
χαϑήμενος ἐπὶ τῶν Χερουβὲμι “ai συνέχων τὰ πάντα, φανερωϑεὶς
τοῖς ἀνϑρώτστοις, ἔδωχεν ἡμῖν τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, Evi δὲ
πνεύματι συνεχόμενον. Καϑὼς ὃ Δαβὶδ αἰτούμενος αὐτοῦ τὴν
χιαρουσίαν, φησίν" ὃ χαϑήμενος ἐπὶ τῶν Χερουβὶμ, ἐπιφάνηϑι.
Γ΄ \ r > ~
Καὶ γὰρ τὰ Χερουβὶμ τετρατρόσωτια" χαὶ τὰ τιρόσωπα αὐτῶν εἰ--
χόνες τῆς πραγματείας τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον
ζῶον, φησὶν, ὅμοιον λέοντι" τὸ ξμισεραχτον αὐτοῦ χαὶ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ
βασιλιχὸν χαραχτηρίζον" τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ὅμοιον μόσχῳ, τὴν ἱερουρ-
γικὴν χαὶ ἱερατικὴν τάξιν ἐμφαῖνον" τὸ δὲ τρίτον ἔχον σπτρόσωτιον
Ν ‘ 2 - ᾿
ἀνθρώπου, τὴν LATA ἄνϑρωτπιον αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν φανερώτατα δια-
γράφον" τὸ δὲ τέταρτον ὅμοιον ἀετῷ σπετομένῳ, τὴν τοῦ πνεύμα-
τος ἐπὶ τὴν ἐχχλησίαν ἐφιττιταμένου δόσιν σαφηνίζον. Καὶ τὰ
2 4, 5 , , 5 heed ἘΣ 5 ω σ / \
εὐαγγέλια οὖν τούτοις σύμφωνα," ἐν οἷς ἐγχαϑέζεται Χριστὸς. To
Ν 2 ~ ~
μὲν γὰρ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην," τὴν a0 τοῦ πατρὸς ἡγεμονικήν αὐτοῦ. ...
nat ἔνδοξον ἐν διηγεῖ λέγον: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὃ Adyog καὶ
ον γενεὰν διηγεῖται, λέγον" ἔν ἀρχῇ ἢν ὃ «Αγος
/ ~~ ΥῊ , \ \ > ~ NEL.
σχιάντα Ol αὑτοῦ ἐγένετο᾽ καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ EV ....
- - - 2 -
Τὸ δὲ χατὰ “ουχᾶν, ἅτε ἱερατικοῦ χαρακτῆρος ὑπάρχον, ἀπὸ τοῦ
= , ΕἾ τ = = x »”
Ζαχαρίου tov ἱερέως ϑυμιῶντος τῷ Θεῷ ἤρξατο. Ἤδη γὰρ ὃ σι-
Ν Cc Ise / ig \ ~ > ~
τευτὸς ἡτοιμάζετο μόσχος ὑπτὲρ τῆς ἀνευρέσεως τοῦ νεωτέρου σται--
- \ 2. > ~
δὸς μέλλων ϑύεσϑαι. Mardatog δὲ τὴν χατὰ ἄνϑρωττον αὐτοῦ
, “ , , , 2 - > ~ Ce
γέννησιν κηρύττει, λέγων Βίβλος γενέσεως Inoov Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ
4 See before, note on Justin, Dial. ce. 227. Ign. Philad. ο. 5 has apparently
εὐαγγέλιον and ἀπόστολοι, as the divisions of the N .T. The ‘Gospel’ and the
‘ Apostles’ became well-known divisions after Clem. Alex. The Greek of the follow-
ing notable passage was found by Grabe in the Quaestiones of Anastasius Sinaita.
5. Or σύμμορφα.
6 The Latin version is: Aliud enim illam, quae est a Patre, principalem et
efficabilem et gloriosam generationem ejus enarrat dicens sic, ἕο The words χαὶ
ἔμπρακτον seem to have dropped out.
IRENAEUS. 69
© - ) r ~ ~ > ~
AaBid, υἱοῦ “ABoucu. Καὶ" τοῦ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣ γέννησις
3 2 / ΡῚ \ ~
οὕτως ἦν. ᾿ανϑρωπόμορφον οὖν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο... . . .-.
F ν > ~ ~ ~
Meoxog δὲ ad tov πιροφητιχοῦ σπινεύματος tot ἐξ ὕψους ἐπιόντος
- ) , \ 2 \ 2 \ ~
τοῖς ἀνϑρώτιοις, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐτιοιήσατο, λέγων" ‘Ayr τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
2 ὌΝ r τ ς , Cay e! » ς oh 2 if LSS \
Inoov Χριστοῦ, ὡς yeyoumrar ἐν Ἡσαὶᾳ τῷ προφητῃ" τὴν πτε-
x Ἅ 4 ~ , ,ὔ \ ~ ‘ \ ,
ρωτιχὴν εἰχόνα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου δεικνύων" διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ OVV-
τόμον χαὶ τ᾿ταρατρέχουσαν τὴν χαταγγελίαν σπεητοίηται" προφητιχὸς
ς c= Dik eX \ ~ ~ ~
γὰρ ὃ χαραχτὴρ οὗτος. Καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῖς μὲν
7100 Mwitoéws πατριάρχαις, χατὰ τὸ ϑεϊχὸν χαὶ ἔνδοξον ὡμίλει"
τοῖς δὲ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ἱερατιχὴν . . .. τάξιν ἀπένειμιδ. Meta δὲ
~ a fa \ ν \ τῷ ἢ Ὁ ,
ταῦτα ἄνϑρωτιος γενόμενος, τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πινεύματος εἰς
~ » , Ν ~ , Cc ~ ~ c ~
σεᾶσαν ἐξέπεμιψε τὴν γῆν, σχεπιάζων ἡμᾶς ταῖς ξαυτοῦ πτέρυξιν
ς , 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Οποία οὖν ἢ πραγματεία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοιαύτη χαὶ τῶν
͵ ς τες τὰκ τς , GC osteo , \ ~ ee aa
ζώων ἢ μορφή" χαὶ ὁποία ἢ τῶν ζώων μορφὴ, τοιοῦτος χαὶ ὃ
\ ~ Β] , r U \ Nis Sa) fe ,
χαραχτὴρ tov εὐαγγελίου. Τετράμορφα yao ta ζῶα, τετράμορφον
\ 2 \ ~ ES ῳ
χαὶ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, χαὶ ἢ σιραγματεία τοῦ Κυρίου. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο
, γ᾽ / © Ν ~ ~~ ΡΒ, Cc ’ " , ‘
τέσσαρες ἐδόϑησαν χαϑολιχαὶ διαϑῆχκαι τῇ ἀνϑρωτστοτητι" μία μὲν
~ " ~ _-~ ~ DON ~ Le Fs y , \ ~?) / \
τοῦ χαταχλυσμοῦ tov Νῶε, ἐπὶ τοῦ τόξου" δευτέρα δὲ tov ABocau
ἐπὶ τοῦ σημείου τῆς περιτομῆς" τρίτη δὲ ἢ νομοθεσία ἐπὶ τοῦ
3.5: 4 ζ ~ > ~ Ch Greoisen)
ΠΠ]ωὐσέως" τετάρτη δὲ ἣ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ‘In-
σοῦ Χριστοῦ.
/ \ c Bent? / / ΨΥ -
§ 9. Τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων, μάταιοι πάντες καὶ ἀμαϑεῖς,
? ~ \ ~ 3)
σεροσέτι δὲ χαὶ τολμηροὶ οἱ ἀϑετοῦντες THY ἰδέαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
\ / ~
χαὶ εἴτε τιλείονα, εἴτε ἐλάττονα τῶν εἰρημένων παρειςφέροντες
) \ ’ ~ 2 ,
εὐαγγελίων πιρόσωτια᾽ οἱ μὲν, ἵνα πλείονα δόξωσι τῆς ἀληϑείας
- WA , ~ ~ 2)
ἐξευρηκέναι" οἱ δὲ, ἵνα τὰς οἰχονομίας tov Θεοῦ ἀϑετήσωσιν.
Etenim Marcion totum rejiciens Evangelium, immo vere se
ipsum abscindens ab Evangelio, partem gloriatur se habere Evan-
gelii.7 Alii vero ut donum Spiritus frustrentur,® quod in novis-
simis temporibus secundum placitum Patris effusum est in hu-
manum genus, illam speciem non admittunt, quae est secundum
Joannis Evangelium, in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus
7 Another reading is “‘pariter gloriatur se habere Evangelium.” This would be
an allusion to the previous description of the Gospel as four-formed.
8 Some have supposed the Montanists to be here described. But the Alogi,
who rejected the Johannine portion of the four-formed Gospel, aré more prob-
ably meant. See under John’s Gospel. The Montanists claimed the gift of pro-
phecy; but they did not reject the Fourth Gospel.
70 THE GOSPELS.
promisit; sed simul et Evangelium, et propheticum repellunt spi-
ritum. Infelices vere, qui pseudoprophetae quidem esse volunt,
prophetiae vero gratiam repellunt ab ecclesia: similia patientes
his, qui propter eos qui in hypocrisi veniunt, etiam a fratrum
communicatione se abstinent.2 Datur autem intelligi, quod hujus-
modi neque apostolum Paulum recipiant. In ea enim Epistola,
quae est ad Corinthios, de propheticis charismatibus diligenter
locutus est, et scit viros et mulieres in ecclesia prophetantes.
Per haec igitur omnia peccantes in Spiritum Dei, in irremissibile
incidunt peccatum. Hi vero, qui sunt a Valentino, iterum ex-
sistentes extra omnem timorem, suas conscriptiones proferentes,
plura habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa Evangelia. Siquidem in
tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim con-
scriptum est, Veritatis Evangelium titulent, in nihilo conveniens
apostolorum evangeliis, ut nec evangelium quidem sit apud eos
sine blasphemia. Si enim, quod ab eis profertur, Veritatis est
Evangelium, dissimile est autem hoc illis, quae ab apostolis no-
bis tradita sunt; qui volunt, possunt discere, quemadmodum ex
ipsis scripturis ostenditur, jam non esse id quod ab apostolis
traditum est Veritatis Evangelium. Quoniam autem sola illa vera
et firma, et non capit neque plura, praeterquam praedicta sunt,
neque pauciora esse Evangelia, per tot et tanta ostendimus. Et-
enim cum omnia composita et apta Deus fecerit, oportebat et
speciem Evangelii bene compositam, et bene compaginatam esse.
Examinata igitur sententia eorum qui nobis tradiderunt evange-
lium, ex ipsis principiis ipsorum, veniamus et ad reliquos apo-
stolos, et perquiramus sententiam eorum de Deo: post deinde,
ipsos Domini sermones audiamus.
9 The well-known tenet of the Montanists forbidding the restoration of the
lapsed to Christian privileges is probably here alluded to. The reference in the
first part of the sentence is obscure. Those ‘‘infelices’’ appear to be the sect of
whom he speaks immediately before; but it is not easy to find from other sources
any sect to which the description fully applies. On the whole, we may suppose
that he compares the Alogi (or some such sect) in their rejection of prophecy
with the Montanists in their seclusion of themselves from their fellow-Christians.
The whole passage is difficult, as it runs in the old Latin.
THE PRESBY'TERS. 71
al
7. Tue Pressyters,!
WHOSE TESTIMONY IRENAEUS REPORTS UPON.
Tren. IV. 32.1. Hujusmodi quoque de duobus Testamentis senior
apostolorum discipulus disputabat, ab uno quidem et eodem Deo
utraque ostendens. Nec enim esse alterum Deum praeter eum qui
fecit et plasmavit nos, nec firmitatem habere sermonem eorum qui
dicunt aut per angelos aut per aliam quamlibet virtutem aut ab
alio Deo factum esse hunc mundum qui est secundum nos. . .
Si autem credat quis unum Deum, et qui verbo omnia fecit
quemadmodum et Moses ait: Diait Deus fiat lux et facta est lux
(Gen. i. 3); et in Evangelio legimus: Omnia per ipsum facta sunt,
et sine ipso factum est nihil, &e.
B. 11. 22.5. *Quia autem XXX annorum aetas prima indolis
est juvenis, et extenditur usque ad XL annorum, omnibus quilibet
confitebitur; a XL autem et L anno declinat jam in aetatem se-
niorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, sicut evangelium
χαὶ πάντες οἱ τιρεσβύτεροι μαρτυροῦσιν, οἱ κατὰ τὴν -Aotay Ἴω-
ἄννῃ τῷ τοῦ Κυρίου μαϑητῇ συμβεβληκότες, π᾿αραδεδωχέναι ταῦτα
τὸν Ἰωάννην. Παρέμεινε γὰρ αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων.
Quidam autem eorum non solum Joannem sed et alios apostolos
viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt, et testantur de hu-
jusmodi relatione. Quibus majus oportet credi? Utrumne his
talibus, an Ptolemaco, qui apostolos nunquam vidit, vestigium
autem apostoli ne in somniis quidem assecutus est?
1 Eus. H. E. V. 8 says of Irenaeus: Καὶ ᾿Απομνημονευμάτων [Ὑπομνη-
μάτων] δὲ ἀποστολικοῦ τινὸς πρεσβυτέρου, οὗ τοὔνομα σιωπῇ παρέδωχε μνημο-
νεύει. ἐξηγήσεις τε αὐτοῦ Θείων γραφῶν παρατίσεται. Eusebius had not a clue
to the name of this Presbyter (he seems to have thought there was but one, or
is it but one whose writings were accessible?); and modern conjecture is vain.
It can searcely have been Polycarp or Papias. Sometimes Irenaeus calls his
authority ὁ χρείσσων ἡμῶν (I. Pref. 2, I. 13. 3 &e.), superior (III. 17. 4). Sometimes
he defines him. Thus, Quemadmodum audivi a quodam Presbytero, qui audierat
ab his qui apostolos viderant et ab iis qui didicerant (IV. 27. 1 &e.). Again he
quotes from senior apostolorum discipulus (ΤΥ. 32. 1). In our second extract (II.
22. 5) he connects his authorities with John. Elsewhere he calls his authority ὁ
Seiog πρεσβύτης χαὶ κήουξ τῆς ἀληϑείας and ὁ ϑεοφιλὴς πρεσβύτης.
2 Irenaeus is opposing the idea that our Lord’s ministry lasted only for one
year. He argues that when our Lord was baptized He was not of full age to be
a teacher, as Luke iii. 23 does not say He had completed 30 years. He seems to
found upon John viii. 57. The Greek is from Eus. H. E. HI. 23.
7.2) THE GOSPELS.
B.V. 36.1, 2. ϑ'ῶῆς οἵ πρεσβύτεροι λέγουσι, τότε χαὶ οἵ μὲν
χαταξιωϑέντες τῆς ἐν οὐρανῷ διατριβῆς, ἐχεῖσε χωρήσουσιν, οἱ δὲ
τῆς τοῦ τπιαραδείσου τρυφῆς ἀπτολαύσουσιν, οἱ δὲ [τὴν ἁγίαν γῆν καὶ]
τὴν λαμπρότητα τῆς στόλεως καϑέξουσιν [σὺν πᾶσι τοῖς περὶ αὐτὴν
ἀγαϑοῖς, ἐτειχορηγουμένοις ὑτιὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ] πανταχοῦ γὰρ ὃ Σωτὴρ
δραϑήσεται, χαϑὼς ἄξιοι ἔσονται ot δρῶντες αὐτόν. Εἶναι δὲ τὴν
διαστολὴν ταύτην τῆς οἰχήσεως τῶν τὰ ExaTOY χαρποφορούντων
(Mat. xiii. 8), καὶ τῶν τὰ ἑξήχοντα χαὶ τῶν τὰ τριάκοντα" ὧν
οἵ μὲν εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἀναληφϑήσονται, οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ
διατρίψουσιν, οἱ δὲ τὴν πτόλιν χατοιχήσουσιν. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰ-
ρηχέναι. τὸν Κύριον, ἐν τοῖς τοῦ σπτατρός μου μονὰς εἶναι πολλάς
(John xiv. 2) τὰ πάντα γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃς τοῖς πᾶσι τὴν ἁρμό-
ἕουσαν οἴχησιν τταρέχει. Quemadmodum verbum ejus ait, omni-
bus divisum esse a Patre secundum quod quis est dignus aut
erit. Et hoc est triclinium in quo recumbent ii qui epulantur
vocati ad nuptias. Hance esse adordinationem et dispositionem
eorum qui salvantur, dicunt presbyter: apostolorum discipuli, et
per hujusmodi gradus perficere, et per Spiritum quidem ad Filium,
per Filium autem ascendere ad Patrem; Filio deinceps cedente
Patri opus suum, quemadmodum et ab apostolo dictum est (1 Cor.
xv. 25): Quoniam oportet regnare eum quoadusque ponat omnes
imimicos sub pedibus ejus. Novissima inimica destruetur mors.
In temporibus enim regni justus homo super terram exsistens, ob-
liviscetur mori jam (1 Cor. xv. 27). Quando autem dixerit, in-
quit: omnia subjecta sunt scilicet absque eo qui subjecit omnia.
Quum autem οἱ fuerint subdita omnia tunc ipse Filius subjectus
erit et qui sibi subjecit omnia, ut sit Deus omnia in ommobus.
8. Tartan.!
Eus. H. E. IV. 29. Ὃ μέντοι ye τιρότερος αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸς ὃ
Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα χαὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τῶν εὑ-
3 From Iren. V. 36.1 &c.; the Greek from Anastasius, Quaest. 74 in Script.
Sac. The words in brackets are not found in the Latin of Irenaeus.
1 Tatian, a native of Assyria, a rhetorician by profession, disgusted with
heathenism, was converted to Christianity. He is said to have been a hearer
of Justin (Iren. I. 28. 1 quoted by Eus. Η. E. IV. 29). He appears to have
published some heretical notions soon after A.D. 170, He held peculiar views
about aeons; declared marriage to be corruption; and denied that Adam could
be saved. He objected to the O. T., probably because of its recognizing poly-
TATIAN. THEOPHILUS. 73
, " \ Ν , ~ 4 aA \
αγγελίων συνϑεὶς τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο πιροσωνόμασεν" Ὁ χαὶ
- - 3 ae) \ η ~
σπιαρά τισιν εἰσέτι viv φέρεται. Tov δ᾽ ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί
> ~
τινας αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς, wg ἐπιδιορϑούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν
τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν. !
Theodoret,? Haer. Fab. 1. 20. Οὗτος χαὶ διὰ τεσσάρων χα-
λούμενον συντέϑειχεν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, τάς τὲ γενεαλογίας σιεριχόιμας,
U \ Χ \
nol τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐκ σπέρματος “1αβὶδ κατὰ σάρχα γεγενημένον τὸν
, , 2 , \ , τ , c ~ 2 ,
Κύριον δείχνυσιν. Ἐχρήσαντο δὲ τούτῳ ov μόνον οἱ τῆς éxeivov
> ~ ~
συμμορίας, ἀλλὰ χαὶ οἱ τοῖς ἀποστολικοῖς ἑπόμενοι δόγμασι, τὴν
τῆς συνϑήκης χαχουργίαν οὐκ ἐγνωχότες, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλούστερον ὡς
συντόμῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ χρησάμενοι. Εὗρον δὲ κἀγὼ πλείους ἢ ὃ
υντόμῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ χρησάμενοι. Εὗρον δὲ χαγὼ πλείους ἢ δια-
χοσίας βίβλους τοιαύτας ἐν ταῖς παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐχχλησίαις τετιμημέ-
\ > \ \ ~ 2
νας, χαὶ πάσας συναγαγὼν ἀπεϑέμην χαὶ τὰ τῶν τεττάρων εὐαγ-
- 3 >
γελιστῶν ἀντεισήγαγον εὐαγγέλια.
9. Τηβορηπ8. !
Ad Autol. ITT. pp. 124, 125. Ἔτι μὴν καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης,
Καὶ 6 , ee. a) Aol a et ee \ \ ~ neh)
ἧς ὃ νόμος εἴρηχεν, ἀχόλουϑα εὑρίσχεται χαὶ τὰ τῶν προφητῶν
gamy. His view of the Ὁ. T. made him like a Gnostic; but he seems to have
been a follower of no School. His only extant work is his Oration to the Greeks,
written in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (quoted below, see ‘Gospel of John’). His
most famous work Διὰ τεσσάρων is lost. It is to it Eusebius refers in the text.
Eusebius also quotes as a report (λέγος ἔχει) that Tatian was the founder (ορ-
χηγόν) of the Encratites, who denounced marriage; but his quotation from Ire-
naeus only bears that the sect of the Encratites derived from Tatian their recently
adopted opinion that Adam was beyond salvation. Eusebius did not know what
kind of thing the Διὰ τεσσάρων was. It seems to have been a Harmony or blend-
ing of the four Gospels. Theodoret’s account (in next extract) is probable enough;
and the omission of the genealogies might be part of the work which Tatian thought
it necessary to do in order to compile a concise and consistent narrative from the
four Gospels. Epiphanius says, ‘‘The Gospel by ‘the four (τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων) is
said to have been made by him, which some call the Gospel according to the
Hebrews.” Victor of Capua (sixth century) says it was called Dia Pente, but this
assertion has no weight. Some think that he meant διὰ πάντων, others that he
mistook the book. (See Donaldson, Christian Literature, II. 26, and the whole of
his exhaustive discussion.) See below, under Matthew’s Gospel, a disputed pas-
sage.
2 Theodoret was Bishop of Cyrus in Syria from about A.D. 420, and died
A.D. 457. He was a voluminous author, writing a History of the Church, Com-
mentaries on Scripture, &c. His objection to Tatian’s book is founded on the
absence of the genealogies; and he seems to have known no other fault,—ta
ἄλλα ὅσα being vague enough to mean anything or nothing.
1 Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch about A.D. 180-193; the sixth from the
Apostles, says Eusebius (H. E. 1V. 20, 24). He is said to have written a Mar-
mony. His chief work—to Autolycus—in three Books, survives. Eusebius calls
74 THE GOSPELS.
χαὶ τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν ἔχειν, διὰ τὸ τοὺς MAYTAG πνευματο-
φόρους ἑνὶ πνεύματι Θεοῦ λελαληχέναι.
Hicron. prooem. in Mat. T. IV. p. ὃ. Primum enim difficile
est omnes legere qui in Evangelia scripserunt. Deinde multo dif-
ficilius, adhibito judicio, quae optima sunt, excerpere. Legisse
me fateor ante annos plurimos in Matthaeum Origenis viginti-
quinque volumina, et totidem ejus homilias, commaticumque in-
terpretationis genus: et Theophili Antiochenae urbis Episcopi
Commentarios. . . .
Hieron. epist. ad Algas. T. IV. p.197. Theophilus, Antioche-
nae ecclesiae septimus post Petrum apostolum episcopus, qui qua-
tuor evangelistarum in unum opus dicta compingens, ingenii sui
nobis monimenta reliquit, haec super hac parabola in suis com-
mentarivs locutus est.
Hieron. de ill. vir. c. 25. Legi sub ejus nomine im Evan-
gelium et in Proverbia Solomonis Commentarios, qui mihi cum
superiorum voluminum elegantia et phrasi non videntur congruere.
10. Criement or ALEXANDRIA.
(See before, p. 67, and notes.)
Eus. H. E. VI. 14. Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὑποτυττώσεσι ξυνελόντα εἰ-
σιεῖν πάσης τῆς ἐνδιαϑήχου γραφῆς ἐτιτετμημένας πετοίηται διη-
γήσεις,: μηδὲ τὰς ἀντιλεγομένας παρελϑὼν,Σ τὴν ᾿Ιούδα λέγω χαὶ
τὰς λοιπὰς χαϑολιχὰς ἐπιστολὰς, τήν τε Βαρνάβα χαὶ τὴν Πέ-
τρου λεγομένην ἀτιοχάλυψιν. Καὶ τὴν πρὸς “Εβραίους δὲ ἐπιστο-
it elementary (στοιχει δὴ). It is a discourse composed at different times in three
parts to show the superiority of Christianity to heathenism. He founds largely
upon the O. T. He is the first to quote the Gospel of John by name (see
below, John’s Gospel), but he refers to several books of the N. T., and ex-
plicitly quotes 1 Timothy (see below). He wrote a book against Marcion which
is lost. Some ‘Cémmentaries on the Gospels’ in Latin bearing his name are
extant, but are not allowed by scholars to be his. Eusebius says that in writing
against the heresy of Hermogenes he used testimonies from the Apocalypse. He
cites Paul’s Epistle as ϑεῖος λόγος. The passage in our text puts the New Testa-
ment and the Old on the same level; and the same word πνευματόφοροι is used
in the citation from John, so that αἱ ἀγίαι γραφαί probably includes John in that
case. The way in which he quotes Matthew and John, his work against Mar-
cion, and his Commentaries or his Harmony, may serve to show the acceptance
of the Gospels in his time.
a διηγήσεις : variously translated “ explications,’ “ accounts,’ “narratives.”
2 ἀντιλεγόμεναι γραφαί: see before, page 10, for explanation of Eusebius’s
meaning.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. TERTULLIAN. 75
D : t
Avy. [For the rest of this reference see under ‘Hebrews.’| -4v-
3 ~ ~ ~ t- ~
ϑις δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὃ Κλήμης βιβλίοις περὲ τῆς τάξεως τῶν
εὐαγγελίων παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνέχαϑεν τιρεσβυτέρων τέϑειται,
τοῦτον ἔχουσαν τὸν τρύττον. Προγεγράφϑαι ἔλεγον τῶν Εὐαγγελίων
τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίας. Τὸ δὲ χατὰ Πάρχον,) ταύτην
» , x γ , ~ , , ’ c / ,
ἐσχηχέναι τὴν οἰχονομίαν. Tot Πέτρου δημοσίᾳ ἐν “Ρώμῃ χηρύ-
Eavrog τὸν λόγον, χαὶ πινεύματι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐξειτιόντος, τοὺς
‘ \ >
παρόντας πολλοὺς ὕντας παραχαλέσαι τὸν Πάρχον, ὡς ἂν axo-
> ~ Cc ‘ ~
λουϑήσαντα αὐτῷ ττόῤῥωθεν καὶ μεμνημένον τῶν λεχϑέντων, ἀνα-
γράψαι τὰ εἰρημένα" ποιήσαντα δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, μεταδοῦναι τοῖς
> ~ \ ~
δεομένοις αὐτοῦ. Ὅπερ ἐπιγνόντα τὸν Πέτρον, τιροτρετιτιχῶς μήτε
χωλῦσαι μήτε προτρέψασθαι, τὸν μέντοι ᾿Ιωάννην ἔσχατον συνι-
,, c \ δ ων ~ > , / =
δόντα, OTL τὰ σωματιχὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προτρα-
c Ν ~ , , A
σπέντα LUO τῶν γνωρίμων, πνεύματι ϑεοφορηϑέντα, πινευματιχὸν
= γ Ξ Ξι
ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον. Tooatra ὃ Κλήμης.
Clem. Alex. Strom. ITT. 553. Ave τοῦτό τοι ὃ Κασσιανὸς φησὶ,
~ a >
σπυνϑανομένης τῆς Σαλώμης wore γνωσθήσεται τὰ περὶ ὧν ἤρετο,
ἔφη ὃ Κύριος, ὅταν τὸ τῆς αἰσχύνης ἔνδυμα πατήσητε, καὶ ὅταν γέ-
νηται τὰ δύο ἕν, χαὶ τὸ ἄῤῥεν μετὰ τῆς ϑηλείας οὔτε ἄῤῥεν, οὔτε
- - \ BY γ - , Cam ,
ϑῆλυ. Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς παραδεδομένοις ἡμῖν τέταρσιν
> , 2 a Ne \ > Pres ~ > ’ , 4
εὐαγγελίοις οὐχ ἔχομεν τὸ ῥητὸν, αλλ ἐν τῷ “nat «Αιγυπτιους.
11. Trerrouwian.
(See Ady. Marcion. IV. 1, before p. 49.)
Adv. Marcion. IV. 2. Habes nunc ad Antitheses expeditam
a nobis responsionem. Transeo nunc ad Evangelii, sane non Ju-
daici, sed Pontici,! interim adulterati demonstrationem, prae-
8 Compare what is said by Irenaeus (p. 67). The discrepancy may be removed
by supposing that Peter did not know at first of the request made to Mark, that
he neither approved nor disapproved of the writing of the Gospel, but that when
it was written he was pleased with it, and sanctioned (tacitly or expressly) its cir-
culation. But is it necessary to explain a discrepancy like this which marks the
variations of a tradition?
4 The way in which Clement here quotes the Gospel of the Egyptians is
significant. To say (as the author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ says, I. 422) that
‘Clement of Alexandria quotes the Gospel of the Hebrews as an authority with
quite the same respect as the other Gospels” is incorrect, as may be seen from
the distinct place assigned by Clement to the four canonical Gospels in the text.
(See below, ‘Gospel of Hebrews.’)
1 Marcion was a native of Sinope (Pontus), hence the phrase ‘Pontic Gospel.’
He was in communion with the Church of Rome in the time of Eleutherus (according
76 r THE GOSPELS.
structuram ordinem quem aggredimur. Constituimus in primis,
evangelicum Instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc
munus evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum; si
et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis, et post apo-
stolos. Quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset
de gloriae studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo
Christi, quae magistros apostolos fecit. Denique, nobis fidem ex
apostolis Joannes et Matthaeus insinuant; ex apostolicis, Lucas
et Marcus instaurant, iisdem regulis exorsi, quantum ad unicum
Deum attinet Creatorem, et Christum ejus, natum ex Virgine,
supplementum Legis et Prophetarum. Viderit enim si narratio-
num dispositio variavit, dummodo de capite fidei conveniat, de
quo cum Marcione non convenit. Contra Marcion, Evangelio, sci-
licet suo, nullum adscribit auctorem, quasi non licuerit illi titu-
lum quoque affingere, cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere.
Et possem hic jam. gradum figere, non agnoscendum contendens
opus, quod non erigat frontem, quod nullam constantiam prae-
ferat, nullam fidem repromittat de plenitudine tituli, et profes-
sione debita auctoris. Sed per omnia congredi malumus, nec dis-
simulamus quod ex nostro intellegi potest. Nam ex iis commen-
tatoribus quos habemus, Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse, quem
caederet.2. Porro Lucas non apostolus, sed apostolicus: non ma-
to Tertullian), and is said to have been expelled from the Church because of his
crimes. His activity in Rome began about A.D. 135-142, probably about A.D. 141.
Justin (A.D. 139-148 (2), see Introduction) writes of him as well-known, and fol-
lowed by many in every nation. His main idea was the usual Gnostic one of
antagonism between the Old and New Testaments; and he held that the Jewish
God was not He whom Jesus preached. He published a Canon: one Gospel, ‘The
Gospel of the Lord’ a mutilated Luke, and 10 Epp. of Paul called ἀπόστολος.
His Epp. were Gal., Cor. (2), Rom., Thess. (2), Eph., Coloss., Philem., Philipp.,
and some passages from that ‘“‘to the Laodiceans.’’ His version of the Gospel of
Luke is published by Hahn (Thilo, Cod. Apoc.). Rejecting the opening chapters,
he began with the Lord’s appearance in the synagogue of Capernaum. The life
and death of Jesus are retained with such changes as he thought necessary,—e.g.,
in Luke xxiv. 25 he omits the reference to the prophets. His great work was
called Antitheses—z.e., Antagonism between the Old Testament and the New.
2 It is now generally agreed by almost all critics of every school that Marcion
had Luke’s Gospel before him and mutilated it. The argument in ‘ Supernatural
Religion’ in favour of Marcion’s originality is well answered by Sanday, ‘Gospels
in the Second Century.’ The Fathers are unanimous in stating that Marcion altered
Luke; Epiphanius and Tertullian quote largely from Marcion’s Gospel, and their
quotations correspond. The difference between our Gospel and Marcion’s is mainly
that the latter omits passages, although in some cases he preserves a different
reading from that in the ordinary text. The testimony of Irenaeus is clear, and
“1
“
TERTULLIAN.
gister, sed discipulus; utique magistro minor; certe tanto poste-
rior, quanto posterioris apostoli sectator, Pauli sine dubio: ut,
etsi sub ipsius Pauli nomine Evangelium Marcion intulisset, non
sufficeret ad fidem singularitas Instrumenti, destituta patrocinio
antecessorum; exigeretur enim id quoque Evangelium quod Pau-
lus invenit, cui fidem dedidit, cui mox suum congruere gestiit. Si-
quidem (Gal. ii. 1) propterea Hierosolymam ascendit ad cogno-
scendos apostolos, et consultandos, ne forte im vacuum cucur-
risset, i.€., ne non secundum illos credidisset, et non secundum
illos evangelizaret. Denique, ut cum auctoribus contulit et con-
venit de regula fidei, dexteras miscuere, et exinde officia prae-
dicandi distinxerunt, ut illi in Judaeos, Paulus in Judaeos et in
nationes. {gitur si ipse illuminator Lucae, auctoritatem anteces-
sorum et fidei et praedicationi suae optavit, quanto magis eam
Evangelio Lucae expostulem, quae evangelio magistri ejus fuit
necessaria? Aliud est, si penes Marcionem a discipulatu Lucae
coepit religionis Christianae sacramentum. Caeterum, si et retro
decucurrit, habuit utique authenticam paraturam, per quam ad
Lucam usque pervenit, cujus testimonio assistente, Lucas quoque
possit admitti.
C. 8. Sed enim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Gala-
tas, etiam ipsos apostolos suggillantis (Gal. ii), ut non recto
pede incedentes ad veritatem evangelii, simul et accusantis pseud-
apostolos quosdam pervertentes evangelium Christi, connititur ad
destruendum statum eorum Evangeliorum, quae propria et sub
apostolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum; ut sci-
licet fidem, quam illis adimit, suo conferat. Porro, etsi repre-
hensus est Petrus et Joannes et Jacobus, qui existimabantur co-
lumnae, manifesta causa est. Personarum enim respectu vide-
bantur variare convictum. Et tamen, cum ipse Paulus omni-
bus omnia fieret, ut omnes lucraretur (1 Cor. ix. 19), potuit et
made repeatedly, and testifies to the fact of the mutilation of St. Paul’s Epistles
and of St. Luke’s Gospel (see before in the quotations from Iren. I. 27. 2, &c.,
and afterwards under ‘Marcion’). Justin, writing about A.D. 147, says that
Marcion’s doctrines were widespread. The difference in N. T. readings between
Marcion’s copy of Luke and that known to Tertullian throws the Gospel back to
a considerably anterior date; as the readings show that Marcion’s copy was the
result of repeated transcription.
3 Marcion was a resolute enemy of Judaism, and he therefore rested on Ga-
latians, although he cut out even from it the references to Abraham in ὁ. ili,
78 THE GOSPELS.
Petro hoc in consilio fuisse, aliquid aliter agendi, quam docebat.
Proinde si et pseudapostoli irrepserant, horum quoque qualitas
edita est, circumcisionem vindicantium et Judaicos fastos. Ideo
non de praedicatione, sed de conversatione, a Paulo denotaban-
tur; aeque denotaturo, si quid de Deo creatore, aut Christo ejus
errassent. Igitur distinguenda erunt singula. Si apostolos prae-
varicationis et simulationis suspectos Marcion haberi queritur us-
que ad Evangeliit depravationem, Christum jam accusat, accu-
sando quos Christus elegit. Si vero apostoli quidem integrum
evangelium contulerunt, de sola convictus inaequalitate reprehensi,
pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolaverunt, et inde sunt
nostra Digesta; quod erit germanum illud apostolorum Instrumen-
tum, quod adulteros passum est? Quod Paulum illuminavit, et
ab eo Lucam? Aut si tam funditus. deletum est, ut cataclysmo
quodam, ita inundatione falsariorum obliteratum; jam ergo nec
Marcion habet verum. Aut si ipsum erit verum, id est aposto-
lorum, quod Marcion habet solus; et quomodo nostro consonat,
quod non apostolorum, sed Lucae refertur? Aut si non statim
Lucae deputandum est, quo Marcion utitur; quia nostro consonat,
scilicet adulterato etiam circa titulum; caeterum apostolorum est;
jam ergo et nostrum quod illi consonat, aeque apostolorum est,
sed adulteratum de titulo quoque.
C. 4. Funis ergo ducendus est contentionis, pari hine inde
nisu fluctuante. Ego meum dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego
Marcionis affirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos
determinabit, nisi temporis ratio, ei praescribens auctoritatem, quod
antiquius reperietur; et ei pracjudicans vitiationem, quod poste-
rius revincetur? In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri, in
tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum. Prior erit res pas-
sione, et materia aemulatione. Alioquin, quam absurdum ut si
nostrum antiquius probaverimus, Marcionis vero posterius; et no-
strum ante videatur falsum quam habuerit de veritate materiam,
et Marcionis ante credatur aemulationem a nostro expertum quam
et editum, et postremo id verius existimetur, quod est serius
post tot ac tanta jam opera atque documenta Christianae reli-
gionis seculo edita, quae edi utique non potuissent sine Evangelii
4 Evangelium here is not used as by St. Paul for the substance of the Gos-
pel, but denotes the written Gospel, as is clear from what follows.
TERTULLIAN. 719
veritate, id est ante Evangelii veritatem. Quod ergo pertinet
ad Evangelium interim Lucae, quatenus communio ejus inter nos
et Marcionem de veritate disceptat, adeo antiquius Marcione est,
quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse illi Marcion aliquando credi-
derit; quum et pecuniam in primo calore fidei catholicae eccle-
siae contulit, projectam mox cum ipso postea quam in haeresim
suam a nostra veritate descivit. Quid nunc si negaverint Mar-
cionitae, primam apud nos fidem ejus, adversus epistolam quo-
que ipsius? Quid si nec epistolam agnoverint? Certe Antitheses
non modo fatentur Marcionis, sed et praeferunt. Ex his mihi
probatio sufficit. Si enim id Evangelium quod Lucae refertur
penes nos (viderimus an et penes Marcionem) ipsum est quod
Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit, ut interpolatum a protecto-
ribus Judaismi ad concorporationem Legis et Prophetarum, qua
etiam Christum inde confingerent, utique non potuisset arguere,
nisi quod invenerat. Nemo post futura reprehendit, quae ignorat
futura: emendatio culpam non antecedit. Emendator sane evan-
gelii a Tiberianis usque ad Antoniniana tempora eversi, Marcion
solus et primus obvenit, expectatus tamdiu a Christo, poeni-
tente jam quod apostolos praemisisse properasset sine praesidio
Marcionis; nisi quod humanae temeritatis, non divinae auctori-
tatis negotium est haeresis, quae sic semper emendat Evangelia,
dum vitiat: quum etsi discipulus Marcion, non tamen super ma-
gistrum (Mat. x. 24). Et si apostolus Marcion, Stve ego, inquit
Paulus (1 Cor. xv. 11), sive alli, sic praedicamus. Et si prophetes
Marcion: et spiritus prophetarum prophetis erunt subditi (1 Cor.
xiv. 32). Non enim eversionis sunt, sed pacis. Etiam si angelus
Marcion, citius (Gal. i. 8) anathema dicendus quam evangelizator,
quia aliter evangelizavit. Itaque dum emendat, utrumque con-
firmat, et nostrum anterius, id emendans quod invenit, et id
posterius, quod de nostri emendatione constituens, suum et no-
vum fecit.
C. 5. In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius
quod et ab initio, id ab initio, quod ab apostolis, pariter uti-
que constabit; id esse ab apostolis traditum, quod apud eccle-
sias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. Videamus quod lac a
Paulo Corinthii hauserint, ad quam regulam Galatae sint recor-
recti, quid legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii; quid
80 THE GOSPELS.
etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus
et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt. Habemus
et Joannis alumnas ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsin ejus Mar-
cion respuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus, in
Joannem stabit auctorem. Sic et caeterarum generositas recogno-
scitur. Dico itaque apud illas, nec solas jam apostolicas, sed
apud universas, quae illis de societate sacramenti confoederantur,
id Evangelium Lucae ab initio editionis suae stare, quod cum
maxime tuemur: Marcionis vero, plerisque nec notum; nullis au-
tem notum, ut non eadem damnatum. MHabet plane et illud eccle-
sias, sed suas, tam posteras quam adulteras, quarum si censum
requiras, facilius apostaticum invenias quam apostolicum; Mar-
cione scilicet conditore, vel aliquo de Marcionis examine. Fa-
ciunt favos et vespae; faciunt ecclesias et Marcionitae. Eadem
auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum caeteris quoque patrocina-
bitur Evangeliis, quae proinde per illas, et secundum illas habe-
mus, Joannis dico et Matthaei, licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri
affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Nam et Lucae Digestum Paulo
adscribere solent. Capit magistrorum videri, quae discipuli pro-
mulgarint. Itaque et de his Marcion flagitandus, quod omissis
eis, Lucae potius institerit, quasi non et haec apud ecclesias a
primordio fuerint, quemadmodum et Lucae. Atquin haec magis a
primordio fuisse credibile est, ut priora, qua apostolica, ut cum
ipsis ecclesiis dedicata. Caeterum, quale est, si nihil apostoli
ediderunt, ut discipuli potius ediderint, qui nec discipuli existere
potuissent sine ulla doctrina magistrorum? Igitur dum constet
haec quoque apud ecclesias fuisse, cur non haec quoque Marcion
attigit, aut emendanda si adulterata, aut agnoscenda si integra?
Nam et competit, ut si qui Evangelium pervertebant eorum ma-
gis curarent perversionem, quorum sciebant auctoritatem receptio-
rem. Ideo et pseudapostoli, quod per falsum apostolos imitaren-
tur. In quantum ergo emendasset quae fuissent emendanda, si
fuissent corrupta, in tantum confirmavit non fuisse corrupta, quae
non putavit emendanda. Denique emendavit, quod corruptum
existimavit. Sed nec hoc merito, quia non fuit corruptum. Si
enim apostolica integre decucurrerunt, Lucae autem, quod est
secundum nos, adeo congruit regulae eorum, ut cum illis apud
ecclesias maneat, jam et Lucae constat integrum decucurrisse
TERTULLIAN. ORIGEN. 81
usque ad sacrilegium Marcionis. Denique, ubi manus illi Mar-
cion intulit, tunc diversum οὐ acmulum factum est apostolicis.
Igitur dabo consilium discipulis ejus, ut aut illa convertant, li-
cet sero, ad formam sui, quo cum apostolicis convenire videan-
tur (nam et quotidie reformant illud, prout a nobis quotidie re-
yvincuntur), aut crubescant de magistro utrobique traducto, cum
Evangelii veritatem nunc ex conscientia tramittit; nunc ex impu-
dentia evertit. His fere compendiis utimur, quum de Evangelii
fide adversus haereticos expedimur, defendentibus et temporum
ordinem posteritati falsariorum praescribeutem, et auctoritatem
ecclesiarum traditioni apostolorum patrocinantem, quia veritas
falsum praecedat necesse est, et ab eis procedat, a quibus tra-
dita est.
C.6. Sed alium jam hinc inimus gradum, ipsum (ut professi
sumus) Evangelium Marcionis provocantes, sic quoque probaturi
adulteratum. Certe enim totum, quod elaboravit, etiam Antithe-
ses praestruendo, in hoc cogit, ut Veteris et Novi Testamenti
diversitatem constituat; proinde Christum suum a creatore sepa-
ratum, ut Dei alterius, ut alienum Legis et Prophetarum.
12. Onicen.
Contra Celsum, Tom. IIT. p. 473 (Migne, vol. I. p. 969). Πι-
στείομεν δὲ χαὶ ταῖς προαιρέσεσι τῶν γραψάντων Ta Εὐαγγέλια,
χαταστοχαζόμενοι τῆς εὐλαβείας αὐτῶν χαὶ τοῦ συνειδότος, ἐμφαι--
γομένων τοῖς γράμμασιν, οὐδὲν νόϑον χαὶ χυβευτιχὸν, καὶ σπιεπιλα-
σμένον χαὶ πανοῦργον ἐχόντων.
Homil. in Luc. Tom. ILL. p.932
sq.) (Migne, vol. II. p. 1801.)!
Ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχεί-
ρησαν ἀνατάξασϑαι περὶ
Sicut olim in populo Judaeo-
rum multi prophetiam pollice-
bantur, et quidam erant pseudo-
prophetae e quibus unus fuit Ana-
τῶν πεπληροφορὴμ ἕνω ν.
3 Ἁ c , ᾽ ‘\ γ
Ἐπειδὴ ὑπέρογκον ἢν τὸ ἐπι-
/ /
, γ a ~
χείρημα ἄνϑρωπον ovta Θεοῦ
διδασχαλίαν χαὶ ῥήματα συγ-
γράφειν, εἰχότως ἀττολογεῖται ἐν
1 After his return from Antioch, to
nias filius Agot; alii vero pro-
phetae; et erat gratia in populo
discernendorum spirituum, per
quem alii inter prophetas recipie-
bantur, nonnulli quasi ab exerci-
which he had been called by Mammaea
mother of Alexander Severus, he began his Commentaries on Scripture.
6
82
ay , “Ooméeo δὲ οὖν
τῷ προοιμίῳ. “Ὥστιερ δὲ οὐ»
maha λαῷ πολλοὶ προφη-
, » / ’ \ /
τείαν ἐπηγγέλλοντο, αλλὰ τούτων
τῷ
t
\ 3 ~
μὲν τινὲς ἦσαν ψιευδοτιροφῆται,
\ y 4 2 G ~ ~ r Ν
τινὲς δὲ ἀληϑῶς προφῆται. Kel
3 ~ ~ , ν ,
vy τῷ λαῷ χαρισμα διαχρίσεως
,ὔ c \ ~ ’ ~
πινευμάτων" οὕτω χαὶ νῦν ἐν τῇ
Καινῇ 4ιαϑήκῃ τὰ Εὐαγγέλια
>: 2
πολλοὶ ἐϑέλησαν γράιμαι, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ
ν her >
δόχιμοι τρατιεζίται 3 οὐ πάντα
}) 2 Χ \
ἀνέχριναν, ἀλλὰ τὰ τέσσαρα μό-
γον ἐτπιελέξαντο.
βπεγείοησαν. λελυϑυῖαν 2
ἐπεχείρησαν, λεληϑυῖαν ἔχει
χατηγορίαν τῶν τιροτιετῶς χαὶ
Ν , ’ oq! γ Ν
χωρὶς χαρίσματος ἐλϑόντων exit
ae ee
τὴν ἀναγραφὴν τῶν Εὐαγγελίων.
᾿ - \ ? ἢ
Matdaiog γὰρ οὐχ ἐτπιεχείρησεν,
> 5). » ‘ nite ΟΝ , ξ τ ,
add ἔγραψεν εξ ἁγίου χινούμενος
σινεύματος. Ὁμοίως χαὶ Π]άρχος
ΧΟ / U \ δ
χαὶ Ἰωάννης" τεαρατιλησίως δὲ καὶ
Aovnts. Τὸ μέντοι éntyeyoau-
, ) δ. Ι a) ,
μένον nav -Alyvatiovg Evayye-
hiov χαὶ τὸ ἐπιιγεγραμμένον Τῶν
᾽
Awden. Ευαγγέλιον οἱ συγγρά-
Wartes ἐπεχείρησαν. Φέρεται
~ +)
δὲ τὸ χατὰ Θωμᾶν Εὐαγγέλιον.
Ἤδη δὲ ἐτόλμησε χαὶ Βασιλίδης
v ay)
γράψαι κατὰ Βασιλίδην Εὐαγγέ-
λιον. Πολλοὶ μὲν οὖν éaeyet-
Ν Ν Γ , \
ρησαν χαὶ xata ἤϊατϑιαν nc
γ \ , \ ἊΝ ,ὔ
αλλὰ πλείονα: τὰ δὲ τέτταρα
μόνα πιροχρίνει ἡ Θεοῦ ἐχχλη-
, 2 Cc ~ val
σία. Οὐχ ἁπλῶς δὲ πεπιστευ-
2
μένων, ἀλλὰ τιετιληροφορημένων
>’ / ~
τὸ ἀπαράβατον τοῖς λεγομέ-
i x
Taya οὖν τὸ
THE GOSPELS.
tatissimis trapezitis (Rom. ii. 16)
reprobabantur; ita et nunc in No-
vo Testamente multi conati sunt
scribere Evangelia, sed non omnes
recepti. Et ut sciatis, non solum
quatuor Evangelia, sed plurima
esse conscripta, e quibus haec,
quae habemus, clecta sunt, et
tradita ecclesiis, ex ipso prooe-
mio Lucae, quod ita contexitur,
cognoscamus: Quoniam quidem
multi conati sunt ordinare nar-
rationem. Hoc quod ait, conati
sunt, latentem habet accusatio-
nem eorum qui absque gratia
Spiritus Sancti δ scribenda
Evangelia prosilierunt. Mat-
thaeus quippe, et Marcus, et Jo-
annes, et Lucas non sunt conati
scribere; sed Spiritu Sancto pleni
scripserunt Evangelia. Multi igi-
tur conati sunt ordinare narra-
tionem de his rebus quae mani-
festissime cognitae sunt in nobis.
Ecclesia quatuor habet Evange-
lia, haereses plurima: e quibus
quoddam scribitur secundum Aeg-
yptios, aliud juxta Duodecim
Apostolos. Ausus fuit et Basilides
scribere Evangelium, et suo illud
nomine titulare. Multi conati
sunt scribere; sed et multi conati
sunt ordinare. Quatuor tantum
Evangelia sunt probata, e qui-
bus sub persona Domini et Sal-
2 The well-known saying γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόχιμοι (Clem. Alex. Strom. I.
354).
Alex.).
It is sometimes ascribed to Jesus Christ (Origen), sometimes to Paul (Cyril
ORIGEN.
~ ,
vos μαρτιρῶν. Iloaynatwy
ν 3 ? ~ '
δὲ εἶπεν, ἀναιρῶν τὴν αἵρεσιν
τῶν χατὰ φαντασίαν λεγομένων
τὰ διὰ τοῦ Σωτῆρος γεγενῆσϑαι
) -
χατὰ τὴν σάρχωσιν αὐτοῦ. Περὶ
δὲ τῶν πειιληροφορημένων
’ aa \ / € ’ eel ee) U
εἰσι ὧν THY διάϑεσιν αὐτοῦ ἐμφαί-
\ )
EMANOOPOONHTO γὰρ χαὶ οὐ-
ν υ - , λ
δὲν ἐδίσταζε στύτερον οὕτως ἔχει
ὯΝ ” Ch ΝΥΝ, \ ~ 2 \
ἢ οὐ. Ὅτι δὲ παρὰ τῶν αὐτοιμεὶ
ϑεασαμένων παρέλαβε, σαφῶς
ὡμολόγησεν Καϑὼς
, y ς - « ) ae:
παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπαρ-
Ὗ ,
ξι71(» *
- 2) Ni 1G
χῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται
~ ,
γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου. Mea-
)εβαιοῦται. γὰρ ὅτι ἄνωϑεν -
βῥεβαιουται γὰρ OTL GVO. 710
, a» ~ ’
ἡχολούϑησεν OV τισι TOY εἰρη-
, > \ ~ 3
μένων αλλὰ πᾶσιν.
89
vatori nostris proferenda sunt
dogmata. Scio quoddam Evan-
gelium, quod appellatur secun-
dum Thomam, et juxta Mat-
thiam, et alia plura legimus, ne
quid ignorare videremur, propter
eos qui se putant aliquid scire,
si ista cognoverint. Sed in his
omnibus nihil aliud probamus
nisi quod ecclesia, id est qua-
tuor tantum Evangelia recipien-
da. Haee idcirco, quia in prin-
cipio lectum est: Multi conati
sunt ordinare narrationem de his
rebus quae confirmatae sunt in
nobis. Illi tentaverunt atque co-
nati sunt de his rebus scribere,
quae in nobis manifestissime sunt
compertac. Effectum suum Lu-
cas indicat ex sermone quo ait:
In nobis manifestissime sunt os-
tensae, id est σιεχιληροφορημέ-
vor (quod uno verbo Latinus
sermo non explicat).
Comment. in Joh. Tom. I. 4 sqq. (Migne, vol. IV. p. 25.) Kai
γὰρ τολμητέον εἰπεῖν τε-ασῶν τῶν γραφῶν εἶναι ἀπαρχὴν τὸ Εὐαγ-
γέλιον.
3 (a ~ > «
““παρχὴν οὖν πράξεων ἐξ ov τῇ «Ἱλεξανδρείᾳ ἐπιδεδημή-
χαιιενά, τίνα ἄλλην, ἢ τὴν εἰς τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τῶν γραφῶν ἐχρὴν γε-
f ἢ ”, , Τῇ ἢ χρχὴ 9 χρὴ id
γονέναι ;
τογέ γνημα.
7100 δὲ πάντων τὸ πρωτογέννημα.ὅ
Χρὴ δὲ ἡμὰς εἰδέναι οὐ ταὐτὸν εἶναι ἀπαρχὴν χαὶ τ
Meva γὰρ τοὺς πάντας καρποὺς ἀναφέρεται ἣ ἀπαρχὴ,
Tov τοίνυν φερομένων γρα-
8 On the Apocryphal Gospels mentioned in this extract, Origen’s testimony is
interesting. On the Gospel of Basilides see Introduction ;
Twelve see Introduction ‘Gospel of the Hebrews.’
on the Gospel of The
The Gospel according to the
Egyptians is not mentioned elsewhere by Origen.
4 The Greek is from the “ Schedae Grabii et Combefisii ;”
the Latin (which
varies considerably) is from Jerome’s translation.
5 Origen distinguishes between the offering of the ‘‘first-fruits of thy la-
bours”’
at the feast of harvest (see Lev.
ii. 14) and the further and more formal
6 *
84 THE GOSPELS.
~ Se: , > , - , py ,
pov nat ἐν πάσαις ἐχχλησίαις Θεοῦ στεγτιστευμένων εἶναι ϑείων,
οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τις λέγων πρωτογέννημα μὲν τὸν ᾿Π]Πωύσέως νόμον,
ἀπαρχὴν δὲ τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον" μετὰ γὰρ τοὺς τιάντας τῶν τιροφητῶν
\ ~ ~ 2 ~ ‘
χαρποὺς, τῶν μέχρι τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὃ τέλειος ἐβλάστησε λόγος.
\ γ , - γ
Ο. ὃ. Ἐὰν δέ τις ἀνϑυπτοφέρῃ διὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν τῆς ἀνατιτύξεως
~ - \ >’ , ‘ ‘A
τῶν ἀπαρχῶν φάσχων μετὰ τὰ Εὐαγγέλια τὰς Πράξεις χαὶ τὰς
᾿Επιστολὰς φέρεσθαι τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ χατὰ τοῦτο μὴ ἂν ἔτι
he A v , Ν ) " ᾿ >
σώζεσϑαι TO τιροατιοδεδομένον περὶ ἀπαρχῆς, TO ἀπαρχὴν 7τάσης
- ~ 3 ~
γραφῆς εἶναι τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον: λεχτέον ἤτοι νοῦν εἶναι σοφῶν ἐν
Γ΄ ~ > ~ In ~
Χριστῷ, ὠφελημένων ἐν ταῖς φερομέναις Ἐπιστολαῖς, δεομένων
, , ~ ~ ’ ~ ~ \ ~
ἵνα πιστεύωνται. μαρτυριῶν TOY ἐν τοῖς νομικοῖς χαὶ προφητιχοῖς
λόγοις χειμένων ὥστε σοφὰ μὲν χαὶ πιστὰ λέγειν χαὶ σφόδρα ἐπι-
\ \ > \ . =
τεταγμένα τὰ ἀπιοστολιχὰ, οὐ μὴν παρατιλήσια τῷ: Τάδε λέγει
Κύριος παντοχράτωρ᾽" χαὶ χατὰ τοῦτο ἐπίστησον δἰ, ἐπεὰν λέ-
Cc isn x ~ \ ,ὔ \ > ,
yet ὃ Παῦλος: Πᾶσα γραφὴ ϑεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλεμος
? , \ VC = , Nn > 1 > ᾿ ’
ἐμσεεριλαμβάνει καὶ τὰ ξαυτοῦ γράμματα, ἢ οὐ τό" Kayo λέγω,
Ν 2 c / Ν / rs > , γ , ,
και οὐχ ὁ Κυριος, zat το Ev πασαις ἐχχλησίαις διατάσ-
\ oe 2
σομαι, xai τό: Oia ἔπαϑον ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ, ἐν Ἱκονίῳ, ἐν
Ν “ ον c > 2) ~
AVOTOOLE χαὶ τὰ τούτοις τ᾿ιαραπλήσια ἐνίοτε La αὐτοῦ γραφέντα
2 , 2 Ν \ > τ - » ,
χαὶ nav ἐξουσίαν, ov μὴν τὸ εἰλιχρινὲς τῶν ἐχ ϑείας ἐπιτινοίας
ὮΝ ~ \
λόγων" ἢ) καὶ τοῦτο π᾿αραστατέον ὅτι ἣ Παλαιὰ μὲν οὐχ Εὐαγγέλιον,
\ 2
οὐ δειχνύουσα τὸν ἐρχόμενον, ἀλλὰ προαγγέλλουσα χαὶ τιροκηρύσ-
- \ +) γ
σουσα" πᾶσα δὲ ἣ Καινὴ τὸ Εὐαγγέλιόν ἐστιν, οὐ μόνον ὁμοίως
- 3 - ~ > , , ἃ ΟἹ εἶ « > Ν - ~ ¢€
τῇ ἀρχῇ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου paoxovoa’ Ιδοὺ ὃ auvog tov Θεοῦ ὃ
«ς ~ 2
αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ χόσμου, ἀλλὰ χαὶ ποικίλας δοξο-
, : , \ y , , - ἢ; τε \ γ , >
λογίας meguéxovoa χαὶ διδασχαλίας tot δι ov τὸ Evayyéhtoy ev-
αγγέλιόν ἐστιν. ...
> Ν Cig wea a Ν f , a” ~ 2 ,
Ο. 6. Ἐγὼ δὲ οἶμαι, ὅτι χαὶ, τεσσάρων ὄντων τῶν Ευαγγελίων,
οἱονεὶ στοιχείων τῆς σπιίστεως τῆς ἐχχλησίας, ἐξ ὧν στοιχείων ὃ
- , rv ~ ~ ~
πᾶς συνέστηχε χόσμος, ἐν Χριστῷ χαταλλαγεὶς τῷ Θεῷ, χαϑά
- Ἵ; r ~
φησιν ὃ Παῦλος: Θεὸς ἣν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσ-
- τὰ x 2 - ~
σων ξαυτῷ, οὗ χόσμου τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἦρεν ᾿Ιησοῦς" τιερὶ γὰρ τοῦ
~ Cc / ‘ .¢ 2 >
χόσμου τῆς ἐχκλησίας ὃ λόγος ἐστὶν ὃ γεγραμμένος" “100d ὃ ἀμνὸς
offering at the feast of Pentecost. See Ley. xxiii. and Exod. xxiii. 16. The
former, B°7723, πρωτογεννήματα, he finds in the law of Moses; the latter, 072777,
ἀπαρχή, is the Gospel. Lardner translates literally “first-begotten” and ‘first-
fruits.” See Num. xxviii. 26, &c. D-N12BT Dh, day of first-fruits, is Pentecost. See
Oehler, O. T. Theology, vol. II ὃ 155.
ORIGEN. 85
~ ~ / ~ »’
τοῦ Θεοῦ ὃ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ χόσμου, ἀπαρχὴν
- s+) , 3 , ς ~ ς , Ν We?
τῶν Ευαγγελίων εἰναι τὸ τιροστεταγμένον ἡμιἴν ὑπό GOV χατὰ δύ-
vou ἐρευνῆσαι τὸ χατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην" τὸν γενεαλογούμενον εἰτιν, χαὶ
3 See | rT ~ ~
aso τοῦ . ag ἀρχόμενον" ]ατϑαῖος μὲν γὰρ, τοῖς τιροσ-
δοχῶσι τὸν [τὸ] ἐξ “βραὰμ χαὶ 4αβὶδ Ἑβραίοις γράφων, Βί-
βλος, φησὶ, γενέ σεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ
.Τβραάμ' χαὶ Maoxog εἰδὼς 0 0 γράφει, ἀρχὴν διηγεῖται tov Ev-
αγγελίου, τάχα ELQLOZOVTOY ἡμῶν τὸ τέλος αὐτοῦ 7 παρὰ τῷ ᾿Ιωάννῃ
ἐν ἀρχῇ Adyov Θεὸν Adyor. “Alka χαὶ “ουχᾶς εἰρηχὼς ἐν ἀρχῇ
΄ = / ’ , \
tov Πράξεων" Tov μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην περὶ
- - >
πάντων ὧν ἤρξατο ὃ Ἰησοῦς ποιεῖν χαὶ διδάσχειν, αλλά
γε τηρεῖ τῷ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆϑος ἀνατιεσόντι τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοὺς 9. μείζονας
χαὶ πξλ τοτέρουε eet Inoot λόγους. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἐχείνων ἀχρατῶς
> ~ 2 m \
ἐφανέρωσεν αὐτοῖ; τὴν ϑεότητα, ὡς Ιωάννης παραστήσας αὐτὸν
2 \ - ~ ν
λέγοντα. Ἐγὼ εἰμὶ τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου" ἐγὼ εἰμὲ ἢ OOS,
\ [4 2 7 ’ \ a) SS BIG fe , é τὶ \
natn ἀλήϑεια, καὶ 7 C oy ἐγὼ ELLE ἢ ἀνάστασις" ἐγὼ
> ΟΡ τ , ’ \ c , A) ~)
εἰμὶ ἢ ϑύρα" ἐγὼ εἰμὶ ὃ ποιμὴν ὃ καλός" χαὶ ἐν τῇ 4πο-
, 2 ς >
χαλύιννει" Ἐγὼ εἰμὶ τὸ A καὶ τὸ Q, ἢ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος,
c a= ~ )
0 πρῶτος χαὶ ὃ ἔσχατος. τολμητέον τοίνυν εἰχτεῖν ἀπαρχὴν
τς - ~ ey \ ? , - \ 5] , B)
μὲν maowy γραφῶν εἶναι τὰ Εὐαγγέλια, τῶν δὲ Εὐαγγελίων ἀτταρ-
2 a ~ , O27 2
χὴν τὸ χατὰ Ιωάννην, οὗ τὸν νοῦν οὐδεὶς δύναται λαβεῖν μὴ ἀνα-
Ν ~ 2 ~ ~
πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὸ στῆϑος Noor, μηδὲ λαβὼν ἀττὸ ᾿Ιησοῦ τὴν Π]αρίαν
ΤᾺ > ~ ν ~ 2) ~
γινομένην χαὶ αὐτοῦ μητέρα. ... Ἔστι δὲ προσαχϑῆναι ano τῶν
ις \ / , ‘ ~ ~ \ \ 3 \ 2
ὑπὸ Παύλου λεγομένων sei τοῦ ττᾶσαν τὴν Καινὴν εἶναι τὰ Evoy-
, c , τ Ν 7 , / 5 ,
γέλια ὅταν που γράφῃ: Kara τὸ Εὐαγγέλιόν μου" ἐν γράμ-
ἈΝ ’ 2 ” , 2 / , ,
μασε γὰρ Παύλου οὐχ ἔχομεν βιβλίον Ευαγγέλιον συνήϑως xahov-
> \ ~ Se yee \ OF \ 2 , Sree se CN ‘
μενον. Alka πᾶν ὁ ἐχήρυσσε χαὶ ἔλεγε τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον ἤν" ἃ καὶ
> / 2 ~ Sots) 2 > 5
ἐχήρυσσε “al ἔλεγε, ταῦτα nal ἔγραφε" χαὶ ἃ ἔγραφε ἄρα Εὐαγ-
5 > τ) t B)
γέλιον ἣν. Εἰ δὲ τὰ Παύλου Εὐαγγέλιον ἣν, ἀχόλουϑον λέγειν,
c \ \ , +) , 3
ote χαὶ τὰ Πέτρου Εὐαγγέλιον ἣν χ.τ.}.
Comment. in Joh. Tom. V. p. 98 (Migne, vol. IV. p. 193).
32) , ’ \ , ) /& ξ ΓᾺΡ \ ) \ \
Ett προσϑήσω εἰς τὴν τούτου ἀπόδειξιν δητὸν αἀποστολιχὸν μὴ
- - - 2
γεγοημένον ὑττὸ τῶν τοῦ Π͵αρχίωνος, χαὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀϑετούντων
\ Et a a \ i τ Ν 2 , 7] λέ * x \ \ 3
τὰ Εὐαγγέλια, τὸ γὰρ τὸν ἀπόστολον λέγειν, κατὰ τὸ εὐυαγ-
, 4 ? 7 Food Ὁ ~ \ \ ΄ > ,
γέλιόν μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, zai μὴ φάσκειν Ευαγγέλια,
ἐχεῖνοι ἐφιστάντες φασὶν, οὐχ ἂν τελειόνων ὄντων Εὐαγγελίων τὸν
> , ~ c
ἀπόστολον ἑνιχῶς τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον εἰρηκέναι" ob συνιέντες ὅτι ὡς
-
τ 2) \ ἰϑ δ we) ΤΣ , co c , = ,
εἷς ἐστὶν ov ᾿δυαγγελίζονται πλείονες, οὕτως ἕν ἐστι τῇ δυνάμει
&6 THE GOSPELS.
NG \ > ~ ’ , ) , \ \ a ~
τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν :ττολλῶν εὐαγγέλιον ἀναγεγραμμένον" χαὶ τὸ αἀληϑῶς
NTN / a
διὰ τεσσάρων ἕν ἐστι εὐαγγέλιον.
13. Dtonystus or ΑΠΕΧΑΝΡΒΙΑ.
Ep. ad Basilid. (Routh’s Rel. Sac. Vol. I. p. 223.)
2 Die , is. \ Be cy ἢ
Ἐπέστειλάς ποι, σπειστότατε χαὶ λογιώτατε υἱὲ μου, στιυνϑϑανὸ --
g? aA c > Ihe Q ~ ~ ~ , ,
μενος xaF ἣν ὥραν ἀπονηστίζεσθϑαι δεῖ τῇ τοῦ σιάσχα πεεριλύσει.
r \ ‘ - Ig - , \ ' \ ~ ~ \
Τινὰς μὲν yao τῶν ἀδελφῶν λέγειν φὴς ὅτι χρὴ τοῦτο στοιεῖν τερὸς
\ 3: Ν \ , \ ‘
τὴν ἀλεχτοροφωνίαν, τινὰς δὲ, OTL ἀφ᾽ ἑσπέρας χρή. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ
’ , Io c , \ 2 x \
ἐν “Ῥώμῃ ἀδελφοὶ, ὡς φασι, τιεριμένουσι τὸν ἀλέκτορα" περὶ δὲ
~ ’ ~ a cr ’ I ~ \ CL ΕΣ , te
τῶν ἐνταῦϑα eheyec, ὅτι τάχιον. «Τχριβὴ δὲ ὅρον ἐπιτιϑέναι ζη-
~ A , , \
TEIC, χαὶ ὥραν πάνυ μεμετρημένην" ὅτιερ καὶ δύσχολον χαὶ σφα-
\ ‘ \ \ \ ~ > ~
λερόν ἐστι. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ, ὅτι μετὰ τὸν τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Κυ-
, ~ Ν ν ~ ~ ~ 2
ρίου ἡμῶν χαιρὸν χρὴ τῆς ἑορτῆς καὶ τῆς εὐφροσύνης ἐνάρχεσϑαι,
μέχρις ἐκείνου τὰς ψυχὰς ταῖς νηστείαις τατιεινοῦντας, UO 7ταν--
ἣ ς , ς ΩΤ rs , \ 2 τῷ 2) ,
των ὁμοίως ὁμολογηθϑιησεται" χκατεσλεύασας δὲ OL ὧν éEyoawas
μοι avy ὑγιῶς καὶ τῶν ϑείων εὐαγγελίων ἡσϑημένος ὅτι μηδὲν
2 B) ~ \ ~ 2) Gh ,
ἀπηχριβωμένον ἐν αὐτοῖς περὶ τῆς ὥρας χαϑ' ἣν ἀνέστη, φαί-
νεται. “Πιαφόρως μὲν γὰρ οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον
’ ’ ‘ \ 3
ἐλϑόντας ἀνέγραψαν nara καιροὺς ἐνηλλαγμένους, χαὶ “τάντες ἀνε-
στηχύ γὸ \ κι a” κ tiny, 5 ξ \ > Wis Ba
τηχότα γδὴ τὸν Κύριον epacay εὑρηλέναι" χαὶ oWe σαββάτων,
ς ς Ἵ awe Ὁ] ss \ he Py , ” ς a>
ὡς ὁ Mardatog eine’ χαὶ mewtag ete σχοτίας οὔσης, ὡς ὁ lw-
, a , ares Lee ie , ς ς ~ \ , Ne
ἄννης γράφει" zat ὀρϑρου βαϑέος, ὡς ὃ Aovecg* χαὶ λίαν πρωὶ
> i -- εη ς ς ἘΠ \ , Q 0k
avarethavtog tov ἡλίου, wo ὃ Magzog. Kat move μὲν ἀνέστη,
~ >) \ ) ͵ > , ~
σαφῶς οὐδεὶς ἀπεφήνατο" ὅτι δὲ OWE σαββάτων τῇ ἐπιφωσχούσῃ
’ , , , }] - cor ~ ~ ,
εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, μέχρις ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου τῆς μιᾶς σαββατων,
« ’ s Ν - ’ ’ , A > ~
OL ἐπὶ TO μνημεῖον παραγενόμενοι, οὐχέτι. χείμενον αὑτὸν ἐν αὐτῷ
~ γ ‘ ~
χατέλαβον, τοῦτο ἀνωμολόγηται. Καὶ μηδὲ διαφωνεῖν, μηδὲ évar-
~ 2) 3 > ’
τιοῦσϑαι τοὺς εὐαγγελιστὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὑπολάβωμεν" ἀλλ᾽ εἰ
καὶ μιχρολογία τις εἶναι δόξει σπιερὶ τὸ ζητούμενον" εἰ συμφω-
γοῦντες στάντες ἐν ἐχείνῃ τῇ νυχτὶ τὸ τοῦ χόσμου φῶς τὸν Κύριον
1 Dionysius was first head of the Catechetical School, and afterwards Bishop
of the Church, in Alexandria. His Episcopate was about A.D. 247-265. He is
famous for his views of the Apocalypse, which see below in our text from Eus.
H. ΕΞ VIl. 27. His argument, drawn from internal considerations as regards
style, &e., concludes that the author of the Apocalypse did not write the Fourth
Gospel. He was a scholar and a critic, and on that account his testimony to the
four Evangelists in the text is all the more valuable. He cites the two Apostles
before the two companions of the Apostles.
DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. EUSEBIUS. 87
ς ~ ) ’ \ \ c , 7 >} c ~ a)
ἡμῶν ἀνατεταλχέναι τιερὶ τὴν ὥραν διαφέρονται" ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς ev-
, \ , C ,
γνωμόνως τὰ λεχϑέντα χαὶ σπιίστως ἁρμόσαι πιροϑυμήϑωμεν.
14. υϑεβιυ.
th Vii, LHR Dake
~ ~ 2
Περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν εὐαγγελίων.
\ ~% ~ ΒῚ γ re
(έρε δὲ χαὶ τοῦδε τοῦ ἀποστόλου! τὰς ἀναντιῤῥήτους ἐπιση-
, Oo , τς N Ὁ Δ τ 2 ὃ \ >) , ~ Ὁ \
μηνώμεϑα yoapas. Καὶ δὴ τὸ zat αὐτὸν Ευαγγέλιον ταῖς vivo
ἂν ) \ ~ ἿΣ
τὸν οὐρανὸν διεγνωσμένον ἐχχλησίαις, σιρῶτον ἀνομιολογείσϑω.
ο Ν ) , ~ 3 , ~
Ow ye μὴν εὐλόγως τιρὸς τῶν ἀρχαίων ἕν τετάρτῃ μοίρᾳ τῶν
” ~ Lup Ped SON , “Ὁ Cale ,
ἄλλων τριῶν χατείλεχται, ταύτῃ ὧν γένοιτο δῆλον. Ot ϑεστπιέσιοι
Δ \ c ? ~ € ~ Ν ἊΝ ~ > ~ Ν δ] /
zat ὡς αληϑῶς ϑεοτιρεπεῖς, φημὶ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοὺς ἀποστό-
> ~ 2 ~ ‘
λους, τὸν βίον ἀχριβῶς χεχαϑαρμένοι, χαὶ ἀρετῇ τιάσῃ τὰς ι"υχὰς
, \ Na ~ ἢ Oo : , SaaS Ἔ \ bs Ne ο΄
χεχοσμημένοι, τὴν δὲ γλῶτταν ἰδιωτεύοντες, τῇ YE μὴν τιρὸς TOL
~ Β] - . ν᾿ , 1) \ er ad ~ y ,
“Σωτῆρος αὐτοῖς δεδωρημένῃ ϑείᾳ καὶ π᾿ταραδοξοτιοιῷ δυνάμει ϑαρ-
~ δὶ - Ν ~ v ν᾿ ,
σοῦντες, τὸ μὲν ἐν πειϑοῖ nol τέχνῃ λόγων τὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου
Qo! ν 7 2) We a” ? U ~ a ~
μαϑήματα πρεσβεύειν, οὔτε ἤδεσαν οὔτε ἐνεχείρουν, TH δὲ TOV
, / ~ ~ 7 - 2) t- \ ~ Vie)
ϑείου σινεύματος τοῦ συνεργοῦντος αὐτοῖς cavodElSEL, χαὶ τῇ OL
Β] ~ ͵ - ~ > ~ , ,
αὐτῶν συντελουμένῃ ϑαυματουργῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ δυνάμει μόνῃ χρώ-
~ ~ > ~ , ~ /
μενοι, THS τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας τὴν γνῶσιν ἐγιὶ πτάσην χατήγ-
ΝῚ ~ ~ ~
γελον τὴν οἰχουμένην" O70vdijg τῆς περὶ TO λογογραφεῖν μιχρὰν
, ν᾽ ΓΘ. , - ig
στοιούμενοι. φροντίδα. Kat τοῦτ᾽ ἔπραττον, ἅτε μείζονι χαὶ ὑχιὲρ
” Vue , , ς ~ ~ / Ύ
avtowmov eSvirnoetovmevor διαχονίᾳ. Ὃ γοῦν Παῦλος πάντων ἕν
~ , , , c
“αρασχευῇ λόγων δυνατώτατος νοήἡμασί τὲ ἱχανώτατος γεγονὼς,
2) - ΄ ~ ~
ov χιλέον τῶν βραχυτάτων ἐπιστολῶν; γραφῇ τιαραδέδωχε, χαίτοι
, \ 2 i > cr ~ a ~
γε μυρία nol amogonta λέγειν ἔχων, ἅτε τῶν μιέχρις οὐρανοῦ τρί-
U 2) (? > 2 / ~ ,
tov ϑεωρημάτων ἐπιψαύσας, eu αὑτὸν ve τὸν IJEeomwoenh παρά-
1 The previous chapter is occupied with incidents concerning the ‘‘ disciple
whom Jesus loved, the Apostle and Evangelist John;” the chief part being the
beautiful story of the young robber whom John reclaimed. It is quoted by Eu-
sebius from Clem. Alex. This chapter (24) contains an account of the Gospels,
especially of John’s relation to the Synoptists. The chief point of Eusebius’s
statement is that John (omitting the genealogies) gives an account of earlier inci-
dents in the Lord’s public life than the others give. He intimates at the close
that John’s first Ep. is undisputed; but that on the other two and on the Apo-
calypse opinions were greatly divided. He also makes it clear that he believed
the Church—and especially the Apostles who afterwards became Evangelists—to
have begun by oral preaching; writing being the result of subsequent necessities.
2 This may mean ‘‘ very few letters,” or it may have the same meaning as
Origen’s ὀλίγους στίχους ἐπέστειλε. See before, page 9, from Eus. H. E. VI. 25.
88 THE GOSPELS.
5) ~ ~ ς Pre ae
δεισον ἀναρτιασϑεὶς, χαὶ τῶν ἐχεῖσε δημάτων ἀῤῥήτων ἀξιωϑεὶς
~ ‘ 3 ~ ~ 2 -
ἐπαχοῖσαι. Οὐχ ἄπειροι μὲν οὖν ὑπῆρχον τῶν αὐτῶν χαὶ οἱ λοι-
‘ ~ NV - Cc ~ Νὰ Υ / \ J / «
Ot τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν φοιτηταὶ, δώδεχα μὲν ἀπόστολοι, ἐβδο-
, \ C \ yy FN , ’ c \ ay
μήχοντα δὲ μαϑηταὶ, ἄλλοι τε ἐπὶ τούτοις μυρίοι. Ὅμως dé οὖν
-- - ~ ~ ~ ς ~
ἐξ ἁπασῶν τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου διατριβῶν ὑπομνήματα Mardatog
- > a
ἡμῖν χαὶ ᾿Ιωάννης μόνοι καταλελοίπασιν, οὺς nat ἐπάναγχες ἐπὶ
ὴν γραφὴν ἐλϑεῖν χατέχει λόγος. Πατϑαῖ ἐν γὰ )
τὴν γραφὴν ἐλϑεῖν χατέχει λόγος. Πατϑαῖος wer γὰρ πρότερον
Ἑβραίοις χηρύξας, ὡς γιμελλεν nai ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρους ἰέναι Tol
190 ς *NHOVSAC, ὡς μι ‘ & : fp eee ς lé » πατρίῳ
/ ~ \ Ν \ / Ν ~ ~
γλώττῃ γραφῇ παραδοὺς τὸ χατ΄ αὐτὸν Εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ λεῖπον τῇ
B} ~ > > ici ~ - >
αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ, τούτοις ap ὧν ἐστέλλετο, διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀπιε-
- ~ 2 > >
whioov. Ἤδη δὲ Π]άρχου χαὶ Aovec τῶν χατ᾽ αὐτοὺς Εὐαγγελίων
\ , 7 , , >
τὴν ἔκδοσιν πεποιημένων, Ιωάννην φασὶ, TOY σιάντα χρόνον ἀγράφῳ
aplein , ἀρ τ 4 , ‘ a \ \ aN 7.0.7 ~
χεχρημένον χηρύγματι, τέλος χαὶ ἐπὶ τὴν γραφὴν ἐλϑεῖν τοιᾶσδε
“ > , ~ , ~ ’ / a
χάριν αἰτίας. Τῶν προαναγραφέντων τριῶν εἰς πάντας ἤδη χαὶ
> > amis , > » J to \ ‘ 2 , > ~
εἰς αὐτὸν διαδεδομένων, αττοδέξασϑαι μὲν φασὶν, ἀλήϑειαν αὑτοῖς
ἐπιμαρτυρήσαντα, μόνην δὲ ἄρα λείπεσϑαι τῇ γραφῇ τὴν περὶ
~ 2 J \ ~ ~ Γ᾿ -
τῶν ἐν πιρώτοις καὶ KAT ἀρχὴν τοῦ χηρύγματος ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ
ETT ΘΟ" “yy ὃ Lay BSG ; rnd hase Lovo Ti NO 4 ie “ΟἿ
σπετραγμένων διήγησιν. Καὶ ἀληϑής ye ὃ λόγος. Τοὺς τρεῖς your
> ~ / Ν -
εὐαγγελιστὰς συνιδεῖν πάρεστι, μόνα τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ δεσμω-
Ψ ~ ~ te 7
τηρίῳ Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῖ χκάϑειρξιν ἐφ᾽ ἕνα ἐνιαυτὸν πε-
- ~ , 2 -
πραγμένα τῷ Σωτῆρι συγγεγραφότας, αὐτό τε τοῦτ᾽ ἐπισημηνα-
- > ~ , ~
μένους χαταρχὰς τῆς αὐτῶν ἱστορίας. Mera γοῦν τὴν τεσσαρα-
» ΄ ee U ᾿ \ \ 2 > > td \ me / ~
κονταήμερον νηστείαν καὶ τὸν ἐπι αὐτῇ πειρασμὸν TOY χρόνον τῆς
, Ἃ πὸ « ‘ o ~ Ξ < ~ , Ξ
ἰδίας γραφῆς ὃ μὲν Mardatog δηλοῖ λέγων
᾿κούσας δὲ ὅτι ᾿Ιωάννης παρεδόϑη, ἀνεχώρησεν ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας
εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. |
Ὃ δὲ Mcoxog ὡσαύτως"
Meta δὲ τὸ παραδοϑῆναι,
φησὶν,
᾿Ιωάννην ἦλϑεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν.
5: - \ te ~ ~ ~
Καὶ 0 Aovuag δὲ mew ἄρξασϑαι τῶν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ πράξεων, πα-
ραπλησίως ἐπιτηρεὶ φάσχων,
Ἂς ἄρα προσϑεὶς Ἡρώδης οἷς διεπράξατο πονηροῖς κατέκλεισε τὸν
Ἰωάννην ἐν φυλακῇ.
ΩΣ
Παρακληϑέντα δὴ οὖν τούτων ἕνεχά φασι τὸν ἀπόστολον Ἴω-
EUSEBIUS. 89
avyny τὸν ὑπὸ τῶν προτέρων εὐαγγελιστῶν σιαρασιῶτι ηϑέντα χρό-
v0, χαὶ τὰ χατὰ τοῦτον TLETTOAY LEV τῷ Σωτῆρι (ταῦτα δ᾽ ἦν τὰ
M00 τῆς τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ καϑείρξεως) τῷ “ar αὐτὸν εὐαγγελίῳ
παραδοῦναι, αὐτό γε τοῦτ᾽ ἐπισημήνασθαι, τότε μὲν φήσαντα"
Ταύτην ἀρχὴν ἐποίησε τῶν παραδύξων ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
- ~ ) ~ ,
τότε δὲ μνημονεύσαντα τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ μεταξὺ τῶν Inoov πρα-
ἕξεων, ὡς ἔτι τότε βαπτίζοντος ἐν Aivoy ἐγγὺς τοῦ Σαλεὶμ, σα-
φῶς τε τοῦτο δηλοῦν ἐν τῷ λέγειν"
Οὔπω γὰρ ἦν ᾿Ιωάννης βεβλημένος εἰς τὴν φυλακήν.
Οὐχοῦν ὃ μὲν ᾿Ιωάννης τῇ τοῦ zac? αὐτὸν εὐαγγελίου γραφῇ, τὰ
μηδέπω τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ εἰς φυλαχὴν βεβλημένου τιρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ
πραχϑέντα κιαραδίδωσιν, οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τρεῖς εὐαγγελισταὶ τὰ μετὰ
τὴν εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον χάϑειρξιν τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ μνημονεύουσιν.
Οἷς xai ἐπιστήσαντι οὐχέτ᾽ ἂν δόξαιεν διαφωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις τὰ
Evayyéhia, τῷ τὸ μὲν χατὰ ᾿Ιωάννη» τὰ πρῶτα τῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ
πράξεων περιέχειν, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ τὴν ἐπὶ τέλει τοῦ χρόνου αὐτῷ
γεγενημένην ἱστορίαν" εἰκότως γοῦν τὴν μὲν τῆς σαρχὸς τοῦ Σω-
τῆρος ἡμῶν γενεαλογίαν ἅτε Π]ατϑαίῳ χαὶ «Τουχᾷ ὙΠΟ) ΠΟ
ἀποσιωπῆσαι τὴν ᾿Ιωάννην, τῆς δὲ ᾿ϑεολογίας ἀπάρξασϑαι ὡσὰν
αὐτῷ πρὸς τοῦ ϑείου πνεύματος οἷα χρείστονι σιαρατιεφυλαγμιέ-
νης. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἡμῖν περὶ τῆς τοῦ χατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην Εὐαγγελίου
γραφῆς εἰρήσϑω. Καὶ τῆς χατὰ Π]άρχον δὲ ἣ γενομένη αἰτία ἐν
τοῖς πρόσϑεν ἡμῖν δεδήλωται. ὋὉ δὲ “Τουκᾶς ἀρχόμενος χαὶ αὐ-
τὸς τοῦ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ΤΩ, τὴν αἰτίαν κροὔϑηχε, δι᾿ ἣν
πεποίηται τὴν σύνταξιν" δηλῶν ὡς ἄρα πολλῶν χαὶ ἄλλων προ-
χιετέστερον ἐπιτετηδευκότων διήγησιν ποιήσασϑαι ὧν αὐτὸς πε-
σιληροφόρητο λόγων, ἀναγχαίως ἀπαλλάττων ἡμᾶς τῆς πιερὶ τοὺς
ἄλλους ἀμφηρίστου ὑπολήψεως τὸν ἀσφαλῆ λόγον ὧν αὐτὸς ἵχα-
vag τὴν ἀλήϑειαν χατειλήφει, ἐχ τῆς ἅμα Παύλῳ συνουσίας τε
χαὶ διατριβῆς χαὶ τῆς τῶν λοιτετῶν ἀποστόλων ὁμιλίας ὠφελημέ-
γος, διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου σιαρέδωχεν Evayyehiov. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἡμεῖς
σιερὶ τούτων" οἰκειότερον δὲ χατὰ καιρὸν διὰ τῆς τῶν ἀρχαίων σια-
ραϑέσεως τὰ χαὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις σιερὶ αὐτῶν εἰρημένα πειρασόμεϑα
δηλῶσαι.) Τῶν δὲ ᾿Ιωάννου συγγραμμάτων moog τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ
χαὶ ἣ τιροτέρα τῶν ἐπιστολῶν παρά τε τοῖς νῦν χαὶ σιαρὰ τοῖς
3 One of his many unfulfilled intentions,
90 THE GOSPELS.
> , 3 , Cc / 2 , ‘ c Ν ,
ἄρχαιοις ἀναμφίλεχτος ὡμολόγηται, αντιλέγονται. δὲ at λοιτταὶ δύο.
~ Ne 4 , - Ν - -
Τῆς δὲ «α΄Ἰποχαλύψεως εἰς ξχάτερον ἔτι viv παρὰ τοῖς ττολλοῖς
, - ~ ~ >
meégudzerca 1) δόξα. Ὁμοίως γε μὴν ἔχ τῆς τῶν ἀρχαίων μαρ-
’ ~ \ >
τυρίας ἐν οἰχείῳ χαιρῷ τὴν ἐπίχρισιν δέξεται. χαὶ αὐτή."
. 7 ~ >
Demonstratio evangel. 111. 5. Mardatog ἀπόστολος τὸν
> > \ ~ ~ ~ ~
mporEegov βίον οὐχ ἀπὸ σειινῆς διατριβῆς ὡρμᾶτο, ἐκ δὲ τῶν
> \ t- ~ 7 Ν
ἀμφὶ τὰς τελωνίας χαὶ στιλεονεξίας σχολαζόντων. Τοῦτο οὐδεὶς
~ a} ~ ν ) ~ ?
τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν ἐδήλωσεν, οὐχ ὃ συνατιόστολος αὐτοῦ Ιωάννης,
2 ~ 2 \ j ~ x ~
οὐδέ ye “Ἰουχᾶς, οὐδὲ Π]άρχος, οὐδὲ Matdatog τὸν ἑαυτοῦ στη-
, , \ / DES IN c ~ , > ,
λιτεύων βίον χαὶ χατήγορος αὐτὸς ξαυτοῦ γιγνόμενος. Ezconovooy
- ε΄ «7 γ 2 ΡΣ , ) ~ , 5) ~ Ἁ
γοῦν ὅσιως διαῤῥήδην ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ μέμνηται ἕν τῷ πρὸς
γ ~ 1) ~ \ ‘
αὐτοῦ γραφέντι Εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦτον λέγων τὸν τρόπον. “Καὶ παρ-
, ry ὧς ἘΠ. ~ 5 » , 2 ae X
ἀγὼν exettev ὁ Inoovs εἰδὲν avtowmov χαϑήμενον ἐπὶ τὸ τε-
- > \ 3 ~ > \
λώνιον, Π]ατϑαῖον ὀνόματι, χαὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ἀκολούϑει μοι. Καὶ
2 > > ~ τ ῸΝ , 2 2 ~
ἀναστὰς ἠχολούϑησεν αὐτῷ. Καὶ ἐγένετο ἀναχειμένου αὐτοῦ ἐν
τῇ οἰχίᾳ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πολλοὶ τελῶναι χαὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέχειντο
ve TD aes are \ ~ ζ - B) ~ 5» \ , κι eos
τῷ Inoov χαὶ τοῖς μαϑηταῖς avrot.” Kat παλιν προϊὼν ἑξῆς,
, ~ ~ - Ν « - \
tov τὲ χατάλογον τῶν μαϑητῶν ἐξαριϑμούμενος, αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ TO
- > ΟῚ a ,
τοῦ τελώνου ὄνομα τιροστίϑησιν. _1éyer δ᾽ οὖν: “Τῶν δὲ δώ-
2 ἌΓ ὉΦ ~ ~
δεχα ἀποστόλων τὰ ὀνόματά ἐστι ταῦτα πρῶτος Σίμων ὃ de-
, > ~ 2 ς -
γόμενος Πέτρος χαὶ ᾿ἀνδρέας ὃ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ, ᾿Ιάχωβος ὃ τοῦ
Ζεβεδαίου χαὶ ᾿Ιωάννης ὃ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ, Φίλιστπος χαὶ Βαρ-
- - - «ς
ϑολομαῖος, Θωμᾶς χαὶ Πϊ]ανϑαῖος ὃ τελώνης." Οὕτως μὲν ὃ
7 ὭΣ Ξ Dic eae , \ , ς , ~
Marvdatog δι ὑτιερβολὴν ἐπιεικείας τὸ φιλάληϑες ὑποφαίνων τοῦ
ror , \ 2 > \
ἰδίου τρόπου χαὶ τελώνην ἑαυτὸν ἀπεχάλει, μὴ α:τοχρύπτων τὸν
, ~ ‘ ~ « Ν
MQOTEQOY ἑαυτοῦ βίον, χαὶ τοῦ συζύγου δεύτερον ξαυτὸν κατέλεγεν.
NW, , ~ ~ ~ ς , 2 , 2 SY Dieta
Συνεζευγμένος γοῦν τῷ Θωμᾷ, ὃ Πέτρος ‘Avdoég nai ᾿Ιάχωβος
~ 2 , \ , , , « ~ x
τῷ Ιωαννῃ, net Dilinmog Βαρϑολομαίῳ, προταττει. ξαυτοῦ τὸν
Θωμᾶν, τιροτιμῶν ὡς χρείττονα τὸν συναπόστολον, τῶν λοιπῶν
2 ~ > ~ ~ ~
εὐαγγελιστῶν τοὐναντίον σιεττοιηκότων. “Axove γοῦν “Τουχᾷ, πῶς,
~ > - 2. 9?
τοῦ Mardaiov μνημονεύσας, οὐ τελώνην ὀνομάζει, οὐδ᾽ ὑποτάττει
~ ~ \ ~ >?
τῷ Θωμᾷ, χρείττονα δὲ αὐτὸν εἰδὼς, πρῶτον αὐτὸν χατέλεξεν,
δεύτερον τὸν Θωμᾶν ἐπαγαγὼν, ὥσττερ χαὶ ὃ Π]άρχος πεττοίηχεν"
2» \ 2 - « te c seat Gitar ae c , ne 1 » ,
ἔχουσι δὲ αὐτοῦ αἱ λέξεις οὕτως" “Καὶ ὅτε ἡμέρα ἐγένετο, ἐφώ-
EDN \ > ~ ἄν ον zt Qf Dees. , a
moe τοὺς μαϑητὰς αὑτοῦ, χαὶ exhEeEauEevog ἐξ αὐτῶν δώδεχα, OG
“ \ ly / ’ , v/ a é WieeL ogee! , ‘
χαὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν, Σίμωνα, ὃν καὶ Exchece Πέτρον, καὶ
4 Tiere follows the classification of the books as admitted, &c., given before
at page 10. (Eus. H. E. III. 25.)
EUSEBIUS. 91
᾿] > Νὴ ? ~ 2 )
‘Avdpeay τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, ᾿Ιάχωβον χαὶ ᾿Ιωάννην, καὶ Φίλιτι--
\ ~ ν πε - - c
σον χαὶ Βαρϑολομαῖον, καὶ Mardaiov χαὶ Θωμᾶν." Οὕτως μὲν
- - . τ ν δ] ~
τὸν Πατϑαῖον ὃ “ουχᾶς ἐτίμησεν, χαϑ' ἃ παρέδωχαν αὐτῷ Ot
> ~ > ~ , \ \
ατταρχῆς avvonre χαὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι tov λόγου. Καὶ τὸν
"I U δὲ c ~ o nw ~ M. 9. ἵ E: \ Ν ΓΕΒ
ὠάννην δὲ δμοῖον εὕροις ἂν τῷ Mardaiv. Ἔν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς
- 2 - > ~ Ἂν , , ~
ἐπιστολαῖς αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ μνήμην τῆς οἰχείας προσηγορίας ποιεῖται
aN / c \ > U > ~ Naa 9 , IQA 2
ἢ πρεσβύτερον ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζει, οὐδαμοῦ δὲ ἀπόστολον, οὐδὲ εὑ-
΄ » \ ~ > , > , a 2 , (ce 5.
αγγελιστῆν" ἐν δὲ τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ ἐπισημηνάμενος, ov ἡγάπα ὁ In-
- ΒΡ ν 2
σοῦς, οὐχ ἐδήλωσεν ὀνομαστὶ ξαυτόν.
Cc, ‘ 3) ~ ‘ \ +)
Ὁ ye μὴν Πέτρος οὐδὲ χαϑῆχεν ἐπὶ τὴν Evayyehiou γρα-
\ » > ) σ΄, , \
φὴν δι᾿ εὐλαβείας ὑπερβολήν. Τούτου Mcexog γνώριμος καὶ
‘ \ 2 - , ‘ ~ , 3 ‘
φοιτητὴς γεγονὼς ἀπομνημονεῦσαι λέγεται τὰς tov Πέτρου περὶ
- tte ~ 2 ~ ed a ΕῚ \ nie , ~ ~
τῶν seasewr tov Inoov διαλέξεις, ὃς ἐλϑὼν ἐπ ἐχεῖνα τῆς
οι γ ~ \ > ‘ ΒΥ
ἱστορίας, ἕν οἷς ὃ Ἰησοῦς ἐρωτήσας, τίνα φασὶν αὐτὸν οἱ ἄν-
Ν > \ \ « 2 - \ , fun 2)
ϑρωποι, χαὶ αὐτοὶ δὲ οἱ αὐτοῦ μαϑηταὶ, τίνα δόξαν ἔχοιεν
> ~ ς - \ r ~ 5)
σιερὶ αὐτοῦ, ὑπαχούσαντος τοῦ Πέτρου, ὡς περὶ Χριστοῦ, ov-
2 \ 2 ~ Δ. ~ d 2
δὲν ἀποχρινάμενον τὸν Ιησοῦν οὐδὲ λέγοντα αὐτῷ γράφει, αλλ
c 2) ~ ’ \ \ 2 ~ > \
ὅτι ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς, ἵνα μηδενὶ λέγωσι περὶ αὐτοῦ. Ov γὰρ
~ c ~ \ ~ ? ~ ~ > > Io
sony ὃ άρχος τοῖς tio τοῦ Ιησοῦ λεχϑεῖσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ Πέ-
Ἄν γᾶς Ν 2 ~ ΠΡ) -
τρος τὰ πρὸς αὐτὸν χαὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ λεχϑέντα τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐδι--
, > τ , Ξ 1 κι x
χαίου OL οἰχείας προσφέρειν μαρτυρίας. Τίνα δὲ ἣν τὰ πρὸς
dy ~ ν - ~ y
αὐτὸν λεχϑέντα, Mardaiog δηλοῖ διὰ τούτων: ““Υμεῖς δὲ tive
= 2 \ Pi \ auc
μὲ λέγετε εἶναι; -Azroxordeig δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος einer, σὺ εἰ ὃ
= τὸ « Cc. ~ ~ ~ fe ~ a ‘ δὰ ΓΘ) -
Χριστὸς ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. «Α΄ ποχριϑεὶς δὲ Ιησοὺς
- > ~ 1 Saeed 3 v/ B ~ c ν᾿ : \ zr
εἶπεν αὐτῷ. ἡ]αχάριος εἰ Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ χαὶ αἷμα
2 > > 2 ~ 2 - ‘
οὐχ amexchuwé σοι, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ πατήρ μου ὃ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, χαὶ
πὰ εἰν, λέ Ἔ πὶ , A ΟΝ , \ , >,
eyo σοι Λέγω" Sv εἰ Πέτρος χαὶ ἔπι ταύτην τὴν πέτραν οἵκο-
, \ \ ' > ΒῚ
δομήσω μου τὴν ἐχχλησίαν, χαὶ πύλαι ἅἄδου οὐ χατισχύσουσιν αὖ-
- \ ’ \ ~ ~ ~ > ~ δυο
τῆς" καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς χλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν χαὶ DOG
W ’ ’ ‘ ~ ~ . ~ B) ~ SCE
av δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδέμενα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς" χαὶ ὅσα
aN A ~ ~ , - ? ~ ,
av λύσης ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς." Tooov-
το Ν ~ ) ~ ‘ ,
τῶν εἰρημένων τῷ Πέτρῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὁ Πάρχος μηδὲν vov-
> ~ 2 «ς Ν Ψ -
τῶν μνημονεύσας, ὅτι μηδ᾽ ὃ Πέτρος ταῦϑ', ὡς εἰχὸς, ἐν ταῖς
αὑτοῦ διδασχαλίαις ἐξηγόρευσεν, ὅρα τί φησιν, ἐρωτήσαντος τοῦ
2 - 2 Ν \ - = , pe ND
Ἰησοῦ" “Anozovdetg ὃ Πέτρος λέγει, σὺ εἰ ὃ Χριστός. Καὶ ἔτιε-
> ~ ’ ᾿ \ DB) ~ ~ 5 ΟἽ
τίμησεν αὐτοῖς, ἵνα μηδενὶ λέγωσι περὶ αὐτοῦ." Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν
, ~ Disa ἡ δε \ , ? ‘
ὃ Πέτρος εἰχότως παρασιωπᾶσϑαι ἠξίου" διὸ καὶ Magxzog αὐτὰ
Ν WAS \ O 2: ~ =) , 2 ΠΧ -
παρέλιχιεν. τὰ δὲ LALA τὴν ἄρνησιν αὐτοῦ εἰς σιάντας ἕλήρυξεν
92 THE GOSPELS.
3 \ ‘ > ete ὦ ~ 2 ¥
ἀνϑρώπους. Ἐπεὶ χαὶ ἔκλαυσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ πιχρῶς. ἘΕὕροις δ᾽ οὖν
ea yf « - ‘ a] ~ 7, (44 \ a» ~ ,ὔ
τὸν Πάρχον Ἱστοροῦντα sept αὐτοῦ τάδε; “Καὶ ovtog τοῦ Πέ-
~ ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ )
τρου ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ, ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν μία τῶν παιδισχῶν τοῦ ἀρ-
, wy Ὁ) - DEN / ? , 2) τ , ὦ
χιερέως, χαὶ ἰδοῦσα αὐτὸν ϑερμαινόμενον euBhewaoa αὐτῷ λέγει
\ ~ - . Ὁ Ν )
Καὶ σὺ μετὰ “Inoot τοῦ Ναζαραίου ἧς. Ὃ δὲ ἠρνήσατο λέγων"
2, ἊΣ , , \ , δ 2e> > Send U
οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι τί ov λέγεις" nai ἐξῆλϑεν εἰς to ἕξω προαύλιον,
AS, ΑΙ , , a ee > eae c , 2,
nat ἀλέχτωρ ἐφώνησεν. Πάλιν δὲ ἰδοῦσα αὐτὸν ἢ παιδίσκη γρ-
τ an a τ - ς
ξατο λέγειν τοῖς παρεστῶσιν" Οὗτος ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐστιν" Ὃ δὲ πά-
2 \ \ ~ ~
hiv ἠρνήσατο. Καὶ μετὰ μιχρὸν πάλιν παρεστῶτες ἔλεγον τῷ
, ate. Ν » τ > ~ τ Υ A \ \ ~ 3 c a ”
Πέτρῳ .“ληϑῶς ἐξ αὐτῶν et, χαὶ yao Γαλιλαῖος et. Ὃ δὲ ἢρ-
- 2 ’ Oy pe , a B) 23 δ oy ~
ξατο ἀναϑεματίζειν χαὶ ομνύειν, ὅτι Οὐχ oda τὸν ἄνϑρωπον tov-
= a , \ > , ἽΝ 2 ,ὔ , , bb} ,
tov, ov λέγετε" nal εὐϑέως ἐχ δευτέρου ἀλέχτωρ ἐφώνησεν." Mao-
\ ~ , Ἁ ~ ‘A « ~ ~
nog μὲν ταῦτα γράφει. Πέτρος δὲ ταῖτα περὶ ξαυτοῦ μαρτυρεῖ"
, \ \ . , ~ , Ite 3 ,
πάντα yao ta παρὰ Παρχῳ τῶν Πέτρου διαλέξεων εἶναι λέγεται,
> BAD? ς \ x 5 ‘ “ >» > \
-Α πομνημονεύματα. Οἱ δὴ οὖν τὰ μὲν δόξαντα αὑτοῖς ἀγαϑὴν
φέρειν φήμην παραιτούμενοι, τὰς δὲ zak ἑαυτῶν διαβολὰς εἰς
2 ~ ~ > ~
ἄληστον αἰῶνα χαταγράφοντες, χαὶ τῶν πιλημμεληϑέντων αὐτοῖς
\ a > ~ \ ~
τὰς χατηγορίας, ἃς οὐχ ἄν τις ἔγνω τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα, εἰ μὴ διὰ
~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ »
τῆς αὐτῶν ἔμαϑεν φωνῆς zak ἑαυτῶν στηλιτεύοντες, πῶς ov φι-
\ Bd)
λαυτίας μὲν ἁπασης χαὶ Wevdohoyiag ἐχτὸς γεγονέναι ἐνδίχως ἂν
διιολογοῖντο, φιλαλήϑους δὲ διαϑέσεως σαφῆ καὶ ἐναργῆ τεχμήρια
μολογ , φιλαλήϑους δὲ διαϑέσεως σαφὴ χαὶ ἐναργῆ τεχμήρ
/
σπταρεσχηχέναι;
« Ἂν ‘
Οἱ δέ ye τοὺς τοιούσδε σπιεπιλάσϑαι χαὶ κατα ψεύσασϑαι νο-
Ite \ <. ~ ~ > Ww
μίζοντες, χαὶ οἷα πλάνοις βλασφημεῖν πειρώμενοι, πῶς οὐχ ἂν
, ν a}
γένοιντο χαταγέλαστοι; φίλοι μὲν φϑόνου χαὶ βασχανίας, ἐχϑροὶ
\ > ~ > , 7 >
δὲ αὐτῆς ἀληϑείας ἁλισχόμενοι, of ye τοὺς οὕτως ἀπανούρ-
3 Ay OF ς 2 ~ Ay se 3 ‘ ~ ’
youg καὶ ἄπλαστον we ἀληϑῶς χαὶ ἀχέραιον ἦϑος διὰ τῶν οἱ-
, / > Ν c
χείων λόγων ἐπιδεδειγμένους, “τανούργους τινὰς χαὶ δεινοὺς b700-
, \ ς Ν ‘ \ ~ “2 ,
τίϑενται σοφιστὰς, ὡς τὰ μὴ ὄντα σπιλασαμένους καὶ TH οἰχείῳ
, \ δ > ~ >
διδασχάλῳ ta μὴ πρὸς αὐτοῦ τιραχϑέντα χεχαρισμένως ἀναϑέν-
ς ἍΜ - ~ ~ ~
tag. Ὡς ev μοι δοχεῖ εἰρῆσϑαι" πάντα χρὴ πιστεύειν τοῖς τοῦ
2 ~ ~ ‘ ~ > γ
Ἰησοῦ μαϑηταῖς, ἢ μή" χαὶ εἰ μόνοις τούτοις τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἀπι-
- ~ , 2
στητέον, χαὶ τοῖς πᾶσιν, οἵτινές tov ἄρα παρ᾿ Ἕλλησιν, ἢ παρὰ
\ we ~
βαρβάροις βίους καὶ λόγους χαὶ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν κατὰ χρό-
a) ~ ,ὕ
γοὺς emt τισιν ἀγαϑοῖς χατορϑώμασι βοηϑέντων συνεγράινναντο"
2) ~ ‘ , ἊΝ
ἢ τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις πιστεύειν εἴλογον, μόνοις δὲ τούτοις ἀπιστεῖν.
K \ ~ 2 2 ( rave ς 90 E Τί δέ: « δό
αἱ πῶς οὐχ ἐμφανὴς ὃ φϑόνος; Ti δέ; οἱ καταψευδόμενοι
= ‘ / ~ 2 -
τοῦ διδασχαλου, χαὶ τὰ μὴ γεγονότα τῇ αὐτῶν παραδιδόντες
EUSEBIUS. 93
γραφῇ, ἄρα χαὶ τὰ πάϑη χατεψεύσαντο αὐτοῦ; Τὴν ἑνὸς λέγω
μαϑητῶν τιροδοσίαν, χαὶ τὴν τῶν συχοφαντῶν κατηγορίαν, χλεύας
τε χαὶ διασυρμοὺς διχαστῶν, τάς τε ὕβρεις χαὶ τὰς πληγὰς τὰς
χατὰ προσώπου, μάστιγάς TE χατὰ νώτου, χαὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀχανϑῶν
στέφανον ἐπὶ ἀτιμίᾳ πιεεριτιϑέμενον αὐτῷ, φοινιχοῦν τε χιτῶνα ἐν
χλαμύδος σχήματι περιβληϑέντα, χαὶ τέλος, αὐτὸν αὐτὸ τὸ τοῦ
σταυροῦ τρόπαιον ἐπιχομίζοντα᾽ ἐν τούτῳ TE πηγνυμένον, χαὶ
χεῖρας χαὶ πόδας χατατιειρόμενον, ὕξει τὲ ποτιζόμενον, καὶ σταιό-
μενον χατὰ χόῤῥης χαλάμῳ, χαὶ τιρὸς τῶν ὁρώντων ὀνειδιζόμε-
γον; “ALG γὰρ χαὶ ταῦτα χαὶ bow τούτοις συμφέρεται ὁμοίως
γετιλάσϑαι χρὴ τιρὸς τῶν αὐτοῦ μαϑητῶν, ἢ ἕν τούτοις μὲν χρὴ
σιστεύειν αὐτοῖς ὡς αἀληϑεστάτοις, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐπιδόξοις χαὶ
σεμνοτέροις ἀπιστεῖν. Καὶ τεόϑεν τὸ τιερὶ αὐτοὺς ἐναντίον δόγμα
συστήσεται; Τὸ γὰρ ἀληϑεύειν τοὺς αὐτοὺς φάναι, nai ἐν τῷ
αὐτῷ ψεύδεσθαι, οὐδέν ἐστιν ἢ τἀναντία χατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ περὶ τῶν
αὐτῶν λέγειν.
Τίς οὖν ὃ τούτων ἔλεγχος; Εἰ γὰρ δὴ τιλάττεσϑαι αὐτοῖς σχο-
πὸς ἦν χαὶ λόγοις ψευδέσι τὸν διδάσχαλον χοσμεῖν, οὐχ ἄν ποτε
αὐτοῖς τὰ προειρημένα χατέγραφον, οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐδήλουν τοῖς μετὰ ταῦτα
ἀνϑρώτιοις, ὅτι δὴ ἐλυπεῖτο, χαὶ ἠἡδημόνει χαὶ τετάραχτο τὴν ψυχὴν,
ὅτι αὐτοὶ αὐτὸν ἀπιολιπόντες ᾧὥχοντο" ἢ ὅτι ὃ πάντων αὐτῶν προ-
χεχριμένος ἀτιύστολός LE χαὶ μαϑητὴς αὐτοῦ Πέτρος βασάνων ἐχτὸς
χαὶ ἀρχονειχῆς ἀπειλῆς τρίτον αὐτὸν ἐξωμόσατο. Ταῦτα γὰρ χἂν
ἄλλων λεγόντων, χρῆν δήγτιουϑεν ἀρνεῖσθαι τοὺς οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ χα-
ρίζεσϑαι τὰ σεμνότερα τῷ διδασχάλῳ τιροτεϑειμένους. Εἰ δὲ φι-
λαλήϑεις ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ σχυϑρωτιοῖς διηγήμασι φαίνονται, τολὺ
μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς ἐνδοξοτέροις εἶεν ἂν τοιοῦτοι. Τοὺς γὰρ ἅπαξ
ψεύδεσθαι προελομένους, τὰ λυπηρὰ χρὴν μᾶλλον ἐχφιυγεῖν ἤτοι
διὰ σιωπῆς, ἢ) διὰ τῆς περὶ αὐτῶν ἀρνήσεως, μὴ ἄλλως τῶν ὀψι-
γόνων ἐλέγξαι δυναμένων τὰ σεσιγημένα. Διὰ τί γὰρ μὴ ἐψεύ-
σαντο, καὶ ἔφησαν, ὅτι ᾿Ιούδας μὲν ὃ προδοὺς αὐτὸν φιλήματι,
τολμήσας τὸ σύμβολον ἐνδείξασϑαι τῆς προδοσίας, ἀπολιϑ ὠϑείη
αὐτίχα " ὃ δὲ ῥδατιίσαι αὐτὸν τολμήσας, ξηρὸς πιαραχρῆμα γένοιτο
τὴν δεξιάν" ὃ δ᾽ ἀρχιερεὺς Καϊάφας, ὡς ἂν συντρέχων τοῖς κατ᾽
αὐτοῦ συχοφάνταις πηρωϑείη τὰς ὕψεις; Διὰ τί δὲ μὴ EWeEv-
σαντο πάντες, ὅτι μηδὲν σχυϑρωττὸν ἀληϑῶς τιερὶ αὐτὸν γέγονεν;
"ALM ὃ μὲν ἀφανὴς ἦν χαταγελάσας αὐτῶν τοῦ δικαστηρίου" οἱ δὲ
ἐπιβουλεύοντες, ὑπὸ φαντασίας ϑεηλάτου πλανώμενοι, ἐνεργεῖν
94 THE GOSPELS.
2 2 - \ , os , 2
“av αὑτοῦ μὴ παρόντος ἐδόχουν; Τί O° ἄρα οὐχ ἣν σεμνότερον
τοῦ σπιλάττεσϑαι, ὅτι τῶν τοιῶνδε :“ιοιητὴς ἔργων παραδόξων γέ-
δ)
yore, τὸ γράφειν Ore μηδὲν μὲν ἀνϑρώτπινον, μηδὲ ϑνητὸν περὶ
5] \ , rs SEE a VEL ‘ (2 ‘ , , Ἀν
αὐτὸν συνέβη, ἐνθέῳ δὲ δυνάμει τὰ πάντα χαταδησάμενος, τὴν
Ἂ ἘΝ \ Bb) , \ , Witten >? , ? \
εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἐπανοδον μετὰ ϑειοτέρας δόξης ἐποιήσατο; Ov γὰρ
YN > ~ ~ ΒΡ) ~
δὴ τούτοις ἀπιστεῖν ἔμελλον οἱ ταῖς ἄλλαις αὐτῶν διηγήσεσι
, . « }] 3 WA ~ SV ha teal ’ Se 2 ,
memoternores. Οἱ ὃ οὖν μηδὲν τῆς ἀληϑείας ἕν τοῖς ἀπεμῴαι-
- - - d o]
vovor χαὶ σχυϑρωτιοῖς παραχαράξαντες mag οὐχ ἂν εἶεν ἄξιοι
- - τῇ > ~ Ὗ
χαὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς, οἷς ἐμαρτύρησαν αὐτῷ τὰ παράδοξα, φαύ-
Cc U
hig ἐχτὸς ὑπονοίας χαϑεστάναι;
ALTHOLN ‘y οὖν ; SSG avd. on \ - Nv ~
ὑτάρχης μὲν οὖν χαὶ ἢ τῶνδε τυγχάνει ττερὶ τοῦ Σωτῆ-
- , d \ v8 τῷ , ~
ρος ἡμῶν μαρτυρία. Οὐδὲν δὲ οἷον ἐχ τιεριουσίας καὶ τῷ ἐξ
y 2 aA ~ >
“Εβραίων ᾿Ιωσήπιῳ μάρτυρι χρήσασϑαι, ὃς ἐν τῷ ὀχτωχαιδεχάτῳ
τὴς Ιουδαιχῆς ᾿“Ιρχαιολογίας, τὰ χατὰ τοὺς Πιλάτου χρόνου
iS SLANG OX YLao, C ν ς Ze Us
€ ~ , ~ ~ c ~ ’ , * ,
ἱστορῶν, μέμνηται τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἐν τούτοις. δ΄“ Τίνεται δὲ
2 - ) ~ > , » 7
nat ἐχεῖνον τὸν χρόνον Ιησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνὴρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν
, γ᾽ , ,
λέγειν χρή. “Hy γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴς, διδασχαλος av-
ΞῚ - -χ,.}) “. -
ϑρώπων ταληϑῆ σεβομένων: χαὶ στολλοὺς μὲν τοῦ Ιουδαϊχοῦ,
7 C “a = τ x
χεολλοὺς δὲ χαὶ “Ελληνιχοῦ ἐπηγάγετο. Ὃ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἢν.
MUON > ~ Ve ~ > τ - ~
Kai αὐτῶν ἐνδείξει τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀρχόντων σταυρῷ ἐπιτετι-
, ~ U > \ ~ >
μηχκότος Πιλάτου, οὐχ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ τιρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες.
> \ > ~ c ~ ~ ,
Ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν, τῶν ϑείων τεροφη-
~ wD, \ a» , 2 - ’ , c/,
τῶν ταῦτά ve xe ἀλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων. Oder
γ , ~ 2 \ “ΟΝ - r ~ γ Α] , ‘ ~ ”
εἰσέτι νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦδε τῶν Χριστιανῶν οὐχ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
4) ‘ \ ~ )
Εἰ τοίνυν χαὶ χατὰ τὸν Ἱστοριχὸν μαρτυρεῖται, οὐ μόνον τοὺς δώ-
. > 9 y ‘
δέχα ἀπιοστόλους, οὐδὲ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα μαϑητὰς ἐξῳχειωμέ-
2 ~ +d - ~ ~
γος, ἀλλὰ πιολλοὺς μὲν τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαϊχοῦ, τιολλοὺς δὲ τοῦ “Ἑλληνι--
~ ~ aN /
χοῦ τιροσαγόμενος, δῆλος ἂν εἴη περιττόν TL κεχτημένος mae
\ 4 BON 2 , ~ \ ὝΝ »” , ~
τοὺς Aotrcoug ανϑρώπους. Πῶς γὰρ ay ἄλλως χιροσήγετο τοῦ
᾿Ιουδαϊχοῦ χαὶ τοῦ Ἕλληνι χοῦ τιλείους εἰ μὴ τισι ϑαυμαστοῖς χαὶ
παραδόξοις ἔργοις, χαὶ ξενιζούσῃ χέχρητο διδασκαλίᾳ; Magrveet
NEN Noe ~ le ~ 2 ὔ Ν ch AL \ ,
dé χαὶ ἢ τῶν Πράξεων τῶν Anootohwy γραφὴ, ote πολλαὶ μυ-
Υ ΡῚ 2 . 2) ~ γ Bs r
ριάδες ἧσαν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀνδρῶν σπιεπεισμένων αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν Χρι-
~ 3 - Ny ~ ~ , ς
στὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν χατηγγελμένον" χαὶ ἢ
6 This celebrated passage from Josephus is_ generally believed to be inter-
polated. The doubtful passages 6 Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν, and ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην
ἡμέοαν πάλιν ζῶν, χιτιλ. are perhaps marginal notes by a Christian reader which
early crept into the Jewish historian’s text.
EUSEBIUS. EPIPHANIUS. 95
« , ‘ , c \ , ay γ , Γ᾿ 5 Ὁ
ἱστορία δὲ χατέχει, ὡς χαὶ μεγίστη τις ἣν ἐχχλησία Χριστοῦ ἐν
- - 4 > 3) ~
τοῖς “Ιεροσολύμοις, ἀπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων συγχροτουμένη, μέχρι TOY χρό-
- ) ν ~ ~
νων τῆς xav’ ‘Adoravoy τιολιορχίας. Aéyovtae γοῦν οἱ πρῶτοι
v ν 2 2 , ὦ
nave διαδοχὴν τπιροστάντες αὐτόϑι ἐπίσχοσιοι Ιουδαῖοι γεγονέναι,
ct B) , ~ \ ~
ὧν χαὶ ὀνόματα εἰσέτι νῦν παρὰ τοῖς ἐγχωρίοις μνημονεύεται"
~ \ ~ - 2 ~
ὡς χαὶ ἐκ τούτων λελύσϑαι πᾶσαν τὴν Lata τῶν μαϑητῶν αὐτοῦ
, Ρ] ~ ν - 2) ~ , Ἄ
διαβολὴν, ὅτε χαὶ πρὸς αὐτῶν, καὶ δίχα τῆς αὐτῶν μαρτυρίας, μυρία
ς - > eh al , 2 \ 2 ~ ς ΄σ
ὁμολογεῖται σπιλήϑη ᾿Ιουδαΐων ve χαὶ “Ελλήνων αὐτὸς Ιησοῦς ὃ Χρι-
‘ ~ ~ ὌΝ εἰς ’ , ee »” Gt ΠΕ \
στὸς tov Θεοῦ du wv ἐπετέλει σπταραδόξων ἔργων ὑφ ἑαυτὸν σιε-
2 - ~
σοιημένος. -Adha τούτων ἡμῖν ἐπὲ τοσοῦτον εἰρημένων, τιρὸς TO
- ~ > ‘ \ \ ν᾿ -
σπιρῶτον τῶν ἀπίστων τάγμα, φέρε, χαὶ τιρὸς τὸ δεύτερον στῖφος
, ~ σεν “ Vy ae J ‘ ~ \ 9 ~
ἐνστῶμεν. Tovto δὲ ἣν τὸ τῶν συνομολογούντων μὲν τὸν Ἰησοῦν
‘ 7 & re 5 " ’ ’ Way Bt! Ψ A Pe ~ C ,
τὰ παράδοξα τιετιοιηχέναι, γοητείᾳ δὲ ἄλλως ἐπὶ σελανῃ τῶν ὁρών-
τῷ ὌΝ \ ~ \
τῶν, οἷα ϑαυματουργὼν ἢ φαρμαχέα τινὰ, ϑαυμαστῶσαι τοὺς
σιαρύντας.
15. [ὑριρηάνι 5.1}
Haeres. If. ἐ. 1. h. 51 (contra haeresim quae non suscipit
Ky. Joannis et Apocalypsin). Mardatog γὰρ πρῶτος ἄρχεται
> “: ΄ ‘ τ
εὐαγγελίζεσϑαι. Totty γὰρ ἦν ἐπιτεταγμένον τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον κη-
, 2 2 ) ~ ς ers ΡΣ € , ‘ , \ ,
ovsar ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὡς χαὶ ἐν ἄλλῃ αἱρέσει στερὶ τούτου διὰ wha-
Dies or ay fe ~ ’ Ν τς \ ~ ?
τοὺς Elorynxcqev. Ovdév δὲ ἡμᾶς λυπήσει χαὶ avdig περὶ τῶν αὐ-
~ ΄ υ ΄ - δος δὰ τ \ 21 ~
τῶν διαλαμβάνειν, εἰς τεαράστασιν τῆς ἀληϑείας, χαὶ ἔλεγχον τῶν
γτετελανημένων. Οὗτος τοίνυν ὃ Π]ατϑαῖος καταξιοῦται τὸ Evay-
γέλιον, ὡς ἔφην, καὶ διχαιότατα ἦν. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν ano πολλῶν
ἁμαρτημάτων ἐπιστρέψαντα χαὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ τελωνείου ἀναστάντα
τῷ ἐλϑόντι ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ λέγοντι"
1 Epiphanius was still living and at work in extreme old age when Jerome
wrote his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers (A.D. 392). He was a native of Pa-
lestine, Bishop of Constantia (Salamis) in Cyprus about A.D. 367. Seven or eight
years afterwards he began his Panarium, or great work against Heresies. He
wrote a book called the Ancorate, and one on weights and measures. He is an
interesting but not trustworthy chronicler and is apt to let his fancy run away
with him. But he has preserved interesting extracts from some heretical books,
and several curious floating traditions regarding the Canonical Scriptures. (See
Introduction: ‘Gospel of Hebrews,’ &c.) He denounced all apocryphal books, the
only exception being his respectful references to a book he calls ‘“‘The Constitu-
tion of the Apostles,” concerning which see before, at page 25. See full discus-
sion, Lardner, II. 421; Bunsen’s Analecta Antenicaena; and Hefele’s Hist. of
Councils.
96 THE GOSPELS.
Οὐχ ἦλϑον καλέσαι διχαίους, ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν, εἰς
ὑπόδειγμα ἡμῖν τῶν μελλόντων σώζεσθαι, τῷ ἐν τῷ τελωνείῳ
ἀναχϑέντι, χαὶ AO ἀδιχίας ἀναστρέψαντι, “ταρασχέσϑαι τὸ κή-
θυγμα τῆς σωτηρίας, ἵν᾿ an αὐτοῦ μάϑωσιν οἱ ἄνϑρωποι τὴν
τῆς παρουσίας φιλανϑρωπίαν. Meta γὰρ τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἅμαρ-
τιῶν ἐδωρήσατο αὐτῷ χαὶ ἀνάστασιν νεχρῶν, χαὶ χάϑαρσιν λέ-
πρας, χαὶ ἰαμάτων δυνάμεις, “ead ἀπτιέλασιν δαιμόνων, ἵνα μὴ μό-
γον ἀπὸ τοῦ λόγου melon τοὺς ἀχούοντας, ἀλλὰ καὶ am αὐτοῦ
τοῦ ἔργου χηρύξαι εὐαγγέλια τοῖς αττολλυμένοις, ὅτι εὑρεϑήσονται
διὰ μετανοίας, χαὶ τοῖς σπιεπιτωχόσιν, ὅτι ἀναστήσονται, χαὶ τοῖς
τεϑνηκόσιν, ὅτι ζωογονηϑήσονται. Καὶ οὗτος μὲν οὖν ὃ Mar-
ϑαῖος “Εβραϊχοῖς γράμμασι γράφει τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον, χαὶ χηρύττει.
Καὶ ἄρχεται οὐκ ast? ἀρχῆς, ἀλλὰ διηγεῖται μὲν τὴν γενεαλογίαν
ἀπὸ τοῦ «Αβραάμ. . . .
Εὐϑὺς δὲ μετὰ τὸν Mardaior ἀχόλουϑος γενόμενος ὃ ἸΠάρχος
τῷ ἁγίῳ Πέτρῳ ἐν “Ῥιύμῃ, ἐπιτρέπεται τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον ἐχϑέσϑαι"
χαὶ γράψας ἀποστέλλεται ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Πέτρου εἰς τὴν τῶν
«Τἰγυτιτίων χώραν. Οὗτος δὲ εἷς ἐτύγχανεν ἐκ τῶν ἑβδομηκχον-
ταδύο τῶν διασχορτιισϑέντων ἐπὶ τῷ ῥήματι, ᾧ εἶτιεν ὃ Κύριος"
Ἐὰν μὴ τίς μου φάγῃ τὴν σάρχα, χαὶ sin τὸ αἷμα, οὐκ ἔστι μου
ἄξιος" ὡς τοῖς τὰ Εὐαγγέλια ἀναγνοῦσι σαφὴς ἣ παράστασις.
Ὅμως διὰ Πέτρου ἀναχάμψας εὐαγγελίζεσϑαι καταξιοῦται, τινεύ--
ματι ἁγίῳ ἐμπεφορημένος. “ρχεται δὲ κηρύττειν, ὅϑεν τὸ πνεῦμα
αὐτῷ παρεχελεύσατο, τὴν ἀρχὴν τάττων ἀτιὸ πιεντεχαιδεχάτου ἔτους
Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, μετὰ ἔτη τριάχοντα τῆς τοῦ Matdaiov πτρα-
γματείας. Δευτέρου δὲ γενομένου εὐαγγελιστοῦ, καὶ μὴ περὶ τῆς
ἄνωϑεν καταγωγῆς Θεοῦ Adyou τηλαυγῶς σημάναντος" ἀλλὰ πάντη
μὲν ἐμφαντιχῶς, οὐ μὴν χατὰ ἀχριβολογίαν τοσαύτην, γέγονε τοῖς
σιροειρημένοις, εἰς δεύτερον DxOTWOLY τῶν διανοημάτων, τοῦ μὴ
χαταξιωϑῆναι πρὸς φωτισμὸν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου, λεγόντων αὐτῶν,
ὅτι ᾿Ιδοὺ δεύτερον Εὐαγγέλιον περὶ Χριστοῦ σημαῖνον, χαὶ οὐδα-
μοῦ ἄνωϑεν λέγων τὴν γέννησιν. ἀλλά φησιν. Ἔν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ
χατῆλϑε τὸ πνεῦμα ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν, cal φωνή: Οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ υἱὸς ὃ
ἀγαπητὸς, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ηὐδόχησα. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ταῦτα οὕτως ἐν τοῖς
τοιούτοις ἀνοήτως ἐτελεῖτο, ἀναγχάζει τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ ἐστι-
γύττει τὸν ἅγιον “ουχᾶν, ὡς ἀπὸ βάϑους χατωτάτου (κατὰ) τὴν
διάνοιαν τῶν ἠπατημένων ἀνενέγχαι, χαὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων χα-
ταλειφϑέντα αὖϑις ἐπιβάλλεσϑαι" ἵνα μή τις τῶν στεπλανημένων
EPIPHANIUS. 97
Cc , ~ γ ‘ a) , \ , ΒΥ γ
ἡγήσεται μυϑωδῶς αὐτὸν ἐχφράσαι τὴν γέννησιν. Ἔπειτα ἀνω-
«᾿ - y ‘ ) ; ~ \
φερῆ τὸν λόγον ἐργάζεται" διὰ δὲ τὴν ἀχρίβειων hewtvoueg@g τὴν
~ , - γ
χιᾶσαν πραγματείαν διέξεισι, χαὶ εἰς παράστασιν ἀληϑείας ἐμι-
μάρτυρας τοὺς ὑπηρέτας τοῦ λόγου γενομένους “ταρεισάγει, φώ-
> "7 Nee «ἢ, ,
σχων" Ἐπειδηχιερ σ“τολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν" ἵνα τινὰς μὲν ἐπιχειρητὰς
, Ἂν ‘ A \ r , \ / , \
δείξῃ, φημὶ δὲ τοὺς περὶ Κηρίνϑον χαὶ Mioivdov, χαὶ τοὺς ἄλ-
Ὁ , ηχν - > ~
λους. Εἰτα τί φησιν; Ἔδοξε χαμοὶ χαϑεξῆς “ταρηχολουϑηχότι
a ~ > , Ni ~ ,
ἄνωϑεν τοῖς αὐτότιταις καὶ ὑπηρέταις τοῦ λόγου γενομένοις, γρά-
, / ” \ , , ,
Wat σοι, χράτιστε Θεύφιλε" εἴτουν τινὶ Θεοφίλῳ τότε γράφων
rot ὄλεγεν. ἢ 7 «τὶ ἂν sare Θεὸν oo aye Πεοὶ ὧν \
τοῦτο ἕλεγεν, ἢ παντὶ ἀνϑρώπῳ Θεὸν ἀγατιῶντι. Περὶ ὧν, φησὶ,
, eh \ 5) ,
χατηχήϑης" λόγων τὴν ἀσφαλειαν. Καὶ τὴν μὲν χατήχησιν στροτε-
Εν - γ7 ~
ταγμένην ἔζξασχεν, ὡς ἤδη v0 ἄλλων μὲν χεχατηχῆσϑαι, οὐχ
ἡσφαλῶς δὲ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν μεμαϑηλχέν Εἴτα τὴν ἀχρίβειά
ἀσφαλῶς δὲ nag αὐτῶν μεμαϑηχέναι. Εἰτα τὴν ἀχρίβειάν φη-
ow: Ἐγένετο ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρώδου τοῦ βασιλέως, ἐξ 2 f
t γένετο ὃν ἡμέραις Howdov τοῦ βασιλέως, ἐξ ἐφημερίας
ἌΣ σαν as δ 2 , € ͵ σεν ᾿Ξ ,
“Ἵβιᾶ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ἱερεὺς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας, καὶ γυνὴ αὐ-
~ ~ > re 2
τοῦ ἐχ τῶν ϑυιγατέρων ‘Aagwy, i) ὄνομα Ἐλισάβετ. Kai ἄρχεται
\ ~ , C , ς \ \ TV ἘΞ Ἀν ἈΠ ~
moo tov Mardaov. O μὲν γὰρ Moardatog ἐσήμανε τριαχονταεεῆ
> 7 ) ~ . Ν
χρόνον an ἀρχῆς" 0 δὲ Ἥάρχος τὰ μετὰ τριάχοντα ἔταττεν ἔτη,
~ Ἢ 2, ~
τὴν ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ γενομένην ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ τιραγματείαν, ὅμοια τῷ
- ~ ς \ 4 ~ ? \
Marsaiy χαὶ τῷ Aovea? ὃ δὲ Π]ανϑαῖος ἀπὸ τριακονταέτους
Α - ~ ) ν ~
χρόνου πρὸ τῆς ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ χαὶ τοῦ Pamtiouctog τιραγματείας
τὸ διήγημα ἐποιεῖτο, Aovndg δὲ τιρὸ vot χρόνου τοῦ συλληφρϑῆ-
Wall HES eo ENTE vat ρϑὴη
Ν ~ D Ν Ἄς (Ne - \ , γ ΄
vat τὸν Σωτῆρα ἐν γαστρὶ, awd ἐξ μηνῶν τὸν χρόνον ἐδήλου, καὶ
~ , \ 2 Cc ~ =~ , ~ r
ἐννέα μηνῶν πάλιν, χαὶ ὀλίγων ἱιιερῶν τῆς OvddnWewg τοῦ Kv-
5 \ / / \ 2
ροίου" ὡς εἶναι τὸν τιάντα χρόνον τριάκοντα ἕν ἔτος καὶ ἐπέχεινα.
2 ~ OQ \ 35 , c ~ \ te ΠΝ CAN
... Ἐντεῦϑεν honor ἣν φανέρωσις, ὅτι τοῦ μὲν Θεοῦ ἣν υἱὸς,
Ὁ ~ ~ ) oN \ Ὁ Ἂν
διὰ δὲ τοῦ σπέρματος τοῦ Adau χατὰ διαδοχὴν ὃν σαρχὲ σταρε-
, 2 \ 3) ΒΩ , \ « , 2
γένετο. AAG οὐχ ἔσχον πάλιν φωτισμὸν οἱ τυδηιλανημένοι. ..1»--
, ΣΝ ~ ΄ c \ ~ CN \ 34 δα ”
téheyov δὲ τῷ λόγῳ, ἑαυτοὺς τιλανῶντες ὑπὲρ THY ἀλήϑειαν. Ἔφα-
3. \ 11᾽ ~ ry ~
oxov dé, ote ᾿Ιδοὺ τρίτον Εὐαγγέλιον τὸ κατὰ “ουχᾶν. Τοῦτο
‘ Ύ / ~ ~ » \ ) ~ > \ ~ c ν if,
yao ἐπετράπη τῷ “Ἰουχᾷ, Over χαὶ αὐτῷ ao τῶν “Εβδομήχοντα
eee πυχορπισθέ Το ς- Ὁ; ΣΕ
vo τῶν διασχορπισϑέντων ἐπὶ τῷ τοῦ Σωτῆρος λόγῳ, διὰ δὲ
, ~ C , ’ Ύ , \ \ , >
Παύλου τοῦ ἁγίου, πάλιν ἐπαναχάμιμαντος πρὸς τὸν Κύριον, ézt-
> ~ * 2 ‘ , ~
Toaméevtog δὲ αὐτοῦ χηρύξαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον χαὶ χηρύττει τιρῶτον
\ 7 ᾿] , 2)
ἐν “Ιαλματίᾳ, καὶ αλλίᾳ, καὶ ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ, χαὶ Παχεδονίᾳ. “A ey
S52) ~ τ , ς \ , ~ δ ~ 2. , ,
δὲ ἐν τῇ 1 αλλίᾳ" ὡς χαὶ περί τινων τῶν αὐτοῦ ἀλολούϑων λέγει
> ~ ς -φφ} - Cc γ \ ~~ Ξ , \ 2)
ἐν ταῖς αὑτοῦ Επιστολαῖς ὃ αὐτὸς Παῦλος: Κρίσχκης, φησὶν, ἐν
~ * 2 - ad ,
τῇ αλλίᾳ. Ov γὰρ ἐν τῇ Γαλατίᾳ, ὡς τινες π“λανηϑέντες νομί-
a
98 THE GOSPELS.
ζουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἐν τῇ Γαλλίᾳ.:Σ Πλὴν ἐπὶ τὸ περοχείμενον ἐλεύσομαι.
~ ~ 2 -
“Avevéynaveog γὰρ τοῦ “ουχᾶ τὰς γενεαλογίας, ἀπὸ τῶν χάτω
ἐστὶ τὰ ἄνω, LOL φϑάσαντος τὴν ἔμφασιν ποιήσασϑαι τῆς ἄνωϑεν
τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου παρουσίας, ὁμοῦ τε συναφϑέντος τῇ ἐνσάρχῳ
2 ~ ' ) > \ ~ \
αὐτοῦ οἰχονομίᾳ, ἵνα ἀποτρέψηται ἀπὸ τῶν πσιειλανημένων τὴν
, \ y 2 .“- Ν Uy ~
σιλάνην οὐχ évevonoay. Mo ὕστερον ἀναγχάζει τὸ ἅγιον τινεῦμα
\ 2 , , 2) , > 2 , ‘
τὸν Ιωάννην παραιτούμενον εὐαγγελίσασϑαι du εὐλάβειαν, καὶ
\ ~ 2 ~ ‘
τατιεινοφροσύνην ἐπὶ TH γηραλέᾳ αὐτοῦ ἡλικίᾳ, μετὰ ἔτη ἐνενή-
~ « - - - \ \ D] ~ 2 x ~
χοντὰ τῆς ξαυτοῦ ζωῆς, μετὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ vig Πάτμου ἐπά-
γοδον, τὴν ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου γενομένην Καΐσαρος. Καὶ μετὰ ἱκανὰ
n ~ ows 5 ~ 2d >
ἔτη τοῦ διατρίψψαι αὐτὸν and τῆς Aotac, ἀναγχάζεται ἐχϑέσϑαι
’ ᾽ γ ~ ~
τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον. Καὶ οὐχ ἣν αὐτῷ χρεία meet τῆς ἐνσάρχου τιραγ-
, - a» \ > , }] \ Cc ,
ματείας Aentohoyeiy’ 70n γὰρ yopakotro. Adda ὡς κατόπιν τι-
~ \ ~ 2 Ἂς \
γῶν βαίνων, καὶ δρῶν αὐτοὺς ent Ta ξμσιροσϑεν ὄντας, καὶ és
‘ Ν 2
τὰ τραχύτερα ἑαυτοὺς ἐχδεδωχότας, χαὶ πλάνας καὶ ἀκανϑώδῃ,
> ~ ~ 2
ἀναχαλέσασϑαι αὐτοὺς εἰς εὐϑεῖαν δδον προνοοῦντος, χαὶ ἀσφα-
, ? ,ὔ 2 - \ a} , ~ ~
λιζομένου ἐπιιχηρυχεύσασϑαι αὐτοῖς" καὶ etme, Tt τιλανᾶσϑε, ποῖ
- - 2
τρέπεσϑε; ποῖ πλανᾶσϑε Κήρινϑε καὶ Ἔβίων χαὶ οἱ ἄλλοι; οὐκ
Se ΠΣ Cc σ \ Ν
ἔστιν οὕτως, ὡς νομίζετε. Ναὶ ἐγεννήϑη ὃ Χριστὸς χατὰ σάρχα,
~ ? ~ af ~ cr ς ͵
δῆλον. ᾿Ιδοῦ γὰρ αὑτὸς ὁμολογῶ, ott Ὃ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.
> ‘ WP ta 8 9: νι Nis Li sae ‘ DN 4 Ov:
᾿Αλλὰ μὴ ἐξότε ἐγένετο σὰρξ, νομίσητε tov αὐτὸν εἰναι. Ove
NN ~ ?
ἔστι γὰρ ao χρόνων Magiacg μόνον, ὡς ἕχαστος ἡμῶν ag ὕτου
~ ‘ ~ ~ > it ‘
γεννᾶται ὑπάρχει" πρὶν δὲ τοῦ γεννηϑῦγαι, οὐχ εἶναι. Ὃ δὲ ἅγιος
~ ~ δν: , Cc ~ 2 ~ >
Θεὸς Abyog, υἱὸς tov Θεοῦ, Χριστὸς Κύριος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς, οὐκ
2 2 \ ?
ἔστιν ad χρόνων Παρίας μόνον, οὔτε ἀπὸ χρόνων ᾿Ιωσὴφ μό-
2 2 Ne 2. ΄
γον, οὐτὲ Hhi, οὔτε Aevt, οὔτε Ζοροβάβελ, οὔτε Σαλαϑιὴλ, οὔτε
2. \ \ > Ἂν. 2
Νάϑαν, οὔτε “Ιαβὶδ, οὔτε ἀπτὸ Ιαχὼβ, οὔτε amo Ισαὰχκ, οὔτε ἀτπτὸ
, ~ ) \ ” ~~ a 2 \ Wy 2 \ ~ ,
χρόνων tov Adau, οὔτε Νῶε, οὔτε ABoaau, οὔτε amo τῆς πέμ-
c , w 2 \ ~ , ς , 2 > \ ~ ,
TYG ἡμέρας, οὔτε ἀπὸ τῆς τετάρτης ἡμέρας, οὔτε ἀπὸ τῆς τρί-
a” Ἂς - ,ὔ γ / Ν \ Cc ~
της, οὔτε ἀπὸ τῆς δευτέρας, οὔτε ἐξότου οὐρανὸς “aL ἣ γῇ γεγέ-
a” us ς ΄ ἘΝῚ ooo > meal ς , NG
γηται, οὔτε éFotov ὃ χύσμος" adha* Ev ἀρχῇ ἣν 0 Aoyosg, καὶ ὃ
, ty \ \ \
Aoyos ἣν πρὸς tov Θεὸν x.7.d.
, > ~ A ~
Ἵνα ἀπὸ τεσσάρων εὐαγγελιστῶν τὴν πᾶσαν χατά TE τὴν σάρχα,
>
nal χατὰ τὴν ϑεότητα ἀχρίβειαν χατάσχωμεν.
Haeres. IT. c. 2. h. 09. See below under ‘Gospel of John.’
2 2Tim.iv.10. The N. T. reading is Κρήσχης εἰς Γαλατίαν. See however
Eus. H. E. ΠΙ. 4, Κρίσχης μὲν εἰς Γαλλίαν. Some read in Eusebius ἐπὶ τὰς Γαλ-
λίας; and ἐπὶ τὴν Τ᾽αλατίαν is also found.
JEROME. 99
16. Jerome. 1
Comment. in Mat. prooem. (T. IV. p. 2). Plures fuisse, qui
Evangelia scripserunt, et Lucas Evangelista testatur, dicens:
“Quoniam quidem multi conati sunt ordinare narrationem rerum,
quae in nobis completae sunt, sicut tradiderunt nobis, qui ab
initio ipsi viderunt Sermonem, et ministraverunt ei;” et perse-
verantia usque ad praesens tempus monimenta declarant: quae
a diversis auctoribus edita, diversarum haereseon fuere principia,
ut est illud juxta Aigyptios? et Thomam,? et Matthiam‘ et Bar-
tholomaeum,® duodecim quoque apostolorum,® et Basilidis’ at-
que Apellis,* ac reliquorum,® quos enumerare longissimum est:
cum tantum in praesentiarum hoc necesse sit dicere: exstitisse
quosdam, qui sine spiritu et gratia Dei conati sunt magis ordi-
nare narrationem, quam historiae texere veritatem. Quibus jure
potest illud propheticum coaptari: “Vae qui prophetant de corde
suo: qui ambulant post spiritum suum, qui dicunt: Haec dicit
Dominus: et Dominus non misit eos.” De quibus et Salvator in
Evangelio Joannis loquitur: ““Omnes qui ante me venerunt, fures
et latrones fuerunt.” Qui venerunt, non qui missi sunt. Ipse
enim ait: ‘“ Veniebant, et ego non mittebam eos.” In venienti-
bus, praesumptio temeritatis: in missis, obsequium servitutis est.
Ecclesia autem, quae supra petram Domini voce fundata est,
quam introduxit rex in cubiculum suum, et ad quam per fora-
men descensionis occultae misit manum suam, similis damulae
hinnuloque cervorum, quatuor flumina paradisi instar eructans,
quatuor angulos et annulos habet, per quos quasi arca Testa-
menti et custos Legis Domini, lignis immobilibus vehitur. Pri-
1 Born at Strido (Dalmatia) A.D. 329: died at Bethlehem A.D. 420.
2 See Introduction ‘Gospel of Egyptians;’ and below for extracts from it.
8 Gospel of Thomas, a well-known Apocryphal Gospel; see Introduction
“ Apoe. Gospels.”
4 Matthias, Eus. H. E. III. 25, says the Hereties circulated Gospels pretend-
ing to be by Peter and Thomas and Matthias.
5 Bartholomew is said (Eus. H. E. V. 10) to have taken Matthew’s Gospel
in Hebrew to India (Ἑβραίων γράμμασι τὴν τοῦ Ματϑαίου γραφήν), where Pan-
taenus found it cherished by the Christians. See below.
6 ‘Twelve Apostles:’ another name for ‘Gospel of the Hebrews.’
7 Basilides: see Introduction.
8 Apelles: said to have been the author of an Apocryphal Gospel.
9. See Introduction ‘Apoc. Gospels.’
Ὁ
100 THE GOSPELS.
mus omnium est Matthaeus publicanus, cognomento Levi, qui
Evangelium in Judaea Hebraeo sermone edidit, ob eorum vel
maxime causam, qui in Jesum crediderant ex Judaeis, et nequa-
quam Legis umbram, succedente Evangelii veritate, servabant.
Secundus Marcus, interpres apostoli Petri, et Alexandrinae ec-
clesiae primus episcopus, qui Dominum quidem Salvatorem ipse
non vidit, sed ea, quae magistrum audierat praedicantem, juxta
fidem magis gestorum narravit, quam ordinem.!° ‘Tertius Lucas
medicus, natione Syrus Antiochensis (cujus laus in evangelio)
qui et ipse discipulus apostoli Pauli, in Achaiae, Boeotiaeque
partibus volumen condidit, quaedam altius repetens, et ut ipse
in prooemio confitetur, audita magis quam visa describens. Ul-
timus Joannes apostolus et evangelista, quem Jesus amavit plu-
rimum, qui supra pectus Domini recumbens, purissima doctrina-
rum fluenta potavit, et qui solus de cruce meruit audire: “ Ecce
mater tua.” Is cum esset in Asia, et jam tunc haereticorum
semina pullularent, Cerinthi, Ebionis, et ceterorum qui negant
Christum in carne venisse (quos et ipse in epistola sua Anti-
christos vocat, et apostolus Paulus frequenter percutit) coactus
est ab omnibus pene tunc Asiae episcopis et multarum eccle-
siarum legationibus, de divinitate Salvatoris altius scribere, et -
ad ipsum (ut ita dicam) Dei Verbum, non tam audaci, quam
felici temeritate prorumpere. Unde et ecclesiastica narrat histo-
ria, cum a fratribus cogeretur ut scriberet, ita facturum se re-
spondisse, si indicto jejunio in commune omnes Deum depreca-
rentur: quo expleto, revelatione saturatus, in illud prooemium 6
coelo veniens eructavit: “In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum
erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum; hoc erat in principio
apud Deum.” Haec igitur quatuor Evangelia multo ante prae-
dicta, Ezechielis quoque volumen probat, in quo prima Visio ita
contexitur: “Et in medio sicut similitudo quatuor animalium: et
vultus eorum facies hominis, et facies leonis, et facies vituli, et
facies aquilae.” Prima hominis facies Matthaeum significat, qui
quasi de homine exorsus est scribere: ‘Liber generationis Jesu
Christi, filii David, filii Abraham.” Secunda Marcum, in quo
vox leonis in eremo rugientis auditur: “Vox clamantis in deserto,
10 Compare Papias: ov μέντοι τάξει (p. 56); and for what follows see Mu-
ratorian Fragment (p. 5).
JEROME. 101
parate viam Domini, rectas facite semitas ejus.” Tertia vituli,
quae evangelistam Lucam a Zacharia sacerdote sumpsisse initium
praefigurat. Quarta Joannem evangelistam, qui assumptis pennis
aquilae, et ad altiora festinans, de verbo Dei disputat. Caetera
quae sequuntur, in eundem sensum proficiunt. Crura eorum recta,
et pennati pedes, et quocunque ibat spiritus, ibant, et non re-
vertebantur: et dorsa eorum plena oculis, et scintillae ac lam-
pades in medio discurrentes, et rota in rota, et in singulis qua-
tuor facies. Unde et Apocalypsis Joannis, post expositionem vi-
ginta quatuor seniorum, qui tenentes citharas ac phialas, adorant
Agnum Dei, introducit fulgura, et tonitrua, et septem spiritus
discurrentes, et mare vitreum, et quatuor animalia plena oculis,
dicens: “Animal primum simile leoni: et secundum simile vitulo:
et tertium simile homini: et quartum simile aquilae volanti.”
Et post paululum: “Plena erant,” inquit, “oculis, et requiem non
habebant die ac nocte, dicentia: Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Domi-
nus Deus omnipotens, qui erat, et qui est, et qui venturus est.”
Quibus cunctis perspicue ostenditur, quatuor tantum debere
Evangelia suscipi, et omnes Apocryphorum naenias mortuis magis
haereticis, quam ecclesiasticis vivis canendas.
Praefatio in IV. Evang. ad Damas. Igitur haec praesens
praefatiuncula pollicetur, quatuor tantum Evangelia, quorum ordo
est iste: Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas et Joannes, codicum Graeco-
rum emendata collatione, sed et veterum: nec quae multum a
lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent.
[ Note. On the nature of the testimony to our Gospels to be drawn from
the Apocryphal Gospels, &c., see Introduction; and for illustrations see the
last part of this work.]
102
V.
THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS AND THE SYNOPTISTS.
1. Barnapas.!
C. 4. 3. Τὸ τέλειον σχάνδαλον ἤγγικε, περὶ ov γέγραπται,
ὡς Ἐνὼχ λέγει, εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὃ δεσπότης συντέτμηχε τοὺς χαι-
ροὺς καὶ τὰς ἡμέρας, ἵνα ταχύνῃ ὃ ἠγαπημένος αὐτοῦ χαὶ ἐπὶ
τὴν χληρονομίαν H&y.2 (Compare Mat. xxiv. 0, 22; Mark xiii. 7.)
Ο. 4. 14. Ἔτι δὲ κἀχεῖνο, ἀδελφοί μου, νοεῖτε" ὅταν βλέ-
πητὲ μετὰ τηλιχαῦτα σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα τὰ γεγονότα ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ,
χαὶ οὕτως ἐγχαταλελεῖφϑαι αὐτοὺς, προσέχωμεν μήποτε, ὡς γέ-
γρατιται, πολλοὶ χλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐχλεχτοὶ εὑρεϑῶμεν. 3
(Mat. (xx. 16?); xxii. 14).
0.5.9. Ὅτε δὲ τοὺς ἰδίους ἀποστόλους τοὺς μέλλοντας κη-
ρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον αὐτοῦ ἐξελέξατο, ὄντας ὑτιὲρ πᾶσαν ἅμαρ-
τίαν ἀνομωτέροις, ἵνα δείξη Ore οὐκ ἦλϑεν χαλέσαι δι-
1 The following citations from Barnabas are of uncertain value, mainly be-
cause of the uncertain age of the Epistle, and because of the divergences in the
MSS of the text. But it is more natural to account for the form of the quota-
tions by supposing Barnabas to have had at least Matthew and possibly Luke
in his hands, than to suppose in each case that he was referring to some (non-
extant) Apocryphal book. See Introduction on ‘ Barnabas.’
2 The Latin reads “" Sicut Daniel dicit.” The words are not in Enoch as we
have it. Hilg. refers (but the reference is forced) to ‘‘Enoch Ixxxix. 61, &c., xe.
17: see also Sup. Rel. I. 237. For συντέτμηχεν compare Dan. ix. 24. We cannot
find more than correspondence of idea between the passage and the Synoptists.
Even if the passage be suggested by Enoch, it is doubtful whether the εἰς τοῦτο
γὰρ x.t.A. belong to it. Hilg. points λέγει. (so as to stop the reference).
3 This passage is preceded by a warning against sleeping in sin lest the
wicked potentate should have power to exclude us from the kingdom of the
Lord. There is a possible allusion to Mat. xxv. 5, &c., but not so clear as to in-
duce us to quote. In our text the phrase ὡς γέγραπται is remarkable, as the
first quotation from our Lord’s words with similar reference to the written record.
His words are often quoted, but not as from Scripture. To deny, as some do,
that these words are from Matthew’s Gospel which we have in our hands, and to
ascribe them to the lost Greek of 4 Ezra viii. 3 (of which the Latin is Nam multi
creati sunt, pauct autem salvabuntur), is surely an extraordinary proceeding. The
same word y2yourtat occurs in the previously quoted passage, ce. 4, 3; but whether
or how far in reference to Enoch is really doubtful. But the fact that it does
occur may make us hesitate to found more upon it here than that it proves Bar-
nabas to be quoting from Matthew as a written record of our Lord’s sayings.
BARNABAS. 103
, ? At 5. Ν , 2) U c \ ΕΣ ΓΗ Δ
χαίους αλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς, tote ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν εἰναι υἱὸν
Θεοῦ. (Compare Mat. ix. 13.)
C. 5.12. Λέγει γὰρ ὃ Θεὸς τὴν πληγὴν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ,
, > ~ ; Ν , 2 ~ ,
ὅτι ἐξ αὐτῶν: Ὅταν πατάξωσι τὸν ποιμένα αὐτῶν, τότε
2 - \ , ~ , ‘ 5 τ
ἀπολεῖται τὰ πρόβατα τῆς ποίμνης. (Compare Mat.
Wei 31%)
Ο. 1.11. Οὕτω, φησὶν, ot ϑέλοντές we ἰδεῖν, καὶ ἀινψνασϑαί
μου τῆς βασιλείας, ὀφείλουσι ϑλιβέντες χαὶ παϑόντες λαβεῖν με."
(Compare Mat. xvi. 24.)
C.12.11. Ἐπεὶ οὖν μέλλουσι λέγειν ὅτι Χριστὸς υἱὸς Aavid
ἐστιν, αὐτὸς προφητεύει Aavid, φοβούμενος καὶ συνιὼν τὴν τιλά-
- ς ~ +3 τ, - - , ,ὕ ?
γὴν τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν" Einev Κύριος τῷ Κυρίῳ μου: Katou ἐκ
δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν FO τοὺς ἐχϑρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν
σου. Καὶ πάλιν λέγει οὕτως Ἡσαΐας" Εἶπε Κύριος τῷ Χριστῷ
μου Κυρίῳ, οὗ ἐχράτησα τὴς δεξιᾶς αὐτοῦ ἐπιαχοῦσαι ἔμσίροσϑεν
> — \ V Ie τς \
αὐτοῦ ἔϑνη, καὶ ἰσχὺν βασιλέων διαῤῥήξω. “Ide τιῶς Aavid λέγει
) Ν ‘ 7 ee
αὐτὸν Κύριον χαὶ υἱὸν οὐ λέγει.1 (Compare Mat. xxii. 45.)
C. 15. 8. Πέρας γέ τοι λέγει αὐτοῖς. Tag veounviag ὑμῶν
eas [ey !
\ \ / 2 δ ΔΎ δ, [ - ~ , 2 Ν -
χαὶ τὰ σαββατὰα οὐχ ἀνέχομαι. Ορᾶτε πῶς λέγει: Ov τὰ νῦν
U ? \ Ν > wats , ) te , \
σάββατα ἐμοὶ δεχτὰ, ahha ὁ πεποίηχα, ἐν ᾧ χαταπαύσας τὰ
4 Cod. δαὶ and I (Bryennios) and old Latin agree in the reading. The com-
mon text added εἰς μετάνοιαν after ἁμαρτωλούς. This same quotation appears
2 Clem. ὁ. 2. 4, with the preface ετέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει ὅτι. See also Justin, Apol.
I. c. 15, where we have it with the addition of εἰς μετάνοιαν and the preface εἶπε
δὲ οὕτως. Origen cont. Cels. I. 63 defends the character of the Apostles against
the charges which Celsus had advanced, founding probably, as Origen thinks, on
this expression ‘‘in the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas.’’ Christ’s saying may have
been preserved in some “original Spruch-Sammlung,” or in ‘many other works ”’
as some say—it is impossible to disprove such hypotheses—but as a matter of fact
we have it in St. Matthew.
5 The old Greek text had σχορπισθήσεται. This is also found in a correction
of ἃ. The old Latin was peculiar: ‘‘Dicit autem Esaias Plaga corporis illius
omnes sanati sumus, et alius propheta Meriam pastorem et dispargentur oves gregis.”
Compare Isaiah liii. 5; Zech. xiii. 7. Bryennios’s MS reads ἀπολεῖται.
6 Those words do not occur in any extant Gospel, canonical or apocryphal.
Neither can they be referred to 4 Ezra vii. 14 (Hilg.). The words in 4 Ezra are:
Si ergo non ingredientes ingresst fuerint qui vivunt angusta et mala haec, non pote-
runt recipere quae sunt reposita. Compare Mat. xvi. 24 and Acts xiv. 22, which
furnish a basis for the saying.
1 This passage is a reference to the O. T. Although it cannot be pressed as
coming through the canonical Gospel, the short comment of Barnabas upon it
naturally suggests that he took his interpretation of the Psalm from our Lord’s
words in St. Matthew. The readings in the whole passage vary. It is usually
printed xat υἱὸν Θεοῦ. But δαὶ and Bryennios’s MS, with the Latin, support the
text as above.
104 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS AND THE SYNOPTISTS.
AVEC ἀρχὴν ἡμέρας ὀγδόης ποίησω, Ὁ ἐστιν ἄλλου κόσμου eon.
MNO χαὶ ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην εἰς εὐφροσύ νην; ἐν ἢ χαὶ
6 Ιησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐχ νεχρῶν χαὶ φανερωϑεὶς ἀνέβη εἰς οὐρανούς.
(Compare Mark xvi. 14, &c.; Luke xxiv. 51; and on the other ner
Mat. xxviii. 10; Acts i. 3.) 4
Ο. 19. 11. Παντὶ [τῷ] αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου." (Compare Mat.
v. 42; Luke vi. 30.)
2. Crement or Rome.
First: Epistle.
C.13.! Ταπιεινοφρονήσωμεν οὖν, ἀδελφοὶ, ἀποϑέμενοι σπιᾶσαν
7) - \ ~ \ , \ \
ἀλαζονείαν nat τῦφον χαὶ ἀφροσύνην χαὶ ὀργὰς χαὶ ποιήσωμεν
\ ,ὔ , \ \ ~ \ c 5. δ = 7 \
τὸ γεγραμμένον --- λέγει γὰρ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀγιον (Jer. ix. 25)" My
χαυχάσϑω ὃ σοφὸς ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ μηδὲ ὃ ἰσχυρὸς ἐν τῇ
8 This passage is cited here because it has been used by Hilgenfeld (Bar-
nabas, p. 118) and Reuss (Gesch. § 234) to show that ‘Barnabas’ was written in
the first century, before the exclusive authority of ‘‘our Gospels” was established.
It appears to contradict them all (says Reuss) save the third. But in that case Acts
contradicts Luke, and the truth is that to group the Resurrection and Ascension
together is quite consistent with fuller accounts which detail miraculous appear-
ances between. Besides there is indefinite time in @aveow etc.
9 These words are in the common Greek Text and in the Sinaitie corrector’s
text (seventh century), following the words Ov διστάσεις δοῦναι, οὐδὲ διδοὺς yoy-
γύσεις. They are omitted in NS primé manu and in I (Bryennios’s MS). The
Old Latin wants chapters 18-21, so that we cannot appeal to it. Gebhardt omits
the words, now also Hilg. (1877).
1 This passage begins with Jeremiah and ends with Isaiah, the first quota-
tion being in words suggested by 1 Cor. i. 31 (2 Cor. x. 17, see also 1 Kings
ii. 10); and its main passage is an abridgment or echo of passages from the
Sermon on the Mount. There is no doubt that the only difficulty in believing
that Clement consciously abridged Matthew or Luke lies in the ‘‘ unusual length
and roundness and compactness”? of the passage. But if we allow that he was
writing from memory (which is possible), and if he was accumulating precepts to
enjoin lowly-mindedness because of the retribution which awaits harsh judgments
and self-righteousness (which is certain), this difficulty is in great measure removed.
It is worth while to compare Polycarp’s form of quotation of the same passage
(see below page 112)) and Justin’s χρηστοὶ χαὶ οἰχτίρμονες Apol. I. 15; Dial. 96.
Those who will have Clement to be quoting some ‘well-known record’? (which
is not our Canonical Gospels), and who will have it to be ‘careful and precise
quotation of the very words,’’ need to have another well-known source for Poly-
carp, and at least two others for Justin, who (as usual) is not verbally consistent
with himself. They have to meet also the fact that those ‘‘very words’’ are not
found in any extant Gospel. The clause χρηστεύεσθε x.t-d. is not in our Gos-
pels, though it suggests Justin’s words. The order of the clauses varies in the
MSS, ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε χ.τιλ. being in Bryennios’s MS put before the two pre-
cepts which immediately precede it in our text.
CLEMENT OF ROME. 105
ae > ~ οὖ ~
ἰσχύϊ αὐτοῦ, μηδὲ 6 πλούσιος ἐν τῷ σπιλούτῳ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ὃ χαυ-
χώμενος ἐν Κιρίῳ χαυχάσϑω τοῦ ἐχζητεῖν αὐτὸν χαὶ ποιεῖν κρίμα
χαὶ δικαιοσύνην" -- μάλιστα μεμνημένοι τῶν λόγων τοῦ Κυρίου
> ~ a γηὴ , ? , \ , c
Inoov, ove ἐλάλησε διδάσχων ἐπιείκειαν χαὶ μαχροϑυμίαν. Ov-
\ af a J ~ εἰ Ἴ - 2 , c 2 Ce Ge τ
tog yoo eimev’ Ehseive ἵνα ἐλεηϑῆτε; apiete ἵνα ἀφεϑῇ υμῖν"
ς me Wi c Que ἘΣ Ὁ Κ ς , « rae
wig) ποιεῖτε, οὕτω ποιηϑήσεται ὑμῖν: ὡς δίδοτε οὕτω δοθήσεται
ὑμῖν" ὡς κρίνετε οὕτω χριϑήσεσϑε" ὡς χρηστεύεσϑε οὕτως χρη-
στευϑήσεται ὑμῖν" ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, ἐν αὐτῷ μετρηϑήσεται ὑμῖν.
Ταύτῃ τῇ ἐντολῇ vai τοῖς π:αραγγέλμασι τούτοις στηρίξωμεν ξαυ-
Ν > \ / ic / yy ~ Cc ,
τοὺς εἰς τὸ πορεύεσθαι ὑπηχόους ὄντας τοῖς ἁγιοτιρεπιέσι λόγοις
> ~ ~ . ee .
αὐτοῦ, taervopoovortrtes (Mat. v. 7; vi. 14; vii. 1,2; Luke vi.
Γ = \ 2 \
oir &C.), φησὶ γὰρ ὃ ἅγιος λόγος" Ἐπὶ τίνα ἐπιβλέψω, ἀλλ᾽
ἢ ἐπὲ τὸν τιραὺν χαὶ ἡσύχιον καὶ τρέμοντά μου τὰ λόγια; (Is.
Ixvi. 2.)
7 - Ὁ δ 5:
0.15.1. Τοίνυν χολληϑῶμεν τοῖς μετ᾽ εὐσεβείας εἰρηνεύου-
σιν, χαὶ μὴ τοῖς EP ὑποχρίσεως βουλομένοις εἰρήνην. .7έγει
, β c ς \ ~ ἢ , a 6 Se D >
γάρ που Οὗτος ὃ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν μὲ τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ χαρδία αὐ-
τῶν τιόῤῥω ἄπεστιν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ."
- - - ~ By
C. 46. Πνήσϑητε τῶν λόγων ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. Ei-
, 2 \ ~ > / γ , \ DY 2 ~ ,
ev ydo’ Οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνϑρώπῳ ἐχείνῳ" χαλὸν HY αὐτῷ EL
> > δὴ Woe ~ ) ~ ’
οὐκ ἐγεννήϑη, ἢ Eva τῶν ἐκχλεχτῶν μου σκανδαλίσαι
~ 3 - - \
κρεῖττον ἦν αὐτῷ περιτεϑῆναι μύλον, χαὶ καταπον-
τισϑῆναι εἰς τὴν ϑάλασσαν, ἢ ἕνα τῶν μιχρῶν μου
σχανδαλίσαι.3 (Compare Mat. xxvi. 24, xvill. 6; Mark ix, 42;
Luke xvii. 2, &c.)
2 This reference is to Isaiah xxix. 13; but the author does not seem to re-
member the original, and what he quotes is the peculiar form in Mark vii. 6.
The text of the LXX is ἐγγίζει po. 6 λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι. αὐτοῦ χαὶ ἐν
τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με. (See this more nearly reproduced in Mat. xv. 8.)
The form of Clement is exactly that of Mark, save that he has ἄπεστιν for ἀπέ-
yet. See the similar quotation of Jeremiah through St Paul in 1 Clem. ὁ. 13
(quoted above). See also the almost identical form in 2 Clem. ὁ. 3, the only
praia being ὃ λαὸς οὗτος.
3 On the whole this passage does not give grounds for asserting that its
author used our canonical Gospels; but it is not inconsistent with the supposi-
tion that he did. His variations from them all are not greater than those of
Mark and Luke from each other. _Compare Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 18. ΡΥ 561:
Οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐχείνῳ, φησὶν ὁ Κύριος, χαλὸν ἣν αὐτῷ εἰ μὴ ἐγεννήϑη, ἢ
ἕνα τῶν ἐχλεχτῶν μου σχανδαλίσαι (Mat. xxvi. 24), χρεῖττον ἣν αὐτῷ περιτεσῆναι
μύλον χαὶ χαταποντισϑῆναι εἰς ϑάλασσαν ἢ ἕνα τῶν ἐχλεχτῶν μου διαστρέψαι
(Mat. xviii. 6). And Hom. XII. 29 ‘O τῆς ἀχηϑείας προφήτης ἔφη: τὰ ἀγαπὰ
ἐλθεῖν δεῖ, μαχάριος͵ δὲ, φησὶν, d¢ οὗ ἔρχεται. Ὁμοίως χαὶ τὰ καχὰ ἀνάγχη
ἐλθεῖν, οὐαὶ δὲ δι᾿ οὗ ἔρχεται. These are illustrations of the freedom of quota-
106 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS AND THE SYNOPTISTS.
C. 58. 2. Ζῇ γὰρ 6 Θεὸς χαὶ ζῇ ὃ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
χαὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἣ TE σιίστις χαὶ ἣ ἐλπὶς τῶν ἐχλεχτῶν,
ὅτι ὃ ποιήσας ἐν τατιεινοφροσύνῃ μετ᾽ ἐχτενοῦς ἐπιειχείας ἀμε-
ταμελήτως τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δεδομένα δικαιώματα καὶ προσταγ-
ματα οὗτος προστεταγμένος χαὶ ἐλλόγιμος ἔσται εἰς τὸν ἀριϑμὸν
τῶν σωζομένων διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾿ οὗ ἐστὶν αὐτῷ i δόξα
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. ~Auiv. (Mat. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor.
xili. 13; Rom. xi. 29.)
Second Epistle.+
A. CITATIONS WHICH MAY BE TAKEN AS AGREEING WITH THE
SYNOPTISTS.
C.2.4. Kai ἑτέρα δὲ γραφὴ λέγει ὅτι Οὐχ ἦλϑον καλέ-
σαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλούς.) (Mat. ix. 18; Mark ii. 17.)
Ο. ὃ. 2. Aéye δὲ καὶ αὐτός: Tov ὁμολογήσαντα με
ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνϑρώπων, ὁμολογήσω αὐτὸν ἐνώπιον
τοῦ πατρός μου.3 (Mat. x. 32.)
C. 4.2. “Ζ2ἐγει yao’ Οὐ πᾶς ὃ λέγων μοι Κύριε, Kv-
ove, σωϑήσεται, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην. (Mat. vii. 21.)
C. 6.1. «“έγει δὲ ὃ Κύριος: Οὐδεὶς οἰχέτης δύναται
δυσὶ χυρίοις δουλεύειν. Ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ϑέλωμεν χαὶ Θεῷ δου-
λεύειν χαὶ μαμωνᾷ, ἀσύμφορον ἡμῖν ἐστίν. Τί γὰρ τὸ ὄφελος,
ἐάν τις τὸν κύσμον ὅλον χερδήσῃ, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ζη-
μιωϑῃ;" (Luke xvi. 13; Mat. xvi. 26.)
C.9. 11. Kai γὰρ εἶπεν ὃ Κύριος: ᾿Αδελφοί μου οὗτοί
εἰσιν οἱ ποιοῦντες τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου." (Mat.
ΧΙ Ὁ0})
C. 18. 4. Ὅταν γὰρ ἀχούσωσι παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ὅτι λέγει ὃ Θεός"
Οὐ χάρις ὑμῖν εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ἀλλὰ
tion, Tertullian says that Marcion had (Luke xvii) expedisse ei st natus non fuisset
of the author of offences. See also Origen, Com. in Num. XXV. 1.
1 This work, now complete in the MS published by Bryennios, is clearly a
Homily of early date. As to its age and characteristics see Introduction.
2 See before, page 103 note on Barn. ec. 5. 9.
3 Though this is not verbatim, it is as near to a verbal quotation as
preachers in our own day can be depended upon to give.
4 The first sentence—the avowed quotation—is Luke xvi. 13 verbatim (com-
pare Mat. vi. 24 where οἰχέτης is wanting); the third sentence is not verbatim, but
resembles Matthew’s τί γὰρ ὠφελεῖται ἄνθρωπος, ἐὰν τὸν χόσμον ὅλον χερδήσῃ,
τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ζημιωϑῇ ;
5 See note (3).
CLEMENT OF ROME. 107
χάρις ὑμῖν εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς χαὶ τοὺς μισοῦν-
ας ὑμᾶς. (Luke vi. 32 &c.)
Ο. 11. 5. Kai ὄψονται τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ χαὶ τὸ χράτος οἱ
ἄσιιστοι. (Mat. xxiv. 50.)
B. cITATIONS WHICH CANNOT BE REGARDED AS AGREFING WITH
THE SYNOPTISTS.
τ IW t > ~
C.4.5. Εἶπεν ὃ Κύριος: Ἐὰν ἦτε wet’ ἐμοῦ συνηγμένοι ἐν
“« ‘\ ~ ‘ 2 ~ ~
τῷ χόλπῳ μου χαὶ μὴ ποιῆτε τὰς ἐντολάς μου, ἀποβαλῶ ὑμᾶς
τ εν τς Sy ae A Εν tee) ΣΤΥ Dik Ph st ΟΥΑΙ we Got ee t¢ cea |
χαὶ ἐρῶ ὑμῖν: Ὑπάγετε ἀτι ἐμοῦ, οὐκ οἶδα ὑμᾶς mode_v ἐστὲ,
a]
ἐργάται ἀνομίας.
C. 5. 2-4. Mn φοβηϑῶμεν ἐξελϑεῖν & τοῦ χόσμου τούτου.
Aéyer γὰρ ὃ Κύριος" Ἔσεσϑε ὡς ἀρνία ἐν μέσῳ λύχων. ᾿“4“πο-
χριϑεὶς δὲ ὃ Πέτρος αὐτῷ λέγει" ᾿Εὰν οὖν διασπαράξωσιν οἱ λύ-
ee ny ~ ~ \
nor τὰ ἀρνία; Εἶπεν ὃ Ιησοῦς τῷ Πέτρῳ: Mi) φοβείσϑωσαν τὰ
ἀρνία τοὺς λύχους μετὰ τὸ ἀποϑανεῖν αὐτά" χαὶ ὑμεῖς μὴ φο-
βεῖσϑε τοὺς ἀπτοχτένοντας ὑμᾶς καὶ μηδὲν ὑμῖν δυναμένους ττιοιεῖν,
7 \ ~ \ \ > © - ς ~ oy df ,
ahha φοβεῖσϑε tov μετὰ τὸ ἀποϑανεῖν υμᾶς ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν Wou-
XS χαὶ σώματος τοῦ βαλεῖν εἰς γέενναν σευρός.1 (Compare Luke
x. 3; Mat. x. 16; Luke xii. 4; Mat. x. 28.)
, Ν ς , > ~ > eae > \
C. 8.5. Aéyer γὰρ ὃ Κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ: Et τὸ μι-
Ν > ,ὔ Ἂς , , Cc ~ / , ~
χρὸν οὐχ ἐτηρήσατε, τὸ μέγα τίς ὑμῖν δώσει; λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν
cr « \ > > , " ’ ~ , ? , a» 3
ὃτι ὃ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ χαὶ ἐν OAM πιστὸς ἐστίν. “Aga οὖν
τοῦτο λέγει" τηρήσατε τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν LOL τὴν σφραγῖδα ἄστπιι-
λον, ἵνα τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν ἀπολάβωμεν.δ (Compare Luke xvi. 10;
Mat. xxv. 21.)
6 This seems to justify the remark of Photius about our Ep. Πλὴν ὅτι ῥητά
τινα ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς Deltas γραφῆς ξενίζοντα παρεισάγει; ὧν οὐδ᾽ ἡ πρώτη ἀπήλ-
λαχτο παντελῶς. It is usually supposed that this is from the Gospel of the
Egyptians. See below, quotation from ec. 12, and Introduction.
7 The Synoptic passages to which reference is made give the substance and
many of the phrases of this quotation; but the narrative portion indicates another
source. The ‘Gospel of the Egyptians’ is again conjectured. See Clem. Hom.
XVII. 5 and Just. Apol. I. c.19 for similar passages, but with the usual variations.
Both for example have μὴ δυνάμενος τι ποιῆσαι; Justin has (like Clement) μετὰ τὸ
ἀποθανεῖν and (like Luke) has not πυρός after γέενναν which the Homily has; while
the Hom. has τῇ δὲ ψυχῇ μὴ δυναμένου τι ποιῆσαι which reminds us of Matthew’s
τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποχτεῖναι. So far as those variations go they are
not greater than those between the Synoptists; but the narrative is irreconcilable
with the idea that the. passage comes from a Canonical source.
8 The form ἄρα οὖν is probably (as Hilg. conjectures) an explanation. Zooa-
108 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS AND THE SYNOPTISTS.
ς 3 Χ 2
C. 12. 2. Ἐπερωτηϑεὶς γὰρ αὐτὸς ὃ Κύριος bad τινος wore
τς DER ΟΘΝ ον, ἣ De) 6) ay ay ach »” \ wf « ᾿ \ \
ἥξει αὐτοῦ ἢ βασιλεία,5 εἶπεν. Ὅταν ἔσται ta δύο ἕν, χαὶ τὸ
Ὁ «ς . ΤΆ yy » Ay \ Bis ‘ = , » 2 PL
ἔξω ὡς τὸ ἔσω, χαὶ τὸ ἄρσεν μετὰ τῆς ϑηλείας, οὔτε ἄρσεν οὔτε
ϑῆλυ.19
3. Hermas.!
Ὁ - B) 2
Vis. IT. 2.8. Π]αχάριοι ὑμεῖς ὅσοι οὐχ ἀρνήσονται τὴν ζωὴν
re 2 \ ~ ~ > ~ ~ >
αὐτῶν. ᾿Ὥμοσεν γὰρ Κύριος χατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦς ἀρνησαμέ-
\ , 2 ~ 2 ) \ ~ oe ~ ee ~
voug tov Κύριον αὐτῶν ἀπεγνωρίσϑαι ἀπὸ τῆς ζωῆς αὑτων, τοὺς
- 2 - - -
γὺν μέλλοντας ἀρνεῖσϑαι ταῖς ἐρχομέναις ἡμέραις" τοῖς δὲ προ-
2 ' , 2
τέρον ἀρνησαμένοις, διὰ τὴν «τολυστιλαγχνίαν ἵλεως ἐγένετο αὖ-
ΤΌΜΟΝ (Mat:x-\32.33 ‘and) xxiv: 21.)
Vis. ITT. 6.5. Ovrol εἰσιν ἔχοντες μὲν σπιίστιν, ἔχοντες δὲ χαὶ
- - .~ / cl , ~ \ Ν -
σιλοῦτον τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. Ὅταν γένηται ϑλῖιμις, διὰ τὸν mwhov-
ἂν ~ 2
Tov αὐτῶν καὶ διὰ τὰς πραγματείας ἀπαρνοῦνται τὸν Κύριον αὖ-
- ᾿ K ee. a 9 \ 2) ~ λέ > K peat / > » a” ;
tov. Καὶ ἀποχριϑεὶς αὐτῇ λέγω: Kvoic, πότε οὖν εὔχρηστοι ἔσον-
\ cl \ ~ ΟΣ ~ ~
ται εἰς τὴν οἰχοδομήν; Ὅταν, φησὶν, πιεεριχοτιῇ αὐτῶν 6 πλοῦτος
γίς = Baptism. See Hermas, Sim. ΝΠ. θΘ. But Eus. H. E. VI. 43, makes it =
confirmation by the Bishop. This is recorded in connection with Novatus about
the middle of the third century.
9. Clem. Alex. Strom. It. 19. Ρ. 553 says that the inquiry was by Salome
πότε γνωσθήσεται τὰ «περὶ ὧν ἤρετο, and that the Lord said: “Ὅταν οὖν τὸ τῆς
αἰσχύνης ἔνδυμα πατήσητε, χαὶ ὅταν γένηται τὰ δύο ἕν, χαὶ τὸ ἄῤῥεν μετὰ τῆς
Θηλείας οὔτε ἄῤῥεν οὔτε θῆλυ. He says that the words are from the ‘Gospel of
the Egyptians.’ Here, as elsewhere, the want of verbal correspondence between
the two quotations of (presumably) the same passage is to be noted.
10 The author ae (c. 11. 2) an unknown passage as ὁ προφητιχὸς λόγος"
Ταλαίπωροί εἰσιν of δίψυχοι χιτιλ. In 1 Clem. 23.3 there is the same passage
αλαίπωροι x.t.. introduced by the words ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη: but the usual Patristic
inaccuracy of citation is apparent on comparing the two forms of what is not-
withstanding the same _passage. Not only is there διστάζοντες τῇ Ψυχῇ in one
case and διστάζοντες τῇ χαρδίᾳ in the other, and other similar minor variations ;
but in 1 Clem. the words of an important elause are ἰδοὺ γεγηράχαμεν «καὶ οὐδὲν
τούτων συμβέβηχεν; while in 2 Clem. the clause runs ἡμεῖς δὲ ἡμέραν ἐξ
ἡμέρας προσδεχόμενοι οὐδὲν τούτων ξἑωράχαμεν. See in the extracts from Justin,
and Introduction (‘Justin’ and ‘Clement’) further proofs of this habitual loose-
ness of citation, and its bearing on the assumption so often made that when
two forms of citation of a Gospel occur in some ancient Christian writing they
cannot both be from a Canonical source. See how our author (ec. 13. 2) with
λέγει γὰρ ὁ Κύριος introduces a citation of Isaiah lii. 5, and goes on to give some
pointed clauses which are not in our Scripture.
1 See Introduction. The text is from Gebhardt and Harnack.
2 This is only an echo, if it be even that. It is fainter in the Greek and
the corrected Latin than it was in the Vulgate Latin, though even there faint
enough.
HERMAS. 109
ὃ ψυχαγωγῶν αὐτοὺς, τότε εὔχρηστοι ἔσονται τῷ Θεῷ. (Mat.
ὙΠ 21, 22; -xix. 21.)
Vis. 111. 9.5. Βλέπετε τὴν χρίσιν τὴν ἐπερχομένην. Ot
ὑχιερέχοντες οὖν ἐχζητεῖτε τοῦς τιεινῶντας ἕως οὕπω ὃ πύργος
ἐτελέσϑη" μετὰ γὰρ τὸ τελεσϑῆναι τὸν τιύργον ϑελήσετε ayado-
σοιδῖν, καὶ οὐχ ἕξετε τόπον. (Lake xiii. 24 &c.)
Vis. IID. 9. 1. Νῦν οὖν ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς προηγουμένοις τῆς
ἐχχλησίας χαὶ τοῖς “πρωτοχαϑεδρίταις" μὴ γίνεσϑε ὅμοιοι τοῖς
φαρμαχοῖς. (Mat. xxiii. 6, but sec afterwards under ‘Hebrews’
for the bearing of this passage.) Compare Mand. XI. 12.
Vis. IV. 2. 6. Οὐαὶ τοῖς ἀκούσασιν τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα χαὶ
παραχούσασιν" αἱρετώτερον ἦν αὐτοῖς τὸ μὴ γεννηϑῆναι. (Mat.
xxvi. 24 and parallel passages.)
Mand. [.1. Πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον ὅτι εἷς ἐστὶν ὃ Θεὸς,
ὃ τὰ πάντα χτίσας χαὶ καταρτίσας, χαὶ ποιήσας ἐχ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος
εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα, χαὶ πιάντα χωρῶν, μόνος δὲ ἀχώρητος ὥν.3
Mand. ΠΥ. 1.1. Ἐντέλλομαί σοι, φησὶν, φυλάσσειν τὴν ἁγνείαν
χαὶ μὴ ἀναβαινέτω σου ἐπὶ τὴν χαρδίαν τιερὶ γυναιχὸς ἀλλοτρίας,
ἢ περὶ σπιορνείας τινὸς, ἢ περὶ τοιούτων δμοιωμάτων πονηρῶν.
Τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν μεγάλην ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζη. (Mat. v. 28.)
Mand. IV.1.6. Τί οὖν, φημὶ, Κύριε, ποιήσῃ ὃ ἀνὴρ, ἐὰν
- , ΄ ͵ , \ \ ν᾿
ἐπιμείνῃ τῷ πάϑει τούτῳ 1 γυνή; -Ἵπολυσάτω, φησὶν, αὐτὴν, χαὶ
ὁ ἀνὴρ ep ἑξαυτῷ μενέτω" ἐὰν δὲ ἀπολύσας τὴν γυναῖχα ἑτέραν
γαμήσῃ, καὶ αὐτὸς μοιχᾶται. (Mat. v.32; Luke xvi. 18; 1 Cor.
var 11)
Mand. ΓΧ. 8. Σὺ οὖν μὴ διαλίπῃς αἰτούμενος τὸ αἴτημα τῆς
ψυχῆς σου, χαὶ λήψῃ αὐτό. Ἐὰν δὲ ἐχκακήσῃς καὶ διψυχήσῃς
αἰτούμενος, σεαυτὸν αἰτιῶ καὶ μὴ τὸν διδόντα σοι. (Luke xviii. 1.
Compare also 2 Cor. iv. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 13 &c.)
Mand. XII. 6. 3. ᾿Αἰκούσατε οὖν μου, καὶ φοβήϑητε τὸν wdvee
δυνάμενον, σῶσαι χαὶ απτολέσαι, καὶ τηρεῖτε τὰς ἐντολὰς ταύτας,
nai ζήσεσϑε τῷ Θεῷ. (Mat. x. 28.) See also Mand. VIL.
3 This is the passage quoted by Irenaeus IV. 20. 2. with such approval:
χαλῶς οὖν εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα - πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον χ.τιλ. See Eus.
H. E. V. 8, where speaking of Irenaeus he says: Οὐ μόνον δὲ οἶδεν, ἀλλὰ χαὶ
ἀποδέχεται, τὴν τοῦ ποιμένος γραφὴν, λέγων x.t.. It may refer to 1 Cor. i. 28.
4 The sin referred to is that of a Christian husband whose (Christian) wife
is guilty of adultery. He is to receive her back if she repents, and not to marry
again lest he take away from her the occasion of repentance. This is to hold
good for one occasion.
110 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS AND THE SYNOPTISTS.
Sim. V. 6.1.5 ἄκουε φησίν: εἰς δούλου todmov [ov] χεῖται
Cty RGN ~ ~ γ ἐν 2) dE , UGS ~ τὶ Ν ,
ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, GAN εἰς ἐξουσίαν μεγάλην χεῖται. χαὶ χυριότητα.
(Mat. xxviii. 18.)
Sim. VIII. 8. 1. Aéyo αὐτῷ" Κύριε, τὸ δένδρον τοῦτο γνώ-
ρισόν μοι τί ἐστιν ἀποροῦμαι γὰρ περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι τοσούτων
, , ς , Bb) \ , \ IQr ,
χλάδων χοπέντων ὑγιές ἐστι τὸ δένδρον χαὶ οὐδὲν φαίνεται χε-
~ 1 -
χομμένον ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ" ἐν τούτῳ οὖν ἀποροῦμαι. “Azove φησί" Τὸ
δένδρον τοῦτο τὸ μέγα τὸ σχεπάζον πεδία χαὶ ὄρη καὶ πᾶσαν
Ν - , “3 ‘ c ‘ υ c ‘ , ς \
τὴν γῆν, νόμος Θεοῦ ἐστὶν ὃ δοϑεὶς εἰς ὅλον τὸν χόσμον" ὃ δὲ
γύόμος οὗτος υἱὸς Θεοῦ ἐστὶ χηρυχϑεὶς εἰς τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς"
οἱ δὲ ὑπὸ τὴν σχέπην λαοὶ ὄντες, οἱ ἀχούσαντες τοῦ κηρύγματος
χαὶ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτόν. (Mat. xiii. 31; Mark iv. 30.)
Sim. IX. 20. 2. Ot δὲ πλούσιοι δυσχόλως χολλῶνται τοῖς
δούλοις τοῦ Oot, φοβούμενοι μή τι αἰτισϑῶσιν ta αὐτῶν. Οἱ
~ t / ’ , p) Ν , ~ ~
τοιοῦτοι οὖν δυσχόλως εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.
(Mat. xix. 23 &c.) Compare also Mand. X. 5 (Mat. xiii. 22).
Sim. IX. 29. 8. Ot πιστεύσαντες τοιοῦτοί εἰσιν ὡς νήπια
βρέφη εἰσίν... πάντα γὰρ τὰ βρέφη ἐνδοξα ἐστι παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ
~ 2 ? ~ Ἵ , Cc ~ ca W a» 2
nai πρῶτα παρ᾽ αὐτῷ. Παχάριοι οὖν ὑμεῖς, ooo ἂν ἄρητε ἀφ
ἑαυτῶν τὴν σπιονηρίαν ἐνδύσησϑε δὲ τὴν ἀχαχίαν" πρῶτοι πάντων
ζήσεσϑε τῷ Θεῷ. (Mat. xviii. 3, 4; 1 Pet. ii. 2.)
4. Ienatius.}
Eph. ¢.5.2. Εἰ γὰρ ἑνὸς καὶ δευτέρου τεροσευχὴ τοσαύτην ἰσχὺν
δ The long passage Sim. ν. 2 contains a parable of a lord of a vineyard
who intrusted it to a faithful servant to fence it round. The servant also
however cleared it of weeds and dug it. The lord when he returned not only
gave him his freedom (which he had promised if he kept his trust), but made
him heir along with his son (συγχληρονόμον τῷ υἱῷ pov). The lord in his
gladness next gave many robes to this honoured servant, and he, in turn, of his
own freewill shared them with the other servants, which the lord told with
joy to his son and his friends. The explanation is given in § 3, and is that if
we do anything in addition to the command of the Lord we shall have additional
honour. From this the author goes on to urge distribution of superfluous wealth
among the poor and needy (James i. 27). The passage may be an echo of Mat.
xxiv. 45, and of John xv., but it is impossible to found coe it. There is a
enutiaal passage, Sim. v. 6,1, 2: Ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα ἐφύτευσε τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι
τὸν λαὸν ἔκτισε καὶ παρέδωκε τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ. xan ὃ υἱὸς χατέστησε τοὺς ἀγγέ-
λους ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς τοῦ συντηρεῖν αὐτούς χαὶ͵ αὐτὸς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν ἐχαϑάρισε
πολλὰ χοπιάσας χαὶ “πολλοὺς χόπους ἠντληχώς" οὐδεὶς γὰρ [ἀμπελὼν] δύναται σχα-
φῆναι ἄτερ χόπον ἢ μόχϑου. In the course of the Similitudes are many passages
reminding us of the Gospels, and that is all we can say of them.
1 Under the more general head of ‘New Testament’ are passages showing
IGNATIUS. ti
ἔχει, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ¥ Te τοῦ ἐπισχόπου χαὶ πάσης τῆς ἐχχλησίας.
(Mat. xviii. 16-29.)
Eph. ο. 11.1. Τὴν μέλλουσαν ὀργὴν φοβηϑῶμεν. (Mat. iii. 7.)
Eph. ὁ. 14. 2. Οὐδεὶς τιίστιν ἐτταγγελλόμενος ἁμαρτάνει, οὐδὲ
ἀγάπην κεχτημένος μισεῖ" φανερὸν τὸ δένδρον ἀπὸ τοῦ
χαρποῦ αὐτοῦ" οὕτως οἱ ἐπαγγελλόμενοι Χριστοῦ εἶναι, δι᾿ ὧν
πράσσουσιν ὀφϑήσονται. (Mat. xii. 33.)
Eph. c.17.1. Διὰ τοῦτο μύρον ἔλαβεν ἐπὶ τῆς χεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ
ὃ Κύριος, ἵνα πνέῃ τῇ ἐχχλησίᾳ ἀφϑαρσίαν. (Mat. xxvi. 7.)
Eph. ¢. 18. 3. Ὃ γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὃ Χριστὸς ἐχυοφο-
or In ὑπὸ Maoiag κατ᾽ οἰχονομίαν Θεοῦ ἐχ σπέρματος μὲν “1αβὶδ,
σενεύματος δὲ ἁγίου: ὃς ἐγεννήϑη χαὶ ἐβαπτίσϑη ἵνα τῷ πάϑει
τὸ ὕδωρ χαϑαρίση. (Mat. 1. 18 &c.; Luke i. 33; John vii. 42;
Rom. vi. 3. See also Ign. ad Smyrn. c. 1.)
Eph. ¢. 19.2. Πῶς οὖν ἐφανερώϑη τοῖς αἰῶσιν; ἀστὴρ ἐν
οὐρανῷ ἔλαμψεν ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς ἀστέρας, χαὶ τὸ φῶς αὐτοῦ
ἀνεχλάλητον ἦν καὶ ξενισμὸν τταρεῖχεν ἣ χαινότης αὐτοῦ." (Mat. ii.)
Magn. c. 9.3. Οὗ χαὶ οἱ προφῆται μαϑηταὶ ὄντες τῷ πνεύ-
ματι, ὡς διδάσκαλον αὐτὸν τεροσεδόχων" χαὶ διὰ τοῦτο, ὃν διχαίως
ἀνέμενον, τιαρὼν ἤγειρεν αὐτοὺς ἐχ νεχρῶν. (Mat. xxvii. 52.)
Trall. ς. 11. 1. Φεύγετε οὖν τὰς χαχὰς παραφιάδας, τὰς γεν-
γώσας χαρπὸν ϑανατηφόρον, οὗ ἐὰν γεύίσηταί τις, παρ᾽ αὐτὰ
ἀποϑνήσχει" οὗτοι γὰρ οὔχ εἰσιν φυτεία σπτατρός. (Mat. xv. 13.)
Smyrn. 6. 1.1. Βεβαπτισμένον ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου, ἵνα πληρωϑῇ
πᾶσα διχαιοσύνη ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. (Mat. iii. 15.)
Smyrn. 6. ὃ. 1. Ἐγὼ γὰρ καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐν σαρχὲὶ
αὐτὸν οἶδα, χαὶ πιστεύω ὄντα. Καὶ ὅτε πιρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον
ἤλϑεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς: “Ἴάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὐχ
εἰμὲ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον. Καὶ εὐϑὺς αὐτοῦ ἥψαντο καὶ ἐπίστει-
σαν χραϑέντες τῇ σάρχι αὐτοῦ χαὶ τῷ πνεύματι. (See Luke
xxiy. 36-41, and John xx. 20-22.)
that Ignatius referred to the ‘‘Gospel” known as an authority to those whom he
addressed. The following bear on his use of our Synoptists in details. See also
under ‘Matthew,’ and Introduction, ‘Ignatius,’ for Echoes of the New Tes-
tament.
2 The Curetonian has an obscure reading, ‘‘the three sacred mysteries which
were done in the tranquillity of God from the Star.”
8 Eusebius (H. E. III. 36) quotes these words as far as ἐπίστευσαν, saying
that he does not know where Ignatius took them from. Origen says they are
from the ‘Preaching of Peter’ and Jerome refers them to the ‘Gospel of the
112 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS AND THE SYNOPTISTS.
Smyrn. 6. 6.1. Ὃ χωρῶν χωρείτω. (Mat. xix. 12.)
Polycarp. ὁ. 2.2. Φρόνιμος γίνου ὡς ὕφις ἐν ἅπασιν" καὶ
ἀχέραιος εἰς ἀεὶ ὡς ἣ περιστερά. (Mat. x. 16.)
Mart. Ign. (Vatic.) 5. Tt γὰρ ὄφελος ϑήσομαι, ἐὰν ὅλον
τὸν χόσμον χερδήσω, τὴν δὲ ψυχήν μου ζημιωϑῶ; Τραΐανος εἶ-
σεν" ᾿Βοιχάς μοια ἰσϑήσεως ἐμφρόνου ἄμοιρος εἶναι, διὰ τοῦτο
ἐξευτελίξεις μου τὰς ἐπταγγελίας.
ἢ. Porycarr.
Ep. to Philipp. ο. 2.3. ηνημονεύοντες δὲ ὧν εἶπεν ὃ Κύριος
διδάσχων" μὴ χρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ χριϑῆτε; ἀφίετε nal ἀφεϑήσεται
ὑμῖν" ἐλεεῖτε, ἵνα ἐλεηϑῆτε" [ἐν] ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, ἀντιμετρη-
ϑήσεται ὑμῖν. Καὶ, ὅτι μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ, χαὶ οἱ διωχόμενοι
ἕνεχεν διχαιοσύνης" ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἣ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. (Mat.
τ νη 2, 2; Luke vi. 20, 36, 37, 38.)
C.6.1. Mi) ἀπότομοι ἐν χρίσει, εἰδότες ὅτι πάντες ὀφειλέ-
ται ἐσμὲν ἁμαρτίας. Et οὖν δεόμεϑα τοῦ Κυρίου, ἵνα ἡμῖν ἀφῇ,
ὀφείλομεν χαὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφιέναι. (Compare Mat. vi. 12—14.)
Ci. 22: Asyoeow αἰτούμενοι τὸν σπιαντξ] πόπτην Θεὸν, μὴ
εἰσενεγκεῖν ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμὸν, χαϑὼς εἶτεν ὃ Kdavass
TO μὲν πνεῦμα πρόϑυμον, 7 δὲ σὰρξ ἀσϑενής. (Compare
Mat. vi. 13; xxvi. 41; Mark xiv. 38.)
C. 12.3. Pro omnibus sanctis orate. Orate etiam pro regibus
et potestatibus et principibus, atque pro persequentibus et odien-
tibus vos, et pro inimicis crucis, ut fructus vester manifestus sit
in omnibus, ut sitis in illo perfecti. (Compare Mat. v. 44, 48;
1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.)
Hebrews.’ They are not very unlike what we have in our Gospels, and the form
in the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews’ seems to have been remembered mainly because of
the peculiar phrase δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον, on the metaphysical meaning of which
Origen enlarges. (See Hilg. N. T. Extra Can. Rec. Fase. IV. pp. 29, 62; and
below, ‘Gospel of the Hebrews.’)
1 See, on this passage, Introduction, ‘Polycarp.’ It is enough to observe
here that the passage seems to be a quotation from memory; here, as in Clement
(see before, p. 105), the clause ἐλεεῖτε ἵνα ἐλεηϑῆτε being changed from μακάριοι
οἱ ἐλεήμονες, so as to give it the same form as the previous clauses in the Impe-
rative. The order differs from that of Clement, so as to prevent our referring
this passage and that in Clement to one written source different from our canoni-
cal Gospels. Compare the way in which Polyearp cites and uses 1 Pet. ii. 20.
(See note under 1 Peter, ‘ Polycarp.’)
MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP. 113
6. Marryrpom or Porycare.!
ww 5 3 ‘ we ~ ~ Nia
C. 7.1. Ἔχοντες οὖν τὸ παιδάριον, τῇ παρασχευῇ περὶ δεί--
« Dig { - Ἄννα Μ΄ - \ ~ 46 3
avov ὡραν ἐξῆλθον διωγμῖεαι χαὶ ἱτιπτεῖς μετὰ τῶν συνήϑων αὐ-
~ oc ς ᾿ ; 5 ΕΞ ᾿
τοῖς ὅπλων, ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν τρέχοντες. (Mat. xxvi. 55. Com-
. ,
pare John xix. 14 for acgaozevi.)
Ο. 14. 1. ‘O δὲ [Πολύχαρτιος)ὴ ὀπίσω vag χεῖρας ποιήσας
ν ‘ cr ‘
χαὶ προσδεϑεὶς, ὥσπερ χριὸς ἐπίσημος ex μεγάλου στοιμνίου εἰς
x c , . \ ~ τ 46 ? ,
neoogoear, δλοχαίτωμα δεχτὸν τῷ Θεῷ ἡτοιμασμένον, ἀναβλέ-
γ ay ΄-
wag εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν eine’ “Κύριε ὃ Θεὸς, ὃ παντοχράτωρ, 6
~ > εἰ - \ > ~ ved r > ~ Γ΄ hw wee
tov ayanrtot χαὶ εὐλογητοῖ παιδός Gov Inout Χριστοῦ (Mat. iil.
“- eee . " © ‘ » > Cs Ν
17; xii. 18; Acts iii. 14; iv. 27, 80) πατὴρ, de οὗ τὴν meQt cov
’ Ρ , « ‘ .
ἐχιίγνωσιν εἰλήφαμεν, ὃ Θεὸς ἀγγέλων χαὶ δυνάμεων χαὶ πιάσης
, , - , ~ ν .. “ἱ ’ , ,
χτίσεως τιαντός τε τοῖ γένους τῶν διχαίων, Ot ζῶσιν ἐνώπιόν σοι"
τ δι 2 > Sy “ Oo - » a ᾿ ‘a 4 ἃ cr » 4 a2 x
εὐλογῶ σε, OTL ηξίωσάς ME τῆς ἡμέρας χαὶ ὥρας ταύτης, τοῦ he-
Oo. , ᾿ς iy ) € ~ ΒΥ". ea? , eee ee Sie 9)
βεῖν μέρος ἐν αριϑμῷ τῶν μαρτύρων ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ (Mat. xx. 22)
~ aa ~ ’ > / 4 te ~ ς a) U ~
τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς (John v. 29) cewriov Wreyrs
2 , rv q
TE χαὶ σώματος ἐν ἀφϑαρσίᾳ τινεύματος ἁγίου ἐν οἷς προσδεχ-
ϑείην ἐνώτιιόν σου σήμερον ἐν ϑυσίᾳ τιίονι χαὶ τιροσδεχτῇ, χα-
o,* 4 , es \ 2 J :
IOs προητοίμασας καὶ τιροεφανέρωσας χαὶ ἐπλήρωσας, ὃ ἀψευ-
‘ Ν ἧς , oe
Org χαὶ ἀληϑινὸς Geog.” (John xvii. 3.)
1 See Wieseler, Die Christenverfolgungen der Caesaren (1878); and Intro-
duction.
114
VE
GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
1. Paptas.!
Eus. H. Ε. IIT, 40. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ Mardaiov ταῦτ᾽ εἴρηται"
~ ‘ 3 he \
Mardaiog μὲν οὖν “Εβραΐδι διαλέχτῳ τὰ λόγια ovveypawaro. “Ho-
A Ν Ρ ν ‘
μήνεισε δὲ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕχαστος.
2. Justin Marrtyr.! Δ.
~~ a ‘
Apol. I. ¢. 4. p. 55 B. Ὃν γὰρ τρόπον παραλαβόντες τινὲς
παρὰ tov διδασχάλου Χριστοῦ μὴ ἀρνεῖσϑαι ἐξεταζόμενοι wa-
4 \ DiS τα ~ =~ 2 \
ραχελεύονται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον χαχῶς ζῶντες ἴσως ἀφορμὰς τταρ-
, - ~ = ~ >
ἔχουσι τοῖς ἄλλως χαταλέγειν τῶν τιάντων Χριστιανῶν ἀσέβειαν
χαὶ ἀδικίαν αἱρουμένοις. (Compare Mat. x. 33.)
Apol. I. ¢.14. p. 61 D. Ἵνα δὲ μὴ σοφίζεσθϑαι ὑμᾶς δόξω-
, ~ ~ 2 - - + ~ » /
μεν, ὀλίγων τινῶν τῶν τιαρ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διδαγμάτων ἐπτι-
Kiva χαλῶς ἔχειν τιρὺ τῆς ἀτιοδείξεως ᾿γησάμεϑα, καὶ ὑμέ-
μνησύη CORI “εχειν TEGO THES C7 S ἡγησαμξδύα, He
» c Ἶ - ζ , es , ’ th Oo. {τὰ ὃ
τερον ἔστω ὡς δυνατῶν βασιλέων ἐξετάσαι εἰ ἀληϑῶς ταῦτα δε-
. νῷ ~ yA \ > ? ~
διδάγμεϑα zai διδάσχομεν. Βραχεῖς δὲ χαὶ σύντομοι mag αὐτοῦ
2 ‘ ‘ ~ 4 ~
λόγοι γεγόνασιν" οὐ γὰρ σοφιστὴς ὑτιῆρχεν, ahha δύναμις Θεοῦ
ς , > ~ 3 Κ ‘ ‘ wf , ~
ὃ λόγος αὐτοῦ iv. (C.15) Περὶ μὲν οὖν σωφροσύνης τοσοῦτον
- σα, wn γ ty \ ‘ ‘ ’ ~ > ~
eimev’ Oc ἂν εμβλέψῃ γυναιχὶ πρὸς τὸ ἐπιϑυμῆσαι αὐτῆς
~ ν᾽ ~ ~ oily a) ς > ,
ἤδη ἐμοίχευσε τῇ χαρδίᾳ παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ. Καί: Ei ὃ ὀφϑαλμός
ν «4 ‘ v Ie » ’ , ,
σου ὃ δεξιὸς σχανδαλίζει σε, ἕχχοιμον αὐτόν" συμφέρει γάρ σοι
Ἅ - \ ~ 2 ~ 3 .
μονόφϑαλμον εἰσελϑεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ἢ μετὰ
τῶν δύο πιεμφρϑῆναι εἰς τὸ αἰώνιον avg. (Mark ix. 47; Mat. y.
eee Γ΄ , a ~ > , > 3. δ ,ὔ ᾽ ‘
29; xviii. 9.) Mate “O¢ γαμεῖ ἀπολελυμένην ap ἑτέρου ἀνδρὸς
~ , > , , , ς \ ~
μοιχᾶται. Koi Εἰσὶ τινὲς οἵτινες εὐνουχίσϑησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀν-
« , as ‘ ce 3 (arg Se 2 ~ pee! ‘ [ΔῚ ’ ah
ϑρώπων, εἰσὶ δὲ Ol ἐγεννήϑησαν εὐνοῦχοι, ELOL δὲ OL εὐνούχισαν
1 See Introduction, ‘ Ῥαρίαβ᾽ ; and before p. 53: Fragments οἵ Papias, &e.
1 Justin resembles Matthew closely in the opening and closing incidents of
the Life of Jesus Christ. The following quotations are in the order of their oc-
currence in the Apologies and Dialogue.
JUSTIN MARTYR. 115
ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν" ahiv οὐ πάντες τοῦτο
ywoovory. (Mat. v. 32; xix. 11, 12.)
Apol. I..c. 15. p. 62 C. Οὐ γὰρ τοὺς δικαίους οὐδὲ τοὺς σώ-
poovag εἰς μετάνοιαν ἐχάλεσεν 0 Χριστὸς, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς χαὶ
ἀχολάστους χαὶ ἀδίχους. Εἶπε δὲ οὕτως" Οὐχ ἦλθον χαλέσαι
διχαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαριωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν." (Mat. ix. 13; Luke
Vv. 32.) Θέλει γὰρ ὃ nario ὃ οὐράνιος τὴν μετάνοιαν τοῦ ἅἁμαρ-
τωλοῦ᾽ ἢ τὴν χόλασιν αὐτοῦ.
Apol. I. ο. 15. p. 62 Ο.» Περὶ δὲ vot στέργειν ἅτιαντας ταῦτα
ἐδίδαξεν: Ki ἀγατιᾶτε τοὺς ἀγατιῶντας ὑμᾶς, εἰ χαινὸν πιοιεῖτε;
χαὶ γὰρ οἱ τιύρνοι τοῦτο σιοιοῦσιν. Ἐγὼ δὲ ὑμῖν λέγω: (Mat. ν.
44; Luke vi. 28.) Hi'yeode tuég τῶν ἐχϑρῶν ὑμῶν zai ἀγατιᾶτε
τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς χαὶ εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς χαταρωμένους ὑμῖν χαὶ
εὔχεσϑε ὑτιὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς. Eig δὲ τὸ χοινωνεῖν τοῖς
δεομένοις “ed μηδὲν χιρὸς δόξαν τιοιεῖν ταῦτα ἔφη (Mat. v. 42;
Luke yi. 94.) Παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι δίδοτε zat τὸν βουλόμενον δα-
γείσασϑαι μὴ ἀποσιραφρῆτε. Et γὰρ δανείζετε wag’ ὧν ehailere
λαβεῖν, τί χαινὸὴὸν τιοιεῖτε; τοῦτο καὶ οἱ τελῶναι σιοιοῦῖσιν. “Ὑμεῖς
δὲ μὴ ϑησαυρίζητε ξαυτοῖς ent τῆς γῆς, ὕπου σὴς χαὶ βρῶσις
ἀφανίζει χαὶ λῃσταὶ διορύσσουισι" ϑησαυρίζετε δὲ ἑαυτοῖς ἐν τοῖς
οὐρανοῖς, Onov οἴτε σὴς οὔτε βρῶσις ἀφανίζει. Ti γὰρ ὠφελεῖ-
ται ἄνϑρωτιος, ἂν τὸν κύσμον ὅλον χερδήσῃ, τὴν δὲ Woyry αὐτοῦ
anohéon; Ἢ τί δώσει αὐτῆς ἀντάλλαγμα; (Mat. vi. 19; xvi. 20;
Luke ix. 25.) Oyoaveilere οὖν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὕγιου οὔτε σὴς
οὔτε βρῶσις ἀφανίζει. Kot: Liveode δὲ χρηστοὶ καὶ οἰχτίρμονες
(Luke vi. 35; Mat. v. 45), ὡς καὶ 0 πατὴρ ὑμῶν χρηστός ἐστι χαὶ
οἰχτίρμων, χαὶ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ ἁμαρτωλοὺς χαὶ
διχαίους καὶ σιονηρούίς. Nh) μεριμνᾶτε δὲ τί φάγητε ἢ) τί ἐνδύ-
σησϑε. (Mat. vi. 2ῦ, 31-33.) Οὐχ ὑμεῖς τῶν τιετεινῶν καὶ τῶν
2 εἰς μετάνοιαν is probably an addition to the passage in Matthew, but is
part of the text in Luke. The clause 22Zhe, &c. resembles Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
8 The following passages give the substance of the Sermon on the Mount, the
earlier parts resembling Luke more than Matthew. They follow the last extract.
4 This is one of the passages which Justin cites more than once; and it ap-
pears in the following form in Dial. ὁ. 96. p. 324 A: Γίνεσθε γρηστοὶ χαὶ οἰχτίρ-
MOVES, ὡς χαὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος. Καὶ γὰρ τὸν παντοχράτορα Θεὸν χρηστὸν
χαὶ οἰχτίρμονα ὁρῶμεν, τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλοντα ἐπὶ ἀχαρίστους χαὶ διχαίους,
χαὶ βρέχοντα ἐπὶ ὁσίους χαὶ πονηρούς. We have in this collocation a proof of
Justin’s method of free quotation. He varies here from himself as elsewhere from
our Gospels. See for another form Clem. Hom. III. 57 with ἀγαϑοί for χρηστοί.
See also 1 Clem. 13 (before, p. 105, Apost. Fathers and Synopt.).
eo
110 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
ϑηρίων διαφέρετε; χαὶ ὃ Θεὸς τρέ ὑτά. Mh) οὖν ἴση
0 peoete; χαὶ ὃ Θεὸς τρέφει αὐτά. Mn οὖν μεριμνήσητε
, Peat ΤΕῸΝ ESN ns RS \ ς ran ς ἴω (Cpe
τί φάγητε ἢ τί ἐνδύσησθε" oide γὰρ ὃ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὃ οὐράνιος
« , , r ~ ΟἿ ‘ ~ ~
ὅτι τούτων χρείαν ἔχετε. Ζητεῖτε δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν
χαὶ ταῦτα πάντα τιροστεϑήσεται ὑμῖν. Ὅπου γὰρ ὃ ϑησαυρός
, ’ - WE ~ ~ ) , ee
ἔστιν, EXEL χαὶ ὁ νοῦς τοῦ ἀανϑρώττου (compare Luke xii. 22-24,
94). Καί" My ποιῆτε ταῦτα τιρὸς τὸ ϑεαϑῆναι ὑττὸ τῶν ἀνϑρώ-
σιων" εἰ δὲ μή γε, μισϑὸν οὐχ ἔχετε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ
- > ~ Ρ .
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. (Mat. vi. 1.)
᾿ νι \ AN - - a
Apol. I. ¢. 16. p. 63 B. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἀνεξιχάκους εἶναι nat
ὑχεηρετιχοὺς στᾶσι χαὶ ἀοργήτους ἃ ἔφη ταῦτά ἐστι" Τῷ τὐπτοντὶ
σου τὴν σιαγόνα τιάρεχε χαὶ τὴν ἄλλην, χαὶ τὸν αἴροντά σου τὸν
χιτῶνα ἢ τὸ ἱμάτιον μὴ χωλύσης. (Mat. ν. 39, 40; Luke vi..29.)
a wee) > ~ , ~
Os δ᾽ ἂν ὀργισϑῇ, ἔνοχός ἐστιν εἰς τὸ πῦρ. (Mat. v. 22.) Παντὶ
‘ 5
δὲ ayyagetortl o& μίλιον ἀχολούϑησον Ovo. (Mat. v. 41.) “αμ-
, AZ ~ \ XN. D/L »” ~ Ἂ , cr ,
Warw δὲ ὑμῶν τὰ χαλὰ ἔργα ἔμστιροσϑεν τῶν ἀνϑρώπων, ἵνα βλέ-
πόντες ϑαυμάζωσι τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. (Mat.
100)"
ἊΣ . . \ . ~ \ , > ~
Apol. I. ε. 16. p.63.D.® Περὶ δὲ τοῦ μὴ ὀμνύναι ὅλως, ταληϑῆ
ν , ΝΟ U \ , , wa
δὲ λέγειν ἀεὶ, οὕτως σιαρεχελεύσατο" Ih) Oudonte ὅλως, ἔστω δὲ
ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ χαὶ τὸ οὐ οὐ τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐχ τοῦ
σιονηροῦ. (Mat. ν. 34, 37.) “Ὡς δὲ χαὶ τὸν Θεὸν μόνον δεῖ προσ-
χυνεῖν, οὕτως ἔιεισεν εἰπών" Π]εγίστη ἐντολή ἐστι. Κύριον τὸν
Ν - U ~
Θεόν σου τιροσχυνήσεις χαὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς
ν “- «Cl - > , ‘ x ,
χαρδίας σου χαὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου, Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ποιή-
, \ , > ~ \ ’ / Vd
σαντὰ σε. Kat τιροσελϑόντος αὐτῷ τινος χαὶ εἰτιόντος" “Ιιδάσκαλε
2 \ DA , , > \ 2 as γ ‘ , c ‘ c
ayadé, ἀπεχρίνατο λέγων: Οὐδεὶς ἀγαϑὸς εἰ μὴ μόνος ὃ Θεὸς, ὃ
ποιήσας τὰ σπιάντα.Ἷ (See Mat.iv.10; xix.16; xxii.37; Mark xii. 30.
Compare Dial. c. 93. p.32 A.) Οἱ δ᾽ ἂν μὴ εὑρίσκωνται βιοῦντες
c ror - . r \ wn , ws
ὡς ἐδίδαξε γνωριζέσϑωσαν μὴ ὄντες Χριστιανοὶ, nav λέγωσιν διὰ
γλώττης τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ διδάγματα" οὐ γὰρ τοὺς μόνον λέγοντας
γ ‘ \ 4 ‘ WV ν , of € ” > \
ἀλλὰ τοὺς χαὶ τὰ ἔργα πράττοντας σωϑήσεσϑαι ἔφη. Εἶπε γὰρ
5 This injunction λαμψάτω seems to have been a favourite with the Valen-
tinians.
6 See also Clem. Hom. III. 56; XIX. 2. These words are often found with
wonderful variation. See James v. 12; Epiph. Haer. 19. 2; Clem. Alex. V. 14;
and an apparent allusion in the testimony of James prefixed to Clem. Hom. μὴ
ὀρχίσαι, ἐπεὶ μὴ ἔξεστιν.
7 For the reading of Jesus’s answer we cannot appeal to Justin, as he has
it in two forms. One is in the text and the other in Dial. ὁ. 101. p. 328 A: Tt
pe λέγεις ἀγαϑόν; Ets ἐστιν ἀγαϑὸς, ὁ πατήρ pov ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
JUSTIN MARTYR. ELZ
ec 5 ay ~ © ’ rl ,ὔ » f ’ ‘
οὕτως" Ovyi wag ὁ λέγων μοι Κύριε Κύριε, εἰσελεύσεται. εἰς τὴν
, ~ > ~ 2 DG ~ Neon’ ~ ,
βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ahh ὃ ποιῶν τὸ ϑέλημια τοῦ σπιατρός μου
- - > ~ a \ > ‘ ~ a >
τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Oc γὰρ ἀχούει μου χαὶ ποιεῖ α λέγω ἀκούει
- > ee. .
τοῦ ἀποστείλαντός με. (Mat. vii. 21; Luke x. 16; John xiv. 24.)
~ r , 2 ~ ~
8 Πολλοὶ δὲ ἐροῦσί μοι" Κύριε Κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐφάγομεν
ἄν" , Ν / ’ / σ Ν / ’ ~ δ] - 2
χαὶ ἐχτίοιιεν χαὶ δυνάμεις ἐποιήσαμεν; Kat τότε ἐρῶ αὐτοῖς" -Aso-
= ἃ - > 500 sya ae
χωρεῖτε aa ἐμου, ἐργάται τῆς ἀνομίας. (Luke xiii. 26; Mat. vii.
Wn \ , i ~ Io «
22.) Tore χλαυϑμὸς ἔσται χαὶ Bovyudg τῶν ὀδόντων ὅταν οἱ
\ , / Cc ic c « WA) Pld a ’
μὲν δίχαιοι Aaquwoow we ὁ ἥλιος, οἱ δὲ ἀδιχοι στέμμωνται εἰς
τὸ αἰώνιον ate. (Mat. xiii. 42, 43.) Πολλοὶ γὰρ ἥξουσιν ἐπὶ τῷ
2 ᾿ς , “Φ « \ γ ν , Wild : ΡΝ » C
ovouatt μου, ἕξωϑεν μὲν ἐνδεδυμένοι δέρματα τροβάτων, ἔσωϑεν
~ > ~ 2
δὲ ὄντες λύχοι ἄρτιαγες" 5. ἐχ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσϑε αὐ-
τούς. Πὰν δὲ δένδρον μὴ σιοιοῦν χαρητὸν χαλὸν, ἐχκότιτεται χαὶ
gig avo βαλλεται. (Mat. vii. 15, 16, 17, 19; xxiv. 5.)
a r ’ ~ \ ~ ~
Apol. I. ς. 17. ». 04 C. Κατ ἐχεῖνο γὰρ τοῦ χαιροῦ προσελ-
7 aS ~ ~ \
ϑόντες τινὲς ἠρώτων αὐτὸν, εἰ δεῖ Καίσαρι φόρους τελεῖν. Καὶ
3 , 2A , , γ , ‘ , »” « A
ἀπεκρίνατο Εἰπατέ wot, τίνος etzova τὸ νόμισμα ἔχει; Ot δὲ
” 7 , r \ 7 ᾿] , 2 - 2 ’
ἔφασαν" Καίσαρος. Καὶ πάλιν αντατιεχρίνατο αὑτοῖς" «Ἵπόδοτε
3 ~ σ \ \ ~ ~ ~ ~
οὖν ta Καίσαρος τῷ Καίσαρι xai τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ. (Mat.
xxii. 15 &c.; Luke xx. 22-25.)
‘ > \ ~ Ὁ - ;
Apol. I. ¢. 31. p. 73 4. Ἐν δὴ ταῖς τῶν προφητῶν βίβλοι
/ / i
UJ \
εὕρομεν σπιροχηρυσσόμενον τιαραγινόμενον, γεννώμενον διὰ παρ-
Ν ᾿] Ν ~ , Ν -
ϑένου, χαὶ ἀνδρούμενον, χαὶ ϑεραπεύίοντα πιἄσαν νόσον καὶ στᾶ-
\ BY 2 .
σαν μαλαχίαν χαὶ νεχροὺς ἀνεγείροντα γχ.τ.Δ. (Mat. iv. 23.)
lord SN 2
Apol. I. ς. 33. p. 74D. Καὶ πάλιν ὡς αὐτολεξεὶ διὰ παρ-
ξ
/ ‘ / \ « Ὁ whe , 2 ,
ϑένου μὲν τεχϑησόμενος διὰ τοῦ Hoaiov τιροξφητεύϑη, ἀκούσατε.
3 q > Ν " ν
Ἐλέχϑη δὲ οὕτως: ᾿Ιδοὺ ὃ, πιαρϑένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει χαὶ τέξεται
7 Ξ ξ
- ~ 2 2 ~ 7 2 - «ς
υἱὸν, χαὶ ἐροῦσιν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ Med’ ἡμῶν ὃ Θεός. (Mat.
i. 23; compare Isaiah vii. 14; see Luke i. 31.)
< € 2 Dee: ~ 2 c
Apol. I. ὁ. 61. p. 93 D. Ἔπειτα ἄγονται vp ἡμῶν ἔνϑα ὕδωρ
\ 3 a Cc ~ 2) > ,
ἐστὶ, χαὶ τρότιον ἀναγεννήσεως, OV χαὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἀνεγεννήϑημεν,
> ~ 2 vay, \ ~ \ ~ a ‘
ἀναγεννῶνται" Ex’ ὀνόματος 15 γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων χαὶ
8 We have the same occurrence described in Dial. ce. 76. p. 8501 Ὁ fur-
nishing in its variations another instance of Justin’s untrustworthy mode of
quotation. In both passages however Justin has ἐφάγομεν xat ἐπίομεν. (See the
passage as quoted below.) ‘
9 See also Dial. c. 35. p. 253 B: Πολλοὶ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μον,
ἔξωϑεν ἐνδεδυμένοι δέρματα προβάτων, ἔσωϑεν δέ εἶσι λύποι ἅρπαγες. In Matthew
the present tense ἐρχόνται is used.
10 These words suggest the Baptismal Formula.
118 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
, ~ \ - ~ c ~ 2 ~ > ~ \ ,
δεσπότου Θεοῦ χαὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Inoov Χριστοῦ χαὶ avEev-
ματος ἁγίου τὸ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι τότε λουτρὸν τιοιοῖνται. Kai γὰρ ὃ
Χριστὸς elnev? “Ay μὴ ἀναγεννηϑῆτε, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλϑητε εἰς τὴν
Χριστὸς εἰτιεν" La) ἀναγεννηϑῆτε, μὴ εἰσέλϑητε εἰς τὴ
; E : τ ae eae
βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. (Mat. xxvili. 19; John ili. 3-5.)
re σε, ND ~ y - Ν )
Apol. I. ς. θ8. p. 95 Ο. Καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦς δὲ ὃ Χριστὸς, ὅτι οὔκ
ἔγνωσαν Ιουδαῖοι τί τιατὴρ καὶ τί υἱὸς, δμοίως ἐλέγχων αὐτοὺς
\ \ Ε] > NS \ « \
χαὶ αὐτὸς εἶτιεν" Οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὃ υἱὸς, οὐδὲ TOY
ἊΝ \ \ \ τ γ .
υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὃ πατὴρ χαὶ οἷς ἂν ἀποχαλύινῃ ὃ υἱός.11 (Mat. xi. 27;
Luke x. 22.)
. ς ey
Dial: Ὁ py 235-0). Ad σχρηστος γὰρ ὑμῖν ἔδοξεν εἶναι,
βοῶν παρ᾿ ὑμῖν" Τέγραπται" ὋὉ οἶχός μου οἶχος πιροσευχῆς ἐστιν,
ὑμεῖς δὲ σπεηοιήχατε αὐτὸν σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. Καὶ τὰς τρατιέζας
τῶν ἐν τῷ ναῷ χολλυβιστῶν κατέστρει!ε. (Mat. xxi. 13, especially
. Aa rey 2 Ὧν ee - ~
Luke xix. 46.) Kai ἐβόα: Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς χαὶ (Φαρισαῖοι,
ὑχιοχριταὶ, ὅτι ἀποδεχατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον χαὶ τὸ “τήγανον, τὴν
ΝΘ... 9 - f ~ \ \ [ye ) - eee .
δὲ ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ χαὶ τὴν χρίσιν οὐ xatavosive’ (Mat. xxiii. 23;
Luke xi. 42.) τάφοι κεχογιαμένοι, ἔξωϑεν φαινόμενοι ὡραῖοι,
ἔσωϑεν δὲ γέμοντες ὀστέων νεχρῶν. (Mat. xxiii. 27.) Καὶ τοῖς
γραμματεῖ σιν Οἰαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς, ὅτι τὰς χλεῖς ἔχετε, χαὶ
αὐτοὶ οὐχ εἰσέρχεσϑε χαὶ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους xodtere’ (Luke ΧΙ.
52; Mat. xxiii. 14.) ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοί. (Mat. xxiii. 16, 24.1.2 ᾿Ἐπειδὴ
\ ΙΝ ἢ ΧΩ uw Cc > \ ς , Jf Ἀν ς 3
γὰρ ἀνέγνως, ὦ Τρίφων, ὡς αὐτὸς δμολογήσας ἔφης, ta br
γ , - ~ ς - ? γ7 It
éxelvov τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν διδαχϑέντα, οὐχ ἄτοπον νομίζω πε-
=~ ? , , \ ~ ~
σιοιηκέναι χαὶ βραχέα τῶν éxeivov λόγια τιρὸς τοῖς τιροφητιχοῖς
, ,
ἐζιμνησϑεις.1
. [4 2
Dial. c. 49. p. 268 C4 Ὅστις ἐτιὶ τὸν Ιορδάνην ποταμὸν χα-
11 See also Apol. I. ὁ. 63. p. 96 B, where the words are: ‘0 ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν᾽
Οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα, εἶ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς, οὐδὲ τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ χαὶ οἷς
ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποχαλύψῃ. See also Dial. c. 100. p. 326 D: Ἔν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ
γέγραπται εἰπών: ΤΠάντα μοι παραδέ ἔδοται ὑπὸ ποῦ πατρός" χαὶ οὐδεὶς γινώσχει
τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς, οὐδὲ τὸν υἱὸν ef μὴ 6 πατὴρ χαὶ οἷς ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποχα-
λύψῃ. (See note on page 60.)
12 This paragraph is strangely made up. The phrases are almost all from
the Gospels, but they are not in the same order as in any Gospel. Justin quotes
them again, but in a new order—again ending with the emphatic τυφλοὶ ὁδηγοί.
This shows that he did not alter the order of our Gospels because of following
some other one exemplar. We append the other passage for comparison: Dial.
ὁ. 112. p. 339 D: Τάφοι χε χονιαμένοι, ἔξωϑεν φαινόμενοι εὗραῖοι χαὶ ἔσωϑεν γέ-
μοντες ὀστέων νεχρῶν, τὸν ἡδύοσμον ἀποδεχατοῦντες, τὴν δὲ κάμηλον καταπίνον-
wee" Tue ὁδηγοί.
13 This sentence is quoted because of the occurrence of the word λόγια.
14 This occurs in Justin’s reply to Trypho’s objection that Elias must come
before Christ; and that Elias has not come, so that Christ must be held as not
JUSTIN MARTYR. 119
) , > N ς ws ΓΞ
delouevog ἐβόα" Ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν"
᾿ξ δὲ 6 ΕΞ. ΕΗ γε a 2 Nee δὰ ENG ce ον f
ἤξει δὲ ὃ ἰσχυρότερός μου, οὗ οὐχ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑπεοδήματα βα-
18 ς “ «; , y , C3 \ Sr
σταάσαι" αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ὃν σινεύμιατι ἁγίῳ χαὶ γτυρί. Οὗ
ν , > ~ ~ 5) ~ v ~
τὸ σχιτύον αὐτοῖ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, χαὶ διαχαϑαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα
>? ~ \ ‘ ~ t. ‘ 2 \ ‘
αὑτοῦ χαὶ τὸν σῖτον συνάξει εἰς τὴν ἀπιοϑήχην, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον χα-
’ ΟΡ, rN ~ 2 \ ~
ταχαύσει vei ἀσβέστῳ. Καὶ τοῖτον αὐτὸν τὸν προφήτην συνε-
, ς \ ς - ς aN γ 4 \ \ ,
χεχλείχει ὃ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν Ἡρώδης εἰς φυλακὴν, καὶ γενεσίων
ς, / εἰ 5 LARP Ξ' ) 4 ᾿ Lm Στ δ tH we oe a τὸ Ψ See τ
ἡμέρας τελοιυμέἕνης, ὀρχουμένης τὴς ἐξαδελφὴς αὐτοῦ εὐαρέστως
, ~ % Ξ ΠΥ psf, 9 aA fay Bobs K \ ς 7, ᾿ as
αὐτῷ, εἰσιεν αὐτῇ αἰτήσασϑαι ὃ ἐὰν βούληται. Καὶ ἢ μήτηρ τῆς
\ ς ΓᾺΡ > eae ἄν ἢ iG \ \ ) , wes
σπιαιδὸς ὑτιέβαλεν αὐτῇ αἰτήσασϑαι τὴν χεφαλὴν ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ ἐν
- - ‘ > ’ A \ ’ ‘ , ~
τῇ φυλαχῇ" χαὶ αἰτησάσης͵ ἔπεμυιε χαὶ ἐπὶ πίνακι ἐνεχϑῆγναι τὴν
\ 2 , Deh Ν ΝΎ COG , “τ \ 3 ΝᾺ ἢ
χειαλὴν Ιωάννου ἐχέλεισε. “1ιὸ χαὶ ὃ ἡμέτερος Χριστὸς εἰρήκει
‘ - ~ \ ~ xr ne ~ ~
ἐχεὶ γῆς τότε τοῖς λέγουσι τιρὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ “Hhiay δεῖν ἐλϑεῖν"
9 , \ > if \ )} , , , NAY Ce ~
Ahiag μιὲν ἐλεύσεται, χαὶ ἀποχαταστήσει πάντα λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν,
« >] 77 BIN. 34 ς Ἁ Ν a a Sy, 3... ἂν a) ) > γι
ote Hhiag ἤδὴ ἢλϑε, xe οὐχ δήφέχνωσαν. αὐτὸν, αλλ ἑποίησαν
γ - ca > =F a
αὐτῷ ὅσα ηϑέλησαν. Καὶ yéyounvar ὅτι Tore συνῆχαν ot μα-
SD ,
ϑηταὶ Ove σπιερὶ ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ étiev αὐτοῖς.15 (Mat.
feet be: xiv. ὅ-11-: xvii. 11-13.)
4 ° « cr «- 7 \ a] ~ ν ~
Dial. ¢. 76. p. 301 C. Ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν nai δυσμῶν,
> eee) y \ 7 » \y _-~
zai ἀναχλιϑήσονται μετὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ zai ᾿Ισαὰχ καὶ ᾿Ιαχὼβ. ἐν τῇ
Ζ ~ B) ~ 4 ν ~ ,
βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν" οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐχβληϑήσονται
’ ‘ / \ Vite 7 = πε , \ , ~ , ~ ig ,
εἰς τὸ σχότος τὸ ἑξώτερον. Καί Tohhot ἐροῦσί woe oR ἡμέρᾳ
γ» r 7
ἐχείνῃ, Κύριε, Κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐφάγομεν καὶ ἐ; πίομεν
, ν
χαὶ προεφητεύσαμεν χαὶ Sander ἐξεβάλομεν; Kai ἐρῶ αὐτοῖς"
yet come. Justin, after asserting that Zechariah (compare c. 14, where he quotes
Hosea as Zechariah) has predicted the coming of Elias, goes on to identify John
Baptist with Elias. His argument is that the spirit of Elias coming in John
was the forerunner of the first advent, and that Elijah will come as the fore-
runner of the second or glorious advent. He quotes our Lord’s own teaching as
referring back to the Baptist and forward to Elias. He is quoting from John
Baptist when the extract begins.
15 In this passage there is a change from the present tense (ἔρχεται Mark
i. 7; Luke iii. 16, ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερός μον ἐστίν Mat. iii. 11) into the future
ἥξει δέ. So also in Dial. c. 88, Justin has ἥξει γάρ for the same passage.
Justin’s whole argument (which is not peculiar to him) may be founded on a
mistaken interpretation so far as regards the second advent, but his adherence
to the Gospels in his quotation is close. Clem. Alex. and Origen vary from the
Evangelists more than Justin does. Though Justin alters ἔρχεται into a future
(see the same in c. 35 as quoted before), he does no violence to the text. And
in Mat. xvii. 11 the whole is made future by our Lord himself at the time of the
Transfiguration : "Hatas μὲν ἔρχεται. πρῶτον “AL ἀποχαταστήσει πάντα, although
he goes on to say ὅτι Ηλίας ἤδη ἦλθε. See also below Dial. ὁ. 88. 316 Β. for
a parallel to the whole passage.
190 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
7 ~ 2 2 ~ 2 7 ,
“Ἵναχωρεῖτε an ἐμοῦ. Καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις λόγοις, οἷς χαταδιχαΐειν
ee, > \
τοὺς ἀναξίους μὴ σώζεσϑαι μέλλει, ἔφη ἐρεῖν" “Ὑγιάγετε εἰς τὸ
a ~ πὶ -
σχότος τὸ ἐξώτερον, Ὁ ἡτοίμασεν ὃ πατὴρ τῷ σατανᾷ χαὶ τοῖς
2) 2 - eee ee
ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ.156 (Mat. viii. 11, 12; compare Mat. vii. 22, 23;
Luke xiii. 26.)
Dial. c. 17. p. 303 A. C. “ἅμα γὰρ τῷ γεννηϑῆναι αὐτὸν μά-
you ad ᾿αΑῤῥαβίας" 1 “ταραγενόμιενοι, προσεχύνη σαν αὐτῷ, πρότε-
ρον ξλϑόντες πρὸς Πρώδην τὸν ἐν τῇ γῇ ὑμῶν τότε βασιλεύοντα.
... (6. 78.) Kat γὰρ οὗτος ὃ βασιλεὺς Ἡρώδης 18, μαϑὼν παρὰ
- ~ ~ ~ > -
τῶν τρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ ὑμῶν, τότε ἐλϑόντων πρὸς αὐτὸν TOY
> ἈΝ ce oP , Ἢ \ a) , Ie 2 , ~ 5 - >
ἀπὸ -ἀῤῥαβίας μάγων, χαὶ εἰπόντων, ἐξ ἀστέρος τοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐ-
ρανῷ φανέντος ἐγνωχέναι ὅτι βασιλεὺς γεγέννη ται ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ fudv,
χαὶ ἤλθομεν τιροσχυνῆσαι αὐτὸν, χαὶ ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ τῶν πρεσβυτέ-
’ , c , ? ~ , c Ἔ \ ‘ Mee
Reel ONE τα χε) ORIEL NEY Tail απ συ ψη τ τοῦ ΒΕ Καὶ ov τὰν
heen, γῆ ᾿Ιούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν ᾿Ιούδα" ἐχ
σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὕστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου."
Τῶν and ᾿,Ιῤῥαβίας οὖν μάγων ἐλϑόντων εἰς Βηϑλεὲμ χαὶ προσ-
16 See the same reference in Dial. ὁ. 120 p. 349 B: “HEovae γὰρ, εἶπεν,
ἀπὸ δυσμῶν χαὶ ἀνατολῶν, “χαὶ ἀναχλιϑήσονται μετὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ χαὶ ᾿Ισαὰχ χαὶ α-
χὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐχβληϑήσονται εὶς τὸ
σκότος τὸ ἐξώτε pov. Dial. ὁ. 140 p. 370 A: Καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν χατὰ τὸ σέλημα
τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτὸν πατρὸς, χαὶ δεσπότου τῶν ὅλων, οὐχ av εἶπεν᾽ “Ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ
δυσμῶν χαὶ ἀνατολῶν, χαὶ ἀναχλιϑήσονται., μετὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ. χαὶ ᾿Ισαὰχ χαὶ Taxes
ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς Lee ἐχβχληδήσονται εἰς τὸ σχό-
τος τὸ ἐξώτερον. See before Apol. I. ο. 16. p. 63 D and note 8.
17 Justin nine times says that the Magic came from Arabia (St Matthew says
merely ax ἀνατολῶν), and his references to them are so numerous that this must
be regarded as his complete conviction. The facts, that Arabia is called ‘‘the Hast”
in the O. T, Judges vi. 3; Job i. 3 (but see also for a wider reference Gen.
xxix. 1; Num. xxiii. 7; Isaiah xlvi. 11), and that it produces the gifts which
the Magi brought, may be the foundation of this view; which see also in Ter-
tullian adv. Mare. III. 13, and Epiph. Haer. III. 80. On the other hand, Clem.
Alex., Origen, Chrysostom, &e., say that they came from Persia or Chaldea.
18 The sentence quoted in full is incomplete in Justin, there being no verb
for Ἡρώδης.
19 This citation is from Micah v. 2, and is found also word for word in
Apol. I. ὁ. 84. Justin’s words correspond much more closely with Mat. ii. 6 than
with the LXX, where the passage runs thus: Kat σὺ BoSictu οἶκος ᾿Εφραϑὰ,
ὀλιγοστὸς et τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν ᾿Ιούδα- éx σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς
ἄργοντα τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ. There are other instances of Justin resembling Matthew’s
Gospel in citing the Ὁ. T. Thus in Apol. I. ο. 35 he cites (as from Zephaniah)
Zech. ix. 9, but except in the opening call he follows Mat. xxi. 5, not the LXX.
(He quotes the same passage Dial. c. 53. p. 273 A with the right reference to
Zechariah and more in accordance with the LXX.) So also in Dial. c. 17. p. 235 C
he combines Isaiah lvi. 7 and Jeremiah vii. 11 as in Mat. xxi. 13; and the com-
bination is too remarkable in itself to allow us to think the similarity accidental.
See also the close of this extract.
JUSTIN MARTYR. 121
, 2 ~ ~ \
χυνησάντων TO παιδίον χαὶ πιροσενεγχάντων αὐτῷ δῶρα, χρυσὸν
‘a! Ly " Ν \
χαὶ λίβανον zai σμύρναν, ἐπειδὴ χατ᾽ ἀποχάλυνψιν, μετὰ τὸ ττροσ-
χυνῆσαι τὸν παῖδα ἐν Βηϑλεὲιι, ἐχελεύσϑησαν μὴ ἐπιανελϑεῖν τιρὸς
= \ h
τὸν Ἡρώδην. Καὶ Ἰωσὴφ dé, ὃ τὴν Magtay μεμνηστευμένος, Bov-
\ , » ~ \ s ἣν 2 ~ y \ : Ite
ληϑεὶς πρότερον ἐχβαλεῖν τὴν μνηστὴν αὐτῷ ΠΠαριαμ,, voutloyr
» ~ 2 ἊΝ 3 2 > ἂς x \ U
ἐγχυμονεῖν αὐτὴν ἀπὸ συνουσίας ἀνδρὸς, τουτέστιν ἀπὸ σ“τοργξίας,
- ἈΝ Ὁ - \ ~ > ~
Ov δράματος χεχέλευστο μὴ ἐκβαλεῖν τὴν γυναῖχα αὐτοῦ, εἰττόν-
) ~ ~ , a
τος αὐτῷ vot φανέντος ἀγγέλου ὅτι ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου ὁ ἔχει
᾿ ee , . 5 . ) ἢ
nave γαστρός ἐστι. (Compare Mat. ii. 1-12; 1. 19, 20.) Φοβηϑεις
y > » pn peer > \ ? ~ lee ’ -. ) ,
οὖν, οὐχ ἐχβέβληχεν αὐτὴν, ἀλλὰ, ἀπογραφῆς ovong ἐν τῇ Ιουδαίᾳ
, Ν “ὁ. ς > 2 \
τότε πρώτης ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου (Luke ii. 2), ἀνεληλύϑει amd Ναζαρὲτ
2» Ὁ λυᾶες ΡΥ > \ \ ~
ἔνϑα ᾧκει, εἰς Βηϑλεὲιι, ὅϑεν ἦν, ἀπογράψασϑαι" απὸ γὰρ τῆς
Ν ~ ~ . \ 3 “ἜΝ
χατοιχούσης τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην φυλῆς ᾿Ιούδα τὸ γένος ἢν. Kat av-
, - .-- - \ t
τὸς ἅμα TH Magia κελεύεται ἐξελϑεῖν εἰς Atyvwtoyv, καὶ εἶναι
ἈΦ ὦ ὧν - . ” ay i , 2 Ωω-“ 2}
ἐχεῖ ἅμα τῷ παιδίῳ, ἄχρις ἂν αὐτοῖς πάλιν αττοχαλυφϑῇ ξττανελ-
- d ee ~ oe ~
θεῖν εἰς τὴν Ιουδαίαν. (Compare Luke ii. 1-5;?° Mat. 11. 13-15.)
τ , ν᾿ ἊΝ - . 2 >
Τεγνηϑέντος δὲ τότε τοῦ παιδίου ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ, ἐπειδὴ Ιωσὴφ ove
- Ξ ᾿ς ἐν
εἶχεν ἐν τῇ χώμῃ ἐχείνη ποῦ καταλῦσαι, ἐν σπηλαίῳ" τινὲ σύν--
~ \ ~ » -
ἐγγὺς τῆς χώμης χατέλυσε" χαὶ τότε, αὐτῶν ὄντων EXEL, ἐτετόχει
C =z , \ r \ ve) , 2. UN Ψ , ὯΝ δὴ ,
ἢ Magia τὸν Χριστὸν, χαὶ ἐν φάτνῃ αὐτὸν ἐτεϑείχει" ὕπου ἐλ-
, > . dc fe aN oe
ϑόντες οἱ ἀπὸ “Τῤῥαβίας μάγοι εὗρον αὑτὸν. (Compare Luke ii. 7.)
ν Ν Ν 7 \ ~ 7 Cee) >
... Καὶ 6 Ἡρώδης, μὴ ἐπανελϑόντων πρὸς αὐτὸν τῶν ἀπὸ Ab-
c Vee 2 \ ~ 2 \ \
ῥαβίας μάγων, ὡς ἠξίωσεν αὐτοὺς ποιῆσαι, ahha χατὰ τὰ χελευ-
, > ~ > yy « ~ 5 Ν , 2 ~ γ ’
σϑέντα αὐτοῖς δι᾿ ἄλλης ὁδοῦ εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν απαλλαγέν--
~ AY ~ ~ c \ 2
των, χαὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιωὠωσὴφ ἅμα τῇ Maolie χαὶ τῷ παιδίῳ, ὡς καὶ αὖ-
- > , ἽΝ ᾽ς: / ’ a” 2 , Ἂ
τοῖς ἀποχεχάλυτιτο, ἤδη ἐξελϑόντων εἰς “ἰγυπτον, οὐ γινώσχων
~ a ~
τὸν παῖδα, ὃν ἐληλύϑεισαν τιροσχυνῆσαι Ot μάγοι, τιάντας ἅπλως
~ 2 ~ ~
τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ ἐκέλευσεν ἀναιρεϑῆναι. Καὶ τοῦτο
, 3 Ν ’ 2 2 -
ἐπετιροφήτευτο μέλλειν γίνεσϑαι διὰ “Ιερεμίου, εἰσιόντος δι΄ αὐτοῦ
hk ἢ ΛΝ, , c vy ς ~ ΕΝ , \
τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος οὕτως: Φωνὴ ἐν “Pawcd ἡκούσϑη, χλαυϑμὸς
Nin \ , C \ , \ , 2. ὦ ‘ 3 a
χαὶ ὀδυρμὸς σπιολύς" “Ραχὴλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέχνα αὐτῆς, καὶ οὐχ HELE
= > ς ἘΣ Efe
σεαραχληϑῆναι, ὅτι οὐχ εἰσίν.2 5 (Compare Mat. ii. 18; Luke 11.)
30 See note on Luke xxi.
31 Early Christian tradition corroborates this statement that the place of the
birth of Christ was a cave. The Protev. Jacobi and other Apocryphal Gospels
have details; and Origen cont. Cels. 6. 51 says: Δείχνυται τὸ ἐν Βησλεὲμ. σπή-
harov, ἔνϑα ἐγεννήθη, χαὶ ἡ ἐν τῷ σπηλαίῳ φάτνη, ἔνϑα ἐσπαργανωση.
22 This closely resembles Mat. ii. 18 rather than the LXX (Jerem. xxxvili. 15)
which runs thus: Φωνὴ ἐν ‘Pays ἠχούσθη “ρήνου καὶ χλαυπμοῦ χαὶ ὀδυρμοῦ"
“Ραχὴλ ἀποχλαιομένη οὐχ ἤϑελε παύσασθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτῆς, ὅτι οὐχ εἰσίν,
ie GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
: xs c , c ,
Dial. c. 82. p. 308 C. Eime γὰρ (ὃ Κύριος), ore φονεύεσϑαι
\ ~ _¢ \ \ ὩΡ » ~ , ae?
καὶ μισεῖσϑαι διὰ τὸ ὁνομα αὐτοῦ μέλλομεν, χαὶ OTL. ψευδοπρο-
- / ‘ oe > ~ ,
φῆται καὶ ψευδόχριστοι σπιολλοὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ παρελεύ-
\ , .
σονται χαὶ πολλοὺς ττλανήσουσι. (Compare Mat. xxiv. 5, 9, 24.)
- > - ~
Dial. ¢. 88. p. 316 B. ᾿Ιωάννου γὰρ καϑεζομένουϑ ἐπὶ τοῦ
> , pale IN ie , 3 aut 2 Vc ον
Ἰορδάνου χαὶ χηρύσσοντος βατιτισιία μετανοίας, χαὶ ζώνην δερ-
, Ν 2 2 \ ~ , ~ \
ματίνην χαὶ ἕνδυμα ἀπὸ τριχῶν χαμήλου μόνον φοροῦντος καὶ
᾿ ‘ gt \ 2 LAN \ , a” « 2) 5
πηδὲν ἐσϑίοντος “τλὴν ἀχρίδας χαὶ μέλε ἄγριον, οἱ ἄνθρωποι
« , a Ε 3 ΟΝ ἘΝ \ r Le \ a \ ρον ? ’
ὑσιδλάμβανον αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν" ττρὸς οὺς χαὶ αὐτὸς ἐβόα"
> Fd) aber ἢ > > \ ~ - Coase. ξ
Οὐχ εἰμὶ 0 Χριστὸς, ahha φωνὴ βοῶντος" Fe γὰρ ὃ ἰσχυρότε-
, c 2 DLN. iC \ ᾿ι ἧς ΝΟ Ἵ , Ν 4.4
ρὺς μου, οὗ οὐχ εἰμὶ τἹχανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι. Καὶ ἐλ-
‘ees ~ ) eee \ \ ire Ne. \ "“ , 2 \ =
ϑόντος tov Inoov ἐπὶ tov Ιορδάνην, χαὶ νομιζομένου Ιωσὴφρ τοῦ
Ge αὶ , \ ’ ν Ὁ
TELTOVOS υἱοῖ: ὑτεάρχειν, χαὶ ἀειδοῦς, ὡς αἱ γραφαὶ ἐχήρυσσον, φαι-
, ᾿ ΕΞ - x
γομιένοι, χαὶ téxtovog** νομιζομένου (ταῦτα γὰρ τὰ τεχτονιχὰ
»” Ψ Cvs > > © , ὍΝ ” \ te iY Dl ,
ἔργα εἰργάζετο ἐν ανϑρώποις wy, ἄροτρα χαὶ ζυγὰ, διὰ τούτων
a \ ἊΝ ae 4 ’ Le / 4 . » ἢ . 5 \ γ ~ pl A
χαὶ τὰ τῆς διχαιοσύνης σύμβολα διδάσχων χαὶ ἐνεργῆ βίον), TO
- δ 2 ,
χιγεῦμα οὖν τὸ ἅγιον καὶ διὰ τοὺς ἀνϑρώτπιους, ὡς στιροέφην, ἕν
” - 5 2} ~ \ ~ Bb) ~ cr
εἴδει περιστερᾶς ἐπιξγιτηῦ αὐτῷ, χαὶ φωνὴ ἐχ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἅμα
, c y \ 2 2
ἐληλύϑει, ἥτις χαὶ διὰ Aavid λεγομένη, ὡς ἀπὸ προσώπου αὖ-
~ , c 2 ~ > x ~ Ων ay , 26
τοῦ λέγοντος ὅπερ αὐτῷ amd τοῦ saredg ἕμιελλὲ λέγεσϑαι
23 Justin elsewhere also speaks of John ‘sitting’? by the Jordan (Dial:
ec. 49, 51). Evidently therefore this addition to the canonical narrative was
in his opinion a historical fact. The other items of the opening description are
canonical. See Mat. 11]. 1; iv. 11; Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 3, 15; Johni. 20, 23.
24 See Mark vi. 3. There Jesus is called a carpenter; but the description
here of the work he did is additional. In the Gospel of Thomas (Greek A.
C. XIII) ploughs and yokes are also stated to have been made by Jesus. There
are in the Apocryphal Gospels many other details of miracles &c. connected with
the opening years of Christ’s manhood. In Origen’s time—probably from mistaken
pride—the reading in Mark seems to have omitted τέχτων ; for Origen denies that
Jesus is so called in the published Gospels. (Cont. Cels. VI. 36.)
25 ’Exéxty. Justin does not use χαταβαίνω, as all the canonical accounts do.
26 The voice is said in another passage of the Dial. (c. 103. p. 331 B) to
have used those words (which are a quotation from Ps. ii). In this passage it
is not said that the memoirs are the authority. In the other passage the memoirs
are not quoted for the voice, although they are quoted for other parts of the
narrative. This form of the words addressed to our Lord is therefore an un-
canonical addition. It must have been widely spread, being found in the Ve-
tus Itala and in Cod. D; and in many of the early fathers (Clem. Alex., Lac-
tantius, &c.). Augustine expressly says that it was the reading of some of the
MSS of Luke iii. 22, though not of the earliest. The supposition that Justin in
agreeing with a Jew thought to add weight to his argument by substituting a
quotation from the Psalms for the canonical words, is both unnecessary and im-
probable. The version of Justin is in accordance with a very early tradition
which probably arose from lapse of memory. Many Christians at this day would
JUSTIN MARTYR. 123
x 3 ,
Υἱός μοι εἶ σὺ, ἐγεὶ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε τότε γένεσιν αὐτοῦ
- B) - ~
λέγων γίνεσϑαι τοῖς ἀνϑρώποις, ἐξότου ἣ γνῶσις αὐτοῦ ἔμιελλε
γίνεσϑαι.
Dial. c. 98. p. 5821. A. Ὅϑεν μοι δοχεῖ χαλῶς εἰρῆσϑαι ὑτχιὸ
- = =~ > ~ £ =
τοῦ ἡμετέρου Κυρίου χαὶ σωτῆρος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν δυσὶν ἐντο-
λαῖς πᾶσαν διχαιοσύνην χαὶ εὐσέβειαν «τληροῦσϑαι" εἰσὶ δὲ αὗ-
ὁ u τοὶ , ~ ν
ται" “Ayanioeg Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐξ ὕλης τῆς καρδίας σου
zai ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου, γχαὶ τὸν σιλησίον Gov ὡς σεαυτόν.
(Mat. xxii. 37-39; compare Luke x. 27; Mark xii. 30.)
. J \ \ τ ᾿
Dial. 6. 99. p. 326 A. Σταυρωϑεὶς yao εἶπεν, ὃ Θεὸς, ὃ Θεὸς,
ἕνα τί ἐγχατέλιτιἑς με; (Mat. xxvii. 46; compare PSs. ΚΣ 1")
Dial. c. 99. p. 326 A. Τῇ γὰρ ἡμέρᾳ, ἥπερ ἔμελλε σταυροῖ-
σϑαι, τρεῖς τῶν μαϑητῶν αὐτοῦ παραλαβὼν εἰς τὸ ὅρος τὸ λεγό-
3 4 , Io ~ 5 oad \ ”
μενον Ἐλαιῶν, παραχείμιενον εὐϑὺς τῷ ναῷ ἐν “Ιερουσαλὴμ, ηὔχετο
λέγων: Πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν ἐστι, παρελϑέτω τὸ ττιοτήριον τοῦτο
Wa os - ‘ \ ~ » , ΣΝ ΚΣ ΟΣ ΟΝ ,
an ἐμοῦ. Καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο εὐχόμενος λέγει" My ὡς ἐγὼ Botho-
> γ , .
μαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σὺ θέλεις. (Mat. xxvi. 39.)
Dial. ¢. 100. p. 827 A. Ὅϑεν χαὶ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ ἔφη,
c A ~ , δ ‘ / ,ὔ a ~ ‘ GN
ὅτε σιερὶ τοῦ σπτάσχειν αὐτὸν μέλλειν διελέγετο, τι «1εἴ τὸν υἱὸν
ζω , Ν a.” Ἄ, \ 2 . am ς \ -~
tov ἀνϑρώπου πολλὰ παϑεῖν, χαὶ ἀποδοχιμασϑῆναι, v0 τῶν
, Ν , Ν - \ ~ , «ς ,
Φαρισαίων χαὶ γραμματέων, LOL σταυρωϑῆναι χαὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ
> ~ = Bb A a
ἀναστῆναι.21 (Mat. xvi. 21; Mark viii. 31; Luke ix. 22.) Υἱὸν
ΗΝ > \ γ x ~ ~ Spit
οὖν ἀνθϑρώτιου ἕξαυτὸν ἔλεγεν, ἤτοι ἀπὸ τῆς γεννήσεως τῆς διὰ
, « 3 c 2 2 Ἂ ~ Ae ν 2 \y Ny, \
σιαρϑένου, ἥτις ἣν, ὡς ἔφην, azo τοῦ Aavid καὶ Ιαχὼβ καὶ Ισαὰν
«9 ‘ , dN eS \ mo 2 a \ 3 wa! , Ν
nai Α΄βραὰμ γένους, ἢ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν τὸν Adau τιατέρα χαὶ
give the same account as Justin; and the application of the words of the psalm
to Jesus Christ in the New Testament (Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5) makes the mis-
take natural enough.
27 For parallels see Dial. ὁ. 51. p. 271 A: Λέγει ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ πασεῖν
ἀπὸ τῶν γραμματέων χαὶ Φαρισαίων χαὶ σταυρωσῆναι χαὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἄνα-
στῆναι χαὶ πάλιν παραγενήσεσϑαι ἐν ἱΙερουσαλὴμ χαὶ τότε τοῖς μαϑηταῖς αὐτοῦ
συμπιεῖν πάλιν χαὶ συμφαγεῖν; and Dial. ὁ. 76. p. 802 Β: Ἔβόα γὰρ πρὸ τοῦ
σταυρωπῆναι, δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνϑρώπου πόλλα παϑεῖν, χαὶ ἀποδοχιμασϑῆναι ὑπὸ
τῶν γραμματέων χαὶ Φαρισαίων, χαὶ σταυρωϑῆναι, xal τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστῆ-
γαι. We have Justin’s usual freedom of citation exemplified in these extracts.
It is noteworthy that where the Evv. have ἀποχτανπῆναι, Justin has otavaw-
Syvat. Irenaeus also has this word: Haer. III. 18. 4: Hx eo enim, inquit, coepit
demonstrare discentibus, quoniam oportet illum Hierosolymam ire et multa pati a
sacerdotibus, et reprobari et crucifigi et tertia die resurgere. (Compare Mark viii. 31
and Luke ix. 22, as well as Mat. xvi. 21, to which Irenaeus seems to refer the
words.) Compare Luke xxiv. 7, where the same σταυρωσῆναι occurs. See otau-
ρῶσαι in Mat. xx. 18. See en the text Drummond in Theol. Rev. April, 1877,
p- 180.
124 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
τούτων τῶν χατηριϑμημένων, ἐξ ὧν χατάγει ἢ Π]αρία τὸ γένος"
ὧν χατηριϑμημένων, ἐξ ὧν κατάγει ἣ Mag γένος
\ \ ~ ~ d " ,
“OL γὰρ πατέρας τῶν γεννωμένων ταῖς ϑυγατράσιν αὐτῶν τέἕέχνων
\ ~ ~ (ὰ ’ ’ὔ A ἈΝ Cc, ~
τοὺς τῶν ϑηλειῶν γεννήτορας ἐπιστάιιεϑα. Καὶ yao υἱὸν Θεοῦ,
r τ ~ ~ >
Χριστὸν, χατὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἀποχάλυψιν ἐπειγνόντα αὖ-
\ , ~ ~ ~
τὸν ἕνα τῶν μαϑητῶν αὐτοῦ, Siuwva woeoregoy χαλούμενον, ἐπτω-
7 , Ψ, 2 8 7 \ GAN ~ ’ ΩΣ x ’ ~
voucaoe Π]έτρον. Καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ γεγραμμένον αὑτὸν ev τοῖς
) ~ ~ Ἔ
ατιομνημονεύμασι τῶν ἀτιοστόλων αὐτοῦ ἔχοντες χαὶ υἱὸν αὐτὸν
2, \ 5. -
λέγοντες νενοήχαμεν ὄντα χαὶ 7100 πάντων “τοιημάτων cd τοῦ
A 2) ~ \ ~ ray ‘
σεατρὸς δυνάμει αὐτοῦ zai βουλῇ πιροελϑόντα, ὃς χαὶ σοφία χαὶ
ἧς , γί s 3 Ἂς ΚΟΥ \ , \ , Nc I i Ad, ‘
ἡμέρα χαὶ ἀνατολὴ χαὶ μάχαιρα χαὶ hidog χαὶ ῥάβδος χαὶ Ιαχὼβ
ἈΠ ND \ >» ν 2) , ? ~ ~ ~
nol logan ner ἄλλον χαὶ ἄλλον τρότιον ἕν τοῖς τῶν προφητῶν
, cy wa ~
λόγοις προσηγόρευται, χαὶ διὰ τῆς τιαρϑένου ἄνϑρωπον γεγονέναι
c \ 2. ὩΣ, ταν τῶ δὺς 2 ‘ ~ Υγ \ \ > \ 2).
ἵνα χαὶ OL 1G ὁδοῦ ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ OPEMg παραχοὴ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔλαβε,
διὰ ταύτης τῆς δδοῦ καὶ κατάλυσιν λάβῃ. (Mat. xvi. 16 &c.).
See the same contrast or comparison, Iren. III. 22. ὃ 4: ΥἹ. 19. 81.
Dial. ὁ. 102. p. 829 C. Σιγήσαντος αὐτοῦ καὶ μηκέτι ἐπὶ Πι-
, > ν ‘ ~ 3
λάτου ἀποχρίνασϑαι μηδὲν μηδενὶ βουλομένου, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἅπο-
~ 2 - ν ν oe
μνημογεύμασι TOY ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ δεδήλωται. (Mat. xxvii. 14.)
. λό ς \ > \ ,
Dial. ¢. 103. p. 330 C. Kai τὸ Ἤνοιξαν ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ τὸ στόμα
)») κα ς , 5 nos . SNe, , MY Ὁ , ,
αὐτῶν ὡς λέων ὠρυόμενος δηλοῖ τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ιουδαίων τότε
0 zai αὐτὸν «Ηρώδην λεγόμενον, διάδοχον γεγενημένον “Hew
ὄντα, χαὶ αὐτὸν Ηρώδην λεγόμενον, διάδοχον γεγενημένον How-
. ~ > \ ,
δου tov, ὅτε ἐγεγέννητο, ἀνελόντος τιάντας τοὺς ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ ἐκεί--
- ~ ~ \ ~ > ~
vou τοῦ χαιροῦ γεννηϑέντας παῖδας, διὰ τὸ ὑπτονοεῖν ἐν αὐτοῖς
΄' 5} Ν ‘ ta γ , ’ ~ C 2 ee IC , a)
σιαντως ξίναι TOY σιξρὶ OV ξιρήχξισαν αὐτῷ οἱ ano .«ῤῥαβιας ἐλ-
ϑόντες μάγοι" μὴ ἐπιστάμενος τὴν τοῦ ἰσχυροτέρου στάντων βου-
"Xx c ~ \ ~ 2
Any, ὡς εἰς Atyvaror τῷ Ιωσὴφ χαὶ τῇ Magia ἐκεχελεύχει ἀπταλ-
- ~ \ . \ ~ aN > ~
λαγῆναι λαβοῦσι τὸ παιδίον, καὶ εἶναι ἐχεῖ ἄχρις ἂν ττάλιν αὐτοῖς
) - - » 3 ~ ἘΞ uy
αἀποχαλυφϑῇ ἐπανελϑεῖν εἰς tiv χώραν αὐτῶν" χαχεῖ ἦσαν απτελ--
a2 ᾿ »” s ὌΝ 2 "4 ἐς ) = , X γ Β SAL 4 ὃ ,
ὥόοντες ἄχρις ἂν ἀπέϑανεν ὃ ἀποχτείνας τὰ ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ παιδία
Cc ᾽ν ee
Ἡρώδης. (Compare Mat. ii.)
Dial. c. 103. p. 331 8. See before, page 63.
Dial. ὁ. 105. p. 333 B. See before, page 64.
Dial. c. 107. p. 334 B. See before, page 64, note 8.
. ‘ 3 ‘ > r
Dial. c. 122. p. 350 D. Ἢ γὰρ ἂν καχείνοις ἐμαρτύρει ὃ Χρι-
~ \ © \ c > Ὁ] -
στός" νῦν δὲ διπλότερον υἱοὶ γεέννης, ὡς αὐτὸς Eine, γίνεσϑε.
(Mat. xxiii. 15.)
28 See before, page 61, for another reference to this change of Peter’s name,
from Dial. c. 106. p. 333 D,
JUSTIN MARTYR. 125
. ~ . r oi Ie
Dial. ὁ. 125. p. 354 B. “Ὡς ὃ ἐμὸς Κύριος etivev’ Εξῆλϑεν ὃ
~ ~ \ Cc ‘ 2.
στιείρων τοῦ σπεῖραι τὸν σπόρον, χαὶ ὃ μὲν ἔπεσεν εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν,
ς \ υ . > LG ς We) \ ‘ ξ , ς προ πῆρ ον Ν -
ὃ δὲ εἰς τὰς ἀχάνϑας, 0 δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη, ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν
χαλήν. (Mat. xiii. 3 &c.)
. is
Dial. ὁ. 125. p. 354 D. Ὅτε yao ἄνϑρωπος γέγονεν, ὡς τιρο-
76 oa δ ἀν ἢ , τι τς ἢ ᾽ ,
εἴστον, προσῆλϑεν αὐτῷ ὁ διάβολος, τουτέστιν ἢ δύναμις ἐχείνη
ν ~ 2 ν >
ἣ χαὶ ὄφις κεχλημένη χαὶ Σατανᾶς, πειράζων αὐτὸν, χαὶ ayor-
- - \ ~ De? ~ ~ uy 5 ν
ζόμενος χαταβαλεῖν διὰ τοῦ ἀξιοῦν τιροσχυνῆσαι αὐτόν. Ὃ δὲ
> c
αὐτὸν χατέλυσε χαὶ χατέβαλεν, ἐλέγξας ὅτι πονηρός ἐστι, παρὰ
d- ~ ~ c \ > ~ ~
τὴν γραφὴν ἀξιῶν τιροσχυνεῖσϑαι ὡς Θεὸς, ἀποστάτης τῆς τοῦ
~ > 2 - ν
Θεοῦ γνώμης γεγενημένος. ““ποχρίνεται γὰρ αὐτῷ: Γέγραπται,
‘ 2 ~
Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου προσχυνήσεις, χαὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις"
J > aes = , ὌΝ \ 2) ἢ, , Ξ ) , , Cc ὃ , 29
χαὶ ἡττημένος χαὶ ἐληλεγμένος amévevoe τότε ὃ διάβολος.
Justin Martyr. 8. Crrarions nor ΙΝ our GospE.s.
Dial. ¢. 35. p. 253 Β.. Εἶπε yao: Πολλοὶ ἐλεύσονται ἐπὶ τῷ
ὀνόματί μου, ἔξωϑεν ἐνδεδυμένοι δέρματα προβάτων, ἔσωϑεν dé
εἰσι λύχοι ἅρπαγες. Kat: Ἔσονται σχίσματα χαὶ αἱρέσεις. ΙΚαί"
Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν, οἵτινες ἐλεύσονται πιρὸς ὑμᾶς,
ἔξωϑεν ἐνδεδυμένοι δέρματα τιροβάτων, ἔσωθεν δέ εἰσι λύχοι ἃρ-
παγες. Καί" ᾿αἸναστήσονται πολλοὶ ψευδόχριστοι χαὶ ψευδατιό-
στολοι, “ai πολλοὺς τῶν πιστῶν πλανήσουσιν. (Mat. vii. 15;
xxiv. 5.)
29 Citation from Deut. vi. 13 agreeing not with LXX but with St. Matthew.
On this passage see before, page 63 note 5.
1 The predictions of schism and heresies are not found in our Gospels.
The quotations before and after this clause are from St. Matthew. Justin seems
again to refer to this prediction, Dial. ec. 57. The same reference may per-
haps have been in Paul’s mind, 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19. The Clementine Homilies
XVI. 2 combine the two predictions, ἔσονται γὰρ, ὡς ὁ Κύριος εἶπεν, ψευδαπό-
στολοι, Ψευδεῖς προφῆται, αἱρέσεις φιλαρχίαι. Hegesippus (Eus. Η. E. IV. 22)
speaks of false Christs, false prophets, false apostles. So also Clem. Recog. IV.
34. The prediction of heresies is found also in Tertullian. The words are there-
fore found both before and after the time when the canonical Gospels had an
exclusive place. Even a writer so late as Lactantius refers to the prediction of
Heresies, whether from an apocryphal Gospel or only from oral tradition we have
no means of deciding. To say that the source must be the Gospel of the He-
brews because Hegesippus made exclusive use of it, is to build too much on a
narrow foundation. See Dial. ο. 51. p: 271 B (below), and Dial. Ἢ. 82. p. 308 C
for the same prophecy with the variations we might expect in Justin,
120 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Φ J 92 c , > ~
Dial. ¢. 47. p. 301 4.3 Mo nai ὃ ἡμέτερος Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς
r ‘ % Ta ὟΝ ~ " -
Δριστὸς εἰχιεν" ἕν οἷς ὧν ὑμᾶς χαταλάβω, ἐν τούτοις καὶ χρινῶ.
. r 3} ca
Dial. 4. 51. p. 271 A. Χριστὸς καὶ αὐτὸς λέγων ὅτι ἐγγὺς
γ ΟΣ , ~ > ~ Oy τ Ss ΣΝ N a.~
ἔστιν ἢ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν χαὶ ὅτι δεῖ αὐτὸν σπτολλὰ τιαϑεῖν
2 ~ ~ ~
ἀπὸ TOY γραμματέων χαὶ Φαρισαίων, χαὶ σταυρωϑῆναι καὶ τῇ
ς J ~
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστῆναι, χαὶ wahiy πιαραγενήσεσϑαι ἐν “Ιερουσα-
\ / ~ ~ Bg) ~ ~ ~
λὴμ χαὶ τότε τοῖς μαϑηταῖς αὐτοῦ συμστιεῖν mahi χαὶ συμφαχγεῖν,
Ἢ \ γ ΓΝ fee ca ah ce Α , Ἢ Je = , ς ᾿ ἐν " A
χαὶ ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ χρόνῳ, ὡς προέφην, YE
, c ~ \ 7 ’ \ ad, > ~
νήσεσϑαι ἱερεῖς χαὶ ψιευδοτιροφήτας ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ στιρο-
’ Ν «
ἐμήνυσε “OL οὕτω φαίνεται ὄντα. 3
. χὰ ΄ Ἴ \ 2 - ‘ ~
Dial. ὁ. 69. p. 296 4. Ot δὲ (Ιουδαῖοι) χαὶ ταῦτα (τὰ τέρατα)
ς Gotoh eae , ; es , Ra , Dy ἌΡ \ \
ὁρῶντες γινόμενα, φαντασίαν μαγιχὴν γίνεσϑαι ἔλεγον" χαὶ γὰρ
, 2 τ γ / , ‘ ,
μαγον εἰναι αὐτὸν ἐτόλμων λέγειν χαὶ haomwhavor.4
- OC - aN Ι πὰ } -
Dial. ὁ. 88. p.315 D. Καὶ τότε ἐλϑόντος τοῦ Ιησοῦ ἐπὲ τὸν
2 Wad X »” G3 , ? , -- , ~
Ἰορδάνην τιοταμὸν, ἔνϑα ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης ἐβάπειζε, χατελϑόντος τοῦ
σοῦ 2 ᾿ τ τὸ ) Sa a y ns ΝΜ) Ἴ x a 4 ὃ 7 ΕΠ ay δύν-
"σοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ χαὶ mie ἀνήφϑι; ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ, καὶ avadd
~ \ - Clo c \ Ν c > 2)
TOS αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος ὡς τιεριστερὼν τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐπι-
~ > > ΄ 2 - ~ r
πτῆναι eu αὐτὸν éyouwor οἱ ἀτιόστολοι. αὐτοῦ τούτου τοῦ Χρι-
~ ς ~ eee 5
στοῦ ἡμιῶν.5 (Compare Mat. iii. 13 &c.)
2 Clem. Alex. has quoted the same passage or very nearly. His words are
ἐφ᾽ οἷς γὰρ av εὕρω ὑμᾶς, φησὶν, ἐπὶ τούτοις καὶ χρινῶ. In later times it was
widely current, being attributed to Ezekiel or some other. It is argued that be-
cause Clement on another occasion has quoted the Gospel according to the He-
brews therefore both Justin and he obtained this also from that Gospel. But
while this is possible, it is only a hypothesis. See also Acts xx. 35, where we
have a saying of our Lord preserved by tradition. May not this be an example
of the same thing ?
3 This, in so far as it is not a quotation, seems to be a blending from me-
mory of our Lord’s predictions with the Gospel narrative.
4 This is a perfectly justifiable allusion to the Jewish treatment of our
Lord as working by the power of Beelzebub (Mat. ix. 34; xii. 24). Lactantius
says that the Jews thought Christ a Magician, and grants that such an opinion
might have been entertained had not the prophets predicted such things of the
Messiah. In the Clem. Recog. we have allusions to the idea that Christ wrought
by magic. And in the ‘Gospel of Nicodemus” the Jews before Pilate charge
Jesus with being a magician.
5 The construction here shows that the narrative of the kindling of a fire in
the Jordan does not depend, as the reference to the descent of the Dove does,
upon the testimony of the Apostles. The punctuation is disputed; but if we read
avyypsy, and there is no good reason for any other reading, the rules of con-
struction separate the one clause from the other. The Apostles are therefore
quoted only for the descent of the Spirit. In all the Gospels xataBatvw describes
the descent of the Spirit; here it is ἐπιπτῆναι; but the change is quite in Justin’s
manner. The passage occurs in course of an argument used by Justin to prove
that the outward manifestations given to Christ did not make him the Christ, but
only proved to men that He was the Christ. The mention of the fire is inci-
LETTER TO DIOGNETUS. HEGESIPPUS. 124
. ~ >, ~ > ~
Dial. c. 106. p. 333 C. Καὶ ὅτι ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ
~ a) , \ ~ )
ἔστη, τῶν ἀποστόλων oltiveg ... μετενόησαν ἐπὶ τῷ ἀφίσεασϑαι
> ~ co ? a Ν 7 P Tod Wet c \ \
αὐτοῦ ore ἐσταυράϑη, χαὶ μετ᾽ αὐτῶν διάγων ὕμνησε τὸν Θεὸν,
- > ~ > \ ~
ὡς χαὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασι τῶν ἀποστόλων δηλοῦται γεγε-
γημένον, τὰ λείποντα τοῦ Wahuor ἐδήλωσεν. (See Ps. xxii, 22, 23).°
3. Lerrer to Dioenetus.!
C.9. Περὶ ἐνδίσεως χαὶ τροφῆς μὴ μεριμνᾶν. (Mat. vi.
25-31.)
4. Hecesippus.}
a» ‘ ~ « d Ν ~ r
Eus. H. FE. TIT. 20. Ἔτι δὲ περιῆσαν ot ano γένους τοῦ Κυ-
, € ed ᾿ς ~ A , , 2 - Io ~ ΔΑ
οἰου υἱωνοὶ Ιούδα, τοῦ zara σάρχα λεγομένου αὐτοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, οὺς
aly rs >
ἐδηλατόρευσαν, ὡς ἔχ γένους ὄντας AaBid. Τούτους δ᾽ ὃ ᾿Ιουύ-
Na a2 Drs. Ἢ Σ Ν EN r , Α a ΠΟ Ν Ν Υ;
χατος" ἤγαγε τιρὸς “Ιομετιανὸν Καίσαρα" ἐφοβεῖτο γὰρ τὴν mae
, ~ r ~ Ci C , ee
ουσίαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὡς χαὶ ‘Howdy. (Mat. ii.)
7 > >
Eus. H. Ε΄. IT. 23. ᾿Αἰχριβέστατά ye μὴν τὰ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ὃ
Cc ‘ ~ , ~ ’ ν y ~
Πγήσιπετιος, ἐπὶ τῆς πτρώτης τῶν ατιοστόλων γενόμενος διαδοχῆς,"
> ~ , γ ~ Cc , ~ « - ,
ἐν τῷ WELT αὐτοῦ ὑπομνήματι τοῦτον λέγων ἱστορεῖ TOY τρό-
dental; but the argument admits of the speaker supplementing the canonical Gos-
pels from other sources. There are many allusions to the fire in the apocryphal
traditions of the early Church. According to Epiphanius the Ebionite Gospel said
that when Jesus was coming up out of the water a great light shone about the
place. A heretical Gospel called Pauli Predicatio refers to the fire, saying also
that Jesus who acknowledged personal sin was constrained by his mother Mary
to submit to John’s Baptism. Although Justin therefore clearly supplements the
canonical books: we cannot be sure of his source.
6 The ‘“‘Memoirs’”’ are quoted here for our Lord’s singing hymns with His
brethren according to the prediction in the psalm. There is incidentally men-
tion of all the disciples forsaking Him, when He was crucified, and it is explicitly
stated elsewhere (Apol. I. c. 50. 86 B) that they forsook Him after He was eru-
ecified. But nothing more than rhetorical use, perhaps amplification, of the Gospel
narrative can be made out against Justin. See Mat. xxvi. 56; Mark xiv. 50; Luke
xxiv. 13-33.
1 Diognetus. See note p. 65.
1 Hegesippus. See Introduction.
2 Many various readings—TxovBatos, ᾿Ιουόχατος, "Hovdxatos.
8 This passage refers to the incident in Herod’s history which we learn from
Mat. ii. Epiphanius says that the Gospel of the Hebrews, as used by the
Nazarenes and Ebionites, did not contain the first two chapters of Matthew’s Gos-
pel. Hegesippus cannot therefore have used it as his authority here. See even
Hilgenfeld (Nov. Test. extra Can. Ree. Evang. sec. Hebraeos, p. 19).
4 Rufinus translates thus: Hegesippus, qui post ipsas statim primas aposto-
lorum successiones fuit; and Jerome seems to have the passage in view when he
says Vicinus Apostolorum temporum. (De Vir. Ill. 22.)
128 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
pe " ‘ δι: εἰ μ᾿ , I, /. Ζ 4 , ate le 3 J
ΠΟ Es = απεχρινατο (Toxtnjsos) φωνῇ μεγάλῃ: Tt μὲ διερω-
~ \ ~ ~ c ~ ~ fd \ x , ’
rave σιερὶ Πησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀανϑρώπου; χαὶ αὐτὸς χάϑηται ἐν
τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐχκ δεξιῶν τῆς μεγάλης δυνάμεως, χαὶ μέλλει ἔρχε-
“t 0 1 > i$ [ley “NS μ Sn μ 0X
Co ἊΣ \ ~ ~ ~ >» ~ a) , 5% ,
σϑαι ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ... «ἀναβάντες οὖν χατέβα-
Ww \ 2
λον τὸν δίχαιον, χαὶ ἔλεγον ἀλλήλοις" λιϑάσωμεν ᾿Ιάχωβον τὸν
wa r - od 2 \
δίχαιον. Καὶ ἤρξαντο λιϑάζειν αὐτὸν, ἐτιεὶ χκαταβληϑεὶς οὐχ ἀπέ-
2 \ ~
Javer, ἀλλὰ σιραφεὶς ἔϑηχε τὰ γόνατα λέγων: Παραχαλῶ, Κύριε
- , ” γ ~ > κ᾿ Wo ὦ oe
Θεὲ πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς" ov γὰρ οἴδασι τί ποιοῦσιν. (Mat. xxii.
16; xxvi. 64; xxi. 9, 15; Luke xxiii. 34.)5
- = Ὁ τ γ
Eus. H. E. IV. 22. Ἔχ ve τοῦ καϑ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγελίου nat
τοῦ Συριαχοῦ, καὶ ἰδίως ἐχ τῆς “Εβραΐδος διαλέχτου τινὰ τίϑησιν,
ἐμφαίνων ἐξ “Εβραίων ἑαυτὸν σιεγιιστευχέναι."
Phot. Cod. 232 (9" cent.) from Stephan Gobar (6™ cent.).
c Me 5G ! Ae ν᾽ ' } Ων" ” Dae ‘ Ε
Ov τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα τοῖς διχαίοις ayada ovre οφϑαλμὸς Eder,
γ) 3 DE Tae Tees , Diag , peg! ς ,
OLTE οὺς ἤχουσεν, οὔτε Ent χαρδίαν ἀνϑρώπου ἀνέβη. Ηἰγήσιτι-
2 ~/ I \ ~
TOG μέντοι, ἀρχαϊός τὲ ἀνὴρ χαὶ ἀποστολιχὸς, ἐν τῷ τιέμπτῳ
~ 3 3p) , ~
τῶν ὑσιομνημάτων, οὐχ O10 ὅ,τι χαὶ παϑὼν, μάτην μὲν εἰρῆσϑαι
ταῖτα λέγει, χαὶ χαταψεύδεσϑαι τοὺς ταῦτα φαμένους τῶν τὲ
« , - \ ~ r , , 7 , Ite . stale ἔνε
ὕστου σὴς χαὶ βρῶσις ἀφανίζει. (Mat. vi. 19; Luke xii. 33.)
Ibi ~~ ς Beary: WoW ΣΡ pen teen eee Ihe 1 \ oc \ _€ © \
id. DD1. “Owotwg δὲ χαχεῖνο χομίζουσι! τὸ ῥητὸν, οἱ υἱοὶ
- - \ \ ~ ) os ~
TOL αἰῶνος ἐχείνου, TO HEQL νεχρῶν ἀναστάσεως, οὔτε γαμοῦσιν
>” <0 r EEC GYAN
οὔτε γαμίζονται. (Mat. xxi. 30.)
6. IRENAEUS.
= ~ > γ te
1 Τὺ χατὰ Mardatoy εὐαγγέλιον πρὸς Ιουδαίους ἐγράφη" ob-
/ s ᾿ “NS ͵
ν \ ~ ῶ , aN > , \ go r wh
2 7 71 , 2 .
τοι γὰρ ἐπεϑύμουν savy σφόδρα &x σπέρματος “1αβὶδ Χρισεόν
Val / ~ \ y ~ ᾽ν ,ὔ a” Ν ,
O δὲ Mardaiog, χαὶ ett μᾶλλον σφοδροτέραν ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην
, , ay . B) - c
ἐσιϑυμίαν, παντοίως ἔσπευδε τιληροφορίαν σιαρέχειν αὐτοῖς, ὡς
? = iS S Ν ν >) S
-
Ὑ] Ύ , ne ἐς r / NS \ 7 \ ~ ,
Ely Ex σπέρματος “1αβὶδ ὁ Χριστός" διὸ χαὶ ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως
> ~ »
αὐτοῦ ἤρξατο.
Adv. haeres. III. 9. § 1. Matthaeus enim apostolus, unum
et eundem sciens Deum, qui promissionem fecerit Abrahae, fac-
turum se semen ejus quasi stellas cocli, qui per filium suum
Christum Jesum a lapidum cultura in suam nos agnitionem vo-
caverit, uti fieret, ‘‘qui non populus, populus; et non dilecta, di-
lecta;” ait Joannem praeparantem Christo viam, his qui in car-
nali quidem cognatione gloriabantur, varium autem et omni ma-
litia completum sensum habebant, eam poenitentiam, quae a ma-
litia revocaret, annuntiantem dixisse: ‘“ Progenies viperarum, quis
vobis monstravit fugere ab ira ventura? Facite ergo fructum
dignum poenitentiae. Et nolite dicere in vobis ipsis: Patrem ha-
bemus Abraham: dico enim vobis, quoniam potens est Deus ex
lapidibus istis suscitare filios Abrahae.” (Mat. ili. 7 &c.) Poe-
nitentiam igitur eis eam, quae esset a malitia, praeconabat, sed
non alterum Deum annuntiabat, praeter eum qui fecisset promis-
sionem Abrahae, ille praecursor Christi; de quo iterum ait Mat-
thaeus, similiter autem et Lucas: “Hic enim est qui dictus est
1 The Encratites.
1 From Possini Catena Patrum in Matthaeum (Stieren, I. 842).
9
130 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
a Domino per prophetam: vox clamantis in deserto, Parate viam
Domini, rectas facite semitas Dei nostri. Omnis vallis implebi-
tur, et omnis mons et collis humiliabitur, et erunt tortuosa in
directa, et aspera in vias planas: et videbit omnis caro salutare
Dei.” (Mat. iii. 3; Luke iii. 4 &c.)
B. TI. 9. ὃ 2. 3. Iterum autem de Angelo dicens Mat-
thaeus, ait: “Angelus Domini apparuit Joseph in somnis.” Cu-
jus Domini, ipse interpretatur: “Uti adimpleatur quod dictum
est a Domino per prophetam: Ex Aegypto vocavi fillum meum.
Ecce virgo in utero accipiet, et parict filium, et vocabunt nomen
ejus Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum: Nobiscum Deus.” De
hoc, qui est ex virgine Emmanuel, dixit David: “Non avertas
faciem Christi tui. Juravit Dominus David veritatem, et non
spernet? eum, de fructu ventris tui ponam super sedem tuam.”
(Ps. exxxi. 10, 11.) Et iterum: “Notus in Judaea Deus, et factus
est in pace locus ejus, et habitaculum ejus in Sion.“ (Ps. Ixxv. 2.)
Unus igitur et idem Deus, qui a prophetis praedicatus est, et ab
evangelio® annuntiatus, et hujus filius qui ex fructu ventris Da-
vid, id est, ex David virgine, et Emmanuel: cujus et stellam Ba-
laam quidem sic prophetavit: “Orietur stella ex Jacob, et surget
dux in Israel.” (Num. xxiv. 15.) Matthaeus autem Magos ab
Oriente venientes ait dixisse: ‘Vidimus enim stellam ejus in
Oriente, et venimus adorare cum:” deductosque a stella in do-
mum Jacob ad Emmanuel, per ea quae obtulerunt munera osten-
disse, quis erat qui adorabatur: myrrham quidem, quod ipse erat,
qui pro mortali humano genere moreretur et sepeliretur: aurum
vero, quoniam Rex, “cujus regni finis non est;” thus vero, quo-
niam Deus, qui et notus in Judaea factus est, et manifestus eis,
qui non quaerebant eum. Adhuc ait in baptismate Matthaeus:
‘““Aperti sunt ei coeli, et vidit Spiritum Dei, quasi columbam ve-
nientem super eum. Et ecce vox de coelo, dicens: Hic est filius
meus, in quo mihi bene complacui.”
111. 16. ὃ 2. Sed οὐ Matthaeus unum et eumdem Jesum
Christum cognoscens, eam quae est secundum hominem genera-
tionem ejus ex virgine exponens, sicut promisit Deus David, ex
fructu ventris ejus excitaturum se aeternum regem, multo prius
2 Or dispernet.
3 Or Ab angelo.
IRENAEUS. ATHENAGORAS. 191
Abrahae eandem faciens promissionem, ait: ‘Liber generationis
Jesu Christi, filii David, filii Abraham.” Dehine ut liberaret men-
tem nostram a suspicione, quae est circa Joseph, ait: ‘Christi
autem generatio sic erat. Cum esset desponsata mater ejus Jo-
seph, priusquam convenirent, inventa est in utero habens de Spi-
ritu Sancto.” Dehinc cum Joseph cogitaret dimittere Mariam,
quoniam praegnans erat, adsistentem ei angelum Dei, dicentem:
“Ne timuecris assumere Mariam conjugem tuam: quod enim habet
in utero, de Spiritu Sancto est. Pariet autem filium, et vocabis
nomen ejus Jesum: hic enim salvabit populum suum a peccatis
suis. Hoc autem factum cst, ut impleretur quod dictum est a
Domino per prophetam: Ecce virgo accipict in utero, et pariet
filium, et vocabunt nomen ejus Emmanuel, quod est, Nobiscum
Deus;” manifeste significans, et eam promissionem, quae fuerat
ad patres, impletam, ex virgine natum filium Dei, et hune ipsum
ess¢ salvatorem Christum, quem prophetae praedicaverunt: non
sicut ipsi dicunt, Jesum quidem ipsum esse, qui ex Maria sit
natus, Christum vero qui desuper descendit.
7. ATHENAGoraS. !
‘ > > aN "
Legatio, 6. 1. Οὐ μόνον μὴ ἀντιπαίειν, οὐδὲ μὴν δικάζεσϑαι
- \ C te CG ~ ) - \
τοῖς ἄγουσι χαὶ ἁρπάζουσιν ἡμᾶς μεμιαϑηκότες, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μὲν,
nev χατὰ χόῤῥης προσπηλαχίζωσι, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον παίειν παρἕχειν
Ν i Ν / > ) : υ
-" ~ , ~ y \ ΑΙ Ν ~ ~ ,’ . Ve?
τῆς χεφαλὴς μέρος, τοῖς δὲ, εἰ TOY χιτῶνα αφαιροῖντο, ἐπιδιδό-
Ν « rs Ν
you χαὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον. (Mat. v. 39, 40.)
A Dra] \ , > > ~ ~ ee
Ibid. c. 11. Ἐπεὶ καὶ Ov αὐτῶν τῶν δογμάτων οἷς προσέχο-
d Β] ~ 3y ) y
μεν, οὐχ ἀνϑρωτιιχοῖς οἷσιν, ahha ϑεοφάτοις καὶ ϑεοδιδάχτοις,
Ee ow Nn ς \ Ig! ” ᾿ , C =p) ry
χεεῖσαι ὑμᾶς, μὴ ὡς περὶ ἀϑέων ἔχειν, δυνάμεϑα. Tiveg οὖν
~ ra ~ 3) ~
yua@v οἱ λόγοι οἷς ἐντρερόμεϑα; Aéyw ὑμῖν" ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς éy-
ἢ) = ‘ ) l be
A Ν c A “2 α)οὴσ-ε ον ¢ 4 Val - κ᾿ 4 4 : be
ϑροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς χαταρωμένοιυς, προσεύχεσϑε LEQ τῶν
1 Athenagoras, ‘‘an Athenian, a philosopher, and a Christian,” presented his
Apology (perhaps in person, for its title is πρεσβεία, embassy) to ‘‘the Emperors
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodns,”’ in the year A.D. 176
or 177. Such, at least, seems to be the most probable account. As the extracts
show, his object was to vindicate the personal character of Christians; and being,
as his style shows, a man who could justly claim to be both philosopher and
Christian, he was well fitted to prevail upon the imperial philosopher to regard
the disciples of Jesus Christ with favour. He was naturally led to quote the
Sermon on the Mount.
9 *
192 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
~ , ~ Cc ~ ~ Ἵν -
διωχόντων ὑμᾶς, ὅπως γένησϑε υἱοὶ τοῦ σττατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν TOL
a Ἐπὶ τι >
B} ~ Ν c 3 ~ > , ’ \ Χ \
οὐρανοῖς, ὃς τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει et πονηροὺς χαὶ aya-
>
ϑοὺς χαὶ βρέχει ἐπὶ δικαίους χαὶ ἀδίχους. (Mat. v. 44, 45.)
. cr
Ibid. ὁ. 12. Πϊέχρι τοσούτου δὲ φιλανϑρωτιότατοι ὥστε μὴ
\ 2 B) ~ \ \ >
μόνον στέργειν τοὺς φίλους, (Ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπᾶτε, φησὶ, τοὺς aya-
~ ν - - ν - - U
morrag χαὶ δανείζετε τοῖς δανείζουσιν ὑμῖν, τίνα μισϑὸν ἕξετε)
- - ~ ~ Ud
τοιοῦτοι δὲ ἡμεῖς ὄντες χαὶ TOY τοιοῦτον βιοῦντες βίον, ἵνα χρι-
om , Ἂ , C ~ Γ΄: - \ v
ϑῆναι διαφύγωμεν, ἀπιστούμεϑα ϑεοσεβεῖν; Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν μι-
\ Σ Ν , \ dor 2 \ ~ cr \ > Ἂν -
χρὰ απὸ μεγάλων χαὶ ολίγα and πολλῶν, ἵνα μὴ emt πλεῖον
ὑμῖν ἐνοχλοίημεν. (Mat. v. 46, 47.)
a z = \ \ 2-3
Ibid. ὁ. 32. Καὶ γὰρ οὗτος τῇ ϑυγατρὶ χατὰ χρησμὸν ἐμίγη,
~ Ν ν᾿ ~ ~ ᾿ ~ 2 ’
ϑασιλεῦῖσαι ἐϑέλων χαὶ ἐχδιχηϑῆναι. Ημεῖς δὲ τοσοῦτον ἀδιάφο-
hel ᾿
Ε > , ς EQN aN ὦ c ~ \ ΑἹ , Me
QOL εἶναι aTEZOMEV, ὡς μηδὲ ἰδεῖν ἡμῖν σπιρὸς ἐπιϑυμίαν ἐξεῖναι.
ΕἸ - iw γ)
Ὃ γὰρ βλέπων, φησὶ, γυναῖχα πιρὸς τὸ ἐπιϑυμῆσαι αὐτῆς, ἤδη
, mn} ~ Wa > ~ ς
μεμοίχευχεν ὃν τῇ χαρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. (Mat. v. 28.)
ὃ... ἹὙπεορημπ08.
Ad Autolyc. IIT. 13-14. Ἢ δὲ εὐαγγέλιος φωνὴ ἐπιτατι-
, v Vel \ ς . ,ὔ Ὁ Cc d \ ~
χώτερον διδάσχει περὶ ἁγνείας λέγουσα: Πᾶς ὃ ἰδὼν γυναῖχα
7 , \ \ > © ~ >) \ » a) , 3: ταὶ
αλλοτρίαν πρὸς τὸ ἐπιϑυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἑμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν
- , γ - Neen ~ \ > ,ὔ > \ 3
τῇ χαρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ὃ γαμῶν, φησὶν, ἀπολελυμένην amo ἂν-
Ν , aA > ~
δρὸς μοιχεύει, χαὶ ὃς ἀπολύει γυναῖχα πιαρεχτὸς λόγου 700-
, ~ > ~ ~ 2 ,
γειας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευϑῆναι. Ἔτι ὃ Σολομῶν φησί" «Α΄ποδήσει
~ =) « , X 3) ~ , WwW
τις πῦρ EV ἱματίῳ, Ta δὲ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ οὐ χαταχαύσει; ἢ στερι--
Ψ ah) 2
πατήσει τις ew ἀνϑράχων πυρὸς, τοὺς δὲ σεόδας οὐ χαταχαύσει;
c Cc γ - ν >
Οὕτως ὃ εἰσπορευόμενος σιρὸς γυναῖχα ὕσπιανδρον οὐχ ἀϑῳωϑή-
\ - - - - ,
σεται. Καὶ τοῦ μὴ μόνον ἡμᾶς εὐνοεῖν τοῖς ὁμοφύλοις, ὡς οἵον-
, ig he Cc , 2, av ~ ~ c ~~
ta τινὲς, ΠΙσαΐας ὁ τπιροφήτης ἔφη" Εἴπατε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς
\ ~ , 2 ~ ,
nal τοῖς βδελυσσομένοις, ᾿αΑδελφοὶ ἡμῶν ἔστε, ἵνα τὸ ὕνομα Κυ-
[ . ~ > ~ ~ ~ N
ρίου δοξασϑῇ xai ὀφϑῇ ἐν τῇ εὐφροσύνῃ αὐτῶν. Τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέ-
7) i ee | = ᾿ \ Ν 2 C \ ς ~ ᾿ \ , © \
Loy γαπᾶτε, φησὶ, τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς ὑμῶν, χαὶ τεροσεύχεσϑε LEO
- ΕΣ ’ Cc ~ 2 ΡῚ ~ ~ ) - Cc ~
τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς. “Edy γὰρ ἀγαπᾶτε τοῦς ἀγατιὥντας bude,
~ Ν ΒΡ ~ \ € ~
ποῖον μισϑὸν ἔχετε; τοῦτο χαὶ οἱ λῃσταὶ, χαὶ οἱ τελῶναι σοιοῦσι.
\ ~ 2 NO ~
Τοὺς δὲ ποιοῦντας τὸ ayadov διδάσχει μὴ χαυχᾶσϑαι, ἵνα μὴ
2 , ᾿ 3 I> , \ Ps ς , : Cun
ἀνϑρωπάρεσχοι wow, My γνώτω yao, φησὶν, ἣ χείρ σου H ael-
\ , - , c .
στερα, TL ποιεῖ ἢ χείρ σου ἢ δεξιά. (Mat. ν. 28, 32, 44, 46; vi. 3.)
PANTAENUS. 129
9. PanraEnus.
Eus. H. ΕἾΝ. 10.1 ‘Hysiro δὲ τηνιχαῦτα τῆς τῶν πιστῶν
2 [ἢ . ~ IN \ 8 δ ’ t , »” δι ς ἕω
αὐτόϑι διατριβῆς ἀνὴρ χατὰ παιδείαν ἐπιδοξότατος, ὀνομα αὐτῷ
γ... γ , We ν᾿ 2 ~ « ~ ,
Πάνταινος, ἐξ ἀρχαίου ἔϑους διδασχαλείου τῶν ἱερῶν λόγων
> > ~ ~ fo, 7: ~ ‘
παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς συνεστῶτος, ὃ χαὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς παρατείνεται, καὶ σιρὸς
τῶν ἐν λόγῳ χαὶ τῇ περὶ τὰ ϑεῖα στιουδῇ δυνατῶν συγχροτεῖσϑαι
7 , 2 ἊΝ ~ Gye aN ail ae ~ ,
παρειλήφαμεν. Ἔν δὲ τοῖς μάλιστα χατ᾿ exetvo χαιροῦ διαλάμ-
, »” ν ν te > ‘ 2 ~
wou λόγος ἔχει τὸν δεδηλωμένον, οἷα χαὶ ἀπὸ φιλοσόφου ἀγωγῆς
-~ , oo ~ C nan γ By \
τῶν χαλουμένων Στοϊχῶν ὡρμωμένον. Τοσαύτην δ᾽ οὖν φασὶν
7 \ ’ { i Ὁ Qo’ ἢ { , Ν Ν C ~ , ’
αὐτὸν ἐχϑυμοτάτῃ διαϑέσει τιροϑυμίαν wEot τὸν ϑεῖον λόγον ἕν-
lee Q ς Α Ne, ne) \ r \ 2) , - 31.109
δείξασϑαι, ὡς χαὶ χήρυχα τοῦ χατὰ Χριστὸν εὐαγγελίου τοῖς En
1) ~ » 2 ν - ’, ~ 2) ν᾿ ὦ , ~
ἀνατολῆς ἔϑνεσιν ἀναδειχϑῆναι, μέχρι τῆς Ινδῶν στειλάμενον γῆς.
3 ‘ et? , , ? \ ~ , De
Ησαν yao εἰσέτι τότε σπιλείους εὐαγγελισταὶ τοῦ λόγου, ἔνϑεον
een 2 ~ dt ’
ζῆλον ἀποστολιχοῦ μιμήματος συνεισφέρειν em αὐξήσει χαὶ οἶχο-
~ ~ , = τι cd ,
δομῇ τοῦ ϑείου λόγου ττρομηϑούμενοι. ‘Ry εἷς γενόμενος καὶ ὃ Παν-
3 \ ~ ~ )
ταινος, χαὶ εἰς ᾿Ινδοὺς ἐλϑεῖν λέγεται: ἔνϑα λόγος εὑρεῖν αὐτὸν
/ ‘ d ~ 7 ~ ᾽ ᾿
γιροφϑάσαν τὴν αὐτοῦ “παρουσίαν τὸ χατὰ Π]ατϑαῖον εὐαγγέλιον
, 2 \ r aa -
παρά τισιν αὐτόϑι τὸν Χριστὸν ἐπεγνωχόσιν, οἷς Βαρϑολομαῖον
- > , ~ 2) ~ ,
τῶν ἀποστόλων ἕνα χηρῖξαι αὐτοῖς τε “Εβραίων γράμμασι τὴν
> mw a -
τοῦ Mardatov καταλεῖψαι γραφὴν, ἣν καὶ σώζεσϑαι εἰς τὸν δη-
, - - ,
λούμενον χρόνον. Ὃ ye μὴν Πάνταινος ἐτιὶ σπιολλοῖς χατορϑώμασι,
pues >») reve πο Comers . , -ὔ -
τοῦ χατ᾽ ᾿,4λεξανδρειαν τελευτῶν ἡγεῖται διδασχαλείου, ζώσῃ φωνὴ
\ A ~
χαὶ διὰ συγγραμμάτων τοὺς τῶν ϑείων δογμάτων ϑησαυροὺς ὕσιο-
μνηματιζόμενος.
Hieronym. script. eccl. c.36. (Pantaenus in India) reperit,
Bartholomaeum de duodecim apostolis adventum Domini nostri
Jesu Christi juxta Matthaei evangelium praedicasse, quod He-
braicis literis scriptum revertens Alexandriam secum retulit.
1 This testimony is valuable as being independent of that of Papias and
those who follow him. By India it is supposed that Southern Arabia is denoted.
Pantaenus flourished in the end of the second century, and was the teacher of
Clem. Alex. Eusebius has been speaking of the first year of the reign of Com-
modus (6. 9), and it was at that date (A.D. 192) therefore that, according to
him, Pantaenus was the head of the Alexandrian School. There is difficulty in
understanding what is meant by τελευτῶν in the last sentence of our extract,
because Clement succeeded Pantaenus about A.D. 189. Was Pantaenus twice at
the head of the School, before and after his missionary tour?
΄
134 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
10. Crement or ALEXANDRIA.
~ a ~ By 5)
Strom. I. 409. Ἐν δὲ τῷ χατὰ Mardaioy εὐαγγελίῳ % ἀπὸ
"ABoaau γενεαλογία μέχρι Π]αρίας τῆς μητρὸς τοῦ Κυρίου περαι-
βραὰμ γενεαλογία μέχρι Μαρίας τῆς μητρὸς giov στὲρ
~ A , ν Ξ A 3 \ 3) A cr h \ οὶ \
οὕται" γίνονται yao, φησὶν, απὸ «βραὰμ ἕως Aapid γενεαὶ δε-
, ν > x ass ce ~ , ~
κατέσσαρες, χαὶ ατιὸ AaBid ἕως τῆς μιετοιχεσίας Βαβυλῶνος γε-
‘ > - ~ ~
νεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, χαὶ AO τὴς μετοιχεσίας Βαβυλῶνος ἕως τοῦ
Χριστοῦ ὁμοίως ἄλλαι γενεαὶ δεχατέσσαρες.
11. Terruvuran.
Adv. Marcion. V. 9. Nos edimus evangelia (de quorum fide
aliquid utique jam in tanto opere istos confirmasse debemus)
nocturna nativitate declarantia Dominum, ut hoc sit ante lucife-
rum, et ex stella Magis intellecta, et ex testimonio angeli, qui
nocte pastoribus annuntiavit natum esse cum maxime Christum,
et ex loco partus, in diversorium enim ad noctem convenitur.
Fortasse an et mystice factum sit ut nocte Christus nasceretur,
lux veritatis futurus ignorantiae tenebris.
De carne Christi, c. 20. Sed bene, quod idem dicit Mat-
thaeus originem Domini decurrens ab Abraham usque ad Ma-
riam, “Jacob,” inquit, ‘‘generavit Joseph, virum Mariae, ex qua
nascitur Christus.”
Itid. c. 22. Ipse inprimis Matthaeus, fidelissimus evangelii
commentator, ut comes Domini, non aliam ob causam, quam ut
nos originis Christi carnalis compotes faceret, ita exorsus est:
“Tiber geniturae Jesu Christi, filii David, filii Abraham.”
12. Tue Crementine Homies. !
Hom. 111. 52.2 Ἐπεὶ οὖν οὐρανοῦ χαὶ γῆς ἔτι συνεστώτων
1 Although the Clementine Homilies are more largely quoted afterwards
when the relation of Heretics and of Judaeo-Christian sects to the Chureh falls
to be considered, there are some references given here in order that the catena
of Testimonies may be more complete. For a discussion of the place and influence
of the Clementines see Introduction. The Latin form of the Christian Romance
—the Recognitions—seems on many grounds to be less valuable for our purpose
than that from which we quote—the Homilies.
2 In this passage are instances of verbatim agreement (Mat. xi. 28), almost
complete agreement (Mat. xv. 13; John x. 27) and of an echo of a passage in the
Gospel (John x. 9). The whole is a specimen of the style of the Homily.
THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 135
παρῆλϑον ϑυσίαι, βασιλεῖαι, αἱ ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναιχῶν τιροφητεῖ
ρἣλ ἫΝ , αἱ ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν σχιροφητεῖαι,
ν ὦ ~ Cc 2 5] ~ , -
χαὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα, ὡς οὐχ ὕντα Θεοῦ τιροστάγματα, ἕνϑεν γοῦν λέγει"
~ aA > \ Bb)
Πᾶσα φυτεία, ἣν οὐχ ἐφύτευσεν ὃ πατὴρ ὃ οὐράνιος,
’ , ε - ) \ ? yw
ἐκριζωϑήσεται (Mat. xv. 19). “ιὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς adn Ing ὧν
σεροφήτης ἔλεγεν: Ἐγὼ εἰμὲ ἣ στιύλη τῆς ζωῆς" 6 δι᾿ ἐμοῦ εἰσερ-
προφήτης ἔλε) γὼ εἰμὲ ἡ wvhy τῆς ζωῆς" ὃ δι΄ ἐμοῦ εἰσερ
, ’ ‘ “- Ν c / « ,ὔ
χόμενος εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὴν ζωὴν (John x. 9), ὡς οὐχ ovang ἑτέρας
~ Ihe ν᾿ ν . , ~
τῆς σώζειν δυναμένης διδασκαλίας. Mo χαὶ ἐβόα λέγων" Aevve
’ ~ . ava
MOOG ME πτιέντες OF χοπιῶντες (Mat. xi. 28) τουτέστιν οἱ τὴν
>> 1¢ -- _#~ \ \ Cc , 2 \ , A es \
ἀλήϑειαν ζητοῦντες χαὶ μὴ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν" zai πάλιν: Ta
Pin ὀχροὺ ΞΕ ΑΝ ὉΠ}, Χαὶ
ἑμὰ πρόβατα ἀχούει τῆς ἐμῆς φωνῆς (Johnx. 27). Καὶ
yy” ΄, - \ se \ ν
ἄλλοτε: Ζητεῖτε καὶ evoloxere (Mat. vii. 1) ὡς μὴ τεροδήλως
- >
χειμένης τῆς ἀληϑείας.
- 2 4 \ \ )
Hom. VIII. 4. “Adie χαὶ πολλοὶ, φησὶν, χλητοὶ, oht-
you δὲ ἐχλεχτοί. (Mat. xx. 16.)3
Hom. XVIII. 15. Καὶ ὃ Σίμων ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἀγαναχτήσας eq:
nn \ 7 > ~ > , χγπ.» - ,
Tov σὸν διδάσχαλον αἰτιῶ εἰπόντα: Πξομολογοῦμαι σοι,
-ασ lt ~ δ] - \ ~ ~ cr c 3 \
Κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ χαὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἅπτερ ἣν Ἀρυτιτὰ
- }) , > \ , « Is 2) wea
σοφοῖς, ἀπεχάλυψας αὐτὰ yvnwlorg ϑηλάζουσιν. . . evdE-
x δ] ~ ey ~ q ~ \ A ~
χεται γὰρ αὐτοῦ εἶναι τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τὰ χρυτιτὰ α ἔλεγεν, τῷ
\ ‘ Cry ole ’ ~ 2 tt Ν , ἊΣ
nai τὸν Hoaiay εἰτιεῖν. “Ανοιξω τὸ στόμα μου ὲν παρα-
- Se > ~
βολαῖς zat ἐξερεύξομαι χεχρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς
χυσπου (Mat. xi. 25; xiii. 35).
ς r τς d \ ΝΞ πο ς
Hom. XIX. 2. Καὶ ἄλλῃ που οἶδα αὐτὸν εἰρηχότα' Εἰ ὃ
Σατανᾶς τὸν Σατανᾶν ἐχβάλλει, ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐμερίσϑιη,
~ 3 2 - 7 se << | a
πῶς οὖν αὐτοῦ στήσῃ ἢ βασιλεία; (Mat. xii. 20)... My
δότε τερόφασιν τῷ πονηρῷ. “ALAC καὶ συμβουλεύων εἴρηχεν: Ἔστω
ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ, ναὶ, καὶ τὸ οὔ, οὔ: Τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τού-
~ ~ r ‘ 7
τῶν ἕκχ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστίν. (Mat. ν. 37; Jas. ν. 12.) .4λλὰ
ΜΉΝ. ete, dene. 2 SP ΠΣ a ee
χαὶ ἐν ἣ παρέδωχεν εὐχῇ ἔχομεν εἰρημένον." “Ρῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ
- ~ . ς ee \ ” Ἴ τῷ
τοῦ πονηροῦ. (Mat. vi. 13; xii. 26.) Kat addy mov εἰπεῖν
~ d ~ r ‘
ὑχιέσχετο τοῖς ἀσεβοῦσιν: Ὑπάγετε εἰς τὸ σχότος τὸ ἐξώτερον
0 ἧτοί ὁ χιατὴρ τῷ διαβόλῳ “al τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ. (Com-
0 ἡτοίμασεν ὃ τιατὴρ τῷ διαβόλῳ χαὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ.
pare Mat. xxv. 30; xxii. 13; viii. 12.)
γ Χ ς ~ ἊΣ
Hom. X1X.7. Οὕτω γὰρ ὃ ἀψευδὴς judy eine διδάσχαλος"
> ς μὲ ΠΝ ΥΩ
Ex περισσεύματος χαρδίας στόμα λαλεῖ. (Mat. xii, 34.)
3. See before, page 102, note 3.
136 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
13. Oricen.
(See before, pp. 8, 51, 81.)
. ~ \
De Orat. Tom. I. p. 245. (Migne, vol. I. p. 509.) Πρῶτον δὲ
« τυ ay, c ς le c ἜΝ , 5 » λὃ ν ~ C λλή
rot ἰστέον, ὅτι ἣ λέξις ἣ ἐπιούσιον, παρ᾽ οὐδενὶ τῶν Ἑλλη-
VOY, OLTE τῶν σοφῶν ὠνόμασται, οὔτε ἐν τῇ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν συνη-
> 2 , ς \ ~ 2 -
Sela τέτριτιται, ἀλλ᾽ ἔοιχε σπεπλάσϑαι ὑπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν.
= ὡ = ac = as
Σιυνηνέχϑησαν γοῦν ὃ Mardatog χαὶ ὃ Aovnds περὶ αὐτῆς μηδα-
Ie διο ve sou G Ne we bigawil oat ΤΠ » δὲ χαὶ ἐπ᾽ Cth
μῶς διαφερούσης, αὐτὴν ἐξενηνοχύτες. Τὸ ὅμοιον δὲ χαὶ ἐπ αλ-
« , ‘ oh /
λων οἱ ἕρμηνεύοντες τὰ “Εβραΐχα τιεποιήχασι.
Comm. in Mat. Tom. 15. ¢.13. ». 0610. (Migne, vol. III. p. 1290.)
= , > a) , © \ \ Κ ΓΘ ΕΝ so Ἂ 5 ¢
Πρόσχες οὖν εἰ δυνάμεϑα moog τὴν τιροχειμένην ζήτησιν χαϑ' ἕνα
A 2 ~ , ’ > Ul \
μὲν τρόπον οὕτως ἀπαντῆσαι, ὅτι μήποτε TO" .«γαπήσεις TOY
ἐπ c 2 ς \
πλησίον Gov ὡς σαυτὸν, ὑπονοεῖσθϑαι δύναται, ὡς οὐχ ὑπὸ
~ ~ ~ ~ > ’ .ς , ἐδ, > ,
τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐνταῦϑα παρειλῆφϑαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὑχιό τινος τὴν axgt-
͵ ~ , το νὰ Ἴ
βειαν μὴ νοήσαντος τῶν λεγομένων, τεροστεϑεῖσϑαι. ... Καὶ δὲ
\ ν᾿ - 23 "» ~
μὲν μὴ χαὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν
> , c , \ Sas { - \ aN 2 λ ,
ἀντιγράφων, ὥστε πάντα τὰ χατὰ Π]ατϑαῖον un ovvedery αλλή-
ς \ Ν 5 2 dN > , a”
λοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιτεὰ Εὐαγγέλια, nav ἀσεβής τις ἔδοξεν
3 CoG ~ 3) ~¢ Sey Say 2} Ἄ , Go τς -
εἰναι ὃ ὑχιονοῶν ἐνταῖϑα προσεῤῥίφϑαι, οὐχ εἰρημένην LO τοῦ
~ Ν \ 7 ,
Σωτῆρος πρὸς τὸν πλούσιον τὴν “γαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον
c \ > , \ \ , ἣν , c
σου ὡς σεαυτὸν, ἑντολήν᾽ νυνὶ δὲ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἢ
- > , » \ »” ΒῚ c ~ ,
τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορὰ, εἴτε ἀπὸ ὁᾳϑυμίας τινῶν γραφέων,
” d / ~ ~ ~ Ἂν ~
εἴτε a0 τόλμης τινῶν μοχϑηρᾶς τῆς διορϑώσεως τῶν γραφο-
»” \ ) \ - ~ - - ,
μένων, εἴτε γαὶ CO TOY τὰ ξαυτοῖς δοχοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορϑώσει
aS! , 3 Ξ' > ,
σπιροστιϑέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων. Τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγρά-
- - ~ ͵
φοις τῆς Παλαιᾶς “ιαϑήχης διαφωνίαν, Θεοῦ διδόντος, εὕρομεν
nA , ~ ~ , ~ AY
ἰάσασϑαι, χριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐχδόσεσιν" τῶν γὰρ
2 y , \ ~ τ , ‘ \ ~ 3 ,
αμφιβαλλομένων παρὰ τοῖς Ἑβδομήχοντα διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀντιγρά-
ν , , > ~ ~ ,
{ων διαφωνίαν, τὴν χρίσιν ποιησάμενοι αττὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐχδὸ-
\ ~ © tt ’ x 3
oewy, TO συνᾷδον ἐχείναις ἐφυλάξαμεν, καὶ τινὰ μὲν ὠβελίσαμεν
’ ee 9. ~ \ , 2 , ΒῚ U
ev τῷ Πβραϊχῷ μὴ χείμενα, οὐ τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ mavtn στξριξ-
ΠΡῸΣ Ὰ \ AN >) > , ᾿ - EY 4,
λεῖν" τινὰ δὲ μετ ἀστερίσχων σπιροσεϑήχαμεν, ἵνα δῆλον ἢ, OTL
\ ’ ‘ ~ C ~ ~
μὴ χείμενα παρὰ τοῖς “EBdounzovra ἐχ τῶν λοιττῶν ἐχδόσεων
ae , ~ Cn Sie Bets Ν᾿ \ Cc \ ,
συμφώνως τῷ Πβραϊχῷ προσεϑήκαμεν" χαὶ ὁ μὲν βουλόμενος
, >on Τῷ \ ~ aA ,
AQOLTCL αὐτά ᾧ δὲ προσχότιτει τὸ τοιοῦτον, Ὁ βούλεται EOL
~ ~ 7 - W Ἂ ΄
τῆς παραδοχῆς αὐτῶν, 1 μὴ, στοιήσῃ.Ἶ
1 Origen here recounts the causes of difference in the copies of the Gospels
ORIGEN. JULIUS AFRICANUS. 137
Comm. in Joh. Tom. IV. p.132. (Migne, vol. IV. p. 253.) Ἔχον-
τὲς τοίνυν τὰς ὁμοίας λέξεις τῶν τεσσάρων, φέρε χατὰ τὸ δυνα-
τὸν ἴδωμεν ἰδίᾳ τὸν νοῦν ἑκάστης χαὶ τὰς διαφορὰς, ἀρξάμενοι
ἀπὸ τοῦ Mardaiov, ὃς χαὶ παραδέδοται πρῶτος τῶν λοιπῶν
τοῖς Ἑβραίοις ἐχδεδωχέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῖς ἐχ περιτομῆς στι-
στεύουσιν.3
Comm. in Joh. Tom. IV. p. 136. (Migne, vol. IV. p. 262.) Ὁ
τοίνυν ᾿Ιωάννης φησὶ σπιαρὰ μὲν τοῖς τρισὶν οὐχ εἶναι ἱχανὸς, παρὰ
δὲ τῷ Ιωάννῃ οὐχ εἶναι ἄξιος.
14. Junius Arricanus.!
2 ~ r ~
Eus. H. E. 1. 1. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὴν περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ yevecho-
“(αν διαφόρως ἡμῖν ὃ Matdatog xai ὃ “Τουχᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμιε-
γι apooug ἡμῖν ὃ τὲ Π]ατϑαῖος χαὶ 0 Aovadg εὐαγγελιζόμε
ν , . ~ te ~ ~ ~
vou τιαραδεδώχασι, διαφωνεῖν te νομίζονται τοῖς πολλοῖς, τῶν
~ 2 - 2) ~ ~ \
re πιστῶν ἕχαστος ἀγνοίᾳ τοῦ ἀληϑοῦς εὑρησιλογεῖν εἰς τοὺς τό-
MOVE στιεφιλοτίμηται, φέρε χαὶ τὴν τιερὶ τούτων χατελϑοῦσαν εἰς
« - « = aA Wy ~ 2 LAN /
ἡμᾶς torogiay παραϑώμεϑα, ἣν δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς Aguoveton, γρα-
He is even bold enough to suggest that the words, ‘“‘Thou shalt love thy neigh-
bour as thyself,” may not be genuine, inasmuch as they are not in Mark or Luke.
The chief significance of his words lies in the fact of so many divergences in
MSS of the New Testament in his day. It shows that the Books had been in cir-
culation for a long time before. See also Origen, Comm. in Rom. IV. 687 and
below. The testimony of Irenaeus is still more notable from the same point
of view (Book V. 30. 1), for at his earlier date the same phenomena of conflict-
ing manuscripts were seen. See Scrivener, Int. to Textual Crit., p.449 for ex-
amination of those facts. Origen says elsewhere (c. Cels. 11. p. 77) that he ‘did
not know any that had altered the text of the Gospels designedly except the
followers of Marcion and Valentinus and perhaps also of Lucanus.”
2 This passage says that Matthew wrote for Hebrews. In a passage pre-
served by Eus. H. E. VI. 25 (see before, page 8) he says that the Gospel was γράμ-
μασιν EBoatxots συντεταγμένον. He repeats the statement in our text in his Com.
in Joh. I. 6 (see before, p. 85). It is remarkable, however, that Origen never
makes any use of the said Hebrew original of Matthew. See his remarks on the
New Testament renderings of Hebrew (Acts xiii. 33) in the fragments left by him
on Psalms ii and iii. (Migne, vol. VI. P. 1. p. 575, &c.)
3 This occurs in the course of his minute comparison of the narrative of the
Evangelists regarding John the Baptist.
1 Julius Africanus, a contemporary of Origen, lived in Palestine, is said to have
been Bishop of Emmaus. Author of a Chronographia from the Creation to A.D.
221, which Eusebius and others quote. The following extract is from his letter
to Aristides, notable as an attempt to explain the discrepancy in the Genealogies
of Matthew and Luke. The attempt implies the acceptance of both at the time
he wrote. There is a remarkable correspondence between the extract as given by
Eusebius and the Hortatory Address to the Greeks which is ascribed to Justin
Martyr.
138 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
\ - - ’ ~
GY περὶ συμφωνίας τῆς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις γενεαλογίας ὃ μιχρῷ
‘i Le, Cu Y Fie meee) \ ’ , ᾿ \ \ ~
πρόσϑεν ἡμῖν δηλωϑεὶς Apoizavog ἐμνημόνευσε, τὰς μὲν δὴ τῶν
= Ξ κ᾿ é, a -
λοιστιῶν δόξας ὡσὰν βιαίους καὶ διεψευσμένας ἀτιελέγξας, ἣν δὲ
δὴ \ > ~ ~ c
αὐτὸς παρείληφεν ἱστορίαν, τούτοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ῥήμασιν ἐχτιϑέ-
μενός"
᾽ ‘ iy ~ ~ ~ ,
Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν γενῶν ἐν ᾿Ισραὴλ ἠριϑμεῖτο ἢ φύσει
an , [4 , -
ἢ νόμῳ, φύσει μὲν, γνησίου σπέρματος διαδοχῇ, νόμῳ δὲ, ἑτέρου
παιδοποιουμένου εἰς ὄνομα τελευτήσαντος ἀδελφοῦ ἀτέκνου: (OTL γὰρ
Ins "2 2 \ 3 ΄ ‘ ‘ , 2 , ῃ
οὐδέπω δέδοτο ἐλπὶς ἀναστάσεως σαφὴς τὴν μέλλουσαν ἐπαγγελίαν ava-
, ~ ~ ~
στάσει ἐμιμοῦντο ϑνητῇ, ἵνα ἀνέκλειπτον to ὄνομα μείνῃ τοῦ μετηλ-
΄ 3 -
λαχότος)" ἐπεὶ οὖν οἱ τῇ γενεαλογίᾳ ταύτῃ ἐμφερόμενοι, οἵ μὲν διε-
δέξαντο παῖς πατέρα γνησίως. of δὲ ἑτέροις μὲν ἐγεννήϑησαν, ἑτέροις
δὲ προσετέϑησαν κλήσει, ἀμφοτέρων γέγονεν ἡ μνήμη, καὶ τῶν γεγεν-
‘ \ ~ ~ >
νηκότων, καὶ τῶν ὡς γεγεννηκότων. Οὕτως οὐδέτερον τῶν εὐαγγελίων
, ΠῚ ΄ > ~ \ , 3 , ‘ ᾽ ΄ A
ψεύδεται, καὶ φύσιν ἀριϑμοῦν καὶ νόμον" ἐπεπλάκει yao ἀλλήλοις τὰ
, ’ > ‘ ~ ΄ \ ‘ 3 A ~ , ΕῚ ,
γένη, τὸ τὲ ἀπὸ tov Σολομῶνος, καὶ to axo tov Nadav, avacrace-
᾽ ΄ e ν᾿
σιν ἀτέκνων, καὶ δευτερογαμίαις καὶ ἀναστάσεσι σπερμάτων, ὡς δι-
, \ 2 ‘ ” ” , ~ A ,
καίως τοὺς αὑτοὺς ἄλλοτε ἀλλων νομίζεσϑαι, τῶν μὲν δοκούντων πα-
~ ΄ ᾽
τέρων, τῶν δὲ ὑπαρχόντων: ὡς ἀμφοτέρας τὰς διηγήσεις κυρίως ἀλη-
ϑεῖς οὔσας ἐπὶ tov ᾿Ιωσὴφ πολυπλόκως μὲν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκριβῶς κατελϑεῖν.
oT δὲ \ 3 A A ΄ \ ᾽ λλ \ ~ ~ ὃ ,
va δὲ σαφὲς ἢ) τὸ λεγόμενον, τὴν ἐπαλλαγὴν τῶν γενῶν διηγήσομαν
γ,.τ.}.
Meron. de Vir. Ill. c. 63. Extat ejus ad Aristidem altera
epistola, in qua super διαφωνία, quae videtur esse in genealogia
Salvatoris apud Matthaeum et Lucam, plenissime disputat.
15. Eusesius.
(See before, p. 10, 87, &c.)
. oe . f 3} Ν A ree
Com. in Psalm. laxvii. 2. (Migne, V. 904.) -Αντι yao τοῦ
} D9) Ὁ. χω Cas, ~ 3 Gl aan - ᾿
Φϑέγξομαι τπιροβλήμιατα ec ἀρχῆς, E8ectog ὧν ὃ ϊατϑαῖος ot-
y > fe , δ Ν
χείᾳ ἐχδόσει χέχρηται, εἰπών: Βρεύξομαι χεχρυμμένα αὐτὸ χατα-
~ re \ > 4 a] h / , , ΕΣ > ~
βολῆς, ἀνϑ ob ὃ μὲν ᾿χύλας" Ομβρήσω αἰνίγματα ἐξ ἀρχῆϑεν,
ἣ ν ΒῚ / y, , ~
ἐχδέδωχεν" 0 δὲ Σύμμιαχος" Avaphtow πιροβλήματα ἀρχαῖα.
1 There may be doubt as to what οἰχεία ἔχδοσις means. It is clear that ᾿
Eusebius means at least to intimate Matthew’s independence of the translations
of Symmachus and Aquila. If we can suppose Matthew to have been the trans-
lator of his own Gospel from Hebrew into Greek, this passage may be reconciled
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. EPIPHANIUS. JEROME. 139
H. E. IID. 24. Matrdcaiog uév γὰρ τιρότερον “Ἑβραίοις χη-
ovgac, we ἔμελλε χαὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρους ἰέναι, πατρίῳ γλώττῃ γραφὴ
Ἴ - Dies ,
παραδοὺς τὸ “au αὐτὸν εὐαγγέλιον τὸ λεῖττον τῇ αὐτοῦ τιαρουσίᾳ,
τούτοις ag ὧν ἐστέλλετο, διὰ tig γραφῆς ἀπεπλήρου.
10. Cyrit or JERUSALEM.
Catech. XIV. p. 148. (edit. Paris. 1640). Matdatog ὃ γρά-
wag τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, Εβραΐδι γλώσσῃ τοῦτο ἔγραψεν.
11. Eprpnantus.
Haeres. I. t. 2. h. 50. (t. 1. p. 127). Καὶ δέχουται μὲν καὶ
αὐτοὶ τὸ χατὰ Π]ατϑαῖον εὐαγγέλιον, τούτῳ γὰρ χαὶ αὐτοὶ, ὡς
χαὶ οἱ χατὰ Κήρινϑον χρῶνται μόνῳ. Καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτὸ χατὰ
Ἑβραίους, ὡς τὰ ἀληϑῆ ἐστιν εἰτιεῖν, ὅτι Mardaiog uovog “Εβραΐϊ-
PQ S) Hv?) ) ς
στὶ χαὶ Ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμμασιν ἐν τῇ Καινῇ Madinn ἑποιήσατο
τὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔχϑεσίν τε χαὶ χήρυγμα.
Ibid. (p. 425). Οὗτος τοίνυν 6 Π]ατϑαῖος καταξιοῦται τὸ εὐ-
\ . 5)
αγγέλιον, ὡς ἔφην, χαὶ διχαιότατα ἣν.
2 τ \ t c
Haeres. If. ¢. 1. h. 51. (t. 1. p. 426). Kat οὗτος μὲν. οὖν ὁ
Π]ατϑαῖος “Εβραϊχοῖς yoo "γρά 0 Εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ χηρύτ-
I ¢ ἩΕβραϊχοῖς γράμμασι γράφει τὸ Ευαγγέλιον, χαὶ χηρὺ
Ἀγ 5. 2 2 > ~ 7 \ ~ \ \
TEL, χαὶ ἄρχεται οὐκ am ἀρχῆς, ahha διηγεῖται μὲν τὴν γξνεα-
, A ~ 2 /
λογίαν azo tov «βρααμι.
18. Jerome. !
De Vir. Ill. c. ὃ. Matthaeus, qui et Levi, ex publicano Apo-
stolus, primus in Judaea propter eos qui ex circumcisione cre-
with the others in which Eusebius declares him to have written his Gospel in
Hebrew. Compare Eus. H. E. III. 24 (see before, p. 87, where the whole passage
is given). See also H. E. V. 10 (before, p. 110).
2 See the context before, p. 110, extract from Eus. H. E. V. 10; and com-
pare p. 87, H. E. III. 24.
1 On the various and varying testimonies of Jerome to the original form of
Matthew’s Gospel see Introduction, ‘Gospel of the Hebrews,’ and see the passages
quoted in our text below, ‘Gospel of Hebrews.’ It is remarkable that he does
not claim to have used it in making his own version: ‘Novum Testamentum
Graeeae fidei reddidi. Vetus juxta Hebraicam retuli.”” (De vir. ill. ο. 135.) He
says elsewhere that he translated into Greek the Gospel which the Nazarenes and
Ebionites use, which is called by many the authentic Gospel of Matthew; he says
140 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
diderant, evangelium Christi Hebraicis literis verbisque compo-
suit. Quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum
est. Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Caesariensi
bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus Martyr studiosissime confecit. Mihi
quoque a Nazaraeis, qui in Beroea, urbe Syriae, hoc volumine
utuntur, describendi facultas fuit. In quo animadvertendum, quod
ubicumque Evangelista, sive ex persona sua, sive ex persona Do-
mini Salvatoris, Veteris Scripturae testimoniis abutitur, non se-
quatur Septuaginta translatorum auctoritatem, sed Hebraicam, e
quibus illa duo sunt: Ha Avgypto vocavi filium mewn (Mat. ii. 15),
et: “Quoniam Nazaraeus vocabitur (Mat. iii. 23).”
Pracfat. in IV Evang. ad Damasum (Vol. X. p. 661.) De
Noyo nunc Joquor Testamento, quod Graecum esse non dubium
est, excepto apostolo Matthaeo, qui primus in Judaea evangelium
Christi Hebraicis literis edidit.
Prolegom. in Matth. (Vol. VII. p. 3.) Primus omnium Mat-
thaeus est publicanus cognomento Levi, qui Evangelium in Ju-
daea Hebraco sermone edidit, ob eorum vel maxime causam, qui
in Jesum crediderant ex Judaeis, et nequaquam Legis umbram,
succedente evangelii veritate, servabant.
Epist. (XX) ad Damas. (Vol. 1. p. 67.) Matthaeus, qui evan-
gelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, ita posuit OSANNA BAR-
RAMA id est Osanna in excelsis ete.
Ad Hedib. (Vol. I. p. 820.) Mihi videtur evangelistam Mat-
thacum, qui evangelium Hebraico sermone conscripsit, non tam
“vespere” dixisse quam “sero,” et eum qui interpretatus est,
verbi ambiguitate deceptum, non “sero” interpretatum esse, sed
‘‘vespere.” 2
Comment. in TIesaiam (Vol. Ill. p. 97.) Matthaeus autem et
Joannes, quorum alter Hebraeo, alter Graeco sermone evangelia
texuerunt, testimonia de Hebraico proferunt etc.
Conment. in Oseam cap. XI. 1. (Vol. VI. p. 123.) Cui nos bre-
viter respondebimus: primum Matthaeum evangelium Hebraeis li-
teris edidisse, quod non poterant legere nisi qui ex Hebracis erant.
here that he was allowed an opportunity of examining and taking notes from that
copy which was in the Pamphilus library at Cesarea. The references here are to
the Edition of Vallarsius 1734-42 (11 vols.).
2 Jerome is answering a question (No. 4) regarding the accounts of the Re-
surrection in Matthew and John.
141
VIL.
GOSPEL OF MARK.
(COMPARE SECTIONS IV. AND JV.)
1. Paptas.
Eus. ΗΠ. E. III. 39. Περὶ Maoxov ... ὃ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε"
Mapzog μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου x.t.d. (see before pp. 56, 57 and
notes there).!
1 Early tradition consistently maintains a close connection between Mark’s
Gospel and the Apostle Peter. From Papias downwards the testimony is clear.
He is said by Papias to have been the ξρμηνευτής, by Irenaeus to have been i-
terpres et sectator, of Peter. Jerome gives a very concrete meaning to the word
ξρμιηνευτής, when he says that as Paul needed an interpreter to furnish him with
suitable Greek, and employed Titus in that capacity, so also Peter needed and
employed Mark. See the more general references to him as interpreter and fol-
lower of Peter in the quotations in our text from Papias, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.
But whatever was the special relation denoted by ξρμηνευτής, it is admitted to
have been intimate. The expression in 1 Peter v. 13, Μάρχος ὁ υἱός μου, is sup-
posed to indicate it. The tradition also is that ‘‘ Babylon,” of which Peter speaks
in the same epistle, was Rome; although it has been supposed in later times that
Peter wrote from the literal Babylon, to which he had gone with Mark for his
companion. Mark is said to have been the founder and first Bishop of the Church
in Alexandria; and Jerome says, he suffered martyrdom in the eighth year of Nero.
(Hieron. de Vir. Ill. ὁ. 8.) here is also such warrant as tradition can give for
identifying him with the John Mark of whom we read in Acts xii. 12, that he
was the son of Mary who had a house in Jerusalem where brethren assembled
for prayer. To this house Peter went direct when set free from prison. We
read of “ John surnamed Mark” going with Barnabas and Saul on their missionary
journey (Acts xii. 25), and of (apparently the same) John being the minister
(ὑπηρέτης) of those Apostles (Acts xiii. 5) until he turned back from them at
Perga (Acts xiii. 13). This “John surnamed Mark” was the cause of dissension
between the two Apostles after the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 37). Under
the name of Mark we have him (Coloss. iv. 10) joined in Paul’s salutations as
the kinsman (déyveW:d¢) of Barnabas, with a peculiar and significant reference to
certain directions which had been given for his proper reception and treatment.
The reference may be supposed to intimate that the Colossians were to regard
him as one whose present devotedness to Paul atoned for his past defection. He
is also joined in the salutation (Philem. 24). In the last letter of Paul he is
longed for as “very useful for service’? (2 Tim. iv. 11). This close alliance of
John Mark with Paul has led some to distinguish between him and the author
of the Gospel and ‘interpreter’ of Peter. Hippolytus (in a fragment on the
70 Apostles) even distinguishes three: the Evangelist (Bishop of Alexandria), the
cousin of Barnabas (Bishop of Apollonia), and John Mark (Bishop of Bibloupolis).
But ordinary tradition leads us to believe that the same person—the Evangelist—
was the companion and helper of Barnabas and Paul and Peter. A later tradition
makes him one of the 70 disciples (Pseudo-Origen, De recta in Deum fide, § 1),
142 GOSPEL OF MARK.
Ibid. ‘Iovoget (sc. Παπίας) χαὶ αὖ σιάλιν ἕτερον meoadoEov
γερὶ ᾿Ιούστον τὸν ἐπιχληϑέντα Βαρσαββᾶν γεγονὸς, ὡς δηλητήριον
φάρμακον ἐμπιόντος χαὶ μηδὲν αηδὲς διὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν
ὑπομείναντος.Σ (Mark xvi. 18.) (See before page 56, line 5.)
2. Barnapas. Crement. Hermas.
Barnabas, 6. 15. 9. Mo χαὶ ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ὀγδόην
εἰς εἰφροσίνην, ἐν ἢ χαὶ ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεχρῶν καὶ φανερω-
Jeig ἀνέβη εἰς οὐρανούς. (Mark xvi. 14.)
1 Clem. 15. Aéyer γάρ που Οὗτος ὃ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν μὲ
and Epiphanius (Haer. 51. 6) adds that he was one of those who ‘‘ went away”
from Jesus (John vi. 66) until Peter brought him back. In our own day it is
usual to identify him with the ‘‘young man” who first impulsively followed Jesus
at the end, and with equal impulsiveness fled away. The quotations from Cle-
ment of Alexandria and Origen and Tertullian give with varying details the same
testimony to the close connection between Peter and Mark’s Gospel. His Gospel
shows that he wrote to Gentiles who were familiar with Latin words (vi. 27;
xii. 42, ἅς.) and who needed explanations of Jewish customs (ii. 18; vii. 1-4;
xiv. 14; xv. 6, &e.). Gregory of Nazianzum says, the Gospel was written in Italy
(which agrees with the oldest tradition), but Chrysostom says it was written in
Egypt. Augustine contradicts the statements as to Mark’s Gospel being a written
record of Peter’s preaching when he says that Mark came after Matthew as one
who abridged him and trode in his very footsteps. But when the reason is given
that Mark has little in common with John and very little peculiar to himself,
Augustine is overlooking the remarkable fulness of graphic detail which dis-
tinguishes Mark from Matthew even when the same incidents are recorded. (Aug.
de consensu Evangelistarum, I. 4.)
2 Barsabas, as Eusebius states in next sentence (see p. 56), is named in Acts
i. 23 as ‘Joseph called Barsabas.”’ Possibly the words in the text are a slip
for ᾿Ιωσὴφ tov χαλούμενον Βαρσαββᾶν. There may be in this passage a reference
to the promise in Mark; but there is no parallel use of words, and the mere
statement that an early disciple took poison without being harmed does not atf-
ford much ground for the argument that its author had the passage of St Mark
_in view.
1 See before, page 104, note 8. Though Reuss, Gesch. § 234, quotes it to
show that it contradicts both Matthew and Mark, Hilg. sees in it a contradic-
tion of Matthew alone, adding however that Luke xxiv. 40 contradicts Acts i. 3.
The question is whether the Ascension of Jesus is here regarded as taking place
immediately after the Resurrection. But neither from Mark nor Luke is this a
necessary inference. The condensed narrative of Mark allows of an interval be-
fore v. 14 and again before v.19. Luke xxiv. 51 must be taken along with Acts
i. 8, where the author speaks of forty days of intercourse and teaching, although
in his earlier narrative there seems at first sight no room for such an interval.
In the same way Barnabas may be understood as declaring that each of the
two events took place on the eighth day, with an indefinite time between. That
“the Ascension was regarded as the consummation of the Resurrection without
regard to the interval between them” (Speaker’s Com.), scarcely vindicates the
historical accuracy of the Evangelists.
HERMAS. JUSTIN MARTYR. 143
τιμᾷ, ἣ δὲ χαρδία αὐτῶν πόῤῥω ἄπεστιν ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ." (Is. xxix. 13;
Mark vii. 6.)
Hermas, Mand. 1.1. Sim. IX. 25.3
3. Justin Martyr.
Apol. I. c. 16. p.63 D. “Ὡς δὲ zat τὸν Θεὸν μόνον δεῖ “τροσ-
7 ~ c ” γ ΠΕ ΣΥΝ Peri) ha rv \
χυνεῖν, οὕτως ἕπεισεν εἰπών" “ Meytotn evtody cot, Κύριον τὸν
/ ~ ~
Θεόν σου ΕΠ π ϑήσεις χαὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς
᾿ Ὶ
καρδίας σου, zal ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου, Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν
‘ ,
tov σπιοιήσαντά σε. 1 (Mark xii. 30.)
Dial. ὁ. 88. p. 316 C. Kai ἐλϑόντος tov Ἰησοῦ én τὸν 1ορ-
δάνην, χαὶ νομιζομένου Ιωσὴφ τοῦ τέχτονος υἱοῦ ὑτιάρχειν (Luke
iii. 23; Mat. xiii. 55)... zai τέχτονος νομιζομένου (ταῦτα γὰρ
ae ξ Ay DY, υ Ihe γ δι NG , Ww 2, Ν od Ν
τὰ τεχτονιχὰ ἔργα εἰργάζετο ἐν ἀνϑρώποις ὧν, ἄροτρα χαὶ ζυγὰ,
δ δ \ ‘ ~ ν ; ν Ὁ -
διὰ τούτων χαὶ τὰ τῆς διχαιοσύίνης σύμβολα διδάσκων χαὶ ἐνεργὴ
Ἅ . € ra
Btiov) ... (Mark vi. 3.)?
5 ΔΥΣῚ 9496 r ~ 4)
Dial. c. 106. p. 333 D. Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομαχέναι αὑτὸν
, cr Ἂν, Le , té a \ , C ? ~ ΕῚ
Ilétoov ἕνα τῶν ἀποστόλων, χαὶ γεγράφϑαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημο-
/ 2 - ~
γεΐμασιν αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον καὶ τοῦτο, μετὰ τοῦ καὶ ἄλλους δύο
Ig \ « 4 ΄ ν , a»
ἀδελφοὺς, υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου ὕντας, μετωνομακέναι ὀνόματι τοῦ
\ a ~ \ t ~ > ‘ ~
Βοανεργὲς, ὃ ἐστιν υἱοὶ βροντῆς, σημαντιχὴν ἣν τοῦ αὐτὸν ἐχεῖ-
2] ζεῖ Ν 2 β το Ὁ A
voy εἶναι, OL οὗ χαὶ τὸ ἐπώνυμον “Taro? τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐπιχληϑέντει
ἐδόϑη. (Mark iii. 17.)8
2 The quotation resembles Mark rather than the LXX. ΗΠ. reads ἀπέχει.
8 These passages are not given at length, because they do not seem to be
of sufficient importance.
1 Justin, like Mark, has ἐξ ὅχης τῆς ἰσχύος σου, and so also has Luke x. 27.
But the coincidence is not verbal, since Justin (both here and Dial. c. 93. p. 321 A)
has only ἐξ ὅλης τῆς xapdtag ... ἰσχύος, while Mark has also ψυχῆς . .
διανοίας. Luke has the same nouns as Mark, but with ἐν not ἐξ in the nest MSS
for all save xapStac. The Scribe in his reply does not repeat the same words,
υ. 33.
2 Mark alone ealls Christ a carpenter. The Apocryphal Gospels (see Ev.
Thom. c. 13 ὅς.) expand the fact into details as Justin does. There is in Orig.
e. Cels. VI. 36 a strange denial that our Gospels ever call Christ téxtwy. Celsus
had stated that he was “τέχτων τὴν τέχνην.
8 Justin’s phrase ἀπου. αὐτοῦ is without a parallel in his writings (see In-
troduction on ‘Justin’s Memoirs’ ). If it be retained, we must suppose him to refer
to Peter (in which case he confirms the tradition that Mark’s Gospel represents
Peter's preaching), or to Christ. Otto supposes that (1) αὐτοῦ is a mistake for
αὐτῶν, and gives many examples of a similar confusion of singular and plural
genitives in MSS of Justin; or (2) ἀποστόλων has been omitted before αὐτοῦ.
In the latter case the passage would be parallel to that in 6. 100 already quoted
144 GOSPEL OF MARK.
The following passages bear on the disputed verses at the close
of Mark’s Gospel, ὁ. xvi. 9-20.4
Apol. I. ¢.39. p.78 A. ᾿“πὸ γὰρ ‘Tegovochiu ἄνδρες δεχαδύο
Ν Ν a Q
\ 2 { Χ Veer) ¢ a) \ , \ fe Io ~ ~
τὸν ἀριϑμὸν ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν χόσμον, χαὶ οὗτοι ἰδιῶται, λαλεῖν
μὴ δυνάμενοι" διὰ δὲ Θεοῦ δυνάμεως ἐμήνυσαν παντὶ γένει ἂν-
ϑρώπων, ὡς ἀπιεστάλησαν bud τοῦ Χριστοῦ διδάξαι wevrag τὸν
Θεοῦ λόγον. (Mark xvi. 20.)
Apol. I. ς. 45. p.82 Ε΄. To οὖν εἰρημένον: ““Ράβδον δυνάμεως
ἐξατιοστελεῖ oor ἐξ “Ιερουσαλὴμ" προαγγελτιχὸν τοῦ λόγου τοῦ
BY ~ aA > ve \ « δ , 3 ~ > Fed
ἰσχυροῦ, ov ἀπὸ Ιερουσαλὴμ ot ἀπόστολοι αὐτοῦ ἐξελ-
ϑόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν. (Mark xvi. 20.)
Apol. I. ¢.49. p.85 A. Οἱ ἀπὸ “Ιερουσαλὴμ ἐξελϑόντες ἀπό-
2 ~ γ , Ν ‘ 2 ~ -
στολοι αὐτοῦ ἐμήνυσαν τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ. (Mark xvi. 20.)
Apol. I. ¢. 50. ». 86.A. Merve οὖν τὸ σταυρωϑῆναι αὐτὸν καὶ
οἱ γνώριμοι αὐτοῦ πάντες ἀπέστησαν... χαὶ εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀνερ-
, Ne? \ , . \ ,
youevoy ἰδόντες χαὶ πιστεύσαντες (Luke xxiv. 49) χαὶ δυναμιν
γ ὩΣ ἊΣ - o ~ a) 3) ~ / \ ’ ~ ,
ἐχεῖϑεν αὐτοῖς πεμφϑεῖσαν πὰρ αὑτοῦ λαβόντες χαὶ δὶς πᾶν γέ-
᾿] GO. , ὁλ. / ~ 2 , ξ 5 \ 2 “
vos ανϑρώσιων ἑλϑόντες, ταῦτα ἐδίδαξαν χαὶ ἀπόστολοι προσὴη-
γορεύϑησαν. (See Mark xvi. 19; John xv. 26, 27.)
Dial. c. 32. p. 249 Ε΄. Ὅπερ γίνεται ἐξ ὅτου εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν
in which is recorded the change of Peter’s name. (Mat. xvi. 18, but emphatically
Mark iii. 16.) These however are mere conjectures, and, as the passage stands,
ἀπομνημονεύματα αὐτοῦ naturally mean Peter’s Memoirs, which, however ellip-
tical, is expressive enough. The reference of αὐτοῦ to Christ is contrary to the
usages of Justin, who designates the authors in the genitive following ἀπομνη-
μονεύματα.
4 Although it is not easy to show that Justin had Mark’s Gospel specially
in view when quoting or referring to the Memoirs, or when narrating the events
of Christ’s life, the foregoing are beyond dispute references to Mark’s Gospel,
and those which follow refer to our Lord’s Ascension and the enduing of the
disciples with power, in terms which sometimes suggest Luke and sometimes Mark
as the source from which they are taken. For a discussion of the genuineness
of the close of the Gospel after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ see Burgon on {πὸ Last Twelve
Verses of St Mark.” The ascension to heaven of which Justin often speaks cannot
have been learned from Matthew’s Gospel. It is to be noted however that Justin
often uses σνέοχομαι and other words, while the word in Scripture is ἀναλαμβάνω.
As Tisch. N. T. p. 407 and Burgon p. 25 refer to this, I may refer to all the
passages (besides Apol. I. ο. 50, quoted in the text): Apol. I. c. 26, ἀνέλευσιν τοῦ
Χριστοῦ. Apol. 1. ©. 26; Dialnel 39, εἰς τ. οὐρανὸν. ἀνέλευσιν. But Dial. ec. 82,
ἄνοδον τὴν εἰς οὐρανόν. See Apol. ὁ. 45, ἀγαγεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τ. οὐρανὸν 6
πατήρ. In Dial. ὁ. 32 we have ἀνηλήφϑη; ec. 38, ἀναβεβηχέναι, ο. 85 ἀναβάντος,
6. 126, ἀναβάντα. In Dial. 6. 132 the words are ἀνεληλυϑότα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς.
The only use of ἀναλαμβάνω I can find is that in Dial. ὁ. 32 (see Text).
IRENAEUS. 145
γε, (ρ) Tae GN. Aba preeigy Sn. Panta Se nd > Kd saey?
ἀνελήφϑη μετὰ τὸ ἐκ νεχρῶν ἀναστῆναι ὃ ἡμέτερος Kie.og ᾿1η-
~ σ ’,
σοὺς Χριστὸς κχ.τ.λ.
. ~ me A ~ >
Dial. ὁ. 53. p. 273 C. Mera γὰρ τὸ σταυρωϑῆναι αὐτὸν οἱ
\ Ae os SE, ν Ω \ 2) ~ y ὑπ ,ὔ c ws
σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντες μαϑηταὶ αὐτοῦ διεσχεδάσϑησαν, μέχρις ὅτου ἀνέ-
~ >) c c
στὴ EX VELOMY ACL τιέτιξιχεν αὐτοὺς OTL οὕτως σπιροεπεφήτευτο
2 ~ ~ 2 . ς ,
χιδρὶ αὑτοῦ παϑεῖν αὐτόν" (Luke xxiv. 25, 44, 46) χαὶ οὕτω πει-
σϑέντες χαὶ εἰς τὴν πᾶσαν οἰχουμένην ἐξελϑόντες ταῦτα ἐδίδαξαν.
(Mark xvi. 20.)
4. IRENAEUvs.
B. III. 1. (See before, p. 67, and note there.)
B. ITI. 10, 6. Quapropter et Marcus interpres et sectator
Petri, initium evangelicae conscriptionis fecit sic: “Initium Eyan-
gelii Jesu Christi Filii Dei, quemadmodum scriptum est in Pro-
phetis: Ecce, mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui prae-
parabit viam tuam. Vox clamantis in deserto: Parate viam Do-
mini, rectas facite semitas ante Deum nostrum.” ... In fine
autem Evangelii ait Marcus: “Et quidem Dominus Jesus, post-
quam locutus est eis, receptus est in coelos, et sedet ad dexte-
Fam wes “(Mark i. 1; xvi. 19:)1
B. III. 11, 7. Qui autem Jesum separant a Christo, et im-
passibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum dicunt, id
quod secundum Marcum est praeferentes Evangelium; cum amore
veritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt.? (See before, page 67.)
1 In Harl. MS 5647 (= Evan. 12) the scholium against Mark ἘΝῚ 19. 19
Elonvatos ὁ τῶν ἀποστόλων πλησίον, ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὰς αἱρέσεις γ΄ λόγῳ τοῦτο
ἀνήνεγχεν τὸ ῥητὸν ὡς Mapxw εἰρημένον. See Burgon’s St Mark, p. 23.
2 It is uncertain to what sect Irenaeus refers here. Some (Grabe &e.) say
Cerinthus and his followers. But Epiphanius says that they, as well as the Ebio-
nites, used only Matthew’s Gospel. Baur and others (following De Wette) think
Mark xv. 37, 39 a text on which Gnostics would found, because the Centurion
was convinced of Jesus being the Son of God by the loud cry with which the
Spirit (that had been with Him) left Him on the cross. They quote Mark i. 26;
v. 7; ix. 26 in proof that this Gospel regarded a loud ery as the proof of a super-
natural spirit leaving a human body. But while Schwegler regarded the Gospel
as Ebionite, Hilg. (Einl. 520) only speaks of ‘Gnostics” (without specifying
which sect) who would be conciliated by such a passage as Mark xv. 37. In
his “Evangelien Justins’’ (p. 281) Hilg. followed De Wette in calling the pas-
sage Doketic.
10
140 GOSPEL OF MARK.
5. ATHENAGORAS.
L ti 33 Ὃς eS a 2 λύ Ls \ : ἘΣ > ~
egatio, c. 33. Ὃς yao av ἀπολύσῃ, φησὶ, τὴν γυναῖχα αὑτοῦ,
a” ~ 2 τ ,
nal γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται" οὔτε ἀπολύειν ἐπιτρέπων Hg eave
\ a - « 2 - « ~
τις τὴν τταρϑενίαν, οὔτε ἐπιγαμεῖν. “O γὰρ ἀἁτιοστερῶν ξαυτὸν τῆς
\ ,
προτέρας γυναιχὸς, KCL εἰ τέϑνηχε, WOLYOS ἔστι παραχεχαλυμμέ-
~ ~ ~ ca 2 ~ ¢€
γος, παραβαίνων μὲν τὴν χεῖρα tov Θεοῦ, ove ἐν ἀρχῇ ὃ Θεὸς
ce a v ay Ν , ~ / Ν 8 Ν j \ Ἂν
ἕνα ἄνδρα ἕπλασε χαὶ μίαν γυναῖχα. “ύων δὲ τὴν σαρχὸς πρὸς
U , γ -
σάρχα κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν πρύόσμιξιν εἰς τοῦ γένους χοινωνίαν.
(Mark x. 11, 6; compare Mat. xix. 4, 9; Luke xvi. 16, 18.)
6. Muratorzran Canon.
(See before, p. 5.)
7. Cement or ALEXANDRIA.
c \ 45 2 - -
Eus. Η. FE. 11.158. Οὕτω δὴ οὖν ἐπιδημήσαντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ
~ 2 -
ϑείου λόγου ἣ μὲν τοῦ Σίμωνος ἀπέσβη καὶ παραχρῆμα σὺν χαὶ
~ ? ae , wl? Se \> ΕΣ , ~ ~
τῷ ἀνδρὶ χαταλέλυτο δίναμις, τοσοῦτο ὃ ἐπέλαμιμεν ταῖς τῶν
2 " - ν 2 Ἀ -
ἀχροατῶν τοῦ Πέτρου διανοίαις εὐσεβείας φέγγος, ὡς μὴ τῇ εἰσ-
~ 3. - 2 ~ ‘ ~ ~
ἄτιαξ ἱχανῶς ἔχειν ἀρχεῖσϑαι axon, μηδὲ τῇ ἀγράφῳ τοῦ ϑείου
, , , > ’ , iy
χηρύγματος διδασκαλίᾳ, παραχλήσεσι δὲ παντοίαις Magzuor, ov
Ν > , , 2 , { γ] , . - ς
τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον φέρεται, ἀχόλουϑον ὄντα Πέτρου λιπαρῆσαι, ὡς
aN \ Ν το ῸΝ ‘ ~ \ ie aes y Σὰ 5 -
ἂν χαὶ διὰ γραφῆς ὑπόμνημα τῆς διὰ λόγου τιαραδοϑείσης αὑτοῖς
a , rel ees ee \ Ihe , u > ~ aN A , Ἢ
χαταλεί pou διδασκαλίας, μὴ πρότερόν τὲ ἀνεῖναι, ἢ χατεργασα
Ν 2 \ , γ , / - ~ ,
ota τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ ταύτῃ αἰτίους γενέσϑαι τῆς τοῦ λεγομένου
- ‘ , ’ , ~ eB τ ‘ \ C /
χατὰ ΠΊαρχον evayyehiov γραφῆς. Lvovva δὲ τὸ τιραχϑέν φασι
‘ d γ ~ ~ ~ ~
τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀτιοχαλύψαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ πνεύματος ἡσϑῆναι τῇ
~ ? ~ ΕἾ Gin. , Sas ~ , ps \ ee 2/ ae ~
TOV ανδρῶν τιροϑυμίᾳ, χυρῶσαί LE τὴν γραφὴν εἰς ἔντευξιν ταῖς
ΝῺ . λ g , Rs Ki / ᾽ ’ cr ΨΥ - c : , Ω. \
ἐχχλησίαις, (Κλήμης ἐν ἕχτῳ τῶν ὑποτυτώσεων παρατέϑειται τὴν
« - ἊΝ 2 ~
ἱστορίαν, μαρτυρεῖ δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ὃ “]ερατιολίτης ἐπιίσκοτιος ὀνό-
~ AY = ,
ματι Παπίας), τοῦ δὲ Ἡ]άρχου μνημονεύειν τὸν Πέτρον ἐν τῇ προ-
, γ ~ cay ν \ Ite \ > > aie C , ,
τέρᾳ ἐπιστολῇ, ἢ» καὶ συντάξαι φασὶν én αὐτῆς “Ρώμης, σημαί-
- ‘\ \ ,ὔ , ~
γειν TE τοῦ αὐτὸν, τὴν σπιόλιν τροτιιχώτερον Βαβυλῶνα προσει-
/ , -- ~ ~
πόντα διὰ τούτων" “-σπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἣ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεχλεχτὴ
‘ ς cv
χαὶ Π]άρχος ὃ υἱός μου."
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. HIPPOLYTUS. 147
Eus. H. EF. VI.14. To zara ΠΊάρχον ταύτην ἐσγηχέναι τὴν
Q / oY ]
’ , Ε lard 1
οἰχονομίαν %.0.4. (see before, p. 75).
Clem. Alex. Adumb. in Pet. p. 1007. “Salutat vos Marcus
filius meus” (v. 13). Marcus, Petri sectator, palam praedicante
Petro evangelium Romae, coram quibusdam Caesareanis equiti-
bus, et multa Christi testimonia proferente; penitus (petitus) ab
cis ut possent quae dicebantur memoriae commendare, scripsit ex
his, quae a Petro dicta sunt, Evangelium quod secundum Marcum
vocitatur. Sicut Lucas quoque et Actus Apostolorum stylo exe-
cutus agnosceret et Pauli ad Hebracos interpretatus epistolam.
8. Htprotytvs.
Hippol. Cont. Haer. Noeti (Routh’s Opuscula, I. 80). ‘Ava-
hau βάνεται [se. Χριστὸς] εἰς οὐρανοὺς χαὶ ἐχ δεξιῶν TATOOS
χαϑίζεται χαὶ ζώντων καὶ νεχρῶν σιαραγίνεται χρίτης. (Mark
xvi. 19.)
Hippol. (πιερὶ χαρισμάτων, Opp. p. 545). ᾿Ιησοῦς φησὶ «τᾶσιν
ἅμα, περὶ τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ τινεύματος διδομένων χαρισμά-
τῶν" Σημεῖα δὲ τοῖς “πιστεύσασιν ταῦτα παραχολουϑήσει" ἐν τῷ
ὀνόματί μου δαιμόνια ἐχβαλοῦσι" γλώσσαις χαιναῖς λαλήσουσι γ᾽
ὄφεις ἀροῖσι" χἂν ϑανάσιμόν τί πίωσιν, οὐ μὴ αὐτοὺς βλάψει"
a ἀῤῥώστους χεῖρας ἐπιϑίσουσι, χαὶ χαλῶς ἕξουσι. (Mark
ΘΠ)
eo εἰς τὰ ἅγια Θεοιράνεια (Lagarde’s Hippolytus, Ρ. 98).
Ἔρχεται ὃ ἰσχυρότερός μου οὗ οὐχ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὕπο-
δήματα βαστάσαι, αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι
ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί. (Mark i. 7, 8.) |
Hippol. Ref. Omnium Haeresium VIT. 30. Ἐπιειδὰν οὖν Mae-
χίων ἢ τῶν ἐχείνου χυνῶν τις ὑλαχτῇ χατὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, τοὺς
ἐχ τῆς ἀντιπαραϑέσεως ἀγαϑοῦ χαὶ χαχοῦ πιροφέρων λόγους, δεῖ
1 See before, pages 67, 75, and notes. Clement’s two traditions preserved by
Eusebius: the one (H. E. I. 15) that Peter sanctioned the Gospel, and the other
(H. E. VI. 14) that he was aware of its existence, but neither forbade nor en-
couraged its publication, are inconsistent with each other and with the distinct
statement of Irenaeus III. 1 (see page 67 and note) that Mark cere his Gospel
to the Church μετὰ τὴν τούτων (se. τοῦ Πέτρου χαὶ τοῦ Πύλον) ξοδον. The
proposed reading in Irenaeus is: μετὰ τὴν τοῦ χατὰ Ματϑαῖον εὐαγγε Nou ἔχδοσιν,
Maoxog ὁ μαϑητὴς χιτιλ. which gets over the difficulty, but somewhat violently.
LO
148 GOSPEL OF MARK.
~ ~ 2 , Pl ,
αὐτοῖς λέγειν, ὅτι τούτους οὔτε Παῦλος ὃ ἀπόστολος, οὔτε Mace -
ς , ἢ , Ν 2 A γ -
x06 0 χολοβοδάχτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν, (τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ
. 2
χατὰ Maoxov εὐαγγελίῳ γέγρατστται) χ.τ.λ.1
9. ΤΈΚΤΟΠΙΑΝ.
Adv. Marcion. IV.5. Marcus quod edidit evangelium, Petri
affirmatur, cujus interpres Marcus.1. Nam et Lucae digestum
Paulo adscribere solent.
10. OniceEn.
(See before, pp. 8, 52, 82, 85.)
11. Cxementine Homities.
(See Introduction for discussion. For passages in full, see next part of this work.)
The following references may meanwhile be compared:
Hom. IT. 19 (Mark vii. 25-30; Mat. xv. 28). Hom. IIT. 54 (Mark
x..5, 6; Mat. xix. 8. Hom. IIT. 55 (Mark χὶ!. 21; Μαϑΐ.
xxii. 32; Luke xx. 38). Hom. III. 57 (Mark xii. 29).
Hom. XIX. 20 (Mark iv. 34).
1 In the preface to the Gospel of Mark ascribed to Jerome in the Cod. Amia-
tinus it is said of Mark: Denique amputasse ἰδὲ post fidem pollicem dicitur, ut sa-
cerdotio reprobus haberetur. The same statement is found in an Arabic MS de-
scribed by Fleischer: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlindischen Gesellschaft,
Leipzig 1854, vol. VIII. p. 586. So far as this goes, it is in accordance with the
statement (Col. iv. 10) that Mark was ἀνεψιὸς BapvaBa. If Mark was of Levitical
extraction, the amputation of his thumb may have been his device to escape of-
ficial duty in the temple. Duncker (see Duncker’s Hippol. p. 393, note) supposes
that Hippolytus wished to allude to the mutilated Gospel used by Marcion, and
wrongly ascribed it to Mark. But this is unlikely: and is inconsistent with the
text itself as given above, for the reference is not to Marcion’s Gospel but to the
actual Gospel of Mark.
1 See before, page 80, for the whole passage. Tertullian seeks to establish
the apostolic basis of the Gospels. Two were written by Apostles; the other two
were mediately, if not immediately, of Apostolic authority. The chief interest of
this extract is that Jnterpres is evidently the translation of ἕρμηνευτής; so also
Jerome.
12. Evsesuus.
(See before, pp. 10, 87, ἄς.)
Chronicon ad A. 2 et 3. Claud. Petrus apostolus natione Ga-
EUSEBIUS. EPIPHANIUS. JEROME. 149
lilaeus, Christianorum pontifex primus, cum primum Antiochenam
ecclesiam fundasset, Romam proficiscitur, ubi Evangelium prae-
dicans 25 annis ejusdem urbis episcopus perseverat. Marcus
evangelista interpres Petri, Aegypto ct Alexandriae Christum an-
nuntiat.
~ 2
Demonstr. Evang. III. 5. Πέτρος οὐδὲ χαϑῆχεν ἐπὶ τὴν ev-
αγγελίου γραφὴν, δι᾿ εὐλαβείας ὑπερβολήν. Τούτου Maexog γνώ-
‘ A ‘ > ~ ~
OLLLOS καὶ φοιτητὴς γεγονὼς ἀπομνημονεῦσαι λέγεται tag tov Πέ-
\ nee : Ie we Sr. ~ Is , \
toov περὶ τῶν πιράξεων τοῦ Inoot διαλέξεις. ... Πέτρος δὲ
ταῦτα περὶ ἑαυτοῦ μαρτυρεῖ" πάντα γὰρ τὰ παρὰ Πάρχῳ τοῦ
BI , b)
Πέτρου διαλέξεων εἰναι λέγεται απιομνημονεύματα.
Η. Ε. Π. 10. Τοῦτον δὲ άρχον σπιρῶτον φασὶν ἐχὶ τῆς
\ a .
«Αἰγύπτου στειλάμενον, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ὁ δὴ χαὶ συνεγράψατο κη-
, ΕΣ ᾿ Ἢ , ~ 2 2 ie 2 ξ , ,
ρύξαι, ἐχχλησίας τε τιρῶτον ex αὐτῆς “λεξανδρείας συστή-
σασϑαι.
13. Epienantus.
Haeres. IT. ὁ. 1. h. 51. p. 428. Εὐϑὺς δὲ μετὰ τὸν Π]ατϑαῖον,
ἀχόλουθϑος γενόμενος ὃ Πάρχος τῷ ἁγίῳ Πέτρῳ ἐν “Ῥώμῃ ἐπι-
, A 3 , γ , C \ , 2 ᾿ , Cc ‘\
τρέπεται τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον ἐχϑέσϑαι, καὶ γράψας ατιοστέλλεται ὑττὸ
τοῦ ἁγίου Πέτρου εἰς τὴν τῶν «Αἰγυπτίων χώραν.
14. Jerome.
(See before, pp. 21, 100, &c.)
De Vir. Ill. c. 1. Sed et Evangelium juxta Marcum, qui
auditor ejus (sc. Petri) et interpres fuit, hujus dicitur.
De Vir. Ill. c.8. Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri, juxta
quod Petrum referentem audierat, rogatus Romae a fratribus,
breve scripsit Evangelium. Quod cum Petrus audisset, proba-
vit; et Ecclesiis legendum sua auctoritate edidit, sicut Clemens
in sexto ὑχεοτυτιύσεων libro scribit. Et Papias Hierapolitanus
episcopus meminit hujus Marci; et Petrus in epistola prima, sub
nomine Babylonis figuraliter Romam significans: “Salutat vos
quae in Babylone coelecta,! et Marcus filius meus.” Assumto
1 Al. cum electa, collecta.
150 GOSPEL OF MARK.
itaque Evangelio quod ipse confecerat, perrexit Aegyptum, et pri-
mus Alexandriae Christum annuntians, constituit ecclesiam, tanta
doctrina et vitae continentia, ut omnes sectatores Christi ad ex-
emplum sui cogeret. Denique Philo disertissimus Judacorum,
videns Alexandriae primam ecclesiam adhuc judaizantem, quasi
in laudem gentis suae librum super eorum conversatione scripsit.
Et quomodo Lucas narrat, Jerosolymae credentes omnia habuisse
communia: sic et ille quod Alexandriae sub Marco fieri doctore
cernebat, memoriae tradidit. Mortuus est autem octavo Neronis
anno, et sepultus Alexandriae, succedente sibi Aniano.
Ep. ad Hedib. c. ἃ. Divinorum sensuum majestatem digno
non poterat (B. Paulus) Graeci eloquii explicare sermone; habe-
bat ergo Titum interpretem sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum cujus
Evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est.
15. Speciat TEstimonies TO CLOSE OF THE GOSPEL.
The evidence on the genuineness of the disputed passage
Mark xvi. 9-20 may be here summed up:!
Papias (Kus. H. E. III. 39) “Ιστορεῖ (sc. Παπίας) x.v.d. (see
before, page 137 and note 2).
1 The genuineness of this passage was disputed by Griesbach, and subsequent
Editors have followed him. Tisch. (eighth edition) sums up the evidence with his
usual clearness and succinctness. He prefixes ‘‘Haee non a Marco scripta esse
argumentis probatur idoneis.’’ The Manuscript Evidence against the verses is that
8 omits them; B omits them, but leaves a blank column which would have con-
tained them, the seribe being apparently uncertain whether or not to put them
in (it is the only blank column in the whole volume); L (which usually follows B)
closes a column with egofovyvto yao and then at the top of the next column in-
cludes in flourishes φέρετε mov xae tavta ... after which it adds [lavta δὲ ta
παρηγγέλμενα τοῖς περι τον πετρον συντομῶς εξηγγίλαν + μετα ὃς TavTA χαὶι AUTOS
οἷς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς χαὶ ayer δυσεως εξαπιστιλεν δι αὐτῶν το τερον χαι αφϑαρτον
Χηρυγμα + τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας +. And then, inclosed in further flourishes, the
scribe says εἐστὴν δὲ xat TavtTa φερομενα peta τὸ εφοβουντο yao (see Burgon’s
Photograph, p. 112). This is all the MS evidence against the verses, save that
some minor Codices of the Armenian and Aethiopic and one of the Old Latin (k)
are on the same side. We may say therefore that ἃ and B omit the verses (the
latter with some qualms); and that L has a view of its own. -All other MSS
(including ACD) contain the verses; as do the Peshito, Cur. and Jerus. Syriac,
the Philoxenian text, the Sahidiec, Memphitic, and Aethiopic, the Vulgate, all ex-
tant Old Latin MSS except the one (k) mentioned above. There is therefore
an immense preponderance of authority in MSS and versions in favour of the
SPECIAL TESTIMONIES TO THE CLOSE OF THE GOSPEL. LOL
Barnabas, 6. 15.9 40 χαὶ ἄγομεν x.t.2. (See before, page 137
and note 1).
Justin Martyr, Apol. I. cc. 39, 45, 49, 50; Dial. ce. 32, 53
(see before, page 145 and note 1).
Irenaeus, B. II. 10.6: In fine autem Evangelii &c. (see be-
fore, page 147 and note 1).
Hippolytus contra Noet. and περὶ yao. (see before, page 142
and note 1).
Vineentius of Thibari (at Concil. Carth. VII A.D. 256): Ha-
bemus regulam veritatis quam Dominus praecepto divino man-
davit Apostolis dicens: Ite in nomine meo manwm imponite, dac-
monia expellite. (Mark xvi. 17, 18.)
Gesta Pilati, c. 14 (Evang. Nicod. Pars I. A) Ἔλεγεν τοῖς μα-
ϑηταῖς αὐτοῦ: Πορευϑέντες εἰς τὸν χόσμον σαντα χηρύξατε
πάσῃ τῇ χτίσει" ὃ πιστεύσας χ.τ.Δ. (Verbatim from the N. T. to
χαλῶς ἕξουσιν.) Then it goes on Ἔτι τοῦ “hoot λαλοῦντος τιρὸς
τοὺς μαϑητὰς αὐτοῦ εἴδομεν αὐτὸν ἀναληφϑέντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν.
(Mark xvi. 15-18.)
Apost. Constt. VIL. τ. AaBovreg ἐντολὴν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ “jets
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον εἰς ὅλον τὸν χόσμον. VIII. 1. Ημῖν τοῖς αἀπτοστό-
λοις μέλλουσιν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον χκαταγγέλλειν πιάσῃ τῇ χτίσει.
Euseb. ad Marinum (Mai. 1847; Burgon p. 265.) In answer
to the first question put to him by Marinus: Πῶς παρὰ μὲν τῷ
verses. As regards the evidence of quotation by the Kathers it will be seen from
our extracts that in the second century (omitting Papias) Barnabas and Justin
seem to found upon the verses. Irenaeus certainly does. In the third century
Hippolytus (A.D. 190 to 227), the Acts of Pilate, seventh Council of Carthage and
Apost. Constt.(?) also use them. In the fourth century Eusebius throws doubt
upon them; and Jerome subsequently (as his custom is in many things) repro-
duces what Eusebius said, but in his own work as an Editor of the Bible re-
cognizes and admits the verses. The only ‘adverse testimony which we really
have therefore is that of Eusebius (if indeed he were not reproducing for the sake
of discussion some earlier writer). Eusebius and δ, with the halfhearted support
of B, make a serious opposition to the genuineness of the verses; but they cannot
overcome the solid mass of testimony in its favour. Olshausen (followed by Al-
ford, &c.) supposes that in some old copy a leaf was torn off or lost; and, if
Tischendorf be right in ascribing this part of δὶ to the scribe who wrote B, we
have an easy explanation of the testimony of these two MSS, as he would have
that defective exemplar before him when making both copies. But apart from
conjecture as to this, it may be admitted that Dean Burgon has justified his boast
that “5. Mark’s last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a subject of dispute
among men.” (Dedication p. vi.) His book is a wonderful proof of concen-
trated industry.
152 GOSPEL OF MARK.
, c Ν Ν A
Mardain owe σαββάτων φαίνεται eyeyequérog ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ
τὸ Nae = ~ re : . πχ
τῷ Meoxm moot τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων. Kusebius says: Τούτου
: \ ~ , \
διττὴ ἂν εἴη ἢ λύσις" ὃ μὲν γὰρ τὴν τοῖτο- φάσχουσαν περιχοττὴν
~ aS ~ 32 ,
ἀϑετῶν, εἴτιοι ἂν μὴ ἐν ἅπασιν αὐτὴν φέρεσϑαι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις
- > ‘ ~ ) ~ ~ > ,
τοῦ χατὰ ΠΊάρχον εὐαγγελίου" ta γοῦν ἀχριβὴ τῶν ἀντιγράφων
- ΝΡ « , > πα
τὸ τέλος τιεριγράφει τῆς χατὰ τὸν ἢ]άρχον ἱστορίας ἐν τοῖς ho-
~ ~ -- \ ’ Ld > ~ A
γοις τοῦ ὀφϑέντος νεανίσχου ταῖς γυναιξὶ χαὶ Elonzotog αὑταῖς
- ~ - - - , ~ Co
“Wh) φοβεῖσϑε, ᾿Ιησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνόν." Καὶ τοῖς ἑξῆς
ra > , (( Nee , 21 7 \ ὃ τ δὲ ay
οἷς émtheyers “Kot ἀχούυσασαι ἔφυγον, καὶ ovdert οὐδὲν ξεἴττον,
» ’ ~ U bb) 2 , \ Ν > c ~ > ,
ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ." Ey τούτῳ γὰρ σχεδὸν ἕν ἀπτασι τοῖς ἀντιγρα-
- x) ie , \
φοις tov χατὰ Maoxov εὐαγγελίου περιγέγραττται to τέλος" τὰ
ν - »” 7 γ - ’ NN
δὲ ἑξῆς σπανίως ἔν τισιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἐν πᾶσι φερόμενα περιττὰ ἂν
,
~ ~ ‘ 5: wv ” ,
λιστῶν μαρτυρίᾳ. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν εἴποι ἂν τις παραιτούμενος
3) -
χαὶ τιάντη ἀναιρῶν τιεριττὸν ἐρώτημα %.T.A.?
’HMieron. Epist. Hedib. quaest. 3. on Mark xvi. 9-20. (Opp.
t. III, p. 172.) Quae causa sit, ut de resurrectione ... evangelistae
diversa narraverint. ... Hujus quaestionis duplex solutio est.
Aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur
Evangeliis: omnibus Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine
non habentibus: praesertim cum diversa atque contraria evan-
gelistis caeteris narrare videatur. Aut hoc respondendum, quod
uterque verum dixerit.
Hieron. Dial. IT. adv. Pelagianos, ὃ 16. In quibusdam exem-
plaribus et maxime in Graecis codicibus, juxta Marcum in fine
2 Eusebius goes on to intimate that another man who could not take it upon
him to reject what he finds in the Gospels, might admit both readings; and after
some confusing (and, as it stands, confused) reasoning, he says in answer to a
second question by Marinus that opt σαββάτων in Matthew’s narrative ought not
to be understood as meaning the ‘Evening of the Sabbath day,’ but an advanced
period of the following night; and he thus makes out the narrative of Matthew
to be consistent with that of John, which says that Mary came on the first day
of the week while it was yet dark. Mark is identical with John, and in his
answer to Marinus’s second question Eusebius gives an easy solution. Burgon sug-
gests that in answer to the first question Eusebius was reporting the opinion of
some one else.
3 Burgon points out that the question and answer ascribed to Hedibia and
Jerome are in fact translations of what passed between Eusebius and Marinus, so
that we have not Jerome’s own view in this passage. This is clear even in our
extracts (see extract above from Euseb. ad Marin., with note). In revising the
Old Latin version of the New Testament, Jerome allowed the verses to remain
at the end of Mark’s Gospel.
SPECIAL TESTIMONIES TO THE CLOSE OF THE GOSPEL. 153
ejus Evangelii scribitur: “Postea quum accubuissent undecim,
apparuit eis Jesus: et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam
cordis eorum, quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem, non cre-
diderunt: et illi satisfaciebant dicentes: Saeculum istud iniqui-
tatis et incredulitatis substantia est, quae non sinit per immun-
dos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc
revela justitiam tuam.”
154
VIII.
GOSPEL OF LUKE
(SEH BEFORE, SECTIONS I—V.)
1. BarnaBas.
C.14.1. Ναί. ᾿Αλλὰ τὴν διαϑήχην ἣν ὥμοσεν Toig στατράσι
δοῦναι τῷ λαῷ, εἰ δέδωχεν ζητῶμεν. (Luke i. 73.)
' That the author of the third Gospel was also the author of Acts may be
regarded as certain. The tone and style, as well as the express claim (Acts i. 1),
are accepted as decisive. Schleiermacher’s breaking up of the whole narrative of
the Gospel into its constituent parts has borne much fruit—not as regards this
Gospel only—throughout this century, and his disciples are found in every land.
But nothing more is proved than Luke’s own preface implies. The Book is an
avowed compilation of the testimonies of ministers and eyewitnesses. And, com-
pilation though it be, there are marks of unity of authorship throughout. The
phraseology of the two books is strikingly similar, and affords a demonstration
that they are the work of a single author. On this Zeller (Acts, vol. II. p. 213, &e.
Engl. Trans.) may answer Schleiermacher, whose Essay on St Luke is well known
through Thirlwall’s translation. (See also Schleiermacher, Hinleitung, § 56 to
§ 79 and [for Acts] 8 85 to 8 90.) (See below, p.159 note 1.) There is also
an elaborate account of Luke’s vocabulary in Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evang.
§ 19.9. The physician, the man of culture, and the man acquainted with sea-
faring, though not a sailor, is seen in both works. In regard to this last point
see Smith (of Jordanhill), Dissertation on the Life and Writings of St Luke,
prefixed to his ‘Voyage and Shipwreck of St Paul’ (1866). The first two chap-
ters have been regarded by some as not genuine, but there can be no doubt that
Justin Martyr knew them, and there seems to be an echo of them in Clement
and Barnabas. Marcion's Gospel is now admitted to have been later than Luke,
and to have been an adaptation of it, by mutilation. Though Tertullian’s zeal
leads him to charge Marcion with corruption in some passages where it is now
clear that Marcion preserved the reading of older MSS of Luke than those in
Tertullian’s hand, the assurance of the African Apologist that Marcion’s book was
a mutilation of Luke is confirmed by recent investigations. The author of ‘Su-
pernatural Religion’ stands out as a solitary opponent in the mean time; but he
has a special regard for Marcion, whom he thinks ‘too able a man” (Sup. Rel.
11. 125) to have done his work so imperfectly as to lay it open to the well-
founded objections of Tertullian and others! This may be regarded as an ex-
pression of sympathy, but can scarcely be considered an argument.
That Luke was Paul’s close companion we know from the writings of both.
See below, notes on extracts from Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Jerome. That his
Gospel represented teaching similar to that of St Paul, can seareely be doubted;
and, where they touch the same great subject, as in the account of the Lord’s
Supper, their words so closely correspond that the coincidence cannot be acci-
dental. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen all associate Paul with the Gospel of his
friend and follower. But Luke’s own Preface seems to be adequate reply to all
such fond imaginings. It is hard to believe that if Luke had the direct authority
of Paul for his narration, he would have failed to claim that authority in his
or
CLEMENT OF ROME. HERMAS. 15
2. Crement oF Rome.
First Epistle.
C. 13. 2. (see before, Section V).
C. 46. 8. (sce before, Section δ).
0.59.3. Τὸν ταπεινοῦντα ὕβριν ὑτιερηφάνων, τὸν διαλύίοντα
λογισμοὺς ἐθνῶν, τὸν ποιοῦντα ταπεινοὺς εἰς VWog χαὶ
τοὺς ὑψηλοὺς ταπεινοῦντα᾽ (Luke i. 52.1)
Second Epistle.
Ο. 2. 1. Οὕτως καὶ ὃ Χριστὸς ἠϑέλησεν σῶσαι τὰ aOk -
λύμενα χαὶ ἔσωσεν πολλοὺς, ἐλϑὼν καὶ καλέσας ἡμᾶς ἤδη ἀπολ-
λυμένους. (Luke xix. 10, and 1 Tim. i. 15.)
Ο. 6. 1,2. Age δὲ ὃ Κύριος" Οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης δύναται
δυσὶ χυρίοις δουλεύειν. Ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ϑέλωμεν χαὶ Θεῷ δου-
λεύειν χαὶ μαμωνᾷ ἀσύμφορον ἡμῖν ἐστίν. (Luke xvi. 13; Mat.
vi. 24.)
{Π 9. 5.3 ἔγει γὰρ ὃ Κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ: Εἰ τὸ μι-
χρὸν οὐκ ἐτηρήσατε, τὸ μέγα τίς ὑμῖν δώσει; λέγω γὰρ
ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ χαὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός
ἐστιν. (Luke xvi. 10, 12.)
3. Hermas.
fe > ~ \ ~
Mand. V.2.7. Εἶτα ὅταν ἀποστῇ [sc. τὸ τρυφερὸν πνεῖ μα]
) \ ~ 2» , ct ~ ~
ἀπὸ tort ἀνϑρώττου ἐχείνου οὗ χατοιχεῖ, γίνεται. ὃ ἄνϑρωττος ἐχεῖ--
preface. But it is equally hard to believe that ἃ Gospel written by Luke in
Paul’s life-time should be published without the sanction of the great Apostle
whose spirit it breathes, and whose very words it uses. We need not adopt the
‘Tendency’ theory, as though the book were a conscious compromise between
contending parties, or a fiction intended to teach Paulinism, when we agree with
Hilgenfeld that we have in the Third Gospel an antidote to Judaism proper and
to Judaizing Christianity, and a manifestation of the same truth of righteousness
by faith and that faith the work of the Holy Spirit as Paul teaches. (Hilgen-
feld, Die Evv., p. 220-223.)
1 The whole of the first part of the prayer from which this is taken is like
a paraphrase of the Virgin’s hymn in Luke’s Gospel.
2 This is one of the many passages in 2 Clem. which may be referred to an
apocryphal source; but it is perhaps sufficiently near to the words in Luke’s
Gospel to be cited in our text. Iren. 11. 34. 3 has ‘‘si in modico fideles non
fuistis, quod magnum est quis dabit vobis?”’
156 GOSPEL OF LUKE.
γος “EVO G70 τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ δικαίου, καὶ λοιττὸν wEenAnow-
μένος τοῖς τινεύμασι τοῖς πονηροῖς ἀχαταστατεῖ ἐν πάσῃ τιράξει
αὐτοῦ, τιεριστιώμενος ὧδε κἀχεῖσε ἀπὸ τῶν τινευμάτων τῶν στο-
γηρῶν, χαὶ ὅλως ἀποτυφλοῦται ἀπὸ τῆς διανοίας τῆς ἀγαϑῆς.
(Luke xi. 24-26.) ‘
4. Prorevaneetium Jacosi. !
C.17. Κέλευσις δὲ ἐγένετο ἀπὸ Atyovorov βασιλέως ἀπο-
γράφεσϑαι πάντας τοὺς ἐν Βηϑλεὲμ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας «.t.A.
5. Justin Martyr!
Apol. I. c. 16. p. 63 B. Περὶ δὲ tot ἀνεξικάχους εἶναι καὶ
ὑχιηρετιχοὺς σιᾶσι χαὶ ἀοργήτους ἃ ἔφη ταῦτά ἐστιν. Τῷ τύπ-
τοντί σου τὴν σιαγόνα, πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ τὸν
αἴροντά σου τὸν χιτῶνα, ἢ τὸ ἱμάτιον, μὴ κωλύσης.
(Luke vi. 29; compare Mat. v. 39, 40.)
Apol. I. ὁ. 11. p. 64 Ε. “Ὡς ὃ Χριστὸς ἐμήνυσεν εἰπών" “Qe
, ΒΩ ς \ , Cores} Out 3
πλέον ἔδωχεν ὃ Θεὸς, πλέον χαὶ ἀπαιτηϑήσεται πὰρ
αὐτοῦ. (Luke xii. 48.)
Apol. I. ¢. 19. p. 66 B. Καὶ τὸν ἡμέτερον διδάσκαλον ᾿Ιησοῦν
Γ΄ \ 2 2 , Ν 2 , x » δ
Χριστὸν ἔγνωμεν εἰπόντα: Ta ἀδύνατα παρὰ ανϑρώποις
δυνατὰ παρὰ Θεῷ. Καί; My φοβεῖσϑε τοὺς ἀναιροῦν-
1 This apocryphal Gospel dates from about the middle of the second century.
Origen refers to it by name. Clem. Alex. seems to refer to its narrative; and
so does Justin Martyr. It contains ec. 18 the statement of Christ’s birth in a cave
which fills so large a space in early legend and in Christian art. It has many
internal marks of being a supplement to Luke’s Gospel, written to counteract the
statements of Ebionites and others regarding the ordinary humanity of Jesus
Christ. See Tisch., Evang. Apocr., Proleg. p. XIII.
1 In the following passages are expressions which show that Justin quoted
Luke’s Gospel. (See this admitted: Davidson, Introd. to N. T. II. 22.) The
chief stress must however be laid on the incidents of our Lord’s history—at the
Birth and the Passion especially—which Justin has noticed, and which are peculiar
to Luke. Some of the coincidences of expression are nevertheless striking, and
the list of them in the text might perhaps have been increased by adding such
as Apol. I. e. 15. p. 62 C, where Justin has Luke’s εἰς μετάνοιαν (not genuine in
the other Gospels); or Dial. c. 76. p. 301 D, where he has the ἐφάγομεν χαὶ ἐπίο-
μὲν of Luke xiii. 26, along with the προεφητεύσαμεν of Mat. vii. 22; and Apol. I.
ce. 66. p. 98 B, where he has τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἀνάμνησίν μου (Luke xxii. 19,
compare 1 Cor. xi. 25). In all these cases Justin’s way of blending his various
sources is strikingly seen.
JUSTIN MARTYR. 101
τας ὑμᾶς χαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα μὴ δυναμένους τι ποιῆσαι,
εἶπε, φοβήϑητε δὲ τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἀποϑανεῖν δυνάμενον
χαὶ ψυχὴν χαὶ σῶμα εἰς γέενναν ἐμβαλεῖν." (Luke xviii.
27; xii. 4: compare Mat. x. 28.)
Apol. I. ¢. 33. p. τ 4. “ύναμις Θεοῦ ἐπελϑοῦσα τῇ παρ-
ϑένῳ ἐπεσχίασεν αὐτὴν, καὶ χυοφορῆσαι πιαρϑένον οὖσαν τιετοίηχε.
Kai ὃ ἀποσταλεὶς δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν τὴν παρϑένον χατ᾽ ἐχεῖνο τοῦ
χαιροῦ εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτὴν εἰπών: ᾿Ιδοὺ συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ
ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ τέξῃ υἱὸν, καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου
χληϑήσεται, καὶ χαλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, at-
τὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὖ-
τῶν (compare Mat. i. 21), ὡς οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες πάντα τὰ
MEL τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμιῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδίδαξαν. (Luke 1. 3D.)
Apol. I. ¢. 34. p. 15 E. Κώμη δέ τις ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ ᾿Ιου-
δαίων, ἀτιἔχουσα σταδίους το χιέντε “εροσολύμων ἐν ἢ
ἐγεννήϑη ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, ὡς χαὶ μαϑεῖν δύνασϑε & τῶν ἀπο-
γραφῶν τῶν γενομένων ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου, τοῦ ὑμετέρου ἐν ᾿Ιου-
δαίᾳ πρώτου γενομένου ἐπιιτρόπου. (Luke lis)
Dial. c. 76. p. 301 D. Πάλιν ἐν ἑτέροις λό) Yous ἔφη" 4 |-
δωμι ὑμῖν ἐξουσίαν χαταπατεῖν ἐπάνω ὄφεων χαὶ
σχορπίων χαὶ σχολοπενδρῶν καὶ ἐπάνω πάσης δυνά-
μεως τοῦ ἐχϑροῦ. (Luke x. 19.)
Dial. ¢. 76. p. 302 A. Ἐβόα σιρὸ τοῦ σταυρωϑῆναι" Δ'εἴ τὸν
υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παϑεῖν χαὶ ἀποδοκιμασϑῆ-
γαι ὑπὸ τῶν γραμματέων χαὶ Φαρισαίων καὶ σταυρω-
ϑῆναι χαὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστῆναι. (Luke ix. 22; com-
pare Mat. xvi. 21; xx. 18; and Mark viii. 31.)
Dial. c. 78. p. 303 D. Φοβηϑεὶς οὖν [sc. ᾿Ιωσὴφ])] οὐχ ἐχβέ-
βληχεν αὐτὴν, ἀλλὰ, ἀτιογραφῆς οὔσης ἐν τῇ Ιουδαίᾳ τότε πιρώ-
της ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου, ἀνεληλύϑει ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ, ἔνϑα que, εἰς
Βηϑλεὲμ, ὅϑεν ἣν, ἀπογράψασϑαι" ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς χατοιχούσης
τὴν γῆν ἐχείνην φυλῆς ᾿Ιούδα τὸ γένος ἦν. (Luke ii. 1, &c.)
2 The first part is almost identical with Luke; the second resembles Luke
more than Matthew, especially in ἐμβαλεῖν. The same passage is quoted in Clem.
Hom XVII. 5, and the parable of the unjust judge is there referred to as an en-
couragement to the blending of fear with trust in God’s justice and long-suffering.
3 See also Dial. ο. 100. p. 327 C, quoted below in this section.
* See also (quoted under ‘Matthew’) Apol. I. c. 46. p.83B, and (below) Dial.
e. 78. p. 303 D, for notice of Cyrenius and of the Birth.
158 GOSPEL OF LUKE.
. = > \ ‘ | ~
Dial. ς. 78. p. 304 A. Ἐπειδὴ ᾿Ιωσὴφ οὐχ εἶχεν ἐν τῇ κώμῃ
ἐχείνῃ που καταλῦσαι, ἐν σπηλαίῳ τινὶ σύνεγγυς τῆς κώμης
, ‘ , > ~ »” γ - ο ’, c , A r
χατέλυσε" χαὶ τότε αὐτῶν ὄντων ἐχεῖ, ἐτέτοχει ἢ Magia τὸν Χρι-
στὸν χαὶ ἐν φάτνῃ αὐτὸν ἐτεϑείχει. (Luke ii. 7.)
. oF υ Ν r ~ 1
Dial. c. 81. p. 308 B. Ὅπερ zai ὃ Κύριος ἡμῶν εἶπεν, ὅτι
Οὔτε γαμήσουσιν οὔτε γαμηϑήσονται, ἀλλὰ ἰσάγγελοι
ΒΥ Le ~ _-~ ~ > , » 5
ἔσονται, τέχνα τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως Ὀντες." (Luke
xxi 3D; 36.)
Dial. c. 84. p. 310 D. Ἡ μήτηρ γὰρ τοῦ Σαμουὴλ μὴ tiz-
τουσα διὰ βουλὴν Θεοῦ: τέτοχε, χαὶ ἢ γυνὴ τοῦ ἁγίου πατριάρχου
2 ‘ 3) Ν Ν > ~
“Ἵβραὰμ, χαὶ Ἐλισάβετ tov βαπτιστὴν Ιωάννην τεχοῦσα. (Luke
LT pals)
5 ) - r \ \ 2 ~
Dial. ¢. 88. p. 315 C. Καὶ yao γεννηϑεὶς [ὃ “Ijootg] δύναμιν
‘ > ~ , \ 3 4. \ Ν \ ~
τὴν αὐτοῦ ἔσχε: καὶ αὐξάνων zara τὸ χοινὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἅπάν-
, ~ i >
των ἀνθρώπων, χρώμενος τοῖς ἁρμόζουσιν, ExcoTH αὐξήσει. TO
υ - 2 , , ‘ , ‘ ee
οἰχεῖον ἀπένειμε, τρεφόμενος τὰς πάσας τροφὰς (Luke ii. 40)
‘ 2. ὌΝ WW =
χαὶ τριάχοντα ἔτη ἢ πλείονα ἢ χαὶ ἐλάσσονα μείνας, μέχρις οὗ
, G Ψ , abet << 2 τὰ ΤΣ λ
σπροελήλυϑεν ᾿Ιωάννης χῆρυξ αὐτοῦ χ.τ.1.
Dial. c. 96. p. 824 A. Οὗτος γὰρ ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς χαὶ ὑπὲρ
τ ἐγ} yy wt “ἢ ae iy live 9 A, - Ἂ Α, δ δι ᾿
τῶν ἐχϑρῶν εὔχεσϑαι, εἰσιών" Tiveode χρηστοὶ χαὶ οἰχτείρ-
c ‘ c \ c ~ « δ] , ΄ .
μονες, ὡς καὶ ὃ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὃ οὐράνιος. (Luke vi. 36.)
Dial. c. 100. p. 327 Ο. Πίστιν δὲ zai χαρὰν λαβοῦσα Magia
c , γ - , 2. ays) \ ΒΡ] , c ~
ἢ παρϑένος εὐαγγελιζομένου αὐτῇ Γαβριὴλ ἀγγέλου ὅτι πνεῦμα
Κυρίου ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν ἐπελεύσεται χαὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισχιάσει
αὐτὴν, διὸ χαὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἅγιόν ἐστι υἱὸς Θεοῦ,
ἀπεχρίνατο" Τένοιτό μοι κατὰ τὸ δῆμά σου. (See also Apol.
I. ὁ. 33. p. 75 A quoted above.)
. € « \ -}
Dial. c. 108. p. 331 A. Ἡρώδου δὲ tot Aoyéhaov διαδεξα-
Γ \ - ᾿ 2 -
ugvou ... ᾧ καὶ Πιλάτος χαριζόμενος δεδεμένον τὸν ᾿Ιησοῖν ἔπεμι-
we. (Luke xxiii. 7.)
Dial. ὁ. 103. p. 331 D. See before, p. 64. (Luke xxi. 42.)
6. Lerrer or THe Curistians or Vienne And Lyons.!
Eus. H. E. Ν. 1. ἸἨετέπειτα δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν ἡγεμόνα ἀναχϑέν-
5 Justin here follows Luke, whose word ἰσάγγελοι and the closing clause χαὶ
υἱοί εἶσιν Θεοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ ὄντες, are not in Mat. xxii. 30, or Mark
xii, 25.
1 The long letter of the Churches of Gaul on the banks of the Rhone to
LETTER OF CHRISTIANS OF VIENNE AND LYONS. IRENAEUS. 159
Οὐέττιος Ἐπάγαϑος, el ἐχ τῶν ἀδελφῶν, πλήρωμα ἀγάπης τῆς
πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν χαὶ “τρὺὸς τὸν “πλησίον κεχωρηκῶς, (οὗ καὶ ez
τοσοῦτον ἠχρίβωτο ἣ πολιτεία, ὡς γχαίπερ ὄντα νέον συνεξισοῦ-
σθαι τῇ τοῦ τιρεσβυτέρου Ζαχαρίου μαρτυρίᾳ" τσιετεόρευτο γοῦν
ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς χαὶ διχαιώμασι τοῦ Κυρίου πες
χαὶ πιάσῃ τῇ πρὸς τὸν σιλησίον λειτουργίᾳ ἄοχνος, ζῆλον Θ Deo
> ~ > , , ~ x Cc ~ 2 ’,
τῶν αὐτῶν, XAAKELVOU TAO) τὴ πρὸς "μας μοι τι XO" σαμένου,
ς
-..»
πολὺν ἔχων, χαὶ ζέων τῷ πνεύματι)... ἀνελήφϑη καὶ αὐτὸς εἰς
\ ~ , iL : ~ ΄ - ΗΝ , 3
τὸν χλῆρον τῶν μαρτύρων, “ταράχλητος Χριστιανῶν χρηματίσας,
»” ‘ Ν ,ὔ Ύ « ~ \ ~ ~ ~ Ne
ἔχων δὲ τὸν πταράχλητον ἐν ἑαυτῷ, TO Πνεῦμα τιλεῖον τοῦ Ζαχαρίου.
(Luke i. 6, 67.)
7. IRENAEUS.
B. III. 1. Aovace δὲ ὃ ἀχόλουθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ᾽ ἐχεί-
you χηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ zacédero.t (See before,
page 67.)
those in Asia and Phrygia is preserved by Eusebius. It contains a touching pic-
ture of sufferings which it says the writers are unable to tell or write. Although
it does not name the books of the N. T., it has many expressions from the Gos-
pels of Luke and John and from most of the Epistles of Paul inwoven with its
simple story. It is the testimony of the church of Irenaeus, and he was the
bearer of it (Eus. H. E. V. 4.).. Pothinus, who courted martyrdom in the per-
seeution, was more than 90 years old, and was a link between Irenaeus and the
Apostolic age. The chief importance of the letter lies in its being the letter of
one church to another; for we thus learn how strong was the bond of common
knowledge and common hope which bound together the scattered churches of
Christendom.
1 These expressions of Irenaeus are in keeping with the longer passage
(III. 14. § 1, 2, 3), with Origen’s view (Eus. H. E. VI. 25), with Tertullian’s
repeated statements (Adv. Mare. IV. 2, 5), and with those of Jerome (De vir. ill.
6. 7), all of which are given in the text. Eusebius H. E. III. 4. (see below)
does not speak so assuredly, but his only doubt seems to be (φασὶ 52) whether
it was Luke’s Gospel that Paul referred to when he said ‘according to my
Gospel.’”’ He implies in the previous sentences his belief that while Luke was
indebted to all the Apostles he was specially indebted to Paul for the materials
of his Gospel. The tradition of the Pauline origin of Luke’s Gospel may there-
fore be regarded as early and wide-spread. There are also internal evidences of
the Pauline origin of this Gospel. Take for example the account of the institution
of the supper, which corresponds with that in 1 Cor. xi.; or the correspondence
in expression between Luke i. ii. and Romans ix. x. xi. Compare further Luke
x. 8 with 1 Cor. x. 27; Luke xx. 38 with Rom. xiv. 8. There are also many cases
in which the Evangelist and the Apostle use words in the same peculiar sense.
See Davidson, Introd. to N. T. II. 12. The purpose and the doctrine of the Gospel
are in close affinity with the truth as taught by Paul. See Hilg., Die Evange-
lien, p. 220, &e., and Baur, Evangelien, p. 480-484. On the whole relation of
Paul and Luke, in so far as diction goes, see Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evang.,
§ 19. 10. p. 318, ἄς, Compare p. 154 note 1, of this book.
160 GOSPEL OF LUKE.
B. IIT. 14. 81. Quoniam autem is Lucas inseparabilis fuit
« Paulo, et cooperarius ejus in evangelio, ipse facit manifestum,
non glorians, sed ab ipsa productus veritate.2 § 2. Sic apostoli
simpliciter et nemini invidentes, quae didicerant ipsi a Domino,
haec omnibus tradebant. Sic igitur et Lucas nemini invidens,
ea quae ab eis didicerat, tradidit nobis, sicut ipse testificatur,
dicens: Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio contem-
platores et ministri fuwerunt verbi. (Luke i. 2.) § 3. Si autem
quis refutet* Lucam, quasi non cognoverit veritatem, manifestus
erit projiciens Evangelium, cujus dignatur esse discipulus.* Plu-
rima enim et magis necessaria Evangelii per hune cognoyvimus,
sicut Joannis generationem, et de Zacharia historiam, et adven-
tum angeli ad Mariam, et exclamationem Elizabeth, et angelo-
rum ad pastores descensum, et ea quae ab illis dicta sunt, et
Annae et Simeonis de Christo testimonium, et quod duodecim
annorum in Hierusalem relictus sit, et baptismum Joannis, et
quot annorum Dominus baptizatus sit, et quia in quintodecimo
anno Tiberii Caesaris (Luke i. ii. iii), Et in magisterio illud
quod ad divites dictum est: “Vae vobis divites, quoniam perci-
pitis consolationem vestram:” Et, “vae vobis qui satiati estis,
quoniam esurietis: et qui ridetis nunc, qua plorabitis:” Et,
“vae vobis cum benedixerint vos homines omnes. Secundum haec
enim faciebant et pseudo-prophetis patres vestri:” (Luke vi. 24
ἄς.) Et omnia hujusmodi per solum Lucam cognovimus, (et plu-
rimos actus Domini per hunc didicimus, quibus et omnes utun-
tur®): ut multitudinem piscium, quam concluserunt hi qui cum
Petro erant, jubente Domino ut mitterent retia (v. 6): et illa
quae per octodecim annos passa, curata fuerat mulier die sab-
batorum (xiii. 11): et de hydropico, quem curavit Dominus die
sabbatorum, et quemadmodum disputavit quod curavit in hac die
(xiv. 2): et quemadmodum docuit discipulos primos discubitus
non appetere (xiv. 7): et quoniam pauperes et debiles vocare
2 For the whole passage see below under “Ἢ Acts of the Apostles.”
8 Refutare is used by Irenaeus in the sense of reject.
4 The heretics of whom he here speaks were probably the Marcionites. In
the close of the extract he contrasts their rejection of the Gospel with the Va-
lentinian explanation of it.
5 Both heretics and ordinary Christians were indebted to Luke for special
incidents only found in his Gospel and admitted by them all.
IRENAEUS. 161
oportet, qui non habent retribuere (xiv. 12): et qui pulsavit nocte
sumere panes, et propter instantiam importunitatis sumit (xi. 8):
et quoniam apud Pharisaeum recumbente eo, peccatrix mulier
osculabatur pedes ejus et unguento ungebat, et quaecumque pro-
pter cam dixit ad Simonem Dominus de duobus debitoribus (vii.
a7): et de parabola divitis illius qui reclusit quae ei nata fue-
rant cui et dictum est: “In hac nocte expostulabunt animam
tuam a te: quae autem praeparasti, cujus erunt?” (xii. 20). Si-
militer autem et divitis qui vestiebatur purpura, et jocundaba-
tur® nitide: et egenum Lazarum (xvi. 20): et eam quam ad dis-
centes suos dixit responsionem, quando dixerunt ei: “‘Adjice no-
bis fidem” (xvii. 5): et eam quae ad Zacchaeum publicanum facta
est confabulationem (xix. 2): et de Pharisaeo et de publicano,
qui simul adorabant in templo (xviii. 10): et de decem leprosis,
quos simul emundayit in via (xvii. 12): et quoniam de vicis et
plateis claudos et luscos’ jussit colligi ad nuptias (xiv. 21); et
parabolam judicis qui Deum non timebat, quem instantia viduae
fecit ut vindicaret eam (xvili. 2): et de arbore fici quae erat in
vinea, quae non faciebat fructum (xiii, 6). Et alia multa sunt,
quae inveniri possunt a solo Luca dicta esse, quibus et Marcion
et Valentinus utuutur. Et super haec omnia, post resurrectio-
nem, in via ad discipulos suos quae loquutus est, et quemadmo-
dum cognoverunt eum in fractione panis. ὃ 4. Necesse est igitur
et reliqua quae ab eo dicta sunt, recipere eos, aut et his renun-
tiare. Non enim conceditur eis ab his qui sensum habent, quae-
dam quidem recipere ex his quae a Luca dicta sunt, quasi sint
veritatis; quaedam vero refutare,* quasi non cognovisset verita-
tem. Et si quidem refutaverint hi qui a Marcione sunt, non ha-
bebunt Evangelium: (hoc enim quod est secundum Lucam, quem-
admodum praediximus, decurtantes, gloriantur se habere Evan-
gelium) hi vero qui a Valentino sunt cessabunt a plurimo va-
niloquio suo: (ex hoc enim multas occasiones subtililoquii sui
acceperunt, interpretari audentes male, quae ab hoc bene sunt
dicta) si autem et reliqua suscipere cogentur, intendentes per-
8 Al. vestitur purpuram et jocundabatur.
7 Al. caecos.
8 See note 3.
ΤΊ
162 GOSPEL OF LUKE.
fecto Evangelio,® et apostolorum doctrinae, oportet eos poeniten-
tiam agere, ut salvari a periculo possint.
B. 111. 10. 81. Lucas autem sectator et discipulus aposto-
lorum, de Zacharia et Elizabeth, ex quibus secundum repromis-
sionem Dei Joannes natus est, referens ait: “Erant autem justi
ambo ante Deum, etc.” (Luke i. 6.)
ὃ. Tartan.
Eus. H. Ε΄. IV. 49. (See before, page 72.)
Orat. ὁ. Graec. (Ὁ. 32). Velave δὲ ὑμεῖς, ὡς nat χλαύσοντες.
(Luke vi. 25.) :
9. ATHENAGORAS.
Legatio, c. 33. Ὃς γὰρ ἂν ἀπολύσῃ, φησὶ, τὴν γυναῖχα ab-
τοῦ χαὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται. (Luke xvi. 18; compare Mat.
ν᾿ ως; NUK δ
10. Tueornitus.
Ad Autolyc. II. (p. 92). Τὰ γὰρ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις ἀδύνατα,
δυνατά ἔστι παρὰ Θεῷ. (Luke xviii. 27; compare Mat. xix. 26;
Mark x. 27.)
11. Crement or ALEXANDRIA.
Eus. Π. Ε΄. VI. 14. (See before, page 75.)
Strom. IIT. (See before, page 75.)
12. TERTULLIAN.
Adv. Mare. IV. 2. (See before, page 76.) There Tertullian
calls Luke “apostolicus, apostoli sectator, Pauli sine dubio;” and
adds: ‘“Igitur si ipse illuminator Lucae auctoritatem antecesso-
rum et fidei et praedicationi suae optavit, quanto magis eam
9 Valentine accepted the text in full, but ‘‘made it of none effect’’ by his
explanations. (So Tertullian says, Valentinus integro Instrumento uti videtur.—De
Praescript. Haeret. c. 38.) Marcion, on the other hand, mutilated the Gospel Text.
JULIUS AFRICANUS. ORIGEN. CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 163
evangelio Lucae expostulem, quae evangelio magistri ejus fuit
necessaria.””
Ibid. IV. 5. (See before, page 80.) Nam et Lucae Digestum
Paulo adscribere solent &c.
13. Jutivus AFRICANUS.
Fius. H, E. I.7. (See before, page 137.)
14. Oricen.
Eus. H. FE. VI. 25. Kai τρίτον τὸ χατὰ Ζουχᾶν τὸ ὑπὺ
Παύλου ἐτιαινούμενον εὐαγγέλιον. (See above, page 8.)
Hom. in Gen. Χ111. (above, page 52).
Hom. in Jos., VII. (above, page 52).
Comment. in Joann. (above, page 83, &c.).
In epist. ad Rom. c. avi. 21. (Migne, vol. IV. p. 1288.) Sed
et Lucium quidam ipsum perhibent esse Lucam, qui Evangelium
scripsit, pro 60 quod soleant nomina interdum secundum patriam
declinationem, interdum etiam secundum Graecam Romanamque
proferri.!
Dial. de recta in Deum fide. (Migne, vol. 1. p. 1121.) Meo-
χοὸς χαὶ “ουχᾶς, ἐχ τῶν 03" ὄντες, Παύλῳ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ etyy-
γελίσαντο.
15. Crementine Homirtes.
See Introduction for discussion. For passages in full, see next part of this work.
The following references may meanwhile be compared :—
Hom. IT. 15 (Luke xix. 43, 44; Mat. xxiv. 2, 34; Mark xiii. 2).
Hom. ITT. 63 (Luke xix. 5). Hom. III. 71 (Luke x. 7).
Hom. VIII. 7 (Luke vi. 46; Mat. vii. 21). Hom. IX. 22
1 Origen does not commit himself to the identification of Lucius (Rom. xvi.
21) with the Evangelist Luke. Whether this Lucius was the same as he of Cy-
rene (Acts xiii. 1) is uncertain (see Meyer im loc.). But that Lucius of Cyrene
is not the same as the Evangelist is clear, because the historian in the Acts does
not use the first person (Acts xiii. 3) when speaking of actions in which Lucius
took part. Lucas is more probably a contraction for Lucanus, and suggests that
it was given to a native of Lucania, or southern Italy. (See after, note 1, under
Eusebius.)
1"
104 ΐ GOSPEL OF LUKE.
(Luke x. 20). Hom. XI. 20 (Luke xxiii. 34). Hom. X VII. Ὁ
(Luke xii. 4, 5 and xviii. 6-8; Mat. x. 28). Hom. XIX. 2
(Luke x. 18).
16. Evwsestus.
H. E. 111. 25 (before, page 10).
Ibid. ITI, 24 (before, page 87).
~ \ ‘ ~ 3 2
H. E. 110. 4. 1 Ἰουχᾶς δὲ τὸ μὲν γένος ὧν τῶν an ᾿Αντιο-
χείας, τὴν ἐπιστήμην δὲ ἰατρὸς, τὰ «τλεῖστα συγγεγονὼς τῷ Παύλῳ,
- - ν > ~ \ ΤῸΝ
zal τοῖς λοιποῖς δὲ οὐ παρέργως τῶν ἀποστόλων ὡμιληκὼς, TS
ἀπὸ τούτων προσεχτήσατο ιϑυχῶν ϑεραπευτιχῆς ἕν δυσὶν ἡμῖν
ς , c ν᾿ , , NOT - ) , c
ὑπομνήματα ϑεοτινεύστοις κατέλιπε βίβλοις, τῷ te Εὐαγγελίῳ, ὃ
‘ ~ ᾿ > ~ 2 - >
nal χαράξαι μαρτυρεῖται χαϑὰ παρέδοσαν αὐτῷ οἱ ἀπαρχῆς av-
τόπται χαὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου, οἷς χαί φησιν ἐπιάνω-
Sev ἅπασι παρηχολουϑηχέναι, καὶ ταῖς τῶν Α΄ ποστόλων Πράξε-
a Da en YF ~ ΜΙ κΥΝ ,
σιν, ἃς οὐχέτι δι᾿ axons, ὀφϑαλμοῖς δὲ παραλαβὼν συνετάξατο.
Ν al c ΒΩ - 2 Β] ν «-ν} , , Cc Pe ee
(ασὶ dé ὡς aoe tov χαν αὐτὸν Evayyehiov μνημονεύειν ὁ 1]αὺ-
wv Cc ν > >
Log εἴωϑεν, διτηνίχα we σιερὶ ἰδίου τινὸς εὐαγγελίου γράφων ἔλεγε
7 /
“χατὰ TO εὐαγγέλιον μου."
1 The name Luke is probably, as we have seen, a contraction for Lucanus,
or native of Lucania. It is quite possible, nevertheless, that the father of the
Evangelist was a Lucanian, while he was himself from Antioch. That he was a
physician makes it not improbable that he was a freedman or the son of a freed-
man, as those born in that position almost filled the medical ranks at the begin-
ning of the Christian era. It is not impossible that he was educated in the
Medical School at Tarsus, and, if so, his intimacy with St Paul is easily accounted
for. But his intimate acquaintance with Antioch is seen in his giving so fully
the names and details in connection with the church there. (Acts vi. 5; xi. 19;
xx. 28; xiii. 1; xv. 1-3, 22-25.) He must have met there many who were scattered
after the first persecution (Acts xi. 19). He went with Paul to Philippi, and it
was his labours in that place which especially won for him Paul’s panegyrie in
2 Cor. viii. 18, 19. He seems at least to have remained in Philippi when Paul
left, as the narrative changes from the first person (Acts xvi. 10) to the third
(Acts xvii. 1). The second Ep. to the Corinthians is said to have been ‘‘ written
from Philippi by Titus and Lucas;’’ and although the report, which Eusebius
preserves in the close of the extract, that Paul referred to the Gospel of Luke in
2 Tim. ii. 8, is not likely to be historical, the zeal of Luke in respect of his
preaching of the Gospel, and the position which his character and culture had
gained for him in many parts of Europe and Asia, marked him out as the Apostle’s
best colleague in the management of the collection for the poor saints. The con-
stant references to Luke as a physician make it clear that he did not forget the
exercise of his professional skill when he was a Christian Teacher. He ministered
to Paul in his illnesses, and was with him to the last;—see Col. iv. 14; Philem.
24; 2 Tim. iv. 11. (See Plumptre’s interesting and ingenious sketch in Introd.
to St Luke in Commentary for English Readers.)
EPIPHANIUS. JEROME. 165
17. Epipnantus.
Haeres. tom. I. p. 941 (before, page 21).
Ibid. Haeres. 51 (before, page 95 &c.).!
18. JERoME.
Epist. II ad Paulinum (before, page 21).
De vir. Ill. c. 7. Lucas medicus Antiochensis, ut ejus scri-
pta indicant, Graeci sermonis non ignarus fuit, sectator apo-
stoli Pauli, ct omnis peregrinationis ejus comes. Scripsit Evan-
gelium, de quo idem Paulus: “ Missimus,” inquit, “cum illo fra-
trem, cujus laus est in Evangelio per omnes ecclesias.” (2 Cor.
viii.) Et ad Colossenses: “Salutat vos Lucas medicus carissi-
mus.” Et ad Timotheum: “Lucas est mecum solus.” Aliud quo-
que edidit volumen egregium, quod titulo Apostolicarum σπραξέων
praenotatur, cujus historia usque ad biennium Romae commo-
rantis Pauli pervenit, id est, usque ad quartum Neronis annum.
Ex quo intelligimus, in eadem urbe librum esse compositum. .. .
Quidam suspicantur, quotiescunque in epistolis suis Paulus dicit:
“juxta Evangelium meum,”’ de Lucae_ significare volumine: et
Lucam non solum ab apostolo Paulo didicisse Evangelium, qui
cum Domino in carne non fuerat, sed et a caeteris apostolis.
Quod ipse quoque in principio sui voluminis declarat, dicens:
“Sicut tradiderunt nobis, qui a principio ipsi viderunt, et ministri
fuerunt sermonis.” Igitur Evangelium sicut audierat, scripsit.
Acta vero Apostolorum sicut viderat, composuit. Sepultus est
Constantinopoli, ad quam urbem vicesimo Constantii anno, ossa
ejus cum reliquiis Andreae apostoli translata sunt.
Comment. in Isai. III. 6. Evangelistam Lucam tradunt ve-
teres Ecclesiae Tractatores medicinae artis fuisse scientissimum,
et magis Graecas literas scisse quam Hebraeas. Unde et sermo
1 Epiphanius, Haer. 51. 11, says Luke preached the Gospel in Dalmatia,
Gallia, Italy, Macedonia, but first in Gallia; and founds upon the reading Gallia
(for Galatia) in 2 Tim. iv. 10, which is also supported by δὶ and C. If he ac-
companied Paul on his last journey into Spain, the tradition of his connection
with Gaul may be so far well-founded. ‘‘ Lucanus”’ the poet was a native of
Spain. But all that regards Luke after Paul’s death is uncertain; the conjectures
of recent writers being too obviously baseless.
100 GOSPEL OF LUKE.
ejus tam in Evangelio, quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est, in
utroque vyolumine comptior est, et saecularem redolet eloquen-
tiam, magisque testimoniis Graecis utitur quam Hebracis.
Epist. Damaso 145. Lucas igitur, qui inter omnes evange-
listas Graeci sermonis eruditissimus fuit, quippe et medicus, et
qui Evangelium Graecis scripserit, quia se vidit proprietatem
sermonis.
Catal. script. eccl. c. 7. Lucas medicus, natione Syrus An-
tiochensis, cujus laus in Evangelio, qui et ipse discipulus Pauli
Apostoli, in Achaiae Boeotiae partibus volumen condidit.!
1 Luke is much more likely to have written his Gospel in Cesarea during
Paul’s imprisonment there. The narrative of the Acts ends with the Roman im-
prisonment, ae, about AD. 63; and the Gospel is spoken of as an earlier
treatise—apparently a considerable time earlier. The time A.D. 58-60 while Paul
was in Cesarea is therefore probable. Luke’s own diligent inquiries would be
facilitated by his residing in Cesarea. His information regarding the Herodian
family would be easily gained there. Compare Luke iii. 1; xiii. 32; xxiii. 5-12;
Acts xii. 1-25; xxv. 13; xxvi. 32. Plumptre (see before, on Euseb. note 1) sug-
gests that he owed it to Manaen (Acts xiii. 1); but this idea, while possible, seems
unnecessary.
101
ΙΧ.
Cos, PEL, OE dO i, N.
1. Partas.
Eus. H. E. TT. 39. ' Kéyontra δ᾽ 6 αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ
τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς, χαὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως.
Ἐχτέϑειται δὲ χαὶ ἄλλην ἱστορίαν περὶ γυναιχὸς, ἐπὶ πολλαῖς
ἁμαρτίαις διαβληϑείσης ἐπὶ τοῦ Κυρίου. “Hy τὸ χαϑ᾽ “Εβραίους
εὐαγγέλιον περιέχει.3
Trenaeus Κ. 80. 2, ‘Kai διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηχέναι τὸν Κύριον" Ἐν
τοῖς τοῦ waredg μου μονὰς εἶναι ττολλάς. (see above, page 72).
Anastasius Sinaita. (See before, page 59.)
(Routh’s Reliquiae Sacrae, I. 16.)
Maria mater Domini, Maria Cleophae, sive Alphei, uxor, quac
fuit mater Jacobi episcopi et apostoli, et Symonis, et Thadei, et
cujusdam Joseph; Maria Salome, uxor Zebedei, mater Joannis
evangelistae, et Jacobi (compare Mat. xxvii. 5, 6; Mark xv. 40 and
xvi. 1); Maria Magdalena. Istae quatuor in evangelio reperiun-
tur. ... Maria Jacobi minoris, et Joseph, mater, uxor Alphei,
soror fuit Mariae matris Domini, quam Cleophae Joannes nominat
(John xix. 25) vel a patre, vel a gentilitatis familia, vel alia causa.
[Note. This is taken from a MS of the fourteenth century, and is not by
the Apostolic Papias, but by a Latin lexicographer of the same name in the
eleventh century.|
1 The first sentence distinctly says that Papias quoted from the first epistle
of John, which is admitted to be by the same author as the Gospel. The col-
location of 1 Peter with it may perhaps indicate that Papias was grouping Mark’s
Gospel and Peter’s Epistle, on the one hand, with John’s Gospel and Epistle, on
the other. Something like this may have also suggested the Muratorian testimony
that John was an eye-witness, while the statement of the last sentences upon Mark’s
Gospel in that fragment may have been that Mark was not an eye-witness, but
only the amanuensis of Peter.
2 The second sentence is supposed to refer to the pericope adulterae (John vii.
53—viil. 11), which is not an original part of John’s Gospel.
8 Papias’s words, αὐτὴ ἡ ἀληϑεία, see p. 54, are like John if they are a de-
signation of Christ, but that is doubtful. The use of ἐντολή to describe Christ’s
doctrine is also like John. See page 54.
4 The whole passage may be a quotation from Papias. See Routh, Rel. Sac.
pp- 11, 19; and Davidson, Int. N. T. 11. 372.
168 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Val. Alex. No. 14. Note prefixed to John’s Gospel.
Evangelium johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab
johanne adhuc in corpore constituto, sicut papias nomine hiera-
politanus discipulus johannis carus in exotericis [exegeticis], id
est in extremis, quinque libris retulit. Disscripsit vero evange-
lium dictante johanne recte; verum Martion haereticus cum ab
eo fuisset improbatus eo quod contraria sentiebat, abjectus est
a johanne. Is vero scripta vel epistolas ad eum pertulerat a
fratribus qui in Ponto fuerunt.
[Note.—The MS is ascribed to the ninth century, but the prefatory note
is old, older than Jerome, in Tischendorf’s opinion. The passage seems to
be made up of detached notices. The account of Marcion is an anachronism.
Disseripsit vero evangelium is supposed to have been a translation of 0 ἀπέ-
Yeapoy ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, ἀπέγραφον being third person plural, but
mistaken by some later writer for the first person singular, so as to make
Papias himself the amanuensis. (See Lightfoot, Contemp. Review, October
1875, p. 854.)]
2. BARNABAS.
C. 2.6. Ὁ χαινὸς νόμος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
(Compare John xiii. 34, ἢ χαινὴ ἐντολή
0.5. 1. Eig τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπέμεινεν ὃ Κύριος παραδοῦναι τὴν
σάρχα εἰς χαταφϑορὰν, ἵνα τῇ ἀφέσει τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἄγνι-
σθϑῶμεν, ὃ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ δαντίσματος αὐτοῦ. (John
xi. 5B.)
Ο. δ. 1. Ἵνα καὶ τοῖς πατράσι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ἀποδῷ χαὶ αὖ-
τὸς ἑαυτῷ τὸν λαὸν τὸν χαινὸν ἑτοιμάζων ἐπιδείξῃ ei τῆς γῆς
OV, ὅτι τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὐτὸς ποιήσας χρινεῖ. (John vy. 21, &e.)
C. 5. 9.2 Ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν εἶναι υἱὸν Θεοῦ. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ
ἦλϑεν ἐν σαρχὶ, οὐδ᾽ ἄν πὼς οἱ ἄνϑρωποι ἐσώϑησαν βλέπον-
τὲς αὐτόν.
C.5.13. Ἔδει γὰρ ἵνα ἐπὶ ξύλου πάϑῃ, λέγει γὰρ ὃ προ-
φητείων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ" Φεῖσαί μου τῆς 'ϑυχῆς ἀπὸ ῥομφαίας." (See
John xix. 34.)
1 See first part of passage, before, page 102. For ἦλθεν ἐν σαρχί see also
Barn. ὁ. 5. 11.
2 This is quoted because it is said that, had the author known what John
says of the Roman soldier’s spear, he could not have written it. But that by no
means follows.
BARNABAS, 169
C. 6.6. Ti οὖν λέγει πάλιν ὃ προφήτης; Περιέσχεν we
συναγωγὴ πονηρευομένων, ἐχύχλωσάν we ὡσεὶ μέλισ-
σαι κηρίον" καί; Ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆ-
gov. (Compare John xix. 24. See also Justin, Apol. Lc. 38.
pate D.)
C.6. 7. Ἐν σαρκὶ οὖν αὐτοῦ μέλλοντος φανεροῦσϑαι
χαὶ πάσχειν, προεφανερώϑη τὸ πάϑος. ,1έγει γὰρ ὃ προφήτης
ἐπὶ τὸν ἰσραήλ᾽ χ.τ.λ. (John i. 31; 1 John i. 2; 1 John iii. 5-8;
also 1 Tim. ii. 16.)
C.6.9. Τί δὲ λέγει ἣ γνῶσις; Madere Ἐλτείσατε, φησὶν,
ἐπὶ τὸν ἐν σαρχὶ μέλλοντα φανεροῦσϑαι ὑμῖν ᾿Ιησοῦν. (See
ἘΠΞΩΝ (τα, τς ὃ; 14: .12..10.
C. 7.2. Εἰ οὖν ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὧν Κύριος, χαὶ μέλλων
χρίνειν ζῶντας zal νεχροὺς, ἔπαϑεν ἵνα ἣ πληγὴ αὐτοῦ
ζωοπιοιήσῃ ὑμᾶς, πιστεύσωμεν ὅτι ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐχ ἠδύνατο
matey δἰ μὴ dv ἡμᾶς.) (John v. 21; xii. 5.)
C. τ. 9. Ἐπειδὴ ὄιψονται αὐτὸν τότε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τὸν ποδήρη
ἔχοντα τὸν χόχχινον τιερὶ τὴν σάρχα, καὶ ἐροῦσιν" Οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν
ὃν σίοτε ἡμιεῖς ἐσταυρώσαμεν ἐξουϑενήσαντες χαὶ καταχεντή-
σαντες χαὶ ἐμτιτύσαντες; “AdnI@s οὗτος ἦν ὃ τότε λέγων ἕαυ-
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι. (Compare John xix. 37 and Mat.
XXVii. 28, 30.)
C.8.5. “Ore δὲ τὸ ἔριον ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον" ὅτι ἡ βασιλεία ᾿Ιησοῦ
ἐπὶ ξύλου, καὶ ὕτι οἱ ἐλιίζοντες ἔτι αὐτὸν ζήσονται εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα. (See also ὁ. 6.3; 11.10 below; 11.11. Compare John
vi. 51, 58; and Ezek. xlvii. 1-12.)
0.9.7. Madere οὖν, τέχνα cyanng, net ττάντων σπιλουσίως,
ore -ABoaau πρῶτος περιτομὴν δοὺς ἐν πνεύματι προβλέιμας
εἰς τὸν Inooty σιεριέτεμεν, λαβὼν τριῶν γραμμάτων δόγματα."
(John vili. 56.)
Ο. 11. 10. Ὃς ἂν φάγῃ ἐξ αὐτῶν ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
(See also 11. 11; John iv. 14; vi. 51.)
0.12.5. Πάλιν ΠΙωῦϊσῆς στοιεῖ τύτιον τοῦ Ιησοῦ, ὅτι δεῖ αὐ-
8 See also Barn. ὁ. 6.17, ζωοποιούμενοι ζήσομεν.
4 Here follows a dissertation on the three letters S{H (318), of which, accord-
ing to ‘‘Barnabas,” the first indicates the cross (σταυρός) and the other two are
the first letters of the name ᾿[ησοῦς!
}
=~)
170 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
τὸν παϑεῖν χαὶ αὐτὸς ζωοστιοιήσει 0.4. (See long passage, treat-
ing of the serpent as a type of Christ; compare John iii. 14.)
Al ΤῸ δεν SOP Ἐπ τς - 4 ἢ ἢ
Ο. 10. 8. “Τ“αβόντες τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν χαὶ ἑλττίσαντες
ἐπὶ τὸ ὄνομα ἐγενόμεϑα χαινοὶ, πάλιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς κτι-
ζόμενοι" διὸ ἐν τῷ χατοιχητηρίῳ ἡμῶν ἀληϑῶς ὃ Θεὸς χατοι-
κεῖ ἐν ἡμῖν. (John iii. 3; compare Eph. iii. 17.)
C.19.1. Ἡ οὖν ὁδὸς τοῦ φωτός ἐστιν αὕτη" sav τις ϑέ-
λων ὁδὸν ὁδεύειν ἐτεὶ τὸν ὡρισμένον τόπον, σπεύσῃη τοῖς ἔργοις
5) = aioe : =
αὐτοῦ. (Compare John 11]. 20; xiv. 6.)
Ο. 19. 12. Οὐ προσήξεις ἐπὶ πιροσευχὴν ἕν συνειδήσει ovngd.
(Compare John ix. 31.)
~ \ d
C.21.2. Ἐρωτῶ τοὺς ὑτιερέχοντας, et τινά μου γνώμης ἀγα-
“ῆς λαμβάνετε συμβουλίαν" ἔ) 9. ξαυτῶν εἰς οὺς ἐρ-
ϑῆς λαμβὰ υμβουλίαν" ἔχετε μεϑ ξαυτῶν ELS OVE EO
, \ \ \ . ae
γάσησϑε: τὸ χαλὸν μὴ ἐγκαταλείτιητε. (Compare John ΧΙ]. 8.)
Ο 21. 6. IivecSe δὲ. ϑεοδίδϑαχτοι, δαξητηῦντες τὸ Cyret
2 2) - \ ~ , -
Κύριος ap ὑμῶν, χαὶ ποιεῖτε ἵνα εὑρεϑῆτε ἐν ἡμέρᾳ χρίσεως.
(Compare John vi. 45.)
[Note. Besides the passages quoted above, Keim (Jesus of Nazara, vol. i.
p- 193, note) enumerates the following resemblances: ἐποίησεν ἐντολὴν, ©. 6;
ὑπέμεινε παραδοῦναι τὴν σάρχα, ο. 6; αὐτὸς ἠθέλησεν οὕτω παϑεῖν, ο. 5; ἐπι-
ϑυμία caoxdc, ce. 10; Spirit, ec. 1, 5, 16; Gnosis, cc. 1, 10; new birth, ο. 16;
taught of God, c. 21; temple of God, ναὸς dy. τέλειος, κατοικητήριον, Θεὸς
χατοιχῶν ἐν, cc. 4,6; χαινὸς νόμος, c. 2; ἐντολὴ, πᾶσα ἐντολὴ, cc. 9, 19, 21;
love of the brethren, ce. 1, 4; joy, ec. 7, 21.]
3. Crement or Rome. !
First Epistle.
~ : 5)
C. 81. 2. Τίνος χάριν ηὐλογήϑη 6 πατὴρ ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ; ovyt
διχαιοσύνην χαὶ ἀλήϑειαν διὰ πίστεως τ᾿ οἐήσας; (John iii. 21;
compare 1 John i. 6.)
C. 43.6. Τί δοχεῖτε ἀγαπτητοί; ob προήδει Mavorg τοῦτο
, ” ε , ” Ara ce Ce) , ,
μέλλειν ἔσεσϑαι; μάλιστα nde, αλλ ἵνα μὴ ἀκαταστασία γένηται
ἐν τῷ Ισραὴλ, οὕτως ἐποίησεν εἰς τὸ δοξασϑῆναι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ
1 The passages which follow may be regarded as suggesting John’s Gospel,
if not actually quoting it: they are echoes if not citations. There may be added
to them as fainter echoes ὁ. 31. 2, comp. John iii. 21; ¢ 42. 1, comp. John
xvii. 3, and xx. 21; 6. 47. 4, comp. John xix. 11; ὁ. 48. 4, comp. John x. 7. 9;
ὁ. 49. 6, comp. John xy. 12.
CLEMENT OF ROME. IGNATIUS. Lh
ἀληϑινοῦ χαὶ μόνου Κυρίου" [Θεοῦ] ᾧ i) δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶ-
vag τῶν αἰώνων. “Aur. (John xvii. 3; 1 John v. 20.)
C.49.1. ‘O ἔχων ἀγάπην ἐν Χριστῷ ποιησάτω τὰ τοῦ Χρι-
στοῦ τιαραγγέλματα. (John xiv. 15, 23; compare 1 John v. 1-3.)
Ο. 49.6. To αἵμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωχεν brég ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς
« , [4 - ’ € , ~ \ ‘ , C ‘ ~
ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ἐν ϑελήματι Θεοῦ, χαὶ τὴν σάρχα ὑπὲρ τῆς σαρ-
LOS ἡμῶν χαὶ τὴν ἱψνυχὴν ὑττὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν. (John vi. 51;
xy. 13.)
Second Epistle.
0.3.1. Ἔγνωμεν Ov αὐτοῦ τὸν πάτερα τῆς ἀληϑείας. (John
"1: xiv. 9.)
C.6.9. Tig ἡμῶν παράκλητος ἔσται ἐὰν μὴ εὑρεϑῶμεν
ἔργα ἔχοντες ὕσια χαὶ δίχαια; (John xv. 26.)
6509: Εἰ Χριστὸς ὃ Κύριος 0 σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὧν μὲν τὸ τιρῶ-
τον σινεῦμα, ἐγένετο σὰρξ χαὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἑἐχάλεσεν. (John i. 14.)
Meron. in Jes. 53. 19.5 Clemens, vir apostolicus, qui post
Petrum Romanam rexit ecclesiam, scribit ad Corinthios: “Scep-
trum Dei, Dominus noster Jesus Christus, non venit in jactan-
tia superbiae, quum possit omnia, sed in humilitate, in tantum
ut verberatus a ministro sacerdotis responderit: Si male locutus
sum, argue de peccato, sin autem bene, quid me caedis?” (John
XVili. 22, 23.)
4. Tenativs.!
Eph. ο. 11. Me τοῦτο μύρον ἔλαβεν ἐπὶ τῆς χεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ
ὁ Κύριος, ἵνα τινέη τῇ ἐχχλησίᾳ. ἀφϑαρσίαν. Mh) ἀλείφεσϑε δυσ-
2 The Syriac translates as though μόνου ἀληδινοῦ Θεοῦ. The MS of Bryennios
reads Κυρίου.
* The passage in Clement to which Jerome refers is in C. 16 of his (first)
Epistle : To σχῆπτρον͵ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ «Θεοῦ, 6 Κύριος ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ‘In-
σοῦς, οὐχ ἦλϑεν ἐν χόμπῳ ἀλαζονείας οὐδὲ ὑπερηφανίας, χαίπερ δυνάμενος, ἀλλὰ
ταπεινοφρονῶν, χαϑὼς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐλάλησεν: φησὶν yao* x.T-A-
Then follows a quotation of Isaiah liii. 1-12. In these words Jerome seems to
quote Clement from memory, and then to run into another quotation of his own
from the Gospel.
1 In addition to the following passages, which may be regarded as quotations,
there may be taken as Echoes: Eph. 7. 2, and 11. 1, comp. John xvii. 3; Magnes.
7. 1, comp. John v.19; Magnes. 7. 2, comp. John xvi. 28; Smyrn. 4. 1, comp.
John xvii. 3; Trall. 9. 2, comp. John xvii. 3.
172 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
, lad , > a ~ be , 4 a!
ωδίαν τῆς διδασχαλίας TOL ἄρχοντος TOU αἰῶνος τούτου, μὴ αἱχ-
μαλωτίσῃ ὑμᾶς ἐχ τοῦ προχειμένου ζῆν. Ma τί δὲ οὐ πάντες
, , © yi - ~ ~ ch, AD dy ~ >
φρόνιμοι γινόμεϑα, λαβόντες Θεοῦ γνῶσιν, 0 ἔστιν Inoovg Χρι-
, σεν! ~ B) , > ~ \ rat} a ,
otog; Tt μωρῶς ἀπολλύμεϑα, ἀγνοοῦντες τὸ Χάρισμα, ὁ πέπομι-
2 ) ΕΞ
gev ἀληϑῶς ὃ Κύριος; (John xii. 3, 4.)
c \ τὴ [Ὁ ~ 2 ~ [4 ΄’ οὗ γ
Eph. ὁ. 18. 2. Ο γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ιησοῦς 0 Χριστὸς ξχυοφο-
'C¢ Cc Ν , me ἊΣ 2 , ~ γ᾽ , A
ρήϑη ὑπὸ Magiag χατ᾽ οἰχονομίαν Θεοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος μὲν
“]1αβὲδ, πνεύματος δὲ ἁγίου. (John vii. 42.)
Magnes. ὁ. 8. 2. Εἷς Θεὸς ἐστὶν, ὃ φανερώσας ξαυτὸν διὰ
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὃς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος, ἀπὸ
~ A a A ~
σιγῆς προελϑὼν,Σ ὃς ZETA πάντα εὐηρέστησεν TH πέμ-
Warts αὐτόν. (John viii. 29.)
Trall. c. 8. Ὑμεῖς οὖν τὴν noatimadecy ἀναλαβόντες ἀναχτί-
σασϑε ἑαυτοὺς ἐν σπιίστει, 0 ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ἐν ἀγάπῃ,
ὃ ἐστιν αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. (John vi. 51.)
Rom. ¢. 7.1. ὋὉ ἄρχων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου διαρπάσαι μὲ βού-
λεται (Compare τοῦ κόσμου in John xii. 31; xiv. 30; xvi. 11).
Rom. ¢. 7.2.3 Ὕδωρ δὲ ζῶν, χαὶ λαλοῦν ἐν ἐμοὶ, ἔσωϑέν μοι.
y = \ > c ~ ~
λέγον: “dstoo πρὸς τὸν πατέρα." Οὐχ δομαι τροφῇ φϑορᾶς,
DiGi TC >. ~ , , & DP ~ gf cas ie
οὐδὲ ἡδοναῖς τοῦ βίου τούτου" ἄρτον Θεοῦ ϑέλω, ὃ ἔστι σὰρξ
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ ἐχ σπέρματος «1αβίδ' γχαὶ πόμα ϑέλω τὸ
αἷμα αὐτοῦ, 0 ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφϑαρτος. (John vi. 82, 33, 54-58 ;
iv. 14.)
. — τ \ \
Philad. 2.1. Τέχνα οὖν φωτὸς ἀληϑείας, φεύγετε τὸν μερι-
σμὸν χαὶ τὰς χαχοδιδασχαλίας" ὅπου δὲ ὃ ποιμήν ἐστιν, ἐκεῖ ὡς
σιρόβατα ἀκολουϑεῖτε. (John x. 4; xii. 20.)
* \ Ν \ 2
Philad. 7.1. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ κατὰ σάρχα μέ τινες ηϑέλησαν πλα-
~ Jann \ ~ > ~ Β] \ ~ wy 1 κ᾿
γῆσαι, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα οὐ πλανᾶται, ao Θεοῦ ὃν" older γὰρ
LG ΒΩ \ ~ C¢ / \ ‘ ἣν γ ,
πόϑεν ἔρχεται, nal ποῦ ὑπάγει, καὶ τὰ κρυπτὰ ἐλέγχει. (John
111. 8.)
. r \ ‘ « - , a 2
Philad. 9.1. Καλοὶ χαὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς, χρείσσων δὲ ὃ ἀρχιερεὺς
Ν ! ~ aA
ὁ πεπιστευμένος τὰ ἅγια TOY ἁγίων, ὃς μόνος ιεηίστευται, τὰ
ος γ \ 5: oe i es « c = 2 4 τ ΕΣ iat Ε] ,
χρυπτὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ" αὐτὸς wy ϑύρα τοῦ πατρὸς, dv ἣς εἰσέρ-
? \ Nae \ , 3) Ny \ c ~ \ c
χονται ABoauau χαὶ Ioaan χαὶ Ιαχωβ χαὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ οἱ
ἀττόστολοι χαὶ ἣ ἐχχλησία. (John x. 7.)
2 Compare Basilides below, p. 173; and Tatian.
8 In this passage occur πόμα Θεοῦ, while it is πόσις in John vi. 55; and
ἀένναος ζωή. while ζωὴ αἰώνιος is the ordinary phrase in John.
BASILIDES. ACTS OF PILATE. Lia
5. Basioes. !
. ΒῚ ν2 t 2) ~
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VIT. 22. Ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἣν ἄπορον εἰτιεῖν 7ρ0--
2 374 , Ν
βολήν τινα τοῦ μὴ ὄντος Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τι οὐχ ὃν, --- φεύγει γὰρ
~ , 7 , G
mave χαὶ δέδοιχε τὰς χατὰ WEOBOhIY τῶν γεγονότων οὐσίας ὁ
~ Nn , ς
Βασιλείδης σιροβολῆὴς χρεία, 1 ττοίας ὕλης ὑπόϑεσις,
c ΠῚ, Osoc 2ovcort weeded Gp DIE ahs τιν sgt aN
iva χύσμον Θεὸς ἐργάσηται, χαϑάτιερ ὃ ἀράχνης Ta μηρύματα, ἢ
Dy Ἢ Ν γ 9 ᾿ 7 2; ‘ Ἶ ὮΝ ξ ‘Lov 244 P ~ pale vA ~ γ
itis ἄνϑρωπος χαλκὸν ἢ ξύλον, ἢ τι τῶν τῆς ὕλης μερῶν ἐρ-
.-«-« , 7 \ s \ \ ae,
γαζόμενος λαμβάνει; αΑλλὰ εἰπε, φησὶ, χαὶ ἐγένετο, χαὶ τοῦτό
Ν c , « a” ν Το Ν ,
ἐστιν, ὡς λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνδρες οὗτοι, τὸ λεχϑὲν ὑπὸ Πϊωσέως"
Γενηϑήτω φῶς, χαὶ ἐγένετο φῶς. Πόϑεν, a γέγονε TO
~ 2& I ¢ ne 2) \ , a \ 1 ¢ 2 2 3) \ ,
φῶς; ἐξ οὐδενός" οὐ γὰρ γέγρατιται, φησὶ, τύῦϑεν, ἀλλ, αὐτὸ μό-
~ ~ ~ ν 2 33 \
voy ἐχ tig φωνῆς τοῦ λέγοντος, ὃ δὲ λέγων, φησὶν, οὐχ ἦν, οὐδὲ
/ > . γ » ~
τὸ γενόμενον iv. Léyove, φησὶν, ἐξ οὐχ ὄντων τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ
,ὔ c ς
κόσμου, ὃ λόγος ὃ λεχϑείς" γενηϑήτω φῶς, “AL τοῦτο, φησὶν,
ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον. ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις Ἣν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀλη-
ϑινὸν, 0 φωτίζει πάντα ἄνϑρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν
, , \ ) ᾿Ξ ~
χόσμον. «“αμβάνει τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος ἐχείνου χαὶ
φωτίζεται. (John i. 9.)
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VII. 27. Ὅτι δὲ, φησὶν, ἕχαστον ἰδίους
pa Zz ΩΝ τὰ Ν c a» 7) Ky 5 @ 32. a, ὌΝ Cc cr =
ἔχει χαιροὺς ἱκανὸς ὃ σωτὴρ λέγων: Οὔπω HrEet ἢ ὥρα μου
᾿ς \ c , \ 2 ἐπ P { » ἃ x \ aN ε ‘ ) ΤΣ
χαὶ οἱ μάγοι τὸν ἀστέρα τεϑεαμένοι" ἢν γὰρ, φησὶ, “CL αὐτὸς
ς \ , 2 , ‘ C ~ 2 , γ ~ ,
UNO γένεσιν ἀστέρων χαὶ ὡρῶν ἀποχαταστάσεως ἕν τῷ κμιἐεγάλῳ
, ~ oe
σιρολελογισμένος Owe. (John ii. 4.)
6. Acts or Pivate.
c We) , + γ ‘ 7
C.6. ὋὉ δὲ ᾿Ιουδαῖος ἔφη" Ἐγὼ τριάχοντα ὀχτὼ ἔτη ἐν χλίνῃ
, γ x) , , τ NY DOYS. (te Ὁ) ~ ?
χατεχείμην ἐν odtvy πόνων. ... Kat ἰδὼν we ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐστιλαγ-
[eae ΘΕ ‘ , 3 , = ΟῚ , \ , \
χνίσϑη καὶ λόγον εἰστιέν μοι" ‘Agov σου τὸν χράββατον χαὶ σπε-
? On Basilides see Introduction. Because of its special importance the passage
is given here to complete the chain of testimony on the Fourth Gospel. For
further references in Gnostic writers see below, ‘Testimony of Heretics.” There
ean be no doubt that the quotations in the text are from John. The question
is whether Basilides or a Basilidean of later date made them. On this see Intro-
duction, where the conclusion is that the reference is (as is natural) to Basilides
himself. It is to be observed that the use of heyStv γέγραπται, ὁ λόγος ὁ λεχ-
Set¢, τὸ λεγόμενον to mark quotation from the Old Testament and from the New
is significant. He also says, ἐν tots εὐαγγελίοις : pointing to a collection, or at least
to an understood number.
174 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
ριπιάτει. Καὶ ἦρα τὸν κράββατόν μου χαὶ περιεχιάτησα ... ἐν
σαββάτῳ. (Compare John v. 2.
[Note.—Justin twice quotes a work to which he gives this name. Thus he
says, after quoting some incidents of the crucifixion of Jesus, Apol. I. ὁ. 35.
p. 76 C.: Καὶ ταῦτα ὅτι γέγονε, δύνασθε μαϑεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου
γενομένων ”Axtwy. And so also in nearly the same words, Apol. I. ὁ. 48,
p. 84C. Compare also a more general reference, Apol. I. ὁ. 38, p. 77 B. So
also Tertullian (Apologet. ὁ. 21), after recounting the incidents of the Death
and Burial and Resurrection of Jesus, says: Ea omnia super Christo Pilatus,
et ipse jam pro sua conscientia Christianus, Caesari tune Tiberio nuntiavit.
See Tisch., Evangelia Apocrypha, Proleg. p. LXII, &c., for a full discussion
of the age of the Christian document known as the ‘Acts of Pilate.” Although
interpolated at a later time, and although it is very unlike what an official
report of the procurator to the Emperor would have been, it seems to be of
’
very old date, and, as part of the so-called ‘ Gospel of Nicodemus,” is well
known. If the book we now have is substantially that which Justin referred
to, believing it to be a standard document, it is valuable evidence for the
previous existence of the Gospel of John, on which it is largely based. See,
e.g., chapter iii. Tisch., Ev. Apoec., p. 218. Its title in the MSS is not
”Axta, as in Justin, but Ὑπομνήματα. Eusebius (H. E. 11. 2) and Epipha-
nius (Haer. L. 1) testify to the existence of such a book; and the Emperor
Maximin caused a heathen and anti-christian book under the same title to be
widely circulated, and even to be committed to memory by boys at school.|
»
i
See under 1 John.!
Potycare.
8. Martyrpom or Potycarp.
= ~ U ἣν 3 Se ~
14. 2. Εὐλογῶ σε ὅτι ἠξίωσάς με. .. εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς
’ , ᾿ a ~ b. ιν \ Τὰ γ Ἄ oO , 4 , c U ve >
αἰωνίου Weyig τε χαὶ σώματος ἐν ἀφϑαρσίᾳ πνεύματος ἁγίου" ἕν
ν , Ύ ὔ /, / , ἧς ‘
οἷς προσδεχϑείην ἐνώτιιόν σου σήμερον ἐν ϑυσίᾳ πίονι χαὶ ττροσ-
y ~ /
δεχτῇ, χαϑὼς προητοίμασας χαὶ πιροεφανέρωσας χαὶ ἐπλήρωσας,
> > sq. 8
ὁ awevdic καὶ ἀληϑινὸς Θεός. (John v. 29; xvii. 3.)
9. HeERMAs.
Mand. XII. 3. Ὁ. ᾿Εὰν σὺ σεαυτῷ προϑθϑῆς ὅτι δύνανται φυ-
1 The words of Polyearp, ο. VII. are from 1 John iv. 3, and the Gospel and
Epistle hang together so closely that the quotation has its value under the head
of the Gospel.
HERMAS. 175
~ > , γ ‘ -
λαχϑῆναι, εὐχόπως αὐτὰς [80. τὰς ἐντολὰς] φυλάξεις, χαὶ οὐχ
. - oY ote
ἔσονται σχληραί. (John xiv. 12; vi. 60.)
. me, Cg al Nee C \ ~ ~ ν
Sim. Υ. Ὁ. 2. ὋὉ δὲ δοῦλος ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστίν" αἱ δὲ ἄκι-
c ν Φ , 7) tay > Ν a) , « ΝΛ , «
méhot ὃ λαὸς οὗτός ἐστιν OY αὐτὸς ξς(υτευσεν᾽ οἱ δὲ χαραχες οἱ
c Pra ~ - ~ ‘ ~
ἅγιοι ἄγγελοί εἰσι τοῦ Κυρίου ot συγχρατοῖντες τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ"
τὰς , ic. , ) at 15 ~ « > ,
αἱ δὲ βοτάναι αἱ ἐχτετιλμέναι ἐχ τοῖ ἀμπελῶνος, [αἱ] ἀνομίαι
, ~ ν -" - \ . . A ~
εἰσὶ τῶν δούλων τοῦ Θεοῦ" τὰ δὲ ἐδέσματα a ἔπτεμιμεν ἔχ τοῦ
, d +) aA ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~
δείτενου, αἱ ἐντολαί εἰσιν ug ἔδωχε τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ
ΒῚ Ὁ « ἊΝ , Η \ , Q « cr ay c ~
αὐτοῦ ot δὲ φίλοι χαὶ σύμβουλοι, οἱ ἀγιοι ἄγγελοι οἱ πρῶτοι
τ 2 eS) NE ea he ΚῸ , ς , c ,
χτισϑέντες" ἢ δὲ ἀποδημία τοῦ δεσπότου, ὃ χρόνος ὃ τιερισσεύων
’ ΡῚ -
εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ."
. 2 , \ Ν d ~
Sim. V. 6. 2. Ὅτι, φησὶν, ὃ Θεὸς τὸν auiedove ἐφύτευσε,
es) Os \ \ y ~ ~ 2) ~
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, τὸν λαὸν ἕχτισε χαὶ πιἀαρέδωχε τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ" χαὶ ὃ
ON \ > γ > \ ~ ~
υἱὸς χατέστησε τοὺς ἀγγέλους eu’ αὐτοὺς τοῦ συντηρεῖν αὐτούς"
Ν 2 \ Ὁ a) ~ U A
χαὶ αὐτὸς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν ἐχαϑάρισε πολλὰ κοπιάσας χαὶ
Ἁ , > 7 ro Ν Ν > A A
πολλοὺς χόπους ἡντληχώς" οὐδεὶς yao [aumehor] δύναται σχα-
= ” , Dh
φῆναι ἄτερ χύπου ἢ μόχϑου.3
. ς > \ > , ς , ~ ~
Sim. V. 6. 3. «Αὐτὸς οὖν χαϑαρίσας tag ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ
»” > ~ ~ -- - \ > ~
ἔδειξεν αὐτοῖς τὰς τρίβους τῆς ζωῆς, δοὺς αὐτοῖς τὸν νόμον ὃν
a» ~ 2) ~ oe
élape παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ. (John x. 18; xii. 49, &c.)
. ~ , Fill A ~
Sim. IX. 12.1. Πρῶτον, φημὶ, πάντων, Κύριε, τοῦτό μοι
, \ c \
δήλωσον" ἣ τιέτρα χαὶ 1) avthy τίς ἐστιν; Ἣ πέτρα, φησὶν, αὕτη
\ ς , ς CoN ~ ~ ’ , “ AN J ΞΕ ,
χαὶ ἢ πύλη ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι. Πῶς, φημι, Krewe, ἢ πέτρα
Ὁ C ΤΑ , , a” \ \ , 2 ,
παλαιὰ ἔστιν, ἢ δὲ σιύλη καινή; -AxOvE, φησὶ, καὶ OVMLE, ἀσυνετε"
Cc « ~ Ξ- , ~ Ul γ ~
O μὲν υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τιάσης τῆς χτίσεως αὐτοῦ προγενέστερός
’ qc / a" ~ ~ d
ἐστιν, ὥστε σύμβουλον αὐτὸν γενέσϑαι τῷ τιατρὶ τῆς χτίσεως αὐ-
~ ~ 4 7 γ C ἊΝ U . \ ἊΝ Ν
τοῦ" διὰ τοῦτο χαὶ πιαλαιός ἐστιν. Ἢ δὲ πύλη διατὶ καινὴ, φημὶ,
’ , ‘ 2 , ~ Cc ~ ~
Κύριε; “Ort, φησὶν, du ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν τῆς συντελείας φα-
\ ‘ ~ ’ « 7ὴ ! «
γερὸς ἐγένετο,, διὰ τοῦτο χαινὴ ἐγένετο ἢ πύλη, ἵνα οἱ μέλλοντες
Ih 2 B hh τ υ - ~
σώζεσθαι Ov αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν εἰσέλϑωσι tov Θεοῦ. . . .
1 This passage was mentioned in a note under ‘“ The Apostolical Fathers and
the Synoptists.” It is given here as an example of Hermas’s relation to St John.
Many passages in John are suggested by it. The ἐντολαί suggest many passages
in chapters xii.-xvii.; 1 John ii. 3, &c. But the whole of the suggestions are pro-
voking rather than satisfactory, when words and phrases are considered; they
come much closer when their theology is studied The dignity, mission, and suf-
ferings of God’s Son are prominent in Hermas’s teaching, and remind us of the
Fourth Gospel at every turn. Compare also the following extract, and compare
John xv. with Sim. VIII.
2 See last note. Compare also Mark xii. 1; Heb. v. 8, 9; Isaiah v. 7.
176 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
? ’ , , ~ A d /
Ἐὰν yao εἰς wok ϑελήσης εἰσελϑεῖν τινὰ, χαχείνη ἣ πόλις σίε-
pee Ons J pnt ἀν ΤΩΝ De Dh Wage ‘af tse wn ? A
ριτετειχισμένη χυχλῳ χαὶ μίαν exer avAyY, pte δυνήσῃ Eg τὴν
/ 2) , τ ’ ~ > \ ν A ~ ,ὔ ΤῈΣ ay ~
wok ἐχείνην εἰσελϑεῖν εἰ μιὴ διὰ τῆς πύλης jg ἔχει; Πῶς γὰρ,
σῇ »ἷ BY 2
φημὶ, Κύριε, δύναται γενέσϑαι ἄλλως; Et οὖν εἰς τὴν “τόλιν ov
δυνήσῃ εἰσελϑεῖν εἰ μὴ διὰ τῆς στύλης αὐτῆς, οὕτω, φησὶ, καὶ εἰ
ey) pe] 15. 1018) 15: OU6O a us
\ / , ~ ~ ΒΩ ’ ~ > ν ἢ a
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀλλως εἰσελϑεῖν ov δύναται avdowimog
ν \ ~ 2 ,ὔ - - 2 ~ ~ > >
εἰ μὴ διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος TOL υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἡγαχτημένου bi
> ᾿ξ
αὑτοῦ.
10. Justin Marryr.
Apol. I. ¢. 5. p.56 A. Ἠλέγχϑη ταῦτα... ba αὐτοῦ tov λό-
you μορφωϑέντος χαὶ ἀνθρώπου γενομένου xai Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
χληϑέντος.
Apol. I. ¢.21. p. 66 1.1 Tov λόγον, 6 ἔστι πιρῶτον γέν-
γημα tov Θεοῦ, ἄνευ ἐπιμιξίας φάσχειν ἡμᾶς γεγεννῆσθαι, 1η-
σοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν διδάσχαλον ἡμιῶν. (John i. 1.)
Apol. I. c. 22. p. 67 Ε΄. Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδίως παρὰ τὴν κοινὴν γέ-
γεσιν γεγεννῆσϑαι αὐτὸν ἐχ Θεοῦ λέγομεν λόγον Θεοῦ, ὡς προ-
ἕφημεν. (Compare I. 21.
Apol. I. ¢. 23. p. 08 C. Kai ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς μόνος ἰδίως υἱὸς
τῷ Θεῷ γεγέννηται, λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων.
Apol. I. c. 32. p. 74 B. Ἡ δὲ πρώτη δύναμις μετὰ τὸν σπτα-
τέρα πάντων χαὶ δεσπότην Θεὸν χαὶ υἱὸς ὃ λόγος ἐστίν" ὃς τίνα
τρόπον σαρχοποιηϑεὶς ἄνϑρωτιος γέγονεν, ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐροῦμεν.
(John i. 1.)
Apol. I. ς. 35. p. 76 A. Καὶ πάλιν ὃ αὐτὸς πτροφήτης “Hoatag
ϑεοφορούμενος τῷ πνεύματι τῷ προφητιχῷ ἔφη. ... «Αἰτοῦσί
we νῦν χρίσιν. ... Καὶ γὰρ, ὡς εἶπεν ὃ προφήτης, διασύροντες
αὐτὸν ἐχάϑισαν ἐπὶ βήματος χαὶ εἴσπτον" ΙΚρῖνον ἡμῖν.2Σ (Isa. lviii.
2: John xix. 13.)
3 Compare John x., &c. also Hegesipp. ap. Eus. H. E. 11. 23. 8; Imgnat. ad
Philad. c. 9. 1; Clem. Hom. III. 52.
1 There are several passages in Justin which may be referred to the Prologue
of John’s Gospel. They seem to show that Justin’s theology was grounded upon
John. The use of μονογενής in connection with the mention of the ‘‘Memoirs”
is interesting, and looks as if the Fourth Gospel were included. See Dial. ec. 105,
p. 332 C. below. It is certain that Justin knew the Apocalypse (Dial. ¢. 81), but
he does not quote Apoc. xix. 13, in which it is said, ‘‘His name shall be called the
λόγος of God.”
2 Justin is arguing for the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah; and it is sug-
gested (see Drummond in Theol. Rev., July 1877) that he quotes the words of the
JUSTIN MARTYR. LG
Apol. I. ὁ. 53. p. 88 A. Tin γὰρ ἂν λόγῳ ἀνθρώπῳ σαταυ-
ρωϑέντι ἐπειϑόμεϑα, ὅτι πρωτότοχος τῷ ἀγεννήτῷ Θεῷ ἐστι.
ΕΟ. I. Ὁ. 61. ». 94 4. Καὶ γὰρ ὃ Χριστὸς εἶπεν" “Ay μὴ
ἀναγεννηϑῆτε, οὐ μὴ εἰσελϑῆτε εἰς 9 τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν
οὐρανῶν. Ὅτι δὲ χαὶ ἀδύνατον, εἰς τὰς μήτρας τῶν τεχουσῶν
τοὺς ἅπαξ γεννωμένους ἐμιβῆναι, φανερὸν “τἄσίν ἐστι.
Apol. I. ¢. 63. p. 95 D. ὋὉ λόγος δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ὃ υἱὸς
αὐτοῦ.
Apol. I. ¢. 66. p.98 A. Me λόγου Oeot σαρχοποιηϑεὶς ᾿[η-
σοῦς Χριστὸς ὃ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, χαὶ σάρχα χαὶ cine ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας
ἡμῶν ἔσχεν."
Apol. II. ¢. 6. p. 44 D. Ὃ δὲ υἱὸς ἐχείνου, ὃ μόνος λεγόμε-
γὸς χυρίως υἱὸς, ὃ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων χαὶ συνὼν χαὶ
γεννώμενος, OLE τὴν ἀρχὴν OV αὐτοῦ τιάντα ἔχτισε χαὶ ἐχόσμησε.
(Compare Dial. c. 62. p. 285 ἢ.)
Dial. c. 48. p. 267 B. To γὰρ λέ) ἕγειν σὲ προῦὔτιάρχειν Θεὸν
ὄντα σιρὸ αἰώνων τοῦτον τὸν Χριστὸν, εἶτα χαὶ γεννηϑῆναι ἄν-
ϑρωτσιον γενόμενον ὑπομεῖναι χ.τ.ἢ,.
Dial. c. 62. p. 285 D. ᾿“λλὰ τοῦτο τὸ τῷ ὕντι ἀπὸ τοῦ πα-
τρὸς προβληϑὲν γέννημα τιρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων συνῆν τῷ
σιατρὶ, χαὶ τούτῳ ὃ πατὴρ προσομιλεῖ.
Dial. c. 63. p. 286 C. Ὅτι αἴρεται ἀτὸ τῆς γῆς ἵ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ"
οὐ δοχεῖ σοι λελέχϑαι ὡς οὐχ ἐξ ἀνϑρώτιων ἔχοντος τὸ γένος τοῦ
διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας Tot λαοῦ εἰς ϑάνατον παραδεδόσϑαι εἰρημένου
ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ; (John i. 13.)
Dial. ὁ. 69. p. 295 D. Τοὺς ἐκ γενετῆς καὶ χατὰ τὴν σάρχα
σιηροὺς χαὶ χωφοὺς χαὶ χωλοὺς ἰάσατο, τὸν μὲν ἄλλεσϑαι, τὸν δὲ
χαὶ ἀχούειν, τὸν δὲ χαὶ δρᾶν τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ ποιήσας. (John ix.
1 &.) (See also Apol. I. c. 22. p. 08 Β. ἐκ γενετῆς πονηρούς.)
Gospel, changing ἐχάϑισεν into ἐχάϑισαν, and making it transitive. In ec. 32
Justin adds to the Synoptic account of Christ riding on an ass the statement that
it was bound to a vine, so as to connect it with Gen. xlix. 11; and it is supposed
that he similarly adds χρῖνον ἡμῖν to the Johannine narrative, in order to connect
it with Isaiah’s αἰτοῦσί we νῦν χρίσιν. See Hilg., Die Evang. Justins, p. 224.
8 The preceding words refer to Baptism in the name of the Trinity (as in
Matthew’s Gospel). The Gospel of Matthew is thus joined with that of John.
The reading Bac. τῶν οὐρανῶν in John’s Gospel is adopted by Tischendorf after ἃ.
The same reading is found in Clem. Hom. XI. 26 (quoted in our text, below);
Apost. Constt. &c. see Tisch., Gr. Test. in loc. The Ὅτι δὲ x.t.). clearly refers
to John.
4 See Dial. c. 70. p. 297 A. σωματοποιεῖσϑαι.
12
178 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Dial. ¢. 88. p. 316 B. Ot ἄνθρωποι ὑτιελάμβανον αὐτὸν εἷ-
γαι τὸν Χριστόν" πιρὸς Og χαὶ αὐτὸς ἐβόα" Οὐχ εἰμὶ ὃ Χριστὸς,
ἀλλὰ φωνὴ βοῶντος. (John i. 40.)
Dial. ὁ. 105. p. 332 C. Movoyerng γὰρ ὅτι ἣν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν
ὅλων οὗτος, ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος καὶ δύναμις γεγεννημένος, χαὶ
ἵστερον ἄνϑρωτιος διὰ τῆς παρϑένου γενόμενος, ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν
ἀπομνημονευμάτων ἐμάϑομεν, “τροεδήλωσα.5 (John i. 18.)
Dial. c. 114. p. 842 Β. Ὧν αἱ χαρδίαι οὕτως περιτετμημέ-
val εἰσὶν ἀπὸ τῆς πονηρίας, ὡς χαὶ χαίρειν ἀπιοϑνήσκοντας διὰ
τὸ ὄνομα τὸ τῆς χαλῆς πέτρας, χαὶ ζῶν ὕδωρ ταῖς χαρδίαις τῶν
de’ αὐτοῦ ἀγαπησάντων τὸν τιατέρα τῶν ὅλων βρυούσης, χαὶ τιο-
τιζούσης τοὺς βουλομένους τὸ τῆς ζωῆς ὕδωρ πιεῖν. (John iv. 10.)
Dial. c. 128. p. 353 B. Θεοῦ τέχνα ἀληϑινὰ χαλούμεϑα nai
ἐσμὲν, οἱ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Χριστοῦ φυλάσσοντες. (John i. 12;
compare 1 John iii. 1-3.)
De Resurrect. ὁ. 1. p.588 Ο. Οὗ γενόμενος υἱὸς ὃ λόγος ἣλ-
Sev εἰς ἡμᾶς, σάρχα φορέσας, ξαυτόν τε χαὶ τὸν πατέρα μηνύων,
διδοὺς ἡμῖν ἐν ξαυτῷ τὴν ἐχ νεχρῶν ἀνάστασιν χαὶ τὴν μετὰ
ταῦτα ζωὴν αἰώνιον. (John xi. 25.)
De Resurrect. ¢.9. p.594 ἢ. Καὶ ψηλαφᾶν αὐτὸν ἐπέτρεπεν
αὐτοῖς, zai τοὺς τύπους τῶν ἥλων ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν ἐπεδείκνυε.
(John xx. 21.)
De Resurrect. c.9. p. 594 E. Βουλόμενος ἐπιδεῖξαι χαὶ τοῦτο,
(χαϑὼς εἴρηχεν ἐν οὐρανῷ τὴν χατοίχησιν ἡμῶν ὑπάρχειν) ὅτι οὐχ
ἀδίνατον χαὶ σαρχὶ εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀνελϑεῖν. (John xiy. 2.)
Exposit. fid. 15. p. 387 A. ‘O λόγος σὰρξ γενόμενος τοὺς οὐ-
oavots οὐ χατέλιπε.
[Note. In an able article in the ‘Theological Review’ (April 1877), Pro-
fessor Drummond shows that Justin cannot have been ignorant of the Fourth
Gospel, because of his use of the word λόγος. He uses it in its special theo-
logical sense 27 times out of 67 in Apol. 1.; 16 out of 28 in Apol. II.; 7 out
of 235 in the Dialogue. Christ or the λόγος is called Θεός once in the
Apology, and (ἃ great number of times (I have counted upwards of 34) in
the Dialogue.”
5 Justin’s usual word for Christ is πρωτότοχος. Thus Apol. I. 6. 46. p. 83
says τὸν Χριστὸν πρωτότοχον τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι ἐδιδάχϑημεν. There are attempts
(see Hilg., Die Evang. Justins, p. 301) to show that the use of μονογενής here
is from Psalm xxii. 21. It is true that Justin was dealing with that Psalm in the
passage immediately before, but it must be remembered that the reference in our
quotation is not to the Psalm, but to the Memoirs.
-1
ο
LETTER TO DIOGNETUS. ]
Those who try to make out that Justin describes the Logos as springing
from God, in the first instance, at the creation of the world, while John
makes the Logos earlier, do not attach due weight to the following: Justin
says, the Son is πρωτότοχος to the unbegotten God, Apol. I. 53-63; and again
Apol. II. 6 says, the Logos was with God begotten before all His works;
also calls Him γέννημα before the creation πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων; and calls
Christ also ὁ Θεός, Dial. ο. 56,75. Though Justin’s doctrine savoured more
of the Alexandrian theosophy than Jolin’s, it was substantially the same.
John, Colossians, and Justin are at one. We may add that Justin speaks of
the Holy Spirit in connection with His functions of conferring prophetic and
other spiritual gifts. His aim was to establish Christ’s Divinity; and he
does not set himself to speak of the Holy Spirit’s Divine Personality. But he
does not speak of Him as an offspring or emanation. See Donaldson’s Chris-
tian Literature and Doctrine, 11. 264.
The following additional passages may be regarded as “echoes” of the
Fourth Gospel. The list might be increased, but these seem the most im-
portant :-—
Apol. I. ο. 6. p. 56 C, comp. John iv. 24; Apol. 1. ὁ. 13. p. 60 D, comp.
John xviii. 37; Apol. I. ο. 52. p. 87 E, comp. John xix. 37; Apol. I. ὁ. 63.
p. 95 D, comp. John xiv. 24, and xvi. 3; Apol. I. ο. 66, p. 98 A, comp.
John vi. 5, ἄορ. Dial. ο. 17. p. 235 B, comp. Johni. 9; Dial. ὁ. 56. p. 276
D, comp. John i. 19; xii. 49; Dial. c. 63. p. 286 D, comp. John i. 13;
Dial. c. 64. p. 288 D, comp. John i. 1, 14; Dial. c. 69. p. 295 D, comp. John
iv. 10, 14; Ibid. p. 296 A, comp. John vii. 12; Dial. ὁ. 91. p. 319 A,
comp. John iii, 14-16; Dial. ὁ. 100. p. 326 C, comp. John x. 18; Dial.
e. 121. p. 350 B, comp. John xiv. 7; Dial. ὁ. 140. p. 369 D, comp. John
iv. 34; xiv. 24, &c., and see also Dial. ὁ. 91. p. 319 A.]
11. Lerrer to Dioenerus.
C. VIL. ». 498 8. 2A αὐτὸς ἀληϑῶς ὃ παντοχράτωρ χαὶ
2 2 > ! > 2 d I
, \ / Ν A ~ Ν 2
σιαντοχτίστης χαὶ ἀόρατος Θεὺς, αὐτὸς am οὐρανῶν τὴν ἀλή-
ϑειαν χαὶ τὸν λόγον τὸν ἅγιον nai ἀπερινόητον ἀνϑρώποις ἐνί-
ὄρυσε χαὶ ἐγχατεστήριξε ταῖς χαρδίαις αὐτῶν.
(AS C
ἡ Cc A Ν Ν 7 , d wu
C. X. p.500 D. Ὃ yao Θεὸς τοὺς avIeuwmovg ἡγάπησε, Ot
a \ cca * \ ~ ~
ovg ἐποίησε τὸν χόσμον, οἷς ὑπέταξε πάντα τὰ ἕν τῇ Yi, .
AY aA > τὴ \ ~ ‘ ~ τα Ν
πιρὸς οὖς ἀπέστειλε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, οἷς τὴν ἐν οὐ-
~ ‘ ~ 2
ρανῷ βασιλείαν ἐπηγγείλατο χαὶ δώσει τοῖς ἀγαπήσασιν αὐτόν.
(John iii. 16.)
- Ce Ae ΚΑ lee hel το ς ἣ
C. ΧΙ. p. 501 D. Οὗτος (sc. λόγος) ὃ an’ ἀρχῆς ὃ χαινὸς
φανεὶς, χαὶ παλαιὸς εὑρεϑεὶς, “al “τἄντοτε νέος ἐν ἁγίων χαρ-
= \ a2! Γι
δίαις γεννώμενος. Οὗτος 6 ἀεὶ, σήμερον υἱὸς λογισϑείς" δι᾿ ov
" ς Ξ ) ii ὦ
Ise Gas , \ , c [RE στο, Guy o.!
χιλουτίζεται ἢ ἐχχλησία, χαὶ χάρις ἁπλουμένη ἐν ἁγίοις πληϑύ-
Ξ / es eed
193%
180 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
γεται, παρέχουσα νοῦν, φανεροῦσα μυστήρια, διαγγέλλουσα χαι-
ροὺς, χαίρουσα ἐπὶ πιστοῖς, ἐπιζητοῦσι δωρουμένη, οἷς ὅρια πί-
) ,ὔ 2 \ ac , , -
στεως οὐ ϑραύεται ουδὲ ὅρια πτατέρων σταρορίζεται. (John i. 1.)
12. Acts or Paut ann Tuecta.!
C.5. ακάριοι οἱ ἀποταξάμενοι τῷ χόσμῳ τούτῳ, ὅτι
αὐτοὶ εὐϑεῖς χληϑήσονται.5) (John xii. 31.)
C. 25. Ὃ καιρὸς αἰσχρὸς, καὶ σὺ εὐμορφος" μὴ ἄλλος
x , , ~ , 5
σὲ πειρασμὸς λήψεται χείρων τοῦ πρώτου. (John v. 14.)
Ο. 29. Aetoo πρόσευξαι ὑπὲρ τοῦ τέχνου μου, ἵνα ζήσεται
υ A ae . ~
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. (John vi. 51, 58.)
13. Letter oF rae Caurcn or Vienne and Lyons.
Eus. H. E. Ν. 1. p. 303. Burt. Ζῆλον Θεοῦ πολὺν ἔχων, καὶ
ζέων τῷ πνεύματι... ἔχων δὲ τὸν παράχλητον ἐν ξαυτῷ, τὸ
σχιλεῖον τοῦ Ζαχαρίου. (John xiv. 26.)
Ibid. p. 305. Burt. Ἐπληροῖτο δὲ τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν
εἰρημένον, Ore ἐλεύσεται χαιρὸς, ἐν ᾧ πᾶς ὃ ἀποχτείνας ὑμᾶς,
δόξει λατρείαν προσφέρειν τῷ Θεῷ. (John xvi. 2.)
14. Tartan. !
Orat. c. Graec. p. 158 D. Τοιούτους ἡμᾶς ὄντας μὴ ἀποστυ-
γήσατε, ἀλλὰ παραιτησάμενοι τοὺς δαίμονας Θεῷ τῷ μόνῳ χατα-
χολουϑύσατε. Πάντα tw αὐτοῦ, χαὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γέγονε οὐδὲ ἕν.
(John i. 3.)
Ibid. p.152. Kai τοῦτο ἐστὶν ἄρα τὸ εἰρημένον" ἢ σχοτία
τὸ φῶς οὐ καταλαμβάνει... ὃ λόγος μέν ἐστι τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ φῶς.
(John i. 5.)
Ibid. p. 145. Daweguivegos δὲ ἐχϑήσομαι τὰ ἡμέτερα. Θεὸς
> ~ δ᾽ A \ / ’ “ ‘
ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ, τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν λόγου δύναμιν σταρειλήφαμεν. O γὰρ
1 Acts of Paul and Thecla. See Introduction, ‘‘Apocryphal Literature.” This
Book is probably that to which Tertullian refers (De Baptismo, ο. 17), and dates
from some time after the middle of the second century.
2 The words occur in a speech ascribed to Paul which contains quotations
from the Sermon on the Mount and from the Pauline Epistles in the form of
Beatitudes.
1 See before, page 72, note 1.
TATIAN. ATHENAGORAS. 181
δεσπότης τῶν ὕλων αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἢ ὑπόστασις, χατὰ
μὲν τὴν μηδέπω γεγενημένην ποίησιν μόνος ἦν, χαϑὸ δὲ πᾶσα
δύναμις, ὁρατῶν τὲ χαὶ ἀοράτων αὐτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν" σὺν αὐτῷ
τὰ πάντα" σὺν αὐτῷ γὰρ διὰ λογιχῆς δυνάμεως, αὐτὸς χαὶ
ὃ λόγος ὃς ἣν ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπέστησε. Θελήματι δὲ τῆς ἁπλότητος
αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος" 6 δὲ λόγος οὐ κατὰ χενοῖ: χωρήσας, ἔργον
σιρωτότοχον τοῦ πινεύματος γίνεται... οὕτω γχαὶ ὃ λόγος προ-
ελϑὼν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάμεως, οὐχ ἄλογον “τεπτοίηχε τὸν
γεγεννηκότα... καὶ χαϑάπερ ὃ λόγος ἐν ἀρχῇ γενηϑεὶς, ἀντε-
γέννησε τὴν χαϑ᾽ ἡμᾶς ποίησιν, αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ τὴν ὕλην δημιουρ-
γήσας, οὕτω χαἀγὼ τὴν τοῦ λόγου μίμησιν ἀναγεννηϑεὶς, καὶ τὴν
τοῦ ἀληϑοῦς χαταλήινμιν τιεττοιημένος, μεταριϑμίζω τῆς συγγενοῦς
ὑλῆς τὴν σύγχυσιν. (John i. 1.)
Ibid. p. 144. Πνεῦμα ὃ Θεὸς... ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τὸν ὀνωνόμα-
στον Θεὸν δωροδοχητέον. (John iv. 24.)
15. ATHENAGORAS.
Legatio. p. 10. “AAW ἔστιν ὃ υἱὸς Θεοῦ, λόγος τοῦ
πατρὸς, ἐν ἰδέᾳ χαὶ ἐνεργείᾳ" ττρὸς αὐτοῦ γὰρ χαὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ
πάντα ἐγένετο, ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ πατρὸς χαὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ. Ὄντος δὲ
υἱοῦ ἐν πατρὶ, χαὶ πατρὸς ἐν υἱῷ, ἑνότητι χαὶ δυνάμει πνεύ-
ματος, νοῦς χαὶ λύγος τοῦ πατρὸς, ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. (John i.
1-3; xvii. 21-23.)
Ibid. p. 10. ἘΞ ἀρχῆς γὰρ ὃ Θεὸς, νοῦς ἀΐδιος wy, εἶχεν
αὐτὸς ἐν ξαυτῷ τὸν λόγον, ἀΐδιως λογικὸς ὥν. (John i.)
Ibid. p. 12. “Avdoumor δὲ, τὸν μὲν ἐνταῦϑα ὀλίγου καὶ μι-
χροῦ τινος ἄξιον βίον λελογισμένοι bid μόνου δὲ “ταραττεμπτό-
μενοι τούτου, ὃν ἴσως Θεὸν χαὶ τὸν wag αὐτοῦ λόγον εἰ-
δέναι τις ἣ τοῦ παιδὸς πρὸς τὸν “πτατέρα ἑνότης, τίς ἢ τοῦ σπα-
τρὸς πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν χοινωνία, τί τὸ πνεῦμα, τίς ἢ τῶν τοσούτων
ἕνωσις, καὶ διαίρεσις ἑνουμένων, TOL τινεύματος, τοῦ παιδὸς, τοῦ
πατρός" πολὺ δὲ καὶ χρείττονα ἢ εἰτιεῖν λόγῳ, τὸν ἐχδεχόμενον
βίον εἰδότες, ἐὰν χαϑαροὶ ὄντες ἀπὸ παντὸς σ“ταραπεμφϑῶμεν
ἀδιχήματος μεχρὶ τοσούτου δὲ φιλανϑρωπότατοι, ὥστε μὴ μόνον
στέργειν τοὺς φίλους (ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπιᾶτε, φησὶν, τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας,
nai δανείζετε τοῖς δανείζουσιν ὑμῖν, τίνα μίσϑον ἕξετε; τοιοῦτοι
δὲ ἡμεῖς ὄντες, χαὶ τὸν τοιοῦτον βιοῦντες βίον, ἕνα χριϑῆναι
182 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
διαφύγωμεν, ἀπιστούμεϑα ϑεοσεβεῖν. (John xvii. 3. Compare
Luke vi. 34, 35.)
16. THEOPHILUS.
1 τ = ͵
Ad Autolye. IT. ¢, 22. p. 100. Ὅϑεν διδάσχουσι ἡμᾶς αἱ ἅγιαι
γραφαὶ, χαὶ πάντες οἱ σινευματοφύροι, ἐξ ὧν ᾿Ιωάννης λέγει" 1 ey
ἀρχῇ iv ὃ λόγος" χαὶ ὃ λόγος ἣν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν" δειχνὺς ὅτι ἐν
πρώτοις μόνος ἢν ὃ Θεὸς, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ὃ λόγος. Ἔπειτα λέγει"
‘ \ y c , , Na ᾿ Ὅν, ΚΟ \ \ > ~
καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὃ λόγος. Πάντα dt αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, χαὶ χωρὶς αὑτοῦ
or , a
ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. (John i. 1 &c.)
17. Muratorran Fracmenrt. !
See before, p. 3-8.
18. Irenaeus. .
C. haeres. IIT. 11.7. See before, p. 67.
Ibid. 111. 11. 8.9. See before, pp. 68, 69.
B. IT, 22.5. Πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι μαρτυροῦσιν, ot κατὰ
τὴν ‘Aotey ᾿Ιωάννῃ τῷ τοῦ Κυρίου μαϑητῇ συμβεβληχότες, παρα-
δεδωχέναι ταῦτα τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην. Παρέμεινε γὰρ αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν
Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων.
B. ITE, 1, 1. *Ensiva ᾿Ιωάννης ὃ μαϑητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου, ὃ καὶ
τὶ τὸ στῆϑος αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσὼν, χαὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωχε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον,
ν Ἐφέσῳ τῆς ᾿““σίας διατρίβων.
8. Π|. 8.4. Καὶ εἰσὶν οἱ ἀκηκοότες αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ᾿Ιωάννης, ὃ
τοῦ Κυρίου μαϑητὴς, ἐν τῇ Ἐφέσῳ πορευϑεὶς λούσασϑαι, καὶ
ἰδὼν ἔσω Κήρινϑον, ἐξήλατο vot βαλανείου μὴ λουσάμενος, ἀλλ᾽
enero’ φύγωμεν, μὴ χαὶ τὸ βαλανεῖον συμπέσῃ, ἔνδον ὄντος
Κηρίνϑου, τοῦ τῆς ἀληϑείας ἐχϑροῦ.
Thid. ᾿Αλλὰ χαὶ ἢ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἐχχλησία tao Παύλου μὲν τε-
ϑειελιωμένη, ᾿Ιωάννου δὲ aeoauetvartog αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν Τραΐα-
vod χρόνων, μάρτυς ἀληϑής ἐστι τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων παραδόσεως.
o7]
ci
γ
«
c
1 Theophilus. This is the first quotation from John by name. See before,
page 73, note 1.
1 The Muratorian Fragment may represent the Roman church in accepting
the Fourth Gospel.
IRENAEUS. POLYCRATES. 183
B. V. 36.1, 2. “Ὡς οἱ πρεσβύτεροι λέγουσι, τότε χαὶ οἱ μὲν
, ~ ’ ’ ~ . ~ » ~ /
χαταξιωϑέντες τῆς ἐν οὐρανῷ διατριβῆς, δχεῖσε χωρήσουσιν . .
© , , me oN aN ~ , , \ =f
οἱ δὲ τὴν πόλιν χατοιχήσουσιν" Kei διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν Kv-
2 - - / \ J , . >
ριον" Ἔν τοῖς τοῦ mareog μου μονὰς εἰναι πολλᾶς. (John xiv. 2.)
B. 11.11.1. Hane fidem annuntians Joannes Domini disci-
pulus, volens per Evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a
Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus errorem, et multo prius ab
his qui dicuntur Nicolaitae, qui sunt vulsio! ejus quae falso co-
enominatur scientiae, ut confunderet cos, et suaderet quoniam
unus Deus qui omnia fecit per Verbum suum; et non, quemad-
modum illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem, alium autem
Patrem Domini: et alium quidem fabricatoris fillum, alterum
vero de superioribus Christum, quem et impassibilem perseve-
rasse, descendentem in Jesum filium fabricatoris, et iterum re-
volasse in suum Pleroma: et initium quidem esse Monogenem;
Logon autem verum filium Unigeniti: et eam conditionem, quae
est secundum nos, non a primo Deo factam, sed a Virtute ali-
qua valde deorsum subjecta, et abscissa ab eorum communica-
tione, quae sunt invisibilia et innominabilia. Omnia igitur talia
circumscribere volens discipulus Domini, et regulam veritatis con-
stituere in Ecclesia, quia est unus Deus omnipotens, qui per Ver-
bum suum omnia fecit, et visibilia et invisibilia; significans quo-
que, quoniam per Verbum, per quod Deus perfecit conditionem,
in hoc et salutem his qui in conditione sunt praestitit homini-
bus; sic inchoavit in ea quae est secundum Evangelium doctrina:
“fn principio erat Verbum.”
19. Potycrares.
Eus. H. ELV. 31 Ἔτι δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης ὃ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆϑος
- \ a
tov Κυρίου ἀναπεσὼν, ὃς ἐγενήϑη ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον πεφο-
ρηχὼς χαὶ μάρτυς χαὶ διδάσχαλος" οὗτος ἐν Εφέσῳ χεχοίμηται.
(John xiii. 25.)
1 Irenaeus. Vulsio, graece ἀπόσπασμα, surculus.
1 Polyerates. See this passage below in the Appendix to John’s Gospel—
Helps in the study of the Paschal Controversy. Polycrates was a contemporary
of Irenaeus. The passage occurs in his letter to Victor of Rome,
184 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
20. Crement or ALEXANDRIA. !
Kus. H. Ε. VI. 14.
Tbid. IIT. 38. ““Axovoov μῦϑον ov μῦϑον, ἀλλὰ ὄντα λόγον,
περὶ ᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου παραδεδομένον, χαὶ μνήμῃ παρα-
‘ ~ , » ~
mweqraayuévov. Ἐτιειδὴ γὰρ τοῦ τυράννου τελευτήσαντος ἀπὸ τῆς
~ , ~ "ὴ Ν 27
Πατμου τῆς νήσου μετῆλϑεν ἐπὶ τὴν Εφεσον."
21. Tertutwin.!
De praescript. haereticor. c. 36. (See before, p. 48.)
Adv. Marcion. IV. 2. (See before, p. 75.)
Ibid. IV.5. (See before, p. 79.)
Adv. Prax. c. 23. Haec quomodo dicta sunt, evangelizator
et utique tam clarus discipulus Joannes, magis quam Praxeas
novit.
92. Crementine Homies. !
Hom. LT. 25. Φονεὺς yao ἦν καὶ ψεύστης καὶ μετὰ
ἁμαρτιῶν ἡσυχάζειν μηδὲ ἐπὶ τῷ ἄρχειν ϑέλων. (John viii. 44.)
Hom. IIT. 52. Διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς ἀληϑὴς ὧν τιροφήτης ἔλεγεν"
«Ἐγώ εἰμι ἣ πύλη τῆς ζωῆς" ὃ Ov ἐμοῦ εἰσερχόμενος
εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὴν ζωήν"" ὡς οὐχ οὔσης ἑτέρας τῆς σώζειν
δυναμένης διδασχαλίας. ... Καὶ πάλιν. Τὰ ἐμὰ πρόβατα
ἀκούει τῆς ἐμῆς φωνῆς. (John x. 9, 21.)
Hom. ΧΙ. 26. Οὕτως γὰρ ἡμῖν ὥμοσεν ὃ προφήτης εἰχεών"
ἀμὴν ὑμῖν λέγω, ἐὰν μὴ ἀναγεννηϑῆτε ὕδατι ζῶντι, εἰς ὄνομα
πατρὸς, υἱοῦ, ἁγίου τπινεύματος, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλϑητε εἰς τὴν βα-
σιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. (John iii. 5.)
1 See before, page 75, for Clement’s statement that John, writing after the
other Evangelists, was inspired to make a Gospel of a spiritual character. Clement
represents the church in Alexandria in accepting the Gospel of John.
1 Tertullian always used John’s Gospel as an acknowledged authority. He
represents the African church in accepting the Gospel of John.
1 See Introduction, ‘‘The Clementines.” The third extract in the text (from
Hom. XIX. 22) is in the portion of the work first published in 1853 by Dressel.
The special importance of this quotation in the controversy on the Fourth Gospel
suggests its insertion here. For further testimonies see below, ‘Testimony of He-
retics.” The text is from Lagarde (1865).
ORIGEN. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. EUSEBIUS. 185
Hom. XIX. 22. “Oder χαὶ [διδάσχ]αλος ἡμῶν weet τοῦ ἐχ γε -
vETI;S πηροῦ' χαὶ ἀναβλέψαντος παρ᾿ αὐτοῖ: ἐξετάζων ἐρωτήσασιν,
εἰ ἥμαρτ]εν οὗ τος ἢ ot γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, Ι vc] τυφλὸς γεννηθῇ,
ἀπεχρίνατο" οὔτε οὗτός τι ἥμαρτεν, οὔτε ὃ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ,
ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα dv αὐτοῦ φανερωϑῇ ἣ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς
ἀγνοίας ἰωμένη τὰ ἁμαρτήματα. (John ix. 2, 3.)
For the testimonies of Valentinus and Ptolemaeus, and other
Gnostics, see below, “Testimony of Heretics.”
23. OnriceEn.!
Eus. H. E. VI. 25. (See before, pp. 8, 9.)
Hom. on Gen. XIII. (See before, p. 51.)
Hom. on Joshua VII. (See before, p. 52.)
Comment. in Joann. (See before, p. 83.)
Homil. in Luc. (See before, p. 81.)
Selecta in Genes. (Opp. Il. p. 24.) ᾿Ιωάννης τὴν ‘Aolav’ πρὸς
ove χαὶ διατρίψας ἐν Epéow τελευτᾷ" 5
Comment. in Matt. (Opp. IIL. p. 719.) ὋὉ δὲ Ρωμαίων βασι-
λεὺς, ὡς ἣ παράδοσις διδάσχει, xaredizaoe τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην μαρ-
τυροῦντα διὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληϑείας λόγον, εἰς Πάτμον τὴν νῆσον. «1ι-
δάσχει δὲ τὰ σπιερὶ τοῦ μαρτυρίου ξαυτοῦ Ιωάννης, μὴ λέγων τίς
αὐτὸν χατεδίχασε, φάσχων ἐν τῇ «Α΄ποχαλύψει ταῦτα.
24. Dtonystus or ALEXANDRIA.
Epist. ad Basilid. (See before, p. 86.)
Eus. H. E. Vil. 25.1 (See below, Apocalypse.)
25. Evusesius.!
H. Ε΄. Ill. 25. (See before, p. 10.)
Ibid. Ill. 24. (See before, p. 87.)
1 Origen has no doubt of John’s Gospel; he wrote a commentary upon it.
2 See on John’s age and death, Irenaeus III. 3.
1 Dionysius (in the middle of the third century) opposed the Johannine
authorship of the Apocalypse (on grounds of style), but accepted the Gospel. See
page 86 and note.
1 Eusebius, who collected traditions from all quarters, has none to record
180 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
. ¢ a) ~
Ibid. 1Π. 23. Ἐπὶ τούτοις κατὰ τὴν ‘Aotav ἔτι τῷ βίῳ πε-
, J ~ fa) > 5, ~ ) U
ριλειπτόμενος αὐτὸς ἐχεῖνος, ὃν ἡγάτια ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς, αττόστολος ὅμου
ἃ \ i) λ \ ? , Χ Mahe ~~ b) , 2 \ ~
χαὶ εὐαγγελιστὴς Ιωάννης τὰς αὐτόϑι διεῖπεν ἐχχλησίας, αττὸ τῆς
A ~ ~ ~
χατὰ τὴν νῆσον μετὰ τὴν “Ιομιδτιανοῖ τελευτὴν ἐπιανελϑὼν φυγῆς.
cr \ , , ~ , - 7 / LY , ,
Ott δὲ εἰς τούτους τῷ βίῳ mweoLAY, αἀττόχρη διὰ δύο πιστώσασϑαι
, 2 ΩΣ; = ~
tov λόγον μαρτύρων. Πιστοὶ δ᾽ ἂν εἶεν οὗτοι, τῆς ἐχχλησιαστι-
~ , 2 sof Va! ~ ~ ~
“ug πρεσβεύσαντες ὀρϑοδοξίας, εἰ δὴ τοιοῦτοι Εἰρηναῖος χαὶ Κλή-
ac 3 ἕξ v ,
ung ὃ «Αλεξανδρεύς.
Chronic. ad ann. XIV. Domitiani. Secundus post Neronem
Domitianus christianos persequitur, et sub eo apostolus Joannes
ad Patmum insulam relegatus Apocalypsin vidit.
26. Eprrnanius.
Haeres. LI. (See before, p. 95.)
Haeres. LXIX. c. 23.1. 2. tom. 2. Διὸ καὶ ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης ἐλϑῶν ὃ
\ Ν " \ \ /
μαχάριος, χαὶ εὑρὼν τοὺς ἀνϑρώπους ἠσχολημένους περὶ τὴν κάτω
Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν, χαὶ τῶν μὲν Ἐβιωναίων πλανηϑέντων διὰ
γ = = \ ;
τὴν ἕνσαρχον Χριστοῦ γενεαλογίαν ano ᾿4βραὰμ χαταγομένην, καὶ
~ a] ~ 2 Ν Ἂ
Aovne ἀναγομένην ἄχρι tov ‘Ada, εὑρὼν δὲ τοὺς Κηρινϑιανοὺς
χαὶ Π]ηρινϑιανοὺς én : γῆς αὐτὸν λέγον ive Wehoy ἄν-
«αἱ ἢ]ηρινϑιανοὺς éx παρατριβῆς αὐτὸν λέγοντας εἶναι W
9 wz, ᾽ν \ Si N G Loca » \ ἀλλ net ohh \ « ἴσει. ὧς
ρώπον, nei τοὺς Ναζαραίους, χαὶ ἄλλας πολλὰς αἱρέσεις, ὡς
, \ \ 7 7 -- ΡΣ ᾽}
χατόπιν ἑλϑὼν (τέταρτος γὰρ οὗτος εὐαγγελίζεται), ἄρχεται ανα-
~ ~ Ἁ \ >
χαλεῖσϑαι, ὡς eiseiy, τοὺς πιλανηϑέντας, χαὶ ἠσχολημένους περὶ
= ~ ~ ,
τὴν χάτω Χριστοῖ wegovolay, καὶ λέγειν αὐτοῖς, ὡς κατότιν βαί-
κ᾿ - N BY \ 2
γων, καὶ δρῶν τινὰς εἰς τραχείας ὁδοὺς χεχλικότας, καὶ ἀφέντας
2 - \ > ~ ~ ~ ,
τὴν εὐϑεῖαν nai ἀληϑινὴν, ὡς εἰπεῖν: Ποῖ φέρεσϑε; ποῖ βαδί-
« - Ν \ ,
Ceve; Ot τὴν τραχεῖαν δδὸν χαὶ σχανδαλώδη, “nai εἰς χάσμα φέ-
. - 2
ρουσαν βαδίζοντες, ἀναχάμινατε. Οὐχ ἔστιν οὕτως" οὐχ ἔστιν
) \ \ \
ato Magiag μόνον ὃ Θεὸς “όγος, 6 ἐκ Πατρὸς ἄνωϑεν yeye-
νημένος" οὐχ ἔστιν CLO τῶν χρόνων ᾿Ιωσὴφ τοῦ ταύτης δρμαστοῦ" }
> 3 τ ~ ‘ δὺς ‘ ‘
οὐκ ἔστιν ἀπὸ τῶν χρόνων Σαλαϑιὴλ, χαὶ Ζοροβάβελ, καὶ “1αβὶδ,
> ee) \ \ τ- ἈΝ 2 3 2 -
καὶ -Αϑραὰμ, χαὶ Ιαχὼβ, χαὶ Νῶε, χαὶ Ada: αλλὰ Ἐν ἀρχὴ
5 ς ΄ K_jC , 3 \ ‘ τῇ \ Ν 5) ς ,
nv ὁ Aoyos, χαὶ ὁ Aoyog ἣν πρὸς tov Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἣν ὁ Ao-
which bore against the authenticity of John’s Gospel. Up to his time the Alogi
had been its sole opponents.
1 Another reading is αἁρμοστοῦ, but ὁρμαστοῦ is according to Epiphanius’
usage. He speaks of Joseph as betrothed to Mary in his old age; thus following
the Apocryphal Gospels.
EPIPHANIUS. JEROME. 187
Ad To δὲ 50} a ‘ ai Η͂ ‘ SN aa co δώ - Ν sy ΠΗ͂Σ
γος. Τὸ δὲ ἦν, χαὶ ἦν, καὶ ἦν, οὐχ ὑποδέχεται τοῦ μὴ εἰναί ποτε.
Καὶ ὁρᾶς πῶς εὐϑὺς τὰ ἐγγυτάτω πρῶτον σημαίνει. “Ὡς Mar-
αἱ ὁρᾶς πῶς εὐϑὺς τὰ ἐγγυτάτω πρ μμαίνει. “Ὡς |
~ . - \ ~ , ‘ γ ων SEEN
ϑαῖος μὲν τὴν ὁδὸν ἔδειξε διὰ τῆς γενεαλογίας, καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς
ἠχρίβωσεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ἄνωϑεν ἔζρερε χαί τοι γε τὴν γενεαλογίαν"
ἡχρίβωσεν, ἃ πειδὴ ἄνωϑεν ἔφερε χαί τοι γε τὴν ) γ
~ ~ ’ ~ ,
nag te ὃ Π]άρχος περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ χόσμῳ πεπραγματευμένων,
χαὶ φωνὴς βοώσης ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου τοῦ διὰ προ-
~ / ~ - d ~
φητῶν προπεφητευμένου, καὶ νόμου" πῶς Te 0 Moves ἀπὸ τῶν
, ON , > ~ ΡΣ a, ὙΠΟ aril © 3 ,
χάτω ἐπὶ τὰ ἄνω ἀνῆγεν, ἐσύστερον ἐλθών. Τέταρτος ὁ Ιωάννης
΄ \ \ 2 ~ “ 2 ,
τὴν χορωνίδα χαὶ τὸ ἀχραιφνὲς τῆς ἄνω τάξεως, χαὶ cel οὔσης
’
ϑεότητος, τὸ ὕστερον ἐδήλωσεν.
\ > ,
Haeres. LI. 28. Ἠλέχϑησαν χαὶ οἱ ἀποβαλλόμενοι τὸ κατὰ
a . 2 ἊΝ
᾿Ιωάννην Εὐαγγέλιον, οὺς διχαίως ᾿“λόγους χαλέσομαι, ἐπειδὴ τὸν
~ ~ Ζ \ Mo)
Adoyov τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀτιοβάλλονται, τὸν διὰ ᾿Ιωάννην χηρυχϑέντα σπτα-
‘ ‘ i 2 ᾿] ? ~ , ‘ ,
τριχὸν Θεὸν Aoyorv, ax’ οὐρανοῦ χατεληλυϑότα, χαὶ σωτηρίαν
~ , ~ , > ~ , ,
ἡμῖν ἐργασάμενον, τῆς πάσης αὐτοῦ ἐνσάρχου παρουσίας χ.τ.1.
‘ 2 ~ , γ ,
Haeres. LI. 33. Αὐτοῦ δὲ προφητεύσαντος ἐν χρόνοις Khev-
, > ͵ ’ , ~ ς ~
diov Καίσαρος ἀνωτάτω, ὅτε εἰς viv Πάτμον νῆσον ὑπῆρξεν.
27. Jerome.
Epist. IT. ad Paulinum. (See before, p. 21.)
Comment. in Matth. Argum. (See before, p. 100.)
Catal. script. ecel. c.9. Joannes Apostolus, quem Jesus ama-
vit plurimum, filius Zebedaei, frater Jacobi apostoli, quem He-
rodes post passionem Domini decollaverat, novissimus omnium
scripsit Evangelium, rogatus ab Asiae episcopis, adversus Cerin-
thum, aliosque haereticos, et maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma
consurgens, qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non fuisse. Unde
et compulsus est divinam ejus nativitatem edicere. Sed et aliam
causam hujus scripturae ferunt: quod cum legisset Matthaei,
Marci et Lucae volumina, probaverit quidem textum historiae,
et vera eos dixisse firmaverit; sed unius tantum anni, in quo et
passus est, post carcerem Joannis, historiam texuisse. Praeter-
misso itaque anno, cujus acta a tribus exposita fuerant, supe-
rioris temporis antequam Joannes clauderetur in carcerem, gesta
narravit, sicut manifestum esse poterit his qui diligenter quatuor
Evangeliorum volumina legerint. Quae res etiam διαφωνίαν, quae
videtur Joannis esse cum caeteris, tollit.
188 GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Scripsit autem et unam epistolam, cujus exordium est: “quod
fuit ab initio, quod audivimus et vidimus oculis nostris, quod
perspeximus, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt, de verbo vitae;”
quae ab universis ecclesiasticis et eruditis viris probatur. Reli-
quae autem duae, quarum principium est: “Senior electae do-
minae et natis ejus;” et sequentis: “Senior Cajo carissimo, quem
ego diligo in veritate,” Joannis Presbyteri asseruntur, cujus et
hodie alterum sepulcrum apud Ephesum ostenditur; etsi nonnulli
putant duas memorias ejusdem Joannis evangelistae esse, super
qua re quum per ordinem ad Papiam auditorem ejus ventum
fuerit, disseremus. Quarto decimo igitur anno, secundam post
Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam
relegatus, scripsit Apocalypsim, quam interpretatur Justinus Mar-
tyr et Irenaeus. Interfecto autem Domitiano, et actis ejus ob
nimiam crudelitatem a senatu rescissis, sub Nerva principe redit
Ephesum: ibique usque ad Trajanum principem perseverans, to-
tas Asiae fundavit rexitque ecclesias: et confectus senio, sexage-
simo octavo post passionem Domini anno mortuus, juxta eandem
urbem sepultus est.
Pracfatio in codd. antig. Hoc Evangelium scripsit in Asia,
posteaquam in Patmos insula Apocalypsin scripserat ... post
omnes Evangelium scripsit.
Adv. Jovinianum I. 26. Joannes unus ex discipulis, qui mi-
nimus traditur fuisse inter apostolos, et quem fides Christi vir-
ginem repererat, virgo permansit. ... Ut autem sciamus, Joan-
nem tunc fuisse puerum, manifestissime docent ecclesiasticae hi-
storiae, quod usque ad Trajani vixerit imperium, 1.6. post pas-
sionem Domini sexagesimo octavo anno dormierit.
Comment. in Dan. ὁ. 9. Tradentibus ecclesiasticis historiis
Joannem evangelistam usque ad tempora vixisse Trajani.
189
APPENDIX
TO TESTIMONIES ΤῸ JOHN’S GOSPEL.
THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Reference is usually made to the following passages
in modern discussions regarding John’s Gospel. The an-
cient controversy (see the opening sentence below from
Eusebius) was as to the propriety of the Churches in
Asia Minor closing their Fast on the 14% day of the month
at Easter. John’s authority was claimed for this practice.
The modern controversy is on the question whether the
practice is reconcileable with John’s Gospel which seems
to date the crucifixion of Christ on the 14%. See Intro-
duction.
1. EUSEBIUS.
Eusestus, in his History of the Church (V. 22), gives a list
of the bishops who held office in the tenth year of the reign of
Commodus. He names Victor Bishop of Rome, Demetrius of
Alexandria, Serapion of Antioch, Theophilus of Caesarea, Narcis-
sus of Jerusalem, Bacchyllus of Corinth, and Polycrates of Kphe-
sus. He adds that he has only recounted the names of the or-
thodox. He goes on to say:—
Eus. H. E. V. 28. Ζητήσεως δῆτα χατὰ τούσδε ov σμιχρᾶς
ἀναχινηϑείσης, ὅτι δὴ τῆς .«1σίας ancong αἱ παροιχίαι, ὡς ἂν
ἐχ παραδόσεως ἀρχαιοτέρας, σελήνης τὴν τεσσαρεσχαιδεχάτην
ᾧοντο δεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ σωτηρίου πάσχα ἑορτῆς παραφυλάττειν,
ἐν ἢ ϑύειν τὸ τιρόβατον ᾿Ιουδαίοις τιροηγόρευτο" ὡς δέον ἔχτταν-
τὸς χατὰ ταύτην, ὑποίᾳ δ᾽ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἑβδομάδος στεριτυγχάνοι,
τὰς τῶν ἀσιτιῶν ἐπιλύσεις σιοιεῖσθϑαι, οὐχ ἔϑους ὕντος τοῦτον
ἐπιτελεῖν τὸν τρόπον ταῖς ἀνὰ τὴν λοιπὴν ἅπασαν οἰχουμένην ἐκ-
190 APPENDIX TO TESTIMONIES TO JOHN’S GOSPEL.
, a) 2 - , \ \ ᾿] - -
χλησίαις ἐξ ἁποστολιχῆς παραδόσεως τὸ χαὶ εἰς δεῦρο χρατῆσαν
yj z 2 - 2
ἔτος φυλαττούσαις, ὡς μὴ δ᾽ ErEQH DOT ZELY HEA τὴν τῆς ἀνα-
στάσεως τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἡμέραν τὰς νηστείας ἐπιλύεσϑαι.
Υ >
Σύνοδοι δὴ χαὶ συνχροτήσεις ἐπισχόπων ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν ἐγίνοντο,
~ d ~ ν -
σιάντες TE μιᾷ γνώμῃ δι᾿ ἐπιστολῶν ἐχχλησιαστιχὸν δόγμα τοῖς
- ν᾽} - -
σπιανταχόσε διετυποῦντο, ὡς ἂν μὴ δ᾽ ἐν ἄλλῃ ποτὲ τῆς κυριαχῆς
« ~ ~ ~ ~
ἡμέρᾳ TO τῆς ἐχ νεχρῶν ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελοῖτο τοῦ Κυρίου μυ-
στήριον, Kai ὅπως ἐν ταύτῃ μόνῃ τῶν χατὰ τὸ πάσχα νηστειῶν
, ἢ \ γ ,ὔ ΄, Ε 2 γ , ~ a= \
φυλαττόμεϑα tag ἐπιλύσεις. (Φέρεται ὃ εἰσέτι viv τῶν χατὰ
a 3
Παλαιστίνην τηνικάδε συγχεχροτημένων γραφὴ, ὧν προὐτέταχτο
> , ~ γ- ,
Θεόφιλος τῆς ἐν Καισαρείᾳ magoiztag éntoxomosg, χαὶ Νάρχισσος
~ ? ς ͵ ἊΣ - % Ave , \ ς , ay \
τῆς ἕν ᾿Ιεροσολύμοις" χαὶ τῶν ἐπὶ “Ρώμης δὲ δμοίως ἀλλη περὶ
~ ΒῚ ~ y ~ ~
tov αὐτοῦ ζητήματος, ἐπείσχοτιον Βίχτορα δηλοῦσα" τῶν te χατὰ
, = 2 2
Πόντον ἐπισχόσων, ὧν Πάλμας ὡς ἀρχαιότατος τιρουτέταχτο, χαὶ
~ - ν - a + ~ 2
τῶν χατὰ αλλίαν δὲ παροιχιῶν, ag Πιρηναῖος ἐπεσχόεξι" ὅτι τὲ
~ \ \ 2 Ν \ \ γ - , SN) DSN
τῶν xara τὴν Οσροηνὴν χαὶ vag ἐχεῖσε mOhEg* χαὶ ἰδίως Βαχ-
. r ͵
χύλλου τὴς Κορινϑίων ἐχχλησίας ἐπισχόπου, χαὶ σπιλείστων ὕσων
\ 2) wae A
ἄλλων, οἱ μίαν χαὶ τὴν αὐτὴν δόξαν τε zai χρίσιν ἐξενηνεγμένοι,
\ Dy ey 1¢ - meus , \ 3 a tc ς
τὴν αὑτὴν τέϑεινται ψῆφον. Καὶ τούτων μὲν ἣν ὅρος εἷς, ὃ δε-
δηλωμένος.
eae ‘ ts) , , ,
C. 24. Τῶν δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς «σίας ἐπισχόσπων, τὸ πάλαι πρότε-
2 - Qos . , “ᾷᾳ ~ t ,
ρον αὑτοῖς meoadoIEv διαφυλάττειν ἔϑος χρῆναι διισχυριζομένων,
ς - , tay \ DE LEN ’ fe \ , \ ‘
ἡγεῖτο Πολυχράτης" og χαὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ἢ πρὸς Bixtoga χαὶ τὴν
Cp, , γ U v , ~ \ γ ΟΝ 24. 539
Ῥωμαίων ἐχχλησίαν διετυπώσατο γραφῇ, τὴν εἰς αὑτὸν ελϑοῦσαν
: ΠΝ Pea ‘ di SEAS a ae en] a
παράδοσιν ἐχτίϑεται διὰ τούτων" ““Husic οὖν ἀραδιούργητον cyo-
) ,
μὲν τὴν ἡμέραν, μήτε τιροστιϑέντες, μήτε ἀφαιρούμενοι. Καὶ γὰρ
γ ~ ͵ 2
χατὰ τὴν ‘Aolav μεγάλα στοιχεῖα χεχοίμηται, ἅτινα ἀναστήσεται
~ ~ ~ fal ᾿ ἂν ΤΣ , 2
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ Κυρίου, ἐν ἢ ἔρχεται μετὰ δόξης ἐξ
~ d ~
οὐρανῶν, χαὶ ἀναστήσει τιάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, (Οίλετιπον τῶν δώ-
> tal
δεχα ἀποστόλων, ὃς χεχοίμηται ἐν “Ιερατιόλει, καὶ δύο ϑυγατέρες
2 ~ ~ ᾿ ὯΔ Κι Ὁ Coa 2 3 52 i 3 1G ,
αὐτοῦ γεγηραχυῖαι παρϑένοι. Καὶ ἢ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ ϑυγάτηρ ev Ayup
, , ’ yO , γ ,ὔ ὦ "»ἷ \ Ace
Πνεύματι πολιτευσαμένη ἕν Epéow ἀναπιαύξδται" eve δὲ χαὶ Ιω-
i? ’ Ca 28 \ ~C ; ~ r , γ \ a A , c \
ἄννης ὃ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆϑος tov Κυρίου ἀναπεσὼν, ὃς ἐγενήϑη, τερεὺς
τὸ πέταλον πεφορεχὼς, χαὶ μάρτυς χαὶ διδάσχαλος" οὗτος ὃν
ra
Ἐφέσῳ χεχοίμηται." [Then he enumerates those who agreed—
Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito the Eunuch—and
adds:—] “Οὗτοι πάντες ἐτήρησαν τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς τεσσαρεσχαι-
EUSEBIUS. 191
δεχάτης τοῦ πάσχα “Uta τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, μηδὲν παρεχβαίνοντες,
α΄ - γ7 " BY ‘
ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸν χανόνα τῆς eee sine Reheat: Ett δὲ χαγὼ
c ~ 4 \ ν -
ὃ μιχρότερος πάντων ὑμῶν Πολιχράτης, χατὰ παράδοσιν τῶν
ἕω τὰ A a ‘ γ - ‘ "
συγγενῶν μου, οἷς χαὶ παρηχολούϑησα τισὶν αὐτῶν" ἑπτὰ μὲν
1 - . ΝΞ ν \
ἦσαν συγγενεῖς μου ἐπιίσχοτιοι, ἐγὼ δὲ ὄγδοος" χαὶ πάντοτε τὴν
c ~ ss
ἡμέραν ἤγαγον οἱ σιγγενεῖς μου, ὅταν ὃ λαὸς ἤρνυε τὴν ζύμην. .. .”
Upon this Victor, Bishop of the Church He Fae endeay oured
to cut off the churches of all Asia from the common unity, as
being heterodox. But other bishops resisted him.
> r4 ~ c ~ ‘ \
Ey οἷς zai ὃ Εἰρηναῖος 2% mooows0v ὧν ἡγεῖτο χατὰ τὴν
Ig ἡ - 4 ‘ 7~ "ὦ
Γαλλίαν ἀδελφῶν ἐπιστείλας, παρίσταται μὲν τῷ δεῖν ἐν μόνῃ
- ~ - \ ~ ~ r > 4 _~
τῇ τῆς χυριαχῆς ἡμέρᾳ τὸ τῆς vot Κυρίου ἀναστάσεως ἐπιτελεῖ-
- \ ᾿] ,
σϑαι μυστήριον" τῷγε μὴν Βίχτορι πιροσηχόντως, ὡς μὴ ἀποχό-
oc Ἔξ. ᾿ , ~ 3 , We 4 & ? : ,
σιτοι ὕλας ἐχχλησίας Geov, ἀρχαίου ἔϑους παράδοσιν ἐπιτηροι-
- ~ ‘ 7 - al c
σας, πλεῖστα ἕτερα παραινεῖ, χαὶ αὐτοῖς δὲ δήμασι τάδε ἐπι-
Ln τ ρον ΩΝ Se Se en ee Ve Fe
λέγων Οὐδὲ γὰρ μόνον περὶ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐστὶν ἢ ἀμφισβήτησις.
‘ A \ ~ 279 , - ~ , « A ‘ »”
αλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοῦ εἴδους αὐτοῦ τῆς νηστείας. Ol μὲν γὰρ οἴονται
, c , ~ Ψ Ν , « ἊΝ wd c δ Ν 7?
μίαν ἡμέραν δεῖν αὐτοὺς νηστεύειν, οἱ δὲ OVO, οἱ δὲ χαὶ πλείο-
« ᾿ , ς
VES" οἱ δὲ τεσσαράχοντα ὥρας ἡμερινάς TE καὶ νυχτερινὰς συμ-
- 2 - Ν ‘ ~
μετροῦσι τὴν Ἱμέραν αὐτῶν. Καὶ τοιαύτη μὲν ποιχιλία τῶν ἐπι-
τς , > ~ =P a 3 a ea τυ 2 ἜΠΟΣ " ὴ ‘ aoe :
τηρούντων, οὐ νῦν EP HuoY γεγονυῖα, αλλὰ χαὶ πολὺ πρότερον
Ύ 4 ~ Ἀ Cc ~ ~ ‘ Ν 5] ‘ ς > ‘ ,
ἐπὶ τῶν 7100 HuGY, τῶν παρὰ TO ἀχριβὲς, ὡς ELLOS, χρατούντων,
ad > C ’ ν \ , > \
τὴν “ak ἁπλότητα zai ἰδιωτισμὸν συνήϑειαν εἰς TO μετέπειτα
σεσοιηκότων. Καὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον πάντες οὗτοι εἰρήνευσάν τε,
‘ γ , \ 2 14 F Ἂ ἊΣ αὶ , - ΔῸΣ Ν
χαὶ εἰρηνεύομεν τιρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἢ διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας τὴν
« , - , , “5 r , ᾿ «
ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι." ἽἋΓούτοις καὶ ἱστορίαν στροσ-
, a ~ 5) \
τίϑησιν ἣν οἰχείως παραϑήσομαι, τοῦτον ἔχουσαν τὸν τρόπον"
2 ἢ ‘ ‘ ~ , c , ~
“Ey οἷς zai οἱ 7100 Σωτῆρος πρεσβύτεροι, οἱ πιροστάντες τῆς ἐχ-
χλησίας ἧς σὺ νῦν ἀφηγῇ.3 “Avizntoy λέ ouev χαὶ Πίον, “Ὑγινόν
(λησίας ἧς σὺ νῦν ἀφηγῆ. (A) γ . ΠΩΣ
»»" a» ~
τε zai Τελεσφόρον χαὶ Ξύστον, οὔτε αὐτοὶ ἔτ᾽ ἴρησαν, οὔτε τοῖς
2 2 ~ \ Jer ~ >
μετ αὐτῶν ἐπέτρεσιον, χαὶ οὐδὲν ἔλαττον αὐτοὶ μὴ τηροῦντες εἰ-
θήνευον τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροίχι ὧν, ἐν αἷς ἐτηρεῖτο, ἐρχομένοις 006
αὐτοὺς, “al τοι μᾶλλον ἐναντίον ἦν τὸ τηρεῖν τοῖς μὴ τὴ gover.
Kai οὐδέ ποτε διὰ τὸ εἶδος τοῖτο ἀτιεβλήϑησάν τινες, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ
1 According to the Gospel as a whole.
2 The Roman Bishops are supposed to have been: Xystus A.D. 116; Te-
lesphorus, A.D. 129; Hyginus, A.p. 138; Pius, A.p. 142; Anicetus, A.D. 156; Soter,
AD. 168; Eleutherus, a.pD. 173; Victor, A.D. 189; Zephyrinus, 4.D. 201.
192 APPENDIX TO TESTIMONIES TO JOHN’S GOSPEL.
μὴ τηροῦντες OL πρὸ σοῦ πρεσβύτεροι τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροιχιῶν
τηροῦσιν ἔπεμττον εὐχαριστίαν. Καὶ τοῦ μαχαρίου Πολυχάρπου
1) , γ ~ ¢ / B) Ne) , ‘ Ay 4 ~
ἐπιδημήσαντος ἕν τῇ Pwun ἐπὶ “ΑἸνικήτου, καὶ περὶ ἄλλων τινῶν
μιχρὰ σχόντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους εὐϑὺς εἰρήνευσαν Eel τούτου τοῦ
χεφαλαίου μὴ φιλεριστήσαντες εἰς ἑαυτούς. Οὔτε γὰρ ὃ ᾿Ανίχητος
τὸν Πολύχαρτσιον τιεῖσαι ἐδύνατο μὴ τηρεῖν, ἅτε μετὰ ᾿Ιωάννου
τοῦ μαϑητοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, χαὶ τῶν hown@y ἀποστόλων οἷς
συνδιέτριψεν, ἀεὶ τετηρηχότα, οὔτε μὴν ὃ Πολύχαρπος τὸν -Avi-
χητον ἔσιεισε τηρεῖν, λέγοντα τὴν συνήϑειαν τῶν στιρὸ αὐτοῦ σερεσ-
βυτέρων ὀφείλειν χατέχειν. Καὶ τούτων οὕτως ἐχόντων, ἐχοινώ-
γησαν ἑαυτοῖς" χαὶ ἕν τῇ ἐχχλησίᾳ χιαρεχώρησεν ὃ ᾿ΑἸνίχητος τὴν
> , - , ’ ‘ , \ 2 υ
εὐχαριστίαν τῷ Πολυχαρπῳ χατ ἐντροπὴν δηλονότι, χαὶ μετ᾽ εἰ-
wnc an ἀλλήλων ἀπηλλάγησαν, πάσης τῆς ἐχχλησίας εἰρήνη
ρήνης an ἀλλή πηλλάγησαν, πάσης τῆς ἐχχλησίας εἰρήνην
Ύ , Ν ~ \ ~ \ ,
ἐχόντων χαὶ τῶν τηρούντων χαὶ τῶν μὴ τηρούντων."
C. 25. Irenaeus wrote letters also to other bishops on the
question. ‘The bishops of Palestine state that they kept the
custom handed down to them by succession from the Apostles;
and that the Christians of Alexandria observed the same day as
they themselves did.
In another passage (IV. 26) Eusebius says that Melito Bishop
of Sardis (aA.p. 175) wrote a work on the Passover, beginning
thus:— “Et Σερουιλλίου Παύλου ἀνθυπάτου τῆς “Ασίας, ᾧ Σά-
γαρις καιρῷ ἐμαρτύρησεν, ἐγένετο ζήτησις πολλὴ ἐν “]αοδιχείᾳ
σιερὶ τοῦ τιάσχα, ἐμτιεσόντος κατὰ χαιρὸν ἐν ἐχείναις ταῖς ἣμέ-
ραις..." Τούτου δὲ λόγου μέμνηται Κλήμης ὃ ᾿Αλεξανδρεὺς
? or \ ~ , / ray « γ Dis ~ ~ Uf
ἐν ἰδίῳ πτερὶ τοῦ πάσχα λόγῳ, ὃν ὡς ἐξ αἰτίας τῆς τοῦ Med-
τωνος γραφῆς φησὶν ἑαυτὸν συντάξαι.
2. HIPPOLYTUS, a.v. 220.
Ref. Haer. VIII. 18. Ἕτεροι δέ τινες φιλόνειχοι τὴν φύσιν,
ἰδιῶται τὴν γνῶσιν, μαχιμώτεροι τὸν τρόπον, συνιστάνουσι δεῖν
τὸ πάσχα τῇ τεσσαρεσχαιδεχάτῃ τοῦ OW OL μηνὸς φυλάσσειν χατὰ
τὴν TOL νόμου διαταγὴν, ἐν ἢ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ. ἐμπέσῃ, ὑφορώμενοι τὸ
γεγραμμένον ἐν νόμῳ," ἐπιχατάρατον ἔσεσϑαι τὸν μὴ φυλάξαντα
οὕτως ὡς διαστέλλεται, οὐ πιροσέχοντες ὅτι Ιουδαίοις ἐνομοϑετεῖτο
τοῖς μέλλουσι τὸ ἀληϑινὸν πιάσχα ἀναιρεῖν, τὸ εἰς ἔϑνη χωρῆσαν
3 Compare Num Ix. 3. 13; Deut. v. 27.
THE PASCHAL CHRONICLE. 193
χαὶ πίστει νοούμενον, οὐ γράμματι νῦν τηρούμενον" OC μιᾷ ταύτῃ
σιροσέχοντες ἐντολῇ οὐχ ἀφορῶσι» εἰς τὸ εἰρημένον LAO τοῦ ἀτίο-
σεόλου, ὅτι διαμαρτύρομαι παντὶ περιτεμνομένῳ ὅτι ὀφειλέτης
ἐστὶ τοῦ πάντα! τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι. Ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἑτέροις οὗτοι
συμφωνοῦσι τιρὸς τιάντα τὰ τῇ ἐχχλησίᾳ ὑττὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων
σ-αραδεδομένα.
3. THE PASCHAL CHRONICLE.®
Ἐν αὐτῇ οὖν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ἐν ἢ ἤμελλον ot ᾿Ιουδαῖοι τιρὸς ἑσπέ-
ραν» ἐσϑίειν τὸ πάσχα, ἑσταυρώϑιη ὁ Κύριος ἡμιῶν zai σωτὴρ ὃ
Χριστὸς, ϑῦμα γενόμενος τοῖς μέλλουσι μεταλήψεσϑαι τῆς πί-
OLEWS τοῦ LET αὐτὸν μυστηρίου χατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον τῷ μαχα-
, , hae Se rT NM eRe a oy : ὌΝ
oly Παύλῳ, “χαὶ γὰρ τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν veo ἡμῶν δγύϑη Χριστὸς,
zal οὐχ ὥς τινες ἀμαϑίςι φερόμενοι διαβεϑαιοῦνται ὡς φαγὼν τὸ
γίσχα πιαρεδόϑη" ὕπερ οὔτε παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων εὐαγγελίων μεμα-
ϑύχαμεν οὔτε τις τῶν μαχαρίων ἡμῖν ἀποστόλων τι τοιοῦτον πα-
ραδέδωχεν. . . .—Chron. Pasch. P. 5, Β. C.
Having repeated that Christ, being slain as the true Paschal
Lamb on the 14", could not have eaten the legal Passover be-
fore He suffered, the chronicler goes on to cite testimonies.
‘Inmodvtog® τοίνυν ὃ τῆς εὐσεβείας μάρτυς, ἐπίσχοτιος γεγο-
yog τοῦ χαλουμένου Πόρτου τιλησίον τῆς “Ῥώμης, ἐν τῷ πρὸς
ἁπάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις συντάγματι ἔγραιμεν ἐπὶ λέξεως οὕτως. “Ὁρῶ
4 ὅλον Gal. ν. 3.
5 This is a Paschal computation (σύνταγμα περὶ τοῦ πάσχα or πασχάλιον),
ze. a rule for the celebration of the Passover. Such tables or calendars were not
uncommon; and we read of one made by Hippolytus for a period of 16 years.
-The Festal letters of Athanasius (see before, page 13 and note 1) are instances
of the pains that were taken about such subjects. The ‘Paschal chronicle’ with
which we have here to do contains this tabular computation and also a Preface,
long and mystical and of uncertain date. This Preface repeats over and over again
that Jesus Christ, being the True Passover, was slain on the day when the Jews
usually slew their passover viz. the fourteenth. The inference the author draws is
that Christ could not have eaten the legal passover before he suffered. He quotes
several early authors as testifying in his favour. From these the passages in our
text are taken. The Paschal Chronicle (sometimes called Sicilian, because the MS
was found in Sicily; sometimes the Alexandrian, because it was at first supposed
to be written by Peter of Alexandria) seems to be of old date; but its oldest MS
is of the tenth century. The Preface may be of about the seventh century. The
Preface is therefore of late date and it is also anonymous. Notwithstanding
these drawbacks, great stress has been laid upon it.
6 This, though said to be from Hippolytus on Haeresies, is not found in that
work as now in existence. Its genuineness therefore rests on the authority of the
anonymous author who quotes it.
13
194 APPENDIX TO TESTIMONIES TO JOHIN’S GOSPEL.
‘ 51 c ὴ , Sey, , 7 x c co ’ ,
μὲν οὖν ὃτι φιλονεικίας τὸ ἔργον. Aéyet™ γὰρ οὕτως" ἑτπτοίησε
N , c > \ 4 ~ c , ee? { A We 2 ‘ ~
τὸ πάσχα ὃ Χριστὸς τότε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ nat ἔπιαϑεν: διὸ χαμὲ δεῖ
a , Cc γι ἢ γ , c ~ , ‘ \
ov τρότιον ὃ Κύριος ἐποίησεν, οὕτω ποιεῖν. Πετιλάνηται δὲ μὴ
ee a ie mee oles " ς a Se >. »” See
γινώσκων OTL ᾧ καιρῷ ἕπασχεν ὃ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἔφαγε τὸ χατὰ
, / ἐᾷ NN \ , \ , \
νόμον τιάσχα. Οὗτος γὰρ ἣν τὸ πάσχα TO προχεχηρυγμένον χαὶ
Ν U ~ ς , c / =
τὸ τελειούμενον τῇ ὠὡρισμένῃ Hucog.—P. 6, A. B.
5 a Ie U
Another short extract from Hippolytus “περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πά-
, eee
cya,” says: Ὁ πάλαι προειτιὸν ὅτι Οὐχέτι φάγομαι τὸ πάσχα
- ‘ ~ ‘ ,
εἰχότως TO μὲν δεῖΐχεινον ἐδείτενησεν 7106 TOD στιάσχα, τὸ δὲ σπτάσχα
> ” 3) Dey, C 8 HA \ \ 25 ~ f ,
οὐχ ἔφαγεν, αλλ énader.® Ovdé γὰρ χαιρὸς ἣν τῆς βρωσεως
d ~
αὐτοῦ.
The Chronicle then proceeds :—
r > Cc
Καὶ 2Awohhivaoug (A.D. 170) δὲ 6 ὁσιώτατος éntonomog “Te-
~ 2 ~ 2 ~
ραπόλεως τῆς ᾿Ασίας, ὃ ἐγγὺς τῶν ἀποστολικῶν χρόνων γεγονὼς,
Ύ ~ \ ~ U ᾿ς \ , Ov , ca
ἐν τῷ περὶ tov τιάσχα λόγῳ τὰ πσιαραπληήσια ἐδίδαξε, λέγων ov-
+ \ \ , > ~
τως" Εἰσὶ τοίνυν ot δι᾿ ἄγνοιαν φιλονειχοῦσι “τερὶ τούτων, συγ-
~ 3) 2
γνωστὸν τιρᾶγμα TELOVIOLES* ἄγνοια γὰρ οὐ χατηγορίαν ἀναδέ-
) \ Υ̓ τι vars . \ , c ~ , ν /
χεται ἀλλὰ διδαχῆς προσδεῖται" χαὶ λέγουσιν ὅτι τῇ LO τὸ πρὸ-
γατον μιεεὰ τῶν μαϑητῶν ἔφαγεν 6 Κύριος, τῇ δὲ μεγάλῃ ἡμέρᾳ
[ ! μαυη Ῥαγεν Ὁ μαυριος, πη Oe Ee ae
- dens p Kean! ” eG ~ = ~ c ,
tov ἀζύμων αὐτὸς ἔπαϑεν, χαὶ διηγοῦνται Mardatoy οὕτω λέγειν
> 3 ~
ὡς νενοήχασιν" ὥϑεν ἀσύμφωνός τε νόμῳ 1) νόησις αὐτῶν, καὶ
- ν - > » \ \ >
στασιάζειν δοχεῖ nav αὐτοὺς τὰ εὐαγγέλια.ϑ
Ἐπ ΕΝ , [4 ED oe NI ? ~ > ~ / , c c ,
Καὶ πάλιν ὃ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ γέγραφεν οὕτως" ἫἪ ιὃ
\ 2 Ν - , , «ς Cc , Cc / Cc 7 \ ~
τὸ ἀληϑινὸν τοῦ Κυρίου πάσχα, ἣ ϑυσία ἢ μεγάλη, ὃ ἀντὶ τοῦ
> ~ ~ ~ ς Ν re "7 ν 5 Ν \ ς { ‘
auvov maig Θεοῦ, ὃ δεϑεὶς, 0 δήσας τὸν ἰσχυρὸν, χαὶ ὃ χριϑεις
χρίτης ζώντων χαὶ νεχρῶν, χαὶ ὃ παραδοϑεὶς εἰς χεῖρας ἅμαρ-
"» , ~ ς Cc \ ‘
τωλῶν, ἵνα σταυρωϑῇ, ὃ ὑψωθεὶς Ei κεράτων μονοχέρωτος, “AL
Cc \ C , Χ > ‘ is ’ , Ψ ~ ~ 2 ~
ὁ τὴν ἁγίαν πλευρὰν ἐχχεντηϑεὶς, ὃ ἐχχέας EL τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ
κι ν 7 , , τιν ALN \ = , δὼ
τὰ Oto πιάλιν χαϑάρσια, ὕδωρ χαὶ αἵμα, λόγον καὶ πνεῦμα, καὶ
ς , ~ ~ ~ -
ὁ ταφεὶς ἐν ἡμέρῳ τῇ τοῦ πάσχα, ἐπιτεϑέντος τῷ μνήματι τοῦ
λίϑου.
Next, Clement of Alexandria is cited as teaching to the same
> ~ κ᾿ ~ , , SS : x
effect ἐν τῷ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα λόγῳ, thus: Τοῖς μὲν οὖν 7εαρξλη-
2 2
λυϑόσιν ἔτεσι τὸ ϑυόμενον 20g Ιουδαίων Four ἑορτάζων ὃ
7 λέγει se. The Asiatic representative.
8 This seems to contradict the Synoptists.
9 On this and following extract see Donaldson, Christian Literature and Doc-
trine, III. 245 &e.
THE PASCHAL CHRONICLE. EPIPHANIUS. 1
φῷ
Cr
Κύριος πάσχα" ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐχὶ ἤρυξεν αὐτὸς ὧν τὸ πάσχα, O ἀμνὸς
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς τιρύόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἀγόμενος, αὐτίχα ἐδίδαξε μὲν
τοὺς μαϑητὰς τοῦ τύπου τὸ μυστήριον τῇ ιγ΄, ἐν ἣ καὶ πυνϑά-
γονται αὐτοῦ, Ποῦ ϑέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι τὸ τιάσχα φαγεῖν;
Ταύτῃ οὖν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ χαὶ 6 ἁγιασμὸς τῶν ἀζύμων χαὶ ἣ πιροετοι-
μασία τὴς ἑορτῆς ἐγίνετο. Ὅϑεν 6 ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ
εἰχύότως ὡς ἂν προετοιμαξομένους ἤδη ἀπονίψψασϑαι tore “««ὁδας
χιρὺς τοῦ Κυρίου τοὺς μαϑητὰς ἄνα) ράφει" σιἕέγτιονϑεν δὲ τῇ ἐπι-
avon 0 Σωτὴρ nO, αὐτὸς ὧν τὸ πάσχα, χαλλιερηϑεὶς ὑχεὸ “Tov-
δαίων. Καὶ wed? ἕτερα, .Τχολούϑως ἄρα τῇ ιδ΄, ὅτε χαὶ ἔπαϑεν,
ἕωϑεν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς χαὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς τῷ Πιλάτῳ προσα-
γαγόντες οὐχ εἰσῆλϑον εἰς τὸ τιραιτώριον ἵνα μὴ μιανϑῶσιν, ἀλλ᾽
ἀχωλύτως ἑστιέρας τὸ πάσχα φαγῶσι, ταύτῃ τῶν ἡμιερῶν τῇ ἀχρι-
Bele χαὶ αἱ γραφαὶ πᾶσαι συμφωνοῖσι χαὶ τὰ εὐαγγέλια συνῳδά.
Ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ δὲ χαὶ ἢ ἀνάστασις" τῇ γοῦν τρίτῃ ἀνέστη ἡμέρᾳ
vig ἦν πιρώτη τῶν ἑβδομάδων τοῦ ϑερισμοῦ, ἐν ἢ καὶ τὸ δράγμα
ὌΠ ΑΝ χιροσενεγχεῖν τὸν ἱερέα.
4, EPIPHANIUS.
Epiphanius (Haeresics) treating of the Quartodecimans, Says,
ἅπαξ γὰρ τοῦ ἕτους ς μίαν ἡμέραν TOU χιάσχα οἱ τοιοῦτοι φιλονεί-
χως ἄγουσι. ;
Again: χεχρημένοι τῷ ῥητῷ, ᾧ εἶπεν ὃ νόμος" ὅτι ἐπιχατά-
ρατος ὃς οὐ ποιήσει τὸ τιάσχα τῇ τεσσαρεσχαιδεχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ
,
μηνὸς.
He says there was much dispute amongst the Quartodecimans
as to the day for the Passover; and that the Acts of Pilate were
cited as authority for the viii Kal. Apr. being the day of our
Saviour’s Passion. He adds that he has seen copies of the Acts
of Pilate making the xv Kal. Apr. the date.
Again he says: ἔδει γὰρ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν τεσσαρεσχαιδεχάτῃ
ἡμέρᾳ ϑύεσθαι χατὰ τὸν νόμον.
He closes with an argument in favour of the usage of the
Catholic Church, which observes also the seventh day, and says:
χέχρηται γὰρ OV μόνον τῇ τεσσαρεσχαιδεχάτῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ EBdO-
μάδι τῇ χατὰ περίοδον ἀναχυχλουμένῃ τάξει τῶν τοῦ Σαββάτου
ἑπτὰ ἡμερῶν. . ..
19.
196
Xx
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
1. Barnasas.!
1: ΩΣ \ ~ ~ \ r ‘
C.7.2. Ei οὖν ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὧν Κύριος χαὶ μέλλων xoi-
““-- ‘ ” , \ > ~ & ,
ve ζῶντας χαὶ vexootc, ἔπαϑεν, ἵνα ἢ πληγὴ αὐτοῦ ζωοττοιήσῃ
ἡμᾶς. ... (Acts x. 42. See below 2. Clem. 2. 1.)
2. Crement oF Rome.
~ \ p) se ’
Ep. I, ὁ. 2.1. Πάντες τὲ ἑτατιεινοφρονεῖτε, μηδὲν ahalovevo-
[4 ,ὔ -η ATG , cde ν aN
μενοι, ὑτιοτασσόμενοι ἄλλον ἢ ὑποτάσσοντες, ἥδιον διδόντες ἢ
λαμιβάνοντες. (Acts xx. 35.)
Ibid. 6.18.1. Tt δὲ εἴπωμεν ἐπὶ τῷ μεμαρτυρημένῳ Aapio;
\ aA 3 ς Ξ nye “Be 7 © \ ‘ ,
σπιρὸς OV εἰτιδν ὃ Θεύς Evooyv ἀνδρα χατὰ τὴν καρδίαν μου,
Qa ‘ ~? Ν ? ’ , υ , γ } ue ” see
Aapid τὸν tov εσσαὶ, ἐν ἐλέει αἰωνίῳ ἔχοισα αὐτόν." (Acts Xxili.
22° | Sam. xiii. 14.)
Ep. 11. ¢. 1.1. Κριτοῦ ζώντων χαὶ νεκρῶν. (Acts x. 42;
= S r)
compare 2 Tim. iv. 1 and 1 Pet. iv. 5.)
3. Hermas.
Vis. IV. 2.4. Πιστεύσας ὅτι δι᾿ οὐδενὸς δύνῃ σωϑῆναι εἰ
μὴ διὰ τοῦ μεγάλου χαὶ ἐνδόξου ὀνόματος. (Acts iv. 12.)
4. Ienatius. !
Magnes. 5.1. Ἐπεὶ οὖν τέλος ta τιράγματα ἔχει, καὶ τιρό-
neta τὰ δύο ὁμοῦ, ὃ τὲ ϑάνατος χαὶ ἢ ζωὴ, χαὶ ἕχαστος εἰς
τὸν ἴδιον τύπον μέλλει χωρεῖν. (Acts i. 25.)
Philad. 2.2. Πολλοὶ γὰρ λύχοι ἀξιόπιστοι ἡδονῇ χαχῇ αἰχ-
μαλωτίζουσιν τοὺς ϑεοδρόμους. (Acts xx. 29.)
1 Barnabas. Add as Echo e. 19. 8 (Acts iv. 32).
1 Ignatius. Echoes:—Eph. 1.1, comp. Acts xx. 28; Smyrn. 3. 3, comp. Acts
x. 41.
MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP. PAPIAS. DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH. 197
5. Ponycare.!
Philipp. 1. 2. “Ov ἤγειρεν ὃ Θεὸς, λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ
δου. (Acts ii. 24.)
0. Martyrpom or Potrycarpe.!
»} ~ ὙΠ ν ’ , 2 -
Ο. 7. 1. Καχεῖϑεν δὲ ἠδύνατο εἰς ἕτερον χωρίον ἀπελϑεῖν,
? 2 ) ry ~ ~
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐβουλήϑη, εἰττών" To ϑέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ γενέσϑω. (Acts
xxi. 14.)
(.. PAPAS:
6 7. - y ἊΝ - ? . ~
Eus. ΗΠ. 1.111. 89. “Aétov δὲ ταῖς ἀτιοδοϑείσαις τοῦ Παπία
- 4 , tee CEE ? ~ va c , ὃ a os ,
φωναῖς woocnwa λέξεις ἑτέρας αὐτοῦ, δι ὧν παράδοξα τινὰ
« - \ 2 « DN > Nae ,’ a) \ ’ « , Ν
ἱστορεῖ καὶ ἄλλα, ὡς ἂν ἐχ τταραδόσεως εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλϑόντα. Τὸ
" By \ Ν [ ’ , \ > , Ἂν c ~
μὲν οὖν χατὰ τὴν Ἱεράπολιν (βίλιγισιον τὸν αὐτύόστολον ἅμα ταῖς
« , ~ SES ~ ie, We? \ 3
ϑυγατράσι Ovargiva, διὰ τῶν wooodIeyv δεδήλωται... χαὶ αὐ
, ca Ὧν Ξ κ Noe) ~ » \ 1) ΓΟ
χγάλιν ἕτερο) παράδοξον περὶ Ιοὔστον τὸν ἐπιχληϑέντα Βαρσα-
Q~ [4 Υ ’ , id ‘ . 2 ON
βᾶν γεγονὸς, ὡς δηλητήριον (άρμαχον ἐμπιόντος, χαὶ μηδὲν CHES
- σ , , ς , aa Toe
διὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου χάριν ὑσιομείναντος. Τοῦτον δὲ τὸν Ιοὔστον
\ ~ ~ } / \ ‘ 2 ,
μετὰ τὴν vot Σωτῆρος ἀνάληψιν τοὺς ἱεροὺς αἀτιοστόλους μετὰ
7 ~ , ’ PA 3 ‘ ~ ,ὔ > Εν
Marvdia στῆσαί ve χαὶ ἐχιεύξασ! αι. ἀντὶ τοῦ τιροδότου Ιούδα ἐσὶ
ee ee ~ B) oe ας ἀνα > Dine la: ~ (oa os Os
tov χλῆρον τῆς ἀναχιληρώσεως τοῦ αὐτῶν ἀριϑιιοῦ, ἢ τῶν Toc
ξ Σ δδέ zt a See ae, δὲ (κ ΛΟ Loy . δύ δ ἢ \ pa,
Eewy ὧδέ πὼς ἱ'στορεῖ γραφῇ, Cat ἔστησαν δύο, Iwonp τὸν
, ~ Ὁ ’ / 2 - ,
χαλούμενον Βαρσαβὰν ὃς ἐπιεχλήϑη Lovotog, χαὶ Mardis χαὶ
, i x . - as
moooevsauevoe ξίπον." (Acts xxi. 8 &c.; 1. 23, 24.)
8. Dionysius or Corinth.
Eus. H. ΕΟΥΝ. 28. Δηλοῖ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τούτοις, ὡς καὶ Avovtvorog
cy , [4 \ ~ 02 / 7 \ 3 \ \
ὃ Aoeonayitng ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀποστόλου Tavhov προτραπεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν
πίστιν χατὰ τὰ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι δεδηλωμένα, τιρῶτος τῆς ἐν “4“2976-
γαις παροιχίας τὴν ἐπισχοττὴν ἐγχεχείριστο. (Acts xvii. 94.)
1 Polye. Echo:—Phil. 8. 2, comp. Acts v. 4!.
1 Mart. of Polye. Echo:—e. 14.1, comp. Acts iii. 26.
198 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
9. Justin Marrtyr.!
>} ~ 2 ,
Apol. 1. c. 49. p. 85 A. Ιουδαῖοι γὰρ, ἔχοντες τὰς τιροφητείας
\ } , > ν 2
χαὶ ἀεὶ σπιροσδοχήσαντες τὸν Χριστὸν, σιαραγενόμενον ἠγνόησαν,
2 / wey 2 \ \ ee ᾿ € Way 9 \ ~ re ~
ov μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ χαὶ παρεχρίσαντο" οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ TOY ἐϑνῶν, μὴη-
wu ν > \ ~ + ~ ἘΣ « 2
δέποτε μηδὲν ἀχούσαντες τιερὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, μέχρις Ov οἱ απὸ
‘Te MY QE Ὡ 2 , δ Ὁ τ ραν Ap , ΤῊΝ J \ > αν τῆν
ἐρουσαλὴμ ἐξελϑόντες ἀτιύστολοι αὐτοῖ ἐμήνυσαν τὰ weet αὐτοῦ
χαὶ τὰς περοφητείας τταρέδωχαν σιληρωϑέντες χαρᾶς “aL σιίστεως
~ DNC 3} I - \ - 2 , ~ NSN ~ +
τοῖς εἰδώλοις ἀπετάξαντο, χαὶ τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ Θεῷ διὰ τοῦ Χρι-
-φ«ε 5) sae ee ὦ
στοῦ ἑαυτοὺς ἀνέϑηχαν. (Acts xiil. 37 δ.)
. aon fond 9 Ν υ , = ,
Dial. ὁ..20. p. 237 D. -Αλλὰ εἰ χαὶ τὰ Aayava tov yootou
) ε , \ , a ray e 2 \ \ a se NS SS Bh!
διαχρίνομεν, μὴ πάντα ἑσϑίοντες, OV διὰ TO εἶναι αὐτὰ χοινὰ ἢ
γ “ 2 2 ἌΓΩΝ ν \ DN , ὟΝ
αχαϑαρτα οὐχ ἐσϑίομεν,. αλλ ἢ διὰ τὸ πιχρὰ ἢ ϑανάσιμα ἢ
) , Ν
axavJodn ... (Acts x. 14)
Ψ ? . Ν .ς ~ 3 ς ,
Dial. ὁ. θ8. p. 293 Ο. Καὶ ὃ Τρύφων: Πῶς οὖν ὃ λόγος λξ-
LS ν Δ. c > \ ~ > , > ~ 7 « ~ Ἐκ G
yee τῷ Aovid ὅτι ano τῆς ὀσφίος αὐτοῦ λήιϊνεται ξαυτῷ υἱὸν ὁ
Ν ᾿ { ᾿ 7 - "ΝᾺ k , \ fe , 7 \ 2 \
Θεὸς καὶ χατορϑώσει αὐτῷ τὴν βασιλείαν χαὶ χαϑίσει αὐτὸν ἕτιὶ
, ~ 5 ~ Soe ie
Jeovov τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. (Acts ii. 30.)
. , \ he ~
Dial. ὁ. 118. ». 8346 4. Καὶ ὅτι χριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεχρῶν
« , B) ic = \ . -
ἁπάντων αὐτὸς οὗτος ὃ Χριστὸς, εἶπτον ἐν σπιολλοῖς. (Acts x. 42.)
10. Letter to Diognetus.
C..354; +O γὰρ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν χαὶ τὴν γὴν καὶ πάντα
τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς nol πᾶσιν ἡμῖν χορηγῶν ὧν προσδεόμεϑα, οὐδενὸς
av αὐτὸς τυροσδέοιτο τούτων ὧν τοῖς οἰομένοις διδόναι πταρ EXEL
αὐτός. (Acts xvii. 24.)
11. Lerrer rrom tHe Cuurcues or Vienne anp Lyons.
Kus. H. FE. V.2. Καὶ ὑπτὲρ τῶν τὰ δεινὰ διατιϑέντων ηὔ--
1 Echoes:—Apol. I. ο. 40. p. 78 E, comp. Acts iv. 27; Apol. I. ¢. 45. p. 82
D, comp. Acts iii. 21; Apol. I. c. 49. p. 85 A, comp. Acts xiii. 27, 48; Apol. I.
c. 50. p. 86 B, comp. Acts i. 8, and de Resurrect. ¢. 9; Apol. I. ¢. 53. p. 88 B,
comp. Acts xvii. 26; Apol. II. c.10. p.48 D, comp. Acts xvii. 23; Dial. c¢. 8.
p- 225 C, comp. Acts xxvi. 29; Dial. c. 16. p. 234 B, comp. Acts vii 52; Dial.
c. 36. p. 254 C, comp. Acts xxvii. 22, also Dial. c. 76. p. 302 A; Dial. ec. 39.
p. 258 A, comp. Acts xxvi. 25; Dial. c. 120. p. 349 C, comp. Acts viii. 10; Cohort.
ad Gent.’ c. 10. p. 11 Β, comp. Acts vii. 21; ibid. c. 29. p. 28 E, comp. Acts
vii. 24. ‘
HEGESIPPUS. ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. 199
χοντο, χαϑάσπερ Srepavog ὃ τέλειος μάρτυς" “Κύριε, μὴ στήσης
Ὁ ὦ \ « fp , ” Se A \ - ΕΞ ror
αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ταύτην." Et δὲ ὑτιὲρ τῶν λιϑαϊζόντων ἐδέετο,
~ \ ~ Io = ne -
σιόσῳ μᾶλλον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελιρῶν; (Acts vii. 00.)
192. Hecesirrus.
Eus. H. FE. 11. 28. ηϊάρτυς οὗτος ἀληϑὴς ᾿Ιουδαίοις τε χαὶ
Ἕλλησι γεγένηται, ὅτι ᾿ΙΠΙ,σοῖς ὃ Χριστός ἐστι. (Acts xx. 21.)
13. Syriac ann Ontp Latin Versions.
See before, pp. 1. 2.)
> PE
; 14. Murarorian Canon.
(See before, p. 6.)
15. Acts oF Pavut ann Tuectra.!
y XN 2 Bb) ~ τ U
C.16. Ὃ δὲ ἀνθύπατος ἔστησεν τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτοῦ χαὶ ἑχα-
~ a 3 ὃ bY
λεσεν tov Παῦλον λέγων: Tig ei, χαὶ vi διδάσχεις; οὐ γὰρ μι-
- ~ Ft eS ae \ » ~ « τ =
χρῶς σου χατηγοροῦῖσιν. Καὶ ἦρεν τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ὁ Παῦλος
, , 2) , , ᾿ Ν ἢ ” 2 ,
λέγων: Εἰ ἐγὼ σήμερον ἀναχρίνομαι τί διδάσχω, ἄχουσον, avdv-
=~ \ ν Ν te 2
mate. Θεὸς ζῶν, Θεὸς ἐχδιχήσεων, Θεὸς ζηλωτὴς, Θεὸς ατροσ-
- ~ ~ > t c 2 \
δεὴς, χρήζων τῆς τῶν ἀνϑρώπων σωτηρίας ExEUMWEV με ὕπετως ἀπὸ
~ ~ \ ~ 7 , 2 ΄ 2 Ν ᾿Ν ,
τῆς φϑορᾶς χαὶ τῆς ἀχαϑαρσίας ατιοσπασω αὑτοὺς KEL πάσης
ς ~ SG id cr Ne , a ΟΝ BYES ς Ne
ἡδονῆς χαὶ ϑανάτου, ὅπως μὴ ἁιιάρτωσιν" διὸ EEUWPEr ὁ Θεὸς
Ν « - -ο a Bb \ ? Nye \ Nes 8 ’ ἊΣ ,
τὸν ἑαυτοῦ παῖδα, ὧν ἐγὼ εὐαγγελίζομαι χαὶ διδάσχω EV ξχξίνῳ
Pap Ν b , A DEG , aA , 1 ¢ 7]
ἔχειν τὴν éhiida τοὺς ἀνϑρώτστους, ὃς μόνος συνεπταϑησεν σιλα-
, ΡῚ 3 Bay ,
νωμένῳ χόσμῳ, ἵνα μηχέτι b7t0 χρίσιν ὦσιν, ἀνϑύσατε, ἀλλὰ σιί-
> , = - : ὙΠΟ
στιν ἔχωσιν χαὶ φόβον Θεοῦ χαὶ γνῶσιν σεμνότητος χαὶ ἀγαάτιην
> \ \ ~ WZ
ἀληϑείας. Εἰ οὖν ἐγὼ τὰ ὑτιὺ Θεοῦ μοι ἀναχεχαλυμμένα διδάσχω,
, 2 ~ 2) ) ~ ~
τί αδιχῶ; Ὃ δὲ avdinarog ἀχούσας ἐκέλευσεν δεϑῆναι τὸν Παὺ-
\ > ~ ice > ,
hov χαὶ εἰς φυλαχὴν α:τοχατασταϑῆναι, μέχρις ov εὐσχολήσας,
Ν 2.) , >) ~ . ose >
φησὶν, ἀχούσομαι αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελέστερον. (Acts xxiv. 213 xxiii. 6;
EVI 3.79, 30, 31:)
1 “Acts of Paul and Thecla,” a work of the second century, containing
accounts of Paul’s labours, which Tertullian (de bapt. ὁ. 17) says was written by
a presbyter who confessed that he manufactured it from love of Paul. According
to Jerome it dates from the beginning of the second century.
200 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
16. IRenaevs.
(See before, p. 67.)
B. III. 14. § 1. -Quoniam autem is Lucas inseparabilis fuit
a Paulo, et cooperarius ejus in Evangelio, ipse facit manife-
stum, non glorians, sed ab ipsa productus veritate. Separatis
enim, inquit, a Paulo, et Barnaba et Joanne, qui vocabatur Mar-
cus, et cum navigassent Cyprum, “nos venimus in Troadem:” et
cum vidisset Paulus per somnium virum Macedonem, dicentem;
“WVeniens in Maccdoniam opitulare nobis, Paule;” statim, ait:
“quaesivimus proficisci in Maccdoniam, intelligentes quoniam pro-
vocavit nos Dominus evangelizare cis. -Navigantes igitur a Troade,
direximus navigium in Samothracen:” et deinceps reliquum omnem
ipsorum usque ad Philippos adyentum diligenter significat, et
quemadmodum primum sermonem loquuti sunt: “‘Sedentes enim,”
inquit, “loquuti sumus mulieribus quae convencrant;” et quinam
crediderunt, et quam multi. Et iterum ait: “Nos autem navi-
gavimus post diis azymorum a Philippis, et venimus Troadem,
ubi et commorati sumus diebus septem.” Et reliqua omnia cx
ordine cum Paulo refert, omni diligentia demonstrans et loca et
Civitates et quantitatem dierum, quoadusque Hierosolymam ascen-
derent: et quae illic contigerint Paulo, quemadmodum vinctus
Romam missus est, et nomen centurionis qui suscepit eum, et
parasema navium, et quemadmodum naufragium fecerunt, et in
qua liberati sunt insula, et quemadmodum humanitatem 101 per-
ceperunt, Paulo curante principem ipsius insulae, ct quemadmo-
dum inde Puteolos navigaverunt, et inde Romam_ pervenerunt,
et quanto tempore Romae commorati sunt. Omnibus his cum.
adesset Lucas, diligenter conscripsit ea, uti neque mendax, ne-
que elatus deprehendi possit, eo quod omnia haec constarent, et
seniorem eum esse omnibus qui nunc aliud docent, neque igno-
rare veritatem. Quoniam non solum prosequutor, sed et coope-
rarius fuerit apostolorum, maxime autem Pauli, et ipse autem
Paulus manifestavit in epistolis, dicens: “Demas me dereliquit,
et abiit Thessalonicam, Crescens in Galatiam, Titus in Dalma-
tiam: Lucas est mecum solus.” Unde ostendit quod semper jun-
ctus ei et inseparabilis fuerit ab eo. Et iterum in ea epistola
quae est ad Colossenses, ait: “Salutat vos Lucas medicus di-
IRENAEUS. 201
lectus.” Si autem Lucas quidem, qui semper cum Paulo prae-
dicavit, et dilectus ab eo est dictus, et cum eo evangelizavit, et
creditus est referre nobis Evangelium, -nihil aliud ab eo didicit,
sicut ex verbis ejus ostensum est, quemadmodum hi qui num-
quam Paulo adjuncti fuerunt, gloriantur abscondita et inenarra-
bilia didicisse sacramenta?— Quoniam autem Paulus simpliciter
quae sciebat, haec et docuit, non solum eos qui cum eo erant,
yerum omnes audientes se, ipse facit manifestum. In Mileto
enim convocatis episcopis et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso,
et a reliquis proximis civitatibus, quoniam ipse festinaret Hiero-
solymis Pentecosten agere, multa testificatus eis, et dicens quac
oportet ei Hierosolymis evenire, adjecit: “Scio quoniam jam non
videbitis faciem meam etc.” .. . Deinde significans futuros
malos doctores, dixit: “Ego scio quoniam advenient post disces-
sum meum lupi graves ad vos, non parcentes gregi etc.”
Sic apostoli simpliciter, et nemini invidentes, quae didicerant ipsi
a Domino, haec omnibus tradebant. Sic igitur et Lucas nemini
invidens, ea quae ab eis didicerat, tradidit nobis, sicut ipse testi-
ficatur dicens: “Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio
contemplatores et ministri fuerunt verbi.”
B. 17.15. § 1. Eadem autem dicimus iterum et his, qui
Paulum apostolum non cognoscunt, quoniam aut reliquis verbis
Evangelii, quae per solum Lucam in nostram venerunt agnitio-
nem, renuntiare debent, et non uti eis; aut si illa recipiunt omnia,
habent necessitatem recipere etiam eam testificationem, quae est
de Paulo, dicente ipso, primum quidem Dominum ei de coelo lo-
cutum: “Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? Ego sum Jesus
Christus, quem tu persequeris:” deinde Ananiae, de eo dicente:
““Vade, quoniam vas electionis mihi est iste, ut portet nomen
meum in gentibus, et regibus, et filiis Israel. Ego enim demon-
strabo ei ex ipso, quanta oporteat cum pati propter nomen
meum.” Qui igitur non recipiunt eum qui sit electus a Deo ad
hoc, ut fiducialiter portet nomen ejus, quod sit missus ad quas
praediximus gentes, electionem Domini contemnunt, et se ipsos
segregant ab apostolorum conventu. Neque enim contendere pos-
sunt Paulum non esse apostolum, quando in hoc sit electus: ne-
que Lucam mendacem esse possunt ostendere, veritatem nobis
cum omni diligentia annuntiantem. Fortassis enim et propter
202 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
hoc operatus est Deus plurima Evangelii ostendi per Lucam, qui-
bus necesse haberent omnes uti, ut sequenti testificationi ejus,
quam habet de actibus et doctrina apostolorum, omnes sequentes,
et regulam veritatis inadulteratam habentes, salvari possint. Igi-
tur testificatio ejus vera, et doctrina apostolorum manifesta et
firma, et nihil subtrahens, neque alia quidem in abscondito, alia
vero in manifesto docentium.
17. Tarran.
> > ~
Orat. c. Graec. 6. 4. p. 144 D. Anjuoveyter τὴν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
/ , « - - τ᾽
γεγενημένην χάριν ἡμῶν προσχυνεῖν οὐ ϑέλω. 1 ἔγονεν ἥλιος χαὶ
Α , rc ae tea ΧΡ να ΟΣ , 5 open Α -
σελήν!; δι GG” ELLOS τοὺς ἐμοὺξ ὑπεηρεταθ ΘΟ ΟΈΛΡΗΘΟΝ Πῶς
ἯΙ , \ > - \ 5
δὲ ξύλα καὶ λίϑους Θεοὺς ἀποφανοῦμαι; ... ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τὸν
> , \ , « \ , 2) \ 3)
arovoucotoy Θεὸν δωροδοχητέον" ὃ γὰρ πάντων ἀνενδεὴς, οὐ δια-
( « a) « - «. ee. P σ =
βλητέος tp ἡμῶν ὡς ἐνδεής. (Acts xvii. 22-25.)
18. ATHENAGORAS.
Legatio, c.13. Ὃ τοῦδε tov παντὸς δημιουργὸς nak πατὴ
) S ie ω 0
Σ ~ ' \ ~ ‘ ~ ~
ov δεῖται αἵματος, οὐδὲ χνίσσης, οὐδὲ τῆς ἀπτὸ τῶν ardor χαὲὶ
, > , τ \ ὌΝ c ’ > , a) Se \
ϑυμιαμάτων ξιωδίας, αὐτὸς ὧν ἢ τελεία εὐωδία, averdsrg χαὶ
Ὁ. ν ,ὔ ee
ameoodencg. (Acts xvii. 25.)
Ibid. c. 16. Καὶ ὑμεῖς μὲν ot βασιλεῖς ξαυτοῖς ἀσχεῖτε τὰς
καταγωγὰς βασιλιχάς" ὃ δὲ χόσμος οὐχ ὡς δεομένου τοῦ Θεοῦ
γέγονεν. (Acts xvii. 25.)
19. Crement or ALEXANDRIA.
Adumbrat. in 1. Petr. epist. Sicut Lucas quoque et Actus
Apostolorum stylo exsecutus agnosceret, et Pauli ad Hebraeos in-
terpretatus epistolam.
Strom. V. 12. p. 696. Καϑὸ xai ὃ “ουχᾶς ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι
τῶν -Anoorohov ἀπομνημονεύει tov Παῖλον λέγοντα" “Avdoes
᾿ϑηναῖοι, κατὰ πιάντα ὡς δεισιδαιμονεστέρους ὑμᾶς ϑεωρῶ. (Acts
Xvii. 22, 23.)
TERTULLIAN, CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 203
20. TERTULLIAN.
De jejunio, c. 10. Porro cum in.eodem commentario Lucae,
et tertia hora orationis demonstretur, sub qua Spiritu Sancto
initiati pro ebriis habeantur; et sexta, qua Petrus ascendit in
superiora.
De praescript. haeret. c. 22. Et utique implevit (sc. Christus)
repromissum, probantibus Actis Apostolorum descensum Spiritus
Sancti. Quam scripturam qui non recipiunt, nec Spiritus Sancti
esse possunt, qui necdum Spiritum Sanctum possunt agnoscere
discentibus missum, sed nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere, qui
quando et quibus incunabulis institutum est hoc corpus, probare
non habent.
Adv. Marcion. V. 2.3. Exinde decurrens (sc. Paulus in epist.
ad Galat.) ordinem conversionis suae, de persecutore in aposto-
lum, scripturam Apostolicorum confirmat, apud quam ipsa etiam
epistolae istius materia recognoscitur, intercessisse quosdam, qui
dicerent circumcidi oportere, et observandam esse Moysi legem:
tunc apostolos de ista quaestione consultos, ex auctoritate Spi-
ritus renuntiasse, non esse imponenda onera hominibus quae pa-
tres ipsi non potuissent sustinere. Quodsi et ex hoc congruunt
Paulo Apostolorum Acta, cur ea respuatis jam apparet, ut Deum
scilicet non alium praedicantia quam creatorem, nec Christum
alterius, quam creatoris, quando nec promissio Spiritus Sancti
aliunde probetur exhibita, quam de instrumento Actorum.
De baptismo, 6. 10. Adeo postea in Actis Apostolorum inve-
nimus, quoniam qui Joannis baptismum habebant, non accepis-
sent Spiritum Sanctum quem ne auditu quidem noverant.
21. Crementine Homintes.
Hom. IIT. 53. Ἔτι μὴν ἔλεγεν" ἐγώ εἰμι περὶ οὗ Maiioig
MONEPHTELGEY εἰσιν" σιροιήτην ἐγερεῖ ὑμῖν Κύριος 0 Θεὸς ἡμῶν,
ἐχ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, ὥστιερ χαὶ ἐμὲ, αὐτοῦ ἀχούετε χατὰ πάντα.
Ὃς ἂν δὲ μὴ ἀχούσῃ τοῦ προφήτου ἐχείνου, ἀποϑανεῖται, (Acts
ili. 22; vii. 37. Quotation of Deut. xviii. 15.)
204 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
22. CrLemeNTINE RECOGNITIONS..
1. 10. Urgebat tamen profectionem dicens, se diem festum
religionis suae, qui immineret, omnimodis apud Judaeam cele-
braturum, ibique de reliquo cum suis civibus ac fratribus per-
mansurum, evidenter indicans, injuriae se horrore perculsum.
(Acts xviii. 21.)
I. 40. Nos ergo primos elegit duodecim sibi credentes, quos
Apostolos nominavit, postmodum alios septuaginta duos proba-
tissimos discipulos, ut vel hoc modo recognita imagine Moysis
crederet multitudo, quia hic est, quem praedixit Moyses ventu-
rum prophetam.
I. 60. Haec et his similia prosecutus siluit etiam Cananaeus.
Post quem Barnabas qui et Matthias, qui in locum Judae subro-
gatus est apostolus, monere populum coepit, ne odio haberent
Jesum neque blasphemarent eum. (Acts i. 26.)
1. 65. Gamaliel, princeps populi, adsurgens ait: Quiescite
paullisper, O viri Israelitae, non enim advertitis tentationem
quae imminet vobis, propter quod desinite ab hominibus istis, et
si quidem humani consilii est quod agunt, cito cessabit, si autem
a Deo est, cur sine causa peccatis nec proficitis quidquam, Dei
enim voluntatem quis potest Superare? Nunc ergo, quoniam qui-
dem in vesperam vergitur dies, crastino hoc ipso in loco audien-
tibus vobis, ego ipse cum istis disputabo, ut omnem errorem pa-
lam arguam, dilucideque confutem. (Acts v. 38, 39.)
1.1. Cum autem vespera adfuisset, templum quidem sacer-
dotes claudunt; nos yero ad domum Jacobi regressi et pernoctan-
tes ibi in oratione, ante lucem descendimus Hiericho ad quinque
millia viri. Post triduum autem venit ad nos ex fratribus qui-
dam a Gamaliele, de quo supra diximus, occultos nobis nuncios
deferens, quod inimicus ille homo legationem suscepisset a Caipha
pontifice, ut omnes qui crederent in Jesum, persequerentur et
Damascum pergeret cum epistolis ejus, ut etiam inibi auxilio
usus infidelium, fidelibus inferret exitium. (Acts ix. 1, 2.)
1. 72. Simonem quendam Samaraeum, magum plurimos no-
strorum subvertere, adserentem se esse quendam Stantem, hoc
est alio nomine, Christum, et virtutem summam excelsi Dei, qui
ORIGEN. APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS. EUSEBIUS. 205
sit supra conditorem mundi, simulque mirabilia plurima osten-
dens alios dubitare, alios declinare fecerit ad se. (Acts vili. 10.)
20. ORICEN.
πα Ayric. ὃ 9. Tom. 1 p. 22.,.(Migne, Vol. 1. p. 69.)
eo N ~ i ~ 7 ~
Kai ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὃ Scéqpavog μαρτυρῶν
BN Ξ - " \ ~ , ἘΞ ryt ~ Ape στ γ γΧ9, ec
él σπιολλοῖς, καὶ ταῦτα λέγει" Tive τῶν προφητῶν οὐχ, ἐδίωξαν
~ 2 \
οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν, χαὶ ἀπέχτειναν τοὺς προχαταγγείλαντας περὶ
τῆς ἐλεύσεως vot δικαίου, οὗ νῦν ὑμεῖς προδόται χαὶ φονεῖς εἐγέ-
76 ἥ ΠΣ ὲ; 0 τὸν rd eT) a3 Ὧν 7 ΤΙΣ
γεσϑε; AhiJevew μὲν γὰρ τὸν Σεέφανον πᾶς ὁστιςοῦν τῶν πιροσιε-
aa ~ d 5 ΄ ee
μένων τὰς Πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων διιολογήσει. (Acts vii. 52.)
Eus. H. E. Vi. 25. (See before, p. 9.)
C. Cels. VI. 11. Tom. I. p. 638. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 1808.) Kae
> ν ἊΝ ν - ~ A “5 ~~
Ιούδας δὲ 6 Γαλιλαῖος, ὡς ὃ «Τουχᾶς ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσιν τῶν ἀπο-
, ” ? 1¢ c , Ἢ > ~ , \ \
στόλων éyouWer, ἐβουλήϑιη, ἑαυτὸν τινὰ εἰπεῖν μέγαν, χαὶ 71090
ἐχείνου Θευδᾶς.
Ποχαρί. In Psalm. I. v. 8. (Tom. U. 537.) Migne VI. p. 575.
‘ , cq - ~ I , \ ~ Cc c
Avow ἐντυχόντες Εβραϊχοῖς ἀντιγράφοις, ἕν μὲν τῷ ἑτέρῳ Ev-
2 \ . , ~ - γ ‘ ~ ¢€ ~
ρομεν ἀρχὴν δευτέροι Wakwot ταῦτα ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑτέρῳ συνἥτιτο
- , ἸΌΝ 5. Ὁ» - Ie Ὁ Ν ~ 2 Ν yc 7
τῷ πρώτῳ. Καὶ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων τὸ Υἱός
3 ᾽ -
μου εἶ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηχα σε, ἐλέγετο εἶναι τοῦ
, σὴ ~ (5) \ , Ν > , ~
mowtov ψαλμοῦ. Qo γὰρ γέγραπται, φησὶν, ἐν πρώτῳ Wodwup
eres 3 , 7 pst Ἑ \ NAG ..3. , , a ~
Υἱός μου εἰ ov. Ta ἑλληνιχὰ δὲ ἀντίγραφα δεύτερον εἰναι τοῦ-
ld 2 , --ς oe ~ IO ~ ~ 2
tov μηνύει. Εν μέντοι τῷ Εβραϊχῷ οὐδενὶ τῶν ᾿ψναλμῶν ἀριϑμὸς
Ul
/. : ~ on , Ww 3" dN Ay
σαραχειται, HOWTOS EL τύχοι ἢ β' ἢ γ.
24. Aposroticat Constitutions.
IT. 6. Ὥς που λέγει ὃ ,“ουχᾶς" Ὧν ἤρξατο ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν
χαὶ διδάσχειν.' (Acts i. 1.)
25. Evusesius.
Ξ - = - ?
H. Ἐ. 11. 11. Τοιγαροῦν χὰν ταῖς δὁμολογουμέναις τῶν ἀπο-
: A Ulan > / c Wah , c ~ 2 ,
στόλων Π]Ὼράξεσιν ἐμφέρεται, ὅτι δὴ πάντες οἱ τῶν ἀποστόλων
1 Another reading is: Καὶ γὰρ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν χαὶ διδάσχαλος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χρι-
‘ 3, ~ ~ ͵ wy
στὸς ἤρξατο πρῶτον ποιεῖν χαὶ τότε διδάσχειν.
20ὺ0 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
/ , [4 Isa y -
γνώριμοι, τὰ χτήματα χαὶ τὰς virdokEerc διατιισιράσχοντες, ἐμέριζον
ὌΝΩΝ ὙΓΑΣΡ RNs OF ΤΣ , 3 ς Wks se ’ ~ >
ἅπασι LOS ὁ ἂν τις χρείαν εἶχεν, ὡς LI δὲ εἰναί τινὰ ἐνδεῆ 7τὰρ
> ~ ca ~ 5 ~ ~
αὐτοῖς" Ὅσοι γοῦν χτήτορες χωρίων ἢ οἰχιῶν ὑτιῆρχον, ὡς ὃ λό-
~ ) \ ~
γος φησὶ, στιωλοῦντες ἔφερον τὰς τιμὰς τῶν τιιτερασχομένων, ἐτί-
‘ \ 4% ~ ) ν
ϑεσάν τὲ παρὰ τοὺς πόδας τῶν ἀποστόλων, wore διαδίδοσθϑαι
» ἊΝ 32 ,
ἑχάστῳ χαϑ' ὁ ἂν τις χρείαν εἶχεν.
. Cc, \ ey ~ - ~ c ~
Tbid. I. 4. “Ort μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἐξ ἐϑνῶν χηρύσσων ὃ Παῖλος,
\ 2 Kee \ Ν , , ~ d ~ ~ >
τοὺς ἀπὸ ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ χαὶ χύχλῳ μέχρι τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ τῶν ἐχχλη-
~ " ta C , - ΨᾺ ἐν ὁ )} ~ , > Ww
σιῶν χαταβέβληται ϑειιελίους, δῆλον ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ γένοιτ᾽ ay
- ‘ > > ics Cc ~ ~ *
φωνῶν, χαὶ ap ὧν ὃ “Τουχᾶς ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσιν ἱστόρησεν.
. ~ y \ Cees c ,
Ibid. -Aovndg δὲ... ἐν δυσὶν ἡμῖν ὑποδείγματα ϑεοπνεύ-
fk , ~ “7 ‘ ~ ~
στοις χαταλέλοιτιε βιβλίοις" τῷ δὲ Εὐαγγελίῳ, ... χαὶ ταῖς τῶν
5) , UTS a as ib Nae 3 ~ 2 { - ‘ ? ~
ἀποστόλων Πράξεσιν, ag οὐχέτι Ot ἀχοῆς, ὀφϑαλμοῖς δὲ αὐτοῖς
f , :-
σιαραλαβὼν, συνετάξατο.
Ibid. 111. 25. (See before, p. 10.)
26. JEROME.
De Vir. Illustr. c. 7. See before under Luke, where also see
other references.
[Note. The Acts of the Apostles has been, as the foregoing testimonies
show, an accepted book from the earliest times. The Manicheans (see be-
low) objected to it because of its account of the coming of the Holy Ghost.
The Marcionites (see above, under Tertullian) could not accept it because of
its testimony to the God of the Creation being the Father of Christ Jesus.
The Ebionites (Epiph. Haer. 30.16) rejected it because of its recording the
admission of Gentiles into the church without circumcision; the Severians
(Kus. H. E. IV. 29) would not have Paul’s Epistles or the Acts of the
Apostles because these books were in conflict with their ascetic principles.
Chrysostom in his Homilies on Acts (Hom. 1) says [Πολλοῖς τουτὶ τὸ βιβλίον
οὐδ᾽ ὅτι ἔνι, γνώριμόν ἐστιν, οὔτε αὐτὸ, οὔτε ὁ γράψας αὐτὸ xat συνθείς,
but he is pointing at the popular neglect of the book, not at any deliberate
rejection. Photius: Quaest Amphiloch. 145 says τὸν δὲ συγγραφέα τῶν
"Πράξεων of μὲν Κλήμεντα λέγουσι tov “Pawns, ἄλλοι δὲ Βαρνάβαν, xat Λου-
χᾶν τὸν Evayyehtotyy. But this statement as to doubt of the authorship is
not supported by the testimonies of early writers.
bo
oO
-~]
XI.
κι} 3} BS.
(COMPARE SECTIONS FIIT)
EuseEBIUS.
lis JB TUNE Be
\ ~ ~ ~ 7
Περὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν τῶν ἀποστόλων.
1 Μ ~
Πέτρου μὲν οὖν ἐπιστολὴ μία ἢ λεγομένη αὐτοῦ στεροτέρα ἀνω-
μολόγηται: ταύτῃ δὲ χαὶ οἱ soho πρεσβύτεροι ὡς ἀναμφιλέχεῳ
ἣν - ~ ᾽ ~ , \ ν
ἐν τοῖς σφῶν αὐτῶν χαταχέχρηνται συγγράμμασι. Τὴν δὲ φερο-
, > ~ , 2 > , 8 3 ,
μένην αὐτοῦ δευτέραν, οὐχ ἐνδιάϑηχον μὲν εἶναι παρειλήφαμιεν.
ci, Wal ~ / ~ \ ~ ww” >’ Yar Ὧλ τς
Ομιως δὲ πολλοῖς χρήσιμος φανεῖσα, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐστπουδάσϑη
γραφῶν. To γε μὴν τῶν ἐπιιχεχλημένων αὐτοῦ Πράξεων, χαὶ τὸ
> ἌΝ ) , > , , , > ~ ,
“zat αὐτὸν ὠνομασμένον Evayyehiov, to te λεγόμενον αὐτοῦ Ki-
Ν 2 Igo ~
ριγμα, χαὶ τὴν καλουμένην “Α΄ ποχάλυψιν, οὐδ᾽ ὕλως ἐν χαϑολιχοῖς
δ. yi , , ) , ~ vy ~
ἴσμεν παραδεδομένα, ὅτι μή τὲ ἀρχαίων μή τὲ τῶν za Huce
> \ ‘ ~ a) γ ~ ,
τις ἐχχλησιαστιχὸς συγγραφεὺς ταῖς ἐξ αὐτῶν συνεχρήσατο μαρ-
, on ,ὔ ‘ ~ « , a” ,
τυρίαις.}Σ Προϊούσης δὲ τῆς ἱστορίας, meoveyou ποιησόμαι σὺν
- ~ Cc , , ~ A , γ
ταῖς διαδοχαῖς ὑποσημήνασϑαι, τίνες τῶν χατὰ χρόνους ἐχχλη-
~ ε , , ~ >
σιαστιχῶν συγγραφέων ὁττοίαις χέχρηνται τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων, Tive
- . Ne ~ cr
TE τιερὶ τῶν ἐνδιαϑήχων χαὶ ὁμολογουμένων γραφῶν, καὶ ὅσα περὶ
- \ , > ~ ΒΩ 2 \ \ \ 2 -" ,
τῶν μὴ τοιούτων αὐτοῖς εἴρηται. Adda τὰ μὲν ονοιιαζύμενα Πέ-
TOOL, (ὧν μόνην μίαν γνησίαν ἔγνων ἐτιστολὴν χαὶ πιαρὰ τοῖς πά-
λαι τιρεσβυτέροις ὁμολογουμένην, τοσαῦτα. Tot δὲ Παύλου πρό-
1 Eusebius speaks too strongly here. Clem. Alex. in his Hypotyposes gave
a brief account of the ‘‘ Apocalypse of Peter’? among other Antilegomena (see Eus.
H. E. VI. 14). In his Stromata he frequently quotes the ‘‘Preaching of Peter”
(see Strom. 1. 29. 182. p. 427), &c.; and Origen (on John, Tom. XIII. c. 17.
p- 226) refers to it as quoted by Heracleon, and speaks of the time which might
be oceupied by a controversy on its genuineness. Hilgenfeld (Nov. Test. Extra
Can. Rec. IV. p. 66) goes too far in saying Origen ‘“‘decernere noluit” περὶ τοῦ
βιβλίον, πότερόν ποτε γνήσιόν ἐστιν ἢ νόθον ἢ μιχτόν, for Origen merely puts
the enquiry aside because of the time it would consume. What Origen thus says
is consistent with his explicit statement (περὶ ἀρχῶν Prolog. p. 49) that the
‘‘Preaching of Peter’? was neither written by Peter nor by any other inspired
man. Clement’s quotations are overlooked in Eusebius’s statement in the text.
There is an obscure reference to what Peter and Paul taught the Corinthians
and the Romans in words ascribed to Dionysius of Corinth in Eus. H. E. 11. 25,
208 THE EPISTLES.
Wang ‘ ~ c ο , 2 ,
δηλοῖ χαὶ σαφεῖς αἱ δεχατέσσαρες. “Ὅτι ye μήν τινὲς ἡϑετήχασι
τὴν τιρὸς “Εβραίους, τιρὸς τῆς “Ρωμαίων ἐχχλησίας ὦ ὴ Tad
ἣν moog Εβραιους, τιρὸς τῆς “Ρωμαίων ἐκκλησίας ὡς μὴ Παὺ-
, \ , , , - ‘\
Lov οὖσαν αὐτὴν ἀντιλέγεσϑαι φήσαντες, ov δίχαιον ἀγνοεῖν. Καὶ
\ , VA! ~ ~
Ta περὶ ταύτης δὲ τοῖς 710d ἡμιῶν εἰριμιένα χατὰ χαιρὸν πα-
η IQ \ BN , 2 - te > 2
ραϑήσομαι. Ovde μὴν τὰς λεγομένας αὐτοῦ Πράξεις ἐν ἀναμ-
Ura 2 , γι \ ΝΙΝ “ } Ν > / ’ ~ γ ‘
φιλέχτοις παρείληφα. Ἐπεὶ δὲ 0 αὐτὸς ατιόστολος, ἕν ταῖς ἐπὶ
/ ~ ‘ ~
τέλει προσρήσεσι τῆς “ods “Ρωμαίους, μνήμην σεετοίηται μετὰ TOV
» ν 1) - ie \ , ~ ΐ '
ἄλλων χαὶ Eouca, ov φασὶν ὑτιάρχειν τὸ τοῦ Ποιμένος βιβλίον,
4) ,ὔ ς \ ~ ‘ , 3] mn ) a 2 aN
ἰστέον ὡς χαὶ τοῦτο πρὸς μέν τινων ἀντιλέλεχται, OL Og οὐχ ἂν
B) c a a ~ ND Co ,
ἕν ὁιιολογουμένοις τεϑ είν, LP EvEQWY δὲ ἀναγχαιότατον οἷς μά-
~ . , ’ at ~ , cr { a Ἀ Ν ?
λιστα δεῖ στοιχειώσεως εἰσαγωγιχῆς, χέχριται. “Odev ἤδη χαὶ ἐν
’ , ” 2 \ y . ‘ 4 - ,
ἑχχλησίαις ἴσμεν αὐτὸ δεδημοσιευμένον, χαὶ τῶν παλαιοτάτων δὲ
J uy ΕΞ , = " ae > ces {2 ᾿ rg =}
συγγραφέων χεχρημένουις τινὰς αὐτῷ χατείληφα. Tatta εἰς ma-
Ν - ς
παρὰ πᾶσιν ὃμολο-
/ ~ 2) cr Ν - x
οαστασιν τ» τὲ αγαντ θήν και Ty μι
, ,
γουμένων ϑείων γραμμάτων εἰρήσϑω.
209
ΧΙ].
POE EPISTLES OF PAD
(COMPARE SECTIONS 5110
1. Cxtement or Rome.2
aA \ hw
Ep. I. ¢.V. 4. ... Πέτρον, ὃς διὰ ζῆλον ἄδιχον οὐχ ἕνα οὐδὲ
, ) \ U Cc ,
δύο, ἀλλὰ στιλείονας ὑπιήνεγχεν σεόνους, καὶ οὕτω μαρτυρήσας ἔπορ-
, a) \ 2 vy , ,ὔ - ν I to y \ Sew NiO?
δυϑὴ εἰς τῶν οφειλόμενον tomov τῆς δόξης. Διὰ ζῆλον χαὶ ἔριν
~ C ~ - ay to ,
Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον ἔδειξεν, ervanig δεσμιὰ φορέσας, φυγ-
δευϑεὶ did Sei WDE AiR eyed Cee Li χαὶ é
αδευϑεὶς, λιϑασϑεὶς, χήρυξ γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ, χαὶ ἐν
τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς σπιίστεως αὐτοῦ χλέος ἔλαβεν, διχαιο-
ae τ ὃ ὃ Use oh \ ὰ , Ἢ \ 3 \ Ν ,ὔ ~ aA
σύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν χόσμον, χαὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως
ἐλθὼν, καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ
χόσμου χαὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύϑη, ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος
μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός.8
1 Paul’s Epistles are supposed by many to have been originally more nu-
merous than they now are: and some have sought to show what specific Epistles
were lost. An Epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. iv. 16) (see Muratorian Canon be-
fore, p. 7) has been supplied by tradition, but is obviously spurious (see Light-
foot’s ‘Colossians,’ p. 353). An Epistle to the Corinthians is supposed to have been
lost; some say there are two lost (see 1 Cor. iii. 9, and for the spurious Epistles
of the Corinthians to St Paul and of St Paul to the Corinthians, as translated by
Lord Byron from the Armenian, see Stanley’s ‘Corinthians,’ p. 609). There is also
supposed to have been another to the Philippians now lost (Phil. iv. 16; iii. 1,
18—compare Polycarp, § 3). Certain letters of Paul and Seneca have been manu-
factured (see Lightfoot’s ‘Philippians,’ p. 268, &c.). Although Basilides is said to
have been the first to reject the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews, it appears that
Marcion, who was.first to make a formal collection of the letters of Paul, was
the first to reject these four Epistles formally. He also called Ephesians by the
name of Laodiceans. Baur divided the Pauline Epistles into three classes, the first
(or Homologoumena) containing only Galatians and 2 Corinthians and Romans;
the second (Antilegomena) containing Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Phile-
mon, and Thessalonians. The Pastoral Epistles he regarded as the third (or
spurious) class. The phraseology of this division is from Eusebius; Baur attempts
to show that its substance corresponds with Marcion’s division. Hebrews Baur
does not reckon among Paul’s Epistles at all.
2 See a discussion of questions regarding this and several following sections
in ‘Introduction to Pauline Epistles,’ by Paton J. Gloag, D.D. Edin. 1874.
8 This passage has been the occasion of infinite debate. It seems to confirm
the tradition of Paul’s missionary journeys after his first imprisonment, and thus
leaves time for his writing the Pastoral Epistles. The Muratorian fragment speaks
of Paul’s journey to Spain (see p. 6), and the τέρμα τῆς δύσεως in Clement may
refer to Spain. Those who refuse to admit this make the ‘extreme west” to be
14
210 THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.
2. TatTian.
Eus. H. EF. IV. 29. Tot δὲ ἀποστόλου φασὶ τολμῆσαί τινας
αὐτὸν μεταφράσαι φωνὰς, ὡς ἐπιδιορϑούμενον αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς
φράσεως σύνταξιν.
᾿ς (ΑΠΌ
Eus. Η. E. VI. 20. Ἦλϑε δ᾽ εἰς ἡμᾶς ual Γαΐου λογιοτά-
του ἀνδρὸς διάλογος, ἐπὶ “Ρώμης χατὰ Ζεφυρῖνον πρὸς Πρόχλον
τῆς χατὰ Φρύγας αἱρέσεως ὑπερμαχοῦντα χεχινημένος, ἐν ᾧ τῶν
δι᾿ ἐναντίας τὴν περὶ τὸ συντάττειν χαινὰς γραφὰς προπέτειάν
τε χαὶ τόλμαν ἐπιστομίζων τῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀττοστόλου δεχατριῶν
μόνων ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύει, τὴν πιρὸς “Εβραίους μὴ συναριϑμή-
σας ταῖς λοιπαῖς" ἐπεὶ χαὶ εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ “Ῥωμαίων τισὶν οὐ
γομίζεται τοῦ ἀποστόλου τυγχάνειν.
Jerome, De Vir. Ill. c. 59. Caius sub Zephyrino Romanae ur-
bis episcopo, i. e. sub Antonio, Severi filio, disputationem ad-
versus Proculum, Montani sectatorem, valde insignem habuit, ar-
guens eum temeritatis, super nova prophetia defendenda: et in
eodem volumine epistolas quoque Pauli tredecim tantum enume-
rans decimam quartam, quae fertur ad Hebraeos, dicit non ejus
esse: sed et apud Romanos usque hodie quasi Pauli apostoli non
habetur.
4. Syriac anp Oup Latin Versions.
(See before, pp. 1, 2.)
an expression denoting Rome itself. Another main point of controversy is the
connection between “reaching the extreme west’’ and ‘bearing testimony before
rulers.’ Some make the two clauses synchronous, so as to read that Paul’s
martyrdom took place in the ‘extreme west,’’ wherever it was. Others regard
the three clauses depending on διδάξας, ἐλθών, and μαρτυρήσας respectively, as
making three distinct and independent statements. The punctuation varies ac-
cordingly. Lightfoot prints é\zWv:, while Bryennios, Hilgenfeld, and Gebhardt
and Harnack have not even a comma after the word. The punctuation in our
text seems to be the most natural. On the controversy as regards the second
imprisonment, see the two sides well represented in Meyer’s Commentary—one
by Meyer himself, Einl. in den Brief an die Rém. 8 1. p. 12; and the other by
Huther, Einl. in die Pastoralbriefe, § 3. p. 25 (Ed. 1859). See also the com-
mentaries of the editors named above.
ORIGEN. EUSEBIUS. 911
5, Muratrorran Canon.
(See before, p. 7.)
6. OriGcen.
C. Cels. IIT. 20. (Opp. t. 1. p. 458.) Καί φαμεν τοῖς duo-
~ ~ , 2 so ~
νοοῦσι τῷ Kéhow, ὅτι οὐδεμίαν ἄρα φανταζόμενος σοφίαν ὃ Παῦ-
hog ὑτιερέχουσαν, ἐπηγγέλλετο σοφίαν λαλεῖν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις "
‘ \ « - Ν , ca 3) x »” \
ἐπειδὰν δὲ χατὰ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ϑρασὺ Pron, ote οὐδὲν ἔχων σοφὸν
- 2 > ~ ~
ταῦτα ἐπηγγέλλετο" ἀνταποχρινούμεϑα αὐτῷ, λέγοντες. Πρῶτον
- - Sire ~
σαφήνισον tov ταῦτα λέγοντος tag ἐπιστολάς" χαὶ ἀνατενίσας τῷ
- 2 - ~
βουλήματι ἕχάστης ἐν αὐταῖς λέξεως (peo εἰπεῖν τῇ πρὸς Ἔφε-
σίους, χαὶ πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς, καὶ τῇ πρὸς Θεσσαλονιχεῖς, χαὶ
(ιλιπιπησίους, καὶ ὃὴς Ρωμαίους), ἀμφότερα δεῖξον Lo
tAimcmynotovg, χαὶ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους), ἀμφότερα δεῖξον, χαὶ ὅτι
A, iC? ~ aes
γεγόηχας τοὺς Παύλου λόγους, χαὶ ὅτι “ταραστῆσαι εὐήϑεις τινὰς
νην ἃ η I \ ) ee \ ~ \ ~ , γ
ἢ ἡλιϑίους. Ἐὰν yao ἑπιδῷ ἑαυτὸν τῇ μετὰ τοῦ ττροσέχειν ανα-
, > Sg. Ce Ww ἢ , Ν ~ ~ od ‘ ᾽ γ
γνώσει, εὖ O10 OTL ἢ ϑαυμάσεται τὸν νοῦν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς, ἐν ἰδιω-
~ le , ~ aN ΔΎ , > \ Ἀ i,
τιχῇ λέξει μεγάλα περινοοῦντος, ἢ μὴ ϑαυμασας, αὐτὸς χαταγέλ-
- ν i¢ ~
αστος φανεῖται" εἴτε διηγούμενος ὡς vevonzwc τὸ βούλημα τοῦ
3 \ See a
ἀνδρὸς, ἢ καὶ ἀντιλέγειν χαὶ ἀνατρέπειν τεειρώμενος ἃ ἐφαντάσϑη
)
αὐτὸν νενοηχέγαι.
7. Evusrpsius.
H. E. Wl. 3. (See before, p. 207.)
Ibid. 11. 22. Τούτου δὲ Wrorog ὑπὸ Νέρωνος διάδοχος σπτέμτι-
etal, “ad ὃν διχαιολογησάμενος ὃ Παῦλος δέσμιος emi “Ριόμης
ἄγεται. ᾿Αρίσταρχος αὐτῷ συνῆν, ὃν χαὶ εἰκότως συναιχμάλωτόν
mov τῶν ἐγιστολῶν ἀποχαλεῖ. Καὶ “ουχᾶς ὃ χαὶ τὰς Πράξεις
TY ἀποστόλων γραφῇ παραδοὺς, ἐν τούτοις κατέλυσε τὴν Ἱστορ-
fav, διετίαν ὅλην ἐπὶ τῆς Ῥώμης τὸν Παῦλον ἄνετον διατρῖψαι,
χαὶ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον ἀκωλύτως χηρῦξαι ἐπισημηνάμενος. Tore
μὲν οὖν ἀπτιολογησάμενον αὖϑις ἐτιὶ τὴν τοῦ κηρύγματος διαχονίαν
λόγος ἔχει στείλασθαι τὸν ἀπόστολον, δεύτερον δ᾽ ἐπιβάντα τῇ
αὐτῇ πόλει τῷ naw αὐτὸν τελειωϑῆναι μαρτυρίῳ. Ἔν ᾧ δεσμοῖς
ἐχόμενος τὴν πρὸς Τιμόϑεον δευτέραν ἑπιστολὴν συντάττει, ὕμου
σημαίνων τήν τε προτέραν αὐτῷ γενομένην ἀπολογίαν χαὶ τὴν
παραπόδας τελείωσιν. “]έχου δὴ καὶ τούτων τὰς αὐτοῦ μαρ-
τυρίας"
14
212 THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.
Ren ~ f 2)
Ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μου,
Ν
φησὶν,
“ἀπολογίᾳ οὐδείς μοι συμπαρεγένετο, ἀλλὰ πάντες μὲ ἐγκατέλιπον
ee nce ῃ ESSN τ δ Sree ΤῸ. , ,
(un αὐτοῖς λογισϑείη), 0 δὲ Κύριος μου παρέστη καὶ ἐνεδυναμωσέ με,
ἵνα Ov ἐμοῦ τὸ κήρυγμα πληροφορηϑῇ, καὶ ἀκούσωσι πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη,
καὶ ἐῤῥύσϑην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος."
τ - \ , Ν Ν , c \ X , ς oN \
Σαφῶς δὲ παρίστησι διὰ τούτων, ott δὴ τὸ πρότερον, ὡς ἂν TO
3 Ν 3 2 ~ , aps feel/ ’ ’ ,
χήρυγμα τὸ OL αὐτοῦ πληρωϑείη, ἐῤῥύσθη ἔχ στόματος λέοντος,
XN ’ , Cc 2 \ Ν 2 LG / 2
τὸν Νέρωνα ταύτῃ ὡς ἕοιχε διὰ τὸ ὠὡμόϑυμον προσειττών. Ovx
~ J
Sy LS eae Ἐ ΄ , ~
οὖν ekg προστέϑειχε παρατιλησιόν τι, τῷ,
γ 4 , 2: , , 45
“Ρυσεταί μὲ ἐκ στόματος λέοντος.
C , ‘ ~ , A c a ,ὔ γ ~ ,
Ewea γὰρ τῷ πνεύματι τὴν ὅσον οὕπω μέλλουσαν αὑτοῦ τελευτήν.
, ss > , -
Mo φησιν ἐπιλέγων τῷ,
“ual ἐῤῥύσϑην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος," τὸ,
cc ® , , 6 U 2 ‘ \ ” ~ \ Le > \
Ρυσεταί μὲ o Κυριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ, καὶ σῶσει εἰς τὴν
~ A ts
βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον,
a \ ~ ~
σημαίνων τὸ παραυτίχα μαρτύριον, ὃ χαὶ σαφέστερον ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ
σιρολέγει γραφῇ φάσχων"
“Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι, καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς ἀναλύσεως ἐφέστηκεν."
- . t ~ ~ ~
Νῦν μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τῆς δευτέρας ἐπιστολῆς τῶν τιρὸς Τιμιόϑεον, τὸν
- > ~ ~ ~ Χ
Aovndy μόνον γράφοντι αὐτῷ συνεῖναι δηλοῖ, χατὰ δὲ τὴν προ-
3) ~ ~ 2
τέραν ἀπολογίαν οὐδὲ τοῦτον. Ὅϑεν εἰχότως τὰς τῶν ἀποστό-
2 - ~ \
λων Πράξεις ἐπ᾽ ἐχεῖνον 0 “ουχᾶς megréyoawe τὸν χρόνον, τὴν
- - c ~ ᾿
μιέχρις ὅτε τῷ Παύλῳ συνῆν ἱστορίαν ὑφηγησάμενος. Ταῦτα δὲ
ΕἸ κω » , ω Ν γ). ἃ ς ἘΠῚ: Digs
ἡμῖν εἴρηται πιαρισταμένοις, ὅτι μὴ χαϑ' ἣν ὃ “ουκᾶς ἀνέγραψεν
ἐπὶ τῆς “Ριύμης ἐπιδημίαν τοῦ Παύλου τὸ μαρτύριον αὐτῷ συν-
\ 2 2 ~
εἐπτεράνϑη. Εἰχός γε τοι χατὰ μὲν ἀρχὰς ἠπιώτερον tov Νέρωνος
διαχειμένου ὅᾷον τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ δόγματος τοῦ Παύλου χαταδεχϑῆς
> , , eee Ὁ , , a ~
vou ἀπολογίαν. Προελϑόντος δὲ εἰς ἀϑεμίτους τόλμας, μετὰ τῶν
ἄλλων χαὶ τὰ χατὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐτπιιχειρηϑῆναι.
. a 3 2 ἢ ἈΕῚ
Tbid. 11. 285. Παῦλος δὴ οὖν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς “Ρώμης τὴν χεφαλὴν
- \ ς > ~ >
ALOT UNIT VAL, χαι Πέτρος ὡσαύτως ἀνασχολοπισϑῆναι κατ αὐτὸν
ἱστοροῦνται. Καὶ πιστοῦταί ye τὴν ἱστορίαν, ἣ Πέτρου χαὶ Παύ-
Ὕ ~ , γ Ν ~ 3 , ; ‘A , ,
Lov εἰς δεῦρο χρατήσασα ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτόϑι κοιμητηρίων πρόσρησις.
>) ΤΕ ΝΗ \ \ ν fee , \
Οὐδὲν δ᾽ ἧττον χαὶ ἑχχλησιαστιχὸς ἀνὴρ, Tatog ὀνόματι, nave
EUSEBIUS. JEROME. 213
r ~ ς- , fa ~
Ζεφυρῖνον “Ῥωμαίων γεγονὼς ἐτιίσχοπον" ὃς δὴ Πρόχλῳ τῆς
xara Φρύγας προϊσταμένῳ γνώμης ἐγγράφως διαλεχϑεὶς, αὐτὰ δὴ
( ούγας τιροϊσταμένῳ γνώμης ἐγγράφως διαλεχϑεὶς, αὐτὰ δὴ
~ \ ~ , a ~ a) 2
ταῦτα MEL τῶν τόπων ἔνϑα τῶν εἰρημένων ἀποστόλων τὰ ἱερὰ
᾿ς
σχηνώματα χατατέϑειται, φησίν"
“«Ἐγῳ δὲ τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι. Ἐλν γὰρ ϑελήσης
ἀπελϑεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βατικάνον, ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ϑοστίαν, εὐρήσεις
‘ ‘ ~ , δ , \ ? , PP)
τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων THY ἐκκλησίαν.
510) δὲ Α nes Ἂν 5 “ΩΝ py i \ > ; A ‘4 at
ὃς δὲ χατὰ TOY αὐτὸν ἄμφω χαιρὸν ἐμαρτύρησαν, Κορινϑίων
’ , / ’ “ ς , Cc ~ c ,
ἐγιίσχοτιος “]ιονύσιος ἐγγράφως “Ρωμαίοις ὁμιλῶν ὧδέ πως παρ-
᾿
ἱστησιν"
ἐς Ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης νουϑεσίας τὴν ἀπὸ Πέτρου
μεις ἧς nS ς τῇ 9
καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν γενηϑεῖσαν Ρωμαίων te καὶ Κορινϑίων συνεκεραά-
rio” \ ” A ΕῚ ‘ πὶ , , ,
cate. Kat yoo ἄμφω καὶ εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν Κόρινϑον φυτεύσαντες
ἡμᾶς ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν: ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ὁμόσε διδάξ-
, ‘ ‘ ,
αντες, ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν."
8. JEROME.
De Vir. Ill. ς. 5. Quia in Actibus Apostolorum plenissime
de ejus conversatione scriptum est, hoc tantum dicam, quod
post passionem Domini vicesimo quinto anno, 1. e. secundo Ne-
ronis, eo tempore quo Festus procurator Judaeae successit Fe-
lici, Romam vinctus mittitur, et biennium in libera manens cu-
stodia, adversus Judaeos de adventu Christi quotidie disputavit.
Sciendum autem in prima satisfactione, necdum Neronis imperio
roborato, nec in tanta erumpente scelera, quanta de eo narrant
historiae, Paulum a Nerone dimissum, ut Evangelium Christi in
Occidentis quoque partibus praedicaretur, sicut ipse scribit in
secunda epistola ad Timotheum, eo tempore quo et passus est,
de vinceulis dictans epistolam: “In prima mea satisfactione nemo
mihi affuit, sed omnes me dereliquerunt: non eis imputetur. Do-
minus autem mihi affuit, et confortavit me, ut per me praedi-
catio compleretur, et audirent omnes gentes: et liberatus sum
de ore leonis.” Manifestissime leonem propter crudelitatem Ne-
ronem significans. Et in sequentibus: “Liberatus sum de ore
leonis.” Et statim: “ Liberabit me Dominus ab omni opere malo,
et salvabit me in regnum suum coeleste,” quod scilicet praesens
9214 THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.
sibi sentiret imminere martyrium. Nam et in eadem Epistela
praemiserat: “Ego enim jam immolor, et tempus resolutionis
meae instat.” Hic ergo quarto decimo Neronis anno, eodem die
quo Petrus Romae, pro Christo capite truncatur, sepultusque est
in Via Ostiensi, anno post passionem Domini tricesimo septimo.
Scripsit autem novem ad septem Ecclesias Epistolas: ad Roma-
nos unam; ad Corinthios duas; ad Galatas unam; ad Ephesios
unam; ad Philippenses unam; ad Colossenses unam; ad Thessa-
lonicenses duas; praeterea ad discipulos suos, Timotheo duas,
Tito unam, Philemoni unam. FEpistola autem quae fertur ad He-
braeos, non ejus creditur, propter styli sermonisque dissonan-
tiam; sed vel Barnabae, juxta Tertullianum; vel Lucae evange-
listae, juxta quosdam; vel Clementis Romanae postea Ecclesiae
episcopi, quem aiunt ipsi adjunctum sententias Pauli proprio or-
dinasse et ornasse sermone. Vel certe quia Paulus scribebat ad
Hebraeos, et propter invidiam sui apud eos nominis, titulum in
principio salutationis amputaverit. Scripserat ut Hebraeus He-
braice, id est, suo eloquio disertissime, ut ea quae eloquenter
scripta fuerant in Hebraeo, eloquentius verterentur in Graecum:
et hanc causam esse, quod a ceteris Pauli Epistolis discrepare
videatur. Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed sub omnibus
exploditur.
215
NIL.
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
1. Barnabas.
C. 4.12. ‘O χύριος ἀπροσωπολήμττιτως χρινεῖ τὸν χόσμον.
Ἕχαστος χαϑὼς ἐποίησεν χομιεῖται. (Rom. ii. 11; see Gal. ii. 6
and 1 Pet. i. 17.)
C.13. 7. Τί οὖν λέγει τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ, ὅτε μόνος πιστεύσας
ἐτέϑη εἰς διχαιοσύνην; ᾿Ιδοὺ τέϑειχά σε, “ABoadu, πατέρα ἐϑ-
νῶν τῶν πιστευόντων δι᾿ ἀχροβυστίας τῷ Θεῷ. (Rom. iv. 11;
comp. Gen xvii. 5.)
29. Ciement oF Rome.!
First Epistle.
C. 32.1. Ὅ ἂν τις nad? ἕν ἕχαστον εἰλιχρινῶς κατανοήσῃ, ἔτιι-
, ~ ~ Ce ea 3 ~ , ~ Ρ] ξ > ~
γνώσεται μεγαλεῖα τῶν ta’ αὐτοῦ δεδομένων δωρεῶν. Εξ αὑτοῦ
« ~ ~ ~ ~
γὰρ ἱερεῖς TE HCL Aviva σιάντες οἱ λειτουργοῦντες τῷ ϑυσιαστη-
’ ~ ~ dito ~ ς , ~ \ \ ,
oi» τοῦ Θεοῦ" ἐξ αὐτοῦ 6 Κύριος “Inoovg τὸ χατὰ σάρκα. (Rom.
ix. 4.)
3 IC ~ ~
Ο. 35.5. ᾿“3“ποῤῥίψαντες ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν πᾶσαν advalay καὶ ἀνομι-
, , a " Cc , \ , i}
lav, πλεονεξίαν, ἕρεις, καχοηϑείας te καὶ δόλους, ψιϑυρισμοὺς
‘ \ 2
τὲ χαὶ χαταλαλιὰς, ϑεοστυγίαν, ὑπερηφανίαν τε καὶ ἀλαζονείαν,
χενοδοξίαν τε χαὶ ἀφιλοξενίαν. Ταῦτα γὰρ οἱ πράσσοντες στυγ-
ητοὶ τῷ Θεῷ ὑπάρχουσιν. οὐ μόνον δὲ οἱ πράσσοντες αὐτὰ,
ἀλλὰ χαὶ οἱ συνευδοχοῦντες αὐτοῖς.Σ (Rom. i. 29 &c. Comp.
2 Cor. xii. 20.)
C. 38. 2. ‘O ἰσχυρὸς τημελείτω τὸν ἀσϑενῆ, ὃ δὲ ἀσϑενὴς
it ’ /
2 , °
ἐντρεπιέτω τὸν ἰσχυρόν. (Rom. xiv. 1.)
Ο. 46. 7. ‘navi διέλχκομεν χαὶ διασπιῶμεν τὰ μέλη tov Χριστοῦ
1 In addition to the following extracts, compare as echoes more or less dis-
tinct: C. 5. 4. ζῆλον χαὶ ἔριν (Rom. xiii. 13; 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 20). C. 16. 2.
ἀλαξονείας καὶ ὑπερηφανίας (Rom. i, 30; 2 Tim. iii. 2).
2 This is perhaps rather an echo than a quotation.
216 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
\ , \ \ ~ A. ODL N , , > ,
χαὶ στασιάζομεν πρὸς TO σῶμα TO ἴδιον, χαὶ εἰς τοσαύτην ἀπο-
> , cr γ ac Cw c , ? \ >
γοιαν ἐρχύμεϑα wore éemthadteodo ἡμᾶς ot μέλη ἐσμὲν ah-
λήλων. (Rom. xii. 5.)
Second Epistle.
C.1, 8.1 Ἐχάλεσεν γὰρ ἡμᾶς οὐχ ὄντας καὶ ἠϑέλησεν ex μὴ
ὄντος εἶναι ἡμᾶς. (Rom. iv. 17; comp. 1 Cor. i. 29.)
ὃ. lanartius. !
Ad Ephes. c. 18. Ἐλ σπέρματος μὲν AaBid, πνεύματος δὲ
ἁγίου. (Rom. i. 3, 4.)
Ad Ephes. c. 20. Ἔν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ, τῷ κατὰ σάρχα ἐκ γέν-
ους AaBid, τῷ υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου χαὶ υἱῷ Θεοῦ. (Rom. i. 4.)
Ad Philadelph. c. 11. Καγὼ τῷ Θεῷ εὐχαριστῶ ὑττὲρ ὑμῶν,
ὅτι ἐδέξασϑε αὐτοὺς, ὡς καὶ ὑμᾶς ὃ Κύριος. (Rom. xv. 7.)
Ad Smyrn. ο. 1. ᾿Αληϑῶς ὕντα ἐχ γένους “αβὶδ χατὰ σάρχα,
υἱὸν Θεοῦ χατὰ ϑέλημα καὶ δύναμιν Θεοῦ. (Rom. i. 3, 4.)
4. Ῥοχυσαβρ.
Ad Philippens. c. 3. ὃ. Προαγούσης τῆς ἀγάπης, τῆς εἰς Θεὸν
καὶ Χριστὸν χαὶ εἰς τὸν τιλησίον. Ἐὰν γάρ τις τούτων ἐντὸς ἢ,
σιεσιλήρωχεν ἐντολὴν δικαιοσύνης" ὃ γὰρ ἔχων ἀγάπην omar
ἐστι πάσης ἁμαρτίας. (Rom. xiii. 9, 10.)
C. 6.1. ᾿Αλλὰ προνοοῦντες ἀεὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ἐνώπιον Θεοῦ χαὶ
ἀνϑρώτιων, ἀτιεχόμενοι τιάσης ὀργῆς, κ.τ.λ. (Rom. xii. 17; 2 Cor.
viii. 21.)
Ο. 6.2. -Anévarte γὰρ τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου χαὶ Θεοῦ ἐσμὲν o—p-
ϑαλμῶν, καὶ πάντας δεῖ τταραστῆναι τῷ βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ χαὶ
ἕχαστον ὑπὲρ ξαυτοῦ λόγον δοῦναι. (Rom. xiv. 10, 12; comp.
ϑίθοι τὰ: 10.)?
1 Clement. Compare as echoes: C. 3, 1 (Rom. iii. 2); Ο. 1, 3 and 15, 2
(Rom. i. 27); C. 8, 2 (Rom. ix. 21).
1 Ignatius. Compare as echoes: Ad Eph. 1. εὐλογημένῃ πληρώματι (Rom.
xv. 29). Ad Magnes. 14.1. Θεοῦ γέμετε (Rom. xv. 14). Ad Philadelph. 11. 1.
ἐδέξασϑε αὐτούς (Rom. xv. 7).
1 Polyearp. Echo: Ad Phil. C. 1, 2. (καρποφορεῖ, x.t.d.) comp. Rom. vii. 5.
2 These words occur at the close of a warning against censorious judging
similar to the early part of Romans xiv.
POLYCARP. JUSTIN MARTYR. LETTER TO DIOGNETUS. 217
Mart. Polyc. c. 10. 2. Ἔφη ὃ ἀνθύπατος" Πεῖσον τὸν δῆμον.
‘O δὲ Πολύχαρπος εἶπεν" Σὲ μὲν χαὶ λόγου ἠξίωσα" δεδιδάγμεϑα
γὰρ ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις ὑτιὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τεταγμέναις τιμὴν χατὰ
τὸ προσῆκον, τὴν μὴ βλάπτουσαν ἡμᾶς, ἀπονέμειν" ἐχείνους δὲ
οὐχ ἡγοῦμαι ἀξίους τοῦ ἀπολογεῖσϑαι αὐτοῖς. (Rom. xiii. 1; Ti-
tue. 1.1 Pet. 11. 13, &c.)
Thid. ὁ. 20.2. Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ «“τάντας ἡμᾶς εἰσαγαγεῖν ἐν τῇ
αὐτοῦ χάριτι χαὶ δωρεᾷ εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν, διὰ στιαιδὸς
αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣ δόξα, τιμὴ, χράτος, με-
γαλωσύνη εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας. (Rom. xvi. 25; John i. 18.)
5. Justin Marryr.!
Dial. ¢. 23. p. 241 B. (comp. also Dial. c. 11. p. 229 A, and
ὁ. 92. p. 320 A.) Kai γὰρ αὐτὸς ὃ -ABeancu ἐν ἀχροβυστίᾳ ὧν
διὰ τὴν πίστιν, ἣν ἐπίστευσε τῷ Θεῷ, ἐδιχκαιώϑη χαὶ εὐλογήϑη,
ὡς ἣ γραφὴ σημαίνει" τὴν δὲ περιτομὴν εἰς σημεῖον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ εἰς
δικαιοσύνην ἔλαβεν, ὡς καὶ αἱ γραφαὶ χαὶ τὰ πράγματα ἀναγχάζει
ἡμᾶς δμολογεῖν. (Rom. iv. 10, 3, 11.)
Dial. c. 27. p. 244 ἢ. Πάντες γὰρ ἐξέκλιναν, βοᾷ, πάντες
ἅμα ἠχρειώϑησαν" οὐχ ἔστιν ὃ συνιῶν, οὐκ ἔστιν ἕως ἑνός. Ταῖς
γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὃ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ἰὸς
ἀστείδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν, σύντριμμα χαὶ ταλαιπωρία ἐν ταῖς
ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν, χαὶ δδὸν εἰρήνης οὐχ ἔγνωσαν.Σ (Rom. iii. 11-17.)
Dial. c. 47. p. 266 D. Ἡ γὰρ χρηστότης καὶ ἣ φιλανϑρωπία
τοῦ Θεοῦ χαὶ τὸ ἄμετρον τοῦ πλούτου αὐτοῦ χ.τ.λ. (Rom. ii. 4;
comp. also Titus ili. 4.)
6. Letrrer to Dioenervs.! .
Ο. 9. ὃ. Ti γὰρ ἄλλο τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἠδυνήϑη καλύψαι
1 Justin. Compare as echoes of Paul’s teaching, not always of special passages :
Apol. I. 13. p. 60 D (by faith gaining incorruption); Dial. ¢. 13. p. 229 D (by
faith cleansed through the blood of Christ and His death who died for this); Dial.
c. 32. p. 249 D (the seed left for salvation = Rom. ix. 27, xi. 5); Dial. ὁ. 39.
p. 257 D (quotation regarding Elias, as in Rom. xi. 3); Dial. ο. 42. p. 260 Ὁ
(quotation of Psalm xix. and Isaiah liii. as in Rom. x. 16-18); Dial. c. 44. p. 262
D (Jewish pride in being Abraham’s seed); Dial. ο. 131. p. 360 D (called through
Christ to salvation prepared by the Father).
2 Compare Ps. xiii. 3; lii. 4; v. 10; exxxix. 4; Isaiah lix. 7, 8.
1 Diognetus. For the relation between this letter and the Pauline Epistles
218 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
ἊΝ i> , , ~
ἢ éxelvov διχαιοσύνη; ἐν vine διχαιωϑῆναι δυνατὸν τοὺς ἀνόμους
ἡμᾶς χαὶ ἀσεβεῖς ἢ ἐν mo ᾧ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ; ᾿Ὦ τῆς γλυχεί
μιᾶς καὶ ἀσεβεῖς ἢ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ; Ὡ τῆς γλυκείας
ἀνταλλαγῆς, w τῆς ἀνεξιχνιάστου δημιουργίας, ὦ τῶν ἀπροσδοχ-
, 2 - ' ) \ ~ ‘ ~
rey εὐεργεσιῶν, ἵνα ἀνομία μὲν πολλῶν ἐν διχαίῳ ἑνὶ χρυβῆ,
\ \ ‘ 7 , ,
διχαιοσύνη δὲ ἑνὸς ττολλοὺς ἀνόμους διχαιώσῃ. (Comp. Rom. vy.
and Rom. xi. 33.)
7. Lerrer or tHe Cuurca or Virnne anp [Lyons.
Eus. H. E. V.1. Ὄντως ἐπιδειχνύμενοι, ote οὐκ, ἄξια τὰ
παϑήματα τοῦ νῦν χαιροῦ, πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποχαλυφ-
ϑῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς. (Rom. viii. 18.)
8. Syriac AND Οπὺ Latin Versions.
(See before, pp. 1. 2.)
9. Muratrorran Canon.
(See before, p. 7.)
10. Tue Pressyrers!
WHOSE TESTIMONY IRENAEUS REPORTS.
Irenaeus adv. Haer. IV. 27. § 1. Quemadmodum audivi a
quodam presbytero, qui audierat ab his qui apostolos viderant,
et ab his qui didicerant .. .
§ 2. Omnes enim homines egent gloria Dei, justificantur au-
tem non a semetipsis. (Rom. 111. 23.)
Ibid. Non debemus ergo, inquit ille Senior, superbi esse, ne-
que reprehendere veteres; sed ipsi timere, ne forte post agnitio-
nem Christi agentes aliquid quod non placeat Deo, remissionem
ultra non habeamus delictorum, sed excludamur a regno ejus.
Et ideo Paulum dixisse: Si enim naturalibus ramis non pepercit,
as regards its use of detached phrases, and its ‘‘whole sections constructed with
manifest regard to passages in the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and
Galatians,” see Westcott, Canon, Part. I. § 5. Cotterill’s ‘‘Peregrinus Proteus”
disparages the letter: see before, page 65, note 1.
1 The Presbyters. See p. 71, note L.
TATIAN. IRENAEUS. A'THENAGORAS. 219
ne forte nec tibi parcat, qui cum esses oleaster, msertus es im
pinguedinem olivae, et socius factus es pinguedinis ejus.?
11. Tartan.
Orat. ὁ. Graec. c. 4. p.144 D. Τοῦτον διὰ τῆς ποιήσεως αὐ-
τοῦ ἴσμεν, καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀόρατον τοῖς ποιήμασι
χαταλαμβανόμεϑα. (Rom. i. 20.)
19. IJRreNAEvS.
L. 3. ς. 10. 88. Hoc ipsum interpretatus est Paulus,! scri-
bens ad Romanos: “Paulus apostolus Jesu Christi, praedestinatus
in evangelium Dei, quod promisit per prophetas suos in Scriptu-
ris sanctis de Filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secun-
dum carnem, qui praedestinatus est Filius Dei in virtute, per Spi-
ritum sanctificationis ex resurrectione mortuorum, Jesu Christi
Domini nostri.” Et iterum ad Romanos scribens de Israel, dicit:
“Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui
est Deus super omnes benedictus in saecula.” (Rom. i. 1; ix. 5.)
L. 3. c.16. § 9. Et Paulus autem his consentiens, Romanos
alloquens, ait: ““Multo magis hi, qui abundantiam gratiae et ju-
stitiae accipiunt in vitam, regnabunt per unum Jesum Christum.”
(Rom. v. 17.)
13. ATHENAGORAS.
Legatio, p. 10. See before, p. 181.
Ibid. c.13. p.13 D. Τί δέ μοι ὁλοχαυτώσεων, ὧν μὴ δεῖται
ὃ Θεός; Καίτοι προσφέρειν δέον ἀναίμαχτον ϑυσίαν, καὶ τὴν
λογικὴν προσάγειν λατρείαν. (Rom. xii. 1.)
Ibid. c. 84. p. 81 Ο. Οἱ γὰρ ἀγορὰν στήσαντες πορνείας,
καὶ καταγωγὰς ἀϑέσμους πεποιημένοι τοῖς νέοις πάσης αἰσχρᾶς
ἡδονῆς καὶ μηδὲ τῶν ἀρσένων φειδόμενοι, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι τὰ
δεινὰ χατεργαζόμενοι, ὅσων σεμνότερα χαὶ εὐειδέστερα σώματα
mavroiwg αὐτὰ ὑβρίζοντες, ἀτιμοῦντες καὶ τὸ ποιητὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ
χαλόν. (Rom. i. 24 &c.)
2 Two sentences before this an echo of Rom. vi. 9 occurs. Comp. Routh’s
Rel. Sac. 1. 52.
1 Irenaeus. The first quotation naming Paul.
220 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
14. Treopnivus.
i¢ \ ~
Ad Autolyc. I. 14. p. 79. Ὃ γὰρ δοὺς στόμα εἰς τὸ λαλεῖν, καὶ
ΞῚ 2 \ d ‘ ~
σιλάσας οὖς εἰς τὸ ἀκούειν, καὶ ποιήσας ὀφϑαλμοὺς εἰς TO δρᾶν,
= 5, ‘ ~ \ 2
ἐξετάσει τὰ πάντα “AL χρινεῖ τὸ δίχαιον, ἀποδιδοὺς ἑχάστῳ χατὰ
Jer ~ ~ y~ \ ay. Xe \ AOE 2 -
ἀξίαν tov μισϑῶν. Τοῖς μὲν χαϑ' πὙπομονὴν διὰ ἔργων ἀγαϑῶν
~ 2 Se A Ν
ζητοῦσιν τὴν ἀφϑαρσίαν δωρήσεται ζωὴν αἰώνιον, χαρὰν, εἰρήνην,
\ γ ~ ie »” > A 3
ἀνάπαυσιν, nab πιλήϑη ἀγαϑῶν, wv οὔτε ὀφϑαλιμιὸς εἶδεν, οὔτε
ΡΣ Oe: 2) Gate Sn ae a ag , ae | ν Wane: ee:
οὖς ἤχουσεν, OVTE Ertl καρδίαν ἀνϑρώστου ἀνέβη. Τοῖς δὲ αττ΄ί-
\ ~ Se. ~ wane,
OTOLG, LOL χαταφρονηταῖς χαὶ ἀπειϑοῦσι TH ἀληϑείᾳ, σιξιϑομένοις
\ ~ 2 \ \
δὲ τῇ ἀδιχίᾳ, ἐπὰν ἐμφύρωνται μοιχείαις, καὶ “τορνείαις, καὶ
γ \ «-- \ ~ >
ἀρσενοχοιτίαις, χαὶ τιλεονεξίαις, χαὶ ταῖς ἀϑεμίτοις εἰδωλολα-
, » > Ν \ / { - \ ey. \ \
τρείαις, ἔσται ὀργὴ καὶ ϑυμός, ϑλίψις καὶ στενοχωρία" καὶ TO
τέλος τοὺς τοιούτους χκαϑέξει stig αἰώνιον. (Rom. ii. 6, &c.)
. ‘ . > ~
Ibid. IIT. 14. p. 126. Καὶ διδάσχει ἀποδιδόναι mou τὰ
,ὕ ~ Ἂν Ν ‘\ \ ἦ - \ La A / ~
σιάντα, τῷ τὴν τιμὴν THY τιμὴν, τῷ τὸν φόβον τὸν φόβον, τῷ
Ν , \ , \ \ ) - ὮΝ ? ~
τὸν φόρον τὸν φόρον, μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφελεῖν ἢ μόνον TO ayamay
, eee a
πάντας. (Rom. xiii. 7, 8.)
ν 15. ΟἸΕΜΕΝΤ or ALEXANDRIA.
Paedag. I. 8. § 70. (p. 140.) .““1δὲ οὖν," φησὶν, ἃ ITTabvdos,
“χρηστότητα χαὶ ἀποτομίαν Θεοῦ, ἐπὶ μὲν τοὺς “πτεσόντας, ἄπο-
τομίαν, ἐπὶ δέ σε, χρηστότητα, ἐὰν ἐπιμείνης τῇ χρηστότητι,"
i ~ ’ r \ , .
τουτέστι τῇ EG Χριστὸν πίστει. (Row. xi. 22.)
Strom. ITT. 11. § 15. (p. 544.) Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὃ Παῦλος ἐν τῇ
Nt See , > ~ , “Ny! > , =e
100g “Ρωμαίους ἐπιστολῇ γράφει, “Οἵτινες ἀτιεϑάνομεν τῇ ἀμαρ-
tia, πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ; ... ὅτι ὃ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνϑρω-
MOG συνεσταυρώϑη, ἵνα καταργηϑῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας," ἕως,
“μηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδιχίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ."
(Rom. vi. 2, 6, 13.)
16. Trrrovuay.
De corona, c. 6. Nec natura vos, inquit, docet? ut cum ad
Romanos, natura facere dicens nationes ea quae sunt legis, et
legem naturalem suggerit, et naturalem legalem. (Rom. ὁ. ii.)
Scorpiace, c. 13. Sicut et ad Romanos (sc. Paulus inquit):
“Non solum autem, verum etiam exultantes in pressuris, certi
TERTULLIAN. ORIGEN. 221
quod pressura tolerantiam perficit, tolerantia vero probationem,
probatio autem spem, spes vero non confundit.” (Rom. v. 3-5.)
Adv. Praxean. c. 13. Solum autem Christum potero Deum
dicere, sicut idem apostolus: Ex quibus Christus, qui est, inquit,
Deus super omnia benedictus in aevum omne.
CHAPTERS XY. AND XVI.
17. Oricen.
Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. Tom. IV. p. 687. (Migne, IV.
1290.) Caput hoc (xvi. 25-27) Marcion, a quo Scripturae evan-
gelicae atque apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de hac Epistola pe-
nitus abstulit. Et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco ubi scrip-
tum est: “Omne autem quod non est ex fide, peccatum est”
(xiv. 23), usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit. In aliis vero exem-
plaribus, id est, in his quae non sunt a Marcione temerata, hoc
ipsum caput (xvi. 25-27) diverse positum invenimus. In non-
nullis etenim codicibus post eum locum quem supra diximus (xiv.
23), hoc est: “Omne autem, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est,”
statim cohacrens habetur: “Ei autem qui potens est vos con-
firmare.” Alii vero codices in fine id, ut nunc est positum, con-
tinent.?
1 The only other passage from ancient authors that can be quoted against the
genuineness of the 15th and 16th chapters is Tertullian adv. Mare. ὁ. 5, 14, who
says, ‘Bene autem quod et in clausula (xiv. 10) tribunal Christi comminatur.”’
This is needlessly supposed to indicate that the words were at the very end of the
Epistle in Tertullian’s opinion. But on internal grounds many in recent times
have rejected those chapters, or received them only in part. Some (including
Griesbach) put the Doxology (xvi. 25-27) after xiv. 23. Others reject it also.
Baur (Paulus, Part II. ὁ. 3) finds in those two chapters the work of a disciple of
Paul who wished to soften the keen Anti-Judaism of the Apostle by something
more palatable to the Judaizers. Davidson, Int. to N. T. Vol. I. p. 134, rejects
chapter xvi. and the Doxology, but retains chapter xv. Hilgenfeld, Einl. p. 320,
retains both chapters, but rejects the Doxology (p. 326). Semler, Eichhorn, Schulz,
Ewald, and others, consider the chapters (or large portions of them) Pauline, but
out of their place in this Epistle. So also Reuss (Gesch. § 111) says, the whole
of the last chapter is a separate letter of commendation for Phoebe to take to
some place or other—Ephesus? See external testimonies to the chapters in Tisch.,
Nov. Test., and outline of recent opinions in Hilgenfeld’s Einleitung and Man-
gold’s Bleek’s Hinleitung.
222
ΧΙΝ.
FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.’
(COMPARE SECTIONS I, 11)
1. Barwnasas.
C. 4. 9. See also ¢. 6. 5. ΓΙράφειν ἐσπούδασα, περίψημα!
ὑμῶν. (1 Cor. iv. 13.)
2. Crement or Rome.!
First Epistle.
C. 20. 4. Ti; κυοφοροῖσα χατὰ τὸ ϑέλημα αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἰδίοις
χαιροῖς τὴν πανπληϑῆ ἀνϑρώποις te καὶ ϑηρσὶν χαὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς
οὖσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ζώοις ἀνατέλλει τροφήν. (Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 38.)
CO. 34. 1. Κατανοήσωμεν, ἀγαπητοὶ, πὥς ὃ δεσπότης ἔπι-
δείχνυται διηνεκῶς ἡμῖν τὴν μέλλουσαν ἀνάστασιν ἔσεσϑαι, ἧς
τὴν ἀπαρχὴν ἐποιήσατο τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐχ νεχρῶν ἀναστή-
σας. (1 Cor. xv. 20-23.)
Ο. 24.5. Ἐξῆλϑεν ὃ σπείρων χαὶ ἔβαλεν εἰς τὴν γὴν ἕκαστον
τῶν σπερμάτων ἅτινα πεσόντα εἰς τὴν γὴν ξηρὰ χαὶ γυμνὰ δια-
λύεται, x.t.A. (1 Cor. xv. 26; Mat. xiii. 3.)
C. 34.8. «“έγει yao: Ὀφϑαλμός οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐχ ἤχκου-
σεν χαὶ eri χαρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐχ ἀνέβη ὅσα ἡτοίμασε τοῖς ὕτο-
μένουσιν αὐτόν. (1 Cor. ii. 9; comp. Is. Ixiv. 4.)?
C.37. 4. Ot μεγάλοι δίχα τῶν μιχρῶν ov δύνανται εἶναι, οὔτε
οἱ μιχροὶ δίχα τῶν μεγάλων: σύγχρασίς τις ἐστὶν ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ
ἐν τούτοις χρῆσις. “άβωμεν τὸ σῶμα ἡμῶν. Ἢ χεφαλὴ δίχα
τῶν ποδῶν οὐδέν ἐστιν, οὕτως οὐδὲ οἱ πόδες δίχα τῆς κεφαλῆς"
1 Corinthians. The genuineness of this Epistle is not disputed.
1 Barnabas. περίψημα is a word frequently used by the early fathers. Its
strong figure seems to have laid hold of them.
1 Clement. Add as echoes or suggestions—some of many—in the Preface,
χλητοῖς ἡγιασμένοις (1 Cor. i. 1); 6. 5. 5, βραβεῖον, (1 Cor. ix. 24; Phil. iii. 14);
c. 19. 1, 2 (1 Cor. ix. 24, and Heb. xii. 1).
2 See Lightfoot’s note in loc., and comp. below on Hegesippus.
CLEMENT OF ROME. 223
Ν We! , , ~ , ς - 2 - \ ΒΡ ,
τὰ δὲ ἐλάχιστα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν ἀναγχαῖα χαὶ εὐχρηστά
- 2 - - -
ἐστιν ὅλῳ τῷ σώματι. ᾿Αλλὰ πάντα συμπνεῖ, καὶ ὑποταγῇ μιᾷ
χρῆται εἰς τὸ σώζεσϑαι ὅλον τὸ σῶμα. (1 Cor. xii. 12, &e.)
Ο. 41. 1. ᾿ΑἸναλάβετε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τοῦ μαχαρίου Παύλου
~ > ri ~ ~ ~ ~ ? /
tov ἀποστόλου. Ti πιρῶτον ὑμῖν ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔγραψεν;
> 2 γ - - ~
Ex ἀληϑείας πινευματιχῶς ἐτιέστειλεν ὑμῖν, περὶ ξαυτοῦ τε καὶ
~ 2 \ ~
Κηφᾷ te χαὶ ““πόλλω, διὰ τὸ καὶ τότε πιροσχλίσεις ὑμᾶς σιε-
ποιῆσϑαι. (1 Cor. iii. 13, &c.)
C. 48. 6. Kai ζητεῖν τὸ χοινωφελὲς πᾶσιν, καὶ μὴ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ.
(1 Cor. x. 24.)
5) = io ~ =
C. 49.1. Ὃ ἔχων ἀγάπην ἐν Χριστῷ ποιησάτω τὰ tov Xo-
στοῦ σπιαραγγέλματα. Τὸν δεσμὸν τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Θεοῦ τίς δύν-
\ ~ ~ - ) - 2
ava ἐξηγήσασϑαι; Τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς καλλονὴς αὐτοῦ tig ἀρχετὸς
5: - most οἱ > aA 3) , c 2 , 2 , : , >
ἐξειπεῖν; To ὕψος, εἰς ὃ ἀνάγει ἢ ἀγάπη ἀνεχδιήγητόν ἐστιν.
2 , ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~
Ayann χολλᾷ ἡμᾶς τῷ Θεῷ" ayann καλύπτει πλῆϑος ἁμαρτιῶν"
> 2 -
ἀγάπη σπιάντα ἀνέχεται, πάντα μαχροϑυμεῖ" οὐδὲν βάναυσον ἐν
B] , 2 > 2
ἀγάπῃ, οὐδὲν ὑπερήφανον" ayann σχίσμα οὐχ ἔχει, ἀγάπη οὐ
2 - - 2
στασιάζει, ἀγάπη πιάντα σιοιεῖ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ" ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐτελειώ-
\ ~ ~ ) Io
ϑῆσαν πάντες οἱ ἐχλεχτοὶ tov Θεοῦ" δίχα ἀγάπης οὐδὲν εὐάρε-
’ὔ J ~ ~ a) > , , ς ~ ς ’
στόν ἐστιν τῷ Θεῷ. Εν ἀγάπῃ τιροσελάβετο ἡμᾶς ὃ δεσπότης "
\ > a ΙΕ - \ T= ~ »
διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην, ἣν ἔσχεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, TO aia αὐτοῦ ἔδωχεν ὑτιὲρ
ς ~ 3 χ'. ~ r \ [4 "ἢ c ~ γ C , . ~ \ \
ἡμῶν ΤΠησοῖς Χριστὸς 0 Κύριος ἡμῶν, ἐν ϑελήματι Θεοῦ, χαὶ τὴν
σάρχα ὑπὲρ τῆς σαρχὸς ἡμῶν, καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν
/$ (es ) / χ
«ς ~ ~ ) - \ >
ἡμῶν. Ὁρᾶτε ἀγαττητοὶ, τεῶς μέγα καὶ ϑαυμαστόν ἐστιν ἢ ayarn,
᾿ - I = > eee
χαὶ τῆς τελειότητος αὐτῆς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐξήγησις. (1 Cor. xiii.)
Second Epistle}
C. 9. 3. Ai οὖν ἡμᾶς ὡς ναὸν Θεοῦ φυλάσσειν τὴν σάρχα.
(1 Cor. vi. 19.)
C. 11. 7. Ἐὰν οὖν ποιήσωμεν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐναντίον τοῦ
Θεοῦ, εἰσήξομεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ καὶ ληψόμεϑα τὰς ἐπαγ-
, a x 2 PL δος Ὧν 9 \ DLS Si ON
γελίας, ἃς οὖς οὐχ HxovoEY οὐδὲ ὀφϑαλμὸς εἰδεν, οὐδὲ EL χαρ-
diay ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη. (1 Cor. ii. 9.)
C. 14.5. Otte ἐξειτιεῖν τις δύναται οὔτε λαλῆσαι ἃ ἐτοίμα-
σεν ὃ Κύριος τοῖς ἐχλεχτοῖς αὐτοῦ. (1 Cor. ii. 9.)
1 Compare as echoes: C. 1. 8, comp. 1 Cor. i. 29 (see on Rom. iv. 17).
C. 5. 1. (ἐξελθεῖν ex τοῦ χόσμου τούτου) comp. 1 Cor. v.10. C. 5. 6. (Christians
strangers in the world) 1 Cor. vii. 29-31.
224 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
3. Hermas.
Sim. V. 7. 2. Ἐὰν μιάνης τὴν σάρχα σου, μιανεῖς καὶ τὸ
πνεῦμια τὸ ἅγιον" ἐὰν δὲ μιάνῃης τὸ πνεῦμα, οὐ ζήσῃ. (1 Cor.
αἰ 17.)
4. Τανατιῦβ.}
Ad Ephes. c. 2.2. Πρέπον οὖν ἐστὶν χατὰ ττάντα τρόπον
δοξάζειν Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν δοξάσ ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἐν μιᾷ ὕπο-
ξαζ ριστὸν τὸν δοξάσαντα ὑμᾶς, ἵνα ἐν μιᾷ ὗὕπτο
ταγῇ χατηρτισμένοι, ὑποτασσόμενοι τῷ ἐπισχόπῳ, καὶ τῷ πρεσ-
, Ν , ς .
βυτερίῳ, χατὰ πάντα ἣτε ἡγιασμένοι. (1 Cor. i. 10.)
Ad Ephes. ¢..8.2. Ot σαρχιχοὶ τὰ πνευματιχὰ πράσσειν οὐ
δύνανται, οὐδὲ οἱ πνευματιχοὶ τὰ σαρχιχά. (1 Cor. ii. 14.)
Ad Ephes. 6. 10. 1. Ih) πλανᾶσϑε, ἀδελφοί μου" οἱ οἶχο-
φϑόροι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10.)
Ad Ephes. 6. 18.1. Περίψημα τὸ ἐμὸν πινεῦμια τοῦ σταυροῦ,
ὃ ἐστιν σχάνδαλον τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν, ἡμῖν δὲ σωτηρία, χαὶ ζωὴ
αἰώνιος. Ποῦ σοφός; ποῦ συζητητής; ποῦ καύχησις τῶν λεγο--
μένων συνετῶν; (1 Cor. i. 18-24.)
Ad Magnes. c. 10. 2. Ὑπέρϑεσϑε οὖν τὴν χαχὴν ζύμην, τὴν
- ‘ > cf . / fe ’ ,ὔ tes
mahowsetoay καὶ évogioanoay, nol μεταβάλεσϑε εἰς νέαν ζύμην,
0 ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. (1 Cor. v. 7, 8.)
, ~
Ad Roman. ὁ. 5.1. “And Συρίας μέχρι Ῥώμης ϑηριομαχῶ,
διὰ γῆς χαὶ ϑαλάσσης, νυχτὸς χαὶ ἡμέρας, δεδεμένος δέχα λεο--
U Ν Ν
σιάρδοις, ὃ ἐστι στρατιωτιχὸν τάγμα" OC χαὶ εὐεργετούμενοι χεί--
, ) \ a) , ie ~ τ ,
ρους γίνονται. Ἔν δὲ τοῖς ἀδιχήμασιν αὐτῶν μᾶλλον μαϑητεύο-
μαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο δεδιχκαίωμαι. (1 Cor. iv. 2-4; comp.
2Corcxt 99. 0)
Ad Roman. ¢.9.2. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄξιός εἰμι, ὧν ἔσχατος αὐτῶν
χαὶ ἔχτρωμα. “AMM ἡλέημαί εἰς εἶναι, ἐὰν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω. (1 Cor.
xv. 8-105. 1 Cor. vii. 25: comp. 1 Tim:i: 13, 16.)
° \ 2
Ad Philadelph. 7.1. Ei γὰρ καὶ κατὰ σάρχα μέ τινὲς ηϑελ-
σαν πλανῆσαι, αλλὰ τὸ τινεῦμα οὐ πλανᾶται, ad Θεοῦ Ov.
1 Compare as echoes: Ad Eph. 2. 2, χατηρτισμένοι, χ-τ.λ. comp. 1 Cor. i. 10.
Ad Eph. 4. 2, μέλη (1 Cor. vi. 15). Ibid. 8.1, περίψημα (1 Cor. iv. 13), comp.
18. 1. Ibid. 13. 1, “ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (1 Cor. xi. 20), comp. 5. 3. Ad) rally wema
ἀδόχιμος (1 Cor. ix. 27). Ad Rom. 4. 3, ἐλεύϑερος (1 Cor. ix. 1; vii. 22). Ibid.
5. 1, ϑηριομαχῶ (1 Cor. xv. 32).
POLYCARP. MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP. JUSTIN MARTYR. 225
ΕΥ̓ X , ~ \ \
Oidey γὰρ, πόϑεν ἔρχεται, χαὶ ποῖ ὑπάγει καὶ τὰ χρυτττὰ ἐλέγχει.
(1 Cor. xiv. 25.)
~ > > A δ
Ad Smyrn. ¢. 11.1. Ἡ προσευχὴ ὑμῶν ἀτιῆλϑεν ἐπὶ τὴν ἐχ-
2 ~
κλησίαν τὴν ἐν “ΑἸντιοχείᾳ τῆς Συρίας" ὅϑεν δεδεμένος Jeomeen-
, ~ 2 - 2 ὌΝ 2. -
ἐστάτοις δεσμοῖς, πάντας ἀσπάζομαι, οὐχ ὧν ἄξιος ἐχεῖϑεν
5. » > τ Meter ΟΣ So Cael ye ΟΝ Ἐπ. > ?
εἶναι, ἔσχατος αὐτῶν wy χατὰ ϑέληια δὲ χατηξιώϑην, οὐχ ex
γη.42 - a »” ~
συνειδότος, adh ἐχ χάριτος Θεοῦ, ἣν εὔχομαι τελείαν μοι δοϑὴῆ-
a > ~ SUG ἐπ ᾿ς 2 ,
vol, ἵνα ὃν τῇ προσευχῇ ὑμῶν Θεοῦ ἐπιτύχω. (1 Cor. xv. 8-10;
comp. 1 Tim. i. 13, 16.)
5. Porycarp.!
owt Ξε ας Au ΣΝ 7 \ > >
Philipp. ¢. Ὁ. ὃ. Kai οὔτε πόρνοι, ove μαλαχοὶ, οὔτε agoer-
οχοῖται βασιλείαν Θεοῦ χληρονομήσουσιν, οὔτε οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰ
2 .
aroma. (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10.)
Ibid. ¢. 11.2. Si quis non abstinuerit se ab avaritia, ab idol-
olatria coinquinabitur, et tanquam inter gentes judicabitur qui
ignorant judicium domini.2 (1 Cor. v. 11; comp. Ephes. v. 5;
Col. iii. 5.)
Ibid. “Aut nescimus, quia sancti mundum judicabunt?” Sicut
Paulus docet. (1 Cor. vi. 2.)
6. Martyrpom or Potycarp.
é Aa: G. ΟΝ 3, nes ‘ ,? é \ ΤΟΣ
C. 2.3. Πρὸ ὀφϑαλμῶν γὰρ εἶχον φυγεῖν τὸ αἰώνιον χαὶ μηδέ-
, ~ \ ~ ~ a ~ 2
MOLE σβεννύμενον tO, “AL τοῖς τῆς χαρδίας οφϑαλμοῖς ἀνέβλεπ-
\ ~ 2 \ a ἊΣ
ον τὰ τηρούμενα τοῖς ὑπομείνασιν ἀγαϑὰ, ἃ οὔτε οὖς ἤκουσεν,
\ z \ 2
οὔτε ὀφϑαλμὸς εἶδεν, οὔτε ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνϑρώπου avéBy.' (1 Cor.
ii. 9.)
7. Justin Marryr.!
Apol. I. 19. p. 65 E. Tov αὐτὸν τρόπον λογίσασϑε ore δια-
p
ν ~ >
λυϑέντα zai δίκην στιερμάτων εἰς γῆν ἀναλυϑέντα τὰ ἀνϑρώπεια
1 Polyearp. Compare as Echoes: Phil. 3.1, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 28; 11. 4,
comp. 1 Cor. xii. 26. -
2 This and the following passage are only found in the Latin translation.
1 Martyrd. of Polye. This prophecy is used of the future not of the spir-
itual state in this passage; which is not the scripture sense.
1 Justin. Compare as Echoes: Apol. I. 19. p.65 E, σώματα ... ἀφϑαρσίαν
15
226 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
σώματα χατὰ χαιρὸν προστάξει Θεοῦ ἀναστῆναι, zal ἀφϑαρσίαν
ἐνδύσασϑαι οὐχ ἀδύνατον. (1 Cor. xy. 53.)
Apol. I. 60. p. 93 D. “Ὡς συνεῖναι ov σοφίᾳ ἀνϑρωπείᾳ ταῦτα
γεγονέναι, ἀλλὰ δυνάμει. Θεοῦ λέγεσϑαι. (1 Cor. ii. 4.)
Dial. c. 14. p. 281 17. Τοῦτο γάρ ἔστι τὸ σύμβολον τῶν ἀζύ-
μων, ἵνα μὴ τὰ παλαιὰ τῆς καχῆς ζύμης ἔργα πράτντητε. (1 Cor.
Vv. δὴ)
Dial. ¢. 39. p.258 A. Οἱὲ zai λαιιβάνουσι δόματα ἕχαστος
ὡς ἄξιοί εἰσι, φωτιζόμενοι διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ τούτου.
‘O μιὲν γὰρ λαμβάνει συνέσεως τινεῦ Ὁ δὲ βουλῆς, ὃ δὲ ἰσχύο
μὲν γὰρ λαμβάνει συνέσεως τινεῦμια, ὃ δὲ βουλῆς, ὃ δὲ ἰσχύος,
ς Non Gigs , ς \ . , ς \ lo
0 δὲ ἰάσεως, ὁ δὲ προγνώσεως, ὃ δὲ διδασχαλίας, ὁ δὲ φόβου
Θεοῦ. See also Dial. c. 87. p. 314 BD for further comment on
Isaiah xi. 2. [comp. also Cohort. ad Gentiles c. 32.] (1 Cor.
xii. 7-10.)
Dial. c. 41. p. 260 4. Τύπος ἦν τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας,
a > ae, x ~ 7 ¢ Ga OE, C ς \ ~ « "
ὧν εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ πάϑους, οὗ ἔπαϑεν ὑτιὲρ τῶν χαϑαιρομιέ-
γων τὰς ψυχὰς ἀτιὸ πάσης πονηρίας ἀνϑρώπων, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς
ὃ Κύριος ἡμῶν παρέδωχε ποιεῖν. Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 24; Luke
ΧΧΙ 19.
Dial. ¢. 111. p. 338 C. Ἦν γὰρ τὸ πάσχα ὃ Χριστὸς, ὃ τυ-
ϑεὶς ὕστερον. (1 Cor. v. 7.)
8. Letrrer to Diognetus.
C.5.15. “Ποιδοροῦνται καὶ εὐλογοῦσιν. (1 Cor. iv. 12.)
C. 12, 5. ἫΝ δύναμιν ἐνιδὼν ὃ ἀπόστολος τὴν τε ἄνευ ἀλη-
Jelag προστάγματος εἰς ζωὴν ἀσχουμένην γνῶσιν μεμφόμενος,
λέγει. ἣ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ, 7 δὲ ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ. (1 Cor.
viii. 1.)
9. Tue Pressyters
WHOSE TESTIMONY IRENAEUS REPORTS.
Trenaeus adv. Haer. IV. 27.3. Et hoc autem Apostolum in
Epistola quae est ad Corinthios, manifestissime ostendisse, di-
ἐνδύσασϑαι, so also Apol. I. 52. p. 86 B, ἐνδύσει ἀφθαρσίαν [and Cohort. ad Gentiles
ὁ. 35 Piety not in word but in deed 1 Cor. iv. 20] [and De Resur. e. 10 (1 Cor.
xv. 58)]; Dial. 6. 35 and ο. 51 (prediction of heresies, comp. 1 Cor. xi. 19, and
see before, p. 125, note 1); Dial. c. 39. p. 258 A (the gifts of the spirit); Dial
ὁ. 41. p. 261 A (many members and one body) 1 Cor. xii. 12.
HEGESIPPUS. ΤΑΤΊΑΝ. 2771
centem: Nolo eninr vos ignorare, fratres, quoniam patres nostri
omnes sub nube fuerunt, et omnes in Mose baptizati sunt in nube
et in mari, &c. 1 Cor. x. 1-11. (See also ὃ 2 for 1 Cor. x. 11.)
10. Hecesirrus.
Extract from Stephanus Gobarus in Photius, Bibl. [see Routh’s
Rel. Sac. Vol. I. p. 219]. After quoting τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα τοῖς διχ-
αίοις ἀγαθὰ οὔτε ὀφϑαλμὸς εἶδεν οὔτε οὖς ἤχουσεν οὔτε ἐπὶ χαρ-
diay ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη Stephanus Gobarus proceeds Hyiourmog μέν
TOL... ματὴν μὲν εἰρῆσϑαι ταῦτα λέγει καὶ xataWwetdeoIa τοὺς
ταῖτα φαμένους τῶν τε ϑείων γραφῶν χαὶ τοῦ Κυρίου λέγοντος
ἸΠαχάριοι οἱ ὀφϑαλμοὶ ὑμῶν «0.24. (1 Cor. ii. 9; comp. Mat.
xiii. 16.) See Lightfoot, Galatians, 2°¢ Ed., p. 320 and note. He-
gesippus is reasoning against a misuse of the quotation; is not
disputing its authority, as Baur would have it. See Routh, Rel.
Sac., Vol. I. p. 281.
11. Syriac anp Oup Latin Versions anp Muratortan Canon.
See before, pp. 1, 2, 6, 7.
12. Tartan.!
Oratio ad Graecos, c.15. p. 25 B. To δὲ τοιοῦτον τῆς συσ-
, = > \ C \ ¥i ~ > 7 - ,ὔ \
τάσεως εἰδὸς EL μὲν ὡς ναὸς ἢ, χατοιχεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ βούλεται Θεὸς
διὰ τοῦ πρεσβεύοντος πνεύματος. (1 Cor. iii. 16.)
yp 3
Clem. Alea. Strom. IIT. 12. p. 547. Τατιανὸν οἶμαι τὸν Σύρον
τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμᾶν δογματίζειν. Loage γοῦν χατὰ λέξιν ἐν τῷ
- ‘ ~ ~ ᾽
περὶ TOL χατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα χαταρτισμοῦ “Συμφωνία μὲν οὖν ko-
͵ ‘ s
Ihe - , \ { ~ / Ἀν ΒΩ bb) ,
μόζει προσευχῇ, χοινωνία δὲ PIooag λύει τὴν ἔντευξιν." Πάνυ
- - \ ~ »”
γοῦν δυσωτιητιχῶς διὰ τῆς συγχωρήσεως εἴργει, στάλιν γὰρ “ἐπι
? ~ d
ταὐτὸ" συγχωρήσας “γενέσϑαι, διὰ τὸν σατανᾶν χαὶ τὴν ἀχρασ-
- ν )
lav,” τὸν σπιεισϑησόμενον “δυσὶ χυρίοις μέλλειν δουλεύειν" ἀγτε-
- - 2 )
φήνατο, διὰ μὲν συμφωνίας Θεῷ, διὰ δὲ τῆς ἀσυμφωνίας ἀχρασ-
ν y ΄ ΄ - . >
ἰᾳ χαὶ πορνείᾳ χαὶ διαβόλῳ." Taira δέ φησι τὸν ἀπόστολον
1 There is probably an echo of 1 Cor. ii. 14 in Tatian’s Oratio ad Graecos
e.15 where he distinguishes Wvyzot from πνεύματι Θεοῦ φρουρούμενοι.
15 *
228 FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
- 2 ~ ~
ἐξηγούμενος, σοφίζεται δὲ τὴν ἀλήϑειαν dC ἀληϑοῦς ψεῦδος χα-
τασχευάζων. (1 Cor. vii. 5.)
Tren. adv. haeres. ITT. 23. 8. Tatianus .. . tentans et sub-
inde uti hujusmodi a Paulo assidue dictis: Quoniam “in Adam
omnes morimur;” ignorans autem, quoniam “ubi abundavit pec-
catum, superabundavit gratia.” (1 Cor. xv. 22; Rom. xv. 20.)?
13. ATHENAGORAS.
> Ie \ > )
De resurrect. mort. ο. 18. Ov γὰρ σώζεται τὸ nat’ ἀξίαν ἐν
- \ \ \ ‘ 2 \ ~ >
τῷ παρόντι βίῳ: διὰ τὸ πολλοὺς μὲν ἀϑέους χαὶ πᾶσαν ἀνομίαν
χαὶ χαχίαν ἐπιτηδεύοντας μέχρι τελευτῆς διατελεῖν χαχῶν ἀπειρ-
> ~ 2 \
atovs, “al τοὐναντίον τοὺς χατὰ πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν ἐξητασμένον TOY
= i > —~
ἑαυτῶν βίον ἐπιιδει ξαμένους ἐν ὀδύναις Cry, ἐν ἐπιηρείαις, ἐν συχ-
οφαντίαις, αἰχίαις τε χαὶ παντοίαις χαχοπιαϑείαις. ... Εὔδηλον
\ , - Ν \ 2 x
σιαντὶ τὸ λειτιόμενον, ὅτι δεῖ χατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον τὸ φϑαρτὸν
~ Ξ \ Ὗ Ν τ ἈΝ Cc > ra Ul cr -- { ,
τοῦτο χαὶ σχεδαστὸν ἐνδύσασϑαι ἀφϑαρσίαν, ἵνα, ζωοτιοιηϑέντων
2 ~ « ~
ἐξ ἀναστάσεως τῶν νεχρωϑέντων χαὶ πάλιν ἑἐνωϑέντων τῶν χε-
aN
χωρισμένων ἣ χαὶ σπιάντη διαλελυμένων, ἕκαστος κομίσηται δικαίως
a ἧς - , 2 a” - ” > \ yy ,
a διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἕξτεραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαϑὰ, εἴτε xana. (1 Cor. xv.
54; 2 Cor. v. 10.)
. Ὗ A \ , ~ ~ > ,
Ibid. ὁ. 19. Et μὲν γὰρ μηδεμία μηδαμοῦ τῶν avFowzcorg
, U , > \ dl ~ ~ 2
χιετιραγμένων γίνοιτο χρίσις, οὐδὲν ἕξουσι πλεῖον τῶν ἀλόγων
ΒΩ Ξ ~ \ > , Se 3 fh [Ξ νΝ
ανϑρωτίοι" μᾶλλον δὲ χκαἀχείνων σπιράξουσιν ἀϑλιώτερον, οἱ τὰ
, ~ \ 2
πάϑη δουλαγωγοῦντες χαὶ φροντίζοντες εὐσεβείας χαὶ δικαιοσύνης
WwW ~ a ? ~ « ἊΝ ν , a” > \ Nese ,
ἢ τῆς ἄλλης ἀρετῆς, ὃ δὲ χτηνώδης βίος ἄριστος, ἀρετὴ δὲ ἀνόη-
I YN P) \ , \ \ Val ~ C ,
τος, δίχης δὲ ἀπειλὴ γέλως πλατὺς, τὸ δὲ πᾶσαν ϑεραπσεύειν
« Ἀ > x \
ἡδονὴν ἀγαϑὸν τὸ μέγιστον, δόγμα δὲ χοινὸν τούτων ἁτιάντων
, rc ~ >
nal νόμος εἷς τὸ τοῖς ἀχολάστοις χαὶ λάγνοις φίλον. Φάγω-
ΑΜ as) , = oy \ > ΟΣ
μὲν καὶ πιωμεν" αὔριον γὰρ αττοϑνησχομιεν. (1 Cor. xv. 30 &e.
Comp. Isa. xxii. 13.)
. 3% o? c \ ~
Legatio, c.12. Et οἱ μὲν τὸν βίον τοῦτον νομίζοντες, Ma-
\ ” 2 ᾿
γωμεν χαὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀτιοϑνήσχομεν, χαὶ TOY ϑάνατον
ο ‘ , ,ὔ c \ v
βαϑὺν ὕπνον nei λήϑην τιϑέμενοι (ὕπινω χαὶ ϑανάτω διδυμάονε)
, ~ oe
χειστεύονται ϑεοσεβεῖν. (1 Cor. xv. 32. Comp. Isa. xxii. 13.)
2 See Otto’s note on this passage. Otto’s Tatian, p. 168.
THEOPHILUS. IRENAEUS. CLEMENT. TERTULLIAN. 229
14. TuHeornttus.
ς FA AeeEnw ΠΣ ead
Ad Autolyc. I. 2. p. 70. Δεῖξον οὖν χαὶ σὺ σεαυτὸν, εἰ οὐχ εἰ
\ > > a ΄ > ) ΟΣ , 5 > Bi ct εξ >
μοιχὸς, EL οὐχ, Eb TLOQVOG, EL οὐχ EL χλέστης, EL οὐχ EL ἀρτταξ, EL
3 & 7 2 3 ) 3 x
οὐχ EL ἀποστερητὴς, εἰ οὐχ εἶ ἀρσενοχοίτης, EL οὐχ εἰ ὑβριστὴς,
> 2 a , 3) > > , a) > Ω \ a) 2 ?
εἰ οὐχ εἶ λοίδορος, εἰ οὐχ ὀργίλος, εἰ οὐ φϑονερὸς, εἰ οὐχ aha-
Se N γ 2 ς , ) 4 ) ,ὔ
λαζὼν, εἰ οὐχ ὑπερόπτης, εἰ οὐ τιλήχτης, δἰ οὐ φιλάργυρος, εἰ
γ - 5} > ~ r ~ \ ~
οὐ γονεῦσιν ἀτιειϑὴς, εἰ οὐ τὰ τέχνα σου πωλεῖς. Τοῖς γὰρ ταῦτα
/ c 2 - ~
πράσσουσιν ὃ Θεὸς οὐχ ἐμφανίζεται, ἐὰν μὴ τιρῶτον ἑαυτοὺς χαϑ-
, > ‘ \ ~ Α . C
αρίσωσιν wo τιαντὸς μολυσμοῦ. (1 Cor. Vi. 9.)
. € " mot NN Die AVG ~ \ ~
Ibid. 1. 13. p. τ. Τί δὲ χαὶ οὐχὶ ἣ τῶν σπερμάτων χαὶ χαρπῶν
, ee , \ ~ υ Ν - ~ 2 ‘ ,
γινομένη ἐξανάστασις, χαὶ τοῦτο εἰς τὴν χρῆσιν τῶν ανϑρώπων;
a] \ , > ~ , , dN ~ ~ , γ X
Εἰ γὰρ τύχοι εἰσιεῖν, χόχκος σίτου ἢ τῶν λοιτεῶν σπερμάτων, ELEY
~ > - - 2 , \ ay
βληϑῇ εἰς τὴν γῆν, πρῶτον ἀτιοϑνήσχει χαὶ λύεται, εἶτα ἐγείρε-
, ,ὔ «
ται, καὶ γίνεται στάχυς. (1 Cor. xv. 36, 37.)
15. Irenaeus.
B. TIT. 11.9. In ea enim epistola quae est ad Corinthios,
de propheticis charismatibus diligenter loquutus est, et scit viros
et mulieres in ecclesia prophetantes. (1 Cor. xi. 4, 5.)
16. Crement or ALEXANDRIA.
Paedag. I. 6. p. 111. Σαφέστατα γοῦν ὃ waxaguog Παῦλος
ἀτιήλλαξεν ἡμᾶς τῆς ζητήσεως ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ τιρὸς Koguydtovg
ἀπτιήλλαξεν ἡμᾶς τῆς ζητήσεως ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ πρὸς Κορινθίους
ἐπιστολὴ WOE πως γράφων᾽ ‘AdEehq@ol, μὴ παιδία γίνεσϑ'ε
ταῖς φρεσὶν, ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ νηπιάζετε, ταῖς δὲ φρεσὶν
téhecoe γίνεσϑε.: (1 ὍοΥ. xiv. 20.)
11. ἸΤΈΚΤΟΙΠΠΙΑΝ.
De praescript. ὁ. 33. Paulus in prima ad Corinthios notat
negatores et dubitatores resurrectionis.
1 Clement goes on to cite 1 Cor. xiii. 11, and recurs to it in ὁ. 34. His
quotations from 1 Cor. are numerous.
230
XV.
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
(COMPARE SECTIONS 1.111. XI. XII)
1. Cement oF Ronme.!
First Epistle.
C.5.5. See before, p. 209. (2 Cor. xii. 20.)
Second Epistle.?
2. Ienatius.!
3. Potycarr.
Philipp. c. 2. 2. ὋὉ δὲ ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεχρῶν nai huas
ἐγερεῖ, ἐὰν ποιῶμεν αὐτοῦ τὸ ϑέλημα. (2 Cor. iv. 14.)
Ibid. c. 4. 1. “Οπλισώμεϑα τοῖς ὅπλοις τῆς διχαιοσύνης.
(Cor τυ 1)
Ibid. c. 6.1. See before, under Romans, (2 Cor. viii. 21 and
Rom. xii. 17.)
4. Lerrer to Dioenetus.
Ο. ὅ. 8. Ἐν σαρκὶ τυγχάνουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ nave σάρχα ζῶσιν. Ἐπὶ
γῆς διατρίβουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ στολιτεύονται" πιείϑονται τοῖς
ὡρισμένοις νόμοις, χαὶ τοῖς ἰδίοις βίοις νικῶσι τοὺς νόμους" ἀγατε-
ὥσι τιάντας, “aL LUO πτάντων διώχονται" ἀγνοοῦνται, χαὶ χατα-
χρίνονται" ϑανατοῦνται, χαὶ ζωοπιοιοῦνται" σπιτωχεύουσι, χαὶ σελουτ--
ἰζουσι πολλούς" πάντων ὑστεροῦνται, χαὶ ἐν πᾶσι περισσεύου-
σιν" ἀτιμοῦνται, χαὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀτιμίαις δοξάζονται" βλασφημοῦνται,
zat διχαιοῦνται" λοιδοροῦνται, χαὶ εὐλογοῦσιν" ὑβρίζονται, χαὶ
1 Compare as Echoes c. 80, 6, self praise, (2 Cor. x. 17, 18; Rom. ii. 29);
ὁ. 36, 2, ἐνοπτριζόμεϑα (2 Cor. iii. 18).
2 Compare as Echoes ὁ. 1, 2 (2 Cor. ix. 6); ¢. 2, 4 (2 Cor. vi. 18).
' Ignatius. Echo—Trall. 3. 3 φείδομαι (2 Cor. xii. 6).
ATHENAGORAS. THEOPHYLUS. IRENAEUS. THE PRESBYTERS. 231
~ d ~ be Le
τιμῶσιν" ἀγαϑοτιοιοῦντες, ὡς χαχοὶ χολάζονται" χολαζόμενοι χαίρ-
ς ς ‘ : .
ουσιν, ὡς ζωοτσιοιούμενοι. (2 Cor. x. ὃ; vi. 8-10.)
5. ATHENAGORAS.
De resurrect. mort. ¢. 18. (See before, under 1 Corinthians.
6. THeorutius. !
Ad Autolyc. I. 2. p. 70. ‘Eavrote χαϑαρίσωσιν and τταντὸς
μολυσμοῦ. (2 Cor. vil. 1.)
Ibid. I. 7. p. 74. Ὅταν ἀπόϑηῃ τὸ ϑνητὸν, χαὶ ἐνδύσῃ τὴν
ἀφϑαρσίαν, τότε own κατὰ ἀξίαν τὸν Θεόν. (2 Cor. ν. 4.)
Ibid. IIT. 4. p. 119. Φρόνιμος γὰρ ὧν ἡδέως μωρῶν ἀνέχῃ.
(2 Cor. xi. 19.)
7. Syriac anp (δ Larin Versrons anp Murarortan Canon.
See before, pp. 1, 2, 6, 7.
8. IRENAEUS.
B. 11.1.1. Quod autem dicunt, aperte Paulum in secunda
ad Corinthios dixisse: “In quibus Deus saeculi hujus excaecavit
mentes infidelium;” et alterum quidem Deum esse saeculi hujus
dicunt, alterum vero qui sit super omnem principatum, et initium,
et potestatem: non sumus nos in causa, si hi, qui quae super
Deum sunt mysteria scire se dicunt, ne quidem legere Paulum
sciunt. (2 Cor. iv. 4.)
B. IV. 28. 3. Nam et apostolus ait in epistola secunda ad
Corinthios: “Quoniam Christi suavis odor sumus Deo, et in his
qui salvi fiunt, et in his qui pereunt: quibusdam quidem odor
mortis in mortem, quibusdam autem odor vitae in vitam.” (2 Cor.
iy £5; 10:
9. Tue Prespyters
WHOSE TESTIMONY IRENAEUS REPORTS.
Tren. V.5.1. Mo nai λέγουσιν οἱ τιρεσβύτεροι, τῶν ἀττο-
1 Compare as Echo: IL. 1, ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ (2 Cor. xi. 6).
232 SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
στόλων μαϑηταὶ, τοὺς μετατεϑέντας ἐχεῖσε μετατεϑῆναι" δικαίοις
\ 5 \ ic.
γὰρ ανϑρώποις LOL πνευματοφόροις ἡτοιμάσϑη ὃ παράδεισος, ἕν ᾧ
- 3) rc c
καὶ Παῖλος ἀπόστολος εἰσχομισϑεὶς ἤχουσεν ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα, ὡς
\ ς ~ ~ ,ὔ > ~
πρὸς ἡμᾶς EV τῷ παρόντι, χαχεὶ μένειν τοὺς μετατεϑέντας ἕως
, , \ 2 , 1 ee
συντελείας σιροοιμιαζομένους τὴν ἀφϑαρσίαν. (2 Cor. xii. 4.)
10. Crement or ALexanpria.!
Strom. IV. 16. p. 607. Ταῦτα wév τιερὶ τῆς γνώσεως ὃ ἀπό-
στολος. Τὴν δὲ χοινὴν διδασχαλίαν τῆς τιίστεως “OounY γνώσ-
yy ~ \ es
ews” εἴρηχεν ἕν τῇ δευτέρᾳ πρὸς Κορινϑίους. (2 Cor. ii. 14.)
2 - , c , \ ? ~ ~
SE 42χρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας, TO αὐτὸ χάλυμμα τοῖς πολλοῖς
᾽ Ν - , ~ ~ , 2
El τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαϑήκης wéver,” μὲ ἀνακαλυσιτό-
x i x A , 2 iz: wee
μένον χατὰ τὴν πιρὸς τὸν Κύριον ἐπιστροφήν. (2 Cor. iii. 14.)
11. Terruttian.
De pudicit. c. 13. Revera enim suspicantur apostolum Pau-
lum in secunda ad Corinthios eidem fornicatori veniam dedisse
quem in prima dedendum Satanae in interitum carnis pronun-
tiarit,! impium patris de matrimonio haeredem, quasi vel ipsum
postea stilum verterit scribens: “Si quis autem contristavit, non
me contristavit; sed ex parte, ne vos onerem omnes. Satis est
talis increpatio quae a multis fit. Uti e contrario malitis vos
donare et advocare, ne forte abundantiore tristitia devoretur ejus-
modi. Propter quod oro yos, constituatis in eum dilectionem.
In hoc enim et scripsi, uti cognoscam probationem vestram, quod
in omnibus obauditis mihi. Si cui autem donaveritis, et ego.
Nam et ego si quid donavi, donavi in persona Christi, ne frau-
demur a Satana: quoniam non ignoramus injectiones ejus.” (2 Cor.
ii. 6-11.)
1 In the immediately preceding sentence Clement quotes 2 Cor. i. 12 verba-
tim “ἡ yao καύχησις x.T-A.”” reading (as Lachmann did) ἁγιότητι for ἁπλότητι of
the common text. It is unnecessary to multiply quotations. See four quotations
in c.131 alone. That in the text is given as naming an Epistle by its number.
1 Tertullian. 1 Cor. v. 5.
233
XVI.
biG A olive: ly FsAnyNh,. 8.
(COMPARE SECTIONS I-III. XI. XIL)
1. Barnasas.!
C.19. 8. Κοινωνήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τῷ whyjolov σου. (Gal. vi. 6.)
2. Cremenr or Rome.!
First Epistle.
C. 49. 6. Διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔσχεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ αἷμα αὐ-
τοῦ ἔδωχεν ὑττὲρ ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ὃ Κύριος ἡμῶν ἐν ϑελή-
ματι Θεοῦ, χαὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπὲρ τῆς σαρχὸς ἡμῶν nal τὴν ψυχὴν
ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν. (Gal. i. 4.)
Second Epistle.
C. 2.1. Isaiah liv. 1 quoted (see Gal. iv. 27).
C.9. 7. “Ὡς ἔχομεν χαιρὸν τοῦ ἰαϑῆναι, ἐπιδῶμεν ἑαυτοὺς τῷ
ϑερατσιεύοντι Θεῷ, ἀνειμισϑίαν αὐτοῦ διδόντες. (Gal. vi. 10.)
C.17. 3. Πυχνότερον πρροσερχόμενοι πειρώμεϑα προχότσττειν
ἐν ταῖς ἐντολαῖς τοῦ Κυρίου. (Gal. i. 14.)
ὃ. Ienatius.!
4, Porycarp.!
Philipp. ας. 3. 2. Οἰχοδομεῖσϑαι εἰς τὴν δοϑεῖσαν ὑμῖν πείστιν,
ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν. (Gal. iv. 26.)
1 Barnabas. Compare as Echo ec. 21.7, ἀναπληροῦτε πᾶσαν ἐντολήν (Gal.
vi. 2).
1 Clement. Compare as Echoes ¢. 2.1, παϑήματα πρὸ ὀφϑαλμῶν (Gal. iii. 1);
ο. 5. 2. στύλοι (Gal. ii. 9); c. 56.1, treatment of the erring (Gal. vi. 1).
1 Ignatius. Compare as Echoes :—Magnes. 8. 1, comp. Gal. v. 4. Trall. 10,
comp. Gal. ii. 21. Philadelph. 1. 1, comp. Gal. i. 1. Ibid. 9.1, comp. Polye.
1. 2, Πάντας βάσταζε x.t.. (see Gal. vi. 2).
1 Polycarp. Compare as Echoes:—Salutation, comp. Gal. vi. 16; c. 5. 3,
comp. Gal. ν. 7; ὁ. 6. 3, comp. Gal. iv. 18.
234 GALATIANS.
Ibid. c. 5.1. Εἰδότες οὖν ὅτι Θεὸς οὐ μυχτηρίζεται. (Gal. vi. 7.)
Ibid. 6. 6.3. Ζηλωταὶ περὶ τὸ καλόν. (Gal. iv. 18; comp.
Titus 11. 14.)
Ibid. c. 9.2. Πεπιεισμένους ὅτι οὗτοι στάντες ov% εἰς χενὸν
ἔδραμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πίστει χαὶ δικαιοσύνῃ. (Gal. ii. 2.)
Ibid. c.12. 2. Qui credituri sunt in Dominum nostrum Jesum
Christum, et in ipsius patrem, “qui resuscitavit eum e mortuis.”
(Gal. i. 1.)
5. Justin Marryr.!
Dial. c. 95. p. 322 C. Ἐπιχατάρατος γὰρ εἴρηται πᾶς ὃς οὐκ
’ ~ ~ ~ , ~ 4 -
ἐμμένει ἕν πᾶσι τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἕν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ
ποιῆσαι αὐτά. (Comp. Gal. iii. 10 as quoting Deut. xxvii. 26.)
Oratio ad Gentiles? ¢.5. 1 ἵνεσϑε ὡς ἐγὼ, ὅτι χἀγὼ ἤμην
GEC ew 7] ae! > AN ) ὍΛΗΝ Ὁ ~ Δ ,
ὡς ὑμεῖς. ... ὅτι χαϑάπερ ἐπαοιδὸς ἀγαϑὸς ἔκ φωλεοῦ ἐξερτού-
σαι ποιήσας φυγαδεύει δεινὸν ἑρπετὸν, οὕτως ὃ λόγος ἐξ αὐτῶν
- ade eee res \ ‘ - > ω x > f , ΑΝ.
τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μυχῶν τὰ δεινὰ τῆς αἰσϑήσεως ἀτιελαύῦνει παϑη
~ γ , c ~ \ , » ,
πρῶτον ἐπιϑυμίαν, δι ng πᾶν δεινὸν φύεται, ἔχϑραι, EELS,
-- \ Ν U 5
ζῆλος, ἐρίϑειαι, ϑυμοὶ, τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις. (Gal. iv. 12; v. 20, 21.)
θ. Lerrer to Diognerus.
Ο. 4. δ. To δὲ παρεδρέυοντες αὐτοὺς ἄστρας xai σελήνῃ τὴν
παρατήρησιν τῶν μηνῶν χαὶ τῶν ἡμερῶν ποιεῖσϑαι. (Gal. iv. 10.)
7. Syriac anp (τ Latin Versions anp Muratortan
Canon.
See before, Section I.
8. Tatian.?
Jerome, Comment. in Gal. IIT. ¢.6. (Vallars. Vol. VII. p. 526.)
1 Justin. Compare as Echoes in Justin’s undoubted writings: Apol. I. 53.
p. 88 C, Isaiah liv. 1 (quoted as in Gal. iv. 27), see also 2 Clem. 2. 1; Dial.
ec. 89, 95, 96 (all referring to Deut. 21. 23 as in Gal. iii. 13); ὁ. 119. τέχνα
τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ. διὰ τὴν ὁμοίαν πίστιν (Gal. iii. 7).
2 Of disputed genuineness.
1 Tatian. See Otto’s Tatian p. 166.
TATIAN. ATHENAGORAS. IRENAEUS. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 235
Tatianus, qui putativam Christi carnem introducens, omnem con-
junctionem masculi ad foeminam immundam arbitratur, Encrati-
tarum vel acerrimus haeresiarches, tali ... usus est argumento:
Si qui seminat in carne, de carne serviturum declaravit, deo qui-
dem per consensum, in temperantiae autem et fornicationi et
diabolo, dum consentire desinit.
9. ATHENAGORAS.
Legatio, ¢. 16. Ἐπὶ τὰ πτωχὰ χαὶ ἀσϑενὴ στοιχεῖα χατα-
σίπτομεν. (Gal. iv. 9.)
10. Irenaeus.
B. ITI. 6.5. Et apostolus autem Paulus, dicens: “Si enim
his qui non erant Dii servistis, nunc cognoscentes Deum, immo
cogniti a Deo.” (Gal. iv. 8, 9.)
B. TIT, 7. 2. Sed et in ea quae est ad Galatas, sic ait:
“Quid ergo lex factorum?” Posita est, usque quo veniat semen
cui promissum est, disposita per angelos in manu mediatoris.
(Gal. 111. 19.)
B. 111. 16. 3. Et iterum in epistola, quae est ad Galatas,
ait (sc. Paulus): “Cum autem veuit plenitudo temporis, misit
Deus filium suum, factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos
qui sub lege erant redimeret, ut adoptionem percipiamus.” (Gal.
iv. 4, 5.)
B. V. 21. 1. Et hoc est semen, de quo ait apostolus in epi-
stola quae est ad Galatas: ““Legem factorum positam, donec ve-
niret semen cui promissum est.” Manifestius autem adhuc in
eadem ostendit epistola, sic dicens: ‘“‘Cum autem venit plenitudo
temporis, misit Deus filium suum, factum de muliere.” (Gal. 111.
os ty. 4.)
11. Crementr or ALexanprtia.
Strom. ITT. 16. p. 556. 46 χαὶ Παῦλος Γαλάταις ἐπιστἕλ-
λων, φησί: Texvia μου, ote πάλιν ὠδίνω, ἄχρις οὗ μορφώϑῃ
Χριστὸς ἕν ὑμῖν. (Gal. iv. 19.)
236 GALATIANS.
12. Acts oF Paut ann Tuecua.
C. 40. Ἔλαβον τὸ λοῦτρον Παῦλε" ὃ γάρ σοι συνεργήσας εἰς
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κἀμοὶ συνήργησεν εἰς τὸ λούσασϑαι. (Gal. ii. 8.)
18. Τπαετυμμμαν.
Adv. Marcion. V. 2.1. Principalem adversus Judaismum epi-
stolam nos quoque confitemur, quae Galatas docet.
De praescript. haeret. c. 6. Nec diutius de isto, si idem est
Paulus, qui et alibi haereses inter carnalia crimina numerat, scri-
bens ad Galatas.
14. Crementine Hommuss. !
Hom. XIX. 22. Αἀἰτιώμενος τὸν λαὸν ἐπὶ ἁμαρτίας υἱοὺς
γεομηνιὧν τῶν χατὰ σελήνην χαὶ σαββάτων ἀπεκάλει. (Gal. iv. 10.)
1 Tertullian. It is superfluous to quote at length Tertullian’s numerous tes-
timonies.
1 Clem. Hom. Compare also Clem. Hom. XVII. 19. ἀνϑέστηχάς μοι - -
χατεγνωσμένον we λέγεις, which is an evident Echo of Gal. ii. 11.
251
XVII.
Hele «ΠῸ We Sid 5 Ae Ne Se
(COMPARE SECTIONS 1.11. XI. XII)
1. Barnapas.
C. 6.15. Ναὸς γὰρ ἅγιος, ἀδελφοί μου, τῷ Κυρίῳ τὸ χατοιχ-
ητήριον ἡμῶν τῆς καρδίας. (Eph. ii. 22.)
1 The testimony of the early Church is unanimous in favour of the Pauline
origin of the Epistle. The only doubt has been as to its destination. Tertullian
charged Marcion and other heretics with the ascription of a false title to it—as
though addressed to the Laodiceans. Basil stated that in ancient copies it was not
ascribed to the Ephesians, but to the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus: ᾿Αλλὰ
χαὶ τοῖς ᾿Εφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡἡνωμένοις τῷ ὄντι δύ᾽ ἐπιγνώσεως; ὅν-
τας αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως ὠνόμασεν, εἰπών᾽ Τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι χαὶ πι-
στοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ" οὕτω χαὶ οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώχασι, χαὶ ἡμεῖς
ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων εὐρήχαμεν (Basil. contra Eunomium). Of this
statement confirmation is found in the total absence of the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ
from the beginning of the Epistle in the Sinaitie MS (Ss) and their insertion by a
later hand in the Vatican (B). In the quotation from Origen in Cramer’s Catena,
the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ are perhaps omitted, though Origen elsewhere ascribes the
Epistle to Paul. (See extracts under Origen. ἢ
Schleiermacher and De Wette, on internal grounds, objected to this Epistle.
Baur, Hilgenfeld and others have included Colossians in the same condemnation.
Baur regards Ephesians as secondary to Colossians, but supposes them to have
been contemporaneous and connected. The ground on which he thus makes them
fall together, (just as Paley, Hor. Paul., c. VI. made them stand together) is
the nature of their resemblance to each other, which is not mere resemblance
but repetition. He finds also a mutual dependence; as in Eph. iv. 21 compared
with Coloss. iv. 16. He endeavours to prove that they are not Pauline because
of the continued discourse upon the spirit-world, which is characteristic of Gnos-
ticism, but unlike St Paul: the use of Gnostic terms and implied reference to
Gnostic doctrines: the acquaintance with Montanism: the state of the development
of the Church, &c. The special objections of Baur and his followers to Ephesians
are based on its want of salutations and personal allusions (but see 2 Cor., Gal.
and 1 & 2 Thess.); and passages in the Epistle which seem to intimate that Paul
himself had not been their teacher (e.g. i. 15; iii. 2,3; iv. 21). The special ob-
jections to Colossians are found in its development of Soteriology into Christology,
and that Christology an echo of Gnosticism. [On the resemblance between the
Epistles see Hilg., Einl. p. 671: on the points of essential difference see Reuss,
Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T. § 118. See also Gloag’s Introd. to Pauline
Epistles, p. 328.]
After all has been said that can be said against the Epistles, their Pauline
origin is not disproved. The objections assume (1) that the seeds and intimations
of Gnosticism in St Paul’s day were not sufficiently obvious to a mind like his
to admit of his exposing them; and (2) that the Gnostics of the second century
did not adopt the Apostle’s expressions, and endeavour to weave them into their
298 EPHESIANS.
2. Criement or Rome.
First Epistle.
qc
C 46.5. Ἵνα τί ἔρεις, χαὶ Ivuol, καὶ διχοστασίαι, χαὶ σχίσ-
/ / 2) Cc ~ W 2 ὙΠ} Ν 2 Sy ef. r
ματα, πόλεμός τε ὃν ὑμῖν; ἢ οὐχὶ Eva Θεὸν ἔχομεν, καὶ Eva Χρισ-
, ἂν τῶν - - Ν -
TOV; χαὶ ἕν πινεῦμα τῆς χάριτος τὸ ἐχχυϑὲν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, nal μία
~ , 7 ~ qc , δ» 7s ‘ ~ ‘ /, ~
χλῆσις ἐν Χριστῷ; Ἵνα τί διέλχοιμιεεν χαὶ διαστιῶμεν τὰ μέλη τοῦ
Χριστοῦ χαὶ στασιάζομεν πρὸς τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἴδιον, καὶ εἰς τοσαύ-
: ay Oh ate « ? Gee (Smee Ca , ? \
THY ἀπόνοιαν EQyouEda ὥστε ἑπιλαϑέσϑαι ἡμᾶς ott μέλῃ ἐσμὲν
2 Ω ee
ἀλλήλων; (Eph. iv. 45 comp. 1 Cor. xii.)
Second Epistle.
> »” ~ ~ ' ~
Ο. 14.2. Οὐχ οἴομαι δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν ore ἐχχλησία ζῶσα
- ΡΨ) r ~ , Ν c 7 > , ς \ \
σῶμα ἐστι Χριστοῦ (λέγει yao ἢ γραφή: ποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς tov
vw” Cc a A \ ὩΣ 55. ἢ ᾿ς \ 2 ’ Ν Cc r \ \
aviewtov G@GEY “rat ϑηλυ TO HOEY ἔστιν ὁ Χριστος, TO
ϑῆλυ ἢ ἐχχλησία) κιτ.λ. (Eph. i. 23; iv. 12.)1
2 \ \ \ ‘
Ο. 19. 2. “Evia γὰρ πονηρὰ πράσσοντες οὐ γινώσχομεν διὰ τὴν
>’ \ ~ ~ ~
Orprylar καὶ ἀπιστίαν τὴν ἐνοῦσαν ἕν τοῖς στήϑεσιν ἡμῶν, καὶ
ἐσχοτίσμεϑα τὴν διάνοιαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐνθυμιῶν τῶν ματαίων. See
also 1 Clem. 36. 2. (Eph. iv. 7.)
3. Heras.
t 2 ~ -
Mand. X. 2.5. ρον ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ τὴν λύπην" χαὶ μὴ ϑλῖβε
τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “4γιον τὸ ἐν σοὶ χατοιχοῦν, μήποτε ἐντεύξηται
\ ~ ~ ~ ‘ 3 ~ > Ν - .
χατὰ σοῦ τῷ Θεῷ χαὶ ἀποστῇ ἀπὸ σοῦ. (Eph. iv. 30.)
systems. Those assumptions are unwarrantable. In regard to the first point, it
ean be proved that, from the very necessity of the case, Gnosticism arose the
moment that Christianity came into contact with heathen philosophy, especially
with the combinations of Judaism and heathen philosophy which were prevalent
in such places as Alexandria and Antioch in the first Christian century. In re-
gard to the second, it is easy to see how Valentinus adopted such words as πλής-
ρῶμα, σοφία &e., and constructed his system; but impossible to understand how
such epistles as those two could be written in the second century when the air
was full of the speculations of Valentinus and others like him. Though Baur
asserts that Valentinus’ system was “too original’? to be explained by what Ter-
tullian said of it, the conclusion of most men is that Tertullian was right: Va-
lentinus . . . materiam ad scripturas excogitavit.
Since Ussher it has been often supposed that the Ephesian Epistle was orig-
inally a circular letter, of which the copy to the Ephesians remains, although it
was the letter sent to Laodicea that the Colossians were to get. This theory accounts
for the statement of Basil, the practice of Marcion, and the evidence of δὶ and Β.
1 2 Clement. Some of the sentences which follow in the chapter seem to be
written in view of the Valentinian speculations.
HERMAS. IGNATIUS. POLYCARP. 239
. co ~
Sim. IX. 13. 5. Οὕτω zai οἱ πιστεύσαντες τῷ Kvoiv ...
2. \ ~ \ ~ / ~ ~
ἔσονται εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα, εἰς EY σῶμα, καὶ μία χρόα TOY Ἱματισμῶν
αὐτῶν. See also IX. 18. 7. and compare ΙΧ. 11. 4. (Eph. iv. 4.)
4. Ianatius.
~ ᾿]
ΤΕ ρἼο5. ο. 12. ὃ. Παροδὸς ἔστε τῶν εἰς Θεὸν ἀναιρουιιένων
Ν = ‘ b]
Παύλου συμμύσται, τοῦ ἡγιασμένου, τοῦ μεμαρτυρημένου, ἀξιο-
5 , ; = dap ΄ παν γα Sh : ς - cr A ~
μαχαρίστου, οὗ γένοιτό μοι ὑπὸ τὰ ἴχνη εὑρεϑῆγαι, ὅταν Θεοῦ
’ γ /, ~ fs ~ Γ΄ ~ ~
ἐχειτύχω, ὃς ἕν recon ἐπιιστολῇ" μνημονεύει ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ιησοῦ.
r \ ν “Φ- -
Magnes. ὁ. 1. 1. Mic πιροσευχὴ, μία δέησις, εἰς νοῦς, μία
δ}, \ , >. , 2 Lass ~ ~ B) , Ch) 3) Ir. ~ r \
ἐλγεὶς, ὃν ἀγάπῃ, ἐν τῇ χαρᾷ TH ἀμώμῳ, 0 ἐστιν Inootg Χριστὸς,
εν 3} Ios BY .
οὗ ἄμεινον οὐδέν ἐστιν. (Eph. iv. 3-6.)
. r t ‘
Philad. c. δ. 1. Τέχνα οὖν φωτὸς ἀληϑείας, φεύγετε τὸν
μερισμὸν χαὶ τὰς διδασκαλίας. (Eph. ν. 8: comp. John xii. 26;
1 Thess. v. 5.)
Ad Polyc. ¢.5.1. Ὁμοίως καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου παράγγελλε
> 2 , a | ἃ = r ~ > - 2 ‘ a! ; ς G S77
ev εΠ τσοὺ Χριστοῦ, ἀγαπᾶν τὰς συμβίους ὡς ὁ Κύριος
\ δὴ -
τὴν ἔχχλησίαν. (Eph. v. 25, 29.)?
5. Porycarp.
Philipp. ¢. 1.3. Εἰδότες ὅτι χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι, οὐχ ἐξ
, 2 \ , ~ \ ~ r ~ oe
ἔργων, ἀλλὰ θελήματι Θεοῦ διὰ Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. (Eph, ii. 8, 9.)
Ibid. c. 12.1. Confido! enim vos bene exercitatos esse in sa-
cris literis, et nihil vos latet: mihi autem non est concessum,
1 Ignatius. “Ey πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ, usually translated ‘‘in the whole Epistle.”
Comp. πᾶσα cixoSour) Eph. ii. 21. Others translate: ‘in all his Epistles.”
2 Echoes:—Ad Eph. 1. μεγέϑει ... πληρώματι (Eph. i. 19, iv. 18). Ibid.
4. 2. μέχη (Eph. v. 30); Ibid. 9.1. λίϑοι ναοῦ (Eph. ii. 22); Ad Polyc. 6. 2.
ὅπλα (Eph. vi. 11).
1 Polycarp. This is only found in the Latin. As it stands it is a conjunction
of a Psalm and of the Epistle as being parts of ‘these scriptures’’ (of which he
has been speaking). Doubt has been thrown upon the genuineness of this, on the
ground that the Latin version has inserted “et quod dictum est” in e. 2. between
two passages of the New Testament, while the Greek has only zat. But in ὁ. 2.
the first quotation is introduced with εἶπεν 6 Κύριος διδάσχων, which is trans-
lated in the Latin ‘‘ quod dominus docens dixit.” To insert “et quod dictum est”
before the second quotation in that case as a translation of xat is therefore to
make no real change on the original; while to introduce “wt his scripturis dictum
est” in the case of c. 12 would have been a serious change. Dr Davidson (Int.
to N. T. I. 382. 2nd Ed.) incorrectly states that in ce. 2 ‘The translator has in-
troduced a word of Jesus’s with ‘as it is written.’
240 EPHESIANS.
Modo, ut his scripturis dictum est, “TJrascimini, et nolite pec-
care,” et “Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram.” (Ps. iv. 4;
Eph. iv. 26.)
6. Muratortan Canon, Syrtac ann Oxtp Latin Versions.
See before, Section I.
7. IReENAEUs.
B. ΚΤ. 2.3. Kavos 6 μακάριος Παῖλός φησιν ἐν τῇ πρὸς
~ c ” 4 ~ / ~ A
Ἐφεσίους ἐπιστολῇ" ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος, ἐκ τῆς σαρχὸς
> ~ es ~ ? / > ~
αὐτοῖ, χαὶ ἐχ τῶν ὀστέων αὑτοῦ. (Eph. v. 30.)
8. V. 14.3. Quemadmodum Apostolus Ephesiis ait: “In quo
habuimus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem pecca-
torum.” Et rursus eisdem: “Vos, inquit, qui aliquando eratis
longe, facti estis juxta, in sanguine Christi.” Et iterum: “Ini-
micitias in carne sua, legem praeceptorum decretis evacuans.”
(Eph. i. 7; ii. 11-15.)
8. THeopnitus.
Ad Autolyc. I. 7. p. 14. Διὰ τὴν τύφλωσιν τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ
πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας σου. See also II. 35. p. 111. (Eph. iv. 18.)
Thid. 11. 16. p.95. Τῇ δὲ πέμπτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ta ἐχ τῶν ὑδάτων
ἐγενήϑη ζῶα" δι᾿ ὧν χαὶ ἐν τούτοις δείχνυται ἣ πολυποίκελος
σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ. See also I. 6. p. 73. (Eph. iii. 10.)
Ibid. 11. 28. p. 104. Ἕως zai τοῦ δεῦρο ἐνεργῶν ἐν τοῖς ἐν-
ϑουσιαϊζομένοις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώποις. (Eph. ii. 2.)
9. ΟἾΕΜΕΝΤ ΟΕ ALEXANDRIA.
Paedag. I. 5. ». 108. Σαφέστατα δὲ Ἐφεσίοις γράφων ἀπε-
χάλυψε τὸ ζητούμενον, ὧδέ πως λέγων" “ΙΠέχρι χαταντήσωμεν οἵ
πάντες εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως χαὶ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως τοῦ
Θεοῖ εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ
Χριστοῦ" ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι zt.” (Eph. iv. 13, 14.)
Strom. IV. 8. p.592. 6 καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους γράφει"
/ > > ee , ~
ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Θεοῦ κιτ.λ. (Eph. v.21.)
TEETULLIAN. CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. ORIGEN. 241
10. Terrciuay.!
Ade. Marcion. V.11. Praetereo hic et de alia epistola, quam
pos ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus, haeretici vero ad Lac
dicenas.
Ibid. V. 17. Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad
Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenss, sed Marcion εἰ
titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentis-
simus explorator. Nihil autem de titulis interest, cam ad omnes
Apestolus scripserit, dum ad quesdam.
11. Cxewextrse Howttes.
Hom. XTX 2. Καὶ πάλιν. μὴ δότε πρόφασιν τῷ πονηρῷ.
(Eph. iv. 27.)
12. Oztcen.
Περὲ ἀρχῶν IIT. C. V. § 4. p. 149. (Migne, Vol L p. 328.)
Sed et Apestolus in epistola ad Ephesios eodem sermone usus est
cum ait: “Qui elegit nos ante mundi constitutionem.” (Eph. i. 4)
Cramer's Catena, VL. 102. Payers dé φίσι, ἐπὶ μόνων Ἐφε-
σίων εἵἴρομεν κείμενον τὸ τρις ἁγίοες τοῖς οἷσι" wo ζητοῦμεν
εἰ μὴ παρέλχει προσχείμενον τὸ “τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι" τί δέ-
ναται σημαίνειν. (Eph. i 1.)
13. Eptesamivs.
Haeres. 42. ες. 9. ». 310. (Migne, Vol L p. 708.) “Eye dé (se.
ΔΙαραίων) καὶ τῆς πρὸς “αοδικέας λεγομένης μέρη.
_ Tid. Schol. p. 314. | Migne, Vol. L p. 811.) Εἷς Κύριος, μέα
| gious, ἕν βάπτισμα, εἷς Χριστὸς, εἷς Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων
ΤΣ abe a τόπον τὰ ὦν a (Eph. iv. 5, 6.)
942 EPHESIANS.
, ~ 2 ay
Refut. Svvadovtag μὲν τῇ πιρὸς Ἐφεσίους, ὦ Magziwr, καὶ ταύ-
- , γ ~
τας τὰς χατὰ σοῦ μαρτυρίας αγτὸ τῆς λεγομένης σπιρὸς “αοδιχέας
συνήγαγες χατὰ σοῦ μαρτυρίας.
14. JEROME.
In Epist. ad Ephes. praefat. (Vallars. Vol. VII. p. ὅ40.) Seri-
bebat (sc. Paulus) ad Ephesios. ... Hoc ipsum scriptura refert
quomodo Paulus ad Ephesios sermocinetur.
Ad Ephes. I. c. 1. (Ibid. p. 545:) Quidam curiosius, quam
necesse, putant ex eo, quod Mosi dictum sit: Haee dices filiis
Israel, qui est, misit me, etiam eos, qui Ephesi sunt sancti et
fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupatos; ut quomodo a sancto sancti,
a justo justi, a sapiente sapientes: ita ab co qui est, hi “qui
sunt” appellentur. ... Alii vero simpliciter, non ad “eos qui
sunt,” sed “qui Ephesi” sancti et fideles “sunt,” scriptum arbi-
trantur.
1 Epiphanius. The passage immediately preceding contains a list of the books
of Marcion’s Canon: Galatians, Corinthians (1 and 2), Romans, Thessalonians (1
and 2), Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians. Then come the words: 1716 has also some
portions of the Epistle called ‘To the Laodiceans.” Epiphanius appears to have
become confused as to Marcion’s ‘Laodiceans,’ which he supposed to be different
from the Epistle to the Ephesians. The second quotation in our text shows that
Marcion was really quoting from ‘Ephesians’ when Epiphanius supposed him to
draw from some distinct source called Laodiceans. And accordingly he apos-
trophizes Marcion in order to tell him that those Laodicean words are also in
the canonical Ephesians!
243
XVIIL.
eee eee Bede a NS.
(COMPARE SECTIONS ΕΠῚ, ΑἹ, XIL)
1. Crement or Rome.
First: Epistle.
χει ς Γ΄ 7
C.16. 1. Ταπεινοφρονούντων γάρ ἐστιν ὃ Χριστὸς, οὐχ ἐπαι-
Dee lis as = ἐς
ρομένων ἐπὶ τὸ ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ. Td σχῆσιτρον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης
~ ~ σ΄ r 2 ~ 2 3
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃ Κύριος Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, οὐχ ἦλϑεν ἐν χύμπιῳ ἀλα-
- +g 2
ζονείας οὐδὲ ὑπερηφανίας, καίπερ δυνάμενος" ἀλλὰ ταπεινοφρο-
~ ‘ ~ \ 2 ~
γῶν, χαϑὼς τὸ mveduc τὸ ἅγιον σιερὶ αὐτοῦ ἐλάλησεν. Φησὶ
A U Ξ K 4 , i) U : 3 ~ 2s ΓΝ ἢ -ς - aa λ Is: lili 1 & i
yao VOLE τις ExtotEvoEe TH ἀχοῇ ἡμῶν, ~T.A, (Isa. li. 1, &e.)
ς ~ ” yf > ‘ ’ CEG \ ς . , c 4 -
Ορᾶτε, ἄνδρες ἀγατιτοὶ, τίς ὁ ὑπογραμμὸς ὁ δεδομιένος ἡμιἴν" εἰ
γὰρ ὃ Κύριος οὕτως ἐταπιεινοφρόνησεν, τί σπιοιήσομεν ἡμιιεῖς οἱ ὑχιὺ
- ~ , 2 - Wane B) ~ . oe
τὸν ζυγὸν τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ dv αὐτοῦ ἐλϑόντες; (Phil. ii. 5, &ec.)#
Second Epistle.
C. 18. 2. Σπουδάζω τὴν δικαιοσύνην διώχειν, ὅπως isytow
Iw ,ὔ
nav ἐγγὺς αὐτῆς γενέσϑαι, φοβούμενος τὴν χρίσιν τὴν μέλλουσαν.
Genus 12: 1 Tim. vi. 11.
2. Ienatius.
Philad. ες. 8. 2.1 Παραχαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, μηδὲν nav ἐριϑείαν
πράσσειν, ἀλλὰ χατὰ χριστομαϑίαν. (Phil. ii. 3.)?
Smyrn. c. 11. ὃ. Ὑέλειοι ὄντες, τέλεια καὶ φρονεῖτε. (Phil.
iii. 16)
1 Clement. Compare as echoes: C. 2. 5. εἰλικρινεῖς (Phil. i. 10); ©. 5. 5.
βραβεῖον (Phil. iii. 14); ς, 7. 1. ἀγών (Phil. i. 30); ¢. 19.1. 2. pressing on to
the mark (azox6v) (Phil. iii. 14); 6. 21. 1. ἀξίως αὐτοῦ πολιτευόμενοι (Phil. i. 27);
(Compare also Polye. 5. 2.)
1 Ignatius. Compare as echoes: Rom. 2. 2. σπονδισθῆναι (Phil. ii. 17).
Ibid. 6. χαλόν μοι ἀποϑανεῖν, χ.τ.λ. (Phil. i. 21).
2 Compare c. 1. 1. χατὰ χενοδοξίαν.
10
244 PHILIPPIANS.
ὃ. Porycarp.!
Philipp. c. 2.1, ‘Qe ὑπετάγη τὰ πάντα ἐπουράνια καὶ ἐτπιί-
yet’ ᾧ πᾶσα πνοὴ λατρεύει. (Phil. ii. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 28.)
Ibid. ¢.3.1. Ταῦτα, ἀδελφοὶ, οὐχ ἐμαυτῷ ἐπιτρέψας γράφω
ς ὦ Σ, \ ~ ia TE a5, Wel ~ , a!
ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης" ἀλλ Eel ὑμεῖς προετιελαχτίσασϑέ
γ᾿ Ν 2 \ ay” a cr Ύ Ν /
ue. Ovte yao ἐγὼ, οὔτε ἄλλος ὁμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται χαταχολου-
ϑῆσαι τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μαχαρίου χαὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου, ὃς γενόμεν
7) σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου χαὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου, ὃς γενόμενος
γ cee? \ / ~ / Derg , ov 2 ~
ὃν ὑμῖν χατὰ πιρόσωτιον τῶν Tote ἀνϑρώπων ἐδίδαξεν ἀχριβῶς
\ , Ν ND ἕπῃ , aA Wise \ τε τὰ Dy
nal βεβαίως τὸν περὶ ἀληϑείας λόγον" ὃς καὶ ἀπιὼν ὑμῖν eyoa Er
‘ α ν -
ἐπιστολὰς," εἰς ἃς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε, 3 δυνηϑήσεσϑε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι
εἰς τὴν δοϑεῖσαν ὑμῖν σιίστιν ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ χιάντων ἡμῶν.
Ibid. Ὁ Ὁ 2: Πεπεισμένους, OUL οὗτοι τιάντες οὐχ εἰς χεγὸν
ἔδραμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν σιίστει χαὶ διχαιοσύνη, χαὶ ὅτι εἰς τὸν ὀφειλό-
Dia he , Dis N \ ~ , c \ , fs .
μενον αὐτοῖς TOmOY εἰσὶ παρὰ τῷ Κυρίῳ, ᾧ χαὶ συνέσεαϑον. (Phil.
ii. 16, 17.)
Ibid. ὁ. 11.3. Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis, vel audivi,
in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus; qui estis laudati in principio
epistolae ejus. De vobis etenim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis,
quae Deum solae tunc cognoverant: nos autem nondum novera-
mus: ((thess: 1.4; Phil: i. 5.)
4. Martryrpom or Potrycarp.
Ο.1. 2. Περιέμενε γὰρ [ὃ Πολύχαρπος), ἵνα παραδοϑῇ, ὡς
χαὶ ὃ Κύριος, ἵνα μιμηταὶ καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοῦ γενώμεϑα, μὴ μόνον
σχοπιοῦντες TO LAF ξαυτοὺς, ἀλλὰ χαὶ τὸ κατὰ τοὺς πέλας.
(Phil. ii. 4.)
5. Justin Marryr.
De Resurrect. c. 7. Ἑξῆς δὲ λεχτέον πρὸς τοὺς ἀτιμάζοντας
1 Polycarp. Compare as echoes: C. 1. 1. συνεχάρην μεγάλως (Phil. iv. 10);
ο. 10.1. diligentes invicem &c. (Phil. ii. 2-5); ὁ. 12. 3. inimicis crucis (Phil. iii.
18); ὁ. 5. 2. (Phil. 1. 27).
2 Is this a reference to more than one Epistle? In the fourth extract the
Latin gives a singular form Hpistola. Lither the singular or the plural may de-
note a single Epistle. See this abundantly proved by Lightfoot, Philippians,
p. 138.
3 Compare παραχύπτω εἰς (John xx. 11; James i. 25; 1 Pet. i. 12).
LETTER ΤῸ DIOGNETUS. IRENAEUS. THEOPHILUS. 245
τὴν σάρχα χαὶ φάσκοντας μὴ ἀξίαν εἶναι τῆς ἀναστάσεως μηδὲ
- 2 , , . “9. ()Γ
τῆς οὐρανίου πολιτείας. (Phil. iii. 20.)
C.9. Καϑὼς εἴρηχεν ἐν οὐρανῷ τὴν χατοίχησιν ὑπάρχειν.
(Phil. iii. 20 and, more clearly, John xiv. 2, 3.)1
6. Lerrer to Dioenetus.!
C.5.9. Ἐπὶ γῆς διατρίβουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ πολιτεύονται.
(Phil. iii. 20.)
7. Letrrer or Cuurcu or Vienne anv Lyons.
Eus. Π. FE. Ν. 8. Οἱ χαὶ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ζηλωταὶ χαὶ μιμηταὶ
΄ ~ a ~ ~
Χριστοῦ ἐγένοντο, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐκ ἁρπαγ-
A c , \ oS x ~ . oe a
μὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἰναι tow Θεῷ. (Phil. ii. 6.)
8. Irenaeus.
B. IV. 8.4. Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate ecclesia offert,
juste munus ejus purum sacrificium apud Deum deputatum est.
Quemadmodum et Paulus Philippensibus ait: “Repletus sum ac-
ceptis ab Epaphrodito, quae a vobis missa sunt, odorem suavi-
tatis, hostiam acceptabilem, placentem Deo.” (Phil. iv. 18.)
B. V. 13.3. De qua resurrectione apostolus in ea quae est
ad Philippenses, ait: ‘“‘Conformatus morti ejus, si quo modo oc-
curram ad resurrectionem quae est a mortuis.” (Phil. iii. 10, 11.)
Ibid. Et rursus ad Philippenses ait: “Nostra autem conver-
satio in coelis est; unde et Salvatorem exspectamus Dominum
Jesum, qui transfigurabit corpus humilitatis nostrae conforme
corpori gloriae suae, ita ut possit secundum operationem virtutis
5186. (Pril. 111. 20, &c.)
9. Turopuinus.
Ad Autolyc. 11. 17. Ta ἐπίγεια φρονοῦσιν. (Phil. iii. 19.)
1 Justin has some echoes: Dial. c. 3. p. 229 C (Phil. iii. 3)(?); Dial. ο. 33.
Ρ. 251 B, ταπεινός, x.t-A. (Phil. ii. 8.9); and (perhaps the most certain) Dial.
c. 134. p. 364 C, τὴν μέχρι σταυροῦ δουλείαν (Phil. ii. 7. 8).
1 Diognetus. Compare as echo: C. 2.1 with Phil. ii. 10.
240 PHILIPPIANS.
Ibid. 2. 36. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ταῦτα ἀληϑῆ nel “ὐφέλιμα καὶ
δίχαια χαὶ προσφιλὴ πᾶσιν ἀνϑρώϊιοις τυγχάνει, δῆλόν ἐστι.
(Phil. iv. 8.)
Jerome, Ad Algas. quaest. 6. (Vallars. Vol. I. p. 860.) The-
ophilus Antiochenae ecclesiae septimus post Petrum apostolum
episcopus, qui quatuor evangelistarum in unum opus dicta com-
pingens, ingenii sui nobis monumenta dimisit, haec super hac
parabola in suis commentariis est locutus. ... Dixitque (Paulus)
in corde suo: Quid faciam? ... Coepitque eos qui prius versa-
bantur in lege, et sic in Christum crediderunt, ne arbitrarentur
se in lege justificandos, docere legem abolitam, prophetas prae-
teriisse, et quae antea pro lucro fuerant, reputari in stercora.
(Phils 111. 8.)
10. Criement or ALEXANDRIA.
- ~ ~ ,
Paedag. I. 6. 52. p. 129. Attot ὁμολογοῦντος τοῦ Παύλου
\ c > Bb) ac ” ” ὌΝ ao U ΠῚ
πδρὶ ἑαυτοῦ" οὐχ OTL ἤδη ἔλαβον, ἢ OK τετελειωμαι
ν Ἑ \ , . eee
εχ O& εἰ χαὶ xatadaBa, x.2.d. (Phil. iii. 12, &.)
a 7 i \ ~ ,
Strom. IV. 13.92. p. 604. Ei δὲ σπένδεται ἐπὶ τῇ FVOLE
\ ~ ~ \ ,
χαὶ τῇ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως χαίρων χαὶ συγχαίρων,
\ yc ͵ - 3 , \ ’ A
πρὸς οὖς ὁ λόγος τῷ «Α΄ ποστόλῳ, τοὺς Φιλιτυπησίους συμμετὺ-
~ , ~ ~ A , ,
χους τῆς χάριτος χαλῶν, πῶς αὐτοὺς συμ ψύχους λέγει.
(Phil. ii.)
11. Terruwuian.
De resurrect. carn. c. 23. Ad quam (sc. spem resurrectionis)
pendens et ipse quum Philippensibus scribit: “51 qua,” inquit,
‘“concurram in resurrectionem, quae est a mortuis. Non quia
jam accepi aut consummatus sum.” (Phil. iii. 11, 12.)
Ilid. c. 47. Quod elisum est suscitans, et quidem de terra
in coelum, ubi nostrum municipatum Philippenses quoque ab
Apostolo discunt: “Unde et salutificatorem nostrum exspectamus
Jesum Christum, qui transfigurabit corpus nostrae humilitatis,
conformale corpori gloriae suae.” Sine dubio post resurrectionem,
quia nec ipse Christus glorificatus est ante passionem. (Phil.
iii. 21.)
241
XIX.
BO Oneal ΔΝ Sa:
(COMPARK SECTIONS ΕΠ, XI, ΧΙ.)
1 The Epistle to the Colossians contains many of the same words and
phrases as that to the Ephesians. And yet the purpose of this is quite distinct
from that of the other—being definitely and polemically directed against certain
false teachers who were misleading the Colossian church; whereas the other Epistle
deals with doctrines more generally and comprehensively. Moreover, the real sub-
ject of the Epistle is not the same in each case; the argument of Eph. i. and ii.
is not in the Colossian Epistle at all. In other cases the same words are used,
but with a different reference (comp. Eph. iv. 16 with Col. ii. 19). It is in ex-
pressions rather than in purpose that the points of resemblance and the instances
of repetition are found (see Reuss: Les Epitres Pauliniennes, Hl. 149). The gen-
uineness of Colossians was not disputed until this century, and the objections
rest on subjective grounds. First of all (as is stated in the notes on Ephesians),
the close correspondence between this Epistle and that to Ephesus is said to
awaken suspicion that one at least is a forgery. While some for this cause put
away Ephesians, others discard both. Then further, the words in the Epistles
which are familiar in Gnostic writings, and not only familiar but keynotes of
such systems as that of Valentinus, are regarded as proof that they originated
while those systems were in vogue 2.6., in the second century (see notes on
Ephesians). The polemical references in Colossians are next compared with the
doctrines of Ebionitism: and the conclusion is that in regard to circumcision
(ii. 11), peculiarities of diet (ii. 21), and angel-worship (ii. 21), the writer was de-
nouncing Ebionites. In order to take the ground away from the whole system, he
proclaims the doctrine of the Person of Christ against the well-known Ebionite
theories that Jesus was a creature, created not begotten of God, as a chief angel
might be. All this might be admitted in so far as regards Ebionitism: but it
does not give a date in the second century, for the principles of Ebionitism must
have been at work from the time when Jews adopted Christianity without fully
accepting the Gospel doctrine of Christ’s Personal Deity. Baur’s argument for a
date in the second century really rests upon the occurrence of its words and
phrases in Gnostic systems. Besides what was said in the notes to Ephesians as
to the greater probability of a Gnostic quoting and twisting Pauline words, than
of a forger in Paul’s name adopting the terminology of a Gnostic with whom he
did not wish to be supposed to agree, we may here draw attention to the ac-
tual use of the words in question by Valentinus (whom Baur cites) and by the
author of Colossians respectively. In the Valentinian system πλήρωμα, σοφία,
πίστις, σταυρός, and so on, are used with technical meanings which are not ap-
plicable in any one case in the Epistles, unless perhaps that the varied fortunes
of σοφία in the Valentinian fable may be supposed to correspond to the Pauline
πολυποίχιλος σοφία of Ephesians iii. 10, or that the legend of the πλήρωμα of
Valentinian aeons contributing to make up the Saviour may be imagined to re-
semble Col. i. 19; ii. 9. But even when the resemblance is admitted, the grotesque
story of the Gnostic (however metaphorically interpreted) is so evidently a per-
version of the Scripture teaching, that to imagine it the original and the Colos-
sian words the imitation is to go beyond all probability.
On the relative priority of the two closely related Epistles critical opinion
widely varies. If that to Colossians was actually first written, the reference (Col.
iv. 16) to the Epistle from Laodicea (which was probably that we know as
248 COLOSSIANS.
1. Barnasas.!
C. 12. 7. Ἔχεις παλιν χαὶ ἐν τούτοις τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ,
c ὃ ἢ d ~ , ‘ 3 3 / .
Obl ὃν αυτῷ Marta nal εἰς αὐτὸν. (Col. 1. 16.)
2. Cement or Rome.!
First Epistle.
3. Icnatius.!
4. Porycare.!
5. Justin Marryr.!
Dial. c. 84. p.310 B. *AdV ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀληϑῶς σημεῖον καὶ
σιιστὸν τῷ γένει. τῶν ἀνϑρώτιων ἔμελλε yiveoFoL, τουτέστι διὰ
σαρϑενικῆς μήτρας τὸν ττρωτότοχον τῶν “τάντων ποιημάτων σαρ-
κοποιηϑέντα ἀληϑῶς παιδίον γενέσϑαι. (Col. i. 15.)
Ibid. c. 85. p. 811 Β. Κατὰ γὰρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ τούτου
τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ χαὶ πιρωτοτόχου τιάσης χτίσεως, χαὶ διὰ παρ-
ϑένου γεννηϑέντος . .. πτᾶν δαιμόνιον ἐξορχιζόμενον νικᾶται καὶ
ὑχζεοτάσσεται. (Col. i. 15.)
Ibid. ¢. 100. p. 326 D. Γνόντες αὐτὸν σπιρωτότοχον μὲν τοῦ
‘Ephesians’) is not so easily explained, as it is if Paul knew that when he wrote
to Colossians the letter which, when they got theirs, was, or soon would be, in
Laodicea, and so within their reach, was already written. But the point is too
easily debated on either side to be of great clearness.
1 Barnabas. Compare as Echoes: C. 14. 5. λυτρωσάμενος ἐχ τοῦ σχότους
(Col. i. 13); 6. 10. 9. κατ᾽ ἐπιϑυμίαν τῆς σαρχός (Col. ii. 23); and perhaps c. 21. 1
(comp. Col. ii. 6.)
1 Clement. Compare as echoes: C. 21.1. (Col. i. 10); α. 27. 4. (Col. i. 17);
ο. 50. 1. (Col. iii. 14). All of these echoes are faint and doubtful.
1 Ignatius. Compare as echoes: Eph. 2. 1. συνδούλου (Col. i. 7); ©. 10. 2.
edpator τῇ πίστει (Col. i. 23); c. 18. 2. χατ᾽ οἰχονομίαν Θεοῦ (Col. i. 25). Magnes.
9. 1. μηχέτι σαββατίζοντες, x.t.A. (Col. 11. 16, 17).
1 Polycarp. Compare as echoes: C. 1. 2. (Col. ii. 7); 6. 11. 2. (Col. iii. 5);
ce. 12. 3. (Col. i. 28).
1 Justin. The following passages seem to intimate with sufficient clearness
that Justin was acquainted with Paul’s writings. It is not a competent argument
on the other side to say that ‘‘there is a presumption against Justin’s caring to
know any of the Apostle’s writings.’”’ Yet this is all that Dr Davidson (who
admits that ‘‘Paul’s letter to the Colossians ... existed long before”) can ad-
vance (Int. to N. T. I. 175).
TATIAN. IRENAEUS. THEOPHILUS. 249
Θεοῦ χαὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν χτισμάτων. Comp. Dial. ὁ. 125.
p-354C. (Col. i. 16)
Ibid. ς. 138. p. 367 ἢ. ὋὉ γὰρ Χριστὸς, πρωτότοχος πά-
σης κτίσεως wy. (Col. i. 15.)
6. Tatian.
Orat. ad Graecos, c. 5. p. 145 A. ‘O δὲ λόγος, οὐ χατὰ κενοῦ
χωρήσας, ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται. (Col. i. 15.)
7. Muratortan Canon, Syriac ann Ομ Latin Versions. !
(See before, pp. 1. 2.)
7. I[reNAEvs.
B. 11. 22. 4. Sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus ma-
gister in omnibus, non solum secundum! expositionem veritatis,
sed et secundum aetatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum
ipsis quoque fiens; deinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit
primogenitus ex mortuis ipse primatum tenens in omnibus, prin-
ceps vitae, prior omnium et praecedens omnes. (Col. i. 18.)
B. IIT. 14. 1. Et iterum in ea epistola quae est ad Colos-
senses, ait: “Salutat vos Lucas medicus dilectus.” (Col. iv. 14.)
B. V. 14. 2. Et propter hoc apostolus in ea epistola quae
est ad Colossenses, ait: “Et vos cum essetis aliquando alienati,
et inimici cogitationi ejus! in operibus malis, nunc autem recon-
ciliati in corpore carnis ejus, per mortem ejus, exhibere vos
sanctos et castos et sine crimine in conspectu ejus.” (Col. 1.
21, 22.)
8. Tueopuizus.!
Ad Autolyc. IT. ο. 22. p.100 B. Πρὸ yao τι γίνεσϑαι tov-
3 ~ ~
tov εἶχε σύμβουλον, ξαυτοῦ νοῦν χαὶ φρόνησιν ὄντα. “Ὁπότε δὲ
> re \ ~ ͵ , ~ \ ,
ἠϑέλησεν ὃ Θεὸς ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέν-
1 Colossians was in Marcion’s Canon.
1 Trenaeus. Another reading is inimict cogitationis ejus.
Theophilus. Comp. as shorter quotation or echo: Theoph. 2. 17, p. 96.
τὰ ἄνω φρονοῦντες (Col. 111. 2).
250 COLOSSIANS.
γησὲ προφοριχὸν, THO MTOTOXOY π ἄσης χτίσεως, οὐ χκενωϑεὶς
Ψ νον - , 2 \ , , \ ~ , > ~ \
αὐτὸς tov λόγου, ἀλλὰ λόγον γεννήσας χαὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ διὰ
σιαντὸς δμιλῶν. (Col. i. 15-17.)
9. Cement or ALEXANDRIA.
Strom. I. 15. p. 825. Kav τῇ πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς ἐπειστολῇ
(( 4 αὶ 2) ’ (a4 , aE NC : \ , 5
γουϑετοῦντες " γράφει “πάντα crtowmor χαὶ διδάσχοντες ὃν
πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, ἵνα παραστήσωμεν πάντα ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐν
Xovot.” (Col. i. 28.)
Ibid. VI. ὃ. p. 11. “Ὡσαύτως ἄρα χαὶ τοῖς ἐξ “Ελλήνων ἐπσιι-
στρέφουσι Κολοσσαεῖσι" ““βλέγιετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὃ συλαγω-
γῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας," x... (Col. ii. 8.)
10. Τακτυμμμαν.
De praescript. haeret. c. 7. A quibus nos apostolus refrenans
nominatim philosophiam contestatur caveri oportere, scribens ad
Colossenses: “Videte, ne qui sit circumveniens vos per philoso-
phiam et inanem seductionem, secundum traditionem hominum
praeter providentiam Spiritus Sancti.” (Col. ii. 8.)
De resurrect. carnis 6. 23. Docet quidem Apostolus, Colos-
sensibus scribens, mortuos fuisse nos aliquando alienatos et ini-
micos sensus Domini, quum in operibus pessimis agebamus, de-
hinc consepultos Christo in baptismate, et conresuscitatos in eo
per fidem efficaciae Dei, qui illum suscitarit e mortuis. “Et vos
cum mortui essetis in delictis et praeputatione carnis vestrae,
vivificavit cum eo, donatis vobis omnibus delictis.” (Col. ii. 13.)
1 The quotations of Tertullian are very numerous.
201
XX.
FIRST THESSALONIANS.?
(COMPARE SECTIONS ΕΠῚ, XI, XI)
1. Barnapas.
2. Crement or Rome. !
Ep. 1. ὅ8. 1. Σωζέσϑω οὖν ἡμῶν ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ἐν Χριστῷ
᾿Ιησοῦ. (1 Thess. v. 23.)
Ibid. c. 38. 4. Ὀρφείλομεν χατὰ πάντα εὐχαριστεῖν αὐτῷ.
(1 Thess. v. 18.)
ὃ. Jenatius.!
Eph. 10. 1. Καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ ἀνθρώπων ἀδιαλεί-
πτῶως προσεύχεσϑε. (1 Thess. v. 17.)
Philad. 2.1. Τέχνα οὖν φωτὸς ἀληϑείας, φεύγετε τὸν μερι-
σμὸν χαὶ τὰς χαχοδιδασχαλίας. (1 Thess. v. 5.)
Ad Polyc. 1. ὃ. Προσευχαῖς σχόλαζε ἀδιαλείπτοις. (1 Thess.
γε ἢ
4. Potnycarp.!
5. Syriac, Orv Latin, anp Muratorran Canon.
See before.?
1 Baur was the first to doubt the authenticity of this Epistle. He argues
that its language and its apocalyptic ideas are not Pauline. His views have not
been widely adopted. Hilgenfeld refutes his arguments, as also does Davidson.
See an excellent statement of the case regarding the two Epistles to Thessalonica in
Reuss, Gesch. § 78-82. See Paley’s Horae Paulinae for some suggestive remarks.
1 Barnabas has the following echoes: C. 4. 18, warning against sloth and
sleep (1 Thess. v. 6, &c.); ο. 21. 6, SeodtSaxtor (1 Thess. iv. 9).
1 Clement of Rome. Compare as echoes: 1 Clem. c. 35. 5, πίστις πρὸς τὸν
Θεόν (comp. 1 Thess. i. 8), and c. 44. 6, ἀμέμπτως τετιμημένης λειτουργίας (comp.
1 Thess. v. 23).
1 Ignatius. Compare as echo: Ad Polyc. 6. 2 (comp. 1 Thess. v. 8).
1 Polycarp. Compare as echoes: Phil. 2. 2 (comp. 1 Thess. v. 22); ¢. 4, 3
(comp. 1 Thess. v. 17).
1 Jt was also in Marcion’s Canon.
ὰ
202 FIRST THESSALONIANS.
6. IrenaEus.
B. V. 6. 1. Et propter hoc apostolus seipsum exponens, ex-
planavit perfectum et spiritualem salutis hominem, in prima
epistola ad Thessalonicenses dicens sic: “Deus autem pacis
sanctificet vos perfectos, et integer vester spiritus, et anima, et
corpus sine querela in adventum Domini Jesu Christi servetur.”
(1 Thess. v. 23.)
L. V. 30. 2. Hoc et apostolus ait: “Cum dixerint, pax, et
munitio, tunc subitaneus illis superveniet interitus.” (1 Thess. v. 3.)
7. Cuemenr or ALEXANDRIA. ἢ
«
Paedag. 5. 19. p. 109. Τοῦτό τοι σαφέστατα ὃ μαχάριος
~ ς , γ , , ? ES 3 ς
Παῦλος ὑπεσημήνατο, εἰσπτών: “Ζυνάμενοι ἐν βαρεῖ εἶναι ὡς
Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι, ἐγενήϑημεν ἤπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν,
ὡς ἂν τροφὸς ϑάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα. (1 Thess. ii. 7.)
Strom. I. 9. 53. p. 347. Πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, ὃ ἀπό-
στολός φησι, χαὶ τὸ καλὸν χατέχετε. (1 Thess. v. 21.)
8, Trrtuuuian.!
De resurrect. carn. c. 24. Quae haec tempora, cum Thessa-
lonicensibus disce. Legimus enim: “Qualiter conversi sitis ab
idolis ad serviendum vivo et vero Deo, et ad exspectandum ὁ
coelis filium ejus, quem suscitavit ex mortuis, Jesum.” (1 Thess.
1 9103)
Ibid. Et ideo majestas Spiritus Sancti perspicax ejusmodi
sensuum, et in ipsa ad Thessalonicenses epistola suggerit: “De
temporibus autem et temporum spatiis, fratres, non est necessitas
scribendi vobis. Ipsi enim certissime scitis, quod dies Domini,
quasi fur nocte, ita adveniet etc.” (1 Thess. v. 1, ὅθ.)
1 Clement of Alexandria. About ten other passages could be cited from
Clement to the same effect. He calls it 6 Setog ἀπόστολος; Strom. IV. 87. p. 602, &e.
1 Tertullian has more than thirty citations from this Epistle.
253
ΧΧΙ.
SECOND THESSALONIANS.*
(COMPARE SECTIONS 1-I1I, XI, XIZ.)
1. Barnasas.
C.15.5. Ὅταν ἐλϑὼν ὃ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ xatagyioe τὸν χαιρὸν
- ) , \ ~ N ) = r oo
τοῦ ἀνόμου χαὶ χρινεῖ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς. (2 Thess. ii. 3.)
2. ΠΡΟΓΥΘΛΈΡ,
Philipp. 11. 8. Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis, vel
audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus Paulus, qui estis in principio
epistolae ejus. “De vobis etenim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis,”
quae Deum tunc solae cognoverant. (2 Thess. i. 4.)}
C. 114. Sobrii ergo estote et vos in hoc; “et non sicut in-
imicos tales existimetis,” sed sicut passibilia membra et errantia
eos reyocate, ut omnium vestrum corpus salvctis. (2 Thess. iii. 15.)
3. Justixy Marryr.
Dial. c. 110. p. 336 D. Ὅταν zai 6 τῆς ἀποστασίας ἄνϑρω-
πος, ὃ χαὶ εἰς τὸν ὕψιστον ἔξαλλα λαλῶν, ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἄνομα
τολμήσῃ εἰς ἡμᾶς τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς, x... (2 Thess. ii. 3.)
4. I[RENAEUS.
B. 11. 7. ἃ. Et iterum in secunda ad Thessalonicenses, de
antichristo dicens: “Et tune revelabitur iniquus, quem Dominus
Jesus Christus interficiet spiritu oris sui, et destruet praesentia
adventus sui illum, cujus est adventus secundum operationem
1 The second Epistle to the Thessalonians has been of late assailed. The
arguments mainly rest on ec. ii. 1-12, the doctrine of the man of sin. See Baur’s
Paulus, or most recently Hilg. Einl. p. 642. WHilgenfeld ascribes it to the reign
of Trajan. See an able reply in Davidson’s Int. to N. T. Vol. I. p. 8, ἄς,
1 Polycarp. See under Epistle to Philippians, and note,
204 SECOND THESSALONIANS.
Satanae, in omni virtute et signis, et portentis mendacii.”
(2 Thess. ii. 8.)
B. V. 25.1. De quo apostolus in epistola, quae est ad
Thessalonicenses secunda, sic ait: “‘Quoniam nisi venerit absces-
sio primum, et revelatus fuerit homo peccati, filius perditionis,
qui adversatur et extollit se super omne quod dicitur Deus, aut
colitur: ita ut in templo Dei sedeat, ostendens semetipsum tan-
quam sit Deus.” (2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.)
5. Ciement or ALEXANDRIA.
“ce
“ 2 ~ ‘
Strom. V. 3. p. 655. “Οὐχ ἐν πᾶσι" φησὶν 6 ἀπόστολος “ἣ
γνῶσις" προσεύχεσϑε δὲ ἵνα ῥυσθῶμεν ἀπὸ TOY ἀτόττων χαὶ πον-
γρῶν ἀνθρώπων" οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἣ πίστις." (2 Thess. iii. 2.)
γρῶν ἀνϑρώπ γὰρ πάντων ἡ πίστις. ss. iii. 2.
6. ‘TEeRTULLIAN,
De resurrect. carn. c. 24. Et in secunda (se. epistola ad
Thess.) pleniore sollicitudine ad eosdem: “Obsecro autem vos,
fratres, per adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et congrega-
tionem nostram ad illum, ne cito commoyveamini animo, neque
turbemini, neque per spiritum, neque per sermonem, scilicet
pseudoprophetarum, neque per epistolam, scilicet pseudapostolo-
rum, ac si per nostram, quasi insistat dies Domini.” (2 Thess.
iy 2, 9.)
Scorpiac., c.13. Paulus vero apostolus de persecutore, qui
primus ecclesiae sanguinem fudit, postea gladium stilo mutans,
et convertens machaeram in aratrum, lupus rapax Benjamin, de-
hine ipse adferens escam secundum Jacob, qualiter martyria, jam
et sibi optabilia, commendat, cum de Thessalonicensibus gaudens,
“Uti,” inquit, ‘“‘gloriemur in vobis in ecclesiis Dei pro tolerantia
vestra et fide, in omnibus persecutionibus ect pressuris, quibus
sustinetis ostentamen justi judicii Dei, ut digni habeamini regno
ejus, pro quo et patimini.” (2 Thess. i. 4.)
XXII.
FIRST TIMOTHY.’
1. Barnasas.!
C. 6. 7. Ἐν σαρχὶ οὖν αὐτοῦ μέλλοντος φανεροῦσϑαι χαὶ πάσ-
χειν. Also ὁ. 0. 14. and other passages. (Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16.)
2. CLEMENT or Rome.!
First Epistle.
C.7.3. Kei ἴδωμεν τί χαλὸν, καὶ τί τερτινὸν χαὶ προσδεχ-
τὸν ἐνώτσιιον τοῦ ποιήσαντος ἡμᾶς. (1 Tim. v. 4.)
1 1 Timothy. The ‘ Pastoral Epistles’? are so named because they contain
instructions to young Pastors; although the title does not strictly apply to 2 Ti-
mothy. The external testimony to them all is sufficient. Clement of Rome may
be said to quote Titus, Polyearp quotes 1 Timothy; Athenagoras and Theo-
philus do so also. Without dwelling on the coincidence in expression between
Justin Martyr and 1 Timothy, we may consider that (even before Irenaeus and
Clement of Alexandria, whose testimony is beyond dispute) the early date of the
Pastoral Epistles as a whole (and they stand or fall together) is established. It
is to be observed on the other hand that Marcion, Basilides, and other heretics
rejected them all (see Tert. adv. Marc. V. 21, and Jerome), and that Tatian re-
jected those to Timothy but accepted Titus (perhaps because it regards the here-
ties as more specially Jewish). From Tatian’s time till this century the Pastoral
Epistles were accepted by all. Schmidt (Int. to N. T. p. 260) suggested doubts
because of discrepancies with Acts. But Schleiermacher, here as elsewhere, was
the leader of many. In his letter to Gass (1807) he denounced 1 Timothy as an
imitation of 2 Timothy and Titus, and founded special objections on its peculiarity
of language, historical difficulties, and the plan of the Epistle, which he regarded
as unworthy of the great Apostle. Baur of course rejected them all. See his
‘** Die sogenannten Pastoral-Briefe,’”’ 1835, and ‘‘ Paulus der Apostel,’’ 1867. Reuss
(Les Epitres Pauliniennes, 1878) rejects 1 Timothy and Titus, but admits 2 Tim-
othy as written during the first imprisonment. Meyer, like De Wette, wavered
at different times, but in 1854 (and 1872) believed that they depended on the
more than doubtful basis of a second imprisonment. Huther and Wiesinger ably
defend the authenticity of the letters. In our own country Davidson, Int. to N. T.
1868, ably assails them. See Gloag, Int. to Pauline Epistles, for a clear state-
ment of the whole case.
1 Barnabas. Compare as echo: C. 1. 5, δικαιοσύνη πίστεως ἀρχὴ Χαὶ τέλος
ἀγάπη. (Comp. 1 Tim. i. 5.)
1 Clement. Compare as echoes: 1 Clem. 1. 3, directions to old and young,
&e. (1 Tim. v.1; Titus ii. 6); 1 Clem. 2. 1 (1 Tim. vi. 8); ὁ: "ὅν. 6 (1 Tim. ii. 7);
e. 44.6 (1 Tim. iii. 9); ὁ. 51.1 (1 Tim. v. 14); c¢. 56.1 (1 Tim. v. 21); ὁ. 61.2
(1 Tim. i. 17).
256 FIRST TIMOTHY.
C. 29.1. Προσέλϑωμεν οὖν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι ψυχῆς, ἁγνὰς
χαὶ ἀμιάντους χεῖρας αἴροντες πρὸς αὐτόν. (1 Tim. ii. 8)
Ο. 84. 1. Τίς οὖν ἐν ὑμῖν γενναῖος; τίς εὔσπλαγχνος; τίς
πεπληροφορημένος ἀγάπης; εἰπάτω" Εἰ dv ἐμὲ στάσις καὶ ἔρις
χαὶ σχίσματα, ἐκχωρῶ, ἄπειμι οὗ ἐὰν βούλησϑε, χαὶ ποιῶ τὰ
σιροστασσόμενα ὑττὸ τοῦ σιλήϑους" μόνον τὸ ποίμνιον τοῦ Χρισ-
τοῦ εἰρηνευέτω μετὰ τῶν χατεσταμένων τιρεσβυτέρων. Τοῦτο ὃ
ποιήσας ἑαυτῷ μέγα χλέος ἐν Κυρίῳ περιποιήσεται, καὶ WHS τόπος
δέξεται αὐτόν. (1 Tim. iii. 13.)
Second Epistle.?
C. 12.1. (comp. 17. 4) Ἐχλδεχώμεϑα οὖν xa ὥραν τὴν βασ-
λείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ nai διχαιοσίνῃ, ἐπειδὴ οὐχ οἴδαμεν
τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ Θεοῦ. (1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim.
Poo ivi 1:9: Titus i. 19}
C.15.1. Οὐκ οἴομαι δὲ ὅτι μιχρὰν συμβουλίαν ἐποιησάμην
περὶ ἐγκρατείας, ἣν στοιήσας τις οὐ μετανοήσει, ἀλλὰ καὶ ξαυ-
τὸν σώσει χἀμὲ τὸν συμβουλεύσαντα. Comp. 1 Tim. iv. 16.
C.19.1. Ὥστε, ἀδελφοὶ χαὶ ἀδελφαὶ, μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν τῆς
ἀληϑ εἰας ἀναγινώσχω ὑμῖν ἔντευξιν εἰς τὸ πιροσέχειν τοῖς γεγραμ-
μένοις, ἵνα χαὶ ἑαυτοὺς σώσητε χαὶ τὸν ἀναγινώσχοντα
ἐν ὑμῖν. Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16; iv. 16.3
C. 20.6. Τῷ μόνῳ Θεῷ ἀοράτῳ. (1 Tim. i. 17.)
ὃ. Ienatius.!
Eph. 10.1. Kai ὑττὲρ τῶν ἄλλων δὲ ἀνθρώπων ἀδιαλείπτως
σιροσεύχεσϑε. (1 Tim. ii. 1.)
2 Compare as echoes: 2 Clem. 8. 6 (1 Tim. vi. 14); ¢, 15.1 (1 Tim. iv. 16);
ce. 20. 4.5 (1 Tim. i. 17; ii. 1, &c.).
8 This and the previous passages can scarcely be dissociated from 1 Tim.
The preacher may or may not have been the Bishop or President (comp. Just.
Apol. I. 67), but he was one who identified his own Christian life with that
of his hearers. The peta τὸν Θεόν seems to indicate that his exhortation fol-
lowed the reading of the Divine word. In 2 Clem. 1. 1 he claims Christ as
God the Judge of quick and dead: in 3.1 he claims to know the Father of Truth
through Him; and there is nothing to prevent—there is much in the tone of the
Homily to warrant—our regarding this μετὰ τὸν Θεόν as a reference to the read-
ing of New Testament Scripture.
1 Ignatius. Compare as echoes: Eph. 20. 1. οἰκονομίας (1 Tim. i. 4). Ibid.
21. 2. ἐλπίδι ἡμῶν (1 Tim. i. 1). Magnes. 8. 1. μὴ πλανᾶσθε, x.t.A. (1 Tim. 1. 4).
POLYCARP. LETTER TO DIOGNETUS.
bo
σι
ει
4. Potycarp.!
Philipp. 4.1. ᾿“ρχὴ δὲ πάντων χαλετιὧν φιλαργυρία"
Ios 3 c > \ a) , υ \ , > γ
εἰδότες οὖν OTL οὐδὲν ELONVEYXAWEY εἰς τὸν χύσμον, ἀλλ
γ \ > & ~ »” c , ~ c ~ y
ουδὲ ἐξενεγκεῖν τι ἔχομεν, Onhiowueda τοῖς ὅπλοις τῆς δι-
χαιοσύνης.Σ (1 Tim. vi. 7, 10.)
Ibid. 12.3. Pro omnibus sanctis orate. Orate etiam pro re-
gibus et potestatibus et principibus. (1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.)
5. Lerrer to Dioenetus.!
\ ») ~ \
Ο. 11. 3. Οὲ πιστοὶ λογισϑέντες vx’ αὐτοῦ, ἔγνωσαν weredg
τᾷ ») , ‘ , ,ὔ ~ \
μυστήρια. Ov χάριν ἀπέστειλε λόγον, ἵνα χόσμῳ φανῇ" ὃς, ὑπὸ
~ yi δ] ‘ ‘ ~
λαοῦ ἀτιμασϑεὶς, διὰ ἀπττοστόλων χηρυχϑεὶς, ὑχεὸ EIVOY ἐπιστεύϑη.
(1 Tim. iii. 16.)
6. Lerrer or tHe Cuurcu oF VIENNE AND Lyons.
Eus. H. E.V.1. Ὑπερβεβλημένως δὲ ἐνέσκηψεν ἣ ὀργὴ mao
... εἰς “Atvahoy Περγαμηνὸν τῷ γένει, στύλον χαὶ ἑδραίωμα
τῶν ἐνταῦϑα ἀεὶ γεγονότα. (1 Tim. iii. 15; comp. Apocal. iii. 12.)
Ibid. V. 3. ““λχιβιάδου γάρ τινος ἐξ αὐτῶν, πάνυ αὐχμηρὸν
βιοῦντος βίον, χαὶ μηδενὸς ὅλως τὸ στιρότερον μεταλαμβάνοντος,
ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ καὶ ὕδατι χρωμένου, πιειρωμένου τε χαὶ ἐν τῇ
εἱρχτῇ οὕτω διάγειν, ᾿Αττάλῳ μετὰ τὸν πρῶτον ἀγῶνα ὃν ἐν τῷ
ἀμφιϑεάτρῳ ἤνυσεν, ἀπιεχαλύφϑη, ὅτι μὴ χαλῶς ποιοίη ὃ ᾿,λχι-
βιάδης, μὴ χρώμενος τοῖς χτίσμασι τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἄλλοις τύπον
Trall. 8. 2. ἀφορμάς (1 Tim. ν. 14). Smyrn. 13.1. παρϑένους, τὰς λεγομένας χή-
ρας (1 Tim. ν. 3,11). Ad Polye. 4. χῆραι (1 Tim. v. 8); δούλους (1 Tim. vi. 1).
1 Polyearp. Compare as echoes: C. 5.1 (ὁμοίως διάχονοι ἄμεμπτοι, χ.τ.λ.
(1 Tim. iii. 8, &c.); ὁ. 11. 2 (1 Tim. iii. 5). Chapters 5 and 6 of Polycarp are as
a whole an echo of Paul’s injunctions. Only Presbyters and Deacons are spoken
of as officebearers in Polycarp, and no notice is taken of preaching in the out-
line of their duties. It is to character more than to work that he looks.
2 Schleiermacher says that this quotation is too vague to be accounted a real
quotation, and at all events cannot resist the suspicion produced by the sub-
sequent omission in Polycarp (when treating of wives and widows) of all allusion
to this, the only Epistle in N. T. dealing with the subject of widows. See § 16,
§ 17. p. 229 of Berlin Edition of 1836. Arguments from such omission are al-
ways precarious. And moreover Polycarp in the next sentence (c. 4. 2) closely
resembles 1 Tim. v. 14 and Titus ii. 4.
1 Diognetus. Compare as an echo: C. 4. 6, Jeoogsera (1 Tim. iii. 16).
17
258 FIRST TIMOTHY.
σχανδάλου ὑπολιτιόμενος. Πεισϑεὶς δὲ ὃ “Αλχιβιάδης, πάντων
ἀνέδην μετελάμβανε χαὶ ηὐχαρίστει τῷ Θεῷ. (1 Tim. iv. 3, 4.)
7. Justox Marryr.!
Dial. ὁ. 7. p. 225 B (compare also ὁ: 35. p. 253 A). To tic
πλάνης πνεύματα χαὶ δαιμόνια δοξολογοῦσιν. (1 Tim. iv. 1.)
8. Hecesippus. !
Bus iH» “Bs SECS O.2
2 \ , ς Ds ΛΝ ἌΣ ΩΝ ς , ᾿ , δ, \
Ἐπὶ τούτοις ὃ αὐτὸς ἀνὴρ ((Ηγήσιτιπτος) διηγούμενος τὰ χατὰ
Ν ,’ γ Cc a” ,’ ~ , /
τοὺς δηλουμένους, ἐγιιλέγει ὡς ἄρα μέχρι τῶν τότε χρόνων σπαρ-
, c \ νας a »” Cine ie. , > ov
ϑένος καϑαρὰ χαὶ ἀδιάφϑορος ἕμεινεν ἢ ἐχχλησία, ἐν ἀδήλῳ που
, / , ~ Cc ~
σχοτίως φωλευόντων εἰσέτι τότε TOV, EL χαί τινες LAHOXOY, στα-
a ~ / ~
ραφϑείρειν ἐπιχειρούντων τὸν ὑγιῆ χανόνα τοῦ σωτηρίου χη-
\ ~ ? \
ούγματος. “Ὡς δ᾽ ὃ ἱερὸς τῶν ἀποστόλων χορὸς διάφορον εἰλήφει
~ Hee Sei yes Mal : c Seed ae SS ae ie ~
tov βίου τέλος, “ταρεληλύϑει TE ἢ γενξὰ ἐχείνη TOY μὑταῖς ἀχοαῖς
~ , / ~ , Log ~ ,
τῆς ἐνϑέου σοφίας ἐπαχοῦσαι χατηξιωμένων, τηνιχαῦτα τῆς ἀϑέου
2 Ν \ ~ ~ c ν
χιλάνης ἀρχὴν ἐλάμβανεν ἣ σύστασις, διὰ τῆς τῶν ἑτεροδιδα-
3 ἈΝ Ul A / ~ 2 /
σχάλων ἀτιάτης" Ol χαὶ, ἅτε μηδενὸς ἔτι τῶν αἀττοστόλων λειτι-
, ~ \ ay ~ ~ ~ ~ 2)
ομένου, γυμνῇ λοιττὸν ἤδη τῇ χεφαλῇ τῷ τῆς ἀληϑείας κηρύγματι
- > , ,
τὴν ψευδώνυμον γνῶσιν ἀντιχηρύττειν ἐπεχείρουν.
1 Justin. Compare as possible echoes: Dial. c. 7. p. 225 B; and the
numerous passages where “εοσέβεια and εὐσέβεια are used as in the Pastoral
Epistles. The latter word, found (save once in Acts) only in those Epistles and
2 Peter in the N. T., is found in Justin with the same meaning. Thus Dial. ec. 4.
p- 222 E, δικαιοσύνη χαὶ εὐσέβεια; Dial. c. 95. p. 323 A; Dial. c. 110. p. 337 A.
So also “εοσέβεια Dial. c. 110. p. 337 A, ἄς.
1 Hegesippus. See p.127 and note.
2 Baur made a great deal of this passage. The chief point is the assertion
that the Church remained a chaste virgin until after the death of the Apostles.
Upon this Baur founded an argument for the late date of the Pastoral Epistles
as they dealt with the corruption of the Church caused by heresy. But the reply
is that Hegesippus only says that those who pervert the sound doctrine of the
Gospel did not dare to show their heads- freely until after the death of the
Apostles. Baur also urges that Hegesippus, an Ebionite, was unlikely to quote
the words of St Paul; but it is obvious that a forger in the Pauline interest was
as little likely to quote Hegesippus. There is, moreover, no valid proof that Heg-
esippus was a foe of Paulinism. See Wieseler, die Briefe an Timotheus u. Titus,
Supplement-Band III, Herzog’s Encyclopaedie. He identifies the heresies of the
Pastoral Epistles with the teachings of Apollonius of Tyana.
ATHENAGORAS. THEOPHILUS. IRENAEUS. CLEMENT. 259
9. Syriac, Orv Larix, anp Morarorian Canon.
(See before, pp. 1, 2, 6, 7.)
10. ATHENAGORAS.
Legatio, ὁ. 16. Πάντα γὰρ ὃ Θεός ἐστιν αὐτὸς αὐτῷ, φῶς
ἀπρόσιτον, χόσμος τέλειος, τινεῦμα, δύναμις, λόγος. (1 Tim.
vi. 16.)
Ibid. ¢. 37. “Ὅπως ἤρεμον χαὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγοιμεν. (1 Tim.
ii. 2.)
11. TuHeopniuus.!
Ad Autolye. 111. 14. p. 126. Ἔτι μὴν χαὶ περὶ τοῦ ὑποτάσ-
2 - «- - ,
σεσϑαι ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις nat εὔχεσϑαι ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, χελεύει
ν = = ᾽
- - [οἱ »"ὕὔ Ν € ἵν
ἡμᾶς ὃ ϑεῖος λόγος ὕπως ἤρεμον zai ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν.
Germ i 1 2: ΟΡ. Tit. iti. 1.)
12. IreNarus.
B.1.1,1. Ἐπὶ" τὴν ἀλήϑειαν παραπεμπόμενοί τινες ἐπεισάγ-
ουσι λόγους ψευδεῖς χαὶ γενεαλογίας ματαίας, αἵτινες ζητήσεις
μᾶλλον παρέχουσι, χκαϑὼς ὃ ἀπόστολός φησιν, 1, οἰχοδομὴν Θεοῦ
τὴν ἐν τείστει. (1 Tim. i. 4.)
}. II. 14, 7. Et bene Paulus ait, “vocum novitates? falsae
agnitionis.” (1 Tim. vi. 20.)
13. CxLement or ALEXANDRIA.
Strom. IT. 11. p. 457. Περὶ ἧς ὃ ἀπόστολος γράφων: “Ὦ
Τιμόϑεε," φησὶν, “τὴν παραχαταϑήχην φύλαξον ἐχτρεπόμενος τὰς
, \ ,ὔ ~ , ,
βεβήλους χενοφωνίας καὶ ἀντιϑέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως,
ἥν τινὲς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, σιερὶ τὴν τιίστιν ἡστόχησαν." Ὑπὸ ταύ-
της ἐλεγχόμενοι τῆς φωνῆς οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων τὰς πρὸς 11-
μόϑεον ἀϑετοῦσιν ἐπιστολάς.1 (1 Tim. vi. 20. 21.)
1 Theophilus. Add as echo: C. 1.2 (1 Tim. i. 10).
1 Trenaeus. ᾿Επεί (?).
2 Irenaeus seems to have read xatvopwviac. So Chrysostom (2 Tim. ii. 10).
The Latin Fathers (with the Vulgate) have vocum novitates.
17 *
200 FIRST TIMOTHY.
Ibid. 111. 12. p. 552. “Oder xai ὃ ἀπόστολος, “βούλομαι
οὖν," φησὶ, “νεωτέρας γαμεῖν, τεχνογονεῖν, οἰχοδεσποτεῖν, undé-
, 2 ‘ , ~ ? te ! , 2) ,
μίαν ἀφορμὴν διδόναι τῷ αντιχειμένῳ λοιδορίας χάριν. ᾿Ἤδη yao
τινὲς ξξετράπησαν osiow τοῦ Σατανᾶ. (1 Tim. v. 14, 15.)
Prot. c.9. p. 71. Θεοσέβεια δὲ πρὸς πάντα ὠφέλιμος,
χατὰ τὸν Παῦλον, ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καὶ
tig weddovons. (1 Tim. iv. 8.)
14. Terrruuan.
Adv. Marc. V. 21. See before (Philemon).
De praescript. haeret. c. 25. Et hoc verbo usus est Paulus
ad Timotheum: “Ὁ Timothee, depositum custodi.” (1 Tim. vi.
20.) Et rursus: “Bonum depositum serva.” (2 Tim. i. 14.)
De pudicit. c. 13. Plane idem Apostolus Hymenaeum et Alex-
andrum Satanae tradidit, ut emendarentur non blasphemare, sicut
Timotheo suo scribit. (1 Tim. i. 20.)
15. Jerome.
Comment. in ep. ad Tit. prooem. (Vol. VII. p. 085.) Licet non
sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor
et Basilidem et omnes haereticos, qui vetus laniant Testamentum:
tamen eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si saltem in novo continerent
manus suas, et non auderent Christi (ut ipsi jactitant) boni Dei
filii, vel Evangelistas violare, vel Apostolos. Nunc vero quum
et Evangelia ejus dissipaverint, et Apostolorum epistolas, non
Apostolorum Christi fecerint esse, sed proprias, miror quomodo
5101 Christianorum nomen audeant vindicare. Ut enim de cae-
teris epistolis taceam, de quibus quicquid contrarium suo dogmati
viderant, eraserunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas crediderunt,
ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, ad Hebraeos, et ad Titum
quam nunc conamur exponere. Et si quidem redderent causas
cur eas Apostoli non putarent; tentaremus aliquid respondere et
forsitan satisfacere lectori. Nunc vero cum haeretica auctoritate
pronuntient et dicant: “illa epistola Pauli est, haec non est,” ea
1 Clement. Marcion, Basilides, and others rejected all the Pastoral Epistles.
Tatian rejected also the two Epistles to Timothy, but accepted that to Titus.
JEROME. 261
auctoritate refelli se pro veritate intelligant, qua ipsi non eru-
bescunt falsa simulare. Sed Tatianus, Encratitarum patriarches,
qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime,
hoc est ad Titum, Apostoli pronunciandam credidit, parvi pen-
dens Marcionis et aliorum, qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt,
assertionem. Scribit igitur Apostolus, ὁ Paula et Eustochium,
de Nicopoli, quae in Actiaco littore sita, nunc possessionis vestrae
pars vel maxima est; et scribit ad Titum discipulum suum, οἱ
in Christo fillum, quem Cretae reliquerat ad ecclesias instruen-
das: praecepitque ei, ut cum e duobus Artemas, seu Tychicus
Cretam fuerit appulsus, ipse Nicopolim veniat. Justum quippe
erat, ut ille qui dixerat, “Sollicitudo mea omnium ecclesiarum,”
et qui Evangelium Christi usque ad Illyricum de Jerosolymis pro-
ficiscens, fundaverat, non pateretur et sui et Titi absentia Cre-
tenses esse desertos, a quibus primum idololatriae semina pullu-
larunt: sed mitteret eis pro se et Tito Arteman, vel Tychicum,
quorum doctrina et solatio confoverentur.
202
ΧΧΉΙ.
δι ΘΝ Τὰ M0 πῆς
(ΟΟΥΡΑΝΕ SECTIONS ΕΠ]. ΧΙ. XIL)
1. Barnapsas.!
C.7.2. Εἰ οὖν ὃ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὧν Κύριος, χαὶ μέλλων
κρίνειν ζῶντας χαὶ νεχροὺς, ἔπαϑεν, ἵνα ἣ στιληγὴ αὐτοῦ ζωοτπιοιήσῃ
« - / ca ς KY ~ ~ 2 Ὁ / © ~ ’
ἡμᾶς, πιστεύσωμεν ὅτι ὃ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ove ηδύνατο παϑεῖν εἰ
\ 2 - . . .
(a) Ov ἡμὰς (2 Tim. iv. 1; comp. Acts x. 42, and 1 Pet. iv. 5.)
2. Crement or Rome.
First: Epistle
Second Epistle?
3. I[enatius,!
Smyrn. ὁ. Ὁ and ὁ. 10. Κατὰ πάντα μὲ ἀνεπαύσατε, χαὶ ὑμᾶς
᾿Ιησοὺς Χριστός. ᾿Ἵπό χαὶ παρόντα ἡγατιήσατε᾽ ἀμείβοι
"σοὺς Χριστός. “πόντα μὲ χαὶ παρόντα ἡγαττήσατε" ἀμείῇ
Cia \ 21 Πρ. , ς , ) ~ ΄ 2 ,
vuly Θεὸς, δι ov πάντα ὑπομένοντες, αὐτοῦ τεύξεσϑε. ... ἀντί-
~ ~ \ A
Wryov ὑμῶν TO πνεῦμά μου χαὶ τὰ δεσμά μου, ἃ οὐχ ὑπερηφαν-
, ὍΝ 5 ΄ DAWN CHR ταν ? ql ς ,
ἤσατε, οὐδὲ ἐπησχύνϑητε. Οὐδὲ ὑμᾶς ἐπαισχυνϑήσεται ἣ τελεία
> = Ps ς a A
πίστις, Inoovg Χριστός. (2 Tim. i. 16, 18.)
4, Porycarpe.!
Philipp. ὁ. 5.2. Καϑὼς ὑπέσχετο ἡμῖν ἐγεῖραι ἡμᾶς & ve-
1 Barnabas. Compare as echo: C. 4. 6 ἐπισωρεύοντας (2 Tim. iv. 3, &e.).
1 Clement. Compare as echoes: 1 Clem. c. 5. 6 (2 Tim. i. 11); δ. 2%. 3
(2 Tim. i. 6); 6. 44. 5 (2 Tim. ἵν: 6); ὁ: 44. 6 (2 Tim.i. 3); c. 55. 3 (2 Tim. 17. 1),
2 Compare as echoes: 2 Clem. ὁ. 7. 3 (2 Tim. iv. 7); ὁ. 7. 4; 20. 2 (2 Tim.
11. 5):
1 Ignatius. Compare as echoes: Eph. 2. 1. ἀναψύξαι (2 Tim. i. 16). Rom.
2.2. σπονδισσῆναι (2 Tim. iv. 6). Ad Polycarp. 6. 2. ἀρέσχετε (2 Tim. ii. 4)
1 Polyearp. As an echo, compare the Salutation with 2 Tim. i. 2; Titus i. 4.
ATHENAGORAS. IRENAEUS. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 263
Ξ - εἰ ὌΠ vA , ) 5} 2 ~ Ν \ ,
χρῶν, χαὶ OTL ἐὰν σπιολιτευσώμεϑα ἀξίως αὐτοῦ, καὶ συμβασιλεύ-
Ss ” , Sy oe wae
σομεὲν αὐτῷ, εἴγε ττιστεύομεν. (2 Tim. 11. 11, 12.)
γ Ν \ ~ ) , > ~ 2 ‘ \
C.9. 2. Ov γὰρ tov νῦν ἡγάπησεν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ tov
c ‘ [4 - 2 , \ Nero eG ~ ς \ ~ ~ 7 ,
ὑχεὲρ ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντα χαὶ Oe ἡμὰς ὑπὸ tov Θεοῦ ἀνασταντα.
(2)Tim..iv. 10.)
5. Arnenacoras, !
6. JRENAEUS.
B. IIT. 3, ὃ. Θεμελιώσαντες οὖν χαὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μια-
χάριοι ἀπιόστολοι τὴν ἐχχλησίαν, “ίνῳ τὴν τῆς ἐπισχοτπίῆς λει-
τουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν. Τούτου τοῦ “ίνου Παῦλος ὃν ταῖς πρὸς
Τιμόϑεον ἐπιστολαῖς μέμνηται.' (2 Τίπι. iv. 21.)
ΠΕ ΠῚ 2 Tim. ἵν. 9, 10, 11. (Comp. before on Acts,
p. 200.)
B. V. 20, 2. Tales sunt autem omnes haeretici . . . semper
quaerentes et nunquam verum invenientes. (2 Tim. iii. 7.)
te CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
Strom. I. 1. p. 317. “Σὺ οὖν ἐνδυναμοῦ," χαὶ Παῦλος λέγει,
“ey χάριτι τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: xai ἃ ἤχουσας παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ διὰ
σιολλῶν μαρτύρων, ταῦτα παράϑου πιστοῖς ἀνϑρώποις, οἵτινες
ἱχανοὶ ἔσονται χαὶ ἑτέρους διδάξαι." Καὶ πάλιν: “Σπούδασον
σεαυτὸν δόχιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ Θεῷ, ἐργάτην ἀνεεαίσχυντον, ὁρ-
ϑοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληϑείας. (2 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 15.)
Ibid. 17. 11. ἡ. 457. (See before, 1 Tim. p. 259.)
Ibid. TIT. 6. p. 536. Ἴσμεν γὰρ χαὶ ὅσα περὶ διακόνων γυ-
γαιχῶν ἐν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τιρὸς Τιμόϑεον ἐπιστολῇ ὃ γενναῖος διατάσ-
σεται Παῦλοες.
Protr. ¢. 9. p. 11. Ταύτην ὃ ᾿Απόστολος τὴν διδασχαλίαν
ϑείαν ὕντως ἐπιστάμενος “Σὺ δὲ, ὦ Τιμόϑεε," φησὶν, “ ἀπὸ βρέ-
φους τὰ Ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας, τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σω-
τηρίαν, διὰ τείστεως ἐν Χριστῷ." (2 Tim. iii. 15.)
1 Athenagoras. Echo: 1, 1, ᾿Ανϑρώποις ἔχουσι τὸν νοῦν κατεφϑαομιένον
(2 Tim. iii. 8.)
1 Trenaeus. From Eus. H. E. V. 6. Nicephor. H. E. IV. 15.
bo
o
a
SECOND TIMOTHY.
8, TERTULLIAN,
De praescript. adv. haeret. ὁ. 25. (See above on 1 Tim. p. 260.)
Scorpiace, .c. 13. Vides quam martyrii definiat felicitatem,
cui de gaudio mutuo acquirit solemnitatem, ut proximus denique
voti sui factus est, qualiter de prospectu ejus exultans seribit
Timotheo: “Ego enim jam libor, et tempus dijunctionis instat.
Agonem bonum decertavi, cursum consummayi, fidem custodivi;
superest corona, quam mihi Dominus illa die reddet, scilicet pas-
sionis.” (2 Tim. iv. 6, 7, 8.)
9. ORIGEN.
Comment. in Matth. series vet. interpretat. ὁ. 117. (Migne,
Vol. I. p. 1769.) Item quod ait: “Sicut Jamnes et Mambres
restiterunt Moysi,” non invenitur in publicis scripturis, sed in
libro secreto, qui suprascribitur: ‘“Jamnes et Mambres liber.”
Unde ausi sunt quidam Epistolam ad Timotheum repellere, quasi
habentem in se textum alicujus secreti, sed non potuerunt.
(2 Tim. iii. 8.)
10. Evusrsius.
3 = ~ \ ’ὔ
H. Ε. 11. 22. Ἔν ᾧ δεσμοῖς ἐχόμενος τὴν πρὸς Τιμοϑεον
- /
δευτέραν ἐπιστολὴν συντάττει, OMOv σημαίνων τήν τὲ ττροτέραν
3) ~ ἣν
αὐτῷ γενομένην ἀτιολογίαν, χαὶ τὴν στιαρατιόδας τελείωσιν. Aéxov
} - ~
δὴ χαὶ τούτων τὰς αὐτοῦ μαρτυρίας: “Ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μου,"
2 > 2 ,
φησὶν, “αττολογίᾳ οὐδείς μοι συμπαρεγένετο, ἀλλὰ σάν-
» , 2 - Cc ,
τὲς μὲ ἐγκατέλιπον, (μὴ αὐτοῖς λογισϑείη), ὃ δὲ Κύριὸς
μοι παρέστη χαὶ ἐνεδυνάμωσέ με, ἵνα OL ἐμοῦ τὸ κήρυγμα
ὭΣ "Ὁ ΔΌΣ , , δ Εν Ν
σπληροφορηϑῆῇ, καὶ ἀκούσωσι πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη. Καὶ ἐῤ-
fe td > 7 , 9 vy ~ \ [453 \ ,
ῥύσϑην Ex στόματος λέοντος." Σαφῶς dé παρίστησι διὰ Tov-
των, ὅτι δὴ τὸ TLQOTEQOY, ὅπως ἂν τὸ χήρυγμα τὸ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τεληρωϑείη
δ ΗΚ τ 59 / , \ ’ , Cc 2 AY
ἐῤῥύσϑη 2x στόματος λέοντος, τὸν Νέρωνα ταύτῃ, ὡς Fone, διὰ
τὸ ὠμόϑυμον πιροσειτι(ν. Οὐχ οὖν ἑξῆς σπιροστέϑειχε τταρατιλήσιόν
τι τῷ, δύσεταί με ἐκ στόματος λέοντος. Ἑώρα γὰρ τῷ
/ ~
πνεύματι THY ὅσον οὔττω μέλλουσαν αὐτοῦ τελευτήν. Διό φησιν
BY , ~ 6, Se MET alld 5. , , 4) \ γα τις ,
ἐπιλέγων τῷ “xat ἐῤῥύσθην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος," τὸ “ῥύσεταί μὲ
6 Κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ, χαὶ σώσει εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν
EUSEBIUS. 265
> ~ Ὁ
αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον," σημαίνων τὸ παραυτίχα μαρτύριον, Ὁ καὶ
~ > ὦ ~ >
σαφέστερον ἕν τῇ αὐτῇ τιρολέγει γραφὴ φάσχων" “ Ἐγὼ yao ἤδη
Cc \ ~ ~ 2
στιένδομαι, LALO χαιρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς ἀναλύσεως ἐφέστηκεν."
‘ ay EN ~ , 5. ~ ~ \ , ‘
Nov μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τῆς δευτέρας ἐπιστολῆς tov ττρὸς Τιμόϑεον, τὸν
~ 2) ~ ~ ~ ‘
“Ἰουχᾶν μόνον γράφοντι αὐτῷ συνεῖναι δηλοῖ, χατὰ δὲ τὴν στρο-
, 3 , IO ~ cl ’ , \ ~ δ) ,
τέραν ἀπολογίαν οὐδὲ τοῦτον. ᾿Οϑεν εἰχότως τὰς τῶν αἀττοστόλων
Ie πον 5 - c 7 aie L \ : , aN ,
Πραξεις eu ξχξῖνον ὁ “ουχᾶς γεξριξγραι!ὲ τὸν yxoovoy, τὴν μὲχ-
co ~ ͵ Ἀν Ἃς , ς , en UeiGiees
ρις ove τῷ Παύλῳ συνὴν Ἱστορίαν ὑφηγησάμενος. Ταῦτα δὲ ἡμῖν
γ΄. , cr \ Ἐν υς - ΗΝ ὙΕΕΝ
ξίρηται σιαρισταμέγνοις, OTL μὴ LOS ἣν ὁ “ουκᾶς ἀνέγραιμεν ὅττι
~ ν᾿ ~ τ Ὁ) -
τῆς “Ρώμης ἐπιδιημιίαν τοῦ Παύλου, τὸ μαρτύριον αὐτῷ συνεπερ-
, De oN , \ \ 2 \ ) , ~ ,
avin. Εἰκὸς γέ τοι xara μὲν ἀρχὰς ἡπιώτερον τοῦ Νέρωνος δια-
χειμένου δᾷον τὴν ὑπιὲρ τοῦ δόγματος τοῦ Παύλου καταδεχϑῆγναι
2 / ‘ a 3 , ~
ἀπολογίαν. Προελϑόντος δὲ εἰς ἀϑεμίτους τόλμας μετὰ τῶν ἄλ-
4 ~ 2 -
λων χαὶ τὰ xara τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐπιχειρῆσαι.ἷ
. -- \ ~ 2) ~ ,
Ibid. U1. 4. Τῶν δὲ λοιτιῶν ἀχολούϑων τοῦ Παύλου, Κρίσχης
\ ? \ ~ 7 , 2 , Cc 2 2 ~ ~ -
μὲν ἐπεὶ τᾶς αλλίας" στειλάμενος ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρεῖται, Aivos
τῷ > _ w
δὲ, οὗ μέμνηται συνόντος ἐπὶ “Ρώμης αὐτῷ xata τὴν δευτέραν
\ / γ \ ~ Ν , Coot ς ,
σιρὺς Τιμόϑεον ἐπιστολὴν, σπιρῶτος μετὰ Πέτρον τῆς “Ρωμαίων
ἐχχλησίας τὴν ἐπιισχοττὴν ἤδη τιρότερον χληρωϑεὶς δεδήλωται
ἐν εὐ OTE’ ἡ 7 Q0tEe 0 5 ] :
1 Eusebius. Others read: ἐγχειρηϑῆναι.
2 See 2 Tim. iv. 2. Others read: εἰς Γαλλίαν, others: εἰς τὴν Γαλατίαν.
ΧΧΙΝ.
ΤῊ ν ΠΡ;
(COMPARE SECTIONS ἘΠῚ. XI. XI)
1. Barnasas, !
2. Criement or Rome, !
First Epistle.
C. 2.7. Ἕτοιμοι εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαϑόν. (Tit. iii. 1.)
3. Ienativs. !
4. IJrenaevs.
B. 1. 16.3. Ὅσοι δὲ ἀφίστανται τῆς ἐχχλησίας καὶ τούτοις
- , '¢ ro 25 gf > , 1S) ς
τοῖς γραύδεσι μύϑοις σιείϑονται, ἁληϑῶς αὐτοχατάχριτοι. Οὺς ὃ
Παῦλος ἐγκελεύεται quiv μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουϑεσίαν τταρ-
αἰτεῖσϑαι. (Tit. ili. 10.)
2 \ a ae
B. TIT. ὃ. 4. Τοσαύτην ot ἀτιόστολοι χαὶ ot μαϑηταὶ αὐτῶν
2 2 , \ ‘ ‘ , , ~ ~
ἔσχον εὐλάβειαν, πρὸς τὸ μηδὲ μέχρι λόγου κοινωνεῖν τινι τῶν
/ ‘ ’ , Cc \ ~ yr
παραχαρασσόντων τὴν αλήϑειαν, ὡς καὶ Παῦλος ἔφησεν" aigett-
χὸν ἄνϑρωπον μετὰ μίαν χαὶ δευτέραν νουϑεσίαν “ταραιτοῦ, εἰ--
- ‘ Po δὴ
dwg ὅτι ἐξέστρατιται ὃ τοιοῦτος, χαὶ ἁμαρτάνει, WY αὐτοχατά-
χριτοθν {{||}111: 10; 11.)
B. V. 15. 8. Jesus dixit ei: “Vade in Siloam, et lavare,”
simul et plasmationem et eam, quae est per lavacrum, regenera-
tionem restituens ei. (Tit. iil. 5.)
1 Barnabas. Echo: ἐλπὶς ζωῆς (Tit. i. 2, &c.).
1 Clement. Echoes: 1 Clement 26.1 and 35. 2 (Tit. ii. 10); ο. 27. 2 (Tit. i. 2);
c. 64 (Tit. ii. 14).
1 Ignatius. Echoes: Magnes. 6.2, τύπον (Titus ii. 7). Ibid. 8. 1, μυϑεύ-
μᾶσιν (Titus 1. 14; iii. 9). Trall. 3. 2, χατάστημα (Titus ii. 3).
1 Trenaeus. The Greek from Eus. H. Εἰ. IV. 14.
ATHENAGORAS. THEOPHILUS. JUSTIN MARTYR. CLEMENT. 267
5. Tatian.
Jerome, comment. in ep. ad Tit. prooem. (See before, 1 Tim.
p. 260.)
6. ATHENAGORAS.
11. 16. Me ὕδατος καὶ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας. (Tit. iii. 5.)
7. ‘THEOPHILUS.
Ad Autolyc. 11. 16. p. 95. Ὅπως ἢ καὶ τοῦτο εἰς δεῖγμα τοῦ
μέλλειν λαμβάνειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μετάνοιαν χαὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν
διὰ ὕδατος zai λουτροῦ τειαλιγγενεσίας πάντας τοὺς προσιόντας
τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ, καὶ ἀναγεννωμένους χαὶ λαμβάνοντας εὐλογίαν παρὰ
tov @eov. (Tit. iii. 5, 6.)
Ibid. 111. 9. p. 122. ᾿Αλλὰ νομοϑέτην ἔχομεν τὸν ὄντως Θεὸν,
ὃς χαὶ διδάσχει ἡμᾶς δικαιοτιραγεῖν καὶ εὐσεβεῖν καὶ χαλοποιεῖν.
(Tit. ii, 11, 12.)
8. Justin Martyr.
Dial. c. 47. p. 266 D. “H γὰρ χρηστότης καὶ + φιλανϑρωπία
= ~ \ ἈΝ - , > ~ . stele,
τοῦ Θεοῦ χαὶ τὸ ἄμετρον τοῦ τιλούτου αὐτοῦ, «1.4. (Titus ill. 4.)
9, (ἸΠΕΜΕΝΤ or, ALEXANDRIA.
Strom. I. 13. p. 350. Φασὶ dé Ἕλληνες μετά ye Ὀρφέα nai
Aivov ... ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ πρώτους ϑαυμασϑῆναι τοὺς Ewta, τοὺς
, , \ -
ἐπιχληϑέντας σοφούς. ... τὸν δὲ ἕβδομον, οἱ μὲν Περίανδῥον
εἶναι λέγουσιν τὸν ΙΚορίνϑιον, οἱ δὲ ᾿Ανάχαρσιν τὸν Σχύϑην, οἱ
δὲ Ἐπιμενίδην τὸν Κρῆτα, ὃν “Ελληγιχὸν οἷδὲ προφήτην, ov μέμι-
νηται ὃ -Andotohog Παῦλος ἐν τῇ τιρὸς Τῖτον ἐπιστολῇ, λέγων
« ἣ ape? ᾽ Dele ST Ξ , « ~ SN
οὕτως" Εἰπέν τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἰδιος προφήτης οὕτως" Κρῆτες ἀεὶ
~ Ν , , > , 5 .
ψεῦσται, κακὰ ϑηρία, γαστέρες aoyat. (Tit. i. 12.)
Prot. ὁ. 1. p. 7. Κατὰ γὰρ τὸν ϑεσπέσιον ἐχεῖνον τοῦ Κυ-
, 2 , c , ~ we Ὁ / ~ γ ,
otov «Α΄ πόστολον, ἣ χάρις tov Θεοῦ ἢ σωτήριος πᾶσιν ανϑρώτστοις
ἐπεφάνη, παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς, ἵνα, ἀρνησάμενοι τὴν ἀσέβειαν χαὶ
τὰς χοσμικὰς ἐπιϑυμίας σωφρόνως χαὶ διχαίως χαὶ εὐσεβῶς ζή-
268 SECOND TIMOTHY.
σωμεν ἐν τῷ viv αἰῶνι, προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μαχαρίαν ἐλπίδα χαὶ
ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ, καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ. (Tit. ii. 11-13.)
10. TEerRruuian.
De praescript. haeret. c. 6. Nec diutius de isto, si idem est
Paulus, qui et alibi haereses inter carnalia crimina numerat, scrib-
ens ad Galatas, et qui Tito suggerit, hominem haereticum post
primam correptionem recusandum, quod perversus sit ejusmodi
et delinquat, ut a semetipso damnatus. (Tit. ili. 10, 11.)
Adv. Marcion. V.21. (See below on Philemon.)
1 Clement cites this Epistle repeatedly.
209
XXV.
ΕΝ ΟΝ.
(COMPARE SECTIONS I-III. XI. XII.)
1. Syriac anp πὴ Lat Versions. Moratortan Canon.
(See before, pp. 1, 2, 6, 7.)
2. TEeRTULLIAN,
Adv. Marcion. V. 21. Soli huic epistolae brevitas sua pro-
fuit,! ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet. Miror tamen cum
ad unum hominem literas factas receperit, quid ad Timotheum
duas, et unam ad Titum de ecclesiastico statu compositas re-
cusaverit. Adfectavit, opinor, etiam numerum epistolarum inter-
polare.
3. ORrIGEN.
Homil. in Jerem. 19. (Migne, Vol. III. p. 501.) Ὅπερ χαὶ ὃ
Παῦλος ἐπιστάμενος, ἔλεγεν ἕν τῇ πρὸς Φιλήμονα ἐπιστολῇ τῷ
,ὔ \ (Xe } , πο \ Dae U ἌΝ Ω te
Φιλήμονι περὶ tov Ονησίμου" ἵνα μὴ χατ᾽ ἀνάγχην τὸ ἀγαϑόν σου
3 3 Ν ye ἢ
ἢ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑχούσιον. (Υ. 14.)
Matth. comment. series, tract. 88. (ΜΊρπο, Vol. III. p. 1707.)
De Paulo autem dictum est ad Philemonem: “Nune autem ut
Paulus senex,” cum esset adolescentulus quando Stephanus pro
Christi testimonio lapidabatur, et ipse vestimenta servabat inter-
ficientium eum. (v. 9.)
Ibid. tract. 34. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 1715.) Sicut Paulus ad
Philemonem dicit: “gaudium enim magnum habuimus, et conso-
lationem in charitate tua, quia viscera sanctorum requieverunt
per te, frater.” (v. 7.)
1 Tertullian. The chief value of this passage is its explicit statement that
the short Epistle to Philemon was in Marcion’s Canon. Epiphanius makes the
same statement. Haer. 42, 9. p. 310. See before, page 242. Irenaeus and Clem.
Alex. do not cite it.
270 PHILEMON.
4. Evusesius.
Η. #. ΠΙ|. 25. See before, p. 10.
5. JEROME.
Comment. in Ep. ad Philem. prooem. (Vol. VIL. p. 741.) Qui
nolunt inter epistolas Pauli eam recipere quae ad Philemonem scrib-
itur, aiunt, non semper Apostolum, nec omnia, Christo in se loquente,
dixisse: quia nec humana imbecillitas unum tenorem Sancti Spiritus
ferre potuisset: nec hujus corpusculi necessitates sub praesentia
Domini semper complerentur; velut disponere prandium, cibum ca-
pere, esurire, saturari, ingesta digerere, exhausta complere; taceo
de caeteris, quae exquisite et coacte replicant. ... His et cac-
teris istiusmodi, volunt autem epistolam non esse Pauli, quae ad
Philemonem scribitur: aut etiam si Pauli sit, nihil habere quod
aedificare nos possit; et a plerisque veteribus repudiatam, dum
commendandi tantum scribatur officio, non docendi. At e con-
trario qui germanae auctoritatis eam esse defendunt, dicunt num-
quam in toto orbe a cunctis ecclesiis fuisse susceptam, nisi Pauli
apostoli crederetur: et hac lege ne secundam quidem ad Timo-
theum, et ad Galatas eos debere suscipere, de quibus et ipse
humanae imbecillitatis exempla protulerit. ‘Penulam quam re-
Ὁ Πα] Troade apud Carpum, veniens tecum affer.” Et: “Utinam
excidantur qui vos conturbant.” Inveniri plurima et ad Romanos
et ad caeteras ecclesias, maximeque ad Corinthios remissius et
quotidiano pene sermone dictata, in quibus apostolus loquatur:
“Caeteris autem ego dico, non Dominus.” Quas et ipsas quia
aliquid tale habeant, aut Pauli epistolas non putandas, aut si
istae recipiuntur, recipiendam esse et ad Philemonem, ex prae-
judicio similium receptarum. Valde autem eos et simpliciter er-
rare, si putent cibum emere, hospitium praeparare, vestimenta
conquirere, esse peccatum. ... Et quoniam Marcionis fecimus
mentionem, Pauli esse epistolam ad Marcionem, saltem Marcione
auctore doceantur. Qui cum caeteras epistolas ejusdem vel non
susceperit, vel quaedam in his mutaverit atque corroserit, in hanc
solam manus non est ausus mittere: quia sua illam brevitas de-
fendebat. Sed mihi videntur dum epistolam simplicitatis arguunt,
JEROME. 271
suam imperitiam prodere; non intelligentes quid in singulis ser-
monibus virtutis ac sapientiae lateat. Quae, orantibus vobis, et
ipso nobis Sancto Spiritu suggerente, quo scripta sunt, suis locis
explanare conabimur. Si autem brevitas habetur contemtui, con-
temnatur Abdias, Naiim, Sophonias, et alii duodecim propheta-
rum, in quibus tam mira et tam grandia sunt quae feruntur, ut
nescias utrum brevitatem sermonum in illis admirari debeas, an
magnitudinem sensuum. Quod si intelligerent hi, qui epistolam
ad Philemonem repudiant, numquam brevitatem despicerent; quae
pro laciniosis legis oneribus, evangelico decore conscripta est,
dum breviatum consummatumque sermonem facit Dominus super
terram. Sed jam ipsa Apostoli verba ponenda sunt, quae ita
incipiunt: Paulus vinctus Christi Jesu, «[ο."
1 Jerome. Similar testimony to the value and Pauline origin of this Epistle
is given by Chrysostom, who like Jerome had to defend it against the charge
of being on a subject below the great Apostle’s notice.
212
XXVI.
ee oe ἀν ἡ eee
(COMPARE SECTIONS I-III. XI. XIT)
1. Barnasas.!
~ r ~ 2
C. 5. 6. Ματαργήσῃ τὸν ϑάνατον, χαὶ τὴν ἔχ νεχρῶν ἀνά-
στασιν δείξῃ, ὅτι ἐν σαρχὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν φανερωθῆναι, ὑτεεμείνεν.
(Heb. ii. 14, &e.)
2. Cement or Rome.!
First Epistle.
Kus. H. E. Ill. 38. (See below.)
1 The chief interest in regard to this Epistle attaches to the history of opin-
ions on its Canonicity. See a very full account of the history of the circula-
tion and acceptance of the Epistle in Bleek’s Commentar zu dem Brief an die He-
brier (Einl. §§ 21-100), and (after Bleek) in Alford’s Commentary, Vol. IV. Part 1.
It was accepted as Paul’s in Alexandria and throughout the Eastern Church from
the earliest times downwards. In the Latin Church, on the other hand, it was
not explicitly favoured by any writer of the Latin Church (either in Rome or
Africa) until the fourth century, when the united influence of Jerome and Augus-
tine gave it an apostolic place in the esteem of the Church. The undoubted
instances of correspondence between the Epistle of Clement of Rome and Hebrews
become therefore specially interesting, and they are pretty fully given in the text.
That it was written to Alexandrian Jews led to its less immediate recognition in
the Western Church than in Alexandria; its apparent countenance to the views
of the Montanists (VI. 4-8) perhaps made the orthodox Latins reject it, so that
the Montanists were afraid to quote it as an authority. Many authors (or scribes)
have been suggested for it. Luther’s idea that it might be Apollos has been
largely adopted,—mainly in a kind of despair of finding any better solution of
the difficulty.
1 Barnabas has several passages which are parallel with the Epistle to the
Hebrews rather than suggestive of it. Comp. c. 5 and 6 with Hebrews, especially
6. 5.1 with Heb. xii. 24; ο. 6.11 with Heb. vi. 6; and ο. 19. 9, &c. with Heb. xiii.
7, ἄς. There is αἷμα τοῦ ῥαντίσματος αὐτοῦ, Barn. 5. 1, which suggests Heb. xii.
24 and 1 Pet. i. 2.
1 Clement. Compare as echoes (the number might be increased): 1 Clem.
1. 3, comp. Heb. xiii. 7; c. 2.1, comp. Heb. xiii. 5; ο. 16. 2, comp. Heb. i. 3 and
viii. 1; ὁ. 21.1, comp. Heb. xiii. 21; c. 27. 2, comp. Heb. vi. 18 and x. 23; ὃ: 27.
2.4, comp. Heb. i. 3, vi. 18 (the use of λόγος not personification as in Wisdom
xii. 12; xi. 22); 6. 34.1, comp. Heb. vi. 12 and xii. 12; ο. 34. 5, comp. Heb. iii. 6;
6. 51 3, comp. Heb. iii. 8; c. 64.1, comp. Heb. xii. 9. Nothing can be learned
from Clement as to the authorship.
CLEMENT OF ROME. 2
B) -ο
C.9.2. “Ατενίσωμεν εἰς τοὺς τελείως λειτουργήσαντας τῇ μι8γ-
— ἵν ΤΣ γ ~ oe Ὥ » f Ian ‘ rey
ahoneenet δόξῃ αὐτοῦ. (Heb. xii. 1,2.) AaPousy Evwy, ὃς ἐν
ς ~ of Ὡς Ὁ Oe vie) Calan, τς τ τας er εἰ
ὑσιαχοῇ δίχαιος εὑρεϑεὶς μετενέϑη, χαὶ OLY εὐρέϑη αὐτοῦ ϑάνατος.
7 "Ὁ ‘ NECN ~ , , ~
Νῶε σιιστὸς εὑρεϑεὶς διὰ τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ mahiyyEvEectay
“- \ Nid, ὍΝ > ~ ν᾿ ‘
χόσμῳ ἐκήρυξεν, χαὶ διέσωσε δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ὃ δεσπότης τὰ εἰσελϑόντα
ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ ζῶα εἰς τὴν χιβωτόν. (Heb. xi. 5, 1.)"
) \
C.10.1. “ABoaau, ὃ φίλος πιροσαγορευϑεὶς, πιστὸς εὑρέϑη
τὸ - ον N ς ΄ γα ἀξ τω cf ~ - τε We
EV τῷ αὐτὸν LIEYAOOY γενέσϑαι τοῖς ῥήμασι τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ovtog δι
ς -»"» >) ’ ~ ~ ) ~ SE SD: ~ , vi ~
ὑπιαχοὺς ξξηῆλθεν ἐχ τῆς γῆς αὐτοῦ, χαὶ Ex τῆς συγγενείας αὐτοῦ,
‘ ΒῚ ~ ww ~ ‘ ) - cr ~ 2) , \
“QL EX TOV_OLAOV TOV σι OOS αὐτου, ὁπῶὼς yyy ὀλίγην, “ACL Ovy-
, 2 - \ 5 \ ‘ , ‘
γένειαν. ἀσϑενῆ, χαὶ οἶχον μιχρὸν χαταλιτεὼν, χληρονομήσῃ τὰς
Ἶ ~ = 6 ᾿
ἐπαγγελίας τοῦ Θεοῦ. (Heb. xi. 7, 8, 9.)
‘ > \
C.17.1. ἡπιμηταὶ yeroueda χαχείνων, οἵτινες ἐν δέρμασιν
’ , ~ / , 2 -
αἰγείοις καὶ μηλωταῖς “ιεριετιάτησαν, κηρύσσοντες τὴν ἔλευσιν τοῦ
aa ~ No Nay ’ Wy [ γ7 As A te
Χριστοῦ" λέγομεν δὲ “Hiiay χαὶ Ελισσαιξ, eve δὲ χαὶ Ἰεζεχιὴλ
Ν
τοὺς προφήτας, τιρὸς τούτοις χαὶ τοὺς μεμαρτυρημένους. (Heb.
xi. 37.)
i ow U ~ , }] ~
C.17. 5. Ἰωϊσῆς πιστὸς ὃν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ ἐκλήϑη.
Comp. c. 43. 1; Num. xii. 1. (Heb. iii. 2.)
τσ 3
Ο. 19. 1. Τῶν τοσούτων οὖν χαὶ τοιούτων οὕτως μεμαρτυρη-
, . A 2 ~ ~
μένων, ... ἐπαναδράμωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τιαραδεδομένον ἡμῖν
~ 5 ae 5 alate 5
τῆς εἰρήνης σκοττόν. (Heb. xii. 1, 2; Phil. iii. 14; and 1 Cor. ix. 24.)
> = \ >
Ο. 21. 9. Ἐρευνητὴς γάρ ἐστιν ἐννοιῶν χαὶ ἐνϑυμήσεων" οὗ ἣ
\ 2 ~ > Ca > \ rd oe 2 ~ Doe,
VON αὐτοῦ ἕν ἡμῖν ἐστὶν, χαὶ ὅταν ϑέλῃ avedei αὐτήν. (Heb.
iv. 12.)
a aN 2 , ~ 2 ~
C. 36. 2. Ὃς ὧν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ, τοσ-
/ Ite ’ \ ) , c ‘ 2
οὕτῳ μείζων ἐστὶν ἀγγέλων, ὁσῳ διαφορώτερον ὄνομα χεχληρονόμι-
7 \ cr «ς - \ , > ~
εν. Leyounta yao ovtws’ “Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ
‘ 2 ~ ‘ ~
πνεύματα, καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ mvedg φλόγα," ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ
.«- 2 - cr ai [3 q , ιχέ 7 By \
υἱῷ αὑτοῦ οὕτως εἰπιεν ὃ δεσπότης" “Υἱός μου εἰ σὺ, ἐγὼ σήμε-
> ~ .
ρον γεγέννηχαά σε" αἴτησαι wag’ ἐμοῦ, χαὶ δώσω σοι ἔϑνη τὴν
ΡΝ u ae 4 face ᾿ ‘ τ pics) κεν 99
χληρονομίαν σου, χαὶ τὴν χατάσχεσίν Gov τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς.
Ν , \ / Ὁ δ" re - U ὟΝ ~
Καὶ πάλιν λέγει τιρὸς αὐτόν" “Καϑου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου, ἕως ἂν IO
Ύ / y ~ "Ὁ
τοὺς ἐχϑροιίς σου ὑποτιόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου." See also 6. 10. 2.
{ἘΠ Ὸ 1.5: 5, 7, 19: and viii. 1.)
2 \ ᾿Ὶ -
C. 45. 2. Ἐγχεχκύφατε εἰς τὰς γραφὰς τὰς ἀληϑεῖς τὰς διὰ
2 The thoughts in chapters 8, 9 and 12 of Clement, and the illustrations also,
closely correspond with those in Hebrews.
18
274 HEBREWS.
τοῦ τσινεύματος tov ἁγίου. Ἐπίστασϑε ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄδικον οὐδὲ
σιαρατιεττοιημένον γέγρατιται ἐν αὐταῖς. Οὐχ εὑρήσετε διχαίους
ἀτιοβεβλημένους ἀπὸ ὁσίων ἀνδρῶν. Ἐδιώχϑησαν δίχαιοι, ἀλλ᾽
bad ἀνόμων" ἐφυλαχίσϑησαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ ἀνοσίων" ἐλιϑάσϑησαν
ὑπὸ παρανόμων" ἀτιεχτάνϑησαν ἀπὸ τῶν μιαρὸν χαὶ ἄδιχον ζῆ-
λον ἀνειληφότων. Tata τιἄάσχοντες εὐχλεῶς ἤνεγχαν. ὅς. (Heb.
xi. 32-39.)
C. 56.2. ᾿“ναλάβωμεν παιδείαν, ἐφ᾽ 7 οὐδεὶς ὀφείλει ἀγαν-
αχτεῖν, ἀγαπητοί. Ἢ νουϑέτησις ἣν ποιούμεϑα εἰς ἀλλήλους
nahi ἐστιν καὶ ὑπεράγαν ὠφέλιμος" χολλᾷ γὰρ ἡμᾶς τῷ ϑελήματι
τοῦ Θεοῦ. Οὕτως γάρ φησιν ὃ ἅγιος λόγος" “ Παιδεύων ἐτταίὸὃ-
ευσέν we 6 Κύριος, χαὶ τῷ ϑανάτῳ οὐ παρέδωχέν με. Ὃν γὰρ
ἀγαπᾷ Κύριος παιδεύει, μαστιγοῖ δὲ πάντα υἱὸν ὃν τεαραδέχεται."
(Ps. cxviii. 17; Prov. iii. 12.) ... Βλέπετε, ἀγαπητοὶ, πόσος
ὑχιερασπισμός ἔστιν τοῖς παιδευομένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ δεσπότου" ττα-
τὴρ γὰρ ἀγαϑὸς ὧν παιδεύει εἰς τὸ νουϑετηϑῆναι ἡμᾶς διὰ τῆς
ὁσίας παιδείας αὐτοῦ. (Heb. xii. 5, &c.)
Jerome, De Vir. Ill. 6. 15. Clemens scripsit ex persona Ro-
manae Ecclesiae, ad Ecclesiam Corinthiorum valde utilem episto-
lam, quae et in nonnullis locis publice legitur; quae mihi vi-
detur characteri epistolae, quae sub Pauli nomine ad Hebraeos
fertur, convenire. Sed et multis de eadem epistola, non solum
sensibus, sed juxta verborum quoque ordinem abutitur. Omnino
grandis in utraque similitudo est.
Second Epistle.
C.11. 6. “Qore, ἀδελφοί μου, μὴ δι ψυχῶμεν, ἀλλὰ ἐλπίσαντες
ὑπομείνωμεν, ἵνα χαὶ τὸν μισϑὸν χομισώμεϑα. Πιστὸς γάρ
ἐστιν ὃ ἐπαγγειλάμενος τὰς ἀντιμισϑίας ἀποδιδόναι ἑκάστῳ
τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. (Heb. x. 23. Comp. Mat. xvi. 27; Rom. ii. 6.)
3. Tenatius.!
8 Compare as Echo: C. 13. 3 (Heb. v. 12.)
1 Ignatius. Compare as Echoes:—Eph. 15. 3, οὐδὲν λανϑάνει x.t.d. (Heb. iv.
13); ibid. 16. 2, πόσῳ μᾶλλον x.t.A. (Heb. x. 28); Magnes. 8. 1, μὴ πλανᾶσϑε χ.τιλ.
(Heb. xiii. 9).
»"
POLYCARP. HERMAS. JUSTIN MARTYR. 27
4. Potycare.
Philipp. ¢. 12.1. Deus autem et pater Domini nostri Jesu
Christi, et ipse sempiternus pontifex, Dei filius, Jesus Christus,
aedificet vos in fide et veritate et in omni mansuetudine, et sine
tracundia et in patientia &c. et det vobis sortem et partem inter
sanctos suos. (Heb. iv. 14; vi. 20; vii. 3. Compare Acts xx. 32
and viii. 21.)
5. Hermas.!
΄ “͵- 7 - , - ~
Vis. ITD. 9.7. Νῦν οὖν tuiv λέγω τοῖς ττροηγουμένοις τῆς
ἐχχλησίας χαὶ τοῖς πρωτοχαϑεδρίταις: MW) γίνεσϑε ὕμοιοι τοῖς
φαρμαχοῖς.
6. Justin Martyr.
Apol. I. 60. p. 93 D. (Comp. ibid. 12. p. 60 A.)
Ibid. 63. p. 95 D. Καὶ ἄγγελος δὲ χαλεῖται καὶ ἀπόστολος."
{ΠῚ ΠῚ aii. 1.)
Dial. ¢. 18. p.229 1). Πάλαι τοῦτο ἐχεῖνο τὸ σωτήριον λου-
τρὸν ἦν, ὃ εἶπε (SC. ἩΗσαΐας), τὸ τοῖς μεταγινώσχουσι καὶ μηκέτι
αἵμασι τράγων χαὶ τιροβάτων ἢ) σποδῷ δαμάλεως ἢ σεμιδάλεως
προσφοραῖς χαϑαριζομένοις ἀλλὰ πίστει διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ
Χριστοῦ. (Heb. ix. 13, 14.)
Ibid. ¢. 96. p. 323 C. Καὶ αἰώνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἱερέα χαὶ Ba-
σιλέα χαὶ Χριστὸν μέλλοντα γίνεσϑαι.
Ibid. ὁ. 113. p. 340 D. Οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ LATA τὴν τάξιν πελ-
χισεδὲχ. βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ καὶ αἰώνιος ἱερεὺς ὑψίστου ὑπάρχων.
“ΠΡ ν᾽ 9. 10; vi. 20; vii. 12.)
1 Hermas. Comp. Mand. XI. 12. πρῶτον μὲν 6 ἄνθρωπος ἐχεῖνος ὁ δοχῶν
πνεῦμα ἔχειν ὑψοῖ Eautdv χαὶ σέλει πρωτοχαϑεδρίαν ἔχειν. The reference (Vis.
III. 9) apparently intimates that those who were preeminent in the church needed
to be warned against contention and the evils which dissension brings. (Comp.,
as to Pharisees, Mat. xxiii 6.) Prominence or eminence in the congregation is
denoted by nowtoxaleSpitars—see the reference in Mand. XI. 12—but it does
not seem to have any exclusive bearing on officzal prominence. It might he so-
cial, or merely personal. In Heb. xiii. 7.17 the word is ἡγούμενοι and seems to
have a general reference to ecclesiastical rule, as probably moony. has here. See
also Vis. 11. 2; 1 Clem. 21. 6. 13. For Hermas’ lists of church officials see Vis.
IIL. 5.1; Sim. 1X. 15. 25. He sets preaching in a prominent position, especially
in Sim. IX. 25.
1 Justin. Only in Hebrews is Christ called ἀπόστολος, and Justin uses the
word thrice in c. 60; besides once in ce. 12.
18 *
276 HEBREWS.
7. Syriac anp Otp Latin Versions. Muratorian Canon. !
(See before, Section I.)
8. Irenaeus.
B. 11. 30.9. Solus hic Deus invenitur, qui omnia fecit, solus
omnipotens, et solus pater condens et faciens omnia, et visibilia,
et invisibilia, et sensibilia, et insensata, et coelestia, et terrena,
“verbo virtutis suae.” (Heb. 1. 3.)
B. IV. 11. 4. Quae (munditiae exteriores) in figuram fu-
turorum traditae erant, velut umbrae cujusdam descriptionem
faciente lege, atque delineante de temporalibus acterna, de ter-
renis coelestia. (Heb. x. 1; viii. 5; ix. 23. Comp. Col. ii. 17.)
8. V. 5.1. Ὅπου ye Ἐνὼχ εὐαρεστήσας τῷ Θεῷ, ἐν σώματι
\ , ~ < , aie
METETEIN, THY μετάϑεσιν TOY δικαίων σπιρομηνύων. (Heb. xi. 5.)
Eus. Η. E. V. 26. ᾿“λλὰ γὰρ πρὸς τοῖς ἀποδοϑεῖσιν Εἰρη-
valov συγγράμμασι “aL ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς, φέρεται... χαὶ βιβλίον
= ~ ~
τι διαλέξεων διαφόρων, ἐν ᾧ τῆς τιρὸς “Εβραίους ἐπιστολῆς καὶ
- , ~ , c ,
τῆς λεγομένης Σολομῶντος Σοφίας μνημονεύει, δητά τινα ἐξ
αὐτῶν στταραϑέμενος."
«
1 Syr., Old Lat. and Mur. Can. The Epistle is not named in the Muratorian
Canon; unless it be glanced at in the ‘‘forged Epistle to the Alexandrians. ”’
See note on page 7.—In the Syriac it follows Timothy and Titus, from which
position some have supposed that the compilers of the Canon did not accept it
as Paul’s, or they would have put it before the letters to individuals. But others
say that it was put there because anonymous. The Old Latin Canon contained
it in Tertullian’s time (see below, page 278). In the Vatican MS (cod. B) there
is a peculiarity. The Epistle to the Hebrews comes after Thessalonians (as it
does in &, A, ΟἹ, but in the numbers upon the leaves Gal. ends with 58, Hebrews
begins with 59, and Ephesians begins with 70. It thus appears that in the ex-
emplar from which B was copied Hebrews was so placed as to show that it was
ascribed to Paul. The MS ends with Heb. ix. 11, but the section is 64.
1 Trenaeus nowhere quotes or refers to Hebrews in his book against Her-
esies. This passage in Eusebius is therefore the only evidence that he used it;
but Eus. does not say that Irenaeus ascribed it to Paul. On the other hand Pho-
tius cod. 232 quotes from Stephen Gobar (sixth century) a statement : ὅτι ‘Inxe
λυτος χαὶ Εἰρηναῖος τὴν πρὸς “EBpatous ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου, οὐχ ἐκείνου etvat φασι.
Κλήμης μέντοι χαὶ Εὐσέβιος, χαὶ πολὺς ἄλλος τῶν “εοφόρων πατέρων ὅμιλος,
ταῖς ἄλλαις συναριϑμοῦσι ταύτην ἐπιστολαῖς, χαί φασιν αὐτὴν éx τῆς “EBoatdes
μεταφράσα' TOV εἰρημένον Κλήμεντα. Photius says that Hippolytus in his Church-
History said: 1 πρὸς “ERpatous ἐπιστολὴ οὔκ ἐστι τοῦ ἀποστόλου Παύλου. All
this seems somewhat to qualify Jerome’s statement (see below) that all the Greek
and Oriental authors accepted the Epistle as Paul’s. But indeed he qualifies it
himself by saying that many of them ascribed it to Barnabas or to Clement,
a στωναὺ,,,
PANTAENUS. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Par
-9, PAnTAENUs.
Eus. H. E..V. 14. (See below, under Clem. Alex., where ὁ
μαχάριος πρεσβύτερος is Pantaenus.)
10. Criement or ALExanpria.!
Eus. H. E. V1.13. Κέχρηται (Κλήμης) δ᾽ ἐν αὐτοῖς (Σερω-
ματεῦσιν») χαὶ
τῆς τε λεγομένης Σολομῶντος Σοφίας, χαὶ τῆς ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ Moecy,
καὶ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίοις ἐπιστολῆς, τῆς τε Βαρνάβα nat
Κλήμεντος χαὶ ᾿Ιούδα.
Tbid. VI. 14. Καὶ τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολὴν, Παύλου
μὲν εἶναί φησι, γεγράφϑαι δὲ “Ἑβραίοις “Εβραϊχ φωνῇ, -Aovacv
δὲ φιλοτίμως αὐτὴν μεϑερμηνεύσαντα ἐχδοῦναι τοῖς “Ἕλλησιν, ὅϑεν
τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶτα εὑρίσχεσϑαι χατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ταύτης τὲ τῆς
ἐχιιστολῆς χαὶ τῶν Πράξεων: μὴ πιρογεγράφϑαι δὲ τὸ “Παῦλος
ἀπόστολος," εἰχύτως" «Ἑβραίοις γὰρ, φησίν, ἐπιστέλλων, 7Q0-
ληψιν εἰληφόσι nav αὐτοῦ χαὶ ὑπιοπιτεύουσιν αὐτὸν, συνετῶς σιάνυ
- 2 ~ } ~ ,
ταῖς απὸ τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων YOUPOY μαρτυρίαις,
ce > 2 σον Dik εὐ ? \ Nee Guat ae Caer yn Tes ?
οὐχ ὃν ἀρχῇ ἀπέτρειμεν αὐτοὺς TO ὄνομα ϑείς. Hive ὑποβὰς eme-
λέγει: “Ἤδη δὲ ὡς ὃ μαχάριος ἔλεγε πρεσβύτερος," ἔπει
« -
ὁ Κύριος ἀπόστολος ὧν τοῦ παντοχράτορος ἀπεστάλη τιρὸς
Ἑβραίους, διὰ μετριότητα ὃ Παῦλος, ὡς ἂν εἰς τὰ ἔϑνη ἀπεσταλ-
, \
μένος, οὐχ ἐγγράφει ἑαυτὸν “Εβραίων ἀτιόστολον, διά τε τὴν τιρὸς
τὸν Κύριον τιμὴν, διὰ δὲ τὸ ἐκ περιουσίας xai τοῖς “Εβραίοις
» , ἀν ~ , ” yee 45
ἐπιστέλλειν, ἐϑνῶν χήρυχα ὄντα χαὶ ἀπόστολον.
Phot. cod. 232. (See before, p. 276. Note on Irenaeus.)
Adumbrat. in 1 Petr. Epist. (See above, Acts, page 202.)
Strom. B. VI. 8. p. 111. Ἐπεὶ καὶ Παῦλος ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστο-
λαῖς οὐ φιλοσοφίαν διαβάλλων φαίνεται, τὸν δὲ τοῦ νωστιχοῦ
μεταλαμβάνοντα ὕψους οὐχέτι παλινδρομεῖν ἀξιοῖ ἐπὶ τὴν “Ελλη-
1 Clement gives no Catalogue of his Canonical books in his extant works,
but the two passages of Eusebius partly supply the want. It appears (from Eus.
H. E. VI. 14, see page 74) that he commented on Hebrews, and his own explicit
testimony (Strom. VI. 8. p.771) is that Paul was the author. He quotes the
Epistle as χατὰ τὸν ϑεῖον ἀπόστολον (Strom. 11. 2. p. 433), φησὶν ὁ ἀπόστολος
(ibid. 4. p. 434).
2 See the previous words of this passage p. 74. The part given here sup-
plies the whole gap between ἐπιστολήν and AvSt¢ on p. 75. The blessed Pres-
byter is Pantaenus, as appears from Eus. H. E, V. 11; VI. 13.
278 HEBREWS.
γιχὴν “φιλοσοφίαν στοιχεῖα τοῦ χόσμου" ταύτην ἀλληγορῶν στοι-
χειωτιχήν τινὰ οὖσαν χαὶ τιροπιαιδείαν τῆς ἀληϑείας. «Τιὸ χαὶ τοῖς
“βραίοις γράφων τοῖς ἐπαναχαιμιτιτουσιν εἰς νόμον ἐχ πίστεως
«ἢ πάλιν," φησὶ, “χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσχειν ὑμᾶς τίνα τὰ στοι-.
χεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ Θεοῦ χαὶ γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες
, \ > = mca Ἔ , ᾿ τὴν ΣΩ͂Ν ἐν ,
γάλαχτος χαὶ οὐ στερεᾶς τροφῆς." “Ὡσαύτως καὶ τοῖς ἐξ ᾿Ελλη-
γων ἐπιστρέφουσι Κολοσσαεῖσι" “βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται ὃ
συλαγωγῶν διὰ τῆς φιλοσοφίας χαὶ χενῆς ἀπάτης, χατὰ τὴν παρά-
δοσιν τῶν ἀνϑρώπων χατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ χόσμου τούτου, χαὶ
οὐ χατὰ Χριστόν" δελεάζων αὖϑις εἰς φιλοσοφίαν ἀναδραμεῖν,
τὴν στοιχειώδη διδασχαλίαν. (Heb. v. 12; Col. ii. 8.)
Ibid. B. 11. 22. p. 501. “Ἐπιϑυμοῦμεν δὲ ἕχαστον ὑμῶν τὴν
αὐτὴν ἐνδείχνυσϑαι στιουδὴν τιρὸς τὴν τιληροφορίαν τῆς ἐλτείδος "
ἕως “χατὰ τὴν τάξιν Π]ελχισεδὲχ, ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἱ-
ova.” Τὰ ὅμοια τῷ Παύλῳ χαὶ ἣ παανάρετος σοφία λέγει. (Heb. vii.)
11. Terrturian. !
De pudicit. c. 20. Disciplina igitur apostolorum proprie qui-
dem instruit ac determinat principaliter sanctitatis omnis erga
templum Dei antistitem et ubique de ecclesia eradicandum omne
sacrilegium pudicitiae, sine ulla restitutionis mentione. Volo ta-
men ex redundantia alicujus etiam comitis apostolorum testimo-
nium superducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disci-
plinam magistrorum. Extat enim et Barnabae titulus ad He-
braeos, a Deo satis auctorati viri, ut quem Paulus juxta se con-
stituerit in abstinentiae tenore: Aut ego solus et Barnabas non
habemus operandi potestatem? (1 Cor. ix. 6.) Et utique receptior
1 Tertullian. This is the only passage in Tertullian where Hebrews is ex-
pressly quoted. It comes after a series of quotations (13-18) from the Pauline
Epistles, and the Apocalypse and 1 John; to which the first words Disciplina
agitur apostolorum apply. He elsewhere censures Marcion (Ady. Mare. V. 20) for
excluding the Pastoral Epistles: but does not blame him for excluding Hebrews.
The passage (Heb. vi. 4-8) here quoted is so much in his favour at the time (he
was a Montanist when he wrote it) that his not claiming Pauline authorship or
apostolical authority for the Epistle (it is by a comes apostolorum) must be re-
garded as specially significant. He even emphatically distinguishes between the
apostolical writings (disciplina magistrorwm) and this letter (which is only de proximo
jure). The Muratorian Canon, the Old Latin, Irenaeus, Caius, and Tertullian show
us how little favour the idea of the Pauline authorship of this Epistle found in
the Western Church. On what ground Tertullian ascribed it to Barnabas is not
known.
GAIUS. HIPPOLYTUS. 279
apud -ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho Pastore moecho-
rum (i.e. Hermas). Monens itaque discipulos omissis omnibus
initiis ad perfectionem magis tendere nec rursum fundamenta
poenitentiae jacere ab operibus mortuorum, impossibile est enim,
inquit, eos, qui semel inluminati sunt et donum caeleste gusta-
verunt et participaverunt Spiritum Sanctum et verbum Dei dulce
gustaverunt, occidente jam aevo quum exciderint, rursus revocari
in paenitentiam, refigentes cruci in semetipsos filium Dei et de-
decorantes. ... Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit, et cum apostolis
docuit, nunquam moecho et fornicatori secundam pacnitentiam
promissam ab apostolis norat. Optime enim legem interpreta-
batur, et figuras ejus jam in ipsa veritate servabat.
12. Cats (about a.p. 200).
Eus. H. E. VI. 20. Ἦλϑε δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς χαὶ Lotov λογιωτάτου
ἀνδρὸς διάλογος, ἐπὶ “Ῥώμης χαὶ Ζεφυρῖνον πρὸς “Πρόκλον τῆς
χατὰ Φρύγας αἱρέσεως ὑσιερμαχοῦ ved χδχινημένος" ἐν ᾧ τῶν Ov
ἐναντίας τὴν περὶ τὸ συντάττειν χαινὰς γραφὰς προπέτειάν τὲ
χαὶ τόλμαν ἐπιστομίζων. Τῶν τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀποστόλου δεχατριῶν
μόνων ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύει, τὴν πρὸς “Εβραίους μὴ συναριϑμή-
σας ταῖς λοιπαῖς" ἐπεὶ χαὶ εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ “Ῥωμαίων τισὶν οὐ
γομίζεται τοῦ ἀτιοστόλου εἶναι."
18. Ηιρροιυτυϑβ.
‘ 9 , ~
Περὶ ἀναστάσεως (Lagarde p. 89). “πα τοι τοῦτο διδάσχωμεν
χαὶ παρεγγυώμεϑα πᾶσι τοὺς ἐπισχόπους χαὶ διδασχάλους
~ Ν - 2 -
ἡμῶν, πείϑεσϑαι αὐτοὺς χαὶ ὑποχύπτειν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτῶν.
1 Caius. See before, Epistles of Paul, page 210. Photius says (cod. 48) of
Caius: Καὶ χατὰ Πρόχλου δὲ σπουδαστοῦ Μοντανοῦ σπουδαίαν διάλεξιν συντεταχέ-
ναι» ἐν ἡ τρὶς χαὶ δέχα μόνας ἐπιστολὰς ἀριθμεῖται Παύλου οὐκ ἐγχρίνων τὴν
πρὸς Ἑβραίους. It appears that Caius did not reckon the Epistle to Hebrews
among Paul’s genuine Epistles, because the Montanists (τῆς xata Φρύγας αἱρέσ-
ξεως) quoted it on their side. In this way Caius may be supposed to express
along with the Muratorian Canon the unfavourable judgement of the Roman Church
at the close of the second century.
1 Hippolytus. Compare as Echoes: Αποδεικτικὴ πρὸς Ιουδαίους (Lagarde
p. 64): "EEw τῆς πύλης (Heb. xiii. 12); Hts τὴν Σωσάνναν (Lagarde p. 149).
Ἔμπεσεζ εἰς tas χεῖρας τοῦ Θεοῦ (Heb. x. 31).
280 HEBREWS.
«Αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν ὡς
λόγον ἀποδώσοντες. (Heb. xiii. 17.)
Περὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ χόσμου (Lagarde p. 118). etre οἱ
ἀπόστολοι οἱ συγχαχοτιαϑήσαντες . . .᾿ δεῦτε οἱ ἱεράρχαι οἱ
λειτοιργίσαντές or... δεῦτε οἱ ὅσιοι οἱ “ἐν ὄρεσι καὶ
σαν λα ον δ᾽ “zat tais παῖς τῆς γῆς ἀσχήσαντες.
(Heb. xi. 38.)
14. OrtceEn.!
Eus. H. E. Vi. 25. (See before, page 9.)
5 τ 2 3
Epist. ad Afric. Tom. I. p. 19. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 65.) -41λλ
\ Ν - - y ? 3 ~
εἰχὸς πρὸς ταῦτά σὲ ζητήσειν τί δήχιοτε οὐ φέρεται παρ᾿ αὑτοῖς
- \ \ ~ \ oar €
ἐν τῷ Aap ἣ Ἱστορία, εἰ, ὡς φὴς, τοιαῦτα περὶ αὐτῆς οἱ σοφοὶ
~ . eed / > \ ~ a cr . ν ἢ
αὐτῶν παραδιδόασι. “1εχτέον δὲ πρὸς ταῦτα, ὅτι ὅσα δεδύνηνται
- , , Gol D, \
τῶν περισχόντων χατηγορίαν τερεσβυτέρων, καὶ ἀρχόντων, καὶ χρι-
τῶν, περιεῖλον ἀτιὸ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ λαοῦ, ὧν τινα σώζεται ἐν
= ν ν \ \ 2 he
ἀποχρύφοις. Καὶ τούτου παράδειγμα δώσομεν τὰ περὶ τὸν Ἡσαΐαν
\ ἊΝ ~ Ν Ψ ~ /
ἱστορούμενα, χαὶ ὑπὸ τῆς πρὸς “Ἑβραίους Ἐπιστολῆς μαρτυροῦ-
μενα, ἕν οὐδενὶ τῶν ὙΠ βιβλίων γεγραμμένα" σιερὶ γὰρ τῶν
σιροφητῶν διεξερχόμενος, καὶ ὧν σεεπόνϑασιν, ὃ τὴν πρὸς Ἑβραίους
yoawag φησίν. «ἸἘλιϑάσϑησαν, ἐπρίσϑησαν, ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας
Ν 2 , \ ,
anédavov.” Πευσόμεϑα γὰρ ἐπὶ τίνα ἀναφέρηται τὸ, “ἐπρίσϑη-
3 - al sel US 2 \ c
σαν," χατώ τι ἔϑος ἀρχαῖον οὐ μόνον “EBoutzor, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἑλλη-
\ he pm , Nae yy, τ' \ > of «
γιχὸν, τειληϑυντικῶς λεγόμενον regi ἑνός. Σαφὲς 0 ote αἱ mwaga-
δόσεις λέγουσι σιεπιρίσϑαι Ἡσαΐαν τὸν προφήτην" χαὶ ἕν τινι
ἀποχρύφῳ τοῖτο φέρεται" ὅτιερ τάχα ἐπίτηδες ὑτιὸ Ιουδαίων δε-
ρᾳιδιούργηται, λέξεις τινὰς τὰς μὴ πρεπούσας" τταρεμβεβληχότων
1 Origen. See also the quotations from Origen pages 51, 52. Origen re-
peatedly quotes it as Paul’s; and says that there are fourteen Pauline Epistles.
In the Epistle to Africanus (A.D. 240) be intimates that he will prove that Paul
was the author. But in the passage from his Homily (after A.D. 245) quoted
by Eusebius (see page 9) he says that God only knows who wrote it. This last
many hold to be his mature judgement. See Westcott on the Canon p. 330.
Bleek, Einl. in ἃ. N. T., § 193. p. 592 (Mangold’s ed.). But the ὁ γράψας τὴν
éntatodyy may only meat the Amanuensis. This makes Origen consistent with
himself; and corresponds with the suggestion of Eusebius H. E. III. 88 (see be-
low). Mathoflins (end of the third century) Bishop of Olympus in Lycia and
afterwards of Tyre (Jerome) seems to have ascribed the Epistle to Paul. He wrote
against Origen. See Lardner’s citation of him, and Bleek’s objections (Hebrier
§ 37), which last seem to be well-founded.
2 Another reading is προσηχούσας . .. W ὅλη ἀπιστηϑῇ.
————S
ORIGEN. 281
τῇ γραφῇ, ἵν ἡ ὅλη ἀπιστηϑῇ" ἀλλ᾽ εἰχός τινα ϑλιβόμενον ἀπὸ
τῆς εἰς ταῦτα ἀτιοδείξεως, συγχρήσασθαι τῷ βουλήματι τῶν ἀϑε-
τούντων τὴν Ἐπιστολὴν, ὡς οὐ Παύλῳ γεγραμμένην" πρὸς ὃν ἄλ-
λων λόγων χατ᾿ ἰδίαν χρήζομεν εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ εἶναι Παύλου
τὴν Ἐπιστολήν.
De orat. Tom. I. p. 250. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 520.) Πολλάκις
δέ μοι ἐπῆλθεν ἀπορεῖν συγχρούοντι δύο λέξεις ἀποστολιχὰς,
σῶς συντέλεια αἰώνων ἐστὶν, ἐφ᾽ ἣ ἅπαξ εἰς ἀϑέτησιν TOY ἁμαρ-
τιῶν ᾿Ιησοῖς τιεφανέρωται, εἰ μέλλουσιν εἶναι αἰῶνες μετὰ τοῦτον
ἐπερχόμενοι. Ἔχουσι δὲ αἱ λέξεις αὐτοῦ οὕτως, ἐν μὲν τῇ πρὸς
Ἑβραίους" νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς
ἀϑέτησιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν διὰ τῆς ϑυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέ-
ρωται" ἕν δὲ τῇ πρὸς Ἐφεσίους" ἵνα ἐνδείξηται ἐν τοῖς
αἰῶσι τοῖς EMEQLOMEVOLE τὸ ὑπερβάλλον τλῆϑος τῆς
YaOLTOS αὐτοῦ ἐν χρηυστοτητι EM ἡμᾶς. (Heb. ix. 20:
Ephes. ii. 7.)
In Numer. hom. 3. Tom. 11. p. 281. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 596.) -
Ipse ergo apostolorum maximus, qui sciret multas esse non so-
lum in terris, sed et in coelis Ecclesias, ex quibus et septem
quasdam Joannes enumerat: ipse tamen Paulus ostendere volens
esse quandam praeter eas etiam primitivorum Ecclesiam, dicit
ad Hebraeos scribens: “Non enim accessistis ad ardentem et
tractabilem ignem, sed accessistis ad montem Sion etc.” (Heb.
xii. 18, &c.)
Comment. in Joann. t.2. Tom. IV. p.60. (Migne, Vol. IV. p. 125.)
Kai ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἑβραίους, ὃ αὐτὸς Παῦλός φησιν" “Ἐπ᾿ éoxa-
του τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Υἱῷ, ὃν ἔϑηχε χληρονόμον σπτάν-
των, OL οὗ χαὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησε." (Heb. i. 1, 2.)
Comment. in Joann. t. 20. Tom. IV. p. 860. (Migne, Vol. IV.
p. 648.) Τοῦτο γὰρ ἤδη zai δοχίμου τραπεζίτου ἔργον τυγχάνει,
ὃν τέλειον ὀνομάζων οὐχ ἂν ἁιιάρτοι, χαὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς “Ἑβραίους
γεγραμμένου τοῦ" Τελείων δὲ ἐστι ἣ στερεὰ τροφὴ, τῶν
διὰ τὴν ἕξιν τὰ αἰσϑητήρια γεγυμνασμένα ἐχόντων
πρὸς διάκρισιν καλοῦ τὲ καὶ xzaxovr. (Heb. v. 14.)
Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. B. VIT. Tom. IV. p. 599. (Migne,
Vol. IV. p. 1111.) Ipsos quoque angelos, si ad sententiam Pauli
8 Another reading is πλοῦτος.
282 HEBREWS.
respicias quac dicit, quia “omnes ministeriales sunt spiritus ad
ministerium missi propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis,”
intelliges tale aliquid gercre, et huic corruptioni esse subjectos:
credo etiam ipsos non volentes, sed propter eum qui subjecit eos
in spe. (Heb. i. 14.)
Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. B. IX. Tom. IV. p. 659. (Migne,
Vol. IV. p.1235.) Sicut et ipse apostolus in aliis dicit: “ Perfecto-
rum autem est cibus, eorum qui pro possibilitate sumendi ex-
ercitos habent sensus ad discretionem boni et mali.” (Heb. v. 14.)
15. Dionysius or ALEXANDRIA. !
7 \ 2
Eus. H. FE. VI. 41. Ἐξέχλινον δὲ χαὶ ὑπανεχώρουν οἱ ἀδελ-
x ‘ ~ τα
φοὶ, χαὶ τὴν ἁρσαγὴν τῶν ὑπαρχόντων, ὁμοίως ExElvolg οἷς χαὶ
Παῦλος ἐμαρτύρησε, μετὰ χαρᾶς προσεδέξαντο. (Heb. x. 34.)
10. ὕτρειαλν. !
De exhort. mart. ο. 11. Et apostolus Paulus, qui hujus legi-
timi numeri et certi (sc. num. septem) meminit, ad septem eccle-
sias scribit. Et in Apocalypsi Dominus mandata sua divina et
praecepta coelestia ad septem ecclesias scribit.
Adv. Jud. 1. 20. Item in Regum primo: “Sterilis septem
peperit, et quae plurimos habebat filios infirmata est.” Filii
autem septem sunt ecclesiae septem. Unde et Paulus septem
Ecclesiis scripsit, ct Apocalypsis Ecclesias septem ponit, ut ser-
vetur septenarius numerus.
" Dionysius. See note on page 86. This testimony continues the history of
the opinions entertained in Alexandria regarding the Pauline authorship. Alex-
ander, a successor in the bishopric of Alexandria about A.D. 312, says (Theodoret
Η. Ε.1. 4) ts Ξύμφωνα Ὑ γοῦν τούτοις “βοᾷ χαὶ ὁ «μεγαλοφωνότατος Παῦλος, φάσχων
περὶ αὐτοῦ - ὃν ἔϑηχε χληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν." (Heb.
i. 2.) When we add to these the strong testimony of Athanasius (see before,
page 15) it is clear that the testimony of the Alexandrian school (from Pantaenus
downwards) to the Canonicity of Hebrews is consistent, and definite, Origen
being the only (apparent) exception. On Origen see p. 280, note 1. Basilides
rejected it. His position may be compared to that of Marcion in this respect.
1 Cyprian. Though Cyprian had many opportunities of quoting Hebrews, he
never quotes it, and he quotes all the other Pauline letters save Philemon. The
passages in our text restrict Paul’s letters to those addressed to seven churches
z.¢. Hebrews is not recognized. Along with the works of Cyprian is found a
Tractatus ad Novatianum hacreticum (author unknown) which does not allude to
this Epistle, though its quotations from other books of scripture are numerous.
So also the works of Novatian himself. Bleek (Hebriier) I. § 46.
rere.
EUSEBIUS. 283
17. Evusestvs.!
H. E. 11. 17. Τάχα δ᾽ εἰχὸς, & φησιν ἀρχαίων παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς
εἶναι συγγράμματα, τά τε εὐαγγέλια “al τὰς τῶν ἀττοστόλων γρα-
φὰς διηγήσεις τέ τινας χατὰ τὸ εἰχὸς τῶν “τάλαι προφητῶν ἕρ-
‘ c , c ‘ € , δ ἫΝ , ~
μηνευτικὰς, ὁποίας ἢ τε πρὸς Ἑβραίους χαὶ ἄλλαι πλείους τοῦ
\ ~ >
Παύλου τιεριέχουσιν ἐτιιστολαὶ, ταῦτα εἶναι.
Ibid. 1Π. 3. (See before on the Epistles, page 207.)
Tbid. Wl. 81. ... χαὶ τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐν τῇ ἀνωμολογημένῃ
~ a ~ ~
παρὰ πᾶσιν, ἣν ἐχ προσώπου TOY “Ρωμαίων ἐχχλησίας τῇ Ko-
ρινϑίων διετυτιώσατο, ἐν ἡ τῆς πρὸς “EBoatovg πολλὰ νοήματα
Ὁ DEO \ \ Bb} aN ce ~ \ re kere ,
παραϑεὶς, ἤδη δὲ χαὶ αὐτολεξεὶ ῥητοῖς τισὶν εξ αὐτῆς χρησαμε-
γος, σαφέστατα παρίστησιν ὅτι μὴ νέον ὑπάρχει τὸ σύγγραμμα.
Ἔνϑεν εἰχό ἔδοξεν αὐτὸ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἐγχαταλεχϑῆ αμι-
γϑεν εἰχότως ἔδοξεν αὐτὸ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἐγχαταλεχϑῆναι γράμ
~ 2 , ς - ,
μασι τοῦ ἀποστόλου. “Ἑβραίοις γὰρ διὰ τῆς πατρίου γλώττης
’ , c , ~ , c \ ‘ δ] \
ἐγγράφως ὡμιληκότος tov Παύλου, οἱ μὲν τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν Aov-
nav, οἱ δὲ τὸν Κλήμεντα τοῦτον αὐτὸν ἑρμηνεῦσαι λέγουσι τὴν
γραφήν. “Ὃ χαὶ μᾶλλον εἴη ἂν ἀληϑὲς, τῷ τὸν ὃ τῆς φρά-
γραφήν. καὶ μᾶλλον εἴη ἃ "ϑὲς, τῷ τὸν ὅμοιον τῆς Pod
~ / ~ , > \ \ \
σεως χαραχτῆρα τήν τὲ τοῦ Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολὴν, καὶ τὴν πρὸς
“Ἑβραίους ἀποσώζειν, χαὶ τῷ μὴ τεόῤῥδω τὰ ἐν ἑχατέροις τοῖς συγ-
, ’ ,ὔ
γράμμασι νοήματα χαϑεστάναι.
Ibid. V1. 15. (See before, under Clem. Alex.)
De martyr. Pal. c. 11. Ἐχείνην δῆτα νοῶν περὶ ἧς εἴρηται
τῷ Παύλῳ" ἢ δὲ ἄνω “Ιερουσαλὴμ ἐλευϑέρα ἐστὶν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μή-
ε (oa ee \ i Ν © Vv \ "ἢ \ , ~ =
TQ ἡμῶν" χαὶ τιροσεληλύϑατε Σιὼν ὄρει, χαὶ πόλει Θεοῦ ζῶντος,
“Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουρανίῳ. (Heb. xii. 22.
~ ~ ,
Praepar. Ev. 12.19. Tot τε ἱεροῦ λόγου σαφέστερον εἰττόν-
τος" “Οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι χαὶ σχιᾷ ἐλάτρευον τῶν ἐπουρανίων."
(Heb. viii. 5.)
me κ \ ~ >
Demonstr. Ev. 5. 3. Ἐπάχκουσον δὲ ota nai περὶ τῶνδε ὃ ἀπό-
, > τ , , ς \ τῇ -
στολός φησιν, ἕν ᾧ περισσότερον βουλόμενος ὃ Θεὸς ἐπιδεῖξαι
τοῖς χληρονόμοις τὴς βασιλείας τὸ ἀμετάϑετον τῆς βουλῆς αὐτοῖ,
ἐμεσίτευσεν Don, ἵνα διὰ δυο πραγμάτων ἀμεταϑέτων, ἕν οἷς
32 \ \ ,
ἀδύνατον ψεύσασϑαι Θεὸν, ἰσχυρὰν παράχλησιν ἔχωμεν οἱ στρο-
καταφυγόντες, χρατῆσαι τῆς προχειμένης ἐλπίδος. (Heb. vi. 16-18.)
1 Eusebius shows (Η. E. III. 25) that while he was well aware of the contro-
versies regarding the authorship and Canonicity of the Epistle, he himself admitted
it as Paul’s, though (III. 27) speaking of Clement or Luke as its translator.
284 IEBREWS.
Theodoreti argum. in Ep. ad Hebr. Vol. UI. p. 393 (Paris
Ὁ INE Το ~ ~ ~ ~
1642). Ἐξ ob γὰρ τῶν ἀποστολιχῶν γραμμάτων αἵ τοῦ Θεοῦ
, ’ , Iu 3 , \ ~ \ Cn, , > =
μδτέλαχον ἐχχλησίαι, ἐξ ἐχείνου χαὶ τῆς 700g “Ββραίους ἐπιστολῆς
ν 3] ~ Ἢ ~ \ ~ 2
τὴν ὠφέλειαν χαρτιοῦνται. Εἰ δὲ μηδὲ τοῦτο Ἱχανὸν πεῖσαι c=
\ 2 , - by ~ ~ - ~ a ~ ?
τοὺς, Εὐσεβίῳ γοῦν ἐχρῆν πεισϑῆναι τῷ Παλαιστινῷ, ov τῶν οἱ-
γ ~ Ξ τ τὸ
χείων δογμάτων αττοχαλοῦσι συνήγορον. Kat οὗτος γὰρ τοῦ ϑειο-
“ , , Ν 2 \ - / 3 at Ν
τάτου Παύλου tide τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡμολόγησεν εἶναι, χαὶ τοὺς
παλαιοὺς ἅπαντας ταύτην τιερὶ αὐτῆς ἔφησεν ἐσχηκέναι τὴν δόξαν.
Photit cod. 232. (See before, Note 1 on Irenaeus, page 276.)
18. Arwanastivs.!
Canon of Athanasius, sec before p. 13.
De Decretis Nicenae Synodi ὁ. 17. Vol, I. p. 223. (Migne,
Vol. I. p. 453.) ὋὉ δὲ ‘Andotohog βλέπων τὴν χεῖρα, τὴν σοφίαν,
δ ΤΆ > A y+ Ν CF ~ Ν La
tov λόγον, αὐτὸν ὄντα tov Υἱόν, φησι Πολυμερῶς xai πολυτρό-
πως πάλαι ὃ Θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς τιατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις"
Ven) VD , ~ ς ~ , ? , Cc ~ ’ cm aA a”
ὃσι ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν Huiv ἐν Υἱῷ, ov ἔϑηχεν
χληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησε τοὺς αἰῶνας" καὶ πτάλιεν"
Εἷς Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα, χαὶ ἡμεῖς dv av-
τοῦ: (Heb. i. 1, 2.)
Ibid. ¢. 18. Vol. I. p. 224. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 456.) ‘O μὲν
\ , ~ ? ~ Ne Garey , , , ~
γὰρ μακάριος Παῦλος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Εβραίους φησίν" Πίστει voov-
μὲν χατηρτίσϑαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι Θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐχ φαινο-
μένων τὸ βλεπτόμενον γεγονέναι. (Heb. xi. 3.)
Ibid. c. 19. Vol. I. p. 225. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 449.) ᾿“μέλει
N - ~ ~ \ \ i
ta πάντα λέγων ὃ Παῦλος & τοῦ Θεοῦ, εὐϑὺς ἐπήγαγε" Καὶ εἷς
Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, dv οὗ τὰ πάντα" ἵνα δείξη πᾶσιν, ὅτι
ἄλλος μέν ἐστιν ὃ Υἱὸς πάντων τῶν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γενομένων.
(Heb. i.)
19. Cyrim or JERUSALEM.
Catechis. IV. (See before, p. 19.)
20. Eprenanius.!
Haeres. I. t. 2. h. 26. p. 98. Πόσα δὲ ἄλλα ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν, ὡς
1 Athanasius. References to Benedictine ed. 1598.
} Epiphanius. In addition to Cyril and Epiphanius many other testimonies
EPIPHANIUS. 'THEODORET. 285
~ > , , a ς eel EG ω ~
tov Anootohov λέγοντος" ἢ μὲν ἄγαμος χαὶ ἢ παρϑένος μεριμνᾶ
τὰ τοῦ Κιρίου, πῶς ἀρέσει τῷ Κυρίῳ. (1 Cor. vii. 34.) Τοῦτο
δέ φησι δεῖξαι τὴν ἁγνείαν ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ ἔχ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος
᾿ ᾿ ᾿Ξ \ ,
ἐπιτρετιόμενος οὐ τιαρέργως. Ἔπειτα δὲ megt τῶν τὸν γάμον
ν , mo , Wat ¢ , 2 ,
ἐχόντων τὸν σειινὸν λέγει" Τίμιος ὃ γάμος, χαὶ ἢ χοίτη ἀμίαντος,
moevorg δὲ καὶ μοιχοὺς χρινεῖ ὃ Θεός. (Heb. xiii. 4.)
Haeres. I. t. 3. h. 42. p. 818. Οὕτως γὰρ παρὰ τῷ Π]αρχίωνι
χεῖται (1.6. Philemon as the ninth, between Colossians and Phi-
LJ . \ WAN ~ , , ~ ΄ NAN
lippians). Παρὰ δὲ τῷ ’Anoordly ἐσχάτη χεῖται" ἔν τισι δὲ ἀν-
t t ν ͵
, ν , \ ~ \ ς ,
τιγράφοις τριςχαιδεχάτη τιρὸ τῆς πρὸς “Εβραίους τεσσαρεσχαιδε-
χάτης τέταχται ἄλλα δὲ artlyouga ἔγει τὴν ὴς “Εϑραίους δε--
κάτης τέταχται" ἄλλα δὲ ἀντίγραφα ἔχει τὴν πρὸς ᾿Εβραίους
as \ ~ 7 -“ ΠΥ τ τ ἢ γι 0 (aor τ ,
χάτην πρὸ τῶν Ovo τῶν πιρὸς Τιμόϑεον, καὶ Τίτον, χαὶ Φιλήμονα.
ς - τς ἘΝ - \ \ >
Haeres. I. t. 2. h. 69. p. 100. Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν τὴν Ἐπιστο-
a τ .. Ὕ ‘\ 3 \ τ ς , t Ἢ \ ae. 2) \ 2 G. i
λὴν ταὶ πῆρ; σὴν σιρὸς Ἑβραίους φημί, (Ot -«Ιρειανοι) ἀπωϑοῦνται,
, ἣΝ - ~ , Ν 2 ἣν
φύσει αὐτὴν ἀναιροῦντες and τοῦ «Α΄ ποστόλου, nat λέγοντες μὴ
᾽ ~ 2 -
εἶναι τοῦ αὐτοῦ.
Haeres. IIT. t. 1. h. 70. p. 815. Ἅμα δὲ καὶ μερισμοὺς ἔχει"
‘ a! 3 Ν ? ΄.,- \
Θεὸς δὲ ἀμέριστός ἐστι. Φησὶ γὰρ ὃ ‘Anodovohog? Ζῶν γὰρ ὃ
λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, χαὶ ἐνεργὴς, καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ π“ἄσαν μάχαιραν
δίστομον, χαὶ διϊχνούμενος μέχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ μυελῶν" χαὶ
~ \ 2 \
χριτιχὸς ἐνϑθυμήσεων, χαὶ ἐννοιῶν. Καὶ οὐχ ἔστι χτίσις ἀφανὴς
2 - --
ἐνώπιον αὑτοῦ, χαὶ τὰ ἑξῆς.
Haeres. III. ἐ. 1. h. 76. ». 941. (See above, p. 21.)
21. TueEoporet.
Interpret. Ep. ad Hebr. Argum. Vol. Il. p. 393 (Ed. Paris
‘ Or ~ \ 2
1042). Θαυμαστὸν οὐδὲν δρῶσιν οἱ τὴν ““Ιρειανικὴν εἰσδεξάμενοι
νόσον, χατὰ τῶν ἀπιοστολιχῶν λυττῶντες γραμμάτων, καὶ τὴν 7000S
Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολὴν τῶν λοιτεῶν ἀποχρίνοντες, καὶ νόϑον ταύτην
of Eastern writers might be cited. From the fourth century it is with increasing
eordiality recognized as Paul’s. Thus the Laodicene Council (see before, p. 18),
in the decree which may be ascribed to about this time, numbers fourteen Epistles
of Paul; Gregory of Nazianzum (died 389) says δέχα δὲ ΠΙΠαύλον τέσσαρές τ᾽ ἐπι-
στολαί. Amphilochius of Iconium, contemporary of Gregory, says that Paul wrote
Hebrews, and that some who call it νόϑον are men οὐχ εὖ Aéyovtes: γνησία yao
ἡ χάρις. The Apostolical Canons count fourteen Epistles of Paul; and Basil the
Great (died 379) and his brother Gregory of Nyssa distinctly ascribe it to Paul.
Chrysostom (died 407) not only often quotes the Epistle as Paul’s, but even dis-
cusses questions concerning it, without once alluding to any doubt of Paul being
the author. See Bleek (Hebrier) I. §§ 41. 42.
280 HEBREWS.
2 - « Ν \ ~ ~ \ ~ c ~ Ν
ἁποχαλοῦντες. Οἱ γὰρ χατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ χαὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν τὰς
γλώττας χινοῖντες ti οὐχ ἂν τολμήσαιεν χατὰ τῶν εὔνων αὐτοῦ
- δ] - ~
καὶ μεγαλοφώνων τῆς ἀληϑείας χηρύχων; αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐστι τοῦ δε-
, Las 2 vad \ % , Σ NG ~ ν᾿ , I”
σπότου φωνὴ" Et ἐμὲ ἐδίωξαν, χαὶ ὑμᾶς διώξουσιν. ἔδει
q } A - - -
δὲ αὐτοὺς, εἰ χαὶ μηδὲν ἕτερον, τοῦ χρόνου γοῦν αἰδεσϑῆναι τὸ
᾽ = ι ͵ ᾽ ν ἢ
“πὰ γ “ ‘ ~ ’ , ΞΕ ,
μῆκος, ἐν ᾧ τῆνδε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐν ταῖς ἐχκλησίαις ἀναγινώ-
~ το ~
σχόντες διετέλεσαν τῆς ἐχχλησίας ot τρόφιμοι. Ἐξ οὗ γὰρ τῶν
3 ὭΣ U « ~ ~ , Paes , Je
-«ποστολιχῶν γραμμάτων αἱ tov Θεοῦ μιετέλαχον ἐχχλησίαι, ἐξ
- - ’ ~
ἐχείνου καὶ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς τὴν ὠφέλειαν xagmody-
‘ ~ Ν - ) \ ) ~ ~
ται" εἰ δὲ μηδὲ τοῦτο ἱχανὸν πεῖσαι αὐτοὺς, Εὐσεβίῳ γοῦν ἐχρὴν
- - ~ a ~ > ~
meodive τῷ Παλαιστινῷ, ov τῶν οἰχείων δογμάτων ἀποκαλοῦσι
\ τα ‘ ~ , \
συνήγορον" χαὶ οὗτος γὰρ τοῦ ϑειοτάτου Παύλου τήνδε τὴν ἐπι-
\ « 25 \ ,
στολὴν ὡμολόγησεν εἶναι, χαὶ τοὺς σταλαιοὺς ἅπαντας ταύτην ττερὶ
> = >» if ‘ 2 Pvt ἣν ΩΣ » ’ re ~ Yoc~
αὑτῆς ἕφησεν ἐσχηχέναι τὴν δόξαν. Add οὗτοι πᾶσιν ἐῤῥῶσϑαι
, d , Ἂ A ‘ γ is ν , ~ >
φράσαντες, ἀναίδην πιρὸς τὴν ἀλήϑειαν διαμάχονται, τῆς -4πο-
~ , z \ , , ‘ »” 2
στολιχῆς θεολογίας, ἢ τὸ προοίμιον χατεχόσμησε, τὴν αἴγλην οὐ
, , \ ‘ \ Ν coe ‘
φέροντες. αΑἸντιλέγειν yao ov δυνάμενοι πρὸς τὰ διαῤῥήδην στερὶ
τῆς τοῦ μονογένους εἰρημένα ϑεύτητος, πᾶσαν ἐχβάλλειν ἐτόλμη-
\ \ ~ \ ~ 2
σαν τὴν ἐπιστολὴν, χαίτοι χαὶ τῶν δογμάτων, χαὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐν-
ϑυμημάτων, πολλὴν συγγένειαν τιρὸς τὰς ἄλλας ἐχόντων ἐπτιιστο-
‘ ~ \ >
λάς. Πρύόσχημια δὲ τῇ χατηγορίᾳ περιτιϑέασι, τὸ μὴ τὴν An0-
\ ’ ς ἢ ? ~ ¢ ~ ’ 2) \
στολιχὴν προσηγορίαν ὁμοίως ἐγχεῖσϑαι τῷ προοιμίῳ. Ἔδει δὲ
> ‘ ~ - - > ~
αὐτοὺς συνιδεῖν, ὡς τῶν ἐξ ἐϑνῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ov τῶν ἐξ ᾿Ιοδαίων στε-
πιστευχύτων .ΑἽπόστολος ἐκεχειροτόνητο. . .. τούτου δὴ χάριν τοῖς
μὲν ἐξ ἐϑνῶν πεπιστευχόσιν ἐπιστέλλων, χαὶ τὴν προσηγορίαν
1C shoes Ves 3 \ er , ς
προστέϑειχε, χαὶ τὴν «“ποστολιχὴν ἀξίαν τιροστέϑειχεν, ὡς δι--
- me 2)
δάσχαλος μαϑηταῖς ἐπιστέλλων. “E8eatoig δὲ γράφων, ὧν οὐχ
ἐνεχειρίσϑη τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν, γυμνὴν τῶν ἀξιωμάτων εἰχότως τὴν
διδασχαλίαν προσήνεγκεν. Ὑπὸ γὰρ τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ἀποστόλων
, 1 ‘ ~ ~ by
προμήϑειαν ἐτέλουν. Ὅτι δὲ τῆς πνευματικῆς χάριτος avarhews
’ \ \ a) Ν - - > ‘
ἡ ἐπιστολὴ, χαὶ οὐδὲ τὴν τυχοῦσαν τιαρέχουσα διαβολῆς ἀφορμὴν,
ς
ἢ χατὰ μέρος ἑρμηνεία διδάξει σαφέστερον. ... Γέγραφε δὲ
2 - ~ ~
αὑτὴν τῇ Εβραίων φωνῇ" ἑρμηνευσϑῆναι δὲ αὐτήν φασιν ὑπὸ
Κλήμεντος.
22. Δεκοπε. !
De Vir. Ill. ¢.5. (See before, Epistles of Paul, p. 214.)
1 Jerome’s view on the whole is that the Pauline authorship was not beyond
JEROME. 287
Ad Paulin. de Stud. Script. (Vallars. Vol. I. c. 8. p. 278.)
Paulus Apostolus ad septem Ecclesias scribit, (octava enim ad
Hebraeos a plerisque extra numerum ponitur.)
Epist. ad Dardanun. (Vallars. Vol. I. ὁ. 3. p. 965.) flud
nostris dicendum est, hance Epistolam quae inscribitur ad He-
braeos, non solum ab Ecclesiis Orientis, sed ab omnibus retro
Ecclesiasticis Graeci sermonis Scriptoribus, quasi Pauli Apostoli
suscipi, licet plerique eam vel Barnabae, vel Clementis arbitren-
tur: et nihil interesse, cujus sit, quum Ecclesiastici viri sit, et
quotidie Ecclesiarum lectione celebretur. Quod si eam Latino-
rum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas canonicas; nec Grae-
corum quidem Ecclesiae Apocalypsin Joannis eadem libertate
suscipiunt; et tamen nos utrumque suscipimus; nequaquam hujus
temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem
sequentes, qui plerumque utriusque abutuntur testimoniis, non
ut interdum de apocryphis facere solent, quippe qui et genti-
lium literarum raro utantur exemplis, sed quasi canonicis et ec-
clesiasticis.
Comment. in Isaiae proph. wi. 6. (Vallars. Vol. IV. p. 91.)
Unde et Paulus Apostolus in epistola ad Hebraeos, quam Latina
consuetudo non recipit: “Nonne omnes,” inquit, “ministri sunt
spiritus &c.?”
Comment. in Ep. ad Tit. Prooem. (See above, on 1 Tim. p. 260.)
In Jerem. Book VI. ὁ. 31. (Vallars. Vol. IV. p. 1074.) Hoc
testimonio Apostolus Paulus, sive quis alius scripsit Epistolam,
usus est ad Hebraeos.
In Matth. Book IV. ὁ. 26. (Vallars. Vol. VII. p. 212.) Nam
doubt. He usually cites the Epistle as Paul’s; but often expresses a doubt; and
this throughout his writings at all periods of his life. The quotation in the text
from his letter to Dardanus gives a fair view of his general position. His con-
temporary Augustine testifies to the Pauline authorship on the whole. He was
present at the Council of Carthage A.D. 397 (see before, p. 20) at which it was
reckoned as Paul’s, but separately from the thirteen. In one remarkable passage
(see before, p. 23) he counts fourteen Epp. of Paul, without question putting He-
brews at the end. Though he does not always say the Ep. is Paul’s, he does
not admit doubts of it further than might be inferred from such phrases as
“ Hpistola quae scribitur ad Hebraeos” or ‘ Epistola ad Hebraeos.” In his De
Peecat. merit. et remiss. I. ec. 27 he says: ‘Ad Hebraeos quoque epistola, quam-
quam nonnullis incerta sit ... magisque me movet auctoritas Ecclesiarum Orientalium,
quae hane quoque in canonicis habent, quanta pro nobis testimonia contineat, adver-
tendum est.”
288 HEBREWS.
et Paulus in epistola sua, quae scribitur ad Hebracos, licet de
ea multi Latinorum dubitent &c.
Comm. in Ep. ad Galat. (Vallars. Vol. VI. p. 374.) Unde et
nos possumus intelligere, Joannem quoque baptistam ct apostolum
appellandum, siquidem ait scriptura: ‘“Fuit homo missus a Deo
cui nomen erat Joannes:” et in Epistola ad Hebracos propterea
Paulum solita consuetudine nec nomen suum, nec Apostoli voca-
bulum praeposuisse, quia de Christo erat dicturus: Habentes ergo
principem Sacerdotem, et Apostolum confessionis nostrae Jesum
(Heb. iii. 1; iv. 14); nec fuisse congruum, ut ubi Christus Apo-
stolus dicendus erat, ibi etiam Paulus Apostolus poneretur.
289
XXVIL
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.'
1. Cxement or ALEXANDRIA.
Strom. IV.15. p. 606. Κατὰ τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τὴν καϑολιχὴν
~ ) / c / “ \ ~ > , ~ ¢€ , , 4)
τῶν ἀποστόλων ἁπάντων “σὺν τῇ εὐδοχίᾳ tov Ayiov Πνεύματος
- ,ὔ \ 2) ~ 5 ΜΞ ~ ) / »
τῇ γεγραμμένῃ μὲν ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι τῶν -“ποστόλων, διαχο-
{ , δὲ > \ ΝΞ » ’ rd ὃ ᾿ ~ ~ ay
μισϑεισὴ ὃδὲ εἰς τοὺς mLOTOVS δι αὐτοῦ διαχονοῦντος τοῦ Παύλου.
Eus. H. E. ΝΙ. 14. Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὑποτυτεώσεσι, ξυνελόντα ei-
d
~ , ~ > Ge as > Σ etn) ,
πεῖν, πάσης τῆς ἐνδιαϑήκου γραφῆς ἐπιτετμημένας στεποίηται
/ \ Ν , - Ἀ ,ὔ ἈΝ
διηγήσεις μηδὲ τὰς ἀντιλεγομένας παρελϑῶν" τὴν [οὐδα λέγω χαὶ
τὰς λοιπὰς χαϑολιχὰς ἐπιστολὰς, τήν ve Βαρνάβα καὶ τὴν Πέ-
2
τρου λεγομένην ἀποχάλυψιν.
1 The origin and meaning of the term Catholic are obscure. The seven
Epistles which are now so named are usually found in MSS of the New Testa-
ment after the Acts and before the Pauline Epistles. Im δ they immediately
precede the Apocalypse. For much interesting information as to the relative order
in which they are severally found in MSS and Catalogues see Volkmar’s Anhang
to Credner’s Geschichte, § 196. It appears from the following extracts that Cle-
ment used the word ‘‘Catholic”’ to denote the general destination of the Epistle
in Acts xv; and that he (or Eusebius for him) had the same meaning in view
when speaking of Jude and the rest; Origen also (applying it to Barnabas and
some that are Canonical) has the same meaning (see reff. in our text); and this
Meaning seems to have prevailed ever since. Eus. H. E. III. 3. (see before,
page 207) does not necessarily give a different rendering, for ἐν χαϑολιχοῖς παρα-
δεδομένα may mean “handed down among Catholic Christians.” Oecumenius
(Proleg. in Ep. Jacob.) says χαϑολικαὶ λέγονται αὗται οἱονεὶ ἐγχύχλιοι, which is
the same thing. The two smaller Epistles of John do not come under the name
of General Epistles, but they were at an early date supposed to be general; the
Elect lady and Gaius being supposed to denote the Christian Church. Photius
says of Clement that his Stromateis are Interpretations ‘‘of the Epistles of the
divine Paul and the Catholic Epistles.” Cassiodorus (sixth century), Div. Lit.
6. 8 (see below on 2 Peter under Clem. Alex.), applies the term Hpistolae ca-
nonicae to those Epistles, and this became the ordinary phrase in the Latin
Chureh: but this seems to intimate that they are undoubtedly recognized by the
Church, and does not necessarily distinguish them from Paul’s, Eusebius H. Εἰ.
II. 23 (see below, on James) was the first to treat them as a collection.
19
200 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
3. Onicen.!
C. Celsum 1. 63. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 777.) Γέγραπται δὴ ἐν
τῇ Βαρνάβα καϑολιχῇ ἐπιστολῇ.
Selecta in Psalm. (See below, 1 Pet.)
Comment. in Joann. (See below, 1 Pet.)
De orat. (See below, 1 John.)
Comment. in Joann. (See below, 1 John.)
Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. (See below, Jude.)
Eus. H. E. VI. 25. (See before, p. 8.)
4. Dionysius ΟΕ ALEXANDRIA.
Eus. H. E. VI. 25. ‘H Ἐπιστολὴ ἣ καϑολιχή. (See below,
on the Apocal.)
5. Euvusesius.
H. E. 11. 23. (See below, on James.)
Ibid. ΠΙ. 8. (See before, ‘The Epistles,” page 207.)
Ibid. VI. 14. (See before, on Clem. Alex., pages 74, 277.)
6. Eprpsantus.
Haeres. 51. (See below, on the Apocal.)
7. JEROME.
Prolog. 7. epist. canonic. (Vallars. Vol. X. p. 1057) Non idem
ordo est apud Graecos, qui integre sapiunt, et fidem rectam sec-
tantur, Epistolarum septem, quae Canonicae nuncupantur, qui in
Latinis Codicibus invenitur: ut, quia Petrus primus est in nu-
mero Apostolorum, primae sint etiam ejus Epistolae in ordine
caeterarum. Sed sicut Evangelistas dudum ad veritatis lineam
correximus: ita has proprio ordini, Deo nos juvante, reddidimus.
Est enim prima earum una Jacobi: Petri duae: Johannis tres:
et Judae una. Quae si, ut ab eis digestae sunt, ita quoque ab
1 Origen. In the following passages Origen means “ general’? when he says
Catholic.
JEROME. 291
interpretibus fideliter in Latinum verterentur eloquium, nec am-
biguitatem legentibus facerent, nec sermonum sese varietas im-
pugnaret: illo praecipue loco ubi de unitate Trinitatis in prima
Johannis Epistola positum legimus. In qua etiam ab infidelibus
translatoribus multum erratum esse a fidei veritate comperimus:
trium tantum vocabula, hoc est, aquae, sanguinis et spiritus, in
sua editione ponentes; et Patris, Verbique, ac Spiritus testimo-
nium omittentes: in quo maxime et fides Catholica roboratur, et
Patris et Filii ac Spiritus Sancti una divinitatis substantia com-
probatur. In caecteris vero Epistolis, quantum a nostra aliorum
distet Editio lectoris prudentiae derelinquo. Sed tu, virgo Christi
Eustochium, dum a me impensius Scripturae veritatem inquiris,
meam quodam modo senectutem invidorum dentibus corrodendam
exponis, qui me falsarium corruptoremque sanctarum pronuntiant
Scripturarum. Sed ego in tali opere nec aemulorum meorum in-
videntiam pertimesco: nec sanctae Scripturae veritatem poscen-
tibus denegabo.
Ad Paulin. de stud. script. (See before, p. 22.)
19 *
292
XXVIIL
J ALM) Meets
(COMPARE SECTIONS LIT)
1. Cxement or Rome.
First Epistle.
(10:1. .: Asoadu, ὃ φίλος προσαγορευϑεὶς, πιστὸς εὑρέϑη
ἐν τῷ αὐτὸν ὑπήκοον γενέσϑαι τοῖς ῥήμασι τοῦ Θεοῦ. ... διὰ
mioty χαὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐδόϑη αὐτῷ υἱὸς ἐν γήρᾳ, καὶ Ov ae
προσήνεγχεν αὐτὸν ϑυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ πιρὸς ἕν τῶν ὀρέων ὧν ἔδειξε
αὐτῷ. (James ii. 21-23.)
C.12.1. Mee πίστιν χαὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐσώϑη ᾿Ῥαὰβ ἢ πόρνη.
(James ii. 25; Heb. xi. 31.)
Ο. 11. 2. Ἐμαρτυρήϑη δὲ μεγάλως ᾿ΑΙβραὰμ nai φίλος προσ-
ηγορεύϑη τοῦ Θεοῦ. (James ii. 23.)
Ο. 28. 1. Ὃ οἰχτίρμων κατὰ πάντα χαὶ εὐεργετικὸς mario
ἔχει σπλάγχνα ἐπὶ φοβουμένους αὐτὸν, ἡπίως τε χαὶ προσηνῶς
τὰς χάριτας αὐτοῦ ἀποδιδοῖ τοῖς πιροσερχομένοις αὐτῷ ἁτιλῇ δια-
1 This Epistle was accepted in the Eastern Church from the first. It is in
the Peshito version; but not in the Muratorian list; and not in the majority of
MSS of the Old Latin. The references given from Clem. Rom. are not very secure,
although some of them (especially perhaps c. 17.2) may be kept in mind. It
seems impossible to doubt that Hermas had it in view; and the first passage
from Irenaeus is significant. About Origen there can be no doubt whatever as
regards the Epistle, although doubt may be thrown on the passages which identify
its writer with the Lord’s brother, inasmuch as they are only in the Latin of ~
Rufinus. Nothing can be made of Tertullian: but on the other hand Hippolytus,
in his solitary quotation, is significantly explicit. Eusebius tells as a matter of
fact that some counted it spurious, and that there was a lack of early testimony
to it; but he himself quotes it as Apostolic. He seems to have believed that
there were three of the name of James, famous in the early Church. This is a
subject much discussed, on which this is not the place to enter. It is more to
our purpose to draw the student’s attention to the correspondence between James
and the Sermon on the Mount; and between James and 1 Peter. This twofold
relation seems to point to James being one of those who saw and heard the
Lord in the flesh. Both James and 1 Peter were addressed to the Jews of the
dispersion; and some have attributed to this fact the slowness of the Christian
Churches, especially in the West, to receive them. Perhaps in those days, as at
the Reformation, its doctrine was supposed to conflict with that of St Paul.
Luther could not endure it. He called it ‘‘ straw,”
CLEMENT. HERMAS. 293
, ~ ‘ ~
γοίᾳ. Διὸ μὴ διψυχῶμεν, μηδὲ ἰνδαλλέσϑω 1) ψυχὴ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ
ταῖς ὑπερβαλλούσαις χαὶ ἐνδόξοις δωρεαῖς αὐτοῦ. Πόῤῥω γενέσϑω
2 > - ~ c \ c c , Ξ (44 , , d « ,
ap ἡμῶν ἢ γραφὴ αὕτη, ὅπου λέγει" “Ταλαίϊίπωροί εἰσιν οἱ δί-
ψυχοι, οἱ διστάζοντες τῇ ψυχῇ, οἱ λέγοντες. Ταῦτα ἠχούσαμεν
χαὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, χαὶ ἰδοὺ γεγηράχαμεν χαὶ οὐδὲν ἡμῖν
τούτων συνβέβηχεν." ᾿ἊὮ ἀνόητοι, συμβάλετε ξαυτοὺς ξύλῳ: λά-
~ ‘ - sg
Bete ἄμπελον" σπιρῶτον μὲν φυλλοροεῖ, εἶτα βλαστὸς γίνεται, εἶτα
a ~ as
φύλλον, εἶτα ἄνϑος, γαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ὑμφαξ, εἶτα σταφυλὴ σταρ-
comurie.* (James i. 5, 9; v. 7; 2 Pet. iti. 3, 4.)
C. 80. 1. “Aytov οὖν μερὶς ὑπάρχοντες ποιήσωμεν τὰ τοῦ
ἁγιασμοῦ σπιάντα, φεύγοντες χαταλαλιὰς, μιαράς τε χαὶ ἀνάγγους
᾿ a \ / \ \ ἊΝ Q 2 A . { U
συμτιλοχὰς, μέϑας τὲ χαὶ νεωτερισμοὺς “al βδελυχτὰς ἐπιϑυμίας,
μυσερὰν μοιχείαν, βδελυχτὴν ὑπερηφανίαν. “Θεὸς γὰρ," φησὶν,
“ὑχεερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν." 5 (James
iv. 2-6; comp. 1 Pet. v. 5.)
ἢ crf τ 3) OG 8 ENO E GHD ΞΡ OL vai ie ΙΝ
{:. 91. 2. Τίνος χάριν ηυλογήϑη ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ABoacu; οὐχὶ
, \ / δὴ / , 7 Ν
δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀλήϑειαν διὰ πίστεως ποιήσας; Towne μετὰ στε-
, / \ ,ὔ Coes , ,
ποιϑήσεως γινώσχων τὸ μέλλον, ἡδέως τεροσήγετο ϑυσία. (James
ii, 21.)
_ Ὁ 88. 2. ὋὉ σοφὸς ἐνδειχνύσϑω τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐν λό-
Πα Ὧι αἰ aisle
γοις ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαϑοῖς. (James iii. 13.)
Second Epistle.
2. Hermas.
Vis. IID. 9.5. Βλέπετε τὴν χρίσιν τὴν ἐπτερχομένην. Ot ὑπερ-
ἔχοντες οὖν ἐχζητεῖτε τοὺς πιεινῶντας ἕως οὔπω ὃ πύργος ἐτελ-
/ Ξ Zan Χ Ν ~ \ / G , 2) ~
ἔσϑη" μετὰ γὰρ τὸ τελεσϑῆναι τὸν πύργον ϑελήσετε ἀγαϑοποιεῖν
nal οὐχ ἕξετε τόπον. Βλέπετε οὖν ὑμεῖς οἱ γαυρούμενοι ἐν τῷ
πλούτῳ ὑμῶν μήσοτε στενάζουσιν οἱ ὑστερούμενοι, χαὶ ὃ στεν-
1 Clement of Rome. This corresponds in idea with the passages marked in
N. T. but as a whole it seems to be from some Apocryphal source unknown in
our day. See Hilg., Lightf. or Gebh. & Harn. loc. Compare Hermas Vis. 11. 3;
and 2 Clem. 11. 2.
2 In Prov. iii. 34 it reads Κύριος ὑπερηφάνοις x.t-d. In James and Peter
(see Clement) it reads 6 Θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις x.t.4. The Hebrew has simply 817
“he” see Lightf. 2 loc.
8 The following may be compared as possible echoes: C. 8. 6 (James i. 27),
ce. 15. 1 (James v. 20).
204 JAMES.
αγμὸς αὐτῶν ἀναβήσεται πρὸς τὸν Κύριον χαὶ ἐχχλεισϑήσεσϑε
μετὰ τῶν ἀγαϑῶν ὑμῶν ἔξω τῆς ϑύρας τοῦ πύργου.} (James
ΝΥ] δον
Mand. If. 2. Πρῶτον μὲν μηδενὸς καταλάλει, μηδὲ ἡδέως
ἄχουε χαταλαλοῦντος" εἰ δὲ μὴ, καὶ σὺ ὃ ἀχούων ἔνοχος ἔσῃ τῆς
ἁμαρτίας τοῦ χαταλαλοῦντος, ἐὰν πιστεύσης τῇ χαταλαλιᾷ ἣ ἂν
ἀχούσῃς" πιστεύσας γὰρ χαὶ σὺ αὐτὸς ἕξεις xara τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ
σου. Οὕτως οὖν ἔνοχος ἔσῃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ χαταλαλοῦντος.
Πονηρὰ 1 χαταλαλιά, ἀχατάστατον δαιμόνιόν ἐστιν, μηδέποτε εἰ--
θηνεῖον, ἀλλὰ πάντοτε ἕν διχοστασίαις χατοιχοῦν. ᾿“πέχου οὖν
ἀπ αὐτοῦ, καὶ εὐθηνίαν πάντοτε ἕξεις μετὰ πάντων. (James i.
ΘΙ. 1 ὃ: av, ΟΣ
Mand. ΓΧ. 1.3 “ρον ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ τὴν διψυχίαν καὶ μηδὲν
ὅλως διψυχήσης αἰτήσασϑαι mapa τοῦ Θεοῦ, λέγων ἐν σεαυτῷ ὅτι
πῶς δύναμαι αἰτήσασϑαί τι παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου vai λαβεῖν, ἡμαρτ-
ηκὼς τοσαῦτα εἰς αὐτόν; μὴ διαλογίζου ταῦτα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς
χαρδίας σου ἐπίστρεψον ἐπὶ τὸν Κύριον, καὶ αἰτοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ
ἀδιστάχτως, χαὶ γνώσῃ τὴν πολυσχλαχνίαν αὐτοῦ, ὅτι οὐ μή σε
ἐγχαταλίπῃ, ἀλλὰ τὸ αἴτημα τῆς ψυχῆς σου πληροφορήσει. (James
- 4 Ge. iv. 6 σι γ- 11Ὁ
Mand. ΧΙ. Ὁ. Πᾶν γὰρ πνεῦμα ἀπὸ Θεοῦ δοϑὲν οὐκ ἐπερ-
ωτᾶται, ἀλλὰ ἔχον τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ϑεότητος ag ἑαυτοῦ λαλεῖ
πάντα, ὅτι ἄνωϑέν ἐστιν ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ ϑείου πνεύματος.
Τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐπερωτώμενον καὶ λαλοῦν xara τὰς ἐπιϑυμίας
τῶν ἀνϑρώπων ἐπίγειόν ἐστι χαὶ ἐλαφρὸν, δύναμιν μὴ ἔχον" καὶ
ὅλως οὐ λαλεῖ ἐὰν μὴ ἐπερωτηϑῆ. (James i. 17; iii. 15.3; and
see also 2 Tim. iv. 3.)
Mand. XI.9. Ὅταν οὖν ἔλϑη 6 ἄνϑρωπος ὃ ἔχων τὸ πνεῦμα
τὸ ϑεῖον εἰς συναγωγὴν ἀνδρῶν δικαίων τῶν ἐχόντων πίστιν Θείου
πνεύματος, “al ἔγτευξις γένηται πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τῆς συναγωγῆς
τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐχείνων, τότε ὃ ἄγγελος τοῦ προφητιχοῦ πνεύματος
ὃ χείμενος πρὸς αὐτὸν πληροῖ τὸν ἄνϑρωπον, χαὶ πιληρωϑεὶς ὃ
1 Hermas. The whole of Vis. III. 9 reminds of St James, and of the N. T.
generally.
2 Comp. also for διψυχία Vis. II. 2. 4. Mand. ΙΧ. 11. Mand. XI. Sim. IV. 6.
See for πολυσπλαχνία Sim. V V. 4. 4. Vis. I. 3. 2.
3. Comp. Mand. IX. 11, ἢ πίστις Zw dy ἔστι παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, χαὶ ἔχει δύ-
ναμιν μεγάλην: ἡ δὲ διψυχία ἐπίγειον πνεῦμα ἐστιν παρὰ τοῦ διαβόλου, δύναμιν
μὴ ἔχουσα. See note 2 for further references.
HERMAS. IGNATIUS. POLYCARP. IRENAEUS. 295
ἄνϑρωπος τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ λαλεῖ εἰς τὸ πλῆϑος χαϑὼς ὃ
,
Κύριος βούλεται.
Mand. ΧΙἼ]]. 1. 1. ρον ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ πᾶσαν ἐπιϑυμίαν πονη-
\ » ‘ \ pad , Ν 2 a. \ , ? ,
ρὰν, ἔνδυσαι δὲ τὴν ἐπιϑυμίαν τὴν ἀγαϑὺὴν χαὶ σεμνήν" ἐνδεδυμέ-
γος γὰρ τὴν ἐπιϑυμίαν ταύτην μισήσεις τὴν πονηρὰν ἐπιϑυμίαν
‘ , ay ENE εν ͵ > , , ? το
χαὶ χαλιναγωγήσεις αὑτὴν καϑὼς βούλει. -Ayola yao ἐστιν ἢ ἐπι-
ϑυμία ἢ πονηρὰ χαὶ δυσχόλως ἡμεροῦται" φοβερὰ yao ἔστι χαὶ
λίαν τῇ ἀγριότητι αὐτῆς δαπανᾷ τοὺς ἀνϑρώπους" See also Vis.
ees (ames i. 15; 1..26: iv. 4.)
Mand. XII. 5.2. Ζύναται ὃ διάβολος ἀντιπταλαῖσαι, κατα-
~ \ 2 , Im 35 > ~ 2 - on
παλαῖσαι δὲ ov δύναται. Ἐὰν οὖν ἀντισταϑῆτε αὑτῷ, νικχηϑεὶς
φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν χατῃσχυμμένος. (James iv. 7. 12.)
Mand. XII. 6. 3.4 (James iv. 12.) See before, Ap. Fath.
and Synopt. See also Mand. XII. 2. 4.
3. Tenatius.!
4. Potycarp.!
5. Syriac anp Orv Latin Versions. Muratorian Canon.
(See p. 292, note 1.)
6. IRenAgEvs.
B. IV. 16.2. Et quia non per haec justificabatur homo, sed
in signo data sunt populo, ostendit, quod ipse Abraham sine cir-
cumcisione et sine observatione sabbatorum, credidit Deo, et re-
putatum est illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est. (James
Hee comp. Rom. iii. 23, 24; iv. 3; Gal. iii. 6.)
B. IV. 13. 4. (Abraham) amicus factus est Dei. (James ii. 23.)
B. V. 1. 1. Neque rursus nos aliter discere poteramus, nisi
magistrum nostrum videntes et per auditum nostrum vocem
ejus percipientes: uti imitatores quidem operum, factores autem
4 Mand. XII is evidently based on James, as also Mand. IX and XI.
1 Ignatius. Compare as echo: Ad Polyce. 4. 3, μὴ ὑπερηφάνει χ.τιλ. (James
ii. 2).
1 Polyearp. Compare as echo: C. 5. 3 with James iii. 2.
296 JAMES.
Sermonum ejus facti, communionem habeamus cum ipso; .. .
Facti autem initium facturae.1 (James 1. 18, 22.)
7. Crement or ALEXAnpri.!
Eus. H. E. VI. 14. (See before, Catholic Epistles, p. 289
and note.)
Strom. IIT. 6. p. 533. Aéye δὲ αὐτοῖς ἡ γραφή “ὕὑπερ-
᾿ς , «ς Θ ᾿ > , ‘ ~ δὲ O10 th , 22 J
ηφάνοις ὃ Θεὸς ἀντιτάσσεται, τατιεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσι ycouw.”? (James
iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5; Prov: iii. 34.)
Ibid. IV. 26. p. 639. Τοῦτο γὰρ “τὸ ἄνϑος τοῦ χόρτου,"
χαὶ τὸ “χατὰ σάρχα περιπατεῖν," καὶ “σαρχιχοὺς εἶναι" χατὰ
τὸν ἀπόστολον, ἐν ἁμαρτίαις ὄντας. (James i. 10; 1 Pet. i. 24;
2 Cor X02.)
Tid. VI. 18. p. 825. “ Ἐὰν μὴ πλεονάσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη
πλεῖον τῶν ραμματέων χαὶ Φαρισαίων" τῶν χατὰ ἀποχὴν χαχῶν
διχαιουμένων, σὺν τῷ μετὰ τῆς ἐν τούτοις τελειώσεως χαὶ τῷ
(( \ A , 2 ἂν ob] Ν 2 - Wal » 27 (
τὸν σιλησίον ἀγατιᾷν," καὶ εὐεργετεῖν δύνασϑαι, οὐχ ἔσεσϑε “βα-
othixot.” (Mat. v. 20; James ii. 8.)
8. Hrrpotyrvs.
Περὶ τῆς συντελείας tot χόσμου. (Lagarde, p. 122.) Ἡ γὰρ
χρίσις ἀνίλεώς ἐστι τῷ μὴ ποιήσαντι ἔλεος. (James ii. 13.)
9. Τπεκτυτῖαν.
De orat. c. ὃ. Ceterum absit, ut Dominus tentare videatur,
quasi aut ignoret fidem cujusque, aut dejicere sit gestiens.
(James i. 13.)
Adv. Judaeos c.2. Unde Abraham amicus Dei deputatus, si
non de aequitate et justitia legis naturalis? (James 11. 23.)
Scorpiac. c. 12. Quis nunc medullam scripturarum magis
1 Trenaeus. ‘Made the first fruits of Creation.’’ (Anti-Nie. Library.)
1 Clement. Compare as echoes: Paed. III. 2. p. 259 and elsewhere φίλος
Θεοῦ James ii. 23 (but?); Strom. V. 14. p. 707 (also VII. 8. p. 862; and VII.
11. p. 872) “ἔστω, ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ val καὶ τὸ οὐ οὔ." (See James v. 12).
2 See before, page 293 (1 Clem. 30.1 and note). The same words are si-
milarly quoted also Strom. IV. 17. p. 611.
1 Tertullian. The following passages are not to shew that Tertullian knew
TERTULLIAN. ORIGEN. 297
nosset, quam ipsa Christi schola. ... Cui potius figuram vocis
suae declarasset, quam cui effigiem gloriae suae revelavit, Petro,
Joanni, Jacobo, et postea Paulo?
10. Ontern.!
Comment. in Joann. t. 19. Tom. IV. p. 306. (Migne, Vol. IV.
p. 569.) Ἐὰν γὰρ λέγηται μὲν πίστις, χωρὶς δὲ ἔργων τυγχάνῃ,
γεχρά ἐστιν ἣ τοιαύτη, ὡς ἐν τῇ φερομένῃ" ᾿Ιαχώβου ἐπιστολῇ
ἀνέγνωμεν.
Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. IV. Tom. IV. p. 535. (Migne,
Vol. IV. p. 989.) Nec solus haec Paulus in suis literis scribit:
audi et Jacobum fratrem Domini similia protestantem, cum dicit:
“Qui voluerit amicus esse saeculi hujus, inimicus Dei constitue-
tur.” (James iv. 4.)
Ibid. p. 536. (Migne, Vol. IV. p. 990.) Denique et Jacobus
apostolus ita dicit: ‘“Resistite diabolo, et fugiet a vobis: appro-
pinquate Deo, et appropinquabit vobis.” (James iv. 7, 8.)
Tbid. IX. p. 654. (Migne, Vol. IV. p. 1226.) Sicut et Jacobus
apostolus dicit: ““Omne datum bonum, et omne donum perfectum
desursum est descendens a Patre luminum.” (James i. 17.)
Comment. in Joann. t. 20. Tom. IV. p. 318. (Migne, Vol. IV.
p. 591.) Οὐ συγχωρηϑὲν ἂν ἱπὸ τῶν παραδεχομένων τό" Πίστις
χωρὶς ἔργων νεχρα ἐστιν.
Selecta in Psalm. Ps. xxx. 6. Tom. IL. p. 644. (Migne,
Vol. II. p. 1300.) «Ὡς παρὰ ᾿Ιαχώβῳ, ὥσπερ δὲ τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς
σινεύματος νεχρόν ἔστι.
Ibid. hom. IV. in Ps. xxxvi. p. 611. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 1351.)
Justus autem si in aliquo offenderit, si in verbo (Apostolus enim
James: but that they (the nearest approaches) are not quotations. There are
some other passages as De Exhort. Castitatis ο. VII (Rom. ii. 13) which are still
more remote.
1 Origen is the first to quote or refer to James’s Epistle by name. There
are quotations in his own Greek which are perfectly explicit. The Latin of his
works is regarded by some with suspicion. The translator had a way of inserting
expletives and titles. The Greek is explicit as regards the Epistle of James: it is
only in the Latin that we find James called the Lord’s brother.
2 Mill’s note is: “ Jmmo vero ut in ipsius Origenis operibus, a Rufino Latinis
factis, allegetur haec epistola tanquam Jacobi Apostoli fratris Domini et Scriptura
divina, wm commentariis tamen in Joannem Graecis, ab omni interpolatione liberis,
dubiae apud quosdam auctoritatis citatur.” Mill’s G. T. Proleg. p. xxiv.
298 JAMES.
est qui dicit: “In multis enim offendimus omnes, et si quis in
verbo non offendit, hic perfectus est vir.”) (James iii. 2).
Select. in Exod. Tom. 11. p.124. (Migne, Vol. 11. p. 288.) Διὸ
\ »] , a c ς Ν d ἐς > ~
nal ἐλέχϑη, ott ὁ Θεὸς ἀπειραστός ἐστι κακῶν.
11. Evusrsivs.
Η. Ε. 1. 12. Καὶ τῶν ἑβδομήχοντα δὲ πλείους τοῦ Σωτῆρος
πεφηνέναι μαϑητὰς εὕροις ἂν ἐπιτηρήσας, μάρτυρι χρώμενος τῷ
, \ ~ / i > \ ~
Παύλῳ, μετὰ τὴν ἐχ νεχρῶν ἔγερσιν ὦφϑαι αὐτὸν φήσαντι πρῶτον
μὲν Κηφᾷ, ἔπειτα τοῖς δώδεχα, χαὶ μετὰ τούτους, ἐπτάνω πεντα-
= τῷ ᾿ =
χοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ. Ὧν τινὰς μὲν ἔφασκε χεχοιμῆσϑαι,
\ , 2 bY ~ , P ge ( 3 \ > ~ ~
τοὺς whelovg δ᾽ ἔτι τῷ βίῳ, “ak ὃν χαιρὸν αὐτῷ ταῦτα συνε-
, , , > 9) | Dae D2 gS
TATTETO σιεριἕναι (OY περιμένειν). Ἔπειτα δ᾽ ὦφϑαι αὐτὸν 1α-
τῇ \ τῷ ~ ~ ~
χώβῳ φησίν" εἷς δὲ χαὶ οὗτος THY φερομένων τοῦ Σωτῆρος
? ~ 5) ΟΕ eS \ , x , ~ Ne
αδελφῶν ny. Ett ὡς παρὰ τούτους, χατὰ μίμησιν τῶν δωδεχα,
fe , = \ ~
πλείστων ὕσων ὑπαρξάντων ἀποστόλων, οἷος καὶ αὐτὸς ὃ Παῦλος
a , 1 , se a ” \ ~ 2 ,ὔ ~ 4}
ἦν, προστίϑησι λέγων" “ἔπειτα ὥφϑη τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσι.
Ibid. 11. 1. Tore δῆτα καὶ ᾿Ιάκχωβον, τὸν τοῦ Κυρίου λεγό-
\ τ ~ 9 x 2 - -
μένον ἀδελφὸν (ὅτι δὴ καὶ οὗτος τοῦ Ιωσὴφ ὠνόμαστο παῖς" τοῦ
\ r ~ \ 3 ce ~
δὲ Χριστοῦ πατὴρ ὃ Ιωσὴφ, ᾧ μνηστευϑεῖσα ἢ παρϑένος, πρὶν
- > ! a»
ἢ συνελϑεῖν αὐτοὺς, vento ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἔχ πνεύματος ἁγίου,
[4 ἘΔ τ ‘ ~ >. hi διδά Ν Me ~ δὴ \ "Ta
ὡς ἣ Ἱερὰ τῶν εὐαγγελίων διδάσχει γραφή"), τοῦτον δὴ tov Ia-
a \ , oem « ΄ oe ~ Budi 2
κωβον, ov χαὶ δίχαιον ἐπίχλην οἱ πάλαι δι ἀρετῆς ἐχάλουν me0-
τερήματα, πρῶτον ἱστοροῦσι τῆς ἐν “Ιεροσολύμοις ἐχχλησίας τὸν
se Ὁ A ie (0 Vie 'ς
τῆς ἐπισχοττῆς ἐγχειρισϑῆναι ϑρόνον. Ὶ ma
. ς ~ \ \ X , ~
Ibid. 11. 28. Τοιαῦτα χαὶ τὰ xata IaxwBov, ov ἢ wewtn τῶν
> , ( - 2 - , > , Wey
ὀνομαζομένων χαϑολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν eivar λέγεται. Ιστέον δὲ ὡς
- ~ ~ ue ὦ
γοϑεύεται μὲν οὐ πολλοὶ γοῦν τῶν παλαιῶν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσαν,
ὡς οὐδὲ τῆς λεγομένης ᾿Ιούδα, μιᾶς καὶ αὐτῆς οὔσης τῶν ἑπτὰ
, ~ Cr >» \ , \ ~
λεγομένων χαϑολιχῶν. Ὅμως δ᾽ ἴσμεν καὶ ταύτας μετὰ τῶν λοι--
mov ἐν πλείσταις δεδημοσιευμένας ἐχχλησίαις.
Ibid. 1. 3. (See before, p. 207.)
Ibid. WI. 25. (See before, p. 10.)
> ~
Demonstr. Ev. IIT. 5. Ἐπὶ τούτοις ᾿Ιάκωβος ὃ ἀδελφὸς tor
Κυρίου, ov ot πάλαι τὰ “Ιεροσόλυμα οἰχοῦντες ἐχάλουν δίχαιον
ἮΝ ~ ~ \ - >
διὰ τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς πλεονεχτήματα, ἐρωτηϑεὶς πρὸς τῶν ἀρχιερέων
Ν Ἴ - ΡῚ a , \ Cae bad
nat διδασχάλων τῶν Ιουδαίων ἔϑνους, τίνα περὶ tov Χριστοῦ
EUSEBIUS. ATHANASIUS. CYRYL OF JERUSALEM. EPIPHANIUS. 299
ἔχοι δόξαν, χἄπειτα αἀτιοχρινάμενος, ὅτι υἱὸς Θεοῦ εἴη, λίϑοις
nai αὐτὸς τιρὸς αὐτῶν βάλλεται.
De Eccles. Theol. 111. (Migne, Vol. VI. p. 976.) Kato λεέ-
λεχται ἐν ἑτέροις, Ἐξομολογεῖσϑε ἀλλήλοις τὰς ἁμαρτίας. (James
v. 16.)
12, Arnanastus.
Opp. Tom. IT. p. 38. (See before, p. 13.)
Synops. Athanas. (See before, p. 16 &c.)
Ad Serap. Ep. 1. Tom. I. p. 539. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 592.)
Οὐχ ἔστι δὲ παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, ὡς εἶπεν ὃ ᾿Ιάχωβος, παραλλαγὴ ἢ
τροτιῆς ἀποσχίασμα. (James i. 17.)
C. Arian. Or. 3. Tom. I. p. 483. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 452.)
Καϑὼς xai ὃ ᾿Ιάχωβος ὃ ἀπόστολος διδάσχων ἔλεγε: βουληϑεὶς
ἀπεχύησεν ἡμᾶς “όγῳ ἀληϑείας. (James i. 18.)
13. Cyrm or JERUSALEM.
Catech. IV. (See before, p. 19.)
14. Epresanivs.
Haeres. Tom. I. (See before, p. 21.)
Ibid. I. t. 1. h. 31. p. 206. Kai πάλιν 6 ἅγιος ᾿Ιάκωβος λέ-
γων περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης διδασχαλίας" ὅτι “Οὐχ ἔστιν crwdev ἣ
αὐτὴ σοφία χατερχομένη, add? ἐπίγειος, ψυχιχὴ, δαιμονιώδης.
Ἢ δὲ ἄνωθεν σοφία πρῶτον μὲν ἁγνή ἐστιν, ἔπειτα εἰρηνιχὴ, Ev-
πειϑὴς, ἀδιάχριτος, μεστὴ ἐλέους, καὶ καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν," καὶ τὰ
ἑξῆς. (James iii. 17.)
Ibid. 111. 1. 2. h. 11. p.1021. Κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον" ὅτι
“Oonoxeia δὲ χαϑαρὰ τῷ Θεῷ χαὶ Πατρὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν, ἐπι σχέσιτ-
cova ὀρφανοὺς, χαὶ χήρας ἐν τῇ ϑλίψει αὐτῶν, ἄσπιλον ξαυτὸν
τηρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ χύσμου." (James i. 27.)
15. Jerome.
De Vir. Ill. c. 2. Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini,
cognomento Justus, ut nonnulli existimant, Joseph ex alia
300 JAMES.
uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariae sororis matris Domini,
cujus Joannes in libro suo meminit, filius; post passionem Do-
mini statim ab Apostolis Ierosolymorum episcopus ordinatus,
unam tantum scripsit Epistolam, quae de septem Catholicis est;
quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur:
licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem.
Ep. 11. ad Paulin. (See before, p. 21.)
301
XXIX.
11} ΡΥ kOe Da i
(COMPARE SECTIONS ἘΠῚ. XI. XXVIL)
1 This Epistle of Peter (which Jerome is singular in supposing to have
been written in Hebrew) has sufficient testimony in its favour to show its ac-
ceptance in the early church. The words of 2 Peter iii. 1 may be considered the
earliest of all. The silence of the Muratorian fragment does not outweigh the
positive testimony in its favour of the Old Latin and of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
And the Eastern Church gives its witness in the Syrian Canon. Critical opinion
is found in Origen’s words. Modern objections are therefore mainly founded on
internal grounds. Semler led the way in doubting that Peter wrote it; and dis-
puted c. V. 13, 14. Cludius (A.D. 1808) aseribed it to a disciple of Paul’s. Eich-
horn and De Wette followed in this view. Schwegler made an elaborate indict-
ment against it as an apology for Paulinism addressed to the Petrine party, and
intended to serve as a ground of mediation or compromise between the Petrine
and Pauline sections of the divided church. He ascribed its date to the time of
the persecution by Trajan. There is an able article by Weiss (Stud. u. Krit.
1865, p. 619) in reply to all who give it a later date than A.D. 54. Weiss seeks
to prove that 1 Peter was written at an earlier period than Paul’s circular letter
(Ephesians). See also a full discussion in small compass by Briickner in De
Wette’s Kurzgef. Handb. ἃ. N. T. (1865) p. 19. Hilgenfeld (Kinl. p. 627) has a
statement of characteristic force and clearness in which he refuses to accept the
Epistle as merely a mediation between Petrine and Pauline Christians, but con-
eludes (with the Tubingen School generally) that it was written from Rome
during Trajan’s persecution, and also that its author was a man who used Paul’s
Epistles, and James, and Hebrews, The principle on which all those modern
objections go is, that the admitted similarity of this Epistle to some of Paul’s
and to James marks it out as a forgery. But the coincidences of thought only
demonstrate the harmony of doctrine pervading the N. T. No imitator of Paul
would have written an Epistle which passed by without explicit mention the doc-
trine of Justification by Faith; nor would a follower of James have dwelt so
much on doctrine. That the Epistle blends doctrine and practice as no other
does, with a sympathy founded on experience of the lights and shadows of a
believer’s life, is beyond dispute, and has been its attraction to penitent believers
in all ages; but it is too deep and original and unique to be the work of any
imitator or subordinate. Again: the ethical passages (such as e. iii. 8, comp. Rom.
xii. 10; ὁ. ii. 13, comp. Rom. xiii. 1), on which some found for proof of imitation,
may really be traced to the words of the Master Himself. The student may com-’
pare c. i. 5 with Gal. iii. 23; ¢.ii.6, 7 with Rom. ix. 23; ¢. ii. 11 with James iv. 1;
6. ii. 18 with Rom. xiii. 1; ὁ. iii. 9 with Rom. xii.17; ὁ. ili. 18 with Rom. vi. 9, 10;
Ὁ. 11]. 21 with Rom. vi. 4; ¢. iv. 1 with 2 Cor. v.15 and Rom. vi. 7; ὁ. iv. 10. 11
with Rom. xii. 6,7; ο. 5.1 with Rom. viii. 18. As regards Hebrews, 1 Pet. i. 2
repeats Heb. xii. 24; but the other passages do not suifice to establish a con-
nection. As regards James, 1 Pet. i. 1 may be compared (and partly contrasted)
with Jamesi.1; 6. i. 6, 7 with James i. 2-4; 6.1. 23-25 with James 1, 18; ¢. iv. 8
with James v. 20. There are some coincidences of expression which seem to
imply more than harmony of thought, and require us to suppose either that
they were common phrases in Apostolic circles, or that one of the Apostles had
seen the other’s works. If the latter supposition he adopted, it is not easy to
say which had the priority.
302 FIRST PETER.
1. Barwasas.!
2. Cement oF Rome. !
First Epistle.
C. 30. 2. (See before, under James.)
C. 38.1. Σωζέσϑω οὖν ἡμῶν ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ἐν Χριστῷ Ὦς-
Got, χαὶ ὑποτασσέσϑω ἕχαστος τῷ πλησίον αὐτοῦ, χαϑὼς καὶ
ἐτέϑη ἐν τῷ χαρίσματι αὐτοῦ. (1 Pet. v. 5; iv. 10; ii. 8.)
C. 49.5. Ayan καλύτιτει τειλῆϑος ἁμαρτιῶν. (1 Pet. iv. 8;
comp. James vy. 20.) :
C. 57. 1. Ὑμεῖς οὖν, οἱ τὴν καταβολὴν τῆς στάσεως ποιή-
’ - , Ἂν ,
σαντες, ὑποτάγητε τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις, καὶ παιδεύϑητε εἰς μετά-
γοιαν, χάμψαντες τὰ γόνατα τῆς χαρδίας ὑμῶν. άϑετε ὕπο-
τάσσεσϑαι ἀποϑέμενοι 4.7.4. (1 Pet. v. 5; ii. 1.)
C. 59. 2. (Comp. c. 36.2.) Ἐχτενῆῇ τὴν δέησιν χαὶ ἱκεσίαν
σοιούμενοι ὕπως τὸν ἀριϑμὸν τὸν χατηριϑμημένον τῶν ἐχλεχτῶν
αὐτοῦ ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ χόσμῳ διαφυλάξῃ ἄϑραυστον ὃ δημιουργὸς τῶν
ἁπάντων διὰ τοῦ ἠγαττημένου παιδὸς αὐτοῦ Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, dv
οὗ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς, ἀπὸ ἀγνωσίας
’ a] , , >] / > ~ oe
εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν δόξης ὀνόματος αὑτοῦ. (1 Pet. ii. 9. See also
Eph, i. 6.)
~ a NU ς - - ~
C. 61.1. Τοῖς ve ἄρχουσι καὶ ἡγουμένοις ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
σὺ, δέστπιοτα, ἔδωχας τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῖς διὰ τοῦ
μεγαλοτιρετιοῦς χαὶ ἀνεχδιηγήτου χράτους σου, εἰς τὸ γινώσκοντας
ἡμᾶς τὴν ὑπὸ σοῦ αὐτοῖς δεδομένην δόξαν χαὶ τιμὴν ὑποτάσ-
> ~ δ ? , ~ ¢ , , -
σεσϑαι αὑτοῖς, μηδὲν ἐναντιουμένους τῷ ϑελήματί σου. (1 Pet.
"19. 14: comp. Rom, xii, 1: πῆ id ae)
1 Barnabas. There is no passage in Barnabas which can be fairly claimed as
quoting 1 Peter. But there are several passages which might be regarded as
echoes if there were other proof that the writer had 1 Peter before him. Thus
6. 5.1 (αἷμα tov ῥαντίσματος), comp. 1 Pet. i. 2; c. 16. 8, comp. 1 Pet. i. 3, 23;
ec. 16. 10 (πνευματικὸς ναός), 1 Pet. ii. 5; c. 19. 11 (οὐδὲ διδοὺς γογγύσεις), 1 Pet.
iv. 9.
1 Clement. See Introduction. The passages in 1 Clem. quoting or suggest-
ing 1 Peter may be given thus: C. 1.1 (ξένης), 1 Pet. iv. 12; 6. 2.2 (dyaSo-
ποιΐαν), 1 Pet. iv. 19; ὁ. 2.4 (ἀδελφότης), 1 Pet. ii. 17; ὁ. 7.4 (τίμιον), 1 Pet.
4195) .0. b6nd (ποίμνιον), 1 Pet. v. 2, 8 [also Luke xii. 32, Acts xx. 28]; c. 16.
17 (ὑπογραμμός), 1 Pet. ii, 21 [2 Mace. ii. 28]; ¢. 80. 1 (καταλαλιᾶς), 1 Pet. ii. 1;
c. 36. 2 (td Saupaardy αὐτοῦ φῶς), 1 Pet. ii. 9; 6. 38.1 (see text); 6. 40.1
and 53. 1 (ἐγχεχυφότες), 1 Pet i. 12; ¢.49.1 (see text); ο. 57.1 (see text);
c. 59. 2 (see text); c. 61. 1 (see text).
CLEMENT OF ROME. HERMAS. 303
Second Epistle.
0.16.4. Κρείσσων νηστεία προσευχῆς, ἐλεημοσύνη δὲ ἀμφοτ-
ρων" ἀγάπη δὲ καλύπτει πλῆϑος ἁμαρτιῶν. (1 Pet. ἵν. 8.)
8. Hermas.
Vis. IIT. 11. 3. “Ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, μηχέτι ἔχοντες
Ἵ , ~ 2 - =) \ »” ~ ’ \ \ ,
ἐλπίδα τοῦ ἀνανεῶσαι, οὐδὲν ἀλλο προσδοχῶσιν EL μὴ τὴν κοί-
μησιν αὐτῶν, οὕτω χαὶ ὑμεῖς μαλαχισϑέντες and τῶν βιωτικῶν
πραγμάτων παρεδώχατε ξαυτοὺς εἰς τὰς ἀχηδίας, χαὶ οὐχ ἐτιεῤ-
ret J «ς ~ ‘ , γ \ \ , a » Wee} , ς ~
ῥίψατε ἑαυτῶν τὰς μερίμνας ἐπὶ τὸν Κυριον" chia ἐϑραύσϑη ὑμῶν
ἣ διάνοια, καὶ ἐπαλαιώϑητε ταῖς λύπαις ὑμῶν. (1 Pet. ν. 7.)
Vis. IV. 2.4. Καλῶς ἐξέφυγες, φησὶν, ὅτι τὴν μέριμιναν σου
ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἐπέῤῥιψας. (1 Pet. v. 7.)
Vis. IV. 3.4. To δὲ χρυσοῦν μέρος ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ οἱ ἐχφυγόντες
τὸν χόσμον τοῦτον. “Ὥσσιερ γὰρ τὸ χρυσίον δοχιμάζεται διὰ τοῦ
πυρὸς “al εἴχρηστον γίνεται, οὕτως xal ὑμεῖς δοχιμάζεσϑε οἱ
- ~ τ
χατοιχοῦντες ἐν αὐτῷ. Ot οὖν μείναντες καὶ πυρωϑέντες b70°
~ 2)
αὐτοῦ, καϑαρισϑήσεσϑε. “Ὥσπερ τὸ χρυσίον ἀποβάλλει τὴν σχωρίαν
αὐτοῦ, οὕτω χαὶ ὑμεῖς ἀποβαλεῖτε πᾶσαν λύπην καὶ στενοχωρίαν
καὶ χαϑαρισϑήσεσϑε καὶ χρήσιμοι ἔσεσϑε εἰς τὴν οἰχοδομὴν τοῦ
πύργου. (1 Pet. i. 7.)
Mand. 11. 1. Aéya μοι" “Α΄πλότητα ἔχε xai ἄχαχος γίνου
χαὶ ἔσῃ ὡς τὰ νήπια τὰ μὴ γινώσκοντα τὴν πονηρίαν τὴν ἀττολ-
» ᾽ ee
λύουσαν τὴν ζωὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. (1 Pet. ii. 2.)
Sim. IX. 16.5.1 Ὅτι, φησὶν, οὗτοι οἱ ἀπόστολοι χαὶ οἱ δι-
δάσχαλοι οἱ κηρύξαντες τὸ Ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, κοιμηϑέντες
ἐν δυνάμει καὶ πίστει τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐχήρυξαν καὶ τοῖς 7τρο-
χεχοιμημένοις, χαὶ αὐτοὶ ἔδωχαν αὐτοῖς τὴν σφραγῖδα τοῦ χη-
ρύγματος. Κατέβησαν οὖν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ, χαὶ πάλιν
ἀνέβησαν. (1 Pet. iii. 19, 21.)
Sim. IX. 21. 3 (comp. Sim. IX. 14. 6). Οἱ δίψυχοι, ὅταν
1 Hermas. This is quoted not as having any definite reference to 1 Pet. iii.
19 &c., but because it has been cited in connection with the controversies on the
genuineness of the Epistle. It is strange that Dr Davidson, Int. to N. T. I. 427
should say that ‘‘the idea found in the ‘shepherd’ of Hermas”’ is that ‘‘he who
preached to the dead was the Apostle Peter.” Hermas may be quoting Peter.
The connection with baptism, here as in 1 Peter iii. 19, 21, is not without signi-
ficance. I cannot say with Gebhardt and Harnack ‘1 Pet. iii. 19; iv. 6 respici
non potest.”
804 FIRST PETER.
ϑλῖψιν ἀχούσωσι, διὰ τὴν δειλίαν αὐτῶν εἰδωλολατροῦσι χαὶ τὸ
ὄνομα ἐπαισχύνονται τοῦ Κυρίου αὐτῶν. (1 Pet. iv. 16;
Mark viii. 38.)
Sim. IX. 28. 5. Βλέπετε οὖν ὑμεῖς οἱ ταῦτα βουλευόμενοι,
μήποτε ἣ βουλὴ αὕτη διαμείνῃ ἐν ταῖς χαρδίαις ὑμῶν, καὶ ἀπο-
ϑανεῖσϑε τῷ Θεῷ. Ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ πάσχοντες ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματος
δοξάζειν ὀφείλετε τὸν Θεὸν, ὅτι ἀξίους ὑμᾶς ἡγήσατο ὃ Θεὸς
iva τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα βαστάζητε, χαὶ πᾶσαι ὑμῶν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι ia-
goo. (1 Pet. iv. 13, 16.)
Sim. IX. 28. 6. Οὐκοῦν μαχαρίζετε ξαυτούς" ἀλλὰ δοχεῖτε
ἔργον μέγα πεποιηχέναι, ἐάν τις ὑμῶν διὰ τὸν Θεὸν πάϑῃ, ζωὴν
ὑμῖν ὃ Κύριος χαρίζεται, χαὶ οὐ νοεῖτε" αἱ γὰρ ἁμαρτίαι ὑμῶν
χατεβάρησαν, χαὶ εἰ μὴ πεπόνθατε ἕνεχεν τοῦ ὀνόματος Κυρίου,
διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν τεϑνήχκειτε ἂν τῷ Θεῷ. (1 Pet. iv. 14;
comp. Mat. v. 11.)
Sim. IX. 29.1. ... πιστεύσαντες τοιοῦτοί εἰσιν, ὡς νήπια
βρέφη εἰσίν. (1 Pet. ii. 2.)
4. ITenatius.!
5. Porycarp.!
Philipp. c. 1. ὃ. Eig ὃν οὐχ ἰδόντες πιστεύδτε χαρᾷ
ἀνεχλαλήτῳ χαὶ δεδοξασμένῃ" εἰς ἣν πολλοὶ ἐπιϑυμοῦσιν
sioeAgety. (1 Pet. i. 8, 12.)
Ibid. c. 2.1. Διὸ ἀναξωσάμενοι τὰς ὑσφύας ὑμῶν dov-
λεύσατε τῷ Θεῷ ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἀληϑείᾳ, ἀπολιτειόντες τὴν χενὴν
ματαιολογίαν καὶ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν πιλάνην, πιστεύσαντες εἰς
τὸν ἐγείραντα τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐκ νε-
χρῶν, nai δόντα αὐτῷ δόξαν, καὶ ϑρόνον ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ.
(1 Pet. i. 18, 21.)
Ibid. ¢. 2.2. Ὃς ἔρχεται χριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεχρῶν. (1 Pet.
ἵν. ἢ. Comp. Acts x. 42, and xvii. 31.)
Ibid. Mh) ἀποδιδόντες χαχὸν ἀντὶ καχοῦ, ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ
λοιδορίας. (1 Pet. iii. 9.)
1 Ignatius. In Ignatius may be compared as echoes: Magn. 13. 2 (ὑποτάγ-
nte), 1 Pet. v. 5; ad Polye. 4.3 (δουλευέτωσαν χ.τ.λ.), 1 Pet. ii. 6.
1 Polycarp. Compare as echoes Polycarp’s Salutation with 1 Pet. i. 17;
ς. 8.2 with 1 Pet. iv. 14, 16.
POLYCARP. PAPIAS. 305
Ibid. ο. 5.3. Καλὸν γὰρ τὸ ἀναχόστεσϑαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιϑυ-
μιῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, ὅτι πᾶσα ἐπιϑυμία κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος
στρατεύεται. (1 Pet. ἢ. 11. Compare Gal. v. 17.)
Ibid. ¢.7.2. Νήφοντες πρὸς τὰς εὐχάς. (1 Pet. iv. 7.)
Ibid. ¢.8.1. ᾿αΑδιαλείπτως οὖν π᾽τροσχαρτερῶμεν τῇ ἐλτείδι ἡμῶν
χαὶ τῷ ἀῤῥαβῶνι τῆς διχαιοσύνης ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστι Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς,
ὃς ἀνήνεγκεν ἡμῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι ἐπὶ
τὸ ξύλον, ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδὲ εὑρέϑη δό-
hog ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ" ἀλλὰ Ov ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ζήσωμεν
ἐν αὐτῷ, πάντα ὑπέμεινεν. Minted οὖν γενώμεϑα τῆς ὗπο-
μονῆς αὐτοῦ" χαὶ ἐὰν πάσχωμεν διὰ τὸ ὕνομα αὐτοῦ, δοξάζωμεν
αὐτόν. Τοῦτον γὰρ ἡμῖν τὸν ὑπτογραμμὸν ἔϑηχε Ov ἑαυτοῦ,
χαὶ ἡμεῖς τοῦτο ἐπιστεύσαμεν. (1 Pet. ii. 24, 22; 1 John iv. 9;
also 1 Pet. ii. 20, 21; iv. 14, 16.)?
Ibid. c. 10.1. In his ergo state et Domini exemplar sequimini,
firmi in fide et immutabiles, fraternitatis amatores, diligentes in-
vicem, in veritate sociati, mansuetudinem Domini alterutri prae-
stolantes, nullum despicientes. (1 Pet. ii. 17.)
Ibid. ¢.10.2. Omnes vobis invicem subjecti estote, conversa-
tionem vestram irreprehensibilem habentes in gentibus, ut ex bonis
opertbus vestris et vos laudem accipiatis, et Dominus in vobis
non blasphemetur. (1 Pet. ii. 12.)
Eus. H. E. WV. 14.2 Ὁ γέ τοι Πολύκαρπος ἐν τῇ δηλωϑείσῃ
σιρὸς Φιλισισπιησίους αὐτοῦ γραφῇ φερομένῃ εἰς δεῦρο κέχρηταί
τισι μαρτυρίαις ad τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς.
6. Paptas.
Eus. H. E. Vl. 89. Κέχρηται δ᾽ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ὃ ἀπὸ τῆς |
᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῖς, χαὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως.
2 Though this passage is almost entirely from 1 Peter, the order of the
clauses is not as in Peter; and the use of ὑπέμεινεν and ὑπομονῆς is not a quo-
tation, although evidently suggested by 1 Pet. ii. 20. To “suffer on account of
Christ’s name”’ is evidently a reminiscence of 1 Pet. iv. 14,16 (less probably of
Acts v. 41), but not a quotation of the words. Ὑπογραμμιός is from 1 Pet. ii. 21,
though not similarly placed in the context. The treatment of his authority by
Polycarp here is valuable when we consider what may be regarded as a similar
use of Mat. v. 3, &e. (See passage under Apostol. Fathers and the Synoptists.)
3 There can be no doubt that Polyearp knew, quoted, and imitated 1 Peter.
This quotation from Eusebius shows that this fact drew attention at an early date.
20
306 FIRST PETER.
7. Lerrer to Dioenetus.
C. 9.2. [Ἐλεῶν αὐτὸς τὰς ἡμετέρας ἁμαρτίας ἀνεδέξατο." 1
ee “ sss \ \ \ 2
(1 Pet. ii. 24. Compare Isaiah 1111.) «Αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο
λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, τὸν ἅγιον ὑττὲρ ἀνόμων, TOY ἄχαχον ὑπὲρ τῶν
χαχῶν, τὸν δίχαιον ὑπτιὲρ τῶν ἀδίκων. (1 Pet. iii. 18.)
8. Letter or tHe Cuurcu or Vienne ΑΝῸ Lyons.
Eus. H. E.V.1. Οἱ γὰρ χατὰ τὴν πρώτην σύλληψιν ἔξαρνοι
γενόμενοι. συνεχλείοντο χαὶ αὐτοὶ χαὶ μετεῖχον τῶν δεινῶν" (οὐδὲ
γὰρ ἐν τῷ χαιρῷ τούτῳ ὕφελός τι αὐτοῖς ἢ ἐξάρνησις ἐγίνετο")
ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν ὁμολογοῦντες ὃ χαὶ ἦσαν, συνεκλείοντο ὡς Χριστιανοὶ,
μηδεμιᾶς ἄλλης αἰτίας αὐτοῖς ἐτιιφερομένης οὗτοι δὲ λοιττὸν ὡς
ἀνδροφόνοι χαὶ μιαροὶ χατείχοντο, διπιλότερον παρὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς
χολαζόμενοι. Ἐχείνους μὲν γὰρ ἐπεχούφιζεν ἣ χαρὰ τῆς μαρτυρ-
lag, καὶ ἢ ἐλπὶς τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων, καὶ ἢ πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν
ayarn, χαὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Πατριχὸν, τούτους δὲ τὸ συνειδὸς με-
γάλως ἐτιμωρεῖτο, ὥστε χαὶ παρὰ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἅτιασι χατὰ τὰς
παρόδους διαδήλους τὰς ὄψεις αὐτῶν εἶναι. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἱλαροὶ
προήεσαν, δόξης χαὶ χάριτος πολλῆς ταῖς ὄψεσιν αὐτῶν συγχε-
χραμένης, ὥστε καὶ τὰ δεσμὰ χόσμον εὐπρεπῆ περιχεῖσϑαι αὐ-
τοῖς, ὡς νύμφῃ χεχοσμημένῃ ἐν χροσσωτοῖς χρυσοῖς πεττοιχιλμέ-
νοις, τὴν εὐωδίαν (2 Cor. ii. 15) ὀδωδότες ἅμα τὴν Χριστοῦ, ὥστε
ἐνίους δόξαι χαὶ μύρῳ χοσμιχῷ χεχρίσϑαι αὐτούς" οἱ δὲ, χατ-
ηφεῖς καὶ ταπεινοὶ χαὶ δυσειδεῖς, καὶ στιάσης ἀσχημοσύνης ἀνά-
σιλεοι, πιροσέτι δὲ χαὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐϑνῶν ὀνειδιζόμενοι ὡς ἀγεννεῖς
καὶ ἄνανδροι, ἀνδροφόνων μὲν ἐγκλήματα ἔχοντες, ἀπολωλεχότες
δὲ τὴν πάντιμον χαὶ ἔνδοξον χαὶ ζωοττοιὸν σιροσηγορίαν. JO Pet.
iv. 13-16.)
Tbid. V. 2. Ἐταπείνουν ξαυτοὺς ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα, ὑφ᾽
ἧς ἱχανῶς νῦν εἰσὶν ὑψωμένοι. (1 Pet. v. 6.)
9. Tue Muratortan Canon.
See p. 7 (not mentioned).
10. Syriac anp Otp Latin Verstons.
See pp. 1, 2 (contained in both).
1 Diognetus. Of doubtful genuineness. See Otto’s note. (3rd Ed. 1879.)
IRENAEUS. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. TERTULLIAN. 307
11. Irenaeus.
B.IV.9. 2. Et Petrus ait in epistola sua: “Quem non vi-
dentes diligitis,” inquit, “in quem nunc non videntes credidistis,
gaudebitis gaudio inenarrabili.” (1 Pet. i. 8.)
B. IV. 16.5. Et propter hoc Petrus ait, “non velamentum
malitiae habere nos libertatem,” sed ad probationem et mani-
festationem fidei. (1 Pet. ii. 16.)
Hus. H. E.V.6. (See below, under 1 John.)
(Ὁ)
19. Cxement or ALEXANDRIA. !
Strom. IV. 7. p. 584. ““AdW εἰ καὶ πάσχομεν διὰ διχαιο-
ph 3 / 45 \ ς Πόέ ((Γὴ ὃ \ 3 2) ~ \
σύνην, μαχάριοι," φησὶν ὃ Πέτρος. ὃν δὲ φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ
φοβήϑητε, μηδὲ ταράχϑητε, Κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν
- f ς ~ cl \ 22 AN \ 2 , -"
ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. ἜἝτοιμοι δὲ ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ
αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος, ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραΐ-
τητος καὶ φόβου, συνείδησιν ἔχοντες ἀγαϑὴν, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ χαταλα-
- ~ c 2) / \ \ γ
λεῖσϑε χαταισχυνϑῶσιν οἱ ἐπηρεάζοντες τὴν χαλὴν ἀναστροφὴν
ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ" χρεῖντον γὰρ ἀγαϑοποιοῦντας, εἰ ϑέλοι τὸ 9έ-
~ ~ ὌΝ - eee "
λημα τοῦ Θεοῦ πάσχειν ἢ καχοποιοῦντας." (1 Pet. iii. 14-17.)
Paedag. I. 6. p. 124. Διὰ τοῦτό φησι χαὶ ὃ Πέτρος “ἀπο-
ϑέμενοι οὖν πᾶσαν χαχίαν χαὶ πάντα δόλον καὶ τὴν ὑπόχρισιν
\ 2 ν
nai φϑόνον καὶ χαταλαλιὰν, ὡς ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη, τὸ λογικὸν
γάλα ἐπιποϑήσατε, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηϑῆτε εἰς σωτηρίαν, εἰ ἐγεύ-
σασϑε ὅτι Χριστὸς ὃ Κύριος." (1 Pet. ii. 1-3.)
Ἐπ. H. E. V1. 14. (See before: The Catholic Epistles, p. 289.)
13. Terrouruian.!
De Virg. Veland. ὁ. 17. Haec cum bona pace legentibus, uti-
litatem consuetudini praeponentibus, pax et gratia a Domino
1 See also Strom. III. 9. p. 544 (ὁ ϑαυμάσιος Πέτρος); and III. 18. p. 562
(ὁ Πέτρος ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ); and IV. 7. p. 585; and IV. 20. p. 622; and there are
about twenty more passages, some with the name of Peter and some without.
1 Tertullian. Credner (Gesch. des N. T. Kan. § 80) admits that Tertullian,
quoted from 1 Peter in Scorp. ο. 12, ο. 14, and Adv. Jud. ¢. 10, but throws doubt on
his respect for the Epistle, seeing that he does not quote it in his De Resurrectione.
Volkmar (ibid. § 182) more broadly denies the authenticity of the works of
Tertullian from which the quotations are taken; and concludes that if he ever
20 *
308 FIRST PETER.
nostro Jesu redundet, cum Septimio Tertulliano cujus hoc opus-
culum est. (Pet. 1- 2.)
De Oratione Ὁ. 20. De modestia quidem cultus et ornatus
aperta praescriptio est etiam Petri, cohibentis eodem ore, quia
eodem et spiritu, quo Paulus, et vestium gloriam et auri super-
biam et crinium lenonem (αἰ. lenoniam) operositatem. (1 Pet. iii. 3.)
Adv. Praxean. c.27. Sermo autem Deus, et Sermo Domini manet
in aevum. (1 Pet. i. 25; comp. Ps. exix. 89; Is. xl. 8; Johni. 1.)
Adv. Jud. ὁ. 10. Christus, qui dolum de ore suo locutus non
est: (1 Pet: 11.22% ‘comp: 15: lui. 9.)
Scorpiace, c.12. Petrus quidem ad Ponticos, “Quanta enim,”
inquit, “gloria, si non ut delinquentes. puniamini sustinetis? Haec
enim gratia est, in hoc et vocati estis etc.” (1 Pet. ii. 20, 21.)
Ibid. c. 14. Condixerat scilicet Petrus regem quidem hono-
randum.? (1 Pet. ii. 13.)
14. Onricen.
Eus. H. E. VI. 25. (See before, p. 8.)
Hom. in Genes. (See before, p. 51.)
Hom. in libr. Jesu Nave. (See before, p. 52.)
Comment. in Mat. t. 15. Tom. Il. p. 692. (Migne, Vol. III.
Ρ. 1333.) Παραλαβὼν δὲ εἰς τοῦτο amd τε τῆς mewrns Ἐπιστολῆς,}
καὶ τῆς Παύλου τιρὸς Κορινϑίους προτέρας ῥητὰ, προαχϑήσῃ ὡς
knew 1 Peter it was at the end of his life, after A.p. 207, and in a Greek form.
Regarding the controversy on the genuineness of Tertullian’s Adv. Jud. and
Scorpiace, see Semler’s edition of Tertullian, Vol. V. p. 212; Neander’s Anti-
gnosticus, p. 530 (Bohn’s Transl.); Kaye’s Tertullian, Pref. to second edition;
and Rénsch, Das N. T. Tertullians, p. 556. To pronounce all those treatises
(or the parts of them, as Adv. Jud. c. 10 or De Orat. ο. 20) spurious is a violent
proceeding, which the facts do not justify. Retaining them, however, we have
evidence that Tertullian knew and used 1 Peter. That on other occasions he
omitted it, where we should have expected quotations, shows that he did not al-
ways accept it without reserve. The passage from De Orat. c. 20 is conclusive,
and is too well supported not to be genuine.
2 Compare as possible echoes or allusions: Fug. c.12, pretiosissemo san-
guine, ἕο. (1 Pet. i. 18, 19); Corona, c. 15, incorruptus, &e. (1 Pet. i. 4); Adv.
Marc. 5. 12, elatos aemulantem (1 Pet. v. 5).
1 Origen. Lardner (amending Huet) notes that the reading was προῦ for
Πέτρον, not πρώτης; so that there is not implied reference to a second Epistle.
See p. 8 for double reference. Origen often quotes 1 Peter. See Lardner I. p. 539;
but Lardner—inasmuch as there is no Greek quotation of ‘‘the First Epistle”
as such,—supposes that in the Latin (as in next extract) we owe the form of re-
ORIGEN. CYPRIAN. 309
ὑγιῶς εἰρημένων τῷ λόγῳ" λέγει γὰρ ὃ μὲν Πέτρος" Eig ὃν ἄρτι
μὴ δρῶντες, δηλονότι Inooiv Χριστὸν, πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλ-
λιᾶτε, χαὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, ἕως τοῦ: Εἰς ἃ ἐπιϑυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι
πιαρακύψαι. (1 Pet. i. 8-10.)
De Princip. L. IT. c.5,3. Tom.I. p.88. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 206.)
Non legunt quid scriptum sit de spe illorum qui in diluvio per-
empti sunt, de qua spe Petrus ipse in prima Epistola’ sua ita
ait: “Quia Christus mortuus quidem est carne, vivificatus autem
spiritu: in quo pergens praedicavit his spiritibus qui in carcere
tenebantur, qui increduli fuerant aliquando cum exspectarent Dei
patientiam in diebus Noe cum fabricaretur arca, in qua pauci,
id est octo animae salvae factae sunt per aquam, quod et vos
simili forma nunc baptisma salvos facit.” (1 Pet. iii. 18, &c.)
Selecta in Psalm. In Ps. iii. c. 3, 7. Tom. II. p. 553. (Migne,
Vol. IL. p. 1128.) Κατὰ τὰ λεγόμενα ἐν τῇ καϑολικῇ Ἐπιστολῇ
παρὰ τῷ Πέτρῳ" “ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλαχῇ πνεύμασι πορευϑεὶς
ἐκήρυξεν ἀπειϑήσασί sore, Ove ἀπεξεδέχετο ἢ τοῦ Θεοῦ waxeo-
ϑυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε χατασχευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ, εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι,
τουτέστιν ὀχτὼ ψυχαὶ, διεσώϑησαν dv ὕδατος. (1 Pet. iii. 19.)
Comment. in Joann. t. 6.18. Tom. ΤΥ. p. 135. (Migne, Vol. IV.
p. 260.) Καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐν φυλαχῇ πορείας μετὰ Πνεύματος παρὰ
τῷ Πέτρῳ ἐν τῇ χαϑολιχῇ Ἐπιστολῇ" “ Θανατωϑεὶς γάρ," φησι,
“σαρχὶ, ζωοποιηϑεὶς κχ.τ.λ." (1 Pet. ili. 18-20.)
15. Cyprian.
De bono patient. Item Petrus, super quem Ecclesia, Domini
dignatione fundata est, in Epistola sua ponit et dicit: “Christus
passus est pro nobis, relinquens nobis exemplum ut sequamini
vestigia ejus, qui peccatum non fecit, nec dolus inventus est in
ore ejus; qui cum malediceretur, non maledicebat; cum pateretur,
non comminabatur. Tradebat autem se judicanti se injuste.”
(1 Pet. ii. 21-23.)
Epist. 58 (al. 56). Ad Thibarit. Nec quisquam miretur, perse-
cutionibus nos assiduis fatigari, et pressuris angentibus frequenter
ference to the translator. Lardner however seems to allow too little weight to
the passage preserved by Eusebius, where there ean be no doubt of the reference
to two Epistles, one of them disputed.
310 FIRST PETER.
urgeri: quando haec futura in novissimis temporibus Dominus ante
praedixerit, et militiam nostram magisterio et hortamento sui ser-
monis instruxerit: Petrus quoque Apostolus ejus docuerit, ideo
persecutiones fieri, ut probemur, et ut dilectioni Dei, justorum
praecedentium exemplo, nos etiam morte et passionibus copule-
mur: posuit enim in Epistola sua dicens: “Carissimi, nolite mi-
rari ardorem accidentem vobis, qui ad tentationem vestram fit,
nec excidatis, tanquam novum vobis contingat, sed quotienscun-
que communicatis Christi passionibus, per omnia gaudete, ut et
in revelatione facta claritatis ejus gaudentes exultetis. Si im-
properatur vobis in nomine Christi, beati estis, qui majestatis et
virtutis Domini nomen in’ vobis requiescit. Quod quidem secun-
dum illos blasphematur, secundum nos autem honoratur.” (1 Pet.
iv. 12-14.)
16. Evsenius.
H. E. 1Π. 4. Καὶ ἐκ τῶν Πέτρου δὲ λέξεων, ἐν διτόσαις χαὶ
οὗτος ἐπαρχίαις τοὺς ἐχ περιτομῆς τὸν Χριστὸν εὐαγγελιζόμενος,
ὃν τῆς χαινῆς διαϑύχης παρεδίδου λόγον, σαφὲς ἂν εἴη, ἀφ᾽ ἣ
τὸν τῆς χαινῆς διαϑήχης παρεδίδου λόγον, pes ἂν ein, ap ἧς
Del ς , 2 ~ ~ > ζ - DY ς ,
εἰρήκαμεν ὁμολογουμένης αὑτοῦ ἐπιστολῆς, ἕν ἢ τοῖς ἐξ ESoaiwy
οἷσιν ἐν διασπορᾷ Πόντου χαὶ αλατίας Καππαδοχίας ve nat
> , ν ς ! t
Aoiag χαι Βιϑυνιας yoager.
Ibid. Til. 3. (See before, Epistles as a whole, p. 207.)
Ibid. 111. 25. (See before, p. 10.)
17. ATHANASIUS.
Epist. I. ad Serap. p. 522. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 544.) Καὶ Πέ-
τρος ἔγραψε: Κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως, ow-
τηρίαν ψυχῶν" περὶ ἣς σωτηρίας ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξ-
NOEVYNTAY προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος
σπιροφητεύσαντες, ἐρευνῶντες εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδηλ-
otro τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, προιαρτυρόμενον τὰ εἰς
Χριστὸν παϑήματα, χαὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας. (1 Pet. i. 10, 11.)
Contra Apollinarium L. If. p. 755. (Migne, Vol. If. p. 1144.)
Καὶ weg, εἰ σαρχιχὴ ἢ ψυχὴ re ὑμᾶς, ob συνϑνύσχει τῷ σώ-
σῶς; Leds ὦ χη μας, ( ᾿
\ , ~ \ eS , ‘ ’ c
ματι, χαὶ συμφϑείρεται; Πῶς δὲ χαὶ ὃ Πέτρος, τὰς ἐν adn χατ-
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. EPIPHANIUS. JEROME. 1.1}
, ἣν , γ ,ὔ a 2 7 -
δχομένας ψυχὰς, πινεύματα ὀνομάσας, édeyev’ Esvogev dn τοῖς
ἐν φυλαχῇ καταχεχλεισμένοις πνεύμασι εὐαγγελίσα-
σϑαι τὴν ἀνάστασιν. (1 Pet. iii. 19.)
Opp. Tom. IT. p. 38. (See before, p. 13.)
Synops. Athanas. (See before, p. 15.)
18. Cyrit or JERUSALEM.
Catech. 4. (See before, p. 19.)
19. Eprenantus.
Haeres ITT. t. 1. ἢ. 76. p. 941. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 560.) (See
before, “Canon of Epiphanius,” p. 21.)
20. JEROME.
Epist. IT. ad Paulinum. (See before, p. 21.)
Proleg. 7. epist. canonic. (See before, Catholic Epistles, p. 290.)
De Vir. Ill. c. 1. Simon Petrus .. . scripsit duas epistolas,
quae Catholicae nominantur: quarum secunda a plerisque ejus
esse negatur, propter styli cum priore dissonantiam.
Epist. 120. ad Hedibiam, Quaest. XI. Quumque (sc. Paulus)
haberet scientiam sanctarum Scripturarum et sermonis diversa-
rumqué- linguarum gratiam possideret; unde ipse gloriatur in
Domino, et dicit: Gratias ago Deo, quod omnium vestrum lin-
guis magis loguor, divinorum sensuum majestatem digno non pot-
erat Graeci eloquii explicare sermone. Habebat ergo Titum in-
terpretem, sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cujus Evangelium,
Petro narrante et illo scribente, compositum est. Denique et
duae Epistolae quae feruntur Petri stilo inter se et charactere
᾿ discrepant, structuraque verborum. Ex quo intelligimus, pro ne-
cessitate rerum, diversis eum usum interpretibus.
312
XXX.
SECOND PETER®
(COMPARE SECTIONS I-III. XI. XXVILI.)
1 The earliest quotation from this Epistle is probably that in 2 Clement.
Justin’s apparent references are worthy of notice, and so also are those of Ire-
naeus. Clement of Alexandria commented on the Epistle. Origen’s testimony may
be ambiguous, as it is said to be, but it is scarcely possible that even Rufinus,
when paraphrasing his original, would invent so many distinct passages as are
found in his Latin version of Origen. See text, p. 52, and references in this
chapter. It appears to have been an admitted part of Scripture in Origen’s
time, although what Eus. H. E. VI. 25 ascribes to him is not less likely to be
correct: "Eotw δὲ χαὶ δευτέραν, ἀμφιβάλλεται γάρ. This is not a statement of
opinion, but the record of a matter of fact. Eusebius mentions the wide circula-
tion of the Epistle, and the doubts of its canonicity, without meeting the diffi-
culties involved; but Jerome argues on the subject. From his day to ours the
Epistle has been generally received, but (at least from the Reformation) with
some doubts on the part of many. Reuss and Hilgenfeld reject it. See Briick-
ner’s Commentary in De Wette’s Exeget. Handb.
The similarity of 2 Peter to Jude has occasioned suspicion of the genuineness
of both, and also much controversy as to the relative priority of the two Epistles.
The passages Jude 3-16 and 2 Pet. ii. 1-19 are too like to admit of denial that
the one writer had the other in view. On the whole, it seems that there is a
directness and explicitness about Jude which make it likely that he was first: but
although the same illustrations are in both Epistles, the object in view is not the
same. The treatment of the illustrations is accordingly different and independent.
There is no imitation or servile copying. Compare the different use of ὑπέρογχα with
and without ματαιότητος, Jude 6 and 2 Pet. ii. 18; and see συνευωχούμενοι, Jude 12
and 2 Pet. 11. 13. Both of the Epistles must have been written at an early date
in the history of the Church. See how Jude 17, 18, uses the prediction also found
in 2 Pet. iii. 3. The immediate Parousia is implied in both, though Jude does not
mention it. This makes for the genuineness of both letters. The disappointment
of that expectation was such as to have prevented a forger (say in the second
century) from recalling it; and the expression of the strong hope of the Church
is characteristic of the apostolic age. In 1 Clem. ec. 23 and 2 Clem. ec. 11 we have
the expectations of a later time dealt with; and a singular quotation (called γραφή
and προφητικὸς λόγος) is applied in both cases. But the position of the writers
of 2 Peter and Jude is quite different from that of Clement and of the preacher
of the Homily called ‘‘2 Clement.” When critics attempt to fix a date after,
the Fall of Jerusalem for our Epistles they do not succeed.
If Peter wrote both Epistles, the time which had passed in the interval had
made a change in the circumstances of the persons addressed. In the first he
speaks of external assaults, in the second the danger is from within. It is not
yet from Gnostic or theosophic speculations: it is practical libertinism, lawlessness.
The first Epistle is altogether more Jewish than the second. The Churches ad-
dressed have increased more in Gentile than in Jewish adherents since the first
Epistle, so exclusively Jewish in its tone, was penned; and the change thus
brought about goes far to account for the difference in the relation to the Old
Testament in the two Epistles. It is a difference in degree. The Old Testament
BARNABAS, CLEMENT OF ROME. HERMAS. 913
1. Barnasas.!
2. Crement ΟΕ Rome.
First Epistle.+
Second Epistle.
C.16. 3. Γινώσχετε δὲ ὅτι ἔρχεται ἤδη ἣ ἡμέρα τῆς χρίσεως
ὡς χλίβανος καιόμενος, “aL ταχήσονταί τινὲς τῶν οὐρανῶν χαὶ
πᾶσα ἣ γῆ ὡς μόλιβος ἐπὶ πυρὶ τηκόμενος" χαὶ τότε φανήσεται
τὰ χρύφια καὶ φανερὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνϑρώπων. (Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 9;
in. 7.)
3. Hermas.!
Vis. IIT. 7. 1. Οἷτοί εἰσιν ot πεπιστευχότες μὲν, ἀπό τε
τῆς διψυχίας αὐτῶν ἀφίουσιν τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀληθινήν. (2 Pet.
ἢ, 18)
Vis. IV. ὃ. 4. Τὸ δὲ χρυσοῦν μέρος ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ οἱ ἐχφυγόντες
Ἁ ’ ~ oe
τὸν χόσμον τοῦτον. (2 Pet. ii. 20.)
is still appealed to; but the whole tone and substance are less peculiarly Jewish.
We may also note that there are in this second Epistle several points of resem-
blance to the Pastoral Epistles of Paul. See the use of εὐσέβεια. Paul seems
to have been still alive (iii. 15). The chief difficulty in holding the Petrine
authorship of both Epistles lies in the apparently different persons addressed, while
yet the second claims to be written to the same persons (iii. 1). But on the whole
we may hold that the growth of the Church accounts for the degree of difference :
the “strangers of the Diaspora” in the first letter are the ‘‘equally favoured
Christians” of the second; and the object of both Epistles is that grace and
peace may be multiplied (1 Pet. i. 2; 2 Pet. i. 2). But in the second there is the
necessity of seeking that increase of grace and peace by promoting true knowledge
(ἐπίγνωσις) of the Personal God and the Saviour. (See Weiss on this Epistle in
Stud. u. Krit. for 1866, p. 255 &c.)
1 Barnabas. In Barnabas, c. 2, 3 an echo of 2 Pet. i.6 may be found; and
in ο. 1ὅ, 4 (ἡ yao ἡμέρα nap αὐτῷ χίλια ἔτη) a ground of comparison with
2 Pet. iii. 8. The application of the words is quite different in this last case.
Comp. Ps. xc. 4. See below in passages from Justin and Irenaeus.
1 Clement. In Clement there are several passages which have been cited as
references to 2 Peter. But they are rather parallels than citations. Thus ὁ. 7. 1
(2 Pet. i. 12-iii. 9); ¢. 7. 5 (2 Pet. ii. 5); ¢. 9. 2 (2 Pet. i. 17); ¢.11. 1 (2 Pet. 11.
δῖ Ὁ. 95:1 (2 Pet. iii. 35/4):
1 Hermas. Comp. on the greed of false teachers Sim. IX. 19. 3 with 2 Pet.
ii. 3 and Jude 16.
1 Compare as echoes: Ignatius, Eph. 14.1. πίστιν χαὶ ἀγάπην ἥτις ἐστὶν
ἀρχὴ ζωῆς χαὶ τέλος (2 Pet. i. 5-7). Polyc. Phil. ο. 3. 2 (2 Pet. iii. 15).
314 SECOND PETER.
4. Tenatius ann Porycare.!
5. Justin Marryr.!
Dial. ¢. 81. p. 308 A. Συνήχαμεν χαὶ τὸ εἰρημένον, ὅτι Ἡμέρα
Κυρίου ὡς χίλια ἔτη, εἰς τοῦτο συνάγειν.3 (2 Pet. iii. 8; comp.
Ps, xe; 4.)
Dial. ὁ. 82. p. 308 C. Ὅνπερ δὲ τρόπον χαὶ ψευδοτεροφῆται
ἐπὶ τῶν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν γενομένων ἁγίων προφητῶν ἦσαν, καὶ παρ᾽
ἡμῖν νῦν πολλοί εἰσι καὶ ψευδοδιδάσχαλοι, og φυλάσσεσϑαι προ-
εἴπεν ἡμῖν ὃ ἡμέτερος Κύριος. (2 Pet. ii. 1 and i. 21.)
’
\
l
i
6. Murarortan Canon, Syriac! ano Oxo Latin Versions.
See before, pp. 1 and 6.
a)” Meciro:*” ap. 160"()
Oration to Antoninus Caesar. (Cureton’s Spicilegium Syria-
cum, p. 51.) So also it will be at the last time; there shall be
a flood of fire, and the earth shall be burnt up together with its
mountains, and men shall be burnt upvtogether with the idols
which they have made, and with the graven images which they
have worshipped; and the sea together with its isles shall be
burnt ;vand the just shall be delivered from the fury, like their
fellows in the ark from the waters of the deluge. (2 Pet. iii.
10, 12.)
1 Justin. The passages from Justin are peculiar. The first (see before,
note on Barnabas) may be from the LXX, Ps. lxxxix, but it is used more nearly
in the sense of 2 Peter by Justin than by Barnabas. Justin uses the words in
connection with the warning to Adam, that ‘“‘In the day he ate of the tree,” &e.
The second recalls Peter to some minds by closely associating the Old and New
Testament’s experiences of false prophets.
2 See before, note on Barnabas.
1 The Syriac Canon did not include 2 Peter. Ephrem Syrus (A.D. 370) ac-
cepted seven Catholic Epistles. But this is regarded as a Greek rather than a
Syrian testimony. See his contemporary Gregory’s testimony below, in the text.
1 Melito’s Oration to Antoninus Cesar is found in one of the Syriac MSS
brought from the Nitrian Desert by Archdeacon Tattam in 1843. It was edited by
Cureton, printed in 1847, and published in 1855. It does not contain the passage
quoted by Eusebius (H. E. ΓΝ. 26), and Cureton supposes that Melito (like Justin
Martyr) twice addressed the Emperor. The Paschal Chronicle seems to favour this
supposition. See Cureton’s Preface, p. viii.
IRENAEUS, THEOPHILUS. 315
8. Irenaeus.
B. IV. 36. 4. Et temporibus Noe diluvium inducens, uti ex-
stingueret pessimum genus eorum qui tunc erant homines, qui
jam fructificare Deo non poterant, quum angeli transgressores
commixti fuissent eis; et ut peccata eorum compesceret, servaret
vero arcae typum Adae plasmationem, et temporibus Lot qui
pluit super Sodomam et Gomorrham ignem et sulphur de coelo,
exemplum justi judicii Dei, ut cognoscerent omnes, quoniam omnis
arbor quae non facit fructum bonum, excidetur et in ignem mit-
tetur: et in universali judicio tolerabilius Sodomis utens, quam
his qui viderunt ejus virtutes quas faciebat, et non crediderunt
in eum, neque receperunt ejus doctrinam. (2 Pet. 11. 4-7.)
B. V. 23.2. Quidam autem rursus in millesimum annum re-
vocant mortem Adae: quoniam enim “dies Domini, sicut mille
anni,” non superposuit autem mille annos, sed intra eos mortuus
est, transgressionis adimplens sententiam. (2 Pet. iii. 8.)
B. V. 28. ὃ. Ὅσαις... ἡμέραις ἐγέϑετο ὃ κόσμος, too-
αὐταις χιλιοντάσι συντελεῖται. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φησιν ἣ γραφή"
χαὶ συνετελέσϑησαν ὃ οὐρανὸς “al ἢ γῆ, χαὶ πᾶς ὃ χόσμος αὖ-
τῶν. Καὶ συνετέλεσεν ὃ Θεὸς τῇ ἱμέρᾳ τῇ ς΄ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἃ
ἐποίησε, χαὶ χατέπαυσεν ὃ Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρα τῇ ζ΄ ἀπὸ πάντων
τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ. Τοῖτο δ᾽ ἔστι τῶν προγεγονότων διήγησις, καὶ
τῶν ἐσομένων τιροφητείαι. Ἢ γὰρ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς @ ἔτη" ἐν
ἕξ οὖν ἡμέραις συντετέλεσται τὰ γεγονότα" φανερὸν οὖν, ὅτι ἢ
συντέλεια αὐτῶν τὸ ς΄ ἔτος ἐστίν. (2 Pet. iii. 8.)
9, THEOPHILUS.
Ad Autolyc. IT. 9. p. 81. Οἱ δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνϑρωστοι, πνευμα-
τοφόροι Πνεύματος ἁγίου χαὶ πιροφῆται γενόμενοι, ὑπ αὐτοῦ τοῦ
Θεοῦ ἐμπνευσϑέντες καὶ σοφισϑέντες, ἐγένοντο ϑεοδίδαχτοι χαὶ
ὅσιοι χαὶ δίχαιοι.1 (2 Pet. i. 21.)
, ς x ~ ~ ~
Ibid. 11. 13. p. 92. Ἢ διάταξις οὖν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦτό ἐστιν ὃ
λόγος αὐτοῦ, φαίνων ὥσπερ λύχνος ἐν οἰχήματι συνεχομένῳ, ἐφώτ-
\ ς 2 > , .
ἰσὲν τὴν vx οὐρανόν. (2 Pet. i. 19.)
1 Theophilus. Comp. III. 12. p.125, τοὺς πάντας πνευματοφόρους ἑνὶ πνεύματι
Θεοῦ λελαληχέναι, and Justin Dial. ο. 7. p. 224 D for a definition of prophets.
316 SECOND PETER.
10. Crement or Arexanpria.!
Eus. H. E. VI. 14. (See before, Catholic Epistles, p. 289.)
Cassiodor. div. lect. ο. 8, (See before, Catholic Epistles, p. 289.)
11. OniceEn.!
-Eus. H. E. VI. 25. (See before, p: 8.) “
! Comment. in Mat. t.15. Tom. IIT. p.692. (See above, p. 308.)
‘Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. B. VIIT. Tom. IV. p. 631. (Migne,
Vol. IV. p. 1179.) Et Petrus in Epistola sua dicit: “Gratia vo-
bis et pax multiplicetur in recognitione Dei:” et iterum alibi:
“Ut boni dispensatores multiplicis gratiae Dei.” (2 Pet. i. 2;
ΠΡ etsiv-11.0:)
In Levit. homil. 4. Tom. Il. p. 200. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 437.)
Audi et Joannem, quomodo uno eodemque spiritu proloquatur.
“Et societatem,” inquit, “habemus cum Patre, et cum Filio ejus
Jesu Christo.” Et iterum Petrus dicit: ‘“Consortes,” inquit,
“facti estis divinae naturae,” quod est socii. (2 Pet. i. 4.)
In Numer. homil. 13. Tom. II. p. 321. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 676.)
Non quod digna (sc. asina) esset videre angelum, sicut nec loqui
digna erat, sed ut confutaretur Balaam: et ut ait quodam in
loco Scriptura: “Mutum animal humana voce respondens, arguit
prophetae dementiam.” (2 Pet. ii. 16.)
In Exod. homil. 12. Tom. II. p. 174. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 386.)
Scio enim scriptum esse, quia unusquisque a quo vincitur, huic
et servus addicitur, etc. (2 Pet. ii. 19.)
1 Clem. Alex. In this passage Eusebius says that Clement wrote short exposi-
tions of all the Scripture—including the Antilegomena—not passing by Jude and
the other Catholic Epistles. This is distinct testimony and trustworthy. Cassio-
dorus (A.D. 514) in his De Instit. Divin. says the same thing: “ Ferunt it-que
seripturas divinas Veterts Novique Testamenti ab ipso principio usque ad finem
Graeco sermone declarasse Clementem Alexandrinum.” In another passage, c. 8, he
limits this by saying: ‘Jn Epistolis autem canonicis, Clemens Alexandrinus pres-
byter, qui et Stromateus dicitur, id est in epistola S. Petri prima et secunda, et Ja-
cobi quaedam Attico sermone declaravit.” But this uncertain statement of a writer
two hundred years after Eusebius could not (even if consistent with itself) over-
turn what Eusebius said. We must indeed remember that we do not know the
exact amount of deference Clement paid to 2 Peter; but by making an exposition
of it he showed that he counted it in some sense Scripture. See Introd. ‘‘Cle-
ment of Alexandria.”
1 Origen. On Origen’s references compare on 1 Peter, note 1. page 309.
FIRMILIAN. EUSEBIUS. ATHANASIUS. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 317
Adamantii dial. de recta fide, sect. 1. Tom.I. p. 821. (Migne,
Vol. I. p. 1760.) Πείσει δέ σε χαὶ ὃ ἔξωϑεν λόγος " ὅτι ἕκαστος
ᾧ ἥττηται, τούτῳ χαὶ δεδούλωται. (2 Pet. ii. 19.)
Tbid. sect. 2. p. 828. (Migne, Vol. I. p.1778.) Ii) δὲ ὑπὸ
Πέτρου τοῦ ἀποστόλου γεγραμμένον" χατὰ τὴν σοφίαν, φησὶν, τὴν
δεδομένην τῷ ἀδελφῷ μου Παύλῳ. (2 Pet. iii. 15.)
In libr. Jesu Nave homil. 8. Tom. II. p. 412. (Migne, Vol. II.
p. 857.) Petrus etiam duabus Epistolarum suarum personat tubis.
Comment. in Joann. (See above, 1 Pet. p. 309.)
19. Frrmiciay.
Ep. ad Cyprian. (Ep. Cyprian. 75.) Adhuc etiam infamans
Petrum et Paulum beatos Apostolos, quasi hoc ipsi tradiderint ;
qui in Epistolis suis haereticus execrati sunt, et ut eos evitemus
-monuerunt.?
13. Evsestus.
i. Vii. 3. (See before, p. 207.)
Iind. II. 25. (See before, p. 10.)
14. ATHANASIUS.
De 5. Trinit. dialog. 1. Tom. Il. p. 411. (Migne, Vol. IV.
p. 1125.) Καὶ ἐν ταῖς καϑολικχαῖς ἐπιστολαῖς γέγραττται " Av
ὧν τὰ μέγιστα ἡμῖν χαὶ τίμια ἐπαγγέλματα δεδώρηται, ἵνα γέ-
mote ϑείας χοινωνοὶ φύσεως. (2 Pet. i. 4.)
Contra Arianos orat. I. Tom. 1. p. 331. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 45.)
Καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν 0 ἔλεγεν ὃ Πέτρος" ἵνα γένησϑε ϑείας κοινωνοὶ
φύσεως. (2 Pet. i. 4.)
Opp. t. II. p. 38. (See before, p. 13.)
Synops. Athanas. (See before, p. 15.)
15. Cyrit or JERUSALEM.
Catech. 4. (See before, p. 19.)
1 Firmilian’s reference must be to 2 Peter, as in it alone are the allusions
to heretics.
318 SECOND PETER.
16. Grecory or Nazranzum.
Carm. 33. vers. 31.1 Καϑολιχῶν ἐπιστολῶν τινὲς μὲν Eta
φασιν, οἱ δὲ τρεῖς μόνας χρῆναι δέχεσϑαι.
11. Eprenanivs.
Haeres: II. t. 2. h. 66. p. 678. (Migne IL. 129.) Ὥς φησιν
Πέτρος ἐν τῇ Ἐπιστολῇ" προςέχοντες τῷ προφητιχῷ λόγῳ, ὡς
λύχνῳ φαίνοντι ἐν αὐχμηρῷ τόπῳ, ἕως φωσφόρος ἀνατείλῃ, καὶ
ἡμέρα χαταυγάσῃ ἐν ταῖς χαρδίαις ὑμῶν. (2 Pet. i. 19.)
Haeres. III. ἐ. 1. h. 76. p. 941. (Migne II. 560.) (See be-
fore, p. 21.)
18. Jerome.
" De Vir. Il. c. 1. (See before, 1 Pet. p. 311.)
Epist. 120. 6. 11. (See before, 1 Pet. p. 311.)
Ep. 11. ad Paulin. (See before, p. 21.)
Proleg. 7. Epist. Canon. (See before, Catholic Epistles, p. 290.)
1 Gregory. This is a formal catalogue designed to guide his friend. See
before, page 314, on Syriac Canon and Ephrem as regards 2 Peter.
ΧΧΧΙ.
FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.’
1. Barwnasas.
C.5. 10. (11). Εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἦλϑεν ἐν σαρχὶ, πῶς ἂν ἐσώϑησαν
οἱ ἄνϑρωποι βλέποντες αὐτόν. . .. (See 1 John iv. 2.)
1 The First Epistle of John stands or falls with the Fourth Gospel, which it
resembles so closely. Scaliger said in an offhand way: Tres Epistolae Joannis
non sunt Apostoli Joannis. J. E. Lange (1797) was the first to formulate a
doubt of the authenticity of the Epistle while, curiously enough, maintaining that
the Gospel and the Apocalypse are by John. He alleged that it is not genuine,
because there is nothing personal or individual or local about it; because it is
suspiciously like the work of an imitator of the author of the Gospel; and be-
cause it is a great falling-off from the power of the Gospel (see Liicke, III. p. 10).
He farther alleged that if the last is said to be due to John’s writing it in extreme
old age, there is a difficulty raised at once, because in that case it must have
been written after the Fall of Jerusalem, while ii. 18 is evidently written before
that catastrophe. Bretschneider held that the three Epistles go together, that they
are the work of John the Presbyter; and that the doctrine of the Logos and the
anti-doketic teaching are of the second century. Bleek denies that the Epistle is
anti-doketic ; and supposes it to be intended to arrest apostacy which arose from
no very definite principles. The history of the fortunes of the Epistle is told in
full detail by Liicke in his ‘Commentar iiber die Schriften des Evangelisten Jo-
hannes,’ Vol. ΠῚ. In answer to the arguments quoted above it may suffice to say
here that the unprejudiced reader is not likely to agree with Lange’s objections;
and that, since Bretschneider wrote, the most recent enquiries have brought into
prominence the existence of the Logos-doctrine in Justin, and so confirmed the
statement of Irenaeus (B. III. 11. 1) that Cerinthus, a Dokete, was a contemporary
of the Apostle John. Tertullian (De carne Christi ¢. 24) and Dion. Alex. (Eus.
H. E. VII. 25) believed that Doketae were in view.
The Greek church regarded the Epistle as written in Ephesus, and designed
to meet the wants of the churches around. It was probably written after the
Gospel: its opening words at all events naturally suggest that order. There is
indeed everything to make one suppose that it was written as an outline of Chris-
tian doctrine founded on, or flowing from, the Gospel, and therefore not only
subsequent to the Gospel but a companion document. There has been much con-
jecture as to Augustine’s statement that it was written ad Parthos. And the con-
jectures do not clear up the mystery. It seems to have been a slip of Augustine’s
or of his amanuensis. Clem. Alex. says 2 John was written πρὸς παρϑένους; and
this may have in some way originated the mistake.
But apart from all such questions, the external evidence suffices to show that
this Epistle had an early place in the undoubting acceptance of the Church. Poly-
earp, and Papias and the Muratorian Fragment, and the Peshito and Old Latin
Versions, and Irenaeus, and Clement, and Origen, make a chain which it is not
possible to break. The Alogi probably rejected it (though the words of Epiphanius
Haer. LI. 3 do not expressly say so), and Marcion certainly did reject it. But so
far as the testimony of antiquity goes, this Epistle is beyond dispute the work of
the Evangelist, John the Apostle.
320 FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
2. Crement or Romer.
First Epistle.+
Second Epistle.®
ὃ. Hermas.!
4. Icnatius.!
Eph. ¢. 11. 1. ἜἜσχατοι καιροί" λοιττὸν αἰσχυνϑῶμεν, φοβη-
ϑῶμεν τὴν μαχροϑυμίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἵνα μὴ ἡμῖν εἰς κρῖμα γέ-
wn \ \ , 2 \ ~ ὮΝ \ > ~
vito. Ἢ yao τὴν μέλλουσαν ὀργὴν φοβηϑῶμεν, ἢ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν
3 \ ~ r ke) ~ ~
χάριν ἀγαπτήσωμεν" ἕν τῶν δύο" μόνον ἐν Χριστῷ Ιησοῦ εὑρεϑῆναι
εἰς τὸ ἀληϑινὸν ζῆν. (Comp. 1 John ii. 18; v. 20.)
5. Potycarp,
Philipp. ¢. ὃ. 3. Ὃ γὰρ ἔχων ἀγάπην μαχράν ἔστι πάσης
ἁμαρτίας." (1 John passim.)
Ibid. ς. 1. 1. Πᾶς γὰρ, ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυϑέναι, ᾿Αντίχριστός ἐστι. Καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ
ὁμολογῇ τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν" καὶ ὃς
ἂν μεϑοδεύη τὰ λόγια τοῦ Κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἐπιϑυμίας, καὶ λέγῃ
μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε χρίσιν εἶναι, οὗτος σιρωτότοχός ἐστι τοῦ
Σατανᾶ. (1 John iv. 3; also 2 John 7.)
1 Clement. There is no citation in 1 Clement: the following may be echoes:
C. 31.2. ᾿Αβραάμ. ... ἀλήδπειαν διὰ πίστεως ποιήσας (1 John i. 6; John iii. 21).
C. 49.1. ποιησάτω ta τοῦ Χριστοῦ παραγγέλματα (1 John v. 1-3; John xiv. 15).
2 The only passage in 2 Clement which may seem to be an echo is one,
c. 6. 9, containing the word παράχλητος, but he is connected with just and holy
works; not as in 1 John ii. 1.
1 Hermas. Echo: Mand. XII. 4. 3, comp. 1 John iii. 6. 9.
1 Ignatius. Compare as echo: Magnes. 6. 1. ὃς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ πατρί
(1 John i. 2). It is not at all made out that John connected the coming of Christ
with the Destruction of Jerusalem. The spiritual Antichrist is always in John’s
mind. And the arguments founded on 1 Johnii. 18 as to the date of the Epistle
(see note 1 on the Epistle) being insecure, and “the last time” having a mainly
spiritual reference in the Epistle of John, this reference in Ignatius (which seems
to contemplate a coming visible judgement) cannot be connected with John.
1 Polycarp. The previous words remind the reader of the Synoptists when
they-speak of the man who loves Christ and his neighbour as one who πεπλήρωχεν
ἐντολὴν δικαιοσύνης. (Mat. xxii. 40.)
EPAPIAS. JUST. MARTYR. LETTER ΤῸ DIOGNETUS. MURAT. CAN. 321
Thid. c. 8.1. AV ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ζήσωμεν ἐν αὐτῷ, πάντα ὑπ-
ἕμεινεν. (1 John iv. 9.)
6. Paptas.
Eus. H. E. ΠΙ|. 89. Κέχρηται δ᾽ ὃ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς
᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως.
7. Justin Marryr.!
Apol. I. c.32. p. 74 B. Ot πιστεύοντες αὐτῷ εἰσιν ἄνϑρωποι,
ἐν οἷς οἰκεῖ τὸ παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ σπέρμα, ὃ λόγος. (Compare 1 John
iii. 9: ἢ. 14).
8. Lertrer ΤΟ Driognetus.
C.10.2. (Justini Opp. p. 500 D.) Ὃ γὰρ Θεὸς τοὺς ἀνϑρώ-
ποὺς ἠγάπησε... πρὸς OG ἀπέστειλε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ TOY μο-
γογενῆ, οἷς τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ βασιλείαν ἐπηγγείλατο, χαὶ δώσει τοῖς
ἀγαπήσασιν αὐτόν. Ἐπιγνοὺς δὲ, τίνος οἴει πιληρωϑήσεσϑαι χαρᾶς;
Ἢ πῶς ἀγαπήσεις τὸν οὕτως ττροαγαπήσαντά σε; “Ayamioug δὲ
2 - - / .
μιμητὴς ἔσῃ αὐτοῦ τῆς χρηστότητος. (1 John iv. 9 &c.)
=F LetTer OF THE Cuurcu or VIENNE AND Lyons.
Eus. H. E. V.1. Ὃ διὰ tov πληρώματος τῆς ἀγάπης ἐν-
εδείξατο, εὐδοχήσας ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἀπολογίας χαὶ τὴν
ἑαυτοῦ ϑεῖναι ψυχήν. (1 John iii. 16; comp. John xv. 13.)
10. Mourarorran Canon.
Si Joannes tam constanter singula etiam in Epistulis suis
proferat dicens in semetipso: Quae vidimus &c. (1 John i. 1).
... Epistula sane Judae et superscripti Joannis duas in Ca-
tholica habentur.
(For context see pp. 6, 7 and notes.)
1 Justin. The passage in the text does not seem at all secure. There is
another passage which may be compared: Dial. c. 123. p. 353 B., with 1 John
iii, 1-3.
21
322 FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
11. Syriac ann Oxtp Latin Verstons.
See pp. 1 and 2. (Both contain 1 John.)
12. IJrenazvs.
B. If]. 16.5. Propter quod et in epistola sua 510 testifica-
tus est nobis (Joannes): ‘Filioli, novissima hora est, et quem-
admodum audistis quoniam Antichristus venit, nunc Antichristi
multi facti sunt; unde cognoscimus quoniam novissima hora est.
Ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis: si enim fuissent ex
nobis, permansissent utique nobiscum; sed ut manifestarentur
quoniam non sunt ex nobis. Cognoscite ergo quoniam omne men-
dacium extraneum est, et non est de veritate. Quis est mendax,
nisi qui negat quoniam Jesus non est Christus? hic est Anti-
christus.” (1 John ii. 18, &c.)
B. III. 16. 8. Et rursus in epistola ait: “Multi pseudo-
prophetae exierunt de saeculo. In hoc cognoscite Spiritum Dei.
Omnis spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse,
ex Deo est. Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum, non est ex Deo,
sed de Antichriste est.” (1 John iv. 1, 2, 3.)
Ibid. 0 πάλιν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ φησι" Πᾶς ὃ πιστεύων ὅτι
᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται. (1 John v. 1.)
/ A Ἅ, - γ 4
Eus. Η. E.V.8. Méurntou δὲ καὶ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου πρώτης ἐπι-
- ὦ > 3 «ὦ ~ ? , ς , ‘\ Ἂ, “ΝΣ
στολῆς, μαρτύρια ἐξ αὐτῆς πλεῖστα εἰσφέρων, ὁμοίως δὲ χαὶ τῆς
Πέτρου προτέρας.
18. ΟΕΜΕΝΤ or ALEXANDRIA. !
Eus. H. E. V1. 14. (See before, Catholic Epistles, p. 289.)
Cassiodor. div. lect. c. 8. (See before, Catholic Epistles, p. 289,
note 1.)
Paedag. III. c. 11. 82. p. 801. “Atty δὲ ἔστιν ἣ ἀγάπη τοῦ
Θεοῦ," φησὶν Ιωάννης, “ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς τηρήσωμεν," οὐχ tra
σαίνωμεν ἀλλήλους ἐν τῷ στόματι" “χαὶ αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι
οὐχ εἰσίν." (1 John v. 3.)
Strom. IT. c. 15. 66. p. 464.2 Φαίνεται δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν
1 Clement. In Clement's citations (whether as from John by name or other-
wise) there is no trace of doubt as to the authorship and authority of the Epistle.
2 It appears from this that Clement knew two Epistles. One of the smaller
TERTULLIAN. ORIGEN. 323
« - ‘ ‘ ~ ς - > , >
τῇ μείζονι ἐπιστολῇ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐκδιδάσκων ἐν
, «>? , » ‘ > - ‘ > ~ c , ζ ’
τούτοις" “ Ἐάν τις ἴδὴ τὸν αδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν
, > ’ ‘ , > ~ oo , ” - ζ
μὴ πρὸς ϑάνατον, αἰτήσει καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν" " τοῖς ἀμαρτ-
‘ , . τ » ‘ ; ‘ ;
ἄνουσι “μὴ πρὸς ϑάνατον" εἶπεν. “ἔστι γὰρ ἁμαρτία wedg ϑώ-
> ἢ ᾿ “ 2 ᾽ ; “" Α " Ξ
νατον" ov περὲ ἐχείνης λέγω ἵνα ἐρωτήσῃ τις," χ.τ.λ. (1 John vy. 16.)
14 ὩΤΕκτττῖΑνΝ.
Scorpiac. c. 13. Joannes vero, ut etiam pro fratribus nostris
animas ponamus, hortatur, negans timoerem esse in dilectione, &c.
(1 John iii. 16; iv. 18.)
Adv. Praxean. c. 15. Denique inspiciamus, quem Apostoli vi-
derint. “Quod vidimus,” inquit Joannes, “quod audivimus, oculis
nostris vidimus, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de sermone
vitae. Sermo enim vitae caro factus,” et auditus, et visus, et
contrectatus, quia caro, qui ante carnem sermo tantum in pri-
mordio apud Deum patrem, non pater apud sermonem. Nam
etsi Deus sermo, sed apud Deum, qui ex Deo Deus, qui cum
patre apud patrem. “Et vidimus gloriam ejus, tanquam unige-
niti a patre,” utique filii: scilicet visibilis, glorificati a patre in-
visibili. (1 John i. 1; John i. 14)
Ibid. c. 25. Caeterum, “De meo sumet,” inquit, sicut ipse
de patris. Ita connexus patris in filio et filii in paracleto tres
efficit cohaerentes, alterum ex altero. Qui tres unum sunt non
unus quomodo dictum est, “Ego et pater unum sumus;” ad sub-
stantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem. (Comp. 1 John
v. 7, 8.)
15. Oricen.!
Eus. H. Εἰ. VI. 25. (See before, p. 9.)
Hom. in libr. Jesu Nave. (See before, p. 52.)
De orat. c. 21. Tom. 1. p. 233. (Migne, Vol. 1. p. 466.) ‘O
is supposed to have been attached to the first. (See under Irenaeus on 2 John.)
See other passages in Strom. IV. ec. 16. 100. p. 608.
? Origen quotes the Epistle as John’s and as catholic. In Busebius he ine
timates that there were doubts regarding the second and third; but of the first
he had no doubt. He uses the phrase “the Bpistie of John,” which might mean
that he knew no other; but this meaning is not necessary. Dionysius (Bus. H. By
VII. 25) speaks of “the Hpistle” in one place, while elsewhere he recognizes
both the others. See Westeott, Canon, p. 334 (4% edition).
2k*
324 FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, Wo φησιν ἐν τῇ καϑολιχῇ ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης,
ἐχ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὶν, ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὃ διάβολος ἀμ-
αρτάνει. (1 John iii. 8.)
Comment. in Mat. t.15. ¢. 31. p.699. (Migne, Vol. III. p. 1548.)
“Arua δύνασαι χατασχευάσαι καὶ ἐκ τῆς Ιωάννου Ἐπιστολῆς φά-
σχοντος᾽ Παιδία, ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν. (1 John ii. 18.)
Ibid. ¢. 17. c. 19. p. 798. (Migne, Vol. III. p. 1537.) Τὸ ἀπὸ
τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου χαϑολιχῆς Ἐπιστολῆς οὕτως ἔχον" “4γαπητοὶ viv
τέκνα Θεοῦ ἔσμεν χ-τ.λ. (1 John iii. 2.)
Comment. in Ev. Joann. t. 2. c. 18. p. 106. (Migne, Vol. IV.
p- 153.) Ἐπεὶ δὲ φῶς ἁπαξαπλῶς ἐνταῦϑα μὲν ὃ Σωτὴρ, ἐν δὲ
τῇ Καϑολιχῇ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου ᾿Ἐπιστολῇ λέγεται ὃ Θεὸς εἶναι
φῶς. (1 John i. 5; Origen is writing upon John i. 4.)
Ibid. t. 19. c. 1. p. 281. (Migne, Vol. IV. p. 525.) Iooo-
ἐπιτείνει δὲ τὴν εἰς τὸν τόπον ἀπορίαν καὶ 6 ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν τῇ
χαϑολιχῇ ἐπιστολῇ ταῦτα λέγων: ὃ ἀρνούμενος τὸν πατέρα
“ai τὸν υἱόν: πᾶς γὰρ ὃ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν
πατέρα ἔχει. (1 John ii. 22, 23.)
16. Dionysius or ALEXANDRIA.
Eus. H. E. ΝΠ. 25. (See his views below, on Apocalypse.)
17. Cyprian.
Epist. 28 (al. 25). Et Joannes Apostolus mandati memor in
Epistola sua postmodum ponit: “In hoc,” inquit, ‘‘intelligimus,
quia cognovimus eum, si praecepta ejus custodiamus. Qui dicit,
quoniam cognovit eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est,
et veritas in illo non est.” (1 John ii. ὃ, 4.)
Epist. 69 (al. 76). Item beatus Joannes Apostolus nec ipse
ullam haeresin, aut schisma discrevit, aut aliquos speciatim se-
paratos posuit, sed universos, qui de Ecclesia exissent, quique
contra Ecclesiam facerent, antichristos appellavit dicens: ‘ Au-
distis, quia antichristus venit, nunc autem antichristi multi facti
sunt. Unde cognoscimus, quia novissima hora est: ex nobis ex-
1 Dionysius recognized all the three. See last foot-note.
CYPRIAN. EUSEBIUS. ATHANASIUS. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 325
ierunt, sed non fuerunt ex nobis. Si enim fuissent ex nobis,
mansissent utique nobiscum.” (1 John ii. 18, 19.)
De bono patient. Quod si et nos, fratres dilectissimi, in
Christo sumus, si ipsum induimus, si ipse est salutis nostrae via,
qui Christum vestigiis salutaribus sequimur, per Christi exempla
gradiamur, sicut Joannes apostolus instruit, dicens: “Qui dicit,
se in Christo manere, debet quomodo ille ambulavit et ipse am-
bulare.” (1 Joh. ii. 6.)
18. Evusersuus.
H. E. Il. 8. (See before, The Epistles, p. 207.)
Ibid. Il. 24. (See before, The Gospels, pp. 89, 90.)
Iiid. Il. 25. (See before, p. 10.)
19. Arnanastvs.
Contra Arianos Orat. IV. c. 26. p.505. (Migne, Vol. Π. p. 508.)
“Ow δὲ ὃ Υἱὸς οὐχ ἀρχὴν ἔχει τοῦ εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ καὶ sed τῆς
ἐνανθρωπήσεως παρὰ τῷ Πατρί ἐστι, δηλοῖ ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης ἕν τῇ
πρώτῃ Ἐπιστολῇ λέγων οὕτως: Ὃ ἢν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηχόα-
μὲν, ὃ ξἑωράχαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασά-
μεϑα, καὶ at χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου
τῆς ζωῆς" χαὶ ἣ ζωὴ ἐφανερώϑη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν χαὶ
μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν
αἰώνιον, ἥτις HY πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἐφανερώϑη ἡμῖν.
(1 John i. 1, 2.)
Epist. ad Serapion. c. 18. p. 533. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 576.)
Οὕτω γὰρ ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης ἔγραψεν" Ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, ὃ Θεὸς
ἐν ἡμῖν μένει. Ἐν τούτῳ γινώσχομεν, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ μένομεν, χαὶ
αὐτὸς ἐν ἡμῖν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ ἔδωχεν ὑμῖν. (1 John
111. 24.)
Opp. Tom. IT. p. 38. (See before, p. 13.)
Synops. Athanas. (See before, p. 15.)
20. Cyrit or JERUSALEM,
Catech. 4. (See before, p. 19.)
326 FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
21. Epienanius.
Haeres. 51. (See below, under Apocalypse.)
Ibid. Tom. 1. (See before, p. 21.)
22. JEROME.
De Vir. Ill. c. 9. Scripsit autem (Joannes) unam Epistolam
. quae ab universis ecclesiasticis et eruditis viris probatur.
Reliquae autem duae ... Joannis Presbyteri asseruntur cujus et
hodie alterum sepulchrum apud Ephesum ostenditur, ὅθ. (See
whole passage before, John, p. 187.)
Ep. II. ad Paulin. (See before, p. 21.)
327
XXXII.
SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.*
(COMPARE SECTIONS 1. I, ESPECIALLY IT)
1 These two Epistles have not John’s name; nor any external mark by which
to make their author known to us. The very fact that he calls himself 6 πρεσ-
βύτερος shows that he was well known, so well known as to need no further de-
scription. If the letters be genuine they must have come from some one of high
reputation; one in whose case the name of ‘Elder,’ which so many men might of-
ficially claim, had become a special term of affectionate respect. One can understand
how it would be appropriate to the Apostle John in Ephesus, in his old age, the
last living link between those who were with the Lord in the flesh and the men
whose grandfathers were children when Christ died. This fact is the chief difficulty
in the way of ascribing these letters to John the Presbyter. It is scarcely possible
that if there ever was a Presbyter John, who stood so far out of the reach of
being mistaken for some other man that he could use only this designation ‘ Presbyter’
without needing to add his name, his fame would have passed away leaving only
vague and doubtful traces, not so much in the reminiscences of his contemporaries as
in the half-imaginary historical notes of later ages. It is not in Papias’s jottings
nor in Irenaeus’s obscure references to one greater than himself, but in Eusebius’s
suppositions, that we find the basis of the fame of Presbyter John. There is no
good reason to substitute this half-mythical John for the Evangelist as the writer
of the two smaller Epistles. Polycarp perhaps quotes one of them; Irenaeus
certainly does, and the Muratorian Canon mentions more than one Epistle, though
the reading is obscure.
There has been controversy about the persons addressed. Is it in each case
a person whom ‘the Presbyter” loved in truth? That the second Epistle was sent
to the Church generally is not compatible with the salutations from the “children
of her sister.” That it was a salutation from one church to another is possible,
but the words of the first verse, which seem to speak of her as an individual who
shared with the writer and others the privilege of having truth abiding in her,
make it improbable. If a person, then ἐχλεχτή is most naturally taken as de-
scriptive, both in her case and her sister's. Εὐχλεχτή is not a proper name but
a designation. But was her name Κυρία ὃ or does Κυρία mean “lady”? On the
whole, the balance of probability is in favour of the latter supposition; although
the conclusion is easily opposed, and cannot be proved. Of Gaius, to whom the
third Epistle was addressed, nothing is known. Attempts to identify him with
Gaius of Macedonia (Acts xix. 29), or with Gaius of Derbe (Acts xx. 4), or with
Gaius of Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor. i. 14), are beyond the sphere of historical
inquiry.
Both Epistles seem to have been written when the writer was on the eve of
a journey in course of which he would meet his friend. Eusebius (H. E. III. 25)
says that the Apostle John made tours of visitation of the churches, and this
harmonizes with the tradition that those letters were written by the aged Apostle
after his return from Patmos, and at a time when he superintended the churches
of Asia.
328 SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
1. Potycarp.
Philipp. c. 7.1. Πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν μὴ δμολογῇ Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν
ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυϑέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν. (2 John 7, and 1 John
ἵν 9.
2. Icenatius.!
ὃ. IreNAEUS.
B. I. 16.3. ἸΙωάννης δὲ ὃ τοῦ Κυρίου μαϑητὴς, ἐπέτεινε τὴν
χαταδίχην αὐτῶν, μηδὲ χαίρειν αὐτοῖς ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν λέγεσθαι βου-
ληϑείς. “Ὁ γὰρ λέγων αὐτοῖς," φησὶ, “χαίρειν, κοινωνεῖ, τοῖς
ἔργοις αὐτῶν τοῖς πονηροῖς." (2 John 11.)
B. ITT. 16.8. Et discipulus ejus Joannes in praedicta! epi-
stola fugere eos praecepit dicens: “Multi seductores exierunt in
hune mundum, qui non confitentur Jesum Christum in carne ve-
nisse. Hic est seductor et Antichristus. Videte eos, ne perdatis
quod operati estis.” (2 John 7, 8.)
4. Cryement or ALEXANDRIA.
Eus. H. E. VI. 14. (See before, Catholic Epistles, p. 289.)
Cassiodori div. lect. c.8. (See before, Catholic Epistles, p. 289,
note 1.)
Strom. II. Ἔν τῇ μείζονι Ἐπιστολῇ. (See before, 1 John,
p. 322.) 5
Adumbrat. in Ep. Joannis IT. p. 1011. Secunda Joannis epis-
tola, quae ad virgines! scripta est, simplicissima est. Scripta vero
est ad quandam Babyloniam Electam nomine, significat autem
electionem Ecclesiae Sanctae.
1 Ignatius. Compare as possible echo: Smyrn. ο. 10. 1. ὑποδεξάμενοι (3 John
5, 6, 8).
1 nee Irenaeus has quoted the First Epistle just before, and either
makes a slip here, or (as some think) had the second along with the first as one
letter. The readings of Irenaeus in this passage have been confirmed, and, instead
of the Text. Rec., Lachmann and Tischendorf read ἐξῆλθαν (for εἰσῆλθον), ἀπολέ-
onte (for ἀπολέσωμεν), εἰργάσασϑε (for εἰογασάμεϑο).
1 Clement. It is perhaps from this (in its Greek πρὸς Παρϑένους) that the
idea of its being πρὸς Map roug originated,
ORIGEN, DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. CYPRIAN. EUSEBIUS. 329
5. ORIGEN.
Eus. H. E. VI. 26. (See before, p. 8.)
Homil. in libr. Jesu Nave. (See before, p. 52.)
6. Dionysius or ALEXANDRIA. !
Eus. H. E. VII. 25. (See below, Apocalypse.)
7. Cyprian.
De Haer. Baptiz. Aurelius a Chullabi dixit: Joannes aposto-
lus in epistola sua posuit dicens: ‘Si quis ad vos venit, et
doctrinam Christi non habet, nolite eum admittere in domum
vestram, et ave illi non dixeritis. Qui enim dixerit illi, ave,
communicat factis ejus malis.” (2 John 10, 11.)
8. Atpxanper Bisnop or ALEXANDRIA.
Soc. H. E.1.6. Καὶ μηδὲ κἂν χαίρειν τοῖς τοιούτοις λέγειν,
ἵνα μή ποτε χαὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτῶν χοινωνοὶ γενώμεϑα, ὡς
σαρήγγειλεν ὃ μαχάριος ᾿Ιωάννης.; (2 John 10.)
9. Evsesivs.
Demonstr. Ev. Vl. 5. Kai τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην δὲ ὅμοιον εὕροις ἂν
τῷ ατϑαίῳ. Ἔν μὲν γὰρ ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ μνή-
μην τῆς οἰχείας προσηγορίας ποιεῖ ἢ τιρεσβύτερον ἑαυτὸν ὀνομά-
ζει" οὐδαμοῦ δὲ ᾿Α΄πόστολον, οὐδὲ Εὐαγγελιστήν. Ἔν δὲ τῷ εὐ-
αγγελίῳ ἐπισημηνάμενος, ὃν ἠγάπα ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς, οὐκ ἐδήλωσεν ὀνο-
μαστὶ ξαυτόν.
H. #. Ul. 8. (See before, p. 201.)
Ibid. Ill. 24. (See before, p. 87.)
Ibid. ΠΙ|. 25. (See before, p. 10.)
1 Dionysius. It is to be observed that although Dionysius opposed the re-
ception of the Apocalypse, and ascribed it to Presbyter John, he never ascribes
the second and third Epistles to that Presbyter, even although the opening words
ὁ πρεσβύτερος might have suggested it. Nay, he refers to the ‘Presbyter’ being
written anonymously at the opening of those Epistles, as though it were charac-
teristic of John.
1 Alexander wrote this letter when he heard how Eusebius of Nicomedia
was favouring the Arians,
990 SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
10. Arwanasivs.
Opp. t. 11. p. 38. (See before, p. 13.)
Synops. Athanas. (See before, p. 15.)
11. Laopicenre Counc, ap. 364.
(See before, p. 18. "Iwavvov a’B’y’.)
12. Cyrm or JERUSALEM.
Catech. IV. (See before, p. 19.)
13. Epresantvs.
Haeres. I. t. 3. ἢ. 34. n. 18. p. 248. (Migne, Vol. 1. p. 609.)
> , \ «€ ~ - , \ > , Χ ’ γ ~
Ἰωάννης δὲ ὃ τοῦ Κυρίου μαϑητὴς ἐπέτεινε τὴν καταδίχην αὐτῶν,
> ~ ~ , ς ᾿
μηδὲ χαίρειν αὐτοῖς ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν λέγεσϑαι βουληϑείς. “Ὃ γὰρ λέγων
> ~ ~ ~ , > ~ ~ ~
αὑτοῖς," φησὶ, “χαίρειν, κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτῶν τοῖς πονηροῖς."
(2 John 11.)
14. Jerome.
De Vir. Ill. c. 9. (See before, p. 187.)
Ibid. c. 18. (Papias.) Ex quo apparet ex ipso catalogo (in
Papiae explanatione sermonum Domini) nominum, alium esse Jo-
annem, qui inter apostolos ponitur, et alium Seniorem Joannem,
quem post Aristionem enumerat. Hoc autem diximus, propter
superiorem opinionem, quam a plerisque retulimus traditam, duas
posteriores epistolas Joannis, non Apostoli esse, sed Presbyteri.
Epist. II. ad Paulin. (See before, p. 21.)
Epist. Evagrio. Clangat tuba evangelica, filius tonitrui, quem
Jesus amavit plurimum: qui de pectore salvatoris doctrinarum
fluenta potavit: ‘“Presbyter electae domini, &c.” Et in alia epis-
tola: “Presbyter Caio.”
901
XXXL
ee Di Be
1. Barnasas,!
2. Hermas. !
3. Porycarp.
Philipp. c. 7.2. Διὸ ἀπολιπόντες τὴν ματαιότητα τῶν woA-
λῶν χαὶ τὰς ψευδοδιδασχαλίας, ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδὸο-
ϑέντα λόγον ἐπιστρέψωμεν, νήφοντες mwedg τὰς εὐχάς, “0A.
(Jude 3; 1 Pet. iv. 7.)
1 Jude. On the relation to 2 Peter see note 1 on 2 Peter. Jude does not
call himself an Apostle and does call himself the brother of James, which makes
it improbable that the Apostle Jude was the writer. He was probably brother of
James the writer of the Epistle (see Mat. xiii, 55; Mark vi. 3). On his quotation
from Enoch see below, note on Tertullian. The reference to Michael is said to
be from the Assumption of Moses (see Origen, below). Hilgenf., Nov. Test. extra
Can. Ree., has collected the fragments of this book. Others suppose that Jude re-
ferred to a current Jewish tradition. The date is to be inferred from the contents.
Verse 17 points to the Apostles as having spoken to the readers of the Epistle. There
is no reference to the Fall of Jerusalem, and this makes for a date before that
catastrophe. We have concluded that 2 Peter, which was before the Fall of Jeru-
salem, was later than Jude (see for this also note on 2 Peter). There has been
controversy as to the original language of the Epistle; but there is no good cause
shown for its being other than Greek. ‘That the Epistle made its way to a place
in the Canon shows that it had powerful evidence in its favour at first; for there
is much to militate against it in its first words which claim no apostolical authority,
and in its references to strange traditions. Clement never calls Jude an Apostle,
but Tertullian does, and Origen also (in the Latin of his works at least). Though
it is not in the Peshito, aes accepted it.
1 Barnabas uses παρείσδυσιν, ὁ. 2. 10 and ο. 4. 9, so as to remind the
reader of Jude 4 παρεισέδ' ἴσαν, in similarly describing the stealthy inroads of
false doctrine. The word in’? Pet. ii, 1 is _maperacEouaty. Comp. Gal. ii. 4, παρ-
εἰσῆλθον, παρεισάχτους. Inc. 4.9 it is tha μὴ σχῇ παρείσδυσιν ὁ μέλας, and
the context shows that he is warning against false doctrine and sins of conduct
as closely linked together. So also the Pastoral Epistles.
1 Hermas has in Sim. IX. 19. 3 a passage denouncing the false teachers as
beyond repentance because they became προδόται τῶν δούλων τοῦ Θεοῦ, διὰ δὲ
τὴν ἐπιϑυμίαν τοῦ λήμματος ὑπερχρίϑησαν χαὶ ἐδίδαξαν χατὰ τὰς ἐπιϑυμίας τῶν
ἀνδρώπων τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων. This is parallel to 2 Pet. ii. 3; Jude 16; Titus i, 11.
Compare for Paul’s practice 1 Cor, ix. 12; 2 Cor. xi. 9-13.
332 JUDE.
4. Murarortan Canon.
See before, p. 7. (contains Jude.)
5. Syriac anp Ομ Latin Versions,
See before, pp. 1 and 2. (wanting in the Syriac: contained in O. L.)
6. Irenaeus.
B. IV.36. 4. (See before, on 2 Peter, p. 315; comp. Jude 7.)
7. Crement or ALEexanprta.!
Paedag. II. 44. p. 280. “Εἰδέναι γὰρ ὑμᾶς," φησὶν ὃ Ιού-
δας, “βούίλομαι ὅτι ὃ Θεὸς ἅπαξ ἐκ τῆς «Αἰγύπτου λαὸν σώσας
τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας, ἀττώλεσεν, ἀγγέλους TE τοὺς μὴ
τηρήίσαντας τὴν ἑξαυτῶν ἀρχὴν, ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰχη-
τήριον εἰς χρίσιν μεγάλης Nugoag δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις bad ζόφον
ἀγρίων ἀγγέλων τετήρηχεν." Καὶ κατὰ μιχρὸν διδασχαλικώτατα
ἐχτίϑεται τὰς εἰχότας τῶν χρινομένων" “οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τῇ OOM
τοῦ Kaiv ἐπορεύϑησαν χαὶ τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ ἐξεχύϑησαν,
χαὶ τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κορὲ ἀπώλοντο." (Jude 5, 6, 11.)
Strom. IIT. 11. p. 515. “Ἐπὶ τούτων οἶμαι καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων
αἱρέσεων προφητιχῶς ᾿Ιούδαν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ εἰρηκέναι" “Ὁμοίως
μέν Tou xed οὗτοι ἐνυπινιαζόμενοι"" (ὃ γὰρ ὑπὲρ τῇ ἀληϑείᾳ ἐπι-
βάλλουσιν) ἕως, “Καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν λαλεῖ ὑττέρογχα." (Jude
8, 16.)
Adumbrat. in Ep. Jud. p. 1007. (Dindorf, Vol. II. p. 482.)
Judas, qui catholicam scripsit epistolam, frater filiorum Joseph
exstans, valde religiosus, quum sciret propinquitatem Domini, non
tamen dixit, seipsum fratrem ejus esse. Sed quid dixit? “Judas,
Servus Jesu Christi,” utpote Domini, “frater autem Jacobi.”
Eus. H. Εἰ. V1. 13. (See before, Hebrews, p. 277.)
Ibid. VI. 14. (See before, Catholic Epistles, p. 289.)
Cassiodor. div. lect. c. 8. (See before, p. 289, note 1.)
1 Clement. Cassiodorus says that Clement commented on the Canonical
Epistles, ze. 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John and James; but this last is supposed to be
a mistake for Jude. At all events, Clement’s Adumbrations in Jude are extant in
Latin,
TERTULLIAN. ORIGEN. 333
8. Trrtubuian.
De cultu femin. I. 8.1} Scio scripturam Enoch, quae hunc
ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nec in ar-
marium Judaicum? admittitur. Opinor non putaverunt illam ante
cataclysmum editam, post eum casum orbis omnium rerum ab-
olitorem, salvam esse potuisse. Si ista ratio est, recordentur
pronepotem ipsius Enoch fuisse superstitem cataclysmi Noé, qui
utique domestico nomine et hereditaria traditione audierat et
meminerat de proavi sui penes Deum gratia, et de omnibus prae-
dicatis ejus: cum Enoch filio suo Matusalae nihil aliud manda-
verit, quam ut notitiam eorum posteris suis traderet. Igitur sine
dubio potuit Noé in praedicationis delegatione successisse, vel
quia et alias non tacuisset, tam de Dei conservatoris sui dispo-
Sitione, quam de ipsa domus suae gloria. Hoc si non tam ex-
pedite haberet, illud quoque assertionem scripturae illius tueretur.
Perinde potuit abolefactam eam violentia cataclysmi, in spiritu
rursus reformare: quemadmodum et Hierosolymis Babylonia ex-
pugnatione deletis, omne instrumentum Judaicae literaturae per
Esdram constat restauratum. Sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura
etiam de Domino praedicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino re-
jiciendum est, quod pertineat ad nos. Et legimus omnem scrip-
turam aedificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judaeis potest
jam videri propterea rejecta, sicut et caectera fere quae Christum
sonant. Nec utique mirum hoc, si scripturas aliquas non rece-
perunt de eo locutas, quem et ipsum coram loquentem non erant
recepturi. Eo accedit, quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testi-
monium possidet.*? (Jude 14.)
9. Oricen.!
Hom. in Gen. (See before, p. 51.)
1 Tertullian. Book of Enoch. See Dillmann’s Das Buch Henoch, 1838. See
also Westcott’s article in Smith’s Dict., Book of Enoch. Liicke, Kinl. in ἃ. Offenb.
Joh., p. 89. Tertullian is the only father who gives it a place as Scripture, but it
was well known to Clem. of Alex. and Origen, and apparently to Justin and Irenaeus.
Some count it a Jewish Book written before the Christian era; others regard it
as Christian. The most common view is an obvious compromise, viz., that it is of
Jewish origin B. C. and considerably interpolated afterwards.
2 z.e.. The Ὁ: T. Canon.
8 Tertullian’s only citation of Jude.
1 Origen, in his Com. on Mat. t. 10. ο. 17, speaks at some length of Jude,
334 JUDE.
Kus. H. Ε΄. VI. 25. (See before, p. 8.)
Hom. in libr. Jesu Nave. (See before, p. 52.)
Comment. in Mat. t. 10. ¢.17. Tom. IIT. p.463. (Migne, Vol. III.
p. 877.) Kai ᾿Ιούδας ἔγραψεν Ἐπιστολὴν, ὀλιγόστιχον μὲν, πε-
σπληρωμένην δὲ τῶν τῆς οὐρανίου χάριτος ἐῤδῥωμένων λόγων, ὅστις
ἐν τῷ προοιμίῳ εἴρηκεν" ᾿Ιούδας Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος, ἀδελφὸς
δὲ ᾿Ιαχώβου.
Ibid. t. 13. 6. 28. p. 607. (Migne, Vol. III. p. 1167.) Kai éy
τῇ Lote Ἐπιστολῇ, τοῖς ἐν Θεῷ marei ἠγαπημένοις, καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ τετηρημένοις χλητοῖς. (Jude 1.)
Ibid. t. 15. 6. 27. ». 092. (Migne, Vol. ILL. pais
γίγνονται πολλοὶ μὲν τῶν οὐρανίων καὶ πρώτων ἔσχατοι, εἰς κρί-
σιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς αἰδίοις ἐν ζόφῳ τηρούμενοι. (Jude 6.)
Ibid. 1. 17. c. 30. p. 814. (Migne, Vol. III. p..1569.) Ei de
χαὶ τὴν Loven πρόσοιτό τις Ἐπιστολὴν, δράτω vi ἕπεται τῷ λόγῳ
διὰ τό" ᾿Αγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ξαυτῶν ἀρχὴν, ἀλλὰ
ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰχητήριον, εἰς χρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσ-
μοῖς αἴδίοις ὑπτὸ ζόφον τετήρηχεν. (Jude 6.)
Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. B. IIT. Tom. IV. p. 5610. (Migne,
Vol. IV. p. 939.) Et nisi hac lege tenerentur, nunquam de eis
diceret scriptura divina: “Angelos quoque, qui non servaverunt
principatum suum, sed dereliquerunt proprium domicilium, Deus
ad judicium magni diei aeternis vinculis in tartaro constrictos
sub caligine reservavit.” (Jude 6.)
Ibid. B. V. Tom. ΤΥ. p. 549. (Migne, Vol. IV. p. 1016.) Quo-
modo etiam quod Judas apostolus in Epistola Catholica dicit,
poterit explanari? Ait enim ita: “Angelos quoque qui non ser-
vaverunt principatum suum, sed dereliquerunt, &c.” (Jude 6.)
De Princip. 111. 2. (Tom. I. p. 138.) Et primo quidem in
Genesi serpens Evam seduxisse describitur: de quo in Ascensione
Moysi cujus libelli meminit in epistola sua apostolus Judas, Mi-
chael archangelus cum diabolo disputans de corpore Moysi, ait
a diabolo inspiratum serpentem causam exstitisse pracvaricationis
Adae et Evae. (Jude 9.)
and of James (Mat. xiii. 55, 56), but does not say that Jude was an Apostle;
nor does he eall him the brother of the James who wrote the Epistle, but of James
the Lord’s. brother.
EUSEBIUS. ATHANASIUS. CYRIL. EPIPHANIUS. JEROME. 335
10. Evusrnivs.
Hi. E. 11. 23. (See before, p. 298.)
Ibid. 111. 3. (See before, p. 207.)
Ibid. 111. 25. (See before, p. 10.)
11. ArTHANastvs.
Opp. Tom. IT. p. 38. (See before, p. 13.)
Synops. Athanas. (See before, p. 15.)
12. Cyrit or JerusaLem.
Catech. IV. (See before, p. 19.)
13. Epresanws.
\ ΦῚ
Haeres. I. ἐ. 2. h. 2. p. 92. “Ὡς χαὶ περὶ τούτων οἶμαι ἐχινήϑη
iy aS ~ B) ~ 2 / >) , , \ ’ τ LG 2
τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ἕν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ Ιούδᾳ, λέγω δὴ ἐν τῇ vm
> τ PS an τ
αὐτοῦ γραφείση χαϑολικῇ Ἐπιστολῇ. (Ἰούδας δέ ἐστιν οὗτος, ὃ
> 2 r 2
ἀδελφὸς ἸΙαχώβου χαὶ Κυρίου λεγόμενος ἢ “Υπέδειξε γὰρ αὑτοὺς
Ἂν ef ~ Ne ead ~ Dos, \ \ , C
τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα διὰ τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ Iovdn κατὰ τὰ χτήνη φϑει-
, \ C / ig , c Cc A 2 »
ρομένους χαὶ φϑείροντας, ὡς λέγει ὅτι Ὅσα μὲν ove οἴδασιν
2 ~ co? c \ »” ς Ἄς ΕΥ̓ ~~ ,
ἀγνοοῦντες ἁλίσχονται. ὅσα δὲ οἴδασιν, ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα φϑεί-
ρονται.
14. Jerome.
De Vir. Ill. c.4. Judas frater Jacobi parvam, quae de septem
Catholicis est, Epistolam reliquit. Et quia de libro Enoch, qui
apocryphus est, in ea assumit testimonium, a plerisque rejicitur:
tamen auctoritatem vetustate jam et usu meruit, et inter sanctas
scripturas computatur.
In Epist. ad Tit. ¢.1. (Vallars. Vol. VII. p. 708.) Qui autem
putant totum librum debere sequi eum qui libri parte usus sit,
videntur mihi et apocryphum Enochi, de quo apostolus Judas in
Epistola sua testimonium posuit, inter Ecclesiae Scripturas recip-
ere et multa alia quae Apostolus Paulus de reconditis est lo-
quutus.+
1 Jerome is arguing against those who objected to Paul’s quotation from
heathen writers, Κρῆτες ἀεὶ Ψεῦσται (Titus i. 12); and his argument is that one
who finds some words in a book which suit his purpose and uses them is not
thereby made responsible for the rest of the book.
336
XXXIV.
ΡΟ Av ds YOURS ales
1. Barnasas.!
2. Cement oF Rome.!
Second Epistle.
C.17. 7. Ot δὲ δίκαιοι εὐτεραγήσαντες χαὶ ὑπομείναντες τὰς
βασάνους καὶ μισήσαντες τὰς ἡδυπαϑείας τῆς ψυχῆς, ὅταν ϑεά-
σωνται τοὺς ἀστοχήσαντας καὶ ἀρνησαμένους διὰ τῶν λόγων ἢ
διὰ τῶν ἔργων τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ὅπως κολάζονται δειναῖς βασάνοις τουρὶ
ἀσβέστῳ, ἔσονται δόξαν δόντες τῷ Θεῷ αὐτῶν λέγοντες ὅτι"
Ἔσται ἐλπὶς τῷ δεδουλευχότι Θεῷ ἐξ ὅλης χαρδίας. (Comp.
Apoc. xiii. 10; xiv. 12; xvi. 5. G. ἃ H. p. 138.)
ὃ. Heras.
Vis. I. 3. 2. (See also Sim. IX. 24. 4.) Οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν
μετανοήσουσιν ἐξ ὅλης χαρδίας αὐτῶν, ἐγγραφήσονται εἰς τὰς
1 Apocalypse. See afterwards, note ‘‘On Chapter xxxiv’’; at the end of
the Extracts.
1 Barnabas. Compare as echoes: C. 7. 10 (ποδήρη), Apoc. 1.18: πη ΠΣ:
10 also for reference to Christ’s coming again as in Apoe. 1.7; ©. 91. 3 (ἐγγὺς
ὁ Κύριος χαὶ ὁ μισϑὸς αὐτοῦ), Apoc. xxii. 10, 12.
1 Clement. This seems to be the only passage in “2 Clem.” recalling the
Apocalypse. There is none in Clement’s own Epistle.
1 Hermas. The correspondence of Hermas with the Apocalypse of John is
remarkable. Part of it may be ascribed to Jewish sympathies, as e.g. the refer-
ences to Michael (Sim. VIII. 3.3, Apoe. xii. 7), the pre-eminent angels (Vis. V. 4. 1,
Apoc. vii. 2) (which are six in Hermas, but the seventh is the spirit or son of
God, who is also identified with Michael), the prominence given to the destructive
powers of locusts (Vis. IV. 1.6, Apoc. ix. 3), the delivery of a book containing
the revelation (Vis. II. 4. 2, Apoc. x. 2. 8); all of which are found in Jewish pro-
pheey and Apocalypses, and which might therefore be expected in two such
books proceeding from a common source in Judaism. But there are others in
which one borrows from the other, and in which the correspondence is not ex-
plained by referring both to Daniel; and the mode of borrowing is significant.
It is not so much leading ideas as the accessories of those ideas which are bor-
rowed. We find in Hermas that there is a book of life in which some names
HERMAS. oot
nee τῆς ζωῆς μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων. (Comp. Exod. xxxii. 32; Dan.
Bie out 566. Apoc. 11]. 5; xiii, 8: xx. 12.)
“4 1. 4.1. Ὅτε οὖν ἐτέλεσεν ἀναγινώσχουσα χαὶ ἠγέρϑη
ἀπὸ τῆς χαϑέδρας, ἦλϑαν τέσσαρες νεανίαι καὶ ἦραν τὴν χαϑ-
ἕδραν χαὶ ἀπιῆλϑον πρὸς τὴν ἀνατολήν. (Apoc. vii. 1, 2.)
Vis. 11. 2. 7. Μαχάριοι ὑμεῖς ὅσοι, ὑπομένετε τὴν ϑλίψιν
τὴν ἐρχομένην τὴν μεγάλην. .(Apoc. vii. 14.)
Vis. 11. 4.1. Τὴν πρεσβυτέραν, wae’ ἧς ἔλαβες τὸ βιβλίδιον,
τίνα δοχεῖς εἶναι; ἐγώ φημι" Τὴν Σίβυλλαν. Πλανᾶσαι, φησὶν,
οὐχ ἔστιν. Τίς οὖν ἐστίν; φημί. Ἢ Ἐχχλησία, φησίν. (Apoc.
wii 1.)
Meets. ὃ. 1. Οἱ μὲν οὖν λίϑοι οἱ τετράγωνοι nat λευχοὲ
χαὶ συμφωνοῦ ντὲς ταῖς ἁρμογαῖς αὐτῶν, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι
χαὶ ἐπίσκοτιοι καὶ διδάσκαλοι χαὶ διάκονοι οἱ τιορευϑέντες χατὰ
τὴν σεμνότητα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισχοιήσαντες χαὶ διδάξαντες χαὶ
διαχονήσαντες ἁγνῶς χαὶ σεμνῶς τοῖς ἐχλεχτοῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ, οἱ μὲν
χεχοιμημένοι, οἱ δὲ ἔτι ὄντες. (Apoc. XX: 14)
We. 1.10. Εἶχεν δὲ τὸ ϑηρίον ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς χρώ-
ματα τέσσαρα" μέλαν, εἶτα πυροειδὲς χαὶ αἱματῶδες, εἶτα χρυσ-
ov, τὰ λευχῦν. (Apoc. xi. 7; xii. 3; xiii. 1; xvii. 8.)
Vis. IV. 2. 1. Meta δὲ τὸ παρελϑεῖν μὲ τὸ ϑηρίον χαὶ τιρο-
ελϑεῖν ὡσεὶ modag λ΄, ἰδοὺ ὑτιαντᾷ μοι παρϑένος χεχοσμημένη,
z.t.d. (Apoc. xxi. 2; and Hegesippus in Eus. H. E. III. 32.)
Vis. IV. 2. 4. Πιστεύσας ὅτι δι᾿ οὐδενὸς δύνῃ σωϑῆναι εἰ
μὴ διὰ τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ ἐνδόξου ὀνόματος. (Acts iv. 12; Apoc.
ΣΧ 11.)
Mand. X. 3. 2. (See also Sim. ὙΠ]. 2. 5.) Πάντοτε γὰρ
are written down and from which some are blotted out (Vis. I. 3.2, Sim. IX. 24. 4,
comp. Exod, xxxli. 32, Dan. xii.1; but see Apoc. iii. 5, xiii. 8, xx. 12), there
is an altar on which prayers are presented before God’s throne (Mand. X. 3. 2,
Sim. VIII. 2,5, Apoe. viii. 3), the church is built on Apostles and Bishops (Vis.
Ill. 5, Apoc. XXI. 14), the church is a woman (Vis. II. 4.1, Apoe. xii. 1), a
virgin (Vis. IV. 2.1, Apoc. xxi. 2, and Hegesippus in Eus. H. E. III. 32),
beast had crowns (Vis. IV. 1. 10, Apoc. xiii. 1), and there is great tribulation
coming (Vis. II 2.7, Apoce. vii. 14).. Salvation is only through one great and
holy name (Vis. IV. 2.4, Acts iv. 12, Apoe. xii. 11), and the East is the sacred
recess of the universal sacred place (Vis. I. 4. 1, Apoc. vii. 2). The central
theology of Hermas (see Introduction, Hermas) is that of the New Testament;
much of the ethical teaching is that of James or of John; but the accessories
are from the prophecies of the O. T. and from the Apocalypse, which is so full
of O. T. prophecy and figure.
22
338 APOCALYPSE.
a EN 77: 7 ὁ ὴ ᾿ς oar ats > ἘΞ ZY δύ , , 2) 2 , 9} L a
υττηροῖ ἀνδρὸς ἢ ἔντευξις οὐχ ἔχει δύναμιν τοῦ ἀναβῆναι ἐπὶ
tov ϑυσιαστήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ. (Apoce. vili. 3.)
4. IJenattus.!
- Io ‘ r 3,
Ephes. c. 15. 8. Οὐδὲν λανϑάνει τὸν Κύριον, ἀλλὰ χαὶ τὰ
‘ ~ > ~ 3 ~ c γ ~
χρυπτὰ ἡμῶν ἐγγὺς αὐτῷ ἐστίν. Πάντα οὖν ποιῶμεν, ὡς αὐτοῦ
- - , 5) ’ ~ a > 3 ἘΠ" οὐ
ἐν ἡμῖν χατοιχοῖντος, ἵνα ὦμεν αὐτοῦ ναοὶ, καὶ αὐτὸς ἢ ἕν ἡμῖν
5 Ν > - ~ Ὁ) "
Θεὸς ἡμῶν. (Apoc. xxi. 3; comp. 2 Cor. vi. 16.)
5. Paptas.!
From Andreas Caesariensis in Apoc. ὁ. 34. Serm. 12. Edit.
Morel. Opp. S. Chrysost. p. 52. Παππίας δὲ οὕτως ἐπὶ λέξεως"
«Ἐνίοις δὲ αὐτῶν, δηλαδὴ τῶν πάλαι ϑείων ἀγγέλων, καὶ τῆς
σερὶ τὴν γὴν διακοσμήσεως ἔδωχεν ἄρχειν “al χαλῶς ἄρχειν σταρ-
b]
nyytnoe.” Καὶ ἑξῆς φησίν: “Εἰς οὐδὲν δέον συνέβη τελευτῆσαι
τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν." (Apoc. xii. 7.)
Oecumenius et Arethas, Comment. in Apoc. (Cramer’s Catena,
Vol. VIII. p. 360.) Τοῦτο zai πατέρων παράδοσις χαὶ Παττίου
διαδόχου τοῦ εὐαγγελίστου ᾿Ιωάννου, οὗ χαὶ ἣ τιροχειμένη ἀπτο-
χάλυψις, διαβεβαιοῖ: Παπίας δὲ χαὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς λέξεως οὕτως
‘ \ ~ co ’ > \ ~
φησὶ περὶ TOL πολέμου, OTL “εἰς οὐδὲν συνέβη τελευτῆσαι τὴν
"δ > - “5 c \ \ Pa Α] , Ξ ee , Ἀ c
τάξιν αὐτῶν," οἱονεὶ τὴν ττολεμιχὴν ἐγχείρησιν" “ἐβλήϑη γὰρ ὃ
1 Ignatius. Compare as echo: Ephes ec. 14. 1, ἀρχὴ ζωῆς χαὶ τέλος (Apoc.
hag, seam OE
1 Papias. The testimony of Papias is specially important (see before, p. 53).
If it can be made out that he, who come into contact with the early disciples,
perhaps with John himself, recognized the Apocalypse of John, the evidence for
this book becomes at once very strong. Eusebius never says that Papias knew
it (see before, p. 54); and on this silence much has been founded. On the other
hand, Andreas in the fifth century seems to have read in Papias’s work that he
quoted the Apocalypse. Whatever may have caused the ‘silence of Eusebius’ in
this instance, it cannot outweigh the statement and quotation by Andreas (con-
firmed by Arethas). The other parts of Andreas’s historical summary as given in
the first extract in our text are confirmed. by extant documents, and there is no
good reason to doubt what he says of Papias. Besides, Eusebius’s words (see
before, p. 56) as to Papias’s chiliastic misuse of ἀποστολιχὰς διηγήσεις really im-
plies that there were such διηγήσεις ---- written accounts—both in Papias’s hands
and his own. This at once suggests the Apocalypse, and makes Eusebius imply
what Andreas says explicitly.
2 See Routh., Rel. Sae. p. 14, Gebhardt τι. Harnack, Pat. Apost. I. p. 189;
and Liicke, Einl. in die Offenb., Cap. V. § 30.
PAPIAS. JUSTIN MARTYR. MELITO. 339
’ [3 , ς yy ς γ - \ ς - \ . ,
δράχων, 0 μέγας, ὃ ὕφις ὃ ἀρχαῖος χαὶ ὃ σατανᾶς χαὶ διάβολος
χαλούμενος, χαὶ ἐβλήϑη εἰς τὴν γῆν, αὐτὸς “zal οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ."
χαλούμενος, καὶ ἐβλήϑη εἰς τὴν γῆν, αὐτὸς χαὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ.
(Apoc. xi. 7.)
Andr. proleg. in Apoc. (Opp. 8. Chrysost. t. 11. Francof. p. 175.)
Ti \ ee ~ ra Ε , Sse alk : ‘ τὴ ’ \
ερὶ μέντοι TOL ϑεοπινεύστου aie βίβλου περιττὸν μηχύνειν τὸν
‘ [4 - , ν -
λόγον ἡγούμεϑα, τῶν μαχαρίων 107, γορίου φημὶ τοῦ ϑεολόγου,
χαὶ Κιρίλλου, τιροσέτι δὲ χαὶ ἀρχαιοτέρων Tlansiov, Εἰρηναίου,
ἡ]εϑοδίου χαὶ “Ιππολύτου ταύτῃ προσμαρτυρούνεων τὸ ἀξιό-
σίιστον.
6. Justin Marryr.
Dial. ὁ. 81. p. 308 B. Ὡς γὰρ τῷ ‘Addu εἴρητο, ὅτι, ἣ δ᾽
: Od ihe a ea Te
ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, ἐν ἐχείνῃ ἀποθανεῖται, EYVOMEY
αὐτὸν μὴ ἀνατιληρώσαντα χίλια ἔτη. Συνήκαμεν χαὶ τὸ εἰρημέ-
γον, ὅτι “Huéoa Κυρίου ὡς χίλια ἔτη, εἰς τοῦτο συνάγειν. Καὶ
ἔγιειτα χαὶ nag ἡμῖν ἀνήρ τις, ᾧ ὕνομα ᾿Ιωάννης, εἷς τῶν
ἀποστόλων τοῦ Χριστοῖ, ἐν ἀποχαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτῷ χίλια ἔτη
ποιήσειν ἐν “Ιερουσαλὴμ τοὺς τῷ ἱμιετέρῳ Χριστῷ πιιστεύσαντας
σιροεφήτευσε, χαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τὴν χαϑολιχὴν χαὶ, συνελόντι φάναι,
αἰωνίαν ὑμοϑυμαδὸν ἅμα πάντων ἀνάστασιν γενήσεσθαι χαὶ χρί-
σιν. — Παρὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν καὶ μέχρι νῦν πιροφητιχὰ χαρίσματά ἐστιν. 1
Jerome, De Vir. Ill. c. 9. (Joannes Apostolus) quarto decimo
anno, secundam post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano,
in Patmos insulam relegatus, scripsit Apocalypsin quam interpre-
tatur Justinus Martyr et Irenaeus.?
Eus. H. E. IV. 18. Μέμνηται δὲ καὶ [sc. ὃ “Iovotivog] τῆς
>» ~ ~ ΩΣ \ a "
᾿Ιωάννου ἀποχαλύψεως, σαφῶς τοῦ ἀποστόλου αὐτὴν εἶναι λέγων.
ἵ. Metaro9
1.8. H. E. ΤΥ. 206. Τούτων εἰς ἡμετέραν γνῶσιν ἀφΐἴχται τὰ
1 Justin. This is the first explicit quotation of the Apocalypse in works
which have come to us direct. The circumlocution which Justin was compelled
to use is interesting as an illustration of his difficulty in quoting Christian writ-
ings as authoritative. The idea that εἷς τῶν ἀποστόλων Χριστοῦ isan interpola-
tion must be referred to subjectivity, the external evidence clearly keeping it in
the text. See on this Liicke, ο. V. § 31.
2 Justin and Irenaeus are not known to have left comments on the Apo-
calypse.
1 Melito was Bishop of Sardis, one of the seven churches. His book is lost,
22 *
340 APOCALYPSE.
Cc , / , ‘ \ ~ , y 7 A \
ὑχιοτεταγμένα" Meditwvog, ta περὶ τοῦ πάσχα Ovo, ... Kai τὰ
~ ~ 2 2
περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου, χαὶ τῆς AnoxahvWews ᾿Ιωάννου.
Jerome, De Vir. Ill. 6. 24. Melito de diabolo librum unum,
de Apocalypsi Joannis librum unum, etc.
8. Apo.uontus.!
- ἢ, κ 3} \ ~
5. H. ΕΒ. V.18. Kéyort > χαὶ μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰω-
Eus. H. Ε. Ν. 18. Κέχρηται δὲ καὶ μαρτ ς ἼΗΙ
Γ ᾿) , Ν \ Ν δ / , A d ~
avvov Anoznalvwews? χαὶ vexoov δὲ δυνάμει ϑείᾳ πρὸς αὐτοῦ
Ἴ. , Ξ 3) ~ Ἔ , ? > ,ὔ 9 « ~
wavvov ὃν τῇ Epéow ἐγηγέρϑαι ἱστορεῖ.
9, Letter or tHe Cuurcu or Vienne ΑΝῸ Lyons.!
5} \ \ 7 ΡΞ -
Eus. Η. E.V.1. Ἣν γὰρ καὶ ἔστι γνήσιος Χριστοῦ μαϑητὴς,
> ~ wt τ , cr ΌΝ ς , , :
anohovd ar τῷ ἀρνίῳ ὅπου ἂν ὑπάγῃ. (Apoc. xiv. 4.)
Tbid. Π]ᾶλλον δὲ χαὶ ἐξέχαεν αὐτῶν τὴν ὀργὴν χαϑάπερ In-
οίου, χαὶ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος χαὶ τοῦ δήμου τὸ ὅμοιον εἰς ἡμᾶς ἀδιχῶς
ἐπιδεικνυμένων μῖσος" ἵνα ἣ γραφὴ πληρωϑῆ" “O ἄνομος ἀνομη-
, »” Nec Ὗ) ot Ὁ oe
σάτω ETL, HAL ὁ δίκαιος δικχαιωϑήτω étt. (Apoc. Xxii. 11.)
. ) > ~ ~ \
lbid. ¢.2. “ALM εἴποτέ τις ἡμῶν δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς ἢ διὰ λόγου
γ si ~ ~ \
μάρτυρας αὐτοὺς προσεῖστιεν, ἐπέπλησσον πιχρῶς. “Hdéwg γὰρ
σπαρεχώρουν τὴν τῆς μαρτυρίας τιροσηγορίαν τῷ Χριστῷ, τῷ πιστῷ
~ ~ ~ 2} ~ ~
LOL ἀληϑινῷ μάρτυρι χαὶ πιρωτοτόχῳ τῶν νεχρῶν χαὶ ἀρχηγῷ τῆς
ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ. (Apoc. i. 5; ili. 14.) :
10. Ϊπενλεῦϑ.
8. IV. 20.11. Sed et Joannes Domini discipulus in Apoca-
lypsi sacerdotalem et gloriosum regni videns adventum: “Con-
versus sum,” inquit, “‘videre vocem quae loquebatur mecum,
1 Apollonius, an ecclesiastical writer in Asia Minor, wrote against Montanus,
forty years after Montanus began to prophesy.
1 This testimony occupies the same ground as that of Irenaeus.
1 Trenaeus’s testimony is very important. It is clearly for John the Apostle.
The words Domini discipulus in the first extract are to be interpreted with consi-
deration of the fact that he also (B. III. 1, 1) calls the author of the Gospel of John
discipulus Domini. The testimony of Irenaeus is much weakened in the opinion
of critics by his ascribing the Apocalypse to the reign of Domitian. It is usual
to give it an earlier date. But Irenaeus is not therefore mistaken. See extract
from B. VY. 30. 3. below.
IRENAEUS. 341
et conversus vidi septem candelabra aurea, et inter candelabra
similem filio hominis indutum poderem, et cinctum ad mammas
zonam auream. Caput autem ejus et capilli albi, quemadmodum
lana alba, quomodo nix; et oculi ejus ut flamma ignis, et pedes,
ejus similes chalcolibano, quemadmodum in camino succensus est.
Et vox ejus quasi vox aquarum, et habet stellas septem in manu
dextera sua, et de ore ejus romphaea ex utraque parte acuta
exibat, et facies ejus quemadmodum sol fulgens in virtute sua.”
(Apoc. i. 12, &c.)
B. V. 26. 1. Manifestius adhuc etiam de novissimo tem-
pore, et de his qui sunt in eo decem regibus, in quos dividetur
quod nunc regnat imperium, significavit Joannes Domini disci-
pulus in Apocalypsi, edisserens quae fuerint decem cornua, quae
a Danicle visa sunt, dicens sic dictum esse 5101: “ΕΠ decem cor-
nua quae vidisti, decem reges sunt, qui regnum nondum accepe-
runt, sed potestatem quasi reges una hora accipient cum bestia.
Hi unam sententiam habent, et virtutem et potestatem suam
bestiae dant. Hi cum agno pugnabunt, et agnus vincet eos,
quoniam Dominus Dominorum est, et rex regum.” (Apoc. xvii.
12, &c.)
B. V. 30.3. Οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράϑη, ἀλλὰ
σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς “Ιομετιανοῦ
> ~
ἀρχῆς.
γ \ ~ \ ~ 2 2
Eus. H. E. Ν. 8. Ἐν δὲ τῷ πέμτιτῳ περὶ τῆς Ιωάννου -Ano-
χαλύψεως, χαὶ τῆς ψήφου τῆς τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου προσηγορίας οὕτω
διαλαμβάνει" “Τούτων" δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων, χαὶ ἐν πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς
2 This is found in the Latin transl. of Irenaeus B. V. 30.1, as follows: “ His
autem sic se habentibus, et in omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis
numero hoc posito, et testimonium perhibentibus his, qui facie ad faciem Joannem vi-
derunt, et ratione docente nos, quoniam numerus nominis bestiae, secundum Graecorum
computationem, per literas quae in 60 sunt, sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex; hoc
est decadas aequales hecatontasin et hecatontadas aequales monasin (numerus enim qui
digitus [digitos| sex, similiter custoditus, recapitulationes ostendit universae apostasiae
ejus quae initio, et quae in mediis temporibus, et quae in fine erit) wgnoro quomodo
erraverunt quidam sequentes idiotismum, et medium frustrantes numerum nomanis,
quinguaginta numeros deducentes, pro sex decadis unam decadem volentes esse. Hoc
autem arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse, ut solet fieri, quoniam et per literas nu-
meri ponuntur, facile literam Graecam (scil. &), quae sexaginta enuntiat numerum,
in Jota Graecorum literam expansam; post deinde quidam sine exquisitione hoe ac-
ceperunt ; alii quidem simpliciter et idiotice usurpaverunt denarium numerum: qui-
dam autem per ignorantiam ausi sunt et nomina exquirere, habentia falsum errorts
numerum. Sed his quidem qui simpliciter et sine malitia hoc fecerunt, arbitramur
veniam dari a Deo.”
342 APOCALYPSE.
d > , ~ 2 ~ , ,
σπουδαίοις χαὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις TOV ἀριϑμοῦ τούτου χειμέ-
‘ , d ~ ~ d \ 2 ,
γου, καὶ μαρτυρούντων αὐτῶν ἐχείνων τῶν rat OLY τὸν Ιωάννην
ς , \ ~ , , AAG ~ co ς 3 \ -
ἑωραχότων, χαὶ τοῦ hoyov διδάσχοντος Hues ὅτι ὁ ἀριϑμὸς τοῦ
) / fe , Χ \ ~ (¢ 7 ~ \ ~ >
ὀνόματος τοῦ ϑηρίου χατὰ τὴν τῶν “EhAnyvwy 'ψϑῆφον διὰ τῶν ὃν
) - ἈΝ τς \ ‘ ~ 2 -
αὐτῷ γραμμάτων ἐμφαίνεται." Καὶ ὑποχαταβὰς περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ
, ς - ~ 2 2 , \ > Datel, ~
paoner’ ““Hugicg γοῦν ove ἀπιοχινδυνεύομεν τιξρὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ
5) ͵ γ , ~ \ > > wi
ἀντιχρίστου ἀποφαινόμενοι βεβαιωτιχῶς. Εἰ yao ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν
~ ~ ~ , C a γ ~ SLD) , ὌΝ Pore HE
τῷ VEY χαιρῷ χηρύττεσϑαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, δὲ ἐχείνου ἂν ἐῤῥέϑη
= \ \ > , ς , dor \ \ ~ ,
τοῦ χαὶ τὴν ἀποχάλυιμιν ξωραχότος" οὐδὲ γὰρ τιρὸ πολλοῦ χρὸ-
ἌΡ Dee CSET DOD CACC. DELETE LAG EERE Ge een
vou ἑωράϑη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει
~ aps) = es Nae ) , «
τοῦ Aopetivavov ἀρχῆς." Ταῦτα not περὶ τῆς ἀποχαλύνεως ἵἹστορ-
δεῖται τῷ δεδηλομιένῳ.
11. ATHENAGORAS.
Legatio, c. 36. Καὶ ἀποδώσειν μὲν νομίζειν τὴν γῆν τοὺς
ἰδίους νεχρούς. (Apoc. xx. 13.)
12. Tueopnivus.
Eus. Η. ΚΕ. WV. 24. Καὶ ἄλλο πρὸς τὴν αἵρεσιν “Ἑρμογένους
τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ἔχον, ἐν ᾧ & τῆς _AnoxzakiWews Ιωάννου κέχρηται
PHY ETtLYQuGPYHY EXOY, ῳ δὰ τῆς AnoradvWEews Lwar χρη
,
μαρτυριαις."
oI \ Zz
Ad Autolyc. IT. 28. p. 104. Tavcryy τὴν Εὔαν, διὰ τὸ ἀρ-
~ ~ Cc ~ ay 5 ig
χῆϑεν πλανηϑῆναι tio τοῦ ὄφεως χαὶ ἀρχηγὸν ἁμαρτίας γεγον-
c , Cc , ς
ἕναι, ὃ χαχοχτοιὸς δαίμιων, ὃ χαὶ Σατὰν χαλούμενος, ὃ τότε διὰ
- 2. ~ - ~ ~ ~
tov ὕφεως λαλήσας αὐτῇ, ἕως χαὶ tov δεῦρο ἐνεργῶν ἐν τοῖς
TENG -- , ς γ > on ae ΄ 77 > ~ Ν ,
ἐνϑουσιαζομένοις ὑπ αὑτοῦ ἀνϑρώποις, Εὔαν ἐχκαλεῖται. -1α(-
μων δὲ καὶ δράχων καλεῖται... . (Apoc. xii. 3, &e.)
13. (ΕΜΕΝΤ or ALexanpeta.!
Strom. VI. 13. p. 193. Kav ἐνταῦϑα ἐπὶ γῆς πρωτοχαϑε-
δρίᾳ μὴ τιμηϑῇ, ἐν τοῖς εἴχοσι χαὶ τέσσαρσι καϑεδεῖται ϑρόνοις,
1 Theophilus, as Bishop of Antioch, gives the testimony of the Syrian church.
Hermogenes was an opponent of Montanism. The book was in such esteem that
it could be quoted as an authority. (See Liicke, ΕἾ]. in ἃ. Offenb. ο. V. 8 32.)
1 Clement frequently cites the Apocalypse as Scripture.
͵
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. TERTULLIAN. CAIUS. 343
τὸν λαὸν χρίνων, ὡς φησὶν ἐν τῇ -Anoxchiwer ᾿Ιωάννης. (Apoc.
iv. 4; xi. 16; cf. Mat. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30.)
Paedag. IT. 12. p. 241. Aldo δὲ ἁγίοις τὴν ἄνω “Tegov-
σαλὴμι τετειχίσϑαι παρειλήφαμεν, καὶ τὰς δώδεχα τῆς οὐρανοττό-
λεως πύλας τιμίοις ἀτιειχασμένας λίϑοις τὸ περίοτιτον τῆς ἀπο-
στολιχῆς φωνῆς αἰνίττεσθαι χάριτος ἐχδεχόμεϑα. (Apoc. xxi. 21.)
14. ΤΤεκτυμμμαν.Ϊ
De praescript. haeret. c. 33. Joannes in Apocalypsi idolothyta
edentes et stupra committentes jubetur castigare. (Apoc. il. 20.) At
in epistola eos maxime Antichristos vocat qui Christum negarent
in carne[m] venisse et qui non putarent Jesum esse filium Dei.
Adv. Marcion. III. 14. Nam et apostolus Joannes in Apo-
calypsi ensem describit ex ore Dei prodeuntem, bis acutum, prae-
acutum, quem intelligi oportet sermonem divinum, bis acutum
duobus testamentis legis et evangelii, &c.
Ibid. IV.5. Habemus et Joannis alumnas ecclesias. Nam
etsi Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit, ordo tamen episcoporum
ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit auctorem.
15) ἀπε
+ 7. te
Eus. H. E. 1Π. 28. Γαϊΐος, οὗ φωνὰς ἤδη πρότερον παρα-
- > ~ ~ \ ~ B) ~
τέϑειμαι, ἐν τῇ φερομένῃ αὐτοῦ ζητήσει, ταῦτα περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ γρά-
φει" ᾿“λλὰ χαὶ Κήρινϑος ὃ δι᾿ ἀποχαλύψεων ὡς ὑτιὸ ἀποστόλου
- μεγάλου γεγραμμένων, τερατολογίας ἡμῖν, ὡς Ov ἀγγέλων αὐτῷ
΄ \ \ 2 U
δεδειγμένας, ψευδόμενος, ἐττεισάγει, λέγων, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν
ΜΒ ΟΥ̓ os Ν , ~ r ~ Ν , ? ,
ἐπίγειον εἶναι τὸ βασίλειον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, χαὶ πάλιν ἐπιϑυμίαις
1 Tertullian’s citations of the Apocalypse are not affected one way or other
by his Montanist views. He consistently treated it as Scripture.
1 Caius. It appears that Caius was an Anti-Montanist opponent of the Apo-
calypse, and denied that it was the work of the Apostle John, ascribing it on
the contrary to Cerinthus. That Cerinthus wrote an Apocalypse is not said by
other writers of the period. Theodoret (Fab. Haeret. 2. 3) says: Κήρινθος xat
ἀποχαλύψεις τινὰς ὡς αὐτὸς τεϑεαμένος ἐπλάσατο, χαὶ ἀπειλῶν τινων διδασχαλίας
συνέϑηχε, χαὶ ποῦ Κυρίου τὴν βασιλείαν ἔφησεν ἐπίγειον ἔσεσϑαι, x.t.A. But this
obseure statement is not accepted, seeing it seems to be founded on ἃ miscon-
ception of Eusebius. ‘Visions’ put forth as though ‘ written by a great Apostle’
—that is Caius’s description of the Johannine Apocalypse, which (from the neces-
sities of controversy) he ascribes to Cerinthus.
ee
544 APOCALYPSE.
c ~ 2 ς , ,
zai ἡδοναῖς ἐν “Ἱερουσαλὴμ τὴν σάρχα πολιτευομένην δουλεύειν.
ν». Ἐξ ὑΣ \ c , ~ ~ ~ - 2 ‘
Καὶ ἐχϑρὸς ὑπάρχων ταῖς γραφαῖς tot Oeot ἀριϑμὸν χιλιοντα-
ul ’ ’ « -" ;η ~ ,
ἑτίας ἐν γάμῳ ξορτῆς, ϑέλων πλανᾶν, λέγει γίνεσϑαι.
16. Muvratortan FRAGMENT.
(See before, pp. 3-8.)
17. Syriac anp {πὴ Latin Versions.
(See before, pp. 1. 2.)
18. Onricen.!
Hom. in libr. Jesu Nave. (See before, p. 52.)
Eus. H. E. VI. 25. (See before, p. 8.)
Comment. in Mat. t. 16. Tom. Ill. p. 719. (Migne, Vol. IL.
p. 1386.) Ev ye ἔχειν λόγον τὸ τοιοῦτον δόξαι τισὶ, πεπώχασι δὲ
ποτήριον χαὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ἐβαπτίσϑησαν οἱ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου υἱοὶ,
ἐπείπερ Ἡρώδης μὲν ἀπέχλτεινεν ᾿Ιάχωβον τὸν Ιωάννου μαχαίρᾳ" ὃ
δὲ Ρωμαίων βασιλεὺς, ὡς H παράδοσις διδάσχει, κατεδίχασε τὸν
᾿Ιωάννην μαρτιροῖντα διὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληϑείας λόγον εἰς Πάτμον τὴν
νῆσον. Διδάσκει δὲ τὰ περὶ τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἑαυτοῦ Ἰωάννης, μὴ
λέγων τίς αἰτὸν κατεδίχασε, φάσχων ἐν τῇ «α΄ ποχαλύψει ταῦτα" “Ey @
Ἰωάννης 6 ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν, καὶ συγχοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ ϑλί-
Wet, καὶ βασιλείᾳ, χαὶ ὑπομονῇ ἐν Ἰησοῦ, ἐγενόμην ἐν
τῇ νήσῳ τῇ καλουμένῃ Πάτμῳ, διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ,
χαὶ τὰ ἑξῆς" χαὶ ἔοιχε τὴν ἀποχάλυψιν ἐν τῇ νήσῳ τεϑεωραχέ-
vai. (Apoc. i. 9.)
Comment. in Joann. t.1. Tom. IV. p. 16. (Migne, Vol. IV.
p. 47.) Φησὶν οὖν ἐν τῇ ““ποχαλύψει ὃ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου ᾿Ιωάννης"
χαὶ εἶδον ἄγγελον πετόμενον ἐν μεσουρανήματι, ἔχοντα εὐαγγέλιον
αἰώνιον, εὐαγγελίσασθαι ἐπὶ τοὺς χαϑημένουις ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, κιτ.λ.
(Apoc. xiv. 6, 7.)
Comment. in Joann. t.2. Tom. ΤΥ. p.55. (Migne, Vol. IV. p. 117.)
Καλῶς μιέντοι γε διαγράφων ta περὶ τοῦ Aoyou τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῇ
1 Origen supposes the Apocalypse to have been seen by John the son of
Zebedee. He was not a Millenarian, but he was a Critic, and his support of
the ordinary tradition is therefore valuable.
HIPPOLYTUS. DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. 345
᾿Αποχαλύψει ὃ ἀπόστολος, χαὶ ὃ εὐἰαγγελίστης, ἤδη δὲ χαὶ διὰ τὴς
ἀποχαλύψεως χαὶ προφήτης, φησὶ τὸν τοῦ Gaal ie ἑωραχέναι
2 , ~ ~ , ~ -
ἐν ἀνεῳγότι τῷ οὐρανῷ, ἐφ᾽ ἵππῳ λευκῷ ὀχούμενον. (Apoc. xix. 11.)
19. Hrrporyrtus.!
Canon Paschal. Ὑπὲρ tot κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην εὐαγγελίου χαὶ
᾿Αποχαλύψεως.
Ebedjesu catal. libr. Syr. c. ὃ. Sanctus Hippolytus martyr
episcopus composuit librum de dispensatione ... et apologiam
pro Apocalypsi et Evangelio Joannis apostoli et evangelistae.
De Christo et Antichr. ας. 36. (Lag: arde p. 17.) Ταῦτα μὲν προ-
φητεύει σοι Ἡσαΐας, ἴδωιιεν δὲ εἰ τὰ ὅμοια αὐτῶν ἐφϑέγξατο ὃ
Ἰωάννης. Οὗτος γὰρ ἐν Πάτμῳ τῇ νήσῳ ὧν, δρᾷ ᾿“1]1ποκάλυψιν
μυστηρίων φριχτῶν., ἅτινα διηγούμενος ἀφϑόνως καὶ ἑτέρους δι-
δάσχει. .1ἔγε μοι, “μακάριε ᾿Ιωάννη, ἀπόστολε χαὶ μαϑητὰ τοῦ Κυ-
φίου, τί εἶδες χαὶ ὕχουσας περὶ Βαβυλῶνος, γρηγόρη σον “ai εἰπέ;
χαὶ γὰρ αὐτή σε ἐξώρισε. “Kai ἤλϑεν εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ on γέλων
τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς ἑπτὰ φιάλας» At he (Apoc. xvii. 1-18.)
Jerome, De Vir. Iil. c. 61. Scripsit (sc. Hippolytus) nonnullos
in scripturas commentarios, e quibus hos reperi: in Hexaemeron
.. . de Apocalypsi, &c.
20. Dronystus or Avexanpria.!
Eus. H. E. VU.10. Atdig δὴ οὖν ὃ “Ἰιονύσιος οἷα καὶ περὶ
τούτου (sc. Οὐαλεριανοῦ) διέξεισιν, ἐκ τῆς πρὸς “Eoucuuwve ἐπι-
1 Hippolytus. There was found on a statue in Rome in 1551 an inscrip-
tion (quoted extract No.1) giving a list of his works which extract No. 2 con-
firms. The work against Heresies, recently discovered, often refers to the Apo-
ealypse. In his miscellaneous works which remain, Hippolytus makes frequent
allusion to the Apocalypse. See Lagarde’s Index. He usually calls him John.
On one occasion he says that as Christ’s first appearing (παρουσία) had John the
Baptist as forerunner, so will His second, when He cometh in glory, manifest
Enoch and Elias and ᾿[ωΐάννην τὸν Seodsyov (Περὶ τῆς συντελείας τοῦ χόσμου,
§ 21. p. 104); in another (ibid. § 28. p. 110), speaking of the mystic 666, he con-
fesses that he does not understand the symbolism, but suggests ἀρνοῦμαι (spelt
dovedue), inasmuch as it is the characteristic of the adversary to deny.
1 Dionysius argues that the Book cannot be by the Apostle John, because
it is not the custom of that John to name himself in his writings, while the seer
of the Apocalypse does often and emphatically name himself. He also founds
ΠΩ]
346 APOCALYPSE.
iy ~ »” ’ c ~ c ~ , ce \ ~) ,
στολῆς μαϑεῖν ἔστιν, EV ἡ τοῦτον ἱστορεῖ TQOn0Y* “Καὶ τῷ Iwavyn
AUG , B) rN \ ~
χαὶ ὁμοίως αττοχαλύπτεται. Καὶ ἐδόϑη γὰρ αὐτῷ, φησὶ, στόμα
~ , Ν \ , γ ~ ‘
λαλοῦν μεγάλα zai βλασφημίαν, zat ἐδόϑη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία χαὶ
- ΄ \ ? ~
μῆνες τεσσαράχοντα δύο. “Augoreoa δέ ἐστιν ἐπὶ Οὐαλεριανοῖ
ϑαυμάσαι." (Apoc. xiii. 5.)
Ibid. Vil. 24. (Occasion of Dionysius writing on the Apo-
3 \ , ν 7 > ~
calypse.) Ἐπὶ τούτοις ἅπασιν σπουδάζεται αὐτῷ χαὶ τὰ περὶ
, ~ YA > ~ ey
ἐπαγγελιῶν δύο συγγράμματα. Ἡ δὲ ὑπόϑεσις αὐτῷ Νέπως ἣν
’ , “« 2 ” 2 od , ‘ ’ td
ἐπίσχοτιος τῶν nav’ Atyvatoy, ‘Iovdaixwregoy τὰς ἐπηγγελμέ-
- - , ~ 2
vag τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν ταῖς ϑείαις γραφαῖς ἐπαγγελίας ἀποδοϑήσε-
σϑαι διδάσχων, χαί τινὰ χιλιάδα ἐτῶν τρυφῆς σωματιχῆς ἐπὶ
τῆς ξηρᾶς ταύτης ἔσεσϑαι ὑποτιϑέμενος. Δόξας γοῦν οὗτ
ἧς ξηρᾶς ng é ww ὑποτιϑέμενος. Aokag γ οὗτος
’ ~ 2 / 2 / Ν ’ , , ς ,
ἐχ τῆς AnozrcdiWewg Ιωάννου τὴν ἰδίαν χρατύνειν ὑπόληψιν,
/ 2 ~ \ ,
ἔλεγχον αλληγοριστῶν, λόγον τινὰ ττερὶ τούτου συντάξας ἐπέγραψε.
\ aA , - \ ~
Πρὸς ὧν ὃ Διονύσιος ἐν τοῖς weet ἐπεαγγελιῶν ἐνίσταται, διὰ μὲν
~ \ 2 ~ a aS \ ~
TOU προτέρου τὴν αὐτοῦ γνώμην ἣν εἶχε σπιερὶ τοῦ δόγματος στα-
/ v "ἡ v ~ ἧς ~ > / ,
ρατιϑέιιενος, διὰ δὲ τοῦ δευτέρου τιερὶ τῆς AnozxedvWEewsg Iwav-
~ , \ >
vou διαλαμβάνων" ἔνϑα tov Νέπωτος χατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν μνημονεύ-
- ‘ 2 -
σας, ταῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ γράφει, χ.τ.λ.3
Ibid. Vil. 20. (Dionysius disagrees with those who would set
. Fg? ἐξ Cc \ A Saree) ,
the Apocalypse aside.) Eut ἑξῆς ὑπ οβὰς χιερὶ τῆς «Ἵποχαλύψεως
,ὔ ~ , \ \ ~ Ay ae ΄« ’
Ιωᾶννου ταῦτα φησι" “Ἴινες μὲν οὖν τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ἡϑέτησαν
Ne: ‘ y 2)
χαὶ ἀνεσχεύίασαν πάντῃ τὸ βιβλίον, xa’ ἕχαστον χεφάλαιον διευ-
/ ‘ d
ϑύνοντες, ἄγνωστόν τε χαὶ ἀσυλλόγιστον ἀττοφαίνοντες, ψεύδεσϑαί
\ ? , > , \ > 3 , > > I»?
τε τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν. Ιωαννου γὰρ ove εἰναι λέγουσιν" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ
- ‘ ~ ~ ~
᾿Αποχάλυψιν εἶναι, τὴν σφόδρα χαὶ παχεῖ χεχαλυμμένην τῷ τῆς
\ > u ~ > >
ἀγνοίας τιαραπετάσματι" χαὶ οὐχ ὅπως τῶν ἀποστόλων τινὰ, ἀλλ᾽
, -" , ὟΝ ~ > \ ~
οὐδ᾽ ὅλως τῶν ἁγίων ἢ TOY ἀπὸ τῆς ἐχχλησίας τούτου γεγονέναι,
Ν ~ » ‘ γ
σοιητὴν τοῦ συγγράμματος" Κήρινϑον δὲ τὸν χαὶ aw ἐχείνου χλη-
- \ , 2 / ’ ,
ϑεῖσαν Κηρινϑιανὴν συστησάμενον αἵρεσιν, αξιόπτιστον te ea
, ~ « ~ , wv ~ ἈΝ -
ϑελήσαντα τῷ ξαυτοῦ πλάσματι ὄνομα. Τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τῆς
ν > ~ / / \ ~ ~
διδασχαλίας αὐτοῦ τὸ δόγμα, ἐπίγειον ἔσεσϑαι τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ
Rien peas 2 ,
βασιλείαν, καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς ὠρέγετο φιλοσώματος Wy χαὶ πάνυ σαρ-
on the difference in style and thought—especially on the different character of
the Greek—and indeed anticipates most of the modern objections on internal
grounds. He ascribes the composition to the other John whose tomb is in
Ephesus.
2 Here Dionysius speaks of the work of Nepos, and of its dangerous
character.
DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. ΘΝ
\ > , =) ~ »” C \ “ \ »" c ‘
χιχὺὸς, ἐν τούτοις OVELQOTTOLELY ἔσεσϑαι, γαστρὸς χαὶ τῶν vO
- \ ~ , \
γαστέρα πλησμοναῖς, τουτέστι σιτίοις καὶ ποτοῖς χαὶ γάμοις, καὶ
ad > ~ 2 - -
δι᾿ ὧν εὐφημότερον ταῦτα φήϑη ποριεῖσϑαι, ξορταῖς χαὶ ϑυσίαις
\ c , ~ 2 \ \ I¢ ~ \ > ὌΝ ,
χαὶ ἱερείων σφαγαῖς. Ἐγὼ δὲ ἀϑετῆσαι μὲν οὐκ ὧν τολιιήσαιμι
- >) ed ff > ~ -
τὸ βιβλίον, πολλῶν αὐτὸ διὰ σπουδῆς ἐχόντων ἀδελφῶν; μείζονα
No ie ) ~ iM εὐ Χο (ΟΣ τα \ \ 2) ἘΈΓΣ ea ates
δὲ τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ Poomosagy vy” ὑχιόληψιν τὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ hope
/ , / \ cr
VOY, κεχρυμμένην ELVAL τινὰ LOL ϑαυμασιωτέραν τὴν χαϑ ἕχαστον
’ \ ς , \ \ 3 \ , 2 πὴ ἴα ~
ἐχδοχὴν ὑπολαμβάνω. Καὶ γὰρ εἰ μὴ συνίημι, αλλ ὑπονοῶ ye
ΕΣ = πον ἐς SNe! 75 τ:
viv τινὰ βαϑύτερον ἐγχεῖσϑαι τοῖς δήμασιν. Οὐχ ἰδίῳ ταῦτα με-
~ ~ , Al c
τρῶν χαὶ χρίνων λογισμῷ, τείστει δὲ τὸ στιλέον νέμων, διϑηλότερα
a\ Cc Py) ~ A o> , 3 ies \ ate 2 ὃ Υ̓ tv lc
7H tr ἐμοῦ χαταληφϑῆναι νενόμιχα" χαὶ οὐχ ἀποδοχιμάζω ταῦτα
pay ~ 5
ἃ μὴ συνεώραχα ϑαυμάζω δὲ μᾶλλον ὅτι μὴ καὶ Etdor.”
(John the Son of Zebedee never names himself, but this John
. \ , Se ,
names himself often.) “Evi τούτοις τὴν ὅλην τῆς AzoxedvWeng βα-
ν ) Ν , >
σανίσας γραφὴν, ἀδύνατον δὲ αὐτὴν χατὰ τὴν πρόχειρον ἀποδείξας
~ , ’ / , 5 cw 2, ,ὔ, ἽΝ ~ Ὁ >
γοεῖσϑαι διάνοιαν, ἐπιφέρει λέγων" ““Συντελέσας δὴ πᾶσαν, ὡς él-
- , ς ,, , ,
WEY, THY ττροφητείαν, μαχαρίζει ὁ τιροφήτης τοὺς τὲ φυλάσσοντας
> « / / Ὁ - ,
αὐτὴν, καὶ δὴ καὶ ἑαυτόν. Maxdovos γάρ φησιν ὁ τηρῶν τοὺς λόγους
\ , ~ , , & rd AN 2) , Cc , ‘
τὴς πιροφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου tov'tov’ Kayo Ιωαννης ὃ βλέπων καὶ
- - By > 3 BY
ἀχοίων ταῦτα. Καλεῖσϑαι μὲν οὖν αὐτὸν ἰωάννην, καὶ εἶναι τὴν
‘ > γ d ~ a3
γραφὴν ᾿Ιωάννου ταύτην, οὐχ ἀντερῶ. “Ayiov μὲν γάρ εἶναί τινος χαὶ
~ > ‘ ς dN ~ ὋΣ
ϑεοτινεύστου σιναινῶ. Οὐ μὲν ῥᾳδίως ἂν συνϑείμην τοῦτον εἶναι
X > , \ τὰν ΄ weet ‘ > Se) ty ξ Χ
τὸν ἀπόστολον, τὸν υἱὸν Ζεβεδαίου, τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἰακώβου, ov τὸ
2 2
εὐαγγέλιον τὸ χατὰ Ἰωάννην ἐπιγεγραμμένον καὶ ἣ ἐπιστολὴ ἣ
Ud / Ἃ + ~ WwW « / \ ~
natohim. Τεχμαίρομαι γὰρ ex ve τοῦ ἤϑους ἕχατέρων, “AL τοῦ
- BIAN ‘ ~ ~ ~
τῶν λόγων εἴδους, χαὶ τῆς τοῦ βιβλίου διεξαγωγῆς λεγομένης, μὴ
2 Ν 3 2 IQ ~ a 2
τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι. Ὃ μὲν γὰρ εὐαγγελιστὴς οὐδαμοῦ τὸ ὄνομα av-
~ IO. a” ~ 2
τοῦ σπταρεγγράφει, οὐδὲ χηρύσσει ξαυτὸν, οὔτε διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
ν ~ ~ ΝΕ] > 3)
οὔτε διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς." Eid ὑποβὰς, πάλιν: “Ἰωάννης δὲ
2 ~ oA c Ne G ~ 52 ον ς N αν ἢ 5 ς \ \
οὐδαμοῦ οὐδὲ ὡς περὶ ξαυτοῦ οὐδὲ ὡς περὶ ἑτέρου" ὁ δὲ τὴν
2 44 , γ ΄ y 2 3) ἘΞ « ‘ \ / Se τ
ee youwas, eusUe TE EV ἀρχῇ EAVTOY TLQOTAOOEL Amo
~ > ~ DIAN > ~ ~ ~ 7
χάλυψις Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωχεν αὐτῷ δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐ-
- » \ > \ ~ > 2 ~
τοῦ ἐν τάχει. Kai ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ
~ , 2 ~ ) ͵ aA > fe \ / ~ ~ \
τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ lwavyn, ὃς ἐμαρτύρησε tov λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ χαὶ
Sie ψαςς s Φ
τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ ὅσα εἶδεν. Εἶτα καὶ ἐπιστολὴν γράφει "
7 “ἢ » « \ ~ ~ ~
Ἰωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐχχλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ -Aoig, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ
ee) δὲ εἰ LE ἘΠ en Ue pe ΤῊΣ ae
elon). ο δὲ εὐαγγελεστιὶς οὐδὲ τῆς χαϑολιχῆς ἐπιστολῆς χερο-
, ~ \ \ ~ 2 ~ ~
éyoawWeyv ξαυτοῦ TO ovoua, αλλὰ ἀπιεριττῶς ἀπὸ αὐτοῦ τοῦ μυσ-
348 APOCALYPSE.
LOD METRO ΕΠ ΣΙ. ΤΣ Aw noe ley αὶ emer ts 8) Ὁ a
τηρίου τῆς ϑείας ἀποχαλύψεως ἤρξατο ἤν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, oO
7 , aA c ~ a) ~ ~ >
ἀχηχόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράχαμεν τοῖς ὀφϑαλμοῖς ἡμῶν. Ἐπὶ ταύτῃ γὰρ
- > , NG , \ , ? , > \
τῇ ἀποχαλύψει nat ὁ Κύριος tov Πέτρον ἕμαχαρισεν, εἰττῶν,
3 ~ ie, 2
αχάριος εἴ Σίμων Bae ᾿Ιωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ nai αἵμα οὐχ ἀπεχάλυψέ
2 2G ΒῚ 2 > } -
σοι, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ πατήρ μου ὃ οὐράνιος. .Α1λλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ
2 -
φερομένῃ ᾿Ιωάννου χαὶ τρίτῃ, χαί τοι βραχείαις οὔσαις ἐπιστολαῖς,
[4 Σ > \ 3 δ)
6 ᾿Ιωάννης ὀνομαστὶ πρόχειται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνωνύμως ὃ πρεσβύτερος
το , 3 \ a - «
γέγρατιται. Οὗτος δέ γε οὐδὲ αὕταρχες ἐνόμισεν, εἰσαάτταξ ξαυτὸν
3) - ~ \ >?
ὀνομάσας, διηγεῖσϑαι ta ξξῆς, ἀλλὰ πάλιν ἀναλαμβάνει. Ἐγὼ
᾿Ιωάννης ὃ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν, χαὶ συγχοινωνὸς ἐν τῇ ϑλίψει καὶ βα-
iS POS ὑμῶν, LAL συγχοινωνος ἡ shy
, \ γ iG ~ 2) ~ a) la 2 ~ / ~ ,
σιλείᾳ χαὶ ἕν ὑπομονῇ Inoot, ἐγενόμην ἕν τῇ νήσῳ τῇ χαλουμένῃ
/ \ Ἂν / ~ - \ \ , - ‘
Tatum, διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοὺ χαὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Inoov. Καὶ
\ ~ ~ Ὁ / ~~
δὴ χαὶ πρὸς τῷ τέλει ταῦτα eine’ ΠΙαχάριος ὃ τηρῶν τοὺς λό-
~ ~ 2 2
yous τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου. Kayo ᾿Ιωάννης ὃ βλέ-
γ , ~
TOY χαὶ ἀχούων ταῦτα.
(There must have been many Johns, but this author does not
. ω \ Ὧν ~
say which John he was.) Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ᾿Ιωάννης ἐστὶν ὃ ταῦτα
γράφων, αὐτῷ λέγοντι πιστευτέον" ποῖος δὲ οὗ cond Οὐ
γράφων, αὐτῷ λέγ πιστευτέον" ποῖος δὲ οὗτος, ἄδηλον. Ov
N τ ς Ν Ὁ ς - > , ~ \ ?
γὰρ εἶσιεν ξαυτὸν εἶναι, ὡς ἕν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ στολλαχοῦ, TOY ἡγα-
~ 2
πημένον ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου μαϑητὴν, οὐδὲ τὸν ἀναπεσόντα ἐπὶ τὸ
- 2 - Io. \ 2) , 2 \ HA \ oH ‘
στῆϑος αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ τὸν Ιαχώβου ἀδελφὸν, οὐδὲ τὸν αὐτότττην χαὶ
2 ~ mY ~
αὐτήχοον tov Κυρίου γενόμενον. Εἶπε yao ἂν τι τούτων τῶν
- \ >
πιροδεδηλωμένων, σαφῶς ξαυτὸν ἐμφανίσαι βουλόμενος. “.4λλὰ
ν d \ ~ ‘ 3
τούτων μὲν οὐδέν. ᾿““δελφὸν δὲ ἡμῶν χαὶ συγχοινωνὸν ELITE καὶ
a} ~ ~ > ~ ~ 3
μάρτυρα ᾿Ιησοῦ, χαὶ μαχάριον ἐπὶ τῇ ϑέᾳ χαὶ axon τῶν ἀπο-
\ 2 2 3
χαλύψεων. Πολλοὺς δὲ ὁμωνύμους ᾿Ιωάννῃ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ νομίζω
- 2 ‘
γεγονέναι, OC διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἐχεῖνον ἀγάπην, χαὶ TO ϑαυμάζειν χαὶ
~ γ Qo” , c , > ~ , c ‘ ~ y
ζηλοῦν, ayanndnvat τὲ ὁμοίως αὐτῷ βούλεσϑαι ὑπτὸ tov Κυρίου,
\ Ν \ \ 2 -
χαὶ τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν τὴν αὐτὴν ἠσπάσαντο. “Ὥσπερ καὶ ὃ Παῦλος
\ \ ἈΝ Ce ~ ~ ~ 3
πολὺς χαὶ δὴ χαὶ ὃ Πέτρος ἐν τοῖς τῶν πιστῶν παισὶν ὀνομά-
ζεται.
(John Mark was not the author. Two tombs at Ephesus.)
2») \ 3 So er 2 , >) ~ te ~ a}
Ἔστι μιὲν οὖν χαὶ ἕτερος Iwavyng ev ταῖς Πραξεσι τῶν azo-
a \ ~
στόλων ὃ ἐπιχληϑεὶς Πάρχος" ὃν Βαρνάβας χαὶ Παῦλος ξαυ-
- , \ ts \ ΄ , Py \ LD
τοῖς συμπιαρέἕέλαβον, περὶ ov χαὶ πάλιν λέγει" εἶχον δὲ χαὶ Iw-
ὩΣ , c wees Ei δὲ τ ς , 2 \ 2. ἂν αἱ a
ἄννην ὑπηρέτην. Et δὲ οὗτος ὃ γράψας ἐστὶν, οὐχ ἂν φαίην
Io. ν 2 Th ig \ >» ~ υ \ > U , 5 > ‘
οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀφίχϑαι σὺν αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν ‘Adolav yéyoanto’ adda,
> \ 2) ~ ~ 3
“«Αναχϑέντες μὲν," φησὶν, “ἀπὸ τῆς Πάφου ot περὶ Παῦλον ἡλ-
DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. 349
~ U ) , \ d , a) d
Dov εἰς Πέργην τῆς Παμφυλίας. Ιωᾶννης δὲ ἀποχωρήσας ἄτι
> ~ Ὁ) ς ’ » , -
αὐτῶν, ὑπέστρειμεν εἰς “Ιεροσόλυμα." “Adhov δέ τινα οἰμαι τῶν
? γ , , > ‘ ‘ , \ Db) 2 , eee ,
ἐν ‘Aola γενομένων" ἐπεὶ καὶ δύο (φασὶν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ γενέσϑαι μνή-
, \ ὩΣ \ ~
ματα, χαὶ ἑἕχάτερον ᾿Ιωάννου héyeodou.® Καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν νοημάτων
~ c \ ~ - B) ~
δὲ χαὶ ad τῶν ῥημάτων χαὶ τῆς συντάξεως αὐτῶν, εἰχότως ἕτε-
ρος οὗτος παρ᾽ ἐχεῖνον ὑπτονοηϑήσεται.
(Agreement between Gospel and Epistles.) Συνάδουσι μὲν γὰρ
> , Ἂν ) , ol 1 ? \ ς , γ7 rps
ἀλλήλοις τὸ εὐαγγέλιον χαὶ ἢ ἐπιστολὴ, ὁμοίως TE ἄρχονται. To
, Ρ Ἐ γ ~ ay ς λό 5: Ἂς δὲ Ὃ 2 2 ie 2 > ANS To /
μέν φησιν, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὃ λόγος, ἡ δὲ, O ἣν aw ἀρχῆς. To μέν
φησιν Καὶ ὃ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, χαὶ ἐσχήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, nat
Ν ’ ~ ~ \
ἐθεασάμεϑα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν, ὡς μονογενοῦς maga “τα-
hone c δὲ \ > \ . ay AL ᾿ ut ᾿ Ὃ 2s aah aA
τρός" ἢ δὲ Ta αὐτὰ σμιχρῷ σταρηλλαγμένα ἀχηχόαμεν, Ὁ
c , ~ 2) ~ C ~ Cie , € \ C ~
ἑωράχαμεν τοῖς οφϑαλμοῖς Huwv, ὁ ἐϑεασάμεϑα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες
ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς" xat ἣ ζωὴ ἐφαν-
ἐρώϑη. Ταῦτα yao προαναχρούεται διατεινόμενος, ὡς ἐν τοῖς
ΕΝ Ἕ / N \ 2. » " Ni & > ,ὔ Ν
ἑξῆς ἐδήλωσε τιρὸς τοὺς οὐχ ἐν σαρχὶ φαάσχοντας ἐληλυϑέναι τὸν
a ~ 2 - a
Κύριον: δι᾿ ἃ χαὶ συνῆψεν ἐπιμελῶς, Καὶ 0 ξωράχαμεν, μαρ-
- 2 c ~ \ 5 \ \ ,
τυροῦμεν, καὶ ἀτιαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἣν
\ \ ~ a
MOOS TOV πατέρα, χαὶ ἐφανερώϑη ἡμῖν" ὃ ξωράχαμεν χαὶ ἀχηχ-
- 7 C ~ ~
ὄαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν. Ἔχεται αὑτοῦ, καὶ τῶν προϑέσεων
οὐχ ἀφίσταται. “ιὰ δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν χεφαλαίων χαὶ ὀνομάτων
᾿ τὰ \ ~ ,
ταύτα διεξέρχεται" wy τινὰ μὲν ἡμεῖς συντόμως ὑπομνήσομεν.
‘O δὲ προσεχῶς ἐντυγχάνων εὑρήσει ἐν ἑχατέρῳ πολλὴν τὴν ζωὴν,
Ν x ~ 9 \ ~ , ~ \ J \
πολὺ TO φῶς, απτοτροττὴν τοῦ σκότους, συνεχῆ THY ἀλήϑειαν, τὴν
\ \ \ Το ~ \ ,
χάριν, τὴν χαρὰν, THY σάρχα χαὶ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Κυρίου, τὴν χρίσιν
\ ~ ~ Ν ς ~ ) ~ ~
AGL τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ,
Ἁ Ν 2 ͵ Cc ~ 5} , 2 \ C / ~ /
τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἡμᾶς ἀγάπης ἐντολὴν, ὡς πάσας δεῖ φυλάσ-
σειν τὰς ἐντολάς" ὃ ἔλεγχος τοῦ χόσμου, τοῦ διαβόλου, τοῦ ἀντι--
lovov, ἢ ἐπαγγελία τοῦ ‘Aylov Πνεύ f υἱοϑεσία τοῦ Θεοῦ
χρίστου, ἢ ἐπαγγελία τοῦ ““γίου Πνεύματος, i) υἱοϑεσία cov Θεοῦ,
/ Ὁ -" 2 ς Ν \
ἣ διόλου πίστις ἡμῶν ἀπαιτουμένη, ὃ πατὴρ χαὶ ὃ υἱὸς πιαντα-
χοῦ" χαὶ ὅλως διὰ πάντων χαραχτηρίζοντας, ἕνα χαὶ τὸν αὐτὸν
- ~ > , \ ~ ~
συνορᾷν τοῦ τε εὐαγγελίου καὶ τὴς ἐπιστολῆς χρῶτα πρόχειται.
(Apocalypse quite different, especially in phraseology.) ~A4A-
8 Dionysius has no great certainty regarding the two tombs. When he dis-
misses the idea of John Mark being the author of the Apocalypse, he puts for-
ward John Presbyter very modestly—otuc:—he cannot speak positively. Nor is
his diffidence unnatural when we see that his only evidence is that there were
two tombs in Ephesus, as Eusebius also records. But how Dionysius concludes
that the words and the composition betokened ‘this other’ John does not appear,
350 APOCALYPSE.
, ~ re 5]
λοιοτάτη δὲ χαὶ ξένη παρὰ ταῦτα ἡ ‘Anoxcdvyic, μήτε ἐφατι-
. , , Ξ , CARLIN \ c > ~ A
TOME, [NTE γειτνιῶσα τούτων μηδενὶ σχεδὸν WG εἰχιεῖν, μηδὲ
ins \ Dypures \ ” > > OA (Ate \ > δεν
συλλαβὴν πρὸς αὐτὰ χοινὴν ἔχουσα" ahh οὐδὲ μνήμην τινὰ, οὐδὲ
>» PLA ς ’ \ ~ > , 2 7~ \ Ν
ἑγγοιαν, οὔτε ἢ ἐπιστολὴ τῆς “αἰ ποχαλύψεως ἔχει" ἐῶ γὰρ τὸ
3) , 7 ~ ~ 9 , x ~
εὐαγγέλιον" οὔτε τῆς ἐπιστολὴς ἢ «“ποχάλυψις" Παύλου διὰ τῶν
2} ~ C \ ~ ? 2 -
ἐπιστολῶν ὑπτοφήναντός τι “aL περὶ τῶν ατιοχαλύψεων αὑτοῦ,
aA oH ’ , >? a? In ἊΝ \ ~ , A ν
UG οὐκ EvéyoaWe xad αὐτας. Ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς poacews τὴν δια-
/ - ῸΣ ~ ~
φοράν ἔστι τεχμήρασϑαι τοῦ εὐαγγελίου καὶ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τιρὸς
\ > Ui mms \ \ 3 , 2) , Ν Ν
τὴν «Α΄ ποχάλυψιν. Ta μὲν γὰρ οὐ μόνον ἀπταίστως χατὰ τὴν
Cm) , 2 \ \ ~ ~
Ελλήνων φωνὴν, ahha χαὶ λογιώτατα ταῖς λέξεσι, τοῖς συλλο-
- ~ Ite ~ c ~ , ~~
γισμοῖς, ταῖς συντάξεσι τῆς ἑρμηνείας γέγραττται. Πολλοῦ ye det
9( 9 / 96 ὟΝ λ Σ \ ἢ OA > id ᾿ \ 2 3
βάρβαρόν τινα φϑόγγον, ἢ σολοιχισμὸν ἢ ὅλως ἰδιωτισμὸν ἐν αὐ-
~ ~ , ‘ 3 ς »” )
τοῖς εὑρεϑῆναι. “Εχάτερον γὰρ εἶχεν, ὡς eons, τὸν λόγον, ἀμφο-
γ ~ ~ - -
τέρους αὐτῷ χαρισαμένου τοῦ Κυρίου, τόν τὲ τῆς γνώσεως, τόν
~ r , ν > \ ~
τὲ τῆς φράσεως. Τούτῳ δὲ anoxclowuy μὲν ξωραχέναι, “aL γνῶ-
ΞῚ \ > 2 ~ .
σιν εἰληφέναι. χαὶ προφητείαν, οὐχ ἀντερῶ, διάλεχτον μέντοι καὶ
ἡ “- 2 2 QO C ὴ he 2 ~ 2. ives.
γλῶσσαν οὐχ ἀχριβῶς “Ελληνίζουσαν αὐτῷ βλέτιω, ahh ἰδιώμασίν
Ἵ = \ Se c =)
τὲ βαρβαριχοῖς χρώμενον, καί που χαὶ σολοιχίζοντα. ““΄περ οὐχ
> ~ ~ 7 Ὁ Ν
ἀναγχαῖον νὺν ἐχλέγειν᾽ οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐσιισχώσιτων, μή τις νομίσῃ,
~ ΡΣ d Ν Σ / Ὁ / ~
ταῦτα εδἰστιον, ἀλλὰ μόνον τὴν ἀνομοιότητα διευϑύνων τούτων τῶν
γραφῶν."
ΤΣ τ
21. Cyprian.
De bono patient. Pater Deus praecepit filium suum adorari
... et in Apocalypsi angelus Joanni volenti adorare se resistit
et dicit: “Vide ne feceris, quia conservus tuus sum, et fratrum
tuorum. Jesum Dominum adora.” (Apoe. xix. 10.)
De eleemos. Audi in Apocalypsi Domini tui vocem, ejusmodi
homines justis objurgationibus increpantem: ‘Dicis,” inquit, “ di-
ves sum, et ditatus sum, et uullius rei egeo, et nescis quoniam
tu es miser, et miserabilis, et pauper, et coecus, et nudus es.
Suadeo tibi emere a me aurum ignitum de igne, ut sis dives, et
vestem albam vestiaris, et non appareat in te foeditas nudi-
tatis tuae, et collyrio inunge oculos tuos ut videas. (Apoe. 11].
1 VS)
Epist. 63. (Ad Caecilium.) Aquas namque populos significare,
in Apocalypsis scriptura divina declarat dicens: “Aquae quas νἱ-
disti, super quas sedit merctrix illa, populi, et turbae, et gentes
METHODIUS. VICTORINUS PETAVIONENSIS. 351
ethnicorum sunt et linguae,” quod scilicet perspicimus et in sa-
cramento calicis contineri. (Apoc. xvii. 15.)
22. Meruopius.
Andr. proleg. in Apoc. (See before, under Papias, p. 339.)
Conviv. (p. 70.) Ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἀρχιτιάρϑενος, ὃν τρόπον χαὶ
ἀρχιτιοίμην χαὶ ἀρχιτιροφήτης γέγονεν ὃ λόγος ἐνανϑρωπήσας, τῆς
ἐχχλησίας, χαὶ ὃ χριστόλητιτος ἡμῖν παρέστησεν ἐν βιβλίῳ τῆς
᾿Α΄ποχαλύψεως ᾿Ιωάννης, λέγων" Καὶ εἶδον, χαὶ ἰδοὺ ἀρνίον ἕστη-
χὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ὅρος Σιὼν ... οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ μετὰ γυναιχῶν οὐχ ἐμιο-
λύνϑησαν" παρϑένοι γάρ εἰσιν. Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀκολουϑοῦντες τῷ
ἀρνίῳ ὕπου ἂν ὑπάγῃ. (Apoc. xiv. 1-14.)
23. Vicrorinus Peravionensis. !
De fabrica mundi. (Cave, Hist. Lit. Tom. I. p. 104.) Itaque
sine dubio autem diei angeli 12, noctis angeli 12, pro numero
scilicet horarum; hi sunt namque 24 testes dierum et noctium,
qui sedent ante thronum Dei coronas aureas in capitibus suis
habentes; quos in Apocalypsi Joannis Apostoli et Evangelistae
seniores vocat, idcirco quia seniores sunt et aliis angelis et ho-
minibus. (Apoc. iv. 4.)
In Apocal. (In Lardner, Part. II. C. LVI) Liber apertus
Apocalypsis est, quam Joannes vidit.
Ibid. Hoe est, quoniam quando hoc vidit Joannes, erat in
insula Patmos, in metallum damnatus a Domitiano Caesare. Ibi
ergo vidit Apocalypsin. Et cum senior jam putaret se per pas-
sionem accepturum receptionem, interfecto Domitiano, omnia ju-
dicia ejus soluta sunt, et Joannes de metallo dimissus. Sic postea
tradidit hanc eandem quam acceperat a Domino Apocalypsin.
Hoc est, “oportet te iterum prophetare.”
1 Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, and afterwards of Tyre, wrote
against Porphyry, and (concerning the Resurrection) against Origen. Eusebius
does not mention him—perhaps because he opposed Origen. The work quoted is
‘Banquet of ten Virgins.’ He is quoted by Andreas (see extract 1) as attesting the
inspiration of the book. It is probable, though not explicitly stated, that he
believed the writer to be John the Apostle. See Lardner, II. 107.
1 Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau in Pannonia, who died a martyr under Dio-
eletian in A.D. 303. His Commentary on the Apocalypse is the oldest now ex-
tant. Its genuineness is not undisputed.
352 APOCALYPSE.
Jerome, De Vir. Ill. c. 74. Victorinus, Petavionensis episco-
pus, non aeque Latine ut Graece novit. Unde opera ejus grandia
sensibus, viliora videntur compositione verborum. Sunt autem
haec: Commentarii in Genesin . .. in Apocalypsin Joannis .. .
et multa alia.
Cassiodor. Inst. Div. ὁ. Ὁ. De quo libro (Apocalypsi) et Vic-
torinus saepe dictus episcopus difficillima quaedam loca tractavit.
24. Pampniwus.
Apol. pro Orig. (Opp. Orig. Tom. IV. Appendix p. 39.) Ait
Joannes in Revelatione sua: “Et reddidit mare mortuos quos ha-
bebat in se, et mors et inferus reddiderunt mortuos suos qui
erant in eis.” (Apoc. xx. 13.)
25. Lacranrtius.
Epit. c. 42. (p. 1276.) Hujus (se. filii Dei) nomen nulli est
notum, nisi ipsi et Patri, sicut docet Joannes in Revelatione.
(Apoc. xix. 12.)
Instit. VII. 10. (p. 913.) Qui autem se vitiis ac sceleribus
contaminaverit, voluptatique servierit, is vero damnatus aeter-
nam luet poenam, quam divinae literae secundam mortem no-
minant, quae est et perpetua, et gravissimis cruciatibus plena.
(Apoc. ii. 11; xxi. 8.)
26. Eusesius.!
H. Ε΄. ΠΙ. 24. (See before, p. 90.)
Ibid. ΠΙ. 25. (See before, p. 10.)
Ibid. Ill. 39. (See before, p. 55.)
Demonstr. Ev. 8 (p. 386 D.) “Oder ἰδοὺ, φησὶν, ἐνίχησεν
ς \ ἘΠῚ - 2 , \ RUE a ξ Ν - ‘
ὃ λεὼν ὃ ἐχ φυλῆς ᾿Ιούδα, nat αὐτὸς ἤνοιξε tag σφραγῖδας τὰς
1 Eusebius is unable to pronounce a decided opinion on the Apocalypse.
There is always something like εἰ φανείη in his mind and in his expression. His
Anti-Millenarian views tended to make him disinclined to admit the book on which
Millenarians founded their case; while his real honesty made him incapable of
letting such feelings rule his judgment. Impressed with the able arguments of
Dionysius, he swayed to and fro. |
EUSEBIUS. ATHANASIUS. 353
~ > 7 ,
ἐπιχειμένας τῷ βιβλίῳ, χατὰ τὴν ““΄ποχάλυψιν Iwavvov. (Apoc.
γε 6.)
a 2)
H. E. ΠΙ. 18. Ἐν τούτῳ χατέχει λόγος τὸν ἀπόστολον ἅμα
᾿ \ > on λισ yy oT yy " »” ~ Bic δ ὃ , F ΓΞ εἰς \
χαὶ εὐαγγελιστὴν Ιωάννην ἔτι τῷ βίῳ ἐνδιατρίβοντα, τῆς εἰς τὸν
- , Αἱ ~ ~
ϑεῖον λόγον ἕνεχεν μαρτυρίας, Πάτμον οἰχεῖν χαταδιχασϑῆναι τὴν
~ OS , ς Dt tee \ ~ , ork \ ἢ
γῆσον. 1 ράφων γέ τοι ὃ Εἰρηναῖος περὶ τῆς ψήφου τῆς κατὰ τὸν.
> U , / 3. ~ , ,
ἀντείχριστον σπιροσηγορίας φερομένης ἐν τῇ Ιωάννου λεγομένῃ .“1πο-
χαλύψει, αὐταῖς συλλαβαῖς ἐν méuntw τῶν 100g τὰς αἱρέσεις
~ \ ~ >? , = Le τᾷ Ξ, why el? 3) \ ἐν ~ ~
ταῦτα τιερὶ τοῦ Ιωάννου φησίν" “Ei δὲ ἔδει ἀναφανδὸν ἕν τῷ νῦν
- , 5 ” Dey) LORD! oD) 1. ΝΕ Dale Wg ~ \
χαιρῷ χηρύττεσϑαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, OL ἐχείνου ἂν ἐῤῥέϑη TOU καὶ
Ν > ,ὔ « , 3) \ Ν Ν ~ , c
τὴν “Τποχάλυνψιν ewoanotog. Ovdé γὰρ τερὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ξωρ-
5] \ \ ‘ ~ ς ~ ~ ~
adn, ahha σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, σπιρὸς τῷ TéhEL τῆς
y ὃ aoyne.’
“Ιομιτιανοῦ ἀρχῆς.
Ibid. Wl. 29. Ἐπὶ τούτων οῆτα χαὶ i) λεγομένη τῶν Νιχολαι--
τῶν αἵρεσις ἐπὶ σμικρότατον συνέστη χρόνον. “Hg δὴ καὶ ἣ τοῦ
᾿Ιωάννου ᾿“ποχάλυψις μνημονεύει.
27. ATHANASIUS.
Canon of Athanas. (See before, p. 13.)
Synopsis ascribed to Athanas. (See before, p. 15.)
Contra Arianos Or. 1. Tom. 1. p. 317. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 33.)
Οὐδεμία γὰρ τῶν ἁγίων 1 ραφῶν τοιοῦτόν τι περὶ τοῦ “Σωτῆρος
εἴρηχεν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀεὶ τὸ αἴδιον, χαὶ τὸ συνεῖναι ἀεὶ τῷ Πα-
τρί Ev ἀρχῇ γὰρ ἦν ὃ «1όγος, καὶ ὃ “όγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν
Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὃ Adyos. Καὶ ἐν τῇ “““ποχαλύψει τάδε
λέγει, Ὃ ὧν, καὶ ὃ ἦν, ὃ ἐρχόμενος. (Apoc. i. 8.)
Ibid. Or. 2. Tom. I. p. 594. 4Migne, Vol. II. p. 196.) ᾽χ2γγελος
δὲ ϑέλοντα προσχυνῆσαι τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην ἐν τῇ “α“΄ποχαλύψει χωλύει,
λέγων. ὅρα μή" σύνδουλός σου εἰμὶ, καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν
σιροφητῶν, χαὶ τῶν τηρούντων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου.
Τῷ Θεῷ προσχύνησον. (Apoc. xxii. 9.)
28. (Ὑμη,,
Canon of Cyril. (See before, p. 19.)
29. Eprpnantus.
Canon of Epiph. (See before, p. 21.)
23
904 APOCALYPSE. /
~ . . 2
Haeres. II. ἐ. 1. h. 51. p. 423. (Concerning the Alogi.) Ἐπεὶ
Ey \ , 2 , \ \ 2 , , ay
οὖν τὸν Aoyov ov δέχονται τὸν παρὰ Ιωάννου χεχηρυγμένον, ““41ο--
’ 2 ~
you χληϑήσονται. -Αλλότριοι τοίνυν παντάττασιν ὑττάρχοντες TOU
, ~ 2 , 2 - -
ANQVY MATOS τῆς ἀληϑείας, ἀρνοῦνται τὸ χαϑαρὸν τοῦ χηρύγματος,
\ a” \ wrt 7 ? 2. -
zai οὔτε τὸ τοῦ Ιωάννου Εὐαγγέλιον δέχονται, οὔτε τὴν αὐτοῦ
7 , Υ \
‘Anonchuwuy. Καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐδέχοντο τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον, τὴν δὲ “Azo-
, > U Dp ’ , dN ΄ ~ We) U
nahvyiy ἀπεβάλλοντο, ἐλέγομεν ἄν, μή πη ἄρα χατὰ ἀχριβολογίαν
- - ) Ὄ -
τοῦτο ποιοῦνται, αἀπτόχρυφον μὴ δεχόμενοι, διὰ τὰ ἐν τῇ ““41π᾿ο-
, ayes: “ \ Ξ - > , ὦ ς , \ > Ἵ ,
χαλύψει βαϑέως χαὶ σχοτεινῶς ξιρημένα" ὅπότε δὲ OV δέχονται
\ 2 lay 5] \ ~ 3
φύσει τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Ιωάννου χεχηρυγμένα, τταντί
- oy c ΓΕ \ c τ x,
τῳ δῆλον εἴη, ὅτι οὗτοι εἰσὶ χαὶ οἱ ὅμοιοι τούτοις, ττερὶ ὧν εἶσιεν
2 - 4 ~ 2 ~
ὃ ἅγιος ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν ταῖς χαϑολιχαῖς Ἐπιστολαῖς" ὅτι “ Ἐσχάτη
> , > : ules
Mod ἐστὶ, καὶ NxovoutEe Ot -αΑντίχριστος ἔρχεται" καὶ νῦν ἰδοὺ
2 , ΔῈ 35
“Αντίχριστοι ττολλοὶ," χ.τ.λ.
5 -" - 2
Tbid. I. ἐ. 1. h. 51. p. 454. Φάσχουσι δὲ xara τῆς ““΄ποχα-
- 2 η- τὸ Cee
λύνψεως τάδε χλευάζοντες. Ti we, φησὶν, ὠφελεῖ ἢ “α΄ ποχάλυνψις
\ >
Ἰωάννου, λέγουσά μοι περὶ ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων, χαὶ Enta σαλπίγγων,
- 3. 2 Lay ~ ~ ~.
οὐχ εἰδότες, MS ἀναγχαία χαὶ ὠφέλιμα τοιαῦτα ὑπῆρξεν ἐν TH
~ Cl, 5)
ὀρϑότητι tov χηρύγματος. Ὅσα yao ἣν ἐν νόμῳ χαὶ ἐν προφήταις
~ r d ~
σχοτεινὰ χαὶ αἰνιγματώδη, ταῦτα ὃ Κύριος wmxovounoe διὰ tov
ς , , , ς ~ , ~ Δ ) τὰν ,
ἁγίου Πνεύματος εἰς ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Iwavryy
2 ΄ ASD, ~ \ ics ? \ ἘΣ We:
ἀποχαλύιναι" τὰ ἐχεῖσε σχοτεινὰ, WOE εἰς πνευματιχὰ “aL ExOnLE
,ὔ AE τ , , ~ J) , a) Es ,
χηρύττων... . . p.455. Συνάδοντος τοίνυν tov Anoorohov τῷ ἁγίῳ
> , a) , 2 ᾿ς , , c , >
‘Anootohy Iwavyn ev τὴ Anozchvwe, mole τις ὑπτολείτεξται av-
~ 2 2 4 ~ ~
τιλογία; Πῶς δὲ οὐχ εὐϑὺς Excotn πλάνη ἐλεγχϑήσεται, τοῦ Θεοῦ
» c , ~ ς , , ’ - Di D τέ ~
ἐν ἑχάστῳ τῶν ἁγίων δεδωχότος μαρτυρίαν; ... p.406. Οὐχ ὁρᾶτε,
τῷ cr ~ ~ ~ υ ,
ὦ οὗτοι, ὅτι MEQL TOY γυναικῶν λέγει τῶν ἐν οἰήσει προφητείας
> , ee ~ > 7 \ \ Ν ,
ἀπατωμένων χαὶ ἀττατωσῶν πολλούς; φημὶ δὲ περὶ Ποισχίλλας,
- ic > + ~
noi Π]αξιμίλλας, καὶ Κυϊντίλλας, ὧν ov λέληϑε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ
oN > ? ~ ~
ἅγιον χαὶ ἣ αὐτῶν ἀπάτη" ἀλλὰ προεϑέσπισε προφητιχῶς ἐν τῷ
~ Cc , > Ul ca ~ Cc
στόματι τοῦ ἁγίου Iwavvov, ὅπερ ἐγένετο μετὰ THY τοῦ ἁγίου
> , , 2 ~ \ , > ,
Ἰωάννου xoiunow. «Αὐτοῦ δὲ προφητεύσαντος ἐν χρόνοις Κλαυ-
2 - - ς
δίου Καίσαρος ἀνωτάτω, ove εἰς τὴν Πάτμον νῆσον ὑτιῆρξεν (ὃμο-
- \ \ iS ? ’ ~ Paris: ΒΡ
λογοῦσι γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι ἐν Θυατείροις ταῦτα πεπληρῶσϑαι), ἄρα
~ , 27 - >’ ~ 2 ΄ ~ > ~
γοῦν χατὰ προφητείαν ἔγραφε τοῖς ἐχεῖ ἐν Χριστῷ κατ ἐχεῖνο
a ~ ~
πεπολιτευμένοις, ὅτι ἤμελλεν ξαυτὴν γυνὴ τεροφῆτιν καλεῖν. Kat
- > >
διέπεσεν ὃ χατὰ τῆς αληϑείας ἐπτεγειρόμενος ττανταχόϑεν ἔπενε-
’, ΄ , ~ \ \ > δ ,
γοημένος λόγος, δειχνυμένου τοῦ χατὰ τὴν ““'ποχάλυψιν λόγου
EPIPHANIUS. HILARY. JEROME. 3A5
~ Ww ’ / Ὁ , \ 3) ’ Ξ ΡῚ ,
moopytxov ovtoc, ὃχ Πνεύματος ἁγίου χατὰ αλήϑειαν: Exrai-
ν - ν 2 “- ~ 2 ,
ρονται δὲ σπτάλιν τῇ διανοίᾳ οἱ αὐτοὶ λεξιϑηροῦντες ἀπείρως, ἵνα
δόξωσι παρεχβάλλειν τὰ τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿““ποστόλου βιβλία, φημὶ δὲ
> , , 1) , \ \ > , , \ 5
Toavvov τό ve Evayyéhov καὶ τὴν -Anouchuwiy, τάχα τὲ καὶ τὰς
> y \ ‘ ct ~ 4) ~ »
Ἐπιστολάς" Συνάδουσι γὰρ χαὶ αὗται τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ nai τῇ *Ano-
naliwe. ... p. 451. “Adda οὗτοι, μὴ δεξάμενοι. Πνεῦμα ἅγιον,
2 ~ ~ ‘ ~
ἀναχρίνονται μὲν πνευματικῶς, μὴ νοοῦντες τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος, χαὶ
\ 2 \ ~
χατὰ τὸν λόγον βουλόμενοι λέγειν, χαὶ οὐχ εἰδότες τὰ ἕν τῇ ἁγίᾳ
2 ὴ , , c 2 age \ ) oO.” γ 4 ᾿
Ἐχχλησίᾳ χαρίσματα, ἅτινα ἀληϑῶς χαὶ εὐσταϑῶς ἕν σταραχολου-
, \ .» ~ ~ \ c Ὁ / ,
ICEL, χαὶ ἐῤῥδωμένῳ νῷ, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον διηγήσατο" οἵ TE
« - ΟΣ ἐπ {πὲ > , ? ara Ni ὦ τ 2 ,
ἅγιοι. προφῆται χαὶ οἱ ἅγιοι ““Ἰπόστολοι" ἐν οἷς καὶ ὃ ἅγιος ᾿Ιωάννης
- > ~ 2 ~ ~ 7
διὰ τοῦ Ευαγγελίου χαὶ τῶν Ἐπιστολῶν χαὶ τῆς ““΄ποχαλύινεως,
- > ~ , ~ ν᾽
ἔχ τοῦ αὐτοῦ χαρίσματος τοῦ ἁγίου μεταδέδωγε.
Ibid. (See before, p. 98, extract from Epiph. pp. 433, 434.)
Haeres. 11. t. 2. ἢ. 17. p. 1031. Καὶ ὅτι μὲν γέγραπται ττερὶὲ
~ / / cr ’ om / 3 / \
τῆς χιλιονταδτηρίδος ταύτης, ὅτι ἐν τῇ «“ποχαλύιυει. ᾿Ιωάννου, χαὶ
ὅτι Ν } / ᾿ 2) \ ἢ c 8 8. , 5 A \ . \
, παρὰ πιλείστοις (ἐστὶν) ἢ βίβλος πεπιστευμένη, χαὶ παρὰ
- , \~
τοῖς ϑεοσεβέσι, δῆλον.
30. Hinary.!
In Psalm. I. p. 226 E. (In Lardner, Part II. p. 412.) Quod
autem haee folia ligni hujus non inutilia sint, sed salutaria gen-
tibus, sanctus Joannes in Apocalypsi testatur. (Apoc. xxii.)
De trimt. VI. p. 891 1). (In Lardner, ibid.) Electus ex pub-
lica Matthaeus in apostolum, et ex familiaritate Domini revela-
tione coelestium mysteriorum dignus Joannes.
31. Jerome.
Ejpist. 11. ad Paulin. (See before, p. 21.)
De Vir. fil. c.9. (See before, p. 187.)
Ep. 129. ad Dardan. (Vallars. Vol. I. p. 965.) Quod si eam
(sc. Epist. ad Hebraeos) Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter
Scripturas canonicas, nec Graecorum quidem Ecclesiae Apoca-
lypsin Joannis eadem libertate suscipiunt; et tamen nos utraque
1 Hilary Bishop of Poitiers about A.p. 354.
aa
356 APOCALYPSE.
suscipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed vete-
rum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes, qui plerumque utriusque
abutuntur testimoniis, non, ut interdum de Apocryphis facere
solent, . . . sed quasi Canonicis et Ecclesiasticis.
Adv. Jovinanum I. 20. (Vallars. Vol. Il. p. 279.) Joannes,
et Apostolus, et Evangelista, et Propheta. Apostolus, quia scripsit
ad ecclesias ut magister: Evangelista, quia librum Evangelii con-
didit, . . . Propheta, vidit enim in Patmos insula, in qua fuerat
a Domitiano principe ob Domini martyrium relegatus, Apoca-
lypsim infinita futurorum mysteria continentem.
In Isaiam Inb. XVIII. Prooem. (Vallars. Vol. IV. p. 767.)
Et qua ratione intelligenda sit Apocalypsis Joannis, quam si juxta
literam accipimus, judaizandum est, si spiritualiter, ut scripta est,
disserimus, multorum veterum videbimur opinionibus contraire: La-
tinorum, Tertulliani, Victorini, Lactantii: Graecorum, ut caeteros
praetermittam, Irenaei, tantum Lugdunensis episcopi faciam men-
tionem, adversus quem vir eloquentissimus Dionysius, Alexandri-
nae Ecclesiae Pontifex, elegantem scribit librum, irridens mille
annorum fabulam, et auream atque gemmatam in terris Jerusa-
lem, instaurationem Templi, hostiarum sanguinem, otium sab-
bathi, circumcisionis injuriam, nuptias, partus, liberorum educa-
tionem, epularum delicias, et cunctarum gentium servitutem: rur-
susque bella, exercitus ac triumphos, et superatorum neces, mor-
temque centenarii peccatoris. Cui duobus voluminibus respondit
Apollinarius, quem non solum suae sectae homines, sed et nos-
trorum in hac parte duntaxat plurima sequitur multitudo, ut
praesaga mente jam cernam, quantorum in me rabies concitanda
sit.
357
NOTE ON CHAPTER XXXIV.
THE copious extracts in this chapter show that the Apocalypse has had a
varied measure of acceptance. At first, while men still expected an early return
of Jesus Christ, the book seems to have been widely popular. This popularity
lasted to the end of the second century. Hermas imitated it; Papias quoted it
as inspired and trustworthy; Justin has from it his only citation of a New Testa-
ment book by name. And it appears that he not only quoted but expounded it,
as also did Irenaeus. On the other side we must note its absence from the
Peshito. The Alogi (see below—Heretics), who opposed all the Johannine writ-
ings, objected to this book, as to the others.
In the third century, although Origen and Hippolytus ascribed it to the
Apostle John, opposition grew formidable. Caius, a ‘‘Roman Presbyter,” about
whom little is certainly known, ascribed an apocalyptic book to Cerinthus; and
his reference is perplexing, as he apparently found in the book a description of
a very carnal reign of the Saints in Jerusalem. On this account Hug and others
have denied that his reference is to the Johannine Apocalypse. But no other
book is known to which the reference can apply; and besides, it is just such
an exaggerated description as would originate in keen controversy. In the latter
part of the century Dionysius of Alexandria, the pupil and successor of Origen,
prepared a formidable indictment to which all subsequent objectors have recourse
for arguments. The headings of paragraphs in our text give a summary of his
argument. There is good reason to believe that in the case of Dionysius, as
certainly in that of Eusebius, it was dislike of millenarian views which led to
depreciation of the Apocalypse.
From the days of Jerome, who accepted the Apocalypse as the work of the
Apostle John, and expressly based his opinion on the testimonies of the ancients,
there was little controversy regarding it in the Western Church until the Re-
formation. In the Eastern Church—from the rejection by Cyril of Jerusalem
A.D. 386—there was considerable discussion; some doubting the canonicity of
the book, some doubting that it was by John the son of Zebedee.
At the Reformation, Erasmus expressed his doubts of the authorship; Zwing-
lius rejected the book; Luther cast it off with contumely; Calvin used it, but
did not comment upon it. At that time the chief controversy in Europe was
upon the central doctrine of Justification, and the Apocalypse did not occupy a
prominent position. But at a later date, when the controversy became ecclesias-
tical rather than doctrinal, each side, Protestant and Roman Catholic, interpreted
it as a prophecy of the downfall of the other; and it was universally accepted
as canonical. Bossuet and Vitringa are leading representatives of the two divi-
sions of Western Christendom. Bengel’s system of interpretation has been much
followed,
398 APOCALYPSE.
During the 19th century there has been a keen controversy both as to the
eanonicity and as to the authorship of the book. Here, again, theological con-
victions have had no little share in deciding the side taken by erities. Its ge-
nuineness is maintained, and—if we may use the word—its canonicity, by those
who are usually found as opponents of such claims. Those who ascribe a late
date to the Gospels—especially to the Fourth Gospel—generally give the Apo-
calypse an early date, and claim the Apostle as its author, using its language
and style as an argument against the idea of the Gospel being written by the
same Apostle. In this way the views of the Tiibingen school as to the first form
of Jewish Christianity lead them to uphold the canonicity of this book, though
denying to almost all the rest of the New Testament an Apostolic origin.
But even apart from questions of canonicity there is great division of opi-
nion as to the authorship. The scraps of Papias have been as fruitful of works
upon the two Johns as in works upon the original of Matthew’s Gospel, or upon
the ‘‘ order” of Mark. Dionysius, though in a very diffident manner (see p. 349),
took refuge in the supposition that Presbyter John was the author. But against
this Irenaeus is decided. Moreover, if Irenaeus (p. 54 &c.) and Arethas (p. 338)
be right, Papias, as a ‘‘hearer of John,’ is an ultimate authority, and Papias’s
testimony seems to be distinct; so that the authorship by the son of Zebedee is
established. But the argument on the other side is that Irenaeus or Papias, or
both, must have been mistaken. (See on ‘‘Aretas’’ Prof. W. P. Dickson’s ar-
ticle in Smith’s Dict. of Christian Biography.) For Presbyter John as the author
we have Credner, Bleek, Ewald, De Wette, Liicke (ultimately), Diisterdieck and
Keim. For the Apostle John, Eichhorn, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Geb-
hardt and Krenkel. For John Mark, Hitzig and Weisse,
PARI HU,
TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN,
361
I.
TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN,’
1. Tacirus (a.v. 61 To apouT a.p. 120).
Ann. XV. 44. Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus prin-
cipis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia quin jussum in-
cendium crederetur. Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos
et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus
Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus Tiberio im-
peritante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus
erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erum-
pebat, non modo per Judaeam, originem ejus mali, sed per Ur-
bem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt
celebranturque. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde
indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud perinde in crimine incendii
quam odio humani generis convicti sunt. Et pereuntibus ad-
dita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum inter-
irent aut crucibus affixi, aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset
dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur. Hortos suos ei spec-
taculo Nero obtulerat et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae
permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. Unde quamquam adversus
sontes et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tan-
quam non utilitate publica sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.
1 The earliest testimonies quoted in the text do not refer directly to the
books; but they show what was the condition of the Christian Church and how
largely it bulked in the eye of a Pagan observer. The testimonies of the heathen
writers must be taken in connection with the writings of the Christian Apolo-
gists, to throw light upon the state of the churches whose bond of cohesion was
the faith embodied in the Christian books.
362 TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN.
2. ‘Manriat (np: 60.70 Ap, 100)
1210. X. Epigr. 25:—
In matutina nuper spectatus arena
Mucius, imposuit qui sua membra focis,
Si patiens fortisque tibi durusque videtur,
Abderitanae pectora plebis habes.
Nam, cum dicatur, tunica praesente molesta
Ure manum, plus est dicere: Non facio.!
o. Puiny’s Letter ASKING Directions FROM TRAJAN.
C. PLINIUS TRAJANO IMPERATORI! (4.D. 111).
Solemne est mihi, domine, omnia de quibus dubito ad te re-
ferre, quis enim potest melius vel cunctationem meam regere vel
ignorantiam instruere? Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui num-
quam: ideo nescio quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut quaeri,
nec mediocriter haesitavi, sitne aliquod discrimen aetatum, an
quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus differant, detur paenitentiae
venia, an ei qui omnino Christianus fuit desisse non prosit, no-
men ipsum, si flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohaerentia nomini pu-
niantur. Interim in iis qui ad me tamquam Christiani defere-
bantur hune sum secutus modum. Interrogavi ipsos an essent
Christiani: confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogayi supplicium
minatus: perseverantes duci jussi. Neque enim dubitabam, quale-
cumque esset quod faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem
1 Martial. Juvenal also, Sat. VIII. 235, says: “‘ dust quod liceat tunicé punire
molestaé”’ (see also Sat. I. 155). And Seneca, in his list of cruelties, mentions the
blazing coat last, “dlam tunicam, alimentis ignium εἰ illitam et intextam” (Ep. 14),
apparently as a climax. The words of Martial may be supposed to describe the
hardihood of Christians as greater than that of Mucius.
1 Pliny’s Letters. Edition-Keil, Leipzic, 1870, p. 307. The chief value, for
our purpose, of this letter and of the Emperor’s reply is, to show how Asia was
pervaded by Christianity, a few years after the death of the Apostle John. Pli-
ny’s language shows that the Pagan temples were deserted. If John survived in
Ephesus till Trajan’s reign began, there must have been in his last years a large
Christian Church in the regions around him. The difficulty of forging a Gospel
in his name, so as to get it accepted by all that Church, when for the first time
published many years after his death, is enormous. See Introduction: ‘The
Fourth Gospel.’’ See on the number of copies of the Gospels circulated among
Christians: Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. 1. p. 28 (2nd Edition).
ῬΙΙΝΥ S LETTER. 363
obstinationem debere puniri. Fuerunt alii similis amentiae, quos,
quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos. Mox
ipso tractatu, ut fieri solet, diffundente se crimine plures species
inciderunt. Propositus est libellus sine auctore multorum nomina
continens. Qui negabant esse se Christianos aut fuisse, cum
praeeunte me deos appellarent et imagini tuae, quam propter
hoc jusseram cum simulacris numinum adferri, ture ac vino sup-
plicarent, praeterea male dicerent Christo, quorum nihil posse
cogi dicuntur qui sunt re vera Christiani, dimittendos esse pu-
tayi. Ali ab indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt et mox
negayerunt; fuisse quidem, sed desisse, quidam ante triennium,
quidam ante plures annos, non nemo etiam ante viginti. Hi quo-
que omnes et imaginem tuam deorumque simulacra venerati sunt
et Christo male dixerunt. Adfirmabant autem hanc fuisse sum-
mam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die
ante lucem convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum
invicem seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed
ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fal-
lerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis morem
sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum,
promiscuum tamen et innoxium; quod ipsum facere desisse post
edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua hetaerias esse ve-
tueram. Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis, quae
ministrae dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenta quaerere.
Nihil aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam immodicam. Ideo
dijata cognitione ad consulendum te decucurri. Visa est enim
mihi res digna consultatione, maxime propter periclitantium nu-
merum. Multi enim omnis aetatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque sexus
etiam, vocantur in periculum et vocabuntur. Neque civitates tan-
tum sed vicos etiam atque agros superstitionis istius contagio
pervagata est; quae videtur sisti et corrigi posse. Certe satis
constat prope jam desolata templa coepisse celebrari et sacra
sollemnia diu intermissa repeti pastumque ‘venire victimarum,
cujus adhuc rarissimus emptor inveniebatur. Ex quo facile est
opinari, quae turba hominum emendari possit, si sit poenitentiae
locus,
364 TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN,
4. Tur Emprror’s Reprty to Puiny.
TRAJANUS PLINIO.
Actum quem debuisti, mi Secunde, in excutiendis causis eorum
qui Christiani ad te delati fuerant secutus es. Neque enim in
universum aliquid quod quasi certam formam habeat constitui
potest. Conquirendi non sunt: si deferantur et arguantur, pu-
niendi sunt, ita tamen ut qui negaverit se Christianum esse id-
que re ipsa manifestum fecerit, id est supplicando dis nostris,
quamvis suspectus in praeteritum, veniam ex paenitentia impe-
tret. Sine auctore vero propositi libelli in nullo crimine locum
habere debent. Nam et pessimi exempli nec nostri saeculi est.?
5. Sueronius! (a.v. 121).
Vit. Claud. ὁ. 25. (Sc. Claudius] Judaeos, impulsore Chresto,
assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit. (Acts xviii. 2; Rom. xvi.)
Nero ὁ. 10. Afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum su-
perstitionis novae et maleficae. (2 Tim. i. 8, 16, ii. 16-18.)
6. Haprianus Minucio Funpano, about a.p. 1901.
Accepi litteras ad me scriptas a decessore tuo Sereno Gra-
niano, clarissimo viro: et non placet mihi relationem silentio
2 Trajan’s rescript means that, while Christians were not to be sought for,
they were to be punished, simply because they were Christians, when accused
and convicted of that crime. They might escape by recanting and sacrificing to
Roman idols. The same principle regulates the answer of Marcus Aurelius (A.D.
177) to the inquiry of the Governor of Lyons, if we are to trust the narrative
preserved by Eusebius H. E. V. 1.
1 Suetonius (who testifies in these passages to the banishment of Christians
by Claudius, and to their persecution by Nero) elsewhere shows how great were
the calamities which fell upon the people of Jerusalem in the reigns of Vespasian
and Titus. See Sueton. Vespas. ὁ. 4-8; Sueton. cc. 4, 5. In his life of Domi-
tian, c. 12, he speaks of some Jews who sought to evade payment of the Jewish
tax on the ground of not being Jews; and in this he probably refers to the
Christians. See Lardner, Vol. III. p. 618, &c.
1 For the Latin Text—of Rufinus—see Otto’s Justin I. ὁ. 68, and Proleg.
p. XXXII. It appears as though Serenus Granianus (but his real name was
Quintus Licinius Silvanus Granianus) had written to the Emperor shortly before
leaving his office, so that Hadrian’s reply was sent to his successor. That this
rescript is genuine was doubted by Keim (1856), and his negative position has
HADRIANUS MINUCIO FUNDANO. 365
praeterire, ne et innoxii perturbentur et calumniatoribus latro-
cinandi tribuatur occasio. Itaque si evidenter provinciales huic
petitioni suae adesse valent adversum Christianos, ut pro tribu-
nali eos in aliquo arguant, hoc eis exequi non prohibeo: preci-
bus autem in hoc solis et adclamationibus uti eis non permitto.
Etenim multo aequius est, si quis volet accusare, te cognoscere
de objectis. Si quis igitur accusat et probat adversum leges
quicquam agere memoratos homines, pro merito peccatorum etiam
supplicia statues. ΠΙᾺ mehercule magnopere curabis, ut si quis
calumniae gratia quemquam horum postulaverit reum, in hunc
pro sui nequitia suppliciis severioribus vindices.
[The following is Eusebius’s Greek version of the Imperial
letter, from his Hist. Eccl. IV. 9.]
Πινουκίῳ Φουνδανῷ. Ἐπιστολὴν ἐδεξάμην γραφεῖσάν μοι
ano Σερεννίου Τρανιανοῦ, λαμπροτάτου ἀνδρὸς, ὅντινα σὺ διε-
δέξω. Ov δοχεῖ μοι οὖν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἀζήτητον χαταλιπιεῖν, ἵνα
μήτε οἱ ἄνϑρωποι ταράττωνται, καὶ τοῖς συχοφάνταις χορηγία χα-
χουργίας παρασχεϑῇῆ. Εἰ οὖν σαφῶς εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἀξίωσιν οἱ
ἐπαρχιῶται δύνανται διϊσχυρίζεσϑαι χατὰ τῶν Χριστιανῶν, ὡς
been adopted by Baur (Ch. Hist. Part V), Hilgenf. (Einl. p. 169), Overbeck
(Studien zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche, 1875), Aubé (Les Persecutions de
l’Eglise, 1875) and others. Keim also (1878) returned to the charge in his “ Aus
dem Urchristenthum’”’ p. 181. See defences in Wieseler’s ‘‘Die Christenver-
folgungen der Caesaren’’ 1878 (p. 18), and in Renan’s ‘‘L’Eglise chretienne’’
1879 (p. 32). Eusebius says that Serenus Granianus had written that it seemed
to him unjust that Christians should be put to death because of popular clamour,
and without legal trial and conviction of crime; and that Hadrian’s reply was
to the effect that no man should be put to death without a formal trial and
conviction. His text bears out his summary. But the question is whether this
is consistent with history. Or to put it somewhat differently: Was it still enough
to prove that a man was a Christian, or must a definite crime be proved against
him? Those who doubt the letters ascribed to Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and
Mareus Aurelius (for whose long and obviously forged ‘‘Letter to The Senate ”
see Otto’s Justin p. 246), all of them increasingly favourable to Christians, be-
lieve that Trajan’s edict in his letter to Pliny was still in force. Their strong
point is that Justin’s Apology and the stories of the Martyrs shew that Christians
—simply as such—were in danger of death. If those merciful provisions in the
disputed Imperial edicts had existed, Christians would not have needed to make
their constant demand to be tried for crimes and not merely on account of their
creed. Marcus Aurelius in his letter respecting the Christians in Gaul (Eus. H.
E. V. 1. 42) substantially repeats Trajan’s instructions. If that account in Euse-
bius state correctly what the Emperor said, it is inconceivable that the Antonines
wrote the almost Christian letters ascribed to them. But Hadrian’s letter may
still be genuine, inasmuch as it only stipulates for explicit accusation, and does
not define what would be conduct ‘‘against the laws.”
900 TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN.
‘ Ν , 3) ,ὔ ’ \ ~ , ~ 2 Ρ]
HAL πρὸ βήματος ἀποχρίνσαϑαι, ἐπὶ τοῦτο μόνον τραττῶσιν, ἀλλ
>. Ye ’ 2) \ / Q ~ ~ \ ~ ~
οὔκ ἀξιώσεσιν, οὐδὲ μόναις βοαῖς. Πολλῷ γὰρ μᾶλλον προσῆχεν,
] ~ = ~
él τις χατηγορεῖν βούλοιτο, τοῦτό σε διαγινώσχειν. EU τις οὖν
χατηγορεὶ “LOL δείχνυσί TL παρὰ τοὺς νόμους πράττοντας, οὕτως
ca , ~
OQILE χατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος" ὡς μὰ τὸν Ἣραχλέα
ΒΥ ~ ~
él τις συχοφαντίας χάριν τοῦτο προτείνοι, διαλάμβανε ὑττὲρ τῆς
, - cr ὝΝ
δεινότητος, χαὶ φρόντιζε ὅπως ἂν ἐχδιχήσειας.
7. Lerrer or Haprian to Servianus. !
FLAVII VOPISCI SYRACUSII “SATURNINUS.” A.D. 129.
C. 11.3 Hadrianus Augustus Serviano Consuli Salutem.
Aegyptum, quam mihi Jaudabas, Serviane carissime, totam didici
levem pendulam et ad omnia famae momenta volitantem. — Illic
qui Serapem colunt Christiani sunt et devoti sunt Serapi qui
se Christi Episcopos dicunt. Nemo illic Archisynagogus Judaeo-
rum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum Presbyter, non ma-
thematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes. Ipse ille Patriarcha cum
Aegyptum venerit, ab aliis Serapidem adorare, ab aliis cogitur
Christum. Genus hominum seditiosissimum vanissimum injurio-
sissimum: civitas opulenta dives fecunda, in qua nemo vivat otio-
sus. Alii vitrum conflant, ab aliis charta conficitur: alii linifiones,
omnes certe cujuscumque artis et videntur et habentur. Podagrosi
quod agant habent; habent caeci quod faciant. Ne chiragrici
quidem apud eos otiosi vivunt. Unus illis Deus nullus [al. num-
mus| est. Hune Christiani, hunc Judaei, hunc omnes venerantur
et gentes. Et utinam melius esset morata civitas, digna profecto
quae pro sui profunditate, quae pro sui magnitudine totius Aegypti
teneat principatum. ὅσο.
1 Servianus or Severianus, Hadrian’s brother-in-law, was consul A.D. 129, the
year that Antinous was drowned. It is supposed that Hadrian was angry because
the Christians would not worship his favourite. The letter is preserved by Fla-
vius Vopiseus in his life of Saturninus (about A.p. 300).
2 Scriptores Historiae Augustae ab Hadriano ad Numerianum. Berolini,
1863.
ANTONINUS’S EPISTLE. 367
> \ π᾿ ~ >) ,
8. ᾿Αντωνίνου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸ Κοινὸν τῆς ᾿Ασίας.
{λα 148 ?)
> Pin Vem ie > > τ
«ὐτοχράτωρ Καῖσαρ Τίτος Athiog ‘Adguavog ‘Avtwrvivog Σεβ-
ὡς Εὐσεβὴς, Ao) ὺὴς Mey δημαρχιχῆς ἐξουσίας τὸ xa
αστὸς Εὐσεβὴς, ““Ιρχιερεὺς ἢ]έγιστος, δημαρχιχῆς ἐξουσίας τὸ xc’,
, . ἢ ~ = ~ ~ 2 , ,
ὕπατος τὸ 0, Πατὴρ Πατρίδος, τῷ Κοινῷ τῆς ‘Aolag χαίρειν.
> U ~
Ἐγὼ ᾧμην ὅτι καὶ τοὺς ϑεοὺς ἐπιμελεῖς ἔσεσϑαι μὴ λανϑάνειν
\ , \ Ν ~ a ? , , »” \ 7
τοὺς τοιούτους. Πολὺ yao μᾶλλον éxetvove χολάσοιξδν, Et7Eo δύ-
\ 2 - - τ
γαιντο, τοὺς μὴ βουλομένους αὐτοῖς σπιροσχυνεῖν. Οἷς ταραχὴν
- - > hi) ἣν ν ΝΣ AEA : 2 κῶν ΙΝ de ἐλ ; Gi whe
ὑμεῖς ἐμβαλλετε, χαὶ τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, ἥνττερ ἔχουσιν, ὡς ἀϑέων
- \ c / ’ / c 5) , { 2
χατηγορεῖτε, ZO ἕτερά τινα ἑμβαλλεῖξ, ἅτινα οὐ δυνάμεϑα ἀπο-
δεῖξαι. Εἴη δ᾽ ἂν ἐχείνοις χρήσιμον τὸ δοχεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ χατηγορ-
Su. Εἴη (εένοις χρήσιμον τ ἐπὶ τῷ χατηγορ
,ὔ , \ ~ ς ~ oes \ Cc ~
ουμένῳ τεϑνάναι" χαὶ νιχῶσιν ὑμᾶς πιροϊέμενοι τὰς ἑαυτῶν Wu-
‘ 27 7 ΤΟ Ie ~ ,ὔ 2) , \ ‘i ~
χᾶας, ἤστξερ σιξιϑόμενοι οἷς ἀξιοῦτε σπιρασσειν αὐτούς. Περὶ δὲ τῶν
- - ~ 2 ~
σεισμῶν τῶν γεγονότων χαὶ τῶν γιγνομένων οὐχ εἰχὸς ὑχιομνῆσαι
~ ? [ὦ c Sy
ὑμᾶς ἀϑυμοῦντας, ὅτανσιερ ὦσι, παραβάλλοντας τὰ ὑμέτερα πρὸς
- U d / Ὁ ~
τὰ ἐχείνων, OTL εὐπαῤῥησιαστότεροι ὑμῶν γίνονται τιρὸς τὸν ϑεύν.
- 2 ~ ~ 2 -
Καὶ ὑμεῖς μὲν ἀγνοεῖν δοχεῖτε mag’ ἐχεῖνον τὸν χρόνον τοὺς
Ν \ ~ c ~ ) ~ Re , ἊΝ \ \ \ CG \
θεοὺς, χαὶ TOV ἱερῶν ἀμελεῖτε, ϑρησχείαν δὲ τὴν τιερὶ τὸν ϑεὸν
> ͵ 7 -
οὐχ, ἐπίστασϑε. Ὅϑεν χαὶ τοὺς ϑρησχεύοντας ἐζηλώχατε, χαὶ
U ~ ~
διώχετε ἕως ϑανάτου. Ὑπὲρ τῶν τοιούτων χαὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς τῶν
/ c / ~
MEQL τὰς ἐπαρχίας ἡγεμόνων τῷ ϑειοτάτῳ μου πατρὲ éyeaWer:
Te Se? 3) - - , γ
οἷς χαὶ ἀντέγραιμε μηδὲν ὀχλεῖν τοῖς τοιούτοις, εἰ μὴ φαίνοιντό
‘ Cc , ~
τι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν “Ρωμαίων ἐγχειροῦντες. Καὶ ἐμοὶ δὲ περὶ
~ , Wey , a <= Sy \ d uy - -
τῶν τοιούτων σιολλοὶ ἐσημαναν" οἷς δὴ τ EER τῇ τοῦ
~ » / ~
mateog μου χαταχολουϑῶν γνώμῃ. Εἰ δὲ τις ἔχει ττρός τινα τῶν
- ς -
τοιούτων τιρᾶγμα χαταφέρειν ὡς τοιούτου, ἐχεῖνος ὃ χαταφερό-
2 ~ , ὌΝ ~
μενος anohelvodw tov ἐγχλήματος, nav φαίνηται τοιοῦτος ὧν,
Ύ ~ \ c , 2 a» ~ we
ἐχεῖνος δὲ ὃ χαταφέρων ἕγοχος ἔσται τῇ δίχῃ.
1 This letter is preserved at the end of Justin’s second Apology, but pro-
bably not by Justin himself. Compare the text in Eus. H. Εἰ. IV. 13, and
especially the superseription which professes to be from Mareus Aurelius. This
inconsistency in the authorities is one of many grounds for doubting the whole
production. Our text is from Otto’s Justin, 1. p. 244. Antoninus Pius did write
in favour of Christians to various cities, if Melito is to be trusted. See Melito in
Hus. ἘΠ BE. IV. 26.
908 “TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN.
9,, Lucan (ap, 110).}
. . ! Ν
De Morte Peregrini, c. 11. Ὅτεπερ nou τὴν ϑαυμαστὴν σο-
, ~ al ~ - ν Ν 4 ~ ~
φίαν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐξέμαϑε περὶ τὴν Παλαιστίνην τοῖς ἱερεῦσι
~ ΒῚ ~ ΓΞ ~
χαὶ γραμματεῦσιν αὐτῶν ξυγγενόμενος. Kat τί γάρ; ἐν βραχεῖ
-ν 2 \ 2 \
σαῖδας αὐτοὺς αἀἸτέφηνε" προφήτης χαὶ ϑιασάρχης nat ξυναγωγεὺς
χαὶ πάντα μόνος αὐτὸς WY" χαὶ τῶν βίβλων τὰς μὲν ἐξηγεῖτο
- ὶ ὃ σά λλὰ δὲ 2s A WB dy 3, NE 0 DN
χαὶ διεσάφει, σπτολλὰς δὲ αὐτὸς nai ξυνέγραφε, χαὶ ὡς ϑεὸν αὐτὸν
~ ς > \ , ~ \
ἐχεῖνοι ἡγοῦντο καὶ νομοϑέτῃ ἐχρῶντο καὶ προστάτην ἐχτέγραφον"
τὸν μέγαν γοῦν ἐχεῖνον ἔτι σέβουσι τὸν ἄνϑρωτσιον τὸν ὃν τῇ
2 \
Παλαιστίνῃ ἀνασχολοπισϑέντα, ὅτι χαινὴν ταύτην τελετὴν εἰσή--
γαγεν ἐς τὸν βίον.
ῳ ἢ \ \ Ν AY
Tove δὴ nai συλληφϑεὶς ἐττὶ τούτῳ ὃ Πρωτεὺς ἐνέπεσεν εἰς
ν , ' Des \ ΔῸΣ
τὸ δεσμωτήριον, OE χαὶ αὐτὸ οὐ μιχρὸν αὐτῷ ἀξίωμα περι-
x \ Ce~ \ ᾿
ἐποίησε πρὸς τὸν ἑξῆς βίον χαὶ τὴν τερατείαν χαὶ δοξοχοπίαν
γε ΑΕ τ Deed, 2 \ > 3 O/H c Γ΄ \
ὧν ἐρῶν ἐτύγχανεν. Enet δ᾽ οὖν ἐδέδετο, οἱ Χριστιανοὶ συμ-
\ / ~ ,
φορὰν ποιούμενοι τὸ πρᾶγμα πάντα ἐχίνουν ἐξαρπάσαι πειρώ-
3 BaD SD \ ~ BY IQs c »” ,
uevor αὑτόν. Hit ἐπεὶ τοῦτο ἣν ἀδύνατον, ἢ ye ahdn ϑεραπέεῖα
- > 2 Ν \ Wed
χιᾶσα Ov παρέργως, ἀλλὰ σὺν σπουδῇ ἐγίγνετο" χαὶ ἕωϑεν μὲν
2 3 Cane ~ ,
εὐϑὺς ἣν δρᾶν παρὰ τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ περιμένοντα γρᾷάδια χήρας
\ \ , γ \ 2 ~ \ 2
τινὰς χαὶ παιδία ὀρφανὰ, οἱ δὲ ἐν τέλει αὐτῶν χαὶ συνεχαϑευδον
ΡΥ > 2 ~ Oot \ , Ψ >
ἔνδον MET αὐτοῦ διαφϑείροντες τοὺς ϑεσμοφύλακας" εἶτα δεῖσενα
, γ ! \ , ς Δ σὴ ἢ VS r
σοικίλα εἰσεχομίζετο χαὶ λόγοι ἱεροὶ ἐλέγοντο χαὶ ὁ βέλτιστος
- a» ~ ~ 2 >
Tlegeyoivog — ἔτι γὰρ τοῦτο ἐχαλεῖτο --- xcuvdg Σωχράτης vu av-
- 2 , \ \ 3) - 9 , ΄ 2 \ τ
τῶν ὠνομάζετο. Kat μὴν xan τῶν ἐν ““Τσίᾳ πόλεων ἐστὶν ὧν
ἡλόν τινὲς, τῶν Χριστιανῶν στελλόντων αἀττὸ τοῦ χοινοῦ, βοηϑή-
σοντὲς χαὶ ξυναγορεύίσοντες χαὶ παραμυϑησόμενοι τὸν ἄνδρα.
3 ~
᾿Ἵμήχανον δέ τι τὸ τάχος ἐπιδείχνυνται, ἐπειδάν τι τοιοῦτον
, 2) 0) ~ \ 2 - , \ \ \
γένηται δημόσιον" ἐν βραχεῖ γὰρ, ἀφειδοῦσι πάντων. Kot δὴ καὶ
- \ c UO | ee
τῷ Περεγρίνῳ πολλὰ τότε Hee χρήματα ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ προφάσει
- ~ / 2 Ua
τῶν δεσμῶν χαὶ πρόσοδον οὐ μιχρὰν ταύτην ἐπτοιήσατο" σιξπεί--
’ >
“AOL γὰρ αὑτοὺς οἱ καχοδαίμονες TO μὲν ὅλον ἀϑάνατοι ἔσεσϑαι
1 Lucian, a native of Samosata in Syria, born under Hadrian, flourished
under the two Antonines. He had an official post in Egypt. He wrote regarding
Peregrinus, who burnt himself after the Olympic Games, A.p. 165. The passage
quoted in the text is intended to ridicule the Christians, and is specially parallel
with Ignatius: see Zahn’s ‘Ignatius,’ p. 327. For many curious passages in support
of a theory that this and many other works were forged a few hundred years
ago, see Cotterill’s ‘Peregrinus Proteus’ (Edin. 1879).
CELSUS. 369
\ , \ De N , > a \ ~ ~
χαὶ βιώσεσθαι TOY ἀεὶ χρόνον, παρ᾿ O χαὶ χαταφρονοῦσι τοῦ
ϑανάτου nal ἕχόντες αὑτοὺς ἐπιδιδόασιν οἱ πολλοί: ἔπειτα δὲ ὃ
, ς ~ a” 2) \ ς 2 \ / Ἂ 7
γομοϑέτης ὁ πρῶτος ἕπεισεν αὐτοὺς ὡς αδελφοὶ πάντες Elev ἀλ-
\ c - \
λήλων, ἐπειδὰν anak παραβάντες ϑεοὺς μὲν τοὺς “Ελληνιχοὺς
> δ 2 - ᾿Ὶ ~
ἀπταρνήσονται, τὸν δὲ ἀνεσχολοπισμένον ἐχεῖνον σοφιστὴν αὐτῶν
χεροσχυνῶσι “AL κατὰ τοὺς ἐχείνου νόμους βιῶσι. Καταφρονοῦσιν
=) -- / ~ d ~
οὖν ἁπάντων ἐξ ἴσης χαὶ χοινὰ ἡγοῦνται ἄνευ τινὸς ἀχριβοῦς
- Nie γα ὌΝ
χείστεως τὰ τοιαῦτα παραδεξάμενοι. “Hy τοίνυν σπταρέλϑη τις εἰς
δ] \ ” 4 , ~ v
αὐτοὺς yong χαὶ τεχνίτης ἄνϑρωσιος χαὶ τιράγμασι χρῆσϑαι dv-
2 - >
γάμενος, αὐτίχα μάλα πτιλοΐσιος ἐν βραχεῖ ἐγένετο ἰδιώταις av-
ϑρώσοις ἐγχαγών.
10. Certsus.!
Aes CELSUS’S BOOK. THE TITLE AND METHOD.
Origen 6. Celsum, I. 40. (Migne, Vol.I. p. 733.) “Ἑξῆς δὲ τού-
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ’
τοις ἀπὸ tov χατὰ Mardator, τάχα δὲ καὶ τῶν λοιπτῶν Evayye-
1 Celsus wrote a book entitled λόγος ἀληθής, which appears to have been
an able assault upon Christianity from a philosophical and historical point of view.
From yarious indications in the book, especially from the references to the state
of the heathen world and to the persecution of Christians, the date may be fixed
at about A.D. 178. Celsus refers to the Gospel narrative so fully and so fre-
quently, that it is only necessary to give in our text some specimens of his mode
of proceeding, and an indication of his acquaintance with each of the four ca-
nonical Gospels. He used Matthew—and Matthew in its present form (on this
see Keim’s Celsus, p. 228)—as his chief authority, but he knew the others, and
quoted each of them. There are beyond question references to John. The in-
cidents noticed by Celsus are (with at most one or two exceptions) from our
Gospels. He refers to the Sibyl, saying that her writings are used and inter-
polated by Christians (V. 61; VII. 53); to the mystic symbols of the Ophites
(VI. 25); and to Gnostic sects and writings (V. 54; V.62; VIII. 15). He does
not refer to any Christian writer of note, nor to any extra-canonical Christian
work (unless we regard Enoch (V. 54) and the Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason
(IV. 52) as exceptions). His references to the Epistles, though clear, are few.
He seems to have set himself to study Christianity at its source; and he con-
structed an elaborate, keen, and able polemical treatise, anticipating most of the
objections to the Gospels which are to be found in writers even of our own day.
His analysis of the accounts of the Resurrection, and his criticism of the Dis-
courses of Jesus, may be cited as examples of his acuteness. His inability to ap-
preciate, or even to understand, the moral beauty of the life of Jesus Christ,
shows how much lower was his own moral than his intellectual tone. Origen
says that he was an Epicurean: he seems to have been a friend of Lucian; and,
like his friend, he opposed Christianity in a hard way.
The work of Celsus has been compiled in Greek from Origen by C. R. Jach-
mann (1836), and Keim (1873) collected the passages and translated them into
German with copious dissertations on the age and philosophy of the author.
Lardner’s Analysis is more intelligible, though less extended, than Keim’s.
24
370 TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN.
λίων, λαβὼν τὰ περὶ τῆς ἐπιπτάσης τῷ Σωτῆρι βαπτιζομένῳ
Ἁ - dd / ~ U fi / c ,
σιαρὰ τοῦ Ιωάννου περιστερᾶς, διαβάλλειν βούλεται ὡς σιλάσμα
, \ a ~
τὸ εἰρημένον. Avaoteag δὲ, ὡς ᾧετο, τὴν περὶ τοῦ ἐχ παρϑένου
~ \ ~ ~ « , > \ Cpe ~
γεγεννῆσϑαι τὸν Σωτῆρα ἡμῶν ἱστορίαν, ov τὰ ξξῆς τῇ τάξει ἐχ-
‘ , εἶ Ay) 2) >
τίϑεται" ἐπεὶ μηδὲν ἔχει. τεταγμένον ϑυμὸς καὶ ἔχϑρα. “Alda
χατὰ τὸ ἐπελϑὸν οἱ ὀργιζόμενοι χαὶ οἱ ἐχϑραΐζοντες χαχηγοροῦσιν
fa) ~ \ > Ν ~ ,
οὺς μισοῦσι, μὴ ἐπιτρεπόμενοι αττὸ τοῦ πάϑους τεϑεωρημένως
nai χατὰ τάξιν λέγειν τὰς χατηγορίας. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ τὴν τάξιν
a) , \ ὌΝ \ 2 , \ ~ 2) ~ ,
ἐτήρει, λαβὼν av τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ meo0dEwE-
- , ὌΝ ic , - x MS fete > \ \ ld
γος, τῆς πρώτης ἂν ἱστορίας χατειπιὼν, eSNG ἐπὶ τὴν δευτέραν
, \ c ’ \ A ΄ \ \ Ν \
χαρεγίνετο, καὶ οὕτως ἐπὶ τὰς horas. Νυνὶ δὲ, μετὰ τὴν ἔχ
, , c / a) γ , >) , / \
σπαρϑένου γέννησιν, ὃ wart εἰδέναι ἐπαγγειλάμενος Κέλσος τὰ
~ ~ i ~ ,
ἡμέτερα, χατηγορεῖ TOL παρὰ τῷ βαπτίσματι φανέντος “Ayiov
Πνεύματος ἐν εἴδει πιεριστερᾶς" εἰτα μετὰ τοῦτο διαβάλλει τὸ
σιροφητεύεσϑαι τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἐπιδημίαν" χαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα
-«-Ὁ ~ Wisk ~ >
ἀνατρέχει ἐπὶ τὸ ἑξῆς τῇ γενέσει τοῦ Ιησοῦ ἀναγεγραμμένον, τὸ
\ ~ 2 ,ὔ Lea » \ ~ > ’ , > Ned ~
σπιερὶ TOL ἀστέρος διήγημα, καὶ τῶν ξληλυϑότων αττὸ ἀνατολῆς
, ~ ~ , \ >». IN \ ΒῚ \ >
μάγων σπροσχυνῆσαι τῷ παιδίῳ. Πολλὰ 0 αν χαὶ αὐτὸς ἐπι-
= « ’ ~ eh ) , 2 6 - ,
τηρῶν εὕρῃς συγχεχυμένως τῷ Κέλσῳ εἰρημένα Ov ὅλης τῆς βί-
βλου" ἵνα χαὶ διὰ τούτου ὑπὸ τῶν τάξιν ἐπισταμένων τηρεῖν καὶ
- -" - x ~ , Ν
ζητεῖν, ἐλεγχϑῆ μετὰ πολλῆς ϑρασύτητος χαὶ ἀλαζονείας ἐπι-
Β] - , ς - ~
γράψας ‘Alndi «γον τὴν βίβλον αὑτοῦ, ὕπερ τῶν ἐλλογίμων
, 2 \ d , c \ \ , \ > Ν
φιλοσόφων οὐδεὶς ἑπτοίησεν. “O μὲν γὰρ Πλάτων φησὶν, ov χατὰ
\ ~ Ὕ .. Se ~ ~
τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντα εἶναι. τὸ διϊσχυρίζεσϑαι περὶ τῶν τοιῶνδε χαὶ
, -
ἀδηλοτέρων: ὃ δὲ Χρύσιτιστος πολλαχοῦ ἐχϑέμενος τὰ χινήσαντα
νΝ > ς = > a Ww , - γ - -
αὐτὸν, ἀναπτέμσεει ἡμᾶς ἐφ᾽ OLS ἂν εὕροιμεν χρεῖττον αὐτοῦ ἐροὺν-
Tet Δ ‘ \ ~ ~
tac. Οὗτος οὖν ὃ καὶ τούτων χαὶ τῶν λοιττῶν “Ελλήνων σοφώ-
2) ~ > a) ~
τερος, ἀκολούϑως τῷ φάσχειν πάντ᾽ εἰδέναι, .4ληϑὴῆ Aoyov
ἐπέγραψεν αὑτοῦ τὸ βιβλίον.
Il THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE.
Origen 6. Celsum, II. 13. Mera ταῦτά φησιν ὃ παρὰ τῷ
Κέλσῳ ᾿Ιουδαῖος, ὅτι “πολλὰ ἔχων λέγειν πιερὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν '1η-
σοῦν γενομένων χαὶ ἀληϑῆ, καὶ οὐ παραπλήσια τοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν
μαϑητῶν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γραφεῖσιν, ἑχὼν ἐχεῖνα «ταραλείστω."
Ibid. 11. 18. Φησὶ δὲ ὃ Κέλσος, ὅτι “καὶ μαϑηταὶὲ τοῦ
Ἰησοῦ, ἐπὶ πράγματι περιφανεῖ μηδὲν ἔχοντες ἐπισχήψασϑαι,
τοῦτο ἐπενόησαν, τὸ λέγειν αὐτὸν στάντα τιροεγνωχέναι."
CELSUS. ; 51
. ~ 3 , +
Ibid. 11. 26. Ἔτι δὲ λέγει ὃ παρὰ τῷ Kéhow ᾿Ιουδαῖος πρὸς
ἮΝ - ΤΡΗ͂ΜΑ ~ \ c 5 , - c ἐξ ΣΤΟΝ ΄
τοὺς Inoov μαϑητὰς ὡς τιλασαμένους ταῦτα, ὃτι “οὐδὲ ψευδό-
\ , c ~ ~ > , 2 ΩΣ 4}
μενοι. τὰ πλάσματα ὑμῶν πιϑανῶς ἐπιχαλύνψαι ηδυνήϑητε.
Ibid. 11. 27. Mera ταῦτά τινας τῶν πιστευόντων φησὶν “ὡς
2. Nee 4c > ND , Εἴ ον , > 2
ἔχ μέϑης ἥκοντας εἰς τὸ ἐφεστάναι αὑτοῖς, μεταχαράττειν ἐχ τῆς
~ \ , ~ \ ~ \ ~
σχιρώτης γραφῆς τὸ Ευαγγέλιον τριχῆ χαὶ τετραχῆ καὶ πολλαχῇ,
pee) , \ \ 3) ~
χαὶ μεταπλάττειν, ἵν ἔχοιεν σιρὺς τοὺς ἐλέγχους ἀρνεῖσϑαι."
. ~ ey ~ ~
Tbid. 17. 74. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὑμῖν 2 τῶν ὑμετέρων συγγραμ-
Το Pay \ ) \
μάτων ἐφ᾽ οἷς οὐδενὸς ἄλλου μάρτυρος χρήζομεν, αὐτοὶ γὰρ ξαυ-
τοῖς περιτοίστετε. 3
. ~ my ς--- Wed \ 3 ‘
Ibid. V. 56. Εἴτα ἑξῆς, τὰ ἀμιχτα καὶ ἀνόμοια μιγνὺς καὶ
2 ~ γλλήλ, τ΄ > ph apa Lie \ ~ (ὦ 5 9 Bn
ἑξομοιῶν ἀλλήλοις, Emipeger τῷ περι τῶν (ὡς φησι) χαταβεβη-
χό ξξύχοντα ἢ ἑβδομήχοντα ἀγγέλων λόγι 1g ϑερμῶ ὶ
χότων ἑξήχοντα ἢ ἑβδομήχοντα ἀγγέ v λόγῳ πηγὰς ϑερμῶν κατὰ
Ν \ iy c \ \ \ ~ ~? ~ , «
αὐτὸν δαχρυσάντων, ὅτι καὶ “πιρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ [ησοῦ τάφον ἱστόρ-
Ns 3 Q/ [4 ,, \ ww” ν Ὁ , iY T4395
ἡνται ἐληλυϑέναι ὑτιό τινῶν μὲν ἀγγξλοι OVO, ὑπτό τινων δὲ εἷς.
͵ Ξ ’
3 / ~ \ \ τ’ Ἱ «
Οὐχ, οἶμαι, τηρήσας Π]ατϑαῖον μὲν χαὶ Παρχον ἕνα ἱστορηχέναι,
~ \ Nae . 2 3
Aovrty δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην δύο" veg οὐχ ἣν ἐναντία. Ot μὲν γὰρ
2 Σ \ , ΕΝ ~
ἀναγράψαντες ἕνα, τὸν ἀποχυλίσαντα τὸν λίϑον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου
- 5 \ \ ~
τοῦτόν φασιν εἶναι" ot δὲ τοὺς δύο, τοὺς ἐπιστάντας ἐν ἐσϑῆτι
- \ ~ ὌΝ
ἀστραπτούσῃ ταῖς γενομέναις ἐπτὶ μνημεῖον γυναιξὶν, ἢ τοὺς ϑεω-
ρηϑέντας ἔνδον ἐν λευκοῖς χαϑεζομένους.
I. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Ὁ , ‘ ~
Origen c. Celsum, I. 28. Ἐπεὶ δὲ χαὶ προσωποττιοιεῖ, τρόπον
τινὰ μιμησάμενος ἕν ῥήτορος σταιδίον εἰσαγόμενον, καὶ εἰσάγει
᾿Ιουδαῖον τιρὸς τὸν Ιησοῦν λέγοντά τινα μειραχιωδῶς, καὶ οὐδὲν
φιλοσύφου πολιᾶς ἄξιον: φέρε κατὰ δύναμιν χαὶ ταῦτα ἐξετά-
ἘΠΕ ai [ Ξ cr ἠδὲ \ C ἽΣ / ~ Tt ὃ ,
σαντὲς δεελέγξωμξεν, OTL OVOE TO AOLLOLO¥Y TAVTN tw OU ale
~ , Ν -
χιρύσωπον ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις τετήρηχε. Meta ταῦτα προσω-
~ ~ ~ ~ » ~
ποποιεῖ Ιουδαῖον αὐτῷ διαλεγόμενον τῷ Inoov, χαὶ ἐλέγχοντα
‘\ \ ~ \ ~ “
αὐτὸν σπιερὶ πολλῶν μὲν, ὡς οἴεται" σπιρῶτον δὲ, ὡς πλασαμέ-
- >) > > ~ ‘ \
vou αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκ παρϑένου γένεσιν" ὀνειδίζει δ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ ἐπὶ
2 These are the words Celsus puts into the mouth of the Jewish opponent
of Christianity; and they show that Christians regarded their sacred books as
Jews regarded theirs. (Comp. John y. 39,46.) See below quotation from II. 49,
xadta χαὶ ὑμεῖς συγγεγράφατε. Origen in reply claims to have convicted Celsus
of having put much nonsense (πολλὰ πεφλυάρηται) into the mouth of the “Jew”?
which he did not get from the writings of the Gospels. This must refer to com-
ments, not to statements, for the facts are all from the Gospels. See an exception
below, under No. VI., ‘‘Apoeryphal Narratives.”
24 *
«
a2 . TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN.
τῷ ἐχ κώμης αὐτὸν γεγονέναι ᾿Ιουδαϊχῆς, καὶ asd γυναικὸς ἐγ-
χωρίου “ai πενιχρᾶς, χαὶ χερνήτιδος. Φησὶ δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ ὑχὸ
τοῦ γήμαντος, τέχτονος τὴν τέχνην ὄντος, ἐξεῶσϑαι, ἐλεγχϑεῖσαν
ὡς μεμοιχευμένην. Εἶτα λέγει, ὡς ἐχβληϑεῖσα ὑττὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς,
χαὶ πλανωμένη ἀτίμως σχότιον ἐγέννησε τὸν Ιησοῦν" καὶ ὅτι οὗ-
τος διὰ πενίαν εἰς “Ἴγυτιτον μισϑαρνήσας" χαχεῖ δυνάμεών τι-
γων πιειραϑεὶς, ἐφ᾽ αἷς “4ἰγύτττιοι σεμνύνονται, ἐπτανῆλϑεν, ἐν
ταῖς δυνάμεσι μέγα φρονῶν, καὶ Ov αὑτὰς ϑεὸν αὑτὸν ἀνηγόρευσε.
(Mat. ii. 2.)
Tbid. I. 38. Ἔτι δὲ λαβὼν απὸ τῆς γεγραμμένης ἐν τῷ κατὰ
ἸΠανϑαῖον εὐαγγελίῳ ἱστορίας meet τοῦ εἰς “4 γυπτον ἀποδεδη-
μηκέναι τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, τοῖς μὲν παραδόξοις εἰς τοῦτο οὐχ ἐπίστευ-
σεν, OVI ὅτι ἄγγελος τοῦτο ἔχρησεν, οὔτε El τι ἡνίσσετο ὃ χατα-
λιχτὼν τὴν Ιουδαίαν ᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ ἐν “Ζἰγύπιτῳ ἐπιδημῶν: ἀνέπλασε
δέ τι ἕτερον, συγχαταϑέμενος μέν πὼς ταῖς παραδόξοις δυνά-
uso, ἃς ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐποίησεν, ἐν αἷς τοὺς πτολλοὺς ἔγεεισεν ἀχολου-
ϑεῖν αὐτῷ ὡς Χριστῷ" διαβάλλειν δ᾽ αὐτὰς βουλόμενος ὡς ἀττὸ
μαγείας καὶ ov ela δυνάμει γεγενημένας" φησὶ γὰρ αὐτὸν ox0-
τιον τραφέντα μισϑαρνήσαντα εἰς “ἴγυπτον δυνάμεών τινων στει--
ραϑέντα, ἐχεῖϑεν ἐπανελϑεῖν, ϑεὸν δι᾿ ἐχείνας τὰς δυνάμεις Ecv-
τὸν ἀναγορεύοντα. (Mat. ii. 13.)
Ibid. 1. 58. Mere ταῦτα ὃ παρὰ τῷ Kéhow ᾿Ιουδαῖος ἀντὶ
τῶν ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ Πάγων Χαλδαίους φησὶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ
λελέχϑαι χινηϑέντας ἐπὶ τῇ γενέσει αὐτοῦ ἐληλυϑέναι τεροσκυνή--
σοντας αὐτὸν ἔτι νήπιον ὡς ϑεόν" χαὶ Ηρώδῃ τῷ τετράρχῃ τοῦτο
δεδηλωχέναι" τὸν δὲ πέμψαντα, ἀτιοχτεῖναι τοὺς ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ
χρόνῳ γεγενημένους, οἰόμενον χαὶ τοῦτον ἀνελεῖν σὺν αὐτοῖς" μή
σιως, τὸν αὐτάρχη ἐπιβιώσας χρόνον βασιλεύσῃ. Ὅρα οὖν ἐν
τούτῳ τὸ παράχουσμα τοῦ μὴ διαχρίνοντος Mayovg Χαλδαίων,
μηδὲ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας διαφόρους οὔσας αὐτῶν ϑεωρήσαντος, χαὶ
διὰ τοῦτο χαταψευσαμένου τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς γραφῆς. Οὐκ οἶδα δ᾽
ὅπως “al τὸ κινῆσαν τοὺς Mayovg σεσιώτιηχε, χαὶ οὐχ εἶπεν
αὐτὸ εἶναι ἀστέρα ὀφϑέντα bx? αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, χατὰ τὸ
γεγραμμένον. (Mat. ii.)
Tbid. I. 62. Merve ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐπεὶ μηδὲ τὸν ἀριϑμὸν τῶν ἄπο-
στόλων ἐπιστάμενος δέκα εἶπτεν ἢ ἕνδεχά τινας ἐξαρτησάμενον
τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἑαυτῷ ἐπιῤῥήτους ἀνϑρώπους, τελώνας χαὶ ναύτας
τοὺς πονηροτάτους, μετὰ τούτων THE χαχεῖσε αὐτὸν ἀποδεδρα-
CELSUS.- 373
, γ - , ,
κέναι αἰσχρῶς χαὶ γλίσχρως τροφὰς συνάγοντα. Φέρε καὶ περὶ
΄ \ \ ~
τούτων, χατὰ TO Ovvator, διαλάβωμεν" φανερὸν δέ ἐστι τοῖς ἐν-
, P } > rehu ~ λό a δ᾽ 2 ἘΞ: 5 Κλ
τυγχάνουσιν εὐαγγελιχοῖς λόγοις, οὖς οὐδ᾽ ἀνεγνωχέναι ὃ Κέλσος
, ca 3 2 -
φαίνεται, ὅτι δώδεχα ἀποστόλους ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐπελέξατο, χκ-τ.Δ. (Mat.
x. 1, &. Also Mark iii. 14; Luke vi. 13, &c.)
5 2 \ ~ 2 - \ -
- Ibid. 1. 00. Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις ξξῆς ὃ ᾿Ιουδαῖος πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν
παρὰ τῷ Κέλσῳ λέγει" “ti δὲ χαί σε νήπιον ἔτι ἐχρῆν εἰς 41-
2 Ihe ‘ 2 - \ 2 DAN ay
γυπτον ἕχχομίζεσϑαι; μὴ ἀποσφαγῇῆς; Θεὸν γὰρ οὐχ εἰχὸς ἦν
\ , ; > DY 53} erg > ~
περὶ ϑανάτου δεδιέναι. ..1λλ: ἄγγελος μὲν ἧχεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, κε-
λεύων σοι χαὶ τοῖς σοῖς οἰχείοις φεύγειν, μὴ ἐγχαταληφϑέντες
2 /
ἀποϑάνητε. Φυλάσσειν δέ σε αὐτόϑι ὃ δύο ἤδη διά σὲ πεπομ-
Ν 3 , c , \ Ν ” any 2) Ύ Ψ 4"
φῶς ἀγγέλους, ὃ μέγας Θεὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν, οὐχ ἐδύνατο;
(Mat. ii.)
- ~ ~ U 3 Ν
᾿, Ibid. IL. 24. ‘Eig δὲ τούτοις ϑέλων τταραστῆσαι ὅτι ἀλγεινὰ
> es ᾿ aes τ 5
χαὶ ἀνιαρὰ ἣν τὰ συμβάντα αὐτῷ" χαὶ ὅτι οὐχ οἷόν TE Ty βου-
ΥΣ - =) > \ ~ 3
ληϑέντα αὑτὸν ποιῆσαι εἶναι αὐτὰ μὴ τοιαῦτα, λέγει. “τί οὖν
- 2 \ en 2
σποτνιᾶται, LOL ὀδύρεται, χαὶ TOY τοῦ ὀλέϑρου φόβον εὔχεται πα-
ραδραμεῖν, λέγων ὡδέ πως ὦ πάτερ εἰ δύναται τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο
παρελϑεῖν." (Mat. xxvi. 39.)— Καὶ ἔν τούτοις δὲ ὅρα τὸ τοῦ
~ 2 \ \ ~
Kéhoov χαχοῦργον ... οὐχέτι δὲ χαὶ τὸ αὐτόϑεν ἐμφαῖνον τὴν
POS τὸν πατέρα εὐσέβειαν αὐτοῦ zai μεγαλοψυχίαν, ἑξῆς τούτῳ
2 ς \
ἀναγεγραμμένον παρατίϑεται, οὕτως ἔχον. “πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ
> ς .
θέλω, add” ὡς ov.” (Mat. xxvi. 39.)
- Ibid. If. 45. Πρόσχες δὲ χαὶ τῷ ἐπιττολαίῳ τοῦ περὶ τῶν
~ ~ ἊΣ 5“ =n
τότε μαϑητῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ λόγου ἐν ᾧ φησιν" “εἶτα ot μὲν τότε ζῶντι
~ ~ ~ 2 -
αὐτῷ συνόντες, χαὶ τῆς φωνῆς ἐπαχούοντες αὐτοῦ, χαὶ διδασχάλῳ
- Pe} ~ a Ε ,
χρώμενοι, χολαζόμενον χαὶ ἀποϑνήσχοντα δρῶντες, οὔτε συνατιέ-
> ~ > ~
Savoy, οὔτε ὑπεραπέϑανον αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ χολάσεων καταφρονεῖν
> , 3) x ne, , Ἂ Ὰ - ἈΝ τς ~
ἐπείσθησαν: ἀλλὰ χαὶ novyoavto εἰναι μαϑηταί" νῦν δὲ ὑμεῖς
αὐτῷ συναττοϑνήσχετε." (Mat. xxvi. 56.)
. 5 ~ ~ δ.
Τά. VI.16. Mere ταῦτα τὴν χατὰ τῶν πλουσίων ἀπόφασιν
~ 2 - υ / (44 3 / ΝΕ / > ~ ὃ Ἂν ,
τοῦ ]ησοῦ εἰπόντος, ““εὐχοττώτερον χάμηλον εἰσελϑεῖν διὰ τρυτίη-
ς 32 - ~
ματος ῥαφίδος, 1 πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ," φησὶν
>» τὸν τ δν , > ~ ~) ~ , \
ἄντιχρυς ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος εἰρῆσϑαι, τοῦ Inoot παραφϑείραντος τὸ
τε τὶ > By)
Πλατωνιχὸν, ἐν οἷς eimey ὃ Πλάτων" ὅτι “ἀγαϑὸν ὄντα διαφε-
, \ , a] Pee. 10 , 4) , δ᾽ -
ρόντως, χαὶ πλούσιον εἶναι διαφερόντως, ἀδύνατον." Τίς δ᾽ οὐχ
Ξ ~ , ν᾿ ,
ἂν, καὶ μετρίως ἐφιστάνειν τοῖς πράγμασι δυνάμενος, τὸν Κέλ-
- ~ ) ~ /, > Ν Ν -
σον γελάσαι, οὐ τῶν πιστευόντων τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ μόνον, ἀλλὰ χαὶ τῶν
374 TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN.
~ > > ~ 3
λοιπῶν ἀγνϑρώπων, ἀχούων ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς 0 παρὰ Ιουδαίοις γεγεν-
0 ᾽ ᾿ ¢
, ἣν > , Ν \ ~ , \
νημένος χαὶ ἀνατεϑραμμένος, καὶ Iwonp τοῦ τέκτονος νομισϑεὶς
5 εν \ A , \ 2 , NEG ,
EVOL υἱὸς, χαὶ μηδὲ γράμματα μεμαϑηχὼς, οὐ μόνον τὰ EhAn-
> > \ ~
vor, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τὰ “Ἑβραίων, ὅπερ χαὶ at φιλαλήϑεις μαρτυροῦσι
- Ν γ \ 2 ‘ ~
γραφαὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν, ἀνέγνω Πλάτωνα" xai ἀρεσϑεὶς τῇ τιερὶὲ
~ γ ~ - C ΟΣ
tov σπιλουσίων ἀποφαινομένη αὐτοῦ λέξει, ὡς “αδινατόν ἐστιν
2 \ τ By) UN
ἀγαϑὸν εἶναι διαφερόντως χαὶ πλούσιον," παρέφϑειρεν αὐτὴν, χαὶ
AY c ,
σπιεητοίηχε τὸ, “εὐχοπώτερον χάμηλον διὰ τρυπύματος ῥαφίδος
γ - ὌΝ Ν - ~ > A Ἁ
εἰσελϑεῖν, 1) πλούσιον εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ;" Εἰ δὲ μὴ
Ν ~ ~ \ 2 , \ ~ ’ ,
μετὰ τοῦ μισεῖν χαὶ ἀπεχϑάνεσϑαι ἐντυχὼν τοῖς Ευαγγελίοις,
x - ees ~
φιλαλήϑης ἣν ὃ Kéhoog, ἐπέστησεν, x.t.A. (Mat. xix. 24; xiii. 55.)
IV. MARK AND LUKE.
. , o~ 2 -« 2 ~
Origen c. Celsum, I. 41. Ἔστι δ᾽ ὃ ᾿Ιουδαῖος αὐτῷ eu ταῦτα
, \ a ~ Γ΄ - > ~
λέγων, πρὸς ὃν ὁμολογοῦμεν εἶναι Κύριον ἡμῶν, τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν"
ΓΟ. a 5) a7
“λουιομένῳ, φησὶ, σοὶ παρὰ τῷ Ιωάννῃ φάσμα ὕρνιϑος ἐξ ἀέρος
, Ψ - ΓῚ Ἐ , Cc d > Ὡς ΤᾺ -7ὔ
λέγεις énintyva.” Εἴτα πυνϑανόμενος ὃ παρ αὐτῷ Lovdaiog
~ To ἂν \ ὌΝ , 2
φησι" “tig τοῦτο εἶδεν ἀξιόχρεως μάρτυς τὸ φάσμα; ἢ τίς ἤχου-
3) > ~ ~ ’ ΟἿΆ, - ~ \ qc \
σεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ φωνῆς εἰσποιούσης σὲ υἱὸν τῷ Θεῷ, πλὴν ὅτι σὺ
φὴς, χαί τινα ἕνα ἐπάγῃ τῶν μετά σου χεχολασμένων;" (Mat.
ili. 16; Mark i. 10; Luke iii. 22.)
- > \ ι sc 5 > ,
- Ibid. I. 63. Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ἐτιιῤῥήτους εἶσιεν ἀνθρώπους τελώ-
͵ >
νας χαὶ ναύτας πονηροτάτους λέγων ὃ Kéhoog τοὺς ἀποστόλους
> -: \ ν ᾿ ,
]ησοῦ, χαὶ περὶ τούτου φήσομεν" ὅτι ἔοιχεν, ἵνα μὲν ἐγκαλέσῃ
ἐν, , / cr , ~ , \ \
τῷ λόγῳ, πιστεύειν Orov ϑέλει τοῖς γεγραμμένοις, ἵνα δὲ τὴν
/ ~ ~ >
ἐμφαινομένην ϑειότητα ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς βιβλίοις ατταγγελλομένην
Ν / 2) ~ ~ > , , \ /
μὴ παραδέξηται, ἀπιστεῖν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις" δέον τὸ φιλάληϑες
/ ~ ~ ~ ~
ἰδόντα τῶν γραψάντων, ἐκ τῆς περὲ τῶν χειρόνων ἀναγραφῆς
πιστεῦσαι χαὶ περὶ τῶν ϑειοτέρων. Γέγρατιται δὴ ἐν τῇ Βαρνάβα
- - \ 3 >
χαϑολιχῇ ἐπιστολῇ (ὅϑεν ὃ Κέλσος λαβὼν τάχα εἶπεν εἶναι ἐπιῤ-
τὰ \ \
ONTOS xaL πονηροτάτους τοὺς ἀποστόλους) ὅτι ἐξελέξατο τοὺς
᾽ς > 7 - ‘ ~ >
ἰδίους ἀποστόλους ᾿Ιησοῦς, ὄντας ὑπιὲρ πᾶσαν ἀνομίαν ἀνομωτέ-
\ ~ > \ ~ \ ~ \
ρους. Καὶ ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ δὲ τῷ χατὰ “ουχᾶν φησι πρὸς τὸν
2 ~ Cc , »” 3 ~ ?
Ἰησοῦν ὁ Πέτρος" ““ἔξελϑε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ὅτι ἀνὴρ ἁμαρτωλός εἰμι,
,
Κυριε." (Luke v. 8.)
* Ibid. IT. 18. Ἕξῃς δὲ τούτῳ nai ἄλλο εὔηϑές φησιν ὃ παρὰ
~ , 2 - cr ~ ~ ‘ BY
τῷ Κέλσῳ Ιουδαῖος, ὅτι “πῶς, εἴπερ προεῖτιε χαὶ τὸν προδώ-
\ Ἂς > , d >)
σοντὰ χαὶ τὸν ἀρνησόμενον, οὐκ ἂν ὡς ϑεὸν ἐφοβήϑησαν, ὡς τὸν
CELSUS. 375
μὲν μὴ προδοῦναι ἔτι, TOY δὲ μὴ ἀρνήσασϑαι;" (Luke ix. 44;
Mark ix. 31.)
. 2 ~ a) ~ \ \ \
* Ibid. IT. 32. Ἐγχαλῶν δὲ τῇ γενεαλογίᾳ, τὰ μὲν χαὶ παρὰ
r ~ , \ Cc / Cc
“Χριστιανοῖς ζητούμενα, χαὶ ὑπό τινων ὡς ἐγκλήματα προσαγό-
~ U ~ ~ > ~ , A
μενα TH διαφωνίᾳ τῶν γενεαλογιῶν, οὐδαμῶς ὠνόμασεν. Ov γὰρ
2 ς ς > ~ 2 \ , ,
ἤδει ὃ ὡς adidas ἀλαζὼν Κέλσος nai ἐπαγγελλόμενος εἰδέναι
γ:. ἘΠῚ r ~ , wa ae ~ ~ ~ ΠΝ
πάντα τὰ Χριστιανῶν, φρονίμως ἑπαπορῆσαι τῇ γραφῇ. Φησὶ
\ ~ \ , \ ~ ,
δὲ ἀπηυϑαδῆσϑαι τοὺς γενεαλογήσαντας ad τοῦ σιρώτου φύντος
\ ~ > 2 , ζ , \ 3 ~ ran AN ΒΩ , ’
nat tov ἐν Ἰουδαίοις βασιλέων τὸν Inooty. Καὶ οἴεταί τι εἰσ-
~ ’ 2 - A ,
φέρειν γενναῖον, ὅτι “ove ἂν ἣ τοῦ τέχτονος γυνὴ τηλικούτου γέ-
, > Fs one 3
voug τυγχανουσα nyvoe.” (Luke iii.; Mat. i.)
» Ibid. 11. 48. Καὶ viv δέ φησιν οἱονεὶ ἡμᾶς ατιοχρίνασϑαι,
cr \ re ΑἹ , ΡΟΝ, i CN ~ “>? \ ‘
ὅτι διὰ τοῦτ ἐνομίσαμεν αὐτὸν εἰναι υἱὸν Θεοῦ, “ ἐπεὶ χωλοὺς
χαὶ τυφλοὺς ἐθεράπευσε." Προστίϑησι δὲ χαὶ τό" “ὡς ὑμεῖς
> - . -
φατε, ἀνίστη νεχρούς." (Mat. xi. 5; Luke iv. 18.)
. ~ υ \ oo) \ \ \
* Thid. 11.59. Οἴεται δὲ τερατείαν εἶναι χαὶ τὸν σεισμὸν χαὶ
τὸν σχότον, ττξρὶ ὧν, κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν, ἐν τοῖς ἀνωτέρω ἀπελογ-
ησάμεϑα, παραϑέμενοι τὸν λέγοντα, ἱστορήσαντα xara τὸν
~ ~ ~ ~ ) \
χρόνον τοῦ πάϑους tov Σωτῆρος τοιαῦτα ἀπηντηχέναι" “xed ὅτι
- 2 , « - \ > 2 -
ζῶν μὲν οὐχ ἐπήρχεσεν ἑαυτῷ, νεκρὸς δ᾽ ἀνέστη" καὶ τὰ σημεῖα
~ / I/y bad Cc ~ \ \ ~ c
τῆς κολάσεως ἔδειξεν 0 Ιησοῦς, καὶ τὰς χεῖρας, ὡς ἦσαν πιεπερο-
, ” Fg? Cem : , > \ \ > \ ~ ) ,
γημέναι." ... Eid ἑξξὴῆς tovroig εἰπτὼν ta azo tov Evayyehiov
~ ~ 7 - 2 \ ~ \
ὅτι τὰ σημεῖα τῆς κολάσεως ἔδειξεν ἀναστὰς ἐκ νεχρῶν, καὶ τὰς
- ai \ ~
χεῖρας ὡς ἦσαν στεττερονημέναι, πυνϑάνεται, καὶ λέγει" “τίς τοῦτο
εἶδε;" καὶ τὰ περὶ Magiag τῆς ΠΠ]αγδαληνῆς διαβάλλων, ἀναγρα-
=i \
φομένης ξωραχέναι, eine’ “γυνὴ πάροιστρος, ὡς φατέ." Kai
\ 2 )
ἐπεὶ μὴ μόνη αὕτη ἀναγέγραπται ἑἕωραχέναι ἀναστάντα τὸν ‘In-
~ 2 Ν Ἂ 176 \ ~ ~ ς , 2 - b
σοῦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ahdow χαὶ ταῦτα καχηγορῶν ὁ Κέλσου Ιουδαϊὸς
, / ~ ~ > ~ ,
φησι, “nal εἴ τις ἄλλος τῶν ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς γοητείας." (John xx.
27; Mark xvi. 8.)
. ~ 2 2
Ibid. ID. 63. Mera ταῦτα ὃ Κέλσος, οὐκ εὐχαταφρονήτως
~ \ ! ~ ΒΩ a»
τὰ γεγραμμένα καχολογῶν, φησὶν, ὅτι “ἐχρῆν, εἴχτερ ὕντως ϑείαν
- 2 ~ δ ὦ - - ,
δύναμιν ἐχφῆναιν ἤϑελεν ὃ Ιησοῦς, αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐπηρεάσασι, χαὶ
- U ~ ? ~
τῷ χαταδικάσαντι, χαὶ ὅλως πᾶσιν οφϑῆναι."
Vv. JOHN.
. - To τ ,
Origen c. Celsum, I. 50. Καὶ οὐχ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως βουλόμενος καὶ
- Ν - U 4) ΄ «
ἑτέροις περιϑεῖναι τὸ δύνασϑαι ὑπονοεῖσϑαι, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἦσαν οἱ
376 TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN.
, \ c (a4 « ἊΝ ἊΣ ~ « δὲ 2 ’
σχεροφητευϑέντες, φησὶν, ore “οἱ μὲν ἐνϑουσιῶντες, οἱ δὲ ἀγειρον-
τες, φασὶν ἥχειν ἄνωϑεν υἱὸν Θεοῦ." (John iii. 81; viii. 28.)
. ~ ~ 3 -
- Ibid. 1. 67. Mere ταῦτά φησιν ὃ παρὰ τῷ Κέλσῳ Τουδαῖος,
\ a c
ὡς φιλομαϑής τις Ἕλλην, χαὶ τὰ “Ελλήνων πιεπαιδευμένος, ove “ot
μὲν παλαιοὶ μῦϑοι Περσεῖ, χαὶ “Auton, καὶ Aianp, καὶ Mivwt
ϑείαν σπορὰν νείμαντες, οὐδ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἐπιστεύσαμεν" ὅμως ἐπέ-
ξ « - a” 7 ον ὦ \ ) Oo. c \ a
δειξαν ξαυτῶν goya μεγάλα καὶ ϑαυμαστὰ, αληϑῶς te ὑπὲρ av-
Y ~ \ \ \ ὌΝ
ϑρώτσιον, ἵνα μὴ ἀπίϑανοι δοχῶσι" σὺ δὲ δὴ τί καλὸν ἢ ϑαυμά-
σιον ἔργῳ ἢ λόγῳ πεποίηχας; ἡμῖν οὐδὲν ἐπεδείξω-" καίτοι 7@0-
καλουμένων ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ σε “ταρασχέσϑαι τι ἐναργὲς γνώρισμα,
ὡς εἴης ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ παῖς." (John ii. 18; x. 24; Mat. xxi. 23.)
- Ibid. I. 70. Aéyee δ᾽ ὅτι “οὐδὲ τοιαῦτα σιτεῖται σῶμα
- ΄, \ ~ \ ~ > ~
Θεοῦ" ὡς ἔχων αὐτὸν παραστῆσαι ἀπὸ τῶν Εὐαγγελιχῶν γραμ-
~ 2 >
μάτων σιτούμενον, καὶ oie σιτούμενον. “AAW ἔστω, λεγέτω ad-
\ ~ ~ \ >
τὸν βεβρωχέναι μετὰ τῶν μαϑητῶν τὸ πάσχα, οὐ μόνον εἰσιόντα
- - 2 ~
τό" “ἐπιϑυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν μεϑ᾽ ὑμῶν"
2 \ \ , , > 3): ΤῸΝ \ , \ -
αλλὰ χαὶ βεβρωχότα. Aeyétw δ᾽ αὐτὸν χαὶ διψψήσαντα πῦρ τῇ
-- - Ἂν ~ Ἂν Ν \ ~
myn tov Ιαχὼβ πεστωχέναι, τί τοῦτο πρὸς τὰ περὶ τοῦ σώματος
2 - 3 - ~ \ sy
αὐτοῦ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν λεγόμενα; Σαφῶς δὲ φαίνεται ἰχϑύος μετὰ τὴν
γ , \ ~ ~ > ς /
avaotaow βεβρωχώς" χατὰ yao ἡμᾶς σῶμα ἀνείληφεν, ὡς γενό-
2 2) ~ ~ ~
μενος ἐκ γυναιχός. “AAW οὐδὲ σῶμα," φησὶ, “Θεοῦ χρῆται
- 2 \ ~ ~ ee .
τοιαύτῃ φωνῇ, οὐδὲ τοιᾷδε wevdot.” (Luke xxii. 15; John iv. 6;
ΧΧΙ 192)
᾿ Ibid. 11. 81. Meta ταῦτα Χριστιανοῖς ἐγχαλεῖ, “ὡς σοφι-
4 , > ~ , \ τὰν ~ tea} 2) , ” \
ζομένοις ev τῷ λέγειν τὸν υἱὸν tov Θεοῦ εἶναι αὐτολόγον," καὶ
vw” , Py Ne. - > \ (ςς ’ γ Ψ, cy
OLETAL YE Ἀρατύνξιν TO éyzAnuc’ EsvEel “λόγον ἐπαγγελλόμενοι υἱὸν
Ύ ~ ~ 3 , 2 , \ ἣν ΕΝ 3) \
είναι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀποδείχνυμεν ov λόγον χαϑαρὸν χαὶ ἅγιον, ἀλλὰ
v a / > , 2) , =)
avIQumoyv ἀτιμότατον ἀπαχϑέντα ἀποτυμτιανισϑέντα. (John i.)
. 3
: Ibid. IT. 36. Eive φησιν ὃ Kéhoog: “τί xai ἀνασκολοτιιζο-
~ ~ Te ς
μένου τοῦ σώματος ποῖος ἰχὼρ, οἷός περ TE δέει μαχάρεσσι ϑε-
οἵσιν;" (John xix. 34.)
Ibid. IT. 49. Ὃ δὲ Κέλσος, κοινοποιῆσαι βουλόμενος τὰ τερ-
, ~ 3) ~ Ν 2) > ~
cote tov Inoov πρὸς τὴν ἐν ἀνϑρώποις γοητείαν, φησὶν αὐταῖς
\ τ > = is τ Ν
λέξεσιν. Ὦ φῶς nai ἀλήϑειαδ, τῇ αὐτοῦ φωνῇ διαῤῥήδην ἐξ-
αγορεύει, nada χαὶ ὑμεῖς συγγεγράφατε διότι παρέσονται ὑμῖν χαὶ
8 The exclamation Ὦ φῶς χαὶ ἀλήθεια is by some supposed to take up the
leading words of John’s Gospel—John i. 9, ὅσ.
CELSUS. 377
Uy ~
ἕτεροι δυνάμεσιν ὁμοίαις χρώμενοι χαχοὶ χαὶ γοήτες" χαὶ σατανᾶν
τινα τοιαῦτα “ταραμηχαγώμενον ὀνομάζει. (Mat. xxiv. 23, &c.)
VI. APOCRYPHAL NARRATIVES.
Origen c. Celsum, I. 28. (See before, p. 371.)
. ς 3 ~
Ibid. I. 82. ᾿Αλλὰ γὰρ ἐπανέλϑωμεν εἰς τὴν τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαίου
προσωποτιοιΐαν, ἐν i) ἀναγέγραπται ἢ τοῦ Ιησοῦ μήτηρ χύουσα
ς - - \ ~
ὡς ἐξωϑθεῖσα ὑττὸ τοῦ μνηστευσαμένου αὐτὴν τέχτονος ἐλεχϑεῖσα
’ >
ἐπὶ μοιχείᾳ, χαὶ τίχτουσα ἀπό τινος στρατιώτου Πανϑήρα τοῦὔ-
Nie, ? "
γομα" χαὶ ἴδωμεν, εἰ μὴ τυφλῶς οἱ μυϑοσιοιήσαντες τὴν μοιχείαν
~ , \ ~ , >) ,
τῆς παρϑένου χαὶ τοῦ Πανϑήρα, χαὶ τὸν τέχτονα ἐξωσάμενον
2 ~ > ~ .
αὐτὴν, ταῦτα πάντα ἀνέπλασαν ἐπὶ χαϑαιρέσει τῆς τταραδόξου
> Nea P U ,
amo ἁγίου Πνεύματος συλλήψεως.
Vil. THE EPISTLES.®
Origen c. Celsum, I. 9. Φησὶ δὲ “τινὰς μηδὲ βουλομένους
3 ice ~ ~
διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν λόγον σπιερὶ ὧν πιστεύουσι, χρῆσϑαι τῷ, My
>
ἐξέταζε, ἀλλὰ πίστευσον: χαί: Ἢ πίστις σου σώσει σέ." Kat
2 \ , \ Cc 2 ~ 4 , 2 \ pats
φησιν αὑτοὺς λέγειν: Καχὸν ἢ ἐν τῷ βίῳ σοφία, ayator ὃ ἢ
gewoia. (1 Pet. iii. 15; 1 Cor. iii. 19.)
. cs
Ibid. V. 64. (AAW οὗτος, 6 πάντ᾽ εἰδέναι. ἐπαγγελλόμενος,
‘ ~ > ~
χαὶ τοιαῦτά φησι" “πάντων dé” φησιν, “αχούσῃ τῶν ἐπὶ τοσού-
Tov διεστηχότων, χαὶ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ταῖς ἔρισιν αἴσχιστα διελεγ--
χόντων, λεγόντων τὸ, ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται, χἀγὼ τῷ
~ > X ~
χόσμῳ᾽ τοῦτο γὰρ μόνον ἀπὸ τοῦ Παύλου ἔοιχε μεμνημονευχέ-
yar ὃ Κέλσος. (Gal. vi. 14.)
Ibid. VI. 12. M6 μεταβαίνωμεν ἐπ᾽ ἄλλην Κέλσου κατηγο-
b f
, or ‘ ᾽" ς ~ ov 2 3) Ὁ. Ps me)
ρίαν, οὐδὲ tag λέξεις ἡμῶν εἰδότος, αλλ ἔκ παραχουσματίων
᾿ =)
φήσαντος, ὅτι “φαμὲν τὴν ἐν ἀνϑρώποις σοφίαν μωρίαν εἶναι
παρὰ Θεῷ"" τοῦ Παύλου λέγοντος, “ σοφία τοῦ κόσμου μωρία
‘ ~ » ”. , ς , c Tans , ΠΝ Ε \
παρὰ Θεῷ ἐστι" καί φησιν ὃ Κέλσος, ὅτι “ἣ τούτου αἰτία χαὶ
πάλαι εἴρηται." οἴεται δὲ αἰτίαν εἶναι τὸ βούλεσϑαι ἡμᾶς διὰ
4 See before, Note on II. 74. Those references to the birth and childhood
of Jesus are the only Apocryphal additions to the Evangelical record made by
Celsus.
5 Celsus, as dealing with the historical basis of Christianity and with the
Person of its founder, did not study the Epistles: but he seems to have read
them, or some of them.
Ὁ >} x4
378 TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN.
Paes stays nee Nan Srane woh nAeDtor ,
τῆς λέξεως ταύτης τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτους χαὶ ἡλιϑίους προσαγεσϑαι
μόνους. (1 Cor. iii. 19.)
> am > ~
Ibid. VI. 42. “Ἑξῆς δὲ τούτοις ἀπὸ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς ὃ Κέλσος
i ~ αν : Jet oe « , V ha ” \
τοιαῦτα φησι zat ἡμῶν, “σφάλλονται δὲ ἀσεβέστατα, ALTA χαὶ
Ν 3)
περὶ τήνδε τὴν μεγίστην ἄγνοιαν ὁμοίως ἀπὸ ϑείων αἰνιγμάτων
σιετιλανημένην, ποιοῦντες τῷ Θεῷ ἐναντίον τινὰ, διαβολόν τὲ not
~ B) Se 3 ‘ 35
γλώττῃ ᾿Ἑβραίᾳ Σατανᾶν ὀνομαζοντὲς τὸν αὐτόν. ᾿“λλως μὲν οὖν
~ \ ~ \ I® U
χαντελῶς ϑνητὰ ταῦτα, χαὶ οὐδ᾽ ὅσια λέγειν, ὅτι δὴ ὃ μέγιστος
2 2 - \ >
Θεὸς, βουλόμενός τι ἀνθρώποις ὠφελῆσαι, τὸν ἀντιτεράσσοντα
yy Io ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~
ἔχει, χαὶ ἀδυνατεῖ. Ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ παῖς ἄρα ἣττᾶται ὑπὸ τοῦ δια-
΄ > Ν -ὔ [4 2 2 - va? Ay Gs ~ ~ ς x
βόλου" χαὶ χολαζόμενος ὑττ αὐτοῦ, διδάσχει καὶ ἡμᾶς τῶν ὑπὸ
τούτου χολάσεων χαταφρονεῖν, “τἀαραγορεύων, ὡς ἄρα ὃ Σατανᾶς
Ν 2 \ δ - ,
καὶ αὐτὸς ὁμοίως φανεὶς ἐπιδείξεται μεγάλα Zoya καὶ ϑαυμαστὰ,
\ ~ ~ = 7 -
σφετεριζόμενος τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δόξαν" οἷς οὐ χρῆναι προσέχειν βου-
ληϑέντας ἀποτρέτιεσϑαι ἐχεῖνον, ἀλλὰ μόνῳ πιστεύειν ξαυτῷ.
- ’ , ~
Ταῦτα μέν γέ ἐστιν ἄντιχρυς ἀνϑρώπου γόητος, ἐργολαβοῦντος
\ Ν ) »,ὄζΠ- t Ν >? ,
χαὶ προφυλαττομένου τοὺς avtidogovrtag τε καὶ ἀνταγείροντας. ”
(2 Thess. ii. 4, &c.)
. 2 τ -
Ibid. VILL. 24. Ἴδωμεν δὲ οἷς χρῆται ὃ Κέλσος λόγοις, περο-
τρέπων ἡμᾶς esl τὴν χρῆσιν τῶν εἰδωλοϑύτων, καὶ τὰς δημοτε-
- - a , ~
λεῖς ἐν δημοτελέσιν ἑορταῖς ϑυσίας. “4 δὲ λέγει, τοιαῦτά ἔστιν,
“et μὲν οὐδὲν ταῦτα ἐστι τὰ εἴδωλα, τί δεινὸν κοινωνῆσαι τῆς
, > 2 eal , , \ τ δ
χιανϑοινίας; 8ὃὲ O εἰσί τινὲς δαίμονες, δηλονότι καὶ οὗτοι τοῦ
- Te \
Θεοῦ εἰσιν, οἷς καὶ πιστευτέον καὶ χαλλιερητέον KATA νόμους καὶ
, Oy 2 - x r 2 - ,
προσευχτέον, ἵν᾿ εὐμενεῖς ὦσι." Χρήσιμον δ᾽ εἰς ταῦτα ὅλον τὸν
A υ , / 9 / Ν ~ , > ~
σιερὶ εἰδωλοϑύτων λόγον, εἰρημένον maga τῷ Παύλῳ ἐν τῇ προ-
, \ K Gl °F. An λ 9 ~ τῇ - ie x σ
τέρᾳ πρὸς Κορινϑίους Ἐπιστολῇ λαβεῖν εἰς χεῖρας καὶ σαφηνίσαι.
(1 Cor. viii. 4-11.)
11. Porpnyry.!
Eus. H. E. ΥἹ. 19. Ti δεῖ ταῦτα λέγειν. ὅτε καὶ ὃ καϑ᾽ ἡμᾶς
ἐν Σιχελίᾳ καταστὰς Πορφύριος, συγγράμματα χαϑ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐνστη-
1 Jerome, Ep. LXX. Ad Magnum Oratorem Romanum (Vallars. Vol. I. 425),
says: “ Seripserunt contra nos Celsus atque Porphyrius: priori Origenes, alter Metho-
dius, Husebius et ApoWinarius fortissime responderunt. Quorum Origenes octo seripsit
libros. Methodius usque ad decem millia procedit versuum. Eusebius et Apollinarius
viginti quinque, et triginta volumina condiderunt.” Porphyry was a native of Tyre,
or, as some say, of Batanea (Bashan) in Syria, whence the name “ Bataneotes.”’
CELSUS AND PORPHYRY. 379
, a e A > 3} ~ ow { , ‘ ,
σάμενος" καὶ Or αὐτῶν tag ϑείας γραφὰς διαβάλλειν σιεττειρα-
2s “ Ἢ > + “i Ne, ΄ ᾿ 'Yy ’ 5 ν 4) M , Ἴ
μένος, τῶν τε εἰς αὐτὰς ἐξηγησαμένων μνημονεύσας, μηδὲν μηδα-
De «(αῖλον éyzdrua τοῖς δόγμασιν ἐπιβαλεῖν δυνηϑεὶς, azvoel
μῶς φαῦλον ἑγχλημα τοῖς δόγμασιν ἐπιβαλεῖν δυνηϑεὶς, ἀπορίᾳ
, ’ ἮΝ - Ν - \ ν
λόγων, et τὸ λοιδορεῖν τρέπεται, καὶ τοὺς ἐξηγητὰς διαβάλλειν,
it , > ,
ὧν μάλιστα τὸν Qoryevyy;
12. Census ann Porpnyry.
Chrysost. Homil. 6. in Ep. I. ad Corinth. (Tom. V. p. 58.)
~ \ +1? - -" ~
Πῶς τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον ἐξετάϑη πανταχοῦ τῆς oixovuevng; “Ικανοὶ
A 2 Ν € ας « ) c ~ ’ "Δ ὔ 4 : \ " d ,ὔ aan =a ~ ya =
δὲ χαὶ οἱ χαϑ' ἡμῶν εἰρηχότες τὴν ἀρχαιότητα μαρτυρῆσαι τοῖς
) , « \ mud: \ \ , \ ND Ὁ
βιβλίοις, οἱ weet Κέλσον χαὶ τὸν Βατανεώτην τὸν μὲν ἐχεῖνον "
> \ ~ > >? ~ >)
οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῖς μετ΄ αὐτοὺς συντεϑεῖσαν ἀντέλεγον.
He was a pupil of Origen, and flourished in the end of the third century. He
wrote a treatise against Christianity in 15 Books. There are many references to
him by Jerome in his Comment. on Galatians and elsewhere. He dwelt upon
the inconsistencies in Scripture, on the dispute between Peter and Paul (Galat. ii.),
and advanced other objections of the same kind. His friend Amelius might also
be quoted as attesting the existence of the Gospel of John. See Eus. Praep.
Evang. XI. 18. p. 539.
PART Uf.
TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
383
Tl.
TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
1. Simon Macus.!
Tren. Haer. B. I. 27. 4. (Simon the first Heretic.) Omnes,
qui quoquo modo adulterant veritatem et praeconium ecclesiae
laedunt, Simonis Samaritani Magi discipuli et successores sunt.
(See Acts viil. 9.)
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VI. 9. Οἰκητήριον δὲ λέγει εἶναι τὸν ἄν-
ϑρωπον τοῦτον τὸν ἐξ αἱμάτων γεγεννημένον, καὶ χατοι-
χεῖν ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀπιέραντον δύναμιν, ἣν ῥίζαν εἶναι τῶν ὕλων
φησίν. (John i. 13.)?
1 Simon Magus was “πὸ hero of the romance of heresy,’’ and as such
occupies a great part of the Clementine narratives. According to Irenaeus, B. 1.
23, Hippol. VI. 9. 14, &c., he was a man of great power, the framer of a
system the cardinal tenet of the cosmogony of which was the degradation of a
thought of God (Evvoia), chained by the spirits she had created, until she ap-
peared as a degraded woman. She had appeared in many female forms, among
others as Helen of Troy, and as Helena she accompanied Simon in his wander-
ings. Simon himself, as the primal Manifestation of the supreme God, had come
to set the captive ᾿Εννοία free (Iren. B. I. 23. 3). All the manifestations of God
as Father, Son, and Spirit, were only modes or δυνάμεις of the same God. Simon
was unlike other Gnostics in claiming for himself the supreme place and power.
He was τ δύναμις tod Θεοῦ ἡ μεγάλη, Acts viii. 10. Hippolytus bases his de-
scription of the system on the Scripture of the Simonians called ᾿Απόφασις με-
yan, which he regards as a genuine work of Simon. It may have originated
with his successor Menander (see Milman, Hist. of Christianity 11. 50). In the
system of Simon the Holy Ghost is female. This suggests the similar teaching in
the baptismal invocation in the Apocryphal ‘‘ Acts of Thomas,” ‘‘ Come, O Mother
of compassion; Come, O Mother who revealest hidden mysteries, that we may at-
tain to the rest which is in the Eighth Mansion.’’ So also in the ‘Gospel of
the Hebrews’ (see below), the Holy Spirit is called the Mother of Christ. The
peculiarity of Simon’s system is its subordinating Christ to the Gnostic himself.
2 It is not clear how far these words are Simon’s, and how far Hippolytus’s
own. They are preceded by an exact quotation to which the preface is λέγων οὕτως.
384 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
Ibid. VI. 10. ᾿“λλὰ περὶ τῆς ἐχχρίσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ dvaxpicews
ἱχανῶς, φησὶν, εἴρηχεν 1) γραφὴ, καὶ τιρὸς διδασχαλίαν ἀρχεῖ τοῖς
ἐξειχονισμένοις τὸ λεχϑέν: ὅτι πᾶσα σὰρξ χόρτος, καὶ
πᾶσα δόξα σαρχὸς ὡς ἄνϑος χόρτου. Ἐξηράνϑη ὃ χόρ-
τος, καὶ τὸ ἄνϑος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσε" τὸ δὲ δῆμα Κυρίου
uéver δὺο τὸν at@va. (1 Pet. i. 24, 25.)
Ibid. VI. 14. Τοῦτο ἐστὶ, φησὶ, τὸ εἰρημένον: Ἵνα μὴ σὺν
τῷ κόσμῳ καταχριϑῶμεν. (1 Cor. xi. 32.)
Ibid. VI. 16. Ἐγγὺς γάρ που, φησὶν, ἣ ἀξίνη παρὰ tas
ῥδίζας τοῦ δένδρου" πᾶν δένδρον, φησὶ, μὴ ποιοῦν καρ-
Ov χαλὸν ἐχκόπτεται καὶ εἰς wre βάλλεται. (Mat.
11. 10}
Ibid. ΥἹ. 19. To πρόβατον τὸ πεπλανημένον. (Luke xv. 6.)5
(The following may be an echo.) Ibid. VI. ὃ. Γέγονε {ιὲν
yao φησιν ὃ χαρπὸς ἵνα εἰς τὴν ἀπτοϑήχην τεϑῇ, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον
ἵνα παραδοϑῇ τῷ πυρί. (Mat. iii. 12; Luke iii. 11.
2. Cerrintuus.!
Epiph. Haer. I. t. 2. h. 28. .113. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 383.) (Con-
cerning the Cerinthians.) Χρῶνται γὰρ τῷ χατὰ Mavdatoy Ev-
αγγελίῳ ἀπὸ μέρους, χαὶ οὐχὶ ὅλῳ: ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν γενεαλογίαν
8 Compare Iren. Β.1. 23.2: Hane esse perditam ovem. The reference is to
Helena, the impersonate captive Ennoea of Simon’s system.
1 There is little known with certainty about Cerinthus. He is the traditional
opponent of the Apostle John, and is regarded as a Judaeo-Christian Gnostic.
The extracts in the text from Epiphanius are substantially confirmed by Hippol.
VII. 33, and by Irenaeus, B. 1. 26.1; B. III. 11. 1; (B. ΠῚ. 12. 7?). For some
notice of his connection with the Apocalypse in tradition and in controversy see
before, p. 343, ‘‘Caius.”’ He is not mentioned by Justin, Clem. Alex., Tertul-
lian, or Origen. He represented in Ephesus the Orientalism which regarded the
unknown as the supreme source of all, and the material world as the work of
inferior beings. He was the first noted man who confined Christ’s redeeming
work to enlightening the intellect. Ignorance, not perversity, becomes in this
view the parent of sin. He professed to derive his knowledge from angelic re-
velation. There is every reason to accept the tradition which represents John
as writing his Gospel to overthrow the errors of Cerinthus (Iren. B. III. 11. 1).
Cerinthus, though he believed that the Aeon Christ descended upon the man
Jesus at his Baptism, and ascended from Him before the crucifixion, believed
also that the crucified Jesus rose from the dead (Iren. B. I. 26.2). See Man-
sel’s Gnosticism p. 115. The picturesqueness of the idea that Cerinthus, whom
the Church regards as the chief enemy in the eye of the Fourth Evangelist, might
be, notwithstanding, the author of the Gospel, has attracted M. Renan; but except
that it is picturesque he has not much to suggest in support of it. (Renan,
L’Eglise chrétienne, p. 53.)
CERINTHUS. NAASSENES OR OPHITES. δῦ
»” \ ~
τὴν ἔνσαρκον, χαὶ ταύτην μαρτυρίαν φέρουσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ Evayye-
, / , cr 2 ~ ~ ,
λίου, παλιν λέγοντες ore .“ρχετὸν τῷ μαϑητῇ ἵνα γένηται
Γι , γυνλ ‘ ~ ~
ὡς ὃ διδάσκαλος. (Mat. x. 25.) ... Τὸν δὲ Παῦλον ἀϑετοῦσι,
διὰ τὸ μὴ σπιείϑεσϑαι τῇ περιτομῇ. “Adda καὶ ἐχβάλλουσιν av-
ἣν ΑΝ Ν , van Γ᾿ cr ’ / v ~ € ~ U
τὸν, διὰ τὸ εἰρηχέναι. Ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ διχαιοῦσϑε, τῆς χά-
4 » t , \ ch 2 \ , { r \
ριτος ἐξεεέσατε vat ow Ἐὰν περιτέμνησϑε, Χριστὸς
- 2 > ΄
ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει. (Gal. v. 4, 2.)
iid. 1.7. 2. ἢ. 30. ». 188. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 429.) (Con-
cerning the Ebionites.) Ὃ μὲν γὰρ Κήρινϑος χαὶ Kaozoxzece,
~ > ~ , ~ 2 δ - Ἢ 3. ~ ~
τῷ αὐτῷ χρώμενοι δῆϑεν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς Εὐαγγελίῳ ano τῆς ἀρχῆς
~ x ~ γ ~
tov χατὰ Mardator Εὐαγγελίου διὰ τῆς γενεαλογίας, βούλονται
σπαριστᾶν EX σπέρματος ᾿Ιωσὴφ καὶ Magiag εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν.
ig \ ~ ,
Οὗτοι δὲ ἄλλα τινὰ διανοοῦνται. Παραχόινναντες γὰρ τὰς παρὰ
τῷ πϊατϑαίῳ γενεαλογίας, ἄρχονται τὴν ἀρχὴν ττοιεῖσϑαι, ὡς τιρο-
, Jey : (a) (OR , 99) NC GeY beget Tas , Ἥ, ,
εἰσίομεν, λέγοντες ὅτι “ Ἐγένετο," φησὶν, “ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις “How-
, 2 , > ,
δου βασιλέως... ἡλϑὲ τις Ἰωαννης," κιτ.λ.3
9
3. Naassenes or Opuires.2
Hippol. Ref. Haer. V.7. (Duncker, p. 142.) Τοῦτον εἶναί φη-
2 ri A / ‘ ἣν ͵ , { Χο Ὁ Ἂν ~ τ' ~
σιν ἀγαϑὸν μόνον, καὶ περὶ τούτου λελέχϑαι TO ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος
2 See before, p. 139, extracts from Epiphanius.
1 Trenaeus names Ophites among those who came up like mushrooms (B. I.
29. 1), and regards them as fathers and mothers of the school of Valentinus
(B. I. 31. 3), and as predecessors of Valentinus (B. I. Preface). So also Hippo-
lytus (VI. 6) sets the Ophites down as progenitors of subsequent sects, and among
these he even reckons Simon Magus and his followers. They seem therefore to
belong to the first century. Hippolytus says they originally called themselves
‘‘Naassenes” from the Hebrew (22 a serpent) (V. 6), but subsequently “ Gnos-
ties,” alleging that they alone had the gift of knowledge. He says that they
used the Gospel according to the Egyptians (V. 7. p. 136), which described the
changes of the soul. He also shows at great length, and with bewildering mi-
nuteness, that the Naassenes, who falsely ascribed the origin of their system to
James the Lord’s brother through Mariamne, are really indebted for it to the
ancient ‘*mysteries’’ of Egypt and Phrygia (V. 7). There were several subdivi-
sions of the Ophite Heresies: Peratae, Cainites, Sethians, and Justinians. They
reverenced the serpent of O. T. history, whose opposition to the Creator of the
world won their respect. It is superfluous to say that they were struggling with
the old and ever new difficulty of the origin of evil, and of the connection of
human sin with the material framework of the human body. In some of them
we may see also the deification of mere intellect, for the Serpent was re-
garded as the intellectual emancipator of enslaved or imperfect man. From By-
thos or primal Light, the Father of all and the first man, went forth “Ewvoia
which produced a Son, the second man. Below those was the Holy Spirit—a
female; and from the union of Father and Son with the Spirit was produced the
25
980 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
λεγόμενον" Ti μὲ λέγεις ἀγαϑόν; εἷς ἐστὲν ἀγαϑὸς, ὃπα-
THE μου ὃ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Mat. xix. 17; Mark x. 18; Luke
xviii. 10) ὃς ἀνατέλλει τὸν ἥλιον αὑτοῦ ἐπὶ δικαίους
καὶ ἀδίκους καὶ βρέχει ἐπὶ δσίους καὶ ἐπὶ ἅἁμαρτω-
λούς. (Mat. v. 45; compare Rom. i. 20-26.)
Ibid. ¢. 8. (p. 158.) Τοῦτο, φησὶν, ἐστὶ τὸ εἰρημένον: Tagore
ἐστὲ LELOVLAMEVOL, γέμοντες, φησὶν, ~oWSEV ὀστέων VE-
χρῶν. (Mat. xxiii. 27.)
Ibid. Καὶ πάλιν, φησὶν, εἴρηχεν ὃ Sore: Οὐ πᾶς ὃ λέ-
γων μοι Κύριε, Κύριε, εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν
τῶν οὐρανῶν, GAN ὃ ποιῶν τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου
τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. (Mat. vii. 21.)
Ibid. Καὶ πάλιν, φησὶν, εἴρηχεν: Οἱ τελῶναι χαὶ αἱ
πόρναι προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρα-
νῶν. .. ἡμεῖς δὲ, φησὶν, ἐσμὲν οἱ τελῶναι, εἰς οὖς τὰ
τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντηκε. (Mat. xxi. 31; 1 Cor. x. 11.)
Ibid. (p. 160.) Τοῦτο, φησὶν, ἐστὲ τὸ εἰρημένον: Πᾶν δέν -
OQOY μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐχχόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ
βάλλεται. (Mat. iii, 10; Luke fii. 9.)
Ibid. Τουτέστιν ὃ λέγει, φησί: Mi βάλητε τὸ ἅγιον
τοῖς χυσὶ μηδὲ τοὺς μαργαρίτας τοῖς χοίροις. (Mat.
Vil. G.)?
third male—an incorruptible light—called Christ. Under those come the elements,
and eventually the Serpent, from which come directly the spirit, the soul, and
all mundane things. Those ‘endless genealogies’’ (1 Tim. i. 4) and the angel-
worship (Col. ii. 18) may show us what wild notions were afloat in Phrygia
and Asia Minor in St Paul’s day. Baur (Gnosis, pp. 118, 198) has drawn atten-
tion to the importance of the subdivisions of the Ophites,—all of them aiming
at the development of the true principles which had been obscured or imprisoned
in the Creation and Government of the world. Cain, the Sodomites, &¢., were
by most of them regarded as the overmatched upholders of the Truth. Chris-
tianity was the completion of those scattered and obscured lights. The ‘ Gospel
of Judas’ was current among some of them. Others looked back to Seth as the
father of the spiritual species, and they maintained a more ordinary morality,—
hence called Sethians. Some Gnostics kindred to the Ophites (Baur p. 193) had
a ‘“‘Gospel of Perfection”’—-tehelworg—called also the Gospel of Eve, showing how
the better state of things struggled for the mastery from the day of Eve till the
Christian Era. Hippolytus, V. 6, quotes as the motto of the Naassenes, ᾿Αρχὴ
τελειώσεως γνῶσις, γνῶσις ἀπηρτισμένη τελείωσις.
2 See additional references. V. 8. p. 160 (Lhe Sower), as in Luke viii. 5,
Mat. xiii. 3, Mark iv. 3; V. 8. p. 166 (Zhe narrow way), as in Mat. vii. 13; V. 9
(The grain of mustard), as in Mat. xiii. 31; V. 8. p. 152 (Zhe hidden treasure and
the leaven), as in Mat. xiii. 33, 44. And briefer, or more as echoes, Mat. v. 15
and x. 27 (p. 144); Mat. xiii. 13 (p. 150); Mat. ii. 18 (p. 162); Mat. vii. 13
(Ρ. 164).
NAASSENES OR OPHITES. 387
Ibid. c. 7. (p. 140.) Ἥντιερ φησὶ τὴν ἐντὸς ἀνθρώπου βασι-
λείαν οὐρανῶν ξητουμένην. (Luke xvii. 21.)3
Ibid. (p. 148.) Τουτέστι, φησὶ, τὸ γεγραμμένον: Τὸ γεγεν-
γνημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρχὸς, σάρξ ἐστι, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον
ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμα ἐστίν. (John iii. 6.)4
Ibid. c. 8. (p. 150.) Πάντα γὰρ, φησὶ, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ
\ > =e es DON OF a \ , ? Dinas ν᾿ οἱ
χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν: Ὃ δὲ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωή ἔστιν.
(John i. 3, 4.)
Thid. (p. 152.) Kai τοῦτο ἐστὶ τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐν τοῖς χαλοῖς
’ , / aA , ca, Ν ’ , ΄ c
ἐκείνοις γάμοις, ὃ στρέψας ὃ ᾿Ιησοὺς ἐποίησεν οἵνον. Αὕτη, φη-
σὶν, ἐστὶν ἣ μεγάλη καὶ ἀληϑινὴ ἀρχὴ τῶν σημείων, ἣν ἐποί-
ησεν ὃ Ἰησοῦς ἐν Κανᾷ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἐφανέρωσε
τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. (John ii. 1-11.)
Ibid. Τοῦτο, φησὶν, ἐστὲ τὸ εἰρημένον ὑπὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος.
\ \ , ‘ τα \ \ , \
Ἐὰν μὴ τιίνητέ μου τὸ αἷμα χαὶ φάγητέ μου τὴν σάρχα, οὐ μὴ
>) , γ \ U ~ ~ \ DN
εἰσέλϑητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἀλλὰ χἂν πίητε, φησὶ,
‘ aA δ , \ , ~ ~ ’ ~
τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω, ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω, ἐκεῖ ὑμεῖς εἰσελϑεῖν
ov δύνασθε. (John vi. 53; viii. 21; xiii. 33; compare Mat. xx. 22
and Mark x. 38.)
Ibid. (p. 156.) Ava τοῦτο, φησὶ, λέγει 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς" Ἐγώ εἰμι ἣ
πύλη ἢ ἀληϑινή. (Compare John x. 9.)
Ibid. c. 9. (p. 166.) Πνεῦμα γὰρ, φησὶν, ἐστὲν ὃ Oedg: διὸ
; " " POW, ᾽
\ , π᾿ , ~ ?
φησὶν, οὔτε ἐν TH ὕρει τούτῳ προσχυνοῦσιν, οὔτε ἐν
[6 ‘ ἘΠ ὩΣ { \ Ν ? sv) ,
Ἱερουσαλὴμ οἱ ἀληϑινοὶ πρροσχυνηταὶ, adda ἐν πνεύματι. Πνευ-
ματιχὴ γὰρ, φησὶν, ἐστὶ τῶν τελείων ἣ προσχύνησις, οὐ σαρχιχή.
(John iv. 21, &c.)
Ibid. (p. 172.) Εἰ δέ τις, φησὶν, ἐστὲ τυφλὸς ἐκ γενετῆς
\ \ ~ A> Ν a
χαὶ μὴ τεϑεαμένος φῶς τὸ ἀληϑινὸν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα
3 For additional references to Luke see parallels to passages from Matthew.
There is one passage, Hippol. Ref. Haer. V. 7 (p. 142), which reminds us of Luke
xvii. 4, but is not a quotation from Scripture: Καὶ τοῦτο ἐστὶ τὸ εἰρημένον,
φησὶν, ἐν τῇ γραφῇ, ἑπτάχις πεσεῖται ὁ Sixatog xal ἀναστήσεται. There is also
ἃ passage quoted (which follows the quotation given in the text from Luke
xvii. 21) as from ‘‘the Gospel inscribed According to Thomas” which is not in
the otherwise extant fragments of that Gospel (Tisch, Proleg. Evv. Apocr.
p. XXXIX): Ἔμὲ 6 ζητῶν evorace ἐν παιδίοις ἀπὸ ἐτῶν ἑπτά - ἐχεῖ yao ἐν τῷ
τεσσαρεσχαιδεχάτῳ αἰῶνι χρυβόμενος φανεροῦμαι. Hippolytus ascribes the passage _
“not to Christ, but to Hippocrates.”
4 The following are selected from the numerous references to John’s Gospel;
others may be added: Hippol. V. 8 (p. 158), (John vi. 44); V. 9 (p. 172),
John iv. 10, v. 19-27, vii. 14; V. 8 (p. 154), John iii. ὃ, v. 37.
25
383 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν» OO MOY, OL ἡμῶν ἀναβλεψ-
ἄτω. (John ix. 1 and i. 9.)
Ibid. V. 7. (p. 188.) Τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ano ting
͵ 7 \ , ~ , τὰ ” c ~
κτίσεως, κ-τ.λ. Ev γὰρ τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις, οἷς elonxev ὁ Παῦ-
λὸς, χιτιλν (Rom, 1. 90.
PERATAE.
Hippol. Ref. Haer. V. 12. (p. 178.) Τοῦτό ἐστι, φησὶ, τὸ εἰ-
ρημένον: ov γὰρ ἦλϑεν ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰς TOY
κόσμον, ἀτιολέσαι τὸν χόσμον, GAN ἵνα σωϑῇ ὃ κόσ-
μος ὃν αὐτοῦ. (John iii. 17; xii. 47.)
Ibid. V. 10. (p. 192.) Τοῦτο ἐστὶ, φησὶ, τὸ εἰρημένον: Καὶ
ὃν τρόπον ὕψωσε Mwiiongs τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὕτως
ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνϑρώπου. (John iii. 14)
Ibid. V. 17. (p. 196.) Ὅταν ody, φησ λέγῃ ὁσωτὴρ ὃ πα-
THO ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἐχεῖνον λέγει ἀφ᾽ οὗ ὃ υἱὸς μεὲ-
ταλαβὼν τοὺς χαρακτῆρας μετενήγοχεν ἐνϑάδε. (Mat. vii. 11;
v. 48, &c.)
Ibid. V. 17. (p. 198.) Τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ, φησὶ, τὸ εἰρημένον: Ἐγώ
εἰμι ἢ ϑύρα. (John x. 1.)
Ibid. V.12. (p. 178.) Ὅταν δὲ λέγῃ, φησὶν, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ
κόσμῳ κατακριϑῶμεν ἣ γραφὴ. .. ( Cor. xi. 82.)
Ibid. (p. 178) (see also Χ. 10. p. 504.) Καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι φησὶ
τὸ λεγόμενον: Πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα εὐδόκησε κατοιχῆσαι ἐν
αὐτῷ σωματικῶς καὶ πᾶσά ἐστιν ἐν αὐτῷ 1) ϑεύότης τῆς οὕτω
διῃρημένης τριάδος. (Col. ii. 9.)
Seruranr. ἢ
Hippol. Ref. Haer. V. 21. (p. 212.) Τοῦτο ἐστὶ, φησὶ, τὸ εἴ--
1 Compare a probable echo, Hippol. V. 7 (p. 146), Rom. x. 18. See quota-
tions: Hippol. V. 8 (p. 158), 2 Cor. xii. 2-4, 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14; Hippol. V. 7
(p. 138), Gal. iii. 28, vi. 15; Hippol. V. 7 (p. 136), Eph. iii. 15; Ibid. (p. 146),
Eph. v. 14; Hippol. V. 8 (p. 156), Eph. ii. 17.
2 See "also Hippol. V. 16 (p. 194) for quotation of John i. 1-4 (with | Hes
yourtat), and Hippol. V.17 (p. 196) for quotation of John viii. 44 with ὅταν
δὲ λέ
τ Other echoes may perhaps be found—Hippol. V. 19 (p. 206), compare
John iv. 14; 2 Cor. v. 2; also same page, Acts ii. 24.
JUSTIN. BASILIDES AND ISIDORUS. 389
ρημένον οὐκ ἦλϑον εἰρήνην βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἀλλὰ μά-
χαιραν, τουτέστι τὸ διχάσαι χαὶ χωρίσαι τὰ συγλεχραμένα.
(Mat. x. 34.)
Ibid. X. 11. (p. 510) (see also V. 19.) Καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ εἰ-
ρημένον" Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἣγή-
σατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ξαυτὸν ἐκένωσε μορφὴν
δούλου λαβών. (Phil. ii. 6, 7.)
Justin. |
Hippol. Ref. Haer. V. 23. (p. 214.) ‘Qe ἐδίδασκεν 6 λόγος
τοὺς μαϑητὰς λέγων" Eig δδὸν ἐθνῶν μὴ ἀπέλϑητε. (Mat.
x. 5.)
Ibid. V. 26. (p. 228.) Εἰπὼν δὲ τῇ Ἐδέμ" Γύναι, ἀπέχεις σου
τὸν υἱὸν, τουτέστι τὸν «ψυχικὸν ἄνϑρωπον χαὶ τὸν χοϊχὸν, αὐτὸς
δὲ εἰς χεῖρας παραϑέμενος τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀν-
ἦλϑεν πρὸς τὸν ἀγαϑόν. (Compare John xix. 26; Luke xxiii. 46.)
4. Basttmwes anp Istporus.!
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VII. 20. (p. 356.) (Basilides claimed to
have received instruction from Matthias.) Βασιλείδης τοίνυν καὶ
᾿Ισίδωρος, ὃ Βασιλείδου τιαῖς γνήσιος nai μαϑητὴς, φασὶν εἰρη-
χέναι Mardiav αὐτοῖς λόγους ἀποχρύφους, οὺς ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ
Σωτῆρος χατ᾽ ἰδίαν διδαχϑείς.
Kus. H. 1΄. IV. 7. (He wrote twenty four books on the Gospel.)
Ὧν εἰς ἡμᾶς χατῆλϑεν ἐν τοῖς τότε γνωριμωτάτου συγγραφέως
᾿γρίππα Κάστορος Ἱχανώτατος χατὰ Βασιλείδου ἔλεγχος, τὴν
δεινότητα τῆς τἀνδρὸς ἀποχαλύτιτων γοητείας. Ἐχφαίνων δ᾽ οὖν
αὐτοῦ τὰ andgonta, φησὶν αὐτὸν εἰς μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τέσσαρα
σιρὸς τοῖς εἴχοσι συντάξαι βιβλία, προφήτας δὲ ἑαυτῷ ὀνομάσαι
Βαρχαββᾶν χαὶ Βαρχὼφ, κ.τ.1}.
1, Justin. Compare also Hippol. Ref. Haer. V. 27 (p. 230) with John iv. 14;
v. 26 (p. 226) with Gal. v. 17.
1 On Basilides see Introduction, where the quotations are discussed. Isi-
dorus was his son. For Fragments of Isidorus’s writings collected from Clem.
Alex. see Stieren’s Irenaeus, I. p. 907.
2 This is the first notice of the Gospel of Basilides. It is possible (so Hilg.
and Hort) that Origen was mistaken. But see Introduction.
390 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
Orig. Hom. in Luc. Tom. Il. p. 933. (Basilides ‘dared to
write a Gospel.’?) See before, p. 82.
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VIT. 27. (p. 376.) (This Gospel was the
Theology of the Supramundane.) Evayyehiov ἐστὶ χατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἢ
τῶν ὑπερχοσμίων γνῶσις, ὡς δεδήλωται, ἣν ὃ μέγας ἄρχων οὐκ
ἠπίστατο.
Jerome: Prooem. in Mat. Tom. IV. p. 2. (Basilides’s Gospel
mentioned.) See before, p. 99.
Archelai et Manetis Disputatio. Routh, Rel. Sac. V. p. 196.
(Basilides’s Tractates extant in 4.ν. 277.) Fuit predicator apud
Persas etiam Basilides quidam antiquior, non longe post nostro-
rum Apostolorum tempora.... Extat etiam tertius decimus li-
ber tractatuum ejus, cujus initium tale est, &c.$
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VII. 27. (p. 378.) (The school of Basilides
. ~ }
accepted the Gospel narratives.) Ὃ δὲ ᾿Ιησοὺς γεγένηται χατ
αὐτοὺς ὡς προειρήχαμεν. Γεγενημένης δὲ τῆς γενέσεως τῆς προ-
δεδηλωμένης, γέγονε mavta ὁμοίως zat αὐτοὺς τὰ περὲ τοῦ Σω-
τῆρος ὡς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις γέγρατιται.
- « > \ x
Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 1. p. 508. Ot μὲν οὖν ἀμφὶ τὸν
Οὐαλεντῖνον ἄνωϑεν ἐχ τῶν ϑείων προβολῶν τὰς συζυγίας χατα-
γαγόντες εὐαρεστοῦνται γάμῳ, οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ Βασιλείδου πυϑομένων
φασὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων μή ποτε ἄμεινόν ἐστι τὸ μὴ γαμεῖν ἀπο-
, Φ /\ , Ἶ A 4 5 «6 Ἵ; / a 4 Ν | /
χρίνασϑαι λέγουσι tov Κύριον" “Οὐ πάντες χωροῦσι" tov λόγον
τοῦτον" εἰσὶ γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι, οἱ μὲν bx γενετῆς, οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἀνάγχης""
Wize ~ δὲ ‘ c τ zt , ae \ Ni ¢ge
ἐξηγοῦνται δὲ TO ῥητὸν ὧδὲ πως" “wT.A. Καὶ τὸ “ἄμεινον yau-
~ rn ~ ” \ > ~ ? , \ , ,
Hoa ἢ πυροῦσϑαι," μὴ εἰς πῦρ ἐμβαλὴης τὴν ψυχήν σου λέγειν
τὸν ἀπόστολον, νυχτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἀντέχων χαὶ φοβούμενος μὴ
- ? , 2 2 Ν
τῆς ἐγχρατείας ἀποπέσης" πρὸς γὰρ τὸ ἀντέχειν γενομένη ψυχὴ
, ~ . .“.-
μερίζεται τῆς ἐλπείδος. (Mat. xix. 11, 12; 1 Cor. vii. 9.)
8 That this book of Tractates is the same as that which Eusebius mentions
and Clem. Alex. quotes, there is no reason to doubt. Archelaus lived in the
time of the Emperor Probus, A.D. 277. His Disputation is mentioned by Jerome
and Epiphanius. The quotation refers to the dual origin of things. Basilides
—an Alexandrian—is here said to have taught in Persia, but we know too little
about the great heretic to regard this as impossible.
4 The use of χωροῦσι is peculiar; and there is no good reason to doubt the
quotation from Matthew when it is found. It has no parallel in the N. T., and but
slight and few parallels in previous literature. (Sanday, Gospels in Second Cen-
tury, p. 192.) See συγχωροῦσι used by Clement in the same chapter with the
sense of ‘confirm’ or ‘‘sanction.’? Clem. Strom. HI. 1. p. 510.
BASILIDES AND ISIDORUS. 391
Clem. Strom. IV. 12. p. 599. Βασιλείδης δὲ ἐν τῷ εἰκοστῷ
, ~ 2 ~ ~
τρίτῳ τῶν εξηγητιχῶν weet τῶν χατὰ τὸ μαρτύριον χολαζομένων
δι - -
αὑταῖς λέξεσι τάδε φησί" “φημὶ γὰρ τὸ δητόσοι ὑποπίσπτουσι ταῖς
a»
λεγομέναις FhiWeow, ἤτοι ἡμαρτηχότες ἐν ἄλλοις λανϑάνοντες
, ~ \ ~
πταίσμασιν εἰς τοῦτο ἄγονται TO ἀγαϑὸν χρηστότητι τοῦ περιά-
ἀλλ Ὁ ἀλλ ” γ Ἐ ’ c ‘ c /
γοντος, ἀλλὰ ἐξ ἄλλων ὄντως ἐγχαλούμενοι, ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατάδιχοι
ἄρον εὐχῶν ς , ᾿ς gy , ς Ὁ
ἐπὶ χαχοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις πάϑωσι, μηδὲ λοιδορούμενοι ὡς ὃ
Ν Dy ς \ ) > a r \ / c 2) ‘
μοιχὸς ἢ ὃ φονεὺς, GAL Ove Χριστιανοὶ wepuvadres, ὅητερ αὐτοὺς
σιαρηγορήσει μηδὲ πτάσχειν δοχεῖν ...” (1 Pet. iv. 14-16.)5
Orig. in Epist. ad Rom. Lib. V. p. 549. (Migne, Vol. IV.
p. 1015.) “Et ego,” inquit (sc. apostolus), ‘“‘mortuus sum,” coepit
enim jam mihi reputari peccatum. Sed haec Basilides non ad-
vertens de lege naturali debere intelligi, ad ineptias et impias
fabulas sermonem apostolicum traxit, et in μετενσωματώσεως
dogma, id est, quod animae in alia atque alia corpora trans-
fundantur, ex hoc apostoli dicto conatur astruere. Dixit enim,
inquit, Apostolus, quia, “ ΕΡῸ vivebam sine lege aliquando,” hoc
est, antequam in istud corpus venirem, in ea specie corporis
vixi, quae sub lege non esset; pecudis scilicet vel avis. (Rom.
Vat. Ὁ) 10:)
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VII. 22. See before, p. 173. (John i. 9.)
Ibid. VIL. 26. (p. 374.) ΙΚατῆλϑεν [οὖν] asd τῆς ἑβδομάδος τὸ
φῶς, TO χκατελϑὸν asd τῆς ὀγδοάδος ἄνωϑεν τῷ υἱῷ τῆς ἑβδομάδος,
ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τῆς Magtac, καὶ ἐφωτίσϑη συνεξαφϑεὶς
τῷ φωτὶ τῷ λάμψαντι εἰς αὐτόν. Τοῦτο ἐστὶ, φησὶ, τὸ εἰρημέ-
γον" Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σὲ, τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς υἱό-
τητος διὰ τοῦ μεϑορίου πνεύματος ἐπὶ THY ὀγδοάδα χαὶ τὴν ἐβ-
δομάδα διελϑὸν μεχρὶ τῆς Ἰ]αρίας, xai δύναμις ὑψίστου
ἐπισκιάσει σοι, ἣ δύναμις τῆς χρίσεως ἀπὸ τῆς ἀχρωρείας
ἄνωϑεν [did] τοῦ δημιουργοῦ μεχρὶ τῆς χτίσεως, O ἐστι τοῦ υἱοῦ.
(Luke i. 35.)
Ibid. VII. 27. See before, p. 173. (John ii. 4; Mat. ii. 1, 2.)
Epiph. Haer. I. t. 2. ἢ. 24. p. 12. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 313.)
Φωραϑήσεται δὲ οὗτος (sc. Βασιλείδης) διαβολικὴν δύναμιν εἰσ-
ἡγούμενος χατὰ τῶν ψυχῶν, ἀπαρνησιϑεΐαν αὐτὰς ἐχδιδάσχων,
5 Compare Eus. Η. E. IV. 7, where Basilides’s views of the smallness of the
guilt of recantation are denounced.
392 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
ς , a ς γι , X > , , > ,
δότε αὐτὸς ὃ Κύριος φησί. Tov ἀρνοὐμενόν we ἐνώπιον
- ? 3) \ \ ~
TOY ἀνϑρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι καγὼ αὐτὸν ἐνώπιον τοῦ
Πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. “Αλλά φησιν ὃ ἀγύρτης"
ἡμεῖς, φησὶν, ἐσμὲν οἱ ἄνϑρωποι, οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι πάντες ὕες καὶ χύ-
re Ν - zt aS , \ , »”
vec. Kat διὰ τοῦτο εἶστε" Ih) βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ἕμπτροσϑεν
τῶν χοίρων, μηδὲ δότε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς xvol. (Mat. x. 33; vii. 6.6)
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VIT. 25. (p. 368.) Ἔδει τὴν ὑπτολελειμμέ-
my υἱότητα ἀποχαλυφϑῆναι χαὶ ἀποχατασταϑῆναι ἄνω ἐκεῖ v7é0
τὸ μεϑόριον πνεῦμα σιρὸς τὴν υἱότητα τὴν λεπτομερὴ χαὶ μιμη-
\ \ \ 2
τιχὴν χαὶ τὸν οὐχ ὄντα, ὡς γέγρατιται, φησί: χαὶ ἣ κτίσις αὐτὴ
συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει τὴν ἀποχάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐχδεχομένη. (Rom. viii. 19, 22.)
Ὁ ; 3 / \
Ibid. Μέχρι μὲν οὖν Mooéws ἀπὸ “Addu ἐβασί-
λευσεν ἢ ἁμαρτία, γχαϑὼς γέγραπται" ἐβασίλευσε γὰρ ὃ μέ-
/ \ > ~
yag ἄρχων ὃ ἔχων τὸ τέλος αὐτοῦ μέχρι στερεώματος, νομί-
X “4 \ \ ἊΝ
Cov αὐτὸς εἶναι Θεὸς μόνος χαὶ ὑττὲρ αὐτὸν εἶναι μηδὲν, πάντα
γὰρ ἦν φυλασσόμενα ἀποχρύίφῳ σιωπῇ. Τοῦτο, φησὶν, ἐστὲ τὸ
- - ) )
μυστήριον, ὃ ταῖς τιροτέραις γενεαῖς οὐχ ἐγνωρίσϑη, ἀλλὰ ἣν ἐν
» , - ’ ἢ \ \ / c γ , - ies ς
ἐχδίνοις τοῖς χρόνοις βασιλεὺς χαὶ Κύριος ὡς ἐδόχει τῶν λων ὃ
μέγας ἄρχων, ἣ ὀγδοάς. (Rom. v. 18, 14; Col. i. 26, 27.)
. [3 Nerd 2 ἘΝ x 2/ γ , ᾿ ~ \ cS ~
Ibid. (p. 910.) Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἔδει ἀποχαλυφϑῆναι, pyotv, ἡμᾶς
Ν᾽ ’ ~ ~ A c > , \ Cc , Ν
τὰ τέχνα τοῦ Θεοῦ, περὶ ὧν ἐστέναξε, φησὶν, ἣ κτίσις χαὶ
7 © γ , \ 5 "ἢ Sy \ > / υ
ὥδινεν, ἀπεχδεχομένη τὴν ἀποχαλυψεν, HAtE τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ELC
τὸν χόσμον χαὶ διῆλϑε διὰ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας χαὶ
\ \ 2 2 ΄
χυριότητος καὶ παντὸς ονόματος ὀνομαζομένου. (Rom.
vill. 22; Eph. i. 21.)
Ibid. VII, 26. (p. 372.) Attn ἐστὶν ἢ σοφία ἐν μυστηρίῳ
τί \ > ~
λεγομένη, περὶ ἧς, φησὶν, ἣ γραφὴ λέγει" οὐκ Ev διδακτοῖς
> , , , > 2 ’ ~ ‘
ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις, add ἐν διδαχτοῖς πνεὺ-
wovog. (ΟΣ πα. 13.)
. 2
Ibid. Καϑωὼς γέγρατιται, φησὶ: Κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν éy-
νωρίσϑη μοι τὸ μυστήριον, val’ Ἤκουσα ἄῤῥητα 67-
a > --ν 3 ~ eco ¢
ματα, ἃ ove ἐξὸν ἀνϑρώπῳ εἰπεῖν. (Eph. iii. 3; 2 Cor.
xii. 4.)
6 It is not reasonable to say (Sup. Rel. II. 49) that “the variation in order
is just what one might have expected from the use of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews or a similar work,’ but not if Basilides quoted St Matthew. For why?
Do the Fathers quote so carefully? Do even MSS of the Gospels not alter the
order of clauses?
MARCION. 393
. « zy 2 ~
Ibid. VII. 27. (p. 374.) Ὅταν οὖν ἔλϑη, φησὶ, πᾶσα υἱότης
ς ‘ \ ~
χαὶ ἔσται VITEQ TO μεϑόριον, τὸ πνεῦμα, τότε ἐλεηϑήσεται 1) χαί-
σις" στένει γὰρ μέχρι τοῦ viv χαὶ βασανίζεται καὶ μένει τ ὴν
ἀποχάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. (Rom. viii. 19, 22.)
5. Μάαμπαιον.
1. DATE OF MARCION.
(Contemporary of Justin Martyr.) Justin Apol. 1. ὁ. 26.
3 τὰ a ~ 2
p. 70 A. ἸἨαρχίωνα δέ τινα Ποντικὸν, ὃς καὶ viv ἔτι ἐστὶ
1 Marcion. See before, Text, pp. 47, 50, 76-81 &c., and Notes on Marcion at
pp. 75, 76, 77, 154, 162. Marcion’s abrupt beginning (see below) gives ground for
suspecting that there had been excision from an original, and further investigation
proves the suspicion to be well founded. The fact that the omissions so often
make the transition abrupt; the fact (so well brought out by Sanday) that in the
omitted portions the ‘‘ verified peculiarities of St Luke’s style and diction are
found in a proportion averaging considerably more than one to each verse,’’ so
that those 309 omitted verses are proved to be by the same writer as those which
Marcion retained; and the consistent testimony of all the Fathers, give us as com-
plete assurance as one can have on any such subject that Marcion’s Gospel was
a mutilated Luke. He called it The Gospel—or The Gospel of Christ. He ac-
companied it with ten Pauline Epistles which he called τὸ ᾿Αποστολιχόν. He
made fewer changes on the Epistles than on the Gospel, and professed to find
his theology in St Paul. His cardinal principle was that Christ came from the
Good God to overturn the kingdom of the Jewish God; and his aim was to make
a Gospel which established this principle. His doctrine of the evil of matter
led him to teach that marriage is ruin. See Hippolyt. Ref. Haer. VIII. 16. The
whole text of Marcion’s Gospel, as constructed by Hahn from the numerous and
systematic quotations of Tertullian and Epiphanius, and from the more incidental
references of Irenaeus, Origen, the Pseudo-Origen (Dial. de Recta Fide), and
others, is found in Thilo’s Codex Apocryphus, 1832. Hahn’s elaborate work has
a permanent value, though some of his conclusions have been overthrown by
more recent investigations. Hilgenfeld in his ‘‘Kritische Untersuchungen iiber
die Evangelien Justin’s, der Clementinischen Homilien und Marcion’s”’ (1850) has
a list of the omissions in St Luke made by Marcion. Volkmar, in ‘‘Das Evan-
gelium Marcion’s”’ (1852), has given a full outline of the contents of the Gospel.
In this work Volkmar expanded and defended his earlier articles (Tiibing. Zeitsch.
1850). Anger’s ‘‘Synopsis’”’ contains almost full references to all the passages
altered by Marcion. Roensch’s ‘‘Das Neue Test. Tertullians’’ contains much
interesting discussion. Reference is made below to ‘Supernatural Religion”’ and
Dr Sanday’s ‘‘Gospels &c.” There is an excellent and suggestive statement in the
Archbishop of York’s (Thomson’s) ‘Synoptic Gospels,’’ republished from ‘‘ The
Speaker’s Commentary’ in his admirable volume ‘“‘ Word, Work and Will” (1879).
These works and others have been used in compiling the following chapter,
which, it is hoped, contains what the student seeks most to know regarding the
great Gnostic critic. After some general quotations, with a rubric to each show-
ing its bearing, a full list is given of Marcion’s alterations of Luke’s Gospel, with
notes showing upon what principle the alterations were made in each case. This
is a slight departure from the ordinary plan of this work, in which the original
passages are all given. The extraordinary length of the quotations and remarks
994 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
διδάσχων τοὺς πειϑομένους ἄλλον τινὰ νομίζειν μείζονα
τοῦ δημιουργοῦ Θεόν" ὃς zara wav γένος ἀνϑρώπων διὰ τῆς τῶν
δαιμόνων συλλήψεως πολλοὺς πεποίηχε βλασφημίας λέγειν καὶ
ἀρνεῖσθαι τὸν ποιητὴν τοῖδε τοῦ παντὸς Θεὸν, ἄλλον δέ τινα, ὡς
ὄντα μείζονα, τὰ μείζονα παρὰ τοῦτον δμολογεῖν πεποιηκέναι.
So also Ap. I. c. 58. p. 92 A.
2. TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS TO THE CHARACTER AND
OBJECT OF MARCION’S WORK.
Justin, Apol. I. 26; I. 58 [as above under 1.]
Tren. B. 1. 27. ὃ. [In Eus. H. E. IV. 11 are the first words
MadeEauevog δὲ αὐτὸν Magziwy 6 Ποντιχὸς, ηὔξησε τὸ διδασχα-
λεῖον, ἀπηρυϑριασμένως βλασφημῶν.) Succedens autem ei (sc.
Cerdoni) Marcion Ponticus, adampliavit doctrinam, impudorate
blasphemans eum, qui a lege et prophetis annuntiatus est Deus;
malorum factorem et bellorum concupiscentem et inconstantem
quoque sententia, et contrarium sibi ipsum dicens. Jesum autem
ab eo Patre, qui est super mundi fabricatorem Deum, venientem
in Judaeam temporibus Pontii Pilati praesidis, qui fuit procu-
rator Tiberii Caesaris, in hominis forma manifestatum his qui in
Judaea erant, dissolventem prophetas et legem et omnia opera
ejus Dei, qui mundum fecit, quem et Cosmocratorem dicit. Et
of Tertullian and Epiphanius makes it impossible to reproduce them all here.
And moreover, in this case the facts are not disputed. It is more important to
collect them than to discuss them.
There are few more conclusive results attained in Biblical criticism than that
which Volkmar achieved as against Ritschl, Baur, and Schwegler, who had
argued for the priority of Marcion to the canonical Luke. Semler had con-
jectured that Marcion perhaps used a shorter Gospel, and Eichhorn had argued
that the canonical Luke was a later edition of Marcion; but the Tiibingen scholars
made of it a great controversy. Wolkmar had the satisfaction of finding his
chief opponents publicly withdraw from their positions in consequence of his
work. Hilgenfeld’s independent investigations led him almost at the same time
to the same conclusions as Volkmar; and he has stated them with characteristic
force and brevity. The author of ‘‘Supernatural Religion,’’ who in his earlier
editions (as stated in our notes pp. 47 &c., which were printed off before the
publication of his ‘‘Complete Edition”? 1879) advocated the priority of Marcion
to Luke, has (1879) modified his views, owing to the irresistible linguistic argu-
ment of Dr Sanday in his ‘‘ Gospels in the Second Century,” and has made frank
admission of the change. His statement of the case on the other side remains,
however—somewhat inconsistently—and may be consulted with advantage. Dr
Sanday’s is the last contribution of importance to the long controversy.
Some of Marcion’s various readings—those in V. 14, 39; XII. 14, 38;
XVII. 2; XXI. 27; XXIII. 2, have considerable support in Latin and Syriac ver-
sions and in D. See Tisch., Greek Test.; and compare Sanday, p. 231.
MARCION. 395
Super haec, id quod est secundum Lucam Evangelium circum-
cidens, et omnia quae sunt de generatione Domini conscripta
auferens, et de doctrina sermonum Domini multa auferens, in
quibus manifestissime conditorem hujus universitatis suum Pa-
trem confitens Dominus conscriptus est; semetipsum esse vera-
ciorem, quam sunt hi, qui evangelium tradiderunt, apostoli, suasit
discipulis suis; non evangelium, sed particulam evangelii tradens
eis. Similiter autem et apostoli Pauli epistolas abscidit, auferens
quaecumque manifeste dicta sunt ab apostolo de eo Deo, qui
mundum fecit, quoniam hic Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et
quaecumque ex propheticis memorans apostolus docuit, praenun-
tiantibus adventum Domini. (See also B. 1Π. 11, 7, 9; before,
pp. 67, 69.)
(Marcion corrupted the Gospels.) Tert. Ady. Marc. I. 1.
Quis tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit ?
(Marcion mutilated Scripture: Valentinus explained it away.)
De Praescr. Haeret. cc. 32-38; see before, pp. 46-49.
(Marcion in his Antitheses, quite distinct from his Gospel,
expounded the New Testament as contradicting the Old.) Tert.
Adv. Marc. 1. 19. Separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale
opus est Marcionis, nec poterunt negare discipuli ejus quod in
summo instrumento habent, quo denique initiantur et indurantur
in hance haeresim. Nam hae sunt Antitheses Marcionis, id est
contrariae oppositiones, quae conantur discordiam evangelii cum
lege committere, ut ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque instru-
menti diversitatem quoque argumententur deorum. (See also
Ady. Marc. IV. 6; before, p. 81.)
(Marcion contrasted Christ with the Creator.) Tert. Adv.
Mare. II. 29. Compendio interim possum Antitheses retudisse,
gestientes ex qualitatibus ingeniorum sive legum sive virtutum
discernere, atque ita alienare Christum a Creatore, ut optimum
_a judice, et mitem a fero, et salutarem ab exitioso.
(Marcion’s object was to remove all proof of the Incarnation.)
Tert. De Carne Christi, c. 1. Marcion ut carnem Christi negaret,
negavit etiam nativitatem, aut ut nativitatem negaret, negavit
et carnem, scilicet ne invicem sibi testimonium responderent na-
tivitas et caro, quia nec nativitas sine carne, nec caro sine nati-
vitate; quasi non eadem licentia haeretica et ipse potuisset aut
396 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
admissa carne nativitatem negare, ut Apelles discipulus et postea
desertor ipsius, aut et carnem et nativitatem confessus aliter il-
las interpretari, ut condiscipulus et condesertor ejus Valentinus.
C. 2. His opinor consiliis, tot originalia instrumenta Christi
delere, Marcion, ausus es, ne caro ejus probaretur. Ex quo,
oro te? Exhibe auctoritatem. Si propheta es, praenuntia ali-
quid; si apostolus, praedica publice; si apostolicus, cum apostolis
senti; si tantum Christianus es, crede quod traditum est. Si
nihil istorum es, merito dixerim, morere! Nam et mortuus es,
qui non es Christianus, non credendo quod creditum Christianos
facit. Et eo magis mortuus es, quo magis non es Christianus;
qui cum fuisses, excidisti, rescindendo quod retro credidisti, sicut
et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola!, et tui non negant et nostri
probant. Igitur rescindens quod credidisti, jam non credens re-
scidisti; non tamen quia credere desiisti, recte rescidisti, atquin
rescindendo quod credidisti, probas, antequam rescinderes, aliter
fuisse. Quod credidisti aliter, illud ita erat traditum; porro quod
traditum erat, id erat verum, ut ab eis traditum, quorum fuit
tradere. Ergo quod erat traditum, rescindens, quod erat verum
rescidisti.
(Marcion prefixed no author's name to his Gospel.) Tert.
Adv. Mare. IV. 2. Marcion Evangelio, scilicet suo, nullum ascri-
bet auctorem. See before, p. 76.— Pseudo-Origen: Dial. de
recta in Deum fide, sect. I. (Origen, Migne, Vol. I. p. 1728.)
Adamantius: Τίς ἐστιν ὃ γράψας τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο, ὃ ἔφης
εἶναι ἕν; Megethius: Ὃ Χριστός. A. «Αὐτὸς ὃ Κύριος ἔγραψεν"
Ὅτι ἐσταυρώϑην καὶ ἀνέστην τῇ τρίτῃ ἡ μέρᾳ; οὕτω γρά-
get; Μ. ὋὉ ἀπόστολος Παῦλος προσέϑηχεν. A. Παρῆν γὰρ Παῦ-
λος ἐν τῷ σταυρωϑῆναι τὸν Χριστόν; Μ. «Αὐτὸς ἔγραψεν τὸ
Εὐαγγέλιον ἁτιλῶς."
Ibid. (p. 1781.) Marcus: Οὐ Πέτρος ἔγραψεν, ἀλλ᾽ 6 Χριστὸς,
τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον.
(Marcion mutilated Luke’s Gospel.) Tert. Adv. Mare. IV. 2.
Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet. (See before, for
1 See allusions to (apparently the same) epistle of Marcion’s: Adv. Mare.
IV. 4 (see before, p. 79); and to Marcion’s original beliefs: De Praesc. Haer.
ce. 3; Adv. Mare. I. 1.
_ ἢ, Megethius and Marcus are Marcionites; Adamantius is orthodox. This treatise
is ascribed to the fourth century.
MARCION. 397
context p. 76.) Compare Irenacus, B. III. 12. 12; III. 14.1. (See
before, p. 161.)
(Marcion and his disciples claimed for this Gospel priority
to Luke's.) Tert. Ady. Marc. IV. 4. (See before, p. 78.)
(Marcion’s disciples altered their Gospel to obviate objections.)
Tert. Adv. Marc. IV. 5. See before, p. 81. (On the divisions of
the Marcionites comp. Eus. H. Τὸ. V. 13.)
(Where Marcion’s Gospel began.) Hippol. Ref. Haer. VII. 31.
(p. 396.) Magziwy τὴν γένεσιν tov σωτῆρος iuay σταντάσιασι
σεαρῃτήσατο, ἄτοπον εἶναι νομίζων ὑτιὸ τὸ σπιλάσμα τοῦ ὀλεϑρίου
τούτου νείχους γεγονέναι τὸν λόγον τὸν τῇ φιλίᾳ συναγωνιζόμε-
γον, τουτέστι τῷ ἀγαϑῷ, ἀλλὰ χωρὶς γενέσεως ἔτει, πεντεχαιδεχκ--
at τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος χατεληλυϑότα αὐτὸν
ἄνωθϑεν, μέσον ὄντα χαχοῦ χαὶ ἀγαϑοῦ, διδάσχειν ἐν ταῖς συν--
αγωγαῖς. (Luke iii. 1; iv. 31.)
(The Marcionite dogmas regarding human nature.) Ibid. X. 19.
(p. 524.) Maoxtwy δὲ ὃ Ποντιχὸς χαὶ Κέρδων ὃ τούτου διδάσχα-
λος χαὶ αὐτοὶ δρίζουσιν εἶναι τρεῖς τὰς τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχὰς, ἀγαϑὸν,
δίκαιον, ὕλην. ... Tov δὲ Χριστὸν υἱὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἀγαϑοῦ nat
bw αὐτοῦ πεπέμφϑαι ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν ψυχῶν, ὃν ἔσω ἄνϑρω-
πον χαλεῖ, ὡς ἄνϑρωπον φανέντα λέγων οὐχ ὄντα ἄνϑρωτσιον, καὶ
ὡς ἔνσαρχον οὐχ ἔνσαρχον, δοχήσει πεφηνότα, οὔτε γένεσιν ὑπο-
μείναντα οὔτε πάϑος ἀλλὰ τῷ δοχεῖν. Σάρχα δὲ οὐ ϑέλει ἀν-
ἰστασϑαι, γάμον δὲ φϑορὰν εἶναι λέγων χυνιχωτέρῳ βίῳ πιροσ-
ἄγει τοὺς μαϑητὰς, ἕν τούτοις νομίζων λυτιεῖν τὸν δημιουργὸν,
εἰ τῶν LH αὐτοῦ γεγονότων 1) ὡρισμένων ἀπέχοιτο.
(Marcionites denied the unity of the Four Gospels.) Origen,
Comment. in Joann. Tom. V. p. 98. (See before, p. 85.)
Ibid. Tom. X. 4. p. 165. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 316.) Ἐγὼ δ᾽ oi-
μαι καὶ τὸν Maoxiwve παρεχδεξάμενον ὑγιεῖς λόγους, αϑετοῦντα
αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκ Mapiag γένεσιν, xara τὴν ϑείαν αὐτοῦ φύσιν ἀπο-
φήνασϑαι, ὡς ἄρα οὐχ ἐγεννήϑη ἐκ Mapiac, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τετολ-
μηκέναι περιγράψαι τούτους τοὺς τόπους and τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου.
(The Marcionite Canon.) Epiph. Haer. I. t. 3. h. 42. p. 809.
(Migne, Vol. I. p. 708.)? Ἐλεύσομαι δὲ εἰς τὰ va αὐτοῦ γεγραμ-
8 Epiphanius here shows what the Marcionite Canon was composed of; and
intimates that he, like Tertullian, can prove the main Christian verities against
Marcion, even from what Marcion allowed to remain in his ‘‘ Gospel.”
398 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
(xd de τα \ >
μένα, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐῤῥαδιουργημένα. Οὗτος γὰρ ἔχει Εὐαγγέλιον
\ ~ , > \ ~ ~
μόνον τὸ χατὰ “ουχᾶν, περιχεχκομμένον ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς, διὰ τὴν
~ ~ \ \ , d ~ >
τοῦ Σωτῆρος σύλληψιν, καὶ τὴν ἔνσαρχον αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν. Ov
yA \ ΒΩ 7
μόνον δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπιέτεμεν ὃ λυμηνάμενος ἑαυτὸν ἤπερ τὸ Ev-
, 4 \ ‘ ~ , \ ~ , \ /
ayyéhiov' αλλὰ χαὶ τοῦ τέλους καὶ τῶν μέσων τεολλὰ mEQLréxo WE
ov τῆς ἀληϑείας λόγων" ἄλλα δὲ παρὰ τὰ γε να στέ-
τῶν τῆς αληϑειας λόγων" adda δὲ παρὰ Ta γεγραμμένα προ
ἌΝ 17 ee Pathe ee ας te: oe wn
seine. Movy δὲ xéxontae τούτῳ τῷ χαραχτῆρι τῷ χατὰ Aovnav
> , a \ \ 3γχ \ 2 ἌΣ Ὡς Oe 3
Εὐαγγελίῳ. Ἔχει δὲ χαὶ Ἐπιστολὰς παρ αὐτῷ τοῦ ἁγίου .“πο-
τεῦ ~ ~ > -
στόλου δέκα, αἷς μόναις χέχρηται, οὐ πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς ἐν αὐταῖς
2 - , ) ,
γεγραμμένοις, ἀλλά τινα αὐτῶν περιτέμνων, τινὰ δὲ ἀλλοιώσας
χεφάλαια. Ταύταις δὲ ταῖς δυσὶ βίβλοις κέχρηται. “Adha δὲ
3 2 - - ~
συντάγματα ap ξαυτοῦ συνέταξε τοῖς an αὐτοῦ mAavwpévos.
€ anes ial \ « 2 9 - / , 7) , \ \
At δὲ Ἐπιστολαὶ αἱ παρ αὐτῷ λεγόμεναι εἰσι" meWTH μὲν ττρὸς
Γαλάτας, δευτέρα δὲ πιρὸς Κορινϑίους, τρίτη τιρὸς Κορινϑίους
ν , , \ ~
δευτέρα, τετάρτη 200g Ρωμαίους, πέμπτη πρὸς Θεσσαλονιχεῖς,
cr ‘ ~ , ἘΝ , \ 2 , 2 /
Extn 7006 Θεσσαλονιχεῖς δευτέρα, ἑβδόμη τιρὸς Ἐφεσίους, oydon
Ν - 2) , \ ,ὔ , \
00S Κολωσσεῖς, ἐννάτη τερὸς Φιλήμονα, δεχάτη πρὸς Drduzcacyn-
, 2) \ ~ Ν «
σίους. Ἔχει δὲ καὶ τῆς πρὸς Aaodixeiag λεγομένης μέρη. Ἔξ
zr ~ ~ 2 - - ) ,
οὗστερ χαραχτῆρος τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ σωζομένου, τοῦ te Ευαγγελίου,
᾿ \ _- Ἵ ἡ" ~ )» , ν ὦ ΡΝ, γ ow DE
χαὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν tov -Anootohor, δεῖξαι αὑτὸν ἐν Θεῷ ἔχομεν
> ~ \ > 2 ~
ἀπατεῶνα χαὶ σιετιλανιμιένον, χαὶ ἀκρότατα διελέγξαι. Ἐξ αὐτῶν
\ 2 ~ > 2 ~
yao ἀναμφιβόλως τῶν τιαρ᾽ αὐτοῦ δμολογουμένων ἀνατραττήσεται.
ar \ ~ i iw 27 2 > ~ , ~ 2 ,
Ex γὰρ τῶν αὐτῶν ἔτι mae αὐτοῦ λειψάνων, tov te Εὐαγγελίου
‘ ~ 2 ~ r ~
χαὶ tov Ἐπιστολῶν etoioxouevwr, δειχϑήσεται ὃ Χριστὸς τοῖς
- \ 3) z ~ 3 ?
συνετοῖς μὴ αλλότριος εἶναι διαϑήχης, καὶ οἱ προφῆται οὖν οὐ
> / 27 - ~
ἀλλότριοι ὄντες τῆς tov Κυρίου évdnutac, χ.τ.1.
. . . . ,
(How Epiphanius set to work.) Ibid. p. 310. Παραϑήσομαι
\ , a ~ ~
δὲ χαὶ ἣν ἐποιησάμην now αὐτοῦ πιραγματείαν, τιρὶν τοῦ ταύ-
ὡς Ν - - ~ 2
τὴν μου τὴν σύνταξιν ἐσπουδαχέναι διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν τῶν ἀδελ-
φῶν πιροτροττῆς ποιήσασϑαι. (And ἐτῶν ἱχανῶν ἀνερευνῶν τὴν
/ ~
τούτου tov Magziwrog ἐπινενοημένην ψευδηγορίαν, καὶ ληρώδη
ν , ΘῈ στ \ \ ~ a
διδασκαλίαν, αὐτὰς δὴ τὰς τοῦ σπιροειρημένου βίβλους, ἃς χέχτη-
Ν - Χ > ~
ται μετὰ χεῖρας λαβὼν, τό te παρ᾽ αὐτῶν λεγόμενον Εὐαγγέλιον,
ΠΥ ΕΣ hu \ a A / 2 cod ge: , Ν᾽ ΤᾺ
χαὶ ἀποστολικὸν καλούμενον mag αὐτῷ ἐξανϑισάμενος, καὶ ανα-
to 2 « 2 ~
λεξάμενος nad εἱρμὸν ἀπὸ τῶν τιροειρημένων δύο βιβλίων τὰ
+ 9 ) y >
ἐλέγξαι αὐτὸν δυνάμενα, ἐδάφιόν τι συντάξεως ἐποιησάμην, axo-
/ / c
λούϑως τάξας χεφάλαια, καὶ ἐπιγράψας Excorn ῥήσει, τερώτην,
ΝΥ ΝῊ , ἢ ~ Te
δευτέραν, τρίτην. Kai οὕτως ἕως τέλους διεξήλϑον, ἐν οἷς φαί-
MARCION. 399
vetar ἡλιϑίως xa ξαυτοῦ ἐπὶ ταύτας τὰς παραμεινάσας τοῦ TE
Σωτῆρος χαὶ τοῦ ““΄“ποστόλου λέξεις φυλάττων. ΑἹ μὲν γὰρ αὐ-
τῶν τταρηλλαγμένως bw αὐτοῦ ἐῤῥδαδιουργήϑησαν, χαὶ ὡς οὐχ εἶχε
τῷ χατὰ “ουχᾶν Εὐαγγελίῳ τὸ ἀντίγραφον, οὔτε ἢ tot ἀποστο-
λιχοῦ χαραχτῆρος ἔμφασις " ἄλλα δὲ φύσει ὡς ἔχει καὶ τὸ Εὐαγ-
γέλιον καὶ 6 -Andotokoc, μὴ ἀλλαγέντα tw αὐτοῦ, δυνάμενα δὲ
αὐτὸν διελέγχειν, dv ὧν δείκνυται Παλαιὰ “ιαϑήχη συμφωνοῖσα
πρὸς τὴν Νέαν, καὶ ἣ Καινὴ τιρὸς τὴν Παλαιὰν Φιαϑήχην. ..42λ-
λαι δὲ πάλιν λέξεις τῶν αὐτῶν βιβλίων ὑπιοφαίνουσι Χριστὸν ἐν
σαρκὶ ἐληλυϑέναι, καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν τελείως ἐνηνϑρωπηκχέναι. ᾿Αλλὰ
χαὶ ἄλλαι πάλιν δμολογοῦσαι τὴν τῶν νεχρῶν ἀνάστασιν, καὶ τὸν
Θεὸν ἕνα ὄντα Κύριον πάντων παντοχράτορα, αὐτὸν ποιητὴν οὐ-
ρανοῦ χαὶ γῆς, καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς γενομένων, καὶ οὔτε
παραχαράσσουσαι τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τὴν κλῆσιν, οὔτε μὴν ἀρνούμε-
γαι τὸν σιοιητὴν “ad δημιουργὸν τῶν πάντων, ἀλλὰ δηλοῦσαι τὸν
σαφιῦς ὡμολογημένον ὑτιὸ τοῦ χαραχτῆρος τοῦ ἀποστολιχοῦ χαὶ
τοῦ εὐαγγελικοῦ κηρύγματος. Καὶ ἔστι τὰ ἣμῖν πετιραγματευ-
μένα ἐν ὑπιοχειμένοις πιαρατιϑέμενα, ἅτινά ἐστι τάδε.
Ibid. p. 811. Ὅτῳ φίλον ἐστὲ τὰς τοῦ ἀπατηλοῦ Π]αρκίωνος
γόϑους ἐπινοίας ἀχριβοῦν, χαὶ τὰς ἐπιπλάστους τοῦ αὐτοῦ βοσκή-
ματος μηχανὰς διαγινώσκειν, τουτωὶ τῷ συλλελεγμένῳ ovate
ἐντυχεῖν μὴ χατοχγνείτω. Ἔκ γὰρ τοῦ wag αὐτοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τὰ
πρὸς ἀντίῤῥησιν τῆς πανούργου αὐτοῦ ῥᾳδιουργίας σπουδάσαντες
χιαρεϑέμεϑα" ty οἱ τῷ πονήματι ἐντυχεῖν ἐθέλοντες, ἔχωσι τοῦτο
γυμνάσιον ὀξύτητος πρὸς ἔλεγχον τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπινενοημένων
ξενολεξιῶν.
Philastrius de haeres. Marcion secundum Lucam Evange-
lium solum accipit ... quae enim de Christo dicunt Scripturae,
ut de Deo vero, praeterit, quae autem quasi de homine dicunt,
accipit capitula.
Theodoreti haerct. fabul. 1. 24. αὐτὸς δὲ Magniwy ix μὲν
τῶν Εὐαγγελίων τὸ κατὰ Aovuar ἐδέξατο μόνον, τὴν γενεαλογίαν
σερικόψας τὰ τιλεῖστα.
400
TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
8. CONTENTS OF MARCIOY’S GOSPEL. (See note on p. 390.)
Luke I. II. omitted entirely.
Il.
Il.
IV.
IV.
[Marcion did not find that the Preface suited his purpose. He did not
admit that John was the forerunner of the true Christ, but regarded him
as representing the God of the Old Testament. All reference to his mir-
aculous birth was therefore expunged. He retained v. 33; vii. 18, &c.;
ix. 7, 19; xi. 1; xx. 4-6. But all these can be explained in conformity
with his principles. The Birth and Nativity of our Lord were not allowed
to remain on the record, because Marcion could not admit that Christ came
in the flesh.]
1, combined with IV. 31, made the opening words of Mar-
cion’s Gospel:
Ἐν ἔτει σπιεγτεχαι δεχάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος
[ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας] ὃ Θεὸς χατ-
ἥλϑεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ, πόλιν τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἦν διδά-
σχων ἐν τοῖς σάββασι.
[The words in brackets are added on the testimony of the Pseudo-Origen,
Dial. de recta fide, Sect. II. 823 B. Migne, p. 1765 (ἐπὶ τῶν χρόνων Let-
λάτου). All the authorities agree that Marcion’s Gospel began with Luke
iii. 1, and it appears that he added the words of iv. 31 so as to make it
appear that Christ descended from heaven to the synagogue of Capernaum.
Κατῆλθεν has therefore a very different meaning from that which Luke
gives it. There is doubt as to the nominative to κατῆλθεν. Tertullian says
proponit Deum descendisse. Epiphanius has his usual χαὶ ta ἑξῆς without
being definite. Hahn has ὁ Θεός, Volkmar ὁ “Inoove.]
1-38 omitted. (See Epiph. Haer. 42. § 11. p. 312. Migne,
Ῥ- 411)
[Marcion could take no cognisance of the Baptist’s preaching, nor could
he admit that Christ was baptized by an O. T. prophet: vv. 20-22 had no
meaning for Marcion.]
1-13 omitted. (See Epiph. Haer. 42. Ref. 60. p. 343. Migne,
p- 760.)
[The Temptation would have been an empty formality in Marcicn’s view
(Hilg.), also too like Israel in the wilderness (Baur), and Christ did not
come to fulfil the Old Testament.]
14. 15 omitted.
16. ov ἦν τεϑραμμένος omitted.
17-19 omitted. vv. 20, 21, may have been retained.
[These verses omitted because fulfilling Isaiah 1xi. 1. 2.]
22. nai ἔλεγον" οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ υἱὸς ᾿Ιωσήφ omitted.
23. ὃν τῇ πατρίδι σου omitted.
MARCION'S GOSPEL. 401
Luke IV. 24. omitted.
27. probably omitted.
34, Ναζαρηνέ omitted.
[Christ would be of the earth if ‘‘ Nazarene’’ were retained. Marcion
omitted all mention of N. as Christ’s birthplace. Compare Luke xviii. 37,
xxiv. 19. Epiphanius does not say that the word was omitted in those cases,
but Tert. Adv. Marcion (IV. 8) seems to say so. The Pseudo-Origen (Dial.
de recta fide, p. 858 C; Migne, p. 1852) distinctly says so. Ναζωραῖος might
not be in Marcion’s opinion the same as Ναζαρηνός, but he seems to have
expunged both, and Tert. (IV. 8) regards them as the same—a native of
Nazareth. |
Marcion opened his narrative in the following order:
Ill. 1 combined with IV. 31. Then came IV. 32-39. 16 (cur-
tailed) [20, 21] (2) 22 (curtailed). 23, [27] (22) 28, 29,
30, 40-44.
[There is not absolute agreement as to the exact words with which Mar-
cion’s excisions in this chapter began and ended.|
V. 14. ὑμῖν for αὐτοῖς.
[Not a mere variation (Hilg.), but to draw more emphatically the line
between Christ and the servants of the Demiurge to whom the healed per-
son belonged (Volkmar). Tert. IV. 9 says, Ut sit vobis in testimonium. So
Epiph. Haer. 42. § 11. p. 312, Ἵνα ἡ μαρτύριον τοῦτο ὑμῖν. In Cod. Ὁ
the reading is “Iva εἰς μαρτύριον ἡ ὑμῖν τοῦτο: Ut sit in testimonium vobis
hoc. See Sanday, Gospels in Second Century, p. 231, for other codd. Some
of the pernicious readings with which Epiph. p. 312 charges Marcion are
merely variations in the order of words, as in V. 28, &e.]
V. 39. omitted (probably).
[The omission of the early chapters makes the introduction of John in
V. 33 abrupt, and Tert. (IV. 11) does not fail to say that Marcion makes
John appear as suddenly as Christ.]
VI. 17. ἐν αὐτοῖς for pet’ αὐτῶν. See Epiph. p. 312. (Migne,
Vol Lop. 712.)
23. ὑμῶν for αὐτῶν (Epiph.), but Tert. reads eorwm (αὐτῶν).
VII. 31-35.
[The author of Supernatural Religion had a discussion of this passage
beginning, “‘It is generally agreed that the verses Luke vii. 29-35 were
wanting in Marcion’s Gospel.’’ In his ‘‘ Complete Edition”? he has altered
this into, ‘‘Some critics believe that the verses Luke vii. 29-35 were wanting
in Marcion’s Gospel.” But his note is not clear, and the discussion in his
text remains. It may therefore he well to say that Tertullian found noth-
ing to remark upon in the verses, and therefore passed them by. Epipha-
nius is silent because Marcion’s Gospel did not omit them. Volkmar and
26
402
TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
Hilgenfeld believe that Marcior’s Gospel contained them. The critics who
omit the verses are therefore Hahn, who founds on the silence of Tertul-
lian, and (a mistake as to) the bearing of Marcion’s system; and Ritschl,
who would omit 29, 30 as well as 31-35, because he does not think them
properly connected with the context.]
Luke VIII. 19. omitted.
21. Inserted: τίς μου ἣ μήτηρ χαὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί;
[By leaving out verse 19 Marcion got rid of the Hvangelist’s statement:
‘“‘There came to Him His mother and His brethren;’’ and the other verses
thereafter witness in favour of Marcion’s system. To make this witness
more clear, he inserted from Matthew or Mark: ‘‘Who are my mother and
my brethren?” This is an illustration of what Marcion did when alteration
served his purpose better than simple omission. (See Hilg. p. 451.) It
appears that the allegation of the Heretics was that Temptandi gratia nun-
tiaverant et matrem et fratres, quos non habebat. (Tert. De Carne Christi,
e. 7.) Tertullian in that passage and in Ady. Mare. IV. 19 says that this
question, ‘‘Who are my mother,?” &c. was the most constant argument of
Marcion, and of ‘‘all” who denied the Incarnation.]
IX. 40. Epiphanius (Sch. 19) notes some change obscurely.
X. 4. Marcion perhaps read ῥάβδον. (Hilg.)
21. Marcion omitted χαὶ τῆς γῆς.
[He could not retain an expression which called the Father of Christ
“Tord of earth.” In XII. 22-31 he retains the care of this world under
the Creator; but in the present passage Christ was addressing His God,
and Marcion omitted the phrase connecting that God with the earth.]
22. Marcion changed the order and had the Aorist, his text
being apparently: Οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τίς ἐστιν ὃ πατὴρ, δἰ μὴ ὃ
υἱὸς, καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὃ υἱὸς, εἰ μὴ ὃ πατὴρ, καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν, κιτ.1.
[This reading depends mainly on Irenaeus, B. IV. 6. 1. Nemo cognovit
Patrem, nist Pilius, nec Filium, nist Pater et cui voluerit Filius revelare.
Irenaeus shows that it was not only the Marcionite, but a common Gnostic,
reading; obviously because the Aorist permitted (if it did not suggest) an
Anti-Old-Testament meaning, as though the True God had not been known
before the coming of Christ. The Aorist however was common enough
among orthodox Fathers. See before, notes on Justin, pp. 60, 118. See
full list in Anger’s Synopsis in loc. Pseudo-Origen, Dial. de recta fide,
p. 817, has οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν wT... . οὐδὲ τὸν υἱόν τις γινώσχει - --
which is the most consistent reading from Marcion’s point of view.]
25. omitted αἰώνιον.
{Marcion could not admit any connection between the Law of the O. T.
and Eternal Life. In ὁ. XVIII. 18 the word αἰώνιον is retained, but in that
case the insufficiency of the commandments is shown.]
XI. 2. Instead of ““2γιασϑήτω τὸ Ovouc σου, Marcion read Ἐλ-
, γέ ἈΞΊΩΝ Dee LG ems
ϑέτω TO ἅγιον πινεῦμα σου EP ἡμᾶς.
MARCION’S GOSPEL. 403
[This rests on Tert. Adv. Mare. IV. 26, and is not quite clear. Tisch.
argues (see Gr. Test. in loc.) that Marcion really read ἁγιασθήτω, χ.τιλ.
Greg. Nyss. has ἐλθέτω τὸ Gy. mv.—The author of Sup. Rel. 11. 126 says
that this ‘“‘is recognized to be the true original reading’’ !]
29-32. Omitted εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Iwva—to σιλεῖον ᾿Ιωνᾶ ὧδε,
42.
vy. 29-32.
[Marcion did not admit of any comparison between Christ and men of
the other and inferior’ religion. See below, note on XI. 49-51.)
Marcion read χλῆσιν for χρίσιν.
[It appears that Marcion did ‘thot wish to connect Judgment with the
Good God. Tertullian’s argument on the passage does not seem to make
χλῆσιν = hospitality (as it is sometimes translated in this case), but con-
nects vocationem with dilectionem Dei (IV. 27), so as to make it appear that
it means calling, calling by God. His argument is that Christ says nothing
against the Law, but denounces those who misunderstood it: further, that
what Marcion retains regarding Christ is the same as the Ὁ, T. revelation
of God; ascribing to him the function of judging (condemning), and caring
for both external and internal conduct. See XVI. 19-31. Marcion inter-
preted the passage as referring to the Creator’s Hell, and supposed v. 29
to be spoken of the Jews only. See Epiph. Sch. et Ref. 44-46.]
49-51. omitted.
AIT:
[Marcion could not put the prophets of the O. T. and the apostles of
the N. T. on the same footing, as in this passage. Σοφία tov Θεοῦ was
ascribed to the O. T. The wonder is that he retained so much of this
section of 8. Luke. He has elsewhere retained quotations from the O. T.
like VI. 3 (mere dialectic in his opinion); VII. 27 (merely the Baptist as
forerunner of Christ whom the Demiurge would send); XX. 41-44—like
XX. 4—(merely an appeal to embarrass the Jews). (See Hilg. p. 452.)]
6 (7?). omitted.
[Tertullian passes by those words (IV. 28). Epiphanius, Sch. 29, says
that Marcion omitted v. 6; but he makes no mention of v. 7. The verses
seem to stand or fall together. Marcion would ascribe v. 5 to the Demiurge
into whose hands would fall all unbelievers in Christ. V. 6 (and in some
measure v. 7) must have seemed to him to confuse the spheres of Christ
and the Creator.]
8.9. ἐνώπιον tov Θεοῦ instead of ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ
Θεοῦ.
[See below, on XV. 10.]
10. omitted ἢ μεριστήν. (Tert. IV. 28.)
28. omitted (Epiph.), not omitted (Tertullian).
[It is possible that the Marcionites had omitted those words before Epi-
phanius wrote, though Marcion himself had not.|
26;*
404 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
Luke XII. 32. ὑμῶν omitted. See Epiph. Sch. 34.
38. τῇ ἑσπερινῇ φυλαχῇ instead of ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ φυλαχῇ not
ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ φυλαχῇ. See Epiph. Sch. 35.
[Epiphanius says ὁ χτηνώδης forgets that watches are all during the
night, and that there is no evening one. But the first of the night watches
might be called the evening watch.|
XIII. 1-5; 6-9 omitted.
[Epiphanius is somewhat ambiguous, as it is uncertain whether the pa-
rable of the fig-tree is included in the omission. Tertullian (6. 30) passes
direct from XII. 59 to XIII. 10. Hilgenfeld only omits vy. 1-5; but Hahn,
Volkmar and Anger omit also 6-9.]
28. Marcion read: Ὅτε πάντας τοὺς δικαίους ἴδητε ἐν τῇ
βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὑμᾶς δὲ ἐχβαλλομένους χαὶ χρατουμξἕ-
Lit a Se ΟἹ, J ς Ω Ν ee: \ ~ > /
vous ἔξω" éxel ἔσται ὃ χλαυϑμὸς, καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν οδόν-
των. Epiph. Sch. 40.
29-35. omitted.
[Verses 29, 30 show that it is the same God as in the O. T. who now
puts the heathen in the place of the Jews. Verses 31-35 represent Christ
as the God and the Messiah of the Jews. Ritschl and Baur regarded the
omission of the whole as a proof of the originality of Marcion’s Gospel.]
XIV. 26. χαταλείττει instead of μισεῖ.
XV. 10. ἐνώπιον tod Θεοῦ instead of ἐν. τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ Θεοῦ.
[Marcion understood this of the Lord God. Tertullian (6. 32) teaches that
it must refer to the Creator, the Same who long ago proclaimed His long-
ing that the sinner should not die but repent.|
11-32. The Prodigal Son. Omitted.
[This was omitted because of representing the Supreme God as in the
same relation of Father to both Jews and heathen. It was not because of
his repugnance to feasting that Marcion omitted the parable. He retains
some non-ascetic passages, as the Bridegroom, V. 34; the wedding, XII.
36; XIV. 8; the heavenly feast, XIV. 15-24. See Hilg. p. 454; Volkmar
p- 66.|
XVI. 12. Marcion read ἐμόν for ὑμέτερον. (Tert. c. 33.)
[Ἐν τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ referred to the Demiurge’s goods: τὸ ἐμόν brought in
the contrast of Christ’s.]
17. Marcion altered ἢ) τοῦ νόμου.
[Ἢ τῶν λόγων μου instead of ἢ τοῦ νόμου (so Ritschl, Volkmar, Hil-
genfeld). They rest on Tertullian. But Tertullian is uncertain. He says
(c. 33) in one place: TVranseat igitur coelum et terra citius, sicut et lex et
prophetae, quam unus apex verborum Domini. But again he says: Jdeo sub-
texuit facilius elementa transitura quam verba sua. Epiphanius passes it by
MARCION’S GOSPEL. 405
and comments on V. 16. Hahn renders Tertullian into Greek, . . . παρελ-
Jey, ὡς χαὶ ὃ νόμος χαὶ of προφῆται, ἢ τῶν λόγων τοῦ Κυρίου μίαν χε-
ραίαν πεσεῖν. So also Anger.]
XVII. 2. εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήϑη added. Tert. IV. 35.
10. omitted. Epiph. Sch. 47.
[Hahn omits 7-10 mainly on the ground of the silence of Tertullian,
but partly also because of Marcion’s asceticism, to which feasting was re-
pugnant. As regards the latter ground see before, note on XV. 11-32; and
Tertullian’s silence is not enough to cause the omission.]
14. Epiphanius says, Sch. 48: Ὅτε συνήντησαν ot δέκα λεπιροί.
‘Anénowe δὲ ττολλὰ καὶ ἐποίησεν: ᾿4πέστειλεν αὐτοὺς,
λέγων" Ζ“Ιεἰξατε ξαυτοὺς τοῖς ἱερεῦσι" χαὶ ἄλλα ἀντ᾽
ἄλλων ἐποίησε, λέγων, ὅτι Πολλοὶ λετιροὶ ἦσαν ἐν ἡμέραις
2 , ~ , \ 2) a , Ψ \ ~
Ελισσαίου tov τιροφήτου, καὶ οὐχ ἐχαϑαρίσϑη εἰ μὴ Νεεμᾶν
ὃ Σύρος.
[That is to say, Marcion introduced here Luke iv. 27. Epiphanius twits
Marcion with making a quotation in which the Lord calls Elisha a prophet.
Hilgenfeld reads the passage thus: Καὶ ἰδὼν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς: [Πολλοὶ λεπροὶ
σαν ἐν ἡμέραις... 6 Σύρος (iv. 27.) πορευϑέντες ἐπιδείξατε ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς
ἱερεῦσι. This is better than Hahn’s which is v.14; iv. 27; νν. 15, 16,
17, ἕο. Tertullian (c. 35) seems to say that nothing essential was wanting
in Marcion’s text.|
XVII. 19. Mm we λέγε ἀγαϑόν: Εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαϑὸς, ὃ Θεὸς ὃ
πατήρ.
[Marcion added ὁ πατήρ to distinguish the Supreme God from the De-
miurge, who, though God, was not Father. See on the reading My με λέγε,
x.T.. before, p. 116, Notes 6, 7.]
31-34. omitted. Epiph. Sch. 52.
[Omitted, as Marcion could not admit that Christ’s death fulfilled O. T.
prophecy. Im the same way xxii. 35-38, and xxiv. 25, 27, 32, 44, 45
were omitted. On the other hand Marcion retained, vii. 27, &c., because he
identified John the Baptist with the rule of the Demiurge, and could there-
fore admit that Malachi, an O. T. prophet, predicted his coming. Marcion
also retained x. 25; xi. 42; v. 34, there being in each case no identification
of Christ with the Law.]
37. Marcion omitted Ναζωραῖος. See before, on IV. 34.
XIX. 9. Marcion omitted (apparently) χαϑότι χαὶ αὐτὸς υἱὸς
᾿“Αβραάμ ἐστιν. So Tert. c. 37. Epiph. is silent.
29-46. Epiph. Sch. 53.
[Epiphanius says that the omission was to σπήλαιον ληστῶν. Tert. (c. 37)
is silent as to the whole of the chapter after v.27. Hilgenfeld and Volk-
mar omit also vv. 47. 48.]
406 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
Luke XX. 1(f)-18. omitted.
[Epiphanius is obscure, but it appears as though Marcion read v. 1:
Ἔγένετο ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν διδάσχοντος αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, ἐζήτησαν ἐπι-
βαλεῖν ἐπ᾽’ αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας χαὶ ἐφοβήϑησαν ; thus connecting v. 1(α) with
v. 19(z). He must have omitted also ν. 19(8), ἔγνωσαν yao . . - εἶπεν, as
depending on what went before.
19(8). omitted. See last note.
35. Reference to Resurrection omitted.
[Hilgenfeld (so also Ritschl) reads as Marcion’s text: οἱ δὲ xatabtwévtes
ὑπὸ tod Θεοῦ tov αἰῶνος ἐχείνου τυχεῖν. Volkmar agrees with this.
Tert. c. 38 reads: Quos autem dignatus est Deus rllius aevi. Hahn renders
this more literally, Οὺς δὲ χατηξίωσεν ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐχείνου, χ.τ.λ.]
37. 38. omitted.
[The doctrine bearing on the Ὁ. T. was displeasing to Marcion. Epi-
phanius (Ref. 56, 57) puts this parable beside that of Lazarus (Ref. 52),
and speaks of it as ‘‘a repetition’? of the same doctrine |
XXI. (18.) 21. 22. omitted. See Epiph. Sch. 58. 59.
[These verses show an interest in Jerusalem and the Jews, which Mar-
cion could not endure.|
27. μετὰ πολλῆς δυνάμεως [χαὶ δόξης]. (Tert. IV. 39.)
36. omitted Καὶ σταϑῆναι ἔμσιροσϑεν τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνϑρώπου.
[Tert. (c. 39) quotes other verses but omits this, resuming at v. 37.]
XXII. 3. omitted.
[Tert. V. 6 says: Seriptum est enim apud me Satanam in Judam introisse,
which can only mean that in Marcion’s Gospel this incident was omitted.
See also Epiph. Sch. 60, with which this conclusion is at least not incon-
sistent. Marcion’s theory that Christ was opposed to the Creator made it
difficult for him to find a place for Satan as the Tempter.]
16. 17. 18. 30 (2). omitted.
[There is much difficulty in accounting for, or even enumerating, Mar-
cion’s omissions. He certainly retained the direction to Peter to prepare
the Passover,—Epiph. Sch. 61. He also retained v. 15, Epiph. Sch. and
Ref. 62. And the mere fact of his leaving that verse in such a position
shows that Luke’s was the original text which he mutilated. (Hilg. p. 472.)
But it is not certain whether he omitted vv. 17.18. It seems most likely
that he omitted the whole 16-18, in order to leave no trace of the con-
nection between the O. T. feast and the Institution of the Lord’s Supper.
What was left therefore pointed to an act of remembrance (vy. 19) in which
was no trace of bodily communion. Jesus took the Bread—a mere symbol
of the Body which was itself a semblance—and said, ‘‘Do this in remem-
brance of me.’’ He probably omitted v. 30 also, lest it should point to
carnal views of His Kingdom. (See however Hilgenf. p. 433.) All this
MARCION’S GOSPEL. 407
seems the most probable account of Marcion’s proceedings. But it leaves
᾽
the reference to ‘‘this Passover”? in vy. 15 as unaccountable as Epiphanius
(Ref. 62) says it is. By leaving it, Mareion really undid all his undoing;
and the Christian Sacrament remains connected with the Jewish Passover.
Epiphanius does not say (Sch. 63) that Marcion omitted more than v. 16, but
his reasoning (Ref. 63) shows that the omission went on to the end of v. 18,
ta δῆϑεν μὴ ποιήσῃ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ βρωτὰ ἢ rotd.]
35-38. omitted.
[The reference to O. T. prophecy caused the omission. Epiph. Sch. 64
does not define the close of the omission, saying merely xz) ta ξξῆς. But
ν. 38 was too like the Jewish Messiah to be admitted. See Volkmar, p. 69.|
49-51. omitted.
[Epiphanius argues that Marcion was anxious for Peter’s honour, and
obscured the Saviour’s. Epiphanius seems to forget that the Synoptists do
not say Peter was the disciple. The motive of the omission is not clear.
See Volkmar, p. 70, Hilg. p. 457.|
XXII. 2. Marcion read: Τοῦτον εὕρομεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔϑγος,
[χαὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας] χαὶ κελεύοντα
φόρους μὴ δοῦναι [χαὶ ἀναστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖχας χαὶ τὰ
τέχνα], where the passages in brackets are additions to the
text. They are found in some Latin MSS. (See Sanday,
‘Gospels in Second Century,’ p. 232.)
34. The conclusion of the verse from διαμεριζόμενοι was want-
ing in Tertullian’s copy of the Marcionite Gospel, but re-
mained in Epiphanius’s copy.
43. omitted. (Epiph. Sch. 72.)
[Marcion’s reason for omitting it is uncertain. Marcion retained the
parable XVI. 19-31 as referring to the Creator’s Hades, in which there
were different grades of suffering; but he did not allow that Christ went
there. The Marcionite in Dial. de recta fide p. 827 C. says that Abraham
was in Hades but not in the Kingdom of Heaven. See Hilg. p. 469, Volk-
mar p. 100, for notes showing utter perplexity. But Marcion probably did
not wish to identify the future of the Divine Christ with that of this hu-
man _ believer.]
XXIV. 25. Marcion read ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐλάλησεν [ἐλάλησα (by mistake
in Epiph.)] ὑμεῖν instead of ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται. See Tert.
IV. 43.
25 to 49. Shortened and changed.
[Probably 27, 32, 44(8)-46(a) were omitted; v. 47 was retained to ἔϑνη;
47(8 to 53) omitted. It appears as though both Tertullian and Epiphanius
were tired noting the many variations, and became remiss at the end of
408 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
their work on Marcion’s Gospel. It appears certain that he retained vv. 37
to 39. Both Tertullian and Epiphanius show how inconsistent with Mar-
cion’s central position of the unreality of Christ’s body this passage is;
unless indeed (as Tertullian suggests) he interpreted v. 39 to mean that if
they looked at Christ (it seems that Marcion omitted Ψηλαφήσατε) they
would see that He was a spirit without flesh and bones. But what of v. 41,
which seems to have been retained? Irenaeus (B. III. 14. 3, 4) distinetly
says that both Marcion and Valentinus retain ‘‘all the things which He said
after the resurrection to His disciples on the way, and how they knew Him
in the breaking of bread.” He adds, naturally enough, that they must
either accept more of the Gospel when they retain so much, or give up
even what they have. Hilgenfeld says, Marcion omitted v. 27 wholly, the
close of v. 82, and omitted, or at least much shortened, vy. 44, 45. Volk-
mar’s list is 27, 32 (close), 44 (partly), 45, 46 (partly). It appears from
Tertullian’s closing words that, according to Marcion, Christ commanded the
disciples to preach to all nations; and Epiphanius (Haer. 42 C. 9. p. 305,
Migne, Vol. 1. p. 708) says that Marcion cut off the close of the Gospel as
well as its beginning. We conclude therefore that his Gospel ended with a
paragraph made up, as above, from 44(f)-47(a) and that its last word was
Z3yy. ‘Tertullian’s characteristic conclusion is: Misereor tui, Marcion:
frustra laborasti. Christus enim Jesus in Evangelio tuo meus est. Tert. Adv.
Mare. IV. 43.]
Marcion ann Tue Episties.
Irenaeus, Haer. B. 1. 27.2. (See before, p. 391, and com-
pare Iren. Haer. III. 12. 12.)
Tert. Adv. Marc. IV. 3. (See before, p. 78.)
Epiph. Haer. 42.. (See before, p. 394.)
Tert. Adv. Marc. V. 1. Quod idcirco praestruximus, ut jam
hine profiteamur nos proinde probaturos nullum alium Deum ab
Apostolo circulatum, sicut probavimus nec a Christo, ex ipsius
utique Epistolis Pauli, quas proinde mutilatas etiam de numero
forma jam haeretici evangelii praejudicasse debebit.
Epiph. Haeres. I. t. 3. h. 42. p. 317. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 720.)
Ἔτι δὲ χαὶ ταῦτα συνάσπιτομεν. Κατὰ τοῦ πιροειρημένου αἱρεσιάρχου
ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμῶν “av αὐτοῦ πεπραγματευμένῃ σχέσει" ἅτινα σταρ᾽
αὐτῷ πάλιν ἐφεύρομεν, ὡς ἐν ἐϑελοδοκήσει τῶν τοῦ Α΄ ποστόλου
Παύλου Ἐπιστολῶν, οὐχ ὅλων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνίων, ὧν ἐν τῷ τέλει τὴς
πάσης πραγματείας αἱ ὀνομασίαι ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐνετάχϑησαν, ὡς σταρ᾽
αὐτῷ τὸ ““ποστολικὸν ἐμφέρεται. “Kai αὐτῶν δὲ ἠχροτηριασμέ-
γων συνήϑως τῇ αὐτοῦ ῥαδιουργίᾳ: ὡς χαὶ ἐν τῷ προταχϑέντι
MARCION, 409
ὀνόματι Εὐαγγελίῳ λείψανα μὲν τοῦ ἀληϑινοῦ Εὐαγγελίου, εἰ δεῖ
τἀληϑὴ λέγειν: ὅμως δὲ τὰ πάντα δεινῶς μηχανευσάμενος ἐνό-
ϑευσεν.
Τοϊᾶ. p. 821. (Migne, Νο]. 1. p. 726.) «“ὕτη ἣ νενοϑευμένη τοῦ
Παρχίωνος σύνταξις, ἔχουσα μὲν χαραχτῆρα χαὶ τύπον τοῦ χατὰ
“Ἰουχᾶν Εὐαγγελίου, χαὶ Παύλου τοῦ “Anootohov οὐχ ὕλον, οὐ πια-
σῶν τῶν αὐτοῦ Ἐπιστολῶν, ἀλλὰ μόνον τῆς τιρὸς “Ρωμαίους, χαὶ
τῆς τιρὸς Ἐφεσίους, χαὶ πτρὸς Κολοσσεῖς, χαὶ τῆς πρὸς “αοδιχεῖς,
nai ἀπὸ τῆς πιρὸς Γαλάτας, χαὶ τῆς 100g Κορινϑίους σπιρώτης χαὶ
δευτέρας, χαὶ τῆς πρὸς Θεσσαλονιχεῖς τιρώτης χαὶ δευτέρας, καὶ
τῆς πιρὸς Φιλήμονα, καὶ Φιλιτιτιησίους, καὶ τῆς πρὸς Τιμόϑεον
πρώτης χαὶ δευτέρας, χαὶ πρὸς Τίτον, καὶ τῆς πρὸς “Εβραίους τῶν
ἐμφερομένων mag αὐτῷ, ὡς οὐ πληρεστάτων οὐσῶν, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἐν
παραχαράξει. Πανταχόϑεν δὲ τὴν αὐτὴν σύνταξιν ἐῤῥᾳδιουργη-
μένην, καὶ ἕν τισι λέξεσιν ἐπιποιήετως τιροϑήχην ἔχουσαν, οὐχ εἰς
ὠφέλειαν, ἀλλὰ εἰς ἥσσονας χαὶ ἐπιβλαβεῖς ξενολεξίας χατὰ τῆς
ὑγιοῦς πίστεως, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐμβεβροντημένου τοῦ βοσχήματος."
MARCION’S APOSTOLICON.
[Marcion’s changes on the Ten Pauline Epistles in his Apostolicon may be
thus represented.
Galatians I. 1. Kat Θεοῦ Ilatpd¢ omitted (Jerome). And apparently ξαυτόν for
αὐτόν.
7. Κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μον inserted after ἄλλο. Els ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ
Χριστοῦ after μεταστρέψαι, instead of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Dial.
de recta fide p. 9. (This, however, may not have been by Marcion,
though quoted by a Marcionite.)
III. 6-9. 14. 16-18 omitted (7).
(Tert. Adv. Mare. V. 3. says on v. 26—Sed et cum adjicit: Omnes
enim filii estis fidei, ostenditur quid supra haeretica industria eraserit,
mentionem scilicet Abrahae, qua nos apostolus filios Abrahae per fidem
affirmat, secundum quam mentionem hie quoque filios fidet notavit. It
seems from this as if all mention of Abraham were omitted. Lardner
(IV. 619) conjectures that Marc. omitted from III. 14 to IV. 3; so as to
1 This is a mistake, as Epiphanius (see before, p. 394) and others tell us that
Marcion had only Ten Epistles in his ᾿Αποστολιχον. This list is also curious in
enumerating both Ephesians and Laodiceans. It is possible that in Tertullian’s
time Ephesians was in Marcion’s Canon as ‘Laodiceans;’ while in the later days
of Epiphanius, there were some fragments added to the Apostolicon called ‘Lao-
diceans.’ As appears in the text, below, Tertullian did not find some of the
Epistles in Marcion’s book so completely corrupted as Epiphanius found them.
410 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
read: ‘‘ Brethren, I speak after the manner of men—when we were yet
children,’ &c. Tert. reads this in Adv. Mare. IV. 1; but the quotation
from III. 26 makes Lardner’s supposition untenable. Marcion may
have repeated ‘‘when we were yet children” at IV. 3.)
V. 9. Sodot for ζυμοῖ. Epiph. Sch. 4 (on Gal.) p. 351. (Migne, Vol. I.
p. 776.)
1 Corinthians. ΙΧ. 8. Ei χαὶ ὁ νόμος Mwitcdws ταῦτα ov λέγει for Καὶ ὁ vo-
μος ταῦτα ov λέγει. Epiph. p. 321. (Migne p. 721.) (Epiph. says
afterwards (Sch. 7 and 15. p 355) that the change was the insertion of
Mwvogwe in the next clause, ἐν τῷ νόμῳ.)
X. 9. Χριστόν for Κύριον. Ibid. p. 358. (Migne p. 788.) (This is the read-
ing in many old MSS.)
19. ἱερόϑυτον for εἰδωλόϑυτον. Ibid.
XIV. 19. διὰ τὸν νόμον for τῷ vot μου. Ibid. p. 361. (Migne p. 792.)
[Note. In 1 Cor. xv. 38 the Marcionite had πνεῦμα for σῶμα:
and omitted 38 (b)—42(a) and introduced 44 before 42(b). In v. 45
Κύριος for ᾿Αδάμ, and omitted ἄνθρωπος in the latter clause. So at
least it appears in Dial. de recta fide, pp. 864, 868.]
2 Cor. IV. 13. omitted χατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον. Epiph. p. 367. (Migne p. 801.)
Romans. Omitted chapters XV. XVI. (Origen, Can. in Rom. lib. X. p. 687. Migne,
p- 1290. Only in the Latin of Rufinus.)
1 and 2 Thess Epiphanius says that the whole was so corrupted by Marcion
that he made no quotation: p. 371. Migne (p. 807).
Tert. V.15 says Marcion added ἰδίους in 1 Thess. ii. 15 (but this is
in many MSS). He also says, V. 16, that Marcion omitted ἐν πυρὶ φλογός
(2 Thess. ii. 8).
Ephesians (called Laodiceans). Epiphanius (p. 872, Migne p. 809) says that in
Eph. v. 31 Marcion omitted ty yuvacxt. Tertullian (ce. 17) also notices,
ii. 15, the omission of αὐτοῦ after σαρχί; ii. 20, omission of προφητῶν.
iii. 9, omitted ἐν (apparently under the idea that it would then read
‘hidden from God’’).
Colossians. No distinct charge of alteration made against Marcion.
Philemon. Tert. V. 21 says Marcion altered every Epistle save Philemon; but
Epiphanius says it was wholly depraved by Marcion.
Philippians. Epiphanius says this also was hopelessly corrupted. Tertullian
quotes some passages, and makes no specific charge of corruption.
Epiphanius (p. 374, Migne p. 812) gives as an extract from what he found
appended to the Apostolicon from the so-called ‘‘Laodiceans’’ what (as he says)
is equivalent to Eph. iv. 5, but with the addition of εἷς Χριστός after βάπτισμα.
The Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews were rejected by Marcion.
The foregoing shows that Marcion’s changes on such Pauline Epistles as he
received were few; and that his omissions were few and (save from Gal. iii. and
Romans xv. and xvi.) unimportant. It is impossible to reconcile Romans, as he
allowed it to be, with his system—or even the mutilated Galatians.]
CARPOCRATES. 411
6. Carpocrares. !
Tren. B. I. 25.1. Carpocrates autem et qui ab eo mundum
quidem et ea, quae in eo sunt, ab angelis multo inferioribus in-
genito Patre factum esse dicunt. Jesum autem e Joseph natum,
et quum similis reliquis hominibus fuerit, distasse a reliquis se-
cundum id, quod anima ejus firma et munda quum esset, com-
memorata fuerit, quae visa essent sibi in ea circumlatione, quae
fuisset ingenito Deo; et propter hoc ab eo missam esse ei Vir-
tutem, uti mundi fabricatores effugere posset et per omnes trans-
gressa et in omnibus liberata ascenderet ad eum; et eas, quae
similia ei amplectarentur, similiter.
Ibid. 2. Ea{m] igitur quae similiter atque illa Jesu anima,
potest contemnere mundi fabricatores archontas, similiter acci-
pere virtutes ad operandum similia. Quapropter et ad tantum ela-
tionis provecti sunt, ut quidam quidem similes sese dicant Jesu;
quidam autem adhuc et secundum aliquid illo fortiores, qui sunt
distantes amplius quam illius discipuli, ut puta quam Petrus et
Paulus et reliqui apostoli; hos autem in nullo deminorari a Jesu.
.... Si quis autem plus quam ille contemserit ea quae sunt
hic, posse meliorem quam illum esse.
Ibid. 4. Et in tantam insaniam effraenati sunt (sc. Carpo-
cratiani), uti et omnia quaecunque sunt irreligiosa et impia, in
potestate habere et operari se dicant. Sola enim humana opi-
nione negotia mala et bona dicunt. Et utique secundum trans-
1 Carpocrates. The most biographical account of Carpocrates is in Clem.
Alex. Strom. III. 2. p. 511. There is a long account of his doctrine in Irenaeus,
B. I. 25, which Hippolytus reproduces (Haer. VII. 32); and Epiphanius (Haer. 27)
expands. See also references in Iren. B. II. 31 and following chapters. He was
a contemporary of Basilides. He seems to have taught a doctrine of human per-
fectibility ; and some of his followers claimed to be of higher spiritual attainments
than the Apostles. This easily led to Antinomianism, and practical immorality,
especially of the sexual kind. According to Clement, their principles were of the
most licentious character. Their relation to the Scriptures is not easily established ;
but the natural inference from the arguments of Clement and Irenaeus is, that they
accepted the New Testament. See Rom. iii. 20, vii. 7, and Mat. v. 28, quoted in
Clement, by himself or by them, as of admitted authority. Clement’s chapter is
not one that can be easily quoted here. At all events, rejection of the New Tes-
tament is not charged against them; and the extract from Epiphanius in our text
shows that they accepted Matthew's Gospel with some excision. It will be seen
that Irenaeus speaks of the Carpocratians as claiming the title of Guostics, while
Hippolytus says it was the Naassenes who first claimed it.
412 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
migrationes in corpora oportere in omni vita et in omni actu
fieri animas: ... uti, secundum quod scripta eorum dicunt, in
omni usu vitae factae animae ipsorum, exeuntes, in nihilo adhuc
minus habeant, ad operandum (autem) in eo: ne forte, propterea
quod deest libertati aliqua res, cogantur iterum mitti in corpus.
Propter hoc dicunt Jesum hanc dixisse parabolam: Cwm es cum
adversario tuo in via, da operam, ut libereris ab eo, ne forte te
det judici, et judex ministro, et mittat te in carcerem. Amen dico
tibi, non exies inde, donec reddas novissimum quadrantem. (Mat.
v. 25; Luke xii. 58.) Et adversarium dicunt unum ex angelis,
qui sunt in mundo, quem diabolum vocant, dicentes factum eum
ad id, ut ducat eas, quae perierunt, animas a mundo ad prin-
cipem: (et hunc dicunt esse primum ex mundi fabricatoribus) et
illum alterum angelo, qui ministrat ei, tradere tales animas, uti
in alia corpora includat: corpus enim dicunt esse carcerem. Et
id quod ait: Non exies inde, quoadusque novissimum quadrantem
reddas, interpretantur, quasi non exeat quis a potestate angelo-
rum eorum, qui mundum fabricaverunt; sic transcorporatum sem-
per, quoadusque in omni omnino operatione, quae in mundo est,
fiat: et quum nil defuerit ei, tum liberatam ejus animam eli-
berari ad illum Deum, qui est supra angelos mundi fabricatores.
Sic quoque salvari et omnes animas, sive ipsae praeoccupantes
in uno adventu in omnibus misceantur operationibus, sive de cor-
pore in corpus transmigrantes, vel immissae in unaquaque specie
vitae adimplentes, et reddentes debita liberari, uti jam non fa-
ciant in corpore. (Mat. v. 25; Luke xii. 58.)
Ibid. 6. Gnosticos se autem vocant; et imagines quasdam
quidem depictas, quasdam autem et de reliqua materia fabricatas
habent, dicentes formam Christi factam a Pilato, illo in tempore
quo fuit Jesus cum hominibus.
Epiph. Haer. B. I. t. 2. h. 30. p. 138. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 429.)
‘O μὲν γὰρ Κήρινϑος χαὶ Καρποχρᾶς, τῷ αὐτῷ χρώμενοι δῆϑεν
mag αὐτοῖς Εὐαγγελίῳ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ κατὰ Mardeioy Εὐ-
αγγελίου διὰ τῆς γενεαλογίας, βούλονται παριστᾶν ἔχ σπέρματος
᾿Ιωσὴφ χαὶ Magiag εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν. Οὗτοι δὲ ἄλλα τινὰ δια-
γοοῦνται. ΠΙἊαραχόνψαντες γὰρ τὰς παρὰ τῷ ΠΙατϑαίῳ γενεαλο-
VALENTINUS. 413
, Pr \ 2 \ ~ ς metas , c
γίας ἄρχονται τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιεῖσϑαι ὡς προεῖστιον, λέγοντες ὅτι
, ’ ~ , c 5 , ,
Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρώδου βασίλεως, κχ.τ.}.3
7. Μαμεντινυ.Ϊ
Irenaeus, B. 1. Praef. 2. (Irenaeus says that he was in-
duced to write by falling in with the writings of the disciples
of Valentinus.) “dvayxcioy ἡγησάμην, ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι
τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, Οὐαλεντίνου μαϑητῶν, ἐνίοις δ᾽ αὐτῶν
nal συμβαλὼν χαὶ χαταλαβόμενος τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, μηγνῦσαί
σοι, ἀγαπητέ, τὰ τερατώδη χαὶ βαϑέα μυστήρια, ἃ οὐ τιάντες
χωροῦσιν, ἐπεὶ μὴ πάντες τὸν ἐγχέφαλον ἐξετιτύχασιν (al. ἐσχή-
κασι»).
Ibid. B. 1.11.1. (Irenaeus knew the writings of Valentinus
himself.) Ἴδωμεν viv χαὶ τὴν τούτων ἄστατον γνώμην, δύο που
ACL τριῶν ὄντων, HS περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ
τοῖς πράγμασι χαὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἐναντία ἀποφαίνονται. Ὃ μὲν
γὰρ πρῶτος ἀπὸ τῆς λεγομένης γνωστιχῆς αἱρέσεως τὰς ἀρχὰς εἰς
ἴδιον χαραχτῆρα διδασχαλείου μεϑαρμόσας Οὐαλεντῖνος οὕτως
ἐξηροφόρησεν, z.t.4. (Here follows the Pleroma according to Va-
lentinus) ὃ 2. Σεχοῦνδος λέγει, κιτ.λ. (Here follows the Pleroma
according to Secundus) ὃ ὃ. “42λλος . . «ἐπὶ τὸ ὑψηλότερον χαὶ
2 This seems to mean that the followers of Cerinthus and Carpocrates used
the Gospel of Matthew without cutting off the genealogies, while the Ebionites cut
off the genealogies altogether.
1 Valentinus was a contemporary of Justin Martyr, and was in Rome during
the Episcopate of Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus (Iren. B. III. 4. 3). According
to Clement of Alexandria he claimed Theodas, a disciple of Paul, as his teacher.
The date A.D. 140-160 represents the close of his life. He accepted the whole
New Testament, but perverted it by fanciful interpretations. He developed the
theory of emanations with great completeness. His central thought was that
God, in realising His own Being, created the universe. He who dwelt in the
eternal silence needed some object to love,—needed creation to which His at-
tributes might flow out. The Beings thus made produced others, and, in the
course of evolution, the existence of the material world and the Christian re-
demption came about. His 30 Aeons made the Pleroma. He tried to find support
in Seripture for his speculations, but, as Hippolytus says, he was a Pythagorean
first and a Christian afterwards. His eclecticism drew from Persian, Egyptian,
Jewish, and (it would appear) Indian thought. By putting in many stages be-
tween God and evil, he fancied he had accounted for the origin of evil and the
origin of matter. The result was a system of philosophy in which salvation con-
sists of education; in which free-will (the cardinal fact of human consciousness)
finds no rightful place; and in which no Aeon bears the name of Repentance.
But it appealed, not without success, to the mass of mankind, while Basilides
spoke for the learned.
414 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
γνωστιχώτερον ἐπιεχτεινόμενος, %.0.4. (Here follows the outline of
another disciple’s system.)
Ibid. B. 111. 11.7. (The followers of Valentinus made specially
copious use of John’s Gospel.) Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt,
eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes, &c. See be-
fore, p. 67.
Ibid. B. IIT. 11. 9. (The followers of Valentinus made a
Gospel unlike the Apostolic Gospels, and called it the Gospel of
Truth.) Hi vero, qui sunt a Valentino, &c. See before, p. 70.
Ibid. B. IIT. 12.12. (The Valentinians, like all heretics except
Marcion and his followers, accepted the Scriptures.) Reliqui vero
omnes falso scientiae nomine inflati, Scripturas quidem confiten-
tur, interpretationes vero convertunt, quemadmodum ostendimus
in primo libro.?
Ibid. B. I. 8.1. (The Valentinians claimed also to have tradi-
. . , Nope al ay τ a” a 2}
tional doctrine.) Τοιαύτης δὲ τῆς ὑποϑέσεως αὐτῶν OVONS, ἣν OVTE
σιροφῆται ἐχήρυξαν, οὔτε 0 Κύριος ἐδίδαξεν, οὔτε ἀπόστολοι σπταρ-
ἔδωχαν, ἣν περὶ τῶν ὕλων αὐχοῦσι τιλεῖον τῶν ἄλλων ἐγνωχέναι,
ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσχοντες, χαὶ, τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον, ἐξ ἄμμου σχοι-
via πλέχειν ἐπιτηδεύοντες, ἀξιόπιστα προσαρμόζειν πειρῶνται
τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ἤτοι παραβολὰς χυριαχάς, ἢ δήσεις πτροφητιχάς,
ἢ λόγους ἀποστολιχούς; ἵνα τὸ πλάσμα αὐτῶν μὴ ἀμάρτυρον εἶ-
γαι δοχῇ.5
Ibid. B. 1. 3.6. (The way they perverted the Scriptures.) Καὶ
οὐ μόνον ἐχ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ TOV ἀποστολικῶν TLELQMYTAL τὰς
ἀποδείξεις σπιοιεῖσϑαι, πταρατρέποντες τὰς ἑρμηνείας, καὶ δαδιουρ-
γοῦντες τὰς ἐξηγήσεις" ἀλλὰ χαὶ ἔκ νόμου χαὶ προφητῶν, ἃ TE
σολλῶν παραβολῶν χαὶ ἀλληγοριῶν εἰρημένων χαὶ εἰς “τολλὰ ἕλ-
- ney δυναμένων τὸ ἀμφίβολον διὰ τῆς ἐξηγήσεως, ἕτεροι δὲ δει--
γῶς τῷ πλάσματι αὐτῶν.
2 Compare what Tertullian says below.
3 It is clear from this that the Valentinians accepted the Scriptures, but
alleged that through tradition they had attained to a truth which enabled them
rightly to interpret Scripture. Irenaeus says the same thing even more explicitly
in B. ΠΙ. 2.1, where he quotes the Valentinians as saying that without their tra-
dition truth is not attainable. They also objected (B. III. 2. 2) to the orthodox
tradition preserved in the Churches. Hvenit ttaque, neque Scripturis gam neque
traditioni consentire eos. But this does not mean (Sup. Rel. Il. 76, complete
edition) that they “rejected the writings of the N. T. as authoritative docu-
ments.*’ They made both Scripture and ordinary Church doctrine bend to their
speculations,
VALENTINUS. 415
EXAMPLES OF VALENTINIAN QUOTATION OR INTERPRETATION.
ς 5) ~ ~
Irenaeus, B. 1.3.2. “Added χαὶ διὰ τῶν προηγουμένων τοῦ
> 2) ~ y ~ ~ ~ >
ὀνόματος" αὐτοῦ δίο γραμμάτων, τοῦ τὲ ἰῶτα, χαὶ τοῦ ica, τοὺς
~ γ ‘ ~
δεχαοχτὼ αἰῶνας εὐσήμως μηνύεσϑαι, χαὶ τοὺς δέχα αἰῶνας ὡσ-
ν - - a ~ δον δ -
αὐτως διὰ τοῦ ἰῶτα γράμματος, ὃ προηγεῖται τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ,
σημαίνουσι λέγεσϑαι (al. σημαίνεσϑαι λέγουσι). Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο
εἰρηχέναι τὸν Σωτῆρα, ἰῶτα ἕν, ἢ μία χεραία οὐ μὴ τταρέλϑη
ἰρηχέναι τὸν Σωτῆρα, t ὅν, ἢ μία χεραί μὴ σταρέλϑῃ,
Li ὌΝ / , e
ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. (Mat. v. 18.)5
- - -«ο͵ > ~ aA \
Ibid. 1. ὃ. δ. Ἔπειτα seo τοῦ “Ὅρου αὐτῶν, ov δὴ χαὶ shel-
> ~ ν᾿ 2) ’
οσιν ὀνόμασι χαλοῦσι, δύο ἐνεργείας ἔχειν αὐτὸν ἀποφαινόμενοι,
τὴν ἑδραστιχὴν χαὶ τὴν μεριχήν" χαὶ καϑὸ μὲν ἑδράζει χαὶ στὴη-
Ν ΟἿ ν ’ Go
oiler, Σταυρὸν εἶναι, χαϑὸ δὲ μερίζει καὶ διορίζει, “Ὅρον" τὸν
μὲν Σταυρὸν [ἃ]. Σωτῆρα] οὕτως λέγουσι μεμηνυχέναι. τὰς ἔνερ--
2 - ν - Ν . Ἂ - -
γείας αὐτοῦ" “aL πρῶτον μὲν τὴν ξδραστιχὴν ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν: Ὃς
> γ - 2 -
οὐ βαστάζει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ χαὶ ἀχκολουϑεῖ μοι, μα-
5. τῷ ~
ϑητὴς ἐμὸς ov δύναται ενέσϑαι. Kat’ ρας τὸν σταυ-
ν c ~ 2 4 ry ἣν \ 2 ~ > ~
ρὸν αὑτοῦ axohovdet μοι. Τὴν δὲ διοριστικὴν αὐτοῦ, ἐν τῷ
- aX ~ )
εἰχιεῖν" οὐχ ἤλϑον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην, ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν.5 (Mat. x. 34.)
Ibid. B.I. 8.5. (The Valentinians and John’s Gospel.) Ἔτι δὲ
2 , Ν \ ~ σ , δ ν᾿ ἢ \ , ) 72
Ἰωάννην τὸν μαϑητὴν τοῦ Κυρίου διδαάσχουσι τὴν πρώτην ογδοάδα
Bp) ~ * c 2) Ν
μεμηνυχέναι αὐταῖς λέξεσι, λέγοντες οὕτως" Ιωάννης ὃ μαϑητὴς
- , / 2) ~ \ ~ c , Q? a \
tov Κυρίου βουλόμενος εἰπεῖν τὴν τῶν ὅλων γένεσιν, xed ἣν τὰ
c 2 [4 -
πάντα προέβαλεν ὃ Πατὴρ, ἀρχήν τινα ὑποτίϑεται τὸ πρῶτον
ωΩ Δ .ς \ ~ ~ aA NN a \ CAN ~ \ \ ,
γενγηϑὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ov δὴ χαὶ υἱὸν Movoyern καὶ Θεὸν xé-
χληχὲν ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα ὃ Πατὴρ προέβαλε σπερματικῶς. ‘Yi0
‘ ~ > ~
dé τούτου φησὶ tov Adyov προβεβλῆσϑαι χαὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν ὕλην
- bed > , aA ΒῚ \ c 5 , Ὁ 7.) 2 Ν
τῶν Aiwwywy οὐσίαν, ἣν αὐτὸς ὕστερον ἐμόρφωσεν ὁ “γος. Πσεεὶ
ΟἿ ~ 2 - > ~
οὖν σιερὶ πιρώτης γενέσεως λέγει, καλῶς ILO τῆς ἀρχῆς, τουτέστι
τοῦ Θεοῦ nai τοῦ Adyov, τὴν διδασκαλίαν ποιεῖται. Aéyer δὲ
c - aE 2 ἜΑ Cc if / if ἈΠΕ A , 2 Sige x
οὕτως" Ev ἀρχῇ ἣν ὃ Aoyos, καὶ ὁ Aoyos ἣν πρὸς τὸν
4 The first letter of this name of Jesus (I) being 10; the second (H)
being = 8.
5 See also Hippol. Ref. Haer. VI. 24.
6 We give this as a specimen of the interpretations by which the Valen-
tinians tortured the most unlikely passages of Scripture to support their specula-
tions. The boundary or fence of the Pleroma was called Stauros or Horos, in
order that they might explain such passages as 1 Cor.i.18; Gal. vi. 14. (See
passage below.) In the present case the use of the two names is defended be-
cause of the twofold function of confirmation and division.
7 The Latin translates: “τουτέστι τοῦ viov.”’
410 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
x νι τ si 3 ~
Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὃ “όγος" οὗτος ἣν ἐν ἀρχἣ πρὸς TOY
Ν \ 2 \ \
Θεόν. Πρότερον διαστείλας τὰ τρία, Θεὸν, nat Aoyiy, καὶ
, , SPN Re Stoel Mer \ ‘ κ᾿ ς , > ΤΟΣ
Abyov, πάλιν αὐτὰ ἕνοῖ, ἵνα vat τὴν προβολὴν ἑχοτέρων αὐτῶν
to ~ ah) ᾿Ξ > ’ ra
δείξῃ, τοῦ te Υἱοῦ χαὶ τοῦ “όγου, χαὶ τὴν medg ἀλλήλους ἅμα,
\ c ‘
χαὶ tiv πρὸς Πατέρα ἕνωσιν. ... -Aéyer δὲ οὕτως" Καὶ ὁ
ot K Al) \ ξ 2 d \ ? A Ui 3] = ~ . Ν 4 9.
όγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο χαὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐϑεα-
σάμεϑα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ
Π i thn delac. ᾿Αχριβῶς οὖν καὶ
ατρὸς, σ΄ ons χάριτος χαὶ ἀληϑείας. ριβῶς
\ σ᾿ ‘ ‘
τὴν πρώτην ἐμήνυσε τετράδα" Πατέρα εἰπὼν, χαὶ Χάριν χαὶ τὸν
᾿ - \ ~ ,
Movoyern nai Alydecar. Οὕτως ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης περὶ τὴς πρώτης “et
Ne yl A ao ἣ Wo (δ ole TI , \ el χε
μητρὸς τῶν ὅλων “Ἰώνων ὀγδοάδος εἴρηχε. Πατέρα γὰρ εἴρηχξ,
r \ a ~ \? U \ , \ ‘
zai Χάριν χαὶ Movoyern καὶ Adjtecy nai Aoyov nat Ζωὴν καὶ
‘Avi owrmov χαὶ Ἐχχλησίαν.8 (John i.)
Ibid. B. I. 3.1. (The Valentinians used Paul’s Epistles.) Kat
~ I~ 2
τὸν Παῦλον φανερώτατα λέγουσι τούςδε ἰῶνας ὀνομάζειν τολ--
λάχις, ἔτι δὲ χαὶ τὴν τάξιν αὐτῶν τετηρηχέναι οὕτως εἰπόντα"
Εἰς στιάσας τὰς γενεὰς τῶν αἰώνων τοῦ αἰῶνος. (Eph. iii. 21.)
Ibid. B.I. 8.4. Καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου δὲ φανερῶς διὰ τοῦτο
ge, / \ > / > \ / \ / ,
ειρῆσϑαι λέγουσι" Καὶ αὐτός ἐστι τὰ marta: vou πάλιν" Παντὰ
> ~ ~
εἰς αὐτὸν, χαὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα᾽ χαὶ πάλιν: Ἔν αὐτῷ χατοιχεῖ
av τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς ϑεότητος᾽ καὶ τό" ᾿Δνακεφαλαιώσασϑαι δὲ
τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἕρμηνεύουσιν εἰρῆσϑαι,
χαὶ εἴ τινα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα. (Col. iii. 9. 11; Rom. xi. 36; Eph.
i 0;
. [τῷ ~ ‘ ’
Tbid. B. I. 8. δ. Παῖλον δὲ τὸν ἀπόστολον χαὶ αὐτὸν ἐπιμιμνή-
σχεσϑαι τούτου τοῦ σταυροῦ λέγουσιν, οὕτως" Ὃ λόγος γὰρ ὃ τοῦ
~ ~ \ 3) -
σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστὶ, τοῖς δὲ σωζομένοις
Cc w / (oe \ , 9 ‘ \ \ , γ \
ἡμῖν δύναμις Θεοῦ" zai πάλιν: Ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο ἐν μηδενὶ
χαυχᾶσϑαι, εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, du οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος
2 ~ . .
ἐσταύρωται, xayo τῷ κόσμῳ. (1 Cor. i. 18; Gal. vi. 14.)
Clem. Alex. Strom. IT. 20. p. 488. ᾿““λλὰ nai Οὐαλεντῖνος
χερός τινας ἐπιστέλλων αὐταῖς λέξεσι γράφει σπτερὶ τῶν προσ-
αρτημάτων" Εἷς δέ ἐστιν ἀγαϑὸς, οὗ παῤῥησίᾳ ἣ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ
φανέρωσις, χαὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ μόνου δύναιτο ἂν ἣ χαρδία καϑαρὰ γε-
, \ - , Ύ / ~ ,
γνέσϑαι παντὸς πονηροῦ σινεύματος ἐξωϑουμένου τῆς χαρδίας.
(Mat. xix. 17; v. 8(?).
8 In the Latin is added after ‘‘Ecclesiam’’: et Ptolemaeus quidem ita. There
are similar interpretations of John i. 18 in Irenaeus, B. I. 8. 5.
VALENTINUS. 417
Ibid. VII. 17. p. 898. (After saying that Basilides claimed
Glaucias as his teacher, Clement adds:) “Ὡσαύτως δὲ χαὶ Οὐαλεν-
τεῖνον Geoda διαχηχοέναι φέρουσιν" γνώριμος δ᾽ οὗτος γεγόνει
/
Παύλου.
Tertullian de praescript. haeret. c. 30. Item Valentinus, aliter
exponens, et sine dubio emendans, hoc omnino (al. nomine) quic-
quid emendat, ut mendosum retro, anterius fuisse demonstrat.
Ibid. c. 37. (See before, p. 48.)
Ibid. ὁ. 38. Alius manu scripturas, alius sensu expositiones
intervertit. Neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento uti
videtur, non callidiore ingenio, quam Marcion manus intulit ve-
ritati. Marcion enim exserte et palam machaera, non stilo usus
est, quoniam ad materiam suam caedem scripturarum confecit,
Valentinus autem pepercit, quoniam non ad materiam scripturas,
sed materiam ad scripturas excogitavit: et tamen plus abstulit
et plus adjecit, auferens proprietates singulorum quoque verbo-
rum, et adjiciens dispositiones non comparentium rerum.
. ¢ / lu δ ΗΝ 3
Origen, ὁ. Cels. II. 27. ἢϊεταχαραξαντας δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
5 To ὌΧ Β] \ , \ \ ) γ
ἄλλους οὐχ οἶδα, ἢ τοὺς ἀπὸ Ἰϊ]αρχίωνος, χαὶ τοὺς a0 Oveder-
x NN \ \ 2 κ ΄
τίνου, οἶμαι δὲ χαὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ “Πουχάνου.
Πιρροῖ. Ref. Haer. VI. 29. (p.270.) (Valentinus a Pythagorean
and a Platonist rather than a Christian philosopher.) Τοιαύτη τις,
ὡς ἐν χεφαλαίοις εἰτιεῖν ἐπιελϑόντα, ἢ Πυϑαγόρου χαὶ Πλάτωνος
συνέστηχε δόξα, ἀφ᾽ ἣς Οὐαλεντεῖνος, οὐχ aid τῶν εὐαγγελίων τὴν
αἵρεσιν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ συναγαγὼν, ὡς ἐπιδείξοιιεν, δικαίως Πυϑαγο-
ριχὺς χαὶ Πλατωνιχὸς, οὐ Χριστιανὸς λογισϑείη. Οὐαλενεῖνος
τοίνυν χαὶ «Ηραχλέων καὶ Πτολεμαῖος καὶ πᾶσα ἣ τούτων σχολὴ,
οἱ Πυϑαγόρου χαὶ Πλάτωνος μαϑηταὶ ἀχολουϑήσαντες τοῖς χαϑ-
ηγησαμένοις, ἀριϑμητικὴν τὴν διδασχαλίαν τὴν ἑαυτῶν κατεβά-
λοντο.
Ibid. VI. 34. (p. 284). Tovto ἐστὶ, φησὶ, τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐν 17
γραφῇ" Τούτου χάριν κάμγιτω τὰ γόνατά μου πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν χαὶ
Πατέρα χαὶ Κύριον τοῦ Κυρίου nt cov ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἵνα δώῃ ἱ ὑμῖν
ὁ Θεὸς χατοιχῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνϑρωπον τουτέστι τὸν
ψυχικὸν οὐ τὸν σωματιχὸν ἵνα ἐξισχύ OnvE γοῆσαι τί τὸ βάϑος é ὕστερ
ἐστὶν ὃ πατὴρ τῶν ὕλων καὶ τί τὸ πλάτος ὕπερ ἐστὶν ὃ σταυ-
27
418 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
00S, ὃ ὅρος τοῦ τιληρώματος ἢ τί TO μῆκος τουτέστι τὸ ττλήρωμα
τῶν αἰώνων." (Eph, iii. 14, 16-18.)
Ibid. Διὰ τοῦτο ψυχικὸς, φησὶν, ἄνϑρωτιος ov δέχεται τὰ
τοῦ πινεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ" μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστί. (1 Cor. ii. 14.)
Τοϊά. Τεγεέννηται ὃ Ἰησοῦς διὰ Π]αρίας τῆς “παρϑένου χατὰ
τὸ εἰρημένον": Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀπρελ ἐπὶ σέ" πνεῦμα
ἐστὶν ἢ σοφία: καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισχιάσει σοι"
ὑψιστός ἐστιν ὃ δημιουργός: διὸ τὸ γεννώμενον &x σοῦ
ἅγιον χληϑήσεται. (Luke i. 35.) 1°
Ibid. VI. 35. (p. 284.) Πάντες οὖν οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὃ γόμος
Yor
ἐλάλησαν a0 τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, μωροῦ λέγει Θεοῦ, μωρο: cy
εἰδότες. Διὰ τοῦτο, φησὶ, λέγει ὃ Σωτήρ" lige οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ
ἐληλυϑότες κλέπται καὶ λῃσταὶ εἰσί. (John x. 8.)7
® See echoes VI. 35 (Rom. xvi. 25; Eph. iii. 9); VI. 30 (Heb. xii. 22);
VI. 29 (4 John iv. 8).
10 This passage is clearly from St Luke, though it is not verbatim, υἱὸς Θεοῦ
being omitted. The words ἐχ σοῦ are not genuine, but they are a very old and
respectably supported addition for which the Peshito and a, ec, 6, πὶ of O. L. can
be cited. See Sanday’s able argument using this as a proof of the antiquity of
the Gospel, inasmuch as it had time to be corrupted before this Gnostic cited it.
On this passage the Valentinians were divided, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, as
leading the Italian branch, declaring that the body of Jesus was Ψυχιχόν, while
Axionicus and Bardesanes, as representing the Eastern branch, said it was πνευμα-
tixdv. The question however arises, whether Hippolytus in his text is quoting
the founder of the school, or some follower. It is impossible to say with perfect
certainty, but, unless Valentinus was a myth, he must have been the leader of
the Valentinians, and it is unreasonable to ask us to believe that he had none
of those quotations which his followers founded so much upon. The same ques-
tion arises here as upon Basilides, and the φησί of Hippolytus is ambiguous in
both cases. Canon Westcott in his fourth edition withdraws further than is ne-
cessary from his former position, maintaining that the citations are by Valentinus
himself. The way in which Hippolytus first quotes this passage from the repre-
sentative of the school and afterwards refers to the disputes between the two
branches, makes us think that he is quoting the founder—the disputes being of
later date. He resumes in ὁ. 36 with ἐπιλέγει. But even if this be not admitted,
the citation is at all events by an early Valentinian—long before Hippolytus, and
not later than Irenaeus, whose contemporary Heracleon was. The quotation is
not later than 150-180 A.D.—and the text must be much earlier.
11 In regard to the citations of John’s Gospel there is of course the already
noticed ambiguity of φησί. Was the writer Valentinus or a follower? Baur and
others say that the Fourth Gospel adopted its phrases from Valentinus ; but when
Hippol. IV. 51 compares the Hebdomad of Simon, — νοῦς; ἐπίνοια, ὄνομα, φωνή,
λογισμός, ἐγϑύμησις, ὁ 6 ἑστὼς στὰς στησόμενος, — with Valentinus’s νοῦς, aA Sera,
λόγος, ζωή, ἄνδρωπος, ἐχχλησία, ὁ πατήρ, he leads the reader to accept his
statement that the whole school of Valentinus used and founded upon the Fourth
Gospel from which its fundamental terms were drawn. Heracleon’s Commentary
would not have needed to twist John’s Gospel if one of the school had written
it. The simple use of the terms by the Evangelist must be the original; the
distortion by the philosophers is a subsequent stage. See Iren. I. 8, 1. 9, I. 10.
VALENTINUS. HERACLEON. 419
. ς Gare > \ 448 aN τ , Ξ ς θ᾽ ἢ <
Ibid. (p. 286.) Τοῦτο ἐστὶ, φησὶ, TO εἰρημένον O ἐγείρας
r ~ Se \ MY \ / ς ~ /
Χριστὸν ἐκ νεχρῶν ζωοτιοιήσει χαὶ τὰ ϑνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν, ἤτοι
͵ eee
wWeyixe. (Rom. vill. 11.)
Ibid. VIIT. 10. (p. 422.) Τοῦτό ἐστι, φησὶν, ὃ λέγει ὃ Σωτήρ"
I , ~ ee Ch y
Ἐὰν μή τις γεννηϑῆ ἐξ ὕδατος χαὶ πνεύματος, οὐχ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς
\ U ~ ) ~ U \ ~ \
τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν" ὅτι TO γεγεννημένον EX τῆς σαρχὸς
, ? ante τ
σαρὲ ἔστιν. (John iii. 5, 6.)
Thid. IX. 12. (p. 458.) Καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ εἰρημένον" Ov πι-
Doe AED oN ἡ ~ a. NG δ Doe) , . 9
στεύεις OLL ἐγὼ EV τῷ πατρὶ “AL O πατὴρ ἕν ἑμοί; (John xiv. 11.)!?
8. Heracueon.!
Trenaeus, B. 11. 4.1. (Heracleon was a Valentinian.) Si au-
tem non prolatum est, sed a se generatum est: et simile est et
fraternum et ejusdem honoris id, quod est Vacuum, si Patri, qui
praedictus est a Valentino; antiquius autem et multo ante ex-
istens et honorificentius reliquis Aeonibus ipsius Ptolemaei et
Heracleonis et reliquis omnibus qui eadem opinantur.?
Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 9. p.595. (Heracleon the most dis-
tinguished Valentinian.) “Heazhéwy 6 τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς
δοχιμώτατος.
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VI. 35. (p. 280.) (Heracleon of the Italian
school of Valentinians.) Ot μὲν ἀτιὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, ὧν ἐστὶν Ηραχλέων
See good remarks in Bleek, N. T. Int. § 86. See also Westcott, Canon, p. 296
(4th edition).
12 See also echoes of John’s Gospel vi. 32 (ἡ ἄρχων τοῦ χόσμον τούτου).
1 Heracleon. There is no doubt about Heracleon having quoted the Gospels
of Luke and John and 2 Timothy as seen in our text. He quoted also Matthew,
Romans, and 1 Corinthians (see Westcott, Canon). Origen quotes his commentary
on John more than 50 times; commenting indeed in many passages quite as
much on Heracleon as on John. We have quoted the principal references to his
date and position, and a few passages to illustrate his mode of teaching. His
minute care of the letter of Scripture is visible in these passages. He was, so
far as is known, the first commentator on the New Testament. He wrote a com-
mentary on John, and we have at least a fragmentary comment of his upon Luke.
His date is therefore of importance. See note 1 on Ptolemaeus (below p. 422).
He quoted the book called ‘Peter’s Preaching,’ and Origen refers to this quota-
tion when discussing the character of true worship as declared in John iv. 22.
(Origen, Comment. in Joann. t. 13. p. 226. Migne, Vol. IV. p. 424.) The pas-
sage itself is found and discussed in Clem. Strom. VI. 5. 39-43. p. 759.
2 The only mention of Heracleon by Irenaeus; who thus mentions him
among the Valentinians in course of an argument to show that in constructing
the world the Gnosties of that school had not provided for the origin of χένωμα
(or Vacuitas, or Vacuum).
Pi
420 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
χαὶ Πτολεμαῖος ψυχιχόν φασι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ γεγονέναι. . . .
Οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς λέγουσιν, ὧν ἐστὶν ““ξιόνικος καὶ ᾿,41ρ-
δησιάνης, ὅτι πνευματιχὸν ἣν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Σωτῆρος.
Ibid. VI. 29. (p. 810). (Heracleon a follower of Greek Phaloso-
phy.) Οὐαλενεῖνος τοίνυν χαὶ Ηραχλέων χαὶ Πτολεμαῖος καὶ mace
ἡ τούτων σχολὴ, οἱ Πυϑαγόρου χαὶ Πλάτωνος μαϑηταὶ, ἀκολουϑή-
σαντες τοῖς χαϑηγησαμένοις, ἀριϑμητιχὴν τὴν διδασχαλίαν τὴν
ἑαυτῶν χατεβάλοντο.
Origen, Comment. in Joann. Tom. II. p. 66. (Migne, Vol. IV.
p- 137.) (Heracleon reported to be specially connected with Va-
lentinus.) Tov Οὐαλεντίνου λεγόμενον εἶναι γνώριμονβ" “Hoaxhewve,
διηγούμενον τὸ Πάντα δι αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο.
Epiph. Haeres. I. t. 3. h. 36, p. 202. (Migne, Vol. I p. 633.)
Ἡραχλέων tig τοῦτον τὸν KohogBacoy διαδέχεται."
SPECIMENS OF THE WRITINGS OF HERACLEON.
Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. 9. p.595. Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἐὰν ὃμο-
λογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσϑεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁμολογήσω
χἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσϑεν τοῦ Πατρός μου ἐν ovea-
γοῖς. (Mat. x. 82) Ὅταν δὲ φέρωσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὰς συν-
αγωγὰς καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ἐξουσίας, μὴ WEOMEQL-
μνᾶτε πῶς ἀπολογηθῆτε, ἢ vi εἴπητε" τὸ γὰρ ἅγιον
πνεῦμα διδάξει ὑμᾶς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ τί δεῖ εἰπεῖν.
(Luke xii. 11, 12.5) Τοῦτον ἐξηγούμενος τὸν τόπον, «Ηραχλέων ὃ
τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς δοχιμώτατος χατὰ λέξιν φησὶν ὁμολο-
γίαν εἶναι τὴν μὲν ἐν τῇ πίστει “al πολιτείᾳ, τὴν δὲ ἐν φωνῇ.
8 There is doubt as to the meaning of γνώριμος---ΡΥΟΌΔΌΙΥ it is “ special
friend’”’ or ‘special pupil.”
4 Epiphanius makes Marcus ‘‘succeed Secundus and Epiphanes and Ptolemaeus
and Valentinus’”’ (Haer. 34), and Colarbasus (Haer. 35) succeed Marcus, whose
‘‘fellow-disciple he was” (Analysis of Tom. 3). He next makes Heracleon succeed
Colarbasus, as in our text. But he is confused and inaccurate. It appears that
he and others mistook a (probably corrupt) passage of Irenaeus, and changed
the Tetrad which began the Pleroma of Marcus, (the Hebrew name of which was
Col-Arba, the Voice of Four) into the name ofa heretic, Colarbasus, round whose
mythical name gradually grew a collection of strange doctrines he was supposed
to have taught! See Hort’s article ‘‘Colarbasus’’ in Smith’s Dict. of Christian
Biography for a good account. In Haer. 41 Epiphanius makes Heracleon precede
Cerdo), who flourished about A.p. 140.
5 This is the only reference to Heracleon’s Commentary on Luke. Clement
does not mention his Commentary on John, from which Origen quotes very often
without mentioning that on Luke. Hippolytus mentions neither.
HERACLEON. 471
Cr \ ay ELS ’ - . ~
Ἢ μὲν οὖν ἐν φωνῇ ὁμολογία χαὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν γίνεται, ἣν
τες, ιν ς , απο: ΘΝ 3 « Nae eaten tar ,
μόνην, φησὶν, ὁμολογίαν ἡγοῦνται εἰναι ot τιολλοὶ οὐχ ὑγιῶς, Ot-
‘ / ‘ ~
γανται δὲ ταύτην τὴν ὁμολογίαν καὶ οἱ ὑποχριταὶ ὁμολογεῖν.
5 > 7»? Ὁ = ~
Al οὐδ᾽ εὑρεϑήσεται. οὗτος ὃ λόγος χαϑολιχῶς εἰρημένος" οὐ
͵ « Se \ Ὁ ~ ~
γὰρ martes ot σωζόμενοι ὡμολόγησαν τὴν διὰ τῆς (φωνῆς δμολο-
, ν dees Biter δ - , - ve
yiav χαὶ ἐξῆλϑον, ἐξ ὧν Ἰϊατϑαῖος, Dilinnocs, Θωμᾶς, Aerie
\ »” , r , Ψ c ~ ~
zal αλλοι σπιολλοί. Καί ἐστιν ἢ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς δμολογία οὐ χα-
2 a ~ 4
ϑολιχὴ αλλὰ μεριχή" χαϑολικὴ δὲ ἣν viv λέγει τὴν ἐν ἔργοις χαὶ
᾿ he vu , is > | > \ wt Chyn ΝΠ ,
πράξεσι καταλλήλοις τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίστεως. Ἕπεται δὲ ταύτῃ
Th διιολονί. ΡΣ ταν ΓΟ wa N ΜἘ DEMENN πολ IE P ay ἐὰν δέ i ees
ἢ ὁμολογίᾳ χαὶ ἢ μερικὴ ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν, ἐὰν δέῃ χαὶ ὃ λό-
a ς ~ \ [ἡ \ ~ [tear ~
γος alen* ὁμολογῆσει γὰρ οὗτος χαὶ τῇ φωνὴ ὀρϑῶς προομολο-
’, / ~ r ~ ~
γῆσας τιρότερον τῇ διαϑέσει. Καὶ χαλῶς ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ὅμολο-
, (( ὃ γ 5") > ΣΙΝ Ρ De δὲ - > , Wl f(a) \49
γούντων, “ἐν ἐμοι" einer’ ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἀρνουμένων TO “ἐμὲ
σιροσέϑηχεν. Οὗτοι γὰρ χἂν τῇ φωνῇ ὁμολογήσωσιν αὐτὸν, ἀρ-
~ 2 ~ Se ~ ~
νοῖνται αὐτὸν τῇ πράξει μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες, μόνοι δ᾽ ἐν αὐτῷ ὃμο-
- c ~ 2 > ‘ ~
λογοῦσιν οἱ ἐν τῇ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ πράξει βιοῦντες, ἐν
τ > \ c ~ ,ὕ > ~ , c
οἷς χαὶ αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖ ἐνειλημμένος αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐχόμενος ὑπὸ
, , «2 , € c \ 2 , / 4)
τούτων, διόσχιερ “ἀρνήσασϑαι ἑαυτὸν οὐδέποτε δίναται.
. “. 2 - > / a) ~ >
(2 Tim. ii. 13.) “Agvoivrae δὲ αὐτὸν ot μὴ ὕντες ἐν αὐτῷ" ov γὰρ
τ GN Ἐπ Rai ar ae tL? ἀλλ᾽ “ue?” ovdet 4
εἶπεν, “ὃς ἀρνήσηται ὃν ἐμοὶ," ἃ éwé*” οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε
᾽ν γ ew 05 ν Sa ans NV τ» c ~ >
ὧν ὃν αὐτῷ ἀρνεῖται αὐτόν. To δὲ “ἔμπιροσϑεν τῶν ἂν-
΄ ~ \ ~ ~
ϑρώτι ων" χαὶ τῶν σωζομένων χαὶ τῶν ἐθνικῶν δὲ ὁμοίως σταρ᾽
τ \ Sets , ere Nie \ ee ~ ws ἧς ?
οἷς μὲν χαὶ τῇ WOlLTELG, TAQ οἷς δὲ καὶ TH φωνῇ. ALomEQ ἀρ-
, Ω a) \ 2 , , d ~ \ , \ c \
γήσασϑαι αὐτὸν οὐδέποτε δύνανται, ἀρνοῦνται. δὲ αὐτὸν οἱ μὴ
»” > 3) πὸ 45 - . Cac ,
ovteg ἕν αὐτῷ." Tarra μὲν ὃ Hoaxhéwr.
Origen, Comment. in Joann. Tom. II. p. 66. (Migne, Vol. IV.
, \ i \ ‘ , Ν 2 ,
p. 157.) Βιαίως δὲ otuce καὶ χωρὶς μαρτυρίου, tov Οὐαλεντίνου
3 , >
λεγόμενον εἶναι γνώριμον “Hoaxhéwva διηγούμενον τό: Πάντα δι
᾿ ὑ 8 / ᾿
2 - ,ὔὕ ’ , , Ν / Ν \ ’ ~
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, ἑξειληφέναι πάντα τὸν χόσμον καὶ τὰ ὃν αὐτῷ,
~ \ ~ c 2 ~ ~
ἐχχλείοντα τῶν πάντων τὸ ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποϑέσει αὐτοῦ τὰ τοῦ
- ~ 2 I~
κόσμου, χαὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ διαφέροντα. Φησὶ γὰρ, οἱ τὸν αἰῶνα
~ ~ ~ , ” ~
ἢ τὰ ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι γεγονέναι διὰ τοῦ Adyou, ἅτινα οἴεται ττρὸ τοῖ
> XD \¢ U / ‘
Aoyou γεγονέναι. “Avawéoregoy δὲ ἱστάμενος πρὸς τό" Kat
\ 2 ~ ? , 2 Το Ν DA 9 of \ ( \
χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ Ev" μὴ EvdaBovmevog to, “My
- » > ~ ieee Ge \ \ , ”
προσϑῆς τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ ἐλέγξη σε, καὶ ψευδὴς γένῃ,
- - ~ / \ ~ ,
προστίϑησι τῷ" οὐδὲ ἕν, τῶν ἐν τῷ LOOM, HEL TH “TLE.
(John i.)
. . c \
Ibid. Tom. VI. p. 130. (Migne, Vol. IV. p. 251.) O μὲν
422 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
2 ~ ~ ,
“Ηραχλέων οἴεται, ὅτι ἀποχρίνεται ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης τοῖς ἐκ τῶν Da-
’ ao. 2 \ ἘΝ ὧν - > ᾿ , 2 2A Pde ὧν
ρισαίων τιεμφϑεῖσιν, OV 70g Ὁ ἐχεῖνοι ἐπτηρώτων, αλλ ὁ αὐτὸς
vi , « ν Oe cr 5 χω ~ , 3 a!
ἐβούλετο" ἑαυτὸν λανϑάνων, ὅτι κατηγορεῖ τοῦ σπεροφήτου ἀμαϑίας,
Ὕ »” 3. / ING ee, ? ,
elyé ἄλλο ἐρωτώμενος περὶ ἀλλου ἀποχρίνεται.
. o« . [4 « ~
Ibid. Tom. XX. p. 339. (Migne, Vol. IV. p. 628.) [Ὁ Hoa-
~ c ~ /
χλέων] πάλιν εἰς τό; τὰς etd? τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν ϑέλετε
- ν 2 Bp) ?
ποιεῖν, διαστέλλεται. λέγων, τὸν διάβολον μὴ ἔχειν ϑέλημα, αλλ
eee 2) / aI /
ἐπιϑυμίας. (John viii. 44), χαὶ ἐμφαίνεται αὐτόϑεν τὸ αἀδιανόητον
~ ~ 2 ς 2 ~
τοῦ λόγου" ϑέλειν γὰρ τὰ πονηρὰ πᾶς ἄν τις ὁμολογήσαι ἐχεῖ--
7 \ wey, (et , Ὁ S57 - ὅδυτανθ 3
vov.... Meta ταῦτα φησι 0 Ηραχλέων ὡς ἀρὰ ταῦτα εἰρηται
d Ν \ , ~ / c \ ‘ ee \ 3) Ν ἊΣ
οὐ πιρρὺς τοὺς φύσει τοῦ διαβόλου υἱοὺς, τοὺς χοϊχοὺς, αλλὰ πρὸς
\ \ , CHEN , , : άπ Αι - ,
τοὺς Weynovs ϑέσει υἱοὺς διαβόλου γενομένους" ἀρ ὧν TH φύσει
, ~ ,
δύνανταί τινες χαὶ ϑέσει υἱοὶ Θεοῦ χρηματίσαι.
9. ῬΡτοιπμαεῦ. !
Irenaeus, B. I. Praef. ὃ 2. (Ptolemaeus a pupil of Valen-
tinus.) Καὶ χαϑὼς δύναμις ἡμῖν, τήν τε γνώμην αὐτῶν τῶν νῦν
ὌΝ ,ὕ , \ ~ \ a γ ΟΡ
σαραδιδασχόντων, λέγω δὴ τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον, απτανϑισμα
οὖσαν τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς συντόμως χαὶ σαφῶς ἀτταγγελοῦμεν.
1 There is not much difficulty in regard to the use made by Ptolemaeus of
the New Testament. There is no good reason to doubt the genuineness of his
‘Letter to Flora,’ in which are references to Matthew, Mark, John, Romans, Co-
rinthians and Ephesians. In Irenaeus we find that he also referred to Galatians
and Colossians. The difficulty in estimating his testimony arises from doubt as
to his date. Irenaeus in Books I. 11. of his great work mentions Ptolemaeus
often, and once he names Heracleon along with him. Irenaeus wrote those books
not later than A.p. 182. The author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ finds in Epi-
phanius and in the ‘Chronicon Paschale’ grounds for believing that Theodotion’s
translation of the O. T. (which Irenaeus quotes in Book III.) was not published
till Ap. 184. But we have to do with Books I. and II. and need not discuss
the value of the argument drawn from such sources. Irenaeus seems to have
personally known some of the leading Valentinians in Rome A.p. 178 (see his
Preface to Ref. Haer. ὃ 2), and, as Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were of the ‘ Ita-
lian”’ school (see Hippolytus in our text), it is probable that he met Ptolemaeus,
who had founded a school before the time Irenaeus was in Rome. So much for
Irenaeus. But we find from Clement and Origen that Heracleon was in some
special way the pupil of Valentinus, and the most distinguished of his school. If
so, he must have been the contemporary of his master during part at least of his
life. The activity of Valentinus (A.p. 140-160) is therefore at the latest time
when Heracleon probably avowed his attachment to John’s Gospel, on which he
afterwards wrote a commentary. Any other supposition destroys all idea of the
continuity of the school of Valentinus. But that continuity is one of the best
attested facts in the early history of Christianity. We may conclude therefore that
by the middle of the second century this school agreed with the orthodox Chris-
tians in accepting the Gospels.
PTOLEMAEUS. 423
Tertullian, Adv. Valent. c.4. (Ptolemaeus and Heracleon only
carried out the views of Valentinus.) Valentinus viam delineavit,
eam postmodo Ptolemaeus intravit, deduxit et Heracleon inde
tramites quosdam.
Ptolemacus’ Letter to Flora. (Epiph. Haer. I. {. 2. ἢ. 33. p. 217.
Migne, Vol. I: p. 557.) 1. Oixia γὰρ ἢ πόλις μερισϑεῖσα ἐφ᾽
ἑαυτὴν, ὅτι μὴ δύναται στῆναι, ὃ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπεφήνατο. Ἔτι γε
τὴν τοῦ χόσμου δημιουργίαν ἰδίαν λέγει εἶναι, τά τε πάντα δι
αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι οὐδέν, ὃ
ἀπόστολος τιροατιοστερήσας τὴν τῶν ψιευδηγορούντων ἀνυτιόστατον
σοφίαν, χαὶ οὐ φϑοροποιοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ διχαίου χαὶ μισοττονήρου.
(Mark iii. 25 [Mat. xii. 25]; John i. 3.)
Ibid. Acaheyouevog που ὃ Σωτὴρ πρὸς τοὺς σπιερὶ τοῦ ἀπο-
στασίου συζητοῦντας αὐτῷ, ὃ δὴ αποστάσιον ἐξεῖναι. ἐνενομοϑέ-
τητο, ἔφη αὐτοῖς" ὅτι Πωὐσῆς πρὸς τὴν σχληροκαρδίαν
ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψε τὸ ἀπολύειν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. ᾿“4π᾿
ἀρχῆς γὰρ οὐ γένονεν οὕτως. Θεὸς γάρ, φησι, συνέζευξε ταύτην
τὴν συζυγίαν. Kal? ὃ συνέζευξεν ὃ Κύριος, ἄνϑρωπος μὴ
ywoulCétow. (Mat. xix. 8, 6; Mark x. 5, 6.)
Ibid. p.218. Ὅτι δὲ καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εἰσί τινες συμιστε-
χιλεγμέναι. πταραδόσεις ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, δηλοῖ καὶ τοῦτο ὃ Σωτήρ. Ὁ
γὰρ Θεός, φησιν, εἶπε" Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου, καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου,
ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται. Ὑμεῖς δέ, φησιν, εἰρήχατε τοῖς τιρεσβυτέ-
ροις λέγων, δῶρον τῷ Θεῷ ὃ ἐὰν ὠφεληϑῆς ἐξ ἐμοῦ, καὶ ἠχυρώ-
date τὸν νόμον τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
ὑμῶν. (Mat. xv. 5-8; Mark vii. 10-13.)
Tbid. p. 219. Πάλιν δὲ δὴ τὸ ἕν μέρος, ὃ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ
γόμος, διαιρεῖται εἰς τρία τινὰ, εἴς τὲ τὴν καϑαρὰν νομοϑεσίαν,
τὸν ἀσύμπλοχον τῷ καχῷ, ὃς χαὶ χυρίως νόμος λέγεται, ὃν οὐχ
Hse χαταλύσαι ὃ Σωτὴρ, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι, x.t.4. (Mat. v. 11.
Ibid. p. 220. Καὶ τὸ πάσχα δὲ ὁμοίως, nai τὰ ἄζυμα, ὅτι
εἰχόνες ἦσαν, δηλοῖ χαὶ Παῦλος ὃ ἀπόστολος: Τὸ δὲ Πάσχα
ἡμῶν, λέγων, ἐτύϑη Χριστός" καί ἕνα ἦτε, φησὶν, ἄξυ-
μοι μὴ μετέχοντες ζύμης (ζύμην δὲ νῦν τὴν χαχίαν λέγει),
GAN ἦτε νέον φύραμα. (1 Cor. v. 7.)
Tbid. Οὗτος γοῦν χαὶ αὐτὸς ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι νόμος δμολογού-
μενος εἰς τρία διαιρεῖται, εἰς δὲ τὸ τιληρούμενον ἀττὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος.
Τὸ γὰρ, οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις,
424 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
~ ~ Ud U »
ἐν τῷ μηδ᾽ ὀργισϑῆναι, μηδὲ ἐπιϑυμήσεις περιείλητιται. Arou-
- Wen} 2 , / 9 \
ρεῖται δὲ χαὶ εἰς τὸ ἀναιρούμενον τελείως" TO yao? οὁφϑαλμὸν
> δ» « ~ Wee] , > Weed / $ ai ,
ἀντὶ ὀφϑαλμοῦ, καὶ O00rtTa ἀντὶ Od0YTOS, GvumenhEeype-
Oe DN , \ ae eee ~ 2 4 2 2 , πως \ ~
γον τῇ ἀδιχίᾳ, καὶ αὐτὸ EQYOV τῆς ἀδικίας ἔχον, ἀνῃρέϑη LILO TOV
Ss, ἘΣ . ΔΝ ~ ’ ZL) ἢ ‘ hs ’ , tAA AL ΒῚ ‘ 2 A
Σωτῆρος διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων" τὰ δὲ ἐναντία ἀλλήλων eto avaige-
- > ~ c ~
τιχά. Ἐγὼ γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, μὴ ἀντιστῆναι ὅλως τῷ πο-
ηρῷ, ἀλλὰ ἐάν εἰς σε ῥδαπίσῃ, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν
γηρῷ, ἀλλὰ ἐὰν τίς ῥὁαπίσῃ, 0 Dt ?
, / / €
ἄλλην σιαγόνα. (Mat. v. 38, 39.)
° ς 2 , > δ \
Ibid. p. 221. Kai εἰ ὃ τέλειος Θεὸς ἀγαϑὸς ἔστι xara τὴν
« - c Oy Chey \ / 3 > \ A
ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν, ὥσπερ χαὶ ἔστιν" Eva γὰρ μόνον εἰναι ἀγαϑὸν Θεὸν
~ ~ Cc ~ 2 / .
τοῦ ξαυτοῦ πιατέρα ὃ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν ἀπεφήνατο. (Mat. xix. 17.)
. mm. ~ , ~ > , a) ss
Ibid. To δὲ τοῦ συμιπιετιλεγμένου νόμου τῇ ἀδιχίᾳ, εἰττὼν
x , ~ > ~ > ΄ - mrs \ ~
τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι χατηργῆσϑαι. Τὸ δὲ tov
5) ~ c , ἊΨ \ c Δι
ἀσυμπιλόχου τῷ χείρονι. Ὃ μὲν νόμος, εἰπὼν, ἅγιος, καὶ ἢ
ς 2 ss -
ἐντολὴ ayia καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαϑή. (Eph. ii. 15; Rom.
Wile.)
10. Marcus.
Tren. B. 1.16.1. Τὴν οὖν γένεσιν τῶν Aidvor αὐτῶν, καὶ
τὴν σπιλάνην τοῖ προβάτου χαὶ ἀνεύρεσιν ἑνώσαντες ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ,
μυστιχώτερον ἐπιχειροῦσιν ἀπαγγέλλειν οὗτοι οἱ εἰς ἀριϑμοὺς τὰ
πάντα χατάγοντες, ἐχ μονάδος χαὶ δυάδος φάσχοντες τὰ ὅλα συν-
εστηχέναι. ... τῷ αἰτῷ τρόπῳ χαὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δωδεχάδος ἀπιό-
στασιν μίαν δύναμιν ἀπολωλέναι μαντεύονται" καὶ ταύτην εἶναι
τὴν γυναῖχα τὴν ἀπολέσασαν τὴν δραχμὴν, χαὶ ἅψασαν λύχνον,
χαὶ εὑἱροῦσαν αὐτήν. (Luke xv.)
Ibid. 18. 3. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τὴν δεχάδα σημαίνεσϑαι διὰ τῶν δέχα
1 Marcus. Concerning the views of Marcus and the Marcosians, a section of
the Valentinians, see Irenaeus, B. I. 13-21; Hippol. VI. 39-54; Pseudo-Tert. e. 5.
p- 761 (Oehler); Philastrius Haer. 42; Epiph. Haer. 34, &c. Mareus professed
(says Irenaeus) to improve upon his Master; and he had more intricate and more
fanciful speculations. He dwelt much on the power of letters and of numbers.
In his system was a Tetrad; and in the original text of Irenaeus (B. I. 14. 1) (or
in the authority from which he quoted) the phrase yarsdip (Col-Arba, voice of
the four) occurred. This was amplified into ‘“‘Colarbasus;” Hippolytus so names
some one, and Epiphanius ingeniously made an account of his heresy. This he
did by extracting from Irenaeus (B. I. 12. 3) what is said of quidam prudentiores,
who are mentioned after Ptolemaeus. See Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik des Epipha-
nius, p. 166. See also Dr Hort’s account of the (not quite cleared up) puzzle in
Smith’s Dict. of Christian Biography, Art. ‘‘Colarbasus.” It is scarcely necessary
to show Marcus’s references to the New Testament, or his perversions of John’s
Gospel.
MARCUS. PREPON. DOCETAE. 425
ἐθνῶν, ὧν ἐπηγγείλατο ὃ Θεὸς τῷ ABoadu ... χαὶ ot δέχα
ἀπόστολοι, οἵς φανεροῦται μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν ὃ Κύριος, τοῦ Θωμᾷ
μὴ παρόντος, τὸν ἀύρατον διετύπουν χατ᾽ αὐτοὺς δεκάδα. (John
xx.) 24.)
Ibid. 20. 2. Ἔνια δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐν εὐαγγελίῳ χειμένων εἰς τοῦ-
τὸν τὸν χαραχτῆρα μεϑαρμόζουσιν: ὡς τὴν τιρὸς τὴν μητέρα αὐ-
τοῦ, δωδεχαετοῦς ὄντος, ἀπόχρισιν" οὐχ οἴδατε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ
Πατρός μου δεῖ μὲ εἶναι; (Luke ii. 49.) ὃν οὐχ ἤδεισαν, φασὶ,
Πατέρα χατήγγελλεν αὐτοῖς" χαὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐχπέμιψαι τοὺς μα-
ϑητὰς εἰς τὰς δώδεχα φυλὰς, χηρύσσοντας τὸν ἄγνωστον αὐτοῖς
Θεόν. Kai τῷ εἰπόντι αὐτῷ, διδάσχαλε ἀγαϑὲ, tev ἀληϑῶς ἀγα-
ϑὸν Θεὸν ὡμολογηκέναι εἰτιόντα, τί μὲ λέγεις ἀγαϑόν; εἷς ἐστιν
ἀγαϑὸς, ὃ Πατὴρ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Mat. xix. 16), χ.τ.1.
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VI. 42. p. 800. Kai εἶναι τούτους μορ-
\ a c , 2 , »” \ ~ Ζ , \
gas, ag ὁ Κύριος ἀγγέλους etonue, τὰς διηνεχῶς PBdenovoug τὸ
πρόσωπον τοῦ Πατρός. (Mat. xviii. 10.)
Prepon (Mancronite).
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VIT. 31. (p.396.) “Ὡς αὐτὸς duohoyet τί με
καλεῖς ἀγαϑόν; (Luke xviii. 19; Mark x. 18.)
11. Docetag.!
ST MATTHEW, &c.
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VIIT. 9. (p. 416.) Καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι do-
χοῦσιν οὗτοι TO λελεγμένον ὑπτὸ τοῦ Σωτῆρος: Ἐξῆλϑεν ὃ σπεί-
1 Docetae. Though what is called Docetism was an ordinary tenet of Gnos-
ticism, there seems to have been in the second century a special sect bearing the
name of Docetae. They believed that our Lord inhabited a human body; but that
under it he had another and more spiritual frame which he retained when he left
the earthly form nailed to the cross. Uncertainty as to the date of this sect
makes it useless to dwell upon their quotations. Clem. Alex. Strom. HI. 13 says
they were founded by Julius Cassianus, a pupil of Valentinus. Serapion (Eus. H.
E. VI. 12) says that they used a book called the Gospel of Peter. This was in
A.D. 190. References to Colossians ii. 11, 14, 15, and to 2 Cor. v. 3 may be found
in Hippol. Ref. Haer. VIII. 10. Reference may be here made to other informa-
tion supplied by Hippolytus.
Monoimus, an Arabian (of uncertain date), who seems (Hippol. VIII. 12) to
refer to John i. in his quotation of τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς. “Hv χαὶ ἐγέ-
yeto, and who quotes Col. i. 19; ii. 9 (Hippol. VIII. 13). He is mentioned by
Theodoret, Fab. I. 18. Saturnilus (in Irenaeus, B. 1. 24. 1 called Saturninus) was
420 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
ρων τοῦ σπεῖραι, καὶ [τὸ] πεσὸν εἰς THY γἣν THY καλὴν
2 \ bY , a \ c \ a SUG , a δ ,
ἀγαϑὴν ἐποίει ὃ μὲν ἑκατὸν, ὁ δὲ ἕξήκοντα, O δὲ TQLA-
\ ‘ ~ »” , ς a x >. ,
κοντα. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο etonxé, φησιν Ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀχου-
ειν ἀχουέτω, ὅτι ταῦτα οὐχ ἔστι πάντων ἀκούσματα. (Mat.
ΧΙ]. 3, 8, 9; Mark iv. 3, 8, 9; Luke viii. 5, 8.)
. \ ν 2 ,
Ibid. VIII. 10. (p. 420.) Kai εἰ ϑέλετε δέξασϑαι, αὑτὸς
5 > ,
ἐστιν Ἠλίας ὃ μέλλων ἔρχεσϑαι. Ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκούειν
ἀχούετω. (Mat. xi. 14, 15.)
. ~ A 4 2 ,
Ibid. (p. 422.) Τοῦτό ἐστι, φησὶν, 0 λέγει ὃ Σωτήρ᾽ Ἐὰν μὴ
- ! > 2 ,
τις γεννηϑὴ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐκ εἰσελευ-
τς - - ca X
σεται εἰς THY βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν" OTL TO γεγεννη-
, γ ~ \ , t > see
μένον &% τῆς σαρκὸς σαρξ ἐστιν. (John iii. 5, 6.)
12. Tueoporvs.!
THEODOTUS QUOTED BY CLEM. ALEX.
Theodoti Epitomae (Dindorf’s Ed. of Clem. Alex. Vol. III.
p. 424, &e.), c. 6. (John’s Gospel used by the Valentinians.) To
of Antioch in Syria, and taught the usual doctrine regarding the evil of matter,
the sin of marriage, and the mission of Christ to deliver men from the God of
the Jews. Hippolytus repeats Irenaeus’s account of him almost verbatim.
1 Theodotus. In explanation of our extracts from ‘‘ Theodotus” it is neces-
sary to prefix some notes. There were several of this name. The chief of them
seems to have been a native of Byzantium, a tanner, who was excommunicated
by Victor of Rome. Another, a banker, is said by Eusebius, H. Εἰ. V. 28, to have
been a follower of his namesake. Hippol. Ref. Haer. VII. 35, 36, mentions both.
Epiphanius, Haer. 54 (Β. 1. t. 2), speaks of Theodotus the tanner as the founder
of a sect—the Theodotians. He speaks of this sect as a successor of the sect of
the Alogi who denied John’s Gospel. The story is that Theodotus—in some un-
defined persecution—denied Christ, and afterwards (in Rome to which he had fled)
alleged that he had not denied God but Christ, a man. His arguments accordingly
went to prove the mere humanity of Jesus Christ, and to cover the denial of his
supernatural birth. But it is quite clear that this description, though it may be
reconciled with Eusebius, does not apply to the person named by Hippolytus, who
taught that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that Christ came from heaven, like
a dove, upon him at his baptism. The views recorded in Hippolytus resemble
those of Cerinthus. To which of those men do the extracts appended to the works
of Clem. Alex. belong? Their title is “Ex τῶν Ocoddtov χαὶ τῆς αἀνατολιχῆς xa-
λουμένης διδασχαλίας xata τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαί. For χρόνους it has
been suggested to read αἰῶνας. The extracts seem to have been made by Clement
for his own use, and entered in a commonplace book. When they are studied
they seem to be the work of a Valentinian; and, therefore, apparently of a Theo-
dotus different from those named before. The date of his writing is uncertain ;
but as being between the times of Valentinus and Clement, it may be put down
for the beginning of the last quarter of the second century. We have given ex-
tracts showing the very numerous quotations of Scripture to be found in the pas-
THEODOTUS. 427
«2? > ed c , Εν NOC , ΕΣ
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὃ λόγος, χαὶ ὃ λόγος ἣν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, χαὶ Θεὸς ἦν
c λό 19) c ΞγῈ Ν Orv ἢ , c γ , > \ ‘ \
ὁ hoyos,” οἱ ἀπὸ Ουαλεντίνου οὕτως ἐχδέχονται. “Aeyiy μὲν γὰρ
Ν ~
τὸν μονογενῆ λέγουσιν, κ.τ.1.
THE GOSPELS QUOTED.
Ibid. ὁ. 9. Ἢ πίστις οὐ μία, ἀλλὰ διάφορος. Ὃ γοῦν Σωτήρ
φησι" “Τενηϑήτω σοι κατὰ τὴν πίστιν" " (Mat. ix. 29) ὅϑεν et-
ρηται τοὺς μὲν τῆς κλήσεως ἀνϑρώπους χατὰ τὴν τιαρουσίαν τοῦ
ἀντιχρίστου τιλανηϑήσεσϑαι" ἀδύνατον δὲ τοὺς ἐχλεχτούς" διό φησι
“χαὶ εἰ δυνατὸν, τοὺς ἐχλεχτούς μου." (Mat. xxiv. 24.) Πάλιν
ὅταν λέγῃ, “ἐξέλϑετε ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ Πατρός μου" (John ii. 16),
τοῖς χλητοῖς λέγει" σπιάλιν τῷ ἐξ ἀποδημίας ἐλϑόντι χαὶ χατεδη-
δοχότι τὰ ὑχιάρχοντα, ᾧ τὸν σιτευτὸν ἔϑυσεν μόσχον (Luke xv.
23), τὴν κλῆσιν λέγει, καὶ ὅπτου ὃ βασιλεὺς εἰς τὸ δεῖτεινον τοῦ
γάμου τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς κέχληκεν (Mat. xxii. 9). Πάντες μὲν
οὖν χέχληνται ἐπ᾽ ἴσης" βρέχει γὰρ ἐπὶ δικαίους χαὶ ἀδίχους, καὶ
τὸν ὕλιον ἐπιλάμστει στιᾶσιν " (Mat. v. 45) ἐχλέγονται δὲ οἱ μᾶλ-
λον πιστεύσαντες, τιρὸς οὖς λέγει “τὸν Πατέρα μοῦ οὐδεὶς ἑξώρ-
axev εἰ μὴ ὃ υἱός" (John i. 18) καὶ “ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ φῶς τοῦ
χόσμου"" (Mat. v. 14) χαὶ “Πάτερ ἅγιε, ἁγίασον ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί
σὺ. (John xvii. 11.)
THE EPISTLES OF PAUL.
Thid. ς. 10. Καὶ 6 μὲν φῶς ἀτιρόσιτον εἴρηται, ὡς μονο-
a
os. \ , 3 A ) { λ Ne ee Hn) a \ ΣΝ ΣΟ
γένης μαι TTOWTOTOXKOC , a Opa a μος OVX ELOE και OVG OVX
sages preserved (apparently by Clement). And following them we have given
some extracts from Epiphanius, showing the passages of Scripture on which (ac-
cording to him) Theodotus the tanner relied. It seems hopeless to try to reconcile
the statements of Hippolytus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, &c., regarding the form of
Cerinthianism or Ebionism professed by this Theodotus. Lipsius (p. 236) throws
Hippolytus (‘ Pseudo-Origen”) overboard, and inserts a negative in the text of
Pseudo-Tertullian, in order to make the accounts agree. But this is a strong
measure. Cave (Hist. Lit. p. 54) tries to blend the authorities in his time, but
only makes a mosaic which is independent of them all. The second Theodotus (the
banker) is said to have founded the sect of Melchizedekians, declaring that Christ
was inferior to Melchizedek (see Hippol. Ref. Haer. VII. 36; Pseudo-Tert. ¢. 38).
That sect, of course, founded on Hebrews v. 6; vi. 20; vii. 17. For a suggestion
of difficulties about Theodotus, without clearing them up, see Dindorf’s Clem. Alex.
IV. p. 462. The passages given in our text are only specimens; but they contain
references to the Gospels, Pauline Epistles (Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col.,
1 Tim.), and 1 Peter. The passages in Epiphanius refer to Mat., Luke, John,
Acts, 1 Tim.
428 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
ἤκουσεν, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου ἀνέβη. (1 Tim. vi.
16; 1 Cor. ii. 9.)
Ibid. c. 14. Καὶ ot ἄγγελοι σώματά εἰσιν" δρῶνται γοῦν.
᾿ ᾿ g
> \ NEG \ ~ ς _7~ neu (« , \ iw
ALG χαὶ ἢ ψυχὴ σῶμα. Ὃ γοῦν ἀπόστολος “σπείρεται μὲν ya
͵ χὴ ft / = ‘ :
~ ‘ , \ ~ /
σῶμα ψυχιχὸν, ἐγείρεται δὲ σῶμα πνευματιχόν." (1 Cor. xv. 44.)
Ibid. ς. 19. Εἶτα ἐπιφέρει “πρωτόύτοχος πάσης χτίσεως. "
A 0QaTOV μὲν γὰρ Θεοῦ εἰκόνα τὸν λόγον τοῦ ἐν ταυτότητι,
πρωτότοκον δὲ πάσης χτίσεως γεννηϑεὶς ἀπαϑῶς, κυίστης
~ 3) -
nal γενεσιάρχης τῆς ὕλης ἐγένετο χτίσεώς te χαὶ οὐσίας. Ἔν αὐτῷ
\ ς Ν \ / 3) - , Co \ Ν ,
γὰρ ὃ Πατὴρ τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν: ὅϑεν χαὶ μορφὴν δούλου
- \ \ \ 2
λαβεῖν εἴρηται οὐ μόνον τὴν σάρχα χατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν, αλλὰ
δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν ἐχ τοῦ ὑποχειμένου. (Col. 1. 15; Phil. ii. 7.)
Ibid. ¢. 22. Καὶ bray εἴττῃ ὃ ἀπόστολος “ἐπεὶ τὶ ποιήσου-
σιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπτὲρ τῶν νεχρῶν;" ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γὰρ, φησὶν,
ἘΌΝ 52 , (a ? \ , >)
οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐβαπτίσαντο, ὧν ἐσμὲν μέρη. (1 Cor. xv. 29.)
Ibid. c. 44. Διὰ τούτου τοῦ μυστηρίου ὃ Παῦλος κελεύει τὰς
- - ~ ~ >
γυναῖχας φορεῖν ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῖς διὰ τοὺς ay-
γέλους. (1 Cor. xi. 10.)
. x = ~
Ibid. c. 49. Εἶπεν ὃ ἀπόστολος ὑπετάγη τῇ ματαιότητι τοῦ
Be: > « \ 2 \ \ \ " te > fe , ο \
χόσμου οὐχ ἑχὼν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα, eu éehitdL, OTL καὶ
2 AEN 2 , c ~ \ , ~ ~
αὐτὸς ἐλευϑερωϑήσεται, ὅταν συλλεγῇ τὰ σπέρματα τοῦ Θεοῦ.
(Rom. viii. 20, 21.)
. Ino ey Ἔξ δὶ ΕΣ
Ibid. c. 85. Asi οὖν ὡτιλίσϑαι τοῖς κυριαχοῖς ὅπλοις, ἔχοντας
τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἄτρωτον, ὅτιλοις σβέσαι τὰ βέλη τοῦ
διαβόλου δυναμένοις, ὥς φησιν ὃ ἀπόστολος. (Eph. vi. 46.)
THE EPISTLES OF PAUL AND PETER.
Tbid. c. 86. Καὶ τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα διὰ σφραγῖδος δείχνυσι τίνος
ἐστὶν ἕχαστον, “at ἐχ τῆς σφραγῖδος ἐχδιχεῖται. Οὕτως καὶ ἣ
Woy) ἣ πιστὴ τὸ τῆς ἀληϑείας λαβοῦσα σφράγισμα τὰ στίγματα
aos = , 5 = ee x , κ᾿
τοῦ Χριστοῦ περιφέρει. (Gal. vi. 17.) Οὗὑτοί εἰσιν τὰ παιδία τὰ
v ’ ~ , , iA Ω ἐν « © ,
ἤδη ἐν τῇ χοίτῃ συναναπαυόμενα (Luke xi. 1), χαὶ αὐ παρϑένοι
« , = T € \ c , >
at φρόνιμοι, (Mat. xxv. 1) αἷς at λοιπαὶ αἱ μέλλουσαι ov συν-
“ἡ ¢ ee , 2 ΓΡΎΟΝ > (obo 3) € ~ 2
εἰσῆλθον τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα ἀγαϑὰ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιϑυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι πα-
oaxvwar. (1 Pet. i. 12.)
THE EPISTLE OF PETER.
Thid. c. 12. Φῶς δὲ νοερὸν ἣ μεγίστη τιροχοπτὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ voOE-
THEODOTUS. APELLES. 429
~ \ eee C , a7; > COS C ~ »”
θοῦ σιυρὸς ἀτιοχεχαϑαρμένου τέλεον, εἰς ἃ ἐπιϑυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι
- ς yy , τ ΕἾΝΕ ς Uap AG
magaxvwar, ὁ Πέτρος φησίν" (1 Pet. 1. 12) ὃ dé υἱὸς ἔτι τούτου
, ») , ~ . ~
χαϑαρώτερος ατιρύσιτον (φῶς χαὶ δύναμις Θεοῦ, χαὶ χατὰ τὸν
Ξὴ , 7} 2 , a Ν a) / eX > Bi cr a) 4¢
ατγοόστολον τιμίῳ καὶ ἁμώμῳ χαὶ ἀσπίλῳ αἵματι ἐλυτρώϑημεν"
οὗ τὰ yt s ὃς Mac ZA ἢ ἜΞλο, a , Η͂ , δὲ ὧς ὃ 11 Ἢ
ὑ τὰ μὲν ἱμάτια ὡς φῶς ἔλαμψεν, τὸ σιρύσωπον δὲ ὡς ὃ ἥλιος,
ᾧ μηδὲ ἀντωπῆσαι ἐστὶ ὁᾳδίως. (1 Pet. i. 19; Mat. xvii. 2.)
se
THEODOTUS QUOTED BY EPIPHANIUS.
Eipiph. Haeres. II. t. 1. ἢ. 54. p. 463. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 964.)
Ὅτι, φησιν, ὃ Χριστὸς ἔφη" Νὺν δέ we ζητεῖτε ἀποκτεῖναι,
ἄνθρωπον ὃς τὴν ἀλήϑειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα" δρᾷς, φησὶν,
ore ἄνϑρωπιός ἐστιν. (John viii. 40.)
Ibid. p. 464. ΕἸτά φησι μηδὲ ἁμαρτίαν σπιεττοιηχέναι ἀρνησά-
μενον τὸν Χριστὸν, αὐτοῦ, φησὶ, τοῦ Χριστοῦ; εἰπόντος πᾶσα
βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, nai ὃ λέγων
λόγον εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφεϑήσεται αὐτῷ.
(Mat. xii. 31.)
Ibid. p. 465. Εἶτα, φησὶ, χαὶ αὐτὸ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἔφη τῇ
Magia πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἐπελεύσεται ἐπί σε" Καὶ οὐκ εἶπε
πνεῦμα Κυρίου γενήσεται ἕν σοί" διὸ ee πανταχόϑεν φιλο-
γειχιῶν ὃ ἀνόητος ἄνϑρωπος ἐχτιίτιτει τῆς ἀληϑείας. (Luke i. 35.)
Ibid. p. 467. ᾿,,1λλά, φησιν, εἶττον οἱ ἀπόστολοι, ἄνδρα
ἀποδεδειγμένον εἰς ὑμᾶς σημείοις «αἱ τέρασι. (Acts
ii. 22) xai οὐχ εἶπον Θεὸν ἀποδεδειγμένον. Ἐλέγχη δὲ πάλιν,
Θεόδοτε, ὅτι πάλιν οἱ αὐτοῦ ἀπόστολοι ἐν ταῖς αὐταῖς Πράξεσιν
ἔφησαν, ὡς ὃ μαχάριος Στέφανός φησιν ἰδοὺ, δρῶ τὸν οὐ-
ρανὸν ἀνεῳγμένον, καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δε-
ξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ. (Acts vii. 56.)
Ibid. Πάλιν δὲ προφασίζεται λέγων ὅτι ἔφη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὃ
ἀπόστολος ὅτι μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἄνϑρωπος,
Χριστὸς Inoovs, καὶ οὐχ οἷδε πῶς πάλιν xa ξαυτοῦ ἐπε-
γείρει. (1 Tim. ii. 5.)
13. Ape.ues.!
Hippol. Ref. Haer. X. 20. (p. 524.) ᾿“πελλῆς δὲ ὃ τούτου μα-
Intig ἀπαρεσϑεὶς τοῖς td τοῦ διδασχάλου εἰρημένοις, χαϑὰ
1 Apelles was a follower of Marcion, but not a close imitator. Tertullian
480 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
γιροείπτομεν, ἄλλῳ λόγῳ ὑπέϑετο τέσσαρας εἶναι Θεοὺς, ὧν ἕνα
φάσχει [ἀγαϑόν], ὃν οὔτε οἱ προφῆται ἔγνωσαν, οὗ εἶναι υἱὸν
τὸν Χριστόν.
Jerome, Prooem. in Mat. See before, p. 99. (Apelles the
author of a Gospel.)
Origen, ep. ad charos suos in Alexandr. (Rufini de Adult.
Orig. Migne, Vol. VII. p. 626.) Videte, quali purgatione dispu-
tationem nostram purgavit, tali nempe, quali purgatione Marcion
Evangelia purgavit vel apostolum; vel quasi successor ejus post
ipsum Apelles. Nam sicut illi subverterunt Scripturarum veri-
tatem, sic et iste, sublatis quae vere dicta sunt, ob nostri cri-
minationem inseruit quae falsa sunt.
Epiph. Haeres. I. t. 3. h. 44. p. 381. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 824.)
Χριστὸν δὲ ἥχειν φὴς ex ἐσχάτων τῶν χαιρῶν, υἱὸν ὄντα τοῦ
a > € ~ ~ \ ee Ce? 2) ~ ~ c , ’ ‘
ἄνω ἀγαϑοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ Πνεῦμα ὡσαύτως ἐπὶ ow-
~ ~ δ ~ >
τηρίᾳ τῶν εἰς γνῶσιν αὐτοῦ ἐρχομένων" χαὶ ἐλϑόντα οὐ δοχήσει
, > ΡΟ. Δ , ff Diane ’ 2 > \ / ,
σιεφηνέναι, ἀλλὰ ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ σάρχα εἰληφέναι, οὐχ απτὸ Magiag
~ / ) \ 2 Ω \ \ Ψ , ‘\ , \ ~
τῆς Παρϑένου, adda adn diy μὲν ἐσχηκέναι THY σάρκα χαὶ σῶμα,
Ν > VA Ν
οὔτε ἀπὸ σττέρματος ἀνδρὸς, οὔτε ἀτιὸ γυναικὸς πεαρϑένου, ἀλλ᾽
” \ ἢ 2 c \ , ~ , , 2 ~
ἔσχε μὲν σάρχα ἀληϑινὴν τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ. Kat φησιν" Εν τῷ
, 2 \ ~ 3 ~
ἔρχεσϑαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπουρανίων, HAdEv εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ συνήγαγεν
~ > ‘ ~ ~ x ~
ἑαυτῷ ἀπὸ TOV τεσσάρων στοιχείων σῶμα. ... ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ Ey-
~ ΝΣ Ν ~ ~ \ > ~ ~
ροῦ τὸ ξηρὸν, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ϑερμοῦ τὸ ϑερμὸν, καὶ ἀττὸ τοῦ ὑγροῦ
(de Praeser. Haer. c. 30) says that for incontinence he incurred Marcion’s dis-
pleasure, and left Rome for Alexandria. The story is doubtful. In his old age
he was a man of high character at Rome (τὴν πολιτείαν σεμνυνόμενος χαὶ τὸ γῆ-
pas) when Rhodon opposed him (Eus. H. E. V. 13). This being in the reign of
Commodus (A.D. 192), Apelles must have been in his manhood when Marcion
was in Rome. Jerome’s statement that he was the author of a Gospel may be
explained by his reverence for the ‘“‘Revelations of Philumene” (ΦῬανερώσεις Φι-
λουμένης), a prophetess and prestidigitator who accompanied him. It is said (Tert.
1. 9.) that Apelles himself wrote them down as he learned them from her. He
denied Christ’s birth of a virgin. He taught that good works are indispensable to
saving faith in Christ crucified (Eus. 1. 6.). See some of Tertullian’s references to
Apelles at pp. 46, 48. His relation to the canonical Scriptures is obscure. He
probably accepted our Gospels, but denied their exclusive authority; and believed
in the continued inspiration of men and women by the Holy Spirit. But he was
only a heretic in a mild sense; his heresy being that he believed the Maker of
the world to have made it to the glory of the supreme God who is Lord and self-
existent, and that the supreme God sent Christ in the fulness of time to amend
the world. Hippolytus (1. 9.) affirms that he held by a succession of four Gods.
But Epiphanius, Haer. 44 (quoted in our text), confirms Origen. See a very full
account of Apelles in Lardner, IV. p. 639.
APELLES. JULIUS CASSIANUS. THE EBIONITES. 431
NG \ ἣν 5.9 - ~
TO ὑγρὸν, χαὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Weyoov τὸ ψυχρόν. Καὶ οὕτως τιλάσας
« ~ ~ > ~ ~
ἑαυτῷ σῶμα, αληϑινῶς πέφηνεν ἐν χόσμῳ, χαὶ ἐδίδαξεν ἡμᾶς
Ν a” ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~
τὴν ἄνω γνῶσιν, καταφρονεῖν τὲ τοῦ «Τημιουργοῦ, χαὶ ἀρνεῖσϑαι
τὰ Ν a» c Ite ~ ’ ~ ~
αὑτοῦ τὰ egya* ὑποδείξας ἡμῖν ἐν στοίᾳ Τραφῇ ποῖά ἐστι τὰ
, γ...Ὁ9 > ~ ’ ~ ~ ~
φύσει ἐξ αὐτοῦ εἰρημένα, καὶ oie ἐστι τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ “]ημιουργοῦ.
co / 2 ~ ) ’
Οὕτως γάρ, φησιν, ἔφη ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ: Γίνεσϑε δόκεμοι
- ¢ a ~ , ’ ‘ , "Ἢ ~
τραπεζῖται.3 ΠΌΠΟΙ γάρ, φησιν, απὸ πάσης 1 ραφῆς ava-
,ὔ \ ͵ὔ ,ὔ Diy ς r
λέγων τὰ χρήσιμα. Εἰτά φησιν" “Edwzey ὃ Χριστὸς ἑαυτὸν στα-
9 - > = ὦ ~ , τ ‘ ’ ΄ς > > Qe: ‘
ely ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ σώματι, χαὶ ἐσταυρώϑη ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ, καὶ
« ,ὔ, ) )
ἑτάφη ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ, καὶ ἀνέστησεν ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ, nai ἔδειξεν αὐτὴν
‘ , - Cc ~ ~ 2
τὴν σάρχα τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαϑηταῖς. Καὶ ἀναλύσας, φησὶν, αὐτὴν
‘ a) fy Ἐ ~ > fi ~
τὴν ἐναγνϑρώπησιν ξαυτοῦ, αἀπεμέρισε πάλιν ἑχάστῳ τῶν στοι-
, yf a \ LN ΚΡ \ a, ~ ἢ \ ~
χείων τὸ ἰδιον απιοδοὺς, TO ϑερμὸν τῷ ϑερμῷ, τὸ ψυχρὸν τῷ
wWryom, τὸ ξηρὸν τῷ ξηρῷ, τὸ ὑγρὸν τῷ ὑγρῷ" καὶ οὕτως δια-
’ vy > c ~ Ν ~ 2)
λύσας ἀπ αὑτοῦ πάλιν τὸ ἔνσαρχον σῶμα, ἀνέπτη εἰς τὸν οὐ-
« τὰ
ρανὸν, ὅϑεν χαὶ ἣχε.
. ry al We als le ὦ > ~
Ibid. p. 385. Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἃ βούλει λαμβάνεις ἀπὸ τῆς ϑείας
Τραφῆς, χαὶ ἃ βούλει καταλιμτπιάνεις" ἃ DY χριτὴ rad
φαφῆς, καὶ ἃ βούλει καταλιμπάνεις᾽ ὥρα γοῦν κριτὴς τεροεχαϑί-
« \ ~ , 2 A Ψ x ~ Ν ‘
σας, οὐχ EQUNVELTNS τῶν νόμων, ἀλλὰ ἐχλογεὺς τῶν οὐ χατὰ τὸν
- , > eee 24 \ > 2X: ~ , \
γοῦν σου γραφέντων, ἀλλὰ ovtwy μὲν ἀληϑινῶν, maea σοι δὲ μιε-
- \ ~ ~ ~ 2
ταϊοιηϑέντων ψευδῶς, “CL χατὰ τὸν νοῦν τῆς σῆς ἀπάτης, χαὶ
~ 3)
TOV ὑπό GOV ἠπατημένων.
14. Junius Cassianus.
Clem. Alex. Strom. IIT. 13. p. 553. Ἡχγεῖται δὲ 6 γενναῖος
ovtog Πλατωνιχώτερον ϑείαν οὔσαν τὴν ψυχὴν Comdev ἐπιϑυμίᾳ
ϑηλυνϑεῖσαν δεῦρο ἥχειν εἰς γένεσιν χαὶ φϑοράν. Αὐτίχα βιά-
ζεται τὸν Παῦλον ἐχ τῆς ἀπάτης τὴν γένεσιν συνεστάναι λέγειν
διὰ τούτων “φοβοῦμαι δὲ μὴ ὡς ὃ ὄφις Εὔαν ἐξησιάτησεν φϑαρῇ
τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστόν."
(2 Cor. xi. 3.)
15. Tue Esronires.!
Tren. B. I. 26.2. Qui autem dicuntur Ebionaei consentiunt
quidem mundum a Deo factum; ea autem, quae sunt erga Do-
2 See before, p. 82, Note 1.
1 The Ebionites were Jewish Christians holding by the Law. Epiphanius is
48 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
minum, non similiter ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates opinantur. Solo
autem eo, quod est secundum Matthaeum, Evangelio utuntur et
apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatam eum legis dicentes.
Ibid. B. TIT. 11. 7. See before, p. 67.
Ibid. B. 111. 15.1. Eadem autem dicimus iterum et his, qui
Paulum apostolum non cognoscunt, quoniam aut reliquis verbis
Evangelii, quae per solum Lucam in nostram venerunt agnitio-
nem, renuntiare debent, et non uti eis; aut si illa recipiunt
omnia, habent necessitatem recipere etiam eam testificationem,
quae est de Paulo, dicente ipso, primum quidem Dominum ei de
coelo locutum: Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? &e.
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VII. 34. (p. 406.) (Compare also VII. 8, 9 and
ς 2 y, ~ ae ~ ‘ \ dy G \ ~ vw
X. 22.) Ἐβιωναῖοι δὲ ὁμολογοῦσι μὲν τὸν χόσμον ὑπὸ τοῦ OVTWS
~ , Ν \ \ aN r \ ς , ~ e EY 6 ‘
Θεοῦ γεγονέναι, τὰ δὲ σπιερὶ τὸν Χριστὸν ὁμοίως τῷ Κηρίνϑῳ καὶ
r , is IN ¢ ’ ~ eo~ Ν / ,ὔ
Καρποχράτει μυϑεύουσιν. Ἔϑεσιν ἰουδαϊχοῖς ζῶσι, χατὰ νόμον φὰ-
(een 9 \ \ iris ~ ἡ ἢ Υ τ ἢ , ,
σχόντες δικαιοῦσϑαι, καὶ tov ᾿Ιησοῦν λέγοντες δεδικαιῶσϑαι τειοιὴ-
σαντα τὸν νόμον" διὸ καὶ Χριστὸν αὐτὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὠνομάσϑαι,
χαὶ Inooty, ἐπεὶ μηδεὶς τῶν [ἑτέρων] ἐτέλεσε τὸν νόμον" εἰ γὰρ
5 Ὁ
nai ἕτερός τις πεποιήκει τὰ ἐν νόμῳ προστεταγμένα, ἦν ἂν
ἐχεῖνος ὃ Χριστός. Atvaoda δὲ χαὶ ξαυτοὺς ὁμοίως ποιήσαντας
σ \ \ 3
Χριστοὺς γινέσϑαι" χαὶ γὰρ χαὶ αὐτὸν ὁμοίως ἄνθρωπον εἶναι
mao λέγουσιν.
Eus. H. E. ΠῚ. 27. (See to the same effect, V. 8.) Οὗτοι
δὲ τοῦ μὲν ἀποστόλου πιάσας τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ἀρνητέας ἡγοῦντο
5 "ὦ ~ ~ >
εἶναι δεῖν, ἀποστάτην ἀποχαλοῦντες αὐτὸν τοῦ νόμου, δὐαγγε-
λίῳ δὲ μόνῳ τῷ xed Ἑβραίους λεγομένῳ χρώμενοι τῶν λοι-
~ \ ~ \ \ /
πῶν σμιχρὸν ἐποιοῦντο λόγον. Kai τὸ μὲν σάββατον χαὶ τὴν
CO \ ~ ?
ἄλλην ᾿Ιουδαϊκὴν ἀγωγὴν ὁμοίως éxelvorg πιαρεφύλαττον, ταῖς ὃ
αὖ χυριαχαῖς ἱμιέραις ἡμῖν τὰ παραπλήσια εἰς μνήμην τῆς τοῦ
Κυρίου ἀναστάσεως ἐπετέλουν. Ὅϑεν raed τὴν τοιαύτην ἐγχεί--
- ~ ~ ) 2)
ρησιν τῆς τοιᾶσδε λελόγχασι τιροσηγορίας, τοῦ Εβιωναίων ὀνόμα-
the earliest authority for distinguishing between Ebionites and Nazarenes as two
distinct Jewish sects. In earlier usage all Christians were called Nazarenes by
their Jewish neighbours; all Jewish Christians were called Ebionites in the Chris-
tian Church. In this sense Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and even Eu-
sebius, speak of Ebionites, though varied Christological views were known to exist
among them. (Eus. H. E. ΠΙ. 27.) See Introduction: “Gospel of Hebrews.”
Compare Lightfoot’s Galatians, p. 305, and Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik des Epi-
phanius, p. 122,
THE EBIONITES. 433
τος, τὴν τῆς διανοίας πτωχείαν αὐτῶν ὑποφαίνοντος" ταύτῃ γὰρ
ἐπίχλην ὃ πτωχός παρ᾽ Ἑβραίοις ὀνομάζεται.
Ibid. ΚΙ. 11. Τῶν ye μὴν ἑρμηνευτῶν αὐτῶν δὴ τούτων ἰστέον,
᾿Εβιωναῖον τὸν Σύμμαχον γεγονέναι. “1ἿὋρεσις δέ ἐστιν ἣ τῶν
Ἐβιωναίων οὕτω καλουμένη, τῶν τὸν Χριστὸν ἐξ ᾿Ιωσὴφ χαὶ Π1α-
ρίας γεγονέναι φασχόν τῶν, Wihoyv τὲ ἄνϑρωπον ὑφειληφότων αὖ-
τὸν, χαὶ τὸν γόμον ) χρῆναι Ἰουδαϊκώτερον φυλάττειν ἀπισχυριζο-
μένων, ὡς που χαὶ ἐχ τῆς πρόσϑεν ἱστορίας ἔγνωμεν. Καὶ ὕπιο-
μνήματα δὲ τοῦ Συμμάχου εἰσέτι νῦν φέρεται, ἐν οἷς δοχεῖ πρὸς
τὸ χατὰ ἤϊατϑαῖον ἀποτεινόμενος εὐαγγέλιον, τὴν δεδηλωμένην
αἵρεσιν χρατύγειν" ταῦτα δὲ ὃ ᾿Ωριγέ vs, μετὰ χαὶ ἄλλων εἰς τὰς
γραφὰς ἑρμηνειῶν τοῦ Συμμάχου, σημαίνει παρὰ ἸΙουλιανῆς τινὸς
εἰληφέναι, ἣν χαί φησι nag? αὐτοῦ Συμμάχου τὰς βίβλους δια-
δέξασϑαι."
Epiph. Haer. I. t. 2. h. 80. ». 127. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 409.)
See before, p. 139.
Ibid. Ἤδη δέ που χαί τινες πτάλιν ἔφϑασαν καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς
“λληνιχῆς διαλέχτου τὸ χατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην μεταληφϑὲν εἰς “Εβραΐδα
ἐμφέρεσϑαι ἐν τοῖς τῶν Ιουδαίων γαζοφυλαχίοις, φημὶ δὲ τοῖς
ἐν Τιβεριάδι, χαὶ ἐνασπιοχεῖσϑαι ἐν ἀποχρύφοις, ὡς τινες τῶν ἀπὸ
᾿Ιουδαίων πεσιιστευχότων ὑφηγήσαντο ἡμῖν χατὰ λεπτότητα" οὐ
μὴν ἀλλὰ χαὶ τῶν Πράξεων τῶν ᾿“΄ποστόλων τὴν βίβλον ὡσαύτως
ano “Ελλάδος γλώσσης εἰς “Εβραΐδα μεταβληϑεῖσαν λόγος ἔχει
ἐχεῖσε χεῖσϑαι ἐν τοῖς γαζοφυλαχίοις, ὡς καὶ amd τούτου τοὺς
ἀναγνόντας ᾿Ιουδαίους τοὺς ἡμῖν ὑφηγησαμένους εἰς Χριστὸν σιε-
σειστευχέναι.
Ibid. p. 140. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 432.) Πράξεις δὲ ἄλλας
χαλοῦσιν ἀποστόλων εἶναι, ἐν αἷς πολλὰ τῆς ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν
ἔμπλεα, ἔνϑεν οὐ παρέργως κατὰ τῆς ἀληϑείας ἑαυτοὺς ὥπιλι-
σαν. ᾿Αναβαϑμοὺς δέ τινας καὶ ὑφηγήσεις δῆϑεν ἐν τοῖς ἀναβα-
ϑμοῖς ᾿Ιαχώβου ὑποτίϑενται, ὡς ἐξηγουμένου κατά te τοῦ ναοῦ
χαὶ τῶν ϑυσιῶν, χατά TE τοῦ πυρὸς τοῦ ἐν τῷ ϑυσιαστηρίῳ,
2 Did Symmachus oppose Matthew’s Gospel in order to confirm the Ebionite
position; or did he use it for that purpose? What means ἀποτεινόμενος ἢ Jerome
says that Symmachus wrote a Commentary on Matthew’s Gospel; how then could
he oppose it? May it not be that, in so far as the genuine St Matthew came
short of the Ebionite doctrines, this Partisan-Commentator opposed it, and thereby
established to his own satisfaction the worth of the passages peculiar to the Ebionite
form of the book?
28
434 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
zai ἄλλα πολλὰ χενοφωνίας ἔμτιλεα, ὡς χαὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν-
ταῦϑα χατηγοροῦντες οὐχ αἰσχύνονται ἐπιπλάστοις τισὶ τῆς τῶν
ψευδατιοστόλων αὐτῶν χαχουργίας χαὶ πλάνης λόγοις ττεποιημέἕ-
vos Ταρσέα μὲν αὐτὸν, ὡς αὐτὸς διιολογεῖ καὶ οὐκ ἀρνεῖται,
λέγοντες. Ἐξ Ἑλλήνων δὲ αὐτὸν ὑποτίϑενται, λαβόντες τὴν στρό-
> are CN : c > 3. nn’
φασιν ἐκ tov τύπου διὰ τὸ φιλάληϑες ὑπ αὐτοῦ ῥδηϑὲν, OTL
«Ταρσεύς εἰμι, οὐκ ἀσήμου πόλεως πολίτης." (Acts xxiv. 39.)
Εἴτα φάσχουσιν αὐτὸν εἶναι Ἕλληνα, χαὶ “Ελληνίδος μητρὸς καὶ
Ἕλληνος πατρὸς maida, ἀναβεβηκέναι δὲ εἰς “Ιεροσόλυμα καὶ χρό-
γον ἐχεῖ μεμενηχέναι, ἐπιτεϑυμηχέναι δὲ ϑυγατέρα τοῦ ἱερέως
πρὸς γάμον ἀγαγέσϑαι, χαὶ τούτου ἕνεχα προσήλυτον γενέσϑαι
καὶ περιτμηϑῆναι, xed μηκέτι λαβόντα τὴν τοιαύτην κόρην ὠρ-
γίσϑαι, καὶ χατὰ περιτομῆς γεγραφέναι χαὶ χατὰ σαββάτου χαὶ
γομοϑεσίας.
10. Tue Montranists orn Carapnryerans.!
Hippol. Ref. Haer. VIII. 19. (Comp. X. 25, 26.) Ἕτεροι δὲ
\ 2 Ν « , \ , ’ \ / { yd
“AL αὐτοὶ αἱρετικώτεροι τὴν φύσιν, Φρύγες τὸ γένος, meokng~der-
c Ν , 2 U , \ \ ,
τες vO γυναίων ἤπάτηνται, Πρισχίλλης τινὸς καὶ ἸΠ]αξιμίλλης
χαλουμένων, ἃς τπιεροφήτιδας νομίζουσιν, ἐν ταύταις τὸ παράκλητον
~ Ν 2 -
σινεῦμα χεχωρηχέναι λέγοντες, “al τινὰ πρὸ αὐτῶν Ποντανὸν
ς , , c , ct tig 2 , 2
ὁμοίως δοξάζουσιν ὡς προφήτην, wy βίβλους ἀπείρους ἔχοντες
πλανῶνται, μήτε τὰ bw αὐτῶν λελαλημένα λόγῳ χρίναντες, μήτε
- - ~ \ >
τοῖς χρῖναι δυναμένοις προσέχοντες, ἀλλ᾽ ἀχρίτως τῇ πρὸς αὖ-
1 Montanus proclaimed at Pepuza in Phrygia (about A.p. 150, Gieseler) that
the power of the Paraclete in the Church was to be perfected in his time. His
seems to have been the longing for the perfection of the Church of Christ which
from his day to Edward Irving’s has influenced so many men of the highest ear-
nestness. It was not to be expected that in Phrygia any form of religious enthu-
siasm would be kept within bounds. And accordingly Montanus and two pro-
phetesses, Maximilla and Priscilla, claimed to have received special revelations.
They adhered to the Christian creed, and to the Christian Canon (see Hippol. in
our text), but in their zeal added new strictness to various practical observances.
They ‘prescribed new and rigorous fasts, forbade second marriage, ascribed ex-
traordinary value to celibacy and martyrdom, manifested profound contempt for
everything earthly, and taught that incontinence, murder, and idolatry, though they
did not exclude from the grace of God, shut a person for ever out of the Church.”
Gieseler, C. H., Vol. I. p. 148 (Eng. Trans.). They also proclaimed the speedy
end of the world. They founded largely on the promises of the Paraclete in
John’s Gospel, and for their strict discipline appealed to Heb. vi. 4. In his later
days Tertullian was a Montanist. In the Pseudo-Tert., Adv. Haer. ec. 7, is an ac-
count of them: ‘‘Secundum Phrygas.”’
THE MONTANISTS. 435
τοὺς πίστει προσφέρονται, σιλεῖόν τι δι᾿ αὐτῶν φάσχοντες [ὧς]
μεμαϑηκέναι ἢ ἐκ νόμου zai πιροφητῶν χαὶ τῶν εὐαγγελίων. “Ὑτιὲρ
δὲ ἀποστόλους χαὶ way χάρισμα ταῦτα τὰ γύναια δοξάζουσιν, ὡς
τολμᾶν πλεῖόν τι Χριστοῦ ἐν τούτοις λέγειν τινὰς αὐτῶν γεγονέ-
γαι. Οὗτοι τὸν μὲν πατέρα τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν χαὶ πάντων χτίστην
ὁμοίως τὴ ἐκχλησίᾳ ὁμολογοῦσι χαὶ Cow τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τιερὶ τοῦ
“Χριστοῦ μαρτυρεῖ, καινίζουσι δὲ νηστείας “ai ἑορτὰς χαὶ ξηρο-
φαγίας χαὶ ῥαφανοφαγίας φάσχοντες ὑπὸ τῶν γυναίων δεδιδάχϑαι.
_Epiph.? Haer. 1Π. t. 1. h. 48. p. 402. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 856.)
Οὗτοι γὰρ οἱ xara Φρίγας χαλούμενοι δέχονται moar γραφὴν
παλαιὰν χαὶ νέαν διαϑήχην, χαὶ νεχρῶν ἀνάστασιν ὁμοίως λέ-
γουσι. ΠΙοντανὸν δέ tive πιροφήτην αὐχοῦσιν ἔχειν καὶ Πρισχίλ-
hav χαὶ Ἰ]αξίμιλλαν τιεροφήτιδας" οἷς προσέχοντες τὸν νοῦν ἐξ-
ἕτρειμαν" σπιερὶ δὲ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Aylov Πνεύματος ὁμοίως
φρονοῦσι τῇ ἁγίᾳ χαϑολιχῇ ἐχχλησίᾳ, “0.4.
-Tertull. de jejun. ὁ. 1. Hi paracleto controversiam faciunt;
propter hoc novae prophetiae recusantur; non quod alium Deum
praedicent Montanus et Priscilla et Maximilla, nec quod Jesum
Christum solvant, nec quod aliquam fidei aut spei regulam ever-
tant, sed quod plane doceant saepius jejunare quam nubere.
Tren. B. ITI. 11.9. See before, p. 69.8
Jerome, Adv. Jovinian. B. II. ὃ. (Vallars. Vol. IL. p. 324.)
Et existimat aliquis securos, et dormientes nos esse debere post
baptismum? Necnon ad Hebraeos: Impossibile est enim eos qui
semel sunt illuminati et gustaverunt donum coeleste, et participes
facti sunt Spiritus Sancti, gustaveruntque mhilominus bonum Dei
verbum, virtutesque saeculi futuri, et prolapsi sunt, renovari ite-
rum ad poenitentiam, rursum crucifigentes sibimetipsis Filium
Dei, et ostentui habentes. (Heb. vi. 4, &c.) Certe eos qui illu-
minati sunt, et gustaverunt donum coeleste, et participes facti
sunt Spiritus Sancti, gustaveruntque bonum Dei verbum, negare
non possumus baptizatos. Si autem baptizati peccare non pos-
sunt, quomodo nunc Apostolus dicit, οὐ prolapsi sunt? Verum
2 Epiphanius entitles his chapter Kata τῶν xata Φρύγας, ἤτοι Μοντανιστῶν
χαλουμένων, ἢ χαὶ Γασχοδρουγιτῶν.
8 Irenaeus points probably to the Alogi as repudiating John’s Gospel because
they did not admit the effusion of the Holy Spirit. See before, notes on pp. 69,
70. But some refer the passage to the Montanists.
2%
436 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
ne Montanus, et Novatus hic rideant, qui contendunt non posse
renovari per poenitentiam eos qui crucifixerunt sibimet Filium
Dei, et ostentui habuerunt, consequenter hunc errorem solvit, et
ait: Confidimus autem de vobis dilectissimi meliora et viciniora
saluti, tametsi ita loquimur. Non enim injustus est Deus, ut ob-
liviscatur operis vestri et dilectionis, quam ostendistis im nome ἡ
ipsius, qui ministratis Sanctis, et nunc ministratis. (Heb. vi. 9, 10.)
1%. “Tan Avocw*
Tren. B. IIT. 11.9. (See before, p. 69 and Notes.)
Eus. H. FE. VII. 25. Dionysius says that “some” before his
day rejected the Apocalypse altogether. (See before, p. 346.)
Epiph. Haer. 11. t. 1. h. 51. p. 423. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 892.)
,ὔ , te 2} / ‘ > ~ a} , ‘
@Maoxover τοίνυν οἱ «“λογοι" ταύτην yao αὐτοῖς EemitiInue THY
ἐπωνυμίαν, ἀπὸ γὰρ τῆς δεῦρο οὕτως κληϑήσονται" χαὶ οὕτως, ἀγα-
πητοὶ, ἐπιϑῶμεν αὐτοῖς ὕνομα, τουτέστιν “Adoywr. Εἶχον μὲν
\ \ c , 2 , > , \ ,
yao τὴν αἵρεσιν χαλουμένην, ἀπτοβαλλουσαν Ιωαννου tag βίβλους.
Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸν λόγον οὐ δέχονται τὸν saec ᾿Ιωάννου κξχηρυγμένον,
"4λογοὶ χληϑήσονται. (See continuation, p. 354, ᾿“λλότριοι «.0.A.)
Ibid. p. 424. Προφασίζονται γὰρ οὗτοι αἰσχυνόμενοι ἀντι-
λέγειν τῷ ἁγίῳ ᾿Ιωάννῃ, διὰ τὸ εἰδέναι αὐτοὺς καὶ αὐτὸν ἐν
ἀριϑιῷ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὄντα, χαὶ ἠγαπημένον ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου,
a \ \ \ \ ~ ~
ὃς ἀξίως τὰ μυστήρια ἀτιεχάλυτιτεν χαὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆϑος αὐτοῦ
ἀνέπεσε. Kai ἑτέρως αὐτὰ ἀνατρέπειν σπιειρῶνται. “ἔγουσι γὰρ
\ ΕΗ \ \ \
μὴ εἶναι αὐτὰ ᾿Ιωάννου, ἀλλὰ Kyoivdov. Kai οὐχ ἄξια αὐτὰ si-
" δ, 13, eee)
var φασιν ey ἐχχλησίᾳ.
1 Alogi. There is no mention of the Alogi by name in any author save Epi-
phanius. His contemporary Philastrius is the only author who gives a description
that can be applied to the same sect. This has led to grave doubts of there being
any such sect. Lardner gives an absolute denial of their existence. Volkmar, in
a work I have not seen, ‘‘ Hippolyt und seine Zeitgenossen,” seems to take up the
same position. See Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik des Epiphanios, p. 23. There are
some considerations, however, on the other side. Philastrius does not name the
sect, though he describes it, and this may indicate that he and Epiphanius drew
their information from the same source, so that Epiphanius is original only in
giving the name. The vague expressions of Irenaeus and of Dionysius in Eusebius
may be made to apply to the Alogi. On the whole, and without going into de-
tails, it seems probable that there were some objectors to the Johannine writings,
as a recoil from the extravagances of Montanism (e.g. Caius, see p. 343 and note),
and that Epiphanius move swo consolidated those scattered utterances into the ma-
nifesto of a sect. Some of those mentioned by Epiphanius seem to have lived in
or near Thyatira.
THE ALOGI. 437
Ibid. Καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς ἐπιβολῆς εὐϑὺς ἐλέγχονται, μήτε ἃ
αλέγουσι νοοῦντες μήτε σιερὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται. (1 Tim. i. 7.)
Πῶς γὰρ ἔσται Κηρίνϑου τὰ κατὰ Κηρίνϑου λέγοντα; Κύήρινϑος
γὰρ πρόσφατον χαὶ ψιλὸν τὸν Χριστὸν λέγει ἄνϑρωπον, ὃ δὲ
᾿Ιωάννης ἀεὶ ὄντα τὸν λόγον χεχήρυχε χαὶ ἄνωϑεν ἥχοντα, χαὶ
σαρχωϑέντα.
Ibid. p. 441. (The Alogi objected that the Gospel so soon
speaks of the marriage in Cana, omitting what other Gospels re-
cord.) Τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εἰς ὄνοιια ᾿Ιωάννου, φασὶ, ψεύδεται.
Meta γὰρ τὸ εἰπεῖν. ὃ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, nai ὀλίγα τινὰ,
εὐϑὺς λέγει ὅτι γάμος ἐγένετο ἐν Κανᾷ τῆς Γαλιλαίας. Καὶ οὐ
μέμνηνται οἱ ἀφροσύνην ἑαυτοῖς ἐπιστιώμενοι ὡς ᾿Ιωάννης μετὰ
τὸ εἰπεῖν τὸν λόγον σάρκα γεγενῆσϑαι χαὶ ἐσχηνωχέναι ἐν ἡμῖν,
τουτέστιν ἄνϑρωτιον γεγονέναι, χ.τ.ἢ.
Ibid. p. 444. (The Alogi objected that John speaks of two
Passovers, the others of one.) Keatnyogotou δὲ οἱ αὐτοὶ ττάλιν τοῦ
ἁγίου εὐαγγελιστοῦ, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτοῦ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ὅτι, φα-
σὶν, ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης ἔφη δύο Πάσχα τὸν Σωτῆρα πεποιηχέναι ἐν σιε-
ριόδῳ ἐνιαυτῶν δύο, οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι εὐαγγελισταὶ περὶ ἑνὸς Πάσχα
διηγοῦνται, χαὶ οὐχ ἴσασιν οἱ ἰδιῶται ὅτι οὐ μόνον δύο Πάσχα
ὁμολογεῖ τὰ εὐαγγέλια, ὡς πανταχόϑεν ἐδείξαμεν, ἀλλὰ δύο μὲν
σιρῶτα λέγει, χαὶ αὐτὸ δὲ ἐν ᾧ πέπονθεν ὃ Σωτὴρ, ἄλλο Πάσχα,
ὡς εἶναι τρία Πάσχα ἀπὸ τοῦ χρόνου τοῦ βαπτίσματος χαὶ τῆς
ἀρχῆς τοῦ χηρύγματος ἐπὶ τρισὶν ἔτεσιν ἕως τοῦ σταυροῦ.
Ibid. p. 404. (See before, p. 354, from φάσχουσι.)
Ibid. p. 455. (The Alogi objected to Apoc. vi. 18 that there
was no Church in Thyatira.) Εἶτά τινὲς ἐξ αὐτῶν medi ἐπι-
λαμβάνονται τούτου tov ῥητοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ -Anoxcdiwe, καὶ φά-
σχουσιν ἀντιλέγοντες ὅτι εἶπε πάλιν γράψον τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς
ἐκχλησίας τῷ ἐν Θυατείροις, χαὶ οὐχ ἕνι ἐκεῖ ἐχχλησία
“Χριστιανῶν ἐν Θυατείροις. Πῶς οὖν ἔγραφε τῇ μὴ οὔσῃ; Καὶ
εὑρίσκονται οἱ τοιοῦτοι ξαυτοὺς ἀναγχάζοντες ἐξ αἰτῶν ὧν κης
ρύττουσι χατὰ τῆς ἀληϑείας ὁμολογεῖν. Ἐὰν γὰρ εἴπωσιν, οὐχ
ἔνι viv ἐχχλησία εἰς Θυατείρα, δεικνύουσι “ιροτιεφητευχέναι τὸν
᾿Ιωάννην. ᾿Ενοιχησάντων γὰρ τούτων ἐχεῖσε xai τῶν χατὰ Φρύγας
καὶ δίκην λύχων ἁρπαξάντων τὰς διανοίας τῶν ἀχεραίων σιστῶν,
μετήνεγκαν τὴν πᾶσαν πόλιν εἰς τὴν αὐτῶν αἵρεσιν, οἵ τὲ ἀρνού-
μενοι τὴν ᾿Ἵποχάλυψιν κατὼ τοῦ λόγου τούτου εἰς ἀνατροττὴν κατ᾽
458 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
ἐχείνου καιροῦ ἐστρατεύοντο. Niv δὲ διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ἕν τῷ
χρόνῳ τούτῳ, μετὰ χρόνον ριβ' ἐτῶν, ἔστιν ἣ ἐχχλησία nai αὔξει,
χαὶ ἄλλαι τινὲς ἐχεῖσε τυγχάνουσι. Τότε δὲ ἢ πᾶσα ἐχχλησία
ἐχενώϑη εἰς τὴν χατὰ Φρύγας. M0 χαὶ ἐσπούδασε τὸ ““γιον
Πνεῦμα ἀποχαλύψαι ἡμῖν πὥς ἤμελλε σελανᾶσϑαι ἣ ἐχκχλησία
μετὰ τὸν χρόνον τῶν “Α΄ποστόλων, τοῦ τε ᾿Ιωάννου, χαὶ τῶν καϑ-
εξῆς" ὃς ἦν χρόνος μετὰ τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἀνάληψιν, ἐπὶ ἐνενήκοντα
χαὶ τρισὶν ἔτεσιν, ὡς μελλούσης τῆς ἐχεῖσε ἐχχλησίας πλανᾶσϑαι,
nal χωνεύίεσϑαι ἐν τῇ κατὰ Φρύγας αἱρέσει.
Thid. p. 456. Καί φασιν ou τς χαὶ εἶπε τῷ ἀγγέλῳ,
λύσον τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐφράτου.
Καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριϑμὸν τοῦ στρατοῦ, μύριαι μυριά-
δες, χαὶ χίλιαι χιλιάδες, χαὶ ἦσαν ἐνδεδυμένοι ϑώρα-
κας πυρίνους καὶ ϑειώδεις, καὶ ὑαχινϑίνους. (Apoc.
ix. 14, &.) Ἐνόμισαν γὰρ οἱ τοιοῦτοι μή στη ἄρα γέλοιόν ἐστιν
ἢ ἀλήϑεια.
Philastr. de Haeres. (Fd. 1611) p. 27. Post hos (Chilione-
titas) sunt Haeretici, qui Evangelium secundum Joannem et Apo-
calypsin ipsius non accipiunt et cum non intelligunt virtutem
scripturae, nec desiderant discere, in Haeresi permanent per-
euntes, ut etiam Cerinthi illius Haeretici esse audeant dicere.
Et Apocalypsin itidem, non beati Joannis Evangelistae et Apostoli,
sed Cerinthi Haeretici, qui tunc ab Apostolis beatis Haereticus
manifestatus, abjectus est ab ecclesia.
18. Crementine Homiutes. !
. . . 3
Hom. IT. 11. (Antichrist predicted.) Οὕτως δὴ, ὡς ὃ ἀληϑὴς
ἡμῖν προφήτης εἴρηχεν, πρῶτον ψευδὲς δεῖ ἐλϑεῖν εὐαγγέλιον ἱ to
σιλάνου τινὸς, χαὲ eid? οὕτως μετὰ καϑαίρεσιν τοῦ ἁγίου τόπου
εὐαγγέλιον ἀληϑὲς χρύφα διαπεμφϑῆναι εἰς ἐπανόρϑωσιν τῶν
ἐσομένων αἱρέσεων" χαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα στιρὸς τῷ τέλει ττάλιν πιρῶτον
> , γΩ,“" - \ Ζ \ "ἢ Γ΄ \ c ~ 2
Αντίχριστον ἐλϑεῖν δεῖ, γαὶ τότε τὸν ὄντως Χριστὸν ἡμῶν In-
Ooty ἀναφανῆναι, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτον αἰωνίου φωτὸς ἀνατείλαντος
, Ν - / 2 ~ , oo
παᾶντα τὰ TOL σχότους ἀφανῆ yeveoIou. (1 John ii. 18.)
1 For the principal passages bearing on John’s Gospel, see before, pp. 184,
185, and ‘ Introduction.”
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 439
Ibid. ὁ. 19. (Lhe Syrophoenician woman.) ᾿Ιούστα τις ἐν
ἡμῖν ἔστι Συροφοινίχισσα, τὸ γένος Χανανῖτις, ἧς τὸ ϑυγάτριον
ὑγιὸ yohentig νόσου συνείχετο, ἣ χαὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν πιροσῆλϑε
βοῶσα χαὶ ἱἹχετεύουσα, ὕτιως αὐτῆς τὸ ϑυγάτριον ϑεραπεύσῃ. Ὁ
δὲ χαὶ tp ἡμῶν ἀξιωϑεὶς εἶπεν" οὐχ ἔξεστιν ἰᾶσϑαι τὰ ἔϑνη,
ἐοιχότα χυσὶν, διὰ τὸ διαφόροις χρῆσϑαι τροφαῖς χαὶ τιράξεσιν,
ἀποδεδομένης τῆς LATE τὴν βασιλείαν τρατιέζης τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ.
Ἡ δὲ τοῦτο ἀχούσασα, χαὶ τῆς αὐτῆς τρατιέζης, ὡς κύων, ψιχίων
ἀπιοτεισιτόντων συμμεταλαμβάνειν, μεταϑεμένη ὕστιερ ἣν, τῷ ὁμοίως
διαιτᾶσϑαι τοῖς τῆς βασιλείας υἱοῖς τῆς εἰς τὴν ϑυγατέρα, ὡς
ἠξίωσεν, ἔτυχεν ἰάσεως. (Mark vii. 25-30. Comp. Mat. xv. 11-28.)
Tbid. ¢. 51. Εὐλόγως ὃ διδάσχαλος ἡμῶν ἔλεγεν" γίνεσϑε τρα-
πεξῖται δόχιμοι. (Hom. I. 50; XVIII. 20.)
Hom. 111. 15. (Destruction of the Temple.) Atciza γοῦν
περὶ τοῦ ἁγιάσματος προλέγων ἔφη: Ορᾶτε τὰς οἰχοδομὰς
ταύτας; ἀμὴν ὑμῖν λέγω, λίϑος ἐπὶ λίϑον οὐ μὴ ἀφεϑῇ
ὧδε, ὃς οὐ μὴ χαϑαιρεϑῇὴ" χαὶ οὐ μὴ παρέλϑῃ ἣ γενεὰ
αὕτη, χαὶ ἣ καϑαίρεσις ἀρχὴν λήψεται. Ἐλεύσονται yao χαὶ
χαϑιοῦσιν ἐνταῦϑα, χαὶ σπιεριχαραχώσουσι, καὶ τὰ τέχνα ὑμῶν
ἐνταῦϑα χατασφάξουσιν. (Mat. xxiv. 2, 34; Luke xix. 43.)
Ibid. ¢.18. (Scribes and Pharisees.) ..1λλ᾽ οὐχ ἐζήτησας τί-
γος ἐστὶν ὃ τῆς βασιλείας χρόνος, τίνος ἣ τῆς πιροφητείας χα-
ϑέδρα, καίτοι αὐτοῦ ἑαυτὸν μηνύοντος τῷ λέγειν ἐτεὶ τῆς κα-
ϑέδρας ἸΠωϊσέως ἐχάϑισαν οἱ Γραμματεῖς χαὶ οἱ Φα-
ρισαῖοι" πάντα δσα λέγωσιν ὑμῖν, ἀκούετε αὐτῶν. (Mat.
xxiii. 2, 8, 14) αὐτῶν δὲ εἶπεν ὡς τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς βασιλείας
METLOTEYMEVOY, ἥτις ἐστὶν γνῶσις, ἢ μόνη τὴν πύλην τῆς ζωῆς
ἀνοῖξαι δύναται, δι᾿ ἧς μόνης εἰς τὴν αἰωνίαν ζωὴν εἰσελϑεῖν
ἐστιν. “4λλὰ ναὶ, φησὶν, κρατοῦσι μὲν τὴν Ἀλεῖν, τοῖς
δὲ βουλομένοις εἰσελϑεῖν οὐ παρέχουσιν. (Luke xi. 52.)
Tbid. c. 40. (Stewardship. Compare also c. 64.) Ἐπεὶ οὖν
δεῖ τινα below ἀντ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸν ἐμὸν ἀναπληροῦντα τόπον, μιᾷ
σιροαιρέσει δεηϑῶμεν τοῦ Θεοῦ οἱ πάντες, ὕὅπιως τῶν ὄντων ἐν
ἡμῖν τὸν χρείττονα αὐτὸς πρόδηλον σπτοιήσῃ ἵνα ἐτιὶ τῆς Χριστοῦ
χαϑέδρας χαϑεσϑεὶς τὴν αὐτοῦ ἐχχλησίαν εὐσεβῶς οἰχονομῇ. Τίς
ἄρα δρισϑήσεται; Θεοῦ γὰρ βουλῇ ἀναδείχνυται μαχάριος ὃ ἄν-
ϑρωτσίος ἐχεῖνος, ὃν χαταστήσει ὃ κύριος αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς ϑερα-
γιείας τῶν συνδούλων αὑτοῦ, τοῦ διδόναι αὐτοῖς τὰς τροφὰς ἐν
440 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
~ ~ \ ~ « ~
χαιρῷ αὐτῶν, μὴ ἐννοούμενον χαὶ λέγοντα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὑτοῦ"
[δ Cc / / ’ © ὩΣ ὦ os ‘ PL Ξ ς , ~ F ὃ ,
χρονίζει ὃ χύριός μου ἐλϑεῖν" καὶ ἄρξηται riarey τοὺς συνδου-
λους αὑτοῦ, ἐσθίων χαὶ πίνων μετά τε τιόρνων χαὶ μεϑυόντων"
. (ον: c , ~ ἊΝ ἢ) > , > c = γ - ‘
χαὶ ἥξει ὃ χύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐχείνου ἐν ὥρᾳ ἡ οὐ τιροσδοχᾷ,, καὶ
7 23 δ \ sie ~
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἣ οὐ γινώσχει, καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν, LAL TO ἀπιστοῦν
αὐτοῦ μέρος μετὰ τῶν ὑποχριτῶν ϑήσει. (Mat. xxiv. 45, &c.;
Luke xii. 42, &c.)
Ibid. c. 49. (Peter and Simon agree to regard Jesus as pre-
r . ᾿ ° rope et - ” Dak nee vs 5
dicted in Scripture.) Kou ὁ Πέτρος egy’ avtiza cow. 1 ἐγρατύται
> ~ ~ Q17/ \ ~ >
ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τοῦ νόμου βιβλίῳ πρὸς τοῖς τελευταίοις" “οὐχ, ἐχ-
λείιννει ἄρχων ἐξ ᾿Ιούδα, οὐδὲ ἡγούμενος ἐχ τῶν μηρῶν αὐτοῦ, ἕως
elwer ἄρχων ἐξ ᾿Ιούδα, οὐδὲ ἡγούμενος ἐχ τῶν μηρῶν αὑτοῦ, ἕως
DN Pid \ > EN ν , ~ Ω -
ἂν ἔλϑῃ ov ἔστιν" χαὶ αὐτὸς προσδοχία ἐθνῶν." (Gen. xlix. 10.)
3χυ7 is 3 \ oat ae ed ‘© > ἡ « ” ᾿ S36 ,
Ἐάν τις οὖν τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἐξ ᾿Ιούδα ἐχλεῖιναι ἄρχοντα καὶ ἡγού-
μένον, ἐληλυϑότα, χαὶ ὑτιὸ ἐϑνῶν προσδοχᾶσϑαι μέλλοντα, νοῆ-
. an z \ Pes a Ses, : at 27 gr
σαι δυνηϑῇ, οὗτος τὴν περιχοτιὴν ἔχ τῶν αἀτοτελεσϑέντων αληϑῆ
τὸν ἐληλυϑότα ἐπιγνῶν" οὗ τῇ διδασχαλίᾳ πειϑόμενος γνώσεται
, δ \ ~ ~ Ν > a” aS, \ ΜΗ - ep!
τίνα ἐστὶν τῶν γραφῶν ta ἀληϑῆ, τίνα δὲ ta ψευδῆ. Kat ὁ
‘ ~ ~ 3. δ ~
Σίμων" συνίημι ὅτι τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ὑμῶν λέγεις, ὡς αὐτὸν ὑχτὸ τῆς
γραφῆς προφητευϑ έν: 106090 τοιγαροῦν ov ἔ) Aé
γραφῆς προφητευϑέντα. “1εδόσϑω τοιγαροῦν οὕτως eye. Aéye
, ~ C ~ ν , \ Ἁ ’ , t
τοίνυν τεῶς ὑμᾶς διαχρίνειν τὰς γραφὰς ἐδίδαξεν;
Σ A 5 β ς ,
Ibid. c. 50. (Be careful in selecting Scripture.) Καὶ ὁ Πέτρος"
Ν 2 ~ ~ 2 ,
ὅτι μέμιχται τὰ ἀληϑῆ τοῖς Wedeow, μέμνημαί στου αὐτὸν αἱ-
τιώμενον τοὺς Σαδδουχαίους εἰτιεῖν: “διὰ τοῦτο πλανᾶσϑε,
‘ ν \ > ~ ~ ~ γι ͵ > ~
μὴ εἰδότες Ta ἀληϑῆ τῶν γραφῶν, ov εἵνεχεν ἀγνοεῖτε
‘ ~ ~ Ἵ “* 3 ~ ~
τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ Θεοῦ." (Mark xii. 24.) Ei δὲ τὰ ἀληϑῆ τῶν
~ > ~ 5) \ ow ~ γ
γραφῶν ἀγνοεῖν αὐτοὺς ὑχιέβαλεν, δῆλον ὡς ὄντων ψευδῶν. ..1λλὰ
χαὶ ἐν τῷ φάναι" “Γίνεσϑε τρατιεζῖται δόκιμοι," ὡς δοκίμων xo
ἢ Ona λό » Pie A ~ > ~ ΧΩ ξ , 2) ~ 4 a
χιβδήλων λόγων ὄντων" χαὶ τῷ εἰπεῖν" “διὰ τί οὐ νοεῖτε TO Ev-
~ ~ ~ 2 -
λογον τῶν γραφῶν;" Βεβαιότερον τοῦ αὐϑαιρέτως εὐγνωμονοῦν-
, Ν ~
τὸς τίϑησιν τὸν γοῦν.
. ‘ ~ ’ >
Ibid. c. 51. (The Law.) To δὲ καὶ εἰπεῖν αὐτοῦ" “Ov
3 ~ \ ‘
ἤλϑον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον" (Mat. v.17), καὶ φαίνεσϑαι
δε τς oi a , 7 ἊΣ
αὐτὸν χαταλίοντα, σημαίνοντος ἦν, ὅτι, ἃ χκατέλυεν, οὐχ ἦν τοῦ
, ro.’ \ \ ~ ~ > \ ᾿ ~
νόμου. To δὲ καὶ εἰπεῖν: Ὃ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἢ γῆ παρελεύ-
~~ tay aN , cs , 2 \ , 5 2 \ ~
σονται, ἰῶτα ἕν ἢ μία χεραία OV μὴ πτταρέλϑῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ
,ὕ, Ω © ΄Ί Ν ᾽ ~ ~
γόμου. (Mat. xxiv. 35; v.18.) Τὰ πρὸ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς παρ-
/ ‘ ~
ἐρχόμενα ἐσήμανεν μὴ ὄντα τοῦ ὄντως νόμου.
Ibid. ὁ. 52. (Christ’s account of Himself.) Ἐπεὶ οὖν οὐρανοῦ
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 441
~ ᾽ ~
zal γῆς ἔτι συνεστώτων παρῆλϑον ϑυσίαι, βασιλείαι, αἵ “ἐν yev-
νητοῖς γυναιχῶν" προφητεῖαι, χαὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα, ὡς οὐχ ὄντα Θεοῦ
A se! / ee τ ~ , ( ~ , a > ’ ,
σιροσταγματα" ἔνϑεν γοῦν λέγει, “Πᾶσα φυτεία, ἣν οὐκ E—pr-
es c \ ς ’ / ΨῈ WE ω 5 ”
TEVOEY ὁ πτατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος, ἑκριζωϑησεται." (Mat. xv.
\ ~ 2 ἃ > ‘ > U 2
13.) “Μιὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸς ἀληϑὴς ὧν προφήτης ἔλεγεν" “Ἐγώ εἰμι
~ 4 ~ c > Ύ ~ | / a) ,ὔ
ἢ πύλη τῆς ζωῆς ὃ Ou ἐμοῦ εἰσερχόμενος εἰσέρχεται
εἰς τὴν ζωὴν," (John x. 9), ὡς οὐχ οὔσης ἑτέρας τῆς σώζειν
δυναμένης διδασχαλίας" διὸ χαὶ ἐβόα λέγων: “Δεῦτε πρός ME
, ᾿ « ~ “5 oc , « ἢ 52. 2
παντὸς οἱ κοπιῶντες" (Mat. ΧΙ. 28), τουτέστιν οἱ τὴν ἀλη-
ϑειαν ζητοῦντες, χαὶ μὴ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν" καὶ πάλιν: “Τὰ
> \ 7, > , »- > ~ ~ ” Ἢ
ἐμὰ πρόβατα axOvEL τῆς ἐμῆς φωνῆς," (John x. 27), καὶ
By ~ ‘ ss ‘ ν
ἄλλοτε" ““ζητεῖτε, χαὶ εὑρίσκετε" (Mat. vii. 7), ὡς μὴ προδήλως
- Β]
χειμένης τῆς ἀληϑείας.
Ἢ = ° > ‘ ‘
Ibid. ¢. 53. (Prophecy and the Heavenly voice.) .“λλὰ καὶ
τι ~ ‘ τυ,
ἐξ οὐρανῶν μόρτυς φωνὴ ἠχούσϑη λέγουσα: “Οὗτος ἐστίν μου
ὃ υἱὸς ὃ ἀγαπητὸς εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησα, τούτου ἀκούετε,"
(Mat. iii. 17; Luke ix. 35), zai σπιρὸς τούτοις ἐπὶ σιλεῖον αὐτοὺς
5 A Ἁ , : γη δἷι'ΊΣ al ‘ , 4 9 = ‘
nenhavnpévorg ἐλέγξαι ϑέλων τοὺς προφήτας, παρ ὧν δὴ με-
eth “ον τ , > C ~ > aL ν᾿ ᾿ ἊΣ
μαϑηκέναι ἐβεβαίουν, ἐπιϑυμοῦντας ἀληϑείας χαὶ μὴ μεμαϑηκὸ-
τας τελευτήσαντας ἀτιεφήνατο εἰσιὼν: “Πολλοὶ προφῆται καὶ
- ΒῚ « / » pet eed “A ς - ,’ » 4
βασιλεῖς ewedtvunoay ἰδεῖν, ἃ ὑμεῖς βλέπετε, καὶ
’ ~ a ~ \ ‘ ~
ἀκοῦσαι, ἃ ὑμεῖς ἀκούετε, καὶ ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὔτε
Si see ‘
εἶδον, οὔτε ἤκουσαν," (Mat. xiii. 17; Luke x. 24), ἔτι μὴν
a = 2) , ’ ‘ Φ΄ Vy . - , ,
ἔλεγεν: Ἔγώ εἶμι, περὶ οὗ Mavonsg προεφήτευσεν, δε(-
MOV, προφήτην ἐγερεῖ ὑμῖν Κύριος ὃ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, ἐκ
- ν - - Ν 4 > ~ >
τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, ὥσπερ χαὶ ἐμὲ, αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε
a yA ~
κατὰ πάντα. Ὃς ἂν δὲ μὴ ἀκούσῃ τοῦ προφήτου ἐκεί-
γου, ἀποϑανεῖται. (John v. 46; Deut. xviii. 15; Acts iii. 22.)
5 ~ ~ ~ 7, \
Ibid. c. 54. (The Sadducees.) Πλὴν τἀληϑῆ, τοῦ νόμου εἰδὼς,
U -_ ~ « ‘
Σαδδουχαίοις σπιυνϑανομένοις, καϑ᾽ ὃν λόγον Mwioig ἑπτὰ συν-
- , - ~ A iY 7
ἐχώρησεν γαμεῖν, ἔφη, “Motors κατὰ τὴν σχληροκαρδίαν
- - ~ ‘ ca ᾿] ,’ ,
ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν ὑμῖν. (Aw ἀρχῆς γὰρ οὕτως οὐκ ἐγέ-
- ‘ 2
VETO’ ὃ γὰρ κτίσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τὸν ἄνϑρωπον, ἄρσεν
nai ϑῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν." (Mat. xxii. 28; xix. 8,4; Mark
6,
. ~ ~ ‘ , c
Thid. c. 55. (Oaths and Prayer.) Toig δὲ νομίζουσιν, ὡς
‘ ν » , ‘ ’ 2) Cc ~
αἵ γραφαὶ διδάσχουσιν, ὅτι ὃ Θεὸς ὀμνύει, ἔφη: “Ἔστω ὑμῶν
‘ ‘ ‘ 5 ‘ ‘ U , ~
τὸ ναὶ ναὶ, TO OV οὔ" TO γὰρ περισσὸν τούτων EX TOV
442 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
πονηροῦ ἐστιν." (Mat. v. 37.) Καὶ τοῖς λέγουσιν, ὅτι -ABoacu
χαὶ ᾿Ισαὰκχ καὶ ᾿Ιαχὼβ ἀπιέϑανον, ἔφη: “Οὐχ ἔστιν Θεὸς νε-
χρῶν, ἀλλὰ ζώντων." (Mat. xxii. 32.) Τοῖς δὲ οἰομένοις, ὅτι
ς \ , ς « \ , a” 5 «ee = ,
ὃ Θεὸς πειράζει, ὡς αἱ γραφαὶ λέγουσιν, ἔφη Ο πονηρὸς
ἐστιν ὃ πειράζων," ὃ χαὶ αὐτὸν πειράσας. Τοῖς δὲ ὕπο-
/ ey
λαμβάνουσιν ὅτι ὃ Θεὸς οὐ προγινώσχει ἔφη" “Oider γὰρ ὃ
πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὃ οὐράνιος ὅτι χρήζετε τούτων ἁπάντων,
πρὶν αὐτὸν ἀξιώσητε." (Mat. iv. 8; vi. 8, 32.) Τοὶς δὲ πι-
, ς « \ , a \ , ἢ / ve
OTEVOVOLY, ὡς αἱ γραφαὶ λέγουσιν, OTL μὴ πάντα βλέπει, “Εν
prea he J Pu ~ 2 C 3) γ Ν (τς Ἔν Shara EN ΚΑ ~ ς 9. ,
τῷ χρυπτῷ εὔχεσϑε᾽ εἰπὼν, “Καὶ ὃ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ βλέ-
σωὼν τὰ χρυπτὰ ἀποδώσει ὑμῖν." (Mat. vi. 6.)
Σ res 2
Ibid. ὁ. 56. (The Heavenly Father.) Τοῖς δὲ οἰομένοις αὑτὸν
Nig 05 \ ᾿ Cc c \ , ae a ( , ς -
μὴ ἀγαϑὸν εἴναι, ὡς αἱ γραφαὶ λέγουσιν, ἔφη" “Tiva ὑμῶν
ΕῚ , Cc, » nN , a} , > ~ ἊΝ ‘
αἰτῆσξδι υἱὸς ἄρτον, μὴ λίϑον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; ἢ καὶ
> \ Ύ , , ow , , > ~ =) 35 Cc ~
ἰχϑὺν αἰτήσει, μὴ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ; εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς,
πονηροὶ ὄντες, οἴδατε δόματα ἀγαϑὰ διδόναι τοῖς
τέκνοις ὑμῶν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὃ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὃ οὐράνιος
3 \ ~ \ ~ ~
δώσει ἀγαϑὰ τοῖς αἰτουμένοις αὐτὸν, χαὶ τοῖς ττοιοῦ-
σιν τὸ ϑέλημα αὐτοῦ;" (Luke xi. 11; Mat. vii. 9.) Toig dé
αὐτὸν διαβεβαιουμένοις ἐν γαῷ εἶναι, ἔφη" «Τὴ ὀμόσητε τὸν
~ U
οὐρανὸν, ὅτι ϑρόνος Θεοῦ ἐστὶν, μήτε τὴν γῆν, OTE
ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ ἐστίν." (Mat. v. 35.) Τοῖς
δὲ προλαβοῦσιν ὅτι ϑυσιῶν ὀρέγεται ὃ Θεὸς ἔφη: “ὋὉ Θεὸς
Pa) 9 a \ ? , > , 2 en Ἃ "2
δλδος Héher καὶ ov ϑυσίας, ἐπίγνωσιν αὐτοῦ “AL οὐχ
« , . ee
δλοχαυτώματα." (Mat. ix. 13; xii. 7.)
Ibid. Ὁ ὍΝ: (The Good God.) Τοῖς δὲ πειϑομένοις χαχὸν
αὐτὸν εἶναι, ὡς αἱ γραφαὶ λέγουσιν, ἔφη: “Μή we λέγετε ἀγα-
ϑόν. Ὁ γὰρ ἀγαϑὸς δὶς ἐστίν." (Mat. χίχ. 17.) “Tivecte
ἀγαϑοὶ χαὶ οἰκτίρμονες, ὡς ὃ πατὴρ, ὃ ἐν τοῖς οὐρα-
νοῖς, ὃς ἀνατέλλει τὸν ἥλιον ἐπ᾽ ἀγαϑοῖς καὶ ihe
QOS, χαὶ φέρει τὸν ὑετὸν ἐπὶ δίκαιοις nat ἀδίκοις."
(Luke vi. 35; Mat. v. 45.) Τοῖς δὲ ἠπατημένοις wodhovds ϑεοὺς
ὑπονοεῖν, ὡς αἱ γραφαὶ λέγουσιν, ep YAnove Ἰσραὴλ, Ki-
ριος ὃ Θεὸς ὑμῶν, Κύριος εἷς ἐστίν." (Mark xii. 29.)
Ibid. ὁ. 61. (The unfaithful servant.) Εἰ δέ τις τῶν σιαρ-
/ ~ ~
ἑστώτων, διοιχεῖν δυνάμενος τὴν ἀγνωμοσύνην TOY ἀνϑρώπων,
2 Source unknown.
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES. 445
ὑποστέλλεται, τῆς αὑτοῦ ἀναπαύσεως φροντίζων μόνης χαὶ αὐτὸς
πιροσδοχάτω ἀχοῦσαι" δοῦλε πονηρὲ xed ὀχνηρὲ, ἔδει σὲ τὸ ἀρ-
γύριόν μου προβαλεῖν ἐττὶ τῶν τρατιεζιτῶν, nai ἐγὼ ἂν ἐλϑὼν
ἕγιραξα τὸ ἐμόν: ἐχβάλετε τὸν ἀχρεῖον δοῦλον εἰς τὸ σχότος τὸ
ἐξώτερον. (Mat. xxv. 26; Luke xix. 22.)
Ibid. v. 63. (Zacchaeus.) Τίνα δὲ ἄλλον αἱρήσομαι τῶν παρ-
ὄντων, ἢ Ζακχχαῖον, τρὸς ὃν χαὶ ὃ Κύριος ἡμῶν εἰσιὼν ἀνε;ταύ-
σατο, τοῦ σώζεσϑαι χρίνας ἄξιον εἶναι; (See Luke xix. 5, 8.)
Ibid. ¢. 11. ᾿Αξιός ἐστιν ὃ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισϑοῦ αὐτοῦ. (Luke
et)
Ibid. VUI. 4. ᾿Αλλὰ χαὶ πολλοὶ, φησὶν, κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ
ἐχλεχτοί. (Mat. xx. 16.)
Ibid. ὁ. 7. Totrov γὰρ ἕνεχεν ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἡμῶν πρός τινὰ
σιυχνότερον χύριον αὐτὸν λέγοντα, μηδὲν δὲ ποιοῦντα ὧν αὐτὸς
προσέταξεν, ἔφη" Ti με λέγεις, κύριε, κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖς
ἃ λέγω; (Luke vi. 46; Mat. vii. 21.)
Ibid. IX. 22. “AAW ὅμως χἂν πάντες δαίμονες μετὰ “τάντων
τῶν παϑῶν ὑμᾶς φεύίγωσιν, οὐχ ἔστιν ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ χαίρειν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ δι᾽ Etagectiay τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ ὡς ἀεὶ
ζώντων ἀναγραφῆναι. (Compare Luke x. 20.)
Ibid. XI. 20. «Αὐτὸς γὰρ 6 διδάσκαλος προσηλωϑεὶς ηὔχετο
τῷ πατρὶ, τοῖς αὑτὸν ἀναιροῦσιν ἀφεϑῆναι τὸ ἁμάρτημα εἰτεών"
Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν, οὐ γὰρ ol-
δασιν ἃ ποιοῦσιν. (Luke xxiii. 34.)
Ibid. XII. 29. Ὃ τῆς ἀληϑείας προφήτης ἔφη: Τὰ ἀγαϑὰ
ἐλϑεῖν δεῖ" μαχάριος δὲ, φησὶν, Ov οὗ ἔρχεται" ὁμοίως χαὶ τὰ
χαχὰ ἀνάγχη ἐλϑεῖν, οὐαὶ δὲ δι᾿ οὗ ἔρχεται. (Mat. xviii. 7; Luke
Xvii. 1.)
Ibid. XVI. 21. Ἔσονται γὰρ, ὡς 6 Κύριος εἶπεν, ψευδαττό-
στολοι, ψευδεῖς τιροφῆται, αἱρέσεις φιλαρχίαι.
Ibid. XVII. 5. Mi φοβηϑῆτε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀποχτείνοντος
τὸ σῶμα, τῇ δὲ ψυχῇ μὴ δυναμένου τι ποιῆσαι" φοβή-
Inve δὲ τὸν δυνάμενον χαὶ σῶμα χαὶ ψυχὴν εἰς τὴν
γέενναν τοῦ πυρὸς βαλεῖν. Ναὶ λέγω ὑμῖν, τοῦτον φο-
βήϑητε. Ὅτι δὲ ὕντως τοῦτον φοβηϑῆναι ἔλεγεν ὡς δίκαιον
Θεὸν, τιρὸς ὃν χαὶ ἀδικουμένους βοᾶν λέγει, παραβολὴν εἰς τοῦτο
εἰπὼν ἐπάγει τὴν ἑρμηνείαν λέγων" εἰ οὖν ὃ χριτὴς τῆς ἀδι-
χίας ἐποίησεν οὕτως, διὰ τὸ ἑκάστοτε ἀξιωϑῆναι, τιόσῳ μᾶλλον
444 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
Cc ‘ , A % ᾿ ~ , ‘ >
ὃ πατὴρ ποιήσει THY ἐχδίκησιν τῶν βοώντων πρὸς aL-
x ς , ‘ 7 Lapa Wises \ \ Α ~ 2 \
TOV ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός; ἢ διὰ TO μακροθυμεῖν αὐτὸν
a 3 2 ~ ν - qc > / aes , c ~
ἐπ αὐτοῖς δοκεῖτε ὅτι οὐ motnoet; Nat, λέγω tut»,
ποιήσει, καὶ ἂν τάχϑει. (Luke xii. 4,5; Mat. x. 28; Luke
xviii. 6-8.)
Itid. XViM. 15. Koi “Σίμων ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἀγαναχτήσας ἔφη"
τὸν σὸν διδάσχαλον αἰτιῶ εἰπόντα" ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι κύριε
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἅπερ ἣν Ἀρυπτὰ σοφοῖς, G70 -
ἐχάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις ϑηλάζουσιν. . . . ἐνδέχεται γὰρ αὐ-
τοῦ εἶναι τοῦ δημιουργοῦ τὰ χρυτιτὰ ἃ ἔλεγεν τῷ χαὶ τὸν “Ησαΐαν
> > > Ve \ / ? sabe ~ ‘ Lf
εἰπεῖν" “Ανοίξω τὸ στόμα μου ἐν παραβολαῖς, καὶ ἐξ-
egevs ξομαι κεχρυμμένα, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. (Mat.
ΧΙ 25: ἈΠῚ 35.)
. . - \ 2
Ibid. XIX. 2. (Temptation and Punishment.) Kai ἄλλῃ που
~ \ x ~
οἶδα αὐτὸν εἰρήκοτα᾽ εἰ ὃ σατανᾶς τὸν σατανᾶν ἐχβάλλει, ἐφ᾽
ἑαυτὸν ἐμερίσϑη, πῶς οὖν στήχῃ ἣ βασιλεία; Καὶ ἄλλοϑι ἕφη"
c ‘ \ Ν , , > \ ς , \
O δὲ τὸ κακὸν σπέρμα σπείρας EGTLY ὃ διάβολος, χαὶ
παλιν" Mn δότε ) 0 πονηρῷ" ἀλλὰ χαὶ συμβου-
ὴ πιρόφασιν τῷ πονηρῷ" ἀλλὰ καὶ συμβου
, »” ~ \ \ ‘ ὮΝ ay
λεύων etonnev? Ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ, καὶ TO OV οὔ" TC
δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστιν. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ ἐν
ἡ παρέδωχε εὐχῇ ἔχομεν εἰρημένον. Ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ
~ , 12) y ως ny ~ > = c
πονηροῦ. Καὶ ἀλλῃ που εἰτιεῖν ὑπέσχετο τοῖς ἀσεβοῦσιν. Yua-
ἄγετε εἰς τὸ OXOTOS τὸ ἐξώτερον 0 ἐτοίμασε ὃ πατὴρ τῷ διαβόλῳ χαὶ
Ὁ Ὁ Ξ: - . Ξ
τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ. (Mat. v.37; νἱ. 15; Eph. iv.27; James v. 12.)
Ibid. ¢. 7. Οὕτω γὰρ ὃ ἀψευδὴς ἡμῶν εἶτιε διδάσχαλος" “Ex
ἡ: i$ 1
περισσεύματος καρδίας στόμα λαλεῖ. (Mat. xii. 84.)
Ibid. c. 20. Καὶ ὃ Πέτρος" μεμνήμεϑα τοῦ Κυρίου ὑμῶν χαὶ
Q a kay
διδασχάλου ὡς ἐντελλόμενος εἶσιεν ὑμῖν: Ta μυστήρια ἐμοὶ χαὶ
τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ οἴκου μου φυλάξατε.
8 Source unknown. — For the use made in the Clementine Homilies of
other Books of Scripture the following references may suffice:
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Ibid. III. 53. See above, p. 203. (Acts iii. 225 vii. 37.)
GALATIANS.
Ibid. XIX. 22. See before, p. 236. (Gal. iv. 10.)
Jbid. XVII. 19. See before, p. 236, note to Clem. Hom.
EPHESIANS.
Ibid. XIX, 2. See before, p. 241. (Eph. iv. 27.)
TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS. 445
19. Testament or tHe Twetve Parrtarcus.!
Levi 4. Ποιήσει Κύριος χρίσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνϑρώ-
MOV ὅτι τῶν πετρῶν σχιζομένων χαὶ τοῦ ἡλίου σβεννυμένου χαὶ
τῶν ὑδάτων ξηραινομένων, καὶ τοῦ πυρὸς χατατιτήσσοντος, χαὶ
πάσης χτίσεως χλονουμένης χαὶ ἀοράτων πινευμάτων τηχομένων
τοῦ ἄδου σχυλευομένου ἐπὶ τῷ πάϑει τοῦ ὑψίστου, οἱ ἄνϑρωποι
ἀπιστοῦντες ἐπιμενοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς ἀδιχίαις. (Mat. xxvii. 45.)
Levi 10. ᾿ϑῷός εἰμι ἀπὸ πάσης ἀσεβείας ὑμῶν χαὶ παρα-
βάσεως ἣν ποιήσετε ἐτιὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς τὸν σωτῆρα
τοῦ χόσμου, ἀσεβοῦντες, τιλανῶντες τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ, καὶ ἐπεγείροντες
αὐτῷ καχὰ μεγάλα παρὰ Κυρίου. (Heb. ix. 26.)
Levi 14. .... τῶν ἀρχιερέων, οἵτινες ἐπιβαλοῦσι τὰς χεῖρας
αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸν σωτῆρα τοῦ κόσμου. (Mat. xxvii. 1.)
Levi 18. Καὶ μετὰ τὸ γενέσϑαι τὴν ἐνδίχησιν αὐτῶν παρὰ
Κυρίου, τῇ ἱερατείᾳ τότε ἐγερεῖ Κύριος ἱερέα καινὸν, ᾧ πάντες
οἱ λόγοι Κυρίου ἀποχαλυφϑήσονται . ... Καὶ ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον
αὐτοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ ὡς βασιλεὺς, φωτίζων φῶς γνώσεως ἐν ἡλίῳ
ἡμέρας... . Οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἀνοιγήσονται χαὶ ἐκ τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς δό-
Eng ἥξει ἐπ αὐτὸν ἁγίασμα μετὰ φωνῆς πατρικῆς ὡς ἀπὸ
1 Tertullian (Adv. Mare. V.1. Scorp. ὃ. 18) has references to a portion of
this book, Test. Benj. c. 11. Origen also (Hom. in Joshuam XV. ὁ. 6) refers to
it by name with a certain measure of respect, although declaring that it is not
in the Canon. It professes to be the legacy of good counsels left by each of
the Sons of Jacob to his children. It is the work of a Jewish Christian favour-
able to St Paul, who dwells upon the Patriarchal rather than the Mosaic period
of Jewish History. It has been supposed by some (following Grabe) that the
work was written by a Jew before the Christian era, and afterwards interpolated
so as to contain Pauline Christian theology. In favour of this view it may be
urged that the writing is not always consistent with itself, but we must urge
on the other hand that, even allowing due weight to this, it seems rather to
show a Jewish author proud of his ancestry and yet devoted to his Christian
faith than to require us to regard all the Christian passages as interpolations in
a Jewish original. See Sinker’s ‘‘ Testamenta XII Patriarcharum”’ for copious
discussions. Some (Anger) make the date soon after the middle of the second
century; but there is much reason to put it earlier, even at the beginning of
the century, inasmuch as the author seems to write before Judaism was so ho-
pelessly overthrown as it was before the middle of the second century. The
principai references to the N. T., in addition to those in our text, seem to be
Jud. 20, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀχησείας (John xv. 26); Levi 3, ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας λογικήν
(Rom. xii. 1); Dan 5, τὸν Θεὸν τῆς εἰρήνης (John xv. 33); Zab. 9, Θεὸν ἐν σχή-
ματι avSownov; Benj. 10, tov βασιλέα τῶν οὐρανῶν, τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς φανέντα μορφῇ
ἀνϑρώπον ταπεινώσεως (Phil. ii. 6-8); Benj. 8, ἐν αἵματι διαϑήχης (Heb. xiii. 20) ;
Is. 7, ἁμαρτίαν εἰς Savatov (1 John v. 16); Levi 18, δώσει τοῖς ἁγίοις φαγεῖν ex
τοῦ ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς (Rev. ii. 7); Dan 5, τῆς νέας ἹἹερουσαλήμ (Rev. xxi. 2).
440 TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
κ r 2 3 c
᾿Αβραὰμ πατρὸς Ἰ᾿Ισαάχ. Kai δόξα twiorov ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν δηϑήσεται
\ ~ \ ~ 3 DAs ~
“OL πνεῦμα συνέσεως χαὶ ἁγιασμοῦ χαταπαύσει ἐπ αὐτὸν ἕν τῷ
ὕδατι. (Mat. ii. 2.)
χ > \
Judah 24. Καὶ ἀνοιγήσονται ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν ot οὐρανοὶ ἐχχέαι
, Ἃ , Ν Cc , .
σινεύματος evhoyiay πατρὸς ayiov. (101α.)
\ ~ ~ \ >
Dan 6. ‘O πατὴρ (al. σωτὴρ) τῶν ἐθνῶν" ἔστι γὰρ ἀληϑὴς
χαὶ μαχρόϑυμος στιρᾷος χαὶ ταπεινὸς, καὶ ἐχδιδάσχων διὰ τῶν
ἔργων νόμον Θεοῦ. (Mat. xi. 30.)
= ‘ ~ \ SAN
Asher 7. Ἕως οὗ 6 ὕψιστος ἐπισχέινψηται τὴν γῆν, χαὶ αὑτὸς
ἐλϑὼν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, μετὰ ἀνϑρώπων ἐσϑίων χαὶ τείνων. (Mat.
oa ae GS)
. . > ~
Benjamin 6. Πληρωϑήσεται ἐν σοὶ τιροφητεία οὐρανοῖ περὶ
τοῦ ἀμνοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ σωτῆρος τοῦ χόσμου, ὅτι παραδοϑή-
2 \ Qa 2 - ,
σεται, “CL ἀναμάρτητος ὑτιὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀποϑανεῖται, ἐν αἵματι
διαϑήχης. (Mat. xxvi. 27; John i. 29.)
. . 2 -
Benjamin 11. Kot ἀναστήσεται ἔχ τοῦ σπέρματός μου ἕν
2 2 - \ > ~
ὑστέροις καίροις ayanntog Κυρίου, ἀκούων ἐπὶ γῆς φωνὴν αὑτοῦ,
γνῶσιν χαινὴν φωτίζων πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη φῶς γνώσεως ἐπιεμιβαίνων
~ \ Se η > ~
τῷ Ισραὴλ ἐν σωτηρίᾳ, χαὶ ἁρπάζων ὡς λύχος ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, χαὶ
διδοὺς τῇ συναγωγῇ τῶν ἐϑνῶν. Καὶ ἕως συντελείας τῶν αἰώνων
ἔσται ἐν συναγωγαῖς ἐϑνῶν χαὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν, ὡς μου-
Ν ,ὔ Bd , , Wo) U Cook 2,
σιχὸν μέλος ἕν στόματι πάντων. Καὶ ἐν βίβλοις ἁγίαις ἕσται
ἀναγραφόμενος, xai τὸ ἔργον χαὶ ὃ λόγος αὐτοῦ" χαὶ ἕσται ἐχ-
~ ~ ~ d a ‘
λεχτὸς Θεοῦ ἕως τοῦ αἰῶνος" χαὶ δι᾿ αὐτὸν συνέτισέ we ᾿Ιαχοὺβ
ς , , ἐξ 2 we 2 2 , \ Ξ / ~
ὁ πατὴρ μου, λέγων" «Αὐτὸς ἀναπιληρώσει Ta ὑστερήματα τῆς φυ-
λῆς σου. (St Paul’s Epp. passim.)
LISTS OF HERETICS.
447
The following lists of Heretics from the chief authorities may
be interesting. It is from Lipsius, “Zur Quellen-Kritik,” with
some alterations.
ΕΞ —— ---α
Trenaeus. | Hippolytus.! | Epiphanius. | Philastri senate
| ppolytus. piphanius. ilastrius.| po stullian.2 Theodoret.
Naassenes
Valenti- | Peratae
nus and | Sethians |
his School.) Justin (later |
in Summary).
Simon Simon Simon Simon Simon Simon
Valentinus
Secundus
Ptolemaeus |
Marcus
Heracleon
Menander | Basilides | Menander Menander Menander Menander
Saturninus | Saturnilus | Saturninus | Saturninus | Saturninus Saturninus
Basilides | Menander | Basilides Basilides Basilides Basilides
| Nicolaitans Nicolaitans | Nicolaitans
Ophites
Marcion Cainites
(Prepon) Sethians
Carpoera- | Carpocrates | Carpocras Carpocras Carpocrates | Carpocrates
tes
Cerinthus | Cerinthus Cerinthus Cerinthus Cerinthus
(Nazarenes)
Ebionites | Ebionites Ebionites Ebionites Ebionites
Theodotus
(Byz.)
The other |
Theodotus |
and Melchi- |
zedekians |
1 Hippolytus does not observe quite the same order in his Summary. Cer-
don, Apelles, Monoimus, Tatian are earlier in the summary: Carpocrates and
Hermogenes are later.
2 Epiphanius, Philastrius and Pseudo-Tertullian seem to draw from the same
source.
reproduces.
Hippolytus is in the main based on Irenaeus whose very words he often
See Lipsius’s ‘‘ Quellen ἃ. iltesten Ketzergeschichte.”’
448
TESTIMONIES OF HERETICS.
Irenaeus. | Hippolytus.
Nicolai- Nicolaitans
tans
|
Cerdon Cerdon
Marcion Marcion
Lucian
Apelles
Docetae
Monoimus
Encratites | Tatian
Tatian Hermogenes
Simonians | Quartodeci-
Barbelio- mans
tes, ἄορ, |Cataphrygians
Cainites Encratites
Noetos
Elkesaites
Epiphanius.
Valentinians
| (Secundus
Ptolemaeus
Marecosians
Colarbasus
Heracleon
Ophites
Cainites
Sethians
Archontites
Cerdon
Marcion
Lucian
Apelles
Tatian
Secundum
Phrygas
Quartodeci-
mans
Alogi, &e.
Theodotus
(Byz.)
Melchizede-
kians
Noetians
Philastrius.
Valentinians
| Ptolemaeus
Secundus
Heracleon
Marcus
Colarbasus
Cerdon
Marcion
Lucan
Apelles
Tatian
Cataphry-
gians
Theodotus
(Byz.)
Melchizede-
kians
Noetians
Pseudo-
Tertullian.
Valentinians
Ptolemaeus
Secundus
Heracleon
Marcus
Colarbasus
Cerdon
Marcion
Lucan
Apelles
Tatian
Secundum
Phrygas
Theodotus
(Byz.)
The other
Theodotus
and Melchi-
zedekians
Theodoret.
Valentinians
Secundus
and others
Marcus
Colarbasus
Sethians or
Ophites
Cainites
Peratae, Mo-
noimus
Bardesanes
Cerdon
Marcion
Apelles
Manes
Theodotus
(Byz.)
Melchize-
dekians
Elkesaites,
&e.
Nicolaitans
Montanists
Noetians
Quartodeci-
mans.
A Bale TV
EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS.
29
451
Adal ν,
EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS,’
1, GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS,
(See also Sections 1]. VI.)
A. TESTIMONIES TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS.
1. Icnatius.
Ignatius ad Smyrn. c. 3. See before, p. 111, Note 3.
Jerome, de Vir. Ill. c. 16. Scripsit (sc. Ignatius) et ad Smyrnaeos
(proprie ad Polycarpum) ... in qua et de Evangelio quod nuper
a me translatum est, super persona Christi ponit testimonium.
(See whole passage below.)
2. Hecesippus.!
Eus. H. E. 11. 23; 11. 20. See before, p. 127. (Hegesippus
had some other authority than G. H.)
Ibid. IV. 22. See before, p. 128 and Note 6. (Hegesippus
quoted from G. H. and from (or, which is in?) Syriac.)
1 This title seems more fitly to describe them than “‘Heretical Gospels”’
(which the Nazarene form of the Gospel of the Hebrews cannot be said to be)
or “ Apoeryphal Gospels” (which the Gospel of the Hebrews in any form scarcely
was). The “Gospel of James’’ or the ‘‘Gospel of Nicodemus”? may be called
Apocryphal.
1 Hegesippus. On Hegesippus see Introduction, and before, p. 128, note 7.
See there also a quotation from Photius showing that a quotation by him agrees
with our St Mat. xiii. 16. He is the first of whom we read that he used the
G. H., but it does not appear that he used it in preference to the Canonical
Gospels.
29*
402 EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS.
ὃ. Paptas.
Eus. H. E. IIT. 89. See before, p. 57 and Note 7. (Papias’-
work and G. H. had a narrate about a sinful woman.)*
4. IRENAEUS.
B. I. 26. 2. See before, p. 431. (The Ebionites used only
Matthew’s Gospel.)+
B. 111. 11.7. See before, p. 67. (Same effect as foregoing.)
5. Crement or ALEXANDRIA.
Strom. II. 9. p. 453. Ταύτης δὲ ἀρχὴ τὸ Favucoa va πραγ-
ματα, ὡς Πλάτων ἐν Θεαιτήτῳ λέγει, χαὶ Mavdiag ἐν ταῖς πα-
ραδόσεσι παραινῶν “ Θαύμασον τὰ παρόντα, βαϑμὸν τοῦτον ττρῶ--
τον τῆς ἐπέκεινα γνώσεως ὑποτιϑέμενος" ἣ χὰν τῷ χαϑ' “Ἑβραίους
Ἑὐαγγελίῳ, ‘O ϑαυμάσας βασιλεύσει,᾽ γέγρατιται, ‘Kai ὃ βασι-
λεύσας ἀναπαύσεται."
Ibid. Υ. 10. p. 684. Οὐ γὰρ φϑονῶν, φησὶ, σταρήγγειλεν ὃ
Κύριος ἔν τινι Εὐαγγελίῳ, “ΤΠΠυστήριον ἐμὸν ἐμοὶ “at τοῖς υἱοῖς
τοῦ οἴκου mov.” 1
6. Onricen.
Comment. in Joann. t. 2. Tom. IV. p. 63. (Migne, Vol. IV.
p. 132.) Kai τὸ Πνεῦμα διὰ τοῦ Adyou ἐγένετο... εἰ nal λέ-
ἕξεις τινὲς περισπᾶν ἡμᾶς εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον δοκοῦσιν. Ἐὰν δὲ 7Q00-
, , \ IC , 7? , I oN ς N ,
ἱεταί τις τὸ rad Ἔβραίους Ευαγγέλιον, evIa αὐτὸς ὁ Σωτήρ φη-
σιν" “Aote ἔλαβέ we} μήτηρ μου τὸ “Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, ἐν
- - - Ν Bb) ? yw
μιᾷ TOY τριχῶν μου, “OL ἀπένεγχκξ WE εἰς TO ὅρος TO
, (etn , - , = ~ \ Ἢ = ,
μέγα Θαβωρ᾽ ἑπαπορῆσει πῶς μήτηρ Χριστοῦ to διὰ tov Ao-
1 Papias. Eusebius does not say that Papias quoted the Gospel of the He-
brews; but he says that the narrative of the woman accused of many sins which
Papias recorded was in that Gospel. As said in p. 57 (note 7), it is Eusebius,
not Papias, who refers to that Gospel.
1 Trenaeus. Irenaeus says in general terms that the Ebionites are convicted
of wrong views of God, even from that Gospel according to Matthew which alone
they use; and again, that they use only Matthew’s Gospel, and reject Paul as an
apostate from the Law.
1 Clem. Alex. So in Clem. Hom. XIX. 20: Μεμνήμεϑα tod Κυρίου ἡμῶν
χαὶ διδασχάλου ὡς ἐντελλόμενος εἶπεν ἡμῖν. τὰ μυστήρια ἐμοὶ χαὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ
οἴχου μου φυλάξατε. Clem. Alex. is referring to Barnabas in the beginning of
the chapter.
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 453
~ c 3 er ν᾿ \
you γεγεννημένον Πνεῦμα “4γιον εἶναι δύναται. Ταῦτα δὲ καὶ
~ > δ ~ Ὕ ‘ ~ \ ῃ ~
τοῦτο ov χαλετιὸν ἑρμηνεῦσαι. Εἰ γὰρ ὃ ποιῶν τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ
\ ~ γ - > ~ Py \ \ 2 \ \ /
Πατρὸς τοῦ ἕν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἀδελφὸς χαὶ ἀδελφὴ χαὶ μήτηρ
\ 5) ~ Ν \ \ r ~
ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ, καὶ φϑάνει τὸ “ἀδελφὸς Χριστοῦ" ὄνομα οὐ μόνον
a) \ Ν ~ 2 a / , ) Ν ον "ἢ \ Ν ΄ © ,
δὶ τὸ τῶν ἀνϑρώσων γένος, ἀλλὰ χαὶ Ent τὰ τούτου ϑειότερα"
’ wv / ~ - - ~
οὐδὲν ἄτοτιον ἔσται μᾶλλον πάσης χρηματιζούσης μητρὸς Χριστοῦ
διὰ τὸ ποιεῖν τὸ ϑέλημα τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς Πατρὸς, τὸ Πνεῦμα
τὸ ““γιον εἶναι μητέρα. ;
Homil. in Jerem. 15. (Migne, Vol. III. p. 433.) Et δέ τις πα-
ραδέχεται τὸ ἄρτι ἔλαβέ {πε ἣ μή THO μου τὸ “4γιον Πνεῦ μα
καὶ ἀνήνεγχέ με εἰς τὸ OQ0G τὸ μέγα τὸ Ταβὼρ, χαὶ τὰ
7. Euseptus.
Eus. H. Εἰ. 111. 25. See before, p.11. (Hebrew Christians
use the G. HH.)
Ilnd. III. 27. See before, p. 432. (Hbionites use G. H. alone.)
Kus. Theoph. IV.12. The cause therefore of the divisions of
soul that came to pass in houses Himself taught, as we have
found in a place in the Gospel existing among the Jews in the
Hebrew language, in which it is said, &c.1
Ibid. To εἰς ἡμᾶς ἧκον “βραϊχοῖς χαρακτῆρσιν Εὐαγγέλιον.
(Migne, Vol. IV. p. 155.)
8. JEROME.
Comment. ad Eph. V.4. (Vallars. Vol.. VII. p. 641.) In Hebraico
quoque Evangelio legimus Dominum ad discipulos loquentem: “Et
nunquam,” inquit, “laeti sitis, nisi cum fratrem vestrum videritis
in caritate.”
Comment. in Mich. (A.p. 892) B. 11. c. VIL. (Vallars. Vol. VI.
p. 520.) Qui legerit Canticum Canticorum, et sponsum animae,
1 Origen. This passage perhaps refers to the Temptation. See Mat. iv. and
Mark i. 12. See below for Jerome’s quotation (Jerome, Comment. in Mich. VII. 6).
Origen omits ‘by one of my hairs’”’ in his second quotation.
! Eusebius. Prof. Lee’s transl. of Syriac Version of Theophania. Nichol-
son, p. 6. ἐ
2 Gospel of the Hebrews. Hilg. says this reference was first noticed by
Fritsche. Nicholson, p. 6.
454 EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS.
Dei sermonem intellexerit, credideritque Evangelio, quod secun-
dum Hebraeos editum nuper transtulimus (in quo ex persona
Salvatoris dicitur: Modo tulit me mater mea, Sanctus Spiritus,
in uno capillorum meorum), non dubitabit dicere Sermonem Dei
ortum esse de Spiritu, et animam, quae sponsa Sermonis est,
habere socrum Sanctum Spiritum, qui apud Hebraeos genere
dicitur feminino “RUA.” ... Et ne forte dubites Verbum et
Filium nasci de Spiritu Sancto, Gabrielis ad Mariam verba con-
sidera: Spiritus Sanctus veniet super te, etc.+
De Vir. Ill. ¢. 2. (A.p. 392.) Evangelium quoque, quod appella-
tum secundum Hebraeos et a me nuper in Graecum Latinumque
sermonem translatum est, quo et Origenes saepe utitur.?
Ibid. c. 3. See before, p. 139 and Note 1. (The Hebrew
original of Matthew in Cesarea. The Nazarenes in Beroea
use it.)
Comment. in Isai. B. XI. c. al. 11. (a.p. 410). (Vallars.
Vol. IV. p. 485.) Sed et in Evangelio quod juxta Hebraeos scrip-
tum Nazaraei lectitant, Dominus loquitur: Modo tulit me mater
mea, Spiritus Sanctus. Nemo autem in hac parte scandalizari
debet, quod dicatur apud Hebraeos spiritus genere feminino,
quum nostra lingua appelletur genere masculino, et Graeco ser-
mone, neutro. In divinitate enim nullus est sexus.
Comment. in Mat. II. 6. (Vallars. Vol. VII. p. 14.) Bethlehem
Judaeae: librariorum hic error est. Putamus enim ab Evangelista
primo editum, sicut im ipso Hebraico legimus Judae, non Ju-
aeaesi :
1 Jerome. The Elkesaites represented the Holy Spirit as a female principle.
(Hippol. Ref. Haer. IX. 13. p. 462, and Epiph. Haer. 19. 4; 53. 1.) It appears as in
the Clem. Hom. (III. 20-27) that Christ was regarded as the male principle and the
Holy Spirit as the female principle. The Spirit ‘‘ brooded over the deep,”’ ἄς. The
‘Helena’ of Simon, the ‘Sophia’ of Valentinus, and the ‘Philoumena’ of Apelles,
are names given by Gnostics to a female principle, by no means corresponding,
however, to the Holy Spirit as represented in Scripture. The worship of the
Virgin Mary in the middle ages may show the result of the same tendency. See
Baring Gould’s ‘Lost and Hostile Gospels,’ p. 132.
2 The quotations of Origen from the G. H. by name are only the two
given above. The early portion of his Homilies on Matthew is lost. The
Latin translation of what remains begins in c. XIII. But Jerome is not likely
to be mistaken in this statement that Origen often used the G. H. His know-
ledge of the text of that Gospel would enable Jerome to identify some quotations
in Origen of which the source is not stated. See list of those quotations in
Nicholson, G. H. p. 143.
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 455
Ibid. VI. 11. In Evangelio quod appellatur secundum He-
braeos. .. .
Ibid. XII. 13. In Evangelio, guo utuntur Nazareni et Ebio-
nitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus
et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum. .
Ibid. XXIII. 35. In Evangelio, quo utuntur Nazareni, pro
filio Barachiae,... (Mat. xxiii. 35.)
Ibid. XX VIT. 16. Iste (Barrabas) in Evangelio, quod scri-
bitur juxta Hebraeos, .. .
Ibid. c. 51. In Evangelio cujus saepe fecimus mentionem, su-
perliminare ...
Comment. in Isai. XI. 2. (Vallars. Vol. IV. p. 156.) Juxta
Evangelium, quod Hebraco sermone conscriptum legunt Nazaraei,
“descendit super eum omnis fons (Ὁ 2) Spiritus Sancti.” ...
Comment. in Ezech. XVIII. 7. (a.p. 413). (Vallars. Vol. V.
p. 207.) Et in Evangelio quod juxta Hebraeos Nazaraei legere
consueverunt, ...
Adv. Pelag. III. 2. (A.p. 416). (Vallars. Vol. 11. p. 768.) In
Evangelio juata Hebraeos quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque ser-
mone sed Hebraicis literis® scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie
Nazareni secundum Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant juxta
Matthaeum ...
Epist. ad Hedib. (after a.p. 398). (Vallars. Vol. I. p. 825.)
In Evangelio, quod Hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus,. . .
9. Turoporer (a.p. 451-458).
Haer. Fab. IT. 1. (Ebionites). Movov δὲ τὸ χατὰ Ἐβιωναίους
Εὐαγγέλιον δέχονται.
Ibid. (Ebionites.) Εὐαγγελίῳ δὲ τῷ κατὰ Mardatorv χέχ-
ρηνται μόνῳ.
10. Nicepnorus (a.v. 758-828).
See before, p. 29.
8 See before, pp. 139, 140, where he says it was written Hebraicis literis
verbisque.
456 EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS.
11. Eptpnantius.
Epiph. Haer. I. t. 2. h. 29. p. 124. (Migne, Vol.-I. p..405,)
Ἔχουσι δὲ (sc. οἱ Ναζαραίοι) τὸ χατὰ Π]ατϑαῖον Εὐαγγέλιον τεληρ-
ἕστατον ᾿Εβραϊστί. Tag αὐτοῖς γὰρ σαφῶς τοῦτο, χαϑὼς ἐξ
2 ~ ’ , c “. ~ , a» , 2 3 \
ἀρχῆς ἐγράφη, “Εβραϊχοῖς γράμμασιν et σώζεται. Οὐχ oda δὲ
εἰ χαὶ τὰς γενεαλογίας τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ ‘ABoacu ἄχρι Χριστοῦ πε-
ριξῖλον.
Ibid. I. ἐ. 2. h. 30. p. 126. See before, p. 139. Cibonstes
recewe Matthew’s Gospel, and call it ‘according to the Hebrew’s.’)
Ibid. p. 130. (Migne, Vol. 1. p. 416.) ‘O ᾿Ιώσηπος! λεληϑό-
c Pp ” tc ‘ c OA Ν ’ ‘ ,
τως τολμήσας ἤνοιξε, χαὶ εὗρεν οὐδὲν χρημάτων, σπλὴν βίβλους
τὰς ὑσιὲρ yoruata’ ἀναγινώσχων δὲ ἐν ταύταις ὡς ἤδη ἕφην τὸ
χατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην Εὐαγγέλιον ἀπὸ “Ελλάδος εἰς “Εβραΐδα φωνὴν με-
ταληφϑὲν ηὕρατο, χαὶ τὰς τῶν ᾿Ἵποστόλων Πράξεις. Ov μὴν
2 \ \ \ \ C ~ ς or , aN γ , 3
αλλὰ χαὶ τὸ χατὰ Πατϑαῖον ᾿Εβραϊχὸν φύσει ov &% τούτων ἀναγ-
γοὺς πάλιν τὴν διάνοιαν ἐτρύχετο.
Ibid. h. 40. p. 891. (Speaking of Tatian.) Aéyeva δὲ τὸ διὰ
, γ , Cc 2 2 ~ ἘΠΕ Ν ca ATIC ,
τεσσάρων Evayyéhioy va αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσϑαι, omega κατὰ Εβραίους
τινὲς χαλοῦσι.3
5. QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPEL OF THE
HEBREWS IN ITS NAZARENE OR ITS EBIONITE
FORM!
Epiph. Haer. I. ¢. 2. h. 30. p. 137. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 426.)
2 - ~ 2 > ~ 2 \ ~ 3
Ev τῷ γοῦν παρ᾿ αὑτοῖς Εὐαγγελίῳ xara Πατϑαῖον ὀνομαζομένῳ
1 Epiphanius. Josephus, a Jewish Christian of the time of Constantine.
2 Epiphanius must be mistaken here. Hegesippus could scarcely have quoted
from the Gospel of the Hebrews if it had been Tatian’s.
1 In collecting and arranging the following passages use has been made of
Fabricius’s Codex Apocryphus; Kleuker, Ausfiihrliche Untersuchung der Griinde
fiir die Aechtheit und Glaubwiirdigkeit der schriftlichen Urkunden des Christen-
thums (1793); Hilgenfeld’s ‘Novum Testamentum extra Canonem receptum ;’
Baring Gould’s ‘Lost and Hostile Gospels ;’ and especially of the latest and com-
pletest work on the subject, Nicholson’s ‘Gospel of the Hebrews.’ There are
many other books with discussions of the perplexing subject which may be con-
sulted with profit: Supernatural Religion, Dr Roberts’s Discussions on the Gos-
pels, and his more recent work ‘The Gospels,’ being those which I have found
most suggestive. See also Lardner’s works, and the notes on Clement of Rome,
2nd Epistle, in Lightfoot’s and Gebhardt & Harnack’s editions.
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 457
> c \ , 2
οὐχ ὅλῳ δὲ πληρεστάτῳ ἀλλὰ νενοϑευμένῳ, χαὶ ἠχρωτηριασμένῳ
(E8 oo er) δὲ τ a ἣ ~ BY , Ch Bash 5. ΣΝ
Ἰβραϊχὸν δὲ τοῦτο χαλοῦσιν), ἐμφέρεται, OTL ἐγένετό τις ανὴρ
ἊΝ “ἢ dy ~ κ᾿ Se c Sie , wae "-
ὀνόματι Ιησοῦς, χαὶ αὐτὸς ὡς ἑτῶν τριάχοντα (Luke iii. 23),
2 , c ~ 7 ~
ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς. Kai ἐλϑὼν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ εἰσῆλϑεν εἰς τὴν
Tee s/ Ε ee oe η , Ξ \ > I & A ‘
οἰχίαν Σίμωνος τοῦ ἐπιχληϑέντος Τ]έτρου, καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα
> Ὁ ἈΞ} Se aaa oe \ NS hi Tra , .
Saree ee παρερχόμενος παρὰ Tip turyny Τιβεριάδος (Mat. iv.
> , ayo] y Chass 5
18) ἐξελεξάμην ᾿Ιωάννην χαὶ ᾿Ιάκωβον, υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου, χαὶ Σί-
v2 Ἶ ‘ - :
μωνα, καὶ ᾿Ανδρέαν χαὶ Θαδδαῖον χαὶ Σίμωνα τὸν Ζηλωτὴν, καὶ
Ἶ vd \ a | , : z , \ 7 - σι δῈ -,ὕ Ἴ \
ovday tov Ισχαριώτην, χαὶ oe τὸν Marvdatov? χαϑεζόμεγον ert
~ , . Nie. » .»
τοῦ τελωνίου (Mat. ix. 9) ἐχάλεσα, χαὶ ἠχολούϑησάς μοι. Ὑμᾶς
oy / ΕΥ̓ fh > | , > , -«2 ,
οὖν βούλομαι εἶναι δεχαδύο ἀποστόλους εἰς μαρτύριον τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ.
2 - \ -~
Καὶ ἐγένετο ᾿Ιωάννης βαπτίζων, χαὶ ἐξῆλϑον πρὸς αὐτὸν Φαρι-
- A \ vy Oe a \ ~ ς , γε ὡς "ἣν ς
σαῖοι, χαὶ ἐβατιτίσϑησαν, χαὶ πᾶσα “Ιεροσόλυμα. Καὶ εἶχεν 0
3 , 2 > ~ -
Ἰωάννης ἔνδυμα aid τριχῶν χαμήλου χαὶ ζώνην δερματίνην στερὶ
‘ > ~ C ~ eee Ν ΄ ~ 9 ~ ra
τὸν ὑσφῦν αὑτοῦ. Καὶ τὸ βρῶμα αὐτοῦ, φησὶ, μέλι ἄγριον, ov
c = ~ U ς \ f eee
ἣ γεῦσις ἦν τοῦ μάννα, ὡς ἐγχρὶς ἐν ἐλαίῳ, (Mat. iii. 4-7) ἵνα
ΤῊΝ μεταστρέψωσι τῆς ἀληϑείας τὸν Abyov εἰς ψεῦδος, καὶ
ἀντὶ ἀχρίδων 1 ποιήσωσιν ἐ ἐγχρίδας ἐν μέλιτι. Ἢ δὲ ἀρχὴ τοῦ παρ᾽
αὐτοῖς Εὐαγγελίου ἔχει ὅτι ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις «Ηρώδου τοῦ
βασιλέως τῆς Ιουδαίας, ἦλϑεν ᾿Ιωάνν) ης βαπτίζων βάπτισμα με-
τανοίας ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ, ὃς ἐλέγετο είναι ἐχ γένους ““4α-
ρὼν τοῦ ἱερέως, παῖς Ζαχαρίοι χαὶ Ἐλισάβετ, χαὶ ἐξήλϑοντο τιρὸς
αὐτὸν πιάντες.
Ibid. Καὶβ μετὰ τὸ εἰπεῖν σπτολλὰ ἐπιφέρει ὅτι τοῦ λαοῦ
βαπτισϑέντος ἦλϑε χαὶ ᾿Ιησοῦς, not ἐβαπτίσϑη ὑχιὸ τοῦ Ιωάννου.
Καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλϑεν ἀπὸ τοῖ ὕδατος, ἠνοίγησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ
3 ~
εἶδε τὸ πνεῖμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς χατελϑούσης
‘ x , > 7 ’ Ν ‘ > , > ~ >
χαὶ εἰσελϑούσης εἰς αὐτὸν. Και pwrvr eyeveto Ex TOV οὐρα-
~ , a4 / ἬΝ. Ἐ cy ς ) 5 Ν ? \ 2 th, 39
vot λέγουσα “σύ μου εἶ ὃ υἱὸς ὃ ἀγαπητὸς, ἐν σοὶ ηὐδόχησα.
͵ 3 \ ,ὔ , ‘ 2
Καὶ πάλιν “ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε." Καὶ εὐϑὺς περιέλαμιψε
x , ~ Z “Ὁ id \ bg JAS) ἘΠῚ. , λέ δὲ λιν
τὸν tomov φῶς μέγα. Ov ἰδὼν, φησίν, ὁ Ιωαννης Λέγει αὐτῷ
« \ , a ’ 4) x , Nie Dig Bb] ~ \ a ὡς
σὺ tig εἶ, Κύριε;" Καὶ παλιν φωνὴ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πρὸς αὑτὸν
2 Epiphanius names only eight disciples, though he speaks of twelve. This
is characteristic of his carelessness.
8 This is a continuation in Epiphanius of what went before in Extract 1.
4 See before, p. 126, note 5, on Justin’s reference to the fire and the descent
of the Spirit. Justin’s Gooraapendencs with this form is not verbal. In Jerome’s
version below the supernatural appearances are referred, as here, to our Lord’s
coming up from the water. It will be observed that there is no little divergence
between Epiphanius and Jerome.
458 EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS.
(Qi » c cr C 2 \ bee SS Iov ” 4
οὗτός ἐστιν ὃ υἱός μου ὃ ἀγαπητὸς, Ep ὃν ηὐδόχκησα." Καὶ
\ 2 , ‘ \ Deke 13. ( , , , 4
τότε, φησὶν, ᾿Ιωάννης τιροσπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγε “δέομαί cov, Κύριε
- 2 .
σύ με βάπτισον. " ὋὉ δὲ ἐχώλυεν αὐτῷ (ἐχώλυσεν ay Dind.),
λέγων “ἄφες, ὅτι οὕτως ἐστὶ πρέπον πληρωϑῆναι even.” (Mat.
111. 14-17 and Heb. i. 5; v. 5.)
Ibid. p. 138. Παραχόψαντες γὰρ tag παρὰ τῷ ]ατϑαίῳ ye-
2. - Cc ,
γεαλογίας ἄρχονται τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιεῖσϑαι, ὡς τιροξίπτομξεν, λέγοντες
a (« ‘ (422 ~ c , « τ 0 " , joey
oul ἐγένετο, φησιν, “ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Howdov βασιλέως τῆς
ae 3 d 3
᾿Ιουδαίας ἐτιὶ᾽,“ρχιερέως Καϊάφα," ἦλϑέ τις Ιωάννης ὀνόματι βατιτ-
Ih “2 ~) , ~ \ A « αν
ἰζων βαττιτισμα μετανοίας ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ ποταμῷ," χαὶ τὰ eng.
Jerome, Comment. in Isai. B. IV. c. ai. 2. (Vallars. Vol. IV.
p. 155.) Tllud quod in Evangelio Matthaei omnes quaerunt Ec-
clesiastici, et non inveniunt ubi scriptum sit, Quoniam Naza-
raeus vocabitur, eruditi Hebraeorum de hoc loco assumptum pu-
tant. ... Super hunc igitur florem, qui de trunco et de radice
Jesse per Mariam virginem repente consurget, requiescet Spiritus
Domini, quia in ipso complacuit omnem plenitudinem divinitatis
habitare corporaliter: nequaquam per partes, ut in caeteris Sanc-
tis, sed juxta Evangelium eorum, quod Hebraeo sermone con-
scriptum legunt Nazarei: Descendit super eum omnis fons Spi-
ritus Sancti. ... Porro in Evangelio, cujus supra fecimus men-
tionem, haec scripta reperimus: Factum est autem quum ascen-
disset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti, et
requievit super eum, et dixit ilu: Fili mi, in ommbus Prophetis
exspectabam te, ut venires, et requiescerem in te. Tu es enim
requies mea, tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas im sempt-
ternum.§®
Id. Comment. in Ezech. B. VI. 6. xvitt. (Vallars. Vol. V.
. 207.) Et in Evangelio quod juxta Hebraeos Nazaraei legere
consueverunt, inter maxima ponitur crimina, qui fratris’? sui spi-
ritum contristaverit. (Mat. v. 24; compare xviii. 6, 7.)
Id. Comment. in Eph. B. TTT. c. v. 4 (Vallars. Vol. VII.
5 Epiphanius here gives another copy of the opening words not verbally
identical with what he gave on the previous page.
6 The want of verbal correspondence between Epiphanius and Jerome in
their transcripts of the Gospel, is one of the many perplexities the student
must meet.
7 Matthew frequently uses ‘ brother’ in this sense, Luke seldom, Mark never.
See next extract.
""
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 459
p. 641.) Verum et haec a sanctis viris penitus propellenda, qui-
bus magis convenit flere atque lugere, ut in Hebraico quoque
Evangelio legimus, Dominum ad discipulos loquentem: Et nun-
quam, inquit, laeti sitis, nisi quum fratrem vestrum videritis im
caritate. (Compare Mat. as in last extract.)
Id. Comment. in Mat. B. I. c. vi. 11. (Vallars. Vol. VII.
p. 34.) In Evangelio quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos, pro su-
persubstantiali pane, reperi Mahar, quod dicitur crastinum, ut sit
sensus: panem nostrum crasticum, id est, futurum da nobis hodie.
Ibid. B. II. οἱ xii. 13. (Vallars. Vol. VII. p. 77.) In Evan-
gelio, quo utuntur Nazaraei et Ebionitae, (quod nuper in Grae-
cum de Hebraco sermone transtulimus et quod vocatur a pleris-
que Matthaei authenticum) homo iste, qui aridam habet manum
caementarius scribitur; istius modi vocibus auxilium precans:
Caementarius eram manibus victum quaeritans; precor te, Jesu,
ut mihi restituas sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos. (Mat.
xii. 10, &c.)
Irenaeus, B. I. 25. 4. (According to Irenaeus, Carpocrates
used the following of which (“Quam es cum adversario tuo, &c.”)
we find apparently the Greek in Epiphanius J. t. 2. ἢ. 27. p. 106.
Ὅπερ ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ εἶπε διὰ tig παραβολῆς ὅτι tore
εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίχῳ σου ἐν ᾧ εἶ ἐν τῷ ὁδῷ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, μή πως
ὁ ἀντίδιχος παραδῷ σὲ τῷ χριτῇ, καὶ ὃ χριτὴς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ, καὶ
6 ὑπηρέτης βάλῃ σε εἰς τὴν φυλαχήν. ᾿Αμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ
ἐξέλϑῃης ἐκεῖϑεν, ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον χοδράντην. (Com-
pare Luke xii. 58, 59.)
Epiph. Haer. I. t. 2. h. 30. p. 151. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 449.)
Καὶ δῆτα ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν σύστασιν ταύτης βούλονται
φέρειν, ὡς καὶ οἱ περὶ Κήρινϑον. Φασὶ γὰρ χαὶ οὗτοι χατὰ τὸν
ἐχείνων ληρώδη λόγον ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαϑητὴ εἶναι ὡς ὃ δι-
δάσχαλος. Περιετμήϑη, φασὶν, ὃ Χριστὸς, χαὶ σὺ περιτμή-
ϑητι. (Mat. x. 25.)
Eus. Theophania. (Lee’s Edition IV. 13. p. 234.) “1 will
choose me the good, those good whom my Father in the heavens
(pater meus coelestis Hilgenf.) hath given me.” §
Clem. Strom. See before, p. 9.
8 See Hilg. p. 16, and Nicholson, p. 45. ‘‘Father in heaven,” an expres-
sion almost confined to Matthew’s Gospel.
400 EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS.
Epiph. Haer. I. t. 2. h. 30. p. 188. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 429.)
Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ βούλονται τὸν μὲν Inooty ὄντως εἶναι ἄνϑρωπον. “Ὡς
πιροείσιον, Χριστὸν δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ γεγεννῆσϑαι τὸν ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς
χαταβεβηχότα, χαϑαάτιερ ἤδη χαὶ παρ᾽ ἄλλαις αἵρεσιν εὑρίσκομεν
συναφϑέντα αὐτῷ, καὶ εἶναι αὐτὸν τὸν Χριστὸν Ex σπέρματος
ἀνδρὸς nai γυναικὸς γεγεννημένον. Πάλιν δὲ ἀρνοῦνται εἶναι αὐὖ-᾿
τὸν ἄνϑρωτιον δῆϑεν ἀπὸ τοῦ λόγου οὗ εἴρηκεν ὃ Σωτὴρ ἕν τῷ
ἀναγγελῆναι αὐτῳ OTL ἰδοὺ ἣ μήτηρ σου χαὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου
ἔξω ἑστήκασιν, ὅτιτίς μου ἐστὲ μήτηρ καὶ ἀδελφοί; καὶ
ἐχτείνας τὴν χείρα ἐπὶ τοὺς μαϑητὰς ἔφη: Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀδελ-
got μου χαὶ ἢ μήτηρ (zai ἀδελφοὶ Dind.) οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰ
ϑελήματα τοῦ πατρὸς μου. (Mat. xii. 47-50. Compare Mark
111. 32; Luke viii. 20.)
Orig. de Princ. IV. 22. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 388.) Ἐπὰν φάσχῃ
ὁ Σωτὴρ “οὐχ ἀπεστάλην εἰ μὴ εἰς τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα
οἴχου ᾿Ισραὴλ.,᾽ οὐκ ἐχλαμβάνομεν ταῦτα ὡς οἱ πτωχοὶϑ τῇ δια-
vole Ἐβιωναῖοι τῆς wtwyelag τῆς διανοίας ἐτεώνυμοι" Ἐβίων γὰρ
ὁ πτωχὸς nag Ἕβραίοις ὀνομάζεται" ὥστε ὑπολαβεῖν ἐπὶ τοὺς
σαρχίνους ᾿Ισραηλίτας προηγουμένως τὸν Χριστὸν ἐτιιδεδημηχέναι.
(Mat. xv. 24.)
Jerome, Adv. Pelag. B. III. c. 2. (Vallars. Vol. IL p. 768.)
In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque
sermone, sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque
hodie Nazareni secundum Apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant
juxta Matthaeum, quod et in Caesariensi habetur Bibliotheca,
narrat historia: Hece mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant οἷ:
Johannes Baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum: eamus et
baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eis: Quid peccavi, ut vadam et
baptizer ab eo? Nisi forte hoc ipsum quod αἰαὶ, ignorantia est.
Ibid. Et in eodem volumine: Si peccaverit, inquit, frater tuus
in verbo et satis tibi fecerit, septies in die suscipe eum. Dixit
111 Simon discipulus ejus: septies in die? Respondit Dominus
et dixit ei: Etiam ego dico tibi, usque septuagies septies. Etenim
in prophetis quoque postquam uncti sunt Spiritu Sancto, inventus
est sermo peccati. (Compare Mat. xviii. 22, and Luke xvii. 4.)1°
® Origen plays on the name Ebionite or Poor. See, for this origin of the
name, Introduction, Gospel of Hebrews.
7° The margin of Tischendorf’s MS has To ᾿Ιουδαϊκὸν (se. εὐαγγέλιον) ἑξῆς
ἔχει μετὰ τὸ “ Ἑβδομηχοντάχις ἑπτά ” “yar γὰρ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις μετὰ τὸ χρισπῆ-
ναι αὐτοὺς ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ εὐρισχέτω (1. εὑρίσκεται) ἐν αὐτοῖς λόγος ἁμαρτίας."
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. 461
Kus. H. EF. IT. 39. (The narrative of the woman accused of
many crimes.) (See John vii. 53-viii. 11. Ὁ)
Epiph. Haer. I. ἐ. 2. h. 30. p. 146. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 441.)
Kai ἐποίησαν τοὺς μαϑητὰς μὲν λέγοντας. Ποῦ ϑέλεις ἕτοι-
μάσωμέν σοι τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν; Καὶ αὐτὸν δῆϑεν λέγοντα "
My ἐπιϑυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα χρέας τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φα-
γεῖν wed ὑμῶν;""
Origen, Comment. in Mat. tom. XV. ὃ 14. p. 0612. (ΜΙρπο,
Vol. II. p. 1293.) Scriptum est in Evangelio quodam, quod di-
citur secundum Hebraeos: si tamen placet alicui recipere illud
non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem propositae quae-
stionis. “Dixit,” inquit, “Δα eum alter divitum: Magister, quid
bonum faciens vivam? Dixit ei: Homo, leges et prophetas fac.
Respondit ad eum: Feci. Dixit ei: Vade, vende omnia quae pos-
sides et divide pauperibus et veni sequere me. Coepit autem
dives scalpere caput suum, et non placuit ei. Et dixit ad eum
Dominus: Quomodo dicis, legem feci et prophetas? quoniam
scriptum est in lege, Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum; et
ecce, multi fratres tui, filii Abrahae, amicti sunt stercore mo-
rientes prae fame; et domus tua plena est multis bonis, et non
egreditur omnino aliquid ad eos. Et conversus dixit Simoni dis-
cipulo suo sedenti apud se: Simon, fili Joanne, facilius est ca-
melum intrare per foramen acus, quam divitem in regnum coe-
lorum.” (Mat. xix. 16-24.)!?
Jerome, Letter 20 to Damasus. (Vallars. Vol. I. p. 64.) Deni-
que Matthaeus, qui Evangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, ita
posuit Osanna Baramma, id est Osanna in excelsis. (Mat. xxi. 9.)
Id. in Mat. xxiii. 35. Pro filio Barachiae, filium Jojadae
reperimus, &c. See before, p. 455.
Eus. Theophania. (See Migne, Vol. VI. p.685.) To εἰς ἡμᾶς
ἧχον Ἑβραϊχοῖς χαραχτῆρσιν Εὐαγγέλιον τὴν ἀπειλὴν ov χατὰ τοῦ
ἀπτοχρύψαντος ἐπῆγεν, ἀλλὰ χατὰ τοῦ ἀσώτως ἐξηχότος. “Τρεῖς
11 Compare Luke xxii. 15. By adding χρέας and making the words a ques-
tion the Ebionites (like the Essenes) avowed their own aversion from animal
food. In the same way the alteration of ἀχρίδας into ἐγχρίδας (see above, first
extract from Epiphanius) was a deliberate change in favour of their own views.
12 See on Justin’s quotations of this before, p. 116. The Clem. Hom, 18.
3.17 make it, ‘‘call me not good.”
402 EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS.
yao δούλους περιεῖχε, τὸν μὲν χαταφαγόντα τὴν ὕπαρξιν μετὰ
πορνῶν χαὶ αὐλητρίδων, τὸν δὲ “τολλαπλασιάσαντα τὴν ἐργασίαν,
τὸν δὲ χαταχρύψαντα τὸ τάλαντον" εἶτα τὸν μὲν ἀποδεχϑῆναι,
τὸν δὲ μεμφϑῆναι μόνον, τὸν δὲ συγχλεισϑῆναι δεσμωτηρίῳ. (Mat.
xxy. 14.)
Jerome, Comment. in Mat. B. IV. c. xavii. 10. (Vallars.
Vol. VII. p. 219.) Iste (Barabbas) in Evangelio, quod seribitur
juata Hebraeos, filius magistri eorum interpretatur, qui propter
seditionem et homicidium fuerat condemnatus.
Ibid. c. 51. (Vallars. Vol. VII. p. 233.) In Evangelio, cujus
saepe fecimus mentionem, superliminare Templi infinitae magni-
tudinis fractum esse atque divisum legimus.
Id. Epist. ad Hedib. (Vallars. Vol. I. p. 825.) In Evangelio,
quod Hebraicis literis scriptum est, legimus, non velum Templi
scissum, sed superliminare templi mirae magnitudinis corruisse.
Id. De Vir. Ill. ὁ. 2. (Vallars. Vol. II p. 817.) Evangelium
quoque quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos et a me nuper in
Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et Orige-
nes saepe utitur, post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert: Domi-
hus autem quum dedisset sindonem servo Sacerdotis, ivit ad
Jacobum et apparuit ei. Juraverat enim Jacobus, se non co-
mesturum panem ab illa hora qua biberat calicem Domini, donec
videret eum resurgentem a dormientibus. Rursusque post pau-
lulum: Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque addi-
tur: Tulit panem et benedixit, ac fregit, et dedit Jacobo justo, et
dixit ei: Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit Filius
hominis a dormientibus.
Ignat. Ep. Smyrn. c. 3. (See before, p. 111 and Note 3.)
Jerome, De Vir. Ill. c. 16. (Vallars. Vol. II. p. 842.) Scripsit
(sc. Ignatius) et ad Smyrnaeos et proprie ad Polycarpum, com-
mendans illi Antiochensem Ecclesiam in qua et de Evangelio,
quod nuper a me translatum est, super persona Christi ponit
testimonium, dicens: go vero et post resurrectionem m carne
eum vidi et credo, quia sit. Et quando venit ad Petrum, et ad
eos, qui cum Petro erant, dixit eis: Ecce palpate me, et videte,
quia non sum daemonium incorporale. (Luke xxiv. 39.) Ht statum
tetigerunt eum et crediderunt.
Id. Comment. in Isai. B. XVIII. Prooem. (Vallars. Vol. IV.
ADDITIONAL QUOTATIONS OR REFERENCES. 463
p. 769.) Quum enim Apostoli eum putarent spiritum vel juxta
Evangelium, quod Hebraeorum lectitant Nazaraei, icorporale
daemonium, dixit eis: quid turbati estis, &c.?
ADDITIONAL QUOTATIONS OR REFERENCES.
Origen, Comment. in Joann. See before, p. 452.
Jerome, in Es. xl. 11. See before, p. 454.
Id. in Mich. vii. 6. See before, p. 453, and compare Origen,
before, p. 453.
Clem. Alex. Strom. II. 9. See before, p. 452.
Epiph. Haer. XXX. 16. @coxover ... χαὶ ἐλϑόντα, καὶ
ὑφηγησάμενον (ὡς τὸ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς Εὐαγγέλιον meguéyer) ὅτι ἢλ.-
ϑεν,18 χαταλῖσαι τὰς ϑυσίας, χαὶ ἐὰν μὴ παύσησϑε τοῦ ϑύειν
οὐ παύσεται ag ὑμῶν ἡ ὀργή.
18 See Eus. Η. E. III. 36 for quotation of those words as in Ignatius (ἐλή-
huSev for ἦλθεν). Jerome may have quoted from Eusebius, but if so he does
not quote exactly. It is doubtful where the quotation ends in Ignatius. The
passage in Origen which refers to this (see Note on p.111) is De Prine. Prol.
Ὁ, GE
404 EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS.
2, PROTEVANGELIUM JACOBI
OR
GOSPEL OF JAMES.’
Clem. Alex. Strom. VII. 16. p. 889. 2AAWV ὡς ἔοικεν τοῖς πολλοῖς
χαὶ μεχρὶ νῦν δοχεῖ ἢ Magia λεχὼ εἶναι, διὰ τὴν τοῦ παιδίου γέν-
γησιν οὐχ οὖσα λεχώ" χαὶ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ τεχεῖν αὐτὴν μαιωϑεῖσάν
φασί τινὲς maodévoy εὑρεϑῆγαι.
Justin Martyr, Dial. c. 78. p. 803. See before, p. 121,
Note 21.
Origen, Comment. in Mat. p. 463. (Migne, Vol. II. p. 876.)
Τοὺς δὲ ἀδελφοὺς ᾿Ιησοῦ, φασί τινες εἶναι, ἐχ παραδόσεως ὃρ-
μώμενοι τοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένου χατὰ Πέτρον Εὐαγγελίου, ἢ τῆς βί-
βλου ᾿Ιαχώβου, υἱοὺς ᾿Ιωσὴφ, κ.τ.1.
3, ACTS OF PILATE.’
Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 35. p. 76 C. Kai μετὰ τὸ σταυρῶσαι
αὐτὸν, ἔβαλον χλῆρον ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμὸν αὐτοῦ, χαὶ ἐμερίσαντο
ἑαυτοῖς οἱ σταυρώσαντες αὐτόν. Καὶ ταῦτα ὅτι γέγονε, δύνασϑε
μαϑεῖν ἔχ τῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου γενομένων “χτων. (John
xx. 25; Mat. xxvii. 35.)?
Ibid. I. 48. p. 84 C. Ὅτι δὲ xai ϑεραπεύσειν σ“τάσας νόσους
1 James. See Introduction, ‘Apocrypha,’ and note on page 156. The
argument on Canonicity founded on those Apocryphal Books—the Protevangelium
and the Acts of Pilate—is that they are obviously expansions of our Gospels,
and that—they being in existence before the middle of the second century—they
furnish an argument for the antiquity of the Gospels.
1 Acts of Pilate. See Introduction, ‘‘ Apocrypha.’’ Our quotations indicate
the importance attached to this book by Justin and others. It undoubtedly fol-
lows the Gospels, notably John. See note on page 174.
* The casting of lots by the soldiers is not mentioned in the a of Pilate
now extant; the division of the garments is.
ACTS OF PILATE. 465
4 ; yy ‘ , 7 - : Lio f aN 7 4 mon = ῇ
καὶ νεκροὺς ἀναγερεῖν ὃ ἡμέτερος Χριστὸς τιροεφητεύϑη ἀχού-
- ’ , ~ ~ , ΒῚ ~
cave τῶν λελεγμένων. Ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ
ς ~ ~ Cc ΟΣ \ Ν Ν y ~ ,
ἁλεῖται χῶλος wg ehapog χαὶ τρανὴ ἔσται γλῶσσα μογιλάλων"
᾿ λ \ 7 9.4 ἃ ᾽ \ \ ri o./ Ἂ Ν \
τυφλοὶ avaphewovot χαὶ hervoot χαϑαρισϑήσονται χαὶ νεχροὶ
> / \ ~
ἀναστήσονται χαὶ σιεριτιατήσουσιν. Ὅτι τὲ ταῦτα ἐποίησεν, ἐχ
τῶν ἕπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου γενομένων ᾿χτων μαϑεῖν δύνασϑε.
(Isaiah xxxv. 5, 6; Mat. xi. 5.)
Tertullian, Apologet. ὁ. 21. Et tamen suffixus multa mortis
illius propria ostendit insignia. Nam spiritum cum verbo sponte
dimisit, praeyento carnificis officio. Kodem momento dies me-
dium orbem signante sole subducta est. Deliquium utique puta-
verunt, qui id quoque super Christo praedicatum non scierunt.
Et tamen eum mundi casum relatum im arcanis vestris habetis. ...
Cum discipulis autem quibusdam apud Galileam, Judaeae regio-
nem, ad quadraginta dies egit docens eos quae docerent. Dehinc
ordinatis eis ad officium praedicandi per orbem circumfusa nube
in coelum est receptus, multo verius quam apud vos adseverare
de Romulo Proculi solent. Ha omnia super Christo Pilatus, et
ipse jam pro sua conscientia Christianus, Caesari tune Tiberio
nuntiavit.
Eus. H. E. 11. ἃ. Te περὶ τῆς ἐκ νεχρῶν ἀναστάσεως τοῦ
Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας ἤδη χαϑ᾽ ὕλης τῆς
Παλαιστίνης βεβοημένα Πιλάτος “Πιβερίῳ βασιλεῖ κοινοῦνται, κ.τ.λ.
(Kus. rests upon Tertullian 1. ὁ.).
Epiph. Haer. IT. ¢.1. h. 50. p. 420. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 884.)
Ἕτεροι δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν (SC. τεσσαρεσχαιδεχατιτῶν) τὴν αὐτὴν μίαν
ἡμέραν ἄγονται χαὶ τὴν αὐτὴν μίαν ἡμέραν νηστεύοντες καὶ τὰ
μυστήρια ἐπιτελοῦντες, ἀπὸ τῶν ““χτων δῆϑεν Πιλάτου αὐχοῦσι
τὴν ἀχρίβειαν ηὑρηχέναι, ἐν οἷς ἐμφέρεται τῇ πρὸ ὀχτὼ καλανδῶν
᾿Ππριλλίων τὸν Σωτῆρα πεπονϑέναι. ... Ἔτι δὲ ηὕραμεν avei-
γραφα Ἴἄχτων Πιλάτου, ἐν οἷς σημαίνει τιρὸ δεχατυέντε καλαν-
δῶν ᾿“΄πριλλίων τὸ πάϑος γεγενῆσϑαι. Ταληϑῆ δὲ, ὡς ἐκ πολλῆς
ἀχριβείας ἔγνωμεν, ἐν τῇ πρὸ δεχατριῶν χαλανδῶν -““πριλλίων
τὸν Σωτῆρα σιεττονϑέναι κατειλήφαμεν.
30
400 EXTRA-CANONICAL GOSPELS.
4, GOSPEL OF PETER.’
PETERS DOCTRINE, PETER’S PREACHING.
Eus. ΠΗ. E. VI. 12. Ἥτερός te συντεταγμένος αὐτῷ (80. Sa-
gaiwrve) λόγος περὶ τοῦ λεγομένου κατὰ Πέτρον Evayye-
λέου, ὃν στετοίηται ἀτιελέγχων τὰ ψευδῶς ἐν αὐτῷ εἰρημένα, διά
τινας ἕν τῇ χατὰ “Ρωσσὸν παροικίᾳ, προφάσει τῆς εἰρημένης γρα-
1 On the works ascribed to Peter see: the Testimony of Eusebius, before,
p. 207. Jerome also in his De Vir. Ill. ο. 1 says, ‘“ Libri autem ejus, e quibus
unus Actorum ejus mscribitur, alius Evangelii, tertius Praedicationis, quartus Apo-
calypseos, quintus Judicti, inter Apocryphas scripturas reputantur.” The decree
of Gelasius (see before, p. 24) condemns Peter’s Gospel. It appears probable
from the extracts in the text that this Gospel taught the ordinary human birth
of Jesus; although this is not quite clear. But it agreed with the Protevange-
lium (the ‘Book of James’) in regarding the ‘‘ brethren” of Jesus as sons of Joseph
by a former marriage. The ‘Nazarenes’ who, according to Theodoret, used it,
must have been more Jewish than some of their name, since they regarded Christ
as only a just man. What Origen quotes from it (regarding Christ not being a
bodiless demon) is found in the Nazarene Gospel; and on the whole it seems to
have been a recension of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Hilgenf. (N. T. extra Can.
rec.) believes it to be older than the Ebionite Gospel. There is a passage in
Justin (Dial. c. 106; see before, p. 62, Note 6) where it is said that mention of
the change of Peter’s name is made ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ. From the
immediately following reference to the change of the names of the Sons of Ze-
bedee (which is only found in Mark) it has been usually supposed that Justin
refers to Mark’s Gospel as his authority. This is not clear, however. There is
no reason to deny that from this passage alone a good case could be made out
for there being a book called ‘Peter’s Memoirs’ (although those who plead that
case are almost bound to hold that ‘‘Memoirs”’ is the equivalent of ‘‘Gospel”’),
and we are not concerned to deny that Justin might have known and quoted
such a book; but it is scarcely possible on this one fact to build a whole theory
as to the nature of Peter’s Gospel, and still less is it possible to refer to that
Gospel all Justin’s quotations from ‘The Memoirs.’ The ‘Doctrine of Peter’
Διδαχὴ Πέτρου was probably the same work. There is another name, Peter’s
Preaching, Κύήρυγμα Létpov, which is sometimes called ‘ The Preaching of Peter
and Paul.’ The words of Lactantius are evidence of its existence in his day:
“Sed et futura ulis aperuit omnia, quae Petrus et Paulus Romae praedicaverunt, et ea
praedicatio in memoriam scripta permansit, in qua cum alia mira tum etiam hoc .. .”
(here follows a prediction of the fall of the Jews and their cities). It is chiefly
known through the frequent quotations of it by Clem. Alex., some of which, refer-
ring to the New Testament, are in our text. Origen (Comment. in Joann. ft. 13.
§ 17. Migne, Vol. IV. p. 424) says that Heracleon quoted it. Both Eusebius and
Jerome distinguish the ‘Preaching of Peter’ from the ‘Gospel of Peter.’ What
relation it had to the account of Peter’s Preaching in the Clementines is a dif-
ficult question. The extracts which remain in Clem. Alex. and others do not
identify the two works, nor is Hilgenfeld (Nov. Test. extr. Can. ree. p. 55) able
to make out a case for the identity. Credner ascribed the Preaching to the end
of the First Century; and regarded it (Hilgenfeld following him) as the parent
of the Homilies and Recognitions. See the whole discussion in Credner’s Bei-
triage, p. 348, &c.). An Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned in the Muratorian
Fragment.
GOSPEL OF PETER. 467
gig εἰς ἑτεροδόξους διδασχαλίας ἀσιοχείλαντας. Ap ἧς εὔλογον
βραχείας σεαραϑέσϑαι λέξεις, Ov ὧν ἣν εἶχε σιερὶ τοῦ βιβλίου
γνώμην προτίϑησιν, οὕτω γράφων: Ἡμεῖς γὰρ, ἀδελφοὶ, χαὶ
Πέτρον χαὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ᾿“΄“ποστόλους ἀποδεχόμεθα ὡς Χριστόν"
τὰ δὲ ὀνόματι αὐτῶν ψευδεπειίγραφα ὡς ἔμτιειροι παραιτούμεϑα,
γινώσχοντες ὅτι τὰ τοιαῦτα οὐ πιαρελάβομιεν. Ἐγὼ γὰρ γενόμενος
maQ ὑμῖν ὑπενόουν τοὺς πάντας ὀρϑῇ τιίστει πιροσφέρεσϑαι, καὶ
wiy διελϑὼν τὸ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν προφερόμενον ὀνόματι Πέτρου Εὐαγ-
γέλιον, εἴσιον. Ὅτι εἰ τοῦτό ἐστι μόνον τὸ δοχοῦν ὑμῖν τιαρέχειν
μικροψυχίαν, ἀναγιγωσκέσϑω. Νῦν δὲ wader ὅτι αἱρέσει τινὶ ὃ
νοῦς αὐτῶν ἐνεφώλευεν éx τῶν λεχϑέντων μοι, σπουδάσω πάλιν
γενέσϑαι πιρρὸς ὑμᾶς" ὡς τε ἀδελφοὶ τιροσδοχᾶτέ μὲ ἐν τάχει.
Ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀδελφοὶ, “καταλαβόμενοι, ὁποίας iy αἱρέσεως ὃ edie
κιανὸς, χαὶ ἑαυτῷ ἠναντιοῦτο μὴ νοῶν ἃ ἐλάλει, ἃ μαϑήσεσϑε ἐξ
ὧν ὑμῖν ἐγράφι. Edy γήϑημεν γὰρ παρ᾽ Bie τῶν ἀσχησάντων
αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον, τουτέστι maga τῶν διαδόχων τῶν χατ-
ἀρξαμένων αὐτοῦ, οὺς “οχητὰς καλοῦμεν (τὰ γὰρ whelova φρονή-
ματα ἐχείνων ἐστὶ τῆς διδασχαλίας), χρησάμενοι AQ’ αὐτῶν, διελ-
ϑεῖν, χαὶ εὑρεῖν τὰ μὲν whelove τοῦ ὀρϑοῦ λόγου τοῦ Σωτῆρος,
τινὰ δὲ τιροσδιεσταλμένα, ἃ χαὶ ὑπετάξαμεν ὑμῖν. Καὶ ταῦτα
μὲν τὰ Σαρατιίωνος.
Origen, Comment. in Mat. t. 10. ὁ. 17. p. 462. (Migne, Vol.
Ill. p. 876.) ᾿Ὥιοντο οὖν αὐτὸν εἶναι Ἰωσὴφ nat Maolag υἱόν"
τοὺς δὲ ἀδεφοὺς ᾿Ιησοῦ, φασί τινὲς εἶναι, ἐχ παραδόσεως ὁρμώμε-
γοι τοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένου κατὰ Πέτρον Εὐαγγελίου, ἢ τῆς
βίβλου ᾿Ιαχώβου, υἱοὺς ᾿Ιωσὴφ ἐκ πρωτέρας γυναιχὸς, συνῳχηκυίας
αὐτῷ πρὸ τῆς Ἰ]Παρίας. (Compare Mat. xiii. 55, 56, and Mark νἱ. 8.)
Id. de Princip. I. Pracf. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 119.) Si vero
quis velit nobis proferre ex illo libello, qui Petri Doctrina appel-
latur, ubi Salvator videtur ad discipulos dicere: “Non sum dae-
monium incorporeum,” primo respondendum est ei, quoniam ille
liber inter libros ecclesiasticos non habetur, et ostendendum, quia
neque Petri est ipsa (ista? Zahn) scriptura, neque alterius cujus-
quam, qui spiritu Dei fuerit inspiratus.
Jerome, De Vir. Ill. c. 41. (Vallars. Voll. II. p. 869.) Com-
posuit (Serapion) et alium de Evangelio, quod sub nomine Petri
fertur librum ad Rhodensem Ciliciae ecclesiam, quae in haeresin
ejus lectione diverterat.
30*
408 PROTEVANGELIUM JACOBI.
= See Ὁ
Theodoret. B. II. Fab. 2. Οἱ δὲ Ναζωραῖοι ᾿Ιουδαϊοί εἰσι τὸν
> ~ 2 ν x ~
Χριστὸν τι ὥντες ὡς ἀνϑρωτσίον δίκαιον χαὶ τῷ χαλουμένῳ κατὰ
Q 1 S Q t .
, ᾿ ne , ΕΝ - , 1
Πέτρον Evayyehio xexonuéevor.
Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 29. p. 427. (also II. 15. p. 465.) Ey
\ ~ , c ὌΝ , te
δὲ τῷ Πέτρου χηρύγματι εὕροις ἂν νόμον χαὶ λόγον τὸν
,
Κύριον προσαγορξειόμενον.
Tbid. VI. 5. p. 762. Διὰ τοῦτό φησιν ὁ Πέτρος δἰρη-
> ~ I ΕἸ
χέναι τὸν Κύριον τοῖς “α΄ ποστόλοις. “Ἐὰν μὲν οὖν τις ϑελήσῃ
- Ν - ἈΝ - Ul \
τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ μετανοῆσαι διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματός μου πιστεύων εἰς τὸν
~ / 2
Θεὸν, ἀφεϑήσονται αὐτῷ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι. Mere δώδεχα ἕτη ἐξέλ-
- \ ΡῚ Β]
Eve εἰς τὸν χόσμον, μή τις εἴττῃ, οὐχ ἠχούσαμεν."
Ξ - > 2a , ς ,
Ibid. VI. 6. 48. p. 164. Ἔν τῷ Πέτρου κηρύγματι ὁ Κυ-
\ \ χ x \ 2 ,
ριός φησι πρὸς τοὺς μαϑητὰς μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν “ἐξελεξάμην
« - ΄ © \ , dues γ ~ a C , 2 ,
ὑμᾶς δώδεχα μαϑητὰς, xolvag ἀξίους ἐμοῦ, ovg ὃ Κύριος ηϑέ-
5) Ἶ =
λησεν χαὶ «ΑΙ ποστόλους πιστοὺς ἡγησάμενος εἶναι," χ.τ.1.
Ibid. VI. 15. p. 804. Ὅϑεν χαὶ ὃ Πέτρο ὃν τῷ 2
, \ wae , , , ς - Aye) ,
ρυγματι περὶ τῶν «“ποστόλων λέγων φησίν" Husig δὲ avantv-
Σ \ , aA »” ~ ῷ - fay ‘ \
Eavreg tag βίβλους ag εἴχομεν τῶν τιροφητῶν ἃ μὲν διὰ τταρα-
~ a WAY we aA \ γ ~ γ \
Sohov, a δὲ Ov αἰνιγμάτων, ἃ δὲ αὐϑεντιχῶς καὶ αὐτολεξεὶ τὸν
? L )
> \ 2 - 2 , \ \ , 2 -
Χριστὸν Inooty ovowatorvtwy, εὕρομεν χαὶ τὴν “ταρουσίαν αὐτοῦ
χαὶ τὸν ϑάνατον χαὶ τὸν σταυρὸν χαὶ τὰς λοιπὰς χολάσεις πά-
c > ~ 2 - \ ‘
σας ὅσας ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ ot ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, χαὶ τὴν ἔγερσιν χαὶ τὴν
a 2 ἼΩΝ ἰνάλη - \ ‘ihe E Say 97 ἐ 0
εις οὐρανοὺς avednWy 100 τοῦ “Ιεροσόλυμα χτισϑῆναι, χαϑὼς
ay: ~ , Aa ow ΚΟ Qa. Ν Ν pe
ἐγέγραπτο. Ταῦτα πάντα ἃ ἔδει αὐτὸν madeiy χαὶ μετὰ αὐτὸν
ΓΝ - BY ~ ~ ~
ἃ ἔσται. Ταῦτα οὖν ἐπιγνόντες ἐπιστεύσαμεν τῷ Θεῷ διὰ τῶν
>
γεγραμμένων εἰς αὐτόν.
ὁ. GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS.
Clem. Rom. 2 Epistle. See before, p. 108.
Clem. Alex. Strom. ITT. 13. p. 553. See before, p. 75.1
Ihid. ὁ. 6. p. 532. Ti Σαλώμῃ ὃ Κύριος πυνϑανομένῃ,
“ μέχρι πότε ϑάνατος ἰσχύσει; οὐχ, ὡς χαχοῦ τοῦ βίου ὄντος
1 Theodoret goes on to say that ‘“‘Justin, philosopher and martyr,” wrote
against the Nazarenes; and also Irenacus τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων διάδοχος, and Origen.
1 These two passages refer to the same saying, and Clem. Alex. says it is
from the Gospel according to the Egyptians. On this Gospel see Introduction.
GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS. 469
yah) ase Se ie 7] Ὁ ~
KGL τῆς κείσεως πονηρᾶς, “μέχρις ἂν," εἶστιεν, “ὑμεῖς αἱ γυναῖχες
, > 27 6 2
τίχτητε," ἀλλ ὡς τὴν ἀχολουϑίαν τὴν φυσικὴν διδάσκων" ye-
γέσει γὰρ πάντως ἕπεται χαὶ φϑορά.
. « \ 2 ~ ~
bid. 8: 8. D. 540. Οἱ δὲ ἀντιτασσόμενοι τῇ κτίσει τοῦ
Θεοῦ διὰ τὴ εὐφήμου ἐγχρατείας, χαχεῖνα λέγουσι τὰ πιρὸς Σα-
λώμην εἰρημένα, ὧν πρότερον ἐμνήσϑημεν" φέρεται δὲ οἶμαι ἐν
τῷ LAU “ἰγυπτίους Εὐαγγελίῳ. Φασὶ γὰρ, ὅτι “αὐτὸς
ὩΣ ς 7 ~ \ ~
εἰπτεν ὃ Σωτὴρ, ἤλϑον χαταλῦσαι τὰ ἔργα τῆς Inhelag’” ϑηλείας
μὲν, τῆς ἐπιϑυμίας" ἔργα δὲ, γένεσιν καὶ φϑοράν.
Ibid. c. 9. p. 540. “Oder εἰκότως τιερὶ συντελείας μηνύσαντος
~ / c / r ~
tov λόγου ἡ Σαλώμη φησί" “μέχρι τίνος οἱ ἄνϑρωτπιι ἀτιοϑανοῦν-
’ Cc aul Ww ~
tal; . . . ἀποχρίνεται ὃ Κύριος" “μέχρις ἂν τίχτωσιν αἱ yvrai-
nec.” 2
, Ti δέ: otvi voi ta ἐξῇ ὃν πρὸς Sahkw
Τυϊᾶ. p. 541. Ti δὲ; οὐχὶ noi τὰ eg τῶν πρὸς Σαλώμην
i) , ’ / c / ~ ὟΝ - \ ‘ ,
εἰρημένων ἐπιφέρουσιν οἱ πάντα μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ nave τὴν ἀλήϑειαν
εἰ Γαγγελικῷ στοιχή σαντες χανόνι; (Φαμένης 9 γὰρ αὐτῆς, χαλῶς οὖν
ἐποίησα μὴ τεχοῦσα᾽"" ὡς οὐ δεόντως τῆς γενέσεως παραλαμβανο-
, > , , ς , ~ , ᾿ , \ \
μένης" ἀμείβεται λέγων ὃ Κύριος, πᾶσαν gaye βοτανήν" τὴν δὲ
σιιχρίαν ἔχουσαν μὴ φάγῃς.
Orig. Hom. in Luc. See before, p. 82.
Epiph. Haer. I. t. 1. h. 62. p. 514. Τὴν δὲ πᾶσαν αὐτῶν πλά-
νην χαὶ τὴν τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν δύναμιν ἔχουσιν ἐξ ἀποχρύφων
τινῶν, μάλιστα ἀπὸ τοῦ χαλου μένου Τἰγυπτίου Εὐαγγελίου, ᾧ
τινὲς τὸ ὄνομα ἐπέϑεντο τοῦτο" ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα ὡς
~ ~ ~ a)
ἐν παραβύστῳ μυστηριωδῶς ἐχ σπιροσώτιου τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἀναφέ-
5] - ~ ~ ~ \ a ,
gercu, ὡς αὐτοῦ δηλοῦντος τοῖς μαϑηταῖς, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Πα-
, \ ΡΟΣ «τ cy \ 2 ἘΣ c ~
τέρα, τὸν αὐτὸν εἰναι Υἱὸν, tov αὐτὸν είναι Ayioy ΠΙνεξῦμα.
Jerome, Comment. in Mat. Prooem. See before, p. 99.
2 See reference to the same saying in Clem. Alex, Excerpta ex Theod. 67.
. 985, “Ὅταν ὁ Σωτὴρ πρὸς Σαλώμην λέγῃ. μέχρι τότε εἶναι Savatov, ἄχρις ὃν
Εἰ ογυναῖχες τίχτωσιν. See also Orac. Sibyl. II. 163, 164, Νήπιοι οὐδὲ νοοῦντε
OD ἡνίκα φῦλα γυναικῶν μὴ τίχτωσιν ἔφυ τὸ “έρος μερόπων ἀνϑρώπων. (Quoted
by Hilgenf.)
410
PASSAGES OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN OCCURRING IN
EARLY WRITERS.?
Clem. Alex. Strom. II. ὃ. See before, under Gospel of the
Hebrews p. 452.
Ibid. I. 28. p. 425. “Diveode δὲ δόχιμοι toamelireu,”? τὰ
μὲν ἀποδοχιμάζοντες, τὸ δὲ χαλὸν κατέχοντες. (Comp. 1 Thess.
Υ; 21)
From Tract. Schabbath XVI. (See Hilg. p. 16.)
"DOAN NER NN sw NN Wa mmp|ma> Nd (V. 17)
RIND NMI NaN mwa RATTAN by
Wena res
Acts, wi. 2-4.32 Aéyer γὰρ ὃ τιροφητιχὸς λόγος" Ταλαίπωροί
Ψ « , « , ~ , « ’ ~
Eloly οἱ δίιψψυχοι, οἱ διστάζοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ, οἱ λέγοντες" Ταῦτα
πάλαι ἠχούίσαμεν χαὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἡμέραν
ἐξ ἡμέρας προσδεχόμενοι οὐδὲν τούτων ξωράχαμεν. ᾿“Τνόητοι, συμ-
1 In the text are here inserted, as interesting to students, some passages which
have not been included in the extracts in this Book. For other passages which
cannot be referred to our Gospels, and which occur without reference to the
source from which they are taken, see on pages 107, 108 the extracts from
“(2 Clement,” ὁ. 4, 5; c. 5. 2-4; ὁ. 8, 5; ¢.12, 2, on pages 125-127 the extracts
from Justin Martyr, Dial. c. 35; Ὁ. 47; c. 51; c. 69; ὁ 88; ὁ 106. See several
also under the ‘‘ Clementine Homilies,’’ especially the references to III. 50, 53,
56; XII. 29; XVI. 21; XIX. 20.
2 See before, p. 82 and note. The words occur in Clem. Hom. II, 51;
III. 50; XVIII. 20; Const. App. II. 36, 37; Epiph. Haer. 44. 2; Orig. in Joann.
Tom. XIX. 2 (Opp. IV. 288)---ἐντοχὴ Ἰησοῦ; Dion. Alex. apud Eus. H. E. VII.
7. 5.-- ἀποστολικὴ φωνὴ ; Jerome, Ep. 119 (or 152) Salvatoris verba dicentis estote
probati nummularii. See Hilgenf., Ev. sec. Heb., p. 27.
3 See before, p. 108, Note 10.
PASSAGES OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN. 471
βάλετε ἑαυτοὺς ζύλῳ, λάβετε ἄμιτιελον" χιερῶτον μιὲν φυλλοροεῖ,
εἶτα βλαστὸς γίνεται, μετὰ ταῦτα ὕμφαξ, εἶτα σταφυλὴ wage-
στηχυΐα" οὕτως χαὶ ὃ λαός μου ἀκαταστασίας χαὶ ϑλίψεις ἔσχεν,
ἔγεξιτα ἀπολήψεται τὰ ἀγαϑά.
Ibid. xu. 2. See before, p. 108.
Thid. xx. 35. Moynuovevtery ve τῶν λόγων τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ
ὅτι αὐτὸς εἶσιε, Παχάριόν ἐστι διδόναι μᾶλλον ἢ λαμβάνειν.
Origen, De Orat. 2. (Migne, Vol. I. p. 417.) Εἶπε γὰρ ὃ
᾿Ιησοῖς τοῖς μαϑηταῖς αὐτοῦ" Αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα καὶ τὰ μιχρὰ
ὑμῖν προστεϑήσεται, χαὶ αἰτεῖτε τὰ ἐπουράνια χαὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια
σιροστεϑήσεται ὑμῖν. (Mat. vi. 33.)
Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. 24. p. 416. -Aireiode yao, φησὶ,
τὰ μεγάλα χαὶ τὰ μιχρὰ ὑμῖν τιροστεϑήσεται.
Cod. 1). Luke VI. 4 &c. (from Tisch. Gr. Test). Τῇ αὐτῇ ἣμέ-
og ϑεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῷ. ᾽.41»-
ϑρωτσίε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί ποιεῖς, μαχάριος εἶ" εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας,
ἐσιικατάρατος “AL παραβάτης τοῦ νόμου.
Id. ὧν Mat. xx. 28 &c. (from Tisch. Gr. Test). “Ὑμεῖς δὲ ζητεῖτε
ἐχ μειχροῦ αὐξῆσαι χαὶ 2x μείζονος ἔλαττον εἶναι. Εἰσερχόμε-
vou δὲ χαὶ παραχληϑέντες δειτινῆσαι μὴ ἀναχλείνεσϑαι εἰς τοὺς
ἐξέχοντας τόπους, μήποτε ἐνδοξότερός σου ἐπελϑῇ καὶ προσ-
ελϑωὼν ὃ δειτινοχλήτωρ etsy σοι. Ἔτι χάτω χώρει, χαὶ χατ-
αισχυνϑήση. Ἐὰν δὲ ἀνατιεσῆς εἰς τὸν ἥττονα τόπον, χαὶ ἐτιελϑῇ
σου ἥττων ἐρεῖ σοι ὃ δειτινοχλήτωρ᾽ Σύναγε ἔτι ἄνω, καὶ ἔσται
σοι τοῦτο χρήσιμον.
Justin Mart. Apol. I. 38. p. {1 12. See before, p. 63, Note 4.
Id. Dial. C. 101. p. 328 C. See before, p. 63.
Origen, Hom. in Jerem. XX. 3. (Migne, Vol. UI p. 531.)
Legi alicubi—quasi Salvatore dicente—et quaero sive quis per-
sonam figurarit Salvatoris, sive in memoriam adduxerit ac verum
sit hoc quod dictum est—ait autem ipse Salvator, “Qui juxta
me est, juxta ignem est: qui longe a me est, longe est a regno.”
JENA: PRINTED ΒΥ -ED. FROMMANN.
ERRATA.
Page 4, line 4, for & uobis, read uobis &.
n 6, w 10, insert comma after SC TANI E
un 14, » 9, for ἐπληφορήθημεν, read ἐπληροφορήθημεν.
n 18, » 18, un Ἰωάννου B’y’, " ᾿Ιωάννου a’B'y’.
ΠΡ πΠέΠοέσ os 1 Elceres:, Tom. ἵ Ὁ: 941; i Migne, II. 460.
". 26, » 8, u κρατυθεντα, " κρατυθέντα.
" 26, " 12, " Κλέοβιον, " Κλεύβιον.
n 44,n.2,1.7, 1 Rhosse, " Rhossus.
n 45, line 12, Tearepa, " Πατέρα.
" 40, " 12, " Κύριου, " Κυρίου.
" 46, " 13, " δυναμέων, " δυνάμεων.
". 51, "ν 2, omit comma after “ εὐαγγέλιον ”
Hote lo, jor Η-. HE. 111. 40, read H. EH. 111. 39.
n 54, 23, 1 ἑπιμαρτυρεῖ, " ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ.
πΠΠΠΠΠ 29, κ᾿ ‘°° Memorrs,” " AUTHORITIES.
n 62, » 4 ἡ ee ie eal Sie CITES HIS AUTHORITIES.
MeEmorrs, \
n 62,n.1,1,12, 1 words are found, " words were found.
n 64, line 7, after συντετάχθαι, insert γέγραπται.
un 64, » 14, for Dial. c. 106, read Dial. c. 105.
" 78, n. i Ib lias " ΤΙ: 20, " 111. 26:
" 75, line 12, insert period after ““ προτρέψασθαι"
προ Lo, for Strom. 171. 553; read IIT. 18. 91, 92, p. 553.
" 125, 1), ip Ib 5, " XVI. 2, " 215
n 126, n. 2, 1. 5, insert comma after ‘* Hebrews ”
" 127, τ. 5, 1. 8, after ‘* books,” substitute comma for colon.
n 134, line 2, for Strom. I, 409, read Strom. 7. 21, p. 409.
" 144, πη, 8,1. ὅ, » usages, " usage.
n 148, line 13, after Mat. xv. 28, add Hom. III. 50 (Mark xii. 24).
iets... jor Heres. IT. ὁ: read Heres. 11. t.
ΠΟ π 8, 1 ἢ. ΠΛ. LV, 49, " HT, Ἐ ΤΥ, 29;
n 162, » 16, 1 Ad Autolyc. IT. " Ad Autolyc. 11. 13.
" 173, 1 19, ιν ἕκαστον, " ἕκαστος.
n 173, ν' 20, add commas after ** καιροὺς " and ‘* wou”
" 174, " i Sor Hel B, read 77 D.
91
474
Page 184,
187,
197,
198,
199,
205,
267,
268,
ERRATA.
line 5 from bottom, for third,
". 16, ῶοὺ Πωγοδ. 1]. "
last line, for ἐγκεχείριστο, "
line 25, jor LETTER FROM, "
u 17, κ΄ ἔπεμψέν pe, "
" 29, " Kay, "
". 4, 5,
head-line, for SECOND TIMOTHY,
read fourth.
Heres. LITT.
ἐνεκεχείριστο.
LETTER OF.
ἔπεμψέ pe.
κἂν.
delete both lines.
read TITUS.
» 838, under Papias, the extract on p. 339 ought to be the first on p. 338.
1 338, line 16 from bottom, for come,
"00, π 1 OT Ῥ. 990,
" 408, « 17 from bottom, for p. 391,
" 408, n 14 " up. 994,
n 442, " 8, after ““ ζώντων,᾽ insert
" 445, head-line and line 1, for TESTAMENT,
n 452, line 7, jfor p. ὃ.
" 456, " 8, " Hebrew’s,
" 470, " 12, " Acts xi. 2-4,
read came.
" p- 394,
" p- 994,
Π p- 397.
Mark xii. 27.
read TESTAMENTS.
" p. 57.
" Hebrews.
" Clem. Rom. Ep. 2. ο. 11. 2-4.
Note.—After the first eight sheets (128 pp.) of the text were printed off, it was
resolved to give the references more minutely.
After that Clem. Alex. has the
references as in Dindorf, with Potter’s pages; and Epiphanius is given with minute
references to facilitate verification.
INDEX.
ABDIAS, Apostolical History by, evii
Abgar of Edessa, 1
Abraxas, li
Acts (Apocryphal) of Andrew and Matthias,
of Barnabas, of Bartholomew, of John,
of Matthew, of Paul and Thecla, of
Peter and Paul, of Philip, of Philip in
Hellas, of Thaddeus, of Thomas, cvi
Acts of the Apostles, 196-206
Acts of Pilate, ci, 173, 464
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria (Soc. H.
E. I. 6), 329
Alexandrian Church, 13 n.
Alford’s Comm., 272 n.
Alogi, cxi, 436-438
Anastasius Sinaita on Canon, 28 and n.
Andreas Cesar. on Gospels, 59; on Apocal.,
338
Andrew, Acts of, evi; Gospel of, ciii
Andrew and Matthias, Acts of, cvi
Anger’s Synop., 393 n., 404 et seq.
Anglican Articles on Canon, 40
Apelles, Gospel of, cili
Antoninus Pius, Ep. of, 367
Apocalypse, 336-358; note on, 357
Apocalypses, Apocryphal, cvii
Apocryphal Literature, xcvi (see Table of
Contents)
Apollinaris on Paschal controversy, xciii,
194; on Papias, 58
Apollonius on Apocal., 340
Apost. Constit. on Canon, 25 and n., 205
Apost. Fathers and Synoptists, 102-113
Apostolicon, Marcion’s, 409
Archelai Disput., 390 and n.
Arethas, @cumen., on Apocal., 338
Athanasius—
Ad Serap., Ep. 1. 299, 310, 325
Biogr. note, 131
Canon of, Festal Epistle, 13 and n., 284,
353 ;
Cont. Apollin., 310
Cont. Arian—Or. 1. 317, 353; Or. 2. 353;
Or. 3. 299; Or. 4. 325
De Decret. Nicen. Syn., 284
De 8. Trin., 317
Opp., tom. ii. 18. 299, 311, 317, 330
Synopsis ascribed to, 15 and n., 299, 311,
317; 353
, Athenagoras, Legatio—
5 UT, 191
. 181, 219
LG 2 191 226
. 202, 219
. 202, 235, 259
Z. 132
3. 146,
. 219
. 342
. 259
Aubé, 365 n.
Augustine, biogr. note, 22; Canon, 22; De
Consen. Evang., 142 n.
162
BARCABBAS, xlyvii n.
Baring-Gould’s ‘Lost and Hostile Gospels,’
456n.
Barnabas, Epistle of, i (see Table of Con-
tents)
2. 6. 168
4, 3, 14. 102
9, 222
οἶδ ens
5 By ΡΤ ΤΣ
1. 168
6. 272
7, 13. 168
95 12: 102; 103, 168
6, 7, 9. 169
15. 237
2, 9. 169
. 2. 196, 262
See re τας τ συ δο CTU σιν UH ES
476
Barnabas, Epistle of—continued.
ΤῸΣ 11: τοῦ
21. 2, 6. 170
21. 6. 251 n.
Barnabas, Gospel of, Apocr., cii
Bartholomew, Gospel of, cii ; Acts of, cvi
Basilides, xlvii (see Table of Contents), 173,
389 and n.
Baur—
Evangelien, Ixx, cx, 221n., 253n., 258n.,
365 n.
Gnosis, lxiv, 159 ἢ.
Bercea, Gospel in, Ixxi δέ seq.
Bleek, 221n., 272n., 280n., 282n., 285n.,
419 0.
Books rejected by Cath. Ap. Rom. Ch., 24
Bretschneider, cx
Briickner, 301 n., 312 n.
Bruns. Can. Apost., 20
Bryennios, ii, viii, ix n., xviii n., xxi n.
Bunsen’s ‘ Analect. Antenic.,’ 25 n., 26n., 95
Hippolytus, xlviii
Burgon’s Photograph, 150n., 152 n.
CalIUs, 1xxx, 210, 279, 343, 4361.
Canon Pasch., 345
Canon, Testimonies to, 18-41
Canones Eccles. qui dicuntur Apostolorum,
26
Carpocrates, 411 εἰ seg. and ἢ.
Carthage, Third Council of, Canon of, 20
Casparl, cxv ἢ.
Cassiodorus Inst. Div., 352
Cataphrygians, see Montanists
Catholic Epp., 289-291
Cave, Hist. Lit., 427 n.
Celsus, Ixxxiv, 369-378; biogr. note, 369
Cerinthus, 384
Christlieb on Tiibingen School, xcv ἢ.
Chrysostom on Canon, 23; Hom. vi, 379
Clement of Alex., Ixxxi (see Table of Con-
tents)
Adumbr. in Pet., 147, 202, 277
Do. 2 Jno., 328
Do. Jude, 332
Pedag. I. 5. 240
6. 229, 246, 307
8. 220
ΠῚ 19: 955
ΠῚ. 11: 555
44. 332
Ν- 19. 252
Strom. I. x, 134, 250, 252, 263, 267
Il. 259, 263, 278, 322, 416, 452,
463, 470
IIL. 75, 129, 146, 147, 162, 226, 227,
235, 260, 263, 296, 332, 390
and n., 431, 468, 469, 470,
471
IV. x, 232, 240, 246, 289, 296, 307,
391, 419, 420
V. 202, 254, 452
VI. 250, 277, 296, 342, 468
VII. 50, 51, 417, 464
Clementine Homs., Ixiii (see Table of Con-
tents)
INDEX.
Clem. Hom. IT. 148, 438, 439
ΤΙ. 134, 148, 163, 184, 203, 439-
a
- 135, 103, 4¢
IX. 163, be ie
XI. 164, 184, 443
. and XVI. 443
- 164, 443
- 135, 444
. 135, 148, 164, 184, 236, 241,
_ 444
Clem. Recog., Ixiv, 204
Clement of Rome, viii (see Table of Con-
tents)
Ep. I. 2. 1. 196
5. 5. 209, 230
7 5} 255
Sh ὩΣ, ΡΞ,
10: 1. 273, 292
12. 1. 292
13. 2. 104, 155
Lore TOS τὴν
16. 1. τῆι ms, 243
If. des 5. 275; 2: 20a ἡ τὶ
18. 1. 196
19. 1, 273
20. 4. 222
29273
23. 1. 292
24. 1, 5. 225
29, 1. 256
30. 1. 293, 302
31. 2. 170, 293
32. 1. 215
34. 8. 222
θ0. ς Dre
36. 2. 273
37. 4, 222
38. 1, 4. 251; 2. 215, 293, 302
43. 6. 170 ‘
45. 2. 273
46. 8. τοῦ; 1555 ὃς: 239: (aos
AQ. 1, 6. 571; 523; 55: 2 Ξ
ΟΣ 2. 30250. 155
Gil) 1. 505
Ep. II. xviii. (see Table of Contents)
II. 1. 196; 8. 216
1. 233; 2. 65 0.3 ἘΞ τοῦ ἢ Ἐπ᾿
266
3
4,
5. 2-4. 107
6, 1. τοῦ; 155. δ᾽ 274) Θ᾽ ΤῈ
8: Ds Τοῦ, 255
9. 8. 229; ὃ. Ἴ71: “: 230 hoa
2743; 7. 223
- 108, 468
313; 4. 303
» 107) fegge
ARES oe
. 6. 256 4
Epistles ascribed to Clem. Rom., xxiii
238
μι
~~
SOROS COS a ἐπιὸν OK
INDEX. 47
Cod, Alex., Canon of, viii, ix, 23
Cod. es Canon of, 27 and n.
Cod. D.,
Cod. sin Canon of, ii, xxv, 12
Cod. Vat., Canon of, 12
Colossians, Ep. to, 247-250
Conf. Basil. Posterior on oe 37
Conf. Bohcem. on Canon,
Conf. Fid. Gallic. or La ἘΠ 38 and n.
Conf. Helvet. Prior, 37
Conf. Helvet. Posterior, 38
Conf., Old Scottish, 39
Conf. Westminst., 40
Conf. Wirtemberg, 4o n.
Consummation of Thomas, cvi
Corinthians, 1 Ep. to, 222-229
" Ep. to, 230-232
Cotterill’s ‘Peregrinus Proteus,’ 65
n., 368 n.
Councils—Laod., 18; Carth., 20; Trullan,
27n.,29; Trent, 20n., 30; Jerus., 33 n.,
n., 218
34
Cramer’s Catena, 241, 338
Credner, 18 n.; Gesch., Ixxx, Ixxxiv, 24 n.,
27 N., 28N., 300., 307 n., 466 n.; Bei-
trage, Ixiv n., Ixvii
Curetonian Syriac, 2 ἢ.
Cureton, Ignatius, xxvii
Cyprian—
Adv. Jud., 1. 20. 282
De bono patient., 309, 325, 350
De eleemos., 350
De exhort. mart., 11. 282
De Her. Baptiz., 329
Ep. 28 (al. 25) 324
Ep. 58 (al. 56) 309
Ep. 63, 350
Ep. 69 (al. 76) 324
Cyril of Jer., xx; Canon of, 19, 299, 353;
Catech., 139
Cyril Lukar on Canon, 33 and ἢ.
DAMASUS, 24
Davidson’s ‘Introduction to N. T.,’ xciii,
Cix, I56N., 221 N., 239 N., 253 N., 303 Nn.
Descent of Christ to the under world, ci
Dillmann, 333 n.
Dindorf, 427 n.
Diognetus, Ep. to—
3. 198
4. 234
5. 226, 230, 245
7. 179
9. 127, 217, 306
10. 179, 321
11. 65 and n., 179, 257
12. 226
Dionysius of Alex., Ep. ad Basil, 86, 185,
345 (Hus. H. EB. VI. 41)
Dionysius of Corinth, 44 and ἢ. (Kus. H. E.
IV. 23)
Docetz, 425 et s
Donaldson’s Apostolical Fathers, iii, viin.,
xvi ., xxiv, Xxv, xxxiv, xxx
" ‘Christian Literat.,’65n., 66n.,
179 1ι., 194 N.
-τ
Donaldson in ‘ Theol. Rev.,’ viii n.
Dosithei Conf., 34
Dressel on Ignatius, xxix, xxxvii; Clemen-
tines, ]xiv
Drummond on John and Justin, cix n., 178
Due vie, vel Judicium Petri, rn.
EASTER, date of, 13 n.
Ebedjesu catal. libr. Syr., 3
Ebionites, Ixix, 431 et seg. ; Gospel of, Ixxiv
Eichhorn, 394 1
Ellicott (Cambridge Kssays), Ixxvii ἢ.
Encratites, Gospel of, ciii
Enoch, Book of, vii n.
Ephesians, Epistle to, 237-242
Epiphanius, biogr. note, 95; Canon of, 21
and n., 165, 285, 299, 353; on Quarto-
decim., 195
Heer, I. 2. 2. 335
24. 301
26. 284
28. 384
29. 455
30. 139, 412, 434, 456 et seq.,
459, 461, 463
31. 299
33. 423 et seq.
34, 330
36. 420
42. 241, 285, 397, 400, 408
51. 95-98, 139, 149, 165, 186,
187, 290, 354; 355, 436 et seq.
54. 429
29, 44. 403
34, 35, 40. 404
47, 48, he 53. 405
58-61.
63, 64, ΕΣ 407
Epistles,” in general, 207 (Eus. H. E, III. 3)
Esdras, vii ἢ.
Essenes, lxxvi
Eusebius—
Ad Marinum, 151
Canon of, το, 164, 185, 206, 453 (H. E.
III. 25)
Canon, as whole, views of, ro n.
Chron. ad A. 2 et 3 Claud., xxviii n., xli,
148
Givers ad A. 14 Domit. 186
Chron. ad Olymp., 53
De Eccles. Theol. III., 299
De Martyr Pal., 283
Dem. Evang., ΤΙ]. 8. go et seg. ; 149, 298;
8. 352; V. 3. 283, 329
478
Eusebius—continued.
Onomasticon, Ixx
Prep. Evang., 283
Theophan., IV. 12. 453, 459, 461
Hist. Eccl. I. 7. 137, 163 (Jul. Afric.)
12. 298
13. 1
11. 1. 298
2. 465
16. 149
17. 205, 283
22. 211, 264
23. 127, 199, 290, 298
25. 212
171. 3. 207, 211, 283, 290, 298,
310, 317
4, 164, 206, 265, 310
18. 353
20. 127
23. 184, 186
24. 87 et seq., 185, 352
25. 8 n., 298, 310
27. 432, 453
28. 343
29. 353
32. 258
94. xn.
90; Ε3» ΣΤᾺ on
37. 65, 283
39. Clem. Rom., x ; Papias,
τ ἢ τ τὸ , ΤΟΥ;
305, 321, 352, 461
40. 54 et seq., 451
"67 πὸ 7 Len
7. 389, 391
9. 365
11. 394
14, 305
18. 339
22. 2n., 128, 451
23. Dion. of Corinth, ix, 44,
197
24. 342
26. Melito, 43
29. Tatian, 210
49, 162
. 158, 180, 218, 257, 306,
321, 340
2. 198, 306, 340
3. 245, 257
4, 159 n.
6. x
8. 670., 71 0., 322
10, Pantenus, 133
13. 397 ;
18. Apollonius, 340
6
. 4
22. 23. Pasch. Controv.,
189-192
26. 276
31. 183
VI. 13. 277
14. 74 et seqg., 184, 277, 289,
290, 296, 307, 322
17. 433
19. 378
INDEX.
Eusebius— continued.
Hist. Eccl. VI. 20. 210, 279
25. 8:6 8δη:, 87 De, 150} ΤΠ
163, 205, 290
41. 282
VII. 10. 345
24. 346
25. 185, 290, 324, 346, 436
FaBrRicius, Cod, Apoc., Ixix n., xeviii n.,
xcix n., 456 n.
Firmilian, Ep. ad Cypr., 317
Fleischer, 148 ἢ.
Formula Concord. on Canon, 36
Fourth Gospel, cviii (see Table of Contents)
Froude, J. A., 1xxxiv ἢ.
GALATIANS, Ep. to, 233-236.
Gebhardt and Harnack, ‘ Pat. Apost.,’ vin.,
ΤΣ Τὶς ΝΣ τὶς; ΧΙ IGA κεν,
Gelasius on Canon, 23 and n.
Gieseler, ‘Ch. Hist.,’ 434 n.
Glaucias, xlix, xcix
Gloag, Rev. Dr, 209 n., 237 n., 255n.
Godet, cxi n., cxii n.
Gospel, Apocryphal, of Andrew, Barnabas,
Bartholomew, Judas _ Iscariot,
Judas Thaddeus, Matthias,
Peter, Philip, Thomas, Twelve
Apostles, cii and notes
" of Eve, of Perfection, of Seth, of
Truth, ciii and notes
" of the Ebionites, Ixxiv
" of the Egyptians, xxii, Ixxvi, 468 e¢
seq.
" of James, c, 464 et seq.
" of the Hebrews, lxviii (see Table of
Contents), xliv, 451-463 ; Ebionite
form, 456 e¢ seq.
" of Nicodemus, ci
" of Peter, 466 et seq.
Gospels, 53-101
" extra-canonical, 451-469
Greg. Nazian., carm. 33. 318
Greg, W. R., ‘ Enigmas of Life,’ xcviii
HADRIAN to Min. Fid., 364; to Servianus,
366
Harmonies, ciii
Harnack, Zeit des Ignatius, xxviii
Heathen, testimonies of, 361-379
Hebrews, Ep. to, 272-288
Hefele, iv n., viii n., Ixxxiv, 27 n, 95 n. ~
Hegesippus, Ixxvii (see Table of Contents),
She ἢ.) 127 et seq., 227; Phot. Cod.,
I2
Heracleon, 419-422
Heretics, testimonies of, 383-446; tabular
lists of, 447
Hermas, xxiv (see Table of Contents)
Mand. I. 1. 109, 143
II. 2. 294, 303
TiVo. aleerog
Wo τες:
IX. 1. 294
8. 109
IND
Hermas—continued.
Mand. X. 2. 5. 238
=e
XII.
be
Sim. V.
I
. 303 (cf. ix, 14. 6)
aS
Oo
Ito
Vis. I.
Il.
Ill.
Ce: PRO or Su
2 i oe aes
303
μι
με
x
τ τὼ eae pe ke ike
10 337
1. 337
- 4. 303, 337
6. 109
. 4. 303, 313
Hermas and Ἐν pse, 336 n.
Hesse, Ixxx, Ixxxi
Hilary (Ps. ec and de Trin.), 355
Hilgenfeld, i n., ii, iv n., ix n., 159 n.,
22297 ἢ: 301 π΄. 305 π΄, 393 0.,
402, 403, 404, 406, 408, 456 1.., 459 1.
Barnabas, ii, ix n.
Clem. Rom., xix, xx
Einleitung, Ixxx
Kritische Untersuchungen, Ixiv, Ixvi, Ixvii
N. T. extra-Can. Rec., i n., iv n., Ixviii,
evii
Pat. Apost. Proleg., xxv
Hippolytus on Apocalypse, 345
Cont. Her. Noeti, 147
Ref. Omn. Her.—
. 385 et seq.
. 19, 23, 26. 389
. 16, 17, 21. 388
. 383
. 14, 16, 19. 384
. 94, 35. 417
VII. 1
. li, 391, 392
- 173, 399, 393
EX. 479
ἘΠΡΡΟΙ ΤΕ Ref. Omn. Her.—continued.
VII. 34. 432
. 419
. 425
. 425
. 419, 426
. 192
- 434
. 419
- 397
2 Bez
20. 429
cis τὰ ἅγια Θεοφ., I
περὶ ἀναστάσ., 279
περὶ τῆς συντελ. τ. κόσ., 280, 296
περὶ χαρισμ., 147
Holtzmann, 159}.
Hormisdas, 24
Hort, lii, 420n., 424 n.
ALDI:
47
IGNATIUS, xxvi (see Table of Contents)
Eph. 8, 16. 224
| 110
. 256
. II, 320
239
> ASE aren:
. 338
- LET, 17Ὲ
7 LETS 71: 516
. 216
. 196
- 239
8. 172
ah asia
10. 224
Mart. Ig. 2. 112
Philad. 2. 172, ΝΣ 239, 251
“2.
Magn.
and 9, 224
172
III, 216
III, 451, 462
7. 43
112
10. 262
Il. 225, 243
8. ie
i
Smyrn.
ρου SUCS eat SOUS URS FE SOOO ON
Trall.
Glustification of quotations, xxx
Irenzus and Hippolytus on Basilides, lili
Ireneus, I. 1. 257, 259
3. 1, 4,5. 416
2. 414
415
. 45, 414
45
414
. 420
» 397, 425
90 00 (5. 0 99 O9
90 4 09 σὺ UES
415
480
INDEX.
Treneus—continued.
ΠῚ
II.
ΤῸ:
Boos
N
μ
Ne No same ope ΘΛ κττὸ τ τ πα
Ὁ
ον
a
1. 413
. 8. 408
. 1. 432
. 1. 424
. ὃ. 266, 328
1,2, 4 411, 459
412
. 2. 431, 452
. 2. 394, 408
. Pref., 2. 413, 422
. 4
- 66, 145, 159, 182
. 3, X, 263
ae XXXiv, 182, 266
2. 46
235
231, 252
235
129
130
162
145
183
. 67, 145, 182, 395, 414, 432,
NIH DH Ὁ καὶ DO Hoe
452
. 8. 68, 69, 435, 436
. 9. 229, 414
. 12. 414
. 12. 397, 408
. 1. 67, 200, 249, 263, 397
. 1. 432
. 2. 130
: ἘΞ ὩΣ gt, 235
Bist 323, 328
8. 2
pb tb
. 4. 245
. 2. 307
. 4, 276
. 4, 225
. 2. 295
. 5. 307
ΠῚ ΠΥ ΤΟΣ
"518. 2956
μι
to
Ὸ
σι
Treneus—continued.
V. 30. 3. 341
33. 3. 53, 2
36. 1, 2. λον 167, I
Ep. ad Florin, XXxiv, 46 rant it. E. V. 20)
JACOBI, xviii n.
James,
Gospel of, or Protevangel, c; Hp.
of, 292-300
Jerome on Gospel of Hebrews, Ixx et seq.;
Canon of, 21;
; Ep. Il. ad Paulin, 165,
187, 287, 291, ᾿ 308, 831τ| 326, 355
Adv. Jovin., I. 26. 1
Tl.
188, 256
3. 435
Biogr. note, 99
Com.
in Is., 140, 165, 171, 287, 356, 454,
455, 458, 462, 463
Ezech., 455, 458
Dan., 188
Hos., 140
Mic., 453
Mat. Proem., 74, 99, 187, 430,
454, 461, 462, 469
Mat. Prolog., 140, 287
John, Pref. ad Damas, ror, 140
Ep. to Gal., 288
Ep. to Eph., 242, 453, 458
Ep. to Philem., 270
Ep. to Titus, 260, 267, 287, 335
De Vir. Ill. (or Catal. Script. Eccles.)
μι
149, 311
. 299, 454, 462
213, 286
165, 166, 206
149
. 187, 326, 330, 339, 355
274
451, 462
. 57 (Papias), 330
. 340
. 74
. 133 (Panteenus)
. 467
. 210
+ 345
730
Dial.
Ep. ad Algas.,
352
11. adv. Pelag., 152, 455, 460
74, 246
Damas. Ep. 20. 140, 261
145. 166
Dardan., 287, 355
Evag., 330
Hedib., 440, 150, 152, 511, 45o4
462
iaieaas 5 ls ΕΒ
Theodoram, 53
Epist. Canon. (Prolog. 7), 290, 311
Pref. in Codd. Antiq., 188
Jerusalem, Council of, on Canon, 34
John, Acts of (Apocr. ἡ,
Gospel οἵ, cviii igen Fourth Gospel),
167-195
» in Ephesus, note on, xlv
INDEX.
John of Damascus, xxi
Jones on the Canon, cvin.
Josephus, 94.
Judas Iscariot, Gospel of, cii
Judas Thaddeus, Gospel of, cii
Jude, Ep. of, 331-335; note on, 331
Julius Atric., 137 (see Hus. H. E. I. 7)
Julius Cassianus, 431
Justin Martyr, 1111 (see Table of Contents)
Apol. I.
Il.
4,
. 176
sang
» τας
Srr6..0495 156
. 31, 61, 117, £56
PELGOS 225
. 22)
114
22, 23. 176
26. 393 et seq.
. 144, 176, 321
. OI, 157
-177
- 118, 177, 275
. 60, 62, 177
6.
I
77
De Resurrect., 1. 178
Dial.
7. 244
9. 178, 245
. 258
. 60
» ea
. 39, 41. 226
5 us)
. 198
» 21. 217
125
Ole 126) 217, 267
- 177
. 62, 118, 198
. 63. 177
. 198
Ἐ τοῦ, 177
- 110, 157
. 120 et 86η., 464
. 158
. 61, 122, 126, 143, 158, 178
i123
. 234
. 158, 321
. 123
. 60, 63, 123, 158, 248
. 63, 471
. 124
» 59, 63, 124, 158
481
Justin Martyr—continued.
Dial. 104. 61
105. 61, 64, 124, 178
106. 61, 64, 127, 143
107. 64, 124
110. 253
111. 226
113. 321
114, 178
118. 198
122. 124
123. 178
125. 125
138. 250
Exposit. Fid., 15, 178
Orat. ad Gent., 5. 234
Juvenal, Sat. viii. 235. 362 n.
Kerrm, Aus dem Urchr., xxxiv n., 365 ἢ.
u Celsus, 369 n.
" Gesch. Jes., vin.
τ Wess val Naz.) Χν ΣΙΝ ΟΣ, Ἴ76 ΤΠ’
364 n., 369 n.
Kimmel, 33 n.
Kleuker, lxix n., xcviii n., 456 ἢ.
Krenkel, xlv
LACTANTIUS, Instit. iv., 52, 352
Lagarde, 38, 279 n., 345 n.
Laodicea, Council of, on Canon, 18
Lardner, v n., 42 0., 44 0., 95 π΄, 364 π΄;
409, 430 Π.; 436 n., 456 ἢ.
Lee, Dr R., lxi n.
Letter of Christians of Vienne and Lyons,
158 and n., 180 (Hus. H. Εἰ. V. 1, 2, 3.)
Leucius (Lucius) Charinus, evii
Lightfoot (Clement, viii, xix n., xxi, 456 n.;
Ignatius, xxvii, xxix ; Papias, xli; Silence
of Eusebius, xliii), 168; Philip., 209;
Gal., 227, 432 ἢ.
Lipsius, xxxvi n., lxivn., Ixx, 424 n., 432 n.,
436 0, 447
Lucian, De Morte Pereg., lv, 368; biogr.
note, 368
Liicke, 319 n., 333 n., 338 n.
Luke, Gospel of, 154-166
Luke for Lucanus, 164 n.
Luthardt, John, 1111, cxi
Lutheran testimony on Canon, 36
Liitzelberger, cix
MANICHFES, Gospel of, ciii
Mansel’s ‘ Gnosticism,’ 384 n.
Marcion, xxxvii, 393-410; notes on, 75 and
393 et seq.; his Gospel examined, 400-
408; Ep., 408-410 ; Apostolicon, 409
Marcus, 424 et seq.
Mark, Gospel of, 141-153; evidence on c. 16,
9-20, 150 et seq.
Martial, lib. x. Epig. 25, 362
Martyrdom of Polycarp, xl
Matthew, Acts of (Apocr.), evi
Matthew, Gospel of, 114-140
Matthias, Gospel of (Apoer.), cii
Melito, xci, 2n., 43; orat. to Anton. Cesar,
314
482
Methodius, 351
Meyer on Acts, 163 n.
Migne, ‘ Dict. des ‘Apocryphes,’ ΧΟΥΠῚ
Mill, N. T., 2n., 297n.
Monoimus, "425 D.
Montanists, 434-436
Montanus, biogr. note, 434
Muratorian Canon, xxv, xliv, Ixxix (see
Table of Contents), 3.-8. 182, 199, 211,
218, 227, 231, 234, 321
NAASSENES, 385
Nazarenes, ixix, 431
New Testament, as a whole, 42-52
Nicephorus on Canon, 29, 455 0.
Nicholson’s Gosp. of Hebrews, Ixxvii, 453 n.
456 n., 459 0. ;
Nicodemus, Gospel of, ci
Nicolas, ‘ Evangiles Apocryphes,’ cv
Niemeyer, 37 n., 38 ἢ
Norton, ‘ Genuineness of the Gospels,’ xiii,
lxin., 362 n.
(EcuUMENIUS and Arethas on Apocal., 338
Oehler, ‘O. T. Theol.,’ 84 n.
Old Cath. Union on Canon, 32 and n.
Ophites, 385
Origen, Ixxxiii (see Table of Contents)
Canon of, 8 (Hus. H. E. VI. 25), 185, 308
Com. in Mat., 136, 185, 264, 269, 324,
384, 344, 454
Mk.,
Com. in gone: 83 e¢ seg., 136, 163, 185,
281, 290, 297, 309, 317, 324, 344, 397,
420, 431, 452, 463
Com. in Ep. ad Rom., 163, 221, 281, 282,
290, 297, 316, 334, 301
Cont. Cals. 1. 9, 32. 377
28. 371, 377
38, 58, 62. 372
40. 369
41, 63. 374
50. 375
63. 290
66. 373
67, 70. 376
II. 18, 15, 26. 370
18. 374
24, 45. 373
27. 370, 417
31, 36, 49. 376
32, 48, 59, 63. 375
74. 370
20. 211
a7
64. 377
. 205
12. 377
16. 373
42. 378
VIII. 24. 378
De Orat., 136, 281, 290, 323, 471
De Princip., 2. 309
3. 241, 334
4. 460, 467
INDEX.
Origen—continued.
Dial. de recta fide, 163, 317
Ep. ad Afric. , 205, 280
Hexapl. in Ps. ii. » 205
Hom. on Gen. xiii. » 51 et seg., 163, 308
Hom. on Josh. vii, 52, 163
Levit., 316
Numb., 281, 316
Jer. xv. > 453, 4713 ἘΠΕῚ, 269
Hom. in Lk., 81, 163 (Eus. Η. τ VI. 25),
185, 390, 469
In libr. Jes. Nave, 317
Selecta in Gen., 185
Exod., 298, 316
Selecta in Ps. iii,
XXXVI., 297
Sum of testimony, 9 n.
Otto’s Justin, 364 n.
Overbeck, 365 n.
290, 309; Xxx. and
PAMPHILUS on Apocal., 352
Pantenus, 133 (Hus. H. E. V. 10 and Jer.
Vir. Ill. 36), 277
Papias, xli (see Table of Contents), 53-59,
114, 141, 167 (Hus. H. E. III. 39), 338
Parchor, xlvii n.
Paschal controversy, Ixxxv (see Table of
Contents), 189-195; chronicle, xliii n.,
59, 193-195
Passages of unknown origin, &c., 470 et seq.
Pastoral Epp., 255 0.
Paul, Epp. of, in general, 209-214
Paul and Theela, Acts of, evi, 180, 199, 236
Peratze, 388
Peshito, 1, 2 n., 199, 210, 218, 227, 231, 234
Peter and Paul, Acts of (Apocr.), evi
Peter, 1 Ep., 301-311; 2 Ep., 312-318
Peter, Gospel of (Apocr.), cii
Peter, Preaching of, xiv
Philaret, Cat. of Eastern Ch. on Canon, 34
Philastrius, De Her., 399, 438
Philemon, Ep. to, 269-271
Philip, Acts of, ον]
Philip, Gospel ‘of (Apocr.), cii
Philip in Hellas, Acts of, cvi
Philippians, Ep. to, Bea
Photius Biblioth.,
Pilate, Acts of (see hcl of Pilate)
Pius 16-oh Pope, decree of, ci
Pliny, Ep. to Trajan, ay 362
Plumptre, 164.n., 166
Polycarp, ie (see Table of Contents)
Philipp., . LOZ
» 239, 304
244, 304
225, 305
. 216, 230
216
234
PPD τι συ φιης 99.99 99 BOO κι μι
90 5 [πὶ C9 PO πὶ EH Go POP DO τὶ GO Bo
to
iS)
xe)
to
σι
ἊΣ
INDEX.
Polycarp—continued.
Philipp., 7. 1. 320, 328
Os 2
Classification of Polycarp’s
XXxix
EOC Martyrdom of—
if
quotations,
Classification of quotations in, xl
Polycrates, 183 (Eus. H. Εἰ. V. 31)
Porphyry, 378
Possini, Catena Pat., 129 n.
Prepon, 425
Presbyters, testimony of, cviiin., 71 et seq.,
218 ; 1 Cor., 226 (Ireen. adv. H. IV. 27)
Protevan. Jac. (See Gospel of James)
‘ Princeton Review,’ viii. n.
Pseudo-Origen, 396
Pseudo-Tertullian, 434 n.
Ptolemzus, 422-424; Let. to Flora, 423 et
seq.
QUADRATUS on Gospels, 66
" Proconsul, xxxv
Quartodecimans, xciiin., xciv, &c.
REFORMED Conf. on Can., 37 εἰ seq.
Rénan, ‘ L’Eglise Chrétienne,’ li, 365 n.,
384 n.
Responsiones ascribed to Polycarp, 53 n.
Reuss, Gesch. xxv, lxxxiii, Ixxxiv, 32n., 4on.,
104 0. Ε 1420., 221 ἢ... 237 N., 247 0.
Ritschl, 404 e¢ seq.
Roberts’s ‘ Discussions,’ Ixx, ]xxi, 456 n.
" ‘ Bible of our Lord,’ exv
Reensch, 393 n.
Romans, Ep. to, 215-221
Routh’s ‘ Rel. Sac.,’ cviiin., 86, 167, 390
Ruinart, xxvii n.
Sanpay on Mark, xliv; on John, cix, cxi,
390 1.; 393N., 401, 407, 418 n.
Saturnilus, 425 n.
Schaff, 30 n. > 32D., 340., 36n., 38.
Schisms and heresies, predictions of, xv, 125
Schleiermacher, 154 n., 257 n.
Scrivener, 1n., 137 0.
Scythianus, ciiin.
Semler, xevi, 394 n.
Seneca, Ep. 14. 362n.
Servianus, 366 n.
Sibylline Oracles, ivn., xx, Ixxxii
Simon Magus, 383
483
Simonians, Gospel of, ciii
Sinker, 445 n.
Sirach, vii ἢ.
Smith of Jor danhill, 154 n.
Smith’s ‘ Dict. of Christian Biog.,’ 420 ἢ.
Speaker's Commentary, 142 n., 393 n.
Stanley on Corr., 209 n.
Stieren’s ‘ Irenzus,’ 129 n., 389 ἢ.
Strauss, cx
Stroth, lv
Suetonius, Claud. and Nero, 364
‘Supernatural Religion,’ xlix n., li,
Ixxvill, 441., 154 0., 392n.,
403, 414 ., 422n., 456 ἢ.
Symmachus, 432
Syriac Version (see Peshito)
lxxvii,
393 N., 401,
Tacitus, Ann., xv, 44, 361
Tatian, 72 (Eus. H. E. iv. 29); 129 (Clem.
Alex. Strom. III.); 162 (Eus. ἯΙ ἘΣ
IV. 40) ; (Orat. ο. Greec.), 162, 180, 202
227, 229, 249
Tertullian, biogr. note, 46
Adv. Mare. I. 1, 19. 395
ΤΙ. 29. 395
343
1. 49, 410
2. 75, 162, 184, 396
3. 77
4. 78, 397, 408
5. 79, 148, 163, 184, 343
6. 395, 397
19. 4
26
- 402
, 27, 28. 403
35. 405
39. 406
43. 407 et seq.
V. 1. 408
2. 203, 236
3. 409
9. 134
ἘΠῚ 21
14, 2211. !
Ill. 14.
IV.
410
21. 260, 268 et seq.
Adv. Prax. 13. 221
15. 50, 323
23. 184
25. 323
27. 308
Adv. Valent. 4. 423
Apologet. 21.
De Bapt. 10.
de
De Car. Christi 1.
2
7. 402
20, 22. 1
De Corona 6. 4
De Cult. Fem.
De Jejun. ie
De Monog. 50)
De Orat. 8.
484
Tertullian—continued.
De Pudicit. 1: 232, 260
20.
De Preser. Her. x
6
38. 48 et seq.,
De Res. Carn. 23. 246, 250
24, 252, 254
47. 246
De Virg. Vel. 17. 307
Scorp. 12. 246, 308, 323
13. 220, 254, 264
08
184, 395, 417
+ 30
Test. of Twelve Patriarchs, Ixix, 445 et
seq.
Testimonies, oldest, to a collection, 1-17.
Thaddeus, Acts of (Apocr.), cvi
Theodas (Theododes), xcix
Theodoret (Tatian), Her. Fab. I. 20, 73
T. 24. 399
II. (Hus. H. BE. TV. 29), 455, 468
Arg. in Ep. to Heb., 284 e¢ seq.
Theodoti Epitom. 6. 426
10. 4
12, 14, 49. 2 se, 44, 49, 85,
86. 428
Theodotus, 426-429, 426 n.
Theophilus of Antioch, 73 and n.
Ad Autolye. I. 2. 229, 231
7. 231, 240
13. 229
14, 220
II. 2. 246
Ὁ. 19. 305
16. 240, 267
17. 245
22. 162, 182, 249
28. 240, 342
ΠΕ
15:12. 132, 220, 259
Thessalonians, 1 Ep. to, 251, 252
u 2 Ep. to, 253, 254
INDEX.
Thilo’s Cod. Apoc., 393 ἢ.
Thomas, Acts of (Apoer.), ci, evi
" Gospel of (Apocr.), evi
ena, 1 Ep. to, 255-261
Ep. to, 262-265
Titus, Ep. to, 266- 268
Tischendorf, 2 Ὡ., 12n., 28n., 403; Hvang.
Apoc., xcix ὯΝ 156 n., τη πὸ; ΝΟΥ,
Test., 221 n.
De Evan. Apocr. Orig., xcvi, ev
Tract. Schab., xvi, 470
Trajan, xxvn., 364
Tregelles, Can. Mur., lxxxn.
Trent, Council of, on Canon, 30 e¢ seg.
Trullan Council on Canon, 29
Tiibingen School, xvii
Twelve Apostles, Gospel of, ciii
Twelve Patriarchs, Testaments of, 445
UuLHoRN, Die Homilien, lxii n., lxiv n.,
Ixvi n., Ixvii
Ur-Evangelium, lv
Usher, xxvii
VALENTINIAN quotation, examples of, 415
et seq.
Valentinus, 413 e¢ seq. and n.
Version, Old Latin, 2, 199, 210, 218, 227,
231, 234
Victorinus Petav. on Apocal., 351
Volkmar, lxivn., Ixxx, 307 ἢ., 393 ἢ.) 404,
407, ‘408, 436 n.
Voss, xxvii
WADDINGTON on Polycarp, xxxv
Weiss, 313 n.
Weizsicker, cxiii
Westcott, 28n., 30n., 218n., 280}., 323 n.,
33 0., 418 N., 4190}.
Wieseler’s ‘Christenverfolgungen,’ xxviii,
XXXIV, ΧΧΧΥΪ, 113 N., 258N., 365 ἢ:
un Synopsis, lxxxvi
Wittichen, cix n., cx, cxi, cxii
Wordsworth on Polyearp, xxxiv
York, Archbishop of, 393 ἢ.
ZAuN’s ‘Tgnatius,’
368.
" ‘Pat. Apost.,’ xxvii, xxxiv
Zeller, 154 n.
xxvii τ, Xxix, XXXVI,
i woah ιν
aig:
rate
a
ἐπ Pe ar tats ’
= Pry. ty F
eas
bake erent dad Sd fal
ba Beat ody ahd Ν᾽ hats ale inet 1 pier
‘ ῃ ‘ ie) y
i | bite ,
ΜΗ
andes dee ΚΡ ΚΡ Εν
με ΜΊΑΝ δ εὐ δὴν
ΝΗ
BS2320 .C48 ΠΑ ett Hy
Canonicity : a collection of early {
Coboltah ere “με week
oh pie Bib
Aten ete
Heb Fog ih eh of
Ol abt ddl ta)
Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library
ΥΩ ᾿ ἘΠ ἡ ἐν ἘΠ} ΔΉ ἔ " ᾿
phx deli ins oe mie ᾿ de { ί ’ iy ial
1 1012 00051 0570 ἢ Di ᾿
He aid elie bd θυ
Ν tf ! ΠῚ 4 vit i
Ἂν ᾽ i " i ἰ ἵ
Ἢ» " ‘ ε
͵ " it iH ;
i. * Γ \/
Ped i dhe Π Ἵ
᾿ + ᾿
" s i
4 δίς ᾿ ‘ ᾿ f
©
ie:
x
: Ν ὶ
10a) Pippa δῷ aa μὲ x νὴ i ι- '
᾿ ὴ hye ἢ ‘
HS age Ἂ ἮΝ ᾿
bah itithe ᾧ ΝῊ “ἢ: ο ν.
ΕΝ ‘ : i ἣ ὶ {
ny unt
ΠΝ ‘ ‘ ν
ἜΗΝ, inne i
¥ v ᾿ ῃ ᾿ \
Veter ' sae | ἈΠ
i ἌΝ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ i
‘ vib ι ‘ i} \ ,
εἶ i \ ᾿
iebm WA ete ΜΉΝ es ery ! ὅτι : ΤῊ: "
τη" ὯΝ Νὰ er ie as asa Be} eat | ᾿ ᾿ ὙΠ i ΩΝ ἢ 1
. ech (alent Γ᾽ betel ϊ ᾿ ‘ ᾿ ; Ἷ ἡ
> ᾿ ΚΡ αὐ γἰ εὖ εἰ οὐ εὐ εὐ ee οἱ ἡ εὐ ἡ νὰ ΠῚ ' ‘ τ τ νον ν ) i!
PM ἐγ δ, ΗΝ: ΠΝ, wit i ᾿ Ἷ | '
ΠΥ ὙΜΉΝ ᾿ ᾽ : ν : 4 \
b ia ΠΥ Netieuta rari tne "ἦν τὶ. habe Gob dy ᾿ " ΤΠ ibs ᾿
᾿ Hebe bE ὦ od 1 Viained ἢ ἢ et " νι ᾿ :
‘ ΠΥ ἢ N { aati Hi ah a
we ὁ ἢ ὁ εὐ ἥν Ἢ Ἦν . δὰ ‘ 1 Ἢ ἵ ᾿
ΠΡ te te eet ἜΝ ν. ¥ ἊΝ WR Gey Lahey ' ἢ
ΝΗ, , ᾿ δ τὸν πάν σοὺ ἢ ΡΝ Ber ι. Ml