"ἧι at Ἶ

᾿ rt Ws i

ER ee Ra bee i fi # Hy "Ἢ

epi ad. HEMI ANG ε hi ν᾽ is f ὦ ἌΝ Wee ,

i oy

SEEGER

MRP ΩΣ ᾿

RY CT I RAR ae ἽΝ Yh

f uy ἢ ὦ

PY

CASE ag PALS asthe)

is

JAP ey Hi ,

Yi 1 ἐν Wits

ἧ Ἢ; ett At)

fy)

PE Mo Wi, eters

‘iy

HE

fi

ΠΡ ΣΝ i

ἡ i)

Bi, oie "| ii es A J4t,

HM Hi : a ἜΝ Hn, i aA a) ἈΝ Wh Hey NE RE BY ΡΝ Hi , ἌΝ ἢ ΠΗ, i

OR RMR RE EDD UR a yp es j i;

if ve νει ay) ἐν

Ων

"" ἌΝ ᾿ ΜΝ Ἂν; ΡΝ Ss With Af J } A fi UN) Tihs Piles

ἡ ey) MIIGTLSASS ΣΝ ΩΣ

Ἢν i te

rs ts

iit

if ae

tis 4 ἐμ ne

wih

r ΟΝ

i :

tid Very.

(Dts ὙΠ

Re εν SSS

τα: x

Ἢ iy

ἢ ᾿

oa ἄπολις.

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/supernaturalreli02cassiala

SUPERNATURAL RELIGION:

AN INQUIRY

INTO’

THE REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION.

IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II.

FOURTH EDITION.

LONDON:

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO., 1874. (The Right of Translation is Reserved.}

LONDON ! BRADBURY, AGNEW, & 00., PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS.

CONTENTS

OF

THE SECOND VOLUME

PART ΤΕ (Continued.) CHAPTER V. PAGE THE CLEMENTINES . : ὃ ε : ᾿ ; ; ἡ τον © ΔΕ THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS : ; ; gt: ; : ΩΣ CHAPTER VI.

BASILIDES : : ξ ; ξ : 5, : : A te BAL VALENTINUS. : : 3 Ἢ : : : 3 ᾿ : « 55 CHAPTER VII.

MARCION . : Α ; : - ; P : : : Oe TO CHAPTER VIII.

TATIAN . ᾿ : : : ᾿ ; y ; ‘ : ; . 148 DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH . : : : 4 : ? : >, oek6s CHAPTER IX.

MELITO OF SARDIS : ς : : , : x : : . 1715 CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS . : : : : : : : veer ΠῚ ATHENAGORAS . 3 Σ : : ‘ : : : : . 191 EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS . : ‘ : 4 Ἶ a BOO CHAPTER X.

PTOLEMZUS AND HERACLEON 2 : ‘< ᾿ Ξ ‘ : . 205 CELSUS. ὃ . Α : , : : ; Υ ᾿ 5. 6 B27 THE CANON OF MURATORI . ‘ : : : : : : ORY)

RESULTS . i Ἐ “ ᾿ : : ζ Ξ ; τ 5,48

vi CONTENTS.

PAR? Ti. THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

.--..ὁ-.-..-.

CHAPTER I.

THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

CHAPTER II.

THE AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

CHAPTER III.

CONCLUSIONS

PAGE . 251

387

. 477

AN INQUIRY

INTO THE

REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION.

PART I.

— 4

CHAPTER V. THE CLEMENTINES—THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.

WE must now as briefly as possible examine the evidence furnished by the apocryphal religious romance generally known by the name of “The Clementines,” and assuming, falsely of course,’ to be the composition of the Roman Clement. ‘Ihe Clementines are composed of three principal works, the Homilies, Recognitions, and a so-called Epitome. The Homilies, again, are prefaced by a pretended epistle addressed by the Apostle Peter to James, and another from Clement. These Homilies were only known in an imperfect form till 1853, when Dressel? published a complete Greek text. Of the Recognitions we

1 Baur, Dogmengesch., 1865, I. i. p. 155; Bunsen, Hippolytus, i. p. 431 ; Ewald, Gesch. ἃ. V. Isr., vii. p. 183; Guericke, H’buch Κι. G., i. p. 117, anm. 2; /Zilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 30, p. 204, anm.1; Die apost. Viter, p. 287; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 461, anm. 47; Lechler, Das apost. u. nachap. Zeit., p. 454, 500; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. Apocr 1866, p. 87 ff.; Litschl, Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 204 f.; Cotelerius, Patr.

Apost., i. p. 490, 606; Gallandi, Patr. Bibl., ii. Proleg., p. lv.

? Clementis R. que feruntur Homiliz xx. nunc primum integre. Ed. A. R. M. Dressel.

VOL. Il. B

2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

only possess a Latin translation by Rufinus (a.p. 402) Although there is much difference of opinion regarding the claims to priority of the Homilies and Recognitions, many critics assigning that place to the Homilies,’ whilst others assert the earlier origin of the Recognitions,” all are agreed that the one is merely a version of the other, the former being embodied almost word for word in the latter, whilst the Epitome is a blending of the other two, probably intended to purge them from heretical doctrine. These works, however, which are generally admitted to have emanated from the Ebionitic party of the early Church,? are supposed to be based upon older Petrine writings, such as the “Preaching of Peter” (Κήρυγμα Πέτρου), and the “ Travels of Peter” (Περίοδοι Ilérpov).*

1. Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 280 f.; Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Isr., vii. p. 183, anm. 2; Engelhardt, Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol., 1852, i. p. 104 f.; Guericke, Wbuch K. G., i. p. 117, anm. 2 ; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 254; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 481; Schliemann, Die Clement. Recog., 1843, p. 68—72; Tischendorf, Wann wurden τι. 5. w., p. Vii., anm. 1; Uhlhorn, Die Homil. u. Recogn., p. 343 ff.; Dorner, Lehre yon d. Person Christi, 1845, 1. p. 348, anm. 192; Liicke, Comment. Ev. Joh., i. p. 225, &e., ζο., Ke.

2 Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Viiter, p. 288 f.; Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1869, p. 353 ff.; Késtlin, Hallische Allg. Lit. Zeitung, 1849, No. 73—77; Nicolas, Etudes Crit. sur les Ey. Apocr., p. 77, note 2; Ritschi, Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 264, anm.1; cf. p. 451, anm. 1; Yhiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 341 f.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 62, p. 137, ἄο., &e., &e.

3 Baur, Paulus, i. p. 381 f.; Unters. kan. Evy., p. 562; Credner, Bei- triige, i. p. 279 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Vater, p. 288 ff.; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 461, anm. 47; Lechler, D. ap. u. nachap. Zeit., p. 500 ; Nicolas, Etudes sur les Ey. Ap., p. 87; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, 1863, p. 63, note 1; Gesch, N. T., p. 253; Ritschl, Entst. altk. K., p. 204 f.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 363 ff.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 251; Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1854, p. 53.

* Baur, Unters. kan. Evy., p. 536 ff.; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, vii. p. 560 ff. ; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 331 f.; Gfrdrer, Alig. K. G., 1. p. 256 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Das Markus Ey., p. 113 f.; Die ap. Viiter, p. 289 ff. ; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1869, p. 361 ff. ; Késtlin, Der Ursprung synopt. Evv., p. 395; Kayser, Rey. de Théol., 1851, p. 131; Mayerhoff, inl. petr. Schr. p. 314 ff.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 251 f.; Ritschi, Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 264 ff.; Thiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 340 ἢ; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 62. -

THE CLEMENTINES. 3

It is not necessary for our purpose to go into any ana- lysis of the character of the Clementines. It will suffice to say that they almost entirely consist of discussions between the Apostle Peter and Simon the Magician regarding the identity of the true Mosaic and Christian religions. Peter follows the Magician from city to city for the purpose of exposing and refuting him, the one, in fact, representing Apostolic doctrine and the other heresy, and in the course of these discussions occur the very numerous quotations of sayings of Jesus and of Christian history which we have to examine,

The Clementine Recognitions, as we have already remarked, are only known to us through the Latin translation of Rufinus; and from a comparison of the evangelical quotations occurring in that work with the same in the Homilies, it is evident that Rufinus has assi- milated them in the course of translation to the parallel passages of our Gospels. It is admitted, therefore, that no argument regarding the source of the quotations can rightly be based upon the Recognitions, and that work may, consequently, be. entirely set aside,’ and the Clementine Homilies alone need occupy our attention.

We need scarcely remark that, unless the date at which these Homilies were composed can be ascertained, their value as testimony for the existence of our Synoptic Gospels is very small indeed. The difficulty of arriving at a correct conclusion regarding this point, great under almost any circumstances, is of course increased by the fact that the work is altogether apocry- phal, and most certainly not held by any one to have

1 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 280 ff.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 481 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justins, p. 370 f.; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. Apocr.; p. 69, note 2; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 60; Scholten, Die Alt. Zeugnisse, p. 55f., anm. 10; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 251.

B2

5 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

been written by the person whose name it bears. There is in fact nothing but internal evidence by which to fix the date, and that internal evidence is of a character which admits of very wide extension down the course of time, although a sharp limit is set beyond which it cannot mount upwards. Of external evidence there is almost none, and what Jittle exists does not warrant an early date. Origen, it is true, mentions Περίοδοι Κλήμεντος, which, it is conjectured, may either be the same work as the ᾿Αναγνωρισμός, or Recognitions, trans- lated by Rufinus, or related to it, and Epiphanius and others refer to Περίοδοι Πέτρου ;2 but our Clementine Homilies are not mentioned by any writer before pseudo- Athanasius2 The work, therefore, can at the best afford no substantial testimony to the antiquity and apostolic origin of our Gospels. Hilgenfeld, following in the steps of Baur, arrives at the conclusion that the Homilies are directed against the Gnosticism of Marcion (and also, as we shall hereafter see, against the Apostle Paul), and he, therefore, necessarily assigns to them a date subsequent to A.D. 160. As Reuss, however, inquires: upon this ground, why should a still later date not be named, since even Tertullian wrote vehemently against the same Gnosis.* There can be little doubt that the author was a representative of Ebionitic Gnosticism, which had once been the purest form of primitive Christianity, but later, through its own development, though still more through

1 Comment. in Genesin Philoc., 22.

* Hilgenfeld considers Recog. iv.—vi., Hom. vii.—xi. a version of the Ξερίοδοι Ierpou’ Die ap. Vater, p. 291 ff.; Ritschl does not consider that this can be decidedly proved, Entst. Altk. Kirche, p. 204 f. ; so also Uhlhorn, Die Hom. u. Recog., p. 71 ff.

3 Synops. Sacr. Script., sub finem.

* Gesch. N. T., p. 254. é

THE CLEMENTINES. 5

the rapid growth around it of Paulinian doctrine, had assumed a position closely verging upon heresy. It is not necessary for us, however, to enter upon any exhaustive discussion of the date at which the Clemen- tines were written ; it is sufficient to show that there is no certain ground upon which a decision can be based, and that even an approximate conjecture can scarcely be reasonably advanced. Critics variously date the compo- sition of the original Recognitions: from about the middle of the second century to the end of the third, though the majority are agreed in placing them: at least in the latter century.’ They assign to the Homilies an origin at different dates within a period commencing about the middle of the second century, and extending to a cen- tury later.?

1 a.p. 150, Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 163, cf. 93 f., 108 f.; Circa A.D. 140—150, Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Viiter, p. 297, anm. 11; Der Pascha- streit, p. 194. After a.D. 170, Maran., Divinit. D. N. J. C., lib. ii., cap. 7, § 4, p. 250 ff. Beginning 3rd century, Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 254; Zeller, Die Apostolgesch., p. 64; Bleek, Beitriige, p. 277. Dorner, Lehre yon d. Person Christi, 1845, i. p. 348, anm. 192. Between A.p. 212—230, Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., 1. p. 481. Schliemann, Die Clementinen, 1844, p. 326 f. Not before A.D. 216, Gallandi, Vet. Patr. Bibl., ii. Proleg., p.lv. Between A.D. 218—231, Dodwell, Dissert. vi. in Iven., ὃ xi. p. 443. End 3rd century, Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 281.

2 Before middle 2nd century, Credner, Gesch. N. Τὶ Kan., p. 45; ef. Beitriige, i. p. 281. Middle 2nd century, Ritschl, Entst. altk. K., p. 264, 451; ef. p. 65; Kern, Τὰν, Zeitschr. 1835, H. 2, p. 112; Gfrérer, Allg. K. G., i. p. 256; Tischendorf, Wann wurden τι. 5. w., p. 90; Léville, Essais de Crit. Religieuse, 1860, p. 35. Soon after middle 2nd century, Schliemann, Die Clementinen, p. 548 f.; A.D. 160, Lechler, Das ap. ἃ. nachap. Zeit., p. 461. A.D. 150—170, Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 55. A.D. 150—160, Renan, St. Paul, 1869, p. 303, note 8. Before a.p, 180, Kayser, Rey. de Théol., 1851, p. 155, A.D. 161—180, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1869, p. 353, anm. 1; cf. Die ap. Viiter, p. 301; Der Pascha- streit, p. 194. A.D. 175—180, Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 164; cf. 137, 63. Second half 2nd century, Derner, Lehre Person Christi, i. p. 341, anm. 190. End of 2nd century, Baur, Dogmengesch., 1865, I. i. p. 155 ; Ewald, Gesch. ἃ. V. Israel, vii. p. 183; ef. 386, anm. 1; Jeuss, Gesch.

N. T., p. 254; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 406; Kirchhofer, Quel-

6 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

In the Homilies there are very numerous quotations of expressions of Jesus and of Gospel history, which are generally placed in the mouth of Peter, or introduced with such formule as: ““ The teacher said,” “Jesus said,” “He said,” “The prophet *said,” but in no case does the author name the source from which these sayings and quotations are derived. That he does, however, quote from a written source, and not from tradition, is clear from the use of such expressions as “in another place (ἄλλῃ zrov )* he has said,” which refer not to other locali- ties or circumstances, but another part of a written history.2 There are in the Clementine Homilies upwards of a hundred quotations of expressions of Jesus or refe- rences to his history, too many by far for us to examine in detail here, but, notwithstanding the number of these passages, so systematically do they vary more or less from the parallels in our canonical Gospels, that, as in the case of Justin, Apologists are obliged to have recourse to the elastic explanation, already worn so threadbare, of “ free quotation from memory” and “ blending of pass- ages ” to account for the remarkable phenomena presented. Tt must, however, be evident that the necessity for such an apology at all shows the absolute weakness of the evidence furnished by these quotations. De Wette says : “The quotations of evangelical works and histories in the pseudo-Clementine writings, from their free and unsatisfactory nature, permit only uncertain conclusions lensamml., p. 461, anm. 47; Liiche, Comment Ἐν. Joh. 1840, i. p. 225; Giesdler, Kirchengeschichte, Neander, Genet. Entw. Gnost. Systeme, p.

370. Zimmermann, Lebensgesch. d. Kirche J. C. 2 Ausg., ii. p. 118.

AD. 250, Gallandi, Vet. Pair. Bibl. Proleg., p. ly.; Mill, Proleg. N. T.

Gr., §670. Fourth century, Lentz, Dogmengeschichte,i. p. 58. Their

groundwork 2nd or 3rd century, Gueriche, H’buch K. G., p. 146.

1 See several instances, Hom. xix. 2. # * Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 283. -

- THE CLEMENTINES. 7

as to their written source.”’ Critics have maintained very different and conflicting views regarding that source. Apologists, of course, assert’ that the quotations in the Homilies are taken from our Gospels only.? Others ascribe them to our Gospels, with a supplementary apocryphal work: the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospel according to Peter* Some, whilst admitting a subsidiary use of some of our Gospels, assert that the author of the Homilies employs, in preference, the Gospel according to Peter ;* whilst others, recognizing also the similarity of the phenomena presented by these quotations with those of Justin’s, conclude that the author does not quote our Gospels at all; but makes use of the Gospel according to Peter, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews.® Evidence permitting of such divergent conclusions manifestly cannot be of a decided character. We may affirm, however, that few of those who are

1 Die Anfiithrungen evyangelischer Werke und Geschichten in den pseudo-clementinischen Schriften, ihrer Natur nach frei und ungenau, lassen nur unsichere auf ihre schriftliche Quelle zuriickschliessen. inl. Ν, Τὶ p. 116.

2 Lechler, Das ap. u. nachap. Zeit., p. 458, anm.; Orelli, Selecta Patr. Eccles., cap. 1821, p. 22; Semisch, Denkw. ἃ. M. Just., p. 356 ff. ; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 251; Tischendorf, Wann wurden τι. s. w., p. 90.

3 Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 533; Franck, Die evang. Citate in ἃ. Clem. Hom., Stud. w. Geistlichkeit, 1847, 2, p. 144 ff.; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 461, δῆτα. 47, 48; Késtlin, Der Ursprung synopt. Evy., p. 372 f.; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 58; De Wette, Eink N. T., p. 115 ἢ; Weisse, Der evang. Gesch., i. Ὁ. 27,anm.***; Uhlhorn, Die Homilien u. Recog. ἃ. Clem. Rom., 1854, p. 119—137; Herzog’s Realencyclop., Art. Clementinen.

4 Hilgenfeld, Die Eyv. Justin’s, p. 388; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. .62; Baur, Unters. kan. Evyy., p. 575 ff.; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 59.

5 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 330 ff.; Neander, Genetische Entw. der yorn. Gnost. Syst., p. 418 ἢ; Nicolas, Et. sur les Evang. Apocr., p. 69 ff. ; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 193; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., p. 207.

Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Zeller, and others consider that the author uses _the same Gospel as Justin. See references in note 3,

©

8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

willing to admit the use of our Synoptics by the author of the Homilies along with other sources, make that concession on the strength of the absolute isolated evidence of the Homilies themselves, but they are gene- rally moved by antecedent views on the point. In an inquiry like that which we have undertaken, however, such easy and indifferent judgment would obviously be out of place, and the point we have to determine is not whether an author may have been acquainted with our Gospels, but whether he furnishes testimony that he actually was in possession of our present Gospels and regarded them as authoritative.

We have already mentioned that the author of the Cle- mentine Homilies never names the source from which his quotations are derived. Of these very numerous quota- tions we must distinctly state that only two or three, of a very brief and fragmentary character, literally agree with our Synoptics, whilst all the rest differ more or less widely from the parallel passages in these Gospels. Many of these quotations are repeated more than once with the same persistent and characteristic variations, and in several cases, as we have already seen, they agrec with quotations of Justin from the Memoirs of the Apostles. Others, again, have no parallels at all in our Gospels, and even Apologists generally are compelled to admit the use also of an apocryphal Gospel. As in the case of Justin, therefore, the singular phenomenon is presented of a vast number of quotations of which only one or two brief phrases, too fragmentary to avail as evidence, perfectly agree with our Gospels ; whilst of the rest all vary more or less, some merely resemble combined passages of two Gospels, others merely contain the sense, some present variations likewise found in other writers

THE CLEMENTINES. 9

or in various parts of the Homilies are repeatedly quoted with the same variations, and others are not found in our Gospels at all. Such phenomena cannot be fairly accounted for by any mere theory of imperfect memory or negligence. The systematic variation from our Synoptics, variation proved by repetition not to be acci- dental, coupled with quotations which have no parallels at all in our Gospels, naturally point to the use of a different Gospel. In no case can the Homilies be accepted as furnishing evidence of any value even of the existence of our Gospels. ;

As it is impossible here to examine in detail all of the quotations in the Clementine Homilies, we must content ourselves with the distinct statement of their character which we have already made, and merely illustrate briefly the different classes of quotations, exhausting, however, those which literally agree with passages in the Gospels. The most determined of recent Apologists do net afford us an opportunity of testing the passages upon which they base their assertion of the use of our Synoptics, for they merely assume that the author used them without producing instances.’

The first quotation which agrees with a passage in our Synoptics occurs in Hom. iii. 52: “ And he cried, saying : Come unto me all ye that are weary,” which agrees with the opening words of Matt. xi. 28, but the phrase does not continue, and is followed by the explanation : “that

1 Tischendorf only devotes a dozen lines, with a note, to the Clemen- tines, and only in connection with our fourth Gospel, which shall here- ufter have our attention. Wann wurden τι. 8. w., p. 90. In the same way Canon Westcott passes them over in a short paragraph, merely asserting the allusions to our Gospels to be ‘ generally admitted,” and only directly referring to one supposed quotation from Mark which we - shall presently examine, and one which he affirms to be from the fourth Gospel. On the Canon, p. 251 ἢ,

10 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

is, who are seeking the truth and not finding it.”? [Ὁ is evident, that so short and fragmentary a phrase cannot prove anything.?

The next passage occurs in Hom. xvi. 15: “ For Isaiah said : I will open my mouth in parables, and 1 will utter things that have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”? Now this passage, with a slightly different order of words, is found in Matt. xiii. 35. After giving a series of parables, the author of the Gospel says (v. 34), “ All these things spake Jesus unto the multitudes in parables ; and without a parable spake he not unto them; (v. 35,) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet (Isaiah) saying: I will open my mouth in parables, &c.” ‘There are two pecu- liarities which must be pointed out in this passage. It is not found in Isaiah, but in Psalm Ixxviii. 2,* and it presents a variation from the version of the lxx. Both the variation and the erroneous reference to Isaiah, therefore, occur also in the Homily. The first part of the sentence agrees with, but the latter part is quite different from, the Greek of the lxx., which reads: “I will utter problems from the beginning,” φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς

The Psalm from which the quotation is really taken is, by its superscription, ascribed to Asaph, who, in the Septuagint version of IT’ Chronicles xxix. 30, is called a prophet.© It was, therefore, early asserted that the

1 Διὸ καὶ ἐβόα na yer" ‘ Δεῦτε πρὸς μὲ πάντες of κοπιῶντες. τουτέστιν, of THY ἀλήθειαν ζητοῦντες καὶ μὴ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν. Hom. iil. 52.

5 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, u. 5. w., p. 961.

3 Καὶ τὸν “Hoatay εἰπεῖν. ᾿Ανοίξω τὸ στόμα μου ἐν παραβολαῖς καὶ ἐξιρρυξομῷ κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. “Hom. ΧΥΠ]. 15.

4 The Vulgate reads: aperiam in parabolis os meum: loquar proposi-

tiones ab initio. Ps. Ixxyiii. 2. 5 Ps. lxxyii. 2. δ. ἐν λόγοις Δαυὶδ καὶ ᾿Ασὰφ τοῦ προφήτου.

THE CLEMENTINES. 11

original reading of Matthew was “ Asaph,” instead of “ Tsaiah.”

Porphyry, in the third century, twitted Christians with this erroneous ascription by their inspired evangelist to Isaiah of a passage from a Psalm, and reduced the Fathers to great straits. Eusebius, in his commentary on this verse of the Psalm, attributes the insertion of the words, “by the prophet Isaiah,” to unintelligent copyists, and asserts that in accurate MSS. the name is not added to the word prophet. Jerome likewise ascribes the insertion of the name Isaiah for that of Asaph, which was originally written, to an ignorant scribe,' and in the commentary on the Psalms, generally, though probably falsely, ascribed to him, the remark is made that many copies of the Gospel to that day had the name “ Isaiah,” for which Porphyry had reproached Christians,? and the writer of the same commentary actually allows himself to make the assertion that Asaph was found in all the old codices, but ignorant men had removed it. The fact is, that the reading “ Asaph” for “Isaiah” is not found in any extant MS., and, although “Isaiah” has dis- appeared from all but a few obscure codices, it cannot be denied that the name anciently stood in the text. In the Sinaitic Codex, which is probably the earliest MS. extant, and which is assigned to the fourth century, “the prophet Jsaiah” stands in the text by the first hand, but is erased by the second (8).

1 Comment. Matt., xiii. 35.

? Multa evangelia usque hodie ita habent : Utimpleretur, quod scriptum est per Jsaiam prophetam, &e., &e. Hieron., Opp., vii. p. 270 f.

3. Asaph inyenitur in omnibus veteribus codicibus, sed homines igno- rantes tulerunt illud. To this Credner pertinently remarks: ‘“ Die Noth, in welche die guten Kirchenviter durch Porphyrius gekommen waren, erlaubte auch eine Liige. Sie geschah ja: im majorem Dei gloriam, Beitriige, i. p. 304.

4 Of. Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 303

12 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

The quotation in the Homily, however, is clearly not from our Gospel. It is troduced by the words “ For Isaiah says :” and the context is so different from that in Matthew, that it seems impossible that the author of the Homily could have had the passage suggested to him by the Gospel. It occurs in a discussion between Simon the Magician and Peter. The former undertakes to prove that the Maker of the world is not the highest God, and amongst other arguments he advances the passage : “ No man knew the Father, &c.,” to show that the Father had remained concealed from the Patriarchs, &e., until revealed by the Son, and in reply to Peter he retorts, that if the supposition that the Patriarchs were not deemed worthy to know the Father was unjust, the Christian teacher was himself to blame, who said: “I thank thee, Lord of heaven and earth, that what was concealed from the wise thou hast revealed to suckling babes.” Peter argues that in the statement of Jesus : “No man knew the Father, &c.,” he cannot be con- sidered to indicate another God and Father from him who made the world, and he continues: “For the concealed things of which he spoke may be those of the Creator himself ; for Isaiah says: ‘I will open my mouth, &c. Do you admit, therefore, that the prophet was not ignorant of the things concealed,”’ and so on. There is absolutely nothing in this argument to indicate that the passage was suggested by the Gospel, but, on the con- trary, it is used in a totally different way, and is quoted not as an evangelical text, but as a saying from the Old Testament, and treated in connection with the prophet himself, and not with its supposed fulfilment in Jesus. It may be remarked, that in the corresponding part of the Recognitions, whether that work be of older or more

1 Hom., xviii. 1—15.

THE CLEMENTINES. 13

recent date, the passage does not occur at all. Now, although it is impossible to say how and where this erroneous reference to a passage of the Old Testament first occurred, there is no reason for affirming that it originated in our first Synoptic, and as little for asserting that its occurrence in the Clementine Homilies, with so different a context and object, involves the conclusion that their author derived it from the Gospel, and not from the Old Testament or some other source. On the contrary, the peculiar argument based upon it in the Homilies suggests a different origin, and it is very probable that the passage, with its erroneous reference, was derived by both from another and common source. i

Another passage is a phrase from the “ Lord’s Prayer,” which occurs in Hom. xix. 2: “ But also in the prayer which he commended to us, we have it said: Deliver us from the evil one” (Ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ). It need scarcely be said, however, that few Gospels can have been composed without including this prayer, and the occurrence of this short phrase demonstrates nothing more than the mere fact, that the author of the Homilies was acquainted with one of the most universally known lessons of Jesus, or made use of a Gospel which con- tained it. There would have been cause for wonder had he been ignorant of it.

The only other passage which agrees literally with our Gospels is also a mere fragment from the parable of the Talents, and when the other references to the same parable are added, it is evident that the quotation is not from our Gospels. In Hom. iii. 65, the address to the good servant is introduced: “ Well done, good and faithful servant” (Εὖ, δοῦλε ἀγαθὲ καὶ murré), which agrees

14 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

with the words im Matt. xxv. 21. The allusion to the parable of the talents in the context is perfectly clear, and the passage occurs in an address of the Apostle Peter to overcome the modest scruples of Zaccheus, the former publican, who has been selected by Peter as his successor over the Church of Czesarea when he is about to leave in pursuit of Simon the Magician. Anticipating the possibility of his hesitating to accept the office, Peter, in an earlier part of his address, however, makes fuller allusions to the same parable of the talents, which we must contrast with the parallel in the first Synoptic. “But if any of those present, having the ability to instruct the ignorance of men, shrink back from it, considering only his own ease, then let him expect to hear :”’

Hom. m1. 61. Matt. xxv. 26—30.

Thou wicked and slothful ser- vant ;

thou oughtest to have put out my money with the exchangers, and at my coming I should have ex- acted mine own.

Cast ye the unprofitable servant into the darkness without.

Δοῦλε πονηρὲ καὶ ὀκνηρέ,

ἐκβάλετε τὸν ἀχρεῖον δοῦλον εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον. |

!

1 Luke xix. 23, substitutes ἔπραξα for ἐκομεισάμην.

y. 26. Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather from where I strawed not.

y. 27. Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the ex- changers, and at my coming I should have receiyed mine own

y. 28, 29. Take therefore, &c. &c.

y. 30. And cast ye the unprofit- able servant into the darkness with- out; there shall be weeping and

| gnashing of teeth.

v. 26. Πονηρὲ δοῦλε καὶ ὀκνηρέ,

| ἤδεις ὅτε θερίζω, κιτιλ. ἔδει σε τὸ ἀργύριόν μου προ- |

ας τὰ συ - 5 | βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῶν τραπεζιτῶν, καὶ ἐγὼ ay |

ἐλθὼν ἔπραξα τὸ ἐμόν" ᾿

y. 27. ἔδει σε οὖν βαλεῖν τὸ ἀργύ- ριόν μου τοῖς τραπεζίταις, καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐγὼ ἐκομισάμην" ἂν τὸ ἐμὸν σὺν τόκῳ.

ε

y. 28, 29, ἄρατε οὖν, κιτιλ.

y. 30. καὶ τὸν ἀχρεῖον δοῦλον ἐκβά-

λετε εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον" ἐκεῖ

f

| ἔσται 6 κλαυθμὸς, xT.

THE CLEMENTINES. 15

The Homily does not end here, however, but continues in words not found in our Gospels at all: “ And reasonably : ‘ For,’ he says, ‘it is thine, Ὁ man, to prove my words as silver and as money are proved by the ex- changers.”’' This passage is very analogous to another saying of Jesus, frequently quoted from an apocryphal Gospel, by the author of the Homilies, to which we shall hereafter more particularly refer, but here merely point out : “ Be ye approved money-changers ” (γίνεσθε τραπε- ζῦται δόκιμοι). "5 The variations from the parallel passages in the first and third Gospels, the peculiar application of the parable to the words of Jesus, and tle addition of a saying not found in our Gospels, warrant us in denying that the quotations we are considering can be appro- priated by our canonical Gospels, and, on the contrary, give good reason for the conclusion, that the author derived his knowledge of the parable from another source.

There is no other quotation in the Clementine Homi- lies which literally agrees with our Gospels, and it is difficult, without incurring the charge of partial selection, to illustrate the systematic variation in such very nume- rous passages as occur in these writings. It would be tedious and unnecessary to repeat the test applied to the quotations of Justin, and give in detail the passages from the Sermon on the Mount which are found in the Homilies. Some of these will come before us presently, but with regard to the whole, which are not less than fifty, we may broadly and positively state that they all more or less differ from our Gospels. To take the

' Kal εὐλόγως. Σοῦ yap, φησὶν, ἄνθρωπε, τοὺς λόγους μου ὡς ἀργύριον ἐπὶ τραπεζιτῶν βαλεῖν, καὶ ὡς χρήματα δοκιμάσαι. Hom. iii. 61. - 3 Hom, iii. 50, ii. 51, &e., &e.

\

16 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

severest test, however, we shall compare those further passages which are specially adduced as most closely following our Gospels, and neglect the vast majority which most widely differ from them. In addition to the passages which we have already examined, Credner! points out the following. The first is from Hom. xix. 2.2 “Tf Satan cast out Satan he is divided against himself: how then shall his kmgdom stand?” In the first part of this sentence, the Homily reads, ἐκβάλλη for the ἐκβάλλει of the first Gospel, and the last phrase in each is as follows :—

Hom. πῶς οὖν αὐτοῦ στήκῃ ἡ βασιλεία ;" Matt. πῶς οὖν σταθήσεται ἢ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ;

The third Gospel differs from the first as the Homily does from both. The next passage is from Hom. xix. 7.3 “For thus, said our Father, who was without deceit: out of abundance of heart mouth speaketh.” The Greek compared with that of Matt. xi. 34.

Hom. Ἐκ περισσεύματος καρδίας στόμα λαλεῖ. Matt. Ἔκ γὰρ τοῦ περισσεύματος τῆς καρδίας τὸ στόμα λαλεῖ.

The form of the homily is much more proverbial. The next passage occurs in Hom. iii. 52: “ Every plant which the heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up.” This agrees with the parallel in Matt. xv. 13, with the important exception, that although in the mouth of Jesus, “the heavenly Father” is substituted for the “my heavenly Father” of the Gospel. The last passage pointed out by Credner, is from Hom. vui. 4: “ But many” he said also, “called, but few chosen,’ which may be compared with Matt. xx. 16, ἄς,

Hom. Δλλὰ καὶ, πολλοὶ, φησὶν, κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. Matt. πολλοὶ γὰρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. τ Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 285; ef. p. 302.

2 Of. Matt. xii. 26. 3 Cf. Matt. xii. 84. 3 4

THE CLEMENTINES. 17

We have already fully discussed this passage of the Gospel in connection with the “Epistle of Barnabas,”? and need not say more here.

The variations in these passages, it may be argued, are not very important. Certainly, if they were the exceptional variations amongst a mass of quotations perfectly agreeing with parallels in our Gospels, it might be exaggeration to base upon such divergences a con- clusion that they were derived from a different source. When it is considered, however, that the very reverse is the case, and that these are passages selected for their closer agreement out of a multitude of others either more decidedly differing from our Gospels or not found in them at all, the case entirely changes, and variations being the rule instead of the exception, these, however slight, become evidence of the use of a Gospel different from ours. As an illustration of the importance of slight variations in connection with the question as to the source from which quotations are derived, the following may at random be pointed out. The passage “See thou say nothing to any man, but go thy way, show thyself to the priest” (Ὅρα μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς, ἀλλὰ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ) occurring in a work like the Homilies would, supposing our second Gospel no longer extant, be referred to Matt. viii. 4, with which it en- tirely agrees with the exception of its containing the one extra word μηδὲν. It is however actually taken from Mark i. 44, and not from the first Gospel. Then again, supposing that our first Gospel had shared the fate of so many others of the πολλοὶ of Luke, and in some early work the following passage were found: “A prophet is not without honour except in his own country

1 Vol. i. p. 236 ff, VOL. 1, ο

18 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

and in his own house” (Οὐκ ἔστιν προφήτης ἄτιμος εἰ μὴ ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ, πατρίδι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ), this passage would undoubtedly be claimed by apologists as a quotation from Mark vi. 4, and as proving the existence and use of that Gospel. The omission of the words “and among his own kin” (καὶ ἐν τοῖς ovyyevedow αὐτοῦ) would at first be explained as mere abbreviation, or defect of memory, but on the discovery that part or all of these words are omitted from some MSS., that for instance the phrase is erased from the oldest manuscript known, the Cod. Sinaiticus, the derivation from the second Gospel would be considered as established. ‘The author notwithstanding might never have seen that Gospel, for the quotation is taken from Matt. xii. 57.? We have already quoted the opinion of De Wette as to the inconclusive nature of the deductions to be drawn from the quotations in the pseudo-Clementine writings regarding their source, but in pursuance of the plan we have adopted we shall now examine the passages which he cites as most nearly agreeing with our Gospels. The first of these occurs in Hom. ui. 18: ‘The Scribes and the Pharisees sit upon Moses’ seat ; all things therefore, whatsoever they speak to you, hear them,” which is compared with Matt. xxii. 2, 3: “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit upon Moses’ seat; all things therefore, whatsoever they say to you, do and observe.” The Greek of the latter half of these passages we subjoin.

“ Δ “- Hom. πάντα οὖν ὅσα λέγωσιν ὑμῖν, ἀκούετε αὐτῶν. Matt. πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε."

1 ἰδίᾳ, though not found in all MSS., has the authority of the Cod. Sinaiticus and other ancient texts. ἡ

2 Cf. Matt. yi. 19—22; Luke ix, 57—60, &., Ke.

3 Kinl. N. T., p. 115.

ὁ It is unnecessary to point out the yarious readings of the three last

THE CLEMENTINES. 19

That the variation in the Homily is deliberate and derived from the Gospel used by the author is clear from the continuation: ‘‘ Hear them (αὐτῶν), he’ said, as entrusted with the key of the kingdom, which is know- ledge, which alone is able to open the gate of life, through which alone is the entrance to eternal life. But verily, he says: They possess the key indeed, but those who wished to enter in they do not allow.”! The αὐτῶν is here emphatically repeated, and the further quotation and reference to the denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees continues to differ distinctly both from the account in our first and third Gospels. The passage in Matt. xxiii. 13, reads: “But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye go not in yourselves neither suffer ye them that are entering to. go in.”? The parallel in Luke xi. 52 is not closer. There the passage regarding Moses’ seat is altogether wanting, and in ver. 52, where the greatest similarity, exists, the “lawyers” instead of the “Seribes and Pharisees” are addressed. The verse reads: “ Woe unto you, Lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”* The first Gospel has not the direct image of the key at all: the Scribes and Pharisees “shut the kingdom of

words in various MSS. Whether shortened or inverted, the difference from the Homily remains the same.

1 Αὐτῶν δὲ, εἶπεν, ὡς τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς βασιλείας πεπιστευμένων, ἥτις ἐστὶ γνῶσις, ἣ μόνη τὴν πύλην τῆς ζωῆς ἀνοῖξαι δύναται, δ ἧς μόνης εἰς τὴν αἰωνίαν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν ἔστιν. ᾿Αλλὰ ναὶ, φησὶν, κρατοῦσι μὲν τῆν κλεῖν, τοῖς δὲ βουλο- μένοις εἰσελθεῖν οὐ παρέχουσιν. Hom. iii. 18 ; cf. Hom. iii. 70, xviii. 15, 16.

3 Οὐαὶ, κιτιλ. . . . . ὅτι κλείετε τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων' ὑμεῖς γὰρ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσθε, οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους ἀφίετε εἰσελθεῖν. Matt. xxiii. 19,

3 Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς νομικοῖς, ὅτι ἤρατε τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς γνώσεως" αὐτοὶ οὐκ εἰσήλθατε καὶ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους ἐκωλύσατε. Luke xi. 52,

σᾶ

20 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

heaven ;” the third has “ the key of knowledge” (κλεῖδα τῆς γνώσεως) taken away by the lawyers, and not by the Scribes and Pharisees, whilst the Gospel of the Homilies has the key of the kingdom (κλεῖδα τῆς βασιλείας), and explains that this key is knowledge (ἥτις ἐστὶ γνῶσις). It is apparent that the first Gospel uses an expression more direct than the others, whilst the third Gospel explains it, but the Gospel of the Homilies has in all probability the simpler original words : the “key of the kingdom,” which both of the others have altered for the purpose of more immediate clearness. In any case it is certain that the passage does not agree with our Gospel.?

The next quotation referred to by De Wette is in Hom. iii. 51: “‘ And also that he said: ‘I am not come to destroy the law . . . . the heaven and the earth will pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no- wise pass from the law.’” This is compared with Matt. v. 17, 18:? “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. (v.18) For verily I say unto you: Till heaven and earth pass away one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The Greek of both passages reads as follows :---

Hom. rr. 51. | MATT. v.17, 18. Τὸ δὲ καὶ εἰπεῖν αὐτόν" | My νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι | τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας" οὐκ ἦλθον Οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον. | καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. * * * *

| Vv. 18. ἀμὴν yap λέγω ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν « > x , ¢ a 4 dA , ε > ‘ ἃ μα a 9A a 2 O οὐρανὸς kat 7 γῆ παρελεύσονται ἰῶτα παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ; ἰῶτα ἕν ἢ δὲ ἐν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ |

n } , o a , , TOU νόμου. ᾿ νόμου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.

μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ

1 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 317 f. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 366 ἢ, Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 57 f. 2 Of. Luke xyi. 17.

THE CLEMENTINES. 21

That the omissions and variations in this passage are not accidental is proved by the fact that the same quota- tion occurs again literally in the Epistle from Peter! which is prefixed to the Homilies in which the παρελεύ- σονται is repeated, and the sentence closes at the same point. The author in that place adds: “This he said that all might be fulfilled” (τοῦτο δὲ εἴρηκεν, ἵνα τὰ πάντα γίνηται). Hilgenfeld considers this Epistle of much more early date than the Homilies, and that this agreement be- speaks a particular text.2 The quotation does not agree with our Gospels, and must be assigned to another source.

The next passage pointed out by De Wette is the erroneous quotation from Isaiah which we have already examined.* That which follows is found in Hom, viii. 7: “ For on this account our Jesus himself said to one who frequently called him Lord, yet did nothing which he commanded ; Why dost thou say to me Lord, Lord, and doest not the things which I say?” ‘This is compared with Luke vi. 46 :* “But why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say ?”

Hom, vii. 7. LUKE VI. 46. Τί pe λέγεις, Κύριε, κύρις, καὶ οὐ Τί δέ με καλεῖτε Κύριε, κύριε, καὶ ποιεῖς ἃ λέγω ; ᾿ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω ;

This passage differs from our Gospels in having the second person singular instead of the plural, and in substituting λέγεις for καλεῖτε in the first phrase. The Homily, moreover, in accordance with the use of the second person singular, distinctly states that the saying was addressed to a person who frequently called Jesus “Lord,” whereas in the Gospels it forms part of the Sermon on the Mount with a totally imper- sonal application to the multitude.

1 § il, . 2 Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 340. 3 P. 10. Cf. Hom. xviii, 15; Matt. xiii, 35, 4 Of. Matt. vii. 21,

22 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

The next passage referred to by De Wette is in Hom. xix. 2: “And he declared that he saw the evil one as lightning fall from heaven.” This is compared with Luke x. 18, which has no parallel in the other Gospels : ‘‘ And he said to them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”

Hom. ΧΙΧ. 2. ΤΙ υ ΠΕ x. 18.

Καὶ ὅτι ἑώρακε τὸν πονηρὸν Επεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ᾿Εθεώρουν τὸν σατανᾶν ὡς ἀστραπὴν πεσόντα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ | ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα. ἐδήλωσεν.

The substitution of τὸν πονηρὸν for τὸν σατανᾶν, had he found the latter in his Gospel, would be all the more remarkable from the fact that the author of the Homilies has just before quoted the saying “If Satan cast out Satan,”? &c. and he continues in the above words to show that Satan had been cast out, so that the evidence would have been strengthened by the retention of the word in Luke had he quoted that Gospel. The variations, however, indicate that he quoted from another source.? The next passage pointed out by De Wette likewise finds a parallel only in the third Gospel. It occurs in Hom. ix. 22: “Nevertheless, though all demons and all diseases flee before you, in this is not to be your sole rejoicing, but in that, through grace, your names, as of the ever-living, are recorded in heaven.” This is compared with Luke x. 20: “Notwithstanding, in this rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you, but rejoice that your names are written in the heavens.”

Ho. 1x. 22. LUKE x, 20. 3 24 Δ ΄ , Η͂ ‘ > , Η , “ ‘ Αλλ᾽ ὅμως κἂν πάντες δαίμονες μετὰ Πλὴν ἐν τούτῳ μὴ χαίρετε ὅτι τὰ ’ cal »"λ᾽ ε ΄“ 4 ΄“ς΄ , πάντων τῶν παθῶν ὑμᾶς φεύγωσιν, | πνεύματα ὑμῖν ὑποτάσσεται, χαίρετε >» >, , , , > > sg, Ὁ a to > , > οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ χαίρειν, ἀλλ᾽ | δὲ ὅτι τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐγγέγραπται ἐν » a > > , δ ἫΝ - “ ΄“΄ ἐν τῷ Ov εὐαρεστίαν τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐν | τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. οὐρανῷ ὡς ἀεὶ ζώντων ἀναγραφῆναι.

1 See p. 16, 2 Of. Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 346 ἢ,

THE CLEMENTINES, 23

The differences between these two passages are too great and the peculiarities of the Homily too marked to require any argument to demonstrate that the quota- tion cannot be successfully claimed by our third Gospel. On the contrary, as one of so many other passages systematically varying from the canonical Gospels, it must be assigned to another source.

De Wette says: “ A few others (quotations) presup- pose (voraussetzen) the Gospel of Mark,”! and he gives them. The first occurs in Hom. 11, 19: “Justa,? who is amongst us, a Syrophcenician, a Canaanite by race, whose daughter was affected by a sore disease, and who came to our Lord crying out and supplicating that he would heal her daughter. But he being also asked by us, said: ‘ It is not meet to heal the Gentiles who are like dogs from their using divers meats and practices, whilst the table in the kingdom has been granted to the sons of Israel.’ But she hearing this and desiring to partake like a dog of the crumbs falling from this table, having changed what was to lead the same life as the sons of the kingdom, she obtained, as she asked, the healing of her daughter.”* This is compared with Mark vii. 24—30,* as it is the only Gospel which calls the woman a Syrophcenician. The Homily, however, not only calls her so,a very unim- portant point, but gives her name as “Justa.” If, there-

1 Binl. N. T., p. 115. 2 Cf, Hom. iii. 73; xiii. 7;

3 ᾿Ἰοῦστά τις ἐν ἡμῖν ἐστι Συροφοινίκισσα, τὸ γένος Χανανῖτις, js τὸ θυγάτριον ὑπὸ χαλεπῆς νόσου συνείχετο, ἣ καὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν προσῆλθε βοῶσα καὶ ἱκετεύουσα, ὅπως αὐτῆς τὸ θυγάτριον θεραπεύσῃ. Ὃ δὲ, καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀξιωθεὶς, εἶπεν: Οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἰᾶσθαι τὰ ἔθνη, ἐοικότα κυσὶν, διὰ τὸ διαφόροις χρῆσθαι τροφαῖς καὶ πράξεσιν, ἀποδεδομένης τῆς κατὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τραπέζης, τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ. Ἢ δὲ τοῦτο ἀκούσασα, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς τραπέζης, ὡς κύων, ψιχίων ἀποπιπτόντων συμμεταλαμβάνειν μεταθεμένη ὅπερ ἣν, τῷ ὁμοίως διαιτᾶσθαι τοῖς τῆς βασιλείας υἱοῖς, τῆς εἰς τὴν θυγατέρα, ὡς ἠξίωσεν ἔτυχεν ἰάσεως. Hom, ii. 19.

* Of. Matt. xv. 21—28.

24 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

fore, it be argued that the mention of her nationality supposes that the author found the fact in his Gospel, and that as we know no other but Mark! which gives that information, that he therefore derived it from our second Gospel, the additional mention of the name of - “Justa” on the same grounds necessarily points to the use of a Gospel which likewise contained it, which our Gospel does not. Nothing can be more decided than the varia- tion in language throughout this whole passage from the account in Mark, and the reply of Jesus is quite foreign to our Gospels. In Mark (vii. 25) the daughter has “an unclean spirit” (πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον) ; in Matthew (xv. 22) she is “ grievously possessed by a devil” (κακῶς Sa:povi- ζεται), but in the Homily she is “affected by a sore disease” (ὑπὸ χαλεπῆς νόσου συνείχετο. The second Gospel knows nothing of any intercession on the part of the disciples, but Matthew has: “ And the disciples came and besought him (ἠρώτων αὐτὸν) saying: ‘Send her away, for she crieth after us,’”? whilst the Homily has merely “ being also asked by us,” (ἀξιωθεὶς) in the sense of intercession in her favour. The second Gospel gives the reply of Jesus as follows: “ Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the bread of the chil- dren, and to cast it tothe dogs. And she answered and said unto him: ‘Yea, Lord, for the dogs also eat under the table of the crumbs of the children. And he said unto her : For this saying go thy way ; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.”* The nature of the reply of the woman is,

* «The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation.” (ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἦν “Epis, Σύρα Φοινίκισσα τῷ γένει). Mark yii. 26. ‘‘ A woman of Canaan ” (γυνὴ Xavavaia). Matt. xy. 22. 2 Matt. xv. 23.

* Mark vil. 27—29. “Ages πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα" ov γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν. ἡ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ναί, κύριε: καὶ γὰρ τὰ κυνάρια ὑποκάτω τῆς τραπέζης ἐσθίουσιν ἀπὸ τῶ» ψιχίων τῶν παιδίων. κιτιλ.

THE CLEMENTINES. 25

in the Gospels, the reason given for granting her request; but in the Homily the woman’s conversion to Judaism,’ that is to say Judeo-Christianity, is prominently advanced as the cause of her successful pleading. It is certain from the whole character of this passage, the variation of the language, and the reply of Jesus which is not in our Gospels at all, that the narrative was not derived from them but from another source.”

The last of De Wette’s* passages is from Hom. iii. 57: “ Hear, O Israel; the Lord thy * God is one Lord.” This is a quotation from Deuteronomy vi. 4, which is likewise quoted in the second Gospel, xii. 29, in reply to the question, “ Which is the first Commandment of all? Jesus answered: The first is, Hear, O Israel ; the Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” &c. &c. In the Homily, however, the quotation is made in a totally different connection, for there is no question of commandments at all, but a clear statement of the cir- cumstances under which the passage was used, which excludes the idea that this quotation was derived from Mark xii. 29. The context in the Homily is as follows : “ But to those who were beguiled to imagine many gods as the Scriptures say, he said: Hear, O Israel,” &c., &¢.® There is no hint of the assertion of many gods in the Gospels ; but, on the contrary, the question is put by one of the scribes in Mark to whom Jesus says: “Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God.”® The quotation,

1 Cf. Hom, xiii. 7.

2 Cf, Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 353 f.

8 Hinl. N. T., p. 115.

4 Although most MSS. have gov in this place, some, as for instance that edited by Cotelerius, read ὑμῶν.

> Τοῖς δὲ ἠπατημένοις πολλοὺς θεοὺς ὑπονοεῖν, ὡς ai Τραφαὶ λέγουσιν, ἔφη. ”Axove, Ἰσραὴλ, κιτιλ. Hom, 111. 57. 6 Mark xii, 34,

26 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION,

therefore, beyond doubt, must have been taken from a different Gospel. |

We may here refer to the passage, the only one pointed out by him in connection with the Synoptics, the dis- covery of which Canon Westcott affirms, “has removed the doubts which had long been raised about those (allusions) to St. Mark.”? The discovery referred to is that of the Codex Ottobonianus by Dressel, which contains the concluding part of the Homilies, and which was first published by him in 1853. Canon Westcott says: “Though St. Mark has few peculiar phrases, one of these is repeated verbally in the concluding part of the 19th Homily.”* The passage is as follows: Hom. xix. 20: “ Wherefore also he explained to his disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens.” This is compared with Mark iv, 34. .. . and privately to his own disciples, he explained all things.”

Hom. xx. 20. MARK Iy, 84.

Aw καὶ τοῖς αὑτοῦ μαθηταῖς κατ᾽ ἰδίαν . + κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς ἰδίοις μαθη- ἐπέλυε τῆς τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας τὰ | ταῖς ἐπέλυεν πάντα. μυστήρια. | We have only a few words to add to complete the whole of Dr. Westcott’s remarks upon the subject. He adds after the quotation: “This is the only place where ἐπιλύω occurs in the Gospels.’* We may, however, point out that it occurs also in Acts xix. 39 and 2 Peter i. 20. It is upon the coincidence of this word that Canon Westcott rests his argument that this passage is a

1 On the Canon, p. 251. 2 Of. Ib., p. 252.

3 Dr. Westcott quotes this reading, which is supported by the Codices B, ©, Sinaiticus and others. The Codex Alexandrinus and a majority of other MSS. read for τοῖς ἰδίοις panrais,—* τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ," which is closer to the passage in the Homily. It is fair that this should be pointed out.

4 On the Canon, p. 252, note 1.

THE CLEMENTINES, 27

reference to Mark. Nothing, however, could be weaker than such a conclusion from such an indication. The phrase in the Homily presents a very marked variation from the passage in Mark. The “all things” (πάντα) of the Gospel, reads: ‘‘ The mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens” (τῆς τῶν οὐρανῶν βασιλείας τὰ μυστήρια) in the Homily. The passage in Mark iv. 11, to which Dr. Westcott does not refer, reads τὸ μυστήριον τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ. There is one very important matter, however, which our Apologist has omitted to point out, and which he passes over in convenient silence—the context in the Homily. The chapter commences thus : “And Peter said: We remember that our Lord and Teacher, as commanding, said to us: ‘Guard the mysteries for me, and the sons of my house.’ Wherefore also he explained to his disciples privately,” &.1 And then comes our passage. Now, here is a command of Jesus, in immediate connection with which the phrase before us is quoted, which does not appear in our Gospels at all, and which clearly establishes the use of a different source. The phrase itself which differs from Mark, as we have seen, may with all right be referred to the same unknown Gospel.

It must be borne in mind that all the quotations which we have hitherto examined are those which have been selected as most closely approximating to passages in our Gospels. Space forbids our giving illustrations of the vast number which so much more widely differ from parallel texts in the Synoptics. We shall confine our- selves to pointing out in the briefest possible manner

1 Καὶ ὁ Πέτρος: Μεμνήμεθα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ Διδασκάλου, ὡς ἐντελλόμενος, εἶπεν Hiv’ Τὰ μυστήρια ἐμοὶ καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ οἴκου μου φυλάξατε. κιτιλ, Hom. xix, 20.

28 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

some of the passages which are persistent in their variations or recall similar passages in the Memoirs of Justin. ‘The first of these is the injunction in Hom. iii. 55: “ Let your yea be yea, your nay nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of the evil one.” The same saying is repeated in Hom. xix. with the sole addition of “and.” We subjoin the Greek of these, together with that of the Gospel and Justin with which the Homilies agree.

Hom. iii. ὅδ. "Eoro ὑμῶν τὸ vai vai τὸ οὗ οὔ. Hom. xix. 2. Ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ val vai καὶ τὸ οὗ οὔ. Apol.i.16. Ἔστω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναί καὶ τὸ οὗ οὔ. Matt. vy. 81. Ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί οὗ οὔ.

As we have already discussed this passage’ we need not repeat our remarks here. That this passage comes from a source different from our Gospels is rendered more apparent by the quotation in Hom. xix. 2 being preceded by another which has no parallel at all in our Gospels. “ And elsewhere he said, ‘He who sowed the bad seed is the devil” (Ὁ δὲ τὸ κακὸν σπέρμα σπείρας ἐστὶν ὁ διάβολος 5): and again: “ Give no pretext to the evil one.” ? (Μὴ δότε πρόφασιν τῷ πονηρῷ.) But in exhorting he prescribes : “Let your yea be yea,” &c. The first of these phrases differs markedly from our Gospels ; the second is not in them at all; the third, which we are considering, differs likewise in an important degree in common with Justin’s quotation, and there is every reason for supposing that the whole were derived from the same unknown source.®

In the same Homily, xix. 2, there occurs also the passage which exhibits variations likewise found in Justin, which we have already examined,* and now merely point out. ‘Begone into the darkness without,

1 Vol. i. p. 354, p. 376 ἢ. 2 Cf. Matt. xiii. 39. 3 Of. Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 306; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 360. 4 Vol. i. p. 415 f,

THE CLEMENTINES. 29

which the Father hath prepared for the devil and his angels.” The quotation in Justin (Dial. 76) agrees exactly with this, with the exception that Justin has Σατανᾷ instead of διαβόλῳ, which is not important, whilst the agreement in the marked variation from the parallel in the first Gospel establishes the fact of a common source different from ours.”

We have also already * referred to the passage in Hom. xvii. 4. “No one knew (ἔγνω) the Father but the Son, even as no one knoweth the Son but the Father and those to whom the Son is minded to reveal him.” This quotation differs from Matt. xi. 27 in form, in language, and in meaning, but agrees with Justin’s reading of the same text, and as we have shown the use of the aorist here, and the transposition of the order, were character- istics of Gospels used by Gnostics and other parties in the early Church, and the passage with these variations was regarded by them as the basis of some of their leading doctrines.* That the variation is not accidental, but a deliberate quotation from a written source, is proved by this, and by the circumstance that the author of the Homilies repeatedly quotes it elsewhere in the same form.® It is impossible to suppose that the quotations in these Homilies are so systematically and consistently erroneous, and the only natural conclusion is that they are derived from a source different from our Gospels. °®

' *¥arayere eis τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον, ὃ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ Πατὴρ τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ. Hom. xix. 2; cf. Matt. χχυ. 41.

2 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, pp. 369, 233 f.; Credner, Beitriige, i, p. 211, p. 330; Mayerhof’, Einl. petr. Schr., p. 245 f.

3 Vol. i. p. 402 ff.

+ Treneus, Contra Heer., iv. 6, §§ 1, 3, 7; cf. vol. i. p. 406 f.

5 Hom. xviii. 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 90.

6 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p.'201 ff., 351; Credner, Beitriige, i, p. 210 f., 248 f., 314, 330; DMayerhof’, ἘΠῚ], petr. Schr., p. 245; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 48; Baur, Unters. kan, Evy., p. 576.

30 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

Another passage occurs in Hom. iii. 50: “ Wherefore ye do err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures ; and on this account ye are ignorant of the power of God.” This is compared with Mark xii. 94 :} “Do ye not therefore err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.”

Hom. m1. 50. MaRrK XI. 24.

. Διὰ τοῦτο πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες τὰ Οὐ διὰ τοῦτο πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες ἀληθὴ τῶν γραφῶν, οὗ εἵνεκεν ἀγνοεῖτε | Tas γραφὰς μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Θεοῦ ;

The very same quotation is made both in Hom. 11. 51 and xviii. 20, and in each case in which the passage 15 introduced it isin connection with the assertion that there are true and false Scriptures, and that as there are in the Scriptures some true sayings and some false, Jesus by this saying showed to those who erred by reason of the false the cause of their error. There cannot be a doubt that the author of the Homilies quotes this passage from a Gospel different from ours, and this is demonstrated both by the important variation from our text and also by its consistent repetition, and by the context in which it stands.?

Upon each occasion, also, that the author of the Homilies quotes the foregoing passage he likewise quotes another saying of Jesus which is foreign to our Gospels : ‘Be ye approved money-changers,” γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι The saying is thrice quoted without variation, and each time, together with the preceding passage, it refers to the necessity of discrimination between true and false sayings in the Scriptures, as for instance: “ And Peter said: If, therefore, of the

1 Cf, Matt. xxii. 29, which is still more remote. 2 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 365. 5. Hom. ii. 51, iii, 50, xviii. 20.

THE CLEMENTINES. 91

Scriptures some are true and some are false, our ‘Teacher rightly said: ‘Be ye approved money-changers,’ as in the Scriptures there are some approved sayings and some spurious.”? This is one of the best known of the apocryphal sayings of Jesus, and it is quoted by nearly. all the Fathers,? by many as from Holy Scripture, and by some ascribed to the Gospel of the Nazarenes, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There can be no question here that the author quotes an apocryphal Gospel.

There is, in immediate connection with both the pre- ceding passages, another saying of Jesus quoted which is not found in our Gospels: “ Why do ye not discern the good reason of the Scriptures?” ‘' Διὰ τί od voetre τὸ εὔλογον τῶν ypapav.” * This passage also comes from a Gospel different from ours,® and the connection and sequence of these quotations is very significant.

One further illustration, and we have done. We find the following in Hom. iii, 55: “And to those who think that God tempts, as the Scriptures say, he said : ‘The evil one is the tempter, who also tempted him- self” ”® This short saying is not found in our Gospels.

1 Hom, ii, 51.

2 Apost. Constit., ii. 36; οἵ, 37; Clem. Al., Strom., i. 28, ὃ 177; ef. ii. 4, § 15, vi. 10, ὃ 81, vii. 15, § 90; Origen, in Joan. T. xix., vol. iy. p. 289; Epiphanius, Heer., xliy. 2, p. 382; Hieron., Ep. ad Minery. et Alex., 119 (al. 152); Comm. in Ep. ad Ephes., iv.; Grabe, Spicil. Patr., i, p. 19 f,, 326; Cotelerius, Patr. Ap., i. p. 247 f.; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., ii. p. 524.

* Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 826 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 369 ;

De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 115, anm, f,

4 Hom. iii. 50.

5 Oredner, Beitriige, i. p. 326; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justin's, p. 365; De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 115, anm. f.; Cotelerius, Not. ad Clem. Hom., iii, 50.

® Τοῖς δὲ οἰομένοις ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πειράζει, ws ai Τραφαὶ λέγουσιν ἔφη" ‘O πονηρός ἐστιν ὁ πειράζων, 6 καὶ αὐτὸν πειράσας. Hom, iti, δδ. :

32 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

lt probably occurred in the Gospel of the Homilies in connection with the temptation of Jesus. It is not improbable that the writer of the Epistle of James, who shows acquaintance with a Gospel different from ours,! also knew this saying.” We are here again directed to the Ebionitish Gospel. Certainly the quotation is derived from a source different from our Gospels.*

These illustrations of the evangelical quotations in the Clementine Homilies give but an imperfect impression of the character of the extremely numerous passages which occur in the work. We have selected for our examina- tion the quotations which have been specially cited by critics as closest to parallels in our Gospels, and have thus submitted the question to the test which was most favourable to the claims of our Synoptics. Space forbids our adequately showing the much wider divergence which exists in the great majority of cases between them and the quotations in the Homilies. To sum up the case: Out of more than a hundred of these quota- tions only four brief and fragmentary phrases really agree with parallels in our Synoptics, and these, we have shown, are either not used in the same context as in. our Gospels or are of a nature far from special to them. Of the rest, all without exception systematically vary more or less from our Gospels, and many in their variations agree with similar quotations in other writers, or on repeated quotation always present the same pecu- liarities, whilst others, professed to be direct quotations of sayings of Jesus, have no parallels in our Gospels at all. Upon the hypothesis that the author made use of our Gospels, such systematic divergence would be per-

1 Of. ch. vy. 12. 2 Cf. ch. i. 13. 3 Credner, Beitiiige, i. p. 806; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 339.

THE CLEMENTINES. 33

fectly unintelligible and astounding. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the agreement of a few passages with parallels in our Gospels cannot prove anything. The only extraordinary circumstance is that even using a totally different source, there should not have been a greater agreement with our Synoptics. But for the universal inaccuracy of the human mind, every important historical saying, having obviously only one distinct original form, would in all truthful histories have been reported in that one unvarying form. The nature of the quotations in the Clementine Homilies leads to the inevitable conclusion that their author derived them from a Gospel different from ours. The source of the quotations is never named throughout the work, and there is not the faintest indication of the existence of our Gospels. These circumstances render the Clementine Homilies, in any case, of no evidential value as to the origin and authenticity of the canonical Gospels. This mere fact, in connection with a work written a century and a half after the establishment of Christianity, and abounding with quotations of the dis- courses of Jesus, is in itself singularly suggestive.

It is scarcely necessary to add that the author of the Homilies has no idea whatever of any canonical writ- ings but those of the Old Testament, though even with regard to these some of our quotations have shown that he held peculiar views, and believed that they con- tained spurious elements. There is no reference in the Homilies to any of the Epistles of the New Testament.'

One of the most striking points in this work, on the other hand, is its determined animosity against the

1 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 252, note 2; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, Ῥ. 57. VOL. Il. . D

34 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

Apostle Paul. We have seen that a strong anti-Pauline tendency was exhibited by many of the Fathers, who, like the author of the Homilies, made use of Judeo- Christian Gospels different from ours. In this work, however, the antagonism against -the “Apostle of the Gentiles” assumes a tone of peculiar virulence. There cannot be a doubt that the Apostle Paul is attacked in this religious romance, as the great enemy of the true faith, under the hated name of Simon the Magician, whom Peter follows everywhere for the purpose of unmasking and confuting him. He is robbed of his title of “Apostle of the Gentiles,” which, together with the honour of founding the Church of Antioch, of Laodiczea, and of Rome, is ascribed to Peter. All that opposition to Paul which is implied in the Epistle to the Galatians and elsewhere? is here realized and exag- gerated, and the personal difference with Peter to which Paul refers* is widened into the most bitter animosity. In the Epistle of Peter to James which is prefixed to the Homilies, Peter says, in allusion to Paul: “For some among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and accepted certain lawless and foolish

1 Baur, Paulus, i. p. 97 ff., 148, anm. 1, p. 250; K. 6. d. 3 erst. Jahrh.., p. 87 ff., 93, anm. 1 ; Tiibinger Zeitschr. f. Th., 1831, h. 4, p. 136 f. ; Dogmengesch. L, i. p. 155; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 286 f.; Gfrorer, Allg. K. G., i. p. 257 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Clem. Recogn. u. Hom., p- 319; Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1869, p. 353 ff.; Der Kanon, p. 11 f.; A. Kayser, Rev. de Théol., 1851, p. 142 f.; Lechler, Das apost. τι. nachap. Zeit., p. 457 f., p. 500; Réville, Essais de Crit. Relig., 1860, p. 35 ἢ: Renan, St. Paul, 1869, p. 303, note 8; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 63, note 1; Ritschl, Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 277 ff. ; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugn., p- 57; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 372 ff. ; Uhihorn, Die Homilien, τι. 8. W., 1854, p. 297; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1856, p. 279 f.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 252, note 2; Zeller, Apostelgeschichte, p. 158 f.

* 1 Cor. i. 11, 12; 2 Cor. xi. 13, 20 f.; Philip. i. 15, 16.

8. Gal. ii. 11; ef. 1 Cor. i. 11, 12.

THE CLEMENTINES. 35

teaching of the hostile man.”! First expounding a doctrine of duality, as heaven and earth, day and night, life and death,? Peter asserts that in nature the greater things come first, but amongst men the opposite is the case, and the first is worse and the second better.* He then says to Clement that it is easy according to this order to discern to what class Simon (Paul) belongs, “who came before me to the Gentiles, and to which I belong who have come after him, and have followed him as light upon darkness, as knowledge upon ignorance, as health upon disease.”* He continues: “ If he were known he would not be believed, but now, not being known, he is wrongly believed ; and though by ‘his acts he is a hater, he is loved; and although an enemy, he is welcomed as a friend; and though he is death, he is desired as a saviour; and though fire, esteemed as light ; and though a deceiver, he is listened to as speaking the truth.” There is much more of this acrimonious abuse put into the mouth of Peter.6 The indications that it is Paul who is really attacked under the name of Simon are much too clear to admit of doubt. In Hom. xi. 35, Peter, warning the Church against false teachers, says: ‘He who hath sent us, our Lord and Prophet, declared to us that the evil one : announced that he would send from amongst his fol- lowers apostles? to deceive. Therefore above all remember to avoid every apostle, or teacher, or prophet, who first does not accurately compare his teaching with that of James

1 Epist. Petri ad Jacobum, § 2. Canon Westcott quotes this passage with the observation, ‘‘ There can be no doubt that St. Paul is referred to as ‘the enemy.’” On the Canon, p. 252, note 2.

2 Hom. ii. 15. 3 Tb., ii. 16. 4.10., ii. 17.

δ᾽ Jb., ii. 18, Ξ 6 Of. Hom. iii. 59; vii. 2, 4, 10, 11.

7 We have already pointed out that this declaration is not in our Gospels,

D2

36 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

called the brother of my Lord, and to whom was confided the ordering of the Church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem,” &c., lest this evil one should send a false preacher to them, “as he has sent to us Simon preaching a counterfeit of truth in the name of our Lord and ᾿ disseminating error.” Further on he speaks more plainly still. Simon maintains that he has a truer appreciation of the doctrines and teaching of Jesus because he has received his imspiration by supernatural vision, and not merely by the common experience of the senses,” and Peter replies: “If, therefore, our Jesus indeed appeared to you in a vision, revealed himself, and spoke to you, it was only as an irritated adversary. . - . . But can any one through visions become’ wise in teaching? And if you say: ‘It is possible, then I ask, ‘ Wherefore did the Teacher remain and discourse for a whole year to those who were attentive ? And how can we believe your story that he appeared to you? And in what manner did he appear to you, when you hold opinions contrary to his teaching? But if seen and taught by him for a single hour you became his apostle :* preach his words, interpret his sayings, love his apostles, oppose not me who consorted with him. For you now set yourself up against me who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church. If you were not an opponent you would not calumniate me, you would not revile my teaching im order that, in declaring what I have myself heard from the Lord, I may not be believed, as though I were condemned. . . . But

- 3 Hom. xi. 35; cf. Galat.i. 7 5 3 70., xvii. 13 ff.

* Cf 1 Cor. ix. 18 “Am I not an Apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Cf. Galat.i. 1; i 12, “ For neither did I myself receive it by man, nor was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ.”

THE CLEMENTINES. 37

if you say that. 1 am condemned, you blame God who revealed Christ to me,’”? &c. This last phrase: “If you say that J am condemned” (Ἢ εἰ κατεγνωσμένον pe λέγεις) 1s an evident allusion to Galat. 11. 11: “1 withstood him to the face, because he was condemned ” (ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἢν).

We have digressed to a greater extent than we intended, but it is not unimportant to show the general character and tendency of the work we have been examining. The Clementine Homilies,—written perhaps about the end of the second century, which never name or indicate a single Gospel as the source of the author’s knowledge of evangelical history, whose quotations of sayings of Jesus, numerous as they are, systematically differ from the parallel passages of our Synoptics, or are altogether foreign to them, which denounce the Apostle Paul as an impostor, enemy of the faith, and disseminator of false doctrine, and therefore repudiate his Epistles, at the same time equally ignoring all the other writings of the New Testament, — can scarcely be considered as giving much support to any theory of the early formation of the New Testament Canon, or as affording evidence even of the existence of its separate books.

2.

Amone the writings which used formerly to be ascribed to Justin Martyr, and to be published along with his general works, is the short composition com- monly known as the “Epistle to Diognetus.” The ascription of this composition to Justin arose solely from

1 Hom. xvii. 19.

38 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

the fact that in the only known MS. of the letter there is an inscription Tod αὐτοῦ πρὸς Διόγνητον which from its connection was referred to Justin.’ The style and con- tents of the work, however, soon convinced crities that it could not possibly be written by Justin,? and although it has been ascribed by various isolated writers to Apollos, Clement, Marcion, Quadratus, and others, none of these guesses have been seriously supported, and critics are almost universally agreed in confessing that the author of the Epistle is entirely unknown.

Such being the case, it need scarcely be said that the difficulty of assigning a date to the work with any degree of certainty is extreme, if it be not absolutely impossible to do so. ‘This difficulty, however, is in- creased by several circumstances. The first and most important of these is the fact that the Epistle to Diog- netus is neither quoted nor mentioned by any ancient writer, and consequently there is no external evidence whatever to indicate the period of its composition.* Moreover, it is not only anonymous but incomplete, or, at least, as we have it, not the work of a single writer. At the end of Chapter x. a break is indicated, and the two

1 Otto, Ep. ad Diognetum, &¢., 1852, p. 11 f.

2 Baur, Dogmengesch. I., i. p. 255; Gesch. chr. Kirche, i. p. 373; Bunsen, Analecta Ante-Nic., i. p. 103 ff. ; Christianity and Mankind, i. p. 170 f.; Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 50; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 399 ; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., ii. p. 138 ff.; Ewald, Gesch. Volkes Isr., vii. p. 251; Guericke, H’buch K. G., p. 152; C. D. a. Gross- heim, De ep. ad Diogn. Comm., 1828; Hollenberg, Der Br. ad Diogn., 1853; Hilgenfeld, Die ap Vater, p. 1, cf. 9f.; Kayser, Rev. de Théol., 1856, p. 258 ff.; Kirchhofer, QuellensammL., p. 36, anm.1; Méhler, Ueb. d. Br. an Diogn. Werke, 1839, i. p. 19 ff.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 289; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 101; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., Ῥ. 40; Tillemont, Mém. eccl., tom. ii. pt. 1, p. 366, 493, note 1; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 74 f.; Zeller, Zie Apostelgesch., p. 50.

3 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., 11. p. 126 ; Kirchhofer, Quellen- sarninl,, p. 36, anm. 1.

THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 39

concluding chapters are unmistakably by a different and later hand.’ It is not singular, therefore, that there exists a wide difference of opinion as to the date of the first ten chapters, although all agree regarding the later composition of the concluding portion. It is assigned to various periods between about the end of the first quarter of the second century to the end of that century,” whilst others altogether denounce it as a modern forgery.* Nothing can be more insecure in one direction than the date of a work derived alone from internal evidence. Allusions to actual occurrences may with certainty prove that a work could only have been written after they had taken place. The mere absence of later indications in an anonymous Epistle only found in a single MS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, however, and which may have been and probably was written expressly in imitation of early Christian feeling, cannot furnish any solid basis for an early date. It must be evident that

1 Credner, Der Kanon, p. 59 ff., 67, 76; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. Ῥ. 339; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., 11. p. 142; Ewald, Gesech. Υ. Isr., vii. p. 251, anm. 1; Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Vater, p. 1; Otto, Just. Mart., ii. p. 201 n.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 290; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 75.

2¢.A.D.117. Westcott,On the Canon, p. 76. A.D. 120—130, Ewald, Gesch. V. Isr., vil. p. 252. Between Hadrian and Marc. Aurel. Kayser, Rey. de Théol., 1856, p. 258. An elder contemporary of Justin. Tischen- dorf, Wann wurden, τι. s. w., p. 40. A.D. 1383—135, Otto, De Ep. ad Diogn., 1845; Bunsen, Chr. and Mankind,i. p.170. A.D.135, Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 289. A.D. 140, Credner, Der Kanon, p. 59; cf. Beitriige, 1. p. 50. After A.D. 170, Scholten, Die 10. Zeugnisse, p. 101. Hardly before A.D. 180, Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 399. Hilgenfeld excludes it from the 2nd century. Die ap. Viter, p. 9f. Zeller considers it of no value, even if it contained quotations, on account of its late date. Die Apostel- gesch., p. 51; Theol. Jahrb., iv. p. 619 f.

3 Donaldson considers it either a forgery by H. Stephanus the first editor, or by Greeks who came over to Italy when Constantinople was threatened by the Turks. Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., ii. p..141 f. So also Overbeck decides it to be a fictitious production written after the time of Constantine; Ueb. d. pseudojust. Br. an Diognet. Programm. 1872. .

40 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

the determination of the date of this Epistle cannot therefore be regarded as otherwise than doubtful and arbitrary. It is certain that the purity of its Greek and the elegance of its style distinguish it from all other Christian works of the period to which so many assign it.

The Epistle to Diognetus, however, does not furnish any evidence even of the existence of our Synoptics, for it is admitted that it does not contain a single direct quota- tion from any evangelical work.? We shall hereafter have to refer to this Epistle in connection with the fourth Gospel, but in the meantime it may be well to add that | in Chapter xii., one of those it will be remembered which are admitted to be of later date, a brief quotation is made from 1 Cor. vii. 1, introduced merely by the words, ὁ ἀπόστολος λέγει.

1 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 102; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 399; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., ii. p. 134 ff.; cf. Hwald, Gesch. V, Isr., vii. p. 253; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 74 f.; Kayser, Rey. de Théol., 1856, p. 257.

2 Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 50; Kayser, Rev. de Théol., 1856, p. 257; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 40 f.; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 102;

Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 40; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 78.

BASILADES. 41

CHAPTER VI. BASILIDES—-VALENTINUS.

We must now turn back to an earlier period aud consider any evidence regarding the Synoptic Gospels which may be furnished by the so-called heretical writers of the second century. The first of these who claims our attention is Basilides, the founder of a system of Gnosticism, who lived in Alexandria about the year 125 of our era.' With the exception of a very few brief fragments,? none of the writings of this Gnostic have been preserved, and all our information regarding them is therefore derived at second-hand from ecclesiastical writers opposed to him and his doctrines, and their statements, especially where acquaintance with, and the use of, the New Testament Scriptures are assumed, must be received with very great caution. The uncritical and inaccurate character of the Fathers rendered them pecu- liarly liable to be misled by foregone devout conclusions.

Eusebius states that Agrippa Castor, who had written a refutation of the doctrines of Basilides, “Says that he had composed twenty-four books upon the Gospel.”

1 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 7, 8,9; Baur, Gesch. chr. K., i. p. 196; David- son, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 388; Guericke, H’buch K. G., 1. p. 182; Lechler, Das ap. und nachap Zeit., p. 498; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 64 ; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., ps 50.

2 Grabe, Spicil. Patr., ii. p. 39 ff., 65 ff.

΄ , 3 Φησὶν αὐτὸν εἰς μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τέσσαρα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι συντάξαι βιβλία.

Ἢ. E., iv. 7.

42 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

This is interpreted by Tischendorf, without argument, and in a most arbitrary and erroneous manner, to imply that the work was a commentary upon our four canonical Gospels ;! a conclusion the audacity of which can scarcely be exceeded. This is, however, almost surpassed by the treatment of Canon Westcott, who writes regarding Basilides: “It appears, moreover, that he himself published a Gospel—a ‘ Life of Christ’ as it would perhaps be called in our days, or ‘The Philosophy of Christianity ’2—but he admitted the historic truth of all the facts contained in the canonical Gospels, and used them as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony of Basilides to our ‘acknowledged’ books is comprehensive and clear. In the few pages of his writings which remain there are certain references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John,’* &c. Now in making, in such a manner, these assertions: in totally ignoring the whole of the discussion with regard to the supposed quotations of Basilides in the work com- monly ascribed to Hippolytus and the adverse results of learned criticism: in the unqualified assertions thus made and the absence either of explanation of the facts or the reasons for the conclusion : this statement must be condemned in the strongest manner as unworthy of a scholar, and only calculated to mislead readers who must generally be ignorant of the actual facts of the case.

We know from the evidence of antiquity that Basilides made use of a Gospel, written by himself it is said, but certainly called after his own name.* An attempt has

1 Wann wurden, u.s. w., p. 51 f. 2 These names are pure inventions of Dr. Westcott’s fancy, of course. 3 On the Canon, p. 255 f.

4 Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium et suo illud nomine titu-

BASILIDES. 48.

been made to explain this by suggesting that perhaps the Commentary mentioned by Agrippa Castor may have been mistaken for a Gospel;' but the fragments of that work which are still extant? are of a character which precludes the possibility that any work of which they formed a part could have been considered a Gospel.* Various opinions have been expressed as to the exact nature of the Gospel of Basilides. Neander affirmed it to be the Gospel according to the Hebrews which he brought from Syria to Egypt ;* whilst Schneckenburger held it to be the Gospel according to the Egyptians.® Others believe it to have at least been based upon one or other of these Gospels.6 There seems most reason for the hypothesis that it was a form of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which we have found so generally in use amongst the Fathers.

We have already quoted the passage in which Eusebius states, on the authority of Agrippa Castor, whose works are no longer extant, that Basilides had

lare. Origen, Hom.i.in Lucam. Ausus est etiam Basilides Evangelium scribere quod dicitur secundum Basilidem. -Ambros., Comment in Luc. Proem. Hieron., Preef. in Matt.; cf. Credner, Beitrige, i. p. 37; Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 11; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, vil. p. 568; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 389; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 414, anm. 3, p. 475; Neudecker, Einl. N. T., 1840, p. 85 f.; Schott, Isagoge, p. 23; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 64.

1 Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 414, anm. 3; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, τι. 8. w., p. 52, anm. 1; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 255 f., note 4; @frorer, Allg. K. G., i., p. 340, anm.***; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ev. Apocr., p. 134.

2 Grabe, Spicil. Patr., ii. p. 39 ff., 65 ff.; Clemens Al., Strom., iv. 12.

3 Dr. Westcott admits this. On the Canon, p. 255, note 4.

4 Gnost. Syst., p. 84; ef. K. G., 1843, ii. p. 709, anm. 2; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. Apocr., p. 134.

5 Ueb. ἃ. Ey. ἃ. Agypt., 1884; cf. Gieseler, Entst. schr. Evv., p- 19.

6 Gieseler, Entst. schr. Evv., p. 19; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 568 ; cf. Fabricius, Cod. Ap. N. T., i. p. 343, note m.

44 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

composed a work in twenty-four books on the Gospel (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), and we have mentioned the unwarranted inference of Tischendorf that this must have been a work on our four Gospels. Now, so far from de- riving his doctrines from our Gospels or other New Testament writings or acknowledging their authority, Basilides expressly states that he received his know- ledge of the truth from Glaucias, “the interpreter of Peter,” whose disciple he claimed to be,’ and he thus sets Gospels aside and prefers tradition? In men- tioning this fact Canon Westcott says: “At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, as well as St. Mark, was ‘an interpreter of St. Peter.’ Now we have here again an illustration of the same mis- leading system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to, in the introduction after “Glaucias” of the words “ who as well as St. Mark was an interpreter of St. Peter.” The words in italics are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only have been inserted for one of two purposes: I[., to assert the fact that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter as tradition represented Mark to be ; or 11., to insinuate to unlearned readers that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the interpreter of Peter. We can scarcely suppose the first to have been the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal of Basilides to the uncanonical

rere rec καθάπερ 6 Βασιλείδης κἂν Travyiav ἐπιγράφηται διδάσκαλον, ὡς αὐχοῦσιν αὐτοὶ, τὸν Πέτρου ἑρμηνέα. Clemens Al., Strom., vii. 17, § 106.

2 Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 37; Gfrérer, Allg. K. G., i. p. 340; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 64; cf. Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 568. - § On the Canon, p. 255.

BASILIDES. 45

Glaucias, by coupling with it the allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the apologist.’ Basilides also claimed to have received from a certain Matthias the report of private discourses which he had heard from the Saviour for his special instruction.? Agrippa Castor further stated, according to Eusebius, that in his ἐξηγητικὰ Basilides refers to Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor?) as prophets, as well as invents others for himself who never existed and claimed their authority for his doctrines.* With regard to all this Canon Westcott writes: “Since Basilides lived on the verge of the apostolic times, it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration was still fresh and real,”® &c. It is apparent, however, that Basilides, in basing his doctrines on these Apocryphal books as inspired, and upon tradition, and in having a special Gospel called after his own name, which, there- fore, he clearly adopts as the exponent of his ideas of Christian truth, absolutely ignores the canonical Gospels altogether, and not only does not offer any evidence for their existence, but proves that he did not recognize any such works as of authority. Therefore there is no ground

' We may add that the ‘‘Saint” inserted before Peter neither belongs to Clement nor to Basilides, but is introduced into the quotation by Dr. Westcott.

2 Βασιλείδης τοίνυν καὶ ᾿Ισίδωρος, ὁ Βασιλείδου παῖς γνήσιος καὶ μαθητής, φασὶν εἰρηκέναι Ματθίαν αὐτοῖς λόγους ἀποκρύφους, obs ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος κατ᾽ ἰδίαν διδαχθείς. Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Heer., vii. 20; ed. Duncker et Schneidewin, 1859. μ

3. Jsidorus, his son and disciple, wrote ἃ commentary on the prophecy of Parchor (Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 6, § 53), in which he further refers to the ‘* prophecy of Cham.” Of. Neander, Allg. K. G., 1843, ii. p. 703 ff.

aa as Ὑ ὐΣ προφήτας δὲ ἑαυτῷ ὀνομάσαι Βαρκαββᾶν καὶ Βαρκὼφ καὶ ἄλλους ἀνυπάρκτους τινὰς ἑαυτῷ συστησάμενον, κιτιλ. Euseb., H. E., iv. 7.

® On the Canon, p. 255.

46 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

whatever for Tischendorf’s assumption that the com- mentary of Basilides “ on the Gospel ” was written upon our Gospels, but that idea is on the contrary negatived in the strongest way by all the facts of the case. The per- fectly simple interpretation of the statement is that long ago suggested by Valesius,? that the Commentary of Basi- lides was composed upon his own Gospel,? whether it was the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Egyptians. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Basilides used the word “Gospel” in a peculiar technical way. Hip- polytus, in the work usually ascribed to him, writing of the Basilidians and describing their doctrines, says: “When therefore it was necessary to reveal, he (1) says, us, who are children of God, in expectation of which revelation, he says, the creature groaneth and travaileth, — the Gospel came into the world, and came through (διῆλθε ? prevailed over) every principality and power and dominion, and every name that is named.”* “The Gospel, therefore, came first from the Sonship, he says, through the Son, sitting by the Archon, to the Archon, and the Archon learnt that he was not the God of all things but begotten,’® &. “The Gospel is the know- ledge of supramundane matter,’®&c. This may not be

1 Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 389; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 64 ; Credner, Der Kanon, p. 24.

2 Cf. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i. p. 343, not. m.

3 Neudecker, Einl. N. T., p. 85; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ey. Apocr., p. 134.

* ᾿Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἔδει ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, φησίν, ἡμᾶς τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ, περὶ ὧν ἐστέ- ναξε, φησίν, ἡ κτίσις καὶ ὥδινεν, ἀπεκδεχομένη τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν, ἦλθε τὸ ἐναγγέλιον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ διῆλθε διὰ πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ κυριότητος καί παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου, καιτιλ. Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Heer., vii. 25.

5 Ἤλθεν οὖν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πρῶτον ἀπὸ τῆς υἱότητος, φησί, διὰ τοῦ παρακα- θημένου τῷ ἄρχοντι υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα, καὶ ἔμαθεν ὁ ἄρχων, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν θεὸς τῶν ὅλων, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν γεννητὸς, κιτιλ. Ib., vii. 26; cf. 27, &e.

56 Ἐῤαγγέλιον ἐστὶ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων γνῶσις, κιτιλ. Ib., γῇ. 27.

BASILIDES. 47

very intelligible, but it is sufficient te show that “the Gospel” in a technical sense? formed a very important part of the system of Basilides. Now there is nothing whatever to show that the twenty-four books which he composed ‘on the Gospel” were not in elucidation of the Gospel as technically understood by him, illustrated by extracts from his own special Gospel and from the tradition handed down: to him by Glaucias and Matthias.

The emphatic assertion of Canon Westcott and Basi- — lides, “admitted the historic truth of all the’ facts con- tained in the canonical Gospels,” is based solely upon the following sentence of the work attributed to Hippo- lytus. “ Jesus, however, was generated according to these (followers of Basilides) as we have already said.? But when the generation which has already been declared had taken place, all things regarding the Saviour, according to them, occurred in a similar way as they have been written in the Gospel.”* There are, however, several important points to be borne in mind in reference to this passage. ‘The statement in question is not made im con- nection with Basilides himself, but. distinctly in reference to his followers, of whom there were many in the time of Hippolytus and long after him. It is, moreover, a general observation the accuracy of which we have no means of testing, and upon the correctness of which there is no special reason to rely. The remark, made at the beginning of the third century, however, that. the followers of Basilides believed that the actual events of the life of Jesus occurred in the way in which they have

1 Canon Westcott admits this technical use of the word, of course. On the Canon, p. 255 f., note 4.

2 He refers to a mystical account of the incarnation.

3 Ὃ δὲ Ἰησοῦς γεγένηται κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὡς προειρήκαμεν. Τεγενημένης δὲ τῆς γενέσεως τῆς προδεδηλωμένης, γέγονε πάντα ὁμοίως Kar αὐτοὺς τὰ περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ὡς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις γέγραπται. LHippolytus, Ref. Omn, Ηῶν,, vii. 27.

48 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

been written in the Gospels, is no proof whatever that either they or Basilides used or admitted the authority of our Gospels. The exclusive use by any one of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for instance, would be perfectly consistent with the statement. No one who considers what is known of that Gospel, or who thinks of the use made of it in the first half of the second century by perfectly orthodox Fathers before we hear anything of our Gospels, can doubt this. The passage is, therefore, of no weight as evidence for the use of our Gospels. Canon Westcott is himself obliged to admit that in the extant fragments of Isidorus, the son and disciple of Basilides, who “ maintained the doctrines of his father,” he has “ noticed nothing bearing on the books of the New Testament.”? On the supposition that Basilides actually wrote a Commentary on our Gospels, and used them as Scripture, it is indeed passing strange that we have so little evidence on the point.

We must now, however, examine in detail all of the quotations, and they are few, alleged to show the use of our Gospels, and we shall commence with those of Tischendorf. The first passage which he points out is found in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria. Tisch- endorf guards himself, in reference to these quotations, by merely speaking of them as “ Basilidian” (Basili- dianisch),? but it might have been more frank to have stated clearly that Clement distinctly assigns the quota- tion to the followers of Basilides (ot δὲ ἀπὸ Βασιλείδου),ὃ and not to Basilides himself.* The supposed quotation, therefore, however surely traced to our Gospels, could really not prove anything in regard to Basilides. The

1 On the Canon, p. 257. 3 ‘Wann wurden, u.s. w., p. 51.

8. Of δὲ ἀπὸ Βασιλείδου πυθομένων φασὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων μή ποτε ἄμεινόν ἐστι τὸ μὴ γαμεῖν ἀποκρίνασθαι λέγουσι τὸν κύριον, καιτιλ. Strom., ili. 1, § 1.

4 Canon Westcott does not refer to this quotation at all.

BASILIDES.

49

passage itself compared with the parallel in Matt. xix.

11, 12, is as follows :-—

Srrom. m1. 1, § 1. They say the Lord answered: All men cannot receive this saying.

For there are cunuchs who are | indeed from birth, but others from necessity.

Od πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, εἰσὶ γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι, οἱ μὲν ἐκ γενετῆς, οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἀνάγκης.

Marv. xrx. 11, 12.

y. 11. But he said unto them: All men cannot receive this saying but only they to whom it is given.

vy. 12. For there are eunuchs which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs which were made eunuchs by men, ἕο. &e.

Οὐ πάντες χωροῦσιν τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ οἷς δέδοται. εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι

a > , A ᾿ ’ οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως, καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνου- , δ cal > , χίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, k.T.d.

Now this passage in its affinity to and material varia- tion,from our first Gospel might be quoted as evidence for the use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but it is simply preposterous to point to it as evidence for the use of Matthew. Apologists in their anxiety to grasp at the faintest analogies as testimony seem altogether to ignore the history of the creation of written Gospels, and to forget the very existence of the πολλοὶ of Luke.’

The next passage referred to by 'Tischendorf? is one quoted by Epiphanius* which we subjoin in eontrast with the parallel in Matt. vii. 6 :—

HAR. ΧΧΤΙΥ͂. 5.

And therefore he said :

Cast not ye pearls before swine,

neither give that which is holy unto dogs.

MATT. VI. 6.

dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ὑμῶν ἔμπροσ - \ θεν τῶν χοίρων, K.T.A.

| Give not that which is holy unto |

Μὴ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας ἔμπροσ - θεν τῶν χοίρων, μηδὲ δότε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς

, κυσι.

1 Cf. Ewald, Jahrb. bibl, Wiss., 1849, p. 208. 5 Wann wurden, τι. 8. W,, ἢν 51. 3 Heer., xxiv. 5, p. 72. you, It, E

50 SUPERNATURAL. RELIGION.

Here again the variation in order is just what one might have expected from the use of the Gospel accord- ing to the Hebrews or a similar work, and there is no indication whatever that the passage did not end here, without the continuation of our first Synoptic. What is still more important, although Tischendorf does not mention the fact, nor otherwise hint a doubt than by the use again of an unexplained description of this quotation as “ Basilidianisch ” instead of a more direct ascription of _ it to Basilides himself, this passage is by no means attributed by Epiphanius to that heretic. It is intro- duced into the section of his work directed against the Basilidians, but he uses, like Clement, the indefinite φησί, and as in dealing with all these heresies there is continual interchange of reference to the head and the later followers, there is no certainty who is referred to in these quotations, and in this instance nothing to indicate that this passage is ascribed to Basilides himself. His name is mentioned in the first line of the first chapter of this “heresy,” but not again before this φησί occurs in chapter vy. Tischendorf does not claim any other quotations.

Canon Westcott states: “In the few pages of his (Basilides’) writings which remain there are certain references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke,”? &e. One might suppose from this that the “certain” references occurred in actual extracts made from his works, and that the quotations therefore appeared set in a context of his own words, This impression is strengthened when we read as an introduction to the instances : “The following examples will be sufficient to show his method of quotation.” 55 The fact is, however,

* On the Canon, p. 256: 3. Ib., p. 256, note 3.

BASILIDES. 51

that these examples are found in the work of Hippolytus, in an epitome of the views of the school by that writer himself, with nothing more definite than a subjectless φησί to indicate who is referred to. The only examples Canon Westcott can give of these “certain references” to our first and third Synopties, do not show his “method of quotation” to much advantage. The first is not a quotation at all, but a mere reference to the Magi and the Star. “But that each thing, he says (φησί), has its own times, sufficient the Saviour when he says: . . . and the Magi discerning the star,”? ἄς, This of course Canon Westcott considers a reference to Matt. ii. 1, 2, but we need scarcely point out that this falls to the ground instantly, if it be admitted, as it must be, that the Star and the Magi may have been mentioned in other Gospels than the first Synoptic. We have already seen, when examining the evidence of Justin, that this is the case. The only quotation asserted to be taken from Luke is the phrase: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,”? which agrees with Luke i. 35. This again is introduced by Hippolytus with another subjectless “ he says,” and apart from the uncertainty as to who “he” is, this is very unsatisfactory evidence as to the form of the quotation in the original text, for it may easily have been corrected by Hippolytus, consciously or uncon- sciously, in the course of transfer to his pages. We have already met with this passage as quoted by Justin from a Gospel different from ours, and this again would lead us to the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

1 "Ori de, φησίν, ἕκαστον ἰδίους ἔχει καιρούς, ἱκανὸς 6 σωτὴρ λέγων". . . . Kal οἱ μάγοι τὸν ἀστέρα τεθεαμένο.. Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Heer., vii. 27. 2 Τινεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ, καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι. Hippolytus, Ref, Omn, Heer., vii. 26, EQ

52 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

As we have already stated, however, none of the quotations which we have considered are directly referred to Basilides himself, but they are all introduced by the utterly vague expression, “he says,” (φησί) without any subject accompanying the verb. Now it is admitted that writers of the time of Hippolytus, and notably Hippolytus himself, made use of the name of the founder of a sect to represent the whole of his school, and applied to him, apparently, quotations taken from unknown and later followers.!| The passages which he cites, therefore, and which appear to indicate the use of Gospels, instead of being extracted from the works of the founder himself, in all probability were taken from writings of Gnostics of his own time. Canon Westcott himself admits the possibility of this, in writing of other carly heretics. He says: “The evidence that has been collected from the documents of these primitive sects is necessarily somewhat vague. It would be more satisfactory to know the exact position of their authors, and the precise date of their being composed. It is just possible that Hippolytus made use of writings which were current in his own time without further examination, and trans- ferred to the apostolic age forms of thought and expression which had been the growth of two, or even of three generations.”? So much as to the reliance to be placed on the work ascribed to Hippolytus. It is certain, for instance, that in writing of the sect of

1 Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 148 ff.; Die Apostelgesch., p. 63 ἢ ; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 108 ff.; Hippolytus, u. d. rém. Zeit- genossen, 1855, p. 167 ; Der Ursprung, p. 70 f.; Scholten, Die alt, Zeug- nisse, p. 65 f.; Das Ey. n. Johan., p. 427; Rump/, Rev. de Théol., 1867, p- 17 ff.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 388 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evan- gelien, p. 345 f., anm. 5; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 287; J. J. Tayler, The

Fourth Gospel, 1867, p. 57. ? On the Canon, p, 252

BASILIDES. 58

Naaseni and Ophites, Hippolytus perpetually quotes passages from the writings of the school, with the indefinite φησί," as he likewise does in dealing with the Peratici,? and Docete,* no individual author being named ; yet he evidently quotes various writers, passing from one to another without explanation, and making use of the same unvarying φησί. In one place,* where he has “the Greeks say,” (φασὶν of Ἕλληνες) he gives, without further indication, a quotation from Pindar.® A still more apt instance of his method is that pointed out by Volkmar,® where Hippolytus, writing of “ Marcion, or some one of his hounds,” uses, without further explana- tion, the subjectless φησί to introduce matter from the later followers of Marcion.? Now, with regard to Basilides, Hippolytus directly refers not only to the heretic chief, but also to his disciple Isidorus and all their followers,’ (καὶ "Ioidwpos καὶ πᾶς ὁ τούτων χορὸς) and then proceeds to use the indefinite “he says,” interspersed with references in the plural to these heretics, exhibiting the same careless method of quota- tion, and leaving the same complete uncertainty as to the speaker's identity as in the other cases mentioned.® On the other hand, it has been demonstrated by

1 Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Heer., v. 6 ff.

#20550, 36, 13. 3 Jb., viii. 9, 10. * 16.,.¥, 7

> Hippol., Ref. Omn. Heer. ed. Duncker et Schneidewin not. in loc., p. 134 ; Scholten, Die tilt. Zeugnisse, Ρ. 65 f. ; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1893, Ρ. 149 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 389.

ὁ Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 108 ff. ; Der Ursprung, p. 70.

7 Hippolytus, Ref, Omn. Heer., vii. 30; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 66.

8 Hippolytus, ib., vii. 20; οἵ, 22.

9. Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 65; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 71 f., anm.; Theol, Jahrb., 1854, p. 108 ἢ; Rwmp/, Rev. de Théol., 1867, p. 18 f.; Davidson, Introd, N. T., ii. p. 883; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p-. 148 ff.

54 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

Hilgenfeld, that the gnosticism ascribed to Basilides by Hippolytus, in connection with these quotations, is of a much later and more developed type than that which Basilides himself held,’ as shown in the actual fragments of his own writings which are still extant, and as reported by Irenzeus,? Clement of Alexandria,* and the work “ Adversus omnes MHeereses,” annexed to the Preescriptio heereticorum” of Tertullian, which is considered to be the epitome of an earlier work of Hippolytus. The fact probably is that Hippolytus derived his views of the doctrines of Basilides from the writings of his later followers, and from them made the quotations which are attributed to the founder of the school.4 In any case there is no ground for referring these quotations with an indefinite φησί to Basilides himself.

Of all this there is not a word from Canon Westcott,® but he ventures to speak of “ the testimony of Basilides to our ‘acknowledged’ books,” as “comprehensive and cleav.”® We have seen, however, that the passages referred to have no weight whatever as evidence for the use of our

1 Hilgenfeld, Theol. Jahrb., 1856, p. 86 ff, 786 ff; Die jiid. Apok., 1857, p. 287 ff.; Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1862, p. 452 ff. ; Volkmar, Hip- polytus u. ἃ. rém. Zeitgenossen, p. 167; ZAeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1860, p. 295 ff.; Der Ursprung, p. 70; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p, 66; Lipsius, Der Gnosticismus. Ersch. u. Gruber’s Allg. Encyclop., 1, sect. 71, 1860, p. 90, 152; Guericke, Ἢ ποι K. G., i. p. 184; Zundert, Zeitschr. luth. Theol., 1855, h. 2, 1856, h. 1, 3. The following differ from the view taken by Hilgenfeld: Bawr, Die chr. Kirche 3 erst. Jahrh., p. 187f.; Theol. Jahrb., 1856, p. 121 ff.; Bunsen, Hippolytus u. 5. Zeit., 1852, 1. p. 65 ff.; Jacobi, Basilides Phil. Gnost. ex. Hyppolyti lib. nuper reperto illustr., 1852; Uhihorn, Das Basilidianische System, τι. s. w., 1855. ! :

2 Ady. Heer., i. 24. ὃ Stromata, vi. 3. 4 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 66; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 69 ff. ; Rumpf, Rey. de Théol., 1867, p. 18 ff.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 388 ff.; Zeller, Apostelgesch., p. 65f.; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 148 ff.

5 And very little from Tischendorf. 6 On the Canon, p. 256.

VALENTINUS, 55

Synoptics. The formule (as τὸ εἰρημένον to that com- pared with Luke i. 35, and ὡς γέγραπται, ἡ γραφή with references compared with some of the Epistles) which accompany these quotations, and to which Canon Westcott points as an indication that the New Testament writings were already recognized as Holy Scripture,’ need no special attention, because, as it cannot be shown that the expressions were used by Basilides himself at all, they do not come into question. If anything, how- ever, were required to complete the evidence that these quotations are not from the works of Basilides himself, but from later writings by his followers, it would be the use of such formule, for as the writings of pseudo- Tonatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Papias, Hegesippus, and others of the Fathers in several ways positively demonstrate, the New Testament writings were not admitted, even amongst orthodox Fathers, to the rank of Holy Scripture, until a very much later period.’

2.

Much of what has been said with regard to the claim which is laid to Basilides, by some apologists, as a witness for the Gospels and the existence of a New Testament Canon, and the manner in which that claim is advanced, likewise applies to Valentinus, another Gnostic leader, who, about the year 140, came from Alexandria to Rome and flourished till about A.p, 160.3

* On the Canon, p. 26.

2 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 69; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 65, anm. 3; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 148.

3 Trenwus, Ady. Her., iii. 4,§ 3; Eusebius, H. E., iy. 11; Baur, Gesch. chr. Kirche, i. p. 196; Anger, Synops. Ev. Proleg., p. xxxv. ; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p- 227; Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 38 ; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ἢ,

56 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

Very little remains of the writings of this Gnostic, and we gain our only knowledge of them from a few short quotations in the works of Clement of Alexandria, and some doubtful fragments preserved by others. We shall presently have occasion to refer more directly to these, and need not here more particularly mention them. Tischendorf, the self-constituted modern Defensor fidei,' asserts, with an assurance which can scarcely be cha- racterized otherwise than as an unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his readers, that’ Valentinus used the whole of our four Canonical Gospels. To do him full justice, we shall as much as possible give bis own words ; and, although we set aside systematically all discussion regarding the fourth Gospel for separate treatment here- after, we must, in order to convey the full sense of Dr. Tischendorf’s proceeding, commence with a sentence regarding that Gospel. Referrmg to a statement of Ivenzeus, that the followers of Valentinus made use of the fourth Gospel, Tischendorf continues: “ Hippolytus confirms and completes the statement of Irenzeus, for he quotes several expressions of John, which Valentinus employed. This occurs in the clearest way, in the case of John. x. 8; for Hippolytus writes: ‘ Because the prophets and the law, according to the doctrine of Valentinus, were only filled with a subordinate aud foolish spirit, Valentinus says: On account of this, the Saviour says: All who came before me are thieves and robbers.’ ”? Now this, to begin with, is a deliberate

Ρ. 390; Guericke, Hbuch K. G., i. p. 184; Scholten, Die ilt. Zeugnisse, p. 67; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 243; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. 5. w., p. 43; JWestcott, On the Canon, p. 258 f.

1 Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1865, p, 329.

? Die Angabe des Ireniius bestarkt und vervolistandigt Hippolytus, denn er fiihrt einzelne Johanneische Ausspriiche an, welche Valentin

VALENTINUS. 57

falsification of the text of the Philosophumena, which reads : “Therefore all the Prophets and the Law have spoken by reason of the Demiurge, a foolish God, he says, (they themselves being) foolish, knowing nothing. On this account, he says, the Saviour saith: All who came before me,” ἄς. &c.1. There is no mention what- ever of the name of Valentinus in the passage, and, us we shall presently show, there is no direct reference in the whole chapter to Valentinus himself. The intro- duction of his name in this manner into the text, without a word of explanation, is highly reprehensible. It is true that in a note Tischendorf gives a closer translation of the passage, without, however, any explanation ; and here again he adds, in parenthesis to the “says he,” “namely, Valentinus.” Such a note, however, which would probably be unread by a majority of readers, does not rectify the impression conveyed by so positive and emphatic an assertion as is conveyed by the alteration in the text,

Tischendorf continues: “And as the Gospel of John, so also were, the other Gospels used by Valentinus. According to the statement of Irenzeus (I. 7, § 4), he found the said subordinate spirit, which he calls Demiurge, Masterworker,emblematically represented by the Centurion of Capernaum (Matt. viii. 9, Luke vii. 8); in the dead and resuscitated twelve years old daughter of Jairus

benutzt hat. Am deutlichsten geschieht dies mit Joh. x. 8; denn ΠῚρ- polytus schreibt: Weil die Propheten und das Gesetz, nach Valentins Lehre, nur yon einem untergeordneten und thérichten Geiste erfiilt waren, so sagt Valentin: Eben deshalb spricht der Erléser: Alle die yor mir gekommen sind, sind Diebe und Mérder gewesen.” Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., Ῥ. 44. :

' Πάντες οὖν οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ νόμος ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, μωροῦ λέγει θεοῦ, μωροὶ οὐδὲν εἰδότες. Διὰ τοῦτο, φησί, λέγει ὁ σωτήρ᾽ Πάντες, Kr.

LTippolytus, Ref. Omn. Heer., vi. 35.

58 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

/

(Luke viii. 41), he recognized a symbol of his ‘ Wisdom’ (Achamoth), the mother of the Masterworker (I. 8, § 2); in like manner, he saw represented in the history of the woman who had suffered twelve years from the bloody issue, and was cured by the Lord (Matt. ix. 20), the sufferings and salvation of his twelfth primitive spirit (Aeon) (I. 3, § 3); the expression of the Lord (Matt. v. 18) on the numerical value of the iota (‘the smallest letter’) he applied to his ten zeons in repose.” ! Now, in every instance where Tischendorf here speaks of Valentinus by the singular “he,” Jrenzeus uses the plural “they,” referring not to the original founder of the sect, but to his followers in his own day, and the text is thus again in every instance falsified by the pious zeal of the apologist. In the case of the Centurion : “they say” (λέγουσι) that he is the Demiurge ;? “ they declare” (διηγοῦνται) that the daughter of Jairus is the type of Achamoth ;? “they say” (λέγουσι) that the apostasy of Judas points to the passion in connection with the twelfth zon, and also the fact that Jesus suffered in the twelfth month after his baptism ; for they will have it (βούλονται) that he only preached for one year. The case of the woman with the bloody issue for twelve years, and the power which went forth from the Son to heal her, “they will have to be Horos” (εἶναι δὲ ταύτης τὸν Ὅρον θελουσιν) In like manner they assert that the ten sons are indicated (σημαίνεσθαι λέγουσι) by the letter “Iota,” mentioned in the Saviour’s expression, Matt. v. 18.5 At the end of these and numerous other — similar references in this chapter to New Testament

1 Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., p. 44 f. 2 Jreneus, Ady. Heer., i. 7, § 4. ἘΠῚ 1. 9.8 3 3 Τῦ,, i. 8, § 2. B70, Ie Os eA

VALENTINUS. 59

expressions and passages, Irenzeus says: “Thus they interpret,” &c. (ἑρμηνεύουσιν εἰρῆσθαι). The plural “they ” is employed throughout.

Tischendorf proceeds to give the answer to his state- ment which is supposed to be made by objectors. “They say: all that has reference to the Gospel of John was not advanced by Valentinus himself, but first by his disciples. And in fact, in Irenzeus, ‘they—the Valen- tinians—say,’ occurs much oftener than ‘he—Valentinus —says.’ But who is there so sapient as to draw the line between what the master alone says, and that which the disciples state without in the least repeating the master ?”? ‘'Tischendorf solves the difficulty by referring everything indiscriminately to the master. Now, in reply to these observations, we must remark in the first place that the admission here made by Tischendorf, that Trenzeus much more often uses “ they say” than “he says ” is still quite disingenuous, inasmuch as invariably, and without exception, Ireneeus uses the plural in con- nection with the texts in question. Secondly, it is quite preposterous to argue that a Gnostic, writing about A.p. 185—195, was not likely to use arguments which were never thought of by a Gnostic, writing at the middle of the second century. At the end of the century, the writings of the New Testament had acquired considera- tion and authority, and Gnostic writers had therefore a reason to refer to them, and to endeavour to show that they supported their peculiar views, which did not exist at all at the time when Valentinus propounded his system. ‘Tischendorf, however, cannot be allowed the benefit even of such a doubt as he insinuates, as to what belongs to the master; and what to the followers. Such

1 Treneus, Ady. Heer., i. 3, ὃ 4. 2 Wann wurden, u. 8. W., ἢ. 45.

60 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

doubtful testimony could not establish anything, but it is in point of fact also totally excluded by the statement of Irenzeus himself.

In the preface to the first book of his great work, Trenzeus clearly states the motives and objects for which he writes. He says: “I have considered it necessary, having read the commentaries (ὑπομνήμασι) of the disciples of Valentinus, as they call themselves, and having by personal intercourse with some of them apprehended their opinions, to unfold to thee,” &c., and he goes on to say that he intends to set forth “the opinions of those who are now teaching heresy ; I speak particularly of those round Ptolemzeus, whose system is an off-shoot of the school of Valentinus.”’ Nothing could be more explicit than this statement that Irenzeus © neither intended nor pretended to write upon the works of Valentinus himself, but upon the commentaries of his followers of his own time, with some of whom he had had personal intercourse, and that the system which he intended to attack was that actually being taught in his day by Ptolemzeus and his school, the off-shoot from Valentinus. All the quotations to which Tischendorf refers are made within a few pages of this explicit declaration. Immediately after the passage about the Centurion, he says: “such is their system” (τοιαύτης δὲ τῆς ὑποθέσεως αὐτῶν οὔσης), and three lines below. he states that they derive their views from unwritten

sources (ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσκοντες). The first direct 1... ἀναγκαῖον ἡγησάμην, ἐντυχὼν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν, Οὐαλεντίνου μαθητῶν, ἐνίοις δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ συμβαλὼν, καὶ καταλαβόμενος τὴν γνώμην αὐτῶν, μηνυσαὶ σοι, κιτιλ.... τὴν τε γνώμην αὐτῶν τῶν νῦν παραδι- δασκόντων, λέγω δὴ τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον, ἀπάνθισμα οὖσαν τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς, καὶ. Trenceus, Ady. Her. Preef., i. § 2. 2 1b., Ady. Hzer., i. 8, § 1.

VALENTINUS. ᾿ 61

reference to Valentinus does not occur until after these quotations, and is for the purpose of showing the variation of opinion of his followers. He says: “ Let us now see the uncertain opinions of these heretics, for there are two or three of them, how they do not speak alike of the same things, but set forth differently, both statements and names.” Then he continues: “The first of the Gnostic heresy, who adapted ancient doctrines to his characteristic teaching, Valentinus, thus defined,” &c., ἄς And after a brief description of his system, in which no Scriptural allusion occurs, he goes on to compare the views of the rest, and in chap. xii. he returns to Ptolemeeus and his followers (Ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, καὶ of σὺν αὐτῷ, K.T.d.).

In the preface to Book 11., he again says that he has been exposing the falsity of the followers of Valentinus (qui sunt a Valentino) and will proceed to establish what he has advanced ; and everywhere he uses the plural “ they,” with occasional direct references to the followers of Valentinus (qui sunt a Valentino).?_ The same course is adopted in Book ii, the plural being systematically used, and the same distinct definition introduced at intervals? And again, in the preface to Book iv. he recapitulates that the preceding books had been written against these, “qui sunt a Valentino” (§ 2). In fact, it would almost be impossible for any writer more fre-

1 Ἴδωμεν viv καὶ τὴν τούτων ἄστατον γνώμην, δύο που καὶ τριῶν ὄντων, πῶς περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς πράγμασι καὶ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἐναντία ἀποφαίνονται. “O μὲν γὰρ πρῶτος ἀπὸ τῆς λεγομένης Τνωστικῆς αἱρέσεως τὰς ἀρχὰς εἰς ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου μεθαρμόσας Οὐαλεντῖνος, οὕτως ἐξηροφόρησεν, κιτιλ. Lrenwus, Ady. Heer., i. 11, § 1.

2 As, for instance, ii. 16, § 4.

3 For instance, ‘“‘Secundum autem eos qui sunt a Valentino,” iii. 11, § 2. “Secundum autem illos,” ὃ 3; ‘‘ab omnibus illos,” ὃ 3. ‘Hi autem qui sunt a Valentino,” &c., § 7, 7b. καὶ 9, &e. Ke.

62 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

quently and emphatically to show that he is not, as he began by declaring, dealing with the founder of the school himself, but with his followers living and teaching at the time at which he wrote.

Canon Westcott, with whose system of positively enunciating unsupported and controverted statements we are already acquainted, is only slightly outstripped by the German apologist in his misrepresentation of the evidence of Valentinus. It must be stated, however, that, acknowledging, as no doubt he does, that Irenzeus never refers to Valentinus himself, Canon Westcott passes over in complete silence the supposed references upon which Tischendorf relies as his only evidence for the use of the Synoptics by that Gnostic. He, however, makes the following extraordiary statement regarding Valen- tinus: “The fragments of his writings which remain show the same natural and trustful use of Scripture as other Christian works of the same period ; and there is no diversity of character in this respect between the quotations given in Hippolytus and those found in Clement of Alexandria. He cites the Epistle to the Ephesians as ‘ Scripture,’ and refers clearly to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, to the Epistles to the Romans,”? &e.

We shall now give the passages which he points out in support of these assertions.? The first two are said to occur in the Stromata of the Alexandrian Clement, who professes to quote the very words of a letter of Valen- tinus to certain people regarding the passions, which are called by the followers of Basilides “the appendages of the soul.” The passage is as follows: “ But one is good,

1 On the Canon, p. 259 f. 2 Ib., p. 260, note 2,

VALENTINUS., 63

whose advent is through the manifestation of the Son, and by whose power alone the heart can become pure, | every spirit of evil being expelled from the heart, For the number of spirits dwelling in it do not allow it to be pure, but each of them performs its own works, often insulting it with unseemly lusts, And the heart appears to be treated like an inn, For such a place has both rents and holes made in it, and is frequently filled with ordure, men abiding brutally in it, and haying no thought for the place even as established for others. And in such wise fares the heart, while without thought, being impure, and the dwelling-place of many demons, but so soon as the alone good Father visits it, it is sanctified and flashes through with light, and the pos- sessor of such a heart is blessed, for he shall see God.” } According to Canon Westcott this passage contains two of the “clear references” to our Gospels upon which he bases his statement, namely to Matt. v. 8, and to Matt. xix. 17. . )

Now it is clear that there is no actual quotation from any evangelical work in this passage from the Epistle of Valentinus, and the utmost for which the most zealous apologist could contend is, that there is a slight similarity with some words in the Gospel, and Canon

1 Els δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς, οὗ παῤῥησίᾳ (Grabe—Spicil. Patr. ii. p, 52—suggests παρουσίᾳ, Which we adopt.) ἡ διὰ τοῦ viod φανέρωσις, καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ μόνου δύναιτο ἂν ἡ καρδία καθαρὰ γενέσθαι παντὸς πονηροῦ πνεύματος ἐξωθουμένου τῆς καρδίας. πολλὰ γὰρ ἐνοικοῦντα αὑτῇ πνεύματα οὐκ ἐᾷ καθαρεύειν, ἕκαστον δὲ αὑτῶν τὰ ἴδια ἐκτελεῖ ἔργα πολλαχῶς ἐνυβριζόντων ἐπιθυμίαις οὗ προσηκούσαις. καὶ μοι δοκεῖ ὅμοιόν τι πάσχειν τῷ πανδοχείῳ ἡ Kapdia: καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνο κατατιτρᾶταί τε καὶ ὀρύττεται καὶ πολλάκις κόπρου πίμπλαται ἀνθρώπων ἀσελγῶς ἐμμενόντων καὶ μηδὲ μίαν πρόνοιαν ποιουμένων τοῦ χωρίου, καθάπερ ἀλλοτρίου καθεστῶτος" τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον καὶ ἡ καρδία μέχρι μὴ προνοίας τυγχάνει, ἀκάθαρ-- tos οὖσα, πολλῶν οὖσα, δαιμόνων οἰκητήριον, ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἐπισκέψηται αὑτὴν ὁ μόνος ἀγαθὸς πατὴρ, ἡγίασται καὶ φωτὶ διαλάμπει, καὶ οὕτω μακαρίζεται ὁ ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην καρδίαν, ὅτι ὄψεται τὸν θεόν. Clem. Al., Strom., ii. 20, § 114.

64 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

Westcott himself does not venture to call them more than “references.” That such distant coincidences should be quoted as the only evidence for the use of the first Gospel shows how weak is his case. At best such vague references could not prove anything, but when the passages to which reference is supposed to be made are examined, it will be apparent that nothing could be more absurd or arbitrary than the claim of reference specially to our Gospel, to the exclusion of the other Gospels then existing, which to our knowledge contained both pas- sages. We may, indeed, go still further, and affirm that if these coincidences are references to any Gospel at all, that Gospel is not the canonical, but one different from it.

The first reference alluded to consists of the following two phrases: “But one is good (εἷς δέ ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς). the alone good Father” (ὁ μόνος ἀγαθὸς πατὴρ). This is compared with Matt. xix. 17:1 “Why askest thou me concerning good? there is one that is good” (εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός). Now the passage in the epistle, if a reference to any parallel episode, such as Matt. xix. 17, indicates with certainty the reading: “One is good, the Father.” εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός 6 πατὴρ. There is no such reading in any of our Gospels. But although this reading does not exist in any of the Canonical Gospels, it is well known that it did exist in ~ uncanonical Gospels no longer extant, and that the passage was one upon which various sects of so-called heretics laid great stress. Jrenzeus quotes if as one of

1 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 260, note 2. 2 Mark x. 18, and Luke xvii. 18, are linguistically more distant. ‘“Why callest thou me good? There is none good but God only.” οὐδεὶς

- ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός,

VALENTINUS. 65

the texts to which the Marcosians, who made use of apocryphal Gospels,' and notably of the Gospel accord- ing to the Hebrews, gave a different colouring: εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς, 6 πατὴρ2 Epiphanius also quotes this reading as one of the variations of the Marcionites: εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς, ὁ θεός, ὃ πατὴρ) Origen, likewise, remarks that this passage is misused by some Heretics: “ Velut proprie sibi datum scutum putant (heeretici) quod dixit Dominus in Evangelio: Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus pater.”* Justin Martyr quotes the same reading from a source different from our Gospels,® εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς 6 πατήρ μου, «.7.d.,° and in agreement with the repeated similar readings of the Clementine Homilies, which likewise derived it from an extra canonical source,’ ὁ yap ἀγαθὸς εἷς ἐστιν, ὁ πατὴρ The use of a similar expression by Clement of Alexandria,® as well as by Origen, only serves to prove the existence of the reading in extinct Gospels, although it is not found in any MS, of any of our Gospels.

The second of the supposed references is more diffuse : One is good by whose power alone’the heart can become pure (ἢ καρδία καθαρὰ γενέσθα) . . . but when the alone good Father visits it, it is sanctified and flashes through with light, and the possessor of such a heart is blessed, for he shall see God (καὶ οὕτω μακαρίζεται ὁ ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην καρδίαν, ὅτι ὄψεται τὸν θεόν). This is

1 Adv. Heer., i. 20, § 1. 3. 7b., i, 20, § 2.

3 Epiphanius, Heer., xlii.; Schol. L. ed. Pet., p. 339.

4 De Principiis, i. 2,§ 13; cf. de Orat., 15; Exhort.ad Mart., 7; Contra Cels., v. 11; cf. Griesbach,; Symb. Crit., ii. p. 305, 349, 388.

5 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 220 ff.; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 243 ff. § Apol., i. 16.

7 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 362 f.; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 321.

® Hom., xviii. 1; 3.

® οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ μου, και. Peodag.,i. 8, § 72, of. § τί; εἷς ἀγαθὸς ὁ πατὴρ. Strom., y. 10, § 64,

VOL. II. F

66 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

compared? with Matthew v. 8: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ τὸν θεὸν ὄψονται). It might be argued that this is quite as much a reference to Psalm xxiv. 3-6 as to Matt. v. 8, but even if treated as a reference to the Sermon on the Mount, nothing is more certain than the fact that this discourse had its place in much older forms of the Gospel than our present Canonical Gospels,? and that it formed part of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other evangelical writings in circulation in the early Church. Such a reference as this is absolutely worthless as evidence of special acquaintance with our first Synoptic.$

Tischendorf does not appeal at all to these supposed references contained in the passages preserved by Clement, but both the German, and the English apologist join in relying upon the testimony of Hippolytus,* with regard to the use of the Gospels by Valentinus, although it must be admitted that the former does so with greater fairness of treatment than Canon Westcott. Tischendorf does refer to, and admit, some of the difficulties of the case, as we shall presently see, whilst Canon Westcott, as in the case of Basilides, boldly makes his assertion, and totally ignores all adverse facts. The only Gospel

1 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 260, note 2.

2 Ewald assigns it to the Spruchsammlung. Die drei erst. Evv., p. 7.

5. The supposed reference to the Ep. to the Romans 1. 20; cf. Clem.Al., Strom., iv. 13, ὃ 91, 92, is much more distant than either of the pre- ceding. It is not necessary for us to discuss it, but as Canon West- cott merely gives references to all of the passages without quoting any of the words, a good strong assertion becomes a powerful argument, since few readers have the means of verifying its correctness.

4 By a misprint Canon Westcott ascribes all his references of Valen- tinus to the N. T., excapt three, to the extracts from his writings in the

Stromata of Olement, although he should have indicated the work of Hippolytus. Cf. On the Canon, 1866, p. 260, note 2.

VALENTINUS. 67

reference which can be adduced even in the Philoso- phumena, exclusive of one asserted to be to the fourth Gospel, which will be separately considered hereafter, is advanced by Canon Westcott, for Tischendorf does not refer to it, but confines himself solely to the supposed reference to the fourth Gospel. The passage is the same as one also imputed to Basilides: ‘“‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ;” which happens to agree with the words in Luke i. 35; but, as we have seen in connection with Justin, there is good reason for concluding that the narrative to which it belongs was contained in other Gospels. In this instance, however, the quotation is carried further and presents an important variation from the text of Luke. ‘The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore the thing begotten of thee shall be called holy”? (διὸ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται). The reading of Luke is: “Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἷος θεοῦ). It is probable that the passage referred to in connection with the followers of Basilides may have ended in the same way as this, and been derived from the same source. Nothing, however, can be clearer than the fact that this quotation, by whoever made, is not taken from our third Synoptic, inasmuch as there does not exist a single MS. which contains such a passage. We again, however, come to the question: Who really made the quotations which Hippolytus introduces so indefinitely ?

We have already, in speaking of Basilides, pointed out

Cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 141 ff. ? Hippolytus, Ady. Heer., vi. 35,

68 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

the loose manner in which Hippolytus and other early writers, in dealing with different schools of heretics, indifferently quote the founder or his followers without indicating the precise person quoted. This practice is particularly apparent in the work of Hippolytus when the followers of Valentinus are in question. Tischendorf himself is obliged to admit this. He says: “ Even though it be also incontestable that the author (Hippolytus) does not always sharply distinguish between the sect and the founder of the sect, does this apply to the present case?” He denies that it does in the instance to which he refers, but he admits the general fact. In the same way another apologist of the fourth Gospel (and as the use of that Gospel is maintained in consequence of a quotation in the very same chapter as we are now con- sidering, only a few lines higher up, both third and fourth are in the same position) is forced to admit: ‘“‘The use of the Gospel of John by Valentinus cannot so certainly be proved from our refutation-writing (the work of Hippolytus). Certainly in the statement of these doctrines it gives abstracts, which contain an expression of John (x. 8), and there cannot be any doubt that this is taken from some writing of the sect. But the apologist, in his expressions regarding the Valentinian doctrines, does not seem to confine himself to one and the same work, but to have alternately made use of different writings of the school, for which reason we cannot say anything as to the age of this quotation, and from this testimony, therefore, we merely have further confirmation that the Gospel was early? (7) used in the

1 Wenn nun auch unbestreitbar ist, dass der Verfasser nicht immer streng zwischen der Sekte sondert und dem Urheber der Sekte, findet dies auf den vorliegenden Fall Anwendung? Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., p. 46.

3 Why ‘‘early ”? since Hippolytus writes about A.D. 225.

VALENTINUS. 69

School of the Valentinians,”! &e. Of all this not a word from Canon Westcott, who adheres to his system of bare assertion.

Now we have already quoted? the opening sentence of Book vi. 35, of the work ascribed to Hippolytus, in which the quotation from John x. 8, referred to above occurs, and ten lines further on, with another inter- mediate and equally indefinite “he says” (φησί), occurs the supposed quotation from Luke i. 35, which, equally with that from the fourth Gospel, must, according to Weizsiicker, be abandoned as a quotation which can fairly be ascribed to Valentinus himself, whose name is not once mentioned in the whole chapter. A few lines below the quotation, however, a passage occurs which throws much light upon the question. After explaining the views of the Valentinians regarding the verse: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,” &c., the writer thus proceeds: “ Regarding this there is among them (αὐτοῖς ) a great question, a cause both of schism and dissension. And hence their (αὐτῶν) doctrine has become divided, and the one doctrine according to them (κατ᾽ αὐτούς) is called Eastern (ἀνατολική) and the other Italian. They from Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemeus, say (pact) that the body of Jesus was animal, and on account of this, on the occasion of the baptism, the Holy Spirit like a dove came down—that is, the Logos from the Mother above, Sophia—and became joined to the animal, and raised him from the dead. This, he says (φησῇ is the declaration (τὸ elpynpévov),”—and here be it observed we come to another of the “clear refer- ences” which Canon Westcott ventures, deliberately and

1 Weizsacker, Unters. iib. ἃ. evang. Gesch., 1864, p. 234. ? Vol. ii. p. 57, ““ Therefore all the Prophets,” &c.

70 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

without a word of doubt, to attribute to Valentinus himself,—* This, he says, is the declaration: ‘He who raised Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, ? indeed animal. For the earth has come under a curse: ‘For dust, he says (φησῶ) thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.* On the other hand, those from the East (οἱ δ᾽ αὖ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς), of whom is Axionicus and Bardesanes, say (λέγουσιν) that the body of the Saviour was spiritual, for the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, that is the Sophia and the power of the Highest,”* &c.

In this passage we have a good illustration of the mode in which the writer introduces his quotations with the subjectless “he says.” Here he is conveying the divergent opinions of the two parties of Valentinians, and explaining the peculiar doctrines of the Italian school “of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemzus,” and he sud- denly departs from the plural “they” to quote the passage from Romans viii. 11, in support of their views with the singular “he says.” Nothing can be more obvious than that “he” cannot possibly be Valentinus himself, for the schism is represented as taking place

? On the Canon, p. 260.

2 Cf. Rom. viii. 11. 3 Cf. Gen. iii. 19.

* Περὶ τούτου ζήτησις μεγάλῃ ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς καὶ σχισμάτων καὶ διαφορᾶς ἀφορμή. Καὶ γέγονεν ἐντεῦθεν ἣ διδασκαλία αὐτῶν διηρημένη, καὶ καλεῖται ἡ μὲν ἀνατολική τις διδασκαλία κατ᾽ αὐτούς, ἡ δὲ ᾿Ιταλιωτικήῆ. Οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, ὧν ἐστὶν Ἡρακλέων καὶ Πτολεμαῖος, ψυχικόν φασι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ icparos τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰ κατελήλυθε, τουτέστιν 6 λόγος ὁ τῆς μητρὸς ἄνωθεν τῆς σοφίας, καὶ γέγονε τῷ ψυχικῷ, καὶ ἐγήγερκεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. Τοῦτο ἐστί, φησί, τὸ εἰρημένον" ‘O ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, ζωοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν, ἤτοι ψυχικά. Ὃ χοῦς γὰρ ὑπὸ κατάραν ἐλήλυθε. Γῆ γὰρ, φησίν, εἶ, καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ. Οἱ δ᾽ αὖ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς λέγουσιν, ὧν ἐστὶν ᾿Αξιόνικος καὶ ᾿Αρδησιάνης, ὅτι πνευματικὸν ἦν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ σωτῆρος" πνεῦμα γὰρ ἅγιον ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν Μαρίαν, τουτέστιν 4 σοφία, καὶ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ ὑψίστου, κατ. Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Heer., vi. 35.

VALENTINUS. 71

amongst his followers, and the quotation is evidently made by one of them to support the views of bis party in the schism, but whether Hippolytus is quoting from Heracleon or Ptolemzeus or some other of the Italian’ school, there is no means of knowing. Of all this, again, nothing is said by Canon Westcott, who quietly asserts without hesitation or argument, that Valentinus himself is the person who here makes the quotation.

We have already said that the name of Valentinus does not occur once in the whole chapter (vi. 35) which we have been examining, and if we turn back we find that the preceding context confirms the result at which we have arrived, that the φησί has no reference to the Founder himself, but is applicable only to some later member of his school, most probably contemporary with Hippolytus. In vi. 21, Hippolytus discusses the heresy of Valentinus, which he traces to Pythagoras and Plato, but in Ch. 29 he passes from direct reference to the Founder to deal entirely with his school. This is so manifest, that the learned editors of the work of Hip- polytus, Professors Duncker and Schneidewin, alter the preceding heading at that part from “ Valentinus” to “Valentiniani.” At the beginning of Ch. 29 Hip- polytus writes: ‘ Valentinus, therefore, and Heracleon and Ptolemzeus and the whole school of these (heretics)

have laid down as the fundamental principle of their teaching the arithmetical system. For according to these,” &c. And a few lines lower down: “ There is discernible amongst them, however, considerable difference of opinion. For many of them, in order that

' The quotation from an Epistle to the Romans by the Italian school is appropriate,

72 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

the Pythagorean doctrine of Valentinus may be wholly pure, suppose, &c., but others,” &c. He shortly after says that he will proceed to state their doctrines as they themselves teach them (μνημονεύσαντες ὡς ἐκεῖνοι διδάσκουσιν ἐροῦμεν) He then continues: “There is, he says (dyat),” &c. &c., quoting evidently one of these followers who want to keep the doctrine of Valentinus pure, or of the “ others,” although without naming him, and three lines further on again, without any preparation, returning to the plural “they say” (λέγουσι) and so on through ‘the following chapters, “he says” alternating with the plural, as the author apparently has in view something said by individuals or merely expresses general views. In the Chapter (34) preceding that which we have principally been examining, Hippolytus begins by referring to “the Quaternion according to Valentinus,” but after five lines on it, he continues: “ These things are what they say: ταῦτά ἐστιν ἃ λέγουσιν," and then goes on to speak of “ their whole teaching” (τὴν πᾶσαν αὐτῶν διδασκαλίαν), and lower down he distinctly sets himself to discuss the opinions of the school in the plural: “Thus these (Valentinians) subdivide the contents of the Pleroma,” &c. (οὕτως οὗτοι, x.7.d.), and continues with an occasional “according to them” (κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς) until, without any name being mentioned, he makes use of the indefinite “he says” to introduce the quotation referred to by Canon Westcott as a citation by Valentinus himself of “the Epistle to the Ephesians as Scripture.”? “This is, he says, what is written in Scripture,” and there follows a quotation which, it may merely be mentioned as Canon Westcott says nothing of it, differs considerably from the passage in the Epistle 1 vi. 84. 2 On the Canon, p. 260.

VALENTINUS. 73

iii, 14—18. Immediately after, another of Canon West- cott’s quotations from 1 Cor. ii. 14, is given, with the same indefinite “ he says,” and in the same way, without further mention of names, the quotations in Ch. 35 compared with John x. 8, and Luke i. 35. There is, therefore, absolutely no ground whatever for referring these φησί to Valentinus himself; but, on the contrary, Hippolytus shows in the clearest way that he is dis- cussing the views of the later writers of the sect, and it is one of these, and not the Founder himself, whom in his usual indefinite way he thus quotes. of

We have been forced by these bald and unsupported assertions of apologists to go at such length into these questions at the risk of being very wearisome to our readers, but it has been our aim as much as possible to make no statements without placing before those who are interested the materials for forming an intelligent opinion. Any other course would be to meet mere asser- tion by simple denial, and it is only by bold and unsub- stantiated statements which have been simply and in good faith accepted by ordinary readers who have not the opportunity, if they have even the will, to test their veracity, that apologists have so long held their ground. Our results regarding Valentinus so far may be stated as follows: the quotations which without any explanation are so positively and disingenuously imputed to Valen- tinus are not made by him, but by later writers of his school ;' and, moreover, the passages which are indicated by the English apologist as references to our two

1 Scholten, Die alt, Zeugnisse, p. 68 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p- 345,anm. 5; Rumpf, Rev. de Théol., 1867, p. 17 ff. ; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 390, p. 516; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 65 ff.; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 151 ff.; Bretschneider, Probabilia de Evang.et Ep.Joannis, 1820, p. 212 ff. ; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 387, anm, 1; Volkmar, Der

74 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

Synoptic Gospels not only do not emanate from Valen- tinus, but do not agree with our Gospels, and are derived from other sources.’

The remarks of Canon Westcott with regard to the connection of Valentinus with our New Testament are on a par with the rest of his assertions. He says: “There is no reason to suppose that Valentinus differed from Catholic writers on the Canon of the New Testa- ment.”? We might ironically adopt this sentence, for as no writer whatever of the time of Valentinus, as we have seen, recdgnized any New Testament Canon at all, he certainly did not in this respect differ from the other writers of that period. Canon Westcott relies upon the statement of Tertullian, but even here, although he quotes the Latin passage in a note, he does not fully give its real sense in his text. He writes in immediate continuation of the quotation given above: “ Tertullian says that in this he differed from Marcion, that he at least professed to accept ‘the whole instrument,’ per- verting the interpretation, where Marcion mutilated the text.” Now the assertion of Tertullian has a very important modification, which, to any one acquainted with the very unscrupulous boldness of the ‘ Great African” in dealing with religious controversy, is extremely significant. He does not make the assertion positively and of his own knowledge, but modifies it by saying: “Nor, indeed, if Valentinus uses the whole instrument, as it seems (neque enim si Valentinus

Ursprung, p. 70 f.; Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 108 ff., 125 f. ; Weizsdcker, Unters. evang. Gesch., p. 234; J. J. Tayler, The Fourth Gospel, 1867, p- 57.

1 Of. Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 67 f.; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p- 387, anm. 1.

2 On the Canon, p. 259.

VALENTINUS. 75

integro instrumento uti videtur),”? &c. Tertullian evidently knew very little of Valentinus himself, and had probably not read his writings at all.? His treatise against the Valentinians is avowedly not original, but, as he himself admits, is compiled from the writings of Justin, Miltiades, Irenzeus, and Proclus.2 Tertullian would not have hesitated to affirm anything of this kind positively, had there been any ground for it, but his assertion is at once too uncertain, and the value of his statements of this nature much too small for such a remark to have any weight as evidence.* — Besides, by his own showing Valentinus altered Scripture (sine dubio emendans),® which he could not have done had he recog- nized it as of canonical authority. We cannot, how- ever, place any reliance upon criticism emanating from Tertullian.

All that Origen seems to know on this subject is that the followers of Valentinus (rods ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου) have altered the form of the Gospel (μεταχαράξαντες τὸ εὐαγγέλιον). Clement of Alexandria, however, informs us that Valentinus, like Basilides, professed to have direct traditions from the Apostles, his teacher being Theodas, a disciple of the Apostle Paul.® If he had known any Gospels which he believed to have apostolic authority, there would clearly not have been any need of such tradition. Hippolytus distinctly affirms that Valentinus derived his system from Pythagoras and Plato,

1 De Prescrip. Heer., 38. * Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 67; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii.

p- 390. 3 Adv. Valent., 5.

* Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., p. 357 ; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 390, Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 70. 5 De Preescrip. Heer., 80.

5 Credner, Beitriage, i. p. 38. 7 Contra Cels., ii, 27.

8 Strom., vii. 17, § 106.

76 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

and “not from the Gospels” (οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν εὐαγγελίων), and that consequently he might more properly be con- sidered a Pythagorean and Platonist than a Christian.’ Irenzeus, in like manner, asserts that the Valentinians derive their views from unwritten or unscriptural sources (ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσκοντες), and he accuses them of rejecting the Gospels, for after enumerating them,* he continues: “When, indeed, they are refuted out of the Scriptures, they turn round in accusation of these same Scriptures, as though they were not correct, nor of authority . . . For (they say) that it (the truth) was not conveyed by written records but viva voce.”* In the same chapter he goes on to show that the Valen- tinians not only reject the authority of Scripture, but also reject ecclesiastical tradition. He says: “But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which is from the Apostles, which has been preserved through a succession of Presbyters in the Churches, they are opposed to tradition, affirming themselves wiser not only than Presbyters, but even than the Apostles, in that they have discovered the uncorrupted truth. For (they say) the Apostles mixed up matters which are of the law with the words of the Saviour, &c. . . . It comes to this, they neither consent to Scripture nor to tradition. (Evenit itaque, neque Scripturis jam, neque Traditioni consentire eos.)”> We find, therefore, that even in the time of Irenzeus the Valentinians rejected the writings

1 Ref. Omn. Heer., vi. 29; cf. vi. 21. 2 Ady. Heer.,i. 8, § 1. 16. its 3,5 1s 4 Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate. . Non enim per litteras traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem, &c. Iona Ady. Heer., iii. 2,.§ 1. 5 70., 1.2,4-2.

VALENTINUS. 77

of the New Testament as authoritative documents, which they certainly would not have done had the Founder of their sect himself acknowledged them. So far from this being the case, there was absolutely no New Testament Canon for Valentinus himself to deal with,! and his perfectly orthodox contemporaries recognized no other Holy Scriptures than those of the Old Testament. Irenzeus, however, goes still further, and states that the Valentinians of his time not only had many Gospels, but that they possessed one peculiar to themselves. ‘“‘ Those indeed who are followers of Valentinus,” he says, “on the other hand, being without any fear, putting forth their own compositions, boast that they have more Gospels than there are. Indeed they have proceeded so far in audacity that they entitle their not long written work the Gospel of Truth, agreeing in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that there is no Gospel according to them which is not blasphemous.”? It follows clearly, from the very name of the Valentinian Gospel, that they did not consider that others contained the truth,* and indeed Irvenzeus himself perceived this, for he continues: ‘‘ For if what is published by them be the Gospel of Truth, but is dissimilar from those which have been delivered to us by the Apostles, any may perceive who please, as is demonstrated by these very Scriptures, that that which has been handed down from the Apostles is not the Gospel of Truth.”* These passages speak for

1 Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 69 f.; Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 24.

3 Hi vero,qui sunt a Valentino, iterum exsistentes extra omnem timorem, suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa Evangelia. Siquidem in tantum processerunt audacie, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum est, veritatis Evangelium titulent, in nihilo con- veniens apostolorum Evyangeliis, ut nec Evangelium quidem sit apud eos sine blasphemia. Jrencus, Ady. Hueer., iii. 11, ὃ 9.

3 Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 38, f. 4 Treneus, Ady. Heer., iii. 11, § 9.

78 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

themselves, and we need not further comment upon the statements of Canon Westcott. It has been suggested that the “ Gospel of Truth” was a harmony of the four Gospels. This, however, cannot by any possibility have been the case, inasmuch as Irenzeus distinctly says that it did not agree in anything with the Gospels of the Apostles. We have been compelled to devote too much space to Valentinus, and we now leave him with the certainty that in nothing does he afford any evidence even of the existence of our Synoptic Gospels.

1 Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 638.

MARCION. 79

CHAPTER VII. MARCION.

WE must now turn to the great Heresiarch of the second century, Marcion, and consider the evidence regarding our Gospels which may be derived from what we know of him. ‘The importance, and at the same time the difficulty, of arriving at a just conclusion from the materials within our reach have rendered Marcion’s Gospel the object of very elaborate criticism, and the discussion of its actual character has continued with fluctuating results for nearly a century.

Marcion was born at Sinope, in Pontus, of which place his father was Bishop,' and although it is said that he aspired to the first place in the Church of Rome,? the Presbyters refused him communion on account of his peculiar views of Christianity. We shall presently more fully refer to these opinions, but here it will be sufficient to say that he objected to what he considered the debase- ment of true Christianity by Jewish elements, and he upheld the teaching of Paul alone, in opposition to that of all the other Apostles, whom he accused of mixing up matters of the law with the Gospel of Christ, and

1 Epiphanius, Heer., xlii. 1 ed. Petay., p. 302; Bleek, Hinl. N. T., p. 125; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 40f. ; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. 5. w., p. 57; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 272.

2 Epiph., Heer., xlii. 1.

80 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

falsifying Christianity,’ as Paul himself had protested.? He came to Rome about a.p. 139—142,3 and con- tinued teaching for some twenty years* His high personal character and elevated views produced” a powerful effect upon his time,® and, although during his own lifetime and long afterwards vehemently and with every opprobrious epithet denounced by ecclesiastical writers, his opinions were so widely adopted that in the time of Epiphanius his followers were said to be found throughout the whole world.®

Marcion is said to have recognized as his sources of Christian doctrine, besides tradition, a single Gospel and ten Epistles of Paul, which in his collection stood in the following order ;—Epistle to Galatians, Corinthians (2), Romans, Thessalonians (2), Ephesians (which he had with

1 Treneus, Ady. Heer., iti. 2, § 2; cf. 12, §12; Tertullian, Ady. Marc., iv. 2,3; cf. i. 20; Origen, in Joann. T. v., § 4; Neander, Allg. K. G., 1843, ii. p. 815 f.; cf. p. 795; Schleiermacher, Lit. nachlass iii. Sammtl. Werke, viii; Eiml. N. T., 1845, p. 214 f.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 273 f.

? Gal. i. 6 ff.; cf. 11. 4 ff., 11 ff.; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 1 ff.

3 Anger, Synops. Ey., p. xxiv. ; Baur, Gesch. chr. maid i. p. 196; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 126; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, vii. p. 562; Burton, pat tures on Eccl. History of first Three Centuries, ii. p. 105 ff.; Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 40 f.; Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 21 f.; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 75 ff.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 244; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 73; Schleiermacher, Gesch. chr. Kirche, Sammtl. Werke, 1840, xi. 1 abth., p. 107; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 57; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120, ib., 1855, p. 270 ff.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 273. The accounts of the Fathers are careless and con- flicting. Cf. Tertullian, Ady. Marc., i. 19; Epiph., Her., xlii. 1; Ireneus, Ady. Her., ili. 4, § 3; Clem. Al., Strom., vii. 17, 4.D. 140—150, Bertholdt, Einl. A. und N. T., i. p. 103.

* Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 244; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867 ; p. 75 ff.; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1855, p. 270 ff.

5. Credner, Beitrage, i. p. 40; Schleiermacher, Sammtl. Werke, viii. ; Einl. N. T., 1845, p. 64; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 272 f.

6 Epiph., Heer., xlii. 1.

MARCION, 81

the superscription “to the Laodiceans ᾽),1] Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon.? None of the other books which now form part of the canonical New Testament were either mentioned or recognized by Marcion.? This is the oldest collection of Apostolic writings of which there is any trace,* but there was at that time no other ‘Holy Seripture ” than the Old Testament, and no New Testament Canon had yet been imagined. Marcion neither claimed canonical authority for these writings,® nor did he associate with them any idea of. divine inspiration.® We have already seen the animosity expressed by contemporaries of Marcion against the Apostle Paul.

The principal interest in connection with the collection of Marcion, however, centres in his single Gospel, the nature, origin, and identity of which have long been actively and minutely discussed by learned men of all shades of opinion with very varying results. The work itself is unfortunately no longer extant, and our only knowledge of it is derived from the bitter and very inaccurate opponents of Marcion. It seems to have

1 Tertullian, Ady. Mare., vy. 11, 17; Zpiph., Heer., xl. 9; ef. 10, Schol. xl.

2 Tertullian, Ady. Mare., y.; Epiph., Heer., xii. 9. (Epiphanius transposes the order of the last two Epistles.)

3. Credner, Beitraige, i. p. 42; Hug, Hinl. N. T., i. p. 68 ff.; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 275.

4 Baur, Paulus, i. p. 277 f.; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 76f.; TZis- chendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 57; Westcott, On the Canon, p- 272.

5 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 42 f., 44 f.; Gesch. N. T. Kaen., p. 23; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 563; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 126; Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 22 f.; Késtlin, Theol. Jahrb., 1851, p. 151; Reuss, Gesch. N.T., p. 244, p. 286; Hist. du Canon, p. 72; Ritschl, Theol. Jahrb., 1851, p. 529; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 74; Het Paulinisch Evangelie, p. 6.

5 Creduer, Beitrage, i. p. 45 f.

VOL. Il. G

32 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

borne much the same analogy to our third Canonical Gospel which existed between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and our first Synoptic’ The Fathers, whose uncritical and, in such matters, prejudiced cha- racter led them to denounce every variation from their actual texts as a mere falsification, and without argument to assume the exclusive authenticity and originality of our Gospels, which towards the beginning of the third century had acquired wide circulation in the Church, vehemently stigmatized Marcion as an audacious adul- terator of the Gospel, and affirmed his evangelical work to be merely a mutilated and falsified version of the “ Gospel according to Luke.” ?

This view continued to prevail, almost without question or examination, till towards the end of the eightcenth century, when Biblical criticism began to exhibit the earnestness and activity which have ever since more or less characterized it. Semler first abandoned the pre- valent tradition, and, after analyzing the evidence, he concluded that Marcion’s Gospel and Luke’s were diffe- rent versions of an earlier work, and that the so-called heretical Gospel was one of the numerous Gospels from amongst which the Canonical had been selected by the Church. Griesbach about the same time also rejected the ruling opimion, and denied the close relationship usually asserted to exist between the two Gospels.°

1 Schoregler, Das nachap. Zeitalter, i. p. 260.

2 περ, Adv. Heer., i. 27, §2; πὶ. 12, § 12; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv. 2—6; Epiphanius, Heer., xhi. 9,11; Origen, Contra Cels., ἢ. 27; Theodoret, Hzer. fab., i. 24.

3 Vorrede zu Townson’s Abhandli. ab. ἃ. vier Evv., 1783.

* Neuer Versuch, die Gemeinniitzige Auslegung τι. anwend. der N. T. zu befordern, 1786, p. 162 f.; cf. Prolegg. in Ep. ad Galatas.

5. Cure in hist. textus epist. Pauli, 1799, sect. ii, Opuscula Academica, i. p. 124 ££

MARCION. 83

Léffler! and Corrodi? strongly supported Semler’s con- clusion, that Marcion was no ‘mere falsifier of Luke’s Gospel, and J. E, C. Schmidt? went still further, and asserted that Marcion’s Gospel was the genuine Luke, and our actual Gospel a later version of it with altera- tions and additions. Eichhorn,* after a fuller and more exhaustive examination, adopted similar views; he repudiated the statements of Tertullian regarding Marcion’s Gospel as utterly untrustworthy, asserting that he had not that work itself before him at all, and he maintained that Marcion’s Gospel was the more original text and one of the sources of Luke. Bolten,’ Bertholdt,® Schleiermacher,? and D. Schultz*® likewise maintained that Marcion’s Gospel was by no means a mutilated version of Luke, but, on the contrary, an independent original Gospel. <A similar conclusion was arrived at by Gieseler,® but later, after Hahn’s criticism, he abandoned it, and adopted the opinion that Marcion’s Gospel was constructed out of Luke.’®

On the other hand, the traditional view was maintained

1 Marcionem Pauli epist. et Luce evang. adulterasse dubitatur, 1788, in Velthusen απο et Ruperti Comment. Theologics, 1794, i. pp. 180— 218.

? Versuch einer Beleuchtung 4, Gesch. des jiid. u. Christl. Bibel- kanons, 1792, ii. p. 158 ff. 169.

5. Ueber das aichte Evang. des Lucas, in Henke’s Mag. fiir Religions- philos., u. s. w., iii. 1796, p. 468 ff., 482 f., 507 7.

4 Hinl. N. T., 1820, i. pp. 43—84.

Ὁ Bericht des Lucas yon Jesu dem Messia. Vorbericht, 796, p. 29 f.

§ Finl. A. u. N. T., 1813, iii. p. 1293 ff.

7 Simmtl. Werke, viii. ; Einl. N. T., 1845, p. 64 f., 197 f., 214 ἢ,

ὃ. Theol. Stud. τι. Krit., 1829, 3, pp. 586—595.

9 Entst. schr. Eyy., 1818, p. 24 ff.

© Recens. ἃ. Hahn’s Das Ey. Marcion’s in Hall. Allg. Litt. Z., 1822, p. 225 ff.; K. G., i. § 43.

84 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

by Storr,! Arneth,? Hug,*? Neander,* and Gratz,> although with little originality of investigation or argument ; and Paulus ® sought to reconcile both views by admitting that Marcion had before him the Gospel of Luke, but denying that he mutilated it, arguing that Tertullian did not base his arguments on the actual Gospel of Marcion, but upon his work, the “ Antithesis.” Hahn,’ however, undertook a more exhaustive examination of the problem, attempting to reconstruct the text of Marcion’s Gospel® from the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius, and he came to the conclusion that the work was a mere version, with omissions and alterations made by the Heresiarch in the interest of his system, of the third Canonical Gospel. Olshausen® arrived at the same result, and with more or less of modification but no detailed argument, similar opinions were expressed by Credner,’® De Wette,"’ and others.’?

1 Zweck d. Evang. Gesch. u. Br. Johan., 1786, pp. 254—265.

2 Ueber ἃ. Bekanntsch. Marcion’s mit. u. Kanon, ἃ. 5. w., 1809.

3 inl. N. '., 1847, i. p. 64 ff.

4 Genet. Entwickl. d. yorn. Gnost. Syst., 1818, p. 311 ff.; cf. Allg. K. G., 1843, ii. pp. 792—816.

5. Krit. Unters. iib. Marcion’s Eyang., 1818.

6 Theol. exeg. Consery., 1822, Lief. 1. p. 116 ff.

7 Das Evang. Marcion’s in seiner urspriingl. Gestalt, 1823.

8 The reconstructed text also in Thilo’s Cod. Apocr. N. T., 1832, pp. 403—486.

9 Die Echtheit der vier kan. Evy., 1823, pp. 107—215.

10 Beitrage, i. p. 43.

1 Finl. N. T., 6th ausg., 1860, p. 119 ff.

2 The following writers, either before Hahn's work was written or sub- sequently, have maintained the dependence, in one shape cr another, of Marcion’s Gospel on Luke. Becker, Exam. Crit. de 1 Ἐν. de Marcion, 1837; Bleek, Kinl. N. T., p. 135; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 565 f.; Anger, Synopsis Ey. Proleg., xxiv. ff; Celiérier, Introd, Crit. N. T., 1823, p. 25 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., ii. p. 51 f.; Hbrard, Wiss. krit. eyang. Gesch., p. 810; Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., 1853—54, p. 48; Guericke, Gesammtgesch. N. T., p. 231; H’buch K. G., i. p. 190; Gfrérer, Allg. K. G.,1. p. 363 ff. ; Harting, Queest. de Marcione Lucani,

MARCION, 85

Not satisfied, however, with the method and results of Hahn and Olshausen, whose examination, although more minute than any previously undertaken, still left much to be desired, Ritschl! made a further thorough investi- gation of the character of Marcion’s Gospel, and decided that it was in no case a mutilated version of Luke, but, on the contrary, an original and independent work, from which the Canonical Gospel was produced by the intro- duction of anti-Marcionitish passages and readings. Baur? strongly enunciated similar views, and maintained that the whole error lay in the mistake of the Fathers, who had, with characteristic assumption, asserted the earlier and shorter Gospel of Marcion to be an abbrevia- tion of the later Canonical Gospel, instead of recognizing the latter as a mere extension of the former. Schwegler® had already, in a remarkable criticism of Marcion’s Gospel declared it to be an independent and original work, and in no sense a mutilated Luke, but, on the contrary, probably the source of that Gospel. Késtlin,* while stating that the theory that Marcion’s Gospel was an earlier work and the basis of that ascribed to Luke was not very probable, affirmed that much of the

Evangelii, &c., 1849; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 48, p. 361, anm. 10; Meyer, Krit.-exeg. Kommentar N. T., 1867, 1 abth. 2 hiilfte, p. 228; Michaelis, Einl. N. T., 1788, i. p. 40; Neudecker, Eiml. N. T., 1840, p. 68 ff.; Nicolas, Et. sur les Ev. Apocr., 1866, p. 157 f.; Rhode, Prolegg. ad Queest. de evang. Marcionis denuo instit. 1834; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 244 f.; Rev. de Théol., 1857, p.4f.; Rumpf, Rev. de Théol., 1867, p. 20 f.; Schott, Isagoge, 1830, p. 13 ff., note 7; Scholten, Die alt. Zeug- nisse, p. 73 f.; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, τι. 5. w., pp. 56—65; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 272 ff.; Wilcke, Tradition τι. Mythe, 1837, p, 28; Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 12 ff.

1 Das Evangelium Marcion’s, 1846.

? Knit. Unters. kan. Evy., 1847, p. 397 ff.

* Das nachap. Zeit., 1846, i. p. 260 ff.; Theol. Jahrb., 1843, pp. 573— 590.

* Der Ursprung ἃ. synopt. Evy., 1853, p. 303 ff.

86 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

Marcionitish text was more original than the Canonical, and that both Gospels must be considered versions of the same original, although Luke’s was the later and more corrupt.

These results, however, did not satisfy Volkmar,’ who entered afresh upon a searching examination of the whole subject, and concluded that Marcion’s work was simply a version of Luke, mutilated and altered to suit his own dog- matic views. This criticism, together with the arguments of Hilgenfeld, succeeded in convincing Ritschl,? who withdrew from his previous opinions, although he still maintained some of Marcion’s readings to be more original than those of Luke,’ and generally defended Marcion from the aspersions of the Fathers, on the ground that. his procedure with regard to Luke’s Gospel was precisely that of the Canonical Evangelists to each other ;* Luke himself being clearly dependent both on Mark and Matthew. Baur was likewise induced by Volkmar’s and Hilgenfeld’s arguments to modify his views ;° but although for the first time he admitted that Marcion had altered the original of his Gospel frequently for dogmatic reasons, he still maintained that there was an older form of the Gospel without the earlier chapters, from which both Marcion and Luke directly constructed their Gospels ;—both of them stood in the same line in regard to the original; both altered it; the one abbreviated, the other extended 107 Encouraged by this success, but not yet satisfied, Volkmar immediately undertook a further and more exhaustive examination of

1 Theol. Jahrb., 1850, pp. 110—188, pp. 185—235. ὲ

2 10., 1861, p. 528 ff. 3 1ῦ,, p. 530 ff.

4 Ib, p. 529. 5 Tb., p. 534 ff.

6 Das Markuseyang. Anhang iib. das Ey. Marcion’s, 1851, p. 191 ff. 7 Ib., p. 226 f.

MARCION. 87

the text of Marcion, in the hope of finally settling the discussion, and he again, but with greater emphasis, confirmed his previous results. In the meantime Hilgenfeld? had seriously attacked the problem, and, like Hahn and Volkmar, had sought to reconstruct the text of Marcion, and, whilst admitting many more original and genuine readings in the text of Marcion, he had also decided that his Gospel was dependent on Luke, although he further concluded that the text of Luke had subse- quently gone through another, though slight, manipulation before it assumed its present form. These conclusions he again fully confirmed after a renewed investigation of the subject.?

This brief sketch of the controversy which has so long occupied the attention of critics will at least show the insecure position of the matter, and the uncertainty of the data upon which any decision is based. We have not attempted to give more than the barest outlines, but it will appear as we go on that most of those who decide against the general independence of Marcion’s Gospel, at the same time admit his partial originality and superiority of readings over the third Synoptic, and justify his treatment of Luke as a procedure common to the Evan- gelists, and warranted not only by their example but by the fact that no Gospels had yet emerged from the posi-° tion of private documents in limited circulation. We are, however, very far from considering the discussion as closed ; but, on the contrary, we believe that a just and impartial judgment in the case must lead to the conclu- sion that if, in the absence of sufficient data, Marcion’s

1 Das Evang. Marcion’s, 1852. 2 Ueb. die Evy. Justin’s der Clem. Hom. und Marcion’s, 1850, p. 389 ff. 3 Theol. Jahrb., 1853, pp. 192—244.

88 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

Gospel cannot be absolutely proved to be a special and original Gospel, still less can it be shown to be a mutilated version of Luke’s Gospel. There are very strong reasons for considering it to be either an independent work, derived from the same sources as our third Synoptic, or a more primitive version of that Gospel.

Marcion’s Gospel not being any longer extant, it is important to establish clearly the nature of our know- ledge regarding it, and the exact value of the data from which various attempts have been made to reconstruct the text. It is manifest that the evidential force of any deductions from a reconstructed text is almost wholly dependent on the accuracy and sufficiency of the materials from which that text is derived.

The principal sources of our information regarding Marcion’s Gospel are the works of his most bitter de- nouncers Tertullian and Epiphanius, who, however, it must be borne in mind, wrote long after his time,—the work of Tertullian against Marcion having been composed, about A.D. 208,' and that of Epiphanius very much later. We may likewise merely mention here the “ Dialogus de recta in dewm fide,” commonly attributed to Origen, although it cannot haye been composed earlier than the middle of the fourth century.? The first three sections are directed against the Marcionites, but only deal with a late form of their doctrines.* As Volkmar admits that the author clearly had only a general acquaintance with the “Antithesis,” and principal proof passages of the Marcionites, but, although he certainly possessed the

1 Cf. Tertullian, Ady. Mare., 1.15; Neander, Antignosticus, 1849, p. 398; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 75.

? Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 52,

8. 7}. p. 62 f.

MARCION. 89

Epistles, had not the Gospel of Marcion itself,’ we need not now more particularly consider it. Se

We are, therefore, dependent upon the “ dogmatic and partly blind and unjust adversaries”? of Marcion for our only knowledge of the text they stigmatize ; and when the character of polemical discussion in the early cen- turies of our era is considered, it is certain that great caution must be exercised, and not too much weight attached to the statements of opponents who regarded a heretic with abhorrence, and attacked him with an acri- mony which carried them far beyond the limits of fairness and truth. ‘Their religious controversy bristles with misstatements, and is turbid with pious abuse. Ter- tullian was a master of this style, and the vehement vituperation with which he opens? and often interlards his work against “ the impious and sacrilegious Marcion” offers anything but a guarantee of fair and legitimate criticism. Epiphanius was, if possible, still more passionate and exaggerated in his representations against him.* Undue importance must not, therefore, be attributed to their statements.>

Not only should there be caution, and great caution; exercised in receiving the representations of one side in a religious discussion, conducted in an age when the absence of any spirit of calm criticism only gave freer scope to the attacks of intolerant zeal, but more particu- larly is such caution necessary in the case of Tertullian, whose trustworthiness is very far from being above

} Volkmar, Das Ev. Marcion’s, p. 53.

5. Ib., Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120. 5 Ady. Marc., i. 1.

4 Of. De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 122..

δ Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 71, 72; Gieseler, Entst. βοῦν. Evy., p. 25;

Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 75; Ἰδρϑονς Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120 ; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 276; De Wette, Hinl. N. T., p. 122.

90 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

suspicion, and whose inaccuracy is often apparent.’ “Son christianisme,” says Reuss, “est ardent, sincere, profondément ancré dans son dme. L’on voit 4111] en vit. Mais ce christianisme est Apre, insolent, brutal, ferrailleur. [1 est sans onction et sans charité, quelque- fois méme sans loyauté, dés qu'il se trouve en face d’une opposition queleonque. C'est un soldat qui ne sait que se battre et qui oublie, tout en se battant, qu il faut aussi respecter son ennemi. Dhialecticien subtil et rusé, il excelle ἃ ridiculiser ses adversaires. L’injure, le sarcasme, un langage qui rappelle parfois en vérité le genre de Rabelais, une effronterie d’aftirmation dans les moments de faiblesse qui frise et attemt méme la mau- yaise foi, voild ses armes. Je sais ce qu'il faut en cela mettre sur le compte de I’époque. . . . Si, au second siécle, tous les partis, sauf quelques gnostiques, sont intolérants, Tertullian lest plus que tout le monde.” ?

The charge of mutilating and interpolating the Gospel of Luke is first brought against Marcion by Irenzeus,® and it is reported with still greater vehemence and fulness by Tertullian,* and Epiphanius ;° but the mere assertion by Fathers at the end of the second and in the third centuries, that a Gospel different from their own was one of the Canonical Gospels falsified and mutilated, can have no weight whatever in itself in the inquiry as to the real nature of that work. Their dogmatic point of

1 Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., 1847, p. 357; Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 1857, p. 67 f.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeitalter, i. p. 278 f. 2 Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 1857, p. 67 f.

3 Et super hee, id quod est secundum Lucam Evangelium circumci- ΠΟΤΕ νας Trenceus, Ady. Heer., 1. 21, ὃ 2; cf. iii. 11, § 7; 12,812; 14, § 4. 4 Ady. Marc., iv. 1, 2, 4 et passim. 5 Heer., xlii. 9, 10 et passim.

6 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 446 f., 448; Reuss, Hist. du Canon, p. 72f.; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120; Ritschl, Das Evang. Marcion’s, p. 23 ff. :

-

MAROION. 93

view, and arbitrary assumption of exclusive originalisa and priority for the four Gospels of the Church led them, without any attempt at argument, to treat every other evangelical work as an offshoot or falsification of these. We need not refer to the childish reasoning of Irenzeus! to prove that there could not be more nor less than four Gospels, which he evidently considered quite conclusive. The arguments by which Tertullian endeavours to estab- lish that the Gospels of Luke and the other Canonical Kivangelists were more ancient than that of Marcion? is on a par with it, and shows that he had no idea of historical or critical evidence.* We are therefore driven back upon such actual data regarding the text and contents of Marcion’s Gospel as are given by the Fathers, as the only basis, in the absence of the Gospel itself, upon which any hypothesis as to its real character can be built. The question therefore is: Are these data suffi- ciently ample and trustworthy for a decisive judgment from internal evidence ? if indeed internal evidence in such a. case can be decisive at all.

All that we know, then, of Marcion’s Gospel is simply what Tertullian and Epiphanius have stated with regard to it. It is, however, undeniable, and indeed is univer- sally admitted, that their object in dealing with it at all was entirely dogmatic, and not in the least degree critical.* The spirit of that age was indeed so essentially uncri- tical® that not even the canonical text could waken it into

1 Ady. Heer., iii. 11, §§ 8, 9. 2 Adv. Mare., iv. 5. % Hichhorn, Hinl. N. T., i. p. 73; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. Ῥ. 276. :

* Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 361, anm. 10, p. 362, anm. 12; //il- genfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 447 f.; Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 1857, p. 4; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120; Das Evang. Marcion’s, 1852, pp. 29, 31; De Wette, Kinl. N. T., p. 123; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. 8. w., p. 62. 5 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 8.

92 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

activity. Tertullian very clearly states what his object ~ was in attacking Marcion’s Gospel. After asserting that the whole aim of the Heresiarch was to prove a dis- agreement between the Old Testament and the New, and that for this purpose he had erased from the Gospel all that was contrary to his opinion, and retained all that he had considered favourable, Tertullian continues with regard to the portions retained : “ These we shall collect, these we shall particularly consider,—whether they shall be more for our view,—whether they destroy the assump- tion of Marcion. Then it will be proved that he has shown the same defect of blindness of heresy both in that which he has erased, and that which he has retained. Such will be the purpose and form of our little work.”' His method throughout is to quote passages of the Gospel for which he can find parallels in the Old Testament, and in this way to endeavour to establish a kind of harmony between them. Epiphanius explains his aim with equal clearness. His intention is to show how wickedly and disgracefully Marcion has mutilated and falsified the Gospel, and how fruitlessly he has done so, inasmuch as he has stupidly, or by oversight, allowed so much to remain in his Gospel by which he may be fully refuted.?

As it is impossible within our limits fully to illustrate the procedure of the Fathers with regard to Marcion’s Gospel, and the nature and value of the materials they supply, we shall as far as possible quote the declara- tions of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld, who, in the true and

1 Heec conveniemus, hiec amplectemur, si nobiscum magis fuerint, si Marcionis przesumptionem percusserint. _Tunc et illa constabit eodem vitio hzereticze czecitatis erasa quo et hzec reservata. Sic habebit intentio et forma opusculi nostri, &c., ἄς. Tertullian, Ady. Marc, iy. 6,

? Epiphanius, Heer., xli. 9 f,

MARCION. 93

enlightened spirit of criticism, impartially state the character of the data available for the, understanding of the text. As these two critics have, by their able and learned investigations, done more than any others to educe and render possible a decision of the problem, their own estimate of the materials upon which a judg- ment has to be formed is of double value. With regard to*Tertullian, Volkmar explains that his desire is totally to annihilate the most dangerous heretic of his time,— first (Books i—iii.), to overthrow Marcion’s system in general as expounded in his “ Antithesis,’—and then (Book iv.) to show that even the Gospel of Marcion only contains Catholic doctrine (he concludes, “ Christus Jesus in Evangelio tuo meus est,’ c. 43); and there- fore he examines the Gospel only so far as may serve to establish his own view and refute that of Marcion. ‘“'To show,” Volkmar continues, “wherein this Gospel was falsified or mutilated, ἐ.6., varied from his own, on the contrary, is in no way his design, for he perceives that Marcion could cast back the reproach of interpolation, and in his time proof from internal grounds was hardly possible, so that only exceptionally, where a variation seems to him remarkable, does he specially mention it.” ? Of course the remark that proof from internal criticism of the text was hardly possible in Tertullian’s time refers to the total absence of the critical spirit regarding which we have already spoken, and which renders its display by any individual too isolated an intellectual effort to be expected.

Hilgenfeld expresses precisely the same views of Ter- tullian’s object and procedure.? “In Book iv.” he says,

1 Volkmar, Das Evang. Marcion’s, p. 29. 3 Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 395 ff.

94 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

“he carries out the project of refuting Marcion and his Antithesis of evangelical history out of his own Gospel. He proceeds to Marcion’s Gospel only with this dog- matic purpose, as he himself states in the principal passage of iv. 6... . Tertullian proposes to confine him- self to that which he (Marcion) allows to remain, and to prove that even this contains the doctrine of the Church.” ἢ With regard to Epiphanius, Hilgenfeld says, “ This writer also proceeds with the dogmatic object of refuting Mar- cion’s Gospel and.’Amdarodos.? But he has also the subsidiary design, in particular instances, of proving the audacity of the Beast, as he is pleased to call Marcion, in the mutilation of Luke. . Both representations supplement: each other, so that we can still, with tolerable certainty and completeness, determine the contents of the Mar- cionitish Gospel.”* In order not to separate the last phrase from its context, we have given it here a little in anticipation of its more appropriate place, but we shall see that this opinion has to be received in a very miti- gated way. As Hilgenfeld himself says, a few pages further on: “ From the critical stand-point one must, on the other hand, consider the statements of the Fathers of the Church only as expressions of their subjective view, which itself requires proof.”* Obviously statements which proceed from a mere dogmatic point of view, and which avowedly are not dictated by impartial criticism, are a very insecure and insufficient basis for the recon- struction of Marcion’s text.

We understand this more fully when we consider the manner in which Tertullian and Epiphanius performed

1 Die Evv. Justin’s, p. 395 ff. -2 Hoor., xlii. 9. 8. Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 397 f.; cf. Volkmar, Das Hy. Marcion’s, p. 31. 4 Ib., p. 446.

MARCION. | 95

the work they had undertaken. Hilgenfeld remarks : “ As Tertullian, in going through the Marcionitish Gospel, has only the object of refutation in view, he very rarely states clearly what is missing in it; and as, on the one hand, we can only venture to conclude from the silence of Tertullian that a passage is wanting, when it is altogether inexplicable that he should not have made use of it for the purpose of refutation; so, on the other, we must also know how Marcion used and interpreted his Gospel; and should never lose sight of Tertullian’s refutation and defence.”* It is scarcely necessary to point out how wide a field of conjecture is opened out and rendered necessary by this incomplete- ness of Tertullian.? Volkmar, upon the same subject, says: “In the same way his (Tertullian’s) silence may become weighty testimony for the fact that something is missing in Marcion’s Gospel which we read in Luke.

But his silence a/one can only under certain conditions represent with diplomatic certainty an omission in Marcion. It is indeed probable that he would not lightly have passed over a passage in the Gospel of Marcion which could in any way be used for the refutation of its system, if one altogether similar had not preceded it, all the more as he frequently drags in such proof passages from Marcion’s text as it were by the hair, and often, in like manner, only with a certain sophistry, tries to refute his adversary out of the words of his own Gospel. But it is always possible that in his eagerness he has overlooked much; and besides, he believed that in replying to particular passages

1 Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 397, 2 Ritschl, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 48 f.; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 262 ἢ

96 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

he had done enough for many others of a similar kind ; indeed, avowedly, he will not willingly repeat himself. Nothing certain, therefore, can be deduced from the silence of Tertullian except when special circumstances enter.” * With such an opening for mere guesses, and for the inser- tion or omission of passages in accordance with precon- ceived ideas or feelings, it is scarcely possible that there should be either accuracy or agreement in reconstructing the text of Marcion’s Gospel, and Ritschl, in fact, reproaches Hahn with much too free a licence in inter- preting the silence of Tertullian.?

Volkmar’s opinion of the incompleteness of Epiphanius is still more unfavourable than in the case of Tertullian. Comparing him with the latter, he says: “ More super- ficial is the procedure of the later Epiphanius, who has only the merit “οἵ basing his criticism on a copy of the Gospel of Marcion, quite independently from the work of Tertullian. . . . . How far we can build upon his statements, whether as regards their completeness or their trustworthiness, is not yet altogether clear, and yet so much depends on that.”* Volkmar then goes on to show how thoroughly Epiphanius intended to do his work, and yet, although we might, from what he himself leads us to expect, hope to find a complete catalogue of Marcion’s sins, the eager Father himself destroys this belief by his own admission of shortcomings. He proceeds: ‘ Epiphanius, however, only proves to us that absolute completeness in regard to that which

1 Volkmar, Das Evang. Marcion’s, p. 29 f.

2 Ritschl, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 48; cf. Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 262. With regard to arguments a silentio, see Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1855, p. 237.

3. Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 31.

4 Ib., p. 32. 5 Ib., p. 32 f., p. 42 ff.

MARCION. 97

Marcion had not in his Gospel is not to be reckoned upon in his Scholia. He has certainly intended to pass over nothing, but in the eagerness which so easily renders men superficial and blind much has escaped him.”! Further on, he says still more emphatically: “Nor is com- pleteness in his statements of the passages apparently opposed to Marcion to be reckoned upon in Epi- phanius, even if he aimed at it : it would be all the more important if he were always but fully trustworthy in his statements.”? This, Volkmar explains, Epi- phanius only is where, and so far as, he wishes to state an omission or variation in Marcion’s text from his own Canonical Gospel in his Scholia, in which case he minutely registers the smallest point from his Codex of Marcion, but this is to be clearly distinguished from cases where, in his Refutations, he represents something as falsified by Marcion ; for only in the earlier sketch of his Scholia (Proem. 10) had he the Marcionitish Gospel before him and compared it with Luke ; but in the case of the Refutations, on the contrary, which he wrote later, he has not again compared the Gospel of Luke nor, most probably, even the Gospel of Marcion itself. “It is, however, altogether different,” continues Volkmar, “as regards the statements of Epiphanius concerning the part of the Gospel of Luke which is preserved in Marcion. Whilst he desires to be strictly literal in the account of the variations, and also with two excep- tions is so, he so generally adheres only to the contents of the passages retained by Marcion, that altogether literal quotations only belong to the exceptions ;

1 Volkmar, Das Ev. Marcion’s, p. 33 ; ef. Neudecker, Finl. N. T., p. 75 ff. ; Hahn, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 114 f.; De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 123; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 361, anm. 10, p, 362 f., anm. 15, 16, 17.

2 Volkmar, ib., p. 43.

VOL. Il. H

98 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

throughout, however, where passages of greater extent are referred to, these are not merely abbreviated, but also are quoted in very free fashion, and nowhere can we even reckon that the passage in Marcion ran verbally as Epiphanius quotes it.”?

Volkmar, moreover, not only reproaches Epiphanius with free quotation,? alteration of the text without explanation,*® and alteration of the same passage in more than one way,* abbreviations and omission of parts of quotations,® sudden ending of texts just commenced with the indefinite καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς or καὶ τὸ λοιπόν, and differing modes of referring to the same chapters,’ but he finds fault with his whole system of quotation, whether as egards the contents of, or the omissions from, the Marcionitish Gospel, for as in his time there were no numbers of chapters and verses, he does not take the smallest trouble to identify quotations,® the whole method being most misleading.® The difficulty, however, does not end here, for Volkmar himself says: “The ground for a certain fixture of the text of the Marcionitish Gospel, however, seems completely taken away by the fact that Tertullian and Epiphanius, in their statements

1 Etwas ganz Anderes aber ist es mit den Angaben des Epiphanius iiber das vom Lucas-Evangelium bei Marcion, Bewahrte. "Wahrend er im Bericht iiber die Abweichungen Buchstaben-genaw sein will und er es auch bis auf jene beiden Ausnahmen ist, kommt es ihm hinsichtlich jener so sehr nur auf den Inhalt des von Marcion Stehngelassenen im Allge- meinen an, dass ganz wortliche Anfihrungen nur zu den Ausnahmen gehoren, iberall aber, wo Stellen von grésserm Umfang bemerkt werden sollen, jener nicht bloss so abkiirzenden sondern auch sehr freien Citationsweise Platz machen und wir auch nirgends darauf rechnen

kénnen, dass so gerade, wie es Epiph. citirt, die Stelle bei Marcion wortlich gelautet habe. Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 48 f.; cf. p. 34.

2 Ib., p. 33. 3 Ib., p. 33 f. 4 Jb,, p. 84. ° 1b, p. S44 £3 cf. p. 22. 6 Tb., p. 36 ἢ 7 Ib., p. 34 f.

8 Tb., p. 33 ff. : 9 [b., p. 88 ff.

MARCION. 99

regarding its state, not merely repeatedly seem to, but in part actually do, directly contradict each other.”? Hahn endeavours to explain some of these contradic- tions by imagining that later Marcionites had altered the text of their Gospel, and that Epiphanius had -the one form and Tertullian another ;? but such a doubt only renders the whole of the state- ments regarding the work more uncertain and insecure. That it is not without some reason, however, appears from the charge which Tertullian brings against the disciples of Marcion: “for they daily alter it (their Gospel) as they are daily refuted by us.” In fact, we have no assurance whatever that the work upon which Tertullian and Epiphanius base their charge against Marcion of falsification and mutilation of Luke was Marcion’s original Gospel at all, and we certainly have no historical evidence on the point.*

The question, moreover, arises, whether Tertullian and indeed Epiphanius had his Gospel in any shape before them when they wrote, or merely Marcion’s work, the “ Antithesis.”* In commencing his onslaught on Marcion’s Gospel, Tertullian says: ‘“ For of the Com- mentators whom we possess, Marcion seems (videtur) to have selected Luke, which he mutilates.”’® This is a

' Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 22 f., p. 46 ff.; Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 106.

2 Hahn, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 169 ; ef. Neudecker, Einl. N. T., p. 82.

3. Nam et quotidie reformant illud, prout a nobis quotidie revincuntur. Ady. Mare., iv. 5; cf. Dial. de recta in deum fide, ὃ ὅ ; Orig., Opp., i. p. 867.

* Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 262 f.; cf. Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 106 f.

° Hichhorn, ἜΠΗ]. N. T., i. p. 45, anm. i.; cf. p. 77 f., p. 83; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 279 f.

δ Nam ex iis commentatoribus, quos habemus, Lucam yidetur Marcion elegisse, quem czederet. Ady. Mare,, iy. 2.

τς

Δ ὦ

100 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

very uncertain expression for so decided a controver- slalist, if he had been able to speak more positively.’ We have seen that in some instances it is admitted that Epiphanius clearly wrote without the Gospel before him, and also without comparing Luke, and it is also conceded that Tertullian at least had not the Canonical Gospel, but in professing to quote Luke evidently does so from memory, and approximates his text to Matthew, with which Gospel, like most of the Fathers, he was better acquainted.” How superficial and hasty the proceeding of these Fathers was, and how little reliance can be placed upon their statements, is evident from the fact that both Tertullian and Epiphanius reproach Marcion with erasing passages from the Gospel of Luke, which never were in Luke at all? Tertullian says: “ Marcion, you must also remove this from the Gospel : ‘I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, * and : ‘ It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and give it to dogs,’® in order, be it known, that Christ may not seem to be an Israelite.”® The lightness and inaccuracy with which the “ Great African” proceeds are all the better illustrated by the fact, that not only does he accuse Marcion falsely, but he actually defines the motives for which he ex- punged a passage which never existed, for, in the same chapter, he also similarly accuses Marcion of erasing, “as

1 Kichhorn, Einl. N. T., i. p. 78, anm. g. p. 83; ef. Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justin’s, p. 447, anm. 1.

3 Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 30 f. ; cf. 43.

3 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i. p. 278 f.; Eichhorn, Einl. N. T., 1. p. 45 f., anm. 1. cf, p. 77; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 43; cf. Hahn, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 264.

4 Matt. xv. 24. 5 Ib., xv. 26.

6 Marcion, aufer etiam illud de evangelio : non sum missus, nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel; et: non est auferre panem filiis et dare eum canibus, ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur. Ady. Marc., iy. 7.

MARCION, 101

an interpolation,”! the saying that Christ had not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil. them,? and he actually repeats the same charge on two other occasions.? Epiphanius commits the same mistake of reproaching Marcion with omitting from Luke what is only found in Matthew.* We have, in fact,no guarantee of the accuracy or trustworthiness of any of their statements.

We have said enough, we trust, to show that the sources for the reconstruction of a text of Marcion’s Gospel are most unsatisfactory, and no one who atten- tively studies the analysis of Hahn, Ritschl, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, and others, who have examined and _ sys- tematized the data of the Fathers, can fail to be struck by the uncertainty which prevails throughout, the almost continuous vagueness and consequent opening, nay, necessity, for conjecture, and the absence of really certain indications. The Fathers had no intention of showing what Marcion’s text actually was, and their object being solely dogmatic and not critical, their statements are very insufficient for the purpose.® The reconstructed texts, as might be expected, differ from each other, and one Editor finds the results of his predecessors incomplete or unsatisfactory,® although naturally at each successive attempt, the materials previously collected and adopted, have contributed to an apparently more complete result. After complaining of the incompleteness and uncertainty

1 Hoc enim Marcion ut additum erasit. Ady. Mar., iv. 7.

2 Matt. v. 17. 8 Ady. Mare., iy. 9, 36..

4 Heer., xlii. p. 322 f., Ref. 1; cf. Luke y. 14; Matt. viii. 4.

5 Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 361, anm. 10, p. 362 f.; anm. 15, a Bich Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 55 f. ; Volkmar, Das Evy. Marc., p. 5 f.,

p- 19 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 444 f., p. 394 f. ; Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 194 f., p. 211 f.

102 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

οὗ the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius, Ritschl says: “ We have thus so little of firm material from which to construct a hypothesis, that rather through first setting up a hypothesis may we fix the remains of the Gospel from Tertullian.”' Hilgenfeld quotes this with approval, and adds: “ Of this, certainly, so much is right, that the matter of fact can no longer in all points be settled from external data which first can decide in many respects the general conclusion regarding this Gos- pel.”? Volkmar, in the introduction to his last compre- hensive work on Marcion’s Gospel, says: “ And, in fact, it is no wonder that for so long a time critics have disputed in so really pardonable a way regarding the protean question, for we have continued so uncertain as to the very basis (Fundament) itself,—the precise form of the text of the remarkable document,—that Baur has found full ground for rejecting, as unfounded, the presumption on which that finally-attained decision (his previous one) rested.” Critics of all shades of opinion are forced to admit that we have no longer the materials for any certain reconstruction of Marcion’s text, and, conse- quently, for an absolute settlement of the question from internal evidence.*

Before proceeding to a closer examination of Marcion’s Gospel and the general evidence bearing upon it, it may

1 Ritschl, Das Evy. Marcion’s, p. 55.

? Hilgenfeld, Die Evy. Justin’s, p. 445.

3 Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, 1852, p. 19 f.

* Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 126; Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 565 ; Hilgen- feld, Theol. Jahrb., 1853, p. 194 ff., 211 ff.; Hug, Einl. N. T.,i. p. 58 ff. ; ef. Hahn, Das Ey. Marcion’s, p. 114 f.; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p- 361, anm. 10; Neudecker, Einl. N. T., p. 75 ff.; Reuss, Rey. de Théol., 1857, p. 3; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeitalter, i. p. 262 f.; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 60 f.; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marcion’s, 19 ff., 22 ff.

MARCION. 103

be well here briefly to rtfer to the system of the Heresiarch whose high personal character exerted so powerful an influence upon his own time,! and whose views continued to prevail widely for a couple of cen- Ὁ turies after his death. It was the misfortune of Marcion to live in an age when Christianity had passed out of the pure morality of its infancy, when, untroubled by compli- cated questions of dogma, simple faith and pious enthu- siasm had been the one great bond of Christian brother- hood, into a phase of ecclesiastical development in which religion was fast degenerating into theology, and com- plicated doctrines were rapidly assuming that rampant attitude which led to so much bitterness, persecution, and schism. In later times Marcion might have been honoured as a reformer, in his own he was denounced as a heretic.? Austere and ascetic in his opinions, he aimed at superhuman purity, and although his clerical adversaries might scoff at his impracticable doctrines regarding marriage and the subjugation of the flesh, they have had their parallels amongst those whom the Church has since most delighted to honour, and at least the whole tendency of his system was markedly towards the side of virtue. It would of course be foreign to our purpose to enter upon any detailed statement of its principles, and we must confine ourselves to such par- ticulars only as are necessary to an understanding of the question before us.

1 Credner, Beitriige, i. p. 40; Schleiermacher, Sammtl. Werke, viii. ; Einl. N. T., 1845, p. 64; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 272 f.

3 Cf. Neander, Allg. K. G., 1843, ii. p. 792, 815 f.; Schleiermacher, inl. N. T., 1845, p. 64.

3 Gfrorer, Allg. K. G., i. p. 184 f.; Hagenbach, K. G., 1869, i. p. 134 f. ; Hug, Einl. N. T., i. p. 56 ff.; Milman, Hist. of Chr., 1867, ii. p. 77 ff. ; Neander, Allg. K. G., ii. p. 791 ff.; Volkmar, Das Ey. Marc., p. 25 ff.

104 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

As we have already frequently had occasion to mention, there were two broad parties in the primitive Church, and the very existence of Christianity was in one sense endangered by the national exclusiveness of the people amongst whom it originated. The one party considered Christianity a mere continuation of the Law, and dwarfed it into an Israelitish institution, a narrow sect of Judaism; the other represented the glad tidings as the introduction of a new system applicable to all and supplanting the Mosaic dispensation of the Law by a universal dispensation of grace. These two parties were popularly represented in the early Church by the two Apostles Peter and Paul, and their antagonism is faintly revealed in the Epistle to the Galatians. Marcion, a gentile Christian, appreciating the true character of the new religion and its elevated spirituality, and profoundly impressed by the comparatively degraded and anthropo- morphic features of Judaism, drew a very sharp line of demarcation between them, and represented Christianity as an entirely new and separate system abrogating the old and having absolutely no connection with it. Jesus was not to him the Messiah of the Jews, the son of David come permanently to establish the Law and the

Prophets, but a divine being sent to reveal to man ἃ - wholly new spiritual religion, and a hitherto unknown God of goodness and grace. The Creator (Δημιουργός), the God of the Old Testament, was different from the God of grace who had sent Jesus to reveal the Truth, to bring reconciliation and salvation to all, and to abrogate the Jewish God of the World and of the Law, who was opposed to the God and Father of Jesus Christ as Matter is to Spirit, impurity to purity. Christianity was in distinct antagonism to Judaism, the Spiritual God of

MARCION. 105

heaven, whose goodness and love were for the Universe, to the God of the World, whose chosen and peculiar people were the Jews, the Gospel of Grace to the dispen- sation of the Old Testament. Christianity, therefore, must be kept pure from the Judaistic elements humanly thrust into it, which were so essentially opposed to its whole spirit.

Marcion wrote a work called “Antitheses ” (Αντιθέσεις), in which he contrasted the old system with the new, the God of the one with the God of the other, the Law with the Gospel, and in this he maintained opinions which anticipated many held in our own time. Tertullian attacks this work in the first three books of his treatise against Marcion, and he enters upon the discussion of its details with true theological vigour: “Now, then, ye hounds, yelping at the God of truth, whom the Apostle easts out,’ to all your questions! These are the bones of contention which ye gnaw!”? The poverty of the “ Great African’s ” arguments keeps pace with his abuse. Marcion objected : If the God of the Old Testament be good, prescient of the future, and able to avert evil, why did he allow man, made in his own image, to be deceived by the devil, and to fall from obedience of the Law into sin and death ?? How came the devil, the origin of lying and deceit, to be made at all?* After the fall, God became a judge both severe and cruel ; woman is at once condemned to bring forth in sorrow and to serve her husband, changed from a help into a slave, the earth is cursed which before was blessed, and man is

1 Rey. xxii. 15.

3 Jam hine ad queestiones, omnes canes, quos foras apostolus expellit, latrantes in deum veritatis. Hee sunt argumentationum ossa, quie

obroditis. Adv. Marc., ii. 5. 3 Tertullian, Ady. Marc., ii. 5; cf. 9. 4.78... 1. 10.

106 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.

doomed to labour and to death. The law was one of retaliation and not of justice—lex talionis—eye for eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for stripe.? And it was not con- sequent, for in contravention of the Decalogue, God is made to instigate the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians, and fraudulently rob them of their gold and silver ; to incite them to work on the Sabbath by ordering them to carry the ark for eight days round Jericho ;* to break the second commandment by making and setting up the brazen serpent and the golden cherubim.® Then God is inconstant, electing men, as Saul and Solomon, whom he subsequently rejects ;° repenting that he had set up Saul, and that he had doomed the Ninevites,’ and so on. God calls out: Adam, where art thou? inquires whether he had eaten the forbidden fruit, asks of Cain where his brother was, as if he had not yet heard the blood of Abel crying from the ground, and did not already know all these things.* Anticipating the results of modern criti- cism, Marcion denies the applicability to Jesus of the so-called Messianic prophecies. The Emmanuel of Isaiah (vii. 14, cf. viii. 4) is not Christ ;° the “ Virgin ἢ his mother is simply a “young woman” according to Jewish phraseology, and the sufferings of the Servant of God (Isaiah 111. 13—lii. 9) are not pre- dictions of the death of Jesus.’ There is a complete severance between the Law and the Gospel, and the God of the latter is the Antithesis of that of the

1 Tertullian, Ady. Mare., 11. 11. 2 7}., ii. 18.

3 Jb., ii. 20. Tertullian introduces this by likening the Marcionites to the cuttle-fish, like which ‘‘ they vomit the blackness of blasphemy ” (tenebras blasphemiz intervomunt), 1. c.

4 10., ii. 21. 5. Tb., ii, 22. 6 Tb., ii. 23.

7 Τὸ, ti. 24. 8. 1b., ii. 25. 9 Adv. Marc., iii. 12.

0 Tb., iii. 13. a δι 1, 17; 18. </