į
Tappan Presbyterian Association
LIBRARY.
Presented by HON. D. BETHUNE DUFFIELD.
From Library of Rev. Geo. Duffield, D.D.
DEO REIPUBLICÆ. ET AMICIS
زاولون
Gronze Duffield A. M
In tali nunquam lassat venatio sylva.
A.D.1884.
1
1
BS
2330
H893
1836
HUGIS
INTRODUCTION
TO
THE NEW TESTAMENT
TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION
BY
DAVID FOSDICK JR.
WITH
NOTES
BY M. STUART,
Prof. Sacred Lit. in the Theol. Sem. Andover.
ANDOVER:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GOULD AND NEWMAN.
1836.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1836, by
GOULD AND NEWMAN,
in the Clerk's office of the District Court of Massachusetts.
The Sp
311-3
gut
Tappan
PREFACE
BY THE TRANSLATOR.
1
THOSE who are acquainted with the merits of Hug's Introduction
to the New Testament, will not think it strange that it should be
deemed worthy of an English dress. It has long been in high re-
pute in Germany, and among German scholars in other countries.
As an index to the estimate put upon it in Germany, we may take
the declaration of Gesenius (Bibl. Essays Art. I.) made with direct
reference to this work: "He [Hug] excels all his predecessors in
deep and fundamental investigations."
It is probably known to most who will read this preface, that an
English translation of this work has already been published, (Lon-
don, 1827, 2 vols. 8vo.), which was made by the Rev. Daniel
Guilford Wait, LL. D. On examination this was found to be
very imperfect, as it not only misses oftentimes, but occasionally
reverses, the sense of the original. It exhibits, moreover, not only
such a deficiency of acquaintance with the German language as is
culpable in any one who undertakes to translate such a work, but
also a want of practice, or at least of skill, even in English compo-
sition.
Some of the mistranslations are such as appear to be absolutely
ludicrous. Two or three instances may suffice to justify this asser-
tion. For the first, see p. 312 Vol. I. of the translation. In the
third note, Hug intended to say that a certain edition of the New
Testament was to be found in the Library of the University with
which he was connected. To this end he uses the simple German
demonstrative pronoun hiesigen (this, or this here.) Dr. Wait
makes hiesigen, however, a proper name, and translates it by
Hessian! Thus, instead of "the library of the University in this
place," we have "the academical library of Hessia!"
On p. 318 of the same volume, we find a ludicrous, though in-
tended as a grave, note by the translator, respecting the sense of
the expression "jener armen Sünder," those poor sinners, some-
what humorously employed by Hug. The note of Dr. Wait is as
follows: "Not being provided with a copy of this edition, I am un-
certain whether by this term Hug means convicts under sentence of
death (!) or simply "those poor sinners." It would puzzle any
one to tell how the former sense could possibly have entered any
man's mind.
On p. 484 of the same volume, Wait translates "Kleinseite,"
iv
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
(the name by which one division of the city of Prague is designated,
meaning, Little Prague,) the weak sidė!
It is unnecessary to multiply such instances. A perusal of the
English, even without reference to the German, would satisfy every
person competent to judge, that the translation is very defective.
Another has therefore been deemed expedient.
It should be noticed, moreover, that Wait's version was made
from the second German edition; while the present has been made
from the third, to which many important additions were made by
the author.
وو
In translating, I have looked, or striven to look, more at the sense
than the phraseology of the writer; believing that the rule of Hor-
ace is as suitable in this case, as in the case to which he originally
applied it: "Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere, fidus interpres.
(Hor. Ars Poet. 1. 133.) I would fain hope that the present trans-
lation is more correct than the one already published; though
doubtless severe scrutiny, or even a cursory reading, might discov-
er in it many imperfections. It is due to truth that I should ac-
knowledge myself far from being satisfied with the manner in which
I have executed my task. It has been performed under some
disadvantages. Those, however, who are best acquainted with the
difficulty of translating German into English, and also with the in-
volved sentences and faulty style of composition to be found in Hug,
will not be forward to denounce the defects which the version ex-
hibits. Many pages might be devoted to the statement and exem-
plification of the faults of style in the original; but it would be
out of place to do this here. Suffice it to say, that in general what
is obscure in the translation is as much or more so in the original.
I have corrected almost innumerable mistakes in the references,
numbers, &c. Many of them, it is probable, were only typograph-
ical errors. I fear that careful scrutiny may discover some new er-
rors in the translation.
It is certainly singular that Hug should have neglected to affix
the accents to the Greek so plentifully introduced into his work.
The task of adding them has been no slight one; as, in common
with most of my countrymen who have studied the Greek lan-
guage, I was very little versed in the somewhat intricate theory of
Greek accentuation. The first few sheets will be found more im-
perfect, in this respect, than the later ones.
In conclusion, it may not be improper for me to say, that had I
been at first fully aware of the difficulty of the task to be accom-
plished in the translation and publication of this work, I should have
undertaken it, if at all, with far less alacrity and more circum-
spection, and prosecuted it with more deliberate and considerate
examination than I have actually practised.
Cambridge, Mass.,
April 1, 1836.
D. F. JR.
PREFATORY REMARKS
BY M. STUART.
THE remarks which Mr. Fosdick has made upon the difficulties.
of Hug's style, seem to me very just. After being somewhat con-
versant with German for a quarter of a century, Hug obliges me
often to reperuse some of his sentences, more than once too, before
I am satisfied that I understand them; and even then, there are
some of them in respect to which I do not feel certain that I have
discovered the meaning of the writer.
It is difficult to characterize that in the author which occasions
this obscurity. There is not only a negligence as to the essential
parts and relative positions of the proper ingredients of a perspicu-
ous sentence, but (what I must call) an affectation of singularity, a
peculiarity in modes of thought and expression. This, however,
may belong to the mental characteristics of the author, rather than
to his affectation; but if it is so, it does not diminish the difficulties
in the way of a translator. No wonder that Dr. Wait, with his mite
of German knowledge, could succeed no better. The translation
of Hug is a task "altius expeditis."
I have not compared the body of Mr. Fosdick's version with the
original; for this has been out of my power, and would have been
little if any less labour than to translate the whole. But I have
here and there compared parts of his translation with the German
original, and found them to answer the just and reasonable expec-
tations of the reader. That he has expended much severe labour
on the work, there can be no doubt. That the version is sufficient-
ly true and faithful to answer all the important purposes of a ver-
sion, is clear to my mind. I have had a good opportunity to know
this; inasmuch as I have read, or rather studied, the book through-
out in its English dress, in order to prepare for writing the Notes
contained in the Appendix.
It is not important for me to say much, if any thing, in this place,
with regard to the manner in which Hug has executed this work,
and the relative value of the work itself. My notes will disclose to
the reader, how far I agree or disagree with him, in respect to most
of his important positions. His mode of arguing and illustrating is
often original and peculiar. It is not the more attractive to me,
however, on this account. He does not say even the most com-
mon things, in the way that others say them; whether from affec-
tation, or peculiarity of mind, I know not. Yet there is not so
vi
PREFATORY REMARKS.
much of this as ought to offend the reader, or to give him a distaste
for the work. But in my humble opinion, when perspicuity in any
writer is sacrificed, all other gain that is made by such a sacrifice
can be no adequate compensation for this loss.
Hug now and then proposes some singular theories; in some
cases I should even venture upon calling them conceits. But these
are not frequent; and not many German writers of the present day
will be found, who are men of genius, that do not abound in these
more than Hug.
The recent literature respecting the New Testament, which he
professes in his preface to have regarded and examined, has been
but very sparingly examined by him, to say the least. And since
the appearance of his third edition, there has been a great deal
written which is more valuable than most that is to be found in the
older literature. Every year is making some advances in the noble
science of sacred literature. My notes will furnish the reader with
references, which will aid him to extend his investigations beyond the
pale of criticism as marked out by Hug. To have canvassed all the
positions of Hug, would have demanded a book as large as his own;
which would be inconsistent with the design of the work and the
plan of the publishers. But whenever I have thought there was
any important error or defect in the author, I have endeavoured to
point it out, and briefly to give my reasons why I deemed it to be
an error or defect. This is all that the Notes could promise or ac-
complish, unless the entire plan of the publication had been chang-
ed; which I did not think best.
The reader will be desirous to know something of Hug, in re-
spect to his religious developments. He must know, then, that
Hug is a Roman Catholic with a kind of Protestant heart. He
wears, rather impatiently, if I discern aright, the chains which his
profession imposes upon him; and when he comes to critical con-
clusions which he apprehends may be construed as being included
under the banns of Mother-Church, he endeavours to make a sepa-
ration between his critical and his Catholic conscience. His criti-
cal conscience is at liberty, while his Catholic conscience is permit-
ted to go along with the multitude. This awkward predicament
gives birth to some curious paragraphs in his book.
In respect to the great question between believers in a divine
revelation and neologists, Hug seems, in the preface to his third
edition, to have taken decisive ground; at least his language is cer-
tainly designed to wear this appearance. Speaking of the many
discussions that have lately taken place in regard to the New Tes-
tament, and of the many attacks made upon the genuineness and
authenticity of these writings, he uses the following language, in
his preface:
"The contests between the Naturalists and the Supernaturalists
PREFATORY REMARKS.
vii
have constituted an important part of the recent disputes. The
first have made pure Theism their aim; and acknowledge nothing
as appropriate in the way of investigation respecting morals and
theology, excepting a philosophy, into which the common people
can never make any deep researches. This last class of men
need the positive in religion, and always will need it. This is given
to them in a manner so noble, so perfect, so intelligible, that the
simpleton becomes as good and virtuous, or even more so than the
most learned, and more so than learning can make them. Why
should we substitute, then, the commands of philosophy for those of
the God of heaven?
"They [the Naturalists] think, perhaps, that they have outgrown
the other or old School. Bravo! Yet, if this be the case, they
must be uncommon men, whom the common citizen of the town or
country has neither preparation nor leisure nor capacity to imitate.
The mass of men the Naturalists cannot even hope to reach in their
instructions; and all which they could achieve, if they did, would
be to occasion to them the loss of what they already possess.
The
good which philosophical investigation and self-instruction proffer,
the commonalty are not able to acquire.
"The efforts of the Naturalists must be limited to the more
learned class of men, so far as they are concerned with opposition
to Supernaturalism. If, however, there is many a man, who, in all
the efforts of philosophy past or prospective, in the ebb and flow of
sinking and falling systems, finds no sure place to set down his foot,
and who yet obtains quietude in a belief of the scriptural books
which speak to his heart in so friendly a manner, and kindle in him
desires after all that is beautiful and good; why should any one
strive to tear from him that to which he holds fast amid the waves
of fluctuating opinions, and to substitute that in its place in which he
has no confidence? The greatest philosopher can be no more than
a virtuous man; what illiberality, then, in forbidding one to travel
in any reputable road, except that of Rationalism!
66
They separate Religion and Morals, because the Greeks and
Romans did so. But without any reason. Christianity in its very
nature is practical; and pure virtue, in its perfect state, is the
Christian religion. All the doctrines which respect God, a future
state, etc., tend only to produce a virtuous life; which is the high-
est end of man.
"The edifice of Christianity was built in a few years by using
the scaffolding of Supernaturalism, and was in a short time filled
with many inmates from different countries. But if Christianity
had been only a school of philosophy, instructing and arguing on
the grounds of mere reason, it would have attracted but a narrow
circle of inquirers, like other schools, e. g. the Academy, and the
Porch, and the Peripaton, and would never have been a popular
Institute.
viii
PREFATORY REMARKS.
"To operate quickly on the mass of men, there was but one
means, and that was Supernaturalism. The divine authority of the
instruction communicated was declared by this, and was raised
above doubts, and proclaimed as the highest rule for all men, for
the unwise and even children; and by this these were placed in a
condition, as to living and acting, like that of the wisest. I may
well ask: If a thousand Professors of Rationalism were sent out
into all the world, by means of rationalist schools and instructions
to make men in general become moral, and to establish them in a
virtuous life, will they venture to say, that they could have accom-
plished it ?”
These remarks are certainly very pointed, and withal go very
deep into the subject. The appeal is ultimate. By its fruits Ra-
tionalism is to be known and tried; has it produced, can it produce,
much good fruit?
The older work of Michaelis on the literature of the N. Test.,
as translated by Marsh and accompanied by his Notes, has much
in it that is useful. Mr. Horne's recent work has also many use-
ful things, and exhibits great industry and pains on his part. But
the work of Hug is more compressed in its manner, and more reg-
ular in its structure. On the whole, it would be difficult to select
any one Introduction to the N. Test., which comprises more im-
portant and valuable matter that would be likely to prove attrac-
tive to the reader. I indulge the hope, that those who have labour-
ed to bring this work before the public in an acceptable form, among
whom its enterprising publishers are to be reckoned, have not la-
boured in vain.
Andover Theol. Sem.
April 12, 1836.
INTRODUCTION
TO THE
SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
PART I.
CHAP. I.
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THESE WRITINGS.
$1. Importance of these books in general.
ALL the larger nations, of which we have any account, possessed or
still possess systems of positive religion. These merely comprise cer-
tain directions how to live at peace with the gods, by means of sacri-
fices, presents and other tokens of service; or, in later times and
cultivated states, enjoin the practice of social and personal virtues. So
will it ever be, unless we idly attempt to urge men forward to a point
which, as a body, they can never reach. It is a vain idea to expect, in
future times, nations of absolute philosophers and communities of men
like Socrates.1
The cares of life which press upon a large portion of our race, will
never cease to require for themselves the time necessary for such in-
vestigations and conclusions. Besides, what is to guide each of us in
the interim before we should be furnished with a stock of wisdom?
What to become of him who cannot at any rate keep pace with his more
gifted brother? What is to guide the young human being before he
attains the capacity of self direction? Do you say the authority of
parents and fellow-citizens? Very well: but let then an authority more
worthy of reliance, more general, more consistent and more sacred than
any other, be extended over them at birth; one which governs even the
morals and principles of parents and citizens.
The obligations of civil life are not more difficult of discovery than
those of pure morality; yet we despair of ever seeing nations, without
1 Plato, De Republ. L. vi. p. 89 has already remarked this: 426ooqov . . . Tỏ
πλῆθος αδύνατον εἶναι.
2
10
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
positive laws, solely by dint of their own sagacity, deduce their civil.
obligations from the principles upon which they rest, and enter on their
faithful performance. For the same reason that the code of civil law
among nations is positive, must the code of morals be so too; for both
alike aim at the direction of mankind and their actions.
The ancients did not discriminate so accurately. The time had not
come to distinguish things which were lawful from things which were
virtuous. For the first step, much was gained by discovering the former
and coming to an agreement concerning them; but the latter were still
undefined, the portion of rare and noble souls. Hence men were
content with rendering hallowed the requisitions of the laws by means
of the gods, and religion became a part of the civil ordinances of the
state.
He who first isolated man, abstracted him from place, people, and
country, and from all extrinsic influence, was in the way of discovering
a law of the heart which is sacred to all beings of our race wherever
they may be. Such a religion cannot but be true; since, disregarding
adventitious circumstances, it constitutes an universal rule which tends
to ennoble the nature of all intelligent creatures.
Happy the nations who possess such a religion! They have an
eternal property; for the fundamental principles of such a religion must
ever remain the same. It is indeed the case that divine truth, when it
descends to man, does not always obtain a suitable reception. It must
take its way through men's intellect. Hence it is the lot of every
religion to be apprehended, interpreted and practised, very much ac-
cording to the other leading views and intellectual characteristics of its
disciples. Since the cultivation and intelligence of a people are different
at different times, since periods of light alternate in history with periods
of darkness, it is not strange that religion did not always and every-
where meet with minds prepared to receive it; and yet it was obliged,
like all other science, to adapt itself to the whole mental character of
those to whom it came. Individuals may constitute exceptions to this;
but such is not the character of the whole race.
But whatever fate true religion may meet with, such is its nature,
that it quietly disengages itself from connexion and misinterpretation
with the mass of other sciences and arts, and rises to that purity so
peculiarly its own. On this account it can never become useless; the
period will never arrive when we must lay it aside. If no hindrances
or important obstructions intervene in the way of its equal pace with
the human mind, it ever accompanies us through all situations without
violent changes: it is beneficent without exhibiting terrible phenomena;
not like the tempest and earthquake, but like the succession of the
seasons, which are rough or kindly according to the terrestrial changes
which occasion them.
The first universal religion was derived from Judaism. There was
its groundwork, monotheism, together with many other principles natu-
rally flowing from this. It was Jesus of Nazareth who first took so ex-
tended a view as to grasp in his mind the idea of a religion for the
whole world, and first succeeded in reducing that idea to a reality. If
ever before any mortal, for instance the son of Sophroniscus, attained
an idea of the kind, he failed in attempting to extend it among a people
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
11
who far surpassed all others in cultivation and susceptibility to truth
and beauty. Jesus seized those fundamental principles which were
current among his countrymen; discarded everything which had merely
a local, civil, or national reference; selected the purely moral, refined
and elevated it to its true dignity, and rendered it complete by supplying
its deficiency.
True, he invested it anew with the authority of the positive institution
of the Supreme Being, from whom he derived his commission; but he
freed it from the influence of civil coercion, and simply submitted it to
faith and judgment, that all men, each according to his capacity, might
share in it, and that all their talents might be developed and exercised
upon it and thereby constantly improved.
Although, with a wise regard to intellectual weakness, all our duties
are separately presented and enjoined, yet no one is hindered from
searching throughout creation for their grounds and combining them in
one complete system. Indeed Jesus himself communicated to us the
first rudiments of such a course, summoning all our powers into spirited
action, thrusting us out, as it were, into boundless space, and presenting
the universe to our faculties that we might gather from it knowledge
and wisdom. Hitherto the first principle of social life alone had been
discovered, viz. so to conduct towards men ourselves, as we would wish
them to conduct towards us; but Jesus often pointed to the fundamen-
tal doctrines of morality, to the sustaining and disinterestedly active
First Cause of the beauty and happiness of universal existence-thus
introducing his more enlightened disciples into the whole field of nature,
there to search out the plan of the Deity, and to examine systematically
what he has given in precepts, and to expound from the order of things
what he has declared as the absolute injunctions of the universal Parent.
As a matter not within human disposal, Jesus aimed at the sanction
of his precepts by inculcating a higher destiny, and by pointing for-
ward to a future state, the reality of which before his time had been
only conjectured by great and wise men, but had never been generally
believed. Thus, by opening to his disciples a view into another more
active system of being, he transferred the reward of virtue and the
punishment of vice from this life which often crowns with success the
undertakings of the wicked, gave to the soul a lofty elevation above the
interests of this present moment, and warmed it to anticipate and hope
for a more delightful condition as the reward for the offering of a life
well-spent in the present world.
Thus did Jesus elevate the Mosaic constitution into a religion which,
under many changes and reverses, has been the guide to our present
cultivation, and which has the distinguished honor above all other
religions of being the governess, or at least the nurse, of the most civ-
ilized and ingenious nations of the earth. He therefore who would
discredit it, has not taken a comprehensive view of it, or charges to its
account those human follies which it had not sufficient authority to
prevent. As to him who imagines that he can now go alone and stands
in no need of such a staff-we have neither space nor leisure to dispute
with him here. Let him not however cast away this staff with haughty
self-confidence, but let him deposite it with grateful homage before
religion's altars. Could any one have derided the beneficent Deity in
12
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
the temple of Epidaurus, when he was enabled to lay aside his crutches
and depart without their aid? Is not the hand of the mother who
taught us to walk, worthy of reverence?
What Jesus further communicated to his disciples respecting certain
mysterious doctrines, cannot now be brought into view for the purpose
of estimating the value of his religion in this respect, inasmuch as the
different sects which bear his name are by no means agreed concerning
them. We should be obliged to commence our inquiries with a con-
troversy, upon which we shall not be qualified to enter until they
have been brought to a conclusion.
The observations already made, may enable us to judge respecting
the usefulness of this religion in supplying the general need of man-
kind, and respecting the importance which ought to be accorded to re-
searches concerning the books in which it is contained.
§ 2. Number of these books.
Jesus of Nazareth appeared as a teacher in Judea under Tiberius,
and was there condemned to death by the Roman procurator, Pontius
Pilate. This did not however prevent his disciples from spreading
themselves, not only in that country, but into other parts of the Roman
empire, and even into the capital itself.¹
An account of the remarkable part of his life and the doctrines which
he taught is contained in the books of the Christians, which, in their
opinion, were written by his earliest disciples. These comprise five
historical books, viz. the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
and the Acts of the Apostles, a book which narrates the progress of his
doctrines after his death; and several didactic writings, viz. fourteen
Epistles of the apostle Paul, and seven of other apostles. The fourteen
Epistles of Paul are addressed to the following collections of the
followers of Jesus-one to the church at Rome, two to that at Corinth,
one to that at Galatia, one to that at Ephesus, one to that at Philippi,
one to that at Colosse, two to that at Thessalonica, two to Timothy his
assistant, one to Titus, one to Philemon, and one to the Hebrews. Of
the seven Epistles of the other Apostles, one was written by James,
two by Peter, three by John, and one by Jude. The Apocalypse, which
closes the collection, forms a class by itself; it is held to be prophetic.
§ 3. Genuineness of them. Internal proofs of the genuineness of the
historical books.
Are now this alleged origin and antiquity justly ascribed to these
writings, or have they crept into such repute without sufficient reason?
This is naturally the previous question, lying at the foundation of all
other inquiries. If this be answered unfavourably, not only are all our
former observations upon the doctrines and designs of Jesus ill-founded,
1 Cornel. Tacit. Annal. L. xv. n. 44. Gronov.
SCRIPT URES OF THE N. TEST.
13
but it will, indeed, be very difficult to discover anything upon which
dependence can be placed respecting the system and objects of this
sage instructor.
There are two sources of information respecting the genuineness or
spuriousness of these writings; viz. Internal Evidence, and the Testi-
mony of ancient writers, who have mentioned them and so proved their
existence, or have named their authors.
We will first consider the historical books of the New Testament
with reference to the internal grounds of their genuineness.
Suppose a person should unexpectedly light upon these books without
any previous knowledge of them, (the subject is treated much in this
way by a late writer'), and, possessing the ability to read them, should
open them-what opinion would such a man form as to their origin,
antiquity, and authors, merely from their internal character?
They are written in Greek, he would say, and certainly not in any
one of the proper dialects of that language, but in a corrupted style of
expression and construction, which frequently so much resembles the
Hebrew in the use of words and in grammatical arrangement, that one
would think their authors were Jews who spoke Greek. They exhibit,
too, so little learning and historical art, that it is plain they are the
compositions of ordinary men, who, with the exception of some Jewish
reading, make no pretensions to education or attainments in literature.
The narrative itself is of such a character that, notwithstanding its
brevity, the very air and features of the persons concerned, their attitude
and motions, the part of the spectators, the expression of their coun-
tenances, their whole behaviour, seem to be present before the eyes.-
Such would necessarily be the language of one who, with no previous
account of them, should pass judgment upon these books from their in-
ternal character alone.
And this is exactly what Christians assert respecting them, viz. that
they were written by men of Jewish descent, who were all of humble
origin and rank, without a learned education, whose knowledge of the
events which they recorded was either that of eye-witnesses, or ob-
tained directly from eye-witnesses.
We may argue too as follows: Biographies of remarkable men always
present a more or less complete picture of their age and country, the
state of civil affairs and of manners, and other circumstances under
which they appeared, with which their life was surrounded and their
actions came in contact. In proportion to the intimacy of the acquain-
tance we possess with all these peculiarities and circumstances, and
with the whole picture of the age, we are able to discern whether the
writers had seen those days to which their narrative pertains, or how
remotely they lived from them. The truth on this point is the more
strikingly manifest, the more the biography enters into details, and the
more numerous and delicate are the relations under which the per-
sonage, who is its subject, appears.
In this view, especial importance attaches itself to the labors of those
learned men who investigate the political state of the country in which
1 Gottfried Less, Ueber die Religion, ihre Geschichte und Bestätigung.
1. Th. II. Abschn. § 28.
14
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
Jesus appeared; examine into its social condition and civil regulations;
collect together contemporary events which had a more or less close
relation to N. T. occurrences and are incidentally referred to in the
narrative; and further, seek out the historical personages who bore a
part in the events of the time, particularly in Palestine, and gather to-
gether the traces of their lives and character to be found in ancient
authors, in order to try the historical books of the New Testament
by these data, and to put to the proof the qualifications of their
authors.1
Now the N. T. writers everywhere evince an uncommonly accurate
knowledge of affairs, and a degree of intimacy with the period to which
Christ belongs, such as could be possessed only by contemporaries.
The more one descends to particulars on this point and observes the
development of the opinions, customs, and manners peculiar to this
period, in the discourse and actions of the individuals introduced, the
more absolutely convinced must he become, that the authors of these
books themselves passed their days in the midst of these very circum-
stances.
On these circumstances depends Christ's conduct as a moral teacher.
The demeanour of others towards him and their treatment of him spring
from these; and the descriptions of his solitary situations depend ulti-
mately for their fidelity upon these.
If he falls in company with Pharisees, the mutual deportment of the
parties, the truths he presents to view and his application of them, all
must be regulated on very different principles from those which guide
when he converses with Sadducees or enters into their society. When
he meets with Samaritans, another chain of ideas commences, other
circumstances come into operation which give character to his inter-
course with them. If he stands among his disciples and addresses the
common people, he has to deal with still other hopes, desires, and pre-
judices, with other moral qualities, and his discourse must run through
another circle of thought. In conduct too they must appear a different
people; on one side, with hearts open to the reception of truth, zealous
and pious-but on the other, rash, easily inflamed, furious in their re-
ligion, and forward to adopt violent measures without regard to con-
sequences.
Now when we gather all from ancient authors that we can find
which affords us any light on these points, and then apply it to parti-
cular cases in the N. T., we find ourselves, in the more trifling as well
as in the main incidents, constantly carried back into the circumstances
of these days. The Pharisees and Sadducees really appeared and
thought just as we see them in these books; such were the prejudices
of the Samaritans, such the mutual ill-will between the Jews and them-
selves; such was the spirit of the common people; and their character
lives and moves in the N. T. just as it presents itself in the history of
1 The credibility of the Gospel History, or the facts occasionally mentioned
in the N. T. confirmed by passages of ancient authors. By Nathaniel Lardner,
Lond. 1727, & second ed. 1733. In Latin; cum praef. Christ. Wolfii, Bremae
1730. Also, A view of the Evidences of Christianity, in three parts, by Wil-
liam Paley, in two volumes, 4th ed. Lond. 1795.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
15
the times, fickle-minded, hasty and blind in their passions, showing
themselves in relation to two different constitutions both strictly regard-
ful of duty and completely lawless, and easily excited to tumult and
sedition.
So too with the foreign regulations and customs which were intro-
duced into Judea, and gave a cast to the national condition, such as it
never had before even in the time of Herod the Great, and never again
wore. The vexing census exhibits all the freshly-awakened theocratic
fancies of the Jews, and paints their feelings towards the Romans, just
as they actually were. The precept in respect to reconciliation (Matt.
5:25. Luke 12:58) has circumstantial reference to the Roman law
de injuriis, by which the complainant was empowered, without the ne-
cessity of a summons by the magistrate, to drag the offender with his
own hand to the judge, in jus rapit. On the way thither he had op-
portunity to make a composition, transactio; but if this was not effected,
a fine was imposed upon him, and, if unable to pay it, he remained in
close confinement until it was discharged.2
When Jesus converses or associates with publicans, throughout the
whole scene the Roman farming-system and its oppressions are pre-
sented to our view. Again when he drives the money-changers out of
the temple with scourges, we notice the consequences of Roman
supremacy and the influence of foreign manners; for the argentarii of
Rome were accustomed to set up their tables, mensas, near the statues
of the gods, at the feet of Janus (Horat. Epis. Lib. I. Ep. 1.), in the
most sacred places, in porticibus basilicarum, and near the temples,
pone ædem Castoris.3 We remark also the Roman toleration which
permitted no violation of the temples and religions of other nations, and
under the sanction of which a private Jew vindicated without oppo-
sition the sacred character of his Temple, which at Rome no laws
could protect from desecration.
The parable Matt. 18: 23 presents to view a king or tetrarch, who
as to himself and his own affairs was not subject to the Roman juris-
diction, and therefore proceeds according to the ancient Jewish law.
But the sequel which relates to a private person is represented in ac-
cordance with the Roman statutes against the obaratos, by which the
debtor who became insolvent was given up to the creditor, addicebatur.
The latter then bound him, in nervum ducebat, and kept him in his
house as a prisoner, wholly at his arbitrary disposal. The rigour of this
statute was, it is true, somewhat mitigated per legem Poeteliam, but
afterwards and in the days of which we are speaking, the ancient se-
verity had again revived, as it appears in this moral fiction.4
1 Joseph. Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 12. p. 727. Ed. Basil. or according to Haver-
camp's ed. L. II. c. 8. Compare Antiq. L. XVIII. c. I. n. 6. also L. XVII.
c. 3. n. 4.
2 Heineccii antiqq. jur. Rom. illustr. Lib. IV. Tit. 4. n. 1. seqq. Compare
with Lib. IV. Tit. 6. n. 14 & 16.
3 Symbol. Litt. Bremens. T. J. N. Funccii Dissertatio de hominib. in foro
Rom. nequam. (It is more than possible that Horace in the passage alluded to
refers to a street which was called Janus, and not to any statue of Janus. Com-
pare Horat. Sat. II. 3. 18. Cicero. Phil. VI. 5.—Tr.)
4 Compare Drackenborch's note on Tit. Liv. L. VIII. c. 38. Gellius Noct.
Att. L. XX. c. 4. p. 282. Aldi Manut. Tacit. Annal. III. c. 60.
16
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
This blending of customs and manners obtained in innumerable
other things. Take for example the various kinds of money. We
meet at one time with Greek, at another with Roman, and at another
with the ancient Jewish coins. But how accurately is this thing too
adjusted, according to the circumstances of the times! The ancient
taxes, which were introduced before the Roman dominion, are estimated
in Greek money; e. g. the temple-tribute, or didoaɣpov. (Matt. 17: 24.
Joseph. B. J. L. VII. c. 6. n. 6.) The offerings were made, also, in this
money. (Mark. 12: 42. Luke 21: 2.) A payment which is made
out of the temple-treasury, is made in the ancient national pounds.
(Matt. 26: 15.) But in business, trade, payment of wages, etc., the
assis and denarius and other Roman coins are usually employed. (Matt.
10: 29. Luke 12: 6. Matt. 20: 2. Mark. 14:5. John 12: 5. 6:7.)
The new taxes, likewise, are estimated in the money of the nation
which then possessed the sovereignty. (Matt. 22: 19. Mark. 12: 15.
Luke 20: 24.)
Writers, who in such trifling circumstances (which on any other sup-
position would have been wholly overlooked) so exactly accord with the
truth, must certainly have been personally familiar with them.
$ 4.
Our investigation might be conducted with reference simply to geo-
graphical circumstances. The geography and topography of a country
change from time to time, through the influence of active industry and im-
provement, natural phenomena, politics, and arms. They are in a per-
petual fluctuation, which, not only in a long course of time, between the
greater epochs, but in shorter periods, causes striking alterations.
Hence writers who attempt to delineate historical occurrences, the
scene of which is laid at some distance from their own time, are ex-
posed to many mistakes; and we can thus easily judge at what distance
of time they were from the events which they describe. It was espe-
cially difficult for the ancients to avoid errors of this kind, since they
possessed very few properly so called geographical helps. The history
of literature presents several examples of impostures, which have been
unveiled in this way. We will not however notice these further, but
will put to the test more distinguished and better informed writers,
who have sometimes been guilty of similar inaccuracies.
Glareau, formerly an ornament of the Freyburg school, contested the
genuineness of Quintus Curtius, on account of the geographical mis-
takes, which this author has committed.
The ancients long ago
pointed out a remarkable oversight of this nature in Virgil. Even
Livy has sometimes, through forgetfulness, applied a later geography to
events of ancient date. Thus he speaks of Sinuessa, Præneste, Arpi,
instead of Synope, Argos-Hippium, and Stephane.
The observation which we have the opportunity of making in this
view, in regard to the life of Appollonius Tyaneus, would have been
peculiarly gratifying to the ancient Christians. Philostratus, the phi-
1 Aul. Gellius. Noct. Attic. L. X. c. 16.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
17
losopher, is its author, and pretends to have compiled it out of the com-
mentaries and records of Damis, who was not only a contemporary of
Apollonius, but his friend and his companion in all his travels. Among
other things, the hero of this book appears in Babylon, and on this oc-
casion a description of the celebrated city is given us, not a word of
which is applicable to the period, for Babylon was then solitary and
almost wasted, Selucia having long since absorbed its splendor. He
confounds the people of Sparta with the Lacedemonians, as though the
two people composed one state as formerly. He represents Sparta as
still a free state, while it was really under Roman dominion, and only
the (so called) Eleutherolacones, separated from Sparta, continued free
through the clemency of Augustus.2 Is it possible that these are the
accounts of an eye-witness and contemporary? Is it not plain, that the
commentaries of Damis are but a dishonest pretence; and that the au-
thor of this biography by no means drew from the contemporary sour-
ces of which he boasts?
Now if persons, who did not possess such extensive learning as this
philosopher, affixed the names of older writers to their works, in order
to invest them with value from their antiquity, what must have been the
consequence? Just examine the history of the Jewish war, which passes
under the name of Hegesippus the Jew. He lived under Antoninus and
Commodus; and yet this work makes mention of Constantinople, Scot-
land, and Saxony.3
1
Difficult as it must generally have been for a historian, who had select-
ed for his subject events of a remote period, to represent them in accor-
dance with the actual geographical situation of the country, it would
have been incomparably more difficult for a writer who had to treat of
the occurrences in the Jewish state which took place immediately be-
fore its dissolution, supposing him to have lived at a later time. The
many changes which preceded this period; the dreadful event itself,
which so completely effaced all traces of the city and its environs, that,
in the words of an eye-witness, it might be doubted whether they had
ever been the abode of man; the subsequent commotions, which gave
a new face to the whole country, rendered it almost impossible that one
of a later age could do this. Add to this, that under Hadrian fifty
important places and nine hundred and eighty-five villages and hamlets
were razed to the ground,5 and then judge in what a predicament the
historian was placed, who had to represent the country as it was in the
days of Tiberius.
4
The laborious collections, and united works of the learned on the
geography and topography of Palestine at different periods, have placed
us in a situation to judge how far the historical books of the N. T. pre-
sent such a picture of the country, and connect with events such cho-
rographical circumstances, as suit the period to which the events belong.
1 Vita Apollon. Tyan. per. Philostrat. Lemn. Sen. L. I. c. 18.
2 Id. L. IV. c. 2.
3 Hegesipp. de Bell. Jud. Lib. III .c. 5, and L. V. c. 15.
4 Joseph. de Bell. Jud. Lib. VII. c. 1.
5 Dio Xiphilin. in vit. Hadr. p. 266. Hen. Steph.-8vo. Ed. Wechel.
p. 974
1
3
18
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
Though these works and collections have indeed many chasms, and
must necessarily have them, they are yet sufficiently complete to enable
us with certainty to detect and denounce mistakes, and determine the
real age of such writings as falsely arrogate to themselves higher an-
tiquity.
All these learned investigations and comparisons may be regarded as
a process of induction, according to which a perfect insight into the
geographical condition of the period in which the events took place
must be conceded to the historical books of the N. T. We will here
put to the test a few cases, some of which we may perhaps contribute
to elucidate.
It is often the case that our historians, without expressly mentioning
topographical or geographical circumstances, so narrate events, that
these circumstances are involved in them and must be deduced by the
reader. The more we learn in respect to places and their situation,
the more plain it is that the narrative is always accurately regulated by
topography.
Jesus is led to Pilate to be judged; but the Jews would not go into
the Prætorium, on account of the feast, lest they should be defiled.
Jesus was led out to receive his sentence; and Pilate sat in a place
called the Lithostroton to pass judgment. (John 19: 13.) The trans-
action is represented as if this place was in front of the Prætor's house,
or at least at no great distance from it. And, there is, in fact, such a
place, which has been formerly overlooked, in the outworks of the
Temple. Mention is made of it, on occasion of an assault which the
Romans made upon the Temple, on the side of the tower Antonia.¹
Here is the Lithostroton; and the house of the Prætor must have been
opposite to this place. Now he lived, as appears from some incidental
passages in Philo, in Herod's palace. This was certainly in this quar-
ter and neighborhood, northwest of the tower Antonia and the Temple,
so that the proximity of the Lithostroton to the palace, which is im-
plied in John's narrative, is perfectly accurate.
Peter and John went to the Temple: when they arrived at the gate
called Beautiful, a man, who was lame from his birth and was daily
carried there to beg, asked alms of them. They made him whole; he
enters the Temple, and the people throng around him, astonished at his
recovery. The Apostles afterwards enter; he perceives them in Solo-
mon's porch, leaves the crowd, and embraces them as his benefactors.
(Acts 3:). Such a gate, distinguished above the rest for its beauty, led
into the Temple from the East,3 and moreover, the rod Zolouŵvtos
lay here on the East; so that the several parts of the occurrence are
4
1 Joseph. Bell. Jud. L. VI. c. 6 and 7. p. 868 and 869. Ed. Basil. Kaì xard
λιθόστρωτον τρέχων κ. τ. λ. Haverc. c. 1. n. 8.
2 Philo, De legat. ad. Caium says: Pilate had hung up gilded ensigns (of
which Josephus also speaks, Archeol. L. XVIII. c. 4.) Ev rois Hovidov Bachelors
and immediately after says that this occurred in the Prætor's dwelling: xai tóte
μὲν ἡ ἀνάθεσις ἐν οἰκίᾳ τῶν ἐπιτρόπων ἦν. Compare Faber, Archäologie der He-
bräer I. Th. 323 in the note.
3 Joseph. Bell. Jud. L. V. c. 14. p. 841. Basil. and Haverc. c. 5. n. 3.
A Jos. Archæol. L. XX. c. 8. p. 621 and Haverc. c. 9. n. 7
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
19
not distributed to places incompatible with each other, but are adjusted
according to the actual plan of the edifice.
Beth-Phage, a place insignificant in itself, and almost unnoticed in
history, is often mentioned in the Gospels. (Matth. 21: 1. Mark 11: 1.
Luke 19: 29.) According to them, it was without the city, yet not
far from Jerusalem. It so happens that the Talmudic books have
mentioned it; but very differently from the Gospels. According to
them, Beth-Phage must have been situated, not without, but within
the city.
So says Lightfoot, a man skilled in this kind of learning (Chorogr.
Matthæo præmissa c. 37); and he unhesitatingly places Beth-Phage
within the circuit of the city-walls. Reland, who could best have as-
sisted us in this case, contented himself with censuring Lightfoot.
. נמצא בעליל לעיר ? should be found exposed in the city
In the Gemar. Babyl. or Mishnah Sanhedrin. (c. 1. § 3.) the fol-
lowing question is proposed: What if the carcase of a dead person
The reply is,
They should go and examine.-But if it were found in Beth-Phage,
182 and the inhabitants opposed their inquest, ought they to
regard it as an insurrection in Beth-Phage? Reply: They should go there
to examine. Here are evidently two cases opposed to each other: in
the city, and in Beth-Phage. Yet Lightfoot was induced by the gloss:
בית פגי מקום לפבים מין הומת העיר ונדון כירושלים לכל דבריו
to interpret the passage differently, though not without violence: “si
invenerit synedrium considens in Bethphage &c." Nothing is said
any where of a Synedrium in Beth-Phage. The word 7 is used
with reference to Deut. 21: 1.3 ", i. e. if such a corpus de-
licti should be found. Indeed the gloss, closely examined, does not
signify what Lightfoot supposes. True, in the Talmudic lan-
guage often signifies the inside; but the sequel would then be super-
fluous. If it were within the city-walls, it would be understood of it-
self, that it was to be regarded like the city. Thus he might better
have translated it: Bethphage locus est in conspectu mænium urbis,
quantum ad omnia tamen utebatur jure Hierosolymorum. Still less does
the second place to which he refers, (Gemar. Babyl. Tract. Pesachim,)
support his position. To the question, What is without the walls?
R. Johannan replies, "N-na naımb yım. Est must be understood
both in question and answer: Extra mania est Beth-Phage. So
a place of, מקום חיצון שברושלם says the gloss in different words
n.
those without Jerusalem. In the Mishnah, (Tract. Menachot. c. XI.
1, 2.) R. Jehuda maintains in respect to the question, whether the
shewbread and the two loaves of Pentecost, which were baked in the
courts of the Temple, might be kneaded without, 7, that all must
be performed in the Temple. In opposition to this, R. Simeon adduces.
a tradition that they might as well be kneaded in Beth-Phage as in the
courts of the Temple. Far different from the fanciful interpretation
which R. B. Maiemon gives, this passage only imports that it might be
done, not only in the courts of the temple, but also in Jerusalem and
in the adjoining places, which possessed equal rights with Jerusalem,
The book, the oldest commentary on Deuteronomy infers, (chap.
29: 35,) from the word that, on the great day of the feast, no one
ought to go out of Jerusalem: compare Mishnah Tr. Megill. c. I.
20
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
n. 11. Yet he makes the exception, that whoever had come from Beth-
עצרו הכתוב מכצאת הרי .Phage might return home and sleep there
שהביא קדשנב מבית פגי לירושלם שומע אני יאכלם בירושלם וילין
:73-722. All these passages separate Beth-Phage from Jerusalem
they fix it indeed in the vicinity of the city, but without the walls, with-
in sight of them. From the query whether when Beth-Phage was in
commotion, there might be said to be an insurrection, we may infer
what was the importance of this place, as to size and number of inhab-
itants.
At Jericho curiosity induces the chief of the publicans to ascend a
tree in order to see Jesus; and at Capernaum the Lord calls a publican
from the receipt of custom by the sea-side to follow him. Both circum-
stances are natural.
In the great hollow which is formed by the mountains about Jericho
grew the balsam, the chief production of Judea, and its principal and
most abundant article of traffic.¹ From this place it was sent abroad,
and here the taxes which were imposed upon it must have been levied.
Thus the chief publican is in his proper chorographical position.
The Phoenicians, and especially the Aradians, despatched their arti-
cles of merchandise to more southern countries, by means of the Jor-
dan. Their depot was thus necessarily on the north of Gennesaret
at Capernaum; and collectors of the customs would not be wanting
here.
Our Lord was at Capernaum; and on the following day proceeds to
Nain. (Luke 7: 1-11.) His fame spreads rapidly before him, in the
direction of Judea ; he comes into the vicinity of the Baptist, (v. 17,
18,)
and, still further south, into the suburbs of the Holy City, where Mary
Magdalene dwells. Luke, we perceive, is describing a journey of
Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem. Now Josephus tells us, that, when
the Galileans went on festival seasons to the Holy City, they passed
through the place called Nais, which lay on their route: "Evos v tois
Γαλιλαίοις ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς εἰς τὴν ἱερὰν πόλιν παραγενομένοις ὁδεύειν
διὰ τῆς Σαμαρίων χώρας, καὶ καθ᾽ ὁδὸν αὐτοῖς κώμης τῆς Ναϊς λεγο-
µévrs, (Ant. L. XX. c. 6.) Thus Jesus follows a route which would
lead him through the little city, in which we find him working a bene-
ficent miracle. (Luke 7: 11-17.)
But Hudson and Havercamp deprive us of this passage in Josephus,
and alter the name of the place, because it is not written alike in all
the manuscripts. They read κώμης Γιναίας λεγομένης. But why
change the text? Most manuscripts and printed copies have Naïs;
the other readings according to Ruffinus, are Navais, Terais, T'evas,
Γιναΐς. Now Ναναis is only a mistake of the copyist in repeating the
two first letters; and is easily resolved into Nais. Even Tuvais and
Tivalas originated from Nais. If, as is often the case, the letter Tof
the article 4ης (Ναΐς) were half effaced, κώμης Γῆς Ναϊς λεγομένης
would be read; and the conjectures of the copyist in order to get rid
of this yns would produce Tivais, Tivaïas, &c.
1 Justin. Epitome Trogi. L. XXXV. c. 3. " Opes gentis ex vectigalibus opo.
balsami crevere.
""
2 Strabo. L. XVI. p. 519. Casaub. 1787. Tov Aunov, naì tòv 'Iogdávyv åva-
πλέουσι φορτίοις, Αραδίοι μάλιστα κ. τ. λ.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
21
>
The second passage of Josephus, in which he repeats the same fact,
is still more corrupt in its readings, (Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 12. n. 3.) I'½-
μαν, Ωβαν, Βᾶν, Βοῦν. As it can be explained how the former Γιναίαν
became Taμav, so it is very evident how Naiv might in rapid writing
degenerate into Bar. It is known that in MSS. of the 10th and onward
to the 13th century is very similar to v, and a can scarcely be dis--
tinguished from at. The third passage which mentions this place
(Bell. Jud. L. III. c. 3. n. 4.) gives us the readings, Tivalas, Invias,
Γινέας, Genania, all which, Γι-ναίας, Γη νίας, Γη νανίας, resolve
themselves into Ths Naïs.
In order to get at the matter more fully, we must observe that the
doubtful place was situated in the plain, uέya Tεdiov, on which the
province of Samaria bordered, (Ant. XX. 6.) or in the plain in which
the Samaritan country commenced. (B. J. II. 12. 3. III. 3. 4.) Reland
rightly distinguishes two plains of this description (Pal. Lib. I, c. 55.)
viz. the μέγα πεδίον Λεγενῶς which extended southward towards Sa-
maria, and the μέγα πεδίον προς Πτολεμαϊδα which extended in a
northwest direction towards Ptolemais. Both met at the foot of Mount
Tabor. But here, on the south of Tabor, at a small distance from it,
consequently at the entrance of the Samaritan plain, lay Nain. (Euseb.
de Loc. Hebr. Ναις κώμη . . . . καὶ νῦν ἐστι μετά νότον Θάβωρ. In
respect to its distance from Tabor, see the note of Vallarsi ad h. 1, Opp.
Hieronym. T. III. p. 285, and Reland. Palest. L. III. v. Nain.) Luke
calls the place nolis; Josephus only zoun. But this makes no dif-
ference: it is the custom of Josephus to designate small places, even if
they had walls, gates, and fortifications, simply by the word oun. (Ant.
XVII. c. 2. n. 2. c.10. n. 9. XX. c. 6. n. 2. B. J. IV. c. 2. n. 3. c. 8, n. 4. 5.)
In Acts 8: 26, the city Gaza is mentioned, with the remark that it is
desert-avin or onμos. It is true, this was often its fate; but it
was invariably rebuilt, and was so in the days of Herod the Great, not
long before the event which is here related. Uncommon erudition has
been employed to solve this difficulty; (Wesseling. Not. ad Diodor.
Lib. XIX. c. 80. p. 381. T. I. and ad Itinerar. Antonini p. 251 Re-
landi Palestin. p. 786.) but there are two words in Josephus, which
have escaped the learned, from which we learn how well Luke was ac-
quainted with an event concerning which all history else is silent. A
short time before the seige of Jerusalem, the Jewish revolution, on ac-
count of the slaughter of the Jews in Cæsarea, had assumed a decisive
character; and, in revenge, the Jews burnt or otherwise laid waste a
multitude of villages and cities in Syria and the vicinity. Among these
was Gaza, which they destroyed (Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 33. p. 751. Basil.
c. 18. n. 1. Haverc. ἀλλ' ἐπὶ ταύταις πυρποληθείσαις, Ανθήδονα καὶ
Γάζαν κατέσκαπτον.) Thus it was really in this condition when Luke
wrote.
T
In Philippi there was a female dealer in purple from Thyatira (Acts
16: 14); and indeed there has been found amidst the ruins of Thyatira
a monument which attests that this city once had such a trade which
supported a distinct class of persons.¹
1 George Wheeler's Journey into Greece, Vol. III. p. 233. French transla-
tion T. I. p. 116. Spon has given this inscription more correctly in his Miscel-
la na Erudit. Antiquitatis, p. 113.
22
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
ΑΓΑΘΗ ΤΥΧΗ
ΑΝΤ. ΚΛ. ΑΛΦΗΝΟΝ ΑΡΙΓΝΩ ΤΟΝ
ΚΡΑΤΙΣΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΣΕΒ.
ΤΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΣΕΜΝΟΤΑΤΟΝ ΙΕΡΕΑ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΟ
ΠΟΛΕΟΣ ΘΕΟΥ ΤΥΡΙΜΝΟΥ
ΟΙ ΒΑΦΕΙΣ.
The book of Acts names a Proconsul of Cyprus; yet, it would seem,
there should have been a Prætor there. In the division of the Roman
empire, according to the plan of Augustus, Cyprus fell to the share of
that monarch, and hence could not be governed by a Proconsul. The
attempts which have been made to solve the difficulty have wholly
failed. Numismatics alone inform us how well Luke knew the affairs of
the time. Some coins, with the image and superscription of the Em-
peror Claudius, show upon the other side that at that time this alteration
had taken place; they inform us of a Froconsul of Cyprus, who must
have been the predecessor or successor of Sergius Paulus. In the
centre of the reverse is KTTP/ºN, and, in a circle around the name
of the island or its inhabitants, is the inscription :
ΕΠΙ ΚΟΜΙΝΙΟΥ ΠΡΟΚΛΟΥ ΑΝΘΥΠΑΤΟΥ.
Paul arrives in an Alexandrian ship at Pozzuoli, (Acts 28: 11, 13,
14.) and pursues his journey thence to Rome by land. The Alexan-
drian merchantmen preferred Pozzuoli to all the harbors of Italy; here
they discharged their rich freights.2 They entered the port in fleets
and singly, the crews crowned with wreaths and in gay attire, and were
welcomed with lively joy.3 Here the Alexandrians deposited their
goods to be distributed throughout Italy.4 In conformity with the
course of these vessels, Paul landed just in this port.
Friends awaited his arrival at Appii Forum; and others at Tres Ta-
bernæ. (Acts 28: 15.) Now if he proceeded towards Rome upon the
canal which Cæsar had led through the Pontine marshes, on which he
would travel more easily than upon the rough road which ran along by
its side, he must have stopped, as here, at Appii Forum, which was the
place of landing and embarkation.5 Thus a part of his friends were
1 Patin. Imp. Rom. Numism. in Claud. p. 101, who has not however happily
explained it. Thesaurus Morelianus, sive Famil. Rom. Numism. ed Haver-
camp. in Famil. Comin. p. 108.-I have since discovered that this solution does
not rest on Numismatics alone. (Dio Cass. L. LIV. in Augusto d.'523, ed. We-
chel, τότε δ᾽ οὖν καὶ τὴν Κύπρον καὶ τὴν Γαλατίαν τὴν Ναρβονησίαν απέδωκε τῷ
δήμῳ, ὡς μηδὲν τῶν ὅπλων αὐτοῦ δεόμεναι, καὶ οὕτως ἀνθύπατοι καὶ ἐς ἐκεῖνα τὰ
ἔθνη πέμπεσθαι ἤρξαντο
2 Strabo. L. XVI. p. 793.
3 Seneca, Epist. LXXVII.
4 Strabo, loc. cit.
Casaub. 2d Ed.
Sueton. in August. c. 98.
5 Acron. an Horat. Serm. L. I. Sat. V. 14. "quia ab Appii foro per paludes
navigatur, quas paludes Cæsar derivavit." Porphyrion, ad vers. 4, "pervenisse
ad Forum Appii indicat, ubi turba esset nautarum, item cauponum ibi moran-
tium." Acorn. ad vers. 11. " per paludes navigarunt, quia via inierjacens du-
rior."
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
23
VX27
anxious to receive him on his landing. Ten Roman milliaria, or two
German miles nearer to Rome was the stage called Tres Taberna.¹
about where the road from Velletri enters the Pontine marshes. Here
there was not so great a throng, and there were fewer annoyances than
at Appii Forum,2 on which account the place seems to have been fre-
quented by the better classes.3 Thus this company, likewise, of Paul's
friends receives him at the proper place, and the whole accords accu-
rately with topographical circumstances.
The manifold alterations in the names of places which occurred with-
in a short period, often exposed our authors to fall into mistakes, and to
betray their age, if they lived at a later time.
α
They speak of Sichem or Sichar. At a later period it was called
Φλαούια Νεάπολις Συρίας Παλαιστίνης; which is its name on coins
after the conquest, or, likewise, PA NEA MHTРONOA MOP-
OIA. So the Samaritans called it; and likewise Maßágva, accor-
ding to Josephus, and Mamortha, as Pliny says: "Neapolis, quae ante
Mamortha dicebatur." But our authors follow neither Samaritan nor
Roman usage, but that of their own nation and period.-We some-
times meet with Cæsarea Philippi. At an earlier period it was called
Paneas, and later ΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΙΑ ΠΡΟΣ ΠΑΝΕΙΟΝ, on coins and
in books. They however say, as was usual in those times, when the
builder was yet alive or not long dead, Καισάρεια Φιλίππου. So do
their contemporaries.5
The following case is still more important. The Evangelists speak
of Bethsaida, when it had no longer that name. About the same time
With Cæsarea, it was enlarged and embellished, and called Julias. So
it was called in Jesus' time, and so our historians ought to have called
it. Were they not aware of this? What shall we say then of their
age? It is precisely in this that they show the most accurate know-
ledge of the affairs of the time. Philip had, indeed, very much embel-
lished this place, and raised it to the rank of a city with the name of
Julias; but, not long after, Julia, from whom the city derived its name,
was exiled by her own father. The wounded feelings of Augustus
even wished that the world might forget she was his daughter. After
the death of Augustus, Tiberius, whose wife she had been, abandoned
the unfortunate princess to the utmost wretchedness, and she died in a
helpless condition. Hence during two reigns adulation was obliged to
suppress a name, for the use of which, in other circumstances, it might
Itinerar. Antonini. edit. Wesseling. p. 107.
2 Horat. Serm. L. I. Sat. V. 3, 4, 11, 12.
3 Cicero ad Attic. L. II. Ep. 11 et 13.
4 Harduin Numm. ant. popul. et urb. illustr. p. 340.
+
5 Vita Josephi, p. 630. Basil. § 13 De Bell. Jud. L. VII. c. 1.
6 "Abstinuitque a congressu hominum diu præ pudore, etiam de negandâ de-
liberavit. Carte cum sub idem tempus una ex consciis liberta, Phœbe nomine,
suspendio vitam finivisset; maluisse se ait Phoebes patrem fuisse." Sueton. in
August. c. 65.
7 Tacit. Annal L. 1. n. 53. "Imperium adeptus (Tiberius) extorrem, in
famem, et omnis spei egenam, inopiâ longâ tabe peremit, obscuram fore necem
longitudine exilii ratus.
24
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
have thought to gain favor. Afterwards this name was again current, and
appears in Pliny's enumeration of the Jewish cities. It is by such inci-
dental circumstances, which are so easily overlooked and the knowl-
edge of which is so speedily lost, that acquaintance with a period is ful-
ly attested.¹
But it is remarkable, it will be said, that John should have assigned
this Bethsaida or Julias, where he was born, to Galilee, 12: 21. Must
he not have known to what province his birth-place belonged 22 Philip
governed only the eastern countries on the Sea of Tiberias; Galilee
pertained to his brother Antipas. Thus, Bethsaida or Julias could not
have been built by Philip, as it certainly was, or it did not belong to
Galilee, as John asserts. A mistake of this character would indeed
afford sufficient ground for the rejection of John's Jospel. Julias lay,
however, in Gaulonitis, which country was, indeed, politically separated
from Galilee, but the usus loquendi of those times obstinately reckoned
the province of Gaulonitis to Galilee. Now if John does so, it only
proves that the peculiar usage of the times was not unknown to him;
he expresses himself as was then customary. Thus Josephus tells us
of Judas the Gaulonite of Gamala,3 and, in the next paragraph, calls him
the Galilean, and in another work also uses respecting him the same
expression. We may hence infer, that in this case the custom of the
times paid homage to an older division of the country and disregarded
the existing political geography.
Is it possible that historians who, as in these few instances, invariably
apply to the period so nice a knowledge of minute geographical circum-
stances, did not write their books until the scenes of the events had be-
come undiscoverable, when not only their country was laid waste, but the
national existence of the Jews was annihilated?
!
5.
The didactic writings, also, have internal evidences, or as is some-
times said, the stamp of a certain period, as well in respect to matter
as manner.
As respects the matter, they possess a peculiar character as to those
subjects on which the feelings and ideas of mankind perpetually change;
or they contain local and temporal references to persons, manners,
errors, and follies, which are different in different periods and countries.
As respects the manner-in the arrangement and mode of treating
a subject, in the arguments used to support positions, and in the style
and costume.
1 Pellerin (Recueil des médailles, Tom. I. and II.) gives, however, some coins
of Julia, and one of Julias, as belonging to this period. He was supposed to be
correct, till Eckhel exposed the mistake, in Doctrina Num. Vet. Part. J. Vol. III.
pag. 479, 498.
2 Brun's Handb. der alten Erdbeschr. Vol. II. Part. I. c. VI. p. LVIII.
3 Archæol. XVIII. 1. Ιούδας Γαυλονίτης ἀνὴρ ἐκ πόλεως ὄνομα Γάμαλα.
4 XVIII. 2. 'O T'ahihaios Iovdas. p. 549. De Bell. Jud. II. 12. p. 727. Tis
ἀνὴρ Γαλιλαίος Ιούδας ὄνομα. According to Havercamp XVIII. c. 1. n. 6. and
B. J. II. c. 8.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
25
These considerations at present hold only in regard to the undisputed
scriptures, viz. thirteen Epistles of Paul and the first of Peter and John.
Of the others, of each separately, we shall speak elsewhere.
As to the matter-these writings are not general compositions with-
out local fitness or any particular purpose. They were called forth by
occasions, extorted by the circumstances of the authors, and are there-
fore adapted to certain occasions, and to certain readers and their parti-
cular wants. If now these books are supported by other remains of the
period, if the picture of the times which their authors had before their
minds when they wrote them possesses historical truth, then it is clear
that their writings are not based on arbitrary and self-contrived scenes.
The more minute this picture was, and the more accurately it was before
their minds, the more necessary it is to suppose that they themselves were
personally acquainted with the period.
Now we find in the Acts of the Apostles several facts incidentally
presented, respecting persons or circumstances mentioned in Paul's
Epistles, or affording incidental aid towards their elucidation. When
such incidental hints are duly examined and those writings are com-
pared with them, an agreement is perceived between them such as could
be expected only from letters which were, as they profess to be, inti-
mately connected with these events.¹
If we further remark the local weaknesses, vices and errors which
Paul censures in his Epistles, and which they were meant to correct,
as, e. g., in Crete, Corinth, Ephesus, and compare them with those
mentioned by Greek and Roman authors, who have incidentally noticed
such traits,—we shall often make the pleasing discovery that Paul's
Epistles treat of exactly the errors of the time or local vices which these
authors have sometimes delineated with yet deeper severity and satire.
We shall have opportunity in the separate examination of these
Epistles to fortify by proof an observation which we merely hint at here.
Moreover, the general contents of these writings of Paul, Peter and
John, are of a strikingly peculiar character. They present us with a
peculiar system of morals and virtue,—not like the Jewish system,
one more human, more general, purer, more exalted. Nor is it that of
the Greeks; it is not the political and warlike virtue of the Romans; it
is no Stoic or Academic virtue; and no sophistical and declamatory
worldly wisdom. It is the system of Jesus as, according to the four
biographical accounts of him, he presented and inculcated it. Hence
their writers may well have been what they claim to have been, his
auditors and his disciples.
but
In the Acts of the Apostles we find doctrinal discourses of Paul and
Peter, which exhibit their respective views of God and Jesus, of virtue,
religion and Judaism. And these are of such a nature that they as it
were form one whole with the contents of these Epistles; and letters
and discourses together comprise a single theory, the parts of which
are scattered throughout both.
1 This argument William Paley has sometimes happily managed, in his
"Horæ Pauline, or The truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul evinced, by a
comparison of his Epistles with the Acts of the Apostles." London, 1790. The
argument, as he has stated it in the title, may be inverted.
4
26
AGE AND genuinENESS OF THE
That part of Christ's instructions and discourses which most struck
John's mind and of which he retained a more lively remembrance than
the other historians, and of which his Gospel is made up, is also visibly
prominent in his Epistle, as if, indeed, he intended to condense in the lat-
ter, for the purpose of moral instruction, the sum of his historical know-
ledge. Evidently, the same circle of ideas, the same cast of thought
and mental character lie at the bottom of both these compositions.
It certainly is natural and just to judge respecting the age of literary
productions, by a comparison of different periods. If now a competent
critic examines the written monuments of the period when Christianity
had gained a firm foot-hold, (which are merely some Epistles of Poly-
carp, Clement, Ignatius of Antioch and Barnabas,) he cannot but see
that these compositions, valuable as they certainly are, are far inferior,
as to perfect and pure morality and in their general contents, to those
ascribed to Paul, Peter and John; that the latter approach nearer to
the spirit of Jesus, and hence may more reasonably claim to be assign-
ed to his time.
Take too the oldest religious monument of the Jews, subsequent to
the dissolution of their nation, viz. the Mischnah, which was compiled
from traditions about the third century, and we find the difference be-
tween it and these compositions in respect to the dignity of the contents
to be immeasurable. So much had the Jews degenerated, that we
must go back with our Epistles to a better age, if the authors of them
were men of Jewish origin.
The manner, too, the peculiar treatment of the subjects, the argu-
ments, the style and diction are characteristic of the productions of the
time.
We find throughout, the Christian morality and religion, yet incul-
cated by Jews,—not, however the Jews of the Mischnah, not in a casu-
istical manner, in a dry, barbarous Hebrew dialect, in a style devoid of
taste and elegance,--but in the Jewish-Greek dialect of those times,
(when the Greek had already gained considerable influence, by the
side of the native language of the country,) with an attractive but art-
less eloquence, with an unlabored grace to which nature and the sub-
ject, and not the schools, gave rise.
Their language plainly resembles that of Philo, and their style emu-
lates his; with this difference only, that Alexandrine wit, art, and
learning, and a diction of a purer character, more free from Hebraism,
distinguish Philo above the Jewish writers, who were educated in Pal-
estine, and hence could have no acquaintance with the lecture-rooms of
the rhetoricians and sophists, or the precepts of the grammarians.
Otherwise, if we except whatever is owing to the place of residence of
the Alexandrine Jew, we should, from the striking analogy in language
and style, judge them to have been contemporaries of Philo.
Let us
in idea reverse the country and personal circumstances of each, and
then imagine how each would probably have written.
In particular, in modes of reasoning, which deviate from the usual
paths of argument, they so much resemble one another, that we might
be inclined to suppose them to have belonged not only to the same
period, but to the same school, were it not that the learned Alexandrian
discovers himself by the immodest freedom of his fancy, and the per-
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
27
petual play of his wit. But they perfectly agree in this, that they never
appeal to the authority of former expounders of the law, as was after-
wards customary with the Jews: they always appeal to natural prin-
ciples and especially to the holy books of their nation. But besides the
literal meaning, they extorted a hidden sense from these books. They
affixed a representative character to persons and things, according to
which, while they performed the proper functions of their own being,
they represented something else typically. Or they made narratives of
facts of use to morality by allegorical and tropological applications.
We may be satisfied of this by an example which appears very well
suited to show the similarity prevailing between them in respect to sin-
gular modes of reasoning. Philo maintains that science and learning
are not themselves an ultimate end, but are only subordinate helps to
virtue and self-government, to which, as the supreme ultimate end, they
conduct. He wishes to prove this from the history of Sarah and Ha-
gar. Sarai, he says, signifies my government; and it is virtue only
which elevates me to government over myself and to royalty. Hagar is
an Egyptian woman; her name signifies a native, and as an Egyptian,
she represents learning in both ways, therefore, she represents a fami-
liar acquaintance with learning and science. Now Sarah is the wife,
while Hagar is only her handmaid. Thus science is only a handmaid
and servant, who must be subordinate to virtue, the higher end.
Paul wishes to show the Galatians the superiority of the New over the
Old Testament. For this purpose he makes use of an Allegoroumenon,
as he calls it. Abrahamn had two sons; one by Sarah, a freewoman,
and the other by Hagar, a bond woman. But Hagar represents the
law; for it was given on Sinai, in the land of the Hagarenes: and Sa-
rah represents the new covenant, the Gospel; for a son was given to
her dia τns εñvyyelias. Now as the relation of the Law to the Gos-
pel is the same as that of the maid to her mistress, the children of the
first, the bondwoman, are in bondage, while the children of Sarah, i. e.
the children of the promises or of the Gospel, being born of a free
mother, are free.
2
Paul pursues his allegory, and deduces inferences from it in respect
to the abolition of Judaism, making such an application of them that
he found no difficulty in establishing his position. Thus we are, like
Isaac, children of the promises after the spirit, while the offspring of
the law are only children after the flesh. But what saith the scripture?
Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for he shall not be heir with the
son of the freewoman. Now we are not children of the bond woman,
but of the free.
In another place Philo treats this history in nearly the same manner.3
Sarah, the mistress, bears a son, who receives his name from laughter,
which is the expression of the joy accompanying virtue. But Hagar,
i. e. learning, bears a son, who is a sophist, and knows not the wisdom
of virtue. If now learning will not serve virtue, what says the Scrip-
1 Philo, De congress. quær. erudit. gratia.
2 The original reads ex Tys &c. but a reference to the Gr. Test. will show that
it is inaccurate.-TR.
3 Philo, De Cherubim, at the commencement.
28
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
ture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son. Hence sophistical sub-
tilty, which only produces error, must yield to wisdom and virtue.
Numerous other resemblances in particular representations, in the
treatment of a subject, in the mode of reasoning and composition, have
been discovered by the friends of biblical learning, and have been applied
to the elucidation of particular passages in these Epistles; and time
and the scrutiny of the learned will bring many more to light.
Since this spirit in the treatment, prosecution and exhibition of a sub-
ject was prevalent at only one period, became extinct afterwards and
has left not a trace behind in the Talmudists, the critic cannot but as-
sign the origin of these Epistles, so far as he judges from their manner,
to that age, which has given positive proofs of just such a taste.
6.
We have many remains of ancient literature of whose genuineness
we are thoroughly convinced on no other than internal grounds. This
is not the case with the writings of the N. T.: there is not even a single
one among all the scientific productions of the Greeks and Romans,
whose origin and age are attested by so many testimonies, and by
writers of such a character, reaching up so nearly to the period to
which the work is assigned. If, as is commonly supposed, these wri-
tings were composed not long before the dissolution of the Jewish state,
or soon afterward, (the earliest of them under Nero, the latest under
Domitian) the witnesses, as far down as Diocletian, lived at most not
more than 200 years from the close of this period, so that they could
not but have possessed the means of determining with certainty in res-
pect to them; and yet their testimony is now scarcely regarded in these
investigations.
For the sake of ascertaining how early the N. T. writings were in
circulation among the Christians, the works of the oldest Fathers of the
Church have been waded through with remarkable patience, and the
passages which bear upon this point collected together. A certain
Englishman in particular has distinguished himself in this commendable
employment. He was soon followed by others, who tested his col-
lection by the most rigid principles and estimated it with critical
care.¹
The results obtained from this collection in favor of the N. T. are
well known; I have therefore determined to add to this proof a second,
which will remarkably corroborate the other and sometimes surpass it
in cogency. The earliest ages of Christianity produced a multitude of
sects who attempted to unite their philosophical and theurgical opinions.
with the Christian system, and often involved themselves in whimsical
2
1 Nathaniel Lardner in his " Credibility of the Gospel history confirmed by
the testimonies of the Christian Fathers." Chr. Fried. Schmid has freely made
use of this collection in the " Historia et vindicatio Canonis." Lips. 1775. Gottfr.
Less has amended it in a critical manner in his "Wahrheit der Christlichen Re-
ligion, 1768," and in his more complete work "Ueber Religion, ihre Geschichte
und Bestätigung," I. Th. II. Abschn. § 29 sq. Paley has at least made a better
selection from it in his "Evidences of Christianity," Part. I. c. 9. § 1.
2 This word Hug has formed from the Greek Jovoyixos, which signifies
respecting God's agency.-TR.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
29
fancies, in beautiful and often ridiculous dreams. Even these sought
to ground their positions upon the authority of the Biblical books, and
to defend them against different tenets, especially those of the dominant
church. Their writings are indeed mostly lost, and were intentionally
destroyed, and we do not thank piety for it; but sometimes zeal in re-
futing them has saved fragments of their treatises, and their opponents
have preserved the arguments which they advanced in support of their
opinions. I propose to collect together such passages, which will carry
us further back into the antiquity than the writings of the Fathers of
the Church who afterwards wrote against them. These present the pe-
culiar advantage of coming from men who had seceded from the adhe-
rents to the common system, and broken off all good understanding with
them.
I have granted a place here to those witnesses only, who belong to
the second century, and have, indeed, admitted none who did not ap-
pear till several years after the death of Commodus.
after the death of Commodus. They all appeared
as teachers under that Emperor or at a still earlier period under the two
Antonines, and their youth fell in the days of Hadrian and Ulpius
Trajan, under the latter of whom the last of the Apostles finished his
earthly course in extreme old age.
$ 7.
Before I approach my proposed task, it is necessary to premise some
observations on the practice of the oldest christian writers of every sect
in respect to biblical citations, so that we may not make unreasonable
requisitions of them, and when these are not satisfied, make inferences
which are regarded as principles of sufficient solidity to serve as the
foundation of a system.
I. They have always quoted the O. T. more carefully than the New;
because they naturally could not suppose all their readers so well ac-
quainted with the former as with the latter. Many of them even seem
to have thought it evidence of erudition and literary display, to accu-
mulate in their works passages from the O. T., as, for example, Clement
of Rome, Barnabas and Justin. This they have not done as to the
New, which was better known.
II. They did not treat the historical and didactic books alike. They
have seldom transcribed narrations, either from the O. or N. T., at full
length and in the author's words; and who would expect them to do it?
But they have given them in their peculiar manner, sometimes remem-
bering the expression of the writer and generally abbreviating it.
In such cases the bare conformity of the fact with one of our Gospels
is far from being proof that it was really taken from them.
It might
have been taken from other historical books; but the circumstances
which are mentioned in them depend upon the individual representation
of the original author, some of these being selected by one, and others
by another, or all being carelessly and summarily presented. Hence
they are more definite means of recognizing a writer; and the style
and choice of words are still more decisive. Now if we find, in ad-
dition to this, plain resemblances in language and instances of a recall
30
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
of peculiar expressions, so great coincidence is no longer attributable
to chance, and we may with confidence assume that there is a citation
of this or that book, with which everything agrees.
III. They have generally cited the didactic writings of the O. T.
verbatim, and the Prophets particularly with direct reference. This
was natural; for who could distinctly recollect passages, so often re-
sembling one another, even if he were ever so familiar with them? Or
who would know where to find them, if the name were not given and
the expression faithfully preserved?
IV. In respect to the Epistles of the N. T. their practice is similar;
they usually cite passages from them accurately. They frequently even
refer to their authors by name; particularly when they do not cite the
passages in an exactly literal manner.
C
C
o
où
N
V. When they quote moral principles and tenets, they often mind
only the thought and disregard the words. Thus, e. g. Tatian in his
"Oration to the Greeks" maintains the original condition of the human
mind to be darkness, and alludes to the Gospel of John: ǹ чvyn zad
ἑαυτὸν σκότος ἐστι, καὶ οὐδὲν ἐν αὐτὴ φωτεινὸν, καὶ τοῦτο ἐστιν ἄρα
εἰρημένον, ἡ σκοτία τὸ φῶς οὐ καταλαμβάνει . . . καὶ τὸ φῶς τὴν σκο
τίαν κατέλαβεν. καί ὁ λόγος μέν ἐστι φῶς θεοῦ. Such is his proce-
dure as to another passage which he has taken from the first chapter of
John: θεῷ τῷ μόνῳ κατακολουθήσατε, πάντα ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, καὶ χωρὶς
avtou yèyovεv ovde ev. (Or. adv. Græc. c. 13 & 19.) The first thing
requisite in order to regard such a passage as a citation, is agreement in
the thought. If there is still further a resemblance in the costume and
in the words employed, there is stronger reason not to regard it as a mere-
ly casual coincidence. Yet even this will not be sufficient, unless such
a form of citation, as was customary with the ancients when they refer-
red to passages in the Bible, shows such not very clearly marked passa-
ges to be quotations; as, e.g. above, where a biblical sentiment and phra-
seology is denoted by the formula καὶ τοῦτο ἐστιν ἄρα εἰρημένον.
These forms of citation are various and we shall lay no stress upon
any of them before showing, as we will do in respect to the above, that
they were used for this purpose by the ancients.
VI. One species of them merits a particular consideration. The an-
cients have very seldom, when they refer to the sayings and doctrines
of Jesus, named the books in which he is represented as thus speaking.
They nearly always quote the person speaking and not the narrator.
Most of the citations from the Evangelists occur under the formula:
"Our Lord says," "Our Saviour declares" &c.; and sometimes per-
haps there is added, "in the Gospel." The name of the Evangelist
very rarely appears. The writers chose rather to rest their point upon
the legislative authority of our Lord, than upon the authority of his bio-
graphers.
I have said that most of the citations from the Gospels occur under
this formula. This is evident at any rate in Irenæus, a writer of this
period, and in the Fathers of the following century. We cannot be
wrong, therefore, in inferring that under this formula others referred to
written documents respecting the life and doctrines of our Lord. If this
phrase had not referred to familiar sources and such as were conceded
to be authoritative; if it only referred to oral traditions, it would.
i
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
31
have been more definitely declared on whose authority an assertion was
made.
Now if, under the citation "our Lord declares" &c. the very same-
idea occurs which is in our scriptures, and with strong similarities in
expression, the greater the similarity in expression and the more nu-
merous the possibilities that a difference in words, in their inflexion and
arrangement might have taken place, the more clear it is that the pas-
sage must have been taken from our books. All doubt, however, ceases,
when, besides identity in the ideas, there is also an identity in the
words, in cases where deviations were very easy.
VII. But we must not judge of this identity according to the com-
mon printed text of the Elzevirs or Stephens; it is not the proper
criterion. The text, as we shall see more fully in its history, had, in
the second century and in the beginning of the third, many peculiar-
ities in particular copies, (as in the text of Justin, Irenæus, Clemens
Alexandrinus and other Fathers) which have been removed by the re-
visers of the third century. Hence, if we find discrepancies, they need
not trouble us except when they do not appear in other writers of the
period or in documents which present a very ancient text. If they oc-
cur elsewhere, we perceive that such discrepancies are only variations
in ancient MSS. as they were at that time current.
We now approach our proposed task, and shall prosecute it on much
more rigid principles than the preliminary observations we have just
made require.
$ 8.
CELSUS,
A philosopher of the second century, of the Epicurean sect, composed
a work against Christianity, to which he gave the title 'Ann's Móyos.
Origen in his reply has rescued a considerable part of this work from
oblivion.
In it the philosopher relates several circumstances which accom-
panied Christ's birth: he speaks in general terms of his miracles, says
that he healed the lame and blind, and that he raised the dead; that
he was declared by a voice from heaven to be the son of God, and, after
choosing himself disciples of low rank in life, was betrayed by one of
them, condemned to death by the Roman Prætor, was crucified and
rose again. The story of the passion and of the resurrection he has
treated more in detail and has related, many incidental circumstances,
such as, that he prayed the Father that he would take this cup from
him (L. II. c. 24); that he drank vinegar and gall, and that blood flowed
from his side (L. II. c. 36, 37); that he arose, but that the account of
the Christian books as to this matter is contradictory, some pretending
that one angel, others that two were seen at his sepulchre (L. V. c. 52) ;
that after this resurrection he showed the prints on his hands, but that
he really appeared only to one woman. (L. II. c. 59.)
Moreover the philosopher speaks in various places, (L. VII. c.18, & 25.
VII. 58.) of Christ's doctrine of an universal Providence, which feeds
the ravens and clothes the lilies; and likewise in regard to meekness
32
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
under injuries, in which he commands to turn the other cheek also.
He has criticised in a censorious manner some of our Lord's discourses,
e. g., that on the dangers of riches, in which he made use of the com-
parison of the camel and the needle; or that which asserts that no man
can serve two masters; but particularly Christ's prediction that false
Christs and Prophets should come after him and should deceive the peo-
ple by their impostures. (L. VI. c. 16. L. VII. c. 70. L. VIII. c. 2 and
7. L. II. c. 49.)
66
These accounts, particularly those which relate to the passion, were,
Celsus asserts, recorded by Christ's disciples.¹ Soon after he says also:
All this have we taken from your own writings: for, we have no need
of any other witnesses, since your own weapons are sufficient to destroy
you." (L. II. c. 74.)
We clearly discover our Evangelists in these historical facts, which
Celsus has extracted from the books of Christ's disciples; and all that
is wanting to give to his testimony all that completeness which we could
desire, is, that he should have mentioned the names or the number of
the writers.
He has, however, very clearly distinguished two of them. It was his
opinion that those who derived the origin of Jesus from the first man,
and from the kings of Judah, were too bold; and the carpenter's wife,
he further remarks, must have known of what high extraction she
was.2 Two of our Evangelists, it is well known, have introduced ge-
nealogical catalogues into their works. One of them carries back his
genealogy of our Lord to the first man, while the other enumerates
the Jewish kings in their order, and declares them to be Christ's an-
cestors.
The account, that Jesus showed to his disciples after his resurrection
the marks of his crucifixion, the wounds on his hands, (L. II. c. 50)³
enables us to recognize a third Evangelist, who alone has distinctly re-
presented this circumstance as it occurs in Celsus. (John 20. Compare
Luke 24: 39.)
In which of the Gospels, but John's (2: 18) is it recorded that the
Jews demanded of our Lord in the temple, ev ra iso, a sign to prove
that he was the Son of God? 4
Where else do we find the assertion that the Logos is the Son of
God, λóyov sivaι viòv rov dɛoû? to which Celsus, or the Jew, whom
he introduces as the accuser of the Christians, objects that he was an
impure and unholy Logos, who had been ignominiously treated and
executed.5
The philosopher had seen at least four such writers; for he says that
some spoke of only one angel's appearing at the sepulchre, and others of
1 L. II. c. 13, and L. II. c. 16. τοὺς δὲ μαθητὰς, τοὺς κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἀναγεγ
ραφέναι περὶ αὐτοῦ τοιαῦτα.
2 L. [I. c. 32. ἀπηνθαδήσθαι τοὺς γενεαλογήσαντας ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώ τονφύντος καὶ
τῶν ἐν Ἰουδαῖοις βασιλέων τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. καὶ . . . ὅτι οὐκ ἂν ἡ τοῦ τέκτονος γυνὴ
ý
τηλικούτου γένους τυγχανοῦσα ἀγνοεῖ.
3. L. II. c. 59. καὶ τὰ σημεῖα τῆς κολασέως ἔδειξεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, καὶ τὰς χεῖρας, ὡς
ἦσαν πεπερονημέναι.
4 L. I. c. 67. p. 382.
5 L. II. c. 31.
p. 413.
1
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
33
two.¹ of the writers of our books Matthew and Mark speak of one,
Luke and John of two.
He also denominates the works of these writers, to evayyékiov, just as
those which have been transmitted to us from our ancestors are enti-
tled. (L. II. c. 27.)
Thus much of the historical books. The critic will observe too in
Celsus traces of some of Paul's Epistles (L. V. 64. VI. 12. VIII. 24.);
but as he names no written sources, from which he took sentiments
which are evidently Paul's, but only treats them generally as Christian
opinions, we are not at liberty to presume any thing more than he ex-
presses, or to infer written sources, while he speaks only of opinions
and tenets which might have been known from oral information.
TATIAN AND JULIUS CASSIAN.
The former was a disciple of Justin Martyr; but his imagination and
his melancholy propensity to a very austere life led him into errors and
made him the founder of the Encratites. He discarded marriage, and
in a treatise of his, Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα καταρτισμοῦ, fragments
of which have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria, he even as-
serted that it proceeded from Satan. He also condemned the use of
wine and meat.
Clement, in the 3d Book of his Stromata, 12th chap., gives us his te-
nets in detail, and undertakes to refute them; the next chapter is devo-
ted to Julius Cassian.
He quotes from the beforementioned book of Tatian, On the perfec-
tion inculcated by our Saviour, a detached passage, in which he says,
“He (viz. Paul, whose name immediately precedes) permits matrimoni-
al separation by mutual consent, for the purpose of prayer. But he
permits connubial connexion only because of Satan and incontinency."
The passage to which Tatian here refers, τὸν ἀπόστολον ἐξηγούμενος,
is 1 Cor. 7:5. He has given us the purport, which is sufficiently pe-
culiar to be readily recognized; but he has not confined himself to the
exact expression : συμφωνίαν μὲν οὖν ἀρμόζει προσευχῇ . . . πάλιν γὰρ
ἐπὶ ταῦτο συγχωρήσας γενέσθαι διὰ τὸν Σατανᾶν καὶ τὴν ἀκρασίαν.
Yet we see he has retained particular words of Paul; those, too, which
were of especial importance. We will not examine particularly another
sentiment belonging to the Gospels, which he has introduced in this
connexion, as to δύσι κυρίοις δουλεύειν, because it is presented in a too
indefinite manner.
τὸν
Clement now proceeds: "Tatian concedes that marriage is allowed
in the Old Testament, but not in the New; distinguishing between rov
παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ τὸν καινόν.” He then advances many argu-
ments against him, intended to overthrow this position, as well as his
principles in respect to eating meat and drinking wine; and then con-
tinues; A certain one censures procreation as tending only to decay
and death, and perverts the words of our Saviour: Enì yñs µǹ dŋoav-
ρίζειν, ὅπου σῆς καὶ βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, &c.” This saying of our Sa-
1 L. V. c. 52. καὶ μὲν καὶ πρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦδε τάφον ἐλθεῖν ἄγγελον, οἱ μὲν
ἕνα, οἱ δὲ δύο τοὺς ἀποκρινομένους ταῖς γυναιξίν, ὅτι ἀνέστη.
οι
5
34
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
ου
1
، ،
viour, which is worded in a peculiar manner, we find exactly so in Matt.
6: 19, and in no other of the Evangelists besides. But who is this cer-
tain one, tis, who thus perverts the passage? Is it Tatian, or one of
his followers? It is not of much importance, but it is Tatian who is
here spoken of. And as he makes his complaint here with the expres-
sion τiς : κατατρέχει τίς τῆς γενέσεως . . . βιάζεται τις . . . so he be-
gins his refutation of Tatian in the same way. Marriage" he there
says "is not as tives (some) consider it, an injurious fleshly connexion;
I here intend Tatian, who has taken upon himself to maintain this:"
οὐ γὰρ ὡς τινες ἐξηγήσαντο . . . Τατίανον οἶμαι, τὸν Σύρον κ. τ. λ.
Soon afterwards he accuses him and his adherents of misinterpreting
the words: οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τοῦ περὶ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως,
οὐ γαμοῦσι, οὐδὲ γαμίζονται. These are taken from the Evangelists,
(Matt. 22: 30. Mark 12:25. Luke 20: 35,) and most exactly from Luke ;
yet nothing definite can be inferred from this. Thus, out of the Gos-
pels, only the passage Matt. 6: 19, and the passage from John which we
have considered in No. 5 of our preliminary observations, remain to us.
But we ought not to busy ourselves here with particular evidences;
we must turn to a great work of Tatian's which promises us a splendid
proof of the existence of all the four Gospels. We mean the Book ac-
cording to the four, did reooάoov. We shall need to be more circum-
stantial in relation to this matter than would have been necessary be-
fore so much pains had been taken to involve the subject in obscurity.
Ephraem the Syrian composed a commentary on this work, which
the Syrian writers sometimes mention and from which they gained
their knowledge of the nature of the Diatessaron. Dionysius Bar-Salibi
gives us the following account of it: Tatian," says he, the philoso-
pher and disciple of Justin Martyr, formed of the four Gospels a single
one which he called Diatessaron. St. Ephraem composed a commenta-
ry on it; it begins, In the beginning was the word, &c."
1
Eusebius records respecting an offshoot of Tatian's sect, which se-
ceded from it soon after its rise, viz. the Severites, that they received
the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels; but that they reviled Paul and
rejected the Acts of the Apostles. Their former leader, he continues,
effected, I know not how, a combination of the Gospels, and called it the
1 Asseman. Biblioth. Or. T. I. p. 57. T. II. p. 159, 60. But it may be object-
ed that Assemani quotes a passage shortly afterwards (T. I. 57, 58,) from Bar-
Hebraeus, which attributes the book, on which Ephraem composed a commen-
tary, to Ammonius; and therefore the matter is uncertain. Not at all. The
Monotessaron of Ammonius was most popular among the Greeks; but that of
Tatian the Syrian, among the Syrians, in whose churches Theodoret found ma-
ny copies and carried them away. (Haer. Fab. L. 1. c. 20.) On the contrary,
the book of Ammonius was so scarce among the Syrians, that Elias of Salama,
notwithstanding his researches, could not get a sight of it. Asseman. Bib. Or.
T. II. p. 160. The testimony of Bar-Salibi, however, is our chief reliance; it
is irrefragable. He wrote annotations on the books of the N. T. and particularly on
the Gospels. In the preface he names the writers from whom he compiled his
annotations, among whom Ephraem stands first. (Assem. T. II. p. 157, 158.)
Now in his preface to Mark, he affirms a second time that Ephraem's commen-
tary was upon Tatian's Monotessaron. (T. I. p. 57.) Hence this Commentary
was not known to him merely superficially, or from the report of others, but
from constant use; so that he is perfectly qualified, to speak decisively respect-
ing it.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
35
!
(Gospel) by the four, which is still sometimes met with. Thus far the
historian.1
Now, it is not at all problematical or uncertain, what he intends by
the Law, Prophets, and Gospels, or by the expression the Gospels, nor
what the people of his time, in accordance with whom he speaks, in-
tended by them; and as little, what he meant by Acts of the Apostles,
and by Paul. Thus it is pretty clear of what materials this Diatessa-
ron was composed.
In his account, however, two things must be distinguished; the in-
formation itself and its source. He says that Tatian had made a com-
bination of the Gospels, which he called the (Gospels) by the four, which
book was yet extant. This is the information. He acknowledges,
however, with his wonted historical honesty, that he does not know the
mode of procedure which he adopted in this combination. Consequent-
ly Eusebius does not pretend to be himself surety for the fact of which
he speaks, but only recollects some persons who had the book or had
seen it, and from whom he learned the fact.
Thus according to these persons, whose information the historian
was disposed to credit, a book of Tatian's was extant in the 4th centu-
ry, which contained a peculiar combination of the (then so called) Gos-
pels, and bore the name, did tɛooάywv.
σσάρων.
I know not what more could be desired for a knowledge of the fact
or for its attestation, except it be that one who had seen the book him-
self should have spoken of it directly. We have such a witness, who
collected no less than two hundred copies of it.
It will be perceived that I refer to Theodoret, of Cyprus in Syria.
This Tatian, says he, compiled the Gospel which is called by the four;
but he left out the genealogies and other passages which represent our
Lord as of the lineage of David according to the flesh.
He characterizes the book in a general way; yet he preserves the
terminus comparationis in the manner in which he gives his readers to
understand its contents, viz. from its agreement or disagreement with
something. From what then, did he suppose, that Tatian had taken
away the genealogies? From what writings did he mean that he had
removed some passages? From what books, with which his readers
were acquainted, was the Diatessaron distinguished by these character-
istics?
It is by no means difficult to supply the ellipsis. Even if we did not
recollect what books, which Theodoret had, contained genealogies, or
what the Syrians say of the materials of the Diatessaron, or what Eusebi-
us says in respect to it, we should nevertheless presume that Theodoret
means to compare the Gospel by the four with the Gospels as they were
read by himself and those of his own faith to whom he writes. As this
is the whole difficulty and the only one in which his account is involved,
we are now under no perplexity as to his meaning.
2 L. IV. Hist. Eccles. Cap. penult. χρῶνται μὲν οἶν οὗτοι νόμῳ, καὶ προφή
ταις, καὶ εὐαγγελίοις, ἰδίως ἑρμηνεύοντες τῶν ἱερῶν τὰ νοήματα γραφών. Βλασ
φημοῦντες δὲ Παῦλον τὸν ἀπόστολον, ἀθετοῦσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς, μηδὲ τὰς
πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων καταδεχόμενοι. Ὁ μὲν τοὶ μὲ πρότερος αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸς, ὁ
Γατίανος, συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθεῖς,
τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν, ὁ καὶ παρά τισιν εἰσέτι νῖν φέρεται,
c
36
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
The Gospel according to the four was, therefore, a combination of
the four Gospels as possessed by Theodoret and his fellow Christians
the Catholics; with this difference, that the genealogies of Matthew
and Luke were wanting in it, together with some other declarations and
expressions, which asserted our Lord to be a descendant of David ac-
cording to the flesh.
He now proceeds to represent himself as an eye-witness of the fact of
which he speaks. This book, says he, has been made use of not only
by his (Tatian's) followers; but also by many of the orthodox. Imy-
self found more than two hundred of these books in high estimation in
our churches, all which I collected and removed, and in their stead in-
troduced the four Gospels.¹
How literally otherwise this book presented the text of the Gospels,
may be inferred from the fact that its authority has been regarded in
critical judgment respecting certain various readings. A Scholium to
Codex Harleian. 5647. (Wetstein, 72.) on Matt. 27: 49, where in some
MSS. (e. g. BCL) after σώσων αὐτόν, there is this addition : ἄλλος λά
βων λόγχην, ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα,
justifies this reading by Tatian's authority, stating that, τὸ καθ᾽ ἱστο-
ρίαν εὐαγγέλιον, the Gospel arranged according to historical order, con-
tained this addition : "Οτι εἰς τὸ καθ᾽ ἱστορίαν εὐαγγέλιον Διοδώρου
καὶ Τατιάνου, καὶ ἄλλων διαφόρων ἁγίων πατέρων τοῦτο πρόσκειται,
κ. τ. λ.
Julius Cassian's doctrinal opinions closely resembled those of Tatian.
Some fragments of one of his works, περὶ ἐγκράτειας, ἢ περὶ εὐνουχίας,
are preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus.2
He, too, condemned marriage, recommended continence, and main-
tained that Paul himself ascribes the origin of this connexion to the
first temptation. The passage to which he appeals is as follows: go-
βοῦμαι δὲ μὴ, ὡς ὁ ὄφις Εὔαν ἐξηπάτησεν, φθαρῇ τα νοήματα ὑμῶν
ἀπὸ τῆς ἀπλότητος τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστόν. This is almost word for
word in the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians, (11: 3.) He judged the act
of procreation to be fitting only for worldly men, and not to be conso-
nant with the elevated dispositions of Christians. To fortify his posi-
tion he quotes the passage: ἡμῶν δὲ τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανῷ, ἐξ οὗ
καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. The passage is the same as Philipp. 3:
20, except that he has omitted the word υπάρχει. We do not discover
from the fragment, as it is thrown out in a detached way in Clement,
to what writer Cassian ascribed this sentiment. Yet, from the succeed-
ing expressions of Clement we may infer that he must have attributed
it to Pauli for he proceeds, αὖθις τὲ, ὅταν ἔφη—and again when he
ευρον
1 Theodoret Haeret. Fab. L. I. c. 20. Οὗτος ὁ Τατίανος) καὶ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων
καλούμενον συντέθεικεν εὐαγγέλιον, καὶ τὰς γενεαλογίας περικόψας, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα,
οσα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα γεγενημένον τὸν Κύριον δείκνυσιν . . .
δὲ καγω πλείους ἢ διακόσιας βίβλους τοιαῦτας ἐν ταῖς παρ' ἡμῖν ἐκκλησίαις τετιμη
μένας, καὶ πάσας συναγάγων ἀπεθέμην καὶ τὰ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων ἀντεισή
γαγον εὐαγγέλια.
2 Lib. III. Strom. c. 13, 14, 15. Ed. Ven. Tom. I. Opp. p. 55254. Sylburg
p. 465, seq. He mentions also a first book τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν by him. L. I. Strom.
c. 21.
3 L. III. Strom. e. 14.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
37
says-and then adduces a passage from Paul in confutation of him.¹
So, likewise, according to Jerome's testimony, he perverted the words
of Paul in Galat. 6: 8, quoniam qui seminat in carne sua, &c. as far as
vitam aeternam, so as to make them discountenance matrimonial con-
nexion.2
Thus, besides particular testimonies to the Gospels of Matthew and
John, we have proof from Tatian's Diatessaron of the existence of all
the four Gospels, the genealogies excepted, together with some passages
respecting the human origin of our Lord; and likewise of that of the
1st Epistle to the Corinthians under Paul's name. Cassian proves the
existence of the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians, by express reference to
it, and also, as it would seem, that of the Epistles to the Galatians and
Philippians in the same manner.
THEODOTUS.
At the end of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus there is a treatise
entitled: ἐκ τῶν Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκα-
λίας κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαί. It sheltered itself
from the ravages of time in the manuscripts containing the writings of
this Father and was regarded as his own composition. To this circum-
stance it probably owes its preservation.3
If this were in fact a production of Clement's, we should certainly be
obliged to him for the pains taken in it to make extracts from the works
of Theodotus; but I regard it as the work of a follower of Theodotus,
who was desirous of making some Excerpta from the writings of his
master, and selected those passages especially, in which Theodotus com-
pared his system with that of the Valentinians.
He therefore commences a parallel (§ 2.) between the doctrines of
Valentinus and those of Theodotus, unfolding the ideas of the former
respecting the Logos, as monogenes, protogenes, &c. as far as $8. We,
however, nucis d'è, he says on the other hand, maintain that the Logos
was in reality a God in God; that he existed in the bosom, i. e. in the
idea, of the Father, and that this bosom first revealed the oorno, Sa-
viour. Out of this idea originally proceeded δι' ἐνέργειαν the πρωτό
roxos or first-born and the Monogenes or only-begotten, who is identi-
cal with the former and through whose power the owing is efficacious.
Further, ſaith is not one, but manifold, as, even in the spiritual world,
1 L. III. Strom. c. 14 and 15.
2 Hieronym. Comment. in Ep. ad Gal. L. III. c. 6. v. 8. Quoniam qui seminat
vitam aeternam. Cassianus, (some read Tatianus) qui putativam Christi
carnem introducens omnem conjunctionem masculi ad foeminam immundam ar-
bitratur, Encratitarum vel acerrimus heresiarches, tali adversum nos sub occa-
sione presentis testimonii usus est argumento, si quis seminat in carne, de carne
metet corruptionem.
3 This Treatise appeared in the first Greek edition of this Father, at Florence,
1550. fol., and was reprinted in the subsequent editions; but was first translated
by the Dominican Combefis. The translation with the Greek text was after-
wards incorporated by Fabricius into his Biblioth. Graeca, Vol. V. The trans-
lator, who was otherwise a learned inan, appears sometimes to have been wanting
in the knowledge of facts necessary to this difficult task.
38
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
there are not the same bodies, and therefore not the same perceptions.
For spirits, even the Protoktistae and indeed the Monogenes himself, are
not wholly without form and body, etc. (§ 8, 9.)
From the moment, when the writer begins to communicate his opin-
ions, nueîs dè, but we-from § 8 to § 17 and even farther, it is evident
that he belongs to a sect of the Gnostics.
After detailing the explanation of the incarnation given by the Valen-
tinians, as asserting a mingling of two different spiritual beings into
unity, he very sensibly remarks against it, quoi de dox-that spiritual
beings unite not in essence, but in the developement of power; they do
not flow into one another, but they exist with one another. (§ 17.) It
may hence be inferred how he imagined the union of God with man to
have taken place. This too explains in a measure the 8th section. He
then closes this part of the discussion with an exposition of the 110th
Ps. v. 3. to which he adds, ἡμεῖς οὕτως ἐξακούομεν. (§ 20.)
As he shows himself throughout a determined Gnostic, so he is as
determined an enemy of the Valentinians while exhibiting the tenets of
Theodotus.
In criticising the Valentinians, he uses, (§ 24.) the harsh expression,
άyvoovoi, and (§ 30.) he even calls their belief atheistical, Aéyovou dé-
ws, and shows, on the other hand, how correct was the opinion of The-
odotus on this point. To understand this passage, it is necessary to
read, as Sylburg has proposed, οὐ γὰρ συνεπάθησεν ὁ πατήρ.
C
Strongly as he declares himself in favor of this teacher, he yet dissents
(§ 33.) from his opinion; but says here, our Theodotus, thus again de-
signating the sect to which he adheres. The manner, too, in which he
dissents from him is so mild, that we cannot but perceive his respect:
ἐστὶν οὖν ὁ λόγος οὗτος παράκουσμα τοῦ ἡμέτερου this was a misap-
prehension of our master's, or, he was wrongly informed.
0
This obscure, and on many accounts difficult work, is therefore the
composition of a Gnostic, and a Theodotian, expressly written in oppo-
sition to the system of Valentinus. As to its plan, it contains only
aphorisms from a larger Gnostic work. Hence the title pretty correctly
expresses its character: "Extracts from the writings of Theodotus
against Valentinus:" only, it strikes me, we should read, Ovalevrivov
Ουαλεντίνου
κοινωνούς, instead of κατὰ τούς Ουαλεντίνου χρόνους. Theodotus can
hardly have lived in the days of Valentinus, in which case only could
χρόνους have any sense. Öthers have proposed the word aiœvas in-
stead.
So far we have been preparing the way; and now we may avail our-
selves of any advantage which we can derive from this work.
o
In order to establish a distinction between celestial natures and to
make out different classes in the spiritual world, Theodotus maintains
that no being of the seven orders of spirits possesses so exalted attributes
as the Son. Hence he remarks, καὶ ὁ μὲν φῶς ἀπρόσιτον εἴρηται ...
ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε, καὶ οὺς οὐκ ἤκουσεν, οὐδὲ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ανθρώ
nov avεẞn. The first part of the passage appears to allude to the
words 1 Tim. 6: 16, o μóvos φως οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον, and the last is
found literally in 1 Cor. 2: 9. True, he does not mention the author,
1
• • •
1 § 10. p. 970. Ven. Edit. and Ed. Sylburg, p. 790.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
39
and says nothing, moreover, of the sacred books from which he bor-
rowed the ideas ; but he uses the expression εἴρηται, a formula which
he employs only when quoting something out of the Old or New Tes-
tament, (e. g. § 54. or § 19. § 42.) as Tatian, likewise, used it in such
a case.
C
These various spirits owe their distinction, in part, to the finer or
coarser bodies with which they are enveloped. For even the ψυχαί,
animae, (permit me to retain this phraseology,) have a corpus animale,
whence the Apostle says: ὁ γοῦν ἀπόστολος, σπείρεται μὲν γὰρ σῶμα
ψυχικόν, ἐγείρεται σώμα πνευματικόν. A little further on he quotes
the words, ὡς δὲ ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, φορέσωμεν καὶ
τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἐπουρανίου, and remarks on them, πλὴν πάλιν εἰκόνα
λέγει, but he here calls it again an image. A little after he observes,
καὶ πάλιν, and again, ἄρτι βλέπομεν δι' ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δι
πρόσωπον προς πρόσωπον. (§ 14. § 15.) These repetitions (and again,
and again) must, from the nature of the case, refer to the first citation,
Ο Απόστολος, the Apostle says. And the three passages quoted are
really found in this Apostle's ist Epistle to the Corinthians (15: 44. 15:
49. and 13: 12.) Also (in § 22.) the words καὶ ὅταν εἴπῃ ὁ ᾿Απόστο
λος, ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, are the
Apostle's, (see 1 Cor. 15: 29.) and § 44. he names the Apostle : Paul,
says he, commands, Ὁ Παῦλος κελεύει τὰς γυναῖκας φέρειν ἐξουσίαν
ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς, διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. He substitutes φέρειν for ἔχειν ;
otherwise the passage is exactly so in 1 Cor. 11: 10.
C
As spirits differ in substance, so do they also in intelligence. The
Protoktistae, archangels, and angels differ in their degrees of knowledge.
This he proves thus: Εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι, ὁ Πέτ-
ρος φησίν, and further, κατὰ τὸν ἀπόστολον, τιμίω καὶ ἀμώμῳ καὶ
ἀσπίλῳ αἵματι ἐλυτρώθημεν. (§ 12. He refers to Peter, and we find
the passage in 1 Peter 1: 12. He then says, according to the Apostle,
etc., and the passage cited is 1 Peter 1: 19, with a slight variation, yet
expressed so as to be easily and undoubtingly recognized.
He claims Paul's authority for a similar Gnostic dogma, which we
have neither time nor space here to consider at length : καὶ ὁ Παῦλος,
ἐνδύσαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα. This he stili
more explicitly asserts elsewhere: καὶ ἔτι σαφέστερον καὶ διαρρήδην
ἐν ἄλλοις λέγει· ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, εἶτα ἐπιφέρει
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. Hence, he concludes, it is also said by
him: ὅθεν καὶ μορφὴν δούλου λαβεῖν εἴρηται. (§ 19.) The two first
passages are in Paul to the Eph. 4: 24, and Coloss. 1: 15; the last is
cited only under the formula εἴρηται, and consists of only a few words,
yet we can recognize Philipp. 2: 7.
After the separation of the elements, the Demiurgus created the or-
ders of evil spirits out of the coarse material belonging to λύπη, the
mother of evil in the world; and to this the Apostle alludes, when he
says : διὸ καὶ λέγει ο Απόστολος, καὶ μὴ λυπεῖτε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον
τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἐσφραγίσθητε. This Paul says in Eph. 4: 30.
In many things the Demiurgus succeeded but imperfectly, mostly
from want of skill, having left nature to herself, because he knew not
how to guide her. This the Apostle asserts: διὰ τοῦτο εἶπεν δ᾽ Απόσ
τολος, υπετάγη τῇ ματαιότητι τοῦ κόσμου οὐχ ἑκων, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν
40
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
:
υποτάξαντα ἐπ' ἐλπίδι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ἐλευθερωθήσεται. (§ 49.) This
nai avtos
is quoted with some small variations, loosely and probably from memo-
ry; but is undoubtedly taken from Rom. 8: 20, 21.
Hence comes that strife in creation, of which Paul speaks: sinev
καὶ ὁ Παῦλος, νόμον ἀντιστρατευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου. (§ 52.)
Paul speaks thus in Rom. 7: 23.
But Adam, besides what he received in common with every creature,
received through the angels the seeds of a better wisdom. Hence, the
writer continues, hence he says, (noi). This expression can refer on-
ly to the author previously quoted, viz. Paul. The words which be
connects with this form of citation are: διαταγείς, φησι, δι' ἀγγέλων
ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου· ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν. (§
53.) They are found precisely so in the Epistle to the Galatians, 3:
19, 20.
c
Jesus, in order to meliorate the world's condition, laid aside the лn-
ρωμα : this is opposed to the κενόν, as the Apostle says, ὡς λέγει ὁ ᾿Απόσ
τολος, ἑαυτὸν κενώσας. (§ 35.) This expression is found in Philipp.
2: 7. The rest of this passage, Theodotus has made use of in another
place, as we have already remarked, ὅθεν καὶ μορφὴν δούλου λαβεῖν
εἴρηται. (§ 19.)
From this Epistle, too, without express reference to a biblical book, yet
in connexion with other passages borrowed from Paul, viz. Coloss. 1: 16
and Eph. 4: 9, 10, he has quoted, though with considerable freedom,
the following passage: διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν, καὶ ἔδωκεν
αὐτῷ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, ἵνα πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ, καὶ πᾶσα
γλώσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος τῆς δόξης ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. (§ 43.
and Philipp. 2: 9, 10, 11.)
The epitomist of Theodotus, in various places, has referred to para-
bles of our Saviour; but so slightly and hastily, that we readily perceive
him to suppose all to be perfectly familiar to his readers. In a similar
way he treats historical narratives respecting our Saviour. We do in-
deed find all these things in our gospels; but as they do not retain in
the manner of expression any particular reference to our books, it would
be too hasty to conclude that they must have been derived directly
from them.
Thus he refers to a discourse of our Saviour, owτno qnot, in which
he speaks of one who had come back from a journey, after having was-
ted all his substance, and at whose return a fatted calf was killed. Com-
pare Luke 15: 11-23. And of a king who prepared a marriage sup-
per and invited people to it from the highways. Matt. 22: 2-9. Luke
14: 16-23. (§ 9.) The narrative most resembles that of Matthew, for
he calls him a βασιλεύς and his feast δεῖπνον τοῦ γάμου, which does
not agree with Luke. He also mentions a story of Lazarus and a rich
man, from which he argues that, even after the present life, we shall
have bodies and limbs. (§ 14. Comp. Luke 16: 19 seq.) Also an ex-
hortation of our Saviour, παραινεῖ ὁ σωτήρ, in which he speaks of first
binding the strong man and taking possession of his armor. (§ 52.)
Comp. Matt. 12: 29. Mark 3:27. Luke 11:22. The language accords
most nearly with the first two. And also (§ 86.) of virgins, some of
whom were wise, пαдvévоi çoоviuo, but others foolish, who hence
were not admitted. (Matt. 25: 1, seq.) etc.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
41
C
Historical occurrences, too, he has treated in the same cursory man-
ner. E. g. The arrival of the Magi, who saw our Lord's star, and thence
knew that a king was born. (§ 75.) And how a coin was brought to
our Lord and he asked: τίνος ἡ εἰκὼν καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφή, (§ 86.) which
agrees with Matt. 22: 20. Mark 12: 15; and less with Luke 20: 24.
And how he was transfigured on the mount before Peter, Janies and
John, and they heard a voice from heaven. (§ 4. 5.)
In relating this last occurrence, Matthew uses the following compar-
ison, (17: 2.) καὶ ἔλαμψε τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο λευκὰ ὡς τὸ φῶς, which occurs neither in Mark 9: 3.
nor Luke 9: 28. This comparison Theodotus, in remarking how diffi-
cult it is to look upon the Son of God, connects with a biblical quota-
tion, which he ascribes to an Apostle : κατὰ τὸν ᾿Απόστολον. This
quotation is from 1 Peter 1: 19, and with it he immediately connects
οὗ μὲν τὰ ἱμάτια ὡς φῶς ἔλαμψεν, τὸ πρόσωπον δὲ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος. (§ 12.)
This closely resembles Matthew, both as to the idea and the language;
particularly, as in some manuscripts of the Evangelist the word εγένετο
is wanting.
He frequently quotes loosely from memory, or interweaves the words
of the writer with his own. Thus (§51.) the Savior says, ὁ σωτήρ λέγει
ο
—φοβεῖσθαι δεῖν τὸν δυνάμενον ταύτην τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ τοῦτο τὸ σω-
μα ψυχικὸν ἐν γεέννη ἀπολέσαι. This is, in substance and in part lit-
erally, Matt. 10: 28. He quotes it too in another place (§ 14.) φορή-
θητε (γοῦν λέγει) τὸν μετὰ θάνατον δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα
εἰς γεένναν ἐμβαλεῖν. If we may argue from the first quotation to this,
it is certainly from Matthew. For he here says: γοῦν λέγει—therefore
he says, and to whom does this refer? Immediately before, he uses the
expression, ὁ γοῦν ᾿Απόστολος, therefore says the Apostle, and after he
has finished the quotation and his inference, he proceeds, therefore
he says, etc. Hence it is the Apostle who speaks thus.
With the phrase, ὅταν οὖν εἴπη ὁ κύριος, he connects the following
passages: Μὴ καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τῶν μικρῶν τούτων· ἀμὴν, λέγω
ὑμῖν, τούτων οἱ ἄγγελοι τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ παντὸς βλέπουσι,
and Μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ θεὸν ὄψονται. (§ 11.
The first of these passages is literally, except a slight transposition,
Matt. 18: 10. The ἐν οὐρανοῖς after ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν is wanting, as here,
in all the ancient fathers and versions, and in some MSS. The other
passage is literally, Matt. 5: 8.
~
After his baptism our Lord went into the wilderness, where he was
among wild beasts and was attended by angels. (§ 85.) This circum-
stance that he lived μετά θηρίων, among wild beasts, or, if you please,
this figure with which he adorns the picture of the wilderness, is found
only in Mark 1: 13; that he was attended by angels is stated in Mark
and Matthew only.
Our Lord brought peace upon earth as says the Apostle, ὥς φησιν ὁ
* Απόστολος. (§ 73.) This Apostle is Luke ; for in his Gospel we find
the words, εἰρήνη ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις. 2. 14.
The quotation: τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ· (τὴν τοῦ σώ-
ματος τοῦ κυρίου λέγει . . . μόρφωσιν) δύναμις δὲ ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει
σοι, (§ 60.) agrees literally with Luke 1: 35. We perceive from the pa-
renthesis : He is speaking etc., that he is quoting some writer: yet we
6
42
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
cannot deduce his name or character, either from what precedes or what
follows.
xo
c
The Savior says, ὁ σωτήρ λέγει, λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν· these few
words we find in Matt. 5: 16. Theodotus then proceeds: of whom the
Apostle says, περὶ οὗ ὁ Απόστολος λέγει, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον
coxóμevov εis tov nógμov. (§ 42.) This is in the Gospel of John, 1: 9.
Ὁ δὲ ἄρτος ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω, φησὶν, ἡ σάρξ μου ἐστιν, (§ 13.) is from the
same: John 6:51. The word groiv, he says, refers to the Son, of
whom he has been speaking. Again, (§ 18.) the Savior says, Aßoaau
ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵνα ἴδῃ, τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν, exactly_as in John 8:56.
It is also said, εἴρηται, ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν,
and o yέyover, ev avto San Estiv. (§ 19.) John 1: 1 and 4. The Cam-
bridge MS. D. and some in Origen read Swń ¿otiv, as with Theodotus.
Ӧ
Besides this tract, in which a follower of Theodotus has presented us
an epitome of one of his master's works, we have also in Epiphanius ac-
counts of Theodotus, his tenets, and the arguments on which he based
them. These are indeed stated with considerable heat, but yet are, he
asserts, drawn from his writings: τὰ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς από συγγραμμάτων
ἐλθόντα ἔρουμεν.
This Father of the Church has most assiduously represented certain
arguments which the heretic borrowed from the Old and New Testa-
ments, to prove that Jesus was only a man, in whom dwelt an Aeon of
a high order. Among these, the interpretation which he gave to the
passage Luke 1: 35, seems to me striking. He insists upon the expres-
sion έnì σé, remarking that, if the tenet of those called Orthodox were
intended to be affirmed by it, it would have been: лvεõμa zvo̟iov yεvý-
Geraι Ev ool.¹ The epitomist of Theodotus, too, as we have before
seen, (§ 60.) explained these words to express nothing more than God's
formation of the human body which he afterwards inhabited. In the
epitome, a form of citation is used, viz. Aéyɛɛ, which, however, does not
determine who says it. In Epiphanius even this is wanting.
He then gives us another of the Heretic's arguments. The Apostles,
says Theodotus, called him only a man accredited by signs and won-
ders, αλλά, φησιν, εἶπον οἱ ᾿Απόστολοι . . . The words which he quotes
are in Acts 2:22. True, he does not say, the Acts of the Apostles call-
ed him a man, etc. but oi Anóoroloe. But that the Acts of the Apos-
tles is meant by this form of citation, we learn from Epiphanius, who again
cites it exactly in the same way in reply: The same apostles relate in
the Acts, that the blessed Stephen said, etc. πάλιν οἱ αὐτοὶ ἀπόστολοι
ἐν ταῖς πράξεσιν ἔφησαν, ὡς ὁ μακάριος Στέφανός φησιν, ἰδοὺ ὁρῶ
... Acts 7: 56. Besides, Peter only is speaking in Acts 2: 22-the ex-
pression of 'Aлóoτolor does not apply to him; hence it must refer to
the book in which this is related.
Another reason for his opinion he believed he had found in the Epis-
tles. The Apostle, he says, calls Jesus a Mediator between God and
men: πάλιν δὲ προφασίζεται λέγων, ὅτι ἔφη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ Απόστολος,
ὅτι μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστός ᾿Ιησοῦς, λ.
These words are in 1 Tim. 2: 5.2
1 Tom. I. Opp. Edit. juxta Petav. Coloniens. L. II. Haer. LIV. p. 465. Edit.
Basileens. p. 202.
2 Loc. c. p. 467.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
43
He seeks to confirm this further from John 8: 40, where our Lord
himself says: ὅτι, φησὶν, ὁ κύριος ἔφη· νῦν δὲ ζητεϊτέ, λι
0
That it is possible to apostatise from Christianity he proves from Matt.
12: 31. αὐτοῦ, φησι, τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰπόντος, πᾶσα βλασφημία, λ
Before we part with Theodotus we will enumerate together once more
the books to which he affords testimony. Of Paul's Epistles, are quo-
ted under the formula contai, 1 Corinthians, Philippians and the 1st
to Timothy; and under the designation, the Apostle, or with the name
of Paul, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Co-
lossians.
The 1st of Peter, once mentioning his name, and once under the
epithet, the Apostle.
He has shortly and summarily referred to several of our Lord's para-
bles, and to historical narratives, which we find in the four Evangelists.
Also to some of our Lord's sayings, in substance or literally as we find
them in Matthew, Luke and John. He relates Christ's abode in the
wilderness after his baptism, in a merely general manner, but yet with
a circumstance which is recorded only in Mark. He cites Matthew and
John once, and also Luke's Gospel once, prefixing, the Apostle says.
In the extracts given by Epiphanius, he appeals to a passage in
Matthew, one in Luke, and one in John; under the designation of Anоo-
Tolo, to the Acts of the Apostles, and lastly, with the words, o 'Aлóo-
Tolos, to the first Epistle to Timothy.
CERTAIN ANONYMOUS HERETICS.
The Heretics of whom we are about to speak belong to the second
century, and are mentioned by Tertullian and Origen. Nothing is
known of their names and as little of their writings.
Tertullian says that some maintained an exoteric and an esoteric
doctrine in Christianity and pretended that the Apostles communicated
to their confidential disciples, besides the common doctrine, one more
abstruse, and granted them a peculiar and profound insight into it.
They drew their proof of this, he says, from Paul, who wrote to Timo-
thy: Keep that which is committed to thy trust," and "O Timothy, that
good thing which was committed unto thee keep ;" and also, "What
thou hast heard, commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach
others also." These passages are in 1 Tim. 6: 20, and 2 Tim. 1: 14.
2: 2.
The position of these Heretics and the arguments they adduced in its
favor, are not indeed known to us from their own account, but yet they
rest on a historical basis, on the, information of Tertullian, who con-
futes them with much earnestness. Probably it was the Carpocratians
1 Loc. c. p. 463.
2 L. c. p. 464.
3 De Praescriptione c. 25. Confitentur quidem, nil apostolos ignorâsse, nec
diversa inter se predicâsse, non tamen volunt illos omnia omnibus revelâsse :
quaedam enim palam et universis, quaedam secreto et paucis demandâsse. Quia
et hoc verbo usus est Paulus ad Timotheum: O! Timothee, depositum custodi ;
et rursum bonum deposituin serva.-Sed nec quia voluit, illum haec fidelibus
hominibus demandare, qui idonei sunt, alios docere, id quodque argumentum
occulti alicujus evangelii interpretandum est, etc.
44
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
against whom the Father grew so warm; for the opinion mentioned
was a tenet of their sect.'
So with a similar account given by Origen, who complains that some
had fallen upon false interpretations through ignorance of the logical
rules of exposition. He then proceeds: Among these are to be reck-
oned such as have wandered into abominable doctrines respecting the
Creator of the world, from John's words, I. Ep. V. 19: The world lieth
in wickedness. It is known that the Gnostic school, generally, regard-
ed the Demiurgus as a very imperfect spirit, who did not completely
understand his work and therefore brought evil into creation. Now,
although we are not informed what Gnostic sect was particularly pleas-
ed with this argument, yet it is certain that the 1st. Epistle of John
must have been in existence when such doctrines were built upon it.
MARCION.
Marcion was scandalized by the many Jewish notions with which
Christianity was combined on its appearance, and which his age, prob-
ably, knew not always how to distinguish rightly from the substance, as
mere vehicles and auxiliary ideas. This Judaism in the Christian sys-
tem, so offensive in his sight, he determined to destroy. He undertook
to do so in a work which he called Antitheses, which was noted among
the ancients and was reverenced as a symbolical³ book by his followers.
In this he showed that Christ's moral views were directly contrary to
those of the O. T.; and thence infers that the Jewish God, who is also
the Creator of the world, is by no means to be confounded with the no-
bler Deity whom Jesus proclaimed and whose Son he was.
Although he evinces much more intellect than most of the heretics of
those days, he was yet not original in this opinion. Cerdo preceded
him in this, as in his tenets generally; having at an earlier period as-
serted this contrariety between the two Testaments. Some of his an-
titheses are still to be seen in Theodoret,5 and if this latter writer had
been more copious, instead of epitomizing others, his account of Cerdo
would have been of great value, and would have furnished us some
fine arguments for the Gospels.
It would appear that Marcion went beyond his master in this matter,
since he not only maintained a contrariety between the two Testa-
ments, but even assumed a contrariety between the Apostles in the
1 Irenaeus, L. I. Adv. Hacres. c. 25. n. 5.
2 Origenes, Tom. II. Opp. p. 23. Ed. De la Rue. Comment. in Genes. In
the Ed. Colon. Tom. I. p. 16. Reprint of Huetius: Oite Tapa tò àɣvocíodαi tỶY
ὁμώνυμον τῆς κόσμου προσηγορίας φωνὴν, ἐκπεπτώκασιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσεβέστατα φρονεῖν
περὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ, οἱ μὴ καθάραντες, ἐπὶ τίνων κεῖται τὸ, ὁ κόσμος ἐν πονερῷ
κεῖται, ὅτι ἀντὶ τῶν περιγείων καὶ ανθρωπίνων τοῦτο οὕτως ἐκεῖ τῷ ᾿Ιωάννῃ εἴρη
ται. οιηθέντες γὰρ κόσμον κατ' αυτὴν τὴν λέξιν σημαινεσθαι τὸ σύστημα τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ
καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς, θρασύτατα καὶ ἀνοσιώτατα ἀποφαίνονται περὶ θεοῦ.
3 This word is derived from the Latin symbolum, in the sense of confession of
faith. TR.
4 Irenaeus. L. II. Adv. Haeres. c. 27. Tertullianus passim. Epiphanius.
Haer. XLII.
5 Theodoret. Haeret. Fab. L. I. c. 24.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
45
New. He found one proof of this in the Epistle to the Galatians, and
accused Peter and his companions of Judaism.¹
Relying upon this contrariety, he charged a Jewish bias upon the
writings of all the Apostles, with the exception of Paul, who has declared
the abolition of Judaism without indulgence. For the same reason, as
the ancients unanimously assert, he received of the four Gospels only
that of Luke, who, as Paul's friend, was least suspected of a Jewish
mode of thinking. But as even this did not wholly please him, he
struck out particular offensive passages and even whole paragraphs. It
has become a serious question, what idea we are to form of this book:
as such we will now treat it with the aid of preceding works which
richly merit our thanks.2
Epiphanius compared the Gospel of Marcion throughout with that of
John; for, before he wrote the books against Heresies, he undertook to
oppose this false teacher in a separate work. For this purpose he was
obliged to select from the Marcionite Gospel such sections or such par-
ticular passages and such altered readings as would serve to convict
Marcion of error, out of the sacred books which he acknowledged, and
so far as he acknowledged them; and further to note the sections or
passages which he had extolled, in order to prove from his system or
on other grounds that he had shown himself an unskilful critic.
The sections, passages and variations noted follow one another in
the order in which they occur in Marcion's Gospel; but the rejected
passages, as they should occur in it when compared with our Luke.
He has designated them by numbers, and presented 75 chapters, zeqά-
λαια. These he re-wrote and accompanied with short notes, Scholia,
in order to assist the memory, υπομνηματικὴ σύνταξις, and that he
might have a foundation, edaços, on which to rear his intended work
against Marcion. As he meanwhile dropped this latter intention, he
enriched his books against Heresies with this preparatory labor.3
It is evident that he has not transcribed at length the parts of Mar-
cion's Gospel which he found to agree with that of Luke, but has pre-
sented them only in a condensed way, that they might be more easily
inspected; merely stating their agreement, and sometimes only select-
ing from them such particular passages as seemed to him adapted to
be used against the Heretic.
A celebrated man has taken these condensed statements and allu-
sions to be the actual text of Luke according to Marcion, and discovers
in them another branch of the original Gospel for Christians not Jew-
1 Tertullian. L. I. Adv. Marcion. c. 20. L. IV. c. 3. L. V. c. 2.
2 Eichhorn's position has given rise to three very good works, by means of
which we have won firm footing on contested ground. Mich. Arneth. "Ueber
die Bekanntschaft Marcions mit unserin Canon des N. T. und insbesondere über
das Evangelium desselben." Linz. 1809. 4.-The following books have conduc-
ted us still farther. Aug. Hahn, "Das Evangelium Marcions in seiner ur-
sprünglichen Gestalt-nebst dem Beweise-dass es ein verstümmeltes und verfäl-
schtes Lukas-Evangelium war," etc. Königsberg 1823.-Hermann Olshausen,
"Die Echtheit der vier canonischen Evangelien aus der Geschichte der zwey
ersten Jahrhunderte erwiesen." Königsberg 1823. The dissertation on Marcion
is a very able part of this work.
3 Epiphan. Haeres. XLII. §. 11. 12.
46
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
ish, as he considers the Gospel ad Epoxious as the original Gospel
which extended itself among the Jewish Christians. The brevity of
the Marcionite Luke, as it appears upon this supposition, was to the
celebrated Eichhorn the evidence that Marcion's book preserved the
primitive and original text; and on the other hand that the catholic
Luke could be only an enlarged and amended one. This original Gos-
pel must indeed have been very concise, since it could be contained to-
gether with a Latin translation by its side upon three sheets, without
filling them.
When these xsgálata are examined, it is evident to all
eyes, that Epiphanius has only given us general hints. The 13th chap.
runs thus: while they were sailing, he fell asleep; but he stood up, re-
buked the wind and the sea. This certainly is no narrative-can be
none. Who were they that sailed? who fell asleep? what authority had
he to become angry and rebuke the winds? and was there a change af-
ter he had rebuked them? Look at the 23d chapter. He said to the
lawyer, What is written in the law? After the lawyer had answered,
he said, Do that, and thou shalt live. Why did this he question the
lawyer? What had he replied which occasioned the admission, Do
that and thou shalt live? The 44th chap. Of the rich man and poor
Lazarus, how he was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. The
45th chap. Now is Lazarus comforted. The 46th. Abraham said,
they have Moses and the Prophets; these should they hear for they
would not hear even one arisen from the dead. Who without the assist-
ance of our Luke could compose a parable or complete narration out of
these three chapters? And who does not perceive that the words " Of
the rich man and poor Lazarus," are only the title of a chapter?
Would any one, in writing out a passage at full length, subjoin, as
Epiphanius does, chap. 24th, xai hoinov, et cetera? Or after repeat-
ing the 5th chap. in the Scholia, And all the multitude sought to touch
him; and he lifted up his eyes, could he have added zaì ra ¿§ñs, and
so forth, if it had constituted a complete passage?
τα
As he thus gives only condensed accounts, we have simply the assu-
rance, that the passage which Epiphanius read in his Luke, occurred
in Marcion's, and indeed at full length and without any remarkable va-
riation in the reading: otherwise he would have noticed the rejection of
the parts which were wanting, or would, according to his custom, have
exposed extraordinary readings, as corruptions. So far both were but
one and the same Luke.
Further, there is a distinct fact remaining, viz. that in Marcion's
Gospel certain chapters were wholly wanting, as likewise particular sen-
tences and words from others. Were they excluded by him or have
they been inserted by others? The ancients universally maintained
the former; of late the latter has been asserted. His advocates want
not a plausible reason for exculpating him. He has, as they correctly
observe, suffered much to remain which runs counter to his tenets:
now if he has left such passages untouched, it is not clear why he
should have attacked and expunged others.
This would be of weight, were it not evident from his Antitheses that
he found means to put such a construction upon these passages, that
they did not embarrass him at all, and sometimes even favored his opin-
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
47
ion. On this point we have the testimony of Tertullian, who was well
acquainted with his writings and had penetrated deeply into his system,
of which little knowledge could be obtained without great pains, on ac-
count of its frequent obscure and enigmatical language. This writer
the authors before mentioned with commendation have compared with
Epiphanius, in reference to his testimony concerning Marcion's Gospel,
and have found them almost invariably agreeing as to the historical ac-
counts and particular passages rejected and retained, as well as varia-
tions in particular words. They have moreover collected out of Tertul-
lian peculiar interpretations given by Marcion, by which he evaded the
difficulties which he felt, and so accommodated passages at variance
with his system, that they seem to be in his favor. For example, what
could be more dangerous to his Docetism than the passage, Luke 24: 39.
Spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habentem;" he however
merely assumed the word spiritum as understood: "Sicut me videtis—
spiritum habentem." (L. IV. Adv. Marcion, at the end.)
A further ground which has been relied on for Marcion's exculpation
is the following. Passages are wanting in Marcion's Gospel which to
all appearance are not prejudicial to his tenets; on which account no
reason can be seen why he should have suppressed them. The contra-
ry, however, has been maintained, and the incompatibility of such passa-
ges with Marcion's system shown. Even the most embarrassing of
them, the parable of the prodigal son, has been evinced to be inconsist-
ent with his doctrines. The prodigal, although born under the govern-
ment of the severe and just God, the Creator of the world, did certainly
know in his heart the merciful Deity and turn to him while he was not
yet revealed, or else the stern Kosmokrator exhibited himself in this
instance as a good and gracious Deity, which shakes the foundation of
the Marcionite system.¹
Thus nothing can clear him from the imputation of violent criticism:
his arbitrary treatment of the Pauline Epistles testifies loudly and per-
petually against him. Is it possible that these Epistles should have.
grown by degrees to their present condition? e. g. the Epistle to the
Romans, out of eight sentences which Epiphanius quotes from Mar-
cion's Apostolikon?
Under what pretext did he introduce a peculiar text of Luke? Did
he assert that a pure and uncorrupted copy of the Gospel had descend-
ed to him from former times? If so we should find some trace of it.
In his Antitheses he argues from the rebuke which Paul gave Peter
for his dissembled Judaism, that the Apostles generally had a prepos-
session in favor of Judaism; and indeed so far as to falsify the Gospel.
("Prevaricationis et simulationis suspectos queritur usque ad deprava-
tionem evangelii." Tertull. L. IV. c. 3.) It was the dishonest Apos-
tles, who corrupted the truth, from whom the books of the Christians
originated. ("Inde sunt nostra Digesta." Ibid.) He complains par-
ticularly in the Antitheses, of the Gospel which Christians call Luke's,
as corrupted by the favorers of Judaism, in order to make Christ agree
with the Law and the Prophets. ("Evangelium quod Lucae refertur
1 Olshausen, Die Echtheit der canonischen evangelien, 3d Absch. p. 207.
48.
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
penes nos-per Antitheses suas arguit, ut interpolatum a protectoribus
Judaismi ad incorporationem legis," &c. IV. 4.)
These corruptions then, according to Marcion, took place far back,
and indeed in the very times of the Apostles, so that he debarred him-
self from the pretence of having procured a genuine copy, whose trans-
mission to him would have been more probable, had the falsifications
occurred at a later period.
Tertullian in his reply asks whether he does not see that the blame
must then fall upon Christ himself for electing such Apostles, (L. IV. c.
3.) and further inquires where the true Apostolorum instrumentum was
to be found; if it had been lost through these corruptions, it could not
be possessed by Marcion himself. (Ibid.) This position he then leaves
as though it were undisputed, and attacks him on another ground. He
conducts the controversy with him as an emendator: Marcion was the
first, from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, who had ventur-
ed to step forward as an emendator of the Gospel. No emendation was
needed; his book could not be regarded as an amended one, etc.²
.
Origen, too, gives it as the common opinion, that Marcion aspired to
the reputation of a critic and emendator. Thus, when a malicious per-
son corrupted one of his productions and excused himself by saying that
he simply aimed to amend it, he replied that he certainly had amended
it in the same way that Marcion had amended the Gospel.³
The criticising spirit of the master extended itself to his followers.
When the charge of innovation and an origin of yesterday was brought
against them, they defended themselves by asserting that Marcion had
introduced nothing new which tended to separate the Law and the
Gospel, but had only restored the truth which had been long since abu-
sed.4 This medical care they continued to bestow upon the Gospel;
and proceed, as the author of the Dialogue against Marcion says, to
this hour, completely to destroy whatever he left untouched.5
They continue daily, says Tertullian, as they get into difficulty in re-
gard to their positions, to change them; whence the Father of the
1 Iren. Adv. Haeres. L. I. c. 27. "Semetipsum esse veraciorem, quam sunt
hi qui Evangelium tradiderunt Apostoli, suasit (Marcion) discipulis suis, non
Evangelium, sed particulam Evangelii tradens eis."
2 L. IV. Adv. Marcion c. 3. c. 4. "Emendator sane Evangelii a Tiberianis us-
que
ad Antonina tempora eversi Marcion solus et primus obvenit, expectatus tamn-
diu a Christo poenitente jam, quod Apostolos praemisisse properâsset sine prae-
sidio Marcionis; nisi quod humanae temeritatis non divinae auctoritatis negotium
est haeresis, quae sic semper emendat, Evangelia dum vitiat. . . . itaque dum
emendat, utrumque confirmat, et nostrum alterius, id emendans quod invenit: et
id posterius, quod de nostri emendatione constituens suum fecit."-In reference
to the other Gospels he says of him c. 5. "In quantum ergo emendâsset, quae
fuissent emendanda, si fuissent corrupta, in tantum confirmavit non fuisse cor-
rupta quae non putavit emendanda. Denique emendavit, quod corruptum exis-
timavit. Sed nec hoc merito, quia non fuit corruptum, rel."
3 Epist. ad Alexandrin. in Apolog. Ruffin. pro Origen. "Videte quali purga-
tione disputationem nostram purgavit, quali purgatione Marcion Evangelia pur-
gavit." At the beginning.
4 Tertull. L. I. Adv. Marcion. c. 20.
5 Dialogus (Psuedo-Origenis) contra Marcionitas. Sect. V. p. 147. Wetsten.
῾Ο γὰρ σχεταῖος ῥαδιούργεσας τὰ κατὰ τὸν ᾿Απόστολον, οὐ παντάπασιν ἀπήλειψε,
καὶ οὗτοι μέχρι τῆς δεῦρο περιαιροῦσιν, ὅσα ἂν μὴ συντρέχοι τῇ ἀυτῶν γνώμῃ.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
49
church advises them, to change for once in conformity with the eight
Apostolical books of the church.¹
We will now briefly recount the positions at which we have arrived.
Eichhorn's belief that he had obtained the Marcionite Gospel complete,
in the titles of chapters and the extracts given by Epiphanius, and on
account of its brevity, that he had discovered the first draught of our
Luke and an original Gospel, was a mistake arising from prepossession
in behalf of a favorite hypothesis. The defence of Marcion on the
ground that he has not taken pains to exclude much that is unfavora-
ble to his doctrines,-much less, then, what was of a different character
—we reject, because it is known that by misinterpretation he made
such passages consistent with his doctrines. The second ground, that
it does not appear why he should suppress the portions which are defi-
cient, is by late investigations so entirely invalidated, that it is evident,
on the contrary, he could not have suffered then to remain without det-
riment to his system; whence he comes under suspicion of the crime
from which it is attempted to exculpate him. His treatment of the
Pauline Epistles, however, convicts him of corruption. Neither he nor
his followers ever pretended to possess a pure Gospel of the times of the
Apostles; but only to have purified it from their corruptions. From
a comparison of the Marcionite Gospel with our Luke it is evident
that it was Luke which was disfigured and cut out by Marcion accord-
ing to his own opinions.
The reasons which led him to pronounce the Luke of the Christians
to be a book replete with Jewish additions, he detailed in his Antithe-
ses. (L. IV. Adv. Marcion. c. 4.) Must he not in the same work have
given reasons for his rejection of the other Gospels?
The first three books of Tertullian are occupied exclusively with a
refutation of the Antitheses, in which the Heretic developed his princi-
ples respecting the creation, and its author, viz. the Deity of the Jews;
respecting another Deity, the unknown and merciful God; respecting the
two-fold Messiah, etc. His tenets could be supported only by a com-
parison of the sacred books of the Jews and Christians, whose contrari-
ety gave him occasion to assume two primeval existences. But the sa-
cred books of the Christians, he discovered, were not entirely conso-
nant with his system; for as their authors, blinded by their Jewish pre-
judices, could not elevate their minds to the pure doctrine respecting the
benevolent Deity, they therefore wilfully perverted it. But it was then
incumbent on him to declare his Canon and to defend his rejections by
argument. That he did this, in regard to Matthew, is clear from Ter-
tullian's refutation.
The words of our Lord in Matthew: "That ye may be the children
of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the
evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust,"
(5: 45) were not suitable to be uttered by the real Christ.
The just
God and Creator of the world could not so conduct, and the benevolent
1 L. IV. Adv. Marcion c. 5. Irenaeus appears to have had the Marcionite
sect in his eye in the words: "Nec fas est dicere, quoniam ante praedicaverunt,
quam perfectam haberent agnitionem, sicut quidam audent dicere, gloriantes,
emendatores se esse Apostolorum." L. III. c. 1.
77
50
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
Deity would not be able to dispose of the rain and sunshine, works of
the Creator of the world. So confused ideas respecting God must be
falsely attributed to Christ. Marcion rejected the passage. Tertullian
says he had erased it, erasit; in another place he contents himself with
the expression, detraxisti, thou hast withdrawn them.' The word
erasure is as current with him as oßeisev with the Greeks for rejec-
tion: he even says of Marcion's injunction of continence, "materiam
matrimonii eradit." (L. II. Adv. Marc. near the end.)
It is still worse in regard to the declaration of our Lord, "I am not
come to destroy (the law) but to fulfil," Matt. 5: 17; in which the Mes-
siah of the benevolent Deity very wrongly submits himself to the law of
the Creator of the world. He erased it, says Tertullian again; but in
another place he contents himself with the word deny, negare.2 True,
this father does not mention this passage in his reply to the Antitheses,
but in his 4th and 5th books against Marcion; however, he repeat-
edly declares, that he reserved some objections to the Antitheses till he
should bring the Marcionite Gospel under examination, and could more
conveniently refer to it.³
In his 3d book against the Antitheses, he opposes Marcion's attack
upon the prophecies of Isaiah concerning Immanuel, (7: 14.) It was
essential to the heretic to deny the birth of Christ from a virgin,
which Matthew (1: 23) has corroborated from Isaiah. Christ could
not have been born, inasmuch as in order that he might owe nothing
to the Creator of the world, he went about in the mere semblance of a
man. He therefore argued that the prophecy certainly had no refer-
ence to Christ, who never was a warrior, and to whom what Isaiah
says farther of Immanuel (8: 4), that he is to take away the riches of Da-
mascus and the spoil of Samaria, is not applicable. To which Tertul
lian replies, that Marcion need only restore the account which he had
withdrawn from the Gospel of the visit of the Magi and their gifts, and
all would be plain. And then he interprets the riches of Damascus
...
4
1 Tertull. L. II. Adv. Marc. c. 7. "Nolunt Marcionitae in codem Deo ag-
noscere pluentem super bonos et malos, et solem oriri facientem super justos et
injustos . . . . Nam etsi hoc quoque testimonium Christi in creatorem Marcion
de Evangelio eradere ausus est, sed ipso mundus inscriptus est." L. IV. c. 17.
Euge, Marcion, satis ingeniose detraxisti illi pluvias ac soles, ne creator vidc-
retur.' L. IV. c. 36. "Est utique optimus, qui pluit super justos et injustos, et
solem oriri faciens super bonos et malos, sustinens et alens et juvans etiam Mar-
cionitas.'
(6
""
""
His
2 L. IV. Adv. Marc. c. 7. " Ostendentem in primo ingressu venisse se, non
ut legem et prophetas dissolveret, sed potius adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion ut
additum erasit." L. IV. c. 9. at the end. c. 36. "Salvum igitur est hoc in
Evangelio: non veni dissolvere." L. IV. c. 14. "Ego non veni legem dissolve-
re, sed adimplere. Frustra de ista sententia neganda Ponticus laboravit."
disciples went a step farther, and maintained that it should be read conversely.
Dial. contra Mare. Sect. II. p. 63. Οὐχ οὕτως δὲ εἶπεν ὁ Χριστὸς, λέγει γὰρ οὐκ
ἦλθον πλερῶσαι τὸν νόμον, αλλὰ καταλύσαι. Comp. Isidor. Pelus. L. I. Ep. 371.
Ed. Paris, 1638. p. 97.
3 L. III. Adv. Marc. c. 11. "Nunc ut haec omnia ad Evangelii distulerim ex-
aminationem." L. IV. c. 1. "Sed et istas (Antitheses) proprio congressu com-
inus, id est, per singulas injectiones Pontici caecidissem, si non multo opportuni-
us in ipso et cum ipso Evangelio, cui procurant, retunderentur." L. I. c. 15.
“Videbimus, si et ad Apostolorum vestrum discutiendum pervenerimus.”
4 Tert. L. III. Adv. Marc. c. 12. 13. "Provoca nunc, ut soles, ad hanc Esaiae
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
51
and the spoil of Samaria, as referring to the gifts of the wise men.
The story is too familiar for us to inquire from what Gospel Marcion
had withdrawn it.
The language of Marcion respecting the commencement of the Gos-
pels of Matthew and Luke, which Tertullian in another place (De car-
ne Christi, c. 2.) quotes from him and turns to ridicule, may be here
noticed: "Quid illi cum angelo creatoris? et in uterum conceptus in-
ducitur; quid cum Esaia propheta creatoris ?-Aufer, inquit, molestos
semper Caesaris census, et diversoria angusta-Magi ne fatigentur de
longinquo-Melior sit Herodes, ne Jeremias glorietur," etc.
These are some of the reasons that have reached us, by which he jus-
tified his rejection of Matthew. Whether he entered into as much de-
tail in respect to other books, or rejected them in toto, on account of
their Jewish errors, is not known. It is clear from Tertullian that a
similar fate befel several books of the N. T., as e. g. the Gospel of John
and the Apocalypse. If thou hadst not, says he, intentionally, de in-
dustriá, rejected or corrupted the Scriptures which gainsay thine opin-
ions, the Gospel of John would have taught thee differently respecting
the apparent human body; confudisset te in hac specie Evangelium Jo-
annis, praedicans spiritum columbae corpore delapsum." (De carne
Christi, c. 3.) But here his memory or a false reading deceived this
father of the church; for no known MS. reads ἐν σώματι περιστεράς
in the passage, John 1: 32. Of the Apocalypse he says; Nam etsi
Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit-in Johannem tamen stabit aucto-
rem." (L. IV. Adv. Marc. c. 5.) He makes the same complaint as to
the Acts of the Apostles. In this book Paul is recognized as an
apostle, and he in turn confirms the statements of the Acts of the Apos-
tles. It is therefore plain, for what reason it was rejected :
"Cur ea
respuatis jam apparet;" viz., because it does not distinguish God and the
Creator of the world from each other. (L. V. c. 2.)
(C
He
It is owing to Tertullian's mode of procedure that we are only thus
superficially informed. Had he in his three books against the Antith-
eses accompanied Marcion step by step, presented each Antithesis and
its proof, we should have been better informed on many points.
has, however, in opposition to his adversary, laid down three positions
of special importance, in as many books, and undertaken to maintain
them. These are, that there is only one God; that the God of both
Testaments is the same; and that thus there is but one Christ. While
occupied with his own positions, he has taken notice of his adversary's
only in a passing manner and indistinctly, occasionally stating some of
them in the 4th and 5th books.
Paul was in Marcion's eyes the sole and true Apostle, and his Epis-
tles he consequently acknowledged; yet not all, and not without alter-
comparationem Christi, contendens illam in nullo convenire. Primo cnim, inquis,
Christus Esaiae Emmanuel vocari habebit; dehinc virtutem sumere Damasci,
et spolia Samariae adversum regem Assyriorum. Porro iste qui venit, neque sub
ejusmodi nomine est editus, neque ulla re bellica functus est.-Serva modum
aetatis, et quaere sensum praedicationis: immo redde Evangelio veritatis, quae
posterior detraxisti, et tam intelligitur prophetia, quam renunciatur expuncta.
Maneant enim orientales illi magi, in infantiâ Christum recentem auro et thure
munerantes, et acceperit infans virtutem Damasci, sine praelio et armis, etc.
52
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
ations. From these, as well as from his Gospel, Epiphanius has made
extracts, or a collection of such passages, forty in number, as appeared
of use in refuting Marcion, and remained unmolested in his amended
text of Paul. He has also taken notice of peculiar readings; but the
passages omitted he did not mark as he has in his extracts from the
Marcionite Gospel. It was Tertullian's aim, in the 5th book of his con-
futation of Marcion, to convict the Heretic of error, from his own codex
of the Pauline Epistles, and he has pointed out by the way alterations
and suppressions of verses and longer paragraphs.
Epiphanius gives a list of the Epistles and their situation in the Mar-
cionite Anoorolixóv, (as Marcion's collection of the Epistles was
termed) in the following manner. The Epistle to the Galatians ranked
first; then followed the first and second Epistles to the Corinthians;
then that to the Romans; the two to the Thessalonians; that to the
Laodiceans; to the Colossians; to Philemon; and that to the Philippi-
ans formed the conclusion. The Epistle to the Laodiceans was, as
Tertullian and Epiphanius testify, and as extracts still extant prove,
the same which is otherwise called the Epistle to the Ephesians.¹
Tertullian, likewise, read them in the same order. He begins with
the Epistle to the Galatians: "Principalem adversus Judaismum epis-
tolam nos quoque confitemur, quae Galatas docet" (L. V. c. 2), and
occupies with it the 3d and 4th chapters of the 5th book. From the
5th to the 11th chap., he treats of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians;
and from the 11th to the 13th, of the second. The 13th and 14th
chaps. are devoted to the Epist. to the Romans; the 15th and 16th to
the two to the Thessalonians; the 17th and 18th to that to the Ephesi-
ans or Laodiceans; the 19th to that to the Colossians; the 20th to that
to the Philippians; and, lastly, the 21st to the Epistle to Philemon.
Thus Marcion's collection discarded the Epistle to the Hebrews;
which would have demolished his whole system, had he not demol-
ished it. He removed the Epistles to Titus and Timothy, and yet re-
tained that to Philemon; and hence Tertullian with reason wonders
that he should have admitted the Epistle to one individual and yet have
excluded Epistles to others concerning ecclesiastical affairs. As Ter-
tullian found the Epistle to Philemon, in the copy which was before
him, yet unmolested, probably on account of its brevity, while Epiphani-
us, on the other hand, found it entirely disfigured, oλooɣεows aurηv
διαστροφῶς παρ' αὐτῷ κεῖσθαι, we may properly infer that Marcion's
1 Epiphanius Haeres. XLII. p. 138. Basil. Ai dè èniorokaì ai nag avτ@
λεγόμεναί εἰσι, πρώτη μὲν πρὸς Γαλάτας, δευτέρα δὲ πρὸς Κορινθίους, τρίτη πρὸς
Κορινθίους δευτέρα, τετάρτη πρὸς Ρωμαίους, πέμπτη πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς, ἕκτη
πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς δευτέρα, ἑβδόμη πρὸς Εφεσίους, ὀγδίη πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς, ἐν
νάτη πρὸς Φιλήμονα, δεκάτη προς Φιλιππησίους. Ed. Petav. K 9. p. 309, 10. Co-
loniens. At the close of the extracts, before he passes to the Scholia, he once
more gives a list of the Epistles acknowledged by Marcion, p. 141. Basil., and
Petav. p. 321, where however the text is inaccurate. I propose to read: Tys dè
πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτης καὶ δευτέρας, καὶ πρὸς Τίτον, καὶ τῆς Ἑβραίους οὐκ ἐμφε
QÓμεvæv пα AUTÊ. The text of Epiphanius throughout requires correction. The
edition of Petavius does not equal his reputation, and even the Ed. Colon. has
become scarce. He speaks a second time concerning the title προς Λαοδίκες,
p. 274; and again p. 375. edit. Petav. Colon.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
53
critical spirit descended to his followers, and that the latter completed
what the master began.
The suppressions and alterations in Marcion's Apostolicon, when
examined, as they have lately been,¹ lead to the same position which the
ancients took in respect to them; viz., that he mutilated the Epistles to
save his system. He had his choice either to do the one or give up the
other. He could make use of two pretences to justify his criticism up-
on even anti-judaizing Paul; either that the Apostle of the Gentiles
was not yet wholly free from Jewish fits, or that he suspected his wri-
tings to have been contaminated by the hands of the Jewish apostles.
Tertullian indicates the latter, and he probably observed assertions of
that nature in the Antitheses. (L. V. c. 9 on Coloss. 1: 16.) This pre-
tence is in accordance with Marcion's general charge against the Apos-
tles, of having corrupted the doctrines of Christianity by changing the
readings of the Scriptures and especially of Luke's Gospel, which, he
said, was disfigured by Jewish interpolations.
Now as the Evangelical codex of Tatian, setting aside the Genealo-
gies and some other things, attests the existence of our Gospels entire ;
so Marcion's Apostolical codex is a historic document which attests ten
of the Epistles of Paul, establishes their age, and adjudges them to the
author to whom they are usually ascribed.
His Gospel attests our Luke, which he must have possessed, since he
trimmed it to suit his own purposes and assigned the reasons for his
pretended amendment in his Antitheses. His Antitheses in several
places make the Gospel of Matthew the subject of criticism, and ex-
press disapprobation of it on account of the prevailing Judaism to
which its author had surrendered himself. Marcion rejected, moreo-
ver, others of the Christian Scriptures, but his positions concerning
them are not given with such precision, as to serve as ground for argu-
ment. He rejected generally the other Scriptures received by the or-
thodox, which, as Tertullian frequently reproaches him and as he him-
self confesses in one of his letters, he once acknowledged, before he re-
nounced the orthodox party.2
PTOLOMAEUS AND HERACLeon.
Irenaeus connects them together and thus seems to have regarded
them as contemporaries: yet he places Ptolomaeus first.3 Tertullian,
too, follows this order: he says, Valentinus marked out the road; Ptol-
omaeus paved it, and Heracleon made the side-walks.4 But according
to Origen, the latter was Ουαλεντίνου γνώριμος: he enjoyed the
5
1 Aug. Hahn, "Das Evangelium Marcions in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt."
2d Abschn. p. 50-66.
2 De carne Christi. c. 2. "His opinor consiliis tot originalia instrumenta
Christi, Murcion, delere ausus es, ne caro ejus probaretur-excidisti, rescindendo
quod retro credidisti, sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola, et tui non ne-
gant, et nostri probant."
3 Iren. L. II. Adv. Haeres. c. 2.
4 Tertull. Advers. Valentinianos, c. 4.
5 Orig. Tom. II. in Joann. p. 60. Huet. Colon.
54
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
us.
friendship or instruction of Valentinus; much more then did Ptolomae-
Of a different sect, Cerdo, Marcion's teacher, was their contempo-
rary. Epiphanius, indeed, places him after Heracleon,¹ referring to
the time when he acquired celebrity; but the interval between them
cannot possibly have been of much consequence, as Cerdo was distin-
guished under Hyginus, under whom Valentinus rose to be the head of
a distinct sect.2
There is still extant a letter from Ptolomaeus to his pupil, Flora,³ in
which he imparts instruction respecting the contrariety between the
Law and the Gospel, which had then become through Cerdo a subject
of discussion, and warns her against the pernicious principles which
some deduced from these Antitheses; viz., that we must distinguish
between the God of the Old Testament and that of the New, and that
the former was the God of the Jews, Creator of the world, and only an
imperfect God.
α
For the Apostle expressly declares our Saviour to be the Creator of
the world when he, ὁ ἀπόστολος, says, πάντα δι αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι καὶ
zwois auτou yeyovéval ovdév. This Apostle is clearly John. (1: 3.)
But those who interpret the words of our Saviour, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος
εἰρημένα—οἰκία ἢ πόλις μεριθεῖσα ἐφ' ἑαυτὴν, ὅτι μὴ δύναται στη
va, of the Jewish lawgiver and of the imperfection of the constitution
which he formed, misunderstand our Lord. The first part of this is
Matt. 12: 25, with the variation ¿q' ¿autny, as in Codex D; the ou dú-
vatαi oτaðñvai, or, as B, L, K and some other MSS. read, ou dúvatai
oτnvat, is in Mark 3: 25. Yet the coincidence as respects the last few
στῆναι,
words may be only accidental, and the whole may be a quotation from
memory.
να
0
ó
3
Not all the laws of the Old Testament are from God himself; some
are only from Moses, as the Saviour, διαλεγόμενος που ὁ σωτήρ, said to
those who inquired of him concerning a bill of divorce: "Out Movons
πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψε τὸ ἀπολύειν τὴν γυναῖκα
αὐτοῦ· ἀπ' ἀρχῆς δὲ οὐ γέγονεν οὕτως. θεὸς γάρ φησι, συνέζευξε
ταύτην τὴν συζυγίαν·) καὶ ὃ συνέζευξεν ὁ κύριος, ἄνθρωπος μή χω-
QSErw. The first part of this, as far as the parenthesis, in which he in-
serts an observation of his own couched in his well-known phrase-
ology, is, with the exception of slight variations, to be found in Matt.
19: 3, and in no other Evangelist: "Οτι Μωϋσης προς την σκληροκαρ
δίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν ὑμῖν ἀπολύσαι τὰς γυναίκας ὑμῶν· ἀπ' ἀρχῆς
ov yeyover outw. Comp. Mark 10: 5, 6. The conclusion, likewise, is
in Matthew : "Ο οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω. (19: 6.)
The words, too, are in our Evangelist, in the very connection in which
Ptolomaeus has presented them; and are, in addition to the formula,
the Lord says, more clearly designated as a quotation, by the expres-
sion, dialeyóuevos IIOT-he says somewhere, in a certain place. So
too Clemens Romanus, with this phraseology, has referred to a passage
in Isaiah: Aéye yάo nov and with the same words, to another in the
Proverbs of Solomon. (Clem. Ep. I. ad Cor. c. 15 and 21.)
οτι
C
Human traditions too, he further informs his pupil, had been mixed
1 Epiphan. Haeres. XLI. Κέρδων τις τουτοῦς καὶ τὸν Ἡρακλέωνα διαδέχεται.
2 Iren. L. III. Adv. Haeres. c. 4.
3 In Epiphanius. Haeres. XXXIII.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
55
with the Law, as our Saviour declares, δηλοῖ καί τοῦτο ὁ σωτήρ. And
now he quotes again, freely and from memory, yet so that we clearly
recognize Matthew. The beginning: Τιμᾶ τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν
μητέρα σου, ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται, is rather from Moses than Matthew.
But ye say, says our Lord to the teachers of the law : δῶρον τῷ θεῷ, ὃ
ἐὰν ὠφεληθῆς ἐξ ἐμοῦ which, except the addition τῷ θεῷ, we find in
Matthew, together with the following words: καὶ ἠκυρώσατε τὸν νό
μον (so read Codd. C. 13 and 124.) τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν
πρεσβυτέρων as likewise the words of Isaiah, which Mattthew has em-
ployed in a very peculiar manner, ὁ λαὸς οὗτος as far as ἐντάλματα
ανθρώπων, Matt. 15: 5, 6, 8.
The Law, he proceeds, may be considered generally under three
points of view. One portion of it our Lord exalted to perfection; this
is that νόμος, ὃν οὐκ ἦλθε καταλύσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι, Matt. 5: 17;
that part which the Saviour came to fulfil, not to destroy. Another por-
tion has been repealed; and the third was only a typical representation
of that which was to come, and ceased of itself, when this took place:
e. g. the law, a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye, is abrogated by
our Saviour, when he says: Εγώ γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, μὴ αντιστῆναι ὅλως
τῷ πονερῷ· ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν τίς σε ῥαπίσῃ, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην σια-
γόνα. This too, with only a trifing difference in the order of the
words, is found in Matt. 5: 39. Codex D, which in general contains a
very ancient text, likewise omits δεξιάν.
<
Of that part which was only typical and consisted in ceremonial ob-
servances, Paul speaks (δηλοῖ καὶ Παῦλος ὁ ᾿Απόστολος) when he
says: : Τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἔτυθε Χριστὸς, καὶ ἵνα ἦτέ, φησιν, ἄζυμοι,
μὴ μετέχοντες ζύμης . . . ἀλλ᾽ ἦτε νέον φύραμα. The words are, ac-
cording to Ptolemy's custom, transposed and given in a very free man-
ner; yet evidently come from Paul, 1. Cor. 5: 7. The same Paul, ex-
plaining the type of the passover and the unleavened bread, ο Απόσ
τολος Παῦλος .. τὸν εἰκόνα . . . . διὰ τοῦ πάσχα καὶ τῶν αζύμων
δείξας, speaks of that part of the law which was done away; εἰπων τὸν
νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι κατηργῆσθαι· and also of that which
only needed perfecting and completion : ὁ μὲν νόμος, εἰπῶν, ἅγιος, καὶ
ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία, καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή. The first passage is here ex-
pressed freely and with the infinitive form of the verb; but otherwise it
is literally, Eph. 2: 15. The other is literally, Rom. 7: 12.
1
Of the works of Heracleon considerable fragments are extant.
In
Clement of Alexandria there is an exegetical fragment on Luke 12: 8,
9. πᾶς ὃς ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοι, as far as ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ, from
which, τοῦτον τὸν τόπον ἐξηγούμενος, he endeavors to support the
position, that it is sufficient to acknowledge Jesus by our actions and to
attest his doctrines by our life, without adding an oral confession,
e. g. as in times of persecution. Hence our Lord says ἐν ἐμοί, when
he speaks of confession, and uέ when he speaks of denial. For the v
ἐμοί refers to those who live in him through conviction and instruction,
and in whom, consequently, he also lives. Under such circumstances
denial is not conceivable; for one must then deny himself, which can-
not be : διόπερ ἀρνήσασθαι ἑαυτὸν οὐδέποτε δύναται. Το these last
1 Lib. IV. Strom. c. 9. Ed. Ven. 595. Sylb. 502.
56
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
words he appears to attach considerable importance, as if they were rel-
evant to the argument and of similar authority with the preceding.
Paul expresses himself in the same manner respecting Jesus himself:
ἀρνήσασθαι ἐαυτὸν οὐ δύναται. (2 Tim. 2. 13.)
In an appendix to the works of Clement of Alexandria, Heracleon
comments with much particularity on an apostolical passage: ovτms
άxovoavtes tò άлooτolexóv,¹ which is found in Matt. 3: 11, 12. and
also in Luke 3: 17, in the same words. There is no evidence in favor
of either of the two in particular.
ν
Numerous and important fragments of his commentaries on John's
Gospel, are presented by Origen in his exposition of the same, in order
to correct the heretic. (Tom. I. in Johann. III. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.
XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXI. XXIV.
XXVI.2
Heracleon has sometimes, in his exposition, referred to other biblical
passages. But he has treated them cursorily and rather alluded to
them, than extracted them at length; often only their sense is introdu-
ced into the current of his discourse.
A
The story (John 4: 46.) of the royal officer or soldier, he interprets in
his peculiar manner (Origen. Tom. VIII. in Joann), understanding by
Baothixos the Demiurgus. In this exposition he incidentally remarks,
that ἐν τῷ, in the passage, οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐξελεύσονται εἰς τὸ
¿arsoov, the perdition which awaits the followers of the Demiurgus is
spoken of.3 The passage is Matt. 8: 12, with the variation ¿¿¿lεvσov-
Taι, however, which occurs in Bianchini. (Cod. Veron. et Vercell.)
Ӧ
In another place (Tom. XVI. in Joann.) he refers, under the formu-
la κατά τό, to the words, ὁ θερισμὸς πολὺς, οἱ δὲ ἐργάται ολίγοι. And
(Tom. XIV.) among other biblical quotations, he speaks of the Son's
coming, ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός. The two passages are word
for word in Matt. 9: 37. and 18: 11; and likewise in Luke 10: 2, and
19:10. There is no means of decision in favor of either.
In the course of his remarks (T. XIII.) he has evidently introduced
the words of 1 Cor. 13: 12; without quoting them literally or treating
them as a quotation. With these he connects the words, agónra ón-
ματα, ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώποις λαλῆσαι, which are peculiar to the 2d
Epist. to the Corinthians, 12: 4.4 Thus too he refers, for the expres-
sion loyzn havosia, to the Apostle (Tom. XIV. in Joann.), xao xai
Añóorolos didάoxet. This occurs in Paul to the Romans 12: 1.5
We therefore derive the following evidence from what remains of
the writings of Ptolemy and Heracleon. From the former, we have
1 Ex scriptis Prophetarum Eclogae. c. 25.
2 They have already been extracted from Origen's works by Grabe, Spicileg.
Patr. Vol. II. p. 85-117. According to De la Rue's arrangement, Opp. Orig.
Vol. IV. Comm. in Jo. Tom. I. p. 66. 73. T. VI. p. 102. 117. 120-22. 125.130. 138
-40. 157. T. X. p. 170. 179. 194. 196. 200-2. T. XIII. 220. 221. 224-27.
229. 230. 234. 235. 237-39. 241. 242. 248. 251-52. 255–56. 260-63. 265–67.
274. 275. 276. 77. T. XIX. p. 296. 302. T. XX. p. 316. 332. 337-40. 345.
59. 360.
3 According to De la Rue's edition. Tom.XIII. p. 76.
4 T. XIII. p. 220.
5 T. XIII. p. 234.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
57
five passages extracted out of Matthew's Gospel, which retain the ex-
pression, with various degrees of exactness, but are all easily recog-
nized; one from John's Gospel, not wholly literally, but with the refer-
ence o 'Aлóoτolos; passages under Paul's name, from the Epistle to
the Romans, the 1st to the Corinthians and that to the Ephesians.
From Heracleon, fragments of a commentary on the whole of John; an
exposition of a passage in Luke; a passage from Matthew under a
form of citation. We have, moreover, a reference to the Epistle to the
Romans, under the expression o AndGrolos; and, without any inti-
mation that they are citations, one passage, freely but evidently from
the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, one word for word from the 2d
Epistle to the Corinthians, and cne from the 2d to Timothy.
>
VALENTINUS AND HIS SCHOOL.
Ptolomy and Heracleon were indeed disciples of Valentinus; but
they left his sect and deviated in many points from his system. But
notwithstanding this secession, he remained the head of a large and
very extensive sect which took its name from him.
We still possess some remains of his works; viz. fragments of his
letters, of his homilies, and of a treatise on the origin of evil.¹ But in
these fragments, which were extracted only to show some of his pecu-
liar ideas, no arguments from the sacred books occur, so that for our
purpose they might as well not be in existence.
Irenaeus, however, has thought the biblical arguments by which he
supported his system, worthy of his attention, and has replied to them,
by which means they have come to our knowledge.
He had, as he says, frequent intercourse with Valentinians them-
selves; and what is of more importance, he had writings of the disci-
ples of Valentinus before him, from which he drew. We, indeed, hear
the teacher from the mouth of his disciples; we want not now, howev-
er, a perfect description of his system, but only such things as ordinary
abilities are sufficient to state.
It is first of all worthy of notice, that the fathers never charged him
with mutilating the biblical writings, or with rejecting and retaining of
them just what he chose. Tertullian even concedes that he received
the biblical Codex entire; but he reproaches him with having abused it
more by his misinterpretations than Marcion had with his knife.3
Irenaeus states that Valentinus gave the preference to John's Gospel;
and only complains of him and his followers, that, besides the four ac-
knowledged Gospels, they had one more than other Christians, which
they even called Evangelium veritatis.ª He says besides, that they
drew their arguments not only from the evangelical and apostolical wri-
1 In Clement of Alexandria, L. III. Strom. L. II. Strom. Also L. IV.
Strom. Origen. Dialog. contra Marcion. Sect. IV. Grabe Spicileg. Pat. et
Haer. Vol. II. p. 50-58.
2 L. I. Adv. Haer. Praef. n. 2. Εντυχόν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασι τῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ λε-
γοῦσι, Ουαλεντίνου μαθητῶν.
3 Tertull. de Praescript. Haeret. c. 38.
4 Iren. Lib. III. c. XI. n. 7. Adv. Haeret.
8
58
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
tings, helping themselves by explanations and ingenious interpretations,
but also from the Law and the Prophets.¹
We might draw from this an advantageous conclusion in respect to
the sacred books generally, which we see were received as such in the
days of Irenaeus and Tertullian; but we will first examine how this
general and unsuspicious testimony in favor of the heretics is confirmed
in detail, and then every one is at liberty to estimate the strength of
this cumulative evidence.
The father does not quote the parables and narratives of the histori-
cal books of the New Testament on which they founded their argu-
ments, at full length, as perhaps they were presented in their own wri-
tings. Hence it will be necessary that we should judge from their rea-
soning and deductions whether their arguments in any cases do really
imply such particularities in circumstance or language, as force us to
recognise our historical documents and as, so to speak, individualize
them.
They refer among other things to a parable of our Saviour, on which
they attempt to ground the number of their thirty Aeons. It is not ci-
ted word for word, probably on account of its extent. The parable is
that of the laborers who were sent at different hours into the vineyard.
They were sent, say they, about the first, the third, the sixth, the ninth,
and the eleventh hours. Now these hours, one, three, six, nine and
eleven, make up the number thirty; hence thirty hours or Aeons.2
We find a parable respecting laborers in a vineyard in Matt. 20: 1,
seq. Now was it this to which they alluded? In such a representa-
tion it must have been wholly accidental what hours, and how many,
were named. It would even have been sufficient, if it had been said
generally, at different hours, or simply in the morning, at noon, and at
evening. But in Matthew the laborers are sent now or μig dog
(v. 12),—about the first, the third, the sixth, the ninth and eleventh
hours; exactly as it is represented above. Were there any difference
as to one of the hours, their argument would not be just. Thus Mat-
thew's narrative is presupposed in all its circumstances; circumstances
which were wholly accidental, and depended upon the fancy of the wri-
ter. And Irenaeus then concludes: So did they abuse the Holy
Scriptures," etc.
66
The story of the woman who had suffered twelve years from an issue
of blood does not appear in Matthew with the same circumstances as
are given by the Valentinians. But is it not thus represented in Mark or
Luke? (Mark 5: 25, seq. Luke 8: 43.)
Her condition is stated in the words of Mark, παθοῦσα δώδεκα ἔτη,
and they lay much stress in their argument upon the expression ла-
θοῦσα, as well as upon the δώδεκα ἔτη. For they attempt to incul-
cate from it, that one of their spiritual existences, the twelfth Aeon, en-
dured severe sufferings, and was delivered from them by another power,
τὴν ἴασιν τοῦ πεπονθότος αἰῶνος, and that ή παθοῦσα δώδεκα ἔτη
1 Ibid. Lib. I. c. III. n. 6. Καὶ οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ἀποσ-
τολικῶν πειρῶνται τὰς ἀποδέιξεις ποιεῖσθαι, παρατρέποντες τὰς ἑρμηνείας καὶ
ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες τὰς ἐξεγήσεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν κ. τ. λ.
2 Iren. L. I. c. I. n. 3.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
59
τι
:
ἐκείνη ἡ δύναμις is here meant. When the woman touched Jesus, he
asked, tis μe nyato; as we find in Mark 5: 30. What they say farther,
that by this question he intended to instruct his disciples, didάoxovta
rous μaðηtás, agrees with Mark only, where the disciples come direct-
ly into notice na čheyov oi pavŋrai x. t. 2. Iren. L. I. C. III. n. 3.
The story of a certain Anna, mentioned in the Gospel, xai dia τns
* Αννης τῆς ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ κερυσσόμενος προφήτιδος, who was a
prophetess, and had lived seven years with her husband, but had passed
the remaining period, till our Saviour's coming, in a state of widow-
hood, occurs with all these briefly noticed circumstances in Luke's
Gospel, 2: 36. The story of a certain Simeon, who, giving thanks,
took the Saviour in his arms, and said: νῦν ἀπολύεις τὸν δοῦλον σου,
δέσποτα, κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ, (which represents the Demiur-
gus, who perceived his near departure at the coming of the Saviour and
gave thanks,) occurs, with these circumstances and these words of
Simeon, in the same Evangelist, 2: 39. (Iren. L. I. C. VIII. n. 4.)
They refer to John, the disciple of our Lord, by name, as having
spoken expressly of the first eight Aeons. They adduce as proof the
first chapter of John's Gospel, which they explain after their own man-
ner. Irenaeus quotes their own language as follows: John, the disci-
ple of our Lord, wishing to describe the creation of the universe, or the
way in which the Father evolved every thing from himself, supposes
first an αρχήν, a principle which he also calls μονογενής and θεός, in
which the Father produced all things originally and gave forth the Lo-
gos from himself, etc., whence he says: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος κ. τ. λ.
According to the foregoing observations, what the father of the
Church has asserted in respect to the biblical Codex of the Valentin-
ians must be correct, viz. that they received it entire, without mutila-
ting it at all and without exception of any particular parts, and that they
caused it to speak for them only by misinterpretation.
We might add very considerably to the number of arguments in fa-
vor of some of the Gospels, particularly of Luke; but we will only sub-
join further a few which relate to Matthew. The Iota with which the
name Jesus begins signifies ten Aeons; hence our Saviour spoke with
so much emphasis of the Iota. This they show from his words: Kai
διὰ τοῦτο εἰρεκέναι τὸν σωτῆρα-ιῶτα ἐν, ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλα
θη
on av
ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.
avra yέvntal. The words are Matthew 5: 18 as far as
the expression άло тоυ vóµоν, which they could not cite, as by it the
passage would have been restricted to the Old Testament. (Iren. L. I.
C. III. n. 2.)
The Saviour spoke of a separating and rending power of the Horus
in the words "I am not come to send peace but a sword." The figure
and the phraseology are found in Matthew 10: 34. Tv de dioptrix-
ὴν αὐτοῦ (ἐνέργειαν ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν ἐιρήνην, ἀλλὰ
μázaιoav. (Iren. L. I. C. III. n. 5.)
Theodotus, as we have seen, sometimes expatiates on the tenets of
1 L. I. C. VIII. n. 5. Ετι τε Ιωάννην τὸν μαθητὴν τοῦ Κυρίου, διδάσκουσι
τὴν πρώτην ὀγδοάδα μεμηνυκέναι αὐταῖς λέξεσιν λέγοντες οὕτως «Ιωάννης ὁ μα
θητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου βουλόμενος εἰπεῖν τὴν τῶν ὅλων γένεσιν, καθ᾽ ἣν τὰ πάντα
προ-
έβαλεν ὁ πατὴρ, ἀρχήν τινα ὑποτίθεται κ. τ. λ.”
60
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
αν
εν
Valentinus and his disciples. They maintained, he says, that the Sa-
viour first awoke the yvyn from slumber, and kindled a flaine within it.
Το this these words of our Saviour point: διὰ τοῦτο ἔιρηκενλαμψά
τω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. They are Matt. 5: 16.
Further, they interpreted the passage: Eloi rives tov ade cornzótov,
οἱ οὐ μὴ γεύσονται θανάτου, ἕως ἂν ἴδωσι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν
don, not of the Apostles standing around, but of the things of the uni-
verse which encompassed our Saviour. All these words occur in Mat-
thew, except & doen, which variation, however, is found likewise in
some MSS. and ancient versions. (Matt. 16: 28.) But this quotation,
as far as the last words, occurs too in Mark 9: 1, and Luke 9: 27. It
would therefore be very unsafe to determine in favor of Matthew in
particular. This citation is selected here rather for another purpose,
viz. to induce us to note that the evidences for particular Gospels are
not so numerous as we might desire, from the fact that the passages ci-
ted are frequently alike in several Evangelists. This remark applies
especially to Matthew and Luke.
66
The Valentinians, like the Marcionites, were unable from their prin-
ciples to allow Christ a human body: such a body, they say, must have
sprung not from the spirit or from God, but from the will of man, (Tertull.
De Carne Christi, c. 15) which would be contrary to the Gospel.
Sic
enim Scriptum esse contendunt: non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis volun-
tate, nec ex viri, sed ex Deo natus est." (Ibid c. 19.) Tertullian
charges them with fraud, as follows: "John 1: 13 should be read . . .
sed ex Deo nati sunt. Hoc quidem capitulo ego potius utar, quum
adulteratores ejus obduxero." It is not however read so invariably.
Some western MSS. give the passage as above (and so Irenaeus, L. III.
Adv. Haer. c. XVI. n. 2. and c. XIX. n. 2.), the purple colored MS.
of Verona has it so, and Augustine, at least once.
Thus this reading
was indeed approved by the Valentinians; but evidently was not intro-
duced by them. Here the excellent Griesbach is chargeable with an
oversight: it was not our reading, oi-yevvý&noav, but the opposite,
of which Tertullian accused the Valentinians.
They applied to the same purpose the words of Matthew 1: 20.
It
is written, they said, "per virginem, non ex virgine, quia et angelus in
somnis ad Joseph: Nam quod in ea natum,-de spiritu sancto est; non
dixit ex ea." (De Carne Chr. c. 20)
Paul, too, is said to have spoken of those exalted spirits which they
call Aeons, τὸν Παῦλον τοὺς δὲ αἰῶνας ὀνομάζειν, when he said : εἰς
πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων. These words are in the
Epistle to the Ephesians, 3: 21.3
These Aeons took what each of them possessed of peculiar excel-
lence and united the whole in a single being; thence was formed Jesus
or the Saviour. Hence Paul calls him all in all: vño de Taúλov qa-
νερῶς διὰ τοῦτο εἰρῆσθαι λέγουσι—they then adduce in confirmation,
Rom. 11: 36 and particularly Coloss. 2: 9. Ev avto zatoinɛł nav To
πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος, and a passage from the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians (1: 10), which however is given somewhat freely. To this Sa-
2 Lib. cit. § 4.
1 Epitome ex scriptis Theodoti. § 2.
3 Iren. L. I. c. III. n. 1.
4
4 L. 1. c. III. n. 4.
ΤΟ
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
61
viour the Father then granted supremacy over all the Aeons, ὅπως ἐν
αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσθῃ, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, θρόνοι, θηότητες,
κυριότητες! This passage is interwoven with the context and employ-
ed without any formula of citation; it is found in Coloss. 1: 16. It is
noticeable on account of the peculiar reading of the Valentinians :
θρόνοι, θεότητες. Theodotus also cites it as found in the writings of
the Valentinians, and with him it has still another addition, βασιλείαι,
θεότητες, λειτουργιαι. (§ 43.)
C
But they appeal, with express mention of Paul's name, to other Epis-
tles of his, in order to prove some of their fables in respect to the virtue
of the cross: Παῦλον δὲ τὸν ᾿Απόστολον, καὶ αὐτὸν ἐπιμιμνήσκεσθαι
τούτου τοῦ σταυροῦ λέγουσιν, ούτως, ὁ λόγος γὰρ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς
μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστὶ, τοῖς δὲ σωζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις θεοῦ·
καὶ πάλιν, ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο ἐν μηδενὶ καυχᾶσθαι, ἐν μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυ-
ρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι' οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται, καγω τῷ κόσμῳ.
(Iren. L. I. c. III. n. 5.) The first passage is 1 Cor. 1: 18; the other
Galat. 6: 14, with two observable variations.
εν
Paul, they say, has alluded in the Epistle to the Corinthians to the
wanderings of Achamoth, a female Aeon, who was lost from the Plero-
ma: τὸν Παῦλον λέγουσιν εἰρηκέναι ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους, ἔσχατον
δὲ πάντων, ὡςπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη καμοί. The passage is Ist
Cor. 15: 8; and immediately after, they quote also 1 Cor. 11: 10. (Iren.
L. I. c. VIII. n. 2.)
They assert that Paul has spoken of the male and female Aeons and
their intercourse: καὶ τὰς συζυγίας, τὰς ἐντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος τὸν
Παῦλον ειρηκέναι φάσκουσι. They then cite, word for word, Eph. 5:
32. (Iren. L. I. c. VIII. n. 4.)
They divided mankind into three classes; into υλικούς, ψυχικούς,
πνευματικούς. For the validity of this division they appeal to Paul,
among others: Παῦλον διαρρήδην εἰρηκέναι χοϊκούς, ψυχικούς, πνευ
ματικούς. The expression of the Apostle which they cite occurs in
1 Cor. 15: 45, and 1. Cor. 2: 14, 15. They then adduce also the pas-
sage Rom. 11: 16, with express reference to Paul, Παῦλον εἰρηκέναι.
(Iren. L. I. c. VIII. n. 3.)
In all, they have quoted from the following Epistles : that to the Ro
mans, the first to the Corinthians, those to the Galatians, to the Ephe-
sians and to the Colossians.
Among the curiosities of the British museum there is (Cod. Askew.)
a work of Valentinus, Πιστη Σοφία, translated into the dialect of Up-
per Egypt.
From the characters, this MS. would seem to be one of the oldest
MSS. in the Coptic language. Woide used it for his edition of the
Sahidic New Testament; but only in passages where the Πιστή Σοφ
ia has remarkable variations, or supplies chasms. Yet a large number
of passages from the Gospels and from several Epistles is noticed; e. g.
Matt. 7: 7, 8. 10: 36, 41. 11: 14, 28. 13: 9. 24: 4, 22, 43. 28: 18.
Luke 14: 34, 35. 22: 28, 29, 30. John 4: 10, 14. 17: 16. 19: 34.
Rom. 13: 7, 8. 1 Cor. 2: 9. 12: 12. and Heb. 2: 11, the words of which
last, however, are put into our Lord's mouth. Were the scope of this
1 L. I. c. IV. n. 5.
62
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE
work more extensive, it would afford us many advantages besides those
we now speak of.
THE EBIONITES
always disliked the apostle Paul, whose anti-Jewish sentiments, it is
easily imagined, were disagreeable to them. They had, therefore, their
own Acts of the Apostles, in which James was the principal personage,
and which favored, as they wished, their Jewish prejudices. This wri-
ting contained attacks upon Paul, to whom they even denied a Jewish
origin, appealing to his own confession. They found their pretence,
says the writer who makes us acquainted with the contents of this book,
upon the following passage: "I am a native of Tarsus, a citizen of no
mean city." These words are in our Acts of the Apostles, 21: 39.
BASILIDES AND ISIDORUS,
father and son; both men of learning and leaders of a Gnostic sect.
Some large fragments of the writings of the son have been preserved
by Clement of Alexandria. But they rather present his opinions, than
the grounds on which he vindicated them.2
In one of these fragments he treats of marriage and celibacy. When
the Apostles (it begins) asked our Lord, whether it were not better to
refrain from marriage, he said, οὐ πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον.
Jesus really used these words, in the connection in which they here
stand (Matt. 19: 11), after his disciples had made the objection: If it
be so, it is not good to marry. Our Lord says further, (it proceeds,)
that there are eunuchs by birth, and eunuchs by compulsion; but those
who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, etc.
Of these three sorts of eunuchs our Lord does speak, in the passage in
Matthew which has been mentioned, and, although the passage is handled
very freely, yet the last part certainly comes very near to Matthew: oi de
ἕνεκα τῆς αἰωνίου βασιλείας ευνουχίσαντες ἑαυτούς.3 (Matt. 19: 12, οἵ
τινες ευνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν.) Thus the
connection, the purport, and in part the language point us to Matthew.
اد
He uses equal freedom in another citation, in which he appeals to the
Apostle: λέγειν τὸν ᾿Απόστολον ἄμεινον γαμῆσαι ἢ πυροῦσθαι.
Yet Paul, 1 Cor. 7: 9, κρεῖσσον γάρ ἐστι γαμῆσαι ἢ πυροῦσθαι, is ea-
sily recognized.4
Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates, of whose writings, likewise, some
•
1 Epiphanius Haeres. XXX. n. 16. Πράξεις δὲ ἄλλας καλοῦσιν ᾿Αποστόλων
εἶναι . . . . . ἀναβαθμοὺς γάρ τινας καὶ ὑφηγήσεις δῆθεν ἐν τοῖς ἀναβαθμοῖς Ιακώ
βου υποτίθενται, ὡς ἐξηγουμένου κατά τε τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τῶν θυσιῶν
, ὡς καὶ
τοῦ Πάυλου ἐνταῦθα κατηγοροῦντες . Ταρσέα γὰρ αὐτὸν, ὡς αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖ καὶ
οὐκ ἀρνεῖται, λέγοντες· ἐξ Ἑλλήνων δὲ αὐτὸν ὑποτίθενται, λάβοντες τὴν πρόφασιν
ἐκ τοῦ τόπου διὰ τὸ φιλαληθὲς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ῥηθὲν, ὅτι Ταρσεύς εἰμι, οὐκ ἀσήμου πόλ
εως πολίτης κ. τ. λ.
2 Lib. I. Strom. L. II. L. III. & L. VI.
3 Lib. III. Strom. c. 1. Epiphanius Adv. Haeres. Lib. II. Haeres. XXXII.
p. 211. Edit. Petav. Colon. p. 95. Edit. Basil.
4 Lib. III. Strom. loc. cit.
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
63
small fragments have reached us,¹ opposes the tenets of Isidore respect-
ing the Law, and charges him with misunderstanding the Apostle's
words: μὴ συνεὶς τὸ τοῦ ᾿Αποστόλου ῥητὸν, λέγοντος—διὰ νόμου τὴν
aμagriav Eyvæv. They are in Rom. 7: 7.
Of Basilides himself, the father, little remains, although Agrippa
Castor knew of twenty-four books written by him upon the Gospel.2
This loss is by no means unimportant, since this man appeared as a
teacher as early as Hadrian, and probably even under Trajan, and
closed his life under Antoninus Pius, at a period when others first be-
gan to attract notice.3
c
"
o
In the largest fragment of him, the following passage has struck my
eye: ἀλλὰ ἐξ ἄλλων ὄντως ἐγκαλούμενοι, ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατάδικοι ἐπὶ κατ
κοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις πάθωσι· μηδὲ λοιδορούμενοι ὡς ὁ μοιχὸς,
φονεύς, ἀλλ' ὅτι Χριστιανοὶ πεφυκότες, ὅπερ αὐτοὺς παρηγόρησεν
µndè ñάoɣew doziv. This passage is found, in substance, in the 1st
μηδὲ πάσχειν
Epistle of Peter 4: 14, 15, 16; and is certainly in a measure peculiar.
There are, besides, similarities in the language: iva un as naradizor
ἐπὶ κακοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις πάθωσι, μηδὲ . ὡς ὁ φονεύς. Peter
expresses himself: μὴ γάρ τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω ὡς φονεὺς . . . ἢ κακο-
ποιος—and, ἀλλ' ὅτι Χριστιανοὶ πεφυκότες λ. Peter says: εἰ δὲ ὡς
Χριστιανὸς μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω.
اد
τ
η
Origen, also, has presented us in his Commentaries on the Epistle to
the Romans with a fragment of the writings of Basilides, in which he
interprets the words of Paul, Rom. 7: 9, 10, as supporting one of his
favorite tenets, the transmigration of souls; not very happily it is clear,
but yet not without talent and ingenuity.5
So many testimonies do we find in the 2d century alone, and these in
the poor remains of a literature in regard to which the rage for destruc-
tion has been designedly active and eminently successful-so many
that not one of those books which were not disputed in the orthodox
church wants confirmation. We must except only the Epistle to Ti-
tus; this remains unauthenticated, while the Gospel of John, of Mat-
thew, the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians and that to the Romans, and
still other books, are by testimony placed far beyond suspicion. Let
us now imagine how overwhelming would have been the external evi-
dence, if the disposition to destroy had not been so extensively grati-
fied.
If, however, the evidences for any parts are but feeble, only connect
them with those which have been collected from the fathers of the
church; and the two opposing parties, who were never agreed in
1 Lib. III. Strom. c. 2. Grabe Spicileg. Patr. T. II. p. 61, 62.
2 Euseb. Histor. Eccles. L. IV. c. 7.
3 Grabe Spicileg. T. II. p. 36, 37.
4 Clem. Alex. L. IV. Strom. c. 12. Sylburg. p. 506.
5 Origen. L. V. Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 5. Tom. II. Opp. Lat. Edit
Basil. p. 530. "Ego inquit (Paulus) mortuus sum: caepit enim jam mihi reputari
peccatum. Sed haec Basilides non advertens de lege naturali debere intelligi,
ad ineptias et impias fabulas sermonem apostolicum traxit in Pythagoricum dog-
ma... dixit enim, inquit, apostolus, quia ego vivebam sine lege aliquando, hoc
est antequam in istud corpus venirem, in eam corporis speciem vixi, quae sub
lege non esset, pecudis scilicet vel avis," etc. Edit. De la Rue, Vol. IV. p. 549.
1
64
CREDIBILITY OF THE
their lifetime, the fathers and the heretics, will unite in erecting a
monument to truth.
It is moreover worthy of special attention, that these accidentally
rescued testimonies do not merely attest the existence of the New Tes-
tament in the_2d century, but also testify to an earlier origin of
this book. There are few of them whose force is confined to their
own period; which do not mount higher, and give security likewise
that these are the writings of the Apostles-that Peter, John, Paul were
their authors.
CHAPTER II.
REMARKS IN RESPECT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THESE WRITINGS.
$ 9.
It is ordinarily the case that when it is supposed the genuineness of
these books is established, the investigation of their credibility is forth-
with undertaken. As to the didactic writings, such an investigation
can have place only so far as they refer to events. Since, however,
nearly all the occurrences to which they refer are contained in the his-
torical books, the whole inquiry may be restricted to the exclusively
historical books of the New Testament. Are then the facts which
these communicate true?
A question involving so much as this does, is proposed too early, I
should think, before we are at all informed as to the historical charac-
ter of the writers, the sources from which they drew, and their relation
to each other. The reply can only be the result of several other and
deeper investigations, of which we must first await the issue.
We are well aware of what has been done on this subject by learned
men, such as Less and Paley; but we could give no epitome suited to
the compass of these pages, even had we time for the purpose.
There are cases, however, in which the reasoning that as such and
such books are genuine, they are therefore credible, is perfectly correct.
Any inference which we can draw from the mere supposition that the
books are genuine, is not out of order, and may properly find a place in
this connection.
When I consider the character of the man whose portrait is drawn
in the Gospels, I find it to be too lofty and noble for any Jewish mind
to have invented. The tranquil, quiet greatness of the sage, in whose
heart lofty plans are unobservedly ripening, who, solely from the force
of powers within, aspires to the highest mental elevation from the midst
of the lowest and most ordinary circumstances, projects a moral trans-
formation of his race, undertakes to purify the whole body of ethical
science, devotes himself with unshaken energy to accomplish the task,
pledges, and actually resigns his life in its behalf, regardless of the ig-
nominious manner in which it is taken away;-such a Regulus in the
1
SCRIPTURES OF THE N. TEST.
65
cause of human morality is too fine a conception for ordinary Jews, es-
pecially in that period of national decay.
Then, further, the manner in which this personage is conducted
through all situations, in the midst of injuries, plots and dangers, among
friends and enemies, is so peculiar, that no philosopher could have
more beautifully depicted a philosopher's life. Conscious dignity ac-
companies him throughout, and in every scene of his life his conduct
is the fittest for the occasion, the period and the persons concerned,
and
also, in every point of view, the noblest. He appears at first, and con-
tinues through all the train of events, till the close of his life, to exhibit
in himself that high moral cultivation, and to give in his conduct the
pattern of that morality, which he was striving to introduce among men.
To conduct and maintain such a character through all the circumstan-
ces of life, is a dramatic attempt not suited to the capacity of invention
possessed by ordinary and uncultivated Jews.
Moreover, his pure and lofty views in respect to religion and morali-
ty, his unprejudiced elevation above Judaism, his extensive insight in-
to the plan and constitution of our moral nature, are far beyond that
and preceding ages, and beyond the spirit of the whole nation, from
which he steps forth a solitary phenomenon. Though Plato and Xeno-
phon have sketched the character of Socrates, and delineated it in such
a manner that scarce any mortal can equal this picture of a wise and
moral man, we may presume that they superadded ideal lineaments, or
at least exaggerated the real to the ideal. But our writers were not
Platos. The Jews had no Xenophon or Aeschines; they could lend no
perfection to their portrait, could impart little nobleness to their subject;
it was all they could do, to describe with unadorned simplicity that
which they observed. He must have been such a person, he must have
spoken and acted thus, or they could not have thus depicted him.
Nothing is objected to this but the miraculous coloring given to his
life. Permit me to make an incidental remark. Was he not, then,
himself a miracle? In vain do we look around in his nation to find the
circumstances which nourished this blossom, which matured this mind
in so short a period, which in thirty years produced a Socrates, who
surpasses the Athenian in his life and his death, in the grandeur of his
views, in the purity of his knowledge and doctrines; and this at a time
when it would seem that the highest talents must have been overcome
by the power of prejudice, of superstition, of authority, of the narrow-
mindedness of his contemporaries and the abject mental state of the na-
tion. And how long did he labor for this transformation of the world,
to pave the way for which, no human life would seem to be sufficient?
But a few years: he passed by, to use his own words, as the lightning,
which appeareth for an instant in the east, and shineth forth unto the
west. (Matt. 24: 27.)
He himself and the greatest event that ever occurred stand alone in
the history of the world. How was Christianity established in three
years? Where is the historic chain to this phenomenon? who has yet
discovered its causes, and its connexion with existing and preceding
events? Let us consider a little-if he himself and the change which
he effected be so peculiar, ought we in a case in which the usual or-
der of things is so far transcended, to expect the usual order of things?
9
66
WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION,
The nation in which he appeared was, we know, looking for mira-
cles by these alone whoever proposed changes or improvements in re-
ligion, could justify his claims as a teacher; they were the sole condi-
tion on which he could require belief and regard, and could count up-
on success. But Jesus met with success. He found credit and adherents
where he taught in his native land, without the aid of force, of wealth
or the protection of the great, by which others were aided; with nothing
in his favor but himself. And, notwithstanding that with the co-opera-
tion of the public magistrates he was seized and executed when he had
scarcely unfolded his system, he found credit still after his death, and so
ardent was this faith that it speedily extended itself from his own coun-
try, and nation, throughout the known world. Now if success in his na-
tive land depended on the condition of his working miracles, how can
we separate this condition from his actual success?
$ 10.
The deduction of the credibility of the Acts of the Apostles from
their genuineness is still more simple. The Apostles continued long
after Jesus' death exposed to general observation, and the more notori-
ous the enterprise of their Teacher became, the more were the eyes of
men, for a series of years, fastened upon them. Their history was
then well known, as a multitude of men were scattered through all
countries who had been and were witnesses of their conduct and acts.
How could they then consent to the promulgation of a work by their
fellow-laborer, which extolled a constancy they did not possess, narra-
ted sufferings and efforts in the cause of Christ, the falsity of which was
notorious; which specified actions in this and that place, of which no
mortal knew and which witnesses could step forward to contradict?
Could even their adversaries have contrived any thing more ruinous to
their cause, than the promulgation of a narration describing as their
achievements, things which had never happened and the falsity of
which could be attested?
CHAPTER III.
WRITING-MATERIALS-PUBLICATION—LOSS OF THE AUTOGRAPHS-COL-
LECTION OF THE BOOKS-THE CANON.
$11.
It is by no means to no purpose that we are so diffuse in our inves-
tigations in regard to the books of the New Testament and even take
notice of the writing-materials employed. We shall thus be enabled to
obviate some difficulties which may hereafter arise.
The ancients, it is known, wrote with a reed (calamus) and ink (of
the preparation of which we cannot now speak) upon papyrus. This
AUTOGRAPHS, AND CANON.
67
πα
last substance is particularly worthy of notice. The abundance of nά-
πυρος, (ἀφ' ἧς ὁ χάρτης κατασκευάζεται,) which Egypt produced, and
the moderate price at which she exported the charta, made the writing-
material of the king of Pergamus of questionable superiority; so that
the Romans of this period speak but seldom of the membrana, and even
then frequently mean by it the membranam ex cortice, the bark of plants.
The usual expression of this period is charta, zagrns (2d Epistle of
John, v. 12), and sometimes papyrus itself.
The sheets were made from the papyrus-plant which grew in Egypt,
and more rarely in Syria and the vicinity of Babylon.¹
The mem-
branes of the plant, from which it was prepared, were not equally tough
and durable. That was accounted the best from which the iɛgarian,
or priests' paper was made, which was intended for religious writings
and the sacred documents of Egypt. Augustus gave the preference to
a finer and more pliant sort; and this circumstance was enough to in-
duce the Romans to give the first rank to the Augustan species. That
of Livia held the second rank, and the priests' now held the third.
This continued till the time of Claudius, who brought about a
change. The Augustan species was too thin, and too easily broken
through. It was therefore retained for letter-writing only; for other
purposes a firmer sort was selected.2 Thus, following the custom of
the times, we have to distinguish two kinds of writing-material in the
Scriptures; one for the Epistles and another for the historical produc-
tions.
$12.
The ancients seldom wrote their compositions with their own hand;
but dictated them to their freedmen and slaves. These were either
rajvyoάpoi, amanuenses, notarii, rapid writers-or beautiful writers,
καλλιγράφοι, librarii, and likewise βιβλιογράφοι. It was the office
of these last to transcribe in an elegant manner what the former had ta-
ken down hastily from dictation; it was their business to write out
books and other lasting documents. The ab epistolis, whose work is
seen in books and on stones, appear to have been distinct from both.
For the accuracy of the transcripts reliance was placed on an emenda-
tor, or corrector, ὁ δοκιμάζων τὰ γεγραμμένα.
3
A large part of the books of the New Testament were dictated in
conformity with this custom. Paul notes as a peculiar circumstance,
in the Epistle to the Galatians, that he had written to them with his
own hand. (Gal. 6: 11.) In other cases he did not even write the salu-
tation with his own hand, except for a special reason. (2 Thess. 3: 17. 1
Cor. 16: 21. Coloss. 4: 18.) The amanuensis, who wrote the Epistle
to the Romans, has mentioned himself in it. (Rom. 16: 22.)
Historical works were always to receive, by means of the calligraph-
1 Plinius Nat. Hist. L. XIII. c. 22.
2 Ibid. c. 23, 24. Strabo. XVII. p. 800. † dè ßekriwv ǹ ieqatınń.
3 Euseb. H. Eccl. L. IV. c. 23. De vita Constant. XIV. c. 36. Photius Cod.
121. p. 162. Hoeschel. Montfaucon. Paleogr. Graec. Lib. I. c. 5.
4 Nysseni Epist. in Monument, ineditis Zacagnii. Epist. XII. p. 382.
68
WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION,
ist and the corrector, that extreme perfection which was required in a
writing that was to come into the hands of many readers.
$13.
Compositions of every kind could be multiplied only by transcripts.
When they had passed in this way to others, they were beyond the con-
trol of the author, and were published. Christians had not the advan-
tage of publication by means of booksellers till a later period.¹
2
The publication was preceded by the recitatio, which sometimes oc-
curred in presence of only a few friends, and frequently with great
preparations before many persons invited for the purpose. In this
way the author was known as such, and the world understood before-
hand what it had to expect. If the composition pleased, it was request-
ed for the purpose of transcription,3 and then the work left the hands of
its author and belonged to the public.
Frequently an individual sent his literary production to some distin-
guished man, as a present, strena, munusculum; or prefixed his name to
it, in order by this particular dedication of a work to him, to testify his
friendship or esteem. Even if it was only presented or sent to him, and
he accepted the gift, he was considered bound to introduce it to the
world,or as the patronus libri, who had pledged himself to duties like those
of the patronus personae. It was now his part to provide for its publi-
cation by means of transcripts, to facilitate its access ad limina potenti-
orum and to be its defensor. There were other allusions of this nature
to the Roman law which were applied to this subject.¹
Thus too did the first writers of the Christian school make their ap-
pearance before their public. The Epistles were read aloud in those
assemblies and churches to which they were directed, and then whoever
wished to possess them made a copy of them himself or caused one to
be made. The historical productions were made public by the authors,
per recitationem, in the Christian assemblies: the subject and the gen-
eral interest in it procured them readers and transcribers.
Luke dedicated his writings to an illustrious person named Theophi-
lus. It thus became the duty of the latter to multiply copies of them
and to distribute them among those who could appreciate the value of
such a gift and had the strongest claims to his friendly attention.
$14.
These books, when once circulated among the multitude, encounter-
ed all the fortunes which have befallen other works of antiquity. Yet
copies were always deposited with the Presbyters, to be used in the
1 Martial. L. I. Epigr. 6. Cleric. Ars. Crit. p. III. L. I. c. 2. § 10, 11.
2 Such a recitation is fully described in Dialog. de Orat. c. 9. at the end of the
works of Tacitus.
3 Juvenal. Sat. III. 41, 42.
4 Comp. the dedication of Statius to Melior of the 2d book Sylvarum, and the
dedication to Stella prefixed to the 1st and that to Marcellus to the 4th book.
Martial Epigram. L. XII. c. 3.
AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON.
69
churches and to serve as authoritative documents for the copies of
others.¹
In this respect, it is true, only the original writings possessed an au-
thority beyond objection, and we might hence expect that peculiar care
would have been taken to preserve them to posterity. Yet we have no
certain information where they were kept, how long they were to be
seen, or by what accident they were lost to the world. For those passa-
ges of the ancients which have been supposed to communicate informa-
tion respecting the Autographs have in fact a totally different purport.
Ignatius, the Martyr, for instance, expresses himself thus in his Epis-
tle to the Philadelphians: "I myself have heard some say: If I do not
find it ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις oι αρχείοις, I do not give credence to the Gos
pel; and when I replied, that it was certainly written, they answered
öce noоxeiral, the other deserves the preference."
είτα
Now let it remain for a moment undecided what is the meaning of
τὰ ἀρχαῖα οι ἀρχεῖα, and which is the true reading. The connexion
in which he says this is the following.
He is speaking (6th section, seq.) of Judaism, which was always aim-
ing to impose itself upon the Christian sect, and to incorporate itself and
all its appendages with the Christian system. Against this assumption
of Judaism he expresses himself with earnestness, and declares that he
himself with difficulty escaped the heresy. This subject he pursues as
far as the 11th section, where he proceeds respecting this pretension :
'I have even heard some say, If I do not find it ev tois doxalois, I do
not believe what is said in the Gospel."
"
The section immediately following shows with equal clearness that
he is speaking of Judaism. "I have nothing against the priests of the
covenant, they are worthy of honor; but far more excellent is the
High Priest who enters into the holy place, and is the confidant of the
secrets of God . . . both are good, the Old Testament and the Gospel."
From this connexion, from the preceding and subsequent expres-
sions of this father, it is easily seen that the Old and New Testaments
are contrasted, and that, consequently, this ta dozala, in opposition to
τὰ
the Gospel, can signify only the Old Testament, which Judaizing per-
sons had the audacity to prefer even above the New.
Now which reading we are to adopt as the true one, ta dozaĩa, the
books of the Old Testament, or doxeĩa, the cases in which the wri-
tings of the Old Testament were kept, is a matter of indifference; and I
am only bound to sustain the interpretation I have affixed to the words,
ότι πρόκειται.
The Judaizers, then, asserted that they would not believe the Gospel,
when what it declared was not to be found in the Old Testament.
When Ignatius replied to them, it is actually written thus; they had
the audacity to say The latter deserves the preference. I find noо×εισ-
Da in this somewhat unusual sense in Sextus Empiricus, (Hypoth. L.
I. c. 4.) Ως μηδένα μηδενὸς πρόκεισθαι τῶν μαχομένων λόγων ὧν
πιστότερον.
лOTÓTεQOV. In the larger Epistles of Ignatius a passage follows the
words above quoted, in which лoózɛcovat again appears in this sense:
1 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. Lib. IV. c. 32. n. 2.
2 Schmid Historia Canonis, L. I. Sect. II. § 81. p. 131, 132.
70
WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION,
τα
οὐ γὰρ πρόκειται τὰ ἀρχαῖα τοῦ πνεύματος, the written law has in no
wise the preference over that of the spirit, etc. This interpolation
therefore justifies the proposed interpretation.
Tertullian in one instance appeals to litteras authenticas of the Apos-
tles, which have sometimes been thought to mean originals.¹
But he is speaking in the context of the pure doctrines which he
says could be reasonably expected to exist only in such churches as were
established by the Apostles and had been addressed by them, as
e. g. Rome, Corinth, etc. where still their authenticae litterae were read.
Now as that which immediately precedes and follows relates merely
to the purity of the doctrines which descended uncorrupted from suc-
cessor to successor, the intervening assertion, that litterae authenticae
were then extant, must have a like import. The litterae authenticae,
then, were only Epistles which had been preserved pure and uncorrup-
ted.
He uses authenticum in this sense in another place likewise.
He
complains of the Latin version and accuses it of a designing or ignorant
corruption of the Apostle's words: Sciamus plane non sic esse in
Graeco authentico, quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut
callidam aut simplicem eversionem.2 Here authenticum stands oppo-
sed to the inaccurate or falsely interpreted text.
We have the most irrefutable proof, however, that Tertullian, and
not only he but Clement, Origen, and the fathers of the church gener-
ally knew nothing of the existence of autographs, in all those works in
which they combat the heretics. We find them accusing Marcion and
his sect of falsifying the Bible, and we find them sometimes perplexed
with difficulties in their copies. All the elaborate arguments which
they have deduced from the connexion, and from parallel passages in
support of their readings,-all that Tertullian has sought to prove with
so much particularity against Marcion, might have been spared, had
the autographs been in existence. Reference might have been made
in one word to their decision, for they would have been the only author-
itative and supreme arbiters in doubtful cases between them and their
adversaries.
$15.
Thus we seek in vain for the original MSS. at a time when nothing
was known of them. They were lost, without so much as a hint to us
by what events a possession so important to the church perished. How
shall we explain this singular fact?
Some preceding observations will perhaps solve the difficulty. To
speak first of the Epistles: though Paul and his companions wrote
scarcely any of their compositions themselves, though they were writ-
ten by Tertius or some other penman ab epistolis, the salutation at the
end was generally attached by their own hand. This was sufficient to
give them the value of originals, and a legitimate authority to determine
respecting the text when errors arose.
1 Tertullian. de Praescript. c. 36.
2 Ibid. de monogam. c. 11.
AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON.
71
This circumstance, then, presents us no explanation. Perhaps the
writing-material may afford us more satisfaction. It was the weak,
easily-injured Augustan paper, or that of Claudius, upon which, accord-
ing to the fashion of the times, letters were written. Now curiosity,
devotion and industry occasioned many disfigurations in it before it was
extensively circulated and copied. Thus, if a copy was often exposed
to such ill-usage, it is easily seen that, with ever so good intentions, it
could last but a few years; and if under very gentle treatment it should
chance to last twenty or thirty years, the period from Nero to Trajan,
or at any rate to Severus and Caracalla, would be long enough for its
destruction.
V
οι
On the other hand, the writing-material of historical works was more
durable and better fitted to brave the ravages of time; but there were
other circumstances which were peculiarly dangerous to the originals of
these. After the tayyoάq or had taken them down from the mouth of
the author, they were committed to the Calligraphist or Bibliographist,
who wrote them fairly, and conferred upon them the decent external ap-
pearance which became such works. Then the corrector had his part
to perform. Thus a copy which was sent to a church or collection of
Christians had already passed through three hands and was itself in fact
only a transcript, little superior to others which were as beautiful.
Let us now suppose, as it is very natural to do, that the same libra-
rius who was employed to make this copy, made copies likewise for op-
ulent individuals and other churches--and there was no original at all, or
there were perhaps ten or more of which none could claim superiority.
From these circumstances we can comprehend how the autographs
entirely disappeared, though of so much importance to the ancients,
without our having any knowledge of their fate.
$ 16.
The works which persons had in their possession were sent to each
other, and in this way were made collections of an author's writings.
The Epistles of Ignatius were thus collected together. Polycarp of
Smyrna sent those which he had to Philippi, and the church at Philippi
sent him in return the compositions of this martyr which they possess-
ed.¹ Somewhat more than forty years before, the like occurred in re-
gard to the works of the Apostles. Such a mutual exchange the
churches at Laodicea and at Colosse made, in respect to Paul's Epistles,
(Coloss. 4: 16.)
In this way churches communicated to other churches their apostoli-
cal documents. This is what Tertullian well observes against Marcion,
who did not pay equal deference to all the Gospels: the unequivocal
declaration of those churches, says he, which were founded by the
Apostles, testifies in favor of the other Gospels, which we have obtain-
ed through and from those churches.2
Hence no writings could obtain a place in this collection, which were
not supported by the testimony of the churches which received the
1 Epistlola Polycarpi, near the close. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. III. 36.
2 Lib. IV. Adv. Marc. c. 4.
72
WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION,
Epistles from the Apostles, or by which the works were first published
after being sent to them.
Though some of these writings were directed to private men, as were
Luke's two historical books, the Epistle to Philemon, the 2d and 3d of
John, or those to Titus and Timothy, they were either friends of the
author whose testimony is unexceptionable, or men endowed with apos-
tolical authority in teaching, whose credit is superior to that of the
churches which were instructed by them.
It has been inferred from an expression of Peter, that the collection
of the Pauline writings was in his times complete. For he reminds his
readers (2 Peter 3: 15, 16), that his beloved brother Paul also, accord-
ing to the wisdom given unto him, had written the same to them, as al-
so in all his epistles, in which he speaks of this subject. But the ex-
pression all is restricted by what follows-all in which he has mention-
ed the subject of the coming of the Lord. Yet it is evident from this
that he supposes his readers already in possession of several Pauline
Epistles, that they were then very widely circulated, and were to be
found in great numbers, in various places.
When several of these were once written together, it would not be
long before the idea of a complete collection would arise. There was
already one Codex before the world, viz. that of the Old Testament,
and this suggested the idea of forming one for the new dispensation.
The parallel between the two dispensations, the καινή and παλαια δια-
nan, which had already been pointed out by our Lord and extended
by Paul, favored and occasioned such imitations.
The collection was early finished in all those churches between
which a close connexion and reciprocal intercourse could be maintain-
ed, i. e. in those which were near the borders of the Mediterranean sea,
where under the Roman dominion three quarters of the globe met to-
gether in brisk traffic and commercial intercourse. Churches within
this sphere of universal activity, as e. g. the churches at Philippi and
Smyrna, had certainly a complete collection in the days of Trajan.
Otherwise they would not have undertaken another which in impor-
tance bears no comparison with this, viz. a collection of the Epistles of
Ignatius which was made by Polycarp.
Some one may doubtingly ask, Is it true, as is here assumed, that as
early as the times of the Apostles, christian churches were thus con-
nected? We must suppose that they were. All Christians considered
themselves as brethren wherever they might be, and all churches as
mutually bound to each other. The connexion, noivaria dóoɛws nai
κοινωνία
Anyes, the alleviation of the necessities of saints, most certainly exist-
ed. When Paul was commissioned by the Apostles to go to the heath-
en, attention to the poor was enjoined. (Galat. 2: 10.) This connex-
ion extended not merely to the churches of Syria and Asia Minor, to
Antioch (Acts 11: 29), and the Galatian churches (1 Cor. 16: 1, 2, 3),
but also to societies of believers in Europe, of which there were so ma-
ny in Macedonia and Achaia. (2 Cor. 8: 1, seq. 9:4. Rom. 15: 26.)
This beautiful agreement in works of love bound the European and
Asiatic churches to the native land of Christianity, which was then the
object of their benevolence, and bound them and all to each other; for
in adversity each had a claim upon the rest for succour.
}
AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON.
73
τι
It is also well known, that Christians, when they undertook a journey,
were commended to the assistance and kind offices of the churches
(Acts 18:27. Rom. 16: 1, 2. Coloss. 4: 10), and received peculiar
passports ovoτatinas étiorolás (2 Cor. 3: 1), which certainly suppo-
ses the existence of a social connexion. Nothing could be more natu-
ral, according to Christian regulations, than the maintenance of mutual
intercourse. To lodge strangers, to wash their feet (1 Tim. 5: 10), to
practise Christian hospitality, to assist the brethren in their affairs, were
works of piety strictly enjoined (Rom. 12: 13. Heb. 13: 2. 1 Pet. 4: 9.)
We say nothing of the fact that private individuals on occasion sent
salutations to distant brethren (Rom. 16: 21, 23. Philipp. 4: 22), and
churches to churches-the churches of Asia to that at Corinth-the
church at Babylon to those of Asia Minor (1 Cor. 16: 19. 1 Pet. 5: 13.)
We may admit an exception as to churches situated farther from the
circle of activity and commercial intercourse, which would come more
slowly to the knowledge of certain of the biblical books. From this
circumstance, it seems to me, we may explain in part the doubts which
prevailed in particular churches in respect to some of them.
Under Trajan's second successor, Antoninus Pius, Marcion, as we
have seen above, made an eclectic collection, for the use of his disci-
ples, from the Codex of the Catholic church, which Codex must conse-
quently have been in existence when he perpetrated the outrage. Val-
entinus and his sect possessed a similar one, containing all those books
which the fathers towards the close of the 2d century found in the Co-
dex of the orthodox church. Valentinus therefore must have possessed
it entire.
It was the distinguished and peculiar prerogative accorded to these
writings, and for a long time the only mark of distinction which could
be given them, that they were publicly read in the christian assemblies.
As in the religious meetings of the Jews this honor was usually confer-
red only upon the Law and the Prophets, so among the Christians this
eminent prerogative was granted only to the writings of the Apostles
together with the Old Testament which they retained from the Jews.
Thus Peter reckons Paul's Epistles, while the author was still alive,
among the yoagas, Holy Scriptures (2 Pet. 3: 15, 16.) And, as the
Jews called their books by the general title, the Law and the Prophets,
so the Christians comprehended theirs under the denomination, the Gos-
pels and the Apostles, and compared or contrasted them together, vóμov,
προφήται, ευαγγέλια καὶ ἀπόστολοι.
As these compositions were acknowledged to be yoagn, Holy Scrip-
ture, and as such were entitled to be read publicly in the assemblies,
the collection of them could be delayed no longer, and then the books
could no longer be circulated without inspection, or be mutilated, en-
larged or altered at pleasure. They were under the protection of the
church to which the collection pertained, and which was instructed
and edified from it.
1 Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. § 5. Epistola ad Diognetum c. XI. Eira góßos
νόμου ᾄδεται καὶ προφήτων χάρις γινώσκεται, καὶ εὐαγγελίων πίστις ἵδρυται, καὶ
áñоoτólov napádoois quidoosrai. Just. Martyr. Apol. Maj. c. 67. Tertull. de
Praescript. c. 36. Comp. Apologet. c. 39. Hippolyt. de Christo et Antichristo. 58.
10
74.
WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION,
From this peculiar prerogative, they were denominated dednμosiεV-
μένα βιβλία and δεδημοσιευμέναι γραφαί, public books, books made
public; while, on the other hand, such others as were in the hands of
Christians and were not permitted to be publicly read, were called
απόκρυφα, απόκρυφα βιβλία, libri secreti and absconditi
We find,
too, that in opposition to the δεδημοσιευμένα βιβλία, the others were
denominated ιδιωτικά 2
This exclusive prerogative of the apostolic writings is well exhibited
by an ancient teacher, in speaking of Hermas. It is proper to read
him, says he, but he can never be made public with the Prophets or
Apostles.3
The (so called) canones Apostolorum, after enumerating (Can. 84.)
the sacred books, say concerning the Constitutions of Clement, that
they should not be made public to all: ἃς οὐ χρὴ δημοσιεύειν ἐπὶ πάν
των.
ક
((
Origen remarks as follows on Matt. 27: 9 : This is found in none
of the public books in publicis scripturis; (the text is extant in Latin
only) in none of those which are read in the church or synagogue; but
only in the secret book of Elias, in secretis Eliae.”4
He observes in another place respecting the mode of Isaiah's death,
that nothing concerning it is to be found ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς καὶ δεδημοσι
ευμένοις βιβλίοις, but only ἐν ἀποκρύφοις.5
This mark of distinction so restricted the Canon, that no book could
find admission which did not derive its origin from the authorized mes-
sengers of Christianity.
$ 18.
But this arrangement was gradually undermined. Certain churches
received letters upon memorable occasions from celebrated teachers
and preserved them to be read as memorials and for the purpose of edi-
1 The word dлózovqov, liber absconditus, as Augustine expresses it, is not de-
rived from the technical critical language of the Greeks, but from that of the
Jews, who called such writings (Hottinger Thes. Philol. L. II. c. 2. sec.
1.) For they were not deposited in the book-chest in which the Holy Scriptures
lay, but in separate receptacles in concealed places. Thus, as the learned agree,
Hezekiah concealed a book on medicine. (Mishnah, Tract. Pesach. c. 4. n. 9.
13 1717) DN1977) A biblical MS. which had three errors on one leaf was
required to be corrected: one with four to be concealed. (Gemar. Babyl. Tract.
Menachot. c. III. sect. 7.) Justin translates it by άgavès πouεiv. (Ďial. cum
Tryph. c. 120.) Απὸ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων μέχρι νῦν ὑφ' ὑμῶν γραφῶν, says he,
have I taken arguments, ἃ εἰ ἐνενοήκεισαν οἱ διδάσκαλοι ἡμῶν εὖ ἴστε ὅτι ἀφανὴ
ἐπεποιήκεισαν. In opposition to ἀφανὲς ποιεῖν, Origen makes use of the expres-
sion gavɛoà Bißhia. (Epist. ad African. c. 9.) The first in whom I meet with the
expression, aлixovpos, is Clement of Alexandria. (L. III. c. 4. Strom. p. 524.
Venet. Εῤῥύη δὲ αὐτοῖς τὸ δόγμα ἔκ τινος ἀποκρύφου. The expression is fre-
quent in Origen, and is sometimes to be found in Tertullian.
כ
2 Lambec. Biblioth. Caes. Vind. Tom. III. p. 45. 46.
"Et ideo
3 Anonym. apud Muratori, (Antiq. Med. Aev. Tom. III. p. 853.)
legi quidem cum oportet, sed publicare in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas
completum numero, neque inter apostolos in finem temporum potest."
4 Origenes Vol. III. p. 816. De la Rue.
5 Ibid. Tom. X. In Matth. Vol. III. p. 465.
AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON.
75
fication upon stated days of the year. Thus the church at Corinth re-
ceived a letter from Clemens Romanus, with which they refreshed their
memories from time to time. Probably the case was the same with the
Epistles of Ignatius. By degrees such letters came to be read in other
churches also, so that e. g. Clement's Epistle received this testimony of
public veneration in very many churches. Sometimes this honour was
accorded likewise to Hermas.2
Little as this custom could deceive learned men, it yet tended to mis-
lead the common people, and sometimes even the ministry, and it was
to be apprehended that such writings would in this way usurp the au-
thority of canonical books. One of our oldest MSS., the Codex Alex-
andrinus, as is well known, contains Clement's Epistle; and the Ca-
nones Apostolorum before mentioned have enumerated two of this fa-
ther's Epistles among the sacred books.
It therefore became necessary to distinguish and separate what time
began to confound, and to take sure means to put a stop to error.
Hence arose catalogues of the sacred books which received the name
of Canon.
I no where find the word in this sense before the third century, when
it first appears in the writings of Origen, and only in passages which are
extant in the old translation alone. Towards the close of his pref-
ace to Solomon's song, he says; 'Quae in scripturis, quas canonicas
habemus, nusquam legimus, in apocrypho tamen inveniuntur;" and
again on Matth. 27: 9: "Hoc in nullo regulari libro (xavovina) posi-
tum invenimus, nisi in secretis Eliae.”³
κα
In the fourth century it is common with Christian writers, and with
them xavov is a rule of faith, and a canonical book means an authori-
tative book in matters of faith. Origen says, in the preface before
mentioned, of such books as were not of this number, “non admitti ad
auctoritatem." Jerome expresses himself in a similar manner in his
preface to Proverbs: "They cannot be admitted in confirmation of the
religious tenets of the church" (“ non admitti .... ad auctoritatem ec-
clesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam.") Ruffinus closes the Canon
which he presents in his work on the Apostles' Creed, with the re-
mark: "These are the books on which our fathers founded their arti-
cles of belief." He then proceeds: "The un-canonical books may in-
deed be read, but never used in proof of articles of belief," (non tamen
proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam.) Athanasius says,
in presenting us with his catalogue, that the doctrines which lead to
eternal blessedness are revealed only in the canonical scriptures; they
alone are the fountains of salvation.4
We may here pass by the other significations of the word xavov;
for in reference to the books of the New Testament it means the rule
1 Euseb. Hist. Ecclesiast. Lib. IV. c. 23. . . . év mhéiorais innhŋoiais inì rov
κοινού δεδημοσιευμένη.
2 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 3.
3 Tom. III. App. Ed. De la Rue. p. 36, and 916.
4 Athanas. Fragm. Festal. Epist.
Opp. L. II. Tavra пnyal тov owrnelov .
ἐν τουτοῖς μόνοις τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας διδασκάλιον εὐαγγελίζεται
76
WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION,
I
of faith, and that is said to be canonical which is authorised to declare
this rule.¹
§ 19.
The oldest catalogue extant, in my opinion, is that of an anonymous
writer of the church of Rome; it belongs to the beginning of the third
century. Those who place it higher do not probably take into consid-
eration how decidedly the author rejects the Epistle to the Hebrews, as
the disputes respecting it were first expressly turned to its prejudice by
Gaius, the Roman Presbyter. Some indeed have held Gaius or Caius to
be the author of the catalogue. It contains the four Gospels, the Acts
and thirteen Epistles of Paul. That to the Hebrews he maintains to be
the production of an Alexandrian of the Marcionite sect. He mentions,
besides, the Epistle of Jude and two of John's with his Apocalypse. He
then, however, adds the Wisdom of Solomon and the Revelation of Pe-
ter, apparently as christian Scriptures.
His procedure in regard to Peter is really remarkable. He omits
his first Epistle, respecting which there was not a doubt in all antiquity,
and speaks of his Apocalypse instead. Such a mistake must not pass
without closer examination.
This ancient fragment has come down to us through a barbarous
copyist, and evidently not in its original language, but in a version
which is not nearly so good as that of Irenaeus. In many places a
glimmer of the Greek text which was its basis is perceptible. With
this supposition, let us examine more attentively the words used in
speaking of Peter and his Apocalypse. His language is "Epistola sane
Judae et superscriptae Johannis duae in Catholica habentur.
Et sapi-
entia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta. Apocalypsis etiam
Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in ec-
clesia nolunt."
I imagine that we ought to punctuate thus: "Epistola sane Judae et
superscriptae Johannis duae in Catholica habentur, et sapientia Salom-
onis in honorem ipsius scripta, apocalypsis etiam Johannis. Et Petri
tantum," etc.
If we connect "Apocalypsis etiam Johannis et Petri" together, I do
not see how he could say “tantum recipimus -we receive only two
""
1 Its other significations, as e. g., a church-regulation, a catalogue of holy
utensils, etc., may be seen in Cave Dissert. II. in Append. ad Hist. Litt. Suicer
Thesaurus Philol. V. Kavov.-Zonaras in Ep. Imam Canon. Basilii et Amphi-
loch. c. 6.
2 Muratori. Antiqq. Ital. Med. Aev. T. III. p. 854. Such a passage, e. g., is
the following: "Sic enim non solum visorem, etc." ovτws yoo ou μovov dεativ,
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκουστήν τε καὶ γραμματέα πάντων θαυμασίων τοῦ κυρίου καθ᾽ ἐξῆς ἑαυ
Tòv oμohoyε. The most difficult passage is "Acta autem omnium apostolorum
sub uno libro scripta sunt Lucas optime Theophile comprehendit, qui sub pre-
sentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicut et semote passionem Petri evidenter decla-
rat, sed protectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis." If we turn it
into Greek it is plain: Τὰς δὲ πράξεις ἁπάντων τῶν ἀποστόλων γραφείσας εἰς μί
αν βίβλον Λουκᾶς τῷ κρατίστῳ Θεοφίλῳ συνέκλεισε, ὅτι κατὰ μέρος ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ
παρουσίᾳ ἐγενήθησαν, καθώς, παρεκτὸς τοῦ Πέτρου παθήματος, σαφῶς ἐμφανίζει,
καὶ τῆς ἐπιδημίας Παύλου ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως εἰς τὰς Σπανίας ἐπιδημούντος.
AUTOGRAPHS, AND CANON,
77
Apocalypses-one was enough. Or, if tantum recipimus expresses an
inferior degree of respect, yet it relates only to Peter and his Apoca-
lypse, as the further explanation of tantum recipimus shows; quam,
which, being in the singular number and referring only to one, i. e. the
last mentioned Apocalypse. Thus a period must certainly be placed
after apocalypsis etiam Johannis.
Let us now take the words thus, and then turn the incomprehensible
et Petri tantum recipimus into Greek : καὶ Πέτρου μόνον παραδεχόμε
εθα. Now by changing μόνον to μόνην we obtain good sense and
have the first Epistle of Peter, which is wanting in the catalogue. He
has been speaking of the Catholic Epistles and now says: xai Пéroov
μόνην παραδεχόμεθα—and of Peter we receive only one.
Now, how-
ever, the other clause is not consistent with this, unless it be worded
thus: alteram quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt. But if we turn
it into Greek, we shall soon see how he obtained his quam quidam ex
nostris and that he had at the bottom the sense suggested: xai IIετoov
μόνην παραδεχόμεθα, ἧς παρέξ τινες ἡμῶν ἀναγινώσκεσθαι ἐν ἐκκλη
oig ov slovo. Thus, instead of Peter's Apocalypse, we have the first
Epistle of Peter together with the second, which last is disputed by
some.
He omits the Epistle of James, as did many of that period. He ad-
mits only two of John's among the Catholic Epistles; yet it is to be ob-
served that, as we shall see in the proper place, there is some evidence
that the occidental nations considered the 2d Epistle as merely a post-
script to the first. If this were really the case, that which is now the
third must have been regarded by them as the second.
Origen's Catalogue ranks next in point of antiquity. This is found
in his Homilies on Joshua, where he gives an allegorical interpretation
of the trumpets blown before Jericho. The first of the Evangelists who
blew the trumpet, says he, was Matthew, then Mark, and then John.
Peter blew it in two Epistles; so too James and Jude. John began his
blast anew with his Epistle and the Apocalypse; and Luke with his
Acts of the Apostles. Lastly, however, Paul drowned the sound of all
the rest with his fourteen-fold blast. Compare with this another cata-
logue by the same writer, preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 6: 25),
in which he gives us to understand that opinions were various respect-
ing the 2d of Peter and the 2d and 3d of John. He has made too, in
another place, a similar remark respecting the Epistle of James.
Of at least as early date as that of Origen, is the Canon of the Syri-
ac church, which we derive from their oldest version. It comprehends
the Gospels, Acts, and fourteen Epistles of Paul-of the Catholic Epis-
tles it contains that of James, the first of Peter, and of John,—and, as I
think, the Apocalypse.
It is observable that the Syrians have incorporated with their version
the Epistle of James, which does not occur in the Roman catalogue.
This confirms the fact of the influence of geographical circumstances.
Syria must, from its situation, have become acquainted with the Epistle
of James earlier, and have been sooner and better informed as to its
author, than other countries.
1
78
WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION,
$ 20.
The statements of Eusebius are especially worthy of our attention,
inasmuch as he has not only given us the catalogue of his church, as
others have done, but has presented for our survey a historical view of
the public decisions of various churches and the individual opinions of
ecclesiastical writers.
The principal passage is in the 3d book of his Church-history, chap.
25th, in explanation of which the 3d and 24th chapters of the 3d book
may be consulted.'
He drew up this sketch of public and private opinions respecting
the Scriptures of the New Testament under the guidance of ecclesiasti-
cal tradition, κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν παράδοσιν (III. 25); under
which he included лoάdoor aуoaqov (III. 39.), or oral information,
ἔγγραφον, written communication, or δι' υπομνημάτων, by means of
monuments (IV. 21, and 37.), and lastly dozaiov dous napádoow,
ancient custom, or authentic church-usage, (V. 23,
πα
24.)
From these materials he formed his collection. He states the estab-
lished usage of the church (II. 23. III. 31.), and always extracts the
individual opinions of the fathers respecting certain scriptures from
their works, treating particularly of their circumstances in life, their
merits and labors,-observing, in passing to the principal passage, that
he intends to bring forward the testimonies of the ancients on this sub-
ject individually down to his time. (III. 24.)
This is clear from the very character of the catalogue. In it he
promises to speak more fully in its place of the varieties of opinion con-
cerning the Apocalypse, which are here only hinted at. He says that
even the rejected books have ever been esteemed genuine by many,
γνώριμα τοῖς πολλοῖς. He distinguishes two opinions respecting the
2d and 3d of John; one of which attributed them to the Evangelist, and
the other to another John. He notices also the variety of opinion
among Christians respecting the Gospel of the Hebrews. The contro-
verted Scriptures, he says further on, are yet known to most teachers
in the church: παρὰ πλεῖστοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικών γιγνωσκόμενας.
The expression πλεῖστοις ἐκκλησιαστικών, respecting the meaning of
which all are not agreed, is elliptical, and must be filled out by avdowv,
as we are informed by Eusebius; for he has done this in the next
1 An explanation of these passages has been attempted by many learned men
for various purposes. Chr. Fred. Weber,
Chr. Fred. Weber, "Prufung der Hauptstelle des Eusebi-
us, vom Kanon," in the addenda to the "Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, Tub.
1791."-Joh. Ern. Chr. Schmidt on the Canon of Eusebius in Henke's "Maga-
zin fur Religionsphilosophie." 5th Bd. 3d St.-Carl. Christ. Flatt, on the Ča-
non of Eusebius, in the "Magazin fur Christl. Dogmat. und Moral." 7th und 8th
St. These writings Paul Joach. Sigism. Vogel has digested and reviewed in
his Commentationis de Canone Eusebiano Pars. 1. Erlang. 1809. Pars. II. 1810.
Pars. III. 1811. The most recent work on this subject, is Fred. Lücke. "Ueber
den Neutestamentl. Kanon des Eusebius. Berlin 1816."
2 Vogel (Comment. de Can. Euseb. pars. I. p. 8.) thinks ixxλnoiaotixoi to mean
here, Christiani Catholici, because Euseb. elsewhere subjoins ovyyoagévs. Yet
the πλεῖστοι ὅσοι τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν (ΙΙΙ. 39.), are certainly teachers. Even in
II. 25. where Du Valois takes the meaning to be Catholicus, a writer is meant.
AUTOGRAPHS, AND CANON.
79
clause: τῶν κατὰ διαδοχὰς ἐκκλησιαστικῶν τις ἀνήρ, from which we
see likewise that they were employed in the office of the ministry.
These expressions, taken together, show that, as we said in the be-
ginning, this is not a catalogue of a single party, but a sketch of public
decisions, the individual opinions of teachers, from various sources.
It
was his object, after enumerating the books which were universally ac-
knowledged, to give a general view of the past and present opinions as
to certain books, nearly as far down as the great Nicene Council.
In this catalogue is comprehended, if not wholly, at least to a great
extent, the various traditions by means of documents, inasmuch as he
had before him the literary productions of antiquity from Africa, Asia,
Greece Proper, and even from the Latin churches. On the other hand,
what he says of church-usage, must have been drawn from more limit-
ed knowledge. The usage of individual churches could not be learnt
so well from any writings, as from attentive observation of circumstan-
ces and intercourse with neighboring contemporaries in the ministry.
Hence the statements on this subject seem to have reference to Asia
merely. So much respecting the design of the historian and the aids
which he employed in its execution. Now as to the actual execution.
Eusebius has been speaking of the writings of the Apostles; then of
the Gospels, and John's writings in particular. (III. 24.) Led on by
his train of remark, he resolves (III. 25.) to enumerate in their order,
from the beginning, the books of the New Testament of which he has
just spoken, τὰς δηλωθεῖσας γραφάς.
1
0
In order to elucidate this catalogue thus executed, we will first notice
the technical language of the ancients as to things of this kind; that is
to say, the usual phrases and expressions of Grecian criticism. A gen-
uine work is called γνήσιον σύγγραμμα : the Greeks say too, ὁμολογεῖται
avtov εivaι for it is this or that author's. The opposite of the γνήσι
or was the κίβδηλον, the ὑποβολιμαῖον, the νόθον. The designations
ἀμφισβητεῖται, διστάζεται, ἀμφιβάλλεται and ἀμφιδοξεῖται ὁ διάλο-
yos, n yoaqn, are intermediate expressions. By these words they denot-
ed a division into the decidedly genuine, the decidedly spurious, and
those respecting which opinions differ. There is no fourth member of the
division, and if the Christians possessed a peculiar species of writings,
it of course could not fall under these heads. Origen, the first ecclesi-
astical writer extant in whom we find a classification, notices these
three divisions into yvýocov, vodov, pizróv,² genuine, spurious, and
mixed, i. e. what some held genuine, others spurious.
1 Eusebius intends nothing more by δηλωθεῖσας γραφάς than writings which
had just been spoken of, the Scriptures before mentioned. As it has been sup-
posed, that there is something peculiar in the expression, (Vogel Comment. de
Can. Euseb. pars I. p. 4.-Lücke über den Neutestamentl. Kanon. p. 9.) I must
fortify my interpretation. Eusebius uses this expression in the same way res-
pecting Josephus' Antiquities, which had been before cited, (I. 8.) tavta μèv
οὖν ἐν τῇ δηλωθείση γραφή, and likewise (I. 9) κατὰ τὴν δηλωθεῖσαν αὐτοῦ γρα-
; and further on, (II. 7.) after speaking of Philo's book, Teoì Biov demonti-
κου, he says at the end : “ This may be seen ἐκ τῆς δηλωθεῖσας τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἱστο
ρίας. (IV. 14.) ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ γραφή. (V. 4.) ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ γραφή. (ΙΙΙ. 35.)
τὸν δηλωθέντα τρόπον. (IV. 1.) ο δηλωθείς ἐπίσκοπος, &c.
2 Comment. in Joan. To. 13. Vol. IV. p. 226. He asks Heracleon, who had
quoted the κήρυγμα Πέτρου : πότερόν ποτε γνήσιόν ἐστιν, ἢ νόθον, ἢ μικτόν ?
80
WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION,
Eusebius pays deference to the usus loquendi, in the expressions yun-
στον οι ὁμολογούμενον and νόθον: for the middle member of the di-
vision, he selects avrileyouevov. According to the custom of profane
αντιλεγόμενον.
critics, Eusebius recognizes only three gradations or classes. Re-
specting these, no doubt would ever have arisen, were he not chargeable
soon after with confusion in his language or in his sense. Let us first,
however, examine the Catalogue, before we meddle with its termination.
He distributes all the books, then, which really belong to the Apos-
tles, or have been aspirants to the honor, under three titles: opokojov-
ueva, acknowledged; avrikszóμeva, against which doubts are preva-
lent; voa, which make unfounded pretensions to be ranked among
the apostolical works, or rather are ranked by the ignorant among them.
In the first division of the Homologoumena, he includes the four
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, the first of
John and Peter. To these, he further says, may be added, if thought
fit, the Apocalypse.
εν
In the second division, the disputed books, he classes the Epistle of
James, of Jude, the 2d of Peter, and the 2d and 3d of John.
To the third division, he assigns the Acta Pauli, the Shepherd, Pe-
ter's Apocalypse, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Instructions of the
Apostles. Here too, he adds, John's Apocalypse may be inserted by
any one who thinks fit; for some reject it, others place it among the
acknowledged books. Some have reckoned the Gospel of the Hebrews
also among these, and it is most ardently revered by converts from
Judaism.
Let us now examine each class in its order, and consider attentively
each of the writers' expressions.
The ouoloɣovueva are writings that are really authentic, not coun-
terfeit, ἀληθεῖς καὶ ἄπλαστοι, and as he expresses himself in passing
to this passage, the genuine writings, yvnoiai roagai, of those authors,
whose names they bear, writings respecting which the ancients had no
doubt, (III. 24.) and which the fathers of old have quoted in their
works as undoubted: οἷς οἱ πάλαι πρεσβύτεροι ὡς ἀναμφίλεκτοις,
ἐν τοῖς σφῶν αὐτῶν κατακέχρηνται συγγράμμασι. (ΙΙΙ. 3.)
oi
The avrileyóμeva are writings known to most men in the ministry,
παρὰ πλεῖστοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικών, and by many regarded as genu-
ine, yvwqua пodhoïs. (III. 25.)¹ Their want of historical evidence
prevents their being universally acknowledged; for they have been
mentioned by but few of the old fathers in their works: ou rolloi tŵv
Tatav avrov uvnμóvevoαv. (II. 23.) As respects church-usage,
they were in most churches publicly read like other sacred books; metà
τῶν λοιπῶν ἐν πλεῖσταις ΔΕΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΜΕΝΑ ἐκκλησίαις (ΙΙ.
23.)—ἐν πλείσταις ἐκκλησίαις παρὰ πολλοῖς ΔΕΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΜΕ
NĂ. (III. 31.)
The vova are writings which are not to be entirely discarded, which
were written by good men from good motives, but from their titles are
likely to mislead people to regard them as apostolical works, to which
1 This signification is affixed to the expression yvoquos in Eusebius, III. 38.
where he says of the 2d Epistle of Clement: οὐ μὴν ἔθ' ὁμοίως τῇ προτέρᾳ καὶ
ταύτην γνώριμον ἐπιστάμεθα.
AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON.
81
prerogative they have not so much as a doubtful claim; e. g. the Acta
Pauli, Apocalypsis Petri, Doctrinae Apostolorum, &c. That this is
the meaning of the historian, we see in the sequel, where he carefully
distinguishes them from writings of heretics, under the name of Apos-
tles, such as the Gospel of Peter, and of Thomas, the Acts of Andrew
and John, and declares that the last are far from meriting a rank ¿v toîs
vóvois, and do not merit any classification, but are to be utterly reject-
ed as presumptuous and impious stuff. Here we have a species of
Christian literature, for which profane criticism has no peculiar denom-
ination; and hence Eusebius found no place in his catalogue for books
written by the heretics.¹
ν
We may now pass to some particular observations on the expressions
of the historian. In the first class he names without any limitation the
Epistles of Paul, and passes over in silence the disputes which have
arisen respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet this fact did not es-
cape the knowledge of the historian; for he elsewhere uses these
words: "Fourteen Epistles of Paul are widely known and indubitable;
yet it is to be remembered that some, tivés, have rejected the Epistle to
the Hebrews, under the pretext that the church at Rome does not ac-
knowledge it as one of Paul's writings." (III. 3.)
These some cannot have been Romans, as the whole church at Rome
rejected it. The expression is much too limited, however, to admit of
its denoting the Western Christians generally. Greeks were intended;
but as we may see from the observation prefixed, " Fourteen Epistles
of Paul are widely known and indubitable," these some had no influ-
ence upon the opinion of the oriental and Greek churches. They were
but individuals, and so insignificant, that the historian thought them
not worthy of mention where he treated expressly of the canon.
""
6.6
Further, he places the Apocalypse in both the first and last class;
each time with the words "whoever thinks fit,' for," he adds, "some
reject it, others class it under the oμoloyovμeva." Thus it more pro-
perly belonged to the second class, among the disputed writings. But
the matter had not come to such a pass that the controversy could be
laid aside, and the book classed among the disputed books, until a fu-
ture generation should decide "sine ira et studio."
For the contest,
as Eusebius asserts elsewhere, was still kept up with zeal on both sides :
ἐφ' ἑκάτερον ἔτι νῦν παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς περιέλκεται ἡ δόξα. (Η. Ε. III.
24.) But how could one party decide that it was generally acknowl-
edged, a decision which could proceed only from all? Certainly they
n
1 Hitherto Eusebius has carefully kept the various classes distinct and free
from confusion. Yet it has been inferred from what he says of James' Epistle :
ἰστέον δὲ ὡς νοθεύεται μὲν (ΙΙ. 23), that he confounds the νόθα and ἀντιλεγόμε
να
But νοθεύεται does not mean νόθον ἐστί, but νόθον νομίζεται ὑπό τινων,
which is equivalent to avrikeyɛrai. See Eustath. in Odyss. v. p. 1948. Ed.
Rom : ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι κατὰ τὴν τῶν παλαιῶν ἱστορίαν Αριστάρχος καὶ Αριστοφάνης,
οἱ κορυφαῖοι τῶν τότε γραμματικῶν, εἰς τὸ ὡς ἐῤῥήθη, ἀσπασίοιο—ἱκύντο : Od.
ψ. 306, περατοῦσι τὴν Ὀδυσσείαν, τὰ ἐφεξῆς ἕως τελοῦς νοθεύοντες. οἱ δὲ τοιοῦτοι
πολλὰ τῶν καιριωτάτων περικόπτουσι, ὡς φασιν οἱ αὐτοῖς ἀντιπίπτοντες.
Scholia Codd. 15 and 37, on the Epistle of James, are relevant here, and like-
wise a similar one in Matthæi, which say in respect to the title: ioréov µèv,
ὡς τινες νοθεύουσι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ταύτην, κ. τ. λ.
The
11
82
WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION,
could not and hence it must have been the case that the Apocalypse
had been previously ranked among the Homologoumena, and its posi-
tion had been menaced by recent attacks; so that its supporters insist-
ed upon this general acknowledgement, while its assailants disregarded
it. Thus the matter really stood. Till the time of Nepos of Arsinoe,
about the middle of the 3d century, it was universally revered as one
of the Apostle's writings. In the IId. part, we have carefully and fully
discussed the history of this book. The opponents of the Millennium,
which Nepos defended from the Apocalypse, sought to rob him of this
book, hoping in this way to disarm him, and ascribed its authorship to
the heretic Cerinthus. Dionysius of Alexandria, who brought the con-
troversy under his own cognisance, disapproved the bold position of the
latter, but disarmed the Nepotians by an intermediate opinion. This
was, that the Apocalypse was written by John; not however the
Apostle, but the Presbyter, whose grave was shown at Ephesus, near
that of the Apostle. This supposition, set forth with several arguments,
found currency among the Asiatics. It is elsewhere particularly men-
tioned by Eusebius. After speaking of the graves of the two Johns at
Ephesus, he adds, "it is of consequence to pay attention to this; for if
the first John be not acknowledged as author of the Apocalypse which
goes under his name, we must attribute it to the second." (H. E. III.
39.) Then its place would certainly be among the voda, or writings
of good men, erroneously numbered among the Apostolical productions.
He introduces also into the third class, the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Among these, says he, some have numbered the Gospel of the He-
brews, which is in special favor with those who have seceded from Ju-
daism." The converts from Judaism were more especially pleased with
it, and are distinguished from the some who are mentioned. The latter
were not then Jewish Christians, but other members of the churches of
Asia.
66
Yet the passage contains a difficulty, which directly involves the main
question. Eusebius does indeed speak of the Gospel of the Hebrews
in the third class, the vóa; but immediately preceding are these
words respecting the Apocalypse: "Some reject it, others place it
among the acknowledged." Now when he proceeds: "Among these
some reckon the Gospel to the Hebrews also," we may understand by
these, either the acknowledged writings, ouoloyouueva, or those of the
third class, voda. The difference between the two positions is materi-
al, and we cannot at first blush perceive any reason for a decision in
favor of either.
νόθα.
ενα,
Yet it would seem, that when the object is to make divisions into
classes, the title of the class must be intended for the things ranged un-
der it, and not a minor clause, which has accidentally got into the con-
nexion. Besides, the words καὶ πρὸς τούτοις, ἔτι τε, ἤδη δ' ἐν τού
τοις, all refer back to the title of the class ἐν τοῖς νόθοις. And fur-
ther, it is to be remembered, that the rivés, (some,) could not in this case
set up their opinion as a general acknowledgment, any more than in the
case of the Apocalypse; and this acknowledgment was absolutely re-
quisite to give it a place in the first class. And if the general opinion
had been in favor of it, and the some could appeal with reason to its
general reception in answer to the opposing party, Eusebius would have
AUTOGRAPHS AND CANON.
83
proceeded as he did with the Apocalypse, and have inserted this Gospel
under both classes.
>
ντ
Had the historian concluded his account of the Canon here, we should
find no difficulty in his general division. But now, after having clearly
distinguished the άvrihejóμeva and vóa from each other, he concludes
thus: All these belong to the disputed writings, zavra pèv návia row
αῦτα πάντα τῶν
åvtikejoµévovv äv sin. Thus he annihilates the proposed division, and
falls into another which confounds its two last members.
Further on we first meet with a clear exhibition of this division. In
concluding his account of the age of the Apostles and their history, he
mentions their writings once more in these words: "So much has come
to our knowledge respecting themselves and the sacred Scriptures
which they left behind them, and also respecting the disputed writings,
avriλeyoμévæv, from which we have distinguished the wholly spurious,
zavrelos vodu, which deviate from the Apostolic doctrines." (III. 31.)
Here the voa are those which deviate from pure doctrine; while, on
the contrary, in the former division, such writings the dinous ogo-
δοξίας απάγουσαι, were not so much as deemed worthy of the third
class, did not deserve even to be called νόθα; οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς νόθοις αυ
τὰ κατατακτέον.
αν ντ
ول)
Ο
When the heretical books, constituting a species of Christian litera-
ture which in profane criticism had no name or class, were notwith-
standing introduced into one of these classes, the consequence of this
erroneous proceeding was, that the genuine works of Christian writers
were thrust forward into a better class, the Antilegomena; and thus
two classes were thrown into one. This mode of division the historian
wished to notice, and very injudiciously patched it on as the conclusion
of his main passage respecting the Canon.
By a gross blunder, a third division is obscurely presented in III.
25; or rather, it was at first regarded as the principal division and
then lost sight of It is the division into ἐνδιαθήκους and οὐκ ἐν-
dianzovs, books belonging to the Testament, and books not belong-
ing to it.
He commences with the promise to notice the writings of
the New Testament, τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης; but he soon wanders from
his aim, and adds the arrhɛzóμeva and vóðu. Afterwards he recol-
lects his first proposal, and excuses himself by saying, that he felt it
necessary to enumerate the latter, though they did not belong to the
New Testament. Had Eusebius used the requisite precision, he would
first have distinguished the ἐνδιαθήκους and the οὐκ ἐνδιαθήκους ; and
then have subdivided the latter into αντιλεγόμενας and νόθας γραφάς.
He would then have observed that there was also a division, according
to which the heretical writings composed the third class, and the wri-
tings of orthodox fathers were elevated to a place among the doubtful
Apostolical productions. For, plainly, he has referred to three wholly
distinct divisions, which he found already made, and which he has con-
founded instead of explaining.
Hence, so long as we proceed in the explanation of this remarkable
passage, upon the supposition that our aim must be to make these three
classifications harmonize, or to throw light upon one from the other, we
may employ ourselves forever without success.
84
WRITING-MATERIALS, PUBLICATION, ETC.
21.
Such, nearly, was the state of things previously to the great Nicene
Council; for it was before this that Eusebius wrote his church-history.
Not long after this convention of the Christian ministry, the public
opinion was turned in favor of the books which the historian numbered
among the avriksyoueva; so much so, indeed, that the catalogues of
Africa, Asia, and the western churches, overlooking this distinction as
not existing, place them upon a level with the acknowledged Scriptures,
and present different classifications. In respect to the Apocalypse a-
lone, the favorite opinion of the Asiatics was yet too recent for them to
desire or to be able to give it up immediately.
1
112
Cyril of Jerusalem enjoins it upon his disciples to read only the duo-
λογούμενα, leaving wholly untouched the αμφιβαλλόμενα and απόκρυ
qa. In naming what parts of the New Testament should be read, he
enumerates the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen Epistles of
Paul, and seven Catholic Epistles; concluding with the repeated injunc-
tion: "only these should be read.' He does indeed still make use
of the old terms of classification, but he admits under the ouoloyovμε-
va, which alone were to be read, the avrikeyóueva of Eusebius, and
omits the Apocalypse, according to the custom of many Asiatics of that
period. Gregory Nazianzen expresses himself nearly in the same way
in his Iambics;3 as also the celebrated and much disputed Laodicean
Canon.4 Amphilochius alone recurs again to the old representation.5
Athanasius divides the books which, with various grounds of preten-
sions, aspired to canonical authority, into three classes; into xavovó-
μɛva, really canonical writings, among which he reckons the Four Gos-
pels, the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen Pauline and seven Catholic Epis-
tles, and the Apocalypse; avayevwozóueva, which are by consent read
in the church, e. g. the Instructions of the Apostles and the Shepherd ;
and lastly, άnózouga, under which term were comprehended all those
writings which were forged under authoritative names or were otherwise
of spurious origin. 6
The Latins proceeded nearly in the same manner, according to the
statement of Rufinus. They made three classes.
The first compre-
hended the Libros Canonicos; the second those which were read with
them, as the Shepherd and the Judicium Petri, which were called Ec-
clesiastici. The rest they too called Apocryphos."
Whence now this change? The testimony of the fathers of preced-
ing centuries on this subject always continued the same as far as de-
pended on these, there could be no change. The solution can be given
only by the events of the period. True, the great Synod passed no or-
1 Cyril. Cateches. IV. §33.
2 Cyril. 1. c. §36.
3 Gregory Nazianz. Opp. T. II. p. 98.
4 Spittler's "Kritische Untersuchung des 60sten Laodicenischen Kanons."
Bremen. 1777.
5 Inter Opp. Greg. Nazianz. T. II. p. 190.
6 Fragment. Epistolae Festal.
7 Ruffin. Exposit. in Symbol. Apost. c. 37. 38.
HISTORY OF THE TEXT. FIRST PERIOD.
85
dinance or decree, to which this remarkable change can be ascribed;
but the first convocation of teachers from all parts of the world, and
the numerous councils which immediately followed it, afforded easy con-
ference as to church-usages and ancient traditional regulations in re-
spect to the Sacred Scriptures, as these usages and regulations had been
preserved in the most distant parts of the Christian world. From mu-
tual communication and comparison of usages, new and formerly un-
known grounds of decision respecting the Canon might be obtained.
In this way, notwithstanding the deficiency of testimony in the writings
of the ancient fathers, and the doubt thence arising in regard to some
of the Catholic Epistles, a satisfactory assurance might be obtained, by
means of the evidence of traditional opinion and church-usage. The
change which rapidly succeeded, its universality and uniformity in A-
sia, Africa and Europe, the period at which it happened, all point to this
cause as the only one to which it can be attributed.
What degree of weight is to be accorded to the evidence of ancient
usage and traditional public opinion, can be better determined by law-
yers than theologians, for the latter ascribe different degrees of impor-
tance to them according to their respective creeds.
CHAPTER IV.
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
$ 22.
FIRST PERIOD.
The fate which has befallen other works of antiquity, befel the New
'Testament likewise; the carelessness of the librarii caused errors in
the transcripts, which gradually spread into a great number of copies.
But this is not all; the New Testament has had the peculiar fate of
suffering more by intentional alterations than the works of profane liter-
ature. It is inconceivable, when we reflect upon the reverence with
which these writings were received, and the reputation of sanctity
which they possessed, that such a thing could have happened; and yet
it did, and the heretics, to whom it would perhaps be attributed, had no
share in it.
There are indeed but few of them, to whom the orthodox fathers im-
pute so malicious an act. And to these was opposed an uncommon vi-
gilance in keeping their copies from the hands of the orthodox, and a
general and powerful prejudice against them, over which such attempts,
if made, could meet with little success. When a single trace of their
criminality had been discovered, they were no longer allowed that jus-
tice which was their due; they were not trusted even when they were
innocent. Marcion was often charged with wilful alterations of passa-
ges, which were read exactly so by some of the fathers, and are found
thus in contemporary teachers of the dominant party.
86
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
Nevertheless, we meet with such phenomena in the New Testament
at a very early period as contravene all our expectations. If we adopt,
as our terminus comparationis, the unanimous text of several hundred
manuscripts, which have reached our time, or that of the versions of the
fourth century and of the writers who then and afterwards cite the New
Testament, and compare with it the citations of the oldest fathers till
the middle of the third century, we cannot deny that strange things had
happened in individual MSS. even at this early period.
To give some proof of this beforehand, we will select a few cita-
tions from the writings of a father, who adorned this early period with
his learning. I mean Clement of Alexandria, who complains within his
days, of men who had made alterations in the Gospels, rav μeraridev-
τῶν
των τὰ εὐαγγέλια. He supports his charge by the following example,
which probably occurred in some MSS. after Matt. 5: 9; at least he has
cited it in this connexion : μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς δικαιο-
σύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι καὶ μακάριοι οἱ δεδιωγμένοι ἕνεκα ἐ-
μοῦ ὅτι ἕξουσι τόπον, ὅπου οὐ διωχθήσονται. 1
τα
Yet the MS. which he followed had several, if not so gross, yet im-
portant deviations. Among others he appeals to the following words of
our Saviour: αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν προστεθήσεται,
καὶ αἰτεῖτε τὰ ἐπουράνια, καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια ὑμῖν προστεθήσεται. Το
leave no doubt in what connexion he read this, he refers to the same
words in another place, where they occur in connexion with Matt.
6: 32, 33.2
In the passage, Matt. 10: 42, Clement read notηotov чvxqov üdaroș,
and immediately after, instead of the words: απωλέσῃ τὸν μισθὸν αὐτ
av-
τοῦ, ἀπολῆται ὁ μισθός αὐτοῦ. There is but a single one in all our
stock of MSS. which contains this reading.
o
3
δ
A similar case occurs in Matt. 23:27, οἵτινες ἔξωθεν μὲν φαίνονται
ὡραῖοι, which Clement gives thus : έξωθεν ὁ τάφος φαίνεται ὡραῖος
ἔσωθεν δὲ γέμει4 And Matt. 25: 41, εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον, τὸ ἡτοι-
uaouévoy, which is quoted in Clement, and also in Justin Martyr thus:
εἰς τὸ πῦρ αἰώνιον ὁ ἡτοίμασεν ὁ πατήρ μου.5 Of all the ancient
MSS. there is only the one before mentioned, which coincides with
these peculiarities.
Several such variations as these are observable in this writer; nor is
he the only one who deviates from the text in this way. He has respec-
table and illustrious predecessors in this matter, such as Irenaeus, Justin
Martyr, (as we have just seen in one instance,) and others, to whom
the same observation is applicable, as we might soon be convinced by
proofs.
We cease to be surprised at these facts, when we find Origen, at the
close of this period, expressing himself as follows respecting the condi-
tion of the Gospels. "It might appear wrong" (he is speaking of Matt.
1 Lib. IV. Strom. c. 6. near the end.
2 Lib. I. Strom. c. 24. Origenes, De Orat. c. 2.
3 Quis dives salvetur, c. 31.
4 Paedagog. Lib. III. Edit. Sylburg et Heins. p. 241. Edit. Venet. Tom. I.
p. 282.
5 Cohortat, ad Gent. c. 9. Justin. Dialog. cum Tryphon. c. 76.
FIRST PERIOD.
87
19: 19 : ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον,) “ to assert that these words are inter-
polated here, were it not that there is such a difference in many other
places between the copies of the Gospels, that neither those of Matthew
nor those of the other Evangelists agree together. The difference in
MSS. has now," he proceeds," become really great, both from the care-
lessness of copyists, and also from the arbitrary conduct of those to
whom is entrusted the correction of the copies; and further from emen-
dations, additions and omissions, made by many according to their own
judgment. In the copies of the Old Testament, indeed, we have, by
the help of God, remedied this confusion,
and have marked
with an obelisk in the Septuagint what was wanting in the Hebrew, as
we did not venture to reject it wholly; other passages we have added
with an asterisk."1
The ancients called the text of the Septuagint of the first period, the
xoivý exdonis or vulgaris editio,2 in which the private judgment and
good pleasure of every reader and copyist assumed such unlimited scope,
that finally stern necessity occasioned a revision of the text in various
countries.
The expression is borrowed from the Alexandrian critics, by whom
particularly the expressions κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, κοινὴ ἀνάγνωσις, often only
κοινή, and also δημοτικὴ ἔκδοσις, were used respecting the old unre-
vised text of Homer, in contradistinction from the amended editions,
dogodiosis, of Aristarchus, Zenodotus, and others.3 When the Version
of the LXX had reached a state like that of the old Homeric text, the
same critical denomination was applied to it likewise, in reference to
Origen's revision.4 Jerome made use of this term to designate the
earlier corrupt text of the Latin versions of the Old and New Testa-
ments, and renders zový by communis, and dηuotinn endoois by vul-
δημοτικὴ ἔκδοσις
gata editio.5
After shewing that the New Testament Scriptures were in a condi-
tion similar to the ancient state of Homer's works, or the Version of the
LXX, we shall be justified in denominating this its condition until
the revision which took place in the third century, the period of the
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις.
•
1 Καὶ εἰ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγρα
φῶν, ὥστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαῖον μὴ συνάδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ
εὐαγγέλια. νῦν δὲ δηλονότι ἡ τῶν ἀντιγραφῶν διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥαθυμίας
τινών γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινών μοχθηρὰς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων,
εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων, ἢ ἀφαιρούν
των. Τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγραφοῖς τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν θεοῦ δι
δύντος είρομεν ιασάσθαι.
In Matt. Tom. XV. Vol. III. Ed. Ruei. p. 671.
•
or Ed. Huetii Colon. p. 381.
2 Hieronym. Ep. CVI. n. e. Ad Suniam et Fretellam.
ter utramque, quod nowý pro locis et temporibus, et pro
vetus corrupta editio est.
"Sed hoc interest in-
voluntate scriptorum
3 Schol. in II. B. 53. Ed. Wassenberg. Franeck. 1783. Schol. Ambrosian. in
Odyss. K. 74. Ed. Maii. Schol. Marcian. Villoison in Il. B. 169. P. 214. X. 468.
P. 344.
4 Hieron. ad Sun. et Fret. § 2. "Quam Origines et Caesariensis Eusebius,
omnesque Graeciae tractatores, xownv, id est communem appellant atque vul
gatam.'
5 Hieron. L. cit. et Comment. in Matt. 13: 35. In Ep. ad Galat. 5: 24.
88
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
$ 23.
Now if we find among our literary stores any ancient MS. which de-
viates remarkably from the text of later times, and presents those read-
ings which we have just extracted from Clement-which contains not
only these and many others occurring in the writings of this father, but
the variations and peculiarities of the oldest fathers generally, down to
the third century, or at least a considerable part of them-may we not
say, that it expresses the text of the period preceding any critical labors
upon it, or in other words the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις ?
Such an one we possess in the celebrated Cambridge MS. which
contains the remarkable readings previously quoted from Clement.
This too, almost alone, presents us in its text the various readings in all
the most ancient fathers. In criticism it is called D, under which de-
signation it appears in this work.
We will first establish the fact as to its text more fully, and then offer
some remarks upon it. The former examples were taken from Mat-
thew; the following are from the Gospel of Luke.
3
"
In the account of the baptism of Jesus, after the words: This is
my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," (Luke 3: 22,) Clement
adds: ¿yw onμɛpov jejévnuá oe. . . . Justin Martyr also has this ad-
σήμερον γεγένηκά
dition. The only manuscript which contains it is D. Luke 2: 49, ovx
dεte, Irenaeus has cited in the Greek text,2 which is extant in this
passage, oux oïdare; D likewise reads thus. According to Epiphanius,
οὐκ οἴδατε;
Marcion had in his copy in Luke 5: 14, ἵνα εἰς μαρτύριον ἢ ὑμῖν τοῦτο.
The father regarded this variation as having originated with the here-
tic; yet D reads precisely thus, and we may be the more certain that it
is a genuine ancient reading, as Marcion's most zealous adversary had
it in his own copy: "Itaque adjecit (Christus), ut sit vobis in testimoni-
um sine dubio, quod testabatur, se legem non dissolvere, sed implere,"
etc.3 There is as little ground for supposing that Marcion changed the
words, (Luke S: 42.) ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑπάγειν into ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὑπάγειν ; for
D and two other ancient MSS. read thus, and, besides, the Latin trans-
lators of this time found the same reading in the copies which they
used. (Cod. Veronens. Cod. Vercell. in Blanch. Evangel. Quadr.)
According to Epiphanius, he had likewise in Luke 8: 45, instead of vis
ὁ ἁψάμενός μου, the equivalent words τις με ήψατο, exactly like D and
Origen. In Luke 9: 22, there stood in Marcion's copy, according to
Epiphanius, instead of τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ,μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας. Tertul
lian read μετὰ τὴν τρίτην ἡμέραν, between the other two readings.
In Luke 24: 37, likewise, where Marcion read qavraoua Gewoɛív, in-
stead of the difficult лvεuμa dewoɛir, agreeing with the Codex D, there
is no appearance of corruption. If the reading had been designed to
favor the doctrine of the Phantasiasts, he must have altered or suppress-
α
ντ
4
1 Clem. Paedagog. L. I. p. 92. Heinsii et Sylburg. p. 113. Venet. Justin. Dial.
cum Tryph. c. 88.
2 L. I. Advers. Haeres. c. 20. n. 2.
3 Tertullian, Lib. IV. Adv. Marcion.
4 Adv. Marcion. L. IV. c. 21.
FIRST PERIOD.
89
ed the verses following, which he has not done.¹ But we cannot spend
any more time upon the Marcionite readings, although they exhibit the
characteristics of the text of this period. Very many of them occur in
D, and no suspicion of intentional corruption can be defended.
ע
In Luke 9: 60, Irenaeus has in the Greek :2 où dè nopeudeis day-
yellɛ, with which D alone agrees; and v. 61, they again read alike :3 ¿ni-
TOYO DE NO Otov. In v.62, Clement has the following peculiar read-
ing : εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω βλέπων καὶ ἐπιβάλων τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπ' ἄροτ-
oov, which occurs in no MS. but D. Justin Martyr adds, after the words:
ὁ ἀθετῶν ὑμᾶς, ἐμὲ ἀθετεῖ, (Luke 10: 16) the words: ὁ δὲ ἐμοῦ ἀκού
ων, ἀκούει τοῦ ἀποστείλαντός με, as in Hippolytus and in D.5
α
4
기
​Et si
Luke
12: 11 Clement has quoted thus: ὅταν δὲ φέρουσιν εἰς τάς, and μὴ
προμεριμνᾶτε; the ἢ τί, however, before απολογήσησθε, he has omit-
ted-exactly as in D. The passage, Luke 12: 27 : πῶς αὐξάνει οὐ
κοπιᾷ, οὐδὲ νήθει, he gives thus : πῶς οὔτε νήθει, οὔτε ὑφαίνει ex-
actly as it occurs in D alone. This MS. in Luke 12: 48, instead of:
περισσότερον αἰτήσουσιν αὐτόν, has the words: πλέον απαιτήσουσιν
auróv. From a free citation by Justin, we perceive that his text con-
tained this variation; for he uses néov añaitedŋoeral, in which Cle-
ment coincides with him.8 Instead of: v ty devτéoa xai in roizy qu
haxy, (Luke 12: 38.) the Latin translator of Irenaeus reads:
venerit in vespertina vigilia :"9 we find the Greek exactly so in Marcion
and in D : τῇ ἑσπερινῇ φυλακή. In Justin there occurs instead of oi
ἐργάται τῆς ἀδικίας (Luke 13: 27.), ἐργάται ἀνομίας : so also in the
second epistle of Clement of Rome, (if indeed it be his,)10 and in the
Codex D. Clement of Alexandria omits vлó Tivos after zindys, (Luke
14: 8.) and v. 10, for πορευθεὶς ἀναπέσαι εἰς ἔσχατον τόπον, he reads :
εἰς τόν ἔσχατον τόπον ἀνάπιπτε. Soon after (v. 16.) he says deînvov
μέγαν 11
Mayav. All this we find exactly so in D. In Luke 19: 5, onμεoov
yao iv to oxo is expressed by Irenaeus, in the Greek fragments of his
writings, 12 thus: ori onμegov ev tai oix, which appears in no MS.
but D. Clement says for τῷ ἔχοντι δοθήσεται, (Luke 19: 26.) τῷ ἔχ
οντι προστιθήσεται,13 and D, προστίθεται. They alone exchange
didaμ here for лоооτiðημe. In Luke 23: 46. MS. D and Justin Mar-
tyrl4 resemble each other in the words παρατίθημι and παρατίθεμαι.
1 Tertull. L. IV. Adv. Marc. c. 42. 43. De carne Christi, c. 5.
2 L. I. Adv. Haer. c. 8. n. 3.
3 Iren. loc. cit.
4 L. VII. Strom. c. 16.
5 Justin. Apol. Major. c. 16. Hippolyt. de Charismat. c. 26. The Latin ver-
sion of Irenaeus: Praef. ad Lib. III. Adv. Haeres.
6 Strom. L. IV. c. 9.
7 Paedagog. L. II. Sylb. 198. Venet. 231.
8 Justin. Apol. Maj. c. 17. Clem. Strom. L. II. c. ult.
9 L. V. Adv. Haeres. c. 34. n. 2.
10 Justin. Apol. Maj. c. 16. Clem. Rom. Ep. II. c. 4.
11 Paedagog. L. II. p. 141. Sylburg. and 165. Ed. Venet.
12 L. I. c. VIII. n. 3.
13 Strom. L. VII. c. 10.
14 Dial. cum Tryph. c. 105.
12
90
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
If we should bring into comparison here likewise the writings of Ori-
gen which he composed before any amended text existed, we should
obtain a very great addition to the evidence for the position, that the
Cambridge MS. preserves in its peculiarities the readings of the fathers.
of the Church before the middle of the third century.
It is therefore a copy of the xown exdoois; and its condition agrees
with that picture which Origen has drawn of the text of this period, so
that our position wants nothing as respects philological evidence.
The text was circulated in this state, until finally the necessity of a
general emendation was perceived, and called forth in many places men
who devoted themselves to this meritorious occupation. From this time
the vulgaris editio gradually disappeared from the churches, from the
desks of the readers, and from the hands of private persons; and pos-
terity would have almost wholly lost it, had it not been preserved by
the obstinacy of certain countries, in which laborious search has been
made for it in later times. But we must not now proceed further in
these investigations. We will first make use of the means we have of
explaining in what way the orthodox, with perfectly honest intentions,
and with all the reverence which they had for the sacred books, could
have been the authors of such disorder in them.
$24.
The citations of the fathers would have left us very much in the dark
respecting the history of the text during this period, had there not been
preserved a MS. in which the alterations and accidents which it met
with are laid before us, so as to be easily inspected. All we have to do, in
order to delineate the rise of these alterations, is to make use of our
eyes and then put together our observations. Errors of the copyist in
writing must not be taken into account; for who could write their his-
tory? There are innumerable species of them, and there is no point of
union from which we can consider them all at once.
ἐπι
I. It was an object of the readers of the Bible to make it as intelli-
gible to themselves as possible. With this view, they often wrote, in-
stead of an unintelligible expression, one more plain above the line or
in the margin of their MS; for every body knows that this last is the
place which readers have always appropriated to themselves for their
own remarks. Such an obscure expression was, for example, to a
Greek, the word xvoos, Mark, 12: 14; the genuine Greek word, ne-
nepalaiov, capitation-tax, was therefore placed by its side. This was
afterwards introduced into the text by a transcriber, and so got into MS.
D. Some one imagined Luke 12: 36, seq. to have reference to the
day-time. Now the roirn qulaxy, according to the Greek reckoning,
was the μɛoovvxTtov; and in order to remedy the misapprehension
which might arise, he explained the expression in accordance with the
Roman custom, which divided the day in quatuor excubias, adding in
the margin, ἑσπερινῇ φυλακῇ, which afterwards crept into several
MSS. He must have been a person of some learning, who explained
the words Toianovra doyuqla in Matt. 26: 15, (which to Jews alone are
precise and intelligible,) by zoiaxovrα oτατñoαs. This love of expla-
τριακοντα στατήρας.
nation shows itself in the valuable MS. D, not merely in single words,
FIRST PERIOD.
91
1.
Ο
but even in whole clauses. E. g. Mark 10: 12, ἐὰν γινὴ ἀπολύσῃ τὸν
ἄνδρα αὐτῆς is so expressed as to be inconsistent with the customs of
the Greeks, according to which απολύειν and αποπέμπειν were used
only of the man, while απολείπειν, discedere, merely, was allowed to
the woman, she being permitted to give the απολείψεως γράμμα.
Hence the vulgaris editio altered this clause according to the Greek
customs: γυνὴ ἐὰν ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γαμήσῃ. The phrase-
ology, ζητούντες θερεῦσαί τι ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, ἵνα κατηγορ. . .
Luke 11: 54, was too foreign to be generally understood; some person
therefore substituted one more plain: ζητοῦντες ἀφορμήν τινα λαβεῖν
αὐτοῦ, ἵνα εύρωσι κατηγορήσαι αὐτοῦ. Such explanations, however,
sometimes succeeded but illi e. g. Luke 13: 11, where the oriental ex-
pression: πνεῦμα ἔχουσα ασθένειας, was forced to make way for the
infelicitous explanation: ἐν ἀσθένεια ἦν τοῦ πνεύματος. The altera-
tions which arose in the text, from the aim to render it more intelligi-
ble, are seen in great numbers in our MS. of the vulgaris editio, and
are found in cases which could present no difficulty to a reader who
could make even moderate pretensions to understanding.
II.__The many Hebraisms which constitute one peculiarity of the
New Testament could not count upon the approbation of Greek gram-
marians. Such difficult applications of words and foreign arrangement
of the parts of speech, could not but occasion criticism among a people
who were very much inclined to it, and laid great stress on purity of
diction. Hence Luke 20: 11, προσέθετο πέμψαι, πως η, was al-
tered to ἔπεμψεν, and Mark 2: 15, ἐν τῷ κατακεῖσθαι αυτόν, into κατα-
κειμένων αὐτῶν; and John 11: 33, ἐνεβριμ. τῷ πνεύμ. καὶ ἐτάραξεν
ἑαυτόν, into ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι ὡς ἐμβριμώμενος. Thus, too, the
rough Jewish construction ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐπλήρωσε πάντα τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ
εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τοῦ λαοῦ, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καπερναούμ, (Luke 7: 1.) was
exchanged for the easy Greek sentence: ὅτε ἐτέλησεν πάντα τὰ ῥήμα
τα λαλών, ἦλθεν εἰς Καφερ.
Numerous as are the cases of this kind in the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, it is nev-
ertheless true that it contains many Hebraisms which were afterwards
extirpated by those who in the third century, with similar views and
critical penetration, accomplished recensions of the text. I will pre-
sent some proofs of this important remark. The later text reads, Mark
14: 25, οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω, where D still has προσθώ πίειν Luke 12:
10, D reads : ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ, εἰς δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον οὐκ ἀφεθήσε
ται, while the later text has: αφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· τὸ δὲ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον
πνεύμα βλασφημήσαντι οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται. And John 9: 11, απήλθον
οὖν καὶ ἐνιψάμην, καὶ ἦλθον βλέπων, while the later text reads: d-
πελθὼν καὶ νιψάμενος ανέβλεψα.
III. Others labored in a different way to make the text plainer, or
to give it greater circumstantiality, writing the language of one Evan-
gelist respecting an occurrence in the margin of another. The inten-
tion was to illustrate the text in this way, but by degrees the notes final-
ly got into the text itself. This is too well known to require examples
for proof; but I will give a single one on account of its peculiar absurd-
ity. In Mark 13: 2, where our Lord speaks of the coming desolation,
and says that one stone shall not be left upon another, the κοινὴ ἔκδο-
σις proceeds : καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμέρων ἄλλος ἀναστήσεται ἄνευ χειρῶν.
92
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
The words thus joined to ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ, are evidently the sub-
stance of John 2: 19.
Further, when the Old Testament was quoted in the New rather
freely and not so as to give the complete import of the passage, readers
were in the habit of adding the very language of the prophets, or that
part of it which was wanting. E. g. Matt. 13. 14, where to the cita-
tion azon azovore, Isaiah's introduction to these words (6: 9), nодεv-
θετε, καὶ εἰπὲ τῷ λαῷ τοῦτῳ, was subjoined.
not.
T
ου
ร
α
IV. It is most probable too that the Harmonies occasioned consid-
erable corruption of the text. The method in which Tatian brought
together the four Gospels is but little known; nor is it certain whether
we really possess the plan of Ammonius through Victor Capuanus or
The xoin Exdoors sometimes contains passages in which the text
of several Evangelists is so jumbled together, that we cannot but think
it to be the artificial arrangement of some harmonist. By such com-
bination, a narration frequently obtained a minuteness of detail, which
induced some diligent reader to write it down for the sake of illustra-
tion in the margin of his New Testament. When once there, the next
transcriber of the copy did it the honor of introducing it into the text
itself. Thus I account for the remarkable form which Luke 5: 19.
has obtained in the MS. D: καὶ ἀποστεγάσαντες τοὺς κεράμους, ὅπου
ἦν, καθῆκαν τὸν κράββατον σὺν τῷ παραλυτικῷ. The αποστεγάσαν
τες is from Mark 2: 4. αποστέγασαν την στέγην. But the harmonist
joined with Mark's verb, instead of orn, the zeoάuous of Luke.
From Mark he took further nov v and zoάßßazos, and the expres-
sion za zav was borrowed from Luke. In Luke are found the words:
σὺν τῷ κλινιδίῳ but as there was a κράββατος already there, the πα-
ραλυτικός of Mark took the place of κλινίδιον, and thus arose σὺν τῷ
nagakureza, and the whole becomes as we find it in this MS. The
passage Matt. 27: 28: ἐνδύσαντες αὐτὸν, ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν καὶ χλα-
μύδα κοκκίνην περιέθηκαν αὐτῷ has been treated in a similar manner.
Mark (15: 17) has noдçúρav, Luke (23: 2), ¿ovñra; but John unites
both in ἱμάτιον πορφυρούν. (19: 2.) Mark supplied ἐνδύουσιν, which,
however, was moulded into the form of Matthew's Exdioavtes; and the
latter furnished the χλαμύδα κοκκίνην. Now the supposed harmony of
Ammonius gave this passage in the same way, according to Victor :
Et exuentes eum, induunt tunicam purpuream, et chlamydem coccin-
eam circumdederunt ei." In thus inferring from the state of the text
in particular places, that it originated out of the arrangement of some
harmonist, we are supported by other facts. The Genealogy of Mat-
thew, which in MS. D is altered according to that by Luke, betrays an
attempt of the kind to unite the two. The famous interpolation of MS.
D in Matt. 20: 28, which in respect to magnitude has not its equal,
sprang, it would seem, from such a source. Its substance seems to be
in Luke 16: 8; but it is given with peculiar freedom and in an extend-
ed form. That it stood in some connexion with other precepts of Jesus,
which were brought together on account of their similarity, is evident
from the first clause, which is not borrowed from Luke, but from some
66
1 Ammonii Alexand. Sanctor. Quatuor Evangel. Harmonia. Interpr. Victore
Episc. Capuano, c. CLXIX. Galland. Biblioth. Patr. Tom. II.
FIRST PERIOD.
93
ναι.
other source: ὑμεῖς δὲ ζητεῖτε ἐκ μικροῦ αὐξῆσαι καὶ ἐκ μείζονος ἔ-
harrov εival. From this introduction, it would seem to have been con-
nected with those discourses of our Lord in which he speaks to his
disciples respecting comparative greatness, às he did on several occa-
sions. If this be the case, it is no longer doubtful that it was taken
from some paraphrastic harmony.
V. Sometimes an individual found a passage or story in the apocry-
phal books which pleased him, and he wrote it in some suitable place
on the blank space in his copy. It only needed some ignorant librarius
to insert it in the next copy which was taken of the former. Thus was
introduced the story in Luke 6: 5: τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα
ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ, εἶπεν αὐτῷ· "Ανθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί
ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἴ, εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἰ
του νόμου.
Tov voμov. To this, probably, a passage in Justin Martyr is to be as-
cribed : ταῦτα γάρ τεκτονικὰ ἔργα εἰργάζετο, ἐν ἀνθρώποις ὢν ἀπό-
ών,
τρια και ζυγα, δια τούτων καὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης σύμβολα διδάσκων, καὶ
Evεvyn Biov. It came into his text from the Evangelium infantiae
Christi. Stroth, who attempted to derive it from the Gospel of the He-
brews, did not consider that that book commenced with the baptism of
our Lord, and thus did not contain the history of his youth.
2
I
VI. The custom of reading these books in the public assemblies,
frequently procured them an addition by a foreign hand. It was neces-
sary to divide them into stated sections for reading; these sections sep-
arated particular narratives from their connexion, causing the church-
lessons to begin too abruptly. In order to avoid this inconvenience, an
introduction was framed, which the reader wrote in the church-copies
for his own use.
In this way interpolations or smaller alterations of the
text arose in great numbers, the occasion and origin of which may be
easily discerned, if pains be only taken to examine whether the suspect-
ed passage was the beginning of an Anagnosis. I will not accumulate
examples on a point which has long since ceased to be doubtful. At
Luke 16: 19, an Anagnosis began with the words: ardownos de tis
ἦν
йу пλоúσlos. The commencement was too abrupt; therefore the words:
εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἕτεραν παραβολήν, as we find them yet in the text of D,
were prefixed to the narrative. Compare Luke 12: 2, where an Anag-
nosis began with : οὐδὲν δὲ συγκεκαλυμμένον, and observe how the κοι-
νὴ ἔκδοσις has formed an introduction from the preceding verses: ἐν
οἷς ἐπισυναχ. Another section commenced at John 14: 1, with un
ταρασσέσθω to which the formula : καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐ
zou, was prefixed. Sometimes a conclusion was affixed to a lesson,
when it seemed too abruptly broken off. One of these ends in D at
Luke 6: 10, with the words: καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱ-
ὃς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου, which is taken entirely from an-
rov
other place.
•
VII. Another species of alterations are omissions; we speak here,
however, only of those which bear the marks of intentional disfiguration.
As it was frequently the case, that glosses and explanatory marginal
annotations crept wrongfully into the text, the Diorthotae or correctors
1 Justin Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 88.
2 Repert. für bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur. I. Th.
94
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
of the MSS. often indulged suspicions in regard to such expressions
or sentences, judging of them perhaps according to their own critical
notions. They then exercised their supposed right in respect to them,
and either struck them out, or affixed marks of rejection to them. In
Matt. 13: 1, ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνη ἐξελθὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, the expression από
τns oixias appeared superfluous and merely a gloss, and therefore was
rejected from the xovn exdoois. No less useless in Matt. 22: 24, was
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις.
τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ following ἐπιγαμβρεύσει ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ. The
word έπιγαμ. includes this, and ἀναστήσει σπέρμα sufficiently confirms
it; therefore ny yvv. avr. was suppressed. In Mark 15: 24, tis ri
ἄρη is implied by the preceding βάλλοντες κλῆρον ἐπ' αὐτά; it was
therefore omitted in the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις.
VIII. Another cause very similar to the last, often gave rise to re-
jections. Synonymous expressions or phrases immediately following
one another were imperfections in Greek construction with which no
good writer would be chargeable without peculiar reasons. A reader
or corrector who judged merely as a Greek, and knew not the pecu-
liar structure and usages of the Hebrew language, would deem himself
indisputably authorized by the grammatical laws of his nation, to strike
out one of two synonymous phrases from the text as a scholion. So it
happened in Mark 8: 15, where the first of the two equivalent words
opate, ßhénete, was struck out; and Mark 11: 28, where ¿v noia ¿§ov-
σία ταῦτα ποιεῖς, and the words immediately following, καὶ τίς σοι
τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἔδωκεν, mean nearly the same thing: hence sen-
tence of rejection was passed upon the latter clause. In Luke 21: 15,
δυνήσονται ἀντειπεῖν ἢ ἀντιστῆναι,—αντειπεῖν was expressed by ἀν-
tiotyvai, and therefore was omitted. In John 10: 18, the words : aλλ'
την
ἐγω τίθημι αὐτὴν ἀπ' ἐμαυτοῦ, appeared to be contained both in the
preceding and following clauses, and were therefore omitted as tautolo-
gical.
51
n
νπ
αν
Such are the various facts which the MS. D presents to our observa-
tion, on which we may found a sketch of the fate of the text during the
period of the xoivn exdoors, and by which we may elucidate that part
of its history which the torch of criticism has hitherto only feebly illu-
mined.
$ 25
Yet our idea of the xown exdoors would be very inaccurate, did we
expect to find all the corruptions to which it was exposed exhibited to-
gether in a single MS. Its lot must have been different in every prov-
ince, in every decennium, and in every house. It was not the case that
every thing which an industrious and acute or incompetent reader add-
ed to his MS., and the alterations he made in particular passages, found
their way into all the copies and were spread abroad to all places and
persons. Such scholia and alterations frequently did not pass the thresh-
old of their birth-place and perished with the MS.; while on the other
hand, others were extended further by means of copies, and in other
hands received fresh additions. What Jerome says of the condition of
the Septuagint, is applicable here: "xown pro locis et temporibus et
pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta est." Though we have drawn
FIRST PERIOD.
95
τὴν
3
the various classes of corruptions from D, yet we must not expect to
find in this MS. all the particular cases which may be arranged under
them. Other copies had many, which we seek in vain in this. Ire-
naeus, for example, read in his copy for inì tỷv yñv, in Matt. 10: 29, the
words eis inv nayida. He comments expressly upon it: "Si quis, quod
dictum est. . . . enumerare voluerit captos ubique passeres . . . et cau-
sam requirere, ob quam heri tanti, . . . hodie iterum tanti capti sint,"
&c.¹ This reading occurs frequently in Origen also, and in other wri-
ters; but it is wanting in the MS. D. Justin has quoted Matt. 19: 17,
as follows : εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν οὐρανοῖς; Irenaeus also read
it in his copy: o narǹo̟ ¿v roîs ovgavois, &c. The passage Matt. 7:
22, appears still more remarkable, as Justin read it: nolloi čovói μou
κύριε, ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐφάγομεν, καὶ ἐπίομεν, καὶ δυνάμεις ἐποιήσα-
μεv. It appears, also, in a similar form in Origen, in his second book
against Celsus, c. 46, and in other places. Clement found the passage
Matt. 10: 26, in his copy thus: οὐδὲν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φανερωθήσεται,
οὐδὲ κεκαλυμμένον, ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται;5 as also Origen has quot-
ed it, towards the close of his 16th Homily on Jeremiah. So different
were the copies of this period, that the Codex D, prolific in corruptions
as it is, gives us but a very imperfect idea of the xour exdoois as it ex-
isted even in any one region.
4
πατ
Ӧ
-
On the margin of the Philoxenian version, there are occasionally
found fragments of a manuscript which Thomas of Charkel saw in the
monastery of St. Antonius at Alexandria, and from which he inserted
particular readings upon the margin of this version; but he did this in
the Gospels too rarely to permit us to learn much in regard to them.
That the MS. was remarkably rich in such variations, we perceive from
the fact that he found in it the grossest and most striking which has yet
been discovered, viz. Matt. 20: 28, ὑμεῖς δὲ ζητεῖτε ἐκ μικροῦ αὐξήσαι,
x. t. λ.
Besides this remarkable passage, in which his Alexandrian MS.
agrees with D, he has communicated to us still others. He and D have
in common the addition in Mark 4: 9, xai o ovviáv ovviέrw; they also
resemble each other in the reading, Luke 12: 1, nollar de pvoiad w v
συναχθεισῶν κύκλῳ, and πολλῶν δὲ ὄχλων συνπεριεχόντων κύκλῳ.
The Philoxenian margin has too, in Luke 11: 53, where D inserts the
words, ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ after πρὸς αὐτούς, the same interpo-
lation; it has even received a fresh addition here. They both also read
in John 21: 18, ἄλλοι σε ζώσουσιν and Luke 6: 5, μόνοις τοῖς ἱερεύσιν,
&c. &c. Besides such readings, Thomas also sometimes noted in his
margin such as are wholly peculiar, which may be regarded as evi-
dence of the condition of the zoivn exdoors in other MSS. After Matt.
27: 16, λεγόμενον Βαραββάν, his margin proceeds: ὅστις διὰ στάσιν
τινὰ γενομένην ἐν τῇ πόλει καὶ φόνον ἦν βεβλημένος εἰς φυλακήν.
v eis
Luke 22: 23, αὐτῶν τὴν πονηρίαν, τὴν ὑποκρίσιν αὐτῶν. Luke 22: 18,
1 L. 2. Adv. Haer. c. 21. n. 2.
2 Dial. cum Tryph. c. 96.
3 L. 1. Adv. Haer. c. 20. n. 2.
4 Apol. Maj. c. 16. Dial. cum Tryph. c. 76.
5 L. Strom. 275. Lyeb. 223. Venet.
96
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
ἕως ὅπου καινὸν πίω αὐτὸ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. John 3: 6, γεγεν
νημένον ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ τοῦ πνεύμ. . . . John 18: 13, τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ
ἐκείνου, ἀπέστειλεν οὖν αὐτὸν δ᾽ Αννας δεδεμένον πρὸς Καϊάφαν, τὸν
ἀρχιερέα.
So impossible is it to obtain a knowledge of the xown indoors from a
single MS., that our investigations in the important relic preserved in
the library at Cambridge, rather inform us how much we have to wish
for another like it, than satisfy our inquiries. Yet since fortune willed
that but a single MS. of this kind should escape the ravages of capri-
cious time, it is well that the lot fell to this in particular, which has on-
ly become the more instructive to us from the many accidents to which
it has been exposed.
But where, in what country, was its text first formed? In Egypt, or
more particularly in Alexandria? Such is my opinion, and it seems to
me as correct as any critical position is. The MS. does indeed contain
readings of several fathers of the second and third centuries, as we have
clearly shown; but generally, in the character of the whole text, in the
constant similarity of minute readings, which, it is true, are not very
striking, but are on that account of more weight when coincident, it
approaches nearest to those copies which Clement of Alexandria made
use of in his writings, and those which Origen followed in such of his
as preceded his emendation of the text, by which he crowned his
claims to the gratitude of the Christian school. We may adduce in
confirmation of our position, the MS. from which Thomas of Char-
kel, in the monastery of the Antonians at Alexandria, transferred read-
ings to the margin of the Philoxenian version. For these reasons, I
believe the text of this MS. was originally formed in Alexandria or at
least in Egypt, before it entered upon its wanderings, and that it pre-
sents us with the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of that country.
$ 26.
We are in possession of another document of the same age, which
no longer indeed speaks to us in Greek, but yet affords us considerable
information respecting the condition of the text. We mean the old
Syriac version, the Peschito, whose origin belongs, according to the
most moderate estimate, to the third century.
In many points, in the peculiarities of trifling readings, it bears a strik-
ing resemblance to the Cambridge MS. This has long been agreed
among critics; and on this account we may spare ourselves any further
proof of the assertion. Yet nearly allied to this MS. as it is, and much
as it has of its character, it does not lose on that account its own pecu-
liar features, but pursues its course without restraint, often not agreeing
with a single MS.
This resemblance to D. frequently presents us anew with the same
appearances which we have already considered; but there is also a
multitude of novel and in general wholly peculiar readings. Yet I
have observed hardly one which is not comprehended under some one
of the species above enumerated. Plainer expressions are substituted for
obscure ones, or indefinite passages assisted in their sense by a slight
alteration or interpolation. Matt. 21: 34, for example, is rendered plain-
FIRST PERIOD.
97
ó
er by του αμπελώνος αὐτοῦ after τούς καρπούς; and Luke 12: 45, by
τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ after παιδίσκας. So Luke 9: 34, where for ἐκείνους
εἰσελθεῖν, the clause, ὅτε ἔβλεψαν Μωϋσῆν καὶ ᾿Ηλίων ἀνελθόντες εἰς
τὴν νεφ. ·
was inserted. Passages were transferred from one Gospel
into another, as in Matt. 28: 18, after zaini rns yns the words: xal
καθώς απέσταλκέ με ὁ πατήρ μου, καγω ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς, and in Luke
9: 39, after zoάsε the words: xai píšɛi tovs ódóvtas avτou &c. &c.
Some additions have also arisen from the Church-lessons, e. g. Luke 15:
11, where in the Syriac church the lesson appointed for the fifth day of
the first week in Lent commenced, was thus altered: ɛine dè avrois ad-
λιν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἀνρθωπός τις. . . Some passages were omitted also on sus-
picion that they were glosses or explanatory observations; e. g. Mark
7: 2, κοιναῖς χερσὶ τοῦτ. ἔστιν. In short, the cases which we find here
are perfectly similar to those before enumerated, and nowhere is any
other species of variation presented to our notice.
πα
On the contrary, the text of the zovǹ doors in Syria was not ex-
posed to so many accidents, as that of the MS. D. No repugnance to
Hebrew phrases and idioms is perceptible in it; for they were not
strange to the Syrian, being analogous to those of his own language.
Hence in this respect the text was more fortunate. Nor is there any
trace in it of the influence of the Apocryphal books, nor, what is rather
singular, of the harmonies even, although that of Tatian was extensive-
ly read in these countries and very long enjoyed favor and repute.
This fact is to be explained by local circumstances which operated
differently upon the text in the two countries. Literature of every
kind was always rife in Alexandria; and probably this was the birth-
place of many of the Apocryphal books. A multitude of Librarii, Di-
orthote and Grammarians were always active to the advantage or dis-
advantage of learning, and each diffused the vapours of his own eru-
dition into the surrounding atmosphere; and this perhaps contributed
not a little to the production in that populous city of the cavilling, car-
ping tone, for which it was so celebrated. It is true that Syrians at this
period frequently travelled to this city to acquire information and learn-
ing; but such persons were but individuals, while everything with
which papyrus was concerned, was collected permanently in the coun-
try which possessed the monopoly of that article. Where the business
of Emendator or Scholiast, or pretension to it, was so common, it could
not well be otherwise than that the text should be exposed to much ill
treatment which it would not meet with elsewhere.
σ
The MSS. of the xown exdoors in Syria contained, notwithstand-
ing, several important readings which we seek in vain in the Egyptian
MSS. I shall here exhibit some of them which may be regarded as
characteristic, and will enable us too, to recognise and trace to their
origin such offshoots as in process of time arose from this text. One is
in Matt. 6: 13, which is remarkable for being a variation of a different
species from any of the preceding, having sprung from the public forms.
of prayer. It is the well known addition: ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία,
καὶ ἡ δύναμις, καὶ ἡ δόξα, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Others are Matt. 20: 22,
and 23, μέλλω πίνειν—καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, ὃ ἐχω βαπτίζομαι, βαπτισθῆ
Mark 6: 11, εἰς μαρτύρ. αὐτοῖς ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀνεκτότερον
ἔσται Σοδόμοις, ἢ Γομόρροις ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως, ἢ τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ.
n
ναι.
기
​C
0
13
98
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
Mark 13: 14, τῆς ἐρεμώσεως τὸ ῥεθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου.
Luke 4: 18, απέσταλκέ με-ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρ
δίαν.
$27.
These are the two principal branches of the xown indoors of which
we still have any knowledge. Of these the Syriac did not overstep its
original bounds; while, on the other hand, the African extended itself
far into the western churches. Alexandria had long supplied the west
with Greek copies of all works of learning; and the west obtained
from the same source MSS. of the N. T.¹
When at the close of the second, or in the third century, Latin ver-
sions of the N. T. were composed in Italy and on the northern coast of
Africa, they were made from the xovn exdoors. How could it be oth-
erwise when there existed none of the recensions which originated at
the close of the third century? The agreement of these versions with
D is undeniable and striking, and not another word is necessary to
make it probable that they were derived from similar Greek copies.
Simple and historically true as is this solution of their mutual agree-
ment, and obvious as it is, yet some have been more inclined to turn
their attention to a distance, and to suppose reasons which are neither
well contrived nor natural. The Latins have been accused of altering
the Greek text according to their versions. But did they then interpo-
late the copies of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria according
to their versions? Did they have emissaries in Syria to corrupt the
Greek text and the copies of the Peschito there? Did they corrupt too
the Syriac MSS. of the Nestorians? And did they moreover alter Mar-
cion's Codex according to their views and their version? Was there
any Latin version in the time of Irenæus ? or if there were, was the
Greek text immediately altered according to it? did it become directly
the idol of the Latins?
When did the Latins begin to think so highly of their version, and
to set it up as the standard of the text? Tertullian was not aware of
any thing of this kind, when he said: "It is not in the Greek as it has now
become current with the Latins through a cunning or a silly eversion,"
(a play upon words; eversion for a wretched version.)2
As little was
Victorinus, when he said respecting Matt. 6: 11, "It is otherwise in the
Greek; but the Latins did not comprehend it, or were not able to ex-
press it."3
Hilary of Poictiers speaks unfavorably of it, and goes
1 Suetonius in Domitiano c. 20. Quanquam bibliothecas incendio absump-
tas impensissime reparare curâsset, exemplaribus undique petitis, missisque Alex-
andriam qui describerent emendarentque."
2 Tertull. de Monogam, c. 11.
3 Victorin, L. II. Contra Arian. c. 8. L. I. c. 49.
4 Hilar. Tract. in Ps. 138, n. 43. "Latina translatio, dum virtutem dicti ig-
norat, magnam intulit obscuritatem, non discernens ambigui sermonis propri-
etatem, quod enim nobiscum scribitur. cum Græcis hoc modo est. . . Comp.
Tract. in Ps. 118, Litt. He. n. 1, and De Trin. L. XI. n. 17. "Secundum latini-
tatem obscurius hoc dictum videtur (Ephes. 1: 17), quia latinitas pronominibus
non utitur, quæ græcitas usu honesto et necessario semper usurpat. Ita enim
scribitur: ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ κυρίου, κ. τ. λ.
FIRST PERIOD.
99
back himself to the Greek phraseology; as also Ambrose sometimes
appeals to the text in Greek "unde transtulerunt Latini.”4
Augustine has expressed himself on this point, particularly in his books
De Doctrina Christiana, as strongly and plainly as any more modern
writer: "Et Latinæ quidem linguæ homines, (says he, L. II. De
Doctr. Christ, c. XI.) quos nunc instruendos suscepimus, duabus aliis
ad scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus habent, Hebræa scilicet et
Græca, ut ad exemplaria præcedentia recurratur, si quam dubitationem
attulerit Latinorum interpretum varietas." "We frequently cannot
comprehend the translators, he proceeds (L. II. De Doctr. Chr. c. 14),
unless we bring to our aid the language from which they translated;
how often do they miss the sense unless they are possessed of peculiar
learning? We are, therefore, obliged to examine the original lan-
guages; linguarum illarum, ex quibus in Latinam Scriptura pervenit,
petenda cognitio est." Soon afterwards, in the same Book, 16th
chapter, he says: "libros autem novi Testamenti, si quid in Latinis
varietatibus titubat, Græcis cedere oportere dubium non est." Now, if
such were the principles of all the noted fathers of the Latin church,
by what right can it be assured that the so called Codices Latinizantes
are alterations of the text according to the Latin versions.
The opinion of Jerome on this subject is generally known; and even
the later fathers, Sedulius, Beda, and Atto of Vercelli, do not differ
from their predecessors on this point. But, while these opinions pre-
vailed, the great schism between the Greeks and Latins occurred, and
separated the two churches from each other so far, that the latter, even
if they had had the disposition, were no longer able to exert any influ-
ence over either the rites, the creed, or the MSS. of the churches
which belonged to the Greek patriarchate.
I will not however assert that the inhabitants of Magna Graecia or
of Southern Gaul, or even readers at Rome, who were acquainted with
the Greek language, did not anciently subjoin to the Greek MSS. gloss-
es, explanations, and ill-judged emendations. They might do it with
as much right as their brethren in Asia, in Peloponnesus, or Alexan-
dria. Yet our observations on the history of the text, exhibit but a
single example, (viz. Luke 12: 30, conɛgivý quλaxy,) which seems
rather to have been of Italian than pure Creek origin. But I do stead-
fastly deny that in ancient times the Greek copies were purposely, from
prejudice and excessive veneration for the Latin Version, corrupted ac-
cording to it, and the Bibles of other countries and nations interpolated
from it. Such an idea could never have been regarded with favor by
learned men, except when they forgot their learning; it is an idea
which has hitherto been the greatest hindrance to the development of
the history of the text.
If the inaccuracies of occidental copyists, as e. g. the readings, ITέ-
τρους, λεπρώσου, κατεγέλων αυτόν, found in D, are alleged by any one
as evidence of corruption by the Latins, let it be remembered that in
this discussion we have no concern with the unintentional ignorance of
copyists.
If the Latins did thus interpolate, why is it that no Greek MSS. pre-
vious to the Montfortian Codex in the fourteenth or fifteenth century,
5 Ambros. De Spirit. Sanct. L. II. c. 5. De fide. L. II. c. 4.
100
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
contain the celebrated passage of the three witnesses, I. John 5: 7,
which stands in several Latin Fathers and Bibles? It was, on account
of its doctrinal importance, at least worth the trouble of attempting
something in its favor. Now if nothing of the kind was done by the
ancients in this place, why should it have been done in other places, in
which not even the remotest prejudice in behalf of a creed or of certain
favorite opinions could operate
2
There is an important doctrinal reading of genuine Latin origin in
John 3: 6, which occurs in Tertullian thus: "quod de carne natum est,
caro est, quia ex carne natum est, et id quod de spiritu natum est, spirit-
us est, quia Deus spiritus est, et de Deo natus est."1 Yet it appears in no
Greek Codex before the twelfth century, and even then not in its whole
extent. The same Codex has several such readings of Latin origin ; yet
they were not introduced into this MS. by a Latin, but a Greek, and by
no means malá fide in order to corrupt the text. The copyist says
himself, at John 7: 29 where he has inserted such an addition, that he
borrowed it from Latin MSS; for the marginal note: εἰς τὸ Ρωμαϊκὸν
εvayyέhov тoûto εvoov is, as Birch assures us, ab ipsâ primâ manu.
Something however of the nature alleged, very naturally took place
at this period. It had become the most earnest endeavor of the Greeks
to end at once the protracted schism, to bury animosities, and to effect
a reconciliation with the Latins. They proposed to the Pope every
means of reconciliation, for the purpose of arming the entire Western
world against the East, which threatened the destruction of the Empire
of Constantinople, and of inducing it to enter upon the celebrated
crusades which would assist their sinking state. Under these cir-
cumstances, attempts of the kind which we observe in Codex Barbe-
rinus 10, were natural and are easily comprehended. It was at this
period that the Latin text obtained an influence over the copies of other
nations which criticism must wish had never been acquired. The close
connexion which the Armenian princes maintained with the crusades,
brought Haitho, king of Armenia, to a knowledge of the Latin lan-
guage and version, according to which, unfortunately, he altered and
as he thought amended the Bible of his own nation.
Now, as it is not only impossible to prove that any thing of this sort
took place in high antiquity, but the contrary rather is evinced on indis-
putable grounds, the agreement of the first Latin versions with D, or
with the MS. exhibited on Thomas of Charkel's margin, can be explain-
ed only from the fact, that these MSS. present the free text of the nouv
xdoois, and the most ancient Latin versions were made from copies of
the xovn xdoois. Hence these versions are in truth, with the excep-
tion of what Latin authors of glosses may have smuggled into them,
monuments of the most ancient text.
$28.
The Latins in their MSS. frequently placed the Greek text by the
side of their version, not in order to corrupt it, but that easy recourse
might be had, when thought necessary, to the original text. The Greek
1 Tertull. De carne Christi. c. 18. Ambros. De Spirit. Sanct. L. III. c. 11.
2 Cod. Barber. 10. in Birch Prolegom. in IV. Evangel. p. XXXIII. seq.
FIRST PERIOD.
101
text which they used, was that of the zon doois. In other coun-
tries, as soon as an amended text was obtained, the old was generally
consigned to oblivion, or to some place of deposit in which were pre-
served the labors of the ancient fathers; but not so among the Latins.
They clung tenaciously to this old edition, which was so closely related
to their versions; and regarded the recensions, two of which appeared at
nearly the same time, as innovations. Gelasius rejected these recen-
sions, and in his decree, the words of which we shall quote hereafter,
classed them among the apocryphal writings; and even Jerome, who
possessed incomparably more acquaintance with biblical literature, did
not think at all more favorably of them, as we shall see hereafter.
Hence, when this father received a commission from Damasus to
amend one of these Latin versions, which was afterwards to be prescrib-
ed for general use, he, for this purpose, made use only of such ancient
Greek MSS as did not deviate widely from the common text of the La-
tins.1 The last characteristic would have been sufficient to assure us
that they must have been such Codices as are called Latinizing among
us, even had he not used the expression ancient Greek MSS. by which
he intends to make it clear. But the word ancient further informs us,
that they were not copies of the text of the recensions, as these came
into circulation hardly eighty years before this father.
Since, then, in the days of Jerome the zon zcoous had no rival in
the West, and even towards the close of the fifth century, was confirm-
ed in its exclusive authority by a decree of Pope Gelasius, we need no
further explanation how, after its general circulation elsewhere had
ceased, it could come to us in a MS. whose age cannot reach so high
as the fifth century, or how it could have been preserved by the side of
a Latin version, in a MS. of Italian or Southern Gallic origin, such as
the Cambridge Codex.
From these observations we may predict what we have to expect in
the various Graeco-Latin MSS. now extant. Among these I know of
one remarkable Codex of the four Gospels, which has returned for a
time to deep obscurity, until it can appear in daylight in a country
which has not met with so fearful a lot as our own. I intended to have
adorned this history of the text by its aid; but the events of the last few
years have destroyed more than one hope of this kind.
$ 29.
There are also some MSS. of more recent date in our critical stock,
which accord in a peculiar manner with the Cambridge Codex and with
such (e. g. B and L) as resemble it. One of these MSS. is Wetst. I.
or Basil. VI. 27, a copy of the four Gospels of the tenth century; the
other parts of the New Testament which are bound with it, are not of
the same date. There is, besides, Wetst. 13, or Codex Reg. 2244. of
the Gospels, (also called Küsteroparisin. 6.) of the thirteenth century;
and Wetst. 69. in the library at Leicester, of the fourteenth; also Gries-
bach's 124, and a Vienna MS. Lambec. 31. of the twelfth century, con-
taining the Gospels.
•
•
collatione, sed veterum,
1 Epist. ad Damas. "Codicum Graecorum .
quae non multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent."
102
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
These MSS. were mostly written at a period in which it was possible
for the Latin version to have an influence upon the condition of
the Greek text, and, as we have seen, really had. There is there-
fore a well-grounded suspicion respecting them, that they are Codices
Latinizantes, and that the resemblance between D and them may have
been occasioned by transferring into them from the Latin Bibles, those
readings which the latter derived originally from the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις,
from which they were translated.
I. Yet there are in these MSS., viz. 1, 13, 69, 124, very ancient
readings which occur no where else. Cod. 13 and 124 read in Matt.
15: 6. ἠκυρώσατε τὸν νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ, as Ptolemy in the second centu
ry worded the passage in his Letter to Flora, n. 2. He has also given
Luke 6: 29, with the peculiar reading, oroéyov avte xai tηv äilyv,
(Ep. ad Flor. n. 4.) which is to be found only in 69 and 124. Porphy-
ry charged Matthew with ignorance for ascribing to Isaiah the citation,
Matt. 13: 35;¹ while of the MSS. now extant, only 1, 13, 33, 124, and
MS. 10, read dia Hoαïov тоù пооçτоυ. Mark 8: 31, the Peschito
διά Ησαΐου του προφήτου.
and Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. c. 76. and 100.) have given zņ
toirη nμεog avαornvaι, as do 1, 13, 69, 124. Luke 6: 36, Justin read':
οἰκτίρμονες ὡς καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος (Dial. cum Tryph. c.
96.); just so 13, 69, 124. Luke 19: 26, Marcion read: xai o donet
ἔχειν ἀρθήσεται so also Codex 69.
.1
3
0
II. They have many readings in common with Origen, which are
met with in none of the ancient and in few of the more modern MSS.
This is true especially of Codex 1, or Basil. B. VI. 27, which, besides,
on account of its antiquity, having been written in the tenth century
during the schism of the Greeks, is not liable to the charge of Latiniz-
ing; but it is true also of the others in many cases. Yet it is incumbent
on me to prove it in respect to the Basil MS. just named, in order to re-
move every possible suspicion of its Latinizing.
For this purpose
I
have selected only such readings as it alone of all the MSS. now known
contains, or has in common with only one or two MSS. of modern date.
The passages here noticed have already been taken from Origen's
works, and hence do not now need a particular citation.
C
τε
In Matt. 6: 25, the words zaì ti ninte are omitted in this Codex ;
as also by Clement of Alexandria and Justin. In Matt. 7: 28, it reads
Taνtes of ophou 8: 8, it omits o nais μov 10: 23, it reads (as also 13,
124) φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἕτεραν, καν ἐκ ταύτης διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς φεύγετε
εἰς τὴν ἄλλην 13: 36, εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ· 13: 52, ὅστις προφέρει ἐκ
τοῦ θησαυροῦ· 14: 36, ἵνα καν μόνον so also Cod. 13 and 33. In
15: 11, noivoi tov av ownov is wanting; 15: 22, it reads devos dai-
μονίζεται 16: 12, ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρτων, ἀλλ' ἀπο 16: 19, ὅσα ἂν δή-
σης · δεδεμένα . . καὶ ὅσα ἂν λύσης . . . . λελυμένα; 18: 8,
äv
βληθῆναι εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρὸς 18: 10, after ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν, ἐν
ovoavois is wanting; so also Cod. 13.-18: 17, it reads: otw ooì tò
λοιπόν 18: 25, it omits ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ; 18: 27, for τὸ δάνειον it puts
πᾶσαν τὴν ὀφειλήν ; 19: 29, for ἢ πατέρα, ἢ μητέρα it puts ἢ γονεῖς
21: 13, πεποιήκατε σπήλαιον· 22: 7, it writes ανειλε for απώλεσε; 22:
•
•
c
21
기
​1 "Evangelista vester Matthaeus tam imperitus fuit, ut diceret, 'quod scrip-
tum est per lesaiam prophetam, &c." Hieronym. Comment. in Ps. 77.
FIRST PERIOD.
103
16, πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπου; 24: 48, κύριός μου ἔρχεσθαι. All these
readings, which we have here extracted from the Gospel of Matthew,
and most of which this Codex alone contains without agreeing with any
other, occur in the works of Origen, nearly all of which were composed
before he prepared his Recension of the text. Hence they are certain-
ly ancient, and their origin falls in the time of the xoivý exdoois.
III. We meet with many of the peculiar readings of this MS. in the
Peschito: this is however more especially the case with the MSS. 13,
69, 124.
Of this we will present proof. In Matt. 14: 7, the MSS. 13
and 124 read ὤμοσεν for ὡμολόγησεν; 14: 24, ἤδε σταδίους πολλοὺς
aлd tñs yns anεiyev, 13 and 124.-16: 27, 1 and 124 have zard ra
ατά
ἔργα for κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν· 21: 26, εἶχον for ἔχουσι 22: 37. 13, 69,
124 read διανοίᾳ σου, καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ισχύϊ σου Mark 8: 29, ο Χρισ-
τὸς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ζώντος, 13, 69, 124.9: 11, πῶς οὖν λέγουσιν
13, 69, 124.9: 34, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, τίς αὐτῶν μείζων εἴη· 13, 69.-11: 13,
ἦλθεν εἰς αὐτὴν, εἰ ἄρα· 69, 124. —12: 6, ὕστερον δὲ ἔτι, for ἔτι οὖν.
13, 69, 124. 14: 64, βλασφημίας του στόματος αὐτοῦ, 13, 69, 124.
14: 67, ἰδοῦσα αὐτὸν for ἰδοῦσα τὸν Πέτρον 1, 69.15: 6, κατὰ τὴν
ἑορτὴν εἰώθει ὁ ἡγέμων ἀπολύειν. 13, 69, 124.
IV. We discover many of their peculiarities in Egypt in the The-
ban or Memphitic version, and in the Alexandrian MS. in the cloister
of the Antonians, from which Thomas of Charkel made extracts.
Hence it appears that the MSS. under consideration do not contain
a text collected from modern materials, and which has received its pre-
sent form from the blunders and caprices of later copyists united in one
disorderly mass; but that those readings which are peculiar are in part
very ancient. And though it is moreover remarkable that their text
agrees so nearly with the unusual readings of Codex D, it is rather to
be supposed, that this agreement originated in ancient times, than that
it was occasioned by the Latin versions at a period when the Latin ver-
sions which contain such readings (namely those antecedent to Jerome)
were preserved only here and there as rare copies entirely supplanted
by the dominant text.
Hence suspicion can attach itself no longer to any passages but those
which bear a striking resemblance to the Latin text of Jerome or Alcu-
in. And were I freely to concede something of this sort in respect
to those MSS. which were written at the period of the reconciliation
between the Greeks and Latins, i. e. in the twelfth century and after-
wards, as was the case with the MSS. 13, 69, and 124, there would yet
remain the general conclusion that, such passages excepted, they pre-
sent a very ancient text, nearly that of Codex D, i. e. the zowy
ἔκδοσις.
Now the reason why, long after the xown exdoois had gone out of
use, transcripts were still made from it, was, I suppose, that the libra-
rii, who knew nothing of an amended text, eagerly copied such MSS.
as were recommended by a venerable exterior and the marks of high
antiquity.
In conclusion I have further to observe, that Codex 124 harmonises
more than its companions with the old Syriac version, and with a Re-
cension which was formed from MSS. of the xown exdoors of Syria.
104
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
$ 30.
Now as the Cambridge MS. gives us a representation of the xon
Endoors of the Gospels, we may reasonably expect to find the same in
the Acts of the Apostles. And certainly its text in this book resembles
very much that of the Gospels. It deviates just as much from the usu-
al track of MSS., contains as many notes and glosses of learned and un-
learned men, and evinces everywhere that many persons have been
concerned in adding to it, and in putting it into a condition which re-
sembles any thing rather than that of a MS. which has been tested by
the rules of criticism and purified from every thing extraneous.
There is a most evident resemblance to this MS. in the Codex of
William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, which once, it is clear, be-
longed to the Venerable Bede, and is now preserved in the Bodleian
Library at Oxford. It contains the Acts of the Apostles, and bears the
mark E, among the MSS. of that book.
Of a similar character was one of those MSS. which Thomas of
Charkel found at Alexandria, in the beginning of the seventh century,
among the antiquities of the Antonian monastery, and collated upon
the margin of the Philoxenian version.
To which may be added an ancient Egyptian version, in the Theban
dialect; probably the most ancient of that country.
These four monuments present us with the zon
and the West, as respects the Acts of the Apostles.
οι
doors of Egypt
The character of the text of this period in another country, Syria, is
presented as faithfully as it could be by a single document, in the
Church-version of the Syrians, the Peschito.
This view of the Acts, is a natural deduction from that which we
have just taken of the xown Exdonis of the Gospels. The former
stands or falls according to the fate of the latter. Yet we have several
other arguments to support our position in regard to the Acts of the
Apostles.
The ancient fathers have quoted this book much less frequently than
the Gospels. These latter documents of Christianity were much
the richest in information and in materials for moral and doctrinal dis-
courses, and also for polemical purposes. For these reasons, Justin and
Theophilus of Antioch and even Clement of Alexandria have seldom
made use of the Acts of the Apostles. The same holds true also of
Origen, a very voluminous writer. Irenaeus, froin the order of his sub-
jects and the method pursued by him, was led more frequently than any
other of the ancients to this book; but unfortunately we have scarcely
the tenth part of this father's haeresiological works in their original
language. Time has destroyed the rest, and has left us, instead, only
a Latin translation. Yet we can sometimes still discover, from the con-
nexion, what he read in his copy of the Acts of the Apostles. But
this agreeable assistance is not afforded us so frequently as we could
wish or as we stand in need of it.
If we may judge from the translation, Irenaeus found in his biblical
MS. at Acts 2: 24, instead of tas códivas rov davárov, the expression
rás æðīvas tov dov. We cannot, indeed, certainly determine from
FIRST PERIOD.
105
>
3
the connexion, that the translator found it so in the original; but a
more ancient father, Polycarp, quotes the passage exactly so in his E-
pistle to the Philippians, and so it stands in D. The father's reading
of Acts 4: 31, is yet extant in the Greek, according to which his copy
had, after μετά παρρησίας, the addition :2 παντὶ τῷ θελόντι πιστεύειν,
which is read in the MS. D, and also in E. Codex E has in Acts 8:
36, after τί κωλύει με βαπτισθῆναι, the words : εἶπε δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Φίλιπ-
πος· ἐὰν πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου σωθήση. Αποκριθεὶς δὲ
εἶπε· πιστεύω εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ. Thomas of Char-
kel found something similar in his ancient Alexandrian copy; D wants
this. Now it appears from a free citation by Irenaeus, the Greek of
which is still extant, that this addition certainly existed in his copy of
the Acts: ὡς αὐτὸς εὐνοῦχος, says he, πεισθεὶς, καὶ παραυτίκα ἀξιῶν
βαπτισθῆναι, ἔλεγε πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.
In Acts 14: 10, D and another ancient MS. proceed after tn qov n
thus: σοὶ λέγω ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ανάστηθι.....
Irenaeus also read this, for he has comprised its purport in a free nar-
rative : Et iterum Lystris, et Lyciae, cum esset Paulus cum Barnaba,
a nativitate claudum in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi ambulare fe-
cisset."4
This father found too, as Semler has already remarked, in
Acts 15: 2, the addition contained in D and in the MS. of Thomas of
Charkel. At least he read one half of it: οἱ δὲ ἐληλυθότες ἀπὸ ῾Ιερου
σαλήμ (here Thomas ends) παρηγγείλατο αὐτοῖς, τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ
Βαρνάβα, και τισιν ἄλλοις, ἀναβαίνειν. This remarkable reading,
which makes Paul and Barnabas to have been sent for by the Apostles to
Jerusalem, is exhibited in part thus in the paraphrastic narrative of Ire-
naeus : Quoniam autem his, qui ad Apostolos vocaverunt eum de
quaestione, acquievit Paulos, et ascendit ad eos cum Barnaba ad Hiero-
solymam" &c.5
((
CC
In all the works of Clement, I find only two important quotations
from the Acts of the Apostles. One is from c. 10: v. 11, 12, in which
D and E, and also two other MSS. agree with him. It is the follow-
ing; καί τι σκεῦος τέτταρσιν ἀρχαῖς ἐκδεδεμένον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πάντα τὰ
τετράποδα καὶ τὰ ἑρπετὰ τῆς γῆς, καὶ τὰ πτηνὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐν αὐτ
τῷ, κ. τ. λ.
We easily see that this has several peculiarities. The
other is from Acts 16: 23--28; he quotes it in the fourth book of his
Stromata, and a part of it again in the fifth. The remarkable readings
in it are: χειρῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, in which he is accompanied by D and
another older MS; nav jévos άvdowñay, in which the MS. of Thomas
of Charkel agrees with him; and lastly Snreiv to delov, as is read in D
and the Latin text of Irenaeus. To these may be added Acts 7: 22,
where he had in his copy nãoαv tv oogíav, like Codex D,8
יע.
αν
1 Lib. III. Adv. Haer. c. 12. n. 2. Polycarp. Segm. 2.
2 Lib. III. Adv. H. c. 12. n. 5.
4 L. III. c. 12. n. 9.
3 Ibid. n. 8.
5 L. III. c. 13. n. 3. and Semler Proleg. in Epist. ad Galat. p. 50.
6 Paedagog. L. II. p. 149. Sylb. and 175. Venet.
7 Strom. L. I. c. 19. Stromat. L. v. c. 11. and 12.
8 Strom. L. I. c. 23.
14
106
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
1
Since large and express quotations from the Acts of the Apostles sel-
dom occur among the ancients, it is the more worthy of observation
that these few exhibit so many and so considerable variations, almost
exclusively peculiar to D and E and the MS. of the Antonians at Alex-
andria. The striking uniformity in remarkable readings, which ap-
pears in the few remains we have on one side, affords reasonable ground
for presuming that a like agreement would be visible, could the whole
on both sides be presented to our inspection.
$ 31.
In attempting to compose a short sketch of the history of the text of
the Acts of the Apostles from the documents enumerated above, we are
led to the following observations.
1. Expressions which were uncommon or obscure, were often ex-
changed for those which were more current or intelligible. Sometimes
a difficult clause was helped by the insertion of a word or some small
alteration.
2. Frequently such circumstances as are understood of themselves
and had been omitted from the conciseness of the style, were supplied
by an interpolation. Thus what D and the MS. of the Antonians have
added after παραγενόμενοι, in Acts 6: 22, viz. καὶ ἀνοίξαντες τὴν φυ-
haxnv, is naturally to be understood. So as to what the copy from
which the Peschito was made added in Acts 14: 2 : ἐπήγειραντα ἐθ
νῆ, ἵνα κακώσουσι τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς—καὶ ἐκάκωσαν τάς . . . . Just so,
Acts 22: 26, the clause which in D follows o éxaróvταozos, viz. öri
Ρομαῖον ἑαυτὸν λέγει, is contained in the narrative without the ad-
dition.
기
​3. Sometimes historical circumstances not contained in the text
were supplied. E. g. the Syriac nowǹ ëndoors in Acts 12: 1 distin-
guishes Ηρώδης ο βασιλεύς from several others of the same name by
adding ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος Αγρίππας. Thus the MS. of the Antonians,
Acts 12: 5, notes that Peter was not in the custody of a Roman guard,
but τns onεions rov Baoilέws. In the same chapter, v. 10, a circum-
stance is mentioned respecting the prison, which is also preserved by
tradition, viz. καὶ ἐξελθόντες—κατέβησαν τοὺς ἑπτὰ βαθμούς-προ
ήλθον ούμην . just as the passage occurs in D.
4. We must suppose that legends were very early collected respect-
ing celebrated men of the primitive times of Christianity. On this
supposition we can explain the appearance presented by the narratives
concerning Cornelius the centurion and Aquila. For the xový čudo-
κοινὴ ἔκδο-
ois gives them enlarged by circumstances which were drawn from such
accounts and noted upon the margin of the Acts, and afterwards incor-
porated by Librarii with the text. The following example respecting
Aquila is taken from D and the MS. of the Antonians at Acts 18: 27,
ἐν δὲ τῇ Εφέσῳ ἐπιδημουντές τινες Κορίνθιοι καὶ ἀκούσαντες αὐτοῦ,
παρεκάλουν συνελθεῖν σὺν αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτῶν, συγκατα-
νεύσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, οἱ ᾿Εφέσιοι ἔγραψαν τοῖς ἐν Κορίνθῳ μαθηταῖς,
ὅπως ἀποδέξωνται τὸν ἄνδρα, ὃς ἐπιδημήσας εἰς τὴν ᾿Αχαΐαν, πολύ
συνεβάλλετο ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. A similar example respecting Cor-
nelius occurs in the same two MSS. Acts 10: 24, and 11: 1.
3
FIRST PERIOD.
107
~ "
>
5. Into this book, as into the Gospels, whenever occasion offered,
passages were transferred from other biblical writings of the Old or
New Testament; but the opportunity was not so frequent as in the
Gospels. In Acts 7: 24, after rov Aiɣúntiov, the words: xai xovy-
εv Ev to aµµg are added from Exodus 2: 12. So too in D. There is
a similar case in MS. E, Acts 7: 3; Comp. Genesis 12: 1. In D there
is an addition to Acts 15: 20, borrowed from Matt. 7: 12: xai öoa µǹ
θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσθαι, ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖτε.
6. Numerous irregularities in this book arose from the church-les-
sons. We will not unnecessarily multiply proofs of this assertion; two
examples only shall suffice. A church-lesson commenced at Acts 3: 1,
and also at 5: 1; hence we find in the text of D, at the commencement
of the first of these lessons, the trite formula: v dé taîs nμépais Tav-
ταις; and the second occasioned a similar interpolation in E : ἐν αὐτῷ
δὲ τῷ καιρῷ ἀνήρ τις Ανανίας . .
Such briefly are the various species of corruptions; but the number
of particular instances comprehended under them is incomparably
greater in this book than in either of the Evangelists. Many of them,
too, are of such extent that the MSS. of the Gospels can show nothing
like them, excepting perhaps the well known passage, Matt. 20: 28.
Hence the Acts of the Apostles, in reality, suffered in the period of
which we are treating more than any other book in all the New Tes-
tament.
It was least disfigured in Syria; at all events the Peschito, which is
at present the only standard we have by which to judge, does not con-
tain so many or so extensive variations as we find elsewhere. The few
dangerous circumstances which it had to encounter in Syria, on which
we have before remarked, (§ 26.) afford us a satisfactory explanation of
the mild fate of this book in that country.
But the fate experienced by the Acts of the Apostles in Egypt, and
particularly the city which was its capital at that period, was different
and much more severe. Yet the MSS. which originated there, were
not all exposed to the same injuries; there is such a difference in their
condition, as we should expect from a period in which every individual
heedlessly added glosses to his Codex.
The Cod. Laud. or E, contains a purer text of the Acts than D. In
the former variations are frequently found which exist in a more en-
larged state in D. Ε. g. after οὐ δυνήσεσθε καταλύσαι αυτούς, in
ου
Acts 5: 39, E adds: ovre vµɛis ovte oi äoxovies vµœv; this addition
D extends thus : οὔτε ὑμεῖς, οὔτε οἱ βασιλεῖς, οὔτε τύραννοι, απέχεσ
θε οὖν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων, μήποτε . . . . and in Acts 13: 43,
after χάριτι τοῦ Θεοῦ, Ε proceeds: ἐγένετο δὲ κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν φη-
μισθῆναι τὸν λόγον, D adds something further: ἐγένετο δὲ καθ' ὅλης
τῆς πόλεως διελθεῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ.
Nearly as in other respects the MS., which was found and collated
by Thomas of Charkel in the monastery of the Antonians, resembles
MS. D, the former is much the most disfigured. Wetstein supposed
that the MS. of the Antonians was the same which is now at Cam-
bridge; but that learned man was so strongly impressed by their simi-
larities, that he did not consider how much richer in unusual readings
the Alexandrian Codex was than our own.
108
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
As the readings of the MS. E often lie at the basis of the MS. D,
and are enlarged in the latter, it is not rash to consider the text of E
as the oldest, although the copy through which it has reached us is not
of so high antiquity. But the text of the latter and of that possessed by
the Antonians affords us no marks by which to decide respecting the
priority of either; for the greater or less corruption in the text, taken
alone, determines nothing as to an earlier or a later age, since this de-
pends upon the possessors it chanced to have, and upon their disposi-
tion to add glosses.
$ 32.
Having once entered upon these investigations, we must grant them
that further attention which is needful to complete them, however little
their dry and grave exterior may recommend them. I have labored to
present them as simply as possible, and have invariably confined myself
within the limits of absolute necessity, that I might not, by an unsea-
sonable profusion of learning, rather obscure our investigations than
elucidate and satisfy them.
We must now inquire whether there have been preserved any MSS.
of the Pauline Epistles which exhibit their xovn exdoors, and if so,
which they are? It is natural that we should again consult that writer
of the period in question, who from the great extent of his works is pe-
culiarly fitted to clear up a point which can be decided only by the
comparison of many citations.
Clement of Alexandria agrees with the MSS. ABC and DEFG,
which are nearly related to each other. When both classes agree,
which not unfrequently happens, his readings are like both. But
though these two classes of MSS. frequently harmonise with each oth-
er, they have yet in general a very different character.
For the MSS. ABC contain a revised text, (which fact we shall as-
sume at present, until we can take a more particular view of them,)
while on the contrary the lawless character of the others does not e-
vince any critical pruning. We must consequently seek in DEFG for
the xown exdoois of the Pauline Epistles. If this conclusion be cor-
rect, the agreement between these two families of MSS. is immediately
accounted for. DEFG are the older stock, and ABC are their off-
spring. The former are transcripts of the copies which, in the times
of a loose text, were in circulation in Alexandria, or more extensively
in Egypt and Africa; but the text of the latter was formed after an
amendment of it had been set on foot, and it still preserves marks of
its origin.
Codex D of the Pauline Epistles, (to give a short notice of these
MSS; but we shall speak of them more particularly in the sequel,) is
the so called Clermont MS., written stichometrically in uncial letters,
with one of the Latin versions prior to Jerome by its side. E is a MS.
of the former Abbey of St. Germain at Paris, a copy of the preceding.
F has long defied all the inquiries of the learned; it was formerly in
the possession of a Benedictine house in Reichenau. It is in Greek
and Latin, and contains the Epistle to the Hebrews in the latter lan-
guage only. G, or the so called Boernerian MS., now in the royal li-
brary at Dresden, is its companion.
FIRST PERIOD.
109
These have a very great agreement with ABC, but still deviate from
them in some striking peculiarities, and are, in general, much more
lawless. Whenever the two classes agree with each other, Clement al-
most always agrees with both. When they separate, he inclines to the
side of A, B, and C; but not so constantly that he does not sometimes
favor the peculiar readings of D, E, F, and G. We will select some
examples, in which DEFG are forsaken by all the ancient MSS. and
by nearly all the modern, and notwithstanding are accompanied by
Clement.
2
•
1
5
In the Epistle to the Romans, 3: 26, there is a small peculiarity
which occurs only in D and Clement, but gives the passage a totally
different turn; they both read tov in niorems 'Inoovv.¹ In Rom. 5:
12, ανθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, Clement reads, ανθρώπους διῆλ
εv² like DEFG, without avaros. Rom. 10: 21, Clement transposes
thus: ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν· in this he is alone ;
he then says: ἐπὶ λαὸν ἀπειθ'. in which DE agree with him.3
Rom. 14: 17, οὖν ἡμῶν τὸ ἀγαθ'. say Clement and DEF. In
the Paedagogus, in which he sometimes gives different readings from
those in his other writings, following consequently a different copy, in
1 Cor. 9: 5, αδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιάγειν, he reads γυναῖκας, as do the
Latins, Tertullian, and others, mulieres, uxores: D too contains the
reading γυναῖκας. In 1 Cor. 9: 22, ἵνα πάντως τινάς, he cites ἵνα
лávτas, as DEF and G read ; and v. 27, vло лεw as DE. In 1 Cor.
12: 10, he has the singular number diaxoiois,8 in which he is support-
ed by the MS. G only. In 1 Cor. 13: 12, he reads with DEFG Bhen-
ouεv άore, and with DE as di σóлroоv.9 In 1 Cor. 14: 11, he has,
ομεν άρτι, ὡς ἐσόπτρου.
like DEFG, laλov ¿uoi fάoß. . . .10 In 2 Cor. 11: 3, like DEG, av-
τοῦ φθαρῇ οὕτω
Tov quaon without ourw.11 In Galat. 3: 19, like DFG, ¿t¿&ŋ.12 In
Eph. 4: 9, he, or rather Theodotus, omits uéon, as do DEFG.13 In
Eph. 4: 13, only Clement and G read niуvάowS TOU DεOU.14 Eph.
Θεοῦ.14
4: 19, he cites лάons пieоvεğiαs,15 agreeing with DEFG; and in v. 23
and 24, where he reads ανανεοῦσθε and ἐνδύσασθε,16 G agrees with
him. In Philipp. 3: 14, Clement and G have the words avw xλjoews
ἐν Χριστῷ 17 In Coloss. 1: 28, he reads διδασκόντες ἐν πάσῃ σοφία:18
.6
λαλών ἐμοὶ βάρβ
υπ
ω
7
1 Paedagog. L. I. p. 119. Heins. et Sylburg. Paris 1641. or p. 141. Ed. Venet.
2 L. III. Strom. c. ?.
3 L. II. Strom. c. 9.
4 L. II. Paedag. p. 142. Sylb. 165. Venet.
5 L. II. Paedag. p. 144. Sylb. 169. Venet.
6 L. V. Strom. c. 3.
7 L. III. Strom. c. 16.
8 L. IV. Strom. c. 21.
9 L. I. Strom. c. 19. L. V. Strom. c. 1. Pædag. L. I. p. 99. Sylb. and 120.
Venet.
10 Strom. L. I. c. 16.
11 Strom. L. III. c. 11. 14.
13 Theod. de Doctr. Orient. c. 43.
12 Strom. L. I. c. 26.
14 Paed. L. I. p. 88. Sylb. 108. and L. IV. Strom. c. 21. where however Syl-
burg, as he himself confesses in the note, has followed the textus receptus, con-
trary to the MS. of Clement.
15 Cohort. p. 54. Sylb. 70. Venet.
16 Paedag. L. III. p. 224. Sylb. 262. Venet. Strom. L. III. c. 15.
17 Paed. L. I. p. 107. Sylb. 129. Venet.
18 Strom. L. I. c. 1. towards the end.
110
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
so also DEFG. In Coloss. 1: 26, he seems to have had in his text in-
stead of τοῖς ἁγίοις, the words τοῖς ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ, although our
present editions give the first. For he immediately draws this conclu-
sion from his quotation: ὥστε ἄλλα μὲν τὰ μυστήρια τὰ ἀποκεκρυμ-
μένα μέχρι τῶν ἀποστόλων, κ. τ. λ. which suits only the reading of the
MSS. FG, Tоis άлooτóλois avτou. Moreover, in Coloss. 3: 5, he, like
FG, omits xxxv,2 and in 1 Thess. 5: 21, he reads návra de doxiμα-
Seve ;3 so also DEFG, &c. &c.
.3
1
It happens, however, much more frequently that he presents the read-
ings of DEFG when they harmonise with one of the MSS. ABC. Oc-
casionally when Clement forsakes them, Origen supplies his place and
by his agreement with these MSS. shows that they resemble very much
the oldest Alexandrian text. One of the Egyptian versions too, the
Thebaic, in the few remains we have of it, closely resembles these
MSS.
.6
5
διών.
Yet, although Clement evidently inclines to these in general, he dif
fers from them remarkably in some places and presents us readings
which are found at present no where else. I will quote some examples
of citations so long that he could not well have given them from memo-
ry e. g. Galat. 3: 26, which he read as follows: návres jáo vioi čote
διὰ πίστεως θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 4 Eph. 6: 9 : εὖ ποιεῖτε τοὺς
οἰκέτας ὑμῶν ἀνιέντες τὴν ἀπειλήν. Eph. 5: 25, οἱ ἄνδρες τὰς γυ
oi
ναῖκας τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἀγαπάτωσαν; so also v. 22, where he read with
Codex A : υποτασσέσθωσαν, he changes the order of the words in
Rom. 12: 13: τὴν φιλοξ.
ταῖς xo. τῶν ἁγ. κοιν.
7 Also 1 Cor. 1: 21 : διὰ κηρύγματος τῆς μωρίας σῶσαι. Rom. 15:
4 appears still more remarkable: καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφών
τὴν ἐλπίδα ἔχωμεν τῆς παρακλήσεως ; yet perhaps we may reasona-
bly suppose this to have been a quotation from memory. This supposi-
tion, however, cannot so easily be made in respect to 1 Thess. 5: 7.
oi
οἱ μεθύοντες νυκτὸς μεθύσκονται 10 Το be brief, there are many mi-
nuter variations which are remarkable; such as in Eph. 2: 3, where he
merely left out the word quote, and 2 Cor. 6: 16, where for εinev o de-
ός he read εἶπεν ὁ προφήτης, and many others.
11
.9
8
The MSS. DEFG most probably present a text nearly allied to the
Alexandrian or Egyptian; but their conformity with it is not sufficient
to permit us to consider their text as the same.
Did the removal of these MSS. to the West have an influence upon
their text and procure them many glosses and supposed emendations,
which otherwise they would not have contained? I have no doubt of
1 Strom. L. V. c. 10.
3 Paedag. L. III. p. 264. Sylb. 308. Venet.
4 Paedeg. L. I. p. 95. 96. Sylb. 116. Venet.
5 Paedag. L. III. p. 263. Sylb. 308. Venet.
6 Paedag. L. III. Loc. cit.
7 Paedag. L. III. 264. Sylb. 309. Venet.
8 Strom. L. I. C. 18.
10 Paedag. L. II. 186. S. 218. Venet.
2 Strom. L. III. c. 5.
9 Strom. L. IV. c. 5.
11 Cohort. ad gent. 16. S. 23. Ven. Strom. L. III. c. 11.
FIRST PERIOD.
111
~
1
it. Irenaeus, in the few places in which he yet speaks to us in Greek,
or where it can be gathered from the connexion or from his inferences
what he found in his copies of the Bible, supports the readings of these
MSS: e. g. Rom. 11: 32, where he gives navτa eis anɛivav,¹ like
πάν
DEFG; or Rom. 5: 19, where he reads vлaxons to ¿vos άvý páлоν
with DEF.2 So 1 Tim. 1: 4, where he and D have oixodoun3 In
1 Cor. 15: 55, he read: που σου θάνατε τὸ νίκος, που σου θάνατε τὸ
xévτoov; for he comments upon the passage, and his exposition applies
only to Javaros; so we find it in DEFG. In Gal. 3: 19, FG read :
θάνατος
τί οὖν ὁ νόμος τῶν πράξεων· ἐτέθη ἄχρις.
where the common
text has τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν ἐτέθη, ἄχρις. . . . In
Irenaeus it appears in the Latin as in FG; and when we consider his
reasoning upon it, it is evident that he did not have zάov in his Bible
at all, and highly probable that he also read ageшv instead of лαдα-
βάσεων.
<
5
,
c
4
π
"
We might derive further illustration from Marcion's readings, if in-
deed he really composed his Apostolikon in the West.
The passage
1 Cor. 10: 19, as he read it: ὅτι ἱερόθυτον τί ἐστιν, ἢ εἰδωλόθυτον τί
ativ, comes very near the MSS. FG. In 1 Cor. 15: 50, he read x2n-
ρονομῆσαι οὐ δύνανται simply thus, οὐ κληρονομήσουσι, like FG; and
in 2 Cor. 5: 3, xaì ¿vdvoάuevoi où jvuvol, like DFG. In Galat. 5: 9
he read to quoana dolor, like DE; and in Galat. 5: 14, he omitted
τῷ before αγαπήσεις, as do DFG. All these readings appear in the
Latin fathers, as also another of this same heretic for which he was re-
proached, and which occurs in none of the MSS. now extant. It is in
τ
α
1 Cor. 14: 19, and is to all appearance only a mistake of the copyist:
it is διὰ τοῦ νόμου instead of διὰ τοῦ νοός μου. The Latin versions
which the fathers used must therefore have been made from such copies
as these; for we cannot rationally reverse the case, and suppose that
Marcion interpolated his Apostolikon from the Latin versions. The
Latin fathers in whom we find these readings, were not inhabitants of
Italy or Gaul alone, but most of them of Africa, which is a point wor-
thy of notice in the history of the text. It is by no means the case that
all the readings in DEFG which do not occur in Clement or even Ori-
gen are, on that account merely, not of African origin.
Were we inclined to attribute to the west too great a share in pro-
ducing the condition of these MSS. our error would be speedily rectifi-
ed by the oldest Syriac version, which contains a considerable number
of those peculiarities which are found in no other MSS. than DEFG.
From all this, it seems to me, we may adduce the following conclu-
sion: The MSS. DEFG contain a very ancient text of the period of
the xown exdoois, nearly allied to the Alexandrian and Egyptian text,
which passed westward along the coast of Africa and was introduced
among the Latins in Italy and Gaul.
1 L. I. Advers. Haer. c. 10. n. 3. L. III. c. 20. n. 2.
2 Fragm. ex caten. in Luc. p. 347. Ven. et Massuet.
3 Prolog. in L. I. Adv. Haer.
5 L. III. Adv. Haer. c. 7. n. 2.
4 L. III. c. 23. n. 7.
112
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
$ 33.
Supposing this to be correct, we may now select a few of the traits
of the MSS., in order to present a description of the text of Paul's
epistles as it existed at the period when it was treated with most li-
cense.
We may here at the outset remark with satisfaction that these epis-
tles have not suffered so much as the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
Didactic writings, which are composed in a straight-forward train of
thought and maintain their unity by a close connexion of ideas, do not
afford a very free scope for foreign interpolations and glosses; and when
these are attempted, they soon betray themselves by the confusion which
is created. But historical compositions, which are so simple and often
unconnected, and knit together by no internal bond, afford an open
field for interpolations both great and small.
The variations of the zoivý exdonis of Syria and of Africa are not
so great by far in these epistles as in the historical books; and the re-
mark may here be made anew, that the Syriac text is somewhat purer
than that of Western Africa.
•
I. The species of variations which occur in the Pauline Epistles, are
nearly the same as in other books. Hebraisms have been struck out,
as, e. g. in Rom. 13: 1, πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσ. υποτασσέσθω, 35
v, DEFG have altered thus, nάoαis ¿¿ovolais únorάooεodɛ. In 2
'Thess. 1: 8, ἐν πυρὶ φλογός από τας, ἐν φλογὶ πυρός. Philipp. 2:
14, χωρίς γογγυσμῶν, G χωρὶς ὀργῆς.
πα
II. A more elegant Greek turn was given to harsh phraseology :
Philipp. 3: 13, ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζομαι κατειληφότα, FG. Galat. 4: 25,
ἐν τῇ ' Αραβία, ἡ συστοιχούσα . . . dovλevei, DFG. . Eph. 2: 11,
διὰ τοῦτο μνημονεύοντες ὑμεῖς οἱ ποτέ, FG. Coloss. 1: 26, τὸ μυσ
τήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον . . . . νυνὶ δὲ φανερωθέν,DE. &c. &
dè &c.
III. A more common expression was substituted for one less current:
2 Cor. 12: 13. ήττήθητε ὑπὲρ τὰς . . . . ἡσσήθητε παρὰ . . . DE.
Rom. 3: 9, προεχόμεθα, DG προκατέχομεν περισσόν. Rom. 12: 9,
ἀποστυγοῦντες, G μισοῦντες. Or at any rate this was written on the
margin, even if the other was not struck out. Gal. 4: 21, τον νόμον
οὐκ ἀκούετε. in DEFG, some one has written ἀναγινώσκετε by the
side of άzovete This substitution must be very ancient, for as early
as the third century it was united with the original expression in a com-
pound reading, as appears in Origen's second book against Celsus, 3d
chapter: οἱ τὸν νόμον ἀναγινώσκοντες τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε. It is
pleasant to see how from one variation arises a second, and from a small
one a larger. Such was the case in Coloss. 2: 15, where some person
substituted rv oάona for ràs dozás, as in FG, or (which seems to me
most probable) unintentionally, in transcribing, changed THNΣAPKA
into TAZAPXAZ. The translator of the Peschito found both read-
ings noted in his copy, and united them both in a third: τǹv odona,
τὰς ἀρχάς, και ἐξουσίας. . . .
IV. Frequently words were interpolated for the purpose of throwing
light upon a passage which was expressed somewhat obscurely. The
passage, 1. Cor. 12: 24, it was thought would become more clear by
FIRST PERIOD.
113
the addition of the word runs after yoɛiav eye, as it appears in DEFG
and the Peschito. In Philipp. 3: 18, the Peschito inserts the word
¿Téows after лEдinaτovσi: in the same Epist. 4: 18, F and G illustrate
τα παρ' ἡμᾶς by the addition πεμφθέντα, and in Coloss. 4: 9, πάντα
ὑμῖν γνωριοῦσι τὰ ὧδε, by the addition πραττόμενα. Thus, too, F
and G help Galat. 5: 24, by ὄντες after Χριστοῦ and αὐτῶν after σάρκα.
α
V. Parallel passages or expressions from other Epistles were written
on the margin and afterwards got into the text; in Galat. 4: 17, after
iva avtovs Sylouts we find in the MSS. DEFG, taken from 1 Cor.
12: 31, ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ κρείττονα χαρίσματα ; and in 1 Tim. 6: 9, af-
ter nayida in DFG, the addition tou diapólov from the same E-
pist. 3: 7. After onέoμa Gov, in Rom. 4: 18, the MSS: FG add ws oi
αστέρες τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ τὸ ἄμμον τῆς θαλάσσης, taken from the Old
Testament (Gen. 22: 17). Different readings in the Septuagint gave
occasion to the alteration which appears in the Peschito in Rom. 9: 25,
καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠλεημένην, ηλεγμένην, and in DFG in Cor. 9: 9, κημώ
σεις instead of φιμώσεις.
་
υτω
οντα
VI. There occurs besides in these Epistles a species of alteration
which is peculiar to them, viz. transpositions of words and of construc-
tion purposely made in order to render it more easy to comprehend the
Apostle's periods, which are often long and interrupted by parentheses.
In Rom. 16: 5, the words καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν, which
were separated from the main clause by the whole parenthesis from
oïtives to ¿dvæv, are transferred in DFG from v. 5 and united to ov-
νεργ. μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. In 2 Cor. 12: 21, πρὸς ὑμᾶς which, by
a very harsh construction, was separated from hovra us by the words
taneivwon ó dios μov, is united to it in the MSS. DEFG. In 1 Cor.
14: 34, Paul interrupts his admonitions respecting the abuse of pro-
phetic gifts with the wellknown injunction upon women to be silent in
the churches, and does not resume the subject of prophecy (v. 37) till
after a very long parenthesis. These rapid transitions violently drag
the reader from one circle of ideas to another, and render it difficult for
common minds to recover the connexion; on this account the MSS.
DEFG_remove from their position v. 34, 35, ai yuvoizes vµœv as far
as ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ λαλεῖν and place them after κατά τάξιν γινέσθω in
V.
40.
In conclusion, no one can be surprised that the text should often
have suffered in passing to the Latins through the hands of unsuitable
copyists and ignorant emendators. In Eph. 5: 5, ös kotiv eidwholά-
Tons, some person wished to accommodate the Greek to the Latin ter-
mination Idololatra and wrote ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλολατρεία, till finally the
os was changed into o as we find it now in FG. Again; in
Galat. 2: 7, neniorevμai to evayyékov, creditum est mihi evangelium,
πεπιστευταί μοι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, FG ; and Philipp. 4: 3, γνήσιε γέρμανε
σύζυγε, FG.
It is, I think, very difficult to determine which MS. contains the
most ancient text, although DE have not been subject to so many al-
terations as FG. It seems, however, more than probable to me, for
many reasons, that a great part of those additions and changes which
have been made in Codex D a secundâ manu, were taken from G or
15
114
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
F, or rather were derived from some more ancient MS. from which Li-
brarii in the West transcribed F and G.
$34.
"
We now come, in order, to the Catholic Epistles; but no MS. of
them which preserves the text of the zon Exdoors has survived. Some
of them are indeed frequently quoted by the ancients. Clement of Al-
exandria has in different places quoted nearly half of the first Epistle
of Peter,¹ and we perceive from his quotations that these Epistles like-
wise have met with many mischances. E. g. 1 Pet. 3: 1, oitives aпTεido i
τῷ λόγῳ, and 2, τὴν ἐν λόγῳ ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφήν. 4: 3, ὁ παρεληλυθώς
χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἔθνων κατειργάσθαι. 3: 16, ἵνα ἐν ᾧ καταλα
λεῖσθε, καταισχυνθῶσιν οἱ ἐπηρεάζοντες τὴν καλὴν αναστροφὴν ὑμῶν
ἐν Χριστῷ & And Jude, v. 5, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἅπαξ ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου
λαὸν σώσας, and v.6, ὑπὸ ζόφον ἀγρίων αγγέλων, from which afterwards
came dɣíwv άyyέhwv, and in the ancient Latin versions sanctorum an-
gelorum. Yet all these citations do little more than inform us that the
fate of these Epistles was about the same as that of the Pauline Epis-
tles, without acquainting us with the particular accidents they have ex-
perienced. We may expect more satisfactory information from the
Thebaic version, if it shall ever be taken in hand as it deserves to be.
&c.
$ 35.
2
The case is the same with the Apocalypse; no MS. of it has surviv-
ed to show us its condition in the earliest times. But we derive very
satisfactory information respecting it from other quarters. The xový
Exdoors as we find it in the hands of western fathers of this period, es-
pecially those who lived pretty far down in the third century, when it
had reached the limit of its circulation among the Greeks, would clear-
ly present the untoward accidents to which the Apocalypse was subject-
ed, had it been exposed to such accidents. But, in looking at this
book as cited by Tertullian, and much later by Cyprian, we are sure
that it has experienced a very lenient fate, in comparison with that of
other books.
Its peculiar obscurity was probably one of the reasons which took
away from many the desire to add glosses to it; nor did the severe char-
ges long made against it, and the suspicion of spuriousness founded up-
on these, contribute less to preserve it from injury. It was on these ac-
counts little read, and to this neglect it is owing that it survived that
period in better condition than those books which have been injured
by the industry and application of many individuals.
The treatise of Hippolytus on Christ and Antichrist, which there is
good reason for supposing genuine, will in a measure illustrate our asser-
tion. In that treatise he has quoted some chapters almost entire, and
the variations which occur will therefore give us an idea of the con-
dition of the whole book.
We meet with slight transpositions, small variations in the flexion of
1 Cohort. ad Gent. p. 40. Sylb. 52. Venet, Pædag. L. I. p. 103. S. 124. V. L.
III. p. 244. 249-50.253. 256-59. S. Strom. L. III. c. 11. c. 18. Strom. L. IV.
c. 7. c. 20.
2 Pædag. L. III. c. 8. p. 239. Sylb. 281. Venet.
SECOND PERIOD.
115
2
words and other deviations of this kind; but we can discover only the
following important additions or alterations. In Apoc. 11: 5, noε ɩ
θελήσει
άδικ . . . and πῦρ ἐξελεύσεται. In v. 7, he inserts the words: TOV
δρόμον αὐτῶν καὶ before τὴν μαρτυρίαν αὐτῶν. In Apoc. 12: 16,
he reads after ἔβαλεν instead of δράκων the word ὄφις : v. 17, μετὰ
τῶν ἁγίων instead of μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν. Apoc. 17: 7, he inserts τοῦ
θηρίου before τοῦ βαστάζοντος; ν. 14, καὶ βασιλεὺς βασιλευόντων
ἐστί 3 Apoc. 18: 2, ἰσχυρά φωνῇ μεγάλη; ν. 13, he adds καὶ τρά
γους after πρόβατα; ν. 19, he uses the expression πιότητος instead
of τιμιότητος; and v. 20, for οἱ ἅγιοι the word οἱ ἄγγελοι The
oi
most considerable variation occurs at the commencement of the 12th
chapter, which he begins thus : καὶ εἶδον σημεῖον μέγα καὶ θαυμαστὸν,
γυναῖκα περιβεβλημένην τὸν ἥλιον κ. τ. λ.5 These are the passages
in which the celebrated disciple of Irenæus deviates farthest from the
common text and from known MSS. In considering the copiousness
of his apocalyptic citations, and the unimportant variations which ap-
pear in them, we cannot complain of the boldness and presumption
with which the Apocalypse was treated in the period of the xovn
ἔκδοσις.
HISTORY OF THE TEXT. SECOND PERIOD.
$ 36.
Such a state of things, however, could not continue long. If some
fortunate undertaking had not introduced order into the text, and put a
limit to this licentiousness, it would in a few centuries have been involv-
ed in unparalleled confusion. This was perceived in time, and the call
for a revision was so pressing that three men at the same period and in
different countries applied themselves to the task. And certainly the
benefit which they conferred upon the Christian world, was of such im-
portance, that they do not merit the oblivion to which their noble labors
have been consigned.
Though the name of Origen comes forward into notice in the criticism
of the New Testament, yet his reputation in this department of learn-
ing was not so solitary and peculiar that he had no rivals. Hesychius
and Lucian present themselves with him, emulous of sharing his repu-
tation.
It was these three men who, about the middle of the 3d century, at-
tempted an amendment of the text, and prepared new editions or re-
censions. They collected the best and oldest MSS. within their reach,
in order to learn by this means, what had been recently added, altered,
1 S. Hippolyt. Demonst. de Christo et Antichristo, c. 47.
2 S. Hippolyt. Demonst. de Christo et Antichristo. c. 60.
3 Ibid. c. 37, 38.
4 Ibid. c. 41, 42.
5 Ibid. c. 60.
116
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
or omitted in any of the MSS., and in what text these MSS. uniformly
agreed, so that it could be adopted as a standard.
The sphere of Hesychius' labors was Egypt. In this country and
its capital his emendation obtained public ecclesiastical sanction. The
other circumstances of his life are entirely unknown; but probably he
is the same whom Eusebius mentions among the Egyptian bishops who
perished in the persecution of Diocletian.2
Lucian, surnamed the Martyr, famed for his talents, and particular-
ly for his acquaintance with biblical literature, was a Presbyter of An-
tioch in Syria. He died at Nicomedia in the persecution of Maximin-
us, or, as others will have it, under Maximian and Diocletian, and was
buried at Helenopolis in Bithynia.3
His emendation spread from Syria over Asia Minor, passed the Bos-
phorus, and became current in Thrace and at Byzantium, subsequently
the metropolis of the Roman empire. His reputation extended so far,
and his recension was used in so many countries that, from the extensive
territory over which it prevailed, it was sometimes improperly termed
the xoivỳ xdoors, and vice versa the latter sometimes called by the
name of Lucian.4
The statements here collected from antiquity relate primarily only to
the emendation of the Old Testament which Lucian and Hesychius
undertook; but since they also did the same with the New, as we learn
from the same sources, it is to be inferred that their complete biblical
codex met with the same fate and the same reception.
Although these two editions, and that of Origen likewise, were
publicly approved in Africa and Asia and in the south-eastern coun-
tries of Europe, and although, as Jerome says, the christian world di-
vided itself into three parties and contended respecting them 5 yet the
western christians continued steadfast in their attachment to the an-
cient text, particularly as it respected the New Testament; and if they,
or rather Jerome, were somewhat indulgent to Origen's edition, they
were on this account the more determined opponents of the Recensions
of Lucian and Hesychius, accusing them of incorrect criticism, a
6
1 "Alexandria et Egyptus ejus opus amplexi sunt." Hieron. Præf. in Paralip.
and Lib. II. Adv. Ruffin. c. 26.
2 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. VII. c. 15. Fabric. Biblioth. Græc. L. IV. c. 13.
Hamb.
3 "Constantinopolis usque ad Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria pro-
bat." Hieronym. Præf. in Paralip. L. II. Adv. Ruffin. c. 26.
4 "Illud breviter admoneo, ut sciatis aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et
Cæsareensis Eusebius, omnesque Græciæ tractatores xowv id est communem
appellant, atque vulgatam, et quæ a plerisque nunc Lucianus dicitur." Hieron.
Ep. CVI. ad Suniam et Fretell. n. 2.
5 "Totusque orbis hâc inter se trifariâ varietate compugnat." Adv. Ruffin.
L. II. c. 27.
6 "De NOVO nunc loquor TESTAMENTO. . . . . hoc certe, cum in nostro
sermone discordat, et in diversos rivulorum tramites ducit, uno de fonte quæren-
dum. Prætermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum
hominum asserit perversa contentio, quibus utique nec in toto veteri instru-
mento pot septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit, nec in NOVO profuit
emendâsse, cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat, falsa
esse quæ addita sunt.' Hieronym. in Epist. ad Damas.
SECOND PERIOD.
117
charge which they hoped to support by the versions which existed be-
fore the recensions. And certainly, if these and especially the Latin
versions were taken as a standard, the decision respecting the amend-
ed text could not have been more favorable than it was.
When therefore Pope Gelasius prepared for the first time an Index
librorum prohibitorum, the editions of Lucian and Hesychius were in-
cluded in the catalogue with the following harsh language: The Gos-
pels which Lucian and Hesychius have corrupted are apocryphal.¹
Thus the western Christians were forever restricted to the zoivý Endo-
ois, and no Recension was ever to be allowed currency among them.
But to return: Origen's emendation held sway in Palestine, between
the region occupied by Lucian and that of Hesychius.2 Those who
would limit his meritorious labors exclusively to the Old Testament for-
get that Jerome appeals concerning the Gospels and Epistles to the
Origenian MSS.3
We shall succeed but ill, however, in attempting to derive informa-
tion respecting his Recension from his own writings. He himself did
not make much use of it; for it was probably the last of his works.
His commentaries upon Matthew were composed in extreme old age; and
in these, as we have seen above, he complains of the sad condition of
the Gospels in the different MSS., and thereupon speaks with compla-
cency of his amendment of the Old Testament. He however does
not seem to be aware of any merit of his in regard to the New Testa-
ment, although this was precisely the place where he would have spok-
en of his Recension, if he had already completed it. The old Latin
translator of this work, represents Origen as saying, in speaking of his
emendation of the Septuagint by means of obelisks and asterisks: But
I did not believe that I could safely undertake anything of this sort
with respect to the copies of the New Testament. It is of little impor-
tance to us whether what he here says existed in the Greek or not,
since its import is contained in other expressions of Origen as plainly
as it is given by the Latin translator.
4
Hence the inconstancy of Origen's biblical text, which would not
have been of this character if it had possessed a fixed and invariable form
from a recension; and hence he so often agrees with the zon doors
in important variations, and has so many of the various readings of Codex
D. If he sometimes presents a text which is evidently purer than that
of D., we must remember that Origen had several MSS. at hand, and
frequently compared them with each other; a procedure which readily
revealed to him many corruptions and rid his quotations of them. From
1 Decret. Pars. I. Distinct. XV. § 27. "Evangelia quæ falsavit Lucianus a-
pocrypha; evangelia quæ falsavit Hesychius apocrypha."
2 "Mediæ inter has provinciæ Palæstinos codices legunt, quos ab Origene ela-
boratos." Hieronym. Adv. Ruffin. L. II. c. 26. The Scholia on Mark XVI. 8.
of the MSS. in Birch and Griesbach speak of the παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον.
Symb. Crit. Part I. p. 101.
3 Hieron. Comment. in Matt. XXIV. 36. and in Ep. ad Galat. III. 1.
4 Origenes Tom. XV. in Matt. Vol. III. De la Rue. p. 671. "In exemplari-
bus autem Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non pu
tavi."
118
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
!
this procedure must have resulted the fact which a distinguished schol-
ar has remarked, that he generally resembles the MS. L. For if we
take away from D its most important variations we have a text very
similar to that of Codex L.
We can perceive generally, that Origen in his Commentaries upon
John, had before him a well preserved Alexandrian text. But after
his removal from Alexandria this MS. was no longer at his service.
In
his subsequent writings we see him following a text sometimes more
and sometimes less accurate and similar to D.2
Besides these three individuals noted in criticism, the name of Pie-
rius has obtained honorable remembrance on account of his merit in re-
lation to the New Testament. His inclination to biblical studies and
his talents procured him the name of the younger Origen.3 Yet it
would rather seem that he materially assisted in Origen's Emendation and
in promoting its circulation, than that he undertook a Recension of his
own; for Jerome connects the MSS. of Pierius and Origen together in
such a manner that one cannot help believing them to have contained
one and the same text.4
The New Testament of Pamphilus, also, founder of the library at
Cæsarea, enjoyed once no mean reputation; he frequently distributed it
among Christians that they might become better acquainted with its
contents. A copy written by his own hand was long preserved in the
library which he founded. In the Old Testament, he was, it is known,
merely the editor of Origen, carefully giving the Septuagint from the
Hexapla and thus making the work of its industrious author generally
useful. Origen's other works, also, he transcribed with his own hand,
(an extensive and tedious task,) and evinced himself always a zealous
reverer of that scholar's labors. The copies of Pamphilus are there-
fore, all circumstances considered, only transcripts of Origen's Recen-
sion, which were received with especial regard, because coming from
the hands of so illustrious a person.
1 Griesbach Symb. Crit. Tom. 1. p. 123-127.
2 In the opinion of a Reviewer (Tubing. Theol. Quartalschrift, 1822, 2d
Heft. p. 281. seq.) it was incumbent on me in a history of the text to investigate
Origen's emendation in the works of Eusebius. I employed much time in com-
paring the citations of this father, until I became at last convinced that, as is of-
ten the case with voluminous writers, he quoted from memory and does not a-
gree with himself. My discovery was almost precisely what is admitted by the
reviewer himself from his own observation, only one page before he censures
me for not collating Eusebius (p. 280.) Eusebius, he says, in the same passages
of the Gospels, occurring frequently as many as four times, presents sometimes
one and sometimes another reading.
3 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. VII. c. 29. Hieron. de Script. Eccl. v. Pierius.
4 Hieron. Comm. in Matt. XXIV. 36. "In quibusdam codicibus additum est
neque filius, cum in Græcis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii codicibus hoc non
habeatur adscriptum."
5 Hieron. De Script. Eccles. and L. II. Adv. Ruffin. c. 9. "Unde et multos
codices præparabat, ut, cum necessitas poposcisset, volentibus largiretur."
Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 32.
6 Montfaucon, Biblioth. Coislin. p. 262.
7 Eichhorn Einleit. in das. A. T. Th. I. Cap. III. §. 172. Hieron. L. II. Adv.
Ruffin. c. 27.
8 Euseb. H. E. L. VII. c. 32. Hieron. Script. Eccl. V. Pamphilus.
SECOND PERIOD.
119
Or is it rather probable that Origen's emendation, as it was made in
the last days of his life, was not edited by himself, but first saw the
light through Pierius, and was circulated still more widely by Pamphil-
us? Or did some person publish it without Origen's critical marks,
striking out what he had marked with an obelisk as suspicious, and ad-
mitting what he had acknowledged by an asterisk as genuine.
Lastly, in the fourth century a recension of the Old Testament was
prepared by Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria; perhaps, howev-
er, it was only a translation. Whatever it was, Jerome characterises it
as a clumsy production, undertaken with good intentions but with small
ability.¹ Were we to extend this critcism to his labors on the New
Testament, we should not expect any thing remarkable; yet a Scholion
in a Parisian MS., on John 7: 53 to 8: 12, seems to refer to the copies of
Apollinaris. It may however be understood as referring to his poetical
harmony of the Gospels.
!
THE RECENSION OF HESYCHIUS.
$ 37.
Some preparation has now been made to enter into the overgrown
field of critical documents, to examine them one by one, estimate their
value, and arrange them in classes-a vast undertaking, if proposed
without limitation. It is no longer even possible to accomplish it entire-
ly. Many have been collated only in particular passages, many only in
part, and many not with due care; some probably are not worthy of
any pains. Hence we must select only such documents as are best ex-
ecuted and demand peculiar attention from their antiquity and correct-
ness, in order to pronounce decisively as to their character. The rest
may follow in the order of time or of merit.
Let us inquire first for the Egyptian recension which, for several rea-
sons, is most easily discovered. As this recension maintained ecclesi-
astical authority in Alexandria and Egypt, it must be exhibited in the
works of the fathers of that country. These, however, follow the text
which has come down to us in the MSS. BC and L. B is the celebra-
ted Vatican, N. 1209; C is the MS. N. 9 in the royal library of France,
called also that of Ephraem Syrus; L is in the same library, marked
N. 62. We shall describe each more fully in its proper place.
The quotations of the celebrated Athanasius, in those works which
are ascribed to him by universal consent, in general exhibit this text;
as also the writings of the monks Marcus and Marcarius, of Cosmas
Indicopleustes, and Cyril archbishop of Alexandria. I have satisfied
myself of this by actual collation; but I cannot here present the evi-
1 Lib. II. Adv. Ruf. c. 33. "Qui bono quidem studio, sed non secundum
scientiam de omnibus translationibus in unum vestimentum pannos assuere
conatus est.'
2 Τα αβελισμένα ἔν τισιν ἀντιγραφοῖς οὐ κεῖνται, οὐδὲ᾽ Απολιναρίῳ ἐν τοῖς ἀρ
zaiois ola nɛivtal. Richard Simon. Hist. Crit. du texte du Nouv. Test. c. XIII.
p. 146.
120
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
dence obtained by tedious labor. In respect to the last, however, I
must remark that his biblical MS. was disfigured here and there by for-
eign additions and interpolations.
But, without making use of the evidence to which I have just appeal-
ed, this is clearly deducible from the origin of which the text of these
MSS. bears infallible marks; for if it be admitted, as I have already
shown, that D exhibits most nearly the zon Exdoors of Alexandria
and Egypt, we can be in no doubt respecting the native country of these
three MSS. or rather of their text. They are clearly only corrected
copies of this κοινὴ ἔκδοσις.
The Coptic version was also made from MSS. of the same country;
and it confessedly accompanies the fine monuments which we have
been considering as belonging to the Egyptian recension.
Thus they really contain the recension of Hesychius, and by compar-
ing it with the xown exdoors from which they were derived we may
discover the plan of procedure which the critic pursued. First, we see
that he removed the important interpolations which had crept in from
harmonies, apocryphal books, or parallel passages in the Old and New
Testament, and restored to each of the Evangelists his own property,
which was before in many cases confounded with that of others. He
besides rejected numerous glosses and Scholia, and expunged clauses
introduced from the Lectionaria, and likewise restored some lost ones.
These and many like errors which we have remarked in the zowy ex-
doors he diligently endeavored to remedy.
Yet he has not been able to destroy a multitude of minute but very
evident traces of the copies upon which he labored; there remains still,
notwithstanding his amendments, much which does not seem to have
merited his forbearance, partly coming from the Lectionaria, and part-
ly from parallel passages. He might too, perhaps, have supplied many
omissions which we find in his recension, and have more frequently re-
moved glosses which we now perceive in it. I have only said that this
seems to be the case; for, in order to make this charge with more con-
fidence, we should be accurately acquainted in detail with the whole
history of the text.
We, however, meet with readings in it which we seek in vain in D;
and as he has adopted them, they must have been supported by other
MSS. Of this kind is, e. g. in Matt. 27: 49, the addition after owowv
αὐτόν in BCL and the Coptic version: ἄλλος λαβὼν λόγχην, ἔνυξεν
αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἵμα; or the transposition
in Mark 10: 34, καὶ ἐμπτύσουσιν αὐτῷ, καὶ μαστιγώσουσιν αυτόν οι
in Luke 6: 48, instead of Onze deμéh.... пérquv-the clause: dia
πέτραν
διὰ
To nahas oixodoμεîovaι aviηv as also Mark 10: 49, where instead of
εἶπεν αὐτὸν φωνηθῆναι, there occurs in BCL and the Coptic version :
εἶπεν φωνήσατε αὐτόν, which two last readings Thomas of Charkel
found in his ancient Alexandrian MS.
We must notice particularly a principle of criticism which this man
derived from profane literature and unfortunately applied to the New
Testament. He made it a rule, it would appear, to prefer a reading
which was elegant and pure, as respected Greek idiom, to a difficult
Jewish-Greek one, in cases where he found the latter. E. g. Mark 12:
21, for ἀπέθανεν, καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἀφῆκε σπέρμα, he chose: απέθανεν
SECOND PERIOD.
121
µn xαταλιпάv блéqμa, which is a more elegant expression. Mark 10:
51, in BCL, τί σοι θέλεις ποιήσω and John 16: 22, νῦν μὲν λύπην
EXεte. In Luke 5: 36, the phraseology has received a better turn: ot
οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει. . . and Luke
21: 36, is expressed less according to Jewish idiom: iva xatioɣvonte
ἐκφυγεῖν· so 23: 42, ὅταν ἔλθης εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν σου so 23: 40,
ἐπιτιμῶν αὐτῷ ἔφη, &c. &c.
In the Acts we are deserted by one of these MSS. viz. Codex L,
which contains only the Gospels; but its place is supplied by another,
viz. A or Alex. Mus. Britan.; so that we have ABC to exhibit to us
Hesychius' edition of this book. To these may be added a MS. which
Euthalius, an Alexandrian deacon, examined and divided stichometri-
cally, or more correctly a transcript of that copy. This MS. is desig-
nated by Wetstein and Griesbach as Acts N. 40, and is taken from
Zacagni's Monumentis Ineditis. Codex 1, or Mosc. S. Synod. n.
CCCLXXX. also holds an important rank here: it contains the whole
New Testament according to another recension, and in the Acts alone
is written according to an Alexandrian copy; as also Cod. Urbino-Va-
tican. n. 367 in Birch. It appears to me, that Cod. Colleg. Nov. Oxon.
in Mill. Nov. I, in Wetstein and Griesbach 36, may likewise be class-
ed here.
If we bring in array before us the different kinds of errors which the
zon exdoors admitted in this book particularly, and then compare with
them the text of these MSS. we can judge what the emendator avoided
in this book and what he has done which is of importance. By such a
comparison we shall be able to see how, from the corrupt text of MSS.
DE and those like them, was deduced the text of the MSS. ABC and
their companions, which is more accurate and more free from foreign
excrescences.
The MSS. ABC, the Euthalian MS. 40, and Birch's Urbino-Vat.
367, present Hesychius' emendation of the Catholic Epistles likewise.
But Codex 7 forsakes us here and passes over to its own recension.
In the Epistles of the Apostle Paul likewise, ABC are the chief mon-
uments of the Hesychian text. With them the Euthalian Codex also
agrees, which in the Pauline Epistles is marked in Wetstein and Gries-
bach N. 46. The Urbino-Vat. 367 is here unfaithful and fluctuates
between two texts; in its stead we add another, viz. Colbert. 2844, now
N. 14, which was examined de novo by Griesbach and after him again
collated by Begtrupp, whose extracts Birch has published at the end of
his collection of various readings in the Apocalypse. In Wetstein and
Griesbach it bears the mark 17.
We shall easily be convinced that the revised text was formed from
MSS. which bore a great resemblance to the MSS. DE and FG. This
will be evident hereafter, when we extract some specimens from the
several recensions and compare them together.
We have the Apocalypse according to the Hesychian Recension in
the MSS. AC. Codex B or Vatican. 1209 does not reach so far; and
the MS. which in the Apocalypse bears the mark B does not belong
here. But another Vatican MS. with the number 579, collated by
Birch, although as is often the case with modern MSS. it contains ma-
ny heterogeneous readings, plainly ranks with AC. To these Vindob.
16
123
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
Caes. in Supplem. Kollarii N. XXVI. is strikingly similar, though it
bears marks of a later date. It has been collated by Professor Alter.
To these might be added two other MSS. in the same library, if their
character were not rendered doubtful by the numerous chances and
changes to which they have been exposed.
Lastly, the Apocalypse which appears at the end of the Euthalian
Codex, so often cited, and which is designated by Mill. as Petav. 3, by
Wetstein and Griesbach Apoc. 12, is far from being sufficiently known.
But judging from the specimens given by Birch in his collection of va-
rious readings in the Apocalypse, and from the other citations of Mill,
it exhibits, though not without some recent alterations, the text of the
copies AC.
LUCIAN'S RECENSION.
$ 38.
Another recension of the Gospels, (for we must speak first of these,}
is contained in the MSS. EFGHSV and b h. All these are written in
large letters, in the uncial character. The first is a very fine MS. in
the library at Basle Num. B. VI. 21; the next, F, once belonged to Jo-
hann Borcel, the Dutch ambassador at the English court. The MSS.
of the Gospels G and H were brought from the East by Erasmus Seidel,
and afterwards came into the possession of John Christopher Wolf of
Hamburg: the first of them is now in the British Museum, Harleian.
5684. The MS. S is in the Vatican Library, n. 354, collated by
Birch; V is in the library of the Holy Synod at Moscow; it is a beau-
tiful MS., respecting which Matthæi first gave us correct information.
The MSS. b and h, also, were collated by him; they are two valuable
Evangeliaria, the first of which is in the same library, n. XLIII.; and
the other is in the library of the Holy Synod, n. XII.
If we should here mention the more modern MSS. which are written
in cursive characters, the list would be very much augmented. A great
part of those which Matthæi collated at Moscow, most of those in
Birch and Alter and in Mill and Wetstein, are of this class. A subdi-
vision however might here be made; for it is probable that after this
recension had suffered somewhat in the course of time, it was examin-
ed and revised by some person. But this incidental remark is an hypo-
thesis, the reasons of which I cannot here unfold without tedious par-
ticularity.
The basis of this recension is the xovn doois as it existed in Sy-
ria. If this position be correct, as it will soon be found to be, we are
no longer in doubt respecting its native country or its author. It must
have originated in Syria, and consequently must be the recension of
Lucian, Presbyter of Antioch, which extended itself from Syria to
Constantinople and Thrace. We recognize it in the Constantinopoli-
tan fathers; e. g. in Theophylact, though we have not his text at pres-
ent in a state of perfect purity.
We have already selected above some important readings, character-
SECOND PERIOD.
123
τι
•
istic of the most ancient Syrian text, which are not found in Egyptian
MSS. before or after Hesychius, nor in the versions of that country.
All of these, the number of which we might further increase, we meet
with in the large class of MSS., which as we have said present Lucian's
Emendation. Matt. 6: 13, ότι σου ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ ἡ δύναμις,
καὶ ἡ δόξα, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, FGSV, bh ; the MSS. EH are here defec-
tive.Matt. 20: 22, μέλλω πίνειν καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζο-
μαι, βαπτισθῆναι, and v. 23, καὶ τὸ βάπτ. ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτ. . . . βαπτισ-
θήσεσθε, EHSV. Here indeed FG and bh are defective, but their tes
timony could easily be supplied by some dozen others.-Mark 6: 11
εἰς μαρτ. αὐτοῖς—ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται Σοδόμοις ή
Γομόροις ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως, ἢ τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ, EFGHSV, bh.
Mark 13: 14, τῆς ἐρημώσεως τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου,
EFGHSV, bh Luke 4: 18, απέσταλκέ μελάσασθαι τοὺς συντε
τριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν-Luke 10: 22, καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθη
τὰς εἶπε. John 1: 27, ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος—ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου
γέγονεν. John 5: 16, οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι—καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι.
John 6: 22, εἰ μὴ ἕν—ἐκεῖνο εἰς ὃ ἀνέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. Also
John 6: 69, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ζῶντος. Though here and there in
these passages one of the witnesses fails us, as e. g. F, which has not
been collated in John, and bh which are silent in John 5: 16 and 6: 22,
as is the case with h also in John 1: 27, we may overlook the circum-
stance without scruple; for a host of other MSS. of this family would
convince us, that these peculiar readings of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις in Syria
belong also to this recension.
•
ει μη
Ο
The origin of this text from the copies of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις as it was
read in Syria, can be made clear in no way better than by selecting
some suitable passage from the Gospels and comparing it with the Pes-
chito. It cannot but be acceptable to see at one view the two recen-
sions of Lucian and Hesychius, and further to observe the similarity of
the latter to Codex D, and to perceive with no trouble how many of its
peculiarities are retained in the recension which sprung from it and
from MSS. like it. We select for this purpose the fourth chapter of
Mark.
HESYCHIUS.
1. συνάγεται
LUCIANUS.
συνήχθη
BCL.
ὄχλος πλείστος
BCL.
ὄχλος πολύς
ἡ ἐμβάντα εἰς τὸ πλοῖον.
το
εῖς τὸ πλοῖον ἐμβάντα
BCLD.
Syr.
γῆς ἦσαν
BCL.
γῆς ἦν
Syr.
6. καὶ ὅτε ανέτειλεν ὁ ἥλιος
8. ἄλλα ἔπεσ.
0
BCLD. Syr.
ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατείλαντος
BCL.
ἄλλο ἔπεσ.
•
Syr.
αυξανόμενον
10. καὶ ὅτε
ἠρώτων
BCLD.
αυξάνοντα
BCLD.
ὅτι δέ
Syr.
BCL.
ἠρώτησαν
τάς παραβολάς
11. ὑμῖν τὸ μυστήριον δέδοται
12. ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς
BCL.
B L. Copt.
BCL.
μυστήριον
τήματα
τὴν παραβολήν Syr.
ἡ ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὸ
ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἁμαρ
Syr.
Syr.
124
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
HESYCHIUS.
LUCIANUS.
15. ευθύς
BCL.
εὐθέως
ἐν αὐτοῖς εἰς αὐτούς, Β.).
CL.
{ é
ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν
Syr.
16. ευθύς
BCL,
εὐθέως
18. καὶ ἄλλοι εἰσίν
BCL.
καὶ οὗτοί εἰσιν
Syr.
ἀκούσαντες
BCLD.
ἀκούοντες
19. τοῦ αἰῶνος
BCLD.
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου
Syr.
20. καὶ ἐκεῖνοί εἰσιν
BCL.
καὶ οὗτοί εἰσιν
Syr.
22. ἐὰν μή
BCL.
Ο
24. ὑμῖν καὶ προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν
BCL.
28. αυτομάτη ἡ γῆ
BCL.
30. πῶς ὁμοίως .
BCL.
31. μικρότερον
B LD.
BCLD. Syr.
BCL.
32. μείζων (μείζον) πάντων τῶν
λαχάνων
34. τοῖς ἰδίοις μαθηταῖς
36. καὶ ἄλλα
πλοῖα
37. ήδε γεμίζεσθαι τὸ πλοῖον
38. ἐν τῇ πούμ.
40. τί δειλοί ἐστε οὕτω
ὃ ἐὰν μή
ὑμῖν καὶ προστεθήσεται
ὑμῖν τοῖς ἀκούουσι Syr.
αυτομάτη γαρ ἡ γῆ Syr.
τίνι ὁμοίως .
μικρότερος
πάντων τῶν λαχάνων μεί
ι ζων
τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ Syr.
E L. Copt. Syr. καὶ ἄλλα δὲ
BC D.
BCLD.
BCLD. Syr.
B L. Copt. D.
}
πλοιάρια
αὐτὸ δε γεμίζεσθαι Syr.
ἐπὶ τῇ πρύμ.
•
τί δειλοί ἐστε οὕτω ; πῶς
οὐκ.
Syr.
Not to add further examples, we shall find the two recensions to
compare throughout in this manner. The variations found in them
are only errors of individual MSS. which, if we pay too much attention
to them, will often obscure our apprehension of the two recensions. It
is to be expected, however, that a considerable number of MSS. should
be uniformly alike throughout each recension, and we shall admit in
such a case, (which will soon present itself to our notice,) that we have
not before us the lawless career of erroneous and accidental readings.
The other point which we wished to evince by the presentation of
these specimens, viz. the origin of this recension from the κοινὴ ἔκδο-
σις as it circulated in Syria, may have been made evident from our col-
lation of the Peschito, which was composed before Lucian's time and
hence from some more ancient copy. Now, in comparing his recension
with this old copy, we can readily form an idea of his mode of proce-
dure. We shall perceive that he removed whatever had been transferred
from one Evangelist into others, (Matt. 22: 37. 28: 18. Mark 8: 29.
Luke 9: 39. 24: 36), whatever had crept in by means of the church-
lessons, (Matt. 20: 17. Luke 19: 26), explanatory additions, amplifica-
tions and circumlocutions, (Matt. 21: 34. 6: 32. 14: 6. Mark 6: 31.
9: 3. Luke 9:29. John 7: 39), transpositions, (Matt. 7: 30. Mark 6:
51), and other extraneous matter of the same description.
He, however, admitted readings which did not exist in the copy from
which the Peschito was made; e. g. Matt. 25: 13, τὴν ὥραν ἐν ᾗ ὁ
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται. John 8: 59, ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ προῆγεν
!
SECOND PERIOD.
125
οὕτως, John 11: 41, τον λίθον οὗ ἦν ὁ τεθηκώς κείμενος; which
consequently must have been sustained by a majority of his MSS.
This recension, as respects the Acts of the Apostles, appears in the
Moscow MSS. f or S. Synod. CCCXXXIII, aI (S. Synod. XLV),
b (S. Synod. IV. Praxapost.), d (S. Synod. CCCXXXIV), also c
(S. Synod. CCCLIV), and m (S. Synod. CCCXXVIII), which
have all been collated by Matthaei; also in Codex k, belonging to that
scholar. Among these, ƒ seems to be the best copy, while c and m have
suffered most by unseasonable corrections. With these agrees another
very good MS., Alexandrino-Vatic. 29 in Birch, as also the MSS. in
the royal library, Lambec. XXXV. or Nessel CCXXI. and Lambec.
XXXVII. or Nessel CCCXIII. All these have a perfectly decided char-
acter. They do not, however, stand alone; but their class is very nu-
merous, and MS. belonging to it are found in other collections. Their
text however is not exactly pure, or else extracts have frequently been
made from them without the requisite accuracy.
In respect to the Acts of the Apostles in this recension, we have par-
ticularly to remark that it does not agree so invariably as the other bib-
lical books with the readings of the Syriac text. Yet it does not differ
so much that all the traces of its relationship are lost. Among the
readings peculiar to this recension there are none of very great extent.
The longest is in Acts 26: 30, where the Egyptian Recension says mere-
ly, avtorn o Baoiλevs AB, 40, 367, 1. Copt.: it is expressed thus in this
recension: εἰπόντος αὐτοῦ ἀνέστη ὁ βασιλ. ƒ, al, b, d, k, c, m,
Alex. Vat. 29, Lambec. XXXV. and Lambec. XXXVII. But the most
remarkable is in Acts 20: 28, where some MSS. read xvolov, others
Xoltou and also ou, and this recension connects the two readings:
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ, f, al, b, d, k, c, m, Alex. Vat. 29,
Lambec. XXXV. and Lambec. XXXVII.
C
•
We will here, as in the Gospels, present parallel with each other pas-
sages from the two recensions, and we shall select for this purpose Acts
24 and 25. Of the MSS. of the Egyptian Recension which we have
before named C is sometimes defective, and of their own exdoors
likewise D is defective in both chapters. But we have another celebra-
ted copy of it in the Acts, viz. the Laudian MS. E, which we collate
here with the rest.
HESYCHIUS.
ACTS XXIV.
LUCIANUS.
40. 367. 1. Ε.
40. 367. 1. Ε.
AB.
μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων Syr.
στάσιν
Syr.
Syr.
1. μετὰ πρεσβυτέρων τινῶν ΑΒ.
5. στάσεις
9. συνεπέθεντο
10. κριτὴν δίκαιον
εὐθύμως
11. ἡμέραι δώδεκα
εἰς ῾Ιερουσαλήμ
12. ἐπίστασιν
13. δύνανται σοι
15. μέλλ. ἔσεσθαι
40. 367. 1. E.
AB. 40. 367. 1. E.
B. 40. 367. 1.
AB. 40. 367. 1.
AB. 40.
A.
1.
40. 367. 1. Syr.
AB. 40. 367. e.
AB. 40. 367. 1. E.
ABC. 40.
συνέθεντο
κριτήν
ευθυμότερον
ἡμέρας δεκαδύο
ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ
ἐπισύστασιν
δύνανται
Syr.
μέλλ. ἔσεσθαι νεκρῶν Syr.
126
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
HESYCHIUS.
ABC. 40. 367. 1. E.
ABC. 40. 367. 1. E.
16. ἐν τούτῳ καί
18. ἐν αἷς εὗρ. . .
22. ἀνεβάλετο δὲ αὐτοὺς ὁ
ABC. 40. 367. 1. Ε.
23. τηρεῖσθαι αυτόν
ὑπηρετεῖν
25. ἔμφοβος
ABC. 40. 367. 1. E.
ABC. 40. 367. 1. E.
Syr.
ABC. 40. 367. 1.
{
LUCIANUS.
Syr.
ἐν τούτῳ δέ
ἐν οἷς εὗρ. . .
ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα, ἀνεβάλε
το δὲ αὐτοὺς ὁ Φήλιξ Syr.
· τηρεῖσθαι τὸν Παῦλον
ار
Syr.
ὑπηρετεῖν ἢ προσέρχεσθαι
ἔσεσθαι, ἔμφοβος
A c. 40. 367. 1. E.
26. Παύλου διό
Παύλου, ὅπως λύσῃ αὐτόν·
. Syr.
27. χάριτα
χάριν
ABC. 40.
διό
χάριτας
367. 1.
5. ἀνδρὶ ἄτοπον
6. οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ δέκα
7. περίεστησαν αυτόν
καταφέροντες
{
κατὰ τοῦ Παύλου omitted.
8. τοῦ Παύλου ἀπολογου-
μένου
9. κριθῆναι
11. εἰ μὲν οὖν
15. καταδίκην
16. ἄνθρωπον πρίν
18. ἔφερον, ὧν
ὑπεν. ἐγὼ πονηράν οι
πονηρῶν
20. περὶ τούτων
AB.
ACTS XXV.
ΑΒ. 40. 367. Ι. Ε.
ABC. 40. 367. 1.
Syr.
ΑΒ. 367. αὐτῷ, 40.1.
ABC. 40. 367. 1. Ε.
A c. 40. 367. Syr.
ABC. 40. 367. Syr.
AB. 40. 367. 1.
ABC, 1. E. Syr.
ABC. 40. 367. 1.
ABC. 40.
E.
ἀνδρὶ τούτῳ
·
πλείους ἢ δέκα
περιέστησαν
φέροντες
κατὰ τοῦ Παύλου
ἀπολογουμένου αὐτοῦ
κρίνεσθαι
εἰ μὲν γάρ
δίκην
Syr.
ἡ ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἀπώλειαν
A c. 40. 367. 1. Ε. ἐπέφερον, ὧν
ABC. 40. 367. 1. Ε.
Syr.
ABC. 40. 367. 1. Ε.
Syr.
ABC. 40. 367. 1. Ε.
21. ἀναπέμψω
23. κατ' ἐξοχ. τ. πόλ.
ABC. 40.
ΑΒ. 40. 367. 1.
1. Syr.
25. κατελαβόμην
αυτοῦ δέ
πέμπειν
26. τί γράψω
ABC. 40. 367. 1. E.
ABC. 40. 367.
ΑΒ.
1. Syr.
· ὑπεν. ἐγώ
περὶ τούτου
πέμψω
κατ' ἐξοχ. οὖσι τῆς πόλ.
καταλαβόμενος
καὶ αὐτοῦ δέ
πέμπειν αυτόν
τί γράψαι
Syr.
Syr.
In the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, the principal MS. of the text
of Lucian is a very beautiful one written in uncial characters, (accom-
panied with Scholia in the cursive character,) which bears the number
XCVIII in the library of the Holy Synod and is designated G by Mat-
thæi. As we have already in Paul's Epistles a Codex G we will desig-
nate this by the small letter g. After this comes f, then klmcd and the
two πραξαπόστολοι α3 and b. All except g have been noticed before
}
SECOND PERIOD.
127
in speaking of the Acts; where, however, Codex or S. Synod
CCCLXXX, was on the side of the Hesychian text.
Besides these Matthæi found a MS. of Paul in particular in the li-
brary of the Holy Synod n. XCIX. He cites its readings under the
letter n.
Moreover, the Epistles of Paul and the Catholic Epistles according
to this recension are contained in Alexandrino Vat. 29, Pio-Vat. 50.
collated in Birch, and Lambec. XXVIII, Lambec. XXXVII, Lambec.
XXXV, Lambec. I or Nessel. XXXIII; all in the Royal library at Vien-
na and collated by Alter. The text of Paul however in these MSS.,
is preserved in a better and purer state than that of the Catholic Epistles.
The similarity to the Syriac version, which appears less striking in
the Acts of the Apostles, and in the 25th chapter is scarcely observable,
is here exhibited strongly; yet, as is easily conceived, we must except
from this remark such of the Catholic Epistles as did not form part of
the original contents of the Peschito, and were not added till a later
period.
η
The Epistles of Paul contain important peculiar readings, of which
we will give one or two examples. In Rom. 8: 1, Lucian's MSS. add
after ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ the words: μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ
нατа пvεvμα, g. f. k. l. m. n. c. a3. b. Alexandrino Vat. 29, Pio-Vat. 50,
Lambec. I, XXVIII, XXXV, XXXVII, which is read in very few
Alexandrian MSS. Of this addition the Peschito has only a part, as
far as αλλά. So, too, the clauses in Rom. 11: 6, εἰ δὲ ἐξ ἔργων, οὐκ
ἔτι ἐστί χάρις, ἐπεὶ τὸ ἔργον οὐκέτι ἐστὶ ἔργον, which appears in all
the MSS. quoted before (together with Codex d which did not then
agree with the others,) and the old Syriac version, is very seldom found
in Hesychian copies. In the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 6: 20,
there occurs after the words σώματι ὑμῶν the clause; καὶ ἐν τῷ
πνεύματι ὑμῶν, ἅτινά ἐστι θεοῦ, which is admitted only by Lu-
cian's MSS. (all the MSS. above mentioned,) and the Syriac version.
This happens also in the Catholic Epistles, 1 John 5: 13, τavтα yoαya
ὑμῖν ταῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ: in which,
contrary to the Alexandrian MSS., all the MSS. coincide, the Syriac
version alone dissenting.
That we may again compare the two Recensions with each other
and remark the origin of one as to Paul's Epistles from the MSS. DEFG,
and of the other from the text exhibited in the Peschito, we will select
readings from the 9th and 10th chapters of the 1st Epistle to the Co-
rinthians, and from Jude, as an example of the Catholic Epistles.
HESYCHIUS.
NINTH CHAPTER.
LUCIANUS.
1. οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ } AB. Copt. 17. 46. ( οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος, οὐκ εἰ
εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος
7. τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ
8. ἢ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα ου
0
λέγει
}
Syr.
ABC. 17. 46. DEFG.
}
ABC.
46. DE.
. μὶ ἐλεύθερος
ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καρποῦ
Syr.
ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα
λέγει
Syr.
128
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
HESYCHIUS.
10. ὀφείλει ἐπ' ἐλπίδι
ABC. 17. 46.
LUCIANUS.
ἐπ' ἐλπίδι ὀφείλει
Syr.
ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχεινι ABC. 17. 46. Syr. της ελπίδος αὐτοῦ μετέχειν
12. ὑμῶν (τῆς ἐξουσίας
13. παρεδρεύοντες
16. και γάρ μοι
18. εὐαγγέλιον, εἰς τό
20. ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον, μὴ ὢν
αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον
21. Θεοῦ, ἀλλ' ἔννομος
Χριστοῦ
23. πάντα δὲ ποιῶ
ABC. 46. DFG.
ABC. 17. 46. DEFG.
ABC. 17. 46. DEFG.
ABC. 17. 46. D.
ABC. 17. 46. DEFG.
τῆς ἐξουσίας ὑμῶν
προσεδρεύοντες
οὐαὶ δέ μου
Syr.
εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ,
εἰς τό
ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον
Syr.
θεῷ ἀλλ' ἔννομος Χριστῷ
ABC. 17. 46. DEFG.
ABC. 17. 46. DEFG.
τοῦτο δὲ ποιῶ
Syr.
TENTH CHAPTER.
1. οὐ θέλω γάρ
2. ἐβαττίσθησαν
9. τινὲς αὐτῶν
10. τινές
11. τυπικῶς συνέβ. . .
19. . . . εἰδωλόθυτον.
είδωλον
20. θύουσι bis.
23. πάντα ἔξεστιν bis.
24. τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου
•
28. τὴν συνείδησιν Copt.
}
ABC. 17. 46. DEFG.
A c. 17. 46. DEFG.
ABC. 46. DFG.
ABC. 17. 46. DEFG.
Syr.
ABC. 17. 46. F.
ABC. 17. 46.
ABC. 17. 46. DEFG.
ABC. 17. 46. DEFG.
ABC. 17.
DEFG.
Β c. 17. 46. DEFG.
Syr.
οὐ θέλω δέ
ἐβαπτίσαντο
καί τινες αὐτῶν
Syr.
Syr.
τύποι συνέβ. . . .
Syr.
θυτον . . . .
} καί τινες
εἴδωλον . . . . εἰδωλό-
θύει bis.
Syr.
πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν bis. Syr.
τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου ἕκαστος Syr.
τὴν συνείδησιν τοῦ γὰρ κυ
ρίου ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ πλήρω
μα αὐτῆς
The contrast between the two Recensions might be presented in ma-
ny more readings if we could call to our aid a larger number of accu-
rately collated MSS. of the Egyptian text in order, when any of them
fail us, to determine from the rest what is the peculiar reading of the
Recension. Most probably the following readings are not errors in
individual MSS., but belong to the Egyptian text; this is not however,
sufficiently well ascertained : 1 Cor. 9: 3, αὕτη ἐστίἐστὶν αὕτη ΑΒ.
46; ν. 12, ἐγκοπήν τινα—τινὰ ἐγκοπήν ΑΒ, ν. 15, ἵνα τις κενώση
οὐδεὶς κενώσεις ΑΒ. 17, and οὐ κέχρημαι ουδενί ΑΒ. 17; Χ. 16, κοιτ
νωνία ἐστὶ τοῦ) αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ΑΒ; ν. 32, καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίοις γίν
νεσθε ΑΒ.
1 Codex 46 reads ἐπ' ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ in the second clause.
SECOND PERIOD.
129
J
20. ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς
τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ἡμῶν πίστ
τει
HESYCHIUS.
EPISTLE OF JUDE.
LUCIANUS.
1. ἠγαπημένοις
ΑΒ.
367.
ἡγιασμένοις
3. κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρ
Copt. A. 367.
κοινῆς σωτηρ.
4. δεσπότην καὶ κύριον
ABC.
367.
5. ἅπαξ πάντα
ABC.
367.
ἅπαξ τοῦτο
15. ἀσεβεῖς
ABC.
367.
18. ἐπ' ἐσχάτου (του) χρόνου
ABC.
367.
ΑΒ.
367.
}
ABC. 40. 367.
ABC. 40. 367.
ἡ
}
ABC. 40. 367.
σωτῆρι ἡμῶν
ΑΒ.
367.
δόξα και μεγαλωσύνη
ABC. 40. 367. ᾗ
{
ἐξουσία καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας
ABC. 40. 367.
δεσπότην θεὸν καὶ κύριον
ἀσεβεῖς αὐτῶν
· τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει ἐπ-
οικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτούς
καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεεῖτε διακρινό
μενοι
οὓς δὲ ἐν φόβῳ σώζετε ἐκ (τοῦ)
πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες
μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ
ἐν ἐσχατῷ χρόνῳ
ત
22. καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλέγχετε δια-
κρινομένους
23. οὓς δὲ σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς
ἁρπάζοντες (οὓς δὲ ἐλε
ᾶτε) (ἐλεεῖτε) ἐν φόβῳ
25. μόνῳ θεῷ
σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου -
μῶν
δόξα, μεγαλωσύνη
ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς (του)
αἰῶνος
τοὺς αἰῶνας
Codex 40, at its commencement, is unfaithful to its Recension, in
some minute readings, as I am satisfied from a comparison of the Boc-
lerian edition from which Zacagni made his extracts; but if we take
only the readings in which the Egyptian MSS. cited are all agreed, we
shall observe enough variations in so small a compass to show the con-
stant discrepancies between these two recensions.
The Apocalypse of this recension is found in the Moscow MSS. r
kpl and o. Of the first we know neither the situation nor number;¹
we have noticed k and 7 before; p is S. Synod. CCVI; o is S. Synod,
LXVII, with the Scholia of Andreas. These are not all equally valu-
able, and in general it is very difficult to find among modern MSS. any
containing the pure and uncorrupted text of this book; and it is im-
possible to find so ancient and valuable documents as A and C are in
regard to the Apocalyptic text of Hesychius. Codex o has suffered
most of them all.
A very good MS., however, of this recension is Harleian 5613, col-
lated by Griesbach and designated in his edition by the number 29.
Also Lambec. I, or Nessel. XXIII, in Alter, and Alexandrino-Vat. 68,
Vatican. 1160, Pio-Vat. 50 are among the valuable copies. Andreas,
bishop of Cappadocia, followed this text in his commentaries; yet not
so exclusively that he did not also make use of other MSS.
MS. B or Basilianorum in Urbe N. CV, written in uncial characters
1 It is noticed very briefly at the end of the Epistle to the Romans in Mat-
thi’s edition, p. 278.
17
130
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
and collated by Wetstein, alternates in its readings between this and the
Hesychian Recension. It has also many peculiar readings not met
with in either, and appears to ine to belong to a peculiar recension, to
which Wetstein's N. 9 or Huntingtonianus 1, and Wetstein N. 14 or
the Leicester MS. may also belong. However, without pursuing this
subject further at present, I must content myself with presenting speci-
mens of the two Recensions, of the existence of which we have obtain-
ed sufficient proof.
REV. I.
HESYCHIUS.
4. ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν
5. λύσαντι
ἐκ τῶν ἁμαρτ. . .
9. συγκοινωνός
καὶ τὴν μαρτυρ. .
Ιησοῦ
13. τῶν λυχνιῶν
15. πεπυρωμένης
18. τῶν αἰώνων
AC.
579.
Ac. Kollar. 26.
Ac. Koll. 26. 579.
AC. Koll. 26. 579.
•
Ac.
579.
LUCIANUS.
Ρ
ἀπὸ θεοῦ, ὁ ὢν
λούσαντι
ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτ. . .
κοινωνός
καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρ.
Ac. Koll. 26. 579. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
ΑC.
AC.
579.
Ac. Koll. 26. 579.
τῶν ἑπτὰ λυχνιῶν
πεπυρωμένοι
τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν
REV. II.
1. τῷ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
2. τὸν κόπον
Ac. Koll.¹ 26.
AC. Koll. 26.
τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
τον κόπον σου
3. καὶ οὐ κεκοπίακας
AC.
579.
καὶ οὐκ ἐκοπίασας
5. ἔρχομαί σοι
AC.
9. οἶδά σου τὴν θλῖψιν
AC.
10. μὴ φοβοῦ
AC.
Ιδού μέλλει
ΑΓ.
579.
13. οἶδα που κατοικ. . .
AC.
579.
Αντίπας ὁ μάρτ. . .
ΑΓ.
14. ἐδίδασκεν τ. β.
AC.
18. ὀφθαλμούς
ἔρχομαί σοι ταχύ
οἶδα σου τὰ ἔργα καὶ τὴν
θλίψιν
μηδὲν φοβοῦ
ἰδοὺ δὲ μέλλει
1
· οἶδα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ ποῦ
κατοικ.
•
αἷς Αντίπας ὁ μάρτ. . .
ἐδίδαξεν τ. β.
Ac. Koll. 26. 579. ὀφθαλμοὺς αὑτοῦ
20. ή λέγουσα
AC.
CI
ἣ λέγει
2. ἃ ἔμελλον
ἀποθανεῖν
9. ὅτι ἐγὼ ἠγάπησα
12. ἡ καταβαίνουσα
17. ὅτι πλούσιος
οὐδὲν χρείαν
18. ἐγχρίσ. . . . τούς
3. εἴληφας καὶ ἤκουσας καὶ
τήρει καὶ μετανόησον (
και
REV. III.
AC. Koll. 26. 579.
Ac. Koll. 26. 579.
4. ἀλλ' ἔχεις ὀλίγα ονόματα Ac.
ἃ ἔμελλες
ἀποβάλλειν
Ac.
Koll. 26. 579.
Koll. 26.
AC. Koll. 26.
εἴληφας καὶ μετανόησον
579.
579.
ἀλλ' ὀλίγα ἔχεις ὀνόματα
ὅτι ἠγάπησα
AC.
579.
CI
ἣ καταβαίνει
AC.
579.
πλούσιος
AC.
οὐδενὸς χρείαν
AC.
579.
ἵνα ἐγχρίσ. . . . τούς
1 Kollar. 26. has here both readings : τῷ τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ.
!
SECOND PERIOD.
131
The number of Constantinopolitan MSS. as may be inferred from
what has been said, far exceeds those of the Egyptian text; there is
even a great scarcity of the latter. Whence does this arise? Was it not
once the case that the West was supplied with Greek MSS. from Egypt?
Certainly the state of things has altered very much. At the revival of
science in the West, we obtained the Greek literature, MSS., and lan-
guage by means of comers from Constantinople; and whoever wished
to acquire knowledge on these subjects, or to perfect it when acquired,
travelled thither or into the isles and provinces of European Greece,
and there collected literary treasures from which to draw information
on his return. Thus our libraries were supplied chiefly from those
countries in which the edition of Lucian was prevalent. Probably a
fourth part of our MSS. are from Mt. Athos, and from the hands of the
industrious monks who there employed themselves in transcribing.
In Egypt before the fourth century, the knowledge of the Greek lan-
guage visibly declined; it was then confined to the districts on the
coast of the Mediterranean and finally to Alexandria. At the period
of the conquest of the Saracens it forsook the country for a while, until
it was permitted to return. The influence of the changes that have
occurred in Egypt upon the Greek MSS. of the Bible, will be discussed
hereafter. (§ 41.)
ORIGEN'S RECENSION.
$ 39.
It was, as we have already said, the last part of a toilsome and inde-
fatigable life that Origen devoted to the emendation of the New Testa-
ment. This shows why his labors of this nature are not more often al-
luded to in his works. He made use of the vulgaris editio, as is evident
from the frequent singular readings in his citations and the want of
uniformity observable in them.
There is a class of MSS. however, which we have reason to ascribe
to him. In the more important readings (§ 38), which are found in
Lucian's text and not in the Egyptian MSS, e. g. Matt. 6: 13, 20: 22,
Mark 6: 11, 13: 14, Luke 4: 18, 10: 22, John 1: 27, 5: 16, 7: 22
and 69, they agree entirely with the Antiochian text, as we here call
Lucian's text from the place in which he labored at his task. Such re-
semblance might be expected on account of the place in which Origen
undertook the execution of his emendation; viz. (as it was in his extreme
old age) at Tyre, to which place the Antiochian text must have extend-
ed its influence if it had any at all. On the other hand, the MSS. we are
considering very frequently incline to the Egyptian side in readings of
less importance; lastly, they have also many peculiar readings agreeing
with neither of the other two recensions.
This family of MSS. consists, as it regards the Gospels, of the fol-
lowing members, A, K, M, 42, 106, 114, 116, and no. 10 in Matthæi.
A or Codex Alex. Musei Britannici, though in the Acts, the Pauline
and Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse it exhibits the text of Hesy-
chius, plainly follows another recension in the Gospels, and resembles
132
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
the MSS. K or Cyprius (formerly Colbert. 5149, now in the Royal Li-
brary 63) and M in the same Library, formerly 22432, now 48.
MS. 42 in Wetstein was once in the College at Troyes; 106 belong-
ed to the Earl of Winchelsea; 114 is the Harleian MS. 5540 in the
British Museum, and 116 the Harl. MS. 5567 in the same, both collated
by Griesbach. Codex 10 is a splendid MS. of the Gospels in the Li-
brary of Nicephorus, Archbishop of Chersonesus.
We will now present some specimens of this recension.
LUKE IX.
Alexandrian Recension.
1. δώδεκα μαθη-
ταὶ αὐτοῦ
5. μὴ δέχωνται
10. εἰς πόλιν και
λουμένην Βη-
do.
5
δώδεκα
μὴ δέχωνται
εἰς ἔρημον τόπον
πόλεως καλου-
μένης Βηθσ. . .
21. μηδ. λέγειν τοῦτο μηδ. λέγειν τοῦτο
Matthaei.
Constantinopolitan
Recension.
AKM. 42. 106. 114. 116. Μt. 10. δώδεκα
ΑΚ.
A.
116. Με. 10. μὴ δέξωνται
εἰς τόπον ἔρη
μου πόλεως
καλ. Βηθσ . .
116. Μt. 10. μηδ. εἰπεῖν τοῦτο
116 Μt. 10. τ. τ. ἡ. ἐγερθῆναι
114. 116. Mt. 10.
A M. 42.
22. τ. τ. ἡ. ἐγερ
θῆναι, appar-
τ. τ. ἡ. ἀναστῆναι
AK. 42.
ently.
ΑΚ. 42.
ἀρνησάσθω,
probably.
άρνησάσθω
ΑΚ. 42.
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκο-
αὐτοῦ καθ' ἡμέραν
23. όπ. μου ἔρχεσθαι όπ. μου ἔρχεσθαι
λουθ. μοι. ap-
parently.
27. ἀληθῶς, εἰσι
ἑστηκότων
38. ἐπίβλεψον ἐπὶς
τόν
41. καὶ ἀνέξομαι
45. ἐρωτῆσαι αὐτόν
probably.
50. καθ᾽ ὑμῶν ὑπὲρ
ὑμῶν
55. στραφεὶς δέ
59. ἀπελθύντι
πρῶτον
καὶ ἀκολουθ. μοι
ἀληθῶς ἔτι εἰσὶ
ἑστώτων
ΑΚ.
ΚΑ.
AKM. 42. 106.
S
ἐπίβλεψαι ἐπὶ τόν
AKM. 42. 106.
Κ.
42.
ἕως πότε ανέξομαι
ἐπερωτῆσαι αὐτόν
καθ' ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ
ὑμῖν
στραφεὶς δὲ ὁ Ιη-
de d'In-}
σους
} ἀπελθεῖν πρῶτον
}
KM.
KM.
K.
ΑΚ. 42.
114. 116. Με. 10. οπ. μου ἐλθεῖν
114. 116. Μt. 10. ἀπαρνησάσθω
114. 116. Μι. 10. ς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκο-
Mt. {λουθ. μοι
116. Μt. 10. ἀληθῶς, εἰσι
116. Μt. 10. έστώτων
116. Μt. 10. ἐπίβλεψαι ἐπὶ τόν
116. Μt. 10. καὶ ἀνέξομαι
116. Mt. 10. ἐρωτῆσαι αὐτόν
114. 116. A in part.
ς καθ' ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ
[ ἡμῶν
114. 116. Μt. 10. στραφεὶς δέ
114. 116. Μt. 10. ἀπελθόντι πρῶτον
LUKE XI.
5. καὶ εἶπε πρὸς
10. κρούοντι ἀνοί-
γεται, appar.
11. δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν
13. πονηροὶ ὑπάρ
χοντες
15. τῷ ἄρχοντι
ς
}
καὶ ἔρει προς
κρούοντι ἀνοιχθή-
AKM. 42. 106. 114.
Μt. 10. καὶ εἶπε πρός
ΑΚ.
114.
5 κρούοντι ἀνοι-
γήσεται
σεται
δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν
ARM. 42. 106. 114. 116. Mt. 10. dè vuon
Mt. 10. { πονηροὶ ὑπάρ
χοντες
Mt. 10. ἄρχοντε
πονηροὶ ὄντες
τῷ ἄρχοντι
KM. 42.
114.
AKM. 42. 106. 114.
SECOND PERIOD.
133
Alexandrian Recension.
15. after δαιμόνια
is subjoined:
δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς (or
Constan. Recension.
22. σκύλα
28. φυλάσσοντες
44. οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ὅτι
καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς) > AKM. 42. 106. 114. 116. Μt. 10.
εἶπε· πῶς δύνα
ται σατανᾶς σα
τανᾶν ἐκβάλλειν,
σκεύη
φυλάσσοντες
οὐαὶ ὑμῖν γραμμα
τεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖ
οι ὑποκριταί ὅτι
K. 42.
114. 116. Με. 10. σκλα
A 42.
114.
Α.
48. οικοδομεῖτε τα οικοδομεῖτε αὐτων ΑΚ. 42.
τα
ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος
51. ἀπὸ αἵματος } Αβελ, τοῦ δι
"Αβελ
52. οὐκ εἰσήλθατε
53. κἀκεῖθεν ἐξελ-
θόντος αὐτοῦ
ἤρξαντο
καίου
οὐκ εἰσήλθατε
λέγοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ
ταῦτα πρὸς αὐτ
τους, ήρξαντο
114. 116. Mt. 10.
114. 116. Μt. 10.
φυλάσσοντες αὐτόν
οὐαὶ ὑμῖν γραμμ.
καὶ Φαρ. ὑπο-
κρι ότι
ς οἰκοδομεῖτε αὐτ
τῶν τά
KM. 42.
114.
Mt.
Με. 10.
{
ἡ
ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος
Αβελ
Α Μ.
Mt. 10. οὐκ εἰσήλθετε
λέγοντος δὲ α.
τ. π. αὐτοὺς
ἤρξαντο
The agreement of these MSS. is pretty plain. I am aware however
of what may be said on the other hand. I had observed from a colla-
tion of other chapters and other Gospels that A and Matthæi 10 are
sometimes unfaithful to the family, and that KM and 106 are often silent
when they should have a voice, and hence I judged had not been collat-
ed word for word, but only hastily. Griesbach collated MSS: 114 and
116 only in certain passages, in order to gain some idea of their charac-
ter and peculiarities.
All this and more I well knew; but perceiving a striking agreement
in these MSS. so far as they were collated, well or ill, I thought a con-
clusion might be drawn from what was known to what was unknown,
from what had been to what had not been collated.
1
When the revered Griesbach suggested the scruples above mention-
ed,¹ I felt their force the more because they had before occurred to my
own mind. The MS. K was collated anew by one of my pupils and
friends, but the result was less satisfactory than I had hoped. Yet
from subjecting these MSS. to a new investigation, as minute as possi-
ble without another collation, so much was clear, that they maintained
a peculiar character of their own, and agreed sometimes with the Alex-
andrian, sometimes with the Antiochian, or, if it be preferred, the Con-
stantinopolitan text, many times also coinciding with each other in pe-
culiar readings. They may therefore stand separate for the present,
until further investigations shall enable the critic to pass a final judg-
ment upon them. Or rather they will always remain separate, since
compared with other MSS. they are certainly alone.
1 Commentar. Crit. in textum Græc. Novi Test. Particula IIda. Accedunt
meletemata de vetustis textus recensionibus. Meletem. II. Jenæ. 1811.
2 See below, Chap. VI, respecting MSS., an account of the Codex Cyprius,
§ 52.
134
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
The same character belongs also to the Gospels of the Philoxenian
version or text of Polycarp, exclusive of the margin which Thomas of
Charkel occupies. In the more important readings pointed out above
they agree with Lucian; in the smaller with the Egyptian MSS.; and
sometimes they contain readings of their own. As to the agreement of
this version with the MSS. AKM &c. it harmonises with this class of
MSS. in the passages extracted from Luke. We cannot indeed tell
whether the translator read εἰπεῖν οἱ λέγειν, ἀρνήσασθαι οι απαρ
νήσασθαι, ἑστεκότων oι ἑστώτων, and so far the agreement is not so
striking as it may be between Greek MSS.; but yet it is perceptible,
and this too in remarkable readings. E. g. Luke 9: 22, avantηvai;
23, καθ' ἡμέραν; 27, ἀληθῶς ὅτι; 41, ἕως πότε; 11: 15, ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς
εἶπε, πως δύναται σατανᾶς σατανᾶν εκβάλλειν ; 22, τα σκεύη; 34, σκο-
τεινὸν ἔσται. Κ 42, 106. Luke 11: 51, Αβελ τοῦ δικαίου.
,
τί
That which particularly demands attention in this version, is the crit-
ical marks which Origen has elsewhere used, the obelisks and asterisks
by which it is distinguished from all the versions of the New Testament,
as the Syriac Hexaplar is from those of the Old. Now as the Old Tes-
tament version came from Origen's amended text, we are led to believe
that it must be the case also with that of the New Testament; espe-
cially as both belonged to the same sect, the Monophysites. We may
further believe that the translator Polycarp sought an authenticated text
that he might employ his time and pains to good purpose, and found
in Origen's recension a better than he could have obtained by critici-
sing the text himself. These considerations appeared to justify me in
believing, to my satisfaction, that I saw Origen's text in the Philoxenian
version, and in referring the origin of the latter to the MSS. which pre-
sent that text.
στε
T
A closer relation of these MSS. to the Philoxenian text seemed to me
to be pointed out by the fact that their distinctive and peculiar readings.
are marked with an asterisk in the Philoxenian version. In Mark 10:
20, KM, 42, 114, 116 and Matthæi 10 add, after veórηtós uor, the
words ti évi voteo, and in Mark 10: 21, after noì ɛinev avto, the
words εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, both of which appear in the Philoxenian
version with the mark * So too in Mark 1: 19, where after diztva
KM and 42 add aurav; Luke 8: 24, where after yaλnun K, 42, 114,
116, Matt. 10, add μsyahn; Luke 9: 23, where after Oravoov avtou
AK, 114, 116, Matt. 10, add za nuέoav; Luke 17: 23, where after
inɛi KM, 116, add o Xororós and 42, 114, something similar; Luke 20:
41, where after nos léyova AKM, 42, have tives; Luke 22: 60, where
KM, 42 after λαλοῦντος, read του Πέτρου instead of αὐτοῦ; Luke 22:
61, where the same MSS. add onμεдov after govñoαι; and 24: 43,
where after ἔφαγεν, Κ, 42, read καὶ τὰ ἐπίλοιπα ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς; and
John 5: 4, where after xarà xaóv AK, 42 add človεto. All these ad-
ditions are found marked with an asterisk in the Philoxenian version.
α
It is true that none of these MSS. yet retain Origen's critical marks,
and not a single MS. of the New Testament has them except the Phi-
loxenian version. But it is easily seen how they disappeared from the
Greek MSS. The copyists made such confusion in the Old Testa-
ment by misplacing the critical signs that it became necessary to drop
the obelisks and asterisks and really to strike out or adopt what Origen
SECOND PERIOD.
135
4
had rejected or approved by means of such signs. The Librarii did
with the New Testament as they had done with the Old ; and the conse-
quence of this was, that the Origenian MSS. were correctly copied
without Origen's signs.
So much for the text of the Gospels. It was now my endeavor, un-
der the guidance of the Philoxenian version, to discover those MSS. of
the Acts and Epistles likewise, which have preserved the text of this re-
cension. I spared no pains for the purpose, but without success. The
Acts and Epistles in the Philoxenian version do indeed maintain a pe-
culiar character, as we shall see further on (§ 76) in treating of this
version; but few MSS. of these parts of the New Testament have been
collated, and of these few the greater part not continuously, but in de-
tached passages and without due care. Hence if none are found a-
mong them which uniformly resemble the Philoxenian version, the rea-
son seems to be rather the deficiency of collations than real deviation
from the MSS. which are allied to this version.
Before we close this period we must defend the preceding narrative
of the fate of the text from objections. A strong desire has been man-
ifested to take away the historical grounds upon which we have rested
and to adopt another theory upon other pretended grounds.¹
I. Jerome, to whom we have made frequent appeals, used, as to the
Septuagint, the Hexapla text of Origen. But this did not hinder him
from admitting that two other recensions existed, viz. those of Lucian
and Hesychius, and exercised far more extensive sway than Origen's
emendation. He mentions by name the countries in which they main-
tained ecclesiastical authority. Now when three critics had revised
the Old Testament, can it be the case that it never entered the mind of
any one to perform the same task for the MSS. of the New Testament
likewise, which were more or less disfigured in various countries?
And is it at all improbable that the same men examined and corrected
the MSS. of the New Testament? If they did so, both Testaments
would have been circulated together in those countries which received
their emendations. Now the fact is that they did so, as Jerome, though
disapproving their labors, testifies in his Epistle to Damasus.
But Jerome only mentions a mere report respecting the copies of Lu-
cian and Hesychius, which appeared to him wholly uncertain. Let us
not be frightened from investigation by the decided manner in which
this is stated. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus to restore one
of the existing versions which had become very corrupt, to a pure and
stable text. After he had completed his work he gave an account of
his mode of procedure in an epistle to Damasus which is brief and
rhetorical; two causes of obscurity which might easily have been
avoided in simple narrative details. But he spoke of things which were
familiar, and therefore judged it best rather to hint at than to enlarge
upon them.
First of all he came to the conclusion that it was in vain to attempt
to extricate himself from the chaos of the Latin MSS. without the
1 Dr. John Martin Augustin Scholz. "Biblisch-kritische Reise-nebst eine
Geschichte des Textes des Neu. Testament. Leipzig, 1823," and "Curæ critica
in historiam textus Evangeliorum, Heidelberg 1820.
136
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
guidance of the Greek text: "Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est
adhibenda, respondeant quibus ?" For this purpose he had indispensa-
ble need of not only Greek but good Greek MSS., and not merely one,
but many. He labored "ex codicum Græcorum collatione." These
must have been selected from a large number; and hence a large num-
ber must have been inspected and criticised. An undistinguishing use
of MSS., such as some are inclined to suppose him to have made, would
have been very indiscreet. He divided them into two classes; the mo-
dern or (so called) amended ones of Lucian and Hesychius, upon.
which his choice ought to have fallen, and the ancient, to which he gave
the preference because they harmonized better with the Latin text.
"Codicum Græcorum-sed veterum qui non multum a lectionis Latinæ
consuetudine discreparent." He reprobated the amended MSS., "qui-
bus nihil profuit emendâsse;" for the earlier versions, "scriptura ante
translata," contradicted them and the Latin was to be preferred. This
was the point: he desired so to amend the Latin text, "ut a saliva quam
quis semel imbibit &c." that it should not deviate too widely from the
customary Latin text. He incidentally supports the rejection of the
emendations of Lucian and Hesychius at Rome (where he then lived)
and within its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by the public opinion, from which
only a few perverse men deviated, "paucorum hominum-perversa con-
tentio."
Thus Jerome's task was plain before him. We could have no rea-
son to doubt whether he was really acquainted with the two classes of
MSS. unless he had erred in classifying them or had incorrectly stated
their relation to the Latin versions. But the relation of the ancient
MSS. to the Latin he has confessedly stated aright; and that of the
amended ones to the Latin, also, he states to have been what it must
have been if the Latin versions were made before the two emendations.
Besides, he must have been acquainted with the emendations of Hesy-
chius and Lucian, inasmuch as in his letter to Damasus he ascribes to
these men a critical examination not only of the New but also of the
Old Testament, of the last of which he treats more at large in other
writings. Everything proves that he did not speak in ignorance of his
subject.
Now, if my opponent would justify his language, he is bound to prove
that Jerome, when he returned to Rome to Damasus, knew nothing
certain respecting the copies of Hesychius and Lucian, after he had
travelled throughout Thrace and Asia Minor, stayed a long time in
Antioch, lived several years at Chalcis in Syria in studious retirement in
a monastery, already collected a considerable library, received instruc-
tion in Hebrew, consumed a year and some months in his homeward
journey to Constantinople, and there sought the company of Gregory
Nazianzen with particular reference to the study of the Holy Scriptures.
When this is satisfactorily done, he must further show that Jerome
while in Rome, neglected to examine the Greek MSS., when it was in-
cumbent on him to inform himself respecting the aid they could afford
him in accomplishing his undertaking.
And even then all would not have been done. Jerome moreover ap-
peals to public opinion at Rome, and within its ecclesiastical precincts,
from which opinion only a few perverse and contentious men differ.
SECOND PERIOD.
137
ed. Thus it was a matter which had been deliberated among people of
information. Now the value of the testimony is not altered, though the fa-
ther followed the decision of the Roman literati; for it was the testimony
of the perverse as well as the others.
I will mention myself an additional difficulty which does not indeed
endanger the main point in controversy, but might have been employed
as a subsidiary weapon. Jerome's mouth is full of such language as
"cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat." The
Africano-, Italico-, and Gallico-Latin versions might indeed have justified
him in using the expression "cum multarum gentium versionibus," but the
"lingua" was but one. I would not venture the assertion, however, that
Jerome, during his stay with the Presbyters and Syrian monks in Chal-
cis, could not have derived some information respecting their church
version and its relation to the Greek text. I could not avouch that the
father, in his intercourse with Egyptian bishops and monks who were at
that time banished from their country on account of ecclesiastical dis-
sensions, did not yield so far to curiosity, as to converse respecting the
versions of Egypt, of which the Upper-Egyptian resembles very much
the Latin versions.
1
II. I must desert my previous opponent for a moment, in order to re-
ply to a learned and estimable man, who proposes a doubt whether me-
tropolitan regulations were then so perfect that the recension of the
capital could have been prescribed to a country. But the authority of
the metropolis had long before been the standard for the surrounding
country, and in later times gave rise to the metropolitan system. The
authority of the cities did not proceed from the Patriarchs and Metro-
politans, but was exercised by the cities over their own churches with
their officers. The capitals contained more learned men and greater re-
sources, and were in general the places of instruction for both Pagan
and Christian, (e. g. Alexandria and Antioch,) and from them the
country obtained its learned men. Alexandria, it is well known, con-
tained a celebrated school in which Christian teachers qualified them-
selves for their office. Antioch had one similar which differed from the
former as to biblical interpretation. Respecting this school, we have
already some elegant investigations,2 and are promised some more com-
plete from a more learned pen. Now the text of Lucian proceeded
from the Antiochian school, and the Hesychian from the Alexandrian,
which considered the text as its own. Thus they came from the two
principal schools in Christendom. I have not said this for the informa-
tion of the learned, but only to bring to their recollection what they al-
ready knew.
3
III. I return to my first opponent. He pretends that the ancient cor-
ruptions of the text were confined to Alexandria alone. We shall make
no reply to certain very weighty arguments presented by him, such as
that it would have been indiscreet to permit any such thing, and what
1 Dr. J. Sev. Vater, in the "Kirchen. historichen Archiv. 1823." Halle 2d.
Heft. p. 84.
2 "De Schola Antiochena programma." ed. D. Frid. Münter Selandiæ Episcop.
Hafniæ 1811. 4.
3 Neander in his preface to John Chrysostom.
18
138
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
is said respecting the holy character of the bishops, who in other places
exercised a better supervision than to suffer it. Alexandria and Egypt
were not, to say the least, deficient in holy teachers; but the most holy
could not prevent the people, if they read the Bible, from inquiring of
learned men respecting an obscure expression and subjoining to the
MS. the more intelligible word, or making use of other biblical passages
in explanation and noting them on the margin to refresh their memory
&c. &c. But enough concerning arguments of this kind. It should
not be forgotten that Origen, then and for a long time resident at Tyre,
felt the necessity of correcting the MSS. of the New Testament in his
vicinity and probably elsewhere, and actually performed the task. The
Codices Adamantii, whose readings Jerome quotes in his commentaries,
leave no room for doubt on this point.
IV. It is somewhat venturesome for any one to assert positively with-
out evidence and to certify under his own hand, that Pamphilus bought
up MSS. of the New Testament in Alexandria (which abounded in
them) and thus gave occasion for the corruptions which took place in
the MSS. of Palestine. Is it probable that he who venerated Origen
and his works, especially his critical works, so highly, would have done
this? All we know of him would lead us rather to conjecture that he
used his utmost endeavours to extend the Origenian MSS.
On the contrary the Alexandrians, out of esteem for the copies of Pam-
philus, collated their copies with his in Cæsarea, or caused them to be
thus collated. The remains of Codex H in the Epistles are acknowl-
edged to be Alexandrian,2 and according to the subscription the MS.
was collated at Cæsarea with a copy written by Pamphilus' own hand.
V. We are required to do away the difference between the MSS. BC
L &c. (which we regard as the later Egyptian text,) and the MSS. of
the corrupt text of D Cantabrigiensis, together with those which are col-
lated on the margin of the Philoxenian version, and in general all the
MSS. which we have wrongly represented as exhibiting the zouvy Ex-
docis. But if time has made a difference, is it incumbent upon us to
do it away? The text of the MSS. of the zown indoors ceases with
the Memphitic version, and is found no later than the writings of the
fathers of the 4th century, Athanasius, Macarius, &c., appearing distinct-
ively in no Egyptian father afterwards. Hence the former is the more
modern, the latter the antiquated text. We cannot therefore make use
of the sage advice that we should confound together things which time
has distinguished.
Other objections are completely obviated by our history of the text
and the versions. What we have said of the Armenian version rests on
good historical accounts concerning that nation. How then can any
one reckon it among the monuments of a pure text, and found infer-
ences upon that supposition?
1 Dr. J. M. A. Scholz: "Bibl. Krit. Reise und Geschichte des textes. p.
174, 175.
2 Griesbach Symbolæ Criticæ, P. II. P. 83-87.
THIRD PERIOD.
139
}
HISTORY OF THE TEXT. THIRD PERIOD.
$ 40.
Through the labors of these three learned men, there was now a text es-
tablished, and a stop put for a time to the destructive proceedings of im-
prudent men and half-formed critics. This improved state of the text was
not indeed of long duration, but it was fraught with important and use-
ful consequences. Ignorant critics could not carry forward the confu-
sion which they had begun; they were obliged to begin anew, and to
labor for a long time before they could bring the text back to its former
condition.
It was impossible that the recensions should long retain their original
purity; for it was not only customary, but even necessary, for the trans-
cribers to consult a second and third copy, in order by their aid to cor-
rect the mistakes which had been committed by their predecessors at all
events, and from which a transcript could not easily be completely free.
For this purpose old copies were generally used when such could be
procured, as the subscriptions to the MSS. frequently inform us: avre-
βλήθη πρὸς τὰ παλαιότατα ἀντίγραφα, πρὸς παλαιὸν ἀντίγραφον &c.
Now it must sometimes have happened that a Codex of the zový
xdoois was met with, and readings again transferred from it into the
revised text. Thus, in Matt. 24: 36, the xovn exdoois contained
after οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν the addition : οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός (D, 13,
124,) which neither Lucian nor Hesychius acknowledged, and which,
as Jerome expressly asserts, was not to be found in the third recension,
in Codicibus Adamantii et Pierii; yet the transcriber of the Vat. MS.
B met with it in some old copy and again introduced it. This ancient
and valuable MS. has received many other readings from the same
source; e. g. Matt. 11: 23, os adov xaraẞnon, DB; Matt. 12: 48,
ἕως κατα
εἶπε τῷ λέγοντι αὐτῷ, DB, 15: 6, ήκυρώσατε τον λόγον. . . . ; 15: 35,
καὶ παραγγείλας τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἔλαβε τοὺς ἑπτά . .
19:9, τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς πορνείας, 24: 42, ποῖα ἡμέρᾳ ὁ κύριος;
25: 39, eídoμev dodevovvía &c. Such was the case in Codex C in
Luke 3: 16, which like D adds εἰς μετάνοιαν after βαπτίζω ὑμᾶς,
which Origen in his works expressly rejects as a false reading, and which
neither of the recensions has adopted; so Luke 8: 17, o ou gavegòv
0 φανερὸν
ἔσται,
oral, DC; and Luke 8: 42, C reads further after dлédvŋoxev-xai ¿yé-
veto Ev tập пOQevεova as it is presented by D, and in part by Marci-
νετο πορεύεσθαι
on; also Luke 11: 43, where C adds, like D, 13, 69 and 124, after ev
ταῖς ἀγοραῖς καὶ τὰς πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις &c. In Luke
18: 36, δύω ἔσονται ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, ὁ εἷς παραληφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος
¿qɛð noɛtaι certainly does not belong to Lucian's recension (it is want-
ing in FGHSV, b, h and other important MSS. in it); yet it has crept
again into d, f, l, and r (Moscow MSS). It was found in some of the
copies from which this recension sprung, as we see from the Peschito.
σετ
ντα
o
We will not accumulate the examples which are to be found in great
numbers in the Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles; but will only observe
that this relapse to the old MSS. is frequently chargeable to readers
140
HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
κοινή
who noted down readings upon the margin of their MSS. which were
afterwards introduced by some one else into the body of the text, or
themselves erased the reading of the revised text and wrote another
in its stead. Through such an alteration, for example, the word uovov
came into the MS. C after qulla in Mark 11: 13, which is found in the
copies of the noun indoors, 13, 69, 124, and in Origen. The case is
the same in this MS. with the word yaios after heyet in Mark 14: 45.
So too in C Luke 20: 23, πανουργίαν was made πονηρίαν, as is read
in D and on the margin of the Philoxenian version. So also C obtained,
in 1 Cor. 16: 15, after Ergava the addition Popтovvátov xai Az¤ï-
κου, which occurs in FG ; and in Col. 1: 12, τῷ θεῷ τῷ ἱκανώσαντι,
which occurs likewise in FG.
το
c
People could not cease making glosses now, any more than formerly,
as we have abundant evidence in the MSS. I will notice only one ex-
ample which now lies under my eye. The Euthalian Codex, Acts N.
40 in Wetstein, inserts in Acts 1: 12, between ɛgovoɑkyu and oaß-
βάτου οδόν the explanation : τοσοῦτον ἂν τὸ διάστημα ὅσον δυνατὸν
Ἰουδαῖον περιπατεῖν, and likewise Acts 11: 13, N explains γλεύκους
in the margin thus: τὸ ἀπόσταγμα τῆς σταφυλῆς πρὶν ἀντληθῆναι,
which could not but receive the same honor at the hands of so unskilful
a copyist as he must have been who interpolated the former gloss into
the text.
Selected passages of the New Testament were now too, as before,
read in the churches, and were furnished when necessary with a form
of introduction or conclusion which the reader probably wrote only up-
on the margin. We observe a conclusion of this kind in the margin
of the Basle MS. E, and the Seidel MS. H nohoi jáọ ɛioi nàŋtoì,
ókiyor dè ¿xhextoi, Luke 14:24. In the Moscow MS. V, these words are
appended to the text by a later hand; in others they were originally in-
corporated with it. Now Matthæi has proved from other circumstan-
ces that here began a church-lesson. The case is similar with respect
to the addition : ταῦτα λέγων ἐφώνει· ὁ ἔχων ῶτα ἀκούειν ἀκουέτω af-
ter пlovτŵv Luke 12: 21, which is to be seen in the margin of E and
V, and in the text of other MSS. Compare the same addition in
Luke 21: 4, in several MSS. of Lucian's recension.
Among the rest, too, the conjectures and explanations of the fathers
afforded materials for interpolation. We will only refer to two familiar
examples. Codex C has in its margin, Matt. 8: 28, the reading Tɛo-
yɛonvov, Codex L has it in the text; in John 1:28, several MSS. have
in the margin and others in the text, originally or by correction, the
reading Βηθαβαρα instead of Βηθανίᾳ. The first was proposed by
Origen; the other is recommended by John Chrysostom.
But far more mischievous was the procedure of those who collated
their MSS. with a foreign recension, and undertook accordingly what
they thought emendations in them, thus mingling the text of two recen-
sions. This has occurred in particular passages very frequently and in
very many MSS.; but it is also sometimes the case that this mixture
runs through whole chapters and even whole MSS.
Had this proce-
dure been more general, such confusion must have been created by this
time that it would be wholly impossible to discover and distinguish the
several recensions.
THIRD PERIOD.
141
The first who pursued such a course throughout the whole text was
the Alexandrian deacon, Euthalius, who, under the first consulate of the
Emperor Leo, A. D. 462, as he himself states, undertook a peculiar
task in regard to the New Testament, of which we shall soon speak
more at large. On this occasion he collated the Alexandrian text with
the autograph copy of Pamphilus at Caesarea, (as he boasts in the sub-
scription at the end of the Pauline Epistles,) and thus furnished others
with the means of interpolating the recension of his own church with
Origenian readings.¹
He himself did not introduce them into the text; he was content to
note them on the lower margin. I discovered this from the very old
and venerable fragments of an Euthalian Codex, which were once in
the possession of Coislin, Bishop of Metz, and which are to be found in
Wetstein and Griesbach among the MSS. of Paul's Epistles under the
mark H. In the first of these fragments, 1 Cor. 10: 23-9, where the
Egyptian MSS. reject the addition, v. 28΄: τοῦ κυρίου ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ πλή-
owμa aurns, Euthalius has restored it again from the copy of Pamphi-
lus, by placing an asterisk after ovveidnov, referring to the margin be-
low in which the clause is presented marked likewise with an asterisk.2
With intelligent copyists this was productive of no ill consequences;
but such were not the greater number. In a later transcript of an Eu-
thalian MS. in the Cod. Alexandrino-Vatican: n. 179. (Wetstein Ep.
46.) the readings of which are given by Zacagni, this addition has not
crept into the text; but all transcribers were not so prudent. It could
not but happen, therefore, that in some MSS. the text of Origen should
become mixed with the Egyptian.
Others less discreet than Euthalius placed various readings in the
margin without any mark, which were therefore easily taken for emen-
dations, and inserted in the text in subsequent copies. This is the case
with the Moscow MS. which Matthaei denominated al.
In it are
found on the margin of the Acts readings from the Moscow Codex 7,
as we are told by Matthaei : "probabiliores lectiones fere omnes.
Codicis 7 in margine notatas habet."3 Codex 7, however, (if this really
be the same as the one before mentioned,) follows in the Acts, as we
have already seen, the edition of Hesychius.
One of the successive possessors of the Vienna MS., Cod. Theol.
Graec. Num. CCCII. Lambecii XXXIV. took a yet bolder course.
This MS. contains the Acts, Paul's and the Catholic Epistles, together
with the Apocalypse, according to the Constantinopolitan Recension.
Now some individual has filled it throughout, as far as the Apocalypse,
which he has spared, with foreign readings inserted between the lines
and also in the margin. Sometimes he erased the original reading and
substituted a new one in its stead; or, when he could not well erase
what was to be omitted, placed marks of omission above it.
In examining these corrections we find that they agree with the
1 Montfaucon Biblioth. Coisliniana, olim Segueriana, p. 262. åvteßrijdn dè
βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρείᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χει-
ρὶ γεγραμμένον.
2 Montfaucon Biblioth. Coisliniana, p. 254.
3 Praefat. in Act. Apost. p. XII, XIII.
142
ALTERATIONS IN THE
MSS. ABC and the Coptic version, or at least with one or other of these
documents, so that the greater part of the readings thus introduced are
Egyptian, and the whole has become a mixture of different texts.
In this MS. the traces of alterations are still fresh and plainly per-
ceptible; but not so in the Vatican MS. N. 367, which has a peculiar
character in the Acts and Catholic Epistles and, as is well known, ad-
heres pretty closely to the Hesychian text. In Paul's Epistles, howev-
er, it hesitates and wavers. Yet the text of Paul is not so much disfig-
ured that it cannot be seen that the ground-work is Constantinopolitan.
If we examine the deviations we shall soon perceive that they are not
entirely irregular, but are all of the same character, viz. Egyptian.
Something of this kind occurs more or less in many MSS.; and a-
mong them are some even of the oldest monuments. We have observed
before respecting the celebrated Codex A (Alex. Mus. Britan.) that, in
the Gospels, it deviates oftener from its recension than its fellows, and
then generally agrees with the Egyptian MSS. In the Acts, Epistles,
and Apocalypse it is decidedly Egyptian. What accident put the copy-
ist in possession of an Origenian MS. of the Gospels we cannot tell ;
but it is easy to perceive that in this part of the text also he made use
of an Egyptian MS.
Confusion in the text of the Apocalypse sprung particularly from the
Commentaries of Andreas and Aretas. Both were Bishops of Caesa-
rea in Cappadocia. The latter lived in the tenth century; and the age
of the former is unknown, opinions varying in respect to it between the
fifth and eighth century. Their commentaries were not adapted to the
readings of every MS., and yet they were read in many countries.
Hence the text was often altered according to the expositions of the
commentators. Frequently too their Scholia were blended with the
text itself, as we see in many MSS. Now as the Apocalypse, besides
the usual accidents which befel all MSS., had to encounter these two
in addition, we need be less surprised that modern copies seldom con-
tain a homogeneous text.
CHAPTER V.
:
HISTORY OF THE LESS IMPORTANT ALTERATIONS WHICH HAVE
TAKEN PLACE IN THE BOOKS OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
$ 41.
After having attempted to collect and exhibit the main points in the
history of the text, we may now devote some attention to other appear-
ances in the MSS. which do not concern the text itself, in order to learn
their nature, their origin, and antiquity, in what respects they can be
of service to us, and how far they may assist us in determining the age
of MSS.; points which are not matters of indifference to criticism.
BOOKS OF THE N. TEST.
143
As we commenced our investigations into the history of the text by
going back to the writing material employed, so the present inquiries.
must begin.
This material was anciently the Egyptian papyrus. How long this
continued in general use, is not known; but it is certain that the New
Testament was written on the skins of animals as early as the fourth
century. Constantine the Great had not less than fifty copies made at
once, Ev diqvépais, on the skins of animals, for the churches, whose
number was daily increasing.¹
Its durability, it would seem, procured this material the preference,
at least for public use. The library which Pamphilus the Martyr found-
ed for the church at Caesarea, was already considerably damaged in the
fourth century, and in order to preserve it from destruction, the two
Presbyters Acacius and Euzojus re-wrote upon parchment those works
which especially needed to be re-written.2
Wealthy individuals caused the skins to be made very thin, and
moreover frequently ornamented MSS. of the New Testament as arti-
cles of show. Some, says Chrysostom indignantly, possess the sacred
books, and have them as if they had them not; they shut them up in
their book-chests; they pay attention only to the thinness of the skins
and the elegance of the letters; they use them less for reading than for
show; less admiration is excited by the contents than by the gilded
characters.3
This material lasted till sometime in the eleventh century, when cot-
ton paper, βόμβυξ, βόμβαξ, βομβυκινή, gradually came into general
use in the churches.4
$42.
α
Books and treatises designed for extended circulation were not writ-
ten with the abreviations and marks of the rayvyoago, but were trans-
cribed by the calligraphists in large letters or in the so called uncial
character. The ancient letters are exactly square, upright, and uncon-
nected with each other.
On account of its beautiful regularity, this character prevailed without
important alteration till about the ninth century; but on this very ac-
count it is difficult or rather impossible from the character alone to de-
termine the precise age of any MS. In the ninth century the letters
CEO lost their round form, and were made narrower to save space;
some, as ZX, were elongated above or beneath the line. Finally,
towards the close of the century, the cursive writing came into exist-
ence, and was in general use in the tenth century. The first MS. in
cursive writing which we meet with belongs to the year 890.5
1 Euseb. Vita Constantini, L. IV. c. 36. Wetsten. Prolog.
2 Hieronym. Epist. 141. "Quam (bibliothecam) ex parte corruptam Acacius
dehinc et Euzojus ejusdem ecclesiae sacerdotes in membranis instaurare conati
sunt.
""
3 Homil. XXXI. in Joann. p. 202. Ed. Frontoduc. Francof.
4 Montfaucon Palæographia Graeca, L. I. p. 17. 18. 19.
5 Montf. Palæog. L. IV. p. 269. 270. Montf. refers to an Evangeliarum of
the year 995 in uncial characters in Append. ad Palæog. p. 510. and 514.
144
ALTERATIONS IN THE
1
But the old character was retained in the MSS. of the New Testa-
ment longer than in any other. The Vatican Codex N. 354 is in un-
cial letters, and yet it was not written till the tenth century, in the year
949, according to the superscription. The text of the beautiful Mos-
cow fragment of the Gospel of John,2 and of the Moscow MS. called
Cod. g in Matthæi, containing the Pauline and Catholic Epistles,³ as
also that of the Ingolstadt MS. of the four Gospels, is written through-
out in uncial characters, although the cursive-writing was then custom-
ary, as is shown by the Scholia annexed to them.
It would seem that this alphabet was retained yet longer in church-
copies, Evangelistaria, and all such MSS. as it was wished should have a
splendid appearance; for the MSS. of the New Testament of the tenth
century written in the cursive-hand form by far the greater number.
$43.
The New Testament originally had no marks of punctuation, and
remained without them for a long time. As was the case in works of
profane literature, the words were not even separated from each other
by any interval. All the letters were united together so that every line
resembled a single word. Thus in reading a person was obliged to
separate and combine the letters, in order to form words and make out
the sense.
Hence we meet with singular divisions and combinations of words in
some of the fathers, versions, and MSS. E. g. Chrysostom presents
the words 1 Cor. 6: 20, do άoare de apa re Tov vεov (as some MSS.
read,) in this manner: doğάoare de apate tov dcov. So too the Latin
δοξάσατε ἄρατε Θεόν.
translator has it; "portate deum." Again, in Phil. 1: 1, oùv ¿ñionó-
ποις is read by some of the fathers συνεπισκόποις and commented on
accordingly; and in Philip. 2: 4, Exαoтoι oxолоuvτεs is divided by
Cod. Boernerian. thus: Exaorois xопоuvτes. The noted Codex L, in
ἑκαστοῖς κοποῦντες.
Luke 24: 34, has formed the reading ὤφθης ἡμῶν from ΩΦΘΗΣΙ-
M2N. In 1 Cor. 9: 12, Mill divides OYKEXPHMEO A, as it ap-
pears in the Codex Alexandrinus thus, où zɛzɣońμɛða but Wetstein,
οὐκ ἐχρήμεθα, &c. &c.
In the fourth and even fifth century the New Testament had none of
the ordinary punctuation marks, although there was no want of gram-
marians in Christendom to exercise their art in this matter.
Epiphanius, speaking at the commencement of his book nɛoi μérowv
zai oravμav of accents and other signs which then existed in the Old
Testament, names but a single mark of division, viz. the vлodiaorodý.4
α
1 Birch Proleg. in IV. Evang. p. III. IV.
2 N. T. ex edit. Frid. Matthæi. at the end of Epist. ad Thessal. p. 257. notit.
Codd. A specimen of the character is to be found with the Apocalypse.
3 The description is at the end of Epist. ad Rom. p. 265; and there is a speci-
men of the text in connexion with the Catholic Epistles.
4 About the close of the eighth century, George Syncellus does indeed speak
of a Biblical MS. which was divided κατὰ προσῳδίαν καὶ στιγμήν, and was copi-
ed from a MS. which Basilius, the Cappadocian, had revised. (Chronograph. p.
203. Richard Simon Hist. Crit. du Nouv. Testam. p. 417.) But it was only a
MS. of the O. T.; and he does not say that the accents and punctuation-marks
existed in and were copied from the MS. of Basilius.
BOOKS OF THE N. TEST.
145
ovev
In the writings of the New Testament nothing of the kind was known
to him. He finds fault with certain persons for finishing the sentence
in John 1: 3 with χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, and connecting ὃ γέγ
Όνεν with ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν. On this occasion, where the division of
the sentence by punctuation-marks must necessarily have been mention-
ed if it had existed, no allusion is made to them. They close the sen-
tence incorrectly, divide the reading awkwardly, read falsely," is all
which he says against the persons; "it should be read thus," &c.
He nowhere says," they have displaced the punctuation-marks, they
point falsely, the punctuation-marks ought to be arranged thus.'
Some of the more ancient fathers are directly opposed to Epiphanius
on this point. Irenaeus closes the passage with oude v and transfers
è yέyovεv to the next sentence; and thus also it is cited by the Alexan-
drian fathers, Clement, Origen, and Athanasius.
เ
Chrysostom on the contrary held this division to be absolutely hereti-
cal. We must examine what he says, as otherwise his expression, con-
sidered separately from the connexion, might be regarded as evidence
of a system of punctuation in his time. We will not," says he, "like
the heretics, place a full stop, (v rekɛlav oriyuηy Enivýcquer), after
the words, without him there was nothing made, (ywois avrov ¿yéve-
το οὐδὲ ἕν.”)
It might be thought from this expression that the period was in use in
MSS. of the New Testament. But the sequel shows that he only speaks
in the technical language of the grammarians, and expresses in their
manner what was to be done in such a case. He nowhere appeals to
the usage of MSS., but, having stated his objections drawn from the
connexion and from the inconsistency of the sense with the rest of the
Christian doctrines, he proceeds: "Let us then leave this, and pass to the
usual mode of reading and expounding the passage. And what is that?
It is to stop in reading with the word yέyover, and then to begin the next
sentence with the following words, viz. in him was life."2
Thus every one divided the sentences according to his own opinion
and according to his skill in reading, there being no established meth-
od to serve as a standard; and that division which Epiphanius regarded
as a sin against the Holy Ghost, is found in the writings of the Ortho-
dox Athanasius.
We will now cite some further instances from the Epistles, in which
the commentators divide differently whenever differences are possible.
Theodoret divides 1 Cor. 15: 32 thus: zi uot ögeλos, ei venooi ouz
501
1 Νομίζουσι δὲ παραγινώσκοντες καὶ μὴ νοοῦντες διαστέλλειν τὴν ἀνάγνωσίν τις
νες ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν. πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδέν· ἕως ὧδε
ἀποτιθέντες τὸ ῥητὸν ὑπόνοιαν βλασφημον εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον λαβόντες, σφάλ
λονται περὶ τὴν ἀνάγνωσιν, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σφάλματος τῆς ἀναγνώσεως σκάζουσιν εἰς
βλασφημίαν τρεπόμενοι. Ἡ δὲ ἀνάγνωσις οὕτως ἔχει. Ancorat. Ed. Basil. p.
and Edit. juxta Petav. Colon. c. 74. 75. p. 80. The division which Epiphanius
proposes differs from both the others in having no plausibility at all. He propo-
ses: οἰ δὲ ἐν ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ, and explains it thus: τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι οτι, εἴτι γέγονε,
δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο.
2 Homil. IV. in Joann. p. 42. 43. Frontoduc. Francof. Διὸ ταύτην ἀφέντες
ἐπὶ τὴν νενομισμένην ἔλθωμεν ἀνάγνωσίν τε καὶ ἐξήγησιν. Τίς δέ ἐστιν αὐτή· τὸ
μέχρι τοῦ ο γέγονεν, ἀναπαύσαι τὸν λόγον· εἶτα ἀπὸ τῆς ἑξῆς λέξεως αρξασθαι τῆς
λεγούσης, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν.
19
146
ALTERATIONS IN THE
T
αντ
ἐγείρονται; Chrysostom concludes the previous sentence with τί μοι
ὄφελος and arranges the next thus : εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, φάγομεν
x. 7. λ. The latter concludes Rom. 8: 20, with vñoτağavra and then
begins the 21st verse with en' ride; but the former joins together uno-
ráğavra in' ¿knide. In 1 Cor. 3: 18, Theodoret connects Gogo's sivac
ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, and explains it, σοφίαν τοῦ κόσμου-Chrys-
ostom reads ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ μωρος γινέσθω and explains it μωρόν
κόσμῳ τούτῳ κελεύει γένεσθαι. Theodoret ends Coloss. 1: 11, μακ
ροθυμίαν μετὰ χαρᾶς. Chrysostom ends with μακροθυμίαν and then
begins μετά χαρᾶς εὐχαριστοῦντες. Not to accumulate examples, we
will content ourselves with noticing two passages in Jerome. In his
commentaries, which it is well known he composed with the aid of
Greek MSS., he says on Ephes. 1: 5, "this may be read in two different
ways; the expression in caritate may either refer back to the preced-
ing clause, or may be connected with the following," etc.¹ He observes
in like manner on Philemon 4, 5, that "the word semper may be assign-
ed either to the first or second clause; that it is a doubtful case, both
ways making sense."2 How could this be, if the limits of the clauses were
defined by established punctuation?
0
Theodoret, in his commentaries, sometimes suggests how in his opin-
ion certain doubtful passages ought to be pointed. In 2 Cor. 1: 3,
εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, he ad-
vises that a stop should be made, ἐνταῦθα στικτέον, after εὐλογητὸς ὁ
o's, lest the meaning should be understood to be, the God of Jesus
Christ. And in the noted passage, 2 Cor. 4: 4, according to him a
stop should be made, ἐνταῦθα ὑποστικτέον, after ἐν οἷς ὁ Θεός. Also
in Roni. 9: 22, after si de there should be a stop; vravða vñoori§αı
dei as if Paul began to say: if it be so-then hear-God willing to show
his wrath, &c.
στ
However incorrect any of these proposals may be, they yet lead us to
remark, that here and there in particular passages a punctuation mark may
very probably have been added by careful readers of the Bible, ac-
cording to the directions of the fathers. Thus, e. g., we see that two
very ancient MSS., neither of which is divided throughout by punctua-
tion marks, in that locus vexatus, John 1:3, have a period after xwois
αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, according to the usage of the Alexandrian
fathers.3
When we call to mind the seriousness with which Epiphanius charg-
ed this division of the clauses with blasphemy and Chrysostom with her-
:
1 Comment. in Ep. ad Ephesios. ad h. 1. "Dupliciter legendum, ut caritas vel
cum superioribus vel inferioribus copuletur. Cum superioribus ita ut essemus
sancti et immaculati coram ipso in caritate, et postea sequatur prædestinans nos...
cum inferioribus autem sic in caritate prædestinans nos in adoptionem filiorum
per Jesum Christum in ipsum. Differentiam vero Græci sermonis πρооρioas
et opiodévtos Latinus sermo non explicat."
:
2 Comment. in Ep. ad Philem. v. 4, 5. "Ambigue vero dictum, utrum gratias
agat Deo suo semper, an memoriam ejus faciat in orationibus suis semper. Et
utrumque intelligi potest."
3 These are Codex Alexandrin. and Cantabrigiens. See Herbert Marsh's (now
Bishop of Landaff) Notes and additions to Michaelis' Introduction, Vol. I. p. 456,
e
457.
BOOKS OF THE N. TEST.
147
esy—when we recollect the ancient dispute respecting 2 Cor. 4: 4, we
perceive the reason why no scholar or grammarian presumed to point
the New Testament throughout. He might very easily, contrary to his
intentions, favor an error in doctrine or involve himself in controversies
which he would rather avoid. Thus, as this business was encompassed
with so many difficulties, it was postponed to another period.
$ 44.
It was however a very difficult task for a reader who was not possess-
ed of considerable learning to read the Bible in the public assemblies
properly and intelligibly without marks of division; and even in pri-
vate reading, some assistance was desirable. To obviate the inconve-
nience which was felt, the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius conceived the
idea of making a division xarà orixovs, and this method was soon ex-
tensively adopted.¹
The plan which he introduced was to place just so many words in
one line, as, in order to express the sense clearly, should be read without
any pause. We will present an example from the celebrated frag-
ment of the Pauline Epistles which Wetstein has designated by the
letter H.2 The passage is Titus 2: 2, 3.
ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΑΣ ΝΗΦΑΛΙΟΥΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ
ΣΕΛΙΝΟΥΣ
ΣΩΦΡΟΝΑΣ
ΥΓΙΑΙΝΟΝΤΑΣ ΤΗ ΠΙΣΤΕΙ
ΤΗΣ ΑΓΑΠΗ
ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΙΔΑΣ ΩΣΑΥΤΩΣ
ΕΝ ΚΑΤΑΣΤΗΜΑΤΙ ΙΕΡΟΠΡΕΠΕΙΣ
ΜΗ ΔΙΑΒΟΛΟΥΣ
ΜΗ ΟΙΝΩ ΠΟΛΛΩ ΔΕΔΟΥΛΩΜΕΝΑΣ
ΚΑΛΟΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΟΥΣ.
This he called στιχηδόν γράψαι, and this way of writing στιχομετ
plav. At the end of each biblical book was marked the number of
Stichoi it contained.
3
He finished the Pauline Epistles in this way in the year 462, for he
himself in speaking of Paul's death in the Prolegomena to his Epistles,"
incidentally states this to have been the time from the birth of Christ
to his own days. Soon after, he commenced dividing the Acts and the
Catholic Epistles also in the same way. We do not however possess any
treatise which gives an account of his procedure as to the Gospels; it may
have perished or may lie unnoticed in the libraries. The idea appears
1 He describes his project himself in a treatise which Laur. Alex. Zacagni
has published in the Collec. Mon. Vet. Eccles. Græc. Rama. 1698, 4. and Gal-
landus in Biblioth. Patr. et Antiq. Scriptor. Tom. X. Venet. 1774. fol.
2 Biblioth. Coislinian. Montfauc. p. 259. I have corrected some mistakes which
the copyist made in the division.
3 Zacagni Collect. Monum. Vet. p. 537. Galland. Biblioth. Patr. T. X. p.
250.
148
ALTERATIONS IN THE
to have been suggested to him by the so called στιχηρεῖς βίβλοι of the
Old Testament, Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Solomon's
Song, which had long been so written.¹
He put this plan in execution in order to secure perspicuity in public
reading according to his own mode of dividing the clauses. And in-
deed the necessity of some such aid to the unlearned was so clearly seen
that the Euthalian division was very extensively adopted or imitated.
In Egypt, where it appeared under the patronage of the patriarch, to
whom it was dedicated, it could not fail of a favorable reception; but
elsewhere also it met with so many patrons, that we are now in posses-
sion of stichometrical MSS. of every country and Recension.3 The
greater part of them do not indeed retain the Stichoi; but they contain
a catalogue of them at the end of every book; a convincing proof that
they are copies of stichometrical MSS. This circumstance is of use
in determining the age of the MSS. which were the originals of such
copies.
It sometimes happens too, that besides the number of the ozizov, that
of the ónuárov likewise is given. In all MSS. the number of onμá-
twv is not much larger than that of the orizov; it would therefore be
1 Suiceri Thesaur. V. Zriznod, p. 1020.
2 Κατὰ τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ συμμετρίαν πρὸς εὔσημον ἀνάγνωσιν. Zacagni Mon. Vet. p.
409. 419.
3 Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, has appended to his Chronography
a list of the Stichoi in each of the books of the New Testament. (Montfaucon
Biblioth. Coisliniana. p. 204. Millius Prolegom. in New Testament n. 1030.)
The following MSS. are written stichometrically, viz. Cod. D. Cantabrig. Evang.
et Act., Cod. D. Epistol. Claromont., E. Sangermanens. H. Coislinian., E. Actor.
Laudianus, III. Cod. G. Evangel. Harleian. 5684, Cod. G. Actor. et Epist. Cath.
Cardin. Passionei. 72. The following, and probably many others which have not
been examined as to this point, have at least the number of Stichoi subjoined at
the end: Wetstein's No. 9. of the Gospels, and 13, 35, 39, 41, 45, 46, 48, 50, (in
Mill. Laudian. I,) 55, 61, 104, 116, 117.-Acts and Cath. Ep. 30. Paul. 36.-Acts
Cath. Ep. 25. Paul. 31.-Paul. 46, 47.-Acts and Cath. Ep.17. Paul. 18.—
Acts, Cath. Ep. 33. Paul. 39.-Paul. 65. in Griesbach. In Matthæi, who has
omitted to notice the circumstance in the description of his MSS., the following
have a list of Stichoi at the end of each book; viz. d, k, p, z, of the Gospels; a,
m, n, g, of the Epistles. In Birch: Vut. 354, 360, 356. Urbino-Vat. 2, Barberin.
10, 12, 13, 208. Basilidian. XXII. Escurial. 9, 10, 12. Of the Acts, Vat. 367.
Pio-Vat. 50. Of the Epistles Augustinian. 1, 2. Vat. 360, 367. Alex.-Vat. 29.
Urbino-Vat. 3. Florentine MSS. (on the authority of Père Lami): the New
Testament in Bibl. D. Marci Dominic. Gospels, Bibl. D. Marc. Dom. and Lau-
rentian. Plut. VI. n. 15. Plut. VI. n. 16. Plut. VI. 33. Gospels in Biblioth. B.
Mariæ, and D. Marc. ex hæred. Nicol. de Nicoliis. Acts and Epistles in Bib-
lioth. Laurent. Plut. IV. n. 32. and Biblioth. S. Maria Benedictin. MSS. in the
Royal Library at Vienna: Gospels, N. VI. Auctuar. Forlos. XVI. Supplem. Kol-
lar-Lambec. XXXI. Epistles, Lambec. XXXIV.--XV.Forlos. V. Kollar.-Lambec.
XXXVII.-Lambec. XXXV.-Lambec. XXXVI.—XIX. Forlos. X. Kollar.
Gospels n. 9 and 48 in Wetstein have both onμata and orizovs together; so Bar-
berin. 12. and in Birch. Basilidian. XXII. Èscurial. 9 and 12. Comp. Richard Si-
mon's Hist. Crit. du Texte du Nouv Testament, c. 32. Salmas. Proleg. in Solin. on
the last page.
As far as I know, onμata are marked only in the Gospels. May
it not be that Euthalius divided the Gospels stichometrically, and that some one
else who adopted this division called his Stichoi, onuara? The transcribers, in
order not to give these lines one name in the Gospels and another in the other
books, may afterwards have changed the word para into otiyovs. Hence in
some MSS. there were στίχοι and in others ῥήματα, and finally both ῥήματα and
orizo got into the copies together.
The
BOOKS OF THE N. TEST.
149
στ
erroneous to regard the onμara as words. They can hardly be any-
thing but clauses like the origo; and it would seem that the latter
were called in some countries by a different name-that they were de-
nominated onμato. Now copyists who had more than one MS. before
them to collate, copied the nuare from one and the ozizovs from the
other together, without understanding what they were doing. Nor must
we be surprised that the number of the Stichoi is not given alike in dif-
ferent MSS. or that the number of ozizov and ónuárov does not ex-
actly agree. A MS. had more or less clauses in its text according as it
belonged to this or that recension, and thence this disagreement neces-
sarily resulted.
στ
$ 45.
We indeed know when Stichometry arose, viz. in the middle of the
5th century, but we do not know when it ceased. How it ceased and
how it suggested the idea of a regular system of punctuation, we are
informed by a fine critical document, the Codex Cyprius or Colbert 5149,
now N. 63 in the Library of France, in Wetstein K.
In
The stichometrical mode of writing left more than half the space
unoccupied and made MSS. unnecessarily costly and cumbrous.
order to gain room and yet not lose the Stichoi, a point was placed after
every Stichos and the MS. was written continuously as formerly.
It is thus that the Cyprian Codex is written. After a Stichos, or af
ter as many words as are to be read at once or in a single breath in read-
ing correctly, a point is placed, without any reference to the principles
of grammatical division or the rules of punctuation. We see this very
clearly in the specimen in Montfaucon : Ὁ δὲ ἐγευθεὶς παρέλαβε το
παιδίον, καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ισραήλ. Ακούσας
δὲ, ὅτι Αρχέλαος βασιλεύει ἐπὶ τῆς Ἰουδαίας. ἀντὶ Ηρώδου του πα-
τρὸς αὐτοῦ. ἐφοβήθη ἐκεῖ ἀπελθεῖν. χρηματισθεὶς δὲ . . . Matt. 2:
21, 22.1
This, as every one will perceive, is strictly stichometrical; but so
completely ungrammatical, that no one could be tempted to call it punc-
tuation.
Yet from this originated continuous and regular punctuation. Intel-
ligent persons naturally disliked such a method of division, and began
to improve it and insert regular marks of punctuation. For, that sev-
eral attempted this independently of each other, is clear as well from
the dissimilarity prevailing in their arrangement of clauses, as from the
difference in the marks themselves which occur in the MSS. There
are MSS. which employ a cross instead of a period; as Cod. Lor 2861,
now No. 62 in the Library of France, and Cod. Vat. 354, also Cod. h
in Matthæi. Others use it instead of almost all the punctuation marks,
as Vatic. 1067, Colbert. 700. The Codex Vatic. 351 almost always
makes use of two points one above the other, instead of punctuation
marks. The division is made in a different manner in the beautiful
Basle MS. E, in which a point at the top of a letter denotes a period, at
the bottom, a comma, and in the middle a semicolon, which according
1 Montfaug. Paleogr. Græc. L. III. c. 6. p. 232.
150
ALTERATIONS IN THE
to Isidore of Seville is the regular system of punctuation. Others
have, besides the point, the comma, as Cod. V. in Matthæi.
In this business the commentaries of the fathers upon doubtful pas-
sages seem to have been made use of, by those copyists or grammarians
who went to work with care.
But through whom and where all this took place we can the less ea-
sily determine, because it took place only gradually and imperceptibly.
It is indeed true that in the 10th century a regular system of punctuation
had been introduced. It is no less true, that it is met with in MSS. of the
New Testament which belong to the 9th century. Nor does it seem to
me that he who should even maintain that it sometimes occurred in MSS.
of the 8th century, would encounter any incontrovertible arguments
against his position.
$ 46.
The accents are far older than regular punctuation in the writings
of the New Testament; and in those of the Old Testament, they exist-
ed still earlier than in the New.
In the fourth century and probably before, certain persons, revés, had
already furnished the sacred books of the Old Testament with accents.
Epiphanius tells us this at the commencement of his work Пlɛoì μetowv
xai oτavμav, and also, in the same place, names all the accents, o§ia,
δασεῖα, βαρεῖα, ψιλή, &c. with which the Bible had been decorated.
The writing of the accents he calls στίζειν κατα προσωδίαν.
α и
It is possible that the books of the New Testament also were sometimes
thus early furnished with accents, but it was Euthalius who brought the
accents into general use along with stichometry. He informs us in the
preface to his stichometrical edition of the Acts and Catholic Epistles,
that he had also written them xarà п000жdiαv.2 Montfaucon, there-
κατὰ προσωδίαν.
fore, was unnecessarily troubled in respect to the antiquity of the sti-
chometrical MSS. Claromont. D Epist. Paul. and Coislinian. H, and
need not, in order to sustain their credit, have resorted to the supposition
that the accents were added by a later hand.
The general notion respecting the late use of the accents in the New
Testament, is derived from profane criticism, and has occasioned inac-
curate opinions respecting several documents.
Nothwithstanding, even after the time of Euthalius, copyists frequent-
ly omitted the accents in stichometrical MSS., for convenience' sake or
for other reasons.
$ 47.
The books of the New Testament in MSS. have various titles and
subscriptions, which, among the minor circumstances in relation to the
text, are not unworthy of our attention. The first book is sometimes
superscribed : Τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον, or : Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ
1 Isidor. Hispalens. Origenes, L. 1. c. 19.
2 Εναγχος εμοί γε, τὴν τε τῶν πραξέων βίβλον ἅμα καὶ καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν
ȧvayvavaite natà nρoowdiav, x. v. λ. Zacagni, p. 409. Galland, T. X. p. 201.
BOOKS OF THE N. TEST.
151
Ματθαῖον, Κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον, Τὸ ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον
τοῦ κηρύγματος Ματθαίου τοῦ ἀποστόλου, &c.
Of what date are these superscriptions? The freedom used in re-
gard to them leads us at once to suspect that they did not come from
the author himself. This is very evident in regard to the Epistles of
Paul. He certainly would not have written upon his letters: The first
to the Corinthians, The second to the Thessalonians, &c.
Such an
enumeration could have been made only at the time when the Epistles
began to be collected together.
Marcion, who acknowledged Luke's Gospel under certain modifica-
tions as his own, affixed no name to it at all. So says Tertullian, and
then proceeds: "Would it indeed have been very much out of the way,
if he had contrived a new title for it, after altering the contents accord-
ing to his fancy? How can we acknowledge a work which dares not
lift up its head, which evinces so little confidence that it does not claim.
credit by an avowal of its author?"
And now in order to confute him, he does not, as would perhaps be
expected, maintain that Matthew and Luke prefixed their names to the
Gospels themselves; but relies upon the testimony of apostolical church-
es, and of those which were connected with them by religious agree-
ment, which from the publication up to that time had declared Luke to
be the author.2
Just so when Marcion altered the superscription of the Epistle to the
Ephesians and gave it the title, To the Laodiceans,-he appeals against
him to the declaration of the churches, according to which the Epistle
was directed to the Christians at Ephesus.3
It is therefore extremely probable that the titles were prefixed by the
churches to which these writings were sent, and when the latter were
united in one Codex the titles were retained.
Chrysostom asserts without limitation, that not one of the Evangelists
subjoined his name. 'Moses," says he in his first Homily on the Epis-
tle to the Romans," wrote five books, and prefixed his name to neither;
nor did those who related events after him; neither did Matthew, nor
John, nor Mark, nor Luke. But Paul mentions himself by name-and
why? As the former wrote for those who were with them, it was un-
necessary to annex their naines; but Paul wrote his Epistles while at
a distance," &c.4
Yet this same father so far makes an exception in respect to Matthew
as to assert, that he himself prefixed the designation Gospel to his
book.5
This statement is so natural, so consistent with the purpose of
Matthew and with the circumstances in which he wrote, as we have
shown in its proper place,―his work is so completely a book of tidings
respecting the Messiah, in other words a Gospel, that the Apostle could
not announce it better, or more effectually induce the inhabitants of
Palestine to read and ponder it, than by writing at the head of it:
ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ.
1 L. IV. Adv. Marcion. c. 2.
3 L. V. Adv. Marcion. c. 11.
? L. IV. Adv. Marcion. c. 5.
4 Richard Simon. Hist. Crit. du Texte du N. T. c. 2.
5 Homil. I. in Matt. Praef. Διὰ τοῦτο εὐαγγέλιον τὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκάλεσεν, κ. τ. λ.
152
ALTERATIONS IN THE
When afterwards other writings of similar purport took their places
with this, Christians, in order to prevent confusion, added to the word
εὐαγγέλιον—κατὰ Ματθαῖον. The name εὐαγγέλιον passed from
Matthew to the rest, as the similarity in contents seemed to justify
the designation. To these, too, in order to distinguish them, it was ne-
cessary to add the name of the writer, κατά Μάρκον, κατὰ Λουκᾶν.
Thus the oldest fathers cite them, not as the Gospel of Matthew, or
of Mark, but according to Matthew, according to Mark.¹ For these
writings were not regarded as separate works, which in different direc-
tions conspired to the same end, but as parts of one whole, which were
indeed distinct as respected the writers, but united to represent a single
subject. It is for this reason that the ancients often speak as if there
was but one Gospel. They call it a quadri-form Gospel, or the one by
four, &c.2
The ancients took care to repeat the title at the end of a roll or book,
so that if the beginning, which was most exposed to injury, suffered any
damage, information respecting the author and title of the work might
be found at the end. This is the case also in the Herculanean MSS.³
Hence arose the subscriptions to the books of the New Testament,
which were originally only repetitions of the superscription or title; e. g.
εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον, Παύλου προς Ρωμαίους ἐπιστολή, and
sometimes only προς Ρωμαίους, πρὸς Κορινθίους, α', β', &c.
Such perhaps was the character of these titles and subscriptions for
some centuries. But when the fathers composed commentaries on the
New Testament, they began to pay attention to the time and the his-
torical circumstances in which individual books were written. Thus
Chrysostom and Theodoret, in the prefaces to their Expositions of the
Pauline Epistles, have inferred, from a comparison of various passages
in them with each other and with the Acts, the place and circumstances
in which they were written.
The author of the Synopsis which is commonly ascribed to St. Atha-
nasius, gives the following places as those in which Paul's Epistles were
written ; τὴν πρὸς Ρωμαίους ἐπιστέλλει ἀπὸ Κορίνθου, τὴν πρὸς Κορ
α. ἐπιστέλλει . . . ἀπὸ Εφέσου τῆς ᾿Ασίας, τὴν πρὸς Κορ. β'..
.
1 Thus Irenaeus cites to nard Aovnov evayyihov. L. III. Adv. Haeres. c. 5.
n. 8. Clem. Αlex. L. I. Strom. Ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγελίῳ, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ
Tổ xaτà Дovxãv. p. 341. and 340. Sylb.
2 Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. § 6. Προσφυγῶν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ὡς σαρκὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ,
καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ὡς πρεσβυτηρίῳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας. Irenaeus L. III. Adv. Haer.
c. 11. Tεrodμoogov evαyyéhɩov ev Évì Tveiμati. Origen. Comm. in Joann. Kal
τὸ ἀληθῶς διὰ τεσσάρων ἓν ἐστι εὐαγγέλιον. Ed. Huet. Colon. Τ. ΙΙ.
II. p. 91. Dial·
contra Marc. Sect. I. p. 9. Wetsten. Evayyɛhorai µèv tiooages, evayyékov dè
εἰ δὲ τέσσαρες περὶ ἑνὸς λέγουσιν, οὐκέτι τέσσαρες, ἀλλὰ ἕν. Villoison
compares with this the custom of the Greeks in not saying ῞Ομερος τοῦ Ζηνω-
δότου, τοῦ ᾿Αριστάρχου, but κατὰ Ζηνώδοτον, κατὰ Αρίσταρχον. Praefat. in
Scol. Venet. in Iliad. p. XXIII. Bertholdt thinks that there is an ellipsis : eu-
αγγέλιον, i. e. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, so that a second genitive would have been improper
and zara Mardalov was said and written. Einleit. in das N. T. III. Th. § 298.
εν • •
>
3 John Winkelmann's "Nachrichten von den neuesten Herculanischen Ent-
deckungen an H. Fuessli." Dresden. 1764. p. 51. 2. See also Herculanensium
Voluminum T. I. Neapol. 1793. fol. Col. XXXVIII. p. 193. and Tom. II. 1809.
Col. XI. p. 25.
BOOKS OF THE N. TEST.
153
πο
ἐπιστέλλει ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, πρὸς Γαλάτας . . . . ἐπιστέλλει ἀπὸ Ρώ-
μης so also Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Philemon, all from
Rome. The first to the Thessalon. ἐπιστέλλει ἀπὸ ᾿Αθηνῶν the sec-
ond, από Ρώμης again; that to the Hebrews από Ιταλίας the first to
Timothy από Μακεδονίας the second ἀπὸ Ρώμης that to Titus από
Νικοπόλεως.
Short observations of this kind, it would seem, were sometimes writ-
ten at the end of the Epistles, and thus extended the subscriptions,
Some additional scraps of erudition in regard to the Gospels and other
books, were disposed of in the same way.
But the subscriptions did not obtain a definite form till the middle of
the fifth century.
Euthalius then gave them such a form in his sticho-
metrical edition of the New Testament. In fact, (and it ought not to
have escaped the notice of the editor of Euthalius,) he has literally
transcribed the summaries which are prefixed to the respective books
from the Athanasian Synopsis, and with them likewise the places assign-
ed to Paul's Epistles, as we have quoted them above. But in his sub-
scriptions he attributes very different places from these to several Epis-
tles, as being those from which they were sent.
In some of them, it is true, he does not differ from the Synopsis, as,
e. g. in the following: πρὸς Ρωμαίους ἐγράφη, ἀπὸ Κορίνθου διὰ Φοί-
βης τῆς διακόνου. στίχοι. πικ. πρὸς Γαλάτας ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ρώμης.
στίχοι, οξγ. πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς α'. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿Αθηνῶν, στίχοι. ρέχ.
προς Εφεσίους ἐγράφη από Ρώμης διὰ Τυχίκου. στίχοι. τιβ. πρὸς
Τίτον τῆς Κρητοῦ ἐκκλησίας πρῶτον ἐπίσκοπον χειροτονηθέντα ἐγρά
φη ἀπὸ Νικοπόλεως της Μακεδονίας. στίχων, οξ. In others, howev
er, he varies from him; as, e. g. πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς β'. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ
Αθηνών. στίχοι. ρστ. προς Τιμόθεον α'. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας, ή-
τις ἐστὶ μητρόπολις Φρυγίας τῆς Πακατιανής, στίχων. σλ. He comes
nearer in the following: πρὸς Κορινθίους β'. ἐγράφη από Φιλίππων
διά Τίτου καὶ Λουκᾶ. στίχοι. φξ. He must have found notices of
these facts somewhere else, and probably it was in the biblical MSS.
themselves. The subscriptions retained this form ever after, and spread
in this condition from MS. to MS.
$48.
The New Testament was also divided into certain portions, which ap-
pear under various names. The custom of reading it in the public as-
semblies after the Law and the Prophets, must have led to such divis-
ions. For this purpose the Law and Prophets had already been divided
into Parashoth and Haphtaroth, and it could not be long before a similar
course would be taken with the New Testament. The division into
church-lessons was the most ancient.
The Christian fathers called the Jewish sections for reading, Perico-
pae: this expression Justin Martyr makes use of in citing the propheti-
cal books. It occurs also in Clement of Alexandria :2 and the same
1 Dialog. cum Tryph. c. 65. c. 72. 2 Clem. Alex. L. III. Strom. c. 4.
20
154
ALTERATIONS IN THE
writer also calls the larger sections of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles
περικοπαί
ατ
Thus the Pericopae were nothing but avayvaouaza, church-lessons,
or sections of the New Testament which were read in public after Mo-
ses and the Prophets.
In the third century there occurs another division into xeqgáhara.
Dionysius of Alexandria speaks of these on occasion of the disputes
respecting the Apocalypse. "Some," says he, "went through the whole
book, chapter by chapter, endeavoring to show that it contained no
sense.
"2
In the fifth century, Euthalius presents anew a division into chapters,
which has been regarded as his own invention. He himself, however,
claims only to have composed τὴν τῶν κεφαλαίων ἔκθεσιν, the summa-
ries of the chapters in the Acts and the Catholic Epistles.3 In respect
to the Epistles of Paul, not even these are his, but, as he himself says,
they originated with one of the wisest of the fathers and followers of
Christ, and he himself only incorporated them with his stichometrical
New Testament. Thus the chapters must have existed before Eutha-
lius, as the father alluded to had composed summaries of them.
how ancient they are we cannot readily determine.5
α
But
The Euthalian zsgálata are distinguished from the Pericopac or
church-lessons by their length. The Jews had divided the Law into 53
Parashoth, according to the number of the Sabbaths there may be in a
year. It was nearly in the same way that the Acts, the Catholic and
Pauline Epistles were divided according to the Alexandrine ritual, which
Euthalius follows in his stichometrical edition; viz, into 56 Pericopae,
three more than the xvoiazai nuέoat or Sundays, probably for three
festivals, which were perhaps observed at Christmas, Easter, and Whit-
suntide. The Gospels naturally had the same number of Pericopae.
Such was the case in ancient times in Asia, for Justin says, that Chris-
tians there assembled for prayer and reading the Scriptures only on
Sunday, ἐν τῇ τοῦ ηλίου ἡμέρα. The whole New Testament being
thus divided into so few sections, they were necessarily very large, and
hence in Euthalius a Pericopae sometimes comprehends four, five, and
even six chapters.
We have spoken as yet of the chapters of the Acts and the Epistles
only. In the Gospels we meet with two kinds of zeqάhaia, large and
Y
1 Strom. L. IV. c. 9. L. VII. c. 13. μεγίστης δ' ούσης τῆς περικοπῆς. 1 Cor,
VI. 1. seq.
2 Euseb. H. E. L. VII. c. 25.
3 Zacagni Monum. Inedit. p. 477.
4 Id. loc. cit. p. 528. καθ' ἑκάστην δὲ συντόμως τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐν τοῖς ἐξῆς προ-
τάξομεν τὴν τῶν κεφαλαίων ἔκθεσιν ἑνὶ τῶν σοφωτάτων τινὶ καὶ φιλοχριστῶν πα-
τέρων ἡμῶν πεπονημένην.
5 In Euthalius' Prolegomena to Paul there is a statement of the period from
the death of the Apostle to the time of Arcadius and Honorius; and then Eu-
thalius pursues the chronological reckoning down to his own days. The infer-
ence has been attempted from this, that the author of these chapters lived under
these two Emperors. But Euthalius compiled sometimes from one source and
sometimes from another, and we can infer only the antiquity of this statement
concerning Paul's death.
BOOKS OF THE N. TEST.
155
small. The small are the Ammonian which Eusebius projected, and
according to which he composed his ten Canons, that he might be able
to designate in the Monotessaron of Ammonius what belonged to each
Evangelist. In his letter to Carpianus, he speaks respecting their use
and respecting the nature of his ten Canons; and calls his sections
sometimes κεφάλαια and sometimes περικοπαί. Matthew contains 355
of them, Mark 236, Luke 342, and John 232.
The other chapters, called the larger from their length, are entirely
independent of the former. Matthew contains 68, Mark 49, Luke 83,
and John only 18. There are very few MSS. which have not both to-
gether.
""
The author of the larger chapters is unknown, and their date can on-
ly be conjectured. In the fourth century Caesarius, probably the broth-
er of Gregory of Nazianzen, was acquainted only with the Ammonian
chapters. "We have four Gospels," says he, which contain one
thousand one hundred and sixty-two chapters," &c.¹ Epiphanius in
his Ancoratus has exactly repeated this passage of Caesarius,2 which
gives the number of the Ammonian, but not of the larger chapters.
Chrysostom, too, knew nothing of the latter. In his expositions of Mat-
thew and John he frequently concludes his discourse in the middle of
the larger chapters or wherever it happens, and coincides with them on-
ly when the Evangelist's history itself exhibits so abrupt a transition as
could not but be regarded.
But in Euthymius and Theophylact the larger chapters are the com-
mon ones. Though, however, they are not discovered in any older fa-
thers, this is not the earliest trace of their existence. We find them in
MSS. which evidently reach back far beyond the times of these two
commentators.
"13
κα α
Their appropriate name was titlos. "The titles and chapters," says
Suidas, "differ; Matthew has 68 titles and 355 chapters; Mark 49 ti-
tles and 336 chapters; Luke 83 titles and 342 chapters; John 18 titles
and 232 chapters. What he here calls chapters are the Ammonian
zɛqάhaiα, and the zitho are what we have denominated the larger chap-
ters, as we see from the number. This we are told also by an old docu-
ment, viz. Codex L, or 2861, now 62 in the royal library: to zara Mar-
θαῖον Εὐαγγέλιον ἔχει τίτλους ξη. καὶ κεφάλαια της. τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον
εὐαγγέλιον τίτλους μή. κεφάλαια σλδ. τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν Εὐαγγέλιον ἔ-
χει τίτλους πγ. κεφάλαια εμβ. τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην ευαγγέλιον ἔχει τίτ
λους της κεφάλαια σλα. The errors which occur here are easily cor-
rected and do not properly affect at all the point under consideration.
They were probably called ritho because to each of these chapters
a summary or inscription, Titulus, was prefixed. That they came from
1 Τέσσαρα ἡμῖν ὑπάρχει εὐαγγέλια κεφαλαίων χιλίων ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα δύο. Gal.
land. Biblioth. Patr. T. VI. Caesar. Dialog. I. Respons. 39.
>
Epiphan. Дoy. Ayzvowτ. p. 490. Ed. Basil. Suicer. Thesaur. V. xspáhaιov.
There should indeed be 1165, but some xspáhala are controverted.
3 Τίτλος διαφέρει κεφαλαίου. Καὶ ὁ μὲν Ματθαῖος ἔχει τίτλους ξη. κεφάλαια
τνε. ὅ τε Μάρκος τίτλους μη. κεφάλαια τμβ. ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης τίτλους τη. κεφάλαια
αλβ.
4 Rich. Simon. Hist. Crit. du Texte du N. T. c. 33.
156
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
that pious follower of Christ to whom Euthalius ascribes tǹv ræv xeqα-
halov Endeoiv in the Acts and Epistles, we may rather conjecture than
assert. They are found very much alike in the MSS. of all countries
and recensions.
Andreas of Cappadocia divides the Apocalypse into 24 λóyous and
72 κεφάλαια.
In the church-lessons, to return to them once more, various altera-
tions took place. As festival days multiplied, the old division could no
longer subsist, and in many churches the Pericopae became shorter.
At last, as ceremonial observances increased, only certain passages, and
these sometimes very short, were selected from the Gospels, the Acts
and the Epistles. An entire Codex of this kind was called Exλoɣádiov;
one of the Gospels only, evayyektorάotov; and one of the other books,
πραξαπόστολος.
αζα
This change seems to have taken place among the Latins much ear-
lier than among the Greeks. Credible witnesses testify to the existence
of this arrangement among the former about the middle of the fifth cen-
tury;¹ a period when nothing of the kind can be discovered among the
latter. The term лоα§άлóотоlos does indeed frequently occur in the
Typicum of St. Sabas,2 who died in the beginning of the fifth century.
But the Greeks do not deny that this Typicum or monastic ritual is not
his own,—that the latter perished during the incursions of the barbari-
ans, and was rewritten by John Damascenus from recollection.³ John
Damascenus lived about the middle of the eighth century; and I am
not aware of any earlier notice of Lectionaria among the Greeks.
Our present chapters, it is well known, come from Cardinal Hugo de
Saint Cher, who composed a Concordance in the twelfth century, and
for convenient reference divided the Bible into small sections at his
pleasure. They are now generally adopted in the editions of the He-
brew and Greek text.
The verses come from Robert Stephens, who introduced them for the
first time in his edition of the New Testament in 1551. The place
where this was printed is not stated, but it is decorated with the olive
of Stephens.
CHAPTER VI.
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
$ 49.
The changes which occurred at different periods in the circumstan-
ces and appearance of the text, are so many marks by which to discov-
1 Bingham Orig. Ecclesiast. L. XIV. c. III. § 3.
2 Leo Allatius De Libris Eccles. Graecorum Diss. I. p. 35. in the Biblioth.
Graec. of Fabricius, Appendix to the fifth Book. Hamb. Edit.
3 Id. 1. c. p. 4. 5. Suicer Thesaur. V. Tvπixóv.
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
157
er the age of MSS. Though they seldom enable us to pronounce de-
cisively as to their precise age, yet we can generally infer from them
whether a MS. is or is not as old as is asserted. For this reason we
shall find no better place to speak particularly of these valuable bequests
of antiquity through which the text has descended to us, than here, im-
mediately after the investigations which comprise the facts that are the
basis of our judgment respecting them.
We have, too, other aids in this matter, as e. g. a comparison of the
Church-calenders and Diptychs with the festivals which are frequently
noted in connexion with the lessons in the MSS.-also the observation
of marginal glosses, postscripts of the calligraphists, or other additions.
which may have been made to any particular MS. But these are indi-
vidual circumstances which differ in different cases, and therefore can-
not be considered and reckoned as general characteristics. They are
therefore surrendered to the individual capacity and penetration of crit-
ics, some of whom will derive more and some less advantage from them.
Certain historical circumstances which we subjoin may be useful in
determining the age of MSS. written in Alexandria. Strabo names two
cities in which copies of MSS. were made for sale, siç лçãow, viz. Rome
and Alexandria; probably the former dealt in Latin and the latter in
Greek literature.
4
The Alexandrian characters possessed some peculiarities, but we are
not informed in what they consisted. Among the calligraphists of this
city appear some illustrious names; e. g. Philodemus, who became blind
in the practice of his art ;3 Hierakas, who followed his employment with
his eyesight unimpaired when over eighty years old; and others down
to the times of the Arabians.5 But, as these times of decay came on,
the Greeks withdrew from so laborious a mode of gaining subsistence,
preferring rather to harass the country in the capacity of overseers, col-
lectors, and soldiers, and gave up calligraphy to the natives or Copts, as
well as all other operations of industry and manual labor. On this ac-
count however they were regarded with such hatred, that, after the con-
quest of Egypt by the Arabian arms in the year 641, the Copts united
with the Arabs to expel them totally from the country, and succeeded
in their endeavour after the capture of Alexandria.
From this time the Arabians put a stop to the intercourse of Egypt
with foreign nations, and especially with the dominions of the Greek
emperor, so that the sale of MSS. abroad was rendered impracticable.
7
1 Strabo L. XIII. p. 419. Ed. Inna Casaub. Ed. 2da p. 609.
>
2 Concil. Constantinop. IV. Το σύγγραμμα καταρτισάμενος, ἐπὶ παλαιοτάτων
μὲν τοῦτο χαρτίων γράμμασι Αλεξανδρινοῖς, τὴν ᾿Αρχαϊακὴν οτι μάλιστα χειρο-
θεσίαν μομησάμενος, γράφει. Collect. Labbei. Τ. V. p. 1004.
3 Anthol. Graec. H. Grotii. L. VI. Epigr. Juliani Egyptii, 6 and 7. Brunk
Analecta. T. II. p. 495. 96.
4 Epiphan. Haeres. L. XVII. § 3. p. 712. Ed. Colon.
5 Theophilact. Simocatta. L. VIII. p. 215. Cedren. T. I. p. 405. Ed. Par-
is. 1647.
6 Renaudot. Hist. Patr. Alexandr. Benjamin. Patr. XXXVIII. p. 164.
7 Renaudot. Hist. Patr. Alexandr. Chail. Patr. XLVII. p. 206. Isaac. XLI. p.
187. Simon Patr. XLII. p. 184.
158
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
The destruction of the library, too, at the command of Omar (for this
is a well authenticated fact,') entirely deprived the calligraphists of the
MSS. from which they made their copies. Both occurrences were high-
ly prejudicial to the art of calligraphy. The first limited the exercise
of it to the continually decreasing demand within the country itself;
the other robbed it of the hope of ever again rising to much importance
even though other circumstances should favor it as before.
After the Greeks were expelled, there remained only one chapel at
Alexandria, and a single church with a bishop at Kasser el Shema, de-
voted to the Greek religious service.2 The numerous churches they had
possessed the Copts appropriated to themselves. At this period there
was no demand for Greek copies of the Bible, either for the use of
churches or of individuals. This state of things lasted from 641 to
730, when the condition of the Greeks took a more favorable turn, and
they again obtained a patriarch in the person of Cosmas, together with
the privilege of undisturbed worship and the possession of many of
their churches.3 Here seems to commence the second period of the
Greek MSS. of the New Testament written in Egypt.
No one will expect here a description of all the MSS. which are
known. This might indeed be required in Prolegomena to a critical
edition of the New Testament, the extent of the plan of which called
for such particularity. Here however we are only bound to give infor-
mation respecting those MSS. to which we have referred in our history
of the text.
We divide them into three classes: I. such as were antecedent to
the practice of stichometry; II. stichometrical; and III. such as were
written after stichometry had become extinct.
$ 50. ·
The oldest MSS. which have come down to us have been, probably
more from accident than any thing else, designated by the letters A,
B, and C.
Cod. B, or Vatic. 1209, contains the Old and New Testament; the
latter in the following order: Gospels, Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epis-
tles as far as Heb. 9: 14. The Epistles to Timothy, Titus, Philemon,
together with the Apocalypse, have been destroyed by time.
4
The MS. is of the finest parchment, with very simple and beautiful
square letters which are invariably uniform and scarce perceptibly larger
than the characters in the MS. of Philodemus лεдì μovσins, the first
of the Herculanean rolls which was unfolded. In other respects, too,
1 George Keser's (Prof. and Curator of the Gymnasium.) " Programm. über
die Bibliothek, welche die Araber zu Alexandrien verbrannten. Freyburg.
1819. 4. p. 2-6.
2 Renaudot. Hist. Patr. in Chail. Patr. XLVII. p. 205. Eutych. Alex. Annal.
T. II. p. 285-9.
3 Eutych. Annal. loc. cit. Renaudot. Hist. Patr. in Cosma.
4 I have described and criticised this MS. in a Programm, "De antiquitate
Codicis Vaticani Commentatio." Friburgi. 1809. 4.
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
159
they resemble them extremely¹ The initial letters do not differ at all from
the rest; a later hand has written larger initials over the original ones.
The letters are all equidistant from each other; no word is separated
from the rest, and each line appears to be but a single word. Where a
complete narrative or other long series of sentences terminates, a blank
space is left of the breadth of a letter or half a letter.
The MS. has three columns on each page, and when opened presents
6 columns to the eye, so that we are deceived and think we have a book-
roll unfolded before us. It would seem as if at that period men were
just on the point of passing from the use of rolls to that of books, and
there still remained in the latter some resemblance to their previous
form. It is therefore much broader than it is long, and in that respect
resembles no other Greek document except the celebrated fragment of
Dion Cassius, formerly in the possession of Fulvius Ursinus.
The MS. had long since faded so much that it was necessary for a
second hand to retouch the characters with new ink. It would even
seem that in the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 1491, a third hand under-
took to remedy the faintness of the second application of ink. The
very faint characters of the first hand have been preserved untouched
only where the calligraphist wrote words or whole clauses over a second
time.
The unnecessary pains of retouching what was written over
twice was spared.2
So far the characteristics all point to a very high antiquity; but
they are merely general and determine nothing definite.
The punctuation marks are by the second hand and occur but sel-
dom. We may pass through several chapters in the Gospels and Epis-
tles without finding a single one. Even where at the close of a section
a space of the breadth of half or the whole of a letter is left blank, no
period is inserted. They occur more frequently in some chapters of the
Acts. There are no accents in any place where the first writing ap-
pears clear and untouched; they were added by a later hand.³
The inscriptions or titles are appended as a matter of small impor-
tance to the upper part of the upper margin in a somewhat smaller
hand. They are extremely simple, and are found at the top of each
page throughout the MS.: κατά Ματθαίον, (sic) κατά Μάρκον, πράξ
εις ἀποστόλων, Ιακώβου ἐπιστολή, Πέτρου α., Πέτρου β., then προς
Ρωμαίους, πρὸς Κορινθίους, without the name of the author. The
subscriptions are mere repetitions of the titles; what is additional was
undoubtedly added by a second hand after лoos Pouaiovs we find
ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Κορίνθου ; after πρὸς Κορινθίους β, has been added
γράφη από Φιλίππων, &ε. But even these later additions do not re-
cognise the Euthalian inscriptions.
As to the chapters in the Gospels, the Ammonian division is wholly
wanting, although it was pretty general about the middle of the fourth
1 Herculanensium Voluminum, quae supersunt. Tom. I. Neapoli MDCCXCIII.
ex Reg. Typograph.
2 I have selected as specimens two of these passages, Jolin 13: 14. Rom. 4: 4.
A pretty good idea of the general appearance of the Codex may be obtained from
Blanchin. Evangeliar. Quadrupl. P. L. ad pag. CDXCII.
3 Hug, De antiquitate Cod. Vatic. commentatio. p. 9–13.
160
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
century. We will not insist very strongly however on this point. In-
stead of them there are chapters which we find no where else; in Mat-
thew 170, Mark 72, Luke 152, and John 80. The Acts of the Apos-
tles was originally divided only into the Egyptian church-lessons; anoth-
er hand afterwards added chapters, but not the Euthalian. To the ori-
ginal division of the Catholic Epistles, as in the Acts, another has been
added by a later hand; but neither does this accord at all with that
made by Euthalius.¹
The division of the Pauline Epistles is wholly without example. It
is not the case that each Epistle has its separate chapters, but all togeth-
er are considered as a single book, and the chapters are numbered con-
tinuously throughout. The Epistle to the Romans ends with the 21st
chapter; the first to the Corinthians begins with the 22d chapter and
concludes with the 32d; then the second to the Corinthians begins with
the 32d chapter, &c. Not only are all these appearances Ante-Eutha-
lian, but some of them are of a character so ancient that they belong
very much farther back, and no other trace of them remains.
Two additional peculiarities merit our attention. The Epistle to the
Galatians concludes with the 59th chapter; the next, to the Ephesians,
commences with the 70th chapter, and then the numbers continue regu-
larly through Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. The second
to the Thessalonians ends with the 93d chapter. Now why are the
chapters from the 59th to the 70th wanting? Whence this chasm?
At the end of the second to the Thessalonians we find the explanation.
We here meet with the Epistle to the Hebrews; it begins with the 60th
chapter, proceeds with the 61, 62, 63, and 64, as far as Heb. 9: 14,
and the rest of the Epistle is lost. We perceive from the numeration of
the chapters, that the Epistle to the Hebrews originally stood after that
to the Galatians and had been recently placed farther back; but so re-
cently that even the division of the chapters had not yet been altered.
The new position of this Epistle after the second to the Thessalonians,
is given to it also in the Canon of Athanasius. This transposition of the
Epistle was probably made by Athanasius himself out of respect for the
Romish church, and the MS. must then have been written near this
period, when the transposition was recent. If, however, it were thus
placed before the time of Athanasius, the Codex must be assigned to
a more ancient period. At all events the change had then but just ta-
ken place; while in the fourth century it had become general. Epi-
phanius informs us as follows: "There are two kinds of biblical MSS.
Some of them place the Epistle to the Hebrews after the Epistles to
Timothy, Titus and Philemon; while others assign it a place after the
second to the Thessalonians."2
Basil asserts that formerly in Ephes. 1: 1, the words ¿v Egéog were
wanting so the fathers before him declared, and so he found it in an-
cient MSS. A discussion of this point may be seen in the IId Part,
(§ 121) where we treat of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Our MS.
must have been therefore an ancient one in the time of Basil; for it
1 De antiq. Cod. Vat. Comment. p. 19-23.
2 Epiphan. Haer. XLII. p. 373. Juxta Petav. Colon.
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
161
does not contain the words &v 'Eqow in the text: they are only sub-
joined in the margin, though indeed by the first hand.
The first of these circumstances assigns this Codex to an early peri-
od in the fourth century at least; and the other to one certainly consid-
erably antecedent to Basil.
–
The MS. evinces by its peculiarities of language, that it was written
by an Egyptian calligraphist. Instead of συλλήψῃ, λήψεσθε, ληφθή
σεται, ανελήφθη, we find συλλήμψη, λήμψεσθε, ληφθήσεται, ανε
λήφθη, ληφθέντα, &c. This peculiarity occurs only in Coptic or
Graeco-Coptic documents, as in the Graeco-Thebaic litanies of the Bor-
gian museum, in which αντιλήψεως is always written ἀντιλήψεως
or avτchúμsos;1 in the Alexandrino-Coptic Liturgy, in which suuε-
τάληψις becomes εὐμετάληψις; and in other Coptic fragments, in
which λίμψανον is written instead of λείψανον ; ἀποκάλυψις instead
of αποκάλυψις.3
υνα
Further, the Vatican Codex always writes inav for sinov, like the
triglott Rosetta inscription, at the end of the eighth line: ovvaz éviES
ἐν τῷ ἐν Μέμφῃ ἱέρῳ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ΕΙΠΑΝ; and the Graeco-The-
baic fragment of John 7:52 in Georgi: anexoionoav xai EILAN¹
Just so it has είδαν, ἔπεσαν, ἦλθαν, εἰσῆλθαν, and ἀνείλατο, ἐξείλατο,
Acts 14: 10 ήλατο, διεμαρτύρατο, as we find in an inscription on the
Memnon of Thebes: OTAEN EZEQOETTATO; also in Luke 9:
36, oaxav, and Rom. 16: 7, yiyovav, as, according to Sextus, the
Alexandrians were accustomed to write, using ἐλήλυθαν and ἀπελήλυ
θαν for ἐληλύθασι.6
ακ
5
Attention should be paid to these observations, inasmuch as we must
again recur to them in our judgment respecting other MSS.
Birch collated the Codex throughout, with the exception of the Gos-
pels of Luke and John, for the royal Danish edition of the New Tes-
tament. Of the two Gospels we have excepted, he procured a collation
which had been made for Bentley. Woide has published in Appendice
Cod. Alexandrini, the collation of the whole MS. made for Bentley.
Nor is this publication unnecessary; for we are very glad to have more
than one collation of so important a document.
ment.
ἐξέρχεσθε τήν
A (Alexandrin. Mus. Britannic.) contains the Old and New Testa-
The latter, of which the beginning is destroyed, commences
with Matt. 25: 6, ¿§éoxɛode eis týν . . . . but is thenceforward entire
with the exception of John 6: 50—8: 52, and 2 Cor. 4: 13–12: 2. The
order of the books is the same as in the Vat. Cod. After the Acts
come the Catholic Epistles and then Paul; here too the Epistle to the He-
brews takes its place after the second to the Thessalonians. Each page
has two columns.
1 Georgi Fragm. Evang. S. Jo. Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum in Append. p.
358. 59. 362. 64.66.
2 Asseman. Cod. Eccles. Univ. Liturg. L. VIII. P. V.
p. 13.
3 Mingarelli Egypt. Codd. Reliq. in Bib. Naniana. Fasc. 1. p. LXXXIII.
This peculiarity is found in MSS. of Herodotus and has been considered as Io-
nicism. We here see it to be a characteristic of Alexandrian MSS.
4 Georgi Fragm. Evang. S. Jo. p. 32.
5 Pocoke's Description of the East. Vol. I. Plat. XXXVIII.
6 Sextus Empir. Advers. Grammat. I. 20.
p. 261.
21
162
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
The characters are elegant, square and upright; larger than in the
Vat. Codex. The letters are equidistant from each other and the words
not separated; the termination of the words is denoted very rarely by
a crooked stroke in the top of a letter. Initial letters of larger size are
found not only at the beginning of every book, but of every section
however short.¹
The MS. has frequent sections not unlike our verses; somewhat long-
er however, as a section never ends before the sentence is completed.
A blank space of the average length of a single word generally denotes
the end of a section.
τα
As respects the punctuation, we might easily fall into a mistake, and
regard this Codex as a copy of a stichometrical MS. ; yet so written that
the lines are continuous, the end of a stichos, being always denoted by
a dot : e. g. Acts 11: 6, 7, καὶ εἶδον τα τετράποδα τῆς γῆς καὶ τὰ θη-
ρία καὶ τὰ ἑρπετὰ· καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· ἤκουσα δὲ φωνῆς λε-
γούσης μοι ἀναστὰς Πέτρε θῦσον καὶ φάγε. There is a very great
resemblance between the stichoi and these divisions, hundreds of exam-
ples of which occur in the MS.; but in general it does not recognise
the divisions μέση and υποστιγμή; only using the period, τελεία,
throughout at the end of a clause. Each section, even the smallest
without distinction, occurs invariably with a point at the top of the
letter.
The Codex is entirely without accents and aspirates, and in no one
of its characteristics suits the times of Euthalius.
The inscriptions and subscriptions are very simple: εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ
Μάρκον; εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λουκᾶν. These titles repeated form the
subscriptions. The inscriptions of the Acts and Catholic Epistles on
the upper margin are almost entirely cut off. The subscriptions are
Ιακώβου ἐπιστολή, Πέτρου α, &c. At the end, after the Epistle of
Jude, the Acts and Catholic Epistles have a common subscription:
πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων καὶ καθολικαὶ, as though they together
constituted one book. The subscriptions of the first Pauline Epistles
are merely προς Ρωμαίους, πρὸς Κορινθίους, &c. The subscrip-
tions from the Epistle to the Colossians onwards have something addi-
tional: πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς ἀπὸ Ῥώμης, πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς α. ἐγράφη
ἀπὸ ᾿Αθηνῶν, προς Θεσσαλονικεῖς β. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿Αθηνῶν, προς
Εβραίους ἐγράφη από Ρώμης, πρὸς Τιμόθεον α. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαο
δικείας, προς Τιμόθεον β. ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας, πρὸς Τίτον γ. ἐ-
γράφη από Νικοπόλεως. None of these subscriptions are the same as
those of Euthalius; of the latter class two, viz. those of the Epistle to
the Hebrews and the second to Timothy, contradict Euthalius, whose
subscriptions are: πρὸς ῾Εβραίους ἐγράφη ἀπὸ τῆς Ιταλίας διὰ Τιμο-
<
πο
1 The part of the Codex containing the New Testament has been printed in
these same elegant characters, copied and cast for the purpose. "Nov. Testam.
Graec. e Cod. Alexan. qui Londini in Bib. Musei Britan. asservatur, descriptum
a Godofr. Carolo Woide, etc. Londini ex prelo Joh. Nichols typis Jacksonianis.”
1786. fol.
Spohn has edited Woide's Prolegomena in Germany and corrected Wetstein's
collation from this edition. "G. Č. Woidii notitia Cod. Alex. cum variis ejus
lectionibus, curavit Gottl. Leberecht Spohn." Lips. 1788. 8vo.
>
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
163
!
Θέου στίχοι ψ. γ. πρὸς Τιμόθεον β. τῆς ᾿Εφεσίων ἐκκλησίας ἐπίσκο-
που χειροτονηθέντα, ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης. λ.
2
As to the chapters, the Gospels have the Ammonian chapters and the
sections of Eusebius; and they have also the larger chapters which the
Greeks call titlovs. A summary of these chapters and tituli is pre-
fixed to the Gospels, and in the text they are generally denoted by num-
bers and the corresponding inscription added on the upper margin.
Thus at Matt. 27: 43, is marked the last chapter, H, 68, and the in-
scription on the upper margin is περὶ τῆς αἰτήσεως τοῦ σωμ. . . . i. e.
owμaros Inoov. There are thus in Matthew, as usual, 68 chapters, in
Mark 48, Luke 83, and John 18. Respecting the antiquity of these
chapters there is at present some uncertainty, so that we must renounce
their aid in deciding on the age of this MS.
›
In the Acts it has been thought, that in five places there is evidence
of a division of the books by means of a cross, which is commonly found
in the Gospels near the numbers of the large chapters. But the cross
certainly has not any meaning of this kind when it stands alone. See
e. g. Luke 1: 15, 8: 35, 9: 5, 13: 28, 18: 8, John 4: 6, 4: 41, where it
occurs in the middle of the discourse, and even in the middle of a sen-
tence. How can it denote such a division in these cases? Yet, admit-
ting that in the five passages pointed out, Acts 3: 1, 4: 3, 8: 26, 10: 1,
17: 20, it does mark chapters, at any rate they are not the Euthalian.
Two of them, Acts 4: 3, and 17: 20, do not at all coincide with the Eu-
thalian sections; and, following Euthalius, there should be forty instead
five.
In the Catholic and Pauline Epistles, as also in the Apocalypse, neith-
er the chapters nor lessons are marked. Nothing is to be seen of the
plan and contrivances of Euthalius in the whole MS. The character
of the punctuation, the total want of accents, the subscriptions of the
Pauline Epistles, are, on the contrary, evidence that it was written be-
fore the Euthalian innovations or before the last half of the fifth centu-
ry, and this evidence is the more weighty as the MS. was written in
Egypt.
Its peculiarities of language evince this origin. Mark 12: 40, λńµy-
ovrai, 16: 24, 2nμsode. Luke 9: 51, 17: 34, John 14: 3, 16: 14, 15,
Acts 1: 22, 2: 38, I Cor. 12: 28, avriknuwees. Philipp. 4: 15, dooεws
xai inuyews. Coloss. 3: 24 and Luke 13: 11, avaxúuyar. It is true
that εiлav and similar forms of the second Aorist are not so frequent as
in the Vatic. Codex; but the copyist has not excluded them entirely :
as, Luke 19: 39, Acts 1: 24, 6: 2, εinav; Mark 14: 48, §λare, Luke
11: 54, εἰσήλθατε, Acts 10: 39, ανειλαν.
Cod. C (n. 9. Regio Parisinus,) has also been called Ephraem Syri,
because the old writing was partly effaced with a sponge, and the parch-
ment then used to write certain ascetic treatises of Ephraem upon.
The old ink, however, appears notwithstanding very plainly, so that
whole sentences can be read with ease with the naked eye.
The an-
cient characters had become obsolete; people had become accustomed
to the cursive hand with all its reading- and division-marks, and seized
upon old MSS. to apply them to a better purpose.
1 Praefat. ad Cod. Alexan. § 36. p. vii.
164
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
-
The pages which were used as above stated, contained parts of the
Old and, with some considerable exceptions pointed out by Wetstein
and Griesbach, the whole of the New Testament, in the same order as
in the Vatican and Alexandrian MSS., viz. the Gospels, Acts, Catholic,
Pauline Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews after the second to the
Thessalonians, and the Apocalypse. Much which Wetstein was not
able to read, might be made legible by means now in our possession.
The text is not divided into columns. The letters are somewhat
larger than those of the Alexandrian MS., beautiful, uniform, upright,
and square. The words are not separated. Initial letters are found,
as in the Alex. Cod., at the beginning of each book and of the small
sections; for, like that, it is divided into small sections like our verses,
only somewhat larger.
As to the punctuation-marks-at the end of a sentence a period is
commonly found in the form of a cross; the smaller divisions are some-
times regarded, but usually neglected. For a comma a dot is placed at
the bottom of a letter, and for a colon, a dot in the middle; but a later
hand has almost invariably written in different ink a small cross over
these dots, smaller than the cross which represents the period. For ex-
ample, all the punctuation-marks occur in Matt. 22: 11 and 12; while
in verses 13 and 14 there are none, except a period after inλenzoi.
the 15th verse there is but one, viz. after loy; in the 10th there are
but two, viz. after heyovies and after ovdevos. To give some idea of
the size of the smallest sections, we will state that verses 11 and 12 to-
gether make one, verses 13 and 14 a second, and verses 15, 16, and 17
another.
In
Such is the case in regard to punctuation-marks; accents are nowhere
to be found in the MS.
In the Gospels the Codex has the chapters of Ammonius and the sec-
tions of Eusebius. It has likewise the larger chapters and the titlovs
or summaries of contents which are connected with them. In the
Epistles I observed some divisions agreeing with the Egyptian church-
lessons.
ร
The inscriptions and subscriptions could not be more simple than
they are, where they are preserved. John's Gospel is subscribed thus:
εὐαγγέλιον κατά Ιωάννην. The second of Peter has, with no number,
the inscription: Téroov zavolex; the third of John has the super-
scription, Ιωάννου; Jude, Ιούδα ἐπιστολή, with the subscription, Τού-
δα καθολική. In the Pauline Epistles we find preserved the inscription
πρὸς ῾Ρωμαίους; the inscription and subscription πρὸς Κορινθίους α.;
the subscriptions πρὸς Γαλάτας, πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς, προς Εβραίους,
лOо's Trμódεov B. Neither of these has any thing further; still less
do they bear resemblance to those of Euthalius.
In comparing this MS. with the Alexandrian, we find that it has not
so many additions attributable to a later hand. Pursuing the compari-
son with reference to the punctuation-marks, we find that it has far few-
er subdivisions by means of commas and colons than the Alexandrian
-two weighty reasons for ascribing to it the precedency in point of an-
tiquity.
This Codex, likewise, was written in Alexandria or somewhere in E-
gypt, as is shown by the forms Anupetar, Matt. 10: 41; ovλhun,
!
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
165
Luke 1: 31; αναλήψεως, Luke 9: 51, ανελήφθη, Acts 1: 2, εἶπαν,
Matt. 25: 8, Mark 10: 4, 10: 37, Acts 23: 14; date, Matt. 25:34;
άro Matt. 10: 13, Luke 11: 2.
Wetstein, as we are assured by Less and particularly Griesbach, did
all that was in his time possible in collating the MS.; yet it would be
worth while to have a gleaning with the aid of our present resources.
A fac-simile of the characters is given by Montfaucon (Paleogr. L III.
c. 3, p. 214,) which however does not equal the elegance of the ori-
ginal.
Codex S. Matthæi Dublinensis rescriptus. This MS. is inferior to
none in point of beauty. It has been washed over and other works
written upon it; but the old letters can still be discerned. John Barret,
a clergyman of Trinity College, Dublin, discovered the old writing, had
it engraved, and published it in 64 copper-plates with a preface, criti-
cal observations and an appendix.1 Through this splendid work we
possess, though with many chasms, the Gospel of Matthew according
to the Recension of Hesychius. As Griesbach was not acquainted with
it, it is not designated in criticism by any letter.
The characters are upright, square and uniform, somewhat larger
than those in Cod. Ephraem. The A and M are remarkably similar in
form, as we find them to be in Coptic MSS.
The text is subdivided into sections resembling verses, as in the MSS.
A and C there is but one column on each page.
:
As to the punctuation-the period is invariably marked, or, where it
is effaced, there is a considerable blank space in which it once stood.
The colon is not always perceptible; but a space of about half a letter
denotes where it is or should be. The smallest division, for which a
space is left nearly as large as that for the colon, seldom occurs.
three have the same mark, viz. a dot.
All
There are no accents; to use the words of him who examined it per-
sonally: "nec habet spiritus aut accentus omnino."
From all the grounds of decision it would appear that the MS. can-
not be more modern than the Codex Ephraem Syri. To complete its
description we must mention further, that it contains the chapters of
Ammonius without Eusebius' sections, and also the larger chapters with
their inscriptions.
I have met with the following Alexandrian forms of words in the MS.:
Matt. 10: 41, λήμψεται; 7: 25, προσέπεσαν; 11: 7, 8, 9, ἐξήλθατε.
§ 51.
D or Codex Cantabr., a MS. of the Gospels and Acts, and E, a MS.
of the Acts alone (Laudianus III), belong to the second period and
were written after stichometry had become prevalent. Of the Epistles
of Paul, D and E, or Codex Claromont. and Sangermanensis, and H, or
Coislinianus, are MSS. of the same class.
1 "Evangelium secundum Matthæum, ex codice rescripto in bibliotheca col-
legii SS. Trinitatis juxta Dublin, descriptum opera et studio Jo. Barret etc. cui
adjungitur appendix collationem codicis Montfortiani complectens. Dublinii
in aedibus academicis. MDCCCI.
166
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
The MS. D, containing the Gospels and Acts, was used by Robert
Stephens in his edition of the New Testament in 1550, where its read-
ings are occasionally quoted in the margin under the letter '. Its last
possessor, before it passed over to England, was Theodore Beza. The
rest of its history lies in obscurity and some of it must forever continue
So. At any rate, however, it finally got into good hands. Beza present-
ed it in 1581 to the Cambridge University, where it was held in high
estimation and in 1793 was printed in its own characters, which were
carefully copied. The pages which are wanting are pointed out by the
Editor of the Preface p. XXVI, (but more circumstantially and accurate-
ly in the Appendix at the end,) as well as those which were added by
other hands in order to supply passages which were lost or for the sake
of correction.
The Gospels are in the following order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.
Then comes the Acts of the Apostles. On one side, the right, is the
Greek text, and on the opposite an old Latin version, antecedent to Je-
rome, both written stichometrically in the (so called) uncial characters.
The Greek letters are upright and square, not compressed like the more
modern form, but similar to the oldest characters.
The Greek and Latin are by the same hand. This is evident in
the letters A and E, in the C of the Latin and the Sigma in the Greek
it is still more clear in the letter T, the horizontal line of which is made
by a peculiar, turn of the pen; and is especially plain from the Latin
P and Greek P in the formation of which the calligraphist had a re-
markable peculiarity in which both agree.
The calligraphist, however, knew but little of Greek and as little of
Latin. Unskilled in these languages, he wrote his MS. in his profes-
sional capacity. He was an Egyptian or Alexandrian. As a Latino-
Greek Codex written in Alexandria is somewhat remarkable, we will
present the evidence in the case. No Codex, not even the Vatican, has
so many Alexandrian forms and idioms as this. The ɛinav is very fre-
quent; also in Matt 13: 48, ἔβαλαν; Mark 8: 15, ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ εἶχαν;
12: 12, ἀπῆλθαν; Luke 8: 34, ἔφυγαν; Acts 2: 40, διεμαρτύρατο ;
Acts 7: 27, 37, εἴπας for εἰπῶν, and v. 40, εἴπαντες; Acts 7: 57, σύν
εσχαν τα ώτα; 10: 23, συνῆλθαν ; 16: 7, ἤθελαν. The editor has
pointed out in the Appendix, John S: 22, ἔλεγαν; 8: 53, ἀπέθαναν ;
Luke 1:59, av; he also mentions Luke 2: 16, sugar, which Wetstein
pointed out. We observe besides, Anuyovrai Matt. 20: 10; λýµчεode,
Matt. 21:22; noтEVETE őτ λýμpeo98, Mark 11: 24, Acts 1: 8, 2: 38;
λήμψονται, Mark 12: 40 ; συλλήψη, Luke 1: 31; ανελήφθη, Mark
16: 19, Acts 1:2, 22, 10: 16; avainuqeis, Acts 1: 11, &c. &c.
"
Now if, as the evidence shows, the MS. was written in Alexandria,
we can determine its age with tolerable accuracy. It was written after
the time of Euthalius and before the Arabian conquest, in the latter part
of the fifth or in the sixth century, at the period when the Greeks aban-
doned the calligraphist's laborious means of gaining a subsistence and
1 "Codex Theodori Bezæ Cantabrigiensis, Evangelia et Apostolorum Acta com-
plectens, quadratis literis Græco-Latinis, Academiâ auspicante, . . . edidit, codi-
cis historiam præfixit, notasque adjecit Thomas Kipling, rel. Cantabrigiæ e prelo
Academico impensis Academiæ, MDCCXCII." in two splendid folio volumes.
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
167
surrendered the whole business into the hands of the poor and indus-
trious Egyptians, who were not masters of the Greek and very little vers-
ed in the Latin. (Comp. § 49.)
It cannot well be denied that the MS. was intended for the use of
Latins, and there are many traces of its having been in their posses-
sion. It is even the case that the Greek text from µɛhhovons döyñs in
Matt. 3:7 to лvεvua Toù dεou in v. 16, from John 18: 14 to 20: 13,
and from лάon τ urios in Mark 16: 15 to the end, which had been
destroyed by time or accident, has been added by a Latin hand, proba-
bly about the twelfth century.
One of the passages supplied, viz. Matt. 2: 21-3: 8, which Kipling
from the characters assigns to the 10th century, even serves to point
out the country of the west in which the MS. was preserved. For it
coincides perfectly with Codex Corbeiensis, which is printed in Bian-
chini's Evangeliarium Quadruplex;¹ and the latter MS. was preserved
at Corbey, in France.
For the sake of those who entertain the idea that the Greek text was
often corrupted from Latin MSS., we further observe, that they may be
convinced of the contrary from the Cambridge Codex, and may be sat-
isfied that the Latin has rather been accommodated to the Greek with
childish scrupulosity and against all rules of grammar, sometimes even
absurdly.
This Codex has no accents; but the circumstance is unimportant.
Its predominant characteristic, its stichometrical arrangement, is deci-
sive. Probably the copyist spared himself a piece of labor from which
the Latins could derive but very little advantage. He had good reason
for not subjoining at the end the Euthalian summaries of the Stichoi.
They could not possibly suit this ancient text, which contained many
words and clauses that no longer existed in the revised text copied by
Euthalius.
The MS. which bears the mark E among those of the Acts of the
Apostles, contains the Acts alone. In the Bodleian Library, to which
it was presented by William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, it is de-
signated Laudianus III. It wants some pages from Acts 25: 29 to
28: 6. It was printed at Oxford in 1715 by Thomas Hearne.
In this MS. the Greek text and one of the Latin versions before Jer-
ome's time are written stichometrically opposite each other upon the
same page, contrary to the custom in other MSS.
The Latin comes
first, then the Greek. The characters are uncial, square, large, some-
what heavy and much more rough than those of the Cambridge MS.
The chapters of Euthalius are denoted by coarser initial letters extend-
ing into the margin. The copyist has omitted the accents and the
enumeration of the Stichoi at the end.
It is the second known Græco-Latin MS. which is of Alexandrian
origin. That it is so, is proved by the following readings; Acts 16:
20, 31, εἶπαν ; 26: 15, ἐνῶ δὲ εἶπα; 22: 24, εἶπας μάστιξι ανε
τάζ . . . ; 2: 23, ανείλατε; 7: 10, ἐξείλατο ; 21, ἐνείλατο ; 5: 10, ηὗραν;
8: 3, ελυμήνατο; 14: 15, καὶ παραχρῆμα ἐξήλλατο ; 2: 40, 20: 23, δι
1 Præf. ad editionem Cod. Cantabr. p. XVIII.
!
168
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
Eμaorúgaro. According to Woide's testimony (Præf. ad Cod. Alex.
§ 76,) ἔλημψεν also stands for ἔληψεν.
We are thus led to the same conclusion as to the age of this MS. as
we reached in the case of the Cambridge Codex. We cannot bring it
lower down than the conquest of the Arabs, and must refer it to the 6th
century or at any rate to the first quarter of the 7th.
In the interim between this period and the eighth century, it was in
Sardinia. For at the end of the MS. there is subjoined a Greek edict
of a Dux Sardinia, not in the hand writing of the copyists, Pißhioroα-
qov, but in the old documentary diplomatic hand beginning thus,
Φλαυιὸς Παγκράτιος σὺν θεῷ Δοῦξ Σαρδινίας δλῆα ποιῶ τὰ ὑποτεταγ
μένα. Επείπερ θεοστυγεῖς καὶ κρ. . . . Justinian, who restored the
power of the Greeks in the west, was the first (as Wetstein observes, L.
1. Cod. Tit. 27. De off. Præf. Prætor. Africa leg. 2. § 3,) who ap-
pointed Duces Sardinia, which he did in 534. But this authority of
the eastern emperors lasted only till 749, when the Lombards subdued
the island, and retained it till the fall of their power with their last King.¹
The cessation of the Duces Sardinia and of the Greek sway over the
island in the middle of the 8th century, confirms the date assigned to
the MS.; for the Greek statute of Φλαυιὸς Παγκράτιος Δουξ Σαρδι
vias must have been written in it during the dominion of the Greeks, i. e.
before the middle of the 8th century. The edict, which it would ap-
pear related to a religious matter, must certainly contain some date or de-
signation of time and probably might give us some information in regard
to the Codex itself.
Woide has shown from several very satisfactory examples, that this Co-
dex betrays no endeavour to accommodate the Greek to the Latin, but
that, on the contrary, it forces and outrages the Latin in order to con-
form it entirely to the Greek. (Præfat. ad ed. Cod. Alex. Sect. VI. §
LXXX.)
The MS. D of the Epistles of Paul has sometimes been considered
as the second part of D of the Gospels and Acts. But its size is small-
er, the parchment thinner and more beautiful, and the characters more
elegant, than those of the Cambridge Codex. The abbreviations also,
which they use, as Marsh has observed, are different, e. g. the abbrevi-
ations of ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, etc.
This Codex is commonly called Claromontanus, and now bears the
number 107 in the French Library; formerly it was 2245. The begin-
ning of the Epistles to the Romans and the conclusion of that to the
Hebrews (the first and last page,) are wanting, and in the middle, 1 Cor.
14: 13-22 has been supplied by a second hand. The MS. has many
corrections from various hands, as is correctly stated by Griesbach.
The Greek as well as the Latin text is written in beautiful square
uncial characters, in such a manner that the Greek is on one page on
the left of the reader, and the Latin on the other upon his right. Both
columns are disposed stichometrically. The Greek letters show that
the librarius was a Latin. They are invariably furnished with accents
where they were requisite.
Much as this latter circumstance perplexed Montfauçon, he dared
1 Cambiagi, Istoria del regno di Sardegna. T. I. L. 3.
1
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
169
He there-
not absolutely deny the accents a like antiquity with the text.
fore softens what he says by admitting that they must have been added
to the MS. not long after it was written: "Accentus et spiritus annotan-
tur, sed ii secundâ manu, ut videtur, nec diu, ut creditur, post descrip-
tum codicem adjecti sunt." This is very possible, for, as has been ob-
served, one calligraphist frequently wrote the MS. and another the ac-
cents. Griesbach admits that in particular passages of this MS., though
extremely seldom, the accents were affixed by the first hand. (Symb. Crit.
P. II. p. 32.) But this cannot be inferred with certainty from the faded or
vivid appearance of the ink, as in many places the characters have been
retouched with fresh ink. At any rate, even on this supposition the
MS. originally had some accents, but they were not however applied
throughout by the first copyist.
The chief characteristic of the book is that it is stichometrically
written, and by this circumstance the limit of its antiquity is determined.
It could not however be placed lower down than the 8th century, were
we to judge merely from the Latin characters. But if we collate it
with the Laudian MS. of the Acts, the origin of which cannot have been
later than the first half of the 8th century, we must certainly attribute
a higher antiquity to this Codex.
The copyist spared himself the trouble of subjoining at the end of
each Epistle the Euthalian subscriptions and the number of the stichoi.
Instead of this there is at the end of the Epistle to Philemon a list of
the stichoi in all the books of the Old and New Testament; but by an-
other hand, which likewise added the Epistle to the Hebrews.
A spe-
cimen of this MS., taken from the Epistle to the Romans, is presented
by Montfauçon, in his Paleog. Gr. (L. III. c. 4.)
E is a MS. of the Pauline Epistles which formerly belonged to the
Abbey St. Germain at Paris, called Codex Sangermanensis. I have not
been able to learn the number which it now bears, nor even whether it is
now in existence.1
According to Wetstein it is merely a transcript of the Codex Claro-
montanus, and this is confirmed by Griesbach. The latter has even as-
signed its date accordingly. For he clearly distinguished several differ-
ent correctors who had tried their talents in amending the Greek and
Latin text of the Cod. Claromont. The alterations in the Latin made
by one of these are even in the cursive character.
Now all these cor-
rections and particularly the latter, which are clearly of a very modern
date, are exhibited in the text of the MS. of St. Germain. According-
ly the learned Griesbach assigned it to the 10th or 11th century. (Symb.
Crit. P. II. p. 77 seq.) The uncial characters, moreover, it would
seem from the specimens in Mabillon (De re diplomat L. V. T. II. p.
346,) and Montfaucon (Paleog. Gr. L. III. c. 4. p. 218,) were not
familiar to the copyist, for they rather resemble laborious painting than
a fluent handwriting.
With this I reckon also two other MSS. which can claim no more
right from their antiquity to be treated of here, than the MS. of St. Ger-
main. Let me here however barely notice their origin and mutual re-
1 I see from the public papers that the MS. is now in Petersburg, where it
was carried by Counsellor Dubrowsky.
22
170
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
lation, in order to throw light upon what we shall say hereafter. As in
Numismatics there are what are termed nummi commatis barbarici, re-
impressions of Roman coins among harbarous nations, so we may call
these MSS. Codices barbari. We allude to Fand G of the Pauline
Epistles. Both are in Greek and Latin, and transcripts of copies of
which we have before treated.
G belonged, before it got into the Royal Library at Dresden, to Prof.
Börner at Leipzic, and hence it is also called Codex Boernerianus. It
contains only 13 Epistles of Paul: that to the Hebrews is not with the
rest; and in the other Epistles the following passages are wanting-Rom.
1: 1--6. 2: 6-26. 8: 1, 2. 14: 23. 15: 1. 1 Cor. 3:7-17. 6: 6-15. Coloss.
2: 1-9. Christian Fr: Matthæi had the whole MS. printed with all its
peculiarities, together with an engraved fac-simile of the characters¹.
The Greek characters are uncial, but formed in a peculiar way.
They are very similar to those in the Psalter of Sedulius Scotus, to be
seen in Montfauçon (Paleog. Gr. L. III. c. 7. p. 237), and also to those
in a Psalter which I have seen in the library of the Seminary at Würz-
burg.
The text is from a stichometrical copy, although it is continuous, the
stichoi not being separated. Instead of doing this, the copyist denoted
the beginning of each of them by an initial letter. By writing sepa-
rately the clauses which he has marked in this way, we shall have the
stichometrical division. We will do this in regard to the engraved spe-
cimen, without altering the orthography in the least.
Ταυτα σοι γαφω
Ελπιζω ελθειν
Εαν βραδυνω
Ινα ιδής
Πως δει. εν οικω θεου αναστρέφεσθαι.
Ητις εστιν εκκλησια θεου ζωντος
Στυλος και εδραιωμα της αληθιας
Και ομολογουμενος.
Μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβίας, μυστήριον
Ος εφανερώθη, εν σαρκι.
Εδικαιώθη εν πνευματι
Ωφθη αγγελοις.
Εκηρυχθη εν. εθνεσιν
Πιστεύθη εν κόσμω
Ανεληφθη εν. δοξη
Ο δε πνευμα ρητως λέγει.
Ότι εν υστεροις καιροις-
1 "XIII. Epistolarum Pauli Codex cum versione Latina veteri, vulgo Ante-Hie-
ronymiana, olim Boernerianus nunc Bibliothecæ Electoralis Dresdensis, summa
fide et diligentia transcriptus et editus a Chr. Fr. Matthæi. Misenæ impens. Erb-
stenii MDccLxXXXXI. 4to.
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
171
To this correct stichometrical division by means of initial letters the
copyist has also added marks of punctuation, thus evincing what an im-
perfect idea he had of a proper division, and his entire incapacity to ad-
just a few Stichoi according to the principles of Euthalius. He omit-
ted the accents entirely.
The Latin version is one of those prior to the times of Jerome, and
is inserted between the lines of the Greek. It is written in the smaller
or cursive hand, and in Anglo-Saxon characters, such as Wetstein ob-
served in a Psalter in the library at Basle, which, according to the sub-
scription, originally came from Ireland.
το
The transcriber and his predecessors anxiously labored to make the
version still more conformable to the Greek than it originally was; e. g.
Rom. 4: 16, εἰς τὸ εἶναι βεβαίαν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, in esse firmam pro-
missionem ; 18, εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸν πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν, in fendo,
aut ut fieret, eum pater, aut patrem; 20, ov diexoid ty ameoria, a22³
τία, αλλ'
¿veduvaμaon, non haesitavit, aut aestimavit, aut dubitavit diffidentia,
sed confortatus est, potentatus est.
The MS. seems, also, to have been used in monastic schools for the
study of Greek, whence certain notes which we find may be explained;
as Rom. 8:5, oi yao xarà oάoka ovies, qui secundum carnem sunt parti-
κατά
cipium; Rom. 4: 13, inaɣyèka võ 'Aßoaάu, promissio dativus Abra-
hae, &c. But we cannot indulge any further in these observations, and
must content ourselves with remarking how little ground there is for the
theory of those who assume the corruption of the Greek MSS. from the
Latin as a principle in the history of the text.
From what has been said, we perceive that the Boernerian Codex is
a transcript of an older copy, the Greek text of which was written sticho-
metrically in uncial characters, and at the side of which was an Ante-
Jeromian version. Probably the original resembled the Clermont MS.,
and may have surpassed it in point of antiquity.
The copy from which this Codex was derived, was, like the Greek
and Latin MSS. D and E, written in Alexandria, as is amply shown by
the idioms which occur. Rom. 2: 11. Ephes. 6: 9. Col. 3: 25, поooш-
πολημψία. Philipp. 4: 15, δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως. 1 Tim: 4:3, μετάληψ
ις. Rom. 11: 15, πρόληψις. 1 Cor. 12: 28, αντίληψις. 1 Tim. 3: 2. 5:
7. 6: 14, ανεπίλημπτον. Rom. 13: 2, λήμψονται. Galat. 6: 1, πρόλημα-
9. 2 Thess. 2: 13, őrı elhato vµãs. 2 Cor. 5: 17, yeyovav. Rom. 15: 3,
ἐπέπεσαν, 2 Cor. 6: 17, ἐξέλθατε.
The transcript was made in the tenth, or at the highest in the ninth
century, since on its margin we find frequently noted by the first hand
contra Toddionáhxov, contra Græcos. The former promulged his te-
nets in the ninth century; and then, too, the latter fell out with the La-
tins and caused the famous schism.
Notes are also found in it in another language, which has no resem-
blance to the Anglo-Saxon, as e. g. at p. 22 in Matthæi's edition, which
would probably most readily be explained by a native of Scotland or
Ireland.
F, or Augiensis, is so called from the Augia major at Reichenau, the
oldest Benedictine monastery in Germany, for St. Gallen belongs to
Switzerland. The monastery is situated on a delightful island in the
lower lake, a mile from Constance. Here was the first known abode
172
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
of this Codex, with numerous other very old MSS. After many adven-
tures it reached England, and was supposed to be lost, till some years
ago Dr. Herbert Marsh gave information of its present place of deposite.
It is in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. Wetstein collated
it before it got over to England.
It is not interlinear like the former, but it is written in columns; first
the Latin, then the Greek, on the same page. In the latter language it
contains only thirteen Pauline Epistles; but in the Latin that to the He-
brews also. Some of its pages are lost from Rom. 3: 8 to the first to
the Corinthians.
The Greek text is written in uncial characters, without accents; the
Latin in the Anglo-Saxon cursive hand. Not only are the words in the
Greek separated, but there is a point after each, and hence it must re-
semble the Psalter of Sedulius (with which Wetstein compares the char-
acters of the MS.) much more than even the Boernerian MS. does.
We have yet to learn whether it exhibits any traces of Stichoi. The
version in this MS. likewise is one of those which were current before
Jerome's time.
Wetstein believed G to be a copy of F; there is nothing however to
prevent our supposing the very reverse. In F there is a point after ev-
ery word, and consequently each is separated from the rest and limited
by this sign; while on the contrary G was copied from a MS. which had
no separation of the words. This may be seen from the following ex-
amples; 1 Cor. 4: 21, the words are thus divided in G : пvevμate tETOX.
οτητος. 1 Cor. 8: 7, ασθενης ους. αμολύνεται. 9: 12, ινα μη εν κοππην-
τιν αδωμεν. 15: 33, φθείρουσιν η. θεαχρησ. τα ομιλιαι. Neither was
the MS. F copied from G; for the method of writing in columns is the
usual one in the oldest MSS., while we have no very ancient examples
of the manner in which G is written. Moreover G has many peculiar
readings which are not met with in F.
Yet it is remarkable how often they agree in their minutiae and mis-
takes; so often indeed that it is difficult to deny their close mutual rela-
tion. These apparently inconsistent circumstances can be explained
only by supposing that both had a common origin from a MS. which,
according to the custom of the period, had received different corrections,
of which one of the copyists adopted this and the other that for inser-
tion in his text.
The MS. of Reichenau is about as old as the Boernerian; for the
words, "post illam generalem baptismi gratiam etc." which were taken,
as Semler has observed, from Rhabanus Maurus and appended to
the Reichenau Codex, are by the first hand. Hence it cannot have
been written earlier than in the last half of the ninth or during the
tenth century.
These MSS. did not stray into our country, but probably originated
here. In the seventh century there came among us numerous emigrants
from Ireland, as well as some from Scotland, who settled here, and were
the fathers and founders of our monastic institutions and abbeys. A-
mong these were Gallus, Columban, Fridolin, Trudpert, Pirmin, and
others, who eventually drew pupils after them from their native land.
Hence we sometimes see in our monastic libraries MSS. in the Anglo-
Saxon characters. These pupils probably brought with them some
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
173
knowledge of the Greek language; and in this way we obtained Grae-
co-Anglo-Saxon MSS. For, towards the end of the seventh century,
Theodore, a Greek by birth, was educated at Athens, admitted into the
priesthood in Italy, and afterwards despatched by the Holy See with
the archiepiscopal dignity to Britain. Through his means a knowledge
of the Greek language was introduced into the British monasteries.
Codex H. was a very beautiful stichometrical MS., fragments of
which were preserved in the celebrated library of Bishop Coislin at Metz,
No. 202. These fragments of the Pauline Epistles have been printed by
Montfauçon, and carefully examined de novo by Griesbach.2 A catalogue
of them may be found in his small edition of the New Testament, and
a specimen of the characters in Montfauçon.
In earlier times this Codex was on Mount Athos, where it was used
for old parchment to cover other books in the year 1208, as appears from
a note in the book which it was used to cover.
It is written in Greek alone, in very large genuine square characters
of the ancient form, is stichometrical (as before said), and furnished
with the accents. It had also the Euthalian subscriptions, of which the
one at the end of the Epistle to Titus still exists: ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Τίτον
τῆς Κρητῶν ἐκκλησίας κ. τ. λ.
C
Montfaucon inferred from the note: ἀντεβλήθη ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν
Καισαρείᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ
yeycauuévov, which is found at the end of the MS., that it was written
in Syria. But this postscript belongs to Euthalius and not to the co-
pyist. On the other hand, the form εúzαrúhημлTоν, in the fourth and
fifth lines of the subscription, is Alexandrian. Hence the MS., consid-
ering its genuine ancient characters, must have been written in the 6th
century, before the irruption of the Arabs. (Comp. § 49.)
$ 52.
Π
We pass now to the MSS. which were written subsequently to sticho-
metry, and among them we give the first place to Codex K, which was
brought from Cyprus in the year 1637, and is hence called Cyprius. It
was once Colbertin. 5149, and is now N. 63 in the library of the King
of France. 3 We have assigned it the first place because it informs us
clearly how the change from stichometry to proper punctuation occur-
red. (Comp. § 45.) It is not indeed of the same date with this occur-
rence. Stichometry was abandoned before the existence of this Codex.
1 Epist. Zachariae ad Bonifac. (in Hartzheim's Concilia Germ. T. I. p. 84.)
"In gentem Anglorum et Saxonum in Britannia insula primi praedicatores ab
sede apostolica missi, Augustinus, Laurentius, Justus, et Honorius, novissime et
tuis temporibus Theodorus Graeco-Latinus, ante philosophus et Athenis erudi-
tus, Romae ordinatus, pallio sublimatus ad praefatam Britanniam transmissus ju-
dicabat et gubernabat.'
2 Montfaue. Biblioth. Coislin. Part II. p. 253-263. Griesbach. Symbol. Crit.
P. II. p. 85.
""
3 Scholz has fully described it and collated it de novo. "Comment. inaugur.
de Cod. Cyprio et familia quam sistit.' Ed. Jo. Mart. August. Scholz, at the
end of his Curae criticae in historiam textus evangeliarum." 4to Heidel-
berg. 1820.
174
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
But it is a transcript of a copy of that period, and contains the four Gos-
pels in uncial characters, which are rather narrow, furnished with ac-
cents which, however, are negligently placed and are wanting over ma-
ny words and even over whole lines-a constant subject of regret in
biblical MSS.
The punctuation-marks in which it abounds, have this peculiarity,
that they are inserted without regard to grammatical division. A dot
is always used to denote the end of a Stichos, in order to save the blank
space which was lost by the usual separation of the Stichoi. There is
a specimen of the characters in Montfauçon, (Paleog. Gr. L. III. § 6.
p. 232.) and another in Scholz's treatise. The subscription, which
might determine something in regard to the age of the MS., is very
much injured. Montfauçon, and with him Scholz, assign the Codex to
the eighth century. But no one has yet shown that the compressed let-
were ever used in MSS. of so early a date as the eighth
century; or that the letters Z and ever have their strokes prolonged
beneath the line, or that the small strokes at the bottom of the letter 4
are ever extended below the line, in such MSS. I cannot therefore give
up my opinion that it is not older than the ninth century.
ters CEO
E of the Gospels in the library at Basle (B. VI. 21.), wants Luke
3: 4-15, 24: 47 to the end.-The following passages have been added
by a second hand: Luke 1: 69—2: 4, 12: 58—13: 12, and 15: 8–20.
With the exception of the appendages to the text, it is written in a
beautiful upright uncial character of the more ancient kind. The let-
ters CEO are perfectly round, the strokes of X, Z, E, are not pro-
longed below the line, as may be seen in regard to most of these letters
in the specimen we have given. (See engraving.) A regular system of
punctuation is employed through the whole book. The full stop is de-
noted by a dot at the top of the letter; the middle pause by one about
the middle of the letter; and the smallest by a dot at the bottom of the
line, which is sometimes lengthened into a manifest comma. The words
are generally furnished with accents, but they were now and then for-
gotten. The text is divided, like that of Codd. A, C, into sections re-
sembling verses.
But in the appendages to the text we find characters belonging to oth-
er periods. An uncial character of the ninth century predominates,
not unlike the characters found in Cod. L, with all the compressed and
lengthened letters which are found in MSS. of this century. In this
character are written the summaries of the chapters or the rirlot, which
are prefixed to the Gospels, the pages containing which summaries, it is
evident, were separately inserted and stitched with the rest.
By the
same or a contemporary hand are the designations of the Ammonian
sections on the side of the page, as also on the lower margin the refer-
ences to other Evangelists in which any particular narrative likewise oc-
curs, together with the notices of the festivals on which certain portions
were read: e. g. at the beginning of Matthew-sis rd äɣia dεopávia,
τ μετα φώτα, μετὰ τὰ φῶτα, μετὰ τὴν τ ἁγίων πάντων, etc.
Both kinds of characters sometimes occur on the same line or imme-
diately beneath each other. The festivals are very seldom designated
in the ancient character; but certain formulae at the beginning of
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
175
church-lessons are found marked very frequently in this hand upon the
upper margin; e. g. on the 70th page: tự xaιow ¿xcivo čháhnoev o 'Is ;
96th, εἰσῆλθεν ὁ Ις εἰς Καπερναοῦμ; p. 100. τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἐπορεύε
το τοῖς σάββασιν.
to o 'Is rois σáßfast. etc. These introductory formulae are often in-
serted far into the page, so that a blank space remained before them,
which was occupied by the writer of the second species of character.
Thus, p. 110, the introduction: τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἤκουσεν ὁ Ηρώδης ὁ
βασιλεὺς τὴν ἀκοὴν τοῦ του, is in the first hand; the words which are
prefixed: εἰς τὴν ἀποτομὴν τοῦ προδρόμου, are in the second charac-
ter; and in p. 158 the formula, Txalow Excivo nadev, is in the more
ancient, and the τίτλος—περὶ τοῦ ἔχοντος πνεῦμα δαιμονίου, in the la-
ter character.
C
Now if a distinction is not carefully made, we shall pass a wrong
judgment and do injustice to the body of the MS., which is of far great-
er antiquity than these appendages to the text.
A MS. which received
additions of this nature in the ninth century, must the rather on this
account be regarded as of earlier date than the ninth century; and its
characters bear infallible marks of a more ancient date. Let it not be
objected that perhaps the calligraphist took it into his head to imitate a
more ancient character. There is no appearance of a mere imitation.
Every letter is boldly traced; every stroke is made by a fearless hand.
It is the writing of a ready penman, not of a timid imitator. I am ac-
quainted with a MS. of the four Gospels of the nature alleged, which
was formerly in the possession of Chevalier Nani, and is now through
his generosity in St. Mark's Library. It is clearly evident that it was
written about the tenth century; yet the letters CO E O in it are as
round as in the oldest MSS. But the hesitating, uncertain hand which
guided the reed or pen betrays itself most plainly. We see the unsteadi-
ness of the hair strokes, the mode in which the heavy strokes were grad-
ually made thicker by repeated touching, etc. etc. Nothing of this kind
can be discovered in the Basle Codex. The characters in which it is
written are the genuine ones of the eighth century. But I will not
venture to assign to it a higher antiquity, for this reason, viz. that while
in the more ancient writing, if a calligraphist was pressed for room at
the end of a line, he made the letters every way smaller; this Codex
only compressed the letters in width, making them narrower. This is
most striking in CEO, and may be regarded as a prelude to the alter-
ations of the ninth century.
c
The fac-simile which I insert in this edition was taken by Prof. Hess
of Basle, who undertook the trouble with extreme politeness.
I was
desirous of presenting a passage which should afford likewise a speci-
men of the second species of character. This is presented in the plate,
(which contains Luke 8: 13-18,) at the end of the 15th verse. The
abbreviation л denotes the addition, or лaqάeois, which the public
reader made as a concluding formula: ταῦτα λέγων ἐφώνει ὁ ἔχ—i, e.
ἔχων ῶτα ἀκούειν, ακουέτω. The abbreviation CAS, σαββάτω s. re-
fers to the cross after oudɛis, v. 16, by which the beginning of a read-
ing section is denoted. By the side of oaßßáry 5. a third hand, which
however appears far more rarely than the second, has added the intro-
ductory formula: εiлev ó xúgios ovdeis. . . . which the other writer
εἶπεν κύριος οὐδείς.
had omitted.
σα
176
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
...
>
1
This MS. was for a long time in Constantinople or its vicinity. Not
to be prolix, I will mention but two of the evidences of this. The feast
τῶν ἁγίων ἀναργύρων is marked in Matthew. These moneyless saints
were Cosmas and Damian, who practised medicine gratuitously. As
early as the last half of the sixth century they had a temple at Constan-
tinople through the favour of Justin the Second and Sophia his wife.2
We Gnd the following words in the margin of Luke : εἰς τὴν μνήμην
τῶν ἁγίων νοταρίων. These were exclusively Constantinopolitan
saints, who perished in the tumult excited by Macedonius, and were
afterwards esteemed martyrs. A church was built over their graves,
which was standing in the days of Sozomen.3
This Codex, then, was used in Constantinople or its vicinity as a
church-MS., on which account it contains designations of the church-
lessons by the original hand. Hence the titloi could easily be dispen-
sed with, as well as the Ammonian sections also, and it was another
hand which enriched the MS. with them and with designations of all
the sacred festivals.
If we are right in assigning the origin of this MS. to the eighth cen-
tury, it cannot be denied, that a perfect system of punctuation was pre-
valent in this century, at least in some countries.
L, once 2861, now 62 at Paris in the royal library, contains the four
Gospels on parchment, elegantly written with uncial letters in two col-
umns; yet not with what is called the old square character. CEO O
are compressed; Z, E, X, are prolonged beneath the line; the small
strokes of and the cross stroke of are exactly as in the specimen
presented, which I copied with care, and which I hope will be prepared
with care for this edition by the artist. The Codex has accents, which
however are negligently placed and often entirely wanting. The punc-
tuation is expressed by two marks; the greater and middle pause by a
cross and the smallest by a comma.
Wetstein collated the MS., and after him with peculiar care Griesbach,
who has given a description of it. It bears infallible marks of the
country of its origin. Griesbach observes respecting the orthography
of the MS. : “ Semper scribitur λήμψομαι cum conjugatis pro λήψομαι,
et saepissime είπαν pro εἶπον, nonnunquam etiam ἦλθαν et ἴσαν.”
We also find "dav for sidov in Luke 9: 32 and 10: 24; for ¿§ehnlvdate
in Luke 7: 24, 22: 52, ἐξήλθατε ; also for εὗρον and εύρομεν in Luke
2: 16 and 23: 2, ɛvoα, Evocμεv; and for woάzaov in Luke 9: 26, ἑώ
Qaxav. Hence it is of Egyptian origin, and from the characters it ap-
pears that it is an Egyptian MS. of the second period. (§ 49.) Gries-
bach has assigned it to the ninth century, in which I perfectly agree
with him.
V, a MS. of the four Gospels, belongs to the library of the Holy Syn-
1 Suicer, Thes. Philol. V. άvágyroos. Balsam. Schol. ad Photii Nomoc. Tit.
VII. c. 1. in Biblioth. Juris Canon. Voell. et Justell. T. I. p. 230.
2 Anonym. apud Bandur. in Antiq. Imp. Orient. P. II. T. I. p. 30. comp
notes on this passage, T. II. p. 624-5.
3 Sozom. H. E. L. IV. c. 3. Comp. the Notes of Valesius on this passage aud
on Socrates, H. E. L. V.
c. 22.
4 Griesbach, Symb. Crit. Tom. I.
p. LXVI-LXXIX.
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
177
!
od at Moscow, where this Codex is regarded as the oldest monument
among the literary treasures there preserved. It wants Matt. 5: 44-6:
12. 9: 18—10: 1. 22: 44—23: 35. Mark and Luke are perfect, but at
John 7: 39 begins a new hand, which continues to the end, and in which
a subscription also is added. But this has so little bearing upon a de-
cision of the age of the MSS., that Matthæi wholly rejects it as inad-
missible for this purpose.
The writing is uncial, or, if that word be disliked, the letters are
those of the larger alphabet, which, however, are very small and neat.
They are not much larger than those of Cardinal Barberini's Hexaplar
MS. of the Prophets; they are, however, somewhat longer. (Bianchi-
ni Evang. Quadr. P. I. ad pag. DXXXII. Cod. Barb. Sign. num. V.)
The MS., as is shown by the specimen which Matthæi has published
with the Apocalypse, is not written cryos at all, but serie continuâ.
It is divided, however, into small paragraphs resembling verses. The
beginning of Mark has been engraved as a specimen of the character.
The MS. has, besides the accents, a regular punctuation throughout.
For a full stop a dot is placed at the top of a letter for the middle pause
one at the bottom; and for the smallest a comma. The form and ele-
gance of the characters assign that part of the MS. which precedes
John 7: 39 to the ninth century. The rest is several centuries young-
The MS., as I am assured on good authority, was preserved with
other MSS. from the conflagration of Moscow. Matthæi has described
it in his Appendix Ad Thessalonicens. p. 265 seq.
er.
g, (XCVIII. in the library of the Holy Synod,) which was formerly
in the monastery of St. Dionysius on Mount Athos, contains all the Pau-
line and Catholic Epistles. The Catholic Epistles are accompanied
with a Catena; the Pauline with Scholia by John Damascenus. The
text is written in two columns in uncial characters, with accents and
marks of punctuation. A dot above the letter denotes the full stop; in
the middle, the middle pause; and beneath, the smallest or the comma.
The Catena and Scholia are written in the cursive hand, on which
account the MS. can hardly have been written before the tenth century.
There is a description of it in Matthæi at the end of Epist. ad Rom.
Tit. et Philem. p. 265–67, together with a specimen of it taken from
the Catholic Epistles.
b is an Evangelistarium (in the library of the Holy Synod, N.
XLII.) in two columns, with uncial characters and accents, and, judg-
ing from the specimen which has been presented, is badly punctuated
and full of mistakes. The characters are rather heavy, yet not ill-form-
ed. They very much resemble those of another Evangelistarium of the
year 995, in Wetstein N. 5, of which Montfauçon has given a speci-
men in the Append. ad Paleogr. He calls its possessor Corel; it should
have been Covel. A description of the Moscow MS. may be found in
Matthæi, Epist. ad Thessalonic. p. 252. where likewise a specimen of
the characters is presented.
h is an Evangelistarium (N. XII. in the library of the Holy Synod,)
the beginning of which, comprising some lessons in John, is much inju
red. It is written in two columns, in long uncial characters, with ac-
cents and punctuation-marks. The smallest division is made, as ap-
pears from the specimen, by a dot which is lengthened almost to a line;
T
23
178
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
the full stop is denoted by a cross. The MS. is in general exceedingly
correct, and was written by a very competent copyist. The characters
bear much resemblance to those of an Evangeliarium (Colbert. 700.
Wetsten. n. 1.) of which a page is to be found in Montfauçon (Paleogr.
L. III. C. 4. p. 229.) Montfauçon is inclined to assign it to the 8th cen-
tury. We might agree with him if he had only proved that there exist-
ed a regular system of punctuation at that period; but without valid
proof of so important a point, the 9th century is full early enough for
a MS. possessing the characteristics which we find in this. Matthæi has
described it (Ad Thessalonic. p. 253. 4.) and furnished a specimen.
M, once the property of the Abbé des Camps, now n. 48. in the Li-
brary of France, contains the four Gospels in the uncial character with
accents and punctuation marks. The MS. has moreover other marks
above the lines in red ink, which are apparently notes according to which
the Gospels were chanted in the churches. It has, besides, certain dif-
ficult characters and likewise various readings on the margin in the
cursive hand; to all appearance they are by the original penman. From
this characteristic it cannot be older than the 10th century. There is a
specimen in Montfauçon. (Paleogr. L. III. c. 8. p. 260.)
$53.
We have yet to notice briefly some, at least, of the remarkable MSS.
in the cursive character to which we have referred in the history of the
text.
We will mention those of the Gospels first.
No. 1 of the Gospels in Wetstein and Griesbach, has the mark B.
VI. 27. in the Library at Basle, and is an elegant MS., adorned with
pictures. It contains the whole New Testament, (except the Apoca-
lypse,) which however is so arranged that the Acts and Epistles come
first and the Gospels follow. Before the Gospel of John is depicted the
resurrection of Lazarus. By the side of Jesus stand two male figures,
crowned and clad in purple and gold, one old and grey-bearded, the
other youthful. Beneath the picture is a Greek epigram, from which
we learn that one of the Leos is represented in it, and Wetstein has
shown from other considerations that the two crowned persons are Leo
the Wise and his son Constantine Porphyrogenitus, under whom this
MS. was probably written for the use of the church of St. Lazarus
which was built by Leo. Leo lived at the end of the 9th and in the
beginning of the 10th century. The text of the Gospels is very differ-
ent from the text of the rest of the MS.
No. 10 in the edition of Prof. Matthæi comes next; in Griesbach it
is marked Mt. 10. This MS. is in the library of Nicephorus, Archbish-
op of Chersonesus, and contains the four Gospels accompanied with
Scholia. According to the subscription at the end of Luke's Gospel, it
was presented by the copyist Moses, the son of Elias, to the monastery
of the votaries of St. Michael at Jerusalem. This circumstance con-
firms what we asserted respecting the text of this MS., viz. that it was
transcribed from a copy of the Palestinian Recension.
It is written on parchment in the cursive hand, in folio, with accents
and punctuation marks. The initial letters, the summaries of the con-
。
CONCERNING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
179
tents of the Gospels, the inscriptions of the same, the Eusebian Canons
and the designations of the large chapters are in the margin in red ink
and ornamented with gold. The whole MS. is in an excellent state of
preservation, correct, and, it would appear, even splendid. To say the
least, it must have been written before the crusades, before the close of
the 11th century. We could not expect to find a MS. written at Jeru-
salem, during or after those expeditions. Matthæi has described it at
the end of Epp. ad Thessalonic. p. 234-7. and presented a specimen
taken from Luke.
No. 114 according to Griesbach, or Harlei. 5540, contains the Gos-
pels on parchment, written in a small elegant hand sometime in the 13th
century. It has been carefully collated only in Matt. VIII, IX, X, XI;
elsewhere with invariable negligence. In this MS. are wanting Matt.
XVII. 4—18. and XXVI. 57-73. (Griesbach, Symb. Crit. P. I.
CLXXXXIII.)
στ
a
No. 124 according to Griesbach, in the Royal Library at Vienna
Lambec. XXXI. 4. At the end of each Gospel the orizo and ónuατα
are marked together. The cursive hand is not elegant; the initial
letters are rude. A description of it and an engraved specimen, togeth-
er with excellent observations on the text of this MS., have been furnish-
ed us by Treschow in his Tentam. Descriptionis Codicum Vet. Graec.
Nov. Foed. qui in biblioth. C. Vindob. asservantur. Hauniae. 1773. § 4.
Birch, who likewise collated the MS., assigns it to the 11th or 12th cen-
tury. (Proleg. in edit. IV. Evang. p. LVIII.)
I is a MS. in Matthæi, notices of which are scattered here and there
in his edition. (See the end of his edition of Epp. ad Thessalon. p.
187. Praefat. in Acta App. p. X. Praefat. in Epp. Cath. p. XXV.)
The specimen is from Epist. ad Rom. It contains the whole New Tes-
tament and the Psalter, together with the Canticles (so called,) in an
extremely small cursive hand, with accents, punctuation-marks and por-
traits of the Evangelists and Apostles. The text of the Acts, (and it is
on this account principally that it is here noticed,) is of an entirely dif
ferent Recension from the rest of the book. The MS. is numbered
CCCLXXX, in the Library of the Holy Synod, and, in the estimation
of the learned man who collated it, belongs to the 12th century.
Vatic. 367 contains the Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles in 4to.;
it was written about the 12th century. (Birch. Variae Lectiones ad
Text. Act. App. Epp. Cath. et Pauli. Hauniae. 1798. Prolegom. p. IX.)
The MS. has a pure text in the Acts and Catholic Epistles; but in the
Pauline Ep. it is much disfigured by readings from other MSS.
No. 17 in Wetstein and Griesbach, containing the Epistles of Paul,
was formerly Colbert. 2844, and is now N. 14 in the Library at Paris.
The MS. contains extracts from the Prophets, with the whole New Tes-
tament, the Apocalypse excepted. The leaves are bound together; it
begins with the first Epistle to the Corinthians, and proceeds in order
as far as Philemon inclusive. The Epistle to the Hebrews comes be-
fore the two to Timothy. After Philemon comes the Acts and then
the Epistle to the Romans; then the Catholic Epistles and lastly the
Gospels. It is well written and belongs to the 10th or 11th century.
The epistles of Paul are especially worthy of our notice. In the Gos-
pels it is numbered in Wetstein 33, and 13 in the Acts and Catholic
180
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
Epistles. (Griesbach, Symb. Crit. T. I. p. 167 seq. There are ob-
servations on its text of the Pauline Epistles in Griesbach's Symb. Crit.
T. 2. p. 87–148. Begtrup made a gleaning of various readings which
was published by Birch in his Supplem. to Var. Lectiones ad Text.
Apoc. Hauniæ, 1800. p. 95. seq.
The Vatican MS. 579 contains the Apocalypse along with various
other writings; it is on cotton paper, and perhaps belongs to the 13th cen-
tury. Hence it is not very ancient; but it was derived from a pure copy
in an excellent state of preservation. The copyist, however, had already
made preparations to corrupt the text; for he has collected various read-
ings from another MS. and noted them in the margin. They would
probably have been introduced into the next transcript as emendations:
it is even probable that he had already done this himself in respect
to some passages, unless indeed it were done before him; for the MS.
even now sometimes deviates from its family. (Birch. Var. Lectiones
ad Text. Apoc. p. 9, 12.)
CHAPTER VII.
EDITIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
$ 54.
A beautiful invention released the copyists from their laborious occu-
pation; and who would not imagine that it must very soon have been
applied to the documents of Christianity? But in truth their turn came
very late; many works of the classic authors of Greece having been
multiplied by means of the press and disseminated in Europe before
any one ventured to publish the books of the New Testament in the
original language, although there already existed several impressions of
the Latin and also of the German Bible.
Did this result from the veneration entertained for these books?
From the distrust of capacity for such a task which was felt by every
one? Or was it because that after the Florentine Council little reliance
was placed on the Greeks or on their MSS.? It could hardly be for want
of religious liberty, as the Councils of Constance and Basle had recent-
ly taken it under their protection against the alarming pretensions set
up on the other side of the Alps.
At least it was not so in one free state, which was never inclined to
endure coercion from without. I allude to Venice, where the celebra-
ted Aldus in the year 1504 first edited, not a New Testament, but only
the first six chapters of John's Gospel, as an experiment, and, contrary
to what we should have expected, no advance was made beyond this for
1 Adler in the Repert. für bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur, XVIII. Th. p. 150.
seq.
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
181
a long time.
Before this there probably existed nothing of the New
Testament but Mary's song of praise, Luke 1: 42—56, and Zachariah's,
Luke 1: 68-80, which are attached to a beautiful Greek Psalter, of the
year 1486, in my own possession.
$ 55.
Now, however, two individuals at the same time undertook the neg-
lected task, one of whom possessed surpassing learning and critical acu-
men, and the other surpassing zeal and perseverance; moreover, neith-
er were wanting in the spirit or the means of liberal expenditure. These
were Desiderius Erasmus, and the Spanish Minister, Cardinal Xi-
menes.
In the midst of the festivities with which the Court celebrated the
birth of an heir to the throne, (1502,) the Minister projected his Poly-
glot Bible, (Biblia Complutensia, the Bible of Alcala,) called together
the learned men to whom he desired to entrust its execution, and after-
wards labored with them himself in the midst of the most weighty af-
fairs of state.¹
It seems that they began with the New Testament, for according to
the postscript at the end of the Apocalypse, that book was completed in
January, 1514, while the whole was not finished till the 10th of July,
1517.
In preparing this edition, as they state in the preface, they made use
of the oldest and most correct MSS., which were sent them by Leo X
from the papal Library. As Leo was elevated to the papal chair in
March 1513, it is impossible, even leaving out of the account the time
necessary for the transmission of the MSS., that they could have made
much use of them in the ten months that elapsed before the comple-
tion of the Apocalypse in January 1514. It must have been the case
then, that they received these MSS. earlier, in the time of Julius II,
through the intervention of the Cardinal de Medici, who had great influ-
ence over this Pope and afterwards received their thanks for his good
offices, when he was in possession of that dignity in which he succeeded
Julius.
They had also other MSS. which they have not expressly mentioned.
At least Stunica, in his controversy with Erasmus, often refers to a Co-
dex Rhodiensis, which was probably sold to the rocket-makers with oth-
er MSS. of the University Library at Alcala.2
Ximenes had the satisfaction of seeing his work completed; but he
died four months afterwards, on the 8th November 1517, before it was
published. Several years elapsed after his decease before Leo X grant-
ed permission for its publication, which he did on the 20th of March,
1521.
Erasmus began later, but his edition of the New Testament was pub-
lished before that of Alcala. It was accompanied with a Latin version
1 Hist. du Card. Ximenes par Flechier, T. I. L. I. l'an 1502. Hist. du Minis-
tére du Card. Ximenes par Marsolier. T. II. L. IV.
2 Michaelis' Einleit. in das N. Test. I. Th. § 106 p. 776. 4th ed.
:
1
182
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
of his own by the side of the Greek, together with valuable notes, and
appeared in folio in the year 1516. It was published by Frobenius.
The basis of his edition was, as to the Gospels, Codex Basil. B. VI.
25; and as to the Acts and Epistles Codex Basil. IX, both which, with
corrections from Erasmus' own hand, are preserved in the City Library
of Basle. Codex Reuchlini, from which he drew his text of the Apoca-
lypse, is no longer to be found. With these he sometimes collated Ba-
sil. VI. 17, and Basil. B. X. 20; as also some Latin MSS., as he says
in the preface to his Annotations, p. 225, and some of the fathers: "Pos-
tremo ad probatissimorum omnium suffragiis autorum, vel citationem,
vel emendationem, vel enarrationem, nempe Origenis, Chrysostomi,
Cyrilli, Hieronymi, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, quorum testimonia
complusculis locis in hoc adduximus."
The annotations, it seems, were made during the revision of the text;
hence the preface which precedes them is dated 1515, before the print-
ing of the whole was completed.
This edition was speedily followed by this remarkable man with a
second in 1519, and a third in 1522. It was in the latter that he first
adopted the passage 1 John 5: 7, as he says, e codice Britannico.¹ Af-
terwards a fourth and fifth appeared in 1527 and 1535. In the two last
he made use of the Alcala Bible, adopting several emendations from it,
particularly in the Apocalypse.
$56.
A beginning had now been made, and several other individuals soon
appeared in the field. Among these was Andrew Asulanus, the father-
in-law of Aldus, who, in 1518, reprinted the Erasmian text in folio at
Venice, but not without collating other MSS., even though what he
says in his preface, "multis vetustissimis exemplaribus collatis," be an
exaggeration. At least we find traces of such a collation in certain va-
riations, particularly in the Apocalypse; and one of the MSS. which
he used, containing the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse,
has been identified.2
As he adopted Erasmus for his guide, Robert Stephens, in his neat
edition of 1546 in 16mo., followed the Bible of Alcala. This is called
the mirificam edition in allusion to the commencement of the preface:
"O mirificam regis nostri . . . . liberalitatem.”
liberalitatem." The occasion of this
denomination was, the supposition that it was entirely free from errata.
In preparing this edition several MSS. were likewise at his command,
concerning which he expresses himself with true French vivacity: "Si-
1 This is well known to have been Cod. Montfortii, written about the 14th cen-
tury. Comp. Opp. Erasmi, Tom. IX. p. 294. 595. Bas. 1540, and Repertor. für
bibl. und morgenl. Litt. III. Th. p. 260. Dr. Herbert Marsh collated the pas-
sage in Cod. Montf.: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, πατὴρ, λογος, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ
τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσι οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, with the Complut. ed. in
which it runs thus : ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατῆς, καὶ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα,
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. (Notes
and additions to Michaelis' Introduction, p. 337. 338. See also Paulus' Memora-
bilia, chap. VI. p. 14. 31.)
2 Birch, Præf. in IV. Evang. Hauniæ. 1788. p. VII. VIII. It is the Vatic.
360.
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
183
}
quidem codices nacti aliquot ipsa vetustatis specie pene adorandos, quo-
rum copiam nobis bibliotheca regia facile suppeditavit;" he then adds:
"adjuti præterea sumus cum aliis, tum vero Complutensi editione, quam
ad vetustissimos bibliothecæ Leonis X. Pont. codices excudi jusserat
Hispaniarum Cardinalis Franciscus Simenius, quos cum nostris miro
consensu sæpissime convenire ex ipsa collatione deprehendimus."
This agreement between his MSS. and the edition of Alcala must
certainly have been very great, for it appears from comparison that not
only in this, but also in the next edition in 16mo. 1549, he has exactly
copied it except in a few places. (Bengel, Introd. in Cr. Nov. Test.
$ 36. p. 435.)
In the third edition, however, which was printed in folio in 1550, with
great typographical elegance, and is his principal edition, he follows
(Bengel. l. c.) the fifth edition of Erasmus, with which he collated 16
MSS., noting their various readings in the margin. "Cum vetustis-
simis sedecim scriptis exemplaribus," says he in the Preface: the first
however was, as he says himself, the Complutensian copy; the second
was from Italy, the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 15th were from
the Royal library; the rest, which he cites in the margin under the
marks a, ß, y, up to us, from other places. In the year 1551, an edition
1
1 The learned have taken great pains to discover the MSS. which Stephens
used in his third edition. This solicitude has been occasioned by 1 John 5: 7,
where Stephens put a sign of omission before ev to ovoave, without denoting
that it extended to the following words as far as ev ty. He placed in the
margin “d. ε. §. i. a. iy." meaning that these MSS. omitted the part marked;
and it was hence concluded that they did not want the whole passage, but only
the words, &v to ovoave, or that if they omitted the whole passage, the ten others
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
at least contained it. (David Martin, Vérité du texte 1 Jean 5: 7, démontrée par
des preuves, qui sont au-dessus de toute exception. Utrecht. 1722, 8vo. Journal
des Savans. Juin. 1720. p. 643.
Le Long and Wetstein commenced a search after these MSS. and found a
part of them. Griesbach corrected their statements, and Fleischer in his letters
to Michaelis, from which the latter has given extracts in the 3d and 4th edition
of his Introduction, names the numbers which they subsequently received in the
royal library at Paris.
a, according to the account of Robert Stephens himself, is the Edit. Complut.
-8, is Cantabr. Ev. D.-y, Evang. Reg. 2867, now, according to Fleischer, 84.
Griesbach (Proleg. in Nov. Testament. Edit. 2dam Sect. I. p. 19.) doubts the cor-
rectness of the assertion; he and Wetstein cite it under the designation N. 4.
Evang.-8, Reg. 2871, Fleischer 106, contains the whole New Testament ex-
cept the Apocalypse; in Griesbach and Wetstein it is designated n. 5. in all the
classes-, Reg. 3425, Fleischer 112, the whole New Testament excepting the
Apoc.; in Wetstein and Griesbach always n. 6.—s, Reg. 2866, Fleischer 71, Gos-
pels; in Wetstein and Griesbach n. 7.—5, a Codex, for which Wetstein cites
two MSS., Reg. 2242 Gospels, and 2241 Paul, Acts and Cath. Epistles. The
Gospels and Paul are numbered 8 in Wetstein; the Acts and Cath. Epistles 50.
But 2241 contains, according to Fleischer, not only the Acts, Paul and the Cath.
Epistles, but the whole New Testament, and is now n. 47, but to appearance
once had the number 2242, probably by mistake. There existed however in the
Royal Library a MS. of the Gospels with the N. 2242, now 49. Now 2241, at
present N. 47, was not in the Royal Library till long after Stephens' time, till
the year 1687; hence Griesbach conjectures that 2242, n. 49, might once have
contained the Acts and Cath. Epistles, which however have been misplaced.
(Proleg. in Nov. Testament. Ed. 2. Sect. I. p. 21.)—7, is certainly Reg. 2861 of the
Gospels, now 63 or L.-, is Coisl. 200, containing the New Testament, except
the Apocalypse; in Wetstein and Griesbach it is n. 38 in the Gospels, 23 in
Paul, and 19 in the Acts and Cath. Epistles.-, or Reg. 2870, Fleischer 102, ac-
184
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
of the New Testament appeared with Stephens' olive in 8vo. (without
the name of the place where it was printed, though it is believed to have
been Geneva,) accompanied by the Vulgate and the version of Eras-
mus. This was the first edition which contained the division into ver-
ses, invented by Stephens. . . . . “Novum Testamentum ad vetustissi-
ma exemplaria MSC. excusum: adjecta duplici translatione: in interiore
quidem margine veteris interpretis, in interiore Desiderii Erasmi.”
Quod autem per quosdam, ut vocant, versiculos," says the Preface,
"opus distinximus, id vetustissima exemplaria.
.... secuti fecimus. "We
have repeatedly remarked that ancient MSS. are sometimes found di-
vided into small sections in some degree similar to our verses.
In 1569, appeared another edition by his son Robert. "Lutetiæ ex
officina Rob. Stephani typographi regii, typis regiis MDLXIX." 16mo.
At the end are appended select various readings under the title: "Se-
lectæ variantes ex Stephani tertiâ.”
All these editions possessed inestimable value in their day, although
in reality they are extremely defective, as all first attempts of a novel
description must be. Before this period a Codex, (which was now and
then selected with discrimination, but frequently taken at hap-hazard,)
was transcribed by some copyist, who collated a few MSS. with it in or-
der to obtain assistance in illegible or doubtful passages, or to adopt here
and there a reading which struck his fancy. Such was the case like-
wise in regard to these printed editions. The editors seized upon the
best MSS. in their vicinity, without the slightest knowledge of the criti-
cal stores which were within their reach in the obscurity of libraries, of
the various critical phenomena occurring in the New Testament, or of
the proper principles on which to proceed. And however superior in
learning they may have been to the transcribers before them, they yet
always acted without plan, amended like them according to their own
fancy and private opinions, and in this respect were not even on a foot-
ing with the Greek copyists, since they knew less in respect to the char-
acteristics which determined the age of MSS.
To us of the present day these editions would be far more valuable
had each editor merely printed some one ancient MS. faithfully and
carefully, without any exercise of criticism; if, e. g., (the Complutensi-
an editors had given us the Rhodian Codex, as Hearne has given the
•
;
cording to Wetstein and Griesbach, 9 in Paul's Ep. and 7 in the Acts and Cath,
Epistles.-a, Acts and Cath. Epistles. n. 8, Paul 10, in Wetstein and Griesbach
it is not known what has become of it.-iß, Reg. 2862, of the Gospels, now 83
according to Fleischer. Griesbach, however, does not think these numbers per-
fectly certain. The readings are cited by him and by Wetstein under the desig-
nation n. 9. Evang.-ty, according to Marsh (last ed.) is Cantabrig. kk. 6. 4. See
"Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis in vindication of one of the Translator's notes to
Michaelis' Introduction. By the Translator of Michaelis.
By the Translator of Michaelis." Leips. 1795. 8vo. p.
49-70.-id, of the Gospels, not Reg. 2885, but Victorian. 774, in the Library of St.
Victor in Paris. (Griesbach Symb. Crit. P. 1. p. CXLIV-XLVI.,) in Griesbach
Evang. n. 120.—ie, Reg. 2869, according to Fleischer 237, contains Paul's Epist.,
Acts, Cath. Epist. and Apoc. It was collated by Wetstein anew; according to
him it is n. 12 of Paul, n. 10 of the Acts and Cath. Epistles, and n. 2 of the
Apoc.: so also in Griesbach.—us, is, as Griesbach says, “ignotus Codex Apocalyp-
seos. The readings are cited by him and by Wetstein under the designation n.
3. Apoc.
""
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
185
Laudian Codex of the Acts or Woide the Alexandrian, simply accom-
panied by a preliminary account of its appearance and condition.
They therefore properly belong to the history of biblical literature
and of the typography and cultivation of the 16th century, and may af-
ford important information on other points; but they are of no use in
the criticism of the New Testament, except in tracing back to their ori-
gin the mistakes and false readings in our printed editions.
$ 57.
There now arose a multitude of booksellers, who either reprinted
some one of these four editions, or else prepared a new one from two or
three of them.
Christopher Plantin reprinted at Antwerp the edition of Alcala five
times, in 1564, 1573, 574, 1590, 1591, and it issued from his press af-
ter his death in 1601 and 1612. Reprints of it appeared at Geneva in
1609, 1619, 1620, '628, 1632.¹ It was also reprinted in the Paris Pol-
yglot, in the 9th and 10th vols., in 1645. Lastly, it was printed like-
wise at Mentz in 1753; and to this edition Goldhagen subjoined various
readings, among which are some from the Codex Molsheimensis, which
still remained uncollated.
The editions of Erasmus were reprinted by Wolfius Cephalaus, Ar-
gentorati, 1524, 8vo.; by Froben and Episcopius, 1545, 4to. Ervлwon
Ετυπώθη
ἐν βασιλεία παρ' Ιερωνύμῳ Φροβηνίῳ καὶ Νικολάῳ Επισκοπίῳ,
Trei ins dεoyovias aque. Also by Heerwagen, Basle 1545, folio;2 by
ἐτεί τῆς θεογονίας
Nicholas Brylinger, Gr. and Lat., Basle 1546, and 1550, 8vo.; by Vögelin,
Gr. and Latin. Lipsia imprimebatur per Andream Schneider typis
Voegelianis, 1570; and by Leonard Osten, Gr. and Lat., Basle 1588,
Svo.
Among the reprints of Erasmus, however, two are so distinguished,
that it would be wrong to confound them with the rest. The first is
that of Simon Colinæus, Paris 1534, which indeed recognises that of
Erasmus as its basis, but is not without merit of its own. The editor
consulted ancient MSS. himself, and among them was Victorian. 774,
which Stephens afterwards denominated id, in Griesbach 120 of the
Gospels, or else a MS. nearly allied to this, viz. Reg. 2865, in Gries-
bach 119. In the Acts, the Pauline Epistles and the Catholic, he col-
lated a MS. which Stephens subsequently designated ca.3 From these
copies and others, it seems, he altered the Erasmian text and, as he
thought, often improved it. This edition was earlier than the first of
Stephens, and might have disputed the palm with it, had it been support-
ed by the public favor. But no one reprinted or followed it, and it there-
fore remained one of the secondary editions.
The other is that of James Bogard, who in 1543 followed the New
Testament of Erasmus, with some alterations, particularly in the Apo-
calypse, subjoining an appendix from Steph. 18.4
1 Le Long Biblioth. Sacra Ed. Masch. P. I. p. 281–293.
2 Millius Proleg. n. 1153.
3 Bengel, Introd. in Cris. N. Test. § 36.1p. 435. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. P. I.
p. CXLVI.—CLIV.
4 Wetstein, Prol. p. 142.
}
24
186
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
1
The Biblia Antwerpiensia Philippi Regis 1571, 72, was based on
the Bible of Alcala, Erasmus being consulted. So also, the Plantinian
Editions of 1572 and 1584. fol., with the interlineary version of Arias
Montanus; the Raphelengian at Leyden, 1591, 16mo.; and that of
Comelin, with the same interlineary version, in 1599, large folio.
From the Erasmian and Aldine editions were derived the Hagenau
edition: “in ædibus Thomæ Anselmi Badensis, 1521 mense martis," that
of Strasburg, by Fabricius Capito, 1524; the editions of John Bebel,
with the preface of Ecolampadius, at Basle 1530 and 1535. 8vo.; and
those of Thomas Plater in 1538, 1540, 1543, and 1544,³ at Basle in
8vo.
π
The following was a reprint of Stephens' first edition: Ths zaus
diadηans άлavтa, Novum Testam. Parisiis, impensis viduæ Arnoldi
Birkmanni 1549, 16mo. One described by Le Long, (Ed. Masch. P.
I. p. 215,) is said to agree perfectly in appearance with this, except that
on the title-page there is the name of Haultin instead of Birkmann.4
The Wechelii faithfully reprinted the third ed. of Stephens in 1601,
folio, with various readings in the margin. Still earlier in 1597, folio,
they had printed the third and fifth editions of Stephens together, plac-
ing the various readings in the margin of Stephens' third edition beneath
the text, and subjoining readings from the Bible of Alcala and the Vul-
gate: "Ad Novum Testamentum quod attinet," says the Preface, “ex-
emplar Roberti Stephani typographi regii, patris et filii, secuti sumus,
atque varias lectiones, quæ non tantum in eo exemplari ex codicibus regiis
collectæ continebantur, sed et in Complutensi et in aliis editionibus, et
quorundam adnotationibus reperiri potuerunt, adjici curavimus." These
and especially the Aldine editions are the source of the Margo Weche-
liorum, which Francis Junius composed, and to which great importance
has sometimes been attached.
Stephens was followed likewise by the N. I. C. Testamentum Græce,
collatis non paucis venerandæ fidei exemplaribus, accuratissima cum
lima editum per Nicol. Bryling. MDLXIII. 8vo. In the margin, as
in Stephens' third edition, there are various readings, which are in re-
ality selected from the latter; yet the marks by which Stephens designa-
ted the MSS. are omitted. There are also noted some various read-
ings which are not found in Stephens; e. g. Matt. 2: 2, novozvvno α i
αὐτόν. 5: 11 εἴπωσι πᾶν πονηρὸν καθ' ὑμῶν. 6: 84 μεριμνήσει ἑαυ
u 34 Eav-
τῆς. 9: 4 καί εἰδὼς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς. 15: 39 ἀνέβη. 17: 25 τα τέλη. 19: 24
C
1 Bengel, Introd. in Cris. N. Test. p. 453. § 36. Comp. Wetstein Prol. p.
150.
2 Curcellæus Præf. in N. T. Wetstein Prol. p. 151.
3 Masch (Le Long Bib. Sacr. P. I. p. 200) doubted the existence of the edi-
tion of MDXLIV. It is, together with the other edition of Plater, in the Library
of our University, and the editions of XLIII and XLIV resemble each other in
every respect, except in date. The title, the dedication, "Docto et pio M. Se-
verino Ertzberger Basileensis Ecclesiæ communi diacono, Joannes Gastius Brisa-
censis Theologiæ Candidatus S. D., also the preface, "in sacrarum literarum
lectionem Johannis Ecolampadii exhortatio," the text, the numbering of the pa-
ges, the subscription, are the same. The one in our Library is dated, like that of
XLIII, in the month of March: "Basilea per Thomam Platerum, impensis Rein-
hardi Beck. A. MDXLIV mense Martio.
4 Marsh's Notes to Michaelis' Introd. I. Vol. p. 426. Germ. translation.
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
187
εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν εἰσελθεῖν. 21:30 καὶ κύριε . . . ἐγω
υπάγω. 25: 22 εκέρδησα ἐν αὐτοῖς. These I have observed in Mat-
thew; I find most of them, however, in Aldus, and the rest are, it would
seem, taken from the Vulgate.
With these are to be reckoned Crispin's edition and Vögel's of 1564,
with which I am not acquainted. The Vögelian at Leipsic, 1564, says
J. D. Michaelis, and the Crispinian at Geneva 1559, follow Stephens.
throughout.
$ 58.
Since the time of Stephens biblical criticism had as yet made no ad-
vance; for all these reprints added nothing from MSS. yet uncollated
to the fine collection which the former procured by means of his son.
Nor did any one undertake to prepare a critical edition by making
a proper use of the apparatus which was within his reach. Stephens
himself wanted confidence for this, and only reprinted the fifth edition.
of Erasmus with some alterations, scattering his various readings in the
margin for the advantage of any one among his purchasers who might
choose to make use of them.
Such an one was Theodore Beza, a pupil of John Calvin, who appro-
priated to his own use the collations for which Stephens was indebted
to his son Henry, and obtained, I know not from what quarter, an Ara-
bic version, and also the Syriac one which had been sometime publish-
ed through the laudable assiduity of Widmanstad. With these he be-
gan to criticise the text and to amend former editions, particularly that
of Erasmus. It has been Beza's lot to be frequently much commended,
and frequently much censured; both with equal reason. His emenda-
tions are often sensible; but his means for such an undertaking were
too scanty, and no principles were as yet established in respect to their
application.
His first edition was published without the name of the place where
it was printed (Geneva,) by Henry Stephens: "Jesu Christi D. N.
Novum Testam. etc. Anno MDLXV. excudebat Henricus Stephanus
illustris viri Huldrici Fuggeri typographus." The Greek text has by
its side two Latin versions, the Vulgate and his own, and notes below,
sometimes critical and sometimes exegetical. The dedication is to Eliz-
abeth, queen of England, and in it he asserts that he made use of 25
MSS.: "Ad hæc omnia accessit ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum vi-
ginti quinque plus minus manuscriptis codicibus, et omnibus pene impres-
sis ab Henrico Stephano, ejus filio, et paterna sedulitatis hærede quam
diligentissime collatum." In 1576 a second followed, by the same prin-
ter; also a third, fourth and fifth in 1582, 1589 and 1598. In the se-
cond he mentions only septemdecim MSpta.; but in the fourth and fifth
novemdecim. By claiming in the first edition to have used 25 MSS.,
which in the second dwindle down to 17, he has drawn on himself se-
vere reprehension, even from his friends.
GINTI QUINQUE
Yet I do not think that he was so inconsiderate as, after exaggerating
somewhat in the first edition, to have forgotten himself in the second.
It is probable, as has been alleged in his exculpation, that in the first
edition he wrote XV, which the compositor mistook for XXV, and put
188
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
viginti quinque at length; for there are 15 in Stephens' margin, without
reckoning the Complutensian edition. By reckoning this, as Stephens
did, together with the Codex Claromontanus, he would have septemde-
cim. He afterwards obtained an antiquissimus Codex MST., mentioned
by him in his last two editions; by this the number is increased to 18.
He could not have made nineteen, however, without reckoning the
Cod. Cantabr. (which had meanwhile come into his possession) twice,
once among Stephens' and once by itself.
Beza gave a different character to the text from that which it had
had hitherto, and was the real author of the Textus Receptus. His
learning and the special recommendation of being Calvin's pupil pro-
cured him reputation among his sect, and his Recension was highly es-
teemed in England,¹ and particularly in Holland and Switzerland.
Meanwhile no one had particularly distinguished himself among the
scholars of the Lutheran persuasion. Their absurd controversies with
the papists employed too many pens and prevented them from cultivat-
ing other departments of literature. To this is to be added the circum-
stance that the trade in books was principally confined to Holland. The
Elzevirs turned this circumstance to good account, and without saying
a word of the author circulated this recension in every country and
among all sects, in several neat and even elegant editions.
The first Elzevir edition appeared without preface or postscript.
“Lugduni Bat. ex officina Elzeviriana, Anno MDCXXIV," 16mo. Ón
the title-page there is only: "ex regiis aliisque optimis editionibus cum
curâ expressum."
The basis of this was certainly the text of the third edition of Rob-
ert Stephens, as this was the basis of Beza's; and hence those learned
men who have remarked a great agreement between it and the third of
Stephens are in the right.2 But the editors follow Beza wherever they
differ from Stephens. Wetstein has noted several passages in which
the text deviates from Stephens, and presents instead Beza's emen-
dations. (Proleg. p. 151, 152.) Mill likewise perceived the variations,
(Prol. p. 1307,) and if he had collated Beza, he would have found
most of them in him. Birch³ has given a supplementary list of some
from the Gospels and also from the other books of the New Testament,
among which however are several which did not escape his predecessors,
as Mark 6: 9, Luke 15: 26, John 8: 25, 13: 30, 18: 54; together with
several indeed, which he first pointed out, and which, on recurring to
Beza, I find in him: e. g. Matt. 21: 7, Mark 8: 3, Luke 7: 12, 10: 19, and
the most important one 17: 36; as also 18:3, John 6: 28, 9: 20, 14: 9, 18:
20, 19: 30. Thus this fact, which I believe was first suggested by the
Abbe Bengel, is sufficiently established.
II
The second edition: " zaun diaven, Novum Testamentum.
Ex regiis aliisque optimis editionibus, hâc nová expressum: cui quid
accesserit præfatio docebit. Lugd. Bat. ex officina Elzeviriorum.”
1 I am acquainted it is true with only one English reprint of Beza, in 1642,
Cantabrig. folio.
2 Le Long Bib. Sacr. Ed. Masch. P. I. p.
226.
3 Birch Præf. ad IV. Evang. p. 4. Præf. ad var. lect. Actor. Epist. Pauli et
Cathol. Hauniæ. 1798. Præf. ad var. lect. in Text. Apoc. Hauniæ. 1800.
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
189
CIƆIƆCXXXIII. 12mo. and a similar one in 16mo. boldly announced
themselves in the Preface as the textus receptus. "Textum ergo habes
ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus."
As this assurance was credited, it soon came to be really well founded.
These editions were soon followed by several others from this infallible
press, in 1641, 1656, 1662, and in these five editions at least 8000 cop-
ies were sent forth to the world.
Stephen Curcellæus now appeared, and in order to restore the charm
of novelty to these editions, selected various readings from the Wechelian
margin, from some printed Bibles and a few MSS., and subjoined them
as an appendix to an edition published in 1658 apud Danielem Elzevi-
rium, and afterwards in an edition in 1675, inserted them beneath the
text, without altering it otherwise in the least: "Quæ ad præcedentes
Elzevirianas expressa fuit, nullâ prorsus in textu factâ mutatione.”
66
The Curcellæan edition became so profitable to the Elzevirs that, not-
withstanding their frequent impressions, others also sought to derive ad-
vantage from it; as, e. g., Blaw, who reprinted the second edition of
Curcellæus in the same year: Amstelodami ex officina Blaviana
MDCLXXV. Sumpt. Societ." He had at a still earlier period evinced
a like regard for the Elzevirs by reprinting their text of 1633: "Amstelo-
dami apud Guil. Blaw. 1633, 12mo.
That nothing might be lacking to promote the universal reception of
this text, the orthodox Father Morinus took the trouble of presenting it
in a splendid edition, Paris 1628, to the French clergy.
Moreover the booksellers Wetstein and Smith speculated with it in
another way, out of charity to those poor sinners who could not well get
along without a Latin translation. They printed by its side the version
of Arias Montanus, and Leusden was called upon to superintend the
edition, that it might be recommended by his name.
Thus the text of
the Elzevirs appeared anew, "Amstelodami ex officina Wetsteniana,
1698." It was very often published in this form with these words on
the title page, and likewise " apud Wetsten. et G. Smith."
But for the further benefit of a learned public, they appropriated to
their use the collation of a Vienna MS. (Lambec. 28.) made by Ger-
hard von Mastricht, together with the principles of criticism which had
been drawn up by this learned man in his leisure hours. Thus enrich-
ed, the Curcellæan edition again appeared, "Amstelod. ex offic. Wetsten-
ianâ," in 1711, as also a second time, "Amstelod. apud. J. Wetsten.
et G. Smith," 1735, 8vo. The text itself remained unaltered; only, as
they boast, it was printed with fewer errors: "Textum emendavi" says
the Preface, "ad editionem tertiam Elzevirianam Anni 1633 a Cl. Leus-
deno mendis repurgatam." The letters by which the author of the
rules of criticism (XLIII Canones Critici) is designated on the title
page, viz. G. D. T. M. D., signify Gerhardus de trajectu Mosa Doctor.
While the stream of the textus receptus was rolling on and carrying
everything with it, Bœcler, it would seem, wished to signalize himself
by recurring to the text of Robert Stephens. He published two edi-
tions of it: "H naivý diadun. Novum Testamentum. Accessit
prologus in Epistolas S. Ap. Pauli ex antiquissimo MSC. Argent. ex
offic. Stædelii A. CIƆIƆČXLV. and LX. in 12mo. It seems, however,
that the first was merely provided with a new title page and sold as a
190
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
second. He says in the Preface: "collatis etiam MSC. membranis, de
quibus ad calcem libri." The MS., according to his description at the
end, contained the Acts, the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, with the
Prologue of Euthalius to Paul's Epistles, which he printed in the appen-
dix. But Bocler, as Bengel has already remarked, made no use of this
MS. in regulating the text. I have taken pains to convince myself of
this by investigation. His MS., it is well known, went to Rome, where
Zacagni made use of it for his edition of Euthalius. Bœcler, however,
confined himself to the textus receptus, only making alterations here
and there according to Stephens' third edition. He adopted the read-
ings of Stephens again in the following passages: Acts 16: 17, Rom.
12: 11. 1 Cor. 15: 23. 2 Cor. 5: 4. 11: 1. Phil. 1: 23. Apoc. 3: 12. 4:
10. 5: 9. 8: 5. 11: 1, 2. 13: 3, 5. 19: 1, 6. 20: 4. 21: 16.
$ 59.
While the Dutch were abusing the text according to their own good
will and pleasure, in another country it passed from the hands of trades-
men and their assistants into those of men of learning. It was in Eng-
land that it met with this good fortune. Walton and other learned indi-
viduals associated themselves together for the purpose of editing the
London Polyglot. This was to contain the Syriac, Arabic, Æthiopic
and Persian versions of the New Testament; aids to criticism of no
small value.
The Greek text was treated with much more care than could have
been expected in a work on a plan so extensive. The Dutch creed in
regard to the textus receptus had no influence over Walton and his asso-
ciates. He adopted the third edition of Stephens as the basis of his
text, and placed below it the readings of the celebrated Alexandrian
Codex A. The New Testament made its appearance in this way,
"Londini MDCLVII," in the 5th vol. of the Polyglot.
The 6th vol. was appropriated to the purpose of presenting numerous
readings of Greek MSS., most of which had not before been collated.
Mill (Proleg. n. 1372,) reckons them by numbers up to sixteen, to
which, that they may be better recognized, we subjoin their designa-
tions in Wetstein and Griesbach.-N. I. Cantabr. D.—II. Ep. Paul.
D.—III. Evang. 59.-IV. Epist. Paul. 30.--V. Evang. 64.—VI.
Evang. 62.-VII. Evang. 61. Paul. 40. Act. et Ep. Cath. 34.—VIII.
Evang. 56.—IX. Ep. Paul. 39. Act. et Ep. Cath. 33.-X. Evang. 57.
Paul. 41. Act. et Ep. Cath. 35.-XI. Ep. 43.-XII. Evang. 58.—
XIII. Act. Ep. Cath. 36.—XIV. Act. Ep. Cath. 37.—XV. Evang.
47.-XVI. Evang. Joann. 96. Lastly the Velezian readings were like-
wise inserted.¹
As to the rest, the editors of this valuable work contented themselves
with the merit of laying their treasures before the learned world with-
out exercising any criticism upon them.
1 They have this name from Peter Faxard, Marquis of Velez, who was said
to have collected them from 16 Greek MSS.; but it is now ascertained that they
were extracted from the Vulgate and translated into Greek. La Cerda first dis-
closed this in his Adv. Sacr. Lugdun. 1626. fol. The fraud is most fully demon-
strated by Herbert Marsh in the Appendix to his learned Notes on Michaelis' In-
trod. Vol. I.
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
191
す
​But the numerous variations in MSS., which were disclosed by this
work, disturbed the minds of many, and particularly, it would appear,
that of the venerable Dr. John Fell, afterwards Bishop of Oxford. He
entered deeply into an investigation of this point, collated several MSS.
himself, and edited a New Testament, with a preface in which he en-
deavors to quiet the apprehensions of his readers. It appeared with the
title: Τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ἅπαντα. Νουί Testamenti libri omnes.
Accesserunt parallela scripturæ loca, necnon variantes lectiones ex plus
100 MSS. Codicibus, et antiquis versionibus collecta, e theatro Sheldon-
iano. A. D. MDCXXV. 8vo.
He used as its basis, as he says in the Preface, the edition of Cur-
cellæus, in which he found Stephens' readings and a part of the Wech-
elian, and he united with them the collections in the London Polyglot.
He himself, moreover, instituted a collation of 12 hitherto unexamined
MSS. in the Bodleian Library; he procured the collation of two in the li-
brary at Dublin, of four others from France, and from Thomas Marshall the
readings of the Coptic and Gothic versions. To these he subjoined the
various readings which Caryophilus had collected from 22 Roman MSS.'
On the whole, we come to rather unfavorable conclusions respecting
the hundred MSS. of which he boasts on the title page, since the Vele-
zian are spurious, and those of the Wechels and of Stephens are identi-
cal.
It is more to the credit of this prelate that he incited Mill to employ
his talents upon the New Testament, constantly animated his persever-
ance and energy, and afforded him his own efficient aid; that he did
all that was in his power to cast his own work into the back-ground, and
to cause himself to be surpassed by another, that science might be the
gainer. Mill himself, speaking in his Prolegomena of the death of
this illustrious man, tells with deep emotion, what a noble benefactor
he possessed in him, and how much aid he lost by his decease.
Mill did not merely collect the various readings and write them be-
side or beneath the text of Stephens, (for he took Stephens' third edi-
tion as the basis of his,) without stating from what MSS. they came,
where these MSS. were preserved, and what were their peculiarities, but
he told the locality of these documents, and sometimes the numbers
which they bore in the various libraries, and designated each by a pe-
culiar mark for his own edition under which he quoted its readings, so
as to inform his readers of the source of each of the variations he pre-
sented. He moreover, whenever and so far as it was possible, gave an
account of each MS., as to its age and peculiarities, the accuracy with
which it was written and its deficiencies. He did not collate them only
here and there, and in particular passages, but in general made a con-
tinued collation of them from beginning to end.
1 John Matth. Caryophilus, a native of Crete, collected these readings by com-
mand of Urban VIII. for the purpose of using them in an edition of the New
Testament. This intention was dropped, and Possinus afterwards published them
in his Catena in Evang. Marci. Roma 1673. folio. These readings have some-
times been regarded as twin-brothers of the Velezian; but Birch discovered
some of the MSS. which Caryophilus used, and has thus saved his credit. (Pro-
leg. ad IV. Evang. Hauniæ 1788. p. XXXVI.-XLIV., and Proleg. in Var. Lect.
Act. et Epist. p. IX. Hauniæ 1798. 8vo.
x
192
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
By these peculiarities his undertaking was essentially distinguished
from all previous ones, and led the world to a detailed acquaintance with
the text, its various fortunes in various MSS., and the numerous critical
helps from which a more perfect exhibition of it might sometime or oth-
er be deduced.
He was himself deeply sensible of the utility of this mode of proce-
dure; he would not go to work like his predecessors, blindly and at ran-
dom. He could decide respecting the admissibility of MSS. and the
importance of their evidence on proper grounds, from their age and val-
ue; or, after having examined so considerable a number of MSS., it
was even safe for him to determine according to the majority of voi-
ces.
He had besides, by his great familiarity with MSS., acquired a pecu-
liar sagacity in detecting additions, interpolations and suspicious altera-
tions, by which his decision was often happily directed.
He examined anew most of those MSS. which Walton collated in the
English libraries, and which we have before enumerated, as well as sev-
eral of those from which Bp. Fell extracted readings. He collated be-
sides Gosp. 50.-Gosp. 51., Paul. 38., Acts, Cath. Ep. 32.-Gosp. 52,
53, 54, 55.-Gosp. 60., Apoc. 10.-Gosp. 65, 66, 67, 68.—Gosp. 69.,
Paul. 37., Acts, Cath. Ep. 31., Apoc. 14.-Gosp. 70, 71, 75. He also
obtained from others collations of K. Cyprius and Colbert. Gosp. 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. and Gosp. 91. Thus he himself examined and
extracted readings from most of the MSS. (from N. 45. according to
Wetstein and Griesbach's designations up to seventy,) of the Gospels or
whole New Testament existing in England, besides procuring the col-
lation of many foreign ones by the hands of others.
In Acts he collated E or Laud. 3; in the Acts, the Epistles general-
ly, and the Apocalypse, the following: 26 Paul. 21 Acts, Cath. Ep.-
28 Paul. 23 Acts, Cath. Ep. 6 Apoc.-31 Paul. 25 Acts, Cath. Ep.
7 Apoc.-32 Paul. 26 Acts, Cath. Ep.-33 Paul. 27 Acts, Cath.
Ep. 34, Paul., 28, Acts, Cath. Ep. 8 Apoc.-36 Paul. 30 Acts, Cath.
Ep.-47 Paul.—From others he obtained the collation of E. Sangerm.
Ep.-Colb. 17, Paul.-35 Paul. 29 Acts, Cath. Ep.-44 Paul. 38
Acts, Cath. Ep.-45 Paul. 39 Acts, Cath. Ep. 11 Apoc.-46 Paul.
40 Acts, Cath. Ep. 12 Apoc. Of the Evangeliaria he collated: 3-4
-5-18-19-20-21.
He further made use of nearly all the ancient versions, and the cita-
tions of the fathers of the Church, which he collected with great indus-
try.
The vast treasure which our indefatigable scholar had thus accumu-
lated by the labor of thirty years he presented to the world in 1707, ac-
companied by excellent Prolegomena. Oxonii e theatro Sheldoniano,
fol.
Mill survived but a few days the completion of his extremely labori-
ous and meritorious work, which gave rise to a new and better era in
criticism.
Soon after, Ludolph Küster procured the collation of certain MSS.
at Paris, viz. C or Ephram, M or Des Champs, Evang. 9-10-11
—12—13—14—15, according to Wetstein's numeration. He procur-
ed from other quarters the collation of Gosp. 78. Griesb.-Paul. 48,
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
193
Acts, Cath. Ep. 42,-Apoc. 13. The only MS. which he himself colla-
ted was B. Ep. Pauli, or Bærnerianus. With these he sought to give
peculiar recommendation to a reprint of Mill's work under his superin-
tendence at Amsterdam in 1710. fol. This edition was again reprint-
ed Lipsia 1723. fol. Küster's merit in regard to this edition is not very
great, and it was an important oversight that he did not carefully insert
Mill's Appendix.
$ 60.
The New Testament had encountered various fortunes in other coun-
tries before coming to Germany; and meanwhile no one of our country-
men had acquired any considerable reputation by his labors upon it.
Bengel is the first of the Germans who gained honor in this depart-
ment of learning. He was occupied for several years during his minis-
terial duties, in the study of Mill's New Testament, and soon consult-
ed some Latin and Greek MSS.; particularly Evang. 83–84–85—the
two last of which contain only fragments of the Gospels; also Ev. 86
at Presburg, 97 of John and the Evangeliar. 24. Also 54, Epist. of
Paul to the Romans,-55, Paul., 46, Acts, Cath. Ep.-53, Paul., res-
pecting which, see the following monograph: "Cod. Uffenbach. qui
fragm. ad Hebræos continet, recensus, et specimen are exsculptum (by
Dr. Henke). Helmstadii 1800."-52, Paul. Acts, Cath. Ep. 45., Rev.
16.—and Augustanus 7, "chartaceus, continens Apocalypsin" as he
says cum exegesi Andreæ Cæsareensis," which Wetstein and Griesbach
neglected to mention in their catalogues. He procured through oth-
ers the collation of Wetst. 87, of V, one of the Moscow MSS. of Mat-
thæi, and hasty extracts of readings from Basil. E. as also Ev. Bas. 1
and 2.
(C
But his merit did not consist in this; he collated only enough to de-
velope his critical talents. But he was not indebted to circumstances or
to valuable aids; his merit was based on himself and his own genius.
By long study he acquired a thorough knowledge of all the phenom-
ena of the text, and was so well acquainted with the peculiarities and
habits of the numerous critical documents as to deduce from his obser-
vations new principles of criticism for his guidance.
He first discovered that a number of MSS. coincided in certain char-
acteristics and continued tolerably alike throughout. He distinguish-
ed for the time being two families of MSS., one of which he called the
African and the other sometimes the Asiatic. This observation led
him to simplify his mode of procedure in criticism, as all the various
testimonies were easily referred to a few classes; and thus he really ob-
tained rules, and gave the first impulse to the progress of criticism, the
influence of which will last though his Bible should be forgotten.
His edition of the New Testament which was published at Tubin-
gen by Cotta in 1734, 4to., exhibits in the outset nothing more than the
text with select readings in the margin below; but an Apparatus follows
the text, the first section of which presents rules of criticism, the se-
cond details authorities for the selected readings, and the third answers
some objections which might be made to his undertaking.
Meanwhile a young and active man, possessed of more than ordina-
25
194
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
ry knowledge and qualifications was preparing to outstrip the Wurtem-
burg abbot.
This was John James Wetstein of Basle. He had in
1730 announced his New Testament at Amsterdam by Prolegomena, of
which Bengel had taken frequent notice; but the work itself first ap-
peared at Amsterdam in two folio volumes in 1751-2.
That he had collected around him the whole apparatus of his prede-
cessors is very evident; he also frequently went back to their sources
himself, inspected their documents with his own eyes, and moreover ex-
amined and collated again some MSS. which Walton, Fell and Mill had
used. England was however too thoroughly gleaned; he therefore di-
rected his eyes to France, which offered him new treasures.
His own
native city, too, furnished him with some fine old copies which were not
by any means sufficiently known.
He described the MSS. and designated their abode, with the numbers
which they bore in the places where they were. It is true he did not
detail their character and peculiarities with the minuteness of Mill; but
he carefully investigated their age and determined it frequently more sa-
gaciously, in a palæographical view, than Mill. He likewise gave to
each of them in his edition a peculiar mark under which he cites its
readings.
We will not speak here of his gleanings or hasty examinations in Eng-
land; they constitute the smallest part of his merit. The list of the
MSS. newly collated by him begins with a splendid document, (for we
need not make any account of what Küster extracted from it,) viz. C.
or 1905, now 9 among the Paris MSS., which contains all the books of
the New Testament, though with great chasms, and for well known rea-
sons is well adapted to subject the eyes and the patience to severe trial.
Then comes E of the Gospels, or Basileens. VI. 21. Of more modern
MSS. there are (in the order of their numbers): 1 Basil., New Testa-
ment, without the Apocalypse.-2, Gospels. Of the Coislinian MSS.,
34, Gospels,—35, Gospels,-18, Paul. 14, Acts, Cath. Ep. 17, Rev.
-36, Gospels,—37, Gospels,-38, Gospels 23, Paul. 19 Acts, Cath.
Ep.-39, Gospels,-40, Gospels,--41, Gospels of Matt. and Mark;
istos octo codices" says he, “quâ potui diligentiâ contuli." He further
collated 72, Gospels, (before the MS. went to England)-89, (in Gries-
bach 90,) the whole New Testament with the exception of the Apoca-
lypse, (which however he made use of only in the Gospels)-91, (in
Griesbach, 92,) the Gospel of Mark—93, (in Griesbach 94,) Mark and
Luke. Likewise Cod. L, which fine MS., however, he only examined
cursorily. From others he procured 44, Gospels,-73, Gospels,-in
Griesbach 73, and 74.
66
The following Evangeliaria were collated anew by himself; 1-2-
7—8—9—10—11-12—13—14–15–16–17—all Colbertine, and a
Lectionarium, Scaligeri Græc-Arab., of the Gospels, Paul's Ep., Acts,
and Cath. Ep., throughout n. 6.
Of the Pauline Epistles he collated D, or Claromontanus, twice;
likewise E, or Sangerman. and F, formerly Augiensis, a fine MS. Be-
sides, 2 Basil., Paul., Acts, Cath. Ep.-4 Basil., Paul, Acts, Cath. Ep.
7 Basil., Paul.-16 Paul., 11 Acts and Cath. Ep., 4 Apoc. Coisli-
nian MSS. besides those before mentioned: 19 Paul. 16 Acts, Cath.
Ep. 20 Paul.-21 Paul. 17 Acts, Cath. Ep. 19 Apoc.-22 Paul. 18
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
195
¡
Acts, Cath. Ep. 18 Apoc. Also, 44 Paul. 38 Acts, Cath. Ep. Of un-
collated English MSS.: 25 Paul.-26 Paul., 21 Acts, Cath. Ep.-27
Paul. Mill was indeed acquainted with 25 of the above, but does not
reckon them in his list. From others he procured: Paul. G. and H.-
Apoc. 26-27-28-and Apoc. B. Basilianor., of which last however
he could make but little additional use. In the whole there are more
than forty Codices which were collected by him for the first time, or for
the first time properly, without reckoning those collations which he pro-
cured from others. Besides the ancient versions already known, he
first brought forward and employed the Philoxenian version.
Opinions have been different in regard to Wetstein's accuracy, as al-
so in regard to his conduct and creed, and even his learning. He was
probably, like all mortals, not always equally energetic in so laborious
and dry employments; but when it was worth his while, e. g. in respect to
Cod. Cor Ephraem, he achieved wonders, as we are assured by one who
has followed his steps with care and profound knowledge of the subject.¹
He has, however, fallen into mistakes, but oftener where he used ma-
terials furnished by others, than where he investigated and extracted for
himself.
In my opinion, however, he may justly be blamed for not adopting
and appreciating Bengel's excellent rules of criticism.
On the other hand, a peculiar merit of Wetstein is too commonly
overlooked. The rich collection of explanatory passages from profane
authors, from fathers of the church and the Rabbinical writings, which
he has incorporated into his New Testament, evinces a mind which of
ten saw further than the exegetes of his time, and perhaps, too, than
some celebrated men of learning after him. I meddle not here with
the doctrinal disputes in which he was involved. If he was a heretic in
the Calvinistic and Lutheran, he may have been one too, in the Catho-
lic church; but even where no doctrine is directly involved, we may see
from his collections, although he seldom expresses his own opinion,
what were the views of a man who noted such parallel passages and se-
lected them from his multifarious reading.
May it not be in retaliation for the harsh judgments which he allow-
ed himself to pass upon others, that he has sometimes been censured by
those who have derived most benefit from his labors ? It was a lament-
able fate for a gifted and uncommonly learned man, that his native city,
of which he was an ornament, did not appreciate him during his life-
time, and that after his death he was taken to task by those who enjoy-
ed the fruits of his industry.
Shortly afterwards Germany acquired a scholar who converted Wet-
stein's treasure to general use and even added to it; and who, at the
same time, knew how to appreciate and carry out the critical observa-
tions of Bengel. He confirmed the existence of certain recensions, which
were followed by existing MSS. He speaks particularly of two of these,
viz. the Alexandrian, as he terms it, and the Western; and alludes also
to a third, which in his opinion was of more modern date than the oth-
ers, and probably of Constantinopolitan origin. In the practical exer-
cise of criticism he excelled Bengel in this respect, that he had a finer
1 Griesbach. Symb. Cr. P. I. p. VI.
196
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
perception of the manner of individual writers and their peculiarities of
diction, and selected his readings accordingly. It is easily seen that I
am speaking of John James Griesbach.
His gleanings after Wetstein's collations and the new collations which
he instituted, are treated at length in his Symbola Critica. Halæ. 1785.
and Vol. II. 1793, which although published later than his New Testa-
ment, may be regarded as the preface to it. His New Testament ap-
peared at Halle in two octavo volumes; the first in 1777, the second
earlier, in 1775.
With this Testament I have gained a very familiar acquaintance, and
when a young student, and not able always to use Wetstein as I wish-
ed, compared with it many folio volumes of the fathers of the church,
in order to become familiar with the various phenomena of the text
and their geographical relations. It was sometimes a source of perplex-
ity that, when two readings are presented, one in the text and the oth-
er in the margin between the text and the authorities, it is not always
apparent for which of the two readings the authorities enumerated below
are cited.
Otherwise it was, as a manual, a perfect work for the time
when it appeared.
But it did not long continue thus valuable, for the industry of learned
men was employed every where in searching for and bringing to light
critical documents. Christian Frederick Matthæi, Prof. of Profane
Literature in the University at Moscow, endeavored to make the best
possible use of his residence in a place rich in MSS., and made the world
acquainted with many treasures of this kind which, but for him, would
have long laid in obscurity, and probably never have been presented to
the world with so much accuracy.
Among a multitude of learned labors, by which the cause of classi-
cal and patristical literature has been advanced, he collated with indefa-
tigable application the MSS. which were deposited in the Library of
the Holy Synod, or preserved in other Libraries in Moscow. In his
preface to the Catholic Epistles he names more than seventy MSS.
which were within his reach; in the preface to the Epistles to the Co-
rinthians, these were increased to eighty-one. They soon rose still high-
er, and, with those which he collated after his return to Germany, amount-
ed in all to one hundred and three Greek MSS. True, many of these
contain only some one of the Evangelists, or a few of Paul's Epistles,
and some even mere fragments; but among them are MSS. like k and
7, comprehending the whole New Testament, some a half, and some a
third, viz. the Acts and Cath. Epistles. A number of them are exceed-
ingly valuable from their antiquity, as V and g. Moreover he selected
useful annotations from such MSS. as were furnished with Scholia.
The whole of this collection he published in twelve volumes 8vo. from
1782-8.
He did not consult his MSS. in individual passages merely, but ex-
amined them carefully throughout. He also gave good descriptions of
them, and presented engraved specimens of several, by which he has very
much embellished his work, and also rendered it much more useful, as
1 At the end of the Epist. ad Thessalonic, p. 272, he gives an account "de bib-
liothecis et codicibus N. T. Mosquensibus in genere.
""
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
197
}
by these aids he has facilitated the experienced reader's judgment in
regard to them.
No one can deny that he has acquired distinguished and imperishable
merit in New Testament criticism. I can easily comprehend how a
man who has spent the best part of his life in labor of this kind, should
be so sensitive in regard to every slight censure, and therefore I suppress
the wishes which I have felt in regard to him. It has always, however,
been my earnest desire that it were in my power to expunge certain vi-
olent passages from his work, that none of those who come after us may
be disturbed in their esteem of a man who has so many valid claims
to it.
He had not yet published his last volume, when Chs. Alter, Profes-
sor in the Vienna Gymnasium, appeared before the public with 23 Greek
MSS. belonging to the Royal Library. He took for the basis of his
collation the MS. Lambec. N. I., (Nessel N. XXIII, and in Griesbach
218,) which comprehends, together with the Old, the whole of the New
Testament, excepting that it is defective from Rev. XIII to the end.
This MS. he printed entire in his 1st vol., except the passages where it
is manifestly erroneous, which he supplied from Stephens' first edition.
Yet, that we might have the Codex as it is, entire, he subjoined these
errors also in the appendix.
With this, in a 2d and 3d Vol., he collated the following MSS.; two
containing the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse, viz. Wet-
stein N. 3 and Wetstein 75, (in Griesbach 76,) from which last Gerhard
von Mastricht extracted readings in a superficial manner. Moreover,
eight copies of the four Gospels, one of Matthew and the celebrated
fragment of Luke, marked in Wetstein, N., and two Evangelistaria.
Besides these, four copies of the Acts, Paul and the Cath. Ep., one of
which contained the Apocalypse also; one MS. with 12 Pauline Epis-
tles; and two with the Apocalypse alone. To all this he added a new col-
lation of the printed Coptic text and of some MSS. of the Sclavonic ver-
sion; also some readings from the old Latin version.
A description of most of these MSS., together with some specimens
of them, had been given by Hermann Treschow in his
"Tentamen des-
criptionis codicum vet. aliquot Græcorum Novi Fæderis Msptorum, qui
in bibliotheca Cæsarea Vindobonensi asservantur." Hauniæ 1773, 8vo.
Respecting those which Treschow has not described as e. g., Lambec.
XXVIII. XXXII. XXXIII., we might reasonably have expected some
information from the editor. The plan of this work, too, is of such a
nature that the use of it is extremely inconvenient. It is well known,
likewise, that Birch has examined some of these MSS. anew, and has
occasionally presented us with readings from them which are not upon
Alter's list, so that, it seems to me, Birch should have the praise of
superior accuracy. Notwithstanding, Alter's "Novum Testamentum
Vindobonense," drawn wholly from the treasures of the Royal Library,
is a beautiful work. It appeared under the title: "Nov. Testam. ad
codicem Vindobonens. Græce expressum, varietatem lectionis addidit
Carolus Alter. Viennæ 1787." 8vo. 3 vols.
This was indeed a golden age of criticism, when the learned emulat-
ed each other in drawing forth MSS. from their concealment and pre-
senting them to the general use of the world. Among these learned
198
EDITIONS OF THE N. TESTAMENT.
}
men Andrew Birch, Prof. at Copenhagen, claims peculiar merit. He
examined a great number of MSS. for the Royal Danish edition of the
New Testament. Some he collated partially; others, which seemed to be
most deserving of such pains, throughout. First on the list is the cele-
brated Vatican MS. 1209, called B in Criticism, to which he devoted
especial pains in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Acts, the Pau-
line and Catholic Epistles. He obtained through Woide the collation of
Luke and John which had been made for Bentley. He likewise colla-
ted twice Cod. Vat. 354. of the Gospels, written in 949 in uncial char-
acters; Cod. Vat. 1067, likewise in uncial characters; Cod. Vat. 349.
of the Gospels; Cod. Vat. 360; Urbino-Vat. 2, the Gospels, (which
were taken according to the subscription from a very ancient copy,) twice
carefully,-not to speak of the readings he extracted from the Roman
MSS., from those of the Vienna Library, the Library of St. Mark at
Venice, and those at Florence, or which he obtained through Molden-
hauer from the MSS. of the Escurial, and through Hensler from the
Library at Copenhagen. Adler also enriched his collection by collating
for him the Gospels in the Syro-Hierosolymitan version, as he denomi-
nates it, and by various readings from the other Syriac versions. Birch
has given a description of the MSS. and criticisms upon them in the
copious Prolegomena which precede his work. It appeared with much
typographical elegance under the following title: "Quatuor Evangelia
Græce cum variantibus a textu lectionibus codd. MSS. Bibliothecæ Va-
ticana, Barberina, Laurentianæ, Vindobonensis, Escurialensis, Hau-
niensis Regia, quibus accedunt lectiones versionum Syrarum, Veteris,
Philoxenianæ et Hierosolymitanæ. Jussu et sumtibus Regis edidit An-
dreas Birch. Hauniæ. A. MDCCLXXXVIII. Excud. J. F. Schultz.
Univ. Typogr. 4to.
A large number of copies of this 1st. vol., and the materials prepared
for the 2d., were destroyed by the unfortunate fire at Copenhagen in
June 1795. Birch afterwards published in a separate form his colla-
tions of the Acts, the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, as also of the Apo-
calypse.¹
Besides the Vat. MSS. 1209 and 1210, the collation of which is con-
tinued in these volumes, Vat. 367, a very remarkable MS. of the Acts,
the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, is collated with peculiar care; also
Pio-Vat. 50 and Alexandrino- Vat. 29, of which last the portion beyond
the Epistle to the Ephesians has been destroyed. Besides these, Bor-
gian. 4 and Venet. 10, which include the Apocalypse, were completely
collated by Engelbreth. The MSS. moreover, in the Vienna and oth-
er libraries, which were examined only in particular chapters or Epistles,
are very numerous.
Of the Apocalypse the following, besides the two already named, were
collated throughout: Vat. 366, Vat. 579, Vat. 1136, Vat. 1166, Alex.-
Vat. 68, Pio-Vat. 50.
1 "Variæ lectiones ad textum Act. App. Epp. Cath. et Pauli e codd. Græcis MSS.
Biblioth. Vaticana etc. collectæ et editæ ab Andrea Birch S. S. Th. Doctore et Pro-
fess. etc. Hauniæ. A. C. MDCCXCVIII.” 8vo.
"Variæ lectiones ad textum Apocalypse ex codd. Græcis MSS. etc. collectæ et ed-
itæ ab Andrea Birch etc. Haunia A. C. MDCCC. prostant apud Proft et Storch."
VERSIONS OF THE N. TEST.
199
The treasure of critical apparatus which had been thus accumulat-
ing was condensed, methodically arranged, and incorporated into a new
edition of the Gr. Test. by a man whose uncommon qualifications for
critical works of this kind we have before stated. With this work he
adorned the evening of a laborious and praiseworthy life, and in it he
left behind him an honorable memorial, which may perhaps be surpassed
in respect to the critical materials it contains, (for these are daily increas-
ing,) but hardly in regard to delicate and accurate criticism. It is en-
titled: "Novum Testamentum Græce. Textum ad fidem codicum, version-
um et patrum recensuit et lectionis varietatem adjecit D. Jo. Jac. Gries-
bach. Volumen I, IV Evangelia complectens. Editio secunda, emenda-
tior multoque locupletior. Hala Saxon. ap. J. Jac. Curtii hæredes et
Londini apud Petrum Elmsly. 1796." 8vo. The 2d vol.: "Nov. Tes-
tam." (as before) "volum. IId Acta, Epistolas App., cum Apocalypsi
complectens. Edit. sec. Hala Saxon. et Londini apud Payne et Mack-
inlay. 1806.
The critical principles by which he was guided, he has unfolded in
his Commentarius Criticus in textum Novi Testamenti. Particula Ima
Jena MDCCCII. Particula II. Jena MDCCCXI. Both parts ex-
tend no further than through Matthew and Mark.
CHAPTER VIII.
VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
$61.
It was by the means we have been considering, that the Greek text
was handed down to us through a course of centuries after its first pub-
lication; thus were its copies multiplied by the invention of the art of
printing; such are the pains which have been bestowed upon it to re-
store it as far as possible to its original state, which had been so greatly
changed by the course of time; and such are the preparations which
have been made for the future, which, it is to be hoped, will one day
accomplish what has not yet been done.
But we are in possession of documents which are much more an-
cient than the oldest MSS., and are of peculiar value in promoting our
object. They are not in Greek, but in the languages of foreign nations;
and could not, alone, restore to us a single Greek sentence, if the ori-
ginal were lost.
The original has been preserved; but, through the discrepancies of
MSS., it is so unlike itself, that we are obliged at the outset to enquire
what we shall select, and what discard. Now as we have before our
eyes the Greek clauses and expressions respecting the choice or rejec-
200
1
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
tion of which we are frequently in doubt, the documents we have men-
tioned may inform us whether their authors read a particular clause, or
what phraseology or arrangement they found in the Greek copies of
their day from which the versions were made.
This is the service which may be rendered us by the ancient versions;
to this extent are they of use in criticism; and, so far as the antiquity
of the testimony merits regard, some of them will even surpass the MSS.
in authority. We
e are disposed, too, to ascribe to them further an exe-
getical value in respect to obscure passages, because their authors were
pretty near the period, the place of residence, and the mode of thinking
of the Biblical writers.
This however can be the prerogative of immediate versions only; for
the mediate, i. e. those which were themselves made from versions, many
indeed present the readings of the mother-version from which they
sprang, but not those of the Greek text. They may, too, contribute to
explain their mother-version, but not the original text, for this they do
not express. Above all, however, the editions of these versions must be
prepared with such ability and critical fidelity, that we can rely upon
their accuracy.
We propose to arrange them, as far as possible, in the order of the
countries to which they belong; to speak first of the Asiatic, then of the
African, and lastly of those which originated in Europe.
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
}
THE FIRST AND MOST ANCIENT OF THEM.
$62.
I
Among the versions of the New Testament possessed by the Syrians
in their native language, the Peschito, according to their unanimous de-
claration, is the oldest. It is called, i. e. the Literal, as some
will have it, in order to denote its distinguish'ng characteristic. Yet it
is by no means strictly literal; but, without detriment to its fidelity, it
exhibits a freedom inconsistent, it would seem, with this designation, or
at least with the signification attributed to it. Abulfaragius, therefore,
inclines to another interpretation of this word, and holds that this ep-
ithet was applied to it because it regards accuracy more than, beauty
and elegance of language.1
With the Jews, every representation of words in a foreign tongue is a
. In the sacred books, however, they maintain a double sense of
the words; viz., the bare literal sense, and , the learned,
1 Greg. Abulfaragii Hist. Dynast. Dyn. VI. p. 100, Arabic text.
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
201
פְּשִׁי טא
T
allegorical sense.¹ The Chaldee form of is and the Syriac
No. The version of the Old Testament was clearly derived from
the Hebrew text, and therefore was most probably made by the Jews,
from whom it received its name. When the New Testament was ad-
ded it was included with it under the same denomination.
The Chaldee Targums (we speak of the two oldest) were easily ex-
ecuted. Generally it was not even necessary to change the words, but
only their form; the Syriac, however, was frequently forced to choose
other expressions and to follow its own grammatical construction, so
that the version differed from the preceding Targums, and as it exhibit-
ed the sense it became , and from this characteristic, I imagine,
was called
D
=
9.
$ 63.
The translator made his version from the Greek. This is proved by
the many words which he has retained from the Greek exactly in the po-
sition which they occupy in the original, although frequently he might
have used a pure Syriac expression. I have no where found so many
of these as in the 27th chapter of Matthew, which is hence most prop-
er to be cited as a specimen. V. 11, 12, seq. nyeuwv. 6, riun. 7, ay-
ρός, ξένος. 19, βῆμα. 27, στρατιῶται, σπεῖρα. 28, χλαμύς. 30, πρόσ
ωπον.238, λησταί. 48, σπόγγος—no less than eleven words, all of which,
except the title nyeuwv, the Syriac translator had in his own language;
and even for this last, as well as for the rest, he might probably have
found an equivalent expression, if not an exactly correspondent one.
It is not denied that these words were current in Syria after the do-
minion of the Seleucida; but it is not at all probable that he would
have used every one of these foreign words in preference to those of his
mother-tongue, so frequently and exactly as they occur in the Greek
Gospel, unless upon the supposition that he was led to do it by the Greek
text which lay before him. In this chapter, moreover, Matthew has
transferred some words from the Latin to the Greek, e. g. v. 26, poayeh,
λώσας. 27, πραιτώριον. 65, 66, κουστωδία, which the Syrian faithfully
transferred. This custom prevails throughout the New Testament, and
the whole proves more fully what we have inferred from a single chap-
ter of Matthew.
The translator has also now and then committed mistakes which could
have been occasioned only by the Greek text; e. g. Matt. 11: 19, xai
ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς, he translates, by her works,
having read τεχνῶν for τέκνων ; in Matt. 23 : 26, he renders τῆς παρ-
oyidos by rim or handle, which he would not have done had he not read
avidos, or rather the unusual form nagaчidos; in Mark 6: 1, he read
ἐκολλήθησαν for ἠκολούθησαν; and in Luke 12: 42, ἔρριψεν for ἔρ
Ön§εv. In Luke 5: 10, also, the translation of on Swyowv is remark-
1 Hottinger, Thesaurus Philologic. seu Clavis Sac. Scripturæ, Edit. III. in L.
I. c. II. sect. 7. De sensu sac. script. p. 233-37. Schickard, Bechinath Haperus-
chim. Disput. VIta. p. 116. Buxtorf. Lexic. Talmud. Rabbin.
2 The reading which he had here was ἐμπτύσαντες εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ,
which is also given by Cod. Vercellens, and Veronens. in Blanchini.
26
202
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
1
ντα
able; thou shalt catch to life. In Acts 9: 1, he read unlaws instead of
¿μлvéœv; and 16: 29, aivnoas, setting on fire, for airnoas, asking. A
singular mistake occurs in Acts 18: 7, where he read instead of ovoμa-
To lovorov σεẞouévov, the words, by the name of Titus the pious.
Hence he divided thus: ONOMA-ΤΠΟΥΣ-ΤΟΥ-ΣΕΒΟΜΕΝΟΥ,
and prolonged the stroke at the top of the second in THIOTE,
so as to make ΤΙ ΤΟΥΣ. In the Epistle to the Romans, 2: 18, he
changes diagéoovta into ovμgέoovta; in Galat. 2: 2, he must have
read κατιδών τοῖς δοκ. . . instead of κατ' ιδίαν τοῖς δοκοῦσι, for he
translated it oLAQ I showed it etc.; in Eph. 6: 12, he changes iлov-
ρανίοις into ὑπουρανίοις ; and in Philipp. 2: 16, λόγον ζωῆ into τόπον
ζωής. In James 2: 13, ΚΑΤΑΚΑΥΧΑΤΑΙΕΛΕΟΣ, he joined the
last syllable of the verb to heos and read instead of Al the preposi-
tion ΔΙ-ΔΙΕΛΕΟΣ, and instead of ΚΑΤΑΚΑΥΧΑΤ, ΚΑΤΑΥ-
ΧΕΤΕ, thus obtaining καταύχετε δι' ἔλεος κρίσεως which sense he
expresses in his version.
I
$ 64.
So far as is known, all the MSS. of the Peschito, one alone excepted,
contain only the following of the Catholic Epistles, viz. that of James,
the first of Peter and the first of John; i. e. four less than the Greek
MSS. The Apocalypse likewise is wanting. The four other Epistles
in the Syriac version, the 2d of Peter, 2d and 3d of John, and Jude, are
not by any means on a level with the Peschito, either in the mode of
representing the original in a foreign tongue or in its other characteris-
tics. They are constrained and laboriously literal, evincing no regard
to purity of diction, no very clear insight into the meaning of the ori-
ginal, and no great capacity on the part of the translator. Pocock
found them in a MS. in the Bodleian Library, which contained the
Acts and the three universally acknowledged Catholic Epistles, accord-
ing to the old version, together with those of which we are speaking,
which he published separately.¹
Dionysius Bar Salibi, a Syriac writer of the 12th century, says in his
observations on the Philoxenian version of the Catholic Epistles, in the
Preface to the 2d of Peter: "The 2d Epistle of Peter was not translat-
ed with the other Scriptures which were anciently rendered into the Sy-
riac, and is to be found only in the version of Bishop Thomas of Char-
kel."2
It is stated at an earlier period by Cosmas, an Egyptian scholar in the
1 After three lines of Syriac follows the remainder of the title: "Epistolæ
quatuor, Petri secunda, Johannis secunda et tertiu, et Judæ, fratris Jacobi, una, ex
celeberr. Bibliotheca Bodleiana Oxon. MS. exemplari nunc primum depromptæ, et
charactere Hebræo, versione Latina, notisque quibusdam insignitæ, operâ et studio
Edwardi Pocock, Angli-Oxoniensis. Lugdun. Bat. ex officina Bonavent. et Abrah.
Elzevir. Acad. Typogr. A. 1630." 4to. From this edition, according to a work of
Antony Vitre against Gabr. Sionita, these four Epistles were inserted in the
Paris Polyglot; the differences between the two are only arbitrary alterations
by Sionita.
2 Pocock in Præf. ad quatuor Epist. Cath. Comp. Hassencamp's "Anmerk. über
die letzten §§. der Einl. des Hofr. Michaelis." p. 14, 15.
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
203
middle of the 6th century, called Indicopleustes from his oriental travels,
that only three Catholic Epistles are to be met with among the Syrians,
viz. that of James, the first of Peter and the first of John.
To revert to Dionysius Bar Salibi, he asserts that these epistles were
found only in the version of Bishop Thomas of Charkel, meaning the
Philoxenian, which, as we shall soon see, was revised by Thomas of Char-
kel, who was subsequently bishop of Germanicia. Certainly, then, Bar
Salibi knew nothing of the Epistles which since Pocock's time have
been introduced into editions of the Peschito, for, though they some-
times resemble the Epistles in the Philoxenian version, they differ from
them very much in their readings, in the choice of words and in the
freedom of manner.
Or if the words of Bar Salibi be supposed to mean that Thomas made
& translation of his own of the epistles of which we are speaking, his
declaration would be untrue in another way; for they were not to be
found merely in the version of Thomas of Charkel, but also in the
Philoxenian. It is therefore every way most probable that Bar Salibi
was not acquainted with the version of the four Epistles which is now
printed with the editions of the Peschito.
noo P
As we have already mentioned, the Apocalypse, too, is wanting in
MSS. of the Peschito. At least, that which appears at the end of some
editions of the Peschito is certainly no part of this version, as is evident
from its internal character. The mode of translation resembles rather
that of the four Catholic Epistles just mentioned; e. g. in the custom of
expressing o, ǹ, tó, by coi Q301'etc. which frequently happens so
many times in a single verse as to be absurd; e. g. in Rev. 5: 5, where
it occurs four times and is needed only once; so too in the especial care
taken to express ¿ori and ɛîoi by A and Aɔ]; also in the un-
grammatical omission of all suffixes to nouns and verbs, which, in order
to give the force of αυτος, αυτή in Greek, are followed by the particle
I
?, as happens in Rev. 2: 13, no less than five times.
If this version be not the Philoxenian, it certainly arose from it.
Learned men, indeed, say that it neither agrees exactly with it, nor is
entirely different from it. I cannot surmise on what they found their
assertion, for the Apocalypse of Philoxenus is not found in any of the
MSS. of his version hitherto discovered. The description given of the
MS. from which it was first published reminds us of the Philoxenian
version. "Versuum distinctiones," it is said, "libellus iste proprie ha-
bet nullas, et nec capitum; nisi quæ a lectore quodam, nescio quo, nos-
tris numeris adscripta fuerunt. Sententiarum tamen distinctiones
habet varias, quarum quædam longiores, aliæ breviores periodos dis-
cernere videtur, quas nos hic non gravate omisimus, tum quia typograph-
us iis carebat, tum quia nos certum earum usum non deprehendebamus.
Aliquando enim tota pagina habet nullam, interdum una multas, ac non-
1 Cosmas Indicopl. De Mund. L. VII. in Galland's Biblioth. Patr. T. XI. p.
535. Παρὰ Σύροις δὲ εἰ μὴ αἱ τρεῖς μόναι αἱ προγεγραμμέναι οὐχ εὑρίσκονται .
Λέγω δὲ Ἰακώβου, Πέτρου, καὶ ᾿Ιωάννου.
204
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
nunquam sine ulla sententiæ distinctione solius elegantiæ causa cumu-
latas, priores quatuor punctis rubris, circulum nigrum ovali forma
constantem, quadrangulari forma continentibus: posteriores quatuor
solummodo punctis, duobus rectis rubris, aliis transversis nigris, pingun-
tur. Aliæ etiam aliter insigniuntur etc." And some pages after: "Non
est autem dissimulandum in ipsius autographi margine errata varia a
lectore quodam, nescio quo, sed alia manu, alio atramento emendata
conspici item verba quædam in autographo occurrisse redundantia aut
bis scripta, quæ manifesto sensum vitiarent, quæ nos resecuimus."
The MS. was written by one Caspar of India, as he calls himself at
the end of it.¹ He, however, resided in the West, it would seem, and
was in the service of the Congregatio de propaganda fide. The Li-
brary of the Orphan House at Halle contains a MS. Liturgy of the
Chaldee form, in Syriac characters, to which an ancient hand has given
the following title: "Ordo baptizandi juxta ritum Chaldæorum lingua
Chaldaica. descriptus per Gaspar de Malavar, Indum,
mæ, mense Julii, MDLXXX”2 The name and country of the copyist
are the same in both; a comparison of the characters would be deci-
sive.
Ro-
The present printed Syriac version of the Apocalypse formerly be-
longed to the younger Scaliger; from him it went to the library of Ley-
den University. From this MS. it was published by Louis de Dieu, from
whose preface the description of it given above was extracted.3 The
text was afterwards incorporated into the Parisian and London Polyglots,
and has been appended to some editions of the Peschito.
$ 65.
The copies of the old Syriac version, therefore, did not, at least after
the 6th century, contain the 2d Epistles of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John
or the Epistle of James; and after a certain period, we know not pre-
cisely when, they had likewise no Apocalypse. Yet the Greek Bibles
contain all these and it does not appear that they were ever discarded
from the sacred Codex, different as were the opinions respecting them.
I cannot persuade myself that the Peschito originally wanted the
Apocalypse, because this book is supported by witnesses in the East of
so weighty a character as Justin Martyr in Palestine, and Theophilus of
Antioch, head of the principal church in Syria. The necessary conclu-
sion therefore would be, that the Peschito was not composed till after
the anti-allegorical controversies of Nepos, when several of the Orien-
tal fathers had embraced the opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria; i. e.
1 Adler cites several MSS. of the New Testament written in India in Nov.
Test. Vers. Syr. denuo examinatæ. Hafniæ 1789, 4to. p. 24, 25, 26.
2 Herbert Marsh's Notes and Additions to J. D. Michaelis' Introd. translated
by Rosenmüller, (1 Th. Götting. 1795, 4to. p. 162.)
3 Apocalypsis Sancti Johannis, ex Manuscripto exemplari e bibliotheca clariss.
viri Josephi Scaligeri deprompta, charactere Syro et Ebræo, cum versione Latina et
notis, opera et studio Ludovici de Dieu. Lugdun. Bat. ex typogr. Elzeviriana.
1627. 4to. This ed. was reprinted at the end of Lud. de Dieu's "Critica Sacra,"
fol. Amstelodam. 1683.
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
205
!
late in the 3d, or in the early part of the 4th century; which I can still
less induce myself to believe.
Both these opinions being improbable, there remains but one other;
viz. that the Apocalypse gradually disappeared from the old Syriac ver-
sion, in the 4th century.
The proof of this is extremely simple. Ephræm, as well in his works
which yet exist in the original, as in those which were translated into
Greek in the 4th and following centuries, frequently refers to the Apo-
calypse, even mentioning its author by name. Ephræm could not have
done this, had not a Syriac version of it existed; for he had no acquaint-
ance with Greek.
I know, indeed, that it has sometimes been asserted by the learned
that Ephrem was skilled in Greek, but they have not exhibited any au-
thority for the affirmation so unhesitatingly made. We are assured of
precisely the contrary by ancient and trustworthy testimony. Sozo-
men, himself an Oriental, born in Palestine, educated in Baruth in
Phenicia, where in his time was a celebrated school, and who lived at
no remote period from Ephræm's day, states this; and Theodoret of
Antioch, Bishop of Cyr in Syria, even wonders that he should have
been able to combat so successfully the heresies of the Greeks with-
out a knowledge of their language. Probably some of the learned men
have confounded him with Ephræm, the patriarch of Teupolis, to
whom Photius attributes, besides a knowledge of the Syriac, a more
than ordinary acquaintance with the language and literature of the
Greeks.2
3
Yet a later writer, of considerable merit in regard to biblical criticism,
even names his instructor in Greek, stating that it was Basil, Bishop of
Cæsarea. I cannot say on what authority he states this, as I have only
seen extracts from his work. The authority, however, cannot be of
any weight, since Basil's brother or, if not he, an ancient and respecta-
ble writer, who composed a life of Ephræm, knew nothing of such a cir-
cumstance. He tells us that Ephræm visited Basil-visited him at am
age when there is little success in learning languages, and when
Ephræm was already made famous by his works. Ephræm speaks
himself of this visit, says that the Bishop addressed him through an in-
terpreter, and communicates the subject of their conversation, 5
He must certainly therefore have learned Greek late in life, speedily
and miraculously, in some such way as is represented in a life of Basil
attributed to Amphilochius. Basil, (the biographer informs us,) during a
1 Opp. Syr. T. II, p. 332. Opp. Græc. T. II. p. 53. and p. 194.
2 Sozom. H. E. L. III. C. 16. IIɛqì Elhyvinñs πaideias auoipos. Theodoret.
H. E. L. IV. C. 29. παιδείας γὰρ οὐ γεγευμένος Ελληνικῆς, τούς τε πολυσχεδεῖς
τῶν ῾Ελλήνων διέληγξε πλάνους κ. τ. λ.
3 Photius Cod. 228.
4 Spohn "De ratione textus biblici in Ephræmi Syri commentariis obvii, ejus-
que usu critico." Leips. 1786, 4to. Eichhorn's Allg. Biblioth. der bibl. Litter. Ï. B.
I. St. p. 137.
5 Gregorii Nysseni de vita Ephræm Syri etc. Opp. Tom. III. p. 605. edit.
Ducæi.
6 Cotelerii Monum. Eccles. Græc. T. III. p. 58. Basilii vita in Opp. Basil. T.
III. Garnerii § XXIX. n. 4. Ephrem. Encom. Basilii T. III. Opp. Ed. Vossii. Co-
lon. 1603, fol. p. 712.
206
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
three days visit which the Syrian father paid him, obtained of God by
his prayers, that his guest should be able to speak Greek, which he in-
stantly did to his own astonishment.¹ If we reject the miracle we have
but a Trifolium Græcum remaining; but even this is ill attested, for
criticism has long since pronounced its just sentence on this biography.
Now if he had not learned, and did not understand Greek, there
must have been a Syriac version of the Apocalypse which he read. The
same is true in regard to the Epistle of James, the 2d of Peter and 2d
of John2.
The learned men of Göttingen object on the other hand that Ephræm
quotes Greek words in his Commentaries. But they are only single
words in very few passages, respecting which he might easily, if he
wished to know how the Septuagint read, have inquired of his brother
monks. I do not give the reply on mere conjecture; his Syrian biogra-
pher furnishes it for me. Ephræm, he says, when he travelled to Egypt,
took with him one of his pupils as a Greek interpreter.3 In this pas-
sage we have, first, another evidence that he was unacquainted with
Greek, and secondly, an explanation how he obtained the single words
which occur in his Commentaries. I must be pardoned, then, if I
steadily persist in maintaining that Ephræm read in some version the
disputed Epistles and the Apocalypse, which he frequently quotes.
§ 66.
But while we are striving to restore some parts of the old Syriac ver-
sion which have in later days been severed from it, a celebrated man
attempts to deprive it of a possession, which till his time no one disputed ;
viz. the Epistle to the Hebrews.4
In this Epistle, he says, when Paul refers to the Old Testament, the
passages are quoted according to the Peschito; and hence he concludes
it must have been translated later than other books of the New Testa-
ment in which this is not the case. For it is certainly to be supposed that
the Christians translated the New Testament first, and then the Old, into
Syriac. But this celebrated writer should not have relied upon suppo-
sition, when fact was at hand. The case is the same in the Gospels, the
Acts and Epistles; not invariably indeed, but, as it would seem, only
when the passages in the Syriac Old Testament were before the trans-
lator or were readily found. The citation in Matt. 19: 4, 5, is exactly
transcribed from the Syriac version of Gen. 2: 2, 4; and Matt. 21: 5,
is taken from the Syriac of Zechariah 9: 9, except the words which do
not occur in the Evangelist, although the Syriac does not express Mat-
thew's Tоu ÚTоŠvyiov. Sometimes the Old Testament is quoted with
such alterations as are necessary to make it like the words of the New.
Thus in Matt. 12: 18, the beginning of the passage does not strictly ad-
1 Gerard. Voss. T. I. Opp. Ephræmi, p. XIII.,
2 These Epistles are cited by Ephrem in the following places: Ep. Judæ. T.
I. Opp. Syr. p. 136. Opp. Græc. T. 1II. p. 62, 63. Secund Pet. T. II. Opp. Syr.
p. 342. Opp. Gr. T. II. p. 387. Secund. Joann. T. I. Opp. Gr. p. 76. T. III. p.
52.
3 Vita S. Ephræm § 15. p. 39. Asseman. Biblioth. Orien. T. I.
4 Michaelis' Introduction. 1 Th. § 53. p. 363 seq. 4th Edition.
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
207
here to the Syriac of Isaiah 42: 2; but the two verses from ovde κραυ
γάσει to τυφόμενον οὐ σβέσει are entirely from Isaiah. So Matt. 13:
14, the words from ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε το τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου are taken un-
changed from Isaiah 6: 9; while the rest is more closely assimilated to
Matthew's phraseology.
The long passage, Acts 4: 25-29, is taken entirely from the 2d
Psalm in the Peschito; and so likewise Acts 8: 32, 33, from Isaiah
53: 7, exactly according to the Syriac version of that prophet, except
one word which does not occur in Luke. Rom. 9: 29, is taken from
Isaiah 1:9, and Rom. 11: 9, 10, from Psalm 59: 24, 25, although there
is not an exact agreement with the words of Paul.
It may be true, as this learned man says, that we cannot but suppose
the Christians would translate the New Testament before the Old; but
what if the Jews translated the latter? They may have had a Syriac
Targum as others had a Chaldee one. The facts before us require
such a supposition, and two other besides are explained by it. The
first of these is that the Syriac Old Testament is translated from the
Hebrew; the second that it is often changed to conformity with the
LXX. The Jews did the former, and the Christians, who had for some
time been accustomed to the Alexandrian version, the latter.
Thus the principal objection against this Epistle, and one to which
Michaelis attributes very great importance, falls to the ground of itself.
In all other parts of the version of the New Testament the high priest
is always called, but in the Epistle to the Hebrews 12,
D
Y
in
the
to
Hebrews
;; and this is a proof that the latter was translated by a different
hand." A somewhat important deduction from a single word!
Paul, in order to prove the high priesthood of Christ, appeals to Ps.
110: 4, and the translator took the cited passage from the Syriac Psalter,
Hão do Al, is used. Now with
እ
入
​is used. Now with ܠܥܠ
where the expression:
such premises as he had (Heb. 5: 6). he could not in his conclusion
use the expression, but must have inferred that he was Riscos.
He could not say: It is written he is Summus sacerdos, and then infer
that he was Summus pontifex. To justify such a conclusion the identi-
ty of the two expressions must first be shown, so as to connect the prem-
ises and conclusion; and the translator by such a change of words
would have deprived the argument of its validity. In chapter 7: 17,
this argument occurs a second time, and is so interwoven throughout
with the contents of the Epistle, by means of positions deduced from or
referring to it, that the translator, however accustomed to the word
л, was obliged to renounce it, and confine himself in this Epistle
to the expression which the biblical quotation adduced in proof made ne-
ம்ம்,
cessary.
P
We cannot from the fact that a translator does not every where em-
ploy the same word, or express the same idea, in the same manner, in-
fer immediately a different method of translation and a different trans-
208
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
lator, as has been done by a foreign scholar. Because the extremely
simple expression in Rom. 1: 17, ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται
Ima i zasoboto lal, is rendered differently in Gal. 3: 11,
la
A
Källaso laşı?, may we therefore attribute the translation
of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians to different authors?
The same expressions often have, or seem to the translator to have,
different meanings. This is the case in Heb. 10: 29, in regard to the
word xovós. The signification polluted, expressed by
DY
must
certainly have appeared harsh to the translator, and, which is
used for it elsewhere in the Peschito, signifies something in common,
which is not the meaning here, (see Tit. 1: 4, Acts 4: 32.) Now it was
clear that he must adopt a peculiar expression for a wholly peculiar
sense, as he does: who counted the blood of the covenant as common hu-
man blood,?.
To maintain the fact of different translators from the use of different
expressions, will require a more extensive induction than one of three
or four words. Let us profit by the honest admission with which the
German opponent of this Epistle himself prefaces his objections, an
admission not merely relating to a few words, but to the mode of proce-
dure, the judgment, taste, and ability of the translator: "True," says
Michaelis, "it (the version of this Epistle) exhibits much similarity to
the Peschito, an equally pure and easy Syriac style, equal freedom from
slavish literalism, and is about as accurate." Thus far Michaelis-and
now it may be well further to call to mind the circumstance that
Ephræm possessed a version, and, as we see, notwithstanding his free
citation of some passages, had it in his biblical Codex and made use of
it in his Syriac works.
§ 67.
Notwithstanding, it has seemed to me that the Peschito of the New
Testament was not made throughout by a single hand. The manner
of the translator has appeared to me more free in the Acts and Epistles
than in the Gospels; and even in diction I have thought I observed
some difference. But I have not noted down my observations so care-
fully as to be able to found a solid and forcible argument upon them.
The Greek text which was the basis of the Peschito possessed the
following peculiar characteristics. It contained many readings which
occur only in the writings of the fathers of the Church before the 3d
century. Some of its peculiarities may perhaps be found in copies of
the old Latin version before Jerome's time, and several of them in the
celebrated MS., so remarkable for its license, preserved at Cambridge.
It does not, however, adhere steadfastly to any text, but agrees some-
1 Herb. Marsh's Notes and Additions to Michaelis' Introd. Germ. Trans. I.
Th. p. 136, 137.
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
209
times with this and sometimes with that; and often takes its own course
entirely unaccompanied. Yet it has not so considerable variations from
the greater number of MSS. as the copies in the possession of Clement
of Alexandria seem to have had, or those of the Latins before Jerome;
and, although it frequently harmonizes with the Cambridge MS., its sin-
gularities are by no means so great and numerous as those of the lat-
ter.
We therefore perceive plainly that the text follows no fixed standard,
and that the Codex from which the translator made his version did not
belong to any one of the families of MSS.; that it resembled some-
times one and sometimes another, but in reality was entirely indepen-
dent.
From these well founded observations it appears that at the time when
this version was undertaken, neither Syria nor Palestine were in pos-
session of those Recensions which produced harmony in their bibli-
cal MSS. and established a fixed text. It must therefore have been
composed at least as early as during the first half of the 3d century, if
indeed its purity, which elevates it above the text of this period, may
not claim for it still higher antiquity.
§ 68.
So far we have been guided by critical characteristics in our investi-
gation of this document with reference to the time at which it origina-
ted. We will now see what information on this subject we can derive
from other facts.
The works of Ephræm the Syrian, in which the version is quoted,¹
prove that it had been introduced into use in the churches in the first
half of the 4th century. Before his time Jacob of Nisibis, who is also
called Ephræm's preceptor, flourished as a Syriac writer and must have
found a Syriac Bible necessary in his exhortations to the people. In
the 3d century Archelaus, Bishop of Carchara, Caschara, or Carhæ,
(for the Greek writers sometimes spell it one way, sometimes another,)
published a refutation of Manes in Syriac, which was translated into
Greek as early as sometime in the following century.2 These are clear
indications of a Syriac literature, the commencement of which was still
earlier.
All these appearances meet our view not in the Roman portion of
Syria, or within the limits recommended by Augustus to be set to the
empire, but upon the Euphrates, at Edessa, Nisibis, Charrhæ, in north-
ern Mesopotamia, where the petty kings of Osroene and Edessa main-
tained themselves, sometimes under the protection of the Parthians, and
sometimes under that of the Romans. Here the language of the coun-
try was first cultivated after the fall of the Seleucidæ and produced
valuable fruits of native literature.
1 Storr, "Observationes super N. T. versionibus Syriacis. Stuttgardiæ, 1772.”
§ 4. p. 10-14.
2 Hieronym. de Script. Eccles. V. Archelaus. "Archelaus episcopus Mesopo-
tamiæ librum disputationis suæ quam habuit adversus Manichæum, exeuntem
de Perside, Syro sermone composuit, qui translatus in Græcum habetur a multis.
Claruit sub imperatore Probo, etc."
27
210
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
1
Here Bardesanes, in the 2d century, employed the language of the
country in various departments of learning. He published a book De
fato, the existing fragments of which evince more than ordinary know-
ledge. He wrote likewise treatises on Marcion's system, as also essays
and writings against other heretics in great numbers, which were trans-
lated by his friends into Greek.2 Jerome, who had seen them, exclaims
respecting them, in his lively way: "If such brightness beams even in
the translation, what must it be in the original!"3
Harmonius, his son, although he had been instructed in Greek litera-
ture at Athens, rivalled the reputation of his father as a writer in the
language of his own country. He was the favorite poet of the Syrians;
and it was to supplant his not very pious or orthodox songs, which how-
ever were received with impassioned delight, that Ephrem at a later
period published some sacred hymns which he had composed to the airs
of Harmonius.4
We are forced to believe that, at a time when the native literature of
the country had reached such a point of advancement as it had among
the Mesopotamian Christians in the days of Bardesanes and Harmonius,
a version of the Bible, if it were not already in existence, could not at
any rate be delayed much longer; and if works were already translated
from the Syriac for the use of the Greeks, as they were by the friends
of Bardesanes, they must naturally have been preceded by translations
from the Greek and Syriac which roused and animated the national
literature. At a time, too, when controversial and polemic treatises written
in the language of the country, like those of Bardesanes against Mar-
cion and other heretics, were received with applause and read with
interest, the nation must certainly have possessed the Bible in its own
language, in order to take an interest in, or even to understand, the
controversy and the arguments.
We must therefore have good grounds for supposing peculiar impedi-
ments which stood in the way of a version of the New Testament, in
order to believe that there was not one made in Mesopotamia, at least
as early as about the close of the second century. To such a conclusion
we are also led by the observations which we made not long ago upon
the character of the text which is the basis of the Peschito. These
point us with certainty to the commencement of the third century, and
indeed would warrant a step further, into the second century, if we
should find occasion for it.
1 Euseb. de Præp. Evang. L. VI. c. 10.
2 Euseb. Η. E. L. IV. c. 28. Βαρδησάνης ἱακανώτατός τις ἀνὴρ, ἐν τῇ τῶν
Σύρων φωνῇ διαλεκτικώτατος, πρός τοὺς κατὰ Μαρκίωνα καί τινας ἑτέρους διαφό
ρων προϊσταμένους δογμάτων, διαλόγους συστησάμενος τῇ οἰκεία παραδέδωκε γλώτ
τῇ τε καὶ γραφῇ μετὰ καὶ πλείστων αὐτοῦ συγγραμμάτων, οὓς καὶ οἱ γνώριμοι,
πλεῖστοι δὲ ἦσαν αὐτῷ δυνατῶς τῷ λόγῳ παρισταμένω, ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλήνων ἀπὸ τῆς
Σύρων μεταβεβλήκασι φωνῆς. Ἐν οἷς ἐστι καὶ ὁ πρὸς Αντωνίνον ἱκανώτατος αὐτου
Ev
περὶ ειμαρμένης διάλογος. "Οσα τε ἄλλα φασὶν αὐτὸν προφάσει τοῦ τότε διωγμοῦ
ovýroάyai x. t. 2. Comp. Theodoret. Hæret, Fab. L. I. c. 22.
3 De Script. Eccles. V. Bardesanes.
ว
4 Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. L. IV. c. 29. Hærct. Fab. L. I. c. 22. Sozomen. H.
E. L. III. c. 16. Assemani Biblioth. Orient. T. I. p. 48.
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
211
The language of a writer in the last half of the second century, who
speaks of Syriac Gospels, here deserves attention. We mean Hege-
sippus, respecting whose works Eusebius makes the following observa-
tion: "He quotes from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the
Syriac, particularly also from the Hebrew," thus giving us to understand
that he was a convert from Judaism: ἔκ τε τοῦ καθ' ῾Εβραίους ευαγ
γελίου καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς ῾Εβραϊδος διαλέκτου τινα τί
θησις.
From the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Syriac? Does he mean to
connect these together as one work, or to separate them as two different
works? He might have connected them; for the Gospel of the He-
brews, which was probably written in the Galilean dialect, might prop-
erly be called a Syriac Gospel. But then he would have used another
form of expression; he would have said: x Tou Zvoianov nad' Eß-
Ex roû zað
ραίους εὐαγγελίου, οι τοῦ καθ᾿ Εβραίους εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Συριακού,
from the Gospel of the Hebrews in Syriac.
C
In the present case: the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Syriac--the
and distinguishes two things, a Gospel of the Hebrews-and-a Syriac
i. e. Gospel. If the Syriac were merely an epithet of the first, the and
could not have been placed between them, but Syriac, according to both
Greek and Latin construction, must have been placed before or im-
mediately after: in Syriaco Evangelio secundum Hebraeos-or in
Evangelio secundum Hebraeos, Syriaco-in the Syriac Gospel of the He-
brews-in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Syriac-in the version of
Ulfilas, the Gothic-in the Gothic version of Ulfilas. But if I say:
in the version of Ulfilas and the Gothic, I express myself as if
speaking of two things which are to be distinguished. In short,
grammar does not connect a single adjective with its noun by and. It
is only when several adjectives are used together that a second or third
is connected in this way with the first.
If therefore the expression of Eusebius may be judged by the rules
of grammar, and particularly that of the language in which he writes,
he speaks of a Gospel of the Hebrew and of a Syriac Gospel, which last
must have been only a translation.
$ 69.
So much respecting the name, source, materials, and condition of the
text of this version, as also respecting its antiquity. We have now to
enumerate the editions of it which have appeared.
When in 1552, Ignatius, Patriarch of Antioch, sent Moses of Mer-
din as a deputy to Rome to Julius 3d, to represent there his religious
tenets, he at the same time enjoined it upon him to cause the Syriac
New Testament to be printed in Europe. His endeavor to perform this
injunction proving unavailing at Rome and Venice, Moses applied to
Albert Widmanstad, the Austrian Chancellor under Ferdinand I.
Widmanstad had long applied himself to the Syriac language, and his
earnest intervention prevailed upon the king to defray the expenses of
the work 2 He with Moses, corrected the text from two MSS. and
1 Euseb. H. E. L. IV.
c. 22.
2 See Assemani Bibl. Or. T. I. p. 535. Comp. also Andrea Mülleri Greiffenhagii
Opuscula. Nr. VIII. and IX.
212
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
directed the printing of this beautiful and scarce volume, which, besides
a Syriac title of six lines in Estrangelo, has also the following in Lat-
in: "Liber Sacrosancti Evangelii de Jesu Christo Domino et Deo nostro.
Reliqua hoc codice comprehensa pagina proxima indicabit. Div. Ferdi-
nandi Rom. Imperatoris designati jussu et liberalitate, characteribus et
lingua Syra, Jesu Christo vernacula, divino ipsius ore consecrata, et a
Joh. Evangelista Hebraica dicta, scriptorio prelo diligenter expressa.'
Here follows a Syriac line and then under it: "Principium Sapientia
timor Domini."
The Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and the Catholic, have their peculiar
title; and the pages of each of these three divisions are numbered sepa-
rately. In the Epistles of Paul the numbers are in Roman characters.
The dedications are all dated MDLV; and we see from the statement
inade after the letter to Gienger and Jacob Jonas on the last page but one,
that the work was really completed in that year: "In urbe Vienna am-
plissimarum orientalis Austriæ provinciarum metropoli florentissima, ad
hunc excitum perductum est divinum hoc opus, Anno a Christi nativitate
M. D. LV. XXVII. Septembris. Regiis impensis. Caspar Craphtus
Elvangensis, Suevus characteres Syros ex norici ferri acie sculpebat.-
Michael Cymbermannus prelo et operis suis excudebat.”
In this edition, the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of
John, that of Jude, and the Apocalypse are wanting; also the story of
the adulteress and the passage, 1 John. 5: 7. Adler has remarked that
it was based upon Nestorian MSS.2
C
2. The second edition was the following: H zavr dianan, Testa-
mentum Novum, 8 7. Est autem interpretatio Syriaca N.
T. Hebræis typis descripta, plerisque etiam locis emendata. Eadem
Latine sermone reddita. Auctore Immanuele Tremelio Theol.doctore et
professore in schola Heidelbergensi, cujus etiam grammatica Chaldaica
et Syra calci operis adjecta est. Excudebat Henr. Stephanus Anno
MDLXIX. This book contains the Greek text with Beza's transla-
tions and the Syriac in Hebrew characters, with a new Latin version.
The basis of it is Widmanstad's edition, which Tremelius amended in
some places from a Heidelberg MS. Hirt has described its external
characteristics;3 and Bruns has examined the amendments which Tre-
1 There is a full and accurate description of this book in Hirt's Oriental. und ex-
egetischer Bibliothek, II. Th p. 260. seq. IV Th. p. 317. V Th. p. 25. In my copy the
Acts come immediately after the Gospels; and the dedication No. 5. Ad Div. Ferdi-
nandum, which is promised in the table of contents is wanting. The dedication:
Ad D. Maximilianum, is found prefixed to the Epistles of Paul; but I miss again
the dedication of the Cath. Epistles: Ad D. Carolum Austriaci nominis secundum.
The arms of the printer from whose press the work issued, upon the reverse of
the title page, together with the words beneath: cum Rom. Cæs. Maj. gratia et
privilegio cautum est, ut nemo deinceps hoc opus imprimat. Vienna Austria excu-
debat Michael Zymmermann Anno M. D. L. XII. are not in mine and not in many
other copies, and were first added, it would seem, by the printer when the Royal
Chamber delivered him the remaining copies for sale. Hirt's Orient. Bibliothek,
II. Th. p. 287. IV. Th. p. 339.
2 Nov. Test. Vers. Syr. denuo examinatæ, p. 39. 40.
3 Hirt's Orient. Biblioth. II. Th. p. 289. As the dedication to queen Elizabeth
is subscribed at "Heidelberg 1568," some have supposed that there was an earlier
edition at Heidelberg of this date; as if the dedication must not have been writ-
ten before it could be printed.
J
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
213
melius made in the text and the hasty alterations with which he is
chargeable, in Matt. 10: 8, 27: 35, Luke 22: 17, 18, and Acts
25:24.¹
3. The third edition was that printed twice in the 5th vol. of the
Antwerp Polyglot, once in Syriac and once in Hebrew characters.
The Latin version was made by Guy Le Fevre De la Boderie. In this
edition a MS. was used which Postel brought from the East, according to
the Preface to the Latin version of De la Boderie. This MS. was
probably Codex Coloniensis² the various readings of which were collect-
ed by Rapheleng and subjoined to the two following editions.
4. This was a Syriac New Testament in Hebrew characters, without
any title-page, in octavo. It is sometimes found bound up with the
Hebrew Bible issued from the Plantinian press in 1573-74. At the end
there are "Variae lectiones ex N. T. Syriaci MScr Codice Coloniensi
nuper a Fr. Rapheleng collecta." Instead of a title-page, immediately
. דְּיַתִיקָא חֲדָתָא :over the Gospel of Matthew are the words
5. NOT sein? Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum
Syriace. Antwerpiæ ex officina Christophori Plantini, Architypographi
regii MDLXXV, in 16 mo. in Hebrew characters. "Varia lectiones
ex N. T. Syrici (sic) manuscripto codice Coloniensi nuper a Fr. Raph.
collectae," are subjoined as an appendix. Both the Plantin editions
appear to be only a reprint from the Antwerp Polyglott.
6. Novum Testamentum, 877 sprza, ʼn nain diaðńun, Novum
Jesu Christi D. N. Testamentum ad Christianissimum Gallia et Po-
loniae regem Henricum III. Potentiss. et Invictiss. Principem Chris-
tianæ religionis vindicem et assertorem unicum. Parisiis MDLXXXIII.
apud Joannem Benenatum. 4to. According to Richard Simon the text
of De la Boderie is given in this edition, and it belongs among the re-
prints of the Antwerp Polyglot, unless that learned man made some cor-
rections in the text.
7. Elias Hutter's text in his Opus duodecim linguarum, 1599, is use-
less to the critic.
(6
8. Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum Syriace cum ver-
sione Latina, ex diversis editionibus diligentissime recensitum. Accesse-
runt in fine notationes variantis lectionis ex quinque impressis editionibus
diligenter collecta a Martino Trostio 1621. Cothenis Anhaltinorum, 4to.
Some copies have the year 1622. Mine has the peculiarity of having
been ended a year sooner than it was begun; for the subscription at
the end is: Finitum Cothenis Anhaltinorum XXVI. Septembris An-
no Christi MDCXXI, while the year 1622 is on the title page. The
book is well executed; the Syriac type is excellent; the editions made
use of, as named in the list of various readings, were Edit. Viennens.
Tremell. Guido (Fabric. de la Boderie,) i. e. the text of the Antwerp
Polyglot, Parisiense exemplar ann. 1584, N. T. Syriac. Plantini, in
8vo.
9. The Syriac text in the 9th and 10th volumes of the Paris Poly-
glot was taken from the Antwerp Polyglot, as Vitré asserts in Le Long;
but Gabriel Sionita undertook some alterations in it, it is not known
1 Bruns in Repertor. für bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur, XV. Th. p. 153, seq.
2 Herbert Marsh's Notes and Additions to Michaelis' Introd. p. 142, Vol. 1.
214
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
whether from MSS. or conjecture. The Apocalypse, 2d Peter, 2d and
3d of John, and the Epistle of Jude appear with the Peschito for the
first time, according to the editions of Louis de Dieu and Edward
Pocock.
10. The London Polyglot promises an improved text; for the Pro-
legomena say: "non ex propriis conjecturis, sed secundum exemplaria
MSS. The story of the adulteress is taken from a MS. of the Philox-
enian version belonging to Usher; the Apocalypse is reprinted from
De Dieu; the four Catholic Epistles which are wanting in the Peschito
are taken from Pocock.
11. 87 87, Novum Testament. Syriace, Sulzbaci, ex offic. Joh.
Holst. 1684, 12mo., by Christian Knorre of Rosenroth, is, according to
Schaaf, a reprint of the Plantin edition in 8vo. or 16mo.
12. Ægid Gutbier, in his edition of the Syriac New Testament, has
far surpassed some of his predecessors in industry and ability, and all of
them in point of utility. It appeared first in Syriac type at Hamburg
in 1664. In 1667 there was added a small Lexicon, with various read-
ings from the Paris and London Polyglots. The basis of his edition
was the Trostian; yet he made use of a MS. himself, which he frequent-
ly mentions in the Appendix Lexici Syriaci exhibens variantes puncta-
tiones etc." No man will refuse to rely on his honesty when he speaks
in the preface of having used even two MSS. The mistakes he has
made in respect to the story of the adulteress and I John 5: 7, etc., have
been noticed by Bruns.¹
13. Schaaf, for the most part, followed him in his editions of 1709
and 1717. “Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum Syriacum
cum versione Latina cura et studio Johannis Leusden et Caroli Schaaf
editum, ad omnes editiones diligenter recensitum; et variis lectionibus,
magno labore collectis, adornatum. Secunda editio a mendis purgata,
Lugduni Bat. typ. Jo. Mulleri, Joh. fil. apud vid. et fil. Cornel. Boutes-
teyn, Sanuelem Luchtmans. 1717,” 4to.
14. Biblia sacra quadrilinguia N. T. Græci, cum versione Syriaca,
Græca vulgari, Latina et Germanica accurante M. Christ. Reineccio.
Lips. 1713. fol. This follows Schaaf's text.
To this are to be added two editions intended for distribution in the
East, one of which is unknown among us and the other made its ap-
pearance but a short time since.
A??
15. Nov. Test. Syriac. et Arabic., Tom Imus. 1000
7500
.lanilo lusjaw lies
This is in Estrangelo:
on the following page there is a fuller title: Sacro-sancta Jesu Christi
Evangelia jussu congregationis de propaganda fide ad usum ecclesiæ
nationis Maronitarum edita."
140; PA; boo; abanz)? I; IamSol Iso;l
145? Pies you? 12 2010 Us? 14.00.10? (A0910
1 In the Repert. für bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur, XV. Th.
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
215
2} Also favo¡D?
،
Rome typis. congregat. de “ ܕܡܪܘܢܝܐ ܒܫܢܬ ܐܬܫܓ ܡܫܝܚܫܬܐ.
propag. f. 1703.” fol.
The second Vol. Novum Testament. Syr. et Arab. Tomus IIdus.
Then follow the same words as in the first, in Estrangelo. The fuller
title on the next page is: "Acta apostolorum epistolæ Catholicæ et divi
Pauli jussu sacr. congr. de prop. fide ad usum ecclesiæ nationis Maroni-
tarum edita cum Apocalypsi D. Joannis.”
MAMOTO 1040
0125 20 rajag,0
the rest as in the first Vol. "Romæ typis sacr. congr. de prop. fide. A.
1703." fol.
The book is in two columns, one of which contains the Peschito, the
other the Arabic version in Syriac characters, or the (so called) Car-
shuni text. It is therefore a Diglotton. The Peschito (we shall speak
of the Carshuni text in its proper place,) is derived ex codice Biblioth-
(6
eca collegii Maronitarum de urbe, quem patriarcha Antiochiæ ejusdem
nationis―cum permultis aliis ecclesiasticarum rerum voluminibus trans-
miserať" etc. It was edited by Faustus Naironus Banensis Maronita,
who gives an account in the Preface of the undertaking and its execu-
tion.
The Catholic Epistles, as is usual in Syriac MSS., come immediately
after the Acts, and are seven in number, of which the 2d of Peter, the
2d and 3d of John, and that of Jude, agree, except in a few readings,
with the text of Pocock. The Apocalypse is the same as that given by
De Dieu from Scaliger's MS.
The verses Luke 22: 17, 18, are marked with an asterisk at the be-
ginning and end; and the story of the adulteress is admitted, marked in
the same way. The verse Acts 28: 29, does not appear; neither does
1 John 5: 7. The passage Acts 20: 28, is read, as in the early Syriac
editions generally, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν Χριστοῦ. The reading of
1 Cor. 5:8, which is found in Nestorian MSS., and another in Heb. 2:9,
öлws zwρis dεου, do not occur here. Other less important readings of
particular MSS. are likewise sometimes met with in this edition. The
copies of it were sent to Asia. In the Propaganda there were shown
me a few copies considerably injured, from which however I could form
a complete one.
16. The edition of the English Bible-Society, particularly designed
for the East, has received a Latin title likewise, out of complaisance, as
it would seem, to the Europeans to whom it might be presented. Novum
Testam. denuo recognitum atque ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum emen-
datum, Londini impensis Societatis ob Biblia Sacra. 1816. 4to. Our
University-Library possesses it as a present from the Bible-Society.
We readily perceive that this edition is not a mere reprint, but was
executed with the aid of MS. documents. In Matt. 28: 35, ïvα лλη-
owy-xλoov is thrown into the margin at the bottom with the note in
Syriac : "This addition is found in some Greek copies;" Luke 22: 17,
18, is included in brackets; John 7: 53, and 8: 12, bear the inscription
in Syriac, as in the English Polyglot: "This clause does not occur in
216
SYRIAC VERSIONS.
•
•
This is found in
the Peschito." The words in Acts 8: 37, eine o Dílenлos. Χριστ
τόν, and in Acts 15: 34, ἔδοξε τῷ Σίλᾳ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτοῦ, are put in the
lower margin, as also, 18: 6, τὸ αἷμα ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλῆν, with the
remark : "These words are found in Greek MSS." So likewise Acts
28: 29, is noted in the lower margin. The celebrated passage 1 John
5: 7, is wanting. There is a small note pasted at the end of the book
which informs us that: "Brevi prodibunt codicum MSS. collationes,
ad quorum fidem emendata est hæc editio." I do not know whether or
when these appeared. Probably the Syriac MSS. which Dr. Buchanan
brought with him from the East Indies and presented to the Cambridge
University,¹ were the basis of the text. Among them are some Nes-
torian MSS., as may be inferred from 1 Cor. 5: 8. In the lower mar-
gin is the readings, with the addition:
some copies." Adler found it in MSS. which according to the inscrip-
tion were Nestorian (Nov. Test. Version. Syr. L. I. p. 36), and the
Nestorians are accustomed to use leavened bread in the administration
of the Lord's supper. (Asseman. Bibl. Or. T. III. P. II. Dissert. de
Syris Nestorianis, § XII.) Another reading of Heb. 2: 9, zwpis
εou, which is regarded as Nestorian, the editor does not seem to have
met with in his MS. Besides the Nestorian, Jacobite MSS. were like-
wise used. There is an evidence of this in Acts 20: 28, where all the
MSS. of the Peschito hitherto known read, Church of the Messiah ; but
the editor adopted in his text loo, with the note in the mar-
gin beneath : "in other copies of the Messiah is read here." The reading
adopted was, according to Sabariesu's testimony, the usual one in the
MSS. of the Jacobites (Assem. Bib. Or. T. III. in Append. ad catalog.
Ebed Jesu. C. XXXIX); and is found also in the Philoxenian version.
It has in fact some correspondence with the monophysite union of the
two natures, in such a manner that the divine merged in the human as
in the ocean; on which account God performed human actions, slept,
wept, and redeemed his people with his blood.
The existing editions, therefore, are derived from the MSS. of three
different churches, the Nestorians, Eutychians and Maronites. Each
of these gave the preference to this or that reading; but neither pos-
sessed a peculiar Recension of the text. We draw this conclusion in
regard to the Eutychians, because if there had been any remarkable pe-
culiarities in the monophysite text, the Bible-Society edition would at
least have presented them in the lower margin.
We have been lately reminded anew with what caution we are to
make use of this version, for purposes of criticism. Some of the ad-
monitions are general and hold in regard to every version; such as that
we must pay regard to the construction of the language, and the pecu-
liar manner of the translator. Every version, obeying the laws of con-
struction peculiar to its own language, deviates in little points from the
Greek, without making it necessary to suppose a peculiar reading at
bottom; every version has certain habits which can be learned only by
1 Latest Researches into the present condition of Christianity in India, by
Dr. C. Buchanan, translated by Chr. Gottl. Blumhardt. Stuttgard. 1813. p. 139
-43.
PHILOXENIAN VERSION.
217
long acquaintance. Among the peculiarities of the Peschito are these,
e. g. it always subjoins ἡμῶν το κύριος; 2d, instead of αυτός, αὐτοῦ, the
proper name to which it refers is usually repeated; 3d, it omits small parts
of speech such as eira, tóte, idov, and verbs which are superfluous, as
λέγων, ἀποκριθείς; 4th, πᾶς is often arbitrarily inserted and omitted;
and 5th, adverbs of comparison, such as ws, oμolws, are often omit-
ted.¹
PHILOXENIAN VERSION.
$ 70.
The MSS. of this version contain a postscript at the end of the Gos-
pels, which informs us respecting the time at which it was composed
and some other historical circumstances relative to it. The postscripts
in all the MSS., so far as they have been carefully examined, agree, and
only contain in the different MSS. a clause or two more or less. So
far they agree; literally: This MS. of the four Evangelists was first
translated from the Greek into the Syriac, with great pains, at Mabug,
in the year of Alexander 819, in the days of the holy confessor Philox
enus, Bishop of that place. It was afterwards collated with great care
by me, poor Thomas, with two (some MSS. read three) very excellent
and correct copies, in the Antonia at Alexandria, the great city, in the
holy monastery of the Antonians. It was written and collated the second
time, at the place mentioned, in the year 927 of Alexander, in the fourth
Indiction.2
The version was made, then, in the days of Philoxenus, in 508 of the
Christian era. This Philoxenus, or Xenaias, was bishop of Mabug,
Manbej, Mangeb or Hierapolis in Syria, from 488 to 518.3 The au-
thor of the version is not named in the above inscription; but another
Syriac writer has preserved it. According to him, it was Polycarp, a
Chorepiscopus of Philoxenus. He undertook the work and dedicated
it to Philoxenus, who incited him to it, and from whom the version re-
ceived its name. It was made from the Greek, and comprehended the
whole New Testament.
4
$71.
Philoxenus, also called Xenaias, was a favorite of Peter Gnaphey,
who got himself into the patriarchate of Antioch, and contrived to main-
1 Geo. Benedict. Winer. Comment. de Vers. N. T. Syr. usu critico caute insti-
tuendo. (The Christmas Programm.) Erlang. 1823. 4to.
2 Versio Syriaca Philoxen. Ed. Jos. White, at the end of John and in the crit-
ical notes, p. 641. Adler, N. T. versiones Syrica-denuo examinatæ. Hafniæ
1789, 4to. L. II. p. 45, 48. Repertor. für bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur, VII Th.
p. 234 seq. VIIÌ Th. p. 89, 90. Storr Observationes super versionibus No. Test.
Syriac. Pars. II. § 19. p. 45.
3 Assemani Biblioth. Orient. T. II. p. 10-46.
4 Moses Aghelæus apud Asseman. Bib. Or. T. II. p. 83. Adler, loc. cit. 48.
28
218
PHILOXENIAN VERSION.
tain himself in this elevated station by means of the connexions he had,
and the creatures he gathered around him. Among the latter was
Philoxenus, whom he consecrated Bishop of Mabug, and used as a tool.
The patriarch was attached to the doctrines of Eutyches, and, as he
seemed to entertain a mitigated view of the Monophysite doctrine, a
great part of Syria fell in with his opinions. He indeed found oppo-
nents, for no such change takes place, in general, without much disturb-
ance; but the court of Constantinople seemed to favor him and his te-
nets so much, that when the Emperor Zeno promulged a scheme of un-
ion, or Henotikon, the Monophysites received it with approbation, and
the patriarch with Philoxenus and his party, and Peter Mongus, patri-
arch of Alexandria, subscribed it. From this time they constituted a
peculiar sect by themselves, attached to the new doctrines. Hence, it
would seem, they came to a resolution to execute a church-version of
their own, which I suppose they made from Origen's copies, in order to
invest its text with as high authority as possible.
$ 72.
One hundred and eight years afterwards, viz. in the year 927 of the
Greeks, or 616 according to our reckoning, poor Thomas, as the postscript
to the Gospels says, revised this Monophysite document and collated it
with two, or as some copies say three, ancient MSS. in the monastery
of the Antonians at Alexandria.
The Acts and Catholic Epistles he collated, as the subscription to
them informs us, with one Greek MS. The Pauline Epistles, however,
he appears to have collated with two; for two are cited in the margin.
E.
g. at Philip. 3: 20, Ephes. 2: 16, Rom. 8: 27.
Several copies of this version, in the subscriptions added by the copy-
ists, term this poor Thomas, Thomas of Charkel; e. g. the Parisian
Codex: "Thus ends, by God's help, the holy book of the preaching of
the adorable Christ, our God, according to the four Evangelists, from
the Charkelian emendation, etc." and under the table of Chapters in
Matthew "The chapters of Matthew, seventy in number, according
to the correction and amendment of Thomas of Charkel, are finish-
ed." Other MSS. have several other subscriptions of this nature.2
There has not been, however, so much perplexity as to the person of
Thomas, as in regard to another circumstance respecting his labors.
He says, in the postscript to the Gospels: "It was afterwards with great
pains collated by me, poor Thomas. . . . . for the second time it was
written and collated in the place mentioned, etc." From these words
some infer two collations of it, the first by Thomas, and the second by
some unknown individual in the year of Alexander 927.
Yet it is nothing unusual to collate a MS. twice, nor was it with the
ancients. Thomas may have done this. The collation of 927 is evi-
dently the work of Thomas of Charkel. So we are told by Bar-He-
bræus in his Chronicon Syriacum. At the same time (says he, ad Ann.
927 of the Seleucidan era) lived Thomas of Charkel, a monk of the
1 Asseman. Bib. Or. T. II. p. 10-46. Evagrius H. E. L. III. c. 31. 52.
2 Versio Syr. Philox. Præfat. J. White, Sect. IV. Adler Vers. N. T. Syr. denuo
examinatæ, L. II. p. 56, 58, 59, 63, 66, &c.
:
PHILOXENIAN VERSION.
219
monastery of Tarill, who in his youth applied himself to Greek litera-
ture in the monastery of Kenserin, and was subsequently Bishop of
Mabug. When he was deprived of his station by Domitian, Bishop of
Melito, he went to Egypt and lived in the Antonia at Alexandria, in the
holy monastery of the Antonians, where with great industry he amend-
ed the four Gospels and the other books of the New Testament, by a
careful and accurate revision of the version which had been made be-
fore him at Mabug by Philoxenus." So far Bar-Hebræus.¹
Thomas was, therefore, a contemporary of Paul of Tela, who in the
same place composed a Syriac version of the Old Testament from the
Hexaplar text of Origen. From this circumstance, I can explain to
my satisfaction the undertaking of Thomas of Charkel, which at first
view appears rather singular.
$73.
Thomas saw that the Hexaplar text, from which Paul made his ver-
sion, was accompanied throughout in the margin with the readings of
Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. The New Testament version of
his sect, it seemed to him, needed something of this kind and the li-
brary of the Antonians offered him MSS. which were distinguished
above others for ancient and remarkable readings. These materials he
thought he could employ in a similar way; for the advantage which had
been derived in the Old Testament from the MSS. of Aquila and others,
was offered him in respect to the New by the MSS. of the Antonians,
which contained as many and far more important various readings, with
which he could store his margin. The text of the old Syriac version
supplied the place of the Hebrew text in the Old Testament. And, as
in the Old Testament exegetical notes were scattered here and there in
the margin, he wished to present some likewise; and whatever learning
of this nature it was in his power to add, he did.
The readings which he presents in the margin occur in the MSS.
B. C, and they are generally such as are handed down to us in D. from
the time of the corrupted text; as likewise in the Sahidic version and
the Latin versions antecedent to Jerome. In the Acts in particular we
are presented with considerable deviations and corruptions in the text,
which often agree with D and E, but are sometimes more extravagant
than either. (Comp. Acts 13: 33. 14: 4,5. 14: 10. 15: 1. 16: 17. etc.)
$74.
Now had he been content with merely noting in the margin the
peculiarities which he found in his ancient MSS., his labors would merit
our hearty thanks; but he was not so cautious and unpretending. He
was desirous of playing the critic himself, and sometimes introduced his
readings into the text, making use of obelisks and asterisks, according
to the example of the Hexaplar which his companion had translated in-
to Syriac. Thus he withdrew in many places the original reading of
1 Asseman. Bib. Or. P. II. p. 334. Eichhorn in the Repert. für bibl. und morgenl.
Litteratur, VII. Th. p. 234. seq. Bruns in the same Rep. VIII. Th. p. 89, 90.
Probably the passage is from the 2d vol., yet unprinted, which contains the his-
tory of the Patriarchs of Antioch.
220
PHILOXENIAN VERSION.
the Philoxenian version, whose text was probably of more value than all
the critical additions with which he intended to adorn it.
Yet we must not think that he was the first to introduce obelisks and
asterisks into the Philoxenian version; they existed in it earlier, and in-
deed originally. Chance has preserved a MS. of this version, which
has neither Thomas' subscription, nor the various readings in the
margin which he collated from ancient copies, nor the notes which he
added from his own learning. This Codex (Mediceo-Florentin. Plut.
I. n. XL.) is consequently a copy of a MS. of the time antecedent to the
labors of Thomas;¹ and is of no ordinary value in enabling us to distin-
guish from Polycarp's version the interpolations introduced by him.
Now as this Codex, likewise, is furnished with obelisks and asterisks,
it is clear that their use was as early as the time of Polycarp, the author
of the version. He either added them himself, with a view to correct
certain passages in the text by them, or he selected for his version a text
which was already in repute and estimation for its accuracy. In the
latter case we must suppose him to have used the text of Origen, who
made use of the usual Alexandrian signs, obelisks, and asterisks, in per-
forming his critical labors. Should we discover a family of MSS. which
exhibited this text, we should then be sure that Polycarp did not form
his own text, but selected an existing Recension and executed his ver-
sion according to it. Our conclusion as to whether Origen's text was
used or not would then be almost undoubting.
κατ
$ 75.
Thomas, as we have said, did not content himself with presenting his
readings and observations in the margin, but had an unfortunate incli-
nation to undertake critical amendments of the text. This is shown in
Mark 11: 10, where, after nazoòs nμäv Aaßid, he inserted iońvn nai
δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, and says in the margin: "This is not found in all the
Greek MSS., nor indeed in the text of Mar Xenaias, but it is in some
which we regard as very good copies." The passage was thus undeni-
ably not in the Philoxenian text, and was first introduced by our critic.
His interpolations are manifest from the readings; for they are such
as occur only in MSS. of the corrupted Alexandrian text, as were
the MSS. of the Antonians. E. g. in Luke 19: 45, after drooάšovras
there is inserted with an asterisk, καὶ τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν
ἐξέχεεν, καὶ τὰς καθέδρας των πωλούντων τὰς περιστεράς, which ap-
pears only in D of all the Greek MSS. In the margin he informs us :
The words do not occur in all the Greek MSS." Who can help see-
ing that the words which he inserts with an asterisk, after öv toónov
xaxεivot, in Acts 15: 11, were derived from an unregulated text, partic-
ularly as we find this addition in Codex D. The words are: ovɣnata-
τεθεμένων δὲ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ Πέτρου ευρημένοις,
ἐσίγησεν.
Other amendments (as he thought them) he took from the Peschito.
In Matt. 25: 1, D and the Peschito, after tov vuugiov, add naì tôs výµ-
❤ns. In the Philoxenian text the addition appears with an asterisk and
1 Adler, Vers. N. T. Syr. denuo examinata L. II. p. 52–55.
PHILOXENIAN VERSION.
221
with the marginal note: This is not found in all the MSS.; e. g. not
in the Alexandrian."1 He could therefore have borrowed it only from
the Peschito. The reading to лυo* avτæv in Mark 9: 48, has been
found in no MS. as yet; the Peschito alone has avrov. Whence but
from this, then, can it have come? After dioxɛis in Acts 9: 5, he in-
serts with an asterisk the words: σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν ;
in the margin he says: "These words do not occur in the Greek here, but
only where Paul narrates the incident himself." Though they are not
found in the Greek, they are found literally in the Peschito, which is
therefore the source of the addition.
In order to distinguish what belongs to each, and to restore the ori-
ginal text of Polycarp, we must especially consult and collate the Medi-
cean Codex before mentioned.
$76.
Yet the corruption caused by Thomas in particular passages is not
so extensive, as to prevent us from forming a general idea of Polycarp's
text. In the first place, as it respects the Gospels, we observe that in the
important readings which we have pointed out (§ 38) as peculiar to
the text of Lucian compared with the Egyptian MSS., (Matt. 6: 13, 20:
22, Mark 6: 11, 8: 14, Luke 4: 18, 10: 22, John 1: 27, 5: 16. 6: 22, and
69,) they agree perfectly with Lucian. But in the less important read-
ings they often deviate from Lucian's text and approximate to the Egyp-
tian, particularly when the MSS. AKM, 42, 114, 116, and Matth. 10,coin-
cide with the Egyptian MSS. Yet, even in peculiarities in which the
MSS. AKM etc. stand entirely alone, the text of Polycarp is often on
their side; of which fact we have already (§ 39) given examples.
ἐκ-
In Acts 20: 28, occurs one of the most remarkable readings which
distinguish Lucian's and the Egyptian MSS. The former read tv ¿x-
xhŋolav xvoiov xaì dɛov, but the Egyptian MSS. AC, 40, Vat. 367,
DE, Copt., and Sahid., xvolov only. B, however, differs from these,
and reads ɛov, in which it is accompanied by some MSS. This third
reading is the one which Polycarp has in his text. Every where else
he constantly adheres, sometimes to the Egyptian, and sometimes to Lu-
cian's side. We will present an example of this in Acts X. The let-
ter p denotes the agreement of Polycarp, or if it be preferred, of the
Philoxenian text, with the readings to which it is prefixed.
p. 2. ποιῶν ἐλεημ.
p. 5. ἄνδρας εἰς Ιόππην
Σίμωνα τινα
ὃς ἐπικαλεῖται
7. λαλῶν αὐτῷ
οἰκετῶν
10. αὐτῶν ἐγένετο
p. 11. καταβαϊνον
ABC. 40. E. Copt. Sah.
ΑΒ. Ι. Ε. Copt. Sah.
AB. 1. Copt.
ABC. 1. 40. 367.
ABC. 40.
ABC. 1. 40. Copt.
ABC. 1. 40. E. Sah.
•
ποιῶν τε ἐλεημ .
εἰς Ιόππην ἀνδρας
p. Σίμωνα τόν
ἐπικαλούμενον
p. λαλῶν τῷ Κορνηλίῳ
p. οἰκετῶν αὑτοῦ
p. ἐκείνων ἐπέπεσεν
καταβαῖνον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν
1 According to one reading "the Alexandrian" is in the plural; according to
another, in the singular.
222
PHILOXENIAN VERSION.
11. ἀρχαῖς καθιέμενον
19. τετράποδα καὶ ἐρ- 3
γῆς
p. 14. καὶ ἀκάθαρτον
16. καὶ εὐθύς
p. 23. ἐπαύριον ἀναστάς
without ὁ Πέτρος
•
•
p. 24. τῇ δὲ ἐπαύρ
p. 26. ήγειρεν αυτόν
30. ήμην και
τὴν ἐννάτην
p. 33. ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου
p. 34. στόμα αὐτοῦ
36. τὸν λόγον ἀπέστειλε
p. 47. δύναται κωλῆσαι
p. 48. ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι
᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
βαπτισθῆναι
ABC. 40. E.
p. ἀρχαῖς δεδεμένον καὶ
καθιέμενον
ABC. 1. 40. Copt. Sah. Ρ. τετράποδα τῆς γῆς καὶ
AB. 1. Sah.
ABC. 40. E. Copt.
AB. 40. D. Copt.
ABC. 40. 1. DE. Copt. Sah.
ABC. 40. 1. DE.Copt. Sah.
ABC. Copt.
ABC. 40. 1. D.
ABC. 40. Copt.
ABC. E. Copt. Sah.
ABC. Copt. Sah.
ABC. 40. I. Copt. Sah.
Α.Β. 40. 1. Copt. Sal.
AB.
τὰ θηρία καὶ τὰ ἑρπετά
ἢ ἀκάθαρτον
p. καὶ πάλιν
Ρ. ὁ Πέτρος
καὶ τῇ ἐπαύρ
αὐτὸν ἤγειρε
p. ἤμην νηστεύων καὶ
p. τὴν ἐννάτην ὥραν
ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ
στόμα
CA
p. τὸν λόγον ὃν ἀπέστειλε
κωλύσαι δύναται
ονόματι κυρίου.
βαπτισθῆναι ἐν τῷ
It appears to me that Polycarp did not adhere so much to Egyptian
readings in the Pauline Epistles, as in the Catholic, and in the Acts.
For an exemplification of this I select Galat. Chap. III. and IV.
CHAPTER III.
1. ἐβάσκανε . . . οἷς
ABC. 17. Copt.
p. ἐβάσκανε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ
μὴ πείθεσθαι, οἷς
προεγρ . . ἐσταυ
ρωμένος
}}
ABC. 17. Copt.
{
Ρ. προεγο .
ABC. 17. Copt.
p. 10. ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος
p. 12. ποιήσας αυτά
p.
13. ὅτι γέγραπται
17. θεοῦ ὁ
τετρακόσια καὶ
τριάκοντα έτη
6. καρδ . . . ἡμῶν
7. διὰ θεοῦ
8. φύσει μή
ABC. 17. Copt.
ΑΒ. 17.
ABC. 17. Copt.
ABC.
Copt.
CHAPTER IV.
A C.
Copt.
ΑΒ. 17. Copt.
ABC. 17. Copt.
14. πειρασμὸν ὑμών
AB. 17. Copt.
15. που οὖν
ABC. 17. Copt.
γ. 25. δουλεύει γάρ
ABC. 17. Copt.
BC. Copt.
26. μήτηρ ἡμῶν
. ἐν ὑμῖν
ἐσταυρωμένος
ἐπικατάρατος
ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρω
πος
p. γέγραπται γαρ
μ. θεοῦ εἰς Χριστὸν, ὁ
ἔτη τετρακόσια καὶ
τριάκοντα
p. καρδ . . . ὑμῶν
p. Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ
p. μὴ φύσει
p. πειρασμόν μου
p. τίς οὖν
δουλεύει δέ
p. μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν
From the Cath. Ep. we select 1 John, Chap. II.
PHILOXENIAN VERSION.
223
4. ὅτι ἔγνωκα
6. αὐτὸς περιπατεῖν
p. 7. ἀγαπητοί
p.
ὃν ἠκούσατε
10. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ
p. 13. ἔγραψα ὑμῖν παιδ.
15. τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ
C
p. 23. ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ
τὸν πατέρα ἔχει
p. 24. ὑμεῖς ὃ
27. μένει ἐν ὑμῖν
29. ὅτι καὶ πᾶς.
AB. Copt.
AB.
ABC. Copt.
ABC. 17. Copt.
A c. Copt.
p. ἔγνωκα
p. αὐτὸς οὕτω περιπατεῖν
ἀδελφοί
υκ
ὃν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς
p. ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν
γράφω ὑμῖν παιδ.
γ. τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ
ABC. Copt.
A C. Copt.
ABC. Copt.
ABC. Copt.
ABC. Copt.
p. ἐν ὑμῖν μένει
A C.
ὑμεῖς οὖν ὃ
CI
p. ὅτι πᾶς.
The most perfect copy of this version now known, viz. that of Glou-
cester Ridley, now in the Library of New College, Oxford, does not con-
tain the Apocalypse. Yet, in my apprehension, we have no reason to
complain of the loss, as De Dieu has already published it, with the
omission, it is true, of the critical signs. (§ 64) These signs which the
MS. contains, the mode of translation so exactly like Polycarp's, the
nature of the text which neither adheres to Lucian nor Hesychius, but
vibrates from one to the other, are so many evidences of the truth of
our supposition.
Of the Gospels, it is true, we have Greek MSS. to which the Philox-
enian version inclines; but it is not so in respect to the Acts and the
Epistles. But it may be said, that had Polycarp selected Origen's text
for translation, it could hardly have been otherwise than that some MSS.
of the Acts and Epistles, likewise, according to this Recension, should
agree with him; the text of Polycarp in these portions of the New Tes-
tament would not have been so entirely unique. The objection which
I have here stated against myself, is not unimportant; but its weight is
considerably diminished, if we reflect that not so many MSS. by far of
the Acts and Epistles have been collated as of the Gospels; and, ev-
en of those, the greater part only cursorily and carefully. We need
much more information to enable us to pronounce definitely and confi-
dently in regard to this and other critical questions.
$ 77.
The version itself everywhere evinces the most careful and laborious
endeavor to lose not a syllable of the original text and to express all the
minutiæ, even in violation of the laws of the Syriac language. The ar-
ticle o, n, tó, is always carefully rendered, as well as ori and εioi, lit-
tle as either practice accords with pure Syriac phraseology. Autós,
Αυτός,
avτn, does not appear as an affix according to Syriac custom, but is treat-
ed as a separate word, by means of the syllable Us, to which it is at-
tached. Words compounded with noó, ovv, ini, xarά, which are known
in none of the Shemitish dialects, are represented in a very artificial
manner; as e. g. лóðεois, 1010 2011, Emyqa¶ń, zoals; lɔAD,
in Mark 2: 26. 12: 16. These improprieties, however, which are una-
κατ
9
224
PALESTINO-SYRIAC VERSION.
voidable when a language is so abused, are of uncommon advantage to
criticism, as the version seldom leaves us in doubt as to what was in the
original, as other versions do whose authors have exercised more free-
dom.
66
$78.
The four Gospels of this version have been printed in England with
the following title: "Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio Syriaca Philox
eniana, ex codd. MSS. Ridleianis in Biblioth. Coll. Novi Oxoniensis
repositis, nunc primum edita, interpretatione et annotationibus Josephi
White, A. M. Coll. Wadh. Socii et ling. Arab. Prof. Laudian. Oxonii
e typograph. Clarendoniana." 1778. 4to. This volume is divided into
two parts: Tom. II. begins with the Gospel of John. The second vol-
ume bears the title: Actuum Apostolorum et Epistolarum tam Cath-
olicarum quam Paulinarum, versio Syriaca Philoxeniana ex Codice
MS. Ridleiano in Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. reposito nunc primum edita:
cum interpretatione et adnotationibus Josephi White. S. T. P. ling.
Arab. apud Oxonienses Prof. Tom. I. Acta Apostolorum et Epistolas
Catholicas complectens. Oxonii e Typogr. Clarendon. 1799." The se-
cond part with the same title comprehends the Epistles of Paul. "Tom.
II. Epistolas Paulinas complectens. Oxon. etc. 1803." Various learn-
ed men have written accounts and descriptions of the MSS. of this ver-
sion now in existence; and likewise monographs and essays on the con-
dition of the text and its readings.¹ Among them Adler's work which
we have frequently cited: Nov. Test. versiones Syriaca etc." is of
peculiar value. He had White's edition before him and compared it
with MSS., thus obtaining the materials and occasion for much valuable
critical remark.
PALESTINO-SYRIAC VERSION.
§ 79.
We as yet know of but one MS. of this version; and that contains
only lessons from the four Gospels for all the Sundays and festivals of
the year. It is in the Vatican Library, N. XIX among the Syriac MSS.
J. G. C. Adler obtained it thence and undertook an investigation of
it.2
The character and language in which it is written differ somewhat
1 Gloucester Ridley, De Syriac. N. T. versionum indole atque usu. Londini
1761. Adler, N. T. vers. Syriac, Simplex, Philoxeniana, Hierosolymitana-denuo
examinatæ. Hafniæ, 1789. 4to.-Paulus, Accuratior manuscriptorum, quibus
versio N. T. Philoxeniana continetur, catalogus, cum quibusdam ad viros eru-
ditos quæstionibus. Helmstadii 1788.-Gottlob. Christ. Storr, Observationes
super N. T. versionibus Syriacis. Stuttgardiæ 1772. 8vo. Storr, in the Repertor.
für bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur, X. Th.
2 Nov. Testam. versiones Syriac. Simplex, Philoxeniana et Hierosolymitana
denuo examinatæ. L. III. p. 137. seq.
PALESTINO-SYRIAC VERSION.
225
from the common Syriac. It has many Chaldee idioms, and very much
resembles this dialect in its grammatical peculiarities; e. g. in suffixes of
the third person to nouns in the plural number, in the status empha-
ticus of nouns, and in the form of the third person masculine of the fu-
ture tense.
Abulpharagius distinguishes three Syriac dialects-the Syro-Aramaic,
which is the most elegant, spoken by the inhabitants of Roha and Haran
and external Syria; the Palestinian spoken at Damascus, on the Libanus
and in the interior of Syria; and lastly the Chaldæo-Nabathæan, the rough-
est of all, common in the Assyrian mountains and the villages of Irak.¹
The manifest resemblance to the Chaldaic observable in our ver-
sion appears to denote that it is Chaldæo-Nabathaean. The Peschi-
to was probably composed in the region of Edessa, Roha, Haran,
etc., and was there, we know, the church-version. Abulpharagius
informs us that it was used especially in eastern Syria. From the
country where it originated, it appears to have been written in the first
and most elegant dialect. The Philoxenian version prevailed in the vi-
cinity of Antioch, and exhibits to us the language of this part of Syria.
We have left, therefore, for our version only Damascus and Palestine, or
the Syrian mountains and the province of Irak.
To determine our choice between the two, we must not overlook an
observation made by the learned man to whom we are principally indebt-
ed for our knowledge of this version; viz. that many idioms occur in it
which are found only in the Philoxenian version besides. Now as the
idioms of both approximate to each other, the countries of their respect-
ive origin must likewise.
The part of Syria in which our version originated was evidently a
Roman province, or a part of one. I infer this from some words which
struck my eye in the specimen (Matt. 27: 3-32,) which Dr. Adler has
presented us. The soldiers, in v. 27, are called simply co, Romans;
as if no soldiers but Romans were known in the country. In the same
verse σлsĩα is rendered by the Roman word Amo, castrum; from
which we may readily infer to whom the dominion of the country be-
longed. The Assyrian mountains never had a Roman Prætor, and were
not brought in formam provinciæ, as was the case with western Syria and
Palestine. We must therefore certainly regard this as a Palestinian
version, rather than one which originated in the Assyrian mountains.
Michaelis, and others after him, even call it the Hierosolymitan version.
The MS. itself was written in the vicinity of Palestine at Antioch ;
where the monks of Palestine, it is very possible, had a monastery. It
was written, says the subscription: "in the monastery of Abbot Moses,
in the city of Antioch, in the vicinity of the Holy Land." Probably
.ܢܐܚܝܬ ܐܢܩܕܩܣ should be ܢܐܚܝܬ ܕܩܘܣ
$80.
The version was made from the Greek, as is evident from the Greek
orthography of proper names (e. g. ᾿Ιησοῦς, Ιωαννῆς, Καϊάφας, Ιαείρος,
1 Hist. Dynast. Dyn. I. p. 16, 17. 2 Dynast. VI. p. 100.
29
226
PERSIAN VERSION.
ται
"Avvas, Mɛonia), and from the many Greek expressions which are re-
tained in the very places which they occupy in the original: roaneŜirae
Matt. 25: 27, αντίδικος Matt. 5: 25, βουλευτής Mark 15: 43, των κερ
άμων Luke 5: 19, καὶ γάρ John 5: 23, μᾶλλον ἦν γάρ John 3: 19,
etc.
We cannot determine what was the character of the Greek text
which the translator had before him, or with what class of MSS. it co-
incided, as we have no continuous collation of it. As yet only two or
three rare readings have been extracted from each chapter and intro-
duced to public notice. We are acquainted, therefore, with the pecu-
liarities in which it differs from the MSS. of every Recension, without
knowing to what MSS. it is in general allied.
α
Its text however appears sometimes to be compounded from various
MSS.; e. g. in Matt. 14: 24, where for non uoov tys valdoons some
MSS. and the Peschito read, σταδίους πολλούς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἄπειχε, it
unites both readings: σταδι πολλ, ἀπὸ γῆς ἄπειχε μέσον τῆς θαλάσ
ons. So in John 19: 16, 17, instead of naρélaẞov de tòv 1...,
Π
... the
the pas-
sage is compounded as follows, of different readings in different MSS.:
αγάγοντες δὲ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐπέθηκαν αὐτῷ τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ
βαστάζων ἐξῆλθεν . . .
α
PERSIAN VERSION.
$81.
The Persian version which appeared in the London Polyglot extends
only through the Gospels. The language is interspersed with so ma-
ny Arabic expressions that we cannot fail to recognise the influence
which the religion of Mohammed had upon the language of the nation,
and consequently refer it to a period later than his time.
The parts of Persia bordering on the north of Mesopotamia made
use, it would seem, of the Syriac ritual and church-version; just as our
ritual and version are in Latin. In the 5th and 6th centuries, Edessa
was much resorted to by the Persians for the purpose of obtaining instruc-
tion in the genuine Nestorian tenets at the celebrated school in that
place. Now when these portions of Persia came to deside a version in
their own language, they had recourse to the Syriac copies, and transla-
ted from them. Thus arose the Persian version which we at present have
and which was probably composed at Edessa.
§ 82.
Its source is the Peschito, as is proved by many readings which are
now to be found only in it and the Peschito; e. g. Mark 6: 41, ¿uégioav
ἐμέρισαν
πᾶσι ; 51, ἐθαύμαζον καὶ ἐξίσταντο ; 7: 2, κοιναῖς and τοῦτ' ἔστιν are
wanting; 20, ὁ δὲ for ἔλεγε δέ; 31, εἰς τὰ ὅρια for ανα μέσον τῶν ὁρί
1 Theodor. Lector, ¿xloyaì ảnò tov devtéqov ßißhiov. Asseman. Biblioth. Or.
T. III. c. 2. p. 744.
PERSIAN VERSION.
227
ων; 34, ὁ ἔστι διανοιχθητι is wanting ; 8: 25, καὶ ἐποίησεν αὐτὸν
αναβλέψαι is wanting; 9: 26, καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον κράξαν ; 29, ἐν νηστεία
καὶ προσευχῇ ; 10: 19, μὴ κλέψης, μὴ φονεύσης; 46, Τίμαιος υἱὸς
Τιμαίου; 52, ήκολούθει ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ. We find so many examples in
these few chapters that it is unnecessary to illustrate the matter further.
This is shown also by many mistakes of the translator which clearly
sprang from the Syriac. Mark 6: 9, álλ' vñodεdεµévovs oavdália is
ἀλλ' ὑποδεδεμένους σανδάλια
they should hold shoes, كفش را دشین دارند translated
in detestation, which arose from mistaking the word, to put on
shoes, for 2, to hate, } } }). In Mark 7: 11, dugóv
μου ὁ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, is given in the Peschito
Y
22122; the first word the Persian translator mistook for
DoS and rendered approach to me. Mark 7: 34, He looked up
to heaven and sighed, 220: the derivation of this word from
7 Y
misled the translator and he rendered, He looked up to heaven
and rested. He makes the same mistake in Mark 8: 12, where he
translates and he rested in his spirit. In Mark 9: 3, où dúvarai hev-
according to the Peschito, he has used one of the
xava
αι
入
​two significations of, to see, in Aphel to make white, for the other;
and renders they could not bear the sight. The word Basilexós, in John
4:49, which the Syriac renders by, he even took for a
proper name, and translated thus: Abdolmelik said to him.
$ 83.
This version would be of uncommon value in the criticism of the
Peschito, had it been preserved without being corrupted, but it is dis-
figured by many glosses. E. g. in Mark 7: 15, after the words, those
are they which defile a man, is added, which is a mortal sin; in Mark
7: 26, where the Greek woman of Syrophenicia is spoken of, the words
for she was From Hems, are inserted. Similar additions and explana-
tions are met with in almost every chapter. We find, moreover, words
and even sentences twice translated; e. g. Mark 6: 49, where the word
φάντασμα
جيال terwards by
,
دروغ
qavraoua is rendered once by ¿ a deception, and immediately af-
a phantom. Mark 8: 14, they had only one loaf
with them in the ship, the Peschito translates, only one cake; in this it
was followed by the Persian translator, who says first, one cake,,
but translates the word again by loaf, s, not a cake, and no loaf
had they with them in the ship. (Comp. Mark 6: 7. 31. 43.)
1
228
PERSIAN VERSION.
Frequently, one of these readings exhibits the Syriac and the other
the Greek text, as is the case in the last example; and yet we have no
reason to suppose that there was so much knowledge of the Greek lan-
guage, and so many Greek MSS., in existence in Persia, as to have en-
abled readers to illustrate and amend their text from the Greek. It is
more probable that there existed a Persian version from the Greek, which
was made use of by readers and copyists, and from which these inter-
polations sprang. Indeed, this extensive empire must have had sever-
al versions to supply the wants of different provinces in which different
dialects were prevalent. If we are not influenced by the advantage
which biblical literature would derive from a careful examination of
this version, at least the striking and certain similarity of the Persian to
our own mother-tongue, the German, should induce us to devote espe-
cial pains to the former, for the purpose of inferring from it the original
construction of the latter, the roots and former significations of its words,
and in order to throw light upon historical facts respecting the origin
and migrations of nations.
$84.
((
Besides the version in the Polyglot, there is still another which has
been published by Wheelock, but is little known among us. It is said
to have two title-pages, on the first of which is : Quatuor Evangelia
Domini nostri Jesu Christi Persice, ad numerum situmque verborum
Latine data 1652," and on the second: "Quatuor Evangeliorum Dom-
ini nostri Jesu Christi versio Persica, Syriacam et Arabicam suavis-
sime redolens; ad verba et mentem Græci textus fideliter et venuste con-
cinnata. Londini. 1657."
The editors may indeed have had a MS. containing a version from
the Greek, but they employed the Syro-Persian text in making out their
own, thus making lamentable confusion. For they used the MS. of
Pocock's from which the text in the English Polyglot was printed, as
Pierson himself confesses in the preface to Wheelock's Gospels: “Cun
Evangeliis Persicis edendis D. Abraham Whelocus operam navásset,
tres sibi MSS. Codices impetraverat, Oxoniensem, Cantabrigiensem,
et alterum Pocokianum; quorum uno descripto, ceteris collatis, fu-
siorem in omnes commentarium destinaverat.” Had they presented us in
a state of purity the version made ad verba et mentem Græci textus, we
would readily have dispensed with the Syriac and Arabic fragrance
which they boast upon the title-page.
Lastly, Nadir Shah is said to have caused a Persian version to be com-
posed from Greek, Arabic, Syriac, Armenian and Hebrew MSS., which
was published at Ispahan in 1740-41. It can be of little importance to
New Testament criticism.
1 Herbert Marsh's Notes and additions to Michaelis Introd. Vol. I. Germ. Ed.
p. 210-11.
ARMENIAN VERSION.
229
ARMENIAN VERSION.
$ 85.
Our knowledge respecting this version is derived from two sources.
The first is an Armenian biography of the saints, in the former Royal
Library at Paris, from which the Bishop of Erivan, by request, trans-
lated the life of Mesrob into Latin. Richard Simon made use of this.¹
The other is the Armenian History of Moses Chorenensis, which Whis-
ton's sons published, with the title: "Mosis Chorenensis Historiæ
Armeniaca Libri III. Armeniace ediderunt, Latine verterunt, notisque
illustrârunt Guilielmus et Georgius Guil. Whistoni filii, Aulæ Clarensis
in Academia Cantabrigiensi aliquamdiu alumni. Londini 1736." 4to.
Michaelis drew from this fine document. The two authorities do not
differ in the main.
§ 86.
The version was contemporary with the national alphabet. The in-
vention of this has immortalized among his countrymen the memory of
Mesrob, of Hasekos, in the province of Taran. Till his time they em-
ployed the Syriac alphabet, and it would seem that they made use of the
Syriac Bible and liturgy in their religious worship. The want of a na-
tional character occupied much of his attention; and after many unsuc-
cessful attempts of his own, it was revealed to him, it is said, in a heav-
enly vision.
He hastened to communicate his new alphabet to king Uram Scavu,
and Isaac, the patriarch of the country, who caused schools to be estab-
lished in Armenia, in which reading and writing were taught. Mesrob
himself travelled into Iberia for this purpose.
On his return he found the patriarch employed in translating from
the Syriac. There were no Greek MSS. to be had, as Meruzan, a
Persian viceroy, had caused all Greek books to be burned; and the Per-
sians in general permitted no other language or character to be used
among the Armenians (in the church-service probably,) but the Syriac.2
When the Ephesian Synod assembled in 431, two pupils of Mesrob,
Joseph and Eznak, were deputed to it, who brought back with them an
account of the proceedings of this council, and a carefully written copy of
the Bible.
Isaac and Mesrob now threw aside what they had translated from
the Syriac, and commenced a version from the newly acquired Greek
copy; but they did not possess the requisite knowledge of Greek.3
1 Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. Ch. 17. p. 203–205.
2 Moses Choren. Hist. Arm. L. III. c. 54. R. Simon, H. Crit. des versions du
N. T. 17. Chap.
3 Mos. Chor. L. III. c. 61. The pupils of Mesrob are here called Johannes Ec-
clensis and Josephus Planensis.
230
ARMENIAN VERSION.
This however did not dishearten them. Joseph and Eznak were des-
patched to Alexandria to perfect themselves in Greek, and the work
was entered upon for the third time, Moses Chorenensis, the historian,
himself assisting.'
According to Bar Hebræus, Isaac and Mesrob, after the translation
from the Greek text was completed, altered it to greater accordance with
the Syriac.2
The Greeks lay claim to some merit in regard to this version. John
Chrysostom is said to have incited and encouraged the Armenians to
translate the sacred books, when he was banished to Kukus in Armenia.
They began with the Psalter, and then passed to the other canonical
books.3 The banishment of this father from his country actually coin-
cides with the period when the idea of a national character entered the
mind of Mesrob; and the influence of the celebrated stranger may ex-
plain the revival of his ardent desire of a national character and version.
The account of the Armenians, however, and that of the biographer of
John Chrysostom do not exactly agree in respect to the book with which
a beginning was made; the former naming the Proverbs of Solomon
and the latter the Psalms.
$87.
The history we have given of the version does not promise a uniform,
unmixed text, but rather one made up of various materials—of readings
from the old Syriac version, readings furnished by the Ephesian MS., and
also readings from Alexandrian MSS. which the pupils of Mesrob would
not have failed to bring home with them.
These component parts are easily discoverable in the text.
In gen-
eral it adheres to the Egyptian Recension, but not so closely as not to
have adopted readings from MSS. of a period anterior to the introduc-
tion of a Recension into Alexandria. It frequently coincides with
Codex D in readings peculiar to that MS. alone, or to A and the MSS.
which Thomas of Charkel collated in the monastery of the Anto-
nians ; e. g. Matt. 15: 32, ημέραι τρεῖς εἰσι, καὶ προσμέν
18:33,
οὐκ ἔδει οὖν καί σε. 19:10, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνδρός. Mark 2: 9, τον κράβ
βατον, καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. 2: 26, ἔφαγεν, καὶ ἔδωκε καὶ τοῖς
σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσι οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστι . . . . 4: 39, ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ
εἶπε. 5: 33, καὶ τρέμουσα δ πεποίηκε λάθρα. 6: 2, ἐξεπλήσσοντο ἐν
τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ λέγοντες. 6. 23, καὶ ὤμοσεν πολλά. 6: 55, ἤρξαντο
πάντας επί, etc.
}
In our history of the text we mentioned certain MSS. which are in-
deed of recent origin, but are transcripts of ancient MSS. of the xown
Endoors, viz. Wetstein 1, 13, 69, and Griesbach 124; the last of which,
particularly, contains Asiatic readings, and is allied to the text of the Pes-
chito. (§ 29), With these readings the Armenian version often coin-
cides; and it was these, in part, which got into the version through the
1 Moses Chor. loc. cit. Rich. Simon, Hist. des vers. loc. cit.
2 Walton Proleg. XIII. n. 16.
3 Anonym. Vita Chrysost. c. 113. Διακελεύεσθαι τότε ψαλτήριον καὶ τὴν ἅπασαν
διαθήκην πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνων γλῶτταν μεταποιήσασθαι.
ARMENIAN VERSION.
231
Ephesian Codex which the pupils of Mesrob brought back with them.
At least it is difficult to refer them to any other source. E. g. Matt. 5: 18,
ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν. 13, 124.—7: 27, πτῶσις αὐτῆς
μεγάλη σφόδρα. 13, 33, 124. 12: 14, οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἐξελθόντες συμ-
βούλιον ἔλαβον κατ' αὐτοῦ. 13, 124.—13: 43, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν
οὐρανῶν, 124.21: 30, ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, ὑπάγω κύριε. 13, 69, 124.
23: 10, καθηγηταί· ὅτι καθηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἐστιν. 124.26: 36, καὶ
λέγει αὐτοῖς, καθίσατε. 69, 124.—Mark 3: 34, περὶ αὐτὸν μαθητὰς
καθημένους. 13, 69, 124. 8: 14, καὶ εἰ μὴ ἕνα μόνον ἔχοντες ἄρτον.
1, 13, 69.8: 15, ζύμης τῶν Ηρωδιάνων. 1, 13, 69.8: 17, διαλογί-
ζεσθε ὀλιγόπιστοι. 13, 69, 124. 8: 21, πῶς οὖν οὔπω συνίετε. 69, 124.
—10: 11, ἐὰν ἄνης ἀπολύσῃ. 1, 13, 69, 124. etc.
o
Lastly, many readings are taken from the Peschito. Mark 2: 25,
᾿Ιησοῦς ἔλεγεν. 6: 6, τὰς κώμας διδάσκων. 8: 24, 25, περιπατοῦντας
πάλιν ἐπέθ. 9: 4, σὺν Μωσεῖ συλλαλοῦντες. 9: 29, νηστείᾳ καὶ
προσευχή. 10: 43, γενέσθαι ἐν ὑμῖν μέγας. 12: 33, ἐστὶ τῶν ὁλοκαυτω
μάτων. 12: 38, καὶ φιλούντων ἀσπασμούς. Luke 2: 49, ὅτι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ
τοῦ πατρός. 9: 6, κατὰ κώμας καὶ κατὰ πόλεις. Among these the
following, especially, may be reckoned: Matt. 28: 18, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς· καὶ
καθώς απέσταλκέ με ὁ πατήρ μου, καγω ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς.
$ 88.
During the crusades, the rulers of Armenia were closely connected
with the inhabitants of the West, and became acquainted with the lan-
guage used in their churches. They strenuously sought an ecclesiasti-
cal union with them, and this was ardently favored by king Haitho,
(Abulpharagius calls him in Hist. Dyn. 502, but Abulfeda
Ps T. V. Ann. Musl. p. 18,) who afterwards abdicated the gov-
هيدوم
pils
ernment to his son and entered the order of Franciscans. He is even
said to have translated from the Latin into Armenian the Prefaces of St.
Jerome.1
Gregory, Bishop of Sis and Patriarch of the Armenians, proposed to
Haitho an ecclesiastical council for this purpose. In his letter to the
former king he asserts respecting certain topics of dispute, that it is so
in Jerome, in Beda the Presbyter, and other Latin fathers.2
Besides what he here says of the Latin fathers and their writings, he
appeals to 1 John 5: 7, in the beginning of his letter, in favor of the
use of water in mass.3 To us this is, at any rate, an evidence that pre-
paration for an union had been made by altering the Armenian version
here and there according to the Latin.
This same passage was expressly cited again in the Synod which was
held at Sis in 1307, which could not have happened unless it was au-
thorized by many copies.4 This change of the Armenian text in con-
1 Michaelis' Introd. I. Th. § 69, 4th ed.
2 Collect. Concil. Labbei et Cossartii edit. Mansii. T. XXV. p. 145.
3 Ibid. p. 141.
4 Ibid. p 136.
232
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
formity with the Latin MSS. can hardly have been the only one; but
how far the correctors proceeded can be learned only from a collation
of ancient Armenian MSS. with the modern.
$89.
The Armenians had several editions of this version printed in the
17th century, as the MS. copies were so expensive that they could not
be procured except by the wealthy. By order of a Synod convened in
1662, the Bishop of Erivan, whom we have already mentioned, was
despatched to Europe for this purpose by the patriarch. He took up
his residence in the monastery of Usci, whence in France he was
called Uscanus. He had the whole Bible printed at Amsterdam in
1666, and the New Testament alone in 1668, which last was re-
printed in 1698. I have myself an edition of the four Gospels of the
year 1680, which I find no where mentioned. It is too small for an
octavo and too large for a 16mo.; and is embellished with a wood-cut
at the beginning of each Gospel. There is prefixed to it what appears
to be a catalogue of the chapters or church-lessons. Not understand-
ing a word of it, I cannot state the place where it was printed, which
is given in Armenian characters.
The Bishop of Erivan was charged with altering the text of these
editions according to the Vulgate, which he was so little desirous of
concealing, that he himself freely confesses it in the preface.¹
There are some later editions, prepared in the monastery of the Ar-
menians at Venice, viz: “Novum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testa-
mentum, Armenice editum a Joanne Zohrab, Doctore Armeno, 1789.
Venetiis ex typographia monachorum S. Lazari." 8vo. The title is
Armenian; I have given it in Latin as it was translated to me. The
book contains 1 John 5. 7, marked with an asterisk; for, as the Uscan
edition contained the verse, the editor, as I was informed by a friend
of his, was unwilling to omit it, although it is found in no ancient Ar-
menian MS. This edition was reprinted in the year 1816. A criti-
cal edition of the Old and New Testament was prepared in the same
monastery, and printed in 1805 in large 4to. About twenty MSS.
were made use of, the various readings of which are subjoined in the
lower margin. Short scholia, in Armenian, were likewise added in ex-
planation of the text.
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
$90.
After the death of Alexander, the Greeks multiplied in Egypt; they
surrounded the throne of the Ptolemies, and possessed themselves of
the public offices. The language of the court and state officers natu-
1 Preface general sür le Nouveau Test. des Messrs. Beausobre et L'Enfant. T.
1. p. 171.
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
233
rally extended itself into Egypt by degrees, first in the vicinity of the
court, and then into the remote portions of the country. Yet it could
not extirpate the hereditary language of the nation, but the latter was
compelled to adopt many Greek words, and to alter its construction ac-
cording to that of the former. Thus a third sprung from the mixture of
the two, which has been called the Coptic language, probably from
Coptos, then the capital of Upper Egypt, where, at a distance from
court, the ancient language and manners most pertinaciously retained
their authority.
After the fall of the Ptolemies, it began again to rear its head and to
dislodge from its supremacy a language which had been introduced by
foreigners who were now without influence. The Greek, however,
obtained in Lower Egypt and in the districts bordering on the north-
ern coast, still longer, it would seem, than in the upper country, on
account of the brisk trade and commerce with other nations; and fur-
ther, because in those parts the Greeks settled in the greatest numbers
and for the longest period. In particular, at Alexandria, its prevalence
was undisturbed; Greek writers appearing in this city at a very late
period.
$91.
At what time the Greek became so nearly extinct that versions were
required, or how high an authority we may ascribe to these versions,
may be accurately determined from the copious investigations of a
man of much merit in this department of learning.
1
Some have asserted that at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, there
were Egyptian Bishops who could not even sign their names in Greek,
simple as was the form for that purpose. The fact is not exactly so
yet it is remarkable that at least one, Kalosirios, Bishop of Arsinoe,
was obliged to do it with the aid of an interpreter.2 The Archiman-
drite, Barsuma, was likewise in the same predicament; but he was a
Syrian. The additional assertion that, in the great council at Ephesus,
certain Egyptians signed their names through an interpreter, is not
borne out by the records. It is reasonable to suppose that those
Bishops would not have been deputed to it who were least skilled
in the language in which the business was transacted. We cannot,
therefore, expect so much information on this point from what occurred
in foreign countries, as from those which happened in Egypt itself.
We here meet in the outset with Father Pachomius, whose rules for the
monks of the Tabennitic monastery were originally composed by him in
the Egyptian language, and were subsequently translated into Greek, and
also by Jerome into Latin.3 It has been too hastily inferred from this,
that no one in the monastery understood Greek; but so much, certain-
1 Dr. Friedr. Munter, "Uber das Alter der Kopt. Uebersetz. des N. T." in
Eichhorn's "Allgem. Biblioth. der bibl. Litteratur," IVth. vol. 1st and 3d articles.
2 Καλοσίριος ἐπίσκοπος Αρσινοίτου, ἑρμηνεύοντος αὐτὸν Ιουλίου διακόνου αὐ
τοῦ.
3 Hieronym. Præf. in Reg. S. Pachomii, § 2. "Urgebant autem missi ad me
ob hanc ipsam causam Leontius Presbyter et ceteri cum eo fratres, accito nota-
rio; ut erant de Ægytiacâ in Græcain linguam versâ, nostro sermone dictari.”
30
234
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
ly, was implied in this fact, viz: that Pachomius considered the language
of the country as the one in which he could make himself understood
by all without exception, that he regarded it as the current language of
seven thousand monks; for so high does Palladius reckon their number.
Now as Pachomius, in the 139th and 140th section of his rules, re-
quires all his pupils to learn to read, and they were so far compelled to
it, even against their will, that every one was to be able read at least
the New Testament and Psalter, the existence of versions to be read
is presupposed. For, from the language he uses in his rules, it is clear
that he did not expect them to understand Greek, and yet he requires
of them all without exception to learn their letters, to receive instruc-
tion in reading at certain hours of the day, and to be able to read at
least the New Testament and the Psalter.
On one occasion, Father Pachomius sent some of his monastic breth-
ren to Alexandria, to salute the Archbishop of Alexandria, and to pur-
chase some necessaries for the sick. An Alexandrian named Theo-
dore saw them in the Church, and requested them through an interpre-
ter to permit him to accompany them to the Thebaid. They consented.
Pachomius kindly received the stranger, and that he might have some
one to converse with, gave him for a companion an old man who under-
stood Greek.¹
Theodore, a different person from the preceding, the favorite pupil
of Pachomius, and his successor after his death, caused the letter pub-
lished by Athanasius at Easter to be translated into Egyptian, for the
use of the monastery, that it might serve as a rule for the monks.
Whenever he addressed the assembled monks, he appointed an interpre-
ter who repeated his words after him in Greek, for the benefit of the Al-
exandrians and foreigners who might be unacquainted with the Egyp-
tian language.2
An imperial deputy, called dux Arsenius, visited the monasteries in
Upper Egypt, which were subject to Theodore, in search of a person
who, it was suspected, was concealed in one of them. In the monas-
tery of Phebon he assembled the brethren together and questioned them
on the subject, through an interpreter. Fortunately there was a for-
eigner in the monastery, a native of Armenia, who knew Greek, and
defended his brethren so ably before this imperial envoy, that he de-
parted without further search.3
We meet with another fact of not much later date than this in Lower
Egypt, on the Libyan side, in the latter half of the fourth century. Pal-
ladius, who travelled at that period through Egypt, as well as other
countries, for the purpose of visiting the most celebrated monastic in-
stitutions, came to Nitria, where he saw John of Lycopolis, one of the
abbots of the desert, and was desirous of conversing with him. But
the old man understood so little Greek that he required an interpreter
in order to converse with the stranger. Yet it appears from the tenor
of their discourse, that John was conversant with the books of the New
1 Zoega Catalog. Codic Copticorum MSS. qui in museo Borgiano asservantur,
Romæ MDCCCX. Codd. Memphit. n. xLv. p. 76, 77, Copt. 81, Lat.
2 Zoega Catal. Cod. Memph. XLVI. p. 83. Copt. p. 86. Lat. Comp. Codd.
Sahid. n. CLXXVII. p. 371.
3 Zoega Codd. Memph. xLv. p. 81, 82. Copt. and 85 Lat.
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
235
Testament. There must, therefore, have existed in Lower Egypt a
version of these books in the language of the country.1
One of the founders and most active patrons of the Egyptian monas-
teries was unacquainted with the Greek language, and was obliged to
make use of an interpreter when he was addressed in Greek. We
mean Antonius, who had acquired celebrity as early as the time of the
Nicene Council. That he was ignorant of Greek, we are informed by
Palladius, from the mouth of a man who lived a great while with Anto-
nius, and acted himself as his interpreter.2
Isaac, another of his interpreters, is also mentioned by Jerome in his
life of Hilarion, the hermit.3
As Antonius possessed such extensive repute, he had frequent occa-
sion to edify others by hortatory letters. Jerome praises certain exhor-
tations of this nature, seven in number, which were all composed in the
Egyptian language, and afterwards translated into Greek,¹
They have also been published in a Latin version through the press.5
An extensive acquaintance with the New Testament, as well as the
Old, is evinced in them, although he could have read it only in his na-
tive language.
Athanasius, his biographer, who represents himself as one of the pu-
pils of this pious man, says that his first determination in favor of re-
tirement and a contemplative life was occasioned by hearing the Gos-
pel, and particularly the passage Matt. 19: 21, read in the Church; and
that he was completely confirmed in it on entering the church the second
time while the Gospel was being read, and among other passages, Matt.
11: 34,6
From this time he took up his residence in a district of the Arsinoitic
name, in Middle Egypt, where in a short time he collected around him
many pupils, on whom, having assembled them together, he inculcated
the duties of their calling, in a long discourse in the Egyptian lan-
guage, tỷ Дiɣvпtiaxy govy. The many citations from the Old
and New Testament, which occur in it, evince a more than ordinary ac-
quaintance with the Bible."
ων
1 Palladii Historia Lausiaca. c. XLIII. De Abbate Joanne urbis Lyco. p.
963. in Magna Biblioth. Vett. Patr. in XVII. Tomos distributa. T. XIII. Paris,
1654, fol.
3 Vita Hilarionis, c. 30. "Repertis ibi duobus monachis Isaac et Pelusiano,
quorum Isaac interpres Antonii fuerat.
2 Palladius c. 26. de Eulogio Alexandrino, p. 941. Tovtwv tun ölwv hóywv
ἑρμενεὺς αὐτὸς γέγονα, τοῦ μακαρίου Αντωνίου Ελληνιστί μὴ εἰδότος. Εγια γὰρ
επιστάμην ἀμφοτέρων τὰς γλῶσσας, καὶ ἑρμένευσα αὐτοῖς.
4 Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles. V. Antonius. "Misit Egyptiace ad diversa
monasteria apostolici sensus sermonisque epistolas septem, quæ in Græcam lin-
guam translatæ sunt, quarum præcipua est ad Arsinoitas.
5 Biblioth. Patr. per Margarin. De la Bigne, Paris 1576. fol. P. I. p. 91–110.
Fragments of the Egyptian text, the end of the third, the fourth, and the begin-
ning of the fifth letter, are in existence in the Borgian Museum. Zoega Catal.,
Codd. Sahid. n. CLXXI. p. 363. Fragments of others are found in Mingarelli,
Codd. Nanian. Fasc. I. p. CXCVIII. seq.
6 Athanas. Vit. S. Anion. c. 2. Εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ συνέβη τότε το
εὐαγγέλιον ἀναγινάσκεσθαι, καὶ ἤκουσε τοῦ κυρίου λέγοντος τῷ πλουσίῳ κ. τ. λ.
c. 3. Ως δὲ πάλιν εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸ κυριακὸν ἤκουσε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ κ. τ. λ.
7 Athanas. Vit. S. Ant. c. 16-45.
236
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
Subsequently, to escape the intrusions of curiosity, he retired to re-
moter regions of the Thebaid, where he delivered discourses to the an-
chorites about him, which are full of biblical passages.¹
Athanasius further states, that when Greek philosophers visited him
he needed an interpreter in order to converse with them.2
When he spoke or wrote to his own countrymen, he spoke or wrote
in Egyptian; when he was visited by Greeks, he spoke through an in-
terpreter. He generally had an interpreter about him; and a writer,
who had himself acted in this capacity, assures us that he had no know-
ledge of the Greek language. I do not see what more could be desired
to substantiate the fact that Antonius did not understand Greek.
But, it is said, we are told in a biography of him that he learned
Greek suddenly by a divine miracle. What biography? Were the
ancients acquainted with any besides those of Athanasius and Evagri-
us, the latter of which was only a translation of the former? No per-
son of respectability and talent ventured to attempt one after Athana-
sius. Jerome excuses himself on account of such a predecessor, and
Ruffinus represents it as superfluous and impracticable to execute such
a work after him. What legend is there, then, to appeal to? The
Bollandists found one which they esteemed worthy of regard; and it
must possess very great antiquity and authority to contradict contempo-
rary writers and even the very interpreter of Antonius. But, if he
did not understand Greek, how happened it that he had, and how
was it possible for him to have, so intimate an acquaintance with
the Old and New Testament, except through a version? According
to Augustine, he could even repeat the whole of the Sacred Scriptures
from memory ;3 which is the less extraordinary, as there were many
among the dwellers in the desert who could do the same.4
.3
Thus, in the fourth century, Egyptian versions of the New Testa-
ment were current in Nitria, in the Arsinoitic Nome, in the Thebaid,
in Upper, Lower, and Middle Egypt. This would certainly be a vener-
able age for these documents, even were none of them entitled to
claim a higher antiquity.
There are, however, hints from which we may infer an earlier exist-
ence of the Egyptian versions. At the period of Dioclesian's persecu-
tion, just at the commencement of the fourth century, the Prætor visited
Upper Egypt, in search of Christians; and one giving himself up of his
own accord, he sat in judgment on him, tried him with the assistance
of an interpreter, and then sentenced him to death.5
Hierakas of Leonto, about the close of the 3d century, composed
books in the Egyptian language; particularly a treatise on the works
1 Athanas. Vit. S. Anton. c. 55.
2 Loc. cit. e. 72. Πότε γοῦν φιλόσοφοι δύο ἤλθον πρὸς αὐτὸν Ἕλληνες....ἐξ-
ελθὼν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἔφη δι᾽ ἑρμηνεως. c. 77. Εφη πάλιν δι᾽ ἑρμηνέως.
3 Augustin. de Doctr. Christ. L. I. § 4.
"
4 Palladius. c. XII. in Ammonio. Παλαιὰν δὲ καὶ καινὴν γραφὴν ἀπεστήθισεν,
Vita Abb. Aphthonii c. XXXIX. 'Аñooτηvičovoι лãoαs τas yoαgás. Comp. c.
XXXII. de Érone. Epiphan. L. III. Hæres. LVIII. p. 1071, 'Ev oróµati de oyedòv
πᾶσαν γραφὴν ἀπαγγέλλουσι.
5 Zoega. Catal. Codd. Memph. n. XIX. p. 20, 21.
P
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
237
of the six days. Such a production must certainly have been preceded
by a version of the Mosaic writings.'
Extensive, however, as were the encroachments of the Greek lan-
guage until the downfall of the Ptolemies, it was yet steadfastly exclud-
ed from the temples. Prayers and praises were offered to the gods in
Egyptian only; and this was exclusively the language of religious wor-
ship. From this fact it may have become expedient, perhaps necessa-
ry, to introduce the Egyptian language into the Christian assemblies, in
prayer, singing and exhortation; and hence in a short time there must
have been occasion for a version of the sacred books.2
$92.
The Egyptian, or as some prefer to term it, the Coptic language, is
divided into several dialects, the two principal of which are the Upper
Egyptian or Thebaic, and the Lower Egyptian or Memphitic. The
Arabians call the first likewise,, that of the Upper country,
the Sahidic; and the other, the dialect of the Coast,
although its seat was always at a distance from the coast of the Medi-
terranean Sea, and it prevailed further in the interior of the country
towards Memphis. Besides this, they reckon also a third, which is
called
the Bashmuri, or the Bschamyri, of the original.
cs, the
'seat of which we shall speak hereafter.3
§ 93.
Several beautiful MSS. of the version of the New Testament into the
dialect of Lower Egypt are yet extant in the Libraries at Rome, Paris,
and Oxford. Printed copies of it, also, are in the hands of the learned.4
Those who are qualified to judge are not, it is true, entirely satisfied as
to the qualifications or mode of procedure of the editor. But it will ever
be great merit to have broken the way, and to have been the first to
bring to light so valuable a document.
The version was made from the revised text, and in the Gospels fol-
lows the MSS. BCL, in the Acts and Epistles ABC, and in general
that class of MSS. which we have denominated Hesychian. We may
hence infer its value, and how much it deserves to be examined with
fresh industry. Its MSS. often vary from each other, and the critic
might thus have excellent employment.
1 Epiph. L. II. Hær. XLVII. § 3. p. 712. Evveɣgáyato de Ellyvixõs te
καὶ Αἰγυπτιακῶς ἐξηνηστάμενος καὶ συντάξας τῆς ἑξαημέρου.
2 Porphyr. De Abstinent. L. IV. § 9. From Porphyry, Euseb. de Præp. Evang.
L. III. c. 4. Steph. p. 57. Ed. Vigeri. p. 94. Clem. Alex. Pædagog. L. II. c. 2.
Venet. 252, 253.
3 See Quatremère, Recherches sur la langue et la literature de l'Egypte.
Paris, 1808. p. 21. for examples extracted from the Arabic-Coptic Grammar of
Athanasius of Kus.
4 Nov. Test. Ægyptium vulgo Copticum, ex MSS. Bodleianis descripsit, cum
Vaticano et Parisiensibus contulit, et in Latinum sermonem convertit David
Wilkins, Oxonii e Theatro Sheldoniano. 1716. 4to.
238
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
We may determine somewhat from this observation in regard to
the age of this version; it cannot have been composed before the time
of Hesychius, i. e. in the middle of the 3d century. Now, if it was cur-
rent in Lower Egypt in the 4th century, the period at which it origin-
ated is determined with tolerable accuracy; as accurately as can be
expected in a matter in which we are obliged to draw inferences from a
comparison of facts, for want of express and definite information.
$ 94.
Woide first presented to the learned world specimens of the Upper
Egyptian, Sahidic, version of the Gospels, in the readings of a few pa-
ges which he found in the British Museum. After him, John Aloys
Mingarelli published the text of some fragments of the Gospels which
belonged to the Library of the Chevalier Nani, illustrating it with notes.2
Similar fragments existed in the Library of Cardinal Borgia, which were
examined and the various readings published by Münter, now Bishop of
Seeland. He also added Woide's readings and those furnished by the
Nanian fragments. Meanwhile Anthony Georgi examined some very
ancient fragments of the Thebaic version which were in Borgia's pos-
session, and which contained by the side of the version the Greek text
in uncial characters, from which however the former very frequently de-
viated. They contained John 6: 21-59 and 6: 68—8: 23.4 Such were
the fragments of the Gospels which were then known and published in
Europe.
The Bodleian Library possesses the Acts according to this version,
excepting the last four chapters, in a MS. (Cod. Huntingt. 394, 8vo.)
from which Woide communicated to Michaelis some remarkable read-
ings, which were published by him.
This MS. contains also the Catholic Epistles of John and Jude, and
a part of the 2d of Peter. The various readings of the first two, viz.
the Epistles of John and Jude, have been published in the same way
through Woide's means.6
Of the Pauline Epistles there were some fragments in the possession
of Card. Borgia, which were collated by Münter; and three of them,
from the two Epistles to Timothy, he published in full, in order to give
those acquainted with this language an opportunity to judge respecting
the character of this version.7
1 John Andreas Cramer's "Beyträge zur Beförderung theologischer und an-
derer wichtigen Kenntnisse." III. Th. 1779.
2 Egyptiorum codd. reliquiæ Venetiis in bibliotheca Naniana asservatæ. Fasc.
I. Bononiæ. 1785.
3 M. Friedr. Munter Comment. de indole vers. N. T. Sahidicæ Hafniæ 1789.
•
•
4 Fragmentum Evangelii S. Johannis Græco-Copto-Thebaicum sæculi IV. Ad-
ditamentum ex vetustissimis membranis lectionum evangelicarum
. ex
ex Ve-
literno Museo Borgiano . . . opera et studio F. Augustini Antonii Georgii ere-
mitæ Augustiniani. Romæ apud. Ant. Fulgonium. 1789. 4to.
•
5 J. D. Michaelis Oriental, exeget. Bibliothek III. Th. p. 199–208.
6 Idem. X. Th. 1776. p. 198-214.
7 M. Friedr. Münter Comm. de indole vers. N. T. Sahid-accedunt fragmenta
Epist. Pauli ad Timotheum. § 16. n. 65. seq.
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
239
About the same time, Adler transcribed some passages of Matthew
and Luke out of the increasing treasures of the Cardinal, and subse-
quently communicated them to Woide, who continued to collect frag-
ments with laudable assiduity. The latter gathered single chapters of
the Gospels and Epistles, and even smaller quotations, from church MSS.,
and procured further fragments from Upper Egypt,' and with the aid of
what had already been published through the press, gradually succeed-
ed in compiling a Sahidic New Testament, which has indeed many
chasms, but is of great consequence in criticism and philology. Woide
died without having completed his undertaking, but it was ably finished
by Henry Ford, who corrected some mistakes of Woide's, and pnblished
the whole in a splendid form with several additions, as an appendix to
Codex Alexandrinus.2
Unfortunately neither of the two English scholars had access to the
Borgian collection, which contained many additional fragments of the
Gospels and Pauline Epistles; among others the Epistles to the Philip-
pians entire, excepting a few verses, and some chapters of the Apo-
calypse. Zoega has given a valuable catalogue of the passages suppli-
ed by these fragments, which must be sought in the Museum at Vel-
letri by some future editor of the Sahidic New Testament.3 Had he,
instead, incorporated these supplements into his excellent work on the
Borgiano-Egyptian MSS., we should have possessed what must now be
sought anew. In place of this he contented himself with presenting but
.three fragments, Ephes. 5: 21-23. Rev. 19: 7-18. Rev. 20: 7-21: 3.*
§ 95.
Its text closely resembles that of the Hesychian MSS. It is not, how-
ever a revised text, but that of the zoin Exdonis, which is indeed very
similar to the Hesychian, having proceeded from it. But in general it
has no precise character, frequently agreeing with the Cambridge MS.
Din peculiar readings, and frequently likewise containing peculiar varia-
tions of its own of considerable importance.
•
We will extract some readings, at present found only in D. In Luke
8: 41, the Sahidic version omits the words, vnnoys xai; Luke 8: 42, it
reads αποθνήσκουσα, instead of the clause καὶ αὕτη απέθνησκεν; Luke
8: 43, οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς θεραπευθῆναι is thus given, ἣν οὐδὲ εἰς
ἴσχυεν θεραπεῦσαι· 9: 10, for εἰς τόπον ἔρεμον πόλ καλ. Βηθσ.
it reads εἰς κώμην λεγομένην Βηθσαϊδά· 9:37, ἐν τῇ ἐξῆς ἡμέρᾳδια
τῆς ἡμέρας 13: 25, καὶ κρούειν τὴν θύραν, it omits τὴν θύραν, and in
13: 27, the words πόθεν ἐστέ· 22: 24, αὐτῶν δοκεῖ εἶναι ἂν εἴη· 32:
26, νεώτερος μικρότερος· 23: 14, εὗρον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ αἴτιον
—εὗρον αἴτιον; John 6: 23, the words ευχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου
are excluded ; 6: 25, ὧδε γέγονας-ὧδε ἐλήλυθας· 7: 10, ως is wanting
before ἐν κρυπτῷ· 7. 23, ἐμοὶ χολᾶτεπῶς ἐμοὶ χολᾶτε· 7: 52, καὶ
1 Woidii De vers. bibliorum Egypt. dissert. c. 2. De vers. N. T. Sahid.
기
​2 Appendix ad editionem N. T. e cod. MS. Alexandrino a C. G. Woide des-
cripti, in qua continentur fragm. N. T.-dialecti superioris Ægypti etc. Oxon e
Typograph. Clarendon. 1799. fol.
3 Zoega, Cat. Codd. Copt. MSS. Musei Borgian. p. 103-106.
4 Zoega, loc. cit. p. 218-20.
T
240
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
ως
ἴδε ὅτι καὶ ἴδε τὰς γραφάς, ὅτι· 10: 2, ποιμήν ἐστι-αὐτὸς ἐστιν ὁ
ποιμήν: 10: 12, αρπάζει αὐτὰ καὶ ἁρπάζει και· 11: 33, ενεβριμή
σατο τῷ πνεύματι, καὶ ἐτάραξεν ἑαυτὸν—ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι, ὡς
ἐμβριμώμενος· 11: 39, ἡ ἀδελφὴ-Μάρθα ἡ ἀδελφή 12: 29, βρον
τὴν γεγονέναιότι βροντὴ γέγονεν· 12: 30, ἡ φωνὴ γέγονεν ή φωνή
ἦλθεν· 13: 36, ὑπάγω ἐγώ· 17:5, πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, παρά
σοί παρὰ σοὶ πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι τὸν κόσμον· 18: 1, χειμάρρου, τοῦ
Κεδροῦ · 20: 22, ἐνεφύσησε αὐτοῖς καί .
ω
C
We will give a few examples of such readings as are peculiar to it
alone. John 6: 33, ὁ γὰρ ἄρτος οὗτος υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστί· 6: 39, ἵνα
οὓς δέδωκέ μοι, μὴ ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ ἀναστήσω αὐτοὺς· 7: 11,
ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ναῷ, καὶ ἔλεγον· 7: 26, οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ ἀρχι
ερεῖς, ὅτι· 10: 7, εἰμὶ ὁ ποιμὴν τῶν προβάτων· 10:31, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι,
ἵνα ἐκβολῶσιν αὐτόν· 10: 33, οὐ λιθάζομέν σε, ἀλλ' ὅτι βλασφημεῖς
14: 22, Ιούδας ο Κανανίτης, κύριε, τί γέγονεν, ὅτι ἡμῖν μέλλεις ἐμ-
φανίζειν σεαυτὸν, καὶ οὐχὶ μέλλεις ἐμφανίζειν σεαυτὸν τῷ κόσμῳ κ. τ. λ.
The extracts from the Huntington MS. of the Sahidic Acts of the
Apostles, which Woide has presented, all tend to show that there is a
remarkable similarity between the text of Codex D and that of the Sa-
hidic version. From the specimens which he has given it is indeed ve-
ry great.
There is no Greek MS. now extant which exhibits the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις
of the text of the Catholic Epistles. Their appearance in this version,
it is true, resembles very much that of the MSS. of the Hesychian edi- .
tion; they are not, however, perfectly like them, but exhibit variations
which confirm what we have before said concerning the text which is the
basis of this version. We will cite some examples which will convince
us of the unregulated condition of the text. 1 Epistle of John 1: 2,
καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν, ἑωράκαμεν αὐτὴν ὁ ἑωράκαμεν κ. τ. λ. 2. 17,
ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ὡς αὐτὸς μένει εἰς
αἰῶνα. Thus Cyprian also read the passage : Qui autem fecerit vol-
untatem Dei, manet in æternum, quomodo Deus manet in æternum.”
(Tract. II. De Hab. virg. and De lapsis. Serm. 5tus.) In 1 John 3:
10, this version reads instead of πᾶς ὃ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην, as like-
wise Origen (Comment. in Joh. T. IV. Opp. p. 323,) and Tertullian
(De pudicit. C. 19) : πᾶς ὁ μὴ ὢν δίκαιος . . . . 1 John 4: 2, γινώσ
κεται τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης. 3d Epistle of
John 3, μαρτυρούντων περὶ σοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, and verse 10, καὶ μὴ ἀρ-
κούμ. ἐπὶ τούτ. οὐδὲ ἐπιδέχεται ὑμᾶς, οὐδὲ ἐπιδέχεται ἀδελφοὺς.
C
66
It is nearly so with Paul's Epistles. They ordinarily adhere to the
MSS. ABC, or to ABCDEFG ; sometimes also to DEFG, or some of
these MSS., when they stand alone, unsupported by the rest. The last
case occurs, e. g. in 1 Cor. 2: 4, πειθοῖς σοφίας ; 3: 13, αποκαλυφθής
σεται DE ; 10: 27, where after απίστων, the MSS. DEFG subjoin εἰς
δεῖπνον ; 12: 10, where the version reads διάκρισις, like G.; 14: 14,
ἐὰν προσεύχομαι FG; Galat. 4: 21, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀναγινώσκετε ; 28,
ὑμεῖς—τέκνα ἐστέ DFG; 6: 2, αναπληρώσετε G ; Col. 2: 8, ἐκ τοῦ
στόματος ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκπορευέσθω G; 3: 13, οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε
DEFG ; 2d Thess. 1: 12, it omits the word Χριστοῦ after τοῦ κυρίου
ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, like DE ; 2: 2, it has ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν, like DE ; 1 Tim.
2: 1, παρακαλεῖ οὖν πρώτον, like DE; 2: 5, διαλογισμοῦ, like FG;
,
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
241
6: 17, τοῖς πλουσίοις τοῦ νῦν αἰῶνος, DE; and πάντα πλουσίως εἰς
anólavov, likewise like DE.
It contains, however, variations not found in any other MSS.; as, 1 Tim.
2: 7, αλήθ. λέγ. οὐ ψεύδομαι, ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ ; 3:
2, ἄνδρα νηφάλιον ἐν σωφροσύνῃ, κόσμιον ; 3: 15, πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ
ζωντος αναστρέφεσθαι, ἥτις ἐστὶ στῦλος; 6: 10, φιλαργυρία, ἡ τινὰς
ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπεπλάνησεν; 6: 20, τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον, ἣν παρέ
θηκά σοι, ἐκτρεπ. .
Considering the city through which the Greek language was in-
troduced into Egypt, and its situation in respect to different parts of the
country, and estimating accordingly the progress of Hellenism by a
gradual communication to remote districts, it cannot be denied that the
Greek must have reached the Thebaid late, gained a comparatively
feeble footing, and there first fell into decay and disuse at the extinction
of the power of the Ptolemies. Alexandria, situated on the borders of
the country, or rather itself the entrance to Egypt from the sea, was the
place whence Hellenism diffused itself first in the vicinity, then gradu-
ally, step by step, into the remotest districts. In the vicinity of Alex-
andria, Hellenism constantly received fresh sustenance, while the parts
of the country more remote from court, the special rendezvous of the
Greeks, were less subject to the intrusions of them and their language.
Hence, when the ancient language again reared its head, after the ex-
tinction of the Greek supremacy, it first asserted its prerogative where
its strength was greatest, viz. in Upper Egypt. Consequently, it was in
this part of the country that a version of the Bible in the national lan-
guage was first needed and desired.
I derive a further argument for the very high antiquity of the Theba-
ic version from the character of its language. It is surprising to find
in the language of the Upper Egyptian version a much greater
number of Greek words, than are contained in the language of the
Memphitic or Lower Egyptian version; as exactly the reverse would
be expected, viz. that the latter should be most disfigured and corrupted
by the Greek. The solution of this thing lies in the difference between
the versions in point of antiquity. When the Memphitic version was
composed, the Egyptian was already to a considerable degree purified
from foreign innovations; while, on the contrary, when the Sahidic ver-
sion was executed, the language still contained the old foreign materials
which had been forced into it by the supremacy of the Greeks.
§ 96.
In the Borgian Museum there were found small fragments of a third
Egyptian version, the language of which differs from both of those
which we have just been considering. These contained the passages
1 Cor. 7: 36–9: 16, and 14: 33–15: 35, which were published by
two scholars nearly at the same time, although, to say the least, inde-
pendently of each other; viz. by Georgi at Rome, and by Münter at
Copenhagen. The Cardinal subsequently obtained further fragments
of this version, viz. two passages of Isaiah, and the following of the New
P. LV.
1
1 Georgi in Præf. ad Fragm. Joann. Græco-Copto-Thebaicum, §. 12.
Münter in Commentat. de vers. N. T. Sahid. §. 12. 13. p. 75. seq.
seq.
31
242
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
Testament: John 4: 28-34. 4: 36-40. 4: 43–47. 4: 48–53. 1 Cor.
6: 9—9: 16. 14: 3-15: 35. Ephes. 6: 18 to the end. Philipp. 1: 1
-2: 2. 1 Thess. 1: 1-3: 5. Heb. 5: 10-10: 22. These, like the
former, were published by two competitors, equally independent of
each other, in the same cities, Rome and Copenhagen. Zoega adorned
his catalogue of the Borgiano-Coptic MSS. with them,¹ and Engelbreth
published them separately. The former gave only the bare text, with-
out any addition, and even without any division of the words. Engel-
breth bestowed more pains upon it, accompanied it with a version,
with an introduction and critical notes at the end, and gained himself
the credit of accomplishing with industry and ability what must at
any rate have been done. On the other hand, there are some discrep-
ancies between them in regard to the text, the true reading of which
frequently appears to be on the side of Zoega, by whom the original
could be consulted repeatedly and at pleasure, and accurately inves-
tigated.3
These fragments, the language of which is neither Thebaic nor Mem-
phitic, led father Georgi to the opinion that a third dialect was now
discovered, viz. the Bashmuric. In looking around for the district in
which this dialect was prevalent, several reasons led him to fix upon the
Oases, and particularly the Ammonian Oasis; and he even termed it
the Ammonian dialect.4
His mistake as to Bashmur, or the country of the Bashmurites, was cor-
rected by Zoega, who proved that Bashmur was a country to the eastward
of the Delta, which was consequently the seat of the Bashmurian dialect
and version.5 A French scholar has shown more at length and from a
citation of numerous passages, that Bashmur was situated in the Delta to
the East, between the Damietta and Ashmunerroman arms of the Nile.
Yet, from the striking analogy of these fragments with the dialect of
Upper Egypt, he was induced to transfer the seat of the dialect which they
present towards Upper Egypt; and in order to avoid the force of the
passage in Athanasius of Kus, who enumerates but three dialects in
Egypt, he makes the two Upper Oases, the smaller and greater, to be
situated not in Egypt, but by its side, without it.6
The Danish scholar, who investigated and published the first frag-
ments nearly at the same time with Georgi, came to a different conclu-
sion from this. He flatly denied that their peculiarity of language was
sufficient to require the admission of a separate dialect, and maintained
that it was only a variety of the Upper Egyptian. Engelbreth, on the
other hand, endeavored to sustain the title of this version to be considered
1 Zoega, Catal. p. 145-169.
7
2 W. F. Engelbreth Fragm. Basmurico-Copt. Vet. et Nov. Test. quæ in Mu-
seo Borgiano Velitris adservantur, etc. Hauniæ, 1811. 4to.
3 Observat. sur les fragm. Coptes-Bashmouriques publiés par M. Engelbreth.
Article de M. Champollion le jeune. p. 350-361, dans les Annales Encyclopé-
diques. Fevrier, 1818.
4 Georgi lib. cit. Præf. § 14-17.
5 Zoega Cat. p. 140-144. Quatremére, Recherches sur la langue et la littera-
ture de l'Egypte. Sect. V. p. 147. seq.
6 Quatremére, Recherches. p. 216, 217.
7 Münter Comment. de vers. N. T. Sahid. § 12. p. 77.
EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.
243
as a distinct dialect, which he asserts to be the Bashmuric, the seat of
which was in the Delta.¹ Champollion the younger, however, who re-
views his position, perceives no necessity of supposing it a peculiar dia-
lect. The language of the third version, he thinks, was intermediate
between the Upper and Lower Egyptian, the seat of which was probably
Faiom.2
It would seem that in the investigation of this question, which we
cannot here discuss, sufficient distinction has not been made between
dialect and idiom. The softness of pronunciation which is one peculi-
arity of this version, (inasmuch as it almost always avoided the aspirates,
O, P, X, as also Phei and Chei, and instead of P, the enunciation of
which seems to have been impossible, uses, like Alcibiades, the letter
A,) as likewise the permutation of A for O, and E for A, are perfect-
ly within the limits of an idiom. The case is the same in respect to par-
ticular words which are current only.in certain districts.3 If there be no
peculiar form added in the variation of verbs and nouns, so that a
difference is not only manifest in the pronunciation or in particular
expressions, but is inherent in the structure of the language, it cannot
be regarded as a dialect.
But this is not the case with the (so called) Bashmuric fragments. In
the forms which they exhibit they adhere to the Thebaic dialect, yet
not so exclusively as not to adopt some from the Memphitic; being a
kind of combination of the two. On this account, I have long indulged
the conjecture that they represented the idiom of Middle Egypt. If
Champollion restricts this supposition to the province of Faiom, I can-
not see what absolute objection there can be against him, but I am de-
sirous of seeing the promised arguments in favor of that district.
This is not, however, the only Egyptian idiom of which remains are
extant. Zoega tells us of a monastic legend which vibrates between
the Thebaic, Memphitic, and Bashmuric dialects, and of which he is
inclined to make a fourth.4
A more important question to us is, what text the third version fol-
lows? Engelbreth presents us with the collation of it, the result of
which is as follows. The fragment John 6: 28-53, usually adheres to
the MSS. BCL. The Pauline Epistles follow the MSS. ABC; but
they are not confined to this regulated text, and frequently make a di-
gression to DEFG, or some one of these MSS. Hence they exhibit
the ancient text of the unrevised or common edition. This state of the
text terminated in the last half of the 3d century in Egypt and Asia;
so that we see the antiquity to which this version lays claim. The char-
1 Engelbreth Fragmenta Basmur. Copt. § 2. p. VII. seq.
2 Observations dans les Annales Encyclopédiques. Fevrier, 1818.
3 Among the words enumerated as peculiar to the Bashmuric dialect, (Engel-
breth Fragm. Basmur. Copt. p. IX.) are, in Isai. V. 20. KEMETC, and in Isai.
V. 25, XNET; yet both occur in the Memphitic version under the forms
XEMC and ΣΩΝΤ. The word ουατα is the same as oυοτ; and τοπ is used in
the Thebaic dialect for ovvrdea. (Mùnter, Commentatio de indole version. N. T.
Sahidicæ, p. 81.) For díţa, i. e. åvρшñшv, in Isai. V. 24, the expression OEMIO,
in the Memphitic AMIO, is used, meaning hάoμa; i. e. simply the literal
term instead of one highly figurative which cannot be made use of with propri-
ty in every language.
4 Zoega, Catalog. Codd. Sahid. n. CLXXII.
244
ETHIOPIC VERSIONS.
acter of the language supports this claim. It is as corrupt and as much
mixed with Greek words, as we have seen the Thebaic version to be;
and in the case of the latter we regarded this characteristic as evidence
of its antiquity.
But here I cannot help doubting whether the third be really a dis-
tinct version made from the original text. It follows the Thebaic ver-
sion step by step and word for word, in such a manner that it would
seem as if the latter was thankfully adopted as it was, and only tran-
scribed into the third idiom. Whenever the Thebaic retains the Greek
expression, this does so too; where the Thebaic adopts a peculiar phra
seology, so does this: e.g. 1 Cor. 9: 15, xevoon, & r р E ay an
EчCOYEIT, Phil. 1: 10, аnçóó×олoι, ElEN NOBI açı
ESON EрATEN. Where it deviates for a moment from the
Thebaic reading, it is either from an error of the copyist (e. g. 1 Cor.
9: 14,) or a gloss. (Heb. 7: 20. NWA ENES.)
It would be almost wholly impracticable to compare these fragments
with the Thebaic text, were it not for the facilities for the purpose fur-
nished us by Engelbreth. He collected as many of the corresponding
Thebaic passages as he could find in the Borgian Museum, and placed
the third version by their side. We thus obtain the following passages,
which are wanting in Woide: 1 Cor. 15: 5-53. Philipp. 1: 7–23.
1 Thessal. 1: 4-3: 6. Heb. 9: 2-11. 9: 24-30, 10; 5—10.
ETHIOPIC VERSION.
$ 97.
In the time of Constantine the Great, a merchant, or some inquisitive
person belonging to Tyre, made a voyage to Ethiopia through the Red
Sea. He and the whole ship's company were murdered by the negroes,
with the exception of two youths, Frumentius and Ædesius, who were
carried to the king as slaves, and on account of their talents met with
an agreeable lot at court. After the king's death, during the minority
of his son and the regency of his mother, Frumentius endeavored to es-
tablish in these regions the Christian religion, to which he adhered; and
when sure of success, took a journey to Alexandria to Athanasius, by
whom he was consecrated bishop, invested with plenary authority and
provided with assistants."
This Frumentius is mentioned by Athanasius in his apology to the
Emperor Constantius in which he complains that he had been persecu-
ted even by letters to the government of Ethiopia, and that Frumentius,
bishop of Axum, had been summoned to be indoctrinated in Arianism.2
1 Ruffinus in the first book of his continuation of Eusebius' Church history
(which is called in some editions Eusebius' 10th book,) 9th chap. Socrat. Hist.
Eccl. L. I. c. 19. Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. L. I. c. 23. Sozomen. L. II. c. 24. Abul-
pharag. Hist. Dyn. p. 135. text. Arab.
2 Athanas. Apol. ad Constant. c. 29.
ETHIOPIC VERSION.
245
}
He quotes a summons of this kind, in which Frumentius is suspect-
ed of being an adherent to Athanasius, and is called upon to appear
before George, patriarch of Egypt, and have his creed examined.¹
Cedrenus and Nicephorus Callistus, therefore, clearly erred in as-
signing the foundation of Christianity in Ethiopia to the times of Jus-
tinian,2 and appear to have taken the mission of Nonnosus to Axum,
which occurred under this emperor, for an attempt at conversion, although
nothing is said of religious objects.3
Now while Frumentius was prosecuting with so much vigor his pro-
ject of converting the Abyssinians, he must have conceived the idea of
a version of the sacred books in the language of the country, if not for
the benefit of the people, at least for the use of those who were prepar-
ing for the ministry. One alone could not have seemed sufficient for
such an extensive territory, in which there was so great a variety of dia-
lects. An Arabic writer, who saw a part of Abyssinia, reckons more
than fifty varieties of language in the district of Zaila alone.4
Yet
The Abyssinians mention with especial honor among their first
preachers of Christianity, one Aba Salama ;5 and it is to him that a na-
tive poet and an Ethiopic martyrology ascribe the translation of the books
of the Law and Gospel from the Arabic into the native language.6
we must have great doubts as to the character of the original Arabic
text, from which this version was made; or else the version we have
cannot have been the work of a man so highly venerated among his
countrymen.
It is composed in the ancient dialect of Axum, which, when another
dynasty from Sewa mounted the throne, was compelled to yield the
palm to the Amharic dialect, the latter becoming the court language.7
It was first published through the press at Rome, and afterwards reprint-
ed in the English Polyglot.8
1 Ibid. c. 31.
2 Cedren. Annal. L. XVII. c. 32. Niceph. Hist. Eccles. L. VIII. c. 35.
3 Photii Biblioth. Cod. 3.
4 Macrizi Hist. regum Islamit. in Abyssinia, edit. Theodor. Rinck. Lugdun.
Bat. p. 14. text. Arab.
5 Jobi Ludolphi Hist. Æthiop. L. III. c. 2. edit. Orig.
6 Idem. Comment. in Hist. Æth. L. III. c. 4. p.295.
7 Idem. Hist. Æthiop. L. I. c. 15.
8 In the year 1584 the first vol. appeared at Rome in 4to. containing the four
Gospels, the Apocalypse, the Catholic Epistles, the Epistle of Paul to the He-
brews, and lastly the Acts. In the following year, the remaining thirteen Pau-
line Epistles appeared in a second volume. It is objected to this edition that it
is anything but correct. Afterwards appeared separately: "S. Johannis Apos-
toli et Evangelista Epistolæ Catholicæ tres, Arabice et Ethiopice, curâ ac industria
Jo. Georg. Nisselii et Theodori Petræi. Lugd. Bat. 1654" 4to. and "S. Judæ
Apostoli Epistola Cathol. versio Arab. et Ethiop. a Jo. Georg. Nisselio et Theod.
Petræo. Lugd. Bat. 1654." 4to., in which there is said to be some amendment of
the Ethiopic text. The whole N. T. appeared in 1657 in the London Polyglot,
(for which a faulty and frequently illegible MS. was used,) on the whole no bet-
ter than before, or, as Ludolf says: "retentis mendis veteribus et novis super-
additis." The fidelity of the subjoined Latin version, likewise, is not much
commended.
246
ETHIOPIC VERSION.
$ 98.
The text of the four Gospels does not adhere constantly to any class
of MSS. Sometimes it appears to agree with the Egyptian emendation ;
then again with the Constantinopolitan; frequently likewise with the
third, which we have termed Origen's edition. We find in it, how-
ever, readings of ancient date, which occur in Codex D, on the margin
of the Philoxenian version, or in the Latin versions antecedent to Jerome.
It would seem, therefore, either that several versions are combined in
this one copy (which is very possible, as the Abyssinian with whom Job
Ludolf was acquainted remarked a great difference between our print-
ed copies and the MS. ones of his own country); or else several MSS.
of different Recensions were used in the composition of this version.
,
It cannot be denied that two readings have frequently been united in-
to one; as in Luke 6: 48, where some MSS. after calεvoαι avτýv read
διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσθαι αὐτήν, instead of τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ
πέτραν, and others τεθεμελίωτο γαρ καλώς, and this version unites the
two thus, τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ καλῶς, διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομεῖσθαι αὐτήν.
In Luke 9: 4, some MSS. read instead of xai neîdev ¿§éoxeode the
opposite καὶ εκεῖθεν μὴ ἐξέρχεσθε, others ἕως ἐξέρχεσθε; and the
Ethiopic, καὶ ἐκεῖθεν μὴ ἐξέρχεσθε, ἕως ἐξέρχεσθε. In Luke 9: 35,
the Constantinopolitan MSS. have o viós μov o άɣannτоs and the Egyp-
τός
tian o viós pov o éxλeleyuévos; the version has both. In Luke 11: 13,
some MSS. have the reading ἀγαθὸν δόμα for πνεῦμα ἅγιον, and the
Ethiopic version has ἀγαθὸν δόμα πνεύματος αγίου. In John 6: 69,
the Egyptian Recension has σὺ εἶ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ; the Constantino-
politan, σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ζῶντος; the Ethiopic,σὺ εἶ ὁ
Χριστὸς, ὁ ἅγιος υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ζῶντος. In John 12: 28, δόξασόν σου
τὸ ὄνομα, some MSS. read δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱὸν ; this version, δόξα-
σόν σου τὸ ὄνομα καὶ τὸν υἱόν, etc. I trust there is no need of ac-
cumulating further proofs, to convince us that the text of the Gospels is
derived from various constituent sources.
0
The editors were least successful in respect to the book of Acts.
They possessed only a very imperfect copy of it, and were frequently
obliged to translate into Ethiopic themselves in order to supply deficien-
cies. This they generally did from the Vulgate; and of this fact they
make no secret. In the preface to the Acts they say: "Ista acta aposto-
lorum maximam partem Romæ translata sunt e linguâ Latina et Græcâ
in Ethiopicam propter defectum protographi."
"1
That the translator of the Gospels had a Greek MS. before him is
clear from the mistakes and misapprehensions which we find. In Matt.
4: 13, he took ἐν ὁρίοις for ὄρεσι or ἐν ὄρει, on mount Zebulon ; in Mark
2: 23, he interprets the phrase odov Točív, to ride, instead of to go on
foot; άлоdоxiμdsetv, in Mark 8: 31, he regards as synonymous with
δοκιμάζειν; the word εφημερία he could not comprehend, but trans-
lates ἐξ ἐφημερίας Αβιά, in Mark 1: 5, as though it meant ἐν ἡμέραις
'Aßiά, and in the 8th verse has entirely omitted it.
น
The Epistles of Paul were translated from a Greek original, as I in-
1 Walton, Proleg. XV. Ludolph. Comm. in Hist. Eth. L. III. c. 4. p. 297.
ARABIC VERSIONS.
247
fer from a very ludicrous mistake in the version. In 1 Cor. 12: 28, the
words nai ous μiv dero are rendered thus: "God set an ear in the
μὲν ἔθετο
church etc., which rendering originated in a misconception of the little
word οὕς.
The text of these, however, as well as of the Catholic Epistles, ad-
heres with tolerable exactness to the Egyptian Recension, as might be
expected from the situation of the country and its ecclesiastical rela-
tions.
This ver-
The Apocalypse, likewise, adheres to the same Recension.
sion, venerable for its antiquity, and valuable on account of the text
which it follows, certainly merits greater attention than has been devo-
ted to it, and ought to be published anew in an edition founded on good
MSS. Such a work might with peculiar propriety occupy the attention
of the British Bible Society.
ARABIC
VERSIONS.
$ 99.
In the 96th year of the Hegira, the 718th of the Christian era, at the
death of Alwalid the son of Abdolmelek, the Arabs had already con-
quered the East, subjected Egypt and the whole northern coast of Afri-
ca to their sway, and founded a kingdom in Spain. Their language
extended itself with their victories into all the three quarters of the
globe.
'The Christians in Asia and Africa who held the creed of the Nestori-
ans and Monophysites, were treated under the dominion of the Caliphs
with less severity than their brethren. Both these sects retained their
patriarchs, one of whom had his seat at Antioch, and the other, as head
of the churches of Egypt and Africa, at Alexandria. In Spain the
Arabic supremacy did indeed cause some changes, but without on the
whole doing much injury to Christianity.
In proportion as the language of the conquerors gained universal cur-
rency, the necessity among Christians of Arabic versions of the Sacred
Scriptures became more urgent. In particular Alwalid Ben Abdol-
melek added to this necessity, by prohibiting Christians from using any
other tongue but the Arabic in all public transactions of business.I
Latino-Arabic Version.
$ 100.
Alwalid had not been long
The natural consequence was soon seen.
dead, when, about the middle of the 8th century, in Spain, the sacred
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were translated into Arabic.
Of this version only, among all the Arabic versions, do we know the
1 Gregor. Abulpharag. Hist. Dynast. Dyn. VII. p. 201. Arabic text.
248
ARABIC VERSIONS.
age and the author. It was John, Bishop of Seville, who, when the
Latin language was constantly falling more and more into disuse, exe-
cuted this version for the benefit of Christians, and also, as he trusted,
of the Moors. It was made, as we should expect, from the Latin, and
from the text of Jerome, which, in the 7th century, had become gener-
ally current in Spain. The use, therefore, which could have been made
of it in criticism, must have consisted chiefly in consulting it for the
purpose of restoring the text of Jerome's edition. The Jesuit Mariana
saw many MS. copies of it in his time.
Arabic Version from the Syriac.
§ 101.
The Syrians under the patriarchate of Antioch felt equal need of
an Arabic version. One was executed from the Peschito. Thomas
Von Erpe has published the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and Cath-
olic Epistles, according to this version, in his Arabic edition of the New
Testament.2 His MS. contained a different text of the Gospels.
The text of the Acts bears the most manifest marks of its origin. In
Acts 1: 1, τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιήσαμεν is translated by the Pes-
chito, and by Arab. Erp.
7
ïS Aï
قد
Li;καὶ νεφέλη ὑπέλαβεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐ
入
​τω
Tov, (Acts 1:9,) solo ao fuso, —
So das
اولا
2000 rai ; وقبلته سحابة ثم تواري عن عيونهم
ἄνδρες
-zai idov
ävdoes dúo, (Acts 1: 10,)BA); — dag
1 Mariana de Reb. Hispan. L. VII. c. 3. "Joannes Hispalensis præsul di-
vinos libros linguâ Arabicâ donabat utriusque nationis saluti consulens: quoni-
am Arabicæ linguæ multus usus erat Christianis æque atque Mauris ; Latina
passim ignorabatur. Ejus interpretationis exempla ad nostram ætatem conservata
sunt; extantque non uno in loco in Hispanis."
•
•
2 He published it from a MS. in the Library at Leyden, "ex elegantissimo bib-
liothecæ nostræ codice, manu exarato in monasterio S. Joannis, in Thebaidos de-
serto, anno æræ Diocletiani
1059 id est Christi 1342." He obtained,
moreover, from Francis Raphelung a collation of the Acts and Epistles in anoth-
er MS. The following work first appeared as a kind of experiment: "Pauli
Apostoli ad Romanos Epistola Arabice. Ex Bibliotheca Leidensi. Leidæ in
Typographiâ Erpenianâ ling. Orient. 1615.” 4to. Though not mentioned on the
title-page, the Epistle to the Galatians was published with it. In the following
year the whole New Testament appeared: "Novum D. N. J. Christi Testam.
Arabice ex bibliothecâ Leidensi, edente Thoma Erpenio. Leidæ in Typogr. ling.
Orient." A. 1616. 4to. The MS. of which Raphelung communicated a collation
was probably the same as that from which the Epistle to Titus was printed at
the Raphelengian press. "D. Pauli Apost. Epist. ad Titum Arabice: cum Joann.
Antonidæ Alcmariani interlineari versione Lat. ad verbum ex officinâ Plantini-
ana Raphelengii. 1612." 4. This text is, like the Erpenian, from the Syriac.
The editor derived it from a transcript of an Oxford Codex, made, as he states
in the preface, by Joseph Abudacni.
ARABIC VERSIONS.
249
عدد
رجلان
Jap; —ő torv ¿yyús, (1:12,) US GOA1-
L
wila all goog; —öxios óvoμázwv, (1: 15,) fail: lang-
gDg;—öxios
culst jizzo;-xaì nonvǹs revóμevos, (1: 18,)
معلا أفق
الي جانب
محفل
اداس
r die وسقط على وجهه علي الارض لا أندا -
بلغة أهل.
. الذي ترجمته zor zor 2 Cool البلد في ou
diakéntą avräv, (1: 19,) 15-øl ä___
(
These examples taken from the first chapter will suffice; for it is not
necessary to read and collect with care passages thinly scattered about,
to prove how precisely every minute turn of expression in the Peschito
is rendered in the Arabic text.
The case is the same, too, with the Epistles of Paul.
We will quote
merely a few expressions from the commencement of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, in proof of this : zu enuatu as durdunews aro, (1: 3,)
Y
....avâ103—8—viölṣ—de åyyékwv, (2:2,) 151Ş
.di auroragap; بقوة كلمته
-xal nora nagoguols rai naganon gha على ايدي المليكة
مدل ببطحة فحص دكنه بدلا - Per Evdeuov ucosertodoolav
وكل من سمعها وتعداها عوقب فه خدا حدادها
Y
Juellṣ;— inkıxavrns dµekńoavres owrngias, (2: 3,) lan ↑
• Y
_natà tǹv avtov diknow, (2: 4,)0_Do_2]?
διεμαρτύρατό
أن تهاونا بالامور التي ذلا أنكما هو انه سمع
هي حياتنا
ابوديه
duaprio az d-- ; التي نالوها كشيته
كما شهد ادا أمر بهم دادا (26) ,now ris
.etc ; الكتاب
tis, 12
There are also, as we might expect, evidences that the translator
used Nestorian manuscripts."
The Epistle of James, the 1st of Peter and John, likewise conform
to the Peschito. But the text of the other Catholic Epistles in the Pe-
schito, the 2d of Peter, the 2d and 3d of John, and that of Jude, which
were derived from another source, bears little or no resemblance to the
Arabic of Erpenius. E. g., it is a peculiarity of the Syriac that in the
Epistle of Jude, v. 6, it renders de ouois didious by unknown chains; that
in v. 12, it reads doyiaus instead of aydnaus (APTIAIE-ATATIAIT),
and takes Enougw9evta to signify trees sprouting from the roots. Now
of these and other peculiarities there is no trace in the Arabic version.
* Adler, N. T. vers. Syriacæ, Simplex, etc. denuo examinatæ, L. I.
p. 36, 37.
32
250
ARABIC VERSIONS.
I find in this Epistle but one instance in which they agree in an un-
usual reading. Both change súdnoav (v. 11) into exavonoav.
I have also observed in these versions, throughout the 2d of Peter and
2d and 3d of John, a striking independence of each other, and but few
instances of resemblance; and these few may have arisen from a third
Syriac text with which both translators were acquainted, or from some
gloss, several having crept into the MS. of Erpenius,
Yet, in these portions of the New Testament, the Arabic text of Er-
penius departs so far from the strict sense of the Greek, that we must
admit that the translator saw the Greek dialect only through some
medium, and consequently has given its meaning with less force and
exactness. It is probable, therefore, that the Epistles in question were
translated into the Arabic from some Syriac version hitherto undis-
covered.1
The Apocalypse in the Erpenian edition is an essentially different
version from that in the Polyglot; yet such resemblances are sometimes
found between the two that we cannot but suppose one of the two trans-
lators to have been acquainted with the work of the other. The Syriac
Apocalypse, which is found at the end of the Peschito, was not the
source whence this Arabic version was derived. Thus much we read-
ily perceive from comparison; but it is not so easy to name the real
source.
$ 102.
We have hitherto avoided speaking of the four Gospels, not in order
to get rid of the subject entirely, but to devote attention to it in a more
convenient place. Erpenius, as we have said, had a peculiar text of
the Gospels in his MS., which was by no means derived from the old
Syriac version. They were translated, as the subscription at the end
of them testifies, from the Coptic; or rather they were amended by a
Copt, named Nesiulaman, the son of Azalkefat.
It may be regarded as accidental that the Gospels according to anoth-
er version were appended to this Syriaco-Arabic New Testament; but it
is worthy of remark that an Arabic MS. of the New Testament, Cod. Or.
n. 43 in the Royal Library at Vienna, the Epistles in which were, as
the fragments remaining evince, translated from the Peschito, contains
the Gospels, not according to the Syriac, but exactly like those which
Erpenius found in his Leyden Codex.
A Paris MS. exhibits to us the old Syriac text of the Gospels with an
Arabic version by its side. Here we might reasonably expect to find
an Arabic translation from the Peschito. The learned man who has
discussed and accurately described this document, did indeed, at first,
believe that he had discovered an Arabic version which was essentially
different from the preceding, but on closer examination abandoned this
2
1 This text of the Catholic Epistles was reprinted in "Johannis Epist. Cath-
olic., Arab. et Æthiop. Lugd. Bat. 1654. 4to. "Jacobi Epistola Arab. et Æthiop."
and "Judæ Ep. Arab. Æthiop." in the same year and at the same place. Comp.
Schnurrer, Biblioth. Arab. P. VI. p. 26.
3 Gottlob Christ. Storr, Observ. super N. T. versionibus Syriac. Stuttgart, 1772.
8vo. P. I. § 12. p. 21.
ARABIC VERSIONS.
251
position, and afterwards announced that these Gospels differed but
slightly and accidentally from the printed text.¹
These facts cannot at least be considered as presaging the supposed
existence of an Arabic version of the Gospels from the Syriac text; and
I do not believe that any such ever existed.2
I am confirmed in this, particularly, by the Carshuni New Testa-
ment. It is well known that the Syrians retained very long their na-
tional alphabet, or rather that they did not adopt the alterations which
its characters underwent in the hands of the Arabians. Though for a
long time they read the Bible in the Arabic version, they always wrote
it in Syriac letters, like their other church-documents, and many even
yet adhere to this custom. Such MSS. are called, howsoever the term
may have originated, Carshuni.
Now if the Syriac Church ever possessed an Arabic version of their
own of the Gospels, we should expect to find it in MSS. written in their
church-characters and appearing as church-documents. Whoever,
with this view, opens the Carshuni New Testament, which was printed
at the Propaganda-press in Rome for the use of the Maronites,3 must be
very much surprised to find in it the text of Erpenius; and yet it is
really so, as I have satisfied myself by a comparison of several chapters
of Mark.
The MS. which the editors followed was brought from the island
of Cyprus to Rome by Michael Metoscita. They had, as they say in
their preface, several MSS. at hand, but gave the preference to this on
account of its accuracy. It seems that nearly a hundred years before,
the excellent John Baptist Raimundi determined to publish a Carshuni
New Testament. He went so far as to write out a fair copy of it from
three MSS. which were in the college of the Maronites. These pre-
parations, together with the MSS. themselves which were the basis of
them, were undoubtedly in the possession of those to whom the Propa-
ganda entrusted the business.5
1 Id. Dissert. Inaug. Crit. de Evangeliis Arabicis. Tubinge. 1775. 4to. § 26.
p. 37.
2 Richard Simon (Hist. Crit. des versions du N. T. Chap. 18,) gives us an
account of a Syriac and Arabic MS. of the four Gospels, in the Library of the
King of France, marked 285. Cod. Syr. "But," says he, "the copyist transcri-
bed only a few chapters of the Arabic, in the beginning." The Syriac Gospels
with the number mentioned are yet in the Royal Library, and are marked ac-
cording to the new arrangement, Codd. Syr. n. 16. But there is no appearance
in the MS. of an Arabic version. There is, indeed, prefixed in the Arabic lan-
guage, an account of the revision of the MS. in 1671, by one Peter of Aleppo;
and Simon seems to have hastily taken this for the Arabic, "vis-à-vis des pre-
mières sections" of the Syriac text.
3 This book was described above among the editions of the Peschito (N. 15). I
first saw it in the Royal Library at Vienna, and afterwards procured it at Rome.
One column of each page contains the text of the Peschito; the other the
Carshuni. It is clear that it exhibits in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles,
the Arabic version made from the Syriac. Even in the 2d of Peter, 2d and 3d of
John, and the Epistle of Jude, the text agrees with the Erpenian, as also in the
Apocalypse, though here there are more frequent variations.
4 Præfat. ad N. T. Carsh. "Et hanc (versionem), quæ in præsenti Syriacis char-
acteribus in lucem prodit, Romam detulit ex Cypri insula Michael Metoscita,
quæ ceteris, quas præ manibus habuimus, correctior est, et emendatior."
5 Lami, De eruditione Apostolorum. P. II. Sect. III. § 1. p. 883—885.
252
ARABIC VERSIONS.
This induction, I conceive, is sufficient to justify me in positively de-
nying the existence of an Arabic version of the Gospels from the Pe-
schito. The very fact which will probably be objected against me, favors
my position. In the Library at Leyden is a Codex, containing the
commentaries of Abulpharagius Abdallaz-Ben-al-Thib on Matthew. The
text of Matthew, on which the commentary is composed, is certainly a
translation from the Syriac; and therefore here is an Arabic Gospel
according to the Peschito. True; but the learned man who, in par-
ticular, informs us of this fact, likewise informs us that this version, as
is evident from its character and from the commentary which accom-
panies it, was composed by the commentator himself, who lived in the
11th century. Till this period, then, there were no Arabic Gospels
from the Syriac in existence; for otherwise the commentator would not
have thought it necessary to compose a translation himself.¹
Arabic Version from the Coptic.
103.
The Christians under the patriarchate of Alexandria, like their breth-
ren in other countries, when they felt the want of an Arabic version of
the Bible, made one from their old church-version. In many libraries
are found Coptic MSS. with an Arabic version by their side.
I once had an opportunity of examining one of the finest of them cer-
tainly, containing the four Gospels. It has gone with other literary
treasures from Rome to Paris, where it now is. It was formerly Vati-
canus Codex Copt. Arab. No. 9, on cotton paper, in folio. The Coptic
text, properly speaking, occupies the page; the Arabic is only permitted
to occupy a small column at the side. The title-page is splendid, dec-
orated with gold letters and embellishments. The initial letters too,
throughout, are of gold, and ingeniously executed. A note subjoined
makes grateful mention of its owner, who presented it to the Vatican
Library: "Jo. Bapt. Raymundus Bibliothecæ Vaticanæ dono dedit ex
testamento A. 1614."
This Arabic version likewise of the Gospels is not essentially differ-
ent from the text of Erpenius. I have made a comparison as to a few
chapters in Luke, and perceive that all their variations from each other
are merely various readings of one and the same version.
But the Epistles of Paul are in a peculiar version, different from any
now known. I discovered this from the beautiful Coptico-Arabic MS. in
the French Library, No. 17, formerly Cod. 332. Epist. Paul. Copt.
Arab., on cotton paper in folio. For proof of this I will here present
the first eleven verses of the Epistle to Philemon; an acceptable pres-
ent, I trust, to the friends of biblical literature, which may convince
them of the truth of my assertion.
1 Gottl. Chr. Storr, Dissert. inaugural. crit. de Evang. Arab. § 34. p. 43, 44.
ARABIC VERSIONS.
253
من بولس أسير بيسوع المسيح وطموتاوس الاخ الي
فيلمون حبيبتها وشريكنا في العمل 2 وانهيا الأخت
وارخيغوس شريكنا في جندية وجماعة بيتهم 3
النعمة لكم والسلامة من الله ابينا ومن ربنا يسوع
المسيح 4. أنا أشكر اللهي في كل حين واذكرك
فى صلواتي .. أن أسمع من أجل محبتك واما تنك
هذه التي لك في يسوع المسيج وفي جميع الاطهار 6.
لكي تكون شركة أماتنك تعمل في معرفة كل خير
هذه الي فينا الي المسيخ 7. لاني فلت فرح عظيم
وعزاً محبتك لان تحنن الاطهار استراح من حبتك
ايها الاخ . من اجل هذا الي ادلال عظيم بالرب
... من أجل المحبة خاصة
ان أمرك بما يجب
اطلب الیک وانا واحد هكذا بولس الشيح وأسير
اليك
يسوع المسيح 10. الان اطلب اليك من اجل هذا
الذي والدته في اعنفاتي اناسيوس 11. هذا الذي
8.
9.
كان غير بافعالك زمانا والا هو بافعلي ولك .
This version, which, like the Syro-Arabic, was not made from the
Greek, can never be used in deciding as to readings of the latter; but,
as it is superfluous to remind the critic, it can only serve to aid a de-
cision in doubtful cases as to the readings of the Coptic text, in like
manner as the Syro-Arabic may in regard to readings of the Peschito.
To a person who should undertake a critical investigation and a new
edition of the Peschito, or of the Coptic versions, both of these Arabic
translations would be of great service.
. 2. Other MSS. &yanmar ; but ADEFG and Copt. adehp?.
v. 6. Other MSS. ¿v vµiv; but AC and Vat. 1210, v nuer. The word
'Inoovv is omitted, as in AC, and Copt.
v. 7. xapáv, AC and Copt. Other MSS. xáow.
254
ARABIC VERSIONS.
Further Investigation of the Gospels in particular.
$104.
That the Syrians had no other Arabic Gospels than those which Er-
penius has published, we have proved by many arguments. But these
same were current among the Copts, as we learn from the Vatican MS.
The very MS. followed by Erpenius had in reality been revised by a
Copt, as is shown by the subscription at the end of the Gospels which
runs thus: Absoluta est hujus libri descriptio die 16 mensis Bauna,
anni nongentesimi octogesimi octavi martyrum justorum. Descriptus
autem est codex ex emendatissimo exemplari, cujus descriptor ait, se id
descripsisse ex alio exemplari emendato, exarato manu Johannis Epis-
copi Cophtita; qui Johannes dicit, se suum descripsisse ex exemplari
emendatissimo, quod ediderat D. Nesiulaman F. Azelkefati."
And yet these Gospels were not translated either from the Coptic or
Syriac, but from the Greek. This can be seen in part from the order
of the words, which was retained like that of the Greek so far as pos-
sible, even in such constructions and transpositions of words as violate
the rules of Arabic syntax. It may be seen further from the etymolo-
gies which the author too anxiously strove to exhibit: e. g. in the word
τετράρχης, which has a peculiarly bad effect in Luke 3: 1; διχοτομή-
σει, Matt. 24: 51 ; ὑπερηφανία, Mark 7: 22; ευσχήμων, Mark 15: 43 ;
ovuqwvia, Luke 15: 25; пolins, Luke 15: 15; which the translator
derived from molus and rendered. It is further proved by the
erroneous divisions of words, mistaken separations of the clauses, and
changes of expressions: e. g. Matt. 22: 4, where the author read KAI
ΤΑΣΙΤΙΣΤΑ continuously thus: ΚΑΤΑΣΙΤΙΣΤΟΙ; Mark 4: 19,
where he separated ΕΙΣΠΟΡΕΥΟΜΕΝΟΙ into ΟΙΣ or ΔΙΣ
IIOPETOMENOI; Matt. 25; 21, where he made the construction to be
δοῦλε ἀγαθέ, καὶ πιστὸς ἐπὶ ὀλίγα ἦς, πιστὸν ἐπὶ πολλῶν σε κατασ
Tnow; and Matt. 23: 24, where he mistook AITAIZONTEΣ tov
κώνωπα for ΔΙΑΛΙΠΟΝΤΕΣ.
This version of the Gospels from the Greek was, as we have seen,
adopted by the Syrians as their church-version, and for this purpose al-
tered to such a degree of conformity with their ancient church-version,
the Peschito, that it might appear in MSS. by its side and be consider-
ed as a Syro-Arabic text.
It met with similar honour and similar fortune among the Copts. It
was modified according to their ancient church-version so as not to dif-
fer, at least strikingly, from the readings and peculiarities of the lat-
ter.
Who it was that regulated the Arabico-Coptic text we know not.
Perhaps it was Nesiulaman, the son of Azalkefat, whose merits in rela-
tion to the text in Egypt were better known formerly than now, when
we have only very indefinite information respecting him from the sub-
ARABIC VERSIONS.
255
scription to the Leyden Codex.. With respect to the Arabico-Syriac
Gospels, there is or was current among the Syrians an account, which at
any rate serves to show when the want of them was felt. John, patri-
arch of the Jacobites, is said to have been urged, about the year 640 of
our reckoning, even by an Arabian magistrate of the province, to trans-
late the four Gospels from the Syriac into Arabic.¹ Hence the altera-
tion of these Gospels according to the Peschito may have been made
under this patriarch.
Now, as neither church made a version of its own of the Gospels,
but merely altered and accommodated one already in existence made
from the Greek, so as to make it correspond with the Coptic and Syriac
versions and proper to be placed by their side, it is clear that these Ara-
bic Gospels must have been of more ancient origin, long previously held
in regard and esteem.
These ancient Gospels, which were executed from a Greek copy, were
(difficult as it is in the present state to determine definitely what Recen-
sion they follow) certainly not derived from a MS. of the Hesychian or
Egyptian text. So much can be asserted with safety from a general in-
vestigation of them. Yet Arabia proper, Djezirat al Arab, is said to
have received its MSS. together with Christianity from Egypt.
We are therefore led to seek for the origin of this version, or its pri-
meval seat, out of the Arabian peninsula ; viz. among those Arabs who
lived under petty princes in the south east and north east of Palestine.
These Saracens, as they are called by the Greek writers, were pre-
vailed upon by Greek negotiations, on occasion of a war under Valens
in the last half of the fourth century, to embrace Christianity. The
Christian teachers now certainly had need of Arabic Gospels, and they
were translated from Constantinopolitan or Palestinian MSS., which are
the basis of the text we are discussing.
2
Whether my hypotheses as to the time and place when and where
these Gospels originated be adopted or rejected, it must at any rate be
conceded that they were in existence when the Syrians and Copts be-
gan to feel the want of an Arabic version of the Bible. If I am asked
why these two churches did not proceed in the same way as to the oth-
er books of the New Testament, and accommodate an older Arabic
version of the Acts and Epistles, likewise, to the Peschito or the Coptic
text, of several replies I might make the shortest, viz. that only the Gos-
pels had been translated. I might reply too, that the two facts really ex-
ist together and are correct, whether all the questions which may be
raised respecting them can be answered or not.
1 Assemani Biblioth. Orient. Tom. III. P. II. p. 599.
2 Socrat. Hist. Eccl. IV. 36. Theodoret. H. Eccl. IV. 23. Sozomen. VI. 39.
256
VERSIONS.
ARABIC IC
History of the text of these Gospels.
$105.
In this way originated three different classes of MSS. of the Gospels
containing at bottom one and the same version. This circumstance was
detrimental to the text. The copyists, who were obliged in the Arabic
more than any other language to collate several copies, gradually con-
founded the three. They naturally did not scruple to amend one MS.
from another, or to transfer readings from one to another, as they per-
ceived in the main but a single version. Hence arose by degrees a mix-
ed text.
This happened especially in the book of Matthew; for in the begin-
ning of their work the ardor of the copyists was greatest. The MS. fol-
lowed by the Roman edition of 1591 deviated most from the Leyden
Codex and the others which Erpenius used in the first thirteen chapters
of Matthew, as he observes in the Preface to his New Testament. I
have in my own possession a very neat MS. of the Arabic Gospels in
16mo. which, even some chapters further onward in this Evangelist, con-
tinues to vary in a marked manner from the Erpenian text.
A MS. of the Gospels, marked No. XXVII in the Library of France,
in large octavo, deviates further from the Erpenian text in some chapters
of Matthew which I have compared than in Luke. It is, however, re-
markable in this respect, that it attests the procedure of the Arabic copy-
ists and the want of consideration with which they have confounded dif-
ferent texts. In a postscript at the end the copyist says, that he presents
a MS. amended and improved by a collation of the best Syriac,
Romaic, and Arabic copies. His words are:
النسخة محررة
علي عندة نسخ كريمة سريانية ورومية وقبطية
وعربية واعتمدت حقارتنا من النسح المذكورة علي
ما ثبت صحته وترك منها ما ثبت سقصة .He then etc
W
then-etc.
confirms his declaration by examples which it is not necessary to quote.
This procedure is clearly shown in a MS. in the Royal Library at
Vienna, Codd. Or. N. 43, which seems to have once comprised the
whole New Testament, of which, however, besides the Gospels, only a
few fragments of the two Epistles to the Corinthians remain. Lambec-
cius has criticised it in the first book of his commentary under the num-
ber 34; and from this Peter Kirsten compiled his "Notæ in Evangelium
Matthæi, Breslæ 1611."
The Gospels of this MS. are filled over the lines and in the margin
with numerous readings, the sources of which are usually pointed out
thus-such a MS.-or, in red ink, the Coptic, the Syriac, the Ro-
man.
It is uncertain whether Greek or Latin MSS. are meant by the
ARABIC VERSIONS.
257
last denomination. With these, there is almost always a diacritical
sign which refers these notes to the word or passage to which they relate.
But the value of this precious MS. does not consist merely in evincing
the endeavor of the copyist to draw together readings from various cop-
ies, and supply his less discreet brethren with extremely heterogeneous
materials, which they often afterwards smelted into one mass.
Its pe-
culiar value consists in the aid it will furnish any one who may
hereafter undertake to extricate the ancient Arabic Gospels from their
present involved condition, free them from every thing foreign, and re-
store them to their original state. In such an irksome task, this MS.
will serve to distinguish the foreign additions, to designate their origin,
and guide the procedure of the critic.
For this use, moreover, a MS. in the Library a la Minerva (N. IV.
191) at Rome would seem to be adapted; for its postscript boasts that
it was corrected from one of the purest and best copies, and begs and
beseeches the reader not to permit any change in the reading.¹
EDITIONS OF THE GOSPELS.
$ 106.
66
We have mentioned as yet no text of the Gospels but the Erpenian;
they were printed, however, still earlier at Rome, (in 1590,) we know
not from what MS., with the title: Evangelium sanctum Domini nos-
tri Jesu Christi conscriptum a quatuor Evangelistis sanctis, id est,
a Matthæo, Marco, Luca, et Johanne. Romæ in typograph. Medicea.
MDXC" fol. At the end is the date MDXCI. In the same year
they appeared again from the same press with an interlineary Latin text;
some copies with the title, "Sanctum Dei Evangelium Arab. Lat.," and
some without any title. On the last page but one the printer (Typo-
graphus lectori,) gives an account of the amendments made by him in
this edition. Beneath this stand the words: Romæ in Typogr. Med-
icea, MDXCI." In 1619, this edition, provided with a new title, was
sold as a new work; and in 1774 again a second time.2
In 1645 the Gospels were inserted in the Paris Polyglot, from the sec-
ond Roman edition, with some alterations by Sionita.
Walton, according to his own admission, took the text contained in
the 5th volume of the London Polyglot from the Paris Polyglot.4
In accordance with this derivation of the editions, we have properly
1 J. M. A. Scholz, Biblisch-Kritische Reise. p. 133, 134.
2 A history and description of this edition is carefully given in Chr. Frid.
Schnurrer's Biblioth. Arab. P. VI. Tubing. 1805." 4to. and afterwards in
his more complete work, "Biblioth. Arabica. Hale. 1811." 8vo. Class. V.
n. 318.
3 This we learn partly from the printer of this Polyglot, "e scripto Antonii
Vitré in Gabrielem Sionitam anno 1640. Parisiis excuso," (from which Le Long
made extracts in his description of the Polyglot,) and partly from Rich: Simon'
Hist. Crit. des Vers. du N. T. c. 8.
4 Walton's Proleg. V. § 4. n. 9. XIV. § 17. p. 35, 26.
33
258
ARABIC VERSIONS.
but three principal impressions taken immediately from MSS.; viz.
the Roman, the Erpenian and the Carshuni. We were first informed
of the agreement between the Roman and Erpenian text by a little essay
which has contributed much to a better acquaintance with the Arabic
Gospels.1
$ 107.
We have lately come to the knowledge of an Arabic version of the
Gospels and Pauline Epistles, and in fact (although on this point the ac-
count is not sufficiently clear,) of the whole New Testament, made from
the Greek. This version (Cod. Vatic. Arab. 13,) stands, in a philolog-
ical point of view, far below those before known. In observing the
plan on which its author proceeded, we cannot estimate the value of
this work very highly. He frequently omits at pleasure one and even
several words; adds, likewise, one or more words without scruple; and
sometimes deviates into unnecessary circumlocutions. The last case
occurs in the Gospels more frequently than in the Epistles; and on this
account the latter are of most critical value. The passages, Matt. 13:
1-22, Mark 5: 20-28, and the Epistle to Philemon, which, with some
others, are presented us as specimens, afford proof of this.
The additions we will designate by a hyphen. Matt. 13: 7, axavdai-
περὶ αὐτά. 8, καρπόν-καλόν. 13, οὐ βλέπουσι καὶ συνιοῦσι. 15, τοῦ λαοῦ
τούτου-οὐδὲ ἀκούσουσι τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτῶν. 19, ἐσπαρμένον-λόγον. 20,
τὸν λόγον ἀκούων-ὅταν αὐτὸν ἀκούσῃ. Mark 5: 20, καὶ πάντες
οἱ ἀκούοντες ταῦτα. Philemon 1: 1, ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ. 22, ἅμα
yoaya oo. He omits operae in Matt. 13:2, unless, (perhaps,
cr
it should be ș) be meant for it. In Mark 5: 21, he overlooked
πάλιν εἰς τὸ πέραν ; ν. 23, πολλά is not expressed. Phil. v. 6, του
¿v nuîv or vuïv is wanting; v. 10, čuov rézvov is omitted; and v. 22,
ἐτοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν likewise. There are the following unnecessary
circumlocutions in Mark 5: 23; for naì nagɛnáhet,
hṛ jesz
خعل
مريضة شديدة الحجال and for doroste اليه طلبا حسنا
مجهودة قد أشرفت على البوت
Several words are twice translated, unless they have been added as in-
terpolations. Matt. 13: 5, xai ¿§avéteike
فرسخ
and
وصهر
(rather
and يبصرون one ; يفكرون and يفقهون : وظهر
ïönts,
Mark 5: 20, gix and
: فرح:
and
)14, ovvñte
Walars: 20, μerà xaoûs, w
1 Dissert. Inaug. Crit. de Evangeliis Arabicis. "Auct. Gottl. Christ. Storr.
Tubinge 1775. 4to.
2 Dr. J. M. Augustin Scholz, "Biblisch-Kritische Reise. Leipz. 1823. p. 117-
126. The Greek postscript to the version, of which we shall speak hereafter,
mentions the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, seven Catholic, and four-
teen Pauline Epistles. The Apocalypse is not mentioned.
ARABIC VERSIONS.
259
ἐλπίζω . . . . χα
pr³) : Philem. 21, vnèo ő, Just and ï; 22, 22aiso
افضل
اكثر
انهم
ارجو ان وهب probably) اجرو ان اذهب emoona اوجب
. أعصا لكم and
Dr. Scholz, who brought to light the existence of this version, and
has presented to the public some passages from it, reckons it among the
MSS. of the Constantinopolitan text, and perceives no trace of Egyp-
tian relationship in it. For some reason or other, the proofs which he
selects from the passages presented sustain precisely the contrary. In
Mark 5: 22, it omits idov, as do BDL, Copt., while all the Constantino-
politan MSS. read it. In Luke 4: 8, it wants, with BDL, Сoрt., улαɣɛ
óniow µov, Zarava, differing from the Constantinopolitan MSS. În
1 Tim. 3: 16, the Constantinopolitan MSS. generally agree in reading
deò's Egavegádŋ; the Alexandrian read os, as does this Arabic ver.
sional. If God is spoken of in this verse, the Arabic
word does not express ὃς ἐφανερώθη, but refers to ευσεβεία, piety,
་
الذي ادي
In الذي ,but at any rate the is is plainly there ;خشية الد
الذي,but
ة
απητ
Philem. v. 2, ayanın is Constantinopolitan; the Arab. version reads
adeλon with ADEFG, Copt. In Philem. v. 7. άov, Constantinopoli-
tan; xaoά our version and ACDEFG, Copt.: v. 12, enεuya,
χαράν
Const. лeμpá oo, our Arab. version and ACDE, Copt.: v. 20,
σπλάγχνα . . . . ἐν κυρίῳ, Const.; our version, ἐν Χριστῷ, with
ACDFG, Copt. v. 23, donátorral, Const.; our version, donateται,
ἀσπάζεται,
with ACDE. Copt.
;
1
τα
Further, Dr. Scholz is of opinion that the version was probably used
in the churches in Palestine. On what he founds this probability he
has not told us. This is the more extraordinary as the Greek post-
script which is appended to the version, and which he himself lays be-
fore us, might have informed him of the place of its origin. It was
Hems, "Eutoa or "Eusoa, as it is variously written by the ancients,
Βίβλος γάρ εἰμι. . . εὐαγγελιστῶν τὰς φάσεις. . φέρουσα πιστοῦ
Δανίηλ Φιλεντόλου, γόνου τελοῦντος Γαβριηλ Φιλοκάλου λαμπράς
Εμίσης αὐτοῦ οὔσης πατρίδος, κ. τ. λ. The writer of this postscript
was Karikos, a deacon, who probably added in Greek the fasts and lessons.
The calligraphist of the Arabic text signs his name Justas Ben Leun,
Ben Abilwalid. Hence Daniel Philentolos was probably the original
translator, whose son, Gabriel Philokalos, entirely completed the work
(γόνου τελοῦντος Γαβρίηλ at Emesa, his native place.
The Arabic Acts of the Apostles, Epistles and Apocalypse
contained in the Polyglots.
$108.
We should not have known from what source the editors of the Paris
Polyglot obtained these portions of it, had it not been incidentally stated
1 Dr. Scholz. "Biblisch-Kritische Reiso." p. 126, 127, and 175. Outlines
of a history of the text.
260
ARABIC VERSIONS.
by the printer, Antony Vitré. From him we learn that the MS. from
which they were edited came from Aleppo.¹
Yet they were translated directly from the Greek, as is shown by va-
rious appearances which could have originated in no other way. E. g.
in Acts 19:9, where a man named Tyrannus is mentioned, the trans-
lator renders Tugávvov zivos by; in Acts 1: 20, he
mistook ravies avrov for ý nóis avrov, x; in Acts 12: 13,
he translates the proper name Pódn, ; in Acts 21: 1, he
دة
ટ્
read εἰς Σπάρτα for ΕΙΣΠΑΤΑΡΑ; in Acts 28: 11, he renders
ἐν πλοιῳ παρακεχειμακότι ἐν τῇ νήσῳ Αλεξανδρίνῳ, παρασήμο
Aоoxovoоis thus: with a ship which had wintered with an Alexandrian,
named Dioscorides. Some of the cases in which the Greek was incor-
rectly divided or pointed by him are: Acts 15: 17, where o noιν тαÛтu
пávτα yvwoτά is read continuously, and then the following sentence
πάντα
begins thus : ἀπ' αἰῶνος ἐστι τῷ θεῷ π. τ. ἐ. α. from the beginning
God's works belonged to him; Acts 19: 35, 36, where the first clause
ends with Αρτέμιδος, and και του Διοπετοῦς is connected with
dvaviigónræv and rendered: and if we had fallen down from Heaven,
ἀναν
we could not contradict this; Acts 20: 15, where the words v Tow-
γυλλίῳ τῇ ἐχομένῃ, are connected together and rendered: situated near
Trogyllium. The translation of the words "Aqrepus, in 19: 24,
"
Ερμης, Ζεύς,
>
and many, الزهرة عطارد المشتري 14:12 ,Eeans, and Zeis
others, shows that the author had the Greek words before him.
기
​T
The same is the case, likewise, in the Epistles. In 2 Cor. 6: 14,
μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες τοῖς ἀπίστοις, a singular etymology is at-
tributed to ετεροζυγοῦντες, YOUR SCALES should not incline towards
unbelievers. A similar one, too, occurs in 2 Cor. 6: 5, év ánaraoraoiais,
in want of places to lodge in. There is a more serious mistake in
Gal. 4: 25, ovOToyεt τn Ingovoahru, it borders on Jerusalem. The
expression, zarà avevanov, in 1 Cor. 15: 32, is falsely rendered, as be-
κατά
comes a man, &c. In 2 Cor. 10: 16, úñepénɛiva is confounded with
υπερκείμενα, and ἕτοιμα with έντιμα; and, in the preceding verse,
κόποις is translated as τόποις. True, the reading κόποις, likewise, is in
the text, but it came in subsequently from another source; for the mis-
takes as to the words ὑπερέκεινα and ἕτοιμα arose in part from
τόποις, and hence υπερκείμενα and ἔντιμα came to be rendered,
PLACES situated high above your country and precious. In 2 Cor. 10:
13, κατὰ τὸ μέτρον τοῦ κανώνος, the Greek word itself, κανών, is
retained,l. In the Epistle of Jude, v. 12, ovroi
εἰσιν ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις αὐτῶν σπιλάδες, συνευωχούμενοι, the translator
takes ayana to mean courtesans or prostitutes, as though he read
αγαπηταῖς; and συνευωχούμενοι is solicitously translated by three
1 His words are, according to Le Long's citation: "Arabici textus quatuor
Evangelia cum Latinâ translatione juxta Romanum exemplar_a. 1591, et reliqua
N. T. ex codice Mspto. quem ex Aleppo adduei curaverat R. P. Joseph Car-
melita, adornata sunt.
ARABIC VERSIONS.
261
words: These are they who place their prostitutes with them at feasts.
In Rev. 2: 5, oya rov Nizohaïrov is rendered, works of the con-
querors, liell Jles. In 14: 9, MOỶ was mistaken for
ANATOY, a mistake which was the more easy as the last word is
frequently abbreviated in MSS. into ONTOT
$ 109.
These portions of the New Testament were translated by a different
person from him who made the version of the Gospels. The style is
dissimilar in a great many respects. I will show this at least in one
point, viz. the use of certain words. In the Gospels, for
core or ovx
,ما كان يحل - كان يكل,geort, the expression
it is
14: 4. 19:
This is not
solved or it is not solved, is invariably used, (Matt. 12: 2, 10.
3. Mark 2: 24. 3: 4. 10: 2. 12: 14. Luke 6: 2, 4. etc.)
the case in the Acts and Epistles, where for the most part the expression
ülbo, or who is employed. (Acts 22: 25. 21: 37. 2: 29.
ممکن مطلق
1 Cor. 6: 12. 10:23. 2 Cor. 12: 4.) In the Gospels, éxaróvraoxos is
always, ¸¸、 (Matt. 8: 5, 9. 13: 27. Luke 7: 2, 6) and in
الماية
&
the Acts, ɲ (10: 1, 22. 24: 31.) In the Acts orqar-
رييس
جند الهيكل in the Gospels أمير الهيكل is to bego is
nyòs rov iéqov
In the Gospels ßißloc is always
مصحف
or
S; in the Acts and
Epistles it is the word consecrated by Abubeker to the Koran,
(Acts 1:20. 17: 42. 19: 19. Gal. 3: 10. Philipp. 4: 3. Heb.
9: 19.) In the Gospels vouos is always; in the Acts and
Epistles, . (Rom. 5: 13. seq. Philipp. 3: 6, 9. 1 Tim. 1:8. Heb.
7: 12. James 2: 12. Acts 15: 24.) In the Gospels drápolos is midst
in the Acts and Epistles, J. (Eph. 6:11. 2 Tim. 2: 26. 1 Pe-
ter 5: 8. 1 John 3: 8. Acts 10: 38. 13: 10.) etc.
شريعة
The Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, as we
see in part from the similar use of the expressions just cited, are by the
same translator. I cannot venture to include the Apocalypse in this as-
sertion. The common origin of the Acts and Epistles, however, is evin-
ced by a similarity in language and in the mode of translation, by the
custom of throwing light on difficult passages by means of paraphrase,
(Acts 16:2. 15: 20. 18: 15. 1 Cor. 5: 10. Rom. 6:5, 16. 14: 9 etc.) and
the circumstance that this license is united with careful fidelity, and with
a special solicitude in rendering words compounded with uɛta, ovv, and
especially with ло, which last is expressed by, Åw, and fre-
-and سلف قدم
سبقت
quently by Ïṣw. (Acts 2: 25, reoweoµnv, †† tïṣw; 31,
262
ARABIC VERSIONS.
προιδών,
سبق فوع,Rom. 1: 2, goennyysihato سيق فعرف goda
فعرفتم
προγινωσκοντες,
2 Peter 3: 16, πgoуivozovτes, pïijri pïïṣm.)
›
الافرنجية
The text of this version has not escaped foreign additions. We fre-
quently find the same word twice translated, and even short clauses twice
rendered in different language. These repetitions can hardly have be-
longed to this version originally, but must have been adopted afterwards
from other MSS. (E. g. Acts 15: 15, 28. 16: 37, 39. 21: 11, 13, 27.)
In Acts 18: 7, to ὀνόματι Ιούστου the word Τίτου has been added, from
the Arabico-Syriac version. Other examples are Rom. 6: 21, 23. 12:
8. 13: 5. 14: 20, etc. Among these later interpolations must be reck-
oned, likewise, the word which is appended to’Iraklas
in Acts 18: 2, and might otherwise lead us astray in regard to this ver-
sion; for then it would be necessary to bring it down to the times of the
crusades, in which Europeans generally, except the Greeks, were term-
ed in the East and in Africa, Franks. The Apocalypse, concerning
which it is very uncertain whether or not it is to be considered as a part
of the same version, was translated from a MS. which had been inter-
polated from the Scholia of Andreas of Cappadocia. (Rev. 1: 2—5. 2:
16.)
$ 110.
The country in which this version originated is stated, very unex-
pectedly, by the author himself. In Acts IId Luke, enumerating the
different lands from which the people came who were in Jerusalem at
Pentecost, mentions (v. 9,) τὰ μέρη τῆς Λιβύης τῆς κατὰ Κυρήνην,
افريقية ونواحي التي : which our translator renders thus
نا
Lis, the region of Africa in which our country lies. We may
now be convinced that the reading Al Franjia, which occurs with the
word Italy in Acts 18: 2, was of later origin than the version itself.
For who would expect to find so accurate a knowledge of the Greek in
Cyrenaica in the times of the crusades?
$111.
The Acts of the Apostles and Epistles were translated from a MS. of
the Constantinopolitan Recension. We will give a single specimen of
each.
Acts II.
LUCIAN.
HESYCHIUS.
7. λέγοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους
Arab.
λέγοντες
17. ενύπνια
Arab.
ἐνυπνίοις
20. πρὶν ἢ
Arab.
πρίν
23. ἔκδοτ. λαβόντες διά χειρῶν Arab.
30. οσφύος αὐτοῦ, τὸ κατὰ
σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Arab.
Χριστόν, καθίσαι
ἔκδοτ. διά χειρός
ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ καθίσει
ARABIC VERSIONS.
263
33. ὃ νῦν ὑμεῖς βλ.
31. κατελείφθη ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ } Arab.
εἰς ᾅδου
૧
ξ
Arab.
41. ἀσμένως ἀποδεξάμενοι
Arab.
43. ἀποστόλων ἐγίνετο
Arab.
ἐγκαταλείφθη εἰς ᾅδου.
Ὁ ὑμεῖς βλ.
ἀποδεξάμενοι
ἀποστόλων ἐγίνετο ἐν ῾Ιερουσαλὴμ
φόβος δὲ ἦν μέγας ἐπὶ πάντας,
και
47. καθ' ἡμέραν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Arab.
καθ' ἡμέραν.
1st Epistle to the Corinthians, VII. Chap.
LUCIAN.
HESYCHIUS,
3. ὀφειλομένην εὔνοιαν
ΑΓ.
ὀφειλήν
5. τῇ νηστείᾳ καὶ τῇ προσευχῇ
Αr.
τῇ προσευχῇ
ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέρχεσθε
Αr.
ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἦτε
13. αφίετω αυτόν
Ar.
ἀφίετω τὸν ἄνδρα
14. ἄπιστος ἐν τῷ ἀνδρί
Αr.
ἄπιστος ἐν τῷ ἀδελφῷ
17. ἐμέρισ. ὁ θεός
Ar.
ἐμέρισ. ὁ κύριος
κέκληκ. ὁ κύριος
Ar.
κέκληκ. ὁ Θεός
22. ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ ἐλεύθ.
0
Αr.
34. μεμέρισται καὶ
ἡ γυνὴ ἡ παρθένος
Ar.
C
η άγαμος
μεριμνά
C
ὁμοίως ὁ ἐλεύθ.
( καὶ μεμέρισται καὶ
ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος
C
καὶ ἡ παρθένος ἡ ἄγαμος
μεριμνά
37. ἑδραῖος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ
Ar.
τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἑδραῖος
This text, which first appeared in the Paris Polyglot, was reprinted in
Walton's. The edition of the English Bible Society
micr
المقدسة وهي.
كتب العهد العتيق والعهد الجديد
in 1811, 4to maj.) has repeated it as respects the New Testament. I
know not whether it was amended by the aid of MSS. or not.
§ 112.
The Arabic edition of the Bible which is said to have appeared at
Bucharest in 1700 is now unknown; as also another which Athanasius,
Bishop of Antioch, Patriarch of the Melchites, caused to be printed at
Aleppo in 1708, which I have sought in vain in all the great libraries I
have visited.
The Arabic New Testament printed at London in 1717 in 4to., un-
der the superintendence of Salomo Negri, was (according to Michaelis,
Einleit. ins N. T. I. Th. § 67. p. 453. 4th ed.) printed from the En-
glish Polyglot, with some alterations according to the Greek.
In the Chronicon of Dorotheus, metropolitan of Monembasia, (in vul-
gar Greek, Venice 1778, 4to.) we find it stated in the section (p. 424)
Περὶ τοῦ Σουλταν Μεχμέτη, (on Mohammed II, conqueror of Constan-
tinople,) that Mechmebey, a son of Amuratuzi of Trebizond, made in
the seraglio, for this monarch, a translation of the Bible from the Greek
264
LATIN VERSIONS.
into Arabic. However interesting this book may be on other accounts,
it can be of little use for our purposes.
An Arabic paraphrase of some pericopa of Paul's Epistles, written
by the side of the old Syriac text of these Epistles, has been discovered
by an oriental scholar of great merit, in Cod. Syr. Vat. Num. XXXIII;
and specimens of it have been published by him.2
LATIN VERSIONS.
(C
$113.
66
In the first period, before the time of Jerome the Presbyter, there
were in Africa, Italy and Gaul several Latin versions differing very
much from each other, as we may be convinced by a few specimens.
Matt. 5: 16, "Luceat lumen vestrum coram hominibus, ut videant bona
facta vestra, et clarificent patrem vestrum qui in cœlis est." (Iren. Adv.
Hær. L. IV. c. 37.) Luceat lumen vestrum coram hominibus, ut
videant opera vestra bona, et magnificent patrem vestrum, qui in cœlis
est." (Hilar. Pict. Tract. in Ps. LXV.) Matt. 6: 31.
Nolite cog-
itare dicentes: quid edemus, aut quid bibemus, aut quid vestiemur? hæc
enim nationes quærunt. (Cyprian. De Orat. Dom.) "Nolite solliciti
esse dicentes : quid manducabimus, et quid bibemus, aut quo operiemur?
hæc enim omnia gentes inquirunt." (Augustin. De Op. Manich. C. I.)
Matt. 11: 12. "A diebus enim Joannis Baptistæ regnum cœlorum co-
gitur, et cogentes diripiunt illud." (Ambros. L. VI, in Lucam. c.7. et
De Cain et Abel. c. 4.) "A diebus autem Joannis regnum cœlorum
vim patitur, et vim facientes diripiunt illud." (Hil. Pict. in Ps. VIII.
n. 46. Optat. Milev. De Schism. Donatist. L. V. c. 5.) A diebus Jo.
regnum cœlorum violentum est, et qui vim faciunt, diripiunt illud." (Iren.
L.IV. Adv. Hær. c. 37.) Luke 9: 62. "Nemo tenens manicam aratri,
post se attendens, intrabit in regnum cœlorum." (Optat. Milevit. De
Schism. Donatist. L. III. c. 11. "Nemo retro respiciens aratrum te-
nens aptus est regno cœlorum." (Hilar. in Ps. CXXII. n. 4.) Luke
21:34. "Attendite-ne graventur corda vestra cruditate et vinolentiâ
et curis secularibus." (Augustin. Contra Adimant. Manich. C. 14.)
Attendite-ne graventur corda vestra in crapulâ, et ebrietate et solici-
tudinibus secularibus." (Iren. L. IV. c. 37. n. 3.)
Acts 2: 8. Accipietes virtutem spiritu sancto in vos, et eritis mihi
testes in Hierusalem in omni Judæâ, et in Samariâ, usque in fines terræ."
(Ambros. De Spir. Sanct. L. I. c. 7.) "Accipietis virtutem spiritûs
sancti supervenientem in vos, et eritis mihi testes apud Hierusalem et
in totâ Judæâ et Samariâ et usque ad totam terram." (Augustin. Con-
tra Epist. fundam. c. 9.) Acts 2: 2. "Et factus est subito de cœlo
sonus, tanquam ferretur flatus vehemens, et implevit totum illum locum,
1 Prof. Alter in the "Litterarischen Anzeiger" 9th number of the year 1799.
2 Adler, Nov. Test. Vers. Syr. denuo examinate etc. Hafnie 1789. 4to. p .27-
30. and 38.
LATIN VERSIONS.
265
zbi erant sedentes, et visæ sunt ipsis linguæ divisæ quasi ignis." (Augus-
tin. loc. cit.) "Et factus est subito de cœlo sonus, tanquam vi magnâ
spiritus ferretur; et replevit totam domum, ubi erant sedentes, et visæ
sunt ipsis dispersæ linguæ tanquam ignis." (Ambros. de Spirit. Sanct.
L. I. c. 16.)
66
Col. 5: 15. "Qui est imago Dei invisibilis, primogenitus omnis crea-
turæ ; quia in ipso constituta sunt omnia in cœlis et in terra, visibilia et
invisibilia, sive throni, sive principatus, sive potestates, sive dominatio-
nes, omnia per ipsum et in ipso condita sunt, etc." (Hilar. L. VII. De
Trinit. c. 49.) "Quia ipse est imago Dei invisibilis, primogenitus om-
nis creaturæ, in quo creata sunt omnia in cœlestibus et in terra, sive vis-
ibilia sive invisibilia, sive sedes, sive dominationes, sive principatus et
potestates, omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt." (Ambros. Comment.
in Ps. CXVIII. Serm. III. c. 1.) Col. 2: 8. Videte, ne quis vos
deprædetur per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam." (Cyprian. Ep. LII.)
Cavete, ne quis vos deprædetur per philosophiam et inanem seduc-
tionem secundum traditionem hominum, et secundum elementa hujus
mundi.” (Âmbros. De fide. L. I. c. 3. Comment. in Ps. CXVIII. Serm.
22. c. 1.) “Videte ne quis vos spoliet per philosophiam et inanem de-
ceptionem secundum trad. hom." (Hilar. De Trin. L. I. c. 13.
XII. c. 20.) Col. 2: 15. "Exutus carnem et potestates ostentui fecit,
triumphatis iis cum fiduciâ in semetipso." (Hilar. De Trin. L. I. c.
13. et IX. c. 10.) "Exuens se carnem principatus et potestates exem-
plavit, fiducialiter triumphans eos in semetipso." (Contra Faust. L.
XVI. c. 29.) 1 Peter 3: 3. "Ut sint non quæ a foris ornantur capil-
lorum crispationibus, aut circumdatæ auro aut veste decorâ, sed ille ab-
sconditus cordis vetri homo" . . . . (Augustin. De bono conjug. c. 12.)
"Non in plicatu capillorum, aut auro aut veste pretiosâ, quoniam ille
absconditus cordis homo, qui est pauper sæculo, ipse est locuples Deo."
(Ambros. ad Virg. Exhort. Tom. I. p. 141, ed. Erasm.)
et
Jerome speaks, likewise, of several interpreters, particularly of the
New Testament.¹ A passage in Augustine, in which he speaks of
the multitude of those who had translated the Bible from the Greek,
seems to relate to the New no less than to the Old Testament.2
$ 114.
Which of these versions was first in the order of time, or at what
time the translation of the New Testament into Latin was begun, are
questions which at present can hardly be satisfactorily answered. Au-
gustine tells us, "primis fidei temporibus"; but this expression may
be understood as referring rather to the origin of the particular religious
sect to which this father belonged, than to that of Christianity gener-
1 Hieron. ad Damas. "Si autem veritas est quærenda de pluribus, cur non ad
Græcam originem revertentes, ea quæ vel a vitiosis interpretibus male reddita
corrigimus? Neque vero ego de veteri disputo instrumento . . . de Novo
nunc loquor Testamento, quod Græcum esse non dubium est."
2 Augustin. de Doctr. Christ. L. II. c. 11.
3 L. II. De Doctr. Christ. c. 11.
•
"Ut enim cuique primis fidel temporibus
in manus venit codex Græcus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguæ
habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari."
34
266
LATIN VERSIONS.
ally. We have not much information in regard to these early days of
Christianity in the Provincia Africa. Even in respect to the Bishops
of Carthage we can go no further back than the close of the second
century.
Some one of the African versions, certainly, must have been made in
this period. For Tertullian expresses himself very plainly respecting
the existence of one. He speaks of a callida aut simplex eversio, which
in his opinion misrepresented a passage of the New Testament. Such
paronomasias as eversio for mala versio are frequent with him; and the
expression, in usum exiit, shows that in citing biblical passages the Latin
language was the usual one among the common people. He says
something similar in another place, viz. in his book against Praxeas;
more plainly still in his books against Marcion. Now, if in his days a
Latin text had already gone in usum, it must have been prepared at the
close of the 2d century.
$ 115.
Rome was not the place where the first Latin version originated.
From the days of Hadrian onward under the Antonines, Greek litera-
ture prevailed so much in the metropolis of the world, and the use of
this language was so general among all classes, that the necessity of a
version was there least felt. In Italy, aside from Rome, one must have
been more necessary; and therefore we should expect one to be made
there, while in Rome it was hardly thought of. Accordingly Augus-
tine speaks of a versio Itala and ascribes distinguished precedence to it ;2
yet, though the circumstance is very natural, pains have been taken, I
know not why, to get rid of this word Itala.
Bentley was the first who proposed the conjecture that we should read
illa instead of Itala, and instead of nam est-quæ est verborum tenacior,
Casley is said afterwards to have observed a difference in MSS. in this
passage; and Ernesti favored and strongly recommended this change,
which thus obtained many friends and supporters among us.
The variation in some MSS. which David Casley asserts that he dis-
covered, extends only to the word Itala; and yet it is of no less impor-
tance whether the reading nam est be correct. If this remains, the illa
proposed can in no way be consistent with the connexion.
And suppose a single MS. reads illa for Itala, or even two; what
1 De Monogam. c. 11. He is speaking of 1 Cor. 7: 39. "Sciamus plane
non sic esse in Græco authentico, quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum
aut callidam aut simplicem eversionem: Si autem dormierit vir ejus, quasi de
futuro sonet," etc. and, Adv. Praxeam. c. 5. "Rationalis etiam Deus, et ratio in
ipso prius; et ita ab ipso omnia. Quæ ratio sensus ipsius est. Hanc Græci
λóyov dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam sermonem appellamus. Ideoque jam in usu
est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis, sermonem dicere in primordio
apud Deum fuisse." L II. Adv. Marcion. c. 9. "In primis tenendum, quod
Græca Scriptura (Gen. II. 7. avaπvoǹv (wñs) signavit, adflatum nominans, non
spiritum. Quidam enim de Græco interpretantes, non recogitatâ differentiâ,
nec curatâ proprietate verborum, pro adЯatu spiritum ponunt." L. V. Adv.
Marc. c. 4. "Quæ sunt allegorica, (Galat. IV. 24) id est aliud portendentia :
hæc sunt duo testamenta, sive duæ ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum.”
2 L II. De Doctr. Christ c. 16. "In ipsisautem inter pretationibus Itala cete-
ris præferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiæ."
LATIN VERSIONS.
267
follows? On what principle of criticism must we proceed? Must we
not inquire which reading might most easily have arisen from the
other? If so, must it not be admitted that illa might very naturally
arise from abbreviating the word Itala? We cannot so easily explain
how a copyist could make Itala out of the word illa. Were it as easy,
how happens it that Itala has nowhere else been made of the word illa,
which occurs in MSS. thousands of times? Of two readings, one of
which exhibits a common occurrence and the other one somewhat rare,
which, according to the laws of criticism, ought we to prefer?
Among the arguments in behalf of the reading illa, much is made of
the context as favoring and requiring it. What then does Augustine
say in the preceding chapter? When obscure and unintelligible expres-
sions occur, says he, it may contribute to their elucidation to consult and
compare several different versions; but amended copies only must be
used, that we may not be imposed upon by inaccuracies. And then he
proceeds in the following chapter: "In ipsis autem interpretationibus
-ceteris præferatur-est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate senten-
tiæ. Et Latinis quibuslibet emendandis Græci adhibeantur," etc.
There cannot be a doubt on the face of these words, that he intends to
name that particular one among the Latin versions which contained the
fewest unintelligible expressions; and which, in case of the occurrence
of such in others, would most aid in explaining them. Now suppose we
read: illa, quæ est-what would the father say, but that, in order to
clear up obscure expressions, that version which was least obscure
should be employed? A very sorry comfort, indeed, and one which
the unlearned portion of his readers could hardly apply to their own
case. It would be expected, therefore, that he should designate a par-
ticular version, which in his opinion, or that of good judges, would afford
aid in time of need. Now if the scope of the writer as well as the con-
nexion demand something of this kind, we cannot hesitate to give the
preference to a reading which fulfils the demand, and designates by
name the version which excels the rest in point of perspicuity.
This, too, is the signification of this father's language in another
work. In case of discrepancy between the Latin versions, he says, we
must consult those which originated in the country whence the doctrine
came to us; and if this does not avail, we must recur to the original lan-
guage from which these versions were made. He here concedes to a
foreign version the superiority over the African; i. e. to the version of
that country from which the Provincia Africa received christianity.
And whence then did these Italian colonies along the African coast re-
ceive their religious faith, but from the mother-country?
It was, therefore, an Italian version to which Augustine applied this
1 Augustin. L. XI. c. 2. Contra Faust. Manich. "Ita si de fide exemplarium
quæstio verteretur, sicut in nonnullis, quæ paucæ sunt, et sacrarum litterarum
notissimæ sententiarum varietates, vel ex aliarum regionum codicibus, unde ipsa
doctrina commeavit, nostra dubitatio dijudicaretur: vel si hi ipsi quoque codices
variarent, plures paucioribus, vetustiores recentioribus præferrentur: et si adhuc
esset incerta variotas, præcedens lingua, unde illud interpretatum est, consule-
ratur.'
268
LATIN VERSIONS.
encomium; but which he intended among the many in existence,' we
can hardly now determine. That Italy gradually acquired a great
number of them, we see from the citations in the writings of the Latin
fathers. This Italian version intended by him he seems even to have
regarded as more ancient than those which had originated in Africa.
$ 116.
The period at which these versions arose (the latter half of the sec-
ond or the commencement of the third century,) enables us readily to
determine what must have been the character of the Greek copies from
which they were executed. It was the period in which the inconsider-
ate pains of pious readers brought the MSS. into that heterogeneous and
arbitrary condition, which was afterwards arrested by Origen, Hesych-
ius, and Lucian. It was the period of the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις. We have
already discussed so fully the text which was the basis of these versions,
that we shall here merely refer to our former observations, in § 27, 28.
$ 117.
These versions, as was intended, passed into the hands of a multi-
tude of readers. Each of them had its good and bad qualities, and it
was therefore attempted to remedy from one the imperfections of a-
nother; so that in this way all of them became encumbered with foreign
additions. Such a mode of procedure could not continue long without
causing a gradual admixture of one version with another, until neither
was any longer like itself. Such was really the case; for as early as the
fourth century every MS. appeared to be a separate version.2
There were even respectable persons who ascribed special value to a
copy, if it was interpolated from several versions; for they thought that
from many exhibitions of the same passage the reader might more easi-
ly understand and correctly interpret it. And this would have been
right, had there been no inconveniences to outweigh this advantage.
3
Besides all this, readers added to the MSS. explanatory notes and
scholia for their own information, which were not afterwards invariably
separated from the text, as they should have been, and thus increased
the confusion.
Those who knew something of Greek endeavored to avail themselves
of their knowledge by writing the Greek Testament at the side of one
1 They have been collected by Peter Sabatier: "Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinæ
versiones antiquæ," etc. III. Vols. Remis. 1743. fol.; and by Jos. Blanchini:
Evangeliarium quadruplex Latinæ versionis antiquæ, seu veteris Italicæ," etc.
Romæ. 1749. Part. II. usually in four volumes folio.
2 Hieronym. Epist. ad Damas. "Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides adhi-
benda est, respondeant quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria, quot codices."
3 To explain obscure expressions, says Augustine, (De Doctr. Christ. L. II.
c. 15,) "Plurimum hic quoque juvat interpretum numerositas collatis codicibus
inspecta atque discussa: tantum absit falsitas: nam codicibus emendandis pri-
mitus debet invigilare solertia eorum, qui Scripturas divinas nôsse desiderant, ut
emendatis non emendati cedant, ex uno duntaxat interpretationis genere veni-
entes." Here non emendati and ex uno interpretationis genere venientes are sy-
nonymous. Emendati, therefore, are those which have many additions from
several versions.
JEROME'S EMENDATION.
269
of the Latin versions, that they might be able to consult the original di-
rectly, when doubt arose or the version appeared to be imperfect. From
such MSS. were derived the Græco-Latin MSS., of which we still pos-
sess several. The possessors of such MSS., as may be seen from those
still extant, often undertook to correct the versions from the Greek, in
an arbitrary manner, according to their own judgment; and the more
they corrected, the more unlike what it was originally did the version
become.
Thus each version no longer resembled itself, and if the copies were
to be subjected much longer to the caprice of their possessors, without
any public superintendence, there might well have been apprehensions
in regard to the doctrines which would be deduced from such remarka-
ble MSS.
JEROME'S EMENDATION.
§ 118.
It was a bold step to oppose this mischief and attempt to evoke order
and harmony. Jerome felt it to be so, though he was urged to it by the
most distinguished ecclesiastic in Christendom, viz. Damasus, who then
occupied the chair of Rome, "Quis enim," (he writes to Damasus)
"doctus pariter vel indoctus, cum in manum volumen assumserit, et a
salivâ, quam semel imbibit, viderit discrepare quod lectitat, non statim
erumpat in vocem, me falsarium, me clamans esse sacrilegum.
adversum qam invidiam. . . me consolatur, quod et tu, qui summus
sacerdos es, fieri jubes,” etc.¹
•
With these expectations Jerome entered upon his task, and prosecu-
ted it with a moderation beyond what could have been expected, con-
sidering his usual rashness. He compared one or more of the existing
versions with Greek MSS., and altered them according to the original
text when it was necessary. But, in order that the discrepancy between
his emendation and the ancient versions might not be too striking, he
was careful, in the selection of his MSS., to get only such ancient cop-
ies as contained a text analogous to that from which these versions had
been made. He therefore employed only copies of the period of the
xový exdonis, and scrupulously avoided the editions of Lucian and
Hesychius, which deviated too far from the text to which the ears of
the Latins were accustomed.
0
رد
2
Besides being so cautious in the selection of his MSS., he also made
1 "Epistola ad Damasum," or as this Epistle is denominated in several books,
"Hieronymi in Evangelistas ad Damasum præfatio.'
{
2 Epist. ad Damas. "Prætermitto eos codices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio
nuncupatos paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio, quibus utique nec in
toto veteri instrumento post LXX interpretes emendare quid licuit, nec in_novo
profuit emendasse. Igitur hæc præsens præfatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evan-
gelia.. codicum Græcorum emendata collatione, sed veterum, nec qui mul-
tum a lectionis Latinæ consuetudine discreparent.”
270
JEROME'S EMENDATION.
so sparing a use of them as to resort to their assistance only when the
sense was widely mistaken and greater accuracy was necessary.¹
If we may infer from his Commentaries the principles of procedure
which he silently followed in his emendation, he sometimes consulted
Origenian MSS. in doubtful passages.2 This reasonable supposition
led Bentley to the singular notion of finding Origen's Recension with-
out variation in Jerome's amended edition.
The last three years of the life of Damasus Jerome spent with him
and in full possession of his confidence, at Rome; and after his de-
cease he forever abandoned the noisy and dissolute city for a simple hut
in Bethlehem. We are thus enabled to determine the period of Jerome's
emendation, viz. the last year but one of the life of Damasus.
66
Jerome presented him first the Gospels alone: Igitur hæc præsens
præfatiuncula pollicetur quatuor tantum Evangelia." This circum-
stance has led some to apprehend that his emendation did not compre-
hend the whole New Testament. The language shows this to be a
mistake; he presented only the Gospels with the present dedication-
plainly pointing to something more yet to come. Subsequently, in a
catalogue of Christian writers at the end of which he names his own
works, he mentions among them the New Testament amended by him
from Greek copies, and the Old which he translated from Hebrew.3
He says the same in a letter to Lucinius: the New Testament I have
faithfully rendered according to the Greek original; for, as the Hebrew
MSS. are the standard of the Old, so are the Greek of the New.4
In an Epistle to Marcella, who had communicated to him in a friend-
ly way all the calumnies of his enemies in respect to his emendation of
the Gospels, he presents some passages of the Pauline Epistles accord-
ing to his amendment. Rom. 12: 1 was generally read: "spe gau-
dentes, tempori servientes;" but by him: "spe gaudentes, Deo servi-
entes." The old MSS. omitted, in 1 Tim. 5: 19, the words: “nisi sub
duobus aut tribus testibus;" he restored them. The former read in
1 Tim. 1: 15, "humanus sermo et omni acceptione dignus," he amend-
ed the passage thus: "fidelis sermo et omni acceptione dignus."5
The text of his emendation is found only in those works which he
composed after the death of Damasus. In the Commentaries on Mat-
thew, (certainly the most hasty of his productions,) we might reasonably
expect that he would not use an inferior version as the basis of his ex-
positions, but the one which he had amended. Nor could he in a com-
mentary trust to his memory, as in other cases he did, and was obliged
to do, from the multitude of his quotations. It was his duty to have the
MS. itself before his eyes.
1 Epist. ad Damas. "Ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum, quæ sensum
videbantur mutare, correctis, relinqua manere pateremur.
2 Comment. in Matt. 24: 36. "In quibusdam codicibus additum est neque
filius; cum in quibusdam Græcis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus,
hoc non habeatur adscriptum." Comment. ad Galatas III. 1. "quod in exem-
plarius Adamantii non habetur," etc.
3 "Novum Test. Græcæ fidei reddidi ; vetus juxta Hebraicam transtuli."
4 Ep. ad Lucin. LXXI. (formerly 28) § 5. "Novum Testamentum Græcæ
reddidi auctoritati. Ut enim veterum librorum fides de Hebraicis voluminibus
examinanda est; ita novorum Græci sermonis normam desiderat."
3 Ad Marcellam, XXVII; formerly Ep. 102.
JEROME'S EMENDATION.
271
•
Accordingly, his Commentaries are upon this version. He observes
where it renders the Greek imperfectly, (e. g. Matt. 5: 25, εvvocv 6: 11,
ἐπιούσιον· 16, ἀφανίζειν· 9: 32, κωφός· 11: 16, αγορά 15: 30, κυλ-
λovs⋅ 16: 22, üheds oo) mentions the variations of other MSS., (6: 25.
11: 19. 16: 2, etc.) and blames or justifies them.
Its relation to the present Vulgate, the Clementine edition of 1592,
is this: the latter agrees in general with the former, differing from
it only in transpositions of words, or such slight changes as have been
made by time or the critical judgment of him who executed the Cle-
mentine edition. We will spare ourselves the trouble of proving by a
collation of Matthew what will strike every one immediately on his
own inspection; especially as, in speaking of Alcuin's emendation, we
shall present a collation of some chapters of the Epistle to the Gala-
tians as its text is exhibited in the commentaries of this father.
$119.
Though Jerome exercised great caution, he gained, nevertheless, as
he anticipated, more enemies than friends. His work was hardly in
circulation, when the voice of zealots was loudly raised against him; and
he occasionally chastised them with considerable severity. Even the
authority of Damasus availed so little to cause a general reception of
his emendation that every one for himself adopted or rejected the old or
new text, as judgment or prejudice directed him.
In the 5th century the supreme pontiff at Rome, Leo the Great, still
used the ancient version, and not the purest even of the copies of that,
as may be inferred from the large addition he makes to Matthew 20: 28.
("Vos autem quæritis de minimo crescere et de magno minui, rel.”) which
he quotes in his Epistle to Pulcheria.
The authority of Gregory the Great, in the 6th century, first decided
in favor of the edition of Jerome. Gregory made it the basis of his
moral Annotations on Job, and only used the old version for the purpose
of comparison, and rather to discover its defects than to employ it in ex-
planation. In his epistle to Leander, bishop of Seville, to whom he
dedicated this work, he says, indeed, that he used sometimes the old and
sometimes the new version, as the one or the other was best adapted to
his purpose, since both were recognised by the apostolical chair which
he occupied ; but his actual procedure in this work evinces his predi-
lection for Jerome. In his other writings he confines himself wholly to
Jerome's edition, so that his citations would be of uncommon value in
restoring this emendation. Leander, probably, did much to promote
1 Hieronym. Ep. XXVII (formerly 102) ad Marcellam.-"Ad me repente
perlatum est quosdam homunculos mihi studiose detrahere, cur adversum auc-
toritatem veterum, et totius mundi opinionem, aliquid in Evangeliis emendare
tentaverim. Quos ego cum possim meo jure contemnere (asino quippe lyra
superflue canit) . ita responsum habeant. . . . Latinorum codicum vitios-
itatem. ad Græcam originem. . voluisse revocare" etc.
2 Greg. Ep. ad Leandr. C. 5. "Novam vero translationem dissero sed cum
probationis causa exigit, nunc novam, nunc veterem per testimonia assumo: ut
quia sedes apostolica, cui deo auctore praesideo utrâque utitur, mei quoque labor
studii ex utrâque fulciatur.
272
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
its adoption, for in the 9th century it was the dominant and authorised
version in Spain.¹
$ 120.
As Jerome's emendation adhered so closely to the other versions, it
might frequently happen that the former would be elucidated from the
latter, and even enriched with additions which he had rejected. On the
other hand, however, there were readers who corrected the ancient ver-
sions by consulting Jerome's edition, and thus formed a third text, which
was a mixture of the two. The Codex Argent. of the Gospels at Bres-
cia is such a MS., as is thought by those who have themselves examin-
ed the Codex. Their opinion is established by the following consider-
ations. The MS. exhibits in general one of the ancient versions, but
does not contain many additions and peculiarities which are found in
them. It coincides more frequently than these with Jerome's phraseol-
ogy. Blanchini³ mentions another Codex of the Gospels (Vatic. 7016,)
of about the 8th century, (as is shown by the specimen,) the text of
which is compounded partly from one of the old versions and partly
from Jerome's edition. This may have been the case more or less in
many other MSS.; so that in the 8th century the complaints respecting
the corruption of the MSS. occasioned a new revision of them.
THE EMENDATION OF ALCUIN.
§ 121.
The merit of originating this emendation is to be attributed to a cele-
brated monarch, whose exalted mind first perceived the occasion for it and
actively promoted it throughout; and who, though he needed some one
else to execute the task, sketched out to him the path he must pursue. The
condition of the biblical MSS. did not escape the attention of Charles
the Great. He therefore ordered that care should be taken to have good
and pure copies of the Old and New Testament in the churches.4
He afterwards caused a selection of the homilies of the fathers for
all the Sundays and festivals to be compiled by Alcuin, that the clergy of
his kingdom might be provided with a collection of sermons. The pre-
face to this he composed himself, and in it he speaks of the emendation of
the biblical copies, as a thing which he had happily accomplished.5
1 Isidor. Hispal. De offic. eccles. L. I. c. 12.
2 Philipp. Garbellus apud Blanchinium. Vindic. Canonicar. Scripturar. Vul-
gatæ Latinæ editionis. Romæ. 1740. fol. p. CCCLXXXVII. seq.
3 Evangeliar. quadrupl. T. II. p. DCIV. on the reverse no. 34.
4 "Capitular. R. R. Franc. L. VI. C. 227. "Volumus, et ita missis nostris man-
dare praecepimus, ut in ecclesiis libri canonici veraces habeantur, sicut jam in alio
capitulari saepius mandavimus."
5 This Homiliarium, afterwards improved by Paul Warnefried, has been often
printed under Alcuin's name: Spirae 1482. Colon. 1530. 1539. 1557. fol. "Igitur,"
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
273
It might be inferred from his language that he himself assisted in this
emendation, nor is it improbable that he did. But the learned monk
Alcuin had the special charge of it, as history, as well as he himself in
one of his works, expressly declares.¹
The statement of a biographer of his son, that Charles himself amend-
ed the four Gospels, has no reference to Alcuin's edition, which had
been in circulation for a long time. He is speaking of the pious em-
ployments with which the monarch occupied the last days of his life,
viz. alms-giving, reading and emendation.2
$ 122.
A new version from the Greek was not intended on this occasion.
Charles did not require, nor did Alcuin promise this. Both speak only
of an emendation of an existing version. We perceive at once in Al-
cuin's MSS. the particular version which was the subject of his labors.
He has prefixed to the Gospels Jerome's Epistle to Damasus: Novum
opus me facere cogis ex veteri ;" and to all the books Jerome's prefa-
ces.
<<
Blanchini has presented copper-plate specimens of MSS. of this class,
comprising the beginning of Luke as far as v. 16, the 2d chapter from
v. 22 to the end, and the whole of the third ;3 which are sufficient to
give us an idea of the character of this emendation.
$123.
I was recently permitted to examine a MS. of Alcuin's edition, which
contains the Old and New Testament entire, and claims a distinguished
rank among the MSS. of king Charles' emendation. Mr. Von Speyer,
Passavant of Basle, a friend and connoisseur of the monuments of
ancient art and science, is its fortunate possessor. I found it so re-
markable for its diplomatic peculiarities, that, as I had leisure for the
purpose, I transcribed it. I cannot treat of it here more particularly
than is necessary to explain what Alcuin attempted and effected.
A long poem by the copyist ends with the following verses, and certi-
fies us that we have the edition of Alcuin :
•
says Charles in the Preface, "quia curæ nobis est, ut ecclesiarum nostrarum ad
meliora semper proficiat status . ad pernoscenda sacrorum librorum studia
nostro etiam, quo possumus, invitamus exemplo. Inter quæ jam pridem univer-
sos V. et N. Testamenti libros librariorum imperitiâ depravatos, Deo in omnibus
nos adjuvante, examussim correximus."
1 Sigebert. Gemblac. ad Ann. 790. In the dedication of the 6th book of his
Commentaries on John, "ad Gislam et Columbam :" Alcuin says, "Totius forsan
Evangelii expositionem direxissem vobis, nisi me occupâsset Domini Regis præ-
ceptum in emendatione Veteris Novique Testamenti.
2 Theganus. ed. du Chesne, T. II. Script. Francic. p. 277.
3 Evangeliar. Quadrupl. P. II. Tab. VIII. Luke 1: 1-16, is from Cod. Vallicel-
lano B. No. 5; the 2d and 3d chapters are from Cod. Basilica S. Pauli extra ur-
bem, adorned with the portrait of Charles the Great. The hand writing of both
is so nearly the same as to appear to be by the same person..
35
274
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
Codicis istius quod sint in corpore sancto
Depictæ formis litterulæ variis
Mercedes habeat Christo donante per ævum
Is Carolus qui jam scribe jussit eum (scribere)
Haec dator æternus cunctorum Christe bonorum
Munera de donis accipe sancta tuis.
Quæ pater Albinus devoto pectore supplex
Nominis ad laudem obtulit ecce tui.
Quem tua perpetuis conservet dextra diebus
Ut felix tecum vivat in arce poli.
Pro me quisque legas versus orare memento
Alchuine dicor ego tu sine fine vale.
A comparison of Alcuin's edition of the Old Testament with the
text of Jerome as exhibited in his Commentaries on the prophets, and
of the New Testament with Jerome's text as contained in his Com-
mentaries on Matthew and the Epistle to the Galatians, convinces us
that Alcuin intended nothing more than to restore Jerome's Bible as
accurately as possible.
We will prove this by examples. For this purpose we shall present
the 12th, 13th, and 14th Chapters of Matthew, first according to the Vul-
gate, (Clement's edition,) then according to the text of Jerome. Where
Alcuin agrees with Jerome, we shall denote it by an asterisk. Where
the asterisk is wanting, he accords with the Vulgate. The readings in
which he differs from both will be noticed separately.
VULGATE.
XII.
1. per sata sabato
2. Licet facere
4. ei edere
25. divisum contra se
31. blasphemia
44. eam vacantem
XIII. 14. et adimpletur
23. fructum affert ét facit
24. simile factum est.
35. dictum erat
37. ait illis
41. mittet
54. in synagogis
XIV. 3. uxorem fratris
9. propter juramentum
25. super mare
26. super mare
28. ad te venire
Jerome.
sabbato
per sata.
licet eis facere
ei commedere
in se divisum
blasphemiæ *
vacantem.
ut adimpleatur *
fructum facit
simile est
dictum est. *
ait *
mittet ergo
in sinagoga
*
uxorem Philippi fratris
propter jusjurandum.
supra mare
supra mare
venire ad te *
*
Readings which differ from both Jerome and the Vulgate are:
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
275
VULG. JER.
XII. 14. perderent eum
27. vestri erunt
29. diripiet
XIII. 4. volucres coeli
8. autem ceciderunt
14. dicentis
15. videant oculis
22. seminatus est
ALCUIN.
eum perderent
erunt vestri
diripiat
volucres
verò ceciderunt
dicens
oculis videant
est seminatus
23. centesimum,-sexagesi- centum-sexaginta
mum-trigesimum
43. audiendi audiat
XIV. 5. volens illum
18. mihi illos huc
22. compulit Jesus
VULGATE.
I. 4. sæculo nequam
-triginta
audiat
volens eum
huc mihi illos
jussit.
Epistle to the Galatians.
Jerome.
sæculo malo
5. sic tam cito
10. an quæro
15. ex utero
16. evangelizarem
23. aliquando expugnabat
II. 1. iterum ascendi
seorsum autem iis
2. qui videbantur aliquid esse
3. esset gentilis
4. sed propter subintroductos
subjectione
6. ab iis
videbantur esse aliquid
7. sicut et Petro
9. Jacobus, Cephas et Joan-
nes
11. venisset Cephas
13. illam simulationem
14. recte ambularent
Cephæ
18. iterum hæc ædifico
20. vivit autem
21. gratis Christus.
III. 1. præscriptus
3. consummemini
*
tam cito
aut quæro
de utero *
evangelizem
quondam expugnabat
rursum ascendi
seorsum autem his *
qui videbantur
esset ex gentibus
propter subintroductos autem
subjectioni
ab his *
videbantur
sicut Petro *
Petrus, Jacobus et Joannes
venisset Petrus
illa simulatione
recto pede incedant
Petro
hæc iterum reædifico *
vivit vero
Christus gratis
proscriptus
consummamini *
6. sicut scriptum est Abraham sicut Abraham *
7. ii sunt
16. promissiones
18. num si ex lege
19. cui promiserat
24. justificemur
25. sumus sub pædagogo
29. semen Abrahæ
hi sunt *
repromissiones
quia si ex lege
cui promissum erat
justificaremur
sub pædagogo sumus
Abrahæ semen.
*
276
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
II. 20. semetipsum
III. 1. non obedire
2. a vobis volo
16. qui est Christus
Alcuin's peculiar readings.
26. per fidem qua est
se ipsum
non credere
volo a vobis.
quod est Christus
per fidem.
From this comparison we deduce the conclusion that Jerome, Alcuin
and the Vulgate exhibit in the main the same text, differing only in
slight transpositions, such as sabbato per sata: sata per sabbato,—semen
Abraha: Abrahæ semen; or in such variations as verò for autem; and
rarely in more important readings, such as centesimum-sexagesimum-
trigesimum: centum-sexaginta-triginta, non obedire: non credere, and
the like.
The most remarkable variation of the MS. of Alcuin's text from the
Vulgate relates to 1 John 5: 7. "Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in
cœlo: pater, verbum et spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt."
This passage
does not appear in Von Speyer's MS., nor in the Alcuinian MS. at Zu-
rich. Mabillon, in his Iter Italicum, the use of which I have not been
able to procure, testifies the same in regard to other Latin MSS. of this
class.
1
$ 124.
Other MSS., likewise, of Alcuin's edition attest their origin by a lar-
ger or smaller number of verses. Some, e. g. the Amsterdam MS., de
clare it as follows:2
Quatuor hi rutilant uno de fonte fluentes,
Matthæi et Marci, Lucæ liber atque Johannis:
Sanctus Apostolus Lucas conscripserat Actus:
Bis septem docti per cartas dogmata Pauli,
Jacobi, Petri, Judæ et pia dicta Johannis,
Scribitur extremo Johannis in ordine tomus.
Jusserat hos omnes Christi deductus amore
Alchuinus Ecclesiæ famulus conscribere libros.
Others
Others contain only the last two verses of this postscript.3
still, as the Codex Vallicellens. in Blanchini, that of the Fathers of the
Oratory at Rome, and one mentioned by Baronius at the date 778,
which is now in the Chiesa nuova, have the following lines:
4
Codicis istius quot sunt in corpore sancto
Depictæ formis litterulæ variis:
Mercedes habeat Christo donante per ævum
Tot Carolus Rex, qui scribere jussit eum.
1 Martini Gerberti Iter Alemanicum, Typis San-Blasianis. 1765. p. 47, 48.
2 Wetstein Prolegom. in N. T.
3 The Zürich Codex in Biörnstähl, Vol. 5. of his letters, p. 14.
4 Blanchini Vindic. Canon. Scriptur. p. XXXVI. and p. CCCXXXV. Adler's
"Biblisch-kritische Reise," p. 162.
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
277
Pro me quisque legens versus orare memento,
Alchuinus dicor: tu sine fine vale.
Some are more diffuse in this species of epigrammatic verse; others
contain only the last two lines.
$ 125.
This edition was introduced by the royal injunction into the kingdom
of France, and it was probably the source of all the MSS. which were
subsequently current on the other side of the Rhine, on the German
bank, and further on to Pannonia. It was this text which, with some
variations, as might be expected, was current among us for about eight
centuries, until the council of Trent, which by its decrees caused a
new epoch in respect to the Latin versions.
Yet during this period, active exertions were made to preserve the
Latin text in good condition. Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury,
in the 11th century, amended not only the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testament, but likewise the works of the fathers and other ec-
clesiastical books. Not content with this, he employed his pupils in the
same way.
His biographer concludes this account with the words:
Hujus emendationis claritate omnis occidui orbis ecclesia, tam Galli-
cana quam Anglica, gaudet se esse illuminatam." This encomium, how-
ever, has reference, not merely to his biblical labors, but to his critical
labors generally upon the writings of the fathers, and upon Hymn-books
and Liturgies. This is necessary to be observed, lest it should be in-
ferred from the words: "Hujus emendationis claritate" etc. that he
prepared a new Recension of the Old and New Testament, which be-
came the dominant one in France and England.
J
In the 12th and 13th centuries, a remarkable zeal for the preservation
of the Latin text of the Bible began to be exhibited. Several bodies
composed Correctoria for their own use; i. e. they revised some partic-
ular MS., noting upon its margin where other MSS. did not agree with
it, and appending short notes in which they criticised the readings admit-
ted or rejected by them. In deciding, they made use of the writings
of the fathers, and celebrated ecclesiastics after the time of Charles the
Great, such as Rhabanus, Haymo of Halberstadt, and others, and fre-
quently also the Greek text. Nor was this all. Care was taken to pre-
vent inconsiderate corrections. Where the Latin was not exactly gram-
matical, pains were taken to notice such peculiarities of phraseology,
that no one might undertake to alter them. Some observations were
made, too, in respect to punctuation, and even pronunciation.
Such a Correctorium was projected by the Theological Faculty of
the University of Paris, probably for the use of the students; and it was
also adopted or authorized by the Archbishop and Primate of France,
who had his seat at Sens. It is described by Richard Simon.2
1 Vita Lanfranci in Opp. Paris. 1648. fol. edit. Lucæ Dacherii. Wetstein's
Proleg. in N. T.
2 "Hist. crit. des versions du N. T." Ch. 9. and "Nouvelles Observations sur le
Texte et les Versions du N. T." P. II. Ch. 1.
278
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
The Dominicans esteemed the authority of the Archbishop but slight
ly, and in 1236 composed one for themselves, by order of their Provin-
cial in France, Hugo de St. Cher or Cherfs. Under Humbert de Ro-
mans, the 5th General of their Order, the Correctorium of Sens was ex-
pressly rejected in a General Chapter at Paris in 1256.2 They were
guided in their Correctorium by Charles' MSS., as we are informed by
Luke of Bruges, on the authority of the preface of one which he
frequently used.3
The Carthusian order, too, in its Correctorium, adopted the Alcuinian
or Carolinian edition as a standard.4
Our University-Library contains one of these correctoria. It is that
of the Franciscan order, as is clear from the first letter of the preface
to the Old Testament. On its golden ground is painted the Pope, in
the act of delivering a paper to some members of this order; two are
receiving it kneeling, while four others are looking on in the back-
ground.
I will select a single specimen of each species of note which it con-
tains. The first relates to a various reading of Matt. 19:20: omnia hæc
custodivi. In the margin is found: a juventute meâ—Græci habent.
Sed Jeronymus Rhabanus et antiqui non. Another respects the punc-
tuation of Matt. 14: 9: Et contristatus est rex propter jusjurandum.
In the margin sic distinguit Augustinus in omelia. A third relates to
grammar. Matt. 21: 25: Baptismum Johannis unde erat: in the mar-
gin: Antiqua grammatica est. Hác utitur Ambrosius in Sermon. oct. in
Ephes. et decimo octavo, etc. An observation on the transposition found
in some MSS. in 1 John 5: 7, is of special interest: Not. Quidam libri
habent hic alium ordinem. Post testimonium spiritûs, aquæ et sanguinis,
addunt et hi tres unum sunt, et pergunt sic: et tres sunt, qui testimo-.
nium dant in cœlo, etc.
This correctorium, in criticising the text, sometimes cites those fath-
ers whose quotations exhibit the text as it was in the time of Jerome,
such as Augustine and Ambrose. If this was done in others like-
wise, the correctoria themselves contributed to deform the text of Je-
rome and Alcuin by the introduction of foreign materials.
William Lindan speaks of a much earlier correctorium, on the authority
of MS. accounts in the possession of Cardinal Bessarion, which he prob-
ably obtained from the Vatican Library, and which refer to the year
1144: Sed præ cæteris equidem desiderarim illud, quod ante annos 400
1 Martene, Thesaur. nov. Anecdot. T. IV. p. 1676. Statut. 34. Capit. gener.
Dominic.
2 Martene loc. cit. p. 1715. Statut. 23. Capit. gener. Item correctiones bibliæ
Senonensis non adprobamus, nec volumus, quod fratres innitantur illi correcti-
oni etc.
3 Luce Burgens. Notationes in Sac. Biblia. 1584. apud Plantin. 4. Præf. p. 22.
"Exemplar. . . . . emendatum ante trecentos annos ex Caroli magni Bibliis un-
dequaque collectis, jussu, ut præfatio habet, F. Jordani magistri ordinis Prædica-
torum et F. Hugonis prioris provincialis in Francia a Prædicatoribus S. Domini-
ei fratribus."
4 Wilh. Lindanus, De optimo Scripturas interpret. genere. L. III. C. 3. “Tale
quondam vidimus (correctorium) pervetustum in Carthusiâ Zeelhemensi, juxta
Diesthemium sitâ, quod Biblia ad codices Caroli magni perdiligenter castigatos
notabat emendanda.'
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
279
Roma Nicolaus S. Damasi Diaconus scripsit maximâ, ut apparet, dili-
gentiâ, ubi conqueritur, Lustrans armaria, inquiens, nequibam hoc ad-
ipisci, veracia scilicet exemplaria invenire, quia et quam a doctissimis
viris dicebantur correcta, unoquoque in suo sensu abundante, adeo dis-
crepabant, ut pene quot codices, tot exemplaria reperirem, usque adeo
etiam millesimo fere post interpretationem Hieronymi anno, codices men-
dosi atque corrupti erant, etc. (De optimo Scripturas interpret. genere
L. III. c. 3. Comp. L. I. c. 5.)
It must be borne in mind that Nicholas is speaking of Rome and its
vicinity, where Charles' emendation may not have been acknowledged.
In France, where it was predominant, the text, many as were the alter-
ations it experienced, was more uniform and harmonious in its different
MSS.
$126.
As the MSS. differed from each other so exceedingly, the printed edi-
tions of the 15th and 16th centuries could not well be better in this res-
pect than the MSS. from which they were derived. This discrepancy
excited special attention in the 16th century, and more than ever when
the council of Trent was convened. The editions of Robert Ste-
phens, and that of Colinæus in 1541, the preface to which contains bitter
complaints in regard to the errors of the Vulgate, directed the attention
of many to the subject. The principal occasion of this was the recent
publication of the Hebrew and Greek text, and the awakening study of
biblical criticism, which necessarily exposed the received church-ver-
sion to unfavorable comparisons.
The council of Trent perceived that the sources whence arguments
might be drawn must be agreed upon, before any idea of unity in doc-
trine could be indulged. It was even seriously proposed to make use
for this purpose of a particular Hebrew and Greek MS., and to translate
it into Latin for the benefit of such as were unskilled in the languages.¹
But this would have been to present to the multitude a new source of
controversies, while there was good reason rather to attempt to arrest
further innovations, and at least to unite those who were still adherents
to the ancient doctrinal belief. In this view it was most prudent to con-
firm the authority of the received church-version, as was done by the
Synod. (Sess. IV. Decret. 2.) "Statuit et declarat hæc sancta Synodus,
ut hæc vetus et vulgata editio, quæ longo tot sæculorum usu in Ecclesiá
ipsâ probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prædicationibus,
aut expositionibus, pro authentica habeatur: ut eam nemo rejicere quovis
prætextu audeat vel præsumat."
Great pains have been taken to explain this decree in such a way as not
to depreciate the study of the original languages. The meaning is plainly
this. As in civil affairs an authentic instrument is valid evidence, so in
public religious matters the Vulgate is a document from which valid ar-
gument may be drawn, without prejudice, however, to other documents.
But this is not a prescription of doctrine, and from its nature could
not be; it is a decree on a point of discipline, having reference to the
circumstances of the times in which it was issued.
1 Palavicini Hist. Conc. Trident. L. VI. c. 15.
280
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
Among the many editions, no two of which agreed with each other,
it was necessary now to fix upon one to which the preeminence should
belong, or, in default of any such edition, to agree in respect to the pre-
paration of one. For the present the Synod merely ordained:
ut post-
hác Sacra Scriptura, potissimum verò hæc ipsa vetus et vulgata editio,
quam emendatissime imprimatur."
§ 127.
"<
The theologians of Lyons, and among them Hentenius in particular,
now set about preparing a corrected edition, which appeared as early
as the next year, 1547. But the Holy See at Rome had, it would seem,
reserved this business for itself; and Pius IV and V nominated persons
to whom it was entrusted. Sixtus V, whose ardent disposition could
not endure the slow progress in executing the work, brought it to a
close,¹ and announced it as finished in a bull of March 1, 1589.
•
•
eaque
He caused a printing press to be set up in the Vatican expressly for
the edition, and he himself corrected it, after it was printed, as he says
in his Papal bull: "Novam interea typographiam in Apostolico Vaticano
palatio nostro ad id potissimum magnifice exstruximus
res quo magis incorrupte perficeretur, nostrá nos ipsi manu correximus,
si qua prelo vitia obrepserant," etc. The title-page of the book is dated
one year later than this bull, and is as follows: "Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ
editionis tribus tomis distincta. Roma, ex typographia Apostolica Va-
ticanâ. M.D. XC." fol. After this comes a second title-page, which is
engraved and represents Abraham's sacrifice. On its upper border are
the words: Biblia Sacra Vulgata editionis ad concilii Tridentini
præscriptum emendata et a Sixto V. P. M. recognita et approbata.”
Beneath is a border with the words: accipe et devora.
((
The work, from the condition in which it appeared, particularly under
existing circumstances, afforded opportunity of finding fault with it to
every one who wished to do so. Many passages, especially in the New
Testament, were found covered over with small bits of paper on which
the corrections were printed; others were erased, or merely altered with
the pen. This, in a book which was to have a high and commanding
authority, must have displeased members of the Romish Church, as
well as Protestants.
2
Not long afterwards, a learned Englishman made a collection of
these passages, and another scholar enlarged the catalogue;3 and
by examining several copies any one might easily make a further con-
tribution to it, for the alterations are not uniform in all the copies.
In the Royal Library at Vienna there are two copies; one is on very
large, the other on somewhat smaller paper. In one of them, in Gen.
41: 10, (e. g.) the word pecoribus is not covered over; in the other, a
bit of paper is pasted over it, on which is found prioribus. As to the
New Testament, in both copies at Mark 10: 1 there is a bit of paper
1 Præf. in Ed. Clem. VIII. "In multis" etc.
2 "Bellum papale, sive concordia discors Sixti quinti et Clementis octavi circa
Hieronymianam editionem, auctore Thoma James," etc. Londini, 1600. 4to.
3 "Histoire de la Bible de Sixte quint par Prosper Marchand," in Schelhorn's
"Amœnitates Litterar." Tom. IV. p. 433. seq.
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
281
with the word inde. In Acts 7: 8, et Isaac et Jacob, the last et is
erased in one MS., and in the other the place is painted of a yellowish
color. In Tit. 2: 2, pudiei has been erased in one MS., and in the other
changed into pudici with a pen. At Rev. 3: 7, one has a bit of paper
pasted on with the word scribe; in the other the word scribe is printed
correctly. In Rev. 3: 12, one reads scribæ ; in the other there is a bit
of paper on which scribe is printed. Everything is nearly as it was in
Prosper Marchand's copy.
How it happened that the book appeared in this condition before a
public so strongly disposed to criticise it with severity, we will not now
enquire. Thus much, however, we can see, viz. that this prince, encom-
passed as he was by numerous and weighty affairs, did more than could
have been expected of him, and that he was not so well served as he
anticipated. Sixtus died in August of the same year, and left to his
successors the honor of preparing a new work to take the place of this.
$128.
Gregory XIV undertook the task anew, and appointed for its exe-
cution a body of cardinals and learned men, among whom Bellarmine
obtained precedence. Gregory did not see the work completed; but it
appeared soon after Clement VIII., who succeeded him, was instated
in the popedom.
There was, however, a great difficulty to surmount. Was it expedient
to depreciate the Sixtine edition by declaring it faulty? Both the new
work and the papal authority would certainly gain nothing by this
in public estimation. Should it be pronounced correct? Why then
prepare another? In this dilemma, Bellarmine is said to have found out
a middle course, and to have proposed that all the blame should be laid
upon the printer, so as to vindicate the reputation of Sixtus and his
successors.
،
Sixtus is thus exculpated in the preface to this second edition:
Quod cum jam esset excusum, et ut in lucem emitteretur, idem Pon-
tifex (Sixtus) operam daret, animadvertens non pauca in sacra Biblia
præli vitio irrepsisse, 'que iteratâ diligentiâ indigere viderentur, totum
opus sub incudem revocandum censuit atque decrevit. Id vero cum morte
præventus præstare non potuisset, Gregorius XIV," etc. Bellarmine
was the author of the preface ;¹ and it is said to have been the cause of
his canonization.2 Beyond a doubt the greater part of the corrections
in the Sixtine Bible were attributable to the printer's mistakes; but it
would be no more than we might expect from the learning and rash
.1
1 Vita del Cardinale Roberto Bellarmino, composta dal P. Giacomo Fuligatti,
in Roma. 1624. 4to. capit. 13.
2 Le Bret, Dissert. Theol. de usu versionis Lat. Vet. in Ecclesià Christ. Tu-
bing. 1786. §. 23. p. 54. That the statement is correct, is proved by the following
book: "Voti degl. infrascritti eminentissimi Signori Cardinali, B. Gregorio
Barbarigo, Gieronimo Casanate, Decio Azzolini, Domenico Passionei, nella
causa della Beatificatione de venerabile servo di Dio Card. Roberto Bellarmino.
Seconda editione. In Ferrara 1762. Si vende in Venezia al insegne di Demos-
thene. Le Bret saw an earlier edition of it. (Venet. 1761.) The Votum of Card.
Passionei is in MS. in the Bibliotheca Angelica, to which the Cardinal presented
his valuable collection of books.
""
36
282
ALCUIN'S EMENDATION.
self-confidence of Sixtus, if he now and then opposed the opinion of the
censors, and amended with his own hand against their judgment. But
however this may be, so much is clear, either that it was not intended
in the second edition to give the text of Sixtus as accurately as possible,
or that the intention miscarried; for the edition contains several hun-
dred deviations from the former.
66
The second edition, which was the model of the present Vulgate
text, appeared, like the first, with two title-pages, one printed, the other
engraved. The printed one is as follows: "Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ
editionis, Romæ ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticanâ. M. D. XČII.”
The engraved page is the same as that of the Sixtine edition; so is the
title upon it: Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ editionis Sixti Quinti Pont.
Max. jussu recognita atque edita." Beneath, accipe et devora. The Pra-
fatio ad Lectorem comes next. "In multis magnisque beneficiis, etc."
Then follows the Decretum concilii Tridentini; then the Bull: Clem-
ens P. octavus ad perpetuam rei memoriam: “Cum sacrorum Bibliorum
Vulgatæ editionis textus, etc." dat. Romæ apud S. Petrum sub annulo
piscatoris die 9. Novembris 1592.”
،
In the following year, 1593, a quarto edition of it was issued from the
Vatican Press. These two editions are not often met with; and the
Sixtine edition is one of the greatest typographical rarities, either be-
cause but few copies were published, or because they were gradually
called in,¹ or on both accounts.
$ 129.
The preface of Bellarmine is occupied principally in detailing the
plan of the Censors and the rules they prescribed to themselves. Yet
he has not taken pains always to give a clear and definite account of
them.
One would think that the object was the restoration of the Vulgate
to its original condition: "Ipsam veterem, ac vulgatam editionem Lat. a
mendis veterum librariorum, nec non pravarum emendationum erroribus
repurgatam, suæ pristinæ integritati ac puritati, quoad ejus fieri potuit,
restituere." The text which Jerome (from whom the expression is bor-
rowed,) calls communem et vulgatam, was that which was usual before
his time.
، ،
In another place Bellarmine seems to assert, that the intention was to
revise Jerome's Recension and introduce it into general use: Quare
non immerito Catholica Ecclesia S. Hieronymum Doctorem maximum
atque ad Scripturas sacras interpretandas divinitus excitatum ita cele-
brat, ut jam difficile non sit illorum omnium damnare judicium, qui vel
tam eximii Doctoris lucubrationibus non acquiescunt, vel etiam meliora,
aut certe paria se præstare confidunt. Cæterum ne tam fidelis transla-
tio, etc.
This was actually the case, if, in determining the text, the censors
consulted Rhabanus, Haymo, Anselm, Peter Damiani, and other writers
whom they enumerate; for these follow in their works the Carolinian
MSS., which exhibit Jerome's text as corrected by Alcuin.
2 Le Bret Dissert. de usu vers. Lat. vet. in eccles. § 23. p. 53.
GOTHIC VERSION.
283
They, however, used very great caution; designedly passing over ma-
my things which required correction : In hac tamen pervulgatá lec-
tione sicut nonnulla consulto mutata, ita etiam alia, quæ mutanda vide-
bantur, consulto immutata relicta sunt.”
GOTHIC VERSION.
$ 130.
For a long time before the thirty years' war broke out, the Abbey of
Werden in Westphalia contained a MS. of the four Gospels, written in
an old German dialect in letters of silver.2 In order that this docu-
ment might be withdrawn from the danger which threatened it, it was
deposited for safe keeping with other valuables at Prague; but here, not
many months before the peace, it fell into the hands of the Swedes
when, in 1748, under General Königsmark, they unexpectedly entered
Kleinseite, or Little Prague. It was now deposited in the Royal Libra-
ry at Stockholm, and was subsequently, it is probable, presented to the
celebrated Isaac Voss by Queen Christina, whose special favor he en-
joyed. Others will have it that he made a present of it to himself.
3
During the Westphalian negotiations for peace, this valuable docu-
ment came to the knowledge of Count Magnus Gabriel De la Gardie,
who purchased it of Voss for 400 rix dollars, and gave it for safe keeping
to the University of Upsal, where it is now preserved.
With the MS. the Count also deposited a very faithful transcript of it,
in which the original was sedulously copied in the same number of pa-
ges, line for line and letter for letter. One Derrer (it is not known
when or where) executed this toilsome task. I am convinced by care-
ful investigation that he was not the famous lawyer of that name who
1 The history of the Latin version, especially of its latest period, has been
presented by Dr. Leander Van Ess in a learned work, entitled: "Pragmatisch-
kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im Allgemeinen, und zunächst in Beziehung
auf das Trientische Decret. Tubingen, 1824." 8vo.
2 We have the history of this MS. in Ihre's "Dissertat. I. de Cod. Argent."
§ 14, 15, and in Zahn's "Historisch-kritische Einleit. in Ulfilas Biblüberset-
zung," p. 39-46.
3 Such is the Swedish account, to which I give the preference above other re-
ports and surmises. (Ihre, Dissert. I. loc. cit.) Ihre considers the charge a-
gainst Voss of an unauthorized appropriation of the MS. as by no means proved,
although he must have known what Nettelblatt, 36 years before, had published
respecting it. How, moreover, could Junius, if his nephew had stolen the book,
say in the dedication to De la Gardie which he prefixed to his Ulfilas: "Habeo
sane quod cælo imputem; siquidem intelligo immortalis Dei nutu memoratum codi
cem ad manus meas perlatum?" Or, if Voss was a thief, how could Ulitius say in the
Carmen, addressed to De la Gardie, which is prefixed to Junius' Glossar. Gothic:
"Si Vossî memor est, et honorat Suedia nomen,
(Lucidius docto non micat orbe jubar)
Tantus hic et tanti nec avunculus esse nepotis
Ignotus vestris, neve latere, potest.
Ille Palatinis pluteis quæ promserat ante,
Hic tibi nunc cultu splendidiore refert."
284
GOTHIC VERSION.
adorned our University during the first half of the 16th century. This
transcript was destroyed in the great fire at Upsal in 1702.
$131.
Junius obtained the use of the Codex from his nephew, and published
it in 1665, in Gothic letters cast expressly for the purpose. Whether
Junius found Derrer's transcript already in existence, or himself caus-
ed it to be made, is uncertain; but that he industriously consulted the
Codex itself, we are told by Thomas Marshall, who lived with Junius
and assisted him while the work was preparing for the press. Junius
even complains of the difficulty he had in tracing and making out the
faded characters.2
1
In 1621, Stirnhelm published a second edition, from Derrer's trans-
cript, in Latin characters. He, however, sometimes consulted the orig-
inal. In 1684, a reprint of Junius' edition appeared at Amsterdam
with the same type, the same title, and in the same form. Perhaps there
was only a new title-page printed, in order to sell the remainder of the
first edition under the name of another publisher. Archbishop Ben-
zel afterwards took a fancy to the ancient document, and made prepa-
rations for a new edition, but did not live to see the fruit of his toil. Ed-
ward Lye published the edition with ability and fidelity. It seems that
the Archbishop even purposed to have the whole Codex copied in wood-
cuts, of which I have in my possession a well executed specimen.ª
Meanwhile Ihre, who lived in the neighborhood of the valuable docu-
ment, devoted his attention to it; but, as his eyesight failed him, he em~
ployed a young man, Ehrich Sotberg, to compare the editions of Junius
and Benzel with the original repeatedly, and published the amendments
thus obtained in a work entitled “ Ulphilas illustratus."5 He also caused
a very exact transcript of the Codex to be made for his own use.
Not succeeding in executing a new edition, he sent this transcript to
Büsching, that he might prepare one from it. From Büsching the tran-
script passed to Heynatz. Heynatz lent it to Zahn, a clergyman,
who fortunately succeeded in publishing his Ulfilas from it. The text
At the end of his Notes on Mark, p. 44.
2 In the preface to the annexed Gothicum Glossarium.
3 Ihre, Dissert. I. De. Cod. Argent. § 15.
6
4 Ulfiliani codicis sculptura lignea edendi specimen Benzelianum. Lincopiæ
excusum curâ Friderici Arendt. MDCCCV. Cal. Jan.
5 This and several treatises of Ihre relating to the Codex, its grammar, idioms,
etc. have been published, together with several others on this subject, by Bu-
sching, the geographer, in one collection: "Johannis ab Ihre scripta versionem
Ulphilanam et linguam Moeso-Gothicam illustrantia . unâ cum aliis scriptüs
similis argumenti, edita ab Ant. Frid. Büsching. Berolini. 1773." 4to.
•
6 All the editions enumerated are derived from the same source. As each ed-
itor states on the title-page what he has done to facilitate the explanation and
better understanding of the document, we will here cite the editions with the
title-pages entire.
1. "Quatuor D. N. Jesu Christi Evangeliorum Versiones perantiquæ duæ,
Gothica scilicet et Anglo-Saxonica, quarum illam ex celeberrimo Codice Ar-
genteo nunc primum deprompsit Franc. Junius, T. F., hanc ex codicibus
MSS. collatis emendatius recudi curavit Thomas Mareschallus, Anglus: cu-
jus etiam observationes in utramque versionem subnectuntur. Accessit et
GOTHIC VERSION.
285
is given with care; the grammatical and critical observations subjoined
in the lower margin are brief, to the point, and well-conceived, and the
whole of the rich apparatus of the book is valuable.
§ 132.
The original is called Codex Argenteus from its letters, which are large,
regular and beautiful uncial characters of silver, on very fine purple-
colored parchment, in large quarto. The initial lines of the Gospels and
the first line of every section are in gold letters. Below, between col-
umns drawn in barbarous taste according to neither of the known orders
of architecture, are inserted the Canons of Eusebius, and at the side
are appended the numbers referring to them. The Gospels are in the
following order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.
The letters do not appear to have been written with a pen or reed, but
to have been impressed by means of carved or cast stamps, nearly in
the same way as book-binders put titles upon the backs of books in
gold or silver. The perfect uniformity of the letters, the indentations
which they make in the page, the traces of paste sometimes visible be-
tween the silver and the parchment-all this, of which Ihre has ad-
duced evidence, and of which he gives an account in the preface to
"Ulphilas illustratus," renders such a supposition credible, whatever
may be said to the contrary by hasty travellers and superficial ob-
servers.
Some are disposed to ascribe these appearances to ink; against which
I must observe that not long since I saw the purple MSS. written in
Glossarium Gothicum cui præmittitur alphabetum Gothicum, Runicum etc.
opera. ejusdem Franc. Junii. Dord. 1665." in 4to.
2. "D. N. Jesu Christi SS. Evangelia ab Ulfila Gothorum in Masia episcopo,
circa annum a nato Christo CCCLX. ex Græco Gothice translata, nunc cum
parallelis versionibus, Sueo-Gothicà, Norræanà seu Islandicâ, et vulgatâ Latinâ
edita, accedit Franc. Junii glossarium Gothicum, linguâ Sueo-Gothicâ modernâ
et antiquâ locupletatum et illustratum, curâ et studio Georgii Stirnhielmii.
Stockholm. 1671." 4to.
3. Amstelodami. 1648. This has the same title as the first.
4. "Sacrorum Evangeliorum versio Gothica, ex codice argenteo emendata at-
que suppleta, cum interpretatione Latinâ et annotationibus Erici Benzelii non
ita pridem Archiep. Upsaliensis edidit, observationes suas adjecit, et grammati-
cam Gothicam præmisit Edwardus Lye A. M. Oxonii e typographeo Claren-
doniano MDCCL." 4to. It is well printed with the characters of the Cod. argent.,
and is scarce.
5. "Ulfilas Gothische Bibelübersetzung, die älteste germanische Urkunde, nach
Ihrens Text, mit einer grammatisch-wörtlichen lateinischen Uebersetzung zwis-
chen den Zeilen, sammt einer Sprachlehre und einem Glossar, ausgearbeitet
von Friederich Karl Fulda, weiland Pfarrer in Ensingen im Würtembergischen;
das Glossar umgearbeitet von W. F. H. Reinwald, Herzogl. Sächs. Rath und
Oberbibliothekar in Meiningen, und den Text nach Ihrens genauer Abschrift
der silbernen Handschrift in Upsal, sorgfältig berichtigt, die Uebersetzung und
Sprachlehre verbessert und ergänzt, auch mit Ihrens lateinischer Uebersetzung
neben dem Texte, und mit einer vollständigen Kritik und Erläuterung in An-
merkungen unter demselben, sammt einer historisch-kritischen Einleitung ver-
sehen und herausgegeben von Johann Christian Zahn, Prediger in Delitz an der
Saale bey Weissenfels in Sachsen. Auf Kosten des Herausgebers. Weissenfels.
1805." 4to.
286
GOTHIC VERSION.
silver which are at Brescia and Verona, and very beautiful fragments of
Matthew's Gospel in the Vatican Library, and nowhere discovered any
indentations or appearance of paste.
The pages of this MS. do not follow one another in regular order,
and many are wanting. Matthew begins at 5: 15; and there is a
chasm from 6: 32 to 7: 12. From 10: 1-23, there is a second. From
11: 25, there is a chasm as far as 26: 70. Then all the last chapter is
wanting. In Mark are wanting, from 6: 31-54; from 12: 38—13:
18, from 13: 29-14: 5, from 14: 16-41, from 16: 12 to the end.
In Luke, from 10:30-14: 9, from 16: 24-17: 3, from 20: 37 to the
end.
John begins with 5: 45; then there are chasms from 11: 47-12:
1, from 12: 49-13: 11, from 19: 13 to the end. Besides this, indi-
vidual verses have here and there suffered mutilations which we will not
here enumerate.
$133.
Some years after the publication of Lye's edition of the Gospels,
Counsellor Knittel, in examining a MS. in the Library at Wolfenbüttel,
which was written about the 9th century in Spain, and contains the well-
known Origines of Isidore of Seville, observed that beneath some pa-
ges of this MS. there was concealed an older writing which had been
washed off to write Isidore's work in its stead. After much pains he
succeeded in deciphering the older characters. Now these were for-
tunately fragments of the Epistle to the Romans, in the same language
and character as the Codex of Upsal, with the old Latin version antece-
dent to Jerome by the side of the text. The fragments discovered are
the following: Rom. 11: 33, 34, 35, 36; 12: 1-5 and 17-21; 13: L
—5; 14: 9—20; and, lastly, 15: 3-13, inclusive. Knittel published
them in 1762, with notes and explanations.¹
The little already possessed of the Epistles of Paul was highly prized
as a gift of good fortune, and it was scarcely hoped that there would be
any important increase of it in future, when, in 1817, Angelo Maio
gave an account of considerable portions of the Gothic version which
he had discovered in the Ambrosian Library.
Beneath the Homilies of Gregory the Great on Ezekiel, written in
the 8th century, he had perceived older characters, like those of Cod.
Argenteus, which had been washed off. Closer scrutiny afforded him
the joyful assurance that he had obtained important fragments, in the
Gothic language, of all Paul's Epistles, except the two to the Thessa-
lonians and the Epistle to the Hebrews. A second MS., of the 9th
century, perhaps, which contained Jerome's Exposition of Isaiah, like-
1 "Ulphile Versionem Gothicam nonnullorum capitum epistolæ Pauli ad Ro-
manos e littura MS. rescripti bibliothecæ Guelpherbytanæ cum variis monumen-
tis ineditis eruit, commentatus est, deditque foras Franc. Ant. Knittel. Brunovici.
1762." 4to. Ihre published them again, with new remarks, under the following
title: "Fragmenta versionis Ulphilanæ, continentia particulas aliquot epistolæ
Pauli ad Romanos, haud pridem ex codice rescripto biblioth. Guelferb. eruta, et
a Fr. Ant. Knittel, Archidiac. edita, nunc cum aliquot annotationibus typis reddi-
ta a Joanne Ihre etc. Upsaliæ. 1763." 4to. This last is reprinted in Büsching's
collection, P. 97. seq.-Zahn, also, has appended it to his Úlfilas.
GOTHIC VERSION.
287
wise concealed the Gothic text of Paul's Epistles, excepting the Epistle
to the Romans and the Hebrews. The Pauline Epistles thus concealed
beneath Jerome's work are not a supplementary portion of the former,
but were originally an independent Codex.
At the end of a Latin MS. of the four Gospels Maio found bound with
it a leaf from an older Codex. On this leaf, likewise, containing a frag-
ment of the Latin version of Matthew, he perceived Gothic characters
which had been partially expunged. It contained two fragments of
Matthew, viz. 25: 38-26: 3, and 26: 65-27th Chap.; the first of
which, and the first six verses of the second, (26: 65–71,) supply chasms
in the Cod. Argent.
In the first mentioned MS. of the Homilies of Gregory, there was
found also, with the Pauline Epistles, a fragment of a Gothic calendar
partially expunged. In other MSS. were discovered some fragments
of the Old Testament, and a Gothic Homily, rich in biblical quotations,
from which were obtained some verses that are wanting in Cod. Ar-
gent.
Count Carlo Ottavio Castilioni took the most lively interest in the
discovery, and assisted Angelo Maio by his knowledge of the German
language, in the labors required by the publication. Both jointly wrote
a detailed account of the discoveries which had been made, described
the MSS. in which these treasures were hidden, and presented specimens
of the Gothic documents discovered. When Maio was called to the
Vatican Library, and obeyed the call thither, the whole burden of the
work fell upon Count Castilioni, and on this account the publication
has been delayed longer than was anticipated by the two learned schol-
ars, and longer than we could wish.
$134.
The language of these documents is that of an ancient people who
formerly dwelt very far north; for they were accustomed to reckon their
years by winters. Twelve years, in Matt. 9: 20 and Luke 2: 42, are
TVALIB VINTRUS; so in Luke 8: 42. Having no word for lilies,
they made use of the general term BLOMANS, (Germ. Blumen,
flowers,) in Matt. 8: 28.
They, however, had come in contact with the Greeks; so that cer-
tain Greek words and expressions were current among them, which the
translator of the Gospels could retain, even when they might be trans-
lated into his own language. It is certain that the word Lohn was in
his language; it occurs in Luke 6: 32, and elsewhere: WHA IZVIS
LAUNE IST. Yet where μsós occurs in the Greek text, he almost
always retains it as a familiar term. (MIZDO, Matt. 5: 46. 6: 3. Luke
6:23, &c.) His nation had a word denoting basket; it appears in
Mark 8: 19, John 6: 13, TAINJONS, or Zainen in the popular lan-
guage of our country. Yet the translator sometimes used instead of it
the Greek word oлvoidas, SPVREIDANS. (Mark 8: 8, 20.) For a
1 Ulphile partium ineditarum in Ambrosianis palimpsestis ab Angelo Maio
repertarum specimen conjunctis curis ejusdem Maii et Caroli Octavii Castilionæi
editum. Mediolani Regiis typis MDCCCXIX. 4to.
288
GOTHIC VERSION.
royal mandate, they had a technical word derived from the Greek
roago, GAGREFTS. (Luke 2: 1.) They had expressions for dinner
and supper (Luke 14: 12., Mark 6: 21); but this does not prevent him
from using the Greek doy for a banquet, (Luke 5: 29,) dozny pɛ-
yάhŋv-DAUHT MIKILA. It was probably only from the want
of a suitable word that he could not avoid the Greek Ovulapa, THU-
MIAMIN, in Luke 1: 10.
α
This people, however, came in closer contact with nations which
spoke the Latin language, as is evident from the many Latin words
which to all appearance were quite common among the readers of this
version. To seat one's self at table, is with them AMAKUMBIAN
(Mark 2: 15. 6: 22, Luke 5: 29, and in 7: 49, MITANAKUMBIAN);
drinking-vessels are AURKIE, urcei (Mark 7:5); vinegar is AKE-
TIS (Matt. 27: 48., Mark 15: 36); a money-chest is ARKA (John
13: 29); gold, too, is called AIZ, es (Mark 6: 8). Bandages are
FASKIE (John 11: 44); Soldiers, MILITONDANS (Luke 3: 14,
where also the word ANNOM for annona occurs); a prison is termed
KARKARA (Matt, 5: 25. 11:2. Mark 6: 17). Some expressions are
common to both Greeks and Romans, as AROMATA, Mark 16: 1,
PARAKLETUS, John 14: 25.
Several of these words might have been avoided by the translator, and
have been rendered by such as were peculiar to his own language, if
he had not been convinced that they would all be well understood by
his countrymen. They too seated themselves or reclined at meals;
they too had waterpots; thay had a peculiar expression for gold, of fre-
quent occurrence; they too had a word designating a soldier; and
hence nothing could induce him to have recourse to Latin words, but
the usus loquendi of his nation and the knowledge that such expressions
were current and intelligible among them.
So much of the history of this people is contained in their very lan-
guage. If we now look at the various German tribes, we shall find
none which had so much intercourse with both Greeks and Romans,
that it could have had such an influence upon their language, except
the Goths. After the time of Constantine, they were very closely con-
nected with the Eastern empire, and subsequently took possession of
the Roman provinces along the Danube, from which they issued to es-
tablish two new kingdoms in the Roman territory.
$135.
Certain learned men probably paid no attention to these considera-
tions, when they broached the idea that this version might be Fran-
conian.
The Franks had no version of the Bible in their language until the
time of Ottfried von Weissenburg. Besides, the structure of the Fran-
conian language is very different from that of the language of the Cod.
Argent., particularly in the union of the verbs to be and to have, as
auxiliaries in the formation of certain tenses; in the formation of the
passive voice; and in respect to the use of the dual number, which is
unknown to the Franconian. When this Introduction first appeared,
it was necessary that all this should be treated in detail, and much more
GOTHIC VERSION.
289
taken into consideration, in order to determine the people of Germany
to whom the two documents at Upsal and Wolfenbüttel belonged. We
are now spared these details; for the point has been since determined
beyond dispute.
1
The certificate preserved in the Episcopal archives at Arezzo, con-
taining a subscription of five lines in letters similar to those of the Cod.
Argent., has long been known. The first who published it was Doni;¹
he did not, however, adhere closely to the characters, but altered them
so as to be more like printed letters. Lye, Knittel and Ihre, who con-
fided in him, repeated his errors. The Abate Marini, a respectable
scholar, examined the original anew, and published it with great accu-
racy.2 We see from this edition that the characters are really the same
as those of the Cod. Argent.; not indeed elegantly written, but made
by an unskilful penman. But neither does this document afford us any
explanation as to the people among whom the characters were current;
for it contains no trace or hint of what nation the persons were who
executed it.
4
The valuable relic at Naples is more decisive. It was formerly in the
archives della SS. Annunciata, and is now in the Royal Library at
Naples, in the Hall of MSS., where it is suspended behind glass in a
frame at a window which fronts the principal street. Sabbatini first pub-
lished it.³ Ihre attempted to explain it, and after him Zahn.5 But
neither was this relic copied with care and fidelity. Marini first gained
the credit of giving an accurate representation of it. Lastly, Count Si-
erakowski had it copied anew from the original and engraved; but I could
find no copies of it in the print-shops or bookstores of Italy.
This document is a deed of sale, on Egyptian papyrus, of about the
year 551, signed by all the clergy of the Gothic church of St. Anasta-
sia (aclisie Gotice Sancte Anastasie). Of the signatures, which occu-
py 66 lines, 10 lines are written in the characters which were called
Gothic, only by conjecture till this document was discovered. From
this we learn what people possessed these characters. They are by no
means beautifully written; yet the characters and the language of the
Upsal Codex are not to be mistaken.
Among the confirmatory documents we ought to reckon the fragments
discovered by Maio of a calendar written with the same letters as the
1 Donii inscriptiones antiquæ, edit. ab Ant. Fr. Gorio. Florentiæ, 1731, p.
469.
2." I Papyri diplomatici raccolti ed illustrati d' all' Abate Gaetano Marini,
primo custode della Bib. Vat. e Prefeto degli archivi secreti della santa sede in
Roma MDCCCV. nella Stamparia della S. Congreg. de prop. fide. N. CXVIII.
p. 179, 80.
3 "Il vetusto calendario Neapolitano scoverto; con varie note illustrato dal
Ludovico Sabbatini d'Anfora Neap. 1744." 4to. p. 101-106.
4 Monument. vet. linguæ Ostrogoth. Neapoli. . . . repertum, illustratum a
Jo. Ihre in Novis Actis Societat. Scient. Upsaliensis. Vol. III. Ups. 1780."
p. 1-31.
5 Versuch, einer Erklärung der gothischen Sprachüberreste in Neapel und
Arezzo, als eine Einladungsschrift und Beylage zum Ulfilas. Von. J. Chr. Zahn.
Braunschweig. 1801." 8vo.
6" I papyri diplomatici raccolti," &c. N. CXIX. p. 180, 81, 82.
37
290
GOTHIC VERSION.
Epistles of Paul discovered by him. The pages contain the last eight
days of June and the whole of July. Two festivals disclose the people
among whom these fragments originated; one, on the 23d of June,
“of the martyrs put to death among the Goths, and of Fritharik," the oth-
er, on the 29th of the same month: "in memory of the martyrs who were
burnt with Vereka the priest and Batwin the minister of the Gothic
church.1",
As to the other points, the calendar only renders probable what is
made certain by the document at Naples.
$136.
Except the Silver Codex at Upsal and the pages discovered by Knittel
at Wolfenbüttel, all the documents of this kind are found in Italy. Prob-
ably even the Silver Codex at Upsal was executed in Italy. MSS. writ-
ten in silver letters on purple-colored parchment, with initial lines of
gold, seem to be peculiar to that country.
The splendid MS. in the Royal Library at Vienna, written on purple
in silver and gold, containing the Gospels of Luke and Mark, was for-
merly possessed by the Augustines of St. John de Carbonara at Naples.
The MSS. of the four Gospels described by Blanchini (one at Brescia, Co-
dex Brixiensis argenteus, the other at Verona, Cod. Argent. Veronens.)
are well known. They are preserved in both places in the library of
the cathedral. In the cathedral-library at Peruggia there are fragments
of Luke's Gospel, written in silver on purple. (Blanchini, Evangeliar.
quadruplex. T. II. p. DLXI.)
The Silver Codex of Upsal arranges the Gospels in the following or-
der: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. They stand in the same order in
the MSS. of Brescia and Verona, in the Codex of St. Eusebius at Ver-
celli, and (as respects Luke and Mark) in the above mentioned MS. at
Vienna.
Beneath the Gospels of the Upsal Codex stand the Canons of Euse-
bius. The margin, in which the four Evangelists are separated into sec-
tions by the Ammonian or Eusebian numbers, is divided by columns in-
to seven compartments. The columns are united above by arches so as
to resemble an architectural design. The capitals are not executed ac-
cording to any one of the usual orders, but in that barbarous taste which
we denominate Gothic. Now this design and this decoration of the
capitals are found exactly in the same way below the Latin Gospels in
the Codex Argenteus Brixiensis above mentioned.2 Such casual cir-
cumstances, not the result of any rule, but depending upon the customs
of a region or a people, are satisfactory evidence of national relation-
ship.
If the Upsal Codex was written, as the preceding considerations ren-
der very probable, in Italy, it must have originated, at the latest, in the
beginning of the 6th century, before the Gothic supremacy in Italy was
destroyed and the whole nation almost extirpated.
1 Ulphilæ partium ineditarum specimen. p. 26. 27.
2 Comp. the representation in Büsching's Analectis Ulphilanis, (Dissert. I.
De Cod. argent., p. 189) with Bianchini, Vindiciae canonicar. scriptur. Vulga-
tæ editionis etc. Romæ 1740. fol. p. CCCLXXXI.
GOTHIC VERSION.
291
Only the Wolfenbüttel fragments of the Epistle to the Romans appear
to have had their origin in Spain. When they were expunged, the Orig-
ines of Isidore of Seville were written over them in Latin characters,
such as are found, according to Knittel, in Spanish MSS. of the 10th
century.
$137.
Having thus satisfied ourselves that we possess the greater part of
the New Testament in the language of the Goths, we may enter upon
some inquiries in respect to that people. When they first attracted the
particular notice of history, they were dwelling on the eastern bank of
the Dniester and along the Black Sea, within uncertain limits to the
north and northeast. Another portion of the same people had settled
down between the Dniester and Pruth, as far as to the mouths of the
Danube. The latter are called Visigoths, and the former Ostrogoths.
Issuing from these regions, they molested the Roman provinces, after the
time of Caracalla, or served the emperors against other nations for pay.
Frequently, in order to keep them quiet, it was agreed to pay them annu-
al sums of money, under the pretext of alliance. If the stipulated sums
were withheld, an irruption into the Roman territory was the certain
consequence. Sometimes, after they discovered their advantage, they
plundered the country even when the sums had been paid.
Under the indolent Gallienus such visits were made, not only by the
Goths, but by the barbarous tribes on every side. It is to these irrup-
tions in the reign of Gallienus that the conversion of the barbarians, and
particularly of the Goths, is ascribed by ecclesiastical historians. There
were sometimes Christian teachers among the many prisoners whom
they carried away; through these they became acquainted with the doc-
trines of Christianity.1
Their expeditions extended into Pontus, as we learn from the eccle-
siastical proceedings instituted by Gregory of Neo-Cæsarea (called
Thaumaturgus, or worker of miracles,) against wicked Christians who
bought the spoils of the country from the Bogádois and Tóvois, be-
trayed to them the situation of treasures, or assisted in carrying them
away.2
Mention is made by several historians of the expedition or rather ex-
peditions into Pontus. "The Goths," says Eutropius, "have ravaged
Pontus and Asia."3 Another writer says: "The Scythians, or a part
of the Goths, ravaged Asia, came to Heraclea, and at last to Pontus,
where they were defeated.”4 The account given by Zosimus seems to
me the best. Those whom Gregory called Bóoadoi he calls Bógavor.
They penetrated into Pontus, but were driven back by the Roman com-
mander Successianus. As soon, however, as they learned that he was
1 Sozom. H. Eccles. L. II. c. 6. This is stated more expressly by Philostorg.
H. Eccles. L. II. c. 5.
2 Beveregii Synodicon. sive Pantactæ Canon. T. II. Oxon. 1672. p. 24-29.
Epistola Synodica Greg. Thaumat. cum Comment. Balsamon. et Zonar.
3 Eutrop. Breviar. L. IX. c. 8.
Trebelius Pollio in Gallieno, c. 12, 13.
292
GOTHIC VERSION.
recalled from the province of Pontus, they came again, took Trapezunt,
and returned home of their own accord when they had plundered to
their satisfaction.1
These events were the occasion of their conversion to Christianity,
and in a short time it gained many adherents among them; for at the
great Nicene Council the decrees were subscribed by Theophilus Bos-
phoritanus, Metropolitan of the Goths.2
After the Council of Nice, the Goths obtained a new missionary, nam-
ed Audius, a man of strict habits of life, who, however, resisted the de-
cree in regard to Easter, and was banished from the country by Constan-
tine for his open contumacy. He now travelled to Scythia, and into
the very interior of Gothland, imparting instruction and even founding
considerable monastic establishments both of males and females.3 One
of the Gothic chiefs, however, hated the faith of the Christians, and
violently persecuted those who adopted it, on the ground that it was
the religion of the Roman rulers; but he could not prevent the exten-
sion of the faith nor destroy the sources of instruction.4
Such, nearly, was the state of things, when they were compelled to
abandon their country by the pressure of a wild horde of greater bar-
barians than themselves. The Huns expelled the Ostrogoths; and
these, urged on upon the Visigoths, pressed upon the latter and drove
them onward before them.
Ul-
Forced to yield to the impulse, they had no other means of safety,
but to send an embassy to Valens, petitioning that they might be admit-
ted into the Roman dominions on the Danube. At the head of the
embassy was Ulfila, a Gothic Bishop.5 In order to ensure success,
fila promised for himself and his countrymen, to adopt the doctrines of
Arius, which had been ardently espoused by Valens and those about
him. The Emperor granted their request; they were soon followed by
the other half of the Western Goths, who, like their brethren, were
transplanted to the provinces of Thrace and Mosia.
But scarcely, says one historian, had they reached their new posses-
sions, when a division arose among them. Athanarich, who was dis-
affected towards the Christian doctrines, would not tolerate them among
his followers and persecuted with severity all who professed them.
Frithigern, an adherent to the doctrines of Christianity, thinking himself
bound to protect the persecuted, sent Ulfila to seek assistance of the
Emperor and obtained it.”
This last persecution and embassy would seem, however, to have been
referred to so late a period only by mistake, and to be the same as
those before mentioned. Sozomen alone mentions this second perse-
1 Zosim. L. I. c. 31, 32, 33.
2 He subscribed his name to the Acts of the Council (according to Latin his-
torians) as Theophilus Gothorum Metropolis and Theophilus Bosphoritanus. (Comp.
Socrat. H. Eccl. L. II. c. 41.)
3 Epiphan. Hær. LXX. § 14. p. 827. ed. Colon.
♦ Epiphan. loc. cit. § 15. p. 828.
5 Sozomen. Hist. Eccl. L. VI. c. 37.
6 Sozomen. L. II. c. 6.
7 Sozomen. loc. cit.
Theodoret. H. Eccl. L. IV. c. 37.
GOTHIC VERSION.
293
cution, and he takes no notice of the first. Other writers mention but
one persecution, which occurred while the Goths still dwelt in their
own country and were still orthodox. To this period it is assigned by
Epiphanius, from whom we have derived the preceding account, by
Socrates, the historian, and by Augustine, who assigns it to a period
antecedent to the rise of Arianism.2 If Ulfila was despatched to the
Emperor on account of this persecution, to implore his assistance a-
gainst the oppressor Athanarich, it was the first mission of the Gothic
Bishop, and facilitated the second, when he came to request a place of
abode for his ejected countrymen.
Valens, as we have said, admitted the Goths, and they were provided
for. Some time after, however, eastern affairs having called Valens to
a distance, they were, in the absence of the emperor, so grossly ill treat-
ed by one of his generals and the governor of Thrace, that the aggrieved
nation suddenly arose, rebelled, and defeated their oppressors. They
then applied to their own use the Roman arms which they had taken
from the vanquished, and became doubly formidable.
Valens hastened from Asia to punish them. Although they were in
a condition to meet him on the field of battle, they sent an ambassador
to apologise for them and conciliate Valens. The historian denomi-
nates the person who was entrusted with this commission, Christiani
ritus presbyter. Probably Ulfila stood for the third time in the capacity
of ambassador. But the fate of Valens was determined (proceeds the
historian); a battle ensued and the emperor was left dead on the field.¹
From this time the Goths were more secure in their possessions, and had
they known the value of their victory, they would not have suffered
themselves to be sent away with presents from the gates of Constan-
tinople.
$138.
The Bishop of the Goths, whom the ancient writers sometimes call Ul-
filas, sometimes Wulfilas, and who is well known to us by what he accom-
plished, is proclaimed by the unanimous voice of history the inventor of
the Gothic alphabet and the translator of the sacred books of the Old
and New Testament.5 The language of ancient writers is so general
as to imply that he translated all the Sacred Scriptures, τας θείας γραφάς,
iegas Biẞlovs, divinas scripturas. Philostorgius alone makes an excep-
1 Socrat. H. Eccl. L. IV. c. 33.
2 Augustin. De Civ. Dei L. XVIII. c. 52.-" Nisi forte non est persecutio com-
putanda, quando rex Gothorum in ipsa Gothia persecutus est Christianos crudeli-
tate mirabili, cum ibi non essent nisi Catholici, quorum plurimi martyrio coronati
sunt: sicut a quibusdam fratribus, qui tune illic pueri fuerant, et se ista vidisse
incunctanter recordabantur, audivimus."
3 Ammian. Marcellin. L. XXXI. c. 4.
4 Ammian Marcellin. Hist. L. XXXI. c. 12.
5 Socrates H. Eccles. L. IV. c. 27 (according to some editions, 33). Sozomer.
L. VI. c. 37. Cassiodor. Hist. Tripart. L. VIII. c. 13. Jornandes, De reb. Goth. c.
51. Heupelii Dissert. de Ulfila, Witteberg, 1693. Essbergii Ulphilas Gothor.
Episcopus. Holmiæ. 1700. both in Büsching's collection. Benzelii Præfat. to
the Gothic Gospels, edited by Edward Lye.
294
GOTHIC VERSION.
tion in regard to the book of Kings, saying that Ulfila regarded it as
imprudent to put into the hands of a warlike nation a military history
which might inflame their imagination. Were the historic credit of Phi-
lostorgius less questionable than it is, it might nevertheless be objected
that there was equal reason why Ulfilas should not have translated
Joshua, Judges, and indeed a great part of Moses' writings, as well as
other books.
Before we pass to the question when Ulfila undertook his translation,
we must correct another mistake which disfigures the history of his life.
The same Philostorgius represents the bishop as a distinguished man as
early as the time of Constantine the Great, and introduces him into the
Nicene Council. He confounds Constantinus with Constantius, and
the Nicene Council with one at Constantinople, which, through the in-
fluence of Acacius, passed resolutions that were not favorable to the
orthodox doctrines. In this, however, Ulfila faithfully adhered to the
doctrines of the fathers. I quote the words of Sozomenus: 'Enì de
τῆς Κωνσταντίου βασιλείας απερισκέπτως οἶμαι τοῖς ἀμφὶ ᾿Ευδόξιον
καὶ ᾿Ακάκιον τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντινοπόλει συνόδου διέμεινε κοινωνῶν
τοῖς ἱερεύσι τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνελθόντων. (L. VI. c. 37.)
3
Although perhaps he was engaged in public affairs at an earlier pe-
riod, he did not translate the Sacred Scriptures till after he removed
with his countrymen to their new residence on this side of the Danube.
This fact is attested by the historian Socrates, and the language and char-
acters of the version afford clear proofs of it. Some of the letters com-
posing his Gothic alphabet were borrowed from the Roman charac-
ters, viz. d, h, s and f. The many Latin words (§. 134) which he has
adopted in his version, imply that his countrymen were residing in the
Roman provinces, and had thus become familiar with the signification
of such words.
§ 139.
The translation was made from the Greek text. The orthography
observed in it is borrowed from the Greek. The I is generally written
EI: SOKJIS, thou seekest, is generally written SOKJEIS. SOKITH,
he seeks, is still oftener written SOKEITH. The Greeks pronounced
y before y, or x, like v; and this custom is shown in the orthography of
the Gothic version. I will give instances of it, retaining the Greek ľ
as in the Codex: INNгATTAITH THAIR ATTVU DAUR.
UNTE BRAID DAUR JA RUMS VITS SA BRITTANDA IN
FRALUSTAI. Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide (is) the
gate and broad (is) the way that leadeth to destruction." (Matt. 7: 13).
This single verse affords us three examples. Take in addition, Matt.
6: 31, DRITKAM, to drink; 10: 42, TADRATKEITH, he gives to
drink; Mark 2: 16, DRITTKITH, he drinks; and, from the fragments
of the Epistle to the Romans, 12: 20, DRATKEI, drink; 15: 15,
TATTIS, thou goest.
1 Philostorg. H. Eccles. L. 2. c. 5.
2 Philostorg. loc. cit.
3 Socrat. L. IV. c. 33.
GOTHIC VERSION.
295
This is proved yet further by the care with which the translator ex-
hibits the etymological sense of particular words. In Mark 12: 33, he
renders oλoxavtaμara, exactly in accordance with its etymology, AL-
ABRUNSTE; in John 7: 3, oxηvonnyiα, HLETHRASTAKEINS,
the fastening of tents; John 10: 22, naivia, INNJUGITHA, com-
pounded of the words in and jung, as the Greek of &v and xaivos. In
Luke 1: 51, where all the Latin MSS. have superbos (Vercellens. Vero-
nens. Brixiens. Corbei.), he translates unsongάvous by MIKIL-
THUHTANS, in order to imitate the undo and qaivopai. In Luke 1:
1, where the Latin versions incorrectly render πεπληροφορημένων by
completa sunt, he presents the sense and the etymology accurately:
GAFULLAVEISIDONS. So in Mark 14: 56, where the Latin trans-
lator was obliged to use at least two words for yɛvdoµaorvoovv, he
exhibits its composition very happily by one word, GALIUGVEIT-
VODIDEDUN. Immediately after, too, (v. 58,) where in Latin two
words are necessarily used for aɣεioonоinтov, non manufactum, he
uses, like the Greek, but one word, UNHANDUVAURHTA.
α
TO
The translator, further, has confounded words in such a way that he
must have had the Greek before him. Thus, in Luke 3: 14, he mistook
ΑΡΚΕΙΣΘΕ for ΑΡΧΕΣΘΕ. The word VALDAN exists in the
Franconian and Anglo-Saxon dialects, in the sense which we give it
now-a-days, and it is found in composition in the Gothic in Mark 10:
42, GAVALDAND, governing. Had Lye and Ihre here thought
what would be the corresponding Greek word, and then compared it
with that with which Luke used, they would not have been perplexed
by this passage.
Even the Gothic readers endeavored to amend their
version here, probably from the Latin MSS.; for in the margin are
the words GANOHIDAI SIJUTH, as though they had before them
contenti estote (Veronens. Brix.), or sufficientes estote (Vercellens.).
Επ
The translator confounded the word лenλnowxev, in John 16: 6, with
лεлάошиεν, so that GADAUBIDA, hath deprived of sense, is used in-
stead of GAFULLIDA, hath filled. This mistake has been remarked
before; as well as that in Luke 8: 25, where for tougñ the word toon,
FUDEINS, food, victuals, is used.
In John 7: 12, anon's is substituted for ayados, which was very easy
in Greek; but in Cod. Brix. Argent., likewise, which resembles this
one very much, the same substitution occurs, the translation being
verax est. It would be difficult, therefore, to determine which of the two
originally made the mistake, and which borrowed it from the other.
A similar case occurs in Matt. 8: 9, where the translator, by inaccurate
punctuation, joined exov to ¿ovolav, and then, to make sense, chang-
ed or mistook ὑπ' ἐμαυτόν for τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ. He thus obtained the fol
lowing clause: ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν ἔχων τὴν ἐμαυτοῦ
στρατιώτας. A circumstance of this kind could have originated only
from a direct inspection of the Greek. But Cod. Brix. gives precisely
the same turn to the sentence: et ego homo sum habens sub potestatem
meam milites. Now who can decide which of the two translators first
misinterpreted the original, and which took his translation from the
other?
I conjecture that two words are confounded in another place. Though
the case is not exactly pertinent, I will indulge myself in a word or two
296
GOTHIC VERSION.
upon it, as it gives me an opportunity to present an amendment of the
Gothic text. In Matt. 27: 48, δραμών is strangely translated bearing.
Φερών and δραμών could hardly be mistaken for each other; the mis-
take must therefore be elsewhere, viz. in the Gothic. The words
SUNSTRATIDA and SUNSSIIRATTIDA,-sunsthragida, he
bore quickly-sunssprangida, he ran quickly,-were erroneously con-
founded with each other.
In Luke 1: 10, προσδεχόμενον, ΒEIDANDANS, (still retained in the
Suabian dialect in the word beithen, to wait for, to expect,) is substitu-
ted for προσευχόμενον. In Luke 14: 14, the translator read αυτοὶ οὐκ
ἔχουσιν iustead of ὅτι οὐκ ἔχουσιν. In Luke 15: 16, for κεραίων is
put HAURNE, κεράτων; for κέρας is translated HAURN in Luke 1:
69, and we find in Matt. 9: 23, HAURNIANDANS, blower of a
horn. In Luke 19: 25, μνᾶς was taken for an abbreviation of μερίδας,
and translated DAILOS, parts. In Rom. 11: 33, the translator read,
for ανεξερεύνητα, the word ανεξερετα, a compound hardly to be met
with in any good author; yet he has rendered it syllable for syllable,
UN-US-SPILLODA, not ἄρρητα
Lastly, in Luke 9: 18, συνῆσαν αὐτῷ is rendered GAMOTIDEDUN
IMMA, which Edward Lye translated by the Swedish mötte hom, and
the English met him. There is no doubt that GAMOTJAN (Luke 14:
31. Mark 14: 13,) signifies to meet. Hence συνῆσαν must have been
mistaken for συνήντησαν.
$ 140.
It is clear, therefore, that the version was made from a Greek MS.,
and, as we shall see, from one belonging to the Constantinopolitan Re-
We will exhibit proofs of this from the eleventh chapter of
cension.
Mark.
Lucian.
Hesychius.
2. οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων
οὐδεὶς οὔπω ανθρώπων
λύσαντες αὐτὸν ἀγάγετε
G.
λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ φέρετε
3. αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει ὧδε
G.
ἀποστέλλει πάλιν αυτόν
6. ἐνετείλατο
G.
7. ἐνέβαλον ἐπ' αὐτῷ
G.
εἶπεν
ἐπιβάλλουσιν ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν
9. έκραζον λέγοντες
G.
έκραζον
10. βασιλεία ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου
G.
βασιλεία
11. εἰς ῾Ιεροσόλυμα δ᾽ Ἰησοῦς
G.
εἰς ῾Ιεροσόλυμα
13. μακρόθεν
G.
ἀπὸ μακρόθεν
ειρήσει τι
G.
τὶ εὐρήσει
14. ἐκ σοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
G.
15. εἰσελθὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς
G.
18. γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς
G.
εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ
εἰσελθών
ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς
23. αὐτῷ ὃ ἐὰν εἴπῃ
G.
αὐτῷ
•
24. λαμβάνετε
G.
ἐλάβετε
26. *)
28. καὶ λέγουσιν
καὶ ἔλεγον
τὴν ἐξουσ. ταύτ. ἔδωκεν
29. ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν
G.
32. ότι όντως προφήτης
ருடுடு
G.
33. λέγουσι τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ
ἔδωκε τὴν ἐξουσ. ταύτ.
εἶπεν
G. ὄντως ότι προφήτης
τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ λέγουσιν.
G.
GOTHIC VERSION.
297
>
α
There are two peculiar readings in this chapter found only in the
Gothic text; viz., in v. 10, after Evovouari, the word xvolov is omitted
(probably because the following τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαβίδ did not seem
to the translator consistent with zvo̟lov); and in v. 33, héy. auto is read
instead of λέγ, τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ.
The 26th verse, which is wanting in many Egyptian MSS. (and prob-
ably in the Recension generally, though I will not positively assert this,)
existed in the Gothic text, as in all Constantinopolitan MSS.
In two readings, however, this version follows neither the Lucianian
nor Hesychian Recension, but adheres to the third. In the 2d verse it
reads οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἀνθρώπων; not ούπω, as Lye asserts, for NAUH
is πώ οι πώποτε—οὐδέπω or οὔπω is NINAUH. This reading it has
in common with Cod. Argent. In v. 8., where the Constantinopolitan
and Egyptian Recensions agree in the reading is tǹv óðóv, it has, not
IN VIG, but ANA VIGA, Ev τn odą, which is found in A, K, M, 11,
114, 116. In other readings, however, it deviates so far from the MSS.
of the third Recension, that these two instances are only exceptions
from the general fact.
It was not the lot of this document, however, to continue long without
additions; for the Latin versions previous to Jerome's time, with which
the Goths in Italy became acquainted, furnished various materials, for
(as it was supposed) embellishing the MSS. of this version with many
additions. This was the more likely to be done, as sometimes one of
these Latin versions was written by the side of the Gothic, of which
convincing evidence is afforded by the fragments of the Epistle to the
Romans. Alterations were made in order that they might harmonise
where as yet they did not, and probably often only for the sake of mak-
ing the lines and verses of each correspond.
When they were not written opposite each other, collation frequently
gave rise to marginal notes, which were afterwards inserted in the text.
Ihre, in the preface to his "Ulfilas illustratus," enumerates fourteen
marginal notes in the Codex Argenteus, ready for incorporation with the
text as amendments in the next transcript of it which should be made.¨
g. at Luke 9: 34, ἐν τῷ ἐκείνους εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν νεφέλην, where
the translator confined himself closely to the Greek phraseology, some
one has placed the Latin reading at the side, AIH AT IM IN MILH-
MAM ATGAGGANDAM, like Cod. Veronens. and Brixiens., “et in-
trantibus illis in nubem." Junius even adopted the last reading in the
text of his edition.
E.
It was in this way that a version intended to represent the Constanti-
nopolitan Recension with extreme fidelity, and to render it word for
word, became of so heterogeneous a character. From the Latin, e. g.,
comes the long addition after nãow ois inolɛi in Luke 9: 43, which
appears as follows in the MS. of Brescia: Dixit Petrus, Domine, quarė
nos non potuimus ejicere eum? at ille dixit, hoc genus non exiet, nisi in
orationibus et jejuniis.-So in v. 50, after vnio vuav kortv, where the
Latin MSS. read: Nemo est enim, qui non faciat virtutem in nomine
meo, et poterit male loqui de me, the Gothic text contains the first part of
the Latin reading as far as et poterit, with a small variation: Nec ullus
enim est hominum, qui non, etc. But it is too well known what this ver◄
sion has suffered from the acquaintance which its readers had with the
38
298
GOTHIC VERSION.
ancient Latin text, to make it necessary for me to present further proofs
or examples.
Yet the difficulty which this creates in criticism is not great. The
origin of the Gothic version would lead us to expect that it should certi-
fy what was formerly genuine and usual in the Constantinopolitan Re-
cension. On this point it is certainly a venerable and authoritative wit-
ness, and, in order to obtain its evidence pure, it is merely necessary that
what has been added to it from the Latin should be carefully distinguish-
ed and separated. This is in general so easily perceptible, and can so
readily be removed by collation, that there is very little danger of er-
ror.
As to the Epistles, the passages selected as specimens by Maio are
not very well suited to show what Recension the version exhibits, be-
cause many of the discrepancies between different Recensions are not
perceptible in versions; and this is the case in the specimens which
are published, more than in the other chapters of the Pauline Epistles.
$141.
The procedure of the translator evinces that he was a man of ability,
sound judgment and capacity. He does not give a merely general ex-
pression of the meaning of the text, nor content himself with a para-
phrase of it, without reference to each particular word and minute part
of speech; but he confines himself strictly to his text, and adjusts his
language to it by means of well-chosen phraseology and happy com-
pounds, without doing violence to the language or sacrificing its laws
to an obscure literalism. We see that he was sometimes at a loss as to
the Greek; but over his own language he had complete mastery.
It
was, in fact, no light thing to undertake a work of this kind, in a dia-
lect, the laws of which had not been investigated and had not been
enumerated, discussed, or classified by any grammarian, and, notwith-
standing, to execute it with as much consistency and uniformity in the
management of the language, as if he was provided with a regular
grammar of its principles.
He seems to have added punctuation-marks himself, to assist his
countrymen in reading and understanding his version; for they are
found in the Upsal and Ambrosian copies, and are alike in all. At the
end of a sentence a dot is placed, and two dots at the end of a series of
sentences or a paragraph.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is wanting in both of the Milan MSS.;
and perhaps not accidentally, as is confidently asserted. This, how-
ever, need not surprise us, for it was not acknowledged by the friends
of the Arian creed generally. (Comp. the IId Part of this Introd. §
147.)
SCLAVONIC VERSION.
299
THE SCLAVONIC VERSION.
$142.
In the beginning of the 9th century, the archbishops of Lorch, in
what is now Austria above the Ens, attempted to extend and establish
Christianity in Moravia. Their attempt succeeded. Many of the prin-
cipal men of the kingdom, and among them Duke Moymir, attached
themselves to the missionaries and were baptized.
But the quarrels between Louis, king of Germany, and Rastislaw,
Duke of Moravia, stopped the progress of the German priests in the lat-
ter country. When Rastislaw heard of the success with which Con-
stantine, surnamed the Philosopher, preached Christianity among the
Chazars, on the northern shore of the Black Sea, he determined to get
finally rid of the German missionaries, and requested the court at Con-
stantinople to permit this Constantine, who was afterwards called Cy-
ril, to teach his subjects. He came, accompanied by his brother Metho-
dius, and entered on his new duties. Hitherto Latin MSS. had been
used in the religious worship of the Moravians. Constantine and his
brother clearly perceived how much influence they would acquire over
the people by instituting public religious service in the national language.
They therefore made use of the alphabet which they had invented for
the Bulgarians, and prepared a Sclavonic version of the Psalter, the
New Testament, and the liturgical books. The result justified their
undertaking; but it was regarded unfavorably at Rome. No absolute
prohibition, however, of their judicious scheme was issued; a middle
course was proposed.
$143.
The Sclavonic version, then, was made in the middle of the ninth
century by two native Greeks, and, as would be expected, from Greek
MSS. They were born and brought up under the Constantinopolitan
patriarchate, and were sent from Constantinople itself into the new
harvest. We may hence infer the character of the MSS. they carried
with them, and, what text is followed by the version.
And it certainly exhibits, in general, the text of that family of MSS.
which we have denominated the Constantinopolitan or Lucian Re-
cension. We will select but a single chapter of the Gospels in proof of
this. All the readings here presented from Lucian's Recension are ex-
hibited in the Sclavonic version, as we know from Prof. Alter's colla-
tion of two MSS. in the Royal Library at Vienna, viz. Cod. Slav.
No. CCCLV, and No. CCCLVI.
300
SCLAVONIC VERSION.
Lucian.
Mark V.
Hesychius.
2. καὶ ἐξελθόντι αὐτῷ
3. αλύσεσιν οὐδείς
9. σοὶ ὄνομα
ἀπεκρίθη λέγων
12. καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν πάντες
οἱ δαίμονες λέγ.....
13. αὐτοῖς εὐθέως
ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐξελθ . . . .
14. οἱ δὲ βόσκ ..
τους χοίρους
καὶ ἐξῆλθον
15. καθήμ . . . . καὶ ἱματισ .
18. ἵνα ή μετ' αὐτοῦ
•
19. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἀφῆκ . . .
22. zaì idov égz ··,
23. καὶ ζήσεται
25. καὶ γυνή τις
83. γέγονεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ
38. καὶ ἔρχεται
40. ὁ δὲ ἐκβαλ.
το παιδίον ἀνακείμενον
καὶ ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ
αλύσει οὐκέτι ουδείς
ὄνομά σοι
λέγει αὐτῷ
καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτόν
λέγ....
αὐτοῖς
καὶ ἐξελθ .
καὶ οἱ βόσκ . .
αυτούς
καὶ ἦλθον
καθήμ . . . ἱματισ .
ἵνα μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ
καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκ .
καὶ ἔρχ ...
καὶ ζήσῃ
καὶ γυνή
γέγονεν αὐτῇ
καὶ ἔρχονται
αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκβαλ .
τὸ παιδίον
•
One of the students and friends of Sclavonic literature has asserted,
judging rather, it would seem, from a few engraved readings than
from the general character of this version, that it agrees remarkably
with Codex L and D.¹
τι
It is true that it has frequently the same readings, because the MSS.
of one Recension were interpolated from another; but I apprehend
that very few of them owe their origin to interpolations from Greek
MSS. At any rate, it frequently happens that such readings as it has in
common with L and D, occur likewise in the Vulgate and in the Latin
fathers. E. g. Matt. 10, 12, τὴν οἰκίαν λέγοντες, εἰρήνη τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ,
DL. Vulg. 12: 15, πάντας δὲ, οὓς ἐθεράπευσεν, ἐπέληξεν, D. Slav.
2. Vulg.-17: 2, λευκὰ ὡς ὁ χιών, D. Slav. Vulg. Mark 11:15, καὶ
πάλιν ἔρχονται, I,. Vulg. 11:24, ὅτι λήψεσθε, D. Vulg.-14: 41,
ἀναπαύεσθε τὸ τέλος, D. Latt. 15: 16, ἔσω εἰς τὴν αὐλήν, D. Latt.
Luke 2: 23, ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ, BDL. Slav. 1. Vulg.
-11: 14, δαιμονίου ἐκβληθέντος, AL. Vulg. &c.
$144.
2
Interpolation from the Latin is possible and supposable, if the regula
tion of John VIII respecting the use of the Sclavonic language in the
church service ever went into effect. Yet, granting this, it did not
1 Dobrowsky in Michaelis' "Neuer oriental. exegetischer Biblioth." T. VII.
p. 155–167.
2 Baron. ad ann. 880. "Jubemus tamen," writes John VIII to Duke Swato-
pluk, "ut in omnibus ecclesiis terræ vestræ propter majorem honorificentiam
Evangelium Latine legatur, ut postmodum Slavonicâ linguâ translatum in au-
ribus populi Latina verba non intelligentis annuncietur, sicut in quibusdam
ecclesiis fieri videtur." No. XIX.
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM,
301
long continue in force; for Wratislaw, Duke of Bohemia, requested
Gregory VII to permit the use of the Sclavonic version among his sub-
jects in religious worship. Gregory refused, on the following ground in
particular: non immerito sacram scripturam omnipotenti Deo placuisse
quibusdam in locis esse occultam, ne, si ad liquidum cunctis pateret,
forte vilesceret et subjaceret despectui, aut prave intellecta a mediocribus,
in errorem induceret.” (Greg. Ep. L.VII. Ep. 15 a. 1080.) The Scla-
vonic ritual, therefore, had been sometime out of use it was probably
dropped between the years 935 and 970, when the bishopric of Moravia
and that of Regensburg were united. I therefore readily restrict my as-
sertion that the Latin version had an important influence on the read-
ings of the Sclavonic, particularly as appearances may be explained by
the condition of the Greek copy from which the latter was made.
One Recension was sometimes interpolated from the others, and thus,
clearly, readings from the zon doois and from Egyptian MSS. may
have been introduced into Constantine's copies.2
145.
Although this version lays no claim to high antiquity, it is yet a valu-
able document, exceedingly worthy of critical pains. The editio prin-
ceps of the Gospels is a quarto edition of 1512, which appeared in Wal-
Jachia; next comes the Gospels published at Wilna, 1575, then the
whole bible at Ostrog, 1581, and a reprint at Moscow, 1663.
CHAPTER IX:
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.
$146.
A sketch of the history of the text of the New Testament has been
presented, and the means which offer their aid in obviating the inaccura-
cies with which it has become disfigured have been enumerated and dis-
cussed in their order. We have now to seek for the principles by which
our procedure in the execution of this task is to be directed. These we
shall most surely arrive at by considering the accidents to which the
text has been exposed, and in what way the various errors in it origi-
nated. History is here, as generally when practical rules of conduct
are in question, our instructress.
The more the history of the text has been developed, the greater sim-
plicity and precision have the operations of criticism obtained. We are
1 Assemani, "Kalendaria ecclesiæ universe." T. IV. P. II. c. 3. §. 24. p.
202-5.
? I willingly yield this deference to Dobrowsky, who (in Slavanca, a periodi-
cal work on Sclavonic literature, 2d number, Prag. 1815,) defends the Sclavonic
version against the imputation of interpolation from the Latin, which, in the first
edition of this work, I asserted more confidently than I ought.
302
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.
now aware, that in critical decisions all depends on a few voices only,
which are to be compared, examined, and weighed. Criticism has
ceased to be an interminable task, in which there is no end to the in-
quiry for various readings, in which in every particular case it is neces-
sary to refer to some hundred MSS., and to give each of them its
weight. It has ceased to be the case that a scholar, irresolute which
of the multitude he should follow, can, according to his taste, or his pre-
ference for a particular MS., or a liking for some peculiarity, some new
various reading in a particular Codex, or other grounds not at all better,
select and form a text which may be destroyed by the next editor,
who does it only to see the same right exercised upon him by his suc-
cessor. We now know the deficiencies in our critical apparatus; we
perceive a limit to our labors, a definite purpose in the collection of
readings, and a rule by which we may decide respecting them.
Our documents are now divided into certain classes, under which
each individual document which we already possess and are acquainted
with, or which we may hereafter obtain, (unless a new class should make
its appearance,) may be comprised. All MSS. which cannot be includ-
ed under any one of these, having been produced by strange mixtures
of different texts, can come into consideration only so far as they throw
light upon the history of the various accidents to which the text was ex-
posed. We have a text termed the xovn indoors, the Gospels of which
are exhibited in Codex D, the MSS. of Thomas of Charkel, and 1, 13,
19, 124; the Acts of the Apostles, in DE, and Thomas' MSS.; the
Epistles, in DEFG; and the whole in the old Syriac version, the Latin
versions antecedent to Jerome, and the Upper Egyptian or Thebaic ver-
sion.
We have a text amended by Hesychius, the Gospels of which are pre-
served in the MSS. BCL and some others; the Acts and Catholic Epis-
tles in ABC, 40, Vat. 367. Matthæi I.; the Pauline Epistles in ABC,
17, 46; the Apocalypse in AC, Vat. 579 and 26. Vindob. Kollar.
We have the whole in the Lower-Egyptian or Memphitic version, and
the Pauline and Catholic Epistles in the Ethiopic.
We have an amended text by Lucian, of which the Gospels are con-
tained in the MSS. EFGHSV and b, h.; the Acts in the Moscow MSS.
f, al, b, d, c, m, k, in Alex.-Vat.29. and Lambec. XXXVIII. XXXV.;
the Pauline and Catholic Epistles in the Moscow MS. g, and in k, l, m,
c, d, a3, b, in Alex.-Vat. 29. Pio-Vat. 50., and Lambec. XXVIII.
XXXVII. XXXV. I.; the Apocalypse in r, k, p, 1, and o, Harlei. 5613.
or Griesb. 29. Lamb. I. Alex.-Vat. 68. Vat. 116. Pio- Vat. 50. We
have the Gospels in the Gothic version; the Acts and Epistles in the
Arabic version of the Polyglots; the whole New Testament in the Scla-
vonic version.
Lastly, we have also a text of the Gospels revised by Origen in A,
K, M, 42, 114, 116, Matth. 10. and the Philoxenian version. A more
exact knowledge of this version will disclose in what MSS. the other
parts of the New Testament are contained.
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.
303
$147.
The xown exdonis, as we have shown, exhibits the ancient text, but
with many alterations, which it underwent during the 2d and a part of
the 3d century. These alterations were the attempts of private indi-
viduals to illustrate the Bible, and as such did not pass into all MSS.,
but differed in MSS. as readers, times, and places differed. Now these
passages in which such alterations took place are arbitrary disfigure-
ments of the general text. In order to possess the true text we must
obtain the most ancient, in which no such alterations had yet taken
place. All will agree to this; and consequently we assume it as a prin-
ciple, that
That text is the true text which was read in all MSS. without excep-
tion in the most ancient times.
To discover this, however, we ought to have a very great number of
MSS. of the xown endonis of various countries and periods, so as to
determine from comparison what are merely temporary and local addi-
tions to the text. Now as this is not the case, it might be thought that,
though this principle be valid, we must despair of obtaining by its aid
the ancient unanimous text. So it would appear; but, in preparing
each recension, its author must have collected a great number of the
MSS. of his country for the purpose of adopting or rejecting accord-
ing to their agreement or disagreement. Each Recension, therefore,
represents a collection of MSS. of the zowy exdoois, as far as in any
particular country they harmonised in one text; and we hence derive a
second principle.
The MSS. of the xový exdoors and the Recensions of different
countries afford us together, the means of determining the most ancient
and universal text.
§ 148.
Neither of the Recensions, however, has come down to us through
its MSS. in a state of purity. All of them in process of time were sub-
jected to repeated accidents. We must, therefore, first of all discover
what each of them did or did not read, and what each of them actual-
ly testifies in favor of; i. e. we must first restore the purity of the Re-
censions. To do this we must make use of our former principle, viz.
that,
That which the MSS. of a Recension unanimously exhibit, is the pe-
culiar reading of that Recension.
(a) Where MSS. differ, however, the oldest deserve the preference
over the more modern; as they have not so often passed through the
hands of copyists, who were in the habit of introducing into the text
the annotations in the margin and between the lines, and indulging
themselves, likewise, in criticisms of their own.
(b) As it respects more modern MSS., those are to be preferred to
others of their own age, or are to be considered next in rank to the old-
est, which are not disfigured by numerous peculiarities, contain the few-
est lectiones singulares, have suffered least from additions and correc-
304
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.
PRI
tions, and betray the least negligence-in short, the less they differ from
their class generally.
(c) Where we have both the ancient MS. and the more modern
transcript of it, they are to be regarded as one MS. and not as two.
(d) In respect to versions of which we possess good critical editions,
the older they are, the nearer they approach the period when the Recen-
sions which they represent came from the hand of the emendator, and
they are therefore more decisive than a MS. Generally, too, the trans-
lator made use of more than one of the MSS. of his country.
(e) The same is the case also in respect to the earlier fathers, when
we are certain what they really read.
When these old and long established rules are not sufficiently deci
sive, they may be supported or their deficiencies supplied by internal
marks. The critics to whom we owe the Recensions (particularly
Hesychius,) gave the preference in their choice of readings to the most
grammatical expression or the purest Greek phraseology. (§ 37.) The
following principles result from this characteristic of their critical pro-
cedure.
(a); That reading is the genuine reading of the Recension, which
accords best with the laws of the Greek language, or is most elegant.
(6) The Recensions took their rise from the xown endoois of their
country; so that when there are various readings, that is most probable
which agrees most with the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις.
κοιν
(c) Here, however, another historical fact must be taken into con-
sideration. Revised MSS. were subsequently interpolated anew from
MSS. of the zon Exdoois. (§ 40.) Now if there is any probability
that the agreement arises from this circumstance—if, e. g., the reading
し
​κοιν
of the zon Exdoors appears only in modern MSS., while in others it is
inserted in the margin or between the lines, or placed over the earlier
readings as a correction-if such signs of a later interpolation are vis-
ible, we must follow precisely the opposite principle from the preceding.
(d) That reading of one Recension is to be preferred which agrees
least with another Recension. For the Recensions were in later times
frequently interpolated from each other by copyists and readers who
collated different MSS. (§ 37.)
(e) In case of difference in MSS:, we shall readily observe whether
the beginning or end of church-lessons, the critical observations of the
fathers or of commentators have had any influence in respect to that dif
ference; in which case the suspicious part must give way to that to
which no suspicion is attached.
(f) My observation has led me to believe that Hesychius usually fa-
vored the shortest readings; Lucian the longest. (§ 38. 111. 139. 143.)
$ 149.
When we have discovered what is the true reading of each Recen-
sion, it becomes the business of criticism to weigh these three voices or
Recensions and the existing MSS. of the xový zdoors against each
other, in case they do not agree.
Every Recension is, in truth, a collection of several MSS. of the
nown exdoors, with this difference, that the judgment of its author
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.
305
has already discarded or adopted what appeared to him on collating
the MSS. worthy of rejection or approval; often, however, as his taste
and inclination dictated. This last was particularly the case in respect
to their preference of the reading which was pure and elegant as to
Greek construction, and especially in their avoiding, when they could,
all Hebrew phrases and turns of expression.
I. When, therefore, the MSS. of the xown exdoois still extant agree
in a harsh and rude expression, their agreement in it is of more weight
than the agreement of the Recensions in one more strictly grammat-
ical and elegant.
ΚΟ
II. As not only the authors of the Recension, but also the readers of
the noun indoors, earnestly strove to get rid of the Hebraisms-when a
Hebraistic reading is still preserved in a MS. of the xown indoors, it is
to be considered as a genuine constituent part of the text in spite of
the opposing voice of the Recensions.
III. It is also a universally admitted principle, that we should incline
to that reading which is encompassed by exegetical difficulties. For
all correctors labored to elucidate or get rid of such readings, and cor-
rections were always made, not to render passages more difficult, but
more plain. Yet there must be such an agreement in the MSS. of the
xown endosis in regard to a reading of this kind, as to leave no room
for supposing that the difficulty originated in the blundering awkward-
ness of the copyist.
These are the cases in which the testimony of the xown xdoois
outweighs the authority of all the Recensions; for the authors of the
latter, in these cases, did not follow so much the evidence of the best
copies they could obtain, as their own private judgment.
$ 150.
IV. But in general the Recensions maintain a far higher authority
than the existing MSS. of the nový zdosis. For each of them arose
from, and is the result of, the collation of several such MSS. Hence
any reading in which they all agree is a reading universally attested in
various countries and copies.
V. But if the Recensions differ, we can hardly allow a preeminence to
one over another; for we do not know respecting either that its author
consulted more, older, or better copies than the rest. If we were to
grant precedence to either of them, it would be Origen's; inasmuch as
its author had the most experience in the business of criticism, was
able to procure more MSS. than the others, and was likewise more
cautious and prudent in his procedure than any other ancient critic.
But it is very seldom that we can apply such a precedence to any prac-
tical use.
Two Recensions frequently contradict the other, and,
VI. When this happens, the majority of voices is to decide. For,
inasmuch as, in preparing the text, each author of a Recension consult-
ed several MSS. in his own province, the agreement of two Recensions
against the other is to be relied upon the more securely, as the MSS. of
two different provinces could hardly have been subjected to the same
corruptions, in such a manner that they would be found in the greater
number of the MSS. used.
39
306
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.
ม
VII. In some instances, however, each of the three Recensions has
a different reading. The reason of this difference lies either in the fact
that the authors favored that reading which was least Hebraistic, most
grammatical or elegant, (here come in the principles laid down in the
preceding §); or in the fact that in the ancient copies which they fol-
lowed, certain mistakes had become so universal that the critics were
induced to adopt them as genuine readings.
(a) Now the ancient copies were corrupted, (not to speak of what
was introduced into them from harmonies and apocryphal books,) by the
interpolation of passages and expressions from another writer, or from
some parallel passage, and further, where the Old Testament is referred
to in the New, by the adoption of some expression or clause from the
former. (§. 24. N. 3. §. 31. N. 3.)
(b) The formulæ at the beginning and end of church-lessons were in-
serted in the text itself. (§. 24. N. 1. §. 31. N. 6.)
(c) A change was made in the order of the words in order the better
to connect them with such introductory or concluding formulæ, or, gen-
erally, to connect more closely clauses which seemed too far separated
from each other. (§. 33. N. 6.)
(d) Some passages are given in a paraphrastic form. (§. 33. N. 4.)
When a mistake of this description, or a similar one, (several of which
we have enumerated in the history of the xown exdonis,) is found in any
Recension, its authority is no longer to be regarded in settling the true
reading.
VIII. It may be the case, when in a particular passage the three
Recensions differ, that two of them approach each other, and differ only
in unimportant points; in which case their agreement in the main
brings us pretty near the true reading.
IX. When Recensions differ, it may happen that the MSS. of the
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις concur with one of them and give it a preponderance
over the others. Or the unrevised text may afford us hints from
which we can infer the origin of the readings in the Recensions, and can
judge from that origin what estimation they deserve.
X. These rules respect additions or alterations in the text; and we
have not as yet considered at all a third species of variations, viz. omis-
sions. As to these, it is a generally admitted rule that, where one clause
ends in a similar manner as the following, i. e. with the same expression
or like phraseology, what is wanting shall be restored to the text, since
it was left out only on account of the Homoioteleuton.
XI. Omissions were made intentionally, however, when synonymous
expressions followed one another in such a way that one of them was
regarded by the critic as an addition, and was rejected accordingly.
(§. 24. N. 7.)
XII. Or, which is nearly the same thing, when tautological expres-
sions or clauses occurred, as was not unusual with the Hebrews, one of
them was removed from the text as an explanatory addition. (§ 24
N. 8.)
When Recensions differ, if either of these causes has occasioned the
omission of an expression or passage in one Recension, such omission
is to be supplied from the others.
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.
307
$151.
In the use, however, and estimation of these means of criticism, we
must be guided principally by a minute study of each writer, his style,
his favorite expressions and phrases, his custom as to the use of connect-
ing words, his grammatical peculiarities, &c. It is not till we have
become intimately acquainted with the character of each in these re-
spects, that we can pronounce what readings belong to him; which
we should choose, and which reject.
We are inclined to attribute something in this business to critical
sensibility or feeling. I admit that in works of art and of taste this fre-
quently guides us happily, even when it is not possible to explain it
intelligibly. But so long as we stop with this, our judgment is merely
conjecture. To the connoisseur this suffices but for a moment, until he
has received the impression; he then analyzes his sensations, searches
for their causes in the object, and satisfies himself that his sensations are
correct and why they are produced.. Much more should this be the case
in respect to writings which are rather anomalies than works of art.
INTRODUCTION
TO THE
SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
PART II.
CHAP. I.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
$1.
We find in ancient Mss. a twofold order, in which the Gospels are
arranged. They stand either thus: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; or
thus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The first arrangement is made
with reference to the character and rank of the persons; the Apostles
taking precedence of their assistants and attendants (azolovois, co-
mitibus). It is observed in the most ancient Latin versions,¹ and in the
Gothic; sometimes, also, in the works of Latin fathers; and in one only
of all the Greek Mss., viz. that at Cambridge.
The other order, viz. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, is the common and
established one in all the ancient versions of Asia and Africa, in all
catalogues of the canonical books, and in Greek Mss. generally. Pay-
ing no regard to personal relations, it follows the order of time, and is a
plain indication what accounts in regard to the succession of the Evan-
gelists were current among the Asiatic, Greek, and African churches,
at the time when the Christian Scriptures were collected and arranged.3
The same statement, although in a mutilated form, is still extant in
1 Codd. Brix., Veronens., Vercellens. and, in part, Vindobonens.
2 Tertullian. L. IV. Adv. Marcion c. 2. " Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis
Johannes et Matthæus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant.'
3 Luke's Acts of the Apostles is his devtapos lóyos, the second part of his
Gospel. (See below § 71.) The two books, therefore, as belonging together,
should have been united. This might easily have been done, if it had been
thought proper to assign Luke's Gospel a place after John's. But it was consid-
ered best violently to separate the two part, rather than permit the succession
of the Evangelists to take an order at variance with history.
310
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
>
1
Epiphanius,' and in the Church History and Chronicon of Eusebius.2
Eusebius concurs in the main, if not in every particular, with the Cyp-
rian bishop. It can therefore make no difference which of the two
accounts we examine; but we will give the preference to the father
of Church History. After quoting for some time statements of other
persons respecting John, he says in his own words: Let us now spe-
cify his undisputed writings. Here we must first of all mention his
Gospel, which is acknowledged by all the churches under heaven;
and that it certainly was properly placed by the ancients, in the fourth
place, after the other three, is evident from what follows... Matthew,
who taught at first among the Jews, published his Gospel in his native
language, when he went to visit other nations, in order, by written in-
struction, to make amends to those whom he left for his absence.3 When
Mark and Luke had published their Gospels .. and these three had
fallen into the hands of many persons, and among the rest into his own,
he accorded them his approbation and his testimony to their accu-
racy; . . . . only there were some deficiencies in them
which account John, it is said, by request, treated in his Gospel of the
period which had been omitted by the rest and the actions of our Sa-
viour which were included in it."
•
on
Long before these two writers, however, a learned biblical critic, Ori-
gen, had declared that Matthew was the oldest historical Christian wri-
ter; Mark the second; Luke the third; and John the last of the four.4
Still further back, in the second century, Irenæus represents this
same chronological succession of the Evangelists as a matter about
which there was no uncertainty or difference of opinion.5
The Latins, although they did not adopt the chronological order in
their copies, assigning the first rank to the Apostles and the next to
their disciples, were not ignorant of the order of time in which they suc-
ceeded each other. Jerome constantly asserts that Matthew wrote first,
then Mark, then Luke, and last of all, John. The same is stated by
Augustine.6
The account contained in the celebrated fragment in Muratori
mounts up more than a century above the days of these two fathers.
According to this, Luke was third in the order of time in publishing his
Gospel, and the beloved disciple last. Accident has destroyed the ac-
count as to the two first.7
Whatever degree of discrepancy there may be between the costumes
with which the fact is clothed by different writers, and however various
1 Epiphan. Hær. LI. from the words: ǹ yào nãoa twv evayyehímv úñódɛois
οντως έχει.
ούτως
•
2 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 24.
>
3 It should perhaps be read: aq' in diεotéhleto.
4 Euseb. H. E. VI. 25. Comp., also, Origen's Homil. VII. in Josuam. T. II.
Opp. Ruei. p. 412. "Sacredotali tuba primus in evangelio suo Matthæus incre-
puit; Marcus quoque, etc. Comment. in Jo. T. VI. p. 132. Opp. Vol. IV.
Αρξάμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ Ματθαίου, ὃς καὶ παραδεδότας πρῶτος τῶν λοιπῶν τοῖς
Εβραίους ἐκδεδωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς πιστεύουσι,
5 Iren. L. III. Adv. Hær. c. 1. Euseb. H. E. V. 8.
6 Augustin. De consensu Evangelist. L. I. §. 3.
7 Antiqq. Ital. Medii ævi. T. III. p. 854.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
311
may be the sources from which they derived it, they all agree in respect
to this chronological relation of the Evangelists, and are unanimous in
assuring us that this was the real order of succession.
One only must be excepted, viz. Clement of Alexandria, who as-
serts, that those Gospels which contain the genealogies were written
first. This allegation does not, indeed, call in question the priority of
Matthew, but it assigns to Mark only the third place among the Evange-
lists. He also refers expressly to his authority for this statement, against
which I can only say that Origen, his pupil, and the fathers generally after
him, considered the authorities which they followed to be so unques-
tionable that not one of them concurred with the opinion of Clement;
and, moreover, that the historian by whom we have been apprised of
this opinion, did not in consequence of it waver in his own belief a mo-
ment. We may hence infer the confidence and certainty which the
ancients felt in regard to the succession of the Evangelists; all being
agreed respecting it but Clement.
At the lowest estimate, these declarations of the ancient Christians must
be regarded as making this order very probable, and requiring us to pro-
ceed in our investigations accordingly, hoping they will be confirmed,
but determined to reject them if they involve us in difficulties of impor-
tance or lead us to absurd conclusions.
$2.
Of the four biographies of Jesus extant, that of Matthew is declared
by history to be the oldest. She is, however, so contradictory in her testi-
mony as to the precise time at which it was composed, and as to certain
other points in regard to it, that we can expect no satisfactory informa-
tion from her, but must refer the whole inquiry to the province of higher
criticism. The inferences which we can draw as to the immediate pur-
poses of the writer from his mode of procedure, and as to the time at
which he wrote from the circumstances, which surrounded him, are in
this case more to be relied on than either of the various accounts of
antiquity.
The scene of the events related is Judea; the persons introduced
are mostly natives of that country; the circle of thought, the religious
and civil circumstances are Jewish, and very different from those of
most of the nations of that period.
Mark, who, like Matthew, wrote the life of Jesus, frequently finds it
necessary, from regard to those whom he expected to be his readers, to
explain certain peculiarities in Jewish customs and opinions. The
Pharisees, he relates, complained that the disciples of Jesus ate noivaîs
xɛooiv, i. e. literally, with common hands. Supposing that his readers
might not be acquainted with the Jewish signification of this expression,
he subjoins the explanation: that is to say, with unwashen hands, Tour
ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις. Still apprehending that they might not thoroughly
comprehend the ground of this complaint and the reply made to it, he
explains the occurrence by an observation on the customs and opinions
1 Προγεγράφθαι ἐλέγετο τῶν εὐαγγελίων τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίας. Euseb.
H. E. VI. 14.
312
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
of the Pharisees, stating that they never eat without washing their hands
and would think themselves, in case they were to do so, defiled. He ex-
plains what the nαoασxεun meant among, the Jews, by saying, i. e.
the day before the sabbath, τοῦτ' ἔστι προσάββατον ; and likewise what
was meant by xooẞav, as Josephus did for his Roman readers.
Matthew relates these same things, as well as many others, often even
using the same expressions; but he abstains from any addition by way
of explanation, taking it for granted that all was familiar to his readers
already.
Luke makes numerous observations of a geographical nature, in or-
der to inform his friend Theophilus, (for whose use primarily the work
was composed,) as far as possible in consistency with due brevity, in re-
gard to the places which were the theatre of particular events.
This is not Matthew's custom. As he deems it superfluous to add
explanatory observations in respect to manners, customs, and opinions,
peculiar as they all were to Palestine, so likewise as to geography, he
seems to have no apprehension that his narrative might be obscure and
unintelligible to any one of his readers from ignorance of the country,
cities, etc.
In the twenty-second chapter, he does indeed attempt to assist the
reader to comprehend definitely the objection of the Sadducees, by re-
minding him that they deny the resurrection : οἱ λέγοντες μὴ εἶναι
άvάorαov; but this explanation was necessary even to many of his
own countrymen, for the opinions of this sect, though liked by the rich
and powerful, as they favoured their dissolute mode of life, were (as we
are told by Josephus,) far from being current among the people.¹
Now whether he pursued this course because he intended his work
for his own countrymen only, or because he had not had opportunity by
travelling, as had Mark and Luke, to observe the customs of different
nations and their dissimilarity from those of the Jews, the inference must
be the same; and we see from the author's procedure, that Palestine was
his circle of vision, and that the Jews of that country, or such foreign-
ers as frequently came thither and were familiar with its customs, man-
ners and peculiarities, were uppermost in his mind while preparing his
narrative.
$ 3.
In considering, too, the practical scope of his history and the reflec-
tions which he makes upon the actions of Jesus, the purpose and view
with which he wrote are apparent. He frequently affords us an oppor-
tunity of seeing clearly what, in his opinion, it was most important for
his readers to understand. So long as a writer merely details events, he
leaves us to pass our own judgment upon them; but as soon as he be-
gins to make reflections of his own, he ceases to be a bare narrator of
facts, lets us into his own mind and makes us participate in his purpo-
ses and views.
All Matthew's reflections are of one kind. He shews us, as to every
thing that Jesus did and taught, that it was characteristic of the Mes-
1 Joseph. Ant. L. XVIII. c. 1. § 4.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
313
siah. On occasion of remarkable events or a recital of parts of the dis-
courses of Jesus, he refers us to the ancient Scriptures of the Jews, in
which this coming Savior is delineated, and shows, in detail, that the
great ideal, which flitted before the minds of the prophets, was realized
in Jesus. This idea he carries with him through his whole narrative
while Mark and Luke seldom quote passages from the Old Testament,
and generally never except when they are put into the mouth of some
person speaking in the history, in which case they are parts of the nar-
ration, and not the reflections of the historian himself. Without reck-
oning the passages Matt. 1: 23. 2: 6, 15, 18, the following, 3: 3. 4: 14.
8: 17. 12: 17. 13: 35. 21: 4. 26: 56. 27: 9, are each quoted with the
words: ὅπως or ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν, and taken together in their con-
nexion and situation, leave no doubt in respect to the main purpose
of the writer.
This book, therefore, deserved to be denominated ɛvayyékɩov, or the
cheering annunciation of the Messiah, an appellation which was sub-
sequently applied to all the other biographies of Jesus, although their
particular design was very different from that of Matthew.
§ 4.
If it was the principal aim of the writer to show that Jesus was the
Messiah, it must have been his object not so much to present a complete
history chronologically arranged and descending to the minutest details,
as to bring events under one general view which should display the dignity
of his person and character, and to select facts that would exhibit a bold
outline which was not to be filled up minutely. This Matthew has
done. At the commencement of the ministry of Jesus, he presents
in one view a summary of his doctrines drawn from many discourses,
combining them in the well-known Sermon on the Mount, which, as is
now admitted, consists of several discourses delivered at different times.
In like manner he has thrown together the parables of Jesus, though
delivered at different times and places, into one collection (Chap. 13,
14), these parables affording proof that Jesus corresponded with the
promised Saviour in respect to his mode of teaching, viz. in parables,
which was foretold by the prophets to be a characteristic of the Mes-
siah (13: 35). The aim of the writer, therefore, would lead us to ex-
pect, not so much a biography arranged in chronological order, as a
concise exhibition of the character and objects of Jesus, containing
facts selected for this special purpose, and excluding all details which
that did not require. As the Platonic father, Justin Martyr, denomi-
nates the Gospels generally, anouvnuovεúuara, we might compare this
book of Matthew with Xenophon's Memorabilia, to which it has an ev-
ident resemblance in its plan and arrangement.
πο
$5.
From some hints scattered in the book, it would seem that a long pe-
riod elapsed after the events before the time when it was composed.
Matthew often avers that traces of certain occurrences still existed in
the country at the time when he wrote, and expresses himself as one
40
314
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
would speak of things that happened a considerable while ago. (27: 8.
28: 15.)
In narrating the condemnation of Jesus, he explains a circumstance
which he must have thought would not be perfectly familiar to his read-
ers. The circumstance is that of Pilate's proposing Jesus and Barab-
bas to the people, that they might set one of them at liberty, to which
Matthew adds the remark, that it was customary at that feast for the
Prætor to liberate any one prisoner whom the people desired. (27: 15.)
This was a circumstance which, as an immunity founded on custom,
could not very soon be forgotten.¹
α
The passage, 23: 35, which mentions Zacharias, the son of Bara-
chias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, is still more de-
cisive in fixing definitely upon the time at which the Gospel was com-
posed. There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact,
its circumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the
same Zaxavias Booouzou, who, according to Josephus, a short time be-
fore the destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the midst of the
temple. The name is the same, the murder and the remarkable cir-
cumstance which distinguishes it correspond, as well as the character
of the man, to liav r' avdoos µsoлóvηoov, his strict probity, and like-
wise his speaking the truth undauntedly to the Jews, as did the wise
men and prophets. Moreover, when Jesus says, that all the innocent
blood which had been shed, from Abel to Zacharias, should be avenged
upon the Jews, the ano and os denote the beginning and the end of a
period, put for all the events coming between. The period ends with
Zacharias; he was to be the last before this vengeance should be exe-
cuted. The threatened vengeance, however, is, that Jerusalem shall
be given up to destruction and become desolate. (23: 37, 38.) Must it
not then have been the same Zacharias, whose death is distinguished
in history, among so many murdered, as that of the only righteous man
between the death of Ananias the High Priest and the destruction of
the Holy City?
The Zacharias who is mentioned in 2 Chron. 24: 20, 21, is not the one
here intended. He was a son of Jehoida, put to death, not between the
temple and the altar, or ¿v μέoo to vag, but in the court; nor was he
the last of those unjustly slain, or one with whom an epoch in the Jew-
ish annals terminates. Was there no other righteous man slain after
the days of king Joash, in which this happened? and were not the oth-
ers to be avenged? Was punishment then inflicted for all the innocent
blood that had been shed? Was that period an epoch in history, re-
markable as a period of general judgment upon the Jewish nation?
It is plain, moreover, that this Zacharias is represented by Jesus as a
person yet to come. He says: I send you wise men and prophets,
whon ye shall scourge, slay and persecute, μαστιγώσετε, σταυρώσετε,
digere, that the punishment of all innocent blood from Abel to Zach-
arias may come upon you. Here Zacharias terminates the list of right-
1 This and the subsequent observations from which I have ventured to draw
an inference respecting the time when the book was composed, have, since
their first publication, obtained the concurrence of a celebrated scholar. See
Eichhorn's Einleit. in N. T. I. Th. p. 507. seq.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
315
eous persons on whom the Jews were subsequently to lay hands, whom
they were yet to scourge and crucify, and for whose blood they were to
be answerable.
Jesus, therefore, spoke prophetically of the Zacharias whom Jose-
phus mentions (Bell. Jud. IV. c. 6. n. 4), whose death occurred long after
Christ. Now Matthew, in relating the words of Jesus, represents him
through the whole prophetic passage as expressing himself in the future
tense and speaking of Zacharias as one yet to suffer; but when he
comes to the murder, he reveals his knowledge that it had already
taken place, and, instead of putting the fact, as he should have done, in-
to the mouth of our Lord in the future tense, he speaks of it expressly
as an event already past, and says: öv ¿quvevoate peragú etc., whom
ye slew between the temple and the altar.
The event occurred some time after the conquest of Gamala, which
took place in the month Hyperberetæus, our October. After this Jo-
sephus reckons one spring and one winter, then a summer in which the
death of Nero occurred. Here then we have the time of the occur-
rence of this event, which was in the mind of the writer, when he com-
posed his book, as a thing that had already taken place.
Another circumstance of a similar kind thrown out in his book re-
fers us to the same period. In a conversation in regard to the destruc-
tion of the temple and of the Jews as a nation, (c. 24,) Jesus tells his
disciples the signs of the approach of this event, and in particular, one
relative to the temple, which, when perceived, was to be the signal for
flight. When, says he, ye shall see the dévyua τns conμwoεws stand-
ing in the holy place, then flee. History has preserved but two occur-
rences in the temple before its entire destruction, to which this expres-
sion is applicable, and which, on account of their intimate relation to
the destruction of this splendid edifice and of the whole country, may
be regarded as prognostics and occasions of destruction and ruin.
The second of these, however, was but a sequel of the first. The wild-
est of the zealots, a band of robbers, who assumed the appellation of
zealots for their country, took possession of the temple, made the sanct-
uary a place of arms and the seat of their tyranny and murderous
deeds. The high priest Ananias, who still hoped to effect a reconcilia-
tion with the Romans, attempted to expel the zealots from the temple;
but in vain. Henceforth they continued the dominant party, making
the temple a fortress and the centre of the war, from which they direct-
ed the fate of Jerusalem and in which they maintained themselves
against the Romans until it was destroyed by fire.
Thus was the holy place defiled by detestable deeds; the abomination
of desolation was in its midst. Even Josephus sees in these events the
presage of the inevitable destruction of the whole state according to the
prediction of the prophets."
1 Εγέλατό τε τὰ θεῖα, καὶ τοὺς τῶν προφητῶν θεσμούς, ὥσπερ ἀγυρτικὰς λογο-
ποιΐας ἐχλεύαζον. Πολλὰ δὲ οὗτοι περὶ ἀρετῆς καὶ κακίας προεθέσπισαν, ἃ
παραβάντες οι ζηλωταὶ, καὶ τὴν κατὰ τῆς πατρίδος προφητείαν τέλους ἠξίωσαν.
Ην γὰρ δὴ καί τις παλαιὸς λόγος ἀνδρῶν ἔνθα τότε τὴν πόλιν αλώσεσθαι, κατα-
φλεγήσεσθαι τὰ ἅγια νόμῳ πολέμου, στάσις ἐὰν κατασκήψῃ, καὶ χεῖρες οἰκείαι
ΠΡΟΜΙΑΝΩΣΙ τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τέμενος, κ. τ. λ. (Bell. Jud. L. IV. c. 6. n. 3.)
316
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
They had not long held the temple, when in order to make sure of
its continued possession and of superiority over those who were peacea-
bly disposed, they called to their aid the Idumeans, a heathen people,
who not only profaned the temple by their unholy presence, but even
perpetrated a horrible massacre within it, so that the outer temple
streamed with blood.
It matters not to our purpose which of these two events, if they may
be regarded as distinct, be considered the βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως.
They are certainly the only events which history presents, that can be
thus designated, or rather they are the only remarkable occurrences rel-
ative to the temple, previous to its complete destruction, which are
mentioned in history at all. Both took place immediately before the
death of Zacharias.
Now when Matthew, in recounting the language of our Lord on this
subject, comes to what he said respecting the abomination of desolation
in the temple, he suddenly interrupts our Saviour's words with an apos-
trophe to his readers: "When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination
of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,
whoso readeth let him understand, then let them which be in Júdea flee
to the mountains."
Matthew must have found occasion for this exclamation in the exist-
ing condition of things. As the passage relates to the signal for flight,
and he exhorts his readers not to let it pass unnoticed, it must have ex-
isted and been apparent then; the admonition of Jesus must have re-
ferred to events of that period, and the sign, the abomination of desola-
tion in the holy place, τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, ἑστὼς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ.
must have made a deep impression on his mind.
Such were the circumstances of the time when Matthew wrote the
last chapters of his book. The passage cannot have been written at a later
period. When these scenes occurred in Jerusalem, the Romans were
already in possession of Galilee, and were on the eve of conquering Ju-
dea. Had they already taken it, the warning to the inhabitants of Ju-
dea to take advantage of this signal for flight would have been useless.
$ 6.
These circumstances, moreover, were the immediate inducements to
his undertaking and to the plan of his work. Both during and before
the civil commotions of the Jews, as we are assured by Josephus, Taci-
tus, and Suetonius, the idea was current among them that the time was
not far distant in which their deliverer and the restorer of their inde-
pendence, the Messiah, would appear. This belief, as is observed by
the writers above mentioned, contributed in no small degree to animate
their resolution to begin the war and to maintain it with obstinacy.
The rebellion which was commenced against the Romans united the
whole nation together in one common interest. With fanatical en-
thusiasm all again became Jews; and Christianity must thus have lost
many of its followers.
In the midst of such ideas and circumstances, Matthew wrote his
sketch of the actions, doctrines, and miracles of Jesus, referring to the
ancient sacred books in which, confessedly, were scattered the lineaments
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
317
of the Messiah's portrait. He proved that he had already appeared in
the person of Jesus of Nazareth, that his life and his actions accorded re-
markably with the representations of the prophets. This was a grievous
attack upon the raised hopes and the delusions of the leading insurgents,
as well as upon the principal ground on which they had swayed public
opinion.
Many might learn from this book, in which Jesus foretold the destruc-
tion of the religious and civil constitution, the temple and the holy city,
how little success was to attend the present efforts, and how much more
to their advantage it would be to continue faithful to the patient sect
of Christians.
It would have a tendency, too, when the temple was actually destroy-
ed, and all the splendour of the Jewish worship, feasts and sacrifices
had come to an end, to cause a considerable part of the surviving Jews
to embrace Christianity and, after the accomplishment of these events,
the occurrence of which had been foretold so early in his book by Jesus,
to acknowledge him as their Teacher and their king Messiah, who had
founded a kingdom of virtue and truth for the children of Israel. The
work was designed to preserve from apostasy those who were already
disciples of Christianity, and to prepare the way for future conversions.
from Judaism.
$ 7.
Such was the result. The new system had many steadfast adherents
among the Jews, and after the destruction of Jerusalem gained many
more, who, however, in Palestine and every where else, were reluctant
to abandon any part of Judaism, but wished to unite it with the religion
of the Messiah. They were themselves divided in their tenets, and form-
ed two sects known under the name of Nazarenes and Ebionites.
The Ebionites were particularly distinguished by their ardent adhe-
rence to the Law and to Judaism, and by peculiar tenets in regard to
Christ's superior nature. They rejected all the religious books of the
Christians, and had in their stead a single historical account of the acts
of Jesus which they called zard Marvalov,¹ and which, from its being
composed in the Hebrew language, is also called svayyékiov zað Eß-
ραίους.
2
1
> C
The Nazarenes, also, who were skilled in the Hebrew language and
continued till a late period to read in that language the sacred books of
their nation, retained their ancient reverence for the religion of their
fathers, and likewise possessed a Jewish representation of the Chris-
tian doctrines in a work which is cited under the title zo za ‘Eß-
palous evaɣyelíov; sometimes, though seldom, under the title xarà Mat-
datov; and which, as a book relative to the Messiah, may have been
regarded as a supplement to their Jewish canon.
The question hence arises: May not Matthew have originally written
his Gospel in the Hebrew language?
1 Irenæus. L. I. Adv. Hær. c. 26. L. III. c. 11.
2 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 27. Epiphan. Hæres. XXX.
318
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
8.
In fact, we are assured from another quarter, viz. by orthodox fathers,
that this was the case: Papias says: Matthew wrote his history in the
Hebrew language. This testimony, it is true, loses very much of its
weight, as Eusebius, through whom it comes to us, observes at the same
time that this father was of very weak understanding, návu oµizços
TOV VOUV. Eusebius, who possessed his writings, could judge more cor-
rectly on this point than we can; but as Papias has been taken under
the protection of learned men, (who might wish him somewhat more
acute to suit their purpose,) we will readily admit that he was only a lit-
tle weak of understanding.2
If we were not to consider the subject of our inquiry as a critical
question, and were to regard his testimony not as his own account, but
as merely committed to writing by him, he would merit some attention,
inasmuch as he is represented by the ancients to have been very indus-
trious in the collection of oral traditions, from which his writings were
subsequently compiled.
But in this case, as we are not previously assured of the writer's judg
ment, it is important that we should be informed of the sources whence his
(no doubt) honest statements were derived, to make amends for his lim-
ited discernment. These authorities, which were necessary, on account
of his feeble abilities, to accredit what he says, Papias has not adduced.
Is it not possible that he derived his account of a Hebrew text of
Matthew from the sect of the Ebionites or the Nazarenes? and if he
did, of what value would his statement be?
He certainly received direct or indirect information from that quar-
ter, particularly in respect to the Gospel of the Hebrews, a passage of
which he cited in his writings. He quotes, likewise, (says Eusebius, H.
E. L. III. fin.) from the first Epistle of John, also from the first of
Peter, and expatiates upon a story of a woman accused before our Lord
of many sins, which is contained in the Gospels of the Jewish Chris-
tians: ἣν τὸ καθ' Εβραίους εὐαγγέλιον περιέχει.
Now how much confidence can the historical inquirer repose in the
testimony of a man, who always relied upon reports and oral traditions,
whose capacity of judging concerning them was very limited, and whose
authorities, according to clear indications in this particular case, are very
suspicious?
I do not assert, as I have been charged with asserting, that either
Papias or Eusebius himself read the Jewish Gospel; but only that the
1 Euseb. Η. Ε. L. III. c. 39. Περὶ δὲ Ματθαίου ταῦτα εἰρήταιε· Ματθαῖος μὲν
οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνεγράψατο.
2 The severe judgment of Eusebius is founded, not merely (as Michaelis sup-
poses, in his Introd. Th. II. §. 133, 4th ed.) on the fact that Papias believed
in a Millennium, and understood certain parables too literally, but on the whole
tenor of his writings, in which he adopted as genuine the most absurd parables
and discourses attributed to our Lord, and many other fabulous things, xai
tiva ähha µvðinútεqa, among which was the Millennium. The stories which
Eusebius has extracted from him are not the standard by which we should judge
of him. He naturally selected for his history, not what was most fabulous,
but what was most useful and most probable.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
319
former, as he always depended upon ancient traditions, probably receiv-
ed information second or third hand from Jewish Christians. We
have even some evidence of this in his compilations, for one narrative
contained in the Jewish Gospel was specified by him on account of its
singularity. The words: ἣν τὸ καθ᾽ Εβραίους εὐαγγέλιον περιέχει,
do not necessarily belong to Eusebius as a remark of his own; they
may have been in the account given by Papias, to whom the story may
have come with this addition.
The objection that Eusebius has designated the authority Papias had
for his statement, viz. John the Presbyter,¹ would be of much more im-
portance, if it were not based on an assumption. John is, indeed, spok-
en of before in reference to the Gospel of Mark; but Eusebius does
not say that the subsequent statement in respect to the Gospel of Mat-
thew comes from the same source. We have no right to add any thing
to him, but must take him as he is. He separates the two accounts, con-
cludes the first and then begins the second: περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαίου
ταῦτα εἴρηται, where undoubtedly, we must supply τῷ Παπία; but
we are far from being authorised to understand: υφηγήσαντος τοῦ αὐ
TоU поεоẞνTÉQоυ. We shall refer to this testimony again hereafter.
(11.)
T
The next who makes these assertions is Irenæus.2 Matthew, says he,
published his Gospel among the Jews in their own language. Irenæus,
however, was not only so well acquainted with Papias that he may be
suspected of borrowing his account from him, but valued him highly,
and mentions him with so high an encomium for Irenæus to bestow,
that we may find in it, not merely ground for a supposition, but a pretty
clear indication that if he had read this account in Papias he would have
regarded it as perfectly authentic. This, says he, in reference to the
point of which he is treating, is recorded by Papias, who was one of
John's hearers, a contemporary of Polycarp, one of the ancients, in the
fourth book of his ἐξηγησίων λογίων κυριακών.
With Irenæus it was amply sufficient reason why his account should
be received with entire confidence, that he was contemporary and ac-
quainted with Polycarp, whom Irenæus venerated very highly. Now in
forming our opinion whether Irenæus depended upon Papias, let all these
facts be considered together; and to these it may be added that, in the
same passage in which he heaps these encomiums upon Papias, he rests
his belief in a millennium upon the authority of this father. (L. V. Adv.
Hær, c. 33.)
Now it was this very work, here quoted and eulogized by Irenæus,
which contained the account of the Hebrew text of Matthew, and which
Eusebius cites as above stated; so that there can be no doubt that Ire-
næus himself saw and read this statement of Papias in his writings. (H.
E. L. III. fin.)
The third witness is Origen, according to Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 25.
This father possessed a particular acquaintance with languages and much
1 Prof. Hermann Olshausen, “ Die Echtheit der kanonischen vier Evangeli-
en aus der Geschichte der zwey ersten Jahrhundertes." Königsb. 1823. p. 23
and 92.
2 Iren. L. III. Adv. Hær. c. 1. Euseb. H. E. L. V. c. 8.
320
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
general knowledge, and we might expect from him, on account of the
importance of the subject, an opinion founded on deep investigation.
He was capable of deciding the question properly. But the writer
through whom his declaration respecting the Hebrew text of this Gos-
pel comes to us, honestly observes, that the assertion of Origen was not
the result of any critical research, but that he appealed to tradition in
its behalf: ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαθών. Now if the παράδοσις was worthy
of credence, it came from ancient and respectable fathers. Such an
one was indeed current when Origen wrote, and we know its author.
There were Christian fathers and Jewish Christians who concurred with
it, and 'formed the common opinion on which Origen's judgment was
founded.
c
Eusebius himself is the last witness that deserves attention. (H. E.
L. III. c. 24.) This learned man asserts that the original text of Mat-
thew was Hebrew; he likewise denies this position. As a historian and
collector, following authorities which, as we see, he faithfully specifies,
he asserts it; but as a philologist and biblical investigator he arrives at
a different conclusion. In his commentary on the Psalms he remarks,
that Matthew, as one who was himself master of the Hebrew language,
cited the words: qdéjέoµai пooßhýµața άn' άoxñs (Ps. 77,) accord-
ing to his own translation (he is commenting on the Greek phraseology
employed by the LXX, whom Matthew deserted, rendering the passage
diferently) as follows: ἀντὶ τοῦ φθέγξομαι ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, Ἑβραῖος ἐν ὁ
Ματθαῖος οἰκείᾳ ἐκδόσει κέχρηται εἰπὼν ἐκρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα
x. T. 2.1
κ.
α
x
Now, if we trace all the testimonies to their source we find that the en-
tire historical deduction in behalf of a Hebrew original of Matthew rests
on the declaration of the Jewish Christians, a sect of whom, called
Ebionites, possessed a book in their language which they called zara
Marvalov, and, like every other sect, boasted that theirs was the only
authentic and complete religious book,2 in which allegation, perhaps,
the Nazarenes likewise concurred with them, and in favor of which
they contrived to prepossess some of the Christian fathers, through whom
the statement gained additional credit and currency.
$9.
But might not even Jewish Christians tell the truth and be worthy of
credence? The Ebionites formed a numerous body among the adhe-
ac.
1 "May he not have written in Syriac, and thus have translated the passage
from the Hebrew into Syriac? Eusebius asserts elsewhere (Dem. Evang. L. III.
p. 73. and 88. Rob. Steph.) that the Apostles understood no language but Syri-
"Theol. Quartalschrift. Tubingen. 1822. 3tes. Heft. p. 462.) He has, indeed, as-
serted this, without considering that in that case the whole N. T. must have
been written in Syriac. In his commentaries, however, a later work, he speaks
differently, and exactly as I have stated the matter. He says that Matthew
abandoned the phraseology of the LXX, and like a Hebraist, translated in his
own way: ¿xoεcoμai x. v. λ. “Aquila, however, has in his translation, instead
ἐκρεύξομαι κ. τ.
of this, ομβρήσω αἰνίγματα ἐξ ἀρχῆθεν; and Symmachus, ἀναβλύσω προβλήμα
Ta doyaĩa.” (p. 463, 464.) Did Matthew, then, write his Gospel in Syriac and
cite passages in it from the O. T. in the Greek Language?
2 Τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν (εὐαγγελίων) σμικρὸν ἐποιοῦντο λόγον. Eusb. Η. Ε. L. III. c. 27.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
321
rents to Christianity, and on this account, together with that of their an-
tiquity, their statement lays claim to our attention.
τ
The more ancient records assign their origin to a much earlier pe-
riod than some later historians. Irenæus, who mentions the Ebionites,
(L. I. c. 26,) speaks of them next after Cerinthus, immediately before
the Nicolaitans; Eusebius, however, places them next to Menander,
the disciple of Simon, before Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans. In this
arrangement, it is clear, he followed the order of time; for, after speak-
ing of the Ebionites, he proceeds: About the same time, xarà rovs
dεonkovμévovs zoóvous, appeared Cerinthus, another leader of the
heretics; lastly with these also, ¿nì roúrowv dñta, (he says in the follow-
ing paragraph,) the heresy of the Nicolaitans. (H. E. L. III. c. 26, 27,
28.) Jerome mentions among the heretics whom John opposes in his
Gospel, the then rising sect of the Ebionites, "et maxime tunc Ebionita-
rum dogma consurgens." (Catal. V. Jo. and Proœm. in Matth.) Epipha-
nius says, that according to the accounts which had come down to him,
the sect of the Ebionites took its rise at the time, when, after the de-
struction of Jerusalem, the Christians settled in Peræa, particularly in
Pella and the adjoining region. (Hær. XXX.) In the time of Hadrian,
they already reckoned among their number such distinguished men as
Theodotion and Aquila, and, as early probably, among their opponents
Justin Martyr, who, as we are informed by Theodoret, wrote in oppo-
sition to them. We know that his book against the heretics was of
older date than his apology, because this refers to the former and was
composed very shortly after the second Jewish war, which he calls in it
τὸν νῦν γενόμενον πόλεμον.
Respecting the antiquity and rise of the Nazarenes, we have not so
certain information. They were sometimes omitted by the Hæresiolo-
gists, either because they were included by them among the Ebionites,
or because they were regarded with more favor.
Their book, like that of the Ebionites, is no longer extant; but sev-
eral fragments of it which have been preserved, afford us materials for
judging respecting it. To do this, we must see how far into antiquity
its existence can be traced, and what part of its actual contents can be
discovered, in order that we may not decide a priori a historical ques-
tion which must be settled by evidence.
The writer who has treated this subject most at length, is Jerome.
He himself obtained this book from the Nazarenes, and translated it
into the Greek and Latin languages. This clearly shows that he was
familiarly acquainted with it; and he is to be considered as authority
in investigations respecting it. He himself guides us as to its antiquity,
and furnishes some data for determining the period at which it origina-
ted. In particular, he informs us that Origen sometimes quoted it in
his writings, and of this we may now be convinced on comparison. In
such works of both as are still extant, there are appeals to the same
passages in this Gospel. Jerome in his commentary on Micah 8: 6
says: Qui . . . . crediderit Evangelio quod secundum Hebræos ed-
itum nuper transtulimus, in quo de personâ Salvatoris dicitur: Modo
tulit me mater mea spiritus sanctus in uno capillorum meorum, non
dubitabit dicere sermonem Dei ortum esse de spiritu, et animam quæ
sponsa sermonis est, habere socrum s. spiritum, qui apud Hebræos
41
322
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
"
genere dicitur fœminino."-Origen, in his fifteenth Homily on Jeremiah
and in his Commentary on John,' says: ἐὰν δὲ προσίεται τις τὸ καθ'
Εβραίους εὐαγγέλιον, ἔνθα αὐτὸς ὁ σωτήρ φησιν, ἄρτι ἔλαβέ με ἡ
μήτηρ μου τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐν μίᾳ τῶν τριχῶν μου καὶ απένεγκέ με εἰς
To ooos To μεyα Oáßwo. There are, therefore, evident traces of its ex-
istence thus early, and even as far back as the time of Origen's precep-
tor, if he meant the same as his pupil by τὸ καθ' Εβραίους εὐαγγέλιον.
He presents us the following passage from it: ὁ θαυμάσας βασιλεύσει
καὶ ὁ βασιλεύσας αναπαυθήσεται.
2
There are indications of its existence very much earlier, which are
capable of being moulded into a systematic argument. Ignatius, the
Martyr, in his Epistle to the church at Smyrna, mentions some words of
Jesus which are not in our Gospels, but, to judge from the connexion,
were taken from some written document. They are the following:
καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον ἦλθεν, ἔφην αὐτοῖς, λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατε
με καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι οὐκ εἰμι δαιμόνιον ασώματον, καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτοῦ
ἥψαντο, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν.
If a Gospel of the Hebrews was in existence, the bishop of Antioch
in Syria would very probably from his situation possess it, and could hard-
ly be unacquainted with it. The words, too, really stood in the Jewish
Gospel, from which Jerome has extracted them in part in the preface to
his eighteenth book on Isaiah: "Cum enim eum putarent spiritum,
vel juxta Evangelium, quod Hebraicum lectitant Nazareni, incorporale
dæmonium, dixit eis, quid turbati estis et cogitationes ascendunt in cor-
da vestra, videte manus meas et pedes meos, etc." But in his catalogue
of Christian writers, he expressly asserts, in treating of Ignatius, that
these very words were found in the Jewish Gospel : "Scripsit et ad Smy-
næos, in quo et de Evangelio, quod nuper a me translatum est, super per-
sonâ Christi ponit testimonium dicens. Et quando venit ad Pe-
trum et ad eos, qui cum Petro erant, dixit eis; Ecce, palpate me et videte,
quia non sum dæmonium incorporale: et statim tetigerunt eum et credi-
derunt."
From these observations, the book is probably of high antiquity, and
its origin dates at a period reached by the Apostles or shortly after. It
would appear from the fragments which yet exist in the productions of
the Latin father, that it was neither very like, nor very unlike, to Mat-
thew.
In the remotest period in which the existence of the Jewish Gospel is
capable of being shown and attested by historical proof, it appears to have
been so different from our Matthew, that there is no ground from their
contents to suppose the identity of the two writings. The evidences of its
existence contained in Origen and Clement are as many proofs of its dis-
similarity to Matthew; and that portion of history which relates to the
events after the resurrection, to which the passage cited from Ignatius re-
fers, is not treated at all by Matthew. Consequently, judging from the most
1 Fabric. Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Test. P. I. p. 362. Ed. Hamb. 1719. These
passages are likewise collected in the "Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und
Ansehen des Evangeliums der Hebräer," by Chr. Frederick Weber. Tubing.
1806. 8vo.
2 Clem. Alexandr. Lib. III. Strom. c. 9.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
323
ancient evidences, it did not, in the earliest period of its existence, nor
even in its plan, agree with our Matthew.
Yet, although this book, according to the data we possess for deter-
mining its age and contents, was a different work from Matthew, still
the time of its origin, which very nearly approaches that of our Sa-
vior, confers upon it some historical value. The appreciation of its val-
ue is left by Origen, whenever he makes use of it, to the judgment of
his readers; but it is unconditionally assumed by Ignatius the Mar-
tyr, as to the passage above mentioned. It was not, it is true, without
absurdities, as is shown by the story that the Holy Spirit in the charac-
ter of mother of Jesus, carried her son by one of his hairs to the
top of Mount Tabor; but this would not justify us in pronouncing the
whole to be valueless, though it would justify us in subjecting its particu-
lar parts, did we possess it entire, to a very rigid scrutiny. Some pas-
sages of it which have been preserved contain sentiments which are re-
ally of such a nature as not to be unworthy of our Lord, and may have
been expressed by him in his character of teacher. We are told by Je-
rome, (e. g. Comment. in Ezek. XXIV. 7), that in this Gospel it was
declared a great sin for any one to grieve the mind of his brother; and
in another place (Comm. in Ephes. V. 4), that our Lord was represented
as saying to his disciples: Never be more joyful than when you see your
brother happy-two admonitions in perfect accordance with the eleva-
ted spirit of Christianity.
We are told by Jerome, that the Gospel of the Ebionites (for they like-
wise had a Hebrew Gospel,)was no other than the Nazarene Gospel, which
was used in common by the two sects. This father was master of the
Hebrew language, and while in Palestine was habitually conversant with
the Nazarenes, and probably with the Ebionites.¹ We should therefore
be released from all further inquiry, in regard to the age, value, and pur-
port of the Ebionite Gospel, had not Epiphanius, a native of Palestine, ed-
ucated among the Jews and in their language, given us extracts from
the Gospel of the Ebionites, which make us distrustful of Jerome's state-
ment. Among some other fragments, he has extracted from it the his-
tory of Jesus' baptism (Hær. XXX.), which the Latin father has like-
wise inserted from the Nazarene Gospel in his Commentary on Isaiah
4: 12. The narratives in the two books are so entirely dissimilar, that
not a trace can be perceived of even original resemblance; as may be
here seen from comparison.
1 “In Evangelio, quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitæ, quod nuper in Græcum
de Hebræo sermone transtulimus." (Comment. in Matth. XII. 13.)
324
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Factum est autem, cum ascendis-
set Dominus de aqua, et fons omnis
spiritus sancti descendit et requievit
super eum, et dixit illi: fili, in om-
nibus prophetis exspectabam te, ut
venires et reqiescerem super te, tu es
enim requies mea, tu es filius meus
primogenitus, qui regnas in sempi-
ternum.
C
Τοῦ τε λαοῦ βαπτισθέντος ἦλθε
᾿Ιησοῦς καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ιωάν-
vov. Καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος,
ἠνοίγησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ, καὶ εἶδε τὸ πνεῦ-
μα τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ἅγιον ἔν εἴδει περισ-
τερᾶς κατελθούσης εἰς αὐτὸν, καὶ φωνὴ
ἐγένετο ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγουσα· σύ
μου εἷς ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδό
o ô
κησα ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε. Καὶ
εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα,
0 ὃ ἰδὼν ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ·
τίς εἰ κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ ἐξ οὐρα
νοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν· οὗτος ἐστὶν ὁ υἱός
μου, ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἐφ᾿ ὃν εὐδόκησα. Καὶ
τότε Ιωάννης προσπέσων αὐτῷ λέγει·
δέομαί σου κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον. ῾Ο
δὲ ἐκώλυεν αὐτῷ· ἀφές, ὅτι οὕτως ἐστὶ
πρέπον πληρωθῆναι πάντα.
૧
σὺ
It has been conjectured, out of respect for the testimony of the Latin
father as to a matter concerning which circumstances would lead us to
suppose he must have had accurate knowledge, that Epiphanius, who,
as he himself says, discussed the Ebionite system and the opinions of
the Elksaites or Sampsæans together, by mistake confounded their tenets
and their religious books. But he was far too well acquainted with the
writings of this branch of the Jewish school, an account of which is
given by him in his treatise on the Ossæans and Sampsæans, to do this;
and the care he takes to distinguish the Ebionite tenets declares the con-
trary. He did indeed connect these Jewish sects together, on account
of the similarity of their tenets, but he paid suitable attention to the
points of difference. After stating some opinions peculiar to the Sampsæ-
ans, he adds, that in these they differ from Ebion: ἤδη δέ μοι καὶ ἀνωτέ
ρω προδεδήλωται, ὡς ταῦτα μὲν ᾿Εβίων οὐκ ᾔδει. A little further on,
he distinguishes the opinions of the ancient Ebionite sect from those
defended by its later disciples : ποτὲ μὲν αὐτὸς Εβίων λέγων ἐκ παρα-
τριβῆς ψιλόν ἄνθρωπον γεγενῆσθαι· ἄλλοτε δὲ οἱ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ Ἐβιοναῖοι.
Such procedure proves that we need not fear being misled by a confu-
sion of subjects.
απ
It was therefore the Ebionite book from which he derived these ex-
tracts; and however little it may resemble the Nazarene Gospel of Jer-
ome, yet the Cyprian bishop seems to agree with the account of the
Latin father. He speaks of both works under the same denominations,
viz. κατὰ Ματθαῖον and εὐαγγέλιον ῾Εβραϊκόν. He seems to derive
them both from Matthew, and to ascribe their difference entirely to cor-
ruptions, ommissions and additions, designating it by the expressions,
1 Store, " Uber den Zweck der evang. Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis.”
§ 38. § 61.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
325
1
πληρέστατον and οὐ πληρέστατον καὶ νενοθευμένον, whence he did
not know whether the Nazarenes retained or rejected the genealo-
gies.
66
y be
I the
The following reason, too, for supposing an original identity,
worthy of consideration. Jerome applies to the Nazarene G
denomination secundum apostolos. In Evangelio. . . . quo uuntur
usque hodie Nazareni, secundum apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant,
juxta Matthæum” (Lib. III. Adv. Pelag.); by which expression the
contents are referred, not to Matthew alone, but to all the Apostles.
This agrees with the Ebionite Gospel ; for at its commencement they are
all represented as speaking of themselves in the first person: There
was a man, named Jesus, who, when he was thirty years old, made choice
of us; and then follows an enumeration, made by Jesus himself, of the
names of the twelve, among whom in particular our Lord says to Mat-
thew: And thee also, Matthewo, did I call, while thou was sitting at the
receipt of custom.2
As all the Apostles speak of themselves in this way at the outset,
they all declare themselves partakers in the contents, and this Gospel is
properly a Gospel secundum Apostolos, like that of the Nazarenes,
though, as Jesus particularly distinguishes Matthew in his address, the
latter may have had a principal share in it, and perhaps have had the
entire arrangement of its contents.
But be it as it may, whether there were one or two works originally,
neither of the suppositions would lead us to a very flattering inference as
to the purity of their evidence, which purity is indispensable to their his-
toric credibility. Supposing this discrepancy to have arisen from ar-
bitrary alterations on the part of the two sects, to annihilate all traces
of original resemblance, contrary to the custom of the Jews, who regard-
ed it as wicked and impious to venture such a thing in respect to a book
acknowledged to be sacred, can we before the tribunal of criticism, as-
cribe any high authority to the evidence of men who could proceed thus
in regard to a religious book, either from caprice or to make it favor
their opinions, although each party calls its book κατὰ Ματθαῖον?
If there were originally two different works, it is a certain proof that
an excessive attachment to Judaism and a sectarian temper misled
one of the sects and induced it to compose a book for itself in confor-
mity with its prejudices and sentiments, or else arbitrarily to constitute
some existing Hebrew composition which was most consonant with
•
1 Hæres. XXIX. De Nazormis. Εχουσι δὲ τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πλη-
ρέστατον Εβραϊστί. Παρ' αὐτοῖς γὰρ σαφῶς τοῦτο, καθὼς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγράφη, Εβ
ραϊκοῖς γράμμασιν ἔτι σώζεται. Hær. XXX. De Ehione. Καὶ δέχονται μὲν καὶ
αὐτοὶ τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον . καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτὸ καθ᾽ Ἑβραίους, ὡς τὰ
ἀληθῆ ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν, οτι Ματθαῖος μόνος Εβραϊστι κ. τ. λ. Ἐν τῷ γοῦν παρ᾽ αὐτ
τοῖς εὐαγγελίῳ, κατὰ Ματθαῖον ὀνομαζομένῳ, οὐχ ὅλῳ δὲ πληρεστάτῳ, which is
not indeed complete, though very full, ἄλλα νενοθευμένῳ καὶ ἠκροτηριασμένῳ,
x. t. 2.
λο
2 Εγένετό τις ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦς, καὶ αὐτὸς ὡς ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἐξελέξατο
ἡμᾶς. Καὶ ἐλθὼν εἰς Καφαρνάουμ, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος τοῦ ἐπικλη
θέντος Πέτρου, καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ εἶπε· παρερχόμενος παρὰ τὴν λίμνην
Τιβηρίαδος ἐξελεξάμην Ιωάννην καὶ Ιάκωβον, υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου, καὶ Σίμωνα, καὶ
Ανδρέαν, καὶ Θαδδαῖον, καὶ Σίμωνα τὸν Ζηλωτὴν, καὶ Ιούδαν τὸν Ισκαριώτην,
καὶ δε τὸν Ματθαῖον καθεόμενον ἐπὶ τοῦ τελωνίου, καὶ ἠκολούθησάς μοι.
כ
,
326
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
their ideas, the basis of their religion. Of one party this must indis-
putably be true; but are not both accused in history of the same Jew-
ish fanaticism, and, according to her accusations against them, were
not both equally capable of taking such a step, and alike prompted to it
in behalf of their Jewish notions and tenets? Were they not, by the de-
clarations of Jesus found in the genuine Gospels in regard to the Sab-
bath and other Jewish customs which they wished to be observed, alike
compelled to do this, if they desired them to be consistent with their own
books and agreeable to themselves? And what, moreover, was more
natural than that they should desire to support their writings and tenets
by the authority of a name, and should ascribe them to Matthew, or even
to all the Apostles?
$10.
Matthew wished to be understood in the country, which, in particular,
he intended should be acted upon by his Gospel; hence it is not super-
fluous, in forming a judgment in regard to his situation as an author, to
endeavor to get correct ideas of the condition in which he found the lan-
guage of that country. According to some, the Greek had then made
considerable advances by the side of the national language;¹ but if we
should listen to others, we might doubt whether any person in Palestine
understood Greek; whether Peter, John, James, Jude, or even Matthew,
were acquainted with this language, as we might certainly expect a
man to be who was engaged in collecting customs. If, however, we
cast a glance at the changes which occurred in those countries, we shall
come to a very different conclusion.
By the conquest of the Macedonians the condition of Asia underwent
many alterations in opinion, manners, science, and language, the history
of which will never be fully unfolded for want of documents. What
I here say respecting the changes in language, has reference particu-
larly to Palestine.
"What (are the words of an ancient writer) is the meaning of Greek
cities in barbarous countries, and the Macedonian language among In-
dians and Persians ?"3 Even in Media the Macedonians had built Greek
cities. On the Tigris, Seleucia was mostly inhabited by Greeks;5
4
1 The writers on this subject have been specified by Kuinoel, in Fabric. Bilioth.
Græc. Ed. Harles. T. IV. L. IV. c. 7. p. 760. To these add "Dominici Diodati J.
C. Neapolitani de Christo Græce loquente." 8vo. Neapoli, 1767. I could not ob-
tain this work even in Naples. "Fr. Guil. Schubert. Dissert. quâ in sermonem,
quo Evangel. Matthæi conscriptum fuerit, inquiritur." Götting. 1810.
2 Giambernado de Rossi, "Della lingua propria di Christo," &c. Parma. 8vo.
1772. This work is particularly directed against Diodati. The celebrated au-
thor sometimes confounds different periods, often uses poor weapons, but is a
stout combatant.
3 Seneca, De Consolat. ad Helviam, c. 6.
4 Εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ῾Ελληνίδες πόλεις κτίσματα τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐν τῇ Μηδίᾳ. Strabo,
L.XI. p. 524. 2d ed. Casaubon.
5 Jos. Ant. L. XVIII. c, 9. n. 8. Οἰκοῦσι δὲ αὐτὴν (Σελεύκειαν) πολλοὶ τῶν
Manɛdóvwv, xaì Thεłoto Elinves. Dio Cass. L. XL. p. 128 and 130. ed. 1806.
Σελεύκεια πλεῖστον τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν καὶ νῦν ἔχουσα.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
327
1
and so likewise, to the south-east, the magnificent Ctesiphon, and to
the north-west, Sittace.2 Babylon became Macedonian; in its suburbs
lived Greeks and Macedonians.3 Up the Euphrates from thence lay
Nicephorium, a Greek city, which was surrounded by other Greek
cities; and further on, in Mesopotamia, was Carrhæ, a colony of the
Macedonians.5 But, not to enter into detail, we refer the reader to
Appian for a long catalogue of cities in further and hither Syria which
were denominated Greek. Tigranes, the Armenian, in his march
through Syria to Phoenicia, destroyed no less than twelve Greek cities.7
Between Syria and Babylonia we meet with the ruins of Palmyra, on
which are found more Greek than Palmyrene inscriptions. Even some in
the Palmyrene character are yet in the Greek language. In hither Syria,
on the boundaries of Palestine, and in Palestine itself, the Greeks es-
tablished themselves in greater numbers, as was natural from the situa-
tion and vicinity of these regions. The many commotions which oc-
curred here promoted such settlements. The Ptolemies and Seleucidæ
had a long contest for the possession of these countries; both parties
introduced Greeks, made them magistrates and inhabitants of the cities,
and stationed them there as garrisons.
9
8
Antioch, the capital of hither Syria, in close connexion with Pales-
tine, was peopled by its founder with Greeks and Macedonians,10 and
acquired the fame of Greek refinement and science.¹¹ Macedonians
and Greeks, as well as Jews, were introduced as inhabitants, not
only into Antioch, but into several cities of Lower Syria, v ty xátos
κάτω
Συρία 12
1 Josephus, Ibid. n. 9. Krηoiq@vτa
(6
•
•
πόλιν Ελληνίδα.
2 Pliny, H. N. L. VI. c. 31. Oppidum ejus Sittace Græcorum ab ortu
est." It should be thus pointed: "Oppidum ejus Sittace Græcorum: ab ortu
est Sabbata; ab occasu autem Antiochia."
•
•
3 Plin. H. N. L. VI. c. 30. "Babylonia
libera hodie ac sui juris,
Macedonumque moris." Josephus Antiq. XIII. c. 5. n. 11. xaì yag oi taity
κατοικοῦντες Ελληνες καὶ Μακεδόνες. κ. τ. λ.
γαρ ταύτῃ
4 Dio Cass. L. XL. p. 126. Ed. Wechel. Ο Κράσσος τά τε φρούρια καὶ τὰς
πόλεις τὰς ῾Ελληνίδας μάλιστα, τάς τε ἄλλας καὶ τὸ Νικηφόριον ὀνομασμένον
προσεποιήσατο.
5 Dio L. XXXVII. p. 31. Καῤῥαῖοι, Μακεδόνων τε ἄποικοι ὄντες.
6 Appian. De Reb. Syriac. c. LVII. T. I. p. 622, 23. Ed. Schweigh.
7 Strabo L. XI. near the end.
8 Rob. Wood, in "The Ruins of Palmyra, otherwise Tadmor in the desert,"
(London, 1753. fol.) cites 26 Greek inscriptions and only 13 Palmyrene. Corn.
le Brun, also, in "Voyage au Levant," (Paris, 1714.) gives the Greek inscrip-
tions from the original English account, p. 345-66.
9 Barthelemy," Reflexions sur l' alphabet et sur la langue, dont on se servoit
autrefois à Palmyre," in the "Memoires de l' Academie des Inscript. et Belles
Lettres." T. XLV. 8vo. p. 179 seq.
10 Jos. Antiq. L. XII. c. 3. Bell. Jud. L. VII. c. 3. n. 3.
11 Cicero pro Archia poeta, c. 3. Archias was born at Antioch, " loco nobili,
celebri quondam urbe et copiosâ, atque eruditissimis hominibus, liberalissimisque
studiis affluenti," &c.
12 Jos. Ant. L. XII. c. 3. Καὶ γὰρ Σέλευκος ὁ Νικάτωρ, ἐν αἷς ἔκτισε πόλεσιν
ἐν τῇ Ασίᾳ καὶ τῇ κάτω Συρίᾳ τοῖς ἐνοικισθεῖσιν ἰσοτίμους ἀπέδειξε Μακ-
εδόσι καὶ Ἕλλησιν
τοὺς Ιουδαίους.
328
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Even still more ancient cities, such as Tyre and Sidon, which were
treated differently and were more independent on account of their im-
portance, yielded to Greek influence and changed their language.
When the rulers of the Roman empire had established their supremacy
in these countries, they ordered the edicts which they issued at Tyre to
be posted in the public places in two languages, the Latin and the
Greek, so that all could read them¹. The case was the same at Sidon ;
it was necessary that a Roman edict should be published in the Greek
and Latin languages.2 A general order to the cities of Sidon, Tyre
and Ascalon, contains the same clause: This order is to be put up in
the temples in Latin and Greek.3 In these edicts, as was natural, ref-
erence was had both to the language of the lawgiver and that of those
ho were to obey. As to Sidon, there is preserved on a marble a decree
he city, worded in the Greek language, which was past about 144—
7 years B. C., in honor of the commander of the body-guard of Ptolemy
Philometor. Ascalon is particularly deserving of our notice, as, being
situated in Palestine, it was at different periods a component part of
the Jewish state. At this time it produced men distinguished in Greek
science, as philosophers, historians, and grammarians. Such was the
fortune of the principal cities.
A relic of ancient Berytus attests the same respecting that city. East
of the present site there still remains the colonnade of a temple which
was served by Greek priests, who were mendicants; for there were
such even in Pagan antiquity. The following pretty inscription solic-
ited the charity of visitors: Τῆς τοῦ προσιόντος ἀνδρὸς εὔνοιας ἀεὶ
σαφῆς ἔλεγχος ἡ πρόσοψις γίνεται· δίδου προθύμως ὃ παρέχεις, ἢ μὴ
· παρὰ γὰρ τὸ μικρὸν γίνεται πληρὴς χάρις. It is impossible to
nine its date with precision, but the form of the 2, as it is repre-
1, refers it at least to the first century.
6
기
​he heights of Lebanon yet contain ancient structures with Greek
iptions. One of them is dedicated to the Emperor Tiberius:
"ΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΙ ΤΙΒΕΡΙΩΙ ΚΛΑΥΔΙΩΙ ΚΑΙΣΑΡΙ ΣΕ
ΣΤΩΙ ΚΑΙ &c.
Jos. Ant. L. XIV. c. 12. n. 5. "Ιν' αὐτὸ (διάταγμα) εἰς τὰς δημοσίους ἐνταξ
δέλτους γράμμασι Ρωμαϊκοῖς καὶ Ελληνικοῖς, ἐν τῷ ἐπιφανεστάτῳ ἔχητε αὐτὸ
αμμένον, όπως ὑπὸ πάντων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι δυνήσεται.
Jos. Ant. L. XVI. c. 10. n. 2. Βούλομαι δὲ καὶ Ἑλληνιστὶ καὶ Ῥωμαϊστὶ ἐν
τῳ χαλκῇ τούτο ἀνατεθῆναι.
3 Jos. Ant. L. XIV. c. 10. n. 3.
7
4 "Voyage du Paul Lucas dans la Greèce, l'Asie mineure, et l'Afrique." T.
1. (The 2d Voyage). The decree of the city is at the end of the 2d Vol. "In-
scriptions trouvées a Seide, N. 5." Ptolemy Philometor married Cleopatra,
sister, banished Demetrius Soter and Alexander from the kingdom of
and then assumed the crown of Egypt and Syria. (I. Maccab. XI. 8—13.)
viption I read thus: Η πόλις Αρίαν Δαμοθέτου, Κρῆτα, τὸν ἀρχι-
κα, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν, καὶ εὔνοιας τῆς εἰς βασιλέα
καὶ βασίλισσαν Κλεοπάτραν, τὴν ἀδελφὴν, θεοὺς Φιλομήτορας, καὶ
καὶ τῆς εἰς αὐτὴν εὐεργεσίας.
us De Urbibus. V. Aoxálov.
Kell, 18th March.
Friedr. v. Richter, "Wallfahrten im Morgenlande," 1822. p. 103, at
akra.
a
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
329
The Jews did indeed, when they were oppressed beyond endurance
by Antiochus Epiphanes, maintain themselves in the interior of the
country with arms in their hands, through the valor of their Asmonæan
leaders, uninfluenced by the language and manners of the Greeks; but
many cities, which had been torn by the Syrian kings from the Jewish
state and had meanwhile been peopled by them with other inhabitants,
they were unable to retake.
This glory was left for Aristobulus and Alexander, the first of the
Asmonæans who assumed the royal dignity. At the death of the latter
they were all, together with several others, subjected to the Jewish sway,
or, in case the inhabitants would not embrace Judaism, destroyed.¹
This state of things, however, did not continue long.
When Pompey, returning from his expedition against Mithridates,
led his legions through Syria, he took advantage of the disputes be-
tween the Jewish princes, to render Palestine dependent on the Ro-
mans. On this occasion he took away again from the Jews the cities
which they had recovered from the Syrian kings, and ordered those
which had been destroyed to be rebuilt, and the latter as well as the
former to be restored to their previous inhabitants. Such were Gadara,
Hippos, Scythopolis, Pella, Dios, Samaria, Marissa, Azotus, Jamnia,
Arethusa, Gaza, Joppa, Dora, and Strato's Tower.2 Accordingly
Samaria, Azotus, Scythopolis, Anthedon, Raphia, Dora, Marissa and
Gaza were speedily rebuilt.3 Probably they were all inhabited, if not
wholly, at least in part, by Greeks, or Syrians who spoke Greek.
6
Of some of them we can assert this positively. Dora, once a city of
Galilee, afterwards denied the Jews the right of citizenship. Claudius
decided the controversy, and adjudged to the Jews an equal right of cit-
izenship with the Greeks.ª Gadara and Hippos, east of Galilee, be-
came completely Greek cities; the former could even boast of men
of eminence in Greek science. In the heart of Palestine, between
Galilee and Judea, and once belonging to the former, was Bethshan,
called by the Greeks Scythopolis. The Greeks who dwelt here, after
changing the name of the city, referred its origin to Bacchus, in the
times of Greek mythology, and termed themselves on their coins Ny-
sæan-Scythopolitans. They have rendered themselves memorable by
1 Jos. Ant. XIII. e. 15. n. 4.
2 Jos. Ant. XIV. c. 4. n. 4.
3 Jos. Ant. XIV. c. 5. n. 3.
8
7
4 Jos. Ant. XIX. c. 6. n. 3. Ετι μέντοι καὶ συμπολιτεύεσθαι τοῖς Ελλησι.
r
5 Jos. Ant. XVII. c. 11. n. 4. Γάδαρα καὶ Ιππος Ελληνίδες εἰσὶ πόλεις. Comp.
Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 6. n.
n. 3.
6 Strabo, L. XVI. p. 759. 2d Casaub.
"
7 Bardoάv occurs without explanation in the Alexandrine version in Joshua
17:11; but in Judges 1: 27, Baudoàv, y ¿oti Zuvdŵr óhis. The first profane
author in whom we find Zxvdov Tólv, is Polybius. (L. V. c. 70. n. 4.)
8 The fable is in Pliny and Solinus. Liebe (Gotha Numaria, p. 335, 336,) has
cited it in illustration of their coins, which are inscribed Nvoαiwv tuv naì Exv-
Joлolitov. Comp. Eckhel, Doct. Num. Vet P. I. Vol. III. p. 439.
42
330.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
に
​their base treachery towards their Jewish fellow-citizens.¹ On the
southern border of Judæa we meet with Gaza, a city of the Greeks.2
That Joppa did not continue free from the influence of the Greek
language, may be inferred from its fortunes. On account of its situa-
tion and the importance of its harbour, the Alexandrian and Syrian
kings often took it from the Jews, and kept it in a state of defence by
means of their garrisons.3 In the days of Strabo¹ the Hellenic fable of
Andromeda was already transplanted here, in order to procure the impor-
tance of antiquity for the place, and to carry it back to times when Ju-
daism did not exist.
Afterwards Herod succeeded, first through the favor of Antony and
then of Augustus, in elevating himself to the throne of the Asmonæans.
When he saw himself firmly seated upon it, he, and his sons after him,
built new cities in honor of the Cæsars, or embellished the old, and in-
troduced into them Greek inhabitants. The greatest and most magnif
icent was Cæsarea, next to Jerusalem the principal city of the country,
and peopled for the most part by Greeks.5 But after the death of the
king, they were so ungrateful as to refuse the Jews a share in the gov-
ernment of the city. Nero subsequently declared, against the Jews,
that the Greeks should be masters of the city. It fared worse with the
Greeks at Tiberias; under the same monarch, the Jews fell upon their
fellow-citizens, the Greeks, and completely overpowered them. So
far accident has favored us with the testimonies of history in respect to
the cities of the Herods. If the catalogue be not very copious, let it
be considered that I have quoted but a single authority, viz. Josephus,
who never mentions the Greeks but when some remarkable occurrence
requires him to do so.
6
8
Respecting other cities, we can only make inferences from circum-
stances, or from the evidence of numismatics. Cæsarea by Paneas, built
by Philip, had temples, theatres, and coins stamped under Augustus,
Caius Cæsar, etc. in the Greek language. Coins of other cities may be
easily found in Eckhel and Rasche.
Josephus presents us a long catalogue of cities on which the Jews re-
venged themselves for the cruel treatment which they had experienced
-
1 Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 18. n 3. 4. Vita Josephi c. 6. The Scythopolitans cal
led upon the Jews who dwelt with them to fight in defence of the city against
their mutinous countrymen. They took arms and were victorious; but were
attacked unawares by the Scythopolitans and slaughtered in requital. The latter
were Greeks, as is stated in a long speech in Bell. Jud. L. VII. c. 8. p. 429.
2 Jos. Ant. L. XVII. c. 11. n. 4. Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 6. n. 3.
3 Dipd: Sic. L. XIX. c. 59. and 93. 1 Maccab. 10: 75. 12: 33, 34. 13: 11. 14:
34. 2 Maccab. 12: 3. Joseph. Ant. L. XIII. c. 9. n. 2. XIV. c. 10. n. 22.
4 Strabo, L. XVI. p. 759. Also Pliny, Mela, and Solinus.
5 Bell. Jud. L. III. c. 9. Καισάρειαν μεγίστην τῆς δὲ Ἰουδαίας πόλιν, καὶ τὸ
πλέον ὑφ᾽ Ἑλλήνων ἐνοικουμένην. Comp. L. II. c. 13. n. 7.
6 Bell. Jud. L. Il. c. 14. n. 4.
Νέρωνι τῆς πόλεως ἄρχειν.
"/
Καὶ οἱ Καισαρέων Ελληνες, νικήσαντες παρὰ
7 Vita Josephi c. 12, where it is said that the inhabitants slew лávτas тois ¿v-
οικοῦντας Ελληνας.
8 The cavern in which the Jordan rises is called IIavelov, Pan's cavern, for it
was dedicated to Pan and the nymphs, as is shown by the Greek inscriptions on
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
331
at the hands of the Greeks in Cæsarea.¹ It is natural to suppose they
were Greek cities which were to atone for the offences of the Greeks in
Cæsarea. Among them are some which we have just named as Greek
cities: Gadara, Hippos, Scythopolis, Askalon, Gaza; and hence we see
clearly what kind of cities are intended. True, in this passage the his-
torian does not call the inhabitants of Cæsarea Greeks, as elsewhere, but
Syrians; and the cities, Syrian cities. The explanation of this is, that Jo-
sephus carefully distinguishes, in further Syria, the Greeks and the Syr-
ians, while, on the contrary, in hither Syria, he uses" Elly and Zugos
interchangeably as synonymous terms, as if here no distinction prevailed
between Greek and Syrian.3
2
The cities which he names are the following. Beyond the Jordan
eastward, Philadelphia, Gerasa, Pella, Gadara, Hippos; on this side of
the Jordan, Scythopolis; Kedasa, on the boundary between the Tyrian
and Galilæan districts; along the sea coast, Ptolemais, Gaba, Cæsarea,
Askalon, Gaza, Anthedon; in the interior, Sebaste. The first six are
cities of Decapolis. Here we are assisted by recent discoveries. Phil-
adelphia is still splendid in its ruins, in the remains of its temples and
other works of Grecian architecture. Its theatre is the largest in Syria.
Gerasa surpasses this city, if not in magnificence, yet in the preserva-
tion of its edifices; of temples and palaces, mostly of the Corinthian or-
der, two theatres, naumachie and baths. All its ruins give evidence
of Grecian manners, as do also the fragments of inscriptions occurring
in that language.4
The case is the same as to the provinces of Auranitis and Trachon-
itis, which at the time of our Savior were under Jewish rulers, Herod
and his son Philip. The traveller often meets with deserted cities, and
in most places dilapidated structures of ancient art, Greek inscriptions.
on temples, palaces, gates, water-works, and sepulchres. Those the date.
of which can be determined, belong to the time of Trajan, or of Hadrian
and the Antonines. Those of the latter date are most numerous. 5
the rocks without. Seetzen in Zach's Monathl. Corresp. Octob. 1808. p. 343.
Burckhardt, Travels in Syria, Journal of a tour from Damascus in the countries
of the Libanus and Antilibanus, p. 39.
1 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 18.
2 Jos. Antiq. L. XVIII. c. 9. n. 8. and 9.
3 Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 13. n. 7. Comp. with c. 14. n. 4. Vita Josephi c. 11. Antiq.
L. XVII. c. 5. n. 7. Histoire de l'Academie des Inscript. et Bell. Lettres, T. II.
p. 170, 171, in 8vo.
4 The inscription on a broken column of a public edifice at Gerasa, very in-
accurately copied in Buckingham's "Travels in Palestine," Ch. XXI. p. 378,
I should correct in part, at least, thus: ἐπὶ . . . . τοῦ μεγαλοπρεπεστάτου .
καὶ ἄρχοντος ἐγένετο τὸ ἔργον τοῦ ἐμβόλου. Another at Suf. distant an hour and a
half from Gerasa, I read thus: 'Ayadı Tiyni Διΐ ἅγιον καὶ ἐθνίωι ἥρων,
καὶ ἡλίων, ἡμέραι, τοῖ, Δημετρίου παιδανίου. . . . "Αγριος ἀπελεύθερος τὸν βω-
μὲν ἀνέθηκεν κατ᾽ εὐχὴν λυκάβαντι.
•
•
•
5 Seetzen collected 69 inscriptions, and among them only one in Palmyrene
characters, the rest in Greek. Unfortunately they were all lost. Zach "Mon-
athl. Correspond." May 1806. p. 313. Those procured by Burckhardt are well
known. "Journal of an excursion into the Haouran in 1810." and " Journal of
a tour from Damascus into the Haouran in 1812," in his "Travels in Syria."
Some which escaped Burckhardt may be found in Otto Fried. von Richter's
"Wallfahrten im Morgenlande," p. 554--562.
332
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
These are, indeed, later than the times of the Apostles; but a country
does not change its language in from twenty to fifty years; and such a
prevalence of Hellenism can be accounted for only by supposing that
the Greeks had been settled here for several generations.
The names Auranitis and Trachonitis remind us of Abilene, the te-
trarchate of Lysanias. On an eminence between Damascus and Baal-
bec, called Nebi-Abel, stands a Doric temple. Within is a metrical
inscription in Greek, which declares the fame of the architect, the
name of the foundress, and the year of the government of Lysanias,
tetrarch of Abilene, and serves to determine the date of its erection.¹
According to these appearances, the eastern portion of the country
formerly in the possession of the Israelites was sprinkled over on the
north with Greek villages and cities, and on the south was mostly occu-
pied by free cities of a Greek character, surrounded by their territories,
Philadelphene, Gerasene, Gadaritis, Hippene, which were under Roman
protection. On the opposite side, a chain of cities extended from Anti-
och downward, along the Syrian, Phœnician, and Jewish coast, as far as
the Egyptian frontier, in which Greek, if not the sole, was the pre-
vailing language. The country between these two sides, comprising
the districts of Galilee and Judea, in spite of its desire to the contrary,
was never able to avoid coming in contact with the Greeks and with
their language; so much the less, as under Herod several cities on
the coast, Joppa, Askalon, Gaza, Anthedon, and Cæsarea always, be-
longed to the Jewish territory; and in the interior, besides Scythopolis,
there arose important cities, as Sebaste, Tiberias, Cæsarea by Panias,
which were inhabited more or less by those who spoke Greek. True,
the Greeks did not succeed in supplanting the native tongue; but it
maintained a respectable rank by its side, and, favored by the circumstan-
ces of the period, gradually extended and established its dominion.
From the time of Pompey, the opposition to the inroads of the Greeks
into the interior was suppressed. Not only were the barriers broken
down, but the Greeks were even the favored party. They became
still more so under Herod the first, who did not conceal from the Jews
that he gave the preference to the Greeks. Nor did he stop with this
confession, but by costly establishments evinced that it was his purpose
to Hellenize the Jews.
4
2
He erected at Cæsarea a theatre and an amphitheatre;³ at Jericho a
stadium, amphitheatre and theatre; a stadium and amphitheatre under
the walls of the Holy City, and finally a theatre within its very limits.5
The enormous appropriations for this species of edifices, particularly
in the interior of the country, at Jericho, and even at Jerusalem, shows
1 Pococke, Descript. of the East. Vol II. Chap. 7. § 177.
2 “Ελλησι πλέον ἢ Ιουδαίοις οἰκείως ἔχειν ὁμολογούμενος. Jos. Ant. ΧΙΧ. c. 7.
n. 3.
3 Jos. Ant. XV. c. 9. p. 773. Comp. XVI. c. 5.
4 Bell. Jud. L. I. c. 33. n. 6. 8. p. 141. 2. Antiq XVII. c. 6. n. 5. L. XVII. c.
6. n. 3. p. 844.
5 Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 3. n. 1. Antiq. XV. c. 8. p. 766. Oéatqov ev “Iegooohv,
pois wrodóμnos. Comp. Eichhorn, De Judæorum re scenicâ. Comment. Soc.
R. Scient. Götting. Recentior. Vol. II. Class. Antiq. p. 10-13.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
333
how determined he was to accustom the Jews to the Greek drama and
to the sanguinary diversions of the Romans.
It is worthy of inquiry, to what degree the subsequent Roman govern-
ment, administered by the procurators and prætors of Syria, (the for-
mer under the control of the latter,) contributed to, or retarded the
adoption of the Greek language. This inquiry may be proposed as fol-
lows: What language did the prætors of Syria and the governors of Ju-
dea, Vitellius, Petronius, Pilate, use when sitting in judgment or ad-
dressing the assembled people?
Formerly it had been customary for the Roman governors to speak
only their own language; and this even where it was not understood, as
in Greece and Asia. In the reign of Tiberius, however, the ancient
custom was so far laid aside, that, as a contemporary declares, the
place in which the senate assembled at Rome resounded even to deafen-
ing with Greek debates. Where formerly the ambassadors of the
Greeks were heard only through the medium of an interpreter, and their
requests answered in the same way,2 a Roman emperor now harangued
them at length in the Greek language.3
When they sat in judgment, they frequently dispensed Roman law in
Greek words. Tiberius having made an exception in this matter, and
refused to receive the testimony of a centurion in the Greek language,
the historian observes that the emperor was not consistent in this; for
in the same court he had conducted many examinations and had pro-
nounced many decisions, in this language. The judgments of Claudi-
us were often interspersed with verses of Homer, and he was frequently
annoyed by the impudence of the Greeks.5 When Nero first engaged
in public affairs, he spoke in behalf of the Bononians, and in behalf of
the Rhodians and Ilienses, before the Consul; for the first in Latin, and
for the others in Greek.6
4
If the emperors themselves in Rome administered justice to the in-
habitants of the provinces in the Greek language, and the affairs of the
Greeks, which were brought forward by their ambassadors, were discussed
in Greek in the senate and before the Consuls, we may easily infer what
was the procedure of the Romans in Greece and Asia.
We are not without examples on this point. Cicero spoke in a Greek
senate at Syracuse in the Greek language, as Verres reproached him.7
1 Valer. Max. L. II. c. 2. n. 3.
2 Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. L. VII. c. 14.
3 Sueton. Claudius, c. 42. He made a single exception in respect to ambas-
sadors who were of Roman extraction and had settled in the provinces. To
them he spoke in Latin and required a reply in Latin. Dio Cass. L. LX. p. 676.
ed. Wechel. 1606. Sueton. Claud. c. 16.
•
4 Dio Cass. L. LVII. p. 612. Wechel. and Rob. Steph. p. 419. Suetonius
limits it only thus much: Sermone Græco . . non tamen usquequaque usus
est. Abstinuit maxime in senatu. "Tiber. c. 71. Whenever he made use of
the Latin language he took pains to speak and write it with purity. Dio L. LVII.
p. 613. Wech. and Rob. Steph. p. 420. Comp. Sueton. De illustr. grammat. c.
22.
5 Sueton. Claud. c. 42.
6 Sueton. Claud. c. 15.
7 Sueton. Nero. c. 7. Comp. Seneca, Controv. L. IV. p. 291. Bipont.
8 Cicero, in Verrem L. IV. e. 66.
334
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Yet it is not probable that he would have done any thing in his capacity
of ambassador which he could not justify by other facts. P. Crassus,
who, as proconsul, was commissioned to make war against Aristonicus
in Asia, went so far as to make replies and issue commands to each of
the Grecian tribes in its own dialect, according as he was addressed ;
to the Ionians in Ionic, to the Æolians in Æolic. Augustus, as con-
queror and sovereign, addressed the people of Alexandria in Greek.2
By Greek eloquence Mucianus induced the people of Antioch to de-
clare for Vespasian.3 The Greek even seems to have been the court
language of the proconsuls in Asia and Syria.4
Once more then: What language was used by the procurators of
Palestine, Pilate, Porcius Festus, when they sat in judgment? and by
the prætors of Syria, Petronius, Vitellius, when, as often happened, they
addressed the people? That the Romans in Syria and Phoenicia made
use of the Greek language, we know from the preceding evidence; and
that an interpreter was employed by them in Palestine, we find no evi-
dence either in Josephus or the sacred books.
As respects the people, the higher classes could hardly do without this
language on account of the change in the circumstances of society;
but with the multitude, the knowledge of it depended on accident, the
sphere of life in which each was placed, and his employment. "Few of
my countrymen," says Josephus, at the end of his Archæology, "could
have composed this work in the Greek language, for want of a gram-
matical acquaintance with it; in which I can boast myself superior to
others, although, from the established customs of my country, I myself
do not speak it well. For among us the knowledge of foreign langua-
ges, and nicety and elegance in pronouncing them, are considered vulgar,
inasmuch as freemen of low condition and even menials may, if they
please, acquire them. We consider those only learned who are skilled
in our law and can.expound the sacred books."
A knowledge of the ancient language and the religious documents,
was therefore the object of the higher Jewish education.
There were
even no places of instruction for the existing popular dialect, the Ara-
mæan. The Greek was neglected in the same manner. The Jews un-
derstood it, but not grammatically. They learned it by conversation
and intercourse; and in this way it was acquired by the lower orders,
who were not in a situation to receive instruction, had it been provided.
The religious authorities were so far from being any longer opposed
to the diffusion of the Greek language, that they esteemed and reverenced
it above every other language. Writings composed in it were reckoned
among the works of Jewish learning; and its use was allowed even in
judicial cases in which religion was concerned. So we are informed by
the oldest and most to be relied on of the Talmudic records, viz. the
Mishna; for I am not inclined to regard all the dreams of the later
Jews.
"The Jews are not permitted to compose books in all languages;
1 Valer. Max. L. VII. c. 7. n. 6.
2 Dio. Cass. L. LI. p. 454. Wech. and R. Steph. p. 307.
3 Tacit. Hist. L. II. c. 80.
4 Seneca, Ep. XII. De ira, L. II. c. 5.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
335
they shall only be allowed to write them in the Greek language." This
is a declaration of Rabbi Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, which was re-
garded as a statute.¹
A bill of divorce might be either in Greek or Hebrew (if desired, in
both languages), and signed by the witnesses in Greek or Hebrew. It
was equally valid, whichsoever language was used.2 Yet in this matter
the Jews were extremely scrupulous, and allowed absolutely no inter-
ference in it on the part of any court not Jewish. They likewise
would not regard any witness as competent in such a case, unless he
were of their own nation.3 So indulgent had they become in a legal
matter pertaining to religious or Mosaic casuistry.
The earliest prohibition of the Greek occurred in the later days of
the Jewish state, when Titus distressed Jerusalem. In the war of Ves-
pasian the bridegroom's wreath and the cymbals were abolished by a pub-
lic edict; and in the war of Titus the use of the bride's wreath was pro-
hibited, and fathers were forbidden henceforth to permit their sons to
learn Greek.4
From this prohibition we might explain, were it necessary, why Jo-
sephus, when deputed by Titus to persuade the besieged to less despe-
rate measures, addressed them in their native language, τy лaroių
τῇ πατρίῳ
gloon and Eßpaïsav. (Bell. Jud. L. V. c. 9. n. 2. L. VI. c. 2. n. 1.)
But even had there been no such prohibition, there was in the old an-
cestral sounds an evidence of like extraction and like interest in the
fate of the country, and hence an inducement to confidence. So Titus
thought; and how then can it be considered as proof of ignorance of
the Greek on the part of the besieged?
I must mention another circumstance. When the revolters, in the
last decisive moments, became apparently somewhat more submissive,
they requested a conference with Titus. He had never yet appeared
in person in any negotiation. He approached, ordered a cessation of
hostilities on the part of the Romans, had an interpreter at his side, (öneo
ἦν τεκμήριον τοῦ κρατείν, as Josephus adds,) and himself commenced
the conference. Here he spoke through an interpreter. Was this in-
1 Mischn. Tract. Megill. c. 1. n. 8.
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בספרים
According to R. B. Mairnon and Obadiah of לא חתירו שיכתבו אלא יונית :
Bartenora, the or observance was in conformity with R. Simeon's decision.
Comp. c. II. n. 1, where the two Rabbins assert it to be indifferent whether the
Megillah be read in Chaldee or Greek. Thus the objection of a learned man is
removed, who maintains that it would be contrary to established custom for a
Jew of Palestine (Matthew) to have wirtten a book in the Greek language. (Ber-
thold, Hist. Einleit. in die Schriften des A. und N. T. III. Th. § 320. p. 1176.)
The passage to which he refers (Joseph. Antiq. Prom. n. 2.) relates only to the
difficulty he found in expressing himself accurately according to the idiom of
a foreign language; for Josephus wished not merely to write Greek, but to write
it elegantly. (Ant. L. XVI. at the beginning.)
2 Mischn. Tr. Gitin. c. 9. n. 8.
גט שכתבו עברות ועדיו יונית יונית ועדיו
Compare with this . עברית עד אחד עברי ועד אחד יוני כתב סופר ועד כשר :
the preceding sections in the same chapter of Tr. Gitin.
3 Gitin. c. 1. n. 5.
4 Misch. in Sotah. c. 9. n. 14.
. ילמד אדם את בנו יונית:
בפלמוס של טיטוס גזרו על עטרות כלות ושלא
5 Τάχα ἐνδοῦναι πρὸς ὁμόφυλον δοκῶν αὐτούς. Bell. Jud. L. V. c. 9. n. 2.
6 Bell. Jud. L. 6. c. 6.
336
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
terpreter, then, employed to translate the words of Titus into Hebrew ?
For that office he would no doubt have preferred Josephus himself.
But it was not he: if it had been he would have mentioned it, for he
never forgets himself in his history. Neither was the interpreter pres-
ent to address the Jews in Hebrew, narola ylwoon; for Josephus
would have mentioned it. For what purpose, then, it will be asked,
was the interpreter needed? The words of the historian, rightly un-
derstood, afford an explanation. The emperor spoke ex majestate im-
perii, i. e. in Latin, according to the old Roman custom. Thus much
is conveyed by the words: ὅπερ ἦν τεκμήριον τοῦ κρατεῖν, this was
the distinguishing mark of sovereignty, which have been falsely refer-
red to the next clause: primus, quod victoris indicium, dicere instituit.
It would have been better if Ruffin's translation had been retained, who
comes,at least, nearer the mark: “adhibitoque interprete, quo argumen-
to superior ostendebatur. Now the interpreter translated his words into
a more intelligible language, but, as we have inferred from the usual
custom of Josephus, not into the Hebrew. What language, then, could
it have been? Moreover, (in confirmation,) Titus is praised for having
made use of the Latin language in state affairs, and the Greek in his
literary recreations.¹
((
We now return to our subject. It can no longer be doubted that, at
the time when Matthew wrote, the Greek language held firm footing
in Palestine. But it is not yet perfectly clear from all these facts uni-
ted, what was the mutual relation of the two languages. An occur-
rence in Paul's life promises us some light on this point. At Jerusa-
lem, in an uproar which arose in the temple against him, he was with
difficulty carried away to a place of safety by the guard. He demands
leave to speak to the assembled people; ascends the stairs and addres-
ses them in the Hebrew tongue. (Acts 21: 40.) This pleased them;
and we see in the fact their predilection for the language of the coun-
try. The gratification, however, proves at the same time that the peo-
ple might have been addressed in another language. The narrative of
the historian even shows that the assembled multitude expected a speech
in another language. And he beckoned with the hand unto the peo-
ple. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them
in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren and fathers, hear ye my
defence which I make now unto you. And when they heard that he
spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence,"
pallov пαéozov nouziav. (Acts 21: 40-22: 2.) It is plain from the
narrative that they expected an address in another language, and, to
their gratification, heard a defence in Hebrew. Now what language
were they expecting? The accusation against Paul, and the immedi-
ate cause of the uproar, was that he had introduced Greeks into the
temple. (Acts 21: 28.) His accusers were Greek Jews from Ionia,
who had a short time before seen Trophimus, the Ephesian, with him.
(Acts 21: 27-30.) The accusation and the accusers must have led
the people to expect only an address in Greek. The case is the more
in point as it does not relate to individuals, but to the people who were
1 Suidas. V. Τίτος τῇ μὲν Λατίνων ἐπιχωρίῳ γλώττῃ πρὸς τὰς τῶν κοινῶν
ἐχρῆτο διοικήσεις, ποιήματα δὲ καὶ τραγωδίας Ελλάδι φωνή διεπονεῖτο.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
337
his auditors, and the whole city which was in commotion. To judge
from this occurrence, the language of the country had the predilection
of the people in its favor; the mass, however, though there may have
been thousands and thousands of exceptions, understood Greek like-
wise, more from circumstances than from an inclination to foreign lan-
guages and manners. But it was on a feast-day; a great number of
foreigners were present. True; and yet the greater number were na-
tives who would have understood Greek, but were glad to hear the He-
brew instead of it.
It may now appear less surprising that even in the capital, the cen-
tral point of Judaism, there were peculiar synagogues, in which the
Greeks of various countries convened in separate congregations of con-
siderable magnitude; e. g. the Alexandrians, Cyrenians, Asiatics, &c.
(Acts 6: 9. 9: 29.)
The Christian sect, too, of this city consisted partly of persons who
spoke Greek, or Hellenists, who were sufficiently numerous to maintain
a dispute with the Jews. (Acts 6: 1 seq.)
We are here drawn into a controversy, which for the sake of complete-
ness we must not avoid. Some have been desirous of getting rid of
these Jews who spoke Greek, and Jewish Christians, who are mentioned
in the Acts. In order to get rid of them, we have been referred to an
explanation which had been long ago abandoned, and is to the follow-
ing purport: "Hellenists were only proselytes, who were always some-
what despised by the Jews who belonged to the twelve tribes, or Hebrews
in the strict sense of the word, and were denominated Hellenists, in refer-
ence to their heathen extraction.'
"1
At any rate, however, they spoke Greek; the rather as they were of
heathen extraction, or but lately heathen themselves. Who could ex-
pect any thing else from natives of Cilicia, and particularly of Cyrene,
Alexandria, and Ionia? (Acts 6: 9.) The example of Philo may be
adduced to prove that the Alexandrians understood also something of
Hebrew: but this must have been trifling; and besides, there were very
few so learned as he was.
Let us enter into a little analysis. What was a Jew? What a He-
brew? What was a Hellene? and what a Hellenist?-The name of
Jew (we speak of the times of our Lord and the Apostles,) was the
common expression for all who derived their origin from the ancient
kingdom of Judah, in whatever part of the world they might dwell;
(φύσει Ιουδαίοι, Gal. 2: 15. πάντες κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην, Acts. 24:
5,) and the religion of this race of men (yévos) is called Judaism
(Lovdaïoμos) Galat. 1: 14. Hence the Jews stand opposed to the hea-
then (vn) Rom. 3: 29. 9: 24, &c. &c., or to the principal heathen na-
tion, the Greeks ("Elinves,) Acts 18: 4. Rom. 2: 9. 10: 12. 1 Cor. 1:
24. To be addicted to Judaism is lovdaise; a pagan mode of life,
however, is vizas Syv (Gal. 2: 14,) and never Enviewv. He who
had been converted from heathenism, but not so long since as to be con-
c
1 Dr. Pfannkuche, On the Language of Palestine in the time of Christ and the
Apostles, according to De Rossi. In Eichhorn's Allgem. Biblioth. der bibl. Lit-
teratur, Vol. VIII. Part. 3. p. 472.
43
338
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
sidered a citizen, was a proselyte, or son of a proselyte. (Acts. 6: 5. 13:
43.) In Acts 2: 10, the terms 'lovdałoι and пçoσýλuroi comprise all
the adherents of Judaism.
Now in Acts 6: 1 the Hebrews and Hellenists stand opposed to each
other in the same way as the Jews and Hellenes. What can it have
been which distinguished the Hebrew, and by virtue of which he con-
stituted a subdivision of the general term Jew? Certainly not religion;
in that he was a Jew: not his extraction; in that also he was a Jew.
What, then, can it have been but language? When customs, opinions,
and religious worship are spoken of, lovdaixos only is used; but when-
ever the national language, alphabet and literature are mentioned, EB-
ραϊκός is used as Εβραϊκή διάλεκτος, Acts 22: 2. 26. 14. Εβραϊκά
yoάμuara, Luke 23: 38; and persons speak and write Eßoaiori, John
19: 17, 201 But we never find 'Ιουδαϊκὴ διάλεκτος, Ιουδαϊκά γράμ
It is thus pretty clear in what the Hebrew was distinguish-
ματα, etc.
ed from the mass of his nation.
If then the peculiarity by which the Hebrew distinguished himself
consisted in language, it may be inferred what was the peculiar charac-
teristic of the Hellenist, who is opposed to him; that likewise must
have related to language. Hence Εβραίζειν and Ελληνίζειν were op-
posed to each other. The word Epoate signifies in Josephus, to ex-
press any thing in Hebrew: τὰ τοῦ Καίσαρος διήγγειλε Εβραίων.
(Bell. Jud. L. VI. c. 3. n. 1.) What then must Elviseiv have been?
What it always was, to speak Greek; as, e. g. Thucydides says, (II.
43,) ῾Ελληνίσθησαν τὴν νῦν γλῶσσαν, they adopted the Greek language
which they now speak; and Xenophon, (Anab. VII. c. 3. n. 12.) “Elλn-
vise yao nлiorato; or as Lucian, (Philopseud. c. 16,) says of the
νίζειν γὰρ ἐπίστατο
dæmon which the native of Palestine expels, αποκρίνεται Ελληνίζων ἢ
Baoßagisov that he replied in both languages of Palestine, in the lan-
guage of the country, Paoßapisov, and in the Greek, Envi§wv.
Hence a Hellenist was very well defined by the Scholiast to be a Jew
by extraction who speaks Greek ;2 and if John Chrysostom derived this
meaning, as I suppose he did, from the mere formation of the word, he
was too good a Grecian for us on this account to dispute his assertion.3
If we consult one of the old Greek grammarians, we obtain from him the
following information: from "Ελλην comes Ελληνίζω, then Ελληνιστί, as
from Δωρίζω, Δωριστί, Αιολίζω, Αιολιστί. This plainly refers to lan-
guage and dialect.4 Thus Hellenists were distinguished by their lan-
guage, in respect to which they stood opposed to Jews speaking He-
brew or Aramæan. They were men who spoke Greek.
αι ων
α α
c
Too great an importance is attached, notwithstanding, (particularly
by Bertholdt) to the fact that Jesus is represented as speaking Hebrew.
(Mark 5: 41, vahidà novµi; 7: 34, ¿qqaðά; and Matth. 27: 46, Mark
1 Joseph. de Maccab. § 14. The mother exhorts her sons Eßoaixy pwry and
τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ.
2 Schol. in Act. Ap. VI. 1. Edit. N. T. Frid. Matthæi. "Ellyviotün—tẫn ‘El-
ληνιστί φθεγγομένων, καίτοι Εβραίων ὄντων τῷ γένει.
3 J. Chrys. Comment. in Act. VI. 1–9. Ellyriotas dè oiµay naleïv tov's ‘El-
ληνιστί φθεγγομένους, οὗτοι γὰρ Ελληνιστὶ διελέγοντο Εβραῖοι όντες.
4 Apollon. Alexandrin. in Imman. Bekkeri Anecd. Græc. Vol. II. p. 572.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
339
15: 34.) It might be replied that the Hebrew words in these passages
are quoted by the Evangelists as something remarkable, which would
not have been the case had Jesus usually spoken Hebrew; and what
could reasonably be objected to this answer? But we will not dismiss
the matter so hastily. Our Lord may have addressed the Jewish mul-
titude in Hebrew, on account of their predilection for it. But how did
he address a mixed assembly collected from different countries and
cities? How did he address proselytes and pagans; e. g. at Gadaris?
(Matth. 8: 28 seq. Mark 5: 1. Luke 8: 26.) What language did he
speak in the region of Tyre and Sidon (Mark 7: 24 seq.), where the
Syrophenician Greek woman (γυνὴ Ἑλληνὶς Συροφοινίκισσα,) entered
into conversation with him? and what in Decapolis, which consisted of
Greek cities, such as Philadelphia, Gerasa, Gadara, Hippos, and Pel-
la?
Finally, even if Jesus did frequently speak Hebrew, how can that
affect Matthew, who was not obliged to address distinct collections of
people constantly changing, sometimes Hebrews, sometimes Hellenists,
and hence allowed to vary his language accordingly; but must have
had in mind a fixed class of men, and have adapted his language to that
class, in which were included not only the present but a future race, to
whom perhaps the Hebrew might become less familiar?
Let us now recapitulate the observations we have made.
I. Through the supremacy of the Macedonians, Asia was filled far
and wide with Greek cities. In hither Asia many were founded by the
dynasty of the Ptolemies, and especially by that of the Seleucidæ. Ölder
cities, such as Tyre and Sidon, under the same influence changed their
language.
II. The Syrian, Phoenician and Jewish coast throughout, to the bor-
ders of Egypt, was occupied by cities either entirely or half Greek.
The Israelitish east, from the Arnon upwards, Gilead, Bashan, Hauran,
Trachonitis including Abilene, was entirely Greek towards the north,
and towards the south mostly in possession of the Greeks. In Judea
and Galilee there were several cities wholly, or at least in a great mea-
sure, inhabited by Greeks.
III. Herod the great expended enormous sums to transform his Jews
into Greeks.
IV. The Roman supremacy rather promoted than impeded this
gress to Hellenism.
pro-
V. Even the religious authorities of the Jews were so far from mak-
ing any opposition, that they paid respect to the Greek language till the
latest period of the state, and acknowledged it as proper to be employed
in their literary works, and even admissible in judicial transactions.
VI. Thus favored on every side, this language spread itself by means
of intercourse and conversation through all classes, so that the people
in general, though with many exceptions, understood it, being howev-
er more attached to their own language.
VII. In the Holy City itself there were congregations exclusively
composed of Jews who spoke Greek. From these and from Greek
proselytes the Christian sect in Jerusalem was partly supplied with ad-
herents.
1. Let us imagine Matthew placed in these circumstances. If he
340
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
wrote in Greek, the mass of the people understood him, and he was com-
pensated for that part of the people who perhaps spoke only the lan-
guage of the country, by the cities on the borders or in the interior
which from early times or through the favor of the Herods were in-
habited either entirely or partially by Greeks; as likewise by the Hel-
lenistic congregations in the Holy City and the Hellenists among the
Christians; with whom he could' communicate in no other way. If he
wrote in Hebrew, he resigned the greater and perhaps the nobler part
of the readers we have just mentioned.
2. If he took into consideration Auranitis, Trachonitis, or the other
eastern districts, once the inheritance of the Israelites, now chiefly be-
longing to the cities of Decapolis, he found weighty reason for a pref-
erence of the Greek.
3. If his view likewise comprehended the adjacent regions of the
west; if he considered Antioch the capital of Syria, where the believers
were first called Christians (Acts 11: 26); or neighboring Syrian
churches (Acts 15: 23, 41); if he thought of Tyre, where there were
already Christians (Acts 21: 3, 4); of Sidon (Acts 28: 3); and other
cities along the Phoenician coast (for they all fall within the sphere of
operation which he assigned himself in the composition of his book,
$2; they all had an evident acquaintance with Palestine and its inhab-
itants); he could no longer be undecided to which language he should
give the preference; he could not but select the Greek.
4. If, writing his book at that late period of the national existence,
his mind was wholly engrossed by the prophecies of his Master, which
led him to expect a speedy dissolution of the Jewish state, (of the pre-
lude to which he was already himself an eyewitness,) and if he desired
to have an influence even after that dissolution was completed; if he
wished to be understood still, when the remnant of the Jews, wander-
ing and homeless in their own country, without a temple or religious
worship, should have surrendered their possessions to others; if he in-
tended to write not merely for a few months or years; then he would
by no means have written the language of a nation which in a short
time would cease to be a nation.
$11.
Such having been the condition of the national language of Palestine,
it cannot be doubted, that besides the Nazarenes and the few natives of
the country who passionately clung to the usages and language of their
nation, a multitude of other Jewish adherents to Christianity, scattered
in various parts of Palestine, must have read and understood any He-
brew original of Matthew, if there were such an one, and would hardly
have exchanged it for a Greek version. On this account copies of the
text must have multiplied, and must have spread into various parts of
the country; and these copies could not have been so completely destroy-
ed that not a trace should remain of them, except, as is pretended,
among the sect of the Nazarenes or Ebionites.
In Syria, likewise, particularly in the northeast part of it, where the
Syriac dialect obstinately maintained itself, and where even in the 2d
century sprang up a Syriac literature and school of poetry, a book of
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
341
this kind, written in the Galilean dialect, could not but be acceptable
for use in private by individuals, as well as in public religious ser-
vice. It would have been no objection that it was in Hebrew char-
acters, for, judging from the Palmyrene inscriptions, these were the
common characters in a large part of Syria, and where they were not
so, a change of the letters would do away all difficulty. Christians in
this country could never have lost sight of it, as their only religious book
until they obtained a version of the whole New Testament; and yet,
when this version was prepared, they were so little aware of such an orig-
inal Gospel, that instead of preserving that as a venerable original
document, or altering it so as to adapt it more perfectly to their dialect,
they translated anew our Greek text, itself a translation.
Örigen, too, found no trace of such a book; he could discover no-
thing but the book xαv' Eßqαious, the value of which he left to every
one's own decision; and yet the discovery of Matthew in its original
language was as important to him as his perseverance in such investiga-
tions was untiring. He not only devoted time and labor to the Old
Testament, in order to restore the purity of the Septuagint by reference
to the original text and other critical helps, but was employed, likewise,
in a Recension of the New Testament. The many errors that had
crept into the book of Matthew, of which he expressly complains, could
be remedied in no surer way than by recurrence, as in respect to the
Old Testament, to the original text. He performed, during twenty-eight
years, numerous journeys for critical purposes, and drew forth many
unused and forgotten Mss. from obscurity, in which, but for him, they
would probably have perished, for the sake of leaving nothing unat-
tempted for the melioration of the biblical text. He travelled over Pal-
estine and Syria, and lived at Tyre while making use of the critical ap-
paratus he had collected. Notwithstanding these laborious research-
es made by this intelligent man for this express purpose, he nowhere
discovered any such original of Matthew.
Pamphilus, a Phoenician of Barut, celebrated as a martyr, as the in-
structor of Eusebius, and on account of his biblical scholarship, found-
ed for the church at Cæsarea a library of note among the ancients, and
diligently searched everywhere to procure books for it. The treasure of
biblical literature which it presented attracted Jerome thither, and he
derived great advantage from it. But even for this collection, no He-
brew copy of Matthew had been obtained by Pamphilus; he could pro-
cure only the Nazarene book, and it was this which Jerome, who trans-
lated it, here saw. So entirely fruitless were the endeavors of the an-
cients to get a sight of the pretended original text of this Evangelist,
that its existence seems to have been mere report, without the slightest
foundation in reality.
On the other hand, nothing was known of a translation of Matthew
into Greek. Let us examine Papias once more, who pretends, as we
have seen, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and then subjoins: joµn-
νευσε δὲ αὐτὰ (Ματθαίου λόγια) ὡς ἠδύνατο ἕκαστος-each one
translated the book as well as he could. (Euseb. H. E. L. III. at the
1 Hieronym. de Script. Eccles. V. Pamphil. and V. Matth. ; as also L. III. Adv.
Pelag. "In Evangelio juxta Hebræos .... quo utuntur usque hodie Naza-
quod in Cæsareensi biliothecâ habetur," &c.
reni.
342
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
end.) That is to say, such Christians as did not understand Hebrew
translated the book, every man according to his ability; or, more briefly
still, whoever did not understand it, translated it. Or did he imagine
that all Christians learned something of Hebrew in order to be able to
understand Matthew? No writer, unless he were entangled in error,
could be betrayed into such difficulties. So much, however, is clear
from this, that Papias and all those from whom he derived his collection
'of ancient traditions, did not know when, where, by whom, or on
what authority, a Greek version of Matthew had been executed; and
this in the earliest part of the second century, when it could not have
been long translated, as Matthew wrote his Gospel at most only sixty
years before Papias, and the pretended version must have been consid-
erably later, since he asserts that Christians dispensed with a version
for some time.
Let us now compare these facts. Pamphilus and Origen, one of
whom lived in Palestine, the other in Phoenicia, were not able to procure
the genuine Hebrew Matthew. The Syrians, in whose dialect, by the
way, it was written, and who certainly would have obtained it at their
conversion, did not know of its existence about the close of the second
century. Now where could it have existed if not in Palestine, Phœni-
cia, or Syria? On the other hand, at the commencement of the 2d
century, nobody had any knowledge of a translation of Matthew in-
into Greek, for the use of those who were not Jews; exactly as though
from the beginning nobody had heard of any other Matthew than a
Greek one.
$12.
The Gospel of Matthew which is in our possession, and the substance
of which belongs to him as its author, according to the testimony of
the most various and distinct religious sects of the earliest times of Chris-
tianity, as we have shown in our general introduction, this Gospel
was originally written in Greek. For the Greek dress of the passages
which are cited from the Old Testament is so managed, that their ap-
pearance must be ascribed to the authors, and not to any translator.
They generally exhibit his peculiar purposes, and have reference to the
practical scope of his history, which he was desirous of making evident
as the narrative proceeded.
In general, the Alexandrian version is used and literally followed in
these quotations. The author of the Greek text of Matthew, however,
had at his command the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and freely
consulted it.
He sometimes deserted the Septuagint and gave his citations a pecu-
liar and happy turn in reference to the purpose of his book, even when
no necessity required it, but merely for the sake of making an expres-
sion more strictly appropriate. For instance: there was nothing to pre-
vent his making use of Isaiah 42: 1 seq. as it stood in the Septuagint;
but the words: οὐδὲ ἀκουσθήσεται ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ ἔξω, which, it was
C
did not seem ,וְלֹא־יַשְׁמִיעַ בַּחוּץ קולו true, were the literal rendering of
to him who determined the Greek phraseology, sufficiently definite and
appropriate to delineate the character of an unassuming sage, as mani-
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
343
•
>
το
fested in Jesus. The purport of the passage was therefore made more
suitable to the idea of the Evangelist, by a peculiar phraseology: He
shall not strive nor cry, neither shall any man hear his voice in the
streets, οὐκ ἐρίσει οὐδὲ κραυγάσει, οὐδὲ ἀκούσει τις ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις
TĤv qœvý v avτou. In these words were clearly portrayed the quiet,
noiseless character, and unassuming modesty of Jesus. (Matt. 12: 19.)
In citing Psalm 78:2, he might have used the words géɣ§oµài п00-
βλήματα απ' ἀρχῆς; but they were not sufficiently significant of the
kind of discourse which established the Messianic authority of Jesus,
for proof of which, principally, Matthew cited the Old Testament. For
with the Jews the plan of the Messiah's advent to bless them was a
deep mystery of the Godhead from eternity, προεγνωσμένα ἀπὸ κατα-
Polns nógμov. (1 Pet. 1: 20. Ephes. 1: 4. Heb. 9: 26.) To express
this, an' dons was too tame, and a more lively idea was contained in
the word; he therefore gave more force and consequence to the
passage by using the best expression : ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ
καταβολῆς κόσμου. (Matt. 13: 35.)
The translation of the words and 2, in Isaiah 53: 4, by
dovevɛia and vónos, (Matt. 8: 17,) was so perfectly adapted to the wri-
ter's purpose, that the Hebrew expression was far transcended with the
view of promoting the aim of the Evangelist.¹
It
The words in Matt. 27: 9, 10, came beyond a doubt from Zechariah;
but they were quoted from memory, and are ascribed to Jeremiah.
is as improbable that Matthew, in order to show that Jesus was the
Messiah, for which purpose proof of real validity was requisite, should
have appealed to apocryphal writings, which might be objected to and
could not confer on his attempt any convincing authority, as it is erro-
neous and contrary to all investigations concerning the canon to im-
agine that any part of the Old Testament has been lost since Matthew's
time.
κοντα
T
The passage is found in Zechariah, and in the same words; the ar-
rangement only is different, as would be very natural in a quotation from
memory. Zech. 11: 13, 14. by psy, nai ëlaßov tà roiα-
τριά
zovta άojúpia—here we have, in the first place, the same clause and
the same sum expressed. So too as to the words tv tuην тоυ
τετιμημένου, ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο, οπόσην πηρε την πρ; for the
word D is substituted άno rov viv logarh, because
(for which he read 1) occurs afterwards. Even the potter is mention-
ed in the Hebrew : καὶ ἔδωκαν εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, επ
T
is a potter, the literal יוֹצֵר In common usage . אֶל־הַיּוֹצֵר אֶדֶר
Aquila having translated it hάorns. Lastly, the field too is men-
tioned; for has this signification in Ezra and in Chaldaizing He-
brew. We have, therefore, all the prominent ideas of the passage and
even the particular clauses and general language, as exhibited in Mat-
1 A celebrated scholar thus speaks respecting this passage in the Evangelist:
"If he translated from the Hebrew himself, he carefully selected dodeveías
and vooovs for and 2, in order to adapt the passage perfectly to Christ's
cures. And this very use of these words makes it probable that Matthew here
made his own translation from the Hebrew." Eichhorn, in the Allg. Biblioth.
der bibl. Litteratur. II. Band. 6tes Stück. p. 973.
344
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
thew. The form of the Greek, which is entirely suited to the purpose
of the Evangelist, can hardly be attributed, as any intelligent person
will admit, to any one but himself.
This peculiar proceeding in regard to passages of the Old Testament
evinces rather the spirit of an author working according to his own
ideas and bending every thing to a determinate plan, than a translator,
of whom it could hardly be expected that he should enter into the
views of the writer and act in conformity with them in such a manner
as the author himself could not have done without great care.
Familiar as the author of the Greek text was with the Hebrew Old
Testament, there are cases which plainly show that he had not any He-
brew original before him. The citation of Isaiah 29: 13, in Matth. 15:
9, is such a case. The Seventy have, indeed, given the general idea,
but have by no means reached an exact expression of the original.
There is nothing at all in the Hebrew corresponding to the word uárnv;
it would appear that the LXX read for and there is no
word for didάozovres in Isaiah. The words on, have been
translated by oßovrai ue, as if n was read; is treated
as a noun in the plural number, as if it were ni, didαonaliai.
This version, however, is not on these accounts the less literally quoted.
It does not appear as if the author of the Greek was a translator who
had the Hebrew text before him, and expressed it as well as he could,
but as if he moulded it himself according to his own fancy and judg-
inent.
18
מְכַמָּדָה
We will now leave our Evangelist for a moment, but only with a view
to prepare for further investigations respecting him.
13.
MARK.
John Mark, whom the ancients represent as a disciple and fellow-
traveller of Paul, was born, it would seem, at Jerusalem. At least his
mother resided there, and believers assembled together in her house.
(Acts 12: 12.) It was thither that Peter first went, when the angel de-
livered him from prison, expecting to be gladly received. He was not
mistaken; he was received with all the marks of great joy.
John Mark, and the Mark mentioned with so endearing an appella-
tion by Peter (1 Pet. 5: 13), can hardly be distinguished from one
another because the name John is added to the former and not to
the latter. It ought not to have escaped the learned men, who on
this account make these two different persons, that the surname
was the common and distinctive appellation, and that John, o Enıxdy-
ἐπικλη
θεὶς Μάρκος (Acts 12: 25,) and Λεββαῖος ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Θαδδαίος,
Ιωσῆς ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος Βαρνάβας, οσῆππον τὸν καὶ Καϊάφα ἐπι-
xalovμevov, (Jos. Ant. L. XVIII. c. 2. n. 2,) were in common life cal-
led simply Mark, Thaddeus, Barnabas, Caiaphas.
c
1 Grotius Præf. in Marc. Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. I.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
345
The following series of incidents in the life of this John, whose sur-
name was Mark, will make it still more clear that he and Mark were
one and the same person.
When Paul and Barnabas were at Jerusalem, about the time of Pe-
ter's imprisonment, they took John Mark to accompany them to Anti-
och. When, afterwards, these two men were prompted by the Spirit
to proclaim the doctrines of Jesus in other lands, they selected this John
Mark as their assistant and companion. (Acts 12: 25. 13: 5.)
He went with them to Cyprus: but when they removed from Paphos
to Perga in their onward progress, Mark forsook them and returned to
Jerusalem. (Acts 13: 13.)
Paul and Barnabas sometime after returned to Antioch; but their ac-
tive disposition did not suffer them to rest long. They determined
again to visit their brethren, for the purpose of observing the success of
their enterprise and their labors. (Acts 15: 37.) Barnabas desired to
have Mark again as a companion; but Paul refused, alleging that he
had forsaken them the first time, and had failed to persevere under diffi-
culties. Barnabas would not yield, preferring rather to separate from
his fellow laborer, and went again with Mark to Cyprus. Paul chose
Silas.
From this time no John Mark is mentioned in the New Testament;
we find only Mark. (Coloss. 4: 10. 2 Tim. 4: 11. Philem. 24.) From
the first passage, however, it is clear that this Mark is the same John
Mark whom Paul and Barnabas associated with themselves at first, and
on account of whom they separated. We here learn that he was rela-
ted to Barnabas, ἀνεψιὸς τοῦ Βαρνάβα, and now perceive why Barna-
bas and Paul took him with them from Jerusalem, and why Barnabas
was so attached to this Mark that he separated from Paul on his account,
severed the ties of ancient friendship, and abandoned their common ob-
ject, that he might have the youth by his side, and lastly, why he went
with him a second time to Cyprus. Barnabas was a Cyprian by birth
(Acts 4: 36); and Mark his kinsman, here met with many who were
his relations by the side of Barnabas.
Paul was again reconciled to him, and, in his first imprisonment had
him in his company at Rome. When subsequently he was sent back
by Paul on business into Asia, he visited his old instructer, Peter, with
whom, as is clear from the first Epistle of this Apostle (5: 13,) he con-
nected himself, and whose amanuensis he seems to have been in the
composition of the Epistle.
14.
As Mark, who left Jerusalem in company with Paul, must have been
still a youth, when Peter was imprisoned by Agrippa, and as nothing
occurs anywhere in regard to him which shows him to have been an
eye-witness of facts and events concerning Jesus, it is proper to inquire
as to the source of his accounts and the credentials of his historical
authority. Whence then did Mark get his information as to what he
narrates?
When we consider that there was an assembly of believers in his
mother's house, and that Peter went thither first after his liberation, that
44
346
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
the latter honors him above all the believing Jews with the tender appel-
lation Mάozos, ó viós μov, (1 Pet. 5: 13,) we cannot doubt that he be-
stowed upon him his paternal care, a great part of which, with an Apos-
tle, must have consisted of instruction. We must, therefore, refer his
knowledge of the doctrines of Jesus, as well as his narrative in a great
measure, to Peter. We might hence, moreover, consider it probable,
though not absolutely demonstrated, that besides general information,
he had the advantage of particular assistance and more minute instruc-
tion from the Apostle in prosecuting his work.
✓
But history furnishes us positive assurance of this. The first witness
to be sure, is Papias, whose testimony would be of little value, were it
not supported by a specification of his authority. On this occasion,
however, he appeals expressly to his voucher, John, an Ephesian Pres-
byter, who was probably contemporary with the fact which he asserts, or
at all events with John the Evangelist, and from his circumstances and
the time when he lived possessed some certain information respecting
the documents of Christianity. According to his account, ouros O
пQɛoßúiεços léɣe, Mark was not an immediate disciple of our Lord,
but was intimately connected with Peter, and was his constant compan-
ion, carefully noted down all the narratives given by him in public as-
semblies, and formed them into a historical book. (Eusebius at the end
of the IIId book of his H. E.)
Clement of Alexandria says something similar, and corroborates
it by the authority of the most ancient fathers, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνέκα-
Dev пoεпßvréрov, who are totally different persons from the pre-
ceding, judging from the tenor of the testimony. For it comprises, like-
wise, the assertion that the Gospels containing the genealogies appeared
first; a declaration which Eusebius neither found anywhere in the works
of Papias, nor specifies as one of his opinions or assertions, and the con-
trary of which is stated by Irenæus, who venerated Papias. He says
now (Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 14) that Mark, who was for a long time
in Peter's company, noted down his discourses, wrote them out, and
thus composed his Gospel. What he subjoins, too, is peculiar to him,
viz. that Mark composed it at the instance of believers, and put it into
their hands, with no opposition and with no express approbation on the
part of the Apostle.
Tertullian, in his fourth book against Marcion,' says it was asserted
concerning Mark's Gospel, that it properly belonged to Peter, and Mark
was only his interpreter. This we are told, too, by Origen.
This is likewise the real signification of the passage in Justin's Dia-
logue with Trypho, in which he quotes the words of Mark concerning
the sons of Zebedee, who were called sons of thunder, with the declara-
tion that it was ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ, where αὐτοῦ refers to
Peter.3 Christ and Peter are mentioned just before, and aurou cannot
1 L. IV. c. 5. "Licet et Marci quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres
Marcus."
2 Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 25.
3 Καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον ἕνα τῶν ἀποστόλων, καὶ γεγράφ-
θαι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον, καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τοῦ καὶ ἄλλους
δύο ἀδελφοὺς υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου ὄντας μετωνομακέναι ὀνόματι τοῦ Βοανεργές, ὅ ἐστιν
υἱοὶ βροντῆς, σημαντικὸν ἦν τοῦ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον εἶναι. Ed. Rob. Steph. p. 105. c.
106.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
347
•
refer to both. Justin, however, invariably terms the Gospels anoμvn-
μονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, and never απομνημονεύματα Χριστοῦ.
Thus, in Justin's usual mode of speaking, the Gospel of Mark is as-
cribed to the Apostle under the denomination απομνημονεύματα αὐτοῦ
(Πετρου.)
$ 15.
The Gospel written by Mark was, as we have already mentioned
($2,) intended for readers but slightly acquainted with Palestine and
with Jewish manners and customs, whence the author was induced to
render intelligible to his intended readers, by means of explanatory ad-
ditions, much which was familiar to the most humble native of Pales-
tine. But this circumstance designates those for whom this Gospel was
intended only in a very general way. The remark he makes in Chap.
12. v. 42, is a little more definitive as to the circle of readers for whom
he wrote.
He speaks of the λɛлτó, a coin common in Judea, and finds it ne-
cessary to inform his readers of its exact value. His procedure in this
case is worthy of notice. He does not reckon like Josephus, who in
such cases computed the amount in Attic money, stating the value of
the shekel in drachms; but, to make himself intelligible to those whom
he had in view, he subjoins the value of the лτóv in Roman money,
and thus shows that he had his eye upon men who were better acquaint-
ed with the Roman currency than any other.
T
Contrary to the general custom of the biblical writers, he makes use
of the Roman term centurio (ò xɛvrvoiwv, 15: 39,) for a commander
of sixty or a hundred soldiers. Josephus calls him Exaτóvrαozos, as do
likewise the other books of the New Testament; an evidence that this
expression was in accordance with the usage of Palestine. It was, be-
sides, the most intelligible word among the Greeks, it being a pure
Greek term. This deviation from the Jewish and Greek usage can
have been made only with reference to readers who were familiar with
the Latin technical term, but not with the Greek.
σ
History points us to Rome itself. Those ancient teachers, oi åvéna-
Dev пoεбßúrεдoι, extolled by Clement, relate in the passage above men-
tioned, that Mark combined Peter's discourses in a written narrative at
Rome, and published it there at the request of the Christians.¹
The time too, when according to historical evidence Mark publish-
ed his Gospel, leads us to the conclusion that it must have been com-
posed in the city which was then the capital of the world, and at all
events, forbids us to fix upon any other place but this as the place of
its completion and publication.
06
1 This is corroborated, likewise, hy other writers. Epiphan. Hæres. LI. 'Anóhov-
θος γενόμενος ὁ Μάρκος τῷ ἁγίῳ Πέτρῳ ἐν Ρώμῃ, ἐπιτρέπεται τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐκ-
Diodai, 2. Hieronym. in Catal. v. Marcus.-"Marcus discipulus et interpres
Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, rogatus Romæ a fratribus breve
scripsit evangelium, etc.'
.ވ
348
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
$16.
It is true that the period at which Mark appeared as a historian is
not stated alike by all the ancients; this want of unanimity, however,
only renders the inquiry more tedious, but does not make the answer to
our inquiry less certain. A story gained currency that Simon Magus
tried the fortune of his magic arts even in Rome, and obtained divine
honors. Justin Martyr was the original author of this story, and thought
he found traces of the fact in the well-known inscription SEMONI
DEO SANCO, the composition of which, either from its further contents,
or from oral accounts, he assigns to the days of the Emperor Claudius.¹
The hasty inference of this father, who was not very well acquainted
with the Roman language or the Italian mythology, became the basis
of a still more extended tale. Peter had once in another place hum-
bled the Magian; this fact was now united with Justin's story, and thus
originated a complete narrative, the personages of which were Peter
and Simon Magus, and the scene of which was laid at Rome. Chronol-
ogy, which was called upon to find a place in the series of real events
for this pretended occurrence, fixed it in the reign of Claudius, in ac-
cordance with the period assigned by Justin to the composition of
the inscription. The inference was, that Peter must have been in
Rome at this time, and as the circumstances appeared more suitable to
the supposition than those of his last residence, in which he met his
death, Mark must have composed his Gospel at this time.2
الم
False as is the date assigned, yet these accounts, which connect fact
with fiction concerning Mark's Gospel, agree in representing Rome as
the place in which it was written.
Irenæus has given us another chronological statement, which, as far
as respects Matthew, agrees perfectly with what we have inferred from
the contents of the book (§ 5,) and is therefore fully confirmed by this
means. This witness, whose veracity has never been impeached, in-
forms us as follows respecting Mark's Gospel: "Matthew published his
work when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and founding a
church there. After their departure, however, Mark, the disciple and in-
terpreter of Peter, gave us in a composition of his own the accounts of
Peter."3 The words μsza tovtov §odov admit a double signification:
after their death Mark published his book, or after their departure from
Rome. Grabe gives them the latter sense; Valois and others make
them refer to their death.
α
ανε
The interpretation of Valois is the correct one. For Peter himself used
this expression in speaking of his death, calling it his edos (2 Peter
1: 14, 15,) Irenæus, it would seem, here had reference to this expres-
sion, applying to the event the peculiar word used by the Apostle.
1 Justin's Larger Apology, c..26. p. 144. Ed. Rob. Steph.
2 Euseb. Chron. ad A. III. Claud.
3 ῾Ο μὲν δὲ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Εβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καὶ γραφὴν ἐξ-
ήνεγκε τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, του Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ρώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων, καὶ
θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον, Μάρκος ὁ μαθητὴς
καὶ ἑρμηνευτής Πέτρου καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παρ-
adédwzɛ. L. III. Adv. Hær. C. I. Euseb. H. F. L. V. c. 8.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
349
His words are: After the godos of the two Apostles, Peter and Paul,
who had preached at Rome. Now even if he, like the later writers,
supposed that Peter was twice in Rome, first under Claudius and after-
wards in the latter part of Nero's reign, yet the circumstance that he
has connected Peter and Paul with each other, and their preaching and
residence, shows clearly that he had in his mind the latter days of the
Apostles when they were in Rome together.
§ 17.
MATTHEW AND MARK.
Further investigations concerning their historical
sources.
Matthew and Mark relate almost always the same events throughout
their histories; while on the contrary, the other Evangelists differ very
much from one another as well as from Matthew and Mark in their se-
lection of facts. It is therefore a reasonable inquiry: Whence arises
this harmony between Matthew and Mark? How happens it that they
have selected exactly the same facts from the great multitude before
them? Were we considering profane authors, who had such an exten-
sive field of history before them, we should be easily led by such an ap-
pearance to suppose that one had the other before him while composing.
But if, in addition to this, they agreed in their mode of representing his-
torical facts and in the costume which they gave them, made use of the
same number of sentences and clauses in narrating an occurrence, the
same phraseology, the same order and position of the words, even to
the adverbs and conjunctions, as is frequently the case with our authors,
this would be positive proof that they did not write independently of
each other, but either the latest followed and made use of the earliest,
or both drew literally from a third common document.
Considering our historians only as writers whose credibility and au-
thority are not to be taken for granted, but are still to be determined by
critical investigation, this conclusion is valid respecting them likewise.1
And, in fact, their similarity is sometimes greater than can easily be found
between two different writers, as the following examples will show.
1 As the first question is, whether these books have any historical value, we
naturally cannot take their inspiration into account, which can only be prov-
ed when this point is decided. Theologians, likewise, are agreed that the style
of the sacred books was not inspired, but belonged to the sacred writers them-
selves; on which ground they allege proofs of the antiquity and genuineness of
the biblical writings from their style and genius.
350
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Matth. XV. 32 seq.
Προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαθητάς
αὑτοῦ, εἶπεν αὐτοῖς·
Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον,
ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέρας τρεῖς,
προσμένουσί μοι,
καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσι τί φάγωσι.
Καὶ ἐκέλευσε τοῖς ὄχλοις
ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν·
καὶ λαβὼν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἄρτους,
ευχαριστήσας
ἔκλασε, καὶ ἔδωκε
τοῖς μαθηταὶς αὑτοῦ·
οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ
τῷ ὄχλῳ.
Καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες, καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν,
καὶ ἦραν τὸ περισσείον
ΤΟ
τῶν κλασμάτων,
ἑπτὰ σπυρίδας.
I.
Mark VIII. 1 seq.
Προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαθητάς
αὑτοῦ, λέγει αὐτοῖς·
Σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον,
ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέρας τρεῖς,
προσμένουσί μοι,
καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσι τί φάγωσι.
Καὶ παρήγγειλε τῷ ὄχλῳ
ἀναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
καὶ λαβὼν τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἄρτους,
ευχαριστήσας
ἔκλασε, καὶ ἐδίδου
τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ,
ἵνα παραθῶσι· καὶ παρέθηκαν
τῷ ὄχλῳ
῎Εφαγον δὲ, καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν
καὶ ἦραν περισσεύματα
κλασμάτων,
ἑπτὰ σπυρίδας.
II.
Matth. XIII. 4 seq.
Καὶ ἐν τῷ σπείρειν αὐτὸν,
ἃ μὲν ἔπεσε παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν·
καὶ ἦλθε τὰ πετεινὰ,
καὶ κατέφαγεν αὐτά.
Αλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ
τὰ πετρώδη,
όπου οὐκ εἶχε γῆν πολλήν
καὶ εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλε,
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς·
ἡλίου δε ἀνατείλαντος,
ἐκαυματίσθη
καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν,
ἐξηράνθη.
Αλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰς
ἀκάνθας·
και ἀνέβησαν αἱ ἄκανθαι,
καὶ ἀπέπνιξαν αυτά.
Αλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ
τὴν γὴν τὴν καλήν
καὶ ἐδίδου καρπόν.
Mark IV. 4 seq.
Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ σπείρειν,
ὃ μὲν ἔπεσε παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν·
καὶ ἦλθε τὰ πετεινὰ
καὶ κατέφαγεν αυτό.
Αλλο δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ
τὸ πετρῶδες,
ὅπου οὐκ εἶχε γῆν πολλήν
καὶ εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλε,
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς·
ἡλίου δὲ ἀνατείλαντος
ἐκαυματίσθη·
καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν
ἐξηράνθη.
ἄλλο δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰς
ἀκάνθας·
και ανέβησαν αἱ ἄκανθαι,
καὶ συνέπνιξαν αὐτὸ,
καὶ καρπὸν οὐκ ἔδωκε.
Καὶ ἄλλο ἔπεσεν εἰς
τὴν γῆν τὴν καλήν·
καὶ ἐδίδου καρπόν.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
351
v. 20.
῾Ο δὲ ἐπὶ τα πετρώδη
σπαρείς,
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων
καὶ εὐθὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς
λαμβάνων αὐτὸν,
οὐκ ἔχει δὲ ῥίζαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ,
ἀλλὰ πρόσκαιρός ἐστι·
γενομένης δὲ θλίψεως
ἢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον,
εὐθὺς σκανδαλίζεται.
῾Ο δὲ εἰς τὰς
ἀκάνθας σπαρεὶς,
0
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν λόγον ἀκούων,
καὶ ἡ μέριμνα τοῦ αἰῶνος
καὶ ἡ ἀπάτη του πλούτου
συμπνίγει τὸν λόγον,
καὶ ἄκαρπος γίνεται.
v. 16.
Καὶ οὗτοί . . . . ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη
σπειρόμενοι,
οἳ, ὅταν ἀκούσωσι τὸν λόγον,
εὐθέως μετὰ χαρᾶς
λαμβάνουσιν αὐτόν·
καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ῥίζαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς,
άλλα πρόσκαιροί εἰσιν·
εἶτα γενομένης θλίψεως
ἢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον,
εὐθέως σκανδαλίζονται.
Καὶ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰς τὰς
ἀκάνθας σπειρόμενοι,
οἱ τὸν λόγον ἀκούοντες,
καὶ αἱ μέριμναι τοῦ αἰῶνος,
καὶ ἡ ἀπάτη του πλούτου,
καὶ αἱ περὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐπιθυμίαι
εισπορευόμεναι,
συμπνίγουσι τὸν λόγον
καὶ ἄκαρπος γίνεται.
III.
Matth. XXVI. 47 seq.
Καὶ ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος,
ἰδοὺ ᾿Ιούδας, εἷς τῶν δώδεκα,
ήλθε,
καὶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ὄχλος πολύς
μετὰ μαχαιρῶν
καὶ ξύλων,
ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων
καὶ πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ.
Ὁ δὲ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν, ἔδωκεν
αὐτοῖς σεμεῖον, λέγων·
“Ονἂν φιλήσω, αυτός έστι
κρατήσατε αυτόν.
Καὶ εὐθέως προσελθὼν
τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, εἶπε· Χαῖρε, ραββί.
Καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν.
Mark XIV. 43 seq.
Καὶ εὐθέως, ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος,
παραγίνεται
Ο Ιούδας, εἷς ὢν τῶν δώδεκα,
καὶ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος πολύς
μετά μαχαιρών
και ξύλων,
παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων
καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ τῶν
πρεσβυτέρων.
Δεδώκει δὲ ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν
σύσσημον αὐτοῖς, λέγων·
“Ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, αὐτός ἐστιν·
κρατήσατε αὐτὸν
καὶ ἀπαγάγετε ἀσφαλῶς.
Καὶ ἐλθὼν, εὐθέως προσελθὼν
αὐτῷ, λέγει· Ραββί, ψαββί·
καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν.
352
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
IV.
Matth. XXIV. 32 seq.
᾿Απὸ δὲ τῆς συκῆς
μάθετε τὴν παραβολήν·
ὅταν ἤδη ὁ κλάδος αὐτῆς
γένηται ἁπαλός,
καὶ τὰ φύλλα ἐκφύῃ,
τα
γινώσκετε, ὅτι ἐγγὺς τὸ θέρος.
Οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς,
ὅταν ἴδητε πάντα ταῦτα,
γινώσκετε, ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν
ἐπὶ θύραις.
* Αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη,
ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα
γένηται.
Mark XIII. 28 seq.
᾿Απὸ δὲ τῆς συκῆς
μάθετε την παραβολήν
ὅταν αὐτῆς ἤδη ὁ κλάδος
ἁπαλος γένηται,
καὶ ἐκφύῃ τὰ φύλλα,
γινώσκετε, ὅτι ἐγγὺς τὸ θέρος ἐστιν.
Οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς,
ὅταν ταῦτα ἴδητε γινόμενα,
γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγύς ἐστιν
ἐπὶ θύραις.
Αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη,
μέχρις οὗ πάντα ταῦτα
γένηται.
῾Ο οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται· Ο οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται·
οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου
οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι.
οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου
οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι.
Can a similarity like this, which, though it do not exist throughout,
might be exhibited in many other passages, be attributed to mere acci-
dent? Or how could any man with extracts like these from profane
writers lying before him, doubt that one had borrowed from the other,
that the later writer was dependent on his predecessor ?
$18.
But may not both have drawn from the same common sources, and
this be the cause of their agreement? When such appearances are
presented, this is certainly a second supposable case. Both might have
had, perhaps, some Hebrew history of Jesus before them, as their guide
in composing. From the fact that in ancient times there was a report
current in regard to such a Hebrew original; that our books appear as
if they were translations from such a document, that their similarity,
and at the same time the difference in phraseology frequently apparent, as
well as their other mutual discrepancies, may be thus explained and
reconciled, and many passages elucidated; we are tempted to regard
this hypothesis as something more than an hypothesis.
Indeed, some recent essays on the Gospels' have so perfected and
set off this theory, that one could not but be extremely prepossessed in
its favor, were there not certain difficulties remaining, which from their
apparently trivial character were not taken into account, but are in re-
ality decisive against it.
If Matthew and Mark had translated from a common Hebrew origi-
nal, their works would not have coincided so exactly as they do in many
places even as to the minutest points in phraseology.
1. The copiousness of the Greek language furnished more than one
1 Eichhorn, Allgem. Biblioth. der bibl. Litt. V. Band, 5th and 6th Stück.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
353
expression corresponding to most Hebrew words; so that in the case
supposed they might have differed much more widely from each other
than they have. By examining the second passage cited in proof of
their similarity (Matt. 13: 4 and Mark 4: 4 seq.,) and referring to Luke,
who is said to have likewise followed this common original, it will be per-
ceived in how many ways they might have deviated from each other
even in the most simple expressions: καὶ ἀνέβησαν αἱ ἀκανθαι καὶ
απέπνιξαν αυτό is given thus by Luke (8: 7,) καὶ συμφυεῖσαι αἱ ἄκαν
θαι ἀπέπνιξαν αυτό-Matth. Mark : ἀλλὰ δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν τὴν
καλήν, Luke: καὶ ἕτερον ἔπεσε εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀγαθήν.-Μ. Μ:
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς. Luke: διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ικμάδα.-Μ. Μ:
ἄλλα δὲ ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη. Luke: καὶ ἕτερον ἔπεσε ἐπὶ τὴν
πέτραν.
2. Now when we compare the structure of the Hebrew, Chaldee, or
Syriac Language with that of the Greek, such an agreement is totally
inexplicable. The former have only two tenses, a past and future (and
two of them, in some cases, a sign for the pluperfect); while on the
other hand the Greek has two future tenses of common occurrence in
the New Testament, and the following past tenses, viz. an imperfect,
a perfect, a first and second aorist, in the active voice, and as many ten-
ses for the same use in the middle voice. Hence to express a past tense of
the Hebrew or Syriac language, the Greek often had about eight tenses at
command; and in very many cases four might be used to express the
future. How then did it happen, that where they agree in expression,
they generally coincide in using the same tense in Greek? The origi-
nal could not have led to this. Let us examine the first of the passa-
ges adduced instead of προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ, or
Transa, might have stood likewise προσκαλέσας, προσκαλῶν ;
instead of αναπεσεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, γη του, εναπέσαι, ἀνα-
πεσέσθαι, ἀναπέσασθαι, αναπίπτειν, οι αναπίπτεσθαι; for λαβών,
the word ειληφώς, λαβόμενος, οι λαμβάνων, might just as well have
been used; for εὐχαριστήσας εὐχαριστῶν, εὐχαριστησάμενος, &c.
In the third example, too, for λαλοῦντος might have been used λαλου-
μένου, λαλήσαντος, λαλησαμένου; for κρατήσατε-κρατεῖτε, κρατή
σασθε. Notwithstanding the numerous future tenses of the Greek, the
New Testament, by an extraordinary idiom, sometimes employs a pe-
culiar one, formed in the subjunctive mode. (Glassius Philol. Sac. P.
I. Ed. Dathii, p. 313.) Now, whenever Matthew allows himself to
make use of this grammatical anomaly, it appears in the same place in
Mark, as, for instance, is to be seen in example No. IV, where, instead
οἱ οὐ μὴ παρελεύσεται, we find οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεά, and instead of
οἱ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθουσι οι παρελεύσονται οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσι.
3. It is well known that the Syriac, Hebrew, &c. has no verbs com-
pounded with adverbs; while the Greek, by means of composition with
σύν, μετά, ἐπί, παρά, κατά, εἰς, πρός, and the like, possesses an abun-
dant store of expression. The Grecian is not always under any necessity
of using these, but avails himself of them to give greater precision to his
language, for which purpose he has a large number ready for his
choice; and often uses them only for the sake of variety. The Jew
and Syrian have, generally speaking, no expedient of this kind at com-
mand; and it is but seldom that such a signification is contained in the
ου
C
45
354
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
root, though sometimes it is, as in he went out, he went up.
But as this is not very often the case, there is always, even when there
appears a reason from the connexion for the use of such a compound
word, a freedom of choice from the copiousness of the Greek. For
ΠΝ, προσκαλεσάμενος τους μαθητάς-we might use συγ
καλεῖν, μετακαλεῖν, κατακαλεῖν; for προσμένουσι-περιμένουσι,
παραμένουσι, συμμένουσι, καταμένουσι. Αἱ μέριμναι συμπνί
γουσι τὸν λόγον might be expressed also by ἀποπνίγουσι, κατα-
πνίγουσι, ἐμπνίγουσι. Both Evangelists, moreover, frequently use com-
pound words without any sort of necessity. For instance, in the 3d
example cited, in προσελθών . . κατεφίλησεν αυτόν the com-
pound word was so unnecessary that Luke contents himself with tou
φιλῆσαι αὐτόν; for εὐθέως ἐξανέτειλε, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος,
in the 2d example, ανέτειλε was quite sufficient. Of the same character,
likewise, is the following example :
Matt. ΧΧ. 25.
Οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ ἄρχοντες
τῶν ἐθνῶν
κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν
καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι
κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν.
Mark X. 42.
Οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν
τῶν ἐθνῶν
κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν
καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι αυτῶν
κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν.
Here the compound word κατακυριεύουσιν is unnecessary, and was
not occasioned by the Hebrew : Luke has merely κυριεύουσιν. So too
with κατεξουσιάζουσιν, which Luke expresses by εξουσιάζοντες. They
might have used too, ἐπικυριεύουσι and ἀνακυριεύουσι, as well as ἐπ
εξουσιάζουσι, or the proper word αὐτεξουσιάζουσι.
4. The orientals have no adjectives derived from substantives.¹
Hence, when the Evangelists use them, they did not come from the
Hebrew, but are instances of license on the part of the translator. And
yet Matthew and Mark agree in the use of them. They tell us that the
Baptist had a ζώνην ΔΕΡΜΑΤΙΝΗΝ περὶ τὴν ὀσφῦν αὐτοῦ. This
word cannot be translated into Syriac and Arabic, except by means of
a noun, changing the expression to las, alla tibi,
ζώνη δέρματος. The word ἄγναφος could be rendered in these latter
languages only by circumlocution, or by 123, καινός. (Matt. 9: 16,
Mark 2: 21.) "Ατιμος in Matt. 13: 57 and Mark 6: 4, is expressed in
Luke by οὐ δεκτός and in John 4: 44 by τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει. If we exam-
ine the second passage cited above, we shall find several other instan-
ces: ἐπὶ τα πετρώδη; Luke uses ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, and so it must have
been in the original, as the Syriac translator hassos . Αλλά πρόσ
καιροί εἰσι; Luke has προς καιρόν, and so likewise the oriental,
S
7
1 This is subject to some limitation as respects the Arabian, who uses
انساني
etc.
S
الهي
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
355
“Qal lini? Lal. "Axxonos piverat; for this the oriental has no
"Ακαρπος γίνεται;
corresponding adjective, and is obliged to write fool,
. فلا ثمر فيهم
We even find them in one passage very unexpectedly agreeing in the
use of the same dialect, the Æolic; Matt. 26: 69, Mark 16: 68, xai ov
ἦσθα μετα 'Ιησοῦ κ. τ. λ.
So frequent agreement between two writers, in cases in which the
character of the language into which they translated afforded numerous
possibilities of a different choice of phraseology, and the language from
which they translated could not lead them to any agreement, are not
to be accounted for on the supposition of a common original text.
5. The citations from the Old Testament, as has been shown before,
(12) are managed with great and characteristic freedom and dexter-
ity by Matthew. Nor does Mark desert his predecessor in this point.
Matthew (11: 10) deviated from the LXX, in the citation of Malachi
3: 1πίδου ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν προ
προσώπου
лооошлоν μоν, and translated it with more pointed application to the
Baptist's office and mission: ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ
προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου. Mark
cites the words precisely in the same way (1: 2,) and ascribes them to
Isaiah, which shows that he did not take them from the prophet him-
self.
The words of Isaiah 29: 13, in Matth. 15: 8, 9, of which something
was said in § 12, were taken from the LXX indeed, but quoted from
memory, on which account they present a peculiar appearance as to
their order and grammatical forms. The Apostle says: o laos ouros
τοῖς χείλεσί με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω απέχει απ' ἐμοῦ.
Μάτην σέβονται με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας, εντάλματα ἀνθρώπων;
the LXX. have tuoi μs instead of us rug and give the last words
thus: μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες εντάλματα ανθρώπων καὶ
didaoxalias. Mark (7: 6, 7,) has likewise cited these words with the
same variations and the same freedom.
The words of Zech. 13: 7 were translated by Matthew himself, or
else his memory did not faithfully recall the translation of the LXX.;
yet Mark agrees with him (14: 27.) It cannot be an accidental circum-
stance that he deserted the Septuagint whenever Matthew did, that he
translated precisely as he did, and exhibits the citations from the Old
Testament with exactly the same variations as Matthew. The reason
of this, however, is to be sought somewhere else than in the Hebrew
Bible.
These facts do not permit any hesitation on our part absolutely to re-
ject the notion of an original document as their common source, to
which for the most part they literally adhered. One must have had
the other before him, and in the Greek language too; the earlier must
have drawn from the later, i. e., according to history, Mark must have
made use of Matthew.
356
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
$ 19.
Since these investigations concerning the Gospels were first publish-
ed the state of the question has been somewhat altered. The opinion
is now generally abandoned, that the first three Gospels are mere trans-
lations from a Hebrew original, which in course of time received here
and there various additions, whence it happened that the Evangelists
varied in respect to the number of events related, their circumstances
etc. according to the copies which they obtained. For, while their
dissimilarity was accounted for in this way, the explanation was rebut-
ted by their unaccountable coincidence in phraseology in many passa-
ges.
A learned Englishman, in particular, was brought to this convic-
tion by a comparison of several English versions of the same text of
the Gospels. The experiment showed him how little of such coinci-
dence there is between several translators, even in respect to the most
simple clauses.
He did not, however, on this account give up the idea of an original
Hebrew copy; but sought to sustain it by a subsidiary hypothesis. The
original Hebrew Gospel, he supposes, was soon after its publication,
translated by some one into Greek. This version was before our Evan-
gelists, in the passages in which they coincide literally with each other.
This learned man, however, perceived clearly that a Greek version
merely was not sufficient to explain all the appearances presented; for
sometimes all three agree literally and must have had before them a
common version of these passages, and sometimes two only agree in
phraseology to the exclusion of the third, and must have had a version
of such passages with which the third was unacquainted and from the
use of which he was debarred. This last case occurred in three differ-
ent ways; viz. either Matthew and Mark thus agreed together, or Mat-
thew and Luke, or Luke and Mark; in each of which cases it was ne-
cessary to suppose a peculiar version of the passage in question from
which they borrowed their phraseology. To avoid all these difficulties
he availed himself of an ingenious idea in respect to Matthew, which
dispensed with these separate versions. Let us however hear his own
concise exhibition of his theory.
"St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke," says he, "all three used cop-
ies of the common Hebrew document ; the materials of which St. Mat-
thew, who wrote in Hebrew, retained in the language in which he found
them, but St. Mark and St. Luke translated them into Greek. They
had no knowledge of each other's Gospels; but St. Mark and St. Luke,
besides their copies of the Hebrew document &, used a Greek transla-
tion of it, which had been made before any of the additions a, ß, y, etc.
had been inserted. Lastly, as the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke
contain Greek translations of Hebrew materials, which were incorpo-
rated into St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, the person who translated St.
Matthew's Hebrew Gospel into Greek, frequently derived assistance
from the Gospel of St. Mark, where St. Mark had matter in common
with Matthew; and in those places, but in those places only, where St.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
357
Mark had no matter in common with St. Matthew, he had frequently
recourse to St. Luke's Gospel.”¹
This theory, as thus presented, explains all appearances in regard to
the literal agreement of the Evangelists, and hence has the recommen-
dation of not being defective on this point. But it takes for granted
as its fundamental position, something which it is impossible to prove,
viz. that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew; and moreover
presupposes an original Hebrew Gospel, and likewise that there existed
a Greek translation of it, to say nothing of the Hebrew Tvwuokoyia
which it assumes.
A celebrated German scholar, perceiving how questionable was the
first position in respect to Matthew, in order to avoid it, and still retain
the main idea of an original Gospel, chose rather to adopt a very com-
plex theory abounding in hypotheses, which is in substance comprehend-
ed under the following heads.
I. There was an original Hebrew Gospel in circulation before the
composition of our three Gospels. This was early translated into
Greek, and was the common source of our Evangelists in cases in which
all the three coincide in phraseology.2
II. But where only Matthew and Mark agree literally, the basis of
both was a copy of the original Gospel which had already been enrich-
ed with some additions. These additions likewise existed in a Greek
form; and in this form they were made use of by both Evangelists for
the sake of facilitating their task.³
III. Where the narrative of Matthew and Luke harmonises, and
there is even a coincidence in phraseology, the ground work is other
Hebrew additions which were appended to the original Gospels by some
intelligent person, and of which likewise there was a Greek translation.
This translation was used by other writers and fully explains their liter-
al agreement.4
Consequently of these three Hebrew and three Greek documents,
making six in all, our Evangelists formed three. Liberal as the Ger-
man scholar has been in the creation of documents and sources, his
theory is yet deficient as to the explanation of one fact; although it is
the first requisite in regard to an hypothesis that it be sufficient to ex-
plain all the phenomena connected with it. He represents the case in
which Luke and Mark, to the exclusion of Matthew, agree literally,
(a case which sometimes presents itself, as is clear from the examples
exhibited below § 37.) as not worthy of notice.5 It is true that this case
does not occur very often; but how often is of no consequence. Even were
there only the last two clauses of the examples cited in the section refer-
red to above, there would still be too great an agreement to be ascribed
1 Herbert Marsh's Notes and additions to Michaelis' Introd. Translated from
the English by E. F. K. Rosenmüller, Götting. 1803. II. Th. p. 284. [2d Eng.
Ed. of the original, Vol. III. Part. II. p. 361.]
2 J. Gottfr. Eichhorn, Einleit. in das N. T. I. Bd. Leips. 1804. § 45-55 and p.
182.
3 Idem, Ibid. § 67. p. 319, 320.
4 Idem, Ibid. § 77-83. p. 344-351.
5 Idem, Ibid. § 37. p. 38, 40.
358
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
to chance, and we should thus be forced to assume a peculiar version
of this phrase likewise, making the fourth in number, in order to ex-
plain the coincidence, or else admit that one of the two Evangelists
had the other under his eye and transferred this passage from him. But
this agreement is not observable in many passages of considerable
length, but, generally speaking, only in single scattered sentences, of
which it cannot be supposed that there was a peculiar Greek version.
Thus these appearances would compel us at all events to recur to the
supposition that the later of the two Evangelists saw the composition
of the other.
Not long ago the following suppositions were devised by a learned
man for the purpose of simplifying these theories. 1. There existed
an original Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic Gospel for the use of those who
preached the Christian faith in Palestine, from which Matthew compos-
ed his in the same language. II. When the doctrines of Christianity
began to be preached in other lands, this original Gospel was translated
into Greek and enriched with several additions. III. From this latter
book Mark and Luke composed their Gospels, whence arose an agreement
between them in matter and phraseology, in such passages as they have
in common. IV. Matthew, too, was translated into Greek, and the
translator while employed in his work made use of Mark's Gospel, and
thus occasioned the frequently striking similarity of expression. V. He
sometimes even interpolated Matthew from Mark, and hence arose an
agreement between them in respect to matter, in cases in which Luke
differs from both. VI. Where, however, Matthew and Luke agree, to
the exclusion of Mark, the coincidence was occasioned by subsequent
interpolations, such passages, having been transferred into Luke from
Matthew. VII. Where the translation of the original Gospel had noth-
ing added to it subsequently, all three coincide in matter, and, on account
of what is stated in Nos. II and IV, even in phraseology.
The peculiar characteristic of this theory, viz. the supposition of in-
terpolations, enabled the author to diminish the number of documents,
of which so many were necessary according to the theory of Eich-
horn.
$ 20.
Besides the fact that each of these theories is not an individual hy-
pothesis, but consists of many particular hypotheses united, and that
the second of them does not even account for all appearances, and the
third, as we shall show in the sequel, wants internal validity; there are
general objections against them all, which have never been answered.
The chief of these, arranged under five heads, respect the original Gos-
pel. Our position is that such an one never existed.
1. Such a work for a long time could be of no use as a history, to in-
form the inhabitants of Palestine of what Jesus had done. It could
not possibly tell them so much as they themselves had seen, and as a
multitude of eyewitnesses knew and could relate for many years after.
1 Gratz, Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien zu er-
klären. Tubing. 1812.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
359
2. What then could be the object of it? to meet what want was it
composed? The reply is that a written document was necessary to
guide the preachers of the Gospel, so that they might exactly concur
with each other in their doctrinal positions and their discourses. Very
well; but, for the same reason which rendered it useless to put in cir-
culation among the people any historical book, the history was not even
taught orally, so long as it was made known by the general voice of per-
sons in Palestine who were contemporary with the events. The mode
of teaching practised by the apostles, as we shall show when we come
to explain Luke's introduction to his Gospel, was to assume the history
of our Lord as something well known and admitted, and to connect in-
ferences or doctrines with the accounts certified by common report;
particularly, likewise, to cite in comparison passages of the Old Testa-
ment, in order to prove that what was said in the prophets respecting
the Messiah had met with its fulfilment in Jesus.
Even in foreign lands, it was not possible for the apostles, unless they
abode long in one place as Paul did at Corinth and Ephesus, to enter
into a regular narrative of the fortunes and acts of Jesus.
3. Consequently, in a doctrinal discourse the principal aim must have
been to make an application of prophetic passages; for which purpose
it became necessary to keep note of the events to which such passages
related.
But neither was there at first any written exhibition of these to serve
as a guide, though one was composed in the sequel. Before there could
have been any such written account, all Christians were in the habit of
seeking for the events of Jesus' life in the prophecies, and of finding
them there described.
Not long after our Lord's resurrection, Peter, on the day of Pente-
cost, took occasion from the charge of intoxication to direct his discourse
by an ingenious transition to an explanation of the Messianic days, and
then to Jesus the Messiah, whose death and resurrection he showed to
have been predicted in the Old Testament (Acts 2: 14-42;) and this
so as to convince three thousand persons. As yet there was not even any
plan of operation, much less any books of instruction; nor did this first
unpremeditated experiment on the part of Peter, much as it was re-
commended by its success, give rise to any expedient of this kind. His
observation on what is said in Ps. 16: of the death and resurrection of
the Messiah was not transferred into the original Gospel; for Matthew,
who expressly undertook to exhibit such comparisons throughout his
whole book, did not find it there, nor did any other of the Evangelists.
We forbear to comment on Peter's subsequent discourses; but we
must say a few words of the discourse of Philip. He explained to the
officer of Candace, without any premeditation, the words of Isaiah 43:
7 seq. as relating to Jesus the Messiah (Acts 8: 32-36.) Notwith-
standing the significance with which this passage of the prophet repre-
sents the conduct of Jesus in his sufferings and death, it has not found its
way into either of our books, which are said to have been derived from
the original Gospel.
If ever such a book had been composed as a guide in reference to the
application of prophetic passages, it would certainly have been founded
on the earliest and most successful attempts at conversion made by the
360
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
}
leaders and chief speakers among the Christians. But this was not
the case, as is shown by the examples we have cited. Generally, too,
Mark has but few comparisons of prophecies in his book, and Luke still
fewer; but such comparisons could not have escaped them if they drew
their materials from an original Gospel of this kind.
4. Moreover, an original Gospel, archetype, prototype, or whatever
the imagined book may be called, is contradicted by history. Those
Cyprians and Cyrenians, whom flight from persecution led to Antioch,
taught there and founded a church, and yet no idea was entertained of
providing them with a written history (Acts 11: 21, 22.) If these per-
sons could do this without such a manual, why not the eye-witnesses of
the history and specially authorised teachers?
Paul had even already passed through the south of Asia Minor with
Barnabas, without any written document of the kind. A long time
after, when he had returned from his journey, he held conversation with
the apostles at Jerusalem in regard to his doctrinal views, that he might
not labor and strive in vain. (Galat. 2: 1, 2.) Thus too Barnabas, his
assistant and fellow-traveller, knew nothing of any book of instruction,
although he was deputed by the apostles with full authority as a teacher
to regulate the affairs of the church at Antioch (Acts 11: 22 seq.,) and
had imparted instruction to the society for a whole year, with the assis-
tance of Paul. Now how can we suppose the existence of a manual to
guide the Apostles in the duties of their office, while Paul and Barna-
bas knew nothing of it, when they preached to the church at Antioch,
nor at a later period, more than twenty years after our Lord's death,
after they had travelled over many countries of Asia Minor in the exer-
cise of their ministerial vocation?
It is clear that Paul adhered to no such book; but had himself en-
tered into investigations concerning our Lord's history, and was in pos-
session of accounts which we seek in vain in the writings of others.
Take for instance the beautiful saying of our Lord which he mentions
in Acts 20: 35; the words of Christ at the last supper, (1 Cor. 11: 24—
27,) in regard to which Paul is followed by Luke (22: 19, 20); and the
particular information he gives us respecting the resurrection, (1 Cor.
15:5-7.)2
5. As more than twenty years after Jesus' death no written plan of
instruction was communicated to the persons sent forth as teachers, if
there ever was such an one it must have been composed at a subsequent
period. But then it certainly could not have been written in the He-
brew or Aramæan language, as is imagined. Of what use would have
been a work of this kind in Hebrew, after Christianity had been preach-
ed every where in Palestine and its vicinity, and the Greeks were now
becoming believers?
But on the other hand Hebrew phrases are pointed out to us, which,
it is said, make it evident that our Evangelists translated from the He-
1 As the deputies of the Apostles to Antioch had no document communicated
to them, they had not any Greek translation of one for the use of the church.
at Antioch, as is alleged. Gratz, Neuer Versuch, &c. § 27. p. 108, 109.
2 If the memoranda which Paul had concerning the life and doctrines of Jesus
are to be termed his Gospel, so be it; but his collections and the so-called origi-
nal Gospel, have no connexion with each other.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
361
brew. There certainly are passages in which they differ from each oth-
er in a single word or clause, though otherwise harmonizing; one
selecting this, and the other that, particular expression. And in such
cases, as soon as we call to mind the corresponding Hebrew or Ara-
mæan word, we see clearly the source of their difference in phraseology;
as e. g. (to choose the simplest instance,) Matthew calls the servant of
the centurion nais, and Luke doulos, in Hebrew signifying both.
But this might have happened without the intervention of any Hebrew
book. These writers did what we are all obliged to do when we un-
dertake to speak or write a living language which we have but imper-
fectly learned. Hebrews and Aramaans as they were, they thought in
their mother-tongue what they were to say in the foreign one; they
planned the sentence in their mind in Hebrew, read it over, as it were,
to themselves, and then sought the Greek words to turn it into Greek.
Now it could not but happen sometimes that one would miss the most
appropriate expression, while the other attained it, or thought he did.
All depends on the circumstance that one took pains to avoid com-
mon Hebraisms, while the other did not. It is, however, forcing the
matter to an extreme, if we attempt to explain in this way all the verbal
discrepancies which we meet with. Of the well-known explanations
of this kind, how few are really simple, striking, and satisfactory? But
even if they possessed these characteristics, and the number was much
greater, their force would be only that of induction, and would rest on
the following syllogism. We know, from examples, that when there
are small discrepancies in expression between these writers, as soon as
we turn the sentence into Hebrew or Aramæan, it is instantly plain
what was the source of the difference in phraseology. Now the num-
ber of these cases is so great, that they cannot be attributed to accident,
or to ingenuity on our part. We are, therefore, referred to an original
Hebrew text, which was the basis of all the three Gospels.
This is a correct statement of the argument aimed at in attempts of
this kind. So long as the truth of the major and middle propositions is
doubtful, so long as the examples are so few in number, and so few
even of these are good ones, we may regard this argument from induc-
tion as a debt, acknowledged indeed, but yet unpaid, and which proba-
bly never will be paid. Who can explain from the Hebrew, how Mat-
thew (12: 28,) could translate v vεμаT εou, and Luke (11: 20,)
ἐν δακτύλῳ Θεοῦ; Matthew (7: 11,) δώσει αγαθά, and Luke (11: 13,)
δώσει πνευμα ἅγιον; Matthew (6: 26,) πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, and
Luke (12: 24,) Tovs nópanas? Could be mistaken for EN;
τοὺς κόρακας
We will cite a few ?ערְבִים for עוֹף שָׁמַיִם or ;טבות for רוּחַ הַקדֶשׁ
་
more instances of this character. Matth. 10: 29, duo oroovvia dooαgiov
πωλείται, and Luke 12: 6, πέντε στρουθία πωλεῖται ἀσσαρίων δύο.
Matth. οὐ πεσεῖται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ; Luke, οὐκ ἐστι ἐπιλελησμένον. Matth.
23:23, το κύμινον; Luke 11: 42, πᾶν λάχανον. Matth. 23: 13, κλείετε
τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν; Luke 11: 52, ᾔρατε τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς γνώ
σεως., Matt. 5: 48, τέλειοι; Luke 6: 36, οικτίρμονες. Matth. 5: 4,
ὅτι αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται ; Luke 6: 21, ὅτι γελάσετε. What is the
Hebrew word, in each of these cases, from which these discrepancies
might have originated as two different modes of translation.
6. To support the hypothesis of an original Hebrew Gospel with its
46
362
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
various copies and versions, from which our Gospels are said to have
originated, a prop has been used which has itself no firmness, viz. the
subsidiary hypothesis that no one of the Evangelists could have seen
the work of his predecessor and made use of it as the basis of his own.
What hindrance was there in the way? Did the idea of composing
such a work strike all three at the same moment? and did they carry it
into execution at precisely the same time? It has never entered the
minds of even those who seem to occupy themselves with the invention
of novel theories, to maintain this. If, however, our historians publish-
ed their works at different times, must not the work of the earlier writer
have been known to the later? Did Luke know of the works of many
others, of whom he speaks in his introduction, and was he unacquaint-
ed with those of his own colleagues? Did they indeed mutually es-
trange themselves from each other, to such a degree as to break all so-
cial bands, while they were laboring for the preservation and extension
of the same cause?
Whether they abode in the Christian countries of Asia, or in the new-
ly converted parts of Europe, they were still in the Roman dominions,
not far from the bosom of the Mediterranean Sea, the central point of
all trade and intercourse. Had Rome no connexion with the two prin-
cipal cities in her Asiatic possessions, Ephesus and Antioch? And
were not these two cities likewise the principal seats of Christianity?
Was not Corinth the theatre of all kinds of traffic and business? Did
not Asiatic vessels sail to Macedonian ports, and Macedonian vessels to
Asiatic ports? Had the Phoenicians ceased to frequent the sea? Were
not Alexandrian vessels seen in the harbors of Asia and Italy? Then,
too, Rome was the great rendezvous to which subjects resorted from all
quarters of the globe to seek justice, to transact business, and to traffic
in costly articles of merchandise. In behalf of this hypothesis, there-
fore, we should be forced to imagine a totally different world from
the present; or else assert that Christians had designedly broken off
all friendly relations, and were desirous to know nothing of each
other.¹
$ 21.
It is nevertheless insisted, that neither saw the earlier work of either
of the others, and proof is offered to sustain the assertion.
There are, it is said, two alternatives possible in respect to the literal
agreement of the first three Gospels. Either one of them saw and used
the work of another; or else they drew in such cases from a third com-
mon source, or from several. Now the first of these alternatives, it is
continued, is not supposable; we must therefore adopt the second, with
such combinations as are necessary to explain all the facts in respect to
language, phraseology, and other points.
་
But why is not the first alternative supposable? It is replied, that
these writers differ from each other in respect to circumstances, often
1 Dr. Vogel notices difficulties of this kind in his essay "Ueber die Entste-
hung der drey_erster Evangelien," in Gabler's "Journ. für auserles. theol.
Litter." I. Bd. I. Stück. p. 11-25.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
363
do not coincide as to designations of time, and even vary from each
other in essential points, giving an entirely different appearance to events
or discourses, and sometimes exhibiting discrepancies which border on
absolute contradiction; and this could not have been the case,
if one
had seen the writings of the others. Sometimes, too, one is diffuse in
his narration where another is concise, so that the supposition of the
the latter having seen the work of the former would make him to have
cast a slight, as it were, on the fuller details of his predecessors.¹
These arguments, it is said, make it clear that all the positions as-
sumed to solve the problem presented, are correct and irrefragable.
Let us make trial of them in their application to two other writers; for
a moment supposing ourselves uncertain as to their mutual relation.
Let them be the historians Livy and Polybius. We now wish to prove
that Livy did not see Polybius, and, vice versa, that Polybius did not see
Livy. One sometimes varies from the other as to the circumstances of
events; they differ likewise as to the date of certain facts; they con-
tain discrepancies which border on contradiction; indeed, one declares
the contrary of what the other asserts; and lastly, neither has always
made proper use of the more extended detail which he might have
found in the other. Therefore neither knew any thing of the other;
Livy knew nothing of Polybius, and Polybius nothing of Livy. Now
is this true? is it perfectly correct? Livy, it is well known, expressly
refers to Polybius in several books of his history.
Thus an historian may have read the work of a competitor on the
same subject, and yet not have renounced his own judgment, may make
use of his own special investigations, and strive to excel the previous
writer by making further researches; he may have read him, and yet
understand many circumstances differently, prefer another chronology
in many cases, and arrange facts in another order. He may have read
him, and yet vary from him; he may have read him, and yet venture to
entertain a different opinion. He may sometimes be concise because
he has read the work of his predecessor and has found the subject ex-
hausted. This we might think no man ever doubted. Yet no atten-
tion has been paid to these considerations in the most recent works on
this subject.
Now why should not what is acknowledged to be valid in respect to
profane writers, be admitted to be applicable to the authors of the Gos-
pels?
Why may not one of them, even if he had the work of another before
him, have deviated from his predecessor? Is the reason an external one,
or does it not lie wholly in the design of the Evangelists? There is
no external necessity, no prohibition, in the case; this constraint must
have been imposed upon them solely by a special regard to their circum-
stances, by a sort of mutual understanding between them.
Now such a principle would be a bad one, and is shared with them
1 Eichhorn's Einleit. in das neue Test. 1Bd. § 39-45. He was preceded by
Dr. Herbert Marsh in his Notes and Additions to Michaelis' Introd. p. 245. Germ.
Edit. [2d Eng. Ed. Vol. III. P. II. p. 320, seq.] Bertholdt has treated this argu-
ment with his accustomed perspicuity in his Hist. Krit. Einleit. in die Schriften
des A. und N. T. III. Th. § 312-319.
364
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
(if they followed it,) by no good writer. Nor is it a proper course to
commence the business of investigating the sources and merits of any
historian with such a supposition. We can arrive at positions of this
kind only at the close of the whole investigation, and it would be bad
enough then to come to such a conclusion.
Yet one cannot help suspecting sometimes that the course of recent
criticism has depended on the fact, that a passage has been extracted
here from Matthew and there from Mark or Luke, and then the infe-
rence made from the discrepancy between them that neither saw the
other's work or he would have varied from him.
Is it meant (for we are left wholly to conjecture on this point,) that
Mark could not in a particular passage have varied from Matthew, or
Luke from Mark, etc., because the narrative of the latter of the two is
most accurate? How can this be known beforehand, when we are
but just on the point of entering upon an inquiry into their historical
merits? This, again, is beginning with the assumption of something
which we cannot know until the close of our investigation.
Nothing of this kind can with certainty be maintained in the outset
from individual passages or detached clauses, as the variations may be
occasioned by many different reasons, some of which we may not be
able to perceive until we have obtained a clear understanding of the
course of procedure and the habits of each writer, both separately and
relatively to the rest. Now for this purpose it is essential that the plan of
each of these works should be discovered, that not only the number but
the scope of the different parts of the narrative should be rightly esti-
mated, and that each writer's peculiar style of description and narration,
and every one of his prominent peculiarities, should be clearly understood.
When all this is accomplished, and then only, we are in a situation to
pronounce which of these books bears the greatest resemblance to a
first attempt; which strives most after strict precision in chronology and
in the representation of circumstances; which adds to this precision a
copiousness not to be found in the rest; and which has advanced nearest
to perfection. Then only can we decide with certainty, that one could
not have failed to make use of the work of another if he had read it.
But to assume certain positions as truths at a premature stage of the in-
vestigation, and then introduce them into the inquiry as arguments, will
serve any purpose rather than that of affording a just conclusion.
$ 22.
Hitherto no pains have been thought too great and no methods too
various to be taken for the sake of enabling the hypothesis of an origi-
nal written Gospel to keep the field. Instead of this an oral one is
now proposed to us. Such an one was long ago thought of and writ-
ten about, but excited no particular attention. The fact that the many
objections to the former theory have been gradually admitted, has brought
the theory of an oral Gospel into greater relief, and it has at last been
clothed by Dr. Gieseler with all the attractive charms of eloquence.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
365
He recommends the adoption of it as a simple mode of explaining the
coincidences and discrepancies between our first three Gospels.¹
We agree with his remarks in opposition to an original written Gos-
pel, or as he prefers to call it written Diegesis, but are by no means so
ready to admit all he has premised in order to pave the way for his own
theory. In particular, we protest against the assertion that no particular
succession of the four Gospels has any historical support. The case is
not so bad as that. Could the advocates of an original Gospel, oral or
written, adduce such ancient evidence and authorities in support of their
positions, as we presented in the outset of this investigation (Part II. §
1.) to serve as its basis, they would hardly be content that these appear-
ances and statements should be considered as amounting to a probable
hypothesis. The absence of pretension does not detract from their
value.
We will now state the principal features of the proposed hypothesis.
For several years after our Lord's death, the Apostles lived together in
intimacy at Jerusalem. The subject of their conversation was their
glorified Master; the events of his life, as well as his discourses, were
discussed by them, each in proportion to its importance considered in its
bearing on the subject of a Messiah. In such discussions the memory
of one was aided and corrected by that of another; and thus the events
and doctrines came to be accurately understood and firmly fixed in the
memory.
Now when one of the apostles in presence of the rest imparted in-
struction to those who were preparing to assist in preaching the gos-
pel, what had been freely treated of in conversation received a histori-
cal form in consecutive narration. In order to prevent any distor-
tions of facts in repeating them, the phraseology was determined, and
with it likewise the thought. The apostles thus acquired a superin-
tendence of the subject, and agreed among themselves in respect to the
selection of such events as in point of dignity and other characteris-
tics bore the stamp of the Messiah. In this way they formed perma-
nent doctrinal standard, which caused a uniform representation of the
subjects which it treated. It comprehended the passages which are
common to the first three of our Gospels.
On the other hand, narratives were delivered to the novices above-
mentioned with more or less of detail according to their various shades
of importance, and in unimportant narratives the phraseology was less
restricted. Sometimes, too, private recollections of the apostles crept
into their discourses. Hence arose sundry variations in particular
parts of the account.
The stereotype narrative thus formed was preserved and circulated
only by oral communication. It was necessary that such novices of tal-
ent as were designed for teachers should commit it to memory. It was
repeated over to them until it was imprinted in their recollection.
The language at first was Aramæan; but as Hellenists, likewise,
1 Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung und frühesten Schicksale
der schriftlichen Evangelien. By Dr. J. C. Gieseler. Leips. 1818.
366
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
were received into the church, the narrative was translated with the
same care into Greek.
I cannot avoid repetition here and there, in calling to mind what I
have before said, and in referring to positions which are subsequently,
though not as yet, sustained by the requisite proof. I myself am
likewise of opinion that the history of Jesus was for a long time propa-
gated in the country where the events occurred by means of oral narra-
tion; not, however, on the part of the apostles, but the people generally.
On this account the apostles appealed to the common knowledge in re-
gard to what had happened, in order to attain their ulterior purposes
without unnecessary delay. (See below, § 33.) So little had length of
time been able to erase the recollection of these events from the minds
of the people, that when Matthew wrote his history he could appeal to
common report in behalf of what he said concerning the watch at the
sepulchre. (28: 15.)
In this way the apostles gained leisure for other purposes; for incul-
cating the Messianic dignity of Jesus and the necessity of conversion.
Nothing but the Messianic dignity would serve as authority in the eyes
of the Jews for innovations in religion. The principal concern was the
establishment of the new religion; the Messiahship only contained the au-
thority for this, or the divine warrant. It was not itself the doctrine, but
was the seal of the sacredness and obligatory nature of the doctrine, and
it was only from accidental circumstances that it became the main idea
of Matthew's book, as the prevailing idea in John's is that Jesus was the
Son of God. Now although the occasion and object of the works of the
other Evangelists were different, still the direction taken by the first
writer had an influence on their productions; especially on that of
Mark, and in a less degree on that of Luke. The evidence of this Messi-
anic dignity was not contained in one or two facts merely, which it was
necessary to relate, but in the whole life and actions of Jesus together,
which were sufficiently attested by common report; e. g. in the fact
that he sprang from the house of David, was born at Bethlehem, went
about endued with miraculous power, healed grievous infirmities and
diseases, &c. &c., and after being unjustly executed arose from the
dead. To this latter circumstance alone they gave themselves as
authority. The rest of the argument they made out by a comparison
of the commonly known facts in the life of Jesus with the characteristics
of the Messiah as stated by the prophets. In respect to the mode of
teaching practised by the apostles, we refer a second time to our obser-
vations on the introduction to Luke. (§ 33.) Now let it be consider-
ed whether the supposition of an original historical Gospel, either oral
or written, be compatible with this state of things.
The proof that Jesus was the Messiah, was only introductory and pre-
paratory to his doctrines. The main thing was his system for enno-
bling human life and reforming the nations of the earth. Of this very
little was retained or comprehended by the common people of Pales
tine; for it is far easier to imprint amazing events on the recollection
than words of moral wisdom. No rhapsodist could fix these in the
hearts of men, by reciting narratives which he had committed to memo-
ry. It was necessary, not merely that they should be repeated to others
by the preacher of the faith, but that they should be deeply imprinted
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
367
"
on his own mind-should fill his whole soul. He had to address men,
to exhort, warn, encourage, and rebuke them. This was the oyov
evaɣyehiorov, (2 Tim. 4: 2-6,) the business of a teacher. It was no
mechanical work, but one of free,voluntary action. What a superficial
and derogatory idea of the task of preachers of the faith is entertained
by those who make it to have consisted in declaiming a history which
they had learned by heart!
Supposing the apostles to have undertaken to communicate a narra-
tive of the life of Jesus, it would, even without intention, have been al-
tered in its form by repeated recital. In recitation it was not incum-
bent on an apostle, even according to the hypothesis of Gieseler, to
drive from his mind and consign to oblivion whatever his own memo-
ry suggested. It was with them as with other men; frequent repetition
of the narrative must have awakened recollection of circumstances and
doctrines connected with the events, recollection of what preceded,
what followed, and of similar facts, according to the well-known laws of
mind. In this way the history must have acquired such fulness of de-
tail in its particular parts, and grown to such bulk as a whole, that when
it became necessary to publish it in writing, it might have appeared at
once as a complete work, and a second, third, and even fourth historian
would have been entirely needless. If any object that the apostles had
not the ability to narrate of themselves what accidentally occurred to
their recollection, let them consider that an ordinary man knows how to
relate what he has himself seen, and learns the narrative by heart from
frequent repetition.
On the other hand, as the Messianic dignity of Jesus and his words
were of chief importance, and the history of his life was never detailed,
but, whenever it was necessary to make use of it, was assumed as known
to the people, it could not but happen, as it did, that after the lapse of
years only partial recollections, general and indefinite in respect to cir-
cumstances, would be awakened in the minds of those who undertook
to write the narrative of Christ's life, and that an exact representation
of facts could be recovered only gradually and by means of several
writers, each stating his own impressions.
The objection against a written Gospel which we made above, (§ 20,)
drawn from the life of Paul, applies likewise to an oral Diegesis. When
Barnabas, and with him Paul, undertook to preach in Antioch, the for-
mer must certainly have had by heart the original Gospel, if there was
any such, and Paul must have learned it from him. How, then, did it
happen that Paul, after having already met with great and conscious
success as an apostle in Asia Minor, felt the necessity of conferring
with the apostles at Jerusalem on points of doctrine, that he might not
labor in vain? (Galat. 2: 1, 2.) No hesitation on these points could
well have arisen had he learned and preached an oral Gospel. Now if
there was not any such standard Gospel at that time, it was not formed
until it was too late.
These general arguments might perhaps suffice; but, not to dismiss
the matter too hastily, we will say something further against a few essen-
tial parts of the hypothesis as it is presented.
It undertakes to explain both the coincidence and variation of the
first three Gospels by the character of the oral Diegesis. To accom-
368
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
plish this the following positions are assumed the more important parts
were recounted oftener and with more precision than those which were
less important; whence arose coincidence in regard to the former while
in regard to the latter more freedom was allowed the Diegetes. Now
we might, on the contrary, cite instances in which the most important
events were not recounted so often or with such precision as to preclude
variation in the narrative of the Evangelists. As, however, it would be
necessary first to settle the question of the importance of a particular
account, we will select one which will need no previous discussion. I
do not fear contradiction when I consider the resurrection as the most
important event in the whole history. And this very event was not thus
recounted, even in substance, still less in any precise phraseology, as is
proved by the visit of the woman to the sepulchre. We do not deny
that Jesus was often the subject of conversation among his disciples af-
ter he was glorified; but if from their conversations a regular narrative
had been gradually formed for use in preaching, the details of this part of
the history would have been fixed with extreme precision while the
witnesses were yet together. This was evidently not the case; the
whole was entrusted to each one's individual knowledge. Our mode
of explaining the facts in the case is this: the apostles had seen and
spoken with our Lord many times after he arose from the dead, and
were so certain of the resurrection that they did not trouble themselves
very much (at least to inform each other) in regard to the circumstan-
ces by which the fact first became known.
It is supposed that the further oral propagation (лaoάdoσis) of the
Diegesis, which had thus originated in the conversations of the apostles,
was effected in the following way. Persons were sought for who were
qualified for the ministry, and were made to imprint the whole literally
on the memory from hearing it frequently repeated. Were the supposi-
tion merely that a few prayers or short narratives were to be learned by
heart literally, it might be reasonable; but the case is different in res-
pect to an entire Gospel, or the passages common to the first three Gos-
pels, which must have formed a history, to say the least, as large as our
Gospel by Mark. In such a case, there would be room for applying
what was said by the head of the Spartan council to the Athenian orator:
I did not comprehend the close of your speech, and, before you reached
the close, I had forgotten the beginning. It must have been necessary
for the learner to have heard the Diegesis so often and with such rigo-
rous attention that he would have learned it ten times more easily from
a written document, and for the narrator to repeat it over so often that
it would have been ten times more easy for him to have dictated or writ-
ten it; so that we are left in doubt which would have been placed in the
most vexatious situation by such impolitic management.
This difficulty was felt by the learned proposer of the hypothesis, and
he imposed upon himself by his learning, without succeeding in justify-
ing his supposition. The examples to which he appeals do not prove
what he imagines they do. The prayers of the communion-service and
the symbolum fidei bear no comparison with such a task; neither do the
early recollections of Irenæus. Just as little do the Mishnaioth, or
deutεowoεis, which were only single laws or short decisions of casuis-
tical questions, particularly the decisions of Hillel, Shammai and Akiba,
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
369
¡
and even these were written down by the pupils and afterwards com-
mitted to memory. They were collected together from such records of
them by R. Judah Hakkadosh. Few decisions are of as early a date as
the time of the Asmonæans. It will not be expected that we should
credit the pretended traditions from Mt. Sinai. There still remain two
facts, however, on which the whole matter depends. Gregory relates
of the paralytic Servulus, that, though unable to read, he acquired a
knowledge of the Holy Scriptures according to the measure of his abil-
ity by hearing them read. (Homil. XV. in Evang. $ 5.) But the fath-
er says nothing about a literal commitment to memory. The passage
from Augustine, and that alone, is strictly in point. He states (De Doctr.
Christ. L. I. § 4,) that the Egyptian monk Antonius was said to have
learned the Sacred Scriptures by heart, from merely hearing them (au-
'diendo memoriter tenuisse.) But Augustine refers the reader to com-
mon report, (prædicatur,) for the truth of which he does not vouch.
Commendable caution; for Antonius could not only read and write, but
was even himself an author.
$23.
Will it be much amiss for us, after driving about a long time in the
unfathomable space of conjecture, once more to plant our feet on histor-
ical ground, and, instead of devising something unreal, apply the prin-
ciples of true criticism to the real facts before us? What is there then
which forbids us to consider Matthew as an independent writer?
Even if the existence of some previous biography of Jesus could be
rendered probable, it would not have been proved that Matthew drew
from it; and still less should we be entitled to take this for granted, for
that would be to doubt whether one who was himself an eye-witness was
original in the narrative he presents.
Respecting such a doubt as this, one really knows not what to say.
Once people were in the habit of thinking pretty much as follows on
this subject. When phenomena of sense are in question, they rest, so far
as they are considered merely as such, on the warranty of the senses;
and when our own senses are not within the horizon of the phenomenon,
we refer to the senses of a third person, and know that the highest proof
of the existence of something perceptible is the perception of the per-
ceiver. From this principle, it was thought, proceeded the chief rule
in historical criticism, viz. that when I was not myself at the scene of the
occurrences and did not receive the impression of them through my own
senses, I must refer for a knowledge of them to the perception of an-
other who was a spectator, to the eye-witness, and with him all further
question in respect to historical phenomena, considered as such, is to
be discontinued. Thus Matthew is to be considered as original in his
narration, in every case in which he was an eye-witness.
There are, however, but few facts in his book from which history ex-
cludes him; of all that took place after he was called to be an apostle
only two of which he was not a witness with others, viz. the transfigu-
ration on the mount and the occurrence in the house of Jairus. In ev-
ery other case he was μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα, and was as well acquainted as
either of the twelve with what occurred in Galilee, to which his narra-
47
370
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
tive is exclusively confined, with the exception of the account of the
passion, the scene of which was Jerusalem, where however he, as well
as the other apostles, abode at the time.
This alone might show him to be original in his narration, viz. that his
book contains nothing which did not take place while he was present
or near at hand; that he does not overstep the boundaries of Galilee,
his native region, leaving unnoticed all that occurred in Judea, which
was at a distance from his position.
II. Were any one to seek for some remoter source of the Memorabil-
ia of Socrates than Xenophon, and to boast of the following position as
the sagacious result of his researches, viz. that Xenophon found these
Memorabilia already in existence, and perhaps had the merit of im-
proving them somewhat in point of style, or (according to another hypoth-
esis) that he compiled them from fragmentary and detached accounts,
how would such a supposition be received? He was a disciple of the
celebrated philosopher, whom Socrates met and attached to himself as
Jesus did Matthew. From that time forward, with the exception of a
few hours when Socrates drank the cup of poison, he was an eye-wit-
ness of his actions, his companion and friend. When he communicates
to us the circumstances of the philosopher's life from that period, it is
necessary that we should know him to have been totally incapable of
such a composition, before we can be justified in referring his narrative
to any one but himself.
Just so in regard to the disciple of Jesus; it must be proved that he
had not ability adequate to this production. But which of the twelve, to
judge from his condition and calling, would be likely to write such a
work with more facility than he ? Must not a portitor and official
receiver of the customs, who was brought by his occupation into exten-
sive intercourse with the world, have possessed more experience in wri-
ting than fishermen and the like?
Does the production exhibit evidence of greater acquirements than
we should expect him to have possessed? Does it presuppose exalted
and extensive views, taste, and a classical style? With the exception
of some Jewish reading, the tone of the whole of his history is that of
an unlearned and artless narrative; there is exhibited a penury of lan-
guage and an ignorance of its grammatical rules, and invariably the
open, unpretending manner of an ordinary man, whose circumstances
had learned him how to read and write.
Now, how can we be justified in passing over the eye-witness, an
eye-witness capable in every respect, and going without scruple beyond
the original narrator, in order to provide a source for his narrative
which in itself and all its characteristics lies wholly in the region of
fiction!
$24.
Still it is insisted that traces of such an earlier original Gospel are
found, and that in the works of Justin Martyr. As the citations of this
1
1 J. Severin Vater has instituted a critical inquiry concerning the books pro-
posed as the sources of our Gospels, in the following work: "De Evangeliis
quæ ante Evangelia canonica in usu ecclesiæ Christianæ fuisse dicuntur. Re-
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
371
father have thus become connected with the investigation in regard to
the sources of the first three Gospels, we must consent to make a few
remarks upon them.
Justin was in the habit of demonstrating the whole of Christianity
from the Old Testament. In the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, whom
he wishes to convert, New Testament occurrences are pointed out by
him in Moses and the prophets, as being all there foretold, and he then
relates with freedom and in his own language the corresponding facts
in the New Testament, for the purpose of comparison. But he could
not proceed in this way in respect to the prophecies, the precise phra-
seology of which was considered and treated by the Jew as of the ut-
most importance, and the signification of which he took infinite pains
to discover. In the one case he had to adhere to the phraseology,
while in the other he related the facts, independently of the particular
language of the historian.
His procedure is the same in his Larger Apology. He wishes to
prove to the Roman people, that everything respecting Jesus and his
fortunes was predicted in the prophets, and enters into protracted expla-
nations in regard to these Jewish oracles. For he, as well as his pupil
Tatian, entertained the idea that all the knowledge of Thales, Socra-
tes, Plato, and other ancient philosophers, was only borrowed from
Moses and the sacred books of the Jews; and of this they both attempted
to convince the Greeks and Romans in works written expressly for the
purpose, the former in his Λόγος παραινετικὸς πρὸς "Ελληνας, the lat
ter in an address entitled simply Πρὸς Ἕλληνας. Whenever in the
Apology of Justin the doctrines of Christianity and the history of its
founder were mentioned, they were presented by him in his own style
of narrative, without strict adherence to the phraseology of the histori-
cal books, and frequently in a purer diction.
</
το
We shall be completely convinced that he has taken great license in
citing from the New Testament, if we compare with each other such
passages as are twice quoted in his works. In the 17th chapter of
the Dialogue with Trypho, he quotes thus: γέγραπται
οὐαὶ ὑμῖν
γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι, υποκριταί, ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσ
μον, καὶ τὸ πήγανον, τὴν δὲ ἀγάπην τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν κρίσιν οὐ κα
τανοεῖτε. Τάφοι κεκονιαμένοι, ἔξωθεν φαινόμενοι ὡραῖοι, ἔσωθεν
δὲ γέμοντες ὀστέων νεκρῶν. Καὶ τοῖς γραμματεύσιν, οὐαὶ ὑμῖν γραμ
ματεῖς, ὅτι τὰς κλεῖς ἔχετε, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσθε, καὶ τοὺς
εἰσερχομένους κωλύετε, ὁδηγοί τυφλοί. In the same work, 112th chap.
ter, he cites these words thus: ἔφη ὁ ἡμέτερος κύριος
τάφοι
κεκονιαμένοι, ἔξωθεν φαινόμενοι ὡραῖοι, καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμοντες ὀστέων
νεκρῶν, τὸ ἡδύοσμον ἀποδεκατοῦντες, τὴν δὲ κάμηλον καταπίνοντες,
τυφλοί οδηγοί. In the 35th chapter of this Dialogue he quotes thus :
εἶπε . . . ἀναστήσονται πολλοὶ ψευδόχριστοι καὶ ψευδοαπόστολοι,
καὶ πολλοὺς τῶν πιστῶν πλανήσουσι ; but in the S2d chap. εἶπε . . . ὅτι
ψευδοπροφῆται καὶ ψευδόχριστοι πολλοὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου παρελεύ
σονται, καὶ πολλοὺς πλανήσουσι. In his Larger Apology, 16th chapter,
πολλοὶ ἐροῦσί μοι, κύριε κύριε, οὐ τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐφάγομεν καὶ ἐπίομεν
~
•
giomont. 1812." 4to., to which I refer the rather because this learned man has re-
viewed with acknowledged ability all those hypotheses which my plan would
not permit me to notice.
372
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
καὶ δυνάμεις ἐποιήσαμεν, καὶ τότε ἐρῶ αὐτοῖς ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἐργά
ται τῆς ἀνομίας; and in his Dialogue, chapter 76, καὶ πολλοὶ ἐρουσί
μοι, κύριε, κύριε, ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι ἐφάγομεν, καὶ ἐπίομεν, καὶ προ-
εφετεύσαμεν καὶ δαιμόνια ἐξεβάλομεν. Καὶ ἐρῶ αὐτοῖς· ἀποχωρεῖτε
απ' ἐμοῦ. In the Apology, chapter 15, καὶ τὸν ἥλιον αὑτοῦ ἀνατέλλει
ἐπὶ ἁμαρτωλοὺς καὶ δικαίους καὶ πονηρούς; in his Dialogue, chapter
96, the same passage,: τὸν τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλοντα ἐπὶ ἀχαρίσ
τους καὶ δικαίους, καὶ βρέχοντα ἐπὶ ὁσίους καὶ πονηρούς. In the
Apology, chapter 16, καὶ προσέλθοντος αὐτῷ τινος, καὶ εἴποντος,
διδάσκαλε αγαθε, ἀπεκρίνατο λέγων, οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ μόνος ο
Θεὸς, ὁ ποιήσας τα πάντα; in the Dialogue, chapter 101, λέχοντος
αὐτῷ τινος, διδάσκαλε αγαθε, ἀπεκρίνατο, τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν, εἷς
ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς, ὁ πατήρ μου, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
The passages here adduced are sufficient to prove that Justin did not
maintain uniformity in all his works, nor even in the same work, in re-
spect to his citations from the New Testament; that he only confined
himself to the sense, often with very little anxiety about the expression,
though introducing some individual words employed in the New Testa-
ment; that he united together separate and distinct clauses, and ar-
ranged them sometimes in one order and sometimes in another, accord-
ing to his fancy or as best suited his purpose.
Whoever desires to see a more extended example of his free style of
narration may find one further on in the Appendix respecting the gen-
uineness of the first two chapters of Matthew, § 74.
Now it is certainly true, that if we bring together all such citations,
with the supposition that they were made literally, and, when they
are inconsistent with each other, overlook the circumstance, and per-
haps consider those which evince most license as the true text, and, more-
over, admit the assertion that they were all taken from a single book,
and unite them together accordingly, we shall obtain in this way a book
which bears resemblance sometimes to one and sometimes to another
of our first three Gospels, and is identical with neither.
To this book, thus happily discovered, the priority is now boldly giv-
en, and then it is clear that the citations of Justin, even when they
agree literally with one of our Gospels, were not taken from them, but
that of necessity our Evangelists borrowed from this earlier book or
original Gospel those sentences and passages in which we sometimes
find a substantial and even literal agreement with Justin's work. This
is nearly the process by which this discovery has been attained; these
are the strict critical principles by which its accuracy is placed beyond
doubt.
The passages before compared with each other may determine wheth-
er we can acknowledge as correct the position on which the whole mat-
ter rests, viz. that Justin has always cited his notices of the life of Je-
sus in a strictly literal manner. What, therefore, is the fate of the whole
series of conclusions deduced from this, needs no further elucidation.
Here we might stop, and consider that we had done all which could
be required of us in a polemical point of view; yet some may perhaps de-
sire a few further observations in addition to the requisite refutation.
Justin calls the sources from which he derived the acts and doctrines
of Jesus, απομνημονεύματα, on account of a partiality for the term,
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
373
αν
>
π
which he acquired from the Platonic school to which he once belonged.
He should, to be sure, have called them άлоμvnμovεvμara Xoiorov, as
Xenophon's άлoμvnuovevμara obtained from the person who was the
subject of the narrative the title απομνημονεύματα Σωκράτους. Jus-
tin, however, derives their name from the writers who composed them,
and calls them invariably απομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων. He ex-
presses himself very clearly on this point in his Dialogue, chap. 88, ws
περιστερὰν τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐπιπτῆναι ἐπ' αὐτὸν, ἔγραψαν οἱ ἀπόσ
τολοι αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡμῶν. He here evidently recognises sev-
eral authors.
Instead of this expression he sometimes, moreover, uses the term
Gospel in the singular number: it is written in the Gospel, and, as his
opponent expresses himself in the Dialogue: in the so-called Gospel, v
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται—ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ εὐαγγελίῳ. (chaps. 10 and
100.) He probably, however, speaks in accordance with the custom of
the fathers of the 2d and 3d centuries, who considered the works of
the four Evangelists as only one Gospel; for though distinguished in-
deed as respects their authors, they are not as to their subject, and hence
are only ἓν εὐαγγέλιον διὰ τεττάρων or a τετράμορφον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν
Évì πvεvμati, quadriforme evangelium in uno spiritu etc. (Comp. Part
I. § 47.)
In another place he is still more clear on this point. In his Larger
Apology he speaks of the Gospels in the plural number, (chap. 67.)
οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασι, ο καλεῖ-
ται εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως παρέδωκαν. As the expression τα ευαγγέλια, the
Gospels, was never used in ancient or modern times in speaking of but
one book, it is here decisive of the fact that Justin not only knew
of several different writers, but of several different works with this ti-
tle.
WE
The expression, απομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, occurs about
fourteen times in Justin's citations. On one occasion he uses a remark-
able variation from this expression, where he mentions the change of
Peter's name and those of Zebedee's children: this," says he, "is
written in his (i. e. Peter's) memoirs," v rоis
avтov.
He had already spoken of Peter's change of name, (Dial. c. 100,) re-
ferring simply to the απομνημονεύματα των αποστόλων, in which it
was related that Jesus gave Simon the surname of Peter, after he had
acknowledged him to be the son of God. When, however, he mentions
the sons of Zebedee likewise, who were surnamed sons of thunder, he
changes the form of citation and observes: this is stated in his (Peter's)
memoirs. (Dial. c. 106.)
He thus clearly distinguishes the memoirs of Peter from those of oth-
er apostles, and, as we have already observed, ($ 14,) the account of
the sons of thunder is to be found only in Mark, whose book, as far as
respected those parts of the history which were peculiar to it alone, was
referred by the ancients wholly to Peter.
Among his citations there is another case in which he gives a particular
explanation of his usual form of citation. He refers as usual to the
απομνημονεύματα, but extends the adjunct αποστόλων, which he al-
ways subjoins, by saying that they were composed by the apostles and
those ἐκείνους παρακολουθησάντων, who were their companions in
374
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
a
nai
the business of teaching: ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ φημι ὑπὸ
τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνους παρακολουθησάντων συν-
τετάχθαι, ὅτι ἱδρῶς ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι κατεχεῖτο αὐτοῦ εὐχομένου κ. τ. λ.
Now who were the παρακολουθήσαντες? On this point we are not
left in the dark according to the ancients, Mark was the axólovos,
Éqµnvɛús, or sectator Petri, and Luke, likewise, an άzólovvos, comes,
sectator apostoli. Thus what Justin says of the memoirs, that they
were composed by apostles and their companions, exactly applies to our
Gospels. And it further deserves special notice, that in this passage in
which Justin subjoins the explanation that the απομνημονεύματα were
not written by the apostles only, but by their companions likewise, he
cites from one of these companions, viz. Luke, the words: idows woɛi
θρόμβοι κατεχεῖτο αὐτοῦ εὐχομένου. (22: 44. Dial. c. 103.)
ατα
These άлоμvηuovεúμata, then, were not by one individual; they
were several Gospels written by apostles and companions of apostles, as
is the case with our own. When Justin mentions Peter's memoirs,
he quotes Mark; when he mentions the companions of the Apostles, in
reference to these memoirs, he quotes a passage from Luke. Matthew
we shall discover in his other citations.
He in one place refers to his former declarations concerning the Lo-
gos, of whom he often speaks, and says in his free manner that the
only-begotten of the Father, the Logos who proceeded from him, after-
wards became man, as we learn from the memoirs, anò ræv άñoμvn-
μονευμάτων. The λόγος, the μονογενής, the ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος is
π
1 Dial. cum Tryph. c. 105 Μονογενής γὰρ ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος,
ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος καὶ δύναμις γενόμενος, καὶ ὕστερον ἄνθρωπος διὰ τῆς
παρθένου γενόμενος, ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπομνημονεύματων ἐμάθομεν, προεδήλωσα.
The question respecting Justin's memoirs may be regarded as settled by the
careful investigation of an estimable scholar, Geo. Ben. Winer in his Einla-
dung ad orationem muneris adeundi causa. Erlang. 1819. "Justinum M. Evan-
geliis canonicis usum fuisse ostenditur." Appropriate remarks on this subject
may be found in Dr. J. P. Mynster's work: " Ueber den Gebrauch unserer Evan-
gelien in den Schriften Justins des M. Koph. 1819." In this work, however, he
does not confine himself to the Gospels, but shows that Justin made use of other
writings of the New Testament, and among other cases, notwithstanding the free-
dom of his manner, we can recognise 2 Thess. 2: 3, in Tryph. ch. 110. ötav nai o
τῆς ἀποστάσεως ἄνθρωπος κ. τ. λ. ; Coloss. 1. 15. πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,
Tryph. ch. 138, and Gal. 4: 12. 5: 20, 21. ad Græc. Orat. near the end.-Herm.
Olshausen has in a general manner pointed out our Gospels in Justin's citations
in "Die Echtheit der vier kanonischen Evangelien. Konigsb. 1823." p. 286
seq. Yet he has made too little account of Justin's license in using the Gospels,
which is undeniably clear whenever he cites the same passage two or three
times; and on the other hand he attributes too much to the corruption of Mss.
In supposing from the resemblance of a few expressions that Justin made use of
the Jewish Gospel likewise, (p. 329,) he was preceded by Dr. Paulus in the
"Theol. exeg. Conversatorium," I. Lief., "Uber die Enstehungsart der drey ers-
ten Evangelien." "Ob das Evangelium Justins des M. das Evangelium der He-
bräer gewesen sey." Heidelb. 1822. p. 52 seq. Though I am forced to be very
concise, it will be of use to clear up a passage in Justin from which inferences
have been frequently made, but which is constantly misunderstood. The mis-
take originates in the punctuation. At chapter 98 of the Dial. cum Tryph.
Justin begins to comment on Psalm XXI, (Heb. Ps. XXII,) and proceeds verse
by verse to explain the whole of Christ. In chap. 106 he comes to verse 23d :
δηγήσομαι τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε, and his
explanation of it extends from ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν (i. e. τῶν ἀποστόλων,) as far as
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
375
described with sufficient distinctness in the Memoirs which we have
by John.
With this should be connected a passage to which Dr.
Paulus and Dr. Mynster have referred. After Justin has in his
manner conducted through some chapters an argument from the Old
Testament against Trypho in respect to the existence of an ¿x Dɛov
γεγενημένη δύναμις λογική, who is called θεός, κύριος, and λόγος,
(ch. 61, and 62,) he asserts (ch. 63,) that his blood was not formed
from the seed of men, τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρωπείου σπέρματος
—ἀλλ' ἐκ θελήματος θεοῦ; in which we may recognise the words of
John 1: 13, though the application is forced. After thus deducing the
original memoir we can more easily recognise: xaì viòs, ó hóyos-
σαρκοποιηθεὶς ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν. (Larger Apol. ch. 32. And ὁ λόγ
ος—ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν δὲ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε. (Second Apol. ch. 6.)
The fragment from the conversation with Nicodemus, (John 3: 3 seq.
Larger Apol. ch. 61.) which was pointed out by Lardner, no one can
fail to recognise, except intentionally.
$ 25.
We
may then peaceably recur to our old position, viz. that Matthew
was an original writer, and Mark copied from him; but the peculiar
plan and purposes of the latter, and the mode in which he availed him-
self of his predecessor's work can be unfolded only in the progress of
our investigation. They agree together in their selection of facts, for
the most part likewise in their arrangement of them, in phraseology,
and, moreover, in dividing all the acts of Jesus, related by them after
his return from the temptation, into four journies which he took from
the place of his abode into various regions, exclusive of his last journey
to the place of his passion.
We will try what information we can derive from a more extended
consideration of these journies.
Matthew.
FIRST JOURNEY.
I. Jesus heals a leper with the
injunction that he should tell no
man.
II. He is met by the Centurion,
whose servant he heals.
III. He enters Peter's house.
Mark.
I. Jesus enters the synagogue
at Capernaum, and cures a man
possessed with a devil.
II. He enters Peter's house.
Otε sotavoinen. Then begins a new sentence in which he proves from the me-
moirs that vo os applies to Christ, for he sang with his disciples while he
lived: καὶ μετ᾿ αὐτῶν διάγων, ὕμνησε τὸν Θεὸν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασι . ;
which is true; see Matth. 26: 30, xaì vµvnoávtes é§ñidov. Perhaps I may
have occasion to speak further of Justin.
376
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Matthew.
IV. A certain scribe desires to
follow Jesus, and is sent away.
V. Jesus enters the country of
the Gadarenes, heals two possess-
ed with devils, and returns.
3
Ηλθεν εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν.
(Matth. 9: 1.)
Matthew.
Mark.
III. He heals a leper with the
injunction that he should tell no
man.
Πάλιν εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καπερναούμ.
(Mark 2: 1.)
SECOND JOURNEY.
I. Four men bring to Jesus one
sick of the palsy.
II. Jesus calls Matthew.
III. The disciples of John fast ;
those of Jesus do not.
IV. Jesus heals the daughter of
Jairus, and a woman who had an
issue of blood.
V. Jesus chooses himself disci-
ples and sends them forth.
VI. John sends his disciples to
inquire of Jesus.
VII. Jesus goes through the
corn with his disciples.
Καὶ μεταβὰς ἐκεῖθεν, ἦλθεν εἰς
τὴν συναγωγὴν αὐτῶν.
(Matth. 12: 9.)
Mark.
I. Four men bring to Jesus one
sick of the palsy.
II. Jesus calls Matthew.
III. The disciples of John fast;
those of Jesus do not.
IV. Jesus goes through the corn
with his disciples.
Καὶ εἰσῆλθε πάλιν εἰς τὴν συν
αγωγήν.
(Mark 3: 1.)
THIRD JOURNEY.
Matthew.
I. A man with a withered hand
is healed.
II. Jesus is said to heal through
Beelzebub.
III. The scribes and Pharisees
require a sign.
IV. The mother and brethren
of Jesus arrive.
V. Jesus teaches in parables.
Mark.
I. A man with a withered hand
is healed.
II. Jesus chooses himself disci-
ples.
III. He is said to heal through
Beelzebub.
IV. The mother and brethren of
Jesus arrive.
V. Jesus teaches in parables.
VI. Jesus comes into the country
of the Gadarenes, and heals one
possessed with a devil.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
377
Matthew.
Ελθῶν εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ.
(Matth. 13: 54.)
Mark.
VII. Jesus heals the daughter of
Jairus, and the woman with the is-
sue of blood.
Ηλθεν εἰς τὴν πατρίδα.
(Mark 6: 1.)
The difference between Mark and Matthew in these three Journeys,
arises mostly from the different positions assigned by them to the en-
trance into the country of the Gadarenes; Matthew placing it at the
close of the first excursion, and Mark at the close of the third. If we
take it out of its place in Matthew, and give it the position it has in
Mark, and then set aside the events No. II and IV, which Mark has
omitted to mention in any part of his book, the first Journey is the same
in both.
In the second Journey they coincide, except as respects the events
Matth. IV, V, VI. This difference, likewise, depends in part on the
difference in regard to the voyage to Gadaris. For in both, the story
of the daughter of Jairus is so placed, as to show that the incident oc-
curred not long after this voyage. As Matthew places this at the end of
the first, and Mark at the end of the third Journey, the event which
took place not long after the voyage is likewise differently placed in
both. Mark is wholly silent respecting the inquiry made by John's dis-
ciples. If now we remove No. V. in Matthew further along into the
third journey, there is a perfect coincidence between the two writers.
Matthew.
FOURTH JOURNEY.
I. The prophet is without honor
in his own country.
II. Herod believes that John has
risen from the dead.
III. Five thousand are fed.
IV. Jesus walks on the sea, ap-
pears upon it to the apostles, and
goes to Gennesaret.
V. The disciples of Jesus eat
with unwashen hands.
VI. Jesus goes into the region
of Tyre: story of the woman of
Canaan.
VII. Four thousand are fed.
VIII. A sign is demanded of
Jesus.
IX. The apostles forget to take
bread with them.
Mark.
I. The prophet is without honor
in his own country.
II. Jesus sends forth his disci-
ples.
III. Herod believes that John
has risen from the dead.
IV. The disciples of Jesus re-
turn from their mission.
V. Five thousand are fed.
VI. Jesus walks on the sea, ap-
pears upon it to the apostles, and
goes to Gennesaret.
VII. The disciples of Jesus eat
with unwashen hands.
VIII. Jesus goes into the region
of Tyre: story of the woman of
Canaan.
IX. Four thousand are fed.
X. A sign is demanded of Je-
sus.
XI. The apostles forget to take
bread with them.
48
378
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Matthew.
X. Jesus asks: Whom do men
say that I am?
XI.
mount.
Transfiguration on the
XII. The apostles cannot heal a
man possessed of a devil.
Ελθόντων δὲ αὐτῶν εἰς Καπερνα-
(Matthew 17:24.)
ούμ.
Mark.
XII. A blind man is brought to
Jesus at Bethsaida.
XIII. Jesus asks: Whom do
men say that I am?
XIV.
mount.
Transfiguration on the
XV. The apostles cannot heal a
man possessed of a devil.
Καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Καπερναούμ.
(Mark 9: 33.)
In this Journey Mark varies from Matthew in separating the sending
away of the disciples from their election, with which it is connected by
Matthew, as represented in No. V. of the second Journey. Mark
makes the former an independent event, and then after an interval in-
forms us particularly of their return and what they had done. Indeed
Matthew seems to have connected these events more on account of their
relationship, than from regard to chronological order.
Matthew, moreover, has twice related the fact that certain persons
desired of Jesus a sign, here and in the third Journey No. III. Mark
has omitted it the first time and mentioned it only here. The event
No. XII in Mark, is peculiar to him, not being found anywhere in
Matthew.
Such is their coincidence up to the history of the passion, which be-
gins at this point in both books. When Jesus departed from Caperna-
um the next time, he went to meet his death.
$ 26.
Now why did Mark treat the order of events in his predecessor's
work with so much freedom, and in several instances follow a different
arrangement? There must have been an object and reason for this pro-
cedure, for it could only have been from design that an occurrence was
removed from its position and placed in a different connexion.
How, e. g., could it happen that he should have disjoined and distin-
guished as two separate occurrences the selection of the apostles and
their being sent forth into the world, presenting the latter in a totally
different connexion, although they are united in Matthew, unless for the
sake of observing their natural order and arranging them as they actu-
ally took place?
He was still more precise: a part of the discourse, which, according
to Matthew, Jesus then made to his disciples, he separates from the rest,
and does not introduce till the time when Jesus, before his death, dis-
closes to his disciples their future fate. The passage alluded to is the
following:
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
379
Matth. Χ. 19 seq.
*Όταν δὲ παραδιδῶσιν ὑμᾶς,
μὴ μεριμνήσητε
πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε
δοθήσεται γὰρ ὑμῖν
ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ,
τί λαλήσετε·
οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ λαλοῦντες,
ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς
ὑμῶν,
τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν.
Παραδώσει δὲ ἀδελφὸς ἀδελφὸν
εἰς θάνατον,
καὶ πατὴρ τέκνον·
καὶ ἐπαναστήσονται τέκνα
ἐπὶ γονεῖς
καὶ θανατώσουσιν αυτούς.
Καὶ ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι
ὑπὸ πάντων, διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου·
ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος,
οὗτος σωθήσεται.
Mark XIII. 11 seq.
“Οταν δὲ ἀγάγωσιν ὑμᾶς
παραδιδόντες,
μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε
τί λαλήσητε,
μηδὲ μελετᾶτε· ἀλλ᾿ ὃ ἐὰν δοθῇ ὑμῖν
ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ,
τοῦτο λαλεῖτε
οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑμεῖς οἱ λαλοῦντες,
ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.
Παραδώσει δὲ ἀδελφὸς ἀδελφὸν
-
εἰς θάνατον,
καὶ πατὴρ τέκνον·
καὶ ἐπαναστήσονται τέκνα
ἐπὶ γονεῖς
καὶ θανατώσουσιν αὐτούς·
καὶ ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι
ὑπὸ πάντων, διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου·
ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος,
οὗτος σωθήσεται.
We see that the discourse is the same in both, and the phraseology
almost entirely. Now what could have induced Mark to take these
words from their connexion in Matthew and place them elsewhere, ex-
cept the intention of giving them their proper chronological position?
Considering their purport, they certainly stand in a more appropriate
connexion in Mark than in Matthew.
Mark has taken single sentences from the sermon on the mount as
given in Matthew and connected them with other occasions, events and
discourses; e. g. Matth. 6: 14. Mark 11:25, 26. Matth. 5: 15. Mark
4:21. Matth. 5: 13. Mark 9: 50. Matth. 7: 2. Mark 4: 24. This at-
tention and care in giving single sentences of this sermon another sit-
uation, cannot be better explained than by supposing him to have aim-
ed at relating every thing in the order in which it occurred, while, on
the contrary, Matthew has given at the outset of Jesus' ministry in a
systematic form and at one view what our Lord may have uttered on the
most various occasions.
This purpose of our author is clearly manifest in the case of the voyage
to Gadaris, as well as other cases. Matthew mentions this at the
end of the first Journey, while by Mark it is removed along to the
end of the third. The latter affixes to the occurrence a definite deter-
mination of time, which makes it clear that he designed to adhere to
the chronological order. Jesus taught by the sea-shore in parables,
and a great multitude surrounded him. (Mark 4: 1.) After the con-
clusion of this discourse in parables, he adds (Mark 4: 35,) that the
passage over to Gadaris took place ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ὀψίας γενομ
ένης, at evening on the same day. Now it is true that the expression
ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ in the Evangelists is indefinite, but the annexed no-
380
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
tice of the particular part of the day, oyia, shows that we are to take
the passage as an accurate designation of time. The circumstance
that Jesus was withdrawn from the multitude and carried over in a ship
(4: 36,) proves the connexion of the passage across with the event im-
mediately preceding, viz. the instruction given by Jesus in parablesto
the multitude by the sea-side.
In the second Journey, after the voyage to Gadaris, Matthew narrates
without any definite designation of time, (when he has related a few
other occurrences,) the cure of the daughter of Jairus and the woman
with the issue of blood. (9: 18.) Mark, who refers them to the close
of the third excursion, designates with precision the time when they oc-
curred and their connexion, asserting that they occurred directly after
the voyage to Gadaris, by saying that the father of the child came
to Jesus when they had landed on their return, etc. (5: 21, 22.)
We hence perceive that he took the actual succession of things as his
guide in the plan of his history, and distributed events according to
their chronological order.
27.
Moreover, he differs from his predecessor in his mode of representing
occurrences; he is almost always more copious as to the particular cir-
cumstances attending each event. From this exactness and attention
to minute points his narrative is more complete and vivid. E. g. Mat-
thew relates the story of the woman who had an issue of blood, rather
in the style of a summary than of a regular narrative: "A woman
which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind
him and touched the hem of his garment; for she said within herself,
If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned
him about; and, when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort;
thy faith hath made thee whole." Mark, on the contrary, takes note of
the minutest circumstances. He was better acquainted with the condi-
tion and wretchedness of the diseased woman. During twelve years
all the art of physicians had been exerted for her relief to no purpose,
she had wasted all her substance, and her sufferings were evidently in-
creasing; which latter circumstance essentially enhances the wonder, as
well as the beneficence, of so speedy a cure. She heard of Jesus, and,
approaching him behind in the crowd, touched his garment, fully con-
vinced that she should be healed. Our Lord, perceiving that virtue had
gone out of him, turned about and said: "Who touched my clothes ?”
The disciples replied, affirming the impossibility of determining when
there was such a press of people. But Jesus merely looked around, and his
glance fell on the woman, who felt already what was done in her, and
immediately threw herself with fear and trembling at Jesus' feet, and told
all as it happened. Jesus said unto her: "Daughter, thy faith hath
made thee whole."
It is so in a greater or less degree in regard to most of the occur-
rences related; not that they are paraphrased, but clothed with the
particular circumstances under which they occurred; e. g. Mark 1: 40
-end. Matth. 8: 2-5. Mark 2: 2-13. Matth. 9: 2-9. Mark 4:35 -end.
Matth. 8: 23-28. Mark 5: 1-20. Matth. 8: 28-end. Mark 6: 14-30.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
381
Matth. 14: 6—13. Mark 12: 28-35. Matth. 22: 34-41, and many oth-
er passages.
C
τ
The knowledge he possesses in regard to the persons mentioned in
the history and their circumstances is worthy of notice. While Mat-
thew (9: 18) speaks only of an aozov, his name, Jairus, is given in
Mark (5: 22) together with his office, sis tov doniovvayayov. When
Matthew (15: 22) mentions generally a yuvn Xavavaia, Mark tells us
more particularly ἦν δὲ ἡ γυνὴ Ελληνὶς, Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει (7:
26.) Matthew (27: 16) designates Barabbas simply as déoμiov inion-
μov; Mark (15: 7) knew what was his crime, v ty orάoεi góvov.
The former tells us merely of a Cyrenian, Simon by name (27: 32;)
while Mark informs us that it was Simon, a Cyrenian, the father of
Alexander and Rufus (15: 21.) The one speaks (27: 57) of a rich
man, Joseph of Arimathea; the other knew that he was a distinguish-
ed member of the council (15: 43–45,) and was acquainted with what
passed between him and Pilate, and the inquiry made of the centurion
by the Prætor. Concerning Mary of Magdalene, he adds the circum-
stance (16: 9) άφ' ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια. A case of the same
kind, as we shall see directly, occurs in 10: 46, respecting the blind
man in the road near Jericho. We will add one more example of the
minute circumstances stated by Mark: according to Matth. 16: 5, the
disciples had forgotten to take bread with them; yet Mark says (8: 14)
they had one loaf with them in the ship. It is remarkable, too, that in
narrating the occurrence at Gadaris, he observes (5: 13) that there
were about two thousand swine.
He did not then copy Matthew's book, but made use of it as the ba-
sis of his own; conferred greater particularity on Matthew's narrative,
(which frequently presents only the outline of an occurrence, neglecting
circumstantial detail,) and moulded his predecessor's sketches into the
form of complete history. He is not, as some have repeated from Au-
gustine, the epitomist, but the reviser of Matthew; and sometimes his
revision is so rigid that he seems positively to contradict him.
Matthew mentions two demoniacs at Gadaris, while Mark (5: 2 seq.)
speaks of but one. While Matthew (20: 30) speaks of two blind men
healed on the road to Jericho, Mark tells us of but one (10: 46;) and
that the narrative of both has reference to the same event is clear as
well from the time, as from the similarity of the circumstances and
phraseology. In this last case, Mark even sustains his statement in a
striking manner, by subjoining something from which it is clear that
he was perfectly well informed in regard to the incident; for the
name of the man who was healed is stated by him in two langua-
ges, the Greek and the Syriac : υἱὸς Τιμαίου, Βαρτίμαιος ὁ τυφλός.
These cases would be indeed real contradictions, if we did not know
the aim of Matthew; but when this is considered, they only evince in-
difference as to things not connected with his purpose. (§ 4.) He wish-
ed merely to show from the acts of Jesus that he was the Messiah, and
a perfectly accurate chronology was not even consistent with his plan.
Minuteness, too, was of no importance to his object. The outline of
an event was enough for his argument; and hence he proceeds in so
summary a manner that it is evident he did not wish to trouble himself
about minute circumstances. This does not prove any deficiency in
4
382
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
point of ability or in point of uprightness and love of truth; and only
the want of one or the other of these characteristics, and not a mere in-
difference as to matters that do not concern his proposed plan, can brand
a writer with error and dishonesty.
$ 28.
The person who is designated by history as Mark's voucher and
source of information, and by whose assistance he has furnished us with
so many new and important observations on Matthew, is prominently in-
dicated as such in his work. On occasion of the first alteration which
he makes in the arrangement of certain acts of our Lord, when he ex-
cludes from its position the story of the centurion, and places an incident
previously mentioned by Matthew, viz. the cure of the leper, after the
visit to Peter's house, he informs us just before this last occurrence that
Simon was there with Jesus (Mark 1: 36,) nai narediw§av avtòv ó
Zipov xai oi per autou. Again, in giving a considerably extended ac-
count of the cure of the daughter of Jairus, he expressly adds the cir-
cumstance that Jesus admitted only Peter, John and James as witnesses of
the whole occurrence. (5: 37.) Matthew (21: 18 seq.) relates the story of
the withered fig-tree; Mark (11: 12-15 and 20—27) gives it to us more
in detail, and connects some moral instruction with it, particularly a pas-
sage from the sermon on the mount. (Matt. 6: 14, 15.) He seems here,
too, to substantiate his account by exhibiting Peter, respecting whom
Matthew is silent, as the occasion of the dialogue and the instruction
annexed. Mark (13: 3) expressly names Peter as one of the persons
engaged in the conversation concerning the final fate of the temple and
Holy City, while Matthew (24: 3) only mentions it generally without
specifying either of the persons concerned in it. Matthew (28: 10) tells
us of the command to the women to carry the news of the resurrection
to the disciples; Mark (16: 7) expressly adds the name of Peter:
τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρα.
Such care to insert Peter's name in particular passages, where it was
neither required by the circumstances of the event, nor any light was
thereby thrown upon the event in itself considered, as in Mark 1: 36.
5: 37. 13: 3. 16: 7, denotes a peculiar motive in the writer's mind. The
invariable presence of this apostle, and the mention of him purposely
when it contributed nothing to illustrate the narrative, can be intended
only to accredit it by his authority. At all events, Mark's anxiety to
add Peter's name, without any necessity in reference to the circum-
stantiality or perspicuity of the occurrence, is perfectly explained by the
accounts of the ancients concerning Mark's authority; and these tra-
ces in the book agree so well with the accounts as to favor and enhance
their claim to credit.
$29.
Although in general Mark has carried out Matthew's history into
more minute and exact detail than Matthew, yet in some cases he has
done the contrary, and condensed Matthew's narrative, sometimes even
retaining in part the same language.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
383
Matth. 10: 11 seq.
Εἰς ἣν δ᾽ ἂν
πόλιν ἢ κώμην
η
εἰσέλθητε,
ἐξετάσατε, τίς ἐν αὐτῇ ἄξιός ἐστι·
κἀκεῖ μείνατε,
ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθητε.
Εἰσερχόμενοι δὲ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν,
ἀσπάσασθε αυτήν. Καὶ ἐὰν μὲν
3
ἡ ἡ οἰκία αξία,
•
κ. τ. λ.
Καὶ ὃς ἐὰν μὴ δέξηται ὑμᾶς,
μηδὲ ἀκούσῃ
τοὺς λόγους
ὑμῶν,
Εξερχόμενοι
τῆς οἰκίας ἢ τῆς πόλεως
ἐκείνης,
ἐκτινάξατε τὸν κονιορτὸν
τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν.
Mark 6: 10 seq.
Όπου ἐὰν
εἰσέλθητε
εἰς οἰκίαν,
ἐκεῖ μένετε
ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθητε
ἐκεῖθεν.
Καὶ ὅσοι ἂν μὴ δέξωνται ὑμᾶς
μηδὲ ἀκούσωσιν
ὑμῶν,
ἐκπορευόμενοι
ἐκεῖθεν,
ἐκτινάξατε τὸν χοῦν
τὸν ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν.
The reason is most probably this, that at times Mark, who usually is
more circumstantial in his narrative, did not consider it necessary, or
was unable, to add any thing to the account. In such a case it was su-
perfluous to transcribe into his book at length narratives which were
sufficiently minute in that of his predecessor; and he therefore content-
ed himself with a concise statement, supposing his readers to be acquaint-
ed with the more detailed account.
Perhaps the minuteness of some relations, which left no room for ad-
dition on the part of Matthew's reviser, was the reason why he entirely
omitted certain occurrences (e. g. Matth. 8: 5—13. 19–21. 11: 1 seq. ;)
but more probably this is to be laid to the account of the voucher of
his narratives, who did not allow to some occurrences the position which
they occupy in Matthew, and did not in the sequel assign them the place
which chronologically belonged to them. In fact subsequent investiga-
tions will show, that they really occurred in such chronological circum-
stances as would properly give them a different historical position.
$ 30.
We find but few entirely new events, unmentioned by Matthew, and
consequently peculiar to Mark; perhaps there are three in all. One
falls at the commencement of Jesus' ministry. (Mark 1: 23.) A de-
moniac in the synagogue at Capernaum, acknowledges the superior
power dwelling in Jesus, and is healed. The others occurred shortly
before the passion. A blind man is brought to Jesus at Bethsaida, and
is restored to sight by his spittle and the laying on of his hands. (Mark
8:22-27) The last is the account of the poor woman who cast two
lepta into the treasury. (Mark 12: 41-44.)
This fact, likewise, assures us that it was not his purpose to give an
independent historical book, for the preparation of which he himself
384
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
could not have been deficient in materials, and his voucher still less in
abundant knowledge; but that his plan was confined to a revision of
the existing work of Matthew.
$31.
The result of our investigations as to the mutual relation of the two Evan-
gelists may be briefly presented as follows: Matthew is an original writer,
as he was qualified to be, from having been an eye-witness of the oc-
currences narrated, a friend of the Teacher of whom he writes, and
one to whom his future plans were intrusted. This work first saw the
light. On account of the object he had in view, he was not anxious
about the chronological arrangement of events, and, although he did
not always neglect it, he yet often designedly presented together, in one
view, certain discourses and actions which he found most suited to his
particular purpose. Hence arose frequently a different order from the
historical one.
To detail the particular circumstances of each event
would not have been subsidiary to his purpose, would have been super-
fluous, and often inconvenient. The incidental considerations present-
ed by an extended narrative, would have diverted the reader from his
main object, and distracted the attention which he wished to be direct-
ed to a single point, viz. the perception of the fact, that the predictions
of the ancients concerning the Messiah were fulfilled in the life of Je-
sus. Matthew is an historical deduction; Mark is history.
The contents of the latter are not, in general, new. We very seldom
find in him narratives untouched by his predecessor. He composed
his history from the materials furnished him by the latter, which are
the basis of his production; and he aimed only at the merit of greater
minuteness and accuracy. It was now specially incumbent on him to
follow historical order, from which his predecessor had often deviated on
account of his didactic aim. Then, too, exact historical representation
was his duty; he could not be so careless and indifferent as to the de-
tail of particular circumstances and incidental matters which would im-
part perspicuity or vividness to the occurrences narrated. These obli-
gations he fulfilled by means of the information he received from one
of the earliest and most beloved disciples of Jesus. On the other hand,
when the narrative of his predecessor made further detail unnecessary
or impracticable, he became concise, and the reader was from the nature
of the case referred to the previous history. Some events he wholly pas-
sed over; probably because his authority left him in uncertainty as to
their true historical position. Mark's production may be regarded
both as a history and a critical treatise.
$ 32.
Further; as it is necessary that such minute circumstances and such
a number of accessary observations, even when ascertained and accu-
rately taken from the mouth of eye-witnesses, should have been immedi-
ately noted down, and preserved in writing in order to prevent their be-
ing lost or confounded in the mind; and as, moreover, the circumstan-
ces of Mark's life, the attestation of history and internal evidence in
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
385
the production itself designate Peter as the source of the peculiar infor-
mation and the particularity of narrative which we find in this Gospel,
there can be no doubt of the correctness of the assertion made by the
ancients that Mark noted down in writing the public discourses of Pe-
ter, and has communicated their contents to us; and I conceive the
origin of Mark's Gospel to have been as follows:
1
The Gospel of Matthew having been published, while the apostles
were teaching at Rome, (§ 16) this first biographical account of their
exalted Master was carried thither to them, through the agency of Mat-
thew himself perhaps, or that of others. From the novelty of the thing
and its importance in respect to the condition and prospects of Chris-
tianity in Palestine, this would happen very speedily through the many
messengers who came to them from zealous churches, or the Jews who
left their country on account of the war, and through the active com-
munication which, on the same account, was kept up between Rome
and Judea. For the common benefit of believers it was read in their
assemblies, and Peter, who was peculiarly qualified for the purpose, ex-
plained and commented on it. Mark availed himself of these explana-
tions and secured them by written notes, in which he was assisted by
his close intimacy with the apostle. The expositions of the work of
an eye-witness given by one who was himself an eye-witness of the
acts of Jesus, and a coadjutor or companion in them, were of extraor-
dinary value for the confirmation and instruction of believers, and they
requested Mark to make his notes of general advantage and present them
in a separate work. Hence his Gospel was called κήρυξις Πέτρου, the
preaching of Peter, and he himself Peter's interpreter.
These relations between the voucher and the historian explain the
reason why he has been still more concise than Matthew in relating
certain occurrences in which Peter bore a part, when we might expect
him to be more copious; e. g. Matth. 14: 28-32. 16: 15-20. For
any parts of the narrative which respected Peter personally, and of
which he was the principal subject, would naturally be concisely treated
and rapidly passed over by him in his discourses. His modesty led him
to comment very little on himself and his actions, and at the mention of
his frailties he could not suppress the embarrassment and shame of a
virtuous mind.2
In conclusion, we will endeavor to ascertain definitely the precise
time at which these occurrences probably took place. When Nero
went to amuse himself in Achaia with his disgraceful pursuits, Vespa-
sian accompanied him thither. Meanwhile the rebellion broke out in
oppressed Palestine, and Vespasian obtained commission to chastise that
country.3 It was still winter when Nero sailed to Rome, Titus to Al-
1 These emigrations had already commenced, under Albinus, before the rebel-
lion broke out. Joseph. Bell. Jud. L. II. Ed. Haverc. c. 14. n. 2. and Ed. Basil.
c. 24. p. 738. and Antiq. L. XX. e. ult.
2 What Eusebius says (Demonstr. Evang. L. III. p. 78, 79. Ed. Rob. Steph.)
in comparing Matth. 16: 15-20, with Mark 8: 29, 30, deserves to be noticed. Togov-
των εἰρημένων τῷ Πέτρῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὁ Μάρκος μηδὲν τούτων μνημονεύσας,
ὅτι μηδ' ὁ Πέτρος ταῦθ', ὡς εἰκὸς, ἐν ταῖς αὐτοῦ διδασκαλίαις ἐξηγόρευσεν .
διὸ καὶ Μάρκος αὐτὰ παρέλιπεν.
3 Sueton. in Vespas. c. 4. Bell. Jud. L. III. c. 1.
49
386
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
exandria, and Vespasian hastened over the Hellespont to Syria. When
the weather had moderated so that the campaign could be opened, Ves-
pasian led his legions into Galilee, took several places, and invested
Jotapata on the 21st of Artemisius, our May.2 In the month Panemus
(July,) in the thirteenth year of Nero, this place was taken ;3 this event
was followed in Gorpiæus (September) by the taking of Tarichæa; in
Hyperberetæus (October,) of Gamala; and after Gischala had surren-
dered no fortified place remained; all Galilee was laid waste and sub-
jugated.4
The rebellion only raged the more furiously on this account in Judea
and its metropolis; the scenes connected with the Idumæans followed;
the massacre in the temple and the murder of Zacharias. While
these events were taking place, Matthew finished his Gospel; i. e. in
the winter which began the 14th year of Nero, or, as the year of Ne-
ro's reign began about three months before the year of the Christian era,
(see close of § 84 in this Part,) about the end of the 68th year after the
birth of our Lord.
During the winter the Romans were at rest; but at the opening of
spring Vespasian marched through Antipatris, Lydda and Jamnia, as
far as Emmaus, and then to Jericho, where he formed a junction with
the army which had proceeded on the eastern side of the Jordan under
the command of Trajan. The inhabitants of Jericho fled to the moun-
tains.6
At the commencement of the campaign in the spring the sea
was broken up, and the usual routes of communication with Rome were
re-opened. The Gospel of Matthew, the first historical work which ap-
peared relative to the fate, acts, and doctrines of the founder of the Chris-
tian sect, reached the capital of the world as a curiosity, and was read
and expounded in the Christian assemblies. Sometime afterwards
Nero died, in the month of June. For he ascended the throne in Oc-
tober, and occupied it thirteen years and eight months. That he died
in summer, we learn from Plutarch: "It was summer" says he, "when
a courier with incredible despatch carried from Rome to Galba in
Spain in seven days the intelligence of Nero's death.'
The new
emperor put himself in motion with a part of his army; his march, how-
ever, was slow and bloody. During this time the city was in the
hands of Nymphidius Sabinus and Tigellinus, till the latter was forced
to lay down his arms. It was under these, ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, if we
9
7
118
1 Dio Cass. L. LXIII. p. 723. Wechel. Jos. Bell. Jud. L. III. c. 4. n. 2.
2 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. III. c. 7. n. 3.
3 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. III. c. 7. n. 36.
4 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. III. c. 10. n. 10. L. IV. c. 1. n. 10. c. 2.
5 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. IV. c. 5 and 6.
6 Jos. Bell. Jud. L. IV. c. 8. n. 1, 2.
7 Aurel. Vict. Epit. c. 5, says "annis tredecim." Eutrop. L. VII. c. 15. "im-
perii decimo quarto obiit." Tacit. Hist. I. c. 5. " annos quatuordecim." Sue-
ton. Ner. c. 40. "Paulo minus quatuordecim annis." Dio L. LXIII. p. 727.-
ἔτη δεκατρία καὶ μῆνας ὀκτώ. Jos. Β. J. L. IV. c. 9. n. 2. τρεῖς καὶ δέκα βασιλεύσας
ἔτη καὶ ἡμέρας οκτώ. He has confounded μῆνας ὀκτώ with ἡμέρας οκτώ.
8 Plutarch in Galba, c. 7. *Ην δὲ θέρος ἤδη, καὶ βραχὺ ποὺ δείλης ἧκεν ἀπὸ
Ρώμης Σικηλὸς ἀνὴρ ἀπελεύθερος ἑβδομαῖος, κ. τ. λ.
9 Tacit. Hist. L. I. c. 6.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
387
understand aright the language of Clemens Romanus as to this event,
that Peter and Paul were executed, i. e. between the last days of Nero
and Galba's arrival. See in the sequel (§ 84,) what is said on the
chronology of the Acts, immediately before the table. After their death,
as we have before shewn (§ 16,) Mark published his Gospel. The
words, after their death, are not definite enough to enable us to fix on
any particular year. I therefore discard the date which I assigned in
the former editions.
I
...
LUKE.
•
$ 33.
Luke does not commence his Gospel in the genuine Jewish manner,
with the narrative itself, but opens it according to the taste of the
Greeks and Romans, with a Proæmium, in which he informs us of his
intentions and motives, and of the writings already in existence relative
to his subject.
The correct interpretation of this introduction would destroy or cor-
roborate many hypotheses; but unfortunately, it is of such a nature
that, though no doubt he to whom it was addressed understood it, we,
on the contrary, to whom the circumstances of that period have become
obscure, find great difficulty in extracting its meaning. It has not
escaped learned men what light it would cast on the history of the ori-
gin of our first three Gospels; and hence they have laid peculiar stress on
one clause or another which appeared to them to elucidate the origin
of these books.¹
This introduction is contained in a sentence comprising four mem-
bers. The second clause of the sentence is to be kept distinct from
the third. "Edoğa zquoi is what the Greek grammarians call an apodo-
sis, which from its nature commences another series of clauses, and oc-
curs only after a protasis has been concluded. The parts of the latter,
therefore, are disjoined from the former, and each has its appointed
limits. Luke begins with dogs xquoi to speak of himself, and what
precedes is separated from what he says of himself in such a way as to
show that it has no reference to him. If zαðάs лαpédoσav were to be
referred down to ¿dose xquoi, and did actually relate to himself, it must
have been, according to true grammatical construction, disposed under
the latter clause, and the order of the clauses must have been as fol-
lows: "Εδοξε καμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι άνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, και
πως παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς αυτόπται
καθεξής σοι
roάpa. Now this is not the case; hence zaw's пapédoσav is con-
nected with what precedes, and is, like that, of a general nature; while
π
1 On this Prologue, as the introduction is likewise called, and the peculiar in-
terpretation which is given of it, is based the following essay: "Einige Ideen
ueber den wahrscheinlichen Ursprung unserer drey erstern Evangelien," by
Dr. Ziegler, in Gabler's "Neuem theol. Journal." 1800. 5th St. The following
one, likewise, in part: "Ueber die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien," by
Dr. Vogel, in Gabler's "Journal für auserles. theol. Litt." 1804. 1 Bd. 1 St.
388
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
what follows dogs xquoi refers particularly to Luke. The sentence:
contains, therefore, two parts, one general and the other particular.
The first clause of the first part has a determinate meaning, and
asserts that many had composed histories of our Lord. The next clause
expresses a comparison with the first: such as those who were eye-wit-
nesses have delivered to us, one would suppose. But the words nada's
лapidoσav are susceptible of another signification.
Пagadidovat signifies literally, to give any thing into one's hands, to
deliver, to communicate; in a figurative sense, to communicate some-
thing orally, as knowledge, instruction, etc. Whichever be the mean-
ing here, we must suppose the ellipsis of diny now or tacitly bring it
down from the first clause. With the first sense of the word the pas-
sage would run thus: Forasmuch as many have undertaken to com-
pose a history of the events which are notorious among us; such as they
who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word
have delivered into our hands; I also thought myself authorised, etc.
With the latter signification of the word it must be translated as follows:
Forasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a history of the events
which are notorious among us, according as they who from the begin-
ning were eye-witnesses have orally communicated them to us;
I also thought myself authorised, etc.
Now which of these interpretations is the correct one? If we dis-
card for a moment the doubtful words, the purport of the introduction
will be simply this: As many had written, he considered himself also
as capable of writing, and intended, as he afterwards says, to bring the
truth to light, rv dogáλetav. Restoring the clause which we discard-
την ασφάλειαν.
ed for a moment, and taking its sense to be: As eye-witnesses and au-
thorised teachers have orally represented them, the chain of thought
would be this: Inasmuch as many have written just as the apostles have
orally represented the history, I considered myself as qualified for the
task, and intend to ascertain the truth. Who would not be scandalised
that Luke should promise something more certain than the apostles had
communicated, whose representations had been reduced to writing by the
many of whom he speaks? If now we must exonerate our author of so
arrogant and inconsiderate an expression, the other sense must be the
true one: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose historical books,
such as the apostles have put into our hands, I considered myself, too,
as capable, etc. Thus the import of the whole sentence is essentially al-
tered, and it contains, if not an exculpation, at least a justification,
afforded him by the example of the many who attempted, even after the
apostles had published histories of our Lord, to compose similar works;
whence it was proper for him, particularly as his preparations had put
him in a condition to do so, to write something more to be depended on
than their accounts.
The other interpretation: Inasmuch as many have attempted to com-
pose histories as eye-witnesses have orally represented the occurrences,
is open also to the objection of proceeding on the supposition, that be-
fore the appearance of any historical work on the life and actions of our
Lord, his history was detailed by the apostles in religious assemblies in
so particular and methodical a manner, that narratives could be formed
from written notes of their discourses. But this was not the custom of
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
389
the apostles. So far as their preaching was historical, it related only to
the principal points in the history, to the sufferings and death of our
Lord, and to the pillar of the whole Christian system, the resurrection.
(Acts 5: 30, 31. 13: 28–39. 17: 3. 10: 38–42. 1 Cor. 16: 1–9. 20—
29.) A detailed recital of these events was necessarily occasioned by
the references made to prophetic declarations for the purpose of show-
ing that such a fate was predicted of the Messiah. (See the passages
above mentioned; likewise Acts 17: 3 and 11, xa nμéoav avangivov-
τες τὰς γραφας, εἰ ἔχοι ταῦτα οὕτως. 8: 35. 18: 28. 26: 22, 23. 28: 23,
24.) With these events were connected the doctrines of the dominion
of the world, which as Messiah he assumed after he was glorified, and
of a final judgment and retribution in another state of existence, as
may be perceived from many of the passages above referred to.
In
foreign countries they were obliged, to say the least, to reside very long
in one place, as Paul did at Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome, in order to
have time sufficient for detailed narratives.
ακ
At home, however, in the native land of Christianity, the previous
knowledge of the people released them entirely from the necessity of
such particularity. The actions of Jesus were so notorious in Pales-
tine, that in preaching and instructing it was merely necessary to refer
to the common knowledge of his history possessed by the generation
then alive; as Peter did, according to the account in Acts 2: 22, and
subsequently, even on occasion of the conversion of heathen at Cæsarea,
(Acts 10: 37 seq.) and as Paul did at a still later period before king
Agrippa. (Acts 26: 26 seq.) Now, as the history might be assumed in
Palestine as generally known, the mode of teaching which naturally
arose was to state the principal points in it as unquestionable, and then
to found doctrines upon them.
The course, then, pursued by the apostles in foreign countries, unless
they abode a long time in one place, contradicts the supposition of such
a novyua, or such detailed and connected narratives, that histories of
Jesus' ministry could be composed from them; and in particular such
circumstantial narration is refuted by the procedure of the apostles in
Palestine, where they referred directly to the knowledge which already
existed among the people themselves.
Thus the words xavas nαдédooav, for this reason likewise, can
mean only as follows: a narrative like those which eye-witnesses and
authorised teachers have delivered into our hands; such for instance, as
Matthew's, and the one given by Peter through Mark.
So much concerning the first part of this sentence; the second part
dose nauoi, presents an antithesis. As many have ventured to com-
pose histories after the examples of eye-witnesses, I also thought myself
authorised. The words παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς con-
tain a further explanation and confirmation of the right he had to engage
in his undertaking. I originally misunderstood these words, and first
corrected my mistake on occasion of preparing my lectures upon De-
mosthenes' oration Pro coroná.
The word лαazolovýɛiv includes the idea of presence. Used con-
cerning events, it signifies to be present while they are passing, and, in
its strictest sense, to be an eye-witness of what takes place. It also
signifies to be mentally present, to accompany an address, discourse, or
390
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
written composition with attention, and occurs frequently in this sense
in the works of the ancients.¹
As it respects лãîɩ, we have our choice either to make it refer to the
persons previously mentioned or, to noάyuara, the things which were
notorious. For these two nouns are both in the plural number, and
лãσi may refer to either.
πι
If it be considered as referring to the men, e. g. to the avróntai and
väηgéται roʊ λóyou, the clause will signify: Having read the eye-wit-
nesses with care, I will now, that you may no longer be in error, inform
you of the truth.
Who could avoid being perplexed that the historian
should modestly apologise for venturing to publish a memoir of our
Lord, after teachers commissioned by Christ himself, and on the other
hand should presume to declare that he intended to do what had not
yet been done, viz. to ascertain the truth, i. e. to give a more accurate
account than they? If the word não be made to refer to both the
many, лollous, and the eye-witnesses together, (as indeed the expression
naoi includes the whole, and must relate to both,) no injustice is done
πᾶσι
to the many, it is true, by Luke's thinking himself better informed
than they; this would be consonant with his more elevated point of
view and the objects at which he aimed: but there would still subsist the
same disrespect towards the eye-witnesses and authorised teachers; and
what is yet more unbecoming, he would class them in the same cate-
gory with the many. If he intended to say: I have read them with
care, he would have expressed himself accurately and definitely, if in-
stead of, 'I have read the men with care,' he had put writings, as he
might have done by changing two syllables: ανατάξασθαι διηγήσεις
and παρακολουθηκότι-πάσαις.
The other noun in the plural number to which nãoiv may refer is
πράγματα, the notorious occurrences. The expression παρακολουθεῖν
Tois пoάyμan is common with the ancients, and signifies, to follow
events with attention as they occur. There obtains, however, a nice
distinction in its signification in reference to a single event con-
fined to one place, it signifies to be present at it, to be an eye-witness of
it, as in the passage which we have cited below from Lucian's Lapi-
thæan feast. But when used in speaking of events which are not con-
fined to a single place, but occur in various places, and have whole
countries for their theatre, it signifies that they are followed with atten-
tion from a certain point of view. Thus Demosthenes observed the
events of his time with the eye of a statesman; Thucydides the occur-
rences of the Peloponnesian war as a soldier; and so did Josephus those
of the Jewish war. In this sense the expression παρακολουθεῖν τοῖς
пάɣμασι, is used by them in the passages cited.2
1 Theophrast. Character. Procem. Polyb. L. I. c. 12. L. III. c. 62., and
many other passages referred to in Gataker ad Antonin. L. V. sec. 5. p.
188. Raphelius Annotat. in N. T. ex Polyb. &c. Kypke, Wetsten. ad h. loc.
2 Demosth. De coronâ. c. 33. p 382. ed. Harles. 1768. Reiske, T. I. p. 285.
n. 20. ᾿Εκεῖνος ὁ καιρὸς, καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη, οὐ μόνον εὔνουν καὶ πλούσιον ἄνδρα
ἐκάλει, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρηκολουθηκότα τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐξαρχῆς, καὶ
συλλογισόμενον ὀρθῶς. De falsa legat. p. 423. n. 20. Ο τὰ τούτου πονηρεύματα
ἀκριβέστατα εἰδὼς ἐγὼ, καὶ παρεκολουθηκώς ἅπασι. In Aristocrat.
C
0
C
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
391
The acts of Jesus were of this latter kind; not confined to a single
place, but scattered through Galilee and Judea. Now when Luke as-
serts that he was one παρηκολουθηκῶς ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς—τοῖς
πράγμασι - he does not express himself as having been an eye-witness
of all the events, but as having been in the region of their occurrence,
where he could observe them as they took place; and this ἄνωθεν,
from the beginning, from their first development. He means to say,
therefore I think myself authorised, who have attentively followed all
these events from their commencement, etc. In this way he establish-
es in an eminent manner bis claim to preference above the many.
He then promises καθεξῆς γράψαι, just as Thucydides expresses
himself in his introduction, ἑξῆς ὡς ἕκαστα ἐγίγνετο, according to the
p. 683. n. 5. Τί δήποτε, ταῦτ᾽ εἰδὼς οὕτως ἀκριβῶς ἐγώ, καὶ παρηκολου
θηκὼς ἐνίοις τῶν ἀδικημάτων. Τ. II. in Olympiodor. p. 1178. n. 10. Τοῖς
εἰδόσιν ἀκριβῶς ἅπαντα ταῦτα τὰ πράγματα ὡς ἔχει, καὶ παρηκολουθη
κόσιν ἐξαρχῆς. Demost. Epist. I. p. 1463, end. Αλλ' ὅσα τυγχάνω δι
ἐμπειρίαν, καὶ τὸ παρακολουθηκέναι τοῖς πράγμασιν εἰδὼς,
ταῦτ' ἐβουλήθην τοῖς μὲν προαιρουμένοις λέγειν ἐμφανῆ ποιήσας.
ار
αν
η
The Scholiast in Thucyd. V. 26: Καθ' ἡσυχίαν τὶ αὐτῶν μᾶλλον
αἰσθέσθαι, explains the words thus : Διὰ τὸ ἡσυχάζειν καὶ μὴ πολεμεῖν
αὐτὸν, μᾶλλον παρακολουθῆσαι τοῖς γενομένοις. Joseph. contra Apion. L. I.
c. 10. Δέον ἐκεῖνο γινώσκειν, ὅτι δεῖ τὸν ἀλλοῖς παράδοσιν πραξεων ἀληθινῶν
ὑπισχνούμενον, αὐτὰς ἐπίστασθαι ταῦτας πρότερον ἀκριβῶς, ἢ παρακο
λουθηκότα τοῖς γεγονόσιν, ἢ παρα τῶν εἰδότων πυνθανόμενον. Observe
the antithesis of the last words. The same antithesis recurs in Vit. Jose-
phi. c. 65. p. 33, in his apostrophe to Justus of Tiberias: Μήτε τὰ προχ
θέντα κατὰ τὴν Γαλιλαίαν ἐπιστάμενος, ἦς γὰρ ἐν Βηρύτῳ τότε παρὰ βασιλεῖ,
μήθ' ὅσα ἔπαθον Ρωμαῖοι ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Ιωταπάτων πολιορκίας, ἢ ἔδρασαν ἡμᾶς,
παρακολουθήσας, μήθ' ὅσα κατ' ἐμαυτὸν ἔπραξα πολιορκούμενος δυνη
θεὶς πυθέσθαι. Πάντες γὰρ οἱ ἀπαγγείλαντες ἂν διεφθάρησαν ἐπὶ τῆς παρα-
τάξεως ἐκείνης. In Polyb. L. I. c. 67, the soldiers complain of the Cartha-
ginians that they had not sent them generals who were acquainted with
their deeds in Sicily, but one who had never been present to observe
them: Καρχηδονίους ἐπίτηδες τοὺς μὲν εἰδότας στρατηγοὺς τὰς γεγενημένας
χρείας κατὰ Σικελίαν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐξαποστέλλειν ὡς αὐτούς· τὸν δὲ μηδενὶ
τούτων παρηκολουθηκότα, τοῦτον ἐκπεπομφέναι. Remark the antithe-
sis in Lucian (Conviv. seu Lapith. Τ. ΙΧ. Bipont. p. 46,) ὥστε θαυμάζω εἴ
τι σαφὲς εἰπεῖν ἐδύνατο, μὴ παρακολουθήσας ἐκείνοις, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἀρξαμένη ἐς τὸ
αἷμα ἐτελεύτησεν αὐτοῖς ἡ φιλονεικία. Comp. Raphelius, Wetstein. In the
N. Τ. this expression occurs in 1 Tim. 4: 6. καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας,
παρηκολούθηκας : in the instruction of which thou hast been a present wit
We find it in the more limited sense in 2 Tim. 3: 10. Σὺ δὲ
παρηκολούθηκάς μου τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, τῇ ἀγωγῇ, thou hast been an observing
witness of my doctrines. In the following verse, however, τοῖς διωγμοῖς ἐν
Αντιοχείᾳ, ἐν Ικονίῳ, it takes the more extended signification : thou wast
near the scene of the persecutions which I underwent at Antioch, Iconium and
Lystra. At that time, indeed, Timothy had not yet become connected
with Paul, and was but a boy; but he lived in this region (Acts 16: 1, 2),
and might have been a spectator of some of the occurrences, and have
heard on the spot of others.
>
ness.
,
•
:
392
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
actual succession of events, to describe them in the order in which they
took place.
He moreover assures Theophilus, for whom, primarily, he wrote his
work, that he shall have tv doqgahetav, certain information, a true
account.
This dogaleta he was to have, the historian says, speaking to Theo-
philus, περί ών κατηχήθης λόγων. These words either refer to the
christian instruction generally which had been received by Theophilus,
which Luke intended to exalt to absolute certainty, or to the accounts
of the many, the contents of which had been learned by Theophilus
from oral information. I do not believe that Luke intended to hint to
his friend the doubtful nature of the information of his colleagues, or to
depreciate his teachers in his estimation. The λόγοι περὶ ὧν κατη
xons can then refer only to the communications orally made to him
out of the histories of the many; and it was Luke's intention to correct
these, and present to his friend such parts of them as were accurate and
well authenticated. This is even required by the phraseology; for in
Herodotus, Xenophon, and others, óyou are historical books, as Luke
likewise calls his first history, viz. his Gospel, noatov óyov. (Acts
I: 1.) When the word is in the plural number it has this signification;
when, on the contrary, it signifies the doctrines of christianity, it al-
ways appears in the singular : υπηρέται τοῦ λόγου, διακονία του λόγου,
τὸν λόγον λαλεῖν, τὸν λόγον ἀκούειν, τὸν λόγον δέχεσθαι, δε
If now we examine our Proœmium again, we shall find its sense to
to be as follows: "Many have composed accounts of the acts of our
Lord, like those which eye-witnesses and ministers of the word have
published: it will, therefore, be permitted me, likewise, to narrate these
events in their order for thy advantage, that thou mayest ascertain what
is true of the various relations which have been given thee; especially
as I have carefully and attentively followed these events in the region
where they occurred from the time when they began to develope them-
selves." These words comprise a description of the literature of Chris-
tianity in the time of Luke.
I. According to this representation there had appeared works on the
history of Jesus by the hand of eye-witnesses and ministers of the faith,
which had met with such a reception among Christians that others had
been incited and induced to signalize themselves by similar works, and
of these there were not merely one or two, but many. Although they
could not expect to be held in equal estimation with their predecessors,
who possessed advantages over them both from their personal knowl-
edge of facts and from their office, still they did not remain unnoticed
or without repute. Much less can we suppose this to have been the fate
of the works which were of apostolical origin, or that they were un-
known to the succeeding writers. To say the least, Luke, as we see,
was acquainted with the works of his predecessors, and in regard to
him the contrary assertion is positively false.
II. The many who are referred to did not translate from any work al-
ready in existence, with the aid perhaps of versions of it which had
been made before; they composed their histories, ovvéraçav dın-
γήσεις, not ἡρμένευσαν. This was their mode of procedure, and the
usual mode, and we must suppose it to have been that of eye-witness-
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
393
es more especially, as they had less reason to rely on foreign aid. It is
very plain that Luke proceeded in the same way. He asserts his inde-
pendence, appeals in support of it to his having been in the vicinity of the
events while they were taking place, and pledges himself to present them
in the order of their occurrence and to give an authentic account of what
had happened. Thus, if the hypotheses of the day are applicable to
others, they certainly are not to him.
III. From the facts we have adduced in explanation of the introduc-
tion, this also is clear. As long as an appeal could be made to the com-
mon knowledge of the people, the necessity of a history was not felt by
the teachers or by the people. But when the generation of contempo-
raries began gradually to pass away, and the number of those who re-
tained in their memories the fame of our Lord's actions and were vouch-
ers for them was continually diminishing, the want of documents be-
gan to be felt, and it became necessary to supply the place of the ex-
piring voice of the people by written accounts. We hence see that the
history of our Lord's actions could not have been written very early;
not before a considerable time had elapsed after his death. Moreover,
those engaged in the office of teaching must have been the first to per-
ceive the necessity of assisting the declining knowledge of the people,
from the impediments they met with in their employment; and hence
it is not at all strange that the first histories should have come from Apos-
tles.
Now, however, it happened as it invariably does; the way once open-
ed, the many followed and collected together in books the stories of
their fathers and the surviving reports of the time. Thus arose at once
a historic era in the Christian school.
IV. Under these circumstances Luke appeared; and his special ob-
ject was to set his friend's mind at rest respecting the many histories
which followed the earliest works of the apostles, and to supply the
place of their unauthenticated statements with a true exhibition of
facts.
$ 34.
Luke, although in his phraseology we perceive more Greek elegance
than in the other Gospels, is still in the tone and coloring of his lan-
guage a Jew or Syrian. If we consider the acquaintance with Judaism
which he exhibits in both his works, we must admit that his was no su-
perficial and half-way knowledge of the opinions of the Jews, though
it was almost impossible for a foreigner to comprehend them; and that
he was perfectly familiar with the ceremonies of their temple-service
and their other religious solemnities. The interpreter of his Gospel is
never left in the dark, or tempted to wish that the writer had possessed
a better acquaintance with Judaism, its ritual and ceremonials. No
special proof of this can be required in the way of examples, as their
number would be too great, and we should be obliged to attend to ma-
ny minutiæ, which, however, are the very things in which nicety of
knowledge is evinced. Thus much may be inferred from his language
and the knowledge he exhibits; viz. from the former, that he was an
i
50
394
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
inhabitant of Syria or Palestine; from the latter, that he was a Jew or
a well-informed proselyte.
As to the first point, history affords us information of a more decisive
character; according to which Luke was born at Antioch.¹ Moreover,
in regard to his religious circumstances, we infer from the Epistle to the
Colossians that he was an adherent to Judaism from his own choice,
not from his descent or birth. At the close of this Epistle, Paul sub-
joins the salutations of friends who were then with him, and mentions
first those of Jewish extraction. (4: 10-12.) After concluding the
catalogue of those έ× лεтоµñs, he adds the rest, and among them
Luke (11-15), who is therefore to be regarded as a proselyte.
2
His occupation was that of a physician, (Coloss. 4: 14), and he could
not want opportunity to prepare himself for it in so scientific a city as
Antioch. Perhaps it was his desire to become more intimately acquainted
with the religion he had chosen which led him to Palestine, the ancient
seat of Judaism, as Paul was led thither by his zeal in the pursuit of
learning. But whatever may have been the reason, he was residing in
the country, according to his introduction, when Jesus entered on his
ministry and went about teaching and healing. Luke, from his being
a physician, had peculiar motives to pay attention to facts of this kind;
and on this account, likewise, his statements possess a peculiar value,
as those of a person of judgment and experience.
As to his relation to the Christian sect at its rise, a tradition has been
preserved that he was one of the seventy disciples.3 This account is
confirmed by the fact that he alone of all the Evangelists has mentioned
the seventy, and carefully given the history of their mission and return
and the instructions connected with them (10: 1-25), as though he
felt himself called upon to do so by particular personal concern in them.
Moreover, he exhibits a minute acquaintance with these occurrences,
such as could be expected only from an eye-witness.
He has nowhere mentioned the time when he left Palestine. When
Paul first ventured to pass over into Europe, Luke resided at Alexan-
dria-Troas, and went with him. (Acts 16: 8, 11.) Was it the case that
he had previously become acquainted with Paul at Antioch, and was
now induced by affection and veneration to offer himself as his compan-
ion in this enterprise? He accompanied the apostle over to Philippi,
(Acts 16: 12), and when the latter was here thrown into prison, Luke re-
mained at liberty, and seems even to have resided in this city for a long
period. When Paul, some years after, returned to Asia by way of
1 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 4.
Hieronym. Script. Eccles. V. Lucas.
2 Traces have been found, it is thought, in his writings of his medical profes-
sion. In his Gospel (4: 38) he speaks of a voetų μɛjáhą, just as Galen (De
diff. febr.) distinguishes tov péyav te zaì µizqдv TVOяτóv. (Wetsten. ad loc.) In
Acts 13: 11, he uses the technical word dylus respecting blindness. (Galen. apud
Wetsten. ad loc.)
3 Origen. Dial. contra Marcion. Sect. I. p. 8. ed. Wetsten. and Tom. I. Opp.
p. 806. ed. De la Rue.-Epiphan. Adv. Hæres. XXXI. or LI. § 12.
>
noo-
Theophylact (Procem. in Comm. in Evang. Luc.) seems to have had good au-
thority for saying: Λουκᾶς ὁ θεῖος, Αντιοχεῦς μὲν ἦν, ἰατρὸς δὲ καὶ τὴν ἕξω σου
φίαν πολὺς, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν Ἑβραικὴν παιδείαν ἐξησκήσατο, τοῖς Ἱ
σολύμοις ἐπιφοιτήσας, ὅτε ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἐδίδασκεν.
φασί τινες ἕνα καὶ αὐτὸν γενέσθαι τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα ἀποστόλων.
Ωστε
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
395
Macedonia from his second European journey, Luke was still there.
He may perhaps have crossed from Asia to Philippi to meet Paul; at
any rate he was in his company at the embarkation for Troas (Acts 20:
6), and went with him to Jerusalem, (Acts 21:27), where Paul was appre-
hended.
This time, likewise, Luke did not share his imprisonment, but seems
to have followed him of his own accord to Cæsarea, and, as the friends
of the prisoner had access to him (Acts 24: 23), not to have forsaken
him till his destination was determined. Then, when Paul was sent to
Rome to receive sentence, Luke embarked with him (Acts 27: 1), and
remained at his side (2 Tim. 4: 11. Coloss. 4: 14. Philem. 24), till his fate
was decided.
He has been sometimes supposed to be the Lucius from whom Paul
sends a salutation in his Epistle to the Romans (16: 2); but Luke was
not at Corinth at the time when that Epistle was written. He resided,
as we have said, at Philippi; or perhaps went over from Troas to meet
the apostle when he was on his way through Macedonia. The truth on
the latter point is of little importance in the case; suffice it to say, that
his absence from Paul at that time does not permit us to confound him
with this Lucius.
Some Mss. of the old Latin version call his book Evangelium secun-
dum Lucanum ;¹ from which it has been inferred that he was a freedman,
whose name according to the Roman custom was changed to Lucanus.
The supposition has seemed the more plausible as slaves often practised
the art of medicine. But besides that there is no trace of this change
of name either in the fathers or in other versions, we know that the
Latin copyists sometimes took the liberty to make Offanus of Offa,
Bedanus of Beda, etc.3
ισ
§ 35.
4
He wrote his Gospel primarily for a certain Theophilus, to whom he
gives the title xoάtuotos, which in the ancient inscriptions is conferred up-
on high priests and priestesses, those who had the superintendence of sa-
cred edifices and games, deputies of the emperor in the provinces, over-
seers of the emperor's revenues, лirgónois rov zaioagos, ducenariis
exactoribus, such as were the initдoлoι in the Palmyrene inscriptions.
Were we better informed in regard to this person to whom Luke has
dedicated his writings, considerable light might be thrown on the
history of this Gospel; unfortunately, however, the investigations con-
cerning this point have been nearly unavailing, are too general in their
results, and promise little for the future.
Judging from the observations made by Luke to render himself intel-
ligible and perspicuous to his reader, the latter certainly cannot have
1 Cod. Vercell. S. Eusebii. Vindobon. Cottonian.
2 Sueton. in Caio, c. 8. Seneca, De benef. III. 24. Quinctilian, VII. 2. n. 26.
3 Mabillon, Vet. Analect. T. IV. p. 521.
4 Wheeler's Journey into Greece. Vol. III. p. 233. ANT. K1. AAÞÍNON
ΚΡΑΤΙΣΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΥ, κ. τ. λ.
396
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
been an inhabitant of Palestine. Speaking of Capernaum, he is obli-
ged to add that it is a city in Galilee, (4: 31.) So in speaking of Naza-
reth (1:26); and Arimathea, (23: 51.) He is obliged to specify minute-
ly the situation of the country of the Gadarenes. (8: 26.) He tells the
situation of Mount Olivet, and its distance from Jerusalem, (Acts 1: 12),
and specifies in stadia the distance of Emmaus from the capital. (Gosp.
Luke 24: 13.)
He was certainly, too, not an inhabitant of Crete, (Acts 27: 8 and
12;) nor of Athens or its vicinity, for in that case he would not have
been obliged to make the observation he does concerning the charac-
teristic trait of this people, which had been pointed out before by De-
mosthenes (Orat. I. in Phil.): ἢ βούλεσθε περιϊόντες πυνθάνεσθαι
κατὰ τὴν ἀγοράν, λέγεται τι καινόν. (Acts 17: 21.) Nor can we sup-
pose him to have been a Macedonian. (Acts 16: 12.)
της
"
An inhabitant of Antioch, too, could hardly have been so ignorant of
the geography of Palestine, which was so near. It is an assertion of
modern date, made by the lexicographer Bar Bahlul, that he was an
Alexandrian; but this is invalidated by the circumstance that the old
Alexandrian fathers did not ascribe this honor to their church. Origen
seems to have known no more than that Luke wrote for Gentiles. (Euseb.
H. Eccl. L. VI. c. 25.)
1
The testimony of the Alexandrian patriarch Eutychius in favor of
some distinguished man in Rome or Italy is too remote from those
times to be decisive; yet it has some plausibility. We see that Luke
is careful to give Theophilus explanations respecting places with which
he supposed him to be unacquainted. This he does in narrating Paul's
voyage to Rome; and for that purpose is very particular in his descrip-
tions. (Acts 27: 8, 12 and 16.) But when he comes to Sicily and Italy,
(Acts 28: 12, 13 and 15), he mentions all the cities as though they were
well known to Theophilus; Syracuse, Rhegium, Puteoli, (on which last
name Josephus was obliged to comment for the sake of his Greek and
oriental readers,2) as well as still smaller places, Tres Taberna, Via
Appia, etc.
$36.
That Luke was acquainted with Matthew's work is clear from many
parts of his book; it is most evident, however, from the passages taken
alls
وفي عصر هذا الملك ايضا كتب لوقا أنجيله
باليونانية الي رجل شريف من علما الروم يقول له ثاوفيل
روم
زيوانية
الروم
Eutych. Orig. Eccles. Alex. Edit. Seldeni. Lond. 1642. p. 36. The author plain-
ly distinguishes between and ; and hence the word
has the confined signification of Rome or its precincts, contrary to common Ara-
bic usage. The whole work appeared subsequently: Eutychii Patr. Alexandrini
Annales. Jo. Seldeno et Edw. Pocockio, Oxon. 1658, in which the passage may
be found in T. I. p. 334.
2 Josephi Vita, p. 626. Ed. Basil. Δικαιαρχίαν, ἣν Ιταλοι Ποτιόλους καλοῦσι.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
397
away from their connection by Mark, but omitted by him in their proper
place; all of which Luke has restored from Matthew, and literally tran-
scribed into his own work.
•
Matth. 8: 19.
Ακολουθήσω σοι ὅπου
ἐὰν ἀπέρχῃ.
Καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς·
Αἱ ἀλώπεκες φωλεοὺς ἔχουσι,
καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
κατασκηνώσεις ·
ὁ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
οὐκ ἔχει
ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ.
Matth. 8: 9.
Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός είμι
ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν,
ἔχων ὑπ' ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας·
καὶ λέγω τούτῳ, πορεύθητι,
καὶ πορεύεται
καὶ ἄλλῳ, ἔρχου,
καὶ ἔρχεται·
καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου, ποίησον
τοῦτο,
καὶ ποιεῖ.
᾿Ακούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
ἐθαύμασε,
καὶ εἶπε τοῖς ακολουθοῖσιν·
᾿Αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ
τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον.
Matth. 12: 43.
Ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα
ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,
διέρχεται δι ἀνύδρων τόπων,
ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν,
καὶ οὐκ εὑρίσκει.
Τότε λέγει· Ἐπιστρέψω
εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου,
ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον.
Καὶ ἐλθον εὑρίσκει
σχολάζοντα,
Luke 9: 57.
Ακολουθήσω σοι ὅπου
ἂν ἀπέρχῃ, κύριε.
Καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς·
Αἱ ἀλώπεκες φωλεοὺς ἔχουσι,
καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ
κατασκηνώσεις·
ὁ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
οὐκ ἔχει
ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ.
Luke 7: 8.
Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός είμι
ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν
τασσόμενος,
ἔχων ὑπ' ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας
καὶ λέγω τούτῳ· Πορεύθητι,
και πορεύεται
καὶ ἄλλῳ· Ἔρχου,
καὶ ἔρχεται·
καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου· Ποίησον
τοῦτο,
καὶ ποιεῖ .
Ακούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
ἐθαύμασεν αὐτόν·
καὶ στραφεὶς τῷ ἀκολουθοῦντι
αὐτῷ ὄχλῳ εἶπε·
Λέγω ὑμῖν,
οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ισραήλ
τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον.
Luke 11: 24.
Οταν τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα
ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,
διέρχεται δι ἀνύδρων τόπων,
ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν·
καὶ μὴ εὑρίσκον,
λέγει · Υποστρέψω
εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου,
C
ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον.
Καὶ ἐλθὸν εὑρίσκει
398
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Matth. 12: 43.
σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον.
Τότε πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμβάνει
μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ
ἑπτά ἕτερα πνεύματα
πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ,
καὶ εἰσελθόντα κατοικεῖ ἐκεῖ·
καὶ γίνεται τὰ ἔσχατα
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου
χείρονα τῶν πρώτων.
$37.
Luke 11: 24.
σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον.
Τότε πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμβάνει
ἑπτὰ ἕτερα πνεύματα
πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ,
καὶ εἰσελθόντα κατοικεῖ ἐκεῖ
καὶ γίνεται τὰ ἔσχατα
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκείνου
χείρονα τῶν πρώτων.
This coincidence with Matthew, however, is found only in narratives
omitted by Mark; in other cases Luke adheres more closely to the lat-
ter than the former. As we have before cited the feeding of the four
thousand, we will now take for an example the feeding of the five
thousand.
Matth. 14: 15.
᾿Απόλυσον τοὺς ὄχλους,
ἵνα ἀπελθόντες
εἰς τὰς
κώμας,
ἀγοράσωσιν ἑαυτοῖς
βρώματα.
῾Ο δὲ ᾽Ιησοῦς εἶπεν
αὐτοῖς·
Οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν
ἀπέλθεῖν·
δότε αὐτοῖς ὑμεῖς
φαγεῖν
λαβὼν τοὺς πέντε άρτους
καὶ τοὺς δύο ιχθύας,
ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν
οὐρανὸν,
εὐλόγησε
καὶ κλάσας,
ἔδωκε
τοῖς μαθηταῖς
τοὺς ἄρτους·
οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ τοῖς
ὄχλοις.
Mark 6. 36.
Απόλυσον αυτούς,
ἵνα ἀπελθόντες
εἰς τοὺς
κύκλῳ
ἀγροὺς
καὶ κώμας,
ἀγοράσωσιν ἑαυτοῖς
ἄρτους
τι γὰρ φάγωσιν οὐκ
כ
ἔχουσιν.
῾Ο δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν
αὐτοῖς·
Δότε αὐτοῖς ὑμεῖς
φαγεῖν
Καὶ λαβὼν τούς πέντε
ἄρτους
καὶ τοὺς δύο ιχθύας,
ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν
οὐρανὸν,
ευλόγησε
καὶ κατέκλασε
τοὺς ἄρτους,
καὶ ἐδίδου
τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὑτοῦ,
ἵνα παραθῶσιν
αὐτοῖς.
Luke 9: 12.
Απόλυσον τὸν ὄχλον,
ἵνα ἀπελθόντες
εἰς τὰς
κύκλῳ
κώμας
καὶ τοὺς ἀγροὺς,
καταλύσωσι, καὶ εύρωσιν
ἐπισιτισμόν·
ὅτι ὧδε ἐν ἐρήμῳ τόπῳ
ἐσμέν.
Εἶπε δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς·
Δότε αὐτοῖς ὑμεῖς
φαγεῖν .
Λαβὼν δέ τοὺς πέντε
ἄρτους
καὶ τοὺς δύο ιχθύας,
ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν
οὐρανὸν,
εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς·
καὶ κατέκλασε,
καὶ ἐδίδου
τοῖς μαθηταῖς,
παρατιθέναι το
ὄχλῳ.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
399
Matth. 26: 18.
Υπάγετε εἰς τὴν πόλιν
πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα,
καὶ εἴπατε αὐτῷ·
“Ο διδάσκαλος λέγει
῾Ο καιρός μου ἐγγύς ἐστι·
πρός σε ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα,
μετά τῶν μαθητῶν μου.
Καὶ ἐποίησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ
ὡς συνέταξεν αὐτοῖς
ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς,
καὶ ἑτοίμασαν τὸ
πάσχα.
Mark 14: 13.
Απαντήσει ὑμῖν
ἄνθρωπος
κεράμιον ύδατος
βαστάζων·
ἀκολουθήσατε αὐτῷ·
καὶ ὅπου ἐὰν εἰσέλθῃ,
εἶπατε τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ·
Οτι ὁ διδάσκαλος λέγει·
Ποῦ ἐστι τὸ κατάλυμα,
ὅπου τὸ πάσχα
μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν μου
φάγω ;
καὶ αὐτὸς ὑμῖν δείξει
ἀνάγεον μέγα
ἐστρωμένον,
ἕτοιμον· ἐκεῖ ἑτοιμάσατε
ἡμῖν.
καὶ
Luke 22: 10.
Συναντήσει ὑμῖν
ἄνθρωπος
κεράμιον ύδατος
βαστάζων·
ἀκολουθήσατε αὐτῷ
εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν, οὗ
εισπορεύεται·
ἐρεῖτε τῷ οἰκοδεσπότῃ,
τῆς οἰκίας·
Λέγει σοι ὁ διδάσκαλος·
Ποῦ ἐστι τὸ κατάλυμα,
ὅπου τὸ πάσχα
μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν μου
φάγω ;
Κἀκεῖνος ὑμῖν δείξει
ανώγειν μέγα
ἐστρωμένον·
ἐκεῖ ἑτοιμάσατε.
Luke 18: 18.
Επηρώτησε τις αὐτὸν . .
Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθὲ, τί ποιήσας
ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω;
Εἶπε δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς·
Τι με λέγεις αγαθόν;
οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ θεός.
Τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας·
66
Μὴ μοιχεύσῃς· μὴ φονεύσῃς·
μὴ κλέψῃς· μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς
τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν
μητέρα σου.”
῾Ο δὲ εἶπε·
Ταῦτα πάντα ἐφυλαξάμην
ἐκ νεότητός μου,
Ακούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
εἶπεν αὐτῷ·
Ἔτι ἓν σοι λείπει
πάντα ὅσα ἔχεις πώλησον,
και διάδος πτωχοίς,
καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ
καὶ δεῦρο, ἀκολούθει μοι
ὁ Ἰησοῦς . . . . εἶπε
•
Mark 10: 17.
Επηρώτα αυτόν·
Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθὲ, τί ποιήσω,
ἵνα ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω ;
῾Ο δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ·
Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν;
οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ θεὸς.
Τάς ἐντολὰς οἶδας·
“ Μὴ μοιχεύσῃς· μὴ φονεύσῃς·
μὴ κλέψῃς· μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς·
μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς·
τίμα τον πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν
μητέρα.”
῾Ο δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ·
Διδάσκαλε,
ταῦτα πάντα ἐφυλαξάμην
ἐκ νεότητός μου.
῾Ο δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ,
ἠγάπησεν αὐτὸν,
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ·
“Εν σοι ὑστερεῖ·
ὕπαγε, ὅσα ἔχεις πώλησον,
καὶ δὸς τοῖς πτωχοῖς·
καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ·
καὶ δεῦρο, ἀκολούθει μοι.
ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει . .
400
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Luke 18: 18.
Πῶς δυσκόλως
οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες
εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν
τοῦ θεοῦ!
Ευκοπώτερον γάρ ἐστι,
κάμηλον διὰ τρυμαλιᾶς
ῥαφίδος
εἰσελθεῖν, ἢ πλούσιον
εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ
εἰσελθεῖν.
Mark 10: 17.
Πῶς δυσκόλως
οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες
εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεου
εἰσελεύσονται ! ...
Ευκοπώτερόν ἐστι,
κάμηλον διὰ τῆς τρυμαλιᾶς τῆς
ραφίδος
εἰσελθεῖν, ἢ πλούσιον
εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ
εἰσελθεῖν·
This last passage, as well as many others, is very well suited, as it
appears in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to shew the order in which the
Evangelists succeeded each other. Mark adheres to Matthew (see
Matth. 19: 16) much more closely than Luke does; thus, among other
things, he retains ὑστερεῖν where Luke uses ἕν σοι λείπει, δός where
the latter uses διάδος,—ὕπαγε before ὅσα ἔχεις, while Luke omits it.
But where Mark deviates from Matthew and pursues his own way, as,
e. g. at the beginning and end of the passage, and in stating the com-
mandments (which by a peculiar idiom appear in the future subjunc-
tive), Luke coincides with Mark in the smallest particulars, and it is
evident that he was one of those preceding writers mentioned by Luke
in his Prooemium.
We will now present in addition some specimens of passages found
only in Mark and Luke:
Mark 1: 24, 25.
Ἔα ! τί ἡμῖν καί σοι,
᾿Ιησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ;
Ηλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς·
οἶδά σε τίς εἶ,
ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ!
Καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
λέγων· Φιμώθητι,
καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ.
Mark 10: 14, 15.
"Αφετε τὰ παιδία
έρχεσθαι πρός με,
καὶ μὴ κωλύετε αυτά
τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων ἐστὶν
ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ.
᾿Αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
ὃς ἐὰν μὴ δέξηται
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ
ὡς παιδίον,
οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς αὐτήν.
Luke 4: 34, 35.
Εα ! τί ἡμῖν καί σοι,
᾿Ιησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ ;
Ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς·
οἶδά σε τίς εἶ,
ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ Θεοῦ!
Καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς,
λέγων· Φιμώθητι,
καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ.
C
Luke 18: 16, 17:
Αφετε τα παιδία
ἔρχεσθαι πρός με,
καὶ μὴ κωλύετε αὐτά·
τῶν
γαρ τοιούτων ἐστὶν
ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.
᾿Αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν,
ὃς ἐὰν μὴ δέξηται
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ
ὡς παιδίον,
οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθῃ εἰς αὐτήν.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
401
Mark 12: 38, 39, 40.
᾿Απὸ τῶν γραμματέων,
τῶν θελόντων
ἐν στολαῖς περιπατεῖν,
καὶ ἀσπασμοὺς
ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς,
καὶ πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς
συναγωγαῖς,
καὶ πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις·
οἱ κατεσθίοντες
τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν,
καὶ προφάσει μακρὰ
προσευχόμενοι.
Οὗτοι λήψονται
περισσότερον κρίμα.
$38.
Luke 20: 46, 47.
᾿Απὸ τῶν γραμματέων,
τῶν θελόντων
περιπατεῖν ἐν στολαῖς,
καὶ φιλούντων ἀσπασμούς
ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς,
καὶ πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς
συναγωγαῖς,
και πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις·
οἱ κατεσθίουσι
τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρών,
καὶ προφάσει μακρά
προσεύχονται.
Οὗτοι λήψονται
περισσότερον κρίμα.
Somne, however, are disposed to ascribe these appearances, from
which we infer that one writer had read the work of the other and
transferred passages from it into his own, to very different causes. A
learned man, of whom we have before made honorable mention, sup-
poses that many of these passages were subsequently interpolated from
one Gospel into the other in order to supply deficiencies.¹
How much probability there is in this supposition will, we hope, be
shown by the following observations. (1.) No case is known in which
two historians of the best days of either Greece or Rome agree in sub-
stance and at the same time very frequently in phraseology. Even
where one historian relies on the authority of another for the purport of
what he narrates, he invariably clothes the narration in his own lan-
guage. For, educated in the schools of the grammarians, sophists, and
declaimers, they prided themselves on expressing with elegance in an-
other way what they borrowed from their predecessors.
Not so with the orientals. They borrowed literally what they found
in the works of their predecessors. The author of the book of Chronicles
either transcribed directly from the books of Samuel and of Kings the
passages in which he coincides with them, seldom making use of differ-
ent phraseology or inserting a clause of his own; or else both writers.
drew literally from certain annals or other sources. The account of
Joshua's death and the character of the people of his time is transferred
literally from the book of Joshua into that of Judges (Josh. 24: 29-32.
Judges 2: 7-9). This account, it is true, is not very long; the passages
which the book of Kings has in common with Isaiah are of greater im-
portance (2 Kings 18: 17-37. Isaiah 36: 2–22. 2 Kings 19: 1–37.
Isaiah 37: 1—the end); as also those which the same book has in com-
1 Gratz, Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien zu erklä-
ren. §. 36 seq. ; and more recently, Hist. kritischer Kommentar ueber das Evan-
gelium des Mattheus. Tubing. 1821.
51
402
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
mon with Jeremiah (2 Kings 25: 1–22. Jeremiah 52: 4-27). It is
but seldom that the phraseology is altered or an additional clause in-
serted. Literal transcribing is practised by the Arabians in their geo-
graphical and historical works. Now, when we find a frequent occur-
rence of identical phraseology in different Gospels, the authors of which
we know to have been orientals and Hebrews, to imagine that the co-
incidence arose from interpolations is to seek for another cause of what
was only in accordance with the national custom in writing history.
When, moreover, the Evangelists change the phraseology or insert a
clause of their own, they do what the historians of their nation were in
the habit of doing; with this difference, that they were able to enrich
the narrative from their own knowledge, and that, as they wrote in
Greek, one possessed and consequently manifests greater skill than an-
other in the use of that language.
(2.) Now, as it is plain why they proceed in this manner, one often re-
taining the words of another and then again employing his own lan-
guage, so, moreover, no proof is afforded by the appearance of the Gos-
pels that it was ever attempted to complete one from the other. At the
very outset each retains its peculiar deficiency in point of completeness.
Matthew has not taken a word of his history of Jesus' youth from Luke,
nor the latter from the former. No care of this kind can have been ex-
ercised towards Mark in respect to this history; for he is strikingly dis-
tinguished from his companions by his total silence on the subject.
One contains one portion of the history, another a different one, and
Mark nothing at all of it. Passing from the beginning to the end of
the Gospels, we find a similar case as respects what occurred after the
resurrection. Luke has gone more into detail and is more complete
than the others; Mark is remarkable for the abrupt termination of his
book, which ends as suddenly as though it had not been fully finished,
and yet nothing has been added from Matthew or Luke to complete it,
and nothing from Luke to supply Matthew's deficiencies. Such are the
appearances at the beginning and end of each; that which intervenes
possesses the same character. Luke has much of importance which
we seek in vain in the rest. This has remained peculiar to him, and
no one has interpolated any of his journeys and parables into the other
Evangelists. A considerable portion of his history has, as we shall
soon be convinced (§ 41), been entirely lost, and yet no one has under-
taken to fill up the consequent chasm by the aid of the other Gospels.
Mark has omitted some narratives contained in Matthew; no interpola-
tor has attempted to supply them. These prominent distinctive traits
in each appear still untouched, and constitute an irrefragable proof that
the ancient world never thought of completing the Gospels by means of
interpolation.
(3.) When, at what period, was this interpolation undertaken? None
of the Gospels were written before the latter half of the first century.
It is not to be supposed that they were seized upon directly after their
appearance under the very eyes of their authors, and subjected to this
process of interpolation. And when attempts of this kind did begin to
be made, they could be imparted merely to individual Mss., and could
only gradually extend themselves in a limited sphere, in a particular re-
gion. All interpolations must have been confined to a particular dis-
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
403
t
trict of country, and could at most merely have gained admission into
many Mss. in that district, before the period when the Recensions were
made, and thus could never have attained universal currency. This,
according to the natural course of things, must have been the fate of
such interpolations. But even granting, in opposition to all observations
of this character, that they did become universally known, and that all
countries and nations showed themselves ready to alter their copies in
conformity with the interpolated ones, and to destroy their ancient Mss.
by means of which the earlier text would be propagated, and likewise
that this was the case within a short period; at the close of the 2d cen-
tury there had been a Syriac version executed in Asia, called the Pes-
chito, in the west Latin versions, and not long after the Sahidic for
Upper Egypt, all of which contain precisely what we are called upon to
regard as interpolations. In what way could this uniformity have been
produced in so short a time in such various and distant countries?
4. Not, however, to leave us wholly in the dark as to the manner in
which these interpolations originated, at least in part, the public reading
of the Gospels is stated to have been the cause of them. In reading,
it is said, one Evangelist was sometimes connected with another and a
lesson formed from the two. Now if only one Gospel had been read,
it would be admissible to suppose that passages might have been trans-
ferred into it from another, for the sake of obtaining a more complete
narrative than was presented by the single Gospel. But each had its
turn; no Gospel was debarred from being read, and consequently no
motive existed for transferring to one of them what did not belong to
it. On the other hand, the regular extent of the lessons would have
been altered by such a procedure. The ancient lessons were long, com-
prehending several chapters, xeq ahala, rirlovs; unnecessary additions
would have rendered them still longer, and the time appropriated to
reading would be necessarily exceeded.
According to this representation, the interpolations were made inci-
dentally, and not from any settled purpose accompanied by an ardent
endeavor to extend them. So much the rather, then, must their exten-
sion have been gradual and slow; so much the longer time must have
been required for their diffusion in foreign countries; and their univer-
sal reception, when surrendered to the operation of chance alone, must
have required an almost interminable period; it could by no means have
been effected in a short space of time.
5. An hypothesis of such a nature that its subject belongs to a period
of antiquity not reached by any Mss. or even versions, possesses the ad-
vantage that they cannot refute it. Denial, it is true, is likewise very
easy in such a case; but to support the denial is very difficult, as the
topics for such support are but few, viz. internal grounds alone. These
therefore should be the more relied on. Where an interpolation has been
made, the following are the most important evidences of it. The first
is a want of verbal connexion. When a number of sentences have no
1 Dr. Gratz, Krit. Hist. Komment. über Matthæus, I. Th. p. 531, 40, 68. II.
Th. p. 500. The catalogues of church-lessons prefixed to Matthæi's edition of
the New Testament cannot, however, be adduced in proof, inasmuch as they are
taken almost wholly from Evangeliaria, and these contain small reading-lessons,
like Pericopa, which are of later origin.
404
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
connexion with the context, at either their beginning or end, an inter-
polation may be supposed, for in such a case it is possible. Yet this
reason would be insufficient, if the circumstance occurred in the work
of a writer who was not in the habit of preserving strict verbal connex-
ion; or if the want of verbal connexion was supplied by one in the
thought. A want of connexion in the thought would carry the critic
further than a mere possibility. If a series of sentences were inconsis-
tent with what preceded and followed, and the inconsistency could not.
be done away by any valid interpretation, we should be led to pronounce
that some foreign matter had been interpolated. If in such a series of
sentences a want of connexion in the language, likewise, could be
shown, the proof of interpolation would be irrefragable.
Let us now test the alleged interpolations by these principles, in order
to learn how far they are corroborated by them. That which is said to
have been transferred from Luke into Matthew, or from Matthew into
Luke, occurs in the same situation in both and in the same connexion.
No interpolation therefore, can be detected on this score; the receiver
and the giver appear precisely alike. Where a number of sentences in
Luke are not made to occupy a corresponding place in Matthew, but
are connected with different facts by the two writers, they suit the con-
text in both Gospels, at least so well as to forbid us to say anything fur-
ther than that they occur in a more natural situation in one than in the
other. Little can be said of variations in phraseology, as the sentences
agree almost always literally. But whenever there does occur even a
trifling difference of this kind, it becomes still more evident that the
language of Matthew was not transferred from Luke, or vice versá;
but that each followed his own peculiar style of expression. Luke gen-
erally evinces a taste for purity and elegance; Matthew on the contrary
is more harsh and uses Hebrew idioms, as in the supposed interpola-
tion, Matth. 8: 21. ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι, Luke
9:59. ἐπίτρεψόν μοι ἀπελθόντι πρῶτον θάψαι; and likewise Matth.
11: 8. οἱ τὰ μαλακὰ φοροῦντες ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις τῶν βασιλέων εἰσί, Luke
7:25. οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις
siol. From such cases we should be led to conclude that when one for-
sook the phraseology of the other he expressed himself in his own way,
rather than that any interpolation took place.
Whence now are we to infer an interpolation, if we cannot make it
out from any want of verbal connexion, nor from a want of unity in the
train of thought, nor from any difference in language? And if there
be no ground to infer it, what becomes of such a supposition?
Semler's hypothesis of conformations, or attempts to harmonize, differs
but little from the preceding; this has been lately brought into notice
again and recommended by a writer of uncommon erudition. It dif
fers merely as to the motives which gave occasion to attempts which
are of the same kind on both hypotheses. As according to the former
supposition one Gospel was interpolated from another in order to ren-
der it complete, according to this the same thing was done from a desire
to make them consonant with each other.
1 Bertholdt, Hist.-Krit. Einleit. in die Schriften des A. und N. T. III. Th. §
329. p. 1249 seq.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
405
But, if any persons were really induced to such an attempt, they had
no very good reason for commencing with such passages as it is alleged
that they did, passing by passages which called loudly for the employ-
ment of such an expedient, inasmuch as from them sceptics and oppo-
nents could charge the Gospels with real or apparent contradictions, or
contest their historical veracity. Yet the passages of this character,
which contained real or apparent contradictions (considered real by the
enemies of the Gospels), have remained untouched. Rather than ven-
ture by a few strokes of the pen to harmonize these passages, the an-
cients suffered the objections against the Gospels to remain in them,
and exposed themselves to the peril of not being able to answer them.
As that which was of most pressing importance has not been done,
much less would they have troubled themselves about what was of no
consequence. And admitting that without any sensible necessity they
amused themselves with the employment of harmonizing, the harmony
is but partial in the very passages for which the hypothesis is framed.
This theory has for its object the explanation of the same facts as the
preceding. Hence the observations before made are applicable like-
wise here.
$ 39.
But why is it, since the later of these writers is said to have had the
earlier before him, and to have incorporated entire passages from him in
to his own book, that he did not transfer them word for word? that in some
clauses these Gospels agree to the letter, then deviate from each other,
then return and proceed together? This question is asserted to be un-
answerable without recourse to original Hebrew Gospels and Greek ver-
sions of them from which our historians drew. This inquiry has been
the alleged occasion, and at the same time the foundation, of many well-
known hypotheses. What then is the cause of such variations? The
answer is obvious. These writers did not, in making use of each other,
give up their individuality.
*
Their independence has been taken away and they have been deni-
ed the liberty of selecting in place of a particular expression one which
was more habitual to them, or seemed more apposite; and instead
of this they have had imputed to them unskilfulness in translating,
which it was hoped would account better for the differences which are
found between them. When this imputation was found not to serve the
purpose intended, the modicum of skill in translation before accorded to
them, was tacitly denied them, and they were provided with ready-made
versions of the original Gospels, in which these variations already exist-
ed, and which they are said to have transcribed. Thus by degrees
they have been degraded to the rank of mere copyists, as though it were
contrary to all principles of criticism to suppose them to have had any
free-will of their own.
Yet these variations maintain a peculiar character throughout each
Gospel; and this circumstance shows clearly that they were designed
and were the work of an independent hand. In Mark the clauses in-
serted tend to display concisely the feelings of the persons concerned,
their demeanor and appearance. The single verse Mark 10: 16 con-
406
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
α
α
c
tains a complete picture; see on the contrary Matth. 19: 15. To Matth.
19: 20, Mark has subjoined after νεότητός μου the words: ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς
ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ, ἠγάπησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν (10: 21), which impart a
natural beauty and vivacity to the narrative. In the same chapter (10:
14. Comp. Matth. 19: 14), he adds a momentary burst of feeling, nya-
vάutnoɛ, nai einɛy; so Mark 8: 12. Matth. 12: 39; and in another
place: o de Inoovs onhaɣxviodeis, Mark 1: 41. Comp. Matth. 8: 3;
Mark 3: 5. Matth. 12: 10, 11, xai nepiẞheyάμevos μET' oorns; and
ἡ δὲ γυνὴ φοβηθεῖσα καὶ τρέμουσα, 5: 33. Μatth. 9: 22; ἀποβαλών
τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ, ἀναστὰς ἦλθε, 10: 50. Matth. 20: 32; 9: 20 and
26. Matth. 17: 18; Mark 10: 22. Matth. 20: 17, and many other like
cases. It is not our purpose to consider in this place how he could
make additions thus, not having seen any of these things himself; but
it is a satisfaction to discover here again the voucher of the author, and
to find a new confirmation of the fact that Mark did not derive his ac-
counts from a second or third hand, but wrote down the statements of
an eye-witness who preserved a vivid remembrance of the past, and
gave some finishing touches to the narrative as lively as though that past
were to his imagination present. Sometimes he called to mind the
particular Aramæan words employed by our Lord in working a miracle;
as e. g. Talitha koumi, i. e. maid arise, and that to the deaf and dumb
person, Ephphatha, i. e. be opened. (Mark 5: 41. 7: 34).
In altering the phraseology merely, in adding words, exchanging some
for others, amplifying sentences or inserting clauses, he shows his anx-
iety to be perspicuous and definite. This anxiety caused him to add to
Matth. 3: 6, after ἐν τῷ Ιορδάνῃ the word ποταμῷ (1: 5), and to τὸ δῶρον
in Matth. S. 4. περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ. (1: 44.) In 1: 42, he inserts ξιπόν
Tos autou to denote the instantaneousness of the result. In the 2d chap-
ter, verses 8, 16, 18, and 21, there are changes and amplifications for
the sake of perspicuity. Verse 3: 30 is an explanatory addition to
Matth. 12: 31, 32; as 6: 18 explains Matth. 14: 4. ovx ¿§εori ooi
ἔχειν αὐτήν. Το Mark 8: 19, οὐκ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν is explanatory of
Matth. 15: 17; and Mark 8: 19, 20, пinges nλaouarov of Matth. 16:
9, 10. πόσους κοφίνους. Mark 12: 26, ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου is explanatory ;
as well as 13: 3, zarévavtı toũ ispov, which gives us to understand
what caused a renewal of the conversation. So too 14: 12, őtɛ to лάoɣα
ότε
vov, compared with Matth. 26: 17; also Mark 14: 56, 57, compared
with Matth. 26: 60, 61; and ɛоıxαhúпre то поóσwлоv in 14: 65,
without which the word noogtevoov in Matth. 26: 68 would be unin-
telligible, etc. etc.
παντα
τ
π
ατ
5
In Luke we perceive an endeavor to be peculiarly concise in his
language. Mark 1: 22. Luke 4: 32, öti Ev ¿§ovola žv ở λóyos avro
Mark I: 28. Luke 4: 37, καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο ὁ ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰς
пávτα τóпov τs εáo; Mark 2: 15, 16. Luke 5: 29, 30;
Mark 3: 31-35. Luke 8: 19-21; Mark 4: 5-9. Luke 8:6-8;
Mark 9: 6. Luke 9: 33. un sidos o heyet; Mark 4: 30–32. Luke 13:
18, 19; Mark 5: 2—15. Luke 8: 27-34; Mark 11: 15, 16, 17. Luke
19: 45, 46; Mark 13: 1, 2. Luke 21: 5, 6; Mark 14: 16. Luke 22: 13.
ἀπελθόντες δὲ εὗρον καθὼς εἴρηκεν αὐτοῖς.
0
Luke is further distinguished by his attention to elegance of diction.
How harsh is the following clause in Mark 12: 38, twv Felóvτwv Ev
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
407
ΠΟ
στολαῖς περιπατεῖν, καὶ ἀσπασμούς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς? Luke inserts a
single word: καὶ φιλούντων ἀσπασμούς, and the sentence is easy and
flowing. The passage Matth. 8. 9, ἄνθρωπος εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων
ὑπ' ἐμαυτὸν στρατιώτας, is not only harsh but obscure, and misled
some of the old translators. Luke remedies it completely by inserting
one word, ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος (7: 3). The expression in
Matth. 21: 26, πάντες γὰρ ἔχουσι τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην ὡς προφήτην, is not
Greek; Mark (11: 32) attempts to remedy it; Luke deviates from both
for the purpose of giving a Greek turn to the clause: ὁ λαὸς-πεπεισμέ
νος γάρ ἐστιν, Ιωάννην προφήτην εἶναι (20: 6). So too he alters
Matth. 11: 8, οἱ τα μαλακά φοροῦντες, to the advantage of its accu-
racy and elegance: οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες.
(7:25). For ὑπηρέτης (Matth. 5: 25) Luke puts (12: 53) the legal
term πράκτωρ. The construction of Mark 12:44 is rendered more
conformable to Greek usage by Luke (21: 4): αὕτη δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ὑστερή
ματος αὐτῆς ἅπαντα τὸν βίον ὃν εἶχεν ἔβαλε. Sometimes, too, he
avoids a Hebraism. Mark 8: 36, ἐὰν κερδήση τον κόσμον ὅλον καὶ ζη-
μιωθῇ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, is given by Luke (9: 25), κερδήσας τὸν κόσ
μον ὅλον, ἑαυτὸν (ήψης) δὲ ἀπολέσας, ἢ ζημιωθείς; Mark 12: 20, 21,
22, οὐκ ἀφῆκε σπέρμα. Luke 20: 28, 29, ἀπέθανεν άτεκνος ; Matth. S 8:
27, ἐθαύμασαν. Mark 4: 41, ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν. Luke S: 25,
φοβηθέντες δὲ ἐθαύμασαν, not only avoiding the Hebraism, but ele-
gantly connecting the two words.
기
​The constantly recurring ευθέως, καὶ εὐθέως, is one of Mark's
striking peculiarities; the word παρχρῆμα instead, is not much less
striking in Luke, both in the Gospel and Acts. So the constant use of
the particle tóre is a peculiarity of Matthew. Among Matthew's pe-
culiarities, too, we may reckon the use of αποκριθείς without any an-
tecedent question, Matth. 11: 25. 17: 4. 22: 1. 26: 63. 27: 21. 28:5;
as, likewise, the perpetually occurring ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, while Luke uses
only λέγω ὑμῖν, οι ἀληθῶς λέγω ὑμῖν, Luke 11: 27. 12: 44. 21: 3, and
ἐπ' ἀληθείας λέγω ὑμῖν (4: 24). The individuality of these writers is
so clearly apparent that no great pains are necessary to make it con-
ceivable how in the course of coincident passages one could alter the
phraseology, insert words and brief clauses, and in short follow his own
inclination and habits.
$ 40.
As to the succession of events, Luke coincides with Mark against the
arrangement of Matthew, and this confirms the idea that Mark revised
Matthew with reference to his chronology, and made it a point to ob-
serve more strictly the order of actual succession, since Luke, in pro-
posing his plan at the commencement of his book, reckons the obser-
vance of the natural order as one of his duties.
408
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Luke.
FIRST JOURNEY.
I. Jesus goes to Capernaum and
heals a demoniac.
II. Enters Simon's house.
III. Enters Simon's ship, who
had toiled all night and taken
nothing.
IV. Heals a leper.
Mark.
I. Jesus goes to Capernaum and
heals a demoniac.
II. Enters Simon's house.
III. Heals a leper.
SECOND JOUrney.
Luke.
Mark.
I. Four men bring one sick of
the palsy.
II. Jesus calls Levi.
III. The disciples of John fast.
IV. The disciples of Jesus go
through the corn-fields.
I. Four men bring one sick of
the palsy.
II. Jesus calls Levi.
III. The disciples of John fast.
IV. The disciples of Jesus go
through the corn-fields.
THIRD JOURNEY.
Luke.
I. A man with a withered hand
is healed.
II. Jesus chooses the twelve.
III. He cures the centurion's
servant.
IV. He goes to Nain; restores
the widow's son to life.
V. The disciples of John in-
quire whether Jesus is he that
should come.
VI. The woman who was a sin-
ner anoints Jesus in the Phari-
see's house.
VII. Jesus heals demoniacs;
utters the parable of the sower.
VIII. His mother and brethren
arrive.
IX. He sleeps in the storm; ar-
rives at Gadaris. Story of the de-
moniac.
X. Jesus heals the daughter of
Jairus.
Mark.
I. A man with a withered hand
is healed.
II. Jesus chooses the twelve.
III. Jesus is charged with heal-
ing through Beelzebub.
IV. His mother and brethren
arrive; he utters the parable of the
Sower.
V. He sleeps in the storm; ar-
rives at Gadaris. Story of the de-
moniac.
VI. Jesus heals the daughter of
Jairus.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
409
In the first Journey, event No. III is wholly peculiar to Luke, and not
touched upon by Mark; as likewise No. IV in the third Journey. The
incidents III and V in the third Journey are related by Matthew;
Mark, however, removed them from their position and did not insert
them in any other place. The procedure of Luke, who has connected
them with wholly different occurrences and chronological circumstan-
ces, completely justifies Mark in removing them from their connexion
in Matthew. Event No. VI is repeated by John (12: 1 seq.), who
unites the circumstances mentioned separately by Mark and Luke, and
even their phraseology, into one whole; whence it is evident that the nar-
rative in Mark 14: 3 and that of Luke 7: 36 have reference to the same
event.
The accusation that Jesus healed through Beelzebub is mentioned
by Luke at a later stage of the history (11: 14); but in the place it oc-
cupies in Mark, Luke speaks in general language of the cure of demoni-
acs by the miraculous power of Jesus. Mark has united the parables
of the sower and the grain of mustard seed; Luke separates them and
presents the latter in a different connexion (13: 17—21).
As to the occurrence in regard to the centurion, he exhibits the ground
of his assigning it the position which it occupies; for he designates the
time by saying that after this had happened Jesus went v τη ἑξῆς, on
the following day, to Nain (7: 11). The question of John's disciples,
which stands completely isolated in Matthew (11: 2), is connected by
Luke with the restoration of the widow's son to life at Nain; and this
occurrence is represented as the occasion of John's sending his disci-
ples to make the inquiry (Luke 7: 17). It is clear also from the an-
swer of Jesus, even as given in Matthew, that the miracle of raising the
dead had already taken place; for Jesus expressly refers to it (Matth.
11:5): Say, the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lep-
ers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, &c. Luke,
therefore, was guided by chronological reasons in giving these incidents
the position which they occupy in his book. He introduced anew the
facts which Mark took out of their connexion in Matthew and neglect-
ed to insert elsewhere; but he presents them in a different, viz. their
real, order.
The same is the case, too, as to an occurrence which is inaccurately
assigned by Matthew to the early part of Jesus' ministry (8: 19), and
narrated directly after the visit to Peter's house. The incident referred
to is, that a certain man was desirous of following Jesus, but was
first informed of the difficulties in the way of such a design. Mark
has omitted this account, too, as well as the preceding, because it had
not its proper position in the order of time. Luke, however, designates
the place and period of the occurrence, removing it far along in the his-
tory to the time when Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem through Sa-
maria (9:51-58). Again, his separating the parables of the sower
and the grain of mustard seed, (which seem to have been united by
Mark on account of their similarity), and assigning them distinct situa-
tions in his book, can be explained only by his attention to strict chronolo-
gical order. On the other hand, however, one fact (7: 37 seq.), the story
of the woman that was a sinner who anointed Jesus, is assigned too ear-
ly a position, as we may convince ourselves from comparing John.
52
410
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
In the Fourth Journey they coincide with each other, as may be seen
from the following comparison.
er.
Luke.
I. Jesus calls the twelve togeth-
II. Herod believes that John is
risen.
III. The disciples of Jesus re-
turn from their mission.
IV. Five thousand are fed.
Mark.
I. Jesus calls the twelve togeth-
er.
II. Herod believes that John is
risen.
III. The disciples of Jesus re-
turn from their mission.
IV. Five thousand are fed.
$ 41.
Here, however, Luke omits a whole chain of events which occur in
both Matthew and Mark. Soon after he joins them again, and accompa-
nies them step by step.
The occurrences omitted are the following: The disciples of Jesus
are on the sea, their master appears to them, goes to them into the ship,
and they arrive at Gennesareth (Mark 6: 45. Matth. 14: 23).
The
Pharisees find fault with the disciples of Jesus for eating with un-
washen hands (Mark 7: 1). Jesus comes into the borders of Tyre
and Sidon, and heals the daughter of the believing Canaanitess (7: 24).
Jesus heals a deaf and dumb person with spittle (7:31). Four thou-
sand are fed (8: 1 seq.) The Pharisees require a sign of Jesus; the dis-
ciples are charged to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; a blind man
is healed (8: 22). All this is wanting in Luke; but henceforth he pro-
ceeds with the others.
Luke.
I. Jesus asks, Whom do men say
that I am?
II. Is transfigured on the mount.
III. The disciples are not able
to heal a demoniac.
IV. They dispute who should
be greatest in the kingdom of
God.
V. John relates that a person is
casting out devils in the name of
Jesus.
Mark.
I. Jesus asks, Whom do men say
that I am?
II. Is transfigured on the mount.
III. The disciples are not able
to heal a demoniac.
IV. They dispute who should
be greatest in the kingdom of
God.
V. John relates that a person is
casting out devils in the name of
Jesus.
It is contrary to the custom of this writer wholly to omit any event;
he always introduces again those narratives in Matthew which are ex-
cluded by Mark, and assigns them a different position in the course of
the history. Hence the phenomenon we have mentioned is not to be
explained from this quarter.
On further examination as to the portion of the history wanting in
Luke, we find that he has removed the occurrence in relation to the re-
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
411
quirement of a sign, and placed it further along at a late period, in 11:
29, and the warning against the leaven of the Pharisees still further
along (12: 1), in a different connexion.
After these events were separated from the rest, the series of occurren-
ces found in the other Evangelists and wanting in Luke concluded with
the feeding of the four thousand; the event which immediately pre-
ceded this series was the feeding of the five thousand. Now Luke
connects with the miracle of the five thousand (11: 12 and 18) what in
the other Evangelists does not occur till after the later miracle of
the four thousand (Matth. 15: 32, and 16: 13. Mark 8: 1, 27).
have, therefore, a Homoioteleuton to explain this phenomenon.
We
That this portion of the history was very early lost may be inferred
from the fact that it is not preserved in a single Ms. Had copies been ex-
tensively circulated previously, the mistake would not have been univer-
sal, and the portion which is wanting must have been preserved in some
country or in some Ms. at least.
We have probably lost in this way, not only what we are informed
of by his predecessors (in that case the loss would be of no conse-
quence), but likewise some of the events of Jesus' life, as well as in-
structions given by him, with which Luke often enriches his biography
from his own resources.
In the Acts he tells us of a saying of our Lord (20: 35, δεῖ μνημο
νεύειν τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὅτι αὐτὸς εἶπε· μακάριόν ἐστι δι-
δόναι μᾶλλον ἢ λαμβάνειν), respecting which he is silent in his Gospel;
and it was certainly connected with some memorable event, parable or
discourse, and would have been a peculiar ornament to his history. It
appears to me more probable that this passage was contained in the por-
tion of the history which is lost, and suffered the same fate with it, than
that he forgot or omitted it.
We know that there are still found in the oldest fathers sentences
for which we search in vain in our present historical books; e. g., one
in the Epistle to Barnabas (c. 3), οὕτω φησὶ, οἱ θέλοντές με ἰδεῖν, καὶ
αψασθαί μου τῆς βασιλείας, ὀφείλουσι θλίβοντες καὶ παθόντες λαβεῖν
μɛ; but I do not venture to affirm that they were derived from the lost
portion of Luke's original work.
$42.
After the omission of this portion of the history, the Evangelists
unite again, and Luke proceeds in harmony with Mark, as is shown by
the table given in the preceding section. But this extends no further
than is there represented. Thenceforward Luke is generally indepen-
dent of the rest of the Evangelists, and introduces us to entirely new
and unknown scenes.
All the other Evangelists here commence the account of the last
journey to Jerusalem; Luke proceeds otherwise. He informs us three
times that Jesus purposed to go to Jerusalem, and each time describes
the journey itself a little way. But while we are thinking to see Jesus
soon in Jerusalem, we unexpectedly find him elsewhere, and in fact
further away from Jerusalem than at the commencement of his jour-
ney.
412
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
In 9: 51 he says:
"When the time was come that he should be
received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem." Jesus then
passes through Samaria, which was on the road travelled by the pilgrim
from Galilee to Jerusalem. In Samaria his disciples wish to call
down fire from heaven (52-56). The narrative is then continued, tilf
at length Jesus arrives at the dwelling-place of Matthew and Mary,
which according to the other Evangelists was Bethany (10: 38). Of
Jerusalem itself Luke says not a word, but speaks generally of his
abode ¿v róno̟ tivi (11: 1), and tells us of a conversation respecting a
certain occurrence which to all appearance happened in Jerusalem at
the feast (13: 1).
Jesus is unexpectedly again in Galilee, and commences anew a jour-
ney thence to Jerusalem (13: 22, ἦν πορείαν ποιούμενος εἰς Ἱερουσα
Anu.) He proceeds onward, Luke relating a multitude of discourses
and events. For the second time, however, he does not lead our Lord
to the place to which he was going; but when he should have arrived
there, he abruptly tells us of another purposed journey to the holy city.
He takes the twelve and says, Behold we go up to Jerusalem (18:
31). He then proceeds along the Jordan, and arrives by way of Jeri-
cho (18: 35) at the capital, the scene of his death, which is narrated
with its accompanying circumstances.
We have here only accounts of journeys, without learning their issue,
or what occurred in the place whither they were directed; in fact with-
out learning whether Jesus reached the place of his destination. It
would seem, or rather it is plain, that we have here no connected histo-
ry, but detached fragments, or if the word be preferred, collectanea,
which the writer presented as his investigations furnished them. Thus
much may we say at present respecting the general plan of this book,
and we now pass to consider the work more particularly.
$ 43.
In the narratives which are common to Matthew and Mark, Luke
coincides with Mark in the representation of minute circumstances. In
the story of the woman with the issue of blood, Mark places the mira-
cle in a peculiar light, by informing us of the woman's long and fruitless
endeavors to get rid of the malady, her expenditure and the efforts of phy-
sicians for the purpose; he adds the dialogue that arose between Jesus and
his disciples respecting the woman's touching him; describes with mi-
nuteness the woman's behaviour, her terror and confusion, etc. Luke
also relates the occurrence with all these circumstances, and in descri-
bing the woman's terror uses phraseology very similar to that of Mark.
Take the story of the daughter of Jairus, which is connected with the
preceding. In Matth. 9: 18, the ruler says immediately on his arrival:
My daughter is even now dead. In Mark 5: 23 seq. she is represented
as only at the point of death; and after the incident respecting the wo-
man with the issue of blood, messengers arrive who announce her death.
1 18: 11 does not begin a new journey; but, as the words clearly mean,
merely continues the one undertaken: ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν
Iεgovoαhnu. This was to be remarked so that no doubt night arise from the
passage.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
413
On this information Jesus encourages the father, etc. Luke repre-
sents the whole in the same way (8: 40 seq). Comp. Matth. 8: 1-5. and
Mark 1: 40.-end. Luke 5: 12-17.-Matth. 9: 1–8. Mark 2: 3—13.
Luke 5: 18-27.-Matth. 17: 14-19. Mark 9: 14-30. Luke 9: 37-
43, and many other passages.
The precise designations of numbers in Mark, who pays more atten-
tion to them than Matthew, are adopted by Luke, who thus confirms
their accuracy. In the story of the demoniacs at Gadaris (Matth. 8:
28), Matthew mentions two, while Mark mentions but one; and Luke
follows the example of the latter (8: 27. Mark 5: 2). The account of
the two blind men on the road to Jericho (Matth. 22: 30) is made by
Mark to refer to but one (Mark 10: 46); so likewise by Luke (18: 35).
$ 44.
He has sometimes illustrated a narrative by new circumstances and
been more definite in its detail (e. g. Matth. 8: 19–23. Luke 9: 57—
end.—Matth. 8: 5—11. Luke 7: 2-9); and has here and there cor-
rected certain statements of his predecessors. Matthew and Mark
have represented the period of time, from the discourse which ends with
the words: λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰσί τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων, οἵτινες οὐ
µn yεvoovτai vavátov (Matth. 16: 28. Mark 9: 1) to the transfigura-
tion, as six days; while Luke makes it eight (9: 27, 28).
ται
ατ
Matthew relates (27: 44), that the malefactors who were crucified
with our Lord reviled him; Mark permitted this to remain as he found
it in his predecessor (15: 33). But Luke inquired into the circumstan-
ces anew, and informs us that one of them rebuked the other for daring
to revile Jesus (23: 39-43). This was remarked by Manes, the well-
known heretic of the third century, with the design of fastening the im-
putation of discrepancy on the Evangelists.¹
Matthew tells us of but one angel who addressed the women when they
visited the sepulchre (28: 2). Mark follows Matthew (16: 5). The
account given by Luke runs differently, for according to him there
were two (24: 4); and John so distinctly confirms the accuracy of this
representation, as even to designate the place in which each was seen
(20: 12).
The supposition made to reconcile these different accounts, which is
founded on a common original Hebrew or Syriac text out of which they
were all translated, is a proof to us that this theory may indeed afford
opportunity for philological ingenuity, but can give little assistance in a
case of real perplexity. If the original contained, it is true
that it might be reador; but, though it is easy to see
how one writer might have rendered it άvno and another avdoes, it is not
so easy to see how Luke could have translated duo avdoes. Not to men-
1 In Epiphan. Hær. LXVI. n. 40. Καὶ γὰρ εἷς τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν λέγει, ὅτι οἱ
λῃσταὶ οἱ συνεσταυρομένοι ἐβλασφημοῦν αὐτόν. Ὁ δὲ ἄλλος οὐχὶ ὅτι μόνον οὐκ
ἐβλασφημοῦν οἱ ἀμφότεροι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπολογίαν τοῦ ἑνὸς σημαίνει. Καὶ γὰρ
ἐπετίμα τῷ ἑτέρῳ καὶ ἔλεγεν, ὅτι οὐ φοβῇ συ τὸν θεὸν, ὅτι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίματί
ἐσμεν, οὗτος δὲ αγιος οὐδὲν ἐποίησε, κ. τ. λ.
414
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
tion, that even supposing all verbs to have been as participles in statu
emphatico, there must have been in Matthew a noun which, if the origi-
nal were not obscure from set purpose, would have contained some-
thing definite as to the singular or plural number; not to dwell on this,
the relative pronouns (ἡ ἰδέα αὐτοῦ and ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ) are decisive as
to the number.
It is plain that Luke has improved upon his predecessors in this case;
but he has not contradicted them. With regard to Matthew we have
been sufficiently explicit, and have shown from his plan, that, neglecting
minor circumstances, he has given a summary narration of facts to
prove that Jesus fulfilled what was foretold in the Old Testament.
There would be an evident contradiction of Mark, likewise, unless we
were in judging to take into account his plan and the origin of his
book. Mark wrote what Peter delivered in his discourses. He noted
down what the Apostle said in his expositions of Matthew's Gospel, and
put the whole together in a work which appeared as his own. When
the Apostle added nothing to a passage, a word or an occurrence ;
when, accidentally or otherwise, he omitted to make any observation,
the passage remained as it was in Matthew; and Mark, who according
to the ancients confined himself to his teacher's information, and wrote
and published only that, is neither guilty of falsehood nor mistake in his
narrative. Luke is indeed more accurate, but this is all; and even the
unfriendly critic can never charge Mark with deviations from truth or
contradiction of the rest.
$ 45.
Such events as were related with all their minute circumstances by
his predecessors, he often condenses as did Mark, and touches upon
them but slightly. Such e. g. is the narrative in Luke 9: 46; Matthew
had already related it with sufficient minuteness (18: 1), and Mark had
made an addition of several minor circumstances to his account, which
rendered it more accurate and graphic. Luke, then, may have thought
it superfluous to dilate further on an event which was exhausted, and
concerning which he had nothing new to offer. Not wishing barely to
repeat what had been already said, and unwilling to omit any thing, he
gives a brief notice of it, concluding with the language of Mark. Luke
9: 48. Mark 9: 37. See also Luke 9: 7-9, compared with Matth. 14:
1, and Mark 6: 14.-Luke 10: 25-29, compare Mark 12: 28-35.
Jesus warns his disciples (Matth. 16: 5 and Mark 8: 14) to beware
of the leaven of the Pharisees. The warning was misunderstood, till
Jesus more clearly explained his meaning. Now this occurrence ap-
pears at length in the first two Evangelists; Luke, however, notices it in
but few words, thus showing that he presumed it to be well known, and
that it properly belonged to this period; and instead of giving the debate
at length, presents the decision of it at once. Even this, indeed, is ab-
breviated, for all he says respecting it is: He began to say unto his dis-
ciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hy-
pocrisy (Luke 12: 1).
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
415
$46.
The analysis we have made of the three works on the lineage and
ministry of our Lord, has now put us in a condition to meet the hy-
pothesis by which a distinguished scholar has attempted to explain the
origin of the Gospels; the principal position of which is, that Mark com-
piled his work from the commentaries of Matthew and Luke,' and con-
sequently did not write till after them.
Let us consider the arguments adduced in its support. The agree-
ment of Matthew and Mark in selecting the same events from the abun-
dant materials afforded them for differing from each other in this re-
spect, certainly proves that these two Evangelists did not write indepen-
dently of each other, but determines nothing concerning the priority of
either.
What is alleged, too, in support of the other position in regard to
Luke, viz. that he and Mark generally agree in the detailed representa-
tion of facts and differ from Matthew, is very true; but it is equally as
proper to infer from this that Luke copied from Mark as the opposite.
Supposing Mark to have made Matthew and Luke the basis of his work
and to have aimed to unite both into one, he would have proceeded very
differently; or to reverse the statement, supposing the writer's en-
deavor to have corresponded with his purpose, nothing of the kind can
be inferred from his procedure.
Luke is distinguished for the number of events he narrates which are
wholly unnoticed in Matthew. The great number of important and
entirely new facts which he presents confers especial value on his work.
Had Mark been acquainted with his work and intended from it togeth-
er with Matthew to execute a third, he could not have so entirely neg-
lected and omitted what was most important in Luke as to have availed
himself of but a few (§ 30) of his many historical discoveries. We
should rather have expected him to choose what was most important in
both Luke and Matthew, and divide his selection between the two.
Now this was not the case; he directs his attention only to the facts
in Matthew, and consequently the proofs we have go only to argue the
use of Matthew. Whatever aim in respect to his peculiar readers we
suppose Mark to have had in the composition of his work, it must in any
case be strange that he could find among the many accounts and dis-
courses in Luke almost nothing of any use towards his object, and on
the other hand could avail himself of almost every thing in Matthew.
If, moreover, he took the facts from Matthew and the circumstantial
detail of them from Luke, as must have been the case, there is nothing
of Mark's own in his whole book, and we must therefore allow that he
has done nothing as an author, but has merely compiled what any one
might have read in Matthew and Luke, and that he undertook and per-
formed for no possible purpose an entirely superfluous task.
1 The Whitsuntide Programm of the University of Jena in 1789, by Prof.
Griesbach, supports this thesis : "Marci Evangelium totum e Matthæi et Luca
commentariis decerptum esse."
416
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
I must now bestow some particular attention upon a more recent po-
sition, taken by a learned man who in other respects coincides very
nearly with myself. He regards Luke as the first of the Evangelists.
1
The principal argument which he adduces to substantiate his position
is, that if Matthew wrote before Luke the latter would scarcely have
presumed to compose a Gospel after him, on account of the weight of
apostolic authority. True, the authority of an apostle was great; hence
arose the respectful diffidence of Luke and the modest apology with
which he opens his book. (Comp. above § 33).
This learned man finds a second strong point in the remark that Luke
would not have omitted any part of Matthew, had he possessed his work.
He has not omitted any part of it, except the history of the childhood
of Jesus, for which he richly indemnifies us by other facts (I-III).
The deficiency of the portion of history before mentioned ($ 40), which
was omitted by the copyist in the very first Mss. on account of the
Homoioteleuton, cannot be laid to the author's charge. He has even
carefully distributed the individual sentences in the (so-called) sermon
on the mount into eighteen or nineteen different places in his book,
where they all occur in a perfectly natural connexion; while in Matthew
there is such a striking want of connexion in the discourse that we can-
not but discern the juxta-position of detached sentences. He has even re-
stored those passages which Mark omitted, because in Matthew they
had not their proper position. (Comp. above § 29, 37, and 40). He in-
variably presents not only Matthew's materials, but Mark's; from the
last of whom he has not neglected to take the very three events in re-
gard to which he was more copious than Matthew (§ 30).
Let us now consider the matter in another light. How much
more copious is Luke than Matthew? Not to be prolix, we will
only notice the two remarkable journeys to Jerusalem (11: 51 and 13:
22), of which we are informed by Luke alone; and of these we will on-
ly notice the parables. The first is the beautiful parable of the man
who on his way to Jericho fell among thieves (10:30); then comes the
one respecting a person who awoke his friend at night and importu-
nately asked bread of him (11: 5 seq.). Then the parables of the lost
sheep, of the woman who lost a piece of money, and of the prodigal
son (15: 1-end); the story of the rich man and Lazarus (16: 19); of
the widow who by her importunity obtained justice of the unjust judge
(17: 1 seq.); and the parables of the publican and Pharisee praying (17:
10). All these valuable things belong to Luke exclusively. Could he have
resigned these to oblivion, even if all the apostles had written before
him? Was he not bound to present this supplement to his fellow-chris-
tians? On the other hand, why is it that Matthew, if he wrote after
Luke, has not said a word of these things, not even hinted at them in
his brief way, that at least he might crown these valuable passages with
his testimony and confirmation?
It is replied that he did not wish to write any thing of which he was
not an eye-witness. Very well; but a quarter of his sermon on the
mount, when it is distributed according to its historical connexion, falls
1 Vogel,
"Uber die Entstehung der drey ersten Evangelien," in Gabler's
"Journal für auserles. theol. Litteratur." I Bd. I. St. p. 804
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
417
in these parts of Luke; hence he must have been present at these oc-
currences or he could not have introduced into his book the sayings
connected with them. In the third journey, too, he even passes over in
silence the incident in respect to Zaccheus; and yet the Apostle was pres-
ent at the conversion of his former colleague, for all the twelve were
with our Lord. This reply therefore is not satisfactory.
Once more, then; if Luke preceded Matthew, why has not the lat-
ter attested anew the copious narrative of the former? Why has he
neglected to notice, at least briefly, so much that is valuable in him?
Why is it that he has not availed himself at all of his accurate chronolo-
gy, to which, as appears from the promise in his introduction, Luke de-
voted special pains? Why did he neglect to make any use of the
agreeable particularity with which Luke has enlivened the events he nar-
rates, or of the many corrections he has made? In one word, why
does he fall so far short of the point of perfection to which the history
had reached before him?
$ 47.
It is perceived from what I have urged against these learned men, that
the succession of the Evangelists which we have adopted is not arbi-
trarily assumed, but is founded on what we observe to be the plan and
procedure of each.
The order of succession of several historical writers who did not
write at the same time and were not unacquainted with each other's
works, if it be not definitely stated in the history, may be determined.
in two ways.
A writer who has been preceded, either presents nothing
but additions or supplements to the previous history, from which it may
be inferred what and how much he regarded as already known, and
what works his procedure proves to have been antecedent to his; or
else he does not content himself with supplements merely, but repeats
the old account, and adds what is his own in its proper place.
Three of the Evangelists relate the same things; consequently two
have repeated what was before narrated. Now which of the three
works has most the appearance of priority? Which has, in general,
the marks in point of matter and manner of being the first historical at-
tempt? which writer has arranged facts most negligently? most fre-
quently disposed them according to the principle of analogy? least
anxiously investigated the exact and particular circumstances of events?
Which has more carefully assigned events to their proper period and ar-
ranged them more precisely in their real order? more carefully ascertain-
ed minute circumstances? described the facts more definitely and rigo-
rously, and presented them more fully and vividly? Which, lastly, is
most accurate of all in the chronological arrangement of events? most
precise in his statements? most abundant in facts? most comprehen-
sive and complete in his materials and his mode of using them?
This gradation in the perfection of the same history enables us readily
to determine which was the earlier and which the later writer. This dis-
closes the order in which they succeeded each other; and in this case it
proves the very same order which history presented us at the outset and
antiquity unanimously supported; under the guidance of which we se-
53
418
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
lected our point of observation, uncertain whether it would prove to be
correct or not in the sequel.
Considering the Evangelists in this order, all those difficulties which
have led to other opinions are easily resolved. It is perfectly clear that
Mark might have seen Matthew, and yet arrange many events different-
ly, place many in a peculiar light by means of particular circumstances,
and so represent some things as apparently to contradict Matthew. So,
likewise, how Luke might have seen Mark, and yet be frequently still
more accurate in his arrangement, in statements of time, place, and
circumstances; and how, notwithstanding his copiousness, he is some-
times more concise than he would have been had he not been aware of
the particularity of his predecessor.
All these and like difficulties which are presented in support of re-
cently proposed theories vanish of themselves when we try them by this
theory, the points of which are confirmed by history and by a critical
analysis of the writings under examination.
$ 48.
Luke, therefore, found the works of Matthew and Mark, together with
various others relative to the life, ministry, and acts of our Lord, already
in existence. Let us now see what he himself accomplished.
In the discourses of Jesus Luke adheres to Matthew invariably, even
in phraseology. This is seldom the case in his narratives. Mark does
the same in regard to our Lord's discourses. We could not take into
consideration the reason of this before; but we must no longer defer do-
ing so. It may be regarded as introductory to our promised summary of
what Luke has done.
Matthew was led to compose his Gospel by the condition and wants
of a period in which the Jewish state was hastening to its dissolution.
The interval between the days of Jesus and that period, was too great
for human memory to recall with accuracy all that he who was the sub-
ject of the history did and said. Events are least liable to escape
the recollection, particularly the recollection of an eye-witness, or one
to whom they have been vividly represented by eye-witnesses; but it is
more perilous to trust the phraseology of sayings and discourses to the
memory alone.
The former, indeed, it is probable Matthew did trust to his memory;
the rather as the idea of writing a history of our Lord did not suggest
itself to him till a later period. But the elevated doctrines and wise
sayings of his master had greater claim upon his attention, and it was
important that they should be always before his mind in his ministry.
To accomplish this object he was prompted and enabled by his official
habit of recording, an advantage not possessed by the others; and it is
the fact that the notes which he made were the ground-work of his Gos-
pel, as we may infer from internal evidence which it contains. In mor-
al sayings and parables Matthew abounds to overflowing. Frequently
they are arranged merely according to the principle of resemblance.
The parables, moral sayings, and exhortations, arranged simply accord-
ing to the similarity of their scope, bear evident marks of having been
extracted from some collection. As he was not obliged to use any aid
of others in making his original notes, his book was regarded by his
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
419
successors as an authentic source of information in respect to the dis-
courses of Jesus.
On the other hand, events wear an appearance of accident in his
book, more than in the others. He does, indeed, sometimes present
them circumstantially; oftener, however, only in outline, just as he found
them in his notes. With this course he might very well content him-
self, as his purpose required nothing more. It was the object of Mark's
endeavors to complete Matthew's narratives, to arrange them in chro-
nological order, and to assign discourses the position to which they be-
longed, so far as he who was his authority could aid him in doing so.
Meanwhile the fate of Palestine was decided. Christianity ceased
its connexion with the Jewish state, was released from all regard to Ju-
daism, and declared herself independent of its institutions. Those who
were half Jews were displeased at this, separated themselves, and, as
it would seem, composed their own Gospels; we refer to the Gospels of
the Nazarenes and Ebionites. Others collected the rubbish of early tradi-
tions on historic ground; and thus were produced the works of the many.
This was probably about the state of things, when Luke felt himself
called upon to clear away from the field of history all unauthenticated
accounts. Matthew was his manual as to the discourses of our Lord,
and he adhered to it literally, although he has distributed the discourses
about in various places, inserting them in the history in detached parts,
and connecting them so happily that the occasion of their utterance is
perfectly and agreeably evident. He has not, however, taken any facts
directly from Matthew, except those which Mark has omitted; and he
has given these an entirely different arrangement.
He has chosen Mark as his guide in two respects, viz. in the succes-
sion of events, where Mark differs from Matthew in his arrangement,
and in the circumstantial narration of facts. He does not, however, ad-
here wholly to him; he did not shun the trouble of illustrating or en-
riching a narrative himself, by adding new circumstances when he could
do so.
Circumstances which were susceptible of correction, and had
remained in Mark because they were so in Matthew, have been stated
more accurately by him. On the other hand when there was nothing to be
added or corrected, he contented himself with giving an outline of the nar-
rative, on the ground that it had been fully exhibited in a previous work.
Some facts which were new and as yet untouched, he inserted in their
proper order and connexion. The following important accounts are
presented us by him alone; the history of Jesus' youth, intermingled
with passages of fine poetic and religious fervor; two remarkable jour-
neys to Jerusalem, comprising many important doctrines and parables
and many striking descriptions; and the history of what befell the dis-
ciples from the resurrection to the ascension. It is probable that with
the portion of the history that has disappeared, extending from the feed-
ing of the five thousand to that of the four thousand, much has been
lost with which he enriched and improved the accounts of his predeces-
sors. However this may be, the enlargement of the history by his
means, the advance it made both in important and in trifling respects,
are so plain to every one, that we have no need of the lost portion in
order to acknowledge and appreciate them.
How much he adopted into his work with or without amendment,
420
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
from the accounts of the many of whom he speaks, we cannot now as-
certain, inasmuch as we do not possess those accounts. Just as little
can we now determine the parts of the rest of which he was an eye-wit-
ness. As being present in the country which was the scene of the his-
tory, at the period when the events began to attract notice, he was in a
situation to see much himself, and to devote to the whole the attention
which was due to it; to test the accuracy of the declarations of com-
mon report, as well as of the insinuations of enemies; to separate the true
from the false; and, while opinions were divided, to come to some cer-
tain conclusion. As a man of learning and cultivated mind, having
turned his attention to these occurrences, he must have felt more in-
ducement than others to keep some written account of them; and this
probably gave him confidence, when circumstances seemed to require it,
to undertake by means of a true history to make all unauthenticated
statements superfluous, and to put an end to their circulation.
JOHN
$ 49.
Last of all, the disciple who lay in our Lord's bosom likewise pre-
sented his contemporaries with a memorial of his master. In regard to
the origin and purpose of his book there are some declarations of the
ancients yet extant; but there is so much dispute about them that they
cannot be considered as principles for our guidance in interpretation.
It is therefore necessary that we should examine the structure and
plan of the work, in order to supply the deficiency of other undisputed
evidence.
This Evangelist proceeds on a plan of his own, resembling Matthew
so far as this, that he aims throughout the history to prove certain po-
sitions, making every thing tend to this object; but he differs from him
in this respect, that he never loses the thread of the narrative or devi-
ates from the real succession of events, and, with a very complicated and
artificial plan, is notwithstanding careful to preserve historical order.
After a somewhat obscure introduction with which he opens his
work, the first narrative which he presents to us contains the acknowl-
edgment that Jesus was Christ or Messiah, by the Baptist (1: 19—34);
and afterwards the same by Peter and Andrew (1:41-44). Then
follows the account of Philip's conviction that Jesus was he of whom
Moses and the Prophets had written; and then of Nathaniel's, who de-
clares him to be the Son of God and the King of Israel (1: 44—51).
When, after the first miracle at Cana, Jesus appeared in Jerusalem,
he asserted that the temple was his Father's house (2: 16 seq.), and de-
clared to Nicodemus that he was the only begotten Son of God,
whom the Father's love had sent into the world for its salvation (3: 2
22). After his return from Jerusalem, John the Baptist declares anew
that Jesus is the Son of God sent from above, into whose hands the Fa-
ther hath committed all power (3: 23–36). Jesus is then on his way
home through Samaria; a woman of that country perceives something
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
421
extraordinary in him, and our Lord avows himself to her as the Mes-
siah who is called Christ (4: 25, 26); and many more believe that he is
the Christ, the Saviour of the world (4: 42).
While in Jerusalem the second time, he heals the man who was wait-
ing in vain at the pool of Bethesda. When the Jews blamed him for
the miracle on account of the violation of the Sabbath, he asserted that
his power was the power of God committed to him, that God was his
Father, he his Son, his commissioned agent and judge of the world, of
whom Moses spake (Chap. 5). After his return he wrought the miracle
of the loaves, which caused the people to regard him as the promised
prophet, and to wish to make him king of Israel (6: 14, 15). On the
following day he asserts that he is the bread of life, which came down
from heaven (6: 35 seq.), he who was with the Father and came from
the Father; and Simon declares: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God (6: 69).
On occasion of the feast of tabernacles, Jesus again visits Jerusalem,
and openly rebukes the people for seeking his life. Some of the people de-
clare him to be the Christ, and say that Christ himself could not do more
miracles than he (7: 11–37). On the last day of the feast he is again
regarded as the Prophet and the Christ, and a learned discussion arises
with regard to this topic (7: 37-53).
If we proceed thus to consider in their order all the conversations and
acts of Jesus which John has introduced into his book, we shall almost
invariably find that their subject and purport are either that Jesus is the
Son of God, or that he is the Christ, or both (8: 12–59. 9: 1–35 and
38. 10: 1–24. 10: 24-42: 11: 1-27. 12: 13-20. 12: 20—34. 12:
44, 45, 49). The promises and consolations in chapters 14-18, ex-
hibit the relation between the Father and the Son, the divine origin of
Jesus, his dignity as Messiah and as ruler and judge of the world.
Even in the history of the passion he, as well as Matthew, aims to render
the Messianic character of Jesus evident by comparison of the prophe-
cies concerning him (19: 24, 23, 36, 37).
The whole structure of the book, therefore, and the judicious choice
of all its component parts,' lead us to a conclusion in regard to the ob-
ject of its author, the same as that which he clearly states at the close
of his work, viz. that it was to prove Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of
God (20: 31).
$ 50.
A dogmatic work of such extent, occupied about so few positions,
must have been rendered necessary by the circumstances of the time;
and we might conjecture that the aim of the writer in this fulness and
accumulation of proof was probably polemical, or in other words apolo-
getical.
This point, however, is placed beyond a doubt by John's first Epistle,
which, as we shall see hereafter, was written with the same purpose,
in the same circumstances, and at the same time, as the Gospel. At
1 The same observation has been made and well pursued by Prof. Paulus.
Comment. Theol. Historiam Cerinthi ad finem Johanneorum in N. T. libello-
rum illustraturæ." Jenæ. 1795. 8vo. p. 157 seq.
422
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
that period certain persons apostatized from Christianity, of which they
were probably never sincere professors (1 John 2: 19), who perverted
the doctrines of Christianity (2: 18), broached false opinions, were
εvors, heretics and deceivers (2: 22. 4: 1, 2, 3), and denied that Je-
sus was the Christ and the Son of God (2: 22. 4: 1, 2, 3, 15, 16. 5:5,
20). These men awakened in the breast of the Apostle anxiety for the
preservation of pure doctrine and the peace of the Christian churches
under his care, and gave occasion to his productions.
$51.
Still, however, those against whom John's Gospel was directed, are
not yet brought definitely before us. According to ancient history there
were many in the time of the Apostle, who maintained in different sys-
tems the position that Jesus was not the Christ, the Son of God; and
this in those very churches to which he had devoted especial pains, and
in whose midst he had resolved to dwell.
In this respect they were all dangerous, however they might differ
on other points. The heresy was the same under various forms, and
in his work the Apostle certainly had in his eye all the systems which
were chargeable with this heresy, without according a flattering distinc-
tion to any particular one. We need not then inquire whether this
book was directed against Cerinthus, when it is proved that he lived in
these days and in this region, maintained this opinion, and moreover ac-
quired celebrity as a teacher. It was directed against all who aimed
by this tenet (with whatever theories or accessary ideas connected), to
mislead the Christians for whose benefit John wrote.
It is not to be denied that according to the positive declarations of
history, Cerinthus was a contemporary of the Apostle, and abode in the
region in which the latter taught and labored in the cause of the Gos-
pel; and that the heresy we have mentioned constituted a part of his
system. At the same time, too, appeared the Nicolaitans, who caused
much corruption in the churches and called for all the vigilance of the
Apostle. In respect to this particular tenet, as well as many others,
they coincided with Cerinthus.
Even had we no historical evidence as to this matter, if Irenæus, Jer-
ome, and Epiphanius had not expressly mentioned Cerinthus and the
Nicolaitans as heretics whose influence John intended to counteract,
still the authentic expression of his sentiments relative to certain here-
sies which is found in his first Epistle, compared with the plan and
contents of the Gospel and the general history of the time, would di-
rect us to these persons as certainly as definite historical information.
Stating the opinions of Cerinthus in conformity with the philosophy
of those times, we have the following system. There is one God over
all; he is most perfect unity, and could not therefore operate on matter
and be the Creator of the world. From him emanated certain extreme-
1 Iren. Adv. Hær. Lib. III. c. 9. "Hanc fidem annuntians Domini discipu-
lus volens per Evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho insemina-
tus est hominibus errorem, et multo prius ab his, qui dicuntur Nicolaitæ . . .
sic inchoavit. . . . In principio etc. Hieron. Script. Eccl. V. Joannis. Epiphan.
Hær. LXIX.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
423
1
ly pure and perfect natures (invisibilia et innominabilia), who augment-
ed their number by propagation, and gradually decreased in spirituality,
becoming more and more material, so as to retain but a slight connex-
ion with the One, Eternal Being. These, from the increasing grossness
of their nature, were able to operate upon matter and mould it into form.
A being of the latter order, one who knew nothing at all of the pure
Eternal spirit, was the Creator of the world; hence came evil and the
imperfection of creation.-Such was the solution of a problem which
has occasioned the most various theories on the part of the philosophers
of these and former days.
As a philosopher, he found it difficult to admit that Jesus was born of
a virgin, and maintained that he was begotten and born like the rest of
mankind, according to the usual laws of nature; but that as a man
he was superior to all his fellow-men in wisdom and mental greatness.
On the other hand, that he might in some way accord to Jesus the
distinction of a higher origin, which his actions clearly evinced, he as-
serted that one of the spiritual natures we have mentioned, viz. the
Christ, united himself to Jesus in the form of a dove at his baptism. On
this account he possessed henceforth the power of producing superhu-
man effects, and likewise of acquainting mankind with the true eternal
Deity, who had hitherto remained unknown to them because he had
not revealed himself by any operation.
This Christ, as an immaterial being of exalted origin (e superioribus
Christus), being one of the purer kinds of spirits, was from his nature
not susceptible of material affections, of suffering and pain. He there-
fore at the commencement of the passion resumed his existence sepa-
rately from Jesus, abandoned him to pain and death, and soared upwards
to heaven from whence he came. Cerinthus distinguished Jesus and
Christ, Jesus and the Son of God, as beings of different nature and
dignity.2
The Nicolaitans held similar doctrines in regard to the Supreme
Deity and his relation to mankind, and an inferior spirit who was the
Creator of the world. Among the subaltern orders of spirits, they
considered the most distinguished to be the only-begotten, the μovo-
revns (whose existence, however, had a beginning), and the λoyos, who
•
1 Iren. L. III. c. 11. "Eam conditionem, quæ est secundum nos, non a primo
Deo factam, sed a virtute aliquâ valde deorsum subjectâ, et abscissâ ab eorum
communicatione, quæ sunt invisibilia et innominabilia." L. 1. c. 26. "A virtute
quâdam valde separatâ . . et ignorante eum, qui est super omnia, Deum."
2 The old reading of 1 John 4: 3, mentioned by Socrates (H. E. L. VII. c. 32),
expresses this distinction very well. He testifies that it was read ev tois πα-
λαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις thus: πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ λύει τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ is to
be understood) εn Dεov ovn sori. This reading, he further says, the old inter-
preters (oi Talaioì έounvɛis) even admitted to be the correct one. We find it in
Irenæus still (L. III c. 16. n. 8.), "Et omnis spiritus, qui solvit Jesum, non est
ex Deo
as also in Tertullian and several writers who follow the old Latin ver-
sion; but no Greek Mss. of the Catholic Epistles, which represent the text of
that early period, now contain it. There is internal evidence, however, in favor
of this reading; for it is the most obscure and difficult, and manifests profound
thought, while the present reading: πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολόγει τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ἐκ
τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστι, is suspicious from its being synonymous with the preceding
clause.
424
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
was an immediate descendant of the only-begotten.¹ History is silent
as to what other tenets they held in regard to these beings.
Christ belongs to the number of beings sprung from God; Jesus, how-
is a son of the Creator of the world, with whom Christ united
himself at his baptism, and whom he abandoned at his passion.2
ever,
$ 52.
At the commencement of his book the Evangelist gives great promi-
nence to the assertion that Jesus is the light and the life (1: 4, 5, 9);
and in the progress of his narrative, his attention is frequently, and ac-
cording to his custom systematically, directed to these two positions,
3: 19–22. 5: 24, 35. 8: 12. 9: 5. 12: 35, 36 and 46. 6: 35 and 48.6:
51–60. 10: 28. 9: 25, 26. 14: 6. 17: 3.
It would seem from his procedure in the selection of facts for his
purpose, that the sacred writer had also in mind such persons as denied
that Jesus was the light and the life, or, to speak without a figure, that
he was the moral renovator and teacher of the world, to whom belonged
the praise of having conducted them from their errors to the path of
truth and happiness. There were several points which he was desirous
of establishing; that Jesus was the Christ, that he was the Son of God,
and that those who believed in him would have life through this disci-
pleship (20: 31), ὅτι ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ
ἵνα πιστεύοντες ζωὴν ἔχετε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ.
2
Nor is it difficult to conjecture the person to whom some gave prece-
dence before our Lord as the enlightener of the world and author of the
doctrines which conferred life on men. It was John the Baptist.
When at the outset of his book the author announces the doctrine that
1 For the benefit of those who see in the Logos nothing but Philo's doctrine
and the Alexandrian philosophy, I refer them to Dr. Neander, who has clearly
exhibited Philo's doctrine on this point, in such a manner as no other writer has.
"Entwicklung der gnostischen Systeme." Berlin 1818. p. 1–28. "Elemente der
Gnosis im Philo." This learned man evinces in many passages of his work his
conviction, that the origin of these opinions lies farther back than Philo's time,
and that an oriental theosophy, was shaped, in the Jewish and other nations, into
various systems, which became known in the time of Christianity under the
name of Gnostic systems.
2 From some appearances, not so strongly marked, however, as to be perfect-
ly decisive, we might be disposed to include likewise among those opposed by
John's works such teachers as denied Christ a material body, attributing to him
only an apparent one, and consequently making his passion only apparent, viz.
the Docetæ, who denied: Ιησούν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα. 1 Εp. 4. 2. 2
Ep. 7.
We might likewise make the passage in the Gospel, 19: 34—38, in
which John avers that blood and water really issued from his side, refer to this
sect. These passages, however, are susceptible of a different interpretation.
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα or ἐρχόμενον may be understood as meaning
that Jesus was not merely united with Christ at his baptism, but entered the
world as Christ and was born as such. Storr "Ueber den Zweck der evange-
lisch. Geschichte Johannis und der Briefe," § 21. There exists, therefore, no
necessity nor even probability of his referring to them. Had he intended to at-
tack this sect, he would not have alluded to them so cursorily in but two passa-
ges, and those doubtful. The tenet enforced by the Gospel and the first Epistle
is, that Jesus was the Christ, the son of God. The Docetæ were so far from de-
nying this, that they even strenuously maintained that the true and real, contain-
ed or enveloped in the apparent, was the Christ, the Son of God.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
425
the Logos is the light which shineth in darkness, he subjoins, John came
to bear witness of the light. This is plain, and nothing more was ne-
cessary. But the writer feels a deep-rooted anxiety in regard to this
point, and expressly repeats this declaration a second time in an antith-
esis, and the first member of this antithesis again for the third time:
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men
through him might believe. He was not that light, but was sent to bear
witness of that light. That was the true light which lighteth every
man that cometh into the world." (John 1: 7, 8, 9).
The Evangelist has also selected discourses of Jesus which contain
declarations of his superiority to John, and he introduces confessions of
John himself, which state the pre-existence of Jesus, his unequalled
dignity as teacher and as the author of life and happiness to man, and
his own inferiority, as being but a disciple and messenger (1: 15. 1: 20
31. 3: 26-36. 5: 34-37. 10: 41).
We find, too, that in this region and in Ephesus, the city which the
Evangelist had selected for his residence, there were men in Nero's
time who did not know of any other baptism than John's, had become
his disciples through it, and had heard nothing of the Holy Ghost; for
Paul afterwards laid his hands on certain men of this description, and
baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, imparting to them the Holy
Ghost, so that they spoke with tongues (Acts 19: 1-8). They were
certainly not the only such persons of their time; and many may have
been more pertinacious in their preference for their teacher, and less
flexible in their opinions.
To such, probably, the Evangelist had reference in introducing those
passages which exhibit John as not daring to compare his baptism, viz.
the baptism by water, with the baptism with water and with the Holy
Ghost (1:33. 3: 26-30). So likewise the observation in relation to
the gifts of the Spirit (7: 39), which contains an explanation for those
who were not, rather than those who were, believers; the exalted repre-
sentation of regeneration by water and the Spirit (3: 3-12); and all that
Jesus says respecting the Comforter and the Holy Ghost, which was to
be poured out on his disciples after he was ascended to heaven (14: 16,
17. 14: 26. 15: 26. 16: 7—15).
$ 53.
The procedure of the Evangelist in carrying his plan into execution
is remarkably singular, and a problem which we are bound to solve.
There is much considerateness and deliberate system apparent, even in
minutiæ, in respect to the arrangement of the book and the choice of
facts for a particular purpose; and yet the author has totally neglected
the most valid proofs of his positions. This was not by any means be-
cause circumstances denied him an intimate acquaintance with them;
for the occurrences alluded to were such as he must have been well ac-
quainted with, on account of his presence and participation, and such
as must have been fastened forever in the minds of all who witnessed
them, on account of their grand, supernatural, and astonishing char-
acter.
Could he have passed over such important facts, if they had not al-
54
426
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
ready been detailed by other credible writers? Could he have given up
with indifference the best aids to his design, had not other historians
preceded him in regard to them?
In the synagogue at Capernaum there was a demoniac who knew
Jesus and cried out to him, "Thou art the Holy One of God," etc.
John was there at the time, for when Jesus left the synagogue he was
in his company with James and Andrew (Mark 1: 29); and this mira-
cle was one of the first which he saw his Master perform.
At Gadaris a multitude of demons acknowledge Jesus to be the Son
of the Most High God (Matth. 8: 29. Mark 5: 7. Luke 8: 28). John
was present, for on the return we find him in our Lord's company (Mark
5: 37. Luke 8: 51).
Among the many evidences which he adduces in support of the dig-
nity of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, this species likewise merited
attention. The testimony of the spiritual world was to many, on ac-
count of their notions, a more weighty argument than any other; and
the more unexceptionable, as it was the testimony of hostile powers, who
were unable to deny our Lord this dignity.
He is wholly silent as to what took place before Caiaphas in regard
to Jesus, and only relates Peter's adventures in the high priest's palace.
Yet he evinces remarkable familiarity with the minutest circumstan-
ces throughout the history of the passion, surpassing all the other Evan-
gelists, in this respect. He informs us that Jesus was not led immedi-
ately to Caiaphas, but first to Annas, and states the reason of this; and
then goes on to detail, with much more precision than the other Evan-
gelists, what happened with regard to Peter. Thus, with all his histori-
cal knowledge, he neglected what was of great consequence to his chief
object, and devoted his attention to a matter of little moment. We
learn from the other Evangelists, that Jesus was examined before Caia-
phas, that his declarations were taken down, witnesses were heard, and
the accusation which was to be made against him before the Prætor
definitely settled; and that on this occasion (a circumstance of very
great importance with reference to John's design) Jesus declared before
the council, after calling the living God, the Most High, to witness, and
the declaration was recorded, that he was the Son of God and the Mes-
siah, that he was to take his place henceforth at the right hand of God,
and was to come in the clouds of heaven (Matth. 26: 64. Mark 14: 62.
Luke 22: 69).
The transfiguration on the mount, of which John was a spectator
with others, was evidently the highest proof of the positions of his book,
infinitely superior to all the alleged confessions of pious men, the disciples
of Jesus, or the convictions of all others, Jews or Gentiles. On this oc-
casion alone, with the exception of his baptism, was Jesus acknowledged
by God himself in a voice from heaven as his beloved Son, in whom he
was well pleased (Matth. 17: 1. Mark 9: 2. Luke 9: 27 seq.)
Directly after this occurrence, too, the object of the ministry of John
the Baptist, his relation to Jesus, and the inferiority of his authority and
office to those of Jesus, which constituted one of the subjects to be elu-
cidated in John's Gospel, were clearly and accurately stated by Jesus
(Matth. 17: 10 seq. Mark 9: 12). The whole is entirely unnoticed by
John.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
427
Even the only event which can bear any comparison with this in ar-
gumentative force in regard to the points he wished to establish, viz. the
history of Jesus' baptism, is likewise totally omitted by him; he merely
introduces the Baptist as saying something which has a reference to it,
but which would be itself unintelligible, if we did not know the story
of his baptism from the works of the other Evangelists. The Baptist is
introduced as follows (1: 32, 33, 34):“ John bare record, saying, I saw
the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
And I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, the
same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending
and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy
Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." We
do not learn from this even when and how the Spirit descended upon
Jesus; but have only the declaration of the Baptist that he was an eye-
witness of the occurrence, and henceforth regarded Jesus as the Son of
God. That this happened, however, at his baptism, that when Jesus
was coming up out of the water, the Spirit descended on him like a
dove, that the heavens were opened, and a voice came from them say-
ing This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased—all this we do
not find in our Evangelist, nor should we even be able to understand to
what the language of John the Baptist had reference, did we not pos-
sess from another quarter the information which is presupposed by
the Evangelist.
It needs no erudition to perceive, that throughout his whole book
John has presented no argument in support of his positions, which can
compare at all as to validity and authority with these which he has neg-
lected. Now did he leave unnoticed these forcible facts, with which
circumstances made him better acquainted than either of the Evange-
lists, in the hope that in time there would appear historians who would
record them, and bring forward what would have been his best argu-
ments? or is it certain that he would not and could not have omitted
them, had not others already made use of these materials, which would
have been so much to his purpose, so that he could not use them with-
out going over beaten ground? If the first conclusion be, as it is, ab-
surd, we must adopt the second. There remained, therefore, for the
Apostle, to be employed for his purposes, only what had been omitted by
previous writers. These omitted portions of the history were all which he
could treat of, even though they might not be by any means so important
as those which had been already presented. He was thus, not only able,
but compelled, to proceed as he has done, in the execution of his plan.
It is only on this supposition that we can explain his procedure in re-
gard to two important subjects, viz. doctrines and miracles. It might
have been thought that, in order to exhibit Jesus to the polished Asiat-
ics in a point of view in which they were peculiarly disposed to consid-
er him, John would have selected for his theme his elevated moral wis-
dom, and have undertaken to show that the world had never seen any
thing like it. But he felt stronger claims on his attention from another
quarter; he felt it specially incumbent upon him to establish the divine
authority and truth of these as well as other doctrines, viz. that Jesus
was not merely a man, instructed perhaps by some being of a higher
order, who revealed to him the doctrines which he taught; but that he
428
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
had the highest legislative power, was with God πρὸ καταβολής κόσ-
μov, before the corner-stone of creation was laid; that he was one with
God, the partner of his wisdom and power, the Son of God, or, which
is the same thing, the Messiah, & Xororós; that he came immediately
from heaven, and after accomplishing his work of reforming man, as-
cended again to the possession of his hereditary glory. To prove these
points he appeals to the declarations of Jesus himself, which he pre-
sents in abundance and minutely. In proceeding thus, he was well
aware that the moral doctrines of Jesus had been stated with sufficient
fulness and distinctness by others; and that all which remained was to
show the sacred character of these and other doctrines, and their imme-
diate divine origin.
Now in what way has he established the truth of the declarations of
Jesus? By miracles. Throughout the book, whenever our Lord de-
clares his divine origin, his dignity as the only begotten Son of God, he
attests the truth of his declarations by the miracles which he performed.
Those who receive his assertions and maintain their truth, do it on the
ground of these signs and wonders of divine power, 2: 23. 3: 2. onuɛia,
4: 48. σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, 5: 1921. 5: 36. 6: 2, 14, 26. 7: 331. 9:
3, 4. ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ, 9: 16. σημεῖα, 9: 31-34. 10: 21-25, 37, 38, 41.
11: 42, 45, 47. пollà onμɛła, 12: 18. 12: 37–43. 14: 10—13. 15: 24.
Thus the argument always rests on miracles; yet John has mentioned
very few of them, and detailed only five. How could he have proceeded
thus, if he did not know that these miracles had been before attested by
well-known writings? that the proof on which every thing ultimately
depended, had already been adduced?
As respects the narrative of the Lord's supper, too, he evidently takes
for granted the existence of other authentic histories. It was specially
requisite that this occurrence, containing as it did an example for fu-
ture commemorations of our Lord's death throughout the Christian world,
should be preserved in writing; and who was better fitted to depict it
than the disciple who during the supper lay on Jesus' bosom? He, how-
ever, says only just so much concerning it in his book as to show that
he designedly passed over the narrative, because it needed no mention;
and he proceeds to relate instead certain incidental occurrences, which
are found nowhere else. Now before the feast of the passover," says
he, when Jesus knew that his hour was come, that he should depart
out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in
the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, nai
dɛinvov yɛvoμévov, he rose and girded himself, and poured water into
a basin," etc. After washing his disciples' feet he returned to the table,
πάλιν ἀναπεσών.
πάhiv ávaпɛσáv. There is not a word throughout respecting the con-
"6
1 We may hence judge whether the reason why John omitted most of the
miracles was, that they had nothing to do with his idea of a Messiah, and were
little in accordance with Hellenic taste. How inconceivable, in that case, that
he should make everything depend ultimately on miracles! The Messiah,
therefore, whom he exhibits in his Gospel, is the ancient Jewish Messiah and
Son of God, whose character was attested by miracles, and not a Hellenized
Messiah, more refined than the Jewish one, and presented in a purely metaphys-
ical light in order to favor the speculative disposition of the inhabitants of Asia
Minor; from which latter point of view, however, it has been attempted
to determine the end and aim of the Gospel. It was rather his endeavor to set
bounds to the unlimited speculation of the Asiatics.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
429
secration of the bread and wine; the treachery of Judas, only, is alluded to
13: 1–23). Was it possible to exhibit more clearly a settled design to
omit this occurrence, considering its affecting and important character?
Was it possible more plainly to take for granted that it was attested al-
ready, and secured from forgetfulness and from the accidents of time?
Now all this, the previous historical existence of which is taken for
granted in his plan of procedure, we find in our Gospels; and by their
aid alone could we discover the peculiar principles by which he was
guided, and perceive what had to his knowledge been already related.
These Gospels were certainly before him.
Certain allusions which he has made to narratives previously in exis-
tence accord in a striking manner with our Evangelists. According to
John's history, after Jesus had chosen his first disciples and made a
commencement of his miracles at Cana, he went from Nazareth to Ca-
pernaum, where he designed to dwell. Soon after, a passover occur-
red, on which occasion our Lord travelled for the first time in his new
capacity to Jerusalem (2: 13). As he journeyed homeward from this
city after the feast, through Judea, he baptized. John was sojourning at
the time for the same purpose at Enon, near Salim, whither a great
multitude of persons desirous of being baptized, and of disciples, came
to him (3: 22 seq.). After relating these things concerning the Baptist,
he subjoins for John was not yet cast into prison, oυno yao v Bε-
βλημένος εἰς τὴν φυλακήν.
This addition is not an explanation of his own narrative, for the
whole tenor of his history shows that John was yet at liberty. It was
therefore inserted as a correction of some other accounts which he in-
tended to charge with inaccuracy.
Now this correction is really applicable to two of our Gospels. Mat-
thew who neglected chronology, says directly after the temptation, be-
fore Jesus is related to have gone to Capernaum, that John had been
cast into prison (4:12). Mark retained the same statement (1: 14), be-
cause his voucher, Peter, did not alter it. Luke alone avoided the
anachronism (4: 14). To whom, then, must the Evangelist have referred
in the observation: for John was not yet cast into prison?
Again, his procedure in regard to the woman that was a sinner, who
anointed Jesus, is remarkable in the same point of view. He speaks (11: 1
seq.) of Bethany, the dwelling-place of Mary and Martha, whose broth-
er lay sick. He here breaks off his narrative, and at the word Mary
inserts the parenthetic remark: This was that Mary who anointed the
Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair.
He himself has not yet related this story of the woman that anointed
Jesus, and does not give it till afterwards, where he designates who she
was more expressly than the other Evangelists (12: 1). By this mode
of narration he assumes the fact as already known before he has himself
related it. He, however, judges it necessary to inform the reader of
the name of the person, supposing him to be ignorant of it.
The story is related in the other Gospels, and the assumption that it
was already known seems to denote that they were in existence when
John wrote. Neither of them, however, has designated the person eith-
er by name or by attendant circumstances; so that the observation is
entirely pertinent to their narrative, and we can see to what it had re-
ference.
430
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
But this is not all; still more distinct traces of the three previous
Gospels are perceptible. Mark has added something to the account of
this occurrence as it stands in Matthew, but in such a manner that its
identity is perfectly clear; while Luke has omitted the circumstances
contained in the two former Evangelists, and detailed others connected
with the occurrence. Hence we might be led to consider the event
which he relates as an entirely different one from that related by Mat-
thew and Luke; especially as Luke has assigned it to a different period.
Matthew and Mark state that the woman anointed the head of Jesus;
Luke that it was his feet, and that she wiped them with the hair of her
head. The former state the dissatisfaction of Judas respecting it, while
Luke mentions the reproach of the Pharisee, and the rebuke which he
received (7: 39). John combines the circumstances related in all the
three into one narrative. The description of the ointment and of its
value he borrows from Mark; the procedure of the woman, from Luke;
and the admonition which Jesus gave to Judas, from Matthew (Matth.
26: 7. Mark 14: 3. Luke 7:37. John 12: 3).
Matthew.
Πάντοτε γάρ τοὺς
πτωχοὺς ἔχετε
μεθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν·
ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε
ἔχετε.
Mark.
ἔχουσα αλάβαστρον
μύρου, νάρδου πισ
| τικῆς πολυτελοῖς·
Ηδύνατο τοῦτο
τὸ μύρον
προθῆναι
ἐπάνω τριακοσίων
δηναρίων,
καὶ δοθῆναι τοῖς
πτωχοῖς.
Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν
Αφετε αυτήν
προέλαβε μυρίσαι
μου τὸ σῶμα
εἰς τὸν ἐνταφιασ
μόν.
Luke.
ἤρξατο βρέχειν
τοὺς πόδας, καὶ
ἤλειφε, καὶ ταῖς
θριξὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς
αὐτῆς
ἐξέμασσε,
καὶ κατεφίλει τοὺς
πόδας αὐτοῦ.
John.
῾Η οὖν Μαρία
λαβοῦσα λίτραν
μύρου νάρδου πισ
τικῆς πολυτίμου,
ἤλειψε τους
πόδας τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ,
καὶ ἐξέμαξε
ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς
τους πόδας
αὐτοῦ
5
Λέγει οὖν κ. τ. λ.
Διατί τοῦτο τὸ
μύρον
οὐκ ἐπράθη
τριακοσίων
δηναρίων,
καὶ ἐδόθη
πτωχοῖς
Εἶπεν οὖν ὁ
᾿Ιησοῦς·
"Αφες αὐτήν· εἰς
τὴν ἡμέραν
τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ
μου
τετήρηκεν αὐτό.
Τοὺς πτωχοὺς γὰρ
πάντοτε έχετε
μεθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν,
ἐμὲ δὲ οὐ πάντοτε
ἔχετε.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
431
$ 54.
Supposing these writers to have been acquainted with each other's
works, and each therefore to have made use of the work of his prede-
cessor, resting all his own merit upon an improvement of the narrative,
there is weight in the following argument for the priority of Luke to
John, and much more for his priority to Matthew and Mark, on whose
works that of Luke was based.
John has given to some narratives a completeness that Matthew's
sketches, and even Mark's amplification of them, which was copied by
Luke, did not possess; and which they did not obtain until they came un-
der the hand of so acute an observer as this apostle, who was generally
foremost among the disciples.
Matthew describes in 26: 69–75, the denial of Peter, paying atten-
tion to the fact alone, and not to the place or persons that occasioned it.
Mark treads in his foot-steps, adding almost nothing (14: 66-72); as
likewise Luke, who in a great measure copies his predecessors (22: 54
-63).
On the other hand, John states definitely the place of the transaction.
It commenced in the palace of the high priest Annas; there, in the
court, into which John had procured him admission, Peter denied our
Lord for the first time to the woman who kept the door (18: 17). John
then changes the scene to the presence of Caiaphas, where the other
three Evangelists first take up the narrative, and begin the story of Pe-
ter's denial of his Master; while according to John he only finished in
this place what he began in the house of Annas, and for the second and
third time disowned acquaintance with Jesus (18: 25-27).
We may observe, too, that according to Matthew it was another of
the maids, an, according to Mark, y nadion, and according to Luke,
άllos, a man, who led Peter to deny the second time; while accord-
ing to John it was several persons at once, εiлоv oйv avto, the accounts
of all the Evangelists being thus reconciled.
It is evident that in this case, particularly in respect to the designa-
tion of the scene of the first occurrence, John has imparted additional
completeness to the narrative; and Luke could not have contented him-
self with the imperfect account of the first two writers, and have trans-
ferred it just as it was into his book, had the work of the beloved dis-
ciple been before him.
In the account of the resurrection, Matthew, as usual, is careless about
the order in which the occurrences succeeded each other, as it had noth-
ing to do with his object; and he merely keeps in view his main de-
sign. At dawn of day, he says, when the women visited the sepulchre,
an angel rolled away the stone, and announced to them that the Lord
had risen, and that they must go and tell his disciples; and they made
haste to obey (28: 1-11). Mark and Luke left this just as they found
it in Matthew (Mark 16: 1–9. Luke 24: 1—10).
John, who went thither himself, and was in the garden and at the
sepulchre, gives us more precise information as to the time of this oc-
currence. Mary Magdalene had already been at the sepulchre, where
she found the stone rolled away, and then called thither two of the dis-
432
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
ciples, Peter and John. While the latter were occupied in examining
for themselves, she stood without weeping; she then stepped again in-
to the sepulchre, and now saw the men in white raiment, and afterwards
our Lord himself.
Luke, therefore, might have derived essential aid from the more com-
plete narrative of John, and must certainly have copied that rather than
the narratives of Matthew and Mark, had he been so fortunate as to
see, before the publication of his own work, that of a writer of such
high authority on account of his peculiar circumstances.
§ 55.
Such are the internal evidences in the books of Matthew, Mark and
Luke, that they were antecedent to the Gospel of John; and such the
references in the latter which show that the writer was acquainted with
the contents of the three other Gospels. Now if the declarations of an-
cient writers coincide with this conclusion, they do not deserve to be
so summarily rejected as they have been.
John, says Eusebius,¹ for a long time occupied himself with oral in-
struction alone. When Matthew, Mark, and Luke, had published their
Gospels, they came under his eye; he gave them his approval and his
testimony to their truth, and determined to supply what was wanting in
them by a work of his own. It is true that what Eusebius says respect-
ing that part of the history omitted, which it was John's intention to sup-
ply, is not correct; but it is clear from his own representation that he
connected his exegetical notions with the ancient account, and these
must be distinguished from the latter.
2
We obtain the same account in substance, though accompanied with
other embellishments, from a Latin father, who lived perhaps at the
commencement of the third century. The fourth Gospel, says he, is
by John, one of the disciples, who, when his fellow-disciples and the
elders of the church solicited him to write it, replied, Fast with me. It
was then revealed in the night to Andrew, one of the apostles, that
John should review the other books, or consult the other apostles (the
text is uncertain, and was probably ambiguous in the Greek itself:
ανεξεταζομένων ἁπάντων, ἅπαντα συγγράψοιτο), and present the re-
sult in a work under his own name. The fabulous part of this account
does not hinder us from admitting its main purport; and moreover this
very fabulous statement assures us that the same fact is here attested on
totally different authority from the former.
The account of a writer who is perhaps somewhat later than the pre-
ceding, but who appeals to earlier fathers, is destitute of such embellish-
ments and approaches nearer its original purity. Clement of Alexan-
dria states,³ that when John, the last of the Evangelists, perceived that
what related to our Lord as a man had been fully treated of in the Gos-
pels, he, at the instance of his friends, composed under divine inspira-
tion a Gospel which unfolded his spiritual nature.
1 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 24.
2 Antiqq. Ital. Med. Ev. Muratorii. T. III. p. 854.
3 Euseb. H. E. L. IV. c. 14.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
433
And what is more natural, than that John, who outlived all his compan-
ions, and who, if his Epistles were connected with his Gospel, wrote
his history in his old age, as a noɛoßúrepos, should have seen, and
been familiar with, the Gospels which were already in circulation?
$56.
John, therefore, saw the other Gospels; and this was one of the cir-
cumstances which determined the plan and nature of his own work and
the selection of the facts to be introduced in it.
The scene of events with the first three Evangelists is Galilee; and
among its cities Capernaum in particular. There our Lord first ap-
pears after leaving his abode at Nazareth to commence his ministry.
From this place he makes his journeys; and thither he returns after go-
ing to Gennesareth, to Gadaris, or the region of Tyre and Sidon,
or teaching and performing miracles in Decapolis. Within this circuit.
all the actions of Jesus related by them are comprehended; and Jesus
never steps out of it till he goes to suffer at Jerusalem.
The case is different with John. He presents to us new scenes in
other regions. He leads us to Judea, and particularly to Jerusalem.
In regard to events which took place there he is extremely copious; but
takes scarcely any notice of what occurred in Galilee. Even when the
first three Evangelists conduct Jesus to the borders of Judea, they there
lose sight of him, and John takes up the narrative and accompanies him
in his course. He, however, does not follow him back into Galilee, but
forsakes him on the borders of that country, which was the historical
province of the other Evangelists.
In the whole of John's work, from the beginning of Christ's ministry
to the end, there is but one discourse which was uttered in Galilee (6:
22. 7: 1); and, the days of the passion excepted, there are but three
facts which he has in common with the other Evangelists. Two of
them are the feeding of the five thousand, and the voyage on the sea
connected with it, in which Jesus appears to the disciples in the storm
for their deliverance (6: 1—22). These he has repeated, because they
were indispensable as introductory to the discourses above mentioned,
which immediately follow. There is, besides, the fact of the anointing
of Jesus by Mary (John 12: 3), which, is repeated for the reasons given
in the 53d §.
Thus the first three Evangelists occupy themselves with occurrences
in Galilee, and John with those in Judea and its capital. In this way
we obtain a complete account of the last three years of Jesus' life.
§ 57.
We may hence explain the assertion that in John's Gospel the repre-
sentation of Christ is very different from that contained in the other
Gospels. He is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, as Paul says;
it is only his situation which is different. While travelling in retired
parts of Galilee or on the shore of Gennesareth, whither he was followed
by curious multitudes who were readily susceptible of good impressions,
he merely discourses respecting moral virtues and piety, declares his
55
434
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
purpose only in parables, leaves the multitude to conjecture his com-
mission, and obtains from a few individuals the confession that he is
the Christ, the Son of God (Matth. 8: 29. Mark 5: 7. Luke 8: 28. Matth.
14: 33. 16: 16. Mark 8:29. Luke 10: 20. Mark 1: 24. Luke 4: 34.
Mark 3: 11. Luke 4: 41). He heals unfortunate wretches by miracu-
lous power, and in doing so seeks to attract as little attention as possi-
ble, that he may not excite any ferment in the minds of the people,
which might place him in a false light. A single tumultuous assem-
blage might have defeated all his purposes, and have subjected him to
the death of a malefactor.
There he had no
The Jews were not favorable
His situation in Judea was very widely different.
cause for any apprehension of the kind.
towards him; least of all at Jerusalem. Then, too, he had nowhere
so much reason to unfold his commission and purposes, to explain what
he intended to effect and the authority on which he rested his enter-
prise, as in the metropolis. In remote and thinly peopled districts, in
discourses in the country, it was of little importance; the only proper
place for such a disclosure was the central point of Judaism, the scene
of festival assemblies in which innumerable multitudes were gathered
together, the seat of religious authority and sacred learning. It was
necessary tha: he should proclaim his secret here; for from this place
alone could it go forth into the world. Hence, what in Galilee he only
permitted the people to conjecture, he himself declares openly in Jeru-
salem, and proclaims himself at the feasts as one sent from God, as the
Son who was with the Father before the world was, as the Messiah and
the author of a new dispensation; and this so long and so loudly that
his claims and the acknowledgement of them on the part of the people,
eventually impelled the priests and others belonging to the class of
learned men to effect his execution by calling to their aid the Roman
authority.
He was thus assured that he was not to disappear like a phenomenon
only partially seen and understood, nor even to meet an unheeded
death in a remote district; but, that he was to be condemned to suffer
and expire in the far-famed city of Jerusalem, in the sight of innume-
rable witnesses from Asia and other quarters of the world, and that he
would be commiserated and revered by them as a sacrifice to lofty pur-
poses.
Such a public exposition of his high origin and destination was given
by Jesus but once out of Judea, viz. at Capernaum, the place which he
had selected as the point to extend information respecting himself and
his doctrines through Galilee and the region round about (John 6: 26
-64).
When, however, he appears in the country in John's Gospel, his pro-
cedure is the same as represented by the other Evangelists. Observe
the manner in which he instructs the woman of Samaria in a skilfully
conducted conversation: his religion was confined to no people and no
place; it was henceforth to extend itself to all the inhabitants of the earth,
enlightening the soul, and diffusing true ideas of God (John 4: 4—31).
We may infer from this example how little occasion there would have
been for the idea that Christ is not the same in all the Evangelists, had
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
435
John related those things which occurred in the country, rather than
those which took place in the metropolis.
Jesus' custom of connecting some moral lesson with the occurrences
of the moment, of linking some instructive saying with an object pre-
sented by the occasion; his mode of clothing doctrines in figures, and
of deriving tropes and allegorical ornament from things which were im-
mediately before his eyes, are so impossible to be mistaken in this story
of his interview with the woman of Samaria, that we in vain seek to
discern in it another Messiah; its contents are not to be thus perverted.
What our Lord says is linked, after the manner of Socrates, with the
nearest objects; with the water, a favorite image of doctrine in the
east; with the food which is brought to him, from which he draws a
figurative expression to denote that his mind was occupied then about
higher matters; with the fields of corn, whose situation immediately un-
der his eye suggested the figure he employs. On approaching Naplou-
sa, the narrow valley widens into a plain about two miles in length, which
presents a rich prospect of blooming and fertile fields,' well suited to
suggest to Jesus the figure respecting the blissful result which he hoped
would ensue from the inculcation of his doctrines. The Samaritan wo-
man could not comprehend his words. This was very natural from her
circumstances; she could suppose anything rather than that a Jew
should instruct her in an affable manner. She regarded him as a proph-
et, because he knew her most secret affairs. Is this so very wrong and
absurd? The woman judged precisely like many others. In the opin-
ion of the Syrians, the prophet Elisha knew the most secret intentions
of the king of Syria (2 Kings 6:12). Daniel knew what Nebuchad-
nezzar had dreamed and had himself forgotten. The Jews required of
Bar-Cocba, when he claimed to be the Messiah, that he should divine
the thoughts of men by his sense of smell without seeing them,²¬
.:דאין
Not to mention such language in Luke as recurs in John almost lit-
erally (17: 3. 13: 3. 3: 5 and John 8: 56), we have in Luke 10: 21–
25 (comp. Matth. 11:25-27), an example of the general style of Je-
sus' language to his disciples on solemn occasions; and this same spirit
and tone I recognize in John's account of the leave which Jesus took
of his disciples. The occasion was only more solemn; a great event,
the abrupt termination of his career, was at hand.
Judas Iscariot had left the company to commit his traitorous act (13:
31). Now, said Jesus, is the Son of man glorified; I am but a little
while with you; I leave you the commandment of love which I have ex-
emplified. He then exhorts his disciples not to despond at his death.
He is going to his Father to prepare a place for them; the protection of
the Father will follow them here below; moreover, the Father will send
them the Spirit which shall reveal all things to them. He now utters
his farewell to his disciples; but says that he will come again; then
bids them rise, and go hence (14: 31), ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦθεν.3
1 Maundrell, Monconys.
2 Gemar. Hierosolym. Tr. Sanhedr. c. XI.
3 Some have supposed these words to be a gloss, without any reason, and in
opposition to the evidence of all the Mss. and versions now extant.
436
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
While they were seated, the discourse maintained the tender form of
conversation; but after having risen, he proceeds, while standing, to ex-
hort them to united and persevering efforts in concurrence with his pur-
poses, and with increased earnestness he admonishes them to love each
other and himself, and to expect and endure with a resigned temper a
cruel lot; again promises them the Spirit; begins to mention more fre-
quently his approaching death; and silence reigns among the disciples.
No one presumes to speak. Once only they question among themselves
what is the meaning of the words: A little while and ye shall not see
me, and again a little while and ye shall see me?" He perceives this,
and explains himself; they believe that they now understand him (16:
33).
The occasion becomes more solemn; the discourse takes a higher
tone; Jesus stands at the goal of his career. At this moment his con-
science bears him witness that he has accomplished the commission giv-
en him by the Father to bring truth into the world. He, moreover, with
deep emotion commends his disciples to his Father's protection; and
not only they, but all who should believe in him (Chap. 18). Every
thought and feeling bears marks of belonging to that eventful hour.
And is not all this in accordance with the character of Christ? Is it
not the farewell of an exalted and noble soul, which, untroubled by the
thought of impending suffering, occupies itself wholly with its lofty
schemes and with the business of instructing and consoling those whom
it leaves behind! And I must further ask, could the gradation in the
conversation possibly be more natural? Can there be imagined a more
beautiful rise than is here presented; first mutual remark, then increas-
ing silence among the listeners, broken only by a low question, till ulti-
mately the last whisper dies away, and in the universal stillness the
soul mounts upward to its loftiest elevation !
Were this discourse clothed in the elegant language of a Plato or a
Xenophon, with what admiration should we read it! But the writer
was unable to impart such a recommendation to his narrative; imper-
fection in the art of composition is plainly visible.
$ 58.
We must not content ourselves with the observations we have just made,
inasmuch as there have recently appeared other harsh charges against
this Gospel which we ought not to neglect to scrutinize.¹ The first al-
legation we have heard. But, in order to destroy all confidence in this
writer, it is attempted to prove that he was not an eye-witness of the
facts he relates, and therefore we cannot be sure of their accuracy. Let
us then take a closer survey of the contents of his book. A part of it
relates to what befell our Lord in the capital; a part to his discourses;
and a part to his acts. We will subjoin a few observations on certain
particulars worthy of notice.
1. That our Lord should have visited Jerusalem but once during his
ministry, viz. at the time of his death, is incredible, considering the in-
stitutions of his nation, which were respected by him, and the notoriety
1 C. Th. Bretschneider, Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Joannis Ap.
indole et origine. Lips. 1820.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
437
which it was essential that he should gain. It is plain, too, from Luke,
that he visited Jerusalem several times; and thus, at the outset, the
general tenor of John's work is sustained.
If we examine particularly what is stated to have befallen Jesus in
Jerusalem, we can perceive the gradual progress of things to the final
result, his death. At his first appearance in the city he gained many
adherents, but found cause for distrust (2: 23, 24). The second time
of his coming certain zealots openly opposed him (5: 16, 18), and in
their malice plotted against his life (8: 1). Their design, being noised
abroad, was notorious among the people when he appeared in their midst
the third time (7: 25). Still their wish to lay hands on him was
stronger than their resolution (7: 30). When the Pharisees and chief
priests heard what was the popular feeling in regard to him (7: 32), they
sent public officers to take him prisoner; but these likewise wanted
courage to execute the order; he was befriended, too, by his secret ad-
herents (7: 44—52). The wish to get possession of his person contin-
ued, but was not carried into effect (8: 20). The zealots on this ac-
count entertained increased hope, particularly at the last feast but one
which he attended, of finding a good opportunity to stone him (8:59. 10:
31,32, 33. 11:8). But Jesus withdrew himself from danger, so long as the
mode or time of the death meditated for him was not that which was ap-
pointed. The chief priests vacillated a long time, until, when the third
passover was nigh at hand, the Sanhedrim, incensed by recent occur-
rences, declared his death to be necessary, and consulted together as to
the measures to be taken for effecting it (11: 49-53). The council
soon after issued an injunction that whoever knew where Jesus was
should give information (11: 57); and at last one of his disciples offer-
ed to point out his nightly resort.
This representation does away all that is sudden and accidental in
the death of Jesus; and we have instead a regular chain of circumstan-
ces, which are undeniably in accordance with probability. The ulti-
mate event, which stands isolated in the other Gospels, appears no
longer a surprising thing, occasioned by a single and brief visit on the
part of Jesus (his last one) to Jerusalem.
2. Many of the discourses of Jesus were interrupted by objections on
the part of one or more of the multitude about him; and hence they rath-
er follow the lead of these objections than their own natural train.
Our Lord, however, generally endeavored to return to the point of depar-
ture; and hence necessarily arose repetitions, which would not have
taken place had his discourse proceeded undisturbed. In the discourse
contained in 7: 14-36, he was three times interrupted by cavils, and
once by an attempt to take him prisoner (v. 15, 20, 27-33, 35); in the
one in 8: 12-59, such cavils were advanced no less than ten different
times (v. 13, 19, 22, 25, 33, 39, 41, 48, 52, 57). Now who but one
who had himself heard these various cavils, and the turns and cir-
cumlocutions of the discourse, could know all these particulars? Evi-
dently, he who records them, whoever he was, was himself one of the
listeners, or else wrote from the dictation of one who was a listener. He
would have been remarkably fortunate at a later period to procure the
most general outlines of these occurrences through a third or fourth hand.
438
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
He even knew the circumstances of the confidential intercourse of
our Lord with his disciples at the time of his taking leave of them (13:
36-chap. 15); the question put by Peter, the apprehension expressed
by Thomas, the request of Philip, and the doubt of Judas, not Iscariot (13:
36. 14: 5, 8, 22). A similar case occurs earlier (12: 20, 23). Just so
on another occasion, while the rest of the Evangelists content them-
selves with a general account (Matth. 14: 15, 18. Mark 6: 35, 38. Luke
9: 12, 13), he remembers what our Lord said to Philip, the reply of the
latter, and the remark then made by Andrew (John 6: 5—10).
1
We must not forget to mention here the references to time and place,
such as are presented at the beginning of the discourse which was ten
times interrupted, and also in the one immediately preceding. Both
were uttered on the great day of the feast of tabernacles. They are
separated by an intervening occurrence, viz. the decision respecting the
adulteress, which constitutes one of the most difficult as well as most
beautiful passages in this Gospel. An illumination in the temple, which
cast a bright light in the western part of the city on the fronts of the
houses where the booths were erected, and the custom of drawing wa-
ter, with which the people amused themselves and which they hoped
would induce God to bless them with abundant rains, graced the festiv-
ity of the feast of tabernacles.2 This custom of drawing water was
alluded to in the exclamation, "If any man thirst let him come unto
me and drink" (7: 37). The hymns which were sung in the temple dur-
ing the feast were certainly not without allusions to the blessing of the
approaching season of rain; and probably suggested to Jesus the inspired
passage which he adduced in confirmation of his promise to confer bless-
ings on those who should come to him (7:38). The following words
of the Talmud deserve notice: The place is called the house for draw-
ing water; but there they drew the Holy Spirit.3 The illumination
suggested to Jesus the figure in 8: 12, where he calls upon men to fol-
low him that they may have the light of life. It is true, as has been ob-
jected, that there was probably no illumination on that very day, the
last day of the feast; but the enormous candlesticks, by which the il-
lumination was produced, were before his eyes, and reminded those pres-
ent of the light they had diffused. For these candlesticks were set up
in the court of the women which was adjoining to the γαζοφυλάκιον,
4
1 I have presented my exposition of this narrative in the following treatise :
De conjugii Christiani vinculo indissolubili, commentatio exegetica. Frib. 1816.
§ 11 seq.
5
2 In regard to the custom of drawing water, see Mishna, Tract. de Tabernac.
c. V. segm. 1. and c. 4, segm. 9. 10. "Distribute water at the feast of water, so
that thou mayest be blessed with the annual rains." In Tosaphtha, Rosh ha-
shona (De princ. anni) c. I. sect. 8, and Tosaphtha, Succa, c. III. n. 10, we find
it threatened that whoever did not visit Jerusalem at this feast, should have no
rain upon his lands.
3 Gemar. Hieros. Tr. Succa, c. V. segm. 1. EN 3
מים בששון:12 and Isaiah ; שמשם שואבים רוח הקודש על שפן ושאבתם
. ממעייני הישועה
4 Respecting the illumination, see Mishna, De Tabernac. c. V. segm. 2, 3.
Not only psalms but hymns and songs of praise were sung by pious men in the
torch-dance, which they conducted with much skill. Ibid. seg. 4.
5 Lightfoot, Descript. Templi Hierosol. c. XVIII. and XIX.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
439
or receptacle for the offerings, in which our Saviour spoke these words
(8: 20).
3. Let us now observe the acts of Jesus; e. g. his healing the man
who was born blind (9: 1-41), or his raising Lazarus (11:1—46).
The latter narrative in some parts displays the rural simplicity and
sweetness of an idyl; and both have in common the characteristic of
great particularity. Is it possible that the various feelings of the by-
standers, their thoughts, their language, their behaviour, and the inci-
dental circumstances connected with the occurrence, should be exhibi-
ted with more exactness? We have before us rather a lively and ani-
mated picture than a mere description. If we will but examine these
narratives without prepossessions of any kind, and instead of forcing
every thing to a previous opinion, permit our judgment to take its spon-
taneous course, we cannot but see evidence in the account of what was
said and done, that the writer was a listener and spectator.
But this very story of Lazarus is the source of a multitude of ques-
tions, which are supposed, by those who ask them, to be so many objec-
tions. If Jesus wished to raise the dead, it is said, men are constantly
dying; why did he not perform the miracle on some dead person close
at hand in Jerusalem? I reply by another question: Why the one near-
est at hand, and not rather a good man, and a friend? How many
friends had Jesus at Jerusalem ? Was any one of these, was Nicode-
mus, was Joseph of Arimathea, at that time dead? Why, it is said,
perform the miracle in so insignificant a place as Bethany? True, it
was not a place of much importance; but it was in the vicinity and in
sight of Jerusalem. The miracle was performed amid a large con-
course of people, and, as it were, in Jerusalem itself (11: 19). Though
inconceivable, yet it is true, that some were incredulous, and told the
Pharisees what had occurred (11:46). The case was the same, as, ac-
cording to the accounts of the other Gospels, it always was, when the
Pharisees or their adherents witnessed the works of Jesus (Matth. 9: 34.
12: 14. Mark 3: 6. Luke 6: 11. Matth. 12: 22-24. Luke 11: 14, 15. 13: 4).
They were wilfully obstinate (Matth. 12: 31, 32. Mark 3: 29). It would
even have been singular had no one of the spies of the Pharisees been
present. Malice on the part of some is essential to the completeness of
the picture, which displays, simply but happily, the various dispositions
and feelings of all the spectators.
Finally, by taking away this story we destroy one link in the chain
of events. The rejoicing with which the people celebrated Christ's entry
into Jerusalem becomes less intelligible; as also the sudden determination
of the council to condemn him to death, while before they had not been
able to adhere permanently to any such resolution.
4. Let us now turn our attention to other instances of particularity.
The writer often designates the time of the occurrences he narrates.
The next day (ỷ лavoiov) after the inquiry made by the Pharisees,
John the Baptist saith etc. (1: 29). The day after, he points out our Lord
to two of his disciples who were the first disciples of Jesus (1: 35—42).
The day following, Andrew brings his brother to Jesus. One day later,
Jesus attaches to himself Philip and Nathaniel (1: 44-51). Three days
after this occurrence, our Lord appears at Cana (2: 1 seq.). He leaves
Sychar after residing there two days (4:43). He staid two days after
440
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
hearing of the illness of Lazarus (11: 6). After Lazarus was raised
from the dead he went once more into retirement (11: 54), and six days
before the passover appeared again in Bethany (12: 1). On the follow-
ing day, when he went to Jerusalem, the people came forth to meet him
(12:9-12). He sometimes even designates the hour. It was the tenth
hour when Andrew first visited our Lord (1: 39); the sixth, when our
Lord arrived at Jacob's well (4: 6); the seventh, when the nobleman's
son at Capernaum began to recover (4: 52).
α
To these may be added other minute circumstances and designations
which could have been known only to a contemporary. Not long after the
first passover, there was much water at Salim (3:23). A certain man,
whom Jesus healed, was 38 years old (5: 5). The disciples were five
and twenty or thirty furlongs from the land when they saw Jesus (6: 19).
The servant whose ear was cut off, was named Malchus (18: 10); it
was a kinsman of this servant who consummated Peter's fall (18: 26).
The soldiers divided the upper garment into four parts; for it was a
Terpádiov which guarded the cross (19: 23. Comp. Acts 12: 4). The
under garment was without seam (xerov ägdaços, 19:23), like a priest's
under garment (χιτῶν οὐκ ἐκ δυοῖν περιτμημάτων, ὥστε ραπτός, Jos.
Ant. L. III. c. 7. n. 4). It was therefore not divided; but lots were
cast for it. The weight of Mary's ointment was a Litra (12: 3). The
articles used in preparing the body for burial, weighed about one hun-
dred Litrai (19:39). When the disciples came to the sepulchre, they
found the linen clothes lying apart, as also the sudarium wrapped to-
gether by itself (20: 7). Some traits of similar particularity have al-
ready been mentioned above (§ 54), in treating of his corrections of
his predecessors and the additional completeness which he has imparted
to the history.
$ 59.
We cannot discuss particular passages in which writers have contri-
ved to discover references to later circumstances, or absurd explanations,
and from which the inference has been drawn that the author wrote ab-
surdly, and at a later period than has been supposed; but we will en-
deavor to defend him from the charge of ignorance of history and of
the geography of the country.
It is objected against him that he places Bethany on the river Jordan,
while it was really situated very near Jerusalem. He certainly does
mention a Bethany on the Jordan in 1:28. (Bethany is the true read-
ing here; Bethabara is only a conjecture of Origen's, which was
made current by Chrysostom's recommendation). But who can believe
that an author, who states with so much precision the distance of Beth-
any from Jerusalem (viz. 15 furlongs, 11: 18), should have imagined the
same town to have been on the Jordan, and even on the eastern side of
it? We shall rather be satisfied that he meant to distinguish two differ-
ent places, if we take the following passages into consideration. Our
Lord went again to the eastern side of the Jordan, to the place where
John at first baptized (10: 40); that is, in other words, to Bethany (1:
28). From this place he went to Bethany, the town of Mary and Mar-
tha (11: 1). Are not here two Bethanys? Although the orthography
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
441
ก
בֵּית
of both is the same in Greek, it was not so, probably, in Hebrew. The
Bethany near Jerusalem, it is well known, was called "; the
one on the Jordan was probably, a place for ships, nearly the
same as Bethabara, n, a place for crossing, a ferry. It was,
then, a thoroughfare from the east country to Palestine and back again;
where John must have found a great number of hearers and of candi-
dates for baptism.
The place which the Baptist chose for the second theatre of his la-
bors, was non, near Salim (ἐν Αἰνων, ἐγγὺς τοῦ Σαλείμ, 3: 23). It
is objected that “urbs Ænon non exstitit." This is admitted; but did
John baptize in a city? So unfortunate an objection should never have
been made by an exegete.
""
A city is mentioned which is called Sychar, Σιχάρ or Συχάρ (4:5).
This, it is said, "alia nisi Sichema esse non potest.' And yet it was a
different place. Sichem, Flavia Neapolis, and Sychar, belong to differ-
ent periods, as I shall show in my Geography of Canaan, which I hope
will soon be finished. Sychar, however, does not denote either the
drunken, from ¬ɔ, nor the deceitful or faithless, from p; it is not any
opprobrious name. It was spelt, as was long ago remarked;¹
the burial-place, where were deposited the bones of Joseph (Josh. 24:
32), and according to the common report in the times of our Saviour,
the remains of the twelve patriarchs (Acts 7: 15, 16); as also, according
to the declaration of the modern Samaritans, the remains of all the
prophets.
$ 60.
John is, moreover, charged with ignorance of history and of Jewish
customs, on account of the words, Caiaphas being the high priest that
same year' (11: 49); as though he meant to have it understood that
they were changed every year. Yet, whatever he meant, he was ap-
parently sure of it; for he soon after repeats the declaration, that Caia-
phas was the high priest that year (18: 13).
Let us not grudge the pains we must take in examining anew a sub-
ject which has been often discussed. We shall go as far back as is ne-
cessary in order to set the circumstances of the time in a clear light.
After Tiberius had attained the Roman sovereignty, he recalled the pro-
curator Annius Rufus from Judea, and sent thither in his stead Vale-
rius Gratus, who administered the government of Judea eleven years,
consequently till some time in the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius.
Gratus deprived Annas of the office of high priest, and gave it to Ish-
mael, the son of Phabi, whom, likewise, he soon deprived of it, in order
to bestow it on Eleazar, the son of Annas. He held the office a year,
and was then forced to yield it to Simon, the son of Camithus; who, in
turn, held the office for hardly the same length of time, and was then
succeeded by Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas.2
Caiaphas retained this dignity, the highest in his nation, until Tibe-
1 Cellarii Dissert. Academic. Diss. 6ta De Gent. Samarit. Histor. et Cere-
mon. § 15. Lightfoot, Chorograph. Joanni præmissa, C. IV. § 4.
2 Jos. Antiq. L. XVIII. c. 2. n. 2.
56
442
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
1
rius sent Vitellius to Syria to regulate or, more correctly speaking, to
embroil the affairs of Parthia. Vitellius, after his consulship, was set
over the province of Syria, which he governed till the twentieth year
of Tiberius. For there were but three consulships after his, in the time
of this emperor: in the third the world was delivered from this execra-
ble sovereign.2
When Vitellius travelled over his province, and came to Judea, whose
procurator was under the authority of the prætor of Syria, he was mag-
nificently received at Jerusalem. He requited the reception by marks
of favor, and, to please the people, deprived Caiaphas of the office of
high priest. This probably happened in the first year of his prætor-
ship; so that Caiaphas held this dignity as long, at least, as. from the
twelfth to the twenty-first year of the reign of Tiberius, i. e. nine years;
an unheard of thing in those as well as in succeeding times.
3
Jonathan, another son of Annas, was next appointed high priest.4
When Vitellius, however, went to Jerusalem the second time, in the
twenty-third and last year of the reign of Tiberius, he deposed Jona-
than likewise, and made Theophilus, the third son of Annas, his suc-
cessor.5 The rapidity with which the high priests, with the exception
of Caiaphas, passed before the eyes of the nation, would furnish a good
reason why John added the remark in question.
2. But we are led to take a step further. There were at that time
in the Jewish council a great number of doxiegais, persons of the rank
of high priests, two of whom, according to the Gospel of John, con-
ducted the examination of our Saviour. He was first brought before
Annas, and then before Caiaphas (18: 13 and 24). Now which of
these two was the high priest? It was incumbent on the writer to
answer this question for his readers. He has done so, once previously
in 11: 49, and here again in 18: 13. He tells us that Caiaphas was
high priest that year.
3. What follows may be regarded as completely decisive. Luke de-
signates the time when our Lord was consecrated, not only by stating
the year of the emperor's reign, but also by mentioning the names of
those who at that time occupied the highest stations in Palestine, viz.
Pontius Pilate, the tetrarchs Herod, Philip, and Lysanias, and then the
high priests Annas and Caiaphas (Luke 3: 1, 2). How happens it that
he names two high priests, if there was only one? How happens it that
he names them in the order of their age, and consequently gives Annas
the precedence, if Caiaphas was the only high priest? Most certainly we
have here two high priests at the same time. Not long afterward An-
nas appears again with precedence before Caiaphas (Acts 4: 5, 6),
which could have been due to him only as being really high priest.
Yet the sacred functions belonging to this office could not be perform-
ed by more than one at a time. They must, therefore, have taken turns
each year, or each feast. As the presidency of the council and the
1 Sueton. Vitell. c. 2.
2 Tacit. Ann. L. VI. c. 31, c. 40, c. 45.
3. Jos. Ant. L. XVIII. c 4. n. 3.
4 Jos. Ant. L. XVIII. c. 4. n. 3.
5 Jos. Ant. L. XVIII. c. 5. n. 3.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
443
supreme direction of affairs were connected with this office, a yearly
change must have been most convenient. So much is deducible mere-
ly from the nature of the case. Some circumstances contained in the
preceding history will serve to elucidate this subject still further. Of
all the rivals of Caiaphas, Annas was the most powerful. He had al-
ready held the office of high priest himself, and succeeded in elevating
his five sons, one after another, to the same dignity; viz. Eleazar before
Caiaphas, and after Caiaphas, Jonathan, Theophilus, one whose name
is unknown, and Annas the younger.¹ Caiaphas could not have sus-
tained himself for so many years against the influence and wealth of
such a competitor, had he not consented to a measure which would dis-
arm his opposition. For his own security, Caiaphas was compelled to
permit him to share his office, and to enter into a compact, which, it seems,
was even ratified by a family connexion. Caiaphas took to wife the
daughter of Annas (John 18: 13). As usual however, without friendly
feelings, two could notlong hold the same dignity together. The silence
of Josephus cannot be adduced against this, as he had good reason to
pass over in silence so discreditable a transaction in regard to the high
priest's office. Neither does he state any thing of this kind as to a
single one of the many who held the office; although we cannot doubt
that more than one obtained it by bribery or purchase. At any rate his
mere silence cannot outweigh the express declaration of Luke. Annas
and Caiaphas were, therefore, high priests at the same time, but per-
formed the functions of their office alternately.
Not less stress is laid by the opponent of John's history on the irre-
concilable discrepancy which is said to exist between it and the other
Gospels in regard to the last supper, and the death of Jesus. Let us
attempt to reconcile it.
Some days before the passover our Lord entered Jerusalem in con-
siderable state (Matth. 21: 1 seq. Mark 11: 1. Luke 19:29); but re-
turned to Bethany to lodge (Matth. 21: 17. Mark 11: 11). He visited
Jerusalem and the temple a second time (Matth. 21: 18. Mark 11: 15),
and a third (Mark 11: 27. Matth. 21: 23). There now remained two
days before the feast of unleavened bread (Mark 14: 1. Matth. 26: 2).
Hence five days elapsed after his entry into Jerusalem before the feast of
unleavened bread. Just so in John: Jesus arrived at Bethany six days
before the passover (12: 1); and on the next day, τỷ ¿ñαvo̟ιov, i. e.
five days before the passover, our Lord made his entry into Jerusalem
(12: 12). As yet, there is not the slightest discrepancy. Now if, as
we design to show, the feast of the passover that year began, according
to the custom of the Jews, on Thursday evening; reckoning back six
days, Thursday excluded, we find that our Saviour arrived at Bethany
on Friday of the preceding week, and visited the temple on the Sab-
bath, amid the acclamations of the people. He visited it a second and
third time on our Sunday and Monday; after which there were two
days, Tuesday and Wednesday, remaining before the Thursday on
which the sua commenced.
Before speaking of the passover, we will first inquire when our Lord
died? He died and was buried on the preparation-day, the Taga¤×ε vý
1 Jos. Ant. L. XX. c. 9. at the beginning.
444
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
(Matth. 27: 62. Mark 15:42. Luke 23: 54). In John's Gospel too, it
is stated that it was the лαдασxευn on which he was crucified (19: 14),
taken down from the cross (19: 31), and carried to the sepulchre (19:
42). This day corresponds to our Friday; for the napaozen was the
1000άßßarov (Mark 15: 42), or the day immediately followed by the
Sabbath (Luke 23: 54). This Sabbath, however, was one of peculiar
importance (John 19: 31), because the passover fell upon it (John 19:
14, ἦν γὰρ παρασκευή του πάσχα). So far there is nothing which dis-
turbs the harmony of the Evangelists.
ατ
The difficulty lies elsewhere, viz. in the expression, the first day of
unleavened bread. The disciples inquired of our Lord on the first day
of unleavened bread, τῇ πρώτη τῶν ἀζύμων, where he would have the
passover prepared, and immediately received command what to do in or-
der to make ready the passover (Matth. 26: 17. Mark 14: 12. Luke 22:
7). According to Mosaic institution, the passover began to be observed
on the 14th of Nisan at evening, and extended to the evening of the
15th, 27777 (Ex. 12: 6 seq. Num. 9: 1-6. Deut. 16: 5—8);
and at this time unleavened bread began to be eaten (Ex. 12: 18. Num.
28: 17). In the case under consideration, therefore, the first day of
unleavened bread was the Sabbath, on which the passover happened to
fall, Now according to the Evangelists (it is objected), Jesus observed
the passover on the first day of unleavened bread; and yet on the first
day of unleavened bread, or on the Sabbath, he was already in the
grave. This objection is unanswerable, if we decide the case solely ac-
cording to the Mosaic regulations; if we do not take into account in-
novations which gradually crept in.
After their return from Babylon the Jews were more religious than
they had ever been before. In many things they were desirous of do-
ing beyond what Moses required of them, and overburdened themselves
with countless ceremonies. They were not content merely to keep the
feasts which were ordained by Moses, but desired to honor and sanctify
them still more by observing the preceding day; and in this the Galile-
ans even surpassed the Jews. When this custom was first introduced
cannot be ascertained. Mention is made of it in the book of Judith
(8:6). In the days of our Saviour, however, as it seems from the Gos-
pels, it was universally prevalent.
2
The fishermen and millers of Tiberias, Sephor, and Acco, observed
the day preceding the feast, and left off their usual occupations.¹ In
Judea it was customary on the day before the passover to work till noon;
but in Galilee no work was done during the whole day. The duties
of the temple on the day before the passover, we are told by the Mish-
na, were the same as on the Sabbath, except that the priest, contrary to
the wish of the wise, was in the habit of cleansing the court from the
1 Gemar. Hieros. Tract. Moed. Katon. c. II. seg. 5. nm Em-by aba'p
2 Mischn. Tract. de Pasch. c. 14. seg. 5.
ודשושי עכו וגיוסי ציפורים שלא לעשות מלאכה בחולו של מועד :
היו עושין מלאכה בערבי
ביהודה
פסחים עד היות ובגליל לא היו עושין כל עיקר :
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
445
blood.
The Jerusalem Gemara asserts unconditionally that the day
before the passover is as sacred as the passover itself.²
The new opinion in regard to the sacred character of the day prece-
ding the passover brought along with it a change in respect to the exclu-
sion of leaven from the houses. It could no longer be used on a day
which was now esteemed holy. On this account all the places where
leaven might be deposited were examined at candle-lighting on the eve-
ning of the day before; i. e. on Thursday evening, for the Jewish and
Babylonish day commenced at evening.3 This was the practice in Ju-
dea, although the whole of the day previous was not accounted sacred.
In Galilee, however, where the , or observance, was more strict,
and the whole day was holy, no work being performed upon it, it was
necessary that this examination should be made before the commence-
ment of the day, i. e. before the evening of Thursday. Hence Thurs-
day before evening might, from the custom in Galilee, be called the time
of unleavened bread. It may even have been the case that the natural
day, Thursday, was universally termed the day of unleavened bread;
for in several instances in the sacred writings the word day is thus used
to mean only the natural day.
"1
But a difficulty, at least an apparent one, still remains. "And the first
day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover," öte to nάoɣα
ὅτε το π
vov (Mark 14: 12). When who killed the passover? Is it meant,
when the Jews killed the passover? By no means; for they ate the pass-
over on Friday evening (John 18: 28). Mark is not speaking of the
Jews, but the disciples, pantai; and means to say that they killed the
passover the same day on which they made inquiry of Jesus in respect
to it. The case is the same as to the words of Luke: "Then came
the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed" (22: 7).
The words uno rŵv µavniŵv, by the disciples, are understood; must,
in order that they might have the pleasure of keeping it with our Lord.
Nor is there anything contradictory to this in John's account: "Now
before the feast of the passover (πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα, i. e. before
the Jews killed the paschal lamb, when Jesus knew that his hour was
come, etc. (13: 1).
τ
It was on Thursday, then, on the first day of unleavened bread, at
evening, that our Lord kept the passover. Before he sat down with the
disciples to his supper, the supper of the new covenant, he girded himself
and washed their feet, as was the custom on the part of hosts towards their
guests (John 13: 1—12 seq.).
But did our Lord slay the passover one day earlier than the Jews?
Why not? It was not his design to render the 14th day of Nisan, or the
paschal lamb, or any of the solemnities of the Jewish passover, sacred
in the estimation of his followers. Here we might rest the matter; but
we add further the following remark. It is, nevertheless, probable that
Jesus kept the passover in accordance with the rites of his nation at
1 Misch. Tr. de Pasch. c. 5. seg. 8. rawa moyo
כמעשהו בחול כי מעשהו בשבת אלא
שהכהנים מדיחים את העזרה שלא ברצון חכמים :
2 Gemar. Hieros. Tr. Chagiga. c. III. seg. 7 : hnsyb hab b1^1 MOEM MOBD 213.75
אור לארבעה עשר בודקים את החמץ לאור 1 .Misch. Tr. de Pasch. e. I. 3eg 3
:-
446
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
that period. The custom of celebrating the preceding day in the
temple, with as much solemnity as the feast-day itself, favored the
opinion that the two days were equally holy; and from the positive
declaration in the Gemara, that the day before the passover is as
holy as the passover itself, it is a logical conclusion, that, at least under
certain circumstances, the passover might be eaten on the former. Je-
sus justifies himself by circumstances for keeping the passover on this
day. His words are (Matth. 26: 18), Say unto him (the man), the
Master saith, My time is at hand ('O´naigos pov ¿yyús ¿ot i. e. the
time of my death); as much as to say, I have no time to lose, if I in-
tend to eat the passover. If it had never been allowable to eat the pass-
over on the day preceding the feast, the reason assigned would not have
justified Jesus in doing so, nor could it have made his message to the
man at all intelligible to him. Now before the feast of the passover,
Jesus knowing (says John in exculpation of him, as it were), that the
hour of his departure from this world was at hand (13: 1), sat down to
supper with his disciples.
But if the day preceding the passover was so holy, how could the
high priests and their adherents occupy themselves upon it with the tri-
al of Jesus? They could do so without scruple; for among the Jews
it was allowable to employ the whole morning in business and labor.
It was only among the Galileans that the stricter custom prevailed of
keeping the entire day holy.
Lastly, the writer has been charged with ignorance of the Jewish
language, on account of the explanation contained in 9: 7, Zikwap, ö
ἑρμηνεύεται ἀπεσταλμένος, Siloam which is by interpretation Sent.
The word occurs generally in this form (Siloam) in Josephus, who had
before his eyes the national custom of his time. Its root is properly
(Isai. 8:6), which, indeed, in this form, does not signify one sent.
But it must not be forgotten that in those times mysteries and occult
meanings were sought for in proper names; as e. g. by Philo fre-
quently, and sometimes by Paul: "For this Agar is Mt. Sinai in Ara-
bia" (Gal. 4: 25); Melchisedek signifies king of righteousness, and
his being king of Salem denotes that he was king of peace (Basilev's
sionvns, Heb. 7:2). This pursuit of etymological mysteries led to the
higher sense of 7 among the Jews. The word b has various
meanings according to the vowels with which it is furnished; and,
among others that of my, anεorahμévos. Now it made no differ-
πεσταλμένος.
ence whether the writer applied the concealed signification to Jesus who
sent, or to the blind man who was sent; either application was in ac-
cordance with the custom of learned Jews.
·
The observation on which we are commenting arose from a peculiar-
ity of the writer, who, penetrated with the conviction of the divine ori-
gin of Jesus, was strongly disposed to discern something deep and mys-
tic in his conduct and fortunes upon earth, and frequently introduces
into his book remarks of this nature, which were sometimes his own,
and sometimes made by his fellow-disciples (2: 17. 12: 16. 11: 51, 52.
12: 37-42. 18: 32. 19: 36, 37). Connected with this is another pecu-
liarity viz. that of accompanying our Lord's words with explanations
(2: 22. 6: 64, 65, 71. 7: 39. 12: 33. 13: 11).
We have now met the charge which has been made against the au-
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
447
thor of this Gospel, of blundering in respect to the geography, usages, and
language of Palestine, and we recur to the more general observations
on the characteristics of the book, which were deserted by us for the
discussion in the preceding sections. Those observations, and all that
has been said of the procedure of the writer in relation to the particular
parts of his Gospel (aside from the general structure of the whole, which
we do not consider at present), conduct us to the following conclusions.
His representations appear to have been drawn from the very life, and
comprise the most minute references to the circumstances and deport-
ment of the actors and spectators. They are always, however, simple
and unlabored, as though they were ingenuous narratives of things wit-
nessed by himself. They resemble a picture in which every figure tells,
each in its own way; in which not one is without its effect, and all have
reference, more or less, according to their different characters, to the
principal subject. The relation of what befell Jesus, which is inter-
woven throughout the book, proceeds so naturally, that without it we
should not have a complete developement of our Lord's life and actions.
In respect to minutia, such as the day, the hour etc., and generally in
the circumstantial representation of occurrences, he is not equalled by
any other of the Evangelists. In the very things which have been er-
roneously regarded as mistakes, he has evinced a peculiarly accurate
knowledge of circumstances of time and place. Discourses are given
with such particularity as no one could have been able to exhibit, ex-
cept a hearer of them, and sometimes involve allusions to places and
circumstances, which would have escaped a writer not so well inform-
ed.
$ 64.
The first three Evangelists have divided their history into Journeys
made from Capernaum. These form with them so many sections of
the narrative. John, however, arranges events according to a chrono-
logical principle of division. His chronology is regulated by means of
six Jewish feasts, five of which were kept by Jesus at Jerusalem.
τ
The first of these feasts is a passover (2:13); the second is merely
called generally, a feast of the Jews (εoorn) ræv lovdaíov, 5: 1). The
rest, again, are all definitely designated by name.
The third was a pass-
over (6: 4), the next the feast of tabernacles (7: 2), the next the feast
of the dedication (10: 22), and then comes the final passover.
In the ancient world, and particularly among the Jews, feasts were the
popular measures of time. To neglect these, and attend only to local
circumstances in the succession of events in John, would be rejecting
definite statements of time, on account of a mere dispute about words.
For the place and the time, the feast and the Holy City, are here insep-
arable. The events occurred at a feast; the feast was in the Holy City.
On any other supposition we must assume that the historian put the last
feast before the first, and arranged them all solely according to his fan-
cy; while the contrary is very clear.
John, it seems, has mentioned but one of these feasts indefinitely, un-
der the general designation, ἑορτὴ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, a feast of the Jews
(5: 1).
448
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Some have been inclined to consider this as having been a passover,
because of the preceding conversation, in which our Lord among other
things says: "Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh
the harvest? Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are
white already to harvest (4:35). Now the harvest began at the end of
the feast of the passover; and therefore it has been inferred that the next
feast was a feast of the passover.
But there was one still nearer at hand; and hence the inference is
uncertain for it could not be conclusive unless the feast of the pass-
over were the only one during this period. Within the four months,
about a month earlier than the passover, occurred the Purim feast;
which was in a peculiar sense the feast of the Jews.
There is the less reason to doubt that this is the feast which is meant,
as the passover is represented to have occurred a few days after, when
Jesus had returned from what is termed the feast of the Jews (5: 1—6:
1,4). On this supposition, too, we should expect the rest to have hap-
pened as John relates; viz. that our Lord would let this passover go by
unobserved, working miracles and teaching in Galilee, inasmuch as he
had just reached home from Jerusalem.
On the other hand, if, as is proposed, we consider this feast as a pass-
over, we involve ourselves in fresh difficulty. As our Lord stayed at
home over the passover which is mentioned a few days after his return,
there must have been, from the first supposed passover to the one which
he omitted to keep, a whole year, and from the latter six months more
to the feast of tabernacles; during all which time he was not in Jeru-
salem, and, contrary to the public institutions, omitted religious obser-
vances for more than a year and a half, thus exposing himself to univer-
sal censure and reproach.
>
So far our position is justified and confirmed. On the other hand, it
is objected, that John calls the feast in question merely a feast, soorn,
in which case the term must designate the passover, xar toxnv, as the
greatest of the feasts. The following passages, it is said, are proofs of
this, viz. Matth. 27: 15. Mark 15: 6. Luke 23: 17. John 4: 45. But
these passages are all preceded by a definite statement that the feast
was a passover. Hence it was not necessary, in the course of the nar-
rative, to repeat the word passover perpetually; but the general term feast
was sufficient, in conformity with the usage of all languages. John
proceeds in a similar manner in regard to the feast of tabernacles. Af-
ter designating it by name (7: 2), he expresses himself only in a gener-
al way in the sequel: Jesus went up to the feast; about the middle of
the feast; in the last day of the feast (7: 10, 14, 37).
Why do we not likewise infer from this, that when the word feast is
put by itself, we are to understand feast of tabernacles? The case is
precisely the same; the passages before mentioned are of the same na-
ture as these: It was the passover; they thought to take him, but not at
the feast; it was usual at the feast, etc.
As this objection, which is the principal one urged against our posi-
tion, has thus been obviated, it may seem superfluous to add anything
1 Scaliger, De Emendat. temporum, L. VI. p. 257. Ed. Francof. 1593. Light-
foot, Hora Hebraic. ad h. 1.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
449
i.
C
C
further in order to elucidate the point under consideration. Yet we
wish it to be observed that the historian does not call the feast in ques-
tion simply ἑορτή, but ἑορτὴ τῶν Ιουδαίων. The addition so alters the
import of the expression, that it is possible to render it in two different
ways. Ἑορτὴ τῶν Ιουδαίων may mean merely a feast of the Jews,
or, by way of eminence, the Jewish feast. But, it may be said, it should
in the latter case be ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Very well; but do not
important Mss. contain this reading? Add to these the Memphitic ver-
sion, which exhibits the same. What, moreover, is most probable, con-
sidering the custom of the historian? He designates all the other feasts
by name, πάσχα των Ιουδαίων (2: 13), τὸ πάσχα, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ᾿Ιου-
δαίων (6: 4), η ἑορτὴ τῶν Ιουδαίων, η σκηνοπηγία (7: 2), ἐγκαίνια ἐν
vois Inooookúpois (10:22); and, judging from his usual custom, this
must be the proper name of the feast. Perhaps it was the name com-
monly given to it by the Asiatics. No feast was so proper to be called,
by way of eminence, the Jewish feast, as the Purim. It was the com-
memoration of their miraculous preservation, festum ob servatos Judæos.
The amusements of the occasion, too, were such as to make it rather
a feast of the people (1) than a religious solemnity. In
every point of view it is exactly designated by the term, feast of the
Jews.
Besides, it was in such high estimation among the Jews, that while
the prophets, the Hagiographa, and usages, were to be done away by the
Messiah in his new dispensation, the law of Moses and the Purim feast
were excepted.¹ Our Lord's desire to prevent unnecessary hindrances
to belief in his Messiahship may have been the reason why he paid re-
gard to this feeling of the people and proved his respect for the feast by
observing it.
For the sake of completeness, however, we must mention, that the
words in John 6: 4, ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν Ιουδαίων, have
been sometimes regarded as an interpolation. As the learned believed
they were to regard the feast so indefinitely mentioned, as a passover, and,
on the other hand, knew too well that another passover could not suc-
ceed in the course of a few days, they sought to make out the trouble-
some words to be suspicious. There were no internal grounds of sus-
picion, except their inconsistency with an opinion which was regarded
as the only possible one.2 Nor were there any external grounds. All
1 Gemar. Hieros. Tract. Megill. Cap. I. Const. VIII. The Megillah of the dedi-
cation will cease, but the Purim-feast will not,
brambo
b. Shortly after: The prophets and Hagiographa will be done away; but
not the books of the law. Directly after is subjoined: Nor shall the Megillah
אף מגלת אסתר והלכות : of Esther be done away, nor the legal observances
-See a similar passage from Rabbi Ben Maiemon in Hot-אינן עתידים ליבטל
tinger's Thes. Phil. seu Clavis Script. L. II. c. 1. sect. 3. The prophetic wri-
tings and Hagiographa will be done away in the days of the Messiah, except the
book of Esther, which is perpetual like the books of the law.
2 The Bp. of Landaff presents to view all the learning which has been exhib-
ited on this subject, "Notes and Additions to Michaelis' Introd." Germ. Ed. Part
II. p. 50 [2d Eng. Ed. Vol. III. P. 2. p. 56 seq.]; and impartially considers the
whole matter to be, as it really is, mere conjecture.
57
450
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
the Mss. and versions contradict the supposition; nor can their testimo-
ny be altered by the decision which has recently been pronounced.
We have then in John the following feasts, the Purim, the passover,
the feast of tabernacles, the feast of the dedication, and the last pass-
over; only three passovers in all, though the ancients sometimes assert
that there were more.2 All these three feasts, however, do not make
the duration of his ministry to have been more than two years. On
the first, he made known his Messianic dignity and mission in the Holy
City; during the second, as he had just returned from the feast of Pu-
rim, he remained in Galilee; and on the third he closed his career as a
teacher. From the first to the third are two years; perhaps six or sev-
en weeks more should be added, taking into account the time from his
baptism to the first passover.
$ 62.
To get a clear idea of the structure of the Gospels, the first three of
which describes scenes in Galilee alone, and the fourth almost exclusive-
ly occurrences in Judea, we must seek out the points of contact between
them. I commence this inquiry with the confession that I have to cor-
rect a former error, which merited severe censure.
The first three contain accounts of several of our Lord's journeys;
John's contains accounts of his visits to the feasts at Jerusalem. A
question here arises, which is of importance in regard to all the Gospels;
and that is, which of these journeys coincide with the five feasts which
led Jesus to the Holy City?
John the Baptist appears as our Lord's forerunner. Our Lord after
his baptism withdraws into the wilderness, and, the next day after the
inquiry made of John by certain persons sent to him from Jerusalem, re-
turns to John (1:29). On the following day he obtains his first two
disciples (1: 35-41), and on the next Simon Peter (42-44). The
day after, Philip and Nathaniel become his disciples; on which ac-
count he postpones his intention of going into Galilee. Three days
after, however, he appears in Cana (2:1). He then repairs to Caper-
naum (2:12), takes up his abode there a few days, and afterwards goes
to Jerusalem to keep the first passover (2: 13 seq.).
Here, in the concourse at the feast, in the midst of his countrymen,
in the temple of the metropolis, he first authoritatively announces him-
self, revealing his dignity and proclaiming his mission (2: 13-3: 22).
Leaving the Holy City, he takes up his abode on the Jordan, baptizing
and teaching (3: 22-36), till a comparison between him and the Baptist,
which might have been prejudicial to the latter, induces him to leave
this region, whence he passes through Samaria and Sychar to Galilee
(4:1-5). At Sychar he remains two days (4:43), and then enters
1 Kuinoel, Comm. in libr. N. T. Hist. Vol. III. Evang. Joan. has very rightly
opposed to this idea the agreement of Mss. and versions in regard to John 6: 4.
2 Iren. L. II. Adv. Hær. c. 22. Apollinar. apud Hieronym. in Dan. IX. 2.
Epiphan. Hær. LI. The various and strange opinions on the duration of our
Lord's ministry may be found enumerated in the Notes and Additions to Mi-
chaelis' Introd. I. Th. p. 51–55. [Eng. Ed. Vol. III. Part 2d, p. 62.]
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
451
Galilee; visits Cana again, and on his way to Capernaum performs his
second miracle in Galilee (43—54).
How long he abode on the banks of the Jordan, we can see from the
conversation on the way home (4:35). There are yet four months,
and then cometh harvest. Harvest fell in the middle of April; hence
Jesus was on his way home about the middle of our December, when
the weather in Palestine is unfavorable for occupations in the open air;
and from the passover to this time, a period of eight months, he had em-
ployed himself in Judea in gathering his early disciples and adherents.
Now when Jesus arrives in Galilee, and approaches Capernaum,
John breaks off his narrative, as though nothing further occurred in
this region. He immediately begins: "After this there was a feast of
the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem" (5: 1). Did nothing hap-
pen here, then? did Jesus come here only to travel back?
The occurrences in Galilee are the province of the other Evangelists;
in whom, consequently, we must seek for them. We will cite Luke in
behalf of all the three Evangelists, as being the last of them. Jesus
visits Nazareth, the place where he had been brought up; is not honor-
ed there (Luke 4: 16-31), and
I. Returns to Capernaum.
II.
(a) Heals the demoniac in the synagogue.
(b) Enters Simon's house.
(c) Enters Simon's ship.
(d) Heals the leper.
Jesus comes again to Capernaum, as Mark (2: 1) states more
distinctly.
(a) Heals a paralytic.
(b) Calls Matthew, or Levi.
(c) The disciples of John fast.
(d) The disciples of Jesus go through the corn-fields.
III.
Jesus returns to Capernaum (Mark 3: 1. Luke 6: 6).
(a) Heals the man with a withered hand.
(b) Chooses the twelve. Delivers a discourse (the sermon on
the mount) to them and the surrounding multitude.
(c) Heals the centurion's servant.
(d) Goes to Nain.
(e) The disciples of John inquire whether Jesus is he that should
come?
(f) The woman that was a sinner anoints our Lord.
(g) Many adhere to him; Mary Magdalene, Joanna the wife of
Chuza, etc.
(h) The mother and brethren of Jesus come to see him.
IV.
(i) Jesus sleeps in the storm; arrives at Gadaris.
(k) Restores to life the daughter of Jairus.
Jesus arrives in his own country (Mark 6: 1).
(a) He gives the twelve power over demons.
(b) Herod believes that John is risen.
(c) The twelve return, and relate what they have done.
(d) Jesus feeds the five thousand.
452
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
At this point (Matth. 14: 13. Mark 6: 35. Luke 9: 12), John joins in
the narrative again, and relates with the rest the feeding of the five
thousand, and the appearance of Jesus on the sea, which was connect-
ed with it (John 6: 1-22). This is a point at which all the biographers
of our Lord meet after a long separation. The occurrence, according
to John, took place soon after the feast of the Jews (Purim) (5: 1-6: 22),
a few days before the second passover (6: 4).
Now when did our Lord go down from Galilee to attend the feast of
the Jews? We have no trace of the fact in the first and second Jour-
neys. In the third Journey, however, his departure to this feast is indi-
cated by Luke. Our Lord gradually moves downward from Galilee;
his fame goes before him in the direction of Judea (Luke 7: 17). He
is already approaching the borders of Samaria, and is passing through
Nain; for the usual route from Galilee to Jerusalem by way of Samaria
lay through Nain.'
The Baptist hears of his approach, and is not able to understand it.
For this several reasons may be assigned, drawn from preceding occur-
rences. Our Lord had not long since left Judea, and was now, so soon,
returning. It was much too early for the passover, which he had chos-
en the first time as the occasion on which to show himself to the people.
Was he about to employ himself again in baptizing on the banks of the
Jordan? But he had once relinquished this employment, that he might
not restrict the Baptist's operations. Could it be one, or a party, of the dis-
ciples of Jesus, that was coming with a commission to baptize in his
name on the banks of the Jordan? All was uncertain.
All was uncertain. If it was Je-
sus himself, respect required him to send a deputation to receive him;
if it was not, it was proper to send messengers for the sake of learning
the fact.
According to Luke, the party arrived in the vicinity of Jerusalem,
and there the woman that was a sinner anointed our Lord; for she
dwelt in Bethany. Luke, it is true, as we have before remarked, has
given this event too early a position; yet his assignment of the occur-
rence to this period must have been based on the knowledge that Jesus
was on his way to the Holy City, and had already come into its neigh-
borhood.
What he did there is to be sought for in John (5: 1-6: 1). Our Lord
was at the feast of the Jews.
Meanwhile, it would seem (third Journey f, g, h), Luke begins to re-
late the return home (8: 1); the retinue of Jesus is augmented (8: 2, 3).
On the way, the mother and brethren of Jesus come to him and desire
to see him (8: 19). This fit of solicitude to see him is without any
motive or connexion in the Gospels. On the supposition, however,
that Jesus was returning from the feast, nothing is more natural than
this desire to see him, and learn what he had done and what had befal-
len him there. The Journey continues, the travellers reach home; and
soon after we find Jesus on the sea of Tiberias (8: 22). He crosses over
to Gadaris; restores to life the daughter of Jairus; sends forth the
twelve; and, after their return, feeds the five thousand (8: 26–9: 11).
This occurrence, viz. the story of the five thousand (fourth Journey,
1 Jos. Ant. L. XX. c. 6. Comp. Part I. sect. 4. of this Introd.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
453
d), is, as we have said, the point at which all the Gospels unite. John
narrates it, because Jesus, having just returned from the feast of the
Jews, abode in Galilee during the passover; and particularly, because a
discourse was connected therewith, which would be unintelligible with-
out it, and was peculiarly adapted to John's purpose. In
In it our Lord
spoke in a more striking manner than on any other occasion concern-
ing his high origin and dignity (6: 22-71). With this discourse John
abruptly breaks off his narration. It was not the period of the pass-
over; Jesus spent more than six months in Galilee before the next
feast; and yet John speaks directly of a conference in regard to going
up to Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles (7: 1 seq.).
Did nothing occur in Galilee during six months? A great deal. Af-
ter the narrative concerning the five thousand, Matthew and Mark (for
in Luke occurs the chasm mentioned in § 41) proceed as follows. Some
Pharisees arrive from Jerusalem who censure the disciples for eating with
unwashed hands (Matth. 15: 1–21. Mark 7: 1–14). Jesus goes into the
region of Tyre, and heals the daughter of the woman of Canaan (Matth.
15: 21-29. Mark 7: 24-31); he travels about near the sea of Galilee
performing miracles, heals a deaf and dumb person (Matth. 15: 29–32.
Mark 7: 31-37), and then feeds the four thousand (Matth. 15: 32–39.
Mark 8: 1-10). After the narrative in respect to the four thousand,
Luke joins the other two again. Jesus inquires of his disciples, Whom
do men say that I am (Matth. 17: 13. Mark 8: 27. Luke 9: 18)? He
is transfigured on the mount (Matth. 17: 1. Mark 9: 2. Luke 9: 18).
The disciples cannot cure a demoniac (Matth. 17: 14. Mark 9: 14. Luke
9: 37); and dispute about precedence (Matth. 18: 1. Mark 9:33. Luke
9:46). All these events occurred in Galilee, partly on the northern
border of the country, and partly on the western, towards Phoenicia.
After these accounts, Matthew and Mark hasten to the conclusion of
their history. Jesus goes to Jerusalem to meet his death (Matth. 19: 1.
Mark 10: 1). In John, on the contrary, he is represented as living a
great while longer; he travels twice to Jerusalem, to the feast of tab-
ernacles (7:1-3), and to that of the dedication (10:22), and then, final-
ly, to the last passover.
It is not to be denied that there are here great chasms in the first two
histories. Where are the occurrences between the two visits to the
temple? where the accounts of the journey to each of these feasts?
They are wanting; and the history is here deficient in respect to some es-
sential parts. It certainly was so, and it would, moreover, have continu-
ed so, had not Luke supplied these portions of the history, which escaped
the attention of his predecessors. But while the latter go on to describe
the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, Luke narrates two journeys to
the Holy City, which they do not mention (9: 51 and 13: 22), and which
we before designated (42) as the most remarkable portion of original
historical matter furnished by this writer.
If, now, we connect these journeys with their corresponding feasts ;
one with the feast of tabernacles, the other with that of the dedica-
tion, we shall obtain a simple and complete whole, without doing any vi-
olence to the narration.
We have thus combined all the important facts of the four historical
books into one whole, and have given a general solution of what has
454
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
been always considered the most difficult problem in regard to them.
We have executed what is technically called a Harmony.
$ 63.
After thus entering into the fundamental plan of the Gospels, com-
paring their materials, arrangement, mutual relation, and respective
modes of treating the history, and analysing in detail the portions of
the whole which are presented by each, and their historical characteris-
tics, we can now deduce a general conclusion concerning their value
and authority, which is the ultimate and most important object of such
an investigation.
We have before us, as historians, four men who have delineated the
acts and doctrines of Jesus. Of these, two were not only contempora-
ries but friends and disciples of our Lord, and mostly eye-witnesses of
his actions. Of the two others, who lived in intimacy with his contem-
poraries and confidential friends, one wrote from the dictation of
the disciple on whom Jesus placed most reliance, and on whom he
rested the success of his plans as on a rock; the other was a man of
learning, acquainted with the duties of an historian, and connected
with the immediate disciples of Jesus by co-operation in his purposes,
and, lastly, was himself in the country and on the theatre of events,
at the period when they occurred, and followed their progress with an
observing eye. It would certainly be extremely difficult to find an ex-
ample of any great man or philosopher, whose actions have been pre-
served to posterity by writers so many in number, so worthy of credit
on account of their knowledge of the subject, and so capable in every
point of view.
Now these four authors wrote and published their works at different
periods; the second having the first, the third his two predecessors, and
the fourth all the rest, before him. Each of them considered his duty
and his merit to consist in surpassing the narrative of his predecessor
in accuracy. The second amended the work of his predecessor in point
of arrangement and chronology, and was intent upon more exact par-
ticularity and precision, about which the latter felt no anxiety. In other
respects, he constantly adheres to the narrative and even phraseology
of his predecessor so closely, that we readily perceive his work to be
only a collection of critical notes upon the other. The third subjected
every thing to fresh examination, and added whatever had been left un-
observed by the second, which would improve the narrative of the first
in point of particularity or precision, as well as whatever was wanting in
both; and, by the aid of his investigations, made a new revision of all
the existing narratives respecting Jesus. Finally, the fourth saw the
works of all the others, and gave the last finish to their accounts, and,
likewise, by supplying what had all along been omitted, to the whole his-
tory.
Thus there was a general emulation in respect to accuracy, minute-
ness, and fidelity; we perceive no consideration for each other, no fear
of contradiction, no forbearance, much less any mutual understanding.
The second work, in fact, is a critique on the first, the third on the se-
cond, and the fourth on all the preceding; and if either writer had ven-
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
455
tured to say what was not true, his successor would have made it a
point to correct it. Now where can there be found a history which
bears such indubitable marks of pure endeavor after truth, as are con-
tained in the impartial exertions and many successive amendments of
emulous individuals, which are brought to view in our investigations re-
specting these Gospels?
I will here subjoin a fine passage from John Chrysostom. It is from
the Preface to his Homilies on Matthew.¹
•
Τί οὖν ; οὐκ ἤρκει εἷς εὐαγγελιστὴς πάντα εἰπεῖν ;"Ηρκει μεν· ἀλλὰ
καν τέσσαρες οἱ γράφοντες ώσι, μήτε κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς καιροὺς, μήτε
ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς τόποις, μήτε συνελθόντες καὶ διαλεχθέντες ἀλλήλοις·
εἶτα ὥσπερ ἀφ' ἑνὸς στόματος πάντα φθέγγονται, μεγίστη τῆς ἀλη
θείας απόδειξις τοῦτο γίνεται. Καὶ μὴν τοὐναντίον συνέβη, φησί
πολλαχοῦ γὰρ διαφωνοῦντες ἐλέγχονται. Αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦτο μέγιστ
τον δεῖγμα τῆς ἀληθείας ἐστίν. Εἰ γὰρ πάντα συνεφώνησαν μετ'
ἀκριβείας, καὶ μέχρι καιροῦ, καὶ μέχρι τόπου, καὶ μέχρι ῥημά
των αὐτῶν, οὐδεὶς ἂν ἐπίστευσε τῶν ἐχθρῶν, ὅτι μὴ συνελθόντες
ἀπὸ συνθήκης τινὸς ἀνθρωπίνης ἔγραψαν ἅπερ ἔγραψαν· οὐ γὰρ
εἶναι τῆς ἀπλότητος τὴν τοσαύτην συμφωνίαν. Νυνὶ δὲ καὶ ἡ δοκοῦσα
ἐν μικροῖς εἶναι διαφωνία, πάσης ἀπαλλάττει αὐτοὺς ὑποψίας, καὶ
λαμπρῶς ὑπὲρ τοῦ τρόπου των γραψάντων ἀπολογεῖται. Εἰ δέ τι
περὶ καιρῶν ἢ τόπων διαφόρως απήγγειλαν, τοῦτο οὐδὲν βλάπτουσι
τῶν εἰρημένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
τω
So far Chrysostom; and now we surrender these books into the
hands of theologians, whose province it is to inquire what share of their
composition is to be attributed to a higher than human power.
$ 64.
We must recur once more to John's Gospel, in order, if possible, to
discover the place of its composition and destination, and the period of
its publication. From indications contained in the work itself, it would
seem that our author had foreigners in his eye in composing it. He
puts himself in their situation, and speaks of his countrymen as of a
people foreign to himself and to his readers. The Jews said; the Jews
did; there was a feast of the Jews; it is the custom of the Jews. It is
always οἱ ᾿Ιουδαίοι, not as in the other Gospels, ὁ λαὸς, οἱ ὄχλοι, τὸ
πλῆθος. Then, too, he interprets words belonging to the national
longue; as N'' (Ι. 42), πηρή (19: 13). So common a word as
Messiah must be explained: 'which is Χριστός" (1: 42). He does not
even consider the word Rabbi as intelligible to his readers (1: 39). For
the same reason, he deemed it necessary to inform them respecting the
relation existing between the Jews and Samaritans (4: 9); of the fact
that the Galileans also went up to the feast (4: 45); respecting the Jew-
ish custom of purification (2: 6), and their mode of burying the dead
(19: 40). Those for whom he intended his Gospel were, therefore, at
least most of them, heathen; and, judging from the language of the
book, most probably Greeks.
1 The author has given a translation of the passage into German, for which I
have substituted the original Greek.-TR.
456
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Nothing is of more avail in elucidation of the circumstances of a wri-
ter than his letters, if any such chance to descend to posterity. This
advantage we actually enjoy in the present case. Let us therefore ex-
amine them, to see if they afford us any information concerning the his-
tory of the writer or concerning his work.
$ 65.
FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
This epistle has so visible a reference to John's Gospel that I cannot
but think they belong together.
Yet, according to some recent observations by a celebrated writer, the
two compositions were separated from each other by a considerable pe-
riod of time, and the Epistle bears evident marks of later origin than
the Gospel. "The Gospel," it is said, "is written with manly energy,
and the Epistle with feebleness; the Gospel evinces the vigor of the
prime of life, and the Epistle the weakness of old age; the former evin-
ces the order, brevity, and precision of the most perfect possession of
the mental powers, and the latter in its want of order, repetitions, and
verbosity, betrays the loss of memory and judgment, and consequently
was written in the decline of life."1
A close examination, however, will not confirm these positions.
With what minuteness does John present our Lord's discourses, as
though he meant that not a single word of them should escape
him! Look, for example, at a discourse extending through four entire
chapters (14-18). There is not a trace here of the bold manner of
writing of a historian in his prime, condensing the substance of long
addresses into a brief synoptical form. With what anxious exactness
does he relate how certain persons interrupted our Lord in his discour-
ses; how he replied, they rejoined, he said, etc. (8: 12—59. 7: 24–71).
Look at the conversations which he relates (3: 1–22. 4: 4—42); and
observe the tone of his narratives of what Jesus did; e. g. the healing
of the blind man (9: 1-41), the raising of Lazarus (11: 1-46). Does
the account of a miracle occur in Matthew, Mark or Luke, accompanied
with all this particularity; with the opinions, language and conduct of
the spectators?
There may perhaps be a few exceptions; but on the whole, the de-
scription of facts or representation of doctrines in concise and nervous
language, and the vigor of the prime of life which, it is imagined, are
found in this book, are not characteristics of it. Minute particulari-
ty and familiar narrative belong to advanced years; and we can say
with truth that the style, like that of Isocrates in his old age, though of-
ten prolix, is agreeable.
1 Eichhorn, Einleit. in das neue Test. II. Bd. 2d Part, § 182. p. 309.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
457
$ 66.
As there have been errors in higher criticism in regard to the Gospel,
so have there been, likewise, in regard to the Epistle. But before pro-
ceeding, let us give a faithful account of its contents.
After an introduction, which for the present we leave unnoticed, the
course of thought in the Epistle is as follows. God is light; and we
must strive after this light, that we may be cleansed by the blood of
Jesus. He who imagines himself sinless is deceived; he who acknowl-
edges himself a sinner may expect cleansing and reconciliation to God
by Jesus Christ. We are sure that we know Jesus Christ, if we fulfil
his commandments; in this way the love of God is shown in us, and
we unite ourselves to Christ, according to whose example and precepts
we live. Then we no longer walk in darkness, but in the light, through
love (―2: 13).
Im-
I write unto you all, of every age and condition (-2: 15). Be not en-
grossed by the love of the world; for the world passeth away.
portant things are now taking place. Enemies of Christ (the Messiah)
have arisen in your midst; on which account I have written to you (—2:
21).
Their heresy is, that Jesus is not the Christ, the Son of God; but
remain ye steadfast in the doctrines ye have received, that ye may con-
tinue united to God and Christ, and may gain eternal life. I have writ-
ten to you to preserve you from error and to lead you to Jesus (-2: 28).
The Father hath showed us love through him, that he might receive
us as children, and save us by the cleansing of Christ's blood. He who
lives in sin is of the kingdom of the wicked one; through love we be-
long to God; through the want of it to the wicked one.
After having
passed from death to life, we, for love of whom Jesus gave his life, ought
to love one another (−3: 19).
We have assured confidence in God, and we shall be heard by him,
because we are obedient to his precepts, which are love and faith in
Christ. Believe not every doctrine; they who acknowledge not that
Jesus is Christ come in the flesh are in error, and are of the world,
and it is not fit that we should be like them (-4: 7).
Let us love one another, because God loved us and gave his Son for
us, that we being reconciled might be united to God by love. This Son
was Jesus, the Christ, the Saviour of the world. Through faith in him,
and through love, we become united with God and with him, and gain
a confidence without fear. The love of God to us should be our exam-
ple in our love to our fellow-men (—5:).
In believing that Jesus is the Christ, in loving him and keeping his
commandments, we are exalted above the world and its errors, since the
world, in spite of all evidence, refuses to acknowledge Jesus and for-
feits eternal life (—5: 14).
The consequence of our confidence in God is that he hears us; when,
therefore, we see a sinful brother, whose sin is not unto death, we should
pray for him. He that is born of God sinneth not; it is only the world
that lieth in wickedness. We have attained to exalted knowledge, and
are united to God through Christ.
It will be seen by every one from this outline, that the author, after a
58
458
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
few introductory sentences, treats of the doctrine that Jesus is the
Christ the Son of God, and the high importance of the law of love;
two subjects of very different nature. We must have this fact in view
in our judgment respecting the regularity and keeping of the work, so
that we may not require of it a unity which it is not reasonable to ex-
pect. It would indeed be wrong, in a didactic work written without re-
ference to particular circumstances, to discuss two subjects so foreign to
each other as these; but not so in regard to an Epistle, the tenor of which
was prescribed by the requisitions made by time and place upon a man
discharging the duties of his office as a teacher.
According to common custom the composition should have been di-
vided into two sections, and one subject alone should have been treated
in each; but the author followed his own peculiar method, and conduct-
ed his two subjects side by side throughout his work, so as to interweave
them with each other, like two branches from different stocks, return-
ing to each alternately, till he unites them together in his conclusion.
On account of this mode of procedure, he was obliged to recur fre-
quently to each of the two subjects, and, as one may say if he chooses,
to repeat what he had already stated, though this was done knowingly
and purposely. Nor are there, in fact, any mere repetitions; but he
turns his subjects so as to present them in various aspects, shows them
in different relations, enforces them on different grounds. He most
frequently inculcates upon his readers, that love and faith in Christ
conduct to union with him and the Father, the highest object of faith
and virtue, while the opposite leads men away from that object.¹
By losing sight of the mode in which the two subjects are discussed
alternately throughout the whole composition, we shall become unable
to perceive anything but a confused jumble, without plan or connexion.
This, however, can be only through our own fault; for the author,
though he does not follow the common mode of discussing subjects,
really pursues one more intricate.
If then, as is just, we consent to subtract something from the confu-
sion and forgetfulness which has been ascribed to the Epistle, and
something from what has been said of the power of nervous description
and the marks of vigorous manhood visible in the Gospel, these two com-
positions will approach a level with each other, and may both have been
composed in an advanced, though still far from imbecile, period of life.
$ 67.
It is as plain as anything can be, that one absorbing topic of the Epis-
tle is the doctrine, the proof of which was John's especial object in com-
posing his Gospel, viz. that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It is
no less certain that the Epistle exhibits numerous allusions to the Gos-
pel, and repetitions of words and expressions contained in it. It was
1 The prevalent philosophy of the period boasted that its design was to effect
a union of man's nature with that of higher beings. This union was to be ef-
fected by strange means, it is true. (Introd. Part II. Chap. II. § 131 below).
John aims at this point in a different way; and for this purpose makes use of the
passages in the Gospel respecting being one, ev sivai, with God and Christ,
μένειν ἐν τῷ πατρί-μένειν ἐν ἐμοί (14: 20. 15: 4, 7. 17: 21), repeating them in this
Epistle (2: 24-28. 3: 6, 9, 24. 4: 12—16).
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
459
probably intended to accompany the latter, and to aid the impression
made by it.
This constant reference of the Epistle is evident in the doctrines it
presents, as, likewise, in the moral precept respecting love, concerning
which all that is said in it is, in substance, taken from the Gospel. Jesus,
in enjoining the law of love as evidence of Christian conduct and disciple-
ship, called it the new commandment, ¿vrokýv zawvýv (13: 34. 15: 12).
John, in making a transition to this commandment in the Epistle (2:7
-11), makes use of the same words to introduce it, ovx ¿vrolyv naivýv
roάga vuiv; for, he adds, it is already an old commandment, which ye
had in the beginning of your christian course.
This love, he further says, is shown by observing all the command-
ments (5: 3. 3: 2, 24. 2: 34). The passages designated are but repeti-
tions of our Saviour's language in the Gospel in regard to this com-
mandment of love (14: 15, 21. 15: 9, 10).
He who does not keep these commandments belongs to the kingdom
of the prince of darkness, who was a sinner from the beginning (3: 8
—12). We find the same contrast in the Gospel likewise (8: 44).
The highest proof of God's love towards us (which love should be
our example), consists in his having given his own Son for us (4: 9, 10).
These are the words of Jesus as represented in the Gospel (3: 16).
The highest evidence of the love of Jesus towards us is, that he laid
down his life for us (3:16). Greater love," says Jesus in the Gospel
(15: 13), “hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends."
We here see that the transition, explanation, contrast and arguments,
constituting the substance of what is said on the subject, are derived
from the Gospel; not to mention individual expressions and allusions,
which it is the commentator's province, and not ours, to point out.
$ 68.
In the essential parts of this Epistle, and in things of minor importance,
we everywhere see clearly a designed reference to the Gospel. Now
what kind of reference was intended by the writer?
"That
This he has plainly indicated at the outset of his Epistle:
which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled,
of the word of life (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it
and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was
with the Father, and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen
and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with
us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Je-
sus Christ. And these things write we unto you.
•
The principles of moral conduct which he inculcates in the Epistle
could neither have been seen by him nor handled with his hands; the
doctrine, moreover, that Jesus was the Christ, he may indeed have heard
from our Lord's mouth, but he could never have handled it.¹
1 In regard to the supposition that the author had reference to the Doceta,
I have expressed my opinion before, when treating of the Gospels (Note 2 to §
51).
460
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Further, he seems particularly anxious to have his readers understand
that he writes something to them, and that he has already written it; and
this at the commencement of the Epistle. 1: 4, καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν
ὑμῖν. 2. 12, γράφω ὑμῖν, τεκνία. 13, γράφω ὑμῖν, πατέρες-γράφω
ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι-γράφω ὑμῖν, παιδία. 14, ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, πατέρες
γραψα ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι. 2: 21, ἔγραψα ὑμῖν. 26, ταῦτα ἔγραψα .
Who would aver five times, at the very outset of an Epistle, that he was
writing, and four times that he had written, what he was only going to
write? Had this happened once or twice only, towards the end of the
Epistle, as e. g. in 5: 13, where he declares once more: zauza &ygaya,
it might pass as nothing extraordinary; but as the case actually is, it is
inexplicable, except on the supposition that these declarations do not re-
fer to the Epistle itself, but to something else.
で
​He writes what he has heard, seen, etc. The things which John
had not only heard, but seen with his eyes and handled with his hands,
must have been things which fell under the cognizance of the senses
mentioned; i. e. events and incidents, for which he presents himself as
voucher, καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν. Now what things can be meant but those to
which he testifies in his Gospel? Had we our election among several
historical accounts, should we not naturally select that to which the
Epistle bears perpetual reference?
But John does not let the matter rest even here; he, as it were, gives
the title of the book. Respecting that which was from the beginning-
the word we inform you : ὁ ἦν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς περὶ τοῦ λόγου απαγ
yelloμev vuiv. This is exactly the introduction to the Gospel: In the
beginning was the word. He then adds in the Epistle, of the word of
life—which was with the Father and was manifested unto us: neqì Tov
λόγου τῆς ζωῆς—ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, etc. So at the outset of
the Gospel: The word was life, he was with the Father, and we saw his
glory. The manner in which the ancients were accustomed to cite a
work was by designating the words with which it began.'
It was concerning this, therefore, that he declared, testified, wrote,
and had written, απαγγέλλομεν, μαρτυροῦμεν, γράφομεν, and ἐγράψα
uɛv (i. e. when he composed his Epistle). He expresses himself at one
time in the present tense, yoάga vuiv, as we do of a composition which
we send with another letter-I treat of this subject in it, or write re-
specting this. At others he expresses himself in the past tense (2: 14.
2: 21, 26. 5: 13), yoɑya vµiv, because it was in reality a thing already
done.
པ་
Ӧ
If now he refers to something already written, and in fact to his book
on the Logos, it is clear what was the object of his solemn, thrice-repeat-
ed asseveration at the beginning of the Epistle, that he declares what
he had seen, heard, and handled: ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν, ὁ ἐθεα-
σάμεθα, καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρ
τυροῦμεν ὁ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ ἀκηκόαμεν, ἀπαγγέλλομεν, κ. τ. λ. He
avers his knowledge of those facts concerning which he had satisfied
himself by all the organs of perception, and his fidelity and accuracy in
1 The Jews cited thus, ing mbs, 27727. So also with the
Greeks, when they desired to be accurate. Dionys. Halic. in Dinarcho. Anuootor
λóyoι vηolor naì yεvdeлiуçaço. Diog. Laert. in Pherec. L. I. c. 6. and 11. in
Archyt. L. VIII. c. 5. § 5. in Philolao L. VIII. c. 7. § 4, etc.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
461
describing and communicating them; in other words his complete his-
toric credibility as to the contents of his Gospel.¹ The topic is, the ua-
thority which he claims as a historian, to confirm which he intends to
remind his readers of his personal connexion with the occurrences and
of the weight of his testimony.
The repeated expressions: I write, and I have written, which follow
soon after his asseveration of his historical fidelity, now stand in their true
light. I write unto you, little children, fathers, young men, etc. What
is this language but a dedication of his work on the Logos to every age
and condition, to the whole church, to which he commits and commends
it? The expressions now cease to be idle and out of place. This
dedication, likewise, contains evident allusions to the Gospel. "I have
written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the
beginning (yvoxαтe toν an αons). I have written unto you, young
men, because ye are strong and the word of God abideth in you" (zai
ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει). " I have not written unto you be-
cause ye know not the truth, but because ye know it" . . . that what
ye have heard may abide with you (2: 21, 25). I have written unto
you on account of those who would lead you into error (2: 26). There
are probably few philological difficulties so simply and so amply ex-
plained.
απ
In support of my position, however, I must say something respecting
a requisition made of me by Bertholdt. He calls upon me to acknowl-
edge, that if the Epistle had been sent as a supplement or accompani-
ment to the Gospel, it might reasonably be expected that in the copies.
taken of them, both would have been written together; and that conse-
quently the Epistle would have had its place in our canon after the Gos-
pel of John. This requisition serves only to embarrass, not by any
means to refute, my position. It must be known to this learned man
that the division and arrangement of the books have been regulated by
different principles at different periods; and that the early method came
in time to be disused and forgotten. I will not repeat things so well
known, but will instead state a few facts which are worthy of notice.
In early times, as I shall show in the proper place, the Epistle to the
Hebrews was, in the Alexandrian church, placed next after that to the
Galatians, and in Upper Egypt even next after the 2d to the Corinthians.
These peculiarities of early antiquity, however, are seldom met with,
and only in the oldest Mss. Thus I should be completely justified in
maintaining my position, even if I could not prove such an early arrange-
ment of the books. But I am prepared to give the objector entire sat-
isfaction on this point. The awkwardness of the copyist who wrote
the Cambridge Codex has provided us with the requisite evidence of
what was the ancient custom. On the first page of the leaf, on the op-
posite side of which the Acts of the Apostles begin (p. 657), he wrote,
1 The anonymous writer in Muratori (whether Caius the Presbyter or some
one else in the beginning of the third century), perceived that this was the case:
"Quid ergo mirum, si Joannes tam singula etiam in Epistolis proferat, dicens
de semetipso: quæ vidimus oculis nostris et auribus, et manus nostræ palpave-
runt, hæc scripsimus. Sic enim non solum visorem, sed auditorem, sed et
scriptorem omnium memorabilium Domini
se profitetur.
2 Bertholdt, Hist. krit. Einleit. VI. Th. § 702. p. 3197 seq.
462
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
probably without knowing what he was about, the Latin column of the
last verse of the 3d Epistle of John, and then subjoined :
Epistulæ Johannis III
explicit
incipit
Actus Apostolorum.
It is clear from this circumstance, that the copyist had an ancient
Ms. before him, in which John's Epistles immediately preceded the Acts
of the Apostles.
$ 69.
It would be instructive and desirable in regard to the history of the
Gospel, could we determine to whom the Epistle, which was designed
to accompany the former, was directed. But it contains no inscription
to any one of the churches, and no salutation at the beginning, such as
Paul and other writers prefixed to their letters. If, on the other hand,
we investigate the accounts which have reached us respecting the Gos-
pel, in order to discover from them the destination of the Epistle, we
shall find their evidence dissimilar both in purport and in value. It is
a question, in fact, where John wrote his Gospel.
Some accounts say at Patmos, others at Ephesus. Theophylact, in
the Preface to his Commentaries on John, Hyppolytus the younger (as
he is called), in his work on the twelve apostles, together with other
writers, declare in favor of Patmos. To these are to be added numer-
ous subscriptions to Mss., which, however, are but dubious authorities.'
The subscriptions to the Syriac version and to the Arabic one of Er-
penius, testify in favor of Ephesus. With these the testimony of an
eminent father, Irenæus, nearly coincides; for, though he does not ex-
pressly assign the composition of the work to this place, he does its pub-
lication, stating it to have occurred during John's residence at Ephe-
sus.2
The account of the author of the Synopsis generally appended to the
works of Athanasius, is worthy of attention. The Gospel of John, he
says, was composed by St. John, the apostle and beloved disciple, while
living in banishment on the isle of Patmos, and was published at Ephe-
sus by Gaius, the friend and host of the apostles, of whom Paul writes in
his Epistle to the Romans: Gaius, mine host, saluteth you.3
Nearly the same is stated by Dorotheus of Tyre, a collector who gath-
ered things together from every quarter without judgment. From
4
1 Wetstein, N. T. T. I. p. 831. Matthæi, N. T. P. IV. p. 356. Birch, N. T. P. I.
p. 676. Biörnstähl's Letters. Vol. VI. Part I. p. 160.
2 Iren. Adv. Hær. L. III. c. 1.
د
3 Τὸ δὲ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγέλιον υπηγορεύθη τε ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου Ιωάν
νου τοῦ ἀποστόλου καὶ ἠγαπημένου, ὄντος ἐξορίστου ἐν Πάτμῳ τῇ νήσῳ. Καὶ
ἐξεδόθη ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διὰ Γαΐου τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ καὶ ξενοδόχου τῶν ἀποστόλων, περὶ
οὗ καὶ Παῦλος Ρωμαίοις γράφων 'φησὶ, ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς κ. τ. λ. Athan. Opp. T.
II. p. 155. Venet.
4 Max. Biblioth. Patr. T. III. p. 421. Lugd. 1677. The Greek text of this
passage may be found in Rob. Stephens' N. Test. 1550 Fol. before the Gospel
of John.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
463
whatever source (now lost to us) this account may have been derived,
it merits attention for its circumstantiality, and also because its inter-
mediate character in a manner reconciles the two former statements.
Let us then subject it to a closer scrutiny. In investigating the facts
on which it rests, we find in the first place, that the tradition of John's
residence at Ephesus is sustained by valid evidence.¹ The other fact,
his banishment to Patmos, is avouched by himself (Rev. 1: 9). But,
it is said, the representation is made in a poetical work.2 This is
an unfounded objection, the force of which we shall consider hereafter,
in our introduction to what we have to say of the Apocalypse. The
fact is not at all invalidated by the objection.
These two facts imply circumstances of importance, which may be
evolved from them by analysis. For in inquiring whether John really
composed his work at the period of his banishment, and hence at Patmos,
we shall readily see that while at Ephesus, occupied by the care of a nu-
merous society, and with the superintendence of the churches which
had sprung up in the vicinity, he must have been less able to devote his
time to the labors of composition, than during his inactive banishment to
a dull rock. While this lasted, withdrawn from the ordinary circle of
his occupations, he could discharge the duties incumbent upon him as a
teacher only by his writings. Add to this, that in his absence, heretics
had an open field for the accomplishment of their objects, and that he
could counteract their influence only by a written refutation; for a polem-
ical or apologetical intention on his part, even as respects his Gospel, is
asserted by the ancients, and denied by few in modern times.
But, supposing John to have written his Gospel during his banish-
ment, an uninhabited island was certainly no place to publish it. It
was necessary that it should be published in a considerable community,
in which the work would come immediately to the knowledge of a great
many persons, and be put in circulation by means of transcripts. Now
the only means of effecting this object was to send the work to the con-
tinent, to one of the cities which contained well-known Christian
churches, and in which the author had friends and acquaintances, who
would undertake to promote its circulation.
In casting his eyes from Patmos upon the cities suited to his purpose,
Ephesus must first have attracted his attention; the capital of Asia Mi-
nor, the parent-source of Christianity to the neighboring cities (Acts 19:
10), whose church had been founded by Paul, and watched over, fos-
tered, and enlarged by John himself. Thus the selection was not at all
difficult; or rather every consideration combined to fix it upon Ephe-
sus.
Such are the circumstances comprised in the two facts which form
the basis of the account left us by the author of the Synopsis. These
circumstances derive support from their internal consistency. We can
see, moreover, by their light, that the passage under consideration ac-
cords so well with the circumstances of John's later life, that it may
1 Süskind and Flatt, Magazin für christl. Dogmatik und Moral. 9th St. p. 57
seq. on the treatise entitled: "Der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger
vor dem jüngsten Gericht."
2 Eichhorn, Einl. in das N. T. Vol. II. Part II. § 157. p.
122.
464
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
claim to be regarded as veracious tradition. I shall be able to confirm
it still further, I hope, in regard to the circumstance of the publication
of the Gospel by Gaius.
§ 70.
If, then, John despatched his work to the main land, it was necessary
that he should send an Epistle to the church at Ephesus, for the purpose
of commending and dedicating it to them. The other Evangelists,
who published their works in their own places of residence, could pre-
sent them to their fellow-Christians personally and orally, and conse-
quently could dispense with a written accompaniment.
Thus an Epistle was absolutely requisite; and, as we have fully shown,
the first Epistle of John is inseparable from his Gospel. Its purport is
that of an accompaniment and dedication of the Gospel. It was there-
fore sent with the latter to Ephesus.
The following observation, will especially confirm this supposition.
In the Apocalypse, John distinctly designates the characteristic faults.
and virtues of each of the churches in his immediate vicinity and un-
der his superintendence. The church at Ephesus is there character-
ized by the following traits. There were in its midst persons who as-
sumed ministerial and even apostolic authority, but were impostors,
weudεis. In particular, however, he reproaches it severely with having
lost its first love, τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκας (Rev. 2: 4).1
There were deceivers and false teachers in other churches. Decreas-
ing love, however, was a peculiar trait, and a charge made by the Apos-
tle against no other church.
He judged that the want of love was the characteristic fault of the
Ephesians. Now the Epistle is filled from beginning to end with ex-
hortations to love, statements of its importance, and reproof of such
as were chargeable with the want of it (1 John 2: 5, 9, 10, 11, 15. 3: 1,
11, 12, 14—18, 23. 4: 7—10, 12, 16–21. 5: 1–3). Must we not
then admit, comparing the Apostle's opinion of the Ephesians with this
Epistle, that its peculiar purport suits no other church so well as
theirs ??
1 Tertullian remarks this characteristic reproach in his work, De pœnitentiâ.
"Evolve, quæ Spiritus ecclesiis dicat; desertam dilectionem Ephesiis imputat ;
stuprum et idolothyta Thyatirenis," rel.
1 Augustine and some of the Latin fathers term this Epistle ad Parthos, which
circumstance we explain as follows. The second Epistle to John is sometimes
called by the ancients Epistola ad virgines, and consequently in Greek лods
παρdivovs. Thus Clement in his Adumbrations, "Secunda Joannis Epistola,
quæ ad virgines scripta est, simplicissima est" (Tom. II. Opp. Clem. Alex. p.
10, 11. Edit. Venet). There are some Greek Mss. in which the second Epistle is
subscribed лoos IIάovovs; whence Whiston's conjecture (in his “ Commentary
on the three Catholick Epistles of St. John. London, 1719." p. 6) that_Пúpovs
was formed by abbreviation from яαоðέvoνs, receives confirmation. This sub-
scription to the second Epistle appears also in some Mss. as its superscription.
There is such a Ms. for example, in the Medicean library (Cod. Act. et Epp.
Cath. Plut. IV. n. 32), as we are told by Lamy (De erudit. apost. P. II. c. 17.
p. 796), "Epistola autem II. Johannis," says he, "inscribitur Toos Пáρdovs."
Such a Ms., too, is described by Mill (Proleg. n. 1463), "Ibi Epistolæ secundæ
Joannis præfzus est titulus, Ιωάννου ἐπιστολὴ β. πρὸς Πάρθους. (This is one of
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
465
$71.
THE SECOND EPISTLE.
1
This is directed to a female who is not named, but merely designated
by the honorable appellation ἐκλεκτή κυρία The two topics treated
of in the first Epistle, form, likewise, the subject of this smaller letter.
John alludes again to the words of our Saviour, ἐντολὴν καινήν κ. τ. 2,
as in 1 Ep. 2: 7, and enjoins love, which is to manifest itself in obser-
vance of the commandments of God. He then warns her against false
teachers, who deny that Jesus has come into the world as Christ or
Messiah, and interdicts intercourse with them. In conclusion, he ex-
presses a hope of soon seeing her, and complains of his want of materi-
als for writing.
•
The whole of this Epistle is a short compend of the first; or it is the
first on a smaller scale. Even the phraseology is the same. His mind
is yet full of his previous letter; which shows that the two were not far
apart in point of time. The lady appears before his mind, as in the
midst of the same circumstances and dangers as the church whose in-
struction and admonition had just occupied his attention. Hence her
residence was probably at Ephesus.
As to the author, he certainly was not dwelling in either of the Ioni-
an or Asiatic cities; where no want of writing-materials can be supposed
to have existed. He was still in his place of exile.
κτ
The remaining circumstances alluded to were probably as follows.
The sons of the Exλextǹ zvola had been on a visit to John (2 Ep. 4).
The sister of this matron was desirous of showing similar respect and
sympathy for the apostle's lot, and sent her sons, likewise, to visit him.
While the latter were with the apostle, he had opportunity to despatch
the two Epistles and the Gospel to the continent (v. 13).
the Huntingdon Mss., in Wetstein Acts n. 30). Now as this inscription to a bar-
barous people was not very well suited to an Epistle directed to a Greek lady,
the inscription to the second Epistle was turned into a subscription to the first,
whence it happens that the Latin fathers call it epistola ad Parthos. From an
incorrect division of the words, probably, arose the reading Tоo-σлαρ‡оνs; and
then by correction, лоòs σлάοоνs. The superscription ad Spartos, is prefixed
to the first Epistle of John in a Latin Bible from the library at Geneva, which
one of the bishops of that city, in the 11th century, presented to the church of St.
Peter.
1 Critics are not agreed whether this female was named Eclecta, or Kvola, or
whether we should translate electa domina, as Jerome does. (Catal. Script. Eccl.
Johannes). She cannot have been named Eclecta; for in that case she must
have had the same name as her sister (2 Ep. v. 15). In regard to Bengel's ob-
servation in his Gnomon: "Neque dubitare quisquam potest, nisi qui stilum
veterem ignorat, aut non recordatur appellativum zoia, domina, extra relatio-
nem ad servos, eo tempore vix reginæ sine invidiâ dari poterat," we observe that
Epictetus declares the contrary: αἱ γυναῖκες εὐθὺς ἀπὸ τεσσάρων καὶ δέκα ἐτῶν
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν κυρίαι καλοῦνται (Enchir. c. 62).j
59
466
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
$ 72.
THE THIRD EPISTLE.
This is written to Gaius. The author, as in the preceding Epistle,
consoles himself with the hope of soon coming himself (v. 14). He
still suffers the same want of writing-materials (v. 13). Consequently
he was still in the same wretched abode; and, to judge from the expres-
sion of his hopes, the time was nearly the same as when the preceding
letter was written.
ces.
The residence of Gaius is determined by the following circumstan-
The most general is, what is said of the danger of his being led
away from the faith (v. 3, 4). A more definite circumstance is, that
John had sometimes despatched messengers thither and received ac-
counts from thence (v. 5—8); and likewise that he regards his testimo-
ny as so well known and fully acknowledged in the community, that he
could appeal to their judgment respecting its correctness (v. 12), oïðar e
örin μaorvoiα nur anons sort; and, finally, that he had several inti-
mate friends in its midst (v. 14). All this shows the place to have been
a considerable one, where the apostle had resided for a long time, and, as
the time was the latter period of his life, we are referred particularly
to Ephesus.
,
し
​He had not long before written to the church of which Gaius was a
member, yoayu ry ixxhnoia (v. 9). This must allude to his 1st Epis-
έγραψα τῇ
tle, for we have no knowledge of another to any church; and hence
Ephesus was certainly the destination of the third Epistle and the resi
dence of Gaius.
The rest is now easily explained. John had sent thither his first
Epistle, i. e. the accompaniment of the Gospel, together with the Gospel
itself. But the enemies of John, with Diotrephes at their head, rejected
the message and messengers of John, and even forbade others to receive
them (v. 9, 10). Gaius was not influenced by this circumstance, but
practised Christian hospitality and maintained his fidelity to the apostle
(v. 6. 7, 8).
>
Who, now, was better fitted to make known John's Gospel among his
fellow-Christians, and to publish it at Ephesus, if it were to be thus pub-
lished, than Gaius? It is to him that the author of the Synopsis has as-
cribed this honor: καὶ ἐξεδόθη ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διὰ Γαίου. With this state-
ment all parts of the Epistle, not only are perfectly consistent (it is not so
with unfounded accounts, for in their case the contrary rather is evident),
but so accord that they mutually explain and confirm each other. And
supposing that the writer of the Synopsis, or his authority, did add to the
tradition a conjecture that it was the Gaius of whom Paul speaks (Rom.
16: 23), the general credit of the account is not shaken. In fact it is
not impossible that Gaius changed his residence, and at a later period
abode in Ephesus.
f
467
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
$73.
We
e are now for the first time, prepared to answer the question, When
was the Gospel of John published?
Destruction had already done its work in the environs of Jerusalem,
when he was employed in its composition. He often speaks of places
and things in the environs as if they were no longer in existence. Thus
we see from his narrative that the gardens on the Mount of Olives,
which our Lord was accustomed to visit, were no more.
There was
there a garden, says he, йv ×ýños (18′ 1); and there was a garden in the
place where Jesus was crucified (19: 41). Bethany was no longer in
existence, as he says: Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fif-
teen furlongs off" (11: 18).
τ
C
He expresses himself only once as though the object of which he was
speaking was still in existence, viz. respecting the pool of Bethesda;
E o vì v Ev tois pooolipois (v. 2), there is at Jerusalem a pool. But
this existed after the destruction of Jerusalem, and long attracted men's
attention, from the peculiar swelling of its springs, and the colour of its
water, caused by the mineral substances it contained.¹ Hence the pool
was open after the destruction of the city. It is true that he says of
the structure over the pool, πέντε στοὺς ἔχουσα; but we know that
yovoa may have the signification of the imperfect tense: which had
five porches.
But these circumstances do not determine the time with precision.
If, however, the Epistles really have the close connexion with the Gos-
pel which we have supposed, we may approach very near a definite de-
termination of the time. In the Epistles the apostle expresses hopes of
return, and looks forward with confidence to the termination of his ex-
ile, and to the satisfaction of conversing with his friends face to face.
In the third Epistle he even promises himself that this shall speedily be
the case, nisw evdéws ideïv oɛ (3 Ep. 14. comp. 2: 12).
ω
The terrible period of Domitian's reign was therefore at an end, and
the milder rule of Cocceius Nerva had commenced, who set at lib-
erty all who had been condemned on account of their religion, gave
permission to those who had been exiled to return to their homes and
friends, and forbade accusations of impiety and a Jewish mode of life.²
This happened at the commencement of his reign, and secured the
speedy return of the apostle. Now as these prospects and expectations
are clearly expressed in his Epistles, which were all written about the
time of the publication of his Gospel, this publication must have taken
place in the first year of Nerva, i. e. in the 65th year after Jesus' death;
and, supposing John to have been 19 years old at the time of the latter
1 Euseb. Onomast. de locis sacr. v. Βηζάθα. Βητάθα, κολυμβήθρα ἐν Ἱερου
σαλήμ, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ προβατικὴ, τὸ παλαιὸν πέντε στοὺς ἔχουσα. Καὶ νῦν δείκνυ
ται ἐν ταῖς αὐτόθι λίμναις διδύμοις, ὧν ἑκάτερα μὲν ἐκ τῶν κατ᾽ ἔτος υετῶν πλε
ροῦται, θάτερα δὲ παραδόξως πεφοινιγμένον δείκνυσι τὸ ὕδωρ, κ. τ. λ.
2 Dio. Cass. Epit. Xiphilin. in Nerv. p. 241. Ed. Henr. Stephan. 8. Ed. We-
chel. p. 769. Καὶ ὁ Νερούας τούς τε κρινομένους ἐπ' ἀσεβείᾳ ἀφῆκε, καὶ τοὺς
φεύγοντας κατήγαγε . τοῖς δὲ δὴ ἄλλοις οὔτ᾽ ἀσεβείας, οὔτ᾽ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ βίου
καταιτιᾶσθαι τινας συνεχώρησε.
ג,
468
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
occurrence, in the 84th year of his life, about 31 years after the pub-
lication of Matthew.
But how was John able, after such a number of years, to recall with
accuracy so many discourses and occurrences, with their numerous pe-
culiarities and minutia, as detailed in his history? There is probably
no one who will not be led to ask himself this question. But who will
presume to say that John did not note down anything before writing his
history? that after the consummation of these events, when he had learn-
ed their importance from the surprising consequences which ensued, he
did not think fit to note down anything to aid his memory in after times?
Who will endeavor to persuade us, that when he perceived his recollec-
tion of the words and actions of his Master to be gradually growing
more and more feeble in the lapse of time, he took no precaution to se-
cure them by permanent means?
If it be asked still further, when, at what period of his life, he began
to note down anything in writing, it must be replied that the interroga-
tor pushes his curiosity further than it can be satisfied; not merely
in regard to John, but most ancient historians, who have written of the
events of their time. Who can tell when Xenophon commenced his
earliest notes towards the composition of his Hellenic History, or Taci-
tus towards his Libri Historiarum? Yet the former executed his his-
tory 49 years, and the latter at least 30, after the commencement of the
series of occurrences which he narrates. The assumption which we
make in regard to them, viz. that they did what was necessary to retain
possession of the facts which became known to them from their own
observation or through eye-witnesses, we must acknowledge to be allow-
able in this case.
SUPPLEMENT
RESPECTING SOME DISPUTED PORTIONS OF THE GOSPELS.
$ 74.
Of the first two chapters of Matthew.
The authenticity of the first two chapters of Matthew was attacked
almost at the same time in England and Germany, and has found sup-
porters in both nations. With an aim in view totally different from that
of his predecessors, a man of established reputation for learning, has
pronounced the narratives of Matthew and Luke to be irreconcilable
with each other, as respects those portions which relate to the birth and
early life of Jesus. We cannot, in an introduction, avoid noticing a
question which involves so considerable a portion of the Evangelical
history.
The principal objections which have been advanced against these two
chapters, may be comprised under the following heads.
I. The genealogy in Luke plainly contradicts that in Matthew.
II. The annunciation related in Luke (1: 26-38) does not agree
with Matthew's account (1: 18—22).
III. The succession and connexion of facts in the history of Jesus'
youth in Luke, leave no space for the visit of the Magi and the flight to
Egypt; but make these events chronologically impossible.
IV. The story of the Magi in Matthew bears evident marks of fic-
tion. The motion of a star before a party of men, to point out to them
their way, and its standing still above a house, are phenomena not com-
patible with any astronomical system.
V. The murder of the children in Bethlehem confutes itself by its in-
ternal improbability; and other things in which Matthew varies from
Luke want verisimilitude.
VI. Lastly, these two chapters are nowhere cited in the oldest fath-
ers; and in some Mss. Matthew's genealogy is wanting.
As to the first point, it cannot be denied that the contrariety of the
genealogies has not yet been explained. The evasion that one traces
Joseph's descent, and the other (Luke 3: 23), Mary's, does violence to
the phraseology employed. Let us, however, examine the matter more
closely.
1 "Uber die Schriften des Lukas, ein kritischer Versuch," by Dr. Fr. Schleier-
macher. I. Th. Berlin 1817. p. 42-50.
470
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
In both genealogies, we find the names Salathiel and Zerubabel;
in each, Salathiel is the father and Zerubabel the son, and both are of the
royal house of David. This coincidence of personal circumstances
seems to denote that the persons in the two genealogies are identical.
The time, too, at which they lived, confirms this supposition.
The names of Salathiel and Zerubabel occur in Matthew during and
directly after the exile. So too in Luke, as appears from what follows.
There were five hundred and a few more years from David's reign to
the first return of the Jewish tribes from exile; and from that event till
the time of Christ there were again five hundred and a few more years;
consequently these two periods of time are equal. Luke reckons back
to Salathiel 21 generations, and from Salathiel to David the same
number; as Matthew reckons two periods of 14 generations each,
corresponding with the two periods above-mentioned. After the first
21 generations in Luke, five centuries after David's time, i. e. at a peri-
od during and after the exile, occur the names of Salathiel and Zeruba-
bel. Thus not only their personal circumstances, but the time when
they both lived, leads us to the conclusion that the same persons are
intended in both genealogies.
The question now arises: Can Salathiel be the son of Jechonias, as
represented in Matthew, and at the same time the son of Neri and Mel-
chi, as represented in Luke?
Jechonias was not so fortunate as to have any children. Jechonias,
or Jehoiachin (two names of the same person as is well known; see
2 Kings 24: 6 seq. 1 Chron. 3: 16), was carried prisoner to Babylon. At
that time he had no children; for the 2d book of Kings (24: 15), which
enumerates his family, mentions only his mother, wives, and officers.
During his exile his royal rank made his fate more severe than that
of common Jews. The latter enjoyed at least a degree of liberty, as
planters and laborers; but the king was guarded in prison. He contin-
ued in prison till Evilmerodach, in the 37th year of his captivity, libe-
rated him, changed his prison-garments, and placed him at his own ta-
ble (2 Kings 25: 27). When he went to Babylon he was 18 years of
age, and consequently 55 at his release; an age when the expectation of
children must have ceased with one so depressed and debilitated by ad-
versity. Moreover Jeremiah uttered a prophecy (22: 30), by which he
was cut off from the privilege of offspring.
Hence, if he had children, they must have been his nominal children,
according to the law which required a man to raise up seed unto his
brother. In this way Salathiel may have been a son of Jechonias, as
he is said to have been in Matthew, and still a son of Melchi and Neri,
as in Luke.
But it will be objected, the first book of Chronicles (3: 17, 18), enu-
merates several sons of his; which renders improbable the supposition
we have made; for only the first son was begotten for one who died
childless, and he alone named after him, the others belonging to their
natural father.
Let us then examine the passage in the Chronicles. It reads: "The
sons of Jechoniah, Assir; Shealtiel his son, Malchiram also, and Pedaiah,
and Shenazar," etc. But Assir is not here a proper name;
ON, signifies one bound, one kept in prison. Now it was the distin-
N, or
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
471
guishing characteristic of the unfortunate king's fate, that he spent the
greater part of his life in captivity. The expression 2, too, shows
that only one son is spoken of; and the first clause of the passage
should be translated: the sons of Jechoniah, the imprisoned, are Shealtiel
his son, etc.
The second clause of the passage: Malchiram also, and Pedaiah, and
is wrongly translated. Among ,וּמַלְכִּירָם וּפְדָיָה וְשֶׁנְאַצר .Shenazar, etc
T
and
the ancestors of Salathiel, in Luke, Melchi stands as grandfather,
Neri as father. The first name may be made out in this passage, by
-and then the passage signi ; מַלְכִי־רָמוֹ פְּדָיָה : dividing the words thus
T T
π
fies: And Melchi raised up to him (, pale, for nepalev, or ev-
enoinoev, aviÿï) Pedaiah, Shenazar ětć. Thus Luke's account is
confirmed; for it is of no consequence, in a Jewish genealogy, that the
grandfather is put instead of the father, Neri, inasmuch as one link is
frequently omitted, as several are in Matthew. Besides, Neri may have
been prematurely called away by death from the duties of a father, in
which case all the children fell to Melchi's family.
Thus the book of Chronicles plainly states the circumstance, that, for
the preservation of the royal line and the assurance of posterity, the
sons that were subsequently born of one of the king's wives, were reck-
oned to the king's race.
Hence Salathiel occurs with propriety in both genealogical tables.
The two lines are those of Nathan and Solomon. We will state the
reason why Salathiel might be reckoned in both. We find no mention
in the Old Testament of any brothers of Jechoniah who lived to man's
estate; the sons of Zedekiah, his father's brother, were murdered be-
fore the eyes of their parent, and he himself deprived of sight; Shal-
lum, another of his father's brothers, had long been carried away cap-
tive to Egypt, and one branch after another of the house of Solomon was
destroyed. In default of near kinsmen, more distant relations supplied
their place. The nearest royal line to Solomon's was that of Nathan.
Solomon and Nathan were even brothers on the mother's side; and
therefore in the enumeration of David's children they are always con-
nected together (2 Sam. 5: 14. 1 Chron. 3:5). Hence Salathiel ap-
pears as son both in the table of Nathan's line in Luke, and that of
Solomon's in Matthew.
Let us now inquire respecting Zerubabel, Salathiel's son. In 1
Chron. 3: 17, 18, 19, Shealtiel, the son of Jechoniah, has no son; in
Matthew he has one, viz. Zerubabel. But the means of solving the dif-
ficulty present themselves in the passage itself. Shealtiel was child-
less; Pedaiah was his eldest brother, whose duty it was to raise up seed
to Shealtiel; among Pedaiah's sons we find Zerubabel, who, if Pedai-
ah fulfilled the law, may have been reckoned as the son of Shealtiel.
Further, we perceive that in both tables Zerubabel is represented as
having sons.
Josia.
Jechonia.
Shealtiel
Zerubabel
Abiud.
Melchi.
Neri.
Resa.
1 Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht, Vol. II. § 98.
472
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Now, if what has been said of Shealtiel is well-founded, we can ex-
plain this circumstance in regard to Zerubabel. He might properly
stand as father in both lines, that of Solomon and that of Nathan. He
belonged to the first as Shealtiel's son; and he no doubt became a fa-
ther in the other according to the requirement of the Mosaic law, as he
himself was begotten.¹
From this point the two lines run on uninterruptedly about 500 years,
to Joseph, the father of our Lord. Now is it anything strange or in-
credible, that after so long a period a case should again occur (for cases
of this kind were by no means rare, see Matth. 22: 25 seq.), in which one
family was bound by the requisition of the law to preserve the failing
stock of the other? Examine our ancient genealogical registers, and see
how few families have lasted in a right line for so long a period of time.
It is a fact, that we do not find mentioned in the New Testament,
or in history, any brothers of Joseph, or any kinsmen of Jesus on the
father's side. He stands alone, as must have been the case were he a
descendant of an extinguished stock, begotten in accordance with the
requisition of the law.
Thus only three cases of this nature are requisite in a period of a
thousand years to render the two tables perfectly consistent according
to Jewish usage.
And does not the chief difficulty fall in the most
calamitous days of the Jewish state, the most unfortunate times of the
house of Solomon, when we may suppose every means would be taken
for the preservation of the race? Do not historic facts establish a part
of our theory, and Jewish law and usage favor the whole?
Thus, the genealogy of Luke does not contradict that of Matthew.
Luke presents us a document, which though inferior in value to Mat-
thew's, was yet from its novelty, and because it deduced the same result
in another way, worthy of record.
But there is still a difficulty in reconciling these tables, which must
be removed. The name Aßiovd, which we find in Matthew, does not
appear in the enumeration of Zerubabel's sons in 1 Chron. 3: 19. The
explanation of this, as I imagine, is contained in the name itself. Names
beginning with Abi, and in Arabic with Abu, are not always proper
names. In Arabic they are generally names assumed from affection
for a son. Thus Mohammed called himself, from Kasem his son, Abu-
kasem, the father of Kasem (Abulfeda, Annal. Muslem. T. I. p. 192,
193). Analogous examples occur among the Jews. One of David's
1 My friend and former pupil, Prof. Herbst, of Tübingen, has kindly commu-
nicated to me an attempt to reconcile the two accounts in a simpler way. He
thinks that the division, and particularly the interpretation of man,
as meaning ußálhɛw, ¿µñoiɛi, åre forced. He considers Assir, s, to be a
proper name, which, as cannot be denied, frequently occurs in genealogical ta-
bles. On this supposition, he is of opinion that Assir was raised up by a kinsman
of the line of Nathan to Jechoniah who was childless, and that Assir's sons were
Salathiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, etc. The use of the plural number, ON RE
(1 Chron. 3: 16), is no objection. It is used with reference to children of the sec-
בְּנֵי
בְּנֵי קְהָת עַמִּינָדָב בְּנוּ קְרַח בְּנו .7 :6 .ond and third generation, as in 1 Chron
7
is. The annexed in i refers back, as in the example adduced, to Assir
122 3NDING ON. The rest then proceeds as I have supposed. That Assir
is not mentioned in Matthew's table, is a circumstance common to him with
many others, who are omitted on account of the division into classes of fourteen
generations each. I give the preference to this simple mode of reconciliation.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
473
1
"C
valiant men was named Abiel, God my Father (1 Chron. 11: 32),
and is likewise called Abialbon, Albon's father (2 Sam. 23: 31). The
father-in-law of Abia is called Uriel (2 Chron. 13: 2), and likewise
Abishalom, Shalom's father (1 Kings 15: 2). The case may be the
same as to the word Abiud; it is a name expressive of a father's affec-
tion. The proper name may have been Meshullam, or Hanania, etc.
II. The objection of Schleiermacher: If Luke's account of the an-
nunciation be correct, the doubts of Joseph and their removal as stated
in Matthew are not supposable" etc., is rather surprising than impor-
tant. The doubts of Joseph were not removed by the annunciation. If
Mary informed him of her pregnancy by relating this occurrence,
through which she herself first obtained knowledge of it, her statement
needed unusual confirmation, just in proportion as the circumstances
deviated from the common course of nature. An extraordinary mode of
convincing Joseph was therefore requisite; and hence the account in
Matth. 1: 20-22, is not only not inconsistent with Luke's, but rather
assists and completes it. Joseph's mind must have been put at rest, and
Mary must have been secure as respected the measures he might have
taken, before she could undertake the journey to Elizabeth for the pur-
pose of seeing the sign which the angel had given her in confirmation.
It is not to be supposed that the journey was made without Joseph's con-
currence; and hence the indifference towards her husband, which, it is
said, an absence of three months evinced, is done away. In fact, the
absence was probably wished by Joseph; for, after taking her to wife,
he knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son (Matth. 1:
24, 26).
III. The discrepancies between the two Evangelists are said to ex-
tend still further into the history of Jesus' youth. Luke says (2: 22
and 39), that when the days of the purification of the mother of Jesus
were over, his parents went to Jerusalem, to present the child to the
Lord; and that, after doing everything in conformity with the law of the
Lord, they returned into Galilee to their own city, Nazareth.
Matthew gives us a totally different account. The parents and the
child receive a visit at Bethlehem from some Magi, which occasions their
flight into Egypt, and it is not till their return that they go to Naza-
reth.
Now if the visit of the wise men occurred after the presentation of
Jesus in the temple, the child would not then have been found by them
in Bethlehem, but in Nazareth of Galilee, whither he was carried, ac-
cording to Luke, immediately after this observance of the law.
On the other hand, if the Magi arrived before the presentation, the
latter could never have occurred, for the flight to Egypt directly follow-
ed their visit.
The supposition that the parents returned from Egypt with Jesus to
Bethlehem, again to present him to the Lord, is contradicted by Luke,
who places the presentation after the forty days of Mary's purification;
as also by Matthew, who asserts that on their return to Egypt they
were afraid to go to Judea (2: 22).
1 Ueber die Schriften des Lukas. I. Th.
p. 42.
60
474
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
This difficulty, which has been much insisted on by Stroth,' is cer-
tainly very plausible.
c
π
It is an inquiry of importance, whether Luke's language is to be taken
in its strictest signification; whether it must be understood as meaning
that immediately after the ceremony of the presentation the parents of
Jesus went to Nazareth. I do not think we are to take Luke's language
in so strict a sense. Throughout the commencement of his history, he
is in the habit of separating each particular narrative from the rest by
some concluding formula, appending a general clause, or, as is often
the case, a superfluous remark, which would be understood of itself.
Such a superfluous conclusion occurs in Luke 1: 38-Kai άññåðεv åñ³
αὐτῆς ὁ ἄγγελος ; and in 2: 20-Καὶ ὑπέστρεψαν οἱ ποιμένες, etc. So
too the general remark, 1: 80-7ὺ δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο
πνεύματι ; and 2: 52-Καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦς προέκοπτε σοφίᾳ καὶ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ
χάριτι.
zάoiti. Such a conclusion, too, is the clause in question; and it must
be considered rather in this light, than as a definite statement of time.
The words, therefore, in 2: 39-Kaì ws ¿rékeoav ätavτa
απαντα
υπέ
τρεψαν .. rò dè naidíov, denote only, in general, that after this
observance of the law Jesus became an inhabitant of Nazareth, without
meaning that no time elapsed between the fulfilment of the law and the
residence at Nazareth, or that there were not intervening occurrences
of importance.
•
•
IV. But the story concerning these Magi, it is said, is replete with ab-
surdities. What are we to think of such astronomical phenomena as
the gradual progress of a star before the travellers, its resting eventually
above a particular house, etc.?
ατο
ૐૐ
Let us examine the matter. Certain Magi came from the east,
avarolns. The countries which could be called eastern in Palestine,
were Arabia Deserta, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia. Babylonia was the
chief seat of the science of astronomy; as, likewise, of astrology, or
the art of inquiring and predicting the fate of men from the stars. It
was in this country, then, that the significant star was observed.
The Magi were originally learned Persians, who were transferred to
Babylon when it became the capital of the Persian kings. Subsequent-
ly, however, the term Magian was applied to astrologers and soothsayers
generally. The star announced to them the birth of a great king of
super-human nature, and they sought to pay him homage and adore
him.2
The star which they believed to denote this event went before them, as
our version reads. But does not лooάyɛiv mean, likewise, to lead any one,
to be his guide? And is it not customary in the East to journey by the
stars at night, on account of the heat of the day ?3
1 Repertorium für bibl. und morgenl. Litteratur. IXth Band.
Ideo Magi qui forte Athenis erant, immolaverunt defuncto (Platoni), am-
plioris fuisse sortis quam humanæ rati." Senec. Ep. 58.
3 Breitenbach (Wallfahrt zum heil. Land'), on the route to Mt. Sinai and
the convent of St. Catherine, followed a star, which rose constantly after mid-
night, as he doubted not, on account of the merits of St. Catherine (1483, 20th
Sept.). John Wehrli Zimber followed this star ('Wallfahrt zum heil. Grab.' 1483,
22d Sept.); as, likewise, John Tucher von Nürnberg ("Verzeichniss der Reiss zum
heil. Grab und nach Sinai' 4th Oct. 1480). The star of St. Catherine stands
over Mt. Sinai.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
475
The star, then, was their guide till it stood over where the young
child was. Inconceivable; that a star should stand directly over a
house. True; but it is only said that it stood over where the young child
was, inάvw oỗ ñv тò пαidíov. This may mean over the region, as well
as over the house.
This is the meaning of the account, moreover, if we interpret it ac-
cording to the ideas of the time, and the astrological system of these
wise men. Every man, said they, is born under a certain star, called
his star: εἴδομεν τὸν ἀστέρα αὐτοῦ.
The signs of the zodiac, from east to west, and twenty-four other
stars towards the north and south, occasion a peculiar temperature of the
atmosphere. By the removal or approach of the planets to these stars,
the atmosphere experiences important changes; and its condition at the
moment when a child is conceived, animated, or born, is decisive of its
destiny. It determines his talents, virtues and greatness, his actions
and success.
As the fate of individuals is determined by their particular star, so
whole nations are under the direction and superintendence of the con-
stellation beneath which their country is situated; and the changes oc-
casioned in it by the planets determine their prosperity or adversity.(¹)
Thus the Jewish king was seen in the constellation of his country as its
benefactor.
Now if it were only known to what people a certain constellation be-
longed, in the vicinity of which the royal star appeared, they could by
its means, according to their system, discover the nation and king which
were unknown and were represented by the star. The star was their
natural conductor.
It is clear from the narrative, that it was so indefinite a guide as not to
point out any particular house or place, but only the country in general.
Else why was it necessary for them to inquire after reaching the coun-
try: Where is he that is born king of the Jews (2: 2) ?
When they had discovered where the child was, the star which had
been in their view on their journey stood above where the child lay ; i. e.
it was above the region of the earth to which this good fortune fell, and
not above any particular house. Yet the sight of the star must have
1 Cicero has explained their system in his treatise De Divinat., L.II. c. 42. p.
277. Bipont. Manilius, however, has discussed the astrological theory of the
Chaldeans at most length, and we will here quote a passage from him in sup-
port of what we have stated.
"Hos erit in fines orbis, pontusque notandus,
Quem Deus in partis, et singula dividit astra,
Ac sua cuique dedit tutelæ regna per orbem
Et proprias gentis, atque urbis addidit altas,
In quibus efferrent præstantis sidera vires.
Sic divisa manet tellus per secula cuncta ;
E quibus in proprias partis sunt jura trahenda.
Namque eadem quæ sunt signis commercia servant,
Vtque illa inter se coeunt, odioque repugnant,
Nunc adversa polo, nunc et conjuncta trigono,
Quæque alia in varios affectus causa gubernat,
Sic erit et sedes fugienda, petenda cuique,
Sic speranda fides; sic et metuenda pericla," etc.
[Astronom. L. IV. v. 697 seq.
476
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
filled them with all the joy represented by Matthew, inasmuch as it
was a token of the correctness of their discovery, and a confirmation of
the truth of the accounts they had received, as well as of their system
(2: 10).
1
V. The murder of the children at Bethlehem, it is objected, even
supposing the most savage barbarity on the part of Herod, is inexplica-
ble. For, how much more cheaply he might have obtained his end?
How easy it must have been for him to discover, in so small a place as
Bethlehem, the spot to which the strangers carried their costly gifts,
etc. There is force in these remarks, if we take into account nothing
but his cruelty. This, however, was mostly the effect of his distrustful
temper, which increased with his years and reached its highest pitch in
the latter period of his life.2 Now he had just been imposed upon in
regard to the child by the Magi, and wounded in a sensitive part, so
that to represent him as depending any further on inquiries, would be
an improbable statement. He acted, therefore, in conformity with his
disposition; he was cruel from distrust.
Matthew, it is said further, differs from Luke in regard to Joseph's
dwelling place. He does not seem to know that Galilee was his home,
and that he prolonged his stay in Judea only from accident, because
Mary was delivered there. He rather supposes Joseph to have been an
inhabitant of Judea; and thus, when Joseph leaves Egypt to go home,
he travels towards Judea, and does not turn towards Galilee till he is
warned of God in a dream. But is Matthew so totally wrong? We
should reverse the matter. It would rather seem that Joseph resided
casually in Galilee, inasmuch as, on account of his relationship and de-
scent, he was cited to Judea, is tǹv idiav ñólev, that his name might
appear in the register of the place.3 This statement of Luke clearly con-
firms Matthew's representation. A good reason may be assigned, why
Joseph feared Archelaus. This prince had done at the outset of his
government what Herod had never done, and what had never yet hap-
pened; he had caused several thousand people to be massacred in the
temple on the feast of the passover, because of some seditious proceed-
ings (Jos. Ant. L. XVII. c. 9. n. 3. De Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 1. n. 3). The
cruel act must have seemed the more horrible to Joseph, when he
reached the land of Israel, as it had just happened, and still filled all
minds with consternation.
V. It is objected, lastly, that some Mss. do not contain this genealogy,
and the most ancient fathers appear to know nothing about these chap-
ters of Matthew.
Velthusen, however, has denied the fact as respects the Irrian Ms.,
which has been appealed to ; and in the Harleian Ms. in uncial char-
4
1 Dr. Fr. Schleiermacher, Ueber die Schriften des Lukas. I. Th. p. 44, 45.
,
2 Jos. Ant. L. XVI. c., 7. n. 3. Εκακοῦτο δὲ ταῖς ὑποψίαις, καὶ χείρων ἀεὶ
γινόμενος, ἅπασιν κατὰ πάντων ἐπίστευεν. Ant. L. XVI. c. 8. n. 2. n. 5.
3 A friend objects that if Bethlehem was his home, it is unaccountable that he
had no habitation there, and was obliged to place the infant in a manger. The
fact that he had no house there, is no objection to his being a native Bethlehem-
ite, but may have been a reason why he tried his fortune in another part of
the country.
4 "The authenticity of the first and second chapters of Matthew's Gospel vin-
dicated." Lond. 1771. p. 5.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
477
acters, assigned by Griesbach to the 6th or 7th century, the addition to
which so much importance has been attached (viz. the words: Geneal-
ogia hucusque. Incipit Evangelium secundum Matthæum), is not by the
first but a later hand, and only in the margin.¹
The Ebnerian Ms. at Nürnberg is, therefore, the only one on which
the opponents of these chapters can rely, and in regard to this, as in re-
gard to the Harleian Ms., a closer examination would probably alter the
state of the case. [Since the first edition of this work, such an exam-
ination has been undertaken. Dr. Gabler paid due attention to the
doubt I have here expressed, and disclosed the mistake in regard to this
Ms. The result is as follows, in his own words (Journ. für theol. Litt.
II. Bd. 1 St. 1801): "This collation is therefore decisive of the fact
that the Ebnerian Ms. of the New Testament contains the first chapter
of Matthew.”]
Of the same character are the arguments founded on the silence of
the fathers. It is possible that Ignatius Martyr derived the account he
presents respecting the star, etc., from a tradition; but, notwithstanding
what is said by Stroth, we cannot admit that Justin drew his relation of
the occurrence from any other source than Matthew.
The whole history contained in the first two chapters of Matthew is
related by Justin in his Dial. cum Tryph. (p. 86, 87, Rob. Steph. cap.
78). The narrative is free, but still bears evident marks of having
come from Matthew.
Matthew.
Ιδού, μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν
παρεγένοντο
εἰς ῾Ιεροσόλυμα,
λέγοντες·
Ποῦ ἐστιν ὁ τεχθεὶς βασιλεὺς
τῶν Ιουδαίων ;
είδομεν γὰρ αὐτοῦ
τὸν ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ,
καὶ ἤλθομεν
προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ . .
Καὶ συναγαγὼν πάντας τοὺς
ἀρχιερεῖς . . . Οἱ δὲ εἶπον αὐτῷ
Οὕτω γέγραπται διὰ τοῦ
προφήτου
“ Καὶ σὺ Βηθλεὲμ, γῆ Ιούδα,
οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς
ἠγεμόσιν Ιούδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ
ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις
ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου,
τὸν ᾿Ισραήλ.”
Justin.
Ελθόντων ἀπὸ ᾿Αραβίας μάγων,
καὶ εἰπόντων·
Εξ ἀστέρος τοῦ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ
φανέντος ἐγνωκέναι
ὅτι βασιλεὺς
γεγέννηται ἐν τῇ χώρα ὑμῶν,
καὶ ἤλθομεν
προσκυνῆσαι αὐτόν.
Καὶ ἐν Βηθλεὲμ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
α
εἰπόντων·
Οτι γέγραπται ἐν τῷ
προφητῇ οὕτως ·
,
“ Καὶ σὺ Βηθλεὲμ, γῆ Ιούδα,
οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς
ἡγεμόσιν Ιούδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ
ἐξελεύσεται ἡγοῦμενος, ὅστις
ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου.”
Now how happens it (waiving every other consideration), that Justin
in his narrative adduces from the Old Testament the same text which
1 Griesbach, Symb. Crit. T. I. p. 309.
478
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Matthew applies; that he does not take it from the Septuagint, as is his
custom in regard to citations from the Old Testament; that he cites
it with the same variations from the Septuagint as Matthew; and trans-
lated it from the Hebrew with the same variations, literally, as we find
in Matthew ? e. g. that in his memory, as in Matthew's, Nk should
have been substituted for ni? etc. etc.
66
Matthew.
Καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν,
καὶ πεσόντες προσεκύνησαν
αὐτῷ, καὶ ἀνοίξαντες τοὺς
θησαυροὺς αὑτῶν,
προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ
δῶρα, χρυσὸν καὶ
λίβανον καὶ σμύρναν.
Καὶ χρηματισθέντες κατ᾿ ὄναρ,
μὴ ἀνακάμψαι .
δι᾽ ἄλλης ὁδοῦ
ἀνεχώρησαν
εἰς τὴν χώραν αὑτῶν .
Καὶ ἀποστείλας ανελε πάντας
τοὺς παῖδας
τοὺς ἐν Βηθλεὲμ . .
το
Τότε επληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν
ὑπὸ ῾Ιερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου,
λέγοντος·
Φωνὴ ἐν Ραμᾷ ἠκούσθη, .
κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολύς·
Ραχήλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αυτῆς·
καὶ οὐκ ἤθελε παρακληθῆναι,
ὅτι οὐκ εἰσι.
""
Justin.
Τῶν δὲ ἀπὸ ᾿Αραβίας μάγων
ἐλθόντων εἰς Βηθλεέμ,
καὶ προσκυνησάντων
το παιδίον,
καὶ προσενεγκάντων αὐτῷ
δῶρα, χρυσὸν
λίβανον καὶ σμύρναν.
Καὶ ὁ Ἡρώδης, μὴ ἐπανελθόντων .
ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰ κελευσθέντα αὐτοῖς
τα
δὲ ἄλλης ὁδοῦ
εἰς τὴν χώραν αὑτῶν
ἀπαλλαγέντων,
πάντας ἁπλῶς
τοὺς παῖδας
τοὺς ἐν Βηθλεέμ
ἐκέλευσεν ἀναιρεθῆναι.
Καὶ τοῦτο ἐπεπροφητεύετο
μέλλειν γενέσθαι διὰ ῾Ιερεμίου
εἰπόντος·
“Φωνὴ ἐν Ραμᾷ ἠκούσθη,
κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμός πολύς·
Ραχήλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς,
καὶ οὐκ ἤθελε παρακληθῆναι,
ὅτι οὐκ εἰσι.”
The similarity in point of phraseology evinces, in more than one in-
stance, the source from which Justin drew; but the citation from Jere-
miah is decisive. How does it happen that the same prophetic passage
of the Old Testament occurred to his mind as to Matthew's; that, con-
trary to his custom, he, like the latter, deserted the Septuagint, and
translated the Hebrew just as Matthew did, to a syllable? How hap-
pens it that he does this twice in one short narrative?
Besides, does not Irenæus, at a later period, in his third book, 9th
chapter, give the entire contents of Matthew's 2d chapter, expressly
designating the source from which he drew? Do we not find the same
in Tertullian, in his 5th book against Marcion, 9th chapter ? Celsus,
moreover, knew of two Gospels which contained genealogies, and men-
tions the arrival of the wise men under the guidance of a star.'
Even if Justin's pupil, Tatian, did omit Matthew's genealogy in his
1 Orig. Contr. Cels. L. II. c. 32. L. I. c. 40. 58. 66.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
479
Monotessaron, can anything be inferred from this? Did he not like-
wise omit Luke's?
It is worthy of notice, that in the early times, before the third century,
considerable anxiety was felt in regard to the discrepancy of the gene-
alogies, and attempts were made to reconcile them. Julius Africanus
refuted these hypotheses of his predecessors, to make way for one of his
own.¹ This candid and intelligent critic (for such he was, as is shown
by his letter to Origen on the story of Susanna), and his predecessors,
likewise, were so far from finding in the Mss. then in circulation good
ground for rejecting this chapter and thus ending the difficulty at once,
that both he and they resorted to explanations of the most forced char-
acter.
And would it not even be a matter of surprise, if Matthew, who
strove to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah, had neglected
to show that he was of the house of David, a circumstance which the
Jews regarded as a most essential characteristic of the Messiah?
Further, is not the same mode of procedure, the same peculiar style
which distinguishes Matthew throughout his work, evinced in the cita-
tions from the Old Testament, which occur in these two chapters?
$ 75.
Mark 16: 9-20.
The Gospel of Mark ended formerly in many Mss. with ¿qoßouvro
yao (16: 8), and contained nothing at all of what we find now in print-
ed books from avaotás (v. 9) to the end. This we are told by worthy
and celebrated men of the fourth century, as e. g. by Gregory of Nyssa,
in Cappadocia, in his second Homily on the resurrection, in which he
says, that in the more accurate Mss., the Gospel of Mark ended with
¿qoßouvro yao; and by Jerome, who appeals to almost all the Greek
Mss., in which, according to his testimony' the verses from 16:9 to the
end of the Gospel, were not to be found (Quæst. ad Hedib. Quæst. 3).
It is a serious matter, that, according to the declaration of the first-
mentioned father, the more accurate copies did not contain this portion
of the narrative; and the account of Jerome appears still more author-
itative, as he even appeals to nearly all the Mss.
He himself, however, restricts his statement in regard to the number
of the Mss. For he says that, in quibusdam exemplaribus, et maxime
Græcis codicibus, there occurred an important various reading after the
14th verse in this same doubtful passage; whence it is clear that there
were not wanting numerous Mss. which contained this disputed portion
of the history, and that in the first statement something must be attrib-
uted to the rhetorical style of the author (Dial. II. Adv. Pelag. c. 15).
Next, what is meant by the more accurate copies of the Nyssene father?
Were they the copies which were most carefully written? This would
1 Τὰς μὲν τῶν λοιπῶν δόξας ὡς βιαίους καὶ διεψευσμένους ἀποδείξας. Euseb.
H. E. L. I. c. 6.
480
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
seem to be what he meant by the expression; but in deciding this ques
tion, we are not to ask about the care of the transcribers, but by what
critics the text was settled, to what Recension the Mss. belonged. Was
it to the Recension of Origen, Hesychius, or Lucian? Certainly not
to Origen's, or the Palestinian Recension; for Victor of Antioch and
the Scholiasts are unanimous in stating, that the Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλ
tov contained the verses.¹ The Mss. of the Recension of Lucian, too,
invariably contain it. We cannot say exactly the same in regard to the
Egyptian Recension.
Its most distinguished Mss., viz. C and L, together with the Lower-
Egyptian version, recognize the passage. The Vatican Ms., however,
the oldest in our possession, deviates from the Recension as to this point,
and excludes it. It is true that this deviation is attributable solely to
the private opinion of the calligraphist; but so much, at least, is plain,
viz, that he must have been acquainted with Mss. which led him to ven-
ture this critical innovation.
If we look further back to the period of the xown exdonis, we find
that the Greek text of Codex D contains the passage in question, as
far as the words in v. 15, яάoŋ tỷ xrios. These words, with the re-
πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει.
mainder of the chapter, have been destroyed by time and supplied by a
later hand. The oldest father who refers to this passage is Irenæus
(Adv. Hær. L. III. c. 10): “In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus: et
quidem dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in cœlos et
sedet ad dextram Dei." The next is Hyppolytus, at the beginning of
the treatise Περὶ Χαρισμάτων, which is enumerated among his works
on the celebrated marble monument.2 The Peschito contains it, as well
as the Latin version of the first period. True, the splendid but much in-
jured Ms. at Verona wants all after chap. 16, v. 7, and the neater and
less injured Ms. at Brescia, which contains a mixed text, has met with a
still greater loss, viz. all of the book after 15: 66; but the better preserv-
ed Mss. of Vercelli and Corvey, the fathers Augustine and Ambrose,3 to-
gether with Leo the Great, all three of whom made use of the ancient
version, are evidences in favor of the passage in question.
The Sahidic version has a considerable chasm here, from a loss of
part of the Ms., which Woide supplies from Cod. Askew. From this it
may certainly be argued that the Valentinians read the passage, but
not that the Upper-Egyptian version contained it.
Though hardly any Mss. or versions, which have come to us unin-
jured, want the disputed verses, there is still this difficulty, viz. that, ac-
cording to the testimony of Jerome and Gregory of Nyssa, according to
the Vatican Ms., and Codd. 137, 138, both of which mark the passage
with asterisks, and according to a scholium of which we shall speak
presently, many ancient Mss. did not contain them. Something of
this kind seems to be evinced by the Canones of Eusebius, which are
1 Matthæi, Nov. Test. T. II. Animadv. ad Marc. 16: 9 seq. p. 266. Birch, N. T.
Adnot. ad hunc loc. p. 316.
2 We shall look in vain in Clem. Romanus for the passage referred to in some
editions of the N. T. It is in Pseudo-Clement's Constit. Apost. L. VIII. c. 1.
I find, too, no passage in Justin Martyr, nor in Clement of Alexandria. They
can occur only in a catena.
3 The principal passage is Ambros. Exposit. in Lucam. L. X. fin.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
481
continued only to ¿çoßouvτo yao.¹ Yet this circumstance is not of so
much importance as is thought by some. These Canones do not give
us any information as to the condition of the Mss., but only as to the
Harmony of Ammonius; for they were merely an expedient made use
of by Eusebius to designate the sections of the Harmony in the common
Mss. of the Gospels. Now the reason that the Canones end at this
point, is simply that the Harmony of Ammonius did not contain the pas-
sage, and therefore no reference could be made to it.
That in ancient times the verses were wanting in many Mss., is cer-
tain; the fact is well attested, though it scarcely appears in the revised
text. Now how can we explain this fact? Were men pressed by exe-
getical difficulties; and did they, because this passage could not be re-
conciled with the other Gospels, attempt to get rid of it in a summary
manner?
The Latins could not re-
Jerome makes a confession of this nature.
concile the discordant expressions of Matthew and Mark, vespere sabbati
and mane sabbati; and tried to find in the Mss. of Mark which wanted the
passage in question, an excuse for rejecting what they could not explain.2
Supposing that the Mss. did not at first present any excuse for doing
so, might not the Latins be induced by the difficulty mentioned, to
make the passage suspicious in a critical view, by marking it with
signs to that effect? This being done, subsequent copyists would not
fail to get completely rid of this inconvenient passage.
But were this explanation correct, the passage must have been wanting
in the Mss. of the Latins; while, according to Jerome, it was not these,
but the Greek Mss., which did not contain it. Other indications, too,
point us to Greek Mss. The Greeks, however, knew nothing of this diffi-
culty. Gregory of Nyssa, in the discourse before cited, correctly ex-
plains ὀψὲ σαββάτων by the expressions ὀψὲ καιροῦ, ὀψὲ τῆς ώρας,
ὀψὲ τῆς χρείας. If the πρωΐ πρώτη σαββάτου in Mark 16: 9, occa-
1 Εως Ευσέβιος ἐκανόνισεν.
1 Schol. Cod. apud Birch. Eos de-Evoißios inavoviosv. In the celebra-
ted Alexandr. Codex the numbers extend no further than poßovvto yáo.
2 "Hujus quæstionis duplex solutio est aut enim non accipimus Marci testi-
monium, quod in raris fertur evangeliis, omnibus Græciæ libris pene hoc capit-
ulum in fine non habentibus, præsertim cum diversa atque contraria cæteris
evangelistis narrare videatur; aut hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dix-
erit: Matthæus, quod Dominus surrexit vespere Sabbati, Marcus autem, quando
eum viderit Maria Magdalena, id est mane primo sabbati," etc. (Ad Hedib.
Quæst. 3. Opp. Hieron. T. I. p. 825. Ed. Vallars. F. Matthæi, N. T. Tom. IV. j
268 seq.)
· p.
3 Greg. Nyss. Opp. T. III. p. 402. Ed. Paris. 1638. So, too, Dionysius of Al-
exandria in Epist. Canon. ad Basilidem, Bevereg. Pandect. Canon. Oxon. 1672,
and at the end of Greg. Thaumat. Macar. et Basil. Opp. 1622, Paris. Some, he
says, understand the word oys according to common usage, as being equivalent
to ionέoa; learned men, however, say that oyé denotes delay and length of
time, βραδυτῆτα καὶ μακρὸν χρόνον. An anonymous writer, Εἰς τὰς μυροφόρους
yuvainas (inter Spuria Chrysostomi, Tom. VIII. p. 159. Montfauc.), appeals to the
common mode of speech in Greek: ὡς εἰώθαμεν λέγειν, ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας, ὀψὲ τοῖ
xaipov, frequent and well-known expressions.
I must here be allowed to mention another possible ground of the omission in
some Mss. of the passage in question, viz. the difference of opinion in respect to
Lent. The letter of Dionysius to Basilides was occasioned by an inquiry on
this subject. Some thought that our Lord rose at midnight, and therefore they
left off fasting about this time; the Romans believed him to have risen in the
61
482
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
α
sioned difficulty, when compared with the dyέ of Matthew, they would
have seen that the portion which they felt it necessary to reject must
begin several verses earlier. The words λίαν πρωΐανατείλαντος τοῦ
hiou (Mark 16: 2), are properly the parallel clause to Matthew's ope
oaßßárov, and are as contradictory to it as the expression in v. 9. There
are no other difficulties in the passage in Mark, which may not be urged
likewise as to Matthew, and in part as to Luke, compared with John.
We cannot, therefore, expect from this quarter any grounds of decision
as to its genuineness, and must turn to the internal evidence in the pas-
sage itself.
Mark's mode of narration is never so irregular and disorderly, as to
lead us to expect such an awkward termination of his work as ¿qoßouvro
yao, in v. 8, would be. It is plain that this, instead of being a conclu-
sion, is but a preparation for something to follow.
Let us consider the tenor given to his account of the resurrection by
this termination: The women came to the sepulchre, found the stone
rolled away, were addressed by a young man clothed in a white gar-
ment, who told them that Jesus had risen, and commanded them to
communicate this information to the disciples, with the injunction that
they should go into Galilee, where they should see our Lord. They,
however, said nothing to any man, for they were afraid. Here the Gos-
pel would end. If Mark terminated it in this way, he closed his ac-
count of an occurrence which was the most important evidence in favor
of Christianity, with assuring us that nothing was known of the resurrec-
tion at the time; that nothing could have been known about it, inas-
much as those on whose testimony the fact rests, told no one of it. He
himself might then be asked, how he knew and was able to relate what
happened to the women, if they told no one of it. An inconceivable
want of consideration in so important a matter! Even if he had no in-
tention of attesting the occurrence by further evidence, he was at any
rate bound to inform the reader how the incident in respect to the wo-
men was divulged and became notorious. He would thus present clear-
ly at least one argument drawn from the declarations of witnesses,
though that be the weakest of all which are exhibited in the Gospels.
Now this very portion of the history which is denied to have been
:
morning, and did not break their fast till cock-crowing of pèv yào ¿v Púµŋ
ἀδελφοί, ὡς φασι, περιμένουσι τὸν ἀλέκτορα. We know with what pertinacity
the churches adhered to such traditionary usages. Now those who broke their
fast at midnight had this passage of Mark against them; particularly the first
words, ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωΐ πρώτῃ σαββάτου. If he arose early on the first
day of the week, it was necessary that the fast should be prolonged till
morning. Yet a satisfactory solution of the difficulty was found, in referring
πρωΐ πρώτη σαββάτου to the next words, ἐφάνη πρῶτον. (Greg. Nyssen. in the
above-mentioned discourse, p. 411, and Victor Antioch. in Caten. in Marc. Ed.
Possini). Before this solution was obtained, however, it may very probably have
been the case that these verses of Mark were treated as suspicious in order to
vindicate particular usages. We find them excluded from an Egyptian Ms.,
Cod. B; Cod. L at least casts suspicion on them in a Scholium, of which we
shall speak presently; and Ammonius excluded it from his Monotessaron. Now
it was customary in some churches of Egypt to break the fast before the cock-crow-
ing, as Basilides says: περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐνταῦθα ἔλεγες, ὅτι τάχιον, νiz. τῶν ἐν Ῥώμῃ
adelgan. This coincidence deserves to be remarked, though it is not by any
means sufficient to serve as the basis for any positive conclusion.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
483
written by Mark, is an account how the women came to tell of what
had happened to them, how little credit was given to their narrative, and
from what other subsequent occurrences satisfactory assurance of the
fact was obtained.
The preposterous nature of such a termination, both in a grammati-
cal and historical point of view, was perceived even by those Greeks
who did not receive the passage; for some of them added a conclusion
of their own, which satisfied at least the principal requisitions that could
be made of the author. It was as follows: Πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα
τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν. Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐ
τὸς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλε δι' αὐτῶν
τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας (Schol. Cod.
L. et in marg. versionis Philox.). Let us hear what the great master in
matters of New Testament criticism says on this subject. He calls the
conclusion qoẞouvro yao "clausulam abruptissimam ;" and further de-
clares, “omnibus incredibile videri debebat, Marcum sic finivisse com-
mentariolum suum,” etc.¹
αο
We have come, then, to this point. It is admitted, that the termina-
tion would be abrupt, the book grammatically and historically incom-
plete, if Mark had closed his work at 16: 8. Supposing the Gospel,
then, to have once actually terminated thus, either the author must have
been suddenly taken away by death, or he must have been interrupted
in his work by the death of his voucher. In the first case it was impos-
sible that the work should have any further addition from him; in the
other case, not only was such an addition possible, but it was his duty
not to leave the book in this condition; he was bound to conclude
properly as soon as circumstances permitted.
It is only on the supposition that the author was overtaken by death
before he had finished his work, that we can believe the remainder to
have been added by another hand. In that case, however, the language
of the part added must wear a somewhat different appearance from the
rest; as is the fact in regard to the 8th book of Thucydides, which is
supposed, from the change in the style, to have been added by his
daughter after her father's death.
If it be objected, that the addition to Mark is too small for us to de-
termine anything from the style, I answer, it is well known that a differ-
ent tone and a peculiar style of expression may manifest themselves in a
short compass.2
As to his death, moreover, history informs us that af
ter the composition of his Gospel he left Rome, went to Egypt, and
taught at Alexandria.3 Thus we have no internal or external grounds
for supposing the author's death; which alone could justify the position
that the conclusion of the book is by another hand.
1 Griesbach, Comm. Crit. in text. Græc. N. T. Particula II. p. 199.
2 We have a proof of this in the very conclusion (πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα
x. T. 2.) which, as we have said, was appended to some Mss. The expression
ovvτéμws in it is almost wholly foreign to the N. T. Instead of isoov, the usual
biblical expression is ἅγιον ; and ἄφθαρτον, connected with κήρυγμα, comes from
the rhetorical language of the fathers. Such deviation from Ñ. T. diction do we
find in the compass of four lines.
3 Euseb. H. E. L. II. c. 16. Epiph. Hær. LI. § 6. Hieronym. Catal. v. Mar-
cus. Gelas. Decret. de script. apocryph. Mansi Collect. Concil. T. VIII. p. 147.
Eutych. Alexandr. Annal. T. I. p. 334. and 337. text. Arab.
484
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
On the other supposition, viz. that he was interrupted in his work by
the death of his voucher, we can readily see how there may have been
in the most ancient times some copies with, and some without, this con-
cluding passage. The friends of the history of Jesus took or procured
copies of what was already written; particularly, as but little was want-
ing to the completion of the work. When, after some time, the conclu-
sion appeared, it was appended in some Mss., and in others was ne-
glected. Thus it happened that there continued to be Mss. without
the conclusion, long after it was written.
The death of the two apostles with whom Mark was at Rome, may
easily, as every one will see, have had such an effect on the situation of
the Christians in the capital, as to occasion interruptions of their meet-
ings and of Mark's occupations, and perhaps, too, Mark's immediate
departure from the city. It appears to me, moreover, that instead of the
present concise account of the resurrection, we should have had a more
detailed narration of this most important event, had the witness whose
statements Mark presents in his Gospel, communicated information res-
pecting it.
On the contrary, however, we see the historian, who elsewhere seems
to place his chief merit in the circumstantiality of his narrative, timor-
ously contenting himself with general outlines of the final events of the
Gospel history, as though he was unwilling to trust himself when depri-
ved of the authority and testimony of the eyewitness. Every thing is as
it must have been under the supposed circumstances.
Others despatch this question in a shorter way. They take it for
granted that, at any rate, Mark's genuine conclusion is lost, and then,
from the admission they manufacture for themselves, pronounce the
present conclusion not to be genuine. By the convenient words, at
any rate, they avoid all argument, and even any explanation how the
loss of the genuine conclusion can be regarded as possible. Though it
is true that a portion of Luke's history was lost unobserved from the
middle of the book, yet we can show that it eluded attention on ac-
count of an oμolOTÉλEVTOV. The same ought to be shown in this case.
How could the conclusion of the book disappear and the circumstance
be unnoticed? It must have attracted attention. If it happened before
copies had been taken, before the publication of the Gospel, Mark might
easily have remedied it, and was bound to do so; if it occurred after
copies were taken, the genuine conclusion must at least have been pre-
served in some Mss., and must it not then be the one which we now
have?
$ 76.
JOHN CHAP. 21.
In reading the 30th and 31st verses of the 20th chapter of John's
Gospel, we expect that the book is to be there concluded, and are per-
plexed to find, that after the writer has, as it were, taken the last look at
his work, and apologized for its incompleteness by stating its object,
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
485
which allowed him only to relate such events as proclaimed Jesus to be
the Son of God, the Christ, the author of life to men,-that after thus
(apparently) concluding what he had undertaken to accomplish, he ab-
ruptly commences his narrative anew. This it was that first excited
suspicion respecting the last chapter, which is so completely dissevered
from connexion with the rest of the history; and further plausibility
was soon conferred on the suspicion by the researches of learned men.
No one, however, has attacked it with so much force as a celebrated
biblical scholar of our own times. He regards it as an appendix by
another hand, and explains the occasion of its composition in the follow-
ing way.
The saying had spread abroad, that John was to live on this earth
till the last coming of our Lord, according to the express promise of
Jesus (John 21:22, 23). John was now dead, and the Saviour had not
appeared. From this fact arose injurious inferences in respect to the
delay of Christ's coming, and even in respect to the truth of Christianity.
To obviate these, some well-meaning man composed this supplement to
John's Gospel, and showed from the language of Jesus that an incorrect
signification would be assigned to it, if it were interpreted as promising
that the coming of our Lord should take place during the lifetime of
John.
His first argument is, that the difference of style shows it to have been
an appendix by another hand. John, who is accustomed always to
speak of himself in the third person, uses here the first person singular,
in the Attic dialect moreover, oiµai (21: 25), and the first person plural
(21: 24), οἴδαμεν ὅτι κ. τ. 2.
Now, how frequently he expresses himself in the same way in his
Epistles, which were written at the same time. Does he not use the
words, γράφω, ἔγραψα, ἀκηκόαμεν, ἑωράκαμεν (1 Εp. 2: 13, 14. 1: 1,
2, 3, seq.)? Does he not say at the commencement of his Gospel,
¿Vɛaœáµɛða výv dóžav avtov (1:14)? And has he never, in any other
part of his book, used Attic forms? What then, are ἀκηκόαμεν and
Ewoάzaμev (John 3: 11. 4: 42. 5: 37. 8: 38. 14: 9)?
ξασ
It is said, however, that there have crept into this chapter, from tra-
dition, inaccurate statements, which cannot have been made by John.
The disciples are represented as living in Galilee between the resurrec-
tion and ascension of Jesus; which cannot be correct, as eight days af-
ter the resurrection they are still at Jerusalem (John 20: 26).
But, after making their observations and inquiries on the theatre of
his death and resurrection, they may, sometime during the following
32 days, have gone to Galilee, whither they were directed to go after the
resurrection, not only by the account of the women, but likewise by our
Saviour himself (Matth. 26: 32. Mark 14: 28).
It is replied, however, that directly after the resurrection they receiv-
ed command not to leave Jerusalem (Luke 24: 49). How then could
they be in Galilee?
1 Grotius, Adnot. ad Joann. XX. 30. Ger. John Vossius, Harm. Evang. L. III.
Cap. 4. § 8. Joann. Clericus, Biblioth. Univers. T. II. p. 473.
2 Eberh. Gottl. Paulus, in the "Neuen Repert. für bibl. und morgenl. Litt."
Th. II.
486
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
The case is not as represented. The Acts of the Apostles is more
precise on this point. Our Lord lived forty days with his disciples, be-
fore he enjoined upon them not to leave Jerusalem till they, où μετà
nollas nuevas, within a few days, should receive the Holy Ghost (Acts
1: 3, 4, 5). The idea that they received the injunction directly after
the resurrection, does not find countenance even in Luke's Gospel; but
there, as in the Acts, it was our Lord's last direction, after which he was
parted from them and was taken up into heaven. There are, therefore,
more than thirty days remaining for the occurrences in Galilee.
Is it any thing incredible, that John himself should have refuted an
error which arose in regard to him during his lifetime, and the ill conse-
quences of which were apparent? Why should he surrender to another
hand task which he could best perform himself, and which it was es-
pecially incumbent on him to perform?
af-
Examine the narrative. From its nature it must have been composed
before John's death. It is animated by a particularity which we could
expect only from an eye-witness, by whom every circumstance was re-
marked with extreme interest, and lodged deep in his memory. He not
only recalls every individual concerned, though he wrote many years
ter the occurrence, but many incidental things which one would far less
expect to find stated. He still knows exactly how and with what
Peter girt himself in haste to go to our Lord. With the practised eye
of a fisherman, he judges the distance of the ship from the land : It
was not far, but as it were two hundred cubits, from land. He still
knows the number of the fishes which they caught. Nor does he give
merely a general statement of the number; not a single one escapes
him: They were an hundred fifty and three. He still wonders, too,
how it happened that the net did not break.
Now who could know all these minute circumstances after the lapse
of years, unless he had been one of those engaged in catching the fish-
es, and had shared them with the rest? Is not the eye-witness and par-
ticipator visible every where? Who was there that could have written
in this manner after John's death? Was he not one of the most youth-
ful of the disciples of Jesus, and did he not die a noɛnßúteoos, an old
man ?
He himself perceived, however, that such an appendix, subjoined af-
ter the apparent conclusion of his work, might be subject to suspicion ;
and therefore he added expressly: It is this disciple (viz. he who lay in
Jesus' bosom, and of whom Jesus spoke thus), who testifies these things
and wrote them. So much precaution has he himself taken.
Now if the style is not his, if the narrative is interlarded with inaccu-
rate traditions, and yet his subscription is put to the book for the sake
of the authority of his name, it is a forgery, and we can make no great
account of the honesty of the well-meaning man who committed it.
On the other hand, if we compare the words in 21: 8 with 6: 19, in
which likewise John designates distance on the water, we find a
more than accidental similarity, reminding us of the former occupation
of the writer. Another of his customs, which we have mentioned a-
bove, with examples (§ 60, towards the end), viz. that of accompanying
the words of our Lord with interpretations of his own, is exhibited in
this chapter. There is even a remarkable similarity in phraseology to
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
487
an instance in the former part of the Gospel: 21: 19, тouro de εine,
σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ δοξάσει τὸν Θεὸν; 12: 33, τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγε,
σημαίνων ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἔμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν.
And how much fidelity is exhibited in the narrative! Can it be the
production of an impostor? mere gossip, compiled from various reports?
How psychological is his representation of the demeanor of the fisher-
men, particularly. How could he so happily delineate Peter's conduct
in exact accordance with his character? Peter no sooner hears that it
is our Lord, than he throws himself impetuously into the sea to get to
him; exactly as we should expect from the vehemence of his feelings,
and his deportment in other cases. The conduct of the other disciples
is different; they know it is our Lord, but have not presence of mind
enough to speak to him.
Jesus afterwards asks Peter three times: Lovest thou me?
-a mild
reproof for the past, for his having three times denied him. How ap-
propriate! How entirely free from passion and from human feeling!
We
The apostle appears differently. At the third repetition of the ques-
tion, he cannot retain his composure; his character is again displayed.
He is not angry, however; how could he be at this moment?
should expect that the affection of his mind would be different. He is
grieved.
Jesus quiets the impetuous disciple by giving him his whole confi-
dence; showing him, however, at the same time, the prospect of a
death of suffering. The apostle understands our Lord, but shrinks not
at the prospect; he does not stand embarrassed and lost in thought re-
specting himself. In regard to thousands this would be unnatural; but
not in regard to him. Such must have been the first impression on his
mind; such it was on a former occasion (22: 33), and must still more
have been so on this.
What, now, is more natural than the particular turn which his mind
takes; viz. that he should inquire what was to become of him with
whom he vied in our Lord's affections? And what is more suitable
than the reply of Jesus: Is it any matter to thee, if I have allotted him a
milder fate?
This chapter, then, has far too much truth of representation and in-
ternal fidelity, too much consistency with the character and situation of
the persons, to be regarded as a compilation of various reports, or as a
fiction of pious fraud.
In regard to the last two verses, however: This is the disciple which
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his
testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus
did, etc.; if, on the ground that the phraseology is that of a third person,
and the last words contain a hyperbole, we suppose them not to have
been written by John, but that, as Dr. Less thinks, they were added
by the church at Ephesus, in confirmation of the appendix, we have here
the authority of contemporaries, the members of a church of great res-
pectability, to prove that he was the author of the chapter.
488
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
}
$ 77.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
The Acts and Gospel of Luke together form a whole, of which the
latter is the first part, and the former the second. In the Gospel he
presents the history of Jesus till his ascension; in the Acts he resumes
the thread of the narrative, where he had dropped it in his former history.
By comparing the beginning of the Acts with the end of the Gospel, we
see clearly, that in writing the latter, he reserved a detailed account of
the ascension for his following work, and that, while occupied in finish-
ing the Gospel, he already had the intention of continuing the history,
as he afterwards did in the Acts.
Thus Luke himself regarded the two works. The Gospel he calls in
Acts 1: 1, norov lóyov, the first treatise, the first part, the object of
which was to acquaint us with the actions and doctrines of Jesus, wv
ἤρξατο ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν. This could be called a first part only
in reference to a second. The Acts, consequently, are the deureoOS
Aoyos, the object of which is to inform us respecting the consequences
and results of our Saviour's projects after his death, respecting the acts
of his disciples, and the progress and increase of the sect he had found-
ed.
$ 78.
The contents of the book are as follows. After our Lord has given
his last injunctions, he ascends into heaven. The apostles supply the
place of Judas (-2:). On the day of Pentecost the Spirit is poured out;
effects of it; ill-founded opinions of some of the spectators; counter-
explanation of Peter in an address to the people; its impression on the
hearers. Increasing respect for the apostles; circumstances of the
church at Jerusalem (-3:). Peter and John heal a man lame from his
birth, in the temple; astonishment and assemblage of the people on ac-
count of it. Peter declares Jesus to be the author of the miracle. The
captain of the temple hastens thither, sees the tumult, hears the speak-
er, and takes him with his companion to prison (-4:). On the follow-
ing day the Sanhedrim assembles; the two apostles are brought before
it.
Peter defends himself with boldness. He and John are set at liber-
ty, with the injunction to teach no longer concerning Jesus. They come
to their companions, and are received with enthusiasm (-4: 32). Com-
munity of goods among the Christians; hypocritical fraud of Ananias
and his wife (-5: 12). Miraculous cures are performed by the apos-
tles; the Sanhedrim, vexed at these miracles, imprisons the apostles.
An angel liberates them; they teach publicly in the temple; are appre-
hended anew, and carried before the Sanhedrim. They defend them-
selves; Gamaliel addresses the council; at his instance the apostles are
set at liberty, after being scourged; they, however, continue to teach in
the temple (—6:). The Hellenists murmur respecting the care taken of
their widows; deacons are elected for this business; and among them
is Stephen. His zeal for converting the people and his violent death
1
489
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
(-8). Philip teaches at Samaria; many believe; among them Si-
mon, who offers money for the gifts of the Spirit. On the road to Ga-
za, Philip meets with the treasurer of Candace; instructs him respect-
ing the Messiah, and baptizes him (-9:). Saul persecutes the disci-
ples of Jesus; is converted while thus employed, and then preaches Je-
sus at Damascus; is for that reason obliged to flee; goes to Jerusalem
and then to Tarsus (-9: 31). Peter visits the believers in Lydda;
cures Eneas; visits Joppa; restores Tabitha to life; baptizes Corne-
lius at Cæsarea; justifies himself before the church at Jerusalem for
baptizing this Gentile (-11: 19).
Meanwhile the church at Antioch takes its rise. Barnabas is sent
thither from Jerusalem; seeks Saul; and they perform together the du-
ties of the ministry (-11: 26). At Antioch Agabus prophesies a famine;
Saul and Barnabas are on this account sent to the Holy City. At this
time Agrippa puts to death James the elder; and casts Peter into pris-
on, who is miraculously liberated and departs to another place; Agrip-
pa dies (—12: 24). Saul and Barnabas are sent from Antioch to preach
in foreign countries. They go to Cyprus; from thence to the continent
into Asia Minor. An account is given of what they did in Antioch of
Pisidia, at Iconium, at Lystra, of their return and report of their pro-
ceedings (-15: 1). Dissension in the church at Antioch respecting the
obligatory force of Jewish institutions upon the Gentiles. Paul and
Barnabas are sent a second time to the Holy City. Solemn consulta-
tion at Jerusalem, and decision of the question in dispute. A deputa-
tion from Jerusalem accompanies Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch
(-15:36). Paul and Barnabas concert a new journey to Asia Minor;
they separate; Paul goes with Silas. At Lystra, Paul and Silas take
Timothy to be their companion; travel through Phrygia and Gala-
tia; embark for Europe (-16: 10).
Luke accompanies them from Troas to Philippi; what befalls.
them there. They travel through Macedonia to Athens and Corinth
(-18:2). Paul teaches at Corinth; is driven thence; goes by way of
Ephesus to Jerusalen; thence returns to Ephesus, where he teaches till
he is driven from this city also (-20: 1). He again turns his course to
Macedonia and Achaia; repairs once more to Jerusalem with Luke;
is imprisoned. Paul's defence before the people; before the Sanhe-
drim; before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa the younger; his departure
for Rome; occurrences on the voyage, and arrival at Rome.
The whole book divides itself into three sections; viz. first, the estab-
lishment of Christianity in Palestine; secondly, the origin of the church
at Antioch, and expeditions thence into the heathen countries of Asia ;
and lastly, expeditions to Europe, in which Luke appears as Paul's com-
panion. This last section might be divided further into two parts; viz.
occurrences in relation to Paul which took place after the historian had
become closely connected with him (16: 10), and such occurrences af-
ter the period when Luke became his inseparable companion (20: 6—
28: 31).
$79.
In a portion of his work the author does not merely represent him-
self as an eye-witness of the events he relates, but introduces himself
62
490
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
into the narrative as a participator in them; though this is not the case
till a late stage of the history (Acts 16: 10 seq. and 20: 6 seq.). He may,
however, have witnessed a great part of the events which he narrates in
the first section of his book, unless Palestine, where he resided during
the life of Jesus, was left by him directly after our Lord's death. As it
would be precipitate and arbitrary to extend the declaration which he
makes in the introduction of his Gospel, to everything which he relates
as having taken place in Palestine, without recollecting that it proper-
ly refers only to the contents of the Gospel; so it would be no less ar-
bitrary to assume that he did not remain in that country an hour long-
er than the compass of his Gospel requires. The Procemium asserts
Luke's residence in Palestine during the period referred to; but does
not prevent us from supposing a continuance of his stay.
This being premised, we must learn from the tenor of the book of
Acts, how long we can and ought to regard him as having resided in
Palestine. If we consider the uncommon knowledge of facts evinced
by the writer in the section relating to what occurred in Palestine, we
shall readily believe that he had not as yet left the country. This per-
fect acquaintance with facts continues without diminution to the sec-
ond section, i. e. the founding of the church at Antioch (11: 19).
From this moment he turns away from Palestine, and does not speak at
all of the elders of Jerusalem or of occurrences there, except when de-
puties from Antioch appear in that city, and then only during their stay
(Acts 12: 1-25, and 15: 4-30).
The abrupt transition from occurrences in Palestine may have arisen
either from a sudden inaction on the part of the elders and ministers
there, and consequently a deficiency of events worthy of record, or from
a change in the point of view occupied by the historian. The more in-
credible the former supposition is, the greater ground is there for
adopting the latter; viz. that Luke left Palestine when Christianity be-
gan to take root in Antioch. After a time, however, he deserts the
church at Antioch likewise. The reason of this change is apparent in
the course of the narrative itself. Luke removed to Troas (Acts 16: 8
-10), where he was ignorant of the occurrences in the church at Anti-
och. On the other hand, it was owing to this change of residence that
he was an eye-witness of Paul's reception in Europe and his first pro-
ceedings in this quarter of the world, and was even his companion in
the passage over. This opened the way to further intimacy with him,
and thus enabled him to become the historian of the apostle during the
last period, in which the scene of his former enterprises became more
and more remote.
We see how great an influence Luke's different points of view had upon
his history; and we hope to elucidate it further by considering the three
sections more particularly. In the third section, Luke is explicit and
diffuse so long as he is at Paul's side, or even in his vicinity (Acts 16.
10-18:). The more remote he is from the apostle, the more concise is
his narrative. The events of a year and a half at Corinth he comprises
in seventeen verses (18: 1-17). Nearly all we learn is the arrival and
departure of Paul, without a word concerning the importance of the re-
sult of his labors, or concerning the condition of the church. Im-
mediately after, he comprises a journey from Ephesus to Jerusalem,
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
491
from thence to Antioch, then through Galatia and Phrygia back again
to Ephesus, in two verses (18: 22, 23). As soon, however, as the apos-
tle rejoins Luke (20: 6), the narrative recovers its character, and is ren-
dered rich and animated by an agreeable particularity.
In the second section, which is devoted to occurrences connected
with the church at Antioch, he speaks only of the origin of the church,
the earliest events there, and the peregrinations of Paul and Barnabas
from Antioch to Cyprus and Asia Minor (15: 1). He then has nothing
to say till the second mission to Jerusalem. When this was accomplish-
ed, the apostle abandoned Antioch as his station; and Luke, in the
course of a few years from this time, became very intimately connected
with Paul. Now in respect to the journey to Cyprus, the proceedings
of Paul and Barnabas at the court of the proconsul, their departure,
their preaching in Antioch of Pisidia, their fortunes at Iconium, Lystria,
etc. (Acts 13: 1-14:27), the more remarkable circumstances are clear-
ly and somewhat fully depicted; while such things as were not of an
unusual character are but slightly noticed. Generally speaking, the
narrative is very much such an one as Paul and Barnabas may have
given to the church at Antioch on their return.
+
We next come, however, to a period during which nothing is related
in regard either to Palestine or Antioch. This is called by Luke in a
general way, yoóvos oux diyos, no inconsiderable time (Acts 14: 28);
and it actually comprised several years. On careful consideration it
will be found that the transactions of the first expedition into heathen
countries may perhaps have taken up two years; but still five whole
years, to the twelfth year of the reign of Claudius, are passed over as
though no Antioch and no Paul existed. It is not till the twelfth year
of this emperor, as we shall see from chronological designations here-
after, that the history commences again with the remarkable dispute
concerning the obligatory force of the Jewish observances (15: 1 seq).
Now Luke was in Paul's company the next year, and may have obtain-
ed from him a minute knowledge of these recent occurrences (16: 10).
The five preceding years, nevertheless, remain vacant. He derived no
information from Paul in regard to them; nor was he himself living in
Syria or Palestine during the period. These countries certainly con-
tinued, however, to be the special field of Christian history. Who can
believe that for so long a time nothing memorable took place in Pales-
tine and Syria, or was undertaken by Paul, who had a natural repug-
nance to inactivity? Whether Luke had gone to Troas, where Paul
met him subsequently, or was in some other place, certainly he was not
in Antioch or Palestine. Nothing of the kind occurs elsewhere through-
out the book; in the third section the order of time is pursued constant-
ly, even though the periods are not always very copiously treated of.
The first section, compared with the two last, exhibits a fulness of
which neither of the others can boast. If ever the historian shows him-
self circumstantially and minutely acquainted with facts and discourses,
it is in relation to the occurrences in Palestine. Indeed, only those
parts of the third section that narrate incidents of which he was an eye-
witness, exhibit such particularity as is uniformly displayed throughout
this section. If, therefore, in any part of his book we have reason to
regard him as an eye-witness, it is here. A comparison with the most
492
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
animated of those narratives which we know to have been composed
from personal knowledge, justifies this conclusion as to the whole of the
first section.
$ 80.
From these observations the plan of the author is easily understood.
It was not his object to relate the part borne by each of the apostles in
the diffusion of Christianity, what churches were founded by each of
them, and what was their respective fate. Considered in this light, the
first section of the work would be extremely imperfect. Nor was it his
design in the third section to present the complete history of Paul to a
certain period; for he was not in possession of all the facts requisite for
this purpose, as we can see from the book of Acts itself, and may be
still more fully convinced from the 11th chapter of the 2d Epistle to
the Corinthians. He did not propose to himself either of these under-
takings beforehand, and then begin to collect materials for its accom-
plishment. It would have been too late, had he delayed to commence
collecting materials for his history until the composition of his Gospel,
at which time he first formed his intention to add a second part. The
Acts of the Apostles were not the result of any plan previously formed,
which he intended to execute by means of subsequent investigations,
but of the numerous recollections and memoranda which he had stored
up. Without any reference to completeness or unity, he presents some-
times remarkable incidents and sometimes large portions of history, just
as he happened to observe the facts at the various stations to which he
was led by the circumstances of his life. Through the fortunate variety
of situation, however, in which he was placed at different times, he ac-
tually enables his readers to form a general idea of the mode in
which Christianity was preserved and established after the decease of its
founder and in a short time diffused into many countries.
$81.
The time at which he composed his work and the person for whom it
was written had a great influence on its character. The Gospel of
Luke, the third in order of time, did not appear till after Paul's death,
and of course, then, the Acts of the Apostles did not; for the Gospel of
Mark, although it preceded Luke's, was not published till after the de-
cease of Peter and Paul (§ 16). Now if at that time there were found
to be chasms in the history of Paul, it was no longer possible to derive
explanations from Paul himself; and if the scene of these events was in
distant countries, it would have been a very onerous task to procure
from thence the necessary information in regard to them. Luke was,
therefore, obliged to renounce the idea of completeness, however de-
sirous he may have been of attaining it.
There is yet another circumstance to be considered, which exerted a
determining influence upon the extent of the work. He dedicated
this book, as well as his Gospel, to his friend Theophilus, and intended
it more particularly for his information (Acts 1: 1). In order that it
may be intelligible to him, explanations, mostly of a geographical na-
ture, are subjoined by him very frequently, until he comes to the period
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
493
of Paul's arrival in Italy. At this point, he ceases to insert such re-
marks, and seems to be certain that Theophilus is acquainted with
the situation of the places he afterwards mentions. Precisely similar is
his manner in regard to the facts themselves. The early proceedings
of the apostle, and his proceedings in later times at Jerusalem and
subsequently till he arrives at Rome, are treated by Luke with much par-
ticularity; but Paul is hardly at Rome when he concludes his nar-
rative by merely remarking that Paul spent two whole years here.
Yet, as we see by the apostle's letters from Rome, Luke was con-
stantly with him, might have been a spectator of every thing, and must
often have been a fellow-sufferer with him. And these very occur-
rences in the capital of the world were of special importance in re-
gard to the history of Christianity, and were probably the most in-
teresting in the apostle's life. The charges of his accusers, his trials,
his defence, which, as the apostle himself said (Philipp. 1: 13), made his
bonds in the prætorium honorable and glorious to Christianity, the new
accessions to the Christian cause which were gained by him, the exer-
tions of his friends and enemies, the one for his destruction and the
other for his preservation, were of high moment to his contemporaries
and to the future disciples of Jesus. In respect to all this he says
not a word; he does not even mention the judicial sentence which de-
cided the action brought against the apostle, or any reason why he was
liberated.
Luke, then, did not write with a view to his contemporaries in the
distant countries of Asia, who found great difficulty in procuring cir-
cumstantial and authentic accounts of these incidents. As little did he
write with a view to posterity. Friendship for the man whose pious cu-
riosity he wished to gratify excluded both considerations from his view.
It was written for his benefit; and it was only incidentally that others
reaped advantage from it. The ground of observation which Luke sup-
posed Theophilus to occupy was, therefore, the standard of his work;
and it was only necessary that he should conduct the individual for
whom he wrote to the point where that individual's own knowledge
began.
Hence, as on the one hand we owe to his friendship for Theophilus
his determination, by means of a Gospel of his own, to free the history
of Jesus from the interpolations made in it by unauthenticated writers,
to separate what was true and exhibit it in a faithful history; so, on the
other hand, it can be attributed only to the relation in which his friend
stood in respect to the facts in the Acts of the Apostles, that no histori-
cal account of the occurrences at Rome was furnished by Luke for the
benefit of his contemporaries and of coming generations.
$ 82.
Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles.
On the chronology of this book much depends in regard to its ex-
position, and much more in regard to the illustration of the Pauline
494
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
Epistles. I have here to correct some inadvertencies which I formerly
committed.¹
There is hardly any passage in the book more definite in a chrono-
logical point of view than 11: 23-12: 25. Agabus had prophesied at
Antioch an approaching famine; on which account the believers made
a collection for the relief of the necessitous in Judea, and sent it by the
hands of Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem. After Luke has narrated
the mission of the two teachers (11: 30), he makes a transition to re-
markable occurrences at the time in the Holy City (12: 1). These are,
the apprehension of Peter, occasioned by the gratification of the people
at the execution of James; his miraculous deliverance and departure
from Jerusalem; and the death of Herod Agrippa. After this, we are
told by Luke, the deputies returned to Antioch (12: 25). The chrono-
logical coincidence of these events with the residence of the two depu-
ties at Jerusalem, we infer from the representation of the historian; not
merely from the words xať éxɛivov tov zaιgóv (12: 1), but also from
the order of the narrative, which includes these events within the period
during which Barnabas and Paul resided at Jerusalem, no account be-
ing given of the return of the deputies to Antioch until after these oc-
currences are narrated.
κατ
>
Consequently, this period must likewise have included the death of
Agrippa, which occurred, as represented, about this time. Directly
after the fast at which Peter's execution was to have taken place, the
king left his usual residence at Jerusalem,2 and went to Cæsarea, which,
according to both Luke and Josephus, was the place of his death (Acts
12: 9. Jos. Ant. L. XIX. c. 8. n. 2). His departure for that place oc-
curred immediately after Peter's deliverance. Now as the deputies were
in no haste, the death of the king may easily have occurred during their
stay in the Holy City. They had no message which it was necessary
to carry back with despatch, and were no longer needed at Antioch, as
appears soon after their return (13: 1, 2), and therefore they were not
required to hasten their journey home.
Yet, granting that the death of Agrippa did not take place till some
months after his arrival at Cæsarea, and that it is related directly, more
for the sake of completing the account, than because the event occurred
while the two teachers abode at Jerusalem; still the occurrences we
have mentioned must have taken place sometime during the year of
Agrippa's death.
Now we find this year stated definitely in Josephus Agrippa died
:
1 In composing this sketch I have had the following recent writings before
me: “Vogel,
"Versuch über chronologische Standpuncte in der Lebens-
geschichte Pauli" in Gabler's "Journal für auserlesene theol. Litt." I Bd. I St.
"Neuer Versuch über chronol. Standpuncte für die Apostelgeschichte, etc." by
Dr. Süskind, in Bengel's "Archiv für die Theologie und ihre neueste Litt.” Ï.
Bd. n. XII. and IId Bd. 2d St.-Kuinoel, 'Comm. in libros Novi Test. Historicos.'
Vol. 4. Proleg. in Act. Apost.-Bertholdt, "Hist. krit. Einleit. in die Schriften
des alten und neuen Test." Th. V. 2d Hälfte. § 629 seq. The limits I have as-
signed to my work do not permit me to discuss every objection separately, when
I differ from these learned men, though I have paid particular regard to them in
the development of my arguments.
2 Jos. Ant. L. XIX. c. 7. n. 3. Ηδεῖα γοῦν αὐτῷ δίαιτα και συνεχὴς ἐν τοῖς
Ιεροσολύμοις ἦν.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
495
after having governed four years under Caius and three under Claudius
Cæsar. He remarks further for the sake of being more precise: the
third year under Claudius had already closed, τρίτον ἔτος ἤδη πεπλη-
ρῶτο
The deputies from Antioch arrived at Jerusalem at the feast of the
passover; for the apprehension of Peter took place at the time of un-
leavened bread (12: 3), and his execution was to take place after the
feast (12: 4). Hence Agrippa's death did not occur until after the pass-
over. Now Claudius ascended the throne in January, and according
to Josephus the third year of his reign had closed when Agrippa died.
This passover, therefore, cannot have been the passover of the third
year of Claudius, but must have been the one in the early part of his
fourth year. In this way the time is very definitely fixed. In the
third month of the fourth year of the reign of Claudius, Barnabas and
Paul arrived at Jerusalem with the gifts of the church at Antioch; and
sometime after Agrippa died.
After Agrippa's decease, the famine foretold by Agabus came to
pass, viz. under Cuspius Fadus, who, on account of the nonage of Agrip-
pa the younger, was appointed by the emperor to govern the dominions
of the father, and likewise under Tiberius Alexander, who succeeded
him in this office.2
After this incidental remark, we must return once more to the mis-
sion of Paul and Barnabas. It has been thought that this is referred to
in Galat. 2: 1-15, and chronological inferences have been drawn from
this passage, because the apostle in speaking of his visit to Jerusalem,
commences with these words: Then fourteen years after I went up a-
gain to Jerusalem, etc. This is an important designation of time, and
hence it is of consequence that we should know to what fact it relates.
I was formerly of opinion (and in this respect I had predecessors of
great note), that Paul here refers to the mission on account of the impend-
ing famine. But this cannot be the one intended; he must refer to the
later one, which he undertook with Barnabas on another occasion (15:
1-4). My reasons are the following. Paul had not on the first occa-
sion been held in high estimation among Christians for a period of four-
teen years (Acts 11: 25 seq. comp. Galat. 1: 21-24). At the time
when he was sent by the church at Antioch to carry their charitable
donations, he was merely a local teacher and assistant of Barnabas at
Antioch (Acts 11: 22, 26). His call to the office of an apostle was not
acknowledged till after his return from this mission (13: 2).
In the account, however, which he gives of his visit in the Epistle to
the Galatians, he appears as an acknowledged apostle, whose labors had
justified his pretensions. He had already been a preacher among the
Gentiles (Galat. 2: 2), and the evidence was convincing that the in-
struction of the heathen, τῆς ἀκροβυστίας εὐαγγέλιον, and αποστολή,
was committed to his hands; so that as apostle to the Gentiles, he rank-
1 In the Jewish war, L. II. c. 11. n. 6. he gives only the round number three; for
Caius Cæsar had not completed his fourth year. But in Antiq, L. XIX. c. 8. n. 2.
he gives the time with all the precision stated : Τέτταρας μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ Γαΐου Καίσα
ρος ἐβασίλευσεν ἐνιαυτοὺς—τρεῖς δὲ ἐπιλαβὼν ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος αὐτοκρατο
ρίας, etc.
2 Jos. Ant. L. XX. c. 5. n. 2. Comp. B. I. L. II. c. 11. n. 6. Ant. L. III. c. 15.
n. 3.
496
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
ed himself with Peter, the apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2: 7, 8). His ap-
pointment to this office by divine authority (dois doveloα), was so evi-
dent, that James, Peter and John, made a division with him, by which
they retained the Jews under their own superintendence, and assigned
him the whole world beside (Gal. 2: 9).
These circumstances cannot have occurred until Paul had returned
from his long journey among the Gentiles (Acts 13: 2. 15:), and was
sent a second time with Barnabas from Antioch to Jerusalem, to obtain
a decision of the dispute concerning the obligation of the Jewish observ-
ances (15: 1-30). This mission must be the one referred to; it took
place, he says, fourteen years later than the period when, three years
after his conversion, he presented himself before the apostles and
church at Jerusalem as a fellow-christian and believer (1: 18—2: 1
seq). The intervening journey to Jerusalem with the charitable dona-
tions from Antioch, therefore, is passed over in silence by Paul in his
Epistle to the Galatians, as he was not writing his biography, but was
endeavoring to show that he did not receive his Gospel from the other
apostles, that he was nowise inferior to them in authority, and, from
their own confession, was of equal rank and dignity with them. Now
if this intervening journey was not to his purpose, it was superfluous to
mention it; especially as when it took place he had but just gained
some little estimation, and had hitherto exercised only the local office of
teacher at Antioch.
The fourteen years which are mentioned ended with the mission in
regard to the Jewish observances, and began with Paul's first appear-
ance at Jerusalem as a Christian. Now in what year did this last oc-
currence take place? Let us examine the circumstances under which
it occurred, to see how far they may aid us in determining the year.
He came to Jerusalem from Damascus (Gal. 1: 17, 18). From this lat-
ter place he was obliged to flee, because he had exasperated the Jews
by his preaching. He escaped with difficulty over the walls in a basket ;
for the Jews sought his life and were watching the gates (Acts 9: 22—
29). Paul speaks of this incident in the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians
also (11: 32, 33), where we are informed that the governor appointed by
Aretas over Damascus (ὁ ἐν Δαμασκῷ ἐθνάρχης) himself guarded the
city, or caused it to be guarded, instigated the Jews to this violence, and
supported them in endeavoring to carry it into effect. Now when did
Aretas obtain the government of Damascus?
Not long before Pompey entered these regions, on his return from
the Mithridatic war, the inhabitants of Damascus, desirous of ridding
themselves of an odious prince, had called Aretas, the king of Arabia
Petræa, to the government of Cole-Syria.¹ Pompey had hardly arrived
in the vicinity, when, according to the custom of the Romans, he inter-
meddled with this business, caused Damascus to be taken by his gen-
erals, and the Roman arms to be carried into the interior of the terri-
tories of Aretas. But the Romans encountered many difficulties in
these defiles and deserts, and Aretas on his part was desirous of getting
rid of them. Peace was therefore made.3 Damascus continued under
2
1 Jos. Ant. L. XIII. c. 15. n. 2.
2 Ant. L. XIV. c. 2. n. 3.
3 Ant. L. XIV. c. 5.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
497
1
the protection of the Romans. We find its coins from this time stamp-
ed with the head of Augustus or Tiberius. Not long before the death
of Tiberius, Damascus was involved in a controversy with Sidon, about
the respective limits of the cities; both contested their claims before
the Roman president of Syria.2 Thus the city continued free ever af-
ter, under the Roman protection.
About this time we meet with another king of Arabia Petræa named
Aretas, who at first was on bad terms with the Romans, so that Augus-
tus refused for some time to acknowledge him as king.3 Herod Anti-
pas carried on a disastrous war against him, and then sought aid of the
Romans.4 Vitellius was commissioned to make war upon Aretas.
While Vitellius was advancing against him, he received intelligence of
the death of Tiberius. He immediately returned, under the plea that
his commission had ceased.5 The victory over Herod, the return of
Vitellius, the change of emperors, and the preparations already made
for war, seem to have incited the Arabian to recover Damascus, which
had been taken from his ancestors. Prudence required that, if possible,
he should recover from the Romans a city which they made use of as a
military station, and which would serve him as a protection to his do-
minions.
6
A Jewish feast was at hand, when Vitellius was marching against
Aretas with his legions. This was probably the passover; for Tiberius
died on the 16th of March, and in less than three weeks Vitellius re-
ceived intelligence of it, and dismissed his army to their winter quarters.
Now was the time for the Arabians to invest Damascus and commence
the siege. If it be objected that Vitellius would not have permitted
this, I reply, that he could not do otherwise. If his commission was at
an end, as he said, in regard to a war already proclaimed, it certainly
did not extend to a new one.
The Nabathæan king and his governor, however, did not long hold
dominion in Damascus. So early as the second year of his reign, Caius
Cæsar undertook to regulate the affairs of Asia. He gave a king to the
Ituræan Arabs, whose territory was contiguous to that of the Nabathæ-
ans, and on one side, moreover, to the district of Damascus, and who fre-
quently disturbed the latter by their inroads. He likewise severed some
other parts from Arabia. In these arrangements, an important Ro-
man garrison, like Damascus, could not be forgotten. The Arabians
held it, therefore, at most, only from the middle of the 1st till about the
close of the 2d year of Caius Cæsar's reign. If we assign Paul's danger
and flight to the middle of this period, it will fall in the early part of the
second year of Caius' reign. Beginning here, the fourteen years run
1 Eckhel, Doctr. Numm. Vet. P. I. Vol. III. p. 330, 331. The inscriptions are
all Greek.
2 Jos. Ant. L. XVIII. c. 6. n. 3.
3 Ant. L. XVI. c. 9. n. 4.
4 Ant. L. XVIII. c. 5. n. 1 and 3.
5 Ant. L. XVIII. c. 5. n. 4.
6 Ant. L. XVIII. c. 5. n. 3.
,
>
7 Dio Cass. L. LIX. p. 649. Ἐν δὲ τούτῳ, Σοαίμῳ μὲν τὴν τῶν Ιτυραίων
τῶν Αράβων, Κότυϊ δὲ τήν τε Αρμενίαν τὴν σμικροτέραν, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ τῆς
Αραβίας τινὰ
ἐχαρίσατο.
63
498
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
on till Paul's second mission to Jerusalem respecting the obligation of
the Jewish observances, and terminate in the twelfth year of the reign
of Claudius.
Further; Paul (Gal. 1: 15—18) reckons three years from his conver-
sion to his flight from Damascus to Jerusalem.¹ These three years co-
incide with the first of Caius and last two of Tiberius. Tiberius reign-
ed twenty-two years and a half, wanting one month. Hence the two
years which belong to the reign of Tiberius began about the middle of
his twenty-first year, and Paul's conversion occurred about this period.
From the termination of the administration of Felix, we derive as-
sistance in fixing the chronology of the Acts. Under Felix Paul was
arrested at Jerusalem and carried prisoner to Cæsarea (Acts 21: 27-
23: 24). There he remained till Felix was recalled by the emperor,
and Porcius Festus succeeded him. The latter, immediately on his ac-
cession, sent the apostle to Rome, because he had demanded to re-
ceive his sentence from the tribunal of the emperor (25: 26:).
Now when was Felix deposed? Josephus gives us some light on this
point. He says at the beginning of his biography, that he was born in
the first year of Caius Cæsar. In his 26th year, he says further on, he
was obliged to proceed to Rome on the following account. While Fe-
lix held the government, some priests who were acquaintances of Jose-
phus, were sent by Felix to Rome to answer charges of a trifling nature,
and he was desirous of procuring their liberation; etc.2
Caius and Claudius together reigned seventeen years and eight
months; Josephus must therefore have lived eight years and four
months under Nero, before he went to Rome in the twenty-sixth year of
Was Felix at that time still in Judea?
his age.
So we might perhaps imagine; but he certainly was not in his station
when Josephus made complaint in regard to his tyranny. Such a step
would have been extremely hazardous while he retained his authority.
We find that it was not till after his deposition from his station that his
accusers made their appearance against him and sought justice at
Rome. We must therefore place the recall of Felix earlier than the
voyage of Josephus.
3
1 Some are inclined to reckon these fourteen years, not from the flight from Da-
mascus to Jerusalem, but from his conversion, thus including the three years.
The reason they assign is, that Paul would be likely to refer every thing back to
this event, the most important of his life. But in the Epistle to the Galatians,
the principal thing which he has in view is not his conversion, but the declara-
tion that he had not received instruction in doctrine from the apostles at Jeru-
salem, but from a higher source. This he shows as to the period during which
he must have received his instruction, by stating the places to which he went
and those to which he did not go : οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς ῾Ιεροσόλυμα (Gal: 1: 17);
ἔπειτα ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, but only for 15 days (v. 18), and ἔπειτα ἦλθον,
but not to Jerusalem (v. 21). As the principal topic is his going or not going,
and not his conversion, the subsequent visit (Gal. 2: 1) must refer to an earlier
one. So much is clear from the nature of the case, without taking into account
the word πάλιν. But πάλιν (πάλιν ἀνέβην) where it is not used antithetically,
denotes enumeration, and also repetition, or the recurrence of something similar
to what has preceded. It is equivalent to ἐκ δευτέρου, τὸ τρίτον, τέταρτον.
2 Vita Josephi § 3. and Basil. Ed. p. 626.
3 Jos. Ant. L. XX. c. 8. n. 9. Josephus set out on his voyage to Rome much
later than they; for while he was performing his business there, Poppea was
the acknowledged wife of the emperor (Vita, c. 3), which was not the case before
the eighth year of Nero.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
499
The subsequent fortunes of Felix assign his recall to the seventh year
of Nero. The complaints brought against him by the Jews were of so
weighty a character and so fully established, that he had forfeited his
life. Nero pardoned him only at the intercession of Pallas. Pallas
was the brother of Felix; and lost his life himself in the eighth consu-
late under this emperor. We must therefore assign the recall of Felix
to the year previous to this event.
I do not comprehend certain objections which have been made against
this statement. In the year of Pallas' death, P. Marius and L. Asini-
us were consuls (Tacit. Ann. XIV. 48), and, as Seneca says in his ad-
dress to Nero after the death of Burrhus (c. 53), this was the eighth
year of his reign. Burrhus was probably still alive when the accusers
of Felix appeared against him (Jos. Ant. XX. c. 8. n. 9); and yet he
was one of the first victims who perished this year to the great misfor-
tune of Rome. But I do not wish to lay any stress on this. The year
of Pallas' death is definitely determined, and Felix must have been re-
called before this event, i. e. in the seventh year of Nero.
$83.
Having thus specified the occurrences which carry with them defi-
nite designations of time, we must now endeavor to fill up a consider-
able period, which is of great importance as to the chronological rela-
tions of several of the Pauline Epistles. This period comprehends the
years between the second mission of Paul respecting the obligations of
the Jewish usages and his imprisonment at Jerusalem. Some of the
events or transactions carry with them the means of determining their
dates; others do not.
When Paul and Barnabas had returned from their mission to the
Holy City, they continued to teach and to preach in Antioch (Acts 15:
35). During this time Peter came to Antioch, where occurred the
well-known scene between him and Paul (Gal. 2: 11 seq.). After some
time, Paul and Barnabas projected a second voyage to Asia Minor
(Acts 15:36 seq.); but separated on account of Mark. Paul went after-
wards with Silas. The period from the return to Antioch to the com-
mencement of the journey to Asia Minor appears to have comprised sever-
al months. It is probable that Paul would not have undertaken it till the
severest portion of the winter had past. Barnabas, who purposed mere-
ly to visit Cyprus, probably went thither in autumn, to reach the place
before winter had set in. It is wholly immaterial, however, even if
Paul began his journey in autumn.
Paul set out, probably at the close of winter, for Cilicia, came to Pisid-
ia, Phrygia, and Galatia, and obeyed the call of a vision to go to Eu-
rope; embarked, proceeded through Macedonia; visited Athens, and
arrived at Corinth, where he took up his abode. It was probably late
in the year when the apostle reached this place (Acts 15: 40—18: 1).
Here he remained a year and six months (Acts 18: 11). From
autumn to spring are six months; from spring to spring again one
year. As soon as the sea was open, he embarked for Asia (Acts 18:
18), and landed at Ephesus. He did not stay here long, however,
cit.
1 Tacit. Annal. L. XIV. sec. 65.
Dio Cass. L. LXII. p. 706, 707. Joseph. lpc.
500.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
on account of the feast which he had determined to keep at Jerusalem
(Acts 18: 20, 21). The name of the feast is not mentioned. It was
probably that of Pentecost; for if he left Corinth in the spring, he could
hardly have reached Jerusalem, by the circuitous route he took, as early
as the passover.
From Palestine he went to visit Antioch, where he resided yoóvov
Tivά, an indefinite time, then travelled through Galatia and Phrygia
(Acts 18: 23), and came, in accordance with his promise, to Ephesus.
Paul, as we shall show in treating of the Epistle to Titus, spent the win-
ter at Nicopolis on the Issus, which may be termed the gates of Asia
Minor. From thence he might have reached Ephesus, through Gala-
tia and Phrygia, in a few months.
At Ephesus he taught three months in the synagogue. He left it,
however, and taught in the school of Tyrannus for two years (Acts 19:
8, 9, 10). He had intended to remain at Ephesus till Pentecost (1 Cor.
16: 8), but was expelled some time before by an uproar (Acts 19: 21–20:
2). He next departed to Macedonia through which country he travelled,
exhorting and admonishing, till he reached Greece, where he abode
three months. He then set out on his return, and, at the end of the
passover, embarked for Asia (20: 3, 6), and was desirous, if possible, to
reach Jerusalem so as to be there at Pentecost (20: 16). From his de-
parture from Ephesus not long before Pentecost, to his arrival at Jeru-
salem at Pentecost, was, therefore, rather more than a year.
This last voyage demands particular attention, on account of the ob-
jections which have been raised against the narrative. Let us then,
accompany the apostle, in order to see what foundation there is for the
difficulties which have been alleged. Seven days after the passover he
left Philippi, arrived in five days at Troas, and remained there seven
days (Acts 20: 6). From Troas he went by way of Assos, Mitylene, Chi-
os, and Samos, to Miletus, in four days (20: 13, 14, 15); for Assos is but
a small distance from Troas, and not a day's voyage, as has been rep-
resented. The ship merely doubled the promontory of Lectos, and
then took in the apostle, to proceed to Mitylene. The number of days
thus far is twenty-three. But it was the third day of unleavened bread
from which the fifty days before Pentecost were reckoned; consequent-
ly three days are to be deducted from our twenty-three; so that twenty
were past, and thirty remained before Pentecost.
The distance from Samos to Miletus is very short compared with the
other day's voyages; consequently the vessel must have arrived at Mi-
letus in the middle of the day. We will not, however, lay any stress
on this. Paul sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the
church, gave them his exhortation on their arrival, took leave and set
sail without delay (Acts 20: 16–38). The time thus spent here is un-
known; but all could have been accomplished, beyond a doubt, in three
days. From Miletus, Paul passed by way of Coos and Rhodes to Pata-
ra, in three days (21: 1). At Patara he went on board another vessel.
How much delay this caused we do not know; nor how long it was be-
fore they reached Tyre. The voyage must have taken, however, as
1 Bertholdt, Hist. krit. Einl. in das A. und N. T. 6th Th. Note 2 to § 726. p.
3375 seq.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
501
much as double the time occupied in going from Miletus to Patara.
Luke does not begin to reckon again until he reaches the continent.
At Tyre they stayed seven days (21: 4); thence they went to Ptolema-
is, a day's journey, and abode there one day (21: 7). On the following
day they went to Cæsarea, where they made a longer stay, nμépas nhɛi-
ous, of which no definite designation is given. The time which we know
to have been taken from Tyre to Cæsarea, with the one day from Ptole-
mais to Cæsarea, amounts to ten days. Their stay at Miletus, at Patara,
the time taken in passing to Tyre, and, lastly, the nugas nelous at
Cæsarea, are not definitely known. For these, we have twenty days
remaining. We must deduct, however, one day for the journey from
Cæsarea to Jerusalem, and another for the reason that the apostle was
in James' company on the day preceding the feast. There are conse-
quently eighteen days remaining for the unknown intervals of time.
П
Now if the business at Miletus was despatched in three days, if Paul
sailed from Patara on the next day, and the passage thence to Tyre was
accomplished in six days, there would remain eight days for the nɛlovs
noas at Cæsarea. There is no impossibility in this. That a part
of the passage, viz. that to Patara, was quick, we know; that the second
stage of it was fortunate beyond expectation, we know from what en-
sued. Paul could not otherwise have had so many days remaining to
devote to the calls of friendship at Tyre, Ptolemais and Cæsarea.
Thus Paul reached Jerusalem, as he had desired, at the Pentecost (Acts
20: 16), and was there cast into prison. The time between his depar-
ture from Ephesus and his imprisonment at Jerusalem, between pass-
over and passover, was about a year.
These were the intermediate events between Paul's mission from Anti-
och in respect to the Jewish observances and his seizure at Jerusalem.
As we have seen, a part of them are accompanied with designations of
time; and in regard to a part of them the time may be inferred with prob-
able accuracy from circumstances. All together fill up the period of
seven years. The mission we have mentioned occurred in the twelfth
year of Claudius; proceeding from this point and reckoning seven years,
we come to the fifth year of Nero.
$ 84.
In the 7th year of Nero Felix was deposed from his station. Paul
had spent two years in prison under Felix (Acts 24: 27), and was con-
sequently apprehended in the fifth year of Nero. This coincides exact-
ly with the reckoning in the preceding section. Festus called Paul be-
fore him, and, after some intervening incidents, sent him to Rome as he
had desired.
It was late in the year; yet, on account of the variation of the Jewish
months from the equations, till the intercalation made the year to coin-
cide with the seasons, the time according to our reckoning cannot be
exactly determined without tedious particularity. So much may be as-
sumed as certain, that the fast of the seventh month fell as late as possi-
ble (Acts 27: 9), in which case it ended on the 2d of our October. The
apostle was compelled to remain at Malta for three months through the
winter (28: 11), i. e. till March, when the voyage was resumed. Thence
502
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
it continued without interruption; the apostle arrived at Rome in the
spring of the eighth year of Nero's reign, remained there two whole
years, and was released in the spring of Nero's tenth year. This was a
fortunate release; for it was in the autumn of this same year that Ne-
ro's persecution broke out.
*
*
*#
*
*
*
It was the apostle's intention, as we see from some of the letters
which he wrote from Rome, again to visit his friends in the east; and
still in his Epistle to the Romans he had expressed a desire, after seeing
Rome, to visit Spain.
One of the most ancient christian writings assures us that the latter
voyage really took place. He went, we are told, to the western_limits
of the earth, ἐπὶ τέρμα δύσεως, and after his return died ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμέ
vwv. I do not see how any objection can be made to this statement
of a man who was intimate with the apostle, who lived in Rome whence
the journey was undertaken, unless, very unreasonably, the genuine-
ness of the work be denied; especially as he wrote this account to the
church at Corinth, and they would naturally know something of the
fortunes of Paul, who but a short while before had lived and taught
among them.
2
If, however, it be resolved that this work shall not be acknowledged
as Clement's, its opponents do not gain much advantage. They can-
not deny that, at any rate, the Epistle was in existence in the second
century. The author was certainly, therefore, as far as respects the
period at which he wrote, in a situation to write from authentic tradi-
tion. Moreover, in the second century, the church at Corinth was in
a condition to know whether the Epistle was genuine, and to reject it
if it was not; yet, as late as the time of Eusebius, it was read annually
in their assemblies, and thus each year they renewed their testimony to
its genuineness.
Not only so, but as Eusebius states, it was read in his time in many
other churches; and hence in the Alexandrian Codex, it is appended
to the sacred writings by the first hand. This Ms. belongs to the fifth
century, and was either executed at a time when it was customary to
read the Epistle in public, or at all events was copied from a Ms. of that
period
τι
The words ini tov yovμέvov may be understood of the latter days
of Nero, when Tigellinus and Nymphidius Sabinus administered af-
fairs at their pleasure; also of the period after Nero's death until Sabinus
resigned the sword to the former, and pretended to manage affairs for
Galba till his arrival.3 In this case the interpretation accords with oth-
er accounts, which assign the apostle's death to Nero's reign. At all
events, no subsequent emperor had anything to do with it. A second
interpretation, which supposes that by the words, ni tav nyovμévæv, the
times of Galba, Otho and Vitellius are intended, confessedly deviates
from other historical accounts.4
1 Clemens Rom. Ep. I. ad Corinth. sect. 5.
2 Dionys. Corinth. apud Euseb. L. IV. c. 23.
3 Plutarch in Galba. c. 8.
4 The ancients do, indeed, specify Nero's reign, but with different designa-
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
503
The first mentioned voyage,' also, took place, at least in part. It
falls in the order of time after his voyage to the west, and before his
death, of which latter event it was the immediate occasion. Paul set
out for the east, and went as far Corinth, where he met with Peter,
whom he joined and accompanied to Rome. This is attested by Dio-
nysius of Corinth: Peter and Paul, he says, met together in our city of
Corinth, and went together to Italy, where they died martyrs to the
cause of Christianity. In the eleventh year of Nero, Peter was still in
Asia, if it be a fact that his first Epistle from Babylon was occasioned by
the horrors of Nero's persecution (see below, § 169). About this time
Paul was on his voyage to the west; so that the two could not have
met in Corinth before the twelfth year of Nero.
We will now give a tabular view of the history of the apostle Paul, ac-
cording to the dates we have deduced, extending from his conversion to
his liberation from imprisonment at Rome.
The middle of the XXIst year of Tiberius, or the 21st-22d, corre-
sponds with the commencement of the thirty-sixth of the Chris- A.D.
tian era
During this year occurred Paul's conversion.
The XXIIId and last year of Tiberius, and the first of Caius Cæsar,
correspond with the thirty-eighth A. D.
The IInd year of Caius Cæsar.
36.
•
38.
39.
Paul escapes from Damascus, and goes to Jerusalem.
The beginning of the IVth year of Claudius Cæsar
Paul's first mission from Antioch to Jerusalem.
45.
•
The XIIth year of Claudius
53.
Paul's second mission from Antioch to Jerusalem.
The XIIIth year of Claudius
54.
Paul travels, at the close of winter, through Asia Minor to Eu-
rope, as far as Corinth; preaches here in the following autumn.
The XVth year of Claudius
55.
Paul stays at Corinth through the winter and spring, till the next
autumn.
The Ist year of Nero.
56.
Paul at Corinth in the winter; in the spring embarks for Asia;
arrives in Jerusalem at Pentecost; then goes to Antioch.
The IId year of Nero
57.
•
Paul passes the winter at Nicopolis; goes to Ephesus; teaches;
there.
tions of time. The most precise statement which I meet with is in Jerome (Script.
Eccles. V. Paulus).
"Hic ergo decimo quarto Neronis anno, eodem die quo
Petrus, Romæ capite truncatus anno post passionem Domini tricesino
septimo."
•
1 The author here refers to Paul's voyage to the east to visit his friends. The
reference is very obscure; only "das Erste" is used, though so long an interval
has elapsed since his mention of the two voyages to the east and west. See p.
502.-TR.
2 In Euseb. H. E. L. II. c. 25.
504
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS
The IIId year of Nero
58.
Paul preaches at Ephesus.
The IVth year of Nero
59.
Paul is at Ephesus and in Asia till Pentecost; embarks for Ma-
cedonia.
The Vth year of Nero
60.
Paul winters in Achaia; returns to Jerusalem at Pentecost; is
imprisoned.
The VIth year of Nero
61.
Paul in bonds at Cæsarea.
The VIIth year of Nero
•
Paul in bonds at Cæsarea; in autumn is sent to Rome.
The VIIIth year of Nero
Paul arrives at Rome in the spring; is in bonds there.
The IXth year of Nero
Paul is in bonds at Rome.
The Xth year of Nero
62.
. 63.
64.
65.
Paul is liberated in the spring.
5
ω
A few words in explanation of this table. In the XVth year of the
reign of Tiberius, when the baptism of Jesus took place, he was about
thirty years of age (Luke 3: 23, così èrav τQiάzovta άozóμεvos). This
designation of time I assume to be correct without further investigation ;
for a proper discussion of the point would require a separate work.
The baptism occurred about fifty or sixty days before the first passover,
forty of which were taken up by the abode in the desert, and the remain-
der by the earlier occurrences at Bethany and in Galilee (John 1: 29—
2: 13). These fifty or sixty days before the passover must have com-
menced in the month of February. This month, however, fell about
the middle of the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. For Augustus,
from whose death the accession of Tiberius must he reckoned, died on
the nineteenth of August.¹ From the middle of February to the mid-
dle of August are six months, and thus six months more are wanting to
complete the year.
Tiberius died in the twenty-third year of his detested reign, on
the sixteenth of March.2 If the thirtieth year of Jesus began in the
middle of the fifteenth year of Tiberius, i. e. in February, the thirty-
eighth year of the Christian era must have begun in the middle of the
twenty-third. Since, as we have before said, Tiberius died in March,
he lived but one month in this thirty-eighth year A. D. This year,
1 Dio Cassius. L. LVI. p. 590. Wechel. says: tỷ évvéa naì dexáty tov Ai-
yovorov. Sueton. In Aug. c. 100. says the same, according to the Roman way of
reckoning "decimâ quartâ Kal. Septembris."
2 Tacit. L. VI. Ann. c. 50. Sueton. Tiber. c. 73. Eutrop. c. 11. agree as to the
date XVII. Kal. April.; but Dio Cass. read by mistake VII. Kal. for XVII. Kal.
τῇ ἕκτῃ καὶ εἰκοστῇ τοῦ Μαρτίου ἡμέρᾳ, L. 58. fin. The statement of Josephus
(B. J. L. II. c. 9. n. 5), is very precise: ἔτη δύο πρὸς εἴκοσι καὶ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐπὶ
κησὶν ἕξ.
1
505
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
therefore, continued into the first of Caius Cæsar, and the second of his
reign was the thirty-ninth of the Christian era.
Caius did not complete the fourth year of his reign; he ascended the
throne in March, and died on the twenty-fourth of January. This,
however, makes but little difference as to the year of the Christian era,
which continues on uniformly under his successor.
Claudius now took the throne and held it for thirteen years, and a
part of the fourteenth, till the middle of October.2 The year of Nero's
reign, therefore, which begins at that time, begins three months and
some days earlier than the Christian year.
CHAPTER II.
THE APOSTLE PAUL'S WRITINGS.
$ 85.
3
Saul, by, or Paul, which latter name he took either because he
was going among Greeks, or in memory of the first illustrious person
who gave him a favorable reception, and was converted by his means,
viz. Sergius Paulus, the Proconsul of Cyprus (for the name occurs first
on this occasion, Acts 13: 9), was a Roman citizen, born at Tarsus in
Cilicia, a city which in the days of Strabo stood by the side of Athens
and Alexandria, as respected the sciences and arts.
In conformity with the ancient Jewish proverb, "He who does not
teach his son some trade, brings him up to steal," he learned the trade
of a manufacturer of tent-cloth.5
1 Sueton. in Cai. c. 58. "Nono Kal. Febr." and c. 59. "Imperavit triennio,
et decem mensibus, diebus octo. Josephus, B. J. L. II. c. 11. probably con-
founded diebus octo with μῆνας ὀκτώ.
2 Sueton. Claud. c. 45. "Excessit III. Idus Octobris." Comp. Tacit. Ann.
XII. 69. Dio, L. LXI. cap. penult. gives the date correctly: µstijlλaše tÿj tqitý
καὶ δεκάτῃ τοῦ ὀκτωβρίου.
3 Hieronym. in Catal. v. Paulus: "Quumque primum ad prædicationem ejus
Sergius Paulus, proconsul Cypri, credidisset, ab eo, quod eum Christi fidei sub-
jugârat, sortitus est nomen Paulus." Origen. Præf. in Ep. ad Rom. T. IV. p.
460. Ed. Ruei.
4 Strabo, Geog. L. XIV. p. 463. Ed. Casaub. 1587. fol.
5 Exηvoñoιós, Acts 18: 3. Michaelis infers from this expression that he was a
mechanist, on the ground that, according to Pollux, σxηvoñoιós was equivalent to
μηχανοποιός in the old comedy: τοὺς δὲ μηχανοποιοὺς καὶ σκηνοποιοὺς ἡ παλαιὰ
xoμodia óvóμatε (Ed. Grynæi, Col. 415). But the learned man has misunder-
stood this author. He is speaking here only of the theatre and its machines;
the expression, ✈ malaιà żoµądía, is used merely to denote the technical lan-
guage of the actors. In this way, in a passage precisely parallel, the expression
c
64
506
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
He very early showed uncommon asperity of character, and the most
obdurate intolerance. These traits he exhibited while but a youth, at
the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7: 58. 8: 1, 2, 3).
His disposition developed itself without restraint, and even under
public approbation, in wanton cruelty. He became furious, entered
into houses to search for Christians, dragged forth men and women,
and committed them to prison (8: 1-4). But his sphere of operations
soon appeared to him too contracted. Jerusalem was not large enough
to satisfy his sanguinary disposition. He presented himself before the
Sanhedrim, and desired permission to persecute the Christians at Da-
mascus, and on the road thither, and with inhuman satisfaction he
cast persons of every age and of both sexes into prison (11: 1, 2. 22:
4 seq).
This extremely violent man, with such terrible qualities of mind,
whose strong ambition made him very bold and enterprising, would
have become a perfect John of Gischala, a blood-thirsty zealot (-
avεov άñeiĥns zai góvov, Acts 9: 1), had not an unexpected event
changed his whole character.
П
$ 86.
}
The harsh bent of his mind inclined him to the tenets of the Phari-
sees, who had all the recommendation of austerity, and were the domi-
nant party among the Jews.
His literary education he received in part from Gamaliel, a teacher in
great estimation at that time (Acts 22: 3). By him he was instructed
in the Jewish laws and traditions, πατρικὰς παραδόσεις. His talents
κεν,
기
​ἡ νέα and η αρχαία κωμωδία are used : ἡ δὲ νέα κωμῳδία καὶ προσωποποιὸν εἴρη-
xεv, ov ǹj dozɑía onεvoñoióv éxáhei (Col. 91. Comp. Schol. minor. in Sophocl. Ajac.
Ed. Brunck. ad v. 3). For the machinery which presented to view the deus ex
machina was connected with the scenery and was a part of it, as is stated by the
same Lexicographer, Iɛgì µ¿qov Veátqov (Col. 229). Both, therefore, might be.
the work of the same artist; whence he was called indiscriminately sometimes the
machine-maker and sometimes the scene-maker, as according to the second pas-
sage the artist was called at one time the mask-maker, and at another the maker
of all the decorations etc. used in the theatre. The manufacture of theatrical
machinery was certainly not Paul's business. The fathers called him ozvtorÚ-
μos and oxηvogóάpos, manufacturer of skin-tents (Suicer. Thesaur. Philol. p. 982).
It would seem that the nature of the military tents led them to suppose him a
worker in leather; for these were made of the skins of animals, whence the ex-
pression among the ancients: exercitum sub pellibus habere, pellibus continere
militem. The native country of the apostle affords us most information in re-
gard to his business. It produced very shaggy and rough-haired goats; whence
Kikinios Todyos was a proverbial expression to denote one who was extremely de-
ficient in good manners. From the hair of these animals the inhabitants
of Cilicia manufactured a thick, coarse cloth, which was hence called cilicium,
cilicia, κιλίκιον: Κιλίκιος τράγος, ὁ δασὺς, τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἐν Κιλικίᾳ γίνονται τρά
γοι, ὅθεν καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν τριχῶν συντιθεμένα κιλίκια καλοῦνται (Suidas. Comp.
Hesych. and Salmas. in Solinum. p. 347). As to its use in war and in navigation,
see Veget. De re militari, L. IV. c. 6. and Servius in Georg. L. III. v. 112. It
was used, in particular, by the Nomades in Syria and on the Euphrates, for herds-
men's tents. Plin. H. Nat. L. VI. c. 23. Nomades, infestoresque Chaldæo-
rum scenitæ
et ipsi vagi, sed a tabernaculis cognominati, quæ ciliciis me-
tantur, ubi libuit." Paul's business was the manufacture of this article of nation-
al industry. He was a manufacturer of tent-cloth.
•
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
507
promised a capable and persevering scholar, and the result justified the
expectation. He understood all the modes of interpreting the bible
which were then current, viz. allegory, typology, accommodation, and tra-
dition. In Greek literature, too, he was far from being a novice (Acts
17:28. 1 Cor. 15: 33. Tit. 1: 12).
Nor had nature denied him the external gifts which are so essential to
eloquence, although he speaks of them with great modesty. At Lystra
he was taken for the God of oratory.
$ 87.
This character, capable of great things, but not master of itself from
the predominance of feeling, was an extreme in human nature, and was
of course developed in extremes. His religion was a destructive zeal;
his anger, ferocity; his fury demanded victims. So boisterous and un-
governable a disposition did not qualify him, in a psychological point of
view, to be a christian, or even a philanthropist; least of all to be a
meekly-suffering man. Yet all this he was on his conversion to Chris-
tianity, and his violent passions were softened down to a well-regulated
and noble character.
Once hasty and passionate, now only courageous and determined;
once violent, now energetic and enterprising; once vehemently oppos-
ing every thing which stood in his way, now only persevering; once
savage and gloomy, now only serious; once cruel, now only strict;
once a harsh zealot, now pious; once unrelenting, unsusceptible of
sympathy and commiseration, now himself bathed in tears, which for-
merly he had seen in others unmoved. Formerly the friend of no one,
now the brother of all mankind, philanthropic, compassionate, sympa-
thetic; yet never weak, always great, manly and noble, even in the midst
of sorrow and trouble. Thus he appears on occasion of his affecting
departure from Miletus (Acts 20:); it is like the farewell of Moses, or
the resignation of Samuel, tender and moving, full of self-respect, dig-
nified, though painful.
Thus it was not the case merely that his mind received another bias
and his ever-restless fervor was directed to a new object; but the pro-
pensities and passions of his hitherto unrestrained nature were brought
into perfect symmetry; so that his vast powers were harmoniously ad-
justed to a new mental character. The loftiness of this character arises.
from its perfect unity.
Now if, as is clear, this was the result of his conversion, every one
may judge for himself whether such a change be a mark of a disordered
brain, or shows that with more than ordinary qualities of mind he care-
fully guided his conduct by regular principles. We can then, too, read-
ily answer the inquiry, How far his interest in the Christian cause was
real, firmly rooted in his mind and conscience?
§ 88.
His writings are a faithful expression of the character we have de-
scribed. They evince an independent mind, whose conceptions and
ideas, as well as his mode of communicating and stating them, were
508
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
peculiarly his own. Even the same thought, occurring at different
times in his writings, always receives a new turn, has each time some-
thing novel in its aspect. In the matter and the style we discover a
brisk, active mind, possessed of a well-digested store of ideas, and a re-
markable felicity of communication.
So, too, in regard to the tone of his writings. Sternness, manly
earnestness, and strong feeling, alternate with mildness, kindness, and
sympathy; and the transitions are such as would naturally take place
in the breast of a man deeply interested in his subject, of a noble and
intelligent character. He warns, rebukes, and then consoles; he as-
sails with vigour, presses with impetuosity, then speaks with evident
kindness of heart, exhibits his ardent desire for the welfare of others,
his forbearance, his dread of afflicting any. All is just as the subject,
the time, the character of those whom he writes, and other circumstan-
ces, demand.
We find every where importunate language, an earnest and anima-
ted manner. Rom. 1: 26-32 is a comprehensive and powerful de-
scription of character. His antitheses (Rom. 2: 21–24. 2 Cor. 4: 8-
12. 6: 9–11. 11: 22-30), his enumerations (1 Cor. 13: 4—10. 2 Cor.
6: 4—7. 2 Tim. 3: 1-5. Ephes. 4: 4-7. 5: 3-6), his climaxes (Rom.
8:29, 30. Tit. 3: 3, 4), his questions, exclamations, and comparisons,
give animation to his style, often to a very striking degree. The simile
in 1 Cor. 12: 14 seq. resembles that of Menenius Agrippa, and is even
more elegant and expressive.
Still he bestowed little pains on the correction of his style. His
thoughts and feelings remained as they were thrown off from his pen.
We see no trace of the file, or of that artist-like care with which the an-
cients were wont to give the finishing touch to their productions. Hence
his phraseology is frequently negligent, his construction incomplete, or
even obscure, full of parentheses, and these sometimes very long. See
1 Tim. 1: 4, from θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει to v. 18, ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν ;
2 Cor. 3: 14—18. 4: 7-9. Ephes. 2: 1–5. Rom. 2: 13—16. 12: 4—15,
etc. etc.
$ 89.
Notwithstanding these rhetorical faults, I regard Paul as a master of
eloquence, and should even like to compare him in this respect with
celebrated men of ancient times, e. g. with Isocrates, whose letters to
Demonicus, and some of those to Nicocles, bear considerable resem-
blance to Paul's in design and purport. I said in respect to eloquence ;
for, though the Jewish-Greek dialect of the apostle be far inferior to
the Attic euphony of Isocrates, he exhibits an eloquence independent
of art, which was the result of his talents and character, of conviction,
interest in his subjects, and deep impressions of their nature and im-
portance, and which, from the influence of these causes, reached a
degree of grandeur scarcely ever attained by art. I cannot, however,
here pursue this parallel, and willingly leave every reader to his own
judgment in regard to it; but I must not omit to notice the opinion of
a critic whose impartiality and ability give him claims to especial con-
sideration.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
509
I mean Dionysius Longinus, who gives his estimate of the apostle's
eloquence in the following passage. "The following men are the
boast of all eloquence and of Grecian genius, viz. Demosthenes, Lys-
ias, Eschines, Hyperides, Isæus, Dinarchus, or Demosthenes Crithi-
nus, Isocrates, and Antiphon; to whom may be added Paul of Tarsus,
who was the first, within my knowledge, that did not make use of dem-
´onstration.”
1
I am aware that the latter part of this passage has been regarded as
suspicious by illustrious critics, by Fabricius and Ruhnken; but I
think something further may be urged with propriety in its favor, par-
ticularly as these two learned men rejected it rather from mere critical
suspicion than on good grounds.
κτ
απο
We must first examine the use of terms in the passage. Paul is said
to have made use of the doyuаros άvαлodsixtov. Longinus distin-
guished in rhetoric the ἀποδεικτικόν from τῷ κατὰ φαντασίαν ἐκ-
ninxrixo, the genus demonstrativum from that which appealed merely to
the passions.2 In speaking, therefore, of rhetorical matters, as in this
passage, δόγμα αναπόδεικτον means a style rather of a stirring than an
argumentative nature.3 Moreover, the expression 70otoraodai doyuα-
προΐστασθαι δόγμα-
Tos, which is unusual, is one elsewhere employed by Longinus. It oc-
curred in his work ITɛoi réλous, written against Plotinus and Amelius,
a fragment of which has been preserved by Porphyry: οὐκ ὀλίγοι τῶν
ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ λόγων προέστησαν.
The passage, too, sounds very naturally in the mouth of a heathen
philosopher. Paul seemed to the critic rather to persuade than to
demonstrate. Nor was this without reason; for the apostle either
assumes certain doctrines as well known, and then connects others with
them, or makes use of passages from the Old Testament, the argumen-
1 Fabric. Biblioth. Græc. L. IV. p. 445. Ed. Hamb. Ruhnkenius in Not. ad
Rutil. Lupum De figur. sentent. p. 88. I cite the passage in Longinus accord-
ing to the amendment of Ruhnken. In the usual editions it occupies the first
place among the fragments. Κορωνὶς δ᾽ ἔστω λόγου παντὸς καὶ φρονήματος
῾Ελληνικού Δημοσθένης, Λυσίας, Αισχίνης, Υπερίδης, Ισαῖος, Δεινάρχος, Δη-
μοσθένης ὁ κρίθινος, Ισοκράτης, Αντίφων· πρὸς τούτοις Παῦλος ὁ Ταρσεύς,
ὅντινα καὶ πρῶτον φημὶ προϊστάμενον δόγματον ἀναποδείκτου. It is well known
tliat Dinarchus was facetiously called Δημοσθένης κρίθινος and ἄγριος; it ought
therefore to be made apparent that these words are only a surname of Dinar-
This is
chus, lest the reader should suppose two different persons were meant.
not done in Ruhnken's amendment. Before the time of Ruhnken, the text even
contained the following awkward blunder. The name of Isocrates was inserted
between Dinarchus and Demosthenes Crithinus: Δεινάρχος, Ισοκράτης, Δε-
μοσθένης κρίθινος. Perhaps the text once was: Δεινάρχος, ἴσως κατ᾽ ἐπίκλην
Δημοσθένης ὁ κρίθινος, Ισοκράτης. The works after Δεινάρχος were supposed to
be the name 'Iconoάτys. This was therefore expunged after xoivivos, as hav-
ing occurred before; and thus originated the reading we have mentioned.
2 IIɛoì vip. XV. n. 11.
3 In the language of the learned of ancient times, tò άvañóðrintov is gener-
ally that which is not sustained by argument, or a position taken for granted,
κατὰ συγχώρησιν λαμβανόμενον, for the purpose of drawing inferences from it
(Sextus Empir. Pyrrhon. Hypoth. L. II. c. 6. n. 54, and L. II. c. 15. n. 168).
Morus assumes this expression to be an interpolation, when he attempts to ex-
plain it from the usage of christian writers (Lib. animadv. in Longin. p. 54).
4 Longin. ex edit. Mori. p. 277 and 264.
510
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
tative force of which the heathen writer did not perceive, and which he
must therefore have regarded as mere erudition and literary embellish-
ment. In his situation, therefore, he could not make a more correct
observation in regard to Paul, than that he was the first who made use
of persuasion and pathos rather than argument.
The internal grounds of judgment, then, the phraseology and the
sentiment, are so far from being in favor of the supposed interpolation,
that they rather point to our author. So likewise with the external ev-
idence.
Dionysius Longinus was of the sect of the New Platonists, who were
pretty well acquainted with the Christian Scriptures. Porphyry, his
pupil, in his fifteen books against the Christians, does not merely attack
the general purport of the New Testament, but selects and analyzes
particular passages. Amelius, a contemporary of Longinus, endeavored
to prove that John's Gospel contained the Platonic doctrine in regard to
the Logos.
t
In the time of Longinus the Christians had public religious worship
in the dominions of his pupil and friend, Zenobia, and Paul of Samo-
sata, Bishop of Antioch, was known and favored at her court, so that
the critic must have been intimately acquainted with him. There is
even strong probability? that they were natives of the same city, Sam-
osata, and perhaps acquainted with each other in early life; but, inde-
pendently of this circumstance, the situation of the philosopher makes
it clear that he must have had information respecting the christian scrip-
tures.
Lastly, in his work on the Sublime (IX. 10), he makes honorable men-
tion of the Mosaic book of Genesis. If the books of the Jews attracted
his attention, those of the Christians could hardly escape his curiosity;
and considering his impartial estimate of the former, we ought not to
be surprised at the opinion of so fair a critic respecting the Apostle Paul.
$ 90.
Some will now expect me to specify the peculiarities of Paul's system
of doctrine, and to acquaint them with the spirit of his writings; and
others who do not go so far as this, will expect me to state the interme-
diate ideas by which he connected his tenets and united them into one
complete system. Both, however, make requisitions which, if nothing
else could be objected against them, are more easily made than met.
I am apprehensive that as yet we are not enabled to distinguish properly
between the scaffolding and the structure itself.
That, however, which is particularly observable in Paul, and which is
the key to all his actions, is the remarkable impression which the idea
of an universal religion had made on his mind. This sublime idea of re-
taining all that was excellent and divine in the religious opinions of a dis-
owned and perishing people, and of perpetuating it in a system which
not only far surpassed every thing of the time, but would through the
1 Euseb. Præp. Evang. L. XI. Theodoret. De curand. Græc. aff. L. II.-Cyrill.
Contra Julian. L. VIII.
2 Hudson, Præf. in Longin. Oxon. 1718, proves from an ancient inscription
that the family of Longinus resided at Samosata.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
511
developments made of it in succeeding ages, satisfy all the wants of
posterity, bearing this infallible mark of its truth, that it was adapted to
all men and all times-this idea of founding a religion for the world,
never penetrated any mind so deeply, never lighted up so much energy,
or prompted such persevering effort.
In this matter he was no man's disciple; he received his spirit di-
rectly from his Master; a divine spark inflamed him. It was this
which would not permit him to stay in Palestine or Syria; which irre-
sistibly urged him to go to foreign lands. Judea and its vicinity were
the province of his companions; but his mission was among the Gen-
tiles; the whole heathen world was allotted to him. Hence he com-
menced his labors in the various countries of Asia Minor; and when
even these limits became too narrow for him, he went with the same
confidence to Europe, among other nations, institutions, customs and
opinions; and here finally, with the same restless ardor, he extended
his plans even to the pillars of Hercules.
Hence it was, that, though he carefully accommodated himself to the
Jewish mode of teaching, he still yielded nothing essential, disapproved
the pliableness of Peter, and did not manifest the same forbearance as
James; granting no indulgence to old attachment to Judaism, whenever
opinions and institutions were in question which excluded other na-
tions or individuals, and were not suited to all people and all times.
Hence he violently attacked the Jewish constitution, and was proclaim-
ed an enemy of Moses and the law, so that his life was put in jeopardy.
It was this idea which gave a peculiar character to his whole course, and
which pervades his writings throughout. In these writings we very
frequently find his peculiar views on this subject concisely intimated.
Thus did Paul prepare the way for the destruction of two religions,
that of his ancestors and that of the heathen. How well-timed his ef-
forts were, it is not our business at present to inquire. We will set
aside the question whether both religions were not still of some utility at
that period. Poets may regret that the poetical religion of the Greeks,
and that of the Romans, which was deeply indebted to the former,
should have sunk in the lap of time with all their agreeable fictions; but
it was in vain to think of guiding by the aesthetic feeling an age which
was no longer Platonic, and subsequent events, which gradually devel-
oped themselves, the civilization of barbarous nations that had been
molested by the Roman arms, required something different from Gre-
cian fables, which under another than an Ionic or Attic sky could neither
be appreciated nor comprehended.
But why was Paul's mode of teaching so thoroughly Jewish? Why
did he envelop his discourse to such a degree in the learning of Pales-
tine, while proclaiming an universal religion? His youthful education,
the custom of the time, and the people before him, determined him to
this mode of procedure. In every clime which he visited, he had to do
first and foremost with Jews. Had he possessed what was termed by
Socrates his obstetric art, the art of drawing forth to light the thoughts
of the human nind from its inmost recesses; had he possessed the
splendid style of Plato, or, considering him as an orator, the art of an
hundred rhetoricians, he would hardly have gained a single Jew by it.
With all this profane eloquence, wise men were but fools in the syna-
1
512
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
१
gogue. The Jews required in religious matters the language of reli-
gion, the learning, phraseology, turns of expression and images pecu-
liar to their nation.
The fact that Paul met with heathen, likewise, in the synagogues of
the Jews, was one of those circumstances of the time which were of
great advantage to Christianity; for there was no other place where
he could have appeared before them in the character of teacher. In
the temples nothing was attended to but sacrifices; in the forum
nothing but laws and lawsuits; and it can be ascribed only to the pecu-
liar regulations of the city of Athens that he wrote and taught in public
there. It may be said that perhaps it was only dissatisfaction with
the established religion, or a propensity to superstition, which led these
heathen to the synagogues. At all events, however, a great number of
heathen were sincerely addicted to Judaism, and frequented the Sab-
bath assemblies. In this way Christianity came to their ears, and then
spread to their fellow-countrymen. They were termed ocßóueves, and
metuentes, of whom Paul found many at Thessalonica, in particular.
But these, too, having imbibed the religious notions of the Jews, had
during initiation become accustomed to their technical language and
mode of teaching. Paul was, therefore, obliged to begin where others
had left off, and to avail himself of what had been previously accom-
plished.
$91.
FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Thessalonica, the capital of what, according to the division of Æmilius
Paulus, was the second Macedonian district,2 and the largest city in the
whole country,³ was eventually the residence of the Roman Prætor. It
was very populous, and also sufficiently wealthy to infuse courage into
4
1 Josephus, B. J. L. II. c. 18. n. 2. and c. 20. n. 2. In Spon's "Voyage d'Ita-
lie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant," Tom. I. p. 398. Ed. 1679, there is an
inscription from Thyatira, by which it appears that an inhabitant of that place
even provided for his burial in a garden near a synagogue: PABIOX ZOZI-
ΜΟΣ ΚΑΤΑΣΚΕΥΑΣΑΣ ΣΟΡΟΝ ΕΘΕΤΟ ΕΠΙ ΤΟΠΟΥ ΚΑΘΑΡΟΥ
ΟΝΤΟΣ ΠΡΟ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΛΕΟΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΩΙ ΣΑΜΒΑΘΕΙΩΙ ΕΝ ΤΩΙ
ΧΑΛΛΑΙΟΥ ΠΕΡΙΒΟΛΩΙ . . . A pertinent inscription which was found
at Pola in Istria, is contained in Gruter's Thes. Inscript. p. 271. n. 11. AUR. SO-
TER. ET AUR. STEPHANUS AUR. SOTERIAE MATRI PIENTISS. RELI-
GIONI JUDAICAE METUENTI. There is a similar one in Apianus, Inscript.
sacros. vetust. p. 358. I do not know whether it is contained in Gruter or not,
as his work is not at hand. RELIGIONI JUDAICAE METUENTI F. P.
AELIUS PRISCILIANUS ET AELIA CHRESTE VIVI SIBI POSUE-
RUNT. .. We shall say more of this subject in treating of the Epistle to the
Romans. We will merely subjoin here a remarkable passage from Dio Cassius :
Ἡ δὲ ἐπίκλησις αύτη (Ιουδαῖος ἐκείνοις μὲν οὐκ οἶδα πόθεν ήρξατο γενέσθαι.
Φέρει δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους, ὅσοι τὰ νόμιμα αὐτῶν, καίπερ ἀλλοεθνεῖς
ὄντες, ἱηλοῦσι. κ. τ. λ. L. XXXVII. p. 37. Ed. Wechel. 1606.
•
2 Livius, L. XLV. 29.
"
3 Lucian, Lucius sive asinus. Πόλις τῶν ἐν Μακεδονία μεγίστη.
4 Strabo Geogr. L. VII. Μάλιστα τῶν ἄλλων εὐανδροῦσα.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
513
1
the armies of Brutus and Cassius, which were promised the pillage of it
as the reward of victory. Even at the present day it is an important
commercial city, and contains very many Jews.
Little of an honorable nature is known of the state of morals in this
city. The females, particularly, could claim little credit on the score of
modest, retiring demeanor, which is the greatest charm of the sex; this
virtue was in so low estimation generally in this city, that the place was
selected as the scene of the wanton fancies of the satirist.2
Soon after his first entrance into Europe, Paul made trial here of the
doctrines of Christianity. He entered the synagogue, the only place
where he, as a stranger, could address the people on the subject of religion
and morality. He there spoke for three Sabbaths concerning the Christ,
or Messiah, and proved from the Scriptures that he must needs have suf-
fered, and have risen from the dead, and that Jesus was this Messiah
(Acts 17: 2—9). The Jews were not pleased with these doctrines; but
he had the consolation of gaining approbation and adherents among the
Gentiles. For of these there were many metuentes, who visited the
synagogue and had been initiated into Judaism, but had not the precon-
ceived opinions and national waywardness of the Jews to prevent them
from appreciating a better system.
These religious Gentiles adhered to the apostle, and believed, both
men and women, in great numbers. The Jews did not remain indif-
ferent at this loss; their jealousy was excited. They created an up-
roar, drove Paul and Silas from the city, and, after they had departed,
wreaked all their fury on those who had embraced the apostle's doc-
trines.
The new converts had hardly enjoyed the most simple instruction,
when Paul was compelled to betake himself to flight. Much, therefore,
must have continued obscure to them, and respecting many parts of his
preaching doubts must have arisen which there was no one to solve.
From the outline of his preaching presented by Luke (Acts 17: 3—7),
it appears that he occupied himself wholly with a discussion of the Mes-
sianic dignity of Jesus, which of course included his kingly office and his
judicial authority over the world. But, according to Luke's account,
on our own resurrection, as well as on many other subjects, he did not
enlarge. It is plain, too, from what follows, that Paul took this ancient
Jewish tenet for granted, or else did not touch upon it.
The expectation of a final judgment, to be conducted by the Messiah,
was pleasing to many, because they hoped that the opponents of the
doctrines which they professed, would soon be put to shame and the
triumph of Christianity in the sight of all would procure them justice (2
Thess. 1: 6, 7). Circumstances gave additional liveliness to these
hopes. They had severe persecutions to endure from the exasperated
zealots of the law; they therefore longed the more ardently for the day
of their glorification, and interpreted the preaching of the apostle ac-
cording to their wishes, as signifying the speedy coming of our Lord.
Now, as they had received no information in regard to the resurrec-
tion, some of them could not help fearing that if this day should be long
1 Appian, De bell. civil. L. IV. c. 118.
2 Lucian, Lucius sive asinus, n. 50. 51. 52. T. VI. Bipont. p. 191.
65
314
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
delayed, they would not enjoy the happiness of seeing it and participa-
ting in the glorious event (1 Thess. 4: 13).
Öthers, however, were alarmed by the consideration that such a judg-
ment would unveil their faults and strictly punish their failings; for
many had not succeeded in divesting themselves of their old habits, es-
pecially those of lasciviousness and idleness.
$ 92.
The apostle was, as we have said, driven from Thessalonica, and
went to Berea, an adjacent place (Acts 17: 10), where he was received
with joy, but was soon discovered and persecuted anew by the Jews of
Thessalonica. He fled thence also, leaving behind, however, Silas and
Timotheus (Acts 17: 14). Timotheus, by the apostle's command, vis-
ited the Thessalonians once more from Berea (1 Thess. 3: 1, 2, 5), and
Paul went to Athens, where he waited for his companions whom he had
left behind (Acts 17: 15, 16). He was at Corinth, however, when they
joined him (Acts 18: 5).
There Paul learned from them the condition and concerns of the
church at Thessalonica, and formed the resolution of writing to en-
courage and console it. Hence, while Timotheus and Silvanus were
with him (1 Thess. 1: 2), as soon as Timotheus had joined him, άote
Evóvros Tiμovov (1 Thess. 3: 6), consequently in the early part
of his abode at Corinth, he wrote an epistle to them, the first of all
his Epistles, according to the investigations made above in regard to the
chronology of the Acts. It was therefore written in the thirteenth year
of Claudius.
$93.
The contents are as follows: I commend your faith and constancy
in suffering; in this you resemble me. I preached to you under perse-
cution, without any benefit to myself, for your good (-2: 17). I have
often longed after you, and I sent Timotheus in my stead to comfort you.
He brought me joyful tidings. May God vouchsafe you strength to do
right (~4:)! I must warn you, however, to flee fornication; ye have
no need that I exhort you to beneficence; but let every one labor, being
a burden to no one (-4: 13). Be not concerned that you may not live
to see the coming of our Lord. Our hopes are not, like those of the
heathen, bounded by this life; the dead will rise again to take part in
Christ's coming. But no man knows the time of this event; therefore
be ye always ready.
$94.
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
While they were anxiously looking for the coming of our Lord, they
received the apostle's first Epistle. As he reproved some of their vices
in it, the consciences of many made them less desirous, and even fearful,
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
515
of our Lord's coming. Soon after another epistle appeared, purporting
to come from the apostle, which announced that our Lord's appearance
was at hand; this only was needed to make them utterly miserable (2
Thess. 2:2). It is true that this epistle was fictitious; but it had its
full effect. It was probably written by one in their midst; for the au-
thor was acquainted with their condition, expectations, fears and hopes.
It was, therefore, probably written rather with the desire of hastening
an amendment in some of them, than with any evil intentions.
Paul soon learned this, and the consternation of the Thessalonians;
he could not suffer them to continue longer in so wretched a condition.
He was still at Corinth when in these circumstances he wrote his
second Epistle to them; for Timotheus and Silas were yet with him (2
Thess. 1: 1. Acts 18:5). Now these two men were deprived of his soci-
ety at his departure from Corinth (Acts 18: 18), and it is not till a great
while after, that we find the first of them again in his company, and the
other, Silas, never again appears in it (19: 22).
It was, therefore, at Corinth, that he learned of this occurrence and
the consternation of the Thessalonian Church; and from this city he
wrote his second Epistle for their consolation, in the fourteenth year of
Claudius.
$ 95.
I thank God, he writes, that your faith and constancy under persecu-
tion increase. Jesus will entirely requite you and your enemies at the
day of his coming (-2:). Be not terrified at anything, not even by an
epistle in my name as though the Lord were at hand. Idolatry must
reach her highest pitch of arrogance before the punishment comes (2:
12). But we, brethren, thank God that he has appointed us unto glo-
ry; be steadfast in the faith; pray for God's assistance (-3: 6). There
are, however, disorderly persons among you, particularly indolent per-
sons; separate yourselves from them, if they will not amend. I subjoin
the salutation with mine own hand, for your assurance in future. The
grace of God be with you.
$ 96.
THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
Paul went from Corinth, where he wrote the two last-mentioned Epis-
tles, to Ephesus. There he abode several weeks, and composed this
letter of instruction to his son Titus.
The apostle speaks of having left Titus behind at Crete (Tit. 1: 5).
Now, of all his voyages, this is the only one in which he can have vis-
ited Crete.
The first time he left Syria to go abroad among the nations, he di-
rected his course to the provinces of Asia Minor, and returned by land
to Antioch. When he departed again, he took the same course, pass-
ed through the same countries, and went to Troas, whence he visited
Macedonia, and came to Athens and Corinth.
516
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
On leaving this latter city, he embarked in its eastern harbor, Cen-
chrea, with the purpose of sailing to Syria (Acts 18: 18). On this oc-
casion only, did his course lie so near Crete that he might have visited
it. We cannot tell whether the ship in which he embarked made this
circuit or whether he was cast upon the island. If the latter was the
case, he encountered one of those perils by sea which he mentions in
2 Cor. chap. 11.
When he again left the main land of Asia, he went to Macedonia,
and returned by the way of Troas (Acts 20: 1 seq.), whence he em-
barked for Miletus. But all the places in this voyage are so precisely
stated, that we know his course exactly; he came to Miletus not long
after mid-day, and did not approach Crete at all (20: 13-16). Hence
his visit to this island must have been made during the voyage undertaken
by him from Corinth to Syria, which carried him, however, to Ephesus.
Other circumstances, moreover, which point to this voyage, confirm
the position we have taken. At the same time that Paul arrived at
Ephesus, a certain Jew was there, named Apollos, who was intending
to go to Achaia, and for this purpose obtained letters of recommenda-
tion from the brethren (Acts 18: 24, 27). Now, in this Epistle of the
apostle, we find mention of an Apollos, who is on a journey, and an in-
junction to Titus to help him forward in it (Tit. 3: 13).
If this be the same Apollos who is spoken of in the Acts, as all the
circumstances denote, we may see from his example that the circuitous
route from Ephesus to Corinth, or vice versa, by way of Crete, was not
unusual; whether it was occasioned by commercial or other reasons.
But an important difficulty lies against the supposition that the Acts
and the Epistle to Titus refer to the same journey of Apollos. The
Acts concludes the account of Paul's residence at Ephesus by saying,
that he bade farewell and departed for Palestine, and travelled through
Galatia and Phrygia, confirming the brethren in the faith, (18: 21,
22, 23). It is not till after Luke has said this, that he speaks of Apol-
los, who, therefore, it may be said, must have arrived after Paul's de-
parture, and could not have seen him, much less obtained any letter of
recommendation from him. So it would seem at first view; but when
we take into consideration what is said soon after in the Acts, the case
is altered again. It came to pass that while Apollos was at Corinth,
Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus" (19:
1). Now what induced the historian to recur again to Apollos, and to
begin by mentioning him, when about to speak of Paul? Plainly, he de-
signed, by a comparison with the arrival of Apollos at Corinth, to fix
with more precision the time when the apostle travelled through the up-
per countries and came to Ephesus the second time. But, it is said,
this is not exactly the sense of the words, διελθόντα τὰ ἀνωτερικά
μέρη ἐλθεῖν εἰς "Εφεσον. Is it imagined that they signify μετὰ τὸ
SiεhDεīv—ĤLDεv, after having travelled through, he came to Ephesus?
In that case the phraseology must have been, διεληλυθότα—ἐλθεῖν,
which would have included the sense of uɛrd, denoting the pluperfect.
On the contrary the words διελθόντα ἐλθεῖν signify merely διῆλθεν
xaì ñλdev; both occurrences belong to the same period, and are not
so distinguished in point of time that one is represented as longer past
than the other. The sense, therefore, is this: While Apollos was at
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
517
Corinth, Paul passed through the upper coasts and came to Ephesus.
Now if this journey was not taken till Apollos reached Corinth, the de-
parture of Apollos to Corinth and that of Paul to Syria must have oc-
curred at about the same time. And what then? They must, there-
fore, have met at Ephesus, whence they sailed, one to Corinth and the
other to Syria.
((
Is it asked how this can be reconciled with Titus 3: 12? In an un-
commonly simple and natural manner, as I imagine. Paul writes to
Titus as follows: When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychi-
cus (who was of the province of Asia, in the capital of which Paul wrote
the Epistle (Acts 20: 4), and who probably accompanied him to Jeru-
salem), be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis; for I have determin-
ed there to winter." The apostle went from Ephesus to keep the feast
at Jerusalem; thence he went to Antioch, and after some time departed
from that city, and went through Upper Asia, Galatia and Phrygia, to
Ephesus again. He past the winter, therefore, somewhere in Asia Mi-
nor. Now it is well known that there was a town named Nicopolis
between Antioch and Tarsus, the birth-place' of the apostle.¹ At
Nicopolis he was about equally distant from two cities which were dear
to him, and it was on his way to the upper countres. In going from
Antioch through Cilicia, he could not but pass through or near this
town. Now Titus knew from the route which the apostle had taken,
which of the many cities of this name was meant. Indeed, this Nicopo-
lis was better known to him than any other, as he was of Asiatic descent.
At least, he was Paul's pupil, yvýolov rézvov (Tit. 1: 4), and closely
connected with him, before the apostle had visited Europe (Gal. 2:
1-6).
$97.
It was the business of Titus in Crete to bring to maturity the seeds
which the apostle had there sown; a difficult commission among so de-
generate a people. Not a single Cretan possessed all the virtues which
Paul in this Epistle to Titus requires in an elder of the church, and the
people generally were addicted to all the vices which he reproves. The
Epistle has a very exact local application, and almost every sentence in
it might be illustrated and confirmed from classic authors. We will
here specify only the more prominent traits in the character of this
people.
Nature had conferred on this island every thing which tends to make
man happy. In ancient times, moreover, the inhabitants possessed a
renowned political constitution, which has often been placed by the side
of that of Sparta; but at this period, and indeed much earlier, their in-
stitutions and morals had sunk extremely low.
The people were of an unsteady character, prone to quarrels, civil
1 Strabo L. XIV. p. 465. Ed. Casaub. fol. 1587. This is the Nicopolis in the
Zvvindnuos of Hierocles (p. 660), which perplexed Wesseling so much. Vet.
Roman. Itiner, Amstelod. 1735. Steph. Byzant. V. "Iooos. IIóhis μeragv Zvoias
καὶ Κιλικίας, ἐφ' ἡ Αλέξανδρος Δάρειον ἐνίκησε, ἢ ἐκλήθη διὰ τοῦτο Νικόπολις
in' avrov. Eustath. Пapexßol. in Dionys. Perieget. v. 119.
518
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
commotions and broils, to robbery and violence.¹ Avaricious and sor-
did to an excessive degree, they regarded nothing as base which grati-
fied their greediness of gain.2 Hence their want of veracity, their
treacherous and deceitful disposition, which had become a common by-
word.³ Even when their morals were purest, they were strongly addicted
to wine; and their licentiousness is frequently mentioned and de-
nounced by the ancients.
τῆς ἅπαντ᾽ ἐχούσης
Κρήτης, ὅπου πόλεσσιν
Ερως ἐποργιάζει . .
Religion itself gave rise to many of the excesses of this people. Many
of the gods were born in this island. They even pointed out their sep-
ulchres and catacombs, and they celebrated the festivals and mysteries
of them all. Hence holidays, recreation, and idleness, were perpetu-
al among them. One of their own poets, called ɛolóyos by Diodorus,
gave testimony against them, which testimony was corroborated by
Paul (1: 12).
Jews, too, had settled amongst them, who, to all appearance, im-
proved but little here in point of morals.5 The apostle seems to have
regarded them as worse than the native inhabitants.
$ 98.
Such were the circumstances under which Titus was to establish a
christian church. To the young teacher, left alone to perform this diffi-
cult office, nothing could be more acceptable than precepts and rules of
conduct from his wiser instructor. These Paul furnished him in this
Epistle, of which we can only give a very general outline. He first de-
scribes the qualities which should be possessed by elders of the church,
the vices from which they should be free and which they should most
earnestly combat (1:-2:). Then the virtues to be expected of the aged
women and of the female sex in general, and also the instruction to be
given to servants. He exhorts him likewise to be himself an example,
and to inculcate universal amendment on the part of the followers of
Jesus (-3:). He admonishes him to inculcate obedience, moderation
and forbearance, and to avoid all foolish disputes and unprofitable spec-
ulations. In conclusion, he commends to his good offices certain per-
sons who were travelling; and appoints Nicopolis as a place of meeting.
1 Polyb. L. VI. 46. Διὰ τὴν ἔμφυτον σφίσι πλεονεξίαν ἐν πλείσταις ἰδίᾳ καὶ
κατὰ κοινὸν στάσεσι καὶ φόνοις καὶ πολέμοις ἐμφυλίοις ἀναστρεφόμενοι.
2 Loc. cit. Καθόλου δ᾽ ὁ περὶ τὴν αἰσχροκέρδειαν καὶ πλεονεξίαν τρόπος
ἐπιχωριάζει παρ' αὐτοῖς.
3 Пρòs Koйτα xontitew. Snidas. Plutarch in Emil. Paul. T. I. p. 488. Henr.
Steph. Polyb. VIII. 21 and 18. Kons inάozov, xai pios пoizilos. Zenodot.
Κρὴς ὑπάρχων, καὶ φύσει ποικίλος.
Proverb. v. κρητίζειν.
4 They even regarded τὴν ἐν τοῖς οἴνοις πολλὴν διατριβήν as of advantage to
them (Plato de Legg. L. I. Vol. VIII. p. 38. Bipont.
5 Philo, Legat. ad Caium. Edit. Turneb. p. 725.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
519
$99.
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Paul wrote the Epistle to Titus at Ephesus, and went from thence to
Syria and Palestine; he had promised, however, to come again to Eph-
esus, and did so. He returned thither through Galatia and Phrygia,
and after his visit to the Galatians wrote them this Epistle for urgent
reasons. It was written either on the road to Ephesus, or, as is more
probable, at Ephesus (Acts 18: 23), in the second year of Nero.
He had indeed preached to them before (Acts 16: 6), after he had
attended the council of apostles and elders at Jerusalem and then de-
parted again to go among the Gentiles. The subject of his instruction
was the decree of this council respecting certain Jewish rites (Acts 16:
4,6). This decree did, indeed, liberate the Gentiles from the obser-
vance of the law, but, from tenderness towards the Jews, did not declare
its abrogation or inutility, and even suffered the preachers of Moses to
pursue their employment without opposition (15: 20, 21). In this spirit
Paul preached among the Galatians, and with success, not even meeting
with any hindrance on the part of the Jews resident in the country.
The state of things was for the present quiet, and the Epistle cannot
have been composed directly after this visit.
It was written, then, after the second visit, when he went to Ephesus
through Galatia and Phrygia; for he speaks in the Epistle as though a
second visit had taken place. He distinguishes an earlier and a later
by the words: εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον (Gal. 4: 13). This
could be said only in allusion to a visit subsequent to this first. Of this
earliest visit, and the instruction which he communicated to them dur-
ing it, he says, that he then made allowance for human weakness, di
ασθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην, in order not to give offence by
stricter preaching. He then contrasts this preaching with a different
species, in which he told them the plain truth, and remarks the opposite
effects of the two modes. They heard him gladly, when he exercised
indulgence towards them, but when he told them the truth without re-
serve, they became inimical to him (4: 16), ὥστε ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν γέγονα,
ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν.
From these indications, the Epistle must have been written after the
second visit; not long after, however, because this change in their feel-
ings is said to have taken place soon, taxεws (1: 6).¹
α
1 Dr. Koppe (Nov. Test. Perpet. Adnot. Illustr. Vol. VI. Ed. Tychsen. p. 8,
9) is desirous of making out an earlier journey to Galatia than those mentioned
in Acts 16: 6 and 18: 22. His reasons are as follows. First; Barnabas was
known to the Galatians (Galat. 2: 13). Now they did not become acquainted
with him on occasion of either of the two journeys above mentioned; for he had
before separated from Paul (Acts 15: 36-39). It must therefore have been at
an earlier period. Secondly; the first journey of Paul to Galatia expressly men-
tioned in the Acts (16: 6) was undertaken for the purpose of confirming the
brethren in the faith (15: 36, 41), which supposes the Galatians to have already
received instruction, and this can have been the case only on the previous jour-
520
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
$ 100.
The inhabitants of Galatia, or Gallo-Græcia, were a people closely
allied to our own nation. Two Gallic tribes, the Trocmi and Tolisto-
boii, as their names were distorted or mutilated in the languages of the
Greeks and Romans, together with a Celtic race, the Tectosages (all pre-
cisely alike in language and manners, as we are assured by Strabo,
who was their neighbor), more than two centuries and a half before the
Christian era conquered that part of Asia which was called from them
Galatia and Grecian Gaul.
L
Jerome makes an important remark respecting their language. He
says that it was the same as that spoken in his time by the Treviri.2 If
this was the case, they must have been of German origin; for, long be-
fore Jerome's time, the Germans had possession of the countries on the
Moselle, and the Treviri were so proud of their German descent that
they vaunted it whenever others confounded them with the Gauls.3
This father visited Gaul and the country of the Treviri, and soon
after set out for Asia, travelling through Phrygia and Galatia, and
could thus compare the languages before his recollection had been weak-
ened by time.
Livy
The assertion of the father finds confirmation in other facts.
calls the leader of the horde, that led the van of the expedition to Asia,
Lutarius, which is clearly a German name.
4
At least one of the three tribes must have been of German origin,
though Strabo makes them alike in language and customs. One of
them, that of the Tectosages, is mentioned elsewhere in history. This
people (whom Cæsar calls Volca Tectosages, perhaps nation (Volk) of
the Tectosages), had in ancient times, when the Gauls were of a warlike
character, left Gaul and settled in the Hercynian forest, the commence-
ment of which was in our vicinity, in finibus Rauracorum, where they
are said to have gradually adopted German manners and customs.5
ney through Asia Minor, when Paul and Barnabas preached at Lystra and Der-
be, and in the region round about, eis tiv πeqixwqov (Acts 14: 6).
But must the Galatians have known by sight and personally all of whom Paul
assumes in his Epistle that they knew something; e. g. James, Cephas, and John?
Further, the purpose of confirming the brethren did not prohibit labors in behalf
of those who had not yet heard the word. They even on this journey thought of
visiting Bithynia and other countries of Asia, and would have done so, had they
not been forbidden by the Spirit (Acts 16: 6, 7). Luke, moreover, clearly dis-
tinguishes the Galatians from those whose faith was to be confirmed. He com-
mences speaking of the latter in 15: 41, Amoxɛto ἐπιστηρίζων, and con-
cludes at 16: 5, Ai µèv exnhnoiai šorηgeouvro, and does not begin till afterwards
to speak of Phrygia and Galatia.
1 Strabo, L. XII. p. 390.
•
2 Hieronym. Proleg. in Ep. ad Galat. L. II. "Unum est quod inferimus.
Galatas, excepto sermone Græco, quo omnis oriens loquitur, propriam linguam
eandem habere, quam Treviros, nec referre, si aliqua exinde corruperint, cum et
Aphri Phoenicum linguam nonnullâ ex parte mutaverint."
3 Taciti Germania, Sect. 28.
4 Livius L. XXXVIII. c. 16.
5 Julius Cæsar, Bell. Gall. L. VI. § 22. Beatus Rhenanus supposes them to
have dwelt in Würtemburg, in the county of Teck.
PAUL'S EPISTles.
521
This happened, we are told by another author, at the time when Bren-
nus, with an army of Gauls, conquered Rome; their leader to the Her-
cynian forest was Sigovesus. This name, again, is so evidently Ger-
man, that we can hardly think they were at their first settlement an en-
tirely foreign nation, and only gradually adopted the peculiarities of our
forefathers. In fact, they did not remain long.
Half a century afterward, another Brennus2 took a multitude of these
Tectosages along with him to Thrace, to swell the horde that was a-
bout to pass into Asia. This great expedition, it would seem, issued
from Gaul, passed over the Rhine, along the Danube, through Nori-
cum, Pannonia, and Moesia, and at its entrance into Germany carried
along with it many of the Tectosages. On their arrival in Thrace, Lu-
tarius took them with him, crossed the Bosphorus, and effected the con-
quest in Asia Minor of which we have before spoken.
But, supposing myself able to pursue this investigation further, this
is not the place for the purpose; particularly as neither the biography
of the apostle nor this Epistle would be likely to receive any important
illustration from it.
In their new country they became acquainted with the Greek lan-
guage, and were called Gallo-Græci; they made use of this language
in public documents and inscriptions, of which there are still some re-
mains.
They retained, it appears, their ancestral religion, though they seem
to have learned from the Phrygians the worship of the magna mater
deûm; and they likewise deviated from the custom of the Gallic and
Germanic nations in erecting temples. There were few cities to be
found among them, with the exception of Ancyra, Tavium, and Pes-
sinus, which carried on some trade. It was this circumstance, proba-
bly, which attracted thither those Jewish citizens, who, according to
Josephus' account, enjoyed here considerable immunities, the record of
which was deposited in the temple of Augustus at Ancyra.3
Although the climate diminished their courage and hardiness,¹ still
they were not effeminate, and not long before the Christian era were so
far from having lost their former simplicity of manners, that a Roman
orator, among his encomiums on their king, remarks particularly that
he was a very industrious husbandman and grazier.5
When Paul first came among them, he met with the most cordial re-
ception and very general adherence (Acts 16: 6. Gal. 4: 13, 14 seq.).
When, however, on a subsequent visit (Acts 18: 23), he evinced less
forbearance towards Judaism, and expressed himself with more freedom
respecting its value, dindevov (Gal. 4: 16), those Jews residing in the
country, who had embraced Christianity, hardly waited for his departure
before they began zealously to uphold the law of Moses.
દી
Certain Jewish Christians, however, who had not long since come
thither from Jerusalem, seem to have been particularly active in this
1 (Livius, L. V. c. 34.]
2 Livius, L. XXXVIII. c. 16.
3 Joseph. Antiq. L. XVI. c. 6.
4 Florus, Hist. Rom. L. II. c. 11. Liv. XXXVII. c. 8.
5 Cicero, Pro rege Deiotaro: "Diligentissimus agricola et pecuarius."
66
522
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
matter; for the leaders in it extolled the heads of the church at Jeru-
salem, viz. John, Peter, and James, and boasted of being their disciples,
drawing disadvantageous comparisons between Paul and them, and
Paul's doctrine and their doctrine, as is evident from intimations con-
tained in the Epistle. And, in fact, the Jewish converts gained the
ascendancy, and persuaded the Galatians of the indispensableness of the
whole Jewish ritual to the followers of the Messiah. The Galatians
permitted themselves to be circumcised, and, indeed, they conformed
to the Jewish religion in its entire extent. Thus all Paul's aims were
at once thwarted, his labors rendered in part abortive, and his hopes
grievously disappointed.
$ 101.
He soon learned this, and again urged upon their attention in this
Epistle the principles he had recently inculcated upon them. Though
not merely a Jew from Jerusalem, but an angel from heaven, should
teach any other doctrine than that I have given you, believe him not
(-1: 10). I am not a disciple of man, receiving my commission
from Peter, James, or John, but an apostle, taught and endued with au-
thority from on high, and am in no wise inferior to either of the other
apostles. I have even rebuked Peter to his face, for his insincerity in
regard to Judaism (-3: 1). Have you, through Jesus Christ, only be-
come more fully acquainted with the Jewish law, or have you received
instruction of a more exalted, spiritual, and efficacious character? Did
Abraham obtain the promise of the Messiah by the law, which did not
then exist, or through faith? Has not the law rather brought the
displeasure of God upon mankind, from which Jesus has ransomed
us (−3: 23)?
The law was but a preparation for Christianity; it was only our
schoolmaster; but now we are released from its superintendence; we
have become of age, and are heirs of God (-4: 8). Further; ye were
freemen through Christ, and now have returned of your own accord
to a state of bondage. Christianity is the religion of liberty, the law
that of bondage, as you may see from an allegorical explanation of the
story of Hagar and Sarah (-5:). Judaism, therefore, is no longer suit-
able for Christians; labor rather to improve your morals, and to amend
your minds and hearts. Be on your guard against those who would ca-
lumniate me; humble the pride and arrogance of self-conceited wis-
dom. Henceforth glory in Christ alone.
$ 102..
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Corinth, a large commercial city, between two harbors, one of which
afforded an entrance to the western and the other to the eastern mari-
ner, was situated, as it were, in the centre of the civilized world, where
merchants from every quarter of the globe met and exchanged their ar-
ticles of traffic. It was also celebrated for the Isthmian games, and the
PAUL'S EPISTles.
523
1
temple of Venus, in which more than a thousand priestesses of that
goddess ministered to licentiousness under cover of religion. On these
various accounts there was a constant influx of foreigners of every de-
scription, who brought the wealth and the vices of all nations to a city
where the mariner, the merchant, and the soldier, could freely indulge
those vices for money.2
This city, for having ill-treated certain Roman envoys, became, with
all its wealth and treasures of art, the spoil of the Romans, and was
razed to the ground by Mummius. After remaining a long time unin-
habited, it was rebuilt by Julius Cæsar, and peopled with a Roman
colony. It soon flourished anew; three of the Cæsars busied them-
selves in increasing its splendor, and prosecuting the vast enterprise of
cutting through the isthmus and uniting both harbors, in order to avoid
the passage round the promontory of Malea.
4
The ancient manners of the city likewise returned. Acrocorinth was
again the residence of the Isthmian Dione; and a profligate life was
commonly called a Corinthian life.3 It was regarded as the most vo-
luptuous of all cities, and the satirist must have been in jest, when ap-
parently doubtful whether, in his time, Athens or Corinth merited the
preference in this respect.5 In this city Paul was desirous of founding
a Christian church. He visited it, as we have seen, on his earliest
journey to Europe, and preached the kingdom of God first to the Jews.
They were, however, no less indocile here than at Thessalonica. He
succeeded only in gaining over a few; in particular, two of their chief
men, Crispus and Sosthenes. The metuentes, however, or Gentiles in-
clined to Judaism, sincerely attached themselves to him, and seem to
have been, in the sequel and always, his faithful adherents; while the
Jews, who gradually multiplied, did what they could to frustrate the
plans of the apostle. He remained here a year and six months; Tim-
otheus and Silas were his assistants (Acts 18: 1—19).
Circumstances having called him away, many, soon after his depar-
ture, relapsed into their old mode of life, again resorted to the priestess-
es of Acrocorinth, and conducted generally as they were before wont to
do. On this account he wrote them an Epistle (1 Cor. 5:9—12), not
now extant however, in which he forbade believers to have any inter-
course with such reprobates.
§ 103.
Paul, meanwhile, returned from Jerusalem through Galatia and
Phrygia to Ephesus, as he had promised. While he abode there, the
1 Τό τε τῆς Αφροδίτης ἱερὸν οὕτω πλούσιον ὑπῆρξεν, ὥστε πλείους ἢ χιλίας
ἱεροδούλους ἐκέκτητο ἑταίρας, ἃς ἀνετίθεσαν τῇ θεῷ καὶ ἄνδρες καὶ γυναῖκες. Καλ
διὰ ταύτας οὖν ἐπολυοχλεῖτο ἡ πόλις καὶ ἐπλουτίζετο. Strabo, L. VIII. p. 261, or,
according to Casaubon's 2d. ed., p. 378.
2 Strabo, L. XII. p. 385.
3 Hesych. Lex. κορινθιάζειν, μαστροπεύειν, εταιρεύειν.
4 Dio Chrys. Orat. Corinth. T. II. p. 119. Reisk. Kaitoi nóhiv oinɛite tow
οἴσων τε καὶ γεγενημένων ἐπαφροδιτοτάτην, and p. 120. Πρώρα καὶ πρύμνα της
῾Ελλάδος, ὄλβιοι μὲν καὶ ἀφνειοί.
5 Lucian, Amores.
-
524
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
Corinthians gave him still more urgent occasion for admonition. He
wrote them, therefore, two Epistles, which are still extant.
The first of them is the only one of all Paul's Epistles, of the occa-
sion of which we have any account resting on valid authority. In the
time of Clement of Rome, the Corinthian church was divided into fac-
tions; he therefore recalled to their mind the purport and occasion of
the first Epistle of Paul, as a similar case. Then, also, he says, Paul
wrote to them because they had formed themselves into parties under
the name of this or that apostle, of Cephas or of Apollos.'
History gives us no further information. In order to get an idea of
the condition of the Corinthian church, we must examine the Epistles
themselves, and collect and compare the individual facts they present;
for, without this preliminary labor, it will be impossible to understand
these letters aright, and comprehend every part of them.2 These vari-
ous factions into which they were divided, sought to exalt the leaders
they adopted, and whose doctrines they professed to follow, above every
one else, tous vлép híav άñooródovs (2 Cor. 11: 5. 12: 11), and to de-
preciate those of their opponents. While some called themselves disci-
ples of Paul, Cephas, or Apollos, others adopted the imposing name of
followers of Christ. Probably they proclaimed themselves adherents of
James, the brother of our Lord, and thought that thus they became dis-
ciples of Jesus in a stricter sense than the rest.
We can perceive that the main dispute was about the obligatory force
of Judaism. The supporters of Judaism in Galatia appealed to Ce-
phas and James, in order to oppose against Paul, who discarded the Jew-
ish institutions from the Christian system, authority as fully admitted
as his own. This question divided all these various parties, of which
we have spoken, into two principal ones. The adherents of Cephas
and James were in favour of the law; the friends of Paul adopted his
opinion. Apollos, too, with his adherents, was always at heart inclined
to favor Paul, and can have had no hand in any rupture (1 Cor. 16: 12).
The leaders of the anti-Pauline party, the sudandorokoi, and uɛtα-
σχηματιζόμενοι εἰς ἀποστόλους Χριστοῦ, as Paul calls them, who
pretended to be the assertors and defenders of the doctrines of Cephas
and James, werc, as might be supposed, converted Jews (2 Cor. 11:
22), who came from abroad, in all probability from Palestine (ozóμ-
voi, 2 Cor. 11: 4), and could, therefore, boast of acquaintance with the
apostles at Jerusalem and familiarity with their tenets. They were not
even of the better class of Jews, but such as adhered to the doctrines of
the Sadducees, and even after becoming Christians, while they were full
of zeal for the law, they undermined the hopes of the believers, and
raised doubts concerning the resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 35 seq. Comp.
Matth. 22: 23); so that Paul was obliged to adduce against them the
1. Αναλάβετε τὴν ἐπιστολὴν τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου. Τι πρῶτον ὑμῖν ἐν ἀρχῇ
εὐαγγελίου ἔγραψεν ; Επ' ἀλήθειας πνευματικῶς ἐπέστειλεν ὑμῖν περὶ αὐτοῦ τε,
καὶ Κηφᾶ, καὶ πολλῶ, διὰ τὸ καὶ τότε προσκλίσεις ὑμᾶς πεποιῆσθαι. Αλλ
ἡ πρόσκλισις ἐκείνη, ἧττον ἁμαρτίαν προσένεγκεν· προσεκλίθητε γὰρ ἀποστόλοις,
nai avdoì dedozquaquévų tag' avtois. Clem. I. Ep. ad Cor. c. 47. and Hegesipp.
apud Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 15.
2 I have here made use of a work which I regard as the best on this subject:
Storr, Notitiæ Hist. Epistolarum Pauli ad Corinth. Tubing. 1788. 4to.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
525
testimony of James and Cephas, the teachers whose disciples they pro-
fessed to be (1 Cor. 15: 5, 7).
These Jews, proud of their understanding (1 Cor. 1: 17 seq.), depre-
ciated the authority of Paul, from interested motives, and extolled their
own knowledge (1 Cor. 2: 12. 2 Cor. 11: 16, 17).
Vehement as the dispute was, the parties did not have separate pla-
ces of assembly for instruction and common edification. This very
fact, however, was the occasion of many scandalous scenes and disor-
ders.¹
At their love-feasts, love and kindness were never visible. Instead of
eating in common, and refreshing the poor brethren from the food
brought with them, every one, as soon as he came, ate what he had,
without waiting for another, and frequently some feasted immoderately,
while the needy were hungry (1 Cor. 11: 17 seq.).
When some were preparing to pray or sing, others raised their voices
for exhortation, and exercised the gifts of the spirit, laleiv plaiooais,
προφητεία, ἑρμηνεία, about the nature of which there has been so
much dispute of late (1 Cor. 12: 13: 14:). The women, likewise, did
their part, by questions and interruptions, to carry confusion to its
height (1 Cor. 14: 34 seq.).
Thus the internal discipline of the assemblies, and all prospect of
edification, were at an end; and soon the exterior decency, which had
been maintained by the members of the society in civil life, was lost.
Formerly, when disputes arose between believers, they were adjusted
by umpires from their own number; now, as mutual confidence was
more and more diminished, they brought their accusations, to the dis-
grace of Christianity, before the heathen tribunals (1 Cor. 6: 1 seq.).
As to the main dispute, viz. about the obligation of Jewish obser-
vances, it was by no means confined to words and arguments, but each
party strove to exhibit its peculiar opinion as clearly as possible in its
conduct. Each by its procedure gave all possible occasion for ill-will
and complaint on the part of the other. The Jews required circum-
cision as an indispensable religious rite; the followers of Paul, on the
other hand, endeavored to create a new foreskin, and to efface all tra-
ces of circumcision (1 Cor. 7: 18 seq.).
While those inclined to Judaism observed and defended a distinction
of meats, the adherents of Paul ate every thing, without distinction,
which was sold in the shambles, and even the meats which had been
offered to idols (1 Cor. 10: 25, 28. 8: 1 seq.).
1 Many of the disorders reproved by Paul could not have taken place, had they,
as has been inferred by some from the expression in 1 Cor. 1: 2, ¿v navtì tónų
avτų tε naì nμon, possessed separate places of assembling. The interpretation
I have given of this passage is disapproved by Bertholdt (Einl. Th. VI. § 719.
p. 3331), and justly. But neither am I satisfied with his, for many reasons,
which cannot be detailed here. Perhaps the following explanation is less objec-
tionable. The apostle wishes grace and peace from God to the members of the
Corinthian church, ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, wherever they might be ; ἐν τόπῳ αὐτῶν, at
Corinth and in its vicinity, and v tóną nuon, i. e. with me. For there were
several with Paul, besides those who were about to return (16: 17), viz. Sosthe-
nes (1: 1), Apollos (16: 12), probably those of the house of Chloe (1: 11), and
others. The adelgoi (16: 20), were not either Asiatics or Ephesians, as the sal-
utations of these occur before (16: 18, 19), but no doubt Corinthians, who had left
the scene of these disorders and betaken themselves to Paul.
526
PAUL'S EPIStles.
Nor was this enough; they made no scruple to be present them-
selves at the sacrificial feasts. Sometimes they even participated in
scandalous transactions which occurred at these feasts, and inconsider-
ately plunged themselves into gross misdemeanors (1 Cor. 10: 20, 21.
8: 10 seq.).
According to Jewish custom, the women were to be veiled in the
synagogues and public assemblies. This usage of the synagogues the
anti-Jews discarded (2 Cor. 11: 5, 6, 10 seq.), and in this point followed
the practice of the Gentiles.
In opposition to Judaism, which considered offspring by matrimony
as a special blessing from God, some imposed upon themselves a life of
celibacy, which they justified by Paul's example (1 Cor. 7: 7, 8), and
recommended to others (1 Cor. 7: 1 seq. 25). Some even went so far
as to resolve on perpetual continence in the married state (1 Cor. 7;
3-5).
In what manner the supporters of Judaism went astray in their zeal
to give offence to their opponents, we have no information; with the
exception of a single case, in which they were unrivalled. They even
defended the Jewish casuistical indulgences to proselytes, and (a
thing of which the Pauline party is acquitted, 2 Cor. 2: 11) allowed a
Gentile, who conformed to Judaism while professing Chistianity, to
marry his step-mother. For, according to the ancient doctrine, whosoev-
er embraced Judaism was considered as a new-born child,
3
3p, and all his previous connexions were looked upon as
null. His mother, father, brethren, and sisters, were not now related
to him.¹ In such a case his previous connexions by marriage were no
longer at all regarded, and improprieties, founded on principle, were the
consequence.
$104.
Chloe, a believer at Corinth, gave the apostle the first news of these
dissensions (1 Cor. 1: 11). Some information he gained from others,
άxoverai (1 Cor. 5: 1). At last the Corinthians themselves sent a depu-
ἀκούεται
tation, of which it would seem Apollos and Sosthenes were members (1
Cor. 1: 1. 16: 12), with a letter to the apostle. He not only replied to
this, but took notice of the preceding accounts which he had received.
When he composed his reply, he was still at Ephesus, where he intend-
ed to remain till Pentecost (16: 8). It was, therefore, written about the
close of his residence in this city, in the beginning of the fourth year of
Nero. The Corinthians probably received his letter at the time of the
passover, to which reference is had in the finely conceived metaphor in
1 Cor. 5: 7, 8.
But we are not permitted undisputed possession of this passage, which
is such a definite designation of time. Is not this, it is said, totally mis-
taking an allegory of the apostle, which merely contains an injunction
to be blameless and manifest devout reverence towards God? It is
true, that if there were only the words, "Know ye not that a little leaven
1 Jo. Selden, De successionibus ad leges Ebræorum. c. 26. p. 191. Elzevir.
1638.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
527
"
leaveneth the whole lump? purge out, therefore, the old leaven," the
figure might, as in Gal. 5: 9, contain no specific reference, and be only
an allusion to purity in general. But the apostle here contracts the cir-
cle of his figure, and mentions the passover:
for Christ our passover
is sacrificed for us." How happened Paul, in speaking of excommuni-
cation, to select the figure of the passover, unless the excommunication
were to take place at that time? If it were to take place at Pentecost,
or any other time, the figure would have had no occasion or pertinency.
Paul then proceeds: wore opracoμev," so that we may keep the feast,
ὥστε ἑορτάζωμεν,
not with old leaven," etc. The word oorάsev cannot mean here, de-
voutly to serve God. The subject is not the reformation of believers,
or a change to a more virtuous life; but the purification of the church
by the expulsion of an unworthy member. Hence the proposed general
interpretation, is entirely aside from the purpose of the writer, and we
are restricted to the more particular one that you may keep this feast
as a purified church, free from the intrusion of a wicked participant.
0,07
Paul intrusted the Epistle, it would seem, to some of the society
who were going home (16: 15-19), viz. Stephanus, Fortunatus, and
Achaicus; while Apollos and Sosthenes abode still at Ephesus (16: 12.
comp. with 1: 1). For it was not only proper, but necessary, to deliver
to the deputies the evidence that their mission had been accomplished,
to carry to those who had sent them.
At the same time, and as it is easy to see, in company with them,
Timothy went to Corinth, as a deputy on the part of the apostle; for so
the dignity of ecclesiastical affairs demanded (Acts 15: 27). It was his
duty to promote the effect of the Epistle by word of mouth, and, when-
ever there was any doubt as to its meaning, to explain and solve it, in
accordance with the apostle's sentiments. So much of his business is
stated in the Epistle itself (4: 16, 17).
The time at which Timothy set out may be inferred from the fact
that he was expected back again at Ephesus on the feast of Pentecost
(1 Cor. 16: 8-12). According to this injunction, he must have set
out as soon as practicable after winter had broken up. If he went
the whole distance by sea, he may have embarked about the spring
equinox; for mariners commenced their long voyages at the æquinoctium
vernum.i The number of days consumed in going from Ephesus to
Athens may be inferred from a journey of Cicero's, which was rather
dilatory. He set out from Ephesus on the first of October, and arrived
at Athens on the fourteenth. His brother Quintus accomplished the
same voyage in precisely the same time.3 Taking these voyages as a
standard, and allowing a day or two for the passage from Athens to Cor-
inth, Timotheus arrived at the latter place sometime during the first
week in April.
Let us suppose, however, that he thought it more advisable to take
the land route to Troas, and then through Macedonia, in order to
abridge his voyage by sea.
We know that, with extraordinary expedi-
1 Liv. L. XXXVII. c. 9.
2 Cic. ad Attic. Ep. L. VI. Ep. 8 and 9.
3 Ad. Attic. Ep. L. III. Ep. 9. where "valde fuit ei properandum" of course
refers to what follows, "ne quid absens," etc.
528
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
1
tion, the distance from Amphissa to Amphipolis could be passed over in
six days. Although Timothy would not want aid and means of expedi-
tion among the churches of Macedonia, we will not assume any thing ex-
traordinary; and, in order that we may proceed safely, we will derive our
estimate of the European journey from two passages in the (so-called)
Itinerary of Antoninus. One passage contains an account of the dis-
tance from Athens to Thessalonica. From Athens to Oropus are
thirteen Roman miles; from thence to Thebes, forty-four; to Chalcis,
thirty-six to Opus, twenty-four; to Demetrias, forty-eight; to Larissa,
fourteen; to Dios, forty-four; to Berea, twenty-four; to Thessalonica,
seventeen. In all, two hundred and sixty-four. The other states the
distance from Thessalonica to Neapolis.3 From Thessalonica to Mel-
lisurgis, twenty-seven; from thence to Apollonia, twenty; to Amphipo-
lis, seventeen; to Philippi, thirty; to Neapolis, thirty-three. In all, one
hundred and twenty-seven. Both distances together amount to three
hundred and ninety-one Roman miles. Reducing them to German
miles, taking according to the usual reckoning five Roman to one Ger-
man mile, we have seventy-eight of our miles, or one hundred and fifty-
six hours, i. e. fifteen or sixteen days' journeys. If we add two days for
the distance from Athens to Corinth, and four days of rest, we shall have
twenty-two days. For the passage across from Troas we will take, ac-
cording to Acts 20: 6, five days, although on another occasion Paul
(Acts 16: 11), seems to have accomplished this journey in two days;
for the distance from Troas to Ephesus we will take as much time as
Paul required to go to Miletus, viz. four days. Thus the whole amount
is thirty-one days. Hence, if he left Ephesus at the beginning of
March, he arrived at Corinth sometime in the first week of April.
Whichsoever route, then, he chose, he reached the place of his destina-
tion before Easter.
$105.
The Epistle relates principally to the faults of the adherents of Paul,
and would seem to have been intended only for them. They had them-
selves written to the apostle, and acknowledged his authority. He
therefore occupies himself almost entirely with the faults of the anti-
Jewish party, nearly neglecting to say any thing of those of the party in-
clined to Judaism.
The Epistle may be divided into three sections. The first relates to
what he had learned by the messages from Chloe; the second to what
he had heard from other sources; and the last to what had been writ-
ten to him by the Corinthians themselves.
With reference to the information he had received from Chloe (1:
11), he exhorts them to unity, and thanks God that he himself had giv-
en no occasion for the formation of parties. He avers that though
1 Liv. L. XXXVII. c. 17. L. XLIV. c. 45.
2 Vet. Rom. Itiner. sive Antonini Itinerarium etc. Ed. Wesseling. p.
326-328.
3 P. 320-21. Xerxes fled from Salamis across the Hellespont in less than
thirty days (Cor. Nep. in Themist. c. 5), and Agesilaus with an army reached
Boeotia across the Hellespont in the same time (Idem, in Agesil. c. 4).
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
529
he had indeed preached without the arts of oratory or any parade
of learning, he had declared the unadulterated truth of God. Paul
and Apollos (and the same is understood of other heads of parties) are
alike only servants of God and of the Gospel, each of whom will receive
his reward according to his desert; and, if preference is due to any, it
rather belongs to the first messengers of the faith than to subsequent
teachers.
With reference to what he had learned from other sources (5: 1), he
enjoins upon them not to tolerate abominable incest, but to deliver over
the transgressor to Satan (-5: 9). They are to shun those in the church
who are licentious and immoral, never to bring their controversies before
heathen tribunals (-6: 11), and to walk worthy of the interest which
they have in Christ (~7: 1).
He then replies to the letter (7: 1). He cannot approve of the conți-
nence of married persons; nor of one party's separating from the other on
the pretext of unbelief. Single persons, who cannot contain themselves,
should marry (-7: 18). Those who have been circumcised should use
no art to create a foreskin anew; and, in general, each one should be
content with his condition (-7: 25).
To single persons his advice is that they should remain single; not
because it is sinful to marry; on the contrary, it is even well to do so;
but times will come when it may be desirable for one to live indepen-
dent, that he may not be drawn away by his connexions into infidelity to
religion (-8).
It is true that an idol is nothing, and that there is no difference be-
tween meats offered in sacrifice and other meats; but, if a weak brother
be offended, his weakness should be respected; and none should by
any means be present at the feasts in the temples (—9: 1).
Here the apostle digresses, and asserts the purity of his purposes and
his doctrine, appealing to his disinterestedness, which entirely acquit-
ted him of views of private advantage. His reward and consideration
were God and Christ (—9: 27).
He then makes a transition again to idolatry, draws attention to the
example of the fathers, and to the incompatibility of idolatry with Chris-
tianity (-10:23), and recommends anew a scrupulous regard to the con-
science of a weak brother (-11:).
He tells them that, for the sake of propriety in religious worship, the
women should be covered in their assemblies, and be silent (-11: 17).
The Lord's supper is a memorial of our Lord's death; every one
should therefore partake of it with a conscience void of offence (11:
17-12:).
Each one should use the gifts of the Spirit for the edification of all;
for they were not given for individuals, but for the advantage of all.
All form but one body, of which each is a member, and every member
should conduce to the benefit of the whole body. These gifts, howev-
er, are to be esteemed as nothing in comparison with the law of love
and peace (~14:).
In regard to the resurrection, he says he has informed them distinct-
ly that Jesus rose from the dead, that he appeared to James and Cephas,
and to more than five hundred brethren at once, and lastly to him also;
and declares that Jesus will raise all to glory or shame, according to
67
530
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
their deserts (-16:). Finally, he enjoins it upon them to make a char-
itable collection among themselves for their indigent brethren in Pal-
estine.
$106.
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Paul abode some time longer at Ephesus, but sent Timotheus and
Erastus through Macedonia to Corinth (Acts 19: 22. 1 Cor. 16: 10).
Thither, likewise, he sent Titus, who was commissioned to observe the
impression and effect produced by the apostle's letter, and to give him.
information which might direct his future measures (2 Cor. 2: 13. 7: 6—
16), and likewise to superintend the collection for the poor (8: 6).
When Paul departed from Ephesus to go through Macedonia and
Achaia, he expected to find Titus at Troas, returning from his com-
mission (2 Cor. 2: 13). He did not meet with him, however, till he
reached Macedonia (7: 5), where he obtained from him joyful news as
to the success of his Epistle and of the measures he had taken (7: 7,
8, 9).
It was, however, in general, only those of Paul's party, who appeared
repentant, submissive, and ready to amend; the Judaizing party, on the
contrary, only sought to discover in his Epistle materials for a new at-
tack upon his character.
The apostle had several times, particularly in this Epistle, promised
to visit them (I Cor. 4: 19, 20, 21. 16: 4 seq.), and had not yet fulfilled
his promise. They therefore charged him with fickleness and an un-
stable disposition, and took occasion thence to cast suspicion upon his
doctrines (2 Cor. 1: 15—2:), and to accuse him of obscurity and indefi-
niteness in his teaching (-4: 7).
Moreover, as the letter was replete with earnestness, severity, and en-
ergy, they instituted a comparison of it with his procedure in other cir-
cumstances, and observed that it was true he had courage to make use
of such language, when he was at a distance, and was not looking peo-
ple in the face, but in other circumstances he was much more complai-
sant, and was content to use a more indulgent tone (2 Cor. 10: 9, 10).
Paul, in order to show the disinterested rectitude of his preaching and
doctrines, had reminded the Corinthians, that he had in no instance
sought his own advantage, had even refused the wages which were his
due, and had endured the toils of instruction and encountered danger
and persecution only from a sense of duty and for the cause of Jesus (1
Cor. 9:9 seq.). This was in truth an overwhelming argument, and his
adversaries could not suffer its validity to continue unimpaired. In or-
der to invalidate it, it would seem, they, likewise, wholly renounced
wages or remuneration, that they might in this respect be on equal
terms with the messenger of truth (2 Cor. 11: 12, 13, 14). Moreover,
the collections for the poor afforded them a pretext for attacking his
disinterestedness; particularly the collection which had been requested
in his Epistle, which was now going forward under the direction of
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
531
Titus. They declared that this was the way in which he always plun-
dered one church, in order for a time to appear disinterested in another
(2 Cor. 11: 7 seq. 12: 15-17).
$ 107.
he
All this Paul learned from Titus, whom he met in Macedonia (2 Cor.
7:5). In order to prevent the occurrence of any unpleasant scenes on
his arrival at Corinth, to the prejudice of his success and authority,
resolved to refute these slanders, to confirm the declarations he had al-
ready made, and to prepare their minds more thoroughly for his coming.
He therefore sent them a second Epistle, which, as Timothy was with
him (2 Cor. 1: 1), was probably written in Macedonia, in the fourth
year of Nero's reign.
He first mentions his sufferings, and particularly his late perils in Asia
(-1: 12). He then speaks of his repeated purpose of coming to them
through Macedonia, which purpose remained always unaltered, al-
though he had been obliged to delay its execution out of tenderness to
them, and partly, also, that he might not come sorrowing, but with joy.
He forgives the individual who had most grieved him, and wishes him to
be again received in love (-2: 12). He then touches upon the state of
his mind at Troas, and speaks of the consolations afforded him by God
on account of the sincerity of his intentions (-3:). He needs no let-
ters of recommendation to them; their sentiments and the ministry to
which God had called him are his recommendation; not a Mosaic min-
istry, but one which was spiritual and far more exalted; on which ac-
count he preaches with plainness, and none find his doctrine obscure
but those who shut their eyes against the light (-4: 7). He is indeed
a man, as he deeply feels from the troubles which encompass him,
which, however, he can endure, being supported by the hopes of a fu-
ture life (-5: 11). His conscience acquits him; he had conducted
towards them in love; and, as Christ by his death had reconciled the
world to God, he had always kept in mind that he was an ambassador
for the purpose of reconciliation, and in all things he had approved
himself a servant of God. (—6: 11). Here he inserts a warning against
idolatry (-7:2).
He then makes a transition to Titus, and the consolation which he
had brought him. He now laments that he had caused them sorrow;
still, the result has been a joyful one (-7: 16). The Macedonians had
outstripped them in the work of benevolence; he hopes they will not re-
main behind-hand; wherefore he sends Titus to them with two very
estimable companions. He doubts not their readiness to relieve the
necessities of their poorer brethren (~10:).
In the tenth chapter, he recurs to his own justification, and defends
himself against the charges of his enemies; viz. that Paul, when pres-
ent, was indulgent, and had courage to be severe only when he was at
a distance; that, though he took no stated recompense, he yet collected
money in the churches. He then draws a parallel between himself, in
his apostolic office, and these false teachers, which he pursues with
much spirit as far 12: 19. He even fears, he continues, (i. e. from this
532
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
quarter) scandalous conduct, which, however unwillingly, he must treat
with severity. He concludes with the customary salutations.
Such are the mere skeletons of these two masterly compositions. If,
bringing before our minds the situation in which they were composed,
we attentively examine their contents, we are compelled to admire both
the wisdom of their general plan and the management of particular
points. We can do no otherwise than honour such prudence, love such
good-will, and observe with pleasure every manifestation of his feelings,
the dignity in reproof, the propriety in entreaty, the just proportion of
praise and encouragement, the changes in his emotions, the transition
from severity to sympathy and from rebuke to commiseration, from
an affectionate manner to an energetic and terrible tone, and, in par-
ticular, the knowledge of human nature and the prudence in managing
difficult matters, which are displayed in their contents.
$ 108.
In order to justify the opinion as to the character of these Epistles
which I have formed from the examination I have made, I must not leave
them without defending the second from some unmerited charges. It
has been pretended that it wants methodical arrangement, a regular
course of thought, and proper connexion. Hence some, as is generally
the case, have taken a step further, and attempted to get rid of particu-
lar parts of the Epistle, as not consistent with the idea they had adopt-
ed in regard to the extent of its plan, and as having been added subse-
quently. The introduction is occupied with the apostle's personal for-
tunes, purposes, feelings, and wishes, as far as the third chapter. The
remainder divides itself into three parts, together with a conclusion.
In the first part, he declares himself to be a minister of the New
Testament, in which character he exercises a diazoria of a spiritual
nature, far more exalted than the Mosaic; not with craft and wily ob-
scurity, but for the purpose of enlightening men, according to the light
which is revealed by Jesus Christ (-4: 7). Yet he bears about this
treasure in an earthen vessel; he is a man, pursuing this his calling un-
der every species of human suffering, only enjoying the nious that,
when he shall have left this earthy tabernacle, a reward awaits him in a
better mansion (-5: 11). From reverence for God, and in accordance
with the example of Jesus Christ, who died for all to reconcile them to
God, he has taken upon himself a dianovia zarallays, a ministry of
reconciliation (—6:), a dianovia without reproach, which he prosecutes
with constancy under all afflictions, as the diazovos of God (-6: 11).
All that he here says of the dignity of his calling, with reference to his
Judaizing opponents and their reproaches, of his ministry of reconcilia-
tion and justification, its troubles and rewards, constitutes one section,
in which the thought, though interrupted by parentheses according to
Paul's custom, always recurs to his diazovia. The first important di-
gression is 6: 11-7: 2, the warning against idolatry.
After this, he makes a transition to Titus, the consolation which he
1 All the literature of this subject will be found completely presented, as usu-
al, in Bertholdt's "Einleit. in die Schriften des N. T." Th. 6. § 727. Some aca-
demic writings which he cites, I have unfortunately never seen.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
533
brought him, the effects of his Epistle, which he describes; then speaks
of the collection; of the good example set by the Macedonians; then
of a second commission as to this matter undertaken by Titus, and sub-
joins an exhortation, which he acknowledges is indeed superfluous
(-9: 15). This section begins with a mention of Titus, is connected
with what is said in relation to him, recurs to him again at last, and
forms a second coherent whole, the occasion of which was the collec-
tion enjoined in the 1st Ep. 16: 1-6. It was not written any later
than what precedes, viz. a short time after the apostle's meeting with
Titus (7: 6—13).
But least of all could we dispense with the third part, the refutation
of the accusations of his enemies, which he commences with the tenth
chapter. The adherents of Paul and Apollos had yielded to reason,
but those who called themselves by the name of Christ, лɛлoivóres
ἑαυτοὺς τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἶναι (10: 7), had vented reproaches in regard to
the severity of the Epistle, the collections of money, and the unfulfilled
promises. They were to be disarmed, humbled, and deprived of power
to do injury, before Paul could appear at Corinth. This part, the most
essential to the preservation of his dignity, proceeds in so natural a man-
ner throughout, that nothing can be objected against its unity. All in
the section is apposite to his purpose, and a part of it (as e. g. 11: 13—
12: 1) is masterly, in quibus maxime, to use Cicero's expression, exul-
tat oratio.
What can be said in depreciation of this plan? The first part is the
general justification of Paul, drawn from the nature of his office, the
manner in which he exercised it, and his constant struggle with every
species of suffering, for which no temporal advantage could indemnify
him. The second part relates to the news brought by Titus, and the
collection for the poor which was under his management. The third
part consists of a special justification of himself in regard to particular
charges, and the complete humiliation of his remaining enemies.
What is there in all this that is superfluous, and what that is deficient?
How can want of order and connexion be alleged, when there is but a
single important digression, and that occurs between the first and the
second parts?
Is it meant that there ought to have been no breaks, though the sub-
jects to be treated were various and consequently the discussion was
naturally divided into several heads? Is it not evidence of judg-
ment, that the second part is inserted between the general and special
justification of himself, lest, if the same subject were pursued to great
length, it should become tedious? And ought not the part which was
most eloquent, and most important to his purpose, to be at the close, in
order to consummate the general impression? Had the second part been
appended to this, it would have been even tame and inoperative, after
such a lofty effort.
Still it is objected, that the tone of the first part is very different from
that of the third; the former is mild, affectionate, and cordial, while the
latter is severe, vehement, and reckless. But who would divide the
oration of Demosthenes Pro corona into two pieces, because in his
general defence, calmness and circumspection predominate, while, on
the other hand, in abashing and scourging his accuser, in the parallel
534
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
between himself and Eschines, words of bitter and taunting import fall
like a thunder-shower, in impetuous effusions? There is no species of
discourse which does not admit of a rise; and is it possible that in such
discourse as this, the language should flow on as softly and smoothly as
in the quiet statement of an argument? What philologist would require
that Paul should no-where rise in the style of his discourse, under pen-
alty of having that part of it abstracted from the rest?
All that can be said with any colour of reason is, that in the first few
chapters the points treated of are not always kept distinct, the cause of
which has been properly looked for in the apostle's deep emotion.¹
$109.
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Paul went from Ephesus to Macedonia, leaving Timothy behind him
(1 Tim. 1: 3); and soon after wrote this Epistle. The apostle was at
Ephesus twice; on which occasion did this occur?
After his first visit to this city (Acts 18: 19-23), he went to Jerusa-
lem, and the departure to Macedonia mentioned in this Epistle cannot
have taken place then.
The other visit to Ephesus is related in Acts 19: 1-41. After a long
residence here, he was obliged to leave the city on account of an uproar,
and then departed to go into Macedonia (Acts 20: 1 seq.). The Epistle
was written on this occasion, between the first and the second to the
Corinthians.
To suppose, for the purpose of this Epistle, a later visit of the apostle
to Ephesus, in addition to the two mentioned in the Acts, one undertaken,
perhaps, after his imprisonment at Rome, is forbidden by the circum-
stances. Among other things lying at the foundation of this Epistle, is
the fact, that the teachers and elders of the church, who should conduct its
affairs, had not yet been appointed. Now, a few months after, when
Paul returned to Asia from his Macedonian journey, this had been done;
as he sent for the elders from Ephesus to Miletus, that he might see
them in their new calling, and represent and enforce the duties of the
office they had assumed (Acts 20: 17-28 seq.). The Epistle must,
therefore, have preceded this occurrence.
Well-founded and entirely correct as all this is, there is still an appa-
rent difficulty in the way. Before Paul went from Ephesus to Macedo-
nia, he sent thither Timothy and Erastus (Acts 19: 22); now how could
Timothy have remained behind at Ephesus?
He sent Titus to Corinth, also; and yet, though he was commis-
sioned to remark the conduct of the church and the effect of his Epis-
tle, and to make arrangements in regard to the collection (§ 106),
he expected to meet him again at Troas (2 Cor. 2: 12). Much more
easily could Timothy, who had no commission to detain him (§ 104),
have reached Paul before his departure, as directed (1 Cor. 16: 11).
1 Eichhorn, Einl. in das N. T. IIId Bd. 1st Hälfte, § 225.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
535
But the difficulty, it may be said, lies in the fact, that though the apos-
tle had determined to remain at Ephesus till Pentecost (1 Cor. 16:8), he
was unexpectedly compelled by an uproar to leave the city sooner (Acts
19:23 seq.). Supposing that he was expelled before Pentecost, it can be
proved that Timothy might have arrived before that time. If he pre-
ferred a voyage, as the favorable season of the year would lead us to sup-
pose, he was only sixteen days in returning (§ 104). Now supposing him
to have set out on the third day after the passover, from which day the
fifty days to Pentecost were reckoned, he arrived at Ephesus thirty-four
days before Pentecost. If he decided to go round by way of Macedonia
and Troas, he arrived at Ephesus in thirty-one days, nineteen before Pen-
tecost. In either case he must have arrived a considerable time before
the feast. Now who can prove that he notwithstanding arrived too late?
On the contrary, we see that Paul did not meet with him at Troas, or
in Macedonia. It was only Titus whom he encountered on his route;
and concerning this meeting he repeatedly expresses his joy in the sec-
ond Epistle to the Corinthians, without making even the most distant
allusion to such a happy meeting with Timothy. Nor was the apostle
expelled from Ephesus so much earlier than it was his intention to leave
the city, that Timothy could not have found him there when he arrived.
There was so little difference in point of time, that, notwithstanding
this occurrence, he counted upon finding Titus at Troas, the place
which he had appointed (2 Cor. 2: 12). If, now, the difference of time
was not so great as to force him to renounce the idea of meeting Titus
at the place appointed, it must have been trifling; it cannot by any
means have amounted to nineteen days, which time must have remain-
ed before Pentecost, after Timothy's arrival at Ephesus, even if he took
the most circuitous way thither.
Paul, therefore, might have left him in this city, when he was com-
pelled to save himself by flight, and have given him the commissions
which the Epistle contains. As soon as they were executed, however,
Timothy sought the apostle, with whom we find him soon after,
when
the second Epistle to the Corinthians was written (2 Cor. 1: 1).
The Epistle to Titus, as we have said, was written on Paul's first
arrival at Ephesus; and this, which bears so much resemblance to it,
was written after his expulsion from Ephesus, three years and some
weeks later than the former.
$ 110.
But, it is objected, can Timothy so soon have left the place assigned
him? Would he venture to do so without being called away? For,
supposing that every thing else which the Epistle required had been ac-
complished, he was appointed further to watch the false teachers.
True; but let us be careful not to give the expression пagayyehys (1
Tim. 1: 3), "that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other
doctrine" etc., a more extensive sense than belongs to it. Besides, he
is directed not to engage in any discussions with them (4:7).
Be this as it may, when the question is asked, Could Timothy have
left his station so soon? we may ask in return, Could he remain any
longer with safety? Paul's life was in danger when he left Ephesus
536
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
(2 Cor. 1: 8, 9), and Timothy was his accomplice in every thing charg
ed against him (Acts 19: 24-41:). Now, if the apostle's enemies had
discovered that he was in the city, as they must have done soon, was it
possible for him to remain any longer? And if this was not advisable,
what else should we expect him to do, but to make all the arrangements
that time permitted, and then hasten to the apostle, with whom we soon
find him.
But, supposing him to have finished his business at Ephesus, can he
have had time to reach Paul in Macedonia? Paul had determined, as
we must repeat once more, to remain at Ephesus till Pentecost (1 Cor.
16: 21); but was driven from the city before that time, and departed
by way of Macedonia to Greece (Acts 20: 1, 2). Here he resided for
some time. He departed thence on the arrival of spring; and it was
Easter before he reached Asia again (Acts 20: 6). The whole period
of his absence from Asia, therefore, was from Pentecost to Easter, i. e.
one year lacking fifty days, or, in other words, something more than ten
months. Three months of this time he abode in Greece (Acts 20: 3),
viz. the winter months; for when the season began to be favorable he
set out on his return, and at Easter had arrived again at Philippi (Acts
20: 6). Thus Paul's journey from Ephesus to Greece, where he passed
the winter (unvas Tosis, which were probably November, December,
and January), consumed all the time from Pentecost to November, i. e.
four whole months; leaving out of the account the time by which his de-
parture from Ephesus preceded Pentecost, the period at which he in-
tended to leave the city.
Hence, if Timothy staid two months at Ephesus, he would have,
leaving out of account the supernumerary days, two months still remain-
ing, to overtake the apostle in Macedonia. If, however, on account of
impending danger, he did not think himself safe in Ephesus so long, his
journey to Macedonia gains all that is to be subtracted from his stay in
Ephesus. The whole matter is so plain, that we cannot comprehend
the calculation which has recently been made the basis of a contrary
opinion.¹
The Epistle to Timothy must have been one of the first cares of the
apostle; for otherwise it was to be feared that the directions according
to which Timothy was to proceed would not reach him till after his busi-
ness was finished. It was written, therefore, about the time of Pente-
cost, in the fourth year of Nero, or the fifty-ninth of the Christian era.
$111.
Ephesus, where Timothy was to act as the apostle's deputy, was the
capital of the province of Asia, and, from its happy position, the largest
and most important commercial place within the Taurus; and, at the
time when Christianity took its rise, it was daily becoming more and more
celebrated.2 All the splendor of its other structures was cast into the
shade by the temple of Diana, reckoned by the ancients among the
1 Eichhorn, Einl. in das N. T. IIId Bd. 1st Hälfte, § 248, p. 342, 343.
2 Strabo L. XIV. Ed. Ima Casaub. p. 441. and 2da Casaub. p. 642. Seneca,
Epist. CII. "Ephesum aut Alexandriam, aut si quod est etiamnum frequentius
incolis, latius tectis solum.'
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
537
wonders of the world. Wealth, not to mention other causes, occasioned
luxury and effeminacy. In the days of Nero this city is described as
not only voluptuous but arrogant; so that the overbearing manners of
its inhabitants did not correspond with their refinement in other respects.1
A propensity to nice and studied attire, and a love for trinkets and fine-
ry, are represented as traits of character not exclusively confined to the
female sex.2
The Jewish Christians, who inhabited the city, did not exhibit much
good-will towards Paul, during his residence in it; and the other be
lievers adhered a long time to magical doctrines and arts (Acts 19: 8, 18,
19). Besides these faults, it appears from other sources that the people
of these regions were far from being so strict in regard to the duties of
the marriage state, even after adopting Christianity, as Christianity re-
quired (Eph. 5: 22-33. Coloss. 3: 18-21). In particular, however, as
the apostle's preaching inculcated such benevolent principles, and pro-
claimed with such distinctness the equality of all men in the sight of
God and Christ, pretensions were set up by an indolent class of men,
which it was necessary to restrain. For the slaves were too prone to
extend these principles of equality and brotherhood in the sight of God,
to the service of their masters and the common affairs of life, and main-
tained in their hearts a moral bellum servile (Eph. 6: 5-10. Coloss. 3:
22-4: 2).
Such was pretty nearly the state of things at Ephesus, when Paul was
unexpectedly compelled to leave the city in haste. It is natural to sup-
pose, therefore, that the arrangements which were necessary in case of
his departure had not yet been made. He had hitherto directed the
whole course of affairs himself, without having yet, to judge from his let-
ter, appointed persons to perform thenceforward the functions of the
ministry and administer the concerns of the church. Still he does not
commit their appointment to Timothy, but merely gives him superin-
tendence of their election, and communicates directions to guide them
in discharging their duties.
$ 112.
With reference to this state of things, which we have thus imperfect-
ly described, we find in the Epistle an excellent arrangement and an
orderly succession in regard to the subjects discussed. The intro-
duction is as follows: Warn against heretical fables; and, likewise, in
regard to the law, which rightly understood is indeed good, but, ac-
cording to our doctrine, was made only for the wicked, of the number
of whom I also was, until I was saved by Christianity, as all sinners
must be. And now the first of his religious directions is prayer; in re-
gard to which on behalf of heathen magistrates, scruples existed among
those lately converted from Judaism (2:1-9). He then states, after a
short rebuke of female vanity, the part which women should act in the
affairs of the church (2: 9—15), and enumerates the qualifications which
were to be possessed by persons who should obtain the office of the
1 Philostrat. in Vit. Apoll. Tyan. L. VIII. c. 3. L. IV. c. 1.
2 Athenæus, Deipnos. L. XII. c. 29. Schweigh.
68
538
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
ministry or any ecclesiastical superintendence, by elders, deacons, and
deaconesses (-3: 14). He then passes, after a concise statement of
the orthodox doctrine in regard to the person of Christ (3: 14—4: 1),
to false tenets, and points out the doctrines which he is to inculcate
in opposition to them (-4: 12). Herewith he connects counsels relat-
ing to Timothy himself (-5:), describes the deportment due to those
who should be appointed elders, the proper conduct towards widows,
and the measures which should be pursued in regard to them (—5: 17).
He then speaks of the wages of the elders, of the method of procedure
when complaints should be brought against them, and of circumspec-
tion in ordaining them (-5: 22). Then, after a digression.extending to
6: 1, he admonishes the slaves; and, finally, subjoins exhortations to Tim-
othy himself, and particular warnings and advice for believers generally.
$113.
This Epistle has recently met with a distinguished opponent, who
flatly denies that it was written by the apostle, and attributes it to some
unknown author. Several of his arguments, as e. g. that Timothy, a
short time after he is said to have received this pretended letter of the
apostle containing commissions of so difficult a character, is found a-
gain at Paul's side, and another, which this learned man thinks he finds
in the evident want of order and connexion (p. 152 seq.), we have
already obviated; there are several others, however, which we will now
take into consideration.
The language, says this opponent of the Epistle, is not Paul's. To
prove this, he collects (from the beginning to p. 76) expressions which
do not occur in either of the other Epistles of Paul, or at least not in
the same sense. But it is so, more or less, in regard to other Epistles,
likewise; nor do I know how it can be required of Paul that he should not
in any one of his Epistles use words which he has not already used in
some other, or should exhaust his whole stock of expressions in every one
of them. Still, some of the expressions are at least New-Testament ex-
pressions ; as e. g. νομοδιδάσκαλος, πρεσβυτέριον, ἄσπιλος, περίεργος,
ἀπωθεῖσθαι τὴν πίστιν, τὸν λόγον, etc. Others, which are character-
ized by a bold composition or self-derivation, and in which the oppo-
nent of this Epistle perceives a desire for novelty, as e. g. szepodidao-
καλεῖν, ἀγαθοεργεῖν, εὐμετάδοτος, διλόγος, διώκτης etc., clearly evince,
in this very characteristic, their Pauline origin; for Paul was in the habit
of forming peculiar words and emphatic expressions, to the total neglect
of grammatical laws, in such a manner as the tragedians themselves
would hardly have ventured to do ; e. g. καλοδιδάσκαλος, ἀφιλάγαθος,
ὀρθοποδεῖν, αὐτοκατάκριτος, ολοθρευτής.
2
1 Ueber den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus. Ein
kritisches Sendschreiben an J. C. Gass," by F. Schleiermacher, Prof. at Halle
etc. Berlin, 1807. 8vo.
2 At the time when I was preparing the first edition of this Introduction, the
learned son of the celebrated Henry Planck was engaged in writing a refutation
of Schleiermacher's letter: "Bemerkungen über den ersten Paulinischen Brief
an den Timotheus, in Beziehung auf das krit. Sendschreiben von H. Pr. Fr.
Schleiermacher." Göttingen, 1808. A subject which I could treat only in a
general manner, is in this work carefully analyzed and developed with exe-
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
539
If, in addition to this peculiarity, we examine the diction generally,
we shall find that it is Pauline. The accumulation of words of kindred
signification, or false synonymes, the enumerations, the sudden and
brief digressions, the parentheses, particularly the large one from 1: 5–
18, and the ardor which prevails throughout-all this, taken together,
is not like a mere imitation as to the use of certain words, which might
be successfully attempted by any one, but is an exact exhibition of
Paul's peculiar mode of communication.
To compare, as has been done, the first Epistle to Timothy with the
second and with the Epistle to Titus, because their topics are some-
times the same, and then, from the fact that the same thought or ex-
pression has in one of them a different turn from that which it has in
another, to infer that it was a plagiarism committed by some one who
did not understand Paul thoroughly (see p. 78 seq.), is somewhat hasty.
It is Paul's custom, when he repeats thoughts and figures in different
Epistles, to give them, as far as possible, a different turn, that they may
at least have some degree of novelty, and may not be bare repetitions.
Not to discuss particular passages, let any one take the Epistles to the
Ephesians and Colossians, and observe his procedure in discussing the
same subjects, and how strongly my remark is confirmed by the fact,
both as to the thought and language. By the paralogism referred to,
it would not be at all difficult, in like manner, assuming either of these
two Epistles to be genuine, to destroy the credit of the other, and prove
it to be a counterfeit, the author of which frequently did not compre-
hend Paul, and has been unsuccessful, and even obscure, in imitating
his phraseology.
C
The grave objections which are urged against the Epistle (p. 104—
113), founded on the circumstance that he mentions Hymenæus and
Alexander so cursorily (1: 20), are no objections at all. He mentions
them, in passing, as well-known examples of unfortunate self-conceit,
and for no other purpose. Similar instances occur in another Epistle,
written about the same time, viz. 2 Tim. 1: 15, and 2: 17, where, like-
wise, he refers to notorious examples (oidas rouro) of error, as a warn-
ing to others, and, as in the other case, in a slight, cursory way: v
ἐστι Φύγελλος καὶ Ερμογένης, and ὧν ἐστιν Υμέναιος καὶ Φίλητος.
But here a new difficulty occurs. In the first Epistle to Timothy,
Hymenæus and Alexander are united; in the second, however, Hyme-
næus and Philetus occur together, and Alexander is not mentioned till
afterwards, and then not as a heretic (2 Tim. 4: 14); a proof that the
author of the first Epistle confounded different persons through igno-
rance. The Alexander mentioned in 2 Tim. 4: 14 was not indeed a
heretic; Paul designates him by the epithet, o zalzɛus, the smith, or
worker in metal; and he appears to have been the Alexander mention-
ed in Acts 19: 33, who now appears here as one of Paul's accusers be-
before the Roman tribunal. But can there not have been another
Alexander, a heretic? or, indeed, since this name was so common,
many hundred Alexanders? It may, however, be asked, Why in the
first Epistle is he mentioned with Hymenæus, as his companion in er-
ror, while in the second he is not, and Philetus occupies his place?
getical accuracy, passage by passage, in reference to each expression and its sig-
nification, as bearing marks of Pauline origin.
540
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
But I ask in return, Was it absolutely and unalterably requisite, that
they should invariably be mentioned together? Or was this Alex-
ander immortal, so that he must always be reckoned among the liv
ing examples of perversity? Or was he so incorrigible, that he could
never cease to be what he was once? Or cannot Hymenæus have so
extended and altered his system, that Alexander might come to dif
fer from him in opinion, and no longer be associated with him? Where
there are so many possibilities, all equally probable, am I authorized to
assume any one at pleasure as fact, and deduce inferences from it?
Let us, however, examine Paul once more. In the first Epistle to Timo-
thy, he speaks of heretics whom he had excommunicated, without en-
tering particularly into their tenets, and names Hymenæus and Alexan-
der (1:20); but in the second, while inculcating the doctrine of our
Lord's resurrection, and our own resurrection in connexion with it (2:
8—16), his subject leads him to a particular sect of heretics, who main-
tained that the resurrection of mankind had already taken place, and he
names the authors of this tenet, viz. Hymenæus and Philetus (2: 17).
The two cases, therefore, are different; Alexander might be included in
the first, without being also liable to the charges in the second.
Lastly, it is objected (p. 124 seq.), that heretics, on whose ac-
count, according to the first Epistle, he had left Timotheus behind him
at Ephesus, are spoken of by Paul in Acts 20: 29–31, some months
after the composition of the Epistle, as though they were not yet in ex-
istence; he speaks in the future tense, as though they were to arise
hereafter. But this is the view, also, which is exhibited in the first
Epistle to Timothy; Paul is apprehensive in regard to the future, Ev
votéçois naιçois, in which heretics would make their appearance, ac-
cording to the express declarations of the Spirit (4: 1 seq.). Those
whose purposes were already well-known, such as Hymenæus and Al-
exander, were expelled from the church (1: 20). There were oth-
ers, however, who concealed their inclination to peculiar opinions,
and were not bold enough to avow them openly, or to inculcate them at
all, ¿reqodidaoneïv, though their disposition to accord with other teachers
(for that is the meaning of ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, i. e. ἑτέροις διδασκάλοις
пoоoέɣev, alienos magistros sectari) did not escape the penetration of
the apostle. He uses, directly afterward, the perfectly definite expres-
sion, προσέχειν μύθοις. The word προσέχειν does not signify to teach,
but to give assent, to approve, προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν, τὴν γνώμην. On this
account, Timothy received no severer injunctions in regard to them,
than to admonish them, naqaɣɣéhlɛv, and, if such foolish questions were
started (4: 7), to reject all discussion of them, pausio au. Moreover,
the apostle himself takes no steps against them, but contents himself,
in the principal passage relating to them, with calling to mind for their
benefit the examples of Hymenæus and Alexander. There were not,
therefore, at present, any avowed false teachers in the church, but the
danger was, that such would spring up on the first opportunity, unless
they were under restraint from higher authority.
α
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
541
$114.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
Who first preached Christianity in Rome, is not known; but it is
certain that Andronicus and Junius were among the earliest missiona-
ries or promoters of the faith (Rom. 16: 7). There was Rufus, too,
probably the same whose father assisted in bearing Christ's cross (Rom.
16: 13. Mark 15: 21), and Herodion, and others, formerly Jews, who
labored to extend the faith. For here, also, Christianity was intro-
duced through the synagogues, and made so rapid progress, that when
Paul wrote to the Romans, their faith was celebrated throughout the
whole Christian world (Rom. 1: 8).
The Jews in Rome were very numerous; they had a large portion of
the city on the other side of the Tiber to themselves. The greater part
of them were freedmen, who were carried prisoners to Rome under
Pompey, and manumitted by their masters, because, from their Jewish
customs and institutions, in which they steadfastly persisted, they were
rather troublesome than profitable property to Roman masters. They
built synagogues in the part of the city allotted to them,¹ observed their
sabbaths and religious meetings, and continued still so much attached
to their temple and native land, that they annually sent thither valuable
gifts and offerings.2
Curiosity and other reasons frequently led the Roman ladies to attend
the celebration of the sabbath, and to visit the synagogues. Ovid even
refers the young gentlemen of his time thither, to the
Cultaque Judæo septima sacra Syro,
to see the beauties of the city collected together.
E
Many of them learned in this way to know and prize the religious
ideas of the Jews, and became oɛßóμɛvai and metuentes; one of whom,
named Fulvia, is mentioned by Josephus.3 By degrees this inclination
to Judaism was communicated to the men also, whose un-Roman opin-
ions are wittily stated by the poet :
Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbata patrem,
Nil præter nubes, et cœli numen adorant :
Nec distare putant humanâ carne suillam,
Quâ pater abstinuit; inox et præputia ponunt.
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges,
Judaicum ediscunt et servant ac metuunt jus,
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses.4
1 Philo, Legat. ad Caium. p. 697. Ed. Turneb.
2 Cicero, Pro Flacco. c. 28.
3 Antiq. L. XVIII. c. 3. n. 5.
4 Juvenal, Sat. XIV. v. 96 seq. Those, qui cœli numen adorant, seem to be the
same as those who are called in the Codex Theodosianus, cœlicola, and who are
mentioned likewise in Justinian, Leg. 7, Cod. de Judaicis et Cœlicolis, i. e.
Judaizing heathen.
542
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
Now, when Christianity, likewise, was preached in the sabbath-
assemblies, its doctrines were heard by heathen, and many of them ac-
ceded to the new system, which, as a universal religion, discarded those
vexatious singularities that Judaism enjoined, and inculcated a ration-
al and spiritual worship of the feelings and actions, which could not but
commend itself to enlightened men. Thus originated a church in
Rome, composed of Jewish and heathen converts to Christianity.
§ 115.
The Jews, at this period, were pretty generally expecting the Christ or
Messiah; but the ideas which they had of him restricted his mission
and sphere of operation so exclusively to their own nation, that they
thought it impossible for any one to share in the benefits he was to con-
fer, unless he belonged to their number, at least as a proselyte. They
expected him as a hero or king, who would elevate them to the rank of
an independent nation, would render them formidable to the whole
world by their victories, and deprive the Romans of their imperium or-
bis terrarum. It was these expectations, in part, which incited in the
east the resolution no longer to submit to oppression, to attempt resis-
tance, and to commence that desperate war, which, eleven years after
Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, put an end to their national exis-
tence and constitution.¹
These ideas concerning the Messiah were not very favorable to the
heathen generally, and were particularly unpropitious to the Romans.
In Rome, moreover, the Jews had some reasons for hostile feelings to-
wards the government. Claudius, on his accession to the throne, had
prohibited all large congregations of people, and among the rest, the re-
ligious assemblies of the Jews; a grievance which they, naturally,
could not bear with indifference.2
When, therefore, at Rome, accounts of the appearance of the Mes-
siah were received with increasing frequency from Palestine, it may
easily have happened, that Christianity, contrary to its design, inflamed
many minds, which were full of extravagant notions, and occasioned
unseasonable sallies of discontent. The following passage in Suetonius
seems to indicate something of this nature: Judæos, impulsore Chres-
to, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Româ expulit."3
c. 13.
1 Jos. B. J. VI. 5. Acts XVII. 7. Sueton. in Vesp. c. 4. Tacit. Hist. L. V.
2 Dio Cass. L. LVIII. p. 459. Rob. Steph.-Ed. Wechel. L. LX. p. 669.
3 Suetonius, in Vit. Claudii, c. 25. That the Romans made use of the word
Chrestus for Christus, is beyond a doubt. They imagined it to be the Greek
word zonozós, which they thus expressed, as is shown by all the Roman inscrip-
tions in which the word CHRESTUS or CHRESTE occurs. It is with refer-
ence to this idea of the Romans, that Justin, in his Larger Apology, remarks how
unjust it is to persecute the Christians for their name, while, notwithstanding,
they were called Xonoroi, i. e. good men (Apol. Maj. p. 136. Ed. Rob. Steph. c.
4). To this, too, reference is had in the words of Tertullian (Apologet. c. 3):
"Sed cum perperam Christianus pronunciatur a vobis . . de suavitate et be-
nignitate compositum est," where we must necessarily read Chrestianus, as no
doubt Rigault has amended the passage, though I have not his edition at
hand at this moment. The most express statement on this point is given by
Lactantius (Div. Inst. L. IV. c. 17): "Nam Christus non proprium nomen est,
sed nuncupatio potestatis et regni ; sic enim Judæi reges suos appellabant. Sed
•
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
543
This passage is not however necessary to illustrate our Epistle, and
our remarks upon it may be passed over by such as do not think that it
merits a place here on any ground. Whatever may have been the
cause, the Jews finally became so turbulent at Rome, that Claudius ex-
pelled them from the city. The circumstance most deserving our no-
tice in respect to this proscription is, that the Jewish Christians like-
wise were comprehended in it. We have proof of this in the case of
Aquila, who was banished from Rome, with the rest of the Jews, and,
on this account, took up his residence at Corinth (Acts 18: 2). Conse-
quently, no distinction was then known between a Jew and a Jewish
Christian. After the banishment of the Jewish Christians, the followers
of Jesus at Rome were all converts from Paganism; an observation to
which we wish especial heed to be given.
Aquila, however, it is objected, was not then a Christian. The nar-
rative of Luke, it seems to me, indicates that he was; for had it been
the case that he was converted by Paul, and not before, his conversion
would (considering his subsequent serviceableness to Paul and to the
Christian church generally) have been an occurrence no less deserving
of notice, than that of others who embraced Christianity at the same
time (Acts 18: 7, 8).
Whatever may be thought on this point, however, I am still secure in
my position, that in Rome at that time, the Jews and Jewish Christians
were not yet so far distinguished from each other, that an exception
would be made in favor of the latter, as to the edict issued against the
Jews. How was it possible, that under Claudius, in the year in which
Paul first introduced Christianity into Macedonia, and into Athens and
Corinth, the Romans could have acquired such a knowledge of the
new system, and its deviations from Judaism, that it should be publicly,
and in the eye of the law, recognized as distinct from Judaism. Even
several years after, when Paul wrote to the Jewish Christians at Rome,
they themselves were not clear on this point, but were inclined to regard
Christianity as a species of Judaism. The principal men, even, among
the Jews in Rome, so late as the 8th year of Nero, had the idea, when
Paul invited them to a conference, that it was a Jewish sect, aïpeois
(Acts 28: 22), which, however, was every where spoken against; so
that it would seem, the Jews and public authorities in Rome were led
first, by the trial of the apostle, the accusations of his adversaries, and
his replies, to understand that Christianity was a separate and peculiar
religion. Lastly, if the words of Suetonius: "Judæos, impulsore Chres-
to, assidue tumultuantes Romá expulit," refer to erroneous expecta-
tions in regard to the Messiah, how can it be believed that the Jewish
Christians, in particular, were exempted from the proscription?
•
exponenda est hujus nominis ratio, propter ignorantiam eorum, qui cum immu-
tatâ litterâ Chrestum volunt dicere veteres zoisova dicebant ungi," etc.
Orosius even read in his copy, "impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantes Româ
expulit," and proceeds to say: "quod, utrum contra Christum tumultuantes coer-
ceri et comprimi jusserit, an etiam Christianos simul velut cognatæ religionis
homines voluerit expelli, nequaquam discernitur." (Hist. L. VII. c. 6). I find a
treatise by Ammon, Super loc. Suetonii de vita Claud. c. 25, cited by others;
but, unfortunately, I have not been able to get a sight of it.
544
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
$116.
But, even in better times, when the converts from Judaism and heath-
enism constituted together one religious community, there was much
which was not very conducive to mutual concord. The aversion of
the Jews towards the Romans may have been on many occasions more
perceptible to the latter than was agreeable.
In particular, however, the Jewish ideas in regard to the Messiah
were so contracted, so entirely limited to their own nation, that they re-
garded the heathen with little favor, as persons on whom the promises
did not confer any title to their national blessings, and to whom no share
in the privileges which belonged peculiarly to the children of Abra-
ham could be granted, except they became proselytes, and then only
by sufferance.
They would have had stronger reason to contemn the degenerate
Romans, had they themselves been better than they actually were; but
still they did thus despise them (Rom. 1: 21-2: 3). The descriptions
which we have of the manners of incomparably better times than those
of Claudius and Nero, which exhibited a depravity that we are, fortunate-
ly, scarce able to conceive, serve to convince us, that one need not have
been very virtuous in order to find many subjects of reprobation. We
will subjoin one of these pictures, drawn at a comparatively pure period of
Roman morals: "Ex divitiis juventutem luxuria atque avaritia cum
superbiâ invasere; rapere, consumere, sua parvi pendere, aliena cupere,
pudorem, pudicitiam, divina atque humana promiscua, nîl pensi neque
moderati habere... Sed lubido stupri, ganeæ, cæterique cultûs non mi-
nor incesserat. Viri pati muliebria, mulieres pudicitiam in propatulo
habere," etc.
The causes of variance, therefore, between the two parties, were am-
ply important and numerous; and, if we have read the Epistle to the Ro-
mans with a moderate degree of attention, we shall readily recollect that
its contents have been, in a great measure, determined by these causes.
§ 117.
Paul assures the Romans in his Epistle, that the intention of visiting
them, which he had entertained for many years, had now become a fixed
determination. A contribution had been made in Macedonia and Achaia;
this he intended to carry to Jerusalem, and then he should take his way
to Rome, to see them, and to go from Rome to Spain (Rom. 15: 23
-30).
When the apostle had made arrangements at Ephesus in regard to
the affairs of the church at Corinth, he prepared to depart. It was his
intention to go through Macedonia to Achaia. Thence he was going to
Jerusalem; and then, said he, I must also see Rome (Acts 19: 21). The
circumstances, as thus represented in the Acts, and the purposes of the
apostle, are in every respect the same which Paul mentions in his Epis-
tle. Hence the Epistle was written at that period of his life, when, ac-
cording to the Acts, he was in these circumstances and occupied with
these projects.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
545
αι
When Paul wrote, he had finished his affairs in Macedonia and
Achaia; but now I go unto Jerusalem, he says, vvvì de noqɛvoµ ai (Rom.
15:25). Unquestionably, Corinth was his place of residence in Achaia ;
the affairs of the church and his solemn promise led him to that city.
Hence, when, after finishing his business in Achaia, he departed to re-
turn through Macedonia to Asia, and then to go to Jerusalem (Acts 20:
3), he set out from Corinth; and the Epistle, therefore, was written in
that city, immediately before his departure.
Phoebe, a deaconess of Cenchrea, a suburb on the eastern harbor
of Corinth, was going to Rome; and Paul commends her to the good
offices of the church in that city (Rom. 16: 1). This local circum-
stance likewise points to Corinth, and agrees with the remark we have
just made.¹ It is very probable that she herself undertook, as an of-
ficial person in the church, the delivery of the letter.
1 Semler has given to this passage, and the whole 16th chapter, a peculiar
interpretation, very remote from the common one. He supposes the chapter to
have been but an accompaniment to the Epistle, not intended for the readers of
that, but only for the special information of the bearers, to designate the persons
whom they were to visit from station to station, and with whom they were to
hold private conference. This catalogue of the persons who were to be visited
was afterwards appended to the Epistle itself.
The subject of the private conferences was the journey to Spain, which the
apostle, in the 15th chapter, says he had resolved to undertake. This 15th
chapter, likewise, which relates only to Paul's affairs, without any real con-
nexion with what precedes, was a separate appendix, viz. the first, the 16th being
considered as the second. (Semleri Paraphr. Epistolæ ad Romanos, cum notis,
translatione vetustâ, et dissertat. de duplice appendice Cap. 15 et 16. Halæ. 1769.)
He interprets 16: 1 seq. as meaning that the bearers of this Epistle were to
stop first at Phoebe's house in Corinth, then with Aquila, and in other places with
other persons.
It is certainly incomprehensible on this supposition, that Phoebe
is not required to aid and accommodate the travellers who were to be her guests,
but the latter to receive and assist her. He, however, refers the words, that
ус
receive her etc, ἵνα αὐτὴν προσδέξησθε ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως τῶν ἁγίων, to the travellers,
and explains them as meaning: ut eam recipiatis in communionem. This is ev-
idently a mere artifice. Пpoodέyeodai tivà ¿v xvoiy means elsewhere (Philipp.
Προσδέχεσθαι κυρίῳ
2: 29), to receive one kindly and in accordance with Christian brotherhood; just
as τivà пρожÉμñεv αžios тov deov (3 Ep. John 6) signifies, to forward one's
journey as is suitable in behalf of fellow-worshippers of God.
They are afterwards to go to Aquila, likewise, to hold conference with him.
That this may be conveniently done, Semler provides him with a house at Cor-
inth. We know that Rome was Aquila's proper place of abode, before Claudius
expelled the Jews from the city (Acts 18: 1, 2). When he was exiled, he went
first to Corinth, and then with Paul to Ephesus; in the latter place he procured
himself a house to live in, containing a hall in which Christians were wont to
assemble; there was an exxλnoia in his house (1 Cor. 16: 19, 20). Now on what
particular authority the third or Semlerian house at Corinth rests, I know not.
The appeal in its behalf to Acts 18: 27. 19:1; "Lucas enim scribit-cum Aquila
interea Corinthi versatus sit" etc., is an inadvertent one; for the person there
spoken of is Apollos. And now I think I may be spared further argument in ref-
utation of this hypothesis.
Two observations made by Bertholdt (Einl. 6th Th. § 715. p. 3303), are to the
point. The salutation subjoined at the end by Tertius with the words, o yędyas
Tηv Eniorokýv (Rom. 16: 22), proves that the whole is but one composition, a
single Epistle. As to the passage: Tu dè dvvaµśvų x. t. 2., which occurs in
many Mss. at the end (Rom, 16: 25-27), but in most is read after 14: 23, the
case is as follows. Since the salutations, after which this passage stood in the
oldest Mss., were not read in the church-lessons, it was necessary either to re-
sign the passage, beautiful as it was, or to remove it from its position and place
69
546
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
Paul's last visit to Corinth and his departure for Jerusalem took place
in the middle of the 5th year of Nero. Hence the Epistle was written
in this year.
$118.
After Paul had been compelled by the uproar against him to flee
from Ephesus, Aquila likewise departed from the city. The dangers to
which he was there exposed, on account of his connexion with the apos-
tle (Rom. 16: 4), rendered it impossible for him to remain longer in so
insecure a situation. He therefore returned to Rome, which was prop-
erly his home. Here Paul supposed him to be, when he wrote his
Epistle, and greets him accordingly (Rom. 16: 3).
1
For, Claudius being dead, and the commencement of Nero's reign be-
ing characterized by such mildness and humanity that the best of prin-
ces could say of it: distare cunctos principes Neronis quinquennio,
the Jews gradually acquired sufficient confidence to return. Paul,
when he despaired of safety in Greece and Asia, intended to reside at
Rome till his departure for Spain. Several of Paul's kinsmen were at
that time in Rome (Rom. 16: 7, 11); or even supposing that the ouy-
yεveis, who are mentioned, were only fellow-countrymen, the circum-
stance proves all we desire, viz. that the Jewish Christians had returned
to the city.
This occurrence was so important that it could not escape the notice
of the apostle. The Roman church, which, for a long time after the
proscription of the Jews, consisted exclusively of converts from Pagan-
ism, now regained its former members, and was, as it were, established and
organized anew. It was now the right moment to induce more thorough
concord between the two parties, to rebut the Jewish prejudices and pre-
tensions, which had formerly disturbed the peace and harmony of the
church, and to create such a mutual good understanding, as would en-
sure to the church of Christ in the metropolis of the world a permanent
duration for all future time. Such was the object, and such is the ten-
dency, of the Epistle to the Romans.
Hence the prevalent idea throughout is that, in the sight of God, Jew
and Gentile are alike; that the prerogatives, rights, and vices of both
are the same. And, if there ever did subsist a distinction between
them, in the eye of Him who looks upon the whole human race with
equal benevolence, it has been abolished by Christ, who unites all, far
and near, under one common religion. The Epistle was addressed
particularly to the Jewish Christians. A concise exhibition of its con-
tents will fully sustain this assertion.
it further back. The latter step was chosen. But the section immediately pre-
ceding already contained a doxology: ó de Devs tys eloïvns etc. (15: 33); and hence
it was removed still further back to 14: 23, where it is found in all the Lectio-
naria, and almost all the Mss. written in the cursive character.
1 Aurel. Victor. L. II. c. 5.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
547
$119.
The Greeks ("Elλnvɛs, says Paul, out of forbearance towards the
Romans,) might have known God from the works of nature. This
they failed to do, and therefore fell into enormous vices (1: 18-32).
But the Jews have not, on this account, any reason to regard them-
selves as better than the Gentiles, inasmuch as they themselves are
guilty of the same transgressions (—2: 9).
Inference. Jews and Gentiles are deserving of punishment if they
are sinful, and of reward if virtuous. In the sight of God there is no
distinction between them (-2: 12).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
It is true, the heathen have no written law; but they have, instead,
the law of nature and of the heart to guide them (-2: 16).
The Jews had a written law, but did not follow its guidance (-2: 25).
Do they found their prerogatives upon circumcision? This is noth-
ing without an observance of the law. The circumcision of the flesh
is nothing at all in comparison with that of the heart (-3:).
The Jews may, it is true, boast that the revelation of God was com-
mitted to them; but this only serves to put to shame their disobedience
to its dictates (-3: 21).
Now, however, a new illumination has taken place of the ancient rev-
elation; faith has taken place of the law. The former has, through
Jesus, a justifying efficacy, which the latter has not; it operates in fa-
vor of both Jews and Gentiles, and God is the God of both (~4:).
The Jews imagine further, that they have an exclusive title to the di-
vine promises. They were made to Abraham and his posterity, and
therefore appropriately belong to the children of Abraham. But were
not these promises made to Abraham on account of his faith, before the
circumcision, when he was as yet a Gentile? Is he not, then, the father
of the circumcised and uncircumcised, of all who like him have faith
(−5:).
The case, then, stands thus. By faith in Jesus and by his atone-
ment alone we have obtained grace from God, and shall receive yet
more hereafter (—5: 12).
There is therefore, an analogy between Christ and Adam. In the
law of nature, or in heathenism, from Adam down to Moses, and in Ju-
daism from Moses downward, all have been sinners in Adam on account
of one sin. Through Jesus, in like manner, all receive pardon, not for
one only but for every offence (—6:).
In baptism we were symbolically buried with Jesus, became dead to
sin, and consequently began a new life of freedom from sin under a
dispensation of grace (-7:).
As being dead persons, the law ceases to have any obligation upon us.
Its binding force continues only till death, as is shown by the regulations
of the marriage institution (-7: 7).
The law is indeed useful, but of very imperfect utility. It increases
knowledge; but, as the passions of mankind lead them astray in spite
of their knowledge, it also increases guilt (~8:).
Jesus delivered us from this law of sin, and promulgated the dispen-
sation of grace. He elevated the soul to a mastery over its propensi-
548
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
ties; he procured us the indulgence and favor of God, and pointed
out to us a recompense for all the struggles of this earthly life, an in-
heritance which animates our courage (—9:).
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
I indeed feel sorrow, that the Jews, my brethren, on whom their birth
and the promises appeared to have conferred a peculiar claim to the
Messiah, should have failed to profit by it. But it is of vastly more
consequence to be a son of Abraham according to faith, than merely
according to the flesh. This is shown by the example of Isaac and
Ishmael. God is not restricted by any rights of birth, as we are taught
by the account concerning Esau and Jacob. No requisition can be
made of him; all is of grace, which he dispenses wisely, though the
wisdom may not be apparent to the eye of man (—9: 29).
God can give the Gentiles the preference, if they believe and love
righteousness, as he can reject the Jews, if they will not listen to the
Gospel. It was proclaimed to all alike, both Jews and Gentiles
(-11:).
All hope is not lost, however, to the unbelieving Jews. Though for
the present the Gentiles are preferred by God, they have no cause for
arrogance. They are branches grafted into a foreign stock, which may
be torn off to give place to the natural branches. No one can penetrate
the divine intentions (-11: 36).
You now form together one common body. I exhort you, therefore,
to mutual harmony, beneficence, and love (-13:).
Obey and honor the magistrate and the laws; for it becomes us to
exhibit an honest and irreproachable deportment (-14:).
Let no one give offence to others by the heedless use of meats offered
in sacrifice; exercise forbearance towards one another, and edify one
another; be ye all, Jews and Gentiles, as disciples of Jesus Christ, of
one mind, to the glory of God (-15: 14).
I have indeed devoted myself to the welfare of the Gentiles; but my
office as apostle of the Gentiles requires me to do so (-15: 22).
Purpose of visiting Rome and Spain (—16:).
Recommendation of Phoebe to the good offices of the Roman
church; and salutations to individuals in it.
$120.
Conclusion.
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
Paul had determined to go to Rome as soon as he should have finish-
ed his affairs at Jerusalem, and he did indeed go thither, not as he in-
tended, however, but in fetters and bonds. He was seized at Jerusa-
lein, carried to Cæsarea, kept there in prison two years, and at last
sent to Rome to appear before the emperor's tribunal. From the capi-
tal, where he continued in prison as many years more, he wrote several
Epistles; those to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and Philemon, as
is clear from their contents, and also that to the Philippians.
It is difficult to determine the order of time in which the three first-
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
549
named Epistles were written, as the apostle does not mention, either in
the one to the Ephesians or the one to the Colossians, the circumstances
in which he was placed, but in each of them refers to Tychicus, who
was to give them verbal information in regard to his situation (Eph. 6:
21, 22. Coloss. 4: 7, 8).
It is an argument which goes to shew that the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians was composed first, that Paul has not prefixed the name of Timo-
thy to it after his own, as he has in the Epistles to the Colossians and to
Philemon, and in all the Epistles which he wrote when his faithful
assistant was at his side. On account of this invariable custom of the
apostle, we may infer with certainty that Timothy had not yet arrived at
Rome, that he was not in Paul's company, as he was when Paul wrote
to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians. He was called
to the capital by the fate of his master, and shared that fate with him
till his liberation (Heb. 13: 23). A second argument will be added,
when we come to discuss the doubts which have recently been raised
concerning the second Epistle to Timothy (§ 137).
$121.
This Epistle is indeed at present directed to the Ephesians; but it
would seem from the account of the ancients, that in the introduction
(Eph. 1: 1) the words ἐν Εφέσῳ, designating the city, were formerly
wanting.
Basil of Cappadocia maintains against Eunomius, as to the ques-
tion, whether it can be said that the Son of God was begotten & ovx
ὄντων, that he is even the ὄντως ὤν, and that this predicate is the rath
er applicable to him, as even those who know and reverence him are
called οἱ ὄντες, while, on the contrary, the Gentiles, who know not the
only true God and his Son, are called οὐκ ὄντα.
For, he says, the apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, calls
believers ὄντας, addressing τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χρισ
τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ (1: 1). He gave them this denomination, he says, ιδιαζόν-
τως, exclusively or peculiarly, as was attested by ancient fathers, and
by Mss. in which he himself (Basil) found the passage to read thus.l
As Basil maintains such a position from this passage, and appeals in
confirmation of his reading to ancient fathers and ancient Mss., there
must have been something peculiar in his reading. Now we observe
that Basil ornits in the apostle's text the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ : τοῖς ἁγίοις
τοῖς οὖσιν—καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ.
Clear as this point is, it has been attempted to involve it in difficulty,
on which account we have been compelled to devote further attention to
1 Καὶ γὰρ τοῦ ἑτέρωθι ὁ αὐτὸς οὗτος ἀπόστολος, ὁ ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν,
μὴ ὄντα ὀνομάζει τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τὸ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστερῆσθαι, εἰπὼν ὅτι τὰ
μὴ ὄντα ἐξελέξατο ὁ Θεός. Ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἀλήθεια καὶ ζωὴ ὁ θεὸς, οἱ τῷ θεῷ
τῷ ὄντι μὴ ἡνα μενοι κατὰ τὴν πίστιν, τῇ δὲ ἀνυπαρξίᾳ τοῦ ψευδοὺς οἰκειωθέντες
διὰ τῆς περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα πλάνης, εἰκότως, οἶμαι, διὰ τὴν στέρησιν τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ
ἀπὸ τῆς ζωῆς ἀλλοτρίωσιν μὴ ὄντες προσεγορεύθησαν. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις
ἐπιστέλλων ὡς γνησίως ἡνωμένοις τῷ ὄντι δι' ἐπιγνώσεως, ὄντας αὐτοὺς ἰδιαζόντως
ὠνύμασεν, εἰπών· τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσι καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ· οὕτω γὰρ καὶ
οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων ευρήκαμεν.
550
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
it. It has been thought preferable to suppose a different peculiarity
from the one represented in Basil.¹
A learned writer wishes to persuade us that probably the word ovo
was wanting in some Mss. of Paul's text, and because the father de-
pended particularly on this expression as proof that the apostle had
called Christians vras, he appealed to Mss. and other authorities in
support of it. But if this was all Basil wanted, he might have gained his
point much more easily, by appealing to some other Epistle of Paul; e. g.
that to the Romans, Corinthians, Colossians, or Philippians, in which
he might have found an abundance of such expressions: τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν
Ρώμῃ, τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις,
τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Κολοσσαῖς, etc.
c
But the argument which Basil founds on Ephes. 1: 1 is of such a
nature that he cannot have read the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ after τοῖς οὖσι.
For he is speaking of the predicate o ov in its absolute signification,
that signification in which it expresses the abstract idea of existence,
and belongs, in its highest degree and in every conception of time, to
God; not of sui in the signification of being or dwelling in a place.
Now, the moment the words 'Epiow are added, the övtes can no
longer be regarded as the ascription of an attribute of God by virtue of
which he is called o av, as the writer regarded it, but the ovres Ev
Eqtoo are merely, persons resident in Ephesus. It is clear, then, that
he could not possibly have read what his citation now wants in all Mss.,
and yet have argued as he does.2
A similar observation, made by Jerome on Eph. 1: 1 affords further
evidence that ¿v Egeo was not always found in the text of the apostle.
He says, some interpret Paul here as intending to designate believers,
essentiæ vocabulo, ut ab eo qui est qui sunt appellentur; others, how-
ever, suppose that he wrote, not ad eos qui sunt, but ad eos qui sunt
Ephesi.
The question, therefore, was, whether ad eos qui sunt was to be taken
as having no reference to place, which could never have been imagined
by any one, if the place had been expressed in the text if the reading
1 The question what Basil's language really was depends on the Mss. of his
works. These are not at my command; but our Library, which is rich in typo-
graphical antiquities, affords me substitutes for them, which will decide this
question. The first Greek edition of Basil (1532 fol. apud Froben. Basileæ, per
Des. Erasm.) does not contain the books against Eunomius. The Editio prin-
ceps, therefore, of these books, is the Venetian one of 1535, fol. This gives the
passage (p. 127) exactly as I have cited it. The secunda (i. e. of the work
against Eunomius) appeared at Basle, apud Froben." 1551, fol. and is a complete
edition of all his works. Janus Cornarius edited the work, and did it, as he says in
his dedication to Julius, Bishop of Naumburg, πρὸς παλαιότατα αρχέτυπα. In
this, too, the passage stands as I have given it (p. 668). Fronto Ducæus, in his
edition of this father (Paris 1618), and Combefisius, in his (“ Basilius Magnus ex
integro recensitus ex fide optimor. Cod." etc. Paris. II vols. in 8vo. 1679), dis-
covered no variation in the Mss. ; and lastly, Garnier, likewise, who has collected
all the information on this subject in his note L. II. Adv. Eunom. T. I. p. 254,
found no snch discrepancy.
,
2 Those who infer that Basil read the words v'Egow from the fact that he
cites this Epistle as the Epistle to the Ephesians: τοῖς Εφεσίοις ἐπιστέλλων,
should recollect that he was obliged to give it some name, and therefore gave it
the usual one, as it is cited by others also in the same way, who still maintain
that the words &v 'Epio were originally wanting.
>
د
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
551
were qui sunt Ephesi; or whether it was to be interpreted with a local
reference, as to which there could have been no doubt, had not the
place been really omitted in some copies.¹
Further, Marcion is charged by Tertullian with having altered the
inscription (titulum) of this Epistle, and prefixed to it the title ad La-
odicenos, contrary to the custom of the church, according to which it
was inscribed ad Ephesios. Hence the words & Eqow cannot have
stood in the text of Eph. 1: 1; for, in case they had, the inscription
would have been contradicted by the Epistle, or else he must have
altered the words in the text itself, which Tertullian, who is not wont to
overlook any of his misdemeanors, has not accused him of doing.2
Moreover, they are in fact not found in the text of the celebrated Vat-
ican Ms.; being merely in the margin, though by the first hand.³
The apostle, too, proceeds in this Epistle so much like a stranger,
and treats his readers as so ignorant in regard to his office and the
nature of his commission, that he could merely think it probable they
might have heard that he was the apostle of the Gentiles, that a gra-
cious dispensation towards the Gentiles was given him of God, that he
was instructed by special revelations and endued with knowledge, in or-
der that he might teach them (Eph. 3: 1, 2, 3). The Ephesians, how-
ever, were not thus ignorant of him and his vocation; for he had found-
ed their church, had resided among them more than two years and a
half, had become acquainted with each individual, and, as he says (Acts
20: 31), had often warned every one of them with tears.
The author of the Synopsis which is found among the works of Atha-
nasius, perceived plainly the distant and general character of the Epistle,
and concluded, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary, that when
Paul wrote it he had not yet seen the Ephesians, and had only receiv-
ed oral information respecting them.¹
4
Now, since the Epistle did not contain the name of any place at the
commencement, as the other Epistles of Paul which were directed to
whole churches did; since its style is so distant and its whole purport so
general; it is less likely to have been written for the Ephesians in partic-
ular, than for several churches at once. Archbishop Usher's sup-
position is the best explanation which we have of its destination and
object. He thinks it was an encyclical letter, which was directed to sev-
eral churches of Asia Minor at the same time. Hence a vacant space
eos,
1 Comment. in Ep. ad Ephes. "Quidam curiosius, quam necesse est, putant
ex eo, quod Mosi dictum sit: Hæc dices filiis Israel, qui est misit me, etiam
qui Ephesi sunt, sancti et fideles essentiæ vocabulo nuncupatos, ut ab eo qui
est, hi qui sunt appellentur. Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos qui sunt, sed qui
Ephesi sancti et fideles sunt, scriptum arbitrantur." Comp. Not. Vallarsii ad h.‍l.
11
Tertull. L. V. Adv. Marcion. c. 17. "Ecclesiæ quidem veritate epistolam
istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos: sed Marcion ei titulum
aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. Nihil
autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.
And, L. V. c. 11. "Prætereo hic et de aliâ epistolâ quam nos ad Ephesios per-
scriptam habemus, hæretici vero ad Laodicenos." Comp. Koppe, Nov. Test. Per-
pet. Annot. Illustr. Vol. VI. Prol. ad Eph. p. 5-7, Ed. Tychsen.
3. Hug, De antiquitate Codicis Vaticani, p. 26.
4 Ταύτην, προς Εφεσίους, ἐπιστέλλει ἀπὸ Ῥώμης, οὔπω μὲν αὐτοὺς ἑωρακος,
ἀκούσας δὲ μόνον περὶ αὐτῶν.
552
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
was left for the name of the place, that it might be filled up by the reader,
according to the church in which it was read: Παῦλος, ἀπόστολος
Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ, τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν . . . . καὶ
πιστοῖς κ. τ. λ.
Yet it was necessary that it should appear among Paul's Epistles un-
der some definite name which should be agreed upon, in order that no
uncertainty respecting it, or pretence on the part of such as might
claim the honor of having received it, might occasion difficulty in form-
ing a collection or in regard to the canon. It was therefore inscribed,
IIoos Eqɛolovs, because Ephesus was the chief, or the first, Asiatic
city which received it (Ephes. 5: 19. 2 Tim. 4: 12). After a time,
moreover, the words &v Eqέow came to be inserted in the text itself,
and, on the authority of the inscription, were admitted into many Mss.
$122.
The contents are as follows: Paul at the commencement extols the
value and advantages of Christianity, the dignity of its founder, and
the benefits which those to whom the Epistle was directed had received
from it (-3:). He then refers to himself as the minister of this uni-
versal blessing, mentions his bonds, which he endured particularly for
the Gentiles, and exhorts them to become more and more rooted and
grounded in the sublime doctrines of the Gospel (--4:). After these
preparatory remarks, he enjoins upon them union in doctrine and ex-
ternal worship, and tells them that, however different may be the sta-
tion of individual members in the church, this very difference is intend-
ed only to promote their unity as a body (-4: 17). He now passes to
their deportment, and requires that it be worthy of their high calling;
speaks of amendment, of meekness, concord, and beneficence (-5).
He then enlarges particularly upon fornication, and other vices of the
Gentiles.
From 5: 21-6: 10 he treats of the duties of married and domestic
life, of the husband, the wife, children, and servants. In conclusion,
he exhorts them again to constancy under a state of things peculiarly
perilous to Christianity, and adds a salutation.
$123.
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Colosse was one of the principal cities of Phrygia, concerning which,
however, the ancients have given us but little information. Not long
after Paul wrote thither, in the latter part of Nero's reign, it was over-
whelmed by an earthquake. In some Mss. it is called Colasse, and
this reading has been so much liked, that many have alway cited the
1 Plin. Hist. Nat. L. V. c. 41. Oros. Hist. L. VIII. c. 7. Xenophon (De Ex-
ped. Cyri, L. I. c. 2. n. 6) speaks of Κολοσσὰς, πόλιν οἰκουμένην, εὐδαίμονα, καὶ
μεγάλην.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
553
Epistle accordingly. We, however, invariably find on the coins of this
city ΚΟΛΟΣΣΗΝΟΙ, and ΔΗΜΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΗΝΩΝ.
Paul had not taught here himself; they were acquainted with Chris-
tianity probably only through his disciples, and with Paul himself only
from oral information. One of their principal teachers was Epaphras,
upon whom certain preachers of false doctrines were desirous of casting
odium. Paul protected him, however, with his authority, and express-
ed his approval of him and his doctrines (Col. 1: 7. 4: 12, 13).
$124.
Paul did not write this Epistle until after that to the Ephesians; for
Timothy had arrived at Rome (Col. 1: 1), a consolation which he did
not enjoy when he wrote the latter Epistle, as we have remarked in the
proper place. Tychicus carried both of these Epistles to Asia, but at
different times; first, as I imagine, that to the Ephesians and the second
to Timothy (2 Tim. 4: 12), and then those to the Colossians and Phile-
*non. The first two were written at the commencement of his impris-
onment; one before his trial, and the other shortly after it, at which lat-
ter period his prospects were sad and gloomy, as described in the Epis-
tle to Timothy. The last two were written sometime in the following
year, when his prospects began to brighten; for, in the Epistle to Phile-
mon, which was despatched with that to the Colossians, the apostle an-
ticipates his speedy liberation, and holds out to his friend the hope that
he will soon visit him (Philemon, v. 22). Such are the conclusions to
which I have arrived in regard to the time when these Epistles were
sent; and I shall establish them more fully when I come to discuss the
second Epistle to Timothy.
$ 125.
At the beginning of the Epistle he commends their faith and love,
and the instructions of Epaphras, and assures them of his prayers on
their behalf. He then extols the benefits bestowed by Jesus Christ, de-
clares him to be the Creator, Lord of the spiritual world and of all
existences, and the enlightener of the Gentiles (-1: 24). He then
speaks of himself as an ambassador of Jesus, and of his bonds, which
he bore for the Gospel and its followers, even for those whom he had
never seen, and, taking occasion from his own sufferings, exhorts them
to adhere with unwavering confidence to their first instruction, and to
beware of heresies (-2: 12). He represents to them that, having been
symbolically buried with Christ in baptism, having become dead to the
follies of human opinions, they should now labor to elevate their minds
to a new and loftier sphere, should aspire after a celestial mode of life,
and constantly aim to exhibit innocence, uprightness, forbearance and
meekness (-3: 18).
He then treats of the duties of the wife, the husband, children and
servants, and exhorts them to prayer. He closes with salutations, and
an injunction to communicate this Epistle to the Laodiceans, and to
read that from Laodicea at Colosse.
70
554
PAUL'S EPISTLES,
$126.
OF THE EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS.
We are in possession of an Epistle directed to the Laodiceans, and
claiming to have been written by Paul. No great philological know-
ledge or acquaintance with higher criticism is needed, to enable one to
pass sentence against this miserable composition. We cannot discover,
in all the remains which we have of the early times of Christianity, the
slightest evidence that the ancients were ever acquainted with any more
valuable writing under this name, any writing worthy of regard or re-
specting which they thought it worth while to express so much as a leni-
ent doubt.2
It has even been denied that the Epistle to the Laodiceans ever exist-
ed; though, it would seem, in contradiction to the testimony of Paul
(Col. 4:16). He says: When this Epistle is read among you, cause
that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye like-
wise read the one from Laodicea: καὶ τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἵνα καὶ
ὑμεῖς ἀναγνώτε.
On this Chrysostom and Theodoret remark, in their Commentaries,
that some think the words refer to an Epistle which the church at La-
odicea had written to the apostle. For the expression is, tǹv ¿x Aa-
οδικείας, that from Laodicea, not τὴν πρὸς τοὺς Λαοδικεῖς, that to the
Laodiceans. Many others have been of the same opinion.
The words may, however, have either signification, and they present an
equally harsh ellipsis in either case; whether we suppose them to mean,
Cause the Epistle to be brought from Laodicea, which the church has
received from me, or, Cause the Epistle from Laodicea to be brought to
you, which the church wrote to me.
But, if there was not an equal exchange of two apostolic Epistles,
and ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας denotes an Epistle which the Laodiceans had
sent to the apostle, why does Paul enjoin that this letter to him should
also be communicated to the Colossians? Did he wish to make the
Laodiceans teachers of the Colossians, and to present their sentiments as
an example and standard for the latter? As we cannot believe that this
was the case, the injunction can have been given only because one Epis-
tle had reference to the contents of the other, and was requisite to a
thorough understanding of it.
The contents of Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, then, must have
been of such a nature, that it could not be understood without that
which the Laodiceans had previously sent to the apostle, and it was
therefore necessary that the latter should be read with it. But then it
is strange that Paul should write to the Colossians what particularly
concerned the Laodiceans; that he made no reply to the Laodiceans,
1 Fabric. Cod. Apocr. N. T. P. II. p. 853. P. III.
p. 710.
2 Anonym. apud Murator. Antiqq. Ital. Med. Aevi, T. III. p. 853. Hieronym.
Script. Eccles. v. Paulus.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
555
who, however, would not have written to him without cause; that he
wrote to the former what they could not understand, and did not write
at all to the latter, who might have understood him.
Besides, the Epistle to the Colossians has no apparent reference to a
prior Epistle from any quarter; it refers only to oral accounts.
It re-
fers to what the apostle had heard respecting the condition and affairs
of the Colossian church (Col. 1: 3), άxovoαvies, and expressly men-
tions Epaphras, driwoas x. t. λ. (Col. 1: 8, 9), as having been the au-
thor of the information.
αντ
It is, therefore, impossible in every point of view, to suppose that the
apostle had an Epistle from the Laodiceans before him when he wrote
his Epistle to the Colossians, and composed the latter with special ref-
erence to it; and we must explain τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, as denoting an
Epistle of Paul which he had written to that city, and which was to
be communicated by the Laodiceans to the Colossians, as the latter
were required to do the like in return.
But where then is this Epistle? What became of it at so early a pe-
riod that nothing was known of it by any of the ancient writers? How
could the Epistle to the Laodiceans perish, while that to the Colossians
is preserved? If the Laodiceans did resign it to oblivion, we see
that the Colossians have handed theirs down to posterity, and when that
to the Laodiceans came into such careful hands, how happened it that
it was not preserved with the other?
Of these difficulties, which are as urgent as they are well-founded,
there is no better solution than the ingenious hypothesis which was first
propounded, I believe, by Hugo Grotius. He considers the Epistle to the
Laodiceans to have been the same as that which is now termed the Epis-
tle to the Ephesians. This was directed to several churches in Asia Mi-
nor, and particularly to such as had not seen the apostle, among which
he himself reckons the Laodiceans (Col. 2:1). Marcion gave it the
title, Πρὸς τοὺς Λαοδικεῖς, whence it appears that it was supposed by
some in ancient times to have been specially intended for the Laodiceans;
for we shall readily be convinced that Marcion intended a correction rath-
er than a falsification, if we only reflect that he could have had no motive
for the latter in this case. The relative situation of the places, too, was
such as to make it most natural that the Colossians should be directed
to Laodicea to procure the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians. The
hypothesis, therefore, not only has the recommendation of solving the
above difficulties, but has, likewise, peculiar internal probability.
$127.
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
The apostle was visited at Rome by Onesimus, a fugitive slave of
Philemon; he effected his conversion, and sent him back, with a re-
commendation, to his master. Although Paul was restoring property
which was then of considerable value, and was, moreover, returning it
556
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
to its owner in an improved condition, and although the services of such
a man must then have been extremely acceptable, and the friendly re-
lation between him and the master of the slave would seem to have jus-
tified his retention, he sent him back with all the delicacy of refined
society, and gave him a recommendation to his master.
Thy faith and love, Philemon, he writes, are a very great consolation
to me. I send thee thy fugitive slave, whom I converted in prison.
Gladly as I should have retained him to minister unto me, I would not
do so without leave from thee. Receive him, forgive him, treat him
as a brother; for such he has become by becoming a Christian. I hope
soon to see thee. I salute thee, as do all who are with me.
This Epistle and that to the Colossians were sent at the same time, viz.
when Onesimus returned to his master (Philem. 10:11, 12. Coloss. 4:
7,8,9). In both Epistles we find the same persons with Paul, viz.
Timothy, Aristarchus, who was Paul's fellow-prisoner, Marcus, Lucas,
Demas, and Epaphiras (Philem. 23. Colass. 4: 10, 12, 14).
$ 128.
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
This, in my opinion, was written during Paul's first imprisonment at
Rome, after that to the Ephesians, and between those to the Colossians
and Philemon. Learned men, however, have referred its composition
to his second Roman imprisonment, the circumstances of which are
wholly unknown to us. As might be expected from their knowledge
and erudition, they do not want arguments in support of their position.
It is certain that the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians and Phile-
were composed during the first imprisonment at Rome, and,
moreover, in the order in which we have named them. Now there are
some circumstances brought to view in these Epistles, which individual-
ize the first imprisonment, and which we must notice, for the purpose of
comparing them with those which may be gathered from the second
Epistle to Timothy.
mon
At the beginning of the imprisonment, when the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians was written, Timothy, who was not one of Paul's companions on
the voyage to Italy (Acts 27: 2), was not with him at Rome; for Paul
does not add his name in the address with which the Epistle commences,
as he always did when Timothy was at his side. Timothy afterwards
arrived; and, accordingly, at the outset of the Epistles to the Colossians
and Philemon, his name appears with the apostle's (Col. 1: 1. Philem.
1). 2dly. Luke was in Paul's company (Col. 4: 14. Philem. 24). 3dly.
Mark was likewise with him (Col. 4: 10. Philem. 24). 4thly. Tych-
icus was then Paul's diánovos and letter-bearer, and, in particular, was
sent to Asia (Eph. 4: 21. Col. 4: 7, 8).
All these circumstances are presented to view in the 2d Epistle to
Timothy. Timothy was not with Paul at first; but was summoned to
his side (2 Tim. 4:9, 21). 2dly, Luke was with him (2 Tim. 4: 11).
3dly, He wishes Mark to come with Timothy; so that he must have
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
557
been with him in the course of his imprisonment (2 Tim. 4: 11). 4thly,
Tychicus was with him, in the capacity of letter-bearer, and, in particu-
lar, was sent to Asia (2 Tim. 4: 12).
Now, in order to suppose that Paul wrote this Epistle to Timothy dur-
ing a second imprisonment at Rome, we must assume that the circum-
stances of both were precisely the same; we must suppose that at each
time Timothy was not at first with the apostle, but joined him after-
wards; that Mark was with him each time, and likewise Luke; and
that each time Tychicus was Paul's diazovos and letter-bearer, and was
sent to Asia.
We must, moreover, assume that Paul, at both times, even in the lat-
ter part of Nero's reign, was permitted to receive friends during his
confinement, to write letters, despatch messengers, and, in general, to
have free intercourse with every body. And yet, even in his first im-
prisonment, this permission was only a happy accident, and would never
have been granted, had it not been for the specially courteous and
friendly disposition of the centurion, Julius (Acts 38: 16. Comp. 27: 3).
The custodia libera, or dsouos, in the houses of magistrates, was
allowed only to Romans of distinguished rank. The custodia apud
vades could be permitted only for special reasons, respecting which the
magistrate was to judge. In the custodia militaris, the prisoner was
given in charge to a centurion, and chained to a soldier. We may
readily conceive how much one could write in such a situation, how
easily he could receive and send away letters and messengers, if the
centurion did not treat him with special favor. And yet in the milder
days of Nero's reign this was the confinement which fell to the apos-
tle's lot. If a worse fate, the Carcer, was allotted him in his second im-
prisonment, as it is to be feared it was, at a time when no ill-treatment
was sufficiently severe for the Christians, he must have been fortunate
if he was not compelled to surrender the light of day.'
πε
As we have said, the custodia militaris was the apostle's lot. On ar-
riving at Rome, Julius delivered up his prisoners to the Præfectus præ-
torio, Eroαroлedάons. At the beginning of the 8th year of Nero,
Burrhus held this office; at his death two persons were appointed to
succeed him, Fenius Rufus and Sofonius Tigellinus. Tacitus relates
that the death of Burrhus occurred in the 8th year of Nero. The de-
cease of this confessedly upright man created the more consternation,
as little good could be anticipated from the listless harmlessness of one
of his successors, or the insatiable depravity of the other, the latter of
whom in the sequel gained Nero's entire confidence and an exorbitant
degree of power. Seneca soon felt the change in the atmosphere of
the court, and retired from it, in the same year that his friend died,
which he calls, in his address to the Emperor, the 8th of his reign.2
The apostle was permitted to dwell by himself, with a soldier who
guarded him (Acts 28: 16). This distinction was an extraordinary fa-
vor.
Much, however, depended still on the good-humor of the centu-
rion who had charge of him, and of the guard to whom, for the time be-
1 Lipsius, in not. ad Tacit. Ana. L. V. c. 3. and in excursu B. ad Tacit. Ann.
L. III.
2 Tacit. Annal. L. XIV. c. 53.
558
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
ing, he was chained. Lastly, the free communication with others, which
Paul enjoyed, was a privilege possessed by few prisoners.
How difficult it was to obtain such privileges in altered circumstances,
we see from the case of Herod Agrippa, who owed it to interference
from the highest quarter, that the Præf. prætorio assigned the charge
of him to a more courteous centurion, chained him to less brutal guards,
and connived at the visit of a few friends, and the procuring of a few
conveniences under cover of the darkness of night.'
$129.
Though the identity of the situation and chain of circumstances
points so clearly to one and the same imprisonment, it is still said by
those who transfer the composition of this Epistle to the second impris-
onment, that there are some indications in it which do not at all accord
with the first.
Paul says: Erastus abode at Corinth; but Trophimus have I left at
Miletus sick (2 Tim. 4:20). Now this is a wholly different route from
the one which Luke states to have been taken on the first voyage to Ita-
ly. On that occasion Paul sailed to Sidon, thence to Cyprus, then
along the coast of Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Lycia, was driven to Crete,
and did not come within ten German miles of Miletus; and, so far from
going to Corinth, was driven by the storm towards Africa, and carried
to Malta (Acts 27: 3-44).
But Paul does not here say that he went to Corinth, but only that
Erastus remained there, where he was an officer of the church: quεt-
νε Κορίνθῳ.
ve Ev Kopivvy. This he might say, if Erastus was expected at Rome,
on account of a promise or out of friendship, and had not come accord-
ing to anticipation.
As to Trophimus, the passage would be of more weight if it necessa-
rily meant: I left him sick at Miletus. It runs, thus: Tpógiuor de
ἀπέλιπον ἐν Μιλήτῳ ἀσθενοῦντα. These words may mean: they left
Trophimus at Miletus sick.
i
Many churches had sent delegates to the apostle with supplies, and
likewise as amici and deprecatores, who, according to Greek and Ro-
man usage, were to accompany the accused in causâ capitali to his
trial (2 Tim. 4: 16). The duty of affection to support a friend at a
trial was sacred among the Romans, and still more so among Christians.
Observe how Lucian ridicules the zeal of the Christians when one of
their teachers was in prison; describing them as sending deputies to
him from the cities of Asia at the common cost, to console and assist
him on his trial. In this way came Epaphroditus (Philipp. 4: 18),
Epaphras (Col. 4: 12, 13), and Onesiphorus (2 Tim. 1: 16, 17). Many
came from Asia, who, notwithstanding, pusillanimously left the apostle
to his fate (2 Tim. 1: 15). Thus, too, Erastus ought to have come from
Corinth, either as a friend, on his own account, or commissioned by the
church, in behalf of which Paul had done so much.
2
1 Joseph. Antiqq. L. XVIII. c. 6. § 7.
,
2 Καὶ μὴν καὶ τῶν ἐν Ἀσίᾳ πόλεών ἐστιν, ὧν ἡκόν τινες τῶν Χριστιανῶν στελ
λόντων ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ, βοηθήσοντες, καὶ ξυναγορεύσοντες, καὶ παραμυθησόμενοι
Tov avdoa (De morte peregrin. § 13. T. VIII. p. 280. Bipont.).
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
559
mus.
There was special reason, however, for the appearance of Trophi-
On occasion of Paul's first imprisonment, his presence was in-
dispensable, as he had been the cause of Paul's apprehension (Acts
21: 29). According to the Roman laws, witnesses on both sides were
examined personally to decide the cause, and in this case the main ac-
cusation depended on the question, whether Trophimus was a heathen,
so that Paul was chargeable with having introduced heathen into the tem-
ple? Now, if he travelled in company with his countrymen, the dele-
gates from Asia to the apostle, and fell sick on his journey, the passage
signifies, very naturally Trophimus they left sick at Miletus. Such
an accident must have occasioned no little hindrance to Paul's trial and
the decision of his cause.
We do not know that Trophimus had any thing to do with the
second imprisonment; but it is certain that he was bound to appear at
the first trial. The supposed objection, therefore, in regard to him,
in fact confirms what it was intended to disprove.
We are directed to the first imprisonment, likewise, by the agency
in Paul's fortunes which is attributed to Alexander, who in the uproar
at Ephesus was put forward by the Jews as speaker (Acts 19: 33),
and who now persecuted the apostle with animosity before the Roman
tribunal (2 Tim. 4: 14, 15). Those who were desirous of bringing
Paul to trial would not base an accusation on any old, half-forgotten
story; they must have made use of the first occurrence which could
serve their purpose, and have appeared when process was commen-
ced against him. Besides, it was uncertain whether a second oppro-
tunity would ever occur. In the tumultuous times in which Paul's
second imprisonment took place, witnesses and accusers would hardly
have been summoned from remote provinces, or the trial prolonged for
one or two years, so that all who wished to bring accusations could
have had time to appear in Rome.
The second Epistle to Timothy, therefore, was composed during Paul's
first imprisonment at Rome. It was written after the Epistle to the
Ephesians, and before that to the Colossians. The apostle in this
Epistle earnestly summons Timothy to his side. Now, when the Epis-
tle to the Ephesians was sent, Timothy was not with him; when those
to the Colossians and Philemon were sent, he was. The Epistle to the
Ephesians and the one to Timothy both went to Asia, and therefore
may both have been sent at the same time.
In the Epistle to Timothy his situation is still gloomy and doubt-
ful; he has still the prospect of a tragical fate before him, and sees lit-
tle probability of deliverance. In the Epistle to Philemon, however,
which was sent at the same time with that to the Colossians, he express-
es hopes of his liberation, and promises Philemon a visit.
$ 130.
The contents of the Epistle to Timothy are as follows: I often think
of thee, and desire ardently to see thee; be not ashamed of me, or of
the Gospel, for which I am in bonds. Many have fallen away from me;
thou wilt not do so. Take courage; teach with perseverance, as I have
done; I live and die for the sake of Christ, that I may reign with him
560
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
(-2: 14). Meddle not with disputes, or over-learned topics; be every
where a worthy, meek, and patient teacher (-3: 1). But be on your
guard; know that a pernicious class of false teachers will arise; do
thou, on this account, only cleave the closer to pure doctrine; continue
faithful to your early instruction; watch, be careful, be unremittingly at-
tentive, for Jesus' sake (-4: 6.) I am now ready to be offered; hasten
to me. All have left me, and cruel accusers have risen up against me;
but the Lord knows how to work out deliverance still.
§ 131.
OF THE HERETICS AGAINST WHOM THE EPISTLES TO THE
EPHESIANS, COLOSSIANS AND TIMOTHY ARE AIMed.
Without an acquaintance with the opinions of those teachers who
caused the apostle so much apprehension and sorrow, many parts of
these writings must necessarily be obscure and unintelligible. An in-
vestigation of them is necessarily comprehended in an Introduction, the
object of which is to furnish such historical and critical knowledge as
is prerequisite to the business of interpretation.
From the traits by which the apostle characterizes them, some have
thought that they were Gnostics, others that they were Essenes; and
each party derives arguments in behalf of its position, from accordance
in tenets, opinions, and customs. But perhaps it would be as difficult
to prove that the Gnostic system was completely developed at so early a
period, as it is unjust to impute to the Essenes that extreme immorality,
with which Paul charges these deceivers, inasmuch as the contempora-
ries of this Jewish sect, and all those acquainted with it, speak of it with
respect, and extol its adherents as the most virtuous men of their time.
The resemblance which has been perceived in the tenets and senti-
ments of the two sects, compared with Paul's expressions, arises from a
common source, the philosophy of the age, of which both partook. It will,
therefore, be more accurate to go back one step, and consider the phi-
losophy itself, as the common original of these systems. It found adhe-
rents among the Jews as well as Gentiles. Both retained their pre-
vious speculative opinions when they adopted Christianity, and endeav-
ored to combine or reconcile them with it, as well as they were able.
By this means Christianity became disfigured, and unlike itself, and
would have been swallowed up in an ocean of philosophical vagaries, if
the apostles had not also protected against human folly that which they
defended with their blood and their lives against violence.
The Greeks were very early acquainted with the oriental, or, as
was called, Babylonish or Chaldee philosophy, as were the Romans,
long before the time of Augustus, and still more familiarly during his
reign; and the system bid fair to spread over all Asia and Europe. It
employed various divinities and subordinate spirits for the explanation
of certain natural occurrences and for the regulation of earthly affairs
in general, as well as for the solution of certain metaphysical questions,
which have always been classed among the difficult problems of philos-
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
561
ophy. The practical part of this system consisted of precepts by the
observance of which men might procure intercourse with these spirits or
demons. The advantage promised from this intercourse with spiritual
beings was, that by their aid superhuman knowledge could be acquired,
future events foretold, and supernatural deeds performed. These phi-
losophers were well known under the name of Magi and Chaldeans,
who, in order to adapt their system more perfectly to the western na-
tions, altered it according to the Grecian philosophy, and finally suc-
ceeded, it seems, in combining it with that of Plato. Hence arose in
later times the sect of the New Platonists, and the Gnostic sect among
the Christians.
These men even made their way to the throne. Tiberius received
instruction in their philosophy, and was fully convinced, that by com-
munication with demons extraordinary things might be learned and
effected.2 Nero caused a great many of them to be brought from Asia,
not unfrequently at the expense of the provinces. The supernatural
spirits would never appear, but still he did not abandon his belief in
them.3
The Magi and Chaldeans were consulted on occasion of great under-
takings,4 foretold the result of conspiracies, called up spirits, prepared
sacrifices, and afforded the aid of their arts in love-affairs.5 Even the
severity of the laws, which were often directed against them in Rome,
had no other effect than to increase their reputation.6
As they found access and favor with all classes in the capital, so did
they likewise in the provinces. Paul found a Magian in the court of
the Pro-consul at Paphos (Acts 13:6). There was one at Samaria, nam-
ed Simon, who was there regarded as a being of a higher and spiritual
order (Acts 8: 9). The expression employed is remarkable, as being a
scrap of the technical language of the Theurgists: the people called him a
ΔΥΝΑΜΙΣ τοῦ θεοῦ μεγάλη. Pliny gives the same denomination
to some of the demons and subordinate spirits by whose co-operation
extraordinary results were effected. He calls them POTESTATES."
Justin Martyr, the countryman of Simon, has preserved to us some
of the technical expressions of his adherents. He says they gave him
the exalted title: υπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐξουσίας, καὶ δυνάμ
εως 8
Of these classes of spirits, which appear under such different names,
there were the superior, which ruled the others, and the inferior, which
1 Diod. Sic. L. II. c. 29, 30, 31. p. 142-144. Wessel.
2 Dio Cass. L. LVII. p. 419. Rob. Steph. Respecting his teacher Thrasyllus,
see Juven. Sat. VI. 575. Tacit. Annal. L. VI. c. 20, 21. Gronov. Juv. Sat. X.
93. "Principis augusta Caprearum in rupe sedentis cum grege Chaldæo."
3 Plin. Hist. Nat. L. XXX. c. 5.
4 Tacit. Annal. L. II. c. 27 seq.
5 Philo, De legg. special. p. 542. Ed. Turneb.
6 Tacit. Ann. L. II. c. 32. Sueton. in Vitell. 14. Juvenal, Sat. VI. 556–560.
7 Plin. Hist. Nat. L. XXIX. c. 19. "Sanguinem (basilisci) Magi miris laudi-
bus celebrant . . . .
Tribuunt ei successus petitionum a potestatibus et a diis."
8 Dial. cum Tryph. Ed. Rob. Steph. p. 115.
71
562
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
were of a more material substance, and might therefore come into im-
mediate contact with matter, and which executed the commands of
their superiors.¹
By communication with the superior spirits, a person might command
the service and aid of the inferior; for the more powerful demons then
ordered the lesser ones (v to άoxovti twv daιμovior, Matth. 12: 24)
to perform particular commissions in the material world.2
A complete exhibition of this system and its various forms has been
furnished us by the Syrian philosopher, Jamblicus of Chalcis, in his
work, On the Mysteries of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. I know, in-
deed, that the work has been by some regarded as not his ;3 but sup-
posing it to be the production of any New Platonist, we have at all
events this advantage from it, that in it are collected together, in a
comparatively short compass, all those absurdities which we should oth-
erwise be compelled to glean from many other writings. We will,
therefore, deduce from it and present here a short sketch of this re-
markable system, as it existed after it became current among the
Greeks.
The following are its principal points. The nature of the gods is a
pure, spiritual, and perfect unity. Considering this high and entire
immateriality, no operation upon matter on their part is conceivable; and
hence they could not create and cannot govern the world.¹
It is therefore necessary to suppose certain subordinate deities, who
are compound in their nature and can operate on gross matter. These
are the creators and governors of the world, δημιουργοί and κοσμοκρά
τορες.5
The superior deities are, notwithstanding, the real cause of all that
exists, and everything derives its being from their fulness, nooµα.6
There is no abrupt descent from the highest to the lowest deities, but a
continuous, gradual declination from the supreme pure spirit to those
gross natures which are nearly allied to matter, and thus are qualified to
operate upon it. These spirits occupy various places of abode in the
gross atmosphere or in more elevated regions, according to their grosser
or purer nature.8
1 "Neque enim ipsos (deos) a curâ rerum humanarum, sed a contrectatione
solâ removi Cæterum sunt quædam divinæ mediæ potestates (dvváµeis)
etc." (Apul. De Gen. Socrat. p. 229, Bipont.).
2 "Quæ cuncta cælestium voluntate et numine et auctoritate, sed dæmonum
obsequio et ministerio fieri arbitrandum est" (Apul. I. c. p. 230).
•
3 Chr. Meiners, "Judicium de libro, qui de mysteriis
Jamblicho vindi-
cari solet," in Comment. Soc. Reg. Goetting. 1781. Cl. Philol. p. 50. The pas-
sage, Schol. in Plat. in Anecdot. Græc. Siebenkees, p. 21. Norimb. 1798, may be
regarded as an additional evidence since discovered in favor of Jamblichus.
4 Jamblichi Chalcidensis ex Colesyria de mysteriis liber. Ed. Thom. Gale
Oxon. e theat. Sheld. 1678. Sect. I. c. 7. p. 9. VIII. c. 2. 158.
5 Sect. II. c. 3. p. 41. Οἱ μὲν δοκοῦσιν οὗτοι εἶναι οι κοσμοκράτορες, οἱ τα
ὑπὸ σελήνην στοιχεῖα διοικοῦντες
oi
•
6 Sect. I. c. 8. p. 15. ᾿Αλλὰ οἱ μὲν κρείττονες ἐν αὐτῷ ὡς ὑπὸ μηδενὲς περιέχ
ονται, καὶ περιέχουσι πάντα ἐν αὐτοῖς. Τὰ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν τοῖς πληρώμασι τῶν
θεῶν ἔχοντα τὸ εἶναι κ. τ. λ.
7 Sect. II. c. 3. p. 41. Sect. V. c. 19. p. 134–135.
8 Diog. Laert. in Procm. p. 5. Henr. Steph. 'Aoxev (Xahdaiovs) te xai µav-
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
563
3
4
The highest of these classes of spirits are called doxal or doxınd
airia.¹ Other divine natures, ɛiai ovoia, are intermediate beings,
μέσαι. 2 Those which direct the affairs of the world are called ἄρχον
τες, and the spirits which obey their orders δυνάμεις and ἄγγελοι
The doxayyelo are not generally recognized in this system; the
class is said to have been of later origin, and to have been first introduced
into the spiritual world by Porphyry. If we add further the Eovolai of
which, as we have seen, Justin speaks, we shall have enumerated most
of the technical names employed in this demonology.5
1
Now, to attain a union with the superior orders of spirits, in which
alone man's perfect felicity consists, it is first necessary that one should
be freed from servitude to the body, which detains the soul from soar-
ing upward to the purely spiritual.6
Matrimony, therefore, and every indulgence of the sexual passion,
must be renounced, before this perfection of felicity can be attained.
Indeed, the magian offerings and ceremonies cannot, without great inju-
ry, even be imparted to those who have not emancipated themselves from
corporeal lusts and attachments."
To eat meat, or to eat of any slain animal at all, nay, even to touch
it, is contamination.8
Bodily exercise and purifications, although the gift of prophecy is not
communicated by them, do yet assist it.9
Notwithstanding the gods listen only to the holy, they still mislead
men to the commission of unholy actions.' This is probably because
10
•
τικὴν, καὶ πρόρρησιν καὶ αὐτοῖς θεοὺς ἐμφανίζεσθαι λέγονται. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ εἰδώλων
πλήρη εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα κατ' ἀπόρροιαν ὑπὸ ἀναθυμιάσεως εἰσκρινομένων ταῖς ὄψεσι
tāv o§vdɛoxon (Apul. De Gen. Socrat. p. 229-232). "Cæterum sunt quædam
divinæ mediæ potestates inter summum æthera et infimas terras, in isto intersitæ
aeris spatio, per quas et desideria et merita nostra ad deos commeant .. Habe-
ant igitur hæc dæmonum corpora modicum levitatis, ne ad inferna præcipiten-
tur. Although Jamblichus differs from the opinion of those who assign the
abodes of the various orders of spirits according to the degree of their material-
ity : Τὴν πρὸς τὰ διαφέροντα σώματα κατὰ τάξιν, οἷον θεῶν μὲν πρὸς τὰ αἰθέρια,
δαιμόνων δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἀέρια, ψυχῶν δὲ τῶν πρὸς τὴν γῆν αἰτίαν εἶναι (Sect. I. c. 8),
he still mentions οἵ τε ἀέριοι καὶ οἱ περὶ γῆν δαίμονες (Sect. VI. c. 6).
1 Jambl. Sect. I. c. 7. p. 11.
2 Sect. I. c. 6.
3 Sect. II. c. 7. p. 49.
4 Sect. V. c. 21. p. 136.
5 The doctrine of the Logos in this system was drawn from the Ægyptian phi-
losophy. Τότε τῷ ὅλῳ δημιουργῷ τὴν ψυχὴν προσάγει καὶ παρακατατίθεται. Καὶ
ἐκτὸς πάσης ὕλης αὐτὴν ποιεῖ μόνῳ τῷ ἀἰδίῳ λόγῳ συνενωμένην. Οἷον ὃ λέγω τῇ
αὐτογόνῳ καὶ αὐτοκινήτῳ, καὶ τῇ ἀνεχούσῃ πάντα, καὶ τῇ νοερᾷ καὶ τῇ διακοσ
μητικῇ τῶν ὅλων (scilicet ουσία) συνάπτει Καὶ τοῦτο τέλος ἐστὶ τῆς
παρ' Αἰγυπτίοις ἱερατικῆς ἀναγωγῆς (Sect X. c. 6).
6 Sect. V. c. 18. p. 133.
7 Sect. V. c. 18. p. 133.
tò
.
•
8 Διότι τὸ μὴ ζωὴν ζῶντι, ὥσπερ τῷ καθαρῷ τὸ ῥυπαρὰν . . . μολυσμόν τινα
Evridnow. Sect. VI. c. 2.
թ.
9 Sect. III. c. 13. and c. 11.
145. Comp. c. 1. p. 144.
10 Sect. IV. c. 11. p. 114. c. 12. p. 114, 115.
564
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
they have totally different ideas of what is good and just from those of
mankind.¹
$ 132.
This philosophy, the elements of which had long existed in the east,
was moulded, in its progress to the west, into a system which met there
with incomparably more approbation and celebrity than it deserved.
To come nearer to the purpose of our investigation, it was particularly
well received in those countries to which the apostle's letters were di-
rected. Long after its first introduction, when Paul had converted the
Ephesians, a large number of magian and theurgic books were
brought by their owners and burned in Paul's sight (Acts 19: 19). At
an earlier period, too, this city was celebrated in this respect; and the
Εφέσια αλεξιφάρμακα and Εφέσια γράμματα are represented by an-
cient writers as famous means of procuring power over demons.2
There exists to this day among the ruins of Miletus a public docu-
ment, viz. an inscription on one of the gates of the city, which testifies
how firm in these regions was the belief in theurgical notions.3 I will
venture to cite a portion of it as evidence on this point:
ΙΗΕΟΥΩ Α
ΟΥΩ
AEHI
ATIE
ΦΥΛΑΞΟΝ
ΤΗΝ ΠΟΛΙΝ
ΜΙΛΗΣΙΩΝ
KAIILANTAC
TOTCKATOI
ΚΟΥΝΤΑC
ΑΡΧΑΓΓΕΛΩΙ ΦΥΛΑCCEΤΑΙ
ΗΠΟΛΙΟ ΜΙΛΗΣΙΩΝ
ΚΑΙ ΠΑΝΤEC ΟΙ ΚΑΤ. . . .
The Synod of Laodicea was obliged, so late as the 4th century, to is-
sue several edicts against the worship of angels, against magic and in-
cantations. So deeply rooted were these opinions, that several centu-
ries could not extirpate the remembrance of them.
1 Sect. IV. c. 4. p.
108.
2 Menandri et Philemonis reliquiæ. Ed. Grot. et J. Clerici. p. 140. Erasm.
Adag. Chil. Cent. 8. num. 49. Plutarch. Sympos. Quæst. L. VII. Quæst. 5. Oi
μάγοι τοὺς δαιμονιζομένους κελεύουσι τὰ Ἐφέσια γράμματα πρὸς αὐτοὺς καταλέγ
ειν καὶ ὀνομάζειν.
3 Voyage d'Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grece, et du Levante, par Spon. Part I. p.
423. Amst. 1679.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
565
$ 133.
Now this theory is strikingly characterized by the expressions of the
apostle.
He calls the system of his opponents a philosophy, which cannot be
reconciled with Christianity: φιλοσοφία οὐ κατά Χριστόν (Col. 2: 8),
an angel-worship, donozela râv dyyέhwv (Col. 2: 18), a demonology,
διδασκαλίαι δαιμόνων (1 Tim. 4: 1).
Further, he terms it yontela (2 Tim. 3: 13), which is the peculiar
expression used by the ancients to designate magical arts and enchant-
ments. Γύης, according to Hesychius, is μάγος, κόλαξ, περίεργος, and
γοητεύει is ἀπατᾷ, μαγεύει, φαρμακεύει, ἐξαίδει, κ. τ. λ.
Paul compares these teachers with Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8).
These, as we have before seen, were, according to ancient tradition,
the enchanters, who withstood Moses by their arts. Their names were
so celebrated in the science of magic, that they were not unknown to
the New Platonists themselves.
The apostle, in exhorting the Ephesians to equip themselves with the
armour of faith, and to fight manfully, tells them (6: 12 seq.) that this is
the more necessary, as their warfare is not against human power, ov
Toоs aîµα nai odoxa, but against spiritual beings. In enumerating
these, he names in order the magian classes of spirits, doxas, ¿§ovoias,
and particularly the zooμoxoάropes, and likewise places their abode
in the upper region of the air, εἰς τὸν ἀέρα, ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις.
Moreover, in the Epistle to the Colossians, in order to give them a
high and reverential idea of Christianity, and to magnify the glory of
Jesus, he says, that all existences, not even the spiritual world excepted,
were created by him and are subject to him. He then selects the ma-
gian appellations, for the purpose of showing that the supposed demon-
ocracy was entirely subject to his authority, whether oóvot, or xuqióτn-
tes, or doxaì, or covoia etc. (Col. 1: 16). He also uses a term pe-
culiar to the theurgic system, viz. knowμa, to denote the original
cause of all material and spiritual existence, from which, as the highest
conceivable cause, all intermediate causes have proceeded, declaring that
the origin of all things is to be referred to Jesus, and that the nanoua
dwells in him : ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησε πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι
(1: 19. 2: 9. Eph. 1:23).
At last, in order completely to demolish the whole system, he declares
that Christ, by the work of redemption, had conquered the whole spirit-
ual world, that he had dragged the doxas and govolas in triumph as
vanquished, and that their dominion and authority were at an end
(Col. 2: 15).
What he says, too, of the seared conscience of the false teachers to
1 Targum Jonathan, Exodus 1: 15. 7: 11. Plin. Hist. Nat. L. XXX. c. 2. p. 48.
Vol. V. Bipont.-Apul. Orat. de Magia, T. I. Bipont. p. 94. "Ego sum ille Mo-
ses, vel Jannes, etc. It may hence be seen that the emendation in the last edi-
tion of Pliny: "A Mose etiamnum et Jotape," is not correct. Comp. Greg.
Abulpharagius, Dynast. I. p. 26. Pharaoh's daughter gave Moses
الي
.to be instructed by them يانيس ويمبريس الحكمين
566
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
whom he refers, of their frauds, their avarice etc., is certainly more ap-
plicable to those men who taught and practised magical arts than any
others. No class of men in all antiquity are more generally charged
with such characteristics than these pretended confidants of the mystic
powers.
Paul's strenuous opposition to a distinction of meats and to absti-
nence from wedlock evidently had reference to them, and his censure
of bodily exercises arose from their recommendation of them, and their
requisition of baths, lustrations, continence, and long preparation, as
the sole conditions on which it was possible to obtain communication
with spirits.
It was these, then, that the apostle had in his mind; who, when they
adopted Christianity, formed that sect of the professed followers of Je-
sus which assumed the name of Gnostics, and which history accuses of
having been, under all the various modifications of one and the same
system, invariably addicted to magic arts. Other adherents to this sys-
tem, among the heathen, formed the sect of the New Platonists, to the
number of whom belong the Syrian philosophers, as well as some of the
Egyptian, such as Plotinus and his disciples.
$134.
REMARKS ON RECENT ATTACKS UPON THE TWO EPISTLES TO
TIMOTHY AND THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
We have considered above (§ 113) certain charges brought against
the 1st Epistle to Timothy. Soon after these were made, there appeared
an opponent, not only of the 1st Epistle to Timothy, but also of the 2d,
together with the one to Titus, i. e. of all the three pastoral letters, as
he calls them. He brings charges against them before the tribunal of
criticism, which he supports partly by reasons deduced from their lan-
guage and peculiar style, and partly by historical difficulties in relation
to them.1
He noticed that certain expressions occurred only in these Epistles,
and were not to be found in any other of Paul's writings. As to the
mere απαξ λεγόμενα, e. g. in 1 Tim. 1: 5, τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας, and
2: 10, ἐπαγγελλόμεναι θεοσέβειαν etc., it cannot be expected that I
should take any notice of these; for there is not one Epistle of Paul
which has not, as is very natural, many such.2 2 On the other hand,
however, any peculiar phraseology in regard to the false teachers and
their tenets, which is common to all the three Epistles, deserves more
attention. Their doctrines are called μύθοι and γραώδεις μύθοι
(1 Tim. 1:4. 4: 7. 2 Tim. 4: 4. Tit. 1: 14); to which let us add the
1 Eichhorn's Einleit. in das N. T. IIId Bd. 1st Hälfte. § 246 seq.
2 Henry Planck, in his "Bemerkungen über den ersten Paulinischen Brief
an den Timotheus" (p. 51, 52), reckons 54 άлaş heyóueva in the Epistle to the
Philippians, 57 in that to the Galatians, and 45 in those to the Ephesians and
Colossians; in the 1st to Timothy he reckons 81; in the 2d, 63; in that to Ti-
tus, 44.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
567
still stronger denomination ßeßýhovs zerogwvias (1 Tim. 6: 20. 2 Tim.
2: 16). On the other hand, correct doctrine is διδασκαλία υγιαίνουσα
(1 Tim. 1: 10. 2 Tim. 4: 3. Tit. 1: 9. 2: 1), hoyos vyens and doyou
vyraivovres (Tit. 2: 8. 1 Tim. 6: 3. 2 Tim. 1: 13). Religion is evбéßeta
(1 Tim. 6: 3. 2 Tim. 3: 5. Tit. 1: 1 etc.). In two of these Epistles yεv-
saloyía (Tit. 3:9), and reveaλoyiar aлévavroi (1 Tim. 1: 4), are
censured.
In his writings generally, Paul has not spoken expressly of the false
teachers; but, as e. g. in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians,
he merely alludes to their opinions, and casts them into shade by the side
of the principles of Christianity. Whether it arose from the forbear-
ance, which he wished should be exercised towards them in public
(2 Tim. 2: 25 seq.), or from his reluctance to interrupt the solemn tone
of these Epistles by any digressions, or from both these feelings togeth-
er, certain it is, that only in the Epistles to his friends and assistants in
the ministry, particularly in those to Timothy (1 Tim. 4: 1–9. 6:3—6.
2 Tim. 2: 16—19, 23. 3: 1–10. 4: 3-5), has he described this mis-
chievous class of men. Some of them he even mentions by name in
these Epistles; and he makes evident allusion to them in the Epistle to
Titus (1: 10–12. 14–16. 3:9—12). Now, in doing this, he has made
use of language for which there was no occasion when he was not
speaking of these things, or was speaking of them in a different way,
language which, employed in confidence, treats the subject in its real
light: μύθους, γραώδεις μύθους, βεβήλους κενοφωνίας. He like-
wise employs very appropriate contrasts, representing the condition of
those led astray to be a mental malady, νοσῶν περὶ ζητήσεις (1 Tim.
6:4), comparing the false doctrines to a yayyoaiva (2 Tim. 2: 17), and na-
turally terming the opposite, healthful doctrine, healthful instruction,
λόγος ὑγιὴς, διδασκαλία υγιαίνουσα.
Among these mental aberrations, he reckons the yevɛahoyias, with
which in one instance he connects the epithet ancoάvious. These can-
not be properly interpreted as referring to the Jewish custom of preserv-
ing their lineage. They were rather a part of the φιλοσοφία οὐ κατὰ
Χριστόν (Col. 2: 8), the θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων, (Col. 2: 18), διδασ
zakiai dainoviov (1 Tim. 4: 1); i. e. of the philosophical system of the
time, which for certain purposes inculcated a gradation among spirits
and their derivation from each other.
In this philosophical system, the whole of religious worship, including
all the various species of θρησκεία, was called ευσέβεια. On this ac-
σε
σε
1 Jamblich. De Myst. Sect. V. c. 21. p. 136.—Ovx in μegovs yorì, ovde årεlus
συνυφαίνειν τοῖς θείοις τὴν ἐπιβάλλουσαν εὐσέβειαν. Sect. V. c. 13. p. 133. Ἐν δὲ
τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς εὐσέβειας μυρίοις, καὶ δὴ ἐν τῷ θυηπολικῷ μέρει κ. τ. λ. It is to be
observed, likewise, that in the religious language of the time evoεßns was equiv-
alent to oεßóuevos (Acts 10: 2.7). Hence avoißela was sometimes used to ex-
press the secondary idea of conversion from heathenism to Judaism, and to de-
note Jewish piety. Thus it occurs in Josephus Antiq. cap. 2. n. 5. xaqñòs εv-
καρπὸς εὐ
ośßelas; and in Ant. L. cit. c. 2. n. 4, tòv Fεov evoɛßer is to adopt the Jewish
religion, and c. 4. n. 1. ý πęоs ↑εòv svoέßɛia is the adoption of Judaism. To re-
commend this was not the apostle's object; and hence, in Epistles to whole
churches, where he had to guard against misunderstanding or misinterpretation
on the part of a promiscuous collection of persons, he had reason to avoid this
expression.
568
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
count Paul, in the Epistle under discussion, is earnest against the suoß-
ɛa of these men (2 Tim. 3: 5. 1 Tim. 6: 5. 2 Tim. 3: 12, 13), and con-
trasts with their opinions the exalted doctrine of genuine voßa
(1 Tim. 3: 16, and 6: 3), retaining the word but correcting and refin-
ing the idea.
Thus we need no longer be surprised that these expressions do not
likewise occur in other writings of the apostle, in which he is speaking
of totally different things, or in which he alludes to the same errors and
errorists, but speaks of them in a different way. It is only in the Epis-
tles to his friends, and particularly in those to Timothy, that he has en-
tered into a minute description of these men and their errors, for the
purpose of inciting his younger assistants to caution and watchfulness.
In a similar way we may explain why in the Epistles to Timothy the
apostle calls himself κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος, and διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν (1
Tim. 2: 7. 2 Tim. 1:11). On the subject of his appointment as apostle of
the Gentiles, he has expressed himself fully in but two of his Epistles to
entire churches, viz. those to the Romans and Galatians. For, in the ca-
pacity of teacher he was bound to observe uniformity in his conduct to-
wards all believers, and not to exhibit a preference for either of the two
branches of the Christian school; nor was he to concede to either a
prior claim to his services, so long as he could avoid it. In the Epistle
to the Romans, in which he defends the cause of the heathen against
Jewish presumption and arrogance, he avows himself (11: 13) in part,
ἐφ' ὅσον εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, apostle of the Gentiles, without
forsaking the Jews or at all resigning his interest in their welfare; and
in the 15th chapter he gives his labors in behalf of the heathen the
aspect of a fulfilment of ancient promises, and justifies them further by
the cooperation of Jesus Christ, by means of which he labored success-
fully to subject the Gentiles to the Messiah. In the Epistle to the Ga-
latians, in which he opposes the commixture of Judaism with the doc-
trines of Christianity, he maintains his apostolic authority against such
as ranked him, in respect to divine illumination, below the apostles at
Jerusalem, by stating the fact that these apostles themselves had ac-
knowledged his high vocation and authority to convert the heathen, and
had accounted him their equal (2: 6-10). He permits the fact to
speak for itself, without drawing any inferences from it in favor of his
office as apostle to the Gentiles, because the subject which he was
treating did not require any such enlargement. Thus much has he
said to entire churches on the subject of his relation to the heathen. It
is plain that, in these cases, he speaks not hastily, but with self-
restraint and circumspection, that he might not mortify the believers
converted from Judaism, by declaring the Gentiles to have been the
principal, and themselves only a secondary and subordinate object of his
mission. In the Epistles to Timothy he had nothing of this kind to ap-
prehend, and to a man from whom he had nothing to conceal on the
subject he could express himself definitely and without circumlocution
respecting the chief purpose of his ministry and direction of his efforts :
I am an ambassador to the Gentiles, their apostle and teacher.
0
Another source of objection is the asseveration πιστὸς ὁ λόγος. This
occurs three times in the first Epistle to Timothy, again in the second,
and also in that to Titus (1 Tim. 1: 15. 3: 1. 4: 9. 2 Tim. 2: 11. Tit. 3:
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
569
τ
8), but is not found in any other Epistle of Paul. Let us see what is
the case in his other Epistles. In these, instead of the words oTOS &
moTÓS
τ
λόγος, he employs as asseverations the expression πιστὸς ὁ Θεός (2
Cor. 1: 18), μάorvs μoú čotiv ó vós (Rom. 1; 9. Philipp. 1:8), vµεîs
μάρτυρες καὶ ὁ θεός (1 Thess. 2: 10). Also, αλήθειαν λέγω, ἐν Χρισ
to overdoμat (Rom. 9: 1, which is repeated in 1 Tim. 2: 7). One
still more solemn is, ἐγὼ δὲ μάρτυρα τὸν θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦμαι ἐπὶ τὴν
un yun (2 Cor. 1:23). He even uses one in the form of prayer,
and with a doxology: ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστ
τοῦ οἶδεν, ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι (2 Cor.
11:31). These expressions are indeed very different from the one
first mentioned; but it is obvious to remark here also, that the cases
were different in respect to the different Epistles. We know that these
latter asseverations were addressed to a large number of persons of dis-
similar dispositions, to whole churches and congregations, in writing to
whom he appeals for confirmation to God and Christ. On the contrary,
the affirmations in the other cases were not intended to be awfully
solemn; they were addressed only to friends, and their whole empha-
sis is comprised in the words лotos ó kóyos, which were sufficient for
ιστὸς
friends who were acquainted with the apostle's sentiments and the im-
port of the words.
As to the general phraseology of these Epistles, their distinguished
opponent himself admits that "they have much of Paul's manner in their
language," and shows this by several examples. He likewise perceived
the resemblance which their principles and reasonings bear to those of
Paul.¹
But, he continues, has their language entirely the same characteris-
tics as that of the apostle's Epistles which are acknowledged to be
genuine? Has it not more ease and perspicuity? etc. A very singu-
lar objection! Is not this always the case? Are not ease and perspi-
cuity special characteristics of letters to friends, while compositions in-
tended for a larger circle, and writings on matters of business, in re-
gard to the impression and effect of which we are anxious and appre-
hensive, bear marks of the state of mind in which they were com-
posed? It is an unreasonable course, to take writings of the latter
description as a standard by which to measure Epistles to friends, and
because these do not agree with the standard in all respects, to reject
them; as though the priest's mantle and his private dress must be of the
same fashion. The assertion which is afterwards made by the oppo-
nent of these three Epistles, that the other writings of Paul are far more
unstudied and careless than these, and were, apparently, rather hasty
than elaborate compositions, is, when stated thus generally, absolutely
false.
The question, How it happened that Marcion did not insert these
three Epistles in his anоorolizóv? was probably intended as an argu-
ment of an external character. If we consider their contents, we shall
be set at rest on this point. In them, and in them alone, we find un-
sparing denunciation of the heretical systems which were springing up in
Asia by the side of Christianity, and a description of the character of
Eichhorn's Einleit. in das N. T. III. Bd. Ist Hälfte. § 247 seq. p. 317, 19.
72
570
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
their authors, by no means flattered in any of its features. Such descrip-
tions afforded occasion for comparisons, materials for parallels, which it
was most agreeable to avoid. On this account it did not seem advisa-
ble to Marcion to take pains himself for the preservation of such docu-
ments, or to admit their authority by receiving them into his apostolical
Codex.
$ 135.
The objections of this learned man which have been hitherto enu-
merated are general, and applicable to all the three Epistles alike.
He now proceeds, however, to present historical difficulties which re-
spect each of them separately, and which, in his opinion, prove it to be
impossible that Paul should have written them. As I have assigned to
the Epistle to Titus the first place in the order of time, I will give it the
same in the present discussion.
The various opinions in regard to the voyage of the apostle to Crete,
which occasioned the Epistle to Titus, may be estimated as is thought
fit; I am responsible only for my own. But I can hardly recognize
them under the distortion which they have undergone.¹
I am in per-
plexity; I believe that I expressed myself with perspicuity, and reluc-
tantly repeat what I have already said. Paul determined, after his first
European journey, to visit Palestine. He embarked at Corinth, and land-
ed at Ephesus (18: 18, 19). There were two different ways, I supposed,
in which he might have arrived at Crete; either from having embarked
in a vessel which, for reasons connected with its freight or other business,
touched at Crete on its passage to Ephesus, or from having been driv-
en thither by a storm. The first supposition I regarded as not improb-
able, inasmuch as Apollos, who sailed from Ephesus to Corinth (Acts
18: 24—19: 1), likewise touched at Crete, and was commended to the
good offices of Titus there (Tit. 3: 13); whence it would seem to have
been no uncommon route of intercourse between Corinth and Ephesus.
I did not, however, reject the other possibility, from the fact that Paul,
in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, refers to three shipwrecks of
which no mention is made in the Acts, and which, notwithstanding,
demand a place somewhere in the course of events. These are the two
contingencies which I presented as accounting for the circuitous pas-
sage from Corinth to Ephesus by way of Crete. The first was left
unnoticed; the second was assailed. Luke, it is said, does not appear
to have known any thing of such a storm. But this whole portion of the
history is passed over without detail; it is merely hinted at: ¿§éndeı eis
τὴν Συρίαν—κατήντησε δὲ εἰς ῎Εφεσον. What was the reason that
Paul embarked for Syria and, instead of going thither, landed at Ephe-
sus? A trifling difference, amounting to only thirty days' journey by
land, and ten, at least, by sea! Let an explanation be given how it
happened that the apostle got so far out of his way, and then it may be
said that there is no reason for supposing any storm. The other argu-
ments by which I supported my opinion require no additional remark.
2
1 Eichhorn, Einleit. in das N. T. III. Bd. 1st H. § 250. p. 376.
2 The distance stated from Ephesus to Antioch, the capital of hither Syria,
is literally authenticated. Philostorg. H. E. L. I. c. 3. Aieorwoŋs de nai tîs
Εφέσου ἐκ τῆς Αντιόχου ὁδὸν ἡμέρων μάλιστα τριάκοντα.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
571
The objections in relation to Nicopolis concern others; I have des-
ignated my Nicopolis, and no attempt is made to prove that my opin-
ion in relation to it is not perfectly correct, admitting my general position.
$136.
Next in order comes the first Epistle to Timothy. We have before
shown the relation which it sustained to historical events. Had the re-
cent opponent of this Epistle paid suitable attention to our remarks, he
would have had fewer objections to make. Instead of doing this, he
has occupied himself particularly with the hypothesis of Mosheim,'
which presents a fine opportunity for accumulating objections to one so
disposed.
Passing over the historical difficulties which the learned opponent of
the Epistle urges, not so much against the Epistle, as against the opin-
ions of Mosheim and Benson, whose merits I honour, without, however,
coinciding with their ideas on this subject, I feel myself called upon to
reply to what he says of the view of the Ephesian church which lies at
the basis of this Epistle, and the representation which it gives in regard
to Timothy.
Is it credible, it is asked, that the church at Ephesus should have
continued so long without teachers, and have been so completely igno-
rant respecting ecclesiastical arrangements, as the 1st Epistle to Timothy
would lead us to suppose?
The apostle's first business was to communicate instruction; and
until this had been done for some time he was not able to select from
among the great number of believers those who were at once reputable
in their lives and best qualified for the ministerial office. The appoint-
ment of teachers, therefore, was always one of his latest concerns
(1 Tim. 5: 22). Another point, too, is to be considered. When the
apostle was founding a church, he shared the office of teacher with no
one; he stood alone as the divine deputy. In other business he had
Titus and Timothy for his assistants. It was not till the apostolic work
was concluded, and Paul left the place, that it was time to surrender
the church to the charge of others; on which account he postponed
doing so till Pentecost, the solemn day of the gift of the Holy Ghost,
which he had designated as the limit of his stay at Ephesus. An up-
roar, however, drove him from the city at an earlier period; and hence
nothing remained but to appoint Timothy over them, and to exhort
them to respect him as his deputy.
Further; the Epistle does by no means represent the Ephesians to
have been ignorant of ecclesiastical arrangements. They might easily
have become acquainted with them at Colosse, Laodicea, and elsewhere.
Paul even considered it superfluous to instruct them respecting the
mode of electing their officers, the duties of the bishop, presbyter etc.,
or the respective limits of their official functions.
They might easily understand, moreover, that a quarrelsome person
or a drunkard ought not to be made an elder of a church, which should
be a pattern to the rest of the world in respect to purity of morals. But
this is not the point to which Paul directs attention; he speaks of such
1 Eichhorn, Einleit. in das N. T. IIId. Bd. 1. H. § 248. p. 333-338.
572
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
as were once of this character, but had now reformed and become mem-
bers of the church. These, after their reformation, might be equally
virtuous with others, and might perhaps excel them in capacity. Now,
if such presented themselves as candidates for offices in the church,
were their claims to be admitted, or not? This was the point to be de-
cided. In the church, considered by itself, there might be little scru-
ple as to their appointment; but, considering the reputation to be main-
tained by the church among those without, they ought not to be admit-
ted as candidates. Among their heathen fellow-citizens they were more
notorious for their vices than for their reformation, which was of a pri-
vate and noiseless character. If such persons were known to be officers
in the church, the reputation of the whole body of Christians was en-
dangered. Most of the directions in this Epistle in regard to church-
officers are, like these, not instructions as to their duties, but restrictive
and preventive in regard to the claims of importunate persons.
The case is the same as to the vɛdquroi, who might venture to pre-
sent themselves as candidates for offices, while there were in the church
older Christians, who had been more thoroughly tried in faith and doc-
trine. So too, in relation to the women who might claim to be enroll
ed among the widows and to share in the benefactions which they re-
ceived (5: 9-17).
Then as to Timothy himself. He is, it is said, according to this
Epistle, a novice in every thing; and what an inconsistency is here! A.
short time before, Paul described him in one of his Epistles to the Co-
rinthians (1 Cor. 4: 17), as a man thoroughly acquainted with the Chris-
tian system, as he himself invariably inculcated it; while, on the other
hand, in the 1st Epistle to Timothy the apostle is obliged to direct his
attention to the first principles of doctrine, that he may know how to
conduct (1 Tim. 3: 16). Let any man, who can, comprehend this, ex-
claims here the opponent of this Epistle.¹
Still it is not so very difficult of comprehension. It is one thing to
be thoroughly acquainted with a system in its whole extent, and to be
able to answer questions and solve doubts in regard to it, and another
to be able to select from the whole, according to the peculiar wants
and circumstances of a particular place, those doctrines which need to
be enforced there more earnestly than in other places. The latter was
the point which the apostle had in view, viz. what was suitable to the
local condition of Ephesus, and, with reference to this point, far from de-
tailing his system as though he was writing to a learner, he merely fur-
nishes one whom he knew to be well informed on the general subject a
concise suggestion, which, to us, who are not so well informed, consti-
tutes one of the difficult passages in the New Testament.
α
Consider for a moment the subjects of moral instruction which are
enjoined upon him by Paul, with the words, rauta nagάyyelle (1 Tim.
4: 11. 5:7 seq. 6: 17). We cannot suppose that Paul imagined Tim-
othy to be ignorant that it was not bodily exercise but godliness which
was profitable to salvation, that the morality of a wanton widow was
not on a very secure foundation, or that the silly pride of wealth was not
becoming in a Christian church. The apostle, as every one must see,
Eichhorn, Einleit. in das N. T. IIId. Bd. 1. H. § 248. p. 340.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
573
merely takes notice of certain local vices, against which it was Timo-
thy's duty to warn those under his care. Viewed in this light, other
similar charges which have been made against this Epistle become null
and void.
The opponent of this Epistle proceeds to contrast the representation
of Timothy in 1 Thess. 3: 1, 2, and 1 Cor. 4: 17, viz. as well skilled in
the business of his calling, with that in the 1st Epistle addressed to him
by Paul, in which he appears to be a novice without any knowledge of
affairs. Let us not be disturbed by the cases adduced. The fact that
Paul sent him to the Thessalonians, with the charge of encouraging
them to perseverance in the doctrines which they had been taught
(1 Thess. 3: 1, 2), and that he likewise sent him to Corinth as his de-
puty, with the important commission to explain and solve, from his
knowledge of the apostle's sentiments, such doubts as might still
exist in regard to the subjects of the 1st Epistle to this church, does
indeed prove that Timothy was a peculiarly trust-worthy agent;
but neither of these commissions bore any comparison with that which
was now entrusted to him. He had never before stood at the head of a
numerous body of Christians, empowered to direct their ecclesiastical
affairs, the appointments to the ministry, and to other offices in the
church. Thus we have here the same Timothy, but another state of
things. To be able and learned is a different affair from possessing
that experience and knowledge of mankind adequate to the proper
performance of duties in which a high degree of these qualities is re-
quisite. To supply the want of these was the principal object of Tim-
othy's more experienced instructor.
It is true that Timothy ranked as colleague of the apostle, and, what
is more, was his friend and loówuxos (Phil. 2: 20); still he was not on
that account the older or more experienced. It was six years after the
time when Paul made Timothy his companion (Acts 16: 1 seq.) that the
occurrence at Ephesus took place. When Paul associated him with
himself, he was not yet an adeqós, he was only a μadŋrýs, a Christian
disciple. If we suppose him to have been at that time 20 years of age,
he was yet a young man when the Epistle was written, and it was ne-
cessary that Paul should rouse and quicken his caution against being
led astray by prejudice, did noоzoiuaros, or beguiled by partiality,
agóoxhois (1 Tim. 5: 21). It is easy to see that Paul endeavors to sup-
ply Timothy's want of knowledge of the world and of mankind-not
any want of acquaintance with Christianity.
7
It was not the case when Paul sent Timothy to Thessalonica, nor
when he sent him to Corinth, as it was when he left Ephesus,
that circumstances prevented him from giving Timothy any prep-
aration and instruction in respect to the subject of his commis-
sion. As to the kind or amount of instruction and advice which
he
gave him on the first two occasions we have no account, to enable us
to judge concerning the contents of the Epistle which in this case
he was compelled to substitute for oral instruction. In default of
these, we may be guided in our judgment of this Epistle by the gener-
al truth, that the contents of any letter of instruction sent to Timothy
at Ephesus by the apostle, the degree of particularity which it must ex-
hibit, depended not solely upon the character of the man for whom it
574
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
was intended, but likewise upon the solicitude of him who wrote it.
Thus, had we been able to form our estimate by the first standard, the
latter would completely overthrow it. Even granting that Paul was un-
necessarily particular in his directions to Timothy, the circumstance is
but a confirmation of the old observation: "Habet hoc solicitudo, quod
omnia necessaria putat."1
This anxiety about minute points thoroughly confutes the charge
sometimes made against this Epistle, that it does not contain any of
those particularities in which the apostle is so much wont to indulge.
There are so many references to the vices of certain classes and indi-
viduals in the church, so many precautions and marks of anxiety, that
our critic took umbrage at them, and drew from them the conclusion
that Timothy was supposed and represented in this Epistle to be more
deficient in experience and capacity than was really the case, and the
church more ignorant, than they probably were. Might he not as prop-
erly have inferred, that the writer was intimately acquainted with this
church, had clearly before his mind the character of each individual,
and in particular, the erroneous feelings of some as respected the organ-
ization of the church, and, like a careful father of a family, when sep-
arated from it, was desirous of noticing in his letter every thing which
concerned his household, and of providing against every apprehended
impropriety?
Our opponent requires us to specify some allusions to occurrences
in the life of Timothy, and we refer him to the following. 1 Tim. 1: 18. 4:
14. 5: 23. 6: 12. The objection that the apostle does not say a word
of the progress of his journey and the state of his health, as is custom-
ary in writing to friends, might as well have been omitted. Such mat-
ters Paul was accustomed to leave to the bearers of his Epistles, who
he took care should be trust-worthy men (Col. 4:7. Eph. 6: 21, 22).
The fact that so many topics are referred to in the Epistle, and the
careful attention given to particulars, though it has been attempted to turn
these circumstances to its prejudice, rather vouch for its genuineness.
Such must have been the nature of an Epistle written by Paul with ref-
erence to a church in the midst of which he had lived a long time;
every member of which he had been acquainted with and had instruct-
ed and exhorted in public and in private, and had urged with tears to
repentance and reformation (Acts 20: 20, 31); and which had only be-
come the dearer to him from his labors and anxieties on its behalf.
Compare it with the Epistle to Titus. The latter, it is true, contains beau-
tiful passages, expressive of elevated feeling, but is, notwithstanding, in
the main a business-letter, more general in its nature, written with a sen-
timent of contempt for the abandoned people among whom Titus was
to commence the duties of his office. It seems to have originated mere-
ly from the dictates of duty, connected with half-extinguished hopes.
On the other hand, the Epistle to Timothy is written with anxious at-
tention to particulars, is indicative of solicitude and numerous trifling
apprehensions, of sympathy and affection.
Sometimes, too, the apostle's condition gleams plainly through it.
Expelled from Ephesus, and uncertain whether the unquiet state of things
1 Plin. Epist. L. VI. Ep. 9.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
575
+
at Corinth would permit him to appear in the midst of that church with-
out insult, he sometimes cast his eyes back upon Ephesus with a hope
that the commotion might have so far subsided, as to allow him to ap-
pear there again, through the favor and intervention of the principal men
of the city (Acts 19: 31). At times he seems to count most on this pos-
sibility; at times to trust more to the Corinthians. Both these hopes
are alluded to together in 1 Tim. 3: 14, 15; and in 4: 13 the first re-
curs again. It would seem as though, pressed on opposite sides by two
misfortunes, he could not determine which was the greatest.
$137.
We will now direct our attention to the 2d Epistle to Timothy. I
must here recur to the observation that there would not have been room
for all the objections made against it, had my remarks, which were not,
I think, entirely superficial, been properly regarded. I refer particu-
larly to the objection respecting Trophimus and Erastus (2 Tim. 4: 20).¹
The next difficulty relates to Aquila, whom the author of this Epis-
tle salutes as though he were at Ephesus (2 Tim. 4: 19), while, not
long before, Paul sent him a salutation as being resident at Rome
(Rom. 16: 3). But the period of time between these two letters
amounts to more than three years; and that one should change his
place of residence once in three years is not to be reckoned as an im-
possibility which overthrows the genuineness of the Epistle. It is even
possible that he possessed at that time a spacious house at Ephesus
(1 Cor. 16: 19).
Another objection I must present in the very words of my learned op-
ponent. Would the apostle, he says, in order to animate and confirm
the fortitude of his friend, have mentioned merely the persecutions
(2 Tim. 3: 11. Comp. Acts 13: 14–52. 14: 1—6) of which Timothy
had not been an eye-witness, inasmuch as they occurred before his con-
version? Would he have passed over in total silence the far more cruel
ones to which he was subjected at Philippi, at Thessalonica, at Jerusa-
lem, and which took place under Timothy's own eyes? etc.
In examining 2 Tim. 3: 11, we see that Paul commences an enume-
ratio: ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ, ἐν ᾿Ικονίῳ, ἐν Λύστροις. He does not pursue it,
however, but passes to general phraseology, otovus dewynovs x. t. λ.
The reason why he mentions Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, is plainly,
that he meant to commence with his earliest journey among the Gentiles;
and the reason why he does not pursue the enumeratio further is, that
Timothy, having been an eye-witness, could pursue it himself. Con-
scious of this, Paul passes to general language, and dispenses with a
long catalogue, which would have been superfluous to Timothy.
As to what this learned writer says in opposition to those who refer
the composition of the Epistle to a second imprisonment at Rome, it
does not bear against me, nor, in my opinion, against the Epistle.
Whoever maintains this Epistle to be an ideal composition, belies its
character. It is evidently an effusion of high-wrought feeling on the
part of one who had just passed through the severest storm in his life,
1 Eichhorn, Einleit. in das N. T. IIId Bd. 1. H. § 249. p. 358 seq.
576
PAUL'S EPIstles.
and had breasted that storm without any assistance. All but Luke had
previously consulted their own safety, and abandoned the apostle alone
and unfriended to his fate. Even Titus had not evinced sufficient cour-
age to venture anything in behalf of his master and friend. There was
now, indeed, a momentary calm; but a second storm was certain,
which it was to be feared would be as violent as the former. These af-
flictions and grounds of complaint against his friends, the apostle in a
dignified manner refrains from noticing particularly, through the whole
Epistle, until near its close, when he speaks of them briefly, with emo-
tion, but yet with forbearance (4: 6 seq.)
From the beginning to the end of the Epistle, however, there is evin-
ced a gloomy suppressed feeling of danger and of abused confidence;
and the latter, not so much intentionally as on account of the predomi-
nant tone of his mind, is directed towards one who had never given occa-
sion for it. Soon after the commencement of the Epistle, the apostle occu-
pies himself with accumulating all the reasons for assurance in respect
to the fidelity and constancy of his young friend; the example of his moth-
er and grandmother, his consecration to the high office of the ministry,
the former proofs of his disposition, the promises of Jesus Christ, and
the rewards of a future state of existence. Among these he scatters
instructions and exhortations, as though, uncertain whether he should
ever again see him, he was desirous before his death to give him his last
advice, as a son on whom his hopes rested, and whom he silently regard-
ed as heir to his apostolic office.
The Epistle was evidently written with all those feelings which would
naturally have arisen in the apostle's situation, and after what he had
just experienced. All the parts of it coincide with his condition, and
many passages, it cannot be denied, are instructive and spirited.
But what a contrast between this and the Epistle to the Ephesians,
though they were written at no great distance of time from each other!
In the one to the Ephesians, or, if we may thus denominate it, to the
Asiatics and Phrygians, Paul speaks, if not without apprehension, yet
with quiet composure, of his uncertain fate. True; but this difference
might be the work of a few days. When he wrote the Epistle to Tim-
othy, his first examination, in which he with difficulty escaped sentence
of death on account of the violent attacks of his enemies, had evidently
annihilated all his hopes (4: 14, 18); but when he wrote to the Ephe-
sians, no fearful event of this kind had bowed his spirits. He first
commends himself to their prayers, that he may fearlessly advocate the
cause for which he was in bonds (Eph. 6: 18-21). The two composi-
tions were separated by this intermediate event. In the Epistle to the
Ephesians he shows himself ignorant of his danger; in that to Timo-
thy we see that it has transcended his worst anticipations.
The Epistle to the Asiatics and Phrygians, therefore, bears the stamp
of that undisturbed self-possession which he at first enjoyed in his con-
finement. In this situation, the youngest children of Christianity,
churches of recent origin, which shortly before his imprisonment he
had superintended, while resident in their vicinity at Ephesus, were up-
permost in his mind. The remembrance of these rising churches filled
him with joy and gratitude on account of the happy result of his mis-
sion, and on the other hand with apprehension on account of their
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
577
youthful standing, by which his mind was raised in his seclusion to that
prayerful and solemn tone, which is so eminently apparent in this circu-
lar Epistle. Such was the effect of the difference in circumstances;
in the one case we observe calmness, with pleasant recollections of the
days of active life, and in the other a shuddering dread of a danger
the extent of which was before unappreciated.
$138.
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Philippi was the first European city in which Paul preached. It was
situated east of the river Strymon, in that part of Macedonia which was
formerly considered as belonging to Thrace. Its situation, and the
thoroughfare from Asia to Europe which was in its vicinity, are describ-
ed at length by Appian.¹ By Luke (Acts 16: 12) it is called a Roman
colony, and the nowτŋ nolis of that part of Macedonia: and yet it was
not so in point of rank, for Amphipolis took precedence of it ;2 nor as to
its situation in respect to the voyage from Troas (Acts 16: 11), for the
apostle came first to Neapolis. To solve this difficulty we must have
recourse to numismatics. The denomination nowτ nóhis frequently
occurs on coins. Two or three cities in the same country or province
assume this title at the same time; and from these coins it appears that
it signified nothing more than the enjoyment of certain liberties and
privileges, not by any means exclusive.3
4
That it was a Roman colony, is confirmed by Pliny ; and we learn
from other sources that in this character it enjoyed distinguished privi-
leges. The colony was founded or at least considerably enlarged, by
Augustus himself.5
The apostle at first was very well received here, and met with ready
credence; but he was accidentally imprisoned and harshly treated, un-
til he declared himself a Roman citizen, when he was restored to liber-
ty. He then went to Amphipolis (Acts 16: 12 seq.)
$ 139.
When Paul was afterwards a prisoner at Rome, the Philippian Chris-
tians, who must have become meanwhile a flourishing church, evinced
that they were still grateful, and sent him assistance in his time of need
(Phil. 4: 18). He wrote a letter to them, in which he expressed his
thanks. This was probably the last Epistle which he composed in
1 Appian, De bell. civil. L. IV. c. 105, 106.
2 Livius, L. XLV. c. 19.
3 Eckhel, Doctrin. Vet. Numm. P. I. Vol. IV. c. 6. p. 282.
4 Hist. Nat. IV. 11.
5 Digest. Leg. VIII. n. 8. "In provinciâ Macedonia Dyrracheni, Cassan-
drenses, Philippenses. . . juris Italici.' Gfr. Walch, Dissert. in acta Pauli
Philippens. Jenæ, 1726. Cellar. Not. Orb. Ant. T. I.
73
578
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
Rome; for he exhibits in it a clearer anticipation of deliverance than
in any previous Epistle (1: 12, 14). He even intended to permit Tim-
othy, his most confidential assistant, to visit them (2: 19), and in a short
time, razews, to come to them himself.
$ 140.
The contents of the Epistle are as follows: I thank God and rejoice
concerning the increase of your knowledge and love. My fortunes.
have been so beneficial in their influence, that some have even been in-
duced by them to preach the Gospel, not always indeed from pure mo-
tives, but still Christ is preached, at which I will rejoice (—1: 26). Let
your conduct be worthy of the Gospel; live in unity; be disinterested,
as was Christ, who humbled himself and took the form of a servant
(-2: 17). If it be my lot to die, I will rejoice, but the prospect of my
liberation is daily brightening (-2:30). Have no confidence in circum-
cision; I have peculiar reason for confidence in it, but Christ is all to me;
I long only for union with him. Follow my instruction, and listen not
to false teachers (-4: 2). Continue steadfast in the Gospel and friends
of every virtue. I rejoice that you cared for me; your beneficence has
always been eminently conspicuous. I and all the brethren salute you.
§ 141.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
This Epistle, as its plan, the actual character of its different parts,
and almost every passage, testify, was written for Jews, and moreover,
for such Jews as were minutely acquainted with the ceremonies of re-
ligious worship at Jerusalem, the temple-service and things connected
therewith. True, this acquaintance might be possessed by every learn-
ed Jew; but a promiscuous collection of people (such as the author of
the Epistle certainly addressed) could not be supposed to possess it, un-
less they had opportunity to acquire it from actual and frequent obser-
vation.
Chrysostom, therefore, is correct in his general view, when he infers,
simply from the knowledge previously requisite to understand the Epis-
tle, that it was written to Jews in Palestine. All who admit that the
original language of the Epistle was Hebrew adopt this opinion.
As clearly do such circumstances respecting the Christian church to
which the Epistle was addressed, as are scattered through it, direct us
to Palestine and Jerusalem. Some of its teachers and leaders had al-
ready distinguished themselves by an exemplary martyrdom in honor
of the faith (13: 7). This had been the fate of two of the principal
Christians in Jerusalem, viz. James and Stephen.
The readers of the Epistle had already endured many trials in be-
half of the truth; some had been made, under torture and insult, a
gazing-stock to the multitude. Many had been cast into prison, and
had suffered the spoiling of their goods (10: 32, 34). Such persecu-
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
579
tion by the public authorities on account of religion had not yet been
seen out of Palestine and its capital, anywhere in the Roman empire.
The government did not deviate from its well-known universal tolera-
tion till the time of Nero's persecution.¹
All this had already befallen them. Only one thing was wanting.
They had not yet, as in the days of the Maccabees (Heb. 11: 34-39),
defended their religion at the expense of blood and life (12: 4).2 Mat-
ters had not yet arrived at such a pitch even in Palestine. No slaughters
and massacres had yet occurred among the people. Hatred towards
Christianity had as yet contented itself with a few victims, such as
James and Stephen; not because the Sanhedrim wanted disposition to
proceed further, but because it wanted the power under the Roman
government.
Those to whom the Epistle was sent were strongly inclined to apos-
tasy; for which reason the writer in many passages very forcibly repre-
sents the serious character of this step, the difficulty of retracing it af-
ter it had been taken, and the peril attendant on it (3:7-4: 13. 6: 3,
4 seq. 10: 19-32, and 12: 25). The Jews were indeed always ob-
jects of complaint in many churches, for the vehemence with which
they maintained the obligation of their institutions even upon Chris-
tians. But a ferment which could not be suppressed by any of the
apostles, not even by James himself, and which avowedly looked for-
ward to the refusal of obedience and the dissolution of the church as
no very remote occurrences, such wild zeal for the law that no hes-
itation was felt to cut off thousands of believers from Christian com-
munion for the most trifling reason, was exhibited in Palestine only at
the close of the administration of Felix (Acts 21: 17, 23 seq.). The
whole tenor and tendency of the Epistle were shaped by this condition
of things.
$142.
The Jewish religion in Palestine was particularly alluring and seduc-
tive, on account of its external pomp and splendid ceremonies, which
agreeably occupied the imagination and all the senses; while, on the
contrary, the Christians, simple and noiseless in their assemblies, were
only a body of retired and quiet friends to virtue, without high priest,
altar, or sacrifices.
The Jewish feasts were so many days of universal festivity through-
out the nation, on which men from all parts of the country met together,
became acquainted with each other, and confirmed acquaintances al-
ready made. It was these which excited affection and fraternal feeling
among the whole people, and kept up an unparalleled spirit of nation-
ality. Many of these feasts, as commemorations of ancient national
benefits, roused every sensibility in favor of Moses and the law; others
were consolatory, like the feast of expiation, on which the high priest
1 Gibbon, Hist. Decline and Fall of the Rom. Emp. Vol. I. chap. 2.
2 It is not true that any slaughters or massacres had yet occurred among the
populace; and yet this supposition is Eichhorn's principal argument that the
Epistle could not have been written to Palestine (Einleit. in das N. T. III. Bd.
2d. H. § 266. p. 486).
580
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
appeared before God in the most holy place and made atonement for
the sins of the whole people.
All this Christianity wanted, and among the inhabitants of Palestine
the deficiency was a subject of reproach. Many minds, which were not
prepared to worship in spirit and in truth, could not be satisfied or per-
manently controlled by such a system. When other circumstances
were added, such as persecution and awakened patriotism, as was the
case when the final rebellion was maturing, many readily resolved to
give up a religion which did not seem to supply the place of that of their
ancestors.
Objections of this nature, which local circumstances first occasioned
and strengthened, the writer was obliged to obviate, and it was neces-
sary that he should satisfy the Jews respecting them, in order to prevent
their relapse. When they extolled above every thing else the preemi-
nence of the law, which they received by angels and by Moses, the man
of God, and objected to Christianity that it took its origin from a des-
pised and suffering man; when they accused it of having no offerings,
no high priest, and what was so important to sinful men, no sin-offering,
and no feast of atonement, and of wanting every thing that made religion
venerable and consolatory to the Jews; such important objections
could not remain unanswered without injury to the cause of truth.
$143.
The contents of the Epistle are as follows: He shows, on the con-
trary, the superiority of Christianity to the Mosaic law, from the dignity
of its founder, who is even higher than the angels, to whom the Jews
ascribed the giving of the law into the hands of the author of the Jew-
ish constitution (-2: 12). Though he humbled himself and bore the
sins of men, this was only that he might be a more merciful high
priest (-3:). He then shows his preeminence above Moses, the medi-
ator of the law, and solemnly warns them of the difficulty of returning,
if they apostatize from Christ (-4: 14).
He then passes to the high-priesthood, and shows that Jesus was ap-
pointed to this dignity by God, and emphatically warns them not to ven-
ture the step of separation from him (-6: 20). He then shows the na-
ture of the high-priesthood of Jesus; that he is not a priest of a Jewish
order, but of the order of Melchisedeck, who in dignity excelled even
their forefather Abraham,' and all his descendants, Aaron and the tribe
of Levi; that Jesus was even superior to Melchisedeck, was a priest of
the new covenant, of unequalled rank, who entered into the holiest
of holies to atone for the people with blood, but not that of goats; that
it was not necessary for him to do this every year, as it was for the
Jewish High Priest; that he entered once only with his own blood,
and by this offering had atoned for all men; that therefore no offer-
ings were necessary in future, and a new order of things, a new dispen-
1 Abraham is not, it is true, the principal subject here; but he was indispen-
sable to the writer's purpose. According to the well-known saying of the Jews,
the Messiah is certainly superior to Abraham, Moses, and the ministering an-
.. ורים מאברהם נשא ממשה וגבה מאד ממלאכי שרת: gels
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
581
sation, had arrived, that the ceremonies of the law were merely types of
that which was actually exhibited in the new religion (--10: 19).
If, now, we have certain access to God through Jesus, our punishment
will be the sorer if we cast him from us. To continue his adherents
will indeed require courage, but faith will impart this. Faith is hence-
forth the way of justification and union with God; or rather it has
always been so to all righteous and holy men, and ought to be to those
whom he addresses; it should cheer them in their sufferings (~12:
12). They have come to a holier Jerusalem, and to the mediator of the
new covenant; they have another altar of sacrifice, and another offer-
ing, viz. Jesus, who died without the city, as the sin-offering was for-
merly burned without the camp.
$144.
In what language was this Epistle originally written? Some of the
Christian fathers assert that it was originally composed in Hebrew.
Thus (e. g.) Clement of Alexandria. According to him Luke transla-
ted it into Greek, whence this Epistle and the Acts resemble each oth-
er very much in style and coloring.¹
Origen, however, is not inclined to regard it as a translation, but ex-
plains its origin in another way. He thinks that the general thoughts
were expressed by the apostle Paul, and arranged and clothed in their
present phraseology by some one who listened to their oral delivery.2
Such is his opinion, and about its validity he seems to have no doubt.
Thus a Hebrew original was not, to his knowledge, supported by his-
tory. This supposition had no more value in his eyes than his own hy-
pothesis, which he at least considered to be as well-founded, if he did
not give it the preference.
.
But he seems, it will be said, to adduce historical authority; for, in
proposing the question, who was the author of this work as respected its
written composition, he says expressly: ἡ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φθάσασα ἱστο
gia, the iorocia that has come down to us decides in favor of Luke or
Clement of Rome.
ἱστο
But ioroola here does not mean history; it has the general sig-
nification of information, account. His language is: "The Epistle is,
according to the testimony of the ancients, to be ascribed to Paul; but
who gave it its written form, God alone knows. The iorogía of some
has come down to us, who say that Clement of Rome composed it, and
of others who regard Luke as the one who committed it to writing." If
some said one thing and some another, and God only knew the truth of
the matter, the expression iotopia is certainly not to be taken in the
sense of history. Besides, the iorogia did not relate to the question
as to a Hebrew original or the contrary, but only to the question, to
whom, in case Paul only furnished the ideas, which were written down
by another, the merit of thus composing it was to be ascribed.
The intended statements of the ancients, therefore, were mere con-
jectures which were thrown out in order to explain the difference of
style which it was thought was perceived between the Epistle to the
1 Euseb. H. E. VI. 14.
2 Euseb. H. E. VI. 25.
582
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
Hebrews and the other writings of the apostle; and as such they do not
in the slightest degree limit our investigations.
From internal evidence the original cannot by any means have been
Hebrew. In the second chapter, v. 6, 7, 8, the author cites from
Ps. 8 the words: What is man?-and yet thou hast put all things in
subjection under his feet, πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑπὸ τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ.
This word vлerasas, thou hast subjected, is the foundation of many ex-
pressions in this connexion : v. 5. οὐ γὰρ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις υπέταξε την
οἰκουμένην; ν. 8. ἐν γὰρ τῷ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν
αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον—ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγμένα.
α
T
τα
τ
Now there is no word corresponding to vлorάooε in the Hebrew,
the same idea being expressed by a circumlocution: Thou didst put, or
place, under his feet, an. If then he wrote in Hebrew,
and cited the text in Hebrew, the whole reference to the words of the
text is lost; and the expressions derived from and referring to unо-
tάsoɛ could not have been employed in Hebrew, on account of the
frequent recurrence of the entire periphrasis. Would he have written
in this way?"Thou didst put all things under his feet: but as to the
angels he did not put all things under their feet: for, in that he put all
things under his feet, he left nothing which he did not put under his
feet: hence we see that all things are put under his feet.'
""
In the 8th chapter he commences speaking of the promises of God in
regard to a new covenant. He cites by way of argument Jer. 31: 31,
32 seq. where God promises a, a new covenant, different
from that which he had established with the fathers of the Jewish nation,
and then argues that a new covenant,, xavý diadńun,
annuls the old. He proceeds in this train of thought in chap. 9, des-
cribing the ritual of the covenant and contrasting with it the priest and
mediator of the new (v. 14, 15).
The nature of the subject assures us, that if the author wrote in He-
'brew, he must have selected the technical word n to designate the
covenant with Abraham and the fathers. As, moreover, he quotes the
words of Jeremiah, to which the chain of his discourse is linked and
from which he makes deductions, he must so much the rather have re-
tained ♫, and must have been guided in his deductions by the proph-
et's phraseology. We must not be misled, therefore, by the conjec-
ture that perhaps the author used the word
?.
Now though has the signification of covenant, we know that
it has not a second sense which the author of the Epistle soon brings to
view, viz. that of a testament; for which (he says) Christ died, because
a testament becomes valid only through the death of the testator. If,
however, he wrote in Greek, and originally cited the Greek version, he
must have employed the word dianan. This comprehends not only
the first signification, but the second, viz. testament, and in fact contains
good ground for the reasoning founded upon it, which could not have
been based on the Hebrew.
In the 10th chap. 4, 5 seq., he proves that the ancient sacrifices have
ceased forever. He appeals in support of this position to Ps. 40: 7,
where a person, whom he represents as the Messiah entering the world,
says to God: Thou desiredst not sacrifices, but a body hast thou prepar-
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
583
ed me-
to do thy will. Hence, he continues, the ancient sacrifices are no
more of any avail, and the noiñoa nua, the fulfilment of the will (of
God) is enjoined instead (v. 9, 10). In conformity with this will, v
το θελήματι, Jesus once for all made an offering of his body, τὴν προσ-
gooav tov cáμaros, for the universal remission of sins.
α κατι
The argument turns on the passage: Thou desiredst not sacrifices,
but gavest me a body, to execute thy will: oua narnoriso μoi.
This will Jesus executed by the offering of his body, dia τηv п000-
gooàv rov σwμatos, and thus the passage has been fulfilled, and all
other sacrifices cease. Formerly the offerings were frequent, nolláris
προσφέρων (ν. 11) ; now one offering, μία θυσία, μία προσφορά, is suf-
ficient, and this is satisfactory forever, sis to diŋvezés (v. 14).
The offering of the body, προσφορά του σώματος, and the offering
once for all, μía noоoqooά, have reference to the words of the Psalm,
owμa xarnoriów uo, thou gavest me a body. But the Hebrew text of
the Psalm says nothing respecting a body; it merely says: Mine ears
hast thou opened (bored). Thus, if the Epistle had
been written in Hebrew, the deduction froin the quotation as to the offer-
ing of a body, and all which is said further of the single offering that
made every other superfluous, could have had no foundation. It was
only the Greek text of the Psalter which could furnish him with the ar-
gument and render it valid.
Moreover, even the supposition that these words were spoken of the
Messiah and referred to the very moment when he entered the world,
διὸ εἰσερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον λέγει (v. 5), is likewise founded on
the words thou hast prepared me a body, aside from which there is no
indication that this passage is to be understood of the Messiah's en-
trance into the world.
$ 145.
We have hardly done with one difficult question, before another still
more difficult presents itself, viz. Who was the author of the Epistle?
It is found in the collection of Paul's writings, but by what right does it
take so honorable a place? If characteristic ideas and characteristic
arrangement of them, or, in other words, a peculiar cast of thought, be
any indication of the author of a production, this writing, in my opinion,
is Paul's. The ideas which constitute the basis of the Epistle to the He-
brews all existed in Paul's mind, and were a constituent part of his gen-
eral train of thought, from which they have passed into other productions
of his pen. In these they are frequently found, in connexion with oth-
er ideas, but have not received so complete a development as in this
Epistle, because they were not, as here, the subject of discussion, but
were merely accessory ideas.
One of the principal points of view in which he considered the cer-
emonies of public worship, as well as the other institutions of the Jews,
and which was the special ground of the course taken by the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews in making an application of all these insti-
tutions to Christ and his religion, is not barely discoverable in the
Epistle to the Colossians, but is presented there in the same language
in which it is expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. All these
584
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
τω
things, Paul there says, are but the oxid tõv pɛllóvrov (Col. 2: 17),
as in this Epistle, likewise, they are only the oxid táv μellóvτan άya-
ov (Heb. 10: 1. 8: 5), i. e. inefficient symbols of salvation and mercy,
shadows of things, of which the religion that was to come was to contain
the reality, the thing itself.'
Paul has sometimes given specimens of this mode of application, from
which we may infer what would be his manner of treating the subject,
and how perfectly the whole tenor of the Epistle to the Hebrews accords
with his spirit.
In Rom. 3: 25, he represents our salvation through the death of Jesus
by a figure drawn from the Jewish ceremonials, saying that God set
him forth as the lid of the ark of the covenant (which on the feast of
atonement was perfumed and sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice)
that he might blot out sins by his blood. It is true, however, that the
word ilaornocov may be translated an offering of reconciliation. In the
Epistle to the Ephesians (5: 2), he represents the death of Jesus as a
sacerdotal transaction, he having offered himself for us as a sweet smell-
ing sacrifice, and being thus at once both priest and offering.
The typical interpretations in the Epistle, in which the tabernacle
is represented as an emblem of the entrance of Jesus into the holy of
holies in heaven (Heb. 8: 5, 6. 9: 24) will not seem singular when we
perceive that in I Cor. 10: the passage through the Red Sea is considered
1 The fact that Philo says something of the same kind: tà μèv entà tav
χρησμῶν σκιάς τινας ὡσανεὶ σωμάτων είναι (De Confus. Lingg.) is the principal
reason given for the supposition which has been lately made, that the Epistle
to the Hebrews is an Alexandrian production (Eichhorn, Einl. in das N.T. Bd.
III. 2d Hälfte, § 259. p. 442). Just as if Paul did not take the same view in his
Epistle to the Colossians: ἅ ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ
(2:17). The second argument is, that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
agrees with the Alexandrians in ascribing a secret and higher meaning to the
accounts in relation to the ancient Jews. But it is not the case in this Epistle
alone, as we see from 1 Cor. 10: 1–6 and 11, and from Rom. 5: 14, where Adam
is represented as τúños τov µékhovtos, with reference to the universality of the
consequence of what he did (Comp. 1 Pet. 3: 20, 21). Thus the two views which
have been mentioned are not exclusively Alexandrian; they are likewise Pau-
line, and we recognize in them that erudite manner and that cast of thinking,
which were characteristic of the age, and which Paul adopted together with, and
in opposition to, his contemporaries. What can be more like Philo than the
ahλnyoooiμeva in Gal. 4: 21-31, compared with Philo "De Cherubim (init.), to
which I have referred in Part 1st § 5, for the purpose of drawing from the spirit
of the times in arguing from and treating of the sacred books, some general in-
ference as to the period when the Pauline Epistles were composed. Lastly, the
learned writer above mentioned likewise adduces particular expressions of anal-
ogous character in the writings of Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (p.
447). This similarity, however, is not confined to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
but extends to all Paul's Epistles; as is not at all strange, considering that
Philo and Paul were contemporaries. Lösner's extracts from Philo, it is well
known, have reference to the whole N. Test. With reference to the Epistle to
the Hebrews, Carpzov (in his Exercit. in Ep. ad Hebr.) as also, more recently,
Schulz (Der Brief an die Hebräer, Breslau 1818. p. 265 seq.), the latter for the
special purpose of supporting the opinion we are now combating, has extracted
from Philo many passages' relating mostly to Melchisedeck, Moses, the high-
priesthood, the worship of the sanctuary, and the sacrifices. Wherever Paul
had discussed these topics, the passages cited would have been of use in explain-
ing his meaning. The similarity of subjects is the cause of the mutual resem-
blance between the two writers.
1
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
585
to have been a type of baptism etc., a runos, just as in the Epistle to
the Hebrews the holy places are ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν.
This principle and the interpretations founded on it are, in the earlier
Epistles of the apostle, but indistinctly brought forward, rather intimated
than detailed. We have sufficient evidence, however, that the views
in which the Epistle to the Hebrews so richly abounds had already
been formed in his mind, and would have been exhibited precisely thus,
had his purpose led him to a more extended development of them.
When Paul represented the ancient ceremonial institutions as mere
shadows, to none of which belonged any expiatory efficacy, he was
bound to answer the question in what way forgiveness and the divine
favor were to be obtained, and had been obtained by pious men of old,
if the law was of no avail to that end. Had he not given satisfac-
tion on this point, the representation which we have mentioned would
have wanted stability. The solution of this question was essential to
his position, for that could not be sustained without it.
The answer to this question is frequently presented by him, and is a
peculiar one. He asserts that the divine favor never resulted from the
religious observances of the Jews, but from faith, ty nior. With this
z τη πίστει.
word he connected a peculiar idea, such as no other of the apostles
attached to it. Πίστις with him had reference to the ἐπαγγελία, το
the divine annunciation of the measures devised for human salvation.
It signifies confidence and unshaken hope that they will be carried into
effect (Rom. 4: 16-18, 20. Gal. 3: 5 seq.).
This idea of the apostle is a fundamental one in the Epistle to the He-
brews, and constitutes a considerable part of its contents (see 10: 38-
12: 4, and many other passages). It appears in the Epistle to the
Hebrews precisely as the apostle has elsewhere stated, explained,
and enforced it. In Rom. 8: 24-26 Paul characterizes faith, with
considerable circumlocution, as hope, in contradistinction to that which
is seen and feit, ἐλπὶς βλεπομένη οὐκ ἐστιν ἐλπὶς—ὃ οὐ βλέπομεν, ἐλπί-
Souev, etc. In the Epistle to the Hebrews this description is condensed
ζομεν,
in the form of a definition (11: 1), ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις οὐ βλεπο
μένων.
Faith, according to Paul, gives us superiority over the adherents of
every other religion, iva zavzaμedα ¿ñ ¿íði (Rom. 5: 2). In the
Epistle to the Hebrews, too (3: 6), it is the ground of a xaúxnua, which
he calls καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος.
It was this hopeful confidence, which both he and the author of this
Epistle understood to be meant by the passage: The just shall live by
faith (Gal. 3: 11. Heb. 10:38). It was by this, according to both, that
Abraham and Sarah, though past age, obtained a son (Rom. 4: 19. Gal.
3: 7. Heb. 11: 1). It was this лioris, founded on the inayyɛlia, which
made friends of God before the law, and became an example and means
of grace for all under the law, etc.
Thus they coincide in their notion of faith, its reference to the Enay-
yehia, its justifying efficacy, and in certain arguments and examples in
confirmation of the declared inefficacy of the law and the deeds of the
law, and differ in the following respects: that the Epistle to the He-
brews makes use of a multitude of examples, νέφος μαρτύρων ; that in
the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians niores is openly contrasted
74
586
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
with the law and the soyous vouov, while in the Epistle to the Hebrews
the unpleasant contrast is not directly presented, but rather intimated;
that in the other Epistles πίστις εἰς Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν is directly assert-
ed to be the sole means of justification, while in this, without any ex-
press conclusion by the writer, it is left as a matter of inference for the
reader.
Origen, therefore, was correct in asserting that ra vonuara piv IIav-
lov ɛiol, for we find the views and sentiments of the apostle at the foun-
dation of this Epistle; and not merely individual sentiments, but an
entire class of them upon one subject.
In this Epistle, moreover, we meet with his figures and favorite ex-
pressions. We will only cite those examples which have reference to
Christian instruction. With Paul God's word is a sword (Ephes. 6:
17). So in Heb. 4: 12. Instruction for beginners and weak-minded
persons is milk; for those well-grounded in the faith, it is Boua and
orεped rooń, strong meat (Heb. 5: 13. 1 Cor. 3: 2). The first are
výдιoι (1 Cor. 3: 1. Heb. 5: 13); the subjects of instruction suitable for
them are oroteia (Gal. 4: 9. Heb. 5: 12). The well-grounded, on the
other hand, are tλetot (Heb. 5: 14. 1 Cor. 14: 20), and their condition
is telecorns (Col. 3: 14. Heb. 6: 1). Whoever will examine further
the apostle's terminology on the subject of salvation, and the allegorical
expressions and applications which he has used to illustrate it, will in
these also recognize Paul..
Besides thoughts and figures, a great many of Paul's favorite words
and phrases are to be found in this Epistle. Some of these have been
collected by the industry of Wetstein, and his collection has since
been considerably augmented.
$146.
On the other hand, passages have been selected from this Epistle
which make against Paul's authorship, and two of them are vaunted as
decisive.3 The first, repeated for centuries, and frequently answered,
sometimes more and sometimes less happily, is Heb. 2: 1—5. “There-
fore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we
have heard, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?
which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed
unto us by them that heard him, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβε
Baldon, God also bearing them witness," etc. The author, it is said,
here classes himself as one of those to whom that which the Lord taught
had been communicated by his disciples. Now, so far from its being the
case that Paul could use such language, he was even jealous of the im-
putation of dependence on the instructions of the apostles, flatly dis-
owned it, and asserted that he received his teaching from God and
Christ (Gal. 1: 11, 12 seq. 2: 6-15. 1 Cor. 15: 8, etc.).
But what are we to understand by the word us?
1 Nov. Test. T. II. p. 386.
•
Does it mean us
2 Chr. Frid. Schmid, Hist. Antiq. et Vindic. Canonis. § 249. p. 662-665.
3 Dav. Schulz, "Der Brief an die Hebräer," etc. Breslau, 1818. p. 125--130. The
first objection had been already stated by Ecumenius; the "Scholia Græca" in
Frid. Matth. N. T. contain a reply.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
587
Hebrew Christians, or us, Paul only? It is clear that the writer is
speaking of many persons, in regard to whom it was to be feared that
they might fail in fidelity to the Christian system; and a sort of rhetorical
figure is employed which is very common with the apostle. The wri-
ter includes himself in the number of those whom he addresses, speaks
of their necessities and failings, as if he shared them, without mean-
ing by this that he did so in every particular. Just so Paul, in Rom.
13: 11–14. (e. g.) says: "It is time for us (those converted from
Paganism as well as from Judaism) to awake out of sleep, to cast off
the works of darkness, to walk honestly, not in rioting and drunken-
ness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying." If
the apostle be here taken literally, what must we not charge him with,
on account of the word us? Just as little did he mean to claim all the
gifts which were distributed to different persons for the preservation and
extension of the Christian church (Rom. 12: 6 seq.), although he makes
use of the word us, meaning us Christians. Such figures of rhetoric
will not allow a literal application to the writer.
༡
It is attempted to obviate these considerations by a distinction. This
mode of speech, it is said, may properly be used when exhortations and
warnings are given, but not in historical statements. It is to be re-
membered that as nusis, us, does not mean Paul only, but us who have
this in common that we are Hebrew Christians, all valid objection
against this mode of speaking is precluded. But does not the passage
in fact contain an exhortation that they should guard against danger;
for (the thought is) if the slighting of the institutions of the old cove-
nant occasioned severe punishments, how shall we escape punishment,
if we slight a far higher institution, which proceeded from the Lord,
was confirmed (to us Hebrews) by his chosen disciples, and attested by
miracles and the gifts of the Holy Ghost? Does not this passage be-
long to the class of warnings or exhortations? Though it does contain
historical allusions, they are not themselves the subject of discussion,
but are exhibited only in very general terms, in order to prove that the
Jews would deserve punishment in case they should forsake Christiani-
ty. These are not presented for the purpose of narration, but as an
enumeratio, which runs rapidly through a series of occurrences, without
reference to their accompanying circumstances, or the particular con-
cern of any individual in them.
، ،
Let us now turn our attention to the second passage. It has been
regarded as inconsistent with the relation which Paul sustained to the
Christians of Palestine, that he should say: Pray for me, ἵνα τάχιον
άло×аταбтαðã vμiv, that I may be restored to you the sooner" (13: 18).
He had nothing to do, it is said, with the churches in Palestine.¹ It is
true he was not connected with them as a teacher; but he was in an-
other capacity. He had brought to them from Galatia, Macedonia, and
Achaia, on the very occasion of his last visit to Jerusalem and his im-
prisonment there, charitable contributions which he had collected for
them in the churches. They had, therefore, good reason to pray for
their benefactor, that he might be restored to them again.
It is further objected, that the officers of the churches which are ad-
1 Schulz, "Der Brief an die Hebräer" etc. p. 22 and 63.
588
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
dressed in this Epistle, are not called πρεσβύτεροι and επίσκοποι, as
officers in the church are termed in the Epistles of Paul, but youpεvoι
(13: 7, 17). But this was their proper appellation in Palestine, and
confirms our position in regard to the destination of the Epistle.
The churches of Palestine constituted an exception from the rest of the
Christian churches in this respect, that their affairs were conducted, not
only by presbyters, but by apostles themselves, as e. g. James and John,
or by other men who took a distinguished part in the propagation of
Christianity; and these were called in this country, by way of distinc-
tion, youμεvor, such as e. g. Barnabas and Silas Acts (15: 22).
221
The opponents of this Epistle thought they found support for their
position in these passages; but they were troubled, on the other hand,
by a friendly allusion to Timothy (13: 23), of such a nature that it seems
particularly suitable to Paul, whose confidential assistant Timothy was,
and to whom he was, in a manner, exclusively attached. They were
therefore obliged, if possible, to prove that Timothy was not attached
to Paul at this time, which they hoped to do by means of a pretended
difference between the mode in which Paul speaks of Timothy in his
writings and the mode in which he is spoken of in this Epistle. Paul
always speaks of him in his Epistles, it is said, as rézvor, jvýolov téx-
vov, avvɛgyós, with commendation and affection, while the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews mentions him only in a cursory way: "Ye know
our brother Timothy, who is set at liberty; with whom, as soon as he
comes, I will see you. As to the words: Ye know our brother Timo-
thy etc., I certainly do not believe that Paul would have written so to the
churches of Asia Minor and Europe, which Timothy had visited with him
in the foundation of which he had coöperated. To the inhabitants and
of Palestine alone, could he have used such half-doubting language as:
Ye know Timothy, probably. For, though he accompanied Paul on
his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 20: 4), and, moreover, was not an ob-
scure person, yet he was least known to the people of Palestine. The
reason why he calls him merely brother, without further encomium, is,
that he was not recommending him to any church on account of his
being charged with a particular commission, as is the case in those
Epistles in which he styles him his beloved son and his faithful fellow-
laborer (1 Cor. 4: 17. 1 Thess. 3: 2). The expressions of friendship
and affection contained in the Epistles to Timothy himself are of course
not to be our standard here. It is likewise the case, however, in let-
ters which he wrote to other churches, that he only terms him, Timothy
our brother (2 Cor. 1: 1. Col. 1: 1). The last words: with whom, if
he come shortly, I will see you, are peculiarly appropriate to Paul, and
can be historically accounted for, if we suppose them to have been his.
He promised the Philippians to send Timothy to them, as soon as his
fate at Rome was finally decided (Philipp. 2: 19–24); and the He-
brews, that, as soon as Timothy should have returned, he would make
them a visit with him. The mission of Timothy explains the condition,
¿áv ráziov ¿yxerat, under which he promised the visit. A journey to
the east was in the apostle's contemplation. It was his design to pass
through Macedonia (Philipp. 2: 24) to Asia Minor (Philem. 22), and
1 Schulz. p. 14, 15.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
589
thence to Palestine. It was necessary, however, that he should gain
information beforehand concerning the state of things in these coun-
tries, that he might not expose himself to his enemies to no purpose.
This he did by staying for a time in Philippi, which was on one hand in
Macedonia, and on the other, as it were, in sight of Asia Minor (Rom.
15: 23. Acts 20: 3). Now, whether the account which he received from
Timothy, or Nero's persecution, which broke out in the autumn of
Paul's release, or both together, caused him to give up his proposed
journey or not, we cannot tell. It is probable, however, that the old
design of a journey to Spain was now revived (Rom. 15: 28), and put
in execution (§ 84).
However disinclined we may be, we must yet consider Paul as the
author of the Epistle, so long as we have no good reason for supposing
that Timothy was not under his direction when the Epistle was written.
Can the writer have been of less than apostolic dignity? No one with
less authority could have presumed to present to the parent-land of
Christianity his instructions and intervention in relation to such topics,
under the very eyes of the apostles and of numerous witnesses of our
Lord's words and deeds.
$ 147.
-
While internal grounds speak so clearly and decisively in favor of
Paul, so it does not appear that we have any reason to apprehend a dif-
ferent result from a historico-critical investigation. We must simply
make it a rule not to decide from individual declarations and detached
statements, but to form our opinion impartially from a view of the whole
history of the Epistle.
Eusebius, in stating the opinions of the ancients in regard to what is
called the Canon, ranks among the biblical works which were univer-
sally acknowledged to be genuine the fourteen Epistles of Paul then
comprehended in the Mss. of the New Testament, without excepting
any one of them.' It cannot be denied that when he did this his atten-
tion was directed to the Greek and oriental churches, rather than to the
Latin. For he must have been specially familiar with the opinions and
convictions of the former, considering his language, residence, and lit-
erary education, and the libraries (at Cæsarea and Elia Capitolina)
whence he derived his documents. He has, however, in another place,
expressed himself more to the purpose: Fourteen Epistles of Paul, he
says, are generally acknowledged and genuine, яоódηhoi xai saqεis;
but it is not to be concealed that some depreciate that to the Hebrews,
on the ground that the Roman church objects to it."2 Now these
some, rives, may be Latins, (though it is not probable in this connexion),
or they may be Greeks; it makes no essential difference which. In
the first case, the writer has no reference at all to the general opinion of
the Greeks, and in the second case, he only presents an exception from the
general opinion of the Greeks, an exception which existed in the minds
of individuals out of respect or prepossession towards the Romans, and
which proves, according to the well-known rule, exceptio firmat regu-
1 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 23.
2 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 3.
590
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
lam, that the Greek church, taken as a whole, did not think as these
some did in regard to the Pauline origin of the Epistle, but acknowl-
edged it.
Jerome, therefore, who had certainly perused a large number of the
writings of Christian Greeks, did not exaggerate, when he asserted in his
Epistle to Dardanus that Paul had always been acknowledged as au-
thor of the Epistle to the Hebrews by all Greek writers, "ab omnibus
retro ecclesiasticis Græci sermonis scriptoribus.”
((
Origen, too, expresses himself in the same collective way concern-
ing the ancients. This expression, used by a man in the third century,
has a very important meaning, and would seem to carry us back near
to the times of the apostles: It was not without reason," says he,
that the ancients transmitted this Epistle to us as Paul's production."í
T'here are other witnesses of the Alexandrian school in favor of this
Epistle, both earlier and later than Origen. Dionysius, who is character-
ized by his investigations respecting the Apocalypse as an intelligent
and honest father, declares, in the work referred to, in favor of Paul.2
Clement, earlier than either, maintained the Pauline origin of this
Epistle.
Nor were investigations of this sort prosecuted lightly or unwarily in
1 Οὐ γὰρ εἰκῇ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασι. Euseb. Η.
E. L. VI. 25. This celebrated passage in Origen, to which we have already refer-
red in speaking of the language of this Epistle, still continues to be misinter-
preted to the prejudice of the Epistle. The opinion of the Alexandrians, that the
language of the Epistle differs from that of Paul, is the writer's theme; and the
order of his ideas is as follows. 1. The style is not Paul's; 2. for it has too
much Greek regularity and elegance. 3. Yet, as to the thoughts, the produc-
tion is not inferior to Paul's Epistles. 4. Hence he (Origen) is of opinion that
the thoughts are Paul's; but that their phraseology and construction are the
work of some one else, who reduced to writing what was said by Paul. Thus
far he distinguishes between the words and ideas, what belongs to Paul and
what does not; and then proceeds. 6. Any church which has regarded it as
Paul's production may retain its favorable opinion of it; 7. for it was not without
reason that the ancients transmitted it to us as Paul's production. 8. But, who
composed this Epistle (referring to No. 5) is known to God alone; 9. some say
Clement, others Luke. The propositions No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, exhibit his ideas in
regard to the substance and the phraseology, and a mode of reconciling their char-
acteristics. No. 6 asserts the propriety of regarding it as Pauline. No. 7 alone
contains a historical statement, the testimony of the ancients. Thus much as to
who was its author. Nos. 8 and 9. Who, however, according to the proposed
theory, reduced it to writing, cannot be known; this merit has been ascribed to
various persons.
The historical statement on the subject is fully and definitely ex-
pressed; the rest of the passage consists of attempts to invalidate the objection
drawn from the difference of language.
ους
Origen has always acknowledged this Epistle in his works, and very frequently
cited it under the designation ὁ ἀποστολος and ὁ Παῦλος. We will refer to those
passages only, in which the Epistle is mentioned by name. Kai &v ty лoos, Epoai-
αὐτὸς Παῦλος (Comm. in Joann. Τ. 11. c. 6). Ὁ δὲ Παῦλος ἐν τῇ πρὸς
Εβραίους (in Joann. Τ. Χ. c. 11). Ὡς ὁ Παῦλος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἑβραίους (Select.
in Ps. Ps. 4: 7). Ὁ Παῦλος Εβραίοις φησί (in Ps. 8: 6). Λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῇ πρὸς
"Eßqaiovs ó avtòs Пavλos (Select. in Thren. 4: 20), and the passage adduced by
Lardner and others (Epist. ad African. c.9): "If any one, perplexed by this
argument (taken from Heb. 11: 37), should adopt the opinion of those who de-
prive Paul of this Epistle, against such an one I should make use of proofs
from other quarters that the Epistle was Paul's."
2 Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 41.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
591
Alexandria. This city, it is well known, always possessed a multi-
tude of able grammarians, who labored with great critical acumen on
the writings of ancient classic authors, amended the text when it had
been impaired, and distinguished on critical grounds between genuine
and spurious works.
This critical talent was exercised likewise upon the books of the New
Testament, and particularly on this Epistle. The remark was early
made that its style was strikingly different from that of Paul. Notwith-
standing this idea, which would seem to lead directly to the supposition
that Paul was not its author, no one ventured to deny that it was the
apostle's production. So strong was the conviction that it could not
be shaken, even by weighty adverse considerations.
Ways and means were sought to compromise the matter. The hy-
pothesis of Clement and that afterwards presented by Origen are but
attempts to reconcile the difference of style with history and the decla-
rations of antiquity, which pronounced Paul to be the author.
Clement, in particular, cites such an ancient declaration of a respect-
able father, whom he calls the blessed old man, and who from the connex-
ion was probably Pantænus. He inquires into the reason why Paul did
not prefix his name and his title, άлóoτolos, to his Epistle. I must
here confess myself unable to comprehend how it is possible that men
in modern times should suppose some Alexandrian to have been the au-
thor of this Epistle, while in the Alexandrian church itself, the evidence
in behalf of Paul reaches so nearly to the first century. If the author of
these Epistles was an Alexandrian, where could the fact be known, if
not at Alexandria ?
α
To invalidate the testimony of Pantænus, it has been recently affirm-
ed by a learned man, that when he proposed the query why Paul did not
call himself apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, he entertained doubts
in regard to its authorship. It is astonishing hat a scholar of such emi-
nence should assert any thing so hastily. Were Clement and Origen
ever in doubt in regard to the Epistle, though they proposed inquiries con-
cerning it? Did Julius Africanus, and others before him, doubt as to the
Gospel of Matthew and Luke, because they sought the reason of the dif-
-ference between them in regard to the genealogy of our Lord? Long be-
fore his time, Tatian, while yet resident at Rome and orthodox in his
opinions, had drawn up biblical poßinuara, which he and Rhodon after
προ
him, promised to solve. Biblical questions of this nature must have arisen
more naturally at Alexandria than at any other place, because there ло-
βλήματα and ζητήματα Ομηρικά, λυσεῖς ζητημάτων Ομηρικῶν, and
such like subjects of inquiry, were common. Let us, as we ought, ex-
amine the declaration of the blessed old man. His language is: As
our Lord was sent among the Jews as the apostle of the Almighty (Heb.
3: 1), Paul, particularly as his mission was to the heathen, would not
presume to style himself apostle to the Hebrews, from reverence for our
Lord, and because he had written the Epistle to the Hebrews out of the
abundance of his zeal, although he was really a messenger and apostle
1 Clem. Alex. Hypotypos. apud Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 14. Rob. Steph.
p. 62.
2 Euseb. H. E. L. V. c. 13.
592
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
to the Gentiles. Pantænus here represents as undoubted what he is
said to have doubted, viz. that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews;
and says that he had two reasons for withholding the usual introduction,
Paul the apostle etc.
1
In Lower Egypt the Epistle to the Hebrews retained its place imme-
diately after that to the Galatians till about the fourth century, as we see
from the list of chapters in the Codex Vaticanus ;¹ and it was not till
about the time of Athanasius, that it was removed and placed after the
2d of Thessalonians, which situation it now holds in Egyptian Mss.
In the Upper Egyptian version it even stood before that to the Galatians,
immediately after the 2d to the Corinthians, which is deserving of no-
tice in illustration of the ancient opinion respecting it in Egypt.
2
Jerome connects with the account we have mentioned above, respect-
ing the agreement of the ancient Greek fathers as to this Epistle, a dec-
laration that the oriental churches likewise, in the vicinity of which
he lived so long in his solitary abode at Bethlehem, agreed in the same
position. His statement is confirmed by Augustine's assertion, that in
the oriental churches the Epistle ranked among the canonical writings.¹
We shall suppose our readers to be acquainted with the canon of the
church at Jerusalem, as stated by Cyril, from the first part of our Intro-
duction; nor shall we make particular mention of the evidence of Titus
of Bostra (Contra Manich. L. III. c. 4 and 11), of Basil, the two
Gregories, Epiphanius, Pamphilus, and Methodius.
Ephræm, the most noted of the Syrian fathers, appeals in several pas-
sages to this composition, characterizing the writer by the designation,
the apostle.5 James of Nisibis, Ephræm's teacher, composed various
Syriac productions as early as the third century, some of which have
reached us in an Armenian version. He appeals in these to the Epistle
to the Hebrews, under the designation, the apostle, or the blessed apos-
tle.6
Soon after the middle of the third century we find in hither Syria,
instead of individual fathers, a whole ecclesiastical council, the synod of
Antioch, quoting the scriptures, and among other passages, Heb. 2: 14.
4: 15. and 11: 26, in the summons which they issued to Paul of Samosa-
ta before his removal from his station. Going back to the second
century, we are able to appeal to the oldest version of the Syrians, a
monument of their belief and conviction in regard to the canon. Now
this, although it excludes some of the Catholic Epistles, contains the
1 Hug, "De antiquitate Cod. Vatic." p. 23, 24.
2 Zoega, "Catalogus Codd. Coptic. in Museo Borgiano." L. III. Codd. Sahid-
ic. N. LXXX. p. 186. Engelbrecht, "Fragmenta Başmurico-Coptica, p. XXV.
3 "Nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam, quæ inscribitur ad Hebræos, non so-
lum ab ecclesiis ORIENTIS, sed ab omnibus retro ecclesiasticis Græci sermo-
nis scriptoribus, quasi Pauli Apostoli suscipi." Epist. ad Dardan.
4"Ad Hebræos quoque Epistola, quamquam nonnullis incerta sit. magis
me movet auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium, quæ hanc etiam in canonicis ha-
bent." Expos. in Epist. ad Rom. T. IV. Opp. Ed. Basil. p. 1180.
5 Ephræm Opp. Syr. T. 1. p. 400.
6 Galland, Biblioth. Patr. T. V. p. XVI. and p. LXXXVIII.
7 Mansi, Collect. Concil. T. I. p. 1034.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
593
Epistle to the Hebrews, which, as we proved before, when speaking of
this version, is a genuine and original portion of it.
If we have recourse to the heretics, we know that Manes, whose sect
spread particularly in Syria and Mesopotamia, appealed to the authority
of this Epistle to prove his position, that the Old and New Testaments
did not derive their origin from one and the same author.¹
The Melchisedeckians, who originated with Theodotus (άgyvoɑµoi-
Bós or roaneŠitns), elevated Melchisedeck above Christ, and in doing
this relied on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 7: 3, and 7: 4, 7).2 In
the second century we have the Montanists, who first made their
appearance in Phrygia, and extended themselves westward. These
founded their principal distinctive doctrines on the Epistle to the He-
brews (6: 4), as we shall shortly see.
The Epistle continued without opposition to enjoy this established
authority and estimation among the Greeks and in the East; and it was
not till the time of Arius that any church in these countries disputed
its title. The Arians were the first Greeks whom history charges
with denying its Pauline origin.3
This circumstance confers uncommon importance on the testimony
of Eusebius in favor of this Epistle, and accredits his character as a
historian, it being evident that he was not misled by any adherence to
party into a want of fidelity to history. Theodoret even referred the
Arians, on the subject of this Epistle, to the example of this their fel-
low believer, that they might be edified by it and learn moderation.4
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
*
The primitive times of the church of Rome present us an illustrious
witness for this Epistle in the person of Clement, who occupied there
the station of the apostles after their death. In his Epistle to the
church at Corinth, he quotes passages from it, as Eusebius and Jerome
have already observed, and as we can see ourselves on examining the
Epistle, which has come down to us. He does not, indeed, cite it under
the name of the apostle, but makes use of it without mentioning the au-
thor, employing its peculiar phraseology, avroleğeì xonoάuevos, and
juxta verborum quoque ordinem.5 Nor has he designated by name the
author of any book of the New Testament from which passages have
been borrowed by him, except the 1st Epistle of Paul to the Corinthi-
ans, the author of which is expressly mentioned, because his letter, like-
wise, was directed to them, and a reference to the apostle by name
was, considering the circumstances, very natural. We will not now
draw any inference from the citations of Clement out of the Epistle to
the Hebrews but that which Eusebius draws: ὅτι μὴ νέον υπάρχει
1 Epiphan. Hær. LXVI. §. 74. Ed. Petav. Eira náhev léyεi ó autòs Mavñs, où
δύναται ἑνὸς διδασκαλίου εἶναι παλαιὰ καὶ καινὴ διαθήκη. Η μὲν γὰρ παλαιοῦ
ται ἡμέραν εξ ἡμέρας, ἡ δὲ ἀνακαινίζεται ἡμέραν καθ' ἡμέραν, πᾶν γὰρ παλαιού
μενον καὶ γηράσκον, ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ γίνεται (Heb. VIII. 13).
2 Epiphan. XXXV. or LV. § 1 (Heb. 7: 3); § 8 (Heb. 7: 4, 7). Comp. Ter-
tull. De Præscriptione, towards the end.
3 Theodoret, Prolog. in Ep. ad Hebr. Epiphan. Hæres. LXIX. § 27.
4 Theodoret, Prolog. in Ep. ad Hebr.
5 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 38. Hieronym. in Catal. V. Clem.
75
594
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
zo ovɣroaμua. But we must remark, that Eusebius, in his language,
seems to have had a covert polemical reference to the western church,
placing in contrast with it the Greek churches, which were supported
by the oldest ecclesiastical document of Rome itself in regarding the
Epistle, not as a recent production, but as one of Paul's writings: over
εἰκότως ἔδοξεν αὐτὸ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἐγκαταλεχθῆναι γράμμασι τοῦ
ἀποστόλου.
Irenæus, too, in his book, IIɛqì dialé§ewv diagógav, quoted from it,
whether with or without the name of the author we do not know;
while, on the other hand, in his books against the heretics, he has so far
avoided the use of it, that only slight traces of it are here and there
visible.2
Now how shall we explain the strange procedure of the Greek father
in this last work? I think it may be correctly explained from the cir-
cumstances of the times and of his life. His ecclesiastical relations con-
nected him with the western Christians, among whom he possessed
consideration and authority. These were called into active exercise by
the sect of the Cataphrygians or Montanists. Commissions to Eleuthe-
rus at Rome,3 relative to these heretics, had even been performed by
him on behalf of the Gallic churches, before he had completed his he-
resiological work. The third book was not written before the latter
days of Eleutherus, and the whole was not finished till the time of his
successor.
Now these Montanists had recourse, in defence of their principle,
that they who had been guilty of aggravated crimes could no longer re-
main in the church, to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6: 4, 5. This pas-
sage was one of their chief arguments, as we learn from Jerome.5
But, even without his testimony, we should be persuaded of this by
the actual fact in regard to the procedure of a zealous Montanist. Ter-
tullian warmly defended the doctrine of the Montanists from Heb. 6:
4, 5, in his book "De pudicitiâ," which he wrote expressly in support
of their position, and he laid more stress on this passage than on any
other of his arguments.
If, therefore, the fathers of the Latin church made use of this Epistle
cautiously and fearfully, till they finally rejected it, history presents us
with the reason of their doing so. For, that the proof-text was not easi-
ly answered, may be inferred from the various attempts to answer it
made by the ancients.
Irenæus, it is probable, had not long been dead, when the opposition
to the Epistle in the Roman church had extended itself widely. Caius,
Taios, one of its presbyters under Zephyrinus, declared expressly in a
controversial work, that he acknowledged only thirteen Epistles of Paul,
and did not regard that to the Hebrews as the apostle's production.
1 Euseb. H. E. L. V. c. 27.
2 Massuet, Dissert. in Iren. D. III. Art. II. n. 7.
3 Euseb. H. E. L. V. c. 47.
4 Massuet, Dissert. II. Art. II. n. 47.
5 L. II. Adv. Jovinian. n. 3. "Verum ne Montanus et Novatus hic rideant,
qui contendunt non posse renovari per pœnitentiam eos qui semel sunt illumi-
nati," etc. Heb. 6: 4, 5.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
595
The work was directed against the Montanists, and particularly against
Proculus, one of their most learned advocates, τῆς Καταφυγίας αἱρέσε
шs vпεoμαɣouvτa. This circumstance, again, gives us satisfactory
information as to the reason why this Epistle was so troublesome to him,
and why he so positively rejected it.
1
From this time the greater part of the Latins adopted these opinions,
and, till the fourth century, they constantly denied that Paul was the au-
thor of this Epistle. History, however, does not give ground for suppos-
ing them to have been so unreasonable as to deny that the Epistle be-
longed to apostolic times, and that its author was of that age. How could
they do this, when Clement's Epistle from Rome was in so many hands?
The author of the remarkable fragment in Muratori, who represents
himself as living about the time of Caius, constitutes the only excep-
tion, and was so ungracious as to denominate the Epistle "apud Alex-
andrinos Pauli nomine fictam ad hæresin Marcionis.”3 Thus the
apostle himself must be termed a heretic, that a self-willed man may
maintain his orthodoxy.4
1 Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 21. Ηλθε δὲ καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς καὶ Γαΐου λογιωτάτου ἀν-
δρὸς διάλογος ἐπὶ Ρώμης κατὰ Ζεφυρῖνον πρὸς Πρόκλον . .
ἐν ᾧ . τοῦ ἱεροῦ
ἀποστόλου δεκατριῶν μονῶν ἐπιστολῶν μνημονεύει, τὴν πρὸς Εβραίους μὴ συνα
ριθμήσας ταῖς λοιπαῖς· ἐπεὶ καὶ εἰς δεῦρο παρὰ Ρωμαίων τισὶν οὐ νομίζεται τοῦ
άπоoтólov tvɣɣáve. Hieronym. in Catal. V. Caius." In eodem volumine (dis-
putatione advers. Proculum) epistolas Pauli tredecim numerans, decimam quar-
tam quæ fertur ad Hebræos, dicit ejus non esse: sed et apud Romanos usque
hodie Pauli non habetur." Comp. Photius, Cod. 48.
2 Hieronym. Catal. V. Paulus. Philastr. De Hæres. c. 88. Primasius, Com-
ment. Præf. in Ep. ad Hebr.
3 Tom. III. Antiqq. Ital. Med. Ævi. p. 854. That in these words he intends
the Epistle to the Hebrews is clear from the subjoined citation of Heb. 12: 15, by
which he characterises the Epistle.
4 I must here justify myself in opposition to Prof. Herm. Olshausen ("Die
Echtheit der vier kanonischen Evangelien," p. 281 seq.), for assigning this re-
markable fragment to the beginning of the third century. I may have erred in
not ascribing it like others to Caius himself; at any rate there is no necessity of
supposing it at all older. The decision of the subject depends on the words:
"Pastorem nuperrime nostris temporibus in urbe Româ Hermas conscripsit, se-
dente cathedra Romanæ ecclesiæ Pio episcopo fratre ejus." The expression nu-
perrime is indefinite; but is rendered less so by the addition nostris temporibus,
in our time. Hence nuperrime does not signify much more than ov nálaι does
in a very similar designation of time in Eusebius (L. V. c. 28): ov nákai, a22
ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων γενόμενος καιρῶν. Is it asked whether Caius could have been
alive when Pius was at the head of the church of Rome? We know that he
wrote under Zephyrinus, who became bishop of the church in the ninth year of
Severus (Euseb. H. E. L. V. c. 28). It will be best for us to reckon from Hygi-
nus, because we have a definite date in regard to his elevation to the episcopal
office. It occurred in the 1st year of Antoninus Pius (Euseb. H. E. L. IV. c. 10).
At the end of four years he had Pius for his successor, who died 15 years after-
wards (Euseb. L. IV. c. 11), i. e. in the 19th year of Antoninus. From the 19th
year of Antoninus to the 8th of Severus, we must reckon as follows: the remain-
ing 4 years of Antoninus, 19 for the reign of Marcus Aurelius, 13 for Commodus,
and 9 of the reign of Severus; in all 45. Supposing Caius to have been 55
years old when he wrote against Proculus under Zephyrinus, he of course lived
during the supernumerary years under Pius. Thus, chronology does not for-
bid us to consider Caius and the author of the fragment as contemporary, and,
indeed, the same person. Supposing the writer to have been a different per-
son, he cannot certainly have lived any earlier than he, for Eusebius does not
596
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
Even the Montanists yelded to this opinion, and, in their polemical
writings, ascribed no higher authority to the Epistle than was admitted
to belong to it by their opponents, i. e. as being the production of some
apostolic father, like Barnabas, Clement, etc. This was Tertulli-
an's course, who as early as the time of Zephyrinus, had been with oth-
ers an observer of these disputes and of the procedure of Caius, and in
a short time was the successor of Proculus in reputation and learning,
and his warmest admirer: Proculus nostræ virginis senectæ et Chris-
tiana eloquentiæ dignitas." To return to our subject. As the Epistle
was denied to be Paul's, Tertullian took it for what it was allowed to
be by its enemies, and reasoned with such force as to make it, even on
this ground, equal in authority and value, or very nearly so at least, with
Paul's Epistles.
The passage is a remarkable one. It shows us how anxious he was
to recover for the Epistle on one side what he yielded on the other, in re-
gard to Paul's authorship of it, and to refer it, at least mediately, to Paul.
Volo ex abundantiâ alicujus comitis apostolorum testimonium super
inducere idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure disciplinam magistro-
rum. Exstat enim et Barnabæ titulus ad Hebræos, adeo satis auctorita-
tis viro, ut quem Paulus juxta se posuerit in abstinentiæ tenore: Aut
ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem. Est
utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabæ, illo apocrypho Pastore
machorum. Monens igitur discipulos omissis omnibus initiis ad per-
fectionem magis tendere, nec rursum fundamenta pœnitentiæ jacere
operibus mortuorum, Impossibile est, inquit, illos qui semel illuminati
sunt, etc. Heb. 6: 4, 5. . . . . Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit, et cum
apostolis docuit, nunquam macho et fornicatori secundam pœnitentiam
promissam ab apostolis norat" (De Pudic. c. 20).
Thus were the two parties contending, when in the heat of the con-
test a new sect reinforced the Montanists. Circumstances became
pressing, and the orthodox had not leisure to become reconciled to the
Epistle. About forty years after the declaration of Caius, at the time of
the death of Cornelius, the Novatians appeared in Rome. They re-
vived the position of Montanus in regard to repentance, and styled
themselves the pure. In adopting his tenet, they also appropriated to
themselves his arguments in its support, and the passage on which they
placed special reliance was, likewise, Heb. 6: 4, 5.
Jerome, in the Epistle before referred to, speaks of this passage."
Augustine, in citing it, alludes to the Novatians, whom he calls mundos
(xavagovs), and refutes the opinion which they built upon it in respect
to repentance.2 Epiphanius considers these words as the principal
source of their heresy.3 Theodoret charges them with making use of
mention any express opposition to the Epistle to the Hebrews in the west, earlier
than that of Caius. Besides, the designations of time and place, which the au-
thor of the fragment gives in regard to himself, the language which he has em-
ployed (the Greek), and the character of the position he presents relative to the
Epistle to the Hebrews, all declare in favor of Caius.
1 Hieronym. Ep. ad. Dardan.
2 Augustine, De verå et falsâ pœnitentiâ, C. 3. L. IV. Opp. Ed. Basil. 1559.
3 Epiph. Hær. LIX. De Catharis. páhlei avtovs tò éŋtòv tov åñoctólov
εἰρημένον, Αδύνατον τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας κ. τ. λο
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
597
the passage in support of error, and opposes his own interpretation to
theirs. Macarius, the Egyptian, adds to the words in Heb. 6: 4, 5,
other passages in this Epistle, which were likewise misinterpreted, zaτà
Ναβατιάνων φρόνημα. Abulpharagius even introduces a Novatian
speaking, and proving his opinion from this passage.3 Eulogius, Bishop
of Alexandria, entered into an extended discussion in his book against
the Novatians, for the purpose of analyzing this passage and defending
it against their interpretation; a long extract from which discussion is
given us by Photius. So truly was this passage the main argument of
the heretics, that it required and employed the ability and ingenuity of
the most noted fathers.
Thus the conduct of the two churches, in regard to
one and the
same subject, was very different. The Greeks endeavored to evade the
argument by their mode of interpretation, while the Latins rejected the
Epistle entirely. Circumstances contained the reason of this differ-
ence. The Greeks were calmer and less interested spectators, while the
scene of this controversy was among the Latins, in Rome itself, and the
leaders of the respective parties were in their midst. The Latins had not
leisure to look on, till an exegetical treatise was composed, which might
be made use of to silence the disputants. Thus, while the Greek church
admitted the Epistle, although the heretics regarded it as their princi-
pal reliance, the Latins were compelled, on account of their situation, to
take a more expeditious method, and to proceed as they did, viz. to de-
ny the authority of the Epistle, the contents of which were unanswer-
able, or else to be vanquished in the controversy. This was the true
reason of their procedure, and when Philastrius honestly admits that
the public church-use of the Epistle, was interdicted on account of the
Novatians, he ought not any longer to be subjected to abuse for his as-
sertion.
5
What wonder now, that Cyprian, who had so many disputes in regard
to the restoration of backsliders, does not even mention the Epistle,
and indeed, seems to be ignorant of its existence?
There is no doubt, too, that Hippolytus did not admit it, but he can-
not in this case be considered a Greek, nor, as some would wish, an
Oriental; for he was guided in his opinion on this point by Irenæus,
and the work in which his declaration respecting this Epistle appears,
was his history of heresies, which he composed in a great measure
ὁμιλοῦντος Ιρηναίου.
6
Still, such serious ferments among the Latins could not continue
long unknown to the Greeks, and it is easy to imagine that some, tivés,
1 Theodoret, Comment. in Epist. ad Hebr. c. VI. Tavτa oi Novátov xatá tõs
ἀληθείας ὁπλίζουσι ῥητά.
2 Macarii Monachi Opusc. III. De Pœnit. Galland. Biblioth. PP. T. VIII.
p. 32.
3 Historia Dynastiarum. p. 137 Arabic text, and p.
4 Photius, Codex. 280. p. 880. Ed. Hoeschelii.
86 Latin.
5 Philastr. Adv. Hær. c. 88. "Non legitur . . . . de pœnitentiâ propter Nova-
tianos."
6 The principal passage relating to this point is Photius, Codex 121. p. 161.
Hoeschel., where Photius derived his representation from Hippolytus himself, in-
dependently of Gobar.
598
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
as Eusebius states, shared in their sentiments, and rejected the Epistle
on the authority of the church of Rome.
But what were the arguments presented by the Roman church?
Was their procedure occasioned merely by the pressure of circumstan-
ces, which it was desirable and necessary to conceal by false pretexts? or
were the Montanist and Novatian disputes, which evidently and unde-
niably had an influence upon it, merely the occasion of a well-grounded
opposition, which the controversy but kindled and animated? Did they,
or did Caius, adduce ancient declarations of credible men, or trustworthy
historical witnesses and authorities, which pronounced against Paul and
in favor of some other author?
In that case the dispute would certainly have worn a very different
aspect; but far from appealing to the traditio ecclesiarum, to authorities
of the earlier periods of the church, as was demanded in historical in-
vestigation, and as was usual in regard to questions respecting the
Canon and points of doctrine, the inquiry received a totally different di-
rection. In the whole Latin church there is not one father, of whose
talents and learning any monuments remain, who appears to have
known any thing of such a traditio ecclesiæ, or of any historical proof.
The question was made to rest on internal evidence alone.
The Epistle, they said, is an anonymous composition, the author of
which, contrary to Paul's custom, no where names himself, and conse-
quently, cannot be known. Its style differs from that of the apostle, in
its elegance and rhetorical finish, which he despised.2 Besides, there
occur in it, citations from the Old Testament which are no longer to
be found in the prophets or other canonical books of the Jews.3
These are the principal reasons brought forward by the Latins to jus-
tify their opposition. There were others, as, e. g. "quia addiderunt in
ea quidam non bene sentientes, et quia factum Christum dicit," etc.
which, it is evident, bear no comparison with these.
By such pretexts the Latins justified their procedure, and they, who in
other cases knew very well how to make use of the argument from tra-
dition, did not, in this, say a single word respecting the testimony of
antiquity or the statements of earlier fathers. In short, history proper-
ly so called did not to their knowledge afford the slightest evidence
against Paul; and the whole dispute was conducted on exegetical
grounds, the investigation and estimate of which are in our own power,
and subject to our own decision.
On the other hand, the two fathers, Jerome and Augustine, who,
with their extensive erudition outweigh all other western authorities to-
gether, were convinced of the genuineness of the Epistle by the testi-
mony of the ancients. They therefore held up before their contempo-
raries the traditio of the Greeks and Orientals, and labored to give
•
•
•
•
"Ad Hebræos ubi principium salutationum de industriâ omisit
unde nonnulli eum in canonem scripturarum recipere timuerunt." Augustin.
Expos. in Ep. ad Rom. Tom. IV. Opp. Ed. Basil, 1556. p. 1180. Primasius Utti-
cens. Præf. in Comm. in univers. Pauli Epp.
2 "Non ejus dicitur propter styli sermonisque dissonantiam. "Hieronim. Cat.
V. Paulus. Quod rhetorice scripserit, et sermone plausibili." Philastrius. Hær.
c. 61. Primasius, 1. c.
3 Hieron. Comm. in Esai. L. III. c. 6. T. IV. Opp. p. 97. Valars.
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
599
another direction to the general sentiment. They would not probably
have succeeded, had they not been able to enforce their opinion by an
ecclesiastical council. This was the third or fourth Carthaginian coun-
cil, over which Augustine exercised great influence. In the catalogue
of canonical books which it issued in the form of a decree of the coun-
cil, it reckoned " Pauli epistolas tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebræos unam.'
From this time the Latins began to change their sentiments. Inno-
cent, in his Epistle to Exuperius of Toulouse, in speaking of the canon,
reckoned fourteen Epistles of Paul. The Epistle came into general
use in the Roman and Latin churches, and the opposition to it ceased
every where, with the exception, however, of Spain. At least, Isidore
of Seville, in the 7th century, had doubts in regard to it. But he is
the only writer who expresses any at so late a period. Thus, under the
pressure of circumstances, the Christians of the west disparaged the
Epistle, then gave color to their procedure by such reasons as they could
get together, and finally, when the storm of party had subsided, restored
it to its rightful rank.
$148.
The author appends at the close certain circumstances, of such a
character that no one acquainted with his situation could easily fail to
recognize the apostle. He promises his readers that he will visit them
in company with Timothy, who was always connected with Paul, was
his pupil and assistant, and his companion at Rome. He mentions him
as having been liberated from prison. He subjoins salutations from
those of Italy, who perhaps were persons that had visited the apostle in
prison, like the deputies from other churches. For he himself was not
yet set at liberty; whence he commends himself to the prayers of the
pious Hebrews, that he may be restored to them the sooner. At all
events, Paul could not fail to be recognized by these expressions at the
end of the Epistle.
J
But why did he not prefix his name at the beginning, if it was he
who wrote the Epistle? Clement of Alexandria, answers the question
as follows: "When Paul wrote to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced
against him, he prudently omitted prefixing his name, lest he should
excite aversion at the outset."! It was certainly best that all those
who were under the influence of prejudice when they received this
Epistle, should first read, examine, judge impartially, and then decide
for themselves. Should they afterwards suspect from circumstances,
and finally become convinced that it was from Paul, they would already
have become acquainted with the contents, and the ideas would have
been imbibed into their minds and fastened there to produce their
effect.
We have a second answer from Pantænus. He is of opinion that the
usual salutation found at the beginning of Paul's Epistles: Paul the
apostle, etc., could not properly be made use of in an Epistle to the He-
brews, inasmuch as he could not call himself apostle in reference to
them, without giving offence (§ 147). Paul had certainly surrendered
1 Euseb. H. E. L. VI. 14.
600
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
the office of apostle as far as Palestine was concerned, and by express
agreement taken the Gentile nations as the province of his mission and
labors (Gal. 2: 9, 10); and to call himself apostle to the Gentiles in a
hortatory letter to the Jews, would bave been neither fitting nor concil-
iatory.
A third answer may be drawn from the very plan of the Epistle. It
begins with a rhetorical introduction, and has, generally, as little resem-
blance to a letter as the oration Pro Lege Maniliâ. As far as the dox-
ology in 13: 12, it is entirely a rhetorical production. It is not till after
this conclusion that any thing occurs which could give rise to a query
if the discourse might not be a letter. Now whether this manner was
intentional, in order to avoid the salutation at the outset, and with it the
name apostle, or whether it was chosen for other reasons, it is sufficient
that to prefix a salutation, after the manner of an Epistle, would have
been infelicitous, considering the character of the introduction and of
the whole Epistle.
All these replies are satisfactory. No one of them excludes the oth-
er, and hence there is nothing to prevent us from regarding them all as
correct, if it be allowed that a reflecting mind may be determined by
several considerations at once.
$149.
But whence, then, arises the dissimilarity between the style and lan-
guage of this and of his other writings? The same mind reigns through-
out the Epistles of Paul, it is true, but not always the same style. In
the Epistles to the Corinthians, we observe the injured teacher, conscious
of his worth and his deserts, cautious, benevolent, earnest, and vehe-
ment; in the Epistle to the Romans, the scholar, with a dignified, dis-
tant manner, the advocate of the Gentiles, abounding in Jewish learn-
ing; in that to the Galatians, the language of paternal authority to a
people of little refinement, too much inclined to place dependence upon
their good works. How very different is the tone of the Epistle to the
Romans from that of the Epistle to the Galatians, though their subjects
are very nearly the same? That to the Ephesians is solemnly devout;
that to the Philippians is affectionate and friendly, but dignified; that to
The Hebrews is elegant and elevated. His situation and his relation
to the churches are depicted with extreme accuracy in the style of
each of his Epistles.
As to his relation to the Christians of Palestine, he was not one of
their teachers and paternal guides. He could never, therefore, adopt
the tone which he might properly use towards churches which he him-
self had planted and reared.
If we consider the object which he had in view, viz. to weaken the
impression of the splendid temple-service in Palestine, of the solemn
offerings and imposing feasts, by showing that all this was constrained
in Christianity, not sensibly and transiently, but spiritually and in a high-
er degree of perfection, we shall see that the unity of his subject natur-
ally led him to the style of a treatise or discourse.
If we look at the general contents of the Epistle, we shall see that
they demanded an elevated tone. The author, at the commencement,
PAUL'S EPISTLES,
601
speaks of Jesus as the express image of the Deity, of his exaltation
above the angels and the whole creation, of his dignity as the Son and as
the Creator of the world. He then proceeds to speak of the founder
of Judaism, Moses, and of the regulations instituted by him for the
purpose of establishing a religious state; then of the high-priesthood,
and of every thing which made the Jewish religion externally imposing,
or worthy of regard for the internal peace it imparted. He speaks of
the highest things with which the Jew was conversant, and points out
for each of them something more elevated in Christianity. Paul would
not have evinced that peculiarly sound judgment in the selection of his
style, which we know that he possessed, had he chosen any other man-
ner than the rhetorical and elevated. But every one knows that this
cannot be attained without elegant and lofty diction.
What objection can be made, moreover, against the supposition that
Luke had something to do with the phraseology? He was, at this pe-
riod, in such close intimacy with the apostle, that his coöperation in
perfecting the composition in point of elegance is not at all improbable.
Although the Epistle to the Philippians, which immediately preceded
that to the Hebrews, avoids in a measure certain harsh, Hebraistic
modes of construction, is more elegant in respect to the arrangement
of clauses, more easy in the transitions it contains, and more thoroughly
Greek in its manner and movement, than previous Epistles, yet the ad-
vance to the elegance of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to me to be
great for the period of time between them. The ancients thought they
observed in the Epistle a resemblance to the style of Luke. This,
with certain expressions and phrases, which are not natural to Paul, and
occur, out of this Epistle, only in the writings of Luke, and particularly
the Acts of the Apostles,' may be considered as confirming a supposi-
tion, which is in itself highly probable from the relations of intimacy
which subsisted between the two men. It also reconciles all difficulties
without any strained expedients, and brings that which, in particular,
and indeed alone, makes against Paul, into harmony with the pre-
ponderating, and, indeed, imperious reasons for ascribing the production
to Paul.
$ 150.
There is nothing at all, then, against Paul; on the contrary, every
thing is in his favor, and proves the Epistle to be his. Its connexion
with the circumstances of his life was as follows.
He returned to Palestine from his travels, at a time when Christianity
in that country had reason to apprehend a dangerous crisis, when it was
almost impossible to stay the apostasy of the Jews (Acts 21: 20, 21).
Fame had represented him as a determined innovator, and an opponent
of Moses, and had given rise to general ill-will towards him, to which
he was a victim. He was seized in a tumult which arose against him,
carried to Cæsarea, where he remained till he was transferred to Rome,
as he had demanded, to receive his sentence (Acts 22: 23: seq.).
Under such sad prospects in regard to the duration of Christianity in
Palestine he departed thence, probably with the depressing idea, that
1 Grotius, Adnot. in Epist. ad Hebræos, at the beginning.
76
602
PAUL'S EPISTLES.
there, where with blood and suffering the principles of Jesus had been
planted and maintained, and a numerous church had been gathered,
Christianity would soon cease to exist. Such was the consolation which
he carried with him to Rome, and it was almost an accurate view into
futurity.
His fate eventually took a favorable turn. He was already certain of
his acquittal, his liberation from prison was not far off, and the accusa-
tion of desecrating the temple, the punishment of which was death (Jos.
Bell. Jud. L. VI. c. 2. n. 4), had been quashed. The consequence was,
that he was able again to address, in the capacity of teacher, those who
might have despised him on account of the reproach of his guilt. He re-
sumed his former labors, and endeavored to oppose the evil which had
long caused him sorrow, to confirm the wavering in Palestine, to en-
courage those who continued faithful, and, when possible, to restore those
who had relapsed.
It was an extremely difficult task, which he had undertaken. But
just acquitted, he might occasion new accusations against himself, if
with boldness and openness, as was his custom, he maintained the inu-
tility of the ancient religion; and besides, in the present disposition of
his readers, it was to be feared that he might forever incur their aversion,
and even hasten the step which he wished to prevent. But what he
conceded to the Jews he conceded only to truth, to his principles, and
to his conscience. Paul knew how to unite these two things; he did
not deviate for a moment from his convictions and his former preach- -
ing, and yet granted them all they required. They wished for offerings
and days of expiation, altars for sacrifice, and high priests, and he was
so far from questioning the propriety of their requisitions, that he ap-
peared ready to grant them every thing; but, on the other hand, he
showed very happily, that they possessed the whole already in Chris-
tianity, that Christianity was nothing else than refined Judaism, before
which the gross Judaism of former times must completely disappear.
And in fact it did disappear entirely, while he proved that all which
was admirable in it was found in its highest degree of excellence and
purity in Christianity. Thus, they could regard themselves as perfect
Jews in the school of Christ, until they comprehended the religion of
Jesus in spirit and in truth, and then first they saw to their astonish-
ment that they were no longer Jews and never had been; and, since for
every requisition of sense he had supplied a spiritual idea, they were
worshippers in spirit, without being themselves conscious of it.
I am not afraid of committing an error in placing this Epistle by the
side of Paul's best productions, and bringing it into comparison with the
Epistles to the Corinthians. In these, he considerately and cautiously
weighed his instructions, entreaties, reproofs, and, indeed, every ex-
pression, with the intention of calming minds which had been excited by
designing persons and exasperated by mutual injuries; of destroying the
influence of external disturbers of their peace; and while the church was
in a divided and distracted condition, ready to fall to pieces completely, or
at least to lose a large proportion of its members, in consequence of the
slightest imprudence on his part, of bringing them all together again
and reconciling them,-a task which only an extremely prudent man
could accomplish. The object of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
603
much less difficult of attainment. To gain ascendancy over minds
passionately attached to the religious institutions of their ancestors, as
also over the national feeling which was deeply rooted with this prefer-
ence and was newly awakened and called into operation by the cir-
cumstances of the time; to deal with sensitive and excited men in so
tender a manner as to heal without paining them; to weaken the con-
stant influence exerted by the public festivals, which could not be at
once annihilated, and this without depreciating them in a direct attack,
which would have widened the breach, required uncommon qualifica-
tions. If the Epistles to the Corinthians demanded a careful reference
to the intricate condition of that church, this Epistle required a cau-
tious regard to ancient religious prepossessions, which were not to be
allowed to remain and still were not to be directly attacked, and the
ability to give them a spiritual application instead of passing them by
unnoticed. As the former express, along with the deepest earnestness,
emotions of friendly sympathy and kindness, so this likewise exhibits a
moving tenderness, although its tone is extremely solemn.
As in the former the writer was guided by prudence and acquaint-
ance with human nature, in the latter prudence and learning are prom-
inently displayed. The chief difference between them arose from the
circumstance, that in the case of the former Epistles the apostle employ-
ed discreet men to cooperate with him on the spot, in order to be
more sure of his object, while in the other case he was compelled to
trust solely to the influence of his Epistle.
To this production, it would seem, Paul devoted the serene hours im-
mediately preceding his liberation. He had apparently just begun to
expect his release, which, according to our investigations concerning
the chronology of the Acts, took place in the beginning of the tenth
year of Nero's reign.
CHAPTER III.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
$151.
The didactic writings of the apostles were separated into two collec-
tions; the one comprising the Epistles of Paul, and bearing generally
the title aлóotolos, the other containing the Epistles of the rest of the
apostles, with the title καθολικαὶ ἐπιστολαί, οι καθολικαὶ ἐπιστολαί
τῶν ἀποστόλων.
This last denomination appears frequently in the works of Origen.
He, however, applied it to the 1st Epistle of Peter to the exclusion of
the second, although the latter was known to him, and to the 1st of
John, without conferring it on the 2d and 3d.¹
>
1 Τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς Ιωάννου καθολικῆς ἐπιστολῆς οὕτως ἔχον (Tom. XVII. in Matth.
p. 797). Οπερ παραστήσομεν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου καθολικῆς ἐπιστολῆς (Ir
604
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Dionysius of Alexandria, too, calls only the 1st of John tv xavol-
izηv noroin, and in speaking soon after of two others, he applies to
them the word φερόμενος. 1
Origen's phraseology, and the passage in Dionysius which seems to
contrast with each other the καθολικός and the φερόμενος, the Catholic
and the alleged Epistles, give color to the opinion, that the expression
καθολικὴ ἐπιστολή denoted a work universally acknowledged to be
genuine, in contradistinction from one merely alleged or doubtful. A
very respectable scholar has drawn this inference from the expressions
of the two fathers just mentioned, and confirmed it by the following
language of Eusebius. The first Epistle of Peter," says he, "is uni-
versally acknowledged; but the Acts of Peter, his Gospel, his Sermon
and Apocalypse, are not among the Catholic writings."2
Thus (it is said), Catholic and universally-received, zavolexos and
duoloɣovuevos, and, of course, not Catholic and doubtful, were, accord-
ing to Eusebius, equivalent. At first view it would seem that nothing
can be more correct; and yet this is far from being the idea which Eu-
sebius attached to the word καθολικός.
13
He speaks elsewhere in a directly contrary manner. Of Clement of
Alexandria, he says: "He used also the disputed books, viz. the Epis-
tle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles.' Still more plain is his
language in an earlier passage, where he declares that the Epistle of
James, one of the so-called Catholic Epistles, is to be regarded as spu-
rious, as well as the pretended one of Jude, which, too, was one of the
seven Catholic Epistles. Thus, in his mind, Catholic was so far from
being the opposite of suspicious or disputed, that it was applied to many
of the writings classed as disputed.
4
Nor is it so certain that in Dionysius any contrast is intended between
καθολικός and φερόμενος. He presents doubts in regard to the Apoc
alypse, and, among other things, objects that in it (1:1) John calls
himself by name, which is not once the case in his other writings. He
proves this by a successive comparison of them. In his Gospel he con-
ceals his name; the Catholic Epistle he opens with the words: That
which we have heard, seen, etc. In the supposititious Epistles (he pro-
ceeds, after some intervening sentences), he merely calls himself the
elder.5
Jerm. Tom. IX. p. 181 Tom. III. Opp. Ed. Ruei. Tom. II. in Joann. p. 76.
Tom. XX. in Jo. p. 323. Tom. IV. Opp. Ruei).
1 Næsselt, Conject. ad Hist. Ep. Jacobi, appended to Knapp's Dissert. in C. II.
Jacobi.
2 H. E. III. 3.
3 H. E. VI. 14.
c
4 H. E. III. 23. Τοιαῦτα καὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν ᾿Ιάκωβον, οὗ ἡ πρώτη τῶν ὀνομα
ζομένων καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν εἶναι λέγεται. Ιστέον δὲ, ὡς νοθεύεται μὲν ὡς
Ιούδα, μιᾶς καὶ αὐτῆς οὔσης τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων καθολικῶν κ. τ. λ.
•
5 Euseb. Η. Ε. L. VI. c. 25. ῾Ο μὲν γὰρ εὐαγγελιστὴς οὐδαμοῦ τὸ
το
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ προσγράφει, οὐδὲ κηρύσσει ἑαυτὸν, οὔτε διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
οἴτε διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς . . . . Ὁ δὲ εὐαγγελιστὴς οὐδὲ τῆς καθολικῆς ἐπιστο-
λῆς προέγραψεν αὐτοῖς τὸ ὄνομα· ἄλλα ἀπερίττως ἀπ' αὐτοῦ τὸ μυστήριον τῆς
θείας ἀποκαλύψεως ἤρξατο· “Ο ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν
τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν. Ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ ἀποκαλύψει καὶ ὁ κύριος τον Πέτρον
ἐμακάρισεν, εἰπών· Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων βὰς Ἰωνᾶ, ὅτι σάρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀ-
0
0
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
605
The matter in hand here is the contrast of all John's works with the
Apocalypse; but the writer's object and the connexion did not require
that in the contrast these works should all be arranged in order one af-
ter another. It was sufficient that every one was cited under a certain
title; this was all that was needful to support the idea which he ad-
vanced.
1
What he says of the Catholic and the supposititious Epistles respec-
tively, moreover, is too far dissevered by an intervening thought. In
exhibiting a contrast, we cannot by long parentheses remove the things
we are comparing to a distance from each other, without destroying the
intended effect. Thus, guided by the laws of grammar, we cannot per-
ceive any intention of an antithesis.
But were it even admitted that Dionysius used qεcouevos in opposition
to xaolexos, it would be only his own phraseology, and not that of the
Christian church generally, and it is on this last that the question, what the
title xavolinai nuorohai in the biblical Codex signifies, must depend.
Eusebius expressly terms the first Epistle of John, which was of the
class of the universally-admitted writings of the New Testament, tv
τὴν
φερομένην ᾿Ιωάννου προτέραν, where φερομένην certainly does not
stand opposed to zavolizós in signification. The ancients have never
applied the epithet Catholic to any other admitted and undoubted
books of the New Testament, which they certainly must have done,
had it signified universally-acknowledged. They have never applied
this term to the Gospel, to the Acts, or the thirteen Epistles of Paul,
although it would have been peculiarly appropriate.
It is, therefore, a technical expression for a class of biblical writings
to which it belongs exclusively of all others, viz. for the class which
comprises the didactic writings of all the apostles (Paul excepted) to-
gether, καθολικώς, i. e. καθόλου καὶ συλλήβδην.
When the Gospels and Acts had been constituted one division, and
the works of Paul another, there yet remained the writings of various
authors to compose a third division, to which some name must be
given. It was most appropriate to call it the common collection, xavoλ-
izov ovviaɣua of the apostles, and the writings which it comprised,
κοινάς and καθολικάς, which were often synonymous words with the
Greeks.
σύντ
We find proof of this in the most ancient patristical phraseology.
Clement of Alexandria calls the Epistle which was despatched by the
council of the apostles (Acts 15: 23), the Catholic Epistle, in which all
the apostles had a share, τὴν ἐπιστολὴν καθολικὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων
απάντων. In this manner the seven Epistles under consideration are
Catholic Epistles, or Epistles of all the apostles who were authors.
2
Such is the meaning, too, of the passage above quoted from Eusebius,
who appeared to contradistinguish Catholic and doubtful; for his other
language shows that this cannot be his intention. "The first Epistle
tỷ
πεκάλυψέ σοι, ἀλλ' ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος. ᾿Αλλ᾿ οὐδὲ ἐν τῇ δευτέρα φερομ
môn
ένῃ Ιωάννου καὶ τρίτῃ καίτοι βραχείαις οὔσαις ἐπιστολαῖς Ιωάννης ὀνο
μαστί πρόκειται.
1 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 25.
2 L. IV. Strom. c. 15. p. 512. Heins. et Sylb.
606
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
of Peter," he says, "is universally acknowledged, but the Acts of Pe-
ter, his Gospel, his Sermon and Apocalypse, are not of the number of
the Catholic writings." He thus designates the class to which these al-
leged writings of Peter must have been referred (since the collection of
historical and Pauline writings was closed), had they been considered
as genuine and as belonging to the Canon-viz., in his opinion, the one
in which were placed the writings of the apostles generally.
ע.
In the same way, too, Origen used the expression, when he applied it
to the Epistle of Barnabas, γέγραπται δὲ ἐν τῇ Βαρνάβα καθολική
Enorol For this father is sometimes mentioned by the ancients un-
ἐπιστολῇ..
der the title aлooτolos; in this view, the Epistle belonged to the com-
mon collection of the apostles, or among the writings of various au-
thors.
τα
But (a celebrated scholar objects), as in fact only two Epistles, the 1st
of Peter and John, were acknowledged, how can the expression zavol-
xós have denoted a class? how could two writings be regarded as a
xadolexov oúvτayua? There was such a collection, however, and, ac-
cording to the repeated declarations of Eusebius, all the other Epistles
were contained in the Codex of the New Testament, and, though indi-
viduals may have doubted in regard to them, were publicly read in most
churches. It is on this fact that my idea is founded (and this scholar
himself seems to acknowledge it afterwards), and certainly it is tenable
only on this condition.2
In the fourth century, however, another signification supplanted this.
Heretics were constantly increasing in number, and the principal argu-
ment against them at this time was the long-established locus communis
of a harmonious universal church, from which they were renegades and
schismatics. The church and doctrines thus identical throughout the
world were called zavolinal. This signification, likewise, came to be
given to the word as designating a class of the biblical books, and by
the Catholic Epistles were meant such as were not directed to particu-
lar churches, but to the church universal, or a large part of it, nearly the
same with circular letters, such as some of the Catholic Epistles, proper-
ly so called, really were. This is Theodoret's explanation of the word,
and it was adopted by subsequent commentators.3
$ 152.
Before the fourth century, in which, for the first time an undeviating
unanimity in all the churches in respect to the Canon was effected,
Christian writers with perfect freedom advocated or denied the authori-
ity of certain writings of the New Testament. Individual fathers ad-
mitted or rejected certain books, according as their judgment dictated.
Besides the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse, this was the
1 Orig. Contra Cels. L. I. n. 63.
2 Pott. Epist. Cath. Fascic. 1. exhibens Epistolam Jacobi. Proleg. p. 26, 27.
2d Ed.
3 Pott. Ep. Cath. Vol. I. Excurs. I. De voce Ep. Cath. p. 178. See Schol. in
Jac. Ep. Edit. N. T. F. Matthæi. The Scholiast on the Parisian Ms. No. 705
says: Προτέτακται ἡ Ιακώβου ἐπιστολὴ τῶν ἄλλων ὅτι τῆς Πέτρου καθο
λικωτέρα, ταῖς γὰρ ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν διεσπαρμέναις ἐγράφη δώδεκα φυλαῖς.
TPE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
607
case, as is well known, in regard to several of the Catholic Epistles, viz.
that of James, the 2d and 3d of John, the 2d of Peter, and that of
Jude.
They were, indeed, always circulated under the names of these au-
thors, and by established custom were subjoined to the other biblical
books; but they had not universally the estimation which was conced-
ed to the latter, because they were not, equally with them, attested by
vouchers and indisputable historical evidence, or because they contain-
ed internal grounds of suspicion.
Eusebius exhibits the prevalent opinion in regard to them in a passage
which we have already frequently cited. It is in the 2d book and 23d
chapter of his History: "The first of the so-called Catholic Epistles,
that of James, is likewise considered spurious; for few of the ancients
have mentioned it. So, too, with the Epistle of Jude, which is also one
of the Catholic Epistles. It is well known, however, that in most
churches these Epistles are made use of, equally with the other Scrip-
tures."
Prescription and usage, therefore, in very many churches, ¿v alɛlo-
tais Ennhŋolais, were in their favor; but those who required other rea-
sons than prescription and custom were not restrained by these from de-
ciding against them. The right of possession did not satisfy them;
they were desirous of examining the title, and to establish this they
required the evidence of former times and earlier fathers. If this was
wanting, they took the liberty of forming their own opinion, of doubt-
ing or rejecting, according to their own critical judginent. Many oth-
ers were found to concur with them.
They felt, almost as much as we ourselves, the want of historical
vouchers, and drew a negative argument from the silence of antiquity,
as we do; but, as we learn from the statement of Eusebius, they had no
positive argument from history against these writings. How, indeed,
could they have been assigned a place among the doubtful books, if
credible witnesses of the early times of Chistianity had flatly contradict-
ed their pretended apostolic origin? or if others had remarked the time
at which they became known, and the period of their first appearance,
as being later than the times of the apostles, and had pointed out the
place and persons where and by whom they had been put into cir-
culation?
We have, consequently, nothing to apprehend in regard to them from
this quarter. In fact their immemorial use by many Christian church-
es speaks in their favor, the right of possession being only now and
then disputed because it was supported by comparatively few or weak
documents.
Even the negative argument loses much of its force in regard to some
of these Catholic Epistles, when we consider their character. Their
brevity did not afford the ancients such an abundance of ideas for every
species of composition, or such a number of arguments in behalf of
their doctrinal and moral positions, as the Epistles to the Romans and
Corinthians, or any other large book. And yet it was only for such
purposes that the ancient fathers could make use of them, and thus at-
test their existence and genuineness. For it was not till a later period,
when there existed what might be called a Christian literature, that the
608
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
"
literary history of Christianity, its various writers, and their works be-
gan to be subjects of investigation. The most ancient writings are
admonitions of a moral nature, apologies, or controversial works, such
as were called for by the exigencies of the time. It was not till long
after, that the fathers were at leisure to turn their attention to the history
of their religion, its fortunes, its literary productions, and the great men
who had earned merit in its behalf. Circumstances and the necessity
of polemical works put the public in possession of a history of the here-
tics and their sect by Justin and Irenæus, even before the birth of He-
gesippus, the first historian of the Christian church. Now, as no one
entered expressly into an investigation respecting the writers of earlier
times their works, the question which were genuine and which suspi-
cious, or respecting their history, it wholly depended on chance wheth-
er an ancient writing was mentioned in an author's productions or not,
and this chance was the less favorable to the short Epistles, in proportion
to the smallness of their compass and contents.
The negative argument was, moreover, usually enforced by internal
reasons drawn from higher criticism, which was often applied at Alex-
andria in no discreditable manner. But this cannot curtail our right to
examine and judge for ourselves. In such investigations personal au-
thority is of no weight with the critic.
Higher criticism is still open to us likewise; and I even entertain the
hope of drawing from it manifest proofs of the genuineness of some of
these Epistles, particularly those of James and Jude and the 2d of
Peter.
This is the place to present the history of the two disputed Epistles
of John, the occasion, purpose, and contents of which have been treat-
ed of already.
$ 153.
THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
In behalf of these I must appeal first to the long established right of
admission into the Codex of the New Testament, which they possessed
in many churches. This is a proper preface to the testimonies in their
favor, which we shall divide into the Greek, the eastern, and the western.
In the latter half of the second century, Clement of Alexandria al-
ludes to several Epistles of John, but so indefinitely, that we cannot tell
how many he had in mind. He refers to a passage in the first (1 John
5: 16), and calls it the larger Epistle; from which we can merely infer
that this was not the only one with which he was acquainted, without
being able to determine whether he knew of only one or of two which
were smaller.¹
،
Origen, his successor in the ministry, is more express on this point.
"John left behind him," he says, an Epistle of a very few stichoi;
perhaps, also, a second and third; though some do not consider these
1 Φαίνεται δὲ Ἰωάννης ἐν τῇ μείζονι ἐπιστολῇ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἐκδι-
δάσκον ἐν τούτοις· Εάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν, κ. τ. λ. (L. ii. Strom. c. 15).
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
609
genuine. Both these together, however, contain only an hundred
stichoi."1
Dionysius is the third father of the Alexandrian school who gives us
information in regard to the Epistles of John. We have before seen
that he was acquainted with all of them, but calls the two last qɛooμɛ-
val, writings alleged to be genuine. He was the first who attributed the
Apocalypse to another John, a Presbyter of Ephesus, with whom Papias
was intimately acquainted. Others extended this supposition still fur-
ther, and ascribed these two Epistles, likewise, to the Presbyter.
The father of ecclesiastical history makes an allusion to this fact:
66 The second and third Epistles of John, whoever may be their author,
the Evangelist or another man of the same name, ranks among the dis-
puted books."2
?
The Syriac church had them in their most ancient version, in which,
as we have shown before, they were not refused a place tili a later pe-
riod. From this version Ephræm became acquainted with them, and he
has sometimes cited them with express mention of their author.3
In the west we have a very important voucher for the 2d Epistle,
who, on account of the place where he resided during his youth and
the school in which he was educated, deserves especial regard as a
witness in respect to the works of John. We mean Irenæus, who re-
fers to the second Epistle under the writer's name, and with a predicate
which distinguishes him completely. "John, the disciple of our Lord,"
ὁ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητής. This is the mode in which he invariably de-
signates the Evangelist, in speaking of him or his works.4
0
He refers to it, likewise, in another place. After giving extracts
from the first Epistle, he continues: "And John, the disciple of Jesus,
in the Epistle before-mentioned, commanded that they (the heretics)
should be shunned, saying," etc. He then repeats, word for word, the
7th and 8th verses of the 2d Epistle.5
Hence, unless his memory was very inaccurate, he regarded the 2d
Epistle as an appendix to the first, as a part of the epistola prædicta,
just as we ourselves have considered it to be a supplement, composed
and sent at the same time with the first. If this was the case, the fol-
lowing testimony takes a different aspect from that in which it appears
at first view.
The anonymous author of the fragment in Muratori, who is usually
1 Comm. in Matth. L. I. apud Euseb. H. E. VI. 25. Katalihoine dè naì èñioto-
λὴν πάνυ ὀλίγων στίχων . Ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην· ἐπεὶ οὐ πάντες φασὶ
γνησίους εἶναι ταίτας. Πλὴν οὐκ εἰσι στίχων ἀμφότεραι ἑκατόν.
•
2 Τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων . ἡ ὀνομα ομένη δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη Ιωάννου, εἴτε τοῦ
εὐαγγελιστοῦ τυγχάνουσαι, εἴτε ἑτέρου ὁμωνύμου ἐκείνῳ (Η. Ε. ΙΙΙ. 25).
3 Hassencamp, "Anmerk. über die letzten §§ der Einleit. von Michaelis. p.
40-42.
"Jo-
4 L. I. Adv. Hær. c. 16. The passage exists in both Greek and Latin.
annes enim Domini discipulus superextendit damnationem in eos, neque ave a
nobis eis dici volens: Qui enim dicit, inquit, ave . . .
etc.".
5 L. III. 16. n. 8. "Et discipulus ejus Joannes in prædictâ Epistolâ fugere eos
præcepit dicens: Multi seductores exierunt in hunc mundum, qui non confiten-
tur Jesum Christum in carne venisse. Hic est seductor et antichristus. Videte
eos, ne perdatis, quod operati estis," etc.
77
610
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
supposed to have been Caius the Presbyter, names two Epistles of John
in his catalogue of the sacred books.¹
In the Carthaginian council under Cyprian, Aurelius, bishop of
Chullabi, gave his opinion in the words of John 2 Ep. v. 10, expressly
referring to the apostle of this name.2
Still, there were some in the Latin church, who were inclined to at-
tribute the two lesser Epistles to that John, who had been supposed by
Dionysius to be the author of the Apocalypse, like those before men-
tioned among the Greeks, from whom this idea was borrowed.3
If, now, we sum up our authentic arguments for the genuineness of
these two Epistles, we shall find that there are far more numerous and
weighty authorities in favor of the 2d than of the 3d. That of Irenæus
seems even decisive of the genuineness of the former, while no clear
mention is made of the latter before the third century, to which it was
indeed transmitted under the name of John, yet not accompanied with
such evidence as was universally satisfactory.
$154.
4
Both, however, contain strong internal evidence that they were writ-
ten by the apostle. We have already seen how harmoniously they rank
with the other works of John, how perfectly they suit his fortunes and
personal condition, and how accurately the unobtrusive and unlabored
circumstantiality of the few lines which they comprise applies to him
throughout. Nought here is detached, nothing is without connexion
and isolated, or, at all events, contradictory, as is the case with fictitious
writings. Nothing is incompatible with the intimations of antiquity,
and nothing said generally, indefinitely, without any particular refer-
ence, as happens in the case of writers who assume the person of an-
other, without being able to transfer themselves in imagination into his
condition and circumstances. The contrary of all this is true, and
there appears throughout the most beautiful consistency in point of fact
with a remarkable situation in the apostle's life.
We find, too, predominating in them, the same simple, unaffected
language, which we meet with in the 1st Epistle. The character, also,
1 "Epistolæ sane Judæ et superscripti Joannis duæ in Catholica habentur”
(Murat. Antiqq. Ital. Med. Ev. T. III. p. 854.).
2 Opp. Cypr. Edit. juxta Baluz. Venet. p. 711. "Item alius Aurelius a Chul-
labi dixit: Joannes apostolus in Epistolâ suâ posuit dicens: Si quis ad vos venit,
et doctrinam Christi non habet, nolite eum admittere in domum vestram, et ave
illi ne dixeritis, qui enim" . . etc.
•
3 Hieronym. in Catal. V. Joannes.
4 The disputed verse 1 John 5: 7 is too inconsiderable a part of the New Tes-
tament to merit a prolix discussion in an Introduction. Its examination belongs
to a critical edition of the New Testament, which is responsible for every varia-
tion in the text. The latest defence of it is by W. F. Hetzel, in the "Schrift-
forscher," II. Bd. p. 2. Horstig (in Henke's "Magazin für Religionsphilosophie
and Exegese," If Bd. p. 1), has presented some counter-arguments. So, par-
ticularly, Griesbach, in his "Bemerkungen über Hetzels Vertheidigung der
Echtheit der Stelle, I John 5: 7." Giessen 1794. Griesbach appeared to me to
have exhausted the subject; but a short time since this question came under ex-
amination anew in England. As I am but generally acquainted with these dis-
cussions, it is not proper for me to express any opinion of them.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
611
is the same; a benevolent heart, alive to all the finer feelings, yet zeal-
ous, and evincing a severity and hostile vehemence against those who
fomented disturbances, hardly to be expected from the preacher of love;
who, however, once wished to call down fire from heaven, when his
friend and master was ill-treated.
This indignation kept pace, in its increase, with the attempts of the
deceivers, their arrogance and mischief. His first and second Epistles
warn against them, their doctrines, and intercourse with them, earnest-
ly, indeed, but not vehemently; he advises the deaconess, or whoev-
er the benevolent lady was that freely practised Christian hospitality,
not to receive them, and to withhold the salutation with which a believ-
er was welcomed and entertained as a συγκοινωνός. But the third is
more vehement, because the matter had come to an open rupture, to a
manifestation of contempt for the apostle and his messengers. He
threatens that he will remember their evil deeds, which he describes with
feeling, and evidently with a heart wounded by personality. Every
thing is as it must have happened from the state of things, the grada-
tion of offences, and their closer and closer personal bearing upon the
author. Yet we do not see that violent anger, which attacks its adver-
sary with bold energy, or bitter and passionate eloquence; nor the res-
olute and stern severity of Paul, which draws the character of its ene-
mies in accurate outline, and rebukes them in exuberant language. We
see the indignation of a sensitive and excited mind, which is rather
inclined to pour fourth complaints than to make accusations and sustain
them with energy, but which, nevertheless, has too much vigor to be con
tent with a quiet and patient concealment of its feelings within itself.
It must indeed be admitted, that there are not very many of the an-
cients who mention the 2d Epistle, and few who mention the 3d; but
the 2d is extremely short, and had not the expression, ave ne dixeris,
rather striking than really violent, been so well suited to the purpose
of controversy, we should have had yet fewer testimonies in its favor.
The 3d, however, has this additional peculiarity, that its object is not
the explanation or inculcation of certain doctrines or principles of mor-
al conduct, and thus it is not a writing for general Christian instruction,
but rather relates to the private affairs of the apostle. It did not, there-
fore, afford the ancients any aid in instruction or controversy, and this
has necessarily caused a dearth of evidence for it in their works.
$155.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
The natural objects
In what country was this Epistle written?
which encompassed the writer, the allusions to climate which appear in
the Epistle, must guide us in answering this question. The descriptive
portions of it, the sensuous images by means of which he presents his
ideas, exhibit to us the landscape and the appearances of nature under
the influence of which he thought, and from which his fancy acquired
her materials. Communication and description are not like invention,
but proceed from materials already at hand; and frequently, while the
612
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
author is not himself clearly sensible of it, and perhaps contrary to his
intention, they betray the scenes and objects with which he is most fa-
miliar, and which he regarded as most popular and forcible for the pur-
pose of exhibiting his ideas to others or exciting in them his own feel-
ings. In this way our author clearly discloses the country in which he
lived, without intending to do it, though without wishing to conceal it.
His native land was situated not far from the sea (James 1: 6. 3: 4),
and was blessed with valuable productions, such as figs, oil, and wine
(3: 12). These features, however, are rather general, and leave us the
choice of several countries of the old world. Thus (e. g.) Sophocles
(Ed. Colon. 16) describes the province of Attica:
Χώρος δ᾽ ὅδ᾽ ἱερός, ως σάφ' εικάσαι, βρύων
Δάφνης, ἐλαίας, αμπέλου.
Springs of saline and bitter water were familiar to the author (3: 11,
12). This is a somewhat more definite circumstance. It does not suit
so many countries, applying in particular to Palestine, where they were
very frequent, as is observed by Josephus in many places, and also by
all those travellers who have remarked on the physical condition of the
country.
The land, moreover, was very much exposed to drought, and there
was frequently reason to fear a scarcity of productions for want of rain
(5: 17, 18); and, in particular, sudden devastations of the vegetable
kingdom were occasioned by the aveμos zavowv, or (1: 11). We
have sufficient knowledge respecting this wind, and the climate to which
it belongs. The name under which it appears here was current not
only in western Asia generally, but particularly in Palestine. Another
phenomenon which presented itself to the author's notice determines
in favor of the same residence; we mean the early and latter rains,
which took place respectively in seed time and in March, and on which
the fruitfulness of the season depended. He calls them in technical
language, and wip or nowiuos zai öyıμos (5: 7), as they
were termed in Palestine.
From this country, therefore, he wrote to all the Jews dispersed in
foreign countries and states, to the twelve tribes which were scattered
abroad, ἐν τῇ διασπορά (1: 1).
$ 156.
The Jewish people scattered abroad through the whole world were
separated into three principal divisions, viz. the residents in the mother
country and the Holy City, which was the central point of union, and
two diαonoval, the diconood olas, with its capital, Babylon (1 Pet. 1:
1), and the diaпood Elký væv (John 7: 35), which seems to have re-
garded Alexandria as its capital, on account of the language spoken
by it.
Π
It was from the mother country and the religious authorities in the
Holy City that injunctions and arrangements relative to religion proceed-
ed; e. g. in regard to the intercalation on which the time of Easter,
Pentecost, and other festivals depended. From Jerusalem the ordi-
nances were despatched to the diconood of Babylon, to that of Media,
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
613
and that of Greece.
The Median captivity was that of the ten tribes,
and properly disconnected from the other tribes;² and hence the injunc-
tions from Jerusalem may have concerned only such individuals of the
kingdom of Judah as were scattered about in this country; and these
were probably under the immediate direction of the religious authorities
in Babylon.
The Babylonish Jews had a chief, who was called ban wan or
n, Prince of the exiles. Among the Alexandrians this officer
bore the name 'Αραβάρχης, οι Αλαβάρχης, about which much has
been written. 3
The other Jewish authorities in foreign countries derived their official
power from the chief of the διασπορά.
4
On this system, by which was effected the maintenance of a reli-
gious connexion through the whole nation, each chief, it is seen, had a
separate sphere of command. General injunctions and commissions
however, could go forth only from Jerusalem, the centre of religious au-
thority.
Of this general nature is the Epistle of James, which is directed to
all the tribes, wherever dispersed; it must, therefore, have been written
from the Holy City by the head of the Christian Jews at Jerusalem.
$157.
What induced the writer to this step? what occasion or necessity
called upon him to take it? In this Epistle the apostle Paul is (if I
may be allowed to use so harsh an expression for a while) contradicted
so flatly, that it would seem to have been written in opposition to some
of his doctrines and positions. All that Paul has taught respecting
faith, its efficacy in justification, and the inutility of works, is here di-
rectly contravened. It is not impossible that these two writers have
crossed each other's paths and taken positions on this subject in opposi-
tion to one another, by mere accident, neither knowing of the other or
being actuated by any intention of controversy.
Is nothing beyond accident, then, apparent here? Or is the contra-
riety so particular, that it cannot be ascribed to the operation of chance?
It is in the Epistles to the Romans and Hebrews that Paul has most
fully expressed his opinion on this subject; and in the Epistle under
consideration there appears such a special reference to these two Epis-
tles, as cannot have been caused by accident. Many thoughts, even in
the very same costume, the same phraseology and figurative turn, are
borrowed from the Epistle to the Romans. At the commencement
James says (1: 3); Γινώσκοντες, ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως
1 Gemar. Hierosol. on Sanhedrim in the Mischnah Cap. 1. Constit. 2da.
.Comp. Geinar. Babyl בני גלותא דבבל בני גליתא דמרי בני גלותא דיוון :
on the same passage in the Mischnah.
2 Liber Siphra, on Levit. 26. 28. Parasch. Es
.עשרה השבטים שגלו למדי :
pina c. VIII. sec. 1. Ex
3 Joseph. Ant. L. XVIII. c. 8. L. XX. c. 5. n. 2. c. 7. n. 3. Cicero, Ep. ad At-
tic. L. II. Ep. 17. Juvenal, Sat. I. 130.
4 Gemar. Babyl. in Tract. Sanhedr. c. 1. § 1. sien bipub ÈsızU DEN 131
. מבית ריש גליהא ;
614
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
>
κατεργάζεται υπομονήν. This idea is likewise expressed by Paul:
Εἰδότες, ὅτι ἡ θλίψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ δοκιμήν
(Rom. 5: 3). The only difference is in the words yvwoxovtes and
sidores, both of which are participles, and, in the change of doxunv
for doxiuiov. James describes the propensity to evil under the figure
of a war occasioned by the lusts in our members (4: 1): "Ex vov i
δονῶν ὑμῶν, τῶν στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν. The same
thought and image are found in Rom. 7: 23. Nóµov Év roïs µéheoí µov
αντιστρατευόμενον τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου. The clause in James 4: 4,
Οτι ἡ φιλία τοῦ κόσμου ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ, is of the same character as :
Διότι το φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν (Rom. S: 7). Presump-
tuous judgment respecting others is reproved by both with the same
rhetorical figure and the same phraseology: σὺ τίς εἶ, ὃς κρίνεις τὸν
ἕτερον (James 4: 12); συ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων αλλότριον οἰκέτην (Rom. 14:
4), and there occurs in each a similar additional clause: sis yao.
ὁ δυνάμενος σῶσαι-δυνατὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς στῆσαι.
Intentional opposition is still more evident in the mode of discussing
the question concerning faith and works. Paul defends the preëmi-
nence of faith from the example of Abraham (Rom. 4: 1. Heb. 11, 8);
while James maintains from the same example the superiority of works
(James 2: 21). Paul cites in favor of his position the justification of the
harlot Rahab (Heb. 11: 31); James, however, argues the contrary
from her example (2: 25). .
Not only, therefore, are their opinions opposite, but James contro-
verts particular arguments presented by Paul. It is not surprising that
both sought in the life of Abraham support for entirely different posi-
tions, since the father of the whole Jewish nation and the earliest de-
positary of the promises was an illustrious example of the divine provi-
dence, to which the most dissimilar writers might easily have recourse
without mutual controversy or mutual concert; but the fact that both
seek in a person so inconsiderable and so little praiseworthy as the harlot
Rahab, an example and an argument in support of their opposite opin-
ions, cannot be explained by saying that the preeminence and extreme
interest belonging to the person might have attracted the attention of
both, as has been remarked by an estimable scholar.¹
•
ει
>
But further, there is this peculiarity in respect to the example of
Abraham, that each draws his argument for his position from the same
event in Abraham's life and the same passage in the O. T.; and that in
doing this both have used almost exactly the same phraseology: Rom.
4: 1, 2. Τί ἐροῦμεν ᾽Αβραὰμ τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν εὑρηκέναι
γὰρ Αβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη; James 2: 21. Αβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ
ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων εδικαιώθη. They then appeal alike to the words of
Gen. 15: 6. Επίστευσε ᾿Αβρααμ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαι-
ooúvny (James 2: 23. Rom. 4: 3), Paul cites them thus: zin roagn
τί γραφὴ
λέγει; James on the other hand: καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφή ή λέγουσα.
As to the example of Rahab, too, by which, in the Epistle to the.
Hebrews (11:31), Paul sustains the importance of faith, the brief man-
ner in which it is treated by both writers exhibits a similarity more
than accidental. The former designates Rahab by the epithet n лóo̟-
1
C
C
Storr, "Dissert. de Ep. Cath. occasione et consilio." Tubing. 1789. § 5.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
615
vn; so, too, the latter, Paaß ʼn пóovn (James 2: 25). Paul says, dɛğα-
αμένη τους κατασκόπους, and James uses the same word in the same
participial form : ὑποδεξαμένη τοὺς ἀγγέλους.
The contrariety, therefore, is not confined to the main topic, but ex-
tends to the particular arguments and the verbal presentation of them.
Were it possible that they should by accident contravene each oth-
er thus in regard to the main topic, they could not accidentally coin-
cide in their arguments in favor of their opposite opinions; for contra-
dictory positions do not suggest the same arguments. It cannot, more-
over, be by chance that they resemble each other so much in their
modes of presenting their arguments.
The Epistle was therefore written of set purpose against Paul, against
the doctrine that faith procures man justification and the divine favor.
The first of the writings in which Paul advocates faith so warmly
was intended primarily for the Jewish members of the church at Rome.
We may. be sure, however, that acquaintance with it was not long con-
fined within this compass. The constant influx and efflux of foreign-
ers into and from the metropolis of the world; the sympathy which oc-
currences relative to Christianity excited among its adherents; the in-
terest that must have been felt by Jewish and Gentile converts in this
Epistle, which stated such bold truths and maintained such peculiar po-
sitions-all together could not fail to extend this Epistle rapidly from
the capitol of the kingdom throughout the rest of the world.
This commendation of faith in depreciation of works was suscepti-
ble in that day of all those misconstructions which afterwards arose
from it and have been so zealously maintained among us; and, when
Christianity was forming and establishing itself, it might give to its sys-
tem a tendency that would frustrate the purposes which it was meant to
subserve. The Epistle to the Romans had had sufficient time (four
years) to be read and misunderstood, and to bring into vogue undesira-
ble notions, when that to the Hebrews appeared, advocating in full the
same opinions.
The Epistle to the Hebrews was written to Palestine, i. e. to the very
country in which the author of the alleged Epistle of James was
brought up and educated, and where he still lived. He might then
easily perceive the impressions which it made, the erroneous senti-
ments to which it gave rise, and the injury which practical, active
Christianity, the religion of works, must experience from it. We can,
therefore, easily comprehend why he stepped forward to give his breth-
ren a written warning not to be misled and to keep steadfastly before
their eyes the principles of Christian conduct.
$158.
Who, now, was its author? He calls himself James; but the Bible
mentions two or three of that name, qualified by their rank and calling
to instruct mankind, and endued with authority for that purpose.
There was a James, the son of Zebedee (Matth. 4:21. Mark 3: 17.
Luke 6: 14. Acts 1: 13). He died, however, as early as the time of
the elder Agrippa, when Paul had just commenced his career (Acts 12:
2 seq.). He, therefore, cannot have been the author.
Besides him, there was a James the son of Alpheus (Matth. 10: 3.
616
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
27: 56. Mark 3: 18. 15: 40. Luke 6: 15. Acts 1: 13). There is a James
mentioned in Matth. 13: 55. Mark 6: 3. Galat. 1: 19, and called a broth-
er of our Lord.
1
Many distinguish between the brother of our Lord and James the
son of Alpheus, the apostle. In order to determine who was the au-
thor of this Epistle, which it is our duty to attempt doing, we must in-
form ourselves concerning all the persons of the name of James, who
are represented in the bible to have been endued with authority as
teachers.
James the brother of our Lord, and James the son of Alpheus, in my
opinion, are the same. The following are my reasons.
The brethren of our Lord were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas
(Matth. 13:55). In the catalogues given of the apostles we find, along
with James, the son of Zebedee, three of these same names, viz. James,
Simon, and Judas (Luke 6: 15. Acts 1: 18. Matth. 10: 3).
If we look at Mark we find the same names presented in a manner
which corroborates our opinion. Matthew mentions the apostles in the
following order, James, Judas, Simon (10: 3, 4), and the brethren of Je-
sus in a different one, James, Simon, Judas (13:55). Mark, not satis-
fied with this disposition of them, made an alteration, and arranged the
brethren of Jesus precisely as the apostles of this name succeeded each
other, viz. James, Judas, Simon (Mark 3: 18. 6: 3), as if he was de-
sirous of showing, not only the sameness of the names, but a real identity.
The name of the father of the three apostles, and that of the father
of our Lord's brethren are so similar as to confer additional probability
on our supposition. The apostles were the sons of Alpheus, and the
brethren of our Lord the sons of Cleopas.
The Mary who is called by Matthew (27: 56), the mother of Jesus'
brethren, is called by John in the parallel passage, Mary the wife of
Cleophas (19: 25). For there was no other Mary, with the exception of
Mary Magdalene, present at the passion and death of our Lord. Mat-
thew excludes every other by speaking of Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary (27: 61. 28: 1). Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μα-
pla. John, then, must have meant by Mary, the wife of Cleophas, the
mother of Jesus' brethren, and Mary the wife of Alpheus and Mary the
wife of Cleophas are one and the same.
would be written in the Galilean dialect--Khw‹, and
with the Greek form would become 'Alqaios, as 'Ayyaîos from "77.2
1 The dispute in regard to these persons named James has been handed down
from the earliest times. The opinion and arguments of those who suppose two
besides James the son of Zebedee, viz. James the less and the brother of our
Lord, are presented in detail by Pott (Epist. Cath. Perp. Annot. Illust. Vol. 1.
Prol. p. 1-23); and the contrary opinion in the academic work "De Jacobo
Epistolæ eidem adscriptæ auctore Scripsit Gabler. Altdorf. 1787. Comp. Eich-
horn's" Allg. Bibl. der bibl. Litt." I. Bd. VI. St. p. 1011 seq. The work enti-
tled "Briefe zweener Brüder Jesu in unserm Kanon. Lemgo, 1775," distinguish-
es two persons, but considers James the brother of Jesus as own brother to the
other. On the whole, I concur with the opinion of Dr. Gabler. Much on this
subject may be found in Michaelis' Einl. in das N. T. 4th ed. II. Th. § 238-
241.
2 The Cleopas mentioned in Luke 24: 18, has nothing to do with this sub-
ject. That name, as Dr. Gabler has rightly remarked, is a Greek one from Klɛó-
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
617
Thus, what we have inferred from a comparison of the Evangelists in
regard to the fathers and mothers of these three men is here confirmed
by the analogy of language; and the sons of Cleophas and the sons of
Alpheus are in fact the same persons.
Against this identity there is but a single objection of any moment;
and this is that the brethren of Jesus did not believe on him, ovde yào
οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν, as we are told by John (7: 5).
How could these unbelievers have been received among the apostles?
But, besides that with John faith in Jesus signifies a great deal, no
less than the acknowledgment of him as the Messiah, the Son of God,
in regard to which they might have hesitated without refusing belief in
his doctrines or in his qualifications as a prophet-besides this, James,
Simon, and Judas, are really last in the list of the apostles, Judas Iscar-
iot alone being placed after them. There is, then, additional reason
for supposing the three apostles to have been the same with the
three brethren of Jesus of the same name, who were so slow of belief.
If we follow the persons of the name of James still further, during
the time when after the death of our Lord they appear engaged in the
duties to which they were called, we shall find the biblical history to
import that there was but one James besides the son of Zebedee who
was beheaded.
Not long after the latter was beheaded (Acts 12: 2), when Peter had
been liberated from prison, where a similar or more cruel fate awaited
him, and had escaped from Jerusalem in the night, he directed that the
news should be carried to James and the other brethren (Acts 12: 17).
He speaks as though there was now but one James; using no epithet
or sign of distinction, precisely as if there could be no confounding of
persons. We know from another narrative that this James was the
brother of our Lord (Gal. 1: 19).
When Paul and Barnabas proposed the question concerning the ob-
servance of the law in the council at Jerusalem, the rest of the coun-
cil being silent, James answered, saying-and the matter was decided
(Acts 15: 13). The representation of this occurrence, too, is precisely
as if there was but one of this name, and the person could not possibly
be mistaken.
When Paul subsequently appeared again at Jerusalem (Acts 21: 18),
the day after his arrival he introduced his companions into the house of
James, in which all the elders were assembled. Among those thus in-
troduced was the historian himself (εἰσῄει ὁ Παῦλος σὺν ἡμῖν πρὸς
Taxoßov), who here, as in every other case in the Acts, speaks as if
there was but one James possessed of ministerial authority, and he,
therefore, needed no special mark of distinction.
Paul, too, proceeds in a similar way, when relating in the Epistle to
the Galatians some of the circumstances of his life after his conversion.
When he came to Jerusalem the first time after his conversion, he
abode some days with Peter; "but other of the apostles," he contin-
>
<
πατρος, like 'Αντιπᾶς from Αντίπατρος, Αρποκρᾶς from Αρποκράτης. His
wife was not present at the occurrence. He says only in general, γυναῖκες τινές
(v. 22), without affirming any closer participation in the scene by himself or his
family.
78
618
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
""
ues, saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother" (1: 19).¹ In this
case he added a distinctive designation to James' name, because the
other James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, was still living
at the time of which he spoke (Comp. Acts, § 78), and hence a mis-
take would have been possible without it.
The latter died soon after, and henceforward no allusion is made to
more than one James in Paul's narrative. Peter escaped from the Ho-
ly City, and went, it seems, to Antioch. There he ate with the Gen-
tiles, till certain came from James, πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ
Taxoßou (Gal. 2: 12).
On occasion of the second mission, James (the name is used without
any mark of distinction) was a prominent pillar of the Christian cause
in Jerusalem, as well as Peter and John (Gal. 2: 9), he being repre-
sented, however, as the first of the three.
Thus, as at the commencement of Paul's narrative we found this
same James designated by Paul as the brother of our Lord, and have
observed that he continued to remain constantly at Jerusalem, so now
we find him there after a considerable lapse of time. We find the same
person, moreover, termed in other historical accounts the brother of
our Lord. Hegesippus tells us concerning this James, the brother of
our Lord, that he was the head of the church at Jerusalem, and had
become generally known under the surname of the Just.2 Clement,
in the 6th book of his Hypotyposes, confirms both these facts; and, ac-
cording to Jerome, he was head of the church in the Holy City for
about thirty years.3
$ 159.
Supposing, however, that there was more than one James, which of
them was the author of the Epistle? It must have been the James
who was head of the church at Jerusalem, even if we assume another
beside him wholly unknown to fame. He alone could expect that his
name would procure attention and his authority be respected wherever
Jews were to be found over the whole earth.
1 Ετερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ιάκωβον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου.
This passage ranks the brother of our Lord among the apostles; and hence
there remains no reason for distinguishing between the apostle and the brother
of our Lord of the same name. But those who take delight in supposing a great
many persons of the name of James, assert contrariwise the possibility of another
interpretation of it. It may, they think, be understood as meaning: I saw no
other apostle, but only James the brother of our Lord. But were this the mean-
ing, it would be very badly expressed; and allà μóvov should have been used in-
stead of sun, as it is frequently in Paul's writings. According to Paul's usus
loquendi, ei un, if it follows a general clause, denotes an exception. 1 Cor. 2: 11.
Οὐδείς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ. 1 Cor. 8. 4. "Οτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς ἕτερος, εἰ
μὴ εἷς. 2 Cor. 12: 5. Ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ καυχήσομαιεἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενίαις μου.
Consequently the passage under consideration signifies: I saw no other of the
apostles but James the brother of our Lord. The first clause is not to be taken
as exclusive, the latter denoting an exception.
2 Euseb. H. E. 11. 23.
3 Euseb. H. E. II. 1. Hieronym. Catal. voc. Jacobus.
>
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
619
He only, moreover, by virtue of the station which he held as head of
the church in the Holy City itself, possessed an established right to ad-
dress all the Jewish Christians in the world as an ecumenical teacher.
He enjoyed among the Christian Jews that prerogative which was al-
ways accorded to the religious head of the Jews at Jerusalem, of exer-
cising superintendence over all the Jews scattered abroad, and supreme
religious authority generally; and this could be assumed by no other
teacher. The chief of the Asiatic dispersion might watch over his
provinces, over the diaonova Agias, the chief of the Africano-Europe-
an dispersion over the διασπορά τῶν ῾Ελλήνων, the Jews who spoke
Greek; but neither of them could presume to send forth epistles and
injunctions to all the twelve tribes, to the Jews as a people. It was on-
ly from the perpetual centre of union for all the tribes and all their in-
dividual members, that commands and instructions could be dispensed
to all.
This established organization of Judaism would have made it diffi-
cult to influence the minds of even the Jewish Christians generally,
had not the person who undertook to do it corresponded with their ha-
bitual ideas of fitness, had he not been able to command respect and
general obedience as head over the Christians in Jerusalem. Of all
the persons named James, however, only the brother of our Lord, who
was at Jerusalem, could in this view undertake the task with propriety
and success.
If the apostle was a different person from the brother of our Lord,
he cannot have been the author. For the author does not call himself
άлóστolos, as he must in that case have done, in order to certify his
authority as a teacher; for no one inferior to an apostle could have pre-
sumed to dispense decisions on religious subjects to the Jewish Chris-
tians generally.
He was the brother of our Lord. This was the distinguishing appel-
lation by which one of the persons named James ranked above the apos-
tles, and was the chief pillar of the faith at Jerusalem. He could not
now apply this designation to himself, it is true; for our Lord was no
longer the brother of mortal man. Exalted over all things, he had al-
ready entered upon the government of the world; and ἀδελφὸς κυρίου
was now the same as αδελφόθεος or θεάδελφος, a title to which James
had not the arrogance to make pretension. The only choice remain-
ing, therefore, was to take the designation of servant instead of brother,
and to call himself, as he has done-δοῦλος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
$ 160.
Between several moral writings, composed in similar circumstances, in
support of the same truths and the same positions, there will always be
a striking difference, depending on the mental constitution of each au-
thor and his peculiar cast of feeling. The same divine truth meets
with a different reception in different minds, is looked at more in one
light than another, and felt more or less strongly, according to their
character, assimilates itself to the ideas already existing in each, be-
comes intimately connected with those ideas, and naturalizes itself in
the human understanding in different ways.
620
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
1
This Epistle, considering simply its strain of thought, without refer-
ence to its figures, phraseology, and style, has a peculiar character. It
exhibits the forbearance, the lenity and the peculiar bent of mind, which,
as history represents, belonged to James of Jerusalem.
James of Jerusalem treated the Jews with particular indulgence in
respect to the obligatory nature of the law and its ceremonies. In the
council of the apostles, it is true, he released the Gentiles from the ob-
servances of Judaism; but does not utter a word in contravention of
their binding force upon the Jews. They might, if they were so in-
clined, learn from this how much of their religion was essential to a
Christian, and if they were not, they certainly could not be offended
(Acts 15: 13, 22). He even indulged them in their continued adhe-
rence to a distinction of meats (Gal. 2: 12, 13) and to the legal tenets
in regard to pollution. He thus showed indirectly that the law might
be dispensed with, and yet suffered it to be observed for a while lon-
ger, because many could not or would not dispense with it.
In a writing like this, insisting upon practical Christianity, upon
the doctrines of Jesus as the highest moral law, the author must, one
would think, have come out at once with the declaration that the pre-
cepts of Moses were no longer the standard of human actions and the
Jewish usages no longer to be esteemed works of piety. But he pro-
ceeds in a totally different manner. He does not assail the favorite
opinions of the Jews, but only places by their side invariably something
better and more perfect, in the hope that the latter will of itself supplant
the former. He, for the moment, fully adopts the law of Moses as the
rule of human conduct (James 2: 8 and 11), and afterwards maintains
merely that the new dispensation requires all this in a far higher degree
(2:12); he leaves to the former its importance as an institution of the
Deity (4: 11), but recommends the Christian law as the most perfect
and exalted (1:25). The ceremonial rites of the Jews, pnozia, do
not offend him, even though some of them are trifling; he leaves them
as they are, and only declares that the purest piety consists in works
of inward morality (1:26, 27). Can we not see James of Jerusalem in
all this?
History¹ describes the brother of our Lord as a man of extraordinary
strictness of life and principles, which strictness gained him the dis-
tinctive title of the Just, and made him, as it were, the Cato of the dis-
ciples of Jesus. This rigid austerity, not content with particular per-
fections, requiring of the virtuous man the fulfilment of the whole mor-
al law, and demanding complete virtue without acknowledging indi-
vidual excellences, is clearly portrayed in the Epistle. The author
shows himself throughout disinclined to relax even in respect to the
minutest moral requisitions, or to distinguish between the important
and the unimportant.
According to history, James was a peculiarly ardent advocate of
prayer,2 and had an extremely warm belief in its benefit and efficacy.
This trait, too, distinguishes our Epistle, for, though the Epistle is very
far from being diffuse, prayer is nevertheless repeatedly and earnestly
enjoined (1: 5-9. 4: 2, 3. 5: 16-19).
1 Hegesipp. apud Euseb. H. E. L. II. c. 23.
2 Hegesipp. loc. cit.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
621
It is not, then, an ideal picture, sketched in general terms, indefinite,
and without character; but it is the transcript of an individual, express-
ing a certain cast of thought and character. It is no fiction, but the
portrait of a human mind, exhibiting a definiteness of feature that points.
to a real existence.
The character which it exhibits is one presented in history, that of
James, who presided over the church at Jerusalem, and was called the
brother of our Lord. We see, therefore, not only that the Epistle is a
genuine work of a certain James in the first century of the Christian
era, but to which of the several of this name (if there were several) it
is to be attributed.
$161.
We come next in order to the testimonies of the ancients, and the ac-
counts which sustain its genuineness and serve to elucidate its history.
The idea concerning faith and works which was deduced from the
writings of Paul would certainly have become the general one, if some
distinguished teacher had not interposed; but we find it to have been
rather the case that the opinion of James was inculcated in a form
which reconciled it with that of Paul. Hence the influence of this
Epistle upon the early doctrinal system is undeniable, and it derives
from this fact a very striking proof of its genuineness and the legisla-
tive authority of its author.
The doctrine of works and faith is discussed by Clement of Rome in
his first Epistle to the church at Corinth. It is true he does not men-
tion James by name, for the fathers of this period rarely quote the apos-
tolic writings under the names of their authors; but the doctrine which
he presents is clearly that of James, and indeed he exhibits striking re-
semblances to him in particular positions and arguments, and in respect
to phraseology.
He speaks (C. 38) of the true wisdom which is evinced by works,
nearly in the same way as James (3: 13). O oogos Evdεizvvov w x y v
σοφίαν αὐτοῦ, μὴ ἐν λόγοις, ἀλλ' ἐν ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς.
τ
In the 30th Chapter, he commences precisely in the words of James
(4: 6). Ο γὰρ θεός ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, and after several claus-
es passes to the subject of narahahia, as James (4: 11) does (using the
word zaralaleiv), and at the close presents James' opinion in regard to
justification by practical Christianity (ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι καὶ μὴ λόγ
οις). Θεὸς γὰρ ὑπερηφάνοις αντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσι
χάριν. Κολληθῶμεν οὖν ἐκείνοις, οἷς ἡ χάρις ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ δεδο
Tai ἐγκρατευόμενοι, ἀπὸ παντὸς ψιθυρισμοῦ καὶ καταλαλίας
πόρρω ἑαυτοὺς ποιοῦντες, ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι καὶ οὐ λόγοις.
ทุ
c
de
The example of Abraham and Rahab is treated by him, not as Paul
treats it in his Epistle to the Hebrews, of which he often makes evident
and literal use, but after the manner of James. He says (C. 10):
Αβραάμ, ο φίλος προσαγορευθείς (he is thus called only in the Epistle
of James), πιστός εὑρήθη ἐν τῷ ὑπήκοον γενέσθαι τοῖς ῥήμασι θεοῦ
(James 2: 23). Shortly after he says: iníorevoε Aẞọααµ vã veâ, xai
Ekoyioon avro eis dizaioúvnv.—He, moreover, like James (2:21),
argues from the sacrifice made by Abraham, that he united works with
εν
!
622
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
faith: διὰ πίστιν καὶ δι᾽ ὑπακοῆς προσήνεγκεν αὐτοῦ τὸν υἱὸν) θυσία
αν τῷ θεῷ.
In like manner, he says in regard to Rahab, that she was saved be-
cause she conjoined works with faith, because she harbored and pre-
served the spies of Joshua : διὰ πίστιν καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐσώθη Ρααβ ἡ
πόρνη . εἰσδεξαμένη αὐτοὺς ἔκρυψεν, εἰς τὸ ὑπερῷον .
καὶ
ἐξήγαγε αυτούς.
Among the passages which Lardner has selected from the writings of
Hermas as coincident with James, there are three of which we can rec-
ognize the local source. Were there but one, the coincidence might
more easily be ascribed to accident; but chance is out of the question
in a case of repeated agreement in thought and language.
"Nefan-
dis verbis Dominum insectati, nomen ejus negaverunt, quod super nos
erat invocatum" (Similit. VIII. 6). Blαognμovoi to nalov ovoμa го
ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ' ὑμᾶς (James 2: 7). Si enim resistitis illi (diabolo) fu-
giet a vobis confusus" (Mandat. XII. 5). 'Avriorηte tų diaßóką, nai
Αντίστητε
¶ɛvɛɛtai άð úµœv (James 4: 7). "Qui potest vos salvos facere et per-
dere” (Mand. XII. 6). Ο δυνάμενος σῶσαι καὶ ἀπολέσαι (James
4: 12).
ર
((
In a work of Irenæus, too, a passage is quoted concerning Abraham's
justification, which is found, word for word as it there stands, in James,
and nowhere else: "Quod Abraham sine circumcisione et sine ob-
servantiâ sabbatorum credidit Deo et reputatum est illi ad justitiam,
et amicus Dei vocatus est" (L. Adv. Hær. IV. c. 16. James 2: 23).
As this father had not long before (L. IV. c. 8) quoted with perfect ac-
curacy the parallel passage from Paul (Rom. 4: 3), it cannot be regard-
ed as a peculiar reading in his Ms. of the Epistle to the Romans; and
as, moreover, it does not appear thus anywhere in the Old Testament,
we cannot but consider it as a quotation from the Epistle of James, al-
though the name of the author is not mentioned.
Early, however, as this Epistle was probably known to the Latins, it
is not quoted expressly before the fourth century in any of the works
of Latin fathers which are still extant. Jerome even tells us that it
was regarded as the work of another author, and that it was only in
process of time, "paullatim tempore procedente," that it acquired esti-
mation and credit. It is probable that the council of Carthage had
some share in the more favorable reception which this Epistle hence-
forth met with among the Latins.
It is worthy of notice, however, that in the east, where from circum-
stances this composition must have been best known, it was also highly
appreciated. Syria, where better information than elsewhere must have
existed in regard to a writing originating in Palestine, included this
Epistle in its earliest church-version, and persisted in retaining it after
the subsequent rejection of all the other disputed Catholic Epistles.
Ephraem made use of it in many places, most evidently in his Greek
works, and attributed it to James, the brother of our Lord. Other Syr-
iac writers after him have used it like other sacred books, sometimes
even naming the author. Their testimonies have been collected and
arranged with industry and judgment by a deceased scholar.2
Hieronym. Catal. v. Jacobus.
2 Ephraem, Opp. Græc. T. III. p. 51. Ιάκωβος δὲ ὁ τοῦ κυρίου ἀδελ-
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
623
Some countries of Asia Minor, like the Syriac church, acknowledg-
ed but three Catholic Epistles, that of James, and the 1st of Peter and
John. Whether the well-known Iambics, which attest this, were writ-
ten by Gregory Nazianzen or Amphilochius of Iconium, the value of
their testimony is the same.'
1
་
で
​The African church affords us no such favorable evidence respecting
this Epistle as is furnished by the eastern and western. Before the 3d
century we find only very probable references to this writing by the
Greek fathers, references not by any means sufficiently exact to be re-
garded as identical passages. The most prominent of these is a pas-
sage in Clement of Alexandria: Ἐὰν μὴ—σὺν τῷ μετὰ τῆς ἐν τούτοις
τελειώσεως καὶ τῷ τὸν πλησίον ἀγαπῶν, καὶ εὐεργετείν δύνασθαι οὐκ
¿õɛode ßaorhizo Comp. James 2: 8. Origen is the first who men-
tions this Epistle clearly and expressly, and from him we learn, indeed,
that it was extensively known in the third century and long before, un-
der the name of James; but that opinions were various in regard to its
authority. After him Dionysius of Alexandria mentions the Epistle
and refers to James 1: 13, and 4: 1.4
3
2
Eusebius represents the opinions of his predecessors in much the
same manner as Origen. He says that the Epistle is a disputed book,
because the ancients have rarely referred to it. He however adds that
many esteem it genuine.5
This latter opinion finally preponderated, and after the fourth centu-
ry it was used by most of the Greek fathers like the other biblical books,
out of regard to the established usage of the church.
$162.
We may easily conceive that the striking contrast between the doc-
trines of this Epistle and the doctrines of Paul must have hindered the
favorable reception of the former. A writer who thus disputed what
was taught by an acknowledged apostle, an apostle whose disciples
and admirers were scattered in great numbers throughout many coun-
tries, the apostle, too, of the Gentiles, could not but meet with oppo-
pòs héye Hevnoate xaì xλavσate x. t. λ. Comp. L. I. p. 18. Hassencamp's
φὸς λέγει· Πενθήσατε καὶ κλαύσατε κ. τ.
Observations on the last §§ of Michaelis' Introd. p. 27–31.
1 Καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν τινες μὲν ἑπτά φασιν, οἱ δέ τρεῖς μόνας χρῆναι
δέχεσθαι, τήν ᾿Ιακώβου μίαν, μίαν δὲ Πέτρου, τὴν τ ᾿Ιωάννου μίαν. Ορρ.
Greg. Naz. T. II. p. 195.
2 Strom. L. VI. p. 825. Ed. Venet.
c
3 Comm. in Jo. Tom. 19. ᾿Εὰν δὲ λέγηται μὲν πίστις, χωρὶς δὲ ἔργων
τυγχάνῃ, νεκρά ἐστιν ἡ τοιαύτη, ὡς ἐν τῇ φερομένῃ Ιακώβου ἀνέγνωνεν. Tom.
Οἱ συγχωρηθὲν ἂν ὑπὸ τῶν παραδεχομένων τὸ, Πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων
21.
νεκρά ἐστιν.
4 Dionysii Alexand., cognomento Magni, quæ supersunt. Romæ
MDCCXCVII. Typ. Congr. de prop. Ed. Simon de Magistris, Episc. Cy-
renens. In his “Libell. de Martyrio," c. 6. p. 32. c. 7. p. 33, and “Fragm.
ex Schol. Græc. in Epist. Jacobi." p. 200.;
5 Hist. Eccles. L. II. c. 23. L. III c. 25.
624
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
nents, even though he himself, likewise, were an apostle. That he ac-
tually met with them, is not surprising. But it would be very strange
that any one should have invented this Epistle and then, to procure it
authority, ascribed it to James, without taking the essential precaution
of at least giving it such a tenor as would not render its success diffi-
cult, at any rate not excite distrust and opposition at the outset.
When a writing seemed in its entire purport to clash with previous
apostolic doctrines, how many arguments must it have had in its favor,
how many proofs of its genuineness, in order to acquire so much con-
sideration in a great many churches, as to rank with the sacred books in
the Apostolic Codex. If the contrariety to Paul was, with many church-
es, no hindrance to such a disposal of it, the conviction must certainly
have become strong that it was the production of a sacred writer, whom
no one might presume to gainsay.
$ 163.
With what views did the apostle compose this Epistle? There is no
doubt that it was his chief object to enforce the observance of the mor-
al law, as the principal purpose of religion, with special reference to
his own times and the wants and condition of those who were immedi-
ately about him and committed to his guidance, and next, to his other
contemporaries and their circumstances.
If we were acquainted with the local and other circumstances of the
time, much light would be thrown upon a great part of this Epistle, and,
though it is usually regarded as a collection of individual sentences, and
detached passages without continuous connexion, its different parts
would acquire a real mutual dependence, which is now imperceptible in
the rapid transitions of the author, and which cannot be discerned un-
til the intermediate ideas are supplied from the circumstances of the
time and the chasms in the connexion are thus filled up. With our
present means this is not completely feasible; but an imperfect picture
of the author's time and situation, may serve as an incitement to the
production of a better.
We see from the Epistle, that one of the principal troubles of the au-
thor was the лolloì didάoxaloi, the many arrogant persons, who knew
every thing in respect to religious matters and determined them at once
with the utmost confidence. It is on this account that he complains
most earnestly of a small member, the tongue, upon which he charges
great injury to the doctrines of Christ (3: 1-10. 1: 19, 20).
There had become prevalent, particularly among the Jewish Chris-
tians, an opinion respecting the exceeding efficacy of faith, according
to which man could by it become acceptable to God, without the difficult
observance of the moral law and without virtue.
From what source this opinion arose, it is not difficult to divine, since
its advocates availed themselves of the arguments which Paul had used,
in the Epistle to the Romans, to show the superfluous nature of works
and the power of faith. They did not however intend in their tenet the
works of Judaism, but considered the Mosaic law as still the rule of
life and conduct, the Messiah and his doctrines as necessary subjects of
belief. Thus Christianity was made to take a subordinate rank; it
could indeed claim assent, but obedience was due to the law.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
625
These and similar points respecting the law and Christianity, about
which there was little unanimity for a long time, were never contested
without exciting the bitterest feelings of party animosity. At Corinth
and in the churches of Galatia this controversy was prosecuted with
zeal and asperity; and James saw and dreaded it within his own
charge.
As to the external circumstances and civil condition of the Jews and
Jewish Christians, they were very far from being desirable. The præ-
tors practised extortion under every pretext, and abused their judicial
authority for their own emolument. Liberation from prison, security,
and justice were to be obtained only by money, and one might even
purchase a license to commit crime.¹
2
Hence, many in an abject manner courted the favor of the rich, avng
xovoodaxtúlios,² and the poor were obliged to endure all kinds of ig-
χρυσοδα
nominy, even in the Christian congregations, where it was least to be
tolerated (2: 2-10).
The public oppressions were grievous, but the evils which the author
foresaw were yet greater (1:3, 4, 12, 13, 14). The crying injustice
practised on all sides evidently called for retributive chastisement on the
part of God (V. 1—7).
It does not appear from any of his expressions that the Romans were
at hand; but the popular ferment and the inefficacy of the laws had al-
ready reached so high a pitch as to occasion scenes of violence and
blood: μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε—φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε (4: 1, 2, 3.
5: 6).
Under Felix, and again under Porcius Festus, vast bands of exaspe-
rated patriots marched through the country, violently forcing the inhabi-
tants of unfortified places to accompany them, or, if they refused, setting
their villages on fire and perpetrating the bloodiest deeds. They even
appeared in the capital and at the feasts, where they mixed with the
crowd of people, and effected many secret assassinations with conceal-
ed weapons."
The public disorder and lawlessness had already become so great,
that the writer believed the moment of retribution not far remote: x01-
τῆς πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἑστηκώς (V. 9).
To escape the threatened danger many meditated seeking a resi-
dence in other countries. They relied upon their commercial capaci-
4
1 Acts 24: 26. Tacit. Hist. L. V. c. 10. The following passage, it is
true, relates to the times immediately subsequent to the death of James ;
it is however true in part of the administration of Felix: Kai zonµασi
μὲν οἱ δυνατοὶ τὸν ᾿Αλβινον προσελάμβανον, ὥστε τοῦ στασιάζειν αὐτοῖς
παρείχεν
пagɛïzev üdɛlav. Jos. B. J. L. II. c. 24. p. 738. Basil. c. 14. Ed. Haverc.
2 Some of the Jews were raised to the rank of Roman knights, avdoes
innızov táɣμatog, Jos. B. J. L. II. c. 25. p. 740. Basil. ed. c. 14. n. 9.
Haverc. whence they are called xovoodaztúlioi.
3 Jos. Ant. Jud. L. XX. c. 6. 7. p. 617–620. Basil. c. 8. n. 5 seq. Ha-
verc. Comp. Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 13. n. 3, 5, 6.
4 This emigration really took place soon after under Albinus, and to a
still greater degree under Florus. Ant. Jud. L. XX. c. ult. p. 624. and De
Bell. Jud. L. II. c. 24. p. 738. c. 14. n. 2. Haverc.
79
626
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
ty for subsistence, and hoped by removing to avoid participation in the
national misery, without considering that their fate (ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελή
on), and even their lives, which they wished to save, were in the hand
of God, and that, if a higher power had so ordered, they must suffer
punishment in their own country, which they had harassed and ill-
treated (4: 13–17. 5: 1—6).
Such, nearly, was the condition, such the circumstances, and the de-
gree of civil disorder, in which the writer saw his countrymen; for, al-
though he wrote to the whole world, his native land was immediately
before his eyes.
$164.
When was this Epistle written? It was composed after the Epistle to
the Hebrews; but it cannot have been written long after that Epistle
reached Palestine, i. e. the beginning of the 10th year of Nero. For,
even if the narrative concerning the death of James, the brother of our
Lord, which we find in the 20th book of Josephus' Antiquities, be not
from Josephus himself, it is certainly one of very great antiquity, inas-
much as Origen in his Commentaries on Matthew and his work against
Celsus, and Eusebius likewise, ascribe it to the Jewish writer.
According to this account, James was murdered, through the vio-
lence of the high priest, in the interval between the death of Porcius
Festus and the accession of Albinus.
We have no direct authentic information as to the time when Albinus
took his station, or how long he held it in the rapid mutation of affairs;
but it is clear, if we compare the statements of Josephus in regard to
Gessius Florus, that this Albinus commenced his administration in the
tenth year of Nero, and did not hold it long. Florus succeeded Al-
binus. Under him the Jewish war broke out, about the close of the
twelfth year of Nero, and then Florus had at least commenced the sec-
ond year of his government.
The Epistle of James, therefore, cannot have been written before
that to the Hebrews, i. e. the beginning of the 10th year of Nero, nor
after the accession of Albinus, i. e. the close of the same year. It was
written some time in this year, the year of his death.
$165.
We must now state the contents of this Epistle. At the commence-
ment, he exhorts them to steadfastness under the trying circumstances of
the time. We obtain wisdom, he says, from God, and we must there-
fore pray for it (1: 1-9). Let no one think too highly of himself; we
are all frail creatures; blessed is he that endureth temptation. Let no
man charge our temptations to evil upon God; the reason of them lies
in ourselves. From God proceeds rather all good; as, for instance, the
precious gift of Christianity, the principles of which we should not only
be acquainted with, but practise in our lives (-27).
Christianity recognizes no distinction between the rich and the poor.
This fact demands the more attention, because religion requires the ful-
filment of every precept in its full extent (2: 18). It is no mere faith
or speculative belief, but a law of virtue to be obeyed in practice (-3:).
Those who set themselves up as teachers incur much responsibility;
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
627
we err in no way more easily than with the tongue. Let him who is
conscious of peculiar religious attainments, evince them in his life.
Wisdom is a child of heaven, modest, peaceable, without malevolence
(-4). Your evil and turbulent conduct shows that you do not yet
possess it; pray for it, therefore, and approach God with humility.
Judge not others; there is one judge for all (-13).
Let no one imagine that it rests with him to escape the retribution
which awaits the country. Ye rich men, ye must here receive the re-
ward of your arrogance (—5: 7).
Let all persevere with patience; keep the ancient examples of suffer-
ing before your eyes-the final day, the Judge, are at hand. Swear
not; a promise is of itself sacred. Is any sick? let him call the elders
of the church to anoint him and pray over him. The prayer of a right-
eous man is effectual. Finally, let every one endeavor to restore an er-
ring companion to the right way.
$166.
And now, in conclusion, how can the discrepancy between Paul and
James be reconciled? The former maintains the saving efficacy of
faith without works, and the latter the inutility of faith without them.
What did each understand by works and faith?
Both the writings in which Paul exhibits his position were directed
against Judaism, against the obligation of its precepts upon Christians.
Faith, therefore, in accordance with his object, is contrasted with Ju-
daism and the works of the law.
This contrast is expressed very distinctly in Rom. 3: 21-4:, where the
favor and mercy of God are ascribed to faith alone zwois vóμov and
zwois éoywv róμov. From the example of Abraham, which is then
adduced in support of this doctrine, the author deduces the conclusion,
that the favor of God was bestowed upon the father of his nation, dia
τns лiotεшs, aside from the Jewish constitution and the observance of
its precepts, which as yet had no existence (4:—5: &c.).
This alors, however, is with him a confident reliance on God's
assurances, ¿nis in reference to the nayyelia which he had long
ago given, that he would bless the world, as we have observed in treat-
ing of the Epistle to the Hebrews ($ 145).
With James, niotis is the acknowledgment of the doctrines of Chris-
tianity, assent to the Christian theory (2: 19, 14, 15), and oya are the
actual fulfilment of its precepts. The former, the bare speculative ac-
knowledgment of the truths of religion, without any application to hu-
man conduct, is useless and dead (1: 23).
Thus each has seen and judged correctly from his own point of view,
and neither contravenes the ideas or disparages the doctrine of the
other.
But James openly combats the particular arguments with which Paul
supports his doctrine, and evinces so special a reference to the writings
of Paul in the treatment of his subject, that we can hardly explain ev-
erything, without supposing that he had them in his mind. Thus, it
will be said, not only is there contradiction, but, what is still worse, it
sprang from a misapprehension.
628
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
We must consider, however, that James wrote to the dispersed Jews,
and controverted Paul as they understood him. If they did not com-
prehend him, if they substituted for his representations their own no-
tions, and would not understand that Moses and the ceremonial law
were no longer the rule of religious action; if they made use of his
arguments in support of their opinion, and justified with them the no-
tions they had substituted for his, can James be charged with not un-
derstanding Paul, because he attacked the erroneous interpretations
which they made of Paul's meaning and arguments?
No: James did not write against Paul, but only against an error of
the time, which the Jewish converts, in order to sustain their prejudi-
ces, had deduced from his writings, and the consequences of which
were very evident immediately around him. It was to be feared that it
might be communicated thence to all the Jewish Christians elsewhere,
and frustrate far and wide every purpose and hope of Christianity. As
head of the church at Jerusalem, he interposed his authority to prevent
this threatened result, addressing himself to all the believing Jews in
the world, for the purpose of sustaining the cause of virtue and practi-
cal religion.
$167.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLE PETER.
This Epistle was, according to the address at the commencement,
directed to the Jewish Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Bi-
thynia, and Asia (1: 1).
There is one thing which strikes us at the outset of an attentive ex-
amination of it, viz. that between it and some of the Epistles of Paul
which were directed to these provinces there is a great similarity, as
respects the thought and expression and even their very plan. The
fact is certain, the proofs of it are evident, nor is its explanation diffi-
cult.
Peter had not seen the Asiatic provinces. They lay within the
sphere of Paul's duties, and he had travelled through them, dispensing
instruction to the inhabitants, and even while imprisoned at a distance
had not lost sight of them. He was acquainted with their manner of
life, failings, virtues, and vices, their general condition, and the proper
mode of dealing with them.
Now when an urgent occasion required the intervention of Peter, his
consolation, or instruction, the Epistles of his esteemed colleague might
well in such a case furnish him with directions for his procedure.
We find that the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians and the
first to Timothy were especially made use of by the apostle, and fre-
quently guided him in the matter and manner of his Epistle.
−
After a form of salutation, Peter commences thus (1:3): Evloynros
ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ . . αναγεννή
σας κ. τ. λ. Just so Paul to the Ephesians (1: 3): Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς
καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογήσας κ. τ. λ.
Peter then extols Christianity, its saving efficacy, its exalted founder,
his dignity and benevolent commiseration, which merit the adoration
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
629
of men and angels. All this part of the Epistle very much resembles
in thought and language, Paul's introduction to his Epistle to the Ephe-
sians and Colossians.
When this preparatory matter is concluded, he makes the following
transition (2: 1): Αποθέμενοι οὖν πᾶσαν κακίαν, καὶ πάντα δόλον,
καὶ ὑποκρίσεις, καὶ φθόνους, καὶ πάσας καταλαλιάς. This transition
occurs likewise in the Epistle to the Colossians (3: 8): Λυνὶ δὲ ἀπό-
θεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα, ὀργὴν, θυμὸν, κακίαν, βλασφημίαν, αἰσχρο-
λογίαν ; a substitution of synonymes constituting their whole diference.
In speaking, as the case required, of their civil and domestic rela-
tions, he again consults Paul as to what it would be most pertinent to
suggest.
1 Pet. 2: 13 seq.
Υποτάγητε οὖν
πάσῃ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει
εἴτε βασιλεῖ,
ὡς ὑπερέχοντι . ..
•
"Οτι οὕτως ἐστὶ
τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ.
1 Pet. 2: 18.
Οἱ οἰκέται,
ὑποτασσόμενοι
ἐν παντὶ φόβῳ
τοῖς δεσπόταις·
1 Pet. 3: 1.
῾Ομοίως αἱ γυναῖκες
υποτασσόμεναι
τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν
Εποπτεύσαντες τὴν ἐν φόβῳ
ἁγνὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν.
Ων ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν
ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν
καὶ περιθέσεως χρυσίων,
ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων
κόσμος.
1 Tim. 2 seq.
Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων
ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις, προσευχὰς, ἐν-
τεύξεις, εὐχαριστίας,
ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων.
ὑπὲρ βασιλέων,
καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων
Τοῦτο γὰρ καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον
ἐνώπιον
•
τοῦ θεοῦ.
Ephes. 6: 5.
Οἱ δοῦλοι
ὑπακούετε
τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα
μετά φόβου καὶ τρόμου.
Col. 3: 18.
Αἱ γυναῖκες
υποτάσσεσθε
τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν
1 Tim. 2: 9.
Εν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς
καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτὰς,
μή
ἐν πλέγμασιν,
ἢ χρυσῷ,
ἢ μαργαρίταις, ἢ ἱματισμῷ
πολυτελεῖ.
The thoughts, as likewise the purport and number of the clauses, are
nearly the same, and even the deviations in expression evince a more
than accidental relationship. Though υπερέχων is used for ἐν ὑπερο-
χῇ ὤν, for πλέγμασιν the words ἐμπλοκὴ τριχῶν, and περίθεσις χρυ
630
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
σίων for χρυσός, the fact manifests rather a design of avoiding identity
in expression than any essential difference. Peter himself, too, is so far
from denying his acquaintance with Paul's Epistles, that he even re-
fers his readers expressly to these writings of his beloved brother (2
Pet. 3: 15), and recommends their perusal.
168.
Moreover, we find some passages which coincide entirely with pas-
sages in James; e. g.
1 Pet. 1: 6, 7.
Ἐν ᾧ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε
•
ὀλίγον ἄρτι
λυπηθέντες
ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς·
ἵνα τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν
τῆς πίστεως
εὑρηθῇ εἰς ἔπαινον κ. τ. λ.
1 Pet. 1: 24.
Διότι πᾶσα σὰρξ
ὡς χόρτος
καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῆς
ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου.
* Εξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος
καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ
ἐξέπεσε.
1 Pet. 5: 5, 6.
“Οτι ὁ θεὸς ὑπερεφάνοις ἀντιτάσσε
ται, ταπεινοῖς· δὲ
δίδωσι χάριν.
Ταπεινώθητε οὖν
ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα
τοῦ θεοῦ,
ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ.
James 1: 2 seq.
Πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε
ὅταν
περιπέσητε
πειρασμοῖς ποικίλοις·
γινώσκοντες
ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν
τῆς πίστεως
A
κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν· κ. τ. λ.
James 1: 10 seq.
"Οτι
ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου παρελεύσεται.
C
Ανέτειλε ὁ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι,
0
καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον,
καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ
ἐξέπεσε.
James 4: 6, 10.
Ο Θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται,
ταπεινοῖς δὲ
δίδωσι χάριν
Ταπεινώθητε
ἐνώπιον
τοῦ κυρίου
καὶ ὑψώσει ὑμᾶς.
The passage in 1 Pet. 5: 5, and James 4: 6, is taken, it is true, from
Proverbs 3: 34, and the coincidence in regard to it may have been ac-
cidental; but the precisely similar conclusions drawn from it by both
(similar in language as well as substance) makes accident wholly im-
probable. There is, moreover, another instance, 1 Peter 4: 8 and
James 5: 20, in which accident must be supposed to have led them for
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
631
καὶ
the second time to the same passage in the same book: “Оu ý άɣáлŋ
καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν—and επιστρέψας αμαρτωλὸν
καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν (See Prov. 10: 12).
The question, which of them transferred these parts from the com-
position of the other into his own, depends, no doubt, upon the question,
which first published his Epistle? This is not, however, a mere mat-
ter of curiosity, but involves important consequences, one of which we
will here mention. If, as was really the case, James composed his
Epistle first, the parts alluded to must certainly have been drawn from
James, and then can any higher proof be required that the Epistle of
James is a genuine monument of the apostolic age? Could the testi-
mony of other witnesses be of so much effect in satisfying us of this,
as a proof resting on so high, so unexceptionable authority?
§. 169.
The main object of the Epistle is to inspirit and console persons in
distress; and its contents are as follows:
I salute you through Jesus Christ, through whom God will conduct us
to glory, if we endure with constancy our present trials, which are for
our benefit. For the end of them is a state of blessedness which even he
who purchased it, though so exalted, attained only by his sufferings
(-1: 13).
Therefore, prepare yourselves for the moment when this reward shall
be bestowed. Be worthy of the Lord, ye who are purchased by his suf-
ferings, and worthy of the hopes which we have through him. We are
destined for something higher than the enjoyment of this fleeting life
(-2: 1).
Lay aside every thing which defiles you and renders you unworthy
of him. He is the centre of all our hopes, our pattern, and Saviour
(-2.11). So regulate your conduct, that no one can reproach you as
evil-doers; render honest obedience to the powers that be (−2: 18).
This precept extends also to servants and slaves in relation to their
masters; for even to them the meek and suffering Jesus should be an
example (-3). Women, too, should be submissive, modest, consider-
ing noiseless virtue as their greatest ornament; men should cherish
and honor them (—3: 8).
All should be full of sympathy, love, and indulgence towards each
other, and be guiltless, every moment able to answer for themselves,
that their adversaries and calumniators may be ashamed; for Christ
hath suffered once for all that he might procure us a good conscience
and make us acceptable to God (—4:).
Our past transgressions, for which Jesus suffered, should no longer
be discoverable in us; we should rather make preparation by our lives
for a great catastrophe, which is not far distant (-4: 12). When this
takes place, we shall have opportunity to suffer with joyful endurance,
as Jesus did. It will be happy for us if we are reproached as his disci-
ples, and not as criminals (-5:).
Therefore, ye elders, watch over your flocks; ye that are subordi-
nate, demean yourselves as such! Let every one lay aside worldly
632
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
cares; be on the watch; our trial is great. God give you strength!
I have already written once to you by Sylvanus, and now salute you
again.
$ 170.
We must close our eyes, not to perceive that the whole of this Epis-
tle is directed to one end, the preparation of the churches of Asia Mi-
nor for severe suffering. Its moral instructions are only subsidiary.
The exhortations to renounce evil, to acquire a pure conscience, to re-
fute the calumnies of the time by their innocence, to abstain from vio-
lent disputes, to pay respect to the powers that were, to exercise increas-
ed love and fidelity towards each other, etc. are merely directions how
to alleviate their fearful fate or bear it better. In like manner, the re-
peated references to the example of Jesus in his sufferings and death
are designed to strengthen them for the endurance of calamitous oc-
currences. The exhortation to the slaves, too, has reference to the un-
happy days in which, for real or imaginary wrongs and hardships, they
frequently became the accusers and betrayers of their masters.
We
therefore with propriety inquire, what were the events in history for
which the author of this Epistle wished to prepare the churches of the
five provinces.
น
1. He describes them in the following manner. It is not to e
thought strange that a fiery trial awaits believers, to try their character;
for in this respect they only have a common lot with the founder of their
religion (4: 12, 13). He declares the dreaded trial to be a judgment
from God, which would be begun by him in his own household, and on
that account would only be the more terrible in its final operation upon
those who were not his followers (4: 17); or a day of visitation, such
as God has appointed to decide the fate of whole nations, Di",
Isaiah 10: 3, RB, Jer. 10: 15, xαιgos пozоnns, Luke 19: 44.
Such a day, épa Eniozoans (2: 12) awaits them; and they should
ἐπι
endure it to the glory of God. A comparison of the passages referred
to may put the force of the figure in its full light. He further declares
that the enemy of Christ and adversary of all good is now going about
like a ravenous lion seeking his prey, and that the sufferings which
threatened them were to be experienced, not within a limited sphere, but
among all their brethren in the faith, adelgórne; not in the Roman
empire alone, but in the whole world, ¿v xóoμą, among the socii and
fæderati, all who were desirous of being on good terms with the Ro-
mans (5:8, 9).
These traits, which go to make up the picture of the condition of
Christians in the five provinces, denote no particular local disturbances
on the part of the Jews, nor brief outrages here and there on the
part of the populace; but they refer to a time of terror and calamity to
the Christians generally, not only in all Asia Minor, but in the whole
world. The magnitude and universality of the evil evince that it must
have proceeded from the highest civil authority, which alone could oc-
casion so wide spread and simultaneous a result. Now there is no
event which can have had such important and general effects, but the
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
63
first persecution of the Christians, in which Nero, with ingenious wan-
tonness, set an example for others.
τα
2. A second criterion is contained in the passages 2: 12. 3: 16. 4: 16.
The accusation had gone abroad against the adherents to the new re-
ligion, that they were evil doers, zazoлotoi; so that indeed the name
Xotoriavos denoted a person deserving of punishment. Heretofore,
all complaints had related to a difference in religious views, in refer-
ence 'to which the Jews were always accusers, except in the case of
the complaint made by the silver-smiths of Ephesus. At Corinth Gal-
lio drove them from his judgment-seat, and justly acknowledged that
no crime or misdemeanor was apparent (Acts 18: 14-16). Felix and
Festus, together with king Agrippa, regarded the accusation made be-
fore them, although the high-priests were the complainants, as a dispute
about doctrines, and could perceive no criminality (Acts 24:-27:). At
Ephesus it was even the case that one of the officers of the city de-
fended the Christians, and declared them guiltless of any crime against
the goddess or the holy image (Acts 19: 37). The name Xoioriavós,
so late as towards the end of the 7th year of Nero's reign, was so far
from being an odious one, that Agrippa did not consider the adoption
of it as degrading, or prejudicial to his royal dignity: Ev ỏhiyo μɛ
πείθεις Χριστιανὸν γενέσθαι (Acts 26: 23).
It was far from being thought of, even at this time, to charge the
whole body of Christians with criminal conduct; and no trace of such an
accusation appears till three years later, when Nero charged upon the
Christians his own crime, the monstrous conflagration in the capital,
and punished them as the authors of the abominable deed. It is on
this occasion that they first occur in Roman history as a new, pecu-
liar sect, termed Christiani from their founder Christus; and many se-
vere accusations are heaped upon them.'
1
3. It was necessary that they should be always ready to exculpate
themselves (3:15) and to be led away to punishment, not merely ex-
posed to revilings, but (as appears from the tertium comparationis
which the apostle uses) to suffer as thieves, murderers, and seditious.
persons (though far from being such), i. e. to meet death or such punish-
ments as were awarded to grievous crimes—and this because they were
Xoiaríaroi (4: 15, 16). Accordingly, he says that he who is appointed
Χριστιανοί
to suffer by the will of God should commend his soul to his Creator (4:
19), or, in other words, die a pious death (Luke 23: 46. Acts 7:59).²
There is no ground of probability, much less any historical evidence,
that Christians in the Roman empire out of Palestine were punished
with death for their religion before the time we have mentioned.
According to the Annals of Tacitus, the first examples of such cruel-
ty were presented at Rome under the Consuls Lecanius and M. Licinius
Crassus, in the tenth consulate of Nero's reign.
The conflagration, which was the cause or occasion of the persecu-
tion, began on the XIII. Kal. Sextiles,³ in the latter part of July; but
the persecution did not commence immediately. Devices of every kind
1 Tacit. Annal. XV. 44.
2 Pott, Ep. Cath Vol. II. Ed. secunda ad 1 Peter 4: 19.
3 Lipsius, in Excurs. A. ad Tacit. Ann. L. XV.
80
634
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
1
were employed, to quiet the indignation of those who had suffered by the
conflagration; days of expiation appointed to conciliate the gods; and
every method used to do away the odium excited against Nero. Final-
ly, when all was in vain, persons were sought for who could be held up
as the criminals, and the Christians were selected.
The Epistle cannot have been written before these terrible events,
which must have occurred late in this year, and have filled all who bore
the name of Christian with consternation.
Nor can it have been written till a considerable later period. For we
must suppose the lapse of several months before the news could reach
the oriental provinces of the empire. An additional interval must also
have elapsed before the apostle could gain information respecting the
condition and fearful apprehensions of the churches.
Thus the Epistle was certainly not written in this year, but in the
following consulate, or the eleventh year of Nero's reign.
Whether the persecution extended beyond the walls of the city to
the remote provinces of the empire, or whether, on this occasion, they
were only distressed with apprehensions, history does not inform us.
Peter rather represents the misfortune as to be apprehended than al-
ready in existence (1: 6), εἰ δέον ἐστί (3: 17) εἰ θέλει τὸ θέλημα τοῦ
drov, if need be, if the will of God be so. The fear, however, was well-
grounded; for what might not be apprehended, when in the centre of the
empire, the source of all civil authority, such accusations had been
made against the fraternity of Christians, and every former invention
of cruelty had been exceeded in their punishment?
The
prospect was terrible, even if it never was realized; a mortal
agony must have been upon them, even though the stroke was averted
by a higher power. The dreadful event at Rome must have spread
terror among all Christians. It was certainly the most momentous
occurrence in regard to Christianity which had taken place since its
rise, and we should have had good reason for wonder, had it occasioned
no letter of consolation, had it left no trace of itself in the apostolic
writings.
$171.
We wish here to recal to mind what we have before shown respect-
ing the Epistle of James from internal marks and by analysis, or, as
in another case we should rather say, from reasons of higher criticism;
viz. that the Epistle was written in Palestine, by an inhabitant of Pal-
estine, and by that James, among several of the name, who was the
brother of our Lord. Now (as appears from § 168) either Peter has ap-
propriated to himself figures and clauses from the Epistle of James, or,
vice versa, James borrowed them from the Epistle of Peter; and the
decision of the alternative depends solely on the chronological relation
which the Epistles bear to each other. The date of the Epistle of Pe-
ter is definitely ascertained. It was written in the eleventh year of Ne-
ro; while, on the other hand, the brother of our Lord, to whom, not
arbitrarily but with good reason, we attribute the Epistle which bears
the name of James, died as early as the tenth year of Nero (§ 164).
Thus Peter, who wrote latest, bears witness to the previous existence
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
635
of the Epistle of James, and, not only so, but his testimony assures us,
moreover, that it came from some James, the appropriation of whose
language Peter did not consider to be beneath his dignity as an apos-
tle. While, then, the Epistle of James is not deficient in internal
verification, and only wants external evidence, particularly among the
Greek fathers, Peter's recognition of it is ample indemnification for
the deficiency.
$172.
C
The first Epistle of Peter was written from Babylon (5: 13). Hv
Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή i. e. ἐκκλησία, is termed συνεκλεκτή in refer-
ence to the εκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις in 1: 1. The most recent expo-
sitor of the Epistle is inclined to understand by ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συν-
Exhɛnt, the wife of Peter, as if the apostle intended to say, my wife,
whom I have left behind at Babylon, saluteth you; and from this inter-
pretation draws the inference, that Peter must have written the Epistle
at some other place than Babylon.¹ How did she know, then, that her
husband was writing to Asia Minor? or how did he receive commis-
sion from his wife to salute the churches of the five provinces? By
letter or message, it may be said. But any thing of this nature must
have been attended with much delay and uncertainty. Suppose, then,
that Peter commenced his Epistle at Babylon, and finished it while on a
journey. At all events, Peter, according to this opinion, had but a
short time before been at Babylon, where he left his wife, and where he
had received information respecting the condition of the provinces of
Asia Minor, and had determined to write to them soon. At all events,
moreover, the Epistle was written at no great distance from Babylon.
This name brings first to every one's mind the celebrated Babylon
upon the Euphrates. There was another, however, in Egypt, not far
from Memphis; and some will have it that by Babylon is meant Rome,
because the Apocalypse makes use of this metonymy in regard to
Rome; not considering that, though it may be very proper in a work
wholly of a symbolical character, it would not be expected in the sub-
scription to an Epistle, even though arcana nomina ecclesiarum existed
among Christians.
When the name Babylon is used alone, one would think it must de-
note the ancient renowned city, which is first suggested to every one's
mind, Babylon per eminentiam; one less celebrated would have been
mentioned with some mark of distinction, as, e. g., Babylon in Egypt.
But, it is objected, were there any Jews at that time in ancient Baby-
lon? At first the question may appear ridiculous. How often does
Josephus speak of Jews in Babylon, as does also, at a later period, the
Talmud of them and their celebrated school in that city. But the pas-
sages in Josephus refer to an earlier period, and those in the Talmud to
one considerably later than the date of this Epistle. In the latter part
of the reign of Caius Caligula a great change took place in the condi-
1 Pott, Ep. Cath. Vol. II. Ed. altera ad 1 Pet. 5: 13.
2 Diod. L. I. c. 56. Jos. Ant. L. II. c. 15. Antonini Itin. p. 169. Ed. Wesse-
ling.
636
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
tion of the Jews of Babylon. The Babylonians, highly exasperated at
the insolence of a powerful Jew, violently expelled the Jews from the
city, and they fled to Seleucia. Five years after, the plague drove
away all such as had been permitted to remain on account of connex-
ions or for other special reasons. The Jews in Seleucia, to the num-
ber of fifty thousand, were some time after massacred. Those who es-
caped sought safety at Ctesiphon; but they felt so little assurance of
permanent security here, that they removed to Neerda and Nisibis.¹
This exasperation could hardly have subsided so much in the course of
a few years, that the Jews would venture to return to Babylon.
σε
But there were others to whom the instructions of the apostle might
be addressed and would be acceptable. The oɛßouɛvot, or pious Gen-
tiles, were everywhere more disposed to receive the doctrines of Chris-
tianity than the Jews. There were such in the East, as well as among
the Greeks and Romans.2
Let us, however, look a moment at the Babylon in Egypt. Suppos-
ing Peter to have gathered a church here, or visited one already exist-
ing, in order to ascertain its doctrines and condition, and to regulate
whatever required to be corrected and amended, we have an explana-
tion of a fact which is stated in history. Mark, we are told (see § 75),
went from Rome, where under Peter's guidance he had written his
Gospel, to Egypt, and took charge of the Christian churches in that
country. Now what is more natural, than that Mark should consider
it his duty, after the death of Peter, to guide and uphold the churches
which he had labored with Peter to establish or to regulate?
But, on the other hand, we meet with a difficulty in the circumstance,
that according to Strabo's description of it, this Babylon was little more
than a garrison, occupied by one of the three Roman legions which
were quartered in Egypt.3
$173.
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER AND THE EPISTLE OF JUDE.
The first Epistle of Peter had, besides its general destination, one
more particular, to a certain church or to several which was or were un-
der the direction of one Sylvanus, probably the samne who was at one time
Paul's travelling-companion. Peter had already written once before,
and communicated instruction respecting some doubts upon doctrinal
points (1 Pet. 5: 12); but of this letter nothing remains, not even a
definite intimation as to the churches to which it was directed.
The apprehension which Peter felt as to the maintenance of pure doc-
trine was, however, becoming more and more well-grounded. False
teachers gained the ascendancy, acquired adherents, and vexed the
churches with heresies, while they were trembling at the horrors of Ne-
1 Jos. Ant. L. XVIII. c. 9. n. 8, 9.
2 Jos. B. Jud L. II. c. 20. n. 2, and c. 18. n. 2. Contra Apion. L, II. c. 10.
3 Strabo, Geogr. L. XVII. p. 555. 1ma Casaub. and 2da Casaub. p. 807.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
637
ro's persecution. There was, then, it would seem, no apostle in Asia
Minor. Paul must have been still in the East, and John cannot have
been then at Ephesus, since aid was sought at a distance. This absence
of any authority that could restrain the heretics was naturally a great
help to their endeavors; and they did not neglect to profit by it.
The second of the Epistles extant was directed to the same church
or churches as the lost Epistle, which sustained the orthodoxy of Sylva-
nus and commended his fidelity under the circumstances of the time
(1ªPet. 5: 12); and the same, also, to which the first of the Epistles extant
was more especially directed. Peter calls this Epistle the second, dɛv-
révav vµîv joúqwatorov (2 Pet. 3: 1), and thus seems to have re-
garded the Epistle did Zidovavov as a private one, and Sylvanus as his
agent, by whom he laid something before the church, without publish-
ing to the world the letter itself, which may have contained some spe-
cial communications.
The Epistle of Jude treats of the same errors, opposes the same per-
sons, to which the 2d of Peter relates. Their occasion, therefore,
their purpose, and destination must have been the same. Now, as the
second of Peter was directed to Asia Minor, no other destination can
be properly assigned to the Epistle of Jude. Persia, then, is out of the
question, though it has been designated as the country to which it was
sent.
The statement that this apostle wrote against the Magi and Persians
is so far well-founded, that he opposed doctrines held by the Magi, but
the supposition that he wrote against the Persians is the bold invention
of a historical conjecturer, who gave to the truth an addition of his own.
Thus the Epistle of Peter remains our sole and a faithful guide in re-
gard to the local destination of James' Epistle, if it be true that the
similarity of two compositions, written not with general aims, but a-
gainst particular doctrines and absurdities, necessarily supposes simi-
lar local and other circumstances as the occasion and foundation of
both.
$174.
The contents of the second Epistle of Peter are as follows: Labor
incessantly to advance in the knowledge of the blessed doctrine of Je-
sus, which produces every virtue, no one of which shall be unrewarded
-1: 12). I therefore exhort you anew; and, as an eye-witness of what
Jesus did and taught, I can give you more accurate instruction than
those who strive to mislead you by false representations (−2:).
False teachers have crept in among you, whose destruction is certain.
God spared not even the disobedient angels; he has set before our eyes,
as examples, the punishment of the whole world before the flood, as
also particularly of Sodom and Gomorrah. Much more may they ex-
pect punishment, who give themselves up to every impurity, and speak
evil of God and spiritual beings, which even the angels have never ven-
tured to do in respect to beings inferior to them. Full of uncleanness
and covetousness, they strive after lucre, like Balaam; they are windy
clouds without water (-3:).
Remember the words of prophets and apostles, who have foretold the
638
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
coming of our Lord and the return of the earth to chaos when he shall
appear as Judge. Hold yourselves in readiness, as Paul has already ex-
- horted you.
§ 175.
Contents of the Epistle of Jude. There have crept in among you
unawares certain men, long since ripe for destruction, who deny our
Lord. Remember that God punished the Jews when they rebelled
against him, and even the disobedient angels; Sodom and Gomorrah,
too, he made a monument of chastisement for their abominations. These
men, full of sensuality, revile God and spiritual beings, though Michael
dared not revile even Satan. They thirst for gain like Balaam, perish
like Korah, are windy clouds without water, raging waves of the sea.
Enoch declared the judgment which awaits their wickedness. But re-
main ye firm in the faith and in love, in which may God confirm you.
§ 176.
The similarity of the second chapter of the 2d Epistle of Peter to
the little composition of Jude is so great as to strike every one's atten-
tion. It does not, therefore, need proof; but the reason of it demands
careful investigation.
Was it, then, Jude who borrowed from Peter ? or did Peter use Jude's
small composition in preparing his own? There is certainly little
probability that Jude would have made use of foreign aid as to the
ideas and phraseology of so brief a production as his, consisting of on-
ly twenty-five verses.
In instituting a comparison between the two, however, a sagacious
observer cannot fail to perceive which is the original. The phraseolo-
gy of Jude is simple, unlabored, and expressive without ornament; that
of Peter is artificial, and wears the appearance of embellishment and
amplification.
Jude v. 8.
῾Ομοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι
ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι, σάρκα
μὲν μιαίνουσι, κυριότητα
δὲ ἀθετοῦσι, δόξας δὲ
βλασφημοῦσιν.
Jude v. 10.
Οὗτοι δὲ, ὅσα μὲν οὐκ
οἴδασι, βλασφημοῦσιν·
ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς, ὡς τὰ
: ἄλογα ζώα, ἐπίστανται,
ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται.
2 Pet. 2: 10.
Μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς
ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους
καὶ κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας.
τολμηταί, αυθάδεις, δόξας οὐ
τρέμουσι βλασφημοῦντες.
2 Pet. 2: 12.
Οὗτοι δὲ, ὡς ἄλογα ζῶα φυσικά,
γεγεννημένα εἰς ἅλωσιν καὶ
φθοράν, ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσι βλασφη
μοῦντες, ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν
καταφθαρήσονται.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
639
Jude v. 16.
Οὗτοί εἰσι
κατὰ τὰς
καὶ τὸ στόμα αὐτῶν
1
λαλεῖ ὑπέρογκα.
ἐπιθυμίας αὑτῶν πορευόμενοι·
2 Pet. 2: 18.
Υπέρογκα γάρ ματαιότητος
φθεγγόμενοι δελεάζουσιν ἐν
ἐπιθυμίαις σαρκὸς, ἀσελγείαις,
τοὺς ὀλίγως ἀποφυγόντας τοὺς
ἐν πλάνῃ ἀναστρεφομένους.
In the following passage in Jude I have reversed the real order of the
words. It is necessary that it should be read in this inverted manner, in
order to make the parallelism more apparent.
Jude v. 4.
Αρνούμενοι
δεσπότην
μετατιθέντες
εἰς ἀσέλγειαν
ἀσεβεῖς, τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριν
εἰς τὸ κρῖμα
προγεγραμμένοι
πάλαι.
2 Pet. 2: 1, 2, 3.
Καὶ τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς
δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι,
ἐπάγοντες ἑαυτοῖς ταχινὴν
ἀπώλειαν
C
ταῖς ἀσελγείαις,
δι' οὓς ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ἀληθείας
βλασφημηθήσεται
οἷς τὸ κρῖμα
ἔκπαλαι
οὐκ ἀργεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν
οὐ νυστάζει.
In the first passage, while Jude says simply, σάρκα μιαίνουσι, Peter
has ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ πορευόμενοι-Jude κυρίοτητα αθε
τοῦσι, Peter κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντες, τολμηταὶ, αυθάδεις-Jude
δόξας βλασφημοῦσι, Peter δόξας οὐ τρέμουσι βλασφημοῦντες; in all
which cases it is evident that Peter's expressions are circumlocutions
and amplifications. It is just so with the other passages cited; they
are moulded from the simple language of Jude to a more elegant form,
are embellished with participles, and sometimes exhibit rhetorical am-
plifications.
If this observation be correct, and it is so obviously true that it will
hardly be disputed, it is a natural inference, that Peter had the Epistle
of Jude before him and applied it to his own purposes in his own way.¹
Both, moreover, mention a controversy between angels and fallen
spirits, conducted by the former with so much forbearance, that they
1 It has been attempted to explain the similarity of Peter and Jude by sup-
posing them to have made use of the same originals, such, e. g., as the book
from which they derived the account of a dispute of the angels with inferior
spirits. If the resemblance were limited to agreement in such matters of eru-
dition, this supposition might hold good. But it extends, also, to the descrip-
tion of their contemporaries, to the picture they give of certain false teachers,
and to the representation of their vices and errors, which they cannot well
have drawn from previous sources. It extends even to the salutation in the two
Epistles, which cannot have been borrowed from any common source: χάρις
ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη ; and Jude: ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη . . . πληθυνθείη..
!
640
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
>
did not revile even such opponents (2 Pet. 2: 11. Jude v. 9). In regard
to the passage in Peter, we are told, it is true, that xar avtov may refer,
κατ'
not to spirits, to the preceding dotas, but to the heretics. But how was
it possible for the angels to commit blasphemy against them; and must it
not, in that case, have been βλάσφημος κρίσις for Jude and Peter to
speak as they do of the wickedness of the heretics, for which, accord-
ing to their statement, eternal damnation was not too severe a punish-
ment?
This piece of erudition was not of such a nature that every reader
could be supposed acquainted with it; it was at least not in the sacred
books of the Jews, and could have been known to them only from other
reading or from special communication. It was, therefore, necessary
that it should be presented at length, or at least so definitely as to show
what the writer intended and to what he alluded.
ses.
In Jude this is the case; he states the matter definitely, and express-
ly mentions the dispute of Michael with the devil about the body of Mo-
But Peter is so very general in his language, and expresses him-
self so indefinitely on the subject, that we could not conjecture to what
he referred, if we had not Jude in our possession. So it must have
been with any one in ancient times, however well he might have been ac-
quainted with the occurrence between the devil and the archangel. It
must have been necessary that he should learn from another source to
what the apostle alluded, in order to understand him.
The procedure of Peter in regard to this passage, therefore, shows
that he presumed Jude to be already in the hands of his readers; that
he thought it justifiable to suppose they would understand him fully
without any necessity of greater minuteness or definiteness on his
part.
$ 177.
Now, if the originality of Jude is clear from a comparison of the two
writers, particularly from their phraseology, we are entitled to all such
inferences from this fact as can be legitimately deduced from it.
It seems that Peter took, in his second letter to the churches of Asia
Minor the same course as in his first. In the latter he chose Paul as
his example, and under his guidance planned and executed his instruc-
tions to these churches, respecting which he had not much knowledge,
making some use, also, of the Epistle of James; and in his second
composition he guided himself by the Epistle of Jude, who had already
attacked the heretics against whom he wished now to oppose his own
authority in addition.
The style, too, of the second Epistle of Peter, is the same as that of
the first. There is the same manner of appropriating the ideas and ex-
pressions of others, giving them certain slight alterations, sometimes
embellishing them, setting them off with participles, and otherwise am-
plifying them.
This resemblance of the second Epistle of Peter to the first does not
consist merely in certain modes of expression, such as any one who un-
dertook to forge a composition in the name of another would natural
ly select and employ; but extends to the plan and private scheme o
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
641
the composition, to peculiarities in its execution, and to the ingenuity
shown in preventing the attention from being arrested by whatever for
special reasons it was necessary to borrow out of other writers. This
resemblance, therefore, is not superficial but characteristic; and so
thorough as to denote an identity of authorship. We find no difficulty
in clearly recognising Peter, and perceive that the second Epistle is a
genuine production of his mind.
EL
But if this is not satisfactory, and we are required further to point
out resemblances in phraseology, we are able to comply with the de-
mand. A favorite word with Peter is avao100gn, I Pet. 1: 15, 18. 2:
12. 3: 1, 2, 16; with which compare 2 Pet. 2: 7. 3: 12. nóvεois is
used by him alone, 1 Pet. 3: 21. 2 Pet. 1: 14. The word doen, is
used it is true by Paul, for moral excellence, once at least (Philip. 4: 8),
but it is used by Peter alone in the sense of power, 1 Pet. 1: 9. 2 Pet.
1:3. Both Epistles use dana to denote Christian doctrines, 1 Pet.
1: 22. 2 Pet. 1: 12. The expressions, zoμsóμevoi oornoiav, 1 Pet.
1: 9, κομιεῖσθε στέφανον, 5: 4, and κομιούμενοι μισθόν, 2 Pet. 2:
13, have a similar signification in both Epistles. The expression,
ἐποπτεύσαντες, 1 Pet. 2: 12. 3: 2, and επόπται γενηθέντες, 2 Peter 1:
16, borrowed from the mysteries, is peculiar to Peter. The words
йolos and μouos in connexion, 1 Pet. 1: 19, occur again together
ἄσπιλος ἄμωμος
in 2 Pet. 3: 14, as likewise onîlot and μuoi, 2 Pet. 2: 13. Xoonɣeiv,
1 Pet. 4: 11, and inyoonyev, 2 Pet. 1: 11, occur sometimes, though
rarely, in Paul's writings. The expression άzaraлаvоtоvs duαorias,
απαύστους ἁμαρτίας,
2 Pet. 2: 14, bears analogy to nenavrai duaorías, 1 Pet. 4: 1.
πι
αρ
Relying on these grounds, I cannot consider the declaration of the
writer that he was an eye-witness with others of Christ's transfigura-
tion (2 Pet. 1: 16–19) as a mere literary artifice, designed to procure
the composition an unmerited estimation. The more unobtrusive indi-
cations, as well as those obvious to the view of every one, appropriate
the authorship of the second Epistle to the writer of the first.
But, if the second Epistle of Peter is genuine, that of Jude must be
so too. It must not only be supposed to have existed in the days of the
apostles, when Peter wrote his Epistle, but to have been written by some
one whom the apostle esteemed worthy of being selected as his guide
in opposing the errors and false teachers of countries which he had not
seen himself, and concerning which he could only derive information
from others.
We might, therefore, be satisfied as to the genuineness of these two
writings on internal grounds, even if the historical argument and the
testimonies of the ancients were less satisfactory.
$178.
We are not unmindful, however, that our positions are still endanger-
ed from another quarter. Not long since, the second Epistle of Peter
met with an opponent, who menaced its dismemberment, and maintain-
ed his right to do this violence with learning and acuteness.¹
He sepa-
rates it into three distinct portions, which happen to correspond with
1 "Der zweyte Brief Petri kritisch untersucht," by Prof. Charles Ullmann,
Heidelb. 1821, 8vo.
81
642
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
the present division into chapters. The first chapter he ascribes to
Peter, and considers it to be one of his Epistles the conclusion of
which was early lost, or perhaps a fragment of a long letter of which
only the beginning has been preserved. This precious relic of the apos-
tle was regarded by some unknown person as adapted to effect a well-
meant purpose, and he added to it at different times the second and third
chapters, intending to confound the heretics of the day by the great
name at the commencement, or to preserve believers from their influ-
ence. The Epistle of Jude, with some alteration, afforded him mate-
rials for the second chapter, and he made some use of it likewise in the
third.
But how happens it, then, that the first chapter contains preparatory
references to the heretics who are the subject of the second and third?
In these latter chapters they are charged with self-contrived doctrines,
nkuotoîs hóyois (2: 3), by means of which they enlisted in their be-
half the desire for dissolute pleasure, novμía pasμov (2: 10), and
placed a lure in the way of others in order to procure adherents (2:
18); as they themselves, also, gave way to their lusts, Ev Envvulais
подενÓμεvoι (3:3). Their chief heresy consisted in denying the sec-
ond coming of our Lord, nagovala, to judge mankind, which they did
for the purpose of removing every restraint upon licentiousness (3: 4.
Comp. 3: 12).
EVO
し
​Now at the very outset of the Epistle he warns against the corruption
of lust, ἀπφουγόντες—τῆς ἐν ἐπιθυμία φθορᾶς (174), and shortly after
makes mention of cunningly-devised fables, oooqiouέvois μvvois (1:
16), against which he opposes his authority; for he had been intimate
with our Lord and a witness of his transfiguration on the mount, and pos-
sessed information concerning Christ more to be depended on than the
statements of others, particularly concerning his second coming, nαооν-
Gía, and his power (1: 16-19). The ocσoquoμέvo uvvor of the first
σεσοφισμένοι μύθοι
chapter correspond to the corois loyous of the second; the iñiðv
μία φθορᾶς to the ἐπιθυμία μιασμοῦ; and παρουσία, of course, to
nagovola. Ought we, then, to disunite what is so closely woven togeth-
er by its author?
777
As the actual connexion is so clear, it would be of no consequence if
the transition were rather abrupt, as is frequently the case with authors
of little cultivation and experience. But this is by no means the case
here. The teachers of the theosophic system in Asia Minor, of whom
the false teachers referred to in this Epistle were probably a branch,
pretended to be in possession of the means of procuring the power of
prophecy (§ 131); in opposition to whom the author asserts that he had
obtained a more sure knowledge of futurity, βεβαιότερον προφητικὸν
2óyov (1: 19), and then proceeds to say, that prophecy, as presented in
the Holy Scriptures, 'is not a matter for human interpretation, but must be
explained from above (1:20, 21). Thus there have been false prophets;
and false teachers are now at hand, whose character will be as follows,
etc. (2: 1 seq.). This is the train of thought through which he passes
to the subsequent description of the heretics; nor do we perceive any
interruption or chasm, such as usually betrays the junction of distinct
writings.
The circumstance that Jude uses the word лagoidvoar, they have
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
643
crept in, while Peter speaks of them as yet to come, should not create
any difficulty; for it is evident, even from Jude, that they had not yet
avowed themselves publicly and with unblushing front.
The third chapter has the same real connexion with what precedes,
if not as plain a verbal connexion, as the second. The subject contin-
ues to be the false teachers. Jude had not yet finished speaking of
them, nor consequently had Peter, who followed Jude. He makes the
same use of Jude's Epistle as before.
2 Pet. 3: 2, 3.
Μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων
ῥημάτων
ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν,
καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων
ἡμῶν ἐντολῆς,
τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος·
ἐλεύσονται
ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν
ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται,
κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας αὑτῶν
ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι.
Jude, v. 17, 18.
Μνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων
τῶν προειρημένων·
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ·
!
ἐν ἐσχάτῳ χρόνῳ
ἔσονται
ἐμπαῖκται,
κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν
ἐπιθυμίας πορευόμενοι.
I must now notice some distinctive expressions of the first chapter,
of which, short as it is, there are several that are repeated in the sec-
ond and third chapters, and evince them to be the production of the
same author. The word φθορά, which occurs in the first chapter,
meaning moral corruption (1: 4), is found likewise in the second (2:
19, and shortly before, 2: 12), in the signification of destruction, εis
ἅλωσιν καὶ φθοράν, and moreover in that of moral corruption, ἐν τῇ
φθορᾷ αὐτῶν φθαρήσονται. The unusual adjective form ταχινή is com
mon to both chapters, ταχινὴ ἀπόθεσις (1: 14), and ταχινὴ ἀπώλεια
(2: 1). In the first and third we find ἐπάγγελμα instead of ἐπαγγελία
(1: 4, and 3: 13). So κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος (1: 11, 3: 2 and 18).
Whole phrases : τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες, ότι . . 1:20), where no
second, no δεύτερον, follows ; and, in like manner: τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσ
κοντες, ὅτι . . . 3: 3.
And, still more striking: διεγείρειν ὑμᾶς ἐν
ὑπομνήσει (1: 13) and διεγείρω ὑμῶν ἐν ὑπομνήσει (3: 1).
On the whole, I not only discover no necessity of separation, but per-
ceive rather a fast connexion of the different parts, which renders the
attempt to disunite them impracticable.
$ 179.
We find some passages in the earliest fathers of the church, which
may be regarded as quotations by memory from the second Epistle of
Peter, although their coincidence is not perfectly literal. Among these
I rank the passage in the 2d Book of Theophilus against Autolycus,
C. 9: Οἱ δὲ του θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι καὶ πνευματοφόροι πνεύματος αγίου
καὶ προφήται γενόμενοι, ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐμπνευσθέντες καὶ σα--
644
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
φισθέντες ἐγένοντο Θεοδίδακτοι. Comp. 2 Pet. 1:20. The clause,
Ο λόγος αὐτοῦ φαίνων ὥσπερ λύχνος ἐν οικήματι συνεχομένῳ (Β. ΙΙ.
C. 13), very much resembles Pet. 1: 19. Ὁ λόγος ὡς λύχνος φαίνων ἐν
αὐχμηρῷ τοπῳ.
The quotation of Irenæus is more explicit: "quoniam dies Domi-
ni sicut mille anni- rào nuέpa xvolov os pila in. True, the sub-
γὰρ ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς χίλια ἔτη
stance of these words is found elsewhere in the Bible (Ps. 89: 4), but
under a very different form and application : ὅτι χίλια ἔτη ἐν ὀφθαλ
μοῖς σου, ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ χθὲς, ἥτις διῆλθε. Only in 2 Pet. 3: 8, are
found exactly as they occur in Irenæus.
C
+
T
2
Supposing what can hardly be denied, that this citation is identical
with the passage in Peter and was derived from it, we may congratu-
late ourselves that we have a much earlier witness in favor of this Epis-
tle, viz. Justin Martyr, who had already referred to the same passage.
After him comes Clement of Alexandria, who has made use of it fre-
quently in his works. Let it not be objected, that the clause was prob-
ably a proverbial expression. It is not so treated by Peter: "EN SE
Touro-let not this important truth escape you, that one day, etc.
૧
The first, however, who speaks expressly of the 2d Epistle of Peter,
is Origen; though he observes at the same time that it is disputed.³
Eusebius, in like manner, states that this Epistle had not come down
to his time as a writing of the highest class (viz. those universally ac-
knowledged), but, as it was found serviceable by many, the same use
had been made of it as of the other books of the New Testament.4
Jerome acquaints us with one of the objections which were urged
against the Epistle. He says it was denied to be Peter's because a
difference in style was observed between it and the 1st Epistle,5 an ob-
servation which is always uncertain, and not to be relied on in critical
investigations, so long as it rests merely on feeling and taste and is not
brought out to distinct intellectual perception and referred to princi-
ples of philosophical and particular grammar. If the fathers found no
weightier difficulty than this, the remarks which we have already made
will afford ample indemnification for their doubt.
The most ancient Syriac version does not at present contain the
Epistle; but Ephraem cites it, both in his Syriac and Greek works.6
Descending into the fourth century, we find it treated by the Chris-
tian fathers generally with the same consideration as other biblical wri-
tings, and invariably comprised in catalogues of the canonical books.
Still, the historical evidence in the case will not afford us that satis-
faction which we like to have on subjects of this nature; and, even if
we call to our aid the established and immemorial usage according to
which this Epistle possessed from the remotest period a place in the
biblical codex, we shall, notwithstanding, find it necessary to resort to
internal evidence in order to arrive at a definite decision respecting the
genuineness of this Epistle.
1 Iren. L. V. Adv. Hær. C. 23.
3 Euseb. H. E. L.. VI. c. 25.
2 Dial. cum Tryph. c. 81.
4 Euseb. H. E. III. 3.
5 Hieronym. Script. Eccles. v. Petrus.
6 Opp. Syr. T. II. p. 342. Opp. Græc. T. II.
p. 387.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
645
$ 180.
The Epistle of Jude, notwithstanding its brevity, has weighty testi-
monies of antiquity in its favor. The Gnostic teachers endeavored to
make it support their opinions, and, in particular, explained the 8th
verse as favoring their extravagant theory of morals. The Christian
father to whom we are indebted for this information mentions by name,
at the commencement of his treatise on this sect, the works of their own
from which he derived his knowledge, writing therefore from authentic
sources.¹
Among the orthodox Greek fathers, Clement of Alexandria cites the
Epistle under Jude's name, as the production of a prophetic mind.
4
2
Origen calls the Epistle a production full of heavenly grace.3 In his
book Ilɛoi dozov, he even inclines to ascribe indubitable authority to the
work Ascensio Mosis, because he supposed that Jude cites it in his
Epistle. Still, it is manifest from one of his expressions, that many of
his contemporaries disagreed with him, and entertained some doubt re-
specting the authority of the Epistle. His pupil Pamphilus, however,
the estimable teacher of Eusebius, makes use of it without any scru-
ple.5
Notwithstanding, Eusebius does not conceal from us that his prede-
cessors were divided in opinion respecting it, and that it is not to be
ranked among the universally-acknowledged writings.6
The case was the same, also, in the Syriac church. Its version, the
Peschito, does not now contain it; but once, it would seem, the case
was different; for Ephraem shows that he was acquainted with it, and
does not scruple to allow it the authority of a biblical book.7
The oldest catalogue among the Latins, the one given by the anony-
Epiphan. Adv. Hær. L. I. T. II. H. XXVI. no. 13. Pet. and Ed. Ba-
sil. p. 45. Βούλονται γὰρ τὴν καὶ αὐτῶν μαρτυρίαν τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς
τοῦ Ἰούδα μᾶλλον εἰς αὐτοὺς δῆθεν ἐπάγεσθαι, ἐν τῷ λέγειν, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐν
υπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μιαίνουσι Οὐκ εἶπε δὲ ὁ μακάριος Ιούδας, ἀδελ
C
0
φὸς τοῦ κυρίου, περὶ ἐνυπνιαζομένων ἐν σώμασιν, κ. τ. λ.
>
2 L. III. Strom. c. 2. p. 431. Sylb. 'Eлì τоúτwv oîµai xaì tôv óuoiav
αἱρέσεων προφητικῶς Ιούδαν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ εἰρηκέναι. Comp. Pedag. I.
III. c. 8.
3 Comment. in Matth. XIII. p. 223. 'Toúdas ¿ygayev éñiotoĥýv õliyó-
στιχον μὲν, πεπληρωμένην δὲ τῶν τῆς ἐπουρανίου χάριτος λόγων.
4 L. III. c. 2. "De quo in Ascensione Moysi, cujus libelli meminit in
Epistolâ suâ apostolus Judas, Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans
de corpore Moysi, ait, a diabolo inspiratum serpentem causam extitisse præ-
varicationis Adæ,” etc.
5 Comment. in Matth. Vol. III. p. 488. Opp. Orig. Ruei; and Apolog.
pro Origen. Vol. IV. p. 23.
6 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 25.
7 Opp. Syr. T. I. p. 136. Hassencamp's "Anmerk. zu Michaelis' Ein-
leit." p. 42-44.
646
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
mous writer in Muratori, expressly mentions this Epistle as an admitted
biblical book.'
Tertullian, in speaking of Enoch, refers to the Epistle of Jude, and
designates its author by the epithet apostle.2
There were, however, some among the Latins also, at a later and per-
haps too at an earlier period, who refused to acknowledge this Epistle;
but this circumstance did not exert any influence upon the mass of the
Latins. In the time of Jerome, it was ranked with the other Sacred
Scriptures, on account of its antiquity and immemorial use:3
The principal objection to which it was subject was, that it referred
to an apocryphal production, the book of Enoch. For, as on that ac-
count some considered the book of Enoch and the Ascensio Mosis
to be authoritative scriptural books, others, on the contrary, denied
the writer's apostolical rank and inspiration, because he encumbered
his Epistle with apocryphal accounts. This we are told by Didymus of
Alexandria, and, among the Latins, by Jerome.4
$181.
Who was this Jude? If James, the brother of our Lord, and James
the son of Alphæus, the apostle, were one and the same person, so
likewise were Jude, the brother of our Lord, and the Jude mentioned in
the list of apostles. But supposing there were two of this name, to
which Jude does the Epistle belong?
Our author calls himself ἀδελφὸς Ιακώβου, the brother of James.
He either does this to designate the family to which he belonged, and
thereby individualize himself to the reader; or he wished to exalt and
support his authority by means of his relationship to James, a celebra-
ted Christian teacher.
But he does not thereby distinguish his family; for each Jude had a
brother named James, and consequently the name of the writer's broth-
er does not at all enlighten us respecting his family connexions or him-
self.
The other reason, then, must be the true one, why he subjoined the
name of his brother. But relationship to James the apostle could not
confer upon Jude the apostle any recommendation which he did not al-
ready possess.
We find no mention in the biblical history of any thing
which rendered him widely known or distinguished him above others;
we only observe his name by the side of Jude's in the catalogue of the
apostles.
We
Let us suppose that James, the brother of our Lord, is meant.
know that he was honored as the Just and Wise, and that his name was
noised abroad in many countries. Those who defended and inculcated
the observances of the law had rendered him celebrated in Galatia and
1 T. III. Ant. It. p. 854.
2 De cult. fœm. c. 4. "Eo accedit, quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testi-
monium possidet."
3 In Catal. v. Judas. "Tamen auctoritatem vetustate et usu meruit, et inter
Sanctas Scripturas computatur.'
4 Didym. apud Fabric. Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. p. 846. Hieron. in Catal. v.
Jud.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
647
Achaia, and his fame was extended far and wide in Asia, through the
decision of the council at Jerusalem, which was occasioned by his in-
fluence. Moreover, he was honored by all Jewish Christians on ac-
count of the high station which he held as principal teacher at Jerusa-
lem. The lustre of his name would be reflected upon his brother,
and the distinction of the former would procure special estimation for the
latter. In this case Jude might well think it of consequence to con-
nect his own name with that of his brother, thus at once designating
and dignifying himself.
Jude, moreover, does not call himself an apostle; and yet it was in-
cumbent upon him to show by what right he undertook to pronounce
and prescribe on points of Christian doctrine. He calls himself, exact-
ly as James does, the servant of Jesus Christ, Ingov Xolarov doulos,
which appellation must have implied more than that of apostle, or he
would have called himself an apostle; for the expression, servant of Je-
sus Christ, as applicable to all the adherents of Christianity, could not
procure him any more estimation as a teacher than belonged to the
most ordinary Christian. If it has such a peculiar sense as to distin-
guish Jude, it must signify a nearer relation to Jesus than that of
apostle.
Clement, therefore, was right in observing, in his Adumbrations, that
Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, one of the sons of Joseph, a
pious man, although he well knew his relationship to Jesus, yet did not
call himself his brother; but said, Jude the servant of Jesus Christ (as
the Lord) and the brother of James.'
"1
$ 182.
We must now inquire concerning the heretics against whom Peter
and Jude wrote their two Epistles. That they denied our Lord, is the
principal charge made against them by the two apostles; and yet they
were numbered among the Christians, and joined in their assemblies
(Jude, v. 10). By this denial, therefore, we are not to understand that
they had entirely renounced Christ and his followers; but that, in liter-
al accordance with the charges made against them, they merely would
not acknowledge Jesus as δεσπότην: τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπό
την αρνούμενοι (2 Pet. 2: 1), καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον
ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι (Jude, v. 4) i. e. they either denied
that he was the Creator of the world, or that he was its governor and
judge, or both together, as some had before denied that Jesus was the
Christ, the Son of God: αρνούμενοι ὅτι ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, κ.
7. λ. It is clear that they disputed his government of the world and
his office as judge, napovoíav (2 Pet. 3: 4—12), on which account they
are even referred to the book of Enoch, which had long ago declared
his judicial power (Jude, 14 seq.).
They had, moreover, circulated very erroneous ideas in regard to spir-
itual beings, and such as were inconsistent with their exalted character.
1 "Judas, qui Catholicam scripsit Epistolam, frater filiorum Joseph, extans val-
de religiosus, cum sciret propinquitatem Domini, non tamen dixit, se ipsum fra-
trem ejus esse: sed quid dixit? Judas, servus Jesu Christi, utpote Domini, fra-
ter autem Jacobi." Opp. Clem. T. II. p. 1007. Ed. Venet.
648
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
0
The names by which these spirits are here designated are doğaɩ and
κυριότητες. The latter expression is sometimes used by Paul, in
speaking of the different orders of spirits as classified by the theurgical
teachers of Asia Minor (Eph. 1: 21. Col. 1: 16).
However great may have been their theoretical errors, they were
trifling in comparison with the unnatural profligacy of their conduct.
They had, besides, a reckless covetousness, to which nothing was too
dear or too sacred to be sacrificed.
But it will be perceived that the description of these heretics and her-
esies is not by any means so definite as to enable us to distinguish at
once the particular class to which it refers. Apparently their system
was similar to that theurgical and magian philosophy, which we have de-
scribed above, and which was distinguished for its pneumatological spec-
ulations about angels and spiritual beings and the inferences which it
deduced from them.
We shall not probably meet with much opposition so long as we confine
ourselves to so general a position as this. Some, however, suppose that
reference is had to the sect of the Nicolaitans, which was already in a
flourishing condition; and their opinion is neither improbable nor in-
compatible with the expressions of the two apostles, so far as we have
any certain knowledge concerning this sect. But this investigation, if
pursued with critical assiduity, would lead to much prolixity and to many
accessory inquiries which we have not sufficient materials to discuss
properly, and for which, moreover, this is not the proper place.¹
$ 183.
The singular circumstance, that the Epistle of Jude allows argumen-
tative authority to the book of Enoch, has led both the ancients and the
moderns to very erroneous opinions and conclusions, sometimes to the
prejudice of the Epistle and sometimes in favor of the book of Enoch.
This state of things has resulted in part respecting this Epistle, and
wholly in respect to the second of Peter, from the fact that the dispute
·
·
T
1 The reasons at present urged by those who fix on the Nicolaitans are, I be-
lieve, the following. In the Apocalypse John describes the Nicolaitans nearly
as these heretics are represented, using the same comparison and making the
same charges: Men that practise the arts of Balaam, who taught Balak to en-
snare the children of Israel, so that they ate of idolatrous sacrifices and commit-
ted fornication (Rev. 2: 14. Jud. 11. 2 Pet. 2: 15). In derivation, too, y cor-
responds to Nizóhaos. Moreover, they certainly denied that our Lord was the cre-
ator and governor of the world: "Alterum quidem fabricatorem, alium autem
patrem Domini
et eam conditionem, quæ est secundum nos, non a primo
Deo factam, sed a virtute aliquâ valde deorsum subjectâ" (Iren. L. III. c. 11.)
Now, if all corporeal and material existence had its origin from the creator of
the world, a very imperfect and gross spirit, it naturally follows that it will not
receive from the highest spirit, or Jesus, a corporeal resurrection to a general
judgment. In regard to the spiritual world they did in truth teach such absur-
dities that one cannot help saying of them-dóĝas phaoqnuovo-for they sup-
posed that there were "cones quosdam turpitudinis natos, et complexus, et per-
mixtiones execrabiles et obscænas." (Tertull. in append. ad Lib. De Præscrip. c.
46). The statements of the ancients, too, in regard to their profligacy and their
detestable course of life are so consonant with each other and with the charges
of the apostles, that the two Epistles may be pertinently considered as referring
to them.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
649
of the archangel with Satan concerning the body of Moses is cited in
both by way of example and reproof. The more impartial judges in
this case regarded these two arguments or specimens of erudition as
mere fables, which they really are, and consequently they usually deci-
ded against the Epistles
2
The book of Enoch was, in fact, full of Judæo-theurgical and Magian
reveries, as was natural from the character of the man who is supposed
to have composed it. According to Eupolemus, he was the inventor of
astrology, or rather a pupil of the angels in this science, who initiated
him into its mysteries. He once went on a mission to the angels, on
which occasion he probably enjoyed their instruction. But, not content
with knowing the course of the planets, the position of the heavenly
bodies, and their signification, he likewise, as is asserted by the Jews
and other oriental people, became acquainted with the art of divina-
tion, with written signs, with offerings, purifications, lustrations, and
other things of the kind, by instruction from celestial beings, and com-
municated them to men.
3
From these notions of him, entertained by Jews, Arabians and oth-
ers, we may readily judge to what species of literature his writings be-
longed. The fragments of them which we find in the fathers will not
belie our judgment.
The larger fragments in Syncellus acquaint us with the names of
the principal angels, and concerning other spirits and genii and their va-
rious occupations.4 The earlier intimations and notices respecting the
contents of this work point to the same subjects. Tertullian says: It
has furnished us a classification of spiritual beings. In another place
he has extracted from it warnings against the seductions of wicked de-
mons and reprobate spirits. According to the book of Enoch, it was
the angels that brought to light the secret virtue of plants, the abstruse
operations of nature, and the riches of the earth, viz. its precious met-
als, and endued mankind with knowledge of this description.5 It was
they, we are assured by Clement of Alexandria on the authority of the
book of Enoch, who brought down to us the science of the stars, the
art of divination, and other useful arts.6
All the more ancient intimations in regard to this book or its sup-
posed author likewise lead us to the same conclusion. Such was the
idea which prevailed respecting the work and the character of the wri-
ter. The book probably contained all the knowledge of the stars
1 Apud Euseb. De Præp. Evang. L. IX. c. 17. p. 419. Ed. Vigeri.
2 Irenæus, L. IV. Adv. Hær. c. 16.
3 Abulpharagii Hist. Dynast. I. p. 9, 10. Arabic text. A great deal on this
subject has been collected by Kircher in his "Obeliscus Pamphilius" L. I. c.
3. Wetstein on Jud. 14. in his N. T.
4 Syncelli Chronogr. p. 11 seq. 24 seq. Edit. Goar.-Grabe, Spic. Patr. T. I.
p. 347 seq.
5 Tertull. De Habitu mulier. c. 3. De Idololat. c. 4 and 15. De cultu fœminar.
c. 10.
6 Ex Script. Prophetar. Ecloga. c. LIII. p. 1002. Ed. Ven.
7 Grabe, Spicileg. S. S. P. P. Tom. I. p. 344-358.-Fabric. Cod. Apocr. V.
Test. P. I. p. 160-224. P. II. 55-60. Scaliger ad Euseb. Chronic. p. 244 seq.
Concerning an Ethiopic Book of Enoch, see Michaelis' Orient. Biblioth. Thl. 6.
p. 224 seq.
82
650
THE APOCALYPSE.
and their courses which was acquired in the time of Adam and Seth,
and which, as we are informed by Josephus (Antiq. L. I. c. 2. n. 3),
was engraven by Seth upon two monuments, one of stone and the other
of brick, that they might survive the two great devastations of the
earth which were foretold by Adam, one of which was to be effected
by water and the other by fire. The whole character of the book jus-
tifies this supposition. The second desolation by fire yet awaits the
world. (See 2 Pet. 3: 10—13.)
αβα
So too, whether the dispute between Michael and the devil about the
body of Moses, which the ancients read in the book 'Aváßaois Mw-
ows, arose from the claim set up by the evil spirit to the body,¹ or in
some other way, it is sufficient that the idea of a contest between good
and evil spirits is at the foundation of it, and points us, in this case like-
wise, to theurgical opinions and teachers.
στ
7
And now, why did the apostles cite these books, these examples and
proofs? Naturally, in order to make those against whom they wrote
sensible of their errors and criminality. Arguments and confutation
drawn from the genuine sacred scriptures would have been of no avail
against them, for these they evaded, as Peter complains expressly (2 Pet.
3: 16), by their perversions and forced interpretations, as yoaqas
oroεẞhovow. Thus, there was no surer means of influencing them,
than those writings which they valued as the sources of their peculiar
views and tenets. Nothing could more effectually reduce them to si-
lence and shame them in the eyes of their contemporaries, than to be
confuted by means of the very arguments on which they relied. This
remark will not only exculpate the apostles, but convince us that in such
a situation, with such antagonists, they could have done nothing more
suitable or considerate than the very thing for which some have depre-
ciated and disputed their two Epistles.
THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN.
$ 184.
The writer calls himself John, and states the isle of Patmos to have
been the place where these revelations were made to him. We will
not long defer the inquiry, what John the testimony of antiquity des-
ignates as the author. But first, a few words only concerning the
place where these visions were shown to him. For a question has been
started, whether, in a completely poetical work like this, the author's
statement of the place which was the scene of his visions, can claim a
historical acceptation?
The case is not unique; and, if we may judge from other examples
in antiquity, we can readily answer the inquiry. No one has ever
deemed untrue what Hesiod relates, in his poem of Works and Days
(v. 630–638), of his birth-place and his removal to Boeotia. Are we to
1 Fabric. Cod. Apoc. V. T. P. I. p. 402 and 840-848.-Scholia in Ep. Jud. p.
238, 239. Ed. Nov. Test. C. F. Matthæi.
THE APOCALYPSE.
651
regard what Ovid says of his banishment to Tomos, what Phædrus, the
fabulist, and Martial, the epigrammatist, tell us of the circumstances of
their lives, as inere fiction, because it is stated in poetry? To pass
from profane to sacred writings, have we any doubt respecting the ac-
count of Ezekiel in the introduction to his prophecies: It came to pass
in the thirtieth year, when I was by the river Chebar, etc.
Do we
refuse to admit the statements concerning the circumstances of his life,
which Jeremiah has interspersed here and there in his prophecies? If,
now, we credit the removal of Hesiod, the transportation of Ezekiel to
the river Chebar, and Ovid's banishment, why should we not credit the
banishment of John?
Supposing it had been the writer's intention to exercise the license of
poetry in this point, what reason can be assigned, why in his poetical
revery he should transport himself to a barren rock almost unnoticed by
the ancients, which first came into repute on account of the Apoca-
lypse? Why did he not select a picturesque spot for his raptures? or
one famed for former revelations, and consecrated by some momentous
occurrence? Had this been the case, there would have been reason
for the question, what is the respective share of poetry and truth in
the representation? In examining his words, we find nothing but plain,
unequivocal prose: I John, who also am your brother and companion in
tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in
the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and for the testimo-
ny of Jesus Christ." This he says before any elevated state of mind is
mentioned. It is not till after this declaration that he says: ¿yɛvóµŋv
Év лvεúμαri, I was in the spirit, etc. (1:10). The contrary, therefore,
ἐν πνεύματι,
is clear from every point of view; and we need not any longer delay the
inquiry, what John was the author.
We are told that some, who had themselves seen John the Evangelist,
stated, in regard to a doubtful reading in the Apocalypse (viz. the num-
ber of the beast, 13: 18), that the number six hundred and sixty-six was
to be read; and that they were supported on this point by Mss. which
even in the second century were accounted ancient. We will pass by
the fact that, as appears from this account, the superscriptions of an-
cient Mss. ascribed the book to John. It is weighty evidence, however,
if contemporaries ascribe a production to a certain man; and still more
so, if this is done by the acquaintances of a writer, and they are even
able to state, as to a remarkable passage in which copies differ, what
the author really wrote.
Nor could any thing be objected against the evidence, had not he
through whom the account has come to us given himself up too care-
lessly in a like case to the representations of witnesses unworthy of reli-
ance. There were some of the Gnostic sect, who asserted that our Lord,
after living thirty years in obscurity, taught but a single year, and then
died. He very properly objected to this statement, that we find in the
•
•
•
quo-
1 "Omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis numero hoc posito,
et testimonium perhibentibus his, qui facie ad, faciem Joannem viderunt, xad
μαρτυρούντων αὐτῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κατ' ὄψιν τὸν Ιωάννην ἑωρακότων
niain numerus nominis bestiæ, secundum Græcorum computationem, per litte-
ras, quæ in eo sunt, sexcentos habet et sexaginta sex." (Iren. L. V. Adv. Hær. c.
30.-Euseb. H. E. L. IV. c. 24.)
652
THE APOCALYPSE.
Gospel three passovers during his ministry after his baptism, which cer-
tainly make more than one year. But he proceeds to say, that Jesus
was more than thirty years old-that he was even forty or fifty-refer-
ring, not merely in behalf of the first statement, but in behalf of the
highest number of years, to the testimony of such as had lived in the
time of John, and been intimately acquainted with him.'
He probably relied too much in this case upon Papias, who wrote
down indiscriminately all that he heard from men of the time of the
apostles, whether true or false, and who deserved but a very circum-
spect reliance as to such points.
Next in order to the contemporaries of the apostles comes Papias
himself. His writings have all perished, with the exception of a few
fragments; but commentators, particularly Andrew of Cappadocia,
who had in his possession many documents and writings on the subject
of the Apocalypse which are now lost, reckon him among the explicit
witnesses in its favor.2
It is true, it has been attempted to cast suspicion on the statement of
the Cappadocian Bishop, on the ground that he also numbers Gregory
Theologus among the friends of the Apocalypse, while no reason for so
doing appears in Gregory's works. But the hastiness of this charge
has been shown in such a manner,3 that it can occasion no further
difficulty. Moreover, no one, who is aware how much Irenæus relied
upon Papias, will easily be persuaded that the former would have pro-
nounced with so much confidence in regard to this book, had the latter
been of a different opinion.
We have an illustrious voucher for the Apocalypse in Justin Martyr,
who ascribes it to John, one of the Apostles of our Lord. Next comes
Theophilus of Antioch, who, particularly in his book against Hermoge-
nes, drew many of his arguments from it.5
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, one of the seven churches to which a let-
ter with special admonitions is addressed in the Apocalypse, composed a
work exclusively upon this book. Eusebius mentions his literary pro-
ductions as follows: Μελίτωνος καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀπο-
xaλúчews Twάvvov (L. IV. c. 26. H. E.). Semler endeavors to persuade
us from these words, that the books concerning the devil and the Apoc-
alypse were one and the same, and then draws such inferences as his
1 Irenæus, L. II. Adv. Hær. c. 22. n. 5. Iάvres oingεσßútεçoi µ¤TU—
ροῦσιν, οἱ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν Ἰωάννῃ τῷ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῇ συμβεβληκότες, παρ-
αδεδωκέναι ταῦτα Ιωάννην.
2 Περὶ μέντοι τοῦ θεοπνεύστου τῆς βίβλου περιττόν μηκύνειν τὸν λόγον
ἡγούμεθα, τῶν μακαρίων, Γρηγορίου φημὶ, τοῦ Θεολόγου, καὶ Κυρίλλου,
προσέτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων, Παππίου, Ειρηναίου, Μεθοδίου, καὶ Ιππολί-
του ταύτῃ προσμαρτυρούντων τὸ ἀξιόπιστον. Andr. Prol. in Apoc. inter Opp.
Chrysost. in N. T. Tom. II. Frontoduc. Francof. p. 175).
3 Christ. Fried. Schmid, "Ob die Offenb. Joh. ein göttliches Buch
ist ?" Leipsic, 1777, p. 352, and Hist. Canon. L. II. p. 1. Sect. 4. § 166.
4 Dial. cum Tryph. c. LXXXI. p. 308. Steph. 'Iwúrrys, siç tŵv únoσ -
τόλων Χριστοῦ, ἐν ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτῷ.
5 Euseb. H. E. L. IV. c. 24.
THE APOCALYPSE.
653
position affords him. But, not to mention that, if Melito had disputed
the book, Eusebius would not have omitted to notice so important a
circumstance, Melito himself calls it the Apocalypse of John. Je-
rome, however, in his Literary History (voc. Melito), explicitly distin-
guishes two works, "De diabolo librum unum, de Apocalypsi Joannis
librum unum."
1
At the close of the second and beginning of the third century, we
meet with Apollonius, a learned Presbyter of the church at Ephesus,
who testifies in favor of the Apocalypse. He lived in the very place
whence a denial must have first proceeded, had the attempt been made
to ascribe to the apostle a work which improperly bore his authoritative
name. Ephesus boasted the residence and instruction of this estima-
ble father; it contained his ashes, and his pupils after him were mem-
bers of the Presbyterium. Moreover, the Apocalypse contains a special
letter to this church, which gave it a peculiar interest in the book, and
may be regarded as a dedication.
At the close of the third century and commencement of the fourth,
Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, and subsequently of Tyre, ap-
pears as a witness. We are still in possession of extracts from his
commentaries on the Apocalypse, in the works of Andrew of Cappado-
cia. Photius has given us sketches of some of his works, in which he
sometimes expressly referred to the Apocalpyse of St. John.2
In the fourth century Ephraem the Syrian is specially worthy of no-
tice among the Asiatics, as ascribing the Apocalypse to John, and
moreover to John Theologus.3
From this time forth, however, we observe a different opinion among
the bishops of Asia, the causes and occasions of which must be eluci-
dated by other events, to which we shall hereafter direct our attention.
We will now leave this quarter of the world, and turn to Africa, there
to trace the fortunes of the Apocalypse. Its first reception here was not
less favorable than in Asia. Clement of Alexandria regarded its dec-
larations as important and gracious communications of apostolic opin-
ions, and itself as a work of John.4
Further west in Africa, Tertullian speaks with decided confidence
in its favor Inquire, says he, through the whole series of bishops, up to
John himself, and each, without exception, declares John to have been
its author.5
1 Euseb. Η. Ε. L. V. c. 18. κέχρηται δὲ καὶ μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Ιωάννου
* Αποκαλύψεως, καὶ νεκρὸν δὲ δυνάμει θείᾳ πρὸς αὐτοῦ ᾿Ιωάννου ἐν τῇ Ἐφέσῳ
ἐγηγέρθαι ἱστορεῖ
•
2 Photius, Cod. 234. p. 489. Hæschel. Kai & pazágios 'Iwúvvns ·
Εδωκεν ἡ θάλασση τοὺς νεκροὺς ἐν αὐτῇ x. T. 1. Cod. 237. p. 508.
"Οτι τὰ πλεῖστα τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Ιωάννου Αποκαλύψεως ῥητὰ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
καὶ τὰς παρθενευούσας ψυχὰς ἀνάγει.
นี
>
3 Opp. Syr. T. II. p. 332. T. III. p. 636. Opp. Græc. T. II. p. 252.
Kadans xai Ianávrns & Jeóloyos éxnove. Comp. T. III. p. 52. Hassen-
camp's Anmerk. zu Michaelis Einleit. p. 9, 13.
4 Τὸ περίοπτον τῆς ἀποστολικῆς φωνῆς αἰνίττεσθαι χάριτος. Pedag. L.
II. c. 12. Strom. L. VI. c. 13. alibi.
5 L. IV. Adv. Marcion. c. 5. "Habemus et Joannis alumnas ecclesias.
654
THE APOCALYPSE.
Origen regarded it as a work of John the Evangelist, and, although
in speaking of the second and third of his Epistles, and of the other
Catholic Epistles (e. g. that of Jude, which Origen considered ca-
nonical), he has always mentioned the doubts entertained respecting
them, he does not seem to have known that the Apocalypse was at all
disputed.¹
It was about this time that Nepos, Bishop of the Arsinoitic Prefecture,
assailed the allegorical interpretations of the Bible, with particular ref-
erence to the Apocalypse, from the literal exposition of which he
thought he could prove the doctrine of a Millenium, which he held.
The Apocalypse, therefore, was not then numbered among the writings
whose uncertain authority rendered them unsuitable to establish a doc-
trinal point. He even based his positions on this in particular.2
Till now all was favorable to the Apocalypse; but the opinion of
Nepos excited attention, and his work ("Eheyzos dlanyoqɩorov) gain-
ed adherents, who became so numerous that several churches were di-
vided into two parties. On the death of Nepos a person named Kora-
cion adopted his tenets, and vigorously maintained the thousand years'
reign.
When the disagreement came to a high pitch of violence, Dionysius
occupied the Alexandrian see. He brought about a Colloquium,
which, unlike most others, proved satisfactory to all parties. He gave
an account of this in a work which he entitled, Περὶ ἐπαγγελιών, On
the promises, and in which he attempted to depreciate the Apocalypse,
the main support of the doctrine of Nepos. He did this, however,
with much moderation, that he might not offend those who had so read-
ily agreed to a compromise.
It was amidst these disputes concerning the Millenium, that the first
explicit and well-authenticated denial of the Apocalypse occurred; and
it is related by Eusebius in Dionysius' own words, taken from his
book On the Promises. When the head of the Alexandrian church
enters into a critical investigation respecting the Apocalypse, we have
a right to expect something unusually thorough upon the subject.
46
Dionysius refers first to earlier teachers, τινὲς μὲν οὖν τῶν πρὸ ἦ
uv, who had rejected the Apocalypse. "They maintained," he says,
that the title was deceptive; that it was not written by an apostle, nor
even by any pious man, but by Cerinthus. They went through it chap-
ter by chapter, in order to prove that it was a work without sense or
connexion, a nobody-knew-what behind a thick veil of unintelligibili-
ty. Cerinthus, they said, composed it, in order to procure his heresies
Nam etsi Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad
originem recensus, in Joannem stabit auctorem.
1 Euseb. H. E. L. VI. c. 25. Particular passages from Origen may be
found in Schmid's "Ob die Offenb. Johan. ein göttlich Buch sey." p.
257-275.
· Δόξας γοῦν οὗτος ἐκ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ιωάννου τὴν ἰδίαν κρατύνειν ὑπόλο
ηψιν ἔλεγχον αλληγοριστῶν, λόγον τινὰ περὶ τούτου συντάξας, ἐπέγραψεν.
Euseb. H. E. L. VII. c. 24.
THE APOCALYPSE.
655
consequence by an apostolic name; for it teaches, like him, an earthly
reign of Christ in the midst of banqueting and sensual pleasures."
τ
Now, who were these earlier teachers? He does not make use of
the expression άρχαῖοι ἄνδρες, οι οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβύτεροι, the
ancients, men in the beginning, from the earliest times, but merely says:
some of our predecessors, tives t☎ν пọо ηµмν. These words, in their
proper and customary sense, do not denote any great antiquity, and re-
fer no further back than to the preceding generation. The circum-
stance, that Origen mentions no opposition to this book, which he has
never forgotten to notice in regard to any of the disputed books, and
the confidence with which Nepos based his favorite tenet upon it, will
not permit us to suppose any other adversaries than those raised up
against it by Nepos, in the heat of controversy respecting the Mil-
lennium.
Moreover, it is worthy of attention how they themselves represented the
status quæstionis. They did not dispute the antiquity of the book, but
rather admitted that it belonged to the times of the apostles, and ascrib-
ed it to an author who was contemporary with John. In their view,
the only question was: Was this book written by John, the apostle, or
by his adversary Cerinthus, the heretic?
They adopted the latter position, and expected to prove it from the
similarity between the opinions of Cerinthus and those expressed in the
Apocalypse. He imagined, in his sensual way of thinking, said they,
that there would be a reign of Christ upon earth, in which men would
enjoy themselves in banqueting, revelling, and other gross pleasures-
as is taught in the Apocalypse.
1
They gave to the Apocalypse, it seems, that anti-allegorical sense and
literal interpretation, which was affixed to it by Nepos ; a gross, material
signification. When, therefore, they met with an opponent who dis-
carded the harsh literal interpretation of the book, and proposed an al-
legorical exposition, all their arguments were rendered null, and the
whole parallel between the doctrine of Cerinthus and that of the Apo-
calypse was destroyed.
Thus the status quæstionis was of such a nature, that there could be
no controversy except with Nepotians and their hypotheses. Hence
we may easily infer, who were the rɩvès ngờ nµœv, the predecessors to
whom Dionysius appeals, and to what period they belonged.
The manner, too, in which they supported their position, is worthy of
consideration. They did not say that they were informed by contem-
poraries of the apostles, that John did not compose the Apocalypse, that
it was written by some one else; or that they had trust-worthy accounts
from well-informed men, according to which this book did not appear
till after the time of John, and appeared in this or that place. No:
these were not the arguments they employed; but all that they adduced
was drawn from the book itself. They went through it chapter by
chapter, in order to show that it was without intelligibility or connexion,
absolute nonsense enveloped in mysterious obscurity, etc.
That which they seem to have put forward as an ancient historical
1 Ιουδαϊκότερόν . . . . τινα χιλιάδα ἐτῶν τρυφῆς σωματικῆς ἐπὶ ξηρᾶς
ταύτης ἔσεσθαι ὑποτιθέμενος (Euseb. Η. Ε. VII. 24).
656
THE APOCALYPSE.
statement, sinov rivα, as in τns пagadóσews (Euseb. III. 28), viz. that
Cerinthus taught thus, is in fact not even compatible with his system.
For, that God or Christ should restore the material creation of the Demi-
ourgos and recall into existence the unsuccessful work of an imperfect
Eon, is not to be supposed; especially as the work itself, unworthy of any
nobler spirit, was assigned to the lowest of the heavenly natures. As
little is it to be supposed, that the purest and most exalted spirit, Christ,
who was incapable of earthly affections, sufferings, or joys, would com-
mence a reign on this earth, establish his court here, and appoint dan-
ces and sensual diversions.
There is but one possible way of reconciling such a tenet with his
opinions; and that is, according to a recent proposition, to suppose
that Cerinthus had two doctrinal systems, one which he maintained
while he lived and taught merely as a Jewish Christian, and a second
which he formed upon becoming a Gnostic.¹
In this case, also, Caius the Presbyter might be correct in saying:
Cerinthus, likewise, who in what he terms revelations presents us fa-
bles concerning wonderful visions shown him by angels, as if they were
written by a great apostle, teaches, that after the resurrection Christ is
to reign upon earth, and that under the new constitution mankind will
give themselves up to enjoyment and diversions at Jerusalem, and, like
an enemy of the Holy Scriptures, teaches, with a deceitful intention,
that the space of a thousand years will be spent in marriage festivities.2
But, whatever be the fact, we must here drop this secondary inquiry,
particularly as, in another connexion, we shall say something respecting
the passage of Caius in that point of view in which it is of special in-
terest.
It is sufficient that the predecessors of Dionysius were not able to
bring the slightest historical evidence against the Apocalypse, their
whole aim having been to render it suspicious on the score of its con-
tents, in explaining which they made greater mistakes than their con-
temporaries, who were not themselves very happy in their exposition of
them. And if, as they supposed, the choice as to the author lay only
between John and Cerinthus, the choice they made is even ludicrous.
Dionysius himself did not make much account of their critical and
exegetical acumen, but proposed a conjecture, on which he endeavored
to confer probability from internal grounds. There lived at Ephesus,
in the days of the apostles, a Presbyter named John, of whom Papias
sometimes speaks in his writings; and this man Dionysius supposed to
be the author.
But as his predecessors had not been able to establish their opinion
in Africa, so neither could he establish his. Cyprian regarded the
Apocalypse as a divina scriptura, scriptura sancta, in which God or Je-
sus Christ spoke to man.3 As little could Lactantius and Augustine,
and other fathers of the Latino-African church, be persuaded otherwise.
The Egyptians themselves, as for instance Athanasius, the most cele-
1 H. E. Gottl. Paulus, Comment. Theol. Hist. Cerinthi illustraturæ. Jenæ,
1795. Hist. Cerinth. Pars. prior, § 17 seq.
2 Euseb. H. E. L. III. c. 28. ·
3 Ep. LVI. Ad Thibarit. p. 218. Ep. LXIII. ad Cæcil. p. 256. De hab. virg.
p. 216, 217. Ed. juxta Baluzium Veneta, 1758.
THE APOCALYPSE.
657
brated of the successors of Dionysius, and Marcus, the monk, insisted
on John the apostle.
Such was the case in Africa. The Asiatics, however, showed more
favor to the supposition of Dionysius, and nearly all the bishops of
the fourth century seem to have been inclined to adopt it.
Cyril of
Jerusalem does not mention the Apocalypse in his catalogue of the
canonical books, and does not cite it once throughout his works. Greg-
ory Nazianzen, surnamed Theologus, admits its authority in doctrinal
matters, and cites it; but in his metrical catalogue of the canonical
books, in which he was obliged to present the general opinion, he does
not mention it at all. Basil of Cappadocia and Epiphanius of Cyprus
regarded it as a genuine production of the apostle John; but Amphilo-
chius of Iconium candidly admits that some respected the Apocalypse
as divine and others rejected it.
The opinion of the Asiatics is given us by Eusebius in his Canon,
respecting which we have spoken in the proper place. He says that
some assigned it to the first and some to the third class. Now in the
latter he ranked such writings as were not indeed of apostolic origin,
but were the productions of pious men and orthodox teachers. Among
these, then, some numbered the Apocalypse. They ascribed it neither
to the apostle nor to Cerinthus, but chose the middle path marked out
by Dionysius.
But, besides the fathers of the fourth century, we are told of yet ear-
lier opponents of the Apocalypse in Asia, viz. the sect of the Alogians,
respecting whom the less men knew, the more they have written.
Epiphanius enriched the natural history of the heretics with a new spe-
cies, which he termed Alogians. Perhaps the Cyprian bishop took of
fence at the anti-apocalyptic sentiments of his neighbors and colleagues
on the continent, and wished to vex them as much as possible.
However this may be, he invented an heretical denomination, under
which he classed those who opposed either John's Gospel with its Log-
os, or his Apocalypse, or both together. There were, it is true, many
such, who rejected one or the other, or both, viz. Cerinthus, the Naza-
renes, the Ebionites, Cerdo, Marcion, and others. Shortly before, he
even ranks among these Theodotus, who certainly did not merit the
place, with reference to the Gospel, though he may with reference to
the Apocalypse. But all these, as well as others, whom he might have
added, bore other heretical designations, and their Alogian tenets were
only a secondary matter, sometinies more and sometimes less intimately
connected with their system.
On this account, all that he says is indefinite; for he made a leading
characteristic of an accidental and unimportant trait, and on the
strength of it united individuals of the most dissonant opinions. He
might with equal reason have spoken of the heresy of the Antilukians,
because many rejected the Gospel of Luke, or his Acts of the Apostles,
or both. Of this heresy therefore, we find in Epiphanius neither a begin-
ning nor an end, no occasion, original locality, leaders or branches.
Wheresoever he speaks of it, it is in general terms, and as to its history
he only tells us that there were Alogians formerly in Thyatira. These
did not show due deference to the Apocalypse; he does not complain
of them in respect to the Gospel. He gives no information as to their
83
658
THE APOCALYPSE.
origin, rise, connexion etc., but contents himself with merely stating
the time when they disappeared in that city.
<<
When these," says he, "and the Cataphrygians had there set up
their standard . . . they drew the whole city into their heresy: and those
who deny the Apocalypse have themselves confirmed the warning (of
the Apocalypse) in regard to those times. But now," he proceeds, “at
the present moment, after the lapse of an hundred and twelve years, a
church exists there; it is increasing, and others have already arisen.
But then the whole church was lost in the sect of the Cataphrygians.""
He thus narrates the extinction of this heresy at Thyatira, one hun-
dred and twelve years after which he wrote his heresiological work. It
was written, however, under Valentinian the First, in the twelfth year
of his reign, i. e. in 375 or 376 A. D. Now, if this heresy ceased an
hundred and twelve years before, its extinction occurred in the year
263, near the time when Dionysius brought about the compromise be-
tween the Nepotians and Antiapokalyptians in Egypt.
One may certainly presume from this coincidence of events, that the
Alogians of Thyatira had a connexion and mutual understanding with
the Egpytians, who at this period yielded to an amicable accommodation.
If what Epiphanius says of this sect in the introduction to his work,
viz. that they ascribed the Apocalypse to Cerinthus relates to the Asiatic
Alogians (and he says nothing in regard to Africa), this agreement in
an absurdity argues any thing rather than mutual independence.
The arguments, too, which they drew from the book itself, its obscu-
rity, and impenetrable contents, τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει βαθέως καὶ
τα ντ
σκοτεινῶς εἰρημένα, are precisely those which were used for the same
purpose by the Africans.
It is moreover clear, from all the counter-arguments of Epiphanius
and all their own arguments which he notices, that the dispute was not
based upon historical evidence, but upon the different views which
each party entertained in regard to the book; and that their reasonings
ought to weigh against the testimony of the ancients only on the suppo-
sition that they are perfectly correct and irrefragable.
Such was the fortune of the Apocalypse in these two quarters of the
globe. Let us now turn our eyes to Europe, to observe its reception
and success there. Very few of the European Greeks in the early
ages did much for Christianity, or gained an honorable remembrance
for themselves, by their works; and the writings of these few, as e. g.
those of the excellent Dionysius of Corinth, have not escaped the rava-
ges of time. We therefore seek in vain for any information on this
topic from them, and must turn to the western writers, from whom we
will now glean what we can.
One of the oldest monuments of the Roman church is the Shepherd
of Hermas, the first part of which is occupeid with visions, the second
with precepts of morality, and the third with similitudes. The plan of
૧
1 Epiph. Hær. LI. p. 198. Ed. Basil. There is another still more obscure de-
signation of time in regard to the origin of the Montanists, "Os nv zoóvos μetà
τοῦ σωτῆρος ἀνάληψιν ἐπὶ ἐννενήκοντα καὶ τρισὶν ἔτεσιν ὡς μελλούσης τῆς ἐκεῖσε
ἐκκλησίας πλανᾶσθαι καὶ χωνεύεσθαι ἐν τῇ κατὰ Φρύγας αιρέσει (1. c.) which
will not aid us here at all, as it relates exclusively to the Montanists.
THE APOCALYPSE.
659
the first and last parts is very similar to the Apocalypse; so much so,
that in particular places they might easily be considered an imitation of
it. It is well known what arguments for the genuineness of ancient
works are drawn by profane philology from imitations, and we should
derive the same advantage in this case, if this observation were sus-
tained as fully as it might be by an impartial comparison of these two
writings. Dismembered figures, ornaments of style, and similarities in
expression, which, from their. visible agreement with the Apocalypse
may be considered as having sprung from an acquaintance with it, have
been already collected by Lardner. They may be found, too, in a very
useful manual upon this subject.'
In the seventeenth, or, as some critics contend that we should read,
in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius, the Christians in Gaul, we are
told by Eusebius, were cruelly persecuted. In particular, the churches
at Lyons and Vienna had even seen some of their number acquire the
glory of martyrdom. The two churches communicated the distresses
they experienced, and their joy at the steadfast faith of their members, in
a letter to all the churches of Phrygia and Asia. A large part of this
letter is presented by Eusebius in his history. In it one of the martyrs
is commended in the words of the Apocalypse (14: 4); and the pas-
sage 22: 11, which is adduced as a citation from a sacred and prophetic
book, is applied with some little variation.2
nai
It is well known how often Irenæus has used this book in his works,
and sometimes even with the words, Joannes domini discipulus,3 as he
is accustomed to denominate the author of the Gospel. Hippolytus,
his friend and disciple (perhaps we can hardly consider him as belonging
to the west), wrote Υπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου καὶ ἀποκαλύ
pews, as we learn from the marble monument which was discovered in
1551, near the walls of St. Luarence; and Jerome tells us that he
wrote de apocalypsi. Andrew of Cappadocia made frequent use of his
exposition of the Apocalypse, honestly referring to the author; and
James of Edessa also did the same.¹
The anonymous writer in Muratori states that John, the predecessor
of the apostle Paul, was the author of the Revelation.5
In the opinion
of some learned men, this anonymous writer was Caius, the Roman
Presbyter; while others reckon this Caius among the declared enemies
of the Apocalypse. He has played a similar part once before in giving
1 Christ. Friedr. Schmid's "Historia antiqua et vindicatio canonis." Lips.
1775. § 113. p. 298.
2* Ην γάρ, καί ἐστι γνήσιος Χριστοῦ μαθητὴς (Επάγαθος) ἀκολουθῶν τῷ ἀρνίω
οπου ἂν ὑπάγῃ —ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ, ὁ ἄνομος ἀνομησάτω ἔτι, καὶ ὁ δίκαιος
Sinaidytos éti. Euseb. H. E. L. V. c. 1.
δικαιωθήτω ἔτι.
3 Adv. Hær. L. IV. c. 20. n. 11. and L. V. c. 26. n. 1.
0
4 Ephræm. Syr. Opp. T. I. p. 292. Jaqamıolo las,o megsDeasl
7225
carab
pormo
5 Antiqq. Ital. Med. Ev. T. III. p. 854. "Cum ipse beatus apostolus Paulus, se-
quens predecessoris sui Joannis ordinem, nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scri-
bat," etc. Compare what has been said further upon this passage, in discussing
the Canon (Part I. § 19. p. 76).
660
THE APOCALYPSE.
a different turn to the opinion of Christians in the west respecting the
Epistle to the Hebrews; and on this account we cannot now dismiss
him without a strict examination. We might otherwise lose a consider
able portion of the history of the Apocalypse in the west, and the re-
mainder would want proper connexion.
The charge against Caius is founded on a passage of Eusebius before
quoted, in which, while discussing the opinions of Cerinthus, he says:
Caius writes thus of him: 'Cerinthus likewise, who, in what he terms
revelations, présents us fables concerning wonderful visions shown by
angels, pretending that they were written by a great apostle, teaches that
after the resurrection Christ is to reign upon earth, and that under this
new constitution mankind will give themselves up to enjoyment and di-
versions at Jerusalem, and, like an enemy of the Holy Scriptures, teach-
es with a deceitful purpose, that the space of a thousand years will be
spent in marriage festivities.' "|
Cerinthus, then, invented revelations in the name of a great apostle.
The language is so general that it may have reference to Peter's Apoca-
lypse, or Paul's, or even one bearing John's name, and still not the one
now in our possession. But, it will be said, the sequel points more defi-
nitely to John. It is indeed evident that this forged revelation bore
some resemblance in its contents to John's; but the passage by no
means proves the latter to have been really John's, the one which
was ascribed to Cerinthus. It rather evinces the contrary. The
reign of a thousand years in the midst of sensual delights, which he
cunningly devised out of enmity to the Holy Scriptures, seems to inti-
mate a composition which was intended as a kind of counterpart to our
Apocalypse. For, if he maliciously invented a sensual reign of a thou-
sand years out of opposition to the Sacred Scriptures, this opposition
must have had reference to John's Gospel, which alone assigns to depart-
ed spirits a thousand years' reign with Christ (20: 4, 5).
ποκ
(6
I will here quote the words of a modern scholar, who has explained
this fragment of Caius with his characteristic acuteness: Manifestius
autem adhuc discerni videntur ai άnoxaliyeis illæ Cerinthianæ a
canonicâ, dum Caius a Cerintho numerum mille annorum in festum al-
iquod nuptiale fraudis studio atque ex odio Sacrarum Scripturarum ap-
plicatum fuisse innuit. Quarumnam enim Dei Scripturarum odio, ut
numerice mille annorum festum impostor fingeret, adduci potuerit, nisi
ipsius Apocalypseos canonica? Alibi enim in S. Codice mille annos
festos promitti non novimus. Mens igitur Caii alia non videtur esse
posse, præter hanc finxisse Cerinthum Judaismo plenum, proprias
άпozalvчes; atque ut facilius falleret lecturos, ipsum etiam illum
mille annorum numerum ex divinis libris, ipsi adeo, ut in pessimam par-
1᾿Αλλὰ καὶ Κήρινθος, ὁ δὲ ἀποκαλύψεων ὡς ὑπὸ ἀποστόλου μεγάλου γε-
γραμμένων, τετραλογίας ἡμῖν ὡς δ᾽ ἀγγέλων αὐτῷ δεδειγμένας ψευδόμενος,
ἐπεισάγει λέγων· Μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐπίγειον εἶναι τὸ βασίλειον τοῦ Χριστ
τοῦ, καὶ πάλιν ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ἐν Ιηρουσαλὴμ τὴν σάρκα πολιτευο-
μένην δουλεύειν. Καὶ ἐχθρὸς ὑπάρχων ταῖς γραφαῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀριθμὸν χιλι
ονταετίας ἐν γάμῳ ἑορτῆς, θέλων πλανᾶν, λέγει γενέσθαι. Euseb. H. E.
III. 28.
THE APOCALYPSE.
661
tem iis uti non vereretur, exosis mutuum sumpsisse, suumque plasma ea
canonicæ apocalypseos similitudine adfecta exornasse.
""1
This is the more certain, as Eusebius, in speaking expressly of the
peculiar opinion of Caius concerning the Canon, says not a word of his
disputing the Apocalypse. Jerome, too, does not appear to have known
that Caius had an unfavorable opinion of this book. Photius, who was
in possession of all his writings, and presents some critical notices of
them, states as the most remarkable circumstance in regard to them,
that he did not acknowledge the Epistle to the Hebrews, without being
aware of any similar conduct in relation to the Apocalypse.2
Besides, neither in Rome nor in the other Latin churches was the
public opinion adverse to this book, as was the case respecting the Epis-
tle to the Hebrews. The Confessors of the Roman presbytery made
use of it some time after in a letter to Cyprian of Carthage, which has
come down to us in the collection of Cyprian's letters.3
After them, Victorinus of Pannonia, Hilarius of Poitiers, Gennadius
of Marseilles, Orosius of Spain (in his Apology against Pelagius), to-
gether with many others, ranked the Apocalypse among the divine
books of the New Testament, and made the same use of it as of the
rest.
Yet it would seem (it may be said), if we rightly apprehend Jerome,
that the Latin church did not accord to this work the full authority of a
canonical book. He says, in his annotations on the 149th Psalm :
The Apocalypse, which is read and received in the churches, is not
numbered among the apocryphal books, but the ecclesiastical." Neque
enim inter apocryphas scripturas habetur, sed inter ecclesiasticas.
In the strict sense of the term, an ecclesiastica scriptura is a book of
only secondary rank. It is well known that a contemporary of Jerome
divides the books of the Old and New Testament, together with those
which make any pretensions to be such, into canonici, ecclesiastici, et
apocryphi. Now, if Jerome affixed the same meaning as this writer to
the expression, liber ecclesiasticus, we have here a very singular fact.
The Latins, then, placed this book in the second class, among the dis-
puted books. Thus it will have been assigned to each of the three
classes; and, taking into account the opinion of the Alogians, to a
fourth even, viz. writings forged by heretics. Strange fortune for this
book!
But Jerome does not attach to this word the strict signification which
it bears with his contemporary. For in his Epistle to Dardanus he says:
"If the Latins do not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the
canonical Scriptures, so, with equal freedom, the Greek churches do
not receive John's Apocalypse. I, however, acknowledge both; for
I do not follow the custom of the times, but the authority of older wri-
ters, who draw arguments from both as being canonical and ecclesiasti-
1 G. Paulus, Comm. Theol. Hist. Cerinthi illustraturæ. Hist. Cerinthi,
pars prior. § 30.
2 Euseb. H. E. VI. 21. Hieronym. Catal. V. Caius.-Photius, Cod. 48.
Hoeschel. p. 16.
p. 92.
3 Epistola inter Cyprianicas XXVI. Ed. Ven.
662
THE APOCALYPSE.
cal writings, and not merely as apocryphal books are sometimes used."
Non ut interdum de apocryphis facere solent, sed quasi canonicis et ec-
clesiasticis.
Here Jerome has so expressed himself, that we must believe he made
no difference between canonical and ecclesiastical, and affixed no
stronger signification to one than to the other.
Moreover, his contemporary to whom we have referred, Ruffinus the
Presbyter, who affixed the strictest signification to the words canonical,
ecclesiastical, and apocryphal, and divided the books of the New Tes-
tament accordingly, was not aware that the Apocalypse was excluded by
western Christians from the number of writings of the first rank, and
classed with those which were disputed. He cites it as one of the ca-
nonical books; nor does he do so from his own individual judgment;
for he says previously when he commences speaking of the Canon:
These are the writings of the Old and New Testament, which are es-
teemed such from the tradition of the fathers, which were inspired by
the Holy Spirit and intrusted to the church, as we learn from the wri-
tings of the fathers. And at the conclusion of his catalogue he adds:
These are the books which were incorporated into the Canon by the
fathers, and have been designated by them as the proper sources of our
faith.
These facts by no means afford evidence that the Latins were misled,
by the disputes among the African and afterwards among the Asiatic
Christians, to alter, in reference to the Apocalypse, the established
Canon of the New Testament.
$ 185.
In the treatment of its subjects the Apocalypse often enters much in-
to detail, and adorns them with many embellishments. There is a
great deal in the detail which seems not to be essential, and yet tends
to give definiteness to the representation of the subject. The subsidia-
ry points are therefore frequently of consequence, and it is difficult to
give an outline of the whole, because in so doing we must necessarily
omit these incidental matters. Still we will attempt a general sketch.
John beheld upon the island of Patmos, in a trance, a form like that
of a man, in the midst of seven candlesticks; yet, this form was super-
human, uncommonly glorious and divine. It commanded him to write
seven epistles to the seven churches of Asia, of which the seven can-
dlesticks tended by seven spirits were symbols. These Epistles com-
mend the virtues and reprove the faults of the seven churches, admon-
ish some to reformation and others to perseverance (—4:).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
This took place upon earth; but now the door of heaven opens, and
a herald commands John to enter. Here he beholds God upon a
throne, encircled with glory, and around him are four and twenty of his
elect upon four and twenty seats. A book with seven seals is in his
right hand, and no one throughout the universe is able to open it. But
a Lamb, standing in the midst of the throne, opens the seven seals,
amid the hymns and praises of the spiritual world (—6:).
At the opening of the first seal, he perceives a hero with the insignia
THE APOCALYPSE.
663
of victory. At that of the second, peace departs from the earth; at
that of the third, famine appears; at that of the fourth, death and his
retinue. At the opening of the fifth, the blood of the martyrs cries out
for vengeance. The sixth is opened; the sun and the moon are dark-
ened; the stars fall from heaven; fear and anguish become universal.
Four angels restrain the tempests, till an angel who ascends from the
east has sealed with the seal of the living God out of every tribe of
Israel twelve thousand who are to be preserved. Around the throne
of God stand a multitude of all nations in white robes, with palms in
their hands; who have come out of great tribulation, and are now com-
forted and sing praises to God (-8:). The seventh seal is opened;
all heaven is silent; and now appear seven angels with seven trumpets.
The prayers of the saints are upon an altar before God; and their
sweet savor ascends before him (-8: 7).
Xe
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
The first of the seven angels sounds; fire, hail and blood fall upon
the earth. At the sound of the second trumpet, a burning mountain is
cast into the sea, and the third part of the water becomes blood.
The third trumpet sounds, and a bright star falls upon the third part of
the rivers and fountains of waters, and they become bitter. The
fourth sounds; the third part of the sun, moon, and stars is darkened.
An eagle flies through the midst of heaven, crying, Wo to the inhabi-
tants of the earth! The fifth sounds
The fifth sounds; a star falls from heaven, and to
it is given the key of the bottomless pit, which it opens, and all kinds
of hurtful insects come forth. At the sound of the sixth trumpet, the
four angels bound in the river Euphrates are loosed. The third part
of mankind die in battle; but the survivors do not repent or turn from
their idolatry (—10:).
An angel of colossal figure speaks with the voice of seven thunders,
and gives John a book, which he commands him to swallow. He swal-
lows it, and begins to prophesy. He then measures the temple, but
leaves the outer court and the city to the Gentiles. Two martyrs, who
are mentioned in terms of high eulogium, prophesy and die in figur-
ative Sodom: the tenth part of the city dies (-11:15). The seventh
angel sounds. The four and twenty elders fall down before the throne
of God, and sing triumphal songs (-12:).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A woman appears in heaven, clothed with the sun, with the moon
under her feet, and a crown of stars upon her head. Her hour of de-
livery approaches, and a dragon lies in wait for her child, who is to rule
the nations with a rod of iron. Michael casts the dragon down to the
earth, thereby causing a general rejoicing in heaven. Even here the
dragon persecutes the woman in travail, who avoids him by fleeing into
the wilderness, where she brings forth and nurses her child. The drag-
on then makes war with the remnant of the woman's seed (—13:).
Meanwhile, a monster rises from the sea with seven heads, ten horns,
and ten crowns. He makes war with the saints; all nations worship
him. Another comes forth from the earth with two horns, speaking
like a dragon. He subjects mankind to the power of the first beast;
makes an image of him, and commands the world to worship him.
He
664
THE APOCALYPSE.
marks the worshippers of the beast with a peculiar mark. The num-
ber of the beast is six hundred and sixty-six.
The Lamb stands upon Mount Zion, and sets a mark upon his fol-
lowers. New praises are sung before him (-14: 6).
Three angels appear in heaven. One bears the everlasting Gospel ;
another cries Babylon is fallen; the third denounces punishment up-
on the worshippers of the beast. There appears above a cloud the
form of a man with a sickle in his hand, and an angel also appears
with a sickle; one reaps the harvest, the other the vintage (-15:).
*
*
*
**
***
*
*
*
*
*
*
Seven angels with seven vials of wrath come forth from the taberna-
cle of God, which is filled with smoke. The first pours out his vial, and
a grievous sore falls upon men. The second pours his out upon the
sea, which becomes like clotted blood. The third upon the rivers and
fountains of waters, and they become blood. The fourth pours his out
upon the sun, and men are scorched by its heat; the fifth upon the seat
of the beast, and it is enveloped in darkness. The sixth pours out his
vial upon the Euphrates, and its sources are dried up. Finally, the sev-
enth pours out his vial into the air, and a voice sounds from God's sanc-
tuary in heaven, crying: It is done. Nature seems to be in confusion;
all kinds of terrible phenomena occur, to complete the ruin (—17:).
One of the seven angels now comes to John, leads him into the wil-
derness, and shows him another woman, sitting upon a scarlet beast
with seven heads and ten horns. She bears the name Babylon upon
her forehead, is drunken with the blood of the saints, and entices the
nations to fornication. The heads are seven hills, the horns are ten
kings. The beast hasteneth to destruction (-18:).
Another angel comes down from heaven, and proclaims the fall of
Babylon; he incites the nations to vengeance. A lament over Babylon
is sung upon earth. Hallelujah is sung in heaven; for the marriage of
the Lamb is at hand (-19: 11).
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The conqueror on the white horse appears again. His name is writ-
ten on his thigh; he is called king of kings, and also loyos εou. An
angel, standing in the sun, calls the fowls of heaven to the battle-field,
where corpses of princes and mighty men await them in great numbers;
for their last efforts at resistance have been fruitless (-20:).
Meanwhile, an angel descends from heaven, having the key of the
bottomless pit. He there binds the beast, and shuts up his prison for a
thousand years, during which time the saints reign with Jesus. Af-
ter this period, however, the beast comes forth to fight anew, and calls
distant nations to his aid; but in vain. He is consigned to eternal tor-
ment by fire (—20: 11).
The Judge is seated upon his throne; the universe flees away; the
book of life is unrolled; the graves give up their dead, and they are
judged (-21:).
A new heaven and a new earth appear. A new Jerusalem descends
to earth, like a bride adorned for her husband. Its towers, its walls,
and its palaces, are ornamented with characters relating to Christianity.
There is consolation, quiet, peace, perpetual light; and there God reigns
forever (-22: 6).
THE APOCALYPSE.
665
Then follow a final address to John and John's farewell words to
his readers.
$186.
Interpreters have been less fortunate in regard to the Apocalypse.
than in regard to any other book of the New Testament; a proof that soon
after the downfall of the Jewish state, familiar acquaintance with the
cast of thought and peculiar views of this nation was lost, and even
Asiatics no longer understood Jewish diction and Palestinian imagery.
We may imagine, then, what has been the case in later days. At one
time Antichrist and the end of the world were seen in it; at another the
history of the church represented in visions. Then it comprised the
history of the world, of the Saracens, Huns, Turks, &c. Then the
Pope had his turn, the corruption of the clergy, next the Romish church
and the Reformation, and many other things not a whit better chosen.
Among modern writers, Bossuet trod a more judicious path. The
Apocalypse appeared to him to refer to the conquest of Rome and the
dismemberment of the empire, events which occurred through the
agency of Alaric, king of the Goths. The contents of the, book ex-
tend to this period, he thinks, and show the judgments of God upon.
the idolatrous state which had so often oppressed Christianity. The
latter is now avenged and triumphs over all persecution. Other pre-
ceding circumstances, which are included and treated at still greater
length, are, the fortunes of Christianity under the Cæsars, their perse-
cutions of it, particularly that of Diocletian, the momentary quiet
which it enjoyed under Constantine, and then the oppressions of Juli-
an, by which the divine chastisement was hastened.
Such, in Bossuet's opinion, are the contents of the Revelation; and he
was afterwards followed by Calmet. Wetstein thought differently, and
imagined that it related, in particular, to the destruction of Jerusalem,
the fate of Judaism connected therewith, and the ascendancy of Chris-
tianity.2
He was followed by Herder, who is very happy in some of
his details.3
Long before, however, Hugo Grotius, a man of extremely nice dis-
cernment, had penetrated further into its purport than any of the wri-
ters who have been mentioned. In the introduction to the fourth chap-
ter of his exposition of this book, he says: "Pertinent autem hæc visa
ad res Judæorum usque ad finem capitis undecimi: inde ad res Roma-
norum usque ad finem capitis vicesimi: deinde ad statum florentissi-
mum ecclesiæ Christianæ ad finem usque."
A still more thorough insight into the mysteries of this book was ob-
tained by John Simon Herrenschneider, Professor at Strasburg; and he
has exhibited it in a small but comprehensive treatise. He shows that
1 L'Apocalypse avec une explication. 1689.
2 Nov. Test. Prolog. in Apoc.
4
3 MAPANA®A, das Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, des N. T. Siegel."
Riga, 1779. 8vo.
4 Apocalypsis a Cap. IV-finem illustrandæ tentamen. Argentorati, 1786. 4to.
26 pages.
84
666
THE APOCALYPSE.
the two cities Rome and Jerusalem, the fortunes of which constitute
the greater portion of the Apocalypse, are only symbols of two reli-
gions, the downfall of which is predicted; and that the third, which
appears at the close, the heavenly Jerusalem, denotes the reign of the
blessed. Commencing at these starting points, a celebrated scholar has
discussed the Apocalypse very thoroughly, and his work is at present the
principal one on this subject.'
§ 187.
In this book three cities are mentioned, in reference to which all
these terrible occurrences above and below, and all the commotions of
terrestrial and celestial powers, take place. One of them is Sodom,
called likewise Egypt; another is Babylon; and the third is a new Je-
rusalem coming down out of heaven.
στα
The whole scene in regard to the seven angels with the seven trum-
pets (8:-12:), relates ostensibly to Sodom. But we speedily see that
this long-destroyed city only furnishes a name by which to designate
another. For in this Sodom our Lord was crucified, öлov o xvдLos
nµæv Zoravoóðn (11:8). In this Sodom is the temple, the outer
court of which is given up to the Gentiles. Indeed, it is the Holy
City itself, nós dyia, of which foreign nations are to take possession
(11: 1 seq.). When two martyrs have perished in it, its destruction is
determined (-12: 1). Josephus, the Jew, likewise, compared Jerusa-
lem at the same period to Sodom (Bell. Jud. V. 10).
After a long episode, in which a woman appears in the pangs of
child-birth, persecuted by a dragon; and after the description of two
other monsters, who vex this woman's kindred, (12: 13: 14:), the destruc-
tion of Babylon is decreed in heaven (14:8).
The seven angels with the seven vials of wrath execute the decree
-16: 17, 19), although Babylon had been a waste place for centuries,
and scarce any relics of its glory, were discoverable. But this Babylon
is built upon seven hills: oñou oọn eloìv éntá (17: 9-18). It was an
urbs septicollis, a famous mark of distinction, which makes it easy for us
to understand what city is really intended. But the other characteris-
tic, that it has the imperium orbis terrarum, faoilɛia ènì tôv faoiké-
wv τns yns affords us complete assurance (17: 18), that this Babylon
on the Euphrates is Rome on the Tiber:2
Thus Jerusalem and Rome are the two cities whose destruction was
here seen in the Spirit. These cities, however, do not stand merely as
such in this poetical production; they are figures of other ideas.
Rome, or Babylon, is contrasted by the author with the everlasting Gos-
1 Commentarius in Apocalypsin Joannis. Scrips. Joh. Godofr. Eichhorn. 2
vols. 8vo. Götting. 1791.
2 Rome has a mystic name in the Apocalypse; one reason of which may be,
that the mistress of the world really had a secret name, which it was considered
disastrous to have publicly divulged (Plin. H. N. III. 5. Solinus, I. Macrob. Sat-
urn.) III. 5. Plutarch, Quæst. Rom. Qu. 61. Servius, ad Æn. II. 295. IV. 598.
Georg. I. 498. See the learned treatise of Dr. Fr. Münter, Selandiæ Episcopus,
De occulto urbis Romæ nomine adl oc. Apoc. XVII. 5. Hafniæ, 1811. According
to him, Jerusalem also had a mystic name.
THE APOCALYPSE.
667
pel, εvarréhov alovov (14: 6, 7, 8). Thus contrasted with Christian-
ity, it can hardly denote any thing else than heathenism, to represent
which it was natural to select the metropolis of the heathen world.
John, too, describes it in such language as is commonly used by the
prophets concerning false gods and the worship of them. It is the hab-
itation of devils, the seducer to unfaithfulness towards the true God, to
лovεiα, and all the nations and kings of the earth drink of the cup of
her fornication (18: 2, 3. 17: 1, 2, 5).
If the capital of the heathen world represents the pagan religion, we
may_ easily infer what is represented by the Jewish capital. What but
the Jewish religion? Heathenism and Judaism, the two dominant re-
ligions of the ancient world, were doomed to fall.
And what was to take their place? A new Jerusalem, the kingdom
of the blessed after this life (21:-22: 6). Such is the representation of
this new Jerusalem, it is true, and as such it is usually regarded. But,
if other cities denote religions, so must this. If Rome and Jerusalem
represent heathenism and Judaism, the new Zion can be no other than
Christianity, which is to rule and bless mankind forever. This the uni-
ty of the whole demands, for there would be no unity, if the plot, so to
speak, was composed of such dissimilar topics as heathenism, Judaism,
and eternal blessedness.
Why, moreover, should this kingdom of the blessed forsake its an-
cient and happy abode in heaven and come down among men, unless
were an earthly institution (21: 23). It was only as a religion that it
could descend to earth to supply the place of the two religions which
were destroyed.
It is no objection to this opinion, that the graves are first opened and
the dead restored to life. The resurrection of the dead which is here
mentioned is only one of those strong, terrific images sometimes em-
ployed by the prophets to denote a total change of affairs, the revival of
national prosperity and of the religious constitution of the Jews (Eze-
kiel 37: Isaiah 36: 19).
And as to the circumstance that a day of judgment is connected
therewith, we know that this too, was made use of figuratively by the
prophets, to denote the execution of punishment upon those who oppres-
sed and ill-treated the people of God, or to express God's purpose of
bringing about a new epoch of glory for his religion and his people
(Joel 3: 2 seq. Zephaniah 3: 8 seq.).
This being admitted, the whole passage in relation to the seven seals
is but the introduction to the three principal descriptions, the dissolution
of Judaism, the abolition of heathenism, and the ascendancy of the
doctrines of Jesus (5:-7:2). For, in accordance with the representa-
tion of an ancient prophetical writer (Isaiah 29: 11), prophecy is a seal-
ed book; and its mysteries can be unfolded only by the Lamb near the
throne of God, who rules with Jehovah, in whose hand are all events.
Terrible plagues, famine, pestilence, war, and a total overthrow of king-
doms are to come; but from these calamities the elect of the Lamb are
exempted.
-
The letters which commence the book, and extend to chapter IVth,
are dedications to those churches with which the writer was particular-
ly connected in the labors of his office.
The episode which follows the judgment upon Jerusalem (12:-13:),
668
THE APOCALYPSE.
relative to the woman who is in the pangs of labor and is persecuted by
the dragon (the image of idolatry employed of old by Daniel), repre-
sents Judaism bringing forth Christianity, as is clear from all the cir-
cumstances and particular traits of the description. The other mon-
sters, who come up out of the earth and the sea, and are in the service
of the dragon, denote, it is plain, the Roman power by land and sea,
which sustained the dominion of Paganism (13. 1–14: 6).
In correspondence with this after the judgment upon Rome (17: 1.
18:), we find another woman upon a scarlet-colored beast. The former
woman, after her new-born child is taken up to the throne of God,
henceforth wanders in the desert and in pathless regions; a beautiful
image of the wandering condition of the Jews; but the fate of the lat-
ter woman is not so lenient. Her destruction is shortly afterwards
celebrated with songs of triumph and with jubilee. It is evident that
the latter denotes idolatry, as the former denoted Judaism.
§ 188.
It is unnecessary to remark, that by no means all the particular traits
and images in this large work are significant. Many are introduced
only to enliven the representation, or taken from the prophets and sa-
cred books for the purpose of ornament; and no one, who has any judg-
ment in such matters, will deny that the work is extraordinarily rich
and gorgeous for a production of western origin. The description of
the punishments by hail, pestilence, rivers turned into blood, insects
and vermin, are imitations of the description given in Genesis of the
Egyptian plagues, and neither require nor admit a special historical in-
terpretation. The darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of stars,
are poetical figures of common use in the prophets to denote, by means
of great and terrible occurrences, vast national calamity, or the downfall
of illustrious personages. The most sublime and most effective images
and passages in the prophets are scattered by the writer with profusion
throughout his work, for the purpose of giving it an oriental gorgeous-
ness, which leaves all the productions of Arabian authors in the shade.
Moreover, the numbers are rarely to be taken arithmetically, unless
when there are special reasons for so doing. Seven seals, seven angels,
seven trumpets, seven vials of wrath, seven thunders-who does not see
that the number seven is a prophetic and sacred number, and is used
merely for the purpose of decoration and costume? So, too, with the
round numbers, and the times and half times. They neither admit of
a chronological nor a numerical signification; but are mostly indefi-
nite numbers and periods.
Throughout the whole book there are but two events related, which
are susceptible of a historical interpretation. In this statement we
pass by the supremacy of Christianity with which the writer's visions
terminate. The destruction of Jerusalem was an actual occurrence,
and therefore we might expect the poet to present, as far as practicable,
real circumstances, instead of poetical and invented ones. We are thus
referred to history in our interpretation, so far as she will come to our aid
unforced and of her own accord.
Parallel to this is the destruction of Rome. It is true that it had not
THE APOCALYPSE.
669
then occurred, but it is assumed by the writer as having happened, that
his representations may correspond to each other. Still, however, he
saw the then mistress of the world in a condition, which was peculiar to
his time, and afforded him facts enough to portray a state visibly de-
clining to the final ruin of its greatness. Here, also, in order to give
fidelity, to his picture and render it easy of recognition, it was necessary
to select facts from the actual condition of things. In this way his de-
scription became strikingly exact, and passed from the bounds of ideal
imagery within those of real resemblance. In this, however, as in the
former case, we must avoid everything trifling, far-fetched, or forced, in
our interpretation.
$ 189.
Clear as it is, from what has been said, that the plan of this work is
well-digested and its structure skilful, we cannot, after all, obtain a
competent idea of it, without going over it step by step for ourselves and
scrutinizing the mutual relation of the parts. In this way only can
we come to perceive with pleasure the beautiful symmetry of its plan
and its extremely nice construction.
α
It has been recently attempted to class it, as respects its structure,
among dramatic works. We may, it is true, adduce the fact that there
are in Clement and Eusebius (IIagaox. Evayy.) fragments of a Jewish
tragedian, named Ezekiel, who lived about this time. And, we may re-
mark, that John wrote primarily for Ionian and Asiatic cities, which had
been acquainted with and attached to the drama for centuries. All this,
however, could only serve to explain the fact, if John had really select-
ed a dramatic form for his production. But a mere narrative can nev-
er belong to the dramatic class of compositions; and, if it were neces-
sary or possible to bring the poetical productions of every country and
people under Aristotle's classification, or to arrange them after the
Greek manner, this composition, which is merely descriptive, should
rather be considered as epic. Yet, although it wants the principal char-
acteristics of the drama, it cannot be denied that this hypothesis, in con-
formity with which the author of it has analyzed the whole book, is ex-
tremely useful as an aid to a conception of the book and to the memory.¹
As to the language, it is less the language of John himself than that
of the prophets, from whom he has borrowed their ornaments, to exhib-
it them here, as it were in a collection. And even when he speaks him-
self, he necessarily strives to imitate their style and diction, as nearly as
possible, in order to preserve a uniformity of tone. Those, therefore,
may be right, who assert that the style of the Apocalypse is not that of
John; but they must not, on this account, deny his title to a book which
he intentionally composed of the figures of other writers, and plenti-
fully filled with the beauties of the literature of his country, after the ori-
ental custom. Nor must they attempt to show a discrepancy in style, from
a comparison of the Apocalypse with the Gospel or the Epistles; for
the simple historical style, or the language of friendly communication,
is not by any means the terminus comparationis for a decision respect-
ing the authorship of a poetical work.
1 Eichhorn, Comment. in Apocalyps. p. 19–33.
670
THE APOCALYPSE.
$190.
The book itself affords us a clue, which we will not neglect, in respect
to the time when it was composed. In the seventeenth chapter, John
describes a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored beast, which has seven
heads and ten horns. This bold allegorical representation is intended
to exhibit figuratively the condition of Rome. We may therefore ex-
pect to find in it traces of fact which individualize the subject, and en-
able us to recognize it as something more than an ideal fancy.
The woman, he says, is ʼn roles µɛɣáin, the great city (v. 18), and
bears the name Babylon (v. 5). The seven heads are the seven hills on
which the woman sits (v. 9). The seven hills are also seven kings: xai
Basilets inrá elo. Some verses after, the ten horns of the beast are
explained as meaning ten kings: τὰ δέκα κέρατα δέκα βασιλεῖς εἰσι
(v. 12).
It is not possible that Rome should then have had ten and yet at the
same time but seven rulers. We must therefore consider the kings in
one of the passages as not meaning persons, and must interpret them in
a different manner. We will do this with reference to the seven hills,
for the ten horns are so described that we find no difficulty in recogni-
zing in them the Cæsars. The seven hills are seven kings, would then
mean only that they were kingly hills, on which rested the dominion of
the world. The play upon the numbers-five are fallen-one is—the
other is not yet come-and the eighth hill is the beast, that hasteth to per-
dition-all this only signifies that the Roman power had not yet reached
its utmost height, and yet the internal strength of the state was dimin-
ishing; it was evidently approaching its ruin.
After speaking of Rome and the empire, he passes to those on whom
devolved the direction of its affairs and resources, and the domes-
tic exercise of power. The ten horns are ten kings, déxa Basileis
εiol (17: 12). Let us see how they are described: they did not re-
εἰσι
ceive their power, but assumed it themselves; they themselves hate the
woman, the moovn μsjálŋ; they make her desolate and naked; they
eat her flesh and burn her with fire. And this woman is the great
city, ǹ moles ǹ µɛyáhŋ (17: 16, 18). Can we fail to recognise in this
πόλις μεγάλη
picture the reign of the Cæsars, the manner in which they acquired
the throne, their abuse of power, the execution and banishment of the
most distinguished citizens, the squandering of treasure and resources,
and, lastly, the incendiary act of Nero?
There had been, then, ten Cæsars at the time when he wrote; Au-
gustus, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, Nero, Otho, Galba, Vitellius, Vespa-
sian, Titus. It was in the reign of this last, it would seem, that he
wrote his work. Thus much from the writer himself; another histori-
cal account is given us by Irenæus, which deserves attention. In the
Latin it runs thus: Quoniam si oporteret manifeste præsenti tempore
præconiari nomen ejus (animalis) per ipsum utique editum fuisset, qui
et Apocalypsin viderat, neque enim ante multum temporis visum est, sed
pene sub nostro seculo ad finem Domitiani imperii.” (L. V. Adv. Hær.
c. 30).
An excellent scholar,' on the authority of this ancient version,
66
1 Knittel, "Bey trage zur Kritik der Offenbarung, ein Synodalschreiben.
Braunschweig. 1773.
THE APOCALYPSE.
671
has interpreted this passage as relating to the name of the beast-nomen
visum est, and thinks that Irenæus understood by it Titus Domitianus,
because, directly, before he proposes the name Teitan as containing
the beast's number stated by John, viz. six hundred and sixty-six. But,
if we consult the Greek text, which has fortunately been preserved
here, we shall find that we can translate either, visus est, visa est, or
visum est : Εἰ γὰρ ἔδει ἀναφανδον τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τούνο
μα αὐτοῦ, δι' ἐκείνου ἂν ἐῤῥήθη τοῦ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν έωρακότος.
Οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ ἑωράθη, ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς,
πρός τῷ τελευτης Δομιτιάνου ἀρχῆς. Thus ἑωράθη may mean visum
est nomen, visus est Joannes, or visa est Apocalypsis.
The first of these interpretations, however, visum est nomen, would
seem to be the most improbable. In Irenæus, the following statements
precede the above passage: Titan is probably the name of the beast, for
it is a royal name, “tale autem est antiquum et fide dignum et regale ma-
gis autem et tyrannicum nomen.' 2d. No king had yet borne this name,
neque eorum regum, qui secundum nos sunt, aliquis vocatus est Titan."
3d. The name, nevertheless, might be borne by a future king, "tamen
habet verisimilitudinem, ut ex multis colligamus, ne forte Titan vocetur,
qui veniet." From these words of Irenæus, it appears that the name had
not yet occurred, and therefore it cannot have been Domitian.
As little foundation is there for Wetstein's interpretation: visus est
Joannes. On this supposition, the father intended to say: It is not very
long since John was seen among us; he was alive in the reign of Do-
mitian. He intended, therefore, to express the shortness of the period
between his own time and the latter days of John. But what he said
was ill-adapted to this purpose; for, according to his statement, John
lived much longer and approached much nearer to his day, having lived
till the time of Trajan: "Sed et quæ est Ephesi ecclesia a Paulo quidem
fundata, Joanne autem permanente usque ad tempora Trajani, testis est
verus apostolorum traditionis" (L. III. Adv. Hær. c. 3. n. 4). He would
therefore have said: neque enim ante multum temporis visus est, sed
sub nostro sæculo, Trajani nimirum imperio."
There is no choice left but visa est Apocalypsis; and then, according
to this father, the revelation was made to John in the reign of Domi-
tian :
"si enim oporteret præconiari nomen ejus, per ipsum utique edi-
tum fuisset, qui et apocalypsin viderat; neque enim ante multum tem-
poris visa est, sed pene sub nostro sæculo, ad finem Domitiani imperii."
But the inference derived from the book itself does not agree with
the statement of Irenæus. John reckoned ten Cæsars when he wrote
his book, and the tenth was Titus; while Irenæus states it to have been
in the reign of Domitian, the brother and successor of Titus, that the
revelation was made. There are arguments in favor of the opinion
of the latter, which appear in fact, to contravene the author of the book,
himself.
John says that he saw the revelation at Patmos, whither he went for
the testimony of Jesus Christ (1:9). But ancient history unanimously
asserts that he was not banished thither till Domitian's reign. The hu-
mane government of Titus, as well as that of his father likewise, was
by no means stained with the persecution of any one διὰ τὴν μαρτυ-
glav Inoou; but his brother, who was of so dissimilar a character, is
expressly charged with cruelty towards the Christians. The statements
672
THE APOCALYPSE.
and intimations of history, of which many might be presented here,
are therefore in favor of Irenæus. How can this be explained?
John reckons ten Cæsars. Let us suppose that he reckoned only
those that had deceased, without including the one then living. The lat-
ter persecuted Christianity, and had removed John himself from his sta-
tion in the church, and banished him from the midst of his flock. What
should he, what could he, say of him that was good? And would it
have been in accordance with his Master's spirit, or the spirit of his
doctrines, to speak evil of him? If then he could say neither good nor
ill of him, had he any other choice than to be silent? Thus, it seems
to me, both may be reconciled with each other. John enumerates only
those emperors who had already deceased, and leaves it for others to
mention him who was then living, and who was by no means an honor to
the human race. Irenæus mentions the eleventh, concerning whom he
had no reason to be silent.
T
$191.
John, then, wrote the Revelation in Domitian's reign; and this fact
promises us some light in regard to the occasion and purpose of the
book. He himself had been banished to Patmos for the testimony of
Jesus (1:9); and his was not a solitary case of hardship, but it was a
part of the general tribulation of Christianity; he was but a ovy z o ivw-
νὸς ἐν τῇ θλίψει. The churches under his care groaned under severe
suffering; Christians were exposed to punishments inflicted on them
by the civil authorities and tribunals of justice. They were thrown in-
to prison, and led to death, or were in constant expectation of it (2:
10, 11). At all events, there were not wanting distinguished examples
of a noble constancy which had already been rewarded with the crown
of martyrdom (2: 13). Some, however, had succumbed under their tri-
als, dishonored their religion, and denied him who acknowledges his
faithful followers before his Father and his angels (3: 4, 5, 6).
This happened in Proconsular Asia, under Roman judges. Such
was the violence practised by paganism towards the adherents of Jesus.
The Jews, it would seem however, (2: 9), had no small share in this vi-
olence, and were active, probably by informations, secret or open accu-
sations, and by instigation, in adding severity to the lot of the Chris-
tians. We are told by Justin Martyr: They, as well as the Romans,
treat us as enemies, consider us as rebels, murder and abuse us so far
as they have opportunity.¹
Such was the condition of Christianity between the adherents of the
two religions. She was hated by both parties; and unhappily, more-
over, her internal peace was disturbed by heretics, and her teachers
were in exile.
Her condition was fearful; consolation and encouragement were
needed, and whence should they come? Grounds of consolation were
presented by the circumstances of the time. Jerusalem was in ruins;
the ashes which covered the temple and the sanctuary had hardly gone
2
Apol. Major. Rob. Steph. 146. 4 éxoùs quas xai noleμiovs
ἡγοῦνται, ὁμοίως ὑμῖν ἀναιροῦντες καὶ κολάζοντες ὑμᾶς, ὁπόταν δύνωνται.
THE APOCALYPSE.
673
out.
To this fact John directed the attention of the oppressed, and in-
spirited them with hope. Justice had already been inflicted on Jeru-
salem; the last throes of Judaism were seen; soon this religion and the
rage of its adherents would no longer excite apprehension !
The fact was striking; the example of the divine dealings towards
the enemies of his word was a plain one, and might serve as a warn-
ing to heathenism. The latter days of Nero, the civil wars after his
time, and the odious reign of Domitian, afforded, besides, no brilliant
prospect as to the duration of the Roman power, with which must sink
the authority of the state-religion. It would, therefore, lose the power
of destroying any other system of religion.
Thus could he encourage Christianity, incite its professors to constan-
cy in these trying times, that they might maintain their religion, and
transmit it to those brighter days when it would rise nobly and trium-
phantly over every adverse fortune, erect its altars in every nation, and
become the religion of the world.
85
!
!
}
NOTES
TO HUG'S INTRODUCTION,
BY
M. STUART,
PROF. SAC. LIT. IN THE THEOL. SEM. ANDOVER.
THE preceding work of Hug occupies so large a space, that it is im-
possible to make any copious additions to it without rendering the volume
inconvenient and unwieldy. The writer of the following notes is con-
strained, therefore, merely to add a few remarks and notes, by which he
hopes to render this volume more useful to students of New Testament
literature in our country. The notes, from the nature of the case, must
be very miscellaneous. They must also be mere hints, rather than for-
mal discussion; for such discussion on all the topics where it might be
easy to find occasion for it, would occupy, or might easily be made to
occupy, at least as much space as the author's text itself. The reader
will not therefore expect from me what the circumstances of the present
case render inexpedient or impracticable.
It would have been more convenient, perhaps, for the reader, if ref-
erences to the Notes could have been made in the text, as now printed,
so often as these notes occur. But as it was anticipated that the num-
ber and quantity of them must be proportioned to the room occupied by
the text, this could not be done while the latter was printing. The read-
er may now, by turning to the Notes, always be able, without any seri-
ous inconvenience, to find where and when they should be consulted, if
he is desirous to consult them.
NOTE 1. Style of the New Testament Greek. (p. 13.)
The statement made by Hug respecting the judgment which a critic
possessing ability to read them" would form of the New Testament
books, viz. that "the Greek is certainly not in any one of the proper
dialects of the language, but is a corrupted style of expression and
676
NOTE I.
construction," is one which needs some correction. It savours altogeth-
er of the opinion that was formed and defended by many critics, before
the labours of Planck and Winer in relation to this subject were laid
before the world. Peculiar constructions, forms of phraseology, mean-
ings of many prepositions, adverbs, and other words, were, by some
critics of name, referred habitually and almost every where to the He-
brew. Later investigations, and particularly those by the two authors
just named, have shewn that a great portion of the so-called Hebraisms
are to be met with in the later Greek writers, contemporary, or nearly
so, with the writers of the New Testament. The later Atticizing
Greek is now regarded, by critics in general, so far as I know, as un-
questionably the basis of the New Testament idiom. Departures from
classic usage in some respects, are beyond all doubt to be found in the
New Testament. But how could this possibly be otherwise? The
writers of this volume were obliged to express a multitude of ideas,
which were, as we may say, entire strangers to the heathen circle of
thought and expression; ideas, which their living under the ancient
revelation and their being enlightened by it, had made current and com-
mon among the Hebrews, but of which the heathen Greeks had enter-
tained no conception, and therefore had formed no words to express
them in an adequate manner. In such a case, all that was possible for
the New Testament writers was, either to coin new words in Greek, or
else employ words already coined in a new sense. They have accom-
plished their task in both these ways; as any good New Testament lex-
icon will every where and plainly shew. But in so doing, they have not
acted differently from what a heathen Greek would have done, had he
been transferred to a new circle of ideas, and undertaken to communi-
cate them in the Greek language.
The supposition of mere arbitrary usage, as to style and diction, by
the writers of the New Testament, is quite an unfounded one; and if
true, it would set afloat every thing on which the sound rules of exegesis
are built. The syntax of the New Testament in scarcely a single case
departs from that which may be found in classic Greek; the forms of
words employed by the sacred writers are throughout conformed to the
method of the Greek idiom. Even when the New Testament writers
coin new words, as they are occasionally obliged to do, they coin them
strictly according to the laws of analogy. The infinitive mode, the par-
ticiple, the article, are all employed more Graecorum. Prepositions and
adverbs are employed in the usual relations, and with the usual senses,
merely excepting, perhaps, some enlargement of meaning which is oc-
casionally perceptible. In short, whether we resort to the formal or
syntactical part of grammar, we see that New Testament usage has
little in reality that may not be found in the heathen writers, a century
before and after the birth of the Saviour.
So much indeed is and must be true, viz., that, being Hebrews,
when writing Greek they employ Hebrew modes of thought and expres-
sion; and they do this often; and so one would naturally expect. But
how could a Hebrew express his religious views and feelings without
doing thus? That was, from the very nature of the case, quite impos-
sible. Hence a knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures becomes
indispensable to an enlarged and accurate knowledge of the New Tes-
STYLE OF N. TEST. GREEK.
677
tament. Hebraism as to shade or mode of thought, may be often and
almost every where resorted to with profit by the interpreter; but let
him look well to the matter when he rests any important deduction up-
on the meaning of Greek words as merely traced to Hebrew usage, in
order to make out a sense for them which is foreign to their ordinary
nature. Great caution and judgment are needed here. It is only when
the thought or the phraseology is manifestly of Hebraistic origin, that
we can fully confide in making out the sense of the New Testament
writers merely by resort to the idiom of the Hebrews.
Yet, with all these highly important limitations to the position ad-
vanced by Hug, the main thing which he aims at is true; i. e. it is true
that none but Hebrews could have composed such a book as the New
Testament. I think it is scarcely possible to go from an extensive and
careful perusal of heathen Greek, to the study of the New Testament
in its original language, without feeling an unwavering conviction
spring up in the mind, that none but Hebrews could have written it. Yet
this conclusion could not be properly built on the formal or syntactical
phenomena of the New Testament style. It would establish itself on
the shade of thought, the modes of expression, the familiarity with
Hebrew ideas and diction, and the general costume of the whole. The
conviction becomes spontaneous and irresistible, after a little practice
in careful reading, that those familiar with Hebrew ideas, a Hebrew
circle of thought, Hebrew modes of education, a Hebrew country and
government, the Hebrew Scriptures, and (in a word) the whole condition
of Hebrew life and action,that none but such men, could possibly
have written the New Testament.
This then would all serve to shew, beyond any rational doubt, that
the New Testment was, as it professes to be, written by Hebrews, and so
that it is evinced to be a genuine production, as far as this matter is
concerned.
Inquirers of the present time can hardly refrain from astonishment, that
Pfochen and many other Purists labored so long, so heartily, and with
so much effort and learning, to shew that the style of the New Testa-
ment is purely Attic. They deemed this essential to its elevated char-
acter as a composition. But how is it possible that the style should be
purely Attic, when the thoughts are so Un-Attic? What did the Attics.
know respecting many views of God and our duty, which are designated
by the New Testament writers? Nothing at all. And in the expression
of what lay beyond the circle of thought among the heathen Greeks,
how could the Hebrew writers employ only pure Attic diction.
Besides; had Pfochen and others proved the point which they labour-
ed to prove, the argument, now drawn as above from the actual state of
the New Testament style, for its genuineness would have been undone.
What critic, acting simply as a critic, would ever be brought to credit it,
that Hebrew men had written in a style purely Attic? As matters now
are, all is well. The style is entirely congruous with the condition of
the alleged writers. What a pity, one almost involuntarily is led to ex-
claim, that so much time should have been wasted by the Purists, in or-
der to prove what would have undone such an argument for the genu-
ineness of the New Testament!
678
NOTE II.
NOTE 2. Circumstantial and internal evidence in the New Testament
of its genuineness. (p. 28.)
The detail of this in pp. 13-28 is worthy of the most attentive con-
sideration of the candid reader. It can hardly fail to strike him in a
manner adapted to excite a deep interest in the subject. The Works of
Paley, viz. his Horae Paulinae and his Evidences of Christianity, give
the sum of this kind of evidence in a most persuasive and attractive
form, and are worthy of diligent and attentive perusal. In Lardner,
also (as quoted on p. 28), he will find very much to the same purpose,
which is candidly and ingeniously propounded. Indeed, I consider the
internal evidences of genuineness in the New Testament, as being, to
say the least, quite as strong as those of the Iliad, or Aeneid, or of the
works of Cicero, or those of Horace. In some respects they are even
more so; for the reason that there are so many peculiarities in the He-
brew state, circle of thought, action, and expression, that imitation of
these books by foreigners would have been unspeakably difficult, or
rather, quite impossible.
The works of Paley on the Evidences of Christianity (which need
not be here described), will perhaps prevent the republication among
us of the works of Schmid and Less, which are mentioned at the bot-
tom of p. 28. Yet I could wish, for many reasons, that the work of
Schmid, in particular, might be translated by some adequate hand, and
republished in our language. The author, Christian F. Schmid, was a
Professor of Theology at Wittenberg, during the later part of the last
century, and his octavo volume (pp. 640) has relation to the Old Tes-
tament as well as the New; and therefore it covers ground in respect to
which our present English literature is very defective. The main ar-
gument is contained in a Text, which comprises much less matter, how-
ever, than the Notes. The latter embrace illustrations and confirma-
tions of the text, and quotations in the original of all the passages se-
lected from ancient writers, as proofs of the positions advanced. As a
compend of these testimonies, made up of innumerable documents
brought together in this way, and of a running text which shews the
drift and force of the argument and also of these documents, this book
would be exceedingly valuable to students, who wish to see with their
own eyes. A few of Lardner's selections, which Schmid deemed irrel-
evant, are omitted; and some testimonies that are omitted by Lardner,
are added. Such a Thesaurus of this subject, translated and modified
by judicious notes, would supply an important defect in our sacred lit-
erature; for very few can afford to purchase the works of Lardner in
extenso, where the originals are also exhibited. Schmid is an example
of multum in parvo. This work was published in 1775.
Of the two works (named in Note 1, p. 28) of Professor Less, of the
University of Göttingen and a contemporary of J. D. Michaelis, the
latter is the more complete, extensive, and satisfactory. It is in three
volumes, and a part of it (a very valuable one too) was translated and
printed in England in 1804, by Roger Kingdon A M., of St. John's
College, Cambridge, who had been a resident in Germany. Less him-
self had been for many years of his life, skeptical as to the genuineness
GENUINENESS OF THE N. TEST.
679
of the New Testament writings. He at length instituted a strict in-
quiry on this subject, and his book is the fruit of his inquiry. He is
quite rigid as to the admission of testimony; and no candid inquirer, if
he has been disposed to be skeptical, can well demur to any evidence
which he does admit. He excludes very many passages cited as testi-
mony by Lardner and Schmid; and with all his severe scrutiny comes
out at last with a most distinct and complete conviction of the genuine-
ness of the New Testament in general. The Apocalypse seems to
him, however, a book of somewhat doubtful origin and authority; al-
though he fully concedes its antiquity. The reason which seems to
have most influenced his mind in making this conclusion, is, that the
book is unintelligible. In what way, however, our inability to under-
stand a book, can prove that a particular man did not write it, it would
seem to be difficult to shew. In this respect, I think the worthy author
has not displayed his usual tact and argumentative ability. Had the
work of Eichhorn on the Apocalypse been published when he wrote, he
would probably have come to a different conclusion; at least in respect
to the supposed impenetrable obscurity of the book.
The work of Less as translated and published by Kingdon, and ably
translated, too, might be republished in a moderate duodecimo or even
18mo. Is it not alarming to reflect, that some hundreds of thousands of
worse than worthless books are published every year, and find purchas-
ers and readers; while such a book as that of Less, conducted through-
out on the rigid principles of scrutiny, and adapted therefore to attract
argumentative and skeptical minds, should go into oblivion, so that the
English and American public at large scarcely know of its existence?
The work of Jeremiah Jones, first published in 1726 in 3 vols. 8vo.,
and then republished at the Clarendon press at Oxford in 1798, on the
New and full Method of settling the canonical Authority of the New
Testament, etc., is a book replete with much interesting and useful
matter. The main part of it is directed against spurious books, which
in ancient times claimed a like place with writings of the New Testa-
ment, and to which Mr. Jones applies certain tests that are adapted to
shew the weakness of those claims. The third volume treats of the
authenticity of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. The Epis-
tles and the Apocalypse are not embraced in his plan. The reader will
find in this work of Jones, a somewhat extended account of all the spu-
rious books that we have any knowledge of, with many extracts from
them. The originals of such as are still extant, he may find at length
in the recent work of Thilo, comprising the remains of this kind of
literature.
Mr. Jones was minister of a dissenting congregation at Avening,
Gloucestershire, in England, and is said by Lempriere to have died at
the age of 31; which is scarcely credible, considering the extent of his
literary investigations, and the labour which they must have cost him.
Of this work Hug seems to have been ignorant. The student will be
well paid for consulting it, and for attentively studying the essential and
argumentative parts of it. Like many other solid and excellent works
of the last age, it has been nearly displaced by books of less valuable
matter, but of more attractive form.
May some powerful and patient critic speedily arise, who, by an at-
680
NOTE III.
tentive study of all these works, extensive reading and study of their
original sources, logical and persuasive method of thought and argument,
and orderly and scientific arrangement of matter and neat simplicity of
style, will make a book which will proffer to the student all that is solid
and valuable in all the works that are here named and many others, in
relation to this important subject!
NOTE 3. Manner of quotation by early Christian writers. (p. 29.)
c
c
If the reader should give full credit to the account here given by
Hug, of the manner of quotation by the most ancient Christian writers,
he would surely be led into an error. Take as an example the oldest
of all, viz. Clemens Romanus. His quotations are almost innumerable ;
yet he never names the book of either Testament, when he quotes. He
occasionally names prophets, indeed, from whom he quotes. But then
he calls their names as those of persons, and not as the titles of books,
after the manner that we now practise. He often quotes with the for-
mulas, γέγραπται, λέγει, εἶπεν ὁ Θεός, φησὶν ὁ λόγος ὁ ἅγιος, and the
like; but nearly as often, particularly in respect to Old Testament
books, he quotes without any formula at all. He quotes too with all im-
aginable degrees of freedom and departure in some respects from the
diction of the original; evidently quoting often from mere recollection,
which at times is quite indistinct, then at other times accurate.
times he doubtless had the original before him; but the cases of this na-
ture are scarcely capable of being determined, because exact recollec-
tion would produce the same effect upon the accuracy of the writer.
In many cases he evidently paraphrases the original or metamorphoses
it, accommodating it to his particular purpose, and designing scrupu-
lously to retain only what he deems to be the substance of the sense.
Some-
As to the allegation of Hug, that the Old Testament is quoted by the
early fathers with more accuracy than the New, I do not think there is
any good ground for its support. I see no substantial difference, e. g.
in Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr, in the modes or exactness of
quotations, with the exception that formulas which naturally introduce
quotations, are perhaps somewhat more frequent in regard to passages ta-
ken from the New Testament. Nothing is seemingly more apparent, than
that they made their quotations usually from memory; the natural con-
sequence is, that even in cases where the fact of actual quotation is
very apparent, yet exactness of diction throughout is not to be found.
As to treating the historical books differently from what they have
done the didactic ones, I know of no foundation for this, excepting that
a long history in the Scriptures is of course summarily adverted to or
given, while a proverb, or a maxim, or a precept, is often given at length
because brevity permits it to be so given.
The allegation under No. III., that "the Prophets are cited with di-
rect reference to them," has no other foundation, I apprehend, than what
has already been suggested, viz. that the names of the prophets as per-
sons are frequently mentioned, but not their names as the mere title of a
MANNER OF QUOTATION.
68.1
book. The allegation in No. IV. that 'the epistles are accurately
cited,' has, as I apprehend, no other foundation than what belongs sim-
ply to the nature of the case. The histories in the Gospels are merely
referred to usually, not cited at length; but the didactic parts of the
Gospels will not be found to be quoted less accurately than the Epistles.
Nor does the representation of Hug seem to agree with itself. He
tells us in No. III. that the didactic writings of the Old Testament,
are generally cited verbatim." Yet he says in No. V. that 'moral princi-
ples and tenets are quoted, so that the thought only is regarded, and
not the words.' If any one should say, that the author means to affirm
this merely of the New Testament, he is precluded from so saying by
the affirmation under No. IV. that 'the Epistles of the New Testament
are cited accurately.' The truth is, as I fully believe, that the intelligent
reader who attentively watches the matter of quotation in the early
Christian writers, will soon come to the entire conviction, that they usu-
ally quoted memoriter; that there is no material difference as to the
manner of the quotations, whether it be Old Testament or New; that
they often compress not only narrations but other passages; that they
often conjoin different Scriptures in the same paragraph; that they
sometimes accommodate the language of any and all Scriptures to the
particular purpose they have in view, and thereby make departures from
the diction of the original; and finally, that there is no one formula of
quotation which is uniform, none which of itself distinguishes what par-
ticular weight the writer assigns to any quotation, none which is indis-
pensable, inasmuch as the quotations are almost as often without any
formula as with one.
As to the usual manner in ancient writers of quoting the words of
the Saviour as his (No. VI.), nothing would be more natural than this.
The authority of the Saviour is supreme. To cite words as his, is at
once to assign to them their highest claims, their paramount authority.
All this, however, diminishes nothing from the weight and impor-
tance of Hug's argument in the sequel. In this, the fact, rather than
the manner of quotation, is principally concerned. The fact is always
to be judged of by general principles of quotation that were current in
ancient times, and by the particular circumstances in each case, and the
evidences of real resemblance to the original Scriptures.
NOTE 4. Nature of the author's argument in favour of the genuineness
of the New Testament books, in respect to quotations from
them. (p. 31.)
Hug does not enter at all upon the production of testimonies from wri-
ters in the church catholic. He expects the reader to consult Lard-
ner for these, and also the other writers named on p. 28. (See Note 2
above). Taking it for granted that these testimonies are abundant and
satisfactory, so far as any thing said by the friends of Christianity in its
purer form is concerned, he proceeds in $7 to produce evidence from the
86
682
NOTES V, VI.
remains of heretical writers in the second century, of the existence of the
New Testament books in their present form at that period. These tes-
timonies, although not wholly neglected by Lardner, Schmid, and oth-
ers, are more critically and acutely treated of here by Hug, than by
almost any other writer. It is scarcely possible that the young reader,
who is a beginner in critical study, should feel in an adequate manner
the importance of the testimony thus acquired. "Our enemies them-
selves being judges," is an appeal which has strong claims to enhance
the credibility of a thing. If the opponents of the church catholic,
and schismatics, still refer in their writings to the New Testament as a
standard book, then we may well suppose it was generally so consid-
ered. And even in cases where they in fact impugn it, or any part of
it, this also shews the actual existence of that which is impugned.
Such then is the nature and design of Hug's testimonies in this sec-
tion, adduced from Celsus, Tatian, Cassian, Theodotus, and others,
most of whose remains are to be found only in fragments, presented in
the works of their opponents. When the nature of this case and the ob-
ject in view by Hug are fully before the reader, he will, I trust, peruse
with much interest, what he might otherwise, perhaps, consider as dry
and uninteresting. The whole is drawn up with such studied brevity,
and so little close regard to order and simplicity of arrangement, that it
will require all the patience of the student, and tax all his powers of at-
tention, in order fully to understand what the author has here written,
and to profit by it.
NOTE 5. Credibility of the New Testament writings. (p. 64.)
Besides what Paley, Less, Lardner, and many others have written
with so much ability in respect to this subject, the reader will find a
very useful and brief summary in a recent book of Prof. Schott of Jena
(1830), entitled Isagoge historico-critica in Libros Nov. Test. Sucros,
128-133, with many notes comprising explanations and references
to works of importance. The student should also by all means read
the first volume of Rev. Thomas H. Horne's Introduction, where he
will find an extended and very useful summary of the arguments em-
ployed in relation to this all important subject, and the literature which
concerns it extensively noticed.
I cannot help thinking, with Hug, that on the supposition of unbeliev-
ers, viz. that the matter of the Gospels is not true, the character and
doctrines of Jesus Christ are a greater miracle than any which they re-
ject. Reinhard in his Plan, and Planck in his Urchristenthum, have
urged this point with great power, and in my apprehension with unan-
swerable arguments.
NOTE 6. Classification of Manuscripts.
On this subject the reader should be apprised, that discussion is by no
means at an end, and that after all the ingenuity, labour, and learning,
CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS.
683
that have been exhibited, no real terra firma on which we can plant our
feet, has yet been taken possession of or even fully discovered.
The theory of Hug is briefly this, viz. (1) That until about A.D.
250, there was a zowη ezdoσıç, i. e. editio vulgaris of the New Testa-
ment writings, corresponding in the main with the older Latin versions,
with the Codex Cantabrigiensis, and with the old Syriac version or Pe-
shito and the more ancient fathers.
(2) That about the middle of the third century, the defects of this
xoivη exdonis becoming apparent to more critical readers, several un-
dertook to revise and purify it. Hesychius engaged in this work, who
was a bishop in Egypt; Lucian, a priest of Antioch in Syria, undertook
a like task; and Origen in Palestine did the same. The revised text of
the first edition, Hug supposes to have obtained currency in Egypt; that
of the second, in Syria, Asia Minor, Thrace, and Constantinople or
Byzantium; that of the third, in Palestine. He thinks that the old
xoivn ëxdonis, as exhibited in the older Latin versons, still kept its
place in the West; for certain it is, that Gelasius bishop of Rome
(† 496) prohibited the use of the Lucian and Hesychian recensions, on
the ground that he supposed them to be corrupt; p. 117.
(3) A third period begins, according to Hug, soon after the respec-
tive recensions named above, and extends itself down to the present
time; during which various alterations from a variety of causes have
been made in all these different texts. In ancient times, different re-
censions were mixed together; and besides this, the xown Endoors
would also come in for its share, with many possessors of Mss., in the
correction and adjustment of them. From all these reasons combined,
there is, in even the oldest Mss. now extant, more or less of mixture of
the different recensions; although some Mss. have predominant char-
acteristics, which are plain and very visibly marked.
ers.
verts.
There will be no question about the ingenuity, acuteness, and im-
mense labour, exhibited in the briefly represented theory of Prof. Hug;
at least I think there can be none among intelligent and practised read-
Its ingenuity, and indeed speciousness, has in part called forth
high expressions of admiration from many critics, and made some con-
But although the zon doois, as stated by him, must be
substantially true, as even Griesbach and others concede, yet that amid
such an endless variety of readings as must have sprung up from causes
suggested by him, during two centuries after the writings of the New
Testament were composed, all Mss. should be capable of classification,
so as to make the xon adoos a distinct and separate family, easily
distinguishable from all subsequent Mss.-who will venture to affirm
this, and pledge himself to produce satisfactory proof? Origen says of
the Greek Mss. in his time: "The difference has become really great,
both from the carelessness of copyists, and from the arbitrary conduct
of those to whom the correction of them is entrusted; as also from
emendations, additions, and omissions made by many according to their
own judgment." (Cited by Hug, p. 87). How can it be, then, that there
is but one character common to all these, and that this is so plainly
marked that it will enable us distinctly to classify them, so as to separate
them from the later families of Mss., if indeed there are such?
As to the second part of Hug's theory, viz. the different recensions by
684
NOTE VI.
Hesychius, Lucian, and Origen, it is denied in whole or in part, by
some of the most able critics. Griesbach denies the existence of any
recension of the New Testament by Origen, and thinks that what Hug
names as such, is only a branch of the Lucian recension; Meletem,
p. LVIII. seq. Matthaei, the celebrated editor of a critical edition of
the New Testament, even denies in toto the existence of any such re-
censions as Hug has described, and adopts the Byzantine Mss. as his
only safe guide. The class which consists of such as the Codex Be-
zae, the Codex Claromontanus, and others of the like nature, he names
editio scurrilis; and he applies no softer epithets to those who pay
deference to them. But although there is a degree of extravagance in
his positions, yet it is in fact somewhat doubtful, whether the recensions
of Hesychius and Lucian ever obtained any extensive circulation in the
countries where they were made. Jerome (Praefat. in quatuor Evangg.)
says, respecting these recensions: "Praetermitto eos codices, quos, a
Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos, paucorum hominum asserit perversa
contentio, etc." The intimation in these words most clearly is, that
the Hesychian and Lucian recensions were confined to a narrow cir-
cle of usage (paucorum); and disapprobation of this usage is plainly
signified by asserit perversa contentio. If Jerome is in the right, it
would seem that Hug has attributed a great deal too much influence
over the general state of the New Testament Mss. after the middle of
the third century, to the labours of Hesychius and Lucian.
Nor should it be unobserved by the critical reader, that the extensive
and permanent circulation of the Lucian recension at Constantinople
and in Thrace, which Hug and others have assumed, is a matter of
great doubt, and, in view of some testimony that is extant, quite an im-
probability. Eusebius testifies (De Vita Const. Mag. I. 4. c. 36), that
the emperor Constantine required of him to cause fifty copies of the
New Testament to be transcribed, for the use of the churches at Con-
stantinople. Now the reverence which Eusebius had for Origen is well
known, and is every where most abundantly testified by him. That the
copies would be made, therefore, from such Codices as were approved
by Origen and used by him, there can scarcely be a doubt. But what
were these? Origen's numerous works clearly shew that his Codices
of the New Testament were of the Alexandrine hue; for he was edu-
cated, and spent the former part of his life, at Alexandria. Nor has
Origen, in any of his works, apparently quoted a different text from that
which seems to have been predominant at Alexandria. If all this be
allowed, as I think it must be by those who are conversant with this
subject, then it would seem to follow, that from the time of Constantine
and Eusebius, the Mss. at Constantinople must have been of the Ori-
genian, i. e. Alexandrian cast; and so, after all, the Byzantine Mss. are
to be ultimately referred to those which Origen, and after him Eusebius,
employed.
The passage in Jerome (ad Matth. 24: 36), on which Hug mainly
relies to prove a distinct recension by Origen, is hardly capable of prov-
ing so much. Jerome says, that "in some Latin Codices, neque filius is
here added to the text; but," he adds, “this is not contained in Grae-
cis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus. Schott, De Wette,
and others, suppose it to be sufficient here to understand the ex-
CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS.
685
emplars of Adamantius (i.e. Origen) and Pierius, as meaning those Mss.
which these distinguished individuals sanctioned and employed, and to
which they gave currency. And indeed, if the whole be compared with
what Origen says (on Matthew in Vol. III. p. 671, ed. de la Rue), this
would seem to be altogether a probable interpretation of his words. Ori-
gen takes occasion to speak of his critical edition of the Septuagint, and
his emendation of it by means of asterisks and obelisks, and then he
says, (the Latin translation of him only is here preserved): "In exem-
plaribus autem Novi Testamenti, hoc ipsum me posse facere sine peri-
culo non putavi." If then his judgment was, as it here seems to be,
that he could not without danger undertake to correct the Mss. of the
New Testament; and if, as eveu Hug concedes, he did not undertake
to do this until extreme old age and as his last work; is it probable that
he would, at such a time, and against his own mature judgment, ex-
ecute a work which is least of all adapted to the employment of a su-
perannuated man? On the whole the probability cannot be well made
out.
The threefold recensions made by Griesbach are well known, viz. the
Alexandrine or Oriental, the Occidental, and the Byzantine. Hints in
Bengel's Introductio ad Crisin, N. Test. and in Semler's Vorbereitung-
en zur Hermeneutik, seem to have first led him to this. The text
of the occidental recension, as he supposes, may be found in the most
ancient Latin versions, in Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Ambrose,
Augustine, etc.; also in the Mss. of the Gospels, D. 1, 13, 69, 118,
124, 131, 157; in the Mss. of the Epistles, D. E. F. G. Its character
is exegetical; it contains glosses and periphrases, and hebraizes in a
high degree.
The Alexandrine recension, he thinks, is found in Clemens Alex.,
Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyrill Alex., Isidorus Pelus., and oth-
ers; in the Memphitico-Coptic, Philoxeno-Syrian, Ethiopic, and Arme-
nian versions; and also in the Mss. of the Gospels, B. C. L. 33, 102,
106; and in those of the Epistles, A. B. C. 17, 46, 47. Its character-
istics are, higher grammatical purity and correctness of diction.
The Byzantine or Constantinopolitan recension is found, as he avers,
in the Greek fathers of Asia Minor and the neighboring provinces, from
the fourth to the sixth century; in the Gothic and Slavic versions; in
the Mss. of the Gospels, A. E. F. G. H. S.; and as to the Epistles, in
the Mss. of Moscow.
To the Peschito, Chrysostom, and Mss. P. Q. T., he attributes a
mixed text; and in a considerable degree to more than twenty Mss.
more.
This formal and definite division was attacked with great vehemence
by Matthaei, and substantially doubted and impugned by Eichhorn,
and others. It has occasioned great debate among critics; especially
so, as Griesbach estimates the value of a reading very much by the
classes of recensions which support it, rather than by the number of
witnesses.
Besides these opponents on the continent of Europe, Griesbach has
had some powerful ones in England. Dr. Laurence (now archbishop of
Cashel), attacked it with great vehemence and acuteness in his Remarks
686
NOTE VI.
on the Classification of Mss. adopted by Griesbach, Oxf. 1814. In
1815, the Rev. F. Nolan published his Inquiry into the Integrity of
the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament; in which
he has laboured to overthrow several of Griesbach's positions, and not
without success. He, however, comes out at last, with an Egyptian, a
Palestine, and a Byzantine family or recension of Codices; which seem
to differ in nothing very material, except as to some supposed metes and
bounds, from the three recensions of Griesbach. Schott in his Isagoge
declares also, that the effort of Griesbach to establish his classification,
is a failure; and so Scholz, in his Curae Criticae, and in his Proleg.
ad edit. Nov. Testamenti.
The division of Scholz himself, in the work last named, is into the
Alexandrine and Constantinopolitan recension. To the former he as-
signs the copies in Egypt and in the West; also the Coptic, Latin, and
Ethiopic versions, and the ecclesiastical writers of those regions. To
the latter he assigns the copies of Palestine, Asia Minor, Syria, orien-
tal Greece, specially Constantinople, the Philoxenian, Gothic, Georgi-
an, and Slavic versions, and the ecclesiastical writers of those regions.
To the latter he gives an almost unbounded preference.
But in amalgamating the Alexandrine and Western Mss. together, he
has done not a little violence to both. Moreover, taking the fact as
true, which Eusebius has related in respect to his making out fifty
copies of the New Testament for the churches at Constantinople, in the
time of Constantine; and the fact also that Eusebius is known, by the
quotations in his works, to have given a preference to the Alexandrine
copies; how can the superiority or even the discrepancy of the Con-
stantinopolitan class of Mss. in respect to the Alexandrine, be so definite-
ly made out?
Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the New Testament, divides Mss.
into Asiatic, African, and Mixed. He has treated the subject with a
degree of skill and moderation, which it would have been well if many
other writers could have imitated.
The result of all is, as the reader may now well see, that no terra
firma is yet won. So judges De Wette, who is no ordinary judge; so
in substance Schott also, in his Isagoge. Of course the estimation of
the value of readings, which proceeds from classification merely or
principally, is not to be confided in; and consequently not a few of the
decisions of Griesbach, who has gone far in criticisms of this kind, may
be justly subjected to revisal, and some of them, doubtless, to reversal.
With such facts before him, the critical reader of the New Testament
should look well to it how he trusts himself implicitly to the guidance of
any one of the so-called critical editions. Much land yet remains to be
possessed. The labour of collation is, as yet, very imperfectly perform-
ed; and that of quotations by the fathers from the Bible, as yet very im-
perfectly estimated or examined. The remarks of Hug, certainly a
good practical scholar, as exhibited above, are a voucher for the correct-
ness of this affirmation.
MODES OF WRITING, ETC.
687
NOTE 7. Materials of Mss., modes of writing, stichometry, punctua-
tion, editions, etc. (p. 148 seq.)
Few, if any, of the various Introductions to the New Testament will
be found so instructive, well-grounded, and satisfactory as Hug is upon
these several points. The reader who wishes for more upon them can
easily consult Marsh's Michaelis, Eichhorn, Schott, Haenlein, Bertholdt,
De Wette, Horne, etc. Particularly interesting, in Hug, is the account.
of stichometry, and the consequent gradual rise of the modern punc-
tuation.
The account of the principal Mss. and editions of the New Testa-
ment (pp. 156-199) will be found as ample as is necessary for a stu-
dent in general; and great pains have been taken by the author in re-
spect to accuracy. This part of the book, after a general perusal, does
not need to be studied, like some other parts, but to be reserved for
special consultation, when the nature or importance of some prominent
Ms. or critical edition of the New Testament becomes a question of
special interest.
Hug has brought down his account of critical editions no lower than
the second edition of Griesbach, Vol. I. 1796, Vol II. 1806. Of this
celebrated edition, Vol. I. has been reprinted with valuable additions and
corrections, and with great care, by Prof. David Schulz, Berlin, 1827.
Dr. C. Knapp, of Halle, printed a critical text of the New Testa-
ment in 1797, in which he mainly followed the maxims of criticism laid
down by Griesbach, and in general exhibited the same text as that pub-
lished by Griesbach. Yet there are departures from it, in some impor-
tant readings; and the editor every where has bestowed great pains on
the examination of readings, on the punctuation of the text, on the ac-
centuation, on the mode of dividing or paragraphing the text, and in
the selection of important various readings for exhibition to the reader.
This work has had a wide circulation in Germany, the fourth large
edition being printed in 1830.
A rival work to this, furnished with a Latin translation, at first
mostly a copy of Griesbach's text, but afterwards departing (in the third
edition) in many places from it, was published by Schott, Professor of
Theology at Jena, in 1805; again, in 1811; and a third time, in 1825.
A small stereotype edition was published in 1820 at Leipsic, edited
by that masterly New Testament critic, the late J. A. H. Tittmann of
the University at Leipsic. His judgment as to the text, is always wor-
thy of consultation and deference.
In 1824, the late Prof. Vater of Halle published an edition of the
Greek Testament, in which the text of Griesbach and Knapp is revised,
various readings are given, with critical and exegetical annotations, and
indexes of various kinds; in many respects a useful edition to young stu-
dents, as there is very considerable critical and exegetical matter exhib-
ited in it.
In 1821, Gratz (of the Roman Catholic Church), at Tübingen, pub-
lished a new edition comprising the Complutensian Greek text, the Vul-
gate text of 1592, with readings from the third edition of Robert Ste-
phens, and from the editions of Griesbach and Matthaei.
688
NOTE VII.
Very recently a new critical edition of the Greek text has been pub-
lished at Berlin, 1831, by C. Lachmann. The object and plan of this
are described by the editor, in the Theol. Studien und Critiken, 1830,
pp. 817-845. It is in 12mo, without preface, stereotyped, with a fair
impression and on good paper, and has been highly commended in some
of the leading reviews of Germany. From the notice which the most
recent interpreters of the New Testament in that country take of it, it
would seem to be highly estimated and in great demand.
66
To a Syllabus of the various readings of the Textus Receptus where
these differ from his own text, which the author suffixes at the close
of the volume, he has prefixed a few editorial remarks, from which it
would seem that his judgment about the value of readings differs in no
small degree from that of Griesbach and his followers. The editor,"
says he, “has no where followed his own judgment, but the usage of the
oriental churches. So often as he has found this not to be uniform (con-
stantem, consistent), he has, as far as possible, guided himself by the
agreement of the Italian and African churches. Where he has found
discrepancies between the sources which have become widely diffused,
he has indicated this, partly by including the words in a parenthesis,
partly by noting them in the margin." The diversities of the Recep-
tus from his own text, are, as has been intimated above, noted at the
end of the volume.
The reasons for such a course in forming his text, the editor has giv-
en at length in the Periodical mentioned in a preceding paragraph.
It would seem, therefore, by the present demonstrations of public opin-
ion as to the criticism of the New Testament text, that it is inclining,
after all, toward the direction which Matthaei long ago endeavored to
give it, and for which Scholz, in his new critical edition of the New
Testament, strenuously contends, viz. toward a reception of the orien-
tal Mss. as being of the highest and best authority.
The edition of Scholz, just mentioned, is yet unfinished. The first
volume, in 4to, was published in 1830, and contains only the four Gos-
pels with copious Prolegomena. In these the editor endeavors to estab-
lish the credit of the Constantinopolitan recension as greatly superior
to the Egyptian and Occidental; which last two classes he amalgamates
into one, under the name of Alexandrine. This work seems to have
found but little favour in Germany, although the learning and diligence
of the author are commended very liberally by such writers as De
Wette and Schott. In England more interest has been taken in it; and
efforts have been there made, in order to enable the editor to go forward
with his second volume; which, it seems, has been likely to fail for
want of patronage. Solidity, acuteness, and stability of mind and
judgment, seem not to be leading and prominent characteristics of this
critical editor.
Lachmann, on the other hand, has been encouraged by the success
of his small critical edition of the New Testament, to engage in the ar-
duous labour of a new and large critical edition, with full apparatus.
The reader who is unaccustomed to the studies of lower criticism,
i. e. that which occupies itself with the establishment of a pure text,
can hardly conceive of the difficulties that press upon this subject, and
the labour necessary to surmount them. To no part of sacred litera-
VERSIONS OF THE N. TEST.
689
ture have we more occasion to apply the striking declaration of Aulus
Gellius, that truth is the daughter of time, than to that of criticism in
respect to the text of the New Testament. After a century of strenu-
ous efforts by minds of the first order, we are still in an oscillating po-
sition, as to many things relative to this subject, and as to not a few
readings of the New Testament. Yet we should call to mind, and
gratefully remember too, that these in general are not points which are
essential either to Christian doctrine or practice. A pure text is indeed
a desideratum of an important nature; but there may be several con-
junctions, prepositions, or other words, less or more than in the present
text, or even different from it, without much affecting our duty or our
happiness. There is a time, in a course of sacred study, when almost
every student feels a desire to plunge somewhat deeply into lower criti-
cism, or the investigation of the state of the text; but by and by he
comes to learn, that most of this belongs rather to the manner than the
matter of the text; and he is then apt to become too indifferent about
it. The subject is surely one of deep interest. Every candid man will
commend all well-directed labours in respect to it; but the experi-
enced critic will soon learn not to be totus in illis, nor to feel that it is
more important to decide whether a de or a yάo should stand or fall, than
to inquire what rule of faith or practice the text contains.
NOTE 8. Versions of the New Testament. (p. 199 seq.)
The principal interest which these can possess, as to matters of crit-
icism and interpretation, arises from two sources; viz. (1) They may
have preserved the readings extant in the Greek Mss. from which they
were made; some of which, of course, must have been very ancient,
inasmuch as some of the versions are very early. (2) Some of the ver-
sions may afford exegetical help, in respect to passages which are ob-
scure and difficult.
It is easy to illustrate and confirm these two propositions, in a few
words. We will suppose that the Peshito or old Syriac version was
made, (as seems most likely), in the latter half of the second century,
or near the commencement of the third. The person who made it
must have been skilled in the Greek of that day, and therefore in the
Greek which is substantially the basis of the New Testament diction,
and which was then spoken in Palestine and Western Asia in general.
This being then a living language, idioms that are now obscure and
difficult to us, may have been quite intelligible and easy to him. These
he might often express in the Syriac, so as to make them very intelligible
to a reader of the present day, who well understands this language.
The text, moreover, which lay before him, he would generally, if he
well understood it, express so as to shew us what the original diction
probably then was. In such a case we should have, as we in fact do
have in the Peshito, a witness for the ancient text, and a help to the
sense, in one and the same version.
Of all the monuments of antiquity now extant, or at least of all yet
87
690
NOTE VIII.
discovered, I regard the version of the Peshito as the most important in
respect to the establishment or verification of the true Greek text. It
precedes in age, by several centuries, any Greek Ms. that we now have;
it was confessedly made with great skill and ability; the Hebrew colour-
ing of the New Testament rendered it easy, for the most part, to be trans-
lated into the Syriac, which is an idiom so kindred; it has been exempt
from all the criticisms and tamperings of the Alexandrine or any other
western school of criticism; and from the recensions of Hesychius,
Lucian, or Origen (if he made one); it has come down to us from the
primitive ages in a channel entirely different from that in which the
common Greek text has descended; it appears, from the comparison of
Mss. so far as this has gone, to have suffered less than is common from
the variations made by scribes; and it is therefore a witness above all
exception, as to its general testimony, for the fidelity and accuracy with
which the Greek text has in the main been preserved. No monument
of antiquity possesses, therefore, more to excite critical interest, or even
exegetical, than this. The student who is familiar with it, cannot well
entertain a doubt of the early canonicity of the New Testament books
in general, and of the importance which the Christian churches in the
primitive ages attached to them.
The 2d Pet., the 2d and 3d of John, Jude, and the Apocalypse, are
wanting in the original Peshito, and have been supplied, in modern edi-
tions of it, from another version. This circumstance serves to shew,
that the version in question was made so early, that the New Testament
Canon, as a whole, was not yet completed.
After all, however, too much stress should not be laid by the critic or
interpreter on this or any other version; because in all versions the
translator occasionally finding himself embarrassed for want of proper
or adequate diction, and unable to give a literal version because of the
nature of the idiom into which he is translating, will (not to say must) of
course indulge more or less in paraphrastical expressions, which some
times fail to convey the exact impression designed to be made by the
original, and of course must fail in giving us the means of discovering
its exact diction. On this subject, a Programm of Winer, entitled de
Versionibus N. Test. usu critico caute instituendo (Erlang. 1823), de-
serves to be carefully studied. Worthy to be read, also, on the subject
of the Syriac version, is Weber, de usu Vers. Syr. hermeneutico, Lips.
1778, 8vo. Also Glocester Ridley, de Syr. Vers. Indole et Usu, Oxon.
1761; reprinted in Wetstenii Libellus. ad Crisin, etc., Nov. Test., Halle,
1766. Of the general nature and use of all the Syriac versions, the
reader will find an account in Storr, Observatt. super N. Test. Versi-
onibus Syr., 1772; also in Adleri, Versiones Syriacae, 1791, and in all
the Introductions to the New Testament.
While I have a full conviction of the high importance of this most
excellent of all the ancient versions, and feel that the study of it gives a
degree of conviction to an inquirer's mind, who is seeking for evidence
of the genuineness and antiquity of our present New Testament text,
which nothing else perhaps can give, I should still think it hazardous to
undertake the critical emendation of the text in general, from this or any
other version. Take the facts, for example, exhibited by Winer, viz.,
The Peshito always puts yuav (our) after the word Lord; instead of
VERSION'S OF THE N. TEST.
691
autós, autou, the proper name to which it refers is generally repeated;
the particles εἶτα τότε, ἰδοῦ, superfluous participles such as λέγων, απο
xoivɛis, etc., are usually omitted; nas is often arbitrarily put in or left
out; and as, quoiws, etc., often omitted.' With such facts in view, how
could we conform the Greek text throughout to this version, without
abusing the rights of criticism.
The student may be entirely satisfied of the well founded nature of
these cautions, by taking any of our best English translations of classic
authors and comparing them with the original; e. g. that of Spelman
compared with the Greek of Xenophon. While he has happily transfer-
red to the English the spirit of the original, yet if a critic some centuries
hence should undertake to decide, as to minute things, what the text of
Xenophon was a half century ago, by this English version, he would
surely find it to be a difficult task, or rather he would find it altogether
impossible. And so with the Peshito, or any other ancient version. The
general evidence derived from the text is most satisfactory and conclu-
sive. But the minute and unimportant parts of diction have not always
been preserved, because they have not always been regarded. A witness
to the actual presence of a person in a particular place and at a par-
ticular time, may be altogether a true and credible witness, although
he may not remember how many, or what, were some small appendages
on that person's dress, or whether he fastened his shoes with buckles or
a silken thong.
To conclude; the reader will find Hug's account of the Peshito to
be, on the whole, the most critical and satisfactory of any which are
contained in the Introductions to the New Testament, or indeed else-
where. The recent Codices of the Peshito, brought by Dr. Buchanan
from Hindostan to England, and compared by Prof. Lee for his admi-
rable and beautiful edtion of the Syriac New Testament, 1816, under
the auspices of the Bible Society in England, will answer a very impor-
tant purpose in the establishment of the text of this deeply interesting
relic of antiquity. Whether the promised Collationes of these oriental
Mss. have yet been given to the public, is to me unknown. The execu-
tion of such a work is important to criticism. It is earnestly to be
hoped that it should not fail.
In regard to the second Syriac version, i. e. the Philoxenian as it is
named, from Philoxenus or Xenaias bishop of Hierapolis, who caused it
to be made by Polycarp, one of his zoosniozoлоt, it has for its basis
the old Peshito, but is often discrepant from it, inasmuch as it is a liter-
al, and one may say slavish, imitation of the Greek original; so much
so, as often to violate the proprieties of the Syriac idiom. Still, this
very circumstance renders it important as a witness to the state of the
Greek text in the year 508, when it was composed.
No where will the reader find an account of the various ancient ver-
sions, more to his satisfaction in general, and to his instruction, than in
the present work of Hug. This is a kind of literature in which he
seems to take much pleasure, and which he has prosecuted to very good
purpose. In particular, the important version called the Vulgate, is
here described with a minuteness and an accuracy, which entitle the
author to the thanks of every student of sacred literature. He may
692
NOTE IX.
here learn how much dependence is to be placed on a version, which,
notwithstanding the ingenious suggestions of Hug (p. 279) respecting
the meaning of the Council of Trent (in Sess IV. Decret. 2), and the
liberal exegesis which he would fain give to their decree, and indeed
must give in order to defend his own critical views, is after all made the
editio authentica of the Roman catholic church, and thus placed above
the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. With the decree in ques-
tion before him, how could any Romanist, in a dispute of a theological
nature, appeal ultimately to any thing but this authenticated arbiter, viz.
the Vulgate, as determining what the original Scriptures must mean ?
Hug, indeed, fully sees the weakness and folly of a claim to decide
this point, by any council; but his relation to the Romish church,
does not permit him to speak of it in a direct manner. He has, how-
ever, striven to do away all the real force of the decree in question, by
his interpretation at the bottom of p. 279. He avers, that the decree
of the Council is no prescription of doctrine," and that "it has refer-
ence to the circumstances of the times in which it was issued." So
much to be sure, is true, that it is not literally in itself a rule of doc-
trine; but it prescribes the ultimate authentic appeal, in all cases of
doctrinal controversy; and so far are the Romish church from confining
the authority of the Vulgate to the times" in which it was authorita-
tively adopted as the only standard, that down to the present hour it is
read and circulated as their only authentic Bible. Versions in order to
be popular, must be conformed to it.
ια
By mistake Thomas of Harkel, p. 218 and elsewhere, is called Thom-
as of Charkel; which mode of spelling the name rightly represents the
sound of it in Hug's German text, (ch being a strong guttural, almost
like hh), but gives a mistaken notion of the true name to the English read-
er. The Thomas in question was of Hoάzheta (Lat. Heraclea, or more
usually Harclea), a town in Syria, not far from Bambyce or Hierapolis
(as the Greeks named it), or Mabug (as the Syrians called it); Cellarius
Orb. Ant. II. p. 360. Hierapolis seems to have been given as a name
to Mabug, by the Greeks, because this city was the metropolis of the
worship of Astarte or Ashtoreth or Derceto, the fabled goddess of the
heathen Syrians.
NOTE 9. Principles of Criticism. (p. 301.)
The assumption by Hug, in this section and the sequel, that all is
now settled as to the great leading principles of lower criticism, i. c.
that criticism which is employed in the correction of the text, is some-
what surprising, considering the present state of the matter, and indeed
its state ever since Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, and others, have been
labouring upon it. We have seen above how little union there has been
and is, in respect to the classification of Mss.; and yet, on this assumed
classification, and (as it appears by p. 302) on the basis of his own clas-
sification, the worthy author takes it for granted that all difficult ques-
tions are at an end. The ground taken by Lachmann, most recently,
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.
693
and which seems to have the general voice of Germany in its favour, is
certainly a very different one from that which Hug has endeavoured to
establish. But after what has been said in Note 6, more need not be
here said. It is enough merely to repeat in this place, that but little
terra firma has yet been won, in this department of investigation. The
actual internal state of a Ms. ; the evidences which itself proffers from
its own condition, of correctness and of pains-taking by the copyist;
would go much farther, I think, in the mind of an unbiassed person, in
determining its weight and value, than the circumstance of the country
to which it belonged, or (I had almost said) of the age to which it be-
longed. Could not, for example, a copyist at Constantinople, have be-
fore him an Alexandrine or an Italian Codex for his exemplar? And so,
mutatis mutandis, of Alexandria, Rome, and other cities and countries
respectively. Could not a copyist of the tenth century, moreover, have
before him a Codex of the fifth century? Would he not, of course, aim
at obtaining the oldest and best that he could procure? Surely he
would, unless he could obtain such copies of more recent date, as he
might be sure were conformed to the oldest and most accurate. How
then can we judge of the worth of Mss. merely by their age? An ex-
act copy in the tenth century of a Codex belonging to the fifth, is to all
intents and purposes the same thing as the ancient Codex itself; so
that the sources of the later copies, seems to be the most important ques-
tion in respect to them. As to the country, after all that has been said
concerning this particular, it weighs but little with me. The present
tone of criticism seems to demand, that the Oriental or Constantinopol-
itan class of Mss. should have the preference. Yet how much depend-
ence can we place upon the ability of men to find out what this class is,
so far as it is distinct from other classes, when we are assured by Euse-
bius himself, that fifty copies of the New Testament were required of
him by Constantine, for the use of the churches in his capital? Euse-
bius, it is well known, was a most devoted friend to the fame and merits
of Origen; and his works, like those of Origen, contain quotations from
Scripture, which are set down to the account of the Alexandrine class
of Mss. Supposing now that these fifty copies were made out and sent
to Constantinople, as doubtless they were, then would not the Mss. of
Constantinople and the neighbouring region afterwards exhibit the Alex-
andrine text? Circumstances like these, surely cast a shade over the
whole business of making accurate practical distinctions, at the present
day, in the classification of manuscripts.
As to the rules or principles of criticism laid down in § 147 seq.
(p. 303 seq.), they are perhaps no where else better expressed, or more
guardedly formed.
formed. Yet there are not a few of them, even as here ex-
hibited, which are to be taken cum grano salis. E. g. "That reading of
one recension is to be preferred, which agrees least with another recen-
sion." The reason given for this is, that in later times one recension
was frequently interpolated from another. The fact is in itself probably
true; but in ascertaining whether a Ms. belongs to a particular recen-
sion, (which is the object of the rule just cited), would it not be an
a priori assumption, that any particular expression is to be preferred to
another one, from the very circumstance that it disagrees with a certain
recension? How can it be assumed, in any particular case, that a Ms.
694
NOTE IX.
is Alexandrine, because it disagrees with the xovn xdoois, or rather,
because it disagrees with the so-called Byzantine class? Or why should
this disagreement be a ground of preference as to a particular reading,
unless we could determine a priori when and where the Mss. should
disagree, in order to be classed with a different recension? Assuming
the fact, that we could make out that Ms. A. belongs to the Alexandrine
class, and Ms. D. to the occidental class, and that these two classes are
different in more or less respects; still, how, in any particular passage,
there should be a presumption a priori in favour of their disagreement-
it would be difficult to shew. Analogy will not guide us here. The
number of cases in which A. and D. agree, immeasurably exceed those in
which they differ. The presumption, therefore, lies fairly on the side of
agreement. If then we conclude in favour of a reading in D. which dis-
agrees with one in A., merely because the Mss. belong to different classes,
we proceed on grounds of argument like the following, viz. A. and B.
sometimes differ: ergo the presumption is always in favour of a reading
which represents them as differing. Would this be sound logic? Sup-
pose I should argue on the other side thus: A. and B. accord in immeas-
urably the greater number of cases; ergo when they seem to differ, the
presumption is against the reading by which they are made to differ.
This logic, which would indeed be unsound enough, seems to be at least
as well founded as the other. The truth plainly is, that where Mss. of
primary value disagree, the only possible ground of estimating a correct
reading in either, is analogy of the writer's style, the nature of the Greek
idiom and of the particular case to which the passage relates, and the
external testimony from ancient quotations. But to say that any read-
ing in one so-called recension, is to be preferred "because it differs most.
from the reading of another recension," would seem to be laying down
a singular and embarrassing, if not dangerous principle of criticism.
Again, Hug (p. 304) says: "That reading of a particular recension
is the genuine one, which accords best with the laws of the Greek lan-
guage, or is most elegant." He doubtless means by this, that particu-
larly Hesychius in his recension, and in a greater or less degree Lucian
also in his, helped to remove not a few of the original Hebraisms of the
New Testament, and to bring it nearer to the standard of classic Greek.
Such readings, then, in these respective recensions, as stand on the side
of the classical Greek, are to be regarded as the more probable ones, so
far as the character of the particular recension is concerned. This is
all well enough, perhaps; but what shall we do with the sequel? In
the very next sentence Hug tells us, that "the recensions took their rise
from the zon doois of their country, so that when there are various
readings, that is the most probable which agrees most with the xor
ἔκδοσις.” Yet this xown is characterized by Hug himself, as contain-
ing much more Hebraism than the recension-copies; nay, one of the
very marks of a recension-codex is, that it mitigates the Hebraisms. I
do not, however, well see how these two things can stand together.
"That reading in a recension is most probable, which agrees most with
the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις;' and yet this ἔκδοσις is confessedly full of Hebraism.
What next? 'That reading is genuine in a recension, which accords
best with the classic Greek.' I wot not how these propositions can be
well combined.
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.
695
On the next page (305) we are told again, that "if the Mss. of the
xown exdoois agree in a harsh and rude expression, their agreement on
it is of more weight than the agreement of the recensions in one more
strictly elegant and grammatical." This of course is taking it for
granted, that the New Testament writers are prone to harsh and rude
expressions, and that the presumption of course is always in favour of
them. This would be going quite far enough in presumption, to say the
least. Such a principle or rule is plainly expressed in a manner too
absolute or unqualified. If the so called rudeness or harshness were
mere Hebraism, I should be inclined to apply the rule; if it were not,
I should consider it as by no means binding upon my judgment.
Once more; Hug says, that "it is a universally admitted principle,
that we should incline to that reading which is encompassed by exeget-
ical difficulties." It is well that he afterwards qualifies this, by admit-
ting that there must be sufficient testimony in the Mss. to shew that the
difficult reading did not originate from a mere blunder of the scribes.
Otherwise the rule would lead us to monstrosity in criticism. E. g. in
Is. 9: 2, “Thou hast increased the nation [i. e. the Jewish people];
mnzum Abaan N, lit. thou hast NOT increased their joy ;" and yet, in
the very next clause it is said, "They rejoice before thee with a joy like
that of harvest-time, as they rejoice who divide the spoil," i. e. with
great or unusual joy. Now the middle clause here, as literally rendered,
directly contradicts the latter clauses, and likewise the tenor of the whole
passage. There can be no doubt, therefore, as there is none among most
critics of the present day, that, in the present Heb. text, has been
carelessly written for i, both of them being read with the same sound,
lō. But if be the correct reading, then the sense of the second clause
is, "Thou hast increased its [the nation's] joy;" which accords en-
tirely with the context and design of the whole passage.
Here, then, if we prefer (not) because it is the more difficult read-
ing, we make either nonsense or incongruity in the text. And this is a
case, too, which Hug's exception does not touch; for here the Heb. Mss.
are altogether predominant in favour of . How can we bind our-
selves, now, in such bonds as these? The nature of the case, and the
congruity of any reading with the evident design of the writer and scope
of the passage, will plainly weigh more with the mind of a discerning
reader, than all the accidental and external circumstances or witnesses.
Yet this privilege of judging must be exercised with real and with much
caution; and the design of the writer must be so plain, that there is
hardly room for any doubt among honest and intelligent minds.
What Hug says in $ 150, might be qualified by many remarks. "The
recensions," he says, "maintain a far higher authority than the existing
Mss. of the zon endoors." Why should they? One object of recen-
sions, as expressly stated by Hug, was to get rid of Hebraisms and un-
grammatical and harsh expressions, etc. Why should this make them
more authoritative? Plainly it would make them less so. Hug, how-
ever, puts their authority of course on another ground. He says, that
the authors of the recensions undoubtedly collated several Mss. of the
xow. The recensions, then, are grounded on the xoivr ëxdoois, and
this gives them weight. Why then have not the xoivai exdoosis, which
696
NOTE X.
have been copied and come down to us in this way, as much authority
as the text gathered from them and which has descended in the same
Who can vouch for the critical acumen and fair dealing in
all cases, of the authors and copyists of the recensions?
manner?
Many other remarks of a similar character might be made upon Hug's
rules of criticism; which surely need to be qualified, and are to be re-
ceived with much caution. That caution is, I am pleased to say it,
suggested by Hug himself, on p. 397, § 151. He admits that we must
be guided principally by a minute study of each particular writer, in
all his particular characteristic developments of sentiment, diction, use
of particles, grammatical construction, etc., when we come to describe
what most probably belongs, or does not belong, to the text of any par-
ticular passage. He admits that critical feeling or sensibility also may
be something in this matter. And to these two sources or means of
criticism, I should trust more in the determination of a reading, in re-
spect to which the Codices differ, than to the weight of all the Codices
in favour of this or that mode of reading, so far as these are simply con-
sidered merely as Codices.
All those rules of Hug, which have for their basis a practicable and
actual classification of Mss., and which assign peculiar weight to some
in consequence of belonging to a particular class, I must regard as little
better than a petitio principii, in the whole matter of New Testament
criticism. Lis sub judice; and while it is so, and is confessedly and
plainly so in the judgment of so many impartial and enlightened critics,
why should we speak, and argue, and lay down rules, as if it were not
so?
NOTE 10. Explanations inserted by the Evangelists in the text, for the
sake of rendering it intelligible to their readers. (p. 321).
The characteristics which Hug here gives of the various Gospels,
generally speaking, may perhaps be true. But when he states that 'it
is not the custom of Matthew to insert any thing by way of explana--
tion, where Hebrew readers did not need it,' he is surely in an error, if
the passage in Matth. 1: 23 be genuine, viz. Εμμανουήλ· ὅ ἐστι μεθερ
μηνευόμενον, μεθ' ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός. Did the Hebrews of Palestine, then,
need to have Euμavový translated in order to understand it?
",
α
>
Those who maintain that the original Gospel of Matthew was written
in Hebrew, and that the present is a mere translation of it, would
doubtless reply, that this clause has been added by the translator. But
Hug, who does not accede to this view of the original language of
Matthew's Gospel, has offered no solution of the difficulty which seems
to be thrown in the way of his hypothesis by such a clause; about
which, I may add, there is no variety in Mss. or fathers, which deserves
any regard.
But this is not all. Matthew repeats the words of Jesus on the cross:
'Hhi! mi! hapa oaßaydavi, and then adds the translation into Greek,
i. e. τουτ' ἔστι Θεέ μου! Θεέ μου! ἱνατί με εγκατέλιπες; Was it poss
SUMMARIES MADE BY MATTHEW IN HIS GOSPEL.
697
sible that a Jew needed to be told what the Hebrew words in question
meant? Surely not. If Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew, it would
seem of course to follow, that these explanations must have been insert-
ed by his translator. If he wrote in Greek, then it is his custom some-
times to insert explanations which a Hebrew reader did not need. And
this would be a different position from that assumed by Hug. Compare
also, Matt. 27:8; why did not the writer say here, Axeldaµá, as in
Acts 1: 19?
In Matt. 27: 15, the writer states, that "the governor was wont to
release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would." Did a Jew need
to be told this? Again; in Matt. 27: 33 the writer says, "they came to
a place called Golgotha, that is to say, A place of a scull." Did a Jew
need to have this translated? Once more; in Matt. 28: 15 it is said :
"This saying is commonly reported among the Jews, until this day."
Did a native of Judea need to be told this?
The peculiar characteristics, then, which Hug has so positively at-
tributed here to Matthew, are more than doubtful. No other Gospel,
except perhaps John's, resorts oftener to explanations. Is it not better
to read and observe for ourselves, than to take the declarations of oth-
ers upon credit, about matters like these?
NOTE 11. References to the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies in
the Gospels. (p. 312, § 3.)
The reader may judge for himself how much reality there is in this
statement, from the following comparison; in which I have selected on-
ly those passages where the writer has expressly referred us to the Old
Testament Scriptures, by a νὰ πληρώθη or a όπως πληρώθη, etc.
Matthew, 1: 22. 2: 15. 2: 17. 2: 23. 4:14. 8: 17. 12: 17. 13: 35.
21:4. 26: 56. 27: 9. 27: 35; in all, twelve instances.
Mark, 14: 49. 15: 28; only two cases.
Luke, 4:21. 21: 22. 24: 44; in all, three cases.
This shews, indeed, a great difference in the habitudes of the differ-
ent writers, as to expressly referring to the Old Testament Scriptures.
It would seem to argue, at least, that Matthew had specially to do with
those who drew their views of the Messiah from ancient scriptural in-
terpretations.
NOTE 12. Summaries made by Matthew in his Gospel. (p. 313 § 4.)
I do not deny that what Hug has here stated is specious; nor even
that in most cases it seems to be substantially correct. Take for exam-
ple the collection of parables, in chap. XIII. XIV. XVIII. XX. XXI. XXII.
Yet even here, these are uttered on so many different occasions,
XXV.
88
698
NOTE XVIII.
that we are led to hesitate respecting the full application of the princi-
ple laid down by Hug. But when he applies this same rule of compar-
ison to the Sermon on the Mount, and says that it is now admitted that
this discourse is fragmentary,' he says what is indeed true as to some
critics; for there are some who agree with him in respect to this point.
Others, however, there are, who think quite differently in respect to the
Sermon on the Mount. The reader will find an ample and able dis-
cussion of this matter, in Tholuck's Commentary on this Sermon,
which has been recently published, § 2. His judgment is the reverse
of Hug's; and such, I apprehend, will henceforth be the judgment of
almost every unprejudiced and critical reader. The only arguments
which seem to have any weight, are, that Luke's account of the Sermon
on the Mount is so much more brief than that of Matthew; and that
there are various declarations in the Sermon exhibited by Matthew,
which are scattered here and there over the Gospel of Luke. Tholuck
has done full justice to these points; and he has shewn how little force
such arguments can have in the determination of the question, Whether
the Sermon on the Mount is one whole, or only made up of fragments?
The substance of his argument is, that proverbial declarations, common
maxims, etc., contained in Matthew's account of the Sermon on the
Mount, were and must have been not unfrequently repeated on other
occasions.
That strict chronological order was not intended to be followed by
this writer, is affirmed by Hug; and, as I fully believe, with good reason.
Well does he compare the manner of Matthew's Gospel, with the Mem-
orabilia of Socrates by Xenophon. There is, in many respects, a strik-
ing resemblance.
NOTE 13. Time when the Gospel of Matthew was written. (p. 313. § 5.)
"
Of all the circumstances which Hug mentions as indicating the late
period at which the Gospel of Matthew was written, (he places it on the
eve of the destruction of Jerusalem, i. e. about A.D. 70), there seems
to be not more than one or two which will bear examination. When
Matthew (27: 8) says:
Wherefore that field was called the field of
blood, εws ins onμegov"; and again in 28: 15 says: This report was
spread abroad among the Jews, μέχρι τῆς σήμερον”; it is natural to
conclude, that the writer would have resorted to such a mode of expres-
sion, only after a considerable time had elapsed, subsequently to the
death of Jesus. However, 20 or 25 years would seem to be sufficient
to account for this.
It is possible, that the circumstances related in Matt. 27: 15 respect-
ing the governor's releasing a prisoner on the feast-day of the Jews,
might have been inserted by the writer some 20 or 25 years after Pilate
had ceased to be governor, in order to remind the Jews of an almost
forgotten custom. But I do not interpret the matter as Hug does. I
suppose this to have been a custom common to all the Roman govern-
TIME OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
699
ors of the Jews, and that Matthew notes this circumstance in order that
all his readers might be advertised of it; some of whom, as we must
naturally suppose, he had reason to presume were ignorant of it, be-
cause they were not familiar with the usages of the Jewish government.
The amount of what is said by Hug concerning the case of Zacha-
rias, the son of Barachias, is, that Matthew has committed an error in
the narration. Instead of representing Jesus as saying (in respect to the
future), ov qovεvoɛte z. t. λ, i. e. whom ye will hereafter kill, Matthew,
who, as Hug supposes, wrote after the murder had already taken place,
falls out (as grammarians say) of his construction, and represents Jesus
as declaring a past event, viz., ὃν ἐφονεύσατε κ. τ. λ.
That such a view of the subject is adapted to give satisfaction to the
mind, can hardly be admitted. First of all it may be said, that the
Zacharias mentioned by Josephus was a politician, and an influential
man, and was taken off by the Zealots, not because of his religion or pi-
ety, but because of his political influence and his wealth. Moreover this
same Zacharias, when accused by the Zealots before the Sanhedrim,
was acquitted by them, and was murdered afterwards by only two of the
most daring Zealots. Besides all this, the murder of Zacharias was
only one event in a long series of the like ones. After this event, Go-
rion, Niger, and other distinguished men were destroyed in the same
way. All these circumstances serve to shew, that Jesus could not have
referred, in his address to the Jews, to this Zacharias; for the one whom
he presents, is one who had been a martyr in the cause of truth and of
piety. But, what is more than all, a reference to a murder to be com-
mitted by the Jews some forty years after the address of Jesus to them,
could not be a matter in point between the speaker and those whom he
addressed. It must be a murder well known to them, and of which
they would have a distinct recollection, the moment it was mentioned.
And besides all this, as the murder of Abel was the first in a series de-
scribed by the Saviour, so the murder of Zacharias must be the last in
the series indicated. This could not apply, then, to the Zacharias
named in Josephus, whose death was yet future, and which, when it did
happen, was by no means the last in the series to which it belonged.
An interpretation fraught with so many difficulties, therefore, as this
of Hug, cannot be safely admitted; not to mention, that the inspiration
of the Evangelist is virtually called in question by it, as it shews him to
have committed a palpable oversight; and one, I may add, respecting
what seems to have been a very plain matter and well known even by
the populace.
Nor do I think the solution of the difficulty to be much better, which
is proffered by Theile in Winer and Engelhardt's Kritisches Journal (II.
p. 415 seq.); which is, that Matthew, meaning to refer to Zacharias
the son of Jehoida the priest, who, in the reign of Joash, was stoned
to death in the court of the house of the Lord (2 Chron. 24: 20, 21), by
a lapse of memory calls him the son of Barachias; thus confounding
him with Zachariah the son of Barachiah the author of the book of
prophecy which bears this name, or else with Zachariah the son of Jeb-
erechiah, mentioned in Is. 8:2. Although this solution seems to be
allowed by Schott in his Isagoge (p. 81), and by Bretschneider in hist
Lexicon (v. Zazaolas), and to be suggested as one mode of solving the
700
NOTE XIV.
difficulty even by Mill in his New Testament (p. 52), yet it appears to
me to be quite improbable. It seems much more natural to suppose,
that the Zachariah mentioned by the Saviour was a later martyr than
the one mentioned in 2 Chron. 24: 20, and one whose history tradition
had preserved. It is no objection to this, that Josephus is silent respect-
ing such an individual. How many other things he passes over in si-
lence, which we know to have occurred, need not be suggested to the
critical examiner.
More improbable still should I deem Hug's exegesis of duyu a
Tйs ¿дεμwoεws, as exhibited on p. 315 seq. It is somewhat surprising,
τῆς ἐρεμώσεως,
that on p. 315 the worthy author exhibits the verse which contains these
words, as being part of the address of Jesus himself to the Jews; and
on p. 316 as being an apostrophe of the evangelist. Where this apos-
trophe stops, he does not tell us, unless he means that we shall limit it
to the words which he has quoted. But this is impossible; for the
words that follow in a long sequel, are indissolubly connected with the
words which he regards as an apostrophe.
Then again, to construe diluyua osuwows as meaning the Zeal-
ots, who obtained possession of the temple and profaned it, is, I appre-
hend, giving a totally different turn to the words, from that which Dan-
iel, and after him the Saviour, meant to give. I take it to be altogether
probable, if not certain, that a foreign power is designated by these
words, who is thus in effect called the horrible destroyer. What else
can the proverbial saying in v. 28, respecting the eagles, mean, unless
it is paronomasiac, and has reference to the eagles painted on the Ro-
man standards?
The general, almost the universal, voice of antiquity proclaims, that
Matthew was the first in order of all the Evangelists. It is only late
writers, however, who name a specific early period; e. g. Cosmas In-
dicopleustes (Cent. VI.) names, as the period when this Gospel was com-
posed, the time when Stephen suffered martyrdom; Theophylact (Cent.
XI.) the eighth year after the ascension; Euthymius Zigabenus (Cent.
XII.), the same; and Nicephorus (Cent. XIV.), the fifteenth year after
the ascension. The most probable time, all things considered, seems to
be somewhere between A.D. 50 and A. D. 60. More exactly it cannot
be fixed; nor even here with any very definite certainty.
NOTE 14. Gospel according to the Hebrews. (p. 320, § 9.)
The development of this subject by Hug has some good traits. The
striking part of the subject is well presented. But the reader is left en-
tirely at a loss how the Ebionites differed from the Nazarenes, or what
was the connection of these two sects; or in fact whether they were ac-
tually two. On the contrary, Hug even suggests (p. 326), that "both
[sects] were accused of the same Jewish fanaticism, etc." The author
seems, therefore, either not to have read, or not to have approved, the
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS.
701
recent able essays on the subject of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, which
have appeared in his country.
From these it would seem now to be made out, that the great body of
Jewish Christians in Palestine, after the destruction of the Jewish capi-
tal by the Romans, continued to hold the necessity of observing the
Mosaic ritual. But the extent to which this observance should go, was a
question about which a difference of opinion arose among them. The
more liberal and enlightened, especially those who lived at and near Je-
rusalem in the first part of the second century, embraced the opinion,
that the law of Moses was obligatory only upon Jewish Christians, not
upon Gentile ones. Another party held to its universal obligation, even
in its most rigid form. The former were called Nazarenes, the latter
Ebionites. The Ebionites of course rejected the writings of Paul, be-
cause they supersede all the ritual of the law. They moreover held
that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph, on whom Christ descended at
his baptism; and in whom he dwelt. Another feature of their creed is
said to have been, the expectation of a civil and temporal millennium
under the Messiah. But this is recently called in question by Credner
in his Beiträge.
The Nazarenes on the other hand, held to the miraculous conception
of Jesus, and that the Gentiles should be freed from all obligation to the
ritual law.
It would seem that both these sects had a Gospel according to the He-
brews, or (as it is sometimes called) a Gospel of the twelve Apostles,
a Gospel of Peter, or κατὰ Ματθαῖον; which appears to have been
current among them at a very early period, even before they had sepa-
rated from each other. After their separation each party seems to have
added to it, or detracted from it, according to their respective tenets and
purposes. The Nazarenes used, according to Epiphanius, the fuller or
more copious recension; the Ebionites abridged this work, by removing
the genealogy in Matt. 1. and also some other passages, and inserting oth-
ers more consonant with their tenets. But whether this apocryphal Gos-
pel was originally that of Matthew written in Hebrew, as some suppose,
and mutilated or interpolated by these sects so as to suit their own
views; or whether it was the Greek Gospel of Matthew (if that were
the original one), translated and either abridged or interpolated, as oth-
ers suppose; or whether, as others are inclined to believe, the basis of
the whole production was the work of another author than Matthew,
who merely imitated him and took many excerpta from him; these are
questions which do not appear, as yet, to be fully cleared up to the satis-
faction of all the learned. The latter opinion seems to me quite the
most probable one. At all events, it is clear that Origen and Eusebius
considered the Gospel according to the Hebrews as spurious, vodov;
Orig. Comm. in Johan. IV. p. 63, ed. La Rue; Euseb. Hist. Ecc.
III. 25.
On the whole, one thing seems to be quite plain, viz. that no argu-
ment of any validity can he derived from the existence and circulation
of this spurious Gospel in the Palestine dialect of that time, which will
have any important bearing on the question, In what language was
Matthew's Gospel originally written? The differences between the zo
καθ' Εβραίους εὐαγγέλιον, and our present Gospel of Matthew are so
702
NOTE XIV.
striking, in so far as we are able to make them out from the remains of
the former, that we cannot assume substantial identity between the two
without great hazard of error. The question as to the original lan-
guage of Matthew's work, must stand therefore on another basis, i. e.
be settled, if this can be done, by other means than these.
The reader is referred, for more extensive information, to Lange, Die
Juden-Christen, Ebioniten, und Nicolaiten, der apostolischen Zeit, Leip.
1828. Van Heyst, Diss. theol. de Judaeo-Christianismo etc., Lugd.
Bat. 1828. Olshausen, Die Echtheit der vier Canon. Evangelien, etc.,
Koenigsb. 1823, p. 30 seq. Gieseler, Die Nazaräer und Ebioniten, in
Archiv für alte und neue Kirchengeshichte, Von Stäudlin und Tzschir-
ner, IV. 1819. Credner, Ueber Essäer und Ebioniten, in Winer's
Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Theologie, 2 heft, 1827, 3 heft, 1829.
This last author (Credner) has recently published a work entitled
Beiträge zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften, Halle, 1832, in
which he has gone very deep into the early evidences of the state of the
New Testament text in the second and third centuries. The main ob-
ject of the first volume (no more have come to hand), is to shew, that
there was a different Gospel from any of our present canonical ones, in
circulation among the early Hebrew Christians of Palestine, one which
he calls a Petrine Gospel. He does not seem to mean by this, that Pe-
ter was actually the author of it, but that it had credit as being suppos-
ed to have been approved by him, or at any rate as containing senti-
ments like those which he exhibited when Paul contended with him be-
cause of his avowing Jewish notions respecting the law; Gal. 2: 11
seq. As to this Petrine Gospel, Credner labours through his volume to
shew, that it was the one made use of by Justin Martyr, in the Clementine
Homilies, in the Clementine Recognitions, in Tatian's Diatesseron, and
in the Κήρυγμα Πέτρου; many citations also in the works of Clemens
Alexandrinus and of Origen, seem, as he hints, to accord with this.
The Codex Bezue also, i. e. the Codex D. of Griesbach and others, with
great ability and acuteness he labours to shew, must have been copied
from a recension which was greatly modified, or in many parts conform-
ed, to the Petrine Gospel, or to some peculiar Gospel current among
Jewish Christians.
So far as our present topic is concerned it is sufficient to say, that he
is fully of the opinion, that the Εὐαγγέλιον καθ' ῾Εβραίους, which was
in use among the Nazarenes and Ebionites, was a book entirely dif
ferent as to its origin from our Gospel of Matthew; and different also
from the Κήρυγμα Πέτρου or the Εὐαγγέλιον Πέτρου. At the same
time, by far the greater part of the Petrine Gospel or the Gospel ac-
cording to the Hebrews actually resembled our three first canonical
Gospels, and particularly the Gospel of Matthew; and so the quotations
from them often agree. Yet there are additions and detractions in
these apocryphal Gospels, which savour of the heresy of the Docetae,
and give a different turn to some sentiments in the canonical Gospels
which are peculiarly evangelical.
The whole book, whatever may be thought of the solidity of the au-
thor's positions, is highly distinguished for learning and critical acu-
men; and if its main positions should prove to be well grounded, it will
change the whole face of criticism in regard to the early state of our
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS.
703
New Testament text, and throw much that has been adduced as evi-
dence of it, as it now exists in our present recensions, entirely into the
back ground. For example; the author labours, at great length and
with much acuteness, to shew that Justin's quotations are all from a Pe-
trine Gospel, and not from our canonical ones. If this be true, it would
follow of course that the quotations of Justin cannot be appealed to as
evidences of the state of our canonical text. But in respect to the very
numerous quotations from Justin, occupying 58 octavo pages, the au-
thor assumes a principle of reasoning which needs to be well discussed
and more thoroughly considered, before it can be allowed in all the lat-
itude in which he has applied it, viz. the principle, that wherever the
quotations of Justin differ from our canonical Gospels, there it is clear
he must have had another Gospel from which he quoted, that differed
from ours; and wherever the quotations of Justin agree with our ca-
nonical text, that is evidence merely of the sameness in many respects
between the Petrine Gospel which he used and our present Evangelists,
but not evidence that he quoted from the canonical Gospels. My own
persuasion at first view, is, that this is assuming a great deal too much;
and that the agreement in Justin is so immeasurably predominant over the
disagreement, that I can well solve any difficulty which the latter presents,
by attributing it to memoriter quotations.* And as a voucher for this,
I would appeal to Justin's quotations from the Old Testament, and to
those of Clemens Romanus also, where the same phenomena are on all
sides apparent. Why should we excogitate new reasons for such diver-
sity in quotation, when the old ones are sufficient? Or why adopt a
rule in respect to New Testament quotations, which will not apply to
the Old Testament ones?
*
Prof. Credner's book, however, is one of deep interest to the critic.
The second volume (not received) is designed to give an account of the
Greek Versions of the Old Testament, current among the Christian
Churches from A.D. 150 to A.D. 250, with special reference to the Gos-
pels. The third volume (of its publication I am not aware) is to con-
tain discussions respecting the origin or genetic rise of the Gospels, the
dialect in which they are written, the authors of the Gospels canonical
and apocryphal, etc.; a work that must be full of interest, when in such
hands as those of Credner. And this will be true, whether the theory
he adopts be right or wrong; for in whatever direction he moves, he
never makes an idle or insignificant movement. I can scarcely doubt
that the criticism of the New Testament will be much modified by it;
at least this will be the case, if we can judge by the specimen already
before us.
But to return more directly to our main object; the question, what
was the original language of Matthew's Gospel, is one which is open for
investigation, independently of any of the apocryphal Gospels current
in the Hebrew language among the Jewish Christians of early times.
It remains to be seen, whether there is a probability that Matthew could
and would have written his Gospel in Greek. The 10th section in
Hug sheds some important light on this part of our inquiries. It can
scarcely be doubted, after reading and well examining this, that a know-
* Of like opinion I find De Wette to be, in his Einleit. ins. N. Test. § 67.
704
NOTE XV.
ledge of Greek, such as was attained by all classes of men in a popular
way, viz., by hearing it spoken, and having occasion more or less to
employ it, was widely diffused among the inhabitants of the larger
towns in Palestine. The scattered residents in small villages and coun-
try places, could hardly have occasion to be much conversant with
Greek; and therefore we cannot naturally suppose them to have been
well acquainted with it. Accident or curiosity, however, would of
course lead now and then a person even in such places, to obtain a
practical knowledge of it. More than this would seem hardly probable;
and more need not be supposed.
NOTE. 15. Original language of Matthew's Gospel. (pp. 339 seq.)
As every critical enquirer may well be expected to feel some special
interest in this subject, I would subjoin a few remarks in addition to
what Hug has said in §§ 8-12.
On pp. 318 seq. the reader will find the leading testimonies of the
ancient fathers, on which dependence has been principally placed, in
order to prove that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, i. e. in the
Palestine dialect of his time, which was a mixture of ancient Hebrew,
Chaldee, and Syriac.
The leading writers in modern times, who have defended this propo-
sition, are Simon, Mill, Michaelis, Weber, Elsner, Bolten, Adler, Cor-
rodi, Storr, Haenlein, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Schmidt, Olshausen, Cave,
Harwood, Owen, Campbell, and A. Clarke; to which we may also add
Grotius, Bellarmin, Casaubon, Walton, and Tillemont.
On the other side of the question, viz. in favour of a Greek original,
are Erasmus, Paraeus, Calvin, Le Clerc, Fabricius, Pfeiffer, Lightfoot,
Beausobre, Basnage, Wetstein, Rumpaeus, Hoffman, Leusden, Masch,
Vogel, C. F. Schmid, Gabler, Paulus, Jones, Jortin, Lardner, Hey,
Hales, and, among living authors, Hug, Schott, and De Wette (in his
latest Einleitung).
Guerike at Halle, and Dr. Townson in England, suppose Matthew to
have written two originals, the one Hebrew and the other Greek. Beng-
el long ago said: Quid obstat, quo minus idem [Matthaeus] Graece
eundem librum, eodem exemplo scripserit." Bengel means to say that
Matthew may have written both in Hebrew and in Greek, on the same
Ms. ; Gnomon Nov. Testamenti, p. 2.
From an attentive survey of the ancient testimony, as cited by Hug
(p. 318 seq.), it is plain that there was a tradition widely diffused, in the
early ages, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Yet from a
more minute examination of this tradition, it would seem to be quite
probable, that the declaration of Papias (cited on p. 318) was the prin-
cipal thing which gave rise to it. Irenaeus had great faith in the dec-
larations of Papias; as Hug has shewn, and as the manner in which
Irenaeus speaks of him shews. From these two early fathers, the report
concerning a Hebrew original naturally spread wide abroad. The value
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
705
7
of it, however, must be estimated, as it seems to me, by the original
testimony of Papias.
Eusebius, who in Ecc. Hist. III. 39 produces this testimony, himself
calls Papias a man πάνυ σμικρὸν τὸν νοῦν, i. e. a kind of simpleton.
Still, this might not injure the credibility of his testimony as to a mere
matter of fact. But if there was already a translation of Matthew's
Greek Gospel into llebrew; or if there was already in circulation the
εὐαγγέλιον Πέτρου, or (to give it another name) the εὐαγγέλιον καθ᾿
Eßpalovs, which gospel was doubtless in circulation among a certain
class of Judaizing Christians, and was often named zard Marvator
and xarà aлooróλous by the early writers, and which indeed bore
many strong resemblances to the canonical Gospel of Matthew; then
was it very easy for this witness, being πάνυ σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν as he
seems to have been, to be misled, while he was at the same time very
honest and upright in his testimony.
κατα α
There is only one other early testimony besides those produced,
which seems to stand on a different basis. It is the passage of Eusebius
in Ecc. Hist. V. 10, in which he speaks of Pantaenus as having gone
to India (probably he means southern Arabia), where he found that
the Gospel of Matthew had been circulated, being left there by Barthol-
omew, one of the twelve apostles, and existing ἐν αὐτοῖς Εβραίων
yoάμμasiv; [which he brought back with him']. But in regard to this
story, Eusebius commences it by saying: λόγος εὐρεῖν αὐτὸν τὸ
narà Mardaîov evayyέhov, i. e. report says, etc., or there is a report,
etc. Language like this he could not well be supposed to employ, in
case he viewed the matter as a well-grounded certainty. Of course a
writer resorts to an expression of this nature, only when he does not
mean to be considered as standing voucher for the truth of the thing
which he is about to relate. He may even actually consider this thing
as probable, or regard it as improbable; but by such a mode of express-
ing himself he avoids giving his own opinion upon it.
The clause in brackets above, is not to be found in the original of
Eusebius; but it is added by Rufinus, and also by Jerome. It asserts,
however, what is an utter improbability; for how can we suppose that
the Hebrew original of Matthew was brought out of southern Arabia
(India) to Egypt, by Pantaenus, and yet that Origen should say nothing
on this subject, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, the celebrated and favourite
pupil of Pantaenus himself, say a word about such a matter? The thing
seems to be fairly out of question.
We seem to be left, then, in our ultimate resort, to the testimony of
Papias, from whom the story of a Hebrew Gospel by Matthew origina-
ted, and was successively handed down to the other fathers, through
Irenaeus. The question now remains: Do the circumstances of the
case conspire to render such a Gospel probable?
Hug has shewn, amply and I should think conclusively, that Greek
was very extensively spoken in Palestine, during the apostolic ages.
Circumstances which are noticed in Note 14 above, serve to shew, that
Matthew can not well be supposed to have had only Jewish readers in
view, when he wrote his Gospel. The explanations which he gives of
certain things, would be superfluous to Jews brought up in Palestine`;
and these only continued to speak the Hebrew language of those times..
89
706
NOTE XV.
That Palestine readers in general would not be excluded from the priv-
ilege of reading his Gospel, provided it were written in Greek, would
seem to be nearly certain, not only from the facts detailed by Hug in
$10, but from Acts 21: 40. 22: 2, where, although the multitude of
Jews surrounding Paul testified their satisfaction at being addressed
by him in the Hebrew language, yet the natural implication of the
whole narrative is, that they expected he would speak to then in Greek,
and that they would have understood him in case he had done so.
But
it was more in the spirit of a Hebrew to address them in the Hebrew
tongue; and so they gave him the more ready audience because he did
thus.
After the almost endless confusion and obscurity which exists in the
older essays on this subject, by reason of conjectures respecting the
εὐαγγέλιον καθ' ῾Εβραίους, εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ ἀποστόλους, εὐαγγέλιον
Πέτρου, and the so-called εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον, current among
the Nazarenes and Ebionites, there seems at last to be some light spring-
ing up, which promises to make our way clear. Credner has shewn in
his Beiträge above described, that these various appellations are in all
probability but names of one and the same work, somewhat interpolated,
or altered, or mutilated, by the different sects among Jewish Christians,
and that the work was current among the more strenuous Judaizers es-
pecially, in the Hebrew language of the day; see particularly pp. 363
-414 of Credner's work. Whatever may be the extent which we may
rationally attribute to the Greek language in Palestine, yet we cannot
with probability assume it as a matter of fact, that all the common peo-
ple were acquainted with it. Even if they were, there would be good
reason still to believe, that the Nazarenes and Ebionites, who held
themselves aloof from Christians whose sympathies were with those of
Paul on the subject of Jewish rites and ceremonies, would not have deem-
ed it decorous or proper to make use of writings as sacred, which existed
only in the Greek language. On every ground, the vernacular language
of the Jews would naturally be deemed preferable; for it was more in-
telligible, it was more sacred.
Hence the εὐαγγέλιον Πέτρον, a work probably of the apostolic age,
possibly one to which Luke himself adverts in the commencement of
his Gospel, was early translated. I say translated; for the evidence
produced by Credner (p. 455 and elsewhere) serves to shew satisfacto-
rily that the Hebrew copies were a translation from a Greek original.
E. g. the Greek proper name in Matt. 27: 16, Bagoaßßav, the Hebrew
Gospel of the Nazarines translates (according to Jerome, Comm. in
Matt. 27: 16), with the sense of filius magistri eorum; which proper
name, of course, the translator must have supposed was derived from
71772, instead of being the usual Hebrew name 2, i. e.
viòv didαonálov. There seems to have been no room for mistake here,
to a Hebrew who was writing in his own vernacular dialect. The sense
therefore given to Bagaßßas or Bagoaßßas is plainly one, which indi-
cates the mistake of a translator as to the etymology of a Greek word.
Very early then there was current among the Judaizing Christians a
gospel written at first in Greek, and afterwards translated for the use of
Jewish readers into the Hebrew of the day; which from its resemblance
to our canonical Matthew, and from the fact that it was more generally
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
707
current in the second and following centuries in the Hebrew language,
was usually named by other Christians who believed with Paul, or (in oth-
er words) by the church catholic, εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον. Of most
of this we are altogether certain from the testimony of Jerome. In his
book De Viris Illustribus, cap. 2, he says: "Evangelium quoque, quod ap-
pellatur secundum Hebraeos, et a me nuper in Graecum Latinumque
sermonem translatum est; quo et Origenes saepe utitur, etc." From
which it appears, that Jerome, in his time, did not know of, or could not
procure a Greek copy; for then the work of translating this would have
been superfluous. But that there were copies of this nature in circula-
tion, seems to be clear from the fact which Theodoret states, viz. that he
procured a large number of copies of the Diatesseron of Tatian, who
seems to have used the Gospel of Peter as his basis, which were in cir-
`culation in his diocese, and gave to the owners canonical Gospels in
their stead; Haeret. Fab. I. 20.
um,
The passage in Jerome, which is the plainest and most direct that he
has any where exhibited, is in one of his latest works (Contra Pelagi-
3. 2), written in 415, four years before his death. It runs thus:
"In evangelio juxta Hebraeos quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone,
sed Hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni,
secundum apostolos, sive (ut plerique autumant) juxta Matthaeum; quod
et in Caesariensi habetur bibliotheca." Again, in his Comm. in Matt.
12: 13 he says:
Quod [evangelium secundum Hebraeos] vocatur a
plerisque Matthaei authenticum." In his book De Viris Illust., cap.
3, he says, that there was a copy of this gospel in the library at Cesa-
rea, and that he had also obtained one from the Nazarenes in Beroea, a
city of Syria.' This was doubtless the one from which he made his
translation into Latin and Greek.
The way seems now to be open for explaining how there came to be
so widely diffused a report among the ancient Christian fathers, respect-
ing an original of Matthew's Gospel being extant in the Hebrew lan-
guage. The εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον, or εὐαγγέλιον Πέτρου, or
ευαγγέλιον κατ' ἀποστόλους, οι εὐαγγέλιον καθ᾿ Εβραίους, (all differ-
erent names of what appears to have been one and the same work dif-
ferently modified in various hands, as E. F. Schmidt, in his Hist. antiq.
et Vind. Canonis, p. 439 seq., some half a century since maintained),
greatly resembled in its leading features our canonical Matthew. It
was usually called by Matthew's name (zara Mardaîov), and thus was
given out by those who used it as his authentic work; "a
a plerisque
Matthaei authenticum [vocatur"], says Jerome in Comm. in Matt. 12:
13. It was nearly of the same extent with the genuine Gospel of
Matthew; for Nicephorus of Byzantium, about A.D. 800, mentions
this Gospel of the Hebrews (or κατὰ Ματθαῖον) as one of the ἀντιλε
jouérov, but not as one of the apocryphal books, and says that it con-
tains 2200 orizo, while to our canonical Matthew he assigns 2500
oriyor. So long did this work preserve some credit among a part of
professed Christians.
Add to all this now the very important circumstance, that none of the
fathers except Jerome even pretend to have seen and read the xarà
Marvaîov Gospel in the Hebrew; and this for the best of all reasons,
viz. that none of them but he were able to read it in this language,
708
NOTE XV.
1
Hence every thing must have depended on the current report of those
who used the Hebrew Gospel zara Mardatov. They of course con-
tended for its authenticity; and its resemblance to the canonical
Matthew might even have made it doubtful to a somewhat discerning
reader, whether the basis of it might not have been the work of Mat-
thew, because of the resemblance which it bore to his canonical Gos-
pel. Even Jerome himself, after he had translated this Gospel za
Epoxious, does not seem prepared in his mind to give a full and posi-
tive opinion, whether the real Gospel of Matthew might not have been
the basis. Most abundantly do his remarks and quotations from it
shew, that it had been tampered with by omissions and additions. But
whether the genuine Matthew was its original basis, is a question on
which he appears to have thought differently at different times; owing
probably to the circumstance, that before he obtained a copy of it he
was guided by general report, but after he had read and compared it,
he judged it to be spurious.
This difference in his opinion is strongly marked by the manner in
which, at different times, he expresses himself about the dialect of the
Gospel za Eßoaiovs. In his earlier works he speaks of this as be-
ing Hebraeo sermone. But in a late work of his (Contra Pelag. III. 2),
four years before his death, he gives us, with more minute accuracy, an
account of the real state of this matter: "In evangelio juxta Hebraeos,
quod Chaldaico quidem et Syro sermone, sed Hebraicis literis scriptum
est." In the Chaldee and Syriac idiom, then, i. e. in the mixt idiom
(as I understand this) made up of these two languages, which was ev-
ery where predominant in the northern and eastern part of Palestine,
the Gospel in question was written, although the letters were Hebrew.
All this is just what the Jews still practise. The German Jews print
many of their books which are written in the German language, by em-
ploying Hebrew letters; the Turkish Jews, who speak Spanish, print
their books with Hebrew letters; and if this is now done in respect to
languages so discrepant from the Hebrew, how much more natural was
it to write a Syro-Chaldaic book, in the early ages of Christianity, with
the Hebrew alphabet which tallied exactly with the alphabets of those
two dialects. The reader will note, that Jerome, in his minute and
circumstantial description, plainly designs to distinguish between the
proper Hebrew tongue and the Syro-Chaldaic.
After all, then, the report of a Gospel of Matthew being extant in the
proper Hebrew of the apostle's time, seems to have no just foundation ;
but a Syro-Chaldaic Gospel of this nature, most clearly was current
among the Nazarenes and Ebionites.
Thus much for the ground of ancient report, respecting the Hebrew
Gospel of Matthew. Let us now sum up, very briefly, the considera-
tions which speak positively in favour of a Greek original.
1. If a Syro-Chaldaic original of Matthew's canonical Gospel were
extant and current in the second and third centuries, how is it possible
to account for it, that the authors of the Peshito, or old Syriac version,
made at the close of the second or beginning of the third century,
should have translated the Gospel of Matthew from our canonical Greek
copy; as it is certain they did? Nay, why need they have translated it
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
709
at all, inasmuch as the original itself would have been altogether intelli-
gible among the Syrians?
2. How can it be satisfactorily accounted for, that a true Hebrew
original of Matthew, so widely diffused as the εὐαγγέλιον καθ' 'Εβραί
ous was, should have been so utterly and early lost that no traces of it
except a few fragments remains?
3. If our present Greek Matthew is a mere translation, how is it
possible that no tradition of early ages should have conveyed any re-
port to Christians, who the translator was and where he lived?
I am
aware, indeed, that later ecclesiastical writers, with a view to save the
credit of the Greek Gospel of Matthew, assign to it translations of high
authority. The author of the Synopsis Sac. Script. (printed in Opp.
Athanasii, Tom. II. p. 155) says, that "it was interpreted (nouεvεion)
by James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh.' Isidorus
Hispalensis (De Vita et Obit. Sanct. c. 76), and Nicephorus (IV. 32),
assert that Bartholomew translated it into the language of India, where
he preached; which, however, has no bearing on our present Greek copy.
Anastasius Sinaita (Anagog. Contempl. c. 8) avers, that Luke and Paul
translated it into Greek; Theophylact (Prooem. in Matt.), that the apos-
tle John translated it. All these reports, however, are so late and so
discrepant as to shew, that what Jerome said at the close of the fourth
century was no doubt true; viz., "Quis in Graecum transtulerit, non
satis certum est ;" de Vir. Illustr. c. 3. This is said in one of his earlier
works, when he seems to have fully believed in a Hebrew original, and
before he had enjoyed an opportunity of examining for himself.
4. Is it probable in any good degree, that authentic Hebrew copies of
Matthew should have escaped the laborious and diligent search of Ori-
gen, and of Lucian in his recension of Mss., who doubtless had some
acquaintance with the Syro-Chaldaic language, from the fact that he
lived at Antioch in Syria?
5. The genuineness and authenticity of the canonical Greek Gospel
of Matthew do not appear to have even been at all doubted or im-
pugned, at least in the church catholic, in the primitive ages of Chris-
tianity. How could this happen, if it were a mere version, and the orig-
inal was still current?
These are considerations which seem to be of serious weight, in re-
spect to the question, What was the original language of Matthew?
Many other arguments have been urged both for and against the origi-
nality of the Greek, from the use which is made of the Sept. version,
and from the appeal which is now and then made to the Hebrew Scrip-
tures themselves, by translating them directly and independently of this
version. Even in cases where Matthew has recorded that which is pe-
culiar to himself, and in which he differs from the other Evangelists, he
translates directly from the Hebrew; e. g. 2: 6, 15, 18. 4: 15. 8: 17. 9:
13. 12: 18—21. 13: 35. 21: 4. 27: 9, 10. In other passages of the
like description he follows the Sept. quite exactly; e. g. 1: 23. 21: 16.
13: 14, 15. But the same thing may be shewn also, respecting other
parts of this gospel; notwithstanding Eichhorn has asserted the contra-
ry; Einleit. I. After all, then, nothing that is much to be relied upon
in argument, can be made out in this way. A translator of a Hebrew
original of Matthew might sometimes take the Sept. version as his
710
NOTE XVI.
guide, and sometimes translate directly for himself Matthew's quotations
from the Hebrew Scriptures. Matthew might do the same, if he wrote
in Greek. Nothing certain or important, then, can be made out of this
argument, in respect to the original of Matthew's Gospel.
Does the work abound in Hebraisms? It does; but these can be no
proof that the original was Hebrew; for the same thing is true of all
parts of the New Testament, and, in my judgment, not less true of even
Luke, than of Matthew.
Bolten, and after him Eichhorn and others, have endeavored to shew,
that by recurring to the dihoria of the original, or at least to words ca-
pable of two significations in the Syro-Chaldaic, we may account for
some alleged errors in our present canonical Gospel of Matthew; and
therefore it follows, that the original of it was probably Syro-Chaldaic.
But these and all such allegations are equally applicable to all other
parts of the New Testament. Bolten, indeed, has so applied them.
Interpreters of the present day, however, regard such a method of rea-
soning as both unnecessary and improbable. The alleged errors are
most of them, to say the least, the errors of Bolten as to the real mean-
ing of the text, and not the errors of the sacred writers.
In a word; how can I read the Gospel of Matthew, as it now lies be-
fore me, and feel that I am reading a translation made in ancient times?
Where is any version like it? The Septuagint? That is greatly di-
verse from it, in very many and important respects. I can no more find
internal evidences of a version in Matthew, than I can in Mark, Luke,
or John. I must believe, then, that the real original is before us.
There is no evidence of an Aramaean original, except what proves the
Aramaean work at the same time to be spurious. Why should we then
admit such an original?
NOTE 16. SOURCES of the Gospel of Mark; also of the Gospels of
Luke and Matthew. (p. 349, § 17 seq.)
To discuss this subject at length, would require a volume; and even
to give any particular account of all which has been written in relation
to it, would require much more space than has been allotted to this sub-
ject by Hug, or than can be here allowed. I shall therefore confine
myself to a few leading and elementary notices, which may serve in
some measure to guide the researches of the reader, who may wish to
go deeply into an investigation of this nature.
I. All who read and compare the three first Gospels, as they stand
exhibited in any good Greek Harmony, cannot fail to notice, that they
agree not only in the general tenor of narration, as to the important say-
ings and doings of Jesus, but often in the very diction itself; and in regard
to the diction, in some cases the different Gospels agree even in quota-
tions from the Old Testament, where the translation is made de novo
and not copied from the Sept. version.
Let the reader compare, for his own satisfaction as to this, not only
SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS.
711
the general tenor of the historical narrations, but also their agreement
as to modes of expression in the following examples, viz., (1) Between
all three of the Evangelists.
Matt. 3: 3.
9:5.
16: 28.
Mark 1:3.
Luke 3: 4.
2: 20.
10: 23.
5:35.
10: 24.
(2) Between Matthew and Luke.
Matt. 4: 5.
Luke 4:9.
4: 18.
4: 8.
7: 5.
6: 42.
11: 10.
7:27.
11: 11.
7:28.
11: 26.
10:24.
21: 44.
20:18.
24: 50.
12: 46.
(3) Between Matthew and Mark.
Matt. 15: 8 seq.
Mark 7: 6 seq.
24: 32.
13: 20.
26:55.
14: 48.
(4) Between Mark and Luke.
Mark 6: 41.
15: 15.
Luke 9: 16.
22: 12.
These are, of course, only a small specimen of what might easily be
produced; but they may serve as an example to illustrate what has been
asserted above.
II. More striking, especially, is the resemblance of the Gospel of
Mark to that of Matthew particularly, and then to that of Luke in
many respects. In fact, he seems to have only about twenty-seven
verses which are entirely peculiar to himself as to matter, although in
most other cases he has more or less of difference, either as to circum-
stantial things or else as to diction.
(1) The verses which contain matter peculiar altogether to himself,
are in 4: 26-29. 7: 32-37. 8: 22-26. 11: 11-14. 13: 33–37. 16:
9-11.
(2) Mark appears sometimes to follow Luke, and sometimes Mat-
thew; as the reader may see by comparing the following passages; viz.,
Luke 4: 42–44.
Mark
1: 35-39.
1: 45.
4:21-25.
6: 14-29.
5: 15 seq.
8:16-18.
Matt. 14: 1-12.
(3) Mark apparently uses the text of both Matthew and Luke in com-
bination, as may be seen by comparing,
Mark
3: 7—12.
6: 30-33.
Luke 6: 17-19.
9: 10, 11.
Matt. 12: 15—16.
14: 13.
712
NOTE XVI.
Mark 8:3.
Luke
1: 42.
Matt. 5:13.
8:4.
1: 44.
5: 14.
9: 9.
2: 3 seq.
9: 17.
2: 22.
5: 27 seq.
5: 37.
8:27.
4: 41 seq.
5: 1 seq.
8:25.
8: 26.
8:28.
This catalogue could be easily extended to passages almost without
number, scattered through the whole Gospel of Mark. See De Wette,
Einleit. ins N. Test. p. 139, ed. 2nd.
{
(4) Mark appears sometimes to make a summary of Matthew or
Luke, or to give a short hint of what is contained more at large in
them. E. g.
Mark 1: 12 seq.
4: 34.
16: 12 seq.
16: 14 seq.
Matt. 4: 1 seq. 11.
13: 34, 36 seq.
Luke 4: 1, 2.
24: 13 seq.
28: 16 seq.
24: 36 seq.
Phenomena of this kind have led many recent critics of high stand-
ing, to assume the position that Mark made up his Gospel principally
from the work of Matthew and Luke, and that he has only here and
there exhibited an original hand, while for the most part he is merely a
close and faithful epitomator.
This idea, or one kindred to it, is not entirely new. So long ago as
the beginning of the fifth century, Augustine (de Consensu Evangel. I.
4) said: Marcus Matthaeum subsequutus, tanquam pedissequus et brevi-
ator ejus videtur. This distinguished father, no doubt, came to such a
view, by a diligent comparison of the two Gospels of Matthew and
Mark.
In modern times many hints of the like nature have been thrown out.
Grotius (ad Matt. 1. and Luke 1.), Mill (Proleg. § 109), and Wetstein
(Praef. at Marci Evang. and ad Luc. Evang.), advance the supposition,
that Mark in writing his Gospel made use of Matthew; and that Luke,
in writing his, made use of both Matthew and Mark. Storr, on the oth-
er hand, held Mark's Gospel to be the original one, and the source of
both Matthew and Luke; Ueber den Zweck Johannis, etc. § 58–62;
also in his De Fonte Evangeliorum, etc., in Commentt. Theol. by Vel-
thusen, Kuinoel, and Ruperti, Vol. III. Büsching maintained that Luke
is the oldest writer, that he served as the basis of Matthew, and that both
together were the basis of Mark; Vorrede zur Harmonie, p. 109.
Comp. Eichh. Allgem. Biblioth. V. p. 489. Vogel, more recently, main-
tains that Luke is the source of Mark; and that both Luke and Mark
are the basis of Matthew; in Gabler's Journal für auserl. theol. Litte-
ratur, B. I. St. 1.
Finally, Griesbach, in a most laboured and very able essay, printed
in the Comm. Theol. of Velthusen, etc., Vol. I., and entitled De Fonti-
bus, etc., endeavoured to prove that Mark has every where copied Mat-
thew, (as Augustine has said, pedissequus et breviator). This essay
was first published in 1789. Owen, in his Observations on the four Gos-
pels, Lond. 1764, had before hinted the same thing. Stroth (in Eichh.
Repertor. IX. p. 144) accords with this view; as does Paulus in his
Conservatorium, I., and Ammon in his De Luca emendatore Matthaei,
SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS.
713
1805; all, however, with some peculiarities of their own. In 1825, H.
Saunier published at Berlin, an essay entitled, Ueber die Quellen des
Evang. des Markus; in which, according to general assent, he seems
to have established the main position of Griesbach in respect to the
Gospel of Mark, beyond all reasonable contradiction.
But while it is agreed on all hands, and indeed it is quite impossible
that it should be denied, that the Gospel of Mark does in a peculiar
manner resemble that of Matthew, yet there is more than one way of
accounting for this resemblance. We have seen to what theory the
distinguished writers just named resorted, in order to account for this
resemblance between any two or all three of the Gospels. The basis
of the theory is, the copying of some one or two of the Gospels by the
author of another. This, however, has in its turn met with vehement
opposition from a quarter that we should hardly have expected, viz.,
from some of the neological critics. Russwurm (Ueber d. Ursprung der
3 Evangg. 1797), Eichhorn (Einleit. I. 373 seq.), and Bertholdt (Einleit.
III. p. 1127 seq.), allege, that on such a ground no good reason can be
given, why each Evangelist here and there has something peculiar to
himself; why he here and there speaks more definitely than another,
more circumstantially, more chronologically, and sometimes more brief-
ly and summarily. No good reason, they say, can be given, why the
diction even of one should be altered by his copyist for the worse, made
obscure where it was before plain, be changed without being improved,
made into poorer Greek instead of better, and other things of the like
nature.
On the ground that the Evangelists were servile copyists, these objec-
tions seem to be unanswerable. But on the ground that the Evange-
lists made, each in his turn, free use of the Gospels before composed,
yet not so as to bind himself in all respects as to matter or manner,
these objections in themselves considered would not be very weighty.
But have those who have urged such objections, substituted any bet-
ter theory in the place of that which they oppose? Hug has answered
this question, in a good measure, in §§ 18-30; where he has proposed
the respective theories of Marsh, Eichhorn, and Gratz. The basis of
all these theories it is easy to place before the mind of a reader, in a
manner altogether intelligible. It may be stated in a few words.
1. There are so many and so close resemblances between the three
first Evangelists, that they can be accounted for in no other way than
by supposing, either that they have copied from each other, or from
some common document or documents.
(2) They have not copied from each other, for the reasons just stated
above.
(3) It must follow, that they have copied from some common docu-
ments.
To shew in what way all the various discrepancies among the Gos-
pels, as to matter and style, may be accounted for on this last ground,
different theorists have proposed plans which differ in their detail, al-
though the basis of them all is substantially the same.
(a) The Gospel according to the Hebrews has been made the com-
mon source by some; e. g. Lessing, Vermischte Schriften, VI. 50.
90
714
NOTE XVI.
Niemeyer, Conjecturae ad Illustrandum, etc. 1790. Weber, Beiträge
zur Geshichte des N. Test. Kanons, 1791. Evang. der Hebräer, 1806.
(b) The original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew has been regarded as the
common source of the three first canonical Gospels by others; e. g.
Corrodi, Beleucht. d. Geschicht. des Bibelcanons, II. 150. Thiess,
Comm. in N. Test., Einl. § 13 seq. J. E. C. Schmidt, Entwurf etc., in
Henke's Magaz. IV. St. 3. Bolten, Vorrede zur deutsch. Uebersetz.
der Evangelien.
(c) Eichhorn has brought forward two theories; the first of which
is in his Allgem. Biblioth. B. V. The substance of this is, (1) A яош-
Tevayyέhov (Urevangelium). (2) An altered edition of this, which
we may call A.; which is the basis of Matthew. (3) A still different
and altered edition of No. 1, that we may name B.; which is the basis
of Luke. (4) A new edition of No. 1, incorporating the additions and
alterations in A. and B.; the basis of Mark. (5) Another edition still,
different from any of the preceding, the basis of the peculiarities in
Matthew and Luke where they agree with each other but differ from
Mark.
Bishop Marsh, in his translation of Michaelis, not content with this
theory, and unable to solve all the phenomena of the three first Gospels
by it, invented another mode of solution still more complicated. In No.
(1) We have the original Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic Gospel. (2) The Greek
translation of it. (3) Copies of this with smaller and larger additions ;
which we may note by a and A. (4) Still different copies, with the
like additions; ß and B. (5) A copy in which Nos. 3 and 4 are min-
gled together; the basis of Mark. (6) Matthew has for its basis No.
3, with some new additions in still different recensions of No. 1, which
may be named y and I 1. (7) Luke has for its basis a new edition of
No. 4, which has also incorporated in it the additions y and I 1. (8)
Matthew and Luke made use of still another original Gospel, , which
contained additions I' 2; and this accounts for their agreement with
each other, in some cases where they both differ from Mark.
Eichhorn, moved it would seem by the difficulties which Marsh had
suggested, or else coveting something still more ingenious and artificial
than his first theory, came out anew in his Einleit. ins N. Test. I., with
a more complex theory still. (1) An Aramaean original Gospel. (2)
A Greek translation of it. (3) Original Gospel remodeled, A.; the ba-
sis of Matthew. (4) Greek translation of this, modified by No. 2. (5)
A different modeling of No. 1 in the Aramaean, B.; the basis of Luke.
(6) An edition in which Nos. 3 and 5 were united, C.; the basis of
Mark. (7) A fourth remodeling of the original Gospel, different from
all the others, D.; used by Matthew and Luke, where they agree to-
gether and differ from Mark. (8) A Greek version of this on the basis
of No. 2. (9) Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, as a whole, is derived from
Nos. 3 and 7, i. e. A. and D., and may be called E. (10) Matthew's
Greek Gospel is derived from Nos. 4 and 8, i. e. the altered Greek ver-
sions of A. and D. (11) Mark in using A. and B., Nos. 3 and 5, used
the Greek version of A., and the original Aramaean of B. (12) Luke
not only used B. and D., Nos. 5 and 7, but also a still different recen-
sion of the original Gospel, named F. Moreover he used the Greek ver-
sion of D., but the original Aramaean of B.
SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS.
715
Did the reader ever see, or imagine, any thing like to this, in order
to account for the composition of a brief, simple, historical narration?
Yet Ziegler, Haenlein, Kuinoel, Bertholdt, Gratz, and many others,
have declared in favour of a revayyέlior, and have endeavoured,
although with variations from Marsh and Eichhorn as to some partic-
ulars of their theory, to account for the sameness and the discrepancies
of the Evangelists in this strained and unnatural manner.
α
It is enough to say, that not a trace exists in all antiquity of this fa-
mous пowτεvayɣéliov, (which it is hardly possible to account for, had
there been any such document); that the theories in question would re-
duce the Evangelists to mere second hand, drudging plagiarists, who were
not able to write scarcely a sentence of their own which was original;
that it will not, after all, account for many of the resemblances or dis-
crepancies in question; and that the whole thing is so artificial, so
strained, and so derogatory to the character of the Evangelists, that, in
case it were matter of fact, we can conceive of no good reason why our
canonical Gospels came into general circulation among the ancients, in
preference to the originals from which they were plagiarized. Popular
and captivating as these theories were among the Germans, when first
broached, they have now become nearly as extinct in Germany as Har-
douin's theory of the authorship of the classics, which attributed them to
the monks of the middle ages. In looking seriously at them, now, one
is forced to exclaim: When will the extravagant vagaries of the human
mind cease to mislead? De Wette himself, who
De Wette himself, who is far from being
averse to singular theories in criticism, exclaims: One can only won-
der, that these hypotheses should have ever gained approbation." Yet
Kuinoel's Commentary, down to the present hour, is filled with refer-
ences to the лошrevayyέhov, as though it were altogether a matter plain
and well established!
"C
The theory of Dr. Gieseler, examined by Hug in $ 22 (p. 364), is less
revolting than those already presented, but on the whole not more
satisfactory. A stereotyped traditional Gospel, such as he supposes, is
practically an impossibility. Every narrator in prose would alter the
costume more or less to suit his own style. In substance the story
might remain the same; but it would receive many additions and chan-
ges. Dr. G., however, was not original in this thought. Eckermann
(Theol. Beiträge, B. II.), Herder (Von Gottes Sohn), Kaiser (Bibl.
Theol. I. 224), Paulus (Algem. Lit. Zeit. 1813), and others, have broach-
ed the same views. But Dr. G. has adorned them with a more attrac-
tive dress.
The common sense and sober reflection of some other critics have
brought them, at last, to the simple basis on which as it seems to me
this whole matter should always have been placed, and where Luke has
opened a way plainly for us to place it, in the prooem to his Gospel.
Let us for a moment attentively examine this.
Επειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν
πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, καθώς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ'
nuîv oi an
ἀρχῆς αυτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου· ἔδοξε καμοι παρ-
ηκολουθηκότι άνωθεν πάσιν ἀκριβῶς, καθεξής σοι γράψαι, κράτιστε
Θεόφιλε· ἵνα ἐπιγνῶς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν.
>
716
NOTE XVI.
1
Let us see, then, what are the views which are here distinctly given.
(1) Many have undertaken to compose narrations, (and in writing too,
for so ανατάξασθαι διήγησιν must here mean, else it will be no apology
for Luke's writing a dinynois), respecting the sayings and doings of
Christ. (2) Eye witnesses and ministers of the word, (this is the usual
sense of υπηρέται τοῦ λόγου, and no other is critically and exegetically
certain), had spread abroad oral accounts of the same matters. So
Tagέdoσav naturally means; and so it should be construed here. To
suppose an ellipsis of διήγησιν after παρέδοσαν here (as Hug does p.
388), seems to me not only to be forced and unnatural, but to miss the
evident aim of the writer. The zάows here I do not refer back to
ανατάξασθαι διήγησιν; and thus make the writer say, that the many
had undertaken to compose narrations which would accord with the tes-
timony of eye and ear witnesses; but I refer it, as the laws of grammar
would naturally direct us to do, to the clause immediately preceding.
The writer means to say, that the events narrated in evangelical histo-
ries did in reality happen (πεπληροφορημένων), and that we have the
testimony of eye and ear witnesses as vouchers for the fact that they did.
Thus far then the protasis of the sentence. In this we have the
simple declarations, that many had undertaken to compose written nar-
rations respecting the sayings and doings of Jesus, which were orally
testified to by eye and ear witnesses. The question, whether the many
had succeeded well or ill in composing their narrations, the writer does
not here solve. The fact that they professed and meant to follow the
testimony of eye and ear witnesses, may well be supposed; for nothing
was more natural than for the writers of such narrations to make their
appeal to such sources. But that they succeeded well in accomplishing
the work which they undertook,-of that we are not here informed, but
left merely to conjecture, or at most to draw a probable inference from
the sequel of the sentence.
What now, in view of the facts just stated, does Luke himself intend
to do? Apologizing as it were for his undertaking, because many oth-
ers had already engaged in the like work; declaring that he had traced
every thing up to its source (παρηκολουθηκότι άνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς),
he intends to write to Theophilus zavens, in order, i. e. with arrange-
ment and proper construction. Here is probably a covert intimation,
that the rolloi had not done so. If they had, what need of a new
dingnois? we might naturally ask. Yet the personal friendship of Luke
for Theophilus, and probably the desire of the latter to have such a
work from his hand, might have moved him to this, even in case the
other dingnosis had not been specially deficient as to matter or manner.
(κατηχήθης).
There is yet one or two more circumstances to be noted. They are
these, viz. that Luke made such inquiries as he specifies, and came
to a resolution to write zadens, in order that Theophilus might know
the certainty (doq dheav) of the matters in which he had been orally
instructed (xarnxons). Here is an implication that the writings of
the лohol would not effectually secure this end; or at least, that Luke
hoped himself more effectually to secure it. There is another intima-
tion, very important to our present purpose, viz., that Theophilus had
been orally taught the matter of the gospels already, περὶ ών κατηχή
Ons loywv. Here then we have a most explicit intimation of the man-
ner in which the Gospel was originally propagated. There were many
SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS.
717
writings in circulation. But the eye and ear witnesses continued to
tell the story orally (nagédooαv). It was thus that it had been propa-
gated to Theophilus, who either had no written dinynoeis, or did not
care to use those which he had seen. Luke therefore undertook to
give him a more permanent, stable, and exact account than he had
hitherto received; although that in which he had been orally instructed,
does not seem to be regarded as discordant with the testimony of eye
and ear witnesses.
""
Thus we have the state of the Christian world before us, when Luke
wrote; which could not be much remote from the time in which the
other Evangelits also wrote. Original witnesses were every where
spreading abroad the word," and rolloi were endeavouring to help
on the same cause, by composing narrations in writing. But these pro-
ductions, however well meant, do not seem in the judgment of Luke to
be worthy of all acceptation and confidence; and therefore he comes
to the conclusion in his mind, that some new efforts are needed as to
written communications of the Gospel.
From this state of things, so obvious and so natural, it seems to me
that we may account for all that needs to be accounted for, both as to
the resemblances and discrepancies of the three first Gospels.
that
I cannot for a moment accede, however, to the criticism of Hug upon
пagazolovýŋnóve (p. 391), by which he makes it here to mean,
Luke' was in the region where he could observe all the events that he
relates, as they took place,' and this from their first development. There
can, indeed, be no doubt that apɑzolové, in its first and literal
sense, means to be personally present with any individual or at the oc-
currence of any particular event. But in the case before us, this liter-
al meaning is out of all question, in consequence of the axos with
which пaqazolové is joined, and which shews very plainly that only
a mental navazolovéw can be intended, i. e. an accurate and diligent
tracing of things to their original sources, a careful scrutiny of them.
I am aware that Hug (p. 394) reckons Luke among the seventy disci-
ples sent out by the Saviour to preach the Gospel; according to the tra-
dition mentioned by Origen (Dial. cont. Marcion., Tom. I. p. 806,
De la Rue), and also by Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. XXXI. or LI. § 12).
But Col. 4: 11-15 seems to shew that Luke was not έz лeотоμrs, and
therefore that he was a Gentile proselyte. He appears first on the scene
of Christian action, in Acts 16: 11, where he is related to have joined
himself to Paul and gone with him to Philippi. Is it probable that at
this time he could have engaged in such journeyings and services as he
afterwards performed, provided he had been so far advanced in life as
he must now have been, in case he was one of the seventy disciples?
ed.
Luke, then, according to these suggestions, must have gone to Pal-
estine, the scene of evangelical action, and there learned and treasured
up the things which he has produced to our view in his Gospel. So he
would seem to say in his Prooem; at least he says the most important
part of this, viz., that he had made diligent scrutiny of every thing
άvæðεv, i. e. even to its very sources. This he could not have done,
without repairing in person to Palestine. Tradition says that he was
born at Antioch; Euseb. Hist. Ecc. III. 4. Jerome, De Viris Illust.
v. Lucas. There the Gospel was early preached; and there he may
have been, and probably was, an early convert to it.
>
718
NOTE XVI.
Let us see now in the case of Luke, which at present is before us
and will serve equally well for that of Matthew and Mark, what were
the means or materials for writing accessible to this Evangelist. (1)
There was the testimony of eye and ear witnesses, scattered all over
the country of Palestine, both as to the words and deeds of Jesus. (2)
There were the written documents of many; which, although not in
all respects as they should have been, no doubt exhibited much that was
true and useful. Did he make use of these sources only, or was there
before him the Gospel of Matthew; not to say (as Hug supposes) that of
Mark also?
It seems to be implied in the prooem of Luke, that the rolloi there
named as authors of evangelical διηγήσεις, had not written καθεξῆς nor
ἀκριβῶς, nor investigated ἄνωθεν. Could he, and would he have said this
of the two apostles, Matthew and John? Were their Gospels among
the works of the rolloi which are thus characterized? To me it seems
plain that they were not. Does not Matthew commence his work avw-
Dev? Does not John go even further back still, and commence with
the Logos state itself of existence? Would the intimate friend of Paul,
and the hearty friend of the Christian cause, have thus spoken of Mat-
thew and John?
Then if Luke copied from the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, how
could he have omitted so many important things which they contain?
Examine, for example, Matthew 9: 27 seq. 13: 24 seq. 14: 22 seq. 15:
21 seq., 32 seq. 16: 1–12. 17: 24 seq. 19: 1–12. 22:34 seq. 25: 1—
13, 31-46. 26: 6 seq. 27: 28 seq.
Examine also Mark 1: 16 seq. 6: 45 seq. vii. 8: 1–26. 10: 1–10.
12: 28 seq. 14: 3 seq. 15: 17 seq.
All these important matters recorded here, Luke has wholly omitted.
That he differs from Matthew specially, and sometimes from Mark, in the
order of his narrations, lies upon the face of every Greek Harmony.
That he is in many cases less circumstantial, minute, and exact, as to
designating place, etc., every one must know, who minutely examines
the evangelical histories. See an exhibition of striking examples, in
Schott's Isagoge, p. 40, Note 5.
In substance the like things may be said of Mark's Gospel. If he
was, as Griesbach and others have strenuously asserted, the mere epito-
mator of Matthew, or of Matthew and Luke, how comes it that there is
not a word of the prooem of either of these two Gospels in that of Mark?
Why did he not tell us any thing of the Sermon on the Mount? Why
has he, in a multitude of places, made circumstantial additions to the
narrative, which are wanting in Matthew, or in Luke, or in both? Why
does he Hebraize more thoroughly than either, and abound more in an-
acolutha and peculiarities of construction? Why has he so many fa-
vourite phrases and modes of expression, which seldom or never appear
elsewhere? J. D. Schulze (in Keil and Tzschirner's Analekten, B.
II. III.) has pointed out more than 80 words, in the short historical
composition of Mark, which he has employed in a sense or connection
entirely peculiar to himself, or nearly so. The same author reckons
more than 76 άлa leyoueva in the same Evangelist. Can all this be
true of a composition of so little extent, and yet Mark be a mere epito-
mator or pedissequus ? Can all this be true (that it is, will not be de-
nied), and yet Mark be a mere plagiarist, a copyist who is a very drudge,
α
SOURCES OF THE GOSPELS.
719
and knows little more than to transcribe, or at most abridge, what he
finds in his exemplar?
τα
In substance the same thing may be said of Matthew. What other
Evangelist exhibits the matter of this prooem; a great part of the Ser-
mon on the Mount; and many particulars in various parts of his narra-
tion? Has he not a vases, or rather an άvagia, which is altogether his
own, and from which all the other Evangelists have departed? Does
he not quote the Old Testament Scriptures more than all the other
Evangelists collectively? Does any other Evangelist make such use of
transition-phrases as he; viz. such as zai ¿yéveto, őre étéλeoev o’In-
σοῦς, ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ, ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις, and especially τότε ?
Has he not, like Mark, a large number of words and phrases, which are
employed by him in a sense altogether peculiar to himself; and a still
larger number of aлaş heyóμeva? See Schott, Isagoge, p. 83. Notes
3, 4, comp. id. p. 28, Note 4.
α
Let now an unprejudiced and skilful reader, who is wedded to no sys-
tem or theory in respect to the yéveois of the Gospels, take up a Greek
Harmony, and read on with the most minute and scrutinizing attention
to diction, grammatical construction, transition-particles and phrases,
variation of order, place, circumstances, particularity, omissions by one
and insertions by another, fulness in one and brevity in another, and the
like; all of which applies respectively in a greater or less degree to
each Evangelist; let him read through the Gospels in this way, and he
will need no critic to tell him, whether the writers of the first three Gos-
pels were men who stood upon their own basis, or whether they were
men who merely reared up a building with materials already collected
and prepared by others. No critic, by any or all of his analyses and
comparisons, will satisfy him that these historians are not after all in-
dependent writers.
But, to notice the last question and the turning point of the whole:
How is it possible that there should be so much sameness between any
two, or all three, of them? Can this be the result of any thing but of
copying from each other, or from some sources which they all used in
common?'
I have no hesitation in saying, that it seems quite possible to me to
account for all the sameness which they exhibit, without resorting to
either of these suppositions. For all the diversity which they exhibit,
we need not account, on the supposition that they were independent
writers, for then it is manifest of itself; but on the ground that they
were mere copyists and plagiarists, this diversity would itself become as
difficult a problem, as any which sameness among them now presents.
Who has not heard of the dayadoi of ancient days? How were
Homer's and Hesiod's poems preserved, for centuries after they were
written? Every school-boy knows the answer to this question. Every one,
too, who has read the Arabian Night's Entertainment, and is acquainted
with the present customs of the East, knows full well, that there are
a multitude of wandering gapodoi there, who could repeat more
than the thousand and one stories, and who transmit their tales in suc-
cession from one generation to another. This custom of repeating ro-
mantic stories and pieces of poetry, occupies a place in the East like to
that of the drama in the West, and excites even a greater interest.
720
NOTE XVI.
How was it in Palestine, as to matters of this nature? There, for some
ages, the traditions of the elders had been orally handed down. So they
continued to be, for more than two centuries after the Christian era
commenced. At length Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh reduced them to
writing, and embodied them in the Mishna. The very prooem of Pirqe
Aboth sets out with the declaration, that the traditions which it contains,
came down from Moses and the seventy elders of his time. And
although we give no credit to this extravagant claim, yet so much lies
on the face of Jewish history as exhibited in the Gospels, viz. that they
had a multitude of traditions handed down from former times, which
were orally preserved.
Who has not read of the Scalds, or gaywdoi of northern Europe?
Who does not know that among the aborigines of our country, and
among nearly all nations destitute of literature, traditional sayings and
stories and poetry are orally preserved ?
Of the many thousands, then, who heard Jesus speak, and who wit-
nessed his miracles, were there not many alive at the period when our
Gospels were written? Surely there were. But as to Matthew, he
himself being an original eye and ear witness, why need we go to any
other source than his own recollection or his own memoranda? Could
not a publican write? And could he not of course write Greek, if he
had sustained such an office as this?
As to Mark; it is admitted, on all hands, that he was the intimate
friend and companion of Peter. Was not Peter an original and au-
thentic source of consultation for him? Would not the recollection of
Peter and of Matthew be very likely to agree somewhat as to diction,
in very many cases where there was something peculiar and striking ;
and yet these two apostles might differ as to diction, when they came
to narrate less striking events or sayings? Nothing is more natural
than all this; and therefore nothing more probable.
As to Luke, he tells us that he investigated every thing avov. Of
course he must have resorted to apostolic testimony. None but apos-
tles could have given testimony in many cases such as he exhibits.
Now to whatever apostle he betook himself for information, there would
be the same ground of similitude or of discrepancy in respect to others,
as in the case of Matthew and Peter. Striking and peculiar things
would be said in the same words, or very nearly so; other matters would
leave room for a greater variety, and for personal peculiarities of diction.
In this way, it seems to me, we may very naturally account for it, how
the Evangelists came to agree, and also how they came to differ so often
and so much as they do. Above all, the traits of each individual wri-
ter, whatever his sources of information were, would occasion, as in-
deed it actually has occasioned, a great variety oftentimes in phraseolo-
gy and usus loquendi.
As to the Gospel of John, we need resort to no other human sources
but to those of his own mind and memory. His diction, and every thing
else, is confessedly his own, and is sui generis.
If any choose to say, that besides the sources thus pointed out, the
Evangelists also resorted to the dingnosis of the many, to whom Luke
refers; this is altogether a possible and supposable case, but, consider-
ing the character of these dingnosis, not altogether probable. Why
GOSPELS OF LUKE AND JOHN.
721
should the Evangelists take up with inferior sources of information,
when superior ones were within their reach?
I cannot conclude this long note upon an almost endlessly disputed
subject, without subjoining a single remark more. This is, that nearly
all the writers who have made out theories about the origin of the three
first Gospels, seem to have left out of sight any consideration of the in-
spiration of the authors. In this I cheerfully and unreservedly profess
my belief; but the arguments in favor of it do not belong to this place.
Inspiration does not, indeed, set aside at all the characteristic style of
different writers; nor does it exclude efforts on their part to investigate,
as we see in the case of Luke 1:1-4; but it will, of course, wherever
it exists, modify in a greater or less degree any writing with which it is
concerned. Why should it be so wholly overlooked by the critical theo-
rists, who write upon the yéveois of the Gospels?
NOTE 17. Gospel of Luke. ($$ 33-48, p. 387 seq.)
Most of what Hug says, is concerned with the analysis of Luke's
Gospel, and is designed to shew how we may conceive of his having
succeeded Matthew and Mark, and made use of both their Gospels. As
I understand Luke's prooem, this supposition is quite inadmissible.
Hug has taken great pains with his analysis and with his comparison of
Luke with Matthew and Mark, and shewn not a little acuteness as to a
choice of means to make out the propositions at which he is aiming.
But as I entertain radical doubts of the correctness of his results, and
this for the reasons above stated, I need not dwell on what he has said
at so much length. In my apprehension, it would be quite as easy to
make out different results by a like process of analysis and comparison;
and when all was thus done, should we be any nearer to ground that
would support us? Let the never ending variations of genetic theo-
ries answer this question.
NOTE 18. Gospel of John. (§ 49 seq. p. 420 seq.)
The analysis of Hug in §§ 49–57, and the proof which he deduces
from the result of them as to the later composition of John's Gospel, may
satisfy the minds of those who place dependence on this kind of reason-
ing for the establishment of such conclusions. That there are statements
in the Gospel of John which suppose the readers to be acquainted with
the facts related in the other Gospels, will not be denied. But whether
the knowledge thus supposed came orally to the readers, like that of
Theophilus to him; or whether it was derived from written Gospels;
who can decide?
Nothing is plainer, than that John has a doctrinal object particularly
91
722
NOTE XVIII.
in view. Many things that he says, certainly have more emphasis,
when we suppose them to have been said antithetically, i. e. against the
Gnostics, the Cerinthians, the Zabians, and others. But no terra fir-
ma can well be won here. The question, whether his design was polem-
ic, is still involved in more uncertainty than Hug seems to suppose or
to admit.
The most considerable opponent to the genuineness of the Gospel of
John, is Bretschneider, in his Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum
Johannis Indole etc., 1820. Hug has passed in review most of his
main positions, in § 58 seq. The Alogi in ancient times denied the au-
thority of this Gospel. Evanson, Vogel, Horst, Ballenstedt, Cludius,
and some others of less note, have also denied it within the last forty
years. The main reasons assigned are, (1) 'That John, a fisherman of
Galilee, could not have had the knowledge which was necessary in or-
der to write his Gospel in such a manner as it is written.'
The answer to this is, the facts as detailed in § 10, p. 342 of Hug.
A fisherman on the Lake of Tiberias would be very likely to know
the Greek language, because of the great variety of persons assembled
at such places for business and trade; and he would almost of course be
necessitated to understand it, in order to carry on his business. Be-
sides, the employment was by no means an ignoble one among the
Jews; nor is there any thing which shews, or even renders it probable,
that the parents of John, or that he himself, was in very indigent cir-
cumstances. Above all; if we suppose John to have written late in
life, after he had been many years at Ephesus, what difficulty can be
made as to his knowledge of Greek?
(2) 'The Gospel of John, in its prooem, philosophizes too deeply
about the Logos, for a fisherman of the Lake.'
The answer to this would be, that the conclusion which represents
him as philosophizing at all, results from erroneous and constructive in-
terpretation. To me John seems to have taken simple and radical
ground, which upsets indeed all the Logos philosophy of the Greeks,
or the emanation-philosophy of the East, but which still has little if any
designed antithetic reference to either of these.
(3) There are many self contradictions in this Gospel.'
So indeed there are, if such exegesis is to be admitted as makes out
the declarations of John to be contradictions. The contradiction,
however, is shewn to be between such exegeses and the laws of herme-
nuetics or ground principles of philology.
(4) This Gospel exhibits errors as to history, antiquities, and geogra-
phy.'
Recent commentaries, such as those of Kuinoel, Lücke, and Tho-
luck, have shewn how little foundation there is for such an objection;
but especially the works of defence, which will be mentioned in the se-
quel, have still more effectually done this.
66
In regard to the alleged irreconcileable difference" between John
and the other Evangelists, as to the account of the time when Jesus
with his disciples last celebrated the passover, Hug has done what could
be done, while one limits himself merely to external history, and does
not investigate the proper idiom of the Scriptures. The solution which
he offers, however, seems altogether improbable, as it appears to my
GOSPEL OF JOHN.
723
mind. I find nothing which vouches for it in any good degree, that
there was any difference among the Jews, as to the time when the pass-
over itself was to be actually celebrated; nothing in the evangelical ac-
counts of the last supper, which goes to shew at all that an unusual sea-
son was chosen for it; nothing in the Jewish views of this ordinance
which would render such an occurrence at all probable. Some may have
commenced their holy time earlier than others; although the testimony
cited by Hug from the Mishna and Gemara would serve but little pur-
pose to establish this in respect to the time of the Saviour; but this
would not render certain the proposition, that they therefore actually
celebrated the passover itself before the usual time.
J. H. Rauch (translated and published in the Bib. Repos. Vol. IV.
No. 13. Art. V.) has taken wholly a different course from Hug, and one
altogether built upon the usus loquendi of the sacred writings; and he
has shewn in this way, what had not before been so effectually shewn,
that there is a substantial harmony among all the Evangelists in relation
to this matter. To him I would earnestly refer the reader. Questions
of this kind are not the element in which Hug appears to move with
the most dexterity or success.
τ
As to what Hug says on p. 446, in order to defend John's interpreta-
tion of (cloάu) by anɛoraluévos, it will afford little or no satis-
faction, I think, to the intelligent philological reader; for the amount-
of it is, that John gives to the name Zilwau a mystic interpretation.
This is solving one difficulty by introducing another still greater. Be-
sides, it betrays a want of Hebrew etymological knowledge in the wri-
ter. The Hebrew comes from ny, to send, send out, emit, etc.
The form may be resolved in two ways; viz., it may be regarded
-dis, כִּישׁוֹר ; sparles, כידוד ; disquietude, כִּידוֹר either as a noun like
taff; ¬ivp, smoke; or else as a noun presenting a forma dagessata
which is resolved by omitting the Dagesh and inserting a Yodh, like
vipp and vizip. Nouns of this last form, i. e. of the forma dagessata,
arei, a drunkard ; tib", natus;, hostiliter tractatus. In con-
formity with these last forms, may mean άлsorahuevos as John has
rendered it; or if any one prefers the first solution, it is merely the ab-
stract (emissio) put for the concrete, i. e. for emissus, άñeoralµévos; an
ἀπει
occurrence too frequent in Hebrew to create any wonder or doubt, a-
mong those who are not disposed to doubt for reasons other than philo-
logical.
(5) The delineation of the person, character, and doctrines of the Sa-
viour by the Gospel of John, differs from that in any other of the canon-
ical Gospels.'
The answer to this is, that the style and manner of John are unques-
tionably different from those of the other Evangelists. The special ob-
ject of his Gospel, which is a doctrinal one, would also of course be
the occasion of some diversity in his narration. The fact that he has
almost entirely omitted any thing done by Jesus, except what was done
at Jerusalem and in its near neighborhood, makes a wide difference be-
tween John and his fellow-writers. They confine themselves mainly
to what was done in Galilee. John has little of mere history of facts,
almost all his Gospel being made up of the discourses of Jesus; while
this is just the reverse in the other Evangelists.
724
NOTE XVIII.
:
A
But how can we make any thing more out of this, than that each
writer had his own particular design and stand-point, and that he pursued
his own particular object? Has not Matthew, Mark, Luke, each their
peculiarities? Each matter appropriate to himself only? This must
be allowed. All then that can be said of John is, that his Gospel is pe-
culiarly sui generis. This lies indeed upon the very face of his plan
and style. But to deduce from this the conclusion, that he describes a
different Messiah and other doctrines than what are found in the Gospels
of his coadjutors, is assuming a conclusion much broader than the prem-
ises will support.
It would be easy to shew, that all the main points of the Messiah's
character, doctrines, and sufferings, are the same in all the Gospels of
our Canon. This has been done; but my limits forbid me even to at-
tempt a synopsis of the considerations which have been proffered, in or-
der to satisfy the minds of inquirers and doubters in respect to this
point. I can only refer the reader to Heydenreich, Uber die Behaup-
ting dass Jesus in den drei synoptischen Evangelien ganz anders er-
scheine als in dem Johanneischen, in Heydenreich and Hüffell's Zeit-
schrift für Predigerwissenschaften, B. I. heft 1, 2. 1827. Also Retberg,
An Johannes in exhibenda Jesu natura reliq. canon. Scriptis vere re-
pugnet, 1826; Borger, De constanti et aequabili Jesu Christi Indole,
etc. 1816; Möller, Comm. de Genii ac Indolis Evangelii Johannis pri-
or. Evang. diversa, etc. 1816; Reinecke, De Constanti etc. J. C. In-
dole, Ingenio, Doctrina, et docendi Ratione, etc. 1827. Schott's Isa-
goge § 38, especially Note 4 under this, where a summary may be found,
made with much ability, of the leading points in respect to the subject
under consideration.
In regard to Bretschneider's Probabilia, in which he has expressed
all the doubts of former or latter times with respect to the genuineness
of the Gospel of John, it might be sufficient to say, that the author has
himself publicly and ingenuously retracted them, and declared that his
object in publishing such a book was, to elicit more able defences of the
Gospel in question than had hitherto been made. Whether this latter
circumstance be altogether as candid an avowal as that of his retrac-
tion, might be questioned by some who know the love of paradox and
of appearing before the public eye in a new and strange dress, which is
so predominant among not a small class of the German literati. But be
this as it may, Bretschneider's book has called forth a number of learn-
ed and able essays, in opposition to his doubts. A few of them, which
are particularly distinguished, should be here named. Crome, Proba-
bilia haud probabilia, an Essay which obtained the prize at Leipsic in
1824. Hemsen, Die Echtheit der Schriften des Evang. Johannis, 1823.
Usteri, Comm. critica, in qua Evangelium Johannis genuinum esse,
etc., 1823. Also Olshausen, in his Aechtheit der vier canon. Evange-
lien, p. 246 seq.
1
For the historical evidence, derived from the testimony of the an-
cient fathers, Lardner, Schmidt, Less, and almost all the introductions
to the New Testament, specially Schott's Isagoge, 37, Note 5, will
afford a sufficient Conspectus. The reader may consult a fuller exhibi-
tion, in Calmberg, Diss. theolog. de antiquissimis Patrum Testimonis,
etc. 1822. In Lampe's Comm., in those of Lücke, Tholuck, and oth-
OBJECT AND PLAN OF JOHN'S GOSPEL.
725
ers, summaries of this evidence may also be found. The question, as I
am disposed to believe, is now finally put to rest, except among that class
of writers who are excited to assail positions from the very fact that
they are generally regarded as unassailable.
NOTE 19. Object and Plan of John's Gospel. (§ 53, p. 425 seq.)
The copious and laboured analysis of John's Gospel, in this and the
ten following sections, and the comparison of it with other Gospels, al-
though not wanting in the display of acuteness and ingenuity, do not
afford any solid conviction or satisfaction to my own mind, in respect to
the main positions which the writer is labouring to establish, viz., that
John had seen and made use of the other Gospels, and intended his
own to be rather a kind of supplement to them, than a work complete
in itself.
John was himself an original witness. He needed no aid from for-
eign sources, in order to write his Gospel. And although Eusebius, Je-
rome, Theodoret, Epiphanius, and others of the ancient church, and
Michaelis, Storr, Schulze, Hug, and many others in modern times, have
asserted or defended the supplementary character of John's Gospel, yet
there are several reasons why we may doubt of this.
(1) John has not only repeated a considerable number of things con-
tained in the other Gospels, but almost in the same words. Let the read-
er compare, now,
Luke 19: 46. Mark 11: 17.
John 2: 16.
3: 35.
5: 20.
10:22.
8: 19.
10: 15.
4: 35.
4: 44.
12: 7, 8.
12: 25.
13: 20.
10: 16.
14: 13.
17: 2.
Matt. 21: 13.
11:27.
9:37 seq.
13: 57.
26: 11, 12.
16: 25, 10, 39.
10: 40.
18: 19 seq.
28: 18 seq.
(2) Even longer narrations in the other Gospels are contained almost
entire in that of John. E. g. John 2: 14-16. 6: 1–21. 12: 1–19.
Finally, most things in the history of the crucifixion, etc.
(3) That John has omitted many things contained in the other Gos-
pels, is obvious at first sight, and this would indeed be the case on the
ground that his Gospel is supplementary.
(4) The traits of discrepancy as to manner and circumstances be-
tween John and the other Evangelists, where they speak of the same
thing, are very numerous. One circumstance, moreover, in regard
to the general tenor of John's Gospel, is very striking. John has a
regular account of all the visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, after his minis-
726
NOTE XIX.
try had commenced; and the other Evangelists contain nothing of this
kind excepting the journey just before the crucifixion, by which we
could definitely ascertain whether the public life of Jesus was one or
many years.
(5) If John designed his Gospel merely as a supplement to the oth-
ers, and for the purpose of illustrating what was left undefined or some-
what obscure in them, how comes it that he has left so many of those
things wholly untouched?
(6) Finally, John has himself told us the object of his Gospel, near the
close of it, viz., to shew that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, in or-
der that men might believe on him and be saved. He has no where
hinted at any design on his part to supply the defects of others, or to ap-
pear as in aid of them, or even as the coadjutor. How could it well be,
that he should no where have developed any hint of this nature, if the
theory of Hug is well founded?
Hug seems much to rely on this consideration, viz., that 'John has
omitted the more important arguments and facts in favor of his position,
relying upon it that his readers were in possession of the other Gospels.'
So Prof. Hug may judge. John, we may suppose however, formed a
different opinion. He tells us that the sayings and doings of Jesus were
so numerous, that the world would not contain the books which must be
written, in case they were all reported.' Of course he made, and he in-
tended to make, only a small selection. Why now should we suppose
he would omit those things that he deemed most important to his spe-
cific purpose? I trust he did not; and therefore that he and Prof. Hug
differ in their judgment in relation to this matter.
I have already remarked, in passing, that the question whether John
had a polemic design in view, when he wrote his Gospel, is not so plain
and certain as Hug in various places (§§ 51, 52, alibi) seems to consider
it. (1) Many critics suppose that a sect sprung from John the Baptist,
who held him to be the promised Messiah. Traces of such a sect they
find in Luke 3: 15. Acts 13: 25. 18: 25. 19:1-5. For proof that
John has reference to them in his Gospel, they appeal to John 1: 7, 8,
15, 19—34, 36. 3: 26 seq. 5: 33 seq. 10: 41, etc. So Overbeck, Neue
Versuche ueber das Evangelium Johannis, 1784. Storr, Ueber den
Zweck der evang. Geschichte, etc. Ziegler, Bemerkungen ueber das
Evangelium Johannis, in Gabler's neuest. theol. Journal, B. 9. St. 1.
Michaelis in his Introduction to the New Testament; Hug as in the
text; and many others. But Paulus, Cap. Select. Introduct. ad N. Test.
p. 153; Eichhorn in his Einleit. in das N. Test.; Tittmann in his Mele-
temata Sacra; Kuinoel, in his Commentary; and others, have denied
that the Gospel of John has any such designed bearing upon the dis-
ciples of John, as Storr and others maintain.
(2) In like manner many have supposed that John intended, in a par-
ticular manner, to oppose Cerinthus, who was contemporary with him,
and seems to have denied that the Saviour possessed any thing more
than a nature merely human. So Storr, Michaelis, and Hug, as cited
above; and so Semler in his Paraphrasis in Evang. Johann.; Wegschei-
der in his Versuch einer volständ. Einleitung in das Evang. Johann.
1806; Kaiser in his Comment. de apolegeticis Evang. Johan. consi-
liis, etc.; and also others. To these are opposed, Lampe, Comm. in
OBJECT AND PLAN OF JOHN'S GOSPel.
727
Johan. I. p. 172 seq.; Tittmann, Paulus, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, as quoted
above; Lücke, Comm. in Johan. I. p. 227 seq., and others.
It appears from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and
Theodoret, that Cerinthus taught that a celestial spirit (aicv) descend-
ed upon Jesus at his baptism, and left him before his crucifixion; and
that this spirit was not the Movoyevns or the Дóyos, but one of sub-
ordinate rank, who dwelt in Jesus, and enabled him to perform his mir-
acles. To these views John 1: 3, 18. 17: 1-5. 14; 9 etc., and espe-
cially 1 John 2: 22, seem to be peculiarly opposed.
(3) The Nicolaitans are mentioned by Irenaeus (advers. Haeres. III.
11), as opposed by John. But whether this is only a tropical name or
appellative, given to certain false teachers in the early church, who main-
tained the lawfulness of eating flesh offered to idols and of venereal in-
dulgencies; or whether it is a proper name derived from Nicholas or
Nicholaus some unknown author of this heresy; is a question the an-
swer to which is not yet made out. See Nov. Test. Kopp. Tom. X. p.
146. Ewald, Comm. in Apoc. Eichhorn, Comm. in Apoc. (on Rev. 2:
15). Comp. Schott's Isagoge, $ 40, Note 7.
(4) The Docetae are also included by some, among those whom
John opposed in his writings. So Semler in his Paraphrasis; Ecker-
mann in his Erklarung aller dunkeln Stellen des N. Test. II. p. 5. seq.;
Bertholdt, Einleit. III. p. 1818; Schmidt, Bibliothek für biblische
Kritik, I. p. 73. But this is not admitted by Hug; and Kuinoel and
Kaiser (as quoted above), and De Wette in his Einleit., deny this. To
me there seem to be passages in the writings of John, which can hardly
be accounted for on any other ground than that of intended opposition
to an opinion like that of the Docetae; e. g. 1 John 1: 1, 2. 4: 2 seq.
2 John v. 7. John 1: 14. Comp. 19: 34. 20: 20, 27. See Schott, § 40,
Note 8.
The most probable result of an investigation respecting these partic-
ular designs attributed to John in his Gospel, seems to me to be, that
while it cannot well be denied that there were Zabians, Cerinthians,
Nicolaitans (either in a general or a particular sense), and Docetae, in
the time of John; and that all these sects (with Gnosticism yet imper-
fectly developed) existed in Asia Minor, and probably in and around
Ephesus; yet a design properly and specifically polemic, can hardly be
attributed to John; certainly not in his Gospel. I cannot doubt, for he
has told us, that his principal aim was to shew that Jesus was the Son of
God and the true Messiah. Nor can I doubt, therefore, that whatever
sect was then and there in opposition to this truth, or taught what was
at variance with it, when and where John first wrote his Gospel, this
sect was virtually opposed by his Gospel. There is much emphasis and
force given to several passages in his writings, by applying them to one
and another of the various sects named. But I regard the apostle, on
the whole, as designing rather to refute error by teaching the truth,'
than as having engaged in designs directly and avowedly polemic.
Avowedly, indeed, they certainly are not; for where in his Gospel has
he referred expressly to any of the sects named? That what he says
may have some bearing upon them, and actually does have one, I can-
not well doubt. But that the apostle entered the lists as a disputant,
does not seem from the tenor of his writings, at large, to be capable of
satisfactory proof.
728
NOTE XX.
NOTE 20. Time and place of composing the Gospel of John; language
in which it was written. (§ 64. p. 455.)
On these questions the author has given but little information, and
nothing to satisfy the critical inquirer. In $ 65-70, he endeavours in-
deed to shew, that John's first Epistle was written to the churches at
Ephesus, while the author was in a state of banishment at Patmos;
that his Gospel was also probably written at the same place; and that
the first Epistle was in fact written as an accompaniment and designed
as a kind of introduction to the Gospel. As Hug supposes the banish-
ment of John to have taken place under Domitian, he of course must
suppose the Gospel and the first Epistle not to have been written until
about A. D. 97 or 98.
Of Hug's views respecting John's first Epistle, I shall speak in the
sequel. In opposition to his view respecting the late composition of
John's Gospel, several suggestions may be made.
(1) John 5: 2, ἔστι δὲ ἐν τοῖς ῾Ιεροσολύμοις . . . κολυμβήθρα. Af-
ter all that has been said about enallage temporis, in the New Testament,
and specially in John, there is solid reason to distrust the confounding
of tenses by any writer of common sense. We
e may be, and often are,
ignorant how often one Praeterite, for example, was employed in the
place of another, because that other had gone into desuetude, or was
cacophonous; in such a case we are not well qualified to judge about
enallage temporis; certainly not to decide that the instance in question.
is one of this nature. In some other instances it is a matter of indiffer-
ence which of two or three Praeterites is used, inasmuch as the nature
of the case admits either to be employed without any impropriety. We
should not be hasty, therefore, in making out these enallages of tense;
which, if absolutely taken, only mean that a writer has voluntarily, or
through ignorance, violated the common laws of the Greek language.
To say, then, that ore is here put for v, is saying something which
should not be said without some definite and satisfactory ground. But
to assume, in the first place, that the Gospel of John was written near
the close of the first century, and then to construe or as if it were
ἦν, is a ὕστερον πρότερον in argument.
5
τη
ατ
31
εστι
Still, the city of Jerusalem may have been destroyed, and the baths
or bath-house rebuilt, when John wrote his Gospel. Eusebius (Ono-
masticon, v. Bina) speaks of the pool, etc., as well known in his
time. The designation of place by ni τn nооßarian, may be under-
stood as meaning the place which was anciently called by this name.
All this is possible; nor can it be pronounced to be very improbable.
Still my impression from reading the whole Gospel of John is, that if
Jerusalem had been laid in ruins before he wrote it, some hint, some
expression of feeling in relation to this melancholy event, some appeal
to the notable prophecy of the Saviour respecting it as having been ful-
filled, must have appeared here or there in the Gospel. How could
John every where so completely suppress the rising and even involunta-
ry sigh which would heave his breast? How could he fail to mention
so striking and palpable a proof, that Jesus was the Messiah, the duly
commissioned Messenger of God? At all events, the most natural exe-
!
TIME OF JOHN'S GOSPEL, ETC.
729
egesis of John 5: 2 is, that when John wrote, Jerusalem was then in
the like state and condition as at the time when the Saviour performed
the miracle at Bethesda.
Again (3) in John 21: 18 the words of our Saviour respecting Peter's
martyrdom are related. As this took place in A. D. 67, or near this
time, how could John, or (if any one denies the genuineness of this 21st
chapter), how could some disciple of his who published John's Gospel
and added this last chapter, have omitted to refer to the death of Peter,
which had happened some 30 years before, if Hug and others who think
with him are to be credited?
The fact that John employs v (Imperf.) instead of the present tense
(ott), in reference to places, in 18: 1. 19: 41. 11: 18, proves nothing, as
the matter is respectively circumstanced. The historian is in each case
relating past events; and in such a case, nothing is more common or
natural than to speak of the place where these events happened, in the
past tense. This is all which can be made out, from such instances as
these.
But
When the appeal is made to John 21: 23, "If I will that he [John]
should continue until I come, what is that to thee?" as affording an ar-
gument in favour of this Gospel being written in the advanced age of
John; there seems to be no force in the appeal, unless we assume, that
Jesus could not have uttered this in a prophetic way, so that John could
understand it until he should have attained to an advanced age.
what dependence can we place on an argument of such a nature ?
Finally, when writers appeal to the Greek style of John's Gospel, and
tell us that it bears marks of great improvement upon that of the Apoc-
alypse, and shews that John had been many more years conversant with
the Greek language when he wrote the former; I cannot sympathize
with them, and do not so judge. Let Winer's Programm on the alleged
soloecisms of the Apocalypse be read; let the reader be deeply conver-
sant with the Hebrew prophets and familiar with their style and man-
ner, their abrupt transitions, change of person, Nominatives independ-
ent, and the like; then let him call to mind the perfectly simple and
prosaic character of John's Gospel in its narrations, and the close imi-
tation (as we have good reason to believe), or the exact report, of Jesus'
discourses even in the manner of their diction; let him afterwards
come to the reading of the Apocalypse, and mark how the diction of
every part of it is built upon the Hebrew prophets, how entirely it is
Hebrew poetry in its very soul and essence, how exceedingly diverse
the matter of it is from that of the Gospels, and how diverse the manner
must be also in order to present the genuine stamp of Hebrew prophet-
ic composition-let him take all this into view, and also the further fact
that the text of the Apocalypse is as yet less purified than that of any
other book of the New Testament; and he will then hesitate about
drawing an argument as to the lateness of John's Gospel, from the su-
perior character of its Greek. This superiority, I am fully persuaded,
cannot be satisfactorily made out.
In a word, the testimonies of the ancients are, that John removed
from Palestine to Asia Minor, where he taught extensively, and fixed his
abode at Ephesus. So Clemens Alex. in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. III. 23.
Irenaeus, advers. Haeres. I. 2. c. 22. § 5. I. 3. c. 1. c. 3. § 4. Origen,
92
730
NOTE XXI.
in Euseb. H. E. III. 1. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, in Euseb. III.
31. Jerome, Catal. Scriptt. c. 9. That John must have gone there af-
ter Paul wrote his epistles, would seem clear from the fact, that neither
his presence nor labours are adverted to in Rom. 15: 20. 2 Cor. 10: 16;
nor in the epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, or Timothy, written
when Paul was in prison at Rome. John therefore must have gone to
Ephesus, after A. D. 60 or 62.
That he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus, the more ancient witnesses
agree; e. g. Irenaeus, advers. Haeres. III. 1. Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. III.
24. V.8. VI. 14. Jerome, Catal. Scriptt. c. 9. That he wrote it after
the three other Gospels were written, these witnesses also declare; and
so Storr, Herder, and most modern critics have felt inclined to decide.
But this latter position can never be satisfactorily made out.
The reader who wishes for more ample discussion, may consult the
various Introductions to the New Testament, and in particular those of
Lampe to his Comm. in Johan.; Wegscheider, Versuch einer volstän-
diger Einleitung, etc., p. 190 seq. Lücke Comm. über Johannem. I. p.
121 seq. Schott's Isagoge, $$ 36–43.
That John wrote in Greek, the examples of explanation in regard to
Hebrew words and things, referred to by Hug in $64, would seem
abundantly to shew. Why should he interpret the most common and
obvious Hebrew words, (NEE, na, men, etc.), if he were wri-
ting in Hebrew, and for Hebrew readers?
It is to be regretted that Hug, instead of occupying his readers, as he
has done, with speculations about the supplementary character of John's
Gospel, had not given more of substantial discussion in respect to other
circumstances, in which we have a deeper interest.
NOTE 21. First Epistle of John. (§ 65. p. 456.)
The very first declaration with which Hug commences his account
of this Epistle, is one which I should be far from regarding as certain.
On the other hand, I find nothing in all the first epistle of John, which
obliges me to suppose that he refers in it to his written Gospel. That
there is the same doctrine in the Epistle as in the Gospel, the same
style or manner of writing both as to diction and the construction of
sentences, the same glowing spirit of love to God and man, the same
ardent attachment to the Saviour and zeal for his honour and glory-
must be evident, I think, to every intelligent and impartial reader.
From the most ancient times this has been acknowledged and felt.
Scarcely a doubt has been raised, until recently, in respect to the genu-
ineness of this first Epistle; notwithstanding it has neither subscription
nor înscription. But all this does not shew, that it was designed as a pre-
face, or an accompaniment, or a defence, to the Gospel of John. All this,
moreover, we may suppose and fully credit, without drawing any other
conclusion from the reading of the epistle, than that John had preached
FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
731
and taught familiarly and fully, among those whom he here addresses,
the doctrines to which he specially adverts, particularly in the beginning
of his Epistle, but occasionally elsewhere. That he addresses his own
disciples, there can hardly be any doubt, if we look at the manner of his
writing. How can it be shewn, as Hug assumes, that there is a visible
reference in the Epistle to the Gospel?"
66
Hug, however, stands not alone in respect to his views concerning the
original design of this Epistle. Berger in his Versuch einer moral.
Einleit ins. N. Test. II. p. 118; Storr in his Zweck der evang. Ge-
schichte, etc. p. 315 seq.; Augusti in his Kathol. Briefe, II. p. 182 seq.,
have suggested like views; one regarding it as containing a practical
part of the Gospel or supplement to it, another as a polemic part in de-
fence of it, and the third as a letter of recommendation or introduction
to it.
All these views the reader may find fully examined and refuted,
in Lücke's Preface to his Comm. on this Epistle. How can it be ac-
counted for, that all antiquity should have severed the epistle, as to its
location in the Canon, from the Gospel, if it originally was combined
or immediately connected with it? That in the Cod. Cantab., there
stands at the end of John's Gospel and before the Acts a note by some
transcriber, which would seem to signify that the Epistles of John end
there, and the Acts follows (as Hug declares, p. 462), proves nothing,
except that some erroneous or idle hand had added something in that
place which does not belong there; or at the most, that instead of the
Acts, the copyist meant at first to transcribe the Epistles of John, but
afterwards abandoned his purpose.
To suppose, with Hug (p. 464), that John wrote his Gospel at Patmos,
and must therefore have sent a letter of introduction with it, because he
could not introduce it in propria persona, is arguing in a way sufficient-
ly unsatisfactory. Why could not John have done as Luke did, i. e.
send his Gospel to some distinguished individual friend, who, he well
knew, would take care of it and publish it? Then, again, how could
John have written his Gospel, in a state of banishment, and never have
even once adverted in it to any thing which leads us at all to conjecture
that such were his circumstances? Or how could his first epistle have
been written in the like condition? Suppositions like those which Hug
makes in relation to these matters, need at least some probabilities in
their favour, in the absence of all ancient tradition and testimony in
their behalf. Unfortunately they have neither the one nor the other to
support them.
That the Epistle was written later than the Gospel, I should think
quite probable from the tone of it. The various errors to which it ap-
parently adverts, are here more definitely and strongly characterized
and denounced than in the Gospel. The animadversions upon them
seem to assume the decided tone of repeated admonition.
Different writers have found in this epistle opposition to different
classes of heretics. Thus Loeffler finds Jews and Judaizers opposed;
Dissert., Joan. Epist. I. Gnosticos imprimis impugnari negatur, in
Comm. Theol. I. Others have supposed that Judaizing Christians, and
Ebionites or apostate Christians, are opposed; e. g. Semler, in his
Paraph. Johan.; Tittmann, in his De Vestigiis Gnosticorum, etc., p. 179
seq. Knapp, in his Script. var. Argument., p. 157. Lange, Schrift.
732
NOTE XXI.
des Johann. III. 19 seq. Eichh. Einleit. II. 291 seq. Others suppose
that the Gnostics were principally aimed at; e. g. Michaelis, II. ed. 4,
p. 1522. Kleuker, Johannes, Petrus, and Paulus, als Christologen
betrachet, 1785. Others still have regarded the Docetae as the sect
principally opposed in John's first Epistle; e. g. Schmidt, Einleit. II. p.
318. Bertholdt, Einleit. VI. p. 3250. Niemeyer, Comm. de Docetis,
Halle, 1823. Lücke, Comm. Pref. p. 62 seq. So Vitringa also thought,
Obs. Sac. V. 20; and so have many others. Schott and De Wette do
not dissent from a modified view of this latter sentiment; while they do
not suppose the main design of the epistle to have been in any good
measure polemic.
That the heresy of the Docetae, who taught that Christ was only in
appearance and seemingly, but not in reality, a man consisting of a real
body and soul, was extant in the apostolic age, there seems to be no
good reason to deny. That 1 John 1: 1-3 and 4: 1-6 were design-
ed to oppose or gainsay the doctrine of this sect, one can scarcely
doubt. What could be the object of the apostle in making such spe-
cific, repeated, and pointed asseverations respecting the real humanity
of the Saviour, unless it were to oppose some error like that of the Do-
cetae? Compare particularly 2 John, v. 7.
ντ
That in his first epistle, as in his Gospel, John designs to oppose sev-
eral and various errors, in passing, I cannot well doubt. Let the read-
er examine chap. 2: 18-27. The avrigoros here characterized, no
doubt means some particular erroneous opinions, or party schism (v. 19),
or practical ungodliness, which prevailed to some extent in the church
or churches whom the apostle addressed in his letter. All that we can
learn, however, from the passage, warm and animated as the strain of it
is, amounts to no more than the generic idea, that there was a theoreti-
cal or practical denial that Jesus is the Christ; see v. 22. This is after-
wards called denying the Son; and he who does this, is said also to de-
ny the Father. That some false teachers were actively engaged in
spreading heretical sentiments in relation to this subject, is evident
from v. 26, τшv пλαvávτæv vµãs. But whether these deceivers were
Ebionites, Judaizers, Gnostics, or Docetae, or some other heretics, can
not well be determined from the passage under examination.
των
Excepting this passage, and the two above adverted to, there is little
in this epistle except warm-hearted and paternal admonition and ex-
hortation to love, faith, mutual kindness, and good will. Holiness
and benevolence the writer considers as indissolubly connected with
steadfast faith in Christ, and adherence to the simple truths of his Gospel.
That John was somewhat advanced in life, when he wrote this epis-
tle, seems probable from his use of the word texvia so often in his ad-
dresses. Yet those who rely very much on this should remember, that
the Saviour addresses his disciples with the same appellation, in John
13: 33, some (probably most) of whom were older than himself. So
Paul also addresses the Galatians, 4: 19. Evidently it is only a compel-
lation of endearment. Or, if we argue from it in respect to the compar-
ative age of the writer, what shall we say when John (2: 13) addresses
a portion of those to whom he wrote by the appellation nazépes? If
ατέρες?
any thing is thus to be deduced from these various compellations, it
must be this, viz., that most of those whom John addressed were
SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN.
733
younger than himself; while some others were older than himself. Ex-
treme old age, therefore, cannot be assumed by this mode of reasoning,
as it has been by many, as the probable time of John's writing his first
epistle. The Geschwatzigkeit (prattle) of old age, and senile repeti-
tions, which Eichhorn and others have found in it, belong rather to
their exegetical tact, than to the writer of the epistle.
Meagre and unsatisfactory, on the whole, is Hug's account through-
out of the writings of John. The most interesting matters he has treat-
ed in a superficial way.
NOTE 22. Second Epistle of John. (§ 71. p. 465.)
In what manner Hug deduces from the language of this epistle, the
conclusion that the apostle was in exile when he wrote it, I do not see.
To argue from v. 7, "Having many things to write to you, I would not
do it with paper and ink, for I hope to be with you, etc." that the apos-
tle was in want of writing materials (p. 465), is singular indeed. Where
then did he get materials for writing his Gospel and first Epistle, both
of which, Hug supposes, were written in exile? How very singular,
too, that the exile of Patmos should be in the habit of receiving famil-
iar and friendly visits? (p. 465). Did the Roman Government permit
exiles to lonely places to be treated thus?
Then again, how could John in exile for an indefinite time, expect
soon to see the worthy individual to whom his second epistle is address-
ed, and speak with her face to face?
In a word; can we well doubt that the writer of 2 John was at lib-
erty, when he wrote this Epistle?
As to the address, ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ, it seems at last to be pretty well
agreed, that if Exhεxty were designed to be considered as a proper
name, the location would have been thus, τῇ κυρίᾳ ἐκλεκτῇ, or ἐκλεκτῇ
τῇ κυρίᾳ. That Κυρία was often a proper name of females among the
Greeks, there is no doubt; see Gruteri Inscriptt. p. 1127. Schott and
De Wette both decide in favour of Kvoia (Cyria) as a proper name,
and Exlexr as an epithet. From a comparison of 3 John, v. 1, this
ἐκλεκτῇ
opinion seems to be probable.
As to the assumption of Hug, that this second letter of John was
written immediately after the first, and despatched along with it—it
seems to me as little supported, as that the first letter was written at the
same time with his Gospel. How came it, that the second and third
epistles of John were considered by some as of doubtful authenticity,
even so early as the days of Origen ; δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην, ἐπεὶ οὐ πάν-
τες φασί γνησίους εἶναι ταύτας, are the words of Origen quoted in
Euseb. Ecc. Hist. VI. 25. Had all three epistles been sent to the
churches at the same time with the Gospel, and all been deemed as in-
troductory to it, or explanatory of it, or as designed to enforce it, then
would the appendices have been attached of course to the main volume,
and gone into credit or discredit along with it. But here we find, so
734
NOTE XXIII.
early as the time of Origen, the genuineness of the second and third
Epistles doubted; and Eusebius states explicitly (Hist. Ecc. III. 25),
that the second and third of John were called in question by some;
τῶν δὲ ἀντιλεγομένων .... ἡ ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη Ιωάν-
νου. Jerome also states (De Viris Illust. c. 9), that these two epistles
were assigned by some to John a presbyter at Ephesus.
Besides; they were left out of the Peshito or old Syriac version;
which shews that they came into circulation after the Gospel and first
Epistle had been current in the churches.
Why Hug should pass in silence all these facts, and thus take no no-
tice of them, I know not. One thing, however, is plain, viz. that when
known and fully considered, they must overthrow his theory in regard
to the second and third epistles of John.
As to the doubts themselves which have been raised in ancient or in
modern times against the genuineness of the second and third epistles
of John, they are inconsiderable. Even De Wette does not think that
they amount to any thing serious; and Lücke, Bertholdt, Schott, and
others, have abundantly removed them. The internal evidence is so
strong, that there is hardly serious room for doubt.
hardly serious room for doubt. In ancient times, it
would seem that doubts had arisen whether they should be included in
the canon, rather from the fact that these epistles were directed to pri-
vate individuals, than from any other circumstance.
NOTE 23. Third Epistle of John. (§ 72. p. 466).
ov
Here again is the same singular mistake in our author, of supposing
that John complains of the want of writing materials, and that this is
good evidence of his being in exile. John says (v. 13), “I have much
to write, but I will not do it with ink and pen." Why? Not because
he could not. He does not say οὐ δύναμαι γράψαι, but οὐ θέλω γρά
ya. But why would he not? Because he expected soon to see his
friend, and tell him mouth to mouth the many things he had to say, in-
stead of writing them. What can be a more natural circumstance in a
letter than this?
Then, again, as to the state of exile; John says (v. 15), donášovrai
oɛ oi qihoi, the friends salute thee. So then, this lonely exile was sur-
rounded by his friends.
Who Gaius (Caius) was, we know not, excepting that he appears to
have been one of the apostle's spiritual children, and to have merited
and enjoyed much of his confidence. That he belonged to Ephesus, and
that a party there, of which Diotrephes was the head, had rejected
an epistle written to them by John, v. 9, (i. e. the first epistle of John,
according to Hug), rests not only upon mere conjecture, but on very
improbable conjecture. Is there any thing in the other writings of John,
which favours the predominance of such a party at Ephesus? Rather,
does not Rev. 2: 1 seq. make directly against such a supposition?
Much more probable does it seem to me, that when the apostle wrote
"
DISCREPANCY OF GENEALOGIES.
735
his second and third epistles, he was at Ephesus, on the eve of setting
out upon one of his evangelical journeys among the churches; that
having some private opportunity to write to Gaius and to Cyria before
he could visit them, he embraced it. In the course of his journey he
expected to see them.
That the two epistles were written at the same time, or under the
same circumstances, seems probable from a comparison of 2 John vs. 1,
12 with 3 John vs. 1, 13, 14. That Gaius and Cyria both lived in the
same place, is not certain; that they did not, cannot be proved.
That 2 John v. 7-11 refers to the same deceivers which are charac-
terized in the first epistle, 1: 1–3. 4: 1-6, seems to be quite plain.
But that such deceivers were to be found only at Ephesus, and that Cy-
ria and Gaius must have lived there, as Hug would seem to maintain,-
who can vouch for this?
an
NOTE 24. Discrepancy in Genealogies. ($ 74, p. 469 seq.)
Hug (p. 469) calls the attempt to trace the descent of Mary in Luke
evasion" of the difficulty in respect to the genealogies, and says that
"it does violence to the phraseology employed." What then is the vio-
lence done in this case? It is simply this, viz., that Joseph, the ac-
knowledged and actual son in law of Heli, is counted by the Evangelist
Luke (3:23), as a son. But what does Hug himself, in the like way, in
his own attempt at conciliation ? He introduces at least two several ca-
ses, in which the so-called son of a man, is actually the son of some other
person. Jechonias,' he says, 'had no children.' And yet Salathiel is reck-
oned as his son, whose actual father was Neri, and grandfather Melchi,
according to Luke (3:27, 28). Again; 'Salathiel (or Shealtiah) has no
son; Pedaiah his brother, therefore, raises up for him a son, whose
name is Zerubbabel.' Yet in the case of Jechonias, even this law of the
levirate was not fulfilled; for 'Jechonias had no brothers to raise up
seed for him,' p. 471. Is this solving the nodus, then, without a vio-
lence" like that complained of in others?
66
But this is not all. Hug has omitted other serious difficulties that
stand in the way of his theory. In Matthew, the son of Zerubbabel is
called Abiud; in Luke, Resa; in 1 Chron. 3: 19, 20, seven sons are
assigned to him, but no one has either of these names.
Hug notices that the name Abiud does not stand in 1 Chron. 3: 19,
20. He proposes to account for this, by the conjecture that Abiud is
only a name of affection, i. e. a kind of nick-name, by which Meshullam,
or Hananiah, was called; like the Arabic Abi or Abu, so often attached
to proper names. But what is to be done with -oud in the name 'Aßı-
oud, he does not tell us. How can we be satisfied with such etymology
as this?
It is gratifying to find, that in a note on p. 472, he retracts his singular
and unfounded criticism on in
etc. on p. 471.
After all, however, he has left untouched a difficulty greater than any
736
NOTE XXIV.
which he has encountered. How should all the line from Zorobabel
downward in Matthew, be different from that in Luke, on the supposi-
tion that Salathiel and Zerubbabel in both Evangelists are the same?
Who is the Rhesa of Luke, reckoned by him as the son of Zerubbabel?
No such person appears in 1 Chron., nor in Matthew. And even if we
allow that Abiud in Matthew is a cognomen amoris, and that the real per-
son is the same as Resa in Luke, yet the same difficulty is to be met
again in the first link of subsequent descent, and in all the remaining
ones. The son of Resa was Joanna, and then come Juda, Joseph,
Semei, etc. In Matthew we have Zorobabel, Abioud, Eliakim, Azur,
This leaves all the work of Hug to be done over again; inasmuch
as we are utterly at a loss, how two lines from Zorobabel (he being the
same person in Matthew and in Luke), should be wholly discrepant all
the way down for 500 years, and yet both end in the same person, viz.,
Joseph the husband of Mary.
etc.
Whence did these family genealogies come? From family records; we
can scarcely doubt. Otherwise, i. e. if the accounts of the Evangelists
differed from those in the genealogies, the Jews who were unfriendly to
Christianity would of course appeal to the evident discrepancy as evidence
that the Gospels were not worthy of credit. Were there two genealo-
gies then of Joseph, so entirely discrepant from each other, and yet both
authentic family records? That seems like an utter improbability, upon
bare inspection of the nature of this case among the Jews, whose modes
of counting genealogy were definite and settled.
Let us look now at another circumstance. In Matthew, the father of
Joseph is Jacob; then we have Matthan, Eleazer, Eliud, Achim, etc.
In Luke we have ὤν, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς Ιωσήφ (Jesus), and then the
father of Joseph is called Heli, and the other ancestors are Matthat, Le-
vi, Melchi, Janna, etc. Is it possible now that family records should
have so computed the genealogy of Joseph as the proper son of Heli,
etc.? Surely not, in case Matthew is in the right. And did not an
apostle and early disciple of Jesus, who was personally acquainted with
all his relatives after the flesh-did he not know what were the authen-
tic records of Joseph's descent? Would he make use of any which
the Jews could gainsay?
We come then, in this way, to the necessary conclusion, that in Luke
the genealogy of Joseph as the son in law (and probably as adopted son
also) of Heli is counted; i. e. that the genealogy of Mary is in fact
reckoned. The very language of Luke seems to indicate something of
this nature: ὤν, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, υἱὸς Ιωσήφ. Jesus was then only the
supposed or imagined son of Joseph. When the historian says this,
would he then go on to reckon a mere imaginary genealogy, or would
he count it in the line where it really and truly belonged, i. e. in the
line of his mother?
That adopted sons and sons in law might be reckoned in genealogies,
there can be no good reason to doubt. I can hardly hesitate then to be-
lieve, that Luke has here in reality reckoned the genealogy of Mary,
but, in compliance with the Jewish method, has put her husband at the
head of the catalogue. If this be not so, then we have no genealogical
proof exhibited in the New Testament, that Jesus Christ is the Son of
David according to the flesh, or a real descendant from him. This
DISCREPANCY IN GENEALOGIES.
737
would, to say the least, be a marvellous circumstance, considering how
much stress the Jews laid upon this matter.
This whole subject of the genealogy of Jesus, which has been a stum-
bling block to so many critics and has been scoffed at by so many un-
believers, needs a more thorough investigation than it has yet received,
and might be made more credible and intelligible than many have hith-
erto deemed it to be. But the limits of these notes forbid my going any
further into it. Commentators can be consulted by the reader; but he
will find most of them to give him but little satisfaction.
Hug has given us no account in this place of the recent attempts to
overthrow the credit of Matthew's Gospel. David Schulz, in his Christ-
liche Lehre vom heilig. Abendmahi, 1824, in a Beilage to this volume;
Orelli, Selecta Capita, etc., 1821; Schulthess, in biblisch-exeget. Rep-
ertorium by K. and H. Rosenmüller, B. II. 1824; Wilke in Winer's
Zeitschrift for 1826; and Fischer, in his Einleitung in die Dogmatik,
1828; have, in various ways, moved doubts of the authenticity of Mat-
thew's Gospel. A summary of their grounds the reader will find in
Schott's Isagoge, § 23, pp. 73 seq. More at length he will find the dis-
cussion of these doubts, and arguments to remove them, by Theile, in
Winer and Engelhardt's Kritisches Journal, B. II. 1824; by Heyden-
reich, in the same Journal, B. III.; also in Bengel's Archiv. B. VI.; in
Fritsche's Comm. in Matt., Proleg. § 21; and in Guericke's Beiträge,
1828, p. 23 seq. The grounds of doubt are partly such as might be
assumed against all the Evangelists, partly of very little moment, and
partly made up of alleged facts that are mistaken ones. My limits do
not permit me here even to recapitulate them. I cannot for a moment
suppose, that the general opinion of the churches respecting the Gospel
of Matthew, will be at all affected by them.
In respect to the alleged discrepancies between Luke's account of
the purification and of the presentation of the child Jesus in the temple
(2: 22-39), and Matthew's account of the flight to Egypt and the
subsequent return of Joseph and his abode at Nazareth (2: 13—23), the
notes in Newcome's Harmony may be consulted, which will give more
satisfaction than Hug's account of the matter (p. 473). What hinders
the supposition, that the visit of the Magi was after the presentation?
Luke 2: 39 cannot well be interpreted so strictly as to leave no space of
time before the final abode of Joseph and Mary at Nazareth; unless,
indeed, we insist on a strictness here of ws ¿réhɛoav, etc., which we are
obliged to remit elsewhere. The flight to Egypt would occupy about
some forty hours' travelling; the abode there was probably very short.
Herod died in the thirty-seventh year of his reign; but as we cannot be
certain in what year of this Jesus was born, so we cannot with definite
certainty fix the length of time that was spent by Joseph in Egypt. At
all events, there is no serious difficulty in respect to this matter.
93
738
NOTES XXV. XXVI.
NOTE 25. Visit of the Magi to Bethlehem. (p. 474 seq.)
I am unable to discover, from the tenor of Hug's remarks, whether he
regards the visit of the Magi, etc., as any thing more than the result of
astrological superstition. Note 3 on p. 474 seems as if he meant to com-
mend to our notice the pilgrims of his church and their quasi-miracu-
lous guidance, or else to represent the whole thing as an affair of su-
perstition; or at least he would seem to mean, that we should take ad-
vantage of these superstitious views in order to illustrate Matt. 2: 1-
12. It is somewhat extraordinary, that he should regard the star in
this case as a real celestial body, and yet undertake to shew that "it
stood over the place where the young child was." It was over that re-
gion, says he. Indeed? This might have been so. But if it were
like other fixed stars or planets, it was over a larger portion of the globe,
than the region of Bethlehem.
The facts lying at the basis of this whole matter, seem to me to be
few and simple. Over all the East, as even Tacitus and Suetonius as-
sure us, there was an expectation, at the time when Jesus was born,
that some distinguished and universal king was speedily to arise out of
Judea. Doubtless the Jews in the East had given occasion to such an
expectation, and had deduced the notion of it themselves from the Old
Testament prophecies. The Magi were a class of men devoted to the
study of science, particularly astronomy and religion. In the case re-
lated by Matthew, they might have been Jews or heathen. Daniel
himself was at the head of the Magi in Babylon; and Jews therefore
may have belonged to this class of men.
An extraordinary meteor (dorno) appeared, and the general interpre-
tation of astrologers would lead the Magi to suppose, that an extraordi-
nary king was born. It appeared in the direction of Judea; therefore
the distinguished king so generally expected, was probably born there.
They set out to offer hoinage; not, as I apprehend, simply from the sug-
gestions of their own mind, but by the direction of a special Providence.
It is plain, from v. 9, that on their way the star had ceased to appear.
When they had set out from Jerusalem for Bethlehem, it reappeared,
and led the way (лooñyev avroús), until "it came and stood over where
the young child was.' To affirm this of a star in the heavens, like
other fixed stars or planets, would be a most palpable error, which every
man's experience would enable him to detect. The appearance, the
motion, and the direction of this dorno, are plainly and palpably sup-
posed by the Evangelist to be extraordinary and supernatural. Hug,
in endeavouring to avoid the admission of this, has suggested consider-
ations which will give very little satisfaction to the minds of the doubt-
ers whom he means to convince, and still less to those who feel no need
of explaining away supernatural phenomena.
""
NOTE 26. Genuineness of several passages. (p. 476 seq.)
I must remit the reader to the critical editions of the New Testa-
ment, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, etc.; also to such
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
739
commentaries as discuss these matters, e. g. those of Kuinoel, Fritsche,
Paulus, Olshausen, and others, for a more full account of critical doubts,
and the solution of them. Schott, in his Isagoge, has given an able
summary of them. But I cannot accede to all his doubts, nor to all his
decisions.
NOTE 27. Acts of the Apostles. (§ 77 seq. p. 488 seq.)
I cannot think that the view of Hug (p. 490), in relation to Luke's
long abode in Palestine before his union with Paul, is by any means
well-supported. There is nothing in Luke's Gospel or in the Acts of
the Apostles, which he might not have learned from eye and ear wit-
nesses in Palestine. What was he doing, during the two years that
Paul was in prison at Cesarea? Acts 24: 27. Abundance of time he
had, and the best of opportunities, to investigate avaεv all which he has
related in his Gospel, or in the first part of the Acts, respecting the oc-
currences in Palestine.
ω
When Hug suggests (p. 491), that the particularity of the narrator,
in the first part of the Acts, is proof of his having been an eye-witness,
etc., I do not feel the force of this remark. The same writer was an
eye-witness to many other events, which he relates very summarily. It
was the importance of the events which took place in Palestine, I ap-
prehend, which gave birth to Luke's particularity. Deeply interesting
it was, to see the beginning of the kingdom of God among the Jews,
and then its gradual development among the Gentiles.
That Luke did not design to give a general history of the apostles
and of their labours, is plain; as Hug suggests. He follows on in the
train of important incidents until the conversion of Paul. After this,
his account of other matters than those which concerned Paul, is mere-
ly occasional and quite brief. Paul is evidently the great object of his
story.
But to assume that the Acts was not published until after the death
of Paul (§ 81), and the same even of the Gospel also, is assuming more
than can in any way be established, and more, as I regard the matter,
than can in any way be rendered probable. Hug supposes, that the reason
why Luke has not given us any account of Paul's trial, his defence, his
final sentence, the issue of it, and what took place during his imprison-
ment, must be, that Theophilus lived near the scene of action, and was
acquainted with all that happened there. Of course, as he declares, he
regards the book of Acts as written only for the private benefit of The-
ophilus.
so to me.
Strange indeed all this will seem to most readers; at least it seems
Theophilus acquainted with all that befel Paul at Rome!
Why then does Luke relate the occurrences which are described in
Acts 28: 16-31? Above all, why does he tell Theophilus, that 'Paul
dwelt two whole years in a hired house at Rome, preaching and teach-
740
NOTE XXVII.
ing continually, as opportunity occurred? Did Theophilus, then, who
was personally acquainted with all which befel the apostle there, need to
be advertised of this? The supposition is little short of preposterous;
and not far from this (at least so I must view the subject), is the deduc-
tion, that Luke wrote his book after the death of Paul.
The very face of the last part of the narration is against this. Why
does Luke stop short with the two years of imprisonment? Because one
would naturally say, the time when he wrote his book permitted him to
go no further. Surely if Luke wrote for readers who felt a peculiar in-
terest in the history of Paul, (and who will not assent to this?) then,
after giving such a detailed account of every thing that befel Paul, from
the time of his first apprehension at Jerusalem until he was brought to
Rome as a prisoner, he could not have failed to proceed with the ac-
count of his trial and of the final issue of it. I take it for granted,
in this remark, that there is no substantial ground for Hug's theory here,
either in respect to the mere private design of Luke's Gospel and book
of Acts, or in regard to Theophilus' personal knowledge of matters re-
specting Paul at Rome. Having taken so much pains to tell his readers,
then, about the apprehension of Paul, his first trial, appeal, journey to
Rome, etc., is it within the bounds of any probability, that Luke would
not have said something of Paul's final trial and the issue of it, in case he
wrote the Acts after the death of the apostle? The case seems to me
so plain, as not to need further effort to illustrate it.
If this be correct, then the writing of the Gospel of Luke must have
been still earlier; for at the very commencement of the Acts, Luke re-
fers to his Gospel, and calls it rov пowτov lózov. This would seem,
therefore, to fix the date of the Gospel at a period antecedent to some
62 or 64 years after the beginning of the Christian era.
τ
π
The characteristics of the book of Acts are not explicitly given by
Hug. It would seem that Luke used, in the composition of his work,
some written notices of events and addresses. The preaching of Peter,
the addresses of Stephen, the various addresses of Paul, James, and
others, instead of being all conformed to one model, viz. to the model
of the author's own style, preserve respectively all the discrepancies and
distinctions of style and manner which we could have expected origi-
nally from their authors; and they thus shew, that they have been pre-
served and related with great care and fidelity. In Xenophon, Thucyd-
ides, Livy, and other Greek and Roman historians, we find all the vari-
ous speakers adopting the style of the author himself; which shews that
all of their speeches were composed by him. But not so in the Acts of
the Apostles.
That Luke had some particular and specific object in view, in writing
his book, has often been asserted, but never proved. It is plain, indeed,
that he means to give the early history of Christianity as developed in
Judea, and to give it somewhat particularly. After the religion of Je-
sus, however, began to be published among the Gentiles, we have al-
most nothing from our historian but accounts of the efforts made by
Paul and his companions for that purpose. A general history of the
church, therefore, Luke could not have intended. A particular ac-
count of Paul is no doubt his main design; but not for the sake of some
EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS.
741
specific doctrinal object; unless, indeed, one should say (which he
might do with some probability), that the main object of Luke is to
shew, that the privileges and blessings of Christianity belong as truly to
the Gentile as to the Jew.
As to the style; some of the peculiarities of Luke appear almost every
where in the book of the Acts, when the narration is his own. These
have been often and at great length pointed out. See Schott, Isagoge,
§ 46, Note 3.
The genuineness of this book has never been seriously called in ques-
tion, either in ancient or modern times. The testimony of the ancients
may be found abundantly in Lardner, Schmidt, and almost all the In-
troductions. See Schott, § 44, Note 2. De Wette (more suo) has sug-
gested some doubts and suspicions, in his Einleit. § 114. A brief an-
swer to them may be found in Schott, § 44, Note 3.
The chronology of the book of Acts is ably discussed by Hug. The
leading recent authors on this subject he has mentioned in a note on p.
494. All the older writers, Lardner, Pearson (Annales Paulini), and
many others, who have written the Life of Paul, discuss the same sub-
ject. Hemsen, in his recent Life of Paul, and others in Introductions,
Commentaries, etc., have all laboured in some way to cast light upon
this matter. But still, there are some difficulties in respect to it which
do not seem to have yet been fully overcome, and there is not sufficient
ground, therefore, to fix exact dates with great confidence. The main
difficulty lies in ascertaining the exact point of time, when the Aretas
mentioned in 2 Cor. 11: 32, was king over Damascus, and the governor
under him endeavoured to apprehend Paul. As the sway of this Ara-
bian king over Damascus lasted for some time, to fix exclusively upon
some definite point in this period is a matter of serious difficulty. But
there is such a spirit of chronological inquiry awakened and abroad
among able and learned men, that we need not despair of yet attaining
to a better chronology of the events recorded in the New Testament.
NOTE 28. Epistles to the Thessalonians. (§§ 91–95. p. 512 seq. )
Whoever will be at the pains of comparing the texts referred to by
Hug in 92, must become entirely satisfied that Paul wrote the first
epistle to the Thessalonians very soon after his arrival at Corinth, and
therefore in the year 52 or 53. Equally plain is it, that the second epis-
tle must have been written not long after the first, from the nature of the
case which it presents, and the manner of the whole epistle. It appears
from 2 Thess. 2: 1-3, that some one (probably belonging to the Thessa-
Ionian community) had forged an epistle in the nanie of Paul, designed,
as it would seem, to urge upon the Thessalonians the idea that the day
of the Lord, mentioned in Paul's first epistle, was very near at hand.
743
NOTE XXVIII.
Whether this was done for mere party purposes, i. e. to encourage one
party and terrify another; or whether fear or wanton conjecture gave
birth to this supposititious epistle, we are not informed by Paul. Howev-
er this may be, he did not deem it proper to leave the Corinthians in a
state of doubt as to what he had written, and what he meant to incul-
cate, by his first epistle. His second epistle therefore was written, in
order to deliver them from false apprehensions created by the suppositi-
tious epistle, and also to set them right as to the interpretation of his
own first letter to them. We may place the writing of the second epis-
tle, in view of these facts, at Corinth, and at some time during the lat-
ter part of the year A. D. 53, or in the first part of 54.
It is truly surprising, that after the explanation here professedly made
by Paul with respect to his meaning in the first epistle, when he declares
that "the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night,” etc., that a
great number of commentators and critics of the present day, still as-
sume it as a position made out, that Paul and all the other apostles and
primitive Christians expected the judgment-day before the close of the
then present generation of men. Is Paul then, I may be permitted to
ask, to be regarded as a proper interpreter of his own meaning? Can
the series of events to which he refers in 2 Thess. 11. be well supposed
to be all accomplished during the generation then extant? Can we sup-
pose that the day of the Lord was so near as this at hand, when Paul
declares that all solicitude on this subject, on the part of the Thessalo-
nians, is groundless? 2 Thess. 2: 1, 2. To me it seems, that Paul un-
dertook to correct the very interpretation of his words, in the first epis-
tle, which is now every day made by some, not only of this but of kin-
dred passages every where in the New Testament.
So has it been, too, with the Apocalypse. This book declares, at the
commencement and at the end of it, that 'the Lord will come quickly,'
and that "things which must shortly come to pass" (1: 1), were signi-
fied in vision to the holy seer. Yet this very book designates periods of
a "time, times, and half a time," i. e. 42 months, symbolical of the pe-
riod of the reign of Antichrist; also a period of 1000 years, symbolical
of the duration of the Messiah's kingdom on earth; and then again
another period of declension and of the prevalence of sin, before the
end of the world. How now could the writer begin and end his book,
when all this was in his mind or when he had already written it, with
the apprehension that all which he predicted was to be accomplished in
his own life-time, or at farthest during the period of the generation then
living? This supposition is preposterous in itself. Yet the evidence in
the New Testament in respect to the speedy coming of the Lord, is no
where in a shape more urgent and decisive than it seems to be in this
very book. The simple truth appears to be, that the series of events by
which the prophecy of the book was to be fulfilled, was to commence
and did commence very speedily. The book itself, as I apprehend,
was written just before the invasion of Judea by the Roman power,
which ended in laying waste the country and destroying the capital;
and this I regard as the subject of chap. iv.--XI.
If possible, however, the language in respect to the speedy coming of
the Lord seems to be stronger in 1 Thess. v., than even in the Apoca-
lypse. What says Paul? "The day of the Lord cometh like a thief
1
EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS.
743
in the night," i. e. suddenly and unexpectedly. So the next verse ex-
plains it again," Sudden destruction shall come upon them." But what
peculiar interest had the Thessalonians in all this? The apostle seems
to tell them what interest they ought to take in it: "Ye, brethren, are
not in darkness, that the day should overtake you as a thief.” How
could Paul have signified more plainly, we are ready at first reading to
exclaim, that the Thessalonians were every hour exposed to the sudden
and unexpected coming of the day of the Lord? Yet after all this, it
appears by the apostle's second letter to the Thessalonians, that all he
meant to say, was designed to console and fortify the minds of the
Thessalonians, and to assure them, that the sudden destruction which
awaited the wicked was not intended for them, or at least, that they
need not live in terror respecting it. Comp. 2 Thess. 2: 1, 2. It would also
seem, that what he had said respecting the sudden coming of the Lord
and consequent destruction of the wicked, was also designed for the en-
couragement of Christians to persevere in their obedience to Christ.
But they understood him, or at least the supposititious letter already ad-
verted to seems to have led them to understand him, as saying, that this
destruction of the wicked might be expected during the generation
then living. But even this Paul did not mean; although his words cer-
tainly seem to be capable, at first view, of being interpreted in this
manner. He assures the Thessalonians, in his second epistle, that the
wicked are not to be destroyed by the coming of the Lord, until Anti-
christ, or the man of sin, the son of perdition, shall have been fully de-
veloped.
Is this man of sin, now, an individual or a series of individuals; a
professed but apostate Christian or a heathen? Has he already appear-
ed, or is he yet to come? Did he begin his development in the days of
Paul, and continue it successively down to the present period (like the
fulfilment of the prediction in the Apocalypse), or is the whole devel-
opment still to be made?
·
These questions cannot be answered here; for a volume of discus-
sion would be required, in order to establish any one of the opinions
suggested by them, and refute such as would differ from it. Of course
it is impossible to enter seriously into the discussion, in a limited note
like the present. Whoever will be at the pains to compare 1 John 2:
18—29. 4: 1—6. 2 John vs. 7-10; also Jude vs. 4-20, and 2 Pet. 3:
3-15; and finally Rev. XIII. XIV., will be deeply impressed with the
conviction, that one and all of the New Testament writers had the ap-
prehension of a great falling off from the Christian church, and of great
opposition and enmity to it either on the part of the apostasy, or on the part
of others, or of both. Difference of light and shade is thrown by each
writer into his own individual picture; and probably some have sketch-
ed one part of it and some another; but that all the writers had parts of
the same generic idea or representation in their minds, I think will hard-
ly be questioned by the inquisitive and investigating reader.
That the prophecy of Paul in 2 Thess. 11. is to be interpreted in a
less specific and definite manner than has sometimes been done, any one
who is familiar with the interpretation of the Hebrew prophecies will
hardly call in question. Hug (p. 515) refers the whole to idolatry.
He doubtless knew that many among Protestant expositors have refer-
744
NOTE XXIX.
red it to his own church, i. e. to the Papal power. But must not the be-
ginning of the fulfilment be nearer to the time when the apostle wrote,
than the sixth century and the dark ages that followed? Are the man
of sin, the beast, the false prophet, any thing more or less than symbols
of enemies and persecutors of the church, and apostates and deserters
from it, of every or any age, of every and any condition? Questions,
which remain yet to be satisfactorily answered on proper exegetical
grounds, but which would be well worth the time and pains of some
able interpreter of the Scriptures. It is to be regretted that some of the
most able interpreters have not recently taken up the epistles to the
Thessalonians, and given them a more extended and radical investiga-
tion than they have yet received.
NOTE 29. Epistle to Titus. (§§ 96 seq. p. 515 seq.)
Hug, in his anxiety to establish his views as to the time and place of this
epistle, has omitted most of the circumstances which particularly inter-
est the critical inquirer.
It appears from Gal. 2: 3, that Titus was a Greek by birth. From
the context here it is also evident, that he was a confidant and a chosen
companion of Paul. He was also a confidential messenger of the apos-
tle to the churches; see 2 Cor. 7: 6, 13, 14. 8: 6, 16, 23. 12: 18. We
can have no difficulty, therefore, in giving credit to what is said (Tit.
1:1-5), in respect to the apostle's affection for him, or the important
charge which he committed to him.
The declaration in Tit. 1: 5, shews clearly that Paul had himself been
in Crete and preached the gospel there. But of this we have no ac-
count in the book of Acts; and therefore the probability as to the time
when, and the occasion on which, he made this journey, are to be made
out, if indeed they can be, from the circumstances of some journey re-
lated in the book of the Acts.
Paul mentions in his epistle to Titus (3: 12), that he was going to
winter in Nicopolis. But of the fact that he did so, Luke has no where
advertised us in his history of Paul. And, what makes this more diffi-
cult still, there were many cities of this name; several in Asia Minor,
one in Epirus, one near mount Haemus in Moesia, one on the Ister or
Danube in the same province, another near the river Nestur in the
south-east part of Thrace, and another in Egypt. Which of all these
was meant by Paul, seems not yet to have been made out with any good
degree of satisfaction.
The reader who attempts to trace out and find in the book of Acts,
all the journeys or transactions of Paul which are designated even in his
epistles, will surely be disappointed. Nothing can be more certain,
than that Luke has given us an account of only a moderate portion of
either the labours, the sufferings, or the journeyings of Paul. For ex-
ample; Paul, speaking of his own experience in 2 Cor. 11: 23 seq.,
"In labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons
says:
EPISTLE TO TITUS.
745
more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty
stripes save one, thrice was I beaten with rods, once was Istoned,
thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and day have I been in the deep;
in journeying often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, etc." In
Rom. 15: 19 he tells us that he had travelled even to Illyricum, and
preached the Gospel there; which region comprehends the modern
Croatia and Dalmatia, on the eastern shore of the gulf of Venice. From
these and many other notices of the same kind in Paul's epistles, it is
altogether evident, that we are not to look for a full and complete ac-
count of his labours and travels in the book of Acts.
Accordingly we have no where an account of his sailing to Crete, ex-
cepting that when he was carried to Rome, the vessel in which he was
embarked landed for a short time at Phenice, a harbor on the west-
northwest part of the island, Acts 27: 12. There is not even a remote
probability that Paul at this time went on shore and preached. Differ-
ent writers have therefore made out by conjecture, the occasion on
which, or the voyage during which, he first touched at Crete and
preached the Gospel.
Hug (§ 96) supposes Paul to have sailed by Crete, when he left Co-
rinth (after his first abode there of 18 months), and sailed from Cen-
chrea (Acts 18: 18), the eastern port of Corinth, which opened into the
Sinus Saronicus or Grecian Bay. But the reader may easily see how
improbable this is, by tracing the way over the Grecian sea from Cen-
chrea to Ephesus, where the apostle landed, Acts 18: 19. It would at
least have trebled his distance, to have gone round by Crete. Nor is
this all. Not a word in the history of this voyage intimates any storm,
any deflection of the ship from the regular course, any stop or landing,
or any apostolical labours in preaching.
Others think that Paul made a voyage to Crete, during his 18 months'
abode at Corinth, when he first went to that city, Acts, 18: 11. So Mi-
chaelis, Einleit. II. 1315.
Others, again, suppose the apostle to have gone there during his sec-
and visit of three months at Corinth (Acts 20: 3); e. g. Heinrichs in
Comm., Lardner, Lightfoot, and others.
Others suppose that Paul went thither during his second visit to Eph-
esus, where he abode some three years, Acts 20: 31. So Schmid,
Einleit. I. 265.
2
Böhl, in his Ueber die Zeit der Abfassung und d. Paulin. Character
der Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 1829, has fully discussed all these
suppositions, and shewn at least that none of them have any very invi-
ting claim upon our belief. Still, as the argument against the claims of
some of these suppositions must be founded principally or merely on the
silence of Luke in his history; and as we know that he did pass in si-
lence many important events of Paul's life; one can hardly feel himself
to be satisfied with objections simply of this nature.
On account of the difficulties, however, which attend the respective
suppositions above mentioned, many critics of name have been led to
suppose, that Paul's visit to Crete was later than any of which we have
a written narrative, and therefore that it took place after his liberation
from his first imprisonment at Rome, and before his second. So Mill,
Le Clerc, Bertholdt, Mynster, Guerike, Heydenreich, and Böhl. It
94
746
NOTE XXIX.
would seem that this is the attitude which most of the recent critics are
inclined to take. But as the second imprisoment of Paul at Rome is
loudly called in question, of late, by some intelligent critics, we are met
here again with occasion of doubt and difficulty.
More recent than any of the writings above named, is the solid, learn-
ed, and truly excellent work of Hemsen, late Professor at Göttingen,
and University-Preacher there, entitled Leben Pauli, i. e. Life of Paul,
published in part after the author's death, by F. Lücke, Professor at the
same University, who has furnished it with a Preface, which does equal
honour to himself and Hemsen. The work is not, as might be suppos-
ed from merely reading the title, one of biography simply; it is design-
ed to be, and is, a critical introduction to the epistles of Paul, as well
as a historical account of his labours. As a general historical and crit-
ical introduction to the reading of his epistles, it is the best with which
I have any acquaintance. The author is always grave, serious, disin-
clined to extravagant and conceited theories; and withal, a supernatur-
alist and of evangelical sentiments. In most cases, I can agree some-
what readily with his critical results. But as he here adopts the same
views with Hug; and as the whole basis of this theory must be laid in
the assumption, first that Paul in journeying from Corinth to Ephesus
(Acts 18: 18, 19), went round by the way of Crete, and secondly that at
Ephesus he met with Apollos soon after this, and helped to instruct him
in the Christian faith, and before his first departure from that place
(Acts 18: 21) wrote to Titus a letter in commendation of Apollos
(Tit. 3: 13),-as all this must be assumed (for surely it cannot be prov-
ed), it appears to my mind to be too large a demand in this way. In-
deed the second particular seems to be evidently against the tenor of the
history in Acts 18: 24-28. If Paul had actually seen and instructed
Apollos, it is easy to perceive how much more it would have been to the
purpose of the historian, whose aim was to commend this eloquent dis-
ciple, to give the reader some hint of it. But as he has not done this,
it is too much now to ask, in this case, that we should assume it.
But I must refer the reader to the temperate and able discussion of
Hemsen, pp. 193 seq., where he will find much ingenuity and great fair-
ness in debate; but still, the difficulties stated above, as to the main po-
sitions, are not satisfactorily removed.
So much can be said with certainty; viz. that there was abundance of
time during Paul's second visit to Ephesus and his three years abode
there, to make one or more missionary excursions to Crete. See Acts
xix. and 20: 31. That he did not do this, is not proved by the silence
of Luke; that he did it, can not be fully shewn, for it depends only
on conjecture which is not improbable.
The argument of Hug (on p. 516 seq.), in order to shew that Paul
landed at Crete during his voyage from Cenchrea to Ephesus, after his
first visit to Corinth (Acts 18: 18, 19), we have seen to be apparently
destitute of probability by reason of the circumstances of that voyage.
Nor is the author more fortunate, in my apprehension, in making out
the probability from the facts in relation to Apollos. Let the reader
carefully peruse Acts 18: 18-29 and 19: 1, and he must naturally
come, as it seems to me, to the conclusion that Apollos did not reach
Ephesus until after the first departure of Paul from it, Acts 18: 21. On
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
747
Paul's second coming to Ephesus (Acts 19: 1), Apollos was already
gone to Corinth. From thence he might have gone to Crete, after
Paul had himself been there and laid the foundations of a Christian
church. At Ephesus Paul would of course have a full account of the
character and labours of Apollos; and in like manner he could obtain
the same from his beloved Christian friends at Corinth; and in case
the apostle wrote to Titus at Crete, while he was himself at Ephesus, or
afterwards, he might, if Apollos was there, say what he does in Tit. 3:
17 in a perfectly natural way. Clearly there is nothing improbable in
all this.
Still, it all amounts to no more than a possibility, against which there
seems to be no very formidable objections. But the supposition of Hug
appears to me to be encompassed with great historical improbabilities.
The genuineness of the three pastoral epistles of Paul, was denied in
ancient times by the Marcionites and the followers of Basilides, a
Gnostic. Recently the apostolic origin of the first epistle to Timothy
has been called in question by Schleiermacher, in his Kritsches Send-
schreiben über den ersten Brief an den Timotheus; and the genuine-
ness of all three was stoutly impugned by Eichhorn, in his Einleitung.
The first named antagonist found an opponent in H. Planck, Bemer-
kungen über den Brief an den Timotheus, etc., 1808. Besides this au-
thor, Wegscheider in his Comm.; Bertholdt, Einleit. VI.; Bengel, Ar-
chiv. B. I. St. I; Beckhaus, Specimen Observatt. etc. de formulis in
prima epistola ad Tim.; Heydenreich, Die Pastoral briefe Pauli, 1826;
Guerike, Beiträge, etc., 1828; and G. Böhl, Ueber die Zeit der Abfas-
sung, etc., der Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 1829; have all discussed
the subject of the genuineness of the pastoral letters of Paul. A very
able and lucid summary of the principal points in the controversy, is
given by Schott in his Isagoge, 72 seq. To him, or to some of the
authors above named, specially Planck, Böhl, and Hemsen, I must, for
want of room here, refer the reader. I will only add, that the genuine-
ness of these epistles, so unanimously conceded by all the churches
catholic of antiquity, has not, in my apprehension, been rendered doubt-
ful by any of the attacks that have been made upon them.
If the supposition of Hug´is not correct, with regard to the time when
the epistle to Titus was written, it follows of course that the chronologi-
cal order which he has given it in his Introduction is not to be regarded
as the true one. Yet Hemsen, as we have seen, defends the position of
Hug. But the argument can never be made convincing.
NOTE 30. Epistle to the Galatians. (§ 99. p. 519 seq.)
Hug seems to take it for granted, that Paul had made a second visit to
the Galatians, before he wrote his epistle to them. I do not see that
this can be deduced, as he supposes, from the language employed by
the apostle in Gal. 4: 13, ευαγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον; for πρότε
748
NOTE XXX.
qov means only a time antecedent to that in which he wrote, or (as we
say in English) formerly or in time past. Paul then could express him-
self in this manner, whether he had made one or two visits to Galatia
before he wrote his epistle.
On the other hand, when the apostle (in 1:6), expresses his wonder
that ‘the Galatians had begun to depart from their primitive faith ourw
taxέws, so soon,' the most natural interpretation of this is, to refer it to
time and not construe it as meaning sine more, i. e. festinanter, prae-
postere, etc., as Schott proposes to do, Isagoge, § 53, Note 4.
α
Το construe δι' ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐαγγελισάμην as relating to
the apostle's condescension to Jewish prejudices when he first preached
among them, is evidently overlooking the sense which the context puts
upon these words; for the apostle proceeds to say: "Ye did not despise
τον πειρασμόν μου τὸν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου,” thus plainly shewing that it
was some physical debility or hindrance which he had suffered, while
labouring at first among the Galatians.
As to the fact, whether Paul actually wrote the epistle to the Gala-
tians after his second visit to them, this has been assumed and defended
by Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Winer, De Wette, and others, as well as by
Hug. Such may, indeed, have been the case; and perhaps, consider-
ing the time naturally requisite for the changes that the Galatian
churches had undergone in their sentiments, we may deem this to be
the more probable supposition.
The disputes about the chronology exhibited in the contents of the
epistle to the Galatians, which mentions Paul's visit to Jerusalem (1: 18.
2: 1), have been often repeated, and do not seem yet to be terminated.
The reader may obtain hints which will enable him to understand the
subject in dispute, by first of all acquiring a definite view of Paul's re-
spective journeys to Jerusalem; which, as recorded in the Acts, he
will find,
(1) In Acts 9: 26-28, (comp. Gal. 1: 18, 10.)
(2) In Acts 11: 27-30; which seems to have been a journey for mere
eleemosynary purposes, and probably took place, as the famine in the
time of Claudius enables us to determine, in A. D. 44 or 45. This fam-
ine began in A. D. 44, toward the close of the fourth year of the reign
of Claudius, Joseph. Antiq. XX. 5. 2. Kuinoel, Comm. on Acts II:
28, and particularly his Proleg. p. XXV. Allowing now some time for
the pressure of the famine, before it was severely felt, we may place this
eleemosynary journey of Paul near the close of A. D. 44, or in the be-
ginning of A. D. 45.
(3) The third journey of Paul to Jerusalem was made by him as a
delegate from the churches at Antioch to Jerusalem, in order to obtain
the views of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem in regard to the neces-
sity of circumcising Gentile converts; Acts 15: 1–30.
The question mainly disputed in regard to these matters is, how the
fourteen years mentioned in Gal. 2: 1 are to be counted. Those who
reckon άlv here as meaning the second journey of Paul to Jerusalem,
i. e. his eleemosynary one (as stated above), are obliged, of course, to
adopt a different reading of the Greek text, and instead of dia dexa-
τεσσάρων ἐτῶν, to read δια τεσσάρων ἐτῶν, i. e after four years (in-
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
749
stead of fourteen). So Capell, Grotius, Heinrichs, Bertholdt, and others.
See Kuinoel in Proleg. ut supra. So also Schott thinks the text should
be read. But here again the advocates of this reading are divided as to
the method of making out the four years. (a) Some count it from and
after the time when Paul made his first journey to Jerusalem; so that it
would be seven years, or in the eighth year, after his conversion, when
he made the eleemosynary journey; which may be made to tally with
his conversion in A. D. 36 or 37. (b) Others date his conversion in`
A. D. 40, and then reckon the four years from that time, and not from
the time of the first journey to Jerusalem. See Kuinoel ut supra, and
the authors cited by him.
Differing widely from these, other writers, and of late nearly all the
distinguished critics, suppose that the journey of Paul mentioned in
Gal. 2: 1, dia denateooάowv ¿tov, must have been the one named un-
der No. 3 above. So Irenaeus in ancient times, Adv. Haeret. III. 13.
$3; so Pearson in his Annales Paulini, Semler in his Paraph. in Gal.;
Koppe, Comm. in Gal.; Vogel, Commentatio, etc., in Gabler's Journal.
B. I. St. 2. Haselaar, de Nonnullis Actorum etc. 1806; C. Schmidt,
Chronol. der Apostelgeschichte, in Keil and Tzschirner's Analecten,
B. III. St. 1; Winer, in Excursus ad Comm. in Gal.; and Hemsen in
Leben Pauli. The two last have treated this matter in a way more per-
spicuous and satisfactory than even Hug has done, in 82 seq. of his
work. To them I must refer the reader for the detail of the various
considerations which belong to the subject.
Some of those who have advocated the views mentioned in the para-
graph which precedes the last, are Keil in his Opuscula; Eichhorn,
Einleit. B. III.; Süskind, Neue Versuch über Chronologie, etc., in
Bengel's Archiv, I.; Gabler, Neues theol. Journal, XIII.; Küchler,
de Anno quo Paulus etc. 1828; Flatt, Comm. über die Galater; Kui-
noel, Comm. in Act., Proleg.
I will add here, for the sake of furnishing the student with more ma-
terials of investigation, a brief statement in regard to the chronology of
the third journey of Paul, i. e. the one made to attend the council at
Jerusalem, as related in Acts xv.
Hug places this in A. D. 53 (p. 503). This would make the 14 years
mentioned in Gal. 2: 1, to be dated from and after Paul's first Journey
to Jerusalem in A. D. 39, as computed by Hug. The reader should be
advertised, that the confidence with which he speaks on this subject is
not altogether well grounded. He assumes, in order to make out his
argument, that the martyrdom of James, the imprisonment of Peter,
and the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts x11.), all happened while Paul
and Barnabas were at Jerusalem, during their eleemosynary mission,
Acts 11: 30. The time of the death of Agrippa is an important cir-
cumstance; for after his death, his son being a minor and unfit to conduct
the affairs of government, the Roman emperor sent Cuspius Fadus as
Procurator, and under him the famine commenced which was predicted by
Agabus, Acts 9: 28. It seems plainly to have been the pressure occa-
sioned by this, which sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem on their
eleemosynary errand.
Hug then, taking it for granted that the death of Agrippa happened
while they were there, seems to feel that here is a definite stand-point;
750
NOTE XXX.
for we know from Josephus (Antiq. XX. 5. 2), that Agrippa died after
the third year of Claudius was completed, i. e. after January of A. D.
44, for Claudius ascended the throne in January of A. D. 41. Our au-
thor also represents Paul and Barnabas as going up to Jerusalem on
their errand of charity, at the time when Peter was apprehended by
Herod Agrippa. Yet the death of Agrippa did not follow until some
time after this, viz. when he had gone to Cesarea. Hug states, on p.
495, that the famine followed after the decease of Agrippa (which we
know from history to be true as stated above); and yet, in the para-
graph next preceding, he represents Paul and Barnabas as having come
to Jerusalem before the feast when Peter was apprehended by Herod,
and of course before Herod's death, and therefore before the famine had
begun to exist. Of course he must construe Acts 11: 29, 30, as refer-
ring to a charity-mission which preceded the famine; for which opinion,
as I understand the text, no good reason can be given.
κα
και
The whole basis of Hug's argument here seems to me to be assump-
tion merely. How can we argue that there is an exact synchronism be-
tween the arrival, or at least the stay, of Paul and Barnabas at Jerusa-
lem, and the events of James' death and Peter's apprehension and He-
rod's consequent death? All that the writer says to guide us is this: xaz
¿zeìvov dè zacgóv x. v. λ, i. e. about that time, near that time. So far
as this expression is concerned, it may indeed have been at the very
time when the messengers from Antioch were at Jerusalem; or it may
have been a little afterwards, or a little before. Kará before a designa-
tion of time, is used in various senses; e. g. Matt. 27: 15, xara inv
Eoorýv, at the feast, during the feast; Heb. 1: 10, xar' άoyas, olim, in
days of gore; κατὰ τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἡμέραν, to morrow, on the coming
day, Jos. Antiq. VI. 5. 3. We are not limited, by the language of the
historian, to the supposition that the events related in Acts XII. are
strictly synchronistic with the visit of the messenger there from Anti-
och. Consequently the circumstances of the case are to guide us. But
these appear to be conclusive against Hug's view. The messengers
from Antioch come up to Jerusalem, in order to relieve (at least this seems
to me to be the plain sense of the passage) the pressure of Christians
there from a famine, which did not take place until some months after
Herod's death; and yet our author brings them to Jerusalem before the
death of Herod, and consequently before the famine had commenced.
It appears to me, indeed, quite plain, that James' martyrdom, Peter's
imprisonment, and Herod's death, had all taken place before Paul and
Barnabas went on their eleemosynary errand, because no special occa-
sion for such an errand existed, so far as we have any knowledge, until
after Herod's death. This leaves us, then, to find the time of this er-
rand only through the medium of the time when the famine happened,
excepting that the zar' ¿xɛivov xaóv of Acts 12: 1 advertises us, that
the time of the visit could not have been far from the time of the other
events just mentioned. But when we examine again into the history of
the famine, in Jos. Antiq. XX. 5. 2, we find that it lasted from A. D. 44
(latter part) to some time in A. D. 46, i. e. some two or more years.
How soon, or how late, during these years, did the church at Antioch
send to the relief of their brethren at Jerusalem? This is a point which
we have no means of deciding. Probable conjecture is all that we can
EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
751
offer; although the impression of the inexperienced reader, on perusing
Hug (p. 494 seq.), would probably be quite different from this.
0
Another important point assumed by Hug as certain, or nearly so, is
still attended with not a little difficulty. I refer to the period when Paul
went, for the third time, to Jerusalem, to attend a council of the apos-
tles and elders; which Hug places in A. D. 53. This can hardly be
made out with probability; certainly not with any good degree of assu-
rance. In Acts 18: 1, 2, long after the journey of Paul to attend the
council at Jerusalem, we have the statement that the apostle met with
Aquila and Priscilla,' who had lately come from Italy, because of the
decree of Claudius, which excluded the Jews from Rome.' Now, al-
though it cannot be shewn with entire certainty in what year of Claudi-
us' reign this took place, yet it seems to be quite probable, that it was
during the twelfth year, i. e. some time in A. D. 52. See Suetonius, Vita
Claudii, c. 15. Tacit. Annal. 12. 52; see also Schott's Isagoge, § 48.
Note 15, and the essays cited there. A considerable period must have
been occupied by Paul, in making his journeys and performing his la-
bours, as related in Acts xvI. XVII. What have we then, to guide us as
to the time when the council at Jerusalem was held? Nothing definite.
Schott proposes (as some others have done, and as the Chronicon Alex-
andrinum does), to read Gal. 2:1 thus: did teooάgov ¿ræv; and he
supposes Paul's conversion to have happened in A. D. 40 or 41; then
counting three years to his first journey to Jerusalem, and four years to
the time when Paul went up to attend the council, he makes it of course
to be held in A. D. 47 or 48. But here again critics are divided, and no
firm ground has yet been won, on which we can stand with entire con-
fidence. If we suppose that Paul was converted in A. D. 36, and then
(with Pearson) count the 14 years of Gal. 2: 1 from the time of his con-
version, we should of course have A. D. 50 for the time of the council
and of the journey which the apostle mentions in Acts xv. This would
accord well with the tenor of the history in Acts 18: 1, 2, as it would
leave some two years for the events in Acts xvI. XVII. It appears by
these two chapters, that Paul had traversed most parts of Asia Minor,
and of the sea coast of eastern upper Greece, before he came to Co-
rinth and found Aquila and Priscilla there. This was probably in A.
D. 52. But we can only conjecture, after all, as to the actual time of
the conncil at Jerusalem. Thus much, it would seem, must be true, if
the reading dezatenoάoor in Gal 2: 1 is retained, viz., that it was either
14 years after Paul's conversion, or 14 years after his first visit to Jerusa-
lem, which was three years subsequent to his conversion. Yet even
here we have not attained to all that we desire, as to the precise chro-
nology. His conversion is placed in A. D. 33, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, etc.,
with great confidence by different writers. On the whole, then, the
student need not expect any thing more than some tolerable degree of
satisfaction as to probability in any of these cases; at least in the pres-
ent stage of discussion. When critics speak about these matters with
confidence, and as though certain and precise dates were absolutely
made out, the reader must attribute this merely to the strength of the
writer's conviction, and not to the facts which the case allows us, as
yet, to consider as well established.
752
NOTE XXXI. XXXII.
To return for a moment to the time when the epistle to the Galatians
was itself written; I deem it not improbable that it was written not
long after Paul's second visit to Ephesus (Acts 19: 1), where he staid
three years (Acts 20: 21). His first visit is recorded in Acts 16: 6, when
the Galatian church was founded. This second visit was to confirm,
i. e. strengthen, encourage, render stable, the church there and in
Phrygia, Acts 18: 23. Soon after his second visit Paul came to Ephe-
sus, and staid there three years, Acts 19: 1. Now as nothing is hinted
of the defection of the Galatians, when Paul made his second visit to
them, but the same thing is said of Paul (intornoiswv) both in respect
to the churches of Phrygia and Galatia, it is very natural to conclude,
that after his second visit there was a speedy and unexpected change
among the Galatian churches, so that the outo Taxέws of Gal. 1: 6, is
altogether intelligible and apposite. Paul at Ephesus, the capital of
Asia Minor, had good opportunity to learn the state of the Galatians, and
leisure to write to them. Most probably, then, he did write here, and
not long after his arrival, as ouro taxέws would seem to indicate.
τα
τα
NOTE 31. First Epistle to the Corinthians. (§ 102 seq. p. 512 seq.)
The time and place of this epistle are so definitely given, that scarce-
ly any doubt can remain on the mind of the reader. 1 Cor. 16: 8 shews
us that the place was Ephesus; and 1 Cor. 16: 5 shews that it was writ-
ten near the time of Paul's departure for Macedonia, as related in Acts
20: 1, 2.
NOTE 32. Second Epistle to the Corinthians. (§ 106 seq. p. 530 seq.)
There can be no doubt, when any one reads attentively the second
epistle to the Corinthians, that it must have been written but a few
months after the first, and written during the apostle's journey through
Macedonia. It was somewhere in Macedonia, on this journey, that Ti-
tus met him with the tidings from Corinth, 2 Cor. 8: 5, 6; and the
same Titus was sent back to Corinth with the second epistle, 2 Cor. 8:
11—18, 23. 9: 3-5. Whether Philippi was the place of writing it, or
some other town, cannot be ascertained. See Hemsen, p. 312.
Efforts have been made to divide this epistle into several, which were
supposed to be written at different times. So Semler in his Paraphrasis,
and Weber in his Programma de numero Epist. ad Cor., etc. 1798. The
reader may find the discussion in Schott's Isag., § 57. The whole mat-
ter is so purely arbitrary, as hardly to merit a discussion.
FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
753
NOTE 33. First Epistle to Timothy. (§ 109 seq. p. 534 seq.)
What Hug has said in defence of his views here, is certainly ingeni-
ous, and on the whole seems to me more probable than any other suppo-
sition, in regard to the time when this epistle was written. Theodoret,
Benson, Zachariae, Michaelis, Hänlein, C. Schmidt, Koppe, H. Planck,
A. Curtius in his Comm. de Tempore quo prior ep. ad Tim. etc. 1828,
and others, are substantially of the same opinion with Hug. Hemsen
has decided in the same way, and has given us a most able discussion
of the subject; Leben Pauli, pp. 340 seq.
The difficulty which lies in the way seems to be, that in 2 Cor. 1: 1,
(written after Paul left Ephesus and during his journeyings in Macedo-
nia), the apostle joins Timothy with himself in the salutation; who,
therefore, must have been present with him. But Hug has shewn that
there is no very serious difficulty here; certainly nothing which is insu-
perable. The considerations, moreover, which are suggested in the
epistle in relation to the appointment of bishops and deacons, and the
various proposed arrangements of ecclesiastical matters, naturally point
us to an early state of the Ephesian church. Schott (Isag. § 73, Note
3) suggests, that the mention of false teachers, the command that a
teacher should not be a novice, and other circumstances of the like na-
ture, shew that the Ephesian church could not have been recently estab-
lished. But I do not feel the force of this argument. Paul had been
preaching at Ephesus some three years before he left the place, and then
he went away at the close of a great tumult. While he was there su-
perintending the concerns of the churches in person, they were not in any
special need of other pastors; but when he left the place, it was natu-
ral for him to wish that teachers and elders should be appointed, who
now could no longer be considered as veóquroi, provided they had been
among the early converts.
Bertholdt supposes that Timothy had been sent to Ephesus by Paul,
during his three months stay in Greece, i. e. in Corinth, after his journey
from Ephesus through Macedonia, Acts 20: 1-3; and that the apostle
wrote to him at Corinth, or at least on his return from Corinth to Asia.
Berth. Einleit. VII. 3571. But Acts 20: 4 is decisive against this, inas-
much as Timothy was still with Paul on his return from Corinth to Asia
Minor.
>
Finally, Usher, Pearson, Mill, Le Clerc, Wegscheider, Paley, Hey-
denreich, Guerike, and Böhl, decide in favour of a time which is pos-
terior to the first imprisonment of Paul at Rome. Schott inclines to
the same opinion, Isag. p. 298. Note 7; where the reader may find a
summary of the reasons in favour of this view of the subject. I
readily concede that there are some things in this view which in
themselves seem not to be improbable. ` Indeed one is almost ready
to hesitate between this view and the one given by Hug; but, on the
whole, I am rather inclined to the latter; and the more so, because
Hemsen (Leben Pauli, pp. 340-384) seems to have substantially an
swered the arguments adduced by the writers above named in favour of
the late composition of this epistle. To him I refer the reader; who
1
95
754
NOTES XXXIV. XXXV.
will find in him a summary of all which is of any importance that has
been advanced in relation to the topic before us, and a considerate esti-
mation of its critical value.
NOTE 34. Epistle to the Romans. (§ 114 seq. p. 541 seq.)
I must refer the reader here for all which I could say in regard to the
critical history of this epistle, to the introduction to my Commentary
upon it. Of course the time in which it was written is differently da-
ted, according to different views of chronology in respect to the life and
actions of Paul. Hug places the writing of it in the fifth year of Ne-
ro, i. e. A. D. 59 or 60, (Nero's reign began in A. D. 54); Schott sup-
poses it to be the latter part of A. D. 56 or the beginning of A. D. 57 ;
while Hemsen places it in A. D. 60, and so Eichhorn, Tholuck, De
Wette, and the majority of later critics.
Whoever wishes to see an ample and able discussion of all the criti-
cal doubts and difficulties that have been raised concerning this epistle,
may consult Hemsen (ut supra) pp. 394–422. In particular, what is
said about the order of the doxology in Rom. 16: 25-27; the order.
and genuineness of chap. xv. XVI., which have in various ways been
assailed; is most amply and very ably discussed by Hemsen,
in pp.
pp. 450
-466. In regard to the difficulties now in question I have given a brief
account in the commentary before named, and summarily discussed
them. The reader would not be aware, from reading Hug only, that
any of the difficulties in question had ever been raised. The theory of
Schott in regard to chap. xv. xvI., in his Isagoge § 59, Note 3, (of which
I have given an account in my work above named), is a most singular
conceit of a very learned, and for the most part solid, sober, and judi-
cious writer. Seldom will any author be met with, who has included
more or as much valuable instruction in the same compass, as this author
has done in his Isagoge. It is the more to be wondered at, therefore, that
he should have fallen upon such a singular conceit about the last chap-
ters of the epistle to the Romans.
NOTE 35. Epistle to the Ephesians. (§ 120 seq. p. 548 seq.)
Hug has stated, for substance, all the evidence from ancient times,
that the so-called epistle to the Ephesians had not originally a specific
direction given to it; at least that it was not directed principally or ex-
clusively to the Ephesians. The conjecture of Usher, that it was an
encyclical epistle, designed not only for Ephesus but for the churches in
its neighborhood, has been more generally received than any other ex-
planation of the difficulties respecting its original destination.
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
755
Hemsen (pp. 602 seq.), after adducing the facts which Hug has sta-
ted in regard to the testimony of Basil and Jerome, and also the opin-
ion of Marcion, comes to the conclusion, that Paul originally had sever-
al copies of the epistle made out, in one of which he wrote v Eœέów
in verse 1, in another ¿v Axodixɛig, and in others still (which were de-
signed for other churches where Tychicus the bearer of the epistle
might go and carry a copy) he wrote toîs ovow--and left a vacant
space after it, so that Tychicus might fill it up as occasion would re-
quire. In this way, he supposes, we may account for the readings in
Ephesus, in Laodicea, and also for Codices which omit both.
All are
but various ways of reading, which are equally correct and original.
I cannot well rest in such a conclusion; although, indeed, it is sub-
stantially that of Hug, p. 551. Other encyclical epistles, e. g. 1 Pet.
2 Pet., James, leave no vacant space in the inscription to be filled up.
Nor does it seem very probable that Paul would have sent his letter
abroad in this condition. Did he not know to what churches he meant
to send it? Was it likely that a prisoner at Rome urged every day
with the great business of building up a church in the metropolis of the
Roman empire, would attend to the multiplication of the copies of this
epistle, when he could have this done indefinitely by a request to the
church or churches to which it was to be sent? All this seems to me
to be too improbable to be readily believed.
How then shall the omission of ¿v' Eqέow be explained, in the copies
of which Basil speaks and to which he makes an appeal? A question
which it may be difficult to answer; and yet one that does not establish
the position which it is designed to establish.
Several things may be taken into consideration here, in the way of
preparation for some answer to this question. It is a common remark,
that there is almost nothing of allusion in this epistle to any personal
connection of the writer with those whom he addresses. He does not
here speak, as he does in the epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Thes-
salonians, etc., of intimate connection with them, of his state of mind
towards them, of theirs towards him; of false teachers or false doctrines
among them, which he foretold would come in upon them, when he part-
ed with the elders of this church at Miletus, Acts 20: 17 seq. Inasmuch
as Paul had spent almost three years at Ephesus, we should expect to
find every where in his letter, it is said, an overflowing of heart, a pa-
ternal tenderness and affection, which would characterize this above all
of his epistles. But instead of this, we find him speaking in a very
cool and distant manner : After I had heard of your faith in the Lord
Jesus and love to all the saints" (1: 15); just as if he knew nothing of
this matter except by hearsay. Then again, in 3: 2, 3, he says:
ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given
me to you ward, how that by revelation he made known unto me the
the mystery, as I wrote afore in a few words." And then in v. 4 he goes
on to say, that 'in case they have read that letter they may understand
his knowledge of the mystery of Christ.' Again, in 4: 20, 21, he
speaks of the Ephesians as not having learned Christ in a carnal man-
ner, if indeed they had heard and been taught in respect to him, as the
truth was in Jesus." How is it possible, now, it is asked, to suppose
that the apostle could speak in this manner to a church, which he had
-
If
7.56
NOTE XXXV.
founded in person, and to which he preached about the space of three
years?
Such is the sum of the argument against the alleged direction of the
epistle before us to the Ephesian church. Most of its force, however,
depends on a single particle, viz. eye, which seems to be wrongly under-
stood by many, and erroneously translated in our English version. This
particle, although a conditional one, yet does not seem, by N. Test. usage,
to imply doubt or uncertainty in respect to the conditional sentiment
which it precedes. E. g. 2 Cor. 5: 3, siye zai Evdvoάuevoi, “ since in
case we are [thus] clothed, we shall not be found naked, etc." Gal. 3:
4, "Have ye suffered so much in vain? éïye xai ɛizñ, since it is indeed
in vain,” i. e. it is so, in case ye have apostatized, as is reported. In Col.
1:23, we have lye Enquévete n. 1. 1, i. e. “in case ye shall continue
rooted and grounded in the faith." That they would persevere, the
apostle did not doubt, and did not mean to express a doubt.
((
These are all the cases of eye in the New Testament excepting the
two before us, in Eph. 3: 2 and 4: 11. In the first of these, the senti-
ment appears to be the following: Since ye know the dispensation of
the grace of God which
of God which is given me sis vuas, that he revealed to me
the mystery; (as I before wrote you briefly, which when you read, you
can consider (voñoα) my acquaintance with the mystery of Christ).”
Now there is one circumstance here, which seems to me to overthrow
the whole design for which this passage is quoted, in order to show that
Paul could not have directed this epistle to the Ephesians. It is the ɛis
vμas which he throws into it. What can this mean, but that the mys-
tery of the gospel entrusted to him, had been specially developed by
him to them. If you say: 'This was by the former letter which he here
mentions'; my answer is, that he only adverts to that as a summary (¿v,
oliya) of what he had preached, and the use to be made of it is, to
supply them with an aid to reflection or consideration in regard to what
he had preached. What could be more natural? The apostle had
been now absent from them some six or seven years. Can we suppose
that he had never written to them? He tells us plainly here that he
had; and that in that writing he had exhibited a summary of the mys-
tery of the gospel, the dispensation of which had been committed to
him εis vuas on their account. We find no evidence here then of
strangeness and distance on the part of the writer, but first a dispensing
of the grace of the gospel to them, and secondly of a familiar and
friendly epistle to them before the one which the author is now writing.
The second eye is still less in favour of those, who appeal to it for
the purpose already named. What says the apostle? But you have
not so learned Christ; since (¿ïys) ye have heard him [i. e. Christian
doctrine], and been taught by him (or in respect to him, v aur), as
the truth is in Jesus;" Eph. 4: 20, 21. Here the assertion of the apos-
tle is absolute, that the Ephesians have not erroneously learned Christ;
and this, says he, must be so, since they had heard and been taught as
the truth is in Jesus.
c
These supposed conditionalities, then, make no good ground of argu
ment for those whom I am now opposing. Nor does the axovoas of
1: 15 serve any better purpose. Why should we understand this of the
apostle's merely and originally learning something of the faith and love
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
757
of the Ephesian church by hearsay? Had he not been absent from
them some six years when he wrote the epistle before us? How could
he know whether they persevered in their faith and love, except by
hearsay? And what could be more natural than for him to inquire so-
licitously respecting their condition?
These alleged internal evidences, then, that Paul could not have writ-
ten this epistle to the Ephesians, seem to melt away before closer scru-
iny. Let us see, now, what there is of a different tenor, in this epistle.
The reader must open his New Testament and read for himself atten-
tively Eph. 1: 1-14. 2: 1—10, 3: 1, 13—21. He is desired specially
to note 3: 13, "my tribulation for you, which is your glory." 4: 1-3,
17–24. 6: 10-24. Are strangers merely addressed here? I ac-
knowledge that there is less circumstantiality here, than in the epistles
to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, and to some other churches. But
there is an obvious reason for this. Those epistles were written shortly.
after the apostle had been with the respective churches; and nothing
'was more natural in such a case than circumstantiality. But here, an
absence of some six years had made quite a difference in respect to this.
Many were dead whom the apostle personally knew; and others had
been joined to the church to whom he was personally unknown.
Taking all this into consideration, in connection with the unanimous
testimony of all the Mss. now extant, and all the ancient versions, there
can scarcely be room for much doubt, that ¿v 'Eqéo in chapter 1: 1 is
genuine, and that it stands properly there. How can we prescribe for
Paul, the particular manner in which he should address any church to
which he writes, and then make our preconceived notions on this sub-
ject, the measure of our critical judgment?
The reader should not fail to notice the remarkable similarity which
exists between the tenor of this epistle and that to the Colossians. Let
him compare, for example,
(a) Eph. 1: 4-12, 19-23
2: 14-22. 3:6, 9-12. 4: 15 seq.
2:1-12.
4: 22 seq.
(b)
(e)
5: 21-33. 6: 1–9.
(d)
5: 18 seq.
(f)
4:29.
(g)
(h)
6: 18 seq.
6: 21 seq.
Col. 1: 13-20, 24 seq.
2:9-15.
1: 21 seq.
3: 9, 10.
♡
3: 18-25. 4: 1.
3: 16 seq.
4: 5, 6.
4: 2 seq.
4:7 seq.
These are only a small part of the whole resemblances. A simi-
lar junction of sentences and the like phraseology may be found in
abundance. I refer the reader, for the tabular exhibition of this, to De
Wette's Einleit. ins N. Test. § 146; also to a brief but well digested
summary of the whole, in Schott's Isagoge, § 62, Notes 4-13. One
can hardly refrain from coming to the conclusion, that both epistles
must have been written near the same time, and while the writer's mind
was substantially in the same attitude.
758
NOTE XXXVI.
NOTE 36. Epistle to the Colossians. (§ 123 seq. p. 552 seq.)
The introduction to this epistle by Hug, seems at first to be meagre.
The difficult and interesting questions concerning it he does not discuss
here. But the reader will find more respecting some of them in § 131.
It is singular, that he, Hemsen, Bähr, and others, should appeal to
Eckhel (Doctrina Nummorum, III. p. 147), as confirming the orthog-
raphy Κολοσσαί, instead of Κολασσαί; while Schott and De Wette
make the same appeal, in order to prove that the latter is the true or-
thography. Critical editors are divided on the question which is the
best orthography. In the mean time, as the Roman and Greek writers
employ the O in the name (and not the A), this would seem to settle the
question which is preferable.
Hug assumes the fact (p. 553), that Paul had not taught in person at
Colosse. I cannot either assume it, or (on the whole) even think it to
be very probable. In Acts 16: 6 we have an account of Paul's travers-
ing the country of Phrygia, in which was Colosse and Laodicea, near
together, and both at a moderate distance from Ephesus. Again in
Acts 18: 23 is another narration of the same kind. It is indeed no where
actually specified, that Paul visited Colosse or Laodicea. But I do not
understand Col. 2: 1, as deciding against the supposition that Paul had
been at Colosse; as many do. Theodoret of old gave it as his opin-
ion, that "those who had not seen the face" of the apostle, were others
not included among the Christians of Colosse and Laodicea. So Lard-
ner, Schott, Hemsen, and others; while De Wette, Bähr, and others,
side with Hug. I cannot think it probable, that Paul, during his three
years' stay at Ephesus, would not have visited Colosse and Laodicea,
which were so nearly within his neighborhood. Be that as it may, how-
ever, the apostle speaks in a tone of such affectionate confidence to the
Colossians, as almost of necessity imports some personal acquaintance;
unless indeed he had told us expressly to the contrary, which he has
not.
That Epaphras, however, had been the principal instrument in buil-
ding up the Colossian church, is plainly indicated by Col. 1: 7. 4:
12, 13.
=
The principal occasion of the epistle to the Colossians, seems to have
been the rise of certain heretical teachers and fanatics among them,
as described in chap. 11. Who and what these were, has been a ques-
tion which has given rise to much discussion and a great variety of
opinion. Different critics have found in them Gnostics, Essenes, pre-
cursors of Montanism, disciples of John the Baptist, Jewish Cabbalists,
and Judaizing Christians; and some a sect compounded of several of
these. That the sect in question were professed Christians, but still
heretical ones, would seem to be implied by 2: 19, ov zvαt☎v tỷv xeq-
aλýv x. v. λ. The apostle's description of them is brief and graphic.
They were men, who, pretending to be philosophers, taught "vain de-
ceit, the traditions of men, the rudiments of the world," and not true
Christian doctrine. They were men who had over much zeal about
'meats and drinks, holidays, new-moons, and [Jewish] sabbaths' (2:
16); they were devoted to a kind of "angel-worship," and pretended
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
759
to a 'secret knowledge of the invisible world (ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύ
wv, 2: 18); they made much of mere external ordinances, which had
respect only to the perishing objects of sense; they made a great shew
of humility, of rigid abstinences, of macerating the body, etc.; yet
still they were vainly puffed up with overweening conceit respecting
their own superior virtue and intelligence; Col. 2: 20—23, comp. v. 18.
Such is the brief but animated description, which the apostle has given
of the heresy that disturbed the peace and threatened the purity of the
church at Colosse.
Two circumstances attending the exhibition of this subject serve to
shew, that many of the conjectures respecting the sect to which these
false teachers belonged, are not well grounded. It is plain, in the first
place, when we attentively examine Col. 2: 18-23, that the errorists in
question pretended to be Christians as has already been remarked; and
in the second place, that the church at Colosse were in danger of being
influenced by them, on account of their unusual pretences or claims to
humility, self-denial, and especially to a deep and recondite knowledge
of invisible and supernatural things; ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων, ν. 18.
Now all this could not belong to disciples of John the Baptist, to Gnos-
tics, Jewish Cabbalists, or Essenes, simply as such. It might indeed be
true, that some professed Christians had something of a Gnostic faith,
or of Cabbalistic fancy, or were inclined to the ascetics of the Essenes;
but so far as any part of this seemed to savour of these respective sects,
it would rather diminish than enhance their credit among the Colossian
Christians in general; and of course diminish the danger to which the
church was exposed by reason of them.
.
The sect in question, (if sect they must be named), would rather ap-
pear to have been one who maintained doctrines compounded of the ori-
ental emanation-philosophy and some of the speculative part of Platonism,
a kind of theosophico-ascetic philosophy. The emanation-philosophy
taught the derivation of many orders of beings of different rank, first
from the great Supreme, and then in succession from each other. To
become capable of union with these, ascetic practices and abstraction
to all possible extent from every thing material and sensual, was deemed
necessary. A philosophy of this kind had not only reached Asia Mi-
nor, but penetrated even to Rome, before the time of Augustus; see
Hemsen, pp. 203 seq. 642 seq. Much of this philosophy some of the
professed converts to Christianity might have still retained; and it would
seem from the epistle to Titus, Timothy, and to the Colossians, that they
did retain it. Hence the dignity of Christ and his high exaltation over all
these alaves (Aeons) are so strenuously inculcated in the epistle before
This seems to be the most natural and easy solution of the difficul-
ties that have been raised as to the contents of this epistle. The reader
will find a very able and learned statement of this subject, in the sequel
of Hug, viz. in §§ 131-133.
us.
As to the dispute respecting the epistle to the Laodiceans (§ 127),
Hug is clearly in the right, as it seems to me, when he comes to the
conclusion, that the epistle to the Colossians was not occasioned by one
from the Laodiceans to Paul, as some argue from (Col. 4: 16); nor was
the epistle directed to the Colossians an answer to that Laodicean epis-
760
NOTE XXXVII.
7
tle. But the conclusion of Hug and Hemsen that the epistle to the La-
odiceans was our present canonical epistle to the Ephesians, seems not to
be equally well grounded. Their main reason is, that we cannot account
for the loss of the epistle to the Laodiceans; and we must therefore sup-
pose that it has been preserved, and consequently that we have it in the
present epistle to the Ephesians. But how shall we account for the
loss of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5: 9? Or for the
loss of his first epistle to the Ephesians, 3: 3? Or of an epistle by
John, 3 John v. 9? And so, perhaps, of still more. Why should we
plunge into greater difficulties in order to avoid less ones? It is easier
to suppose the epistle to the Laodiceans to have been lost, than it is to
account for it that Paul calls the epistle to the Ephesians by that name
in Col. 4: 16.
Lastly, the time and place of writing the epistle to the Colossians.
have recently been called in question. The Coptic version gives Ath-
ens as the place of writing it; Erasmus conjectured that Ephesus was
the place. But both are contradicted by Col. 4: 3, 18, which shews
that the writer was in bonds. Oeder conjectured that it was written
during some imprisonment previous to that at Rome; and Paulus, dur-
ing Paul's imprisonment at Cesarea. But the circumstances of the
case, the society of Demas, Tychicus, Onesimus, etc., at Rome, advert-
ed to in Col. 4: 7 seq., point very clearly to the Romish imprisonment,
and not to that of Cesarea, where none of these persons seem to have
been.
The recent works on this epistle, or containing critical discussions
respecting it, are Boehmer, Isagoge in epist. ad Coloss. 1829. Bähr,
Comm. in Col. 1833. Hemsen, Leben Pauli, 1830. D. Schulz, in Stu-
dien und Kritiken, II. p. 535 seq. F. Junker, Histor. Crit. und Philol.
Comin. über die Coloss. 1828. Schneckenburger, in Anhange zur Pros-
elytentaufe.
NOTE 37. Epistle to Philemon. (§ 127. p. 555).
Hug has said nothing of the place where probably was the residence
of Philemon. It appears from Col. 4: 9, that Onesimus belonged to
Colosse. It would seem, therefore, of course, that his master also lived
there; and Theodoret says, that in his time the house of Philemon was
standing there, Comm. in Philem.
It has been a question, where Onesimus was converted to the Chris-
tian faith. Some have maintained that it was at Colosse; others, at
Ephesus; others, at Rome. Nothing certain can be made out respect-
ing this point. But Philem. v. 19 appears to me plainly to intimate,
that Philemon himself had been converted under the preaching or in-
struction of Paul; and this would seem to increase the probability that
Paul had himself been at Colosse.
SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
761
That the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, and also to Phile-
mon, were written about the same time, and sent away by the same
messenger, viz. Tychicus, appears from comparing Eph. 6: 21, 22 and
Col. 4: 7, 9. As Onesimus was in company with him, he would there-
fore most naturally carry the letter addressed to his master.
NOTE 38. Second Epistle to Timothy. (§ 128 seq. p. 556 seq.)
The circumstance on which Hug, De Wette, and others seem to re-
ly, in order to prove that the second epistle to. Timothy was written before
the epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, and after that
to the Ephesians, viz. that Timothy was not joined with the apostle in
his salutation prefixed to the latter epistle, and therefore was not come
to Rome when 2 Tim. was written (4: 9), while he is mentioned in the
salutation of all the other epistles written during Paul's imprisonment,
does not seem to me to be a conclusive argument. Timothy was an ac-
credited messenger and friend of Paul, who was continually making
visits to different churches, agreeably to the directions of the apostle.
The circumstance of his being present or absent, therefore, as developed
in any particular epistle of Paul written during his imprisonment for
two years and upwards, can never fully decide any thing as to the par-
ticular order in which the epistles were written.
The question whether the second epistle to Timothy was written dur-
ing the first or a second imprisonment of Paul at Rome, is one that has
been long and vigorously contested, and is not yet brought to a close.
Baronius, Witsius, Lightfoot, Hammond, Zachariae, Schmidt, Hug,
Hemsen, and others, contend for the first; while Mosheim, Michae-
lis, Bertholdt, Mynster, Heydenreich, Guerike, Böhl, Usher, Benson,
Mill, Le Clerc, Paley, and others, contend for the second.
Hug (p. 556) has produced some striking examples of the presence or
society of several individuals with Paul when he wrote the second epistle
to Timothy, who were with him in his first imprisonment; so striking
that they seem, at first view, almost to forbid the idea, that there could
have been another time, i. e. a second imprisonment, when all these cir-
cumstances would have so concurred.
But he has not given a full view (in § 129) of the difficulties that lie
in the way of his supposition. Nor has he removed in a satisfactory
manner those which he has mentioned. E. g. he says that the declara-
tion of Paul, that Erastus stayed (usive) in Corinth (where he belong-
ed, see Rom. 16: 23), does not import that the apostle left him there,
but only that he had not come to Rome where he was expected. But
this phraseology (uεive) would be so singular and unnatural to express
such a sentiment, that it cannot be so interpreted without doing violence
to the usual principles of language.
Then again: "Trophimus άnékinov at Miletus sick." Who left him
there? They, says Hug; and he appeals to the form of the verb, which
may be either the first person singular, or the third person plural. But who
:
96
762
NOTE XXXVIII.
are they? Hug does not tell us, excepting that he suggests the custom
of the churches in sending messengers to aid those churches, and spe-
cially those apostles, who were suffering from persecution. But as
nothing is suggested in the context which would supply us with a sub-
ject of the verb in the third person plural, so we are led naturally and
of course to construe anέnov in the first person singular, and conse-
quently to apply it to Paul. But when could Paul have gone to Miletus?
Certainly not when he sailed from Cesarea to Rome as a prisoner; for
the course taken by the ship in which he was embarked, leads of ne-
cessity to this conclusion. The only time which the history of Paul
mentions his being at Miletus, was during his last journey from Greece
to Jerusalem (Acts 20: 15 seq.) which was some five years before he
wrote his second epistle to Timothy, even according to the chronology
of Hug and Hemsen. How could it be to Paul's purpose, when he ur-
ges Timothy to come to him immediately because other helpers failed,
to say that some five years or more before this, he had left one helper at
Corinth, and another at Miletus? The only natural supposition in this
case is, that Paul, not long before his arrival at Rome, had parted with
both of these friends; and of course this must import that there had
been another circuit made by him in the performance of his evangelical
labours, of which the book of Acts gives us no account, and which
must have been after his first imprisonment. It could not have been
during his journey from Corinth to Jerusalem; for it appears by Acts
21: 29, that Trophimus was with Paul at Jerusalem.
With this agrees 2 Tim. 4: 13. Bring my cloak left at Troas, and the
books, and the parchments.' Had all these then been there for the space
of more than five years, and Paul had not needed or not remembered
them? Did he want for opportunity to send for them, when he was two
years at Cesarea? To suppose a mandate of this kind, after so long an
intervening period, is at least highly improbable.
Other historical difficulties exist. In 2 Tim. 4: 12, Tychicus is men-
tioned as being sent away by Paul to Ephesus; in Col. 4: 7, 8, he is
spoken of as about to be sent with the letter to the Colossians to carry
which he would of course land at Ephesus. Yet Hug places the 2 Tim.
before the epistle to the Colossians.
Again; in 2 Tim. 4: 10, Demas is mentioned as having forsaken
Paul, through love of the world; in Col. 4: 14 Demas is mentioned as
being present with Paul, and joining with Luke in salutations to the
Colossians; all in opposition to the views of Hug.
Once more; the civil process against Paul appears to be far advanced
(2 Tim. 4: 16), and he has no expectation of escape from death (2
Tim. 4: 6); whereas during his first imprisonment, he expresses the
joyful and confident expectation that he shall be liberated, and soon be
with the church at Philippi, Phil. 1: 24–26. 2: 24; and again in Philem.
v. 22, he directs his friend to prepare lodgings, which might be ready
against the visit which Paul intended to make to Colosse.
There are other minute circumstances of difficulty. In Rom. 16: 3,
Paul, writing at Corinth just before his journey from there to Jerusalem
when he was apprehended, mentions Priscilla and Aquila as being at
Corinth; while in 2 Tim. 4: 19 Timothy is directed to salute them at
Ephesus. In 2 Tim. 4: 10, only Luke and Mark are mentioned togeth-
EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS AND HEBREWS.
763
er as being with Paul; while in Acts 27: 2, Aristarchus is mentioned as
a companion of Paul on his journey to Rome, and again he is mention-
ed as being with Paul at Rome in Col. 4: 10 and in Phileni. v. 24, in
both which cases Mark and Luke also are mentioned.
On the whole, therefore, it seems to me much easier to suppose the
presence with Paul of the persons mentioned by Hug, on p. 556, du-
ring a second captivity, than to dispose of the difficulties which have
been mentioned. Add to all this that Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodo-
ret, and others of the ancients, gave full credit to the liberation of Paul
from his first imprisonment. There is, moreover, a passage in Clemens
Romanus, who must have known the fact whether Paul was liberated
or not, which implies that he went into Spain, i. e. to the pillars of Her-
cules. His words are: δικαιοσύνην διδάξας όλον τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἐπὶ
τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών κ. τ. λ. Ep. ad Cor. c. 5. Το construe to
Tεqua ins dvoεws of Illyricum, as mentioned in Rom. 15: 19, as Hem-
sen does (p. 710), seems to be doing violence to the plain and obvious
meaning of the expression of Clemens.
If these suggestions are well grounded, then has Hug given an erro-
neous place to the epistle to Timothy. At all, events it would seem ne-
cessary to put it after the epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and
Philemon; as the suggestions above will serve to shew.
The literature in regard to this subject, may be found in Bertholdt,
Heydenreich, Guerike, Böhl, Schott, and specially in Hemsen, in their
works already often cited. Schott has given a very judicious and well
composed summary of the whole.
NOTE 39. Epistle to the Philippians. (§ 138 seq. p. 577 seq.)
Oeder supposes this epistle to have been written during the apostle's
troubles at Corinth; which needs no refutation. Paulus conjectures
that it must have been written during Paul's imprisonment at Cesarea.
Rheinwald in his Comm. über die Philipper, Heinrichs in his Comm.,
and Mynster in his Kleine theol. Schriften, have sufficiently refuted this.
Heinrichs and some others have made the conjecture, that our pres-
ent epistle to the Philippians consists of two different epistles; the first
of 1.-11. I and 4: 21–23; and the second of the rest of the epistle.
Schott has sufficiently answered the arguments adduced in favour of
this conjecture; Isagoge, $ 70, Note 2.
NOTE 40. Epistle to the Hebrews. (§ 141 seq. p. 578 seq.)
As I have written so fully on the much controverted subject of the au-
thorship of this epistle, in the introduction to my commentary upon it,
it would be mere repetition for me to insert any thing more in this place
respecting the subject. The current has for some time past been set-
ting strong in Germany, against the Pauline origin of this epistle. The
764
NOTE XL.
late work of Bleek upon it has helped to deepen and render more rapid
this current. Yet I cannot help the feeling, that it would not be diffi-
cult to prove almost any thing from antiquity, if one may take the lib-
erties in logic which Bleek takes. The internal arguments, on which he
so much relies, can be made equally strong in regard to Paul's pastoral
epistles; and, so far as ana heyoueva are concerned, or peculiarities
in choice or use of words and phrases, equally strong in regard to al-
most any other of his epistles. When will it be understood that Paul
was no tame and lifeless repeater of the same words and phrases, no
plagiarist, no mere imitator, not even of himself? When this is well
understood, much less reliance will be placed on arguments of this
nature.
As to the proper historical evidence, it seems to me to be plainly, and
(I had almost said) immeasurably, on the side of the Pauline origin,
during the early period of the church. Where in all the Greek church-
es is even a solitary voice against such an origin?
If Eusebius in one place reckons it among the avrihejóμevoi, it
plainly seems to be only in reference to the doubts which had been
raised by some in the occidental region of the church. He says, that
there are FOURTEEN epistles, which are manifestly and certainly Paul's,
τοῦ δὲ Παύλου πρόδηλοι καὶ σαφεῖς αἱ δεκατέσσαρες, Hist. Ecc. III.
3. Of course we must include the epistle to the Hebrews in order to
make out the number fourteen.
Nothing can shew the general state of the opinion in the East rela-
tive to this matter, down to the time of Eusebius, more definitely and
certainly than this testimony. Every one who has read this writer
knows, that he is very candid and careful as to the mentioning of differ-
ent opinions respecting such matters, when he has any knowledge that
they exist.
But while the current has of late been setting so strongly in the main
against the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews, some vigor-
ous efforts have been called forth on the other side. Storr, in his Comm.
über die Hebräer; Meyer, in Ammon and Bertholdt's Krit. Journal II.
B. 3 St.; De Groot, Disputatio qua Ep. ad Heb. cum Paulinis epistolis
comparatur, 1826; Steudel, in Bengel's Archiv IV. B.; and some oth-
ers, have defended the Pauline origin. But Schulz, Seyffarth, De
Wette, Bleek, Schott, and almost all the late critical writers, have either
actually opposed this sentiment, or shewn that they did not admit the cor-
rectness of it.
Recently Olshausen has published an Essay in his Latin Opuscula,
which deserves very attentive perusal. He admits, on the whole, that
the Pauline origin is to be doubted, or rather, that we cannot well de-
cide in favour of it. But the object of his essay is, to shew what an
unfair estimate has been put upon the arguments adduced to establish
the antipauline theory, and how much more has been assumed than can
be made out by proof. I can only express my wonder, that this was not
long ago seen by him and by many others. Whatever may be the fact
in regard to the real author of this epistle, nothing can be more certain
in my mind, than that the great majority of the arguments employed to
establish the antipauline theory, are entirely destitute of any real force.
Indeed I scarcely know of any one subject in criticism, which has
EPISTLE TO JAMES.
765
seemed to me to have been more abused. I would hope that the sober
and candid appeal of Olshausen may do something to arrest the current
of opinion in relation to this matter, so far as this has been influenced
by considerations which will not bear the test of well-grounded histori-
cal criticism.
In truth it seems more and more evident to me, that the historical
doubts raised respecting this epistle, would never have gained much
ground in recent times, had they not been aided and influenced very
much by the tone and manner of the epistle. And yet this is a sub-
ject about which we cannot be very certain, so long as there are so ma-
ny evident and confessed resemblances of thought, expression, and
style in it, to the other epistles of Paul. Schleiermacher and Eichhorn
have urged the same objections against the Pauline origin of the epis-
tles to Timothy and Titus; and with apparently as good reason. Yet
these objections have not been generally deemed to be of any consider-
able weight.
Dr. Bloomfield, in the second edition of his Comm. on the New Tes-
tament, has acceded only in part to the views of those who deny the au-
thorship of Paul. He supposes that some intimate friend of Paul, ac-
quainted with his sentiments and style, wrote it, and that Paul then
gave it his sanction. In this way, he thinks, that both opinions may be
harmonized, and the epistle at the same time preserved. This opinion
was for substance advanced by Origen. The thoughts, he said, were
those of the apostle; the words or diction might belong to Luke or
some other person. Yet Origen speaks of the epistle as Paul's in a mul-
titude of places; and indeed his views did not forbid him so to do, nor
was it even an inconsistency in him.
That the thing supposed by Dr. Bloomfield may possibly have taken
place, I surely would not deny. That we have definite and satisfactory
evidence of it, I must doubt. While I acknowledge very freely, that
there is, in many respects, an apparent discrepancy between the style of
this epistle and that of Paul's acknowledged epistles, yet I doubt wheth-
er this can be made to appear as being any greater, than exists between
Paul's pastoral and his other epistles.
The reader will find a summary of the antipauline arguments, in the
Isagoge of Schott, and in the Einleit. of De Wette.
NOTE 41. Epistle of James. (§ 155 seq. p. 611 seq.)
The remarks made upon the local circumstances of the writer, in
$ 155, are striking, yet obvious; but they shew only that he lived in
a country where the circumstances mentioned actually existed. It does
not follow from any necessity of the case, that this country was Pales-
tine; for the same circumstances existed elsewhere. Still, the general
tenor of the epistle would speak in favour of its being written from Pal-
estine. From what other quarter was a writer so likely to be heard
with deference by all Jewish Christians, as from this? Or where else
766
NOTE XLI.
could he seem to stand in so influential a relation to "the twelve tribes
scattered abroad?
On the subject of § 158 it may be remarked, that there is scarcely
any certainty to be attained in relation to this disputed point. The first
James, i. e. the brother of John and son of Zebedee, is admitted by
nearly all to be out of question, on account of his early death; Acts
XII. The subject of dispute is, whether James the son of Alpheus, son
of Mary the sister of Jesus' mother, is the author of the epistle; or
whether it is a James, a real brother by the mother's side, or brother in
law, to Jesus, i. e. a son of Joseph by another marriage.
The difficulty is occasioned by the indefinite use of the word adɛλ-
gós in Hebrew-Greek, and the word in Hebrew; inasmuch as either
of these words may mean brother in the strict sense, and also cousin, i. e.
a near male relative. The brethren of Jesus are mentioned in Matt.
13: 55 and Mark 6: 3, by the Jews who undertake to apologize for their
unbelief; and again they are mentioned in Acts 1: 14 and 1 Cor. 9: 5.
In Acts 1: 14 and in Matt. 12: 46, 47, the mention of them stands im-
mediately connected with the mention of Mary, the mother of Jesus,
and seems plainly to import that they belong to her family. In Gal. 1:
19, James the Lord's brother is mentioned by name.
It is objected to the opinion, that the James mentioned as an apostle
(not the son of Zebedee), Matt. 10: 3. Mark 3: 18. Luke 6: 15. Acts
1: 13, was in the strict sense the brother of our Lord, (1) That he is
there reckoned as the son of Alpheus. (2) That the brethren of Je-
sus did not believe on him; John 7: 5. (3) That the brethren of Je-
sus, who however appear at a later period to have become believers, are
still distinguished from the apostles, Acts 1: 14. (4) That an appella-
tive, adeloos tou xupiou (Gal. 1: 19), would not be in place, nor agree-
able to common usage, if it meant no more than a cousin; and there-
fore, that the cases in which this appellation is given, must be distin-
guished from those in which James the son of Alpheus is mentioned,
and another person be meant.
In accordance with this view, Grotius, Hammond, R. Simon, Herder,
Niemeyer, Zachariae, Tholuck, Fritsche, De Wette, and others, sup-
pose the James mentioned in Gal. 1: 19. 2: 9, and who appears to have
had a high standing, yea a leading influence at Jerusalem (Acts 12: 17.
15: 13. 21: 18), was not an apostle, in the appropriate sense of this
word, but in a strict sense the brother of Jesus.
On the other hand, many others, indeed the majority, hold that James
the son of Alpheus and James the brother of the Lord, are one and the
same person. So Calov, Buddaeus, Wolfius, Pritius, Carpzov, Semler,
Rosenmüller, Pott, Storr, Augusti, Winer, Gabler, Haenlein, Eichhorn,
Bertholdt, Hug, Schott, and many others. These appeal to the latitude
of the word brother in Hebrew, in vindication of their opinion.
It appears from Josephus (Antiq. XX. 9. 1), that after the death of
Festus, James, an adeλpo's xvoiov was murdered by procurement of the
then high-priest, Ananus; see Hug, § 164. De Wette, § 163, Note d.
This must have been about A. D. 64. The James who was the proper
brother of our Lord, or the James the son of Alpheus who was his
cousin, might either of them, so far as respects any thing that we know
EPISTLE TO JAMES.
767
respecting the length of time in which they lived, have been the author
of the epistle before us.
The general feeling has, as we have seen, set strongly in favour of re-
garding the apostle the son of Alpheus, as the author of this epistle or
exhortation. But a proper brother of Jesus, who stood in such credit
among all Christians, as we have seen above, might write an epistle of
good authority; why not, as well as Mark or Luke could write a Gos-
pel? The question is not very important, in my apprehension, to which
of the two individuals the epistle belongs, to whom it has, by different
writers, been attributed. Past experience would hardly encourage us
to expect, that this question will be definitely settled.
C
The reader will perceive, that the early testimony respecting the
epistle of James, which is deduced from the most ancient fathers, is
comparatively meagre. Two passages in Athenagoras, an early father,
deserve notice, although the reference to James in them may not be al-
together certain : viz. ὡς γὰρ ὁ γεωργὸς καταβάλλων εἰς γῆν τὰ σπέρ
ματα, ἄμητον περιμένει οὐκ ἐπισπείρων κ. τ. λ, comp. James 5: 7.
Athenag. Leg. pro Christ. p. 37. So the following: où yào µelérŋ hó-
γων, ἀλλ' ἐπδείξει καὶ διδασκαλείᾳ ἔργων τὰ ἡμέτερα, comp. James
3: 13.
τα
τα
It would be useless to appeal to testimonies in the fourth century; as
they may be found in every quarter, and no doubt remains of its general
reception at this period.
In the mean time, the remark of De Wette, who is uncommonly
watchful for every matter of doubt, on the expression of Origen quoted
in Note 3, p. 623, viz. ὡς ἐν τῇ φερομένη Ιακώβου, seems to have
no good foundation. De Wette appeals to the word geoouέvn, as de-
signating a doubt in the mind of Origen, whether this epistle in reality
belongs to James, inasmuch as he seems to say, that it is only reported
(pεooμεvn) to be his. But this word is not by any means used among
the Christian fathers, so as necessarily to convey merely such an idea.
Eusebius, in Hist. Ecc. III. 25, employs the same word in speaking of
the first epistle of John, which, however, he expressly reckons among the
oμoloyovuεva or uncontradicted writings of the New Testament.
One obvious reason may be suggested, why the epistle of James is no
more frequently quoted by the ancients; this is, that it is made up most-
ly of mere hortatory and practical matter. Another reason, perhaps,
had some influence, viz. that it seems to contradict some of the positions
which Paul had taken in regard to the matter of justification by faith.
For this latter reason, perhaps, Erasmus entertained doubts respect-
ing its authenticity; Annott. in Jac. At any rate, Luther, in his Preface
to this epistle, assigns this reason, and stoutly maintains that it is well
grounded: "Sie stracks wider St. Paulum und alle andere Schrift den
Werken die Gerechtigkeit gibt," i. e. 'it ascribes justification to works,
directly contrary to St. Paul and all other Scripture.' So in his Pre-
face to his New Testament, he says: "St. Jacobs Epistel ist eine rechte
stroherne Epistel," i. e. 'St James epistle is a downwright strawy epis-
tle.'-So too judged Andrew Althammer, and the Magdeburg Centuri-
ators; all for the same reason, viz. because James contradicts Luther's
768
NOTE XLI.
views of justification; for that he contradicts Paul's views, can never
be made out.
The reader who wishes to investigate this last point, is referred to a
dissertation upon it in Dr. Knapp's Scripta varii Argumenti, translated
and printed in the Bib. Repository, III. p. 189 seq. Also a more able
and satisfactory dissertation by C. Fromann, translated and printed in the
Bib. Repository, IV. p. 683. In my Comm. on the Romans, in an Ex-
cursus on Rom. 3: 28, I have also endeavored to shew that the two apos-
tles are altogether harmonious with each other. Hug, in § 166, ex-
hibits a brief discussion of the subject; but it is hardly ample or able
enough to remove the difficulties which he has stated without due cau-
tion, (for so it seems to me), in § 157.
As to the style and diction of this epistle, they are remarkably dis-
crepant from all other writings of the New Testament. There is less
of proper Hebraism than usual. An oratorical and even a poetic man-
ner belongs to its characteristics. Let the reader consider particularly
the whole tone of address, and the manner of composition in 1: 14—18.
3: 5-9. 5: 1–6. The whole epistle is a most vivid piece, fraught with
feeling, bold in manner, and unsparing in reproof; and yet very affec-
tionate, tender, and well adapted to win its readers.
Although it is peculiarly sui generis in respect to style and manner,
it still exhibits evidence of an intimate acquaintance and familiarity
with the writings of Paul and Peter. Let the reader compare, for ex-
ample,
1:6
James 1: 3 with Rom. 5: 3.
4: 14.
•
James 4: 4 with Rom. 8: 7.
4: 12
14: 4.
The similarity of tone with that of Peter, is still more striking; com-
pare,
James 1: 2, 3 with 1 Pet 1: 6, 7. 4: 12, 13. James 1:21 with Pet. 2: 1, 2.
1: 10, 11 .
1: 18.
1: 24.
1: 3, 23.
4: 10.
5: 20.
5: 6.
4:8.
Even the Pauline diction is frequent; e. g. δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἐκ
πίστεως—ἐξ ἔργων; πρῶτον followed by εἶτα, κτίσμα θεοῦ, ψυχι
κός, etc.
Yet with all this, no writer in the New Testament is more entirely
peculiar than the author of this epistle.
The writers on this epistle are very numerous. I shall point out only
a few of the more valuable. Benson's Commentary on it is worthy of
consultation. Morus has some good suggestions in his Praelectiones in
Jacobum. J. J. Hottinger, in Epist Jacobi, 1815, may be consulted
with some profit. A. R. Gebser, Der Brief. Jacobi, is the most copi-
ous and able commentator who has recently appeared. J. Sculthess has
written a Commentarius copiosissimus upon it, 1823, and is a shrewd and
sometimes powerful writer, but is wanting in judgment and accuracy.
The latest work, I believe, is that of Theile; which I have not seen.
Pott, in Nov. Test. Koppianum, is worthy of attention.
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
769
As to the literature, it may be found in Storr, Diss. Exeget. in Epist.
Jacobi, in his Opusc. Vol. II. Schulz, Der schriftstellerische Character
und Werth des Petrus, Judas, und Jacobus, 1802. Gierig, De Virtuti-
bus Epist. Jacobi, 1782. Rauch, Ueber den Brief Jacobi, in Winer and
Engelhardt's Neues Krit. Journal, B. VI. St. 3.
In the sequel, Hug, in his remarks on the first epistle of Peter, has
exhibited some valuable thoughts with regard to the similarity of James'
epistle, in some respects, to that of Peter, and also in regard to the con-
firmation of the authenticity of the epistle of James by the latter apostle.
NOTE 42. First Epistle of Peter. (§ 167 seq. p. 628 seq.)
The genuineness of this epistle has scarcely ever been questioned.
The doubts suggested by Cludius, in his Uransichten des Christen-
thums, 1808, have been fully solved by Augusti in his Nova Hypothe-
sis, quae primae;Petri epistolae avvεvriav impugnat, sub examen vocatur,
1808. De Wette has also, as usual, suggested some doubts in his Ein-
leitung; which have been replied to by Guerike in his Beiträge, etc.
Rauch, Schott, and others, agree that the ovvɛzhezτn in 1 Pet. 5: 13
means the wife of Peter; as Hug notices in § 172. That it means
some person, seems altogether probable; as the reader will see if he at-
tends to the connection in the sequel—καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἱός μου. The
latter has recently been taken for Peter's own proper son.
That Babylon in Egypt is meant, in 5: 13, is possible; but clearly
not probable. That mystical Babylon, i. e. Rome, is meant, is still less
probable. Mystical names of this kind, in a prosaic epistle, consisting
merely of plain and hortatory matter, are not to be expected, and can
not be admitted without strong reasons.
As to the time when this epistle was written, I have found nothing
better than what Hug has suggested in § 170. That Peter was at Bab-
ylon, when he wrote this epistle, is no serious objection to his being
afterwards at Rome, and suffering martyrdom there; which the general
voice of antiquity asserts. Nor can the fact of his being at Babylon
and writing to the Christians of Asia Minor during the Neronic perse-
cution, be any proof, that during the same persecution he did not be-
come a martyr at Rome.
In the mean time, it is not at all certain that the sufferings of Chris-
tians as described in Peter's first epistle, were those occasioned by Nero's
persecution. Every where did the unbelieving Jews hate and persecute
the believing ones, and try to render them suspected and odious to the
Roman magistracy. There is nothing of this nature in the first epistle
of Peter, so far as I can see, which might not be explained satisfactorily
on this ground. Let the reader compare 2 Thess. 1: 4—10. 3: 2.
97
770
NOTE XLII.
NOTE 42. Second Epistle of Peter. (§ 173 seq. p. 636 seq.)
α
Hug assumes it as a fact, that Peter had written to the churches in
Asia Minor an epistle by Sylvanus, which is now lost. I cannot find in
the words of 1 Pet. 5: 12 any thing to justify this assumption. Дi oli-
Δι' ολί
ywv Ezo̟aya may well refer to the so-called first epistle of Peter, as it
now stands in the canon of the New Testament. And if the second
epistle of Peter is genuine, then does 2 Pet. 3: 1 stand in direct opposi-
tion to Hug's assumption; and indeed, even on the ground that the
second epistle is by another hand, the passage just referred to shews,
that the writer knew of but one epistle of Peter to the churches in
question.
The similarity between 2 Pet. and the epistle of Jude is much great-
er than Hug has represented it to be. Let the reader compare the fol-
lowing passages throughout; viz.,
2 Pet. 1: 1, 2 Jude v. 1, 2.
1:5
2 Pet. 2: 11 Jude v. 9.
3.
2: 12
10.
1: 12, 13, 15
2: 15
11.
2:1-3
4, 5.
2:13
12.
2:4
6.
2: 17
13.
2: 6, 10
7.
2: 18
16.
2: 10
8.
3: 1-3
17, 18.
In both epistles, viz. the 2 Pet. and Jude, the inscription seems to be
general. But this proves nothing definite. The epistle to the Hebrews
and the first of John have no inscriptions; yet both were sent to par-
ticular churches, or rather, perhaps, to the churches of a particular re-
gion. The contents of each make this quite certain. And so in the
present case. The first epistle of Peter is inscribed to the dispersion
[i. e.Jews scattered] in Asia Minor." In the 2d of Pet. 3:2 there is a re-
cognition of having written a first epistle to those whom he now ad-
dresses again. In Jude this indeed does not occur. But from the sim-
ilarity of circumstances mentioned in this epistle, with those noted in
the 2d of Peter, it seems highly probable that churches of the same re-
gion, and infested with the same errors, were addressed.
As to the question laboured by Hug, De Wette, and others, whether
Peter copied from Jude, or Jude from Peter, it is one which can never
be determined with any good degree of certainty; nor even whether
either copied from the other. With all their near resemblances to each
other, there are many striking traits of discrepancy, which the critical
reader can easily make out for himself. We have seen, in the case of
James, that he has many resemblances to Paul in his diction and phra-
seology; and also that he has as many and still more striking ones to
the first of Peter. Yet was he no copyist. Nothing can be more origi-
nal or sui generis than his epistle. Why then may not Paul and Jude
be both original, in the like sense with James? It does indeed seem
probable to me, that Peter had read the epistle to Jude, when he wrote
SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
771
his second epistle, and that the thoughts and diction had made a strong
impression upon his mind. But is it not equally clear that the writer of
the Apocalypse had read Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, and that he
every where presents diction and imagery seemingly borrowed from
these books? Yet who would venture to call in question the originali-
ty of the Apocalypse? It is as strongly marked as that of any book of
Scripture.
Peter and Jude, being both apostles, must have been very intimate-
ly acquainted. Both in all probability had laboured among those
churches, or at least among some of them, to whom their epistles were
addressed. On the supposition that they had met together during their
missionary labours, and conferred together respecting the state of the
churches which they had visited, and had both fully and freely spoken
out their feelings and views, (all of which no one can well deem improb-
able), nothing could be more natural than that they should both have
written in the like way, respecting the false teachers who were creep-
ing in. Supposing, moreover, that Jude wrote his epistle first (which
seems quite probable), and that Peter had a copy of it in his hands, and
had just read it when he sat down to write his own, nothing could be
more natural than the expression of his feelings in respect to the false
teachers, in a way altogether like that of Jude. Both epistles together,
when they so plainly aimed at the same errors, were adapted to produce
a strong impression.
De Wette of course has his difficulties. (1) 'The use of another's
writing is unseemly for an apostle.' But the assumption that Peter did
copy from Jude, is not altogether clear and certain, as he supposes; and
this for the reasons suggested above. Then again, supposing that there
are many striking resemblances (which I freely concede), yet, as we
have seen, the epistle of James and the Apocalypse have full claim to
originality and peculiarity, notwithstanding the like traits. But,
(2) The inscriptions are not definite.' So indeed it is; but where
are the inscriptions to the epistle to the Hebrews and to the first epistle
of John? (3) The author of 2 Pet. is too anxious to show his apostle-
ship. 2 Pet. 1: 1, 14, 16, 18. 3: 2.' But let the reader turn to the first
of Cor., Gal., and other epistles of Paul, even to his pastoral ones, and
then say whether Paul has not exhibited still greater solicitude on this
point. The assertion of apostolic authority became necessary in many
cases, in order to remove the impressions in regard to it which false
teachers had made. (4) The writer appeals to Paul's epistles, 3: 15.'
True, he does; and why should he not? Paul had written to some
churches in Asia, and it would seem that his epistles had been treated as
encyclical, from the nature of the appeal here made. What valid ob-
jection can there be to Peter's referring to the declarations and instruc-
tions of Paul, the great acknowledged apostle of the Gentiles, and of
the Jews also who lived among them? But, (5) 'The epistle refers to
doubts about the coming of Christ, 3: 8 seq.' Undoubtedly it does. But
what if any in the churches addressed by it, had interpreted some of
Paul's writings as the Thessalonian churches did, i. e. as indicating an
immediate coming of Christ; and then, as this did not take place accord-
ing to their expectation, they began to indulge doubts respecting the
whole subject? Was any thing more natural than this, in respect to
772
NOTE XLIII.
such a class of persons? And was it strange that Peter should oppose
such doubts, when they took such a turn as to threaten more general
skepticism?
Last but not least, De Wette urges 'the want of ancient testimony in
favour of the Petrine origin of this epistle.' Still he has given the tes-
timony in its favour more fully than Hug; and the reader may find it
spread out in Lardner or Schmid. It seems to be as well supported, in
this respect, as the epistle of James; better than the 2d and 3d epistles
of John.
Against the Petrine origin, however, some writers of great note have
declared themselves; viz., Calvin, Erasmus, Grotius, J. C. Chr.
Schmidt, Welcker, Guerike, and (in a modified way) Eichhorn and
Ullmann. For the Petrine origin have contended Pott, Augusti, Dahl,
Schmid, E. C. Flatt, Hug, Bertholdt, and recently Olshausen, in a mod-
ified sense.
The candid and valuable essay of the last named author
on this subject is being translated by the Editor of the Bib. Repository,
and will soon appear in that work.
Those among the ancient writers who assign reasons for putting this
epistle among the avrileyouévois, say that the style is so discrepant from
that of the first epistle of Peter as to have occasioned this. But this
ground depends so much on a matter of taste, and oftentimes on mere
first impressions of readers who have not made any minute investiga-
tion, that it is always to be admitted with caution. It would be easy,
as a matter of fact, to produce many strong resemblances between
1st of Pet. and 2d of Peter.
It has been urged against the genuineness of 2d of Peter, that chap.
2: 1 speaks of false teachers who are yet future, while that of Jude
speaks of them as having already arisen, v. 4. But this is said with-
out due consideration. In the sequel of chap. 11., Peter also speaks of
these teachers as having already come, and as exercising a pernicious
influence. Who can read the prophecies of the Old Testament without
recognizing the fact, that almost every where the prophets shift from the
future to the present, and from the present to the past? Even so it is
in regard to the past and present in the historical books; not in the
Scriptures only, but also in other and heathen writers. How can any
one, who is familiar with prophetic writings, suggest such an objection
as this? Let him look at the tenor of the Apocalypse.
Besides; as to matter of fact, had not teachers already arisen, and
would they not continue to develope themselves still more in future?
Why should it be strange that the language of the apostle, then, should
have respect both to the present and to the future?
NOTE 43. Epistle of Jude. (§ 180 seq. p. 645 seq.)
I do not regard what Hug has said in § 181, as by any means con-
clusive in regard to the Jude who was the author of the epistle so named
in our Canon. In Matt. 13: 55 and Mark 6: 3, James and Jude are
EPISTLE OF JUDE.
773
κω
mentioned in connection with Mary the mother of Jesus, as being the
brethren of our Lord. From the connection, moreover, in which the
passage here stands, I cannot resist the impression, that his own proper
brethren according to the flesh are meant. But is this Jude the only
one, who is named as a brother of a person who is called James?
I think not. In a catalogue of the names of the apostles in Luke 6:
16 and Acts 1: 13, we find mention of 'Iovdus 'Iazoßov. The question
here is, whether the ellipsis in this case is to be filled up with vios or
with adelgós. Jessien (de authentia epist. Judae), De Wette, Hug,
and others, defend viós; but our English version supplies brother; and
Winer (N. Test. Gramm. p. 160, ed. 3) strongly defends this. He pro-
duces Τιμοκράτης ο Μητροδώρου, sc. αδελφός, from Alciphron Ep.
2: 2. Clearly this method of filling up the ellipsis is neither impossible
nor improbable. The only serious ground of doubt arises from what is
implied in the suggestion: Why did not the writer, in each of these
cases, mention Jude along with 'lanaßos 'Ahqalov, if he were his
brother?' I acknowledge that this creates some embarrassment. Still,
that the general impression among the ancients was, that Jude was an
apostle, seems plain from the fact, that they often call him so; e. g. Or-
igen (Comm. in Epist. ad Rom. IV. p. 549), “Judas apostolus in epis-
tola catholica dicit." So in his De Principiis, III. 2. I. 138, meminit
in epistola sua apostolus Judas." So Tertullian (de Habit. Fem. c. 3),
"apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet."
Schott, whose deliberate opinion on a subject of this nature is worthy
of high regard, thinks that the Jude who was the author of this epistle
was neither a brother of James the son of Alpheus, nor of James the
Lord's brother, but probably the Jude mentioned in Acts 15: 22, 27,
32, 33, who was a man in great credit and a prophet, Acts 15: 32. He
is inclined to believe that Jude the author of the epistle, was a son of
Zebedee, and a brother of James the elder and John. According to
Acts 15: 22, the Judas there mentioned was also called Barsabas, i. e.
the son of Sabas or Zabas; which he supposes may be an abridged
form of the name Zebedee, as Lucas is of Lucanus, Silas of Silvanus,
etc. He assigns, moreover, as a reason for this supposition, that 'lov-
δάς ᾿Ιακώβου αδελφός (Jude v. 1) must be designed to point out some
James preeminent in the church and well known among Christians in
general.
This opinion is defended also by Welcker, in his philol. exeget. Cla-
vis, p. 157. It bids fair to make as good a claim as the one advanced
by Hug.
The argument, however, adduced by Hug and others against the
apostleship of Jude, because he calls himself merely ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
doulos, amounts to nothing. Does not Paul do the same, in Phil. 1: 1?
And does he not omit both doulos and άnóorolos in 1 Thess., 2 Thess.,
and Philemon? Does not James call himself simply doulos in 1: 1, and
John лooẞúrεgos in 2 John and 3 John? Nothing important can be
deduced from such circumstances.
Much has been said on the quotation, as it is called, from the book
of Enoch, in Jude v. 14. A book of this name has recently been ob-
tained in Ethiopia, and an English version of it published by Dr. Lau-
A
774
NOTE XLIV.
rence, who labours to prove its great antiquity. To my own mind
his arguments are not satisfactory. He seems to take it for grant-
ed, that Jude has actually quoted from this book; and consequent-
ly, that the book must be as old as the times of the apostles. But
I regard this argument as merely specious. Why could not Jude
quote a traditional saying, as well as a book, the truth and importance
of which was generally acknowledged? And why could not the author
of the book of Enoch have transcribed this saying, as exhibited by
Jude, or taken it as Jude did from tradition, if he wrote after the apos-
tolic age? The coincidence of some passages between the epistle of
Jude and the book of Enoch, can prove nothing as to which book was
anterior, while tradition is sufficient to account for the passage in either.
I cannot resist the persuasion that comes upon me, from reading the
book of Enoch, that the writer was a theosophic Jewish Christian, ac-
quainted in some small measure with the doctrine of the Logos, but
deeply immersed in the emanation-philosophy of the East, and striving
to make a kind of compound of some things in Judaism, some in Chris-
tianity, and more still in the Gnostic oriental philosophy. I am not at
all satisfied, therefore, with Dr. Laurence's argument, although learned
and ingenious, to prove the great antiquity of the book of Enoch.
But even if it is ancient, and Jude has quoted from it, I do not see
how this will destroy (as many have supposed) the authenticity of Jude's
epistle. Could not a work of this nature comprise some things which
were well founded and true? From what or whom does the apostle
quote in Eph. 5: 14? From whom in 2 Tim. 2: 19, in 1 Tim 4: 8, and
2 Tim. 2: 11 seq.?
As to the subject of Satan's dispute with Michael respecting the body
´of Moses, I apprehend that we must ever fail of giving a satisfactory
solution of this passage, until we know something more of the tradition
current in the apostle's day in regard to this subject. To those who be-
lieve in angelic guardianship and interposition in the affairs of men, the
obscurity or difficulty of this subject will present nothing which is very
formidable; certainly nothing to shake their faith, or move them to a
general skepticism.
The evidence is so strong and so ancient in regard to the early exist-
ence and genuineness of this epistle, that few sober critics are disposed
to call it in question.
NOTE 44. The Apocalypse. ($ 184. p. 650.)
The exhibition of the ancient testimonies in favour of the genuine-
ness and authenticity of this book, as made by Hug, is striking, and,
as it seems to me, conclusive so far as testimony of this kind can go.
The reader may find them more at large in Lardner and in Schmid.
The latter wrote and published a learned dissertation on this subject,
the title of which is given by Hug, p. 652, Note 3. In the Historia
antiq. et Vindiciae Canonis, etc., § 198 seq., he has given the substance
THE APOCALYPSE.
775
of this very learned and able discussion, and replied to many of the ob-
jections made against the Apocalypse.
In almost all commentators on this book, especially in Eichhorn, Mi-
chaelis, Bengel, Herrenschneider, Harenberg, Herder (in his Marana-
tha), Lange, Heinrichs, Ewald, Matthaei, Vitringa, Lücke, and others,
the reader will find more or less in relation to this subject. In the in-
troductions to the New Testament writings, such as Haenlein, Ber-
tholdt, Eichhorn, Schott, De Wette, and others, he will of course find
it discussed. Among all these, Frederic Lücke, in his recent work on
the Apocalypse, has most of all distinguished himself for copiousness
and extent of investigation. In general, there is a spirit of candour
and moderation in his criticisms; although I cannot by any means sub-
scribe to all the positions which he advances.
One of the most recent works on this book, is J. M. A. Scholz, die
Apokalypsis Johannis erklärt, 1828; which I have not seen. Important
hints and discussions of various highly interesting questions, may be
found in Bleek, Beiträge zur Kritik der Offenbarung Johannis, in the
Zeitschrift of Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Lücke, B. II. p. 253 seq.
Steudel, Ueber die richtige Auffassungsweise der Apokalypse, Bengel's
Archiv. IV. 2. Lücke, Apokaluptische Studien, in the Studien and
Kritiken by him and others, II. 2. p. 304. Also in Vogel, Comm. de
Apocalypsi, Part. I-VII. 1811-1816.
The testimony of Justin Martyr, of Irenaeus, of Tertullian, Origen,
and Cyprian, is so direct and full,, as to the Apocalyse being from the
pen of the apostle John, that we can hardly find any one book of the
New Testament better supported in this respect. Indeed, the most re-
cent opposers of the apostolic origin of this book, such as Schott and
Lücke, concede that the external evidence is against them. Their
judgment, therefore, is founded on what they deem to be internal ev-
idence.
De Wette, although strongly opposed to admitting it to be a work of
the apostle John, still very candidly admits, that the opposition of the
so-called Alogi and of Caius of Rome arose rather from their Antimon-
tanism, than from critical reasons. Down to the time of Dionysius of
Alexandria, then, i. e. until about A. D. 247, the genuineness of the
book remains uncontradicted by any respectable authority.
In modern times, the opposition to the genuineness and even to the
authenticity of the Apocalypse has been in many cases very strenuous.
Luther seems to have led the van. In the Preface to his Apocalypse,
1552, he has assigned his reasons for rejecting it from the Canon. They
are very curious, and deserve a moment's attention.
(C
(1) The apostles do not concern themselves with visions; neither
does Christ in the Gospels. Nor does any prophet even of the Old Tes-
tament exhibit them throughout his work."
But what book of the New Testament is prophetic, as a whole, or
even in any considerable degree, except the Apocalypse? And as to
the Old Testament, had Luther not read Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zech-
ariah?
(2) "The writer of the Apocalypse claims a great deal too much for
his book. He who takes from it is to have his part in the book of life
taken away and he who adds to it, is to bring on himself all the
776
NOTE XLIV.
plagues threatened in it. This he should not have said, inasmuch as
he has written so unintelligibly that no one can make out what holding
to his book means; and then there are many other more edifying and
important books than this.”
But if the writer was truly inspired, it was not inconsistent for him to
denounce the rejection of his testimony. As to the obscurity of his
book, does that lie in the book itself, or in us? And is our measure of
knowledge a proper test of the origin of a book? Luther's last reason,
however, which doubtless was the most substantial one in his own mind,
is more curious still;
66
(3) Let any one obtain from this book what his spirit enables him
to do. My mind cannot accommodate itself to the book; and it is rea-
son enough for me not to respect it, that Christ is neither taught in it, nor
acknowledged; which above all things an apostle is bound to do, for
Christ says in Acts 1., Ye shall be my witnesses. I remain, therefore, by
the books which give Christ to me clearly and purely."
But why then cannot a doubter in divine revelation in general, or in
any particular part of it, plead that his mind cannot accommodate itself
to such disclosures? On this ground, indeed, Schulz throws away
Matthew, Schleiermacher Luke, Bretschneider and others John, Eich-
horn the pastoral epistles of Paul, and Luther James. Where shall we
end with such arguments?—Then, as to Christ being found in the
Apocalypse, it seems to me, that of all the books in the New Testa-
ment this is preeminent in this respect. Christ is the beginning, mid-
dle, and end of it; the soul and body, the centre and substance of the
whole. His glory, his triumphs, his reign, his kingdom, is all in all.
Luther's example, as we might suppose, emboldened many others to
walk in his steps. J. D. Michaelis, Oeder, Stroth, Semler, Merkel,
Corrodi, Heinrichs, Cludius, Ewald, De Wette, Schott, Lücke, Bleek,
and others, have, in different ways and with various gradations of senti-
ment, assailed or called in question either the genuineness or the authen-
ticity, or both, of this book. At the same time it has not wanted de-
fenders. C. F. Schmidt, Reuss, Knittel, Lüdenwald, Augusti, Hart-
wich, Storr, Haenlein, Schmidt, Eichhorn, Hug, Bertholdt, Müller,
Guerike, and others, have examined and replied to the allegations made
against it.
No book in the New Testament has found so many opposers as this;
and, what seems to be equally plain, no book has been so much misun-
derstood and misinterpreted. Nothing can be more evident to an atten-
tive reader of the Hebrew prophets, especially of Ezekiel, Daniel, and
Zechariah, than that this book is altogether in the like strain with them.
It is indeed and truly-POETRY; I mean that, although it is not measure
nor parallelism, yet it is throughout, in its essence, in its very life and
soul, Hebrew poetic imagery and symbols.
On this ground I do not feel the force of most of the internal argu-
ments against its genuineness, drawn from a comparison of it with the
Gospel and Epistles of John. How can we suppose, that simple narra-
tive and affectionate epistolary address should occasion the writer always
to move in the same element which is appropriate to prophetic inspira-
tion? That there are, after all, many most striking resemblances of
THE APOCALYPSE.
777
ม
R
thought and diction between the Apocalypse and the acknowledged
works of John, no candid critic will deny. This we might naturally
expect. But that the discrepancies of diction and manner, in a work
so entirely different from any of his other ones, should be urged as a
strong argument against the authorship of John, does not seem to me to
savour of impartiality or, of sober and candid judgment.
From the simple statement of the nature of the Apocalypse it ap-
pears quite evident, that an interpreter of it must be qualified by a deep
and attentive study of the Hebrew prophets, in order to explain with
any good success the language of the book. The entire failure of a
host of commentators on this book, to command public respect and in-
terest for their efforts, has arisen in many cases, no doubt, from almost
or quite an entire want of adequate philological preparation. Not, in-
deed, that this is all which is needed; but it is at least a sine qua non,
in respect to the interpretation of such a book as this.
As this book, however, has lately attracted so much attention, and
the interest in it is apparently on the increase, may we not hope that
ere long we shall have something besides mere theory and surmises and
conjectures to rest upon? Eichhorn has done much to explain the dic-
tion. His commentary on this book will be considered, I apprehend,
by judges of after-time, as his best work. Yet there are parts of his
theory of explanation which are almost revolting, at least altogether
incredible. Still this does not obscure, at least it does not extinguish,
his merit as an interpreter of words and phrases. He has certainly done
much to be commended in this respect; and his book, with some
caveats against his now and then visionary or indefensible positions, if
laid before our religious public, might do much to check the progress of
extravagant speculation and conjecture on the part of those who are
not guided or aided by philology, and help to instruct readers as to
some proper views of the nature of the diction and of the representa-
tions which John employs.
98
CONTENTS.
PART I.
CHAPTER I.
AGE AND GENUINENESS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
§ 1. Importance of these books in general
2. Number of these books
PAGE.
9
12
3. Genuineness of them. Internal proofs of the genuine-
ness of the historical books
12
4.
Continuation. Proof of their genuineness from geo-
graphical circumstances
16
5. Internal proofs of the genuineness of the didactic writings.
6. External proofs. Citations from the N. T. in the writ-
ings of the heretics of the 2d century
28
29
7. Observations on the procedure of the most ancient
Christian writers in respect to biblical citations
8. Celsus
Tatian and Julius Cassian
Theodotus
Certain anonymous heretics .
Marcion
Ptolomæus and Heracleon
Valentinus and his school
The Ebionites
Basilides and Isidorus
37
44
228548ASS
7 57
:
62
62
CHAPTER II.
Remarks in respect to the credibility of these writings.
9. Credibility of the Gospel
10. Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles
CHAPTER III.
64
66
Writing-materials.-Publication.-Loss of the autographs.-Collec-
tion of the books.—The canon.
11. Writing-materials.
12. Publication
13. Continuation
14. Loss of the autographs
15. Continuation
16. Collection of the books
•
71
17. Continuation
8588772
66
67
68
68
70
73
18. Canon
74
19. Canon of the anonymous writer in Muratori. Canon
of the Syriac church
76
780
CONTENTS.
20. Canon of Eusebius
21. Canon after the time of Nicene Council
CHAPTER IV.
PAGE.
78
84
History of the Text. First period.
22. Κοινὴ ἔκδοσις; vulgaris editio
85
23. Proof that the Cambridge Ms. D. is a copy of the own
ἔκδοσις
88
24. Origin of the changes which took place in the text of
the Gospels during the first period
90
25. Continuation. Readings in the margin of the Philox-
enian version
94
26. Κοινὴ ἔκδοσις in Syria
96
27. The most ancient Latin versions are monuments of the
κοινὴ ἔκδοσις .
98
ง
31. Character of this text
28. Continuation
29. Continuation
30. Κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of the Acts of the Apostles
32. Κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of the Pauline Epistles
33. Character of this text
100
101
104
106
108
112
34. Κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of the Catholic Epistles
35. Kown Endools of the Apocalypse. History of the text.
Second Period
114
114
•
36. Recension of the text
115
37. Recension of Hesychius
119
38. Recension of Lucian
122
39. Recension of Origen. History of the text.
Third
Period
131
139
40. Origin of new corruptions of the text
CHAPTER V.
History of the less important alterations which have taken place in the
books of the N. T.
41. Writing-materials
42. Hand
43. Interpunction
44. Stichometry
45. Origin of interpunction from stichometry
46. Accents
47. Superscriptions and subscriptions
142
143
144
147
149
•
150
150
153
48. Divisions of the N. T.
CHAPTER VI.
Concerning the Mss.
49. Determination of the age of Mss.
50. Mss. before the existence of stichometry
51. Stichometrical Mss.
156
158
165
CONTENTS.
781
$52. Mss. later than stichometry
53. Remarkable Mss. in the cursive character
CHAPTER VII.
Editions of the N. T.
PAGE.
173
178
54. Earliest attempts in relation to the Gr. text of the N. T.
55. The Bible of Alcala, and the editions of Erasmus
56. The editions of Asulanus and Robert Stephens
57. Reprints of these editions
180
181
182
185
58. The editions of Beza and the Elzevirs
187
59. The N. T. of the London Polyglot ; the editions of Fell
and Mill
190
60. The editions of Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Matthæi,
Alter, and Birch
193
CHAPTER VIII.
61. Value of the versions.
Versions of the N. T.
Syriac versions
199
62. The Peschito
200
63. Source of this version
201
64. Its contents
202
65. Continuation
204
66. Continuation
206
67. Character of the text
208
68. Its antiquity
209
69. Editions
211
70: Philoxenian version. Its name and history
217
71. Continuation
217
72. Revision of it by Thomas of Charkel
218
73. Continuation
219
74. Continuation
219
76. Text exhibited in this version
75. Continuation
77. Character of the version
78. Edition
79. Palaestino-Syriac version
80. Source of it
81. Persian version
82. Source of it
83. Its character
84. Editions
85. Armenian version. Its history
86. Continuation
87. Component parts of the text
88. Alterations of this version according to the Latin
220
221
223
224
224
225
226
226
227
228
229
229
230
231
89. Editions
90. Egyptian versions. Coptic language
91. Antiquity of these versions
92. Dialect of the Coptic language.
232
232
233
237
782
CONTENTS.
$93. Lower-Egyptian version
94. Upper-Egyptian
95. Nature of its text. Antiquity
96. Third, or Bashmurian version
97. Ethiopic version. Its history
98. Nature of its text
99. ARABIC VERSIONS.
100. Latino-Arabic version
Their origin
101. Arabic version from the Syriac. The Acts of the
Apostles, the Pauline and Catholic Epistles in the
edition of Erpenius
PAGE.
237
238
239
241
244
246
247
247
248
102. Doubts respecting the existence of a Syriaco-Arabic
version of the Gospels
250
103. Arabic version from the Coptic
252
104. Further investigation of the Gospels in particular
254
105. History of the text of these Gospels
256
106. Editions of the Gospels
257
107. Version from the Greek
258
108. Arabic Acts of the Apostles, Epistles and Apocalypse
in the Polyglots
259
109. Nature of this version
261
110. The country of its origin
262
111. Text
262
112. Some other editions
263
113. LATIN VERSIONS. Variety of them before the time
of Jerome
264
114. Time when these versions originated
265
115. 'The Itala
266
116. Source of these versions
268
117. Their fortunes
268
118. Jerome's emendation
269
119. Fortunes of this emendation
271
120. New corruptions of the Mss. of the Lat. versions
272
121. Alcuin's emendation
272
122. Continuation
273
123. Continuation
273
124. Continuation
276
125. Emendation by Lanfranc. Correctoria
277
126. Decree of the Council of Trent
279
127. Sixtine edition of the Vulgate
280
128. Clementine edition
281
129. Continuation
282
130. GOTHIC VERSION. History of the Silver Codex
131. Editions
283
284
132. Character of the Silver Codex
285
133. Discovery of new fragments of the Gothic version .
134. Language of these documents
286
287
135. Continuation
288
136. The country in which they were executed and their
antiquity
290
CONTENTS.
783
PAGE.
$137. Account of the Goths
138. Ulfilas
139. Source of the version
140. Continuation
141. Character of the version
142. SCLAVONIC VERSION. Its origin
143. Its source
144. Interpolations
291
293
294
296
•
298
299
299
300
145. Editions
301
CHAPTER IX.
Principles of Criticism.
146. Critical apparatus
147. Principles of criticism
148. Continuation
149. Continuation
150. Continuation
151. Continuation
PARTII.
CHAPTER I.
Historical books of the N. T.
301
303
303
304
305
307
}
1. Order in which the Gospels are arranged
309
2. Matthew. Readers for whom, primarily, his Gospel
was designed
311
3. Object of Matthew's Gospel
312
4.
Continuation
313
6.
Occasion
7.
8.
9.
5. Time of its composition
Continuation
Language in which Matthew composed his book.
Testimonies in favor of a Hebrew Matthew
Continuation
313
316
317
318
320
10.
Condition of the language of Palestine when Matthew
wrote his work
326
11.
12.
No Hebrew Gospel of Matthew ever existed
Matthew wrote in Greek
340
•
342
13.
Mark. Circumstances of his life
344
14. Testimonies respecting the origin of his Gospel
15. Intended circle of readers. Place of composition
16. Testimonies respecting the time of its composition
17. Matthew and Mark. Further investigations concern-
ing their historical sources. Similarity between
the two writers
18. Causes of their agreement. Hypotheses respecting
an original Hebrew Gospel
19.
Combination. Marsh's, Eichhorn's, Gratz's hypothesis
345
347
348
349
352
356
784
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
23.
Source of the Gospel of Matthew
20. Arguments against the existence of an original Gospel
21.
Continuation
22. Gieseler's hypothesis respecting an original oral Gospel
24. Justin's anoμvηovεvμarα
π
25. Relation of the Gospel of Mark to that of Matthew
358
362
364
•
369
370
375
26.
Continuation
27. Continuation
28. Continuation
29. Continuation
30. Continuation
31.
Continuation
378
380
382
382
383
384
32. Origin of the Gospel of Mark. Time of its composition
33. Luke. Proem to his Gospel
384
387
34. Circumstances of Luke's life
393
35. Theophilus
395
36.
Relation of Luke's Gospel to those of Matthew and
Mark. Coincidence with Matthew
396
37.
Coincidence with Mark
398
38.
Attempts at explanation of these facts. Gratz's hy-
pothesis. Examination of it
401
39. Nature and cause of their variations from each other
405
40.
Agreement of Luke with Mark as to the succession
of events
407
41. Omissions in the Gospel of Luke
410
42. New accounts in the Gospel of Luke
411
43. Remarks on the mode of narration in Luke's Gospel
412
44.
Continuation
413
45. Continuation
414
46. Griesbach's hypothesis respecting the origin of the
Gospels. Examination of it
415
47. Order of succession of the first three Gospels
417
48.
Continuation
418
49. John. Object of his Gospel
420
50.
Occasion of it
421
51.
Continuation
422
52.
Continuation
424
53. John was acquainted with the Gospels of Matthew,
Mark and Luke
425
54.
Continuation
431
55. Testimonies of ancient writers on this point
432
56. Plan and nature of John's Gospel
433
57. Objections against the Gospel of John. Examina-
1
tion of them
433
58. Continuation
436
59. Continuation
440
•
60. Continuation
441
61. Chronology of the Gospel of John
447
62. Harmony of the four Gospels
63. Value and authority of the four Gospels
نیخ
450
454
•
CONTENTS.
785
67.
64. Place for which John's Gospel was destined
65. First Epistle of John. Refutation of a position re-
66.
specting its relation to John's Gospel
Contents
Close relation of the Epistle to John's Gospel
68.
Continuation
69.
Place of destination
70.
Continuation
71.
The second Epistle
72.
The third Epistle
73. Time of the publication of John's Gospel
PAGE.
455
456
457
458
459
462
464
465
466
467
SUPPLEMENT RESPECTING SOME DISPUTED PORTIONS
OF THE GOSPELS.
74.
Of the first two chapters of Matthew
469
75.
Mark 16: 9, to the end
479
76. John 21: 1, to the end
484
77.
Acts of the Apostles.
Gospel of Luke
It forms one whole with the
488
78.
Contents
488
489
79.
Source
80.
Plan and design of the work
492
81.
Continuation
492
82.
83.
Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles
Continuation
493
499
84. Continuation
501
CHAPTER
II.
Writings of the apostle Paul.
$5. Circumstances in the life of the apostle
505
Character
86.
Continuation
87.
88.
Nature of his writings
506
507
507
89. Eloquence of the apostle
90. The peculiarities of Paul's doctrinal system
91. First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Occasion of it
92. Place and time of its composition
508
510
-
512
514
93.
Contents
514
94.
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. Occasion of it
514
95.
Contents
515
96.
Epistle to Titus.
Time of Paul's visit to Crete
515
97.
Condition of the Christian church at Crete
517
98. Contents of the Epistle
518
99. Epistle to the Galatians
519
100.
Inhabitants of Galatia
520
101. Contents of the Epistle
522
102. First Epistle to the Corinthians. Condition of the
city. Rise of a Christian church there
522
103. Occasion of the Epistle
523
104. Time of its composition
526
99
786
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
$105. Contents of the First Epistle to the Corinthians
106. Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Occasion of it
107.
Contents
108. Refutation of some objections against it
109. First Epistle to Timothy. Place and time of its
528
530
531
532
composition
110.
Continuation
111. Occasion of it
112. Contents
534
535
536
537
in Rome
113. Objections of Schleiermacher against the genuineness
of the Epistle. Examination of them
114. Epistle to the Romans. Rise of the Christian church
115. Banishment of Jews and Jewish Christians from Rome
116. Want of harmony between the Jewish and Gentile
Christians in Rome
-
117. Place and time of the composition of the Epistle
538
541
-
542
544
544
118. Object
546
119.
Contents
547
120. Epistle to the Ephesians. Time and Place of its
composition
548
121. Local destination of the Epistle
549
122.
Contents
552
123. Epistle to the Colossians.
Rise of the Christian
church there
552
124.
Time of its composition
553
125.
Contents
553
126.
Of the Epistle to the Laodiceans
554
127. Epistle to Philemon
555
128. Second Epistle to Timothy. Time of its composition -
556
129.
Continuation
558
130.
Contents
559
131.
Of the heretics against whom the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians, Colossians, and Timothy are aimed
560
132.
Continuation
564
133.
Continuation
565
134.
Remarks on recent attacks upon the two Epistles to
Timothy and the Epistle to Titus
566
135.
Continuation
570
136.
137.
-
Continuation
571
Continuation
575
138. Epistle to the Philippians. City of Philippi. Recep-
tion of the apostle in it
577
139. Occasion of the Epistle
577
142. Design
143.
Contents
140. Contents
141. Epistle to the Hebrews. Readers of the Epistle
144. Language of the Epistle
145. Author
-
578
578
579
580
581
583
146.
Continuation
-
586
CONTENTS.
787
157.
158.
Author
159.
PAGE.
$147. Continuation
148. Continuation
149. Continuation
589
599
600
150. Continuation
601
CHAPTER III.
The Catholic Epistles.
151. Name
152. Their authority generally
genuineness
154.
Continuation
153. Of the second and third Epistles of John. Their
155. Epistle of James. Native land of the author
156. Readers of the Epistle
Occasion of it
Continuation
160. Literary character of this Epistle
161.
Genuineness
603
606
608
610
611
612
613
615
618
619
621
162.
163.
Continuation
Circumstances of the readers
623
624
164. Time of its composition
165.
Contents
166. Reconciliation of the discrepancy between James and Paul
167.
First Epistle of Peter. Its resemblance to some of
Paul's Epistles
626
626
627
628
168. Its resemblance to the Epistle of James
630
169.
Contents
631
170. Design. Time of composition
-
632
171.
Continuation
634
172. Place of composition
635
173. Second Epistle of Peter, and Epistle of Jude. Occa-
sion, object, place of destination
636
174. Contents of the second Epistle of Peter
637
175. Contents of the Epistle of Jude
638
176. Similarity of the two Epistles
638
177. Genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter
178. Continuation
640
641
179.
Continuation
643
180. Genuineness of the Epistle of Jude
645
181. Who was Jude?
646
182. Heretics against whom these Epistles were written
183. Respecting the citation of apocryphal books in the
647
two Epistles
648
184.
The Revelation of John. Place of its composition.
Testimonies of the ancients concerning its author
650
185. Contents
662
186. Exposition of it
-
665
187.
Continuation
666
188.
Continuation
668
189. Literary character of the book
669
788
CONTENTS.
5.
Credibility of the New Testament writings
$190. Time of its composition
191. Occasion and object
1. Style of the New Testament Greek
NOTES.
2.
Evidence in the N. Test. of its genuineness
3.
Manner of quotation by early Christian writers -
4. Nature of the author's argument in favour of the gen-
uineness of the N. Test. books, etc.
6. Classification of Manuscripts
PAGE.
670
672
675
678
680
681
682
682
Materials of Mss., modes of writing, stichometry, etc.
-
687
8. Versions of the New Testament
689
9. Principles of criticism
692
10. Explanations inserted by the Evangelists in the text, etc.
11. References to the fulfilment of Old Testament proph-
696
ecies in the Gospels
697
12. Summaries made by Matthew in his Gospel
697
13. Time when the Gospel of Matthew was written
698
14. Gospel according to the Hebrews
700
15. Original language of Matthew's Gospel
704
16. SOURCES of the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew
710
17. Gospel of Luke
721
18. Gospel of John
721
19. Object and plan of John's Gospel
725
20. Time and place of composing the Gospel of John, etc.
728
21. First Epistle of John
730
22. Second Epistle of John
733
23. Third Epistle of John
734
24. Discrepancy in Genealogies
735
25. Visit of the Magi to Bethlehem
26. Genuineness of several passages
27. Acts of the Apostles
28. Epistles to the Thessalonians
29. Epistle to Titus
30. Epistle to the Galatians
31. First Epistle to the Corinthians
32. Second Epistle to the Corinthians
33. First Epistle to Timothy
34. Epistle to the Romans
35. Epistle to the Ephesians
36. Epistle to the Colossians
37. Epistle to Philemon
38. Second Epistle to Timothy
39. Epistle to the Philippians
40. Epistle to the Hebrews
41. Epistle of James
42. First Epistle of Peter
43. Second Epistle of Peter
44. Epistle of Jude
45. The Apocalypse
· 738
738
739
741
744
747
-
752
752
753
754
754
758
760
-
761
763
763
765
769
770
772
774
L. Faus 62.
Z neḍITWN TAYTWNKAITŵnBixe-ywn-
OVOVZHTEITE
C
13]
HÁQÍCEITÉÓTIÉTỲ
KATHTOPHEWY
ROYNTACHMEIA
Aerościenтw
Ν
AGOENOYNTWNA
MINTISOCTONTANHA ENXEEIC
ECTINOKATHгO TOOSOCÕic; KALE
M5
T
ཏྭ་01IK•MWHM0
འ
YCHCEICONŸMEÏc
M
:T
H
KEIEKACHTOME
TATWNMAOH
T
HAIKKATE EINA TWHÄYTÖY
ÉTTI C'TE YETAIMW Индєєггусто
ŸCEVÉNICTEYETÉ
r
H
ANEMOJ +TIEJITAR MO
ÉMOVÉKEINOCÈ +
MANSEN Aéloic
THÉINOYTJAMMA
CINOYTIC TEVÉ
Te·nweтoiceмoic
PHMACINFICTÉY
CETE METATAY
VAATHAENOICTIE
ANTĤGO-AAA
CHOTHETAMAAÍ
ACTHOTIREDIA
AOCHISOA
o
A€AY TWO X Ç c
πολυ πιεστεί
пол
Ir\C\"\HC0?
AHCOP THT
A JOVADAIWND
NAPACOVHTOVC
¿-o-ovico
VÁMOY
KAVO-EACAME
NOCOTOXYe
AOCELXETAIN
AYTON Xérémpoc
IпOTTO
TO-Eнaropacupił
APTOY CHINADA
TWCINOYTØL
TоY TO ЛËË Лere
mJAZWHATO
A TOCPAPHAEL
TIEM EЛÁ¤HN0IEÍ
INNONATIO
MI KES Mi
éré
AISAKH
God. &. Basil.
B
11'S EITTENOKE
EITTEN OKE. OVAEIC
ΤΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΛΟΓΟΝ. Και ο οίρι ΖΑΝ
от тех їен. біпроскиром
пістЄүбүсін, каёнкліра
перасмоў іфістан таґ
подобістае Åканѳ спесон
беті ісін тіко Сантес,
ка помертином нашло Том,
кандон фото у віту порохо
мено, сунпнігонтана р
төлөсфоротсін, тодёён
Тикали гном то вісін біті
несёнкарді АСАДНІ ДІ АРдөн,
Ако СанТестонлогонкÂNe
Корсін. Капсарпофороҹ̧сінё
ўпомоніт
ÝпOMONG TAY TAKERED WHEIEŃ
TH
ÝYNONA JAG, KA
T)AHCIN
FNADIFICA
птеу тонскен, напока
туліннетіөнсін, алепен 1A Cent
порекомено, Влепш¢ІНТО
фас, бугарестіни рупто,
( офанерон пенисе та
Ο ΑΘ Απόκρυφον, δογη ως
өнсетакие сфанеронік
өн-клепет войн пасікочете
LAS
Off
Н
AR
7 B
Tinulleton's itley Gestur
Edây, del! vi stone.
M
DUPL
B 388057
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 06374 0529
ARTES
LIBRARY
1837
SCIENTIA
VERITAS
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
US UNUITY
ELPLURIBUS
TCEBOR
SI-QUAERIS PENINSULAM A
MAMŒNAM
CIRCUMSPICE
THE
DUFFIELD
LIBRARY
THE GIFT OF
THE TAPPAN PRESBY-
TERIAN ASSOCIATION
#