'".SI

1 jiftX,'

i"4?

«»;»

;*¦-

m
?^.
5;
*<^.
?5^ . jSKiisrfcv'''*'^*'
,<r J.T I., ¦ jj* »v^,.
Si' ,*
i^
&i*
m>
'*.,,
t ¦*-
^4<
-ff"
^•=3-
^ j.-^ I "9w->''
THE GOSPELS AS
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

Honbon: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
StaBgota: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.

ILeifijiB: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
i^efa Ijork: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
BomtBB antJ dalcutfa: MACMILLAN & CO., Ltd.

[AU Rights reserved.']

THE GOSPELS AS
HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
PART I.
THE EARLY USE OF THE GOSPELS

BY

VINCENT HENRY STANTON, D.D.
FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE,
ELY PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE :
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1903

ffiamixtligj :
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

90'3S V.I

PREFACE.
THE importance of the subject with which I attempt to
deal in this work need not be insisted on. It will be
recognised even when the rise of Christianity is viewed simply
as one of the most momentous movements in the world's
history. It will be felt still more deeply by all who consider
that the Christian Faith, as held in all ages and to this day
by the vast majority of Christians, is essentially faith in the
fact of a revelation of God's character and purpose made in
the historical person of Jesus Christ, and through events
connected with him, for which the Gospels are the most
explicit, and among the primary, witnesses.
No one, who desires to treat the Gospel history in the
light of modern critical studies, can avoid commencing with
some appreciation of the Gospels as historical documents, so
as at least to indicate his own attitude towards them, and the
manner in which he intends to use them. And Lives of
Christ written in the spirit and with the method of scientific
history usually contain a preliminary disquisition of consider
able length on " the Sources," which is chiefly occupied with
the date and authorship of the several Gospels, their simple
or composite character, and historical value in whole or in
part. Yet such questions can hardly be examined satis
factorily when they are not made the principal object of
enquiry. Accordingly I have chosen the records themselves
for the subject of the present work. But the bearing of our
investigations upon the credibility of particular aspects and

vi Preface
portions of the Gospel narrative will at times be obvious.
The purpose, also, throughout will clearly be to provide a
surer basis for a conception of the history as a whole ; while
the actual consideration of some of its problems will be found
necessary to enable us to estimate the character of the
documents. Although, therefore, many of our discussions
must, I fear, be dry and complex, they will not be altogether
unrelieved by vivid human interest.
In Part I., contained in the present volume, I examine the
traces of the use of the Gospels and the indications of the
manner in which they were regarded, afforded by the remains
of early Christian literature : — in short, the dates and the trust
worthiness of the Gospels so far as these depend upon external
evidence. It is my purpose to discuss in Part II. the history
of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels, while Part III.
will be devoted to the internal character of the Fourth Gospel,
and to a comparison between it and the Synoptics. Part IV.
will comprise topics which can most conveniently be con
sidered connectedly for all four Gospels. In particular an
endeavour will there be made to employ two tests which may
be applied to their narratives ; we shall seek (a) to ascertain
the degree of accuracy by which their representations of
Jewish life and thought for the period to which they refer are
marked ; {U) to see how far the conception of the history of
the rise of Christianity which can be formed from them agrees
with that which is to be derived from other very early Christian
writings, especially those contained in the New Testament.
The different portions of this field of enquiry might be and
often have been taken separately ; and it is a comfort to me
to think, in entering upon so large a task, that if time and
strength are not allowed me to complete it, the earlier Parts
will form in a sense distinct wholes. Yet there can be no
question that there is a close relation between them all ; that
some of the results obtained in the study of each need to be
confirmed or corrected by those obtained in others ; and that
all alike must be considered before a judgment can be rightly
passed upon the character of the sources of the Gospel history.

Preface vii
It will be necessary that I should endeavour to furnish a
connected view of the present state of knowledge and opinion
in regard to different portions of my subject. No point in
it, therefore, which is of real significance should be wholly
passed over. Where, however, a large amount of agree
ment exists among competent scholars who have approached
the consideration of the topics in question with different
prepossessions — and such there now is on not a few points,
including some of great importance, upon which in the past
there has been no little controversy — it will in general suffice
that I should state the conclusions that have been reached,
or at most that I should very briefly indicate the grounds on
which they rest, while giving references to other writers. On
the other hand, it will be my aim to discuss as thoroughly as
I can those points which are still sub lite, neglecting no fact
that seems to me to be material for their decision, or argument
which is weighty in itself, or noteworthy on account of the
eminence of those who use it. Naturally, also, in determining
the amount of detail which seems advisable in particular cases
I shall have regard to views prevalent in England, and the
sources of information which have been at the disposal of the
majority of English readers who are interested in subjects
of this class. What I have said will, I think, explain and
justify the varieties of proportion in the treatment of different
topics, — the compression in some cases, the elaboration in
others. Approaches to agreement after much controversy are a
sign of progress in the ascertainment of historical truth. In
no division of our subject, perhaps, is there better ground for
satisfaction in this respect than in that with which we shall in
this volume be concerned. The late dates for the Gospels
which were powerfully advocated half a century ago, or still
more recently, in close connexion with a particular theory of
the history of the early Church and of many of its literary
remains, have to a great extent been abandoned, together
with that theory itself, in consequence of the testing to which
it has been subjected.

viii Preface
But there is now, it seems to me, some danger that further
advance in the acquisition of settled positions may be retarded,
through a failure to perceive the proper scope of an investi
gation into the history of the reception of the Gospels by the
Church. That the Gospels were composed early enough to
allow of the writers themselves having had, or having been in
contact with those who had, immediate knowledge of that
which they relate, is undoubtedly a very important point.
But besides the dates at which the Gospels appeared, other
circumstances, such as the quarter whence they proceeded,
are of importance in determining whether it is likely that the
writers had the qualification just referred to. An example,
the force of which will be at once perceived, is to be found in
the present position of criticism as to the Fourth Gospel.
Many of those who hold that it cannot have been composed
later than the first decade or so of the second century, and
that it may possibly have been put forth before the end of
the first, do not admit that it is by the Apostle John, or that
it gives his testimony, or that it can be used as a trustworthy
source of information for the Gospel history, except perhaps
in a few particulars.
What evidence do the facts as to the use of the Gospels,
the position which in early times they held, and the traditions
respecting them, afford that these writings faithfully represent
the oral teaching and testimony of the Apostles and their
disciples? This is the question for which in the present Part
we have to seek an answer ; and in order that a satisfactory
one may be given, a decision is required on not a few points
in regard to which there are grave differences of opinion.
In the class of subjects with which we shall be concerned,
progress towards fuller and surer knowledge can be made
only through renewed weighing of the available evidence,
conjoined with much impartial criticism of the work of prede
cessors in the same field. I have not scrupled to adjudicate
upon, and in some instances to reject, the opinions and
arguments of men for whom we have peculiar reason in
Cambridge to cherish deep reverence, and to whom I myself

Preface ix
look up as my chief teachers. I hope, however, that no one
will suppose me to be forgetful of what I owe them. I am
also very sensible of obligations, which it is impossible
adequately to express, to many other scholars, with whom
I have been unable to agree on particular points or even
in my general conclusions. I would more especially here
acknowledge my debt to two eminent and recent writers
who themselves differ widely in their point of view, and
whose merits are also in some respects different, Dr Th.
Zahn and Dr A. Harnack. The Geschichte des Neutestament-
lichen Kanons, and the Forschungen on the same subject, of
the former, and the Chronologie and Geschichte der Altchrist-
lichen Litteratur of the latter, have naturally been in constant
use throughout the preparation of the present volume, and
have been of very great service to me.
V. H. STANTON.
September, 1903.

For the convenience of some readers who may wish to turn to my
references I may mention, that in the case of the writings included in
Lightfoot and Harmer's Apostolic Fathers, I have given the numbers of
the sections, etc., employed in that edition. In references to Irenaeus I
have used Massuet's divisions, which will be found in Harvey's edition
along with his own and Grabe's ; in those to Clement of Alexandria the
pages mentioned are Potter's, which are noted by Dindorf in his margin.
The sub-divisions of chapters in references to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
History are those in Heinichen's edition. There is not, I think, any
danger of ambiguity in other cases.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS; THE EVIDENCE AS TO
THE USE OF ANY OF THE GOSPELS IN THE
SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE.
PAGES
The nature and order of the investigation upon which we are
entering .......... 1-2
The character of the Evangelic quotations in early Christian
writers  3-5
The Sayings of Christ in the Epistle of Clement . . . 5-14
Parallelisms with the Synoptic Gospels in the Epistles of
Ignatius and Polycarp  14-18
Evidence of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp as to the Fourth
Gospel  18-21
Additional Notes :
I. The form of ancient books as affecting habits of
quotation  22-25
II. The parallelisms with the Gospels in the Apostolic
Fathers  25-28

CHAPTER II.
THE TRANSITION FROM THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE
TO THE AGE OF THE APOLOGISTS AND OF THE
CONFLICT WITH GNOSTICISM.
The broad difference between the early Christian writings
noticed in the last Chapter and those whose testimony
has next to be considered . . .... 29

xii Table of Contents PAGES
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles  29-31
The Epistle of Barnabas  3i~33
The Shepherd of Hermas . .  34-47
The Apology of Arts tides  48-52
The fragments of Papias on the Gospels . . . 5^-57
The (so-called) Second Epistle of Clement .... 58-63
Marcion, Basilides and Valentinus .... 64-69
Additional Notes :
I. Parallelisms with the Gospels in the Teaehing of the
Twelve Apostles  70-71
II. Parallehsms with the Gospels in the Shepherd of
Hermas . .  72-75

CHAPTER III.
JUSTIN MARTYR.
The chronology of Justin's life and writings .... 76-7
The character of his Evangelic quotations and the history of
speculation in regard to their source or sources . . 77-9
Points as to which there is now a strong consensus of opinion 80
Points still sub lite :
I. Justin's attitude to the Fourth Gospel.
Probable references to, and signs of acquaintance with,
the Fourth Gospel  81-83
Consideration of the objections urged against his having
regarded it as one of the Apostolic Memoirs . . 83-91
II. Justin! s use of a source or sources for the Gospel history
in addition to our Gospels.
General considerations . . .... 91-93
Special questions :
i. Justin and the Gospel of Peter.
Broad grounds for considering it improbable that
Justin used this work  93-97
The traits common to both appear in a more
embellished form in the G<7jr^^/ <?/" /"^/^r . 97-102

Table of Contents

Xlll

The similarities between them are to be attributed
to the use by both of a record supposed to
be Pilate's, to which Justin and Tertullian
both refer (p. 103 ff.); which is partially given
in the form of a letter still extant (p. 1 10 f.) ;
and which was used in the compilation of
the Gospel of Nicodemus (p. 112 ff.), and by
Cyril of Jerusalem (p. 117 f.) . . . 102-121
ii. The remaining Apocryphal m.atter in Justin.
Parallelisms with the Protevangelium Jacobi . 1 21-124
The Gospel according to the Hebrews a possible
source ... . . . 124-126
General results  127-8
Additional Notes :
I. The position of recent criticism in regard to Justin's

use of our Gospels . . . 1 .
II. Dr E. A. Abbott on Justin's relation to the Fourth
Gospel 
III. Parallelisms between the Gospel of Peter and other
Christian writings which may be traced to the use
in common of a supposed report by, or official
record made for, Pilate ....
IV. The Apocryphal matter in Justin

129-131

131-2

132-3133-136

CHAPTER IV.

THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE APPEARANCE OF
THE WRITINGS OF JUSTIN MARTYR AND OF THE
TREATISE AGAINST HERESIES OF IRENAEUS.
Lack of literary activity in the Churches of Asia Minor up to
the middle of the second century ....
Melito and Apollinaris and the fragments of their writings
The letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons
The fragments of Dionysius of Corinth .
Theophilus ad Autolycum 
Tatian and his writings 
The writings of Athenagoras ....

137-8 138-142
142-3 143-4
144-5 145-151
1 5 1-2

xiv Table of Contents
PAGES
The effect of increased interest in the Doctrine of the Logos in
directing attention to the Fourth Gospel . . • -152
Hegesippus  I53-IS7
Gnostic teachers of the second generation .... IS7-IS9
The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs  1 59-161

CHAPTER V.
THE ASIATIC TRADITION IN REGARD TO THE
APOSTLE JOHN.
The present attitude of criticism in regard to this tradition . 162-3
The topics whose bearing on the trustworthiness of this tradi
tion has to be discussed . . . . . . .164
(i) The silence of the Sub-Apostolic Age in regard to the
Apostle John  164-166
(2) The effect of the reference or references to him by
Papias  166-168
(3) The personality of John the Elder .... 168-171
(4) The relations between the Apocalypse of John and the
Fourth Gospel  171-173
(5) Quartodecimanism ....... 173-197
(6) The impugners in the second century of the genuine
ness of the writings attributed to the Apostle John . 198-212
(7) The value of the testimony of two of the chief wit
nesses for the truth of the common tradition:
(a) Irenaeus  213-228
(b) Polycrates  228-231
Conclusion  232-238
Additional Note :
Dr J. R. Harris and Dr E. A. Abbott on the attitude of
Gains to the Fourth Gospel ...... 239-243

Table of Contents xv

CHAPTER VI.
THE POSITION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS AT THE
CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY; THE USEi
OF OTHER GOSPELS; GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.
PAGES
The evidence proves that at the close of the second century
the peculiar authority of the Four Gospels was established
throughout the Church of the Graeco-Roman world . . 244-249
Their position beyond these limits :
Churches on the Northern border of the Empire, and to
the South  249-250
Churches to the East :
i. The use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
among Hebrew Christians ..... itfi-it^i
The relative trustworthiness of the traditions of the
Hebrew and Greek Churches .... i<,i-7.iii.
The contents of the Gospel according to the Hebrews 254-260
ii. The use of Tatian's Diatessaron in the Church of
Mesopotamia and the further East . . . 260-1
Extent to which any Gospels besides the Four had been used
at any time in the Greek and Latin Churches. The
Gospel according to the Hebrews was held in respect here
but little known, and was probably not translated by any
one before Jerome (261 ff.). The circulation of the Gospel
according to the Egyptians was very limited (264 ff).
Of the use of other Apocryphal Gospels in the first three-
quarters of the second century there is even less trace (269) 261-269
The manner in which the unique authority of the Four
Gospels was formally proclaimed implies a virtual agree
ment in respect to them which was very general and of
long standing, and which had arisen from the knowledge
of the generation in which they were put forth that they
were authentic embodiments of the oral testimony of the
first preachers of the Gospel  269-275
The amount of weight to be attached to particular traditions
as to the authorship of the several Gospels . . . 275-277

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS— THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE
USE OF ANY OF THE GOSPELS IN THE SUB-
APOSTOLIC AGE.
The period in the history of the Christian Church which
must come under our consideration — that extending from
the close of the first to the beginning of the third century —
remains as to the earlier and greater portion of it an obscure
one, in spite of all that has been done for its illumination by
the labour of many students. Not a few points are doubtful
owing to sheer lack of evidence ; and the difficulties are not
least as regards the subject of the acknowledgment of our
Gospels. Near the close, however, of the second century the
light is much increased, and it is beyond dispute that at that
time the four Gospels, along with the greater part of the
writings contained in our New Testament, held a position of
peculiar authority in the larger part of the Church.
Zahn accordingly in his History of the New Testament
Canon begins with an examination of the state of things at
~ .his epoch and works backward from it. The same plan was
adopted by Dr Salmon in his Introduction to the New Testa
ment, the first edition of which was published a few years
earlier. Much may be said in favour of this order of investi
gation. Yet on the whole it will, I think, be preferable for us
to adhere to the opposite, the natural, historical order. For
the establishment of the Canon of the four Gospels, as well
as of that of the entire New Testament, was unquestionably a
gradual process, and it needs to be so apprehended. We shall
keep this fact before our minds most clearly if we follow the
course of the history down from one generation to another,
inquiring successively what items of information are supplied
by the remains of each.
s. G. I

2 Introductory Remarks
It must not, however, be supposed that we have learned
all that we can about the earlier times till, after having
reached the end of our period of a little more than a hundred
years, we have looked back over it as a whole. A broad
difference will from the first be manifest between the earliest
age and the condition of things that we are ourselves directly
acquainted with ; and signs of change will be obvious as we
proceed. The position which the Gospels held in the Sub-
apostolic Age was not that which they held in the middle of
the second century; that again which they held in the middle
of the second century was not the same as that which they
'held at the end of it. But it is to be remembered that a
growth which is visible springs from a life which is largely
secret. Latent forces determine the direction and the final
outcome of the development. And it is only by considering
that direction and outcome that we can fully know what the
forces are, which have been at work. This is involved in the
nature of the case ; it is part of the idea of a development,
and is as true of a development in human belief and practice
as of any other. In the earlier stages men often do not
completely understand themselves, are not fully conscious of
what is in their minds, and cannot express adequately what
they mean. One who confines his attention to the language
and other outward signs of the time may be much at fault
as to the real state of feeling, its true origin, its practical
influence and its potentialities. Especially is this likely
where, as in the instance before us, our knowledge is very
fragmentary. The historian who in such a case fails to ask
what light the later part of the history throws upon the
earlier neglects a valuable means of arriving at the truth.
The problem is presented to him of forming a conception of
a process as a whole, and the result of the process is one of
the elements given for its solution. Hence we shall at first be
making as it were a preliminary survey, and preparing the
way for a comprehensive view, which, when it is attained, may
affect our judgment even on particular points that have been
already discussed.

Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp

Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp.
The Epistle to the Corinthians, by Clement of Rome,
Ignatius's seven Epistles (in the shorter Greek, or Vossian,
form), and Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians form a class
by themselves of writings which may now be regarded with
confidence as genuine works of these immediate successors of
the Apostles. The first named is in all probability the earliest
Christian document which we possess outside the Canon ;
there are strong reasons and a large amount of consensus
among scholars for placing it about the close of the reign of
Domitian (A.D. 95 or 96)^- The Epistles of Ignatius may be
referred to circ. A.D. 110—115^; while from an allusion in the
Epistle of Polycarp we judge that it was written only a few
week's after them. ^
In these works we have quotations of Christ's sayings, but
in all cases cited simply as words of His ; that is to say, no
reference is made by name to any document or documents,
where they might be found, and they are not introduced even
with, the formula "it is written^" But it would be unreason
able to conclude from this that they were not derived from a
written source. In all generations it has been a common
^ See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part i, I. p. 346 f. Harnack, Chron. I.
p. 255, is inclined to place it a year or two earUer.
^ The proof of the genuineness of the Letters of Ignatius in the shprt Greek,
or Vossian, form has been due mainly to Zahn {Ignatius von Antiochien, 1873) and
Lightfoot {Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. (1885), pp. 280 — 430 in 2nd edition). Harnack, in
the Expositor for 1886, pp. 10, 15, agrees that the arguments for the genuineness
of the Epistles in this form are conclusive. See further Chron. I. p. 388 ff. There
may be more room for doubt as to the date. Yet on the whole the relation of
the language of the letters to points of doctrinal controversy favours the truth of
the tradition that Ignatius was martyred under Trajan. Lightfoot gave circ.
A.D. no as the probable date of the composition of the letters and martyrdom.
Harnack, ib., argued for the possibility or even probability of a later date, circ.
A.D. 130 (see esp. p. 188). He now, however, places them in the last years of
Trajan, between A.D. no and 117, or possibly a few years later, A.D. 117 — 125,
Chron. I. p. 406. The genuineness and date of Polycarp's Epistle to the
Philippians are virtually established when these points have been settled for the
Epistles of Ignatius.
^ It should be observed, however, that Ignatius's language in one passage
seems to suggest that the facts of the Gospel were accessible to him and to his
readers in a written form, Ad Philad. ch. 5 ; see Lightfoot, in loc.

4 The character of the quotations
practice to quote sayings of Christ as being what He said,
without specification of the record containing them. And to
do so must have seemed specially natural to the generation to
which Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp belonged. The
first of these at least probably was, and the second may well
have been, a full-grown man and a convert to Christianity
before any one of the Gospels had been put forth. And the
habits of thought engendered during a period of oral teaching
must have continued even after written accounts began to be
circulated. That which had been read would still be cited
after the manner adopted when it used to be transmitted
solely by word of mouth. It is not necessary, however, to
insist on the force of this consideration. For in connexion
with the numerous quotations from the Old Testament in the
Epistle of Clement there are hardly any references to the books
whence they were taken ; while they are frequently introduced
as the words of God, or of the Spirit, and once of Christ
" through the Holy Spirit^."
It is, however, further to be observed that the quotations
of which we have been speaking do not, for the most part,
correspond literally with any passages in our Gospels. But
the want of perfect accuracy does not, any more than the
absence of precise reference, preclude the possibility that they
were taken from the Gospels. There was a very different
standard in matters of quotation then, among classical as well
as Christian writers, from that which exists at present. Books
as they were ordinarily produced were not furnished with the
means whereby references could be readily made. Fear of the
labour that was likely to be involved in finding any particular
passage would often induce men to rely on memory. It is also
clear that the age cannot have set store by verbal exactness in
quotation, since measures for facilitating it were not takenl
The Gospels were doubtless at first put forth in the same form
as other books of the time, and the early Fathers were affected
by the prevailing habits in respect to quotation. It may be
1 ch. 22 beginning. There are very few express quotations from the Old
Testament in Epp. of Ignatius and Polycarp, so that we have in them no proper
basis for a comparison.
" See Additional Note i. p. 22 ff.

in early Christian writers 5
remarked that their quotations from the Old Testament are
frequently inaccurate, and this is especially true of short
ones. These would be far more difficult to find than long
ones, without the aid of pages, or lines, numbered in the same
way in different copies, or the division of the text into short
sections^ It is to be added that in Evangelic quotations we ought to
be least of all surprised at divergences even from a record
which has been in the main followed, owing to the existence
of parallel accounts. And if the attempt was made to
give the substance common to more than one of these, it
would be suitable that no one of them should be expressly
cited. These are all considerations which clearly ought to be
taken into account ; but it will be a question how far in each
case they afford a sufficient explanation for differences from
our Gospels.
In two passages of Clement's Epistle " the words '' (ot
XoyotY of Christ are expressly cited. In the first we have a
^ Dr Westcott (Canon, p. 129) has pointed out in regard to Justin's quotations
from O.T. that "the variations are most remarkable and frequent in short
passages"; and he adds "that is exactly in, those for which it would seem
superfluous to unroll the MS. and refer to the original text." I have implied above,
and have shewn in the Additional Note, p. 22 ff., that there was a further and
perhaps even more important reason for the difference.
The same difference is noticeable in the Ep. of Clement. His long quotations
from O.T. agree almost verbally with the Lxx., and the discrepancies are of a kind
which may be fairly attributed to variations of text, or to slight carelessness in
transcription : — see chh. 4, ro (two passages occurring near together in Genesis, and
each of some length), 15 (the second quotation), 16, 18, 22, 35, 39, 53, 56, 57.
In ch. 12 he does seem to rely on his memory in reproducing a long narrative ; in
ch. 8 he may be quoting from some source unknown to us (see Lightfoot in loc).
On the other hand nearly all his short quotations from O.T. are more or less
decidedly inaccurate ; they frequently shew signs of the memory of one passage
being affected by the memory of another. The few that are accurate are mainly
from the Psalms (chh. 27 end, 46, 48, 50). The Book of Psalms would be specially
familiar ; and from the shortness of most of the Psalms, passages could be more
readily found in them than in other books.
2 It may be well to remind the reader that \6-yos has not precisely the same
force as "word" ordinarily has in English. "XAyos never means a word m the
grammatical sense as the mere name of a thing or act (these being expressed by
?iros, ovo/ia, fiij/xa, Lat. vocabulum), but rather a word as the thing referred to, the
material not the formal part.'' Liddell and Scott.

6 The sayings of Christ
collection of precepts " on forbearance and longsuffering " — to
employ Clement's own description\
Thus He (the Lord Jesus) spake: —
Shew m.ercy, that you may receive mercy ;
Forgive, that you may be forgiven;
As you do, so shall it be done to you;
As you give, so shall it be given to you ;
As you judge, so shall you be judged;
As you are kind, so shall you be treated kindly;
With what measure you measure, therewith shall it be
measured to you.
Before we comment at all upon the form and connexion
of these sayings in Clement, we will refer to the fact that a
portion of the passage recurs in Polycarp's Epistle, though
with some differences in the several clauses and in their
order'-", while the whole of it is given again, almost word for
word as in the Roman Clement, in the Miscellanies of the
Alexandrian Clement". There are some parallelisms also
with certain of the precepts in other later works'- Evidently
the question of the origin of the peculiarities in the citation in
Clement of Rome cannot be dissociated from that of their
reappearance elsewhere.
Bishop Lightfoot is of opinion that " as Clement's quota
tions are often very loose " (he refers especially to those from
the Old Testament) " we need not go beyond the Canonical
Gospels for the source of this passaged" Accordingly he
holds that where it is found in whole or in part in later
writers, this is due to the recollection or the direct employ
ment of Clement's Epistle. That Polycarp, or the Church
of Smyrna, should have possessed a copy is certainly not
^ Clem. Rom. ch. 13. In an Additional Note, p. 25 ff. , I have endeavoured
to bring out clearly both the resemblances to and differences from the Gospels in
this and other passages of the Apostolic Fathers.
^ Ad Phil. ch. 2, see p. 16 and Additional Note II. p. 27.
^ Clem. Al. Strom, n. 18 (p. 476). The only differences are ^Xeeire for Acare
(which hardly deserves to be mentioned), and aPTi/xerpriSiioeTai for iv airifi
fierpTjO^fferaL. * See esp. Resch, Agrapha, p. 97, also Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt i, II. p. 52 n.
Cp. p. II n. below.
'' See Lightfoot, /. c, also Pt 2, III. p. 325 n. to Ep. of Polycarp, ch. 2, end.

in the Epistle of Clement 7
improbable; for it was customary, as an allusion in Poly
carp's own Epistle shews, for copies of the letters of eminent
Christians to be sent to and treasured by others besides the
Churches or persons to whom they were primarily addressed'.
As for Clement of Alexandria, he repeatedly quotes from the
writing before us, sometimes referring to it by name, some
times without mentioning the source. He evidently regarded
it as having in some sense Apostolic authority ; and on one
occasion he speaks of the author as Clement the Apostlel
Much deference is due to the judgment of so great a
scholar as Bp Lightfoot. Nevertheless it must be observed
that there are marks of careful construction in the passage
under consideration which render it improbable that the
words can have been put together simply under the influence
of the accidental associations of memory^ Further Clement's
Epistle would be an unnatural place for subsequent writers to
take Evangelic citations from, however much reverence they
might feel for it, and however glad they might be to quote his
own thoughts and exhortations and arguments*.
Were, then, the words quoted from some Gospel-record
which was early in use and perhaps older than our Gospels ?
The hypothesis of this nature most deserving of consideration
is Resch's, that the source in all the cases in question was
"the Logia," the document which is supposed to have been
referred to by Papias and used in the Gospels according to
Matthew and Luke. The phenomena brought, to light by
critical study of the Gospels, taken with the language of
Papias, have at least rendered the existence of such a writing
far more probable than that of any Apocryphal Gospel, in
Greek at least, at this early time.
1 Ad Phil ch. 13.
^ Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt i, I. pp. 158 — 160.
* Cp. Sanday, Gospels in Second Century, p. 64 f., where also he shews that
the comparison made by Lightfoot with Old Testament quotations is not here
quite in point. See further below, pp. 9, 10 ; also what I have pointed out as to
the nature of the relation in which Clement's passage stands to St Matthew and
St Luke respectively, pp. 8, 12 and Additional Note 11. p. 26.
¦* The Evangelic precepts introduced by him might of course naturally be
reproduced as parts of longer passages from his Epistle. But there is nothing in
the contexts in Polycarp and Clement of Alexandria to remind us of that in
Clement of Rome. Cp. Sanday, Expositor for June 1891, I. pp. 420 — i.

8 The sayings of Christ
There are, however, grave difficulties in the way of our
acceptance of this theory. It requires us to assume that a
translation of " the Logia " had been made into Greek before
Clement of Rome wrote, and that it continued to be read to
the end of the second century and even later^- The words of
Papias (as we shall presently see)^ do not encourage the idea
that a regular Greek translation existed at any time. And we
hear no more of the document. It would be strange, indeed,
that if a distinct Greek translation of such an interesting
and important work was in circulation, there should be no
reference to it even on the part of those writers who made
citations from it, to the end of the second century'.
Further, so far as we can form an idea of "the Logia"
from our First and Third Gospels, the hypothesis that it
supplied the passage in Clement affords only a partial ex
planation of the phenomena. Clement resembles the Gospel
according to St Matthew most closely in respect to the Greek
words used. The sayings, however, in St Matthew corre
sponding to those in Clement do not belong to one context,
but are scattered through the Sermon on the Mount*. Even
from this circumstance alone it is evident that we have not
here merely two various renderings of one original. More
over, his differences from this Gospel in the construction of
the sentences are such as would be caused by an effort after
greater compression rather than by independent translation.
On the other hand, there is considerable similarity as to
general content and form between Clement's quotation and a
short passage in St Luke, vi. 35—38, a similarity greater
in the respects just indicated than that between either of
^ Agrapha, pp. 96 f., 136 ff.
^ See below, p. 55 ff.
' Resch — who maintains that what he terms " genuine Agrapha " were derived
from, or translations of, Hebrew Logia^is not quite explicit as to the extent to
which the Fathers themselves who quote these Logia obtained them direct from
such a Greek document. But in view more particularly of his language on
pp. 80, 81 of Agrapha, I do not think he can imagine anything else, and so
Sanday understands him {Inspiration, p. 300). It is obvious, at all events, that
if the similarity between Clement of Alexandria and Clement of Rome in the
present instance is to be explained by common derivation from "the Logia,"
it must have been from a Greek translation of it.
* See Additional Note II. p. 25 f.

in the Epistle of Clement 9
these and any paragraph or portion of a paragraph of the
Sermon on the Mount in St Matthew. There are, however,
differences even in regard to these points between Clement and
Luke. The order of sentences is not entirely the same, and a
saying occurring at t'. 31 in Luke occurs in Clement in the
midst of those given later by the Evangelist. It is of more
importance that there are some differences between them
which are plainly not mere diversities of rendering. We may
allow Resch's claim that Clement's ac/jtere 'Iva d(f>e07i vfuv and
Luke's orrroXveTe Kal airoXvOrjaecrOe should be regarded thus ;
but the discrepancy of meaning between Clement's eKeare
Iva eKer)6rjT6 and Luke's jiveade oiKripfjjOve'; Ka6ai<; 6 irarrjp
vjjbwv oiKTipiMcov ia-Tiv, cannot be accounted for in this way ;
nor can the similar discrepancy between Clement's &>? %p»7-
a-revecrOe, ovto)? ^pT^o-reii^jjo-eTat vfjiiv and Luke vi. 35^-
An examination of the form of Clement's citation may
give us a clue to a better explanation. Conciseness and
similarity of rhythm appear to have been aimed at in the
manner in which the sayings of which it is made up have
been put together and moulded, as though with the object of
assisting the memory. In each case the conduct enjoined
comes first and is followed by the mention of an appropriate
reward which will be gained through practising the precept^.
It must be added that the effect of the passage taken as a
^ See Additional Note II. p. 26.
^ Dr Sanday pointed out such characteristics in his Gospels in the Second
Century (1876), pp. 64, 65. "It will not fail to be noticed," he there writes, "that
the passage as it stands in Clement has a roundness, a compactness, a balance of
style, which give it an individual and independent appearance. Fusions effected
by an unconscious process of thought are, it is true, sometimes marked by this
completeness; still there is a difficulty in supposing the terse antithesis of the
Clementine version to be derived from the fuller, but more lax and discon
nected sayings in our Gospels." He quotes this passage again Expositor, 1891,
1. p. 419.
In Inspiration (1893), p. 300, he further suggests, no doubt on the ground of
those features described in the passage of his earlier work just quoted, that one
element in the process, by which the piece of teaching we are discussing was
shaped, was the influence of catechizing. He speaks of it as " a small addition "
to the theories of Lightfoot and Resch. I think that in his modesty he attributes
too little importance to it. One could wish that it had fallen within the limits of
his plan to discuss the different theories, which he holds to be " not mutually
exclusive," in their bearing upon each other.

lo The sayings of Christ
whole differs somewhat from that of the corresponding
teaching of the Gospels ; the morality is of a less exalted
character. The prospect of recompense, which is, indeed,
held out in them also, is in the compendium in Clement more
pointedly insisted on, while other considerations, which in the
Gospels have a prominent place, are passed over. The spirit
of the Master has not been so fully caught ; the temptation
has been yielded to of emphasizing unduly the motive which
would appeal most powerfully to ordinary minds.
In all this we trace the influence of the requirements and
the dangers of oral teaching'. Clement, then, we may believe,
was already familiar with this piece of teaching, in the shape
in which he gives it, through the catechetical instruction which
he had received and taken part in. The correspondences in
Polycarp may well be due to the same cause.
It is, however, hardly possible that the whole passage
given in the former should have been preserved orally with
so much accuracy, to the time of Clement of Alexandria.
On the other hand, it is not at all inconceivable that this
little body of precepts, after having been commonly taught in
the manner suggested, should have been included in some
manual like the Didache, which in point of fact contains
similar compendia. This would be the natural receptacle for
it, rather than an Apocryphal Gospel, which would not, so far
as we can judge from such knowledge of Apocryphal Gospels
as we possess, be likely to have given a concise statement of
this kind, or one agreeing on the whole so nearly with our
Canonical Gospels. Nor should it be thought a serious
objection that no book of instruction still exists, or is named,
so far as we can say, in which the summary in question had a
place. A collection of rules for Christian life and worship was
peculiarly liable to be superseded, or to be greatly altered
and expanded, with a view to meeting the needs of various
localities or changes of opinion and organisation in the
Church at large. The relations to one another of the Didache
and of later works of the same type, the various forms of the
' Similar effects may be observed in the Didache : — i. 2, the substitution of a
negative for a positive injunction, ib. 3 d7a7ra7-e roiis /u<sovvTas ii/tSs Kal oix f Jerc
ix9pbv, ib. 4 ihv \6.§ri Tis airb oov rh abv, fiT] dirairci" oidi yd,p divaaoLi.

in the Epistle of Clement n
Apostolical Ordinances, and the Apostolical Constitutions, illus
trate this. As the authority of the Canonical Gospels came
to be more completely established and they became more fully
known, there would be a disposition — to note only one point
with which we are specially concerned — both to quote from
them more largely and to assimilate the language of any
precepts of Christ that were cited more fully to theirs, or to
substitute others taken from them. The operation of this
cause may be traced in the successive works above mentioned;
and we shall see a clear example of it in comparing the quota
tion in Polycarp's Epistle with the corresponding one by
Clement. In the Didache we shall observe a larger amount
of parallelism with the Gospels than in the Lord's words given
in Clement and Polycarp ; and this, too, may in reality be an
illustration of the tendency to which I have referred. That is
to say, the Didache itself may, perhaps, not be the earliest
writing of its kind, or (shall we say .') not, as we have it, the
earliest edition of the work. A kindred work, or a more
primitive form of this one, which may have continued in use
for a century or more in some quarters, may have contained
the piece of teaching which we are discussing, and may have
been the source whence it was taken by the Alexandrian
Clement, and perhaps, also, by Polycarp, if not by the Roman
Clement himself It is possible, also, to account satisfactorily
in this way for the other instances of sayings similar in form'.
It should especially be remarked that the most considerable
ones are to be found in the Apostolical Constitutions and the
closely related Didascalia; that is to say, these relics have
' The passages are,
(n) Const. Apost. II. 21, p. 40 (Lagarde's edition), 656s 5^ dpi]vr\% iarlv 6 auriip
rjfiwif 'iTjffoOs 6 X.piO'rds, 6s Kal iSida^ev ijp.as Xiydjv' d^ere Kai cupedr^fferaL v^Zv'
SiSore Kal SoO-qaerai vfiif (cp. Didasc. II. 21, p. 251 in Analecta Ante- Nicena,
ed. Bunsen). {b) Const. Apost. 11. 42, p. 70, 6'Tt \iyu 6 KiJptos' (^ Kplfiari Kpivere, Kpiffrj-
oeoOe, Kal ojs KaTadtKdi^ere KarabiKaadriaeode (cp. Didasc. II. 42, p. 269).
The two passages in the Didascalia are practically the same as those in the
Constitutions. The two remaining instances are in Macarius, Horn. 37, 3, ap. Galland vii. p. 1 28
Ka$lt)s hiereiKwro a(peTe Kcd Acpedrifferai ufitv ; and Ps. Ign. ad Trail. 8 dtpere yap,
tpTja-lif 6 KOpios ¦fjfiwi', Kal d^e^^cerat O/uy.

12 The sayings of Christ
survived just in the places where we might have expected to
find them according to the theory here propounded.
We will now go back and ask, as our final question. What
lay behind the catechetical inculcation of this form ? Whence
was the subject-matter derived? What besides the natural
tendencies of the catechist had determined its shape 1
We have said that our piece of teaching most closely
resembles St Luke in outline and St Matthew in phraseology.
But it is inconceivable that a compiler should of set purpose
have combined the two Gospels in this particular way. Pro
vided, however, that the outline had been determined by
some independent cause, reminiscences of the words of similar
sayings in St Matthew might well in a shorter or longer time
have affected the language. If, as some students of the
Synoptic Problem think, the disposition of matter in "the
Logia" is most truly represented in St Luke, then the con
tents and arrangement of our passage may be derived after
all from a written fragment of the Logia in Greek or from
extemporary oral translation of it by Jewish converts who
knew Hebrew as well as Greek. But the oral teaching given
in Rome, or one type of it, whether it corresponded with the
form of " the Logia " or not, is perhaps on the whole a more
likely source.
The words and expressions which coincide with those in
St Matthew may of course have belonged to the original oral
teaching, too. Still there is some ground for tracing them to
knowledge of St Matthew, for there are other parallelisms
with this Gospel in Clement's Epistle which (or some of
which) more distinctly suggest acquaintance with it.
But whatever the history of the piece may be, it must
certainly, in view of the more uniform and restricted character
of its appeals, be pronounced less fresh and true as a presen
tation of the Master's teaching, than those which correspond
to it in St Matthew and St Luke.
The few remaining points which have to be noticed in
Clement's Epistle will not detain us long. In the only other
instance in which he expressly cites the Lord's words' he
' ch. 46.

in the Epistle of Clement 13
gives the substance of the warning against causing offence
contained in Mt. xviii. 6, 7, and to a considerable extent in
the same language. The unusual word KaTairovTia-Orjvai used
by Clement and occurring in St Matthew, but not in the
parallels in St Mark and St Luke, should specially be observed.
Further Clement's variations from the passage in St Matthew
just referred to are easily explicable. A phrase is introduced
from another passage in the same Gospel where a woe is
pronounced, while there is an inversion of clauses, so that the
order becomes the same as in St Luke. These are differences
which might easily arise from slight confusions in the memory.
He also substitutes " mine elect " for " these little ones," and
" pervert " for " cause offence " on the second occurrence of
that word, not improbably with the object of making the
meaning of the saying plainer. This fusion of quotation and
exegesis may not accord with modern ideas of critical method,
but it was convenient and we can well understand it.
We have yet to mention two parallelisms with the Gospel
accg to St Matthew where there is no express reference to
Christ's teaching. In ch. 24 he employs the first words of
the Parable of the Sower, " the Sower went forth," which
occur of course in all three Synoptics. Once more, in ch. 16
end, he uses language in which it is difficult not to recognise
an allusion to the great saying in Mt. xi. 29. " Ye see, dearly
beloved," writes Clement, " what is the pattern that hath been
given unto us ; for if the Lord was thus lowly in mind (ovtco';
iTa'irei,vo<j)p6vriaev, cp. Ta-Trei,v6<; rfj Kaphici) what should we do,
who through him have been brought under the yoke of his
grace } " (tov ^vyov Trj'^ p^aptTo? avrov). There are no cor
respondences with the Gospel accg to St Luke to be noticed in
Clement, besides those which have come before us already.
But a presumption in favour of acquaintance with the Third
Gospel may be created by signs of acquaintance with the Acts
of the Apostles, on account of the close connexion between
these two works, and one or two such can be pointed out in
Clement's Epistle. One trait in the character which Clement
exhorts his readers to aim at is that of "being more glad
to give than to receive" (ch. 2, cp. Acts xx. 35). Again his
description of the Apostles' fulfilment of their mission

14 Parallelisms with St Matthew
(ch. 42) might well have been moulded on passages of the
Acts. We pass now to the Epistles of Ignatius. The only actual
citation which he makes of words of Christ appears to be
taken from some source other than our Gospels. " When he
came," Ignatius writes {Ad Smyrn. ch. 3), "to Peter and his
company, he said to them, Take hold, and handle me, and
see that I am not an incorporeal demon." The sense is the
same as that of Luke xxiv. 39 15, but the phraseology is
markedly different both from that of this passage and of the
Canonical Gospels generally'. There is also no precedent in
the Gospels for the expression " Peter and his company."
Origen {De Princ. praef ch. 8) refers to the latter part of this
saying. He is confuting an erroneous view which had been
based on the application of the word " incorporeal." He does
not mention Ignatius ; but he points out that the words are
not found in any one of the Canonical Gospels, and says that
they are contained in " the little book called the Doctrine of
Peter!' Jerome, however {De Vir. Illustr. ch. 16, on Ignatius),
asserts that it was quoted from the Gospel which he himself had
lately translated, i.e. the Gospel accg to the Hebrews (ib. ch. 3).
Origen and Jerome were both right, we may believe, as to
the places where they had met with the saying. But we shall
see before we have concluded the investigations in this volume
that the latter of these two works is far more likely, as the
more ancient and the more highly esteemed, to have been the
true source than the former. We shall also indeed see that
probably no Greek version of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews
existed before Jerome's time ; but portions of it may have
been communicated both to Ignatius and the author of the
Doctrine of Peter by means of oral translation from the
Hebrew. Or, again, Ignatius may have learned the saying
thus, and the author of the Doctrine of Peter have obtained it
from him. Once more, it is possible that, as Bp Lightfoot
suggests, it may have passed independently from oral
' Notice both the word dcrd/jiaTov, incorporeal, and the use of Sai/xiviov in a
good, or neutral, sense, whereas in our Gospels it is always used in a bad
sense.

in the Epistles of Ignatius 15
tradition into the pages of Ignatius, and into that recension
of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews which Jerome knew'.
Ignatius makes another reference to the Gospel history
which appears to have a legendary character". Speaking of
the star whereby Christ was manifested, he says that it out
shone all the other stars, and that all the rest of the constella
tions together with the Sun and the Moon formed themselves
into a chorus about it. This description differs markedly
from the simple narrative of St Matthew. It is unlikely that
Ignatius is merely giving the rein to his imagination. We
may conjecture that he had obtained the idea from the same
source, whatever that was, as the words of the risen Christ
which have just been, discussed.
Nevertheless the Epistles of Igjtatius contain clear signs
of acquaintance with our first Gospel. The following are
specially striking. He writes that Jesus was baptized by
John "in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by
him''," in strict accordance with the saying at Mt. iii. 15.
Again, he twice applies the description given of the Pharisees
by Christ, which is recorded only Mt. xv. 13, to false teachers;
they are not, he says, "the planting of the Father" {(fivreia
Trarpo'iy. Once more, he writes to Polycarp, " be thou prudent
as the serpent in all things, and guileless always as the dove\"
In both the last instances the language gains greatly in force
through its allusiveness, which we are entitled to assume, to
sayings in the Gospels. The adaptation of the well-known
precept, addressed originally by Christ to the Twelve on
sending them forth (Mt. x. 16), to a Christian bishop of the
next generation, by the change of the plural into the singular,
and the introduction of the words " in all things '' and
" always,'' is peculiarly telling^
There are no indications of the use of the second and
third Synoptics in the Epistles of Ignatius. We will defer the
consideration of the parallelisms with the Fourth Go,spel till
' Ap. Frs, Pt 2, II. in loc. ^ Ad Ephes. ch. 19.
^ Ad Smyrn. ch. i.
¦i Ad Trail, ch. 11 ; Ad Philad. ch. 3. ^ ch. 2.
^ For the words of the original and for one or two other parallelisms with
St Matthew see Additional Note II. p. 27 I.

1 6 Parallelisms with the Synoptics
after we have examined those with the Synoptics in the
Epistle of Polycarp.
We have referred to the fact that Polycarp's letter con
tains a summary of a portion of the teaching of the Sermon
on the Mount which corresponds in part to one in Clement's.
It runs as follows :
Rememberi7ig the words which the Lord spake, as He
taught ;
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to you.
Shew mercy, that you may receive mercy.
With what measure you measure, it shall be m.easured to
you again.
And that,
Blessed are the poor and they that are persecuted for
righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God^.
After our full discussion of the similar passage in Clement
it will suffice here to notice the points in respect of which
Polycarp agrees more closely with our Gospels, and which
seem to shew plainly that if he had either Clement's quota
tion, or the source from which it was taken, in mind, he has in
reproducing it been influenced consciously or unconsciously
by his recollection of one or more of the Gospels.
The injunction not to judge others is given precisely in
the same form as in St Matthew, and it has been brought to
the front just as in that Gospel it begins a fresh passage. In
the second sentence in Polycarp, the two parts are coupled
together by a conjunction, a form in which many of the
precepts in both St Matthew and St Luke are cast, but which
is not used at all in Clement. In the fourth the same
compound word is used as in the corresponding saying in
Luke (vi. 38 b), according to the best supported reading.
Most important of all, Polycarp, as it were with the view of
supplementing the previously made compendium, adds the
first and the eighth of the Beatitudes, compressing them into
one, which it was the more easy to do because in St Matthew
' Ad Phil. ch. i. For Greek see Additional Note II. p. 27.

in the Epistle of Polycarp 17
they have the same termination. With St Luke, however, he
omits "in spirit" after "poor," and employs the phrase "king
dom of God " for " kingdom of heaven."
In one other passage, also, Polycarp cites a saying of
Christ. He exhorts his readers to entreat "the all-seeing
God with supplications that He 'bring us not into tempta
tion,' according as the Lord said, ' The spirit indeed is willing,
but the flesh is weak '." These last words are given in
Mt. xxvi. 41, as also in Mk xiv. 38, but not in St Luke.
The clause of the Lord's Prayer referred to is the same both
in St Matthew and St Luke.
In one place Polycarp applies to our Lord the description
"servant of all" found exactly in St Mark alone (ix. 35).
This is the only distinct instance of parallelism with this
Gospel in the writings of the three Apostolic Fathers. In a
few cases, indeed, the words which have been adduced as
probably taken from St Matthew are likewise in St Mark ;
but the former must be regarded as the more probable source,
because the evidence of its being in use is on the whole so
much stronger. It is, indeed, the only one of the Synoptic
Gospels, the signs of the use of which in the Sub-apostolic
Age are really impressive. When we pass on in the next
chapter to examine the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles we
shall find there striking parallels with St Luke. But quota
tions from, or traces of acquaintance with, St Matthew continue
to be by far the most abundant throughout the second quarter
and the middle of the second century ; while the traces of
St Mark are very meagre. It is natural that it should be so,
in spite of the fact that, as may be inferred from the internal
criticism of the Gospels, our second Gospel was put forth
earlier than either St Matthew in its present shape or St Luke.
For nearly the whole of St Mark is in substance contained in
St Matthew, and most of it in St Luke, while in these Gospels
other matter of surpassing interest is given also. Until men
learnt to compare the Gospels somewhat carefully with one
another and to notice individual traits in each, and began to
appreciate the importance of such study, which they could
not be expected to do at first, they would have little reason
for turning to St Mark at all, if they possessed St Matthew.
s. G. 2

1 8 The Apostolic Fathers
St Mark may even have been rarely copied\ If we may
assume here the truth of the view that St Mark, or a docu
ment resembling it, is one of the sources of both the other
two Synoptics, which, as is well known, is now widely held by
those who have studied the Synoptic Problem, we may con
jecture that the writers of our first and third Gospels embodied
the subject-matter of St Mark with other records, with the
express intention of meeting a demand for a fairly complete,
serviceable, account of the Teaching and Works of Jesus
Christ. Nor is it difficult to suggest reasons why our first
Gospel should have been a special favourite. It gave the
popular teaching of Christ massed in a way that made it
peculiarly impressive ; it dwelt also in a marked manner on
the fulfilment of prophecy. If further the name of the
Apostle Matthew was already connected with it, there was
in this an additional ground for preference. Next to it, the
value of St Luke would be most readily perceived on account
of the many precious sayings and narratives which were here
alone preserved.
We turn, lastly, to enquire whether, and if so how far, the
Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp afford evidence of
the existence of the Fourth Gospel and of its recognition by the
Church. The first of these writers gives no clear sign that he
knew this Gospel^; but that fact is not incompatible with its
having been composed by the Apostle John and put forth in
his life-time, if the tradition which was believed by Irenaeus
and other writers belonging to the latter part of the second
century was true, that he lived till the times of Trajan (who
' Mr Burkitt has pointed out ( Two Lectures on the Gospels, p. 33) that in order
to explain the fact that the Gospel according to St Mark has come down to us
with the original narrative broken off at xvi. 8, and a conclusion evidently supplied
to fill up a lacuna, we must suppose that all our copies are ultimately descended
from a single mutilated copy. And he adds "A Gospel which survives in a single
imperfect copy must have been, at least for a time, out of fashion. " I think it
would probably be a little more correct to say that it "came only slowly into
circulation." But at all events, comparatively few copies can have been in
existence. Mr Burkitt's argument confirms and is confirmed by the evidence to
which I have drawn attention.
2 It should be remarked, however, that the thought at the beginning of Clem.
ad Cor. ch. 42, concerning the relation between the Mission of the Apostles from
Christ, and of Christ from God, corresponds closely with the saying at Jn xx. 21.

and the Fourth Gospel 19
became Emperor A.D. 98). Even if we suppose that his Gospel
first began to circulate in Asia Minor some five or six years
before this, a copy might well not have reached Rome in time
for Clement to have become familiar with it when he wrote his
Epistle in A.D. 95 or 96. While if the Gospel accg to St John
was first given to the Church after his death by companions
and disciples, as we may infer to have been the case from its
last chapter, Clement's ignorance of it would be perfectly
explicable even on the assumption that St John did not live
quite so long as in after times he was said to have done.
With Ignatius and Polycarp the case is different. When
they wrote sufficient time had unquestionably elapsed for
them to have become acquainted with the work, if it was by
the Apostle John. Moreover, the former of them was writing
from, and in most of his Epistles addressing the Churches of,
a region where, according to the tradition preserved in
Irenaeus and other writers to whom I have alluded, St John
lived and exercised great influence during the closing years of
his life, while Polycarp had been one of his hearers. Here
then, on the assumption of the Johannine authorship of the
Fourth Gospel, we may certainly expect to find indications of
its use. And such do not seem to me to be altogether
wanting, although they are not so full and clear as might
have been expected.
Ignatius writes to the Romans (ch. 7) : " My lust hath been
crucified, and there is no fire of material longing in me, but
only water living and speaking in me, saying within me,
Come to the Father." This may justly be regarded as an
interpretation and application of the saying to the woman of
Samaria (Jn iv. 10), effected through combining it with the
teaching in other parts of the same Gospel concerning Christ's
own mission to make known and to bring men to the Father
(Jn xvii. 6; xiv. 6 etc.), and with its language regarding the
Spirit, who is " the living water '' (Jn vii. 38, 39) and whose office
it is to carry on the work of Christ (Jn xvi. 8 f etc.). Again, to
the Philadelphians (ch. 7) he writes : " For even though certain
persons desired to deceive me after the flesh, yet the spirit is
not deceived, being from God ; for it knoweth whence it
cometh and whither it goeth." It is natural in this passage

20 The Apostolic Fathers
to see an allusion to our Lord's words to Nicodemus (Jn
iii. 8). In the brief Epistle of Polycarp, where so many phrases
are introduced from various Epistles of St Paul and from
St Peter', there is also a sentence which must, assuredly, have
been taken from a passage in the First Epistle of St John,
though the latter is slightly condensed. "Everyone," he writes,
" who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is
antichrist''." We are enquiring, it is true, after traces of the
influence of the Gospel accg to St John ; but clear parallelisms
with the First Epistle are not beside our purpose. These
two writings are so closely connected in their style and
teaching, that evidence in regard to one of them bears on
the position of the other. In the latter portion of another
sentence of Polycarp — in the first part of which he employs
the words of St Paul — there are several points which remind
us of various passages in the Gospel and the First Epistle of
St John : '' He that raised him from the dead will raise us
also; if we do his will and walk in his commandments and
love the things which he loved'." In tv/o other places his
language resembles that of a passage in the Third Epistle of
John*.
The case as regards the evidence of acquaintance with the
Gospel accg to St John supplied by the Epistles of Ignatius
and Polycarp stands thus. Taken by itself it is inconclusive.
In the former writer it is somewhat indeterminate ; his
Johannine expressions might possibly have been derived
from the phraseology of a school. In Polycarp on the other
' The only writing expressly referred to by Polycarp throughout is St Paul's
Epistle to the Philippians, the Church which he was himself addressing (ch. 3), and
this one he does not mention at the places (chh. 9 and 12 end) where he appears
to quote from it.
^ Polyc. ad Phil. ch. 7 ttSs yi,p, 8s i,v p.T\ 6/40X073 'Ii/o-oCi' 'KpioThv iv a-apKl
iXriXxiBivai., AnTlxpto^Tds ionv. Cf. i Jn iv. -j, 3.
5 Polyc. ad Phil. ch. 2 ^dc iroiup.ev avroS rb 8i\7)fj,a Kal iropewlifieda iv rati
ivToXah airov Kal ayawUfiev a iiyainfaev. Cf. Jn vii. 17, xiv. 15 ; i Jn ii. 17, 6,
V. I, 2.
* Compare a-uvexo-pv op-w /j.eyaXm iv Kvplip iifiuv 'l-qa-oS XpioTtf, Se^afnivois ri,
lup.-qp.aTa T^s a\r]8oSs iya-Tnis Kal Trpoirififaoiv etc. (Polyc. ch. t) and in veritate
sociati (ch. 10), with the ixo-PV, irpo-n-ip-xpa! and o-vvepyol r-j oK-qedi/. of 3 Jn 3 — 8,
and the general tenor of that passage.

and the Fourth Gospel 21
hand the evidence is partly indeterminate, partly indirect.
Neither can fairly be reckoned a witness adverse to the
existence at this time of the Fourth Gospel or the recognition
of its Johannine authorship, and this is in itself important.
On the contrary the phenomena that we have noted point to
acquaintance with it, but we cannot feel confident that they
may not be due to some other cause, so long at least as we
confine our attention to the Sub-apostolic Age'. The decision
between alternative explanations must come, if it is to come
at all, from the position which the Gospel holds and the
strength of the tradition in its favour, which we shall observe
later. These may render it highly probable that the corre
spondences with its thought and language in the very early
writings which we have now been considering should be put
to the account of its use. And the grounds for believing that
our first Gospel was already in use at this time are not
essentially different. The signs of its use are indeed more
distinct, but they would hardly suffice to establish the point
apart from its probability independently.
' See fiirther pp. 165-6, 235-7, on the absence of direct aUusions to the Apostle
John in the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp. The question considered in the
present chapter is simply whether in the language of these writings there are
indications of the influence of the Fourth Gospel.

ADDITIONAL NOTE I. TO CHAPTER I.
THE FORM OF ANCIENT BOOKS AS AFFECTING
HABITS OF QUOTATION.
I. The only kind of division of the subject-matter which was ever
coirimon in Greek and Roman Literature even to the sixth century A.D.
was " the book," in the sense of a portion of a larger work. The book in
this sense, as the names for it in Greek and Latin (/Si^Xos and /3i/3Xiov,
volumen, also later and more rarely rd/ios') imply, corresponded originally
and normally with the contents of a roll. (See Birt, Antike Buchwesen
esp. chh. 3, 5 and 7, comparing Bergk, Griechische Literaturgeschichte I.
p. 226 f.) For the most part works which could be comprised within a roll
of moderate proportions — as for example most of Plato's Dialogues and
even the longer writings of the New Testament could be — had no divisions,
and larger works no lesser ones. Only in the case of works of a few
authors do we hear of chapters or headings (xfc^aXam, capita, also called
rvrXoi) which served to break up the text into portions. The scholiasts
and commentators upon Aristotle speak of such in his treatises. In the
main this evidence belongs to the third and following centuries A.D. ; but
the divisions in question may, at least in some instances, have been early
introduced and traditionally preserved. Yet they do not seem to have been
employed in all his works. The Cotistilution of Athens, in the recently
recovered papyrus MS. of it, is without them (see Kenyon's ed. p. xviii.).
Moreover, so far as I have observed, the scholiasts and commentators
themselves, though they mention chapters when discussing the question
how a treatise should be analysed, rarely refer to statements, opinions
or words as contained in such and such a chapter. Commonly they
give only the philosopher's name, or the treatise, or book of the treatise,
with an indication sometimes that the passage will be found near the
beginning, or the end, of a treatise, or book. In writers earlier than the
fourth century A.D. this vague mode of reference is, I believe, universal.
Moreover, the works other than those of Aristotle, which were divided
into chapters, seem to have been chiefly those which consisted of a
series of articles, such as collections of marvellous stories, books on
Natural History and Botany, medical, and probably also legal, books.
Clement of Alexandria (circ. A.D. 200) also seems to have divided his

Form of ancient books 23
Miscellanies into chapters. " Let this second Miscellany,''' he writes at
the close of the second book, " here terminate on account of the length
and number of the chapters." The only instance of a reference to a
nujnbered cha.^t&r appears to be that in Cassiodorus {Lib. Lit ch. 3, Migne,
vol. LXX. col. 1204) to "the ninth chapter of the first book of ^h^ Antiquities
of Josephus." These numbers may have been inserted in the Latin trans
lation which Cassiodorus himself caused to be made {Div. Lit. ch. 17,
Migne, ib. col. 1133). [For the instances given, see Bergk, ib. p. 233,
Birt, ib. p. 157. To the examples of works with headings quoted by these
writers, Dioscorides on Plants and Roots may be added, see Palaeo-
graphicat Society's Publications, i. plate 177. On the other hand, they
are both, I believe, in error when they state that Symmachus' copy of
Seneca had chapters. The reference to Seneca by Migne {ap. Symm.
Ep. X. 27), or some other editor, introduced within a bracket, has, it
would seem, been mistaken for part of Symmachus' text. Of the employ
ment of any subdivisions of chapters there is no trace whatever. The word
rfirjfia (section) is indeed used, but only as an equivalent for Kfcjjakacov.^
But passages in a book may be referred to by other means than
divisions made according to the sense. We cite often by the page. It
does not, however, seem to have been customary to number the pages of
the MSS. of literary works in ancient times, and references are never given
thus. There would be obvious difficulties in the way of doing so, since
different scribes would bring a different amount into a page, and after
several pages the discrepancy might be serious. It would be possible,
also, to place numbers in the margin, which even in prose-works might
correspond with some definite number of lines in a standard copy. The
lengths of prose works, as well as of poems, were actually specified by the
numbers of lines they contained, some standard plainly being assumed.
But the purpose of so measuring seems in general to have been either to
fix the price which should be paid for the labours of the copyist, or to
indicate the extent of an author's works on account of the biographical
interest which such a fact had. But the affixing of a series of successive
numbers to small portions of the text in accordance with some standard
copy or standard length of line was certainly rare, and it is doubtful
whether it was ever done. [Cp. Bergk, ib. p. 230-1; Birt, ib. p. 158 ff
esp. pp. 175-7.] Birt seems to me to misinterpret somewhat the evidence
afforded by the few cases in which some use is made of numbers of lines
as a means of indicating the places where passages could be found, and
in particular the references in Annotations of Five of Cicero's Orations
by Asconius Pedianus (B.C. 2 — A.D. 83). Even these do not prove that
he could rely on there being corresponding numbers in the copies of this
much studied author which his readers would have. He always prefixes
'' circa" to these numbers— about so many lines from the first, or the last.
It is true the numbers are not all strictly speaking round numbers. He
says not only " about 300," " about 600," but '' about 620," " about 640."
But it should be remembered that when, for instance, " about 620" follows
" about 600," the reader after having found the earlier words indicated

24 Form of ancient books
would easily find the next by counting 20 hnes, in which amount there
would not be room for a serious difference. Further Asconius also uses
the following expressions, — "about the middle," "about the third part
from the beginning," or again, " after two parts of the speech," and " after
three parts"; and several times after giving a reference in one of the ways
that have been mentioned he introduces the next passage of which he
wishes to speak with the words "a little afterwards,'' and the intervals
thus described vary considerably ; they must have extended in some cases
to several columns of a MS. It is manifest that he would not have
spoken thus, if he could readily have given some precise number.
2. Let us turn now to the Scriptures. We hear of chapters in the
Old and New Testaments from Clement of Alexandria {Strom. I. xxi.
p. 409) and Tertullian {Ad Uxorem, ii. 2) respectively. But perhaps we
ought not to infer from these allusions that the New Testament was even
in their time systematically divided throughout (cp. Scrivener, Introduc
tion to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed. p. 58). Nevertheless
it is very possible that divisions had been already introduced because of
the great value they would have in connexion with pubhc reading in the
congregation, as shewing where the reader should begin and end. And
divisions may well have been made some time before in the LXX. to
facilitate its use in the synagogues of the Hellenistic Jews, and this
would have furnished a precedent. A regular cycle of lessons could not,
of course, be established apart from such divisions in the text. The
words of Justin Martyr render it difficult to suppose that a cycle existed in
his day ; he speaks of the reading in the Christian assemblies continuing
"so long as there is time," jj^expn eyx^P" (Apol. i. 67). But, as 1 have
said, chapters would be useful in public reading even before the adoption
of a cycle. The Gospels were also broken up into sections with a view to
the comparison of the parallel passages in different Gospels. Some have
supposed that, soon after the middle of the second century, Tatian made
sections when constructing his Diatessaron; in any case Ammonius
virtually did so in the next century, whether he numbered his sections or
not (cp. Scrivener, ib. p. 59 f.).
It is possible, then, that by the middle of the second century, or a
little later, divisions of some kind had been made in the text of the
Gospels ; but we should certainly not be justified in supposing that any
existed earlier than this.

3. For the purpose of comparison with the early Fathers in respect
to habits of quotation no writings could be more suitable than the Moral
Essays of Plutarch. They abound in quotations from prose authors, more
especially Plato, and Plutarch was a contemporary of the Roman Clement.
He stayed and lectured in Rome when Clement was the chief personage
in the Christian Church there. Plutarch unquestionably knew his Plato
well, and he frequently quotes striking expressions and sentences from

Form of ancient books 25
him with accuracy. Nevertheless there are not a few indications that he
usually quotes from memory.
It is hardly necessary to point out that a distinction should be made
between the amount of accuracy to be expected in quoting prose and
verse. Verse is more easily remembered, and the learning of portions of
the poets by heart formed a considerable part of education. Yet even
quotations from the poets in ancient writers are often inaccurate, or differ
at all events from our text of them.

ADDITIONAL NOTE II. TO CHAPTER L
THE PARALLELISMS WITH THE GOSPELS IN THE
APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
I have in this Additional Note given the Greek of the parallelisms
referred to above, and have also in some cases examined them more fully.
i. Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
{a) Ch. xiii. i b and 2.
/xaXtora fiefivrjfiivoL tS>v \6yaiv tov 'Kvpiov ^Irjaov, ots eXaXTjcrev StdacrKcov
iirielicetav Kal pi.aKpo6vp.iav ovrtos yap Hirev
eXedre Iva iXerjdfJTe,  (l)
d<pi€T€ iva a<l>e6fi vjxiv  (2)
tos Trotetre, outo) 7rotr]67](reTaL vpiv  (3)
ms St'Sore, ovtws do&r}(7€Tai vpilv  (4)
ots Kpivere, ovrats Kptdrjoreo'de'  (5)
a>s ;^pi?(rr6ueo'^e, ovrois xP^a-revdrja-erat vpiiv  (6)
(B p,£Tpco p.eTpeire, iv avria peTpj)dr](TeTai vpuv  (7)
(l) Cp. Mt. v. 7 fiaKapwi ot eXfjj/ioves, ort avrol iXer]6iq(T0vrai. iXeelv
occurs again in a very similar saying at Mt. xviii. 33 but not in any like
saying in Mk or Lu. But cp. Lu. vi. 36 yivea-Be oiKT'ippoves KaBios 6 -n-arrjp
Vfiav olKTippia>v etrTiv.
(2) Puts briefly the double saying in Mt. vi. 14, 15 iav yap aiprjTe toIs
dv6po>Trois ra TrapaTrrw/xara avTav, dcJ3r}a-€i. Kal vpiv 6 Trarrjp vji&v 6 ovpavios'
iav Se p.rj dtjirJTe rois dv6pi>nois ra TrapanTafiaTa avrSjv, ovbe 6 ¦iTaTr]p ifiav
d<j)7]o-ei Ta irapaiTTOipaTa vpajv.
There is a similar saying in Mk xi. 25. Cp. Lu. vi. 37 b awoXieTe Kal
aTToXv6rjcre(T0e. (3) Cp. Mt. vii. 12 a rrdvra ovv oo-a iav BeXryre Iva rromaiv vplv oi
avSpmrroi, ovras Kal vp.€is noietre avTols, and Lu. vi. 3I Kal KaBms deXere
Iva TTOioKriv vpiv ot dvdpwiroi, Trotetre avTols 6poi(os.

26 Parallelisms with the Gospels
(4) Cp. Lu. vi. 38 a diSoTe koI Sodrja-erai vpiv.
(5) Cp. Mt. vii. I jXTj Kpivere Iva pfj KpiBijre, or Lu. vi. 37 a prj Kpivere
Kal ov fxr) KpiBrjTe.
(6) Cp. Lu. vi. 35, where we are exhorted to imitate God, and He is
said to be xp^o-tos. This epithet is not apphed to God in Mt.
(7) Almost exactly as in Mt. vii. 2 and Lu. vi. 38 b.
The form of the first two of these clauses — "shew pity in order that
ye may be pitied, forgive in order that it may be forgiven to you " — is the
same as that of Mt. vii. i a. The form of the next three clauses — ms. . .ovtih
(or ovrms-) — is not found exactly in either Mt. or Lu. ; but we have Ka6i>s
at beginning of sentence in Lu. vi. 31 with Spoims at end; and ovto>s in
middle at Mt. vii. 12 a. Note that the parallels in Luke all occur in
Lu. vi. 31 and 35 — 38. In St Matthew they are scattered.
{b) Ch. xlvi. 7 b and 8.
pvYjcrd-qTe t5>v X6ya>v 'iT^troTj tov Hvplov r]pLQ}v eiTrev ydp' oval t<o dvapwirta
iKeivw- KaXov rjv avrco el ovk eyevvrj6r), rj iva rmv eKXeKTCov pov o-KavdaXio-ar
KpeiTTOv rjv avTW nepiTeBrjvai jxvXov Kal KaraTrovTLoSijvaL els ttjv ddXaa-o-av,
^ eva TQ3V iKXeKTCov pov diacrrpe-^ai.
The purport of the saying is the same as of that at Mt. xviii. 6, 7,
Lu. xvii. I b, 2, Mk ix. 42. It is nearest in form to Mt. xviii. 6, 7 6s 8' av
o-KavdaXia-j] iva rav fjiKpwv tovtcov tq)v ntaTevovrcov els ipe, avp(f>epec aitra iva
KpepiaaOrj pivXos oviKos irepl tov rpdx^^ov avToii Kal KaTa-irovTiaSfj iv ra
ireXdyet ttjs 6aXd<7o-r}s. Oval ro) Koapto d-no tmv o-KavddXcov dvdyKTj ydp
iXdelv rd o-KdvSaXa, ttXtjv oval rw dvdpcoTra St' ou ro o-KdvSaXov ipxerai. We
have here the unusual word KaTairovna-dfj which does not occur in the
other Gospels. We have also a woe pronounced on the man who causes
offence, which is not included in the parallel in Mk. This woe is,
however, placed at the beginning in Clement, at the end in Mt. In
this respect Clement resembles Luke. But, further, the woe is amplified
after the manner of the saying about the traitor in the form that it has in
Mt. xxvi. 24 and Mk xiv. 21.
t53v eKXeKTwv fxov is substituted for rchv piKpcov TovTcov TQiv iria-TevovTaiv
els ipe : eKXeKToi is a not uncommon word in the Synoptic Gospels.
8iaa-Tpi(j)eiv is used, in much the same sense as it has in Clement at Acts
xiii. 8, 10.
{c) Parallelisms of language where there is no express reference
to Christ's teaching.
With Clem. xvi. 17 el ydp 6 Kvpios ovrcos iran eivo<f)p6vJ](Tev, ri Trot^-
(Tcopev Tjpels oi v-tto tov fuyoy rijt x^P^ros avrov 81 avrov iXdovres; COmpareN
Mt. xi. 29 apare tov fuydv pov  on -irpavs elpi Kal raireivos etc. \
At Clem. xxiv. 5 we have i^fjXdev 6 o-neipav, cp. Mt. xiii. 3 and
parallels.

in the Apostolic Fathers 27
ii. Polycarp s Epistle to the Philippians.
{a) Ch. ii.
pvijpiovevovTes Be S>v eX-irev 6 Kvpios SiSdaKav
prj Kpivere, iva prj KpidfJTe  (l)
dtjjiere, Kal dfjudfja-erai ipiv  (2)
iXedre, iva iXerjd^re'  (3)
ffl perpa perpe'ire, dvTipeTprjdrjO-eTai vp'iv  (4)

KOt OTl,

paKapioi ot irTwxoL Kai 01 bio}Kopevoi evcKev biKatoa-vvrjs, on avTQ}V
iarlv rj ^airiXeia rov Seov  (5)
In general form the first part of this passage closely resembles that in
Clem. xiii. 2, but three clauses are omitted — two of which happen to be
those which have parallels in St Luke only — and the order is changed.
Moreover Polycarp's first clause agrees exactly with Mt. vii, i ; his (4)
also has the word dvnpeTptjdrja-eTai which seems to be the right reading in
Lu. vi. ^Sb. Further, he adds the first and eighth of the Beatitudes (Mt.
v. 3 and 10), compressing theiri into one. Like St Luke, however, he
omits roj nvevpan after Trraixoi, and has (Baa-iXeia tov 6eov for (Saa-iXeia
Tav ovpavmv. He also substitutes the present BicoKopevoi for 8e8ia>ypevoi.
{b) Ch. vii. 2.
d€r)a'ea'iv alrovpevoi tov TravreTroirrrjv Seov prj elfxeveyKeiv rjpds eis nei-
patrpov, Ka6(as eiwev 6 K.vpios' to pev nvevpia rrpoBvpov, j] de o'ap^ airdevrjs.
Cp. Mt. vi. 13 (or Lu. xi. 4), and Mt. xxvi. 41 (or Mk xiv. 38).
{c) Parallelism without express citation.
In ch. V. 2 it is said that the Lord became Siokovos rrdvTav. This
exact phrase is found besides only at Mkix. 35, though Mt. xx. 28 should
also be compared. iii. The Epistles of Ignatius.
The only express citation of a saying of Christ's in the Epistles of
Ignatius appears to be taken from an apocryphal or oral source (see
below). Nevertheless there are several parallelisms with the language of
the Gospels, some more, some less striking.
(i) Ad Smyrn. i. i Christ is said to have been baptized by John Iva
rrX7]pad§ -irdcra biKaio<rvvr]. Cp. Mt. iii. 15.
The same chapter contains references to other points in the history of
Christ which are in perfect agreement with the Gospels. It may be noted,
for instance, that the Lord is said to have been crucified " under Pontius
Pilate and Herod the tetrarch." Lightfoot remarks {in loc.) that "the
part taken by Herod is mentioned by S. Luke alone in the Canonical
writings, Lu. xxiii. 7—12, 15, Acts iv. 27." We must not, however, lay
stress on this as proving Ignatius' acquaintance with this Gospel, for we

28 Parallelisms with the Gospels
shall notice several instances of a disposition to imphcate the Jews— and
Herod as King of the Jews— as fully as possible in the guilt of Christ's
crucifixion (see pp. 51 n. i, 98 n. 3, etc.).
(2) Ad Smyrn. vi. i o x'op^" x'^P"™- ^P- ^'•" '"''• '^'
(3) Ad Polyc. ii. 2 Ignatius in exhorting Polycarp to the earnest
fulfilment of his ministry uses the language of Christ's Charge to His
disciples as contained in Mt. x, 16, only changing the pi. to the sing.:—
(jjpovipos yivov as 6 o<pis iv ndcriv koI aKepaios elirael as r) Trepurrepa.
(4) Ad Trail, xi. I oItoi ovk elalv tpvreia Trarpos. See also same
phrase Ad Philad. iii. i. Cp. Mt. xv. 13 spoken in regard to the Pharisees,
Trdtra cfjvreia rjv ovk itpvTeva-ev 6 irar-qp pov 6 ovpdvios eKpi^aOrjaeTai.
(5) Ad Ephes. xiv. 2 cjiavepov ro SevSpov dno tov Kapnov avrov- ovras
ot errayyeXXopevoi Xpia-rov eivat, St' &v irpda-crovtriv o(\>6r}(rovTai. Cp. Mt. Vll.
16a (Lu. vi. 44 tz), also Mt. xii. 33 15.
(6) Ad Rom. vii. 2 6 ipbs epas iaravpaToi, Kal ovk e'lrnv iv epoi -irvp
(jiiXovXov, v8ap Se ^av Kal XaXoCi' iv ipoi, e<Ta>6ev poi Xeyov Aevpo jrpbs
TOV TV are pa. Cp. Jn iv. lof., xiv. 6 etc.
(7) Ad Philad. vii. I ro irvevpa ov irXavdrai, dnb Qeov ov oidev ydp
TTodev epxeTai Kal ttov inrdyei. Cp. Jn iii. 8.

The following saying, though it bears some resemblance to Lu. xxiv.
39, seems to differ from it too widely to be taken thence directly.
ore -irpbs tovs rrepl Herpov ^XOev, e^rj avroXs' Adhere, -y\n)Xa^r]<raTe pe, Kal
t'Sere ort ovk et/ii Saipoviov da-aparov. Ad Smyrn. iii. 2. Origen {De Princ.
praef ch. 8) refers to the latter part of this saying, "Non sumdaemonium
incorporeum," as contained in "the little book called the Doctrine of
Peter.''' Eusebius (//..£. ill. xxxvi. 11) notes the citation in Ignatius, adding
that he knows not whence it was taken. Jerome on the other hand says
{De Vir. Illustr. ch. 16 on Ignatius) that it was taken from the Gospel
which he himself had lately translated, i.e. (see ib. ch. 3) the Gospel
according to the Hebrews.

CHAPTER II.
THE TRANSITION FROM THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE TO
THE AGE OF THE APOLOGISTS AND OF THE CON
FLICT WITH* GNOSTICISM.
The works which have next to be examined — the Teaching
of the Twelve Apostles, the (so-called) Epistle of Barnabas,
and the Shepherd, by Hermas — may possibly, one or more
of them, have been composed within the same limits of time
as the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp ;
no one of them probably is more than two or three decades
later. But it can hardly be denied that, in character at all
events, they differ markedly from those writings. They do
not breathe so largely the spirit of the New Testament ; and
the thoughts and needs and difficulties of a new age appear
in them more clearly.
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
In the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles — that one of the
three writings just named, in assigning the age of which we
are most dependent upon general considerations — we observe
that the need has already made itself felt for rules to govern
the life of the Church, and for their codification. A sharp
distinction is also drawn between Christian and Jewish
observances in regard to fasting' On the other hand the
simplicity of the various rules laid down points to a time
when the work of systematisation and organisation had not
proceeded far. In particular it should be noticed that the
Eucharist has not yet been separated from the Agape, and
that the New Testament phrase " bishops and deacons " is
1 ch. 8.

30 The date of the Didache
employed, that is to say no distinction is made between a
chief pastor in each Christian community and the rest of its
ministers. The bearing of the language in regard to prophets
upon the question of date is more difficult to estimate. The
position which they appear to occupy is more analogous to
that implied in certain passages of the New Testament
than to anything we read of elsewhere prior to the rise of
Montanism ; but abuses in connexion with the exercise of the
vocation of a prophet have already crept in, of which in the
Apostolic Age there is no sign. Prophesying had clearly
fallen into abeyance, though it may not have died out wholly,
in the Church generally, when Montanus and his followers
revived it. In the time when the Didache was composed it
must have been still a more or less flourishing institution in
some not inconsiderable district. On the whole it is very
improbable that the condition of things to which the pro
visions and expressions of this Manual would have been
applicable can have existed in any part of the Church later than
about A.D. 130 ; and A.D. 1 10 — 130 may be suggested as limits
of time between which it is likely to have been put together'.
' For the indications of a very early date compare The Apostolic Fathers by
Lightfoot and Harmer, pp. 215-6. These, it is there said, "point to the first or
the beginning of the second century, as the date of the work in its present form."
Zahn, Kanon, I. p. 802, assigns circ. A.D. 110 as the time of composition, but
the reasons which he gives are of very doubtful validity. They are "its literary
relations on the one hand to the Shepherd of Hermas and on the other to the Ep.
of Barnabas. '' To many minds these " literary relations " of posteriority to the one
and priority to the other do not seem to be made out ; while there is also much
diversity of opinion in regard to the dates of the two works with which he com
pares it. The Didache and the Ep. of Barnabas may more probably both be
dependent upon a common source for the "Two Ways" and not either of them
upon the other. The parallelisms in a passage of Hermas, also, with the "Two
Ways" as given in the Didache (cp. Herm. M. ii. 4 — 6 with Did. i. 5), may be
due to use of the same source written or oral. Cp. Harnack, Chron. I. 437-8.
On the other hand the ground for Harnack's contention that the Didache is
posterior to the Ep. of Barnabas does not seem to be more satisfactory. He
holds that the setting of a phrase which occurs in both is plainly less original in
the Didache than in Barnabas ; but this may well be questioned. Moreover the
phrase is one which might have been common in Christian preaching.
Further, in fixing the posterior limit for the date of the composition of the
Didache, Harnack suggests that in some rural district where the work may have
been composed, the condition of things presupposed in it may have continued to
circ. A.D. 160. {lb. p. 431.) But a work emanating from a district, which was
much behind the Church generally in the development of its ecclesiastical organi-

Date of the Epistle of Barnabas 31
In the use of the Gospels in this writing advance is
observable. Not only is the Lord's Prayer given almost
exactly as in St Matthew, and a saying of the Lord quoted,
which is contained only in that Gospel, but in two passages,
one of them on our Duty to God and our Neighbour, the
other on the Last Things, passages evidently taken from
St Luke are combined with others from St Matthew'.
Language is also used such as would be natural only if the
authority for what was taught was documentary'-*.
The Epistle of Barnabas.
The position adopted in the Epistle of Barnabas with
regard to the Old Testament is unlike anything that we find
either in the New Testament or in the Epistles of Clement,
Ignatius and Polycarp. To the writer, the character of many
of its precepts caused difficulty, as they did to those who were
led to adopt the Gnostic theories. But the difficulty is over
come in the work now before us, without calling in question
the inspiration of the Scriptures, which were accepted by the
Christian Church. According to it the Mosaic Law was
divinely revealed, but only as a means of setting forth Divine
mysteries under a symbolical form. It has true value only
for those who apply to it the key of a right allegorical inter
pretation, and it never had any other. The notion that it was
to be put in practice was an error of the Jews due to their
carnal-mindedness" Some little time must have elapsed since
the Apostolic Age, when this artificial manner of treating the
Old Testament could suggest itself The age of Gnosticism
could hardly have been far off"; while, on the other hand, such a
sation, would not have been likely to exercise the influence which this work did,
as is shewn by the fact that it became, apparently, the basis of other similar books
of ordinances. ' See Add. Note, p. 70.
^ ch. XV. 3, 4 bis "as_ye have it in the Gospel." Cp. also ch. viii. 2.
^ See especially chh. g, 10, 13, 14, 15. Expressions in these chapters, as well
as the general tenor of the argument, seem to shew that the writer was a Gentile
Christian. It may be reasonably conjectured that Alexandria was the place of
composition; cp. Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt I, 11. pp. 504-5.
St Paul's argument i Cor. ix. 9 "Is it for the oxen that God careth etc."
bears a resemblance to, but falls very far short of, the contention in Barnabas.
Even Origen afterwards did not advocate such an extreme view.

32 Date of the Epistle of Barnabas
view could not well have been put forward unaccompanied by
any reference to the Gnostic teaching, after this had begun
to be propagated. These considerations lead us to assign
A.D. 120 — 130 as the approximate limits of time within which
the work was composed.
Allusions in this work to facts of history have been
thought to suit various dates from A.D. 70 to A.D. 132'. In
ch. iv. the writer warns his readers that the end is near, and
implies that this is to be deduced from Daniel's vision of the
beast in the midst of whose ten horns another little horn
arose, before which three of the former were overthrown. He
expressly refers to Daniel, and also quotes another prophetic
utterance which is evidently based on this vision of Daniel.
Three eminent critics in recent times, Weizsaecker^, Light
foot^ and Ramsay*, have explained the application of these
quotations in the Ep. of Barnabas in partially different ways,
and yet with the result that they all place the writing in the
reign of Vespasian A.D. 70 — 79. But the theories of the two
former clearly do violence either to the terms of the prophecy,
or to history; while that of the third, though the least un
satisfactory, is itself not free from objection^. In addition
to this, the date they arrive at is improbably early, in
view of the character of the work, and the form of one of its
Evangelical quotations to be presently noticed.
Interpretations of the Apocalyptic language which make
it point to a later reign are, it is true, not more convincing^
On account of the uncertainty of its meaning, it seems wisest
to lay little stress upon this passage in attempting to determine
the date of the work. It may be that, as Harnack suggests',
the writer quoted the prophecy without having any precise,
clearly worked-out application present to his thoughts; or
again, that he, as his modern interpreters do, forced the
' The allusions in question are contained in ch. iv. and ch. xvi. 3 — 8. The
latter passage shews at least that it must fall between these dates.
^ Abhandlung zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefes aus dem Codex Sinaiticus (1863),
p. 27 ff.
3 Ib. p. 505 ff.
^ Church in Roman Empire, ch. xiii. 6, pp. 307-9 in first edition. I have
unfortunately been unable to compare any later edition.
^ Cp. Harnack, Chron. i. pp. 418 — 22. ^ Harnack, ib. p. 423.
' Ib. p. 423.

The use in it of St Matthew 33
language which he quotes, but in some way of his own which,
just because it was more or less arbitrary, we cannot certainly
divine. The language of ch. i6 appears on the whole to suit
the circumstances of A.D. 130-1'. Taking into account the
doctrinal tendency which we have noticed in the work, we
may give circ. A.D. 130 as its probable date.
The point in regard to the Ep. of Barnabas, which is of
interest in connexion with the history of the use of the
Gospels, is that here we have our earliest instance of the
citation of a saying of Christ as " scripture." This of itself
would be somewhat strange, if this writing was produced, as
some have supposed, some twenty years earlier than the
earliest of the writings considered in the last chapter.
The saying in question is contained in the Gospel accg to
St Matthew and could not so far as we know have been
derived from any other source''.
There are other signs that the writer was familiar with
this Gospel^ but no distinct traces of the use of the other two
Synoptics or of St John. He gives as a saying of the Lord
the words " So I make the last things as the first things*."
This bears a resemblance to a well-known saying in the
three Synoptic Gospels ; but as it would have served the
purpose of the writer's argument equally well, if not better,
to have employed the masculine, it is on the whole most
likely that he is quoting from an Apocryphal work, or from
oral tradition.
' Cp. Harnack, Chron. I. pp. 423-6.
^ Barn. iv. 14: "Let us give heed lest haply we be found, as it is written,
^rnany called, hut few chosen.'" i^poffixapev p-iyitore, ti)s yiypa-KTai, -jroXXol kXtitoI,
¦SXlyoi de iKXeKTol eipeBSfiev, cp. Mt. xxii. 14.)
' There are striking parallelisms in ch. 7 with the narrative of the Passion in
St Matthew. Cp. Barn. vii. 3 and 5 with Mt. xxvii. 34, 48; and Barn. vii. 9
with Mt. xxvii. 30 and 54. Again in Barn. v. 9 there is an allusion to the
saying of Christ at Mt. ix. 13 (also Mk ii. 17, Lu. v. 82); and at Barn. xu. 11 a
parallelism with Mt. x,\ii. 45 (also Mk xii. 37, Lu. xx. 44).
* Barn. vi. 13. X^7et 5^ 'Kipior 'I5oi> TrotS ra iaxara us rcl -irpOrra. Cp.
Mt. XX. 16 etc.

S. G.

34 The date of the

The Shepherd of Hermas.
In the Shepherd by Hermas coming events of another
kind may be seen to have cast their shadows before them.
Questions begin to emerge which greatly occupied the minds
of men in the days of the Montanist, Novatianist and Donatist
schisms. A sublime and comprehensive conception of the
Church is present to the writer's mind ; he has a deep sense
of her essential holiness, while he is painfully aware of the
contrast between this ideal and the moral and spiritual state
of far too many of her members. The need for wide-spread
repentance is the great theme of the book. In connexion
with this the possibility of forgiveness for post-baptismal sin
is considered. Already there were some teachers who denied
it, and in the Shepherd itself their view is admitted to be true
for the time to come. But it is maintained that for those
who before that time had sinned God has mercifully left open
the path of restoration'. The writer must have been conscious
of the novelty of the doctrine that there could be no renewal
for those who fell after baptism ; he felt, therefore, it would
seem, that as Christians hitherto had not been sufficiently
warned of this, allowance must be made as to the past ; but
henceforth there would be no excuse. In the immediate
sequel to the passage to which we have been here mainly
referring, he deals with another point still more leniently
than the rigorists of a later time did, and the very fact that
the two questions are associated in Hermas is not without
interest and importance. Hermas asks his heavenly instructor
about the lawfulness of second marriages after the death of
one consort, and the answer is that they are not sinful, though
at the same time to refrain from re-marriage is the higher
coursed On the other hand the duty of a husband to remain
unmarried if his wife has proved unfaithful is firmly laid
down ; if he marries again he commits adultery ; moreover
he ought to keep himself free to receive his wife back again
if she repentsl Distinctions are also made between different
1 M. 4, iii. (cp. V. 2, ii. 8); S. 9, xxvi. 6, and M. 4, iv. 3, 4.
2 M. 4, iv. 1, 2. ^ M. 4, i. 4—8.

Shepherd of Hermas 35
degrees of guilt among those who have denied the faith'.
In the treatment of these cases of conscience and questions
as to the position of various classes of offenders in this little
work we see in truth the beginnings of the development
of the Church's system of discipline and of Moral Theology.
Further, in the Church as the author of the Shepherd
knows it, especially no doubt the Church in the city of Rome
to which he belonged, various social grades were represented.
He dwells much on the duties and temptations of the rich-
We may note in particular that some of them shewed an
inclination to keep aloof from the company of their Christian
brethren^ Other Christians had sinned through coveting
places of preeminence in the Church^
The state of feeling and the condition of the Church
implied are very different from those that we trace in the
Epistle written by Clement, the chief personage in the same
Church, near the end of the first century. It is, indeed, on all
grounds difificult to suppose that they could have arisen, or
that the questions to which reference has been made could
have been put and answered in the definite manner that they
are here, before the second generation after the deaths of
SS. Peter and Paul at earliest.
But we must proceed to discuss some more exact indica
tions of date, or what seem to be such. If the statement of
the writer near the beginning, that he was charged to deliver
one copy of his work to Clement, in order that he might send
it to foreign cities^ is to be taken as sufficient evidence that
Clement was alive when it was written, we cannot place its
composition later than about A.D. loo^ On the other hand,
according to the well-known words of the Muratorian fragment,
it was written by the brother of Pius, during the episcopate
of the latter, for which the years A.D. 140 — 155 may be
assigned". We shall presently consider what amount of
weight is to be allowed to the latter statement. At this
' S. 9, xix. and xxi. 3, xxvi. 3, 4 ; xxviii. 4. See further below, p. 38 f., on
these different classes of apostates.
2 S. 8, viii. I.
» S. 8, vii. 4—6. * V. 2, iv. 3.
s As to this date for Clement's death cp. Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 1, I. p. 343.
« Ib. p. 325 f.
3—2

36 The date of the
point we would observe only that we need not feel ourselves
strictly bound by the former reference. The r61e assigned
here to Clement may well be regarded as part of the
imaginary mise en scene. That this use should be made
of an eminent character from among the departed will not
seem strange to anyone at all familiar with Apocalyptic
literature, of the characteristics of which this work partakes.
It is true that the writer, who does not seem to be concealing
his own personality, associates himself with Clement in the
task of making known the revelations which he had received,
reserving to himself the duty of reading them to " this city
(Rome) and to the presbyters." But there would be nothing
incongruous in the author's thus joining himself with Clement,
even when writing after his death, if by the time when it took
place he was already an adult Christian'. All that we should
then need to assume would be that, as part of the fiction, he
has placed the time of his receiving the visions and the other
instruction of his heavenly teacher, and of his writing all this
down, earlier by some years (more or fewer) than he actually
composed the work. Its date would not in this way be
removed very greatly from the time of Clement, but this may
be sufficient to account for its peculiarities. The age was in
all probability one when change was rapid in the Christian
Church. The express allusions to persecutions and their effects
must be examined with special care. Hermas learns that
those who have " suffered for the Name " have seats reserved
for them on the right side of the sanctuary in the heavenly
temple. " What,'' he asks, " have they endured ? " " Stripes,
imprisonments, great afflictions, crosses, wild beasts," is the
reply. Therefore they " have a certain glory " as everyone
will "who suffers for the Name." But Hermas himself, and
others who have not been called to confessorship, are to be
placed on the left side of the sanctuary, though all enjoy
" the same gifts and the same promises^." Mention is also
made repeatedly, and with greater distinctness than in any
' This would of course be perfectly consistent with his being a brother of Pius,
if he was an older brother.
^ V. 3, i. 9 — ii. I. See also S. 9, xxviii. 3.

Shepherd of Hermas 37
other Christian writing which can be thought to be either
earlier or contemporary, of those who have abjured the faith
under the stress of persecution'. Some of these "apostates^"
had even blasphemed against the Lord and betrayed their
brethren and the Church''. Another type of character is
referred to : — " double-minded men " who " as soon as they
hear of affliction, owing to their cowardice, commit acts of
idolatry, and are ashamed of the Name of their Lord*." It
is a sad but interesting trait. These faint-hearted Christians,
when trouble threatened, did not even wait to be brought up
before a magistrate and required by him to offer sacrifice.
They hastened to conform in some way openly to heathen
customs in order that they might not be objects of suspicion
to their neighbours and the authorities.
In one place he speaks of "those who formerly denied,"
in another of " those who long ago denied," and in both he
distinguishes those whom he thus describes from such as
should deny the faith in the trial which, he is convinced,
is at hand^- He knows, it would seem, of no acts of apostasy
which are very recent; it does not at least occur to him to
deal with them. He treats only of two cases ; {a^ apostates of
old standing, {b^ apostates in the future. This fact should be
carefully noted; it appears to be a crucial one. There does
not seem to be anything in other parts of the Shepherd which
is seriously inconsistent with the language of these passages".
Now in the third and beginning of the fourth century, when
we have much fuller knowledge of the Church's history, she
had times of comparative quiet, during which she grew
' Probable, or possible, allusions in the New Testament, etc. are the BeiXol in
Apoc. xxi. 8, and indirectly Apoc. ii. 13, iii. 8; the "antichrists who went out
from us," I Jn ii. 18, 19 ; the words of Polycarp ad Phil. vii. i b% S,v pr) 6/^0X075
ro pupTijpiov TOV aravpou iK tov dia^dXov iffTiv, and of Ignatius ad Pol. vi. 6 p-fyns
hpav SeoipTwp ebpidy.
^ The word awoordT-ris is used V. 1, iv. s, S. 8, vi. 4. These are, I believe,
much the earliest instances in extant Christian literature of the use of the word in
the specific meaning of one who has abjured the Christian faith.
' S. 8, vi. 4.
* S. 9, xxi. 3. On those who hesitate whether they shall confess or deny, see
ib. xxviii. 4 — 7-
^ oi irpdrepov dpv-qcrdpevoi, V. 2, ii. 8 ; oi iraXai -ijpvqpivoi, S. 9, xxvi. 6.
^ With what I have urged on this point cp. Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. p. 508.
The only passage which may seem at first difiScult to reconcile with it is S. 9, xxi. 3,

38 The date of the
rapidly, alternating with periods, generally much shorter
ones, of acute trial, each of which produced noble confessors,
but also, alas ! its crop of apostates. When at an earlier
time the conditions were similar, we cannot doubt that they
had like effects ; and indeed the language of Hermas to which
we have been adverting goes far to prove it.
But we desire to ascertain as nearly as we can the time at
which it would have been natural for him to write as he did.
He is looking back to some time of persecution in the past.
He speaks of the denials of Christ which have taken place as
having happened " long ago." We ought not to press too
hardly his silence as to more recent falls. The position of
Christians from the latter part of the first century to the end
of the Diocletian persecution was always more or less in
secure, and now and again, even in the times which were
relatively speaking peaceful for them, alarms occurred or
acts of oppression' under which some stood firm and others
quailed. But the great majority of those who, at the time
when Hermas wrote, needed to repent of having denied
their Lord, had fallen, as we must conclude from the expres
sions used, not less than ten to fifteen years before" On the
other hand, after thirty to thirty-five years had elapsed since
the last severe persecution there would be very few (if any)
such still living and known in the place where they had thus
sinned. Will these considerations enable us to fix dates
between which Hermas's book must have been composed ?
After Nero's savage onslaught Christians do not seem to
have been seriously persecuted till near the close of Domitian's
reign ^, but at that time the Church, as the Ep. of Clement,

quoted above. But the present seems to be used here because a certain type
of character is in question.
1 This is well illustrated in Justin's Second Apology c. I ff. Crescens' attack
upon Justin himself may also fall in the same reign.
^ With Hermas' expression oi ttoKoh Tjpvqfxivoi it is interesting to compare
what Pliny writes to Trajan {Ep. 96): "Alii ab indice nominati esse se Chris-
tianos dixerunt et mox negaverunt ; fuisse quidem sed desisse, quidam ante plures
annos, non nemo etiam ante viginti quoque."
3 It is unnecessary for me to go into the question, which has been much
discussed, as to the precise position of Christians before the law under successive
emperors from Nero to Trajan, or the motives from which tliey were attacked.

Shepherd of Hermas ¦ 39
confirmed by not a little other evidence, shews, was greatly
harassed, especially in the imperial city.
The two years of Nerva's reign have always been held to
have been a time of general peace for the Church. But there
are also no well-authenticated instances of Roman martyrs
under Trajan' and Hadrian. And even if it is allowed that
the very untrustworthy Acts of Martyrdoms said to have
taken place in Rome and its neighbourhood during these
reigns may contain an element of truth, the result is not to
give us any large total amount of persecution. In the
provinces there was more persecution, at least in one part of
Trajan's reign. Pliny's letter to that emperor (autumn or
winter of A.D. 112)- proves this as regards Bithynia. But it is
probable that from that time forward through Trajan's policy,
set forth in his rescript to Pliny on that occasion (Pliny, Ep.
97) which was followed also, and carried further, by Hadrian,
persecution was to a considerable extent restrained through
out the empire". If Hermas was thinking of apostates else
where than in Rome they might be such as were made by the
It can hardly be doubted that they did, in point of fact, suffer severely under both
Nero and Domitian, and this is sufficient for my present purpose.
' Ignatius was martyred in Rome in this emperor's reign. But he had been
seized as a Christian in far-off Antioch and sent to the capital like an ordinary
criminal, when victims were needed for the Roman amphitheatre. The seizure of
a Roman citizen, and even of a dweller in Rome, would have seemed to most
Romans (we may believe) quite a different matter. Ignatius' letter to the
Christians in Rome even assumes that they might have influence to get him off;
he is afraid of their using it (c. iv.).
Telesphorus, the seventh bishop of Rome, is stated by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer.
III. iii. 3) to have been martyred, but we do not know for what reason he was so.
According to Eusebius {H. E. IV. x.) it happened in the first year of Antoninus
Pius. The populace in Rome does not seem to have been so prone, as that'of many
provincial cities was, to make onslaughts upon the Christians. Possibly it was
kept under better control ; or it had come to be more tolerant of strange creeds,
owing to the motley collection of nationalities and religions with which it had
become familiar; or the Christian body was lost to view in the vast city. It will
be remembered that the attacks from which Christians suffered in Rome in the
first century, whether on the ground that they were Christians or as Jews,
proceeded from emperors. Later, however, after the Conversion of the Empire,
attachment to paganism and hostility to the new religion were manifested in Rome
more strongly than almost anywhere else.
^ See Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. p. 56, and II. p. 536 n. and his reference to
Mommsen. ^ For the view of the early history of the persecution of the Christian Church

40 The date of the
persecution in the days of Pliny's proconsulship or even later.
But it is evident that in his book the circumstances of the
Church in Rome are before his mind ; his message is primarily
to it. He may not have been altogether unconscious of what
had happened and was happening in the Church at large. But
he would not write as he does of these apostates of former
days unless there were such in that city. We must then allow
an interval, as we have seen, of some ten to fifteen years from
the last year of Domitian's reign, in choosing our earliest
limit for the time of the composition of the Shepherd. On
the other hand we ought not to place it more than thirty to
thirty-five years later than that epoch.
Even the latest year however, here allowed for, falls short
considerably of the earliest date that would agree with the
statement in the Muratorian fragment on the Canon. This
document cannot be hastily set aside. For it must have been
written at Rome itself, or in its immediate neighbourhood,
near the close of the second or early in the third century'.
It should, however, be observed, that the author of this
fragment had an object in separating Hermas' Shepherd as
much as possible from the Apostolic Age and bringing it
into connexion with the age of men still living; he may
therefore have exaggerated to a certain extent the lateness
of its origin. It may have been perfectly true that the
author was the brother of bishop Pius; from this it would
be a short step to conclude that the work was written
actually while Pius was bishop, for which there may not
have been sufficient justification. Moreover, as Lightfoot
has remarked {Ap. Frs, Pt i, I. p. 360), "considering that we
possess this testimony" (viz. that Hermas wrote during the
episcopate of Pius) "in a very blundering Latin translation,
it may reasonably be questioned whether the Greek original
stated as much definitely."
It is to be added that the character of the references to
the Christian Ministry in the Shepherd can hardly be recon-
here taken, and the evidence for it, see esp. Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. i — 22,
p. 502 ff., ib. Pt I, I. 8r, 350 — 352; also, as to many points, Ramsay, The
Church in the Roman Empire, cc. x., xii., xiv., esp. pp. 259 f. and 325-9.
(ist ed.)
' See below, p. 247 n. i.

Shepherd of Hermas 41
ciled with so late a date as A.D. 140. Three orders are, to say
the least, not distinctly recognised, and the duty of the higher
order appears to consist chiefly in the care of the needy and
desolate and hospitality to strangers'. Now there can be no
doubt that the monarchical episcopate was fully exemplified
in the person of Anicetus, who became bishop of Rome circ.
A.D. 155. And a tradition which was firmly held well before
the end of the second century supplied a regular list of
bishops filling up all the interval from the time of the
Apostles^. According to this list Pius was the immediate
predecessor of Anicetus. There is no trace of there having
been at any time any violent or decided change by which one
form of Church government was substituted for another.
There was change no doubt ; but it must have taken place by
way of peaceful and probably at the time unnoticed develop
ment. A decade before the middle of the second century,
and longer than that, the position of the chief presbyter
must have been clearly marked, and we should expect that
any writer treating of the themes that Hermas does would
shew consciousness of this.
On the whole, if we take the narrower limits suggested
above for the composition of the Shepherd, thus placing it
between A.D. no and 125, the different indications in regard
to it will, perhaps, be reconciled as well as they can be'.
' A comparison of V. 2, ii. 6 with ib. iv. 2, 3 suggests that oi vpo-qyoipevoi ttjs
iKKX-qaias of the former passage are the same as oi irpeo^irepoi ol -jrpo'CtrTdp,evoi ttjs
iKKk-qalas of the latter. Also, if Clement's position had been in the writer's view
approximately what that of bishops of the latter part of the century was, or what
that of bishops in the Churches of Asia already was when Ignatius wrote, it would
have been natural that it should have been committed to him to address the body
of presbyters. Again in S. 9, xxvi. there is a reference to 'deacons' and in xxvii.
to 'bishops,' with which collocation it is impossible not to compare Phil. i. i and
Clem, ad Cor. 42. Again the stress laid on the exercise of charity in the case of
the bishops, and silence about teaching, are noticeable (S. 9, xxvii. 2). The only
"teachers" mentioned are the original preachers of the Gospel, ib. xxv. Cp. the
enumeration at V. 3, v. i — "apostles, bishops, and teachers and deacons." The
language regarding true and false prophets (M. 11) reminds us somewhat of the
Didache. 2 See Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 1, I. p. 340, comparing Harnack's criticisms,
Chron. I. p. 172 f.
' I will briefly state the views of a few well-known writers as to the date of the
Shepherd. A. Hilgenfeld, Apost. Vdter (1853) arrived at much the same con-

42 Parallelisms with the Gospels
In a book professing to consist of a series of communi
cations made by a heavenly teacher, express quotations
would have been out of place, and there are none in the
Shepherd either from the Old Testament or the New. Never
theless, what seem clearly to be reminiscences of all the four
Gospels occur in it, as well as of several New Testament
Epistles and of the Ancient Scriptures. The author freely
adapts the ideas and language of these writings to his own
purposes. His fifth parable, which is remarkable on account
of its Christological doctrine, also illustrates well his use of
the Gospels'. The parable of the Vineyard is specially in
his thoughts, but he combines therewith traits from several
other parables. A certain man planted a vineyard (Mt. xxi.
33, Mk xii. i, Lu. xx. 9) in a portion oi his field (Mt. xiii. 24).
He gave it in charge to a certain servant who was faithful and
well-pleasing and precious to him. [The " servant " is the
human nature of Christ, see Hermas' own interpretation in
the sequel, § vi. Christ appears to compare Himself to a
" servant " in the parable of the Great Supper, Lu. xiv. 16 f , to
which Hermas alludes further on. With the servant's being
"well-pleasing," evdpecrTo<;, cp. iv S evhoKrjaa Mt. iii. 17 etc.]
elusion as that reached above. It "was not in any case written before the last
times of Trajan, and probably not till the reign of Hadrian (117 — 138). Later
than this we ought not to go..." See p. 159 f Lipsius, who discussed the rela
tions of the Shepherd to Montanism with great fulness in a series of Articles under
the title Der Hirte des Hermas und der Montanismus in Rom-, in the Zeitschr. f.
Wiss. Theol. for 1865-6, says it can hardly be earlier, and certainly not much
later, than the middle of the second century. Ib. 1865, p. 283. Zahn on the
other hand places it A.D. 100, primarily on the ground of the reference to Clement,
In his Hirt des Hermas (1868) he contends that the characteristics of the work
either suit, or are not inconsistent with, this time. He adheres to this position
in Kanon, p. 799 (1888}. Salmon prefers a date "a few years later than Zahn."
Diet, of Chr. Bio. II. p. 917 f. Westcott, Canon, p. 201, makes it contemporary
with Montanism. Lightfoot, Ep. to Phil, note at end of chap, iv., and Ap. Frs,
Pt 1, I. p. 359 f, briefly discusses the question of the date of the Shepherd; he
comes to no conclusion, but he declines to accept the evidence of the Muratorian
fragment as final. On the ground, however, of this evidence he gave A.D. 145 as
the date in his Ep. to Gal., and allowed it to stand there to the end. It appears
in the loth ed. published shortly after his death (pp. 99, 339). Harnack, Chron. I.
p. 263 f., has a theory that the work was written at different times, the earliest
little book, which contains the allu.sion to Clement, being of not later date than
A.D. I ro, while the whole was brought to its present form A.D. 140.
' S. 5. ii. See pp. 72 — 75.

in the Shepherd of Hermas 43
The Master bade the servant enclose the vineyard with stakes
(Mt. and Mk ib?) and went abroad (i^rjXdev eh rrjv dirohrj-
IxLav; Mt. Mk and Lu. ib. aTreS-ijfjLTjaev). The servant did
as he was commanded, and more than this; he said to himself,
" I will dig the vineyard, and it will give more fruit" (Lu. xiii.
8, 9). When the Master saw all this he called his beloved Son
(Mk xii. 6, Lu. xx. 13) whom he had as his heir (Mt. xxi. 38,
Mk xii. 7, Lu. XX. 14), and his friends, whom he had as his
councillors, and they rejoiced with the servant (Lu. xv. 6) at
the witness which the Master witnessed to him (a characteristic
Johannine thought and expression, see esp. Jn v. 32). The
Master announced to them that it was his purpose to make
the servant, on account of the work which he had wrought,
joint-heir with his son, and to this the son consented. So
after a few days the householder (Mt. xx. i) made a supper
(Lu. xiv. 16) to celebrate this determination and to carry
it out.' So the parable ends; then, just as at the conclusions of
parables in the Gospels the disciples ask Jesus for explana
tions, so Hermas here asks his heavenly instructor to expound
the parables to him, and he receives the answer " I will ex
pound all things to thee" [jravra aoi eiruXvao} ; § iii. i.
See also ib. § v. I and cp. Mk iv. 34 iireXvev irdvra;
iTTiXvetv is not used in any other passage of the Gospels.] In
the explanation (§§ v., vi.) there are two striking parallels with
the Gospel accg to St Matthew. We are told that the field is
this world (Mt. xiii. 37), and of him who in the parable
appears as a servant it is said that " he received all authority
from his Father " (Mt. xxviii. 18; cp. also Jn v. 27 and xvii. 2).
In other passages the parable of the Sower and its
explanation, as given either in Matthew or Mark, are plainly
in mind. Of certain Christians it is said: — "these are they
who have faith, but have also wealth of this world : whenever
tribulation ariseth, because of their wealth and their affairs
{irparynaTelai, cp. fiipi/jivai) they deny their Lord " (V. 3, vi. 5).
Again, " the thistles are the rich, and the thorns are those who
are mixed up in divers affairs... they err being choked hy their
doings" (S. 9, xx. i, 2). A little further on in the same
Similitude he speaks of plants which are green at the top.

44 Parallelisms with the Gospels
but withered at the root, and some plants which are altogether
withered by the sun {ib. xxi. i). (With the preceding passages
cp. Mt. xiii. 6, 7, 21, 22; Mk iv. 6, 7, 17, 18, 19'.)
In the same context Christ's saying concerning the
hindrance of riches (Mk x. 23, 24, Mt. xix. 23, Lu. xviii. 24)
is introduced, and here Hermas seems to have St Mark in
view. For he not only says that such (the rich) shall hardly
{Svaic6\Q}<;) enter the kingdom of God; but just afterwards he
repeats, as Christ does according to St Mark, " for such it is
hard!' The following parallelisms with expressions or ideas
occurring in St Matthew alone may be added to those which
have already been noted, {a) The question is asked what a
husband is to do if he discovers that his wife, a Christian by
profession, is living in adultery and she does not repent, but
adheres to her fornication {iin,ix,kvrj ry iropveia avTrj<;). The
answer is " Let him put her away, and let the husband abide
alone ; but if he when he has put away his wife shall tnarry
another, he too conimitteth adultery!' In this passage the writer
plainly has Mt. xix. 9 in view, and not Mk x. 11, or Lu. xvi. 1 8.
The excepted case, in which "putting away" is not pro
nounced unlawful according to the form of the saying
in Matthew, is the one that is specially treated in the
Shepherd: this is evident from the context. But words in
regard to the husband are added, in order to guard against
a possible perversion of Christ's sayingl {b) Hermas is
shewn a tree, of which it is said " this great tree that shadeth
plains and mountains and all the earth is the law of God
which is given to the whole world ; and this law is the Son
of God preached unto the ends of the earth " (S. 8, iii. 2).
The word tree occurs in the parable of the mustard-plant
as given in St Matthew and St Luke, but not in St Mark. As
there are more signs in Hermas of the use of St Matthew
than of St Luke, it is most natural to see an allusion to, or
reminiscence of, the former here also, {c) Hermas is bidden
^ Hermas also in § xxix. i — 3 of this Similitude speaks of certain choice souls
who are as babes, so guileless have they ever continued to be. This comparison
might have been suggested either by Mt. xviii. i — 4, 10 and xix. 13 — 15 ; or by
Mk ix. 35 — 37 and x. 13—16. ^ M. 4. i. 4 — 8.

in the Shepherd of Hermas 45
to distinguish between false prophets and true by their life
and their works (M. 11, i6 and context, cp. Mt. vii. 15, 16).
{d) Certain virgins who are holy spirits must clothe a man
with their garr-nent {ivBvawai to evSv/u,a avrwv ; cp. evBe-
Svfievov evBv/u,a <ydfjiov, Mt. xxii. 1 1) in order that he may be
found in the kingdom of God'-
Since we have met with hardly any indications of the use
of St Mark in the writings which we have examined before
the Shepherd, it is specially interesting to observe those which
occur here^- We have noticed some already ; we may mention
besides {a) that Hermas says that " he cannot understand and
that his heart is hardened" {ov avvico ovSev, Kal -r/ KapBia fiov
ireirdopwTaL, M. 4, ii. i). He also (M. 12, iv. 4) speaks of some
" who have the Lord upon their lips, but their heart hardened"
{jf)v he KapBiav avTwv TreTTCopoj/jLevrjv). The fault to which
Jesus traces the dulness of His disciples in Mk vi. 52 and
viii. 17 f is exactly that which Hermas acknowledges in his
own case and the same word is used (cp. also Mk iii. 5).
(1^) Again the precept preserved in St Mark, " Be at peace
among yourselves" occurs twice in the Shepherd (cp. V. 3,
ix. 2 and xii. 3 with Mk ix. 50). The only difference is that
Mark has ev d'X.XrfX.oK, Hermas iv eavTOK. Hermas may,
however, have taken it from i Thess. v. 13, his agreement
with which is exact, {c) Further, in a passage in which
Hermas describes the work of the Apostles there are striking
resemblances to the commission given to them at the con
clusion of St Mark. One of the mountains which Hermas
' S. 9, xiii. 2. In addition to the above parallelisms we may notice also V. 4,
ii. 6 : oifal toIs aKolnraoiv rd p-qpaTO. ravTa Kal -irapaKobooAXiv aiperiiiTepov tjv auTols
r6 pi) yevvTjdiivai. The latter half of this sentence might have been taken either
from Mt. xxvi. 24 or Mk xiv. 21 ; but the thought of the former half corresponds
with Mt. vii. 26.
2 Zahn in Hirt d. Hermas, pp. 456-64, maintained that a predominant use of
the Gospel accg to St Mark is observable in the Shepherd, and even questioned
there being any traces of acquaintance with St Matthew, and proceeded to argue
that the use of St Mark having been well established in the Roman Church and
other Greek-speaking Churches before St Matthew existed in Greek, it held its
own as the favourite Gospel for some time, even for as much as a generation
after the Greek St Matthew had appeared. I gather from his Kanon, p. 919 f.,
that he has somewhat modified his opinion as to this ; the evidence as a whole is
unfavourable to it.

46 Parallelisms with the Gospels
saw had many fountains, from which the whole creation {irdcra
rj KTiaii) drank. The believers, it is said, from this mountain
are " apostles and teachers who preached unto the whole world
and taught the word of the Lord in soberness and purity"
(S. 9, xxv. I, 2 ; cp. Mk xvi. 15)'.
For a reason already given ^ it seems likely that the
present ending of St Mark, consisting of the last twelve
verses, was supplied very early in the dissemination of the
work. The fact, to which I have just drawn attention, that
there is a parallelism with it in the Shepherd, agrees with this.
It seems also to follow that the copy with this ending, from
which all existing copies have been ultimately derived,
belonged, not to Alexandria, as Mr Burkitt conjectures, but
to Rome, and that thence the circulation proceeded. And
this harmonises well with early tradition in respect to the
composition of this Gospel.
The signs of acquaintance with the Gospel accg to St Luke
are the least clear. The parallelisms, however, to which I
have drawn attention, though slight in themselves, seem to
me to be worthy of attention when their setting and Hermas'
manner of writing are taken into account. I know of no
other to be mentioned, saving the use of iKfjudha by Hermas
(S. 8, ii. 9, cp. Lu. viii. 6)^
One instance of Johannine thought and language has
already come before us; there are others, {a) In M, 3, i
we read, " Love truth and let nothing but truth proceed out
of thy mouth, that the Spirit, which God made to dwell in
this flesh, may be found true in the sight of all men, and thus
shall the Lord who dwelleth in thee be glorified {Bo^aadi]-
aerai), for the Lord is true {dX.ri6iv6<i) in every word, and with
him there is no falsehood" (cp. Jn xvii. 10, vii. 28, I Jn v. 20,
' The words -iraaa -q ktLoi^ might also have been taken from Col. i. 23, with
which Epistle there is a parallel, S. 9, xii. -z. But the thought of the Apostles
going forth to preach is implied more clearly in Mk xvi. 15. The teaching may
have been taken from Mt. xxviii. 19, which passage (as we have seen) Hermas
has in mind at S. 5, vi. 4.
' See above, p. 18, n. i.
3 Zahn, Hirt d. Hermas, p. 463. Zahn also notes possible reminiscences of
Acts, i. 24, XV. 8 in the use of KapdioyviioT-qs at M. 4, iii. 4, and of Acts iv. 12
and ii. II at V. 4, ii. 4, 5.

in the Shepherd of Hermas 47
ii. 27)'- {b) In the Fifth Similitude, in which we have the
words, " the witness which he witnessed," we have also the
expression, "the law which he received from his Father."
(S. 5, vi. 3, cp. Jn xii. 49.) (c) From the Ninth Similitude
there are several passages to be quoted. " The gate is the
Son of God : this is the one entrance to the Lord ; none
therefore shall enter to him otherwise than through his Son."
(S. 9, xii. 6; see also context, and cp. Jn xiv. 6.) "The seal
is the water.... To them, therefore, was this seal preached,
and they used it, in order that they might enter into the
kingdom of God!' {Ib. xvi. 4, see also xii. 8 ; cp. Jn iii. 5.)
"Your whole seed shall dwell with the Son of God; for of
his Spirit did ye receive." {Ib. xxiv., cp. Jn i. 16, i Jn iv. 13.)
The impression, that Hermas derived the phrases and
ideas which we have noted from the Gospels that we know,
is strengthened when we observe that there are also traces
of his having used other New Testament writings, in par
ticular the Epistle of St Jam.es and the Epistle to the Hebrews,
as well as several epistles of St Paul. It is interesting to
notice the signs of knowledge of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
because the evidence of Hermas, taken with that of Clement
of Rome, shews that it must have been early held in high
esteem in the Church of Rome.
It is to be added that the Shepherd does not appear to
contain any quotation from an Apocryphal GospeP. We
should not, however, be justified in concluding from the facts
which we have observed, in the absence of all confirmatory
evidence in the first half of the second century to this effect,
that at this time the four Gospels were consciously separated
off" from all other works of the same kind and classed together
as of coordinate and unique authority, in other words that the
conception of the "fourfold Gospel" already existed 3.
' The words the Spirit -which God made to dwell (S KaTuiKicev) are from Jas.
iv. 5, but in their purport they, too, resemble the teaching of the Fourth Gospel.
2 Hilgenfeld (Apost. Vdter, p. 184 (15)) suggests that S. 9, xvi. 4, t] o^payls oHv
Th Bdap iarlv eh rb iiSap oiv Ka.Ta§alvov(n vcKpol, Kal dva^aivovoi fSj/res is from an
Apocryphal source. I can see no reason for supposing this.
3 I agree with Dr C. Taylor, The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels,
1892, as to the evidence of Hermas being of greater value in connexion with the
history of the Canon than has often been supposed. I thought it best to investi
gate the subject independently; and I refrained from refreshing my recollection of

48 The Apology of A ri slides

The Apology of A ris tides.
In discussing the date of the Shepherd the subject of the
early persecutions of Christians has come before us. We pass
now to one of the earliest protests against the attitude of
hostility to Christianity adopted by the State, which has been
so happily recovered in recent years, the Apology of AristidesK
Eusebius in his history (iv. 3) refers to this work as composed
at about the same time as the Apology of Quadratus and as
presented, like it, to the emperor Hadrian. In his Chronica,
too, he mentions the two together, placing his notice of them
under the year A.D. 125 or 126, in connexion with Hadrian's
initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries at Athens. Jerome
also, though he may of course simply be following Eusebius,
his book, which I read when it appeared, till my task was virtually completed.
It is the more satisfactory that I have arrived at the same general conclusion. It
has been my aim to give only the parallelisms which seem to me to be clearest.
Others of varying degrees of force may he seen in Dr Taylor's work. I must
however confess that many of the parallelisms with the Gospels which he discovers
seem to me to be overstrained. Further, I find it impossible to adopt his view
that the four-legged bench on which the lady at her third appearance takes her
seat signifies that the Church is founded upon the Four Gospels (Taylor, p. 5ff.).
This does not seem to me to agree with the general drift of the interpretation
given by Hermas of the three appearances of the Lady (V. 3, x. — xiii.). And if
this meaning was intended, we should at least expect to find in this place and in
other parts of the work some clearer indication of it. It is interesting, indeed, to
compare Hermas' reference (ib. xiii. 3) to the fact that "the world is upheld by
four elements '' with Irenaeus' language about the Fourfold Gospel {Adv. Haer.
III. xi. 8); but it is no unfamiliar thing that the same figure should be used in
different ways. If in Hermas it has a precise meaning, it is probably designed to
convey the idea of the Church's universality. It should also be observed that
Irenaeus himself does not say that the Church was founded on the Gospels, and
probably such a notion was as foreign to the thought of the second century as it is
to historical fact.
' A considerable fragment of the earlier part from an Armenian Version was
published by the Mechitarist Fathers in 1878. A. Syriac Version, complete or
nearly so, was found by Mr J. R. Harris in the spring of 1889 in the Convent of
St Catharine on Mount Sinai, and shortly afterwards a great part of the original
Greek was shrewdly discovered by Dr J. A. Robinson, embedded in the story of
Barlaam and fosaphat. See Texts and Studies i. 1 by J. R. Harris and T- A.
Robinson, where the fragment of the Armenian as translated in the Mechitarist
edition into Latin, and a translation from another MS. of it into English by
Mr Conybeare, may also be read. In references to this Apology I have used
Mr Harris' divisions.

The date of the Apology of Aristides 49
twice states that Aristides addressed an Apology to Hadrian '-
Moreover, the sole title in the fragment of the Armenian
Version and the first title in the Syriac Version are to the
same effect. In the latter Version, however, there follows a
title or dedication — owing to the corrupt state of the text it
is uncertain how it should be described — according to which
the Apology was addressed to " the Imperial Caesar Titus
Hadrianus Antoninus, Worshipful and Clement" (the two
last epithets are in the plural). Since the discovery of this
document it has been held by many that the composition
really belongs to the reign of Antoninus Pius, and that
Eusebius was mistaken in referring it to that of Hadrian ^
It is thought that he had not seen the work, or that he had
been misled by some copy in which an erroneous address
was prefixed. It needs further to be assumed, as I will first
remark, that this error was widely spread through the influence
of Eusebius or otherwise ; so much so that all traces of the
truth have disappeared except in the title of the Syriac Version.
But clearly we ought not to have recourse unnecessarily to
such an hypothesis as this. And it is the more difficult
to accept, because even in the time of Eusebius many
copies of the work existed^ while the Armenian and Syriac
Versions which were made of it and its embodiment in the
story of Barlaam and Josaphat all help to shew how widely
it must have been disseminated. Another and very simple
explanation of the title in the Syriac Version may be given,
which does not make its evidence conflict with that of other
witnesses. It would be the most natural thing in the world
that in some copy made after the commencement of the reign
' De 'Fir. ill. 20, and Ep. 70, 4.
2 Harris, Texts and Studies, I. 1, p. 6ff. ; Raabe, Texte u. Untersuch. ix.
pp. 25-6; Seeberg in Zahn's Forsch. zur Geschichte d. N. T. Kanons, v. p. 248 ff. ;
Harnack, Chron. I. p. 272; and others. On the other hand A. Hilgenfeld main
tains the originality of the address to Hadrian (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. vol. xxxv.
p. 245, and vol. xxxvi. i, pp. 104-5). J. A. Robinson also declines to accept
the testimony of the Syriac translator against that of the Armenian Version and
of Eusebius. Texts and Studies, i. i, p. 75, n. 2.
'^ aiii^eTai Si ye e/s Sevpo wapd irXeLoTois Kal -q to6tou ypa<f>r) {H E. IV. iii. 3).
As to the question of traces probable or possible of acquaintance with our Apology
in early Christian literature, and of its own dependence upon other works, see
Robinson, ib. pp. 84 — 99; Seeberg, ib. pp. 211 — 247.
S. G. 4

50 Date of the Apology of Aristides
of Antoninus, his name should have been added to, or substi
tuted for, that of his predecessor in the address. From such
a copy, we may well believe, the second title in the Syriac
Version was derived' The character of the work is also in
favour of an early date. Some, indeed, of the lines of thought
pursued are the same as those which are to be found in
Apologies which unquestionably belong to the middle and
second half of the century, but they are less fully developed ;
others met with in these are wanting altogether. In order to
appreciate fully the force of this consideration, it should be
remembered that the arguments employed, for example, by
Justin in the works which have come down to us, had doubt
less, according to all the habits of the age and circumstances
of his own vocation, been frequently urged in his discourses,
and had probably been used also to some extent by other
Christian teachers, for some time before he embodied them in
his writings. They had gradually been becoming familiar
topics. The absence, therefore, or markedly slighter treat
ment of them in the Apology of Aristides, harmonises with the
supposition that it was produced some years before other
examples of the same class of writings. It may be added
that, as Harnack admits^ the passage which Eusebius quotes
from the Apology of Quadratus makes for its having been
addressed to Hadrian and (we may add) in the earlier part
of his reign. But if already one Apology was written then,
so may another have been ; and if Eusebius was right in
regard to the one, this tends to confirm his credibility as to
the other.
The Apology of Aristides contains a simple account of
' The manner in which the two titles were combined, and little points in the
text such as the plurals in the second title, need not here be considered, as they
are at least not more difficult to account for on the view which I have advocated
than on the other.
^ Chron. I. p. 270. I may further remark here, though it is a point of no
consequence for our present enquiry, that Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, spoken
of by Dionysius of Corinth (ap. Eus. H. E. IV. xxiii. i — 3) may well have been
the same as the Christian Apologist in spite of what has been said as to the date
of this Apology. If the account of Dionysius' letter to the Athenians in Eusebius
is attentively read it will be seen that Dr Salmon {Diet, of Chr. Bio. iv. p. 523)
and Mr J. R. Harris (Texts and Studies, I. 1, p. 11) have too hastily inferred
therefrom that Quadratus, the bishop, must have been a contemporary of Dionysius.

Aristides on the Gospel 51
Christian faith and hope and life, more or less on the same
lines as our Apostles' Creed and the practical teaching of the
Didache. It is in general agreement' with the Gospels,
though it does not to any marked extent recall their
language. The writer only professes to give the heathen
emperor a slight notion of what Christianity is; he expressly
alludes to the fuller knowledge of it which may be obtained
from Christian writings^ This is the point which has special
importance for us. One remark of Aristides, according to the
Syriac Version, is of peculiar interest in connexion with the
history of the use of the Gospels'. In Mr Harris' translation
it stands thus: "This" (the Incarnation of the Son of God)
" is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was
spoken among them as being preached; wherein if ye also
will read, ye will comprehend the power that is upon it."
The passage in which these words occur is placed at the same
point in the Armenian Version as in the Syriac, and in both
the arrangement of clauses, involving rather awkward repe
titions, is the same. In these respects the Greek of Barlaam
and Josaphat differs, in a manner which reveals the hand of
the adapter. The preliminary account of the Christian Faith
given in the original at an early point in the treatise has
been combined with the fuller one in the closing part, and the
description itself has been simplified and condensed. Turning
next to the actual words in question, we have to observe that
the Armenian and the Greek each support the Syriac on a
different point. The former represents the Gospel as a
preaching, and passes over its embodiment in writing; the
latter makes no allusion to the original oral proclamation,
but asserts that the fame of Christ's appearing might be
learnt "from that which is called among them (Christians)
evangelical holy Scripture^." But further, this last expression
' The following are the two most important differences, (i) It emphasises
the part of the Jews in Our Lord's death somewhat more strongly than the
Gospels; its words are "he was pierced by the Jews" ch. 2. This point will
come before us again; see below, p. 98 n. 3, etc. (2) Like the Didache, ch. i. 2, it
gives the rule of conduct to others in a negative form, ch. 15. Cp. p. 10 n. above.
^ See chh. 2, 16, 17. ^ See ch. 2.
* Texts and Studies, I. i, p. j 10 : ^/c Tr]^ Trap airois KoXovpiv-qi eiayyeXiKris dylas
^pa^TJs.
4—2

52 Aristides on the Gospel
is manifestly later in form than that of the Syriac. The habit
lies behind it of giving the name " Gospels " to the documents
themselves in which the Gospel is contained, whereas in the
language of the Syriac Version this is not implied. The use
of the epithet " holy " in regard to the writing is an indication
of a still later stage of thought. For all these reasons we
may say with confidence that, whatever may be the case in
other passages of the Syriac Version, it gives us in this
instance the nearest, and we can hardly doubt a substantially
accurate, representation of the original.
The words rendered by Mr Harris "which a little while
ago was spoken among them as being preached " are some
what ambiguous'; but the sense of the sentence as a whole is
clear, and it is the most direct reference which we possess to
that important epoch in the life of the Early Church when
writings took the place of oral testimony in the authentication
of the facts which were the object of Christian faith and the
inspiration of Christian conduct. If the conclusion to which
we have come above as to the date of this Apology be correct,
and if, at the time of its composition, the author had passed
middle life, the last stages of the change in question may
have fallen within his own recollection.

The Fragments of Papias.
The earliest express mention of works bearing the name
of any of our evangelists comes to us through Papias. His
Expositions of Oracles of the Lord, fragments of which have
been preserved in Eusebius^ may probably have been written
A.D. 140—150. The character of the work and the statements
contained in the passages which Eusebius quotes from it have
been made the subject of an immense amount of controversy.
I take it as proved that the title of Papias' work and the
description which he gives of its object do not convey any
' Raabe, ib. p. 3, translates "welches, wie bei ihnen erzahlt wird, seit kurzer
Zeit verkiindigt worden ist"; Hennecke (T. u. CI. iv. 3, p. 9) "welches seit
kurzer Zeit, (wie) bei ihnen erzahlt wird, (dass es) verkiindigt worden ist "
^ H E. III. 39.

Papias on a writing by Matthew 53
disparagement of written records of the Life and Teaching of
Christ'. It also appears to me to have been abundantly
shewn that there is no valid ground for doubting that the
reference, in the fragment about a writing by Mark, is to
our St Mark^ And this testimony is the more important
because, for his account of the composition of this Gospel,
Papias gives the authority of " the elder,'' apparently the
Elder John, whom he describes as a personal disciple of the
Lord. In regard to these points apologists have succeeded in
making good their position. On the other hand, the general
effect of recent criticism has been to shew that there was more
reason, than such writers even as Westcott and Lightfoot were
willing to allow, in the view that the words of the fragment of
Papias concerning a writing by Matthew^ — he " composed the
' Logia ' in the Hebrew tongue " — indicated a collection of
Christ's sayings and discourses rather than a work of the
form of our Gospel according to St Matthew, a narrative in
which sayings and discourses are embedded. It has indeed
been urged by the eminent scholars just named and by
others that Xojia does not properly mean " discourses," but
"oracles," and that the same term is applied to the Old
Testaments But the point of this criticism will be turned
and its insufficiency as a reply indicated if we translate 'Xo'yia
by a phrase which will most strictly bring out its meaning —
' See Westcott (Canon, p. 71 ff.); Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Ret. p. 155 ff.;
Harnack, Chron. i. 690, n. i.
^ Westcott, ib. p. 75 ff.; Lightfoot, ib. p. 163 ff. ; Harnack, ib. p. 691 f
^ Westcott, ib. p. 74, n. 2; Lightfoot, ib. p. 173 ff. Cp. also J. A. Robinson,
The Study of the Gospels, pp. 68 — 70. Dr Westcott, indeed, seems to some
extent to anticipate the reply that will be made to him, and to endeavour to meet
it (ib. 11. i). He suggests that ra Xbyia, is an equivalent expression for "the
Gospel — the sum of the words and works of Christ." No doubt we do regard the
¦works, no less than the words, as "oracles"; but this is assuredly too subtle a
thought to attribute to Papias and his age. Nor, so far as I know, could any
illustration be adduced to confirm the view that rh. Xbyia. meant the same as rA
eiayyiXiov. The interesting and striking passage in Polyc. ad Phil. ch. 7, where
the expression rh, Xbyia rov Kvpiov occurs, appears to be inconsistent therewith : —
5s B,y fiT) bpoXoyrj Tb paprbpiov too OTavpov, iK tov Sia^bXov i(TTlv Kal 6s B.v p.edoBeii-ri
TO, Xoyia tov Kvplov irpbs rds ISLas iiriBvplas etc. If rb, Xbyia rov Kvpiov were
equivalent to "the Gospel," the "testimony of the Cross" would be included in
them.

54 Papias on a writing by Matthew
"oracular utterances." The real objections to taking the
words " Matthew composed the Oracles " as referring to the
composition of a Gospel like one of ours are (i) that books of
the New Testament, as books, can hardly have been regarded
as Divine Oracles so early as the time of Papias, still less as
that of his informant, "the Elder," if he is here again reporting
him ; (2) that one who wrote a single Gospel could not be
said on that account to have "composed tlie Oracles." But
the words of Christ must from the first have been regarded as
Divine Oracles', and the work of one who had made it his
principal aim to preserve these might well be described in the
terms which we are considering. It is not necessary to
suppose that all incidents would be passed over in such a
record; indeed, we see in the Gospels that much of Christ's
teaching was remembered, as also much of it had doubtless
been given, in the form of answers to questions that were put
to Him, or remarks called forth on particular occasions.
Some narratives might also have been included for the sake
of their own interest. Still we may suppose that it was the
main purpose of the document in question to be a treasury of
the Utterances of Christ, and that this was apparent in its
contents and arrangement. It was just such a avvTa^i,<; twv
KvptaKoiv \6yQ}v (or \oyl,(ov^), " a putting together of the
Dominical Words (or Oracles)," as Mark did not, according
to the preceding fragment, attempt to supply. This contrast
must, surely, have been intended by Papias or his informants
Our Greek Gospel accg to St Matthew appears to be a
composite work in which a source of the character just
described, or matter derived from such a source, has been
combined with St Mark, or with a document which is most
nearly represented by St Mark. At first sight, then, it would
seem natural to suppose that the writing by the Apostle
Matthew of which Papias speaks was the non-Marcan source
embodied in our first Gospel, and that the attribution of the
' See B. Weiss, Introd. to New Testament, I. p. 28 ff. Eng.' trans.
^ The text is doubtful : Xbyav is preferred by Heinichen.
^ Note also the precedence given in the same passage to "the things spoken"
over "the things done " by the Christ, and to Mark's not having heard Him, over
his not having followed Him.

Papias on a writing by Matthew 55
authorship of this Gospel to Matthew is thus explained and
in part justified. This question, however, of the relation
of the Apostle Matthew to the Gospel that bears his name
cannot be thus readily disposed of On turning to St Luke
we see signs of the use of the same non-Marcan source
as in St Matthew, and reasons are urged for holding that it
is there most truly represented, at least in certain respects.
If this is really the case, and if the common source ought
to be identified with the writing which Papias ascribes to
Matthew, how comes it, we are compelled to ask, that his
name has been associated with our first Gospel? If, on
the other hand, Matthew's writing has been most fully and
accurately reproduced in the Gospel of which he has com
monly been supposed to be the author, and the third
evangelist has nevertheless also used that document, it is
strange that he should have dealt so freely, as he must have
done, with the work of an apostle. We cannot profitably
discuss this subject further now; we must recur to it here
after in connexion with a full enquiry into the origin of the
Synoptic Gospels. For the present we can only note Papias'
statement, and bear it in mind in order that hereafter we
may reconcile it, if we find it possible to do so, with the
results of internal criticism.
Continuing our examination of Papias' evidence we find
that a time is spoken of when " everyone interpreted them
(the " Logia" composed by Matthew) as he was able" {r\pp.r\-
vevae S' avrd to? fjv Suz/aro? eKacrTo<;). Plainly this cannot
refer to written translations, at all events not to such as were
more than fragments. If one complete written translation
was in circulation it would probably be felt that the further
efforts of individuals were unnecessary. At most two or three
might seek to improve upon the version in existence : not
" everyone " who was even competent to do so would try his
hand at it'. We ought probably to take the words to mean
that Christians who knew Hebrew as well as Greek translated
from the precious document for the benefit of others who
could not understand it, especially perhaps in the Christian
1 Resch (Agrapha, pp. 48 and 54 f.) appears to think that the words refer to
a number of complete written versions ; but surely that cannot be the meaning.

56 Papias on a writing by Matthew
assemblies, after the manner of the Targumists in the Jewish
synagogues, though it is not unlikely that pieces of transla
tion, longer or shorter, may also have been written down and
preserved. I believe that when we consider the Synoptic
Problem, we shall find these words of Papias' fragment to be
of great importance, because they suggest the thought that
the rendering of the Hebrew " Logia " may have taken place
in a fragmentary manner by different persons, and shew how
two Greek representatives of the original might naturally have
been compiled, very differently arranged and in parts only
substantially alike, but in other parts almost verbally the
same. We must now notice the tenses employed; they shew
that the state of things described was already past. But is
the point of view that of Papias or of one of those informants
of an older generation to whom he refers .-" In other words, is
Papias speaking of a practice which he had either heard of, or
even been himself familiar with, in former days, but which
had now ceased .'' Or is he reporting a statement by the
Elder John, or someone of similar standing, concerning a
change which had taken place within the experience of such
an one? The analogy of the fragment on Mark is in favour
of the latter alternative ; but it should also be observed that
even on the former supposition the time in question might be
at least as early as the end of the first century.
How, then, did the period referred to contrast with the
times that followed? Was the period of casual and frag
mentary rendering succeeded immediately by a stage during
which a Version, in the strict sense of the term, of the
Hebrew Collection of Christ's Words was in circulation,
before the appearance of, and for a time alongside of, our
St Matthew and our St Luke, in which the matter it con
tained was more or less fully incorporated ? So far as the
words in our small fragment go, this might have been the case,
and the stage suggested might have extended even to Papias'
earlier days. And, further, the instances that have come
before us of parallelisms with our first Gospel in the Christian
literature of Papias' age and before it could be accounted
for, if a document containing the teaching of Christ in the

Papias on a writing by Matthew 57
Matthaean form was current ; for the quotations are chiefly of
Christ's sayings. Nevertheless the supposition in question is
an improbable one. It is certain that not long after Papias'
time, our first Gospel was held to be virtually identical with
a Hebrew work by Matthew. Papias' own conception of the
relation between the two may not have been precisely the
same as that held by Christians of a generation younger than
his own ; he may have known that there was a difference in
the extent and order of their subject-matter ; but he would
naturally be disposed to make little of the difference rather
than to emphasise it, and his view and that of his contempo
raries must at least have been such as would prepare the way
for that which soon afterwards prevailed'. Moreover, we
hear not a syllable concerning any Greek document by
Matthew distinct from the Canonical St Matthew. It is
difficult to see how our first Gospel could have been accepted
so early as it was for the work of the Apostle Matthew, if
another Greek work which was believed to be a translation of
the Hebrew writing by him, and which corresponded more
closely with its general form and limits, was in existence
during the first half of the second century. I would add that
the relations of our Greek St Matthew and St Luke can, I
believe, be best explained, if there was no interval, or none of
appreciable duration, between the time of fragmentary oral
and written translations, and the composition of each of those
Gospels, independently of one another, approximately at the
same epoch, before the close of the first century.
It remains only to be said in connexion with Papias, that
there is good reason to believe that he used the Fourth
Gospel^, and that the mere absence of evidence as to his use
of St Luke does not supply a ground for thinking that he
was unacquainted with it or did not recognise it as genuine'.

' Cp. Hamack, Chron. I. p. 692 f.
^ Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. pp. 186 and I94f. ; Harnack, Chron. I.
p. 658 f. Schmiedel's reasoning (Encycl. Bibl. 11. p. 2548 (48 b)) seems to me, I
confess, altogether belated. He writes as if Lightfoot had never published his
article on "the silence of Eusebius," Essays on Sup. Rel. ii.
3 Lightfoot, ib. p. 178.

58 The so-called Second Epistle of Clement
The so-called Second Epistle of Clem.ent.
The so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
appears to illustrate in more than one respect a stage in the
history of the Canon. On the one hand, the idea of Christian
Scriptures comparable to those of the Old Testament and
forming in some sort a recognised collection already exists.
The words which we find in Mt. ix. 13 and Mk ii. 17, "I came
not to call righteous persons but sinners," are introduced with
the formula " another Scripture saith," just after a passage
from the Old Testament. Again, shortly after a reference to
the " Oracles of God," words corresponding to Our Lord's
language as given at Luke vi. 32, 35 are quoted as such a
Divine Oracle'. Again, the writer founds an important truth
upon the teaching of rd ^i^Xia Kal ol d-rroa-ToXoL (ch. 14).
By the former of these he probably means the Old Testament.
Under the latter, though he seems in the context to have
some Epistles of the New Testament specially in mind, he
may well include Gospels, as the phrase of Justin, " the
Apostolic Memoirs," shews. Thus he conjoins writings of
the New Covenant with those of the Old, although the same
expression, "the books" i.e. "the bible," does not yet cover
both. On the other hand it is evident that the writer did not
distinguish between the value of the contents of the four
Gospels and other Evangelic matter. No works are cited by
name, and, although some of the sayings of Our Lord which
he quotes correspond on the whole closely with sayings
recorded in the Gospels and may fairly be held to have been
derived thence, he makes considerable use of another source,
or of other sources. One saying which he quotes corresponds
with part of a passage which, according to Clement of
Alexandria, was to be found in the Gospel accg to the
Egyptians'^. It is, therefore, not improbable that the same
work supplied other pieces of Apocryphal matter contained
in the Second Epistle of Clement^. For our present purpose,
1 X^7et 6 Sebs, Ou xdpi^ etc., 2 Clem. ch. 13, see Lightfoot in loc. and Hamack,
Chron. i. p. 446, n. i.
^ Cp. 2 Clem. ch. 12 with Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 13, p. 553.
^ For some remarks on the range of circulation and the character of the Gospel
accg to the Egyptians, see below, pp. 265-8.

Its interest in relation to the Canon 59
however, it will be sufficient to observe that an appreciable
quantity of such matter is introduced there', and that it is
treated as equally authentic with that which was, or might
have been, derived from the Four GospelsS
One other passage may be referred to which brings before
us several problems connected with the Evangelic quotations
in early writers. " For the Lord saith in the Gospel," writes
our author, " if ye have not kept that which is little, who will
give you that which is great? for I say to you that he who is
faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much." The
saying here quoted may be the result of a fusion of Lu. xiv.
10 with Mt. xxv. 21, 23. But to all appearance the writer
regards the words as forming a single saying. He does not
seem to be summarising Our Lord's teaching on a particular
point. Unless, therefore, it is simply a case of confusion in
the memory, he probably knew the words as so given in some
writing, or at least as commonly quoted thus. His use of the
phrase " in the Gospel " does not, we may observe, shew that
he only knew of one Gospel. The habit in early times, which
has been adverted to, of thinking rather of the common
substance of the Gospel than of particular forms in which it
was presented, sufficiently explains the employment of the
singular. Nevertheless he would seem, as we have said, to have
had some particular embodiment in view. These considera
tions open up more than one possibility. He may be quoting
from some harmony of the Gospels, a predecessor of that one
which Tatian compiled not long after the middle of the
century, or from a body of Our Lord's teaching which was
orally delivered, or from some Gospel now lost into which the
words had passed from tradition, or in which the language of
our Gospels had been reproduced with alterations.
It will, then, be readily perceived that it is a matter of
some importance for us to determine as far as possible the
date of this work and the place of its origin. So long as it
1 See, besides, ch. 12, chh. 4 end, 5 and perhaps 9.
^ On Resch's view (Agrapha, pp. 109, 195 — 204) that 2 Clem. ch. 12 preserves
for us an authentic saying of Christ which was " contained in a Gospel-source used
already by Paul," and the extremely fanciful argumentation by which he supports
it, see Zahn, Kanon, 11. p. 636 n. 4.

6o The so-called Second Epistle of Clement
was known only in a mutilated form the hypothesis was a
tempting one that it was in fact the letter written circ.
A.D. 170 by Soter, bishop of Rome, to the Church at Corinth,
a portion of the reply to which by the contemporary bishop
of Corinth, Dionysius, is given us by Eusebius {H. E. iv. 23).
Dionysius refers to the Epistle of Clement, which it was (he
says) the practice of the Church of Corinth to read from time
to time in their assemblies. They will do the same, Dionysius
proceeds, with the letter just received. Accordingly some
have supposed that owing to this second letter from the
Church of Rome to that of Corinth having been treated like
and kept with the first, the more distinguished authorship
belonging to the first came to be attributed to the second
also. Objections to the view that the so-called Second Epistle of
Clement could be the letter referred to by Dionysius were
urged even before the recovery of the lost ending. But since
that fortunate event it has become impossible to regard the
work as a letter at all. It was a homily composed for
delivery in a Christian assembly. Nevertheless, Harnack'
still adheres to the view that it was sent by Soter to Corinth,
though accompanied (it may be) by a short letter, and that it
is the communication referred to by Dionysius. He admits
that a difficulty is created by the homiletic form of the docu
ment, but he maintains that its attribution to Clement may
still be best accounted for by the supposition in question.
To judge of, this we must compare the rival explanation.
Let me state it in the simplest manner possible. The
genuine Epistle of Clement and our homily, by some author
whose name was either unknown or not held to be of im
portance, had been brought together in some manuscript
volume at Corinth which happened to be the one through
which the latter work, and to some extent the former also,
became known to the Church of later times. In a volume
which contained the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,
there was room after it for this homily, and the space had
been utilised, since parchment was precious, by copying it in
there. The two writings may well have been numbered
' Chron. I. p. 444.

not sent to Corinth by Soter 6i
a and ^ in the volume, and while the former bore the title
KAHMENTOX HPOS KOPIN@IOT2 the latter, too,
whether it had really been, or was supposed to have been,
a sermon addressed to the Corinthian Church, might have
been inscribed HPOS KOPIN@IOTS. But even the mere
collocation would be sufficient to account for confusion having
arisen after one or two generations'.
Now the gist of Harnack's argument is that there are
objections alike to this view and to that which connects the
homily with Soter, but that in the latter case they are far
less serious. He urges that, even before the time of Eusebius
and perhaps as early as the beginning "of the third century,
our document was called a letter, and he seems to think
that both theories are simply different modes of escape
from the difificulty, that this is not a true description of
it^ But here assuredly he fails to meet the point of the
case against him. The force of the language of Dionysius
cannot be thus set aside. His allusions are in no wise
satisfied by supposing that the Church of Rome had forwarded
a copy of an old sermon, preached in one of their own
assemblies, to the Church of Corinth, together with a few
introductory words. They clearly suggest that a letter
written in the name of the Church at Rome to that at Corinth
had been sent to accompany a gracious gift to brethren in
distress, and that in this letter the one Church had admonished
the other, as Christian brethren and Churches were then wont
to exhort one another in their correspondence.
Again, Harnack unwarrantably exaggerates the difificulty
of the view he is opposing. He assumes that the communi
cation from Soter must in any case have been originally
united to that from Clement, and that it must have been
forcibly dislodged from its position by our homily, if the latter
was a different work. But there is no ground for supposing
that any such formal connexion between the later and the
earlier letter from Rome was ever established. The letter
from Soter would indeed most probably be kept, along with
other similar documents, in the Church book-chest at Corinth.
' See Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt i, II. p. 197 ff.
^ Harnack, Chron. i. pp. 443-4.

62 The so-called Second Epistle of Clement
But we do not know how frequently it was read, or how long
the habit of reading it publicly continued, if indeed the habit
was ever formed. The cordial expressions of Dionysius on
first receiving the letter cannot be taken as proof that this use
was made of it for any considerable period. But even if it
was, the copying of our homily into the same volume with
the Epistle of Clement, perhaps not before the third century,
might be due to wholly independent causes, such as the
relation of the length of the document to the space of parch
ment to be filled.
Once more, Harnack entirely passes over a serious dif
ficulty in his own 'hypothesis. If our homily came from
Soter, how was its identification with so eminent a man as
Soter lost, and why was not his covering letter written in the
name of the Church of Rome, which must surely have been
prized, copied along with the rest? Here at all events there
would have been a case of forcible detachment, and one which
is most improbable'.
We need not then hesitate to reject the notion that the
so-called Second Epistle of Clement was transmitted to Corinth
by Bishop Soter, circ. A.D. 170.
But further, it should be observed that Harnack himself
has been compelled to modify his original theory in regard to
Soter's part in the matter. He now admits, as everyone must
admit, that the document was not originally written with the
object of being used thus. There is also nothing in it to shew
that it was by Soter himself Indeed it would be easier to
understand its being attributed to Clement if it was not, and
if it was a comparatively old writing. All that Harnack
would obtain, even if his argument were valid, would be, that
it must have been composed before the time of Soter's corre
spondence with the Church of Corinth^ How long before
1 "Man muss aber die Unwahrscheinlichkeiten in den Kauf nehmen dass... die
eingeschobene Predigt genau oder fast genau aus derselben Zeit stammt wie der
verdrangte Brief und dass sie wahrscheinlich auch aus derselben Zeit stammt wie
der verdrangte und einst neben dem I. Clemensbrief hochgeschatzte Brief ausge-
gangen ist." Chron. 1. p. 449. He forgets that on his theory the name of Soter
must have been "verdrangt."
'¦^ Hamack overlooks this altogether. Having shewn to his own satisfaction
that it was most probably sent by Soter to Corinth, he jumps to the conclusion

probably composed at Corinth 63
must still be decided on internal grounds. And it certainly
ought to be assumed to have been considerably before. We
have clear evidence as to an attitude to the four Gospels on
the one hand and to apocryphal Gospels on the other, in the
Church of Rome soon after that time, so different from that
which the Second Epistle of Clement betokens, that if this
homily is to be taken to represent the feeling and thought of
that Church when it was written, a generation or two at least
must have intervened to account for the change.
There are other indications in the work unfavourable to
the supposition that it was composed in Rome in the third
quarter of the second century. Its Christology is crude.
Again, the reference to the presbyters and silence as to the
bishop in ch. 17, though not strictly inconsistent with the
existence already of "the monarchical episcopate," is at least
most in accord with the habits of thought and speech of the
earlier decades of the century. Apart from the hypothesis as
to Soter, there is little reason for connecting our homily with
Rome. Harnack urges analogies between it and Hermas'
Shepherd, but they are far from convincing'. Corinth may
with most probability be assigned as its birthplace. From
Corinth the knowledge of it must in any case have spread,
and it is therefore natural to suppose that it was to the
Church at Corinth that it was first preached. It also con
tains allusions which may thus most satisfactorily be ex-
plainedl Unfortunately, however, we know next to nothing
about the history of belief and organisation in the Church at
Corinth during the second century; but if we assume that
this Church partook in the general movements of Church-life
in Asia Minor and in Rome we may with most probability
assign this work to circ. A.D. 140.
that it had not long been written, and remarks. What a significant fact for the
history of the Canon ! {Ib. p. 449, n. 2.) And then afterwards he builds upon
this conclusion (ib. pp. 617 and 623), as if it were certain, though his conclusion
on the point of literary history which he has discussed is at best doubtful, and
though as to the date or authorship he has not attempted to prove anything and
could not if he tried. Such a use of questionable results no doubt facilitates lucid
exposition of a writer's own theories, but it can hardly be considered a sound
method of procedure.
1 See Harnack, Chron. i. p. 445, and cp. Lightfoot, b. p. 200 f.
'^ See Lightfoot, ib. p. 197.

64 The Exegetica of Basilides

Marcion, Basilides and Valentinus.
Some few years before the middle of the second century
the chief founders of Gnostic schools had appeared, and three
of the greatest of them, who were specially influential in the
West, Marcion, Basilides and Valentinus', must be noticed in
connexion with our enquiry.
It seems to be legitimate at the present day to take it as
proved that " Marcion's Gospel " was a mutilated form of the
Gospel according to St Luke, and I do not intend to discuss
the point here'''. The question of the use of our Gospels by
Basilides is a more open one. It will be right that I should
examine it with some care, though the results obtained may,
I fear, be thought unsatisfactory.
Eusebius informs us, on the authority of Agrippa Castor,
that Basilides wrote a work in 24 books "on the Gospel'."
This is doubtless the work referred to as his " Exegetica " by
Clement of Alexandria, who cites three passages from its
twenty-third book^ On its authority the statements of
Clement as to the teaching of Basilides appear to be founded.
The same work is, no doubt, meant in the Acta Archelai
ch. 55, where it is called Tractatus, and a quotation is made
from the thirteenth book^.
Origen, as rendered by Jerome, declares that Basilides
"dared to write a Gospel and to call it after his own name"."
Such a " Gospel," first drawn up by him, has been frequently
supposed to have formed the basis of his Commentaries. But
there is no trace of the use of any such " Gospel " by his
followers, nor any other allusion to it in early writers, even
' On their dates cp. Harnack, Chron. I. p. 297 ff., and 2S9 ff.
^ I would refer the reader especially to Sanday, The Gospels in the Second
Century, pp. 204 — 230. The validity of his argument based on Marcion's read
ings (p. 230 ff.) is more questionable, in view of the developments of textual
criticism since this work appeared (1876). For it now seems probable that the
" Western " text contained at least some readings older than that which Westcott
and Hort called "Neutral."
3 eis Tb evayyiXwv. Eus. H. E. iv. vii. 6, 7.
•• Strom. IV. 12, pp. 599, 600.
' Routh, Rel. Sacr. v. p. 197.
* Hom. I. in Luc.

The Exegetica of Basilides 65
where we might have expected that it would have been
mentioned, if it existed'. It seems probable that Jerome has
misunderstood and misrepresented Origen, who may have
meant only that Basilides had ventured to put forth his own
view of the Christian revelation and to call this the Gospels
Basilides claimed, it would seem, that he had been a
disciple of a certain Glaucias, who was " interpreter to Peter,"
as Valentinus was said to have been of Theodas, who was a
friend of the Apostle Paul; while they and likewise Marcion
made m.uch of traditions which were said to have been derived
from Matthias^ These are interesting illustrations of the
disposition of the Gnostics to appeal to Apocryphal sources of
information which they professed were Apostolic. There is
no reason to doubt that Basilides also adduced, and interpreted
in his own way, many passages from our Gospels ; but the
only one which we can with probability infer that he used,
from the direct evidence as to the contents of his Exegetica, is
the parable of Dives and Lazarus*.
As yet, however, we have not considered the account of
the system of Basilides given in Hippolytus's Refutation of
all Heresies^, in which two quotations from St John and one
from St Luke are apparently attributed to Basilides himself''.
Hippolytus's representation has been thought to be wholly
' E.g. by Irenaeus when he is speaking of Gnostic audacity in regard to the
Gospels, Adv. Haer. in. xi. 9; or again in connexion with the contrast which
Tertullian draws (De Praescr. Haer. 38).
^ The language of Irenaeus (ib.) regarding the Valentinian Gospel of Truth
should also be compared. See Westcott, Canon, pp. 307 ff.
' Clem. Strom, vii. 17, pp. 898, 900; Hipp. Ref. Omn. Haer. vii. 20, 1.
^ See Acta Archelai referred to above. Though the interpretation put upon
Basilides' words in this document is probably more or less mistaken, this is of
course no reason for doubting the genuineness of the reference to Luke.
It does not seem justifiable to assume with Zahn, p. 767, that in the passages
of the Exegetica ap. Clem. Strom. IV. 42, pp. 599, 600, Basilides is commenting
on Jn ix. i — 3. It also seems clear that, at Strotn. III. i, pp. 508-9, Clement in
citing an application which was made of the words at Mt. xix. 11, 12 is quoting
the disciples of Basilides, not, as Zahn, ib. and Hort (Diet, of Chr. Bio. I. p. 270*)
contend, Basilides himself. If it had been made by Basilides, Clement would
have said so in order more effectually to condemn the degenerate Basilidians of his
own day whom he is reproving, just as, in the same context, when he cites the
actual words of Isidore, he notes the fact.
^ vii. 20 — 27.
^ Jn i. 9 in Hipp. Refut. ch. 22; Jn ii. 4 in ch. 27, Lu. i. 35 in ch. 26.
S. G. 5

66 Hippolytus s account of the system,
untrustworthy by various critics, including some of the most
recent, mainly on the ground that it differs v/idely from that
of Irenaeus, and is not supported by that of Clement of
Alexandria'. In regard to differences from Irenaeus I would
first remark that the fact of Irenaeus being an older witness
does not of itself make him a better one in a matter of
this kind. If he had simply gathered his information from
professed disciples of Basilides whom he had met,^ — and
he does not imply that he was depending on any more
authentic source, — he might more easily have been misled
as to the chief points of the system, than a later writer
upon it, who derived his knowledge from a document or
documents. A comparison of the statements of Irenaeus
with those of Clement of Alexandria, who had had good
opportunities of becoming, and evidently was, well informed
as to both the original and later teaching of the sect, is not
favourable to the former writer. We may note in particular
that Irenaeus attributes an encouragement of license to the
School, which Clement of Alexandria expressly tells us was
characteristic only of its later members, aij'^agjdirect conflict
with the teaching of its founders and theijn ¦sff\Svs\% disciples^.
It is to be added that on othei' points fa* are aplernent does
not support Hippolytus, still leslf-fj dc^l repreport Irenaeus.
But in point of fact, as'Dr HoK't ]l Ln, the view of
Basilidean doctrine given by Hippepjysclare" ^th as regards
thought and language, confirmed vflv Qfte in importa..t
particulars, and fully as much as in tb.e^''^^ stances we are
entitled to expect. For Clement in r^^is St^\ateis expressly
' Salmon, Hermathena, V. (1885), PP- 401-2. Sxtahe^^ Text. u. Untersuch.
VI. 3, pp. 85 ff. Zahn, ib. p. 765. Hamack, Gesch. d.J^hrist. Litt. I. i, p. 157;
Chron. I. p. 291. The last-named goes so far as to say'that the question is no
longer an open one. '
^ Cp. Iren. I. xxiv. 5 ("habere autem et reliquarum operationum usum indiffer-
entem, et universae libidinis"), with Clem. Al. Strom, in. 1, p. 510.
It is also well pointed out by Drummond ("Is Basilides quoted in the Philo-
sophumena?" 'inlh.e Amex'ican Journal of Biblical Literature, 1892, p. 145) that the
treatment of the subject of the sufferings of Jesus by Clement (Strom. IV. ch. 12,
p. 600) is inconsistent with the view that Simon of Cyrene suffered in place of
Jesus, which Irenaeus makes part of the system.
There can be no ground, so far as I am aware, for including Agrippa Castor,
as Zahn does, p. 765, among our informants with whom Hippolytus's information
is inconsistent.

of Basilides is trustworthy 67
limits himself to ethical questions and defers the discussion of
metaphysical and cosmological ones. The ethical principles
and the terminology of the system as represented in Clement
agree well with its metaphysics and cosmology as represented
in Hippolytus'. Our conclusion is that Hippolytus's section
on the Heresy of Basilides gives a trustworthy account of the
doctrines of the Master and his genuine disciples. This result
is an important one for the history of Gnosticism, and it is
' Hort, ib. pp. 270, 271. Dmmmond, ib. pp. 146-7, adds the use of eiepye-
refj' and eiepyeTeiadai, Refut. ch. 22, pp. 364, 2, 3 etc. Let me also point out
the similar language about the Will of God. Compare Clem. Strom, iv. 12,
pp. 601-2, Tb Xeybpevov SiX-qpa tov deov, and sequel, with Refut. VII. 21,
avo-qras, dvai.(!6-ffras...meTnBviJ.-lp-ois Kbopiov -qffiX-qae -n-oirjoai. Tb di -qdiXrioe,
Xiyoi, (p-qal, oTjpaoias xdpiv, dBeX-fp-as Kal dvo-fiTois koI avaiaS-liTUS.
The considerations put forward by Salmon and Stahelin on the other side seem
to be without weight. Salmon's contention is that certain similarities with
Valentinianism render the account suspicious. Seeing, however, that the theories
of Basilides and Valentinus proceeded from the same movement of thought, that
both teachers shared to a large extent the same intellectual traditions, and that
their adherents, if not the heresiarchs themselves, must have often met and
^I'g^gs'l iu discussion, it would be strange if there were no points of contact in
thought and language between them, and if none of the same texts of Scripture
had been used by both. Again, as to the use by both Basilides and Valentinus of
the same words from Prov. i. 7, on which Dr Salmon comments, Hippolytus is
confirmed by Clement (Strom. II. p. 448), who is specially clear as to the employ
ment of them by Basilides and his school.
Stahelin (pp. 46 — 54) discovers some phrases which occur in more than one of
Hippolytus's accounts of different heretics; but they are such as might proceed
from Hippolytus himself without rendering his information generally untrustworthy.
Lastly, the doctrine set forth by Hippolytus — so far from its being unworthy of
the great Gnostic teacher — will, I am convinced, if considered in an unprejudiced
spirit, appear to be marked by real intellectual power. It is not fairly chargeable
with the inconsistencies which Stahelin finds in it, p. 89 ff. Moreover, in the
exposition contained in chh. 20 — 22, when read connectedly, it is not difficult to
trace an attempt, that is far from despicable, to conceive and express the idea of
the Absolute, — which must be without attributes because attributes limit that to
which they are applied, — and, further, to grapple with the thought of the self-
limitation of the Absolute in Creation. There are, also, remarks which are very
suggestive in connexion with the Gnostic use of myths. I may adduce Dr Hort's
judgment as to "the freshness and power" of the extracts generally. Ib. -p. 271.
For myself I would say only that I realised for the first time many years ago, in
reading Hippolytus's account of the doctrines of Basilides, without having been
in any way directed thereto, how a great Gnostic system might represent a high
and strong intellectual effort. See also Drummond, ib. p. 151 ff., on Stahelin's
strictures. With regard to the objection founded on the statements of the Acta Archelai
see Hort, ib. pp. 276-7.

68 Uncertainty as to the source
favourable rather than not to the view that the quotations
from the Gospels to which we have referred were made by
Basilides himself But this latter point needs further con
sideration. At the commencement of his account of this heresy,
Hippolytus refers not only to Basilides, but to Isidore,
remarking that the latter was " the genuine son and disciple "
of Basilides. He adds also that the whole School, as well
as the two just named, were guilty of misrepresenting not
only the Apostle Matthias, from whom they claimed to
have received special traditions, but the Saviour Himself
Immediately after this comprehensive reference, Hippolytus
uses the singular — i^crl — and does so again and again,
and, among other places, in introducing the passages con
cerning the quotations from the Gospels according to St John
and St Luke, to which allusion has been made. What then
is the force of this formula ^al, "he says"? In view of the
manner in which it is introduced both here and in the accounts
which Hippolytus gives of other systems', it is probable that
he uses it in accordance with Greek idiom, when a theory is
being discussed, with a somewhat indefinite reference, like
our "it is said." In some passages where it occurs, Hip
polytus may well be giving a summary, partly in his own
words, of the opinions which he is describing. There are
others, however, in which the remarks introduced thereby
have all the appearance of being actual quotations, and this
holds especially of the citations and applications of passages
of Scripture. But in regard to these, too, it is necessary to
ask whether the quotations are made from the heresiarch
himself, or from Isidore, of some other member of the school ;
' See for example Hippolytus's section on the Naassenes where ifi-qal is more
than once used, though no individual is mentioned to whom it can refer.
Drummond points this out, ib. p. 134, but apparently does not feel that it renders
its purport in the section on Basilides more uncertain, as it surely must. Dr
Drummond maintains not only that Hippolytus's account of the system of
Basilides is trustworthy, in which I fully concur, but also that it is "highly
probable that the writer quoted by Hippolytus is Basilides himself," about
which I cannot feel so confident. Dr Sanday, however, to whom (Inspiration,
p. 308) I am indebted for having my attention drawn to Dr Drummond's article,
considers that the latter has made good his position.

of Hippolytus s quotations 69
and yet this is a point which it seems impossible to decide.
The exposition of the system from which Hippolytus has
drawn might well have been given in the Exegetica by way
of comment, for example, on the Prologue to the Fourth
Gospel. On the other hand, the circumstance that Hip
polytus alludes to the claim of Isidore, as well as of Basilides,
to possess traditions derived from Matthias, and the stress
which he lays on the fact that Isidore was a genuine disciple
of his father, give colour to the supposition that he has a
treatise by Isidore before him'. Even, however, if Hippolytus's
source was not a work by Basilides himself, it might have
contained quotations from him ; and at any rate the use of
the third and fourth Gospels by a genuine disciple would
raise a presumption in favour of their having been used by
the Master likewise.
The case as to the use of our Gospels by Valentinus,
closely resembles that in regard to Basilides. In the account
given by Hippolytus of his doctrines and of those of his
School'' interpretations of texts from St Luke and St John
occur which are introduced by the same formula " he says ^"
And the same kind of doubt hangs over its employment,
a doubt which cannot be resolved, because we are unable
to examine the documents from which Hippolytus drew his
information^. It has, however, been forcibly urged that the
whole terminology of the Valentinian system, which must as
to its main features go back to Valentinus himself, implies
acquaintance with the Fourth Gospels
' Zahn (I. p. 765, n. 4) also remarks that there is a "suspiciously modern
stamp " in the formulas of citation from New Testament Scriptures which form
part, apparently, of the extracts. See iv rots eiya77eX/ots, Ref. 22, p. 360; and
«s yiypa-wTa.1, or us ^ ypaiprj Xiyei, in introducing quotations from the Epistles of
St Paul, ch. 25, p. 368, 375 ; ch. 26, p. 372 etc.
2 Ref. VI. 29—55.
' Jn x. 8 and Lu. i. 35 in ch. 35.
* I am unable to see that there is any clear distinction between them, as
Westcott held. Canon, p. 297 ff. and p. 305 n. 4.
' See Westcott, ib.; Salmon, Introd. to New Test. p. 53 f.

TO Parallelisms with the Gospels

"}  (2)

j  (6)

ADDITIONAL NOTE I. TO CHAP. IL
PARALLELISMS WITH THE GOSPELS IN THE TEACHING
OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.
Did. I. 2 — 5.
r\ fjLev ovv Sbos rrjs ^atrjs ecTtv avrr}-  (l)
TrpSiTOVj ayaTTTjaeis tov Qeov tov TroirjaavTa tre* "
devrepov tov irk-qa-'iov aov o)? (reavTov
navTa be oo-a eav deX-qcTis prj ylveaSai crot, /cat o-v aXXo) pr} ttoUl  (3)
TOVToav 5e TUiv \6ya)v rj BiBa^r) eaTiv avrrp  (4)
evkoyare tovs KaTaptopivovs vpiv,  (5)
Kai. 7rpO(reu;^e(r^e vnep tojv i-)(6pa>v vpa}v^'\
vr)a-T€V€T€ de vifep tq>v ^kokovtcov vpas'
TToia yap )(dpLSj iav dyatzaTe tovs dyanoiVTas vpds;  (7)
ovxi KO.I- TO. edvr) to avTo TTOLOvatv ;  (8)
vpels 8e dyaTTUTe tovs picrovvTas vpdsj  (9)
/cat ov^ e^eTe i)(6p6v  (10)
dTre')(OV Tmv capKiKCOV Kal (TOfpaTiKiov iiriQvpioav  (^^)
idv Tts <roL bio paTncrpa els ttjv de^tdv trta-yova,]
, , . - V ^ «-.>, [  (12)
o-TpeyJAOv avTco Kai ttjv (lAArjv, j ^ '
/cat eo-rj TeXeios'  (13)
idv dyyapevcrr} (ri tls p'tkiov ev, viraye peT' avTov Suo-  (l4)
edv dprj TLS TO ipdrtov crov, 80s avT^ Kal tov ^LTwva-  ('S)
idv Xd^rj TLS dno aov to (rov, prj dTrairet*  (16)
ovde ydp dvvaaai  (17)
ttuvtI TO) aiTovvTi ae Sifiov, Kal prj aTraLTer  ^l8)
Trao-t ydp diXei dldoaSai 6 TrarTjp e'/c roiv 18l<ov ;^apt(r/iaTa>v  (19)
paKdpios 6 didovs Kara ttjv ivToXrjv d$aos yap io-Tiv oval roJ Xap^d-
vovTL' el pev ydp ;^petav e^^oiv Xap^dvet tls dO^os ea-rar 6 be prj ¦)(^peiav
e;^6)i/ fioxret biKijv, IvaTL eXa^e Kal els ri, iv crvvo-^rj be yevopevos e^eTa-
o-Qr](TeTai irepl Jv eirpa^e,  (20)
Kat OVK i^eXevo-eToi eKeWev pexpi'S ov d-rrobt^ tov ea-^ciTov KoBpdvTrjv. (21)

in the Didache 7^
(l) Cp. Mt. vii. 14 y] 6S6y t\ a-irayovrra els ttjv ^<or]V.
(2) Cp. Mk xii. 30, 31, Mt. xxii. 37 — 39. The distinction between
" the first " and " the second " is made most clearly in Mk, and next to
Mk in Mt.
(3) Nearer to Mt. vii. 12 than to Lu. vi. 31.
(5) Lu. vi. 28 : exact except that Lu. has vjias instead of vfj'iv. This
precept is probably to be omitted at Mt. v. 44.
(6) Nearest to Mt. v. 44 b, which has hmKovTav, whereas Lu. has
i-iTr)pea^6vTa>v. (7) Lu. vi. 32 (almost exact).
(8) Cp. Mt. V. 47 • ov-xi KOI oi e6viKo\ TO avTo TToiovcriv ;
(9) Cp. Lu. vi. 27. Not quite so close to Mt. v. 44 (lectio recta).
(12) Cp. Mt. V. 39^; Lu. vi. 29 is not so like^
(13) Cp. Mt. V. 48.
(14) Mt. V. 41 (almost exact) ; there is nothing to correspond in Luke.
(•5)) (16), (18) Cp. Lu. vi. 293 and 30; Mt. v. 40 and 42 is not so like.
(19) May well have been suggested by Lu. vi. 35.
(21) Cp. Mt. v. 26 ; Lu. xii. 59 is not so like.
Did. xvi. I.
yprjyopeiTe v-irep ttjs fm^s vpiaiv  (l)
ot XvxvoL vjxSiv p,r) (T^eirBriTaxTav, Kal al 6(T<j)ves vjxihv p.rj eKXve(rd(oa-av- (2)
dXXa yivea-de eToifioi-  (3)
ov yap oihaTe Trjv apav ev jj 6 Kvpios rjfia)V epxeTai  (4)
Cp. Lu. xii. 37, 39, 35, 40 ; and Mt. xxiv. 42, 44. (4) is closer to Mt.,
but there is a parallel to (2) only in Luke.
The prayer which "the Lord in the Gospel commanded us to pray" is
given at Did. vill. 2, most nearly as in Mt.
The saying contained only in Mt. vii. 6, /ii) 8£rf ro ayiov toIs kvo-i, is
given as spoken by the Lord at Did. ix. 5.

72 Parallelisms with the Gospels

ADDITIONAL NOTE IL TO CHAP. II.
PARALLELISMS BETWEEN THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS
AND THE FOUR GOSPELS.
I. Parallelisms with both St Matthew and St Mark, and in some
cases also St Luke, as well as sentences in which the two former seem
to be closely combined^.
(d) V. 3, vi. 5. ovTo'i ela-iv exovTes p.ev -k'kttiv, exovTes Se Kal itXovtov
TOV aicovos TovTov. oTav yevrjTai dXiyjris, Sta roy ttXovtov aiiTotv Kal
Sta Tas TrpaypiaTeias dnapvovvTai tov Kvpiov avTav.
S. 9, XX. I, 2. 01 pev TpifBoXoL elaiv oi nXovuioi, ai be aKavSai oi ev Tois
TT paypaTeiais Tais TvoiKiXais €p7re<j)vppevoi  aTroTrXavoJi^rat -irviyopevoi
VTTO TO>v Trpd^eaiv avT&tv.
Ib. xxi. I. TO. de irpbs Ta'is pilots ^^pd, Tives Se Kal dnb Tov rjXiov
^Tjpaivopevai etc.
Cp. Mt. xiii. 6, 7, 21, 22; Mk iv. 6, 7, 17, 18, 19.
(b) S. 5, ii. 2, 3- ^^X^ '*'? dypbv Kal dovXovs iroXXovs, Kal pepos tl tov
dypov ecjiiiTeva-ev dp-rreXava. He chose out one faithful servant and
said to him; Aa/3e tov dpTreXcova tovtov ov €<pvTeva-a Kal xapdKcoa-ov avTov,
etc. Then the Master e^rjXde els ttjv diroSrjpiav.
Ib. 6. TTpoaKaXeo-dpevos ovv tov viov aiiTov tov dyaTTijTov, ov et;^e
KXijpovopov etc.
Cp. Mt. xxi. 33, 38, Mk xii. i, 5—7, Lu. xx. 9, 13, 14; xapoKtoo-ov,
however, should be compared with ippaypov v-epiedrjKev in Mt. and Mk,
which is not found and has no parallel in Luke. Traits peculiar to Luke,
one found only in Mk and Lu., and one or two less distinct ones peculiar
to Matthew, are to be observed in the same context. See other headings.
(tr) S. 9, xxix. I — 3. The believers from the twelfth mountain are
like very babes ; they have ever continued free from guile and childlike.
oo-ot ovv biapeve'iTe, he continues, xai ea-eirBe i>s to. ^pe<pri, KaKiav prj exovTes,
TTavTiov Totv Trpoeiprjpevojv evbo^orepoi eo-eade- TrdvTa ydp Ta ^pe(j)Tj evbo^d
ea-Ti jrapd rto Gew Kal npwTa Trap' avTa. paKapwi ovv vpels, oiToi dv dprjTe
dip' eavTwv ttjv Trovrjpiav, evhvfn^aOe Se ttjv dKaKiav- npaToi irdvriov ^rjo-eade
rtu Beat. Cp. Mt. xviii. I — 4, 10, xix. 13 — 15; Mk ix. 35 — 37, x. 13 — 16.
One or two touches in Hermas reproduce Mk, while the connexion is
somewhat closer to Mt.
' For convenience these are given under this heading, instead of being referred
to twice over under 2 and 3.

in the Shepherd of Hermas 73
{a) S. 9, xxv. I, 2. eK Se rov opovs tov oyboov, ov ^crav at TroXXat -Trrjyai,
Kai Traa-a rj ktictis tov Kvpiov e'-iroTi^eTO eK tS>v TrrjyStv, oi irUTTevtravTes
ToiovToi ela-iv (jTroo'roXot Kal diSda-KoXoi ol kj] pv^avTes els SXov tov
Kocrpov Kal oi Si8a|ai»rer aepvas Kal dyvios tov Xoyov roO Kvpiov.
Cp. Mt. xxviii. 19, 20; Mk xvi. 15.
2. Parallelisms with St Matthew.
M. 4, i. S, 6. If a husband discovers that his wife, a Christian, is
living in adultery, and she does not repent, but adheres to her fornication
{e-n-tpevfi ttj nopveiq. avTrjs), what is he to do? The answer is 'Atto-
Xva-aTco avTrjv, Kal 6 dvqp e<f)' eavTa peveTna- edv Se diroXva-as ttjv
yvvaiKa eTepav yaprjo-T], Kal avTos poixaTai. This passage plainly has
Mt. xix. 9 in view and not Mk x. 11 or Lu. xvi. 18.
S. 8, lli. 2. ro SevSpov tovto to peya to CTKevd^ov neSia Kal oprj Kat
iracrai' tt/v -yTjv, vopos Geoi; e'o-riv d Sodels els SXov tov Koirpov 6 Se vopos
ovTOs vibs Qeoii e'trrt Krjpvx&els els Ta -irepaTa ttjs yr\s- oi Se v-ko ttjv (TKeirrjv
Xaol ovTes, etc.
Cp. Mt. xiii. 31.
S. 5, ii. 2. Perhaps the title 6 SeinroTrjs may be compared with oiko-
Sea-n-oTris in Mt. xxi. 33.
Ib. v. 2. d dypos 6 Koa-pos ovtos ea-riv.
Cp. Mt. xiii. 37.
M. 11, 16. e;tetff dpiporepav Tav 7rpQ<j}rjTQ}v ttjv ^oirjv SoKipa^e ovv dirb
TTJs ^(oris Kal Tcbv epyo3v tov dvdpoiirov tov XeyovTa eavrov irvevparocfyopov
eivai. Cp. Mt. vii. 15, 16.
S. 9, xiii. 2. Certain virgins, who are "holy spirits,'' must clothe a man
with their garments, evSva-ioa-i to evSvpa airSyv, in order that he may be
found in the kingdom of God.
Cp. Mt. xxii. 1 1. Hermas, however, always writes "kingdom of God,"
not "kingdom of heaven."
V. 4, ii. 6 oiai rots aKouo-ao-ij' ra prjpaTa raCra koi irapaKoia-aaiv aipeTot-
repov rjV avTols to prj yevvr)6Tjvai.
The latter half of this sentence might be taken either from Mt. xxvi.
24 or Mk xiv. 21 ; but the thought of the former half corresponds with
Mt. vii. 26. The whole may therefore be placed under the head of
reminiscences of that Gospel.
3. Parallelisms with St Mark.
§. 5, iii. I, 2. Aeyio- Kvpie, eya Tavras Tas wapa^oXas ov yivuKTKUj ouSe
Svvapai voijcrai, edv prj poi e'TriXva-rjs avrds. TldvTa aoi eniXva-o), (prjiri.
See also ib. v. i.
Cp. Mk iv. 34.

74 ' Parallelisms with the Gospels
M. 12, iv. 4. 01 Se eTTi roir ;^et'Xeo-ti/ e'xoi/res tov Kvpiov, ttjv Se KapSiav
avTav TreTTiopiopevrjv. See also M. 4, ii. I.
For the latter part of the sentence cp. Mk vi. 52, viii. 17. The former
part seems to refer to the passage in Isaiah quoted Mt. xv. 8 and
Mk vii. 6.
V. 3, ix. 2, and xii. 3. elpi-jveveTe ev eavTols.
Cp. Mk ix. 50.
4. Parallelism with St Mark and St Luke.
S. 9, xiv. 6. r}Sea>s avTovs ^aa-rd^ei, ort ovk e-wai(TX'0'''OvTai to ovopa
avTov (popelv.
Cp. Mk viii. 38, Lu. ix. 26.
5. Parallelisms with St Luke.
S. 5, ii. 2 etc. Comp. the SoCXos' there with the SoOXoj of Lu. xiv. i6f.
Ib. 9. SeXirvov €7roir]o-ev 6 otKoSea"7rdr?;ff aiiTOV. Cp. Lu. tb.
Ib. 4. <TKd-^a) Xoiirbv tov dpTreXava roCroi/, Kal ea-Tai ev-npe-KecTTepos
ecKappevos, Kal ^ordvas prj exojv Sweet Kap-irbv nXeiova, &C.
Cp. Lu. xiii. 8, 9.
Zahn (Hirt d. Herm. p. 461) points out a possible reminiscence of
Lu. viii. 6 in the use of UpaSa by Hermas S. 8, ii. 9 ; also of Acts i. 24,
XV. 8, in use of KopSwyvaa-Trjs, M. 4, iii. 4, and of Acts iv. 12 and ii. 11
at V. 4, ii. 4, 5-
6. Parallelisms with St John.
(a) M. 3, I. ^AXrjdeiav dyd7ra...iva to nvevpa, o 6 Sebs kotkokio-cv ev
TTj aapKi TavTji, dXrjdes evpeBjj irapd nda-iv dvBpairois, Kal ovTas So^airQr]-
creTai 6 Kvpios 6 ev cot KorotKcoi'. OTi 6 Kvpios dXrjBivbs ev navrl prjpaTi,
Kal ovSev nap' aurco yj/eiSos.
Cp. Jn xvii. 10, vii. 28, i Jn v. 20, ii. 27 etc. (for earlier part
Jas. iv. s).
(b) S. 5, ii. 6. a-vvexdprjcrav Ta SoiiXa (in the allegory) e'jri Trj pap-
Tvpia 7} epapTvprja-ev avTia 6 Sea-noTrjs.
Cp. Jn V. 31, 32.
(c) S. 5, vi. 3- aiirbs ovv KaSapiaas Tas dpapTias Toii Xaoii eSei^ev avTois
Tas rpt/3ou? TTjS C^JJs, Sovs avTols tov vopov ov eXajSe Trapd tov iraTpbs
avToi. pXeneis, (jjrja-iv, ort aiiTos Kvpios ecTTi tov XaoC, e^oviriav -jrdo-av
Xa/So)!/ Trapd tov TTOTpbs avTov.
Cp. Jn xii. 49, xvii. 8, 2.

in the Shepherd of Hermas 75
(d) S. 9, xii. 6. r\ Se tzvXt) d vibs tov Qeov ea-Tiv avTrj pia eta"oSdff euTi
irpbs TOV Kvpiov. aXXojs ovv ouSeiff etO'eXeuo'erat irpbs avTov el prj Sta tov
viov avToxj.
See also context.
Cp. Jn xiv. 6.
(e) Ib. xvi. 4. fi <T(f>payls ovv rd vSap ea-Tiv  KdKelvois ovv eKrjpvxdr)
7} afppayls avTi], Kal exp^jO-avTo avTjj, 'iva elo-eXdioo-iv els ttjv fSairiXeiav
TOV 0eov.
Cp. Jn iii. 5.
(_/") Ib. xxiv. 4. oXoi» rd a-ireppa vpav KaToiKrja-ei peTa tov viov rov
Geov* eK ydp tov irvevpaTos avTov e'Xa/Sere.
Cp. Jn i. 16, I Jn iv. 13.

CHAPTER III.
JUSTIN MARTYR.
JU.STIN Martyr is the witness who next comes before us,
and he is one to whom, on account of his eminence and
acquaintance with the Church in some of the chief centres of
Christendom, we may naturally look for information of the
greatest importance in regard to Christian faith and practice
in the middle part of the second century. Among the works
which are attributed to him, the First and Second Apologies and
the Dialogue with Trypho are universally admitted to be his.
Of the remainder many are certainly spurious, and the least
doubtful would add nothing material even if taken into
account. Eusebius in his Chronicle appears to refer the First
Apology to the third year of Antoninus Pius (A.D. 140) ; in his
Church History he places the Second under Marcus Aurelius
(therefore after A.D. 161), though it would seem, from the
connexion in which he treats of it, near the beginning of
his reign^ He supposes the martyrdom of Justin to have
followed shortly. But the investigation of the subject by
modern critics has gone far to establish the conclusions^
(a) that the First Apology must have been composed five
or six years at least after A.D. 140, and {b) that the composi
tion of the Second Apology was not far removed in time from
the First, but is to be regarded as a kind of appendix or
sequel to it rather than as a separate work. The Dialogue
1 H. E. IV. xvi.
^ See esp. G. Volkmar in Theol. Jahrb. for 1855, p. 227 ff. and p. 412 ff., and
1lort,fourn. of Class, and Sac. Philology, III. p. 155 ff. (a.d. 1857). Their views
are in important respects similar, and Hort, though later in publishing, had in the
main worked out his argument before hearing of Volkmar's articles, or indeed
before they were published. Cp. also Harnack, Chron. I. p. 274 ff.

Dates of fustin's works n
with Trypho was written after the Apology, but apparently
under the same Emperor, and therefore before A.D. i6i\ It
does not seem possible to assign its date more nearly, as we
have not the means of fixing the time of Justin's death.
There may be reason for distrusting Eusebius in the matter,
who (as we have seen) places the death of Justin in the
following reign, but we possess no other more trustworthy,
or even equally trustworthy evidence" The limits of time,
then, within which these writings were composed are not very
wide, and we need not much regret that we cannot fix their
dates more exactly. They do not illustrate merely the views
and feelings of the moment ; Justin was a man of formed
opinions and habits of mind when he wrote ; he had been a
Christian teacher for some years.
But what evidence as to the position of the Gospels do
these works supply ? That this has not been found an easy
question to answer is shewn by the widely different views
which have been held in regard to it. The main facts in
regard to Justin's accounts of, and allusions to, the teaching of
Christ, and incidents of the Gospel History, are more or less
familiar to every student of the history of the Canon of the
New Testament. I will, however, briefly recall them. Justin
never mentions any of our Gospels by the names by which
we know them. He usually speaks of the records of the Life
of Christ collectively as " the Memoirs of the Apostles," and,
at the only place where he particularises, speaks of a fact
about Simon Peter as given in "his (Peter's) Memoirs." From
the records thus generally described, or from some of them,
he has, it is clear, derived in the main what he relates of the
Words and Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, and for
the most part he agrees with our Gospels in substance, and
also in greater or less degree, though hardly ever completely,
in language. Sometimes parallel passages of St Matthew
' See Dial. ch. 120, and cp. Hamack, ib. p. 281.
" Hort arrives at A.D. 148 as the year of Justin's death, and places the First
Apology in A.D. 146, the Second, "if really separate from the first," in 146 or 147,
and the Dialogue with Trypho about the same time," ib. p. 191. But the part of
Hort's essay which deals with the date of Justin's death is unsatisfactory. The
essay was a youthful one, mostly written five years before it was published. On
the whole, it is its maturity which surprises us.

78 The course of the controversy
and St Luke appear to have been fused together. But he
has also some matter which is not in our Gospels, and some
of the forms of expression in which he differs from them
occur more than once in his own writings, and even in others
which there is no reason to regard as dependent upon him.
One theory of these phenomena, which for upwards of
eighty years occupied a very large amount of attention — the
most conspicuous effort of free criticism and the chief object
of attack by orthodox scholars in connexion with this par
ticular subject^ — has now been abandoned by the great
majority of students of all schools. Yet it will be worth
while to notice it, because we shall thus be enabled to realise
the advance that has been made, and also to define more
clearly the questions remaining to be decided. It was thought
most natural to assume that Justin was accustomed to use a
single work, not one of our four Gospels, though of the nature
of a Gospel. He might, indeed, it was allowed, have known
our Gospels, or some of them. Credner — to name one of the
most able and circumspect advocates of the theory — held that
he must have done so. But " he used them little or not at all
directly, preferring another work^."
Two passages, in which reference is made to that which is
found " in the Gospel," were urged in support of this view^
It was suggested also that the plural "Memoirs of the
Apostles " might describe a collection of their reminiscences.
The explanatory words added in one place — "which are called
Gospels^" — might well, it was said, be an interpolation ; or if
Justin did use the expression and designated thereby a whole
class of writings, there was still one among them on which he
himself mainly relied.
Endeavours were made to identify this document with
some work which, though lost, has left traces of its existence
in Christian literature. The Gospel accg to the Hebrews was
first fixed upon, and this suggestion was accepted as sub-
1 See the sketch of the history of enquiry as to the sources of Justin's citations
in Semisch, Die apostolischen Denkiviirdigkeiten d. M. fustinus, p. i6ff., or
Credner, Geschichte d. N. T. Kanon, pp. 7, 8.
^ Credner, ib. p. 9. ^ Dial. chh. 10 and 100.
* Apol. I. 66.

as to his evangelic quotations 79
stantially correct by Credner. He held, however, that the
Gospel used by Justin must have been " a peculiar edition of
that Gospel of many forms, the same which also elsewhere
again presents itself repeatedly as the Gospel of Peter, and
which must have grown out of an older harmonistic compila
tion of the Gospel history ^" It reappeared also, he thought,
under the name of Tatian's Diatessaron, a work not, properly
speaking, based on the four Gospels, and yet containing
sufficient resemblances to them to be frequently mistaken
for a harmony of them by Catholic Christiansl
It was always at best an unverified hypothesis that a
Gospel once existed which would of itself alone, approxi
mately at least, have supplied Justin with all his Evangelic
citations in the form in which he gives them. And investi
gation and the increase of knowledge have shewn it to be
untenable. Recent discoveries have been fatal to Credner's
special form of the theory. We have now a portion of the
Gospel of Peter, — such the fragment found at Akhmim is
almost universally believed to be. Now many scholars do
indeed hold that Justin made some use of this work; and so far
it may be thought that Credner is justified. This is a question
to which it will be necessary to return. But whatever else is
doubtful, it is certain that the work of which a portion has
been recovered could not have been Justin's principal source
for the Gospel history ; and that it was nothing less than
this was the very point of the view which Credner maintained.
Again, somewhat earlier, much fresh light was thrown upon
the character and contents of Tatian's Diatessaron, all tending
to shew that it must from the first and according to its
essential structure have been in the main a compendium of
our four Gospels. To speak generally, the information we
possess as to Gospel literature, not included in the Canon,
serves to shew that there was no work answering to the
requirements of the theory. Further, a consideration of the
aim of Justin's treatises and the conditions of his age, the
interpretation of him by himself instead of by some modern
standard, have gone far to shew that in the majority of
instances, his divergences from our Gospels afford no good
1 Apol I. 66. ^ lb. p. 17 ff.

8o Questions that must be discussed
ground for supposing that he did not derive his quotations
from them.
There is now a strong consensus of opinion to the effect
that St Matthew and St Luke were among Justin's principal
sources, and that, if the signs of his use of St Mark are
less clear, there is yet no sufficient reason to doubt that he
reckoned it also among " the Memoirs." It is also widely
allowed that he was well acquainted with the Fourth Gospel,
though there are those who consider that he used it with a
certain reserve and not as a work of Apostolic authority. The
Evangelic matter in Justin's works which is not contained in our
Gospels, and in part also his departures from them in language,
have still to be accounted for. And the belief has strengthened
that these are to be traced not simply to oral tradition, but to
some written narrative, or narratives. Any such document,
however, is almost universally regarded as a source of in
formation which he employed, not as a substitute for our
Gospels, but in addition to them^
The recognition of our Gospels by Justin, within the limits
indicated by the foregoing statement, has, I believe, been
adequately established'' Two points, however, of great impor
tance, appear to require fuller examination: (i) the attitude
of Justin to the Fourth Gospel; (2) the character of any other
source or sources which he used, and the position relatively
to our Gospels which in his estimation it, or they, occupied.
^ See Additional Note I. p. 129 f.
" The exhaustive examinations of Justin's citations are, on the one hand, those
of Credner in his Beitrdge, 1832, and A. Hilgenfeld, in the earlier stage of his
views on the subject. Die Evangelien fustiiis, 1850, and on the other hand, from
the conservative point of view, that of K. Semisch, Die apostolischen Dentt-
wUrdigkeiten d. M. fustinus, 1848. Some points, also, are fully worked out in
Westcott's Canon of the Neuu Testament, Pt i. ch. ii. § 7. As regards the Fourth
Gospel, the articles by James Drummond in the Theological Review for Oct.
1875, and April and July 1877, ^"d Ezra Abbot, 77^^ Authorship of the Fourth
Gospel (External Evidences, pp. 16 — 48), deserve to be specially mentioned. The
position of the writers, as members of Unitarian bodies, will be allowed to be
independent. The writers, whose instincts are the reverse of conservative, but
whose moderate conclusions are referred to above, and given in their own words
in the Additional Note I. p. 129 f., have for the most part contented themselves
with stating the conclusions at which they have arrived.

Justin s use of our Fourth Gospel 8i

I. fustin's attitude to the Gospel according to St John.
As I have implied, it does not appear necessary any
longer to labour the point, that Justin was acquainted with.
the Fourth Gospel ; yet the extent of his use of it has an
important bearing on that further question, whether he
included it among the Apostolic Memoirs, which I propose
to consider. And even while use of this Gospel is admitted,
it may be doubted whether there is commonly an adequate
impression as to the amount of this use. We must, then, as a
first step, review the signs of knowledge of the Fourth Gospel
in Justin's works. In doing so we may also note the expres
sions which seem to suggest that he reckoned it among the
Memoirs. I will afterwards deal with objections.
Justin repeatedly speaks of Christ as the Word and Son
of the Father who " was made flesh " (e.g. Apol. I. 32). He
says, also, "that we Christians were taught this" {ib. ch. 46,
where there are points of similarity to Jn i. 3, 9; also ch. 66).
When he says that we ''were taught it," we must, in accordance
with his whole manner of thought and speech, understand him
to mean, taught it by the Apostles, or on their authority (see
the last passage just referred to, ch. 66, in which, as we may
also remark, he seems in his exposition of the doctrine of the
Eucharist to have Jn vi. as well as the Synoptic account of
the Institution in mind). In one passage {Dial. 105), after
quoting Ps. xxii. 20 f , in which the phrase Trfv fji.ovo'yevri fiov
occurs, he proceeds : " For that this one was only-begotten to
the Father of all things, properly (t'Stw?) born of him, his word
and power, and that he afterwards became man through the
Virgin, as we learnt from the Memoirs, I have before shewn."
It is possible that, "as we learnt from the Memoirs," here may
only refer to the clause immediately preceding it, but it is far
more natural to connect it with the whole sentence.
Again, to turn to parallelisms of another kind, in Dial. 69,
after quoting Isa. xxxv. i — 7, he gives a summary of the facts
s. G. 6

82 Jtistiris use of our Fourth Gospel
which were a fulfilment of the prophecy, and it contains three
traits which forcibly remind us of St JohnV
Again, in his explanation of the meaning of Christian
Baptism {Apol. I. 6i), as in that of the other Christian
Sacrament (see above), he seems to have the teaching of the
Fourth Gospel before him, and in this case much more
markedly. Jn iii. 3 — 5 is to a large extent reproduced, and
some words of Christ there recorded are expressly cited as
His. And a little further on, after comparing Isa. i. 16 — 20,
he says, " Now this doctrine with respect to this thing we
learned from the apostles."
Besides these cases in which, to those who have carefully
considered Justin's method and language as a whole, deriva
tion from " the Memoirs of the Apostles " will seem to be
more or less clearly implied, there are not a few other instances
of correspondence. The peculiarly Johannine thoughts that
Christ came from the Father, that the Father sent Him, that
He fulfilled the Father's Will, occur frequently in Justin.
Jesus is "the Son who came from" the true God, He is 'God
who came forth from above" {Apol. I. 6; Dial. 64; cp. Jn iii. 31,
viii. 42, xii. 46 etc.). He is the way to the Father: "we follow
the Un-begotten through his Son" {Apol. I. 14; Jn xiv. 6).
" Our Lord spoke according to the will of the Father who
sent him " {Dial. 140). " He never did anything save what
he who made the world  willed that he should do and
speak" {ib. 56; see also Apol. II. 6; cp. Jn iv. 34, xiv. 10
etc.). " For this end (viz. that he should be our teacher)
was Jesus Christ born" {ApoL I. 13; Jn xviii. 37). His
Father gave Him the power of working miracles {Dial. 30 ;
Jn v. 36). His rising from the dead "he has, having re
ceived it from his Father" {Dial. 100; Jn x. 18).
We have seen that he speaks of Christ as the " living
water"; so also he describes him as "the only faultless and
just light sent to men from God" {Dial. 17; Jn i. 9 etc.).
The Jews in opposition to this light have sought to spread
^ (a) He uses a Johannine phrase — Tr^jy?; SSaros fcD^ros — to describe our Lord
(Jn iv. 10, 14; vii. 37, 38); (b) to6s iK yeveTTJs irripobs (Jn ix. i); (c) the charge
that he was XaoirXdvos (Jn vii. 12).
We shall see, however, that this last might have been taken from another
source elsewhere used by him, and that the second may have been also.

Justin s use of our Fourth Gospel 83
darkness (Justin, ib. ; Jn iii. 19 etc.). Other of Justin's charges
against the Jews recall passages of St John. They deceive
themselves, regarding themselves as " Abraham's seed accord
ing to the flesh" {Dial. 44; Jn viii. 33). So also we are
reminded of another of our Lord's conflicts with the Jews, as
described in St John, by more than one turn of expression in
another context in Justin {Dial. 136 ; Jn v. 37, 38, 23, 24).
Again, like the Fourth Gospel, he uses the type of the
Brazen Serpent. In Dial. 91, after dwelling on it, he continues
"there is salvation to those who fly to him who sent into
the world his crucified son," giving the same connexion of
thought as in Jn iii. 14 — 17. In Apol. II. 6, there is a still
longer context corresponding to portions of the Prologue
to the Fourth Gospel (Jn i. i, 2, 3, 12, 13). With the latter
part we may compare the application to Christ Himself in
another place {Apol. I. 32) of language like that used in Jn
i. 12 of believers. In this passage of the Gospel itself we
find the thought that Christ became incarnate in order that
we might be spiritually regenerate.
Once more, when speaking of the acknowledgment and
worship of the true God and His Son and the Spirit by
Christians, he says that they reverence them " in word and
truth " {ApoL I. 6 ; cp. Jn iv. 23).
Other more or less striking parallelisms might be enu
merated, but those that have been given will suffice. I will
add only an interesting one with the First Epistle of St fohn.
In Dial. 123 we read: "We are both called children of God and
we are so, if we keep the commandments of Christ." The
former part agrees with the most approved text at i Jn iii. I ;
for the latter part cp. i Jn ii. 3 etc.
But it is urged by some that Justin's mind is not really
dominated by St John's teaching ; that he goes only a certain
way with him, as though he maintained towards him a critical
attitude ; in particular that he uses subordinationist language
not in harmony with the Johannine Christology, and that he
shews a love for eschatological ideas alien to the spirit of the
Fourth GospeP- Doubtless it is true that Justin had only
' Arguments of this kind were used in Hilgenfeld's Beitrdge, and I imagine
that Julicher also means something of this kind when he says of Justin that John
6—2

84 Did Justin include our Fourth Gospel
partially assimilated the thoughts in St John's Gospel. But
of how many preachers and writers in the Church of any age,
who have unquestionably acknowledged the apostolicity and
inspiration of the Fourth Gospel, this might be said ! Much
the same remark might be made as to the influence of St
Paul's theology in the Church from the beginning of the
second century onwards. The work of apprehending the full
meaning of the Johannine teaching, and of harmonising it
both with earlier beliefs and with the rest of the Apostolic
teaching, was indeed stupendous, and Justin belonged to a
very early stage in the history of the fulfilment of this task.
The reasons, however, most commonly felt to be strongest
for holding that he cannot have reckoned the Fourth Gospel
among his Apostolic Memoirs are probably (i) that he no
where directly appeals to the work as St John's, even though
he does refer to the Apocalypse as by him ; and (2) that he
makes no regular citations from this Gospels In order that
these points may be rightly estimated, it is necessary that
attention should be paid to -the scope of Justin's argument
and his method of conducting it. A satisfactory explana
tion, it is now generally admitted, is found in these for the
measure of vagueness which there is in the indications of his
use of the Synoptics. We have to ask whether similar con
siderations do not apply with such peculiar force in the case
of the Fourth Gospel, as to account for the somewhat greater
obscurity resting upon his attitude to it.
No popular preacher, or platform orator, or pleader ad
dressing a jury, has ever, perhaps, grasped, more thoroughly
than Justin had, the first rule of the art of persuasion, that the
persons to be persuaded must be kept constantly before the
mind. He strives consistently not only to express himself in
a manner which the readers whom he has in view will under
stand, but to use the arguments which are likely to seem to
them most convincing. This appears alike in the topics upon
which he dwells, and in the authorities which he cites, his mode
of citing them, and the use which he makes of them. These
"ist ihm innerlich fremd, jedoch nicht unbekannt geblieben" (p. 293). See also
Engelhardt, Christenthum fustiiis, p. 347 ff.
^ Cp. Additional Note I., p. 130 f

among the Apostolic Memoirs? 85
points are so important, many critics have been so slow to
recognise them, and they appear to be so imperfectly ap
preciated still, that at the risk of wearying my readers I will
ask them to follow me in a brief examination of Justin's two
principal treatises, with special reference to the question
before us.
In his First Apology he skilfully begins his appeal by
contending that the charges of immorality, insubordination
and atheism commonly made against the Christians are
groundless, and that on the contrary their rules of conduct
and their aims are innocent and commendable (chh. i — 14).
To shew you, he proceeds, that I am not deceiving you, I will
quote to you some of Christ's own maxims. This introduces
the first set of citations which he makes ; they are massed
together in chh. 15 — 17. As we might expect, they are drawn
from Christ's simpler and more popular teaching, recorded in
the Synoptic Gospels, and especially from the Sermon on the
Mount. What sensible missionary, or controversialist, de
siring to commend Christianity by means of its ethical
character to fairly educated heathen, would pursue a different
course.? At the end of ch. 17 he passes to the subject of
another world, and is occupied with this to the end of ch. 20.
He urges heathen testimonies to the belief, but incidentally
(ch. 19, end) introduces two sayings of "our Master Jesus
Christ." In ch. 21, he touches upon the Christian belief in
the divinity of Jesus, deals with heathen analogies, alludes to
the doctrine of evil spirits, and again rebuts some accusations
against Christians (chh. 21 — 29).
Then at ch. 30 he begins an argument from prophecy
which extends to ch. 53 (inclusive). He himself and his
co-religionists have, he declares, believed that Christ is the
Son of God, not on the ground of mere assertions, but
because of predictions made long ago which have been
fulfilled. And this he is persuaded "will appear the greatest
and truest proof to you also." He thereupon briefly explains
who the Hebrew prophets were, and refers to the interest in
their writings shewn by King Ptolemy, and then summarises
the points to be proved by their aid. He proceeds to adduce
a series of passages from the prophets, some of considerable

86 Review of Jtts tin's argument
length, and mentions different prophets by name, while he
intersperses remarks on the manner in which prophecy is to
be interpreted. As regards the fulfilment of the prophecies
he contents himself for the most part with quite general
assertions that they have been fulfilled, adding at times, or
implying, that his readers would find this to be the case, if
they made enquiry. He makes but few statements as to
particular events. He gives the words of the angel at the
¦Annunciation {Apol. I. 33), but not exactly in St Luke's form.
Some of those spoken according to St Matthew to Joseph
are introduced, and there are other slight differences. He
mentions that Christ was born at Bethlehem, in accordance
with the prophecy of Micah (ch. 34). He alludes to His
having remained unknown in His youth (ch. 35). And in
two places he alludes to the incidents of the Passion. In the
former of them (ch. 35) there are traits not found in our
Gospels, which must come before us again when we are con
sidering Justin's additional source or sources; at the other
(ch. 38) he seems to be condensing Mt. xxvii. 39 — ^43. It is
in connexion with the first of all these definite references that
he makes his only distinct allusion, throughout the argument
of these 24 chapters, to the Christian sources of information.
" Those," he says, " taught thus, who recorded all the things
concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ."
The reason for the difference in his treatment of the
prophets and the Christian records is evident. He believed,
and probably he was not wrong in believing, that even the
heathen might feel reverence for the prophecies of Hebrew
seers, already venerable from antiquity. There was much in
the modes of thought then prevalent in the Graeco-Roman
world to favour this. If so, it was natural that he should give
their words with some fulness and that they should be men
tioned by name. Appealing to the same feeling, he twice
alludes to two Gentile prophets, '¦ the Sibyl and Hystaspes "
{Apol. I. 20 and 44). On the other hand, the names of humble
Christian writers would carry no weight. General references
to them would be most effective ; it sufficed for the most part
to allude to what would be found in them, or else to give
briefly the substance of what they said. Men would wish to

in his First Apology 87
learn more of their contents, and would be prepared to read
them with respect, when meditation on the prophecies had
done its work. Such at least seems clearly to have been the
idea which governed his procedure. The motives for his
silence as to the Gospels are further illustrated by his opposite
action in the case of historical records to whose authority
Roman readers might be expected to bow. He invites them
to turn to the registers of Quirinius, " your first governor in
Judaea" (ch. 34, end), and twice to the "Acts under Pontius
Pilate" (chh. 35, 48).
In chh. 54 — 60 he corrects some heathen errors and
alludes to the existence of Gnostic heresy ; in all this there is
nothing to detain us. Then in ch. 61 he undertakes to give
some account of Christian ordinances, and he naturally com
mences with the admission of a convert into the Church by
baptism — Christian new birth. We have already seen that in
speaking of this he quotes in substance the words of Christ
contained in Jn iii. 3 — 5, and refers to them as learnt from the
apostles. After this account of baptism he is led (ch. 63), by an associ
ation of ideas which I need not stay to trace, to enter upon a
digression concerning the ignorance of the Personal Word of
God displayed by the Jews, although He spake to them under
the Old Covenant. To establish this point he quotes Isa. i. 3,
and then, as a parallel to it, cites part of Christ's saying at
Mt. xi. 27 (= Lu. X. 22). Now these words suggest the great
doctrine of the relation of the Son to the Father, and Justin
does dwell upon it for a moment, and quotes words which
give the gist of Our Lord's teaching at Mt. x. 40, Lu. x. 16,
and also at Jn v. 24 etc. He might doubtless have quoted a
great deal more to the same effect, especially from the Fourth
Gospel, but it does not fall within his plan to do so. He
nowhere develops the argument of Christ's witness to Himself
To us that appears to be the most convincing of all arguments
for Christianity ; but it would not have been so to those for
whom Justin wrote. For its effect it presupposes that the
persons addressed should already have attained to a conviction
of the moral sublimity of Christ's character. When Justin
quotes Mt. xi. 27, it is not in order to found such an argu-

88 Review of Justin's arguinent
ment upon it ; but (as I have said) because the words seemed
to him to contain an allusion to the ignorance of the Jews ;
and on that point he again insists before leaving the passage.
At ch. 65 he resumes his account of Christian institutions.
In speaking of the Eucharist he for the first time actually
mentions "the Memoirs" of the Apostles (ch. 66)^ in which
Christ's command to observe the rite is contained. He has of
course the Synoptic Gospels principally in view, yet, as has
been noted above, in his few words on the doctrine of the
Eucharist there are signs of the influence of St John. Finally,
in his account of other parts of Christian Worship (ch. 6^),
with which'the treatise closes, he states that the Memoirs of the
Apostles and the Prophets are read in the Christian assemblies.
The brief Second Apology, which is largely concerned with
a particular case of persecution, may for our present purpose
be passed over ; and the Dialogue with Trypho, though a
much longer treatise than the First Apology, need not detain
us so long, because much that has been said of that work
applies here also. The main purpose of the Dialogue, written
for Jews, is to develop the argument from prophecy. And if
Justin had some ground for hoping that the words of Hebrew
prophets might carry weight even with heathen, he certainly
might feel himself justified in appealing to them when engaged
in controversy with Jews. He quotes them at great length,
drawing out from them the promise of a new Covenant, the
non-essentialness of circumcision'', the fact that in rejecting
Christ the Jews had acted in the manner which their own
prophets had foretold, the Christian faith concerning the
Christ as Divine, yet destined to be born into the world as a
man, of a Virgin, and to suffer on the Cross and rise from the
dead and to come again as Judge. Justin is able to assume
somewhat more knowledge of Christian beliefs on the part of
an educated Jew, than he could on that of Gentiles. Trypho
has even looked a little for himself into the Christian records,
or is represented as having done so. And for this reason,
Justin, as he himself implies, feels somewhat more free in
referring to them, and mentions them a good deal more
^ In ch. 33 the participle is used, oi dTrop.vqpovei(7avTes.
^ Dial. 10, and i8, beginning.

in his Dialogue with Trypho 89
frequently^ The terms also in which he alludes to their
authors are on two occasions more precise. He says that they
were composed by "the apostles of Christ and their com
panions " (ch. 103), which suits well with the traditional view
of our Gospels. At another place he alludes to certain
Memoirs as Peter's (ch. 106"). This language must hereafter
be considered. It will suffice here to remark that if this
reference makes his silence as to the authorship of other
" Memoirs " more strange, it does not do this specially in
regard to St John. Justin names John, however, in connexion
with the Apocalypse, and it is contended that if he had
believed the Fourth Gospel to have been by him, he could
not have forborne to mention the fact in respect to this work
also. But the cases are wholly different. In the view of
Jews and heathen a vision, even though made to a Christian,
would partake of the character of inspiration. It would be
natural to name the recipient of it, and indeed it is not easy
to see how else it could be referred to. But that Justin did
not think the mere name of John, apostle though he was,
would carry weight with his Jewish hearers and readers is
shewn by the manner in which he introduces itl
His method of citing the Lord's words and of referring to
the facts of the Gospel history is the same as in the Apology.
There are the same signs of compression, of intermixture of
passages, the same appearance of summarising. The amount,
too, of the citations is much the same, and relatively to the
length of the Dialogue distinctly less'. It is no more part of
his plan in this than i.n the former work to quote largely from
Christian writings. They were not authoritative for the Jews
any more than for the heathen. Further, when the purposes
are considered for which such quotations as he does make are
introduced, it will for the most part not appear strange that
1 In the Dial, the expression "the Memoirs of the Apostles," or "the Memoirs,"
occurs 13 times, and "the Gospel" as a written record, or body of records, twice
(ch. 10 and ch. loo). Besides this we have (ch. 88) "his apostles wrote etc."
'' Dial. ch. 8 1 , p. 308. Kai eireira Kal Trap' -qpiv dv-qp Ti^, 1} 6vop.a 'loidwqs, eh
tQ)v aToffTbXiov tov XptcrroD, iv diroKaXij^ei yevop-iv-rj avTw etc.
' I speak only from general impression. I do not think, however, that this
estimate would be found far wrong on actual measurement. But great precision
is in this matter not important.

90 Did Justin include our Fourth Gospel
passages from the Fourth Gospel are not found amongst them.
On one point only does it seem necessary to dwell. He quotes
again, as in the Apology, the saying, " No man knoweth the
Son etc.," substantially as in Matthew. And a little further
on he alludes to the account in the same Gospel of Simon
Peter's confession that Christ is the Son of God. Surely, it is
said, on this topic at least of Christ's Divinity he would have
quoted from the Fourth Gospel, if he had regarded it as
Apostolic, and would not only have adduced these two verses
from St Matthew^ So it may well seem, if we take the
citations simply apart from their context as items in a list.
It is otherwise when we note how Justin himself applies them.
We saw that the former of them was used in the Apology to
account for the blindness of the Jews. Here they are both
used to enforce the complementary thought that the eyes of
Christ's disciples had been opened to perceive in the Scriptures
of the Old Testament the truth concerning Christ's Person,
which Justin claims to have demonstrated thence, though it
had not been understood before Christ came. It had been
revealed to them in accordance with Christ's own saying " No
man knoweth the Son save the Father and those to whom
the Son may reveal (him)," and with His words to Simon
Peter who also knew Him through the Father's revelation.
The Fourth Gospel would certainly have been specially
serviceable for proving dogmatic positions ; but Justin does
not employ any of the Gospels for such proof With the
objects he had in view, the Synoptic Gospels, and especially
St Matthew, came as it vvere first to hand. We can well
imagine, also, that Justin himself and the Christians of his
age might, even while regarding the Fourth Gospel as
Apostolic, be more familiar with the others^
The fact, then, that Justin makes more limited use of
St John than of the Synoptics, or rather of St Matthew and
St Luke, does not warrant the inference that it seemed to
him to stand on a lower level. This, it is true, is but a
negative conclusion, yet it is important, because it- leaves us
more free to determine the position of the Fourth Gospel in
' Engelhardt, I.e. pp. 348-9.
^ This is urged by Weiss, Introd. I. 61.

among his Apostolic Memoirs? 91
his age by other evidence, which may hereafter come before
us. We may however, I believe, go further as to Justin's
attitude to it on the ground of the evidence of Justin's own
writings. In some passages, as we have seen, he seems clearly
to imply that points of Christian Faith and traits in the
representation of Gospel facts, which he must in all proba
bility have derived from the Fourth Gospel, were part of
what had been learned from the Apostles through their
" Memoirs." But in addition to this, — if (as is admitted by
most critics at the present day) the evidence shews at least
that he used this Gospel S he can hardly have taken it for
anything else than what it professes to be, a faithful record of
the testimony of a personal and singularly close follower of
Christ regarding the words and deeds of Christ.
1 1. Justin's use of a source or sources for the Gospel
history in addition to our Gospels.
Justin introduces touches, and employs turns of expression,
in his representations of the facts of the Gospel, and makes
some statements, which are not to be found in our Gospels.
From what source or sources did he derive these, and how
did he regard, and to what extent did he use, it or them ?
These are questions which evidently are of significance in
connexion with the history of the reception of the Canonical
Gospels themselves.
Now Justin again and again implies that the " Memoirs "
{dirofjLvquovev fiara) of the Apostles — more fully (as we have
seen) in one place "the Memoirs which were composed by
them and those who followed them^" — were the great sources
of information for the Gospel history. And on one occasion,
when alleging the authority of these witnesses, he describes
them as " those who made Memoirs {dirofivrfiioveva-avTe';) of
all the things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ''." It
1 See Additional Note I., p. 129 f. On the arguments of Dr E. A. Abbott,
who goes farther than most receut critics in calling in question Justin's use of the
Fourth Gospel, .see Additional Note 11., p. 131 f.
^ Dial. 103.
^ lis ol dTropvTipt,ovebaavTes Trdvra ra Trepl roO aorrrjpos -qpuv 'IijcroO XpioroD
iSlSa^av. Apol. I. 33.

92 Justin's additional source or sources
would be unreasonable to conclude with absolute rigour that
every assertion of Justin on this subject, or even every
incident mentioned by him, was contained in some work
classed by him among the Apostolic Memoirs. We can
conceive that in some instances forms of narration and traits
which he had read in some writing other than the Memoirs,
or heard frequently repeated in oral teaching, may, especially
if they served to make the application of prophecy more
striking, have become so completely part of the history in his
mind, that where he was not at the moment thinking of the
Memoirs, and possibly even sometimes where in the im
mediate context he refers to them, he may have brought in
such additional points without feeling any necessity for dis
tinguishing between the evidence for them and for the general
substance of what he related. Inferences of his own, too, may
here and there have obtained a place, interpretation being
mingled with narration. The possibility that the matter in
question may sometimes have such an origin must be borne
in mind; yet such an explanation will only hold to a very
limited extent. Justin does not himself, like Papias, allude to
tradition, but only to documents; nor does he, like Church
writers of half a century later, draw an express distinction
anywhere between the Four Gospels and other works which
were called Gospels and which bore Apostolic names, but which
were not to be ranked with the Four, though they might be
entitled to a certain amount of credence. He does indeed
refer to certain documents which were not Apostolic Memoirs,
and that with confidence; but they were such as did not
pretend to have that character; their value was of an entirely
different kind; it was that, as he believed, they contained the
impartial testimony of Roman officials. The very circum
stance that he appeals to these other documerits, just as he
more often does to the Memoirs, to prove that prophecy had
been fulfilled, tends to shew that he was sensible of the
importance of having some definite authority which could be
adduced for the facts. The impression is thus strengthened
that generally speaking he had documents in mind, which he
felt ought to carry weight for one or other of the reasons that
he indicates.

Justin's additional source or sources 93
There are two passages in which Justin seems definitely to
cite the Memoirs for matter not contained in our Gospels, and
one in which he has been thought, under the title of Peter's
Memoirs, to refer to another Gospel by name, — to none other
than that Gospel of Peter of which we hear from Serapion at
the end of the second century', and from Origen at the be
ginning of the thirds and to- which the fragment discovered
at Akhmim in 1892 is with good reason held to belong.
That fragment contains several parallelisms with Justin in
points where he differs more or less from our Gospels^
I will discuss the question of Justin's use of this work first,
both because it is a subject of recent controversy, and because
it affects more directly and gravely than any other which is
before us the value of Justin's testimony, and of that of the
Church of his day, to the Apostolic character of any docu
ments whatsoever.

i. Justin and the Gospel of Peter.
The facts for which Justin cites Peter's Memoirs — namely
that Christ conferred the new name of Peter on that disciple,
and also the name of Boanerges on two brothers who were
sons of Zebedee, — are given in Mk iii. 16, 17 exactly as they
are by Justin ; the latter of them occurs only in this one of our
present Gospels, the former besides only in St John ; whereas
we do not know whether they were, or were not, contained in
1 Ap. Eus. H. E. VI. xii.
• In Ev. Mt. T. X. 17.
•* Some critics of conservative temper have supposed that Justin used the
Gospel of Peter, and that he refers to it under the description mentioned above, e.g.
A. C. Headlam, Guardian for Dec. 7, 1892, and Sanday, Inspiration, p. 305.
The chief discussions of the question of the dependence of Justin upon the
Gospel of Peter have been: — In favour of it: Harnack, BruchstUcke d. Evang. u.
d. Apok. Petrus, 1893, p. 37 f. ; A. Lods, L' Evangile et V Apocalypse de P'lerre,
1893; V. Soden, Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche, 1893.
Against it: — Zahn, Evang. d. Petrus, 1893, p. 67; Swete, 77;^ Akhmttn-
Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, 1893, pp. xxxiii. — xxxv.; H. V. Schu
bert, Die Composition des Pseudopetrinischen Evangelien- Fragments, 1893, p. I74f.
Also the present writer in Journ. of Theol. Studies, Oct. 1900, pp. 3 — 21.

94 Justin and the Gospel of Peter
the Gospel of Peter. It is obvious, therefore, to suppose that
Mark's Gospel is really the work referred to here by Justin,
and that it is called Peter's on the ground of Mark's
dependence on this Apostle for that which he relates. Many
critics, however, seem to feel difficulty in accepting this ex
planation. I believe this is because they do not make
allowance for the difference between our point of view and
that of Justin and his age. Records of the Gospel were
accepted as authoritative on the ground that they embodied
the testimony of Apostles. Justin very distinctly implies
this in expressions which have already been quoted, and
there are many indications that this thought was prominent
in the minds of men in the second century'. As generations
passed the need for insisting upon the connexion of all the
Gospels with Apostles was less felt. Their authority as
sacred writings had come to be fully established. Moreover,
men like Mark and Luke had grown in the estimation of
the Church, partly owing to the very fact of their being
evangelists, partly because even these men, the younger con
temporaries of the Apostles, seemed more and more to be
separated from the men of all after-times.
It is certain that among the works which Justin commonly
speaks of as Memoirs of the Apostles he reckoned some which
he did not suppose to have been actually composed by them,
but by disciples of theirs^. In principle he does nothing
different if he attributes Mark's Gospel specifically to Peter.
Moreover, it must be allowed to be in the highest degree
probable that the tradition preserved by Justin's contemporary
Papias — to the effect that Mark did but write down in his
Gospel what he had learned from Peter — was known to Justin.
It can hardly be doubted that, if he had been asked what
Apostolic testimony more particularly was given in this
Gospel, he would have named that of Peter. And if ever
^ Especially the phrase rd /3tj3\(a Kat ol dirboToXoi. in : Clem. xiv. ; the manner
in which Papias insists on Mark's dependence upon Peter (ap. Eus. H. E. III.
xxxix. 15); the treatment of the subject of the Gospels by Irenaeus (c. Haer. in.
i.). The forms also frequently given to Apocryphal Gospels and their titles are
evidence to the same effect. An attempt was made to win attention for them by
attributing them directly to Apostles.
^ Cp. the words quoted above p. 91 from Dial. 103.

Justin and the Gospel of Peter 95
there was an occasion when it would be natural to appeal to
the record as Peter's, it was this one, where a fact in that
Apostle's personal history had been recalled.
Let me next urge two objections, of a kind which may
be readily appreciated, and which appear to me to be very
serious, to the view that by " his (Peter's) Memoirs " Justin
means the so-called Gospel of Peter.
(i) Justin and the author of the Gospel of Peter present
a remarkable contrast both in spirit and in details in
their treatment of the subject of the Sufferings of Christ.
The Gospel of Peter, describing the Crucifixion of Jesus, says
that "he was silent as having no pain"; then at the end,
according to it, he uttered the words " my power, my power,
thou hast forsaken me " ; and " when he had so said " he
" was taken up " (ch. v.).
Justin is directly at issue with " Peter'' in regard to these
particulars, while he agrees with our Gospels. He relates that
" being crucified, Jesus said, ' O God, O God, why didst thou
forsake me'?'" And he remarks that Jesus thereby shewed
that "he had truly become man, susceptible of sufferings^"
In another place' he gives the last words from the Cross
recorded by St Luke: — "in giving up the spirit upon the Cross
he said, ' Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.' "
The Docetism of "Peter" may not be very pronounced.
Still the tendency, the desire to evade the " offence of the
Cross," manifested in the expressions above cited, is unmis-
takeable. And Justin was not one who could have failed to
perceive the indications of it. He had a firm hold upon the
fact that Christ really suffered, and perception of the im
portance of this truth. The words already referred to are
evidence of this, and more might be adduced^- Moreover he
had himself written a treatise directed against the heretics of
1 Dial. ch. 99.
^ iTi aKT]9Cii yiyovev avSpavoi dvTiKT)T!TiKb% iraffUv. He uses this expression
Dial. ch. 98 when commenting on Ps. xxii. i and its fulfilment. But again in the
next chapter, with reference both to this word on the Cross and to His utterances
in the Garden, he makes the comment diiXuv dia Toirruv ort dXijSus iradTirbs
avBponros yeyiviiTai.
* Dial. 105.
¦* See Dial. loo, 103.

96 Justin and the Gospel of Peter
his time who were Gnostics, and all in different ways and
degrees Docetic'. He could not have thought lightly even of
a leaning toward their side.
There are -some, we may observe, who admit, or rather
who would contend, that Justin while he knew and mentioned
the Gospel of Peter did so only to a very limited extent, and
who suggest that such a restricted and subordinate use of
accounts of the Life of Christ other than the Four Gospels
would be in accord with the feeling and practice of his own
age, and even in some degree of later times'*. There may be
no objection of a general kind to this supposition ; but it
does not seem probable in this instance when the peculiarities
of the actual case are considered. For if he allowed the book
to be Peter's, as it claimed to be, it should have ranked in his
eyes as one of the chief authorities for the Gospel history.
He would, one must think, have been very unwilling to allow
this position — which could not but follow if its Petrine author
ship was admitted — to a work from the temper and expressions
of which he differed in the important respect which we have
just noted.
(2) If the Gospel of Peter belonged to the number of
Memoirs of the Apostles from which Justin quotes, it used,
according to what he tells us, to be read in the Christian
assemblies', — those of Rome (we must suppose) since he is
writing there. Indeed if he ever knew of it, others probably
must have known of it also. But in point of fact there is not
the slightest trace that anyone at Rome had so much as heard
of the work during the half century or more following the
death of Justin. Irenaeus, though he had stayed in Rome,
certainly some thirty years after that date and not improbably
several years earlier than this, and though he writes about
the Scriptures acknowledged there, shews no sign of being
acquainted with it. The Muratorian fragment on the Canon
says not one word about it, though it mentions works which
are to be excluded from public reading as being unauthentic,
and others about the public reading of which there was some
diversity of opinion, and includes among these last the Apoca-
' Apol. I. 26. ^ Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 305, 310.
3 Apol. I. 67, p. 98.

Justin and the Gospel of Peter 97
lypse of Peter, a fragment of which was recovered along with
that of the Gospel of Peter. It would be strange even that the
bishop of Antioch at the end of the second century should not
have known it till his attention was called to it, if Justin had
known it, and used it as the authentic work of the Apostle.
We ought, then, to reject the theory of Justin's dependence
upon the Gospel of Peter, unless clear and strong grounds for
adopting it should appear on a comparison of the two writers.
We will proceed to examine the differences from our
Gospels which Justin shares with " Peter." With a single
exception they are found in, or are more or less closely
connected with, one passage in Justin's First Apology'^. Let
me here, for the reader's convenience, quote it. He is
arguing that the predictions in the Old Testament in regard
to the Christ were fulfilled, and he has cited words from
Isaiah, " I have spread out my hands all the day unto a
disobedient and gainsaying people ; unto men walking in a
way that is not good; they ask of me now judgment, and
make bold to draw near unto God^"; and from the 22nd
Psalm, "they pierced my feet and my hands, and cast a lot
upon my raiment'." He then proceeds: —
" Now David, the king and prophet who spake these things, suffered
none of them ; but Jesus Christ had his hands stretched out, being
crucified by the Jews who gainsaid him and asserted that he was not the
Christ. For indeed, as the prophet said, they dragged him along and
' I dismiss one point on which Harnack (Ev. Petr. p. 38) lays some stress. A
few chapters later than the passage of which I speak Justin writes : — Kai ttSs
prjviei T^v yeyevripAvriv 'Spdidov toO fiaaiXiui! ''iovdaioiv Kal avTuiv 'lovSalwv Kal
IltXctrou TOV bpieTipov Trap* airro7s yevop.ivov iiriTpb-ivov abv to'ls abTov OTpaTiurraL?
Kara tov xp^'^'^ov avviXevcriv (Apol. I. 40). (r) Even if something to this effect
had a place in the writing to which Justin had referred his Roman readers, these
words could afford no ground for supposing dependence on "Peter." For they
closely correspond with Acts iv. 27, a book of the New Testament with which
Justin ha? other parallels (e.g. cp. Dial. 16 with Acts vii. 52, and .-Ipol. i. 49 with
Acts xiii. 27, 48, 52). This is strangely ignored by Harnack. (2) The idea of
such a avviXevois, on which Harnack lays stress, is absent from " Peter." On ihe
contrary the whole purpose of that work is to separate between Pilate and the
Jews, and to exonerate the former ; and Roman soldiers are not there mentioned
in connexion with the trial, mockery, and crucifixion of Jesus, but only as witnesses
of the bursting of the tomb.
^ Isa. Ixv. 2 combined with Iviii. 2, the latter not exactly as either Hebrew
or LXX. ' Ps. xxii., parts of verses 6 and 18.
S. G. 7

98 Justin and the Gospel oj Peter
placed hira upon a judgment-seat and said : 'Judge us.' And the words
'they pierced my hands and my feet' are an exposition of the nails which
on the cross were fixed in his hands and feet. And they who crucified
him, when they had done so, cast a lot for his raiment and divided it
among themselves. And that these things happened ye can learn from
the acts that took place under Pontius Pilate'."
1. Let US first notice generally the part here ascribed to
the Jews. Jesus is said to have been crucified by them ;
they are also represented as the agents in an awful piece
of mockery; and if Justin is to be understood literally it
was they, too, who divided Christ's raiment by lot^ We
might have supposed that he attributed the crucifixion of
Jesus to the Jews only as the virtual authors of it, were it not
for the other statements which he associates with it, and for
the fact that the Jews are spoken of as the executioners in
several other places in early Christian literature', which seems
plainly to shew that his expressing himself as he does is due
to the influence of some account distinct from that of the
Four Gospels^ So in the Gospel of Peter Jews only are
' Apol. I. 35. Kai 6 p.ev AaviS, b ^aaiXebs Kal irpoi/yqnjs, 6 eliridv raOra, ovdiv
To&ruv ^7ra0e»'* 'Itjoov^ Si xP^otos i^eTdd-q rds xe^P^^t oravpwBels vtvo tCiv 'lovbaiojv
avTiXeybvTiav avTtp Kal cpajKbvrwv fj.Tj elvai avrov xptffrov. Kai yap, tjs elirev 6
TTpOfpip-Tjs, biaoijpovTes airbv iKd&Loav iirl j3-qparos Kal elirov Kplvov T)p.Zv. Td 5e
"Upv^dv pov X^pc^s Kat Trbbas i^-qyricTLS rwv iv t<^ oravpip Trayivruv iv rals x^po'l Kal
Tots TToalv aiirov riXwv ^v. Kal perd rb (yravpujaai aiirbv i^aXov KXijpov eirl rbv
Ipartapbv abrov, Kal i/xepiaavro eavrois ol OTavpdjaavres airrbv. Kai ravra ori
')iyove bvvaoBe p.adelv iK rCjv iTrl HovtLov HiXdrov yevopiivojv aKroiv.
- Whether he really means to attribute this last act to them must remain
doubtful. He says "they who crucified him cast a lot, etc.," and just above he
has said that Jesus was crucified by the Jews. But possibly in using this subject
" they who crucified him " he may have remembered the narrative of the Gospel.
In the sentence quoted p. 97 n. he recognises that the Roman soldiers bore a part
in the death of Christ, and in a passage (Dial. 99) which is in several respects
parallel to Apol. i. 35 he does not specify whether the executioners were Jews or
Roman soldiers.
' In addition to those which will come before us in the course of the following
discussion, I may mention a passage of the Preaching of Peter (not to be con
founded with the Gospel of Peter), which is given by Clement of Alexandria,
Strom, vi. ch. 15, p. 804; also the Syriac Version of the Apology of Aristides,
Harris, Texts and Studies, 1. p. 37.
* It is true that Jn xix. 16 (n-apiSuKev avrov aiirots 'iva aravpadri) foUowed
(v. 17) by TrapiXa^ov, or similarly the connexion in Lu. xxiii. 25, 26, might have
suggested the notion that the Jews themselves carried out the Crucifixion, but this
is not the impression given by the narrative taken as a whole in either of these
Gospels, any more than in Mt. or Mk.

Justin and the Gospel of Peter 99
mentioned in connexion with the mockery and crucifixion of
Jesus ; but the heinousness of their conduct is heightened by
particulars many of which have no place in Justin any more
than in our Gospels, and which betray gross ignorance of the
actual historical relations between Herod and the rulers of
Jerusalem, and of the position of both under the Roman
government. After Herod and the Jews have refused to
wash their hands as Pilate did, Herod giv^s the order that
Jesus should be taken away, saying, "Do to him all that I have
commanded you to do." He hands Jesus over to the Jews ;
the}' put upon Him the purple robe and roughly pretend to
do Him honour; one of them places the crown of thorns upon
His head, they buffet Him, and finally carry out the sentence;
and the dead body is at their disposal and they hand it over
to Joseph of Arimathaea ; Herod had promised it him before
the crucifixion, Pilate having passed on Joseph's request to
the Jewish king'.
2. There is one trait in the accounts of the maltreatment of
Jesus in Justin and " Peter" which deserves special notice. The
Jews affect to regard Him as their Judge. It is necessary to
observe that this proceeds from the Jews in order that the full
irony of the incident may be felt. No act could more forcibly
have exemplified their awful hardihood, or have suggested
more tragically their future doom. It has in the past been
thought by some that Justin had come to imagine it through
a misunderstanding or misremembering of Jn xix. 13^. But
any appearance of probability which this explanation may
once have had has now been destroyed through our finding it
again in " Peter'." We must suppose that if one of these was
not dependent upon the other both took it from a common
source. This is the most striking parallel between Justin and
" Peter." But Zahn has acutely pointed out^ that if Justin
had had " Peter " before him, he could hardly have omitted
BiKat.co'!, which occurs in the latter, from the words addressed
' chh. I --6.
^ First, it would seem, by Drummond, Theol. Rev. for 1877, p. 328.
' ch. 3.
¦* L.L. p. 43.
7—2

100 Justin and the Gospel of Peter
to Jesus, or have overlooked hcKaiav (as he does) in quoting
from Isaiah ; for the prophecy and the fulfilment would thus
have been brought into closer agreement. There are several
other differences between the two writers, which are un
favourable to the view that Justin used "Peter." Justin
preserves ^¦)j/j,aTo<;, the word used for Pilate's seat both in
Mt. (xxvii. 19) and Jn (xix. 3); "Peter" has another and
seemingly less original phrase, KaOiBpa Kpia-eco^. Again in
"Peter" alone the casting of the purple cloak about Christ
is ingeniously and picturesquely connected with the moment
of placing Him on the judgment-seat; in short the story is
given in " Peter " in a more embellished form.
3. We must also note the transfixing of Christ's hands
and feet with nails. As no mention is made of the nails in
the descriptions of the Crucifixion in our Gospels, but only in
connexion with the evidence of the Resurrection supplied to
Thomas, it is not unnatural to conjecture that Justin may
have had some other account in his mind in which more direct
reference was made to their employment. And the proba
bility of this is increased by the fact that in another place he
particularises His being "unnailed'," expressing it by the
curious word a<^rfKai6ei'i. Now " Peter " also touches upon
this moment in the proce.ss of taking down the body from
the Cross : — tots a/rtkcriraaav tov<; r)\ovii cItto tmv ^eipwv tov
Kvpiuv'. But the language is less terse, and it would
certainl)- have been easier to expand dcjj-rjXadel'i into this
sentence than to substitute d(f>rjXa>dei'; for it. " Peter " also
does not here or elsewhere mention the feet, which (as well
as the hands) were important for Justin's purpose, that of
pointing out the fulfilment of the prophecy in Ps. xxii.
4. There is nothing in what Justin says in the passage
before us about the partition of Christ's raiment, either as to
fact or form, which might not have been taken from the
Synoptic Gospels. But when speaking of this incident in
another place he uses the to us unfamiliar word Xa^/itov; and
it is the more natural to bring his language there into con
nexion with that on the earlier occasion, because the whole
line of thought there and much of the matter are the same.
' Dial. 108. '^ ch. 6.

Justin and the Gospel of Peter loi
It is well known that the word \a")(^ix6'i is employed also in
the Gospel of Peter.
For the present I would only remark that we are all of us
liable to take wrong views of coincidences of this kind and
their causes, both in literature and in common life, from sheer
lack of information, to which, often, all that appears striking
in the coincidence is due; and further, that there is some
ground for thinking that Xa^^/^o?, though not known to us in
Classical literature, may not have been altogether rare in late
colloquial Greek'. If so, it would not have been strange that
it should have been used more or less commonly in relating
this event in the history of the Passion, or that thus, or
through having met with it in some written narrative of that
history, both Justin and the author of the Gospel of Peter
should have been led to adopt it, without any direct de
pendence of either upon the other. It is to be added that in
this instance, as before, there is, in conjunction with the simi
larity between Justin and "Peter," a divergence also, Justin
keeping in substance close to the Gospels while " Peter "
departs from them-.
5. One point remains to be considered, occurring a little
later in Justin's First Apology than the passage which we
have so far had chiefly before us, though he is still pursuing
the same argument. In ch. 50 he states that after Christ was
crucified "all his acquaintance departed from him and denied
him." Similarly in the Dialogue he says in one place that
' For the evidence of this in the usage of the Greek scholiasts, some of whom
actually use it to explain the very word KXijpos, as also for the discussion of the
meaning of the clause in which Cyril of Jerusalem uses the word (Cat. 13, § 26),
and which may seem at first sight to look as if Xaxpbs was the term that required
explanation, I must refer to my article 'va Journal of Theo. .Studies for Oct. 1900,
pp. 13 — 15. With regard to the latter question I would only add that Cyril in
another place employs the somewhat incorrect construction which in the art.
just referred to I have supposed, in such a way that there can be no doubt
about it, and in ^ precisely analogous case (Myst. i. 8, init.). Other instances,
though not quite such clear ones, might be given from his lectures.
^ Justin Dial. 97 : ot ffravpiboavTes abrbv ip.ipiaav rd l/xdria airrov eavrols,
Xaxpbv pdXXovre! SKaaros Kara r-qv rov KX-qpov iiri^oX-qv S iKXi^aaffai i^e^oiiXriro,
" Peter," ch. iv. Kai redeiKbres rd ivdbpara SpirpooOev avTou diep-epicravro Kal Xaxpov
l^aXov iTr' avrdis. Of this placing the garments in front of Him, there is nothing
in Justin.

I02 Justin and the Gospel of Peter
" his disciples were scattered," and in another that " after he
had risen from the dead... they (the Apostles) repented for
having departed from him when he was crucified'." This
language is approximately, but not precisely, in agreement
with the Gospels, which speak of the flight of the disciples
as taking place immediately after He was apprehended. The
difference might not deserve attention if Justin's representa
tions did not resemble views of the conduct of the disciples
given elsewhere. For the moment we are concerned only
with that in the Gospel of Peter, where as usual the legendary
element appears to be far ampler. " I," says Peter, of the
time after Christ had been taken down from the Cross and
buried, " with my fellows was in sorrow, and being wounded
at heart we hid ourselves, for we were sought for as male
factors and as minded to burn the temple ; and besides all
this, we were fasting, and we sat mourning and weeping night
and day until the sabbathl"
The result of our investigation thus far has been simply to
shew that Justin did not use the Gospel of Peter. There are
certain resemblances between some of his representations of
the incidents of the Passion and those in that work ; but that
which in him is seen as it were in germ is found there in a
developed form ; he keeps always far closer to the Gospels ;
and for these and other reasons it is very improbable that he
can have obtained even the features in question from this
work. Hence the comparison of Justin with the Gospel of
Peter, instead of overcoming the strong objections urged
above to the supposition that he regarded it as an authori
tative work and himself quoted from it, only adds others. On
the other hand it is not probable that the author of the Gospel
of Peter derived anything from Justin. It would be far more
natural for the writer of such a work to seek his materials
either in professed records of the Gospel history, or in oral
tradition, than in treatises of the character of Justin's Apology
and Dialogue.
We go on to enquire whether the source common to both
writers cannot be pointed out. Three of the parallelisms
' Dial. 53 and io6. ^ ch. 7.

Justin's references to a document by Pilate 103
between Justin and " Peter" are found, as we have seen, in a
single passage of the former's First Apology''. He there
expressly cites an authority for them; it is — not "Peter's
Memoirs" but — "the Acts that took place under Pontius
Pilate." A fourth parallelism appears in the sequel" not long
after a second reference to the same document' The re
maining one — the use of Xa;;^/A09 — occurs in his Dialogue, but
it is in an allusion to an incident, that of the casting of lots
for Christ's garments, included among those for which in the
Apology the "Acts of Pilate" are quoted, while there are other
points in the same context in the Dialogue which connect
that passage with the other. The thesis which I am prepared
to maintain is that this document, which was supposed to
give Pilate's report regarding the condemnation, crucifixion
and resurrection of Jesus, was used somewhat largely in
" Peter," and is the source both of those of its differences from
our Gospels which it has in common with Justin and of some
others. This view has, I know, hitherto found little favour*,
but I am convinced that sooner or later, when the evidence
for it has been well considered, it must be generally accepted ;
and that one effect of the discovery of the fragment of the
Gospel of Peter will be acknowledged to have been, that it has
given a reality to an early (supposed) Report of Pilate which
it did not before possess for us.
' ch. 35. 2 ch. 50.
' ch. 48. He may also intend to refer his readers to the same document in
ch. 38, when he writes tos p.aBeZv SivaoBe.
* H. V. Schubert, ib. p. 175 ff., is, so far as I know, the only writer who has
hitherto argued for this liew. In my art. in Jout-n. of Theo. Studies, Oct. 1900,
I only set myself to establish the negative conclusion that Justin had not used
"Peter." I did not attempt to point out a common source of their parallelisms.
When preparing that article I unfortunately omitted to read v. Schubert's Essay.
Subsequently I got on to the track of the same explanation myself, but read his
work with profit before I had completed my own demonstration. A. Harnack
reviewed v. Schubert on the Pseudopetrine fragment in Theol. Lit. Zeit. for 1894,
pp. 10 — 18. He there fences a little — that is all — with the reasons for believing
that an early Pilate-document was the common source, and then turns to the
question of the relation of the Petrine fragment to the Four Gospels, which he calls
the "Hauptfrage." It is, however, impossible to estimate aright the significance
of this latter question, apart from the consideration of the probable date of the
document and the amount of recognition which it received, for which Justin's
relation to it is crucial. See below, p. 121.

I04 Justin s references to a document by Pilate
Eminent critics have shewn a strange reluctance to allow
that Justin really knew any document which was, or professed
to be, the " Acts" of Pilate'. They have suggested that when
he appealed to it, he was simply " drawing his bow at a ven
ture." We may well ask, as our first point, whether this is
credible. Let it be granted that he might think himself safe
in assuming that Quirinius's register, to which he refers just
before, must have contained evidence of the Birth of Jesus" ;
but he could not be confident that a set of details — the cruci
fixion of Jesus by the Jews, their mockery of Christ by affect
ing to regard Him as judge, their gainsaying the proofs of His
Messiahship, the piercing of His hands and His feet with
nails, the partition of His raiment, or the enumeration of His
miracles given a little later on — would necessarily all be
included in the official report of the Roman governor. And
yet the whole cogency of his argument, based on predictions
of the Old Testament, depended on these precise points
having been recorded as having happened in the way he
declared. Assuredly if he had not read them in a document
which professed to be and which he accepted as being such as
he described it, he would not have run the risk of the expo
sure which might follow, and would have preferred to offer
some guarantee for the truth of the events more safe, even if
not so convincing to his hearers as the other (on the hypo
thesis of its holding good) would be. We have been told
that he would assume that any account of the Passion must
contain these facts. This would indeed have been rash,
seeing that the part he attributes to the Jews is not fully
consistent with the Four Gospels ; that one incident he could
not have derived from them, unless possibly by a misinter
pretation of St John ; and that the use of the nails again is
referred to only in one, namely St John, and there quite
' Cp. p. io6 n. It may l)e well for me to say at once that I do not identify
it with the extant^f/j of Pilate, though I believe that in the latter the document
known to Justin, to the author of the Gospel of Peter, and as we shall see to
Tertullian, was once more made use of
" Apol. I. 34. I think it probable, however, that a writing professing to
give an extract from this register was in circulation. May not such a supposed
extract have contained the genealogy of the Virgin Mary, which would explain
Justin's allusions to her descent?

Justin's references to a docmnent by Pilate 105
indirectly. Indeed, when once we realise, as comparison with
the Gospel of Peter has already enabled us to do, and as we
shall be compelled to do more fully as we proceed, that he is
under the influence here of a form of narrative with distinct
characteristics, the harder does it become to suppose that he
had not some actual known writing in his mind.
I do not, of course, for a moment imagine that this
writing was really Pilate's, and it may seem that in denying
that it can have existed in Justin's fancy, I simply throw
back on some unknown Christian the charge of having forged
it. Even this might be more easy to understand ; for there
were no doubt Christians less serious-minded, thoughtful, and
scrupulous than Justin. That, however, is not what I would
urge, but rather that time must be allowed for such a fiction
to grow. The first suggestion might come from the applica
tions made of the incident of the Handwashing by Christian
preachers. Through repetition, and in the endeavour to meet
the challenges of heathen opponents, this would be insensibly
amplified. Then it would seem to someone a perfectly natural
and innocent thing to indite the story which he had heard.
This stage, it is plain, had already been reached, when Justin
could write as he does.
We pass on now to examine the other evidence which we
possess as to the existence, character, and contents of an early
Pilate-document ; and first that of Tertullian in his Apology.
He, like Justin, refers to such a record', but he has not simply
relied on and copied his predecessor. The two Apologists,
while they agree in important respects, also adduce this
authority partly for different facts, and relate what they
severally do in a different manner. The object they have in
view is different. Justin has to establish the fulfilment of
certain predictions, and cites or alludes to words or passages
of the historical account only just so far as they are necessary
for this purpose. Tertullian, in an argument in which he is
dealing with the attitude of successive emperors to Chris
tianity, alleges the impression that had been produced on
Tiberius by the testimony of Pilate, the substance of which
' See ch. 5 beginning, and ch. 21, "Quem solummodo...Caesari tum Tiberio
nuntiavit."

io6 A supposed document by Pilate
he gives, probably in a condensed form. Nor does he write
as one would who had barely conceived or obtained the
notion that such a document must exist or have existed, and
who had then made up its supposed contents out of the
familiar records of the four Gospels'. His opening words
' The view that Justin and Tertullian merely imagined the existence of a.
record or report by Pilate has been held among others by the following: —
Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt 2, i. p. 55. "The evidence of Tertullian" (in regard
to the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan) " is not indeed infallible in itself; but
it has been unduly discredited. It is a mistake for instance to suppose that he
quotes the extant spurious Acta Pilati as genuine. Tertullian, like his predecessor
Justin M., assumes that the Roman archives contained an efficient report sent by
Pontius Pilate to Tiberius. He is not referring to any definite literary work which
he had read. The extant forgery was founded on these notices of the early fathers
and not conversely."
A. Harnack, Chron. i. pp. 605, 607-8, 610-11; earlier by Scholten, Die
aeltesten Zeugnisse betreffend die Schriften des N. T, deutsch von Manchot,
pp. 160 — 165. R. A. Lipsius makes the supposition in regard to Justin, but
holds that Tertullian did know a document purporting to be Pilate's Report to
the Emperor: Pilatusaclen, 2nd ed. 1886, p. 18 f.
From various causes the question has not received fair consideration. Lightfoot
seems to dislike the idea of admitting that Justin and Tertullian can have been
taken in by a "forgery" — though this seems to me a harsh word to apply to the
fiction, if it grew in the way that I have suggested. It is also an odd way of
saving their credit to impute the "forgery" (or unfounded fancy) to themselves, and
to think them capable of arguing on the basis of it. On the other hand, critics of
a different bent have perhaps felt no interest in maintaining the reality of the
document, because it did not profess to be a "Gospel," and could not therefore be
placed in any sense in competition with the Four Gospels. Not improbably also
the whole subject has been prejudiced by Tischendorf 's wild theory that the extant
Acts of Pilate, in the oldest of its existing forms, is substantially the work which
Justin and Tertullian knew, see p. 114 n. 3; and by the use which this injudicious
apologist made of that supposed result of criticism ( Wann wurden tmsere Evan
gelien verfasst? p. 76 and pp. 82-g). It will have been observed that in Lightfoot's
remarks two very different questions are mixed together: viz. whether Justin and
Tertullian used the extant "Acts of Pilate," which is virtually what Tischendorf
contends for, and whether they used some Pilate-document. Scholten's work,
again, above referred to, was provoked by Tischendorf's W. wurd. uns. Evg.
etc. and is mainly occupied with answering it.
F. C. Conybeare (Studio Biblica, IV. p. 69 n.) replies effectively to Lightfoot,
but seems to follow Tischendorf too closely in his view of the Acts of Pilate.
The chief reason given by Harnack for the view, that Tertullian merely
assumed the report by Pilate and its contents, is that he does not in so many
words call upon his reader,-, to consult this document, as he does some others
(Chron. I. p. 605 top and pp. 607-S). But in the first place it is not certain
that he does not appeal to it, rather than (as Harnack declares) to a Roman
astronomical register, when he says that the darkness at the death of Christ
might be read of "in archivis vestris." Further, he may well be thought

used by Justin and Tertullian 107
will supply admirable illustrations of all these points. The
passage, at the conclusion of which he writes "all those
things Pilate announced to Tiberius," begins thus : —
" Him then whom they assumed to be only man from his lowliness,
they consequently regarded as a sorcerer from his power, seeing that he
drove out devils from men, restored sight to the blind, cleansed the lepers,
gave strength to the paralytic, finally restored the dead to life by his
word, spake to the very elements, stilling the tempests and walking upon
the waters." In some way then, the wonderful works of Christ, and
a charge of the Jews that they were wrought by sorcery,
were, it is supposed, brought to the knowledge of Pilate.
It would seem needless to say, were it not that it has been
strangely overlooked, that nothing of this kind is even re
motely hinted at in the Gospels, and indeed the precise charge
of sorcery is not made in any part of them ; for that of
"casting out devils by Beelzebub" is clearly not identical
with it, nor does that cover His miracles generally. We shall
presently see that the Roman governor was probably sup
posed to have heard of Christ's miracles, and to have received
this explanation of them, on His being brought before him
for trial.
Now let us turn back to Justin. One of the two pro
phecies which he first deals with in the context with which
we are concerned is that Christ would be confronted with a
"gainsaying people" {\adv avriXeyovTa). It would be found,
he declares, by those who consulted the Pilate-record, that the
Jews did "gainsay" Jesus and assert that He was not the
Christ'. The actual charges brought against Him, together
with the evidence on which His claim to be the Messiah
rested, were beside the mark as regards the interpretation of
to imply this appeal throughout. The particular point on which he is laying
stress — the impression made on Tiberius — accounts for his not having more
definitely cited the document in this instance. Moreover, Harnack's view is
suicidal. For if Tertullian imagined so much, why had he not the prudence
to imagine and to hint at a little more, viz. that through malice the report in
question might possibly have been destroyed ? For certainly according to Roman
habits u report from a provincial governor to the emperor would be preserved
among the State records.
' Apol. I. 3,=i, aravposBeU virb twv 'lovSalwv dvnXeybvrwv abrip Kal ((>aOKbvTwv
pi) eTvai avrbv xptirri;'.

io8 A supposed docun^ent by Pilate
the prophecy in question, and so Justin passes these by here..
But some chapters later we come to a place in which he
quotes, or rather paraphrases, Isa. xxxv. 4 — 6 : " the lame
man shall leap as a hart, etc." He throws in, as if they were
part of the prediction, the words " the blind shall' recover
their sight and the lepers shall be cleansed and the dead
shall be raised and shall walk " ; and he adds, " now that he
did these things ye can learn from the acts that took place
under Pontius Pilate." Here he requires only the enumer
ation of miracles ; in what connexion it had been given to
Pilate and was repeated by him was immaterial. But Ter-
tullian's language enables us to fit together these stray
notices'. It should be observed that our fragment of the
Gospel of Peter begins after the point at which the reference
to the miracles of Christ was introduced.
We pass to another, though a slighter, indication that
Justin was acquainted with the source which is to some
extent reproduced by Tertullian. He has not occasion to
mention the charge of "sorcery" at either of the places in
immediate connexion with which he names the Pilate-report,
but he alludes to it only a little earlier on entering upon the
argument^ in which those references occur, and also in the
Dialogue^- We will notice more briefly three other points. Tertullian,
like Justin where he appeals to Pilate's testimony, implies that
the Jews were direct agents in carrying out the Crucifixion.
' Justin, Apol. I. 48, TTi Trapovaig. aiirov dXeirat %wX6s ojs ^Xa(pos Kal rpavij
'icrrai yXwaaa poyiXdXwv rvfpXol dvaj^Xi^^ovai Kal XeTrpol KaBapLod-qoovTai Kal veKpol
dvaor-qaovrai Kal tt epiTrar-qtsovoiv . bri re ravra eirol-qaev, iK rwv eirl J\ovrlov YliXdrov
yevopivwv aKrwv paBelv Sitvaode.
Tertullian, Apol. ch. 21, Quem igitur solummodo hominem hominem prae-
sumpserant de humilitate, sequebatur uti magum aestimarent de potestate, cum ille
verbo daemonia de hominibus excuteret, caecos reluminaret, leprosos purgaret,
paralyticos restringeret, mortuos denique verbo redderet vitae, elementa ipsa
famularet compescens procellas et freta ingrediens  Ea omnia super Christo
Pilatus, et ipse jam pro sua conscientia Christianus, Caesari tum Tiberio nuntiavit.
^ Apol. I. 30. In it he undertakes to shew, in reply to an objection which might
be made, that "he whom we call Christ did not, while merely a man begotten by
ordinary human generation, work those miracles which we say he did by magical
art (payiK^ Tixvq as Xiyopev Svvdpeis TreTronjKivai) and so gain the reputation of
being the Son of God."
' Dial. 69, Kai ydp pdyov etvai abrbv iTb\p.wv Xiyetv Kal XaorrXdvov.

used by Justin and Tertullian 109
He mentions them only, and he says that " they extorted
that he should be given to them for the Cross'."
Again, we have seen that in the same context Justin
dwells upon the use of the nails at the Crucifixion, and we
have compared another passage in which he speaks of the
body being " unnailed," and employs the very unusual term
a07?X&)^6^?^ Now Tertullian says that Christ's body was
" detractum " ; it would be impossible, I imagine, to convey
the notion of the detachment of the body from the Cross by
withdrawing its fastenings more vividly and forcibly than by
this word. His whole phrase — "detractum et sepulcro con-
ditum" — corresponds remarkably with the words of Justin,
WTTO TOV ^vrjiJLaTO^...o'rr66ev KaTSTedrj d(f)7jXa)del<; airo tov
(TTavpov^. This agreement is the more noteworthy, because
— although a devout imagination might very naturally dwell
upon the piercing of the hands and feet with the nails, both
on account of its agreement with prophecy and the pain that
must thus have been inflicted upon the Saviour — there was
no reason for laying stress upon the process of extracting the
nails. Once more, we have had occasion to notice Justin's state
ment that the disciples of Christ " after he was crucified
departed from him" and "repented after his resurrection."
He does not make either of these statements expressly on the
authority of the Pilate-document. But we may infer from
Tertullian that they were derived thence, for in describing
the bursting of the tomb the latter adds the touch in the
context which we are considering, nullis apparentibus dis-
cipulis. This comparison of Justin and Tertullian has gone far,
I venture to think, towards proving that a writing, professing
to contain Pilate's report, was known to and used by them
both.

' "Eum  in crucem dedi sibi extorserint. "
^ See p. 100.
' Compare also the sentences in Justin (Dial. loS) and Tertullian in which
these clauses occur.
We shall presently see reason to suspect that there is another reference to the
Pilate document in the same context.

no The alleged letter of Pilate
We have next to observe that a letter exists purporting to
have been written by Pontius Pilate to Claudius {sic), the
contents of which correspond closely with the statements of
Tertullian as to Pilate's report to Tiberius'. It is given in
the Acts of Peter and Paul in Greek, and in the Latin Version,
and it appears also in an almost identical form appended to
some MSS. of the Latin Version of the work known to us as
the Acts of Pilate or the Gospel of Nicodemus, of which we
must speak presently. It has been suggested with probability
that the address to Claudius is connected with the fact that
the Acts of Peter and Paul represent St Peter as first coming
to Rome in the time of that Emperor. Pilate's letter is here
called for during Peter's trial before Nero. The order is
given to have it read, and then Nero says : " Tell me, Peter,
were all things thus done by him (Christ) " .'' And Peter
replies, " Even so, O king." We may feel confident that the
letter was taken from this work, to be placed at the end of
those Latin MSS. of the Acts of Pilate where it now also
stands, not only because Claudius is again the Emperor
named, but also because the Latin Version of it here given
seems evidently to be part of the Latin Version of the Acts
of Peter and Paul. This last work, then, in its original Greek,
is relatively the oldest authority for the letter, and in its
present form it may probably be of the fifth century. Lipsius,
however, has argued that in the Acts of Peter and Paul, as we
now have them, an older writing of the second century has

' J. C. Thilo, in two brochures (a.d. 1837 and 1838), published for the first
time the Greek of the Acts of Peter and Paul, taking the text chiefly from a single,
though the most important, MS. at Paris. Tischendorf has also since published it,
after collating some other MSS., in his Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 1851. These
Acts in Latin had been printed before, but Thilo gave along with the Greek, in
parallel columns, the text of a Latin MS. which he found in Wolfenbuttel. On
this work see the exhaustive discussion by Lipsius in Die Apokryphen Apostol-
geschichten und Apostollegenden, Bd 11. Pt i, 1887, and Acta Apostolorum
Apocrypha, 1891; also Zahn, Aa». II. 832 f., Harnack, Chron. i. 549 f.
In an allied Syriac document, of (perhaps) the fourth century (translated by
Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, edited after his death by W. Wright, 1864,
p. 35 f) entitled Doctrine of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome, Peter alludes to
Pilate's letter and adds : ' ' What therefore Pilate saw and made known to Caesar
and your honourable Senate, the same I preach and declare and my fellow-
apostles," p. 38; but the letter itself is not given.

which is extant m
been used, in which he thinks Pilate's letter was included.
But the antiquity of the letter does not depend on this last
supposition. Harnack, indeed, holds that the letter was constructed by
someone out of Tertullian. But a comparison of the letter
with the account of it iri Tertullian renders this highly im
probable. If that is the relation between them, the man who
made the excerpt, with a skill foreign to the habits of mind
of his age, omitted doctrinal phrases of Tertullian's own,
parenthetically introduced, which would have been altogether
unsuitable in Pilate's mouth. He has also thrown the attri
bution of Christ's miracles to sorcery into the form of a
charge preferred against Jesus before Pilate, which admirably
explains Tertullian's references, but which they do not
obviously suggest.
There is, then, good ground for thinking that this letter
was taken from the document which Justin and Tertullian
knew. It may have been abbreviated to some extent and
otherwise altered when it was employed for a fresh purpose
in the work to which, apparently, we are indebted for its
preservation. And Tertullian also, on the other hand, may
well have made some omissions or other modifications in
giving a summary of Pilate's statements, which is probably
all that he has done. Moreover there may have been
more in the early Pilate-document than simply the letter
to the Emperor. It fitted in exactly with the drift of
Tertullian's argument that he should quote mainly or ex
clusively from the letter. But the work may have con
tained also the (supposed) official journal of the governor,
or that made for him by his secretary. This is the idea of
the work suggested by notices in Latin MSS. of the Acts
of Pilate^, and it agrees well with the language of Justin
about it.
We have felt justified on grounds of internal evidence in
taking this letter in close connexion with the statements of
Justin and Tertullian, as furnishing evidence of the existence
and character of the document which lay before them. But
we must not omit to consider the fact that for nearly two cen-
' See below p. 113.

112 The Gospel of Nicodemus
turies after Tertullian the only express reference to an official
report by Pilate, having a Christian tendency, is that of
Eusebius, who seems to take what he relates on the subject
from Tertullian'. It has been urged with some force that if
Christian Acts of Pilate were in existence from the second
century onwards, it is strange that a learned writer like
Origen, who mentions so many apocryphal and other writings,
should have passed over this document, so important if taken
to be genuine, and that Eusebius, too, should give no sign of
being directly acquainted with it^. The work might, how
ever, for a time have circulated chiefly, or exclusively, among
the Christians of Italy and North Africa. It should also be
remembered that this writing, though it possessed a certain
interest, could be of little or no practical value for the instruc
tion of Christians. They had the Gospels which had for
them far higher authority, while it was, in all probability,
a comparatively brief and meagre record. Nor again would
it be of service for the confutation of heretics. It could be in
requisition only in controversy with heathen.
It will be well, before taking into account later notices, to
refer to the work known as the Acts of Pilate, and also as the
Gospel of Nicodemus, which has actually come down to us.
It exists in two forms in Greek, and (roughly speaking) two
also in Latin, which are not completely the same as either of
the Greek ones ; there are versions also in Armenian and
Coptic. It was widely diffused in the Middle Ages. We
must further observe that the older of the two Greek forms
terminates without treating of one theme, the Descent of
Christ into Hades, which is elaborated in the later Greek
form and also, in two differing forms, in Latin'. There is
' H. E. II. ii. Elsewhere he tells us — and this is of some importance — that a
work professing to be Pilate's record, which contained manifest errors, had been
forged and put forth by the heathen circ. A.D. 311, when persecution was being
renewed under Maximinus. (See H. E. ix. v. ; also T. IX. 2, 3, and XI. 9.)
^ Harnack, Chron. I. pp. 603, 612.
' For the texts see Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr. pp. 210 — 432. A protest must
be made, however, against his mode of dividing the work, and the titles he has
used. One form in Greek, and all the MSS. of both forms in Latin, contain a
section on the Descent into Hades. He has separated this from the rest and
called it Gospel of Nicodemus, Pt II. The older Greek form, and the portion of
the later Greek form, and of all the Latin MSS. corresponding thereto, he calls

The Gospel of Nicodemus 113
nothing in the general framework of either of the Greek
forms to indicate that the work is to be regarded as Pilate's
official record. The facts are written down by Nicodemus
and delivered by him to the Jewish chief priests, according to
the earlier form. In the later form Nicodemus is a " Roman
toparch," and simply the translator into the Latin language of
a document prepared by a Jew; but still it is not implied that
the document was prepared by or for Pilate, and at the end
copies of the account of the Descent into Hades by those
who attested it are given to the Chief Priests, to Joseph, and
to Nicodemus. The titles, too, of the work in the majority
of Greek MSS. represent it simply as a narrative of things
concerning Jesus Christ which happened, or were done, under
Pontius Pilate, or they even omit the mention of Pilate'.
Near the end, however, of some of the Latin MSS., it is twice
said that Pilate placed what he had learned concerning Christ
" among the records of his governmental house," and the letter
is appended which he wrote to Claudius (sic). As a heading
also in the Latin MSS. we commonly find the statement
that these deeds {gesta) of the Saviour were found by the
Emperor Theodosius the Great in the official residence of
Pontius Pilate at Jerusalem. Moreover, Gregory of Tours^
twice refers to the Gesta Pilati " still preserved in writing at
this day amongst us." These facts suggest that the work we

the Acts of Pilate. This is entirely a notion of his own, not resting upon any MS.
evidence, and serves to obscure important facts. For the older Greek form which
does not contain the Descent into Hades is never, any more than the other Greek
form, called the Acts of Pilate, while the Latin forms which always do contain it,
have received that name.
I shall, however, for convenience of reference to Tischendorf cite the work as
A. P. Parts I. and ii. His nomenclature, A and B, for the two Greek forms will
also be adopted. There is only one Latin form for the first and chief part. The
two Latin forms for the Second Part are likewise distinguished as A and B.
Mr F. C. Conybeare in Studia Biblica, iv. pp. 59—132, has described the
Armenian Version and given translations of the two MSS. of it. It is universally
agreed that Greek A is the oldest form : see Tischendorf, Ev. Apocr. Proleg. Ixxi. ;
Lipsius, Pilatus-Acten, p. 4 f. ; Conybeare, ib. p. 59 i. The oldest Latin MS.,
the Armenian and the Coptic all agree neariy with it.
' In a MS. of the 15th cent., however, we find the addition: hrep a.vrb% 0
HiXdros i^iirep.ipev did ISlas dva(popS,s kvyovarqi Kalaapi.
' Hist. Franc. I. 20 and 23.
S. G. S

114 The use of Acts of Pilate
are considering was identified with the Acts of Pilate first and
chiefly in the West. Nor does it militate against this view
that Epiphanius' speaks of such a work ; for his calling it, as
he does, by the name 'aKTa fltXarou may be explained by his
having heard of it among those who spoke Latin. It is
generally admitted that the work known to Gregory of Tours
and even to Epiphanius as the Acts of Pilate was substantially
the same as that which we now have, at least according to
the older Greek form. But even the section concerning the
Descent into Hades is copiously used by Eusebius of Alex
andria {Serm. \^Y.
On the other hand it is very improbable that even the
oldest form is earlier than about the middle of the fourth
century'. The only question worth discussing for our present
purpose will be whether in the composition of this work an
older Pilate-document has been to any extent employed,
along with much other material.
It has been held by some that the heathen Acts of Pilate
which Eusebius mentions* gave rise to the composition of the
Christian Acts of Pilate, so called, which were intended to
supplant the heathen ones^ But if this was the object in
' Panar. L. i.
2 The statements of Epiphanius and Gregory correspond with what we find in
the work, but do not touch the section on the Descent into Hades. But this may
be accidental, especially in Gregory's case, since all Latin MSS. give it. At the
same time it may be noted that Gregory's language as to the account of the
Ascension ("in nube susceptus evectusque in coelos") agrees better with A. P.
Gk A ch. xvi. (dv-rp/ayev avrbv -q veipiXr/) than with the present Latin Version.
A. P. Gk B at the corresponding point (ch. xiv.) differs still more, as it does not
mention the cloud at all.
' That this form more or less truly represented the work known to Justin and
Tertullian is maintained by Tischendorf (Ev. Apocr. Ixii. — Ixv.), but the idea of
the document which we derive from Justin and Tertullian does not correspond
with what we here find, and it only partially contains what they give on Pilate's
authority. For other objections see Scholten, Die aeltesten Zeugnisse betreffend
die Schriften des N.T., deutsch von Manchot, p. i6of. and Lipsius, Pilatus-Acten,
p. 21 f. and p. 33 f. Tischendorf (p. Ixv.) guards himself, indeed, by saying that the
original work had imperceptibly undergone alterations and interpolations of various
kinds; but even so, his description of the relation between the Acts of Pilate v/hich.
we possess and the second century document represents it as far closer than it can
in reality have been.
^ See above, p. 112 n. i.
" Lipsius, ib. p. 28.

in the Gospel of Nicodemus 115
view pains would have been taken to make it evident that
they were Acts of Pilate. Also, even if the circulation of
heathen Acts of Pilate stimulated the production of a new
work on the Christian side, those heathen Acts themselves
might well have been a counter-blast to a yet older Christian
fiction, and this might have been utilised in the new Christian
effort as well.
Now there are many indications that this was actually the
case. Although the Greek original in no way implies, either
in its ordinary title or in the substance of the work, that
it was written by or for Pilate, it may be observed that the
things recorded belong to that part of the Gospel history
of which he might be supposed to have cognisance, beginning
as they do with the accusation of Jesus before him. And
these limits of the narrative are exactly indicated in the usual
Greek title — " the things done eTri IIovTtov IltXaTou." Taken
in conjunction with this, the actual identification of the work
in the West with the Acts of Pilate must have considerable
force. It witnesses to a strong association of ideas, which is,
perhaps, all the more significant, because the form of the
work did not directly suggest it. Upon the fact that Pilate's
letter has been appended in some Latin MSS. I lay no stress,
because the name which the work had acquired may very
likely have led to this.
Further, in the work as a whole there are traces of the
Pilate-legend, as we may term it. The use made of it is not
the same as that made by Justin and Tertullian, who addressed
their Apologies to Roman emperors and representatives of the
Roman power. The purpose of the work is to set forth the
accumulated testimony for Christ which the Jewish chief
priests and scribes and those acting with them wilfully resisted.
But Pilate appears as one among those whose words and con
duct witnessed against them'.
There are besides more or less noteworthy coincidences
in detail with what appear to have been the contents of an
older Pilate-document, as otherwise ascertained. We have an

' A. P.QV K and B ch. i, and Lat. chh. 3 and 4. Gk A and B and Lat.
ch. 9. Gk A and B and Lat. chh. 11, 12, etc.
8—2

ii6 The use of Acts of Pilate
enumeration of the miracles of Jesus and imputation of sorcery
on account of them, forming a chief part of the charf.^e made
by the Jews against Him when they bring Him to the Gover
nor^ These points have come before us in the " letter," and
also more or less distinctly both in Justin and Tertullian. The
very same word dvTiXe'yeiv is used in Justin and in the fourth
century work^ and not in the Gospels. So, too, His crucifixion
appears in the corresponding connexion to be attributed to
the Jews'. It is a curious fact also that in one MS.^ a narrative
is introduced relative to " the unnailing," the point of which
Justin speaks, and to which we have traced an allusion in
Tertullian. Again, in accordance with the " letter," though not with
Justin or Tertullian, Roman soldiers, specially obtained from
Pilate for the purpose, watch by the grave and are witnesses
of incidents connected with the Resurrection". In agreement
with Tertullian and somewhat less clearly with Justin, the
' Gk A and Lat. ch. i. In Gk B the list is introduced in ch. lo as part of the
taunt of the Pharisees when Jesus hung upon the Cross. Allusions to the charge
of sorcery also occur Gk B ch. i, Gk A and B and Lat. ch. 2 etc. The charge
that the miracles were wrought on the Sabbath is combined therewith, which is
tasteless as addressed to Pilate. The enumeration of Christ's miracles has also
suggested the brilliant idea of bringing forward several persons of whom we read
in the Gospels as cured ; they declare to the Governor the benefits which they
have received.
2 A.P. Gk A ch. 9. Justin Apol. I. 35. A.P. Gk B ch. 9, and the "letter"
in Greek do not use this word but give the sense, as do the Latin of A.P. and of
the " letter." Tertullian probably alludes to this part of Pilate's report when he
says "magistri primoresque Judaeorum exasperabantur, etc.," but this expression
is too general for any stress to be laid upon it.
' Lat. ch. 10, Gk B chh. 9 and 10, not, however, Gk A, which is more in
harmony with the Gospels. In this passage, though not generally, it may be less
original, having undergone revision.
^ Paris. Nat. 102 1, marked D by Tischendorf, C by Thilo. The title in this
codex runs: — ujrbpvTjpxi roG Kvpiov T}pwv 'liqaov XP^^'^00 xal [ioropla ?] eis r-fjf dTro-
Ka.B-qXw(Tiv abrov ovyypatpeTaa Trapd rod dyiov 'Xwdvvov rov 6eo\6yov.
' A.P. Gk A 13, Gk B 12, Lat. 13. From Mt. xxvii. 62 — 66 and xxviii. 11,
it would appear that Pilate threw upon the Jews the task of making arrangements
for watching the grave, by means of their own police, or soldiers permanently
placed at their command. It is not without significance that whereas in the
Gospels Roman soldiers carry out the execution of Jesus, and a Jewish guard
watches His grave, in the Pilate-legend the parts are inverted. While the Jews
were thus made more hateful, Romans are forced to be witnesses of Christ's resur
rection.

/// the Gospel of Nicodemus 117
disciples are in hiding after the Crucifixion'. In accordance
with Tertullian, though not either Justin or the "letter," the
Jews recover from the alarm which the darkness has caused
them, when it is passed, and explain it as due to natural
causes^- Yet again, as in the passage of Tertullian, Christ
instructs the disciples in Galilee, and ascends to heaven in
a cloud'. We have compared the passages of Justin and of Ter
tullian in which Pilate's testimony is referred to, and the
letter purporting to be from him, and lastly the work which
has come down to us with the Acts of Pilate for one of its
titles. The result has been to corroborate Justin's attribution
to "Pilate'' of three* of the traits which he has in common with
" Peter." We have also obtained some further information as
to the contents of the Pilate-document; and it has now to be
added that all the touches which, from the evidence supplied
by Justin and otherwise, we have seen reason to believe were
found there, occur in the portion of the Gospel of Peter vi\\\c\^
we possess, with the exception of two. One of these is the
allegation at the trial of Christ before Pilate, that He wrought
miracles by sorcery, which would have appeared in the Gospel
of Peter, if at all, before the point at which our fragment com
mences ; the other is the instruction of the disciples for forty
days in Galilee, and Ascension thence, which would have been
mentioned after the point at which it abruptly ends.
We have still to consider the evidence of one other writer;

' Gk A ch. 12, Trdvrwv Si diroKpv§ivTwv , and Lat., "omnibus autem latentibus";
not Gk B.
^ TertuU. Apol. 2t. "Deliquium utique putaverunt, qui id quoque super
Christo praedicatum non scierunt." [Cod. Fuld. adds " ratione non deprehensa
negaverunt."] A.P. Gk A ch. ii. 6 'n.iXdros , . .elirev abrols' eBewp-qoare rd yevb-
peva; ol Se Xiyovatv iKXeirpis ifXiov yiyovev Kara rb elwBbs. Cf. also Gk B and
Lat. ' A.P. Gk A chh. 13 end to 16. Gk B chh. 14—16, Lat. chh. 14—16. It
will be remembered that in the Gospel according to St Luke and the Acts of the
Apostles, in which the instruction of the disciples after the resurrection is most
dwelt upon, and the Ascension is described, nothing is said of a return to Galilee.
Tertullian's expression "circumjecta nube in coelum est ereptus" ib. 23, and the
descriptions of A.P. Gk A ch. i6, and of Greg, of Tours, cited p. 114 n. 2, all
differ from St Luke in much the same way.
¦' Namely, crucifixion by the Jews, the hiding of the disciples, the unnailing.

1 18 Cyril of Jerusalem and Acts of Pilate
and it bears upon that parallelism between Justin and "Peter,"
our grounds for referring which to the Pilate-document' are on
the whole slightest — the use of the word Xaxit-cxi for the casting
of lots. It is introduced by Cyril of Jerusalem in the thirteenth
of his Catechetical lectures. Here again in the context there
are touches which may possibly have been suggested by his
recollection of Pilate's report, and others which he probably
derived thence^. He has been supposed to have taken them,
or most of them, from the Gospel of Peter; but that is im
probable, for the following reason. Earlier in the same course
of lectures he had earnestly and strictly charged his hearers
not to read Apocryphal Gospels'; it is hardly likely that he
would have weakened the force of his words by presently
giving them the example of employing reminiscences of an
Apocryphal Gospel himself He need not have felt any
objection to making use of a writing like the supposed one of
Pilate, which did not profess to be a Gospel.
The Gospel of Peter has in addition one striking coinci
dence with the Gospel of Nicodemus, besides several minor ones,
to which there are no parallels in the other writers. In both
Pilate protests his innocence, not only at the Trial of Jesus,
but also a second time after the Crucifixion, in the latter
work after the Burial, in "Peter'' when. those who had watched
the tomb relate to the governor what they had seen. It is
natural also to surmise a connexion between the section on
' Dial. 97. The same prophecy, containing the words Xaoi' direiBovvra Kal
dvTiXiyovra, is quoted as in Apol. I. 35; and emphasis is also laid on the
nailing. 2 Cyr. Hier. Cat. xiii. §§ 15 — 28. (a) § 15, ntXdros iKaBi^ero Kplvwv Kal 6 iv
Se^iq, TOV Trarpbs KaBe^bpevos iarws iKpivero' b Xabs 6 XvrpioBeU vtt abroO iK yyji
Alybirrov Kal dXXaxbBev iroXXdKis Kar' a^roO i^ba' aipe alpe araOpwaov avrbv. Sid ri,
(a lovSaioi ; Hri robs TV(pXobs vpwv iBe paTrevaev ; dXX' ort roiJs p^wXcus
vpwv TrepiTrarelv iiroi-qae, Kai, rd XotTrCt, rwv ebepyeoiwv rrapiax^^ !
(b) § 25. wSvvwvro Si drroKpv^ivres ol d-n-baroXoi.
(c) § 26. biep-epiaavro rd lp.dria, etc., KXrjpos Si rjv 6 Xaxp-bs.
(d) § 27. oXtiv rTjv Tip.ipav i^eireraaa rds x^'P^S j""" '"'pbs Xabv aTeiBovvra
Kal dvriXiyovra.
(e) §28. ^{eTT^rairec ^f <rrau/3c^ ras xer/)as...Kai 7rpo(re7rd77;(raj' ^Xois.
There is also an allusion to Pilate's handwashing in § 38, which like earlier
references in §§ 14 and 15 might have been taken from the Gospels; but they shew
that Pilate's part was specially present to Cyril's mind.
' Ib. Cat. 4, § 33.

The evidence that has come before us 119
the Descent into Hades in some forms of the Gospel of
Nicodemus and the comparatively brief but curious passage
on the same subject in the Gospel of Peter.
The coincidences to which attention has been directed
naturally have not all the same importance. Some may have
been accidental, or may be due to a cause distinct from the
rest. Still, even those which have least force derive a certain
value from comparison with the others, and in turn contribute
something to the argument. Altogether they form a remark
able body of phenomena. The probability that there was
a single source for all these traits in the history of the Passion
and Resurrection, which differ more or less decidedly from
anything in the four Gospels, is not seriously diminished by
the circumstance that some even of the more striking ones
are omitted in Pilate's supposed letter as we now have it, or
in one or more other writers who used the document. We
have already seen to some extent how these differences may
be explained. We may now, further, observe that while the
writer of the fourth century work, called in the West the
Acts of Pilate, which was more truly a Gospel of Nicodemus,
made considerable use of the second century Pilate-document,
like the writer of the Gospel of Peter before him, there was
nothing to constrain either of these writers to introduce any
thing from it which did not suit his own purpose. And the
later writer more particularly had a great deal of other material
for which he desired to find a place. Moreover he and Justin
and Tertullian must all have been affected and controlled, in
reproducing the source in question, by the language of the
Gospels ; but this check would doubtless act upon them
diversely. We can thus easily understand that owing to
varieties of feeling and purpose the traces of derivation would
not everywhere completely coincide.
We have remarked that all those points of resemblance to
one another, and difference from the Canonical Gospels, in
various writings, which we have traced to an early Pilate-
document, occur in the Gospel of Peter, so far as they belong
to that portion of the history which our fragment covers. It
is evidently not improbable that if we possessed the whole
of this work the remaining ones, also, might be found there.

120 Extent of the use of Acts of Pilate
It may, then, perhaps be suggested that the Gospel of Peter
was after all the original from which others copied. It is not,
however, credible that the various points in question should
have been gathered out of it, dissevered from the peculiarities
with which they are there associated, and presented with the
comparative simplicity of form in which they appear in
Justin, Tertullian and the " letter," and with the compression
of the two latter ; nor would the writer of the fourth century
Acts, if he directly used the Gospel of Peter, have developed
the suggestions derived from thence on the whole so
differently. Over and above all this it is indeed hard to
believe that, if the Gospel of Peter had been the source, the
alleged facts would have been made so generally to rest on
the authority of Pilate, while that of the chief of the Apostles
was wholly ignored.
We have confined ourselves to the consideration of agree
ments between the writings which we have examined. But it
is of course possible that some features of the suggested source
have been preserved in one place only. Individual touches
which may be derived thence might perhaps be pointed out
with more or less probability both in the Gospel of Peter 2X\^
in the Gospel of Nicodemus'^. I will content myself with
mentioning one in Justin. Shortly after his first reference to
the work connected with Pilate he again tells his readers that
they " can learn " that the words of the Psalm " they spake
with their lips, they wagged the head saying. Let him deliver
himself," were fulfilled. For, he continues, when He was
crucified they twisted their lips and wagged their heads saying,
" Let him who raised the dead deliver himselP." It is natural
to conjecture that this form of the taunt, which is not that of
the Gospels, was taken from the authority which he had
before cited.
In conclusion, it is to be observed that the evidence as
to the use of the Canonical Gospels in the Gospel of Peter —
a subject with which most writers on the Akhmim fragment
soon after its discovery occupied themselves — is affected by
' See V. Schubert, I.e. p. i86, for an instance of this kind on which he lays
great stress.
"' ApoL I. 38.

Some results of our investigation 121
the results which have been reached in the preceding investi
gation. The dependence of " Peter " upon St John more
particularly has been rendered very doubtful. We have seen
strong reason for thinking that various points in " Peter,"
which were supposed to have been derived from the latter,
were in reality taken from the Pilate-document'.
It is, however, to be added that the question of the
relation of " Peter " to our Gospels has lost the greater part of
its interest. Since Justin does not refer to the work, the
earliest trace of its existence is Serapion's notice of it at
the end of the century. It may have been composed circ.
A.D. 170-80; there is no ground for assigning it an earlier
date ; and however full its use of all four Gospels might be
shewn to be, nothing would be established thereby which we
are not otherwise sure of Nor, on the other hand, does it
matter that, as is actually the case, its use of St John, and
probably also of St Mark and St Luke, are very questionable,
for it has no longer any claim to be regarded as an index of
the general feeling of the Church, either in Justin's or any
other generation.
Further, it is not only possible but very probable that the
Fourth Gospel, in which the figure of Pilate is peculiarly
prominent, though it may not have been directly used by the
author of the Gospel of Peter, had been utilised in the compila
tion of one of his principal sources, which had been in existence
from before the time of Justin, the supposed Report of Pilate.

ii. The remaining Apocryphal matter in fiistin.
We turn to other cases in which Justin's Evangelic matter
has probably been derived from some definite source distinct
from the Gospels. He gives, on the authority of " those
who recorded all things,'' a version of the words of the angel
at the Annunciation, in which two clauses in the address
of Gabriel to Mary in St Luke are inverted, and that which
' This cannot but be obvious on comparing the preceding, pages, or the table
on p. 133, with any list of parallelisms between " Peter" and St Jn, e.g. that in
Dr Swete's edition of the Gospel of Peter, p. xix.

122 Justin and the
becomes the second of them is expanded so as to include the
reason which is given to Joseph, not to Mary, according to
Mt. i. 21, for the name which the child was to receive'. This
might, perhaps, be traced to a failure of memory on Justin's
part, were it not that the same points appear in the account
of the same incident in the Protevangelium facobi (ch. ii),
with which Justin has two or three other coincidences in
different places, and also an interesting one in the present
context. For whereas "James has avWi^yfrr] sk Xoyov
avTov" Justin, — though he has iK ¦7rvevfj,aTo<;, not e'/c Xoyov,
thus keeping more close to St Luke, — at the same time adds
the comment : to Trveiifxa ovv Kal ttjv Biivafiiv Tr;v irapa tov
©eoO ovhev dXXo vofjaai ^e/it? rj tov Xoyov. For a reason
similar to that given in the case of " Peter," it is improbable
that the author of this Protevangelium was dependent upon
Justin. It is not likely that he picked out two or three traits
from divers contexts in Justin's works. Did then Justin
derive them from " James '' ?
The whole case is remarkably analogous to that of Justin's
dependence upon " Peter." Of the Apocryphal works relating
to the Gospel history which have come down to us, it has,
next after the fragment of the Gospel of Peter, the best claim
to be regarded as belonging in substance to the second
century. There is nothing in its style and character to
prevent this ; and it, or our portion of it — that portion with
which alone we have to do in connexion with Justin^ — is
mentioned by Origen under the title the Book of fames at the
place where, and for the same purpose as that for which, he
' ApoL 1. 33.
^ Harnack makes the '^ivvr)iTis 'Maptas, the document placed first, consist of
chh. I — 17. (See Chron. I. pp. 600 — 602.) But 18 v. i must certainly be in
cluded in it. The change of person is at 18, 2; also 18, i is closely connected
with end of ch. 17. Owing to this obvious mistake Harnack (ib. p. 602) takes a,
correspondence between Justin and "James" 18, i as a possible sign of the
former's acquaintance with the middle portion of "James," instead of as a sign of
acquaintance with the first portion.
It is not necessary for me to discuss Hilgenfeld's view (Evang. fustin's p. 154)
which is followed by Harnack ib., in regard to the combination of different docu
ments in the Protev. facobi as we have it. But I would remark that, although the
transition from 18, i to 2 is abrupt, the document placed first cannot have ended
with ch. 18, 1, still less (as observed above) with ch. 17, 3.

Protevangelium Jacobi 123
names the Gospel of Peter^. The amount of parallelism with
Justin is also about the same. In addition to the most con
siderable instance — that in the words used at the Annunciation
(ch. 1 1) already mentioned — he speaks of Mary as being "of
the tribe of David" (ch. lo, cp. references to Justin in Addl
Note, p. 134(1)); further, after describing the Annunciation,
he uses (ch. 12) the remarkable phrase -y^apav Se Xa^ovaa
yiapidfi dirlei m-po^ 'EXio-a/Ser, with which we have to compare
Justin Dial. lOC, iriaTiv he Kal -y^apdv Xa^ovaa Mapia 97
irapOtvo';; he brings Eve and Mary into comparison (ch. 13,
as Justin does, ib.) : once more, the birth of Jesus is in a cave
{Protev. ch. 18, i, as well as sequel, cp. Justin, Dial. 78).
Yet, as in the case of " Peter," marked differences occur
in close conjunction with the points of similarity. The
words in the message of the angel at the Annunciation, com
mented on above, are preceded in " James " by others which
have no counterpart in Justin. Again, Eve is placed in
contrast with Mary, whereas in "James" we have Joseph, in
a very fanciful speech, supposing that like Eve she has fallen.
In Justin i-t is said that because in Bethlehem itself Joseph
could find no place, he took shelter' in a cave near the village,
and that so the child was born there. According to "James"
the Virgin suddenly in the midst of the journey, in a desert
place, exclaimed that she was about to bring forth, and Joseph
found a cave and went to seek a midwife in the district of
Bethlehem, which we may conjecture was not far off. Little
stress can be laid on the fact that both writers speak of the
Davidic descent of Mary ; moreover, from the allusions of
Justin we should imagine that he has before him a genealogy
not given in " James," but resembling those of Joseph in St
Matthew and St Luke. Lastly the phrase X'^P^" ^a^ovcra is
' In Ev. Mt. T. r.. 17, robs Si dSeXipobs 'Irjoov ipaol rives eivai, eK irapaSbcrews
bpv-ilipevoi TOV iriyeypappivov Kara Ylirpov eiayyeXlov, il rrjs j3i/3\ou IaKii/3ou, vlobs
'Iw(r7)0 iK Trporipas yvvaiKbs, ovv^KriKvias avrip irpb ttjs Moptas.
In Protevang. facobi ix. 2, the words occur to which Origen may be taken to
refer. Joseph after winning the Virgin Mary for his wife by the trial of the wands
exclaims, " I have sons and am old, whereas she is a maiden."
2 Except the identification of the Holy Spirit with the Logos, where the
dependence, if there is any, must be the other way (see p. 122).
' The verb KaraXbeiv is used Dial 78; cp. KardXvpa, Lu. ii. 7.

124 Justin may have derived some traits
used by Justin in immediate connexion with Mary's reception
of the Angel's announcement, not as in "James" with her
departure to visit Elisabeth.
Again the two writers have altogether only a few features
in common, and while Justin keeps on the whole close to our
Gospels, the Apocryphal narrative departs widely from them.
This departure is greater than in "Peter" because the Prot
evangelium professes to supply an account of events which
preceded the point at which any of our Gospels began ; but
on the other hand, it is not characterised like " Peter" by any
doctrinal tendency markedly different from Justin's. Finally,
— a last point in which the case in regard to this work
resembles that of the Gospel of Peter — there is not the faintest
trace that in the half century following the age of Justin, the
question whether the Protevangelium facobi ought to be
acknowledged as authentic caused a single moment's serious
concern to the Church of Rome, or any other important
Church. My conclusion is that, as in the case of " Peter," the re
semblances are to be traced to the use of a common source,
though that source can only be conjectured in the present
instance. I venture to suggest that the traits now in question
were derived either from the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
or " the Jewish unwritten tradition," which Justin's younger
contemporary Hegesippus seems to have quoted somewhat
freely'. Justin does not seem, like Hegesippus, to have
known Hebrew, but coming as he did from Palestine he may
have picked up much about the Hebraic record of the Gospel
from Christians who were acquainted with the language. We
can imagine, too, without assuming the existence of a Greek
Version of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, that certain
' Harnack, who is confident that Justin used the Gospel of Peter, and referred
to it as one of the "Memoirs of the Apostles," acknowledges that it is very doubt
ful whether Justin was even acquainted with any portion of the Protevangelium
Jacobi, ib. p. 602, n. r. Zahn, on the oiher hand (Kanon, i. 485, 499, n. 3, 502,
504, 539), regards it as probable that Justin used the Protev. Jacobi, though only
as Churchmen of a later time used it and other Apocryphal works. But though
he holds that the Gospel of Peter might well have been treated by Justin in the
same manner, he does not think it actually was. Neither of these modern writers
seems to have tried to apply the same principles of criticism with consistency in
the two cases.

from the Gospel according to the Hebrews 125
renderings of its expressions, as well as incidents contained in
it, may in some way have obtained currency and so have
come to the hand of the author of the Protevangelium facobi.
It was this that we supposed in accounting for the occurrence,
both in an epistle of Ignatius and in the Praedicatio Petri, of
a saying, which is said to have been found in that Gospel'.
This view receives at least slight confirmation from the
fact that, in the case of the one passage remaining to be
noticed where Justin r-efers to the Apostolic Memoirs for an
incident not in our Gospels, — that of the kindling of fire in
the Jordan at Christ's baptism — there is some reason to think
that there was a parallel in the Gospel according to the He
brews''. Again, the words which he quotes as sayings of
Christ, "there shall be schisms and heresies" and "many
false Christs and false apostles shall arise," may be due to the
same source. For the same combination of " false Christs "
and " false apostles " occurs in a passage of Hegesippus
on the rise of heresies, quoted by Eusebius {H. E. IV.
xxii. 5), which might well have formed part of a comment on
a prophecy of Christ to the effect that divisions would be
caused through the appearance of deceivers of these kinds.
Tertullian also in De Praescr. Haer. ch. 4 clearly has such
a saying of Christ in view^
The language of Kusebius may help us to understand the
feeling with which Justin may have regarded the Gospel in
use among Hebrew Christians, as well as any of their oral
traditions. Of Hegesippus' work, in which, as Eusebius
himself tells us, the Gospel according to the Hebrews and
various Hebrew Christian traditions were cited, he declares

' See, above, p. 14.
2 Dial. 88. Epiphanius, Panar. xxx. § 13, informs us that in the Gospel which
the Ebionites used, and which they called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it
was said that when Jesus came up out of the water "forthwith a great light shone
round about the place. "
' Even if the word yl/evSairharoXoi was in the first instance introduced from
2 Cor. xi. 13 into the saying recorded at Mt. xxiv. 24 and Mk xiii. 22, through a
confusion of memory, the appearance of the saying in this form in the different
places above referred to can only be accounted for by their having derived it from
a common source. Perhaps, too, 2 Cor. xi. 13 .should be taken as evidence that
Christ's saying was known to St Paul in this form.

126 Conchtsions as to the use by Justin
that " in a very sincere composition he recorded the infallible
tradition of the Apostolic preaching," and that he (Eusebius)
has made considerable use of his utterances, " embodying
some of the things relating to the Apostles as delivered by
him'." This reliance on the Hebrew Christians, whether
justified or not, was not unnatural. We shall presently see
other traces of the same reverence for what was cherished
among them, on the part of other Church writers and teachers,
who, like Eusebius, lived when our Four Gospels unquestion
ably held a unique position throughout the greater part of
the Christian Church. The Gospel according to the Hebrews
seems never properly speaking to have been accounted
" apocryphal," as all others besides the Four were. So then
Justin, if he had derived anything from this source, might
well have given it without scruple, as part of what the
Apostles of the Lord had attested, along with that which was
contained in those records which were read in the Churches
where he himself had taught and worshipped.
There are, so far as I know, only two other instances
of the introduction by Justin of Evangelic matter not in
our Gospels, for which parallels can be pointed out else
where "-
(a) He cites a saying as Christ's which Clement of Alex
andria also quotes, but the reference by the latter is even
more indefinite'.
{b) Justin states that Jesus while working as a carpenter
made '' ploughs and yokes." The Gospel of Thomas agrees as
to this, but a single coincidence cannot afford a basis for any
inference herel The only Gospel of Thomas of which we hear
from early writers, and of which the one we now possess may
be a revision, was regarded as a distinctly Gnostic work^ and
if this was its character it is not probable that it was used,

' H. E. IV. viii. I.
^ See Additional Note on " The apocryphal matter in Justin," pp. 133-6.
' Justin, Dial. 47; Clem. Alex. De Div. Serv. § 40.
" Justin, Dial. 88; Evang. Thorn, ch. 13. Cp. also Evang. Infantiae Arabi-
cum, ch. 38, on the carpentry of the boy Jesus.
5 Hippol. Refut. V. 7 (p. loi); Eus. H. E. in. 25. It is also mentioned by
Origen, Hom. i in Luc, as a work without authority.

of sources other than our Gospels 127
and practically certain that it was not regarded as Apostolic,
by Justin. The result of our long enquiry is that Justin cannot be
shewn to have used any Greek Gospel besides our Four. The
Gospel of Peter he did not use. The parallelisms with it are
due to the employment by both of a document which was
not, and did not pretend to be, a Gospel, or to have Apostolic
authority. Where he appears to cite " the Memoirs " for
points in the Gospel history not found in our Gospels, we
can unfortunately rely, in singling out the source, only on
considerations of general probability. In connexion with
the subject of the Birth and Infancy of Christ, he has traits
found also in the Protevangelium facobi ; but it is not
likely that he took them thence, partly because of the differ
ences between its account and his own, which are mingled
with the resemblances, partly because (independently of these
resemblances) we have no reason for thinking that Justin
would have been acquainted with this work, or indeed that it
had as yet been written. On the other hand Justin must
almost necessarily have known something by report, or
through extracts, though not through a regular version', of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and this may have been
the source of the features in the Gospel narrative now more
particularly in question — those which he asserts, or implies,
were derived from the " Memoirs " — as well as of some others
not in our Gospels for which he cites no authority.
This view, though it rests on a somewhat precarious
foundation, has the advantage of enabling us to treat the
evidence, taken as a whole, in a self-consistent manner, and
to form an intelligible conception of the history of the use
of the Four Gospels in the Church. It would be strange,
indeed, that any work composed in Greek and professing
to be a Gospel, which was cited by Justin at Rome (who,
it should be remembered, speaks more or less definitely
in the name of the Church there and elsewhere), should have
been so completely and rapidly and quietly extruded, that
thirty years afterwards no trace remains of anyone in Rome
' On this point see below, pp. 262-4.

128 Result as to the history of the Canon
being acquainted with it, or of its being felt necessary to warn
the unwary against regarding it as authentic. The case in
regard to the Gospel according to the Hebrews is entirely
different. This work never was much more than a Grea,t
Unknown to the larger part of the Greek- and-Latin-speaking
Church. There was no need for the Church of Rome or other
Churches of the West to decide what their attitude to it
ought to be, because it did not exist in a form in which it
could be read by them. Even when, at the end of the fourth
century, Jerome translated it into Greek and Latin, he
evidently kept his translations of it mainly for his private
use. The facts which we have ascertained also affect materially
the value of the testimony of Justin and of that of the Church
of his day to the authenticity of the canonical Gospels. No
doubt Justin was quite as wanting in critical acumen when he
accepted the Report of Pilate as genuine, as he would have
been if he had regarded the Gospel of Peter or the Protev-
angebum facobi as authentic Apostolic writings. But his
importance, and that of other early writers, as witnesses in
regard to the Gospels, does not turn upon their critical
insight, but upon the extent to which they reveal to us a
common belief in the Church in respect to certain books,
which rested upon the common knowledge of a still earlier
time. If a Gospel was received as Apostolic in the middle of
the second century which afterwards was rightly judged not
to be so, this would tend to render the soundness of the whole
Church tradition about the Gospels doubtful ; whereas the
fact that the appearance of a supposed Report of Pilate was
too credulously welcomed does not seriously impair the reasons
for trusting the tradition as to the Gospels. Again, on the
other hand, as to the Hebrew Gospel, there was considerable
justification for supposing that it embodied the testimony of
Apostles. But even if this was an error, the mistake was
made about a book which Justin knew only at second-hand,
and his evidence, and that of other Greek-speaking Christians,
in regard to those Gospels which had been handed down among
themselves would not thereby be rendered less trustworthy'.
' We must recur to this subject in our last chapter.

The use of our Gospels by Justin 129

ADDITIONAL NOTE I. TO CHAP. III.
THE POSITION OF RECENT CRITICISM IN REGARD TO
JUSTIN'S USE OF OUR GOSPELS.
The points of agreement among critics mentioned above (p. 80) are
of so much importance, that it seems worth while to give somewhat full
quotations from writers who cannot be suspected of any bias in favour of
orthodoxy, in order to substantiate what is there asserted. The whole
of what I have said is not expressed in every instance totidem verbis, but
it will, I think, be allowed to be implied in the main. These passages
will also serve, I believe, to justify my definition of the questions still at
issue in respect to Justin's evidence.
In the case of A. Hilgenfeld, we will not only give his latest view, but
trace his change of opinion — the effect, we may fairly claim, of enquiry
and reflection upon the evidence. In his Kritische Unterstichungen iiber
die Evangelien Justin's, 1850, his position does not differ greatly from
Credner's. This is a portion of his final paragraph (p. 304) : "We must
herewith conclude the enquiry in regard to Justin's Gospels, with the
result that Justin used by preference the Peter-Gospel — the basal document
of the Canonical M ark, — next thereto a Recension of the Matthew-Gospel ;
so, too, but in a very subordinate manner, Luke, and if not a special
Protevangelium (that of James), yet a special history of the Passion, the
Acta Pilati. For attributing to him acquaintance with the Johannine
Gospel there is not only absolutely no reason to produce, but this
supposition is in the highest degree improbable, seeing that Justin
throughout follows the Synoptic type alone." We pass to his Der Kanon,
pub. 1863, pp. 24 — 28. "In Justin, to the two Gospels of Matthew and
Mark, which alone Papias acknowledged, the Luke-Gospel is in any case
to be added, and it is only his acquaintance with the John-Gospel that
can still be doubted.... At the same time, however, in Justin's Gospel-
citations we come across a variety of pecuhar traits, which point back
not merely to the Acta Pilati, which are expressly mentioned, but certainly
to a non-Canonical Gospel." In the corresponding passage in his Ein
leitung, pub. 1875, PP- 66-7, he writes as follows: — "The category of
Justin's Gospels, or as he himself says {Dial. 103) of ' the Memoirs which
I say were composed by the Apostles and those who followed them'
leads us already beyond the two Gospels of Matthew and Mark. It is
open to no doubt that he also employed the Luke-Gospel. Moreover it
would be difficult to disprove the employment of the John-Gospel. But
s. G. 9

130 The use of our Gospels by Justin
while Justin may already have acknowledged the quaternion of our
Canonical Gospels, yet he used to a decided extent besides not merely
the older form of the Acta Pilati, but a non-Canonical Gospel as well."
Next, let us take Keim, Jesus of Nazara (German, pub. 1867, Eng.
trans. I. p. 186 ff.), on the Fourth Gospel. It must suffice to quote a few
words from p. 196 f. "Thus far our position has been almost that of the
warmest defenders of the antiquity of this Gospel. The testimony in its
favour goes back as far as Justin and Barnabas, as far as the year 120 :
what older better evidence have we for the .Synoptics? Let us now,
however, notice a distinction. The use made of the Fourth Gospel was
for a long time a more cautious, more sparing one than that made of the
earlier Gospels.... Justin M. and the Clementine Homilies make a far
greater use of other sources, including our Synoptics, even where John
almost forces himself upon their notice..."
Thoma, Genesis d. Johannes-Evang., 1882, p. 824. "Justin knows the
John-Gospel and uses it in a very penetrating but quite peculiar manner.
The title of the book is never named, nor is any citation, in the proper
sense of the term — which gives the words of a passage of teaching, or an
event of the historical narrative — adduced. Justin does not reckon it
among the ' Memoirs of the Apostles,' from which he introduces alike
sayings and narratives verbally in a rich selection, and which are to him
ecclesiastical and historical authorities. Rather does he employ Johannine
conceptions and lines of thought — as he does also Pauline ones — almost
as one employs a dogmatic writer of similar tendency and position, from
whom, as one's standard, one has learnt to think and to express oneself;
whereas Justin cites after the Synoptics, he reflects after John."
Again, see H. Holtzmann, Einleitung in d. N. T. 3rd ed. 1892, p. 100.
After saying that Justin does not denote merely a single work by the
term Metnoirs, that he calls them " Gospels," that they already form
a class by themselves, he proceeds : — " Nevertheless, these Gospels
which are taking their place by the side of the Old Testament in pubhc
reading in Church. ..do not yet stand, in their canonically completed
quaternion, over against a literature of like character, as is manifest alike
from the exploitation — unprejudiced and abundant even if practised by
way of memory — of a non-canonical collateral of the Synoptics, as from
the extremely rare and cautious employment of the Fourth Gospel."
Comp. also p. 467.
Jiilicher, Einleitung in d. N. T., 1894, p. 293. "Another question is,
what books Justin reckoned among his ' Memoirs.' Matthew was certainly
among them. Dial. 103, besides other passages, vouches for Mark and
Luke, where along with the Apostles he carefully names their attendants
as authors. John remained inwardly strange to him, not however
unknown. Many, however, of his Words of Jesus depart so decidedly
from the form handed down in our Gospels, that it is difficult to deny
him the knowledge of at least one Gospel to us unknown.''
Lastly, I will give Harnack's judgment, Chron. 1. p. 673 f. "In regard
to Justin's position relatively to the Fourth Gospel, certainty cannot be

The use of our Gospels by Justin 131
attained. That he was acquainted with it, is to me exceedingly
probable; that he reckoned it among the diropvYipovevpara rdv diroa-ToXoiv
and regarded it as Apostolic-Johannine cannot be proved.... However,
I will not treat it as out of the question that Justin held the Fourth
Gospel as Apostolic-Johannine.... So then one must leave open the
possibility, yea, a certain probability, that the designation of the Fourth
Gospel as the work of the Apostle was to be found already in a.d. 155—160,
namely on the part of Justin.''

ADDITIONAL NOTE II. TO CHAP. III.
DR E. A. ABBOTT ON JUSTIN'S RELATION TO THE
FOURTH GOSPEL.
Among recent writers Dr E. A. Abbott (Encycl Bibl 11. pp. 1832-7)
goes much further than many, who rate the historical value of the
Fourth Gospel far lower than he does, in casting doubt upon Justin's
acquaintance with that Gospel, or in the extent to which he would
limit his use of it. I thifik that most of the arguments which he
employs on this subject, as well as those of objectors of an earlier time,
have been met by me above. But it may be right to add a few words on
some of the instances which he gives (pp. 1836-7) of Justin's being at
variance with John, (i) "Justin's view is that (2 ApoL 6) God has no
'name' ; John's is that the Son came to declare the Father's 'name' and
to keep them in that 'name.'" It is equally true that the 'name' of God
is constantly spoken of in those prophetic and other books of the Old
Testament whose inspiration Justin unquestionably acknowledged. Justin
in a measure explains his meaning in the passage referred to. Whether
his idea of revelation was fully that of St John and other writers of the
New and the Old Testaments we need not here inquire. If there was a
difference, it was sufficiently subtle for him not to have been conscious
that there was one." (2) "According to Justin it is the Logos, or the Son,
who 'begets' (Tryph. 138) 'the new race' or {ib. 63) the Church his
'daughter.'" The precise language here is certainly not Johannine, but
the thought does not substantially differ from that of the Prologue to the
Fourth Gospel, especially v. 12 taken with v. 3. Moreover, for calling
the Church Christ's daughter, Justin cites passages of the Old Testament.
(3) " Elsewhere he allows himself to say that God has begotten from
himself {Tryph. 61) a kind of Logos-power (XoytKiji' nva Svvapiv)." This
expression in a revered ecclesiastical writer, viewed from the standpoint
of Nicene orthodoxy, has often been felt to be a difficulty, and it is not
strange that it should be contrasted with the teaching of St John. But,
first, there is no doubt from Justin's language in the immediate sequel
in this place, and in numerous other passages, that he regarded the
Logos as '-personal." Further, the strangeness, of his permitting himself
9—2

132 The Gospel of Peter and a supposed
to use the expression XoytKijj' nva Svvapiv disappears if we consider
the context. He is directly addressing Trypho and his companions,
and is stating a proposition in a general form which they will find it
hard to gainsay, respecting indications of the doctrine of the Divine
Word in the Scriptures which they acknowledged. As he develops
his argument he becomes more definite. (4) "The multiplicity of
names given to the Logos (Tryph. 56, 61, 100, etc.) — Son, Wisdom,
Angel, Day, East, Sword, etc.— suggests Philo"s 'many named' Logos
rather than that of John.'' It suggests even more the desire to find the
doctrine in, and to prove it by, the Old Testament, as (e.g.) Dial. 61
shews ; though possibly some acquaintance with the teaching of Philo
may have assisted him in interpreting titles in the Old Testament thus.
There was nothing inconsistent with St John in doing so, and later theolo
gians who undoubtedly received that Gospel have done the same.
(5) "When Justin quotes Dan. vii. 13, to lay stress on the 'as' in 'as
Son of Man' and tells us that Christ was only {Tryph. 76) (f>aiv6pevov
Ka'i yeVopevov avBpanrov, the word (paivopevov seems anti-Johannine, and
bordering on Docetism." The word "only" is Dr Abbott's. There is
one point in which Christ differed from other men, on which it is Justin's
purpose to lay stress. It is, as the words immediately following shew,
that He was not born of a human father. Justin sees a reference to this
in the iis of Daniel, the force of which he brings out by (j>aiv6pevov. But
he proceeds at once to guard against any misapplication of this word by
adding Kal yevopevov. No one could imagine a tendency to Docetism in
Justin, on the ground of a single sentence such as this, except by ignoring
his emphatic declarations in other places (see above, p. 95, for some
references). I have passed over two or three ofDr Abbott's points in
which I should allow that Justin was not fully in harmony with St John.
I should apply to these the remarks made on p. 83 f

ADDITIONAL NOTE III. TO CHAP. III.
PARALLELISMS BETWEEN THE GOSPEL OF PETER AND
OTHER CHRISTIAN WRITINGS, WHICH MAY BE TRACED
TO THE USE IN COMMON OF A SUPPOSED REPORT BY,
OR OFFICIAL RECORD MADE FOR, PILATE.
I will here gather together in a note the parallelisms in "Peter" with
the points in Justin and Tertullian which were, according to the state
ments of these writers themselves, or which would seem probably to have
been, taken from a Pilate-record, as also those with "the Letter," and

Report by, or Record made for, Pilate 133
with the fourth century, or later, Acts. In this note "the Letter" and
A. P. have the meanings already explained, pp. no and 113, n.
(a) "Peter" has— with Justin, Tertullian, "the Letter," and A. P.—
the crucifixion of Jesus by the Jews. " Peter," chh. 3 and 4 ; Justin, Apol.
I. 35 ; A. P. Lat. ch. 10, Gk B chh. 9 and 10.
(b') As in Justin, the Jews drag Jesus to a seat of judgment, place
Him thereon, and bid Him judge them. "Peter," ch. 3 ; Justin, Apol.
I- 35- (c) As in Tertullian and A. P., supported by Cyril, and to some
extent by Justin, the hiding of the disciples. " Peter," ch. 7 ; A. P. Gk A
and Lat. ch. 12; Cyril, Cat. I. xiii. 25; Justin, Apol. I. 50, etc.
(d) Possibly, also, as in Tertullian and A. P., the change of attitude
in regard to the darkness after it was past. " Peter," ch. 6 ; A. P. Gk A
and B and Lat. ch. 11.
(e) As in Justin and Tertullian the drawing of the nails. "Peter,"
ch. 6; Justin, Apol. 1. 35, compared with Dial. 108. Cp. also Cyril,
ih. 28, and title of A. P. in Paris Nat. 1021 {els rfjv diroKaBqXioa-iv avrov).
(f) Probably the use of the phrase Xaxpdv ^dXXeiv is also due to
the Pilate-document. "Peter," ch. 4; Justin, Apol. I. 35, compared with
Dial. 97 ; Cyril, Cat. xiii. 26.
(g) As in "the Letter" and A. P. Roman soldiers are granted by
Pilate for the express purpose of watching the grave. " Peter," ch. 8 (a
centurion is sent as well as soldiers); A. P. Gk A, ch. 13, Gk. B, ch. 12,
Lat. ch. 13. In "the Letter," and A. P. Gk A and Lat., it is simply
"soldiers"; in Gk B "500 soldiers."
(h) As in A. P., Pilate protests his innocence twice. For the second
time see " Peter," ch. 10; A. P. Gk A and Lat. ch. 12.
(i) There are also one or two lesser coincidences with A. P.: the
prominence of Joseph of Arimathaea in both writings, the mention in
A. P. Gk A and Lat. ch. 16 of a "Rabbi Levi" who repeats Rabbi Simeon's
testimony that he had seen Jesus after He rose, and the mention of " Levi
the son of Alphaeus " in company with Simon Peter and Andrew just
where our fragment of Peter breaks off.
(j) As in A. P., Gk B and Lat. 17 ff., the Descent into Hades,
"Peter," ch. 9.

[34 The Apocryphal matter in Justin

ADDITIONAL NOTE IV. TO CHAP. III.
THE APOCRYPHAL MATTER IN JUSTIN.
The reader may obtain a better notion of the proportion of the
apocryphal to the whole of the Gospel matter in Justin from the Con
spectus in Dr Sanday's Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 91-8, than
anywhere else. But that work is unfortunately out of print. Semisch,
Apost. Denkwiirdigkeiten d. M. fustinus, may also be consulted ; or
Justin's " Gospel Notices and Citations," as put together in Hilgenfeld's
Evangelien Jtistin's, pp. 100 — 127. I have used this last collection
more particularly in making the following table.
It is not easy to draw a line with precision between variations which
may confidently be regarded as due to the paraphrasing of our Gospels
and those which should be taken as signs of the use of another work.
So far as I can trust my own judgment, I have erred rather on the side
of inclusion than of exclusion, with the intention of securing the con
sideration of all passages that really require it.
I. Several references (Apol. I. 32, Dial 23, 43, 100) to the genealogical
descent of the Virgin Mary, mentioning not only David, but Abraham,
Jacob, Judah, Jesse, as her ancestors, as though he had before him a
genealogy of Mary, like that of Joseph in our first and third Gospels.
It is, however, possible that he mistook the genealogy in one of these
Gospels for a genealogy of Mary as many readers of the Gospels in later
times have done, in spite of the express words of both Evangelists.
2. ApoL I. 33. The words of the Annunciation as given by him are
expanded through the addition of the words "for he shall save his
people from their sins," spoken by the Angel to Joseph, according to
Mt. i. 21. There are one or two other slight differences in order from
Lu. i. 31 — 35. "It is lawful," he adds, "to think of the Spirit and the
power from God (which overshadowed the Virgin) only as the Word."
Cp. Protev. Jacobi, 1 1.
3. Dial. 100. The Virgin, " having received faith and joy," Trlariv 8e
Kal xapdv Xafiovaa, replied, etc. Cp. Protev. Jacobi, 12.
4. Dial. 78. Christ born in a cave. In ch. 70 Justin quotes Isa.
xxxiii. 13—19, including the words, "he shall dwell in a lofty cave of a
strong rock," but he does not directly apply these words in the course of
his argument. Cp. Protev. Jacobi, 18; Evang. Infantiae, 2. Origen,
contra Cels. l. 51, says that the cave was shewn in his day.

The Apocryphal fnatter in Justin 135
5. The Magi "from Arabia"; so he writes habitually. Dial, yj and
78 (3 times). 88, 102, 103, 106. In Dial, yj, in immediate connexion with
the gifts of Magi "from Arabia," he quotes Isa. viii. 4, in the form,
"Before the child knows how to call 'father' or 'mother,' he shall receive
the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in the presence of
the king of the Assyrians.'' Earlier, however, in the treatise (ch. 34) he
quotes Ps. Ixxii. (LXX. Ixxi.) in extenso, and refers to it repeatedly.
6. Dial 88. While working as a carpenter Jesus made "ploughs
and yokes." Cp. Evang. Thomae, 1 1 ; Evang. Infantiae 38.
7. Dial. 49, 51, 88. The same word, "sitting (KaBe^dpevoi)" is three
times used of John the Baptist on the banks of the Jordan. The posture
of "sitting" may, however, have seemed to Justin so natural for a
teacher that he would, of his own mind, introduce it without scruple into
his description in order to impart vividness to the picture of the scene.
8. Dial. 88. A fire was kindled on the Jordan when Jesus went
down to the water. Cp. Praedicatio Pauli ap. Pseudo-Cyprian, De Bap-
tismo Haeret., Cum. baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum j and
Evang. Ebionitarum ap. Epiphan. Panar. XXX. § 13, mr dvT]kQev airb
TOV vdaTos, Tjvoiytja-av 01 QvpavoL...Kal evBvs irepieXapsjre tov tottov (j)a>s
peya. 9. Dial. 88 and 103. The Voice from heaven at Christ's baptism is
given in the form of Ps. ii. 7, "Thou art my son, I this day have
begotten thee." This is the reading of Cod. Bezae at Lu. iii. 22. It
seems to have been more or less widely spread in the West : for
evidence see Tischendorf's Gk Test. ib.
10. Ap. I. 61. ' A.vay€vvda-Bai is used in place of yewda-Bai avcoBev in
quotation of our Lord's words regarding the new birth of baptism. Cp.
Clem. Hom. vii. 8 ; xi. 26. This, again, is probably nothing more than
an equivalent phrase which was introduced into some texts.
II. Dial. 47. " Our Saviour Jesus Christ said ' In whatsoever (sur
roundings) I find you, in these will I judge you' ": — ev off dv vpas xara-
Xd^o) ev TovTois KOI KpivS). Cp. Clem. Alex. De Div. Serv. § 40.
12. Dial. 76. Addition of a-ioXonevhpSiv to the 'serpents and scor
pions' of saying contained in Lu. x. 19.
13. Apol. I. 32. The foal for which Jesus sent His disciples, that
He might ride into Jerusalem, was found " bound to a vine." He quotes
Gen. xlix. 1 1.
14. Dial. 116. Jesus " promised to clothe us with garments prepared
for us, if we would keep his commandments, and to provide for us an
eternal kingdom."

136 The Apocryphal ?natter in Justin
15. Dial. -^i,. In a prophecy of the coming tribulation "schisms and
heresies" are foretold. Cp. i Cor. xi. 19, 8ei pev Kal aipea-eis iv vp'iv eivai.
But see no. 16.
16. Ib. "False apostles (¦(//¦euSaTrda-roXoi)" joined to \jrev86xpia-T0t.
For word i//^cuSa7roa-roXot cp. 2 Cor. xi. 13. See, however, Tert. De Praescr.
Haer. 4, and Hegesippus, ap. Eus. H. E. IV. xxii. 5. At Dial. 82 Justin
has \j/ev8oTr poipriTai Kal -ij/evboxpio-Toi like Mt. xxiv. 24.
17. Dial. 51. Christ foretold "that he must suffer many things
from the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified and rise the third day,
and that he would appear again in Jerusalem and would then again
drink and eat with his disciples, and that in the time intervening before
his appearing there would come priests and false prophets in his
name." In view of Justin's Millenarianism (Dial 80, 81), and that of other
eminent Christians of the second century, it is most natural to connect
this language, where it goes beyond the Gospels, with the same circle of
traditions as that from which Irenaeus drew, Adv. Haer. v. xxxiii. 3.
18. Apol. I. 35, 48; Dial. 69; cp. also ApoL I. 30. They speak
against Him, charging Him with sorcery on account of His miracles
(probably when brought before Pilate). Cp. Tert. Apol 21 ; A. P. Gk A,
ch. I, etc.
19. Apol. I. 35. The Jews as soon as He is conde77ined mock Him,
dragging Him to and placing Him upon the Judgment-seat and bidding
Him judge them; they (it would seem) carry out the sentence of execu
tion. Cp. Peter, chh. 3 and 4; and for the active participation of the
Jews, cp. Tertullian, and "the Letter," and A. P. : see above, p. 133 (a).
20. Apol. I. 35 ; Dial. 97. His hands and His feet are pierced with
nails, in accordance with Ps. xxii. (xxi.) i6 ; and He is ujinaited (Dial.
108). Cp. Tertullian, Gospel of Peter, etc. See above, p. 133 (e).
21. Dial. 97. The word Xaxpds is used in connexion with the casting
of lots for Christ's garments. See above, p. 133 (f).
22. Apol. I. 38. The taunt of the Pharisees when Jesus is hanging
on the Cross is given in the form, " let him that raised the dead deliver
himself" In another passage Justin has, " He called himself the Son of
God, let him come down and walk about (Kara^ds irepiirareirw) ; let God
save him"; Dial. loi. But the differences from the Gospels here may
be due simply to paraphrasing.
23. Apol. 1. 50. "After he was crucified alt his acquaintance de
parted from him and denied him"; or, Dial. 53, "His disciples were
scattered." See above, p. 133 (c).
24. Dial. 108. The Jews appointed and sent chosen men into all the
world to proclaim that the disciples of Jesus had stolen His body from
the tomb and then declared that He had risen from the dead.

CHAPTER IV.
THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE APPEARANCE OF THE
WRITINGS OF JUSTIN MARTYR AND OF THE TREATISE
AGAINST HERESIES OF IRENAEUS.
The period considered in this chapter will be roughly
speaking that between A.D. 150 and 185. The writings and
fragments which we must here review, in order to gather from
them any items of information that we can in regard to our
special subject of enquiry, may with probability, and in most
cases with certainty, be regarded as the literary remains of
these years.
In Justin Martyr we have had a witness for the faith and
practice of the Church of Rome. He professes so distinctly
and repeatedly to describe the beliefs, laws of conduct, and
customs of Christians generally, that we may regard his own
position in respect to the Gospels as illustrative of the faith
and practice of those Christians among whom he was living
at the time when he wrote.
From Rome, then, we will now turn to the province of
Asia, in the capital of which Justin had himself stayed at an
earlier time of his life. In Asia and the surrounding districts
Christianity took hold and spread in the Apostolic Age itself
and the times immediately following, in a manner unequalled
anywhere else. But for a considerable period there would
seem to have been in this portion of the Church scarcely any
literary activity. We hear, indeed, of Polycarp's letters to
neighbouring Churches and to individual brethren', though
one only, the short one to the Philippians, seems to have
' Irenaeus ap. Eus. H. E. v. xx. 8.

138 Literary products of the Church of Asia
survived beyond the end of the second century. But besides
compositions of this very simple kind, we know only of one
Christian writing produced in this region before the middle of
the second century, or, indeed, for some years after that date,
viz. the Expositions of Dominical Oracles by Papias. The
reason for this fact is to be found in part, no doubt, in the
absence of individuals of decided literary bent and sufficient
education ; but in part, also, it may be due to the happy cir
cumstances of the Church in this region. Some pressing need
appears generally to have been required at first to call forth
literary effort among the early Christians, as it certainly in the
main directed it. Thus, for example, Quadratus and Aristides
addressed " apologies " to the reigning emperor, to deprecate
persecution ; Agrippa Castor wrote a treatise to combat a
Gnostic system, that of Basilides ; Justin Martyr produced
works of both kinds. But although the Church in the province
of Asia was not left undisturbed by novel doctrines, none of
the great Gnostic teachers arose here, or chose any of its
cities as a place for promulgating his views. Here, too, for a
long time persecution seems to have been to a considerable
extent, though not wholly, restrained by authority'. The
first literary relic from this portion of the Church, which we
come to in the period now under review, is the touching letter
of the Smyrnaeans regarding the martyrdom of Polycarp,
during an outbreak of popular hostility to the Christians, circ.
AD. 155^- A few years later Asia had among her bishops
two writers of considerable eminence, Melito, bishop of Sardis,
and Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis. They, too,
both wrote " apologies," as well as treatises dealing with the
doctrinal questions of their day.
The fragments of Melito and Apollinaris.
The " apologies " of Melito and Apollinaris were addressed
to M. Aurelius after the death of his brother L. Verus, and
probably before his son Commodus was associated with him
' See especially the language of Melito, ap. Eus. H. E. iv. xxvi. 5.
^ On the signs of acquaintance with the Gospels in this Letter see Lightfoot,
Essays on Sup. Rel. pp. 220 — 223.

The fragments of Melito 139
in the government, that is to say, at some time between 169
and 176-7'. Nor can Melito have lived long after the latter
of these years ; for Polycrates, writing in A.D. 190, speaks of
him as one of the former worthies of the Church of Asia''.
An extract in Eusebius, from one other work by Melito on
the Passover, mentions the proconsulship of Servilius Paulus
as the time of its composition. Servilius must be a mistake
for Sergius. The proconsulship of Sergius Paulus may, it
would seem, have fallen either in the year 166-7, or in a year
preceding 162'. Apollinaris is not named by Polycrates^;
but Serapion, who was bishop of Antioch circ. A.D. 190 — 211,
mentions him with reverence as a former bishop of Hierapolis'.
The fragments of Melito preserved by Eusebius {H. E. iv.
xxvi.) are not of a kind in which references to the Gospels,
or parallels of thought and expression with them, could be
expected. In the last of them, however, which is taken from
the introduction to his Excerpts from the Prophets and which
contains a list of the books of the OH Testament — about the
true Canon of which Melito had been at great pains to satisfy
himself, — there occur the noteworthy phrases, " the old books,"
' Eus. H. E. IV. xxvi. 1, and xxvii. ; on which compare Lightfoot, Essays on Sup.
Rel. p. 223 ; Harnack, Chron. I. p. 358; Salmon, Diet, of Christ. Bio. in. 894 b.
In the third of Eusebius's extracts from Melito's Apology (ib. xxvi. 7), the
words perd rov iraiSbs may conceivably imply that Commodus had been made joint
emperor. This is pointed out by Salmon, who is inclined to place the two apolo
gies about A.D. 177, when severe persecution seems to have been beginning to
break out in many quarters. On the other hand Lightfoot assigns A.D. 170 as the
date for that of Melito in accordance with "ancient authorities." Lightfoot
understands Eusebius to assert that Melito's Apology was his latest work ; but eiri
iraai need not necessarily mean this, and it may also be doubted whether Eusebius
had the means of determining the date of all Melito's treatises.
^ Eus. H. E. V. xxiv. 5.
' So Harnack, ib. p. 359 f., following Schmid, who corrects Waddington. The
last-named gave 164-6 as the probable date of Sergius Paulus's proconsulship.
* On this see below, p. 185.
' Ap. Eus. H. E. V. xix. 2. There does not appear to be any good reason to
doubt that the place was Hierapolis on the Lycus. Dr Selwyn (Christian Pro
phets, p. 32 f.) maintains that it was Hieropolis on the Glaucus; but this is part of
his theory that Apollinaris was the writer against Montanism quoted by Eusebius,
H. E. V. xvi. xvii. He does not seem to me to be successful in his attempt to
prove this, and if not, all reason for regarding Apollinaris as Bishop of Hieropolis
(sometimes called Hierapolis) on the Glaucus, rather than of Hierapolis on the
Lycus, disappears.

140 The fragmeitts of Melito
" the books of the Old Covenant," which he could hardly have
used if the idea of " new books," " books of the New Covenant,''
had not been also present to his mind by way of contrast.
But we cannot of course say what books in his view formed
this collection of new Scriptures, or whether he would have
been prepared precisely to fix its limits.
But other fragments besides these have come down to us
under the name of Melito, the genuineness of some of which
there seems to be no good reason to doubt. In one of these,
derived from Anastasius of Sinai', allusion is made to the
period of 30 years spent by Christ in retirement, which is
spoken of by St Luke alone, and of the three years' duration
of His Ministry, which is to be learned only from St John.
Again, in another fragmenf", treating like that just referred
to of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, a brief sketch of
His earthly life and His passion is given, which corresponds
exactly with that in our Gospels. Once more, in an inter
pretation of Isaac's sacrifice, he tells us that the ram is the
type of the Lord who was the Lamb', by which name we are
reminded of the Fourth Gospel, though it need not have been
'taken thence. On the other hand, in one short quotation from
Melito given by Anastasius, the actual execution of the death-
sentence upon Christ appears to be attributed, in disregard
of the narratives of our Gospels, directly to the Jews, as it is
in other instances which have come before US'*.
' Otto, Corp. Apol. IX. p. 415. Routh, Reliquiae, I. p. i2i. Harnack speaks
decidedly on the side of its genuineness in his Gesch. (i. 1, p. 250), and somewhat
more ambiguously, but on the whole to the same effect, in Chron. 1. p. 518. See
also Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. p. 230 f.
'' One of those discovered in recent limes in Syriac. See Cureton, Spicil. Syr.
p. 53 f. and Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. 11. p. lix. f. Also Otto, ib. p. 420. For its
genuineness see Harnack, Gesch. p. 251 f and Chron. ib., though in the latter he
adds "full certainty is not attainable"; Lightfoot, ib. pp. 232-7. See also Westcott,
Canon, p. 229 f., on the exalted feeling and glowing language of this passage.
' Otto, ;'*. Routh, ib. p. 123. The fragment is the third of those from the
Catena of Nicephorus. For its genuineness see Harnack, Gesch. i. i, p. 249.
* Otto, ib. Routh, ib. p. 122. For genuineness see Harnack, Gesch. I. i, pp.
249-jO, Chron. 1. p. 518. The words are, 6 6ebs TriirovBev vTrb Se^ids 'laparjKL-
TiSos. I have spoken above of what appears to be the meaning. In view of the
other examples alluded to (see pp. 98 n. 3, 108 f. , 1 16), that given above must be
considered highly probable, though we ought not to feel too confident, as we have
not the context.

The fragments of Apollinaris 141
We pass to Claudius Apollinaris. The Paschal Chronicle
quotes two short passages from a work of his on The
Passover, which is not elsewhere named'- In the former of
these he speaks of some "who say that 'the Lord ate the lamb
on the fourteenth with his disciples, and himself suffered
on the Great Day of Unleavened Bread, and argued that
Matthew's language agrees with their view of the matter; so
that their view is not in harmony with the Law, and the
Gospels seem according to them to be in conflict." We shall
have to consider the fragment from which these words are
taken, and also the other one attributed in the same context
to Apollinaris, somewhat carefully hereafter in connexion
with the subject of Quartodecimanism. But it is obvious
that, if the extract is genuine, Apollinaris acknowledged the
authority both of St Matthew and St John, and that to
suppose a real disagreement between the two appeared to
him to be out of the question.
There may be somewhat more reason for feeling uncertain
about the genuineness of these fragments than of those of
Melito, noticed above'''. For (i) in the case of Melito the
similarities in thought and style between many fragments
attributed to him, and coming to us from different quarters,
can be observed'; in that of Apollinaris we cannot apply this
test. Nor can a consideration of the attitude of the writer of
the fragments to Quartodecimanism assist us in coming to a
decision on the question of genuineness, partly because we
are left in some uncertainty as to what it was, partly because
we cannot be sure what that of Apollinaris was''. (2) The
silence of Eusebius and others in regard to the treatise in
question is strange. Eusebius does not, indeed, in the
case of either Melito or Apollinaris profess to mention any
of their works except those with which he was personally
acquainted. In the case, however, of those treatises of Melito
' See Chron. Pasch. They may also be seen in Routh, Rel. i. p. 150. The
Paschal Chronicle was probably composed circ. A.D. 630. See Salmon, Diet, of
Christ. Bio. I. p. 510.
^ Harnack however thinks that they have been suspected without ground.
Gesch. I. I, p. 245.
' Cp. Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. p. 233.
¦• See below, p. 185 f

1 42 Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons
which he would seem to have passed over, there was the less
reason for mentioning them because their themes closely
resembled those of others which he does mention, and the
enumeration of which gave a sufficient idea of Melito's
theological interests. One of them may even have been
named by him under a slightly different title. It is more
curious that a work on such a burning question as the
observance of Easter, in which Eusebius himself took much
interest, should not have attracted his attention and should
not have been known to Socrates or Photius, and yet that
the compiler of the Paschal Chronicle should have been
able to quote from it. But the explanation of this may be
that the latter took the extracts from some other treatise,
such as that of Clement of Alexandria, from which he also
quotes ; and that Apollinaris's work itself had perished before
Eusebius's time.
On the whole we shall be justified in accepting these
fragments as genuine on the authority of the Paschal
Chronicle. The Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons.
The moving letter' written in the name of "the servants of
Christ dwelling at Vienne and Lyons in Gaul to the brethren
in Asia and Phrygia who have the same faith in and hope of
redemption as we have," may most suitably be noticed here.
It must have been received in Asia not long — at furthest not
more than a few years — after the threatenings of persecution
there had called forth the apologies of Melito and Apollinaris^
This letter, though it does not cite any book of the New (or
the Old) Testament by name, contains clear allusions to and
quotations from the Gospels according to St Luke and
St John, as well as the Acts and the Apocalypse', also not
' Ap. Eus. H.E. v. i. and ii.
2 A.D. 177 may be given as the date of the letter, as it usually is. It has been
conjectured that Irenaeus may have been the actual writer.
' Eus. H.E.w. i. 6 (Ro. viu. 18); ib. 9 (Lu. i. 6); ib. 10 (Apoc. xiv. 4); ib. 15
(Jn xvi. 2); ib. 22 (Jn vii. 38); ib. 48 (Jn xvii. 12, or 2 Thess. ii. 3) ; ib. 58 (Apoc.
xxii. II ; as 'Westcott points out in his Canon, p. 346 n., this quotation is introduced
by the formula 'iva ¦}} ypaipr} TrXr)pw6y); ib. ii. 2 (Phil, ii. 6); ib. 3 (Apoc. i. 5, and
Acts iii. 15) ; ib. 5 (i Pet. v. 6, Acts vii. 59, 60) ; and perhaps others.

The fragments of Dionysius of Corinth 143
a few expressions manifestly drawn from these and other
New Testament Scriptures. And the exceedingly natural
manner in which all these are introduced suggests that the
writings used had become thoroughly familiar to the author
and to those whose penman he was, and might be expected
to be so to the persons addressed.

Fragments of Dionysius of Corinth.
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, was the contemporary of
Melito and Apollinaris', and was another of the men of chief
mark in the Church at this time. The few extracts from his
letters which Eusebius has given us contain several points
of great interest, but it is the last of the fragments only
which can engage our attention here. These are his words: —
" For when brethren requested me to write letters, I wrote. And the
emissaries of the devil have filled these with tares, expunging some things,
and adding others; for whom 'the Woe' is appointed. It is not strange
forsooth that certain have seized upon the Dominical Scriptures to deal
dishonestly with them, since they have even plotted against those which
are not such^."
Besides containing an obvious allusion to the parable of
the tares in Mt. xiii. 24 f , and to the concluding words of the
Apocalypse (xxii. 18, 19), this passage throws a gleam of light
upon the dangers of the time, revealing the fact that the
guardianship in their integrity and purity of the Scriptures of
the New Covenant had already become, and was repognised
as being, a serious duty for the Church. When considering
more fully the effect of the conflict with Gnosticism upon the
formation of the Canon of the Gospels, we shall recur to this
language of Dionysius. For the present we will content our
selves with commenting upon some of his expressions. He
refers to two ways in which his own letters were tampered
' He exchanged letters with Soter (Eus. H. E. I v. xxiii. 9f ), bishop of Rome
(166 — 174); like Melito he had died before A.D. 190, for when 'Victor became
bishop of Rome there was already another bishop at Corinth (Eus. //. E. v. xxii.).
Jerome, De Vir. Illmtr. ch. 27, writes of him, "Claruit sub impp. M. Antonino
Vero, et L. Aurelio Commodo."
^ Ap. Eus. H. E. IV. xxiii. 12.

144 Theophilus ad Autolycum
with. He does not say that both were practised in regard to
"the Dominical Scriptures," but it is natural to suppose that
he means this. There can be no doubt that on the one hand
he has the Marcionites in mind, against whom, as Eusebius
tells us earlier in the chapter, Dionysius himself wrote, and
who (as is well known) mutilated St Luke and certain of
St Paul's Epistles, the only New Testament writings which
they accepted. On the other hand we know that Apocryphal
Gospels with Gnostic leanings were put forth; and probably
apocryphal passages were inserted in the writings which the
Church accepted as Apostolical, or interpretations were so
mingled with the text as to deceive the unwary.
Finally, we will dwell for a moment on the remarkable
phrase " Dominical Scriptures." There can be no reason to
suppose that Dionysius is thinking only of the Gospels. He
employs the term, we may believe, because he regarded
Christ as the one supreme authority and source of truth in the
New Covenant, which we shall find Hegesippus also implying
in the expression "the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord'."

Theophilus ad Autolycum.
We now turn our eyes eastward to the great see of Antioch,
occupied circ. A.D. i8o by Theophilus, though for how many
years before we cannot say. His three books. Ad Autolycum,
have come down to us, the last of which at least was composed
under Commodusl These books, though they have for their
aim the justification of the faith of Christians, differ from other
Apologies in being addressed not to the Roman emperor, or
emperors, but to a private person. Theophilus dwells at
length on the doctrine of Divine Creation through the Word,
and declares that " the Holy Scriptures and all the inspired
men " so teach, and proceeds to cite " one of them, John," and
to give the first and third verses of the Prologue to his
' Eus. H. E. IV. xxii. 3.
'' See the allusion to Chryseros, "the freedman of M. Aurelius Verus," who
brought down a chronicle which he wrote to the death of that emperor. Ad Aulol.
III. 27.

Theophilus ad Autolycum 145
Gospel, though he omits verse two'. Again, he says that
" concerning righteousness, of which the Law spoke, the
utterances of the prophets, also, and the Gospels are found
to agree, because all the inspired men spoke by one spirit of
God^" Again, he introduces precepts concerning chastity
contained in St Matthew as "the evangelic voice'." Once
more, he refers to a passage in St Paul's Epistle to Timothy
as " the Divine word^." These expressions shew clearly that
the Apostolic writings were held by him to be as truly inspired
as those of the Old Testaments Yet he makes no allusions to,
or quotations from, the former in addition to those which have
been mentioned, though he has some not very extensive
parallels with them" On the other hand he quotes largely
from the ancient Scriptures, especially the Book of Genesis,
the Prophets, and Psalms, and from Classical writers, and
gives one long passage from " the Sibyl''." He was doubtless
influenced by considering what would make most impression
upon his readers.

The Works of Tatian.
We have spoken of the remains of four writers who were
also eminent bishops ; we now turn to the works of a man
who did not hold any representative position, but which have
nevertheless an interest and importance of their own. Tatian,
the Syrian, can hardly have been less than thirty years of age
at the time of his conversion to Christianity, considering what
' Ad Autol. II. 22.
= Ib. III. 12.
' Ib. 13 (Mt. V. 28, 32). He does not, however, give them quite accurately,
but with slight changes, partly, it would seem, intended to be explanatory.
* Ib. ch. 14 (i Tim. h. 2).
* Cp. ib. ch. 29. TWV obv xpbvwv Kal rwv elpripivwv aTrdvrwv ovvT^dpoiirpAvwv,
bpdv ioTiv TTiv dpxaibrrp-a rwv Trpo<pT]riKwv ypap.pdrwv Kal ri/v BeibrTyra tov Trap' T)p.'iv
Xbyov, ort ob Trpba^aros 6 Xbyos.
* In II. 13 there is a parallel with Lu. xviii. 27; the rule of conduct in II. 34 is
probably taken from a common form of teaching rather than from Mt. vii. 12. For
others see 'Westcott's Canon, p. 232, n. 5. Tit. iii. 5, 6 and Heb. vi. 7, both in Ad
Autol. II. 16, may be added.
!¦ Ib. II. 36.
S. G. 1°

146 Chronology of Tatian s life and works
he had seen and done before it' ; and this event must at the
latest have taken place not long after A.D. 150. Irenaeus'
language clearly suggests that Tatian was for some little time
under Justin's influence^, first as a hearer, and then while
himself engaged in the same work of expounding the
Christian Faith and arguing on its behalf Tatian, also, in
his Address to the Greeks, alludes to the conflict between
Crescens, the Cynic philosopher, and Justin in a manner
which seems to shew that he was familiar with all the circum
stances and was himself mixed up in the affair'. But Justin's
own Second Apology, which is attributed with good reason to
circ. A.D. 150^ was written at the time of, or soon after, this
episode. We know, further, that Tatian taught in Rome
subsequently to Justin's death. Rhodon, in a treatise from
which Eusebius gives us several extracts, stated that he had
attended upon Tatian's instructions in that city". It is evident
that Rhodon said nothing as to having heard Justin. He
also mentioned a " book of problems by Tatian through which
he (Tatian) undertook to shew the ambiguity and obscurity of
the Divine Scriptures." At the time when Tatian dwelt thus
on Old Testament difficulties he must have been tending
towards a heretical position ; whereas according to Irenaeus
he was kept from falling into error so long as Justin was alive.
The work of Tatian in question may not have come to Rhodon's
hands till after his own connexion with the author had ceased ;
for Rhodon's position was quite orthodox, and he promised
to furnish solutions of Tatian's "problems." It seems that
Tatian was recognised as a heretic, and also returned to the
East, circ. A.D. 172^ and there exercised considerable influence.
His death probably occurred not long after A.D. iSo. For
Irenaeus, writing not many years after this, uses language of
him from which we may reasonably infer that he was no
' See his Address, chh. 35 and 42.
^ Adv. Haer. I. xxviii.
' Ch. 19. This would hold even if the words, KaSdrrep Kal ipi, omitted in
Eusebius' quotation of the passage, were not part of the true text. Cp. on the
differences of text p. 147 n. 3 below.
* See above, p. 76.
^ Ap. Eus. H. E. v. xiii. 1, 8.
* See Zahn, Forsch. I. pp. 282-4, and Harnack, Cliron. i. p. 288.

Chronology of Tatian s life and works 147
longer living'. Again, his writings are mentioned among
others in proof of the fact that "before the time of Victor,"
i.e. before a.d. 190, "Christ was reckoned Divine," in a reply
to the contrary allegations of the Artemonites at the be
ginning of the third century ^
Tatian's Address to the Greeks, the one work of his which
has certainly come down to us in its original shape, must
have been composed some little time — probably at least a
few years — after Justin's Second Apology. This is plain from
the different manner in which Justin and Tatian refer to
Crescens. The former writes of him as one who was even
then plotting his destruction, the latter as a figure of the past.
Crescens must either have died, or left Rome, in the interval'.
We may, therefore, take A.D. 155 as approximately the earliest
date at which Tatian's Address could have been written. It
' Adv. Haer. i. xxviii. ; and in. xxiii. 7. Jerome, De Vir. Illustr. ch. 29, writes,
"Et hie (i.e. as well as Dionysius and Pinytus) sub imperatore M. Antonino Vero
et L. Aurelio Commodo floruit." Tatian's work, however, must have been nearly
done when Commodus became sole emperor.
^ Ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxviii. 4.
' See Justin, Apol. II. ch. 3, and Tatian, Ad Grace, ch. 19: KpioKris ovv, etc.
A good part of both passages is quoted by Euseb. H. E. iv. xvi. There are
differences between the text of the Address printed from the one extant MS. and
the quotation in Eusebius' History, which have been the subject of a good deal of
discussion. Zahn {Forsch. I. p. 275 ff.) and Harnack (Texte u. Untersuch. I. p.
142, and more moderately in Chron. i. p. 285 n.) have maintained the superiority
of the former, Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol vol. 26, p. 39 f ) and Funk
{Ki-rchengeschichtl. Abhandhmgen, 11. p. 143) on the whole of the latter. The
means do not really exist for settling the question, and it is also immaterial which
is adopted, so far as the determination of the date of the treatise is concerned. It
does not follow from the text of the MS., as Zahn and Harnack think, that Tatian's
Address must have been written about the same time as Justin's Second Apology.
On the contrary, they have overlooked the contrast between the language of the
two'in regard to the Crescens incident. It is important, however, to make two little
changes in the MS. text of the sentence which follows the words quoted by Eusebius.
As they stand there — rivas Si dv Kal Siwjat twv ipiXoabifiwv et p-rj pibvovs vp.S.s e'iwdev; —
Justin would be the subject of the verb. But, as Hilgenfeld has pointed out,
Justin did not "persecute" anybody; Tatian would not have used this word for
his denunciation of the Cynic philosophers ; nor again was Tatian addressing these
philosophers, but Greeks in general, to whom vp.S.s would have to be referred. It is
therefore evident that u^tSs has been substituted for r]p.ds — a common textual error.
Crescens is the subject and ripds refers to Justin and himself, or to himself and his
fellow-Christians. A further shght consequential change must be made, viz., that
of eliiBei for elwBev, in order that the tense here may agree with the tenses used of
Crescens in the preceding sentences. Cp. Funk, I.e. pp. 145-6-
10 — 2

148 Chronology of Tatian s life and works
is more difficult to fix upon a terminus ante quem. Some,
e.g. Harnack, have held that Tatian must, when speaking of
Crescens' attempt to procure Justin's death, have mentioned
the latter's eventual martyrdom, if it had already taken place.
But this is not by any means clear ; for the purpose of Tatian
in referring to the attack by Crescens is simply to shew the
inconsistency of the Cynic philosopher who sought to bring
death upon others, which he himself professed not to regard
as an evil. Even if Justin had already at a subsequent time
suffered death, this might have been passed over, as having
no bearing upon the point urged. On the other hand,
there is nothing in the Address which justifies Hilgenfeld'
and Funk^ in assuming that Justin's martyrdom had taken
place. The words, indeed, " the most admirable Justin ex
claimed,'' followed by an utterance of his', would be suitable
in this case ; but they would, also, be quite suitable if, as is
very probable, the Address was written at a distance from
Rome'', where he was not in Justin's immediate vicinity.
There is a .surer indication of date in the absence of any
traces of the heretical views which he held in his latter
years^ In point of fact, he does not appear to be conscious
of any difference in faith between himself and the mass of
simple believers, and he claims to speak on their behalf^
Our conclusion is that the composition of this treatise must
be placed between A.D. 155 and 170, and that it is not
possible to fix narrower limits'.
' L.u. p. 43. ^ L.c. p. 147 f ' ch. 18.
^ See Harnack, Chron. i. p. 287, and references there.
^ His use of the term " aeon " (chh. 20 and 26) has nothing Valentinian about
it, as is alleged, for example, in Diet, of Christ. Biog. iv. p. 803; nor does his
doctrine of the Fall (chh. 7, 12, 15), any more than the doctrine as usually formu
lated, involve the denial of the salvation of Adam ; nor does his attitude to the
Old Testament appear to be that which he had assumed when he wrote the "Book
of Problems " ; nor does he even say anything which savours of Encratitism,
though we feel that the earnestness with which he insists on the effort necessary, in
order to recover the indwelling of spirit ( = "the image of God") in our nature,
might incline him to that doctrine.
^ See ch. 33.
' (a) Zahn adduces the use of ^aoiXebs twice in the singular (chh. 4 and 19) as
evidence that only one emperor was reigning, and that therefore the date must
have been before the double rule of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (a.d. i6i —
169). But might not one naturally be regarded as the chief? In any case, it

Tatian s Address to the Greeks 149
His Address to the Greeks shews admirably how the
subject and purpose of a work by a Christian writer might
naturally affect the number and character of the Scriptural
quotations in it. This discourse contains clear evidence of
the knowledge and use of the Fourth Gospel, but none, or
scarcely any, of acquaintance with the other Gospels' More
over, in regard to the Fourth, it is almost exclusively the
language and thoughts of the Prologue that we meet with^
•We have besides only the words " God is a Spirit'." The
explanation is, however, obvious when we notice that — apart
from his attacks on Paganism — the themes of which Tatian
here treats are the Creation of the world and the nature of
man. If the work concerning the Christian system, which he
promises in the present treatise, had come down to us, we
should in all probability have found quite a different class of
Evangelical quotations and parallels there^
The chief interest, however, felt of late in Tatian has
naturally been connected with his Diatessaron. Through
a remarkable series of investigations and discoveries, the
general character and structure of the work, as it must have
would be natural to speak of only one in such general expressions as those of
Tatian. (b) On the allusion to Proteus, see Funk, I.e. p. 148.
(c) The fact that there is no sign of Tatian's having been influenced by Justin's
First Apology in the composition of his own, which Harnack gives as a reason for
the early date (circ. A.D. 152) that he assigns, really makes strongly against it.
Harnack himself holds that Justin's Apology had been written two or three years
before this, and that Tatian was living in Rome and in close intercourse with Justin
then, or soon afterwards. It is almost impossible that he should not have read the
Apology soon after it was composed, and it would on Harnack's supposition be
Still fresh in his mind. Ten years, or more, later he might to a great extent have
forgotten it, and if he was not in Rome, he might well have no copy by him. Evi
dently he was a man of independent mind, who would take his own line ; and he
would be the more ready to do so when he had been a convert for some years. In
this connexion his claim to originality (ch. 35 init.) should be noticed.
' Westcott (Canon, p. 327) points out a parallel with Mt. xiii. 44 in ch. 30.
^ The words "the darkness comprehendeth not the light" (Jn i. 5) are
introduced in ch. 13 as "that which hath been spoken." There are parallels with
Jn i. 1 in ch. 5, and i. 3 in ch. 19. The doctrine of the Logos is also presented
in other parts of the treatise.
' See ch. 4.
'' Westcott also observes that "there is abundant evidence to prove his deep
reverence for the writings of the Old Testament, and yet only one anonymous quo
tation from it occurs in his Address." Canon, p. 326.

150 Tatian s Diatessaron
left Tatian's hands, have been ascertained. It is no longer
possible to doubt that it was in the main a compilation from
our Four Gospels, designed to give the Gospel history con
tained in these several records in the form of a continuous
narrative, though some " apocryphal " matter was also intro
duced. In later editions of the work some forms of expres
sion resembling those of the Gospels may have been made to
conform to them more closely than they did at first. It is
more doubtful whether the distinctly " apocryphal " element
was originally larger than it would seem to have been
according to the existing evidence ; for there was clearly a
disposition in the Church for long after the second century,
and indeed throughout the Middle Ages, to be interested in
and to preserve points in regard to the Gospel story which
were not found in the narratives of the Canonical Gospels.
There is, therefore, small ground for thinking that those
who used the Diatessaron would have ignored " apocryphal "
additions to the Gospel narrative, or that these would have
been omitted in versions of it.
The Diatessaron in Syriac became, and continued to be
for two or three centuries, the chief record of the Gospel
history in use in the Syriac-speaking Church of Edessa and
the regions beyond ; while early in the fifth century, Theo-
doret, bishop of Cyrrhus, between Antioch and the Euphrates,
found a large number of copies of it in the churches of his
diocese, presumably in Greek. We do not hear of its having
obtained at any time much circulation in any other district,
although it was translated into Arabic and Latin. Most
probably then it was put forth by Tatian after he had
returned (about A.D. 170) to Northern Syria. His primary
object in constructing it may very likely have been to furnish
his fellow-countrymen with the contents of those Gospels
which they did not yet possess in their own language', and
which he himself had learnt to value during his sojourn in the
West. The question has been discussed whether it was first
composed in Greek or Syriac. We may adopt the former
alternative, without prejudice to the view that Tatian's ulti
mate object was to produce it in Syriac. For it would clearly
' See below, pp. 260 f.

Tatian s Diatessaron 151
have been easier for him to compile it first in Greek from the
Greek Gospels, and then to translate it, than to go through
the double process of compiling and translating at once. But
he would seem to have acquired influence among the Greeks,
also, in North- Western Syria, and this may have secured a
certain amount of circulation in this district for the work in
Greek. The Diatessaron, as the composition of one who had
become a convert to Christianity and been a hearer of Justin
in Rome about the middle of the second century, and who
had himself lived and taught there for some time between
A.D. 150 and 170, supplies evidence as to the position of the
Four Gospels in that important Church at this time. It also
illustrates that habit of combining the different Gospels, of
which we have already seen other less considerable examples,
and which seems to shew that the distinct value of each
of the Gospels was as yet imperfectly appreciated. At the
same time it must be remembered that the idiosyncrasies
of Tatian, and perhaps, also, his nationality, render inferences
that may be drawn from his practice, as to that of the
Churches of Western Asia and of Europe, to some extent
uncertain. The Writings of Athenagoras.
One other apologist, Athenagoras, must be briefly noticed.
We have no trustworthy information about him beyond that
which is conveyed in the title and address of his Appeal on
behalf of Christians. He is described as an Athenian and a
philosopher, and the treatise was addressed to M. Aurelius
and to Commodus, and must accordingly have been composed
A.D. 177 — 180. It contains parallels with St John and with
St Matthew and probably also with St Luke'. In Athe
nagoras' treatise On the Resurrection words are quoted from
I Cor. XV. and 2 Cor. v. as being the Apostle's^, and another
' Suppl. pro Christ., ch. 4 fin. (Jn i. 3); ch. 10 (Jn i. 3, x. 30, 38); ch. n
(Mt. V. 44, 45; a clause is also inserted here found only in Lu. vi. 28, according to
the best text); ch. 12 (Mt. v. 46; again there is a clause inserted which is found
only in Lu. vi. 33); ch. 32 (Mt. v. 28); ch. 33 (Mt. xix. pf ).
2 ch. 18 fin.

152 Doctrine of the Logos in Second Century
reminiscence of the former of these appears a little further on ;
but there seem to be no other parallels with New Testament
writings. A noteworthy feature in the teaching of the four apologists,
Melito, Theophilus, Tatian and Athenagoras, who have come
before us in this chapter, as well as in that of Justin, is the
place held by the doctrine of the Logos. They represent a
class of Christian believers who had received and been affected
by the higher Greek education of the age, and who felt the
need for a religious philosophy, but had resisted the attrac
tions of Gnostic speculation. They found what they wanted,
the right point of view from which to regard the relation of
the Absolute Divine Being to the finite, material Universe,
and to the workings of Divine Providence in human history,
in the doctrine which in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel
had been set forth with a force and clearness never before
attained, and brought for the first time into connexion with
the Person of the Christ, but for which preparation had been
made, according to the lines of a true development, in the
thought of Jewish theologians, who heartily believed in the
Old Testament as a Divine revelation. This is a deeply
interesting point in the history of Christian doctrine ; here,
however, I refer to it only in order to note that the occupation
of men's minds with this subject in the middle part of the
second century must have served to bring the Fourth Gospel
into a new prominence in the Church'.
' This will be a suitable point at which to refer to the Epistle to Diognetus, an
Apology addressed to a private person, an educated heathen friend, like Athe
nagoras' Autolycus. This little treatise, or a portion of it, may perhaps belong to
the period included in this chapter. Lightfoot (in the Apostolic Fathers, ed. by
Lightfoot and Harmer, pp. 487-8) holds that circ. A.D. 150 is the most probable
date for chh. i — 10, and that the two remaining chapters, which are admittedly
later, may have been composed by Pantaenus a decade or two after the middle of
the century. Harnack assigns chh. 1 — 10 to "the third century or at the earhest
the end of the second" (Chron. i. p. 515). I incline to the same opinion, and
accordingly I refrain from making use of this work. I may state, however, that
there are parallels with Mt. and Lu. and with the Fourth Gospel and ist Ep. of Jn,
as well as with several Pauline Epistles, in the first ten chapters.

Chronology of Hegesippus life 153

Hegesippus.
I come now to Hegesippus, who is placed by Eusebius at
the head of the writers of this generation'. My chief reason
for having deferred to speak of him till this point is that he is
known to us only through quotations from, and statements
about, his Memoirs, and that this work, or at least the most
important extract, from it which we possess, taken from the
fifth and concluding book, was written not much before
A.D. 180, or according to other reckonings A.D. 175. "The
Corinthian Church," he tells us, "continued in the right
doctrine up to the time that Primus was bishop in Corinth;
with them I consorted when sailing to Rome, and abode with
the Corinthians many days, in which we were mutually
refreshed with right doctrine. And having come to Rome I
drew up a succession as far as to Anicetus, to whom Eleu-
therus was deacon. And Soter succeeded Anicetus, after
whom came Eleutherus. And in each succession and in each
city that which is held accords with what the Law declares,
and the Prophets, and the Lord^." So then, when Hegesippus
wrote, Eleutherus was bishop of Rome, whose accession
according to Eusebius' History^, and Jerome's version of his
Chronicle, took place in A.D. 177, but which may possibly
have occurred a few years earlier*. It should be noticed,
however, that, as this same passage shews, Hegesippus had
long been engaged in collecting the information which he
gives. In the words " I drew up a succession " I have
followed the reading of the MSS. (8ia.So;^))i/ eTroiTjcsapiriv).
Yet this phrase is no doubt a somewhat strange one, and
for SiaSoxvv the emendation SiaTpi.^rjv has been suggested^
If this is to be adopted, Hegesippus states that " he stayed
in Rome till Anicetus," which implies that he reached it
' H.E. IV. 21.
^ Ap. Eus. H E. IV. xxii. 2, 3.
' H. E. V. Prooem. i.
* According to the Armenian Version of the Chronicle, A.D. 173; Harnack,
Chron. I. p. 200, arrives at A.D. 174 as the year.
^ See Heinichen, in loc.

154 Chronology of Hegesippus life
before Anicetus became bishop (circ. A.D. 157, or even
earlier'). But even according to the reading above adopted,
his stay in Rome must have preceded the accession of Soter
(A.D. 169, or earlier^). Otherwise the list of bishops of Rome,
made by him at the time of his visit there, would not have
ended with Anicetus, nor would he have introduced the
remark as to the deacon of Anicetus, and appended the
names of his successors, in the manner he does. We have
further to allow for his journey to Rome, which included (as
we have seen) a stay in Corinth, and (it would seem) visits to
many other places also ; for (as we learn from Eusebius in
the context) he stated that " during a journey to Rome he
consorted with very many bishops and received the same
teaching from all'." It may be added that another personal
allusion which he makes shews that in A.D. 175-80 he must
at least have reached middle life, and may have been growing
old. When referring to the institution of the cult of Antinous
under the Emperor Hadrian he speaks of it as " introduced in
our time''."
From his language in regard to his journey to Rome it is
evident that he came from the East ; and since he seems to
have been not only a Jewish convert but also specially familiar
with the traraitions of the Palestinian Church, and as he knew
the Gospelf according to the Hebreivs, and had at least some
acquaintance with Hebrew and Aramaic", it is most probable
that his home was in Palestine, or at least somewhere in
Syria. Hegesippus held an important place in the Tubingen
theory of the early history of the Church, as a supposed
witness for the Judaic and Anti-Pauline character of the
Church during a great part of the second century. It is
' The Armenian, a.d. 152; Harnack, ib. circ. A.D. 155.
^ Armenian, A.D. 164; Harnack, ib. circ. A.D. 166.
' Eus. H. E. IV. xxii. 1.
^ Ib. IV. viii. 2. Manifestly, however, when Eusebius (H. E. n. xxiii. 3)
speaks of him as irrl rr]S Trpiirjjs rwv drroarbXwv yevbpevos SiaSoxvs, and Jerome
(De Vir. Illustr. 22), probably following Eusebius, as "vicinus apostolicorum
temporum," this is to go too far.
^ Eus. H. E. IV. xxii. 7.

The tenor of Hegesippus' testimony i55
unnecessary at the present day to examine this view at
length'. It may suffice to say, in the first place, that there
is no good ground for attributing opinions of the kind indi
cated to Hegesippus, and that if he had held them he would
not have won the unqualified approval that he does from
Eusebius, who had the Memoirs of Hegesippiis before him,
which fully revealed, he tells us, their author's mind I Further,
it would have been impossible to understand what we know
to have been the tone and temper of the Church in the last
quarter of the century, if its spirit in the immediatelj'- preceding
time was so very different. There is not the slightest trace
of the operation of any cause which could have brought
about a change so great and general. And Hegesippus is in
reality an important witness that none such had taken place'.
But we shall do well to consider somewhat more closely
what we know about his Memoirs. One of the aims of this
work, and perhaps the principal one, was to combat Gnosti
cism^ When he speaks of "right doctrine," Gnostic heresy
was doubtless present to his mind as the opposite thereto, for
it was the one great intellectual enemy of the Faith in the
middle of the second century. This is made the more evident
by his allusion to the teaching of "the Law and the Prophets
and the Lord." For the truly Divine character and permanent
value of the Old Testament revelation were some of the chief
points at issue in the controversy with Gnosticism.
Now, on comparing the notices of Hegesippus' book with
that of Irenaeus Against Heresies, we can discern that the
' Let me quote here Harnack's judgment, Chron. I. p. 312: "jedenfalls ist
er kein Judenchrist gewesen, sondern ein Vertreter des jungen katholischen
Christenthums." The reader who desires to see the question more fully discussed
may consult Weizsacker's excellent art. on Hegesippus in Herzog's Real-EncycL
This article, originally published in 1856, has maintained its place in Hauck's
largely recast edition of this Encyclopaedia.
^ H. E. IV. xxii. I.
' Cp. Eus. H. E. IV. vin. 2.
* Jerome {De Vir. Illustr. ch. 22), who probably knew Hegesippus' Memoirs
only from Eusebius, seems to have given currency to a wrong view of it when he
described the work as a continuous history of the Church from the Passion of the
Lord to his own day. Cp. 'Weizsacker, ib., and Westcott, Canon, p. 210. But it
is unnecessary for us to discuss its precise character and object, which indeed
are hard to determine for lack of information.

156 Hegesippus Appeal to Tradition
same line of argument was employed in the former as we
find in the third book of the latter. That is to say, Hege
sippus confronts the Gnostic theories with the tradition of
Apostolic teaching preserved in the several Churches, the
trustworthiness of which tradition was guaranteed by their
official heads, who had succeeded one another in an orderly
manner and in uninterrupted lines. The fact that he should
reason thus is most important. It is true that the completion
of Hegesippus' work cannot, from what has been observed
above as to its date, have preceded by many years the
composition of that of Irenaeus ; but the method of refuting
the Gnostics which Hegesippus adopts had commended itself
to him a quarter of a century before, and he had long been
engaged in enquiries connected therewith.
We may also refer here to the statements which Eusebius
quotes from Hegesippus with regard to the rise of the Gnostic
sects'- We may trace in them the intention to shew that
from the comparatively late time at which they sprang up,
their doctrines could not be taken for the original teaching
of Christianity. It will be readily perceived that this line of
argument would be specially fitted to impress the majority
of Christians, men and women of simple piety. It might, I
believe, be shewn that the restraining force of tradition not
only fixed limits to, but determined the character and directed
the course of, the development of doctrine. And so also when
the question of deciding definitely what writings of the New
Covenant were to be regarded as authoritative arose, it could
not fail to exert an influence, and I believe we shall see that
it was the strongest one, in their selection. Whether this
question had presented itself to the mind of Hegesippus we
cannot say. So far as we know, Hegesippus dealt directly
only with the question "What is the true Apostolic faith.?"
In Irenaeus himself this is up to a certain point kept
distinct from, and has the priority over, the other question,
" What are the genuine Apostolic writings^ } " Nevertheless,
in one more item of information about Hegesippus' Memoirs
which Eusebius gives us, we have an indication, to the same
' H. E. III. xxxii. 7: IV. xxii. 5.
^ See esp. the treatment of the two questions Adv. Haer. in. chh. i. — xi.

Hegesippus and the Hebrew Gospel 157
effect as that in the language of Dionysius of Corinth already
considered, of the circulation of those Gnostic forgeries, which
at the first, more than any other cause, promoted the formu
lation of the Church's Canon of Scripture'.
The mention, however, of quotations from the Gospel accg to
the Hebrews by Hegesippus may seem to prove the existence of
a state of things in which there was still considerable freedom
as to the Scriptures used. In a certain way it does so, but
chiefly as revealing a difference between the practice of East
and West^ We have, moreover, already remarked that in the
West, too, this Gospel was not regarded as " apocryphal " in
the sense that others were, so, that its use must not be taken
to prove laxity in other respects.

Eminent Gnostic teachers of the second generation.
Some distinguished followers of the founders of the two
chief Alexandrian Gnostic schools belong to the period now
under consideration. We have already seen in discussing a
quotation in Hippolytus' Refutatio that, if the author there
who makes use of the Fourth Gospel is not Basilides, he may
very probably be " his true son and disciple Isidore." But we
are more concerned now with two celebrated Valentinians,
' H. E. IV. xxii. 8. "Discussing about the books called apocryphal, he says
that some of them were forged by certain heretics in his own time." For the
remark of Dionysius of Corinth, see above, p. 143.
^ It is not to be inferred that Hegesippus did not use the Canonical Gospels
from Eusebius' statement (H. E. iv. xxii. 7), that "he quotes some things from
the Gospel accg to the Hebreit/s." See Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, p. 1 38 ff.
and Westcott, Canon, pp. 212, 213. Nevertheless Eusebius plainly implies that he
therein shewed a certain affection for this other Gospel, which was natural in one
with his antecedents. For he adds at the end of the sentence the words which seem
to apply to the whole of it — "thereby shewing that he was a believer of Hebrew
origin" {ipuf>aivwv i^'EISpalwv iavrbv TreTriarevKivai).
Eusebius says of Hegesippus, ^k re rov Ka$' "E^palovs evayyeXlov Kal tov XvpiaKov
Kal ISiws iK TTJs ''E^palSos SiaXiKrov rivd rWriaiv. I cannot think that Zahn is right
(Kanon, II. p. 657 n. 3) in his remark, "Eusebius refers not to two languages, but to
two Gospels." We nowhere else hear of a distinct form of the Gospel called the
Syriac one. It seems to me more probable that the use by Eusebius of these
different phrases betokens that he did not quite know how to describe the lan
guage of the Gospel in question. Very possibly it may have been purer Hebrew
in some parts than in others.

158 Ptolemaeus and Heracleon
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, both of whom, we may con
fidently say, were prominent teachers and had reached middle
life, if they had not passed it, before A.D. i8o\
After Irenaeus {Adv. Haer. I. Praef and i. — vii.) has given a
general account of the system of Ptolemaeus and his adherents
— the Gnostic school which was most important in his own
day, or at least that one with which he had himself chiefly
come in contact — he proceeds (ch. viii.) to remark that they
endeavour to support their novel doctrines by strained inter
pretations of the parables of Christ, or of the utterances of
prophets, or of the words of Apostles. He gives examples,
and among them there are unquestionable applications of St
Matthew, St Luke and St John'''. It is naturally more
difficult to prove the use of St Mark ; but it may be observed
that the first word from the Cross is quoted exactly as in
that Gospel and not as in the parallel in St Matthew'.
Many of Heracleon's comments on St John have been
preserved for us by Origen in his own commentary on that
Gospel. Heracleon was in all probability the first writer
to produce a regular commentary on any book of Scripture.
One or two comments by him on St Luke also are giveri
by Clement of Alexandria*. We have no similar knowledge
of his use of St Matthew and St Mark, but there- is ri'O
reason to think that he rejected them. The statement of
Irenaeus — that the Valentinians erred by excess not by defect,
as to the Gospels which the^^-ireceived — stould be borne in
mind^ 1
Dr Salmon argues that tlie use made oC;he Fourth Gospel
by these Valentinian teacher^ who flourished circ. A.D. 170-80
proves that it must have ibeen acknowledged before the
' Ptolemaeus was suU alive, it would Wem, whe;i Irenaeus wrote his treatise on
Heresies ; but he was the head of a flouri\shing si;hool, whose system was already
formulated (Adv. Haer. I. praef). Irenaeus\had hideed probably become acquainted
with it and combated it several years before\ m Aome. On the date of Heracleon,
see A. E. Brooke, Texts and Studies, 1. a„^. 33-4, and Salmon, Diet, of Christ.
Bio. II. 900. .^
^ See esp. ib. chh. viii. xx. aHd xxv.
' Ib. viii. 2.
^ The fragments of Heracleon have been collected and edited by A. E. Brooke,
Texts and Studies, i. 4.
^ Adv. Haer. m. xi. 9.

Ptolemaeus and Heracleon 159
Valentinians separated from the orthodox'. This contention,
however, does not seem to me valid. If, subsequently to the
formation of the Valentinian school, a document obtained in
the Church an authority which it did not at an earlier time
possess, there would have been nothing, in the circumstance
of its tardily acquired position, .to prevent the members of
that school from adopting it as a sacred writing of their own.
Gnostics generally, and Valentinians in particular, were far
less scrupulous than the Catholic Church in regard to the
writings which they recognised. And they would have felt
that there was an advantage in using any which the Church
held in reverence, provided they could put their own interpre
tation upon them.
Nevertheless, the attention bestowed on the Gospel accg to
St fohn by these Valentinians of the second generation is not
unimportant. It shews strikingly that its position must have
been a firmly established one before they began to teach as
they did. For their conspicuous patronage of it would
seriously have hindered its acceptance by the Church, if that
had still been in question ; while their efforts to prove their
own opinions by means of it are a sign of the place it held in
general estimation^.

The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs.
We shall now, before closing this chapter, have the interest
of noticing the earliest Christian relic from the province of
North Africa, a region to which the Faith had been brought
subsequently to the Apostolic Age, but which was destined
' Diet, of Chr. Bio. II. p. 900.
^ For the Evangelic quotations in the Clementine Homilies, I may refer to
Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century (1876) ch. 6, and Westcott on the Canon,
p. 291 ff. Dr Sanday gave the middle of the second century as the time of the
composition of this work, and before and at the time when he wrote this was the
view of many scholars. So much obscurity, however, in reality hangs over the date
alike of the Homilies and the Recognitions, and over other circumstances of their pro
duction, that it does not seem to me possible to employ them usefully in connexion
with our present enquiry. Dr Hort was led by his investigations to assign the
TrepioSoi on which both were based, to the first or second decade of the third century
(Notes introductory to the study of the Clementine Recognitions, a Course of lectures
dehvered in 1884, pub. 1901, pp. 86 — 90).

i6o The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs
to produce, in the course of some three centuries between the
introduction of Christianity there and the Vandal desolation,
three of the most remarkable and most widely influential of
all Western Christians. Owing to a happy discovery made by
Dr Armitage Robinson' in 1889, we possess the Acts of the
Scillitan Martyrs in the original Latin. A.D. 180 is also
seen to have been the year of the trial described, and doubtless
the record was contemporary. We are concerned here only
with one answer made by the spokesman of the little band of
confessors. The proconsul asked, " What have you in your
case ? " Speratus replied, " Books and letters of Paul, a
righteous manl" The classification "books" and "epistles of
Paul " is at first sight perplexing. The explanation may be
that the idea of letters and of a book are distinct. A collection
of letters has not the character of such a continuous historical
narrative, or treatise, as would commonly have occupied a
single roll. St Paul's three longest letters would have filled
one roll, the remaining ten another, each of less size than one
which would have contained the Gospel according to St Luke,
or the Acts of the Apostles. Even, then, if the letters of Paul
were all inscribed in one or two rolls {libri), these might have
been described differently owing to the special character of
their contents. But the letters may also have been preserved
after another fashion, namely, either tied together in bundles
of leaves {fasciculi), or on tablets bound two or three together
{codicilliy. What the libri were, with which the epistulae Pauli are
coupled, it is, of course, impossible to say. The presump
tion, however, is that among them there were one or more
Gospels ; there may also have been Scriptures of the Old
Testament. Were these Scriptures in Greek or in Latin .? The latter
is, at least, not impossible. The evidence of Tertullian's works
a few years later is on the whole favourable to the view that,

' See Texts and Studies, i. 2, p. 106 ff., and cp. Zahn II. p. 992 ff.
^ " Saturninus proconsul dixit : Quae sunt res in capsa vestra? Speratus dixit:
Libri et epistulae Pauli viri justi."
' Cp. Birt, Antike Buchwesen, pp. 21 and 95.

Translation of the Scriptures into Latin i6i
when he wrote, a Latin Version of the New Testament, or of
a considerable portion of it, already existed'.
' Zahn (Kan. i, p. 51 ff.) has maintained that there was no Latin Bible in the
time of Tertullian (circ. A.D. 200). But the phenomena in Tertullian's writings, on
which he relies to prove this, may well be explained by supposing simply that no
Latin version had as yet become in any sense authorised through usage, and that,
as Tertullian himself knew Greek, he preferred in general to make his own transla
tions from the original. In addition to arguments for the existence of a Latin
Version which may be drawn from particular passages of Tertullian (for which see
H. A. A. Kennedy in Hastings' Diet, of Bible, ill. p. 55), there is the proba
bility that if those of his readers who knew only Latin were precluded from
consulting the Scriptures of the Old and New Covenant for themselves, this fact
would have appeared clearly somewhere from his language. He would have
declared to them the meaning of the original as one giving them information
about that which they could not learn by themselves, or he would have appealed
to such as did understand Greek for corroboration.

S. G.

CHAPTER V.
THE ASIATIC TRADITION IN REGARD TO THE
APOSTLE JOHN.
We shall presently have to consider the evidence supplied
by Irenaeus and other writers of the last two decades of the
second century and later as to the position held by the Four
Gospels in the Church at that time, and in the light of it to
review the various indications which we have met with of
their use in the earlier decades of the century. In that last
portion of the century the authority of the Gospel accg to
St John is recognised as heartily and undoubtingly as that
of the other three. It has a place in " the Fourfold Gospel,"
and much that may be said in regard to the significance of
this fact applies to all four alike. There are, however, certain
special questions in regard to the history of the reception of
the Fourth Gospel of which it will be most convenient to treat
before we attempt to form a more general estimate. These
are all connected more or less directly with the validity of
the tradition which comes to us, as it would seem, from the
Church of the province of Asia, to the effect that John the
Apostle resided and laboured there during his later years, and
there composed the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel.
In our own generation the truth of this whole tradition in
regard to the Apostle John has been and is denied. The
earlier impugners, indeed, of the authenticity of the Fourth
Gospel did not for the most part call in question the sub
stantial truth of the rest of the commonly accepted account
of the latter portion of St John's life. On the contrary, his
authorship of the Apocalypse, which presupposed intimate
relations with the Churches of the province of Asia, was a

The questions at issue 163
strong point in the Tiibingen theory. For this, they held,
proved the Jewish, Antipauline position of that Apostle ;
while they urged that the contrast between it and the Fourth
Gospel rendered it impossible to attribute the latter to him.
Others, too, of their objections against the Johannine author
ship of the Gospel derived at least part of their cogency from
the supposition that he did reside in Asia. At the present
time, however, those who deny to John, the son of Zebedee,
any part, or at least anything beyond a very indirect and
inconsiderable part, in the production of the Fourth Gospel,
usually dispute, also, his sojourn in Ephesus'.
It would involve much repetition, if we were to attempt to
consider separately the trustworthiness first of one and then
of another portion of the tradition, for the evidence applicable
to each is largely the same. But it will be necessary in
certain parts of our discussion, and in coming to our final
conclusions, to distinguish between the two positions which
have been indicated, that of those who deny only the
Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and that of
those who reject in toto the common tradition respecting the
latter years of St John. Though the former view has, I
believe, difficulties of its own, it may well seem still to many
to be the one which takes fullest account of the evidence as
a whole, while it is equally significant as regards the main
subject of our enquiry. For the question itself of the
Ephesine sojourn of St John must always derive its chief
' One of the first to throw doubt upon the residence of John in Ephesus
was Lutzelberger, Die kirchliche Tradition iiber den Apostel Johannes und
seine Schriften in ihrer Grundlosigkeit nachgewiesen (1840). See pp. 105, 149,
162 etc. Keim has disputed it in his Jesus of Nazara, I. pp. 218^226 (pub. in
German, 1867); also J. Scholten, Der Apostel Johannes in Kleinasien; and
Holtzmann, Einleit. in N. T. (ist ed. 1885) 3rd ed., pp. 470-5; H. Delff, Rabbi
Jesus von Nazareth (1889), p. 68 ff. ; Das Vierte Evangelium (1890), p. iff.;
Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannes in 5th ed. of Meyer's Comm. on New Test.
(1896), p. 41 ff., and Encycl. Bibl. i. p. 198; Harnack in Chron. I. (1897), as part
of his investigation into the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 656-80, to
be taken with pp. 320-40; Schmiedel, Encycl. Bibl. II. cols. 2552-3.
On the other hand the truth of this portion of the ecclesiastical tradition about
St John was maintained by Hilgenfeld, the last and one of the most open-minded
of the great critics of the Tubingen School, in his Einleit. in das N. T. (1875),
P- 395 ff-

164 Points to be considered
interest and importance from its connexion with that con
cerning his relation to the Gospel.
We will examine (i) the silence of the Sub-apostolic Age
in regard to the Apostle John; (2) the reference, or references,
to him by Papias, the only writer before Justin who names
him. Next (3) we will endeavour to ascertain what may be
known concerning "John the Elder," with whom, it is said, the
Apostle John was confused. Three subjects must after this
be considered which bear exclusively upon the question of
the relation of the Apostle John to the Gospel which bears
his name: viz. (4) the differences between it and the Apoca
lypse ; (5) Quartodecimanism; (6) the so-called " Alogi."
Thus far we shall be engaged in discussing facts which are
held to be inconsistent with the common tradition, and the
theory which is propounded to explain how it arose. We
shall then turn (7) to strictures upon the testimony of two of
the chief witnesses for the tradition, (a) Irenaeus, {b) Poly
crates ; and lastly (8) we will review the case as a whole.

(i) The silence of the Sub-apostolic Age.
I will enumerate the chief instances in which it is, or is
thought to be, strange that there should be no allusion to the
Apostle John, if he was, or had been, a prominent figure in
the Church in the province of Asia. It will be convenient, as
each in turn comes before us, that we should try to estimate
its exact force. But I do not forget that even if they, or
several of them, can be separately accounted for in a more
or less satisfactory manner, they may yet be weighty in
combination'. Those who hold that the Epistle to the Ephesians, the
Pastoral Epistles, and the Address to the Elders at Mi
letus in Acts XX., were composed in the last two decades
of the first century, may urge the absence in them of all
indications that one of the Apostles was still, or recently had
' Man makeU an jedem Einzelnen dieser Zeugen...Aber iiberwaltigend ist
doch ihr gemeinsames Schweigen etc. Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 470. The prin
ciple here indicated is one which needs to be remembered in other cases besides
the present one, and by critics of very diverse schools.

John not named by Clement or Ignatius 165
been, teaching at Ephesus. But even if it could be con
sidered proved that the documents in question ought to be
assigned to such a late time, the characteristic noted might
be due to the effort of the writers not to use language incon
sistent with their personation of St Paul.
We pass to the Epistle of Clement of Rome. Although he
was writing in the name of a Church, and to a Church, with
which the Apostle John had no connexion, he might have
been expected, it is said, to have alluded to such an inter
esting fact as the continuance in life still of one of the Twelve,
which could scarcely fail to be known to him. But it is
not unreasonable to suppose that, while the tradition as to
the long, life and later labours of St John was substanti
ally true, there may yet have been some exaggeration in
the representation that he lived " till the times of Trajan,"
that is, till two or three years later than the date at which
Clement was writing ; and even if he had died only a few
years before, there would have been no special reason for
Clement's referring to him.
The silence of the Epistles of Ignatius is a far more serious
difficulty. In writing to the Ephesians he expresses the
desire that he " may be found in the company of those
Christians of Ephesus who were ever of one mind with the
Apostles in the power of Jesus Christ'." St Paul and St John
may be more particularly in his mind. But as in writing to
the Romans he names Peter and PauP, why does he not here
name both Paul, the founder of the Church of Ephesus, and
also that venerable Apostle who, according to the belief
which we have under consideration, had lived and taught
there more recently and for a longer period .¦' In the im
mediate sequel he mentions Paul only. There was indeed a
special reason for referring to Paul, because Ignatius saw in
that Apostle's stay at Ephesus on his way to martyrdom a
parallel with his own case'. Nevertheless the notice of
St Paul might naturally have suggested one of St John.
' Ad Eph. ch. ir.
2 Ad Rom. ch. 4. "I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did. They were
apostles, I am a convict ; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour."
' Ad Eph. ch. 12.

1 66 John not named by Ignatius
We should have expected that appeals would have been
made to the teaching of both these Apostles in order to
confirm those warnings against errors concerning the Person
of Christ, and those exhortations to unity, of which Ignatius'
Epistle to the Ephesians and others of his Epistles are full.
The fact, however, that he does not use St John's authority
for this purpose cannot be pressed, for he does not use even
St Paul's name in this way. But at least some personal
reference to St John would have been natural in writing to
the Church at Ephesus. So too he might have been expected
to recall to Polycarp the close ties which bound him to the
Apostle John, and to remind the Smyrnaeans of the authority
which their bishop derived from this connexion. That Poly
carp himself in his short Epistle to the Philippians should
not speak of St John, in spite of the personal reasons he
might have for doing so, is not so surprising because the
Church which he was addressing had not come under
St John's influence.
It does not seem satisfactory to regard this early silence
respecting the Apostle John as merely accidental; and we
will presently consider whether it can be more or less reason
ably explained consistently with the supposition that the
common tradition is true. But it will be natural to defer
doing this until, near the close of this whole discussion,
we have assured ourselves that the evidence in favour of that
tradition is too strong to be set aside, and that a way must
be sought of reconciling thereto facts which seem to con
flict with it.

(2) The evidence of Papias.
Outside the New Testament Papias is the earliest writer
who names the Apostle John, and he is adduced as a witness
by those who call in question even the Ephesine sojourn.
Papias is alleged, in two recently recovered fragments of
later Greek ecclesiastical writers, to have stated in the second
book of his Expositions that the Apostle John, like his brother
James, was slain by the Jews. If there were reason to think
that Papias really said this, it would still be permissible to

The evidence of Papias as to John 167
doubt whether he meant, as he is assumed to have done, that
John was put to death in Jerusalem. The Jews even in
Gentile cities seem often to have instigated persecution
against the Christians, and they might not unnaturally be
described by a Christian writer as the authors of a martyrdom
thus brought about. It is most probable, however, that the
statement in question has been wrongly imputed to Papias.
One of the writers who credit him with it is Georgius
Hamartolus, a chronicler of the tenth century. At first he
was the only one known to have done so', and so long as
this was the case it was natural to suppose that in the
sentence in question the text of Georgius was corrupt. This
seemed the more likely because in the same context, without
making any attempt to reconcile the contradictory accounts,
he refers to a passage of Origen in which the exile of
John in Patmos is coupled with the martyrdom of James ^
Now, however, it has been rendered probable that Georgius,
in reporting Papias' statement, is copying an older writer.
For the same assertion in regard to Papias has been dis
covered in a collection of extracts, many of which (it would
seem) were taken from Philip of Side, a Church historian
who flourished in the early part of the fifth century'. So far
then, the case appears to be strengthened for attributing the
statement in question to Papias. Philip of Side, however, is
a most unsatisfactory witness. Both Socrates and Photius
give us a very unfavourable view of him as a writer', and some
examples of his quite exceptional aptitude for making the
gravest blunders are known to us°. And it does not seem pos
sible to suppose that he can in the present instance have truly
represented Papias. The latter's book had in all probability
been read by Irenaeus, as it certainly had by Eusebius, and
doubtless by many others. A statement by him to the effect
1 Nolle first published the passage of Georgius, TheoL Quartalschrift, XLIV.
(1862), p. 466.
2 See Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. p. 211 ff. Harnack still adheres to this
view, Chron. I. p. 666.
' Found by de Boor and pub. in Texte u. Untersuch. (1889), v. 2, p. 167 ff.
* Socrates, H. E. vil. 27, Photius, Cod. 35.
' See Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 95. Neander's opinion of him is quoted
in Diet, of Christ. Bio. IV. p. 356.

1 68 The evidence of Papias as to John
that John, like James, had met with martyrdom at the hands
of the Jews, the great enemies of Christianity, if it did not
modify tradition, as it would most likely have done, mu.st at
least have attracted attention and been commented on'.
We have yet to notice the reference to the Apostle John
in a genuine fragment of Papias. In the well-known passage
from the Introduction to his Expositions he writes^: "If
perchance anyone came who had followed the teaching of
the elders, I questioned them regarding the words of the
elders, what Andrew, or what Peter said, or Philip, or
Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the
disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder
John, the disciples of the Lord, say." It is remarked' that no
special prominence is assigned to John the Apostle by this
bishop of Hierapolis, on the confines of the region where John
is said to have taught. The order of the list, from whatever
point of view it is regarded, is a somewhat strange one. It
is at least possible that John and Matthew may be con
joined because they were evangelists. And this may explain
also their being placed last. Papias is referring here to his
gleanings from the oral teaching of the Apostles in regard to
the words and deeds of Christ. John and Matthew, for the
very reason that they had embodied their testimony in
writing, were less important than the rest for the particular
purpose of which he is speaking here — the illustration of the
written " oracles " by matter orally handed down.

(3) John the Elder.
There is not a particle of evidence that the character and
circumstances and work of "John the Elder" could have
suggested some of the chief elements in the tradition regardino-
John the Apostle, which we are discussing. It is not by any
means clear that he even resided in Asia, and there is no
ground whatever for thinking that he was a man of com
manding personality and influence.
' Cp. Harnack (ib.) who uses substantially the same argument.
''¦ Ap. Eus. H. E. III. xxxix. 4.
' E.g. by Keim, ib. p. 219.

John the Elder 169
Eusebius says that Papias had heard this John and
Aristion, though he had not heard the Apostles, but this
appears to be an inference on the part of Eusebius from the
change to the present tense in the last clause of the sentence,
in which Papias speaks of the sources of information which
be had used. The construction of the sentence, however,
plainly shews that Papias does not claim, there at all events,
himself to have heard John the Elder and Aristion, though
the different tense employed in their case seems to shew
that they, but not the Apostles, were alive at the time
referred to. Eusebius himself appears to be doubtful about
his interpretation of the words, for he adds "At any rate
{r/ovv) he often refers to them '' (Aristion and the Elder John)
" by name, and quotes also their traditions in his book." As
Eusebius felt a special interest in John the Elder, having
suggested that he might be the author of the Apocalypse, we
may safely conclude that, if Papias had spoken more definitely
of his own connexion with him, or had recorded anything
about him, Eusebius would have told us so. The fact,
probably, was that Eusebius, being familiar with the descrip
tion of Papias as a hearer of John the Apostle, assumed, in
order to explain this, that he must have been a hearer of
some John. He saw also, that there was more ground for
connecting him with John the Elder than with the Apostle,
and he preferred this in order that the latter might not be
made responsible for Papias' extravagant Millenarianism and
other puerilities.
It should also be observed that there is nothing in Papias's
language to shew that John the Elder was a man of special
eminence. He is named only in company with Aristion and
in no sense preferred over him'-
So far as Eusebius' account of- Papias' work enables us
to judge, the only points of resemblance between John the
Elder and the traditional representation of John the Apostle,
were (i) that the former, as well as Aristion, was known as
' lb. §§ 4, 7, 14. If I was inclined to use an argumentum ad hominem, I
might point out to those who make so much of the order in which different
persons are named in some other cases, that John the Elder is mentioned after
Aristion in each instance.

I70 John the Elder
a fxa6rjTrj<i tov Kvpiov, though in their case this can have
denoted only that they wer? followers of Jesus when He was
on earth, not that they were of the number of the Twelve,
and (2) that John the Elder, as also Aristion, would seem to
have lived till near the end of the First Century, if not longer,
since he seems to have been still alive when Papias had made
enquiries about his teaching'. It is not, indeed, improbable
that John the Elder may have been one of those whom
Papias adduced as authorities for Millenarian doctrine ; and
so far there may seem to be reason for connecting him with
the composition of the Apocalypse. But, on the other hand,
no saying or sentiment in the pages of Irenaeus or any other
writer, which there is any ground for tracing to this John, and
nothing that we are told about him, gives the impression that
he was a man of the intellectual and moral and spiritual
force required for exercising a commanding influence over
others and creating a body of disciples, and which could have
enabled him to inspire the production of the Apocalypse, —
not to say of the Fourth Gospel and the First Johannine
Epistle, with the thoughts and character of which his teaching
and testimony had not, so far as we know, the slightest
affinity. There is one other notice which may seem to point to the
presence of John the Elder in Asia. Dionysius, Bishop of
Alexandria, in the middle of the third century, when con
tending that the Apocalypse was not by John the Apostle
but by some other John, mentions a report that there are two
tombs in Ephesus, each said to be John's^. It is Dionysius'
intention to suggest that one of these tombs might be that
of the Apostle and Evangelist, the other that of the John of
the Apocalypse. He does not, however, himself identify the
latter with Papias' John the Elder. Afterwards Eusebius
seeks to improve Dionysius' theory by doing so. But a
story so vague and poorly supported, as this of the two
tombs at Ephesus, can have no weight.
A word must be added as to the use of the title "the Elder"
in the addresses of the Second and Third Epistles of St John.
' This follows from the use of the present.
^ Ap. Eus. H. E. VII. xxv. 1 6.

The Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse 171
This may seem to indicate some association of ideas, after
wards lost, between the persons of the Elder and the Apo.stle
who had the name of John. But it should be remembered
that the title of Elder was not an uncommon one, and was
one moreover which could be assumed even by an Apostle'.

(4) The contrast between the Fourth Gospel
and the Apocalypse.
The difficulty that was felt even in ancient times in
supposing the Apocalypse to be by the author of the Fourth
Gospel, has just come before us, and we must now notice the
objection that in modern times has been founded on the
contrast between the two works.
That the Apostle John was the author of the Apocalypse
is, it is urged, attested by the evidence of Justin, which is
earlier by twenty or thirty years than any which can be
produced for his authorship of the Gospel. But, it is argued,
if the Apocalypse is his the Gospel cannot be, owing to the
widely different character of the two worksl This is a
question of internal evidence, and all that I can here do is to
make a few general remarks upon the subject. It is to be
noted that a new trend of opinion has shewn itself of late as
to the relation of the two compositions. We used to be told
that they represented the two opposite poles of feeling and be
lief among early Christians, the one narrowly Jewish, the other
universalistic and even more Pauline than St Paul. But more
recently some critics who have denied that either was by the
Apostle John, or even the result of his teaching and influence,
' I Pet. V. X.
"^ Some, while adhering to the belief that the Fourth Gospel was by the Apostle
John, have held, or have suspected, that the Apocalypse was not. Bleek may be
given as an instance. (See his Lectures on the Apoc. ch. 3, § 3, p. 12 iff. Eng.
Trans.) Recently this position has been maintained by E. C. Selwyn, in The
Christian Prophets, p. 223 ff. The Tubingen School, on the other hand, while
they asserted strongly that the Apocalypse could not be by the same writer as the
Gospel, were inclined, as I have said, to regard the former as the work of the
Apostle John. For their view I may refer to Hilgenfeld, Einleit., p. 406 and
S. Davidson, Introd. I. p. 240 ff.

1/2 The Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse
have been impressed with many affinities between them, and
have held that they proceeded from the same school', or even
that the same hand can be traced in them^- The view has
also been propounded, and has found a good deal of favour,
that the Apocalypse is of composite origin'; and in connexion
with this there has been a disposition to revise the date (A.D.
68 — 70) to which it was in the middle part of the nineteenth
century, and till a few years ago, commonly referred alike
by many conservative critics and by those of an opposite
tendency'. If it contains a variety of elements, the end of
Domitian's reign, the time to which tradition assigjis it, may
be given as that when it was put forth in its present shape;
while at the same time marks of an earlier date in parts of
the book can be suitably explained.
The subject, then, of the character and composition of the
Apocalypse is evidently an intricate one. Any results that
can be obtained with regard to it must be taken into account
in judging of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, owing to
the close association of the two works in tradition. But it
seems more than doubtful whether, in the light of a fuller
' Bousset, Die Offend. Joh. pp. 50-1, 206-8 and Encycl. Bibl. i. p. 199 {17).
""¦ Harnack, Chron. I. 675, n. i.
' Theories, as to the composite character of the Apocalypse began to be put
forward in 1882. A succinct account of them may be seen in Bousset, Die Off.
Joh. p. 127 ff.
' To many writers who defended the Apostolic authorship of both works this
date for the Apocalypse approved itself both because it seemed to agree with
various indications in the book itself, and because it was thus possible to suppose
that there had been a considerable interval between its composition and that of
the Gospel, and so to explain more easily the differences between them. Thus
Westcott writes, "The crisis of the Fall of Jerusalem explains the relation of the
Apocalypse to the Gospel. In the Apocalypse the 'coming' of Christ was
expected, and painted in figures; in the Gospel the 'coming' is interpreted"
(Proleg. to Com. on St John, p. Ixxxvii.). Again, Salmon, "The opinion of many
critics, orthodox as well as sceptical, now tends to reverse the doctrine of older
writers which made the Apocalypse much the later book of the two, and to give
it, on the contrary, ten, perhaps twenty years of greater antiquity than the
Gospel." In the context Dr Salmon uses this conclusion to explain the dis
appearance of solecisms in the latter which abound in the former (Introd. pp. 219
-20). See also B. Weiss, Introd. II. p. 364. For the judgment of one whose
point of view was different, see Hilgenfeld, Einleit. pp. 448 — 452.
As regards the return more recently to a later date and the reasons given for it,
see Harnack, 1. c. p. 245, Weizsiicker, Apost. Age, Eng. trans. 11. p. 180 f.,
Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 295 — 302.

Quartodecimanism 173
enquiry, the comparison of the two will be felt to have that
decisive effect in excluding the possibility of any connexion
between them, which not a few have thought that it had.

(5) Quartodecimanism.
In the differences regarding Paschal observance which
occupied much attention during the latter part of the Second
Century, the Asiatic Christians appealed to the example of
the Apostle John as an authority for their own Quartodeciman
practice. It is well known to all who are in any degree
acquainted with the history of controversy on questions of
New Testament criticism that this alleged practice of the
Apostle has been urged as a reason for holding that he cannot
have been the author of the Fourth Gospel. This contention
cannot rightly be passed over here, and must now engage our
attention. It is true that the Paschal Dispute in the early
Church occupies a much less prominent place at present in
discussions regarding the early history of Christianity and the
Authorship of the Fourth Gospel than it did during the middle
part of the last century. Nevertheless, the objection is still
made' that the representation of the order of events connected
with the Passion in that Gospel could not have been given by
one who himself kept the Christian Passover on the fourteenth
of Nisan. Even if there were not this reason for paying
attention to the history of Quartodecimanism, we might well
be induced to do so by the interest and importance attaching
to an enquiry into the origin and character of an institution
belonging to a period in the life of the Early Church which is
in many respects specially obscure^
' Even by some of those who deny that John the Apostle resided in Ephesus,
e.g. Schmiedel in Encycl. Bibl. il. cols. 2552-3. See also Harnack, Chron. I.
p. 670, 11. 1. He holds that there is something in the objection, though not so
much as Baur, Hilgenfeld etc. thought. He refrains from going into the matter
himself. ^ The two most important writings on the subject are Der Paschastreit, by
A. Hilgenfeld (i860) and De Controversiis Paschalibus by E. Schiirer (1869),
published also in German in Zeitschrift fiir d. Hist. Theol. (1870), pp. 182 — 284.
I shall refer to the German as the later and as shewing marks of revision. I
turn to English writers on the subject. It has been treated by S. Davidson in

174 Quartodecimanism
It may assist the reader in following my argument, if
I first state three principal views which have been taken of
the rationale of Quartodecimanism. I shall in doing so group
together writers who in the main agree, and shall forbear for
the most part from signalising differences that appear to be
non-essential. I. It has been held that Christians who observed the
fourteenth of Nisan did so because Christ had eaten the
Passover with His disciples on the day before He suffered,
and as a commemoration of that farewell- meal. Bretschneider
asserted that this was the ground on which the day was first
kept, and that the institution was traced by the Asiatic
Christians to John and another of the Apostles, and he pointed
out that the statements of the Fourth Gospel were not in
accord with this'. The suggestion thus thrown out was taken
up by the critics of the Tubingen School. They combined it,
however, with their larger theory of the rise and growth of the
Christian Church. In the Paschal controversy which first
comes before us in the latter half of the second century they
saw a survival from the conflicts engendered by the wide-
reaching and penetrating difference between the Jewish
Christianity of the Twelve (including St John), and the
accordance with the principles of the Tubingen School in his Introd. to N. T.
II. pp. 369—386, 2nd ed. 1882; also somewhat more fully and with more inde
pendence, though to much the same effect, by J. J. Tayler in the Character of the
Fourth Gospel (1867), chh. 9 and 10.
Dr Salmon, writing from quite a different point of view, has devoted a lecture to
it in his Introd. to N.T. (ist ed. 1885), ch. 15. He has not stated and ex
amined the evidence in much detail; but he seems to have taken on the whole
what I believe to be the right view of it (see below, p. 176, n. i). More recently
Dr James Drummond has published an elaborate essay on The Fourth Gospel and
the Quartodecimans in the American Journal of Theology (July, 1897), pp. 601-57.
But I fear this is not likely to be easily accessible to many English students. I
think also that Dr Drummond has made the subject needlessly perplexing by
encumbering his discussion of it to an unnecessary extent with secondary con
siderations, and especially by deferring the examination of the most important
pieces of evidence to the end of his article.
It may be well to mention that Luthardt's St John the author of the Fourth
Gospel coxA&YR% a brief section on The Passover Controversy (Eng. trans, p. 154 ff.)
based on Schiirer's treatise referred to above.
' In his Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Joannis Apostoli indole et
origine (1820), pp. 109 — no, Bretschneider makes grave misstatements; but it
does not seem to be worth while to notice them at the present day.

Quartodecimanism 175
teaching of the Apostle Paul. They maintained that the
opposition to Quartodecimanism was, originally at least,
inspired by the conviction that the Law was fulfilled and
abrogated in Christ ; and that the Fourth Gospel was written
in the interests of the party who insisted on this truth. In it,
so it was asserted, the older Synoptic tradition was remoulded
so as to make it appear that the Last Supper had not been
the true legal Passover, and that Christ Himself had been
offered as the true Paschal Lamb'.
2. To combat this view a totally different explanation of
the significance of Quartodecimanism was given, which has
found wide acceptance. The usage, it was said, had nothing
to do with Jewish feeling or prejudices ; on the contrary, it
was itself directly founded upon the recognition that Christ is
the true Paschal Lamb ; the fourteenth was kept in com
memoration of His death ; and thus, instead of contradicting,
the observance was peculiarly in harmony with the narrative
of the Gospel according to St John^
3. It was maintained by some from an early period in
the controversy that, while Quartodecimanism was a con
tinuation of Jewish custom in Churches where believers in
Christ of Jewish nationality were especially numerous, it did
not imply a widely different conception of Christianity from
that held by other Christians. For Christian Jews, indeed,
the observance of the Passover-day necessarily had a new
meaning ; but they did not keep it specifically as the anni
versary either of the Institution of the Last Supper or of
the Death of Christ. Rather it was a Commemoration of
the Divine Redemption typified in the ancient Passover and
' The Tiibingen theory was first put forth by Schwegler in his Montanismus
(1841), p. 191 ff., and Baur in TheoL Jahrb. for 1844, p. 638 f, etc. The best
exposition of it is that in Hilgenfeld's Paschastreit. Kenan adopts the same view
of Quartodecimanism, L'Bglise Chretienne, p. 445 f.; Marc Aurile, p. 194 f.; but
apparently he does not consider it necessarily inconsistent with the Johannine
authorship of the Fourth Gospel.
"^ This view was urged more particularly by 'Weitzel, Die Christliche Pas-
chafeier (1848) and Steiz, in Stud. u. Krit. (1856, 1857), and in Herzog's Real-
Encycl. 2nd ed. xi. p. 27 ff. Lightfoot alludes to this view in Essays on Sup.
ReL pp. 17, 245; Ap. Frs, I. p. 625, in a manner which might lead the reader to
suppose that there was no other alternative to the Tiibingen one.

176 Quartadecimanism
now accomplished in Christ, in which the thought of the Last
Supper and of the Death on the Cross and the Resurrection
were all included.
In connexion with the advocacy of this view the name
of the great Biblical scholar and exegete Friedrich Bleek
deserves to be specially mentioned'- More recently the
treatise of Em. Schiirer, whose investigation of the subject
was carried out in a thoroughly historical spirit, has given it
powerful support and done much to commend it. To the
present writer it seems to be proved.
There is on this view no inherent incompatibility between
Quartodecim.an practice and the chronology of the Passion
assumed in the Fourth Gospel. And accordingly the precise
objection to the Johannine authorship of that Gospel which
the Tiibingen School founded on Quartodecimanism falls to
the ground. Nevertheless it will appear that the Quarto
decimans whom we best know — those of the latter half of the
second century and afterwards — did as a matter of fact con
tend that Jesus ate the Passover on the 14th ; and this is a
point to whith defenders of the authenticity of the Gospel
accg to St John have commonly paid too little attention.
We must now proceed to examine the evidence; and it
will be expedient, I think, to do so somewhat fully, because
' See 'BXeek's Beitrdge zur Evangelien-Krttik (1846), pp. 38 f. and 156 — 166;
also Introd. to N.T. §§ 74, 75, Eng. Trans, pp. 204 — 210. Bleek has gone into
the question much more fully than any of the other writers mentioned by Schurer,
pp. 185-6, unless it be van Leeuwen, whose essay I have not had an opportunity
of consulting. I do not think I have misrepresented Schiirer in classing him with
Bleek in spite of the distinction he makes, p. 275, and more clearly in the Latin
form of his treatise. He appears to me to have misapprehended somewhat Bleek's
position. Luthardt 1. c. follows Schiirer; so does Ezra Abbot, Fourth Gospel, p. 6;
Xah-a, Kan. 1. pp. 179 — 192. Drummond l.t. arrives at the same conclusions in
the main; and Salmon I.e. likewise takes to some extent the same view. For the
chief point on which Drummond differs from Schurer, see below, p. 186, n. i.
I have passed over in the above classification of views those apologists who
virtually accepted the account of the meaning of Quartodecimanism given by the
Tubingen School, but argued that it had no bearing on the authenticity of
St John's Gospel because there was no discrepancy between that Gospel and
the Synoptics in regard to the days of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. Few
will be prepared to adopt this position now. Students at the present time are
most likely to meet with it in Schaff's Church History, Div. i. § 62.

The letter of Polycrates to Victor in
it has been comparatively little brought to the notice of
the majority of English students. Let us turn first tb the
quotation which Eusebius makes from the letter addressed
by Polycrates, the elderly Bishop of Ephesus, to Victor
and the Church of the Romans'. "We therefore," he says,
"keep the day without tampering with it (dppaBiovp'yrjTov)
neither adding to it nor taking from it {fi'ijre irpoa-TiOevTei;
firjTe a<j)aipov/ji,evoi)." He then enumerates some of the
saintly dead from apostolic times onward in whose footsteps
they are walking. " These all," he proceeds, " observed the
day of the fourteenth of the Passover according to the Gospel,
going beyond in no respect {/^rjBev TrapeK^alvovTe^), but follow
ing according to the rule of the faith." Seven of his own
kinsmen, he adds, had been bishops, and " they all kept the
day when the people (o \a6^, the Jews) removed the leaven."
He has, moreover, conversed with brethren from all parts of
the world and considered every passage of Scripture that
bears on the subject {iraaav a'yuav lypa^Tjv BieX,rjXv6a)<;).
Therefore he is not to be frightened by threatening language,
"for greater men than I have said that 'we ought to obey God
rather than men.' "
The general sense seems plain. He maintains that the
observance of the fourteenth day, to which he and the portion
of the Church to which he belongs confine themselves, is of
Divine, and all else — alike preparatory fasts of more or fewer
days' duration and the prolongation of the fast to the following
Sunday — is of human institution. He must, then, have felt
that there was force still in the commandment of the Law, as
regards the day to be kept. It could not be maintained that
in the Gospel, taken by itself, the observance of the fourteenth
of Nisan was prescribed rather than, for instance, that of the
sixteenth or seventeenth, one or other of which (according to
the view of the chronological order of events adopted) v^ould
be the anniversary of the Resurrection, or than that of both, or
of a period embracing both. When he asserts that it is
" according to the Gospel," he must mean that the Gospel in
some way confirms the ancient ordinance, so far at least as
the day is concerned, which is all that is in question. In what
' Ap. Eus. H. E. v. 24.
s. G. 12

178 The letter of Polycrates to Victor
way he supposed it to do this does not appear from the
passage before us. Those to whom he wrote would no doubt
have caught his meaning at once, or the context if we had
more of it might have made it plain. On the ground of other
evidence it may presently seem probable to us that, believing
Christ to have partaken of the Passover at the legal Jewish
time, he claimed His example as sanctioning the practice he
was defending.
He also says that this observance is " according to the rule
of the faith." These words again point most probably to the
reverence which he considered was still due to the Old Testa
ment precept. We may most naturally imagine that he has
in view Gnostic depreciation of the Old Testament, such for
instance as that of Marcion, by whom those expressions
which he left standing in his Gospel respecting Christ's
celebration of the Passover with His disciples were explained
as referring solely to the new rite which He instituted, in
order that the Saviour might not seem in any way to
countenance the La.w. If so, the allusion to "the rule of the
faith " tends to support the explanation just now mentioned
of the words " according to the Gospel'."
But whatever may be doubtful in these interpretations we
have at least gathered that the practice of the Quartodecimans
involved a reference to the ancient Law. Even by themselves
the celebration of the Christian Passover on the fourteenth
was viewed as a continuation of the Jewish Passover ; and it
is rendered the more probable that this is the true historical
account of its origin. Old associations could have, and we see
reason to think largely had, determined the observance of the
day, though Christian associations had been grafted upon it.
It had not been expressly, as it were, reconsecrated to com
memorate a particular moment in the Gospel history, however
great. To have learned this will be the clue to the removal of
more than one difficulty.
Into the broader question of the use of the Old Testament
in the early Church it is not our business to enter, but in
passing I njay remark that Anti-quartodecimans, too, could
' See Epiph. Panar. xm. § 61, and cp. on the point Hilgenfeld, Paschastreit,
pp. 202-4.

Hippolytus on the Quartodecimans 179
apply the Mosaic Law in support of their own practice ; an
instance of this will present itself When, therefore, Polycrates
says that he is not afraid because " he has gone through every
Scripture,'' he probably means that he is prepared to meet
arguments that may be urged against him from the whole
range of Scripture, as well as to adduce therefrom more
convincing ones on his own side.
We will defer noticing the quotations in Eusebius from a
letter written to Victor by Irenaeus near the same time, and
will take next three fragments, which have been preserved to
us in the Paschal Chronicle, from lost treatises on the Paschal
question. In this work, composed A.D. 630', or soon after,
the writer — after he has demonstrated from a passage of
Peter of Alexandria that till the reign of Vespasian the Jews
had employed right principles in fixing the day, though they
had not always done so since, — lays down the proposition
that Christ did not, in the year in which He suffered, eat the
paschal lamb according to the Jewish Law, being Himself
the true paschal lamb. This, he says, is evident both from
the Gospels and the writings of the Fathers. According to
the Gospels, the Jews were looking forward to eat the Pass
over when Jesus was seized and tried, so that He could not
have partaken of the Paschal lamb if they kept to the true
time, as, he maintains, they did in that age. Of testimony
to the same effect by holy teachers of the Church there is,
he declares, abundance, and by way of example he proceeds
to quote passages from three early writers ^ viz. Hippolytus,
Apollinaris, and Clement of Alexandria. These all bear on
the question of Quartodecimanism, though they are not
quoted on that account in the Paschal Chronicle. We will
take them in the order in which they are there cited, though
it is not the chronological one.
Hippolytus's meaning is the more certain because there is
no doubt as to the opinions which he held on the points in
dispute. The first passage quoted is taken from his Com
pendium against all Heresies. " I perceive, therefore," he says,
"that the matter is one of contentiousness, for he" (the writer,
' See art. by Salmon, Diet, of Chr. Bio. I. p. 510.

i8o The fragment of Apollinaris
no doubt, to whose treatise he is replying) " speaks thus :
' Christ kept the Passover then on the day and suffered,
wherefore I also ought so to do as the Lord did.' " " But,"
continues Hippolytus, "he has gone astray through not
knowing that at the season at which Christ suffered he did
not eat the legal passover. For he was the Passover that
was foretold arid perfected on the appointed day."
It is manifest from this extract that some Quartodecimans
at all events held that Christ ate the Passover on the fourteenth
of Nisan and was crucified on the fifteenth ; and that they
appealed to His example as an authority for themselves.
Another fragment is added from a special treatise by Hippo
lytus on the Paschal question. This need not, however, now
detain us. But it will be well to compare the brief section on
Quartodecimanism in his extant treatise on Heresies'. "Other
persons," he there writes, " who are of contentious nature, in
point of knowledge uninstructed, and in disposition quarrel
some, maintain that we ought to keep the passover on the
fourteenth day of the first month, according to the command
ment of the Law, on whatsoever day of the week it may fall."
His reply is that the commandment was given to the Jews,
who were destined to be the destroyers of the true passover,
which was to be transferred to the Gentiles and to be under
stood by faith, and not any longer observed in the letter ; and
further that those who thus kept a single precept of the Law
rendered themselves liable to all its demands according to the
principle laid down by St Paul. He adds that the persons
referred to accept in all other respects the doctrine delivered
by the Apostles to the Church.
We turn to the language attributed in the Paschal Chronicle
to Apollinaris. " In his treatise on the Passover," it is said,
"he taught similarly, speaking thus: — 'There are, therefore,
those who are contentious about these matters from ignorance,
a defect which may be pardoned ; for ignorance is not matter
for accusation, but requires instruction. And they say, that
on the fourteenth the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples,
and himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread,
and they argue that Matthew so speaks as they have supposed ;
' Refut. vill. i8.

Clement on Quartodecimanism i8i
wherefore their opinion is out of harmony with the Law, and
the Gospels according to them appear to be at variance.' "
And again, " the fourteenth is the true passover of the Lord,
the great sacrifice, the servant of God in place of the lamb,
who was bound, who bound the strong man, whose holy side
was pierced, who poured out from his side the two cleansing
elements water and blood, who was buried on the day of the
passover, when the stone was placed upon the tomb."
Different views have been taken of the practical intention
of this language. We should have been glad if the position
of Apollinaris in regard to the Paschal question had been
defined for us by some contemporary, or nearly contemporary,
statement. We have not even any reference older than that
of the Paschal Chronicle to shew that he took any part in its
discussion. But it would be probable that he must have
intervened in it, even if we had not the fragments which have
been handed down as his. For we know that a controversy
on the subject broke out in Laodicea, close to his own city
Hierapolis, about the time of his episcopate. Melito, Bishop
of Sardis, was led thereby to write his two treatises on the
Pa.ssover'- The latter was unquestionably a Quartodeciman ''-
Some have held that Apollinaris, too, was on this side. We
will consider this point more fully later on ; for the moment
we will observe only that the similarity between his line of
thought and that in the passages of Hippolytus would suggest
that they are both arguing against the same opinions.
A quotation follows from a work of Clement of Alexandria
on the Passover. This is no doubt the work on that subject
which Eusebius mentions and which, as he tells us, was called
forth, according to the statement of Clement himself, by the
writings of Melito'. In the pass'age preserved in the Paschal
Chronicle, Clement asserts that the question "where wilt thou
that we prepare .' ", which the disciples asked, referred to
the TrpoeToifjiaa-ia, the " preparation," especially the consecra
tion of the unleavened cakes ; that is to say, it did not imply
that the hour for eating the passover was already at hand;
' See Euseb. H. E. iv. xxvi. 3.
" See allusion by Polycrates, ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxiv. 5, 6.
•* Eus. H. E. IV. xxvi. 4.

I82

Origen on Quartodecimanism

the feet-washing described by John was a kind of preparation.
Christ was in point of fact crucified on the fourteenth, " being
himself the Passover auspiciously sacrificed " by the Jews.
" By this fitting together of the days all the Scriptures are in
harmony, and the Gospels are in accord, and the Resurrection
too bears witnfess to the same effect, for he rose on the third
day, which was the first day of the weeks of harvest, the day
on which it was appointed by the Law that the priest should
offer the sheaf." It is reasonable to infer from this passage
that Melito the Quartodeciman, whose treatise had provoked
Clement to write, had argued that Christ partook of the
Passover on the fourteenth and was crucified on the fifteenth,
as those did whom Apollinaris and Hippolytus have in
view. We pass on to the utterances of two very eminent men, of
a somewhat later time. They, too, are Anti-quartodecimans
and they deal with the same point, but in a different manner
from the foregoing, and also each differently from the other,
which is of interest in respect to the history of exegesis.
Origen in commenting on Mt. xxvi. 17, instead of explaining
away the reference to the preparation for the Passover, as
Clement does, shews plainly that he believes that Jesus ate it
on the fourteenth of Nisan. He proceeds : — " According to
these things perchance one of the unskilful, falling into Ebion-
ism, will, on the ground that Jesus celebrated the passover in
the body in the Jewish manner, demand the observance in like
manner of the first day of unleavened bread and the passover,
saying, ' that it is fitting for us as imitators of Christ to do as
he did ' ; not considering that Jesus, when the fulness of time
had come and he had been sent, was made of a woman, was
made under the Law, not that he might leave those under the
Law who were under it, but that he might lead them forth
from it. If then he came in order to lead those forth who
were under the Law, how much more unfitting is it that those
' rai^TT; rtDj' r\pepwv rrj dKpi§elq, aX ypa(pal rraoai (Tvp.<f>wvovai Kal rd evayyiXia
avvifSd- iiripaprvpu Si Kal -rj dvdoraair rij 70D1' rpLr-ri dvicrrrt ^pipq....iv rj Kal rb
Spdypa vevopodir-fjro TrpooeveyKelv rbv lepia.
This is the instance referred to above, p. 179, of an appeal to the Mosaic
Law on the Anti-quartodeciman side.

Eusebius on Quartodecimanism 183
should come within the sphere of the Law, who before had
been outside its pale'."
Eusebius in a treatise on the Passover written subse
quently to the Council of Nicaea, of which a portion has been
preserved ^ argues with those who were reluctant to obey the
decree of the Council concerning uniformity in the time of
keeping Easter. Now it cannot, indeed, be assumed that
such persons were Quartodecimans. A new point had arisen
since the days of the first Paschal controversy, namely,
the question whether Christians were right in depending
upon the proclamation of the Paschal Moon by Jewish
authority, or should not rather ascertain it by their own
calculations. Before the time of the Council of Nicaea the
Churches of Rome and Alexandria and (doubtless under their
influence) those of the West generally and Asia Minor had
adopted systems for determining the time, which they believed
to be more trustworthy than the methods employed by the
Jews, on whose calculations the Churches of Northern Syria
and the more distant East still, for the most part, depended'
Quartodecimanism cannot have dropped out of sight altogether,
but it would seem that the other question just referred to was
the one most present to the mind of the Council. Con
sequently in any merely general reference to its decree and
the duty of conformity thereto, there might be room for doubt
as to what precisely is in the mind of the writer.
' Dr Drummond seems to me to misinterpret this remark when he writes: —
" the people who are corrected fall into Ebionism, a reproach which was not
brought against the Quartodecimans " (1. c, p. 638). Surely Origen only means
that to make so much of a commandment of the Law is virtually to fall into
Ebionism. Further Dr Drummond is clearly not justified in saying with regard
to this passage : — "there is no allusion to the peculiarity of the Quartodecimans.
The question turns not on the day of observance but on the manner of observance."
^ See De Paschate, §§ 8 — 12 ap. Mai, Patrum Nova Bibliotheca, iv. pp. 214 — 6.
' M. Duchesne drew attention to the evidence for this in the Revue des
Questions Historiques, vol. xxviil. 1880. He seems to me, however, to go too
far when he maintains that this was the only Paschal question which occupied the
Council of Nicaea, Quartodecimanism having ceased to be important. He has
overlooked the passage of Eusebius now to be considered, as well as other
evidence that both were included, and has failed to recognise the natural
connexion between the two points. I must add that M. Duchesne's treatment of
the subject of Quartodecimanism in this paper is unsatisfactory, but it is not his
main purpose to deal with it.

184 Eusebius on Quartodecimanism
It is evident, however, that Eusebius in the passage which
I am about to quote has the scruples of Quartodecimans
mainly in view. He notices the appeal to the Saviour's own
act which, more than once before, we have found them making.
Someone, he observes, may say that it is written, " on the first
day of the unleavened bread the disciples came and said, Where
wilt thou that we prepare the Passover for thee to eat ? and he
sent them to a certain man and commanded them to say, I
keep the Passover at thy house." Now there would be no point
in insistence on this by one who did not keep the fourteenth
day, but who simply took the day which the Jews declared to
be the fourteenth as the starting-point from which to reckon.
But let us also note Eusebius' reply, (i) He urges
that this statement taken from the Gospels does not convey
a commandment, but is the account of an occurrence at
the time of Our Saviour's Passion ; and that it is one
thing to give a narrative of what happened in the past, quite
a different one to legislate for after times ; (2) he accepts
like Origen the view suggested by the Synoptic account, that
Christ did eat the Passover at the legal time, but he contends
that He did not eat it at the same time as the Jews (more
particularly the Chief Priests and the Scribes) in that year
did, for that they deferred eating it in order that they might
accomplish His death. The Quartodecimans, therefore, — this
seems to be the argument — do not really follow His example,
even though they intend to do so, for they celebrate the
Passover at the same time as the Jews, whose reckoning is no
longer to be trusted. (3) He also in the context dwells much
on the thought that Christians in a sense celebrate the
Passover all through the year on every Lord's day ; and
though he does not expressly apply this consideration to the
question of Quartodecimanism, it is plainly not unconnected
therewith. Eusebius was writing shortly after the Council of Nicaea.
From this time forward the position of those who still adhered
to Quartodecimanism became more and more sectarian. As
regards the evidence which comes to us from the period
during which it was dying out, we need only observe that in
part, like the interesting fragment of a letter of Athanasius to

The position of Apollinaris 185
Epiphanius', it confirms the impression which the earlier
evidence is fitted to produce, as to what the points in dispute
had been, and that in so far as it does not, like some state
ments in Epiphanius's own section on the subject in his work
on Heresies^ it is not such as to render a revision of that
impression necessary.
Now those who have maintained that the essence of the
Quartodeciman observance was the keeping of the anniversary
of the Death of Christ have, of course, been compelled to
account in some way for the language which we have been
reviewing. They have done so by assuming that it was
directed not against the general body of Quartodecimans, that
i< the mass of Asiatic Churchmen, but against a more or less
limited number of persons who were regarded as heretical. It
is suggested that the eager discussions which, about A.D. 165',
arose in Laodicea in regard to the passover were not between
Quartodecimans and Anti-quartodecimans, but between two
parties of Quartodecimans, who took different views of the
meaning of the practice prevailing amongst them all ; and
that Apollinaris and Melito were engaged in the same cause,
that is to say, in the support of the established view of the
Asiatic Churches^
Arguments of doubtful validity seem to be advanced both
to shew that Apollinaris was, and that he was not, a Quarto
deciman. On the one hand it has been urged that, if he had
been a Quartodeciman, Polycrates must have mentioned so
distinguished a man in his list of those who had followed the
usage which he is defending. But he is evidently naming only
the departed, and Apollinaris may, for aught we know, have
been still alive. On the other hand, it is contended that
Polycrates speaks of Quartodeciman custom as universal in
the province of Asia, and that one who did not conform to it
could not have attained to or occupied an important bishopric
there. But such a general statement as that which Polycrates
' Given in the Paschal Chronicle, ed. Dind. p. 9.
^ Panar. 50. On the mixture of incongruous opinions which Epiphanius
makes, see Hilgenfeld, I.e. p. 372 ff., and Schiirer, I.e. p. 249 f.
' See "Waddington, Pastes A siat. p. 126.
¦* E.g. by Steitz in Herzog's R. E. XI. pp. 276-7 ; also in Stud. u. Krit. 1856,
p. 776 ff. and 1857, p. 764 ff.

1 86 Quartodecimans appealed
makes cannot be held to exclude the possibility of all ex
ceptions, especially at Hierapolis and Laodicea, which were
near the inland border of the province. It is clearly con
ceivable, too, that when Apollinaris became bishop, about
A.I). 170 or earlier, divergence on the point in question may
have been more possible than twenty years later when Poly
crates was writing. The feeling of the region as a whole may
have asserted itself strongly, perhaps as a result of the
disputes in that district. It has, however, been further urged
by Dr Drummond that Apollinaris " unless he were a singu
larly conceited and ill-tempered man" could not have attributed
the opinions which he is combating, as he does, to ignorance, if
they were those of "all his brother bishops, including men of
the greatest learning and distinction." But the force of this
objection is a good deal weakened when it is recognised that
he may have been writing while controversy on the subject
was still fresh, and many had not as yet taken part in it.
Moreover, it would be natural that he should have persons
in his own Church and neighbourhood chiefly before his
mind's eye, and should describe them without intending to
reflect upon venerated men at a distance, who, moreover, even
if they followed the same practice as opponents on the spot,
may not so far have advocated it on the same grounds. That
those, however, whom Apollinaris censures were Quartodeci
mans there can be no question. Not only is their argument
one which we find repeatedly advanced on the Quartodeciman
side, but it is one which Anti-quartodecimans could not have
urged. Now it is surely improbable that Apollinaris would
have expressed himself so strongly about a mere difference
between himself and a section of Quartodecimans as to the
reason to be given for a practice common both to himself and
them'. ' Drummond, ib. p. 654, differs from Schurer chiefly in supposing Apollinaris
to have been a Quartodeciman. He suggests that not only were diverse views of
the Evangelical Chronology held among Anti-quartodecimans, but also among
Quartodecimans. But it should be remembered that while there is distinct
evidence of this variety among the former, there is none such in regard to the latter.
It should be mentioned that Funk also (in Krause's Real-EncycL d. Christi.
Alterthiitner I. p. 488 1. ) is inclined to regard Apollinaris as a Quartodeciman,
while he agrees with Schiirer in other respects.

to the example of Christ 187
We turn to the passages from Hippolytus. It is contended
that he could not have classed opinions, which were those of
the whole Church of Asia, among heresies, or referred to those
who held them as " certain others." But he would not
distinguish with care between heretics and schismatics ; and
the Church of Rome unquestionably reckoned the Asiatics as
schismatics. The phrase " certain others " is a formula of
enumeration ; he uses it twice again in introducing succeeding
classes of heretics, and there is no reason to think that he
would refrain from it because of its depreciatory sound. We
may, also, make a similar observation to that which we have
made in considering the expressions of Apollinaris. The
Quartodecimans with whom he had been himself brought
into contact, in this case those who had made their way into
the West, would be principally present to his thoughts. It is
probable, too, that many Quartodecimans were content to
defend their own practice simply as the traditional custom of
their Church', and that only some used arguments which, if
they were admitted to be sound, would have proved the rest
of the Church to be in the wrong. Hippolytus may be
alluding chiefly to men of this last type. But this is not to
say that such persons had adopted a view of the significance
of the observance of the fourteenth day clearly distinct from,
and even inconsistent with, the belief of Quartodecimans
generally. Of this there is not a trace in the language of
Hippolytus. On the contrary his description in the Refuta
tio — "persons who maintain that we ought to keep the Passover
on the fourteenth day of the first month according to the com
mandment of the Law, on whatsoever day of the week it may
fall " — obviously fits all Quartodecimans as such ; and he
expressly says that, save on this one point, those of whom he
speaks are in full accord with the Church.
Eusebius, again, though he does not imply that all Quarto
decimans used the argument which he refutes, gives no hint
that this view of the practice was confined to a sect amongst
them. It would, indeed, have been a strange thing that a differ
ence simply in the interpretation put upon the observance of
' Cp. Eus. H. E. V. xxiu. i; xxiv. 16.

1 88 The fourteenth was not kept as the day of
the fourteenth day of the month should have been the basis
of a formal separation among those who agreed in practice,
and that the division should have been maintained in spite of
the fact that war was raging in regard to the continuance of
the practice itself Further it would be a curious fatality that
all the reasoning relating to Quartodecimanism which has
come down to us from those opposed to it — or (shall we say)
all with the doubtful exception of the fragments of Apolli
naris — should in reality have been aimed at the position not
of Quartodecimans generally, with whom nevertheless the
greater part of the Church was at issue, but only of a compa
ratively unimportant portion of them. Surely we may
pronounce this to be incredible, and we must conclude that,
when controversy arose on the subject of Quartodecimanism,
the supposed example of Christ in Himself eating the Passover
furnished an argument which was commonly used on the
Quartodeciman side ; and this could not have been the case,
if the fourteenth had been generally understood by them to be
the anniversary of the Death of Christ.
The strength of the opinion that this last was the meaning
of the Quartodeciman observance has lain not in any evidence
that could be adduced, but in the idea that, if they did not
regard the fourteenth as the Day of the Crucifixion, they
must have broken their fast and returned to their ordinary
occupations during the very hours which corresponded to those
when the Lord was passing through all His last sufferings.
But this feeling as to the successive days is due to the associa
tions which long custom has created. The imagination resists
the demand made of it to conceive entirely different habits of
thought. No doubt anniversaries of great events of the Gospel
history might have been kept from the first, but it is evident
that they were not, from the silence of the New Testament,
and from the early history considered as a whole of that
system of commemorative days which did in time arise, and
we can conjecture causes why they should not have been.
One lay in the difficulty of adjusting the lunar to the solar
years ; another in the confusion connected with the various
reckonings common in the different regions through which
Jews and Christians were scattered. It is, moreover, hard to

the Death of Christ, or of the Last Supper 189
understand how the fourteenth, if it had been observed as the
anniversary, in the strict sense of the term, of the Death of
Christ, could have been set aside by the greater part, and
eventually by the whole, of the Church, in favour of a Friday
which simply fell near the Passover-day. Further, if the ob
servance of the 14th had been kept up for this reason from
Apostolic times we should not have had the real or apparent
discrepancy between the accounts of the Synoptics and the
Fourth Gospel in regard to the Day of Crucifixion. To
explain this some uncertainty, or different impressions, as to
the exact chronology, in the minds of Christians generally
and of the authors of the records on the one part or the other,
must be assumed, such as there could not have been if par
ticular days of the year had been kept throughout in memory
of the historical facts.
The supposition that the fourteenth of Nisan was kept by
Christians as the day of the Lord's Death is encumbered with
another difficulty. The more expressly it was so regarded,
the more certainly ought another day to have been equally
honoured as that of His Resurrection; — the third day after the
other would have been most natural. But it is plain from
Polycrates's own words and from the language of opponents,
that the Quartodecimans had not such another day. It would
be far more in accordance with true Christian instincts that
the great acts in the Redemption through Christ should be
recalled together on the day sacred to the memory of a great
redemption in the past which typified, and contained the
promise of, that still greater one, than that the Passion of
Christ should be singled out and His Triumph be passed over,
or receive only subordinate recognition.
It is equally a mistake to suppose that the fourteenth was
kept as the anniversary of the Last Supper and of the institu
tion of the Eucharist at it. The institution of the Eucharist
pointed forward, and its repeated celebration ever pointed
back, to the Death and Resurrection of Christ, from which it
derived all its meaning and efficacy. These could not but be
the chief objects of thought. It is, moreover, clear that, as in
the last case, if the day observed had been regarded primarily
as the commemoration of one act in the Saviour's Passion on

iQo Christians could observe the Passover
the day of the year on which it happened, the neighbouring
days, which were the anniversaries of other great acts, could
not have been ignored; and yet they were so by the Quarto
decimans. It may at all events be taken as certain that they
did not receive any comparable honour'. It should, also, be
carefully observed that the appeal to the Gospel history, which
we have found Quartodecimans making, rested, not on the
belief that on the fourteenth Jesus gave His dying command,
' This do in remembrance of Me,' but that He ate the Passover
at the proper legal time.
Whether they were right in this particular or not, they
were at least so far right as regards the example of Christ in
general, that He did not lead His disciples by word or deed
to throw aside the observance of the Mosaic Law abruptly.
And the early believers who were of Jewish race, as most
were, obeyed its ceremonial, as well as its moral, preempts more
or less faithfully. To an institution so central in that ancient
religion, which they still acknowledged to be Divine, and so
endeared to every Jew by personal and social as well as
national ties, they would be specially attached. When other
customs were relinquished this would be preserved, and the
more naturally so because it shadowed forth hopes which
found their fulfilment in Christ. But this usage, in spite of its
Jewish character, does not appear to have come into question
in connexion with the efforts of the Judaizers and the vindica
tion of Gentile liberty. It is unreasonable to suppose that
St Paul has it in his mind and intends to condemn it when he
writes : — " let no man judge you. ..in respect of a fast or a new
moon, or a sabbath dayl" It was one thing to make much of
' Adherents both of this and of the last-named view of Quartodecimanism
have assumed that the Quartodecimans kept other days besides the fourteenth; —
in the former case a commemoration of the Resurrection ; in the latter, one of the
Death, another of the Resurrection (see Hilgenfeld, 1. c. , pp. 19, 31, 47, 77). But
this was mere assumption, and, indeed, contrary to the evidence. Hilgenfeld
saw this (1. c. 88, 310), but apparently he did not realise how damaging the
admission was to the theory which he clung to.
2 Hilgenfeld (1. c, p. 170 ff.) implies that these words were directed against
the observance of the Jewish Passover-day as well as against that of other Jewish
rites. This is as little warranted as the hypothesis of 'Weitzel, against whom he is
arguing, that the custom of keeping the fourteenth of Nisan as a Christian festival
is to be traced to St Paul.

without Judaizing 191
observances, especially a multiplicity of them, which had not,
and could not have, a Christian signification, quite another to
celebrate the Passover with a new Christian intention. Doubt
less he would have resisted the attempt to impose this, too, as
a yoke upon the Gentiles. But it is difficult to see how it
could have come before him in this way. For either the
Jewish Christians would have excluded Gentile Christians
from the Paschal Feast, on the ground that they were un-
circumcised, in which case Circumcision and not the Passover
would have been the cause of offence; or if,, on the other
hand, the Jewish Christians pressed their Gentile brethren to
join in their own paschal 'celebration, without making circum
cision a test, this would have filled the Apostle with joy.
Moreover, to represent the abstract principle of the indifference
of external observances as of the essence of St Paul's teaching,
is very misleading. It was upon their indifference — or rather
their harmfulness — in so far as they formed a barrier to the
union of fews and Gentiles, orivere devoid of spiritual -meaning,
that he insisted. As for himself, we may believe that he kept
the Passover' and that he valued it, because it spoke so plainly
of that redeeming Will and Power which formed the great
theme of his preaching.
When controversy breaks out on the subject of Quarto
decimanism its antagonists bring to light no important
difference of faith between its adherents and themselves.
The only point raised which is in any degree doctrinal is
that of the amount of deference due to the Law in fixing the
day of observance. Hippolytus and Origen contend that it
shews undue attention to the letter to feel bound by the
ancient ordinance in a matter of this kind. The former
throws in an allusion to the Jews, which suggests that to
many in his day the consideration, that in following the
Anti-quartodeciman custom they would avoid keeping the
same day as the Jews of their own time did, would be a
strong recommendation. Apollinaris and Clement, on the
other hand, argue that if a broad view of the institution is
taken, the Anti-quartodecimans more truly observe the Law
than their opponents. While Eusebius takes up the position
' It is natural to take i Cor. v. 8 as implying this.

192 Paschal observance at Rome
that, whereas Christ and His disciples observed the right day
of the Passover, the Jewish chief priests and scribes on that
occasion did not, and that the Jews have gone wrong since, so
that it was a mistake to trust their calculations.
More obscurity hangs over the early history of the Paschal
observances of the Churches that were not Quartodeciman,
even than over such as were. But here also there is nothing
in the facts, so far as they can be ascertained, which favours
the view that the diversity of practice had its roots in an
important doctrinal difference. At the time when' Victor
attacked the Asiatic Christians, both the Church of Rome
and the Church generally had a well-established custom of
keeping a great annual commemoration at a time correspond
ing approximately to that of the Jewish Passover. It is only
in regard to the precise day to be observed that there is any
difference which is regarded as important. There can, more
over, be no doubt as to the place which the Christian Passover
held in the whole Church when, little more than a century
later, the settlement of differences as to the time of observance
was taken in hand at the Council of Nicaea. It is scarcely
conceivable that the Paschal observances, which prevailed in
the third century in Churches opposed to Quartodecimanism,
could have been introduced after once the controversy had
begun. There is also evidence in Irenaeus's language to
Victor that such an annual celebration was then general, and
that it had been so at least for a generation. He draws a
moral from a point connected with it about which passions
had been aroused, — the length of the preliminary fast. "As
to this,'' he says, "there has been and is great variety of usage.
And yet those times before us were at peace, and so are we as
to this matter, and the disagreement in regard to the fast
confirms the agreement in the faith'."
How, then, did that modified Paschal observance arise
which was so adjusted as not to conflict with the regular
weekly commemoration of the Crucifixion and Resurrection 1
Another part of the same letter of Irenaeus furnishes a hint
as to what had happened in one Church — that of Rome itself
There was a greater contrast, he tells Victor, between the
' Ap. Eus. H. E. V. xxiv. 13.

Modified Paschal observance 193
practice of those who had presided over the Church of
Rome before Soter', and that of Christians from some other
dioceses, who came to Rome in their day, than that which
now divided Victor himself from the Asiatics. Then it was a
case of "observance" or (total) "non-observance^" He plainly
implies that it is this no longer, and that the change took
place in the time of Soter. We must suppose, then, that the
Christian Paschal commemoration had seemed to the Church
of Rome to be such a godly custom that in Soter's Episcopate
it had adopted the institution, though in a modified form,
in which the associations that had already gathered about
Friday and Sunday were respected. The curious word used
by Polycrates may well be taken as a depreciatory allusion to
this adaptation. " We," he writes, " keep the day appahio-vp-
'yqrov." We have not, he would say, like you, thought we
could treat the solemnly-appointed day freely, manipulating
the ancient ordinance according to our own fancy.
According to Eusebius the use, which we have just been
considering in connexion with the Church of Rome, prevailed
throughout the whole world, saving in the province of Asia,
at the time of the outbreak of the controversy in the last
decade of the second century. There is, perhaps, some
rhetorical exaggeration here. But he states also expressly
that the Churches of Palestine, Mesopotamia, Pontus and Gaul,
and the Church of Corinth, as well as many others, made
formal declarations that such was their practice' ; and it
comes out incidentally that Alexandria had the same custom '.
Apostolical authority was claimed on this side no less than
on that of the Quartodecimans. In particular as regards the
synodical letter of the Churches of Palestine, which lay before
him, Eusebius says that therein they " distinctly stated many
things concerning the tradition of the Passover which had
come down to them by succession from the Apostles^" This
' He became Bishop circ. A.D. i66.
^ Eus. H. E. V. xxiv. 14 avrol p-i] T-r)povvres eifrqvevov rots drrb rwv rrapoiKiwv,
ev als errfpelro, epxopivois Trpbs abrobs' Kai rot pdXXov evavriov rjv rb rrjpetv rots prj
TTjpovoi. ' Ib. xxiii. * Ib. xxv.
^ Ib. Trepl rrjs KareXdobaTjs els abrobs €K SiaSoxijs rwv aTroorbXwv rrepl rov Trdoxa
TapaSbaews TrXeiora SteiXTj^bres.
S. G. 13

194 Modified Paschal observance
may have included their method of calculating the Paschal
Moon, as well as their practice of not breaking the fast
till the Sunday ; but the latter was at this early time the chief
point in dispute. We can hardly suppose that the usage
which, at the end of the second century, these Churches
defended had remained strictly unaltered since the Apostolic
Age. It has too much the appearance of being the resultant
of an interaction of different influences, which must have
needed time to work. But the claim in question shews at
least that no marked change had taken place in those
Churches, so far as could be remembered, or was known.
Even apart from this indication, it would be improbable
that a yearly commemoration at the Paschal season, and
under the name of Passover', should have been so widespread
before the end of the second century, if it had been introduced
in most Churches so late as it would seem to have been in
Rome. The facts can best be explained by supposing that
the observance of the ancient festival, although in a new spirit,
had retained its hold from the first in many places besides
Asia upon the converts from Judaism and upon others through
their influence; but that from various circumstances the
custom had not been able to resist modification to the extent
it did there, in particular such a modification as would bring
it into conformity with the weekly round of Christian fast and
festival^. It may therefore have been imported into Rome in
' As examples of the use of pascha at the end of the second century, among
non-Quartodecimans, as the name of the Christian festival it will suffice to adduce
(i) the words given p. 193, n. 5 in which Eusebius seems to be quoting from the
letter of the Palestinian bishops ; (2) the fact that Hippolytus wrote an dTrbSeii,is
Xpbvwv rov Trdoxa (see the enumeration of his works on his chair, ap. Lightfoot,
Ap. Frs Pt I, II. p. 325): this he assuredly would not have done unless it had
been practicaUy required for Christian purposes, comp. the description of it, Eus.
H. E. VI. xxii. I ; (3) the case of the Christian wife who has a heathen husband,
as pictured by Tertullian, Ad Uxor. 11. 4 "quis denique sollennibus Paschae
abnoctantem securus sustinebit?" Cp. also De Corona, u. 3. (4) The following
references may, also, be given to writings belonging to the middle part of the
third century. Origen contr. Cels. Vlii. 22 init. Cyprian, Ep. 75, 6. Dionys.
Alex. ap. Eus. H. E. vii. 20.
2 For the early growth of the practice of observing "the Lord's Day," the
first day of the week, see i Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7; Apoc. i. 10; Pliny, Ep. 96
("stato die"); Didache 14; Justin M. Apol. i. 67; for fasting on 'Wednesdays and
Fridays, Didache, 8.

Quartodecimanism and the Fourth Gospel 195
the new form. If so this would not be the only instance in
which Rome has not led, but followed, other Churches in
ceremonial, as also in confessional, development. At the
same time the example of Rome may well have encouraged
some other Churches to adopt the accommodation in regard
to the day of the festival, or the yearly festival itself in
its accommodated form. Much here must necessarily be
matter of conjecture. But at least we may say that the links
of a common name and season (not to mention others less
widespread and enduring', and possibly of later introduction),
which united the greatest celebrations of the Christian and
the Jewish calendar, would not have been so generally
retained, or early and quickly adopted, if the observance or
non-observance of the Passover had, only a short time before,
been bound up with the divergences between two great
parties among Christians, who were diametrically opposed to
one another. And it is, further, to be remarked that in the
first controversy on Quartodecimanism, which comes before
us with sufficient clearness for us to understand its nature^,
the point at issue was mainly one of Church order. Moreover
this was not the inadequate cause that to some at the present
day it may appear to be. It was a matter of great con
sequence that Christians should be united through common
thoughts and feelings in regard to the great acts and
moments in their Church life, that they should mourn and
rejoice together'.
We have still to consider whether, or in what degree,
the conclusions which we have reached affect the question
of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. We have seen
that the commemoration of the Last Supper itself was not
the object of Quartodeciman observance. If it had been,
' Such as the use of unleavened bread (Hilgenfeld, 1. c. p. 211, n. 2), and the
eating of a lamb (Drummond, 1. c. pp. 610 — 615).
- When Victor excommunicated the Quartodecimans ; we know too little of
that in Laodicea twenty-five years earlier to judge of it.
' It does not concern us here to follow out the later history of Paschal obser
vance. On it see among others, Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlutigen,
Vol. I. No. 9, Die Entiuickelung d. Osterfastens, and Duchesne, La Question de
la PAque au Concile de Niece in Revue des Questions Historiques, Vol. XXVIII.,
bearing in mind in regard to the latter the cautions given above, p. 183 n.
13—2

196 Quartodecimanism and the Fourth Gospel
then clearly the same man could not consistently have
encouraged it, and have written the narrative of the events
of the Passover in the Fourth Gospel. But on the other
hand, Quartodecimans frequently, and even so early as
circ. A.D. 165, defended their practice of continuing to observe
the Jewish Paschal day by the argument that Jesus Himself
had eaten the Passover with His disciples on that day. If
it could be shewn, or rendered probable, that this reason for
keeping the fourteenth was given at the end of the first
century or near the beginning of the second, in the region
where the Apostle John lived, there would be a presumption
that he could not have taught that chronology of the Passion
which we gather from the Gospel attributed to him ; for a
different one must in that case have been held by those who
must have known his mind. But arguments in defence of a
custom are often not devised till it is challenged, and may
have nothing to do with the causes for its existence. The
practice now in question must have seemed so natural among
early believers, that it did not then require reasons to
justify it.
We Require proof, then, that Christians who observed
the Passover in Apostolic and Sub-apostolic times made
that appeal to the example of Christ to which Apollinaris,
and others after him, refer. Now such proof is not forth
coming ; on the contrary there is reason to think that the
argument was a new one in Apollinaris' time. I so far agree
with what is said in regard to his language by those who
contend that he was a Quartodeciman as to hold that if the
reason for Quartodecimanism which he combats had been
long known and recognised, and put forward by Quarto
decimans generally, that is by the great majority of the
Churches of Asia and their bishops, he could not have spoken
of those who used it in the terms he does Further Polycarp
is not said to have urged it at the time of his conference
with Anicetus, and we have evidence in the peaceable ter
mination of that conference that he did not. So long as the
difference of practice was defended simply on the ground of
local custom, even though this was traced to an Apostle, or
Apostles, who had founded a particular Church, no irritating

Quartodecimanism and the Fourth Gospel 197
point was introduced. But if the example of the Lord had
been urged this would have implied that other Churches ought
to give up their different usage'.
The employment, therefore, of this argument by Quarto
decimans of the latter part of the second century, affords no
ground for calling in question the authenticity of the Gospel
accg to St fohn ; and in another way the history of the
Quartodeciman controversy supplies valuable evidence of the
early and wide reception of the Fourth Gospel. Apollinaris
is able to assume that his opponents will allow that the
Synoptics and St John must not be made to contradict one
another^ Once more, Polycrates, the defender of Quarto
decimanism, plainly identifies the writer of the Fourth Gospel
with the Apostle John. There is not the slightest sign that
Quartodecimans as such ever resisted its authority. Evidently
they had accepted it without considering whether its state
ments made for or against their particular custom, anfl vyhen
it was ijsed against them they did not think of calling its
authenticity in question. They must no doubt have had
some way, which satisfied themselves, of reconciling the
Johannine account to the Synoptic, just as Origen and
Eusebius must, who, though they were not Quartodecimans,
held that the Last Supper took place on the fourteenth ; and
as on the other hand Apollinaris, Hippolytus and Clement
must, who thought they could best harmonise the different
accounts by adopting the view most naturally to be inferred
from St John.
' On the point that the arguments used by Quartodecimans in the latter part
of the second century do not shew what the view of Paschal observance taken by
the Apostle John was, cp. Bleek, Beitrdge pp. 163-4, and Introd. to N. T. i.
pp. 20, 7, 8, and Schurer, 1. c. pp. 274, 5. The considerations brought forward
by me are partly different from those which they urge; they have the Tubingen
position chiefly before their minds. But their reasoning is to the same effect.
^ Baur interpreted the words of Apollinaris as meaning that the Gospels and
the Law would not conflict ; but this is evidently forced. It has also been sug
gested that Apollinaris had in his mind some Gospel other than St John, in spite
of the parallelisms between Apollinaris' language and that of St John, and the
fact that we know of no other which would suit. Hilgenfeld saw that the natural
force of the passage could not be evaded by either of these devices, 1. c.
PP- 53. 57 n- '¦

198 Irenaeus on certain who rejected

(6) The Impugners of St John's writings.
We pass to a phenomenon which obviously must be
examined in connexion with the subject upon which we are
now engaged. In the last quarter of the second century
there were some Christians whose main, or most patent,
difference from the general body of believers was that they
rejected the writings attributed to the Apostle John. In
recent years, while controversy on many other points in the
history of the reception of the Gospels has greatly abated,
the party holding the views just referred to have attracted
increased attention'. It will be necessary that we should
estimate aright, so far as we can, the significance of the
existence of such a party. And with this object we must
first endeavour to ascertain the considerations by which they
were influenced in maintaining the views which they did.
Irenaeus in his famous passage on the Fourfold GospeP,
when speaking of those who err by adopting either fewer, or
more, Gospels than the Four generally acknowledged by the
Church, gives this instance of the former class : — " Others in
order that they may frustrate the gift of the Spirit, which in
the last times according to the good pleasure of the Father
has been poured out upon the human race, do not admit that
form (of the Gospel), which is according to John's Gospel, in
which the Lord promised that he would send the Paraclete, but
reject at the same time the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit.
Truly unhappy men, who indeed choose to be false prophets,
but reject the grace of prophecy from the Church! Their case
' Two of the chief older discussions of the subject are those of F. A. Heinichen,
De Alogis, Thcodotianis, atque Artemonitis (1829); and Ddllinger, Hippolytus und
Callistus (1853), Eng. Trans. (1876) pp. 272 — 288. The following expres.sions of
opinion are also of interest in connexion with the history of controversy upon it :
Credner, Kanon, p. 185, with Volkmar's note ib. ; Hilgenfeld, Ketzergesch. p. 599 f. ;
Lipsius, Quellen d. alt. Ketzergesch. (1875) p. 101 ff. ; S. Davidson, Introd. to N. T.
(1882) II. pp. 386-7; Holtzmann, Einleit. pp. 468-9; Westcott, Canon,
p. 285. The fullest treatment is that by Zahn, Kanon i. pp. 220 — 262, and II.
967 — 973, with which Harnack, Das N. T. um das Jahr 200, pp. 58 — 70, and
Chron. I. pp. 670-1, should be compared. The fullest in English, though brief
by comparison, are Lightfoot's, Biblical Essays, pp. 115 — iig, and Sanday's,
Expositor for 1891, pt II. pp. 405-7, and Inspiration pp. 14, 15 and 64-5.
^ Adv. Haer. III. xi. 6 — 9. The sentences quoted in the sequel occur in § 9.

the Gospel according to St John 199
is like that of those who, because there are some who come in
hypocrisy, abstain from the communion of brethren. But it
is clear that persons of this sort could not receive the Apostle
Paul either. For in his Epistle to the Corinthians, he spoke
studiously about prophetic gifts, and he knows of men and
women in the Church who prophesy. Through all these
things then they sin against the Spirit of God and fall into
the unpardonable sin." The general drift of this passage is
plain, and we gather from it that the rejection of St John's
Gospel by those whom Irenaeus here condemns was con
nected with opposition to the extravagant and fanatical
claims to prophetic gifts made by the Montanists and others'.
The promise of the coming of the Paraclete, made more
particularly in that Gospel, could be, and doubtless was. cited
to prove that such grace was to be expected, and the argument
was met on the part of some by denying the authenticity of
the document. Irenaeus himself was ready to allow that not
all the pretended prophecies were truly such, but he had no
sympathy with men who, on account of abuses connected with
the recognition of the gift of prophecy, were prepared to
deny the continued presence of the Holy Spirit of prophecy
in the Church^.
Here, then, we have one ground on which the genuineness
' The only words that can cause any difificulty are qui pseudo-prophetae esse
volunt. Bishop Lightfoot (1. c. pp. 115. 116) emends them by reading the
accusative pseudo-prophetas for pseudo-prophetae, and understands the point to be
that the persons in question "confess the existence of false prophets, and yet deny
the existence of a true prophecy." Zahn 1. c. II. p. 971 ff. makes also a further
change, of volunt into nolunt, with the meaning that in their anxiety to guard against
false prophets they were for abolishing the gift of prophecy altogether. But both
these are rather tame statements, which do not suit well with the indignant strain
of the passage. It seems better to retain the text as it stands. Irenaeus seems to
mean that these misbelievers choose to play the role of prophets, but are false
ones, and condemn themselves in the very act of condemning prophecy.
^ It used to be not uncommon to take this passage of Irenaeus as directed against
the Montanists, instead of against their most decided opponents. E.g. see Volkmar,
note in his edition of Credner's Kanon, p. 185 ; Harvey, note in his edition of
Irenaeus in loc. This interpretation is an extremely forced one, and has been
generally abandoned. Its adoption was, perhaps, due to the fact that the Mon
tanists were much more familiar heretics than the persons whom Irenaeus has
actually in view. It was also, perhaps, forgotten that the Montanists had not yet
been formally condemned, and that Irenaeus and many other orthodox Churchmen
felt much sympathy with their views.

200 Epiphanius and Philaster on the rejection
of the Fourth Gospel was denied. There is, however, other
evidence which must be compared with that of Irenaeus.
Epiphanius' and Philaster'-*, in their treatises on Heresies,
describe one which consisted in " the rejection of the Gospel
and the Apocalypse of John." The value of the statements
of these two writers of the latter part of the fourth century
is greatly enhanced by the probability that they have used
here, as frequently elsewhere, the lost compendium Against
all Heresies by Hippolytus, or if not this, then another work
of his, also lost. On behalf of the Gospel according to fohn and
the Apocalypse^. Philaster in his brief description appears to
be simply reproducing his source. The two points to be noted
in it are that the persons in question asserted that the heretic
Cerinthus was the author of the Gospel and the Apocalypse
ascribed to John, and that the cause of their error lay in their
not perceiving the force of the Scripture^ The attribution
to Cerinthus is expressly confirmed by Epiphanius", and their
' Panar. LI. ^ De Haer. LX.
' R. A. Lipsius has .shewn that in all probability the compendium Against all
Heresies by Hippolytus was the chief common authority used by Epiphanius and
Philaster in their Heresiologies. See his Zur Quellenkritik d. Epiphanius,
1865, and for a succinct account of the argument, Lightfoot, Ap. Frs, Pt i, 11.
pp. 415-18. It is not, however, possible to make out with certainty the complete
list of thirty-two heresies which Hippolytus' work contained; there is doubt
about one or two, and it is uncertain whether the misbelievers now in question,
whom Epiphanius calls Alogi, were included. Lipsius holds that they were not,
Harnack and Zahn that they were. See Lipsius 1. c. pp. 23-8, 233-4; Harnack,
Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol. 1874, II. pp. 162 — 170; Lipsius' reply. Die Quellen d.
dltesten Ketzergeschichte, 1875, p. 93 ff. ; Zahn, Kan. i. p. 223 (ib. 11. p. 971 n.,
however, he says that the question whether it was this or the other work of Hip
polytus named above, must remain undecided); Harnack, Das N. T. iiin d.Jahr
200, p. 62. The fact that Epiphanius and Philaster introduce the Alogi at quite
different points tells strongly in favour of Lipsius' view. On the other hand there
is a certain probability that they used the work here which they used elsewhere,
rather than a different one. Philaster's concise statement, also, accords well with
what we may imagine the character of the "compendium " to have been. It is
very possible, too, that, if Epiphanius used this work, he may, as Zahn suggests,
have had recourse to the Defence of the Gospel and .-ipocalypse of John {vrrip rov Kara
'lwdvvr]V evayyeXiov Kal aTroKaXv^ews) as well.
¦* Post hos sunt haeretici qui evangelium secundum Joannem et apocalypsim
ipsius non accipiunt, et cum non intelligunt virtutem Scripturae, nee desiderant
discere, in haeresi permanent pereuntes, ut etiam Cerinthi illius haeretici esse
audeant dicere.
^ Panar. li. § 3 end. Kiyovui ydp prj elvai avrd 'Iwdvvov dXXd KriplvBov, Kal
obK d^ia avrd cpaaiv eXvai ev eKKXT}olq..

of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John 201
misunderstanding of the Scripture is illustrated by the
objections which the latter quotes, founded on discrepancies
between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics', and on a too
literal interpretation of the language of the Apocalypse which
enabled them to turn it into ridicule''.
After noticing these cavils, Epiphanius employs expres
sions closely resembling, and in part identical with, those of
Irenaeus in regard to the resistance which these adversaries
offered to the Spirit ; but he sees their rejection of the
Spirit in their attitude to St John's writings, in which, as
¦well as in the other Scriptures, the gifts of the Spirit to the
Church are exhibited', while he passes over the denial of
the perpetuity of such gifts upon which Irenaeus lays much
stress. This passage goes far to establish the identity of the
persons to whom Irenaeus refers as rejecting alike the Gospel
of John and " the Prophetic Spirit," with those who according
to Epiphanius rejected both the Gospel and the Apocalypse
of John. Moreover, it is most likely that Epiphanius obtained
Irenaeus' expressions not' directly but through Hippolytus.
The judgment which they convey has been prepared for by
those parts of the previous disquisition which there is the
strongest reason to think have been supplied to him by
Hippolytus, his quotations of the actual objections of the
' Two alleged discrepancies are mentioned : (a) one in § 4, to which Epiphanius
recurs in §§ 13, 15, 18: (b) another in § 22, which gives occasion for a long dis
quisition, §§ 22 — 31.
2 See §§ 32—34.
' § 35- The thought appears more than once before: — "They feared the
voice of the Holy Spirit ... which was given to the world through the holy
apostles and evangelists" (§ i); "the doctrine and the sequence of narratives"
in the Gospels "were from the Holy Spirit" (§ 4); they ".speak against the Holy
Spirit and the marvellous sequence of the Gospels " (§ 6). These allusions, to
gether with the paragraph at the end of the disquisition, give us, unless I am much
mistaken, the means for distinguishing the representation of the opinions of those
heretics which Epiphanius found in Hippolytus from the matter which he adds.
In the two opening sections he speaks, by way of introduction, of the duty of
detecting poisonous serpents ; then (§ 3) for the old name of the heresy he pro
poses to substitute a new name, and forthwith comes to the first objection made by
the heretics (§ 4). From this point onward it is not difficult, in spite of Epiphanius'
own long digressions, to trace a thread of argument, belonging to this source,
which has for its object to set forth the dishonour done to the Scriptures and so to
their Author, the Holy Spirit, by the persons in question.

202 Epiphanius' term ''the Alogi''
heretics in question'. And the fact that their hostility to the
prophetic gifts is not mentioned, is amply explained by the
change of attitude of the Church generally on this subject in
the interval between the times when Irenaeus and Hippolytus
wrote. There are then clear signs of correspondence between the
opinions described by Irenaeus, on the one hand, and by
Epiphanius and Philaster, who (it seems) follow Hippolytus,
on the other. Nor does the fact that Irenaeus is silent as to
the rejection of anything but the Gospel accg to St fohn,
afford good ground for thinking that the party which he has
in view was not the same as that to which later writers refer".
Indeed it must be allowed to be probable that those of whom
he speaks would be opponents of the reception of the
Apocalypse. For to strong anti-Montanists the Apocalypse
must have been even more distasteful than the Gospel according
to St John, because it seemed to encourage the Millenarian
dreams in which the Montanists revelled, and which furnished
them with a model, as it were, for their own prophecies'.
There is yet one point in Epiphanius' characterisation of
these heretics of which I have not spoken, though it meets
' Cp. Zahn pp. 226-7. Zahn however, p. 226 n. 1, thinks the obliteration of
the reference to the charismata is due to Epiphanius, to whom the question of
their continuance in the Church was not a matter of interest. I am doubtful of
this, because (see last note) the course of Hippolytus' argument, so far as we can
gather what it was, would naturally lead him to dwell on the resistance to the
Holy Spirit shewn in the rejection of Scriptures.
'- Zahn (1. c. p. 245) well points out that in the immediate context there is
a parallel in the case of Marcion's Gospel. Irenaeus alludes to his treatment of
the Gospels, but says nothing of his having rejected the rest of the Scriptures,
saving ten of St Paul's epistles, which he mutilated.
' For a remarkable illustration of the rejection of the Apocalypse on this ground
see below p. 206. Volkmar (1. c.) held that Hippolytus had thrown together in
his Defence of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of Jolm, all who attacked St John's
writings, even the most different, and that the coupling together of opponents of
the Gospel and the Apocalypse to form a single party is a mere illusion. But the
words which both Epiphanius and Philaster use, and evidently reproduce from
a common source, shew that Volkmar was quite mistaken. At the same time, no
doubt, Hippolytus' treatise may have been intended to serve as a reply to those
who rejected only the Apocalypse, as well as to those who also rejected the
Gospel. It is probable that the same party rejected also the First Epistle of
St John, and the Second and Third (so far as they were then received). Epi
phanius conjectures that they did, but he does not know it for a fact (§ 34).
Doubtless the main attack was directed against the Gospel and the Apocalypse.

Epiphanius tenn ''the Alogi'' 203
the reader almost at the beginning of his disquisition on
them'- For the circumlocution by which they have been
known in the past he proposes to substitute the name of
Alogi, " because they do not receive the Logos preached by
John''." The name had no doubt the additional attraction
that it could bear the meaning " irrational persons." But we
are concerned simply with the accusation that they were
opposed to the doctrine of the Logos. It appears to be
Epiphanius' own inference from the fact that they did not
acknowledge the Gospel in which more especially that truth
was taught. He quotes no words of theirs which imply it ;
if he had known any, he would almost certainly have made
a point of dragging them forward. After starting on this
scent he quickly abandons it, — clearly because he has no
information that is to the purpose, — and then, falling into
the track of his predecessor, gives the proof that in denying
sacred Scriptures they did despite to the Holy Spirit. But
indeed the language which he actually uses about them
renders it impossible to suppose that they can have openly
professed any doubts as to the Incarnation of the Divine
Word. "They seem," he says, "to believe just as we do'."
A zealous champion of Nicene orthodoxy, such as Epiphanius
was, could not have expressed himself thus 'about men who
had called in question this article of the Faith. But he is
determined to unmask the comparatively harmless appearance.
He will reveal the sinister motive by which, he assumes, they
must be actuated*
' §§ 3. 4-
^ It appears to me impossible to accept Lightfoot's suggestion (BibL Essays,
p. 119; and Ap. Frs, Pt i, II. p. 394; urged, also, by Rendel Harris, Hermas in
Arcadia and other Essays, pp. 50-2), that he borrowed this name from Hippolytus.
E^jiphanius' own expressions, and the use by Philaster of the name which
Epiphanius proposes to put aside, are strongly against this. (Cp. Zahn 1. c. p. 242
11. I.) Other considerations unfavourable to this theory might also be adduced.
The only argument for it is that Hippolytus was fond of making puns of the
kind; but Epiphanius may well have imitated him in this.
' § 4. SoKOvai ydp Kal abrol rd taa T)piv moreveiv.
* In Das N. T. um d. J. 200, Harnack treated the name "Alogi" given by
Epiphanius, and his remarks thereon, as the most material piece of evidence which
we have for ascertaining the opinions of the sect, and blamed Zahn severely for
starting from the passage in Irenaeus. He himself admitted that the \i.\Xer probably
referred to the same persons, but gave it quite a subordinate place. It is satis-

204 Grounds on which the Johannine writings
It may however be suggested that Epiphanius' charge is
confirmed by the circumstance that the Alogi attributed the
Gospel according to St John to Cerinthus. It is possible
factory to note a complete change of front, though one silently effected, in his
Chronologie, I. p. 670. He now writes, ".So much is certain, that they (the
Alogi) were decided opponents of the Montanists (who sought to found and to
justify their new institution above all out of the Johannine writings), that they did
not belong to the heretical-gnostic schools, and that the gospel which they com
pared with the synoptics and pronounced to be historically incorrect, and
essentially false (because of Gnostic tendencies), was attributed by them to
Cerinthus." The opposition to these writings on the ground of supposed Gnostic
tendencies takes now the second place. Also he says not a word about resistance
to the doctrine of the Logos, though he may as before connect this with the
charge of Gnosticism. According to his earlier work, the Alogi "rejected the
Johannine Logos, because it seemed to them to involve a docetic doctrine." He
asserts that they "expressly raised the objection, that according to the Johannine
Gospel the Logos became flesh, in order forthwith to begin his activity in Cana.
That seemed to them Gnostic" (p. 63). All this, however, is imaginary. The
whole stress in the objection of the Alogi, as Epiphanius gives it, is upon the dis
crepancies between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics in regard to the order of
events. And Epiphanius himself understood this to be its purport. He occupies
himself with this alone in his reply.
One other argument is used by Harnack (p. 65), and others, for the supposed
rejection of the doctrine of the Logos by the Alogi ; and it finds favour with
Dr Sanday (Inspiration, p. 64). Epiphanius calls Theodotus, who declared
Jesus to be "a mere man," an offshoot from the Alogi. But it is not unfair
I think to Epiphanius to hold that, after persuading himself that the Alogi
rejected the Logos, because they rejected the Gospel of the Logos, he would be
quite ready to infer that Theodotus' opinions were a growth from theirs.
Dr Sanday, indeed, thinks that a rationalizing tendency such as that of the
Alogi must inevitably have gone further, and that on this ground the statement of
Epiphanius before us may be accepted. There is force in this remark ; yet we are
hardly justified in imputing the views of those whose rationalizing tendency had
developed to those in whom it was still latent.
If we compare Bp Lightfoot's Biblical Essays, p. 115 ff. (printed after his
death from lecture-notes), with Ap. Frs, Pt i, 11. p. 394 (also published after his
death), we observe a change in the opposite direction to that which has taken
place in Dr Harnack's case. At the earlier time Bp Lightfoot shews admirably
that Epiphanius as well as Irenaeus "is describing an anti-Spiritualist, anti-
Montanist movement"; while "in every other respect the Alogi seem to have
been orthodox." "It does not appear," he adds, "that they rejected the doctrine
of St John's Gospel. ...They may, however, have repudiated the Johannine fonn
under which the Divinity of Our Lord was taught, though even this is doubtful."
At the later date he writes that they "objected to both works" (the Gospel
and the Apocalypse) "alike, because they described Our Lord as the A670S."
It may be permissible to surmise that when he penned this statement in the Essay
on which he was engaged in his last illness, and which was left unfinished, he
did not refresh his memory as to the evidence.

were attributed to Cerinthus 205
that they may in so doing have intended in a vague and
general way to impute Gnostic tendencies to the Fourth
Gospel. But the use of Cerinthus' name could not have
contained an allusion to the Logos, if the accounts which we
have of his doctrines are true. He did not, according to
them, use the term, nor had he truly the idea ; he spoke of
the world as created " by a certain Power separated and
distant from the Authority which is over all things, and
ignorant of the God who is over all." Further, he said that
"the Christ" descended upon Jesus at His baptism'.
The fact, indeed, that certain Gnostics of a different type —
Valentinus and Basilides, or at all events some of their chief
disciples — quoted and commented on the Gospel according
to St John may have created a prejudice against it in some
quarters. There would be nothing strange in this ; the
strange thing, indeed, is that there is so little trace of any
feeling of the kind and that it must at the utmost have
existed only to a very limited degree. That a charge against
the doctrine of the Logos, as being Gnostic, was ever con
nected therewith, there is, so far as I am aware, no ground
for thinking. The Gnostics do not appear to have valued
the Fourth Gospel specially because of its doctrine of the
Logos''' ; while on the contrary this doctrine was the corner
stone of the thought of great anti-Gnostic teachers such as
Justin and Irenaeus. It took account marvellously of what
ever truth there was in the Gnostic speculations, and brought
it into harmony with the Old Testament Revelation and with
the faith of simple Christians, and thus furnished the best
possible antidote to Gnosticism. Nevertheless, the powers of
human misapprehension were doubtless as great then as they
are in the present day: And the conception of the Logos
was a difficult one. The blunder of supposing it to be
Gnostic might have been made. My point simply is that so
far as we know it was not, and that the attribution of the

' Iren. Adv. Haer. i. xxvi. i, repeated by Hippol. Refut. vii. 33. According
to Epiphanius, Panar. xxviil, he taught that the world was made by angels.
^ The position of the Logos in Gnostic systems was very different from, and of
far less significance than, that which it held in the teaching of St John. E.g. see
Iren. Adv. Haer. 1. ix. 2, 3; II. xvii. 5 f. ; xxviii. 3 f.

2o6 Grounds on which the Johannine writings
Fourth Gospel to Cerinthus, in particular, could hardly have
been dictated by such an idea.
Some additional evidence as to the rejection of the Apo
calypse has to be taken into account, and we may conveniently
advert to it at this point. Dionysius of Alexandria tells us
that there were certain before his time, who had "wholly made
away with " the Apocalypse. Going through it chapter by
chapter they had argued that it was senseless and incon
sequent. Its title, they said, was a fraud ; it was not an
Apocalypse, since it was so obscure, and it was not John's.
They attributed it to Cerinthus, alleging that this was his
doctrine, namely, that the kingdom of the Christ would be on
earth, while he pictured its delights after a carnal manner, in
accordance with his own sensual desires'. We do not know
whether the persons referred to by Dionysius also rejected
the Gospel according to John. It is possible that they may
have done so and that he passes this over, because for the
moment he is concerned only with the Apocalypse, of the
authorship of which he himself is about to treat. Perhaps it
is most likely on the whole, that in his reference he included
some who did, and some who did not, accept the Gospel. But
at all events their view of the Apocalypse is not unconnected
with that of the so-called " Alogi." They not only assigned
it to the same author, but they applied to it the same kind of
criticism ; and they were opposed to it on the same doctrinal
ground. For there can be little doubt that Gains, a learned
Roman Christian, and probably a clergyman, who, near the
end of the second century, wrote against the Montanists, was
one of the persons to whom Dionysius alludes. Eusebius
quotes a passage from Gains' Dialogue with Proclus the
Montanist, in which Cerinthus is accused of having put forth,
under the name of a great Apostle, revelations of awful things
which (it was pretended) had been communicated by angels,
and the prediction of a grossly material reign of Christ. In
the same work Gains upbraided the Montanists with having
audaciously composed new writings. That they should have
adopted a forgery would not be a very dissimilar notion I It
' Ap. Eus. H. E. VII. xxv. i — 4.
^ Ap. Eus. H. E. III. xxviii. i, 2 ; vi. xx. 3.

were attributed to Cerinthus 207
is doubtful whether Gains in this Dialogue made it plain that
by Cerinthus' forgery, of which he spoke, he meant the
Apocalypse generally believed to be by the Apostle John.
His language may have been somewhat ambiguous'. Never
theless, what Eusebius tells us about Gains, taken with the
statement of Dionysius and with what we know of the Alogi,
would of itself incline us to believe that he was one of the
opponents of the Apocalypse; and this has now been rendered
practically certain by Dr Gwynn's discovery a few years ago of
some fragments of Hippolytus' Heads against Gains, in which
objections against the Apocalypse, of a kind corresponding
to Dionysius' description, and similar to those recounted
by Epiphanius, are propounded by Gains and replied to by
Hippolytus^. It is not impossible that Gains may also have
denied the authenticity of the Gospel according to St John,
though the evidence that we at present possess does not
appear to me to shew it'.
Zahn supposes that those who desired to discredit the
Johannine writings, seized upon Cerinthus as the person to
whom to ascribe them merely because he was a contemporary
of the Apostle, and one whom tradition had represented
as his antagonist, and that the alleged Millenarianism of
Cerinthus is a figment, created out of this association of
his name with the Apocalypse^ But it seems more likely
that Cerinthus' known opinions led to his being selected.
That Irenaeus and Hippolytus are silent about his being a
Millenarian" does not shew that he was not one, seeing that
he would not appear to them to be heretical in this ; and
what they do say about him does not render it improbable.
His beliefs appear to have been partly Jewish and only to a
limited extent affected by the Gnostic spirit.
' If it was not, it would be difficult to understand how Eusebius could have
cited what was in reality an attack upon that work as if it was simply a piece of
information about Cerinthus. It would also be strange that when noting the fact
that Gaius did not acknowledge the Apostolicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
he should have made no mention of his rejection of the Apocalypse (Eus. H. E.
VI. XX. 3), in regard to the position of which he in general shews no less interest.
'^ See Hermathena for 1888, p. 397 ff. A German translation of the fragments
is given by Zahn, Kan. 11. p. 973 ff.
' See Additional Note, p. 239 ff. ¦• 1. c. p. 230, n. 1.
" Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xxvi. i. Hippoh Refut. vu. 33.

2o8 Tin^e and place of the rise of the Alogi
Perhaps, therefore, a fancied similarity between the escha
tological teaching of Cerinthus and the Apocalypse suggested
the notion of attributing it to him. The indications in ancient
writers, such as they are, point to this conclusion. Then his
authorship would be extended to the Gospel, because that
also had been reputed to be John's and was a work objected
to. That Cerinthus had held blameworthy opinions on more
than one subject would be an additional recommendation.
But the use of his name did not, it would seem, and was not
fitted to, convey any specific condemnation of characteristic
features in the teaching of the Fourth Gospel.
Thus far we have been occupied with the principles of
these Impugners of the Gospel and Apocalypse of St John.
The only doctrinal motive, of which we have found any trace,
is an aversion to Millenarianism and to the Montanist and
other similar prophecies. At the same time it was perceived
that the representation of the Saviour's Ministry in the Gospel
said to be by the Apostle John seemed to conflict with that
in the Synoptic Gospels, while the symbolism of the Apo
calypse was felt to be distasteful and its style obscure.
There are a few more points in regard to this party which
must be discussed before we view the facts more generally in
relation to the history of the reception of the Fourth Gospel
in the Church. Irenaeus' reference to them enables us to fix
approximately the time of their rise. They must have
appeared at least a little time before the composition of the
third book of his Treatise against Heresies, and yet after
Montanism had begun to attract attention. A.D. i6o — 180 will
be sufficiently wide limits to take. But we may with some
probability fix the date more nearly. The Montanist move
ment began, according to Eusebius, to spread widely and to
excite strong disapprobation a little before A.D. 177' It is
natural to regard the so-called Alogi as the left wing of the
opposition to Montanism which then declared itself
' Montanism was attracting the attention of the Christian world generally
circ. A.D. 177 (Eus. H. E. v. 3). How long before Montanus himself began to
prophesy in Phrygia it is not easy to determine. Eusebius in his Chronicle
notices him under A.D. 172 ; but there are strong reasons for placing the beginning
of his teaching as much as fifteen years earlier, circ. A.D. 1,57. Cp. Zahn, Forsch.
V. 13 ff. Harnack, Chron. I. p. 363 ff. Salmon, Diet, of Chr. Bio. IIL p. 937.

Connexion of the Alogi with Asia Minor 209
A few words must be said as to the region to which they
belonged. The following is the only reference in an ancient
writer which connects them definitely with a particular district.
One of their objections to the Apocalypse which Epiphanius
quotes is that allusion is therein made to a Church in Thyatira,
whereas there is no Church in Thyatira. In replying to this,
Epiphanius charges them with having, along with the Monta
nists, caused the desolation of the Church in Thyatira' But
in point of fact he seems to have introduced the mention of
the Alogi into a reply taken, like the objection, from his
source, and which referred solely to the Montanists^ His
intention would seem to have been to make his attack upon
the misbelievers with whom he is immediately dealing more
direct ; but he overreaches himself For Alogi could not
have found fault with the Apocalypse for assuming that a
Church existed in Thyatira,, if they themselves had been
members of it. The fact, however, that the Alogi urged this
objection may, perhaps, be taken to imply local knowledge.
Again, in Asia Minor, the birthplace and early home of
Montanism, the most violent and reckless reaction from it
might naturally shew itself But neither of these reasons
is very cogent. The fact, if such it was, in regard to
Thyatira might have been learned by persons at a distance.
Still it is on other grounds probable that the Alogi's way
of thinking originated in Asia Minor, the home of the
opinions ,which aroused their repugnance. But the centre
of the party may have been early transferred to Rome.
Indeed, a few, even one or two. Christians from Asia Minor,
who held these views, for which (for aught we know) they
may have found little sympathy in their, own country, may
have come to Rome, and there first have made some, though
certainly not any great, impression. It is with Rome chiefly
that we have reason to connect the party. There Irenaeus
may naturally have met with representatives of it. There at
' §33-
2 The rest of the section is occupied with the Montanists. The periods of
years cannot be harmonised with Epiphanius' time; he must have taken them as
they stood in his source. For their bearing on the history of Montanism see
Zahn, Forsch. v. p. 35 ff. ; Harnack, Chron. I. p. 376 ff.
S. G. 14

2 ID The Alogi and the history
all events some twenty-five to thirty years later Gaius main
tained its views, at least as regards the Apocalypse; and
there Hippolytus carried on the controversy as a defender
both of this book and of the Gospel.
Lastly, the Alogi do not seem to have exercised much
influence. We hear little of them. No one distinguished by
character, ability, or position in the Church seems to have
embraced their views as a whole. There is no reason to think
that the omission of the Apocalypse from the Canon which
was general for a considerable period in the Eastern Church was
in any true sense inherited from them ; while antagonism to
the Gospel according to St John very soon ceased altogether.
How far, then, we may now enquire, does the existence of
this party, — not outside the Church but within it', from
A.D. 175, or possibly ten years or so earlier, and onward to
the end of the century, or a little longer — shew that the
authority of the Fourth Gospel was as yet not firmly estab
lished ? We shall do well, for clearness' sake, to consider this
question under two aspects. We will ask first what is
implied as to the temper of Churchmen generally in the fact
that men holding these opinions were suffered to remain in
the Church; and secondly, as regards these persons them
selves, how we are to account for the psychological phe
nomenon of difference from others as to the Johannine
writings combined with agreement in most respects 1
(i) Harnack has said that the attitude of Irenaeus and
Hippolytus to the Alogi is "comparatively friendly^." To all
other readers their words will, I think, seem to convey the
sternest condemnation. "By all these things" (i.e. their denial
of the reality of spiritual gifts and rejection of the Gospel
' Dr Harnack and some other writers are eloquent about the excellence of the
Churchmanship of the Alogi. They were "good Catholic Christians" (Das N. T.
etc. cp. 69), "good Christians'' (ib. p. 67); "Christians who agreed with the
great Church in the Rule of Faith" (Chron. i. p. 671). Such language is scarcely
warranted. Epiphanius observes that they "seem to believe the same as we do";
and there was, it is true, no formal breach. But we can all think of individuals
and parties in our own and other times of whom as much might be said, though
their spirit and views are not, or have not been, those of the Church generally.
By exaggerated expressions, such as those which I have just quoted from Dr Har
nack, the truth of a historical picture is destroyed.
" Das N. T. um d. J. 200, p. 69.

of the reception of the Fourth, Gospel 211
according to St John), writes Irenaeus, " they sin against the
Spirit of God, and fall into the unpardonable sin." Hippolytus
— if, as is probable, Epiphanius is reproducing him — .repeated
this denunciation. If this language is "comparatively friendly,"
it would be interesting to know what, in Dr Harnack's judg
ment, would be ''comparatively ?/«-friendly" language.
The Alogi, however, were not excommunicated. Happily,
throughout the history of the Church, it has usually taken
some considerable time and effort to secure the excommuni
cation of any class of heretics. The fact that no formal
sentence was passed upon the Alogi may shew little more
than that they never gave much trouble, because they were
never numerous and did not long continue to exist as a party.
In addition to this, as Dr Sanday has remarked, " the Church
did not purge itself of heresy so promptly in these early days
as it did later'." The organisation, which could be used
effectively for the purpose, was not yet perfected. Moreover,
during the period in question the energies of Churchmen were
largely occupied in coping with a far more powerful move
ment, that of Montanism, against which the Alogi themselves
contended. (2) There is nothing, then, in the measure of toleration
accorded to the Alogi, which betokens uncertainty in the
mind of the Church at the time, as to the authority belonging
to the Fourth Gospel. But may the existence of such un
certainty be inferred from the very circumstance that this
Gospel was attacked ? Do these Alogi mark for us the
moment when the admission of the Gospel of John to a like
position with the Synoptic Gospels, which were already read
in the Church, was under discussion, and was resisted on the
ground of the doctrinal tendencies of this Gospel and of its
being in conflict with the older Gospels ? and finally, is it
specially damaging to its claims that this resistance was made
in Asia Minor (on the supposition that it actually did shew
itself there)^ .?
It is difficult to say how far the want of correspondence
' Expositor, 1891, Pt II. p. 406-7.
2 I have framed these questions on Dr Harnack's objections : Das N. T. etc.
p. 70. Cp. also, to much the same effect, Chron. I. p. 670-1.
14—2

212 Significance of the Alogi
between the Fourth Gospel and the other three was held of
itself to furnish a ground for rejecting the Fourth, because of
the other motives that we find combined with it, — the support
which it seemed to lend to Montanism, and the dislike of the
Apocalypse, which was reputed to be by the same author.
We should certainly not be justified in thinking that the
discrepancies with the other Gospels were not felt as genuine
objections. But as there were those other reasons for wishing
to see it discredited, the mere fact that on certain points it
stood as one against three would be to its disadvantage. It
should be observed also that the Alogi do not seem to have
urged that the honour paid to the Fourth Gospel was some
thing new. On the contrary, they certainly did not dispute
the idea that the writing had come down from the Apostolic
Age, since they suggested that a man who was believed to be
a contemporary of the Apostle John was the author.
We have seen that the evidence for the connexion of this
party with Asia Minor is of a very slender description. No
one, it seems to me, is entitled to argue as if it were a fact
which could not fairly be disputed. But on the other hand,
it is not well to overlook the possibility that it may be true.
It ought not, however, to be assumed that in Asia Minor, as
well as elsewhere, there might not be members of the Church
who had never become thoroughly imbued with the local
traditions. Indeed it would be likely that there should be
such in its great cities on and near the coast, where there
must have been frequent changes in the population, even
more than in places where life was more stable.
I have urged reasons for not attributing to the instance of
the Alogi the amount of importance which some have done ;
but I would not be understood to mean that it is without
significance in regard to the history of the formation of the
Canon. It does not shew that the beliefs to which they were
opposed were not commonly held, or had been quite recently
adopted, still less that they were only then spreading ; it
does, however, shew that the conception of the Fourfold
Gospel had not as yet acquired that firm hold on the mind
of every professing Christian, which only clear and positive
definition and a prescription of some generations could give.

Statements of Irenaeus in regard to John 213

(7 a) Strictures upon the testimony of two of the chief witnesses
for the truth of the common tradition : («) Irenaeus.
The chief references which Irenaeus makes to the presence
and influence of the Apostle John in Asia and to his writings
are familiar to all students of early Church history, and of the
history of the New Testament Canon. But it may be, con
venient that I should here recall them.
In the third book of his work Against Heresies, after
mentioning the Gospels of Matthew. Mark and Luke, he
proceeds : — " Thereupon John the disciple of the Lord, who
leaned upon his breast, himself too set forth the gospel while
dwelling in Ephesus, the city of Asia'." One or two critics
have ventured to maintain that even Irenaeus is speaking
here of John the Elder. There ought never to have been a
doubt that he means the Apostle, the son of Zebedee. For
this one is a more or less prominent figure in the Gospels and
in the Acts of the Apostles, and there would have been
obvious danger of confusion, if any other John had been
designated as " the disciple of the Lord." Moreover he " who
leaned upon the breast of Jesus" — plainly at the Last Supper
— could only be one of the twelve in the view of anyone who
accepted the Synoptic Gospels ; for these Gospels at all
events leave no doubt that only the twelve were present''.
Besides, he is contending that the Apostles left in writings
that Gospel which they preached, and accordingly in referring
to Mark and Luke he notes the connexion of the one with
Peter and the other with Paul. The Apostolic authority of
the other two Gospels is assumed. A little further on he
writes: "The Church in Ephesus, also, which was founded by
Paul, while John remained with them tillthe times of Trajan,
is a true witness of the Apostles' tradition'."
Near the end of Domitian's reign, according to Irenaeus,
John saw the Apocalypse*. Irenaeus also quotes from the
' Adv. Haer. III. i. i.
^ See Mk xiv. 17 and parallels in Mt. and Lu. In Jn the expression robs
paBrirds is used, xiii. 5, xviii. i, but all those who are mentioned by name belong
to the Twelve.
' Ib. III. iii. 4. * lb. V. xxx. 3.

2 1 4 statements of Irenaeus in regard to John
first and the second epistles which bear the name of John in
our New Testament, as by the same John, though apparently
he confuses the two Epistles together or conjoins them'. In
another place he makes a statement in regard to the length of
the Lord's life, which he declares had been derived from John,
according to the testimony of " all the elders who in Asia had
intercourse with John." He says here also that John " re
mained with them till the days of Trajan," and then he adds
that some of these elders " saw not only John, but other
Apostles also." He then exclaims : " Which ought we to
believe ? Such men as these, or Ptolemaeus (the Valentinian
teacher against whom he is arguing), who never saw Apostles,
nor ever even in his dreams pressed the footprint of an
Apostle^ .' "
Foremost among these "elders" in the mind of Irenaeus
stood Polycarp, "who," he writes, "had not only been in
structed by Apostles, and associated with many who had seen
the Christ, but had also been placed by Apostles in Asia in
the Church in Smyrna as bishop, and whom we also saw in
our first age'." In a letter preserved by Eusebius he is still
more explicit in regard to his reminiscences. He is writing to
Florinus, who had in Rome been advocating Gnostic opinions,
and whom he remembered as a young man a few years older
than himself, when both were hearers of the venerable
Polycarp. He says :
" I distinctly remember the incidents of that time better than events
of recent occurrence ; for the lessons received in childhood, growing with
the growth of the soul, become identified with it ; so that I can describe
the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to sit when he
discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and his manner of
life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses which he held
' lb. III. xvi. 7.
^ Ib. 11. xxii. 5. The great majority of critics recognise that Irenaeus must by
"John" mean the Apostle. E.g. Harnack, Chron. i. p. 657 ("ihn meint Irenaeus
unfraglich"); Holtzmann, Einleit. p. 472; Schmiedel, Encycl. Bibl. 11. col. 2506;
even Delff, Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth, p. 68. Bousset, however, treats it as
questionable, Die Offenbarung Johannis, p. 41. I do not think he can have
sufficiently considered either (i) the contexts in which Irenaeus refers 10 John, or
(2) what is involved in the allusion to his having leaned upon the breast of Jesus.
' Ib. III. iii. 4. I have here translated iv r% rrpwr-r) rjpiwv ijXiKl(f, as literally as
possible, "in our first age"; see, however, further p. 215 ff. on its meaning.

Age of Irenaeus when a hearer of Polycarp 215
before the people, and how he would describe his intercourse with John
and with the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their
words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord
and about his miracles, and about his teaching, Polycarp, as having
received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would relate
them altogether in accordance with the Scriptures'."
Once more, in another letter quoted in Eusebius' history,
which was written to Victor, bishop of Rome, on the subject
of the Paschal controversy, Irenaeus asserts that Victor's pre
decessor, Anicetus, " had not been able to persuade Polycarp
not to observe (the day of the Passover), inasmuch as he
had always observed it with John the disciple of the Lord
and the rest of the Apostles with whom he consorted"."
Irenaeus' trustworthiness, in the statements which have
been adduced, must now be carefully considered, for it has
been called in question by many critics who fully allow that
he speaks in them all of John the son of Zebedee, not of some
other John. It will be necessary that we should form a correct
idea so far as possible of Irenaeus' age at the time when he
saw and heard Polycarp, and of the chronology of his life.
In his letter to Florinus he describes himself as "still a
boy " when they both used to listen to Polycarp ; and in
his work Against Heresies he says that he saw Polycarp Iv
rp irpcorr} -rjfiiov -^XiKia, which has commonly been rendered
"in our early life'." It has been supposed that he was from
twelve to fifteen or, according to other writers on the subject,
possibly as much as eighteen years old*. If, however, as in
' Ap. Eus. H. E. V. XX. 6. I have used the translation by Lightfoot in
Essays on -Sup. Rel., p. 97. It would, however, be as lawful to render iK TraiSwv
hy "in boyhood" as by "in childhood," and better, as we shall see, in this context.
' Ap. Eus. H. E. V. xxiv. 16.
' Adv. Haer. III. iii. 3.
* Harnack, Chron. I. pp. 327-8, "Knabe von c. 12 — 15 Jahren." Zahn,
Forsch. IV. p. 280, "mindestens ein 12 — 15 jahriger Knabe gewesen"; in Kanon,
p. 23, he makes him about 14. R. A. Lipsius, Diet, of Chr. Bio. III. p. 254,
comes to the conclusion that "not the age of childhood, but that of early young
manhood ('say about the eighteenth year') will have been the period of Irenaeus'
connexion with St Polycarp," p. 254. Lightfoot in Essays on Sup. Rel. p. 265,
wrote, " If we reckon his age as from fifteen to eighteen, we shall probably not be
far wrong, though the expressions themselves would admit some latitude on either
side." In Apost. Frs, Pt 2, I. pp. 448 — 9, he does not speak quite so definitely.

2 1 6 Age of Irenaeus when a hearer of Polycarp
the rendering just referred to, -ffXiKia meant simply " age,"
usage gives no authority, so far as I know, for fixing the
limit of -fj irpoiTT] TjXiKia at fifteen. The phrase might possibly
designate babyhood or childhood, which are here out of the
question. If it was intended to cover a period longer than
these, the years down to seventeen or eighteen, when i^ri^eia,
or Juventus, began, would naturally be included under it. Nor
could it be unsuitable to speak of one under this age as " still
a boy." But 97 nprnr-r} rjXiKLa might according to usage be even more
correctly employed to designate opening manhood'. The
years from seventeen to thirty were held to form this period
of life. Irenaeus himself seems to have it in view in a passage
in which he speaks of the ages of man in connexion with the
subject of the duration of Our Lord's life, though the meaning
is somewhat obscure, owing, perhaps, to the imperfection of
the Latin translation". He says that if Christ had suffered
when completing His thirtieth year. He would have been
adhuc jitvenis, ''still a young man," or as we might say, "still
in the prime of life " ; he proceeds to observe that it will be
generally allowed that " (the age of) thirty years is " (that is,
belongs to, falls within) " the first age of the estate of young
manhood " — triginta annoruin aetas prima indolis est juvenis —
" and that it " (perhaps the indoles juvenis, not the prima aetas
indolis juvenis') " reaches to the fortieth year." It would be
contrary to all usage to say that the age of thirty was itself
the beginning of the time in which a man is ^juvenis, and it
is inconsistent with Irenaeus' own words just before, where
he speaks of one who was thirty as "adhuc juvenis." I
suggest, then, that the phrase -f] irprnTr) -ffXiicia, when used by
Irenaeus in regard to a time in his own life, corresponds to
prima aetas indolis juvenis, " early manhood," a period which
might be considered to last till thirty, though where the
emphasis is on irpcoTrj, as in the context in which he is
speaking of himself, it is more natural to think of seventeen
to twenty'.
' Cp. Liddell and Scott, rfXiKla, I. 2.
" Adv. Haer. 11. xxii. 4.
' Thus I arrive at much the same result as Lipsius ; but he seems to me to

The Value of Irenaeus reminisce7ices 217
The age of seventeen or eighteen, when he was passing
out of boyhood into manhood, might, in short, well be denoted
by either of the two expressions which he employs, — that in
his letter to Florinus or that in the treatise Against Heresies.
He was on the threshold of manhood, but yet he might
naturally speak of himself as then '' still a. boy," especially in
writing to Florinus, to whom, as a young man who was already
" faring prosperously in the imperial court," he must doubtless
have appeared such.
Irenaeu.s' reminiscences of what he had, when of this age,
heard Polycarp teach, must clearly be of considerable import
ance. It is said that he may have been misled as to the
presence of the Apostle John in Asia, through Polycarp's
having repeatedly spoken of that other John, whom Polycarp
may, like Papias, have described as "a disciple of the Lord."
I cannot admit that Irenaeus would have been likely to make
this mistake, even if he was but twelve to fifteen years old at
the time. An intelligent Christian boy of that age could
hardly have failed to understand the difference between one
of the twelve Apostles, and a man who was, it may be, a
personal follower of Christ, but not an Apostle. Still less can
Irenaeus have fallen into this error, if he was already a
youth of seventeen to eighteen.
It is also urged that as Irenaeus mistakenly imagined
Papias to have been a hearer of John the Apostle, instead of
the other John', he may very likely have made a similar
mistake as to Polycarp''. His error in regard to Papias is
supposed to have arisen through a wrong inference from the
work of the latter, which Eusebius corrects'. This is not, it
may be observed, a case strictly parallel to the other. One
who had derived a wrong impression from, or who imperfectly
misinterpret the passage of Irenaeus discussed above (ib.). He overlooks
the word adhuc and supposes that "the age of Trats commences with youthful
maturity, say about the eighteenth year," and lasted to the thirtieth year.
Irenaeus' language does not suggest this, and it is not, so far as I am aware,
confirmed by ancient usage generally.
' Adv. Haer. V. xxxiii. 3, 4.
" Cp. Hamack, Chron. i. p. 657, who declares that the authority of Irenaeus
as regards the question of the truth of the common tradition about the old age of
the Apostle John is "eliminated."
' H. E. III. xxxix. I — 7.

2i8 The date of Irenaeus' birth
remembered, a passage in a book, might be able to recall
clearly and accurately what he had himself heard in his youth.
But, further, Irenaeus' statement that Papias was " a hearer
of John " (meaning the apo.stle) may not have been founded
upon the language of the Expositions. Though it was an
error, as Papias' own silence shews, it may have been one for
which Irenaeus himself was not responsible. He may have
accepted a belief that was current. We meet with it, some
times with amplifications, in later writers. These may indeed
have derived it from Irenaeus ; but its vitality, in spite of
Eusebius' criticism, suggests the possibility that it had an
independent root'.
We have still to consider more generally the means of
information which Irenaeus had regarding the faith and life
of the Church during the period which intervened between his
own age and that of the Apostles. For this purpose it will
evidently be desirable that we should ascertain, if possible,
how far back in the first half of the second century his own
birth should be placed.
We have come to the conclusion that he was about
seventeen years of age at the time when he and Florinus
were together hearers of Polycarp. But in what year of the
century was this? There are wide differences of opinion on
the subject. Harnack fixes upon A.D. 154, the year preceding
Polycarp's martyrdom, while Zahn, not to mention other
critics, is for a year earlier by a quarter of a century.
The Emperor Hadrian was in Asia in AD. 129, and the
allusion to the "royal court" in the letter to Florinus could, as
Zahn urges, thus be explained. We have not nearly such
good evidence for any subsequent imperial visit of his or of his
successor. Nevertheless, the information which we at present
possess does not enable us to say that none such occurred ;
indeed, it seems not improbable that Antoninus Pius was
' See references given by Dr Salmon in Diet, of Chr. Bio. in. 399; also the
argument prefixed to the Gospel according to St John in a Vatican MS. of Ninth
century. See Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. p. 210.
I have already pointed out (p. 169) that while Eusebius is undoubtedly right
in distinguishing between John the Apostle, and the other John mentioned by
Papias, he may himself be mistaken in saying that Papias was a hearer of the
latter and of Aristion.

The date of Irenaeus' birth 219
there in A.D. 154. Some doubt, also, hangs over the meaning
of the words Iv tj} ^acriXiK^ avXrj. Supposing, however, that
they do point to the circumstances of A.D. 129, we should get
(according to our conclusion reached above) circ. A.D. 112 for
the date of Irenaeus' birth (or, according to Zahn, circ. A.D. 1 1 5).
Now it is argued that it cannot be placed later than this con
sistently with the indication which he himself gives when he
says that the Apocalypse was seen "almost in our own
generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian'." To suppose
an interval of even no more than twenty years is, it is urged,
to strain to the utmost possible extent the meaning of this
language". It may, however, surely be maintained that the
sense of nearness in a case of this kind is relative to the
standard of comparison which is in the mind. Now in the
context Irenaeus speaks both of Daniel's Vision and of the
6,000 years of human history. Moreover, it is evident that
he has a purpose here in insisting on the nearness of the
point of time in question. He would seem either to be con
trasting John's Vision with the Vision granted to the much
older prophet ; or else (which is on the whole more probable)
he desires to bring the more recent prophetic utterance into
connexion with the end of the world's probation, which he
believed to be approaching. This being so, a space of half a
century would not seem to separate him widely from it.
And there are serious objections to the early date for
Irenaeus' birth suggested bj^ Zahn. Irenaeus' own language
about his relations to Polycarp does not accord with the view
that he was a middle-aged man when the latter died. Not
only does he in writing to Florinus confine himself to remi
niscences of Polycarp which belong to the period of his own
youth, but in the reference which he makes in the treatise
Against Heresies to the fact of his having seen Polycarp iv r-rj
irpcorr} ri/nwv rjXiKiq, he implies that this had been rendered
possible because Polycarp had lived to a great age, and we
naturally infer that the latter did not live for many years after
Irenaeus saw him'. Again, if Irenaeus was born circ. A.D. 112,
' Adv. Haer. V. xxx. 3. " Zahn, Forsch. iv. pp. 281-2.
' Zahn insists that Irenaeus' reference to his being a boy applies only to the
time when Florinus like himself was a hearer of John, and that the phrase in the

2 2b The date of Irenaeus birth
he was about sixty-five when he went to Rome in A.D. 177 .
A man of his character, energy and ability must already have
become known to the Church generally before he had attained
that age, and the terms of the letter in which the Galilean
confessors commended him, though not unsuitable for the
case of a man still undistinguished, would have been out
of place. The time, also, of the composition of his great
work Against Heresies, together with all his labours as a
bishop, would be thrown into the years of his life between
sixty-five and seventy-five.
One other objection to placing the time referred to by
Irenaeus in his letter to Florinus so early as A.D. 129 may
also be mentioned. From a fragment of a letter of Irenaeus
to Victor" after the latter had become bishop of Rome, it may
be gathered — if the title of the extract in the Syriac Codex in
which it is preserved may be trusted — that Florinus was still
alive (A.D. 189), and that he had recently begun to propagate
heretical views by his pen. Accordingly, if the date above
mentioned for his intercour.se with Polycarp were the right
one, he mu^t.have first appeared as a heretical writer when
he was over eighty. This is clearly improbable'. I find it
Adv., Haer. — iy rrj Trpwrrj riXiKig, — relates to a considerably later period. "As a
young man somewhere between the eighteenth and thirty-fifth year will Irenaeus
have enjoyed intercourse with Polycarp" (Art. on Irenaeus in Herzog's Real-
EncycL VII. pp. 136-7. Cp. also Forsch. iv. pp. 279-80). On the ground of this
distinction befwe;en Irenaeus' two statements he asserts (Kanon I; p. 23) that
"an incident in itself unimportant, belonging to the year 129, when as a boy he
found himself in the entourage of Polycarp, was vividly present to his mind, and a
rich treasure of memories of religious discourses which he had then and later'''' (the
italics are mine) "heard in Asia from the mouth of the venerable representative of
the Subapostolic generation was at his disposal" etc. But, even apart from the
consideration of the context in which they stand, the words "we sotai Polycarp iv
ry irpwTTj ijpwv ijXiKig.'' do not suggest continuous intercourse, or repeated oppor
tunities of hearing, during a period of years.
^ Eus. t/. E. V. 4, after the persecution in Lyons and Vienne.
'¦' Harvey's Irenaeus II. p. 457, Fragm. xxviii.
' Cp. Harnack (Chron. i. pp. 321, 325) with whose interpretation of this
fragment I agree substantially. Zahn supposes that Florinus was no longer alive
at the time when Irenaeus wrote this letter to Victor. But its expressions seem
clearly to imply that he was. That he had only recently avowed his heretical
opinions is to be inferred from the fact that, according to the fragment, he was
a presbyter of the Church of Rome and that no steps had so far been taken to
remove him from that position.
I do not think, however, that much stress should be laid on the evidence of

The date of Irenaeus birth 221
impossible, therefore, to assign the early date, which Zahn
and some other writers on the subject have done, for
Irenaeus' birth. The time when he and Florinus were both
among Polycarp's hearers should rather be placed near the
close of Polycarp's life. A.D. 150 — 154 may reasonably be
taken as limits for it. Later than the early part of A.D. 154
it cannot have been, on account of Polycarp's visit to Anicetus
at Rome after the latter became bishop, and his own death in
the spring of A.D. 155'. Combining this result with that
this fragment. That Florinus is the person referred to in it, as stated in the
heading of the extract, may be simply the conjecture of some scribe who recalled
Irenaeus' expostulations with Florinus on the subject of his heretical tendencies in
the letter given by Eusebius.
' Harnack selects A.D. 154 for the time referred to in the letter to Florinus, on
the ground that it is "not improbable" that Antoninus Pius visited Asia Minor in
that year. (See Chron. I. p. 329, n. 2.) The evidence seems to me too slender
to justify our drawing inferences from it. On the other hand I do not understand
why Lightfoot (Ap. Frs, Pt -i, i. p. 448, 11. 2) declares this date to be too late.
R. A. Lipsius (Diet, of Chr. Bio. in. 254) makes a guarded use of the state
ments contained in a note appended to the Moscow MS. of the Letter of the
Smyrnaeans concerning the death of Polycarp, which are (i ) that at the time of the
martyrdom of Polycarp, Irenaeus taught many in Rome ; (2) that Irenaeus himself
in his writings asserts that he heard a voice in Rome, at the time of Polycarp's
martyrdom, informing him of the fact.
The former statement is put on one side by Lipsius when discussing Irenaeus'
age, as clearly it should be, since the Moscow note alleges no authority for it.
But even if (2) may be relied upon it does not seem to be of much value for our
present purpose. It would prove, indeed, that by A.D. 155 Irenaeus had removed
from Asia to Rome, and it is probable, therefore, that he was then not less than
eighteen to twenty. But we have already arrived at the conclusion that he may
have attained that age by a.d. 155. The statement, however, that he was in
Rome at this time is of interest for another reason, and I shall recur to it. See
p. 227. Feb. 23, A.D. 15s, has been very generally accepted by recent critics as the
date of Polycarp's Martyrdom. 'Waddington, as the result of a careful exami
nation of allusions in the Orations of the rhetorician Aristides, arrived at the
period from the middle of A.D. 154 to the middle of A.D. 155 as that when a
Quadratus mentioned by Aristides was proconsul of Asia. This Quadratus was
naturally identified with the Statius Quadratus who was proconsul when Polycarp
was martyred. The argument has convinced many competent judges, among
whom I may mention Zahn (ap. Herzog, Real-Encycl. vii. p. 136) and Lightfoot,
Ap. Frs, Pt 2, I. p. 656 ff.
More recently 'W. Schmid (Rliein. Museum, N. F. vol. XLViii. p. 53 f ) has dis
puted the soundness of 'Waddington's argument, and has contended for a different
chronology of Aristides' life, which brings the proconsulship of the Quadratus
whom he mentions to A.D. 166. Harnack holds that Schmid has proved his case;
nevertheless he adheres to A.D. 155 as the year of Polycarp's Martyrdom on

2 22 The Elders referred to by Irenaeus
before obtained as to Irenaeus' age at the time in question,
we get A.D. 133 to 137 as probable limits for the date of his
birth. It may be added that the result which we have reached
is in general agreement with the notices of Irenaeus by
Eusebius in his history. He first, indeed, mentions Irenaeus
among the Churchmen who were eminent in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius; but he names him last among them, and
he chiefly brings him before us in connexion with the last
years of that emperor and the reign of Commodus.
We will now proceed to consider the import and value
of the comprehensive references which Irenaeus repeatedly
makes in his treatise Against Heresies to the teaching of
Elders who had known John, or more generally who had been
"disciples of the Apostles." Polycarp was undoubtedly one
of these, and the chief figure among them. But Irenaeus,
when he so expresses himself, cannot well be referring only
to Polycarp, and to what he himself remembered of Polycarp's
teaching. Had he, then, himself known others besides Poly
carp who belonged to the first generation after the Apostles?
Or if not, from what source or sources does he derive his
knowledge of them and of their doctrine'?
In treating of the subject of moral difficulties in the
Old Testament", he quotes at considerable length what used
to be said by an individual " elder," whose name he does
not give, but whom he had himself heard', and of whom
he says that " he used to refresh us " with his remarks
about the ancients (i.e. those under the Old Covenant*). But
the descriptions of this " elder " are not free from ambiguity,
and it will be well to discuss them first, as there is no doubt
about Irenaeus' intercourse with him. Irenaeus calls him
first "a certain elder qui audierat ab his qui apostolos viderant,
grounds which are altogether independent of the chronology that may be made out
for the life of Aristides, and which are certainly strong. See Harnack, Chron. i.
PP- 334—356-
' The questions connected with the Elders quoted by Irenaeus are discussed
with great fulness by Harnack, Chron. I. note on pp. 333 — 340, and Zahn, Forsch.
VI. (1900), pp. 53—94- Cp. also Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel. pp. 158-9, 194 —
202; 217-8; 245-8; 266. 'Westcott, Canon ii. § 2, pp. 81-2.
" Adv. Haer. iv. xxvii. — xxxii. 1.
' Ib. xxvu. I. ^ Ib. xxxi. i.

The Elders referred to by Irenaeus 223
et ab his qui didicerant^ ." The last clause, as it stands, is
obscure. Lightfoot supposed that " personal followers of
Christ," such as Aristion and John the Elder, were meant by
" those who had learned"." But it would be strange that
these should be placed after those who had only seen
Apostles. It seems more natural to take the words as
meaning " those who had learnt from Apostles,'' or possibly
even " who had learnt from disciples of Apostles." A further
difficulty arises in connexion with Irenaeus' final notice of
this teacher, which runs thus: — " After this manner also used
that elder, the disciple of the Apostles, to dispute about the
two Covenants, shewing that both are from one and the
same God." It is clear that the same "elder" is referred to
throughout the section'. It would be strange, therefore, that,
if he was indeed himself " a disciple of the Apostles " in the
strict sense of the words, Irenaeus should introduce him
simply as one who had learned from those who had .seen
Apostles, and three times subsequently speak of him as " the
elder" or "that elder^" It is more probable that, by the title
which he at length applies to him, he means only that he
taught in full accord with the teaching of the Apostles which
he had received at the hands of their immediate followers.
We will turn next to a group of passages in the Fifth
Book of the Adversus Haereses in which statements made by
the Elders collectively are cited or referred to. In three
of these the present tense is used : — "the elders, disciples of
the Apostles, say^ " ; " those themselves bear witness, who
saw John face to face'." It is evident from the tense employed
that Irenaeus mu.st have a book before him, or in his mind,
in which the testimony of these Elders was recorded''. In
the remaining passage we are first told what " the elders
who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, remembered that
they had heard from him '' ; and then we are informed that
' lb. xxvii. 1. ^ lb. p. 266.
' Harvey questions this in loc. (xxxii. i) ; but, with this exception, so far
as I have observed, it has been admitted.
* Ib. xxvii. I, end; 2; xxx. 1. In xxvui. 1 he is merged in a more general
description, ostendebant presbyteri.
° Adv. Haer. v. v. i; xxxvi. i, 2. ^ Ib. xxx. i.
' Cp. Lightfoot, ib. p. 196.

2 24 The Elders referred to by Irenaeus
" Papias also, a hearer of John and companion of Polycarp,
an ancient man, confirms these things in writing" in the
fourth of the five books composed by him'. It has been
asserted that the "also" and the expression "confirms in
writing " {iryypd(f)Q)(; itrifiapTvpeT) prove beyond a doubt that
in the preceding passage Irenaeus is quoting from an
independent, oral source, after which he turns to Papias'
book as an additional witness". But the words have not
necessarily this force. Papias, himself a " hearer of John,"
even by the mere fact of giving in his book what others had
reported, might well, in the eyes of Irenaeus, seem to have set
his seal to it. But Irenaeus has in view, apparently, a more
express confirmation which fully accounts for the expression
which he uses ; for he goes on to say that Papias adds the
words, credibilia sunt credentibus. Irenaeus tells us, at all
events, that Papias' book contained the matter in question,
and it would be most natural for him to take it thence, even
if he was independently acquainted with it. Papias, we
know, had made it his business to collect and to record
in his Expositions what men who had heard the Apostles
related in regard to their teaching, and also the sayings of
one whom he called specifically " the elder," and whom he
describes as a disciple of the Lord, as well as of another to
whom he also gives the latter title. Moreover, the subject
of the Millennium and other kindred topics form the theme
of the Fifth Book of the Adversus Haereses, and all the
statements of the Elders there given by Irenaeus are con
cerned with these ; they had a special fascination for Papias,
and we may consequently with considerable confidence refer
them to his Expositions as their source'.
Irenaeus makes one other citation from the elders. "All
the elders," he writes in this instance, " who in Asia associated
' Adv. Haer. v. xxxiii. 3, 4.
" Zahn, Forsch. VI. p. 89, asserts that this must be evident to everyone "der
lesen kann." Both Harnack (I.e. pp. 335-6), and Lightfoot (I.e. 158-9, 197), are
among those who "cannot read."
^ See Eus. H. E. Iii. xxxix. 11, 12. A difference between Papias and
Irenaeus in the application of the term "elder" must, however, be noted. The
former uses it of the apostles and their contemporaries (1. c. 4) ; the latter of the
men of the generation to which Papias himself belonged.

The Elders referred to by Irenaeus 225
with John, the disciple of the Lord, delivered this," namely,
that Our Lord when He was crucified had passed the age of a
juvenis and was approaching that of an elder'- The present
tense is, it will be observed, again used, and therefore as
before a book is in view, and in all probability the same book,
the Expositions of Papias, which was a storehouse of such
traditions. This one does not, indeed, like the rest, bear on
Millenarian beliefs; but Papias did not confine himself to
that subject in collecting his materials, interested though he
was in it".
The character of these traditions taken as a whole does
not lead us to form a favourable view of their trustworthiness.
The one which has been last referred to should not be hastily
set aside, even though it may seem to conflict with the
impression ordinarily derived from the Gospels, and especially
from the Synoptic Gospels, in regard to the length of Our
Lord's Ministry. But with the New Testament in our hands
it is impossible to suppose that the Millenarian pieces can
truly reflect the teaching of the Apostles. The spirit and
purpose of those passages of the New Testament in which
the influence of similar ideas may be most clearly traced are
utterly different. And if Papias received what he reports
from many who professed to have heard the Apostles, there
must in regard to this particular class of topics have been a
lamentable growth of fable and profitless speculation in the
Sub-apostolic Age itself
The references, then, which Irenaeus makes in his work
Against Heresies to the statements of the Elders do not
enhance his own importance as a depositary of sound
information in regard to the preceding history of the Church.
He took them from Papias, and what Papias related was,
we cannot but feel, of questionable truth. We are entitled,
' Adv. Haer. il. xxii. 5. Grabe, whom Harvey here follows, introduced
Tavra into the text of the Greek fragment derived from Eusebius, on the ground
that "the Latin Version has it." See Harvey n. 4 in loc. But the Latin Version
has the singular, id ipsum, referring to the one point of our Lord's age, — not the
plural. " Harnack assigns this citation from the Elders like those in .4dv. Haer. bk 5
to Papias' work, 1. u. pp. 334-5. Lightfoot does not, I think, anywhere express
an opinion in regard to this one.
S. G. 15

2 26 Irenaeus viewed more generally
however, to say that in believing what he found in such a
book Irenaeus did only what almost anyone in his time would
have done, unless a doctrinal bias of a different kind had
made the statements in question unwelcome ; and further
that his readiness to accept them does not shew that he would
have been a bad judge in regard to a simple matter of fact,
such as the one with which we are at present concerned,
namely whether he had, or had not, heard those whose
evidence was of value declare that John the Apostle resided
and taught in Asia. Again, it does not appear that Irenaeus
had met others, besides Polycarp, who had heard St John.
But as a man who was already full grown before A.D. i6o, he
must at least have known not a few Christians, his seniors,
who, when already themselves of mature age, had had
opportunities of hearing Polycarp or other men of that
generation, and by their recollections his own impressions as
to the earlier history of the Church must have been either
confirmed, or checked and corrected. The " elder," from
whose discourses on Old Testament difficulties he quotes in
his Fourth Book, is an example ; and we should judge him
to have been a man of excellent sense, by what he is reported
to have said. Others Irenaeus may have had no occasion to
refer to because they were not teachers or otherwise persons
of position. But they would be trustworthy witnesses to plain
facts. It is no uncommon thing even for two memories to
cover a period of a hundred years, while many doubtless who
are now in middle life can remember to have heard their
parents, or other elder relatives, and their contemporaries,
speak of events and personages of the beginning of the last
century of which they in turn had heard from their elders. In
this way Nelson and Pitt and Fox would have been real
characters to us, even if we had never read of them. We
cannot believe that reminiscences of the chief men of the first
age of the Church were less dwelt upon among Christians.
Other Christian writings also, which have not come down to
us, besides Papias' Expositions , were in the hands of Irenaeus.
Thus he quotes from an anti-Gnostic writer whom he calls
o Kpeiaaoov i^fioov, " our superior'," and whom he also styles —
' Adv. Haer. i. praef 2; xiii. 3; in. xvii. 4.

as a link with an earlier age 227
for the reference seems to be to the same person — "the
ancient dear to God'." What the works which he used
contained, we of course do not know, except in so far as he
expressly quotes ; but they all helped to give him a knowledge
of the beliefs of the Church in the past.
We have an example of the information which Irenaeus
had in all probability received from others, and which was of
a nature to confirm his own remembrance of Polycarp's
language respecting his relations with the Apostle John, in
the important statement which he makes as to the ground
taken by Polycarp in his conference with Anicetus on the
question of Paschal observance. It will be remembered that,
according to Irenaeus, Polycarp justified himself by an appeal
to the example of John the disciple of the Lord, and the rest
of the Apostles, with whom he had lived'''. Now, how did
Irenaeus know that this was Polycarp's claim .-' Sufficient
attention has not, I think, been given to this point in the
controversy concerning the Asiatic sojourn of St John.
Irenaeus certainly stayed in Rome in A.D. 177, and may have
been there many years earlier. It has been stated above' that,
according to a note appended to the Moscow MS. of the
Martyrdom of Polycarp, Irenaeus mentioned in some writing
of his that he was in Rome at the time of Polycarp's
martyrdom. Lipsius* suggests that Irenaeus may have gone
there from Smyrna in the preceding year in Polycarp's
company. This seems to me unlikely, because, if he had
done so, it would have been natural for him to allude to the
fact either in Adversus Haereses, III. iii. 4, or in more than
one other context. But even if he reached Rome a few
months after Polycarp's departure, the visit of the aged bishop
of Smyrna would have been fresh in the minds of the
Christians of Rome. I should be sorry, however, to lay more
stress upon the statement of the Moscow MS. than it will bear.
Let us suppose that Irenaeus' visit to Rome in A.D. 177 was
his first. Even then the remarkable conference between
Polycarp and Anicetus must have been distinctly remembered
in the Church of Rome, and Irenaeus, owing to the tie which
' I. XV. 6. See Zahn's proof that he is the same. Forsch. vi. p. 53 ff.
" See p. 215. ' See p. 221 n. * Diet, of Chr. Biogr. III. p. 254.
IS— 2

228 Examination of strictures
bound him to Polycarp, must have felt a peculiar interest in
ascertaining as fully as possible what took place. His state
ment then, made to Victor circ. A.D. 190, is strong evidence as
to the chief argument actually urged by Polycarp'.

(7 b) The testimony of Polycrates.
In his letter to Victor on the question of Paschal observ
ance, from which some quotations have already been made",
Polycrates writes : — " In Asia great luminaries have fallen
asleep who shall arise in the day of the Lord's appearing, in
which he comes with glory from heaven and shall raise up all
the saints; — Philip, one of the twelve Apostles, who fell asleep
in Hierapolis, and two of his daughters, who to old age
remained virgins, and his other daughter who having lived in
the Holy Spirit rests in Ephesus ; again, John who reclined
upon the Lord's breast, and became a priest wearing the
mitre, and a witness, and a teacher ; he sleeps in Ephesus ;
and again Polycarp, etc.'" Polycrates, it will be seen,
identified the illustrious John, who, he says, was buried at
Ephesus, with the beloved disciple of the Fourth Gospel. He,
like Irenaeus, must be supposed to be referring to the only
John who appears among the disciples of Jesus in the New
Testament, the son of Zebedee, who was believed by Irenaeus
and others of the contemporaries of Polycrates to be the
author of that Gospel*.
Holtzmann, however, who admits that such is the meaning
of Polycrates, finds indications in his language of the process
by which the tradition concerning John the Apostle had
' Hilgenfeld touches on this point, Einleit. p. 398. Critics who deny the
Ephesine residence of the Apostle John are, so far as I have observed, strangely
silent about it.
" .See above, pp. 176-7.
' Ap. Eus. H. E. V. xxiv. 2, 3.
* The majority of critics admit that Polycrates, also, intended to refer to
John the Apostle. E.g. Harnack, 1. t. p. 669; Schmiedel, 1. t. p. 2507; Holtz
mann, 1. c. p. 474. On the other hand Delff (1. t. p. 69 f. and Das Vierte Evang.
p. 2 ff.) and Bousset (I.e. p. 43 i.) maintain that Polycrates did not mean John
the Apostle.

on the testimony of Polycrates 229
grown', through confusion with John the Elder and the
attribution to the Apostle — whether they were by the Elder
or not — first, of the authorship of the Apocalypse, and
subsequently of that of the Gospel. This appears to be
speculation of a very precarious kind. Let me take, first,
the point that Polycrates "does not call John an Apostle, but
places him after Philip, along with Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris,
Papirius, Melito." Here, according to Holtzmann, "the idea of
the Presbyter still exercises an influence." But we ask: Did
Polycrates believe the John of whom he is writing to be the
Apostle, or did he not ? Holtzmann plainly assumes that he
did ; the author of the Apocalypse had been supposed, he
tells us, to be John the Apostle since A.D. 1 50. How, then,
could Polycrates forget that he was the Apostle, and lose
himself even for a moment in some confused sense that he was
some one of lower rank? There is, however, in truth no ground
for saying that Polycrates does not class John with Philip,
but with the men who follow ; or that he regarded John as
inferior to Philip, simply because he names him later. His
mention of John is separated from that of Philip only by that
of Philip's daughters. That he should finish off all that was
connected with Philip before passing to John is perfectly
natural. Moreover two of these saintly women were buried
in Hierapolis, the same place as their father ; and it is evident
that Polycrates in his enumeration is passing in thought from
place to place. This may also explain the order ; some
reason that we do not know, or some subtle association
of ideas, may have led him to speak of Hiefapolis before
Ephesus. Or the fact that Philip had died first would account
for the position given to him. Polycrates does not, it is true,
say of John, as he does of Philip, that he was " one of the
twelve Apostles," but he designates him as "he who leaned
upon the Lord's breast," thereby implying that he was not
only a member, but the most favoured member of that body.
In 8iSdcrKaXo<;, also, we may well see an allusion to his discharge
of his Apostolic office. It is used by St Paul of himself in a
manner which implies a great commission and high authority".
' I. c. p. 474.
" I Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. n.

2 30 Examination of strictures
Polycrates dwells upon the figure of John in a way that he
does upon no other. That the language has been moulded
by the thought that he was the author of the Apocalypse as
well as of the Fourth Gospel, there is no ground for disputing.
But this shews only that Polycrates, like his contemporaries
generally, believed both works to be by the Apostle John'.
One other point requiring consideration is raised by the
fragment of Polycrates. It relates to his statement in regard
to the Apostle Philip, and his daughters, two of whom at least
grew old as virgins, while the third also "lived in the Holy
Ghost," and may or may not have died unmarried. It is
natural to imagine that here the Apostle has been substituted
for the Evangelist Philip, who (according to the Acts of the
Apostles)" also had daughters, four virgins, who. prophesied.
Papias made the same, or substantially the same, statement
in regard to the Apostle Philip'. Two contemporaries also
of Polycrates refer to Philip and his daughters. Clement of
Alexandria named Philip as an example of an Apostle who
was a married man, and adds that "he married his daughters
to husbands*," while Gaius, in his Proclus, referred to four
daughters of Philip who were prophetesses and who as well
as their father were buried in Hierapolis. In the mention of
" four prophetesses " the last-named writer seems to be
influenced by the passage in the Acts ; but whether he
supposed their father, who was buried at Hierapolis, to be
the Evangelist or the Apostle, does not appear °-
' Delff and Bousset go further than Holtzmann, for they deny that Polycrates
himself meant the Apostle John (see p. 228, n. 4, where references are given).
Their chief arguments will, I believe, be found to have been sufficiently answered
by the remarks on pp. 168 — 171, taken with those above on Holtzmann's view.
But it may be well to notice Delff's curious fancy, in which he is foUowed, though
somewhat hesitatingly, by Bousset, that the words Ss iyev-qBri lepebs rb TrbraXov
Tre<t>opeKd>s signify that John, the author of the Fourth Gospel, was of the Jewish
high-priestly family and had once at least officiated as high-priest on the Day of
Atonement. He brings forward nothing material either from the Gospels or other
Christian sources, or the facts of Jewish history, or customary Jewish modes of
speech, which lends the least colour of verisimilitude to this strange hypothesis.
" Acts xxi. 8, 9. ' See Eus. H. E. III. xxxix. 8, g. ^ Ib. xxx. i.
^ Ib. xxxi. 4. It may seem, also, that Eusebius (ib.) confounds the two Philips.
It is not, however, clear to me that he does so. He seems rather to quote the
different statements and leave them, with the air of a man who does not wish to
charge any of his authorities with error, or who is simply puzzled.

on the testimony of Polycrates 231
It is argued, then, that if the Apostle has been substituted
in tradition for the Evangelist, who bore the name of Philip,
so may John the Apostle have been for John the Presbyter'-
The mistake, however, if mistake it was, in respect to the two
Philips, may have begun with Papias and been derived by other
writers directly or indirectly from his Expositions. It is not
possible, as we shall presently see, to explain the supposed
error in regard to John thus simply. It must be added that
the account given of Philip the Apostle may after all be true.
On a point connected with the history of the Church in
Hierapolis Papias was an excellent witness. Indeed he may
himself have known and gleaned traditions from Philip's
daughters themselves. It would clearly not have been a more
remarkable coincidence than many which are commonly met
with, if both Philip the Evangelist and Philip the Apostle had
daughters who were women of some mark in the Church, and
some of whom remained to the end of life unmarried. Nor
can the possibility be excluded that there may be an error
in the Acts of the Apostles. It need not have been due to
the author ; the words " the evangelist, one of the seven,"
might be a gloss, early introduced, which had been suggested
by the fact that this Philip is a prominent figure in the early
part of the work.

(8) Conclusion.
The various objections which have come before us in
the course of this long enquiry, with the exception of the
one that is based on the silence of the Sub-apostolic Age
to which we will recur, do not seem to have much substance.
Nor do they confirm one another and become important
through combination, as considerations separately weak may
do. Indeed they are to some epctent mutually antagonistic.
For if it could be shewn that the Apostle John was not
an eminent teacher in the Church of Asia, those arguments
directed against the authenticity of the Gospel according to
St John, which rely for part of their force upon the considera-
' Holtzmann, 1. c. p. 473. Harnack, 1. c. p. 669 etc.

232 The tradition is supported
tion that Christians who held views really inconsistent there
with, or expressly hostile thereto, belonged to that region,
would so far be weakened.
We have seen, also, that there is small reason for sup
posing the character and circumstances of John the Elder
to have been such as would have favoured a confusion
between him and the Apostle John. If, however, all that
is hypothetically imputed to the Elder was actually true of
him, is it likely, we may ask, that it would have been
transferred to the Apostle? Fame is, it is true, ever busy
taking from those that have not and giving to those that
have, assigning the plans and the labours and the sayings
of the undistinguished to the illustrious, where they have
been engaged in the same or similar undertakings, or can be
otherwise associated in thought. But all ordinary examples
of this are far outdone in the present conjecture. The two
men in question were not, it would seem, connected in any
way except by having the same individual name, and the
supposed result of this single similarity is that the personality
of one of them, a man of eminence in the Church of his day, is
completely obliterated from memory, within a period of from
fifty to eighty years, in the region where he had lived and
taught, while the other, who is substituted for him, had
scarcely visited it, if he had ever done so, and was a man of
widely different character and views.
When allowance has been made for all that can be fairly
urged against the value of the testimony of the principal
witnesses for the common tradition, they remain excellent
ones. Moreover, we have yet to take account of the combined
effect of their and other evidence. One very peculiar point in
regard to the supposed case of mistaken identity is that
different persons agree in it, who cannot have derived it from
a common source. Irenaeus, it is said, misunderstood Poly
carp, when the latter spoke of a John who was a disciple of
the Lord. But the language of Polycrates would not thus be
explained ; the latter cannot have obtained his belief from
Irenaeus, who had left Asia Minor many years before, pro
bably when quite a young man, and whose connexion seems
to have been with Smyrna, not with Ephesus. Polycrates,

by several independent witnesses 233
indeed, as a man of sixty-five when he wrote the letter of
which we possess a fragment, and as one who had had no less
than six bishops among his kinsfolk, must have relied rather
upon his own knowledge of the traditions of the Church of
which he was bishop than upon those of any contemporary. ,
I have not yet alluded to the evidence of Clement of
-Alexandria, who relates a story regarding the old age of the
Apostle, which was not derived from Irenaeus' work but
has been obtained through some other channel, and which
presupposes some of the main points in the common tradition'.
It will be remembered, too, that in Justin Martyr we have
a witness for the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John
belonging to the middle of the century. For the authorship
of the Apocalypse, which he ascribes to the Apostle, implies
an intimate connexion with the Churches of Asia. Yet it is
plain that his statement is not the source from which later
writers have drawn.
The truth of course is that the writers near the end of the
second century whom we have cited testify to a belief which
was neither peculiar to themselves, nor new at the time when
they were writing, but which had long been fully established,
and was general and unchallenged. Surely, it is impossible
that a mistake of such a nature could have been so early and
so widely spread".
' See the tale in Quis Div. Salv. 42, p. 959, quoted by Eusebius H. E. in.
xxiii. " ApoUonius, also (circ. a.d. 200), alludes to a miracle wrought by St John at
Ephesus (ap. Eus. H. E. v. xviii. 14).
It will be convenient to notice here the view taken by Holtzmann (Einleit.
p. 470) of the language of the Muratorian Canon, on the composition of the
Fourth Gospel: " Cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis dixit: 'Conjejunate
mihi liodie triduum, et quid cuique fuerit revelatum alterutrum nobis enarremus.'
Eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis,
Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret. " According to Holtzmann these words
imply that Jerusalem was the place of composition, and that the time was before
the dispersion of the Apostles. We should thus have a dissentient voice as to the
later years of John at the end of the second or beginning of the third century,
which is unlikely and need not be assumed ; for it was commonly believed that
other Apostles besides John came to Asia (see e.g. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. ill. iii. 3;
and ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxiv. 16). Moreover, the words of Clement of Alexandria
in his account of the composition of John's Gospel in a passage of the Hypotyposeis
(ap. Eus. H. E. VI. xiv. 7) imply similar circumstances ; yet he in all probability
must have supposed it to have been composed in Asia.

234 Many were interested in disputing
But there is more to be said. I have remarked that the
belief was unchallenged. This is very significant, for there
were three religious parties who would have had a strong
interest in challenging it if they could have done so with any
hope of success.
First, there were the Gnostics. We have observed the
taunt which Irenaeus levelled at Ptolemaeus'. Would not he
and other Valentinians have retorted that Irenaeus' own
boasted connexion with the Apostle John through Polycarp
was a figment, if they had known, or could have discovered
on enquiry, that thirty or forty or fifty years previously the
residence of the Apostle John in Asia was unheard of.? Or
again, if Florinus, who was certainly of mature age when he
used to listen to Polycarp, knew or suspected that Irenaeus'
memory was at fault when he appealed to what Polycarp had
declared in the hearing of them both concerning his inter
course with the Apostle John''', would he not have answered
that he remembered nothing of the kind ? It may be said
that we have not the Gnostic replies. But we have the
treatises on heresies of the later writers on the Church's side,
who were only too eager to expose to view anything said by
their antagonists which conflicted with ecclesiastical tradition.
Next, the subject of Quartodecimanism may well be
viewed in a light different from that in which it has hitherto
come before us. We have considered the objection against
the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel which this
practice has suggested to some minds in our own and recent
times, and we have seen no sufficient reason to attach weight
to it. We may now observe that no controversy could have
been more fitted to test the truth of the whole tradition
concerning the later years of St John than that which took
place in regard to Quartodeciman observance. One of the
principal arguments of the Asiatics for it was, that the Apostle
John had lived in their midst and had set them an example.
Assuredly, if Victor and his party had felt that they could
prove that this assertion was baseless they would have done so;
and it could not have been difficult at least to throw doubt
upon it, if the legend had taken shape in less than fifty years
' See above, p. 214. 2 j^^

its truth, yet refrained froin doing so 235
preceding. So again, if there had been any ground for suspicion
that the Quartodecimans at the end of the second century or
earlier called in question the Apostolic authority of the Fourth
Gospel, their antagonists would have made the most of it ;
Irenaeus would have been little inclined to take up their
cause, and other writers on heresies would have indicated a
connexion between them and the Alogi.
We have finally to notice that these last confirm the
tradition in regard to St John by the character of their
objections. It never occurred to them to argue that whereas
the Fourth Gospel was said to have been composed in Asia,
and the Seer of the Apocalypse was in exile off its coast and
addressed its Churches, the Apostle John had not lived in
those parts.
The belief, then, which we have been examining stands
before us as one which is not only attested by various inde
pendent witnesses, who had excellent means of information,
nor only as one pertaining to a matter of fact about which
widespread mistake would be strange, but over and above all
this as one which remained unquestioned, though many would
have had a strong interest in attacking it, at a time when it
would still have been easy to do so, if it had been ill-founded.
It would be difficult to find better reasons for accepting any
historical statement whatsoever. The recent critics who think
that it has been refuted shew no sign that they have realised
the strength of the case for it. The fault has, perhaps, lain
originally with " apologists." They have insisted too much on
the reminiscences of Irenaeus taken by themselves. It was
natural to do this in the first instance ; his testimony seemed
so vivid and full of personal interest. The rein was given to
the imagination somewhat too freely in picturing his connexion
with Polycarp. The critics on the other hand who regard the
question from another point of view have become too much
absorbed in discovering grounds for doubting Irenaeus. They
have failed — a danger to which critics are at all times ex
posed — to place individual facts in their historical setting, and
to review the whole evidence in a judicial spirit.
We have still, indeed, to recall the objection based on
the silence in regard to the Apostle John before Justin and

236 How the silence of the Sub-apostolic Age
to set it over against that strong tradition of which we have
just spoken. The investigator of any set of facts will always
desire to attain to a view of them which shall, as it were,
reconcile them all, giving to each its value, and he can never
feel wholly content so long as he has not succeeded in this.
But it is not always possible to do so in dealing with historical
problems, any more than it is in the cases of the law-courts
or in matters of everyday life. We have to acquiesce at
times in a conflict of evidence ; and then we have to exercise
our judgment as best we can in deciding on which side the
preponderance truly lies. If it must be so in the instance
before us, I do not think there ought to be a doubt what
the answer should be. In estimating the significance of the
early silence we must remember how scanty the remains of
the period are. Moreover, the absence of any mention of
the Apostle John is very strange only in the Epistles of
Ignatius, and there we are forced to recognise that any in
ferences from it may be precarious when we notice how
limited and special is the use made even of the name of
St Paul. This objection, then, cannot suffice to overthrow the
firmly established tradition which we have been considering.
Nevertheless, it appears to me difficult to avoid inferring
from the absence of allusions to the Apostle John in writings
of the beginning of the second century, that there was a
difference — which it is a matter of great interest to notice —
between his reputation and influence then and at the close
of the century. At this later time men were fast learning,
if they had not already learned, to give him a place, as we
do to-day, among the greatest masters of the Christian Faith,
distinct from, but not inferior to, that of Peter and of Paul.
This position is accorded him mainly as the evangelist of
the Fourth Gospel. Now it will be suggested that the change
in the estimate formed of him of which I have spoken can be
explained, if we allow that he spent his later years in Asia,
and suppose that from this circumstance the Gospel which was
produced in that region was mistakenly attributed to him,
though not before the middle of the century. Thenceforth it
will be said his celebrity rapidly grew. It should be remarked,
however, that the different parts of the tradition are closely

may possibly be explained 237
connected, that they form one whole in the mind of the
Church of the latter part of the second century, and are
attested by the same witnesses, who, if they are trustworthy
in regard to one point, ought to be so as to others. And
I believe that we may view the early silence about the Apostle
John in a manner which harmonises more fully with other facts.
There is much which tends to shew that the persons of the
Evangelists, and the importance of the function which they
discharged, were for a time commonly lost sight of, because
the minds of Christians were absorbed with the main contents
and the outline of that Gospel which had been at first orally
delivered'. There is no sufficient ground for assuming an
exception in the case of the Fourth Gospel and its author.
Unquestionably peculiar reverence must have been felt for the
Apostle John if he lingered on among men as the last surviv
ing Apostle. Yet his real influence may have been confined
within a narrow circle of disciples who had the mental power
and the spirituality to understand his teaching in some degree.
To the majority of Christians during his lifetime, and for
the first generation or two after his death, his title to
honour may not have seemed essentially different from that
of Andrew or Philip. Whether he was in the strict sense the
author of the Gospel ascribed to him, or it was composed
after his death by the aid of records of what he had said,
or which actually proceeded from his own pen, here was a
legacy of which the value could only be appreciated with
time. Finally, in order that the bearing of the whole tra
dition which we have been discussing, upon the question of
the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, may be adequately re-
' This is shewn especially by the manner in which the term "the Gospel" is
used as a comprehensive description of the facts concerning Jesus Christ. For
some instances see 'Westcott, Canon, p. 115 n. i, p. 119 n. i, and Zahn, Kan. i.
pp. 842-3. It continued to be so employed long after the plural "Gospels " for
the writings containing "the Gospel" had come fully into use, and this even
where a statement contained only in one written Gospel was in question, e.g. De
Aleatoribus, u. 3, "in evangelio Dominus ad Petrum dixit" etc. The remarkable
phrase " Gospel according to (xara) Matthew" etc. to denote authorship involves
in point of fact the same idea. It is the one Gospel in all cases though presented
in a special way in each. So, too, " Gospel according to the Hebrews" signifies
the Gospel in the form in which it was current among them.

238 The verisimilitude of the tradition
cognised, it must be viewed in connexion with statements
and indications in the Gospel itself. Reference is therein
made to a member of the innermost circle of the disciples
of Jesus whose testimony is given, and there are many
signs of first-hand knowledge in the book. On the other
hand, its characteristics favour the idea that it was composed
in some great centre such as Ephesus, where the influence
of Greek thought would be felt, and also not earlier than the
last decade of the first century. The tradition, therefore,
which singles out John the son of Zebedee as the disciple
alluded to in it, and which makes it the work of his old age
when he dwelt in Asia, after most of the first generation
of disciples had passed away, is marked by self-consistency
and appropriateness. It may be that in our Fourth Gospel we
have the teaching of St John turned to account by the thought
and labour of another mind, possibly one of larger grasp. A
disciple, whose own intellectual characteristics and training
may have determined in greater or less degree the form of the
composition, may well have set himself to record therein what
he had learned from the venerable Apostle. The early belief
as to its authorship may be reasonably explained if he had
this kind of connexion with it. But, also, there does not seem
to be anything improbable even in the view that it was in a
strict sense his own work, if allowance is made for the effects
which the experience gained during the years of his residence
in Asia would have had upon his mind.

Gaius attitude to the Fourth Gospel 239

ADDITIONAL NOTE TO CHAPTER V.
DR J. RENDEL HARRIS AND DR E. A. ABBOTT ON
GAIUS' ATTITUDE TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
I. It would be a point of considerable interest to ascertain if Gaius
was in all respects a representative of the party to which Epiphanius
gives the name of Alogi, i.e. if he rejected the Gospel, as well as the
Apocalypse of John.
Dr J. R. Harris in a paper published in Hermas in Arcadia and other
Essays (1896) has drawn attention (p. 48) to a passage in a Latin transla
tion of Barsalibi's Commentary on ihe Gospel accg to St John, according
to which "the heretic Gaius" charged John with being at variance with
the other Gospels in regard to the course of events at the beginning of
Christ's Ministry ; it is the objection noted in Epiphanius, Panar. LI.
§ 4 etc. Dr Harris admits, on the evidence of Syriac MSS., that the name
of Gaius here has been in all probability introduced by an editor.
Nevertheless he is confident, for reasons which he gives, that the objection
quoted was really urged by Gaius. The reasons are not to my mind at
all convincing.
(i) He contends that the Heads against Gaius mentioned by Ebed-
Jesu was the same work as the Defence of the Gospel accg to John and the
Apocalypse, named in the list on the back of Hippolytus' chair in the
Lateran Museum, and that it was the work used by Epiphanius in his
section on the Alogi.
Now the arguments by which Dr Harris endeavours to prove this
seem only to shew that Epiphanius used so-me work by Hippolytus;
while other considerations may be adduced which are distinctly adverse
to the identification proposed, (a) Ebed-Jesu himself, as represented in
Assemanus, Bibliotheca Orientalis, ill. p. 15 (see Lightfoot, Ap. Frs,
Pt. 1, II. p. 350), distinguished between the two works. I do not, however,
lay much stress on this, because the omission of the conjunction, a very
slight change in the text, would give, as the title of a single work. Heads
against Gaius in defence of etc. (b) Gaius' five strictures on the
Apocalypse, which are embodied in Barsalibi's Commentary on that
book of Scripture, and which were published in 1888 by Dr Gwynn, are

240 Gains' attitude to the Fourth Gospel
all more or less similar in character to those which Epiphanius adduces,
but only one turns on the same words of Scripture, and this is in part
differently expressed. That there should have been this amount of
similarity between the objections of Gaius and those of the party described
by Epiphanius, we might have been prepared to expect from Eusebius'
references to Gaius' Dialogue against Proclus. But it certainly cannot
be assumed that whenever Hippolytus dealt with opinions of this kind
he must have directed his argument against Gaius, and that he might not
have written one treatise of a comprehensive kind against the party in
general, and another specifically against Gaius.
There is yet another possibility ; the Heads against Gaius might have
been framed by Hippolytus himself, or some other, out of the larger
work, and have consisted of the matter pertaining only to Gaius, and this
might have comprised only objections to the Apocalypse. Dr Harris
himself is constrained to suggest (p. 53) that the Heads against Gaius
may have been a summary of a larger work. But the difference between
the subject-matter of Barsalibi's extracts in his Commentary on the
Apocalypse and Epiphanius' account of the Alogi is not explained by
supposing that the Heads was a summary. The facts point to a distinct
work, (c) 'We may infer from Barsalibi that in the Heads the name of
Gaius occurred repeatedly. If the same work lay before Epiphanius it is
strange that this name should not have appeared in his pages. He would
not have desired to suppress it; on the contrary he would have felt
satisfaction in gibbeting a misbeliever, (d) Gaius cannot have shewn
a disposition to reject the Gospel according to St John in his Dialogue
against Proclus, with which Eusebius was familiar ; Eusebius could not
have ignored so serious a departure from the beliefs of his own time.
(2) Dr Harris lays considerable stress (pp. 48 — 50) on the fact that in
the passage in which Barsalibi records the objection of " a certain heretic "
to John's Gospel, the reply is introduced with the words " of the holy
Hippolytus against him," and that similar expressions introduce the
replies in the quotations from the Heads against Gaius. But surely there
is nothing in this. It would be natural that Hippolytus, or Barsalibi in
quoting him, should give the objection and the answer in a similar
manner, even though a different opponent was in question. It may, also,
be asked why, if Gaius was meant, the expression " a certain heretic "
should have been used, instead of his name being given as elsewhere.
I maintain only that the evidence which we at present possess affords no
ground for thinking that Gaius rejected the Gospel according to St John.
Fresh evidence might, however, prove that he did so. There is nothing
to shew that he accepted it. As some at any rate of those with whom he
sympathised both in his strong dislike of Montanism and his view of the
Apocalypse called in question the genuineness of the Gospel attributed
to the Apostle John, there is a certain presumption that he, too, may
have done the same. On the other hand, he may have been restrained

Gaius' attitude to the Fourth Gospel 241
from this by the position — firmer than that of the Apocalypse — which the
Gospel held in the general estimation of Christians.
Dr Abbott, in Encycl Bibl. ll. col. 1824, n. 4, writes as follows: —
"Ebed-Jesus at the beginning of the 14th century recorded that Hip
polytus wrote a treatise called 'Heads against Gaius,' and Dionysius
Bar-salibi quotes from this treatise (along with replies from Hippolytus)
objections raised by Gaius not only to the Apocalypse but also to the
Fourth Gospel." As he does not support the contention of Dr J. R.
Harris with any additional arguments, I may leave the reader to judge
how far he is justified in making this confident statement.
II. But if Gaius did dispute the authority of the Fourth Gospel
what would be the significance of this? Dr Harris regards hini as a
"higher critic" who at the beginning of the third century brought
objections against the canonicity of that Gospeh He adds, that it is
difficult to say " how much is involved in this admission as regards the
existence of a previous succession of adverse Higher Critics" (pp. 56-7).
The use of the term "higher critics" seems to me misleading, because
Gaius and the Alogi were largely influenced by a strong bias of a
doctrinal kind, the one thing that higher critics profess, and so far as
they are genuine critics try, to be free from.
Dr Abbott remarks (ib^ that many find it hard to understand how it
should have been possible for the Fourth Gospel to "have been regarded
with suspicion by an orthodox, educated, and conservative Christian
such as. ..Gaius at the beginning of the third century."
Gaius was no doubt "educated"; Eusebius speaks of him as Xoyia-
TOTos. But the same might have been said of many of the great Gnostic
teachers, who were among the ablest men of the second century, or of
many a heretic in the third and subsequent centuries. What reason
could be given for describing Gaius as "conservative" I do not know,
unless it be — though surely it would be a slender one — that he did not
reckon the Epistle to the Hebrews among St Paul's Epistles, and that in
this, as Eusebius informs us, he shared the common view of his Church.
That Eusebius supposed him to be " orthodox" may probably be inferred
from his calling him dvfip eKKXrja-iaa-riKos. I doubt, however, whether
"orthodox" is a strictly accurate rendering of this phrase. The meaning
of the word eKKXtja-iaa-riKos must be determined in part by the context.
Our use of the term "a Churchman," in that more limited sense in which
we sometimes employ it, to describe one who is not simply a member of
the Church, but devoted to Church affairs, seems to correspond very
nearly to eKKXrjcriacrTiKbs dvijp. So (Eus. H. E. ill. iii. 2, 3, etc.)
eKKXrja-Laa-riKos (rvyypacjjevs is "a Church writer," one who writes on
ecclesiastical subjects from the Church's point of view. The idea of
orthodoxy is, no doubt, implied, but not emphasised.
It is, however, more important to note that Eusebius apparently knew
little, if anything, about Gaius beyond what he could gather from the
S. G. 16

242 Gains attitude to the Foitrth Gospel
Dialogue against Proclus. In this work Gaius does not seem to have
expressed doubts about the Gospel according to St John. In it he
combated the sectarian Montanists, and if he also described himself as
a presbyter of the Church of Rome, here would be fully sufficient reason
for Eusebius to speak of him as he does.
¦With regard to Gaius having been a presbyter — which is first definitely
stated by Photius', though Eusebius' language makes it probable — any
significance which this fact would have would depend on whether he
attempted and was allowed still to exercise his functions, after having
expressed doubts about the authority of the Fourth Gospel; and of this
we know nothing.
Finally, it is to be observed, that it is of far more importance to
know what Hippolytus, a contemporary, thought of Gaius, than what
Eusebius did. And there can be no doubt of Hippolytus' opinion, if we
suppose that Gaius was one of those who uttered cavils against the
Fourth Gospel, and against whom Hippolytus wrote.
I have criticised Dr Abbott's application of the epithets "orthodox"
and "conservative" to Gaius because the impression conveyed thereby
seems to me to be that Gaius' temper of mind was specially marked
by conservatism and love of orthodoxy ; while the addition of the
epithet "educated" seems to suggest that he knew what he was about
in calling in question the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel. I have
argued that such a view would not be justified. At the same time
it would be a point worthy of note that he should have differed from
the Church generally in regard to the Fourth Gospel, while in the
main holding its beliefs, as in all probability he did, in other respects.
I have (above p. 212) touched upon the question of the significance of
such a phenomenon. But it would be interesting to examine more fully
the psychology of dissidence. I may here add one or two remarks which
may help to bring out more clearly my meaning in the passage to
which I have just alluded.
¦We may note that (i) men generally shew themselves very tenacious
of religious beliefs which are commonly held, so far as they know them ;
but that at all times individuals, and larger or smaller bodies of men,
have shewn a disposition to be independent, and have broken off on one
point or another from their co-religionists, without however rejecting the
accepted faith as a whole ;
(2) that on some matters differences have been far rarer than on
others ; and that from a very early age till quite recently differences
among Christians as to the Canon, and especially as to the authenticity
of the Four Gospels, have been almost unheard of
Let us ask what the conditions appear to have been for the occurrence
' Biblioth. Cod. 48. Photius also relates that he was ordained to be a "bishop
of the Gentiles," whatever this may mean. Photius had not seen the Dialogue
against Proclus, or any other work known to be by Gaius, and he only repeats
the assertions of others about him.

Gaius' attitude to the Fourth Gospel 243
of dissidence, so far as they have been connected with the nature of the
subject-matter. Departures from generally accepted behefs have been
common (a) on points peculiarly difficult of apprehension, where the results
of past thought and controversy cannot be understood without special
training as well as capacity; or again, (b) where there have been no
formal definitions, though there has been a faith widely diffused, and even
an instinct, as it were, among Christians to think in the same way.
Now the point that certain books were to be reckoned as Canonical
was a simple matter, about which there could be no possibility of
doubt Or mistake, as soon as the rule had been clearly established.
And this probably is the chief reason that during so many centuries, in
which Christians have differed on not a few questions of doctrine,
there were hardly any instances of the rejection of the authority of the
books of Scripture. The fact, then, that some should in the third and
fourth quarters of the second century, and possibly as late as the
beginning of the third century, have adopted an attitude different from
that of Christians generally to the Fourth Gospel, while agreeing with
them in other respects, is an indication that the common judgment on the
subject of the Canon of the Four Gospels had not as yet had time to
acquire that constraining power over all minds which ere long it did.

16-

CHAPTER VL
THE POSITION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS AT THE CLOSE
OF THE SECOND CENTURY— THE USE OF OTHER
GOSPELS— GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.
Irenaeus, after he has in the first book of his work
Against Heresies set forth the doctrines of the Valentinians
and other Gnostics and contrasted their diversity with the
unity of the Church's Faith', and in his second book com
mented upon and criticised them in order to lay bare their
true purport and their inconsistencies, proceeds in the third
book to demonstrate the contrariety between these opinions
and the truth delivered by the Apostles. The Apostolic
teaching is, he declares, known from the Rule of Faith, the
tradition of sound doctrine in the Churches which they
founded, where it is guarded by an orderly succession of chief
pastors, responsible for preserving it in purity and integrity,
and also from their writings. Upon the former means of
information Irenaeus insists clearly but briefly. It is with the
latter that he mainly occupies himself, and he begins with
the Gospels. " The Lord of all gave to his Apostles the
power of the Gospel," and they not only preached it, " all
alike and severally," but two of them set it forth in writing,
while two immediate disciples and companions of chief
Apostles also recorded what they had heard them preach.
No one of these four presentations of the Gospel can be
dispensed with, while no other is to be added to them. This
Fourfold Gospel held together by One Spirit is like the Order
of the Universe in its completeness, compactness and strength.
The Divine Artificer, the Eternal Word, who sits upon the
Cherubim and holds all things together, gave it to us after He
' For this contrast see esp. I. ix. 5 and x. 1, 2 and xxii. i, 2.

Irenaeus on the Fourfold Gospel 245
had been manifested to men. Its unity in diversity is like that
of the four living creatures upon whom His Chariot-throne
rests, and who move as by one impulse, though their faces
are turned in different directions and they have various forms'.
This sublime view of the Divine power and true harmony
of the Four Gospels is probably in part Irenaeus' own. But
there can be no doubt, from his whole mode of expressing
himself, that in his statements regarding the origin and
unique authority of these four he is repeating the common
belief, so far as he was acquainted with it, of the Church
of his day. It will be necessary that we should ascertain
as accurately as we can how far his knowledge is likely to
have extended, and what confirmation his evidence receives
from other witnesses. Irenaeus could answer for the Churches
of Gaul, of the chief of which he was himself bishop. But he
had first-hand knowledge, also, of the faith and practice of
the Churches of Rome and of the province of Asia. We may
safely conclude that his view of the Four Gospels did not
seriously differ from theirs. He points to them, on the
ground that they were founded by Apostles, as affording a
standard by which other Christians might try their own
belief^ He does not, indeed, directly cite them to prove
the particular point that such and such writings are Apostolic ;
but inasmuch as he associates very closely the Apostolic
doctrine and the Apostolic writings, and lays great stress on
the Apostolic authority of the Four Gospels, he must have
felt confident of the support for his assertions about the
latter, which the testimony of the Churches of Apostolic
foundation would supply ^ Tertullian, also, refers to Churches
having this prerogative, and in particular to Rome. He,
moreover, does so for the express purpose of establishing the
genuineness of the Four Gospels in the form in which the
Church read them^. Asia he may, perhaps, have mentioned
in consequence of his familiarity with Irenaeus' treatise.
But as to Rome he could not but have independent infor
mation, whether he had himself visited it since his conversion
' I have above stated briefly the argument of the opening portion of Adv.
Haer. III.: see esp. chh. i. — iv. and ix. — xi.
^ Adv. Haer. III. iii. i — 4. ' Adv. Marcionem IV. 2 — 5.

246 The Four Gospels at
or not ; for there was constant political, legal, and commercial
intercourse between the province of Africa and the imperial
city, which must have led to intercourse even at this time
between the Christians of the two places. " What," Tertullian
asks, " do the Romans to whom both Peter and Paul left the
Gospel, signed by their own blood, sound forth hard by?'"
His evidence then is of value not only as to " Africa " but
also as to Rome.
Clement of Alexandria in one passage of his Stromateis
in controverting an erroneous opinion assumes the difference
between the authority of the Four Gospels and other writings
professing to be Gospels, as authorities for the teaching of
Christi As Head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria
he may clearly be taken to represent the position which
would be generally accepted in the Church there, when he
argues in this manner. Clement himself had travelled much
in search of knowledge before he came to Alexandria, and
from various highly revered teachers in Greece, in Magna
Graecia, in Coele-Syria and Palestine, had learned "the true
tradition of the blessed doctrine which had been handed
down from father to son direct from the holy Apostles Peter
and James and John and PauP." Further, the Church of
Alexandria itself, seated in a great emporium of commerce
and of letters, must have been in touch with many other
Churches. Between it and the Greek Churches of Palestine
there were intimate relations'- The silence, therefore, of
Clement as to any divergencies between different Churches in
their estimate of the Gospels is not without significance.
The earliest regular list of New Testament writings which
has come down to us, known as the Muratorian Fragment
on the Canon, was in all probability composed at Rome, or
somewhere in its neighbourhood, in the last decade of the
' " Quid etiam Romani de proximo soneut, quibus evangelium et Petrus et
Paulus sanguine suo signatum reliquerunt?" Adv. Marcion. iv. § 5.
2 Strom. III. xiii. p. 553. 3 Strom. I. ii. p. 322.
* 'We might have expected as much from their comparatively near neighbour
hood, and the easy means of communication that there must have been. But it is
also expressly stated in the letter of the Churches of Palestine on the Paschal
question (ap. Eus. H. E. v. xxv.) that they annually fixed the time for the Paschal
festival in concert with the Church at Alexandria by correspondence.

the close of the Second Century 247
second, or first of the third century'. It agrees with the Canon
which has been generally received, saving for the omission
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and possibly of the Third
Epistle of St fohn, and the inclusion of the Apocalypse of
Peter, with regard to which at the same time it allows that
some raised objections. Lightfoot conjectured that it was by
Hippolytus. This must be considered doubtful, but in any
case it is a weighty documents
The writings unquestionably by Hippolytus which are
extant leave no room for doubt that he assigned the same
place to the Four Gospels which the three other eminent
writers whom we have mentioned did ; but they do not
happen to contain any express statement on the subject.
' Circ. A.D. 170 has very commonly been assigned as the date of the compo
sition of the Muratorian Fragment, on the ground of the allusion in it to the
Shepherd of Hermas as written "in our time, when Pius was bishop" (i.e. circ.
A.D. 139 — 154). This language, however, clearly need not imply more than that
the author of the document was born during this Episcopate, and if we place his
birth at the very beginning of it, in order to get as near as we can to the probable
date of the Shepherd (see above pp. 34 — 41), he might still have been writing
considerably later than A.D. 170. His reference to the Cataphrygians (i.e. the
Montanists) is inconsistent with such an early date, for they cannot have been
regarded as heretics then, or for several years afterwards, in the West; Zahn
thinks not before circ. A.D. 210 (Kanon, 11. pp. 135-6). But the evidence hardly
seems to justify so much precision as this. Lightfoot does not go into this point ;
but he supposes this Canon to have been one of the earliest works of Hippolytus,
whose literary activity, he holds, began circ. A.D. 185 — 190 {Ap. Frs, Pt i, 11.
p. 413). Its ascription to Hippolytus is a clever conjecture, but is not free from
difficulty. The case for (Lightfoot, ib. p. 411 f.), and against (Zahn, ib. pp. 137-8),
this view should be compared. It is probable, however, that the author resided
in Rome or its neighbourhood, on account of the familiarity shewn with a fact
which would be best known to a Roman Christian, and the manner in which it is
referred to.
^ The Tract De Aleatoribus (at one time mistakenly attributed to Cyprian)
also supplies evidence as to the Scriptures acknowledged at Rome in the last
decade of the second century if Harnack is right in his view of the work, Texte
u. Untersuch. v. i, p. 82 ff. It would take too long to discuss here the time and
place of its composition ; but we may note that the words of the Lord to Peter at
Jn xxi. 15, and alSo the sayings at Mt. xii. 32 and vii. 23 (De Al. 3 and 10), are
quoted as contained "in evangelio,'' and several phrases are also introduced from
these Gospels. The Epistles of St Paul are, we may add, repeatedly quoted, and
the First Ep. of St John once. The Shepherd of Hermas is quoted as " Divine
Scripture." (Sim. ix. 31, 5f ap. De Al. ch. 2.) The author in his attitude to
this work presents a contrast with the writer of the Muratorian Canon. The
source of two sayings attributed to Christ (De Al. ch. 3) cannot be identified.

248 The Area within which the authority
One or two points in the few remains which we possess of
the literary labours of the learned and acute Julius, surnamed
Africanus, who seems to have been a few years older than
Origen', may also be suitably noticed here. He passed a
great part of his life in Palestine, and was evidently a man
of influence. His famous theory for harmonising the gene
alogies of Our Lord in St Matthew and St Luke^ arose out of
a profound sense of reverence for each of the Gospels. Again,
he appears to have deduced the day of the month on which
the Crucifixion took place from St John's narrative. " The
Hebrews,'' he writes, "keep the Passover on the fourteenth
day of the Moon. But the events regarding the Saviour
happened on the day preceding the first day of the Passover'."
He seems to have also held that Christ's Ministry lasted only
for one year ; but he resembles herein many who undoubtedly
received the Gospel according to St John. The omission of
TO ¦wda-)(a at Jn. vi. 4 was connected with this opinion 1
All the evidence which we have considered relates to the
Church in the Graeco-Roman world. For some parts even of
this area it is less direct and more scanty than we could have
wished. Yet in view of the prominence of the men whom we
have cited, the diversity of their associations, the nature of
their statements, and the communications which passed be
tween Churches within the boundaries indicated, we can hardly
be mistaken in believing that the authority of the Four Gospels
was generally acknowledged in this portion of the Church.
In order, also, to compensate for the incompleteness of
the information belonging strictly to this epoch we may fairly
call in Origen, the Church's first great commentator upon the
text of Holy Scripture, who began to teach in Alexandria
soon after A.D. 202 ^ He paid his first visit to Palestine circ.
A.D. 215, and taught there under the patronage of the bishops
of Jerusalem and Caesarea ; subsequently he took up his
abode at the latter place and spent the last twenty years of
' Diet, of Chr. Bio. I. p. 54.
^ Ep. ad Aristidem ap. Routh, Rel. Sacr. 11. p. 228 ff.
^ Fragment of his Chronicon. Ib. p. 297.
* Cp. Note by Hort in App. to Westcott and Hort's Gk Test. p. 77.
' For this and the following dates and facts in regard to Origen see art. by
Bp Westcott, Diet, of Chr. Bio. IV. pp. 98—101.

of the Four Gospels was established 249
his life there (from circ. A.D. 231), almost continuously. He
was widely looked up to, and consulted from many quarters.
At some time between A.D. 226 and 230, he visited Achaia,
having been called in to combat some erroneous opinions there.
His pupil Gregory Thaumaturgus became bishop in Pontus.
About A.D. 237 he stayed in the Cappadocian Caesarea at
the pressing invitation of its eminent bishop Firmilian, who
also journeyed to Palestine to pay him a visit. Now Origen
in one of his later works spe3.ks of the Four Gospels as those
which alone are undoubted throughout the whole Church'.
And his words derive force from his wide knowledge of the
Church of which the facts that have been enumerated give
some idea.
But what are we to say of the Church beyond the limits
that have been above specified ? Irenaeus himself in an
early passage of his work speaks of the Common Faith shared
by Christian believers who speak various tongues, the One
Truth held by the Churches founded among Germans, Iberians,
Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Libya, and in the middle
parts of the earth ; but he makes no reference to translations
of the Scriptures into divers languages^. In a later passage
he alludes to the many nations of those barbarians who
believe on Christ, who without ink or parchment have salva
tion written in their hearts by the Spirit, and diligently keep
the ancient tradition of faith (as distinguished from the
written word)^ He is, perhaps, thinking mainly in this second
passage of comparatively uncivilised tribes round the western
and northern borders of the Roman Empire. The question,
what versions of the Scriptures were made for the benefit of
converts of these races, and how soon they were made, is an
interesting one in itself, but has little bearing on our present
subject. In any case they, like the latinised province of
North Africa, received both the Faith and the Scriptures from
the Greek-speaking Churches founded by Apostles, or by
their comrades before the close of the Apostolic Age, in the
' In the first book of his commentary on Matthew, quoted by Eusebius, H.E.
VI. xxv. 4. "Trepi rwv reaodpwv eiayyeXlwv, d Kal p.6va dvavri^pTjrd ioriv ev rrj
irrb rbv obpavbv iKKXTjoig. rov Qeov."
2 Adv. Haer. i. a. 2. ' ' To. III. iv. i.

250 The Eastern portions of the Church
chief cities of the Empire. Again, the Coptic and Libyan
Christians may have received their Christianity through
Alexandria. As to this, however, some doubt may be felt ;
it is possible that they might have been evangelized in some
other way. This point may be considered in connexion
with the Gospel according to the Egyptians. But there were
Christians in the East, whose belief and practice it is of far
greater importance to consider : (i.) The Hebrew Christians
who, not only after the taking of Jerusalem by Titus, but
after the failure of Barchochab's revolt and the decree of
Hadrian in A.D. 135, which excluded all persons of Jewish
nationality from the city of Jerusalem, remained scattered
through Western Palestine, and were probably settled in larger
numbers to the East of Jordan ; (ii.) the Syrian Church of
Mesopotamia and the remoter East. Both these portions of
the Christian world were cut off from the Greek and the Latin
Church by the barrier of difference of language and in part by
difficulties of communication of other kinds. They had an
independent history, and the former, at least, the conscious
ness of a peculiarly close connexion with the Church of the
first days. Did these circumstances affect, and if so in what
way and how far did they affect, their attitude to the Four
Gospels ?
(i.) The evidence of Eusebius and of Jerome, both of
whom knew Palestine, leaves no room for doubt that, among
the Hebrew Christians, there was one gospel only which held
a position of authority and was in common use, namely the
writing described by the two writers just named, and by
others, as the Gospel accg to the Hebrews'^
'The character and contents of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews have been
treated with admirable thoroughness and clearness by Zahn, Kan. II. pp. 642 — 723.
On the other hand he does not bring the conclusions reached in his special study
of the subject very effectively into relation with the history of the Canon (ib. i.
pp. 776-7). Harnack, also, has discussed this subject at considerable length,
Chron. I. pp. 625 — 651. On several points he agrees with Zahn, whose investiga
tion of it elicits from him a general commendation. (Ib. p. 631.) Their chief
difiTerences of view will appear in the course of the following ps^es. The materials
for the study of the subject are collected by Harnack, Gesch. d. Altchrist. Lit. i. i.
pp. 6 — 10. Zahn, however, arranges Jerome's statements in the most satisfactory
manner. Ib. 11. pp. 650 — 653, n. The following earlier discussions may also
be mentioned — Hilgenfeld, Append, to Nov. Test, extra Canon recept. pp. 5 — 31,

The Gospel according to the Hebrews 251
Eusebius in his most comprehensive passage on the New
Testament Canon refers to this work, and observes that "those
who from among the Hebrews have received Christ take
delight in it especially'." With this we may compare his
remark in regard to Hegesippus^, to which we have already
had occasion to refer in an earlier chapter, that he shewed
himself to be a Hebrew convert by (among other things) his
quotations from tfu Gospel accg to the Hebrews.
In his chapter on the heresy of the Ebionites he, like
Origen in a well-known passage^ distinguishes between two
classes of them, and marks as the chief difference the denial
of the birth of Christ from a Virgin by the one kind and its
acknowledgment by the other. He says nothing as to any
Scriptures accepted by the former, more extreme, sort ; but
with regard to the second more moderate sort, he says that
they "rejected all the epistles of St Paul, and that the only
Gospel they used was that according to the Hebrews, while
they thought little of the rest*." Among those whom Eusebius
describes by the inclusive term of Hebrew Christians there
were doubtless those whom he would not have called Ebionites.
Like Hegesippus, they had mixed with Gentile Christians,
and their spirit was not so exclusive as that of many of their
fellow-believers of their own race. They may have learned
to appreciate to some extent the Gospels which were in use
among Christians generally, so that they could not have been
described with justice as " making small account of" these.
Nevertheless they very naturally retained special affection
for that Gospel which they had long learned to regard as
peculiarly their own.
From Jerome we get a similar impression as to what had
been, if it was no longer in his day, the position of this Gospel.
During the interval of about three-quarters of a century
1866; 'E.'B.'iU'icholson, The Gospel accg to the Hebre-ws, iSi-j(); R. Handmann, 1888,
Texte und Untersuch. V. 3. Salmon, Introd. to N. T. ch. 10, where, however, the
subject is too much mixed up with the question whether St Matthew had a Hebrew
original. ' H. E. III. xxv. 5.
'^ H. E. IV. xxii. 7. See above, pp. 154, 157.
' c. Celsum V. ch. 61.
* H. E. III. xxvii.

2 52 The Gospel according to the Hebrews
between Eusebius and Jerome all Jewish Christians who had
not been absorbed into the Catholic Church had been driven
into a decidedly separatist attitude. The later writer does not,
as the former seems to do, refer to the practice of Hebrew
Christians whose ecclesiastical position was a more or less
ambiguous one. He became acquainted with the Hebrew
Gospel through those whom he calls " Nazarenes'," and he
speaks only of their use of it in his own day. But he distinctly
implies that in this respect — we need not stay to enquire how
far it may have been the case in other respects also — they
truly represented the body of Hebrew Christians of an earlier
time. He describes the writing in question as the Gospel of
the Hebrews, ". which the Nazarenes use even to this day''."
This Gospel should, therefore, be regarded not as a
sectarian — an " Ebionite " or " Nazarene " — but a national
Gospel. We must presently enquire how far it was known to, and
how it was regarded in, other circles outside those of the
Christians whose mother tongue was Hebrew (or Aramaic)'*.
But it will be generally admitted that its chief sphere of
influence was among them, and that here, or among some of
the relics of them, it may probably have retained its place
till the time of their final disappearance, while its use in other
parts of the world had at all times been, to say the least, very
restricted. It will be suitable, however, even at this point to discuss
the relation of this Gospel to the Canonical Gospels, and
especially to the Greek St Matthew, in point of contents and
authenticity. It is natural to suppose that the truest traditions
regarding the origin of the Christian faith would have been
found among the Hebrew Christians of Palestine at the end of
the second century and even to later times. I believe, however,
that this idea is to a large extent mistaken. In the first place
it is to be remembered that the evangelistic efforts of the
Apostolic Age itself were in the main directed to the world
of Greek civilisation. Not only did St Paul and his com-
' De Vir. III. 3.
^ Adv. Pelag. III. 2. Cp. Comm. In Ezek. on xvi. 13, and xviii. 7.
' See below, p. 261 ff.

The Gospel according to the Hebrews 253
panions penetrate ever deeper and deeper into it, but he was
followed there in course of time by some of the Twelve'.
Other of the first disciples, or of their immediate followers,
probably also found a home there. Thus the testimony of
the earliest generation of believers was fully delivered in
Ephesus and Rome and other cities of the Graeco-Roman
world. Next, as to the conditions likely to be favourable or
unfavourable to the faithful embodiment in writing of the
facts and teaching of the Gospel, and the preservation of the
record or records unaltered. The Church in Jerusalem lost
its head, James the Lord's brother, in A.D. 62-3^. According
to the statements of Eusebius derived from Hegesippus,
another bishop was not appointed till after the taking of the
city eight years later', but from that time till the taking of
the city by Hadrian in A.D. 135, after Barcochab's revolt,
a succession of bishops, all of them believers who were "of
the circumcision," presided over a Church of the same
character*. Hadrian's edict which forbade any circumcised
person to approach the city put an end to this Jewish-
Christian Church for ever^. Henceforth the Church there
was Greek, as it was already, or soon afterwards became, in
Caesarea and other cities along the coast and in other parts
of Palestine. The Hebrew Christians who had been scattered
through the land, or who had fled beyond Jordan, formed no
doubt little communities ; but they had no common centre,
and were not united by any common organisation, so far as
we know; and we should probably have heard of it if there
had been such. During the period indeed from the outbreak
of troubles, A.D. 62, till long after the suppression of Barcochab's
revolt, they must often have been sorely harassed by political
convulsions and by the persecutions which they had to endure
at the hands of their compatriots who did not believe in
Jesus. Safeguards against the depravation of their traditions
' For Simon Peter, see Gal. ii. n; i Cor. i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5; Clem. Rom.
5 ; Ignat. ad Rom. 4, etc. In the phrase 17 iv 'Ba^vXHvi at i Pet. v. 13, the allu
sion is probably to the Church in Rome, the mystical Babylon. For John, the
son of Zebedee, see above ch. v. We have also seen that there are traces, though
less distinct ones, of the presence of other Apostles in Asia Minor, p. 233 n. z.
2 Eus. H. E. II. xxiii. ; Joseph. A.J. XX. 9.
3 Eus. H. E. III. xi. * H. E. iv. v. * Ib. iv. vi.

2 54 The Gospel according to the Hebrews
were under these circumstances wanting, such as the Greek
Churches possessed, combined as they were, in a manner
which left individual responsibility to each for the care of
a common treasure. It may be doubted, also, whether the
point of view and mental characteristics of the Hebrew
Christians made them the better guardians. It needs to be
borne in mind that, if in studying Christianity among the
Greeks we ought, in order that we may not be misled as to
the original teaching, to be on the watch for, and to distinguish,
elements which have been introduced from other systems of
thought, so, on the other hand, the truth was in danger of
impoverishment and even distortion when handed on by men
of little education and of merely average intelligence and
depth of character. Insensibly they would come to omit or
misrepresent portions which they did not understand ; while
they might accept incongruous and childish additions. More
over, it must always be the case that those, who do not
perceive the real scope of a new truth, lose more and more of
its spirit. Hebrew Christians suffered in this way, doubtless
in very different degrees, but all to some extent. It should
not, therefore, be assumed that a Gospel in use among the
Hebrews was probably more primitive in its general substance
and character than the Greek Gospels. Even though in its
origin it might be Apostolic, or belong to the Apostolic Age,
its form might have been more or less seriously affected, in
the lapse of no long time, by the causes which have been
indicated. Turning to the actual quotations from the Gospel accg to
the Hebrews, which we possess, I must class myself with
those who think that most of them have the appearance
of being "secondary" accounts, when compared with the
narratives of the Four Gospels. I shall not, however, attempt
to examine them here in detail, as it has been done often
before by critics who have approached the subject from
different points of view and have arrived at different con
clusions'. I will content myself with making a few remarks
upon the treatment of the subject by Harnack, the latest
' See especially Zahn's discussion, Ka-n. ii. p. 685 ff. and Harnack, Chron. I.
p. 643 ff.

The Gospel according to the Hebrews 255
writer upon it. He rightly endeavours to judge each passage
on its own merits' Even if we are convinced that the work
as a whole was less authentic than our Gospels, we may admit
that it may have contained sound additional information on
certain points, and have been in certain particulars more
accurate. According to Harnack thirteen of the fragments
are in the nature of things indecisive ; two belong to the
same stage in the formation of tradition as the correspond
ing parts of the Canonical Gospels ; another is perhaps in
one respect less, and in one more, original ; yet another ought
not to be called less original ; and five are distinctly more so.
He allows none in which the Canonical Gospels have clearly
the advantage. I cannot admit the validity of two of his
canons — the only two which he distinctly states. They
appear in the following instances, (i) In the Gospel according
to the Hebrews the account of the Baptism appears to have
been introduced with the words, " Lo the mother of the Lord
and his brethren said to him : ' John the Baptist is baptizing
for the remission of sins ; let us go and be baptized by him.'
He, however, said to them : ' In what have I sinned, that I
should go and be baptized by him ? unless perchance that
very thing which I have said is ignorance.' " Harnack
observes that the question is here left open whether Jesus
was convinced or not of His own sinlessness, and remarks
that this ambiguity might have been removed from, but
would not have been introduced into, the original form^.
It seems to me that there would be force in this argument
if we were comparing writings and traditions which belonged
to the same world of thought and feeling. But seeing
that, in the present instance, we have to do with two
worlds, in which the history of the Christian Faith had
been widely different, there is no good ground for maintaining
that the point of view implied in the one account is earlier
than that in the other. To assume that the more contracted
conception of Christ's Person and Character and Work,
existing among Hebrew Christians, is more original than
the more exalted one of the Church Catholic is at all
1 Chron. 1. p. 648.
2 Ib. p. 648, n. 2.

256 The Hebrew Gospel and St Matthew
events to beg questions which deserve the most careful in
vestigation. (2) He considers that the touch in the account of the
man who had a withered hand, that he was a mason, which
of course made his case the harder, is a sign of greater
originality, because the vividness of the narrative is thereby
increased'. I believe that to most minds this will seem rather
to be an example of legendary growth, and that the style of
Apocryphal Gospels which are generally allowed to be later,
even much later, than the Canonical, bears out this view.
There are two other instances which Harnack decides in
favour of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews on the same principle.
Ancient writers naturally quoted the Gospel accg to the
Hebrews for the most part where it differed from the Four.
But how glad we should be to know the extent to which its
contents were the same as theirs, and in particular as
St Matthew's! The three earliest writers who mention this Gospel,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius, make no refer
ence to its being related in any way to the canonical
St Matthew. The statement of Irenaeus that the Ebionites
used St Matthew, and that of Epiphanius to the same effect,
but with the addition that " they call it the Hebraic
GospelV' may rest on some knowledge indirectly obtained
that there was a similarity between these two works, or may
have arisen simply out of the belief that Matthew wrote in
Hebrew. It is Jerome's language only that is of importance
in regard to the point now before us. In a well-known
passage of his De Viris Illustribus he states that St Matthew's
Gospel in Hebrew was to be found in the library at Caesarea,
while it is plain from the context that he is speaking of the
Gospel accg to the Hebrews, a. copy of which had been first
shewn him by Nazarenes at Beroea and which he had trans
lated into Greek and Latin ^ It is evident from his own
quotations from this writing, and from his language about it
elsewhere, that he must not be understood to mean that the
' Chron. I. p. 649 (6).
' Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. xxvi. 2; 111. xi. 7; Epiphanius, Panar. xxx. 13.
5 De Vir. Illustr. 2, 3.

The Hebrew Gospel and our Gospels 257
Greek Gospel was a close rendering of it. Nevertheless,
chere must have been a sufficiently strong resemblance be
tween the two to impress Jerome with the idea that they
were substantially the same. Moreover, several of the words
and incidents from the Hebrew work more or less clearly
belonged to narratives the same as, or similar to, those in the
Canonical Matthew, and in their phraseology bear marks of
relationship to that Gospel as well as in a lesser degree to
peculiarities in St Luke'.
I will briefly discuss one question of considerable interest,
in regard to which Harnack differs from Zahn, namely, whether
the Gospel accg to the Hebrews contained an account of the Birth
and Infancy of Christ^. In favour of the supposition that it
did, there is, first of all, the general consideration that, if this
opening part had been wanting, it is extremely unlikely that
Jerome could ever have spoken of the writing as identical
with St Matthew. He could scarcely himself have imagined
that it was so, and he certainly must have feared the retorts
of those who might make further enquiries as regards the
Gospel through Hebrew Christians, if they could not read
Hebrew themselves. Lacunae later in the book might be
overlooked ; but the omission at the very forefront of narra
tives which in the Canonical Matthew universally excited the
deepest interest would at once attract attention ^ Jerome
must, at least, have guarded himself against this danger by
throwing out the suggestion that the Jewish Christians had in
this respect mutilated the Gospel. One or other, also, of
those learned opponents of Jerome in the Pelagian con
troversy, who attacked him on the score of his references to
and citations from the Hebrew Gospel, declaring that he had
brought in a fifth gospel ^ must, one would think, have dis
covered and made use of this fact about it, if such it was.
But further, there are allusions by Jerome — such they are if
his language is to be understood in its natural sense — to
' Harnack draws attention to the relation to Luke, Chron. i p. 648 ff.
2 Cp. Zahn, Kan. 11. 686-8.
' Note the interest shewn by Irenaeus in the diverse beginnings of the Gospels,
Adv. Haer. III. xi., and cp. the language of the Muratorian fragment on the Canon.
¦* Julian of Eclanum and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Cp. Zahn, ib. p. 654,
notes I, 2.
S. G. 17

25^ The Hebrew Gospel contained
passages in the Hebrew Gospel which corresponded to the
Greek of Matt. ii. s, 15, 23. In his notice of the Apostle
Matthew in the De Viris Illustribus, to which I have already
referred, Jerome after mentioning the Hebrew Gospel which
he had found relates one interesting fact about it. There
is a whole class of quotations in the Greek Matthew which
does not agree with the LXX. Jerome informs his readers
that the Hebrew Gospel takes them not from the LXX. but
from the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, and he
proceeds, "of which are those two 'Out of Egypt have I
called My Son,' and ' He shall be called a Nazarene'."
Clearly his words imply that these citations themselves were
contained in the Hebrew Gospel. He wishes to shew that this
work, which he is proud to have discovered and to be able to
read, may be of use in suggesting or confirming a true inter
pretation of the canonical St Matthew, as for instance in the
case of these two famous quotations which had caused difficulty
to those who knew the Bible only in Greek or Latin. Again,
in his Commentary on St Matthew, at ii. 5, he notes that in the
Hebrew {in ipso Hebraico) we read "Judah" not "Judaea,"
and he goes on to remark that in the quotation from Micah
also the word is "Judah." A comparison with the former
passage in which Jerome speaks of ipsum Hebraicum would
of itself lead us to suppose that here, as there, he means
thereby not the Old Testament but the Hebrew Gospel.
But, indeed, as Zahn has pointed out, Jerome expressly
adduces the Hebrew in this second case, not in connexion
with the prophecy, but with the evangelist's words which
introduce it ; while it would also have been useless to appeal
to the Old Testament in this instance, since the words there
stand Bethlehem Ephratah, not " Bethlehem of Judah'."
Harnack^ however, holds that the Gospel accg to the
Hebrews did not contain an account of the Birth and Infancy
of Jesus. But (i) he does not face those considerations of
a general kind which have been urged above. (2) He adopts
the view of some earlier writers that in the passages which
' lb. p. 652 n.
^ Chron. I. p. 643, n. 2 f. " Eine zweite wichtige Frage, etc." See also
p. 634 n. and 648 (i).

the story of the Birth and Infancy 259
have just been discussed Jerome is referring to the Hebrew
of the Old Testament ; but he has really little to say in
support of this opinion except that Jerome may have meant
this, considering the sort of writer he was. In reply I would
say that he only might have done so, if he was extraordinarily
inconsistent and thoughtless in his reasoning in two passages
in which for once there are signs of much care and discrimi
nation. Harnack also relies on the two following arguments.
(a) Jerome in his commentary on Isa. xi. i appeals to "learned
Hebrews," not to the Hebrew Gospel, in order to bring out
the reference in the citation, " He shall be called a Nazarene."
But there is surely little force in this as an objection to the
supposition that the Hebrew Gospel contained an equivalent for
the latter words. That it should do so was a point of interest,
to which, as we have seen reason to think, he draws attention
on another occasion. It was easiest when the sentence was
read in Hebrew to see the connexion of the title " Nazarene "
with the netser (branch) of Isa. xi. i. But even in the Hebrew
Gospel the reference to Isaiah's prophecy was not so obvious
as to render the judgment of " learned Hebrews " upon the
application of that prophecy superfluous, {b) Harnack as
sumes that the Gospel accg to the Hebrews was used both by
those Jewish Christians who did, and by those who did not
acknowledge the Miraculous Conception, which he thinks
would only be possible if it began, like St Mark, with the
Baptism of Jesus. That the Ebionites of the last-named kind
used this Gospel Vests on the untrustworthy assertion of
Epiphanius'; Eusebius, as we have seen^, refrains from say
ing anything about Scriptures that were used by Ebionites
of this class. But even supposing that they did not altogether
abjure it, they may (as Epiphanius says) have used it in a
form which was " depraved and lopped at the extremities I"
There is, then, strong ground for believing that the opening
portion of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews was similar to that
' Panar. xxx. 3 and 13.
^ See above, p. 251.
^ Panar. XXX. 13. 'Ey rtfj yovv Trap' abrots ebayyeXlip Kard 'M.arda'iov bvopa^o-
pivip, obx dXip di TrXTjpeardrip, dXXd vevodevpivip koI rjKpwnjpiaa-pivip CEj^pa'iKov di
TOVTO KaXoOoiv). 17 — 2

26o The Diatessaron in Mesopotamia
of the Greek St Matthew, and there appears to be nothing
that is material to be urged on the other side. This is an
important conclusion to have reached both in connexion with
the problem of the composition of the Greek St Matthew,
and the evidence for the truth of its opening narratives.
(ii.) We pass to the Syriac-speaking Church of Meso
potamia and the lands to the East of it. There is but little
trustworthy information to be obtained in regard to the
history of Christianity in these regions for the first 300 years
or thereabouts. We can hardly, however, doubt that the
Faith must have been brought there by Christians from
Palestine, in course of time, if not by one or more of the
Twelve, or other immediate disciples of the Lord. It is there
fore a curious fact that, when light first falls upon the Church
there in the Fourth Century, we do not find any trace of the
existence of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, though it could
probably have been fairly well understood in these parts even
in its original form, and though its language could easily have
been transformed into the dialect of Aramaic spoken there. On
the contrary, so far as the Syrian Church has New Testament
Scriptures, it is dependent for them upon the Church of the
West. The peculiarity in respect to its Canon which concerns
us is that the Four Gospels are not commonly used, and that
the separate and individual value of each is not properly
understood. But it is a compilation from themselves — none
other than that made by Tatian — which stands in the way of
their being duly appreciated'.
The Church of Edessa, long one of the most famous
Syrian Churches and one which laid claim to very great
antiquity, must from its position near the border-land, between
the East and the West, have been open to the influence of
the latter, if it had not been in reality evangelised thence.
Hither circ. A.D. 180 Tatian brought or here he made his
Diatessaron, the aim of which was to give the contents and
common result of the Four Gospels in the most convenient
form. This Syrian, having become fully acquainted with
them during the time of his sojourn in the West, desired in
this way to render their teaching available for his own people.
' See above, pp. 149 — 151, on the character of the Diatessaron.

and the further East 261
Soon afterwards, we may imagine, a fresh Christian movement
proceeded eastward from the centre we have named, carrying
the Diatessaron with it. If the Gospel accg to the Hebrews
had ever been in use, it was entirely driven out through the
vigour of the party which had adopted the written Gospel
recently obtained, or because that Gospel was generally felt
to be superior, as being complete. But further, this work
acquired such a hold upon the affections of the people, and
its reading such an established place among their Church
usages, before the Four Gospels were translated into and
circulated in Syriac, that for a long time it could not be
displaced even in their favour.
These are very interesting points in the history of the
Syrian Church. But their importance in connexion with our
present subject consists only in their assisting us to fix the
limits within which the Four Gospels were fully acknowledged,
which has been our main object thus far in this chapter.
The limitation just considered plainly does not detract from
the significance of their position within the area where their
authority was fully recognised.
The preceding discussion has shewn us certain exceptions
which must be made as regards the general acknowledgment
of the Four Gospels in Christendom at the close of the second
century. " We have seen, however, that their authority was
then firmly established in the Church of by far the larger and
the leading part of the world, and that part, moreover, for
which, not excepting St Matthew, they were written, and
whose testimony to them for this reason, if for no other, is
most entitled to consideration.
Before, however, we proceed to examine the significance
of this fact, we will, in order that the whole case may be
before us, gather what further information we can concerning
the recognition at any time accorded within the bounds of
Greek and Latin Christendom to any Gospels which were
excluded from the Canon.
And first as to the Gospel accg to the Hebrews. Irenaeus
together, no doubt, with those portions of the Church with
which he was acquainted, so far as they knew of such a work
at all, supposed it to be the original composition by St Matthew

262 Apocryphal Gospels known
and believed that they had an equivalent for it in the Greek
Gospel accg to St Matthew'^. The definition of the Canon of
the Four Gospels was not, therefore, so far as they were
concerned, directed against it. The case was somewhat
different in Alexandria and the Greek Churches of Palestine.
Clement introduces an extra-canonical saying of Christ with
the words " as it is also written in the Gospel accg to the
Hebrews''!' Origen three times implies in his mode of refer
ence to it, that some among his readers and hearers, or at
any rate among those whom his readers and hearers had met
with or might meet with, were in the habit of turning to this
Gospel^. Lastly, Eusebius, where he says that the Hebrew
Christians took special pleasure in it, observes that some
(who, as Harnack remarks, were plainly not Hebrew Chris
tians) placed it among the spurious writings^. Now do these
allusions shew that there was a Greek version of the Gospel
accg to the Hebrews, which had at this time a limited circulation?
It does not seem at all necessary to suppose this. Those to
whom Origen alludes may themselves have been Christians
who were Jews by race, and who knew Hebrew, even though
they had come to live in cities which were mainly Greek and
mingled to a greater or less extent with Gentile Christians.
Such there must have been, not only in Caesarea and other
Greek cities in Palestine, but also in Alexandria, where there
was a very large Jewish quarter. Some men of this kind
may well have rendered portions of the Hebrew Gospel to
Clement orally, if he could not read it in the original. In
this manner, as I have already suggested, both Ignatius and
the author of the work bearing Peter's name to which Origen
refers may have obtained the saying of the Risen Lord which

' Adv. Haer. I. xxvi. 2; and III. xi. 7.
2 Strom. II. ix. 45.
3 In Joann. II. 6 (Lomm. 1. p. 113; 'Bac bk rrpoaleral ris Tb Ka0' "Eppalovs
ebayyiXiov, etc.); Vetus interpretatio of Origen In Matt. xv. 14 (De la Rue, III.
p. 671 : " Scriptum est in evangelio quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos, si
tamen placet alicui suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestationem
propositae quaestionis," etc. ; there is no corresponding statement in the Greek);
Hom. 15 in Jerem. ch, 4 (Lomm. XV. p. 284: Et hi tis rrapaSixerai rb' "Apri
iXa^e pe etc. ; the same quotation as that which he makes In Joann. II. 6).
¦• H. E. III. XXV. 5. For Hamack on it, see his Chron. i. p. 636.

in Greek and Latin Churches 263
they cite, and which is said to have been contained in the
Gospel accg to the Hebrews^
As regards those persons who, according to Eusebius,
pronounced the work to be spurious, it is not necessary to
suppose that they had read it. Men do not always refrain
from condemning that of which they have but slight know
ledge. If the Hebrew Christians were heard magnifying
their own Gospel, and perhaps contrasting it with St Matthew
to the disadvantage of the latter^, this would surely have
been quite sufficient to provoke some Greek Christians into
calling the Hebrew Gospel spurious, even though they had
but an imperfect acquaintance with its contents. These in
dications then of use of the Gospel can be explained without
assuming the existence of a Greek version, though they might
be thought to render the supposition probable, if there were
no strong reasons to be urged against it. Such, however,
there are. If a Greek Version was known to Clement and
Origen, and read even in a narrow circle in their days, not
to say earlier, it would be strange that the Church generally
should have continued to be so ignorant of this writing, as
seems to have been the case, and as even the learned Jerome
was, till he came across the original among the Nazarenes.
The strangest thing of all would be that Eusebius, as appears
from his language in the Theophania^, should have known of
this Gospel only as a Hebrew work. Jf Origen's mode of
referring to it in one place could rightly be taken to shew
that a Greek translation was in circulation in Alexandria,
his language in two others must equally prove circulation in
Caesarea. But, indeed, copies of such a version must have
found their way from the former to the latter place, and one

' See above, pp. 14 and 124-5.
'' Symmachus, the Ebionite, one of the translators of the Old Test, into Greek,
may probably have done so in those more or less covert attacks of his upon St
Matthew's Gospel to which Eusebius refers, H. E. VI. 17. Cp. Harnack, Altchrist.
Litt. I. I, p. 7 top.
^ Syr. (ed. Lee, p. 233 f. ), " as we have found in a place in the Gospel existing
among the Jews in the Hebrew language"; and Fragm. Gr. (Mai, Nova Patr.
Bibl. IV. I, p. 155, on Mt. xxv. 14 f.), rb els rip.ds rJKov "E^paiKols xo-paKTTjpaiv eiay-
yiXtov, etc. The passages may be seen in full in Harnack, Altchrist. Litt. I. 1,
p. 7.

264 Apocryphal Gospels known
at least must have been preserved in the library there, where
if not otherwise Eusebius must have met with it.
We must conclude that there was no Greek or Latin
Version of the Gospel accg to the Hebrews before Jerome's
time ; the question, therefore, cannot have arisen whether this
Gospel was to be received by the Church generally'. The
few Catholic Churchmen, however, who knew something about
it, naturally spoke respectfully of it, both on account of the
esteem in which Hebrew Christians held it and its affinity
with the Greek St Matthewl
We turn to the Gospel accg to the Egyptians to which we
have already had occasion to refer. The earliest express
mention of it is that by Clement of Alexandria. In arguing
against the Encratites in the third book of his Miscellanies he

' Harnack (Chron. i. pp. 635 — 641), contends somewhat eagerly for the exist
ence of a Greek Version even long before the time of Clement of Alexandria. But
(i) he relies far too confidently for proving this on the various allusions which
have been dealt with above. It may further be noted under this head that he
mistranslates the words of Eusebius H. E. in. xxv. 5, if pdXiora "Eifipaiwv ol rbv
Xpiarbv Trapade^dpevoi xo-^poooi. "If," he remarks, "the Hebrew Christians
"pdXtora" rejoiced in the possession of the Gospel accg to Heb. then there must
have been another group of Christians, and forsooth Gentile Christians, who also
rejoiced in this book, even if not so exclusively " (I.e. p. 637). Both the order of
words in the sentence and the parallel passage in regard to the Ebionites (H. E.
III. xxvii. 4), shew plainly that this is a wrong rendering. Eusebius means that
the Hebrew Christians rejoice in this Gospel p-dXiara, as compared with other
Gospels. Harnack thinks it is "not difficult" to explain the fact that Eusebius
and Jerome were ignorant of the existence of a Greek Version, by supposing that
its circtilation was confined to Alexandria (p. 639). He seems not to realise
how improbable it is that no copies should have reached Caesarea. Again,
while he emphasises the fact (p. 637) that Origen's Com. on St John, in which
a citation from the Gospel accg to Heb. is introduced with the words, idv Si
rrpoolerai ris, etc. , was written in Alexandria, he is silent as to the fact that Origen's
other references, which quite as much imply the opportunity of using the Gospel,
were made in Caesarea. Yet again on Eusebius' reference to the "certain persons"
who reckoned the work as "spurious" (not simply as Harnack says "disputed"),
Harnack makes the remark (p. 636), " The judgment of these rivis is important
enough for Eusebius not to pass it over in his statement of the Greek (the emphasis
is Harnack's) and Catholic Canon." And in the sequel he goes on to deduce use
of the writing somewhere in the Greek-speaking Church, not, however, in Palestine
but in Alexandria. But how can this be a right interpretation of Eusebius' mean
ing, if, as would appear from his language elsewhere, he was not aware of the
existence of a Greek Version ?
2 Origen does not name it among the Apocryphal Gospels which he enumerates
Hom. in Luc. I. Cp. Harnack, Altchrist. Litt. i. i, p. -j.

in Greek and Latin Churches 265
alludes more than once to, and treats at considerable length
of, some alleged words of Christ which they quoted in support
of their doctrines, and which were contained in this work'
He marks the fact, as we have seen, that they were derived
from this source and not from the Four Gospels, plainly
implying that they do not possess the authority which in
the latter case they would have had^ He also, however,
endeavours to shew that the language in question does not
bear the meaning which was put upon it by those against
whom he is contending*. If he could succeed in doing this, it
was obviously the most effective line of reasoning he could
adopt ; for neither he nor other Church-teachers of his time,
or subsequently, would have been prepared to assert that
every saying attributed to Christ which was not preserved in
the Four Gospels was necessarily spurious. Still less would
many of his readers and hearers in a place like Alexandria
have felt satisfied with such an assumption. The other
notices of the Gospel accg to the Egyptians may be rapidly
enumerated. Origen, in the well-known passage on the
subject of Apocryphal Gospels near the beginning of his
first homily on St Luke's Gospel, names this Gospel first
among those which the Church does not, but heretics do,
recognise^. Hippolytus says that the Naasenes derived some
' Strom. III. ch. 6, p. 532; ch. 9, pp. 539 — 541; ch. 13, p. 553. Comp. Ex-
cerpta ex Theodoto, § 67, p. 985.
^ Strom. III. p. 553 and above p. 246. See also Strom. III. p. 539 end, (piperai
Si dlpai iv rip Kar Alyvrrrlovs eva-yyeXlip. This olpai has sometimes been supposed
to shew that Clement himself had not read the Gospel accg to Egypt. (So Lightfoot,
Apost. Frs, Pt. I, II. p. 237.) But Zahn's view, that he does not know for certain
whether the Encratites took it thence, is more probable. He must have done so if
the punctuation in Clem. Al. ib. p. 541 adopted by Zahn, and suggested by Light
foot I.e., is the true one, and the passage as a whole is made clearer and more self-
consistent thereby. See Zahn Kan. 11. p. 632, n. i.
There does not, however, seem to be good reason for the grave doubt expressed
by Zahn as to whether the Encratite Julius Cassianus, to whom Clement is replying,
really quoted it. Clement did not know of any other source whence the citation
could be derived and it was therefore probably the one used. There was also,
perhaps, something depreciatory in the oT/xai, as there is at times in our employ
ment of " I presume."
' See ib. p. 532, SiaoTperrriov abrobs rd brr' avTwv <pepbp,eva SiaXvovras oiSi ttws,
and the other passages from Strom. III. referred to in n. 1.
* Lomm. V. p. 87.

266 Apocryphal Gospels known
of their ideas from it'; and Epiphanius that it was the chief
source of the Sabellian heresy'''.
The title given to this work calls for special consideration.
It clearly indicates that at some time this was in a special
manner the Gospel in use among Egyptian Christians. And
the facts that Clement and Origen mention the book and that
Sabellianism, which flourished in the Pentapolis, is said to
have been founded upon it, also point to its circulation in
Egypt. And this may well have been the home of the
Naasenes, or of some branch of them. An " Egyptian,"
according to the usage of language, was one who by birth
and descent belonged to the land, as distinguished both from
Jewish and from Greek colonists and their descendants'.
There was a strong line of demarcation between the Egyptians
and these Greeks, originally in respect to language, and of
a political and social character after the former had learned
to speak Greek*. It is important to bear in mind the
differences of these latter kinds here, because there is no
reason to think that the Gospel accg to the Egyptians was
originally put forth in Coptic, or translated into it. Converts
to Christianity of the two races may well have been kept
apart for a time from the causes referred to, especially as the
Greeks were chiefly settled in Alexandria, while in the smaller
towns and the rural districts the vast majority of the popula
tion was Egyptian. Even those " Egyptian " Christians who
were living in Alexandria might also naturally sympathise
with and preserve the habits of thought and practices of their
brethren elsewhere. It is most improbable that the Gospel
accg to the Egyptians can ever have been the Gospel of the
Greek Christians of Alexandria, in touch as they must always
have been with the rest of Greek Christendom". It is further
' Refut. V. 7, p. 98.
^ Panar. LXIl. 2.
3 E.g. see Joseph. B.J. 11. ch. 18, 7 init. Kara Se ri]v ' AXe%dvSpeiav del piv rpt
ardois Trpbs rb 'lovSaiKbv rois iTTixwplois dip' ov xpv'd.p.evos TrpoBvpMrdrois Kard twv
AlyvTrrlwv "iovSalois 'AXi^avSpas yipas ttjs ovpipaxlas ISwKe rb fieroiKeiv Kard r-f/v
TrbXiv i^ toov fpiolpasf Trpbs Tobs"EXXrivas.
* Cp. Mommsen, Provinces of. the Roman Empire, 11. p. 240 ff., Eng. Trans.
5 Hamack, Chron. i. p. 613 (with n. l, ib.), seems to overlook the considera
tion that though the Gospel accg to Hebretos and that accg to Egyptians may have

in Greek and Latin Churches 267
to be observed that the title has become, it would seem, even
for Clement and Origen, simply the name of a book. It has
ceased apparently to express for them a fact in regard to the
circulation of the book. If it had, they could hardly have
referred to it only as employed by heretics, they must have
alluded to its wider use'. It would seem, then, that, whatever
the peculiarities of usage in regard to the written Gospel
existing among Egyptian Christians may have been in the
earlier half and middle part of the second century, they had,
before the end of it, so far as they understood Greek, con
formed to that of the Greek-speaking Church generally. The
circumstance that the Gospel of which we are speaking was
so soon deposed from the position which it held among
Egyptian Christians raises a doubt whether its recognition by
them had not always been more partial than the expression
" according to the Egyptians " strictly taken would import.
We know that names are often affixed with comparatively
little consideration and from accidental causes. It is also to
be remembered that we know nothing of the history of the
spread of Christianity among the natives of Egypt throughout
the second century; at the time when the name Gospel accg to
the Egyptians was given, the Egyptian Christians may have
formed but an insignificant body.
These considerations are not, I think, unimportant as
a check upon the disposition to draw inferences from the title
of this work, which are not warranted by our knowledge of
any fact that might illustrate and define i*s meaning. But
we should not be justified, on the other hand, in ignoring the
significance of the peculiar usage of less or greater extent
which the name implies. We have, also, seen in an earlier
chapter that this writing was probably the source of several
citations in the Homily which came to be called the Second
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. The unknown author
been contrasted with one another, they may also have been contrasted by Greek
Christians of Alexandria with Gospels used by themselves and the rest of the
Church. ' It is true that Clement and Origen also speak of the Gospel accg to the
Hebrews in like manner as the name of a book, and do not dwell on the fact that
it is the Gospel in use among the Hebrews. But as they do not in this case refer
to a use by heretics, there was not the same reason for further explanation.

268 Apocryphal Gospels known
of this writing may have been a visitor to Corinth, who had
come from Egypt, and his familiarity with the Gospel of
which we are speaking may have been due to residence in the
latter country. But it may also have been read in the
Corinthian Church, so that the allusions would be understood.
In anyxase this writer's quotations, made, tb say the least, as
freely and confidently from an apocryphal source as from the
Canonical Gospels, shew that at that time authority was not
exclusively attributed in that Church to the Four Gospels.
In conclusion a few words must be said on the character
of this Gospel. Though used by heretics, its tendency may
not have been markedly heretical, and indeed probably was
not. Though Clement maintains only the orthodoxy of a
particular passage', he would hardly have ventured to do this
if in other parts of the work there were manifest signs of
misbelief The apocryphal citations in the Second Ep. of
Clement make for the same conclusion. With one exception —
that in which the homilist gives a portion of the language
quoted afterwards by the Alexandrian Clement^ — their style
and spirit, and to a considerable extent their actual ex
pressions, are those of the Synoptic Gospels. There are
correspondences with both St Matthew and St Luke, but the
available evidence is not sufficient to enable us to judge
whether this Gospel was based onN;hose two Gospels^ The
differences from the Canonical Gospels, even if inconsiderable
on the whole, may yet have been sufficient to induce more
than one class of heretics to prefer it. The passage quoted
by Clement of Alexandria is of an enigmatic character, but
lent itself readily to an Encratite interpretation. The same
temper of mind, also, which led to the adoption of opinions
different from those of the Church would favour the use of
Gospels which the Church did not recognise. And it was
prqbably more easy to introduce modifications suitable to
the opinions of - a particular sect into apocryphal Gospels
' Harnack exaggerates when he says, Chron. i. p. 6i6 top, "dass Clemens das
Evangelium gegen enkratisUche Deutung in Schutz nimmt." Clement concerns
himself only with the particular sayings which the Encratites quoted.
- Clem. Rom. ch. 12.
3 The reader may easily pick out the quotations in question in Lightfoot's
edition and examine them by the aid of his notes.

in Greek and Latin Churches 269
than into those which were received and guarded by the
Church at large.
If the words in which Justin has been supposed to refer
to the Gospel of Peter were really a reference to it, this work
must have held a high place as an Apostolic Gospel in the
middle of the second century. Both the purely critical and
the more general historical grounds, however, for denying
that he intends to name it, or uses it, appear to me to be so
convincing, that sooner or later, I feel sure, their cogency will
be recognised'. I must, then, regard the mention of this work
in Serapion's letter to the Church of Rhossus as the earliest
reference to it- Since the recovery of the lost fragment of
" Peter," the little episode connected with the reading of the
work in this country-town of Serapion's diocese has become
familiar to all who are interested in the early history of the
Church. It will be sufficient for me here to remark that it
illustrates some of the irregularities to which enunciations of
a Canon were designed to put an end.
Origen in his first Homily on St Luke, after referring to
the Gospel accg to the Egyptians, states that Basilides had
ventured to write a Gospel and to call it after his own name.
He also mentions Gospels according to Thomas, and to
Matthias, and says there are many others'. Basilides' work,
as also the Gospel of Truth to which Irenaeus alludes'', were
no doubt decidedly Gnostic works. Origen also mentions
in his Cominentary on St Matthew a Book of fames^, with
which Justin has one or 'two parallelisms, though (as we have
seen) it is more than doubtful whether he derived them
thence^ It is not necessary for us to dwell on any of these
works or on other similar ones. There is not the least
probability that any of them enjoyed an early circulation
comparable even to that of the Gospel accg to the Egyptians.
The unique position, therefore, accorded to the Four
Gospels at the close of the second century in the larger
part of the Church, the confidence with which they were
regarded as alone undoubtedly authentic, the ease with which
1 See above, p. 93 ff. " Ap. Eus. H. E. VI. 12.
3 Lomm. V. p. 87. ' Adv. Haer. I. xx. i.
5 In Matt. T. x. 17 (Lomm. III. p. 45). * See above, p. 122 ff.

270 The process by which
in course of time this view obtained universal acceptance,
were the natural sequel both of their history and of that
of other works of the character of Gospels. None of the
latter, it appears, ever were serious rivals of the Four in the
affections of the great and leading Churches of Greek and
Latin Christendom. The areas in which any of them ever
were used either to the exclusion of, or along with, the whole
or one or more of the quaternion, were very limited and cut
off from, or without influence upon, the Church generally.
Nevertheless in the last decade of the century, or not
long before, the need for a Canon of Scriptures of the New
Covenant began to be distinctly felt, in order to meet a danger
which had been growing. The Gnostic Schools accepted
some and rejected others of the writings in which Christians
generally believed, shewed a disposition to adopt some which
were not for the most part so highly regarded, and put forward
some which were expressly designed to suggest or support
heretical opinions'. Moreover controversy on many points was
on the increase within the Church ; those who took part in it
required an accepted standard of truth to appeal to. Accord
ingly men holding responsible positions in the Church as
bishops and teachers stated what writings were certainly to
be accepted as apostolic, in the sense above defined, and what
others were certainly spurious, and gave their judgments
upon or discussed the claims of others whose character was
more doubtful. It was in this way that the formation of the
Canon proceeded for more than a century and a half During
all this time there were no councils specially held to do the
work ; the subject was not even brought before the many
councils, oecumenical and provincial, which assembled. It
was only at the very last stage, when the influence of great
teachers and the usage of the principal Churches had practi
cally settled almost every doubtful point, that decrees of
Councils set their seal upon the result. Now the process
could not have been of this kind, if there had not been a very
large amount of agreement from the first, and if the points of
' On the Gnostic writings see Dionysius of Corinth ap. Eus. H. E. IV. xxiii.
12; Iren. Adv. Haer. I. xx.; Origen, In Ltu. i. i; all which passages have
already been referred to.

the Canon was fortned 271
difference had not been felt to be comparatively unimportant.
At the same time widespread common belief would not make
definite statements on the part of persons in authority
unnecessary, because there could not but be some unstable
or imperfectly instructed Christians. Again, although those
who made the statements evidently had no fears in regard to
the faith of the great Churches of Christendom, there was the
danger that here and there not only individuals, but some
small and more or less isolated community, might fall into
error under the influence of some powerful person.
Those who make these statements as to the writings
vi^hich are authoritative for the Christian, do not rely for their
justification upon the intuitive perception of the inspiration
of these Scriptures on the part of believers. The modern
mind is disposed to fancy that this must have been the case.
But real as the Divine power in the Gospels and other books
of the New Testament assuredly is, the full recognition of it
has been largely a matter of growth and training. It may
well be doubted whether the authority of the Scriptures could
have been originally reared on this foundation, human facul
ties being what they are. And at all events it would scarcely
have been possible without much debating, such as preceded
and accompanied the formation and establishment of the
Nicene doctrine of the Person of Christ ; and of which there
is not a trace at any epoch in regard to the Four Gospels, or
the greater part of the other New Testament Scriptures. Be
this, however, as it may, the basis of the Canon was in point
of fact not this, but a belief in the Apostolicity of the writings
included. The Gospels, to speak now only of them, were
accepted as the authentic embodiment of the Gospel which
the Apostles at first preached'. And those who assert that the
' See above, pp. 244 — 246, and references there. Cp. also p. 52.
Irenaeus, after he has reviewed the Gospels, passes on to the Acts and several
of the Epistles (Adv. Haer. in. xii.ff.). It must not be assumed that he acknow
ledged none which he does not quote from. He may not have thought it
necessary to carry his examination through to the end. Again in some instances
he may have refrained from quoting from writings which many orthodox teachers
considered doubtful, even though he did not himself share this opinion, because it
was desirable for the purposes of argument that only works generally accepted
should be cited.

272 The appeal to tradition
books have this prerogative do so, not simply as expressing
their own conviction, but as declaring that of the Church — the
Church not as a body endowed with the power of discerning
spiritual truth, but (which was the only function appropriate to
this case) as a witness to that which she had received. This
principle is most clearly stated by Tertullian in the passage
from his treatise Against Marcion which has been already
cited above. Antiquity he says shall decide between himself
and Marcion as to the true form of St Luke's Gospel, while
a little further on he remarks that the same authority of
Churches founded by Apostles will vouch for the other three
Gospels'- The same ground of confidence is implied in
Irenaeus' whole line of argument in the third book of his
treatise Against Heresies. He appeals to Church-tradition in
proof that the Rule of Faith conveys truly what the Apostles
taught, and in the same context asserts the Apostolic author
ship, immediate or mediate, of each of the Gospels^ Those
analogies which he at length introduces to bring out the
foursquareness of the Gospels' plainly do not prove, and are
not adduced with the idea of proving, the facts about the
composition of the several Gospels which he has alleged ;
their purpose is to persuade all that they should rest content
with having these four, and also that no one of these four
could have been spared. Origen also writes : — "we approve
nothing save what the Church does, namely, that four gospels
are to be received ''."
The value which we attach to Church-tradition on this
subject will depend in part on our general conception of the
history of the Church from the Apostolic Age to the end of
the second century. We have heard much in recent years
of the forces which made for change during the second
century. It may, however, safely be affirmed that all the
alteration and growth which took place were gradual ; that

' Adv. Marc. iv. iv. 5. 2 Adv. Haer. III. i. f
' ib. xi.
¦* In Luc. I. Note also in same context, "Et ut sciatis, non solum quatuor
evangelia, sed plurima conscripta, e quibus haec, quae habemus, electa et tradita
ecclesiis etc."..."Ecclesia quatuor habet evangelia... quatuor tantum evangeha
sunt probata.''

and its value 273
there was not at any point a breach with the past in Greek
and Latin Christendom taken as a whole, or in its great
Churches, notably in those of Asia and of Rome. This much
has been fully established by those thorough investigations
which were stimulated by the Tiibingen theory and which
have brought about its own overthrow.
Further, there were unquestionably conservative forces at
work in the life of the Church which kept in check those
which were revolutionary. Custom must always count for
much with the majority of men in matters of religion. And
the bishops and clergy who had for their prime business the
care of the Christian people, including such an one as Irenaeus
himself — who, while he was a theologian and writer, was (we
may well believe) still more truly a pastor — could not but
share this conservative temper themselves, and be inclined to
make use of its influence over others. Even teachers like
Clement and Origen, whose training and circumstances made
their purely intellectual interests stronger, but whose largeness
of heart and devotion to the common good of .the Church led
them to consider the needs of its humbler members, were not
unaffected by it. The eyes of the Church at large were
constantly directed backwards to her beginning. That habit
of appealing to the teaching and example of the Apostles, of
which yve have been speaking, was no new thing at the close
of the second century. We have observed it in Hegesippus'.
We have seen it in a very marked form in Justin, and we find
it still earlier in the letters of Clement and Ignatius^.
The reminiscences of Irenaeus and others — by which I
mean now not merely what had been told them by their
elders, but even more, what had fallen within their own
observation — must, also, be borne in mind. And in the
light of considerations of these two kinds we must review
once more the traces of the use of the Gospels in the
middle part and first half of the century, and so form
our conviction of the course of the history. It is impossible
that Irenaeus .should have made his statements on the
subject of the Four Gospels with such calm assurance, if
' See above, p. 155 f.
^ Clem, ad Cor. 42; Ign. ad Magn. 13.
S. G. 18

2 74 General results
within the period since he reached or had nearly reached
man's estate, that is since circ. 155 A.D., any one of them
had been commonly spoken of as a work recently introduced,
or if any other Gospel besides these had been treated as
equal to them, in any of the leading Churches of Christendom
with which he was acquainted. So with Clement of Alexandria
and Tertullian, whose reminiscences stretched nearly as far
back as did those of Irenaeus.
A change of a certain kind there might have been of
which these writers would not be fully conscious, or which
would not destroy the confidence with which they spoke.
The very enunciation of the formula — ^" there are Four Gospels"
— which we first meet with in Irenaeus and which was probably
then still new, itself made a difference. It helped all to realise
more vividly the peculiar claims of these writings ; it estab
lished the recognition of their authority as an obligation of
faith. There had also, no doubt, been a growing sense, which
now received special encouragement, of the inspiration of
these Gospels ; and this served to render all their individual
traits and turns of expression precious, and to make it
important, where there were, or seemed to be, discrepancies
between them, to endeavour to harmonise them, and so to
allow for the truth of each. Again attention must have been
increasingly turned upon the Fourth Gospel by the questionings
of the time, and its special value no doubt thus came to be
more fully realised. But the clear definition of the Fourfold
Gospel some years before the close of the second century
must have been' the outcome of the practice and feeling of the
chief portions of the Church from the middle of the century
at least. The elements of the conception were prepared ;
little more was needed than that a conviction should be made
explicit which before was implicit.
In the discussions contained in earlier chapters, we have
assumed, as critics of very various schools now commonly do,
that where a document of the nature of a Gospel appears to
have been used, and the quotation made agrees in substance
and to a considerable degree, at least, in language, with what is
found in one or more of the Four Gospels, while it is not known
to have been contained in any apocryphal Gospel, the former

of our enquiry 275
should, in spite of comparatively slight differences of forpi, be
regarded as the source. The evidence that has now come
before us helps to shew that we have been right in so
doing. No other Gospels had had a circulation at all com
mensurate with theirs. But we may well feel, also, that an
inadequate impression of the extent of their use is conveyed
by the traces of it in the remains of the Christian literature
of the middle and even of the earlier half of the second
century. That it would have been placed beyond the possi
bility of doubt if those remains had been more abundant and
had been of a somewhat different character becomes something
more than a conjecture. At the same time it is not probable
that fuller evidence would alter materially our impressions as
to the broad characteristics of different epochs.
I have said that by the middle of the second century, the
chief Churches must have read all Four Gospels and regarded
them as authoritative. It is possible that nearly as late as
this there were even important Churches which did not
possess all the Four. But in the Church of Rome — the one
about which we have the fullest knowledge though that is all
too meagre — they seem all to have been in use some thirty
years earlier'.
The Gospels could hardly have made their way at the
early time at which they must have begun to do so, if they
had not come with good credentials. There were the means
still of testing their claims. It will be well, however, to
distinguish between, on the one hand, the strength of the
evidence for the fact that they had been handed down from
the confines of the Apostolic Age and were a true embodiment
of Apostolic testimony, and on the other hand the trustworthi
ness of the evidence for particular accounts of their authorship
and composition. The former consisted in the length of
time for which the several Gospels had been known, and in
the case of the Synoptic Gospels, at least, in the general
correspondence between the written Word and that which
had been orally taught — points as to which there could not
easily be mistake ; whereas there would be a natural tendency
' See pp. 34 — 47 above on the Shepherd of Hermas.
18—2

276 General results
to exaggerate the part taken by individual Apostles in the
production of this and that Gospel.
In the case of our first Gospel the signs of early use are
specially abundant ; and the testimony of a writer who had
himself seen and heard not a few who had been hearers of
various Apostles, and possibly of two who had been hearers
of the Lord Himself, points to a connexion between this
Gospel and a Hebrew document by the Apostle Matthew.
His language, however, is such as to leave room for, if it does
not suggest, the belief that Matthew's \york has been in
corporated in the Greek Gospel, but that the latter is not in
any strict sense a translation of the former. The parallelisms
with, and citations from, our second Gospel are scantier than
in the case of any of the remaining three ; but the name of
its author is attested more strongly than that of the author of
any of the others ; and the attribution may be relied upon
the more confidently, because Mark was not a man of special
eminence. The description, resting on the same authority, of
the relation of this Gospel to the preaching of Peter, according
to which the work of the evangelist was restricted to that of
careful reporting, may represent his dependence as greater
than it was in reality, and yet contain a large measure of
truth. Of the use of the third Gospel there are early traces,
but the first mention of Luke as the author is that by Irenaeus.
As in the case of Mark, however, his comparative obscurity
among the men of the Apostolic Age is in favour of its being
truly ascribed to him. We can see no reason for his having
been selected, if he was not the author. The connexion
between this Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles might have
suggested that some companion of St Paul was the author,
but there was nothing in the latter work — nothing at least
which would readily attract notice — to mark out this one in
particular for the honour. It should be remembered also-
that according to Justin, writing thirty to forty years earlier
than Irenaeus, two at least of the evangelists were men of the
class to which Mark and Luke belonged, and that in all
probability he has these two in mind. Lastly, the differences
between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, which, as we
shall hereafter see, probably corresponded more closely with

of our enquiry 277
the common form of the oral teaching, are in certain respects
a guarantee of authenticity. There must have been good
grounds for believing that this Gospel was founded upon
Apostolic testimony in order to overcome the prejudice that
would be created by the contrasts between it and accounts
which had been more .generally received. The evidence is, as
we have shewn, strong both for the work of the Apostle John
in Asia in the last part of his life, and for his authorship of
the Gospel. But the idea of actual authorship might almost
imperceptibly have been substituted for a more indirect part
in the work, that of a witness and teacher whose utterances
had been embodied in it and had inspired it.
External evidence taken by itself does not, I think, enable
us to go further than we have done in any of the above cases.

INDEX.

Abbot, Ezra; 80 n. 2; 176 n.
Abbott, E. A.; on the question whe
ther Justin used the Fourth Gospel,
91 n. I, 131 f.; the attitude of Gaius
to the Fourth Gospel, 241 f.
Acta Archelai; on Basilides, 64, 65
n. 4, 67 n. I
Acts of the Apostles; parallelisms
with in Ep. of Clem. Rom., 13 f.; in
Shepherd of Hermas, 46 n. 3 ; in
letter of Churches of Vienne and
Lyons, 142 n. 3
Acts of Peter and Paul; no
Acts of Pilate (early Christian docu
ment) ; to be clearly distinguished
from the extant Acts of Pilate (or
Gospel of Nicodemus), 104 n. i, 114
n. 3 ; references to by Justin, 87, 92,
98, 103 ff.; by Tertullian, 105 ff. ;
an alleged letter of Pilate connected
therewith, 1 10 f. ; used in the Gospel
of Nicodemus (otherwise called the
Acts of Pilate), 115 ff. ; and in the
Gospel of Peter, 117 ff. ; probability
that the Fourth Gospel was used in
it, 121
Acts of Pilate (otherwise called Gos
pel of Nicodemus); its different forms,
1 12 f. ; its name in the West, Acts of
Pilate, 113 ff.; the early Pilate docu
ment was used in its composition,
115 f.
Acts of Pilate (heathen document) ;
112 n. 1, 114 f
Agrippa Castor; on Basilides, 64,
66 n. 2, 138
Aleatoribus, De ; citation from, 237n.;
quotations in it from N. T., etc., 247
n. 2
Alogi, The ; the character and motif
of their peculiar views, 198-208; the
time and place of their rise, 208-210;
the phenomenon of the Alogi con
sidered in relation to the history of
the reception of the Fourth Gospel,
210-212, 235, 242 f.

Ammonius ; his divisions of the Gos
pels, 24
Anicetus, Bp; 41, iS3f , 196, 221, 227
Apocalypse of John; reference to by
Justin, 84, 89 ; citations from in letter
of Churches of Vienne and Lyons,
142 n. 3 ; allusion to by Dionysius of
Corinth, 143; its relation to the
Fourth Gospel, and theories as to its
composition, 171 ff.
Apocryphal Gospels ; see under
Peter, Gospel of; Egyptians,
Gospel accg to ; James, Protev.
of; etc.
Apocryphal sayings, or forms of
sayings, of Christ; Ignatius ad
Smyrn., 14, 28 ; possible instance in
Ep. of Barnabas, 33 ; none in Shep
herd of Hermas, 47 ; instances in ind
Ep. of Clem. Rom., 58 f. ; Justin M.,
125. 135 (nos. II, 14, 17); Clem.
Alex. 58, 135 (no. 11); Origen, 14
Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis ;
chronology of his life and writings,
138 f. ; fragments on Paschal observ
ance, 140?., 179, 180 f , 185 f., 191,
196 f.
ApoUonius ; he believed the common
tradition respecting the residence of
the Apostle John in Asia, 233 n. 2
Apostate ; use of this term in Shep
herd of Hermas, 37 n. 2 ; alliLsions to
the act of apostasy in the N. T., and
by Polycarp and Ignatius, 37 n. 1
Apostles; their authority, 94, 271;
labours of members of the Twelve in
Churches to the 'West of Palestine,
253 n- I
Apostolical Ordinances and Con
stitutions; similarities in the form
of certain precepts of Christ given in
them and in the Ep. of Clem. Rom.,
II
Aristides, Apology of; recovery of,
48 n. I ; date of, 48-50 ; wide dis
semination of, 49 ; its statements in

28o

Index

regard to the Gospel history, 51 ; on
the change from the preached to the
written Gospel, 51 f
Aristides, the rhetorician; 221 n. i
Aristion ; John the Elder is coupled
with him by Papias, 169
Aristotle's Constitution of Athens;
the papyrus MS. is without divisions, 22
Asconius Pedianus ; the references
in his Annotations on Five of Cicero's
Orations, 23 f.
Asia, Church in the province of;
absence of literary activity there till
the middle of the second century,
137 f . ; letter addressed to it, 142;
its tradition in respect to the latter
years of the Apostle John, 162 ff.
Athanasius ; reference to subject of
Paschal observance in a letter to
Epiphanius, 184 f.
Athenagoras; writings of, and the
parallelisms with N. T. writings
which they contain, 151 f.
Barnabas, The Epistle of; its cha
racter and date, 29, 31 f. ; parallel
isms with St Matthew in, 33
Barsalibi ; 240
Basilides ; notices of his Exegetica,
64 f ; Hippolytus' account of his sys
tem, 65-9 ; Origen's references to his
Gospel, 64 f, 269; his use of St
Luke, 65
Baur; on Quartodecimanism, 173 n. 1,
175 n. 1, 197 n. 2
Bergk; on divisions in ancient books,
22 ff
Birt ; on divisions in ancient books,
2 2 ff. ; ways in which letters were
preserved, 160
Bleek ; on the authorship of the Apoca
lypse, 171 11. 2; on Quartodeciman
ism, 176, 197 n. I
Boor, de ; 167 n. 3
Bousset ; on the tradition respecting
the Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle
John, 163 n., 214 n. 2, 228 n. 4, 230
n. I ; the composition of the Apoca
lypse and its relation to the Fourth
Gospel, 172 nn. i, 3
Bretschneider; 174
Brooke, A. E. ; on date of Heracleon,
158 n. I
Burkitt, F. C. ; on use of St Mark,
18 n. I, 46
Cassiodorus ; refers to a' chapter in
the Antiquities of Josephus, 23
Cerinthus ; suggested by the Alogi as

the author of the Apocalypse and the
Fourth Gospel, 204 ff.
Clement of Alexandria ; gives a pas
sage of Christ's teaching in the same
form as Clement of Rome, 6 f , 8 n. 3,
10 ; divided his Miscellanies into
chapters, 22 f. ; refers to chapters in
the O. T., 24; quotes and discusses
a passage from the Gospel accg to the
Egyptians, 58, 264 f., 267 f; on
Basilides, 64-7 ; has a saying of Christ
given also by Justin, 126, 135 (no. 11);
his citations from Heracleon, 158 ; on
Quartodecimanism, 179, 181 f., 191,
197 ; on the Apostle Philip, 230; on
the later years of the Apostle John,
233 ; on the Four Gospels, 246, 274;
on the Gospel accg to the Hebrews,
256, 262, 267 n.
Clement of Rome ; genuineness and
date of his (so-called first) Epistle, 3 ;
his quotations from O. T., 4 and 5 n. ;
Evangelic quotations in, 3 f., 5-14,
25 f. ; traces in their form of the
effects of oral teaching, 9 f. ; his
silence respecting the Apostle John,
18 f., 165 ; paralleli-sms with a pas
sage in the Fourth Gospel, 18 n. 2
Clement of Rome, Second Epistle
of (so-called); its name for the
Sacred 'Writings, 58, 94 n. i ; its
quotations from and parallelisms with
our Gospels and with an Apocryphal
source or sources, 58 f., 267 f. ; the
date and place of its composition,
60-63
Clementine Homilies and Recog
nitions, 159 n. 2
Conybeare, F. C; 48 n. l, 106 n. i,
112 n. 3
Credner, on the sources of Justin's
Evangelic quotations, 78 f., 80 n. 2 ;
the Alogi, 198 n. 1
Cureton; non. i, 140 n. 2
Cyprian ; 194 n. i
Cyril of Jerusalem ; his parallelisms
with the Gospel of Peter, loi n. 1,
'33 ("^^ c, f) ; the probability that
they were due in his case, also, to
use of the Pilate document, 118
Davidson, S. ; 171 n. i, 173 n. 2,
198 n. I
Delff; on the tradition respecting the
Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John,
163 n., 214 n. 2, 228 n. 4, 230 n. i
Diatessaron ; see Tatian
Diognetum, Ep. ad ; 152 n. i
Dionysius, Bp of Alexandria ; on

Index

281

two Johns, 1 70 ; reference to Paschal
observance, 194 n. i; on certain who
rejected the Apocalypse 206
Dionysius, Bp of Corinth ; his reply
to a letter from Soter, 60 ; time when
he flourished, 143 n. i ; his reference
to the "Dominical Scriptures" and
to Gnostic corruptions of them, 143 f ,
270 n. 1
Ddllinger; 198 n. 1
Drummond, J.; on Hippolytus' ac
count of Basilides, 66 n. 2, 67 n. i,
68 n. !¦; Justin's use of the Fourth
Gospel, 80 n. 2, 99 11. 2; Quarto
decimanism, 173 n. 2, 176 n., 183
ll. 1, 186, 195 n. I
Duchesne ; on Paschal observance,
183 n. 3, 195 n. 3
Ebed-Jesu; 239
Ebionite Gospel ; Epiphanius on,
125 n. 2, 135 (no. 8)
Edessa ; the Church of, 260 ; Tatian's
Diatessaron used there, ib.
Egyptians, Gospel according to ;
agreement between a citation in ind
Ep. of Clem. Rom., and one made
from this Gospel by Clement of Alex
andria, 58; notices of, 264-266; sig
nification of the title, 266-268 ; tem
per of the work, 268
Elder ; use of this term in addresses of
Second and Third Epistles of St fohn,
170 f. ; difference between the use of
it by Papias and by Irenaeus, 224
n. 3. See also John the Elder
Eleutherus, Bp ; 153
Encratites ; Clement of Alexandria
argues against them, 265
Engelhardt ; on Justin's attitude to
the Fourth Gospel, 83 n. 1, 90
n. I
Epiphanius ; on the Acts of Pilate,
114; the Ebionite Gospel, 125 n. 2,
135 (no. 8); Quartodecimanism, 185;
his account of the Alogi, 200 ff., 209,
210 n. I ; his dependence for it on
Hippolytus, ib. ; compEirison between
it and fragments of the Heads against
Gaius, 239 ff. ; his invention of the
term "Alogi," 203; on Cerinthus,
205 n. I ; the Gospel accg to the He
brews, 125 n. I, 256, 259 ; the Gospel
accg to the Egyptians, 266
Episcopacy; history of at Rome, 41,
153
riaYYeXiov ; illustrations of the use of
this term, 237 n.
Eusebius of Alexandria ; quotes the

section of Gospel of Nicodemus on
the Descent into Hades, 114
Eusebius of Caesarea ; on the Apol
ogy of Aristides, 48 f.; the chronology
of Justin's life and writings, 76 f. ;
the Acts ^ of Pilate (Christian and
heathen), 112 ; the writings of Melito
and Apollinaris, 138 f., 141, 181;
his quotation from "Tatian's Address,
147 n. 3 ; the date at which Eleu
therus became Bishop of Rome, 153;
Hegesippus, 154 ff-; Papias' refer
ence to fohn the Elder, i69f , 218
n. i; Paschal observance, 183 f., 187,
191 f, 1931,197; Gaius, 2o6f; the
chronology of Montanism, 208; the
question whether he confounds Philip
the Apostle and Philip the Evangc
list, 230 n. 5; on the use of the Gos
pel accg to the Hebrews by Hegesippus
and among Hebrew Christians, 125 f.,
157 n. J, 25of.; he does not suggest
that the Greek St Matthew was re
lated to it, 256; he knew of no Greek
translation of this work, 262 ff.
Other references, 39 n. i, 52, 64, 167,
224 n. 3, 241
Fastings on 'Wednesdays and Fri
days ; early reference to the prac
tice, 194 n. 2
Florinus ; letter of Irenaeus to him,
2i4ff., 2i9n.3, 234; letter to Victor
respecting him, 220
Funk; on Tatian, 147 n. 3, 148; Pas
chal observance, 186 n., 195 n. 3
Gaius ; his rejection of the Apocalypse,
206 ff. ; supposition of Dr J. R. Harris
and Dr E. A. Abbott that he denied
the authenticity of the Gospel accg to
St John, 239 ff. ; on the Apostle
Philip, 230
Georgius Hamartolus; 167
Gospel of Truth ; 65 n. 2, 269
Gnostics ; claim made by them to
possession of special Apostolic tradi
tions, 65, 69 ; their treatment of the
Scriptures, 143 f., 157; the time of
their rise, 156; the doctrine of the
Logos in their systems, 205 n. 2
Grabe ; on a passage in Irenaeus, 22 5 n. i
Gregory of Tours; on the Acts of
Pilate, 1131.
Gwynn ; the fragments of Hippolytus'
Heads against Gaitts discovered by
him, 207, 239
Handmann; 250 n.

282

Index

Harnack; on the genuineness and date
of the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius
and Polycarp, 3 nn. 1 , 2 ; the
date of the Didache, 30 n. i ; the
date of the Ep. of Barnabas, 32 f. ;
list of bishops of Rome, 41 n. 2 ; the
date of the Shepherd of Hermas,
41 n. 3 ; the date and place of
compositiim of the (so-called) ^nd
Ep. of Clem. Rom., 60-63; Hip
polytus' account of the system of
Basilides, 66 n. i ; Justin's attitude
to the Fourth Gospel, 130 i.; Justin
and the Gospel of Peter, 93 n. 3,
97 n. I, 103 n. 4 ; Justin's and
Tertullian's references to Acts of
Pilate, 106 n.; Pilate's "letter," iii;
the question whether Justin used the
Protevajigelium Jacobi, 122 n. 2, 124
II. 1 ; the genuineness of several frag- ,
ments of Melito, 140 nn. ; the
genuineness of the fragments of Apol
linaris, 141 n. 2; the text of the
passage of Tatian's Address quoted
by Eusebius, 147 n. 3 ; Tatian's
relations with Justin, 148 ; the dates
of different portions of Ep. ad
Diognetum, 152 n. ; Hegesippus, 155
n. I ; the tradition respecting the
Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John,
163 n., 214 n. 2, 231 li. i; the
Apocalypse, 172 nn. 2, 4; the Alogi
198 n. I, 203 n. 4, 210 f. ; Epiphanius'
dependence upon Hippolytus, 200
11. 3; the chronology of Montanism,
208 11. I, 209 u. 2; Irenaeus' age
when he was a hearer of Polycarp
and the date of his birth, 215
n. 4, 217 n. 2, 218, 220 n. 3;
the date of Polycarp's Martyrdom,
221 n. i; the Elders referred to by
Irenaeus, 222 n. 1, 224 n. 2, 225 n. 2;
the De Aleatoribus, 247 n. 2 ; the
Gospel accg to the Hebmvs, 250 n.,
¦2.^4 ff-' 257' 258. 262, 263 nn. 2, 3,
264 n. I ; the Gospel accg to tlie
Egyptians, 266 ff.
Other references: 49 n. 2, 50, 53
nn. I, 2, 57 n. i, 58 n. i, 64
n. I, 76 n. 2, 77 n. i, 112 n. 2,
139 ""• ^' 3' 146 11- 6, 153 11. 4,
154 nn. 1, 2, 167 n. 2, 168 11. i,
228 n. 4
Harris, J. R. ; his discovery of Syriac
Version of Apology of Aristides, 48
n. I ; on the date of the Apology of
Aristides, 49 n. 2 ; Quadratus, 50 n. 2 ;
the Alogi, and the attitude of Gaius
to the Fourth Gospel, 203 n. 2, 239 ff.

Harvey; 199 n. 2; 220 n. 2; 223 n. 3;
225 n. 1
Headlam, A. C. ; 93 n. 3
Hebrew Christians ; their history,
252 ff.
Hebrews, Ep. to ; used by Hennas,
47; not acknowledged by Gaius, or
by Church of Rome, 241
Hebrews, Gospel according to the;
possible quotation from, 14 f., 28 ;
question of its use by Justin, 78 f ,
124 {., 127; used by Hegesippus,
125, 154, 157; Eusebius and Jerome
found it in use among Hebrew
Christians, 250 ff. ; reverence was
felt for it by other than Hebrew
Christians (125 f., 264), but it had
not been translated before Jerome's
time, 261 ff. ; general considerations
as to its trustworthiness, 252 ff. ; it
contained an account of the Birth
and Infancy of Jesus, 257 ff.
Hegesippus; the chronology of his
life, 153 f. ; his point of view, 154 f.;
his description of the Scriptures, 144,
155; the character of his Memoirs,
155 f. ; the line of argument by which
he sought to combat Gnosticism com
pared with that employed by Irenaeus,
155 f., 273; his use of the Gospd
accg to the Hebrews, 125, 154, I57>
251 ; parallelism with Justin in regard
to the form of a saying of Christ,
125' 135 (no- 16)
Heinichen; 54 n. 2, 153 n. 5, 198 n. i
Heracleon; 158
Hermas, Shepherd of; its character
and the questions with which it deals,
29, 34 f. ; its date, 35-41 ; parallelisms
with the Four Gospels in, 42-47,
72—5, 275 ; shews signs of acquaint
ance with other N.T. writings, 47 ;
appears not to quote from any
Apocryphal source, ib.; quoted as
Scripture in the De Aleatoribus, 247
n. 2
Hilgenfeld ; on the date of the Sheplierd
of Hermas, 41 n. 3 ; words in Hermas
which he supposes to be taken from
an Apocryphal source, 47 n. 2 ; the
date of the Apology of Aristides, 49
n. 2 ; Justin's attitude to our Gospels,
80 n. 2, 83 n., 129 f., 134; on the
Protevangelium Jacobi, 122 n. 2 ;
the text of the passage of Tatian's
Address quoted by Eusebius, 147
n. 3 ; the tradition respecting the
Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John,
163 n., 228 n. i; the date of the

Index

283

Apocalypse, 172 n. 4; the Paschal
controversy, 173 nn. i, 2, 175 n. i,
185 11. i, igo nn. 1, 2, 195 n. i, 197
n. 2
Other references, 148, 171 n. 2, 198
n. I
Hippolytus, on Basilides, 65-69 ;
Quartodecimans, 179 f., 187, 191,
197; his Paschal cycle, 194 n. i;
dependence of Epiphanius and Phil
aster on him in their accounts of the
Alogi, 200 ff. ; his Defence of the
Gospel ajid Apocalypse, 202 n. 3,
239 f ; on Cerinthus, 205 n. 1, 207;
suggested by Lightfoot as the author
of the Muratorian Canon, ^^.-j ; he
accepted the Four Gospels, ib.; on
the Gospel accg to the Egyptians, 265 f.
Holtzmann, H. ; on Justin's attitude
to our Gospels, 130; the tradition
respecting the Ephesine sojourn of
the Apostle John, 163 n., 164 n.,
214 n. 2, 228 f , 231 n. I, 233 n. 2;
the Alogi, 198 n. i
Hort, F. J. A. ; on Basilides, 65 n. 4,
66 f. ; the chronology of Justin's life
and writings, 76 n. 2, 77 a. 2; the
Clementine Homilies and Recognitions,
159 n. 2 ; the motive for the omission
of rb rrdaxa at Jn vi. 4, 248 n. 4
Ignatius ; genuineness and date of his
seven epistles in the shorter Greek
form, 3 ; he seems to refer to a
document, or documents, containing
Gospel facts, 3 n. 3; quotation by,
from a non-Canonical, or oral, source,
14 f , 28; parallelisms with St Mat
thew, 15, 27 f., with St John, 19,
28 (nos. 6, 7) ; his silence respecting
the Apostle John, 19 ff., 165 f., 235 ff.;
his martyrdom as illustrating the
history of persecution, 39 n. i
Irenaeus ; on Gnostic use of the Gospels,
65 nn. 1, 2; the system of Basilides,
66; his reference to Polycarp's letters,
137 n. I ; on Tatian, 146; a line of
argument employed by him compared
with that employed by Hegesippus,
156 ; the attitude of Ptolemaeus
and other Valentinians to the Gos
pels, 158; certain who rejected John's
Gospel and the gifts of the Spirit,
ig8 f., 210; Cerinthus, 205 n. i,
207; his statements respecting the
later years and the writings of the
Apostle John, 213 f; his reminis
cences of Polycarp, 2141 ; the age
of Irenaeus when he was a hearer of

Polycarp, and the date of his birth,
214-222 ; his quotations from and
references to "the Elders,'' 222-227;
his visits to Rome, 227 ; on the
conference between Polycarp and
Anicetus, 227 f ; his letter to Victor
on Quartodecimans, 192 f.. 215 ;
another regarding Florinus, 220 ; the
Four Gospels, 244 f. ; Christians who
had not the .Scriptures in their own
language, 249 ; he supposed the
Hebrew Gospel to be the original
of the Greek St Matthew, 256, 261 f ;
on the diverse beginnings of the
Gospels, 257 u. 3 ; on Gnostic cor
ruptions and forgeries, 270 n. i ;
his examination of N. T. writings
other than the Gospels, 271 n. 1
Other references, 39 n. i, 142 n. 2,
167, 205, 224 n. 3, 273 f
Isidore, son of Basilides; 65 n. 4,
69' 157
Jacobi Protevangelium ; 121 ff., 134
(nos. 2, 3, 4), 269
James, Ep. of; used by Hermas, 47
Jerome; on the Apology of Aristides,
48; the Gospel accg to Hebrews, 128,
251 f, 256 ff.; on Tatian, 147 n. i;
the Memoirs of Hegesippus, 155 n. 4
Jews ; the execution of the death-
sentence upon Christ attributed to
them, 51 n. i, 97 ff., 107 n. i
John the Apostle ; tradition as to his
later years, 18 f, 162 ff., 213 f . ;
men and parties interested in disputing
its truth refrained from doing so,
234 ff. ; his example appealed to by
Quartodecimans, 173, 215, 227; the
silence of the Sub-Apostolic Age
respecting him, 18 ff., 164 ff., 231,
235 ff. For the Second Century
impugners of the authenticity of the
writings attributed to him, see Alogi
John the Elder; 168 ff., 231, 232.
See also Elder
John, First Epistle of; parallelisms
with in Ep. of Polycarp, 20 ; in
Justin M., 83
John, Gospel accg to ; parallelisms
with in Epp. of Clement, Polycarp,
and Ignatius, 18 n. 2, 18-21, 28 (nos.
6, 7) ; in Shepherd of Hermas, 46 f.,
74 f ; use of in Basilidean record
quoted by Hippolytus, 68 f ; by
Justin M., 81 ff. ; probabihty that it
was used in the early Acts of Pilate,
121; signs of acquaintance with in
fragments of Melito, 140 ; reference

284

Index

to in fragments of Apollinaris,, X41 ;
quotations from in Letter of the
Churches of Vienne and Lyons, 142 ;
in Tatian's Address, 149; parallelisms
with in Athenagoras' Appeal, 151;
use of by Ptolemaeus, 158 ; and by
Heracleon, ib. ; its relation to the
Apocalypse, 171 f ; the question of
its authorship, 276 f.
Josephus; quoted, 266 n. 3
Julian of Eclanum; his censure of
Jerome's attitude to the Gospel accg
to the Hebrews, 257 n. 4
Jiilicher; on Justin's attitude to our
Go.spels, 83 n. 1, 130
Julius Africanus; evidence that he
recognised the Gospels according to
Matthew, Luke and John, 248
Julius Cassianus; 265 n. 2
Justin M.; on the public reading of
the .Scriptures, 24; chronology of his
life and writings, 76 f. ; history of
controversy as to his Evangelic qip-
tations, 77-80 ; his use of the- Fourth
Gospel, 81 ff. ; the purport and
method of Justin's reasoning as affect
ing his quotations, 84 ff. ; his refer
ences to the "Memoirs of the
Apostles," 77 f., 80 ff., 91-3; his
reference to the Apocalypse of John,
84, 89 ; his reference to " Peter's
Memoirs," 77, 93 f., 269; his an
tagonism to Docetism, 95 f, 132;
his parallelisms with the Gospel of
Peter examined, 97-102 ; his appeal
to the registers of Quirinius and the
Acts of Pilate, 87, 92, 98; his
references to the latter compared
with those of TertuUian, 102-109 !
with the alleged letter of Pilate,
no f . ; and with the Gospel of
Nicodemus (otherwise called the Acts
of Pilate),' 1 15 ff. ; in connexion with
the last four headings see also 132 f. ;
parallelisms with the Protevangelium
Jacobi examined, 121 ff., 127, 134
(nos. 2, 3, 4) ; the Gospel accg io
the Hebrews a source from which,
possibly, traits in Justin were directly
or indirectly derived, 124 f., 127,
263 ; parallelism with Hegesippus in
regard to a saying of Christ, 125, 135
(no. 16) ; with the Gospel of Thomas,
126 f. ; the attack on him by Crescens,
38 n. I, 146 ff. ; reference to the ob
servance of the first day of the week,
194 n. 2 ; he believed in the connexion
of the Apostle John with Asia, 233
Other references, 137 f , 205, 273

Keim; on Justin's attitude to the
Fourth Gospel, 130; the tradition
respecting the Ephesine sojourn of
the Apostle John, 163 n., 168 n. 3
Kennedy, H. A. A.; on the time at
which the Scriptures were first trans
lated into Latin, 161 n.
Kenyon; on the MS. of Aristotle's
Constitution of Athens, 22
XaxH-os; instances of the use of this
word, loi
Latin Version of the N.T.; when
first made, 160 f
Lightfoot, Bp ; on the genuineness
and date of the Epp. of Clement,
Ignatius and Polycarp, 3 nn. i, 2;
the apparent reference by Ignatius
to written Gospel records, 3 n. 3;
the Evangelic quotations in Clement
of Rome, 6 f ; the date of the Didache,
30 n. I ; the Ep. of Barnabas, 31 n.
3, 32 ; on list of Bishops of Rome,
41 n. 2; date of the Shepherd of
Hermas, 40, 41 n. 3; the term Xbyia,
53 n. 3 ; date and place of composition
of^ (so-called) ind Ep. of Clejn. Rom.
60-63; Justin's and Tertullian's re
ferences to Acts of Pilate, 106 n. ;
the letter of the Smyrnaeans regarding
the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 138 n.
2 ; the Apologies of Melito and
Apollinaris, 139 n. i; the genuine
ness of various fragments of Melito,
140 nn. I, 2, 141 n. 3; dates of
different portions of Ep. ad Diogne
tum, 152 n.; Quartodecimanism,
175 n. 2; the Alogi, 198 n. i,
203 nn. 2, 4; the interpretation of
Irenaeus' reference to them, 1,99 n.
I ; Epiphanius' dependence on Hip
polytus, 200 n. 3 ; Irenaeus' remi
niscences of Polycarp, 215 nn. i, 4;
the Elders referred to by Irenaeus,
222 n. 1, 223, 224 n. 2, 225 n. 2; the
Muratorian Canon, 247n. i ; Clenient
of Alexandria's quotations from the
Gospel accg to the Egyptians, 265
n. 2
Other references: 5 a. 1, 35 u. 5,
37 a- 6, 39 nn. 2, 3, 53 nn. i, 2,
57 nn- 2, 3' 58 n. i, 167 nn. 2, 5;
194 n. I, 199 n. I, 218 n. 1, 221 n.
I, 239
Lipsius, R. A. ; on the date of the
Sheplierd of Hermas , 41 n. 3 ; Justin's
and Tertullian's references to Acts of
Pilate, 106 n., 112 n. 3, 114 n. 3;
Epiphanius' dependence on Hippo-

Index

285

lytus, 200 n. 3 ; Irenaeus' age when
he was a hearer of Polycarp, and the
date of his birth, 215 n. 4, 216 n. 3,
22 1 n. i; his visits to Rome, 227
Other references: no n., 198 n. i
Lo'ds; 93 n. 3 ^
" Logia, The " ; question as to the
use of such a document by Clement
of Rome, 7-9, 1 2 ; fragment of Papias
°n, 53-7 ; meaning of term, 53 f.
\d70s; meaning of the word as applied
to sayings of Christ, 5 n. 2
Logos, Doctrine of the; the sense
of its importance served to direct
attention to the Fourth Gospel, 152,
274; place of the Logos in Gnostic
systems, 205
Lord's Day, The; references to in
the N.T. and early Christian writers,
194 n. 2
Luke, Gospel accg to; parallelisms
with in Ep. of Clem. Rom., 8 f., 25 f.;
the Didache, 31, 70 f. ; Shepherd of
Hermas, 42-4, 74; Exegetica of Basi
lides, 65; use of in Basilidean record
quoted by Hippolytus, 68 ; quotations
from in Letter of Churches of Vienne
and Lyons, 142; parallelisms with
in Theophilus ad Autolycum, 145
n. I ; probable use of in Athenagoras'
Appeal, 151; use of by Ptolemaeus,
158; and by Heracleon, ib.; the
question as to its authorship, 276
Luthardt; 173 n. 2; 176 n.
Lutzelberger; on the tradition re
specting the Ephesine sojovurn of the
Apostle John, 163 n.
Marcion; relation of his Gospel to
that according to St Luke, 64,' his
explanatioii of Christ's celebration of
the Passover, 178
Mark, Gospel accg to; parallelism
with in Ep. of Polycarp, 17, 27;
parallelisms with in Shepherd of
Hermas, 45 f. , 73 f. ; comparative
rarity of the use of, 1 7 f. ; fragment
of Papias on, 53; probable use of by
Ptolemaeus, 158; the question as to
its authorship, 276
Matthew,Gospelaccg to; parallelisms
with in the Ep. of Clement, 8, 13,
25 f. ; Epp. of Ignatius, 15, 27 f.; the
Didache, 31, 70 f ; Ep. of Barna
bas, 33; Shepherd of Hermas, 42-^,
72 f. ; reference to in fragments of
Apollinaris, 141; allusion to by
Dionysius of Corinth, 143; citation
from in Theophilus ad Autolycum,

145; parallelisms with in Athena
goras' Appeal, 151; use of by Pto
lemaeus, 158; the question as to its
authorship, 276
Matthias, Traditions of; 65, 269
Mechitarist Fathers; their publica
tion of a fragment of the Armenian
Version of the Apology of Aristides,
48 n. I
Melito; chronology of his life and
writings, 138 f.; the fragments of his
writings, 139 f.; his Quartodeciman
ism, 181 f, 185
Millenarianism; 206 f, 2241
Ministry, Orders of the; language
of Hermas respecting, 40 f.
Mommsen ; 39 n. 2 ; 266 n. 4
Montanism; 199, 202, -208 n. i,
209 n. 2, 211 f. ; reference to it in the
Muratorian Canon, 247 n. i
Muratorian fragment on the Canon ;
its allusion to the Shepherd of Her?nas,
35, 40, 247; makes no reference to
the Gospel of Peter, 96 f. ; its account
of the composition of the Gospel
accg to St John, 233 n. 2; on the
Gospels, -lifii.; its differences from
the Canon now received, 247 ; its
date, 247 n. I ; on the diverse be
ginnings of the Gospels, 257 n. 3
Neander; 167 n. 5
Nicholson, E. B. ; 250 n.
Nicodemus, Gospel of (otherwise
called the Acts of Pilate) ; see Acts
of Pilate (otherwise called Gospel of
Nicodemus)
Nolte; 167 n. I
Origen; on a Gospel by Basilides,
64 f. ; his reference to the Book of
James, 122 f; to the Gospel of Thomas,
126 n. 5; his citations from Heracleon,
158; on Quartodecimanism, 182, 191,
197; on th'e Four Gospels, 248 f . ;
the Gospel accg to the Hebrews, 256,
267 n.; his mode of referring to it
does not shew that a Greek trans
lation existed, 262 ff. ; on the Gospel
accg to the Egyptians, 265, 267 ;
various Apocryphal Gospels, 269
Other references, 31 n. 3, 194 n. 1,273
Palestine, Churches of ; their Synod
ical letter on Paschal observance, 193
Papias ; fragments of respecting records
by Mark and Matthew, 52-7, 276 ;
his acquaintance with the Fourth
Gospel, 57; the statements alleged

286

Index

to have been derived from him which
have been recently found, i66 f. ; his
references to the Apostle John and to
John the Elder in a passage quoted
by Eusebius, i68, 169 f, 217 f.,
224 f ; on the Apostle Phihp, 230
Other references, 138, 223 ff., 224 n. 3
irdo-xa and pascha ; instances of their
use by those who were not Quarto
decimans, 194 n. I
Paschal Chronicle ; i4of, 179, 180 f,
185 n. I
Paschal observance ; in Churches
that were not Quartodeciman, 192 ff. ;
Duchesne on, 183 n. 3, 195 n. 3;
Funk on, 186 n., 195 n. 3
See also Quartodecimanism
Paul, St; his argument in i Cor. ix. g
compared with the reasoning of Ep.
of Barnabas, 31 n. 3; his attitude to
Paschal observance, 190 f.
Persecution ; references to it and its
effects in the Shepherd of Hermas,
36 f ; the early history of, 38 i.
Peter, Bp of Alexandria; on Paschal
observance, 179
Peter, The Gospel of; the supposed
use of it by Justin M., 79, 93 ff., 269 ;
its Docetism, 95 f. ; silence at Rome
respecting this work, 96 f. ; Justin's
parallelisms with it examined, 97-
102 ; these, as also those with Ter
tullian, the Gospel of Nicodemus,
and Cyril of Jerusalem, are to be
accounted for by the use in common
of an early Pilate document, to which
also Pilate's "letter" in the Acts of
Peter and Paul is related, 117-121,
132 f. ; the question as to its use of
our Gospels, 103 n. 4, 121; Serapion
on it, g7, 269
Peter, The Preaching of; 14, 28,
98 n. 3, 125
Philaster; on the Alogi, 200 ff.; his
dependence on Hippolytus, ib.
Philip the Apostle ; 230 f.
Philip the Evangelist ; 230 f
Philip of Side ; estimates of his trust
worthiness, 167
Photius; 142, 167, 242
Pilate, Acts of; see Acts of Pilate
Pilate's letter to Claudius ; no ff.
Pitra ; 140 n. 2
Pliny's letter to Trajan ; 38 n. z,
194 n. 2
Plutarch ; his manner of quoting, 24 f.
Polycarp; genuineness and date of his
epistle, 3 ; gives a piece of Christ's
teaching resembling in its form a

passage in the Ep. of Clem. Rom. 6,
16; parallelisms with the Synoptic
Gospels in his Epistle, 16 f., 27; with
the Epp. of John and the Fourth
Gospel, 20; silence respecting the
Apostle John, 19 ff., 166, 235 ff.; his
conference with Anicetus, 196, 227;
Irenaeus' reference to his letters and
reminiscences of him, 137 n. 1, 214 f.;
date of his martyrdom, 221 ii. i
Polycarp, The Account of the
Martyrdom of; 138
Polycrates; his defence of Quarto
decimanism, 177 f, 181 n. 2; he
identifies the writer of the Fourth
Gospel with the Apostle John, 197,
22S ff.; on Philip the Apostle, 230 f.
Ptolemaeus; 158, 214, 234
Quadratus, the Apologist ; 48, 50,
138
Quartodecimanism; modern contro
versy in respect to, 173 ff. ; statement
and examination of the evidence
regarding it, 1 76 ff. ; its bearing on
the question of the Johannine author
ship of the Fourth Gospel, 195 ff.,
234 f-.
Quotations; circumstances affecting
their form in early writers, 4 f , 22-5
Quotations, Evangelic; in Clement
of Rome, 5 ff. , 25 f. ; in Epp. of
Ignalius, I4, 15 ; in Justin M., 77 ff. ;
their character in Sub-Apostolic
writers generally, 3 f. ; affected by the
subject, I4g. See also references
under the several Gospels
Quotations from the O.T. ; in Cle
ment of Rome, 4, 5 n. i ; in Justin M.,
5n. 1
Raabe ; on the date of the Apology of
Aristides, 4g n. i
Ramsay, W. M.; on the date of the
'Ep. of Barnabas, 32 ; the early history
of persecution, 3g n. 3; the date of
the Apocalypse, 172 n. 4
Renan; on Quartodecimanism, 175 n. i
Resch; on the Evangelic quotations in
Ep. of Clement of Rome, 6 n. 4, 7 ff. ;
his view of a quotation in tlie 2nd
Ep. of Clem. Rom., ,59 n. 2; Papias'
fragment respecting Matthew's re
cord, 55 n.
Rhodon ; on Tatian, 146
Robinson, J. A. ; his recovery of
Greek of Apology of Aristides, 48 n.
i; on its date etc., 49 nn. 2, 3; the
term Xdyia, 53 n. 3; his discovery of

Index

287

the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs in
their original Latin, 160
Salmon; his starting point in his
treatment of the history of the N.T.
Canon, i ; on date of the Shepherd of
Hennas, 41 n. 3; Quadratus, 50 n.
2 ; Hippolytus' account of system of
Basilides, 66 n. i, 67 n. i ; Valentinus'
use of Fourth Gospel, 69 a. 5 ; the
Apologies of Melito and Apollinaris,
139 n. I ; the date of the Paschal
Chronicle, 141 n. i ; the significance
of the use of the Fourth Gospel
by Valentinians, 158 f . ; the d^te of
the Apocalypse, 172 a. 4; Quarto
decimanism, 173 iij 2, 176 n. ; the
chronology of Montanism, 208 n. i
Other references, 218 n. i, 250 n.
Sanday ; on the Evangelic quotations
in the Ep. of Clem. Rom., 7 nn. 3,
4, g n. 2 ; Marcion's Gospel, 64 n. 2 ;
Justin M. and the Gospel of Peter,
93 n. 3, 96 ; the Apocryphal matter
in Justin, 133 ; the Clementine Homi
lies, 159 n. 2 ; the Alogi, 198 n. i,
203 n. 4, 211
Other references, 68 n. 1, 157 n. 2
Schaff; 176 n.
Schmid; 139 n. 3, 221 n. i
Schmiedel ; on the question of Papias'
acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel,
57 n. 2 ; the tradition respecting the
Ephesine sojourn of the Apostle John,
163 n., 214 n. 2, 228 a. 4; Quarto
decimanism, 173 n. I
Scholten ; on the Acts of Pilate, 106
n. 1, 114 n. 3 ; the tradition respect
ing the Ephesine sojourn of the
Apostle John, 163 n.
Schubert, v. ; on Justin and the Gospel
of Peter, 93 n. 3, 103 n. 4, 120 n. r
Schiirer ; on the Paschal controversy,
173 n. 2, 176, 185 a. 2, 186 n., 197
n. I
Schwegler; on Quartodecimanism, 175
n. I
Scillitan Martyrs, Acts of; recovery
of Latin original, 160 ; date, ib. ;
description given in it of Christian
writings, ib.
Scrivener ; on divisions in N. T. writ
ings, 24
Seeberg ; on the date, etc., oi Apology
of Aristides, 49 nn. 2, 3
Selwyn, E. C. ; 139 n. 5, 171 n. 2
Semisch; 78 n. 1, 80 n. 2, 133
Serapion, Bp ; on the Gospel of Peter,
97, 269

Sergius Paulus ; the date of his pro-
consulship, 139
Socrates (the Church historian) ; 142,
167
Soden, v. ; 93 n. 3
Soter, Bp ; 60 f , 143 n. i ; 153, 193
Stahelin ; on Hippolytus' account of
the system of Basilides, 6611. i, 67n. i
Statius Quadratus ; 221 n. i
Steiz ; on the Paschal controversy, 175
n. 2, 185 n. 4
Swete ; 93 n. 3, 121 n. i
Symmachus, 263 n. 2
Syrian Church ; Tatian's Diatessaron
used in it, 260
Tatian ; chronology of his life and
writings, 145-8; his relations with
Justin M., and book on difficulties in
the Scriptures, 146 ; the quotations
from the Fourth Gospel in his Address,
1 49 ; his Diatessaron, 149 f. ; used in
the Syrian Church, 150, 260 f. ; its
significance in relation to the position
of the four Gospels, 151; supposed
by Credner to be the same as the
Gospel accg to the Hebrews, 79
Tayler, J. J.; 173 n. 2
Taylor, Dr C. ; on the witness of
Hermas to the Four Gospels, 47 n. 3
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
The (briefly styled the Didache) ; the
form in which it gives Christ's precepts
shews the effects of oral teaching,
10 n. ; its character and date, 29 f ;
parallelisms in it with St Matthew and
St Luke, 17, 31, 70 f. ; references to
observance of the Lord's Day, and of
'Wednesdays and Fridays, 194 n. 2
Telesphorus, Bp : allusions to his
martyrdom, 39 n. i
Tertullian ; ' refers to chapters in the
N.T., 24 ; on Gnostic use of the
Gospels, 65 n. i ; his references to
and quotations from a document by
Pilate, 105 ff., 116 f., 133; confirms
Justin and Hegesippus as to a saying of
Christ, 125, 135 (no. 16); the question
as to his use of a Latin translation of
the N. T. , 1 61 n. ; references to Paschal
observance, 194 n. i ; on the Four
Gospels, 245 {. ; his appeal to Church
tradition, 272
Theodore of Mopsuestia; his cen
sure of Jerome's attitude to the Gospel
accg to the Hebrews, 257 n. 4
Theophilus, Bp of Antioch ; date of
his ad Autolycum, 144 ; citations in
it from St Matthew and St John, 144 f.'

288

Index

Thilo, J. C. ; non. I
Thoma ; on Justin's attitude to the
Fourth Gospel, 130
Thomas, Gospel of; parallelism with
in Justin M., 126, 134 (no. 6) ; Hip
polytus, Origen, Eusebius on it, 126
n. 5, 269
Tischendorf ; on the Acts of Pilate,
106 n. I, 112 n. 3, 114 n. 3; the
Acts of Peter and Paul, published by
him, non.
Tradition ; the appeal to, 272 f.
Tiibingen School; 162 f, 171 n. 2,
173 ff., 197 n. I, 273
Valentinus ; question of his use of
our third and fourth Gospels, 69, 205
Victor, Bp ; letter of Polycrates to
him on Quartodecimanism, 177, 195;
letter of Irenaeus to him, on same
subject, ig2 f , 215, 227 I. ; another
respecting Florinus, 220
Vienne and Lyons, Letter of
Churches of; 142 f. ; parallelisms
with N.T. writings in, 1 42 f.
Volkmar ; on the chronology of Justin's
life and writings, 76 n. 2 ; Hippolytus'
Defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse,
202 n. 3
Other references, 198 a. 1, 199 n. 2
Waddington ; 139 n. 3, 185 n. 3, 221
n. I
Weiss, B. ; on the special reverence
for Christ's sayings, 54 n. i ; sugges
tion that Justin was less familiar with
the Fourth Gospel than with the
others, 90 n. 2 ; on the date of the
Apocalypse, 172 n. 4
Weitzel ; on the Paschal controversy,
175 n. 2, 190 n. 2
Weizsaecker ; on the date of the Ep.
of Barnabas, 32 ; Hegesippus, 155
nn. 1,4; the date of the Apocalypse,
172 n. 4
Westcott, Bp ; on Justin's quotations
from the O.T., 5 n. i ; date of the
Shepherd of Hermas, 41 n. 3 ; the
term X67ia, 53 n. 3; as to Valentinus'

use of our third and fourth Gospels,
61) nn. 4, 5 ; on a fragment of Melito,
140 n. 2 ; the date of the Apocalypse,
172 n. 4
Other references, 53 nn. 1, 2, 65 n. 2,
80 n. 2, 145 n. 6, 149 nn. i, 4, 155
a. 4, 157 n. 2, 159 n. 2, ig8 n. i,
221 n. I, 237 n., 248 n. 5
Zahn ; his starting point in the investi
gation of the history of the N.T.
Canon, i ; on the genuineness of the
Ep. of Ignatius in the shorter Greek
form, 3 n. 2 ; the relations of the
Didache with the Shepherd of Hermas
and the Ep. of Barnabas, 30 n. i ;
date of the Shepherd of Hermas, 41
n. 3 ; the use of our Gospels by
Basilides, 65 n. 4 ; Hippolytus'
account of the system of Basilides,
66 nn. J, 2, 69 n. 1 ; the question
whether Justin used the Gospel of
Peter, 93 n. 3, 99 ; the Protevangelium
Jacobi and the question whether
Justin used it, 124 n. i ; the text of
"the passage of Tatian's Address,
quoted by Eusebius, 147 n. 3 ; the
date of Tatian's Address, 148 n. 7 ;
the time at which the Scriptures were
first translated into Latin, 161 n. ; the
Alogi, 198 n. T ; the interpretation of
Irenaeus' reference to them, 199 n. i ;
Epiphanius' dependence on Hippo
lytus, 200 n. 3, 202 nn. i, 2, 203 a.
2, 207 ; chronology of Montanism,
208 n. 1, 209 a. 2; Irenaeus' age
when he was a hearer of Polycarp
and the date of his birth, 215 n. 4,
218 f., 220 n. 3 ; the Elders referred
to by Irenaeus, 222 n. 1, 224 n. 2, 227
n. I ; date of the Muratorian Canon,
247 a. I ; the Gospel accg to the
Hebrews, 250 n., 254 n., 257 f ;
Clement of Alexandria's quotations
from the Gospel accg to the Egyptians,
265 n. 2
Other references ; 45 n. 2, 46 n. 3,
59 n. 2, no n., 146 n. 6, 160 n. i,
I76n., 199, 207 n. 2,221 n. i,~237n.

CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 8147

.V-

'1,

41^.i

fiiirnnfWirff