| | 22,23). | | | 2.51}[Greek: | | | 3.50} ginesthe | | |18.20} trapezitai | | | } dokimoi.] | M. | |19.2. Matt. 25. |[Greek: allae | | 41, Q. | pou.] Justin | | | L. |11.20, Luke 23.34 | | | (v.l.), Q. | | | |17.7, Matt. 28.19.|allusive.
By far the greater part of the quotations in the Clementine Homilies are taken from the discourses, but some few have reference to the narrative. There can hardly be said to be any material difference from our Gospels, though several apocryphal sayings and some apocryphal details are added. Thus the Clementine writer calls John a "Hemerobaptist," i.e. member of a sect which practised daily baptism [Endnote 167:1]. He talks about a rumour which became current in the reign of Tiberius about the "vernal equinox," that at the same season a king should arise in Judaea who should work miracles, making the blind to see, the lame to walk, healing every disease, including leprosy, and raising the dead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, with Mark, he calls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, "Justa," and that of her daughter "Bernice;" he also limits the ministry of our Lord to one year [Endnote 168:1]. Otherwise, with the exception of the sayings marked as without parallel, all of the Clementine quotations have a more or less close resemblance to our Gospels.
We are struck at once by the small amount of exact coincidence, which is considerably less than that which is found in the quotations from the Old Testament. The proportion seems lower than it is, because many of the pa.s.sages that have been entered in the above list do not profess to be quotations. Another phenomenon equally remarkable is the extent to which the writer of the Homilies has reproduced the peculiarities of particular extant Gospels. So far front being it a colourless text, as it is in some few places which present a parallel to our Synoptic Gospels, the Clementine version both frequently includes pa.s.sages that are found only in some one of the canonical Gospels, and also, we may say usually, repeats the characteristic phrases by which one Gospel is distinguished from another. Thus we find that as many as eighteen pa.s.sages reappear in the Homilies that are found only in St. Matthew; one of the extremely few that are found only in St.
Mark; and six of those that are peculiar to St. Luke. Taking the first Gospel, we find that the Clementine Homilies contain (in an allusive form) the promises to the pure in heart; as a quotation, with close resemblance, the peculiar precepts in regard to oaths; the special admonition to moderation of language which, as we have seen, seems proved to be Matthaean by the clause [Greek: to gar perisson touton k.t.l.]; with close resemblance, again, the directions for secret prayer; identically, the somewhat remarkable phrase, [Greek: deute pros me pantes hoi kopiontes]; all but identically another phrase, also noteworthy, [Greek: pasa phuteia haen ouk ephuteusen ho pataer [mou] ho ouranios ekrizothaesetai]; with a resemblance that is closer in the text of B ([Greek: en to ourano] for [Greek: en ouranois]), the saying respecting the angels who behold the face of the Father; identically again, the text [Greek: polloi klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi]: in the shape of an allusion only, the wedding garment; with near agreement, "the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses" seat." All these are pa.s.sages found only in the first Gospel, and in regard to which there is just so much presumption that they had no large circulation among non-extant Gospels, as they did not find their way into the two other Gospels that have come down to us.
There is, however, a pa.s.sage that I have not mentioned here which contains (if the canonical reading is correct) a strong indication of the use of our actual St. Matthew. The whole history of this pa.s.sage is highly curious. In the chapter which contains so many parables the Evangelist adds, by way of comment, that this form of address was adopted in order "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." This is according to the received text, which attributes the quotation to "the prophet" ([Greek: dia tou prophaetou]). It is really taken from Ps. lxxvii. 2, which is ascribed in the heading to Asaph, who, according to the usage of writers at this date, might be called a prophet, as he is in the Septuagint version of 2 Chron. xxix. 30. The phrase [Greek: ho prophaetaes legei] in quotations from the Psalms is not uncommon.
The received reading is that of by far the majority of the MSS.
and versions: the first hand of the Sinaitic, however, and the valuable cursives 1 and 33 with the Aethiopic (a version on which not much reliance can be placed) and m. of the Old Latin (Mai"s "Speculum," presenting a mixed African text) [Endnote 170:1], insert [Greek: Haesaiou] before [Greek: tou prophaetou]. It also appears that Porphyry alleged this as an instance of false ascription. Eusebius admits that it was found in some, though not in the most accurate MSS., and Jerome says that in his day it was still the reading of "many."
All this is very fully and fairly stated in "Supernatural Religion" [Endnote 170:2], where it is maintained that [Greek: Haesaiou] is the original reading. The critical question is one of great difficulty; because, though the evidence of the Fathers is naturally suspected on account of their desire to explain away the mistake, and though we can easily imagine that the correction would be made very early and would rapidly gain ground, still the very great preponderance of critical authority is hard to get over, and as a rule Eusebius seems to be trustworthy in his estimate of MSS. Tischendorf (in his texts of 1864 and 1869) is, I believe, the only critic of late who has admitted [Greek: Haesaiou] into the text.
The false ascription may be easily paralleled; as in Mark i. 2, Matt. xxvii. 9, Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 28 (where a pa.s.sage of Jeremiah is quoted as Isaiah), &c.
The relation of the Clementine and of the canonical quotations to each other and to the Septuagint will be represented thus:-
_Clem. Hom._ xviii. 15.
[Greek: Kai ton Haesaian eipein; Anoixo to stoma mou en parabolais kai exereuxomai kekrummena apo katabolaes kosmou.]
_Matt._ xiii. 35.
[Greek: Hopos plaerothe to rhaethen dia [Haesaiou?] tou prophaetou legontos; Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, ereuxomai kekrummena apo katabolaes kosmou] [om. [Greek: kosmou] a few of the best MSS.]
LXX. _Ps._ lxxvii. 2.
[Greek: Anoixo en parabolais to stoma mou, phthegxomai problaemata ap" archaes.]
The author of "Supernatural Religion" contends for the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], and yet does not see in the Clementine pa.s.sage a quotation from St. Matthew. He argues, with a strange domination by modern ideas, that the quotation cannot be from St. Matthew because of the difference of context, and declares it to be "very probable that the pa.s.sage with its erroneous reference was derived by both from another and common source." Surely it is not necessary to go back to the second century to find parallels for the use of "proof texts" without reference to the context; but, as we have seen, context counts for little or nothing in these early quotations,--verbal resemblance is much more important. The supposition of a common earlier source for both the Canonical and the Clementine text seems to me quite out of the question. There can be little doubt that the reference to the Psalm is due to the first Evangelist himself. Precisely up to this point he goes hand in hand with St. Mark, and the quotation is introduced in his own peculiar style and with his own peculiar formula, [Greek: hopos plaerothae to rhaethen].
I must, however, again repeat that the surest criterion of the use of a Gospel is to be sought in the presence of phrases or turns of expression which are shown to be characteristic and distinctive of that Gospel by a comparison with the synopsis of the other Gospels. This criterion can be abundantly applied in the case of the Clementine Homilies and St. Matthew. I will notice a little more at length some of the instances that have been marked in the above table. Let us first take the pa.s.sage which has a parallel in Matt. v. 18 and in Luke xvi. 17. The three versions will stand thus:--
_Matt._ v. 18.
[Greek: Amaen gar lego humin; heos an parelthae ho ouranos kai hae gae iota en ae mia keraia ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou, heos an panta genaetai.]
_Clem. Hom._ iii. 51.
_Ep. Pet._ c. 2.
[Greek: Ho ouranos kai hae gae pareleusontai, iota en ae mia keraia ou mae parelthae apo tou nomou] [Ep. Pet. adds [Greek: touto de eiraeken, hina ta panta genaetai]].
_Luke_ xvi. 17.
[Greek: Eukopoteron de esti, ton ouranon kai taen gaen parelthein, ae tou nomou mian keraian pesein.]
It will be seen that in the Clementines the pa.s.sage is quoted twice over, and each time with the variation [Greek pareleusontai]
for [Greek: heos an parelthae]. The author of "Supernatural Religion" argues from this that he is quoting from another Gospel [Endnote 172:1]. No doubt the fact does tell, so far as it goes, in that direction, but it is easy to attach too much weight to it.
The phenomenon of repeated variation may be even said to be a common one in some writers. Dr. Westcott [Endnote 172:2] has adduced examples from Chrysostom, and they would be as easy to find in Epiphanius or Clement of Alexandria, where we can have no doubt that the canonical Gospels are being quoted. A slight and natural turn of expression such as this easily fixes itself in the memory. The author also insists that the pa.s.sage in the Gospel quoted in the Clementines ended with the word [Green: nomou]; but I think it may be left to any impartial person to say whether the addition in the Epistle of Peter does not naturally point to a termination such as is found in the first canonical Gospel. Our critic seems unable to free himself from the standpoint (which he represents ably enough) of the modern Englishman, or else is little familiar with the fantastic trains and connections of reasoning which are characteristic of the Clementines.
Turning from these objections and comparing the Clementine quotation first with the text of St. Matthew and then with that of St. Luke, we cannot but be struck with its very close resemblance to the former and with the wide divergence of the latter. The pa.s.sage is one where almost every word and syllable might easily and naturally be altered--as the third Gospel shows that they have been altered--and yet in the Clementines almost every peculiarity of the Matthaean version has been retained.
Another quotation which shows the delicacy of these verbal relations is that which corresponds to Matt. vi. 32 (= Luke xii.
30):--
_Matt._ vi. 32.
[Greek: Oide gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios, hoti chraezete touton hapanton.]
_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55.
[Greek: [ephae] Oiden gar ho pataer humon ho ouranios hoti chraezete touton hapanton, prin auton axiosaete] (cp. Matt. vi.
8).
_Luke_ xii. 30.
[Greek: Humon de ho pataer oiden hoti chraezete touton.]
The natural inference from the exactness of this coincidence with the language of Matthew as compared with Luke, is not neutralised by the paraphrastic addition from Matt. vi. 8, because such additions and combinations, as will have been seen from our table of quotations from the Old Testament, are of frequent occurrence.
The quotation of Matt. v. 45 (= Luke vi. 35) is a good example of the way in which the pseudo-Clement deals with quotations. The pa.s.sage is quoted as often as four times, with wide difference and indeed complete confusion of text. It is impossible to determine what text he really had before him; but through all this confusion there is traceable a leaning to the Matthaean type rather than the Lucan, ([Greek: [ho] pat[aer ho] en [tois] ouranois ... ton aelion autou anatellei epi agathous kai ponaerous]). It does, however, appear that he had some such phrase as [Greek: hueton pherei] or [Greek: parechei] for [Greek: brechei], and in one of his quotations he has the [Greek: ginesthe agathoi] (for [Greek: chraestoi]) [Greek: kai oiktirmones] of Justin. Justin, on the other hand, certainly had [Greek: brechei].
The, in any case, paraphrastic quotation or quotations which find a parallel in Matt. vii. 13, 14 and Luke xiii. 24 are important as seeming to indicate that, if not taken from our Gospel, they are taken from another in a later stage of formation. The characteristic Matthaean expressions [Greek: stenae] and [Greek: tethlimmenae] are retained, but the distinction between [Greek: pulae] and [Greek: hodos]
has been lost, and both the epithets are applied indiscriminately to [Greek: hodos].
In the narrative of the confession of Peter, which belongs to the triple synopsis, and is a.s.signed by Ewald to the "Collection of Discourses," [Endnote 174:1] by Weiss [Endnote 174:2] and Holtzmann [Endnote 175:1] to the original Gospel of St. Mark, the Clementine writer follows Matthew alone in the phrase [Greek: Su ei ho huios tou zontos Theou]. The synoptic parallels are--
_Matt._ xvi. 16.
[Greek: Su ei ho Christos, ho huios tou Theou tou zontos.]
_Mark_ viii. 29.
[Greek: Su ei ho Christos.]
_Luke_ ix. 20.
[Greek: ton Christon tou Theou.]
Holtzmann and Weiss seem to agree (the one explicitly, the other implicitly) in taking the words [Greek: ho huios tou Theou tou zontos] as an addition by the first Evangelist and as not a part of the text of the original doc.u.ment. In that case there would be the strongest reason to think that the pseudo-Clement had made use of the canonical Gospel. Ewald, however, we may infer, from his a.s.signing the pa.s.sage to the "Collection of Discourses," regards it as presented by St. Matthew most nearly in its original form, of which the other two synoptic versions would be abbreviations.
If this were so, it would then be _possible_ that the Clementine quotation was made directly from the original doc.u.ment or from a secondary doc.u.ment parallel to our first Gospel. The question that is opened out as to the composition of the Synoptics is one of great difficulty and complexity. In any case there is a balance of probability, more or less decided, in favour of the reference to our present Gospel.
Another very similar instance occurs in the next section of the synoptic narrative, the Transfiguration. Here again the Clementine Homilies insert a phrase which is only found in St. Matthew, [Greek: [Houtos estin mou ho huios ho agapaetos], eis hon]
([Greek: en ho] Matt.) [Greek: aeudokaesa]. Ewald and Holtzmann say nothing about the origin of this phrase; Weiss [Endnote 176:1]
thinks it is probably due to the first Evangelist. In that case there would be an all but conclusive proof--in any case there will be a presumption--that our first Gospel has been followed.
But one of the most interesting, as well as the clearest, indications of the use of the first Synoptic is derived from the discourse directed against the Pharisees. It will be well to give the parallel pa.s.sages in full:--
_Matt._ xxiii. 25, 26.