[116:1] A somewhat similar cla.s.sification has been made by De Wette, _Einleitung in das N. T._, pp. 104-110, in which however the standard seems to be somewhat lower than that which I have a.s.sumed; several instances of variation which I had cla.s.sed as decided, De Wette considers to be only slight. I hope I may consider this a proof that the cla.s.sification above given has not been influenced by bias.
[119:1] _Beitrage_, i. p. 237.
[119:2] _S.R._ i. p. 396 sqq.
[120:1] _Die drei ersten Evangelien_, Gottingen, 1850. [A second, revised, edition of this work has recently appeared.]
[120:2] _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, Leipzig, 1863, p. 88.
[120:3] _Das Marcus-evangelium_, Berlin, 1872, p. 299.
[120:4] _Beitrage_, i. p. 219.
[120:5] Dr. Westcott well calls this "the _prophetic_ sense of the present" (_On the Canon_, p. 128).
[122:1] "This is meaningless," writes Mr. Baring-Gould of the canonical text, rather hastily, and forgetting, as it would appear, the concluding cause (_Lost and Hostile Gospels_, p.
166); cp. _S.R._ i. p. 354, ii. p. 28.
[123:1] i. pp. 196, 227, 258.
[123:2] _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon_ (ed.
Volkmar, Berlin, 1860), p. 16.
[124:1] _Adv. Haer._ 428 D.
[124:2] I am not quite clear that more is meant (as Meyer, Ellicott _Huls. Lect._ p. 339, n. 2, and others maintain) in the evangelical language than that the drops of sweat "resembled blood;" [Greek: hosei] seems to qualify [Greek: haimatos] as much as [Greek: thromboi]. Compare especially the interesting parallels from medical writers quoted by McClellan _ad loc._
[128:1] The only parallel that I can find quoted is a reference by Mr. McClellan to Philo i.164 (ed. Mangey), where the phrase is however [Greek: isos angeloi (gegonos)].
[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 304 sqq.
[130:1] _Ev. Justin"s_, p. 157.
[135:1] Scrivener, _Introduction to the Criticism of the N.
T_. p. 452 (2nd edition, 1874).
[136:1] On reviewing this chapter I am inclined to lean more than I did to the hypothesis that Justin used a Harmony. The phenomena of variation seem to be too persistent and too evenly distributed to allow of the supposition of alternate quoting from different Gospels. But the data will need a closer weighing before this can be determined.
[138:1] _Contemporary Review_, 1875, p. 169 sqq.
[138:2] Tischendorf, however, devotes several pages to an argument which follows in the same line as Dr. Lightfoot"s, and is, I believe, in the main sound (_Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfa.s.st?_ p. 113 sqq., 4th edition, 1866).
[138:3] I gather from the sixth edition of _S. R._ that the argument from silence is practically waived. If the silence of Eusebius is not pressed as proving that the authors about whom he is silent were ignorant of or did not acknowledge particular Gospels, we on our side may be content not to press it as proving that the Gospels in question _were_ acknowledged. The matter may well be allowed to rest thus: that, so far as the silence of Eusebius is concerned, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth are not alleged either for the Gospels or against them. I agree with the author of "Supernatural Religion" that the point is not one of paramount importance, though it has been made more of by other writers, e.g. Strauss and Renan. [The author has missed Dr. Lightfoot"s point on p. xxiii. What Eusebius bears testimony to is, _not_ his own belief in the canonicity of the fourth Gospel, but its _undisputed_ canonicity, i.e. a historical fact which includes within its range Hegesippus, Papias, &c. If I say that _Hamlet_ is an undisputed play of Shakspeare"s, I mean, not that I believe it to be Shakspeare"s myself, but that all the critics from Shakspeare"s time downwards have believed it to be his.]
[140:1] _H. E._ iv. 22.
[141:1] _S. R._ i. p. 436.
[141:2] _Einleitung_, p. 103.
[141:3] _Das Nachapost. Zeit._ i. p. 238.
[141:4] _Beitrage_, i. p. 401.
[141:5] _Nov. Test. extra Can. Recept._ Fasc. iv. pp. 19, 20.
[143:1] We have, however, had occasion to note a somewhat parallel, though not quite parallel, instance in the quotation of Clement of Rome and Polycarp, [Greek: aphiete, hina aphethae humin (kai aphethaesetai humin)].
[144:1] _Contemporary Review_, Dec. 1874, p. 8; cf. Routh, _Reliquiae Sacrae_, i. p. 281 _ad fin._
[144:2] Tregelles, writing on the "Ancient Syriac Versions" in Smith"s Dictionary, iii. p. 1635 a, says that "these words might be a Greek rendering of Matt. xiii. 16 as they stand" in the Curetonian text.
[145:1] Or rather perhaps 155, 156; see p. 82 above.
[146:1] _H.E._ iii. 39.
[147:1] In Mr. M"Clellan"s recent _Harmony_ I notice only two deviations from the order in St. Mark, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-29. In Mr. Fuller"s _Harmony_ (the Harmony itself and not the Table of Contents, in which there are several oversights) there seem to be two, Mark vi. 17-20, xiv. 3-9; in Dr. Robinson"s English _Harmony_ three, ii. 15-22, vi. 17-20, xiv. 22-72 (considerable variation). Of these pa.s.sages vi. 17-20 (the imprisonment of the Baptist) is the only one the place of which all three writers agree in changing. [Dr. Lightfoot, in _Cont. Rev._, Aug. 1875, p. 394, appeals to Anger and Tischendorf in proof of the contrary proposition, that the order of Mark cannot be maintained. But Tischendorf"s Harmony is based on the a.s.sumption that St. Luke"s use of [Greek: kathexaes] pledges him to a chronological order, and Anger adopts Griesbach"s hypothesis that Mark is a compilation from Matthew and Luke. The remarks in the text turn, not upon precarious harmonistic results, but upon a simple comparison of the three Gospels.]
[149:1] Perhaps I should explain that this was made by underlining the points of resemblance between the Gospels in different coloured pencil and reckoning up the results at the end of each section.
[153:1] This subject has been carefully worked out since Credner by Bleek and De Wette. The results will be found in Holtzmann, _Synopt. Ev._ p. 259 sqq.
[154:1] Cf. Holtzmann, _Die Synoptischen Evangelien_, p. 255 sq.; Ebrard, _The Gospel History_ (Engl. trans.), p. 247; Bleek, _Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten Evangelien_, i.
p. 367. The theory rests upon an acute observation, and has much plausibility.
[155:1] _On the Canon_, p. 181, n. 2. [That the word will bear this sense appears still more decidedly from Dr. Lightfoot"s recent investigations, in view of which the two sentences that follow should perhaps be cancelled; see _Cont. Rev._, Aug.
1875, p. 399 sqq.]
[159:1] [It will be seen that the arguments above hardly touch those of Dr. Lightfoot in the _Contemporary Review_ for August and October: neither do Dr. Lightfoot"s arguments seem very much to affect them. The method of the one is chiefly external, that of the other almost entirely internal. I can only for the present leave what I had written; but I do not for a moment suppose that the subject is fathomed even from the particular standpoint that I have taken.]
[162:1] The lists given in _Supernatural Religion_ (ii. p. 2) seem to be correct so far as I am able to check them. In the second edition of his work on the Origin of the Old Catholic Church, Ritschl modified his previous opinion so far as to admit that the indications were divided, sometimes on the one side, sometimes on the other (p. 451, n. 1). There is a seasonable warning in Reuss (_Gesch. h. S. N. T._ p. 254) that the Tubingen critics here, as elsewhere, are apt to exaggerate the polemical aspect of the writing.
[162:2] It should be noticed that Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, though a.s.signing the second place to the Homilies, both take the _terminus ad quem_ for this work no later than 180 A.D. It seems that a Syriac version, partly of the Homilies, partly of the Recognitions, exists in a MS. which itself was written in the year 411, and bears at that date marks of transcription from a still earlier copy (cf. Lightfoot, _Galatians_, p. 341, n. 1).
[163:1] This table is made, as in the case of Justin, with the help of the collection of pa.s.sages in the works of Credner and Hilgenfeld.
[167:1] Or rather perhaps "morning baptism." (Cf. Lightfoot, _Colossians,_ p. 162 sqq., where the meaning of the name and the character and relations of the sect are fully discussed).
[168:1] _Hom._ i. 6; ii. 19, 23; iii. 73; iv. 1; xiii. 7; xvii. 19.
[170:1] So Tregelles expressly (_Introduction_, p. 240), after Wiseman; Scrivener (_Introd._, p. 308) adds (?); M"Clellan cla.s.ses with "Italic Family" (p. lxxiii). [On returning to this pa.s.sage I incline rather more definitely to regard the reading [Greek: Haesaiou], from the group in which it is found, as an early Alexandrine corruption.
Still the Clementine writer may have had it before him.]
[170:2] ii. p. 10 sqq.
[172:1] ii. p. 21.
[172:2] Preface to the fourth edition of _Canon_, p. x.x.xii.