It is impossible here not to notice the very large amount of freedom in the quotations. The exact quotations number only fifteen, the slightly variant thirty-seven, and the markedly variant forty. By far the larger portion of this last cla.s.s and several instances in the second it seems most reasonable to refer to the habit of quoting from memory. This is strikingly ill.u.s.trated by the pa.s.sage 117 D, Where the retreat of Jesus and His disciples to Ephraim is treated as a consequence of the attempt "to make Him king" (John vi. 15), though in reality it did not take place till after the raising of Lazarus and just before the Last Pa.s.sover (see John xi. 54). A very remarkable case of combination is found in 36 BC, where a single quotation is made up of a cento of no less than six separate pa.s.sages taken from all three Synoptic Gospels and in the most broken order. Fusions so complete as this are usually the result of unconscious acts of the mind, i.e. of memory. A curious instance of the way in which the Synoptic parallels are blended together in a compound which differs from each and all of them is presented in 437 D ([Greek: to blasphaemounti eis to pneuma to hagion ouk aphethaesetai auto oute en to nun aioni oute en to mellonti]). Another example of Epiphanius" manner in skipping backwards and forwards from one Synoptic to another may be seen in 218 D, which is made up of Matt. xv. 4-9 and Mark vii. 6-13. A strange mistake is made in 428 D, where [Greek: paraekolouthaekoti] is taken with [Greek: tois autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou]. Many kinds of variation find examples in these quotations of Epiphanius, to some of which we may have occasion to allude more particularly later on.
It should be remembered that these are not by any means selected examples. Neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius are notorious for free quotation--Irenaeus indeed is rather the reverse. Probably a much more plentiful harvest of variations would have been obtained e.g.
from Clement of Alexandria, from whose writings numerous instances of quotation following the sense only, of false ascription, of the blending of pa.s.sages, of quotations from memory, are given in the treatise of Bp. Kaye [Endnote 56:1]. Dr. Westcott has recently collected [Endnote 56:2] the quotations from Chrysostom _On the Priesthood,_ with the result that about one half present variations from the Apostolic texts, and some of these variations, which he gives at length, are certainly very much to the point.
I fear we shall have seemed to delay too long upon this first preliminary stage of the enquiry, but it is highly desirable that we should start with a good broad inductive basis to go upon. We have now an instrument in our hands by which to test the alleged quotations in the early writers; and, rough and approximate as that instrument must still be admitted to be, it is at least much better than none at all.
CHAPTER III.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
To go at all thoroughly into all the questions that may be raised as to the date and character of the Christian writings in the early part of the second century would need a series of somewhat elaborate monographs, and, important as it is that the data should be fixed with the utmost attainable precision, the scaffolding thus raised would, in a work like the present, be out of proportion to the superstructure erected upon it. These are matters that must be decided by the authority of those who have made the provinces to which they belong a subject of special study: all we can do will be to test the value of the several authorities in pa.s.sing.
In regard to Clement of Rome, whose First (genuine) Epistle to the Corinthians is the first writing that meets us, the author of "Supernatural Religion" is quite right in saying that "the great ma.s.s of critics ... a.s.sign the composition of the Epistle to the end of the first century (A.D. 95-100)" [Endnote 58:1]. There is as usual a right and a left wing in the array of critics. The right includes several of the older writers; among the moderns the most conspicuous figure is the Roman Catholic Bishop Hefele. Tischendorf also, though as it is pointed out somewhat inconsistently, leans to this side. According to their opinion the Epistle would be written shortly before A.D. 70. On the left, the names quoted are Volkmar, Baur, Scholten, Stap, and Schwegler [Endnote 59:1]. Baur contents himself with the remark that the Epistle to the Corinthians, "as one of the oldest doc.u.ments of Christian antiquity, might have pa.s.sed without question as a writing of the Roman Clement," had not this Clement become a legendary person and had so many spurious works palmed off upon him [Endnote 59:2]. But it is surely no argument to say that because a certain number of extravagant and spurious writings are attributed to Clement, therefore one so sober and consistent with his position, and one so well attested as this, is not likely to have been written by him. The contrary inference would be the more reasonable, for if Clement had not been an important person, and if he had left no known and acknowledged writings, divergent parties in the Church would have had no reason for making use of his name. But arguments of this kind cannot have much weight. Probably not one half of the writings attributed to Justin Martyr are genuine; but no one on that account doubts the Apologies and the Dialogue with Tryphon.
Schwegler [Endnote 59:3], as is his wont, has developed the opinion of Baur, adding some reasons of his own. Such as, that the letter shows Pauline tendencies, while "according to the most certain traditions"
Clement was a follower of St. Peter; but the evidence for the Epistle (Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, A.D. 165-175, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus in the most express terms) is much older and better than these "most certain traditions" (Tertullian and Origen), even if they proved anything: "in the Epistle of Clement use is made of the Epistle to the Hebrews;" but surely, according to any sober canons of criticism, the only light in which this argument can be regarded is as so much evidence for the Epistle to the Hebrews: the Epistle implies a development of the episcopate which "demonstrably" (nachweislich) did not take place until during the course of the second century; what the "demonstration" is does not appear, and indeed it is only part of the great fabric of hypothesis that makes up the Tubingen theory.
Volkmar strikes into a new vein [Endnote 60:1]. The Epistle of Clement presupposes the Book of Judith; but the Book of Judith must be dated A.D. 117-118; and therefore the Epistle of Clement will fall about A.D. 125. What is the ground for this reasoning? It consists in a theory, which Volkmar adopted and developed from Hitzig, as to the origin of the Book of Judith. That book is an allegorical or symbolical representation of events in the early part of the rising of the Jews under Barcochba; Judith is Judaea, Nebuchadnezzar Trajan; a.s.syria stands for Syria, Nineveh for Antioch, Arphaxad for a Parthian king Arsaces, Ecbatana for Nisibis or perhaps Batnae; Bagoas is the eunuch- service in general; Holofernes is the Moor Lucius Quietus. Out of these elements an elaborate historical theory is constructed, which Ewald and Fritzsche have taken the trouble to refute on historical grounds. To us it is very much as if Ivanhoe were made out to be an allegory of incidents in the French Revolution; or as if the "tale of Troy divine" were, not a nature-myth or Euemeristic legend of long past ages, but a symbolical representation of events under the Pisistratidae.
Examples such as this are apt to draw from the English reader a sweeping condemnation of German criticism, and yet they are really only the sports or freaks of an exuberant activity. The long list given in "Supernatural Religion" [Endnote 61:1] of those who maintain the middle date of Clement"s Epistle (A.D. 95-100) includes apparently all the English writers, and among a number of Germans the weighty names of Bleek, Ewald, Gieseler, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, Lipsius, Laurent, Reuss, and Ritschl. From the point of view either of authority or of argument there can be little doubt which is the soundest and most judicious decision.
Now what is the bearing of the Epistle of Clement upon the question of the currency and authority of the Synoptic Gospels?
There are two pa.s.sages of some length which are without doubt evangelical quotations, though whether they are derived from the Canonical Gospels or not may be doubted.
The first pa.s.sage occurs in c. xiii. It will be necessary to give it in full with the Synoptic parallels, in order to appreciate the exact amount of difference and resemblance which it presents.
_Matt._ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, vii. 12,2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38.
| [Especially re- | | membering the word | | of the Lord Jesus | | which he spake ... | | For thus he said:] | v. 7. Blessed are | Pity ye, that ye may | vi. 36. Be ye mer- the pitiful, for they | be pitied: forgive, | ciful, etc. vi. 37. Ac- shall be pitied. vi. | that it may be for- | quit, and ye shall be 14. For if ye for | given unto you. As | acquitted. vi. 3 1.
give men their tres- | ye do, so shall it | And as ye would pa.s.ses, etc. vii. 12. | be done unto you: | that they should do All things therefore | as ye give, so shall | unto you, do ye whatsoever ye would | it be given. unto you: | also unto them like that men should do | as ye judge, so shall | wise. vi. 38. Give, unto you, even so do | it be judged unto | and it shall be given ye unto them. vii. 2. | you: as ye are kind, | unto you. vi. 3 7.
For with what judg- | so shall kindness be | And judge not, and ment ye judge, ye | shown unto you: | ye shall not be shall be judged: and | | judged.
with what measure | with what measure | For with what ye mete, it shall be | ye mete, with it shall | measure ye mete, it measured unto you. | it be measured unto | shall be measured | you. | unto you again.
[GREEK TABLE]
_Matt._ v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, vii. 12,2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38.
| | v.7. makarioi hoi |eleeite hina eleaethaete.| vi. 36. ginesthe eleaemones hoti autoi | |oiktirmones, k.t.l.
eleaethaesontai. | | vi. 14. ean gar | aphiete hina aphethae | vi. 37. apoluete kai aphaete tois anth. ta |humin. |apoluthaesesthe.
paraptomata auton. | | vii. 12. panta oun | hos poieite houto | vi. 31. kai kathos hosa ean thelaete hina |poiaethaesetai humin. |thelete hina poiosin poiosin humin hoi anth.| |humin hoi anthropoi kai houtos kai humeis | |humeis poieite autois | |h.o.m.oios poieite autois.
| hos didote houtos | vi. 38. didote, kai |dothaesetai humin. |dothaesetai humin.
vii. 2. en ho gar | hos krinete houtos | vi. 37. kai mae krimati krinete |krithaesetai humin. |krinete kai ou mae krithaesesthe. | |krithaete.
| hos chraesteuesthe | |houtos chraesteuthaesetai| |humin. | kai en ho metro | ho metro metreite en | vi. 38. to gar auto metreite |auto metraethaesetai |metro ho metreite metraethaesetai humin. |humin. |antimetraethaesetai | |humin.
We are to determine whether this quotation was taken from the Canonical Gospels. Let us try to balance the arguments on both sides as fairly as possible. Dr. Lightfoot writes in his note upon the pa.s.sage as follows: "As Clement"s quotations are often very loose, we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the source of this pa.s.sage. The resemblance to the original is much closer here, than it is for instance in his account of Rahab above, -- 12.
The hypothesis therefore that Clement derived the saying from oral tradition, or from some lost Gospel, is not needed." (1) No doubt it is true that Clement does often quote loosely. The difference of language, taking the parallel clauses one by one, is not greater than would be found in many of his quotations from the Old Testament. (2) Supposing that the order of St. Luke is followed, there will be no greater dislocation than e.g. in the quotation from Deut. ix. 12-14 and Exod. x.x.xii. (7, 8), 11, 31, 32 in c.
liii, and the backward order of the quotation would have a parallel in Clem. Hom. xvi. 13, where the verses Deut. xiii. 1-3, 5, 9 are quoted in the order Deut. xiii. 1-3, 9, 5, 3,--and elsewhere. The composition of a pa.s.sage from different places in the same book, or more often from places in different books, such as would be the case if Clement was following Matthew, frequently occurs in his quotations from the Old Testament. (3) We have no positive evidence of the presence of this pa.s.sage in any non- extant Gospel. (4) Arguments from the manner of quoting the Old Testament to the manner of quoting the New must always be to a certain extent _a fortiori_, for it is undeniable that the New Testament did not as yet stand upon the same footing of respect and authority as the Old, and the scarcity of MSS. must have made it less accessible. In the case of converts from Judaism, the Old Testament would have been largely committed to memory in youth, while the knowledge of the New would be only recently acquired. These considerations seem to favour the hypothesis that Clement is quoting from our Gospels.
But on the other hand it may be urged, (1) that the parallel adduced by Dr. Lightfoot, the story of Rahab, is not quite in point, because it is narrative, and narrative both in Clement and the other writers of his time is dealt with more freely than discourse. (2) The pa.s.sage before us is also of greater length than is usual in Clement"s free quotations. I doubt whether as long a piece of discourse can be found treated with equal freedom, unless it is the two doubtful cases in c. viii and c. xxix. (3) It will not fail to be noticed that the pa.s.sage 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 ant.i.theses of the Clementine version to be derived from the fuller, but more lax and disconnected, sayings in our Gospels. (4) It is noticed in "Supernatural Religion" [Endnote 65:1] that the particular phrase [Greek: chraesteusthe] has at least a partial parallel in Justin [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai oiktirmones], though it has none in the Canonical Gospels. This may seem to point to a doc.u.mentary source no longer extant.
Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knew what was the common original of the two Synoptic texts. How do they come to be so like and yet so different as they are? How do they come to be so strangely broken up? The triple synopsis, which has to do more with narrative, presents less difficulty, but the problem raised by these fragmentary parallelisms in discourse is dark and complex in the extreme; yet if it were only solved it would in all probability give us the key to a wide cla.s.s of phenomena. The differences in these extra-canonical quotations do not exceed the differences between the Synoptic Gospels themselves; yet by far the larger proportion of critics regard the resemblances in the Synoptics as due to a common written source used either by all three or by two of them. The critics have not however, I believe, given any satisfactory explanation of the state of dispersion in which the fragments of this latter cla.s.s are found. All that can be at present done is to point out that the solution of this problem and that of such quotations as the one discussed in Clement hang together, and that while the one remains open the other must also.
Looking at the arguments on both sides, so far as we can give them, I incline on the whole to the opinion that Clement is not quoting directly from our Gospels, but I am quite aware of the insecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nice balance of probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large that the conclusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional.
Anything like confident dogmatism on the subject seems to me entirely out of place.
Very much the same is to be said of the second pa.s.sage in c. xlvi compared with Matt. xxvi. 24, xviii. 6, or Luke xvii. 1, 2. It hardly seems necessary to give the pa.s.sage in full, as this is already done in "Supernatural Religion," and it does not differ materially from that first quoted, except that it is less complicated and the supposition of a quotation from memory somewhat easier. The critic indeed dismisses the question summarily enough. He says that "the slightest comparison of the pa.s.sage with our Gospels is sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that it is neither a combination of texts nor a quotation from memory" [Endnote 66:1]. But this very confident a.s.sertion is only the result of the hasty and superficial examination that the author has given to the facts. He has set down the impression that a modern might receive, at the first blush, without having given any more extended study to the method of the patristic quotations. I do not wish to impute blame to him for this, because we are all sure to take up some points superficially; but the misfortune is that he has spent his labour in the wrong place. He has, in a manner, revived the old ecclesiastical argument from authority by heaping together references, not always quite digested and sifted, upon points that often do not need them, and he has neglected that consecutive study of the originals which alone could imbue his mind with their spirit and place him at the proper point of view for his enquiry.
The hypothesis that Clement"s quotation is made _memoriter_ from our Gospel is very far from being inadmissible. Were it not that the other pa.s.sage seems to lean the other way, I should be inclined to regard it as quite the most probable solution. Such a fusion is precisely what _would_ and frequently _does_ take place in quoting from memory. It is important to notice the key phrases in the quotation. The opening phrases [Greek: ouai to anthropo ekeino; kalon aen auto ei ouk egennaethae] are found _exactly_ (though with omissions) in Matt. xxvi. 24. Clement has in common with the Synoptists all the more marked expressions but two, [Greek: skandalisai] ([Greek: -sae] Synoptics), the unusual word [Greek: mulos] (Matt., Mark), [Greek: katapontisthaenai] ([Greek: -thae]
Matt.), [Greek: eis taen thala.s.san] (Mark, Luke), [Greek: hena ton mikron] ([Greek: mou] Clement, [Greek: touton] Synoptics). He differs from them, so far as phraseology is concerned, only in writing _once_ (the second time he agrees with the Synoptics) [Greek: ton eklekton mou] for [Greek: ton mikron touton], by an easy paraphrase, and [Greek: peritethaenai] where Mark and Luke have [Greek: perikeitai]
and Matthew [Greek: kremasthae]. But on the other hand, it should be noticed that Matthew has, besides this variation, [Greek: en to pelagei taes thala.s.saes], where the two companion Gospels have [Greek: eis taen thala.s.san]; where he has [Greek: katapontisthae], Mark has [Greek: beblaetai] and Luke [Greek: erriptai]; and in the important phrase for "it were better" all the three Gospels differ, Matthew having [Greek: sumpherei], Mark [Greek: kalon estin], and Luke [Greek: lusitelei]; so that it seems not at all too much to say that Clement does not differ from the Synoptics more than they differ from each other. The remarks that the author makes, in a general way, upon these differences lead us to ask whether he has ever definitely put to himself the question, How did they arise? He must be aware that the ma.s.s of German authorities he is so fond of quoting admit of only two alternatives, that the Synoptic writers copied either from the same original or from each other, and that the idea of a merely oral tradition is scouted in Germany. But if this is the case, if so great a freedom has been exercised in transcription, is it strange that Clement (or any other writer) should be equally free in quotation?
The author rightly notices--though he does not seem quite to appreciate its bearing--the fact that Marcion and some codices (of the Old Latin translation) insert, as Clement does, the phrase [Greek: ei ouk egennaethae ae] in the text of St. Luke. Supposing that this were the text of St. Luke"s Gospel which Clement had before him, it would surely be so much easier to regard his quotation as directly taken from the Gospel; but the truer view perhaps would be that we have here an instance (and the number of such instances in the older MSS. is legion) of the tendency to interpolate by the insertion of parallel pa.s.sages from the same or from the other Synoptic Gospels. Clement and Marcion (with the Old Latin) will then confirm each other, as showing that even at this early date the two pa.s.sages, Matt. xxvi. 24 and Matt. xviii. 6 (Luke xvii. 2), had already begun to be combined.
There is one point more to be noticed before we leave the Epistle of Clement. There is a quotation from Isaiah in this Epistle which is common to it with the first two Synoptics. Of this Volkmar writes as follows, giving the words of Clement, c. xv, "The Scripture says somewhere, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me," ([Greek: houtos ho laos tois cheilesin me tima hae de kardia auton porro apestin ap"
emou]). "This "Scripture" the writer found in Mark vii. 6 (followed in Matt. xv. 8), and in that shape he could not at once remember where it stood in the Old Testament. It is indeed Mark"s peculiar reproduction of Is. xxix. 13, in opposition to the original and the LXX. A further proof that the Roman Christian has here our Synoptic text in his mind, may be taken from c. xiii, where he quotes Jer. ix. 24 with equal divergence from the LXX, after the precedent of the Apostle (1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17) whose letters he expressly refers to (c. xlvii) [Endnote 69:1].
It is difficult here to avoid the conclusion that Clement is quoting the Old Testament through the medium of our Gospels. The text of the LXX is this, [Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos en to stomati autou kai en tois cheilesin auton timosin me]. Clement has the pa.s.sage exactly as it is given in Mark ([Greek: ho laos houtos] Matt.), except that he writes [Greek: apestin] where both of the Gospels have [Greek: apechei] with the LXX. The pa.s.sage is not Messianic, so that the variation cannot be referred to a Targum; and though A. and six other MSS. in Holmes and Parsons omit [Greek: en to stomati autou] (through wrong punctuation-- Credner), still there is no MS. authority whatever, and naturally could not be, for the omission of [Greek: engizei moi ... kai] and for the change of [Greek: timosin] to [Greek: tima]. There can be little doubt that this was a free quotation in the original of the Synoptic Gospels, and it is in a high degree probable that it has pa.s.sed through them into Clement of Rome. It might perhaps be suggested that Clement was possibly quoting the earlier doc.u.ment, the original of our Synoptics, but this suggestion seems to be excluded both by his further deviation from the LXX in [Greek: apestin], and also by the phenomena of the last quotation we have been discussing, which are certainly of a secondary character.
Altogether I cannot but regard this pa.s.sage as the strongest evidence we possess for the use of the Synoptic Gospels by Clement; it seems to carry the presumption that he did use them up to a considerable degree of probability.
It is rather singular that Volkmar, whose speculations about the Book of Judith we have seen above, should be so emphatic as he is in a.s.serting the use of all three Synoptics by Clement. We might almost, though not quite, apply with a single change to this critic a sentence originally levelled at Tischendorf, to the intent that "he systematically adopts the latest (earliest) possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two centuries," but he is able to admit the use of the first and third Synoptics (the publication of which he places respectively in 100 and 110 A.D.) by throwing forward the date of Clement"s Epistle, through the Judith-hypothesis, to A.D. 125. We may however accept the a.s.sertion for what it is worth, as coming from a mind something less than impartial, while we reject the concomitant theories. For my own part I do not feel able to speak with quite the same confidence, and yet upon the whole the evidence, which on a single instance might seem to incline the other way, does appear to favour the conclusion that Clement used our present Canonical Gospels.
2.
There is not, so far as I am aware, any reason to complain of the statement of opinion in "Supernatural Religion" as to the date of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas. Arguing then entirely from authority, we may put the _terminus ad quem_ at about 130 A.D. The only writer who is quoted as placing it later is Dr.
Donaldson, who has perhaps altered his mind in the later edition of his work, as he now writes: "Most (critics) have been inclined to place it not later than the first quarter of the second century, and all the indications of a date, though very slight, point to this period" [Endnote 71:1].
The most important issue is raised on a quotation in c. iv, "Many are called but few chosen," in the Greek of the Codex Sinaiticus [Greek: [prosechomen, maepote, hos gegraptai], polloi klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi eurethomen.] This corresponds exactly with Matt. xxii. 14, [Greek: polloi gar eisin klaetoi, oligoi de eklektoi]. The pa.s.sage occurs twice in our present received text of St. Matthew, but in xx. 16 it is probably an interpolation.
There also occurs in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) viii. 3 the sentence, "Many were created but few shall be saved" [Endnote 71:2]. Our author spends several pages in the attempt to prove that this is the original of the quotation in Barnabas and not the saying in St.
Matthew. We have the usual positiveness of statement: "There can be no doubt that the sense of the reading in 4 Ezra is exactly that of the Epistle." "It is impossible to imagine a saying more irrelevant to its context than "Many are called but few chosen" in Matt. xx. 16," where it is indeed spurious, though the relevancy of it might very well be maintained. In Matt. xxii. 14, where the saying is genuine, "it is clear that the facts distinctly contradict the moral that "few are chosen."" When we come to a pa.s.sage with a fixed idea it is always easy to get out of it what we wish to find. As to the relevancy or irrelevancy of the clause in Matt. xxii. 14 I shall say nothing, because it is in either case undoubtedly genuine. But it is surely a strange paradox to maintain that the words "Many were created but few shall be saved"
are nearer in meaning to "Many are called but few chosen" than the repet.i.tion of those very words themselves. Our author has forgotten to notice that Barnabas has used the precise word [Greek: klaetoi] just before; indeed it is the very point on which his argument turns, "because we are called do not let us therefore rest idly upon our oars; Israel was called to great privileges, yet they were abandoned by G.o.d as we see them; let us therefore also take heed, for, as it is written, many are called but few chosen." I confess I find it difficult to conceive anything more relevant, and equally so to see any special relevancy, in the vague general statement "Many were created but few shall be saved."
But even if it were not so, if it were really a question between similarity of context on the one hand and ident.i.ty of language on the other, there ought to be no hesitation in declaring that to be the original of the quotation in which the language was identical though the context might be somewhat different. Any one who has studied patristic quotations will know that context counts for very little indeed. What could be more to all appearance remote from the context than the quotation in Heb. i. 7, "Who maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flaming fire"? where the original is certainly referring to the powers of nature, and means "who maketh the winds his messengers and a flame of fire his minister;" with the very same sounds we have a complete inversion of the sense. This is one of the most frequent phenomena, as our author cannot but know [Endnote 73:1].
Hilgenfeld, in his edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, repels somewhat testily the imputation of Tischendorf, who criticises him as if he supposed that the saying in St. Matthew was not directly referred to [Endnote 73:2]. This Hilgenfeld denies to be the case.
In regard to the use of the word [Greek: gegraptai] introducing the quotation, the same writer urges reasonably enough that it cannot surprise us at a time when we learn from Justin Martyr that the Gospels were read regularly at public worship; it ought not however to be pressed too far as involving a claim to special divine inspiration, as the same word is used in the Epistle in regard to the apocryphal book of Enoch, and it is clear also from Justin that the Canon of the Gospels was not yet formed but only forming.
The clause, "Give to every one that asketh of thee" [Greek: panti to aitounti se didou], though admitted into the text of c. xix by Hilgenfeld and Weizsacker, is wanting in the Sinaitic MS., and the comparison with Luke vi. 30 or Matt. v. 42 therefore cannot be insisted upon.
The pa.s.sage "[in order that He might show that] He came not to call the righteous but sinners" ([Greek: hina deixae hoti ouk aelthen kalesai dikaious alla amartolous] [Endnote 74:1]) is removed by the hypothesis of an interpolation which is supported by a precarious argument from Origen, and also by the fact that [Greek: eis metanoian] has been added (clearly from Luke v. 32) by later hands both to the text of Barnabas and in Matt. ix. 13 [Endnote 74:2]. This theory of an interpolation is easily advanced, and it is drawn so entirely from our ignorance that it can seldom be positively disproved, but it ought surely to be alleged with more convincing reasons than any that are put forward here. We now possess six MSS. of the Epistle of Barnabas, including the famous Codex Sinaiticus, the accuracy of which in the Biblical portions can be amply tested, and all of these six MSS., without exception, contain the pa.s.sage. The addition of the words [Greek: eis metanoian] represents much more the kind of interpolations that were at all habitual. The interpolation hypothesis, as I said, is easily advanced, but the _onus probandi_ must needs lie heavily against it. In accepting the text as it stands we simply obey the Baconian maxim _hypotheses non fingimus_, but it is strange, and must be surprising to a philosophic mind, to what an extent the more extreme representatives of the negative criticism have gone back to the most condemned parts of the scholastic method; inconvenient facts are explained away by hypotheses as imaginary and unverifiable as the "cycles and epicycles" by which the schoolmen used to explain the motions of the heavenly bodies.
"If however," the author continues, "the pa.s.sage "originally formed part of the text, it is absurd to affirm that it is any proof of the use or existence of the first Gospel." "Absurd" is under the circ.u.mstances a rather strong word to use; but, granting that it would have been even "absurd" to allege this pa.s.sage, if it had stood alone, as a sufficient proof of the use of the Gospel, it does not follow that there can be any objection to the more guarded statement that it invests the use of the Gospel with a certain antecedent probability. No doubt the quotation _may_ have been made from a lost Gospel, but here again [Greek: eis aphanes ton muthon anenenkas ouk echei elenchon]-- there is no verifying that about which we know nothing. The critic may multiply Gospels as much as he pleases and an apologist at least will not quarrel with him, but it would be more to the point if he could prove the existence in these lost writings of matter _conflicting_ with that contained in the extant Gospels. As it is, the only result of these unverifiable hypotheses is to raise up confirmatory doc.u.ments in a quarter where apologists have not hitherto claimed them.
We are delaying, however, too long upon points of quite secondary importance. Two more pa.s.sages are adduced; one, an application of Ps. cx (The Lord said unto my Lord) precisely as in Matt. xxii.
44, and the other a saying a.s.signed to our Lord, "They who wish to see me and lay hold on my kingdom must receive me through affliction and suffering." Of neither of these can we speak positively. There is perhaps a slight probability that the first was suggested by our Gospel, and considering the character of the verifiable quotations in Barnabas, which often follow the sense only and not the words, the second may be "a free reminiscence of Matt. xvi. 24 compared with Acts xiv. 22," but it is also possible that it may be a saying quoted from an apocryphal Gospel.