[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti katharizete to exothen tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, esothen de gemousin ex harpagaes kai adikias. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison proton to entos tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos, hina genaetai kai to ektos auton katharon.]
_Clem. Hom._ xi. 29.
[Greek: Ouai humin grammateis kai Pharisaioi, hupokritai, hoti katharizete tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to exothen, esothen de gemei rhupous. Pharisaie tuphle, katharison proton tou potaeriou kai taes paropsidos to esothen, hina genaetai kai ta exo auton kathara.]
_Luke_ xi. 39.
[Greek: Nun humeis hoi Pharisaioi to exothen tou potaerion kai tou pinakos katharizete, to de esothen humon gemei harpagaes kai ponaerias. Aphrones ouch ho poiaesas to exothen kai to esothen epoiaese?]
Here there is a very remarkable transition in the first Gospel from the plural to the singular in the sudden turn of the address, [Greek: Pharisaie tuphle]. This derives no countenance from the third Gospel, but is exactly reproduced in the Clementine Homilies, which follow closely the Matthaean version throughout.
We may defer for the present the notice of a few pa.s.sages which with a more or less close resemblance to St. Matthew also contain some of the peculiarities of St. Luke.
Taking into account the whole extent to which the special peculiarities of the first Gospel reappear in the Clementines, I think we shall be left in little doubt that that Gospel has been actually used by the writer.
The peculiar features of our present St. Mark are known to be extremely few, yet several of these are also found in the Clementine Homilies. In the quotation Mark x. 5, 6 (= Matt. xix.
8, 4) the order of Mark is followed, though the words are more nearly those of Matthew. In the divergent quotation Mark xii. 24 (= Matt. xxii. 29) the Clementines, with Mark, introduce [Greek: dia touto]. The concluding clause of the discussion about the Levirate marriage stands (according to the best readings) thus:--
_Matt._ xxii. 32.
[Greek: Ouk estin ho Theos nekron, alla zonton.]
_Mark_ xii. 27.
[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.]
_Luke_ xx. 38.
[Greek: Theos de ouk estin nekron, alla zonton.]
_Clem. Hom._ iii. 55.
[Greek: Ouk estin Theos nekron, alla zonton.]
Here [Greek: Theos] is in Mark and the Clementines a predicate, in Matthew the subject. In the introduction to the Eschatological discourse the Clementines approach more nearly to St. Mark than to any other Gospel: [Greek: Horate] ([Greek: blepeis], Mark) [Greek: tas] ([Greek: megalas], Mark) [Greek: oikodomas tautas; amaen humin lego] (as Matt.) [Greek: lithos epi lithon ou mae aphethae ode, hos ou mae] (as Mark) [Greek: kathairethae] ([Greek: kataluthae], Mark; other Gospels, future). Instead of [Greek: tas oikodomas toutas] the other Gospels have [Greek: tauta--tauta panta].
But there are two stronger cases than these. The Clementines and Mark alone have the opening clause of the quotation from Deut. vi.
4, [Greek: Akoue, Israael, Kurios ho Theos haemon kurios eis estin]. In the synopsis of the first Gospel this is omitted (Matt.
xxii. 37). There is a variation in the Clementine text, which for [Greek: haemon] has, according to Dressel, [Greek: sou], and, according to Cotelier, [Greek: humon]. Both these readings however are represented among the authorities for the canonical text: [Greek: sou] is found in c (Codex Colbertinus, one of the best copies of the Old Latin), in the Memphitic and Aethiopic versions, and in the Latin Fathers Cyprian and Hilary; [Greek: humon]
(vester) has the authority of the Viennese fragment i, another representative of the primitive African form of the Old Latin [Endnote 178:1].
The objection to the inference that the quotation is made from St.
Mark, derived from the context in which it appears in the Clementines, is really quite nugatory. It is true that the quotation is addressed to those "who were beguiled to imagine many G.o.ds," and that "there is no hint of the a.s.sertion of many G.o.ds in the Gospel" [Endnote 178:2]; but just as little hint is there of the a.s.sertion "that G.o.d is evil" in the quotation [Greek: mae me legete agathon] just before. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the Gospel from which the Clementines quote would contain any such a.s.sertion. In this particular case the mode of quotation cannot be said to be very unscrupulous; but even if it were more so we need not go back to antiquity for parallels: they are to be found in abundance in any ordinary collection of proof texts of the Church Catechism or of the Thirty-nine Articles, or in most works of popular controversy. I must confess to my surprise that such an objection could be made by an experienced critic.
Credner [Endnote 179:1] gives the last as the one decided approximation to our second Gospel, apparently overlooking the minor points mentioned above; but, at the time when he wrote, the concluding portion of the Homilies, which contains the other most striking instance, had not yet been published. With regard to this second instance, I must express my agreement with Canon Westcott [Endnote 179:2] against the author of "Supernatural Religion." The pa.s.sage stands thus in the Clementines and the Gospel:--
_Clem. Hom._ xix. 20.
[Greek: Dio kai tois autou mathaetais kat" idian epelue taes ton ouranon basileias ta mustaeria.]
_Mark_ iv. 34.
... [Greek: kat" idian de tois mathaetais autou epeluen panta]
(compare iv. 11, [Greek: humin to mustaerion dedotai taes basileias tou Theou]).
The canonical reading, [Greek: tois mathaetais autou], rests chiefly upon Western authority (D, b, c, e, f, Vulg.) with A, 1, 33, &c. and is adopted by Tregelles--it should be noted before the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. The true reading is probably that which appears in this MS. along with B, C, L, [Greek: Delta symbol], [Greek: tois idiois mathaetais]. We have however already seen the leaning of the Clementines for Western readings.
When we compare the synopsis of St. Mark and St. Matthew together we should be inclined to set this down as a very decided instance of quotation from the former. The only circ.u.mstance that detracts from the certainty of this conclusion is that a quotation had been made just before which is certainly not from our canonical Gospels, [Greek: ta mustaeria emoi kai tois huiois tou oikou mou phulaxate]. This is rightly noted in "Supernatural Religion." All that we can say is that it is a drawback--it is just a makeweight in the opposite scale, as suggesting that the second quotation may be also from an apocryphal Gospel; but it does not by any means serve to counterbalance the presumption that the quotation is canonical. The coincidence of language is very marked. The peculiar compound [Greek: epiluo] occurs only once besides ([Greek: epilusis] also once) in the whole of the New Testament, and not at all in the Gospels.
With the third Gospel also there are coincidences. Of the pa.s.sages peculiar to this Gospel the Clementine writer has the fall of Satan ([Greek: ton ponaeron], Clem.) like lightning from heaven, "rejoice that your names are written in the book of life"
(expanded with evident freedom), the unjust judge, Zacchaeus, the circ.u.mvallation of Jerusalem, and the prayer, for the forgiveness of the Jews, upon the cross. It is unlikely that these pa.s.sages, which are wanting in all our extant Gospels, should have had any other source than our third Synoptic. The "circ.u.mvallation"
([Greek: pericharakosousin] Clem., [Greek: peribalousin charaka]
Luke) is especially important, as it is probable, and believed by many critics, that this particular detail was added by the Evangelist after the event. The parable of the unjust judge, though reproduced with something of the freedom to which we are accustomed in patristic narrative quotations both from the Old and New Testament, has yet remarkable similarities of style and diction ([Greek: ho kritaes taes adikias, poiaesei taen ekdikaesin ton boonton pros auton haemeras kai nuktos, Lego humin, poaesei...
en tachei).]
We have to add to these another cla.s.s of peculiarities which occur in places where the synoptic parallel has been preserved. Thus in the Sermon on the Mount we find the following:--
_Matt._ vii. 21.
[Greek: Ou pas ho legon moi, Kurie, Kurie, eiseleusetai eis taen basileian ton ouranon, all" ho poion to thelaema tou patros mou tou en ouranois]
_Clem. Hom._ viii. 7.
[Greek: Ti me legeis Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poieis a lego;]
_Luke,_ vi. 46.
[Greek: Ti de me kaleite Kurie, Kurie, kai ou poeite a lego;]
This is one of a cla.s.s of pa.s.sages which form the _cruces_ of Synoptic criticism. It is almost equally difficult to think and not to think that both the canonical parallels are drawn from the same original. The great majority of German critics maintain that they are, and most of these would seek that original in the "Spruchsammlung" or "Collection of Discourses" by the Apostle St.
Matthew. This is usually (though not quite unanimously) held to have been preserved most intact in the first Gospel. But if so, the Lucan version represents a wide deviation from the original, and precisely in proportion to the extent of that deviation is the probability that the Clementine quotation is based upon it. The more the individuality of the Evangelist has entered into the form given to the saying the stronger is the presumption that his work lay before the writer of the Clementines. In any case the difference between the Matthaean and Lucan versions shows what various shapes the synoptic tradition naturally a.s.sumed, and makes it so much the less likely that the coincidence between St. Luke and the Clementines is merely accidental.
Another similar case, in which the issue is presented very clearly, is afforded by the quotation, "The labourer is worthy of his hire."
_Matt._ x. 11.
[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes taes trophaes autou estin.]
_Clem. Hom._ iii. 71.
[Greek: [lagisamenoi hoti] axios estin ho ergataes tou misthou autou;]
_Luke_ x. 7.
[Greek: Axios gar ho ergataes tou misthou autou esti.]
Here, if the Clementine writer had been following the first Gospel, he would have had [Greek: trophaes] and not [Greek: misthou]; and the a.s.sumption that there was here a non-extant Gospel coincident with St. Luke is entirely gratuitous and, to an extent, improbable.
Besides these, it will be seen, by the tables given above, that there are as many as eight pa.s.sages in which the peculiarities not only of one but of both Gospels (the first and third) appear simultaneously. Perhaps it may be well to give examples of these before we make any comment upon them. We may thus take--