S. £. A'^ufu^/^:

Digitized by the Internet Archive

2011 with funding from

Princeton Theological Seminary Library



r A5 ' . - f >v ^\ r _> . i\ c>> v -•Jtj. i ^ .v >\ O- A »\ -^ '^- » -. \ V i ^ ..

This remarkable reception is due partly. doubtless. Ixxxvii. D..D. [Vol. and has.. Nearly every English writer on the subject has. by Philip Schaff. five f It was published days before the Revision. a work which ordinarily would have passed silently to the shelves of specialists. but it has been extravagantly lauded and extravagantly condemned by publications of purely popular character. among other important matter. Appendix.] Introduction.D. THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. made parties and raised wordy strife on subjects hitherto alien to its whole thought.] Text. was given to the forthcoming work. i83i and 1S82) an " Introduction to the American edition. to the excellent advertising which. So that. D. In the American edition (New York Harper & Bros. and an Appendix comprising. the text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott. 1881. v. It has not merely been greeted by critical journals. II. f and their minds were full of the textual problems necessarily brought before them in connection with that work.D. followed in September by an Introduction discussing the principles of text criticism. It is due also partly. Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament was at length given to the world in May last. the text of Drs. a much needed series of notes on select readings. just when men were looking eagerly for the publication of the Revised English New Testament. . thus. to the accident of the time of its appearance the Text. I. is prefixed to : : — the first volume. Long expected as it was. LL. has sprung suddenly into the notice of the general reader.). in this new sphere... doubtless. and the Introduction. D. prior to the publication. and Fenton John Anthony Hort. — * The New Testament in the Original Greek. just when the disputes concerning those problems and the proper methods of solving rhem were at white heat.* AFTER twenty-eight years of preparation." (pp. Cambridge and London Macmillan & Co. [Vol. the reception which the published work has met with has been unprecedented among books of its class.VI.D.

" and " omnibus quotquot adhuc publicatse sunt editionibus eo praestat quod ad testimonia in diversas quasi classes discribenda et : . for instance. X The Introduction. that it is . 25.. pointed to its coming as a boon in store for us so that men's minds have been on a stretch with expectations which they were eager to see fulfilled. Hort:}: are." f Other journals range themselves on one or the other of these sides with more or less enthusiasm. 514 and 519. 1881.) thinks that this work presents a more ancient and purer text than any other edition.^ " with regret records these accomplished scholars have succeeded in vastly its conviction that producing a text more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists than any which has appeared since the invention of printing" while. Tauchnitz. etc. Dr. and just what kind of text has been formed from them. vi. the opinions of those of critical judgment are pretty much all one way § but this cannot exonerate us from . » 391 (supposed to be by Dean Burgon). naturally enough. only poured oil on the already blazing controversy. however. Thus. Ezra Abbot believes {Sunday School Times. .) who believes that the new edition " novum certo et inexspectatum his studiis emolumentum afferet. 1881) that it will mark an epoch in the history of New Testament criticism. It is. 1881.. on the other. having been framed " with a splendid patience.. due partly to the character of the text which has been found on publication to be contained in and defended by the new volumes. Nov. December. hand. it has. II. 1881) enthusiastically advocates it. 1881. * October. 5. October. September. is yet from the pen of Dr. Von Gebhardt {Novum Test. William San day (T"/. 188 1) plainly likes it. who merely mentions it as a " noteworthy edition " {Zeitsch. November. Dr. therefore. therefore. though expressing the common views and conclusions of the editors. It is undeniable. From Germany we have seen but two brief statements one from Hilgenfeld. the Quarterly Review. and the other from Dr. far Wissenschaftl. Naturally enough it has been looked upon as a gage thrown down in defence of the main principles adopted by the Revision Committee and. § Dr. which is at once an example and an encouragement to younger scholars. p. Schaff (Introduction to American edition. and Contemporary Revieiv. f July. 1S81. and vii. the C/mrc/i Quarterly Review thinks that "all students of the New Testament must hail with delight the appearance" of a text which. Theologie. and has called forth praise or condemnation according as it fell in with previously held principles or rubbed already abraded sores of prejudice. pp. December.. 326 for a THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. William Milligan {Catholic Presbyterian. on the one also . It may affect the expectations with which we enter on this inquiry to know that. clearly worth our while to turn aside for an hour from more attractive subjects to ask after the truth here." presents " the New Testament in the form most approaching the original autographs which is accessible. term of years. 212). and seek to know just what the principles expressed by Dr. Hort. Gmce. among previous inquirers.? Expositor. viii. Dr. pp. p. p.

therefore. therefore. THE HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT.cum ratione et tanta prolixitate quanta antehac a nemine." Journals for 1882 were received too late for mention here. than those which accidentally fell into the way of the editor of the first edition. the early formation of favorite passing into received texts. This is peculiarly true of a work which has been very popular during a long period of existence in MS.) should of the latest — in the other. reached early in its printed history. with the autographs. The printed text of any work which has been previously propagated for a considerable period in manuscript usually passes through three stages an cditio princcps is published. it the standard of that from which subsequent editions should diverge. . but rather renders it 327 the more incumbent that the investi- gation shall be careful and the exposition clear..THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. ordinarily i:^ and therefore presumptively the most corrupt MSS. it will be well to take a general review of the history of the printed text of the New Testament in order that we may see clearly just where the new editors take up the task. as knowledge is acquired of older and better MSS. Hence. and consequently rapidly growing corruption . as distinguished from that of a work which was first first published in a printed form to : in the latter case the all edition is com- monly the standard conform. There must. the at first . the other. The one circumstance secures the rapid multiplication of MSS. however. before any important critical amendment has been undergone. lie nearest and a text becomes the received text usually not from any it. acute dijudicanda certa. For. with what basis of established fact behind them and with what unsettled problems before them. is edition is naturally printed from whatever MSS. Before. naturally. and has lost none of its popularity by being put through the press. some one edition acquires a circulation and acceptance which gives it the position and authority of a received text^' and then. this of its form. stage is. the task. such as the beauty of its presswork or the convenience which wins it popular favor. as the representative. result a hand peculiar purity that belongs to — — striking peculiarity of procedure in the preparation of a pure edition of such a text. ibi adhibita est textus historia. but from some commending external quality. we enter upon this our proper task. fixing the early corruption. critical editions are framed and pub- — — '' — lished in the effort to amend This the received text into nearer conformity the legitimate course of history. it becomes necessary to prepare critical editions. In a much-read work. then. which others {reprints.

hurried satisfactory less MSS. It was doubtboastful it only a printer's device that . it would necessarily be " non propter Receptum sed cum Recepto." even were we had been once established. The text which Lachmann was unsatisfactory: it was intended by him as preliminary to further criticism. Yet it was this text that gradually hardened into the Re- " ceived Text. Although preparations for a long time in learning this. was simply a printer's speculation and was taken from almost contemporary and utterly unout by the text of the 1516). as by prescriptive right for centuries. therefore. through the press at break-neck speed in the effort to forestall a rival edition (the " Complutensian Polyglot ") known to be already printed and ready for distribution. therefore. therefore. as the bold spirit who at last actually made After it men were the step so long'^repared. bore on its fore-front. from 1657. obvious propriety as well as convenience in And there considering the later editions of Tischendorf and the one great edition of Tregelles as marking the first issue of really critical editions. divided at 183 1. yet the bondage of the Recepta was not completely shaken off until the The history appearance of Lachmann's New Testament in 1831. So then we and of publication of. it Though it is . however. falls naturally into two periods: that of bondage to and that of emancipation from the Recepti. critical editions. not strange. Its editio princeps (Erasmus. that just such a history has been wrought New Testament." was. and the material for framing a satisfactory text was not yet in the hands of scholars. may is say with equal truth that the preparation for criticism really continued until the days of Tischendorf and Tregelles. of shaking it ofif the shackles which so clogged as to render a really critical edition impossible. reigned. Lachmann thus marks an epoch. and criticism owes him a debt which can be scarcely estimated.328 It is THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. —and even much in remem- bering that these (as combining with the text valuable new . The result of this step was to introduce the age of editions founded no longer on tra- ditionary but rather on critical principles. actually published. however. so that. we may say that 1831 separates the periods of preparation for. without important alteration. clear that the circumstances of its formation can lend it no authority and to frame. without attempt it at critical revision. varying the phraseology. as the Received Text. through the magnificence of Stephens' " Editio Regia (1550) and the convenience of the small Elzevirs (1624-33). its title-page its editor was certainly free to confess in private that was " precipitatum verius quam editum. one practically the same. as our final text. critical editions began as early as 1657 (Walton's Polyglot).

for the first time. Z. heralded by Stephens and Beza. D. " exceeded in number all that had been put forth before him. classification of this increas- rules for the applicaIt is tion of the evidence in the final reconstruction of the text.t So that we do not even yet know all that may be in hiding for us. — . we can feel sure that we have a sufficient body of evidence of all . The collection of docu- ing material mentary evidence for the text 2. Now. The exceeding modernness of our accurate knowledge of the contents of even the most essential documents seems to be hardly realized by scholars at large it is made plain to the eye by a table given at the end of § 18 of Dr. I. clear worthy of the name of critical could be formed unand just as clear that the value til the mass of evidence was collected of the text actually framed would depend on the soundness of the work done in the other lines. and B not adequately until 1868. . have all been issued since 1843. The work of collecting the material. R. from insufficient knowledge of material alone dorf whose editions of satisfactory editions of the Greek Testament were impossible. thaei. while the present satisfactory editions of C. Hort's Introduction. and a sufficient number of all ages to furnish material for blocking out with accuracy the history of the text. : * In f In Southern Italy. D^. Mahaffy and Abbott. The formation of critical . Alter. however. of Matthew and Mark 2 was only discovered in 1879" ^^^ thirty-four leaves (palimpsest) of an eighth or ninth century MS. including all of great age that are known. N. John Fell. Scholz. by Profs. in whose hands the collected various readings already amounted his to 30. H. Bentley and as great an advance employes. Tischen- MSS. by Harnack and Von Gebhardt. Q. we have. The and 3. The great names in this work are such as Archbishop Usher. But we have at least reached this position now. Birch Mat- and his compeers. accessible to a great accurate editions or collations of number of documents.000. Griesbach. P. One sixth century MS. matter in 329 criti- prolegomena and digests) were preparations for future cism as truly as critical editions themselves. Pg. i. In this long-continued preparation was included the pressing of three separate lines of labor. L.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT." Tregelles and Scrivener. that no text at all . all. John Mill. Let us only remember that ^ was not published until 1862. of the Gospel were brought to light in i88i. especially in the matter of detailed accuracy and completeness. issuing in: . Great Britain. began in earnest with Walton's Polyglot (1657). Wetstein who made nearly on Mill as he had done on his predecessors. E^. Until Tischendorf's labors were undertaken.

with zeal and earnestness. By Mill's time. and to make the new step of dividing. the mass of material was already too great to be manageable when treated in separate units. Bentley seized these hints. nor why the earlier editors printed the usual 'text unchanged. It that all . the African family itself into two. set himself to the classification of documents according to their text-afifinities. Thus a large number of variations would be eliminated at the outset. Collecting all the various readings of each document. was inevitable in the first and earliest stage of the science. documents containing evidence for the text should be We can hardly blame treated as of practically equal value. John Albert Bengel was the first who. however. he possessed. to be done on English soil. somewhat close kinds before us to render possible the sketching of the history of the written text in a and accurate manner. readings and their infirm conclusions from them alike to the Appendix or Prolegomena. The result was to follow Bentley in drawing a broad line of demarcation between the ancient and the more modern copies under the names of the African and the Asiatic families. and the determination of the text be made comparatively easy. clearly that if they could be arranged in affiliated classes. proposed to set forth an edition framed out of the agreement between the ancient MSS. and the class variations of family from family would alone deserve consideration. he compared each of these lists with all the others. like a pile of sand and his study of it was too intense and his mental vision too acute for him to fail to see signs of agglutination in the particles. because it differed from the rest. and drawing a broad line between the old and the recent copies. in a more shadowy manner. Bengel attacked his task.330 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. : the science of textual criticism would be greatly simplified the individual variations of document from document within the bounds of the same class would be convicted of an origin later than that of the class itself. and relegated their MS. and so laboriously to construct his families. With no less of acumen than of patience. Erasmus. Nor is it difficult to understand why Stephens' collations rather ornamented his margin than emended his text. In his opinion . of the Greek original and those of the Latin Vulgate. represented respectively by A (which was practically the only purely Greek uncial at that time known) and the Old Latin version. and to certify us that new discoveries can but enlighten dark places and not over turn the whole fabric. and thus sought to discover its relations. The really telling work in this department was not. He saw 2. however. that he set aside the readings of the only good MS.

that no document preserved any one text uninjured. A somewhat different distribution of documents was necessary for the other portions of the New Testament thus A rose to the more ancient classes after the Gospels. and A K M were alike set recensions of a corrupt text (represented by D and the old Latin) universally current G H S. and handed down his classification to Griesbach. E R cursives. also. Hug's publication had. between the three classes recognized by Griesbach and truth of the important Hug alike. . considered simply as a text phenomenon. presented a text which was at least as old as the third century. . "" He called these classes: i. but the third of which contained. commended anew by his genius and scholarship.33. Semler followed was a likely to be Bengel. no matter when the documents themselves were written. Hug's \^agaries. although it could not hide its true character from the best scholars of the day. The Western. The Constantinopolitan. who sought to prove historically that three texts represented respectively by the groups B C L. — — in the second century. however. Memphitic. 2. etc. many of whom enthusiastically adopted it. to call attention to Hug's testimony to the correctness of the lines which he had drawn between his classes. 331 it the African class was of supreme value . indeed. prove the impossibility of raising Hug's fourth class (which he himself admitted was untraceable outside the Gospels) fact new to the dignity of a co-ordinate division. 1. a text not older than the fourth or fifth. According to their text Griesbach found the documents of the Gospels to fall into three classes.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. and 3. the first two of which. cursives. the old Latin. who tested and modified it into harmony with the advancing knowledge of documents. the good effect of bringing Griesbach once more before the public on the subject (181 1). The Alexandrian. and critical rule with him that no Asiatic reading was genuine unless supported by some African document. where he (wrongly) deemed it Western. represented by A E F . and handed it on. represented by B C L. etc.69. and thus in preventing an universal acceptance of it. etc. went far in throwing doubt on the details of Griesbach's distribution. represented by the Graeco-Latin codices. and reiterate his mature con* Except in Matt. still farther blinded men to the reality of the divergence. as well as to the brought out by Hug. as in Bentley's. viz: the early broad extension and popularity of Griesbach's Western text. And a long list of intermediate texts was given it was held. A misunderstanding shared in part by Griesbach himself of the bearing of these two facts (which simply proved that the typical texts had suffered severe admixture^ with one another in framing our existing documents)..

Even Dr. which divides the MSS. "Plain Introduction. in — — . urally. principle that the Bentley first laid down the great whole text is to be formed apart from the influence of any edition. — — 3. . Ed." etc. 481 (Egyptian." Ed. in the main. Vol. Yet compare p. therefore. practically valuable in text reconstruction except the two broad ones now universally recognized of ancient and modern. and may. which he moreover practically acted upon in framing his text. on evidence. are of greatly higher value than those which class with D. so that whenever they are fairly unanimous they must carry our suffrages with them. a principle which. At the same time it is generally practically acknowledged that the further facts of type-character as brought out by Griesbach. Scrivener specifically allows a like trichotomy of documents capable of bearing like names. although not available in text-criticism.' . was the hinge upon which follies of all viction that the study of " recensions " criticism of the text must turn. on a basis of truth. at present at least. yet rest. that these documents are not only the oldest. 13. 106. into three classes corresponding with those of Griesbach. also.. It was due to Bengel — that the value of transcriptional probability received early recognition through the rule edly he meant in : ' Proclivi scriptioni prsestat ardua. and Syro-Constantinopolitan classes). however. Meanwhile. at the other extreme. first succeeded in conquering its way to practical and universal adoption through the weight of Lachmann's example. Dr. We can pause only to point out the leaders in the work. p. And. but also the best. Nolan and the peculiarities of Scholz succeeded. until they have fallen under something like a ban. obvious as it is. which undoubt- this sense after him it has been more fully defined *" Home's f Introduction. p. and the prevalent idea seems to be that no classes can be distinguished of such sort as to be. It is hardly less generally agreed that within the ancient division those documents which class with B— which itself is the best single MS. be looked upon as wellproved and already settled facts. not unnatthrowing discredit on all recension theories. 415. The such writers as Dr.f It is furthermore admitted on all sides that the oldest documents are included in the first two classes and. Tregelles'^ would admit a genealogical descent. These conclusions although not undisputed by some individuals are accepted by the best writers of all schools. IV. 2. Western. the continued efforts of many scholars toward forming a text out of the existing material were issuing in critical rules for applying the evidence to the text. as a result of the process of comparative criticism introduced by Tregelles.— 332 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

into classes. and it cannot be said that any universally recognized rule has yet been formulated to guide in cases where documentary and internal considerations seem in conflict. . While also the tendency has been more and more to rely on the ancient documentary evidence and its decisive authority where at all unanimous. A backward glance like this over the work that has been done. but also the relations of the "Be one another had to its investigated with a view to account- ing satisfactorily for the intermediate types on the one hand and to assigning own tion of classes the evidence — value as evidence to each class and each combinaon the other. Two great tasks lay before them : the inves- tigation of the true extent and meaning of the affiliations of MSS. is now universally (save by an erratic individual here and there) allowed. if at all capable of sure interit —so only the reading commended by does not make and internal evidence have never lacked defenders of excellent scholarship. paradiplomatic. and With great sagacity.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. It was clearly not necessary for the new editors to seek add the to to mass of evidence before them the day has now come when the true estimation of that evidence is the duty laid on the nonsense.. of subjecting the whole text to the personal idiosyncrasies of the editor. and the true value of the evidence of each class. was not enough to the true relations of the classes to one another needed study. But the claims shoulders of scholars. It was not enough to simply marshal necessary to discover how to apply it when it was marshalled . and the pointing out of the true method of applying the evidence It when marshalled to classify the MSS. and has been pushed by some to the verge the suffrages pretation. Since Tregelles students have been given to the doctrine that is documentary evidence decisive. by Tischendorf (in the broad statement that the reading is to be preferred from which the origin of all the others can be explained). Therefore. not only was it necessary to re-examine the whole distribution of the classes to MSS. Internal evidence proper also. with how much regard to each variety of evidence. . yet in those passages where this evidence is apparently somewhat divided the way has been open to a great variety of methods of procedure issuing sometimes in diametrically opposite conclusions even in readings of some interest. of paradiplomatic . internal. and by EUicott (under the name of Paradiplomatic evidence). —the of asking which reading it is most probable that its the author would have written — has not lacked full recognition. 333 and defended by many critics. here. especially by Griesbach. leaves standing clearly out in our consciousness the problems as yet unsettled. the framing of the text. documentary.

— And on their basis types and wellm-arked types of text may be recognized and described. is worth keeping constantly in mind: "The real text of the sacred writers . ex- isted. in forms of text is not at all conclusive as to the greater age of those forms. from the citations oi the fourth century fathers. therefore.. to an exposition of Dr. represent the opposite e. out of the whole lump of readings. however. Dr. Westcott and Hort the true nature of their task. classification. choose the worst by design.. Our exammethods need take account. It is first The important is. To juggle with this. We speak of difTerent types of text. therefore. is beneath the dig- nity of the scholarship which he undoubtedly possesses. of course recognized by him at the outset. but only .834 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. and the words have meaning in them. — — . nor so disguise Christianity but that every feature of it will Our whole discussion concerns not sense-ual but textual variastill be the same. and the cursives respectively. and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice. is competently exact in the worst MS. every synonym substituted is a difference to him.. noth- determined concerning the comparative age or value of the two forms of text. that the cursive type of text existed fully formed in that century. We turn next. Thus far. now extant nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them. the mere our only extant fourth century MSS. faced imme- proved. as the Quarter/}/ Revieiver has done (p. cannot be distributed into doctrinal or even sense-ual types. and devoted themselves to ination of their results fulfil it. however. is affected by various readings of any likelihood. rep- resented by the ancient MSS. tions as to the . that the reader should not exaggerate that meaning. no * It is worth our while at the outset of this discussion to guard against misconcep- meaning of the phraseolog)' used. ing is is a pure accident. THE GENEALOGIES OF DOCUMENTS. he shall not extinguish the light of any one chajiter. in the fourth and the preser- vation of early documents representing the one class and not of those representing the other. although the vast majority of them cause no change of sense in the passage by their presence or absence. show And the statement of Bentley." " But even put [the various readings] into the hands of a knave or a fool. We can reconstruct from the cursives MSS. fact that /. which beyond doubt century . Hort (§ 2) is careful to how small a part of the N. Thus.. They are nevertheless — though only textual phenomena yet [exlual p/iei/omcna.* Going back beyond the fourth century. T. diately. and MSS. choose asawkwardl}' as you will." tions. Hort's investiga- tions in the great sphere of MS. trying to shift it into another sphere and pouring into the terms totally alien concepts. reader. The total difference is very small. therefore. MSS. What is very large when viewed from the point of view of the textual critic. 314). is piliabl}' and meaninglessly small when viewed from the point of view of the dogmatic theologian or the general The textual critic does not exaggerate the difference but every letter omitted. contemporary with B and ^. every word misspelled. only of the which they have reached in these two departments of labor. however. The obvious and is uni- versally accepted two-fold division of documents as to their text. recognized from the very first Drs. as true now as in his day. It is very important. representing their type. unsettled question of the relation of these two texts to one another therefore.

we shall reach this result the pre-Syrian readclass. Although the Syrian text is thus presumptively the later. Hort would call a combination of historical evidence and the internal evidence of documents. Negative evidence cannot be demonstrative but the presumption hence arises that the pre-Syrian texts are the oldest.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. it is certainly the better of the it doubly two . Thus we reach the same conclusion (and by ods) that Tregelles obtained largely the same methby the application of what he happily called comparative criticism. therefore. 335 trace of the cursive peculiarities can be found in the citations of the while on the other hand their citations. when critically obtained. our problem is not yet solved. Hort's method has the advantage of being the more precise and methodical. which Dr. as a class. the pre- Syrian. and this period calls the Syrian. the infer- ence is strong that such also where the test cannot be applied. from the Syrian as a class. in all it may preserve in itself an independent line of MSS. to face this phenomenon : universal and. the two together thus forming the two sides of the same collection of various readings between the two classes and then test the two lists separately by paradiplomatic and internal evidence. We have. until the fourth century. trustworthy. but what Dr. Ante-Nicene fathers . with the sudden presence of the which Dr. The next values. approves itself as it is such wherever can be tested. the Syrian readings usually present the appearance of corruptions. . sole currency of calls the ancient types of text. So far as general sense is concerned. differ — : ings usually commend themselves as genuine . all range with the opposite classes. The result is sure. and cannot be until we answer the query: Whence came this Syrian text? It is still conceivable that into text types. in its full-formed state : this in turn throws a presumption against the purity of the Syrian. If internal characteristics with compare the Syrian and pre-Syrian texts in their a view to determining their relative we collect two lists one of all the readings which the step is to — Syrian text as a class offers in opposition to the pre-Syrian as a they and the other of all the pre-Syrian readings where. and certainly the less valuable. But Dr. . and the process by which it is obtained. Hort from the predominance of Syrian influences at from the fourth century onward. and especially with that form of them which has been named the Western. and which was certainly the most broadly current text from the early part of the second century until the fourth. Hort therefore other. the New Testament is the same and the dogmatic theologian or preacher of righteousness does not need determining which texts to to consider the variations save in use as proof-texts. follows that the pre-Syrian text since it Hence. so far as evidence goes. in either case.

to say nothing of what is otherwise known of the critical pro- only cesses of the time. investigation.* The presence of Syrian documents. and which. to do that derived from conflate more than point out one element of it readings. in fact. in their presence. therefore. but to the pre-Syrian texts. It becomes immediately (when the other phenomena are also taken into account) morally certain that other readings in the Syrian text. These arise from cases of ternary is variation where the third reading a combination of the other two. but of no value at all. which ran underground during the early centuries and came put : to light in the fourth. thus in its diplomatic evidence to be derived from them. with this conclusion the Syrian preserves nothing from antiquity not in right : What the pre-Syrian forms. out of which was made . out is of which it was made. ef- not by accidental and slow growth. the internal evidence is decisive that the principles which guided its formation did not rise above the effort to obtain easy smoothness. first evidence. Dr. and so could guide us to a proper choice among pre-Syrian readings.— 33ef THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. is. evidence. therefore. however. cannot be safely neglected. Undertaking this work. not only presumptively isting not only of less value as later than the pre-Syrian. flowing. . We need not stop here. Its testimony it not to the original. We trust that we can count on the assent of the Quarterly Reviewer here. But. " The question so constantly have we to pass over the testimony of this class as if it were impossible for it to contain independent evidence?" can never be answered without a very careful search into the origin of the class. The inference cannot fail to extend further to those Syrian readings which. It is. easy text out of the already exabounding variations. or less skilful combination of two pre-Syrian forms. while not the same as those found in pre-Syrian texts. though not so valuable as the pre-Syrian. where we have the pre-Syrian. The result. further. also came from this previous text. bodily of this is made out of the pre-Syrian The proof manifold and convincing. are yet declared by paraas readings found in a pre-Syrian type. but the mass of prove conclusively that the Syrian text in all these passages was derived from a combination of these earlier types. and could be of value. and. after careful that the Syrian text preserves nothing not in the preit Syrian forms. exactly the same used proved to have been making. that it was made. but certainly frame a full. so soon . if we could believe that it had been framed on critical principles. but intentionally. made by a more One such readthem ing might be accounted for as an accident. Now the Syrian text abounds in conflate readings. and by a set fort to smooth. Hort has instituted a very careful comparison between the Syrian and pre-Syrian texts. — it was.

differing from the B group only by the pres- ence of certain careful (grammatical. * selected. while the rest are as arbitrarily rejected. primarily by seeking the genealogical affiliations of the documents. The clear distinction between the groups headed by B and D respectively. in like manner. v/hile. will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of monstra into the Sacred Writings. they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject that each." Jast so. and it as justly reis certainly a great gain to criticism to be thus fully justified in setting aside the clamors of the mob and giving its attention to the trusty few alone. and Alexandrian. and : 2. Western. Hesychius in Egypt revised the text of the New Testament. Unfortunately. those that betray themselves to be jected. All purely first Syrian support to earlier readings must be neglected.) corrections. a answer emerges to the scoff. Here the second great unsettled as he examines the evidence adduced by Dr. it possibly represents the Lucianic 22 . since he writes (p. All the is certainly to be taken into account until the history of the recovered and the mutual relations of the witnesses determined. Lucian at Antioch. 337 groups is simply confusing — multiplying variations or among early variations to this or that one which happened to find its way into it. Neutral.1/ THE GREEK TESTAMENT in attesting OP^ WESTCOTT AND HORT. Of course. time. and evidence found of the existence of a third strongly marked type. The three classes are called. are arbitrarily purely derived evidence is to be sifted out. too. All distinctively Syrian readings must be rejected. respectively. Thrown back on broached: pre-Syrian witness the difficult question is is How proceed when this witness divided? Dr. Hort answers again. from the mass of the cursives. not because the evidence of this class felt. for the the practice of Tregelles in neglecting It is all late testimony fully is vindicated. So far was clear sailing. that. is is. mere repeaters of the testimony already heard are This is simply to protect the ballot-box. etc. those which happen to agree with the old MSS. Hort. all those which prove to transmit the independent lines of evidence are justly selected. and to hold with Dr. 321) tine. too small to be appreciably but because it is not independent evidence but a mere repetition of that already evidence text is in hand. The difficulty arises when the relations compli- of these groups to one another are considered — relations cated most tryingly by the existence of intermediate types of almost every possible variety. Hort that revision. all Then full Here. Certainly he can have no a priori " We know that Origen in Palesobjection to the conclusion. in turn. of course. is Here. neglected. We call upon him to recognize : ' ' just such a text as he describes in the class (Syrian) to which he has hitherto accorded mistaken suffrage. recognized and abundantly less re-proved. Two important rules of critical procedure may now be formulated: lending fictitious weight I.

in cases where unmixed portion of intermediate is : phenomena — . Hort has shown that much the largest — — due to mixture between two or more already existent types. evidence their is lacking. render difficult or impossible the assignment of a simple genealogy to a given document. as exemplar.ent of given variations to classes . to their own proper classes. say like B. Having thus determined the existence of three pre-Syrian groups. in some passages. like the first. or. sometimes do. from another of a different class. for whose affinities there does not exist safe evidence. they may ren- der the application of genealogical evidence to the elucidation of the But they textual history and the formation of the text impracticable. to that this is done is altogether similar by which the pre-Syrian readings. Having made lists of the readings of each The process by which group. to one like the Old Latin directions. or throughout. seems to have been successfully solved. most certainly do not affect either the reality of the groups or the surety with which we may assign the variations. and assigned to each group its own proper contingent of the readings. paradiplo- . own proper and thus. problem appeared. — in both — or of mixall Undoubtedly these causes may. and sity of the parts out of which they were made. which had been corrected in part. Explanations might be sought by considering them representatives of the links in the gradual chain of corruption or. say B and the Old Latin version. were proved superior to the Syrian. But. which. however. of a MS.338 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. the existence of mixed texts can by no means throw doubt on the original diver-f They may. But Dr. be called in to account for the phenomena. indeed. so far as mixture allows of their assignment. that these intermediate texts should have so long disturbed scholars. Corruption was clearly progressive the result of a gradual growth and the marks of the growth are preserved in the extant documents. The only problem is their origin. from a type intermediate between the two ture of the two diverging texts already formed. as a class. from a type. and ought to. Clearly their presence does not in any way lessen the actual divergence between. There is no difficulty in accounting for mixture it could arise in a variety of ways sometimes from the scribe actually using two originals in making his copy sometimes from the tricks of a memory full of the details of a different exemplar than that now before the eye. the definite assignm. the next step is to test the relative values of the pre-Syrian groups. It is remarkable. however produced. In a word. sometimes from the use. they do not affect the value of genealogical evidence wherever it can be applied.

but in its printed form it has a slight Syrian element also. Gj. found). acter of our best number of documents to enable us to apply the rules to a Exammation shows that only five of our : MSS. P. viz B. and the Memphitic all proved the best. and the Curetonian Syriac probably predominatingly Western the Memphitic was probably originally wholly pre-Syrian and predominatingly non-Western. c. it appears that is the old verdict of scholars is confirmed. largest Neutral element is found in F of Luke and John.. C. A. possess the largest Alexandrian element. is 339 appealed to to decide as to the value They proclaim the Neutral readings generally right. L. C and L. as all existing Alex. H. and paradiplomatic and internal evidence generally decides here also in favor of the Neutral. P2. It is plain that we have here an exceedingly clear and trustworthy scheme. After ^. such apparent union is suspicious. ^ is largely Neutral. contain a pre-Syrian element of Mark). matic and internal evidence of each. although a con(in siderable number of others. Thus. where a limited Western element is less extent. except in Paul.THE GKEEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. are purely pre-Syrian. That supported by the Neutral and the Western against is the Alexandrian variation probably genuine . The Thebaic is similar. of the Gospels. Among the versions the Old Latin (not the Itala) is found to be purely. as critical rules of ordinary validity : i. such as C. H of Luke. followed next by the Thebaic. The reading supported by is the Neutral and Alexandrian groups against the Western probably genuine . though with much mixture. Q. Hence follow. and the Western and Alexandrian generally corruptions. and G3 may be taken as representative Western documents. Z in Matt. L. Z. D2. D. and seem to present that text unmixed. and with about as great an interval between them and it as between it and B. 13 and 61 come forward. texts with larger or smaller Syrian elements. but in admixture with a considerable Western and Alexandrian element. and in Paul. and large it only remains for us to note the observed group-charreadings. 33. the. greater or D. In Acts A. T. 17 and 6f"^. J^. but in different stages of development. D2. R in Luke. Q and P among MSS. 3. B is purely Neutral almost throughout {i. A and some cursives. E2. . except that its Western element is larger. and is usually supported as such by paradiplomatic and internal evidence 4. The others present mixed . ^ of Mark. Where the pre-Syrian is ternary the Neutral is probably genuine. of versions in . 2. andrian documents contain Western corruptions. R. The reading supported by the union of the Western and Alexandrian groups should be preferred to the'Neutral reading but.

therefore. may be equal to may take us to z or else B D. Hort calls in next another process which he appropriately names Internal Evidence of Groups. Didymus. B D takes us to z. a large number — rivals of these — have .'"' INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF GROUPS. on the other. z q. shown to be probably parts of the original text and thus a goodly portion of the narrow limits. along the course of which the various Western documents may be ranged in growing corruption.ent to aberrant texts like the Western and Alexandrian . genealogical evidence will not settle everything. i. nowed away with the Syrian text as not worthy of consideration a large number have been rendered very improbable by their definite assignm. Among the Fathers the non-Western. but by systematization very the text has much has been gained. z q. Dr. . and the choice confined in a numerous class of other passages to is A comparatively very small portion of the text thus left in uncertainty. e. represents the Syrian.. been. on the wp one hand. will roughly represent the Western divergence — k s the Neutral and t v the Alexandrian. thus : tion m 2 True Text k b t ->r If X y represents the line of absolutely true descent. B X will carry us back to a point on k s. and Cyril Alexandrinus. Internal evidence of readings * Perhaps the genealogy of the text and the results which flow from its determinamay be rendered easily comprehensible through a rough diagram. In order to determine the true reading in those cases where from whatever cause genealogical evidence is inapplicable or fails to be decisive. Of its course. text has been securely reconstructed. is the nearest to the originals of any MS. . The early history of been recovered a vast number of readings have been win. S D. THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. or to a point between z k or (when N is Western) to z. placed at a point between k and t.340 text-criticism. as well as to test the results obtained by that form of evidence. Now it is evident that B. and so on. pre-Syrian element is largest in Origen. and. may be equal to somewhere amid the abounding corruption of D alone.

the compound B ^ is found to approve itself almost uniformly as genuine. just as extant and in our very 5«^. agree in a reading. This is a veritable case of undesigned coincidence. to be impossible to doubt the legitimacy of the process or the surety of its results. and only in a hundred of the the evidence for tested when . the proportionate number of readings attested by which are apparadiplomatic and internal evidence. and next to it B plus some other sents the best lost original. The compound of symbols (B ^. by freeing us from the old arithmetical balance of individuals and enabling us to assign a constant value to any given group.. . and is elicited by which each document yields to its own value noting what proportion of its readings approve themselves as probably genuine when tested by the combined use of paradiplomatic and internal evidence proper. in relation to others reif claimed hands.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. and their common proved. And nothing prevents our value of this lost testing through this they were all list the comparative MS. they agree thus ori- number of readings. it Now we may carry this process one step higher until of groups. of wc have thereby determined the probable comparative values the MSS. then discover that in a thousand of them all the probability is in favor of the correctness of one of the MSS. or ^ D. on the face of it. Nor does it introduce any new factor if we make the two MSS. nor where the evidence applied testants are one is decisive in only a portion of the passages compared. This and greatly simplifies the labor of criticism as well as adds. and are in turn confirmed by them. and is entitled to all the force of that argument. barring If accidents. thus reconstruclied. it ehould certainly be set aside on noting how fully these results confirm those reached by genealogical evidence. If becomes internal evidence two MSS. It seems. agree we are really constructing a list of readings from an older MS. or B C etc. is 341 itself yielded by each reading's own probability by the combined use of paradiplomatic and internal Internal evidence of documents is the evidence evidence proper. But were doubt to arise. the common parent of both in these portions. a dozen or a hundred. repre- proved by combined suffrages. and finding them to be eleven hundred in all. It is gin in these portions — immediate or remote — is imme- diately evident that by noting the readings in which two MSS. and should command our method enables us to deal with groups as units.). Tested after this fashion. this is evidence. of in a community of origin in that reading. untold surety to its conclusions. accidents are barred. other. largest in like manner. If we take a list of all variations between two documents. The result is essentially altered neither where the conhundred instead of two..

exceptions. thus vindicating even here the combination B ^.342 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. and even A C Do G3. referring for proof to Dr. The only law consists of compounds of B and a to c'J?ist/cs. MSS. After the Gosvalue of a primary uncial. and occasionally ^ A C D2 G3" are condemned by internal evidence of groups. but on the And this means. Dr. . . is thus just what should be expected. Western document in tlie Pauline which. first centur)'. J^ D. Even individualisms of B when they only one or more secondary MSS. are apt to be so. cluding ^) take of compounds will naturally (usually) . cannot be ascribed to isms of other clerical errors of its scribe. with rare are almost always pels. and hence do not usually partake of the sawd Western corruptions and hence when combined B and N agree even with typical Western documents. or fathers alone. or Syrian corruption. B plus B plus versions alone. to ^ B D. in the original Inc of descent. and the strongest combination the test excellently. doubtless. We call cannot resist the temptation to turn aside here long enough to attention to the striking accordance of these results with the facts reached by the entirely different process of genealogical evidence. that is. C D^ G3.'" In the apocalypse ^ falls to a perceptibly lower level than elseis where. only because they par- common Western. A D2 G3. The high comparative value assigned to compounds of B by the method being now considered. On the other hand the same test is usually favorable to the apparently non-western groups and even. The rash repetition by the Quarterly Reviewer of " Between B and K there subsists an amount of sinister the old and worn-out charge : . .. Hort proves the immediate independence of these MSS. or B plus commonly approves itself by the same test whereas ^ plus only such support (and much more any other uncial than ^) is almost uniformly condemned. Alexandrian.t and thus shows that the * Tliis simply amounts to an indication that X and B gain their Western corruptions independently of one anoiiier (and forms another mark of the independence of the two MSS ). are usually discredited. quite frequently. Consequently we are not surprised to find that such groups as " B D^ G3. If B is the only document which (except in Paul) has no other than a its Neutral element. f Wc content ourselves with this simple statement here. and in Paul no MS. we are not to look on the Western line of corruption for the original parent of the groups. G3. and especially in ternary variations approve themselves while individual- condemned. at z on the diagram. is without some Western element. and even A alone stands high The most striking results reached by this investigation are the authority given to B and to the combination B {^. G3. Hon's Introduction.. A rises to the . AC . . present a com(in- bination of two independent groups while all other documents when conjoined. §§ 287-304. primary uncial cial while on the other hand other than B generally fail frequent exception to this compounds of ^ and an unmakS good their claim.

ized hy Dr. The answer to all this is found in the statements of the text. 321) in his zeal against B to quote Dr." 2. not is that pure stock. 312).. is learning. . 452-3).g. Thus B D or non-Western X connected with D may differ in value from B X.* This high estimation of these documents has been even made the pretext of attack upon the system of criticism adopted by the whole school to which Dr.. and thoroughly competent guide " (p. as the Reviewer puts them. but only as giving so many fewer readings. from a given standard are very interesting. prove that B and X possess exceedingly rarely a common corruption not shared by Western documents. For that the very small Western element in the Pauline portion of B will not be sufficient to justify the words used is apparent and becomes still more so on remembering that the object of the passage is to exhibit the untrustworihiness of these MSS. 312). and apply it to B as one "of the class thus character. impartial. but. even in the eyes of this critic. What confidence can be put in the Reviewer's broad statements on the subject maybe not unjustlj' estimated by the aid of two circumstances: i. B D when it does exist may be (save in Paul) equally as good as. ment (p. supported as they are by all writers of repute on the subject. — The details which are given (as e. 315). and that aUliough Dr." and " have become by whatever process the depositories of the larg- Of course . misleading in the extreme. Hort.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. differ the one from the (The italics are his). which he can " venture to assure" his readers "are three of the most corrupt copies extant. however. B is found to omit at least . It is pleasant to learn that B is. 318). xxvii. than two consecutive verses in which they entiiely agree. Such passages as Matt. Scrivener's " Plain Introduction. because they class with D. est amount of fabricated readings which are anywhere to be met with " (p. 49 (compare Dr. and possess. as (and we take great pleasure in expressing our assent to the words) the work of a "judicious. 312) of the di\'ergence of each of the great MSS. Scrivener's Greek Testament and Wescott and Hort's came from the same press. 471) that judgment "(p. but one of the depraved trio (DxB). The other. had carefully distinguished it from the class described (p. and that although it is — universally is admitted that B is the best single MS. or better than f B X- it is not meant that no individual has ever disputed the supreme excellence of B but onl}' that all recognized authorities of whatever school are united at present on this point. 343 combination represents a document of the early second century if not a generation earlier which itself represents seemingly the pure stock from which all others in existence appear to have diverged. * Represents. so that B X D represents the same stock at an earlier point." and one that " exhibits a fabricated text " (p. of " bad character. He allows himself (p. ^ 240).f The answer resemblance wliich proves that they must have been both derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original " (p. in existence. p. And yet Dr. proves that they present the same text. accuracy. Scrivener's description of the corrupt Western text (pp. is there fully set aside. whereas all the documents which the writer himself follows have a larger Western element than B. S. Scrivener". Bis "the most weighty single authority explicit in his state- that we — ." etc. When we read that " in the Gospels alone. if indeed the Reviewer has not himself succeeded in destroying its meaning by his subsequent words: " It is easier to find two cottsccuiive verses in which the two MSS. He refers for detailed information on such points to Dr. With him B is not only a MS. Hort belongs. 311) —of one even (he tells us) " vastly Tischendorf's superior in S. on the whole the least terrible of this terrible trio." fact that a small portion of K is from the same hand that wrote B as much proves a community of text as the fact that Dr." but this will not exonerate him from having printed a very misleading statement. The Quarterly Revieiver docs not shrink from ranging himself against the consensus of critical opinion. It is true the Reviewer guards his statement somewhat by saving X B C D are "specimens in vastly different de^^^rees of the class thus characterized. 452). not in giving a less ancient or less pure reading.

that the free!)- printed text is riicanf. let us by all means examine : — ..098 2. again to know that this — — As to critical rules the Reviewer seems to have but two i. and with more manageable and surer evidence. nothing can alter the two facts: that it is inherently paradiplomatic and internal evidence being judges the inferior text. This quiet begging cf the question this quiet assuming t^e truth of a disproved fancj. of course is equally right of his existence. when itself. whether among MSS. to add 536. Witnesses must be counted. It may be safely left to the public to decide on the fairness of quietly assuming that. is only on narrower ground. are to be valued. seems to us inherent!}. a subsequent part of the article. . not of B. ready and complete internal evidence only such authority is yielded to B . performing the task that all attempt in seeking the autographic text from documentary attestation. If this be so. the Textus Receptus is all but perfect. instead of weighing them but this? Communism. Before v/e yield credit. that the discovery of a fourth century would revolutionize criticism — — — to modify what gives at once the appearance of strength to the Quarterly's article and the reality of almost laughable weakness.unlovely. mereh.877 words.s^ or to B alone as that group or that MS. — we revive sufficiently to ask : Omits from what? adds 01 ditiarily is to what? etc.344 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. of Syrian type and utterly change the balance of evidence. The only difference between the two methods is that one ventured. without a word of warning as to the exact nature of the question-begging which will alone give the words any sense or meaning. or men. not counted and the age of the document is presumptive of value of text only prior to examination. we discover. from and breaihe but a list of divergences between B and the corrupt 'J exlits Receptits. in spite of the history of its formation. Internal probability consists in the pleasingness of a reading to us with all our long use of a particular text and natural and ingrained love for its every detail. But wiien . and we feel a flesh-creeping all over. roughly marks the corruption of that edition. Even though the Syrian text should be traced further back than now seems possible. . for not agreeing with it. then any reconstrjiction of the New Testament text is a fortiori a dream. And what is counting MSS. to substitute 935 " all. For in-ternal evidence of groups only undertakes to do repeatedly and on a small scale what its opponents would attempt to do once for all on a large scale. and then before a popular audience quietly condemning the old MSS. Such a discovery would have absolutely no effect on either. and therefore.57s) the thing looks alarming. and that it was made out of the pre-Syrian. . or on the other to give the inheritance of the lawful heir or two to the twenty children of the illegitimate son. from group attestation as a chimera of the imagination furnishing only shadowy basis for farther inferences. Perhaps we may be allowed to borrow a phrase which is most strangely strewed up and down the Reviewer's pages. not weighed and 2. — — titles. the theory that each individual. The recovery of each lost MS. Nor will it do to raise objection to the reconstruction of lost MSS. just because they arc more.132 (in to transpose 2. tested by paradiplomatic and further scoff so often vindicates for The MS. MSS. and "venture to assure him" that the day is past when men can be allowed to mistake their personal preference for internal probability on the one hand. can demand an equal share in all the rightful possessions of his neighbors. 7.

With the documentary evidence thus in hand. Then. : his third. Recognizing the uncertainties and dangers that attend appeal to inis made to guard against them. is the same as that between Bunsen's and Mackenzie's theories of Geysers telian — between the Baconian and the so-called Aristo- methods of thought — between science and guessing. and its function is to a large degree analogous to the veto bills power the President of the United States has allowed him over ternal considerations. Hort's first great critical rule is: Knowledge of documents must precede judgment on readings . how is it to be applied in reconstructing the text? it From what it has' already been said. is: No reading is to be finally accepted unless commended by internal evi- dence as ivell as documentary — ip internal evidence including both para- diplomatic and internal proper. Thus. when . not in either sort to be primarily invoked it . in a word. it has a right to be heard.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. THE APPLICATION OF THE EVIDENCE. and the exceedingly early origin it of Western divergence leaves in certain instances not a priori impossible that this may be the case. The fact that such cases do occur. can only be sought through paradiplomatic and internal evidence. as the text is original. even the purest line of transmission (say the Neutral) may contain errors introduced into that line subsequent to the divergence from it of a very corrupt line (say the Western). indeed. under the names of transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities. therefore. The difference. to internal evidence is allowed a veto power. Other somewhat like nature lead to the same conclusion. In such instances the true reading would lie outside of the evidence usually considered conclusive in the formation of the text. and his second Knoivledge of genealogies mnst precede Judgment en evidence . and. way from one fact to another by a strictly inductive method and the other to jump at once crudely to its last conclusion. co-ordinate with these. If. but must keep silence until the testimony of the documents has been sifted and thoroughly understood. must be that such a method of application would not be practicable. and not the best authenticated transmitted fellows that the evidence cannot be applied meDr. chanically. and thus estimated. on a moment's consideration. would wish to proceed slowly and surely 345 its — step by step — working . it sought. Clearly. every attempt It is of Congress. goes without saying that the new editors do not apply seen it mechanically. and falls the proof that any given asserted instance considerations of a under this class. in which alone the true reading may thus be preserved. even if not so formally stated. Hence.

the united testimony of transcriptional and intrinsic evidence. must be unanimous both kinds must point in the same Care must be taken that we try the readings intrinsically. and to be especiall}'^ swayed by subjective feeling. still further.. Westcott and Hort have not allowed . after repeated. and then apply it mechanically to the text. determine its meaning. seen to be transcriptionally certain. the prescription of use and wont from our judgment of the bearing of internal probabilities. clear be safely disregarded. in it is supreme and may documentary evidence. is judged supreme. Often what is originally judged intrinsically probable is afterward seen to be untenable. on further study. primary evidence. and still again repeated testing. we may answer. in that all word from the documents is in. on repeated study. And. and the difficulty of a task is hardly sufficient reason for declining to undertake it altogether. practically. Thus. Often what is originally judged transcriptionally improbable is. then this combined testimony can never direction. . that one reading is intrinsically best while apparently troublesome. in ruling one half of the evidence out of court. to be intrinsically certain. or. not by our own notion of what should be read. It is undoubtedly difficult to abstract per- sonal likes and dislikes. a voice in deciding between rival readings? may be open it to in question whether Drs. we rule all hope of a perfect text out with it. last is No doubt it is easy to say that thus very great authority is assign- ed to a class of evidence which peculiarly liable to mistake. At every step of a valid critical procedure we are forced to call in internal evidence to decide for us the relative value of rival documents or final classes of documents: how can we refuse It it. is yet. internal evidence must be allowed to override documentary probabilities only when. When. and the reading at first imagined intrinsically improbable is seen. and. but how can we do otherwise ? It may be admitted that it is easier to gather the external evidence. however. while all others combine latent inferiority with open plausibility. But will the result be truer? Royal roads to truth are not usually judged highly estimable. but these difficulties must be faced and laid. after this repeated testing and re-testing. Hort's scheme. Equal care must be taken that we judge the transcriptional probability by the actual mental tendencies of the scribes. educational prejudices. and not by our own which may be opposite. the verdict is clear.34G offered. it THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. then. it persists in ranging its combined testimony in opposition. but by an anxious attempt to reproduce the writer's own thought. True. though it is only secondary evidence in the sense that it must not be considered until the override any and Dr.

then. will take us here. Certainly a text constructed thus is. JLx^ —c^ 6 ^-^ -"^^ . can be learned only by an appeal to the two varieties of internal evidence. It is worthy of note that every editor (most of all. a sure text. what is left us for the reconstruction of the text but pure or impure* conjecture? The very act of reconstructing the text on any other method than that of absolutely mechanically applying the documentary evidence admits the legitimacy of conjectural emendation. again. above all others.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. But a priori it will be difficult to see why it should be excluded from possible resort in reconstructing the text of the New Testament alone. It is true here. that be absolutely certain unless it no reading can be held to can be shown to be commended alike by documentary and both sorts of internal evidence. But we cannot arbitrarily close the door lest we incur the same charge. or a more or less corrupt descendant of it. of the old critical method. /tt^ <. that wicked men have it in their power to deal wickedly with God's Word. too. attestation cannot be possibly accounted for by any theory of transmission and it is difCcult to see why sixth or tenth century scribes should be allowed the monopoly of conjectures. The danger is apparent and imminent. CRITICAL CONJECTURE. only to the earliest trans- mitted text . too Httlc weight tion but that the principle . or vice versa in certain passages. by a modern editor. but there can hardly be continued quesis correct. of assigned to internal evidence leads to the revival. and will not allow that its work is done until it has heard the united voice of the three great forms in which evidence reaches us.«-o. of a successful conjecture of an ancient scribe. conjecture supported by documents of insufficient authority to of itself authenticate the text. as elsewhere. of ancient books.. fact of questioning its internal evidence on the subject implies that may give testi- any passage. It may be said here. as an adjunct in the settlement of the text. conjecture. Impure conjecture is.- ro- Ai T7^ -^ {<. The vagaries of those who have most used this method long since brought it into not undeserved contempt. those who retain the Syrian text) admits impure conjectures into his text. . and that our only safeguards against it are piety and right against the transmitted text. mechanically applied. Hort offers is just this: that it takes full account of every variety of testimony. And the great merit of the scheme of criticism which Dr. simply (in all ordinary cases) the adoption. . and whether this be the autographic text as But the mere it well. The high value thus once so popular. and those of such sort that their MS. >-^c4tA -^A-a iX ^*^ ^s <i ^ « /7o6». The documentary evidence. and if so. that thus a wide door is opened for the entrance of deceitful dealing with the Word of Life. certain particular passages too 347 much weight . in mony * By pure conjecture is meant conjecture unsupported by any external testimony by impure.

iv. 15.. heil. 13. . but the assertion it certainly premature writers feel it. xi.. i. 22. xiii. v. 18. . 12. 28 v. 21 i Tim. the advent of fitter in.. 8. Edition 13. vi. xiii. . i v. Apoc. 28. 12 . in 1879. . kept alive in our own day by Cobet et al. 433 and note) admits the need. 150) and Reuss (Geschichte d. in place: First of all. 20. it is even very plausible. etc. 8) take broadly the ground that there is no need for conjecture in the New Testament. 540) show. With these demands we may occupy both safe and reasonable ground. as follows i. 46. 25. therefore. but have * Dr. 12. bis. Literaturz. 35 John iv. 9] . iii. : Matt. iv. d. It is. 2. ii. 398) speak doubtfully Dr. iv. 7 2 Tim. . iv. 4. . 23. xii. xvi. Mark i 4 [viii. Dr. 7 . Hort or Dr. Mr. (p. but would banish the method on the plea of expediency. ! . 10. 40. Linwood's pamphlet (1873) is of less importance but Phil. iv. much less made every a matter of deep congratulation that they have in not deformed their text with conjectural emendations. each case also we sHall allow none of It has.. 5 iii. Hammond ("Outlines of Textual Criticism. it it perfectly fulfils the requirements of both varieties of internal evidence. 12. xiii. etc. xviii. and. p. 21 . 13 Phil. At present there seems to be a pretty general reaction in favor of conjecture in progress. 3. xv. 62. and p. XX. on the other hand. ii. vi. iv. We do not wish to conceal our belief. . . 3. unless not onlyits necessity. with characteristic emphasis (the small capitals are his): " May we be allowed to assure him that in Bidlical Te. 16.348 reason. 2. xxvi. however. x. . . 12. 10 xii. i Pet. 17. Col. xv. 37. i. i. 9 Heb. bis."'^ 2. and in such a spirit as would keep it in disgrace. no emenda- impossible to stand upon — — the most careful And next. Acts i. 7. 28-31. been often asserted that is has been already proven that there no occasion is for conjecture in the New Tes- tament repeat . that in the very large majority of the casesf perhaps in all where Dr. The just remarks of Von Gebhardt (Leipziger Theol. ii. i . 32. 2 i. 2. XXV. xiii. Scrivener (p. Tregelles (Home's Introduction. vol. 31 — 3. 25." p. 32 . never died out. ii. the traditions of Valcknaer. Westcott or both consider that primitive error exists in the reconstructed text which must be removed by conjecture. even if the conjecture be proved in a particular case. Roberts ("Words of the New Testament. 320). Schrift. xxviii. THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. vii. indeed. 22 ff. 24) and Mr. xix. Lightfoot's proposals of conjectural emendation at Col.. Hartings' Essay. 18 Gal. and Dr.ktual Criticism 'Conjectural Emendation 'has no place" On the other hand. however. 28 Amounting in all to some Luke xi. fluences. 3. we cannot feel tion offered be accepted unless — — that the claim of necessity for out. The Quarterly Reviewer simply says. indeed. 6. necessity for it and we cannot afford to must be demanded that. it legitimacy can be proved. John Cor. i. ix. vii. The latest marks of the same spirit there may be found in Dr. Jude 2 Cor. . xxi. wildly asserts that about 200 passages have been already successfully emended by conjecture 10 . p. but it. 23. and the Teyler Society's publications for i83o (by Van Manem and Van de Sande Bakhuyzen).. 10. iii. Van de Sande Bakhuyzen. T. 6. 10. 2 Thess. it shall its be required must be demanded that in each case where it is in clear occasion for conjecture offered. N.. In Holland. . I. 30. moreover. i.. Two precautionary requirements are. . viii. xix. In England the conjectures printed in the Caiiibrlds^e yoiirnal of Philology have been straws showing the way the wind was blowing. have been of great influence. ." p. i. 42. xi. 2 Pet. f iv. 13.. 7 Gal. xii. Rom. In Germany such hands have handled it. xii. 11.

and relegated their emendations By . Sanday in the Expositor f {^a. — so that we consider only the : and as well take no account of brackets or margins. or about one per cent. and whether their attempted emendation is successful. THE NEW TEXT. of the changes from the Receptus. about which there is any difference of opinion among competent editors as to the reading. — receivof three Nos. of 1881). there need for : it.^ choice of a section.g. Through the inaccessibihty when it was made and good editions B.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. this means they have left the question just where it should rest admitting the legitimacy of the method and is indicating the passages where. of the whole epistle. The question which next acter of the text which the ples ? claims our attention is : What is the charprinci- new editors have made. so we may deal with the preferred text in each instance — we may count some one hundred and sixteen cases in which one or another of these four texts differs from Stephens' Editio Regia. however. leaving only some twenty-five per cent."'^ and because Dr. Tregelles' text cannot be thought equal to itself in the Gospels. real differences . briefest.. . and hence the comparative value of each. at least ninety-nine per cent. in their judgment. Whether they leave as questions open for discussion in each case there be a real necessity for it. of both N. f and hence the comparison would not be fair to him. or in punctuation. to itacism or elision. sufficient This result is worth our consideration it furnishes a answer to both the charge that textual criticism tends to unsettle the text. they all four agree in the change made. We avoid the Gospels in makin. both because that portion of the new text has been already pretty fully examined by others. to the Appendix. * E. on these At once it the easiest. and the fear that we can never attain a really received . of these cases. and most satisfactory way of an- swering will be through a collation of the new text with the editions with and Tischendorf (which alone are worthy of comparison New Testament from which we may be able to learn immediately the relation of the three to one another. 349 case printed the best attested reading. whether due of Tregelles it) in some one portion of the — . In some sevthat enty-five per cent. Outside of the Gospels we choose at random the Epistle to the Ephesians and add to the compared texts that which underlies the Revised English New Testament. of the Epistle to the Ephesians has reached the stage of a really received text. by Dr. If we take no account of differences in mere spelling.sX. At this early stage. on account of its inherent interest to us all. text.

W. Tr. W. iv. iii. Tr. avT6v after KaQiaaq T. G W. C^ Tr. T. Eph. Eph. 37. 2. with W. m. 15- "> T. and Tr. since the where difference of opinion exists. with Bn'^CDFGKLP. 4. A D* F G P Theb. Memph. TrpaoTjjTog with AD F GL W. i. Vulg. etc. Memph. etc 16. [W]. AB AB Eph. Tr-mg. Victorinus. Tr. Eph. v. BDEFGKLP 'lr]aov X A 17 Syrr. only 23 cases where the editors differ. Eph. Syrr. 14. T. aya^bv before ralg P. avr/Kovra P. with ^^ KBCD" etc—omit 'Iricbv N* D*FG. Eph. Tr. 6. P. 18. Eph. 17. with BA C (G) D'= etc avrov T D F K L L etc.** 7. with t? X B 13. Travrag P. Eph. A D* F with G. omit T. N" vfiuv L etc. with 20. K. 9. iv. Tr.— 350 — —— — THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. W. Tr.— etc. 17. A 17 etc. T] before x^P'^ P. Tr-mg. with N* 11. iii.) P. 67. t o. W-mg. i. 28.? AKL P etc. etc. with with B. W. (17) etc. Tr-mg. Aeth.i:ep<Tiv W with B — omit A DFG 14. And this understates the case. 12. Tr. etc. N AC B D= E N'^ K etc. xADFGKLP with Kal (before jiupoA. Tr. Evi'ipytjaev P. iv. i. P-mg. Koi before Mokev P. Clement—^ T. kav-bv P. Theb. j-Eph. Eph. 8. X. 20. ayciTzriv with ABFGLP etc. B X" D"" K L 17. but mean about presents a peculiar case the editors differ as to their actual treatment of the same thing by their very divergences. . ivypyrjKEv W. with B. iv. Tr. Vulg. P. W-mg with N D F G K L P Memph. instead of thirty-one.] with C* D= K L P. TO iv. [Tr-mg] with N* 3. iv. provided that they are such as cause no difference in a translation. P-mg with (x^ (P). ovK. W. T. that of Westcott Hart it. iv. . of Tregelles. i6. 1. W. T. W.—of T. .— omit. W-mg. Tr.^:epffii') Eph. W. 4. ecKOTicfiivoi W. 15. etc. with B D* F G E P* 10. — competent critics.— transpose T. 37 47 etc. of the divergences from the Receptus. e. has been largelyincreased by the admission of the Revisers' text to comparison and its habit of retaining even confessedly false readings. 2. /. THEMSELVES. Eph Eph. 17. W. I. P Tr. Tr. D F G 47 etc. — omit Tr. P. with {.- [W. with —after . 37. DIFFER AMONG D Eph. What the character of these is may be seen at a glance from ed by all number of passages the following list :* PASSAGES IN EPHESIANS IN WHICH P. with D F G K L 37 47 etc. g. Eph. with X* TO. v^og Kal padoq P. 47. with B X C. 5. with N* A. Aeth. W-mg. T that of Tischendorf i. BCD F O" etc. T. 28. with I.. with etc. 17. with etc. P. Tr with G. etc. (P) ecKorcj/iivoi with X D* F T. 18. Palmer) denotes the Revisers' text .— omit T. etc. less than twenty per cent. npavTjjToq T. W-mg with K* ADFG K. i. iSaig (before . Tr. v. vuoiv P. AND Tr.T. etc. W. P-mg. W & with BXAP (= * In this list P. we have. that . Eph. Eph. Tr. iii. Hence it is omitted here. 2. — omit P. W-mg 8. If we omit such cases. T. Eph. 7. 4. v. with X E. u ovk uvt/kev T.

P. 6. with B K* Memph. Arm. p. Tr. 21. etc. 8. 22. Ti} mp6t^ P. etc. that is.: — — — 351 THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. — has yet always on 8vo. TOV (before xP'<^tov) P. T. W. W. Eph. Catena-Cr. 5. P. Eph. etc. 37 etc. T. 31.) Tr. T. with MSS. 12. Kal 01 av6. 13. vi. vi. (Memph) etc. with B i{ ADF GKLP ig. 27. with (A. " " " " " ( ( I). k. — omit T with K. 30) where P stands alone such that the variants would not be represented as variants in a translation. V.. 17. X. 25. on which the Revision Committee refrained are all The from expressing an opinion count. L K —omit T. etc. etc. (31). 19. rel. Vulg. TTiv uTjT. Clem.K L P. P. with B K L 37. Orig. P.. XADFGKLP. aal. 31. B KL (P) 47. 37. 14. P 17. TT/g Eph. P. (X<=) (14). with 0"= etc. v/ith (A) F. etc. 13 mss. W . Peter of Alex. 47. Aeth. 47. Tr. 17. etc. etc. W stands alone they ought to be omitted from our in one case (15) and alone with the Revisers against five W in six cases. T. vi. and. Tr. 17. as above —omit rz/v. Tr-mg. Syrr. [Tr-mg]. T. with 7. with Tr. with 25. Eph. W-mg. 18. KOfi'iacrai T. Tr. P. add avruv P. V. T. deserting the consensus of editors. 37. . Tr.— Arm. etc. W. 26. P. Hier. 22. and we arrive at the principle of action. 37. ADFG We see however * at a glance that is the rejected reading — however its xiii. Eph. P. Eph. ry ywaiKt. mss.— mv T. (37) Vulg. G. with 17. etc. TTwf after uKpifS.— omit. V. . [W] with ^{ A D° KLP X'^ D'' etc. side the dzs- Compare Revised N. (25). p. 31). Arm. — omit. etc. more (i. Eph. V. W. Oxford ed. 14. Orig. etc.— omit tov. N<= Orig. eight case. Tr. l8. 28. G. Aeth. vi. . V. . 31. Here they stand in a column W No. therefore. 37. ''Eyeipai P. Orig. T + Tr. Pst. omit 23. 17. with N KL V. rov Tvar. (15). i'TTOTaaaeax^uemv Tr. T. Eph. with 24. Eph. with A. KnfiLElraL B. 8. Tr. and 28. with MSS. Tr. DFGP Vulg. with X" D"-' K L W. mss. V. Eph. 'irpoQ Tijv ywaiKa P. vi. etc. T.— fye^pe T. Kat v/ielr after elS/jre P. with B ii*—ei> r. W.s (8. 37. 2). X* A D F G L P. Tr. with 30. 29. 67) KL 21. 31. [W] with N A D. L*. A D* F. 47. Aeth. [W] with B A D F G P 17. [Memph]—before. Memph. V. is here justified in and the question asked whether Put the evidence for the rejected readings in these cases together. Eph. o eav P with N'= (L) 47 etc— o dv Tr. B D* F X G. V. with X* A D* F G. 15. 47. T. W with B X* 31. pica demy Palmer's edition of its text. stand These will naturally be looked upon as t/ze test-passages. X D E K. P. with X A D F G P etc. Eph. 2. before.* Of the in rest. etc. D Eph. D W with X B A D* F G 29. p. D F G 47. N" 20. Memph. much or little added to them T. Eph. W. B D* F G B D* F G W-mg. Tr. with X A with B. vi. Marcion. W. I Scrivener's edition of its text. 28. (before Kap6.

On a calm consideration embody the specifically we can feel no doubt and indeed. 18. in 20 by A. and agree only in this one particular. A single glance at Tischendorf's peculiar readings all shows that they are probably due to overestimation of ^. as to the correctness of the decision given On the other hand. in 26. — that they . and where. Tischendorf stands alone nine times (4. 24 by B. The attestation for them runs all the way from ^ alone among MSS. How fully the governed by the consistent application of this genealogiprinciple will appear on noting the authority which has swayed it text is in all the 31 cases. Thus we have Western documents in 19. 26. 7. 7. in 21 by ^ A. and Where Tregelles stands alone. W. and Tregelles also nine times (3. 9. 24. . This would have in 3 — — — — that Tregelles so proceeded. has rightly sided with Tregelles in rejecting them is g. 27. always through following a numerical majority of old documents and a combination of Western documents with other primary uncials. 21. II. We see at once the prin- new ical and the correctness of the procedure.. since they all have an element of is Western corruption therefore. 9. Except in such cases as 13. 22). 26. 352 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. and in most cases it it seems {e. 22). 30. II. is the Ephesians new text. 10. 16. 22) it accepts with some doubt. tindively Western documents and moreover. 27).22. C* D FG (10). 29). (as in 26 see also 27) up to certain that ^ A 5). fail (in Paul). can entertain doubt as to choice of the new editors only in one or two of the three exceptions they have made to their usual rule (4. 10. 16. in 6 by B C. 6. where the Western text unites with the Neutral against Alexandrian or later corruption. 20. ern documents throughout with only three exceptions (4.'^ * That it is a fair sample of the text in Paul's epistles may be gathered from a com- . and it was on this assumption — supported by ^. 5. 23. 28. manifestly to act on such a rule sim- ply to betray the text into the hands of Western error. 7. 19. the accepted text rests on a rejects the reading supported by the Westpeculiarly sound basis. therefore. — but W. and —W — two of these (7. been sound procedure provided that these uncials were really independent of the Western group. has rightly sided with Tischendorf a fair sample of the against Tregelles in If the Epistle to these passages. that this is the only- thing the rejected groups have in ciple involved. common. The groups thus re- jected include nearly every possible variety of further attestation. . to conclude that all We cannot. all Western documents. 23. short of the union with the Western of the whole Neutral group.

it is 353 pretty evident that in the newly-pubhshed edition we have the best considered and most carefully framed and therefore. 1881. B P 17. Sanday" compares the various editions in 195 selected passages out of Matthew. 47. * TVi^ ^. but never alone times. T. W T. Tr-mg. W [W] W Tr. W Tr-mg. 37.-iv. them Tischendorf accepts them and even McClelland at least 12. 17D<= AB LP 47. indeed. but with followed it pretty closely. B x-^ D F G L P 17. [W] AC B DFG37. It will be well for us to note the MS. W Tr-mg. A N D" L P 17. N D F G L P 17. and Westcott and Hort follow each time. how- our sample were not Ephesians. A glance at show that in only three cases would one have is to alter Westcott and Hort'stext to obtain the text which underlies the present Revised ever. \V [Tr] W Tr-mg. that the company of Revisers for our English New Testament not only had this text in their hands. 4 5 6 7 8 I 2 9 10 II iii. It is. 37. 47. 37. and finds that the Revisers agree with Westcott and Hort in 146 of these. 47B D F G L 37. 17. A N= C* D* F G. I 2 3 2 T. : Weiss No. but never alone. the Revisers agree with Westcott and Hort in 46. the most perfect text which has yet been given to the public. W T. therefore. consequently. editors . I i. A X" C D F G L P. intelligent coincidence of judgment. 17. parison of the following table of the passages in which the three great editions differ in the course of 1 Cor. Tregclles 13. but the Gospel of Matthew. 6. Passage. but seem to have not. Tr-mg. attestation of these readings. W Tr. W Tr. 9 ID 15 12 13 14 15 16 iv. 13 14 17 17 W W [Tr-mg] W T. that if New Testament (3. 23 . So also the readings supported by B plus some other one MS. Dr.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. i. 37B D F G L 37. Rejected by Evidence for rejected reading. 4 14 28 ii. etc. D* FG. ^ stand alone in 26 cases. Again Westcott and Hort in company with a larger or smaller combination of editors. 47. It is right to mention. and disagree with them in 49 disputed cases. in about 100 of which there is practical agreement among the editors. also. a matter of deep gratulation. mechanically. — — — — just how list closely in this epistle the given above will somewhat remarkable. (not ^) amount to some 14 in this list. among 25. wS'^ etc. 47A N F G L 47.r/<?j:Vi.r for October. 47. 47A N C D F G L P 17. A N" C D F G L P. 37. In other words. 15). B and 2T. A N* P. this resemblance (unfortunately) would not be quite so striking.

They have the support of either Lachmann. and in because they cannot evidence. and McClelland Tischendorf accepts 7 of them. or of two or of all of them. etc. * Page 471. The passages from Matthew were mere accident that B is always followed in them.' " against common In 27 (out of 38) of these cases Westcott and Hort print the reading in their text. Weiss Singular readings of B amount to some 7. Lachmann once and Tregelles twice) in two cases they have the support of two (Tregelles and Weiss. and A very clear testimony. 6 followed again each time by Westcott and Hort. by another test. Tregelles 9. This will appear in a still stronger light if we will try their selected. or Tischendorf. given by Dr. . Scrivener.' or * feeble ' ) gloss. and again always with the consent of some other editor. and Weiss) that the and in one case of the majority. although in three of it is these (only one of them. however. in 14 out of the 27 cases. These these facts are consistent with no other supposition than this editors follow the reading which the best MSS. Tregelles.. in the Gospels) B 5^. e. with more or another by less support (in one case by B^ C L U T. in which they accept the monstra. and in three with the suspicion of its being a primitive read by In eleven cases they reject the reading. or at least by B. and McClelland . error.' ' intolerable.* and constantly condemned by him with such epithets as "transparent ' (or frigid. work it is noboth of the consistency with which the new editors follow the documentary attestation as interpreted by genealogical evidence and internal evidence of groups. but only because they follow when it is more consistently than any previous editor not undoubtedly in conflict with internal evidence.. although in three cases witk only one {i. in : they are "worshippers " of tested external evidence B or of B 5^. and in two by B D. From this it is evident new editors have not been absolutely singular in their devo- tion to their favorite documents. and only in one by B alone. and also of the readiness v/ith which internal evidence is heard and permitted to overweigh all external tion. may be gained by trying the new text by the list of monstra supported by B ^.354 accept them 9. although in five of them between sense. every case bring themselves to agree with the subjective school as to the true force and bearing of the internal Clearly. whereby it is again shown that their judgment is not so peculiar in such cases as we are sometimes invited to suspect. all ." brackets. they would reject the 27 accepted monstra as . THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. . not because B ^ D H — this last obelized). commend. and in five by B plus secondary authorities.

All this is not strange practice must ever : lag behind principle. . to express our conviction of its cannot doubt but that the leading principles of method which they have laid down will meet with speedy universal acceptance. and to a text wholly on evidence. through the and. the tendency of their example — is to oppose the intru- sion of arbitrary readings from whatever source they come. they do not stand ready to reject the guidance of all three forms of testimony. they reduce guesswork reconstruction to it the narrowest limits. the truth has been touched. Nor can we hesitate to say that the text which the is. will a sound inductive pro- The individuals who will feel called upon to oppose them pass quietly away and leave no successors.THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT." make — and make up solely. readily as they have the ii rejected ones. But now. we feel bound. And it is to be hoped that scholars will quickly recognize the lines of investigation which promise well for the advancement of the science. their practice gives us distinctly to understand that while they stand ready to set aside any external testimony on the clear demand of combined paradiplomatic and internal evidence. pretends to be " no more than an ap- proximation to the purest text that might be formed from existing materials". must be recognized as the It best basis for further work. or to corruption by readThe effort they ings whose only support is that they " find us. and many readings now admitted which rank in probability in present light only a very slight shade above rejected readings given in the margin. and subject the text to guess-work reconstruction. and substitute for cedure. in closing. much certainly " remains to be done for the perfection of the results now obtained ". They furnish us for the first time with great value very clearly. In other words. After having given thus a calm review of the work of the new editors. We a really scientific method . Until that could be proved done they rightly judge that the best attested reading must stand. throw themselves with energy into the closer study of the relations between the documents which we already possess. the future cases the present clearly must (in some few may) re-examine and attempt to point out more the true place for. the best and purest that has ever passed press. for the future. or which may from time to time be dragged out of hiding and given to the public. if 355 only is it to them that they were monstra. in our new editors have given us judgment. and not one variety of evidence but with a wise and consistent regard to all the sources from which testimony comes to us. at last. and abstracting themselves from all else.

And. If. how much more is this true of the best edition yet framed ? Let us all join heartily in the prayer with which Dr. and it I. Westcott may " have been allowed to contribute toward the attainment of the truth of the letter. in the womb of the future. Hort closes the Introduction " that v^hatever labor " he and Dr. to contribute toward strengthening. the true text is competently (for the ordinary purposes of life and teaching) exact in the worst copy extant. correcting. Warfield. and that probably all future criticism will not result in throwing doubt on more than one word of it in a thousand. in the meanwhile. and extending human apprehension for his : of the larger truth of the Spirit." Benjamin B. in ways which must for the most part be invisible to them.358 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. the teacher and preacher alike may rest upon and use the text already in hand with the calm consciousness that substantially the autographic text is before him. he whom was destined first for. .Bentley says. and although he — the consummate can say until critic — is still hidden. *' who Even still Man clomb I." it the praise due to those who have made possible to look coming out of the immediate future is by no means small. may also be allowed. as. am he touched the truth.

. PRINTED (not published) BY THE JUNIOR CLASS OF 1881-2. Foster. PITTSBURGH: From the Press of Stevenson & 1881.Professor Warfield's SYLLABUS ON THE Canon of the New IN Testament THE SECOND CENTURY. 151 Wood Street.


for the reading of the seeing eye. false compacts of parties. called the " Taebingen ScJiool" from examine somewhat more A the University where its founders taught. therefore. not the sublime vision of the spirit of man. and human hatreds and strifes. and devoutly repeating that Spirit's message. Bitter conten- men." §59. these writers were committed to the denial of a personal God. lying miracles invent- ed for a purpose. and the ence of human imagination and human passion. as well as its re- must be (on hypothesis). and the "Critical ScJiool. — . given by Dr. explicable. conciliating histories framed out of the imagination. Holding to the Pantheistic Philosophy of Hegel.Syllabus of Lectures ON TIIK NEW TESTAMENT CANON On the lines of tlie evidence for the Canon in the second century. forced it by the necessities of its position. — but rather the ordinary spectacle of the interplay of human tions of follies. has made its business to undermine the re- ceived account of the struct their first and second centuries. the chief battle with the so-called critical school of scepticism is being fought out. and of all divine interposition. and this period it therefore becomes nec- essary to in detail. Alexander in his " New Testament Literature. The New Testament thus becomes a human groivth instead of a divine gift. cords. and reconwhole history in accord with its own theories. without the supposition of any other causes than purely human ones —the influ- interaction of the prevalent ideas of the time. these are the elements of which it is composed. the natural growth of time . it mirrors in its bosom.^^ from its method of procedure. this necessarily carried with it the rejection of Revelation. certain school of writers. the rise of Stoicism or Platonism both alike perfectly natural phenomena. subject to the infinite Spirit of God. as is explicable. Christianity this itself.

2d and 3d John. The writing itself was declared of the period. credit all the records they have gone systematically to work to diswhich have come down to us from that century. crude theorizing. but and sally over the church. gers. or referred is hypothetical books. the references in to it to our New TesThe tament were denied. We may If take as our starting point the closing quarter of the sef^ond century. heralded about us as assured and proven trutli. or Disput- ed Books* — a sufficient account of New Testament which you will find in Dr. *That is. we know spurious or interpolated result . In it are traced the beginconcilia- ning and progress of the tion. 2d Peter. we will see the importance of attempting to gain some accurate idea of the real state of the question. Alexander's it James.. had to be dealt with.. fierce party leaders. he included under . should be forced by their very exigencies In order to get it jirodud of time . could not have sprung up suddenly it implies a long period of growth nay. and Jnde. §§59-67. and deliberate falsification of history. New Testament Literature. What was the state of the Canon then ? we except. (see Dr. and the subsequent making. the seven Antilegomena. — it is a notorious fact that the last quarter of the second century knew and acknowledged the same books which we acknowledge.And its authors were silly recounters of marvels. and unscrupulous Now. and time must be had for its It was thus inevitable that this school of writers to demand the most of the second century for the composition of the Biblical books. for which this school is responsible. that such a literature as the New Testament is here supposed to be. it itself marks : — the various stages of a long growth. The name comes from ^55). Alexander's Literature. although Eusebius. and Univerpaid them the same reverence which we pay them. forthe present. shameless forconciliators. (the authenticity of which it pleased them to deny). It is the strife. four Gospels. a complete reconstruction of the history of the second century. Section I. and overturn all Every writing of the earlier part of the second century which witnessed to the prior existence of any of the books now constituting our Canon. (confessedly four. it is evident. of^ course. Rev. Heb. When we remember ular of all that this is forms of sceptical criticism now probably the most popand when we hear the . or. only the last five of these books.

did. which it seems he has nowhere in his extant books quoted or alluded to. Here we cite Clement of Alexandria. the book of whose great work [Stromateis) was written A. exactly our Canon with no additions. because it imand includes more than is always recognized. and Philemon. and he certainly held as canonical all he kncAV. therefore. all are quoted in the works we have from him. and with the same — — authority as now. and with at most but seven exceptious all of which can be satisfactorily accounted for was. that in his " Hypotyposes. of shall briefly give plies We all schools and all parties. the Epistle and the remaining Catholic Epistles as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the so-called Revelation of Peter. Thus he quotes with respect the Epistles of Clement of Rome. than of excluding any. and that implies at least one other Johannean Epistle and Eusebies has told us. 2d Peter. on the side of admitting too many. had been established there since the earliest times. under that name. and the Shepherd of Hermas besides quoting several — . and of Barnabas. — the Acts of the Apostles. Taking the testimony of the great branches of the church we appeal first to the church of Alexandria. these books. In other words. 194 or 195. Except James. "The Apostle"). the like testimony. however. All the books of our New Testament were known and used by him. at this period. however. admitted by Section II. 2d and 3d John. which was already assuming the first rank in point of importance of A famous Christian school all centers of Christian learning. being with reference to 2d Peter and 3d John). already firmly established. is The universal acceptance. testimony of this church becomes thus the testimony of learned first and critical men. (naming each writer of course in the broader sense. in the same sense.the same as ours). and the in turn. he gave " concise explanations of all the canonical Scrip- tures. that very small — of — doubt. universally. all our books. . without omitting the disputed books — I mean . Origen. as his younger contemporary. one of John and one of Peter-were accepted and accounted as inspired and no book now accounted apocryphal received . He quotes 1st John. D." Clement certainly knew. (the only possibility and of Jude." now lost. . in fact. thirteen Epistles of Paul. some of the evi^lence. He was more inclined to err.

tion. to all of — our of the Antilegomena. the Acts. then. and were accepted by him as of decisive authority. Origen follows him with a like Canon. he had wandered far. and. an Assyrian. and Clement boldly appeals to the testimony of those who had gone before him. and studied under various masters an Ionian Greek. ap. an Italian. a Syrian. he tells us. and a Hebrew. in doubt. 2d and 3d John. however. James. the Prophets. Section III. as he expressly limits the authoritative gospels to our four. that is. which he quotes.all the were "all ratified Apostles and Gospels in the church by the authority of — : — ." he writes on one occasion. and of the and declares that they Almighty power. — peals to the harmony of the Law and . thirteen Epistles of Paul. Tertidlian flourished in the Church of North Africa. his allusions are explicit and precise. 1st John. viz: . that all of our books were known to Clement. direct from the Apostles.6 apocryphal books. To the books to which he witnesses. Contemporary with Clement. It was tlie traditional opinion. however. then. "by investigations Revelation. His position with reference to Hebrews is. 2d Peter. The fact remains. His testimony extends to the foui* Gospels. He even witnesses to their collection in a definite form (or "Canon"). is not to a single man's private opinion it was traditional in the Alexandrian Church. but represents the judgment of the Alexandrian Church. For. as Clement himself tells us. of the Alexandrian Church and of more than the Alexandrian Church. world agreed with it. he certainly did not. and he accords them all authority as Divine. Nor is his testimony to scattered books. had all been among his and these. all " preserved the true traditeachers Clemtion of the blessed teaching. that he accorded the same respect to any of these which he did to the canonical books and in the case of the apocryphal gospels. and he bears equal witness to the Canon. Jude and New Testament. an Egyptian. therefore. 1st Peter." " If I shall not clear up this point. except four Hebrews. It stretches over the preceding generaand comes from the whole church." Now notice that this is not merely a personal judgment of Clement's. under the current title of those days— "The Gospel and the Apostle". There is nothing to show. but even more plainly than Clement's to a collected " canon." ent's testimony. — .

" He assumes as the foundation of his reasoning. and the same God He condemns Marcion who were more usual the assertion that there were diffex'ent Gods thors. etc. " each of the auto say. He is appealing to well known and universally acknowledged facts. and not only among the Apostolic churches but among the whole of those which are united with them in sacred fellowship. I will take the proof of our interpretation from the New Testament. the accepted opinion —nay. Thessalonica." stand. that older. or. : ." To such a tradition he appeals not only for Luke but also for the canon " The same authority. His testimony is the testimony of his growth . but the universal church from their first publication had held. Philippi. notice. then. then. " will uphold the other Gospels.. has been maintained since its first publication. he continues: "I say. for the New Testament). is that not only he in his day held. he is not expressing in this only his own opinions he can count on the agreement of his readers even on the unwilling conviction of his heretical opponents. Galatia. Tertullian's testimony. — — — : — . the firm conis it viction of the whole African Church. "I notice." he says. he gives us to underof both. of late Nor a conviction he also confidently appeals to antiquity and is conscious that he is upheld by immemorial tradition. in the Apostles" (the same phrase. as it is Testament.1 of the old scriptures. " times he says he will appeal to proofs drawn from each Tesfor God was the author of both." naming them as Matthew. which is from the beginning. the books of his canon as Apostolic and divinely authoritative sacred books." and after appealing to the various churches of Corinth. that from the beginning which is from the Apostles it will certainly be equally admitted that that is derived from the Apostles which is inviolate in the churches of the Apostles . and so can afford to base his arguments on these assumptions. therefore. Mark and John. that Gospel of Luke to w^hich we so strongly hold. — He speaks." &c." he expressly says. that among these. * * For lo. one Instrument. Ephesus and Rome. both in the Gospels and which we found CleSeveral ment using tament." Again. that this " Evangelical Instrument rests on Apostolic authority. When arguing for the complete Gospel of Luke against Mar" In fine. " if it be admitted that cion's mutilations that is truer. which is older.

the next witness of Asia whom we shall summon. At 190. Jude. and containing a collection of books identical with Tertullian's canon. after the death of Pothinus in 177. for the North African just is valid. Tertullian's literary activity began not later than 190. bearing that name. Minor and of Gaul. Iren^us. the Epistles of Paul (he has not quoted Philemon. Acts. certainly not less than a quarter of a century old." consisted of five books. therefore. His literary activity. which indeed he would have liked to change into " Instruments. com- bines in himself the testimony of two great churches. bishop of the church at Lyons. sat at the feet of Polycarp. He writes in Latin and quotes from a Latin Bible. and possibly James.. presbyter and then. to which last there are doubtful allusions. bearing those names. —those —but two churches so closely con- nected with one another that they should be considered prob- brought up in Asia where he John. His allusions to the Scriptures are in fact constant over 200 quotations are made from Paul alone and ably as one. His great work entitled " Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge. was old. therefore. probably much older. the disciple of . therefore. 1 and 2 Peter.) 1 and 2 John." Now. this Latin N. From his writings we learn that this version had already a firmly established hold on the North African Church as tjie recognized version. Tertullian's testimony terms. Hebrews and Revelation omitting. he became first. but received as a legacy from the preceding generation as the inspired word of God. 3 John. Born and . At a and reasonable estimate much farther. — : . in Church as far back as 105. the third of which we know to have been written before 190 and the first of which was probably written about 175. falsely so-called. At the learn that it consisted of an Old — — — lowest estimate. And there is another aspect of Tertullian's testimony to which it is worth while to advert. Section IV. extended over the whole of the fourth quarter of the second century. . His testimony covers the four Gospels. It had been long enough in circulation to form the theological nomenclature of the countr3^ From Tertullian's references to it we and New Testament. T. therefore. given through the Apostles. and of the whole church to books not newly written.

" {Lightfoof. the types of the Old Testament of the greatest seemed his to him to necessitate it. To feel this fully keep firmly in your mind that the canon was a palpable fact to Irenteus a collection of books received from the Fathers. and are dealt with throughout as the word of God and the depositories of absolute truth. In his view. of which about 80 are from John. he made his final appeal to it. He feels. it itself would authenticate our canon. a declaration of the New Testament should stop every mouth and . indeed. attributing them to the authors whose names they bear. he received these books from his predecessors and on their authority regards them as authoritative writings handed down from the Apostles. and cites them as Scripture in the same way. but it seems to him that they could not in the very nature of the case have been more or less in number. that he would be an innovator if he should deny their authority. and reverenced as the Word of God." he says. "So firm is the grounding of our Gospels. rather. that — for their fourfold character. as the divine Scriptures. And again. he bears witness to others' knowledge of them. " that even the heretics bear witness to them. Mystical reasons are assigned the strength and bearing of his testimony. The teaching itself best to of his predecessors him. that had w^e the testimony of Irenteus alone. the church of the nineteenth century has no more fully accepted the Scriptures than commends own words) 2 .) And he not only knows them well himself." Such is his testimon}- valid for the preceding age. has introduced no novelty into the church by his use of Scripture as authoritative. and each one must endeavor to prove his doctrine by taking his start from them. He uses them in such a manner as to show that the New Testament books were to him just what they are to us.some 400 from the Gospels. but like Clement and Tertullian. by C[uietly and as a matter of course assuming in his readers a full acquaintance with them and estimation of them as divine. because (in "it was in all things harmonious with the Scriptures. and only them. Not only does he receive our four Gospels. " He treats them as on a level with the canonical books of the Old Testament. like those other writers is whom Ave have named. and I think the assertion true. He it has been said by a great critic. they are treated with the same respect with which we treat them." In short.

thus again making the connection with the Apostolic age. possessed New Testament.) " The sacred Scrip- since they were uttered by the Word fact that God and . — — and the Apostles. and believed as firmly that the}'^ were apostolic and authoritative. then. Section V." Clearly it is an indubitable as God's w'ord from his birth clearly. martyred in 155 at the the age of 86. was the pupil of St. and the grounds of his acceptance are the same as those on which we accept them. held them in the same honor as himself. Through both channels. which own Syriac translation of the certainly contained all of our books . Now. that men had begun to think that its quadruple form was not only the natural but the necessary form for it to take. and through others also Irenseus' testimony takes us quite back to the Apostolic period. was Pothinus. more than that. can be found during his lifetime or the lifetime of his immediate predecessors and teachers. Already had the quadruple Gospel been for so long the possession of the church to the exclusion of all others. If to the more evidence from this period be desired. therefore. and. his life lapping with St. could the New spoken of. no time when they were not received as the writings of the apostles. Again. It is admitted on all sides that his testimony is unassailable this is its bearing: it covers the whole period between himself Irena?us had been familiar with these — — — — — . and whose Presbyter he was. — (as Irenauis does. John. who was above 90 at his martyrdom in 177. Now. those from whom he received them. probably their much earlier. his Spirit. Irenseus' teacher was Polj'^carp. who. we would refer Church of Syria which certainly by this time. as he himself insists. that they as the divine came to him fully authenticated. notice the vast importance came bishop in 177. Clearly no place for their composition. at that earl}' date was it a possession received from the Fathers as the authoritative Word of God. Already it was a commonplace to write tures truly are perfect of . word from the Apostles. John's life 30 years. the Bishop whom Irenseus succeeded in Lyons. Irena^us be- date. At that early Testament be so of this fact.10 Irenfeus had in the second century. in a historical way.

Clement. they are its *The Peshito version these books . p. and from it we see that the Churches of Egypt. They accept these books just as in holding them in such honor. That the books had been. everywhere it holds to them.* and probably at this date these also. and taught them. as a heritage from the preceding age. Tertullian. Irena3us. prior to this period. (See Hilgenfeld's Introduction. churches held time previously 5 antilegomena all the books of and had held for some our New Testament as can- onical.) . It shows us what books were accepted in Syria as canonical at this time. in is present form and from the time of Chrysostom omits its but there reason to believe that in etc. it is of even more importance as testimony to the Canon than the witness of a single Father could be. and everywhere the men of this generation witness that their teachers of the last gener- ation held these scriptures in them to so reverence . are at one in their witness to at least all the acknowdedged (homologoumena) books of onr canon.11 except 2 and 3 John. 2 Peter. Asia Minor. all appeal to the general church and to the firm tradition of the Fathers in support of their use of them. and bears the same retrospective testimony for the preceding generation. with the possible but not probable exception of the named above. And not only does the church of this period everywhere hold to them. Gaul and North Africa. their fathers did the same honor. . We thus learn from this version that the Syrian in the last quarter of the second centur}^. In a word. earlier form it contained them. Jnde and Revelation. Section VI. shows the estimation in which they were held and as this testimony has a church instead of an individual significance. Syria. everywhere the scriptures are — known and received as divine. and are known only to be •received as apostolic in origin and final in authority.. The significance of this fact is for Syria. Here we may profitably pause to sum up results: More testimony could be furnished but what we have before us will be sufficient for our purposes. These books are known wherever there is a church. collected and translated. We have before us the testimony of the last quarter of the second century. altogether similar to the significance of the old Latin version for North Africa. 111.

and very much must be had time for the acquirement of such authority. or the text of the old copies of the Syriac versioji which was used by the Syriac writers of the . For the teachers of the men who flourished during the last quarter of the second century. Whether we examine the quotations from the ent) or the quotations original Greek in the Greek authors of the time (such as Irenteus and Clemfound from the Latin version in the Latin authors of the time. Time also for their spread in maiuiscript remember. makes very little difference to the argument. this testimony takes Now us back the Apostolic period. — over the whole world. self significant. therefore itself puts their composition back into the first century. were contemporary with the contemporaries of the Apostles. And takable still again: of the age. The fact that the tion of their knowledge of these books and the recognisupreme authority was already universal in the is it church. but they show in themselves the traces of old age. Considerations supporting this conclusion are not wanting. . or translated each as a divine book. On the hypothesis that they were human pro- ductions. then. comes with John's sanction. they must have received them as such from Nay. its forms. And if they thus held the books as an inherited apostolic and divine collection. time must be had for the collection of the books.12 only imitating the practice of those selves who were to old when themand were young. — The fact of this wide-spread accept- ance of them at tliis date. books themselves bear the unmisold marks Not only are they used as books. To these Latin and Syriac versions should also be added a third the Egyptian in at least one of Whether the books were collected and afterwards. itself authenticates our canon. In either case time is wanted and the books could not have been first composed in the second : — century. what he naeus' teachers where themselves taught of John handed down. and afterwards collected into a volume of divine books. This result is very much strengthened again by the fact that already at least two versions of these collected scriptures had been made and were in common and authorized use in two branches of the church. at least as early as the generation preceding 175. translated. we have seen that Irethese apostolically taught men.

— character of the cor- For. ruptions. The version was ancient to . and comparatively speaking. at least. very corrupt. on any reasonable estimation o^ the time for the growth of such various readings. but from an already formed collection. a fertile source of corrupr was an etfort (conscious or more commonly unconscious) harmonize the statements of the different gospels. which in turn shows that great interests were staked on their absolute and detailed truth. Various errors have crept in. This shows long familiarity with them as a body. Before this could have unconsciously happened one gospel must have been so well known that its phraseology had engrafted itself into the memory of the scribe so that in copying the parallel tion to . this implies Now before the version was made. This position farther strengthened by the the character of some of the most ]\Iore tlian this. but were rather copies of copies siderable scries and so on to a con- already had a considerable genealog}^ The books which had such a history time. — • attempted corrections of scribes. in parallel passages. were not taken immediately from the autographs of the authors. important corruptions proves that the gospels. mistakes of copyists. Conscious harmonic alterations presuppose no less a knowledge of all four. The text has ah-eady grown corrupt.13 time. could not — the}' have been written again is still first in the second century. in another the phraseology of the first tended to creep in una- wares between the catching of the sentence in the original and its writing down in the copy. We thus know that the Greek manuscripts from which. Tertullian in 190. From both phenomena it follows that the gospels must have existed for a long period as co-ordinately authoritative before even the Old Latin version was made and this again seems to carry their composition back out of the second century. we find certain signs of old age in the text. say the old Latin version which Tertullian used and which could not have been made later than 150. was made. such errors in fact as can be accounted for only on the supposition that the books had been much copied. were translated not from separate books. . and a desire to have them not even seemingly contradict one another. the originals of the New Testament books were ancient to the version.

1^ Section VIL evidence whatever. on the contrary'. therefore. that Irenfcus' testimony dy to his individual opinion and has no retrospective meaning. in the face of his constant appeals to antiquity. this testimony itself would force back the com- — position of our books into the apostolic period. is 01 last twent^'-five The dispute is only The sceptics say. and that. in supposing that the waiters of this age could speak as we have seen them si)eaking of books written during their lifetime and foisted on the church within their own memory. tion — shall the highest possible or the lowest possible interpretation w^hich the words will bear be put on the allusions to the canon which we est shall find ? possible shall be put Our opponents demand that the loioon them and apologists have too often . this testimony alone would suffice to absolutely forbid the assignment of a late origin to the books of our canon. We wish to examine the testimony of the first seventy-five years of the century in the light of the evidence for the last twenty-five. as we Starting from this retrospective importance. These fathers may liave been uncritical. selves to establish our conclusions — even when the lowest pos- . starting point This is the which we wished to gain for our examination of the evidence for the canon during the disputed threefourths of a century immediately preceding this. but this would require them to have been abject have seen. we wish now examine the testimony of the first sevent3'-five years of the second century. tion. such a practice may be justifiable for there exists sufficient proof for our canon in these seventy -five years taken by them. In direct contentions with gainsaj^ers. is one oiinterpretation of evidence. — The greatest fallacy of their reasoning lies just here. A'ast Their witness. Section VIII. and covers in fact. conceded the point in their practice. back of what we could gain from the testimony of the fourth quarter of the Had wo no second century. This is the great vice of the Historic method. preceeding age. In proceeding to this examination. has a fact the to idiots. for as to the bearing of this estima- instance. Let it be remembered that there is no dispute about the esti- mation in which the canon was held in these years. the first important queswhich j3resents itself.

ple. do no less than ascribe the fullest meaning the phraseology canon wdiich we may should in each case strive to avoid immoderate moderation. rather than ultra-moderation in our interpretation of the evidence. Smyrna. and Iremeus received that gospel as a And so throughout. In the search for legacy from his teachers. therefore. we cannot hope to arrive at truth. and seek to obtain the exact truth in the light of all we know of the period no more. about 150. fails to a writer in Asia Minor. therefore. that the New Testament w^as not presented as a completed Avhole to the church. we can.15 serves good purposes in And. seek exact truth. certainly. it argument to assume our opponents' But when our busprinciples. the testimony of the period of Irenteus. Part of the evidence is the retrospective evidence of the next twenty-five years and if we omit this factor in our interpretation. . and just as certainly no less. no less than immoderate exaggeration in our estimation of evidence. first of all. Too great moderation gives as false an idea of the period as too great exaggeration what we want is the truth about the position of the canon in the first seventy-five years of the second century. Because a . and not merely the silencing of opposition. and we falsify the history of the previous three-quarters of the century. : truth. If John's gospel was not known in Asia Minor of at that time for Irena'us sat at the feet of Polycarp. to the scattered notices of the find in previous ages. We — . and land ourselves in absurdities. and then beat them from the field. in the light of what we have already learned from. The weight of every allusion must. in the light of the evidence of the succeeding twen- ty-five years of the century. temporaries. iness is the discovery of the exact truth. several years previous to 155. omit to take account of the retrospective testimony of the last quarter. If we sible interpretation is put on each allusion. we shall interpret the facts of the first seventy- five years. be judged of in the light of the testimony of Irenseusand his conwill bear. The next point is of importance for v\s to keep in mind the character of the testimony ivhich we are to expect during this period. Its canon was a gradual growth. for exammention St John's gospel. And here we must remember. Section IX. we can not conclude St. therefore. such a practice is manifestly misleading.

and the work of time.16 known to be inspired. even at the same time. What we shall find more than this. a priori. indeed. We are to assume only just so much as the whole evidence in each case justifies. are not. and witness . We simple collection of books much more . to particular churches. as early as John's death but it may possibly have been somewhat later before the smaller books of the Antilegomena reached the like universal acceptance. when composed. Had we the whole literature of the time. the one thing we could ask would be that we should find proofs of the existence and authority of all the books from the ea:rliest times. whole literature. Had we the whole of tlie early Christian literature complete in our hands. We can. Its books were composed one by one and given each. This collection was the work of uninspired man. they^ had to be collected before they formed a canon. but as pos- an authority above that of merely human productions. as books. The more important books. plete when all the books were collected. but only the merest fragments of it. each book by itself. such would be the character of the testimony which we could justly exBut it is important to notice next that we have not this pect. This collection may have reached different stages of completeness. We could not demand that every early writer should witness to every book every modern writer does not do that. but seek evidence. . in different churches and we are not to assume too rashl}^ that a writer has all the books because he witnesses to some. to collec- tions of books of various degrees of completeness —but these books must be witnessed sessing to. Nor could we expect to find the limits of the canon tightly drawn from the very beginning. we sa}^. but still it was a growth. not only as existing. it was a verygrowth rapid than our opponents imagine. then. only witness to books — not to the canon in our sense . Omit- . and scattered them in the giving. in other words. Section X. were early in the hands of the whole church as we shall see. must be understood to be in excess of what could have been reasonably expected. to the church the majority of them were addressed. and given to them they had to find their way over the world. to prejudge the question. — — . The Apostles gave no canon they gave only The canon was combooks. — . expect in the early witnesses.

Christian to controversial writing of Christian. one octavo volume could very readily be made to contain the whole of the extant remains from the first seventy-five years of this century. Section XL Nor is it less important in this same line of reasoning to If their scant consider the character of these extant fragments of early Christian literature. and it is significant that appearance the position of our canon becomes indisputable. But it indisputably does detract from the fulness of reference. therefore. if properly appreciated. We cannot. We shall find that we gain sure witness from this period for every one of our books a most surprising result.17 ting the Clementina and the writings of Justin. — fulness. either to books or to collections of books as otherwise w^e would be find justified It would not have been yet that surprising in fact had we in such scanty fragments failed to any proof . of the existence of books which period possessed and certainly the scantiness of the sources of information should thoroughly excuse scantiness of evidence. as much as it detracts from its . one which was not at all to be expected.) "a vision" and "a scanty gleaning of fragments of lost works on various subjects. expect such full testimony in looking for. and considering the fragmentary character of the remains which have — reached us." constitute almost all the literature we have for the whole period. us to expect from and fragmentary nature forbids them copious evidence for our Scriptures. Allusions to the New Testament in them are purely incidental which fact adds to the force of the evidence. "A few letters of consolation and warning. come down to us. In no case has a in much more therefore does their internal character. which we might expect frequent appeals to the Scriptures. The first of these which we have belong to the fourth quarter of the century. In all cases the earlier writings which are extant are of such a nature that any reference to our Scriptures in them must be purely incidental. tw^o or three apologies addressed to heathen " (and in which appeals to Scripture would be manifestly first from their out of place) " a controversy with a Jew. on acalso the following results: count of the nature of these writings we are to look for''allu- We must note — ." (wherein the Old Testament alone could be appealed to.

and that means freely. The quotations from the Old Testament in the books whose New Testament quotations we are to deal with and 3d. The quotations of the Old Testament in the New 2d. and act- thing to unroll a cumbrous — : manuscript "sparingly indulged in. however. therefore. in the mass of similar . And secondly. and again it was quite a different roll and search out a passage to which there were no divisions of chapter and verse to lead one no. nor divisions of words in the line to catch the eye from what it is to refer to our handy reference BiIt was quite an undertaking to turn up a passage bles. and see how exactly or freely they quote. This being the case. Scripture rather . Now. The quotations from the New Testament in the writers of the age of Irenaus. a If we know that they are in the habit of quoting very less close coincidence will warrant us in assuming a connection between the books than would otherwise be demanded. to examine the practice of writers of that age in regard to passages admitted to be quotations. . than by searching More express testifor direct statements in regard to them. Manuscripts were costly and not every man possessed one.18 than " quotations. For this purpose we may depend on 1st. sions " to — Section XII. . thinking and language. question is. In each case we will find that they deal with the original in a very ual reference to the The surest way to settle the : . the ph3^sical diffi: much culties in the way of referring to the text in those early days were almost insuperable. memory was much depended on. And this for two reasons Men now-a-days quote the Scriptures mostly from memory and very freely. if found. and." we are to search for coincidences with their words and thoughts. mony than this is hardly to be expected and. it is essential for us to inquire how words with our Scriptures is requisite before we can assume they were taken from them ? The quesDo the early writers quote exactly or tion amounts to this close a coincidence of : freely? freely. is so much more than we have a right to ask. rather than professed citations we are to discover in what lionor these writers held them rather by the effect they have had on their characters. a priori we would expect them to quote from memory.looking solid columns. .

t from any Old Testament passage. . The same results will be reached in each of the other classes. of Rome. agreeing with the original source. quotations. has given us eighteen exact ((notations of the New Testament twelve slightly variant ones and sixteen Taking Epiphanius and confining strikingly variant ones. gives us sixteen exact quotations from the Old Testament. therefore. twenty-four slightly variant and forty-one strikingly so. for example. 53 agree literally with both LXX and Plebrew 10 with the Hebrew against the free . 76 differ from LXX and Hebrew where they two agree 99 differ from both where they differ and 3 are so diverger. there are 175 free quotations (some of them very free). . Thus. etc. . we learn that Irenreus. That Justin quotes from memory is the more apparent also that when he repeats a quotation he in the great majority of cases repeats it with variations from this first citation. He can so blend passages from Daniel and Isaiah as to make one Barnabas again give us sixteen exact quotaof them. ourselves to express quotations.19 manner. and 37 with the LXX against the Hebrew. from Mr. we find that there are in all 275 of them. following Mr.. Sanclay's lists we find that Clement. are not picked examples indeed a sufiiceiently strong sense of the freedom with which these writers deal with their text cannot be conveyed without giving examples. If we turn now to the next age when i^nen admit that the New Testament was quoted. od. Thus it Justin. to the one hundred exact ones. —just 100. two slightly variant and one decidedly so. tions from the Old Testament twenty-two slightl}' variant : forty-eight strikingly so. and one deciedly so. . In other words. That an exact' quotation when found will carry great weight with it it will : and . thirty-seven somewhat variant and forty-seven strikingly so. that originals for them are difficult to find. Ignatius gives us no exact ones. one slightly variant. Of these. And Polycarp gives us two exact. LXX . 2d. gives us sixty-two exact is throughout. Again. Thus. etc. we learn that he has exactly quoted the New Testament fifteen times. But what we have said will suffice to prove that we must look in these writers for free reminiscences and not exact (quotations from the New Testament from which follows 1. inexactly thirty-nine Th^se times. and strikingly inexactly some fifty times. Turpie's classification of the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. : . who ranks high as a careful quoter.

and it wall serve good ends to glance at the writings themselves before appealclassed together : — imr to them as witnesses. and about cover the period from the Apostolic age to the year 120. it is not to be demanded that they should be absolutely exact that the writings are so few and fragmentary that we cannot expect very copious evidence that we are to look for evidence to books and to collections of books rather than necessaril}^ to our canon in its en. belong also the anonymous epistle to Diognetus and the remarkable work called " The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs. . and that we are to estimate the evidence in the light of all the testimony before us. Barnabas. The earliest series of post-Apostolic Christian writers are under the title of Apostolic Fathers. tirety .* *Strictly speaking Papias and possibly Hernias are Apostolic Fathers later . cjuarter of the century. See Uo8& 53 below. bnt Papias' work was published than 120. force us to revise his account. 3. Later investigation?. This group of writers are for a different purpose treated of b}'' Dr. . According to the usual account the Apostolic Fathers are four Clement of Rome. . then. however. Several free reminiscences will be as valid proof as a direct cjuotation. and the date of Hernias' is in doubt. that the nature of the writings is such that we are to expect only incidental references to scriptures that the quotations being made from memory. Ignatius and Polycarp. we may proceed to our examination of the writers themselves. To their age." We will treat the true Apostolic Fathers first. — including that full and suffi- cient evidence drawn from the fourth Section XIV. must judge the references in the light and make up our minds only after careful comparison remembering all the time that our writer's habit is to quote from memor}^ Section XII. of all the evidence .20 absolutely prove the writer took from our New Testament. however. Alexander in §§ 128-130. We are to remember. . We Bearing these results in mind. 2. That a free reminiscence will render this probable and if it preserves striking and unusual phraseology it will make it certain.

Other indications point to the same conclusion. but its date has been variously assigned from 67 to 97. there is no reason to doubt the uniform tradition coming from the best writers of the second century. Barnabas was a Jew and a Levite. ters.21 Section XV. Section XVI. and we may assume that the letter was written about 97. seems against this ascription. that it was written by Clement of Rome. though not worth}^ of an Aj)ostle. With the genuine letter alone we have now to do. Under the name of Barnabas. and enforcing the duties of humility. we have a general epistle which is ascribed by Clement of Alexandria and Jerome to the companion of St. and its Christian infinitely above any heathen writing of its time spirit higli. As to the character of the letter itself. — — . . -the first of which is indul)itably genuine. incidentally refers to Paul ries . or that under Domitian which would date it 97. certainly dates from the first The epistle century . and all the internal notices harmonize with it. repentance and peacefulness. As to its author. Paul bearing that name. The writer naturally and and perhaps Peter as contempora- and he speaks of a recent persecution in the Roman Church which must have been either that under Nero which would date the letter 68. the companion of Paul. condemning envy. It was addressed to the Cor- — inthian Church in the consulting the name of the Church of Rome. but the external proof is decisive. On the whole it is just such a letter as we might expect to come from Clement. Under the name of Clement of Rome are usually published two letters. Its moral teaching is pure. From the way in wnich he speaks of the elders. The internal character of the letter. dwelling long in Jerusalem. and was written in answer to a communication received from Corinth. Roman ('hurch in regard to certain disturb- ances which had risen in the Corinthian Church. the last date seems most probable. however. The letter makes no direct claim to such an authorship. the successors of the Apostles. it is worthy of the Christian heart and pen of an It is chiefly occupied with practical matApostolical man. but the second of which is probably a fragment of a homily dating from the third decade of the second century.

These would soon communicate themselves to Alexandria. 70. and therefore no reason resting on this to assign the letter to so late a date as 120-125. (c. should be so interpreted as to show it was written before A. 98. He not only is strongly anti-Judaic in his convictions. . but he also betrays great ignorance of the Jewish ceremonies. of Alexandria. The Epistle itself also demands this early date. The choice is between 79.) It is even claimed by some" (but on grounds which do not seem conclusive) that a passage in c. it still remains certain that the Epistle comes to us from a very early Its acceptance and ascription to Barnabas by Clement time. and to attribute it to an author bearing the name of Barnabas. His Gnosticism and allegorizing interpretations of the Old Testament seem also out of harmon}^ with the idea that he was one with him who won for himself the name of "Son of Consolation." and who so acceptably labored along with Paul. when. seems to force us to place its composition not later than at the verge of the second century. on the other hand. indeed. D. xvi. and whose teachers' recollection stretclied to near its beginning. according to Hegesippus and Hippolytus. Clement's opinion would become thus a not unnatural case of mistaken identit}^. and was certainly not accurately acquainted with the Jewish rites. Judaizing heresies. was probably an Alexandrian gentile Christian. whose personal memory must have extended nearly to the middle of the second century. we would assign it to lOG. holding even that the Jews never possessed the Covenant of God. and the early years of the second The establishment of the connection between the centurv. which had hitherto worked underground in the Jewish Church.22 and hence probably well acqainted with the nies of the temple. but only just in it: and taking into account its strong anti-Judaic tendency. two early Barnabases had become confused in his mind. D. A. sprung up into a rank and open growth. iv. and that all their ceremonial rites were dictated by the Evil Spirit. and to oppose them the Epistle was written. It was certainly written not long after the destruction of the temple. But even if the biblical Barnabas was not its author. There is absolutely no ground for the assertion that the author refers to the rebuilding of the temple by Hadrian. rites and ceremo- The writer of this epistle. everything points to a date in the second centur}^. In our judgment. 79.

Which of the three forms (if any) is genuine ? This subject can not here be discussed with any thoroughness. Irena}us. We come next to the Epistles of Ignatius met by. epistle does and alhonor Section XV II. The letter itself is an argument against . quotes a characteristic passage early in the third century. . shall not err much if we assume the date already indicated. seven and the still briefer Syriac three. shines even more brightly from the contrast. is First. the following truth.28 Epistle and St. and (2) that the Jews never possessed God's covenant. in spite of its allegorizing. tius by name. to the On the whole. it is evident that one or the other of these genuine. is not high its noble Christian morality. a pupil of Polyfrom another. Eusebius moreover fully authenticates them.Judaising. by Keini. known as the longest it- form as confessedly not genuine self to and the question narrows a consideration of the rival claims of the shorter Greek letters. of his martyrdom. Polycarp. With the exception of its teaching as to the divinity of the rites of the Old Testament and the relation of Christianity to them. however. cites two. On the whole. addressed seemingly to no particular community. however. on the other hand. the most troublesome question of early : — — — Perhaps. having the same nucleus. perhaps. we John's Gospel. then. No heathen of the day had reached to such heights. although the author boasts proudly of his gnosis. the popular Christianity of the day. The two points chiefly insisted on are. consisting of seven letters. favors the last date. These letters come to us in three forms one in Greek and Latin. although Ignatius wrote his Epistles on his — way to his death. and Origen. though the work of an uncultured man. A. its doctrinal system is pure and . 106. consisting of fifteen letters. consisting of three letters. testifies that he wrote among them one to himself. (l)that Judaism in its outward form had never been commanded by God. The intellectual character of the letter. but was a misunderstanding by the Jews of words meant spiritually. a shorter one in Greek. and assigns them to Igna- carp. and a still shorter one in Syriac. orthodox. hints is may block out the At the start we may dismiss what . D. : and here we are Church History. all. who wrote so soon after Ignatius that he had not yet heard several.

The abrubtness and the harsh transitions of the Syriac three cerpts. moreover. been shown prisoner is to have quite the opposite bearing. when subjected to close scrutiny. then. such and these are common to them and the Syriac. and trace of the shorter recension in Greek. It seems very highly probahowever. which . and then get entirely lost from the Greekspeaking world. made from the Greek. we count the high clerical opinions expressed in them. letters. but he evidently had the seven Greek epistles before him. The external evidence. and forces us to accept one form or the other as the genuine work of Ignatius. that we ought to accept the seven Greek epistles. their complete silence in regard to the heresies prevalent after that time (while they earnestly oppose those wdiich flourished before it). however. 5. perhaps no absolute- ly certain result can be reached. favor the idea that they are therefore ex- The seven are than the three. unless . in a man as Ignatius could not them of expressions which such have used in the face of these heresies. a fact which we know both from for the following reasons : 1. when the three could well have been enlarged to the seven. which ble. and we cannot assign a period previous to him. The high clerical opinions. or the latter are excerpts from the former. Nor is there any rebutting internal evidence what has been thought such has .24 Up to Eusebius all the notices may be satisfied b}^ either form. The seven were certainly written before the middle of the second century. Ignatius' description of his condition as a borne out as probable from other almost contemporary cases supposed anachronisms have failed. and the presence 3. The incidents . fragments of an Armenian version of the seven. 4. which we Now. of and should be looked at probably as largely his When we come to decide. on comthe former was parison. In other . we see that this Syriac version and the three short Syriac letters are not independent. these forms is the genuine one. Eusebius certainly While we have absolutely no had the seven longer Epistles before him. — either older made by interpolating the latter. The Greek seven contain no internal marks of later date. was not version. receive their explanation from the intense force of the man's individual opinions. We possess which. but from a Syriac also possess. are all credible otherwise would seem to discredit the early date of the personality. 2. comes directly from the time of their composition.

these letters date. also those that are willing from which and have a care about their salvation can learn the character of his faith. but on utterly insufficient grounds. Irena3us. No classical work comes to us belter authenticated. iii. and that the for the —probably The Ignatian epistles are chiefly remarkable great force intense individuality of the writer. From Polycarp we have one undoubtedly genuine dressed to the Philippians. We may assume it. use every part of it with confidence. we shall so treat them but shall note with reference to the more important passages whether they are also contained in the Syriac excerpts. which the notice of Ignatius necessitates. : — 4 . most satisfactory. Nothing in this letter forbids this date. therefore. the Greek seven internally harmonize with their ascription to Ignatius. and the highness of his churchly opinions. 3. then. letter ad- and written to them at their own its The genuineness of the letter has indeed been ques- tioned by those whose preconceived theories necessitated rejection. They breathe a high spirit of Christian morality and orthodox theology. and hold the Syriac to be In our argument.25 words. and the proclamation of the truth. then. His own pupil. Section XVIII. witnesses to it: writing (Haer. We may. These passages will be valid evidence on any Ignatian hypothesis. it is probable that we should pronounce the seven Greek epistles genuine. D. from 106 or 115. but before news of his death had arrived at Smyrna therefore about 116 A. it seems certain that Ignatius was martyred either in 107 or 116. request. the of his personal convictions. and we are justified in assuming as certainly true the ascription of this letter to Polycarp. As to its date. The attempts to prove interpolations have utterly failed. and are certainly not unwortliy monuments of early Christian thought and expression. For these reasons." Later witnesses need not be given few authors can expect to have their works autlienticated by personal pupils. it professes to have been written after Ignatius' departure for Rome. Nor is the letter interpolated. latter. The internal characteristics of the Epistle harmonize with this external testimony. As to the date of whichever form is genuine.) "There is also a letter of Polycarp's written to the Philippians. excerpts from them.

" and ranks with Clement's letter. And the result of their testimony is to show that the Church already had our Testament. We have thus. John. Paul. In the ten short letters in which all references to our Scriptures are merely incidental. Dr. What renders its full testimony to the canon of such value. testifies fully to the loving tenderness with which he dwelt on the teaching of his master. to which there are allusions. what witness do these writings bear to the of the New Testament? Notice at the start that they constitute a true link with the apostolic age. The four together bear witness from the immediatel}' succeeding score of years to John's death. Irenaais. the beloved Apostle. As to the character of the letter. in 155 (as M. but of a more doubtful character. was a companion of St. Section XIX. except Jude and 3d John. simple and earnest. at the head of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. We Canon next ask. is not so much its early date as the fact that Polycarp was the immediate disciple of St. it has much in it that is really noble. Section I. Section XX. XXL These letters : presuppose the existence of the Canoni- cal Scriptures —they are just of such a character. to which are probably to be added Titus. written before the death of John. Donaldson's estimate that. we have by their writers of all the books we hold to now. Waddington has shown). Born in 69 or 70. he lapped with John's life some thirty years. and another. John. One of them was The authors of all of them Apostles. The following is a brief summary clear indications of the possession of this evidence. and treat of .26 with confidence. John. the direct teaching of St. and " It is remarkably is pervaded with a true Christian spirit. the brief and personal Philemon. we may ac- though not possessing cept much literary merit. through Polycarp. in all probability. tively to might have seen and heard the have been the immediate pupil of St. One we know posi- What they witness to is thereit fore the position in regard to the canon of the church as came immediately from the Apostles' hands. 2d John and Revelation. and martyred at the advanced age of 86. Polycarp's pupil.

is indeed remarkable. absolutely necessitates the inspired order of the other as a Through the caricature shine the lineaments of the And when "such a connection is traced by the help of such an undesigned commentary. though treating of different peculiar words. but by our faith. In (Westcott. holiness of heart. and John. as In language. Paul's Pastorals. St. by which Almighty God justified all from the beginning of the world " and then shortly afterwards adds. and he could no longer write. in writings fragmentary. Clement writes. The resemblance to 1 Peter. . do really lie in this relation of source and develo[)ment to one another. it surely follows " that the books exhititing it and accounting for it. It seems also that the epistle to the Hebrews is needed to account — for the tone — exaggerated from — of of his and the nature it Barnabas to the Jews arguments against Judaisers. Barnabas again. combining such diverse elements. (c. presupposes in his doctrinal statements the Gospel of John even expressing similar these dogmas in words characteristic of St. No one can read the two without seeing their connection. points to his possession of the various scriptures which teach them. they show traces of their use. : one. subjects. No less do the doctrinal statements of Clement presuppose the Epistles of Paul and James. presuppose the pastoral epistles of St.) the same way we find that we must assume at the base of base. A. Paul. would be given rise to by these Scriptures. true face. in point to our Canonical writings as the sources of their doc- Thus Clement of Rome had dwelt with such loving inon the Epistle to the Hebrews that the whole Epistle had become transfused into his mind. xxxii. The development of the church order mirrored in the terest . occasional and inartificial. John. To give but a single example.27 just such subjects. becomes an unmistakable echo of that model.) "we are not justified by our* * * nor by works which we have wrought in selves. xxxiii." (c. as much in the spirit of James as that was " Let us work from our whole heart the in the spirit of Paul work of righteousness. though an almost equal likeness exists to the Pastorals. Thus again.) The Catholicity of Clement's doctrinal position. the epistles of Ignatius whether we accept the Syriac or the Greek. save under its forms of statements. too. Polycarp's epistle the first epistle of Peter. as has been shown by Keim. and in the use of its His Epistle. trine. These letters. the form of their doctrinal statements.

Peter. those which has a long of unusual — .28 On tlie whole it is difficult to see how the general character of the doctrinal statements of the Apostolical Fathers can be at all accounted for. Yet he seems also in his vocabulary to depend on Paul and Peter. In the same way he uses several words found in the New Testament only in St. Paul. Pol3^carp. Barnabas in the same way exhibits dependence on Paul and has adopted several characteristic Johannean phrases. love preceding." to express these doctrines can back to their sources in our Canonical Scriptures. absolutely compels us to naturally speaking of Christians as " built up into the faith given to them * * * Jtojye following after. Paul and Peter. but at the same time orthodox for and evangelical example of Clement and assume that they had Peter and James and John and Paul in their hands and had been forced to combine their statements. Polycarp takes so preponderatingly whole phrases from the various books of the New Testament. The broad and liberal. The words which they use also be traced And the same argument may be applied list in the case of each of the other three of the Apostolic Fathers. only in the first epistle of Peter. Thus Ignatius words common to him and St. It looks very much then as if Clement got them into his vocabulary by reading St. Peter and St. When a peculiar and unusual vocabulary exists in two writers it seems impossible to regard them as independent. B. Thus we find in reading Clement that he uses these two words: agatJiopoiia and adelphotes. Now these words occur in no other writer of his age. He expresses himself in the very words of Holy Writ to such an extent that instead of single words we find whole passages assumed from it in his writings. John and Paul catholicity. And thus it is hard to escape the conclusion that Clement drew his vocabulary in part from Sts. Paul. save on the hypothesis that they possessed the varied books now constituting our New Testament and attributed to them absolute authority in the statement of doctrine. John. He also uses language which is inexplicable save on the supposition that he had read and learned a vocabulary from the writings of St. It needs to be remembered that this argument is concerned with the peculiar words only. and in all the New Testament. In one passage Polycarp actually combines the watchwords of Peter. that it is difficult to find out what vocabulary he has won from them.

Section XXII. In three would have been natural to refer directly to New Testament books wc have the reference. II. and the mass of peculiar words common to the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathez-s is enough to necessitate the assumption of a diret connection between them. when speaking to the Phillippians of Paul. (at whose feet may I be found wdien I shall attain to 'God. when instances out of the four where Ignatius WTote to the Ephesians. and when absent from you he wrote you a letter." writes Clement to the Corinthians. (this In the same spirit Ignatius is not found in the S3^riac. to these minute details for proof that this age knew the and writings of the Apostles." To these — . declares to them: " When among you he accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth to those who were then alive. the holy." Polycarp again. we would almost frame a conthem. The general similarity of language New Testament to cordance of the two sets of writers the same conclusion. sets of is a distinct argument and yet leads to The two taken together show that the two writings cannot be independent. And the subject under discussion in vlie fourth explains the failure there. Philippians them —they do not ? — to when Polycarp wrote to the each of which places Paul had written before fail to appeal to Paul's letters : — " Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. AVhen Clement wrote to the Corinthians. however. We are not left. hope following after. you will be able to be built up in the faith given to you. love to God and Christ and to our neighbor preceding. The coincidence in ])eculiar phraseology lies at tlie base of our present argument.) " Ye are initiated into mysteries with Paul. the martyred. of the Gospel "What did he write to you in the beginning to Truly he spiritually wrote you concern- ing himself and Cephas and Apollos because even then parties had been formed among you. passage which is the mother of us all." writes to the Ephesians.) who in his whole epistle makes mention of you in Christ Jesus. into which if ye diligently look. the deservedly blessed. We are not witliout direct explicit references to New Testa- ment books in the writings we are it now considering.29 point back to their sources with ahnost convincing power. If we noted the all the coincidences of the Apostolic Fathers with language.

Short as Polycarp's letter is it yet contains no less than between thirty and forty references to the New Testament. will who quotes very of the The following what books New Testament are thus authenticated show by plain quotations and what writers thus quote them. probably. and perhaps Clement and Ignatius. Nay. notwithstanding the briefness of both . certainly as early as 116. little —except list Ignatius.30 three books. writers. Ave could not have fuller testimony. As to the down and established in Sections VIII amount of New Testament quotation traceable it in the Apostolic Fathers will be no exaggeration to say that as a general thing their writings are saturated with the lan- guage of the New Testament. however. Commencing with the Epistles of Paul. at least ten clear references to 1st Peter may be counted in it. namely in the form of incidental quotations of their words. Ignatius. probably. Polycarp and by Polycarp. and perhaps Clement and Bar- Galatians : by Polycarp. Whatever books an III. and Clement. certainly. . Section XXIII. that two of them are among the books whose gen- uineness is disputed by the Tuebingen school. cepting those — author quotes. 2 Cor. this same epistle contains no quotation taken immediately from the Old Testament. To the rest of the books of the New Testament (exnamed in Section XX. too.) we have equally valid testimony. Barnabas nabas. generally Old Testament most frequently. Corinthians: 1 Cor. though in a different form. Ignatius. Ignatius. by Polycarp. Polycarp and (Barnabas?) Philippians: by Ignatius. And yet with the exception of one brief coin- cidence of four words with the Apocryphal book of Tobit. as having been written by Paul to the churches named in their titles. Polycarp. he witnesses to as existing before his time. . Polycarp has the most Ignatius perhaps the least. Notice. Ephesians: by Clement. we find that Bomans is clearly quoted by Clement. and perhaps Barnabas. by Clement. therefore. but which are witnessed to here. (}uote the The other at all. In considering these quotations we must bear in mind the principles already laid XII. writings.

the Synoptics : — Clement * writes in XV chapter The Scripture says somewhere."— (/yi^/Z^^/bo^. also. For instance. by Polycarp and Ignatius . xxix:13. Section XXIV. Thessalonians 1 Thes. The Gospels are also quoted in such a way as to authorize us to assert that it is certain that the Apostolical Fathers possessed them. 2 Peter: possibly : Acts is quoted certainly b}" Polycarp. xxvi:24 and xviii:0 but with this peculiarity: that . Timothij : ] ent and Barnabas Tim. and probably by . Clement has a passage which is taken from Matt. by Polycarp. Again in chap. Polycarp." Here we have a direct quotation from Mark vii. lips. 1 Peter : by Polycarp and Clement. eleven out of thirteen epistles of Paul are most decisive references are frequently to those epistles which are now disputed. . by Polycarp. Now. and wholly from the with their ple honoreth me LXX. and certainly by Barnabas. Philemon: possibly by Ignatius.) quoted. is Taking next the Catholic Epistles. it cannot reasonably be doubted that Polycarp was acquainted with the Epistle to the Ephesians. so strongly that . his And " : first. by Polycarp.6. Barna 2 Tlies. and so actully quotes the Old Testament through J\lark's translation. and probably also by Clem2 Tim. probably by Clement. Clement follows Mark's peculiar form. butquotesit in a peculiar form differing from the Hebrew. bas and Ignatius. and with the two Epistles to Timothy. probably by Clement. 1st John Certainly by Polycarp and Ignatius. we find that James quoted clearly by Clement. and the " By Polycarp alone To the Epistle to the : Hebrews also. xlvi. This peo- but their heart is far from me'. Titus : possibly by Clement. 2d John : Possibly by Polycarp. Barnabas and (Ignatius ?).SI Colossians: by Polycarp : . Mark quotes the passage from Isaiah. by Polycarp. Clement witnesses it authenticate — he alone would quoting often and largely from it probably.

." it Scripture in the use of the formula. as he does more than once. ii. V. but in doing so thew's text occasionally. we learn. and (second) have his mind distracted by a double original. xviii:6). he quotes this. In addition to this passage. In the Greek Epistles (not in the Syriac) occur four other references to Matthew. Matt. chap. it is so quoted as to in his mind at the v:7. knew is this Gospel. From passages noted above.2 .32 show that Clement had the parallel in Luke same time. which he quotes from Matt. xiii. . And yet in the subsequent part of the quotation (from Matt. thew is returned to at the end. and in quoting blended the two. some of them marked. in the passage already mentioned in chapter xlvi. We may say with certainty. that he possessed our Matthew. therefore. but that he had read them long enough for their parallel passages to be welding themselves together in his mind. The phenomena exhibited are exactly those which we would expect to arise if one should (first) quote from memory. in is led off from Matby reminiscences of the parallel Luke. so that the most a verbal quotation from him. vii:12. we can say with certainty. vi:14. but few saved. Thus Matthew gives its form to the quotation. Ignatius also reference too. For instance. his Epistle to Polycarp we have a is and a to which preserved in the Syriac. quoting from it. tion c. Matthew. Turning to Barnabas. is still more apparent in a passage in Clement. is exercising a disturbing influence clause is every- One whole inserted from Luke. "hos ge- The attempt which has been made to derive this quota: from the saying in 4 Ezra. not only that exactly. and three other clear references to the same Gospel may be counted in this Epistle. In the second chapter of clear reference to it. viii:3 " Many were created. It can be only stated as an example of what wild conjectures can be made. and yet Luke's account where. and yet Mat- and its like Clement had Matthew and Luke. One characteristic passage." is simply ridiculous. last clause is al. arising from quotation from memory of passages expressed in two evangelists. there occurs a very close parallel with Matthew. ix:13. that Clement had our three Synoptics together. xxii:14. and one probable one to Luke. Matthew is deserted in one place for the shorter form of Mark's and Luke's parallel. also A reference the " Star " of Matt. calling graptai. This blending process. is quoted verbally in Barnabas. found in the Syriac.

Equally clear indications are found in Polycarp. When Clement could weld into one passage Deut. and affected same passage that was quoted as it was there by Luke's the Apostolical Fathers is clear. For inis quoted by him verbally with a free quotation of the first clause. vii:2. Ez. Ez. and welding of various passages together. They stand as in- dubitable [)roof that th(. writers had our Synoptic Gospels. Ps.33 stance. 3. it will be sufficient to remark that the same phenomena of transposition. vi:37 . ii. i. 3 xviii:30. but in Clement and Barnabas. ciii:10-ll. from all three. all attempt to throw doubt on these vi:14. We moreover find ])arallel and have quoted clearly that they had already begun . 9. i:18 and again xxxi:14. to affect each other in the passages and. least three other a striking. — found in the above-given quotaThere is left to us no excuse. In reference from Polycarp the peculiar form of the long quotations and Clement xiii. and had them 5 toydlier. and in one passage Num. for he has no quotations directly from the Old Testament. therefore. Jer. 2 Chron. . that possessed all three of the Synoptics. and the loose habit of these writers in quotation remembered. passages as quotations falls to the ground. vi:38. xxxiii:ll. therefore. which lie of the same in of the by Clement. we surely cannot be surprised to . When the passages from Clement and Polycarp are placed side by side with their parallels from the Gospels. v:7. . welded all together as parts and quoted from together in the same peculiar way memory (as so many Old Testament passages are). . which never existed outside of our imagination. tures all the peculiarities tions from the Gospels. alteration in memory. that they existed together in the hands of these writers.. It c. to which toreferthese passages. xiii. for seeking the source of them elsewhere than in our Gospels certainly no excuse for inventing hypothetical books. . Matt. xviii:27. xxvi:41. with natural memoriter variations. xlviii:12. besides c. 5. last clause. iii:19-22. and again in one passage. occur in c[uotations confessedly taken from the Old Testament not in Polycarp. parallel. find Matt. It would not be difficult to parallel from their citations of the old Scripto ii. And we can count at decided allusions to the same Gospel. indeed. or else before they came into their hands. vii:12 Luke.. . Is. therefore.

he writes The spirit. and as the passage also occurs in the Syriac. on any tenable Ignatian h3'pothesis. &c. we have a clear reference to it is John vi . considering the briefness and general character of his letter. tics. John's Gospel. who came of the seed of David and I wish to drink his blood. John and his evidence rests on his use of John's vocabulary and his reiteration of John's theology. says Ignatius. for he knoweth whence he cometh and whither he goeth. as a gospel known to the Apostolic Fathers. which again." In John iii:8. and sent them forth together. Clement does not seem to attention has been quote John. In the s'eventh chapter " of the Epistle to Phil. being from God. that Polycarp has no direct quotation from St. although there are some very noticeable coincidences of language with 1st John.. To take them up one by one we may say First. is not sur: prising But he has a clear reference implies the Gospel. such as " Logos aidios. implies the Gospel." Man does not know. To witness to one implies therefore a witness to both. as also in the case of Polycarp. and he supplies them to us.. For direct quotations of John's Gospel we are thrown back thus on Ignatius . is not to be deceived. Thus in Rom. to whicli alroad}^ called. And now we must ask what evidence from quotations have we that these same writers had our Gospel of John. wrote both at the Whoever wrote one wrote both same time." This passage alone is sufficient to substantiate the use of John by Ignatius. : : . Barnabas again has no direct quotations from St. a valid witness . He uses several phrases and words which he could not have obtained elsewhere than from John. which indeed." &c. Ignatius has a clear reference to 1 John iii:9-13. We must add John. So is every one who is born of the Spirit. we read " The wind bloweth whither it wisheth and thou hearest the sound of it but thou dost not know whence it cometh or whither it goeth. being found in the Syriac as well as the Greek. . to the Synop. vii. therefore.u Section XXV. to John's 1st Epistle and tliis nay. and quotes John iii:8 verbatim. says John: therein the spirit differs from man. who is immortal love. Again. yet others are not lacking. It runs: " I wish bread of God which is the flesh of Jesus Christ. is certainly valid. Ignatius' witness to John is thus clear and precise and.

they certainly went to the New Testament for the best expression of their faith and doctrines they certainly appealed to it as if they held its form the : — authoritative. No one can No New and fail to see. 2. but that Section XXV it IT. . As to the possession of these there cannot be a reason-' able doubt.) Did they esteem it Scripture or not? On this subject the following points are to be noted Epistle to the — — : Section XXVIII. Jude. his letters as the authoratative expression of truth. in what estimation did they hold these books? They had the bulk of the New Testament. They were writing as simple Christian men the Apostles are recognized to have been endowed with a different and higher authority. they proclaim the authority of the Apostles. Whatever authority they may have ascribed to it.35 Section XXVI. 1. 1 John. all ot Paul's Epistles. If Clement weaves the Old Testament throughout. (except perhaps Titus and Philemon). the Hebrews. the Acts of the Apostles. Bishop Ignatius. 1 Peter. Rev. only remains. witness failing only to two short Epistles the two shortest of Paul's. . Polycarp does no less with the New. but it we have no clear reference in the four writers which we are now considering. 2 Peter and. the respect with writers. can be broadly stated that of varied kinds that these four early writers possessed our four Gospels. they may posslhhj allude to Kev. of them. can yet see that his episcopal authority is infinitely lower than that with which the Apostles spoke. The passages cited from Polycarp are for very doubtful indeed is all. i. Of the New Testament books. .e. and Rev. As the result of this we have valid evidence inquiry. on even the most cursory reading which they treat the New Testament difference can be detected in their dealing with the Old Testament. filled with the pride of his position. (besides a part of the Antilegomena. These writers do not fail to recognize the difference between the Apostles and themselves and in recognizing this. The language they use in . The next question that arises is. James. 2 and 3 John..

. they were freemen: I. again. For many years this passage existed onl}^ in and the skeptical resort was to say it had been inserted by the Latin translator. We have already seen that Barnabas quotes a passage from Matthew w^ith that formula. " Not as Peter and Paul do I command you they were Apostles I.36 comparing themselves with the Apostles. when permitted to write on this point. " I write to you concerning righteousness.. For neither I. but as one of themselves. Tliese writers actually quote the New Testament which. knew the difference between himself and the AjDostles. he yet breaks off with the disclaimer " But shall I. reach such a height of self-esteem that. can wish only to be found at the feet of Paul. which these days furnish. you will find the means of building yourselves up in the faith which has been given to you. it was obtained in an old and good a Latin translation. But on the discovery of the Sinaitic manuscript. : : . To what now are we to ? attribute this anxiety not to claim Apostle's authority an Did they or did they not receive the ? Apostolic writings as authoritative 3. "if you will diligently look into it. a slave. I should issue orders to you as though I was an Apostle ? " Even the nearest approach to a prelatist. though being a condemned man." says Polycarp to the Phil. or to write like them. not because I take anything on myself. And Barnabas wishes his hearers to distinctly under. In the same spirit Clement wishes only to remind the Corinthians as being himself in the same arena with them and engaged in the same conflict while he represents " the blessed Apostle Paul " to have given them spiritual injunctions." a . "These things." recognized as proclaiming the writing sacred writ. as if afraid it would not be understood. is using the formula " as it is written. ture." And again when writing to the Trallians as to the honor in which they should hold the Bishops. even until now. and writes to tlie Romans (also found in the Syriac). one condemned. witnesses that the estimation in which they held their books was owing to their character as the Word of God. stand that he writes to them " not as a teacher." In his letter. They did not assume to be equal to the Apostles." Ignatius. nor any one like me is able to attain to the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul. brethren. on as Scripall sides. but because you have invited me to do so.statement which he anxiously repeats in the — fourth chapter.

where occurs this passage "As it is said in these Scriptures: Be ye angry and sin not. which they possessed. ought not to surprise us is this In 1st Tim. is certainly from Matthew therefore it is indubitably true that Barnabas held Matthew to be divine. St. and as well as it. : : Taking these three instances together we have Matt.' and. divine.. as a testimony to the estimation of the New Testament as scripture in show . : — ' ' . and Luke and Eph. . . since not only Polycarp but also Clement and Barnabas quote it. " Scripture. The three points made seem to necessitate the conclusion that the Apostolic Fathers looked on the books of the New Testament.'" Unfortunately the Greek is lost here but with the example of Barnabas before us we are justified in holding Another to this as Poly carp's until the Greek is discovered. as authoritative and the first age of the church. which has been equally unsuccessful. the rediculousness of which we have already seen or else that Barnabas' epistle has been assigned to too early a date. together with Deut. v 15.. The epistle was certainly written. therefore. . it certainly is older than any Apostolic Father." It is certainly valid argumentation to take this along with the writings which witness to its greater age than themselves. testimony which it is valid to quote here. expressly witnessed to as Scripture and the honor ascribed to them necessarily spreads itself over the whole collection in the hands of these writers. ." Now. A similar case occurs in Polycarp XII. Luke is quoted verbatim. This is now admitted. even waiving the point of the Pauline origin of Timothy. and which itself ought to make us see that any recognition of the New Testament by the fathers as scripture. Even before the Apostolic Fathers. in the early years of the second century the quotation. Let not the sun go down upon your wrath. as we have seen. as we have also seen.37 Greek form. and the skeptics immediately bent all their skill to either that the question was taken from 4th Ezra. as " Scripture. They admit that the book so quoted was held by the author of the epistle as divine. was Luke recognized as on a level with the Old Testament.

these books would tend to be put together into a volume of authoritative and divine books. and that the "just ." As Dr. Westcott truly to the Apostles as to the presb3"tery of the says. As it is difficult to see how any one could possess say three books believed by him to be divine. but not open to decrease as the books composing it had been fully authenticated to them.that he that he He asks for may be made perfect allotted to . therefore. "' As long as new books claiming to be divine were frequently coming to hand. to them so as to make a further collection. that as fast as the books were would form themselves into a collection.38 Section XXIX. this implies a collection of Christian books. manj' and no more would be the rule insisted on but from the beginning the collection would be " definite. the antecedent compeers possessed a books consisting of all the divine books they knew open to increase whenever a new book came to them and authenticated itself as divine. so we cannot be surprised to find (as w^e have already seen) that the three synoptical gospels were held by these writers in probability " definite " is that Clement . I41 this sense. and his canon a definite collection of divine — a " collected " form. The antecedent presumption known. and church but also let us love the Prophets because that they have preached in reference to the gospel and placed their hope in Him * * * in whom believing they were saved. Gospels and . without looking at them as a collection of divine books giving the rule of faith. may attain to that portion which has been him : by " fleeing to the Gospel as to the flesh of Christ . to The only question then tion or left consider is : — How far had the books they possessed assumed the form of a definite collec- Canon : of Scripture? And here note the following remarks 1 It is a priori probable that since they had books which they esteemed as authoritative and divine. 2. the collection would not be definite " in the sense that " it was closed.'' in the sense that it was bounded otf from all other known books. It is difficult not to take the further step of holding that all of the rest of the " Divine" books were added 3. as a so collection of divine books. the prayers of the Philadelphians. the}'^ is. then. We cannot be surprised therefore that Ignatius actually witnesses to his possession of such a collection.

" etc." Here the juxtapropJiets^' and " gosjjer' seems to imply the Old and Xew Testaments kept together and held in equal honor. " When I heard some saying. used by the Church in connection with the The three passages together seem to shew the possession Old. ch. New Testament. but that they esteemed them divine and possessed Scriptures. and seems to refer to the New Testament as a definite collection. .' on my saying to them 'It is written. : — We are justified. — . and in connection with the Old Testament books (The Prophets) as anything less than a witness by Ignatius to an already collected canon. vii. (notice. Thus in c. in claiming that not only did these writers possess these writings. of such a collection almost beyond preadventure the argument is cumulative the inference which one would barely support the three readily give firm ground for: we may cite the first passage and quote the others in support.' they answered me. therefore. on a level with them as a collection of divine and in connection with the inspired Scriptures of the Old Testament. he says behooves therefore that ye should keep aloof from such and not speak of them either in private or public. Again in the viii.that this phrase " Gospels and Apostles " was the current phrase in the early church for the New Testament. Here there seems to be a dispute with Judaizers Ignatius appeals to the New Testament as "scrip" He then cuts ture and they refuse to recognize the claim. after condemning those who abstain from the Eucharist and from Apostles . 'That remains But to me Christ Jesus is in the place of that to be proved which is ancient. Other references in Ignatius seem to point to the same conclusions.39 same nomenclature by which Clement and Tertiillian [see §§ 3 and 4. Ignatius plainly contrasts the Old with the New Testament.] designated their collection and which in their case is admitted to mean the collected scriptures) and on any other supposition this juxtaposition of Prophets. but give heed to the PropJiets and above all to the Gospel in : " It position of which the passion has been revealed to us. of the Epistle to the Smyrneans. the of Alexandria prayer. Apostles and Gospel would be very harsh. we cannot look upon their mention here in this way. Since we know . ^' ' ' ! . " If I do not find it in the ancient writings I will not believe the Gospel. short the exegetical discussion and appeals to living tradiHere then seems to be another reference to a collected tion." he writes. of the Epistle to the Philadelphians.

to Canon would stand on firm ground. Without purpose it. this would authentidirectl}^ attributed to Notice. had we would have found all attributed in like manner to their authors as named in their titles.40 Section XXX. — —those representatives laps. alone of the great churches. and we will find that we have a witness from her. The Church of Jerusalem. and. and having this link of Polycar})'s teaching con- necting them. we might well neglect all intermediate evidence. too. yet in its of Alexandria. in order that the true cumulative nature of our proof may be thoroughly seen. Polycarp wrote from Smyrna. With the small exception noted in §20. again. Paul by name. and as being authoritative. Now. understood. And here let us pause for one moment and seek to feel the meaning and value of this testimony. are here providing witnesses for us so that we can declare that we have the witness of the Universal Church. " the Gospel and Apostles. We have the testimony here of the immediately succeeding age to the Apostles : these wit- nesses link on to the Apostles. over to the the succeeding one. Rome. and Clement from cate these books. Our canon has already been twice . Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch. If written before the time of the immediate followers of and piupilsof the Apostles. we have found the testimony The long life of Polycarp. too. The Epistle of Barnabas was written from Alexandria." who could have written them but the Apostles ? Therefore. and thus the pure tradition of the Apostles though only a single link reaches the fourth quarter of the century. that there is no sectional testimony. had we not a word of subsequent testimony. Antioch. John's. stretches on to teach John's truth to Irenseus. they authenticate our whole New Testa*^nent as having been written before their time. is lacking. wherein Canon so abundant. Minor and Rome. covering the same ground and from the same period. Asia . Now. without doubt. after synchronizing some thirty years with St. and if held by them to be divine. The four great churches of antiquity. Having such full testimony from the last twenty-five and from the first twenty years of — the century. notice again. We do not neglect it but we wish to have the fact distinctly the . but the witness of the whole church. to the fourth quarter of the century. therefore. being called. that the period. we find three of the books occasion arisen. though so early.

as does also the fact that Christians are spoken of as a new class. while its date. the earlier time. Thus the remark about the enmity of the Jews points to the times before Bar-Cocheba. or 135. We can not discover its authorship we can not widely. There have been various opinions as to its date. though The first and older part. We — new proof. be sure only that while the second and later part breathes the the spirit of Alexandria. nature of the proof. Though not usually called works we have two more books belonging must appeal briefly to them next. indeed. . on the — . Lacking all other witnesses the Canon is settled we appeal to further witnesses only to show wliat a mass of evidence we have. different ages. but all the indications seem to point to about the end of Trajan's reign. subsequent results touched. — while. . concerns us now. to. It is addressed to Diognetus. and of different. may be. Section of the Apostolic Fathers. this same age. But a Greece. suffered a widespread persecution. As it comes down to us. however. that it was written about 117. and we XXXI. this breathes rather the spirit of comes to us thus as a relic of the Christian literature and therefore represents the pure Greek churches of this period. probably the Stoic tutor of Marcus Aurelius which again accords with this date. and. classes better with the succeeding period than with this. accept Dr. alone. It of Greece. In character it is as much an oration as a letter it is. much lively surer indication of early date faith in Christ's it the church when it is the evidence in it that a speedy Parousia still lingered in was written "which would forbid our bringing down beyond Trajan's reign it " . forbids a much We may. the and now by However doubtful any position of the Canon is un- but That proof only over and over again authenticates what is already sure. 6 . with much confidence. but is now universally allowed not to be his. fact that Christians had already. when was written. and to bring out the cumulative shall not find doubtful results.41 settled : — b}^ the testimony of the age of Irengeus the testimony of the age of Polycarp. as such. Westcott's opinion. it consists of two parts by different authors. again. say 117. an apology. The first of these is the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus. This was long attributed to Justin Martyr.

not clearly witnessed to in the four writers already examined. Westcott) that whole sections are constructed with manito regard to passages in the Epistles to the Rom. — to Jno iii. which makes impossible it — —in for us to doubt the high esteem in which these early writers held the Scriptures of our New Testament. x. Phil..42 would class it with the Apostolical Fathers. an author. John's Gospel is abundantly supported the clearest reference being . yet naturally." and which of itself would give its death-blow to the Tuebingen assumption that the Jewish element of the early Church cherished an inextinguishable hate for Paul and his Gentile Churches. Many Pauline words and phrases are used. Acts and Matt. and in eloquence and beauty it is worthy of its Greek origin. testimony of this writer to our Canon? that of the Apostolical Fathers. now. It is not too much to say (with Dr. writing to a . In all respects like We find the most copious tes- timony fest Paul and John.. The this other book which is we have mentioned period the remarkable as belonging to Pseud-epigraph which goes under the name of " The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs. and. It is among the most beautiful of all the early remains of Christianity its Greek is purer than it is usual to find among early Christian writings. weaves so many ! clear and unmis- takeable allusions to Christian writers into his discourse. not quite.. — . . the work of a Nazarene (not Ebionite) author. unconscious — references. .. — . Section XXXII. 1 Tim. Cor. and most probably to 1 John. unconsciously. what honor must he hold these writers with what loving study must he have dwelt upon them how they must have grown into his mind as part of his very thought It is such ! ! . Gal. were. and epistolary form. is the its other hand. When as it 16 sq. and Titus wherein Titus is added as a new book. in ten small duodecimo pages. if — phenomena as these wholly incidental — in many cases almost. and we have clear allusions to Eph. in chap. What. coming to us from the very earliest times and therefore it is a valuable witness for the canon springing as it does from just that one great center of early Christianity from which we have hitherto had no witness. Heathen and making no direct quotations. This book is a Jewish-Christian writing. There are also clear references to 1 Pet.


The author

there can be no doubt of the source of the book.

witnesses clearly to his Judaistic tendencies, so And yet the

witness of the writing to our canon

strongest for precisely the

Antijudaic writings of Paul, Luke, and John. Side by side with the highest Judaic feeling the book rejoices over the adwas probIt mission of the Gentiles to the covenant.

ably written from Pella, whither the Christians of Jerusalem

had withdrawn before the destruction of Jerusalem, and where them remained long afterwards; and at some time before 120. The broadest outlines of its date are furnished by these two facts (1.) It quotes the book of Enoch and (2) It is quoted by name, by Origen, and without being named by Tertullian. More narrow limits are, however, attainable. It was certainly written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and just as certainly before the rise of Bar-Cocheba that is between 70 and 135. As it quotes John's gospel it probably belongs in the second century. Other minute indications determine to the opinion that it was not written later
the Nazarene section of

than 120. The probable limits of date are, therefore, 100-120, and with this result the great majority of critics agree. The work is an attempt to witness to Christianity by putting into
the mouths of the twelve sons of Jacob, prophecies as to the

sarih" excluded;

New Testament was thus necesand yet indirect allusions are found to the New Testament books sufficient to prove that the author had most " The language in the moral and didactic portions of them. takes its color from James, and in the prophetic and Apocalyptic from the Rev." (Lightfoot.) There are passages in the book which are certainly borrowed from Matt., Luke, John, Acts, Rom., 2 Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., 1 Thes., 1 Tim., Heb., 1 Peter, 1 John, and Rev., and such coincidences of language as convince us that the author had also 1 Cor., 2 Tim.(?) and James. There is also a possible allusion to Titus; and strong grounds arising from similarity of peculiar vocabulary and two fairly probable quotations that the author had also 2 Peter. Nor is
Direct allusion to the


witness confined to separate books clear testimony is given to tho existence of a Canon of New Testament Scrip;



writer puts these remarkable words into the


of the Patriarch



"In the

after times there shall


seed one beloved of the Lord, listening to his

voice and enlightening

the Gentiles with

new knowledge,"



shall be the bearer of salvation to the Gentiles " he shall be in the synagogues of the Gentiles till the completion of the


and among

their rulers as a strain of


in the

be the




he shall be ivritten in the Holy Books (en biblois

hagiais), both his

work and

his tvord,





and he is no



denial that this great Benjamite described here




there be any doubt

no one has ever doubted it nor can what a Jewish Christian writing for the benefit of Jews and putting his words in the mouth of a Jew meant by Hagiai Bibloi. Again it cannot be seriously doubted, especially when he quotes both elsewhere in his writings, that he means by Paul's work and word being written, to refer to the book of Acts and St. Paul's Epistles. Now, then, see the fullness of the testimony This book testifies that already at the opening of the second century the book of Acts and St. Paul's Epistles had been written in the " Holy Books." Remember it is one born a Jew, and still living within the Jewish rites (a Nazarene) who is writing, and we can feel the fullness of what he means by the " Holy Books." The testimony amounts to no less than that Acts and the Epistles of St. Paul were part of a Holy Collection of which the Old Testament also was a part; that the same Divine character and authority were attributed to them as to the Old Testament in a word that the Old and New Testaments stood together as equally Divine and ecjually authoritative. We cannot for an instant suppose that the other New Testament books which are alluded to in the writing, stood on a lower level with this Judaic Christian than the Acts and St. Paul Epistles nor can we with any show of reason seriously contend that the writer pospossed no more of our New Testament books than in such a writing he alludes to. He probably had all that we find in the hands of other writers of the age; all that he had he almost certainly placed with Acts and the Epistles of Paul and the Old Testament in the " Holy Books." The value of the testimony of the Testaments of the XH Patriarchs is then threefold 2. It 1. It gives us a witness from the Jewish Church. adds another book (Rev.) to the list of those referred to in the first twenty years of the second century and, 3, it gives us irrefragable proof of the collection of the New Testament books, i. e., of the and of their canonization even at this earlv time
as a matter of fact






fact that

they were esteemed as equal

in inspiration

vine books of

to the Old Testament and authorit}^ and part of the " Canon " of Diwhich the Old Testament was also a part.




line of evidence,


worth while"


add here

a testimony from the Talmud, dating from a generation which


the Temple, which specitlcally witnesses to the fact that

the Christian scriptures contained both Old and



"The Book " as to evince the fact that it/contained on equal terms and in equal authority the books of Numbers and Matthew and Galatians. (The passage can be found in Talmud, Babl,

The Christian speaker



so to speak of

Shabbath 116




Section XXXIII.
If we now combine the testimony of the Epistle to Diognetus and of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs with that of the Four Apostolical Fathers, we will be in a position to estimate the results .of our examination of the first period. We have

found clear allusions to all of the books of except Philemon, Jude, 2d and 3d .John and we have found more doubtful reserences to two of these (Philemon and 2d John.) To all the New Testament, except four small books which of themselves occupy some eleven small 16 mo. pages, we have found clear allusions to all but two brief letters together filling scarcely two such pages, possible references. And this, merely incidentally, in such brief compass And we have found more than this we have found plain proof that at the beginning of the second century there was already in the hands of Christians a collection of these books, called by them, in common with the Christians of later times, " The Gospel and the Apostles," containing certainly the mass of our present New Testament, and united with the Old Testament as constituting with it the Holy Books. The testimony of Ignatius and that of the Testaments of XII Patriarchs, illustrate, explain, and confirm each other. We will find confirmation also from the next period, but do not need it to enable us to draw this inference already the mass of the christian books were in the hands of the whole church, the whole of the New Testament in fact, with the posin these six writers


New Testament






sible exception of

some of the antilegoraena and already in the form of a supplementary collection of divine books attached to the Old Testament books as with them constituting " The

Holy Books"
the new


while they

but distinguished from them as being consisted of the old books.

made up


words the " Canon " of the New opening of the the second century, practically formed.

In other Testament was already at the


If it be asked how this early formation of the Canon is to be accounted for, probably the following remarks will supply the




There was no antecedent feeling against the posbe overcome.

sibility of a revelation to


early Christians

under the teaching of the Apostles had accepted the Old Testament as a revelation of God. 2. They were even expecting a new revelation. With the coming of the Messiah they would look for a second revelation from God. They were therefore prepared to accept an addition to the Rule of Faith. 3. Then, the books of the New Testament came to them claiming to be this new revelation; they claimed to be the word of God, e. g. 19."^ II. Thess. 3: 6, etc. Rev. I. Tim. 4: 1. 10, 4; 22: This claim at once discriminated them from other writings. 4. Again the authority which these writings assumed (and which the Apostolical Fathers did not assume in their letters) 5. The Epistles at once made a well-marked class of them. came to the churches to which they were addressed with the

charge that they should be read in the Churches. I. Thess. 27. Col. 4 16. Rev. 1 3. This at once placed them in the same class with the Old Testament. 6. And sometimes it
: :

was charged that the churches should interchange their letters (Col. 4: 16.) This would tend to the circulation of these
of a

Controversies with Heretics tended to the formation

a Standard had to be formed in order to meet them. It probably, however, would be enough to say that the books came to the Christians as divinely inspired and authoritative books given to them as such by the Apostles as such they naturally grew together as a collection of such books; and united themselves to the Old Testament as sharing that


honor with them. At all events we have direct historic testimony that they were collected, esteemed as divine, and united with the Old Testament by the opening of the second century.




be proper to quote here, before proceeding to the next drawn from a later date which serve, however, to confirm the conclusions to which we have come, for this age that the scriptures had already been collected, and that they were esteemed as of equal authority with the divine
age, two testimonies


writings of the Old Testament.






the statement of Eusebius that the

Evangelists of the time of Trajan, (98-117,)
of the

who went abroad

as missionaries, not only preached Christ to all those ignorant


of faith, but also delivered to

the Scrip-

ture of the Divine Gospels."

There is no doubt as to what Scripture Eusebius meant; nor ought we to doubt the correctness of his information, supported as it is by his usual accuracy and the exact agreement of all other traditions of the time. The written and collected books constituting " the Scripture of the Divine Gospels," played their part already in
the reign of Trajan,



The second testimony

the fact that Justin Martyr,

Hort has shown, in 145, and speaking of Christian worship, says naturally and as if it had from time immemorial been the custom of the Christians "And the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets are read," placing the two on an equality in Divine worship. We shall see hereafter that he means the Gospels by the Memoirs of the Apostles and we cannot for a moment suppose it was a new or unwarranted usage which he is here describing certainly not a usage which had first grown up within his own late memory. Thus the witness stretches back at least as far as the close of the period which we have been describing, and adds
writing, as Mr.



confirmation to the conclusions there reached.



The Second Period of

early Christian history

that which,

beginning at 120, stretches on to 170 A. D., as usually given, but which we may extend for our own purposes to 175, in order

make it cover the ground before us. It is usually called the Age of the Apologists " from the prevailing work of the time,

namely, the defense of Christians before the Heathen and against persecution. It might just as well be called the *'Age of

the books which have come down to us are just those in which we cannot expect to find much allusion to the Scriptures. . is sufficient to lead us to see how saturated the other books of the time must have been with Scripture allusions. From the very nature of the case. Syriac. we have Justin's apology . the facts of . Latin. neither the Tuebingen nor any other skeptical historical school.48 Fragments. was so full and recent that lusions to the written Gospel were necessarily infrequent in the age of the Apologists. but we could not have expected it beforehand. "chiefly by the industry of Eusebius. Now. and so on through the period. works. and the copiousness of the material which we derive from the fragments we can examine." from the condition in which its literary reniains have come down to us. the Clementine Homilies and some of the writings of Justin are well nigh all that have reached us in their original form. the list of the names we can gather it." By a curious chance. By the aid of translations. mostly apologies to the Heathen. also. As an example: we have found Tertullian's writings for Christians bristling with New Testament quotations when we turn to his " Apology " the allusions are scanty . could ever have dared to show its face. — . only the Old Testament. we shall find more allusions to the Gospels in this period and less to the of which. find We shall good results flowing from the examination of this period. from church history and commentaries. but not his work against Marcion. quotations and language. or otherwise. or works bearing on the controversy with the Jews in one of which cases no books could be appealed to as authoritative. a " series of precious quotations from some of the books having alone been preserved to us. Had we onehundredth part of this literature in our hands. able as they are to resist convincing evidence. like the Shep- herd of Hermas and the Apology of Melito but the mass of " the literature is wholly lost. indeed. covers nearly every branch of Christian thought and investigation. and exhaustive treatises on special points of theology. we are able to recover the contents of some few other writings. on the other hand. had companied with the Lord. when the Apostolic Fathers wrote the evangelical tradition. in the other. to controversies with heretics. fresh from the mouths of those who al. Of all the copious Christian literature which we know to have been produced in this age. so far as — Epistles than in the first .

first witnesses for this age. to in- terrogate our fragments as to the witness their authors bear to Section XXXVII. some evidence which belongs on the very verge of one which perhaps would be more correctly placed Thus. this period. from the form of quotation which Irenaus uses. the witness of Papias. ten Gospels would be appealed to more We may less full expect. as well as refers to Ephesians. is almost certainl}'^ from Papias. quotes unmistakably Mat. as XXXVIII. 840. p. and it is he quotes from more than one source references It is also that under this some of oral tradi- the are to written books. Among those probably not from written sources. preceded by " inquit" and to Jno. also. not difficult. sq. Bishop Lightfoot has shown a link with the Apostolical Fathers. are all distinctly quoted. viii:5G. being still alive to authenticate them.. In still another fragment an elder alludes to Mat. others to tions. : — Section Here. disciples of the Apostles. a fuller witness to the Gospels and a witness to the Epistles. and another. we may proceed immediately the Canon. and quotes 1 Cor. 1 Cor. cite we would have no sure data by which to determine the date of his book.) wherein Mat.. however. as In the true sense of the word. and John xiv:2 as the words of the Lord. Without further word. Jno. and 1 Cor." whose words are quoted in Irenajus. therefore. in his discourse which Irenseus gives. the statements derived from writings and though both classes are valid testimonies from this time. and 1 Peter. he cites one elder who. anonymous witnesses. distinctly attributes Romans to 8t. as the words of the Apostle. Paul. xii:4 is unmistakably alluded to. 75. we have the testimony of "elders. . 7 We . Irenteus quotes such clear that. we have thought best to put them here as our title. — no eye-witnesses — and therefore the writas witnesses.49 Christ's life could be more freely disputed. Among those from written sources we may mention one in which II Cor. xi:19. by name. yet it is natural that more stress should be laid on the testimonies taken from books. to distinguij^h. (Lightfoot. There is but. Contemporary Review. these are Apostolical Fathers. authorities quite frequently. in the preceding age. Oct. which though quoted anonymously.

it is not strange if a writer unacquainted with the former should make a mistake as to which was the original and Dr. we may he would hardly have lived. except what can be gathered from general considerations. or The statement found in the Chronicon is evidently taken from Eusebius (iv. H. of the date of Papias' death. says 130-140. 164. Lightfoot has conclusively shown that when Matt." but this was the common usage among uninspired writers before and after Papias. and Mark. Papias' work consisted of five books and was entitled ^'Exegesis of the Dominical Log ia.). moreover. in the witness he bears. and that he was also a hearer of at least two other immediate disciples of Christ and of the daughters of Philip. We know nothing." but he implies that in his day there was an authoritative Greek form. . and consisted of "ta Logia. and. as divinely inspired. simj)le was a of some subsequent copyist. and even older than he. that Eu- — sebius discusses cusses Polycarp. which. 60-70 . therefore. state that Matt's was written originally in He- brew. As a hearer of John he belongs. after 140. not only do Romans iii:l and Heb. The facts. is said to have " composed ta Logia" it is equivalent to saying he composed " his Scriptures. Eusebius also quotes passages from it. does. in the face of all sceptical oi)poPie sition." The attempt of the sceptics to fasten the meaning: " Matt. Rev. Aug. 381) that the notice in the Chronicon Paschale by which his death was placed (by martyrdom) in blunder of the compiler of that document. v:10 use " ta Logia " as equivalent "to the Scriptures.. long before he dis- —warn us that he has usually been referred to . John. at the very beginning of this period. D. has utterly broken down. too late a date. say that he was born probably A.50 (Cont. E. and probabl}^ wrote 120-130. and 1 Peter and we know otherwise that he accepted Rev. that he was a hearer of St. however. . at all events. him in the reign of Trajan. L. wrote the discourses" (as if LogoV not Logia were used) on this passage. ^ Accepting Dr. 15. Lightfoot's conclusion. therefore.. ' ' ' . and another of Mat. referring by name to a gospel of Mark. are plainly proved to refer to our Mat. Philo so uses it Clement of Rome uses " sa. Dr. and there we find that the true name for the martydom is Papylus not Papias. John (Irenseus) and a companion of Poly carp. '75. indeed.d^ in. the Apostle. Thus." Eusebius tells us that he c{uoted. and where a Hebrew and Greek form existed together. but the data seem to point to an earlier date. no matter when his book was published.

confirmed as it is by CordePapias to have possessed our Section It is XXXIX. John. a matter of dispute. if any ground to doubt. Thus Papias merely states that Mat. 1 Peter and Rev.\vhileEphraemof Antioch received as scriptures (as we are told by Photius).51 and " ta Logiaoi God " as synonymous terms. that he had this Gospel. . On the whole. be Gospel. The very character of his book. 1 John. used 1 John. composed " his part of the scriptures" or his " Gospel." where the disputed phrase is equivalent to " the Gospels. if the Irenasus fragment is his. and this of itself renders it almost certain that he used the Gospel also. Mark. Luke's . Papias. is made in the interest of scepticism. St. 1 Corintliians." Clement of Alexandria." In all cases it is made evident that incidents and acts are included in the phrase. No. Irena^us calls the scriptures ta Kyriaka Logia. then. possibly Luke. was understood by Eusebius to refer to our Gospel. the " oracles (Lor/wOof truth" and "the inspired Oracles. 14) rius' Catena. Again. which is quoted in that passage. Alex. again. " The scriptures of the Old Testament." so also Origen and Basil. be- ing fought. in the face of his own adequate description of it. if the passage in Irenteus above referred to. that around the fit-rcest of the battles of modern criticism has been. " Polycarp condemns those who " pervert the oracles of the Lord " {Logia). Papias must have used John.. It has gone so far that it is claimed that it was an attempt to reconstruct a new gospel out of tradi- . and. Moreover. of Christ as " the very truth." and such as the designation of Christian doctrine as " a — commandment. w^e know. then we know Again."" ta Kyriaka Logia. like that to Mark.. name of Papias one and is proper to add here. Gospel also are found in the extant fragments of Papias and some much surer ones with St. if we can trust the testimony of some notes found in the preface to an old of the Gospels (Vat. MS. rightly ascribed to Papias. and indubitably authenticates it.'' " and the preaching of the Apostles. Lightfoot's reasoning exceedingly probable. as seems after Dr. His witness thus covers Matt.' The reference." A reference to John seems also to be fairly made out in the order in which the elders from whom the traditions are drawn are mentioned. there can be very little. creel scriptures " Some very doubtful coincidences in language with John's. then.

What was the character of Papias' book a new Gospel. (D) The example which Irenpeus gives of Papias' book (quoting his name with it.John ? The sceptics 1. and that Papias openly discredits all previous "books" Now. and professedly referring it to him. but its necessary meaning here.) is an example of exegesis. AVe have seen how the reference to Matt. unperceived by any one. We need trouble ourtwo main subjects of dispute all the others hang on them. by some miraculous process. not to our Gospels. even weaker. notices of Matt. by an attempt to foist a peculiar meaning on the word Logia and we have seen how unsuccessful the attempt has been. Papias himself explains it as " exposition." "exegesis." Exegesis propDiegesis is the proper word for " ennarration. and Mark. for this argument there are only two of the same sort. and made out to refer. say that if any of our Gospels existed then.'" The sceptics translate: "Ennarration of the Divine Logia. There can be no title doubt." this title (C) And this is not only its obvious meaning." it is also true that its usual and obvious meaning is "exposition. What was the character of Papias' book ? say it was an attempt to frame a new Gospel from traditional sources. has been dealt with. or an explanation of an old Gospel ? 2. (E) By all later writers W'ho quote him he is called an exegete. The case against The . have then to be explained away. therefore. Then." (B) Where we find erly expresses "exposition" in Eusebius it is the common word for "exposition. The first of these is the title of Papias' book." The eiai). but that exegesis in the means "exposi- . he writes thus: "But I will not scruple — — — also to all give a place along I tvith my interpretations {sunlcatataxei) to that learned carefully in times past from the elders. Papias held them in no esteem. They are 1. substituted. staple of his book w^as therefore interpretations [hermen- Again. the reference to Mark is selves only with the . Did Papias know our Gospel of . for which." In the beginning of the extract from his preface which Eusebius preserves for us. but to some otherwise unknown works bearing the same names. which we have quoted.62 tion —founding on the assertion that Papias knew of no authorThe next step is to itative written Gospels. — — — chief data. This was " Logion Kuriakon Exegesis." But (A) while it is true that exegesis can possibly mean "ennarration. our Gospels (although earlier ages testify to their existence before) were afterwards.

and the beginning of which we have already quoted. taken from their own lips or the lips of their followers. He was exegeting our Gospels and the books to which he prefers the tradition were undoubtedly the helps to his exegesis." kon. What has been said will show the absurdity of this. The second burning question is did Papias know our John ? We have alread. conveying or illustrating the meaning of our Lord. The traditions which Papias is collectHe ing. But the sceptics say." He rightly judges that an authentic statement of the immediate disciples of the Lord. as well as from the careful notices of Matthew and Mark which are given.53 tion. Gospels. speaks half apologetically of them. These two gospels at least formed a part of them. To them the sceptics op])Ose this that Eusebius from whom almost all our knowledge of Papias comes does not say that Papias had John. therefore. Lor/ia. was an exposition Lor/ion Kyria- that means. Tlie book. We are therefrom the title to regard the work as an "Exposition ofthe Sacred Scriptures." (2) —a phrase used ever afterward (1) : Therefore. The other chief datum for the character of the work is an What fore forced extract from the })reface preserved by Eusebius. his expositions. we have already seen. notice the meaning of this to commentary on our Gospels. They do not form the staple of his book but he will give them also a place along ivith . he is gathering together to illustrate his expositions. these "books" to which he prefers tradition are our Gospels. they are us: here is a called "Domfor inical Oracles. § 38). 2. From that beginning we see how clearly it teaches that the book was a book of mtcrpniafions {Jtcrmcnciai). we know from Eusebius prac: '^ . Ephraem. was a better help in explaining the meaning of the Gospels than any commentaries could be. they were held as divine scriptures. and hence arises the famous argument from the Silence of Eusebius." detailed Now. "divine scripthe Gospels are not new in the church. used in the New Testament for "scriptures" tures. Plainly Papias' book was an "Explanation of Our I "For did not think could get so much profit ." a term.y given reasons which go to show that he did know it. us: Why? The I last clause of the passage tells from the contents of books as from the utterance of a living and abiding voice." It is claimed that if Papias had used John." What sacred scriptures are meant may be learned from the adjective kyriakon (cf.

and whatsoever concerning those not such. " I will take care. 3. E. To this we answer 1.54 elsewhere that he would have mentioned the fact. iii:3) and read." What he promises then is to do three things 1. results asserted. Section XL. Therefore we shall make an examination of this point. 2. it is an important point and demands some treatment. as we know from his practice elsewhere. John's Gospel implies nothing against his use of it. Jolni's Gospel is among them. " to indicate which ones of the church writers from time to time have used what ones of the disputed books and what has been said by them concerning the canonical and acknowledged writings. silence then as to Papias' use of St. then probably John never wrote such a book. and was a companion of Polycarp if he did not know Jolni's gospel. To record everything he finds recorded about those no^ canonical and unHe himself gives us a list of what he considers undisputed. To mention all references to the disputed (antilegomena) writings. We have earlier testimony than Papias for John and adequate later testimony. fesses to and (2) what he does do. (see §38). Thus Eusebivs does not profess to quote the testimonies for St John. disputed books St. What does the silence of Eusebius imply? (1) The question can what Eusebius pro- bo answered onl}^ by an examination of fesses to do. would have passed them all over in utter silence. . That he does not mention it proves that Papias did not know our John. We know otherwise that Papias did have John. If Papias had quoted John a million of times. tice . 3. — : . — so that even if the silence of Eusebius should imply that Pa- would follow as are 2. but the reverse. To tell any anecdotes which he finds of interest about the undisputed (homologoumena) books.. The sceptics say he promention every use of a scripture book by the earlier Does he ? Turn to his book (H. His — ." he says. The silence of Eusebius does not imply what is asserted. Here is a square issue with the sceptics: as to the implication of Eusebius' silence and as much of the literature of this time is fragmentary. no such — . He himself tells us what method he will follow. pias did not possess John. since he lived in Asia Minor. and Eusebius is our chief authority for it. Since Papias was said to be a pupil of John. Eusebius. writers.

mentions him to sav he had employed expressions from a source unknown to him. again. We have Clement's epistle.55 This will be made plainer by noticing Eusebius' practice. Paul? As far as Papias is concerned. Eusebius merely says that he used 1 Peter. and (2) when he is silent about the use of disputed writings. and where we can test him. We know how much else he used. then. that he used 1 Peter. does clear references. what In cases where we can test him. also. he never gives a single testimony to John. "he has used testimonies from the Apocalypse of John. John. or Pauline epistles. Eusebius' practice then tallies with his promise. Paul. Of Polycarp. but does not disprove it. Acts. (1) that when Eusebius is silent as to the use of undisputed writings of any author. . We have seen what witness Eusebius merely to our canon. in the face of Irenteus' copious references to our scriptures and to St. for we find Eusebius very sceptical here. and to quote testimonies for them but . John? or Polycarp. he does not give' the testimonies for the undisputed books. In practice he is found to class 1 Peter and 1 . we find that he ([uotes only the absolutely " In no instance luhere we can test him. it raises no presumption against that use. even to the fullest extent. He never quotes mere testimonies to the Gospels. Does he use no other New Testament books ? We find that he not only alludes to many this is his only divergence names the Epistle to the Corrinthiand ascribes it to St. it raises some presumption against its use. and to St. and the thirteen Epistles of Paul. but actually ans. and quotes several of Paul's Epistles Eurebius says nothing of it but merely states. together with 1 Peter and 1 John. John. how does he is his practice? act ? Of Clement of Rome he merely remarks that he used Heb. And for all subsequent time we must remember. Did not Ireaieus use John and Paul? Theophilus. the silence of Eusebius implies nothing against his fullest use of John. and his silence as to the use of them by any writer implies nothing at all against even the fullest use." So.John with the other Catholic Epistles. ophilus of Antioch . He professes to quote no testimonies for the undoubted books and he names as undoubted books the four Gospels. and quoted Hernias as scripture. Of the others. Ignatius bears. 1 John. he merely says other books. Thementions John's Gospel by name. Acts. from his rule. but hints not a word about his many allusions to the canon.

) Section XLI. it is not meant that no heretic discarded any part of the sacred . January. Where he " " gives a testimony. When we conheretics possessed — sider the early date of these heresies. then. which the writing which each retained had attained in the church. and yet absolutely plain. can be relied on implicitly. And again.56 he give a doubtful testimony^ it (Lightfoot). then. that the testimony of which have been named.. Rev. puts them back into the days of the Apostles. the consequent earlier date of the New Testament scriptures reached thus. from which the foregoing section has been condensed. that even those who withdrew from the communion of the church felt constrained to cling to its books. writings many of them discarded large portions of the New Testament. 1875. . The fact that the and used the books of our New Testament is an irrefragable argument for the authenticity of these books". both arguments against such a conclusion as well that from the character of his book as that from the silence of Eusebius having utterly broken down on examination. He omits the reference to 1 John in Polycarp. But each of them retained some books. On the other hand. we have no hint that any discarded writing was rejected on historic grounds they professed an altion . he omits several which might be fairly alleged therefore his silence. therefore. and had for so long a time held that authority. we may now proceed to cite the witness of a brood of heretics which valid for the books — arose early early in the . (On this most important subject see Lightfoot. Cont. second century. So much. Taking Papias is it for established. even on the disputed books. All the church fathers who opposed the heretics call attention to the fact that the}' held our books and the extant fragments of their speculations confirm the statements of the fathers that they depended on ridiculous exegesis of the scriptures to support their tenets By this rather than cast off those scriptures as unauthentic. and thus they severally give their witness to the posi. it proves beyond the possibility of gainsaying that they had attained to such authority in the church. is —and it is not abso- lutely conclusive testimony that the writers did not use them. for the silence of Eusebius. as we hold it.

ical we may consider first the witness borne to our canonbooks by the early Simonians.57 and by this fact each was led to reject cerwhich obstinately would not be made by any exegesis fanciful or not to accord with their views. even when they were in opposition to tlieir teaching. 8 . D. tain books — — to accord with preconceived views. therefore. Next among these heretics is we may mention Basilides. the "great announcement" which was published under the name of Simon himself. He probably began to attract at- He was the author of twenty-four books "on the Gospels. so as that they should not absolutely condemn them. placed with great certainty in the reign of Hadrian. Passing by Cerinthus. it yet seems to have come from the hand of one of his immediate followers. then. The date of his teaching tention about 125.. they clung to them. The sect was constituted of the followers of Simon Magus. to a time not much if any laterthantheopening of this period. and claimed as their authoritative book. and is probably a record of his oral teachings. 117-137. Luke and John and 1 Cor." as Ave learn from his younger contemporary and opponent Agrippa Castor and Clement of Alexandria quotes from the 23d book and calls the Avhole " The Exegetics. and Gospel. therefore. Though it is certainly not his. Section XLII. It belongs. So long as they could l)end and twist them. but always of a canon arbitrarily reconstructed to tered Christianity. The witness of heretics to our books. Itisquoted several times by Hippolytus." The Simonians witness. The reference to 1 Cor. is very important proving as it does that these books had reached such authority that they were not able to shake them olf. 100-120) that the Epistles of Paul were held as Scriptural. Never do we read of any system based on a canon historically reconstructed. Section XLIII. is of such sort as to show that it was held as equally authoratative Avith the Old Testament. (A. and in the fragments which we thus gain Ave find coincidences and allusions to our Math. mentioned in the Acts." As it is undoubted that Ireniuus used "The Gospel" (singu. being quoted with the formula " that which was spoken. the contemporary of the Apostle who was acc[uainted with all the main facts of the — John.

ii:13 is cited as " is The to Scripture. the only is ianus.58 lar) in have all also used a collective sense. is almost certainly from He named in the immediately preceding he says " seems almost beyond doubt to refer to him We need add no more references. and. Those of the catholic books which a heretic like Basilides quoted as scriptures. and John i:9 is That which sage taken from John prefixed Basilides himself. he seems to have used 1 Peter. Romans. They are. six epistles of Paul and 1 Peter. " written" is prefixed. it cannot be denied that Basilides might it as comprehending our four Gospels. said in the Gospels. preceded by " That which was spoken. context. it is 1 Cor. From the teachings we have numerous quotations in Clement. Undoubtedly some of the quotations own book. Putting it is these notices together most probable that his book was a Philosophico-exegetical Commentary on our four Gospels. Luke. of Basilides who had the book in their hands." This last pas- w^e is may say too. Euseit.. but they also directly witness to Luke. iv:12. coming from the bosom of the church himself. Undoubtedly many of those in Hyppolytus are from it. John. Hyppolytus promises to give both what Basilides says. Eph. In such passages we find clear and indubitable references to Matt. These which we have given are probably from Basilides himself. What he introduces by the singular therefore." To 2 Cor. Among these quotai^ions Luke xi:35 is quoted verbally. The value of the references will be readily seen. He accepts them only because their authority was so firmly seated. 1 & 2 Cor.. There is also a doubtful erence to 1 Tim. therefore.— from the passages professedly attributed to the Basilideans. John. he did not know how to shake off the authority of the and the " church's scriptures . Irenasus distinguish between what are from Basilides' difficulty being to quoted directly from Basilides and what from his followers. Epiphand Hypjjolytus. bius certainly so understood and Clement of Alexandria also seemingly. were a fortiori recognized as such by the church. . Romans. 1 and 2 Cor. and what his followers say. but it is a more difficult matter to distinguish those from the earlier years. although some of them may be later. xii:4. from Clement Alexandrinus' Strom. All are valid witnesses for the period 125-175. is (certainly in some cases) is probably from Basilides himself. Not only do they cover three gospels. "he says".. that. as Scripture. probably valid from 125-135. and Col." Two separate passages from Romans(viii:22and v:13-14)liave "as it is written " " prefixed.

was an Alexandrian. Carpocrates. and Rev." and that the key-word of their system was. 1 Cor. and Col.59 Section XLIV. to Romans. The Peratici are also quoted by Hyppolytus. and most prol)able references to Hcb. 2 Cor. and not only so. the most Greek in his speculations of all the Gnostic teachers. we ought here. We have very little from the School to cite. a part of whom afterward embraced a scmi-christianity. and adapted them to their own doctrines by strange expositions. They lived early in the second century. chiefly drawn from the remarks of Irenseus. and Phil. " By faith and love with Basilides. Although their date is not exactly known. The various Ophites Luke and John . we gain from the to. from which we learn that they received our Canonical Gospels. — . probably to introduce the testimony of the Carpocratians. The sect have been a pre-christian sect. We — •' are we saved. Section to XLV. and Col. we gain references to Matt." John. They also made use of two apocryphal Gospels. alit}' — which bears witness to the doctrines of Paul and — although the conclusions that theredrew from the}^ it. 1 Cor. in citing the witness of his followers here. Among tlic very earliest of tlie Gnostical heretics were the Ophites. namely of Matt. with " That which is said. — thus yield us references to three Gospels." From the writings of the Sethiani. and whose tenets were hekl under many names. earliest gnostic and gnosti: cizing heretics — up say A. 1 Cor. : several each to the Gospels and 2 Cor. 135 — the following results We .. which fact need not surprise us. as " The Scripture". a sect whicli seems to have had many sub-divisions. and the passages cited furnish us with the seems to following clear references.. but as citing all three as scriptural John with " That which was spoken". 1 Eph. Hyppolytus cites from their books frequently. D.. and seem to have been the first wdio assumed the title of Gnostics.. Gal. fore all other things were indifferent.. On the M'hole. John.. therefore. John's Gospel. seven Epistles of Paul. and a contemporary cannot err much. and as citing John's Gospel. also. Heb. under the name of Ophites. and they ascribe scriptural authority and Col. could bear witness only to the doctrine of the devil. even the grossest immor- of action. and Rev. also.

that the heretics themselves bear testimony to them and each one . and having traveled much. The character of the extant works of Justin.60 have found them possessing the three Gospels of Matt. . and Col. there can be very little doubt about the chronology of his life. of them endeavors to confirm his doctrine by taking his start from them. and the broadness of his acquaintance with the church having been born in Samaria. 1 Tim. 1 and 2 Cor. Hort's careful examination. the Jew. we have as undoubted from his pen The Two Apologies and The Dialogue with Trypho. . Eph. As : Ireni:eus saj^s so strongly. Section XLVI. but that they had been held as such for a long period previous. Phil. and the Dialogue with Trypho to about the same time.. We have also gained this knowledge that so firmly were the Scriptures fixed by this time in the church. : heretics who discarded the Church's doctrine. nine of the Epistles of Paul: Romans. and the composition of his first Apology to 145 or 146. yet could not bring themselves to discard the writings on which that doctrine rested. 1 and 2 Cor. that the . and we Gal. Heb. The next witness we : shall cite is Justin Martyr. Luke and John." (L^enreus iii:4-3). Otherwise. This phenomenon seems to authenticate our scriptures.. we now learn from the heretics of the opening of the second quarter. besides having resided both in Rome and Greece give a peculiar value to his wit- — — ness as the witness of the general church. He shows that his death should be assigned to 148. not only that they were during this period 120-175 held as divine. If the second Apology be really a separate book. Both his date and his culture. namely.. What we have learned from orthodox writers of the first and second quarters of the century. and to render it impossible to deny. it belongs to 146 or 147. 1 Peter and Eev.. it will be seen. After Mr.. is exactly that in which we have already shown the least full and the least definite references to our scriptures could be expected. have found them quoting as Scripture Luke's and John's Gospels.. (writing in the next generation) " So firm is the position of the Gospels. that the Scriptures of our New Testament were from the beginning held by the church to be the divine law and rule of faith and — — life. Col. as well as Paul's Epistles to the Romans. Of the writ- ings which are attributed to him. we have a right to look for strong testimony from Justin..

2 and Rev. " The Memoirs of the Apostles. he allows us to see that this peculiar name "Memoirs. About Justin's allusions to the Gospels there has been no end of controversy. the former Justin." is' one indeed peculiar to him^ writing in another place. ses equally well. (in one collection) of different written by those Apostles. Justin "The Memoirs Apostolon). composed conjointly " by the Apostles. technically " Apostles. both are one and yet many both are called Justin's description exactly fits our Gospels.fospels. and the writings from which Justin quotes are Memoirs of Christ." If the latter are various writings of diit'erent Prophets.61 As to the extent of his testimony. (Dial. however. again. To the Acts of the Aposmore doubtful references." {Ta states Apomncmoncumata ton He they were read together with the writ- ings of the Prophets in the weekly assemblies of the Christians. &c. 1 John. Heb. written by A})Ostles and tlieir followers. of the Apostles. which are called Gospels. The only two really tenable theories which remain are. does not lead us may equally well be " separate writings. . 103) of these Memoirs: "which were composed by his Apostles and their followers." He care- he distinctly says. This conjuction alone goes far to authenticate them as Divine. no other set of books ever given to the church..." Now what can be meant liere other than our Gospels? Both our (iospels. and Gasi)els." but also in the use of the singular " the evangel. they yet possessed an internal unity." Though thus more than one. 1 Cor. or (2) that Justin quotes from a harmony Justin's of those (. All manner of hjq^otheses have been invented to break their full force but in vain. When we fully states to the contrary . Either alternative would serve our purpo- A brief glance at the allusions will suffice to establish this position.. the last of which hej — name and as inspired. however. ." to suppose that they M'ere all who were . phenomena of The records calls from which he derives these evangelical allusions. Gospels. They are made parallel with Ta ISuggrammata of the Prophets. it covers fully the four . have them. and also throws discredit on the idea which has been advanced that these " Memoirs " were a single work. and thus Justin can speak freely of them. (1) that Justin used our Gospels as we appeals to by tles there are . not only in the use as aljove of tlie i)lural " evangelica. " And. 2 Peter Romans. c. the Epistles of Paul to the Thes. Gal.

" Five of these agree verbally w^ith passages in our Matt. iv:10. then. It is as follows : — And also it is writ- have been delivered to me by my Father. can be held to be any other than the already ecclesiastically — accepted and sacred four-fold Gospel. How little stress can be laid on the transposition and other peculiarities of the passage as it occurs in Justin. to the perfect in the first verb. and Luke — namely The : Matt. which Justin 'pretends to have gotten from his Memoirs of the Apostles. " to whomsoever the Son shall please to reveal Him. . made a harmony of them and when we hold in mind that Irenseus." The closeness of this to Matt. xxviii:39 sq. it had better be relied on to prove the contrary it seems rather that there can be no doubt but that Justin got it from Matt xi:27. Luke / xxiii:46. nor the Son except the Father. v:20. was sitting at the feet of Polycarp. sixth passage.. '" . therefore. All the passages. while not reproducing verbally. ten in the Gospel that Christ said. out of the " Memoirs. xvii:ll-13.62 remember that these same four Gospels were so fully known and that Justin's own as we have seen them before Justin pupil." are the only striking ditferences: while the whole passage is a striking resemblance. is passage from our Gospels Matt.. appears from the fact that every one of them can be found in quotations confessedly from Matt. In only seven (7) cases does he profess to give the words of these " Memoirs." now we examine we will the see on how firm a basis this conclusion is founded. — ing those notices. The seventh passage alone requires consideration. and the alteration of Matt's. this passage has been frequently cited to show that Justin's Memoirs " were other than our Gospels. Although. quoted evidently from memory. Tatian. xii:39. If material which Justin got. learning of him what he so fully states some thirty years later of these same four Gospels it will be seen to be almost incredible that these divine and ecclesiastical books which Justin quotes. and those to whomsoever the Son will reveal." to Justin's " to whomsoever the Son shall reveal (Him). at the ver}^ time that Justin was writ. and no one knoweth the Father except the Son. The transposition of the clauses the change of the aorist of INIatt. presenting a and any undoubtedly taken from compressed summary of Matt.^' are found in our Gospels. xi:27 will be evident on first sight. — '"' . "All things . xi-27 in other writers of the succeeding three-cpiarters of a century such as Irena?us and Origen.

(his contemporary. . up to the return from Egypt." he whence he took it. therefore. in other words. they prove nothing against what we have found thus far in favor of identifying Memoirs with our Gospels. " He shall dwell is almost certainly to the lxx of Is. Again. and consisting of scores of particulars. We are told that we must assume that Justin here quotes from a lost Gospel in order to get the reference to the " cave. and make use of them. and the history as he gives it is just the history as contained in our three Synoptic Gospels. If he states facts elsewhere. any thingwhich we have for this What Justin knows of ^Christ's life we find to know if he ]30ssessed and used our Goscan gather a full and connected account of the whole of Christ's life from the notices in Justin. and his " why " not Justin ?) and. is detailed and precise. while a carpenter. of any other such writings. We twenty facts are given by Justin. or even us had been prophesied us. But this does not like indicate the strength of the evidence identification." His allusion." In like manner. Once more he tells us. Justin says the Magi were from Arabia but why might not that be a traditionary as well as a written opinion. however. plows and yokes and although the same stateguess ? own — . and Luke. but was not the fact. for instance. The first of them is a statement that Cyrenius was the first Procurator (Epitropos) of Judea. Papias.63 This ought to settle the matter. Next. not assio-niiiff them to his " Memoirs " which do not occur in our Gospels. Justin's lehem were massacred Again. xxxiii:lG in a high cave of a strong rock. Only twelve incidents among them all are given which could even hint at an origin outside of our Gospels and a glance at these will show how impossible it is to hold that they necessitate. embracing even the details of the early and peculiar chapters of Matt. It was })robably a simple historical mistake. More than be just what he would pels. he says all the children of Bethwhich ought to be set down to simple careless exaggeration. we have no evidence that he got them out of his " Memoirs". rather than from traditionary sources. — : which he gives expressly tells That Christ was not comely of aspect. another fact . a use even along side of our Gospels. Christ made. This not only is not found in our Gospels. it is stated that Christ was born in a cave in the midst of a passage evidently taken from Luke. Justin's acquaintance with the history. " — . or even render probable. could tind copious traditions.

out of his bible. John. therefore. — • . of the New Testament passage says. (first) that the Apocryphal gospels were not altogether made out of whole cloth. a great light shone around about /rom the water. it does not necessarily fol- low that Justin quoted it thence. The folly of ascribing them to Apocryphal gospels is also strongly seen from the fact that the few which are also found in Apocryphal gospels. . It takes . An old Latin MS. and (thirdl}^) that other writers could. again we are told. Again we are told that the Spirit. . but j^'et a tradition (secondly) that this tradition was generally wide-spread. ment.. when it descended on Christ after His baptism. but were also founded in many details on tradition twisted and warped tradition. says that a great light shone more important: around the place but that is essentially different. Then MSS. indeed.64 ment is found in an Apocryphal gospel. do not occur in the same gospel but we are obliged to make Justin draw one fact from each of several. of the old Latin. — — tradition. Justin may have gotten it. or his own inference. sat by the Jordan do we need a new gospel to explain his sitting ? : — All of these facts are too slender to mention. therefore. but we need not assume an Apocry})hal source for it. since we know it was a very early various reading in our New Testa. . &c but in no case gives us any grounds for thinking he quotes from anything else than our Scriptures and adds only these few details true or false from D. especially as this is the only coincidence with that gospel. indeed. others are Some of the Thus. This differs from -the Gospel's account of the words. we know not whence he got it. If Justin's copy of the Gospels read thus. Justin tells us again that the Jews ascribed Christ's miracles to magic that John's mission ceased when Christ appeared in public. We must remember. Justin tells us that when Christ was baptized a fire was kindled in Jordan. The Ebionite gospel. " Thou art my son. one of our best MS. however.. If he did not get this statement from tradition. No Apocryphal gospel coming down to us contains it. contains it so do several Augustin tells us it was current in his day. happen occasionally on the same facts. that Christ was a carpenter. addressed Him in the words. and Mark states the main fact. We may conclude with certainty that Justin's history of Christ's life was derived from our Gospels. . he might have altered this statement from it. and probably did get it. this day I have begotten thee": quoting a Messianic Psalm.

Justin quotes AVe can count to count in our Synoptical Gospels. are these shall be schisms 'Christ said. again. you. Unless ye be born again ye may not enter into the kingdom of heaven but it is clear to all that it is imtraditional saying of Christ's. 1. in this will I also judge This does not occur in our Scriptures: nor again does occur in any known Apocryphal book. and (second) for its exceeding freeness of allusion. fourteen slight ones. and only ten are alike."' it In whatsoever find you. twenty-nine show very decided variations. If he did not quote from memory each repetition would coincide with the previous quotation. numver- all of these. To John. He has John's theology. — 9 . he has sixtyseven repetitions of quotations from the Old Testament. and tions. and is as follows " For Christ also said. erous sayings of Christ's. as the set may be. It shows Justin's habit of that bare them. first It is doubtless a When we up against these the mass of Justin's numerous references to Matt. among all Justin's quotations that can he claimed : with any show of plausibility." ' We may is : compare Cor. with two possihle excep- were taken from our Gospels. chiefly because of pels. " We certainly do not need to invent a lost 2. and Luke. The other I 'Our Lord Jesus Christ said. and he furnishes several certain allusions. and even begins to philosophize on the Logos Doctrine. gospel to account for it.Saiiday(in The Gospels in the Second Century)seven pages to states the facts in which Justin coincides with the historical acMoreover. The most important one is from John iii. with Mark. Justin witnesses fully and in many ways. its briefness. exceptions They are too numerous and one certain one The only two give. The most important allusion is to Mark iii:16-17. : ' : possible for those once born to enter into the wombs of those This passage is remarkable (first) for its exceedingly clear reminiscence of John iii.65 Mr. That is in only ten cases out of sixty-seven where he has repeated quotations has he repeated them in the same words in which he hrst stated them-f^ He deals quoting frorn his habit we know memory in a in many very plain light. "There 1 and heresies. and Luke. xi:18-19 with this.' " That this was For instance. we may well wonder that any one could have imagined that his sources could be other than our GosWith Mark he shows less connection. but yet some undoubted references to him can be cited. But in the sixty-seven cases. ways. many bal coincidences with Matt.

in it. should be considered next. cated. yet there seems to be Although their passages are combined in his no reason for ascribing this combination to a set harmony.. Justin's own instinctive harmonizing at the moment of quotation would account for all of them? the facts. see. i. Abbot's " Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. John's Gospel is verbatim quoted. see Westcott " On the Canon. and especially for John's Gospel. them equal in authority to the Prophets. and ours alone. Dr. besides which there is a clear reference to 1 Cor. Section XLVIL And here. The so-called second epistle op Clement to which allusion has been already made... e. and a teacher of Gentiles.66 even more freely with the New Testament. and often unmistakably alluded to. and everyFirst of these thing in the fragment accords with the early date thus indiIt is Alexandrian rather than pure Greek in its tone. The The result is that Justin certainly used our Gospels." Section XLVIII. But perhaps we have said enough of Justin.. though He describes our Gospels fully. The other Gospels seem also to have been known. He probably used Acts. and a doubtful one to I Tim. For a full discussion of the phenomena which his writings exhibit. and probably before 130. did he use the Gospels themselves. Its theol- . The writer speaks of himself as a disciple of the Apostles. it is time to gather up some fragments certainly not later than about 150. found. but bears equal testimony to the Canon with the first part of the epistle. only question is. and was written certainly before 140. In one striking passage " the fear of the Law " and " the grace of the Prophets." where additional reference to John are ." are joined immediately with the " faith of the Gospels " and the " tradition of the Apostles. Rev. and certain of Paul's Epistles which have been already named. also. on approaching the middle of the century. divine. It also is a writing addressed from a Gentile to Gentiles. and makes this is less certain. we must mention the concluding portion of THE Epistle to Diognetus." and Sanday " Gospels in the Second Century " also. or a har- mony references.

.'' forming a part of " The Oracles of God'' and as invented fables. ix:13. This is free reminiscence of Luke xiii:27. does not weaken his testimony to our scriptures. contained sometimes traditional well and thus individuals would grow to esteem their account often beyond their value. based on Mark x:16 sq. but for which we must assume some traditionary source. decidedly and unmistakably. but perhaps only as a (in his opinion) credible "history . . 1 Cor. as we must repeat. in the Gospel 3. Begone from me. xii:45. two of which are also not found in any known Apocryphal source. it is to be noted. Matt. we have no proof that the author of this fragment was one. iii:23. you not whence ye are. He thus witnesses to a collected canon -of divine authority. A quotapreceded by these words. " The Lord said. Clement of Alexandria quotes apocryphal pressly confines the inspired to our four. found andria. Luke x:3. . Thus and yet exApocryphal gospels facts. pel according to the Egyptians. Paul and James. . Not only has the writer of this homily quoted New Testament passages as scripture but he also knows of a New Testament called " The Apostles. as we are told by Clement of Alex- present writer got it. The third is also. forth. Some could even ascribe an inspiration to them of this number.. gosj^els. a conversation between Peter and Jesus." in the congregation. read as the voice of the " God of truth. and Matt. He appeals for a fact to the Gosto the Egyptians. and another by the words " says. not positively as inspired. however.' " For this passage there seems to be no reason to seek other origin than in a 2. If ye should be gathered There are of ' : with cast me you in m}^ bosom. Heb. These three are 1..] Luke.67 ogy shows in its catholic breadth the influence of John. are undoubtedly alluded to. while several other E})istles are more doubtfully quoted. written or unw^ritten —probably apocryphal. Matt." quoted as Scripture. " For God also found in this fragment three quotations our Lord's words not found in our Scriptures. John's gospel. and not do my commandments. I I will know and say unto you. (or Mark ii:17) is tion of Luke xvi:10 again is the Lord says in the Gospel"... and Gal. w^orkers of iniquity. whence probably our That he has quoted from an apocryphal book. It does indeed witness that that book existed before he wrote but as he does not call it scripture. [Mark. it cannot be held that he made no distinction between it and the gospels which he does call scripture.

therefore. Marcion was more bold he cast aside the catholic canon. except that he found the church with one. however. and let us know (Iren£Gus. therefore. We may assign the commencement than 139. but had merely restored what had been corrupted. (omitting the Pasto: — — rals) likewise somewhat mutilated. and Col. Marc. For Marcion would not have felt the need of retaining a canon. to a date not later He lived long. Acts. and synchronized for a series of years with the life of Irenieus.) that the "other books" are the other books which constitute our New Testament. Gal. wherever those books conflicted with them. mean the fragment on the Resurrec- tion. Most heretics met opposition to their peculiar doctrines by wild exegesis of the books of the church.. and 1 Tim. In the first we find allusion to the history of the Gospels. His consisted of a mutilated copy of Luke. Tertullian. That Apology was written in 145 or and at that time. and references to 1 Cor. are yet much later than him. teaching." which consisted of more books than Marcion retained. of his teach- ing. and formed a new one for himself. Tertullian * tells us that Marcion and the Marcionites defended their procedure by claiming they had made no innovation. though they I may not be his. but which. etc. therefore. and the Address and Exortation to the Greeks. Apology. In Marcion's Canon in the very fact that he even had a Canon ive have the CliurcKs Canon authenticated.68 Section XLIX. 1 Cor. including traits characteristic of each of the four." first named Marcion. and of ten Epistles of Paul. In the second we find allusions to John's Gospel. (Adv. in his ticus. This contrast is explicitly drawn by his opponents. to Here not also we may quote the writings attributed doubtfully to Justin Martyr. retaining only those books (or parts of books) which accorded with his doctrines. We may not unfitly treat of him. Section L. speaks of a certain "Ponto blaspheme. The church writers who oppose him confirm the inference.. Phil. now. i:20). who had caused many "still" who was 146. Marcionism was by no means a new thing. Justin Martyr. Two other points may be urged here in additional confirma- . and with them no trace of outside tradition. This proves that when Marcion lived the church had a " canon.

At all events. instead — : Irenteus) also his contemporaries. &c. and their wa-itings necessarily partook of this imperfection. The following remarks will be in point. we have no evidence that he denied their authenticity. Marcion's canon still bore the name which we have found was the familiar designation of their sacred books in the mouths of the Christians of his day " The Gospel and the Apostle " (or Apostolicon). (now or (secondly) that Luke's w^as of Marcion's terpolating Marcion's. and those in full accord with his seeming anti-judaism. assert that he mutilated professed to restore a corrupted canon to its original pure form. He . doubtless retaining the title which he found in use among his contemporaries. wdio were moreover in some cases (e. Luke. had an imperfect apprehension of the truth. of course. The opponents of Marcion. his writings. with almost the same certainty that we have Luke's 1. tion proves. our canon — books existed together as a " canon. and cut out from them all passages not anti-Judaic as manifest interpolations. The first alternative is disposed of by showing that they cannot be independent. 1. Though Marcion rejected the remaining books as not authoritative.. somewhat mutilated. Thus he took Luke's Gospel and Paul's Epistles. therefore." Paul alone was fully instructed. It follows therefore that the orthodox also had a canon which Marcion washed to purify and that it contained more than Marcion admitted. Tertullian. . " The first Apostles. is that these made by inby mutilating Luke's.69 tion. To sum up In 140 Marcion had a "canon. and professing to be a restoration of a corruption while not denying that Apostles wrote the other books. according to him. The form in which their attack comes is an effort to show that either (first) Marcion's Gospel and Luke's were independent recensions of the same out. that the church possessed substantially for. remembering that from the full notices in Epi2:)hanius. g. lost) original. consisting of a — : portion of our books. could alone represent the truth." having the same name which was current among Christians to designate their collection of sacred books." Of course such testimony as this has not been allowed by the sceptics to pass unchallenged. 2. 3. His ac. the two gospels are not in2. the extra books were the books which we know otherwise the church possessed and esteemed The additional point that Marcion brings so clearly as divine. we haye Marcion's gospel before us.

this whole section. 6. they follow the same arrangement. 5. and therefore Luke existed before him. Except that the first chapter of Marcion's Gospel is altered in arrangement from Luke iii (Luke i and ii are omitted by Marcion). 4. as is confessed. mutilated Paul's Epistles and so he might be expected to act in the same way with Luke. . It is further interesting to note a that in the text of Marcion's Luke existed it. that Marcion mutilated Luke. Though contemporary ENTiNUS. verbatim. shows that the same author must have written them who ivrote the rest of the Gospel. A careful examination of the style and language of the parts contained in Luke. 1. We have already seen that Luke existed before Marcion could have written. 4. for they follow each other accurately. His contemporary opponents state that he did mutilate Luke. (Consult that passage for. There are numerous quotations from Luke in writers who wrote before Marcion lived. except one other short misplacement. did Marcion mutilate Luke. . Of Luke. should such an one attempt a reconstruction of Luke's Gospel. and. with the exception of — . 222 sq. number of various readings which put the composition of Luke's Gospel back considerably before Marcion used Section LI. have utterly failed and it remains established as one of the surest results of modern criticism. tains 495. Throughout. and with most unimportant exceptions. but this is enough to prove the two cannot be independent. Marcion could not have framed the one portion and an interpolator the other. Other considerations could be urged. Marcion's gospel consome 30 words some of which are various readings in Luke. Marcion." pp.70 dependent. the intricate order of Luke is followed exactly. Hence the 804 verses contained in St. The omitted portions are exactl}^ those which would have been omitted by one holding his heresy. Therefore. 3. all attempts to make the contrary plausible. He professed to be a restorer. This last point is wrought out in detail in Sanday's " Gospels in the Second Century. Another contemporary of Justin's was the heresiarch Valwho professed to draw his peculiar opinions from a certain Theodas. a disciple of Paul.) On the whole. or Luke interpolate Marcion ? Notice. 2. with convincing power. Xow. and not contained in Marcion. follow the results already stated.

" Marcion used the sword. as also against Marcion. those that had to do with the canon. as Irena?us and Tertullian (i. and. and. The text had already a long lineage or pedigree. his testimony becomes of much value. in Volkmar's opinion. by their church opponents. as we would say. say 140 . (or. Scriptures to their systems. contains a reference to Matt. John. he yet differed from that heretic. Eph. contrast. and like liim professing to restore a pure Paulinism. Haer. none are than 175 probably not so late by at least ten years. however. Romans. There can be no doubt but that these heretics used our books the same that we now have. iii:ll. suggests three remarks: 1. 3. in adapting the This is confirmed by Iren?eus. Luke. yet they bear valid witness for this peried.. of Some later them being from himself. Ephesians is cited as " the Scripture^ Many alterations of minute textual points were charged against Valentinus. e. also to Luke. of the charge having'been made. 2. both in system and in Tertullian expressly draws the his dealing with the canon. certainly from Valentinus. probably to Heb. which may be Valentinus' own." it . belong to.. but may be possibly from a pupil. were simple various readings which we can yet find in our various manuscripts. 1 Cor. and although it is not plain always whether the fragment belongs to Valentinus himself. Here then is a contemporary of Marcion accepting the whole canon. One fragment. The fact. {dc Praescr. 9) "the shears") while A^alentinus used the pen.. and as Irenfeus was a younger contempo- rary of Valentinus. 7. or to one of his pupils. The other fragments.' {Haer.. If they noticed textual matters. they would notice careless as is often supposed. and consequently arose from the use by their opponents of copies of the Scriptures gotten from different sources.71 with Marcion.. and 1 John. Many of these. they would notice greater differences. and hence the books were already old. The fathers were not all so uncritical — — and If they noticed and took account of these minute differences. substantiall}^ as we) fragments of his writings have understand that word. preserved by Clement of Alexandria. if not all. the other the sense by exposition. perhaps. {integro Instrumcnto uti) while Marcion mutilated ' to gain their peculiar views. give us references to Matt. Many been preserved to us. When these same fathers . the one " altered the Scriptures with the hand. 38) saying that Valentinus used the " whole Instrument.

from. Origen quotes freely from the commentary on John Clement quotes a pass- — . as alread}^ the head of a school. E^Diphanius has preserved us a letter to " a sister. and 2 Tim. and should be assigned to. Heracleon and Ptole- MAEUS. Heracleon wrote a commentary on part of the New Testament." Flora by name. — . Of the writings of Ptolemaeus. much earlier. we are told by Origen. It is to be noticed in Heracleon's commentary. Ptolemseus was his contemporary. ascribed to From two ofthe followers of Valentinus we have also fragments them by name^namely. show allusions to Matthew. that it treats on." of A'^alentinus. from Rom. It is reasonable to assign that writing to 175. and Eph. the fragment shows that he esteemed the Gospels just Of the other books the fragments of Heracleon as we do now.. and the Epistles to the Romans. Gal. us to place him not more than ten or fifteen years later. If this be The other notices lead true.. In it he quotes several long passages from Matt. When the Scripture as divine : that the slightest turns of language^— the prepositions and the numbers were held to be significant and important. and that the remarks of an Evangelist are treated with the same respect as the words of Christ. therefore. also. their testimony credible. 1 Cor. — age from a commentary on Luke.. Eph. John's Gospel. mented a writing is comand commented on as Heracleon commented on these books.72 tell us. was said to be a " companion. on how much of it we do not know. and Col. say IGO to 170 at the latest he is mentioned in the preface to Irenteus' first book. . Rom." " intimate friend. it was of imjDortance to explain it in accordance with what was otherwise taught. he must have written about 150. it shows that the declarations of the book were esteemed authoritative. In other fragments preserved to us we find quotations from all four Gospels... Heracleon. 1 Cor. 1 Cor. and also gives quotations from the prologue to St. Section LII. and. that' Valeiitinus acknowledged is all the canon which the}' used. therefore. Ptolemeeus could not have begun less than ten years earlier and probably began — . In other words. with an anxious desire to make them accord with his teachings.

in the main. He clearly refers to John's Gospel also to the Acts. meant to teach Christian truth figuratively. probably to 2 Peter. is such as to forbid ly. Hermas Romans was Hermas composed The Shep' herd in the ' city of Rome. which is called "the Muratori canon. is weighty and all internal considerations harmonize both with the time (140-150) * and place assigned in the notice. On the other hand. and this though the writer indicates some legalistic tendencies. being contemporary. Origen. than the identity of the name. 1 Peter. The allusions found are less striking. in the chair of the : Roman therefore. asserunt) .. its truth. The character is of the writing . his brother. while Bishop Church. I Cor. His use of James and Rev. Whatever he was^ he recognized Paul. {nuperrime) in our times. fancies {pido) that thfe No of father of the early centuries authorship was such. than those to deal we have had with heretofore . and our Gospels satisfy his references. — on no other ground. This book consists of a series of visions." Pius. comes next under view. which seem to have sprung from Judaistic influence. indeed.73 Section LIII. In theology it is with some lapses from a strict orthodoxy. however. that both of the two latest writers on Hermas (Zahn and Salmon). 1 John. consequent- we find that there no direct cjuotation from either Testabut we can ment. and held to his great doctrine of " Justification by Faith. St. Paul's teaching is clearly known and accepted. it is attributed directly to another Hermas. It is sometimes attributed to the Hermas mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to the states that its Romans . The fragment. and . The witness. is beyond all doubt: whole sections are sometimes framed on their words. We may assume. sat This is confirmed by two other witnesses." *It must be added. or at the opening of the second . but no early writer states it as a fact. says he . The remarkable allegorical book. however. following with tolerable confidence : make out the Hermas was evidently acquainted with some records of our Lord's teaching.. also." says: "but very lately. This fact refutes the idea that the author was an Ebionite. called the Shepherd of Hermas. the author and Eusebius and Jerome tell us there was such a report {phasin. true and catholic. place it iu the first century. thereby witnessing to our completed Scriptures. Eph. mandates and similitudes. any direct allusions to the scriptures and. yet.

. are referred to. which goes under the name of Clementine Homilies. unless. are noticeable here again showing that the Gospels existed together.. : 3 John. and. it is not and reBut on that same account it is surprising that it gives such clear and full authentications to our four Gospels. Polycarp. soon alter Polycarp's martyrdom (155). which we have seen in Clement of Rome and Polycarp. Romans and 1 Cor. we may neglect them. but it is generally referred to the midits dle of the second century. Section LV. Objections have been made to its authenticity.. fers to some apocryphal facts. but remarkably clear allusions to peculiar passages of each. but as they proceed on no valid grounds. the striking coincidence in language between a passage in the Homilies and a passage in surprising that it has in some apocryphal sayings. At this point ought to be introduced the testimony of that beauaddressed by the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philomelium. The letter is largely taken up with drawing a parallel between our Lord's death and that of his faithful servant. particularly and clear allusions to Luke and John should be noticed. Thus we find. aiPxid the mass of references to Matt. We appeal next to the peculiar Ebionitish work. Mark has extremely few peculiar passages. Not onl}^ are there allusions to them all. as in an Ebionitish document they have special weight. and John are clearly and repeatedly referred to. suggested by several striking coincidences between them. The same combining phenomena in quoting passages which occur in more than one Evangelist. writing is The date of this in dispute . and giving an account of that event.74 Section LIV. There are also several marked references to John's Gospel. Heretical in it doctrine. at least six to passages found nowhere else than in Luke. and yet one of them is quoted in these Homilies. tiful letter. amid the allusions to Luke. If this reference be accepted. and in the course of the narrative the Gospels of Matt. no less than eighteen to peculiar and characteristic passages of Matt. Acts. and that The full instinctive harmonic attempts were being made. To the other books of the New Testament there are no clear references. should be insisted on. indeed. . In addition.

Tatian's greatest witness to our canon is. and Eph.. not is left much later than 170. that he altered the expression in others. Tatian's heresy required it. His date depends on Justin's. moreover. however. He was a prolific writer. being an apology. on the same grounds. through — — : . and before his conversion a Sophist by profession. personal letter. is referred to. —the close of his life falls. deserted the orthodoxy he had learned from him for the Encratite heresy. Our next withess is Tatian. — Section LVI. Justin's death is to be put in we may assign Tatian's period of greatest activity to the time commencing Avith 150. that he rejected some of Paul's Epistles. — . in which w^e would expect no quotations. Gal. And we know also from Jerome. but through Heb. that he held to Titus as a genuine work of Paul. and there are other references which are probably to be taken as referring to Romans.75 it is the first we have had to this brief." just exactly the one book. 1 Cor. We could not expect many allusions to the New Testament." {te aletheia sunergesai) cf.. 24. a clear one of i. Certain fragments from Tatian's other works give us references to 1 Cor. Then. though in less degree. St.wdiich. in all probability. The most striking passages are a verbal quotation of part of Jno. It is found in Clem. there is some reason to was not taken directly from the Old Testament. iv. as were brought against Marcion. but. 8. quotation. reverenced the Old Testament. therefore. 3 John. and yet there is no citation of the Old Testament in this document. and only one anonymous believe. some time after Justin's death. thou dost wish to be in very truth a fellow-worker with the truth. a parable found in Matt. He was dead when Irenreus wrote his first book. introduced with the phrase so common in Luke in quoting Scripture "that which was spoken " and another of part of 1 5. however. indeed. and Rev. Tatian. again. 5. doubtless. xvii:19: " Since. and yet we do find some striking ones. These mutilations are also to be accounted for. He became a pupil of Justin Martyr. and by Eusebius. we know. as we have seen 148.. It is stated. John's Gospel is plainly and indisputably quoted more than once. " correcting their stj'le " the same charges. by Jerome. Horn.. Tatian was an Assyrian by birth. but there to us only his " Discourse to the Greeks. that.


another work of

his, now lost, which went under the name of and which was indubitably a harmony of our four Gospels, (whence its name). The following are the notices which we have of it: 1. Eusebius tells us that " Tatian, having strangely put together a sort of combination and col-

lection of the Gospels,


this the Diatessaron."

He adds
his day.

that the

work was current

some quarters even in

Eusebius, then, evidently understood the work to have been

framed out of our Gospels ; and by piecing them together. Moreover, Eusebius tells us that Tatian himself named it " Diatessaron." Therefore, in the time of Tatian, our four Gospels were so held in the church, that an indefinite name like this Diatessaron could be counted on as not liable to misunderstanding. 2. Next, we are told by Bar-Salibi, that Ephraem Syrus wrote a commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, and that it began with the opening words of John's Gospel. Moreover, the wording of this passage in Bar-Salibi is of such a character as to give us confidence in his knowledge of the facts. It is, as given by Bishop Lightfoot, as follows: "Tatian, the disciple of Justin, * * * selected and patched together, from the four Gospels, and constructed a Gospel which he called Diatessaron that is. Miscellanies. On this work Mar-Ephrem wrote an exposition and its commencement was, In the beginningwas the Word.' " Then he proceeds to tell how Elias of Salonica was led to make a harmony after the manner of the Diatessaron of Ammonius, described in the prologue to the canons of Eusebius. Bar-Salibi evidently knows the difference between the two Harmonies of Tatian and Ammonius: that the former was a patchwork and the latter, really Matt.'s Gos})el taken in order, with the parallels of the other Gospels exhibited throughout; and because he thus accurateh^ knows the facts here, we can trust him for the furtherfactthat Ephraem wrote a commentary, with Tatian's work as a base. Now, we know that Ephraem was orthodox, and received only our Gospels that he made his commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, proves, therefore, it was made up from our Gospels alone, which fact Bar-Salibi also





Bar-Salibi also tells us that the


of Tatian be-

gan with the prologue to John's Gospel which again shows it was our Gospels which were used in making it. What adds probabilit}^ to this whole account, is the fact, which is witnessed by the Apocryphal Syriac book, " The Doctrine of


Addai," written in the third century, that the Diatessaron was whence Ephraem in general use in the churches of Edessa

comNext Theodoret (420) tells us that he found, when he became Bishop of Cyrrhus (near the Euphrates), above two hundred copies of this Diatessaron of

Ephraem would be
on. the

likely, therefore, to write his


Gospels in this form.

Tatian in circulation in his Diocese


that they omitted



and such other passages as show the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh" and that he substituted the Gospels for them. Theodoret evidently had the book before him and it evidently was, according to his testimony, framed from our Gospels.* The conflicting notices are these 1. The statement by the notoriously inaccurate Epiphanius, that this Diatessaron was called by some, " The Gospel according to the Hebrews." But
; :


man who

could not give a correct


of the

Roman Em-

between the two books on the Gospel, in circulation among a people whose language he could not understand. 2. Bar-Hebraeus tells us that Ephraem commented on the Diatessaron of Ammonius. But Bar-Hebraeus got his information demonstrably from BarSalibi; and we have seen Bar-Salibi's own testimony, and consequently, know that Bar-Hebraeus misunderstood him. 3. Victor of Capua, in the middle of the sixth century, tells us that Eusebius says, that Tatian called his book Diapente, and skeptics have made much of this as showing that five Gospels were admitted. But (A.) we have Eusebius, and he does not say " Diapente," but "Diatessaron"; and (B.) Victor did not understand him to say Diapente, for he himself explains it as
perors, can hardly be expected to distinguish



ex quatuor."



therefore, not Victor's

word, but the mistake of some subsequent officious copyist.
evidence, therefore,
irresistible that the


patcliwork Gospel framed from our four,

work of Tatian was a and winning its way,


tells us,

on account of


superior convenience.

He knew

contained John's prologue; and since

was writ-

ten after Tatian's lapse into heresy,

omitted certain parts of
It was, in tlie

the Gospels as inconsistent with that heresy.

main, however, a fair harmony of our Gospels, and made its wa}'' even into the use of whole orthodox churches. Now, the bearing of this is: 1. In the time of Tatian our four Gospels had been so long accepted, and were held in such honor, that
be as here represented.
Diatessaron of Tatian seems to have been lately recovered, and proves to See Mr, Wace's articles in The Expositor for 1881.


was sought for and seen, and the attempt was made to exliibit it. 2. Orthodox and heretic alike, honored them. 3. So far as the Gospels are concerned, the canon was fixed " and " closed." Tatian's younger contemporary, Iranseus, could, therefore, twenty years later, argue that there could not in the nature of the case have been more or less than these four Gospels. The position of Irenasus illustrates the action of Tatian, and gives its true meaning to his
their organic unity


Section LVII.

And what Tatian
for the

proves for the Gospels, that Melito proves
Melito was Bishop of Sardis in the mid-

whole canon.

Eusebius gives us to understand that the " Apology " was the last of Melito's writings, and both
dle of the second century.

ancient tradition and internal evidence place


at 170.


accords with the fact that Polycrates of Ephesus, circa A. D. 190,

mentions him with, and among those great men of the past, who agreed with him in the Paschal controversy, adding that he was then lying at rest in Sardis awaiting the resurrection and also with the fact that Melito himself dates his treatise on the Paschal controversy at the time that Sergius Paulus was pro-consul of Asia, and we know now, through M. Waddington's investigations, that this was 164-166. The period of his greatest activity must have been, therefore, from 155-170. The large number of books which we know he wrote, on almost every subject of Christian thought, would seem to require a long period, so that he might have begun to write ten years earlier. He was, then, the younger contemporary of Papias and Polycarp, and the older contemporary of Irenaius. Of all his works, we have again by a singular fatality which seems to have attended nearly all the writers of this age, only that one wherein he could witness least to our Scriptures his Apology and that only in a Syriac transIn this Apolog}^, however, we can find proof that its lation. author knew St. John's Gospel and the Epistles of James, and 1 A striking, but not certain coincidence of language Peter. with 2 Peter, is also contained in it. Several fragments of other works of his have come down to us, also, from which we can learn how the Christians spoke to one another, and how much more freely they drew out of the Scriptures, than when



they addressed the heathen.
ly refers to both

In one of these fragments he clear;

John and Luke in anotlier to all four Gospels. An extract from this will show how full, both of scriptural phraseology and orthodox theology, a Christian theologian of the second century could be. It was the Lord Jesus Christ, he tells us, who " is the perfect Reason, the Word of God; who was begotten before the light who was Creator together with the Father who was the fashioner of Man who was all in all who was incarnate in the Virgin, who was born at Beth;




lehem, who was Avrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger, who was seen of the Shepherds, who Avas glorified by the Angels, who was worshiped by the Magi, who was pointed out by John, who gathered together the Apostles, who preached the Kingdom, who healed the maimed, who gave light to the blind, who raised the dead, who appeared in the temple, who was not believed on by the people* who w\as betrayed by Judas, who was laid hold on by the Priests, who was condemned by Pilate, who was transfixed in the flesh, who was hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who rose from the dead, who appeared to the Apostles, who ascended into heaven, who i*?itteth at the right hand of the Father who is the rest of those that are departed, the re;

coverer of those that are


the light of those that are in

darkness, the deliverer of those that are captives, the guide of
those that have gone astray, the refuge of the afllicted, the

bridegroom of the church, the charioteer of the cherubim, the God who is of God, the Son who is of the Father; Jesus Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen." If
captain of the angels


man who

wrote that, did not possess and esteem, as a di-

vinely given word, the Scrijitures of the


Testament, there

That Melito did possess a " New Testament,'' which he esteemed as equal to the "Old Testament," we know from another fragment, preserved to us by Eusebius (E. H. iv:26) a fragment of the preface to his book of "Selections." The subject dealt with is only the Old Testament but the Old is so spoken of as to imply a New. He writes to his friend Onesimus " Since thou hast wished to


be no value in evidence.



learn accurately concerning the old books, how many they are in number, and what order they should hold, I have made
* * haste to do this having come, therefore, into the East, and being even in the place w^here these things were proclaimed


and done, and having learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, I have sent a list of them, of which these are the names: Five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers,

Deuteronomy, &c., &c." Now this familiar speech of " the Old Books," and " the books of the Old Testament," implies " New Books," and "books of the New Testament." More than this, the words are so arranged in the Greek, that the emphasis is necessarily thrown, each time, on the word ''Old,'' and the phrases, therefore, both strongly and necessarily sugLeviticus,

gest the opposite. New.


sentences are so arranged, as to

show that when Melito wrote " the Old books," and " the books of the Old, Testament," he had in his mind as contradistinguished from them, the " New books," and the " books of the New Testament." Exactly what he meant by the phrase " the
books of the Old Covenant,"
cally, DiatheJce

another question.


may mean the contents, subject of the books and the phrase may then mean the books which contain the Old Covenant. Perhaps this is what Melito meant when he sent to

Onesimus a

of the books containing the

Old Covenant, as

distinguished from those containing the New.

In that case, the

books of the New Covanant

— and as a definite
it is


just as strongly witnessed to as on

any other hypothesis.

the evidence being taken into account,

not certain but
of " the hooks


we ought

to believe that the


Old Testament" had

already hardened






constituting the Old Covenant"; and hence that the phrase "books of the Old Testament," means here, "the books of that definite collection," implying another definite collection called


Testament. Certain it is, that scarcely thirty years later TertuUian, in distant North Africa, could so familiarly use the words and it is not to be believed that the usage grew up


with him. The point


however, not worth contending


in either case Melito witnesses to a definite collection of books

the books of the Old Testament," in such a
definite collection called " the


as to

books of the NewTestament." Whether these titles had already degenerated into mere titles in Melito's time, or remained descriptive of the contents, is of no moment one way or the other. In either

imply another

case Melito

had such a

definite collection, or " canon,"

and doctrines he learned from

were just

and the those we now

find in

" it immediately proceeds. Slightly younger than Melito. and familiarly speaks of " The Gospels. wrote after the ascension of Chsist. he was St. the neighboring See of Hierapolis was held by Claudius Apolinaris. the "Muratori Canon. and the parable of the strong man bound. also. who also addressed an Apology to Marcus Aurelius. Its wit. he unequivocally quotes John. the physician.") So. and professes to have been written by a contemporary of the Roman Bishop. " that according to Luke." This is a remarkable Latin fragment torn from its context. and all its internal characteristics harmonize with the claim. full of barbarisms in language. : and so . It seems to be Roman in origin. on account of his zeal for righteousness. however. That the conclusion to which we have come. Pius. he began his evidently referring to present. we possess but three short fragments. about 175. in his own name. Nevertheless.'s lines." " The third book of the Gospel. are true and sure. we have the witness of the fragment. : 11 . neither did he see the Lord in the flesh and (so he wrote) so far as he was able to ascertain. the primary object of the writing does not seem to have been historical but it rather has the appearance of being an excerpt from a controversial writing against heretics. therefore. In one he clearly refers to . Section LIX. While Melito was living and writing at Sardis. called usually from the name of its discoverer.John's Gospel. Mark he set them down. when Paul had taken him as a second. Luke. and evidently a clumsy translation from the Greek. and to the best of his judgment. as to the estimation of the New Testament which this age held." In another. he rivaled him in the voluminousness of his writings. Of all that he wrote. Although a list of New Testament books. It cannot have been composed. (or with Lightfoot's fine emendation " and he too set down incidents as he was able to ascertain them. calls by name.81 Section LVIII. ness goes to prove absolutely the possession of the New Tes- tament as a definite and honored collection at this early date. much later than 170. amounting in all to about twenty Matt. which is found in the Synoptics. however. The fragment begins abruptly with the last half of a sentence " At which.

and two Epistles of John." The fragment then goes on to speak of Acts. since all things in them all are declared by a single and supreme Spirit. concerning the birth. corresponding to the third and fourth above. with kingly power. (probably. although various elements are taught in the several books of the Gospels. it is mere folly and despair which could venture to deny that the first and second Gospels of this fragment. —one of the disciples. the first." or (Epistles). Then it once more branches off to condemn the Shepherd of Hermas. the second. etc. ascribing them expressly to him and comparing the fact that seven churches are addressed in them. As Credner admits. however." No theologian of our own day could more clearly express the inspiration of the Gospels. which had been forged in the name of Paul. and returns again to speak of Jude." — : : names the thirteen Epistles of Paul. and then narrative from the birth of John. and breaks off suddenly in the midst of a sentence. Between the above. it makes no difference to the ftiith of believers. Besides being thus mutilated. and his double ad vent. as apocryphal." among the Catholic according to the noun supplied. passion. &c.82 The fourth Gospel is John's going on to give the circumstances under which John wrote. conversation with his disciples. brought in as if it was attached to. therefore. sq. We . that some of " our number " do not accept the last. which is yet to be. the first. &c. and a direct quotation of 1 John 1. and therefore we can lay no stress on its omission of some of our books es- — pecially since otherwise to some of these omissions are of books known have been accepted in Rome at the time.. we read farther " And. together with others not named. as " Catholica " is singular). resurrection. received " into the Catholic (church). and almost formed a part of John's Gospel." but adds. than this writer has in the use of these words " All things in them all are declared by a single and supreme Spirit. Next it states '' : " We receive also only the Apocalypses of John and Peter. to tlie seven churches addressed by " John in the Apocalypse. there are evident marks of chasms in the document itself. and Mark and thus we find our four Gospels fully authenticated. were our Gospels of Matt." It then turns aside to condemn two Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians. in despised humanity.. (probably 2d and 3d. which has been. which it ascribes to Luke. glorious. as 1st had been already mentioned) as ..

and Titus. all of our — ters books are expressly named in it. 1 and 2 Cor. therefore. and Hebrews. . 1 and 2 Peter.. and we find also most probable allusions to Col. Thus.. and the one important book of — Hebrews (in . With him the New Testament is like the Old Testament. are unmistakabl}'' referred to. found. however. John. and a. as " the Evangelic voice " and Romans. and received as divine (uno ac prinIn other words. as the church of 1881. he declares that the declarations of the Prophets and Gospels concerning righteousness. In spite of the fragmentary character of the document. Heb. All the allusions are must be remembered. probable reference to 2 Peter it i:19. in the one work by Theophilus. we turn again Theophilus. 1 and 2 Peter. 1 Tim. also. Matt. to say the Such is the witness of the Western Church.. etc. sixth Bishop of Antioch. Catholicam Ecclesiam). we owe our knowledge that Theophilus held the New Testament to be inspired like the Old by the one Spirit of God. in the time of Marcus Aurelius presumably from 168 to 182 speaking in the same way. and the word was with God. Eph.. doubtless. and all the inspired men teach us. one of whom. If to the East. and to the Emperor. 1 Peter." Hoi}'' Scriptures. Section LX. except these three brief letJames. and those that are named are so mentioned as to lead us to understand that they were both generally received. least. are like those contained in the law.. it gave some further scope for reference than was usual in such works. In the beginning was the Word. Eusebius tells us that he used the Apocalypse. inspired by the one Spirit of God. Phil. that the only omissions are James. "because that they all spake as inspired by the one In another passage he writes " Whence the Spirit of God. we will find — — : ' . To that fact alone. cipali Spiritu declarata). Mark is quoted. and Mark liaving certainly been the first and second of the books of which Luke and John are counted third and fourth. . in the Scune honor. liowever. says. the church of 170 held the same New Testament.'" A passage from St.must remember. which has come down to us and that is an Apology ! Being addressed. to an individual.

us by Eusebius. an older contemporary of Theo})hilus. as Dr. calls them the " Divine Scriptures. and in another fragment he uses the language of a . which he called The Dom- which he held to be divine. Section LXIII." Our next witness. you will notice an allusion to Matt. by remarking that Dionysius fought against the heresy of Marcion." marks it as a divine collection. as we have seen." The calling of this " rule of truth " " The DominIn the frag- ical Scriptures. (or as Westcott. Bishop of Gnossus. who held the chair of Bishop in that city from the death of Justin (148) to about 170. and on the other added some (to what I wrote). Section LXII. Westcott well remarks. and these the Apostles of the Devil have filled with tares. It is not wonderful. He. Eusebius opens up to us the meaning of this last. " to adulterate them "). and another to Rev. wrote many letters to the neighboring churches. of the New Testament as the " Dominical Scriptures." and thus fairly closes the . that in the whole Epistle the correct and orthodox views are imbeen preserved to It is . out of the Epistle to the Hebrews " and Eusebius adds. and defended the "Canon inical Scriptures. if some have attempted to treat the Scriptures of the Lord recklessly.^' of Truth. and which he charged others with having corrupted. in zeal for orthodoxy. serves to show that the familiar use of Apostolic language. therefore. and a fragment from Dionysius concerning these letters " is preserved to us by Eusebius. (and it is therefore of less impor- From " of this passage plain that Dionysius too held a " Canon the New Testament..84 Section LXI. I wrote them. since they have deigned (to corrupt) those tance). and. not of the man. and reads as follows When brethren urged me to write letters. He was. Dionysius spoke. having on the one hand taken away some things (which I wrote). then. ment above. of Corinth. passage of 1 Thes. was character" The whole passage is built istic of the age. aged forth. If more evidence of the same character is desired. Just five lines of a reply to one of Dionysius' letters have by Pinitus. for whom the woe is appointed. Hegesippus." " not such. we may have it from Dionysius.

an Ebionite. too. and of dee}) Jewisli sym})atliies. the phraseolog}'' is in — — all the Tuebingen writers . and disproves any Ebionite tendency. he found the true faith. Gobarus states that Hegesippus asserts." he says. Now all this shows beyond a peradventure that Hegesippus was an orthodox Christian.) the unerring tradition of the apostolic preaching. ii:9)." The passage being given by Gobarus in the oblique form." In Corinth. and Clement's Epistle representing it. Melito. Hegesippus' testimony.) In another place he describes him as " having recorded (viii. brew descent. etc. comes to us as the testimony of an orthodox Christian of his time. curiously enough. one of the mainstays of the Tuebingen School. " and in every city." Plegesippus himself witnesses to his orthodoxy by calling attention to the fact that the churches through which he passed on his way to Rome. Ebionite-like. the prophets. The mention of Clement's Epistle. What renders this little theory un- ." (as in 1 Cor. which is again preserved by Photius. over and over again testifies to his strict orthodoxy.85 which we have to bring. Hegesippus. " Eye hath not seen. of the ninth century. then. and later. having handed down in his writings "the orthodoxy of sound faith. Hegesippus seems to liave flourished from 157 to 176. is i)robability to directly opposing Paul. that those who used the phrase. Eusebius. against his own demurrer. and his great theologico-historical work in five books is lost to us is. in their attempt to make him. of the sixth century. and his phrase " the divine Scriptures." (xxi. The fragment in which it occurs for we have nothing but fragments of Hegesippus. he yet was wholly free from Judaizing heresy. classing him with such series of testimonies men as as Dionysius." covers all those New Testament books which the orthodox Christians of his day accepted. ii:9 therefore. It is preserved to us imbedded in a fragment of Stephen Gobarus. it is just as the law. Pinitus. and to onr Lord himself. derived from the apostolic tradition. and your ears that hear. "In every succession. and the Lord preach. Apolinaris. who said. and was Though of Hea nian licld in much esteem in the church. and no Ebionite. "Blessed are your eyes that see. and Irenteus. and what they were we have by this time seen. give the lie to the sacred writings. carries Paul's Epistles along with it. all held the same faith with himself. etc. Now from sa}' Paul quotes this passage Isaiah in 1 Cor. be ascribed to Hegesii)i)us himself.

3. used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. indeed. made use of this phrase from Isaiah in defense of their heresy Hegesippus says it is no . heretics? 4. . Eusebius' testimony to his orthodoxy includes testimony to his acceptance of Paulinism. "But God hath revealed them unto us.86 tenable. but only show the difference between the privileges of those to whom Isaiah spoke. The other argument to prove Ebionitism in Hegesippus. is that Eusebius does not say that he accepted Paul's writings. His use of it does not prove he held it as inspired. but rather the reverse. the silence of Eusebius has been already dealt with. 2. for he mentions the Epistle of Clement. and hence we know this was the only one he used. etc!" Hegesippus but follows Paul. without regard to its character as inspired. was his sole evangelical source hence he was an Ebionite. 5. to Paul. A historian like Hegesippus would be likely to search up and use every document which seemed likely to give him any truth. there- Hegesippus thus probably owed his method of meeting these heretics. but in such terms as to imply that he used it sparingly. is that Paul and Hegesippus agree in their method of treating this very passage. saying in another passage that " when determining concerning the books called Apocrypha. The argument points. The mode of procedure of Eusebius required him to mention every apocryphal book used. — — : — . he records that some of them were forged in his own time by certain heretics. Eusebius. and of those to whom he writes . rejected that book. We have used testimony from heretics in these lectures are we. it is said that Hegesippus. and shown to imply nothing adverse here. and that Epistle calls particuthe other way. and his opponents were those Gnostics who. Again. lar attention to Paul's first letter to the Cor. therefore. therefore. —adding imme- diately after it. 2. and it is attempted to imply. longer valid in these N. But 1. as we learn from Hippolytus. it would be opposed to Eusebius' mode of procedure and uniform practice if Hegesippus accepted the apocryphal book of the Gospel according to the Hebrews for Eusebius not to have mentioned Hegesippus. fore. We know he knew 1 Cor. Eusebius implies that he rejected the Apocrypha. times. therefore.. and not as his only source: " He used it somewhat. But 1 Eusebius does indeed state that he used this Gospel. The meait here. to the Avay in which Paul had dealt with the same passge. quotes it." Now." is a fair translation of what he says. T. according to this.

which make up the New Testament in our hands to-day.. Luke. written in 177. to the following re- summing up : the results of this period of Ajjologists. timony borne it by such Suffice men aslrenseus. Rom. Rom. 1 Cor.. Cor. We tion. be carefully oJ)served that the evidence proofs is frag- which we have brought forward are gathered from a series of some 25 or 2(j sets of brief and accidentally preserved fragments. mentary — the .. are right when they testify that he was orthodox. And even the heathen. to the facts same evidently one God. I would draw your attention marks 1st.and Hegesippus himself. It is to . Section LXIV. We need not. that their contemporaries bear witness. Athenagoras. and 1 John. Tertullian. to say. and that not unabundant. John. uses it. that he did use our Gospels. in the face of hardly necessary to Thus the Apologist. Matt. or of fragments. They all have which they authenticate. Canon of Scripture-truth and ail three alike they inherited from the the men wdiose testimony we have been examining. Celsus. not long afterward betrays a knowledge of the Gospels. Irenccus. John. stretching back to unite with that of the contemj^oraries of the Apostles. each in his own measure. and w^hich his younger contemporary. With this testimony we may fitly close this period. attempt to add to the fulness of the tesfor this fourth quarter of the century. exists the fulness of the proof alread}' given. cite it is but. one . the most of them from works of such character as excluded direct appeals to the Scriptures.. without hesitathat therefore Acts. pleads for those Scriptures. . We find in them several plain and one possible one to John he also ma}^ conclude then. and when he speaks of the " Divine Scriptures. writing in 177. Other testimony." he witnesses to the estimation in whicli he and the church of his day held that collection of Scriptures which the jNIuratori Canon enumerates. The Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons. and Clement of Alexandria. that the careful Eusebius. 1 Tim. and Gal.87 gre fragments which have allusions to Matt. refers to Luke. refers to the come down to us suffice to show us . in a word. one Lord. however. Section In LXV.

2 Peter. becomes more plain when we notice that the Every corner of it well nigh is represented. possess witness. the various books of the New Testament can claim each the following number of witnesses out of the 4th.. . 19 6 11 18 7 Romans. Acts. 10 .• . Hebrews. Pvev. . The it. all except 3 John have indisputable refer- . 2 Thes. . 1 Thes. . witness to exactly the same set of books. Now this of itself shows that what they witness to is not individual opinconsistent. 3 7 In other words. 3d. John. . . alone excepted. fragments of whose writings ion. They witness to exactly the same set of books. is represented in these fragments. gathered kinds of sources and pieced together. Jude.2 3 5 1 1 Ephesians. the orthodox writers. 23. 21 . The whole church.88 2d. 2 Tim. North Africa. . covers the whole canon as we now Counting the Peratici and Sethiani as one Ptolemaeus and Heracleon as one and Dionysius and Pinitus as one. so lately Christianized. Neglecting now reasonably doubtful references. too. only one would admit an apochryphal book to the canon of Scripture. to have our doubts removed. we have 23 authorities. And if we doubt whether its testimony would be accordant. With this one doubtful exception from the Canon of ]\Iuratori. 3 10 5 2 o O 1 16 . 1 . these fragments. is thoroughly Of we have examined. Colossians. — — tlien. this And witness comes from the whole church. 5 . 5 7 .. . and in that case it is frankly told us that some of the Christians rejected it.. . John. And all from all yet the evidence of all these fragments. 1 Tim. Luke. Mark. we have only to turn to Tertullian tlie first Christian North African writer in the immediately succeeding age.. viz : Matthew. 1 Corinthians. Titus. 6 2 2 Corinthians. but universal conviction. Philemon. James. John. . . Philippians. Galations. 9 .. 1 Peter. one and all.

and Milito. it is made out fully that the Christians of the age stretching between 120 and 175 possessed the same New Testament that we possess. &c. at the expense of the falsification of history herself. but collectively. we have been unable to resist the proof accumulating on us that from the beginning of the period the Church possessed her books collected and held lutely that throughout this period these books collected into a canon. In a word. — form of a " Canon. as constituting the Scriptures. . than we have it in these fragments. the witness goes to prove absothe Church possessed Throughout our inquiry in the cases of Papias. sixthly. and Marcion. and yet remain natural. the divinely inspired Word of God. and others are quoted with St. (the Notice again that these books are not only witnessed to separatel}'. ences. All are quoted and . equal in divinity and authority to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. and Theophilus. we have seen them called both Dominical and Divine Scriptures. and alike with. &c. in a word. ahnost Muratori Canon). under various names. and Tatian. and one more doubtful. and Justin. fuller." 6. . certain.. and Valentinus. as the books inspired by God's Spirit. together with. in in the — fact.and treated it with the same respect as the inspired Word of God. . Time and again we have seen the ScripTestament. and others again with "that which is said " and other equivalents. it must be done at the expense of all of our historical sources.89 and 3 John has one probable. we have found that this collection was esteemed as of equal authority with the Old Teseament as. If the historical authenticity of our Canon is to be denied. it is even stated in so many words. And they therefore well stand between such testimony as we have seen was borne by the Apostolical Fathers and that borne b}' the age of Irenseus.: ''that which was spoken". At least seven of the books are called " Scripture " in quoting them. 5th. Luke's favorite formula in quoting Scripture. the Law and the ProphThe proof could hardly be made in the same compass ets. one. we treated with respect. united with the Old. and Apolinaris. that they were dictated by the One Divine Spirit. at the expense of the destruction of the to in well . viz. tures of the New — have seen them witnessed nigh every way conceivable. and the Muratori Canon. and in the same form held it in the same honor. more complete or more convincing. Then.

To change the facts. and as long as history seems to men best wrought out when founded on facts and not on fancies. however. our survey of the canon up to the date of Irenseus' ascension to the episcopate of Lyons and Vienne. Let it not be thought. work on the basis of preconceived theories of philosophy. authenticated fully and unquestionably. for our present purcertainly enough has been brought forward to authenposes ticate our canon to any reasonable mind. We have brought. From that time on it is admitted on all sides that our canon has been generally received in the church. Alike by each of the three ages into which the second century may be divided is the Canon of the New Testament. each of which implies the previous existence of parts of our canon. we have over 50 of them. however. Taken together. as truth remains truth. As a mere example the whole mass of evidence derivable from the Apocryphal books. so long we need not fear the attacks on the histor}^ of our Canon by those who. however. we shall never lose the force of the proof which we have been examining. If this is inconsistent with a pantheistic or a materialistic philosophy. Section LXVI. If we never forget that evidence arising from natural quotation is both retrospective and cumulative. The testimony of these fragments is that our Canon was even then held to be a Divine collection of books received from the hands of the Apostles.90 grounds of all historic inquiry. Probably enough has been said. Here then we may fitl}^ pause. — . is the only As long way in which we can get rid of the proofs. One mention of Matthew in these ages would prove the prior existence of his Gospel. with a knowledge falsely so-called. to reconstruct the history of these ages on theory and with the utter rejection of all historical remains. let . has been left untouched. as we have it. Other mines also have been left unworked. and enough to show the vast cumulative force of the evidence. Each age independently auththenticates it. they found it so securely on the rock of truth that it is difficult to conceive it ever shaken. and so on. and not on the fragments preserved to us from the times themselves. that we have exhausted all the evidence for the earlier history of the canon in our cursory view of it.

the facts? . tt) must explain or theory or theory Shall we adjust the facts to the That is the single ciuestion which clamors for answer when we consider any theory which denies tliat the church held the New Testament as a divinely authoritative collection of books from the beginning. which any theory of the universe perish. nomena of- the universe.9] us explain away the philosophy and not the historically Historical facts are part of the phe- authenticated fragments.






isation. but only not of itself and by itself sufficient to satisfy external presumption when connected with some that the Epistle may be what it asserts. however. and It it is to be settled on appropriate historical evidence. evidence for 2 Peter can be shown to be sufficient and convincing. If the but less proportionately to length and importance. But we cannot at this day hear the Beyond what witness one book cate^ itself. The it books found to occupy a place in it The question is. The question Avliicli we propose is Canon of the New Testament is a 2 Peter is a purely historical one. and that we examine with particular we may hold correct opinions we may obtain a practical stan- dard by Avhicli to estimate the strength of the evidence for the other books. thus of especial importance that it care the testimony for as to its both that own authority. John and Philemon have less). To do this we must make two queries : Is . admitted on Peter is less all hands that the evidence for the canonicity of 2 cogent than that for any other — not. voice in its authorisation. apostolic gift to the then.] Tlie Canonicity of Second Peter. apostolic v. or has been foisted unrighteously into a place to ? which it has no claim This is a historical question. \vn^ to bear to another Luke and wliat we cannot appeal is — — as Paul in 1 Tim. 45 [Fjoiii f/ic Soil f Jura Fi-esl>i/feri<iii. definite collection of it. 18 authenti- witness an at this book may bear to day to immediate apostolic authorof these testimonies fails. the settlement of it a question. Januari/.1882. Review. perhaps. the greater evidence capable of being otiier l)ooks will It is adduced for the be readily seen to be of overwhelming power. less in amount its (2 New Testament book. Was is always there. but to seek to resolve the question of church indirectly. Perhaps may be said that It is means the settlement of the Canon. of vast dogmatic interest. In the case of 2 Peter the first and the second doubt. therefore. 1882.] THE CANONICITY OF SECOND PETER. It is essential to the canonicity of a it New Testament book that apostolic apostolic should have been given to the Church by the apostles as of divine authority. We its have no resource.

.^ it he distinguishes Peter's with the together. at the opening of the third century. the Avay in which Origen speaks of the and uses it clearly indicates this fact — that it was generally received it is at this time as Peter's and Scripture. the presumption overwhelming that the Church thus be divine only because it from the apostolic age held ceived it it to had re- from the apostles as divine. Horn.* as equally first he clearly and distinctly names both to the Epistle's genuineletter Although.. in his 'Out- ^Comra. VI.... . 1333) : 'K-ko re rtjg -p(J77/g eiriaroAfjc (1 P.8)..'^ ^Coium. He it not only quotes its words. now have. E. in Ep. therefore. 15 1.. (III. the letter old enough to have been written by an apostle the Church from tive rule of faith its ? Has beginning held it as a part of the authorita- If these tAvo questions are answered in the is arfirmative.. 1179): ''Et Petrus in epistola sua didt -In ii. E. day. Horn... 14. VI. T. Alexaxdria. in Matt. tliat is o^uo/Mjovfievr/v' devrepav' II.' : ^Eus. it." (II. Ro. he mentions the fact that there were some doubts abroad with reference ness. in the hands This. 'Add laTu 6e to 2 above : ''Et iterum alibi (1 P. EXTERXAL EYIDEXCE FOR THE EARLY DATE OP It is II. not possible to believe first by Origen was manufactured or be- came widely known have this in his own We Avould a priori expect his to older contemporary and jn-eceptor. 8 (Migne 857). 676) : ^^Et id ait quodam in loco scriptura (2 P. If the internal evidence is found to corroborate is and no adequate rebutting evidence it produced. 2). ClExAIExt of also knoAvn it. iv. Numer. admitted on all hands that the veritable 2 Peter which we reiteratedly plain. indeed. us that " Clement. that a book so dealt with Now. We are consequently not surprised to find Eusebius^ tells that was the fact. afia[id7JieTaL So also in Lih. 16). Nov.46' The Canonicity of Second Peter. lOl. (2 P. the position of the Epistle in the Canon will be will seen to be so secure that amount to self-stultification to oppose I.^ from 1 Peter ^ and combines Epistle . PETER.. Avas. IV.^ and as Scripture. is of Origex. 6H. this. i. (Migne. but he quotes them as Peter's. H. Jesii. 25 Kol "Peter left behind one Epistle yap. ? [Jan.

have been hazarded to explain this last tion term plainly it includes the Epistle of Barnabas and Revela- of Peter given in Eusebius's statement. Bleek and testi- Reuss would go farther and throw doubt even on Clement's mony. ad Gentes.. Sylb. 109..r/aiaa-iKov' All sorts of conjectures .iKC)v Kac tov tKK/. and even such men tainty. who used freely the works of his namesake. to 47 of" all lines. 5). tlierefore. 66. simply the asserted silence of earlier writers but the precariousness of the argument from silence may is be learned from Clement of Alexandria himself. and Westcott are its in uncer- Hence Credner can assign middle origin. 8. meanino.concise explanations the Canonical Scriptures without omitting the disputed books I mean the Epistle of Jude. jj/'a'/'. rather. as is assigned by Hilgenfeld and the majority of his school. may have obtained it. and Hilgenfeld. and yet no mention of no evidence of his extant knowlege of fiifstitutio at all secure. He calls the Hypotyposes (or "Outlines") of Cle- men*.of earliest. "the ecclesiastical in books" Kutinus's sense? ^The passage often adduced : Cohort. as Alford wdiile Epistle.: Expositions tov Ihlov Hau/Mv ruv 'tTnaroAuv Koi tuv Kado2..^ can be found in prcef. and that he even wrote a commentary on far as The mass of modern critics would have us believe that this is as we can go. it p. speak generally. c. ble. Co. would be a most probable reference. it —the irrefragable it . us.) {Cf. « ." tius.' lias given. to its the second centurv. according to Eusebius. as -well as the' E})istle of Barnabas and the so-called Revelation of is Peter. the while Bleek Avavers between the two opin- ions. untena- however. ed. whence Clement of Alexandria. although inclinino. May it be simply a scribe's error for ruv eKKlrjtnaaTiKuv. XXXV. See below (the passage adduced fi-om Clement Ro. to the former. any of Divinarum Sn-ipturarum. certainly) among it. at the earliest. the Scrip- tures. . Tlie is abundantly evident from the data already before opinion is basis of the . except that occurs also in Clement of Rome. to the beginnino.1882. and the other catholic Epistles .i.. at .^ This testimony It supporte<l by Cassiodorus^ and Pho- may. be accepted as indubitable and the conthat clusion drawn confideuth^ Clement had our 2 Peter probably (or. which must be explained by 'Bibl.] The Canonicity of jSecond Peter. That the later date. He proof possessed the letter and wrote a of this his ^ commentary on it. and that Clement marks the earliest trace of our So Credner and Hilgenfeld expressly.

an third older 1) contemporary of Peter Clement's. to refer any trace of Christianity if second century to this Epistle. and hence was to old as the apostolic To feel this we have only had listen to Clement's professions. as. as "that century could have ob- tained Christianity from no other source than 2 Peter. with Iren^us. it. The Canonicity of Second Peter. such as would require some weighty evidence to overturn. speaking of Peter and . This should teach us a lesson as to the value of the silence.." far this How sarcasm is deserved may be best determined by examin- ing the parallels actually adduced by "Apologists. then. argument from Second Peter assertion that On the other hand. 15) had spoken of something that he uera 7?. The usage of the book by Origen of such a character taken in connection with the fact of Clemit. is We may ent's go still farther. seeming allusion. a probability of the apostolical origin of 2 Peter would already exist. In the book (chapter the first of his great Avork against Heresies. of proof would certainly rest still is on those who denied earlier evidence its The ((ue-5tion remains. conclusion. whether the assertion is true that there no than Clement's for 2 Peter.48 writings. therefore. further evidence than Clement's. commenting on of Scripture. far in seeking older in the Reuss hints that "Apologists" have gone so Avitnesses as. or else a malicious forgery it —a book bearing the name of Peter and hence —with the was first either published during Clement's own life-time.v e/if/v intended to luive done Ircn^eus. we meet with £^o(hv. to exhibit it as a part of Clement's Canon The farther evidence in the case points to the same But Clement's Canon was not a private collection. . but the same that was held by the Avhole Church fact that the and the mere book formed a part of the Church Canon of the later part of the second century throws a strong probability on the supposition that as it had always been part of age. it is impossible to square the mere fact that Clement has written a commentary on considered genuine by him." We begin. [Jan. in reality. and he If Ave had no only those books which he had found everywhere clung to as those which had come down from the apostles. The burden canonicity. however. (2 Petfer i. He declares that he trav- elled far liolds and sat under many teachers of many names.

whence the framing of this pass- have been derived. we come in the fourth book (chapter xxxvi. It is. IrenaMis repeats the same statement. which presents a very diverse. directly or indirectly. and that almost verbally that .1882.Of.(. err/ But Ps.] The Canonicity of Second Peter. XXXIII. and it seems morally certain it must have come. t-. not the Peter's quotation from the Psalm. 2. 23. then Sodom and Gomorrah. . . 3) ingly high degree when we read yap his fifth book (chapter ug jiA^a and read that the world shall consumed in its creation ?) last a thousand years for every day r/fiepa Kvpiov 8. that the resemblance due not to dependence of one upon the XC. Irenajus's statement follows. 5). There the creation of the world had been discoursed upon (v. and in Ireniieus' mouth has been repeatedly misunderstood. 9. and answer simply that this may be a very convincing argument against Irena?us's care and scholarly accuracy in epistola sua." excludes where Irenseus quotes VOL. NO. but Peter's inference from the Psalm. wliat -49 ^^o<^ov. 4) to another passage in Avhich he adduces Noah. 4 reads on X'^^i^o. The argument is strengthened by the fiict that in V. is Already a presumption This is Irenasus's use of our epistle raised. 2. Paul. thought.finlQ aov uc ?'/ I'/ixepa y ixf^ic ')''f oc-^'/. ii. iii. 1 Peter with the formula: ''Petrm ait in any knowledge on the part of the writer of a 2 Peter also. lifted to an exceedxxviii. — 4. (v. indeed. indeed. 1. remarks on this is a happened /uera 6e -ijv -nv-uv Now it very unusual expression.? — a pas- sage wliich irresistibly suggests 2 P. to show that God will punish the wicked and save the holy. from 2 Peter./7. Our minds go for immediately to 2 Peter age seems to 4—7. its destruction are told. It seems clear that we are justified in modestly asserting that the probability that Irenssus possessed 2 Peter amounts to a moral certainty. kv 'o<t)OaJ.m and £tt/. replied that a phrase which occurs in IV. band 7)5 uTi/iia 7'//itpa Trapa Kvpiu is dig We 4. and Lot. other. suggested by Peter's words ? Does it not seem to have been Reading further.. We may waive any ((uestion of the genuineness of the words. and as coming from a respecteil source. but a : mutual dependence on Ps. not to say directly opposite this The passage But in 2 Peter depends on Psalm and the Psalm nor ^ j next clause to that quoted above becomes a quotation from the Psalm. xc.

at which Cyprian was present. could be cited is in these obnoxious words. ryv in' ovpavov. as may be seen by referring to the given from him at the beginning of this paper. Iren?eus certainly knew 2 John he quotes it explicitly and by name (I. Certainly no argument to from IrenfBus's use of the phrase can be drawn weaken the Going a few years further back a passage in the Avritings of bears all into the second century.50 The Ganonicity of Second Peter. but we need only adduce further a clinching fact from is who able to quote both 1 Peter and 2 Peter with the first same formula. . so that it appears that not only 1 John but 2 John at the and both together same time and place. We do not refer to Ad Autolycum. and cannot be wholly vitiated by an appeal to 4 Esdras 42 {tu enim nobis superasti ex omnibus prophetis — sicut . 11). but to the following passage from Sidvaii-g o'lKi/fiari Autolyc. therefore avvexofiivCf). evidence for his knowledge of 2 Peter. II. of this to 2 Peter 19 too great to be over- looked. 16." and immediately afterwards Aurelius is represented as quoting 2 John after the same a letter to him. The much like us moderns. and yet it is true. It may loose critics. 8) and yet he quotes 1 John (III. distinguishing the special epistle he meant. 3.'" (2 John also. dicens. 5 and 8) just as he quotes 1 Peter [in epistola sua. these ancient brethren were very quotation fact is. — Ad this is his word. i. Other evidence of the same kind abundant Origen. John ? Then and yet his correspondent. h ry kKLaToTiy. we find Theophilus of Antioch which the appearance of being a reminiscence from 2 P. has no difficulty in quoting 2 Peter in Did these two old hob-nobbing bishops possess ? Still again. at the seventh Council of Carthage. that this excludes the knowledge of 2 again. and used very free and general forms of speech. 9. one bishop is found quoting 1 John as "his epistle. 16. parallel to 2 Peter i. and III. but his knowledge of an epistle it cannot disprove which he has elsewhere quoted. Cyprian quotes 1 Peter after the same fashion. that just such a method of quoting was most common in Irengeus's day. 16. which is usually quoted as 21. distinct and different canons fashion: ''^Johannes apostolus in epistola sua poscit. (j)alvG)v II..^^ uoTTEp 'kvxv^'? eipuriasv is The resemblance xii. 13 : "The iv of God. X.) be astounding to the — — Shall we say.eter. [Jan. Firmilian.

Vis. ." xP^vog upa 'Edv Compare Compare vi. 3d Ed. 2). During the period which stretches back between Melito and A.] The Canonicity of Second Peter. of Avhom our Lord foreAvarned us. 4. Justin. to us in a Syriac translation.//lm erri. and the graven images which they have worshipped together with its and the sea shall isles shall be burnt up . ii. it runs as follows: ''There was a flood of waters. striking and are certainly to raise a very : strong presumption that iv.1882. 1. ii. They are three "Ye 15 (ii." ^On the But where can Canon. 2 Peter 20. 202. Those from sufficient Hermas are much more Vis. So abo fire. scarcely worth pleading (2 Clem. 82. "abandoned the true Avay. elg Much Stronger still are those urged from Justin. and Pseudo-Clement. 81. 3. Compare 2 Peter 13 : -yv h> yfiipa kvTpv(puvT£Q h Tali cnrdrarc avruv. 8 as source. airaTTj^ b icrrl fiia' r^f ~pvtj>?/g I'lfiEpCiv Kal -d rj/g [iaadvuv TpiciKOVTa 6uva/itv f joucrai. like the parallel its passage in Irenaeus. 5-7 and 10-12. 7. preserved we meet with a striking passage which seems to show dependence on In the translation of Dr. iii. Westcott' 2 Peter iii. oi'v iiinv i/ulpav rcg -pv^T/aT] nal rp'vcpT/v aTTaTTjOii. and much more important. 4. note 2... must be assigned : to 2 Peter iii. Melito of Saudis. and men burnt up together with their idols which they have made . Again also in Dial. this forcAvarning be found? p. 120. and 2 P. shall be at the last time. 51 lucerna in loco obsoiiro). . we read: iivvt/na/uv kuI to elpijfievov utl tovto avvdyeiv. wllicll. c." Perhaps it is Avithin the bounds of mod- eration to hold that this probably is a reminiscence of 2 Peter. Avho have escaped from this Avorld.. there shall be a flood of its and the earth shall be burnt up together with shall be mountains. and the just be delivered from the fury like their fellows in the ark from the waters of the deluge. it . Ave read "In the same manner also as there Avere ipevdoKpofyrai among the holy prophets that Avere with you. oe 2 Peter last part: (jpai ii. 7) at best this may possibly depend on that. so among us noAv are also many fevch^iddaKakoi. 'Hfiepa Kvpiov ug In Dial. mas. We may still at least claim that we have In some writings of a older contempoi-ary of Irenaeus". Simil. c. is That from 2 Clement. Hermas had 2 Peter. here a probable reference. D. 3." iii. Ave find parallels betAveen 2 Peter and three Avriters : Her .i. xvi. however.

D. as. that the period now before It will the years before A. iii. tpsv6oTTiiu(p7iTai among the people. the Typsiv in Reuben used in 2 P. 16. ^uidafiaai'] r^f y^g in Benj. that we have here a plain reference to 2 Peter. (iii. are more striking and render it probable that the author had and used 2 Peter. the rare to 5.. some peculiarities of vocabulary common two writings all of which combined raise a probability of some force of depen- dence on 2 Peter. January. wlio shall subintroduce damnable heresies" It exceedingly difficult to see how there can be any reasonable doubt but that these passages are drawn from 2 Peter. 2 P. with this difference. 147. Those from the Test. as Scripture. decisive as to the earlier see existence of 2 Peter and it is difficult to how assent can be withheld from the statement. i. 'Auyovg in its age. ])hrase rov 7v7arTEiv in Reuben use of which seems have been suggested by 2 P. xv. 120. to the and . And if so. ETT]. as an authoritative book giving the Lord's teaching. it is noticeable that Justin refers to 2 Peter with respect. practically.52 The Canonicity of Second Peter. All that was said above about the value of Clement's testimony may. it [Jan. V .us is to Justin's. Does were be is exist anywhere but in 2 Pet. with 2 P. the words of the Lord — in a word. p. Patt. ^ The parallel with Barnabas seems . Polycarp. xii. 1 [cf. because the next succeeding to that in which the A])ostles lived — and stretching from the apostolic age to A. instead of after 195. if not be surprising. ii. this From next age — called the sub-apostolic. therefore. New Testament and in the Test. D. 20 —a ii. parallels have been adduced with 2 Peter from the Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs. 1880. cf. ii. They are such as the very rare phrase fj-iacr/ioic [Oxford MS. therefore. 4 XejuV : ?} ynp ///uipa Trap' ahru xi'^aa avrog df juaprvpei 'Idov aiijiepov 7) fit pa inrai uf X'^^"^ ^~V- It ^Tliese points are fully stated in Presbyterian Review'. just as it is 3 9. Barnabas. 65. 2.. We fioi read in Barn. phrase found in 2 Peter only in the Patt. and Clement of Rome. 15.) may be passed over as only possibly derived from 2 Peter. in the we find testimonies for 2 Peter next earlier age. . That from Poly carp xii. as also 21): "But among you there shall ? ^svdoSiSncyKaAoi. ii. only 3. be transferred now . 8.

case Avith the parallels in Clejiext of Rome is so plain. 1881 lowing — and yet at the same doubt or deny any dependence on the same passage in the fol}'iypa-ra(. : 2 —the to 2 is 17 strength of which rests in this fiict that in each case a very rare in the and peculiar phrase occurs. Sanday father all is in his "Gospels in the Second century. We need greatly a weli- thought-out essay on the general question of literary dependence proofs. 6a! yoi 6e £K?ieK-ol ehpettuuev — {T^p- of Barnabas. 53 8. New Testament and is in the sub-apostolic age to Clement. Barnabas to 2 P. 5. l»e With how much quote is may a second century allowed to and his quotation be recognised? But not done yet that essential. . peculiar Peter.'^ while Barsages in the text. Stedman's ])assage does not help the ^^ Apolor/ists. our eyes on them that min- jie-jaiaTTiiETvai 66^1} ai'-ni. and similarly to what l 5—9. many who thought themselves to find j). Nor can liis the difference of context in Barnabas be urged ajrainst this is too characteristic of dependence on 2 Peter . first. iv.." has looseness made a fair beginning as to the question. which renders it more probable that he should (piote from the Now Testament. ii. We have. Dr. in vii. T?)g compared with 2 p. The enfew who {Mr. called. [speaking of the brood of American poets quarter of the nineteenth century] was in some perin>ents of the second way needful. iii. Or is if that Mr. 5. is to prove literary dependence. Stednian's context a vouchor for his borrowing there something in being a nineteenth century writer. and in English. and XXXV. 14). this Something subjeiit is wrong or when men will insufficient in tlie general understanding of this universally and immediately recognise this pas- sago as exhibiting dependence on Matthew — "All preliminary in fer- ment.] The Canonicity of Second Peter. — its marks. The xi. 1. or doubt or deny a dependence on 2 Peter in the pasIs Mr. ry itJw Compared w^th 2 P.'' 82J).1882. tto'AJ. and signs.^ Barnabas not quite elsewhere to be of any importance here. from Matthew ? Or is nabas' s does? We are ashamed to even think such a thing. then. 2. is is to be observed that the closeness of greater than was the ease in the like parallel in either Irenreus or Justin. And then we have two passages istered perfectly n] ix. i. Stedmaii in Scrihner for October. enabled the were chosen time will motives and occasions for work of real import. is Noah and Lot adduced done in 2 Peter fix ii. What was said there is therefore a fortiori strong here. Certainly this ^There needful a tyeat deal of error abroad as to what and how much full. than if he were a second century writer and a Greek? Certainly something is wrong with the critics. "Let us aA?/6dag.oI 'flf kAtitoI.

Peter Avas used by Irengeus (A. as Reuss sneers. it must have been already observed that these parallels do not turn. to raise-some probability that as early as 97 A.. Melito. D. on Christian commonplaces. xii. it the other such as raises his use of l)ility. [Jan. Clehad and borrowed a peculiar phraseology from 2 Peter. too much cannot possibly be made of the fact that this Epistle was finally accepted as genuinely Peter's and part of the Canon by the whole Church. ment enough Now.. is its ungenuineness difiicult exceedingly its to ac- And to this agreement as to canonicity extends back certainly the fourth century. Justin Martyr 147). only the probable references Hennas. all of them easiest soluble — assumption of dependence on 2 Peter. Patt. in which. to a high degree of proba- There are no earlier witnesses to call. and may very have sprung from the bosom of the apostolical circle II.54 The Canonicity of Second Peter. The two ences : earliest of the post-apostolic writers both furnish refer- the one such as almost demonstrates his use of the book. and Barnabas (c. In seeking to discover the attitude of the early Church towai-d 2 Peter. On the theory of (which implies uncanonicity) this count for. earlier than Clement of Alexandria. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY ACCEPTANCE OF THE EPISTLE AS CANONICAL. The presumption of its of Theophilus. ani Clement of Rome. early date thus raised would be convincingly strong. To a moral certainty 2 (c. first to century origin of the book the only probable hy- Instead of that we have fifteen or sixteen quotations. Test. with the exception of . the only rational course would be to ascribe 2 Peter to the first century and to the apostolic period. Yet this is but the weaker half of our evidence. How can we first fail to see that to a moral certainty 2 Peter came from the well. D. 106). but that they contain W Some by —the of them seem insoluble save by marked peculiarities of phraseology and thought. therefore. If we had.. One probable quotation from the early second century would have so supported the inference flowing from the testimony of Clement of Alexandria and Origen as render the pothesis. 175). ? cen- tury.

by Athanasius. . Avithout a word or sign to distinguish it from the other books. Synopsis Athanasii. so that with regard to it the question ? is not. is Beyond all con- troversy this a true position. tions will be proper. down our own time. it has been well in the fourth said that such a general support yielded to a book its century-!^ an antecedent j^roof of the truth of claims. Gregory Nazi- anzen. as a whole. Philastrius. the apostolical canons. Some remarks on each of these asser- 4n B the marjrira' marks of division are lacking. Not only monuments of the New Testament text as it existed in the fourth century. is be set aside by cogent The ? not. the existence of the book. it What proof have we Avhich will justify us in putting out of the Canon. Jerome. Epiphanius. (2) The doubts expressed concerning it by fourth century and earlier writers and (3) The small amount of very early evidence for Three . ^Westcott on the Canon. by the third Council of Carthage. Gelasius. That a book held so firm a pois in the fourth century it . to and Hormisdas. and Western all branches of the Church had at this time Syriac Church alone had omitted accepted and were all holding confidently to this Epistle as of divine authority. what sufficient grounds have we for placing 2 Peter in the it Canon but. codices B and X. the Decreta of Damasus. The Byzantine. therefore.1882. What further proof have we for its canonicity but rather. faith and rational assent unless (juestion. Avhere seems so firmly instated (1) facts have been and mav be iileaded as such iirounds The absence of the book from the Syriac Canon. Canon this presumptive proof that is it ])elonged of right in and presumption it valid to deter- mine our reasons. but it is witnessed to as existing in the Church Canon by the great writers is it found in those great ^ '^ of the day —by Eusebius. and so on. 2 Peter was universally accepted as part of the Canon. Adamantius. authenticated as the is ?^ Canon sition of the fourth century. 319. 55 one branch of the Church only. The it from her canon. What sufficient it grounds have Ave for ? putting out of the Canon. Rufinus. by the [Canons of Laodicea]. p. Cyril of Jerusalem. Now. by Augustine. Alexandrian. Independently of this presumption.] Tlie Canonicity of Second Peter.

It is clear. 342. Syrian Canon current in the hite fourth century. p. it is i-emarked it even if this truly represented the original Syriac Canon. Ill. ^See Ililgenfeld's Einleituni^ in das N. T. Thus Ephraem Syrus^ of the preceding generation. as comes down to us. Even it Ebed Jesu (14th Still century) confines the catholic epistles to only three. It is [Jan. XII. to have doubtless contained the omitted books. though he athnits that quamplurimi in his day accepted seven. XL. ChiTsostom accepts only three catholic seven. while mentioning that some accepted some accepted only as late a writer as Junilius himself accepts only two. III. and the authorities there quoted. and even Hilgenfeld. while earlier than his time that Canon seems to have included all of our New Testament books. and epistles.. Liicke. Syr. On the other hand.. 112. p. (Galliind. And the loose and manifestly exaggerated remarks of Leontius of Byzantium' are doubtless to be underetood as classing Theodore of Mopsuestia with this Syriac school. Biblio. that from the fourth century the Syria. 122. II. would be the testimony of only one corner of the Church and could not overbear the testimony of the whole of the rest truth it is . in 0pp. . Ephraem's use of 2 Peter may be noted Grtec. mentions also that Amphilochius of three.. He is our earliest The original Peshito is therefore admit- ted by such critics as Thiersch. Iconium. 686 sec[.. confessedly possessed all seven catholic epistles and the Revelation in an older Syriac translation of ecclesiastical authority^. T. therefore.) Compare also the wild statements of Kosmas' Indicopleustes. the earliest witness to the shorter form of the Syriac Canon. pp..56 (1) The Canonicity of Second Peter. while the form in which it was possessed by Chrysostom represents the result of a '^Contra Kettor. however. T. omits the same catholic epistles (together with the Apocalypse) which all these writers omit. but in more than doubtful whether the early Syriac Church Chrysostom is rejected these epistles. lit. 387. to be a-lmittetl that 2 Peter was absent from the after. further the Peshito vei-sion. witness to the Peshito.c Church omitted 2 Peter from her Canon. that. in his catalogue. in all its copies of foul" any weight of evidence. et Eiih/ch.

of Christ.^ and Pamphilus had Revelation. therefore. estimate of his Greek learning. in one brief statement. ^Pampli. VII.. IV.] The Ganonicity of Second Peter. . ^It has been customary to say that Ephraem witnesses to a Greek. therefore. 30. p. as we have seen. and doubtful Greek languajfe extended. Didymus at Alexan- —acted on. wei'e — — re- the air seems heavy with them. 142 and 143. II. by the Syrian Church.. Origen.. of Nisibis (represented by Junilius) accepting only two diversity can be best accounted for and this objection proceeded on critical for each individual to by the supposition that the grounds. ^Eus. (2) The doubts expressed by certain of the fourth century writers constitute the most serious objection to the force of the fourth century evidence for the genuineness of the epistle. VII. E.^ in itself 57 Thi. II.* (wdiich he assigned to John. epistles.s conclu- critical sion. it is isted in Syriac. Apol. Nor they of late origin. It is us see that they existed even then.) and seemingly also the whole seven of the catholic Syrian Church... ^Westcott. and critical grounds were to determine also how mucli was be rejected. that we should give them detailed attention. not the Syrian Canon (so Westcott). 362. for our completed Canon and the omission of 2 Peter from the later fourth century Syrian Canon resolves itself simply into another case of fourth century critical doubts. necessary. for a just Bnt it is clear that his Canon all exhow fiir his knowledife even of the See Smith and Wace's Diet. Antiochene revision of the fourth century.1882. ^lEus. Re- ported by Eusebius at Constantinople and dria. Thus Theophilus of Antioch (1(38-180) had 2 Peter and Revelation. E. peated by Jerome in Italy. And the earlier Syrian writers certainly possessed and esteemed the rejected books. II. Blog..^ Malchion had Jude. is yet still farther borne out by two further considerations The later Syriac Church was not agreed as to the number of the catholic epistles —the school .^ is The testimony of the early . 24. lets Early in the third century. sound and in its own : right.

he simply recognises and records the doubts that had already been raised. seq.ently read with the other Scriptures^ : And later. Elsewhere since it (III. his testimony to be such that the book it genuine and was held cannot be said.58 The Canonicity of Second Peter.. must be the one followed.?^T/(pa/i£v) been handed down useful to ns ivdtddeTov. ^Canon WevStcott has shoAvn (p. as being the only formal statement.^ therefore. III. his earliest childhood in contact with the Syrian critical Church. and. that he raises doubts as to the genuineness of 2 Peter. howfar Peter among the Antilegomena or disputed books. — name of 2 Peter had not ''still. Born probably and brought up certainly at Caesarea. 25. that he witnesses to the canonical position of iH. adds nothing to our knowledge. therefore. appeared "I recog- many. However difficult it may be to us to harmonise all this perfectly.) looser statements of Eusebius. as a formal all others. therefore. therefore. it had been [ol" dili<:. he had been from opinions. ever. In his catalogue of New Testament books. [Jan. is own opinion as to its genuineness is In brief. he says somewhat unrfuardedly and inconsistently Epistle nise only one and acknowledged by the ancient presbyters . and could not but be deeply affected by their He had the writings of Origen in his hands. considerable confidence. 388. affirm We re- may with with spect to Eusebius. and he tells us only of Origen's remarks against 2 Peter. . does not imply more than that it had not passed thus Avithout having been disputed. passage. There is reason to believe that what he says of the position of 2 Peter has its . he had promised to tell whatever was said by earlier writers about the Antilegomena." though doubtless he meant the whole predicate here to be taken as one single thought.. by the Church.. E." and betrays the was favorable. which would void the inconsistency. Peter] as genuine it is clear that the passage given in the text. ^ which. must take precedence of Eusebius arranges 2 This. He moreover distinctly states that it was among those fact that that had been ''recognised his by most. he declares that the book current under the {~apEi. although had been disputed by unIt named individuals on unmentioned grounds.) that this formal statement must explain the other 3. and no us quotes the passage in which he communicates the fact that there were doubters of 2 Peter's genuineness anything further than this at base in his day..

1 and 1 cites it just like the other Scriptures (pp. which although Like the it is nevertheless not in the Canon.^ and this proves either that he himself ^Mifine. 15). — — tliat his own opinion was that while he recognises the fact had been disputed. of the doubts whose complete selves could not shake his need not shake ours. as the slovenly Latin seems Didymus' day 2 Peter was not generally con- sidered canonical. if taken demonstrably false. 21. "^ this state- ment of Eusebius. probably a rendering of in public use. 182. The state of the case with reference to the doubts expressed by Didymus of Alexandria is much the same. it is based. 234). 90. Minjijarcll. 2S. grounds on which the fact here stated. strictly. (99. it De Trinitate. p. Didymus has simply misinformed his when he it flourislTed (born 309 or. his remarks add nothing to the evidence against the epistle. perhaps. For. then readers. The shadows faith. he yet tells us nothing of the grounds on which it had been disputed. unlike the case of Eusebius. to be "It ought unknown that the epistle is accounted spurious [falsatam. 151.. Moreover.] The Canonieity of Second Peter. ever. 34U). Judce. in his work on the Trinity. how- Latin accurately represents the original Greek. but do add to the argument for the genuineness of the epistle.i'^.774. ''In XXXIX. 2. that the difficult to believe. p. he cites Peter under It is that name. . It may. In other words. he calls it a catholic epistle (Ed. after the middle of the fourth century. and does not imply that he had knowledge of a greater or more wide-spread doubt than we have .1882. also in the Enarratio in Ep. be worth noting further that the Enarrationea were a youthful work. 314) is confessed on It is all sides that 2 Peter was in the Church Canon. is vodtvEra. only recites a fact without giving the But. Didymus uses 2 Peter most fully as Petrine and Scripture. is .) adverse statement at the end of the Enarratio in 2 Peter. to imply. ascribes distinctly to Peter (pp. favorable to that it its genuineness.34). thus iniplyinif in 2 Peter. 99. 276. then. He wrote a commentary on this epistle of which — Avhich is itself a significant fact — at the close we find a sentence which in the Latin translation (wliich : has alone come down to us) appears to read as follows not. "while to note further that he worth seems to use 2 Peter as "genuine. in defiance of his (seemin^i. 59 2 Peter in the Cliurch of his day. that in to be involved in the state- If the original Greek stated. 1. the items of. and Didymus' personal opinion seems ment.

(and knot for terror.^ is "two epistles which are called cath- the second of which denied by very many (plerisque) to be his on account of dissonance of style with the first." he olic . tells "Peter wrote. objection to 2 Peter. iDe Yir. 1. and in doing so voids these early objections of their Let there have been ''•very many Jerome's many" doubtless refers to the numbers involved are. and Avhy that they bore their notable above the style of fruit-ftirrrrin Syria. and therefore cannot stand In . us. informs us of the grounds of the early doubts. Jerome thus unties the whole or few affected by them. legitimate heir of Alexandrian speculation. From explains why it is that these objections appear at Alexandria. At the worst. it is not stmnge that objections are first heard The Antiochene school. hint we can understand the whole iirst history.. to be genuine. The Alexandrian It school was in it all others for internal criticism. . he was so accustomed to see it used and to use as genuine that his critical opinion to the contrary Avas apt to be forgotten in practice. all probability. Didymus simply repeats his master own use of 2 Peter in his work on the Trinity sucks the poison out of his adverse statement." is Jerome it not himself a doubter. and was the first to drive in many matters the critical hints of It is its predecessor to a practical end. appeal to the fathers not for internal but for external arguments and we can. as in the rejection by the Syrian Church. was the of there. His notice is valuable only because assures us that the doubters of the early Church based This their objecthis it is tions on purely internal.. not strange. or that it [Jan. of no value to us. Origen and at all events his against the faith of the mass of the Church. us. was that Hebrews and Revelation was first discussed and inferIf this was the source of ences drawn from the discussion.60 held it The Canonieity of Second Peter. not historical considerations. — that is. that this same course was followed in this matter also.) they founded on internal considerations. c. Jerome. it can only represent the personal opinion of Didymus supported by an anonymous minority. that it was generally considered genuine. We . on the other hand. at last. 111. and had been so considered through a long past.

The grounds of sufficient their doubt were purely internal. plainly few. (1.. Didymus possibly.) While may be confessed that the evidence for the existis ence of 2 Peter drawn from writers earlier than Origen. VI. rings letter."'^ Perhaps no more colorless words could have been chosen. E. received. our epistle. only where one shuts his eyes reallv its to this array of passages and refuses to consider meaning and strength. They are an anonymous body. Origen's own opinion cannot be gath- ered from them. and strong above doubt in favor of the (3. and yet. for is disputed. clear The testimony all it of the Church. clear from this that it was individuals who doubted. 4G above. Origen.) universal habit to think and speak of It is Avas the usual if not as Scripture and Peter's. it is difficult put our finger exactly on the doubters. exists in it not it has already been shown that abundant (piantity to prove the letter to be as old as the this proof It is apostolic times. It is plain. And hopelessly small one Jerome's day they are many before that. (2. and must remain in doubt. finally.. as the Church. perhaps solely questions of style. has behind one epistle it perhaps also a second. 61 when all examine opinions as to style at our leisure.) that some it in Origen's it day disputed the genuineness of this epistle. left and his words are not unambiguous: "Peter which is 6/MAo-/nvf!iv?/v .] The Canonkity of Second Peter. and that the Church had received through Taking a general revicAv of the early doubts expressed. Further evidence might make its more overwhelming.^ plain. as copious as could be desired.1882. Origen they are a minority and a ver}^ y were among them in . except the later Syrians. . When this state- ment is taken in connexion with Origen's own practice in regard it is to the epistle. . the external testimony is in. H. possibly. therefore. but could not alter import. but most probably they were not. we are to justified in saying that. was the earliest Avriter to who mentions doubts . . ''See p. 25. that they ai'e by no means of importance to rebut the presumption already raised for the genuineness and canonicity of the epistle. but the it Church that a long past. that he can allow himself to 'Eus. as .

in that century. Evidences. Herodotus its is quoted but once in the century which followed composition. speak of an insufficiency of early references to that book. century after 2 Peter is to a moral certainty quoted by two writers. so —amply sufficient authenticate any other early looms up before us great and invincible. resting on this presumption. . and long before the next century has and thoroughly witnessed to as a whole. nor all together. and is in danger of ap- the remarkable mass which of the when it is viewed in comparison with God has preserved for the chief books with what is New it Testament. and that amazing abundance Avhich stands Testament books. p. for edition). until quite first two centuries after composition while Tacitus is cited by Tertullian. only it seems small. within the first composition . and not to as 2 until its is fifth century is anything like as fully witnessed is Peter in its second. we might here rest the case. that this book thus accepted by the great writers and the Church in general. Alexandria's testimony alone puts 2 Peter on a par with Tacitus it on a better basis than Thu- Save for the contrast between the for testimony for the greater it. it is fully wit- nessed to as occupying an assured position in a Canon held all-holy. A remains untouched. or Tacitus.^ genuineness of Herodotus. The amount. And. Yet no one thinks of disputing the Clement of . rolled away. was always in the Canon —not to be set aside save on cogent grounds. are any cogent re1)utting evidence against the presumpstrong presumption still tion from the attitude of the fourth century in favor of the book. it New would be simply astonishing . but to astounding over-sufficiency of evidence for the other books. how any one could speak trast is of insufficient witness and that con- due not to insufficiency of evidence for 2 Peter. why this book should these facts Rawlinson's Hist. only twice in the next.. able to raise Thus no one of these lines of argument.62 The Canonicity of Second Peter. not at all in the next. [Jan. When compared to thought and justly writing. and most probably by its three or four more. Thucydides. Origen's testimony alone would put cydides stands securely on. asking simply for reasons ^Cf.of evidence for pearing insufficient. Thucydides its not distinctly quoted. but once in the next. 376 (American . Agai^i. Now.

" . that the early third century that it . but it was commented on by Clement of Alexandria. century evidence structive to is Yet the fourth it Avill not all that can be adduced. was a part of the Church Canon of and the evidence goes further and proves was naturally in the Canon at this time it —that the men of found it the early third century did not put in. only was It was. therefore. 2. 63 be ignominiously cast out of the Canon of the fourth century.^ it. p.htfoot has ren- dered it the most probable date for the others.^ In Hippolytus at the same time seems to quote it It cannot be denied. See also the opinion of Dr. And indeed this is independently proved.] The Canonicity of Second Peter. and ask. Antichristo. This question clamors in vain for an answer.^ of its No stronger evidence canonical authority at the time could be asked. 175. in the Canon of the later years of the second century. and Dr. . and has a place in both the Egyptian versions and in the early form of the Peshito. 'This the old opinion as to the Pesliito. we find it 'See the proof that this represents the African Canon of the third century in Credners Einleitung. Westcott and Ilort in their new edition of the New Testament. that at this period part of the the North African fact that Italy. What reason exists to degrade 2 Peter tui"y ? from the Canon of the late second cenquoted here and there. That it was part of Canon of the third century is certain from the included in the Claromontanian Stichometry. in Asia Minor (t270). And corrobora- Firmilian. and IIilgenfeld\s. ''De p. it is Canon of the universal Church. all of which date from the second century. therefore. We must shift our question back two centuries then. quotes as an authoritative letter of Peter "the blessed apostle. and be inthe go farther. when it writing to Cyprian in North Africa Avhence it is hard not to 2 Peter was conclude that he could naturally count on Cyprian esteeming just as he did — in other words. SohafF and of Drs. We have seen incidentally that notices of Origen prove that the book was a part of the Church Canon of the tive witness it is early years of the third century. Lij!. is c. 107. at hand.1882. but in the Canon. Not it known to several authors of the time. back to the Known all over the Church at this period and securely fixed in the Canon.

amply any New Testament book. it nay. with the traces we have of its be enough earlier possession and estimation One has but to catch the position in the . held .64 The Canonicity of Second Peter. in such a way is as to prove that he esteemed it authorita- What ? evidence there which will compel us to revise the decision of the late second century and put the letter out of its its Canon Absolutely nothing is hazarded in asserting that Canon of this period peremptorily authenticates Even were there no trace of it earlier. was that having come to a book was a recognised part of the therefore. and he was the pupil sine of John. this age held its canon. and as being esteemed authoritative (Justin). authenticates it New Testament of this period. if fairly So that the is wit- ness of the age of Irenteus alone. this would it as divine. to be convinced of Irenffius tells us that he holds only to elders. That canonical. what has been handed down from the Clement appeals apostles. how much more so. But what witness does the lias bear to itself? The Church It bears from the bearinnino. Clement had studied under many masters of the previous generation in all parts of the Church. canonicity amounts to a moral THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF letter to ITS GENUINENESS. [Jax. . before 147. ! grounds on which this. Justin Martyr. it has more than that it is independently witnessed to as coming from the apostolic times (Barnabas. III. it be an authoritative letter from Peter fXnit it is the forefront the its own name of witness in this direction^ Peter. on and this is tlie first thing we note in asking after internal evidence: the letter asserts itself to be by . the teachers of these men were those very companions of the Polycarp was Ireniieus's teacher. its Surely the presumption of certainty. sufficient to authenticate wide-spread. And etc. the companions of the apostles as boldly to tradition as his only dependence. for the reception of a book as it should come to them from these fathers as them from the bosom of the apostolical circle.). as having come from the elders Avho its could bear personal witness to apostolicity. very earliest Christian writers quotes tive. : 2 Peter has that witness. Cle- ment of Rome. Now. The one qua non with all the writers of this age.

but there are some minute points of coincidence brought out which certainly identify him. or else it is an embodied lie. i. "that the author stands in the that he loves truth above grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ all things 12. as let he speaks. (ii. 65 (i. xo. is full His min<l of ." reinforced by every The Epistle's claim to be by Peter is thus mark 'of honesty in its form and matter. 1) that he believes in God's justice 9) that he despises cunningly- devised fables and speaks from a sure and personal autoptic knowledge (i. this raises a very strong presumption in favor of it its genuineness. Thus. XXXIII. (i. 16). make here tabernacles." Not a false note is struck throughout the whole of it.'' this creep- "As we long as I am Immediately after his Iforfof -. 1. Clearly. . its name Symeon Peter (with Not only does Hebraic sound) fit. us We rethree member ing out : that was Peter who in verse said. his mind and VOL. It is. either Peter's. quick. out- spoken Peter of the Evangelists. 14. 16-18). it tells We note next that what its us about its author is in strik- ing harmony with the double assertion that he was Peter. Can is this natural reference to his own experience be the trick of a forger? it. — 5. it is retransactihg itself before his very eyes as he writes its smallest details are in his it mouth "Lord. 3) .'' and 13 we see a reminiscence of in this tabernacle. For it is apparent on any reading of that a very "holy and apostolic spirit breathes through this letter.y^ and designing forgery. it. that he fears the (ii. and the character of the writer reflect itself as the impulsive. "We . as the writer approaches the mention of the scene. That seems scarcely credible on the face of quite impossible by but it rendered some minute signs in the context which prove that that scene had burnt itself into the writer's heart." says Frouraliller with as much (i. or else a base . truth as eloquence.1882. therefore. only three of the disciples witnessed our Lord's transfiguration." No forger could have introduced these reminiscences.] Peter The Canonicity of Second Peter. It cannot be hekl to be an innocent production which by some mistake has found its way into the Canon Noav it is cither genuinely Peter's.. judgments of eternity . 1(>). that he is thoroughly in earnest about Christianity 5) . 1. The author of this Epistle Avas one of them (i. feel. that wonderful scene the Lord had spoken of : and in verse 15 find a reminiscence of this "after my exodus.

The author of this Epistle was again. . 9= Acts. and mind which has grasped at once all that has been said. 8= Acts 23 II. Thus 1 Peter depends on Romans and Ephesians thus 2 Peter transmission through. III. full The Canonieity of Second Peter. the other iii. heard our Lord's prediction recorded in John xxi. 1. 18. Epistle is The author of this (i.21= 2. as parallels capable of being proved by a long series of adduced between the two. 12 .</. of it. 8=Acts . only seven of the disciples at most. on the one hand. iv. y=Acts 21 III. The style of the Epistle is the same as that of the speeches is of Peter recorded in the Acts. 17 . II. iii. ? who could have placed this remini- the writer of this Epistle is the same as the Peter of the Acts. 23 . and has evidently.: I. 6. x. 7 •. 10=Acts . possibly only one. has felt it through and through. but so as to show adoption by. of which turn on the usage of peculiar In the face of all that has been urged as to the difference of style between the two. to words remarkable extent. 2=Act8 v. 3. [Jan. 1. e. both are the outflow of sive. ii. (^. therefore. 20. The same character un- derlies both writings. ii. expressly declares position on this point (2 Peter 2). and this must refer to this prediction. the author of this Epistle was the writer of 1 Peter. not mechanically.66 heart are niscences. iv. 21. The writers of both are apt to draw their language from previous sources. the one quotes ing. T=Aot8 iii. c. 20). most likely only two (xxi.' the greater number or phrases. one to whom Jesus had . Once again. as one object of his writ- commend his doctrine (1 Peter v. 32. I. a . rare) words and therefore present evidence of great convincingness. The writers of both bear the same and to a relation to Paul and are anxious equally to express approval his recommendation of his teaching. The writers of both exhibit a tendency to ad- duce the mysteries of the truth in illustration of their arguments thus compare 1 Peter iii. impul- yet chastened heart. 19. Acts II. ii. and been so affected by it that it naturally repeats it in its own striking fashion. an ardent. II.. Again. l=Acts 29 . 6. etc. depends on Jude.. Peter scence here but Peter Still again. predicted a violent death 14). its 12 et jmssvn). and ^Alford adduces. and he naturally lets fall these minute remi- The author of this letter seems certainly to have wit- nessed the transfiguration. ii. 6. we still insivSt on this.

avaorpodij (1 i.1882. «pfri^ (1 ii. iii. Even minute prophecy ((^f. aTcdOemc (1 Peter iii. recurrence in both of rare 1 Peter i. iwfiii^caOai (1 Peter 9. cifKofiov Knl a<nri/Mt\ 19. i. 2 Peter Peter i.' found in these also in the two Epistles and nowhere else. 10. So that working one farther step we may say that the two Epistle>s exhibit striking resemblances of style. etc. differences so freely adduce<l by many These resemblances are seen not only liar phnises. 16). 12) alifina in a peculiar sense (1 Peter i. Zeitalter. the tendency found in both writers to bring forward incidentally the deep things of the kingStill further. jo/i. to 10—12 and 2 Peter 19—21. 22. 'Jio. 11. 9 and 2 Peter 3). 14). submission to worldly rulers (1 Peter 13. I. 17 and 2 Peter ii.^ia i. 67 Tliat the on tlie other such passages as 2 Peter 5. 2. (quality of mind. community (1 in such as iv. resemblances striking much more in pecu- and far-reaching than the critics.] TJie Canonkity of Second Peter. of the views of the i. exhibiting favorite this is tenets. Peter 1. new birth tlirough the divine i. 2 Peter <i>i'Aaik?. 2 Peter i. 19. 9. ii. such as ii. 'Nachapost. for different purposes is and therefore expressed in precisely the same. etc. ''Grace and peace be multiplied. reinforced by the like 22. and 2 Peter 4) . and also the common possession of a very peculiar vocabulary such as eKOTT-evaavTEc (1 is ii. points of teaching. such as the form of salutation. 2 Peter i. to the other. which turns on a dom. represented by the occurrence in both of 12. 512. but combinations. [of. the doctrinal teaching of both writers. Peter 15. 3) .21. scq. Peter 7). and 2 Peter 10). (1 5. The (1 i.veh' Peter i. 4). aperri (1 Peter ii. . view as iii. 2 Peter i. ^ modes of presentation. word ii. In the face of such considerations as these. ^See Pluiii))tre"s Christ and Cliristendom. etc. )). of the dread expressed of false teachers. ii. i.. repeated 2 Peter 13 and iii. 13). same mysteries are not dwelt on by both does not void the argument. laun/xoc (1 Peter i. 2 Peter i. 2 Peter i. 14 and nowhere else. 2 Peter ii. 7. 1 Peter 22. al- though adduced different forms. . 11). 2 Peter 12). not only in ground princias even Schwegler feels forced ples but in to admit. f all of which are rare words in the New Testament. likeness ex- tends even to the use of special w^ords such as Kpifia Peter iv. 2). pass over from one Epistle 1 Peter true of the i. 3) . of the teaching given as to ii.

Peter orally taught of the Lord's and teaching. cit. we must present as evidence Before leaving this genei'a.. namely. an earlier period. that they may know that they have not followed cunningly devised witnessed. 2 Peter 19. 22 . : And we Mark have this series 1 Peter testifies to Mark's intimacy with Peter.68^ The Canonicity of Second Peter. but facts autoptically Surely this seems to promise a Gospel. All antiquity us that Mark's Gospel bears a special relation to Peter. IT and Mark iii. 12). 2 Peter witnesses to belongs to a time its own when Peter was date. Yet a still more striking connexion between the two all Avhich seems to have All antiquity the force of a complex undesigned coincidence. complete with and All three of these sources from which the links are draAvn are therefore genuine. iii. Acts xv. 13. Now in 2 Peter it i. 15 the author promises his readers that he will see to position after his death to that they shall be in a have his teaching always in rememproved by the purpose which he brance.* (2). Plumptre. iii. witnessed to by him. ii. 2 Peter promises a Petrine Gospel antiquity tells us that was but Peter's mouth-piece. . two other internal considera*tions which cannot be passed over^ and which possess considerable weight (1). . dle term Who could have invented that midinto 2 Peter is ? and so delicately inserted it 2 Peter thus it appears a link in a natural chain which incomplete without it. 2 Peter 4 and Mark if These are tainly striking parallels and 2 Peter preceded Mark in time we may say they there is are conclusive that Peter wrote this Epistle. 28. . 2 Peter 36 . and in this he has especial reference to the/a«?^S! of Christ's life.l subject. it would certainly very cogent rebutting evidence to con- vince us that 2 Peter did not us 1 Peter. it and consequently he ^Cf. and internal criticism of In 1 Peter also for Mark's Gospel corroborates v. xiii. ret:][iure [Jaf. and Mark 10 and cer- Mark xiii. Now compare 2 Peter xiii. loc. we find Mark on intimate terms with Peter (<?/. come from the same hand which gave however. us that life tells Mark wrote down what this external testimony. living. fables. xiii. The relation of our Epistle to the Gospel of tells Mark must be 1 considered. Whoever Avrote it. as is expresses for so arranging.

Schott. 12. 69 miglit well have written sider the teaching We need do nothing more than con- false teachers condemned They occupy a place intermediate between This those condemned by Paul and those condemned by John. . ? On what rebutting evidence do these writers rely Hilgenfeld. 2. Richter. immense force in its favor. for the Petrine authorship of this Epistle. ner. THE REBUTTINU EVIDENCE. But most of the other writers named are less high-handed — Credner. It is necessary to ask. and the whole TUbingen school. he who had received that command.1882. hardly deigns to assign sets aside the a reason for his action. 10. and from them we may obtain some ^Another rather remarkable coincidence in the use of language may be some bearing on the genuineness of 2 Peter. indeed. presupposing the ungenuine 1 Peter as well as Jude . of late years.* Conclusive independently or not. At a time when every word and act was permanently burning itself in on Peter's heart. especially. Eichhorn. . as plainly belonging to the later Gnostic period (250f ) and. Yet. Reuss.] The Canonicity of Second Peter. is certainly conclusive and ought to compel assent. Daumas. 2 Peter i. as having : brethren. such as cannot be overturned except by equally cogent rebutting evidence. IV. De Wette. considered as corroborative to the external testimonies already adduced. as having insufficient external support." Now 1 it is noticeable that there are reminiscences of this cf. but 1. by Froumliller and Guerike so that we and character of the in it to prove this. Epistle summarily as. our Lord had said to him "Strengthen [nr7]fnC. it. Andemars. 1 Peter v. entering fully into the argument . Bleek. 17. CredMayerhoff. in favor of the canonicity of 2 It certainly raises The evidence thus presented a presumption of Peter would seem to be almost overwhelming. Magnus. Huther. Neander. as for example. 3. . the intei-nal evidence. had written is word in both and 2 Peter: Does not this look as if this Epistle? The word not rare enough to found any secure inference upon . many have been found able to resist its force. iii.u) the ad(iuced here. has been clearly shown by Thiersch and repeatedly exhibited since. such as Schmidt. but its use in 2 Peter may count as one small item of evidence. may content ourselves with simply mentioning it here. from Schweeler to Hilgenfeld.

again. But wherein this great anxiety seen? In 1. already been disproved. and by others assumed ungenuineness of Jude. moreover.anachronisms. while the argument can be pleaded only on the assumption of the spuriousness of Jude.70 TJie Canonieity of Second Peter. fourth argument strongly urged alike by Credner. The and other three arguments. such as the assumption that as 1 Peter's) readers (which are assumed to be the (i. Think of really allowing more weight to these three opinions than to all that has been adduced ! — external and internal — is in favor of the Epistle Still. 1. and Reuss. {5). give way before any evidence. are purely internal and subjective state —depend critic. which is judged unworthy of an apostle by some. and the genuineness of Jude rests on a stronger array of proof than that of Second Peter. (5) Yet betrays the later time in which he wrote by many minute. iii. which but the Spirit's authentication of himself. The second has clearly invalid.. iii. briefly stated as follows (1) : may be to forge There was a known tendency in the early Church Peter's name. (4). Neis ander. (2) The external support of 2 Peter is insufficient. but only a suspicion^ which would. 2. The i. The first of these points might raise a suspicion against an un- supported claim to Petrine authorship. for their force on the mental attitude of the and cannot rebut the array of external and internal evidences for the Epistle. it will be instructive for us to note the details that are urged under these heads. even if allowed just as urged. (4) held a proof that 2 Peter belongs to the second century. on the ground of the The author exhibits too great a desire to make himself out to be Peter. same were personally taught by Peter 15 . is (3) It has plainly borrowed largely from Jude. 2). and the differences amount its at times to inconsistencies. It [Jan. 15. is One is inspired writer frequently quotes the words of another. (6) The style of the Epistle is divergent from that of 1 Peter. say some. idea of the rebutting evidence on wliicli they rely. and (6). in the adduction of Christ's pro- . The third.

the blending of Petrinism and Paulinism the term 15. Gnostic traces . manner. contemporaneity of John and Cerinthus. he held the advanced doctrines controverted in John. the use of "Holy Mount" (i. and the peculiar adduction of apostolic testimony in iii. what happens if it be true that Peter and Paul were never op})osed . 2. Paul's which they are not esteemed be at the evidences of disappointed hopes as to the speedy second coming of Christ. and consuch a consummate elusive as to nothing but the hypercriticism of their adducers. while Iren^eus is our witness to the tells us. appeal to the transfiguration. but lia'l prove the truth of the teaching which the readers Christ by an autoptic testimony. (4) and (5) are moreover mutually destructive . 16). forger as (4) requires could not have fallen into such easy traps as (5) adduces —the fault must be the critic's. The so- called Gnostic tendencies opposed belong clearly to an earlier age thjim those opposed by John. could not 2 Peter be a second letter of the Apostle Peter How then can this be urged against this authorship? fifth The items adduced under the head are equally unsatisfactory. references to (iii." and the unapostolic 17. but fallen into. alleled received as to the divinity of The is other passages can be par- from 2 Corinthians.] The Canonicity of Second Peter. points actually adduced are the mixing of the presents and futures in ii. 17—22 . ? introduced "in an unsuitable manner" : and that obscurely to is that the such allusions for a purpose ? way with forgers. in say others. 14. as a proof of apostleship. The discovery of a blending of Petrinism and Paulinism. and a conse(j:Uent betrayal of a reconciling purpose. The basis of most of these is pure assumption. 12-15. name of the mounfirst mode of citing to St. "in an unsuitable i. the epistles as Scripture. Who can see (except Neander) It is barely alluded to. who. which is said to be a designation Avhich could only have supplanted the proper tain at a comparatively late date. how is the prophecy of Christ that Peter should die a violent death. grows simply out of a Tubingen dream . The 1(3). not lugged in. myths (i.1882. in i. not the author's. But how these natural passages can be alleged to They are prove forgery. which fail if allowed to be genuine. it requires a very advanced critic to see. and s. who introduce The transfiguration is not adduced to prove the apostleship of the writer. 18). 71 phesy.

how the details adduced can bear any weight. Credner has probably presented this argument as strongly as else as yet. it admits of — certainly except i. Much more stress is. which 1 Peter never does 2 Peter's application to Christ of what 1 Peter applies to Clod.with 2. in 2 Peter of the common words aTvoKaAvTz-u. Paul's epistles Who says were not esteemed Scripture at the beginning? Paul so quotes Luke in we bend our theories to fit the thojries? The peculiarity of iii. it. 1836. while on the other hand 2 Peter always so uses sages derived from Jude or the Old Testament application of the term aurijp to . seq. as 2 Peter reading. the opposite implied. which he urges. 15 only the implies that there were close relations between the readers and Peter. more strongly than any one " The list of the "most remarkable differences. except in pas- 2 Peter's frequent Jesus. The "Holy Mount" is not introduced as a name. the careful exegete shall sav not need to ask. usually laid on the simple argument from diversity of style. Why presents 'and futures are mixed Avill in the repetitions from the earlier Jude. common use of n'vpio^ for Christ. can be its when we read i. one another? [Jan. it? ? and who will . . when speaking ijiii:pa of the second advent. undertake to prove not Peter Paul fit Timothy why Shall the facts. St.72 to The Canonicity of Second Peter. of i. however. the best authorities. some of whom But had preached to these Christians. such as might have been indicated ''•we" by the first Epistle . but as a descriptive designation of a well-known spot. 16 includes all preachers of the gospel. The latter half of the sixth head will need no reply. And who how soon fanatics in the early Church needed correcting as to our Lord's itself second coming? Evidence such as this certainly rebuts rather than the op- posing considerations. or the facts to 2 depends only on a false reading. and its seldom mention of God.. p. 600. it is exceedingly difficult to see. the foilure aKOKaAv^iitq. Avhich are common in 1 Peter.. and disappears on the restoration of the true ancient text. it turns on a misinterpretation of plain passages. is as follows:^ 2 Peter's does-. which 1 Peter never 13 (borrowed from Ephesians). while is the common 'See his Einleituii<f in das Neue Testament. is iii. pleaded here only before corrected in i'/<w)^.

on. ilinq. the Hebraistic or pleonastic iv in use of the preposition 2 Peter.1882. even if obvious. can this also be brought In other words. heavy. synthetic.. etc. from style of the Epistle. and usually not uniform. the foilure in 2 Peter of the common and frequent quotation of the Old Testament as found in 1 Peter . Diversity of this. "the Way of right(ii. more striking resemblances. 2. the failure in 2 Peter of the unessential wf tian teaching . Are these worth the stating. considered as rebutting evidence against sufficient testimony? savs:^ c Re^uss speaks wise. the argument. this 73 term in connexion in 2 Peter. . words when he sised. called in 1 Peter. ^6yog. etc. the "holy commandment" 21). 3. then. broadly. and especially there are no direct contradictions into account. ? 270-2. hut to find a theory which will account for the coexistence of differences with still authorship will not do dictions. the diffuse. eousness" (ii. Amen Only nothing is What. evayyk'Aiov rav of (juite distinct Koi designations in 2 Peter. common titles 1 Peter usage of an the substitution for the is by which the ChrisTvla-ig. viz. 2). Neiie Testament. The two to l)e Epistles are too short. The list of differences . aAydeia. x«P'fi Qeov. irregular. if the Epistle is on other grounds proved to be ungenuine. languid style of 2 Peter.] The Canonicity~j)f Second Peter. but on\j prevailing differences Credner fiiils some parallels being to take account of the very distinct occasions. and finally. such as Xpiamv dhvajug napnmin (i. have to do with wholly different circumstances. which the later criticism has so empha- or? Only we lay no stress. "On the theological and linguistic differences be- tween the two Epistles. except as an interesting inquiry as to the special peculiarities of two writings from the same hand? Will they bear any weight. are we to do with this long of Credner's? is note the following points: 1.. objects.. etc. like as striking as the list of resemblances so that the problem not to find a theory which will account for the differences alone. The differences are mere contrafound in the other Epistle. spirits. 1(3). fresh style of 1 Peter. list is not valid against the genuineness We say.." found. a usage not found at all in 1 Peter. ^Geschichte. the "com- mandment of the Apostles" (iii. as distinguished from the easier. 21).

and Jude at the root of Peter. These determine if the style of speech in this case. Sent forth by Peter soon after the middle of the in century (say A. and substitutes him for God it is in most pas- sages. will account for its general tone as different from 1 Peter (a letter of exhortation and comfort). The Cmionicity of Second Peter. except its own cause ? V. This goes like a destroying brand straight through Credlist. The fact that 2 Peter is specifi- cally a letter of reproof and warning. D. Still further. at Clement has . Already it is Avith the beginning of uninspired Christian literature. we can move But if the ! the world lever is a common quarryman's tool and the fulcrum thin air Then.74 for. fact that "1 The Paul lay at the root of 1 Peter. and must assume unity of authorship in the account we render. his saving power. woe only to the man who wields it. it in 97 at Rome . really is this a mountain . found everywhere.. Barnabas in 106 at Pella. ner's 4. The state of the argument. We pause only to add briefly first history. What can such rebutting evidence as we have here. will account for much divergence in style their . THE HISTORY OF THE EPISTLE. over the whole Christian world. it soon found its way. to be raised and overturned only by a very strong lever of rebutting evidence offered as lever. Alexandria at the same time the JcAvish Christian author of it the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. which the tAvo letters were written. his authority and love. : mass of presumption in favor of the genuineness and canonicity of 2 Peter. We are surely in a condition is now to assert that the canonicity its of the letter secure. the character of the errors opposed will account for the fact that it dwells on the majesty and lordship of Christ. as an authoritative part of the Canon of faith. Credner forgets that characteristic of Peter to rest on and write out of a previous document. still the com- munity of authorship of both accounts the for resemblances. and will account for most all not of the differences adduced. 67). and in [Jan. if . then. was reading- . The theory of diversity of authorship will thus not account for phenomenon we have unity in diversity to account for. really injure. a pitiable shoAv of rebutting evidence It is doubtless true that the proper lever and fulcrum be given.

even Calvin. Cajetan. once more the Avaters seemed quiet. - so it ouo-ht o be. the Church as a Avithout Miurch has ahvays held the evidence as in it Avithout fear and to dubiety. Then once more individual doul)ts revived. as a body. Warfield. spoke doubtfully of not lead the Church astray. Erasmus. B. We think Ave hazard nothing adding. its gen- uineness and conse(|uent canonicity. times. begun. the subjective judgment of minute one-sided scholarship for the Epistle. . the Syrian Church alone among the Churches has ever. ( From it the beginning. from the heresy and soon. but once more old in these Ave and modern the Avitness same phenomena of repeated individuah doubt. as the value of the subjective criticism tliat was better un- derstood. So matters stood until the Kefonnation.] The Canoniciti/ qf Senmd Peter. while once more the Church stood firm. AA'e see the attack as Once more. and before the close of that age it.1882. the (Uiurch stands firm. daring above all precedent and but only here. Syria. howand preserved it ever. was demanding and receiving commentaries upon scliool In tlie meantime the acute its of internal criticism at Alexandria was scrutinising ])eculiarities. 75 Throughout the second century the Church enjoyed the peaceful possession of it . Luther. found a here at critical school in last. and the Canon became once more undoul^ted. The fourth century . so it Avill ever be. won the victory over the external evidences The common sense of the Church at large. Benj. but even such names could That storm Avas also Aveathered. the doubts Epistle's place in the had been raised died away. AVitli is. In the Avhole history of the Church. its )ii these internal grounds some were its now led to ({uestion . gen- uineness and conse({uently l)old canonicity but no one was yet enough to exscind it from the Canon. doubted the Epistle. and by the beginning of the third century some were 1 found able to magnify tliem into inconsistencies with ( Peter. refused to be thus led.






. EDWIN A. ABBOTT ON THE GlillS OF liD pim./ DR.

" extending from the autumn of 1881 to the autumn of 1882. D. Edinburgh General Epistles of Peter T. By Joh. of at least four important (inter alia minora) discussions of the genuIt ineness of that Epistle. 1883. at all events. See : 284. Huther.390 Dr.^ who examines the question with the painstaking care that behoved a German scholar and a conpreto a Commentary. cannot seem strange that such a book as 2 Peter has received a great deal of attention. during the course of the "publishers' year. ABBOTT ON THE GIMIIMSS OF SECOID PlIIl In the great revival of interest Criticism which is in all it branches of Biblical at present in progress. illustrated by the appearance from English presses. The fact is. Huther. tinuer of Meyer's Dr. April. Ed. . DR. & T. Udtvin A. p. EDWIN A. Ph. may also be a significant mark of the temper of the times that no two of these discussions reach the same conclusion. comes simply ^ Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the and Jude. From the Southern Presbyterian Rerieir. Clark. Abbott on tJie [April. but who does not succeed in venting our missing the master's own hand.

III. which he his wont.^ and asserts for the Epistle a modified genuineness. first unworthy barren in thought. smelted rhetoric and argument into one glow- ing mass. pp. 207. Heclib. and intensely in style. it either Peter's individual style or characteristic expressions nises in he recog- it a different mode of workmanship from his." has. concludes that it to St. and 204-219. New York E. "the gi-oimds for and there is against the authenticity are thus evenly balanced. which runs through three numit bers of a critical journal.'' as above. Peter's death.' Second Series. here presented a problem which is not yet solved. He cannot find in . IV.. 139-153. p." difficulties in who investigates the the Avay of assigning the Epistle to Peter. 409. C. Yet it him "impossible to read it without recognising in it an accent of inspiration. The Early Days of Christianity. etc. etc. after an examination of the points clearly ' internal evidences for the Epistle which cannot be characterised by any lower term than Dr. and that "it bears its witness in itself. brilliant. Edited by F.. etc. ^ * ''The Expositor . Vol. as is Canon Farrar.. . 423. Button & Co. finally follows a hint of Jerome's. P. and which perhaps after a discussion in cannot be solved. ^ If the careful ^''The Expositor. R. Vol. M." He thinks "that Peter may have lent his name and the weight of his authority to thoughts expressed in the language of another." he says.."^ "that we have not here the words and style of the great Apostle. p. Farrar.] verdict of Genuineness of Second Peter." Professor Lumby. Vol. Cook. I. D. p...1883. acute. W. Abbott. p.. then. 120. IH. but that he lent to this Epistle the sanction of his * name and the assistance of his advice. 234.'' etc. ' The Holy Bible. Peter as its author. concludes that is cannot be by Peter. in a paper at once Vol. its place among the canonical books. A. 1). 391 non liquet. 49-63. interesting. : « ''The Expositor. By F. 11. F. "If.. and without seeing a 'grace of superinten- seems to dence' at Avork in the decision by which it was ^ finally allowed to take St. Commentary and a Revision of the Translation. Edwin A. By Bishops and other Clergy of the Anglican Church. a plagiarism from Avritings to last.. S. and depends on Avhich were not published until a quarter of a century after ^E2).

Abbott at hibits and Drs. quite fresh and new. only a chance remark. Abbott's arguments necessarily carries one. over. It certainly desifting. Edivin A. it Whatever may be the final result of discussion. the impression which Dr. hope his own ' brief criticism It fit is as yet the only one that has seen the light. therefore. we may venture to compare the discussion with another. Canon Farrar's work on The Early Days of Christianity. mands is to close attention. Abbott's argument attrac- tively and plausibly presented. Such is our purpose in this would be both impossible in reasonable space and tedious to all. [April. His decision and language alike are strong. not a criticism. that this paper does not profess to make these investigations. . over-hesitancy." Canon Farrar expressed but. is. It is well to advertise beforehand. Farrar and Lumby and express them with modest least feels no hesitancy and exIf no doubt. indeed. the most more- considerable arraignment of the Epistle that has been put forth since the days of the giants of a half century ago. that Ave have driven to undertake the task. to which it has many points of likeness (although certainly not in its issue) — that which has arisen over the genuineness of the Chron- icle of Dino Campagni —we may say that Dr. for one and another to set down paper. but only to 'Prof.392 Br. so far as we are aware. in due honesty. Abbott's arguments have made upon them. It frankly. in its It is. 14. Abbott on the conclusion. This Abbott's ''Lliscovery" of dependence of 2 Peter on however. 1882). Huther cannot reach any attain theirs only with difficulty. It constitutes. Josephus. is go without saying that Dr. Dr. so long ago as last June .'' for October. in reviewing Druminond {''The Academy. Robert B. main points. is only thus because more experienced students have not seen or found time and opportunity felt to publicly examine the new certainly can- questions raised. not but be a help towards a proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the attainment of truth. Abbott uses the method of Sheffer-Boichorst It will in the spirit of Fanfani. seems to accept Dr. the reader for us to attempt to detail the processes of the in- vestigations into which a study of Dr. careful examination and it And this it be sincerely hoped that will not continue to be met only by "a conspiracy of silence.

The same specification articles. It not only borrows from Acts. arrived. especially as they happen to be also both the most forcible in themselves and the most relied upon by Dr. however.] Crenuineness of Second Peter. although consum- mately marshalled. tions of his Only certain porfitly argument are new. 4. necessity for shunning inordinate length and tedious- ness forbids us. the conIt would investigation merely be pure affectation to preserve the form for effect . as clearly clusions to which as may be. without great prejudice to our cause. but. Its style all. them older arguments. scheme op argument. Abbott's strictures. in a literary way. 1 Peter. It is depen- dent. support. we will find that it may be summed up under the following heads 1. to attempt to supply an answer to every which Dr. : is altogether insufficient. the genuineness of 2 Peter against Dr. in borrowing. after investigation. in fact. 2. Abbott's If. DR. and notably the Antiquities of Josephus. of' and commend. no style at but only a barbarous medley of words. on books which were published only after Peter's death — such its as the Epistle of Clement of 3. we have. Abbott's Epistle. . again.1883. it bungles and blurs everything touches. We trust our studi/ has been carried through with open and tractable mind we confess that we write with a foregone The purpose of this paper becomes thus a defence of conclusion. such as a vain. argument against the dence for the Epistle we take a general glance over Dr. a selection may be made among them. half-taught Hindoo . is wholly unworthy of an Apostle —being. and we may content ourselves in dealing with them with referring only to their character and indicating that they have been answered fully in advance. Abbott. and we may confine our- fine ourselves to these new The portions. and especially Jude. as a whole. Rome. are not essentially altered by his treatment of . Abbott has made in the course of his three Fortunately. and we cherish the hope that our cause will not be prejudiced by the frank confession that write upon this subject until after we have not ventured to we had reached our conclusions upon it. The external eviat the outset. and that in such a way as to exhibit writer as a barren plagiarist. 393 present.

394 Dr. Abbott second falls is. under the second and fourth of these heads . such as is totally unworthy of any reputable the fact itself fully is Avriter. Abbott has made out the fact that 2 Peter does borrow from . 5. it treated in so fresh a way as to make practically new. whereas. or unintelli- gent manner. implying a very close connexion. and has been repeatedly much more it. style. distorting. The other heads of argument only state anew old and well known will not objections. than Dr. for. this which is not found in 1 Peter. as. immediately that the new matter advanced by Dr. Edioin A. Abbott has proved and convincingly proved But that it has been shown that case as in the case of the borrowing has been done in a confused. nor in a contention that it is unworthy of an Apostle to borrow so freely from another writer. Abbott on the [April. Other internal evidences of the spuriousness of the Epistle. such for example. Abbott's is own discovery. with the Epistle . subject lies. and demand from us a renewed treatment. etc. sufficiently unworthy witnesses. unintelligent. A Avord or two only concerning them seems called is urged by Dr. The specialty of the treatment of the for not in an assertion of a post-apostolic Jude. and of such as is further proved by other important differences between the as. we freely confess well-nigh patent. ignoble manner. Abbot with any fulness series Only one of them his —the second paper of origin being devoted to the discussion and illustration of the "plagiarism" from Jude. the indeed. and consequently a fortiori for 2 Peter. 6. 1. implication of the contents of the Epistles separate them vastly —the use of the term "Holy Mount" —the authorisation of Avho is the whole body of Paul's Epistles. puts together in trying to write "fine" English. of dependence on the Old Testament. although old in essence. while the fourth. indeed. their divergent use particles as express the manner of thought. are not lacking such as the statement in both in the its iii. but in an attempt to prove that the borrowing has proceeded after a dull. their divergent degree etc. It cannot be by the same writer Avho wrote 1 Peter. often urged and often rebutted. That Dr. two Epistles. we can think as little in his . Jude. Dr. distorted. The reader will observe familiar with the literature of the subject. first readers and in time.

and Frederic Gardiner. 48.^ and to call attention to the fact that the "trace" of the Epistle found in Clement of is What the opinion of the critics mentioned above as to the question of the manner of borrowinor. Iluther. and Dr. but contents himself with a reference to the admissions of Drs. VOL. Abbott does not even state the external evidence. seq. Alford." Prof. 196. p. to turn aside from the discussion of the arguments which he does develop in detail. 395 who have plied the same arguments. to enter upon one to which he gives only this one passing word more fully than merely assertion our counter assertion to set opposite to his is that Second Peter quoted by many ' writers before Clement of Alexandria. NO.1883. Bruckner. p. "St. Abbott only touches. XXXIV. by the way. It would be almost an impertinence in here. ^ been repeatedly satisfactorily replied or adds at We new are unable to disin this connexion." : Jude was the borrower. as above. 2 11. Lumby thinks suffer thereby. 256 any way "In neither. I. ''Compare. therefore. deals with his materials in a wise and independent manner. 1882. pp. as it were. the treatment of the subject by Iluther. have we a slavish dependence or a mere copy. 279. and the broad assertion that no trace of the existence of the letter can be found earlier than the late second century (Clement of Alexandria)." Farrar.) *In the fourth volume of the Speaker's Commentary. cover that Dr. (Biljliotheca Sacra. mar the strength of his admirable presentation of the subto it by adding a single additional word Dr. Lumby. and have to. perfectly safe in leaving his refutation to the by no means worn out considerations which have refuted the same arguments in the mouths of a DeWette and a Schwegler. p. may : be gleaned from the following. — . has opposed to them counter internal considerations. Peter. They have been super- abundantly answered in advance. Abbott adduces anything all to the force of the old arguments we feel. Lightfoot and Westcott. us to ject. Dr. p. * The proof of this may be read in the Southern PresbyteriaiN Review for January. for instance. there- fore. 114. . Weiss.^ which hopelessly overshadow them. XI. but the correspondence is carried out with literary freedom and license...] his predecessors G-enuineness of Second Peter. for instance. It would be uncalled for. ^ On the other internal arguments which he adduces against the Epistle. seq. Peter's line of thoui^ht does not in says : "The firmness of 2 Cf.

the dependence The considerations which drive us to this (1. indeed. however. Abbott's attitude towards the external evi- dences needs notice. the Epis- much about Clement —being nothing less than it this : that Avrote a Com- mentary on value than as a part of a series of "concise explanations of all the Canonical Scriptures. how- the mass of scliolars may be expected to hold a diiferent "opinion. Justin. Clement of Alexandria. to pi'ove [April. as large a proportion of Clement's letter might be shown to be borrowed as of 2 Peter. Abbott pleads that Second Peter has an established character as a borrower and hence probably did this borrowing. Barnabas. On this point. 93. morally certain. it leans on a very broken reed. Patt. Abbott on the of a kind. it was borrowed from borrowed to Clement as early as 95. as we now think of Clement on Peter. Hermas. and that by if Second Peter borrowed from a work of Josephus' it is published in A. On is the other hand. most naturally between comes at the end of the series. 46. the evidence that 2 it Peter was the borrower rests on the probability that from Josephus. as we hope show and Dr.) conclusion are the following: We have a series of writers dependent on 2 Peter Origen.. D."^ is This certainly has more evidential first brought out in the mere statement that the is trace of the existence of the Epistle found in Clement of Alexandria. Irenseus.. Testt. Abbott pleads as a reason Ud. the other uses . Hebrews quite as freely and doubtless if accurate scales were used. Edivin A. of no less One other fact in Dr. and it is exceedingly it difiicult to insert all 2 Peter anywhere of it in that series is and say all borrows from It on one side and borrowed from by on the other. Dr.396 Alexandria tle is Br. not likely that If. The same consideration which should not place it Dr. way for arguing that the borrowing has been done by not from ever. And this is the admission that literary connexion has been moment than this made out between is Second Peter and Clement of Rome. If the one uses Jude freely. — Clement of Rome . by itself. Theophilus. Melito. why he p. Second Peter. only to prepare the The admission made. xii. . it seems to be clear that if there does exist literary connexion between the two is documents. Abbott forgets that Clement is quite as confirmed a bor- rower as 2 Peter.

For if God spared not the ancient world. . Abbott. by his ministration preached regeneration into the [eKi/fir^ev) worhl. his hospitality and u. dwelling among them. (3. vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their lawless deeds) the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto . 12... you in remembrance.) sincere minds by puttinji. Anil s))ared not the ancient world. This is now. 1. when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. Wherefore I shall be ready to put you m remembrance o/" these thinijs. .s. a herald of righteousness. Let us review all generations in turn and learn how. Clement vii. Wherefore. . Patt. the Master hath given a place for repentance unto them that desire to turn to him. (3. being found Enoch. . and in both of them I stir up your P. we write. 5. beloved.1883. For that obeyed were saved. but appointeth unto punishment and torment them that swerve : aside. : the day of judgment. not only as adinonishinif you. 6. faithful. 12. us be obedient unto liis excellent and glorious will. and through him the Master saved the living creatures that entered into the ark. 1. .) Tliese thinf«.) Perhaps The parallel passaj^es are as follows vii. to 2 Peter as the original All the indications seem rather to point source. etc. when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly and \|)urning the f^ities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow. \ 'C . Let us fix our eyes on them that ministered perfectly unto his excellent glory. and so on. . from jjeneration to ^feneration. 1. in seeing and hearing. tween Clement and Barnabas. and this voice we heard. dearly beloved. . but preserved Noah and seven others. we plead against placing bexii.) Clement 2 Peter i. a preacher of righteousness. or Barnabas and the Testt. 2 Peter i. . iii. as they do to Dr. (2.) The phenomena of the parallel passages themselves do not seem to us. . 5-9.] Genuineness of Second Peter. 397 it Joseplius and Clement of Rome. as perhaps a study of them as given in the note below ^ ' may convince the reader. H •. but preserved Noah WMth seven others. 5. "This is" etc. 6. absolutely neutral on this question.odliness Lot was saved from Sodom when all the country round about was judged by the Master havlire and brimstone inii thus foreshown that he forsaketh not them which set their hope in him. etc. . 17. i. 2 Peter ii. in concord. Let us set before us Noah. ii. Noah heralded repentance and they xi.) Clement i^ let I X . . having made them an example unto those that should live ungodly and delivered righteous Lot sore distressed by the lascivious life of the wicked (for that righteous man. For he received from God the Father honor and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory. (1. the hat iil:rO iifi putting ourselves in re[v-oui/iv/jaKeiv as in 2 second epistle that I write unto you menibrance. (2.

all hear in the days of our fathers also. then.'" (6. (5. 7) and 2 P. 2). 5. g. the compression in the fourth by Clement. iv they wilfully foriret [speaking of the surety of God's this E7iayye7Ja] that Aai Kal yf/ . that he borrowed the fifth) all severally give clear hints of the fact that the passage in Clement is the borrower.^ but the fact that other suilicient proof of literary exists. and the beginning of the creation. And many spoken of. e. iii. (independently of the statement of Clement. him .'' none of these things have befallen us. "excellent glory. 7 vi. The way in which the peculiar phrase. 38 Matt. iniquity. 14 vii. . etc. asserted to be a reminiscence of Jas. 37 . the passage from Clement xxiii.) Let our souls be that is Clement *5«C y->^V\) bound faithful kizayyE'/Jaiq . In the last days mockers shall . diflPerent . vii. ^ Compare how Clement smelts together reminiscences of passages in chapter xiii. and follow the way of truth. vi. not only 2 Peter the older document. passm. casting off from ourselves all unrighteousness and If we accomplish such shall follow their lascivious doings by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil . . Edwin A. and sixth of these parallels hardly give indication of the the second. for. [April. 4. (Matt. Tjjiepav npicEug. as he briefly takes from Peter's larger context the exact thought he needed. "Where is the pro- double-minded which doubt in their mise of his coming. 12 Luke vi. ..398 if it Br. For AdyuTT/g fieyaAuavv/jg ai'Tov cvvear/jtyaro ra Tcavra Kal iv 'Aoycj dvvaTai avra naTacTpi\pei. and fifth. third. combined. . Let this Scripture be it f-AV from us 2 Peter iii. where saith : "Wretched are the come sayinj^. could not be 3. and from the Old Testament. is again decisive that Peter's are even is The phenomena of the fifth stronger in the same direction. 4. Note. v. fourth. however. [cf. iii. . in each writer.) Clement xxxv.. 8. connexion between Clement and 2 Peter this passage and determines that is this is another item of If so. 3. i. 2 Peter ii. .) Clement xxiii. from the soul and say. . Abbott on the stood alone." is The first direction of the borrowing : introduced in the third.Evoi oi teEig dr/aavpca/ievot Eial. . 2 Peter to . 2. nvpavol -ijaav tuna. de cwEaruaa^ ru ~ov Qeov vvv ovpavol Kal t/ yfj rw avr(d 'koyu wvpl T7!pov/j. 5-7. . We have purposely refrained from (4) that all the presumption for the genuiness of 2 (4. turns the scale in it. things continue as they were from and behold we have grown old. etc. things as beseem his faultless will. 'These things we did diiy that the fathers fell asleep. but also it Avas held by Clement adding as to be Scripture. v. etc. the original.

sonorous. that called a style at all. . be that to a moral Clement had and used 2 Peter and that probably as This one to fact. Dr. We purpose examine. seq. prop. 399 Peter which arises from the varied proofs which combine to establisli it ' is against the hypothesis that it has borrowed from Clement we do not regard this as a valid or convincing argument. an affected and artificial style. and The rela- tion of 2 Peter to Josephus. burdens any argument which would go prove a later date than say A.1883. and meaningless words. Johnson with an occasional flavor of Shakespeare. yet constantly striving after grandilo- quent Greek. 75 for 2 it is Peter with an almost insuperable objection at the outset. 1882. 3p^ 15Q_ =*?. it really has no claim to be so and resembles nothing much as the patch- work English of a half-educated Hindoo aping the language of Lord Macaulay and Dr. Jaauary. Common sense refuses to be persuaded that native Greeks of culture and scholarship critics * —acute of language and style. thinks it He "throughout that of a copyist and 'fine writer. DR. Abbott has a very low opinion of the style of 2 Peter."^ He believes it possible "to show that there is probably not one original thought and scarcely one natural exThis would be enough . but because we deem it unnecessary for the establishment not because of our point and do not wish to be delayed to show the strength of the presumption. Peter. Abbott's arraignment of 2 peter's style. ceed with us in our further discussion. D. 1. Dr. 153. a style so made up and patches of other men's Avritings and so interpersed Avith obsolete. Abbott's arraignment of 2 Peter's style. See Southern Presbyterian Review. The result of an examination of the relation beto tween 2 Peter and Clement therefore seems certainty Scripture.] (xenuineness of Second Peter. great scholars and rhetoricians. wholly unlike that of of shreds the First Epistle of St. except that tion that the criticism itself is it admits of a very easy demonstra- only a piece of "fine writing" and cannot be by any possibility true.' ignorant of ordinary Greek idiom. and under a realisation of this that we would v*'ish the reader to proto 2."^ one's breath take pression in the whole of it. taken alone. 45.

no naturalness" about ^ nothing but "a barbarous medley of words." mentioned above." "vanity. rare. verbose pedantry." and can be but the natural expression of "a pedantical phrase-compiler who bungles and is blurs" everything he touches." "ignobility. and honored it all this time as divinely inspired without ever discovering that its style was such as "would induce a Greek reader to form about it the same judgment that we naturally form about the 'Native Estimate' it. could be mire a style which wording. and the scholarship of the best well as the is modern masters of Hellenistic Greek. which is is so wofully deceived as to ad- "essentially ignoble" both in thought and characterised by "vulgar pomposity." "pedantry. therefore. and barren plagiarism.400 lific Br. the discernment of the Greek fathers. however. that "there is no style." "dulness. . but certain bad mental and moral traits: "barrenness. 'V i^i a word. or even falsely framed or used ^A 2 characteristic specimen of the "half-educated Hindoo English. Dr. Eusebius. P. Weiss. we do not ground our objections to the genuineness of the its bad Greek. that Dr." The argument bases itself on the contention that the style is bad in such a way as to exhibit not simEpistle on ply ignorance of Greek. 3 P. It will be of use to is us." "shallowness." scholars like Calm judgment again refuses to believe that Ewald. Huther. Briickner. through almost "a glossary of the rarest words not valid unless in the [English] language. Athanasius. Abbott on writers the [April. Abbott recognises ^ the fact that neither apostolicity nor inspiration secures to a writer Attic purity of Greek. 214. written commentaries on it. it. otherwise unknown. studied criticised it. as manner of argumentation by which the style of 2 Peter of its made an evidence spuriousness." he says. Edwin A." is It is observable. — like Origen. 206. Basil." "inanity. should have read this Epistle for ages." and so on. "that "Let it be clearly understood. Abbott's argument it confessedly be shown not merely that 2 Peter contains bad Greek. Cyril of Jerusalem." "vulgarity. to observe the kind of specifi- cation that made to support this wholesale attack at once on the style of 2 Peter. to Surely a sober reader entitled brush away such a ftmfaronade with a justly impatient gesture. Hofmann.

they must not be such as . while the facts do not justify even the noun. 401 or even solecistic constructions." let it tAvice or thrice before he can bring himself to to go. or 2. words may be turned up in it. but this mere fiict is certainly nor unworthy or vulgar. We way have already said . not to say unique. Abbott must certainly be held in his specifications to items supporting one or the other of these two assertions: 1. prove such a tautology must be poetical and striking above all.1883." concerning which in immediately to be observed that the argument each case lies in the adjective. Abbott's it will be instruc- of dealing with the asserted in order to obtain a correct cases of "tautologies" and "solecisms" notion of the soundness and carefulness of his methods of Avork." and "vulgar pedantry.] words. tion of the same word or phrase to "paucity of to express the same Euclid not tautological." "artificial tautolit ogy of is fine words. By is mean the mere repetithing. nor are the circumstances of the various cases such as will render them so. rare. difficult. Abbott does "not unfairly Avith Dr. Abbott's very interesting pages for such items. A careful reader will look in vain through Dr. or can be justly described as plagiarism. that the words adduced . but nlso that these words are so used as to exhibit an ignobility of mental or moral constitution in the writer. and to guard the reader against the fear that we are dealing as "tautology" Dr." AA'hereby he "to insert "having found a bright patch. and some unusual. all that Ave need say concerning the borrowing from Jude tive to note here Dr. His three main contentions are that the Epistle is full of "barren plagiarisms." It is clear noAV. That it is ineradically and inexplicably different from that of First Peter. Dr. or barren manner. Abbott as he had dealt Avith 2 Peter. adopted phrases here and there from other writings as certainly not true that the borroAving but it is just has been done in any unworthy. There certainly do occur repetitions of words and phrases in the Epistle. ignoble. is It indeed true that 2 Peter has freely borrowed from Jude and . Genuineness of Second Peter. handsome phrases Avhich he has accumulated." words" —due it He means the barren repetition of "fine vocabulary" and the desire of an empty writer to "make the most of the is led. That the style bears witness to a mentally or morally ignoble writer.

and tition in this Epistle. an unexceptionably finished politician and philanthropist of the highest specific gravity. has distilled from febrile wings from amongst a debris of bereaved relatives. 1) the interminable azure of the past. Ahhott on the [April. "The hand of (a. 1) element were observed to be gradually blossoming. friends." ple of the kind of tautology A very fair exam- meant Dr. represented our Most Gracious Majesty the Queen in this Presidency. 2 14—20.' " azure of the past. 2) Oriental mind was just in the (c. and are expressions. 2) incipient stage of appreciating his noble mental and moral qualities. first It will it: be suf- our purposes to quote the paragraphs of "The not uncommon (a. or are used in strange senses.402 Dr. italics and figures in the above passage. that in respect to to this . willed that he should be carried into 1 the infinite and {d.'" same judgment that we naturally form about the 'Native We might ask. or be noted as a tau- tology of this class. possibly. what of it ? this Would erty of prove ignobility of soul or ignorance of Greek . iiicijjient buds. ? Pov- Greek vocabulary might be proved a book-learned and half-understood vocabulary might be proved. only a few days ago." and that probably would not attract attention. can be shown to have been in natural and familiar use in the sense in which they occur in "the tautology. with already refuted and self-refuting charge." but contends that "their use. when the (c. its tautologies. Dr. Abbott's . Abbott thinks that 2 Peter this trash tliis is is the same kind of Greek as English ! We are not concerned now. 1) hand of A^-Ath. 1) Oriental 2) ) Dr. in the ficient for Madras Mail. that the words there "are capable of being rendered into veiy simple English. and consequently can only confine itself to a prediction of what his indefatigable zeal would have achieved for it. had he remained within the category of 'the survival of the fittest. or either because they are figurative intensely poetical expressions. indeed. however. who. The (e. The only exception is. These are marked by all striking. Edwin A. except in association with the others. Even were this true. But Dr. 2) destiny has (ft. but only with the tautologies. and submissive subjects into (6. is parallel he admits. it still more to their repe- would induce a Greek reader form about the Estimate. symptoms of his fostered love and hope for the (e. Abbott thinks Peter ii. Abbott adduces from an estimate of Lord Hobart's character which appeared shortly after the death of that statesman. ^''Oriental. Now.

Many Greek readers. 2 •. an uncommon even though word it to the circle of ideas of a writer like 2 Peter. 2. Yet none of them has seen —which been reserved to him to discover some eighteen centuries after the advent of the Epistle into an unbelieving and critical world. sufiiciently close to Peter's day to stand as examples.] brief requires Genuineness of Second Peter. ^ Greek occurring of examples are Winer's Grammar. Madras Mail did not fail to extract. ." Elsewhere we learn that he deems a word not found elsewhere in the New Testament. D. great changes of sense in words . "though good classical Greek in themselves. From ^ these characteristics of the kind of etc. and the characteristics of* the period to which Winer ^ gives us. changes of form and an inilux of newly made words. as distinguished from classical. Again.. as the chief lexical peculiarities of ^^-. be otherAvise a common Greek word." and others. Abbott's contention rare in Greek that some of these words "are very literature. true ? We can deter- mine how the 1.^h*'*** Hellenistic Greek. only in two ways: Greek readers who read it nearest to that time and. or in the LXX. rather. Dr. on the contrary. is it Abbott seems -belongs. to ask.1883. main or of words new to the literary language. the mixture of dialects . the comminglii^ .. the words used are found on examination to bear absolutely no but. by noting whether the words thus "tautologically" used are of the same class that occur in the by observing how it actually aifected the . some of them and that of which Dr.. ^ poetical and other lofty words . are used by 2 Peter in senses justified as simple and natural by either is known usage or strong analogy. But would the use of such words repetitiously be enough to convict a passage of being similar in style to the extract from the Madras 3Iail? Dr. are rare or non-existent in the New Testament. real resemblance to those in the Madras Mail quota- tion . is it behoves us. has to observe the difference between its style 1 Peter — a far more hidden phenomenon than this this Abbott appeals. used this Epistle. 403 Jt him to prove mental or moral unworthiness. to forget for the moment the kind of Greek he dealing with. where a sufficient number given. however. style of this Epistle first would affect a Greek reader of say the last half of the century A.

Language.Abbott is 07i the [April. Abbott has engaged in a rather difficult task. or reappear in entirely strange dresses. and man is did. as a literary vehicle. pretty nearly what was right own eyes. that old acquaintances are used in the most unheard of senses. was in a . and by them only. .. Oct. in a new and strange sense. the old vocabulary was no longer clung to jealously popu- lar phrases and forms of speech were clamoring in his for recognition. prove it it That a word a curious dialectic form. or in the New out. He estimates that the New Testament con- tains eight hundred and eighty-two (882) native Greek words ^Bibliotheca Sacra. tliat occurs in the classics only in the loftiest of poetic speech. 653. for instance.^ gives us a summary view of the matter. Edtvin A. does not in Peter's was not in the commonest currency was not the flattest day . obtained no one knows whence is — all this would not only be no proof of It ignorance of Greek in the author of a writing of this date. as almost the only mine from which the writers of the New Testament drew their vocabulary their great mine was doubtless the popular usage of Procurrent speech. it Br. Queer phenomena are continually cropping woixl. is just what we do find in all the writers of the time. Testament. absolute. 1880. already apparent that Dr. and in both used with the utmost fiimiliarity or a word can be found it only in a single passage in the totality of Greek writing.404 in 2 Peter. The period in which 2 Peter was composed. or give way to utter strangers. The same Greek appears in only two places in all it is literature in both cases independently. . seq. in the Avay of choosing a vocabulary. an unsettled age. in a word. as distinguished from any written sources. does it not prove prose in Peter's day . pp. when he wishes is to prove that its author has used his words in as ridiculous a way as the writer in the Madras Mail. which may help us here. but just what we are to look for and expect in him. . until . and an or a familiar is word used age of transition. fer- ment each . Every one of the New Testament writers has his own a-a^ le-yo/neva. fessor Potwin. linguistically speaking. . Nor it possible to speak of the LXX. suddenly turns up in an inscription by two widely separated authors. in his very interesting papers on the New Testa- ment vocabulary. was.

only some three hundred and are found in the sixty- three in or a little over tivo-jifths. not at all smooth. the to fasten Madras Mail extract The author of that Epistle ought to be given benefit of the as to doubt that would necessarily arise this or that in in each case whether word. Avill require much more than the adduction of repetitions of in the words that are rare New in Testament. and yet he has not counted merely dialectic forms. known or to us only as a rarely occurring word Greek literature. was not plain and familiar prose in his circle of acquaintances. so long as the served.1883. Abbott's English representation of lation It is only by such a forced trans- — proceeding by the resurrection of the etymological senses as of derivatives and compounds. form was pre- Of all. these eight hundred and' eighty-two words not found at all in the classical age. or slight changes of declension or pi'onunciation. liut only in Dr. ridiculous. And we hasten to add that an examinarion of Dr. while. It Only one conclusion can be drawn from such facts as these. is discovered / to exist. or even the widest changes of meaning. LXX. Abbott's own thoroughl}^ clear it English style muddy. but senses. by treating It is as he has treated 2 Peter's. The "barren tautology it.] Genuineness of Second Peter. tion It is another questhis whether he needs to ask for the benefit of doubt.. Abbott's of fi/e words" chosen examples from 2 Peter will convince the sober reader that he does not. that the "tautolo- gies" can be found in 2 Peter at This may perhaps be made plain to the reader by placing Dr. New on the Testament and LXX. Abbott's forced translation of the first of the two passages he adduces. 405 not found anywhere until after Aristotle. perhaps only as an intensely poetical one of the classical period. and the literal senses of figurative words which had acquired well-settled and simple derivative meanings — would make any author all. in justifiable added notes Avill We trust the reader will carefully observe the effect. not at all in 2 Peter's Greek. as the which takes the words show. or rare in the literature. or an average of about two to a page . side by side with an- other. could readily Any one who thought it Avorth his make Dr. or rare in Greek such "tautologies" as occur 2 Peter. to be observed that the passage begins in the middle of a sentence .

thino. ^"The use is of virepoyna. 2) having fled aivaij from the through the knowledge of our Lord pollutions of the world by the recog. For. Hal.. word bliyug is and most used phrase ovk oAiyug. they went astray having fol. ® Cf Prov. . v. havina. are (e.^ but had the refutation'^ of but received a rebuke of his own his own^ law-breaking .'' hin. 1) defeated. A. they (a. however. For (f. common in classics (e. hindered the prophet's maddered the maddishness^ of the pro. 1) unconfirmed. supposing his ass to be stubborn and vicious. .). 22.' " True enough ^' probably means here: valeat tantum. in the It p. . by wanton acts. but afterwards having they are overcome.406 Dr.^ a dumb transgression. thesis word" (Dr. phet. 2 (LXX. See 2}ost. . 2) defeated. . like our 'not in the some small extent. Balaam. havin^i left the straight (a. if having esby which one is (e. They have left the straight way and are way.ness. in the lusts of the flesh by wanton acts lusts of the flesh.themselves are slaves of corruption dom. Wiof is not there is a contrast beso unessential here as Dr.).gone astray. while they life in error promisinij them free. Polyb. their last state is worse than the first.). in the things of vanity. The dumb beast of beast of burden with the voice of burden. between what fond of the abuse of one's own and another's: but the author unessential. and children of curse.a man. but havnition^^ of our Lord and Saviour ing become again entangled in them. ^"''The Why? rare. New Testament. For caped the pollutions of the world if [d. speaking great swelling of swellina. 2) uttering sounds For. 4 xxiii.for one is enslaved by that by which ruption for one is enslaved by that he is overcome. See post. Di- on.s* of vanity.' . the [April. from those who are spendinif their promising them freedom. bad Greek" (Dr.). . they entice. 22 this . 235. It will be enough ^ in reply to refer to ^ ^See^josif. in 'to no slight degree. ought not to be used is where there is no antiis . following after the way lowed after''. when the dumb beast spake and gave him a rejiuke for hisoM7?i sin. as the careful reader will readily see. A. without the article. practised o/'^ f^reediness. only rare in the Ditto. 2) set baits to catch those who those who are just escaping from are in the least ^^ {d. . who loved the wages of loved the wages of unrighteousness. enticing unstable souls having hearts practised in covetousness children of cursing. 1) . \) fleeing mcay them that pass their lives in error. Abbott on Dr.and Saviour Jesus Christ. Perhaps. Cf Winer least. was punishing her for it. — ^ "A rare and pedantic use of the genitive" (Dr. C/l Job xxi.).. "The word private. * Winer. Ps. Edwin A. . 7 * . Abbott's. Abbott seems to think tween the '"sin" of Balaam and of his ass. (Moulton's Ed. . ^ Hence. 2 Peter. xxxvi. g. . .the way of Bahiatn the of Balaam the son of Bosor who son of Bosor. l6iog. Ditto. . their last state been entangled in these things they is become worse than their first. ^ 30-4. . Setting baits to catch souls a heart (//. A. being themselves slaves of cor. Neither is ISioq in ii. iniquity. Jesus Christ. yet followed by a genitive. speaking with the voice of a man (c.). 1) uttering a sound.

the resurrection of the literal sense would even introduce confusion: James i. This is the translation which Dr. q. 3.. then." the words here.1883. notice of words 407 and phrases ex- Relegating to the foot notes all which have been forced from their obvious senses. as became common. {a) Setting baits to catch.\xix..eap Plutarch. Madras Mail we confine ourselves here to the cases of "tautology. sind Plato. 6: "Pleasure. irpog iTridv/ilac TjdovTjQ 6E?iEd^ETat. up the lit- word here? bait. 1. elsewhere than in this passage. are to be added (marked and 11 above). — to entice. to hook as bait or to entice or catch by bait. then violence has been done by Dr. The literal sense is already out of sight in such passages as Demosthenes. the greatest mciYe?«eft< derivative verb /. which he further informs us used only once elsewhere in the eral sense of the New Testament. its 2. it it obtained great currency. rb yTivKv r^f kniBvuiaQ uaa-ep i^e^KEiv [av6poi-ovg] Tim." Five of these are adduced."' metaphorical sense a recoi^nised simple and no longer fiifurative meaninj^? (5<$Zof). Abbott. Abbott's sense). 14. left It is observed with refer- ence to them that while in the strange appearance. lib. Their "tautological" character (in Dr. to which three more. malo . §22 (cited by Grimm).Ed!^eiv means.Jowett). to bait. and. prob. and their repetition ceases to strike upon the ear unpleasantly or even markedly. always in sensu lost its figurative implication. The primitive 6E?. Ahbott is offers of the word SeTiEa^eiv. and this. or has But its is it justifiable to dio. Let us take a brief view of the usage of the words involved. and If no violence has Are they fitly ? represented by the translation given in the right hand column been done to 2 Peter to them in this translation. The 6e2. and therefore that the latter is used in total neglect of / its literal . literally. demonstrates sense. The order of and dElEalofjEvoq second.. In the only one other New Testament 7/ i'0' passage in whicli the word occurs. Vind. pp. as they stand in hand column they bear a the right hand column they appear natural enough.Eap {cf. as in 6e/>. Ahim. De . marked as repeated 2. e^eTiKdfievoc first.. bait in accordance In with its form. omn. text). 1. "But each is tempted by t/MvvE-at being drawn out and having baits set by his own lust. amounting to eight in all. Ser. depends on the necessity of looking at them from the standpoint of the the real question before us is : left hand column. either to put on the metajyh. 241—2: paart'ovy kol (jx^^V ^^'^la^o/ievov (by all means compare the conand Philo. of evil" (. meaning "a has itself a settled metaphorical sense.] Grenuineness of Second Peter. in order to give the passage as a whole the appearance of the tract. metaphorical sense. e.

"Christ took We our physically dilapidated nature" [IlodgeJ. "namely. iii. or the writers of the kolv?] {e.. is common to Peter and 2 Peter. Ivi. 2. for "enticino. [h." says Dr. by 2 Peter in three separate (though only slightly divergent) senses. 16. Peter")? at the least. note 1. pedantic or not. 17.. If there is anything curious or "fine-wordy" or pedantic about this phrase. ing which Dr. and is a mark of the Petrine origin of this Epistle just in proportion as it is strange and (3) bott. dilapidate . Josephus. i. Isa. Peter's day. . Polybius.408 in Br. an exceedingly common in some way.. Testt. It is rare also in the classics. cf. if this phrase is not strange in Acts. [e.) uncoafirjned. 1 Peter v. xxxi. rare word in St. 1882. however. or of the early Church [e. 69. jiiaBov a^iKiac. Plu- It is used tarch). 32) are favorites with Peter and seem to have had peculiar significance to him cf. and obvious sense his repeated use of it in the course of four verses is neither strant^e nor sitfniticant when once we recognise the commonness of the word and the naturalness of the sense. : .. p.g. Ab"from ii.v Presbyterian Review. why have no wish to haggle over the point whether 2 Peter actually borrows the phrase from Acts. etc.^ 2 Peter simply uses a common Greek word. "repeated. and the less so as it strange here? 'Or.. Amos ii. 16 and ii. this use. 12. Abbott remarks truly enough that it is used here. whence it has been probably borrowed by our author." no sense figuratively. Abbott on the [April. Certainly its use at 2 Peter ii.). cannot be called "tautological. (2) Jiacing followed after. The word here is i^nKoAovSElv.. p. original sense of scattering of the bishopric of stones in such a passajie as this "The patrimony Oxon was much dilapidated" (Wood).iniquiti/. all of which are justified as natural and current by other writers. Abbott to accept that as "a speech of St. 2. Peter. but only as a current expression insist To the on translatinji. and Souther. v. 2 Peter i. iii." and can occasion no surprise. Patt." We are at somewhat of a loss to understand what is thought to be proved by this. only. 9. anal3'sis of the word.) the wages of.g. 4 Job Longin. not unknown in the New Testament in its most natural. "setting baits to catch.g. unless the word itself is either rare or peculiar It is. concern3. then. common. Peter alone in the New Testament. de Subl. word. The word here is aarT/ijUroi. which occurs in 2 2. then how account for its use by the genuine Peter (Acts i. {Cf.. . Edwin A. Grimm's 4. 644). 14. and Musaeus. is it On the other hand.'" is its same as to insist on ^ivin.. in the lutely no significance. whether in the LXX. unusual." and but once used elsewhere in the New Testament. 18. on the contrary. 11 Sir. the word in 2 Peter. This fact has. . And it is w^orthy of note that words cognate with oTTipii^u (Luke xxii. 295 ("the unstable deeps and waIt may or may not have been a somewhat tery bottoms of the sea*'). New Testament. 2. 18) in a speech of St.. abso2. for we understand Dr. It is at worst a vivid mode of speech. however. in the Acts (i. 13. xii. 10.

. //Traadac. however. uiadC.. Job xiii. (e) defeated. 3. ii. but the word common in St.. 18. TTatdoc T/TT7/6eig. the fiiaOoc due to an impious man. 1034. Theogn. etc.. 4. ivavri. 2. 44.1883. Cf. "For neither did Atreides boast in a small lim.. 2. used in New Testament in 2 Peter For the construction with the genitive (as in 2 Peter i. The candid reader who has taken the trouble to read through I . etc. if it be the items which must be adduced to prove pedantic tautology a sound" of guile?) 8 Wisdom things. 2S Eph. 13). 1159. Hdian. Xen. Dr.''' Eur.. 206) that this word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament.'.. 39 A "For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death" (JowettJ Plato Tim.. in Diaii. 1. Paul's Epistles. 22. 7. 8. : 2 Cor. pedantic. Mem. I. As a pedant and tine writer 2 Peter's author can certainly be content to stand alongside of Plato. Ildt. do not appear to us part of This much. xii. thus just as we reach the climax of our wonder at what Dr.. 2G3. in the (11) recognition.] Grenuineness of Second Peter. epuri t^q profane Greek. and verses 18 and 19 of Acts i. Mem. cf. Isaiah liv. i. in exactly the . I. Xen. 2. it we may .. or ignoble. ahrov (pdcyyeGde 66\ov ("utter "no one 'uttering a sound' of wicked iv.). ii. 11. i. : . g. Abbott falls into a slight er5. "And escapes the worst disease of all" (Jowett). necessarily rare. passage. 4." — them The word common . not found elsewhere in New Testament. 12. 17: "And every all is voice that shall rise up against thee unto judgment. viii. 4) cf katpehyeiv in Xen. (pdeyyo/jai. Abbott able to adduce as tautologies like those of the Madras Mail extract. 3. ." Add : it is common in this same sense in the LXX. e. i. ror in saying (p. 8. 409 seems certain that Acts was published some five or six years earlier than 2 Peter. and the simple verb in For the construction with the accusative as in our present Philoct. 42. 20. {cf [d) fleeing aicay from. Com.. all.. an example of the same phrase that is here held to be "fine-wordy" and Essentially the same phrase occurs also in 2 Mace. 1050. ((-) uttering a sound.. as we go on. 19. while /uiaddg in a bad sense is common in Greek literature {rf. i. Plato Tim. 3. 33 pedantic. c. — proved at '6.. 18: "charged them not at This fact in the is fatal to all to 'utter a sound' or teach in the name of Jesus. ." Sir. we reach the end of his enumeration. CalHi/mn. The sense in which 2 Peter uses the word is sufficiently illustrated by Plato Apol.. use of 8. is it is in Josephus Ant. 1. Batr. Hipp. only. is clear: in Luke's words we have Peter's speech. Dem. aTTO(j)Evyeiv. Cf. but not. 39 A. it occuirs in a precisely similar sense in Acts iv. 8. Certainly. and 2 Peter's no sense strange or unwonted. An. 840." and. same sense that And is occurs in here: cf Rom. therefore. 7.. 10. 13 Col. 6. 47. Plato Apol. //rr^/rrezf . iv." the adduction of the of- word here that rff as pedantic or strange simple sense "speak. kTr'iyvuaig "repeated above. 44 c. xiii. 6. add. c/.. we become more and more amazed at iv. 7. i.

without really understanding their meaning. and. a-ovdj/v iraaav Tra/jEiaEvdyKavTeg (i. are "exactly parallel" to "gairish. Kvltafza (ii. 8. That Avas not. inconsistent with its inspiration and authority. but. full sample Dr.' " if in Mookerjee as 'remaining sotto voce till half-past four in the This arraignment is certainly thorough-going. iii. 62." He even thinks that "such idiomatic blunders" as "inducing [the Court] to his and "their hope suspended toto coelo on his pleading" may be fairly matched by the corresponding blunders. 16)." "bolstering up the Avith his decision of the Lower Court acumen and cognoscence. We have seen already a sample of what he means by this in the passage we have quoted above from however. when the hope and affiance of the clients of Justice Mookerjee toto coelo suspended on his pleading. ^Cf. and even of coining other "fine words" from the base metal of his own vain and pom- pous ignorance. of 2 Peter. Justice evening. Abbott declares that the use of such words as (ii. not. how- ever. Macbeth ." "sickishness. He made no gairish of words. when they importuned him do so. ii." "on multitudinous^ occasions. that the author of the Epistle full of the "vulgar pedant- ry" of forcing in the "fine words" of his vocabulary everywhere. We must remember. can certainly be what we have thus thrown into small print. 5)^ the omission of the article 5)." (i. it iiySonc (ii. 22). Abbott on the [April. 22). that our author does not stop at the charge of "tautology. Edwin A. quite a his trans- lations of 2 Peter. "As for the mis- use of j3?Jfi/iia can be matched with nothing so justly as the passage of the Bengalee writer in which he describes Mr." that charge is. at all events. Abbott. let us look further. accordance with facts. raprapwcraf 4). II.410 Dr. (ii. (ii." "cognoscence. he even on such a day came and pleaded their to causes.. certainly. 12). opens up a new and hitherto unsusstartling to one pected characteristic. indeed.. 10). and he was absent from court on account of some sickishness. 15). trusted to bring in the verdict of "not guilty" to the charge of "tautology" as urged by Dr. Kavaor/iiEva (iii." in such Indian English as: "He had one and uniform way of sapience and legal speaking. and the use of 8). fivfifirjv noieiadaL favor. napaippovia (ii. e^ioafia (ii. 10. in reality only subsidiary to the ftirther is one.

Trapa^povia Oq what ground. but utterly incongru- ous with its known usage. 2 — 12. and form fact that it is it suggests no to incongruous action. it is speech. the badness of the Indian-English consists. having acquired its meaning from "sickish" in the sense of "nauseating" {cf. Nor is it to see even a rare word instead of a his sense. new one He wished a word assonant with Ttapavo/uia: "but obtained a rebuke for his in own -npavo/xia. 406. . and pronounce it bad English..eyo/iiEvov 'as it be rare Are we stamp every bad Greek ? It is far from an impossible suppo- sition that the Avord was in exceedingly common use in popular the other hand. and only crops up here in literature. its It is regularly formed.^ tells as one already in a sense us that the word — ''of produces no other instance in -rvapacppnahvrj. oTraf /. on the other hand. 411 It who has been accustomed test the to read it reverently. The word "sickishness" from that in which does exist in English.'' If Dr. Greek literature" — which Wahl "is probably 'sickish- bad Greek for as bad as the Indian-English ness' for 'sickness. but in a different sense the Hindoo used it. We are struck with the incongruity at once in reading the passage. XXXIV. it hindered the prophet's napa(i>povia. therefore. Abbott thinks unAvorthy of ^See above. The mere not known to to occur (lit- elsewhere in Greek literature could only prove erary) Greek. we can pronounce is bad Greek. speaking man's voice. and that is napa<i)pna!jvr/ used by classical Its wi'iters to express the notion plainly intended to here. not apparent.] G-enuineness of Second Peter. On we see no reason why Peter hard should not have coined good metal. . cf. 7rapa<ppovia Let us begin with the word before us. p.' " The facts in this account are. or even coined a why he should have adopted here more common one fitted equally to for his purpose. it. i. certainly not bad Greek. this analogy with "sickishness" seems 18) and be confined to — that both ^vords are formed on a correct analogy. "fool(1 Cor. that no in- stance of the use of this word seems as yet to have turned up in profane Greek or elsewhere in sacred Greek. in the use of a word in a sense possible derivatively. the dumb ass. NO. VOL. ishness" EvSnipui'ia.1883. Abbott detail. behoves us to charge somewhat in Dr. "the sickishness of the taste"). its sense is consonant with both root-meanino.

2. T. occurs in 2 Peter iii. is 100 A. . 412: "And now in the pontificate of Alexander. Abbott on the [April.412 Br. Kav/iardidr/g. medical and otherwise. such as (primitive of Kavaoofini)^ acquired a secondary derivative sense as applied to fevers. being "to burn intensely. and seems be found in the classics only late. That sense undoubtedly a derivative sense. although several of Kavfia. to (Rom. separated by both a century of time and the technicalities of the subjects treated. that memorable scene presented to the nations of the modern world nature. p. Abcondemn Paul's KaraKpifia 6iKaLufia verse 18) ? or Mr. ." a pageant of Antichrist and Antiphysis the neo^ation of the gospel and of A7itiphi/sis appears to be a coinacje of Mr. 12. or coin a an apostle or sensible man to choose a little-used will new word for such a purpose. and in the sense of "to be feverish." How ^Age of the Despots." is Note: 1. D. christ V. its and therefore 3. althouo. The word N. scorn such "pedantry. thus: it "And the fourth poured out his bowl upon the sun and was given were put do to say unto it to men in a fever heat with fire. And men would it in fever heat with great fever heat. seems not to occur earlier than Dioscorides (c. A. How Dr. D. when he tries to force the derivative sense used technically by physicians of 100 A. fever Hence Dr. primitive sense. he falls in a great company. He same word. Kavaov^eva 10. . cf. the natural sense of the word. . passes our compreAvould be scarcely passing beyond this were he to its attempt to translate put cognates in Rev. Antiphysis?" ^ If 2 Peter falls on account of this word. . on the term so used a century primitive sense of the -a«4-ft half earlier as to demand the hension. also Is Dr. 8." "to be in a state of fever" (Dioscorides and Galen). . bott prepared. in two pairs. Ro." fair? "elements heat are to be melted.h (Of>. Few writers. Kavaog them. only in the to it does not occur in the LXX. The Greeks used 7rapa<pvaig {cf." All its cognates have this primitive sense. xvi. .). The sense of "to be feverish" late. Kav/uaTl^o). Edwin A. Abbott Is this it translates here in "elements fever in heat shall be dissolved. Symonds' "Antiit. for instance. J. whether in the New Testament or out of 16. 9. . 26)." . Abbott can think he is dealing scientifically with a word Avhich occurs four times. -)-.ilvie) — the adjectives antiphysic and antiphysical seem to be in use. i. Symonds. he be obliged to sit aloft on some misty height in literary loneliness.

having bathed. in the interests of truth and fairness.. he made is Academy for Dec. 'having washed herself or bathed." "parched brow"? Would not be as fiir to translate Dioscorides and Galen by 2 Peter's usage as vice versa ^ The words Kv?uaii6v and is k^kpaaa. (ii. 1882) : "Called to the Scottish law and literature. Further. indeed. with the difference that the matter plainer. [2 'The dog having returned to his own evacuation wallowing Peter] supplements this quotation by a reference to a sow returning to its . and here he introduces a word {KvALCfiov) not recognised by Liddell and Scott.. to her walloivance. 413 "parched corn" really meant "fever-heated corn. 'to vi.' : to his The whole passage will then run thus 'The dog having turned own evacuation. and self-confident. 19)." and certainly was used technically as a medical term. what becomes of it when the facts asserted are themselves brushed away ? Yet. a technical term of medicine derived from k^epau so evacu- ate by purge or vomit. but found by Wahl in Dioscorid. the non sequitur. has he done more than Mr.' that the passage may !' be rendered. It may be rendered 'wal- [2 Peter] also uses about the sow a word generally restricted to human beings. eupeptic." We have here. . even if the facts are true. Dr." on the strength of the it common phrases "parched lips.1883. we must ruthlessly brush away the "facts. a parallel argument a case of case to Kavanv^eva. fair way both in 23. then. being indus- trious. But that it certainly was not a purely technical term (was Dr.' Alford. 22) naturally go together. 11. is even The verb k^fpau is defined as "to evacuate by purge or vomit. Abbott "r") misled by the technical phraseology of the Lexicon's definition it was a common popular word is proved by the fact that it • ^Used also by Carlyle and a few oUiers in an untechnical way." If. William ation" represents ? k^tpa^ia.' " A fitly precious piece of criticism ! Let us suppose "evacuto a mind more common use a technical medical term. lowance. Abbott's criticism as follows: "For the word 'vomit' [in i^epafia Proverbs xxvi.' . 2 Peter] substitutes the word to be ('hardly found elsewhere. and the sow."^ accomplished.. does ignobility of heart or result in the writer Suppose he has adapted Wallace in the following sentence in description of the historian Alison {The Bar.] Genuineness of Second Peter.

" like the question of leaves to be manner open. and on the strength of these facts declare ical it to be a purely technical med- word. the are kirl Hebrew word i!J^p~b5'' TO i(^wv i^epa/ia. By the same process by which he makes Kavadofim and t^epafia appear to be technical medical terms. sense — "to empty" air. The word was thus one of a class used to denote vomiting. g. now in Prov. to by the English word "evacuate. Aquila translates i^ip by i^epau." thus. As a matter of fact. At all events and in any case. Kirk Ho- . Wm. however. impression save in this particular. 248. somewhat high-handed the sense of voinit to take a word used three times — all in —twice by physicians and once by the populace or a popular writer. fact is now to be noted : ! : reads Kpoaoxdiai) (=: "abhor. The noun vi. its contents [Arrian]. the words which 2 Peter takes the liberty of translating by Certainly. "evacuate. 28. then the people are responsible for is and it proved to be used in a current it is common sense. both in the sense of vomiting (as distinguished from jjurging) also occur in Eust. xviii.. bott's ^No doubt it will seem natural to the reader to suppose that Dr. Abbott seems to be indeed in this is dilemma: either 2 Peter self." losing the figure). gives a false i^epau. What Just this out of proof is there that it was a technical word ? three times in which the word occurs.).414 Br. translating Proverbs xxvi. The cognates i^epaaiQ and e^epaarfiQ. it is used twice by physiAnother Is that a broad enough base for an induction ? cians in Levit. xxvi. If the latter. it is not quite so. 11 him- or repeating it in its popularly current form. If the former. 91. where the LXX. the Rev. k^epa/na seems known in the classics only in Dioscorides 19. even passed into a popular metaphorical (e. Dr. Abmethod of proving words to be technical medical words is unexampled among students of Greek. and Eust. Edtvln A. then Aquila justifies him in the word he uses as the Greek equi- valent of ii^p e^epa/ia. 2 Peter Hebrew verb "to vomit" by the may be allowed to translate the noun "vomit" by the corresponding noun. Abbott on the [April. This growth in popular usage necessarily use of the word in its presupposes a translate it common primitive sense . if Aquila can be allowed without horrible charges to translate the verb. Opusc. the ballot urn of etc. 11. the lungs of a vessel of water.

T. this by its all odds the most likely supposi- and (3) there is no particular reason for preferring "waltranslation. and the on the strengtli of the medical use of the verb ava/. proceeds on his forgetfulness of the chief characteristic of the age in a lexical point of view. cropping up here in a popular is proverb.) the most usual. T. . i^kpa/na. do not Seem to occur after 2 Peter in Greek literature until about A. is indeed. 4. yet that rule neither decides for — —ance is it ing. Dublin. to wallowing in the mire. Prov. nor bart. has any tendency to prove a late date for 2 Peter." nor of uniform apcf. observe (1) that the author of 2 Peter did not invent (2) it may have been tion . Abbott's.a/ufiavu as equi- epidemic diseases valent to "to restore to health and strength. doubtless sufficient to it . indeed.). 10." What concerns further Dr. I. {The Medical Language of St. Bdpfiopng. Luke. It easy to confess that not found in the N. to Kv^iafidq. but occurs in Hippiatr. 60.. Vol. 4). The verb /oi»(j (which occurs six times in the N. and Kv?.1883. 01 cni6)iiiovvTEc 'Pu/iahu LL. and in Theodotion. and. and the sow washed. and needs no remark here. p. and ave}J/<pdr] of Acts i. 18 (which brings it is it circle of 2 Peter's author's training). Epictetus' phrase. Dr. instead of fioq regularly express "an abstract notion of energy em(Jelf. Little is need be said with regard it is to Taprapuam: {1 Peter ii. § bodying the intransitive notion of the verb" 334. as quoted by Grimm under is. indeed. number of instances quite as bad as Dr.] Genuineness of Second Peter. B. elsewhere. h pop^dpu the ititransitive verb "to wallow. .'' careful Grimm no hesitation bals in — in translating '^volutatio and although ver332. T. the verse found to be such as would strike a Greek ear about as the following strikes an English ear: "The true proverb that had : the dog turning to its own vomit again. Abbott's notion. that the fact that the three words.. it lowance" feels to "wallowing. Kavaol'fieva. plication in actual usage. ii. On the whole phrase. D. med- ical terms — the former on the strength of the use of the verb k~uh//ieu (to be ETTuhjiioQ) of latter (e. 415 With reference N. 204." as The . D. g..ta/i6v. a popular word. {cf.'' presents quite a etc. in which is used here only in the into the Mark in ix. but not invariably this passage. Hipp.. etc. Ilobart.) makes of Acts ii. nearly always used of persons. 2. 4(>). 20). while not is so that the usage in a perfectly natural one.. kv'/Jeiv. Progn. Accordingly.

on the strength of which he proposes the following translation of ii.. only one of the well known. 5] ). plain from. and .)^ cases (like for e. us. avoids the use of the word "Tarassociations. Taprapou. Abbott makes aeipoig. hence a pit-fall.. tarus." found elsewhere in this short form. and hence a magazine or (2) store-pit. ekO. used the New Testament. that it is "uncouth "almost as uncouth as ing' it would be in English to speak of 'hellsome one.. and not at all in LXX. say. in the face of the it is certainly impossible to common KaTaraprnpou. compounded form. the uncompounded p. 33 . secondary meanings (1) a pit for keeping corn. And although it not .. "to a welleducated Greek. never found in the N.416 anywhere Dr. In connexion with another however. but having helled them. and more properly mpSr This seems clearly : . much of which he thinks. 4 : "If God spared not angels Avhen they sinned. and So Longus. It has three its primitive sense.. and its standing sense seems to be Pit. say." in the face of Hesychius' recognition of the sense of it is difficult to divine. So Eur. or the c. The word." That it LXX. We have before rare. indeed. said to be "alien was capable of being used by Jewish lips is. Greek ." and "curious" word. however.. in to both. delivered them to store-pits of darkness. See Moulton's Winer. a different matter. note 4.. A pit for keeping prisoners. contrary to to the usual custom. Demosthenes enppog. here only in the tolerably the "well-educated Greek. Anaxim. Varro. So Hesychius tells us. however. and somewhat strong language. T. Abbott on the in classical is [April. Josephus is Apion ii. Plut. probably the popular Greek) preferred. is common in the classics in the spellings aetp6g (Pollux. 25. giving "prison" as one of its meanings. A pit for (3) catching wild animals. the current Greek expression "down-helling" some one is a standing and convincing witness. Demosth. and as easy to admit that even its primitive raprapog may therefore be. Dr. though dearpl^eiv somewhat TrapaSsij. Edivin A. or SEiyfiaTc^eiv for in which the later Greek its [i." in order to avoid suggesting heathen The is verb is. T." What can be gained by such a mysterious appeal to "prison" for the word. [v. although it probably true that the N. instead of 'sending him to hell.' " That this is the very opposite of the fact." would convey the meaning of "store-pit.

''^ JosepllUS and Diod.. prove that Thuc. that Thuc. does anybody suppose that if we should blot out 2 Peter i. fivr/fiTiv which occurs "Still all. and in another mildly : "it is is not known to be used in the author's sense (Thuc. therefore. who enough. both USe the phrase with the uncompounded verb. Hdt. 251. 14 .' " . Soph." While it is to be freely admitted. by converting direct "But the sonorous extra syllable added by our author makes nonsense it into 'contribute all zeal in an in- manner' . 54." in the sense of "make exeiv. Sic. Dr. strongly : this phrase [the Court] to his favor" 210)." Thucid. i. biguous). 54 ought to be much more than ambiguTo us. however. 54 took the phrase as 2 Peter does here. At all events. ." provided he was educated To an "uneducated" Greek.1883. so very unexampled that a phrase commonly used lection. corresponding to "inducing (p. that the word was most correctly used in literature in that it is one of its secondary senses which expressed "store-pit. ous in order to justify the statement. against 2 Peter ii. Turning from single words that iivTjjXTjv to phrases.. or 'as a secondary or subsequent consideration. II.] Cf-enuineness of Second Peter. might well know more of "pits" of the (2) and (3) kinds than of the (1). uses the phrase in just 2 Peter's sense though. 346 Plato Phaed. on the other the suggestion might be more natural of a pit-fall or prison-house than of a store-room or magazine. and then haps. told (and if objectionable at (i more objectionable. translate "store-pit" in 2 Peter its any more than in Lon- or that context would not determine the sense naturally and simply to "an educated Greek. 417 for "safe-keep- informing us that the Laconians used a Avord. D. amis." certainly not clear that we must gus . ing. of the phrase. raises Abbott would push the charge against him which he here ? If not. in both senses. 15. II. per- we can never be certain about it. Elect. the probability . and rightly enough. why not ? It is not." should sometimes be used in that of "entertain recol- We need only recall the kindred Of.. aip'ia. mention." we are at we do not wonder the "still more"). phra. singled out for the strictures on 2 Peter's idiom nor is it is very consonant to speak in one place a blunder. "is 5) anov67/v Tzaaav TvapeiaeveyKavTeg. we somewhat wonder first noiEi(T0ac is .

taken as predicate. 12. however. Abbott very blameworthy indeed. "for dwell- ing as a righteous man among vexed his righteous soul day by day. Abbott on the then the conjecture is [April. sin entered. too. he day ^Literally." "along with. along-sided-7iess. in TvapeiaijAdev Rom. "in appearance and report. vexed his righteous soul day by day. seeing that contained in all MSS. Is the author The reader who will read Huther or Alford a fair condition for deciding. it We is do not assert assert that this the it way ought to be taken . the article is In the first case." . 10." When side. instead man dwelling among them by sight and them. Abbott's objection of all force." rather. he by sight and hearing 6iKaioQ is hearing. Edivin A. and before ohpavoi and in iii. But letting that pass. of. We think the article is : probably to be "/or dwelling omitted . 20. of the article before the crro/jeZfl. which enough to void Dr. however. And hazarded. we have no objection to telling him. If any one cares to know. then law had also entered is . in ii. how we understand the passage. V. This thought. but Avhat simply addition. when the sense is Compare the use not "came in bethey came side by tween" or "subordinately. Abbott suggests is . and then the passage reads as follows to among them both sight and hearing^ a righteous man. and be sure of our so clearly astray ? parallel pail passage in fish." was the grandiose sound of the word and the reminiscence of Trapem-tdrcai' in the Let us. which very consonant with is the natural thought of our phrase. it is very doubtful whether it is rightly omitted. perhaps with an adverbial eftect. we merely that it is a way that might be regularly taken. not. no surprise and produce no "for that righteous we would simply read. and the only one who is astray the expositor. that what led "our author" "so superfluously astray. The omission word fiiKaiog. except B. its omission can cause difficulty . Ave told that either the idea of indirectness or Why are is is subordination expressed by the expressed of is Tcnpal Siibscquence may be implied. rememher the full Jude." but simply "beside.418 Dr. but perhaps. and dead in loc." wherein the as Dr. He who will facts before study the word criticised will be in better condition. is its context . seems to Dr. instead of subject. 8. however. may be in we explain them.

p/. T. 2 Peter at the In the Apocalypse it it ahvays takes the in the Synoptists is prevailingly omitted in certain it is phrases. 150) and only peculiar here because does not elsewdiere occur before in the nominative case. Thus. or pedantry in the author. and meaning would argue it no unworthiness. aroixeia. and understand him to say that Lot gave every proof to his neighbors eous character.efifia takes in its most natural sense.^ The article's omission before ovpavoi. and may and do this very take or omit the article according to the individual's fancy or training or mode of looking upon the object. however but is only to be noted (as Winer does) as one fact of language.1883. word ovpnvog is treated differently by the various N. do." than in that of "siglit." e. T. This cannot argue. quasi-proper names. etc. The Greek i. and hence forever destroys one cannot be used for the of Dr. in 2 Peter omitted in new cases. writers however. any ignorance or pedantry or barrenness. a case like the pres. : the Apocalypse stands at one extreme. to know ci'CTaaiv K6(jfiov koI ivtpyeiav arotxeiuv. as seems paralleled by Wisdom 17 : "He gave me p. rather of the objective than the subjective "look" the "eye" itself) . writers other. This class of words. needs no remark.'' Many advantages flow from such an understanding of the passage from an involved it becomes a simple passage . We do not assert or allow that of sight ." "expression. in Paul regularly in those phrases. indeed. 2 Peter open to such charges as Dr. like ifhoq. Greek. 419 hy day vexed his righteous soultvith their lawless deeds. in a transitional and unsettled state in N. although is the transition from the objecits tive to the subjective very easy. (3?. Abbott's chief charges against the purity of Peter's style. —both to their eyes and ears — of his right- The absence it of the article before vii. use the word rather in the sense of "appearance. are. yet is perhaps better to take his words in their more obvious and natural sense.. ovpavoi. article.] Cfenuineness of Second Peter. ent. Abbott brings against it. . and to pass over it the rest and come to one related to our present subject. is is in general quite regular (Moulton's it Winer." "seeing .." j3/J/i^ia "sense nor do we admit that on any other understandlies ing of the passage. ignorance. of a person (in the plural the word means and.

2 Peter. Though is not ignoble. Edwin A. effect ? be above attack and defence. Abbott's sharp in the seething fluid. drawn it from the phenomena of There it is. sufficient to set A reference to Alford's note on fivcjwd^Eiv 9. as it lies ruthlessly. finally. and we can well content ourselves with declaring found with the use of fielA^cu (i. reach down. 312. '"'eighth" before instead of after its 5. framed with learning and pleaded with been. Dr. means simply the genuineness. see. however. with Dr. Out of the it. and to Winer (Moulton's Ed. result is negative. Ought such a discussion as the foregoing to have rather an opposite Without mercy. —they need but calm looking at to The negative character of an examination such is as we are carrying on. Abbott on no more reason to the [April. . plunged into the caustic acid of Dr. Greek order was more flexible than he seems to imagine and we may content ourself with simply referring to the commentators on the passage. one refuge left. But out . and draw it and lo ! the pure gold has not so much it as felt the biting touch of its bath. and weaken all whose good character there must be so much discussion. object to or feel surprise over one writer's mode of viewing the matter than another's. p. fiery furnace comes without even the smell of smoke upon The it. Abbott concerning the use of in ii. . we look. 2 Peter has been criticism. where everything unusual or strange in the phrase is disi. fiital We book have only shown that these objec. as it has and its failure arguments against the Epistle's its style. ought to Caesar's wife not.420 There is Br. to the but there is a positiveness about The argument based on an fails ignobility in the style of skill. may at least be hopelessly diverse from that of 1 Peter. feel We noun do not drawn to join earnest issue. certainly entirely failure of all . at this point that the difficulty 12) wholly imaginary. And so it appears that these frightful ghosts of "barren pe- dantry" are like other ghosts disappear. is aside the strictures off'ered on (see also Lumby) is . tions are not after all. cussed and illustrated. it : and we are boldly told that not even look for it is dissolved we need and has passed away. indeed. to apt to leave a false impression on some their confidence in an Epistle about minds.). and even cruelly.

pa^jes 393.. 215.1883. Abbott in his is the inventor of this argucredited Avith a certain it. for Dr. Abbott's first that 2 Peter cannot be by the author of its 1 Peter. D. it foUoAvs." ^ be un- genuine. that 2 Peter *See above. 93. .. Vol.] Crenuineness of Second Peter. expresses great confidence in He conceives that he has de- monstrated that the author of the Epistle had read Josephus. seq. and therefore tainly he has may be. * u. here too. 3. this he urges nothing Beyond which is new or which has not already been repeatedly fully answered. the ncAvest. Speaker's Commentary. pp. because the latter Epistle has no trace in style of the plagiar- ism. most important. have to do with wholly dif- ferent circumstances. but are content here with quoting : the true Avords of so liberal a critic as Reuss linguistic differences . ^Expositor (1882). measure of pardonable pride contemplation of Cer- made it a very striking argument. IV. ment. and most earnestly urged part of Dr. The way is thus cleared for us to devote the remainder of our of. tions . § 270-2. seq.^ RELATION OF SECOND PETER TO JOSEPHUS. and certainly he it. from which the borrowing is made.'* Since the Antiquities of Josephus. lay no stress the two Epistles are too short. seq. inevitable certainty. p. s. in that case. and pedantry that abound in the former. were published in A. 421 Abbott is too good a general not to supplement his chief argu- ment with such a contention (pp. We have already But its great support falls seen how he frames this contention.). w. and especially present no is direct contradicto only if the Epistle also on other grounds proved . Abbott's argument which is — that founded on the relation between 2 Peter and the AnDr. can this be brought into account and with referring the reader especially to the most convincing discussion of the relation between the style of the two Epistles given by Prof. 61. Neue Test. We do not permit ourselves to be drawn and into this old discussion. perhaps. Avith could not have been written ^Geschichte. tautology. is .. Vol. tiquities of Josephus. space to a discussion by all odds.^ with the falling of the charge of ignobility point. 228. "On the theological Ave between the two Epistles. Lumby in the introduction to his Commentary.

the whole stress of the argument is As a matter laid upon one kind of evidence. Abbott clearly assigns small value to either of these and apparently would hardly con- sider them worth adducing in the absence of the more important for marks of literary connexion. A. Edwin A. and then attempt to test its relevancy and I.. in penning his Epistle. and of a couple of common Haggadoth. What 2 Peter says may Noah "being Josephus' words are in the English version. concern the statements that Noah was a ii. But Dr. Dr. tried to per- suade them to amend their lives and actions" (Antiq. D. the common knowledge of which by . and therefore cannot be by the Apostle must needs be a forgery. and strated. must have had in his mind a very vivid reminiscence of certain assignable passages in Josephus. therefore. bolstered by two further the occurrence in the two writings of a couple of similar sentences which may be deemed facts. Abbott on the [April. that Avhich arises from the sion common posses- by the two writers of a peculiar vocabulary. indeed. Certainly. the evidence by which the dependence of 2 Peter on Josephus is thus "demonPeter. This main and central argument considerations : is. and pained at their counsels. distributed in such a way in their writings as to suggest to the mind that 2 Peter. Abbott's stateynent of the evidence. and it is just as much a matter of course that con- not of direct quotations of Josephus by 2 Peter. We ask the reader to follow us as we very baldly state the evidence as adduced by its discoverer. I. parallels. our most earnest scrutiny. And this rightly enough nothing can be clearer than that neither of them possesses the slightest force as evidence of literary connexion between the two writings. Josephus and 2 Peter latter is supposed to point to borrowing of the from the former. 3. having no for its previous .422 until after Br. of fact." demands. blamed Balaam as cause to find fault with it unjust. namely. and "the ass. 1). and that Balaam's ass rebuked him (2 Peter ii. The Haggadoth. the only evidence available internal to the two writings it compared sists . having received a human voice. 16). but of more hidden and subtle marks of literary dependence. : be read ill- pleased at their deeds. "herald of righteousness" (2 Peter 5). 93. is As a matter of course. validity.

TO?. little in common with 2 "The Lord knoweth how to the to . 2 Peter than Josephus' account is: "There rose up a herald Avas for God in the . 111. and especially those and despising lordship. any number of Haggadoth misrht be common the two writings. as will be- plain on one moment's consideration. Ant. in a form much closer to account in Josephus. xi. in Clement of Rome ." (Antiq. By as much as it would be probable that they were current fail to le- gends of the time. flesh in the lust of pollution Daring^ etc. that Noah" (Bereshith (ix. Oava. 3. and not easy to see that anything beyond need be assumed beneath the The Haggadah with reference to Noah.ix?/Tat Kal 19. olg KaT^ug KpoatxovTEg. occurs in the Mishnah. be assumed at the basis of the latter difficult to see it is very wherein 2 Peter ii.1883. KvpLOTtjTog KaTatppovovvrag. in Genuineness of Second Peter. ToTifiijrai k. Josephus' "Now these Jews. suggest direct The come pair of parallel sentences that are adduced are equally in- valid for the purpose for which they are put forward. not understanding that accordance with the purpose of God. 3). reserve the unriirhteous under punishment going after the day of judgment. 9. 1. he was being hinetc. 12. Rabba In both XXX.. cases. the hypothesis of a quotation here on one side or . by so much could they literary connexion. 6) and. to It is extremely doubtful whether any Haggadah needs statement at all .] services. without in the slightest degree suggesting dependence of one on the other. provided they were not the invention of one of them.t. thus. . But a glance at the contexts is enough to dispel at once the delusion. yet noAv.Tov KaTa<ppovnvv-ec 6. 3). to in general. They are as follows 2 Peter 10. TToiijaevE firi and 2 Peter Compared with Josephus. indeed. J. common sources of information underlay l)oth 2 Peter and Josephus. dered.. are yet both unor- ganised and unskilled Peter's in Avars. they tremble not Avhen blaspheming glories. B. also. w Ka?Mg noieiTE irpocixovreg. At first sight there is un- doubtedly a certain strikingness in the close verbal resemblance of the passages. Clearly." self-willed. 16 goes beyond the warrant of the account in it Numbers xxi. days of the deluge. covering the whole case and. 6. IV.^ compared with • Jos.." has . etc. on the other hand. 423 now he inflicts blows on it. i. although they are exceedingly daring and despisers of death.. ii.

indeed striking. 3 John 6) and npoctxEiv is common in the sense in which it here occurs [cf. daring and despising. All four are simple but close illustrative parallels which cannot suggest literary connexion. shown to be a current phrase.. g. the collocation of the two very is common words. e. iv. therefore. continually turning up.. and has never suggested literary dependence to one of them. 1).. even corroborative.g.. to construe the common It is phrase with this particular common to participle. . to not such parallels as these which can be appealed prove literary con- nexion. the only thing. pecially to Josephus and 2 Peter is that they each happen to need. and . and is usually construed with participles {cf. with Rom. . and thus other rt. Acts x. Two other phrases common Josephus and 2 Peter might this con- have been with equal propriety. ii. and the find a is "following in the track of myths" in which we do /. Edwin A. such a passage as this. Absolutely. ip. and have been uniformly used as illus- and only as illustrative passages. g. all recent commentators as an illustrative passage. 26.424 the other is Br. its own it separate to stand If its masonry is not solid enough to enable it is without such props as these. vii. ^Such closely illustrative but by no means connected passages are many of them are much closer than these cf. Heb. way in utterly /caAwf TToieiv different connexions. ii. from Epict. then. in Diodorus and elsewhere. 4 : b fiev OeAel oh Trotel. however. common ese. but more than a strongly marked As a matter of fact. to. weight to either of Dr. Euclein. 417. not in such a as to present . but are not. right that it should fall. The phrase /ccAwf tzoleIv is a very common set form of speech. 33 Phil. it has been quoted by illustrative passage.r* rareemrtribution of perfectly common words. Abbott on out of the question tJie [April. The same is even more clearly the case with the other parallel quoted. and insist on viewing and estimating the central tower of his argument in strength. Kal b fi?] OtAei ttoiei. one (which has been mentioned above') [besides] all is "bringing in diligence" which is is found also. . 14. Abbott's supporting considerations.^ We must. refuse to allow any. 15. introduced in nexion. but only community in the same current forms of speech they have consequently all four been the common property of commentators trative for years. e.

seq. then. and to "Assuming Josephus. and especially we find that these peculiar words occur in groups of narrow compass.' that of a multitude of single words. ^Cf p. uncommon to the circle of ideas of a writer like 2 Peter. even though it be otherwise a common Greek word (p. though he might have easily cheated man (Par. where a word rare or non-existent in N. 425 The axioms on which the argument is built are as follows: The common possession of the same vocabulary by two writers is evidence of literary connexion between them. 62. 4) insight into the nature of God {qeov (pvaiv) {p) he exhibited (Par. 4) who ha. or elsewhere the N. 52). and LXX. 56. 3) (A) nor did he do as other lawgivers (Par. case from his pages (pp. 4) that it was the duty of man to partake in this divine virtue. we have very strong evidence of literary dependence of one on the other. and presents us with two instances of it. T. 53). is said to be completely out of the author's natural sphere. . that those who follow God's will find success and happiness.] Gfenuineness of Second Peter.. . T. is(ii. and of Lot. . (b) Moses considered that the basis of all law was (Par. the Introduction (Par. We transcribe and condense a state- ment of the followed after fables (/ivOnif k^aKolnvdijaavTEq). that the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation. " The evidence of a group of words is far stronger than 54). Abbott thinks we can find this very thing. If. .. {e) the laws of Moses (Par.1883. Dr. whereas those who disobey find everything against them. . . . The Epistlc declares {a) that the moral of the stories of the fallen angels. 4) contain nothing out of harmony with the </reatnes8 {/leyaAFidTT/Toc) of God {f) he kept from all unseendy myths and legends.) that the author of the Epistle had read parts of he had probably read the short Introduction which describes the motives and objects of the work. 3) with feigned stories [Tr?aafiaTuv) (g) he always assigned fitting actions to God's power (Par. . we can fintl a common if peculiar vocabulary in 2 Peter and Josephus. Now. of Noah. uncommon words evidence in (p. to show that one author has read another" (p. is more weighty than common" ones as in the A word not found LXX. . 9). . undefiled by degrading anthropomorphism (d) he considered (Par. 3) declares (a) that the moral derived from the Jewish records is. and are involved in irremediable calamities (a thought repeated also in Par. 4) God in the possession of his virtue {apt:TT/v). 4). are far " Obviously.

found in JoseThe other phrases in the passage are also note- found here only in the N. T. 3). 16) o^ ih. {i) thus will ye be never able to be which ye taken ^Expositor. that we may become [d) sharers in (6) the divine yiature . iii. and note the slighter points also. while Even the neither LXX. 15) and there in an opposite meaning. only a usage not found in the N.'' The two most important points here are those marked (A) and [b). (except Sir. except here. Peter. 3) of men.Au) to be your helper on earth. 3) hath granted us all things that pertain unto life and godliness. the (A) reverence {evcEiidai^ now for God. 56-59. false teachers shall arise to make merchandise (ii.. iv. (Ilab. nor N. 7. fcvdocg occurs four times in the Pastoral Epistles and nowhere else in the N. . 8. and note the cumulative character of the argument. T. however.426 Dr. 16) not follow after cunningly devised fables {fi'vBoig e^aKoAovd^aavrec). and not at all LXX. keep the unrighteous unto punishment unto the clay of judgment. since I (c) am not destined {ov fie/. he should turn his attention to the last utterances of Moses (Antiq. writer. Abbott on the [April. and the truthful teachers of the Christians. T. through the knowledge of him that called us {d) by his own glory 'An([virtue (i. applied to God only once in LXX. it is natural that in writing the last utterances of St. 2. T. T. There.. Ap. where it means "glory"). J. 2). 19. In the former. iii. f)hus' Cont. xx. and LXX. With reference to {b) note: to apply (phaLQ to God is not 2. or alien to the Bible. T. the truthful lawgiver of the Jew'S. [g] his (}a\\x\Q power (i. iii.e greatness {fiEya'AELOTTi-oQ) of Christ. 43). neyaAEid-iig is found only twice each in N. but no sinThe exact phrase is. Moses is said to have spoken (a) as follows [-otaiie): 'Fellow soldiers and (b) sharers of our long hardship (^aapng koivuvoI raXantupiac. [d) I thought it right [SiKawv r'lyjjccifiiiv) still to regard Do not happiness for you and (c) memory {/iv7}fir/v) for myself. (2 Tim. and LXX. in the sense of ''tale'"). T. with [f) feigned words {jr/Mo-o't^ Idyoio) but we {e) were eye-witnesses (i. and (A) in declaring it we did (i. 3). contain the combination. whereas it is found at least twice in Josephus in 2 Peter's sense (B. and only once in application to a divine person (Luke ix.^ 2. LXX. " If the author w^as attracted by this comparison between Moses. note: 'E^aKo^ovt)//aavTec though found in the LXX. 20 iv. pp. is is The Greeks and Romans so spoke. in the word added by 2 Peter (aeao(pia^ihoic:) occurs but once in N. T. but a thought gle N. as above. .) (where note the transposition). is not found in the N.. Edwin A. worthy: aperij -nlacTog (singular) set (g) anything above (/) your present customs despising feel {KaTn<ppov)/aavTeg) {vofii/iuv tuv Trapovruv). Now combine all these..

all in two or three verses. though not in this context.) my departure f^cHhr (i. Luke ix. yet even in thought there is considiihv. where note the /laKpag Kotvuvol -a'Aai-upiac oil fie'/ilf/auj transposition similar to i. (J. in different context) eight times in the Pastoral Epistles. (c) ficAA/'/au reading and meaning doubtful. in this sense (in the only other passage in which it occurs. (_/") Kamcppovov rsg (ii. (j) ."^ but men- tioned that some thirteen or fourteen remarkable words or phrases might be pointed out as common to 2 Peter and Josephus and yet not found elsewhere in the N." words rather than thought. and twice in LXX. describing the last words of St. is clause. folly.. and LXX.. Rom. ii.). . 12 {eu. and LXX. i. These things I say [1} at my departure from life (f-' tiu6(^ Toi) . but the kindred adjective foolish [d/jati/'/g). (^Kaiov yjavimi. VOL. p. is striking. you will have him God for will be with you {j) as long as your leader. Peter. 13 (e^' bnov) is only hei'e used in N.] [eva/MToi) (iffl' Genuineness of Second Peter. 10. xo. Expositor' as above. and in a page of Josephus describing the last words of Moses. only once in the rest of the N. 20. [h) tieiag Koivuvnl cpmeug (i. note also in Josephus the juxtaposiavdfivr/aiv..).. (viz. tion of e^ocog and 3l) in this sense. T.' With these compare: (a) Toiaade (i. 15 (sense different from that of Josephus. (A) ehat^fteia (four times in this Epistle. and e^oihg only once. and N. it has a different sense). but th^e word is only here used in N. as long as. The argument. and LXX. the word afmOia. XXXIV.r. T. T.()VKa/iE'?J/au{'!) above). [k) knowmg that {jtyvunnnvT^q un) men learn to command by obeying.). . 13 (here only in N./t'). [e] /ivf/urjv. Add the other expressions and the cumulative character of the evidence comes out strongly." To find words like fivi'/fn]v. 17 here alone in N. 13. 15) only once used elsewhere in LXX.. (»«) not recalling them (elg avdfiv?/aiv (^epuv) by way of reproach. then. T. is found in this Epistle (iii. in different context. dXuaiv. and in 2 Peter ffoJof and vTvo/LLvr/aEi (m) .^ i(i)' It appears to be admitted that tliese are the only^ passages it is which "show such striking groups of similarities. IG) and nowhere else in "Here the evidence rests on similarity of the N. Listen. inability to learn. 2 13.). T.. is not in the N.1883. oU-Gl. 427 uffov) by your enemies. (i) made for taking. * then. T. that ye may not (w) through folly degenerate. 3) to introduce a new and oidy twice elsewhere in the N. T. V2 (v. 4. to your leaders. 61. erable similarity. T. iii. {k) knoiving that (jiyvuaKovTec on) twice used in this Epistle (i. but here only in N. pp.. or LXX. xi.). or ^^^ LXX. or LXX. valeat tantum) . T. T. i. — Do. T. T. which are never used in the N. but for your good. (d) I think it right {6iKaiov yyov/jai) i.

a legitimate object of inquiry. beyond doubt depends on the common possession by 2 Peter and Josephus of a small peculiar vocabulary (13 or 14 words)." is nevertheless. We are sorry by under the disapproval of both Dr. full attention to the inquiry. passing into moral certainty. and may prove to be direct literary dependence of one on the other. This. Examination of Dr. that one writer had borrowed from another. in any necesany necessary inapplica- but rather in the extreme difficulty of so applying as to reach secure results. the same genei'al vocabulary. Abbott's Statement of a strong conviction that the the Evidence. Edwin A. and the a legitimate object of search when two writers can be shown to use in cause of this too is common . sary unsoundness attaching to or lie. and may be found. 11. and those in which still. and may be must demonstrably discoverable in the and if this peculiar vocabulary occurs this two authors grouped in narrow contexts. this statement. there a reason for that . miglit be obtained by it alone. 404. begins a journey on a very treacherous ^ He who Expositor. of the method does not it. which should be sought. . no secure results can ever be obtained by Conceivably. also have a cause. Any mind extended meditation on the subject will force upon the determining the relations existing between method of investigating and tAvo writers which Dr. has been done are rarer this reason is When two writers can be shown is to possess fact. Abbott on the [April. which in two instances tends to arrange itself in groups in Josephus and to to a smaller extent in 2 Peter. be Dr. Abbott's view of the basis of his argument. Abbott has adopted. etc. as above. p. method. our strong conviction that this metliod an emi- nently unsafe one. mean to assert by is either that the method illegitimate or that it.428 Dr. But which we this are free to confess that we think the instances it in can be done are very rare. a very peculiar vocabulary. this We do not. of course. we understand. He who launches himself on this sea. to bring ourselves. a very strong presumption.. The latter* is "can only "in reality It suppose that the scholar who" makes this statement unable or unwilling to give his is. then. is an exceedingly unsafe one. The unsafety bility of it it. Abbott and Canon Farrar.

in a shifting. And there are so many causes. even ing. that very unsafe to assume that a direct literary connexion can alone be the true account of such phenomena when observed and shown to really exist. which a skilful navigator alone can keep. but rather like a lane of the sea. and which may. starts. of linguistic I knowledge. 429 in a road attempts to tread this path to truth. if all this And of the be true in general. or popular were suddenly appearing quite independently on the Avriters and when one hardly knows what to assisjn to the new language common to all. There are so many ways if in which two writers may obtain a similar vocabulary.] G-enuinencss of Second Peter. often subtle in the extreme. and hidden from the coarser in man. like a peculiar vocabulary like sources — like train- associations. of the time loquial vocabulary — our almost complete unacquaintance with the and usage —alone would bid us beware of too col- lightly explaining even striking resemblances of vocabulary in two writers by the hypothesis of immediate literary connexion. like reading. but which can be trodden safely only at the cost of tireless and sleepless watchfulness. Nor do liarly there lack special reasons why we should be even pecu- chary of finding literary connexion at the bottom of resem- . be safely moveable road. how that the case many causes may have conspired to the result must certainly be an exceptional one which will justify us in saying dogmatically that the real cause of the com- munity sight of is direct literary connexion. how specially true is it Greek writers of the time of 2 Peter and Josephus. but of which they knew so much. indeed.1883. what to personal idiosynci-asy or special training or literary borrowing. like the broad beaten way that iuvitco the even careless step. not trodden. and which was now striving everywhere to make entrance for itself into literary recognition. what to the immense mass of underlying popular speech of which we know so little. which may have worked together crystallising groups of the uncommon words common it is to two writers around certain centres in their writings. when the language of literature was in a remarkably unsettled and transitional state when words and expressions hitherto provincial . indeed. Our profound ignorance of the spoken Greek pages of the most widely-separated . that does lead to the goal.

were readers of largely the same literature. Epistle and Josephus had among In any event. We do mean to point out a most untiringly that on launching ourselves upon careful navigator to our steersman we need . the author of the in much common which bound them to his closer to one another than either was bound age in general. indeed. . several things Avhich shake our confidence in him as a of them. 1. that Dr. vocabuThey were both Jews both learned Greek doubtlessly lai-y. in presenting his argument. the writers blances existing between 2 Peter and Josephus of even that transitional age. else. might be a mere matter of course between 2 Peter and Josephus. this But we do mean to point out that method of investigating the relations existing between beset Avith diffieultie\s authors. even peculiar. therefore. is most peculiarly such a case to be misapplied. . Abbott fails to distinguish sharp- ly. then. we may fancy away from. between different kinds of evi- . . liable in everywhere. And groups of similar words and which might bring to . A similarity of vocabulary which might be startling if found in two entirely unconnected writers. as groups. . we observe pilot. Abbott on the [April. to force the conclusion that there has been immediate literary connexion between those We do not mean to assert that even in such a case a comparison of the vocabularies of two writers cannot be made profitably. that Dr. next. or that evidence could not conceivably be obtained to suspect that from it which would lead us one of them had borrowed from the other. it. at the end of a voyage. in the first instance orally and in a popular form both learned a peculiar type of Greek current in the same rather peculiar region both Avere bred in the same land and under similar teachboth were accustomed to hear the same ings and influences speech about them from the same kind of lips both. must be very two writers. Abbott does not approve himself to our judgment as an eminently safe sailor on these unsafe waters. so far as they read at all. On a careful examination of the argu- ment Avhich he has presented.430 Br. them a common. striking. Edwin A. It is ourselves in a port which Ave are as far as possible worth our notice. Let us enumerate some We observe.

or with strongly-marked similarities. stand closely grouped. d. clauses or sentences occurring in both. ought contain nothing which does not suggest borrowing. either (a) scattered through the writing.] In the in 2 first of Dr. Abbott's examples. Abbott does not succeed in practically doing. in a brief context in one. essential.^ We observe. e. to contain nothing Avhose presence in the borrowing writing can be better accounted for by assigning a different origin to it. (6l>vafiig) To adduce 2 Peter's mention of the divine ixnver that pertain ^ as granting unto us all things to life and godliness.1883. although he recognises these distinctions theoretically. b. were certainly not taken from Josephus by 2 Peter Greek. e.] dence. h. Now the probative force of these several classes of facts is not the paribus. d. to be d. G-enuineness of Second Peter. either vei'hatim or nearly so. 6. 431 In investigating the relations of two Avritings to one anit is conceivable that (1). certainly. only a. . Abbott under (3). c. . for example. For example. that Dr. and in Josephus . (3). grouped in e. while Peter in the first c. the second only have any claim case only g. apart and estimate the bearing of each class separately. comrare mon possession of a peculiar a number of words grouped together ly grouped. list. same. a. and others Avhich are of such character as cannot suggest any closer connexion than that both writings are Let us instance a few examples. I. with the practical effect of unduly raising their probative force as looking towards literary connexion 2. stand tolerably grouped. he will not be slow in observ- ing that some items which can justly be classed only under (2) above are included by Dr. nate irrelevant items from his to prove literary Lists of expressions meant to dependence of one writer on another. whether 2 Peter borrows from Josephus or not. found also in the other. and ought. Dr. between the two writings. Dr. J. or (b) similar- and (4). (2). c. general resemblance of vocabulary voca])ulary. in careful investigation. to keep them This. if the reader will take his Josephus and mark the words which Dr. and Josephus' statement that [b. Abbott does not carefully elimilists. we might find several kinds of facts. Abbott's lists contain words which. but increases as we pass down the It is. while in the second only /. as . next. d. other. cceteris therefore. Ab- bott adduces in his groups above.

yiyvucKOVTec uti. Moses had always assigned to the deeds to God's power^ and not attributed to liim the indecencies which heathen fobles ascribed heathen gods. 31. Abbott on the fitting [April.. the careful exegete will in neither case look beyond the context for the complete account of the matter. as the literary parent of the of 2 Peter. is it in any well-marked group of common words. certainly misleading. common use of the verb The same may be and the more SO. Edwin A. is Its presence in Dr. in like manner guage entirely without significance and almost as strong lan- is applicable to the adduction of their common use of . simply misleading in such an argument. or a quotation from that passage. e^o^og in Once i. is again. therefore. indeed. To point to the common word ^lEXhrjau . and was perhaps context in derived just that passage is by 2 Peter. dwelling on the details of that e^oSog Avas no less than certain. ^zt-AAw in Josephus. betAveen Josephus' With it. and r?/c To parallel deiag Koivuvol (pvaeug fiaKpdg kolvuvoI TaXanruplag. And. Abbot's then. e^oSoc also the parallel /isyaleio-rjToc. evaE^Eia. it occurs just before the Transfiguration mentioned.jofSof. the tAvo is — as an item suggesting literary connexion betAveen their but one step removed from the adduction of eipai. the attempt to find a parallelism virofivr/aei avafivyaiv and 2 Peter's falls also into hopeless irrelevancy. said of the pleading of the common use by the two writers of such words as aS KaTa(ppovT/aavTEg. again. but just because found this Avhere is in Luke and special 2 Peter. so far. and in a context which contains other reminiscences of that scene. hardly admits of question but that 2 Peter 15. The context of 2 Peter leaves no doubt on that point is . found beis tween 2 Peter's and Josephus' use of in the Avhich found same context with from it in Luke in (ix. since the arrano-ement of the Avords is determined in each case and explicable in each from the purpose of the writer and needs of the emphasis . and. the Strength of the arrangement of the words. it was not taken from Josephus. that sug- gested here by a reminiscence of Christ's words. of writing the Avord It is f. and consequently proves that his mind Avas. a reminiscence of our Saviour's words recorded in Luke ix. at the moment scene. 43). not and cannot be derived from Josephus. Oil is. none of them occur more.432 Br. vitiates the argu- ment he has framed. and consequently that list.

or N. Abbott's arguit is And remarkable what a different aspect its it presents when purged thus of some of second group is irrelevancies. the literary parent of 2 Peter's use of the word. it through the whole treatment of the evidence. iii. 29 . 13. We is observe. 6. accident. however. 25 . 2 Cor. it is satisfy himself ii. not without its may be..J. The same vice runs. next. per- value to illustrate this fact with reference specially to the strongest portion of the pleading. xi. After having stated the parallelisms of the first of his groups. will compare Acts 1 Tim. in presenting his arguis ment. 3. as an item showing litei'ary connexion between Both writers must have been thoroughly familiar with the phrase. and therefore in So long as a totally different sense from what Josephus meant. xxvi. . etc. does not carefully distinguish between what sound and themselves what merely plausible. 3. among wllich whose exceeding common- ness in all . It is far from certain. T. this is due to mere S'lKaiov riyovfiai. as any one may ix. i. reduced to simply the common lafiadlav^ and Josephus of a half dozen words \_T7ap6vTuv'\. but retains as yet the appearance of a group. Abbott. as both increase the appearance but not the reality of strength in the argument. so long is all the probability that is the usage represented there. Greek literature does not throw grave doubt on their in both relevancy and neither of these really occurs is writers. 5. The complicated use by 2 Peter l^viniiiv. and haps. 7. Dr. and not the passage in Josephus. The first group suffers nearly as severely. i. 2 . [-oLaade \_roia6e\. NoAV ment. 3 stands in the Bible. 3. X. aiiadfiq there are only two {aluaiv and a. in 2 Peter. independently of each other and if the exact phrase does not elsewhere occur in LXX. 12 Heb. 8 . seems to prove that the writer meant the former word Hab. . in the sense which it bears in Hab. iii.] Gfenuineness of Second Peter. who iii. The mixture of different kinds of evi- dence and the failure to sift out irrelevant items are examples of this.ua6?/c) ). All semblance o^ grouping gone. 433 them. 26 2 Peter ii. The parallelising of d^e-?? and 66^a. napova?/ aAuatv [ei'd/lura/. ep' bdov. Phil. that Dr.1883. Abbott re- . all of these items are out of place in Dr. once more thing in that — not even probable — that 2 Peter 3 has any- common with Josephus' statement that Moses proved God had his virtue unmixed.

(2 Tim. and iv. J. '•make thee wise unto salvation'). Abbott feels no doubt of its genuineness. as we have seen. Is there evidence of the dependence of this. Edwin A. does not occur in the N. that the two most important items in are those mark-ed h and b. It becomes immediately evident that the author of : . T. Now. as given above "We note that Josephus. The probability. is very marked. Abbott on the [April. 13. as Avell as the Jews. and there in a sense opposite to the meaning here. does not occur elsewhere in the N.' it is found at least thrice in Josephus (B. that the author borrowed from Josephus after. ix. and it is a confirmation of the borrowing hypothesis that this added Avord is used but once in the N. as well as the similarity of wording. on Josephus Let the reader compare the argument which might be framed in support of that proposition with Dr. we imagine Dr. Abbott's pleading. though found four times in the Pastoral Epistles.. iii. . and the word fable. nor (except in the sense of tale. But much it is plausible rather than sound ! 1 Corinthians one of the generally acknowledged Epistles of thgit it Paul . 2. We hoAV is presume that of it Avill not be denied that this is the most striking piece of evidence that Dr. Abbott has adduced. . ek represents the zealots as saying Tov vaov -pt<f>Ei7dai. T. and then proceeds to develop the first of these as follows : to the first. iii. contains both of the Avords Avhich are here combined in the same order by the author of the Epistle and Josephus. and ? ask. 'cunningly devised' {aeGO(i>ia/uEvoic). betrays his consciousness of being a borrower here by introducing his statement by the words 'know ye not' a mode of expression which not only implies that he is appealing to a wellknown phrase not his own. T. the parallelism of thought between this and 1 Cor. J. 15. 19) in the whole of the LXX. 13. 7. nor the N." this protest that the Christians. and It is further Avorthy of remark. therefore. in the sense of 'cunningly devise. 1 Cor. it marks. v. is increased by the fact that neither the LXX. 3). 6) (hi rohg tcL vau cTpaTevofjivoix. 20. It may be suggested that the resemblance is less striking because the author adds the Avords. T. 13. but Avhich is found in Josephus. Sirach xx. ix. it must be borne in mind that the -word follotv though found in the LXX.434 Br. the Avord arpareveTat makes its appearance in this context (verse 7) — . We open at random and light upon 1 Cor. that so suggests his manner. too. whereas. But it is the manner of borrowers to add something of their own. in a striking passage (B. "As did not follow after fables.

and which yet is found in a cognate form in another book of Josephus [Contra Apion.. Valeat tantum. such as that of Polybius. the is (viz. is. T. Abbott's "important" items is also more plausibly than soundly put. (1) that is Josephus' context and mode deed. often paralleled there in thought.1883. which occurs here only in the N. Just compare. other law-givers [than Moses]. I. one the only point of resemblance between 2 Peter and Josephus very natural collocation in two absolutely different contexts of two very common ivords. it is ers thus to combine passages and this the manner of borrowgathering together of phrases from different portions of a writer's works. There may Dr. the latter confessedly proves nothing. but only of their obtaining a share of God's virtue. It is true that 2 Peter's statement with reference to our becoming "partakers of the divine nature. the later (Tocpi^tj. That is all the words employed are common words. of introducing the phrase ''for totally different from those of 2 Peter. /iWog." is very striking.. and LXX). pleading. the one argument differ from the other ? Cer- And yet is. T. 7) in a like context: in a rather peculiar secure. transferred in their discourse the shame of human Avith sins to the gods. 435 And to make the case still more manner. He speaks nowhere of men partaking of the divine nature. and are used in current senses .]. therefore. and gave much (2) pretext to the Avicked.. The second of Dr. It however. and only once in all the LXX. how does tainly not in ki7id. 16. be. And (3) that no one of the words absent from the narrow literature which alone Dr Abbott Epistle is inclined to allow to be familiar to the writer of the (4) Actually.] Genuineness of Second Peter. Greek. following after the fobles [toIc e^. but outward form is — plausible Let us observe. and that in the use of phraseology about as unlike 2 Peter's as it could be." Now. He does . in//. we read in TydtpaTreia-ovQeov irpnaeilpevovTeg. and is just these senses. Now. and in phraseology unparalleled in the N. T. is it But neither in thought nor phraseology paralleled in Josephus. and combining them into one context. this same verse (13) the very rare word nain-fipe'vovTEQ. ." 2 Peter i. in full of E^aKoAoiiu. N. and there a kernel of evidential fact beneath its Abbott's argument. now. only proves to us the more clearly that we have discovered the original source of the composite passage.

We must sharply investigate how much this will account for. (3) It is only after these methods of accounting for the ' phenomena have been exhausted. cedure in such cases is clearly some such as the following (1) The careful collection and classification of the points of resemblance ously to investigate the subject.436 Dr. scarcely to recognise this duty. when once drawn out and demand for themselves. speak also of the "nature of God" and of the "divine nature. however. There the common inheritance by the two writers of a peculiar form of Greek belonging to a peculiar province. proceeded after such a fashion to all appearance. nor as much. (2) Reared thus in the same age. that Dr. : (2) the most anxious investigation of what accounts could be given of them and (3) the most thoroughgoing investigation as to which one of these accounts ought to be between the two writings . it is On obvious that w^e have in this case for many (1) Avays is of accounting phenomena of resemblance. once more. There is no trace in Dr. of the age. 51. He seems. but how he came to use To presence in Josephus. however.^ critical The ing. is one exceedingly difficult to handle." but so do nearly all writers of Greek. indeed. Peter would in any case be very familiar with the phrase. in the same land. there is probability of the common knowl- We edge by the two writers of the same or a similar literature. Abbott does not inquire with sufficient anxiety after the exact account which the resemblances between the two writings. Abbott's papers that he has . under largely the same influences. that we are justified in sustill pecting real literary dependence of one on the other. ip. exist. We observe. the contrary. . and not . Edivin A. and the thing needing explanation it. as to point to its presence as a current phrase in the common Greek 4. must determine very closely how much resemblance this will account for. Abbott on tJie [April. he has assumed from the outset that. no more explains this. is not where he could have gotten point to its it. if resemblances they must be explained by the assumption that 2 Peter borrowed from Josephus. clearly exhibited. given. and declines almost contemptu- weapon he is wieldand almost The only possibly sound method of proalways cuts both ways.

is have known the other (c) Are there any other phe- nomena of the two writings. But who will believe that either Paul or Christ borrowed from Seneca. But is we cannot in yield ourselves Dr. moreover. that a borrowing Avhich may seem a j^riori impossible. if conceived of as having taken place if directly. Abbott's leading. 437 is rendered probable. Abbott's . the ? The more carefully the jjhenomena are Is it more clearly the true solution emerges. cannot be pretended that the items of resemblance between 2 Peter and Josephus are anything like so striking as those in any one of these cases. ? us believe that Shakespeare quotes Tennyson. may yet be a priori quite likely. seems to be the older No more force of internal evidence can make writer. and each must be investigated. nothing left us but to seek to our own way through the problem. Many items combine to determination. it is hands of an unsafe guide. besides their resemblances. of The need of such a detailed and phenomena of resemblance. to Evidence. It Athens. which ? may do It help us to a decision the special And (d) wdiat solution of the question ? phenomena of resemblance themselves suggest needs to be kept in mind. if III. in a careful study of the meaning case like the present.] that is Crenmneness of Second Peter. impossible that an explanation found adequate to explain those closer resemblances should be inadeipiateto explain these? Meanplain while. conceived of as hav- ing taken place through an intermediate link. again. that when our author acts under his leading we are /Sifting of the as if it in the were impossible. on other evidence.1883. not to be settled its by (a) either assumption or guessing. that we can begin inquiry as to who This last question. But we have carefully examined every statement of Dr. or Sen- eca directly from them investigated. may be illustrated from the undoubted resemblances existing between at Seneca and the Sermon on the Mount. likely to (b) Which on a pr^or^ grounds. or Paul's speech or the Epistle to the Romans. We must ask: ? Which writing. first And order to this of all attempt to classify strictly the actual work we must phenomena of resemblance between 2 Peter and Josephus. to We do not pretend have made an independent thorough-going examination of the two authors with a view to discover their relation to one anotlier. is the 1)orrower.

we have counted some however. Of these words rare in Biblical Greek. C. Here is an appearance of grouping. h^' bdov. 29. 8. This sifted statement of the evidence will hardly need further justification than has been incidentally furnished in the preceding pages. 1 and 2 — in both cases in to connexion with other phrases bearing some resemblance tainly phrases in 2 Peter. The two writers have in common (p. d/nadiav. needed accounting would be is sufficiently account- ed for by Gen. Ab- bott's conclusion consequently something like this: Does this such as it is. and T0id6t. which. and no such commu- nity in matter as to suggest connexion. in Ant. Abbott speaks of thirteen or fourteen of these 61). raise a stronger presumption that 2 Peter knew Josephus. (mraffT-po^f. 8. 5. On an examination of its contents it will be seen that what we have to account for is the common possession by the two but not writers of a number of words rare in Biblical Greek peculiar out of it —some The is — of which have a mild tendency to group iv. themselves in the Preface §§ 3-4 and ties 1 and 2 of the Antiqui- of Josephus. than all the evidence for the canon- . : The general alike. Abbott on the [April. tendency to grouping. and the phrase for. in profane in the Biblical books. Edivin A. with the original texts before us.438 Dr. occur in §§ 3 and 4 of the Preface to the Antiquiiiv7]iiijv^ ties '. and gone over the whole ground independently in a cursory way. Greek the writers. is The result of our examination as follows 1. Evdlurai. Dr. probably not genuine in 2 being omitted in B. There remain the collocation b(5ov phrase kf if it perhaps. too At • least fourteen of these are. irAdGfia. real question before us in testing Dr. No silent quotation of clauses or collocations of words seems capable of being adduced. xix.- vocabularies of the two writings are in some degree 2. fivdoiq k^aKoXovdijaovTeg. possession a number of words which are rare seventeen. deov (pi-aig. 4. There are of course no direct citations. nap6vTuv. naTaaTpcxpy KareKpivev. to serve as common Greek marks of connexion between any two ^vOoIq s^anoAovdr/aav-eg. IV. which were either cer- or probably obtained elsewhere.^ Copt.). but which Peter 3.

] Genuineness of Second Peter. although originally Peter's. will account for the facts of first three. indeed. In order to This we need if to observe that: An}^ one of them. that 2 Peter was originally written in Aramaic and that the resemblances to Josephus were introduced by a later translator. task is Our real to determine which one of these this the* true account of the matter. and which will therefore require less summary treatment at our hands. however. resemblance. and early date of that letter raises for an earlier it date for than A. however. was subsequently reworked by a hand that knew Josephus. We might account directly or resemblances by assuming either. genuineness. We note then. being assumed. or (4) that they are due to the common is circumstances. Such are. (1) that 2 Peter borrowed from Josephus. is assumed. What Account should be Rendered of the Matter ? It Avill be the part of wisdom. statement of for apart it. on a close view of the items of resemblance. training. or (2) that Josephus borrowed for the indirectly from 2 Peter. would render an adequate account of them. Some of these are excluded. or that the Epistle." we do not desire to fail of his respect. cannot "feel respect for the judgment of any critic who asserted that the resemblances Avere purely fortuitous. may be called educational On any careful consideration of the naturally mediated connexion between the two writers (as distin- . immediately apparent of the also. and inheritances of the writers. it can hardly be denied that it may be accounted from literary as distinguished from what connexion. that there are a variety of suppositions which. at least four hy- potheses which have nothing extravagant about them. or (3) that they are due to the influence of a writing known to and affecting the language of both. but Canon Farrar. sur- roundings. 90? IV. to proceed by slower and surer steps to our goal. 439 icity. by evidence at once so patent and cogent that we need not occupy our narrow space in stating it.1883. D. can be made apparent of the fourth and perhaps "purely fortuitous" is too strong But if we have proceeded at all soundly in sifting the evidence and its significant elements are all contained in our rea phrase. or that the resemblances are due to pure interpolations of the original letter of 2 Peter's. There are. 1. for example. however.


Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the


guislied from the writings),


be impossible to deny that very

resemblances in style, phraseology, manner, and wording,


be fully accounted for by


When we remember

that both
to in-

writers belong to the

same age and

might be expected



upon the words and phrases current in the Greek

of the time, that both were Jews and wrote the
cally tinged

same Hebraisti-

Greek (though tinged
Avith the

in different degrees), that both

were familiar

LXX., and perhaps

Philo and other Jewishsocial


literature, that both

were brought up under the same

fabric, in the

same narrow land, under the same manner of trainand were necessarily fiimiliar with the same modes of speech
style of language,



we cannot feel that makes us doubt whether any further

it is

mere prejudice
than these are


such as

account for the resemblances noted.

The semblance of

grouping which remains after sifting the evidence

certainly not


not be accounted for in so closely related writers, as

a mere "fortuitous" collocation of words


to both.

Each of these methods of accounting for the resemblances has it own advantages. The first has the great advantage of absolute simplicity; the second of

combining with almost equal simplidifficulties

freedom from the historical and chronological


against the



the third of escaping the difficulties lying

against both the

and second

supplying an exact account

the facts, such as the curious coexistence of remarkable di-

vergencies in sense and even phraseology, with close resemblance
in the very

the words grouped are excessively

same phrases, the appearance of grouping wdiile yet common, etc; and the fourth of

making no assumptions and proceeding only on

and well


Each of the methods is beset with its own difficulties. In the way of assuming that 2 Peter quotes Josephus there stands the immense presumption arising from the focussing of many
separate lines of investigation, that the Epistle comes from a time
earlier than

A. D. 90.

of the Church

The mere fiict that the Epistle was a part Canon of the time of Origen raises a presumption


the fact that

it is

quoted as an authoritative

book by Justin Martyr increases


the fact that

was used by


Cfenuineness of Second Peter.


a series of earlier writers, including even Barnabas and Clement

Rome, clinches it. Its internal phenomena raise a presumption same direction its undisproved assertion that it is by Peter its resemblance in its phenomena of apostolical reminiscence thought and wording to what we have elsewhere of Peter's its fitness in manner and style to what we know of the character of the Peter of the Gospels and perhaps more cogent than any of
in the
: ;




these, its


silence in the midst of

an elaborate and plainly

an interested polemic against the heresies that are opposed by
as well as

by Jude and the Pastoral

Epistles, of

any hint of the
lack of

forms of error prevalent according not only to John but also to
Irenaeus towards the close of the century
trace of the state of
tians of Jewish birth

its total





we know was induced among


by the destruction of Jerusalem;


unlikeness to any of the


literature of the

Second Century

immeasureable superiority in thought,

and phraseology
likeness, on the


any Christian writing of that period, and


other hand, to the writings of the apostolical age.^

The assumption
under the

that Josephus has copied 2 Peter has to labor


of supposing that such a


as Josephus

had met with and read
unconsciously repeat

unimportant a Christian Scripture as
language as to
say "unconsciously" advisedly, for

2 Peter, and had been so sharply affected by


Josephus certainly introduces the common phrases most naturally and seemingly unconsciously. We are unable to find, indeed, that they are any less naturally and unconsciously used by 2

and especially dissent from Canon Farrar's making a

a stumbling-block of

use of


wholly, as



to us,

from failing




in the sense

which the author of the Epistle

defines for us

by parallelising

But, then, after




be so very strange for Josephus to have
of Christianity

known 2 Peter

He knew

he could not have avoided knowing of

and has betrayed knowledge of it. He studiously makes little and avoids telling us how much he knew, but he knew something of it. Nothing prevented his having met with the Chrisof


'Compare Canon Farrar's stronn; but not too Early Days of Christianity,'''' Vol. i., p.


remarks on



tian Scriptures.

Dr. Edwin A. Abbott



hints in

Jews of

his age,

we know from chance


Talmud and

elsewhere, found no difficulty in becoming ac-

quainted with their contents, found
in not

perchance, at times

becoming acquainted with them.


he knew any of

the Christian writings, would he not be most likely to
current in such names as Peter's and James'






conceive of his acquaintance with 2 Peter as not immediate, but

through a mediating oral or written source,
be on the verge of removing

all difficulty

seems to



hypothesis, assuming a


literary source for

the phraseology of the two writings,

under the

which always attaches
or literature, of which

to the

assumption of an hypothetical book

we know nothing
it is

an assumption



always dangerous and generally indefensible.

not minimise this difficulty, but

We must somewhat lessened by the

That both Josephus and 2 Peter are confirmed borrow-

ers; (2.)

That a large part of the sources of Josephus are known

to be lost;



That a large and much-read popular Jewish
which we have but few

literature certainly existed in this age. of




chief difficulties lying in the
all literary


of accounting for the re-

semblances apart from

connexion, in accordance with

the fourth hypothesis, arise from the semblance of grouping of the



and such collocations of a couple of words


"daring and despisers," "to do

to take

heed," "following

myths," "bringing in
in the



If the discussion of

these collocations above

be deemed sound, they will not stand



of this explanation, and

the groups be no

more strongly marked than appears from our restatement of the evidence, they cannot raise a presumption of more than slight
force against

The phenomena




themselves do not

suggest with any strength of presumption any one of these explanations as distinguished from the others.

They do suggest




some connexion between the two writings

and a calm

and unbiassed consideration of them leads

to the recognition of a

mild suggestion in them of some form, but not of what form of


Grenuineness of Second Peter.


literary connexion.

The strength of


presumption depends,

of course, on the difficulty of explaining the
other way.





only an original suspicion tending

towards a probability, which
exhibition of


be readily overturned by the

any considerable

difficulty in

assuming literary con:



problem before

us, then, is





to explain the

semblance of grouping without literary connexion

between the writings, or

assume literary connexion
state of the case is


The Conclusion.





resemblances between the two writings are capable of being ac-

counted for in at least four ways. There


an a priori probability
that the account

in favor of each of the four in the reverse order of their statement


The resemblances themselves suggest

rendered should turn


connexion in some form, but do

not distinguish between the forms.


must conclude


That the assumption that 2 Peter borrowed from Josephus Nothing in the phenomena suggests this out of the question.
no reason

rather than at least two other accounts of the matter, and there

it is


rather than the other accounts.


the other hand,

burdened down with literary and

its as-

difficulties quite peculiar to itself

and such as would forbid

sumption unless the resemblances between the writings were cer-

and utterly inexplicable in any other way. Whether we assume one of the other forms of literary connexion or not, depends on our judgment as to the relative strength

of the two presumptions; that raised for literary connexion by



phenomena it by the

of grouping, on the one hand, and that raised
difficulties in



of assuming


on the other.

Perhaps the true explanation


be found in a combinain

tion of

two of the methods of explanation given above, namely

the -natural connexion existing between the two authors combined

with an indirect knowledge of 2 Peter by Josephus,


through acquaintance with Jewish- Christian leaders.

While the present writer inclines judgment the evidence before us is not

to this explanation, in his

decisive between the last

three of the explanations discussed above, and the true critical atti^


See above, page 436. 13.

is to

Br. Edivin A. Abbott on the
esteem the question to this extent unsettled.




of the three, separate or in combination with the others, will explain the facts,

and no one of them


burdened with overmasterbe to find
it so, it is



However trying




that history does not preserve to us, nor chance hide in the records

themselves, the decisive considerations which will solve for us

every problem of ancient literatures.




to be able to

point out, in a case like the present, somewhat narrow lines within

which the explanation must be
assumption that
these lines.

finally found;

and enough

for the

defence of the genuineness of 2 Peter to be able to show that the

borrowed from Josephus does not



of course, easy to say that that explanation has
'^rein apologet-

been excluded only on considerations which are



whose devotion


given to simple truth, however,

apart from either apologetic or destructive bias,
look for a hearty recognition of the fact that

we can


has been excluded

(and must therefore be kept excluded) not on grounds of dogmatic
or apologetical prejudice, but on purely historical and literary

grounds, such as not only can be pleaded as raising a strong valid

presumption for the early date of 2 Peter, but also apart

from noting and yielding

which no valid

historical results as

to the date or literary relations of 2 Peter

can be obtained at

in fact,

one of the not rare cases in which Truth herself

an "Apologist."


now, that our task



we must take summary
to find evidence of the
if that

leave of our subject.

Another attempt

spuriousness of 2 Peter has failed, and

begins to look as

Epistle has too good a claim to a position in the




ousted by any legal process

as if violence alone could






the sharp attack that Dr.


bott has led

and so ably generalled has

others to



confess to a high admiration for the

we may expect acumen


force of his argumentation

the lever he uses to pry 2 Peter

out of

firm bedding in the solid rock 'of God's



a most


admirable instrument.

All that


a firm and solid fulcrum of facts which can stand the pressure

and certainly. like all its predecessors. But with the very crumbles its beginning of the prying.1883.] Genuineness of Second Peter. or ever the too. its The base moral is that 2 Peter is must be most stedfastly fixed on perhaps believe an undivided portion of the bed-rock itself. Abbott has brought forward one with a strong external appearance of solidity. So we it to be. into dust. Warfield. all the appearances are in that direction. Epistle moves a jot from bed. 445 of the immense heaving. . Benj. it Dr. thus far. B.

too costly indeed for any but opulent buyers


for in those days the cost of a Bible

was the price of a farm.

They were

within the reach of gentlemen only, or of

These Bibles went into palaces, and merchants, or people otherwise well-off. and burghers' houses, and tradesmen's shops, and yeomen's families. They were conned carefully on Sundays, and prayed over in presence of housebors and friends \yhen trouble came, or

holds and servants at family devotion.

up the way of




They were talked over among neighwhen priestly authority attempted to wide diffusion and familiar perusal, among

and the better classes in general, account for the sturdy spirit with which the German princes and people resisted the arrogance and curbed the bigotry of their rulers, and compelled them to refrain from persecution. It was the diffusion of religious feeling and theological knowledge among the laity, by means of these Bibles, that enabled people to judge for themselves when Without it, they would have they listened to disputes among theologians. been only blind partisans and noisy fanatics. Under its influence they learned
influential persons,

defend it, and, when necessary, to suffer for its which accompanied the Reformation could have proceeded from nothing else than religious knoivledge derived from the Scriptures themselves. In no other way can we account for the profound
to love the truth of





tide of religious y<?^//;/^o-

emotion accompanying Savonarola's preaching

at Florence,

than by remember-

how many

editions of the Italian Bible had, before that time,

been printed

Venice and other Italian


the prohibition of vernacular Script-

Europe, like that of Ferdinand and about 1490, proves, what we otherwise know, that versions of the Bible had already been made into the Valencian and Castilian dialects of Spain. We could not, without this knowledge, account for the early progress of Protestant opinion and feeling in such countries as Italy and Spain. It may well astonish us that the authorities of the Roman Church did not sooner awake to the danger which threatened their power, from the diffusion of the Scriptures among the laity. They had been forewarned by the Albigensian
ures, in the less enlightened countries of


heresy in the thirteenth century, by the Lollard insurrections in the fourteenth,
in the fifteenth. But Leo X. and his profligate cardinals were too intent on their flagitious pleasures to realize the danger which might rise out of this machine for making books. And God, who had been sowing for this harvest so long, meant not that they should wake from their slumber till the blade, which came up in the night, should be too strong to wither in the Full half a century went by, from the date of Mentelin's German morning. Bible, during which the printing-press, throughout Europe, poured forth folio Bibles like a cloud. How these could fail to be accompanied by quartos and smaller forms, for poorer purchasers, I cannot conceive. But, before the ecclesiastics perceived the peril, the mischief was done. God "had given them the spirit of slumber, and eyes that did not see," until the knowledge of His truth had been, in some measure, communicated and it had become im possible to bind again the souls which it had made free. The Teutonic peoples, at least, were unchained and from them freedom of conscience and independence of opinion went forth to England, to America, and thence to all the earth. It may fairly be said that the wide diftusion of the Scriptures I have described was the Reformation, working in secret, much before Luther came. Meanwhile, how strange is the attitude of Christian England We may enu-

and by the Hussite war





in various

merate sixty editions of the Bible,

languages of Europe, before

encountering one of English origin. And why ? Because there was none I England, that received the Anglo-Saxon Gospels from Bede as early as 735,

and the whole Bible

in English from Wiclif in 1388, produced not one printed English Bible during the seventy-five years of printing between the date of the
first Bible authorized by Henry VIII. (1535). Westminster as early as 1477, and others followed without intermission ; but the Bible was not among the books produced by them. They dared not print the Bible. Lollardism had qome so near prevailing in England in the last part of the fourteenth century, that the Catholic dignitaries became thoroughly alarmed. They sold their support of the unsteady throne

Mazarin (1455) and Caxton was printing

that of the



IV., the Lancastrian usurper, for

the privilege of persecuting the

was Wiclif s Bible of which they were afraid; and Caxton, brought up in courts, was too wise a man to print dangerous matter, when he could safely sell tales of Troy and Canterbury, acceptable to the rich and luxurious. It is the disgrace of England that she had never a Bible of her own till 1535. Bohemia, baptized in blood for the Gospel's sake in 1424-34, printed the Bible, in its own language, at Prague in 1488. Even Spain had a ValenThe greater vigilance and anxiety of the English clergy cian Bible in 1477. But as soon as the Reformation blazed prevented the like in their island. forth upon the Continent, godly Englishmen went abroad to print Bibles, and send them home in ship-loads. Henry Stevens, says, "Within the first ten years," after Tyndale made his translation, "fifteen editions of his Testament, each of 3,000 copies, were printed [abroad] and sold" [in England]. This it was which compelled Henry VIII. to authorize the printing of the Bible. From his day to ours the production has gone on at such a rate that "the editions of the Bible in English have not only outnumbered those of any other

nation, but, in the aggregate,




and including America, exceed those of all other England and America alone, of all Christian nations, have great Bible societies for dispersing of this book by millions, in all

languages, through

the climates of the earth.


Bible, in return, has

blessed these two nations, beyond

others, with happiness at

home and


ence abroad
love of


so that the race, the institutions, and the language, originating in

the country last of


to receive the

word of God, but foremost



are likely to overspread the world.

Frederic Vinton.


the Post-Exilia)i Portioti

of our Lord^s Ge7iealogy.

— In












and Zorobabel of Luke iii. 27, are the 12. 13, and as the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of This is evinced alike by the like number of generations I Chron. iii, 17, 19. placed by Luke and the Old Testament between David and Salathiel (twentytwo in the one to twenty in the other, inclusive) and by the proportionate place which the names occupy in both Matt.'s and Luke's genealogies in each, midway between David and Jesus. (2). That the representation by both Matt, and Luke of Zorobabel as the son of Salathiel, is by no means inconsistent with I Chron. iii. 19, where he appears as his nephew. Elsewhere the Old Testament constantly agrees with the Evangelists (Ezra iii. 2 v. 12 Hag. i.

must note: (i). That the same as those of Matt. i.





I, 2





2) ; this being only one out of many cases in which the line of heirthe line preserved in the genealogies, which, indeed, among the Jews,

rested as

commonly on a

basis of inheritance as of actual fatherhood (see this

shown, with numerous examples, in Hervey, "Genealogies of our Lord," p. 27, sq.) (3). That Luke's representation of Salathiel as a Nathanite, son of Nerei, is by no means inconsistent with Matt.'s representation of him as son to the Solomonite Jeconias. Matt, follows (with i Chron. iii. 17) the line of heirship


here the actual line of descent.

The Old Testament



the fact that Jeconias was personally childless (Jer. xxxvi. 30

xxii. 30, cf.


Gen. xv, 3


Lev. xx. 20, 21)


hints, in

the difference in the form

of promise as given to Solomon and David, that an heir should fail to the former and not to the latter ; exhibits historically the failure of Solomon's line ;

and points

to the line of

Nathan (Zech.

direct accord with the notice of


xii. 12, 13) as its successor, all in (see Mill, " Mythical Interp.," etc., p. 180,

resents both the father of the Messiah as

Moreover Jewish tradition clearly repNathan (see Mill, p. 191) and the father of Salathiel as Nerei. (4). That the diversity of the names between Zorobabel and Jesus as given by Matt, and Luke, is in no sense opposed to
Ebrard, "Gospel Hist.," p. 160).

the historic truth of either


seeing that while Matt, presents his as a gene-

alogy of Joseph,
face of the


as clearly presents his as a genealogy of


universally admitted reading of




Mary. \\\ the which places the

G?? i.vo).ii2, after xnoi with the effect of making it qualify the one word, "Joseph," instead of the whole list, still further supported by the significant absence before this name alone, of the article rov^ whereby it is distinguished in its connection from all the other names, it is hardly possible to contend longer Even were we to assume that both gave that Luke gives Joseph's genealogy.-^ the genealogy of Joseph, however, there would be no necessary inconsistency between them, as has been fully shown by Mill and Hervey. But since they


actually give genealogies of different persons,

against any diversity of

names occurring

after that of

no possible objection can lie Zorobabel. Joseph and


are represented as both descended from Zorobabel

but their lines of



diverge immediately after Zorobabel, as well as at any subsequent

point. We shall see that they probably do not diverge until after Abiud of the one and Jodas of the other, but this is incidental to the point here made. (5). That the lists bear no internal marks of unhistorical character, but on the conThus the names in both lists have been trary, every mark of historic truth. shown by Lord Arthur Hervey to be strongly Davidic and even Nathanic, which is just what we would expect from the hint let fall in Luke i. 59-63, as

well as from the provable practice of Jewish families,
ally the




were actu-

names of descendants of Nathan

(see Hervey, p. 132, sq.)


allowing the proper weight to these five points,


be seen that the

historical character of these post-exilian genealogies of our


raised to a

very high degree of probability, perhaps to as high a degree as it is possible to bring that of any list of names, otherwise than by comparison with parallel lists






questions arise, Are there any such parallel



Luke is that of Mary, is held by Robinson, Gresswell, Lange, Riggenbach, Auberlen, Ebrard, Alexander, Oosterzee, Andrews, Godet, Weiss, Keil, Plumptre, etc.
the genealogy of




and do the New Testament Hsts bear the test of compariThere are two sources from which we might gain such hsts the Old Testament Scriptures and Jewish tradition. The latter part of i Chron. iii. gives us some account of the (legal) descendin the present case ?


ants of Jeconiah.



a very


portion of Scripture, but this


seems plain


Zerubbabel's most important son was Meshullam, but

his line

continued not by him, but by Hananiah, so that the descent seems to have













At first

sight neither Matt.'s

nor I^uke's
this is



to present

any point of con-

tact with this.

In Matt.'s case

not surprising, since he professes to have

shortened his

in the interests of


represent a


later generation.

Note, however


an arbitrary arrangement, and his Abiud In Luke's case, however, it_ does The full list of the sons of Zerubbabel is

Seven names are given, while only five are counted in the summing up. From this it seems probable that this list was framed during Zerubbabel's life-time, and that two sons were added to it subOther sons may have been still subsequently sequent to its original writing. born and not added, among which may have been a Rhesa. (2). Yet, Rhesa seems evidently not a proper name at all, but a title representing the Chaldee form jj^tfiil' which is the equivalent of the Hebrew ';25|<^"^, and
not given in Chron.
19, 20.

the the


in later






times the

the Targums. It is, moreover, Babylonian Jews gave their chief,



only to suppose, therefore, that Meshullam was



Resha year e^ox^y, so that his title took the place of his name became the proper name of Jesus), to identify Luke's Resha with Meshullam. Luke's Resha must at all events have had some other nan)e, and Meshullam is as likely as any. (3). Luke's second name, Joanan, with no coaxing at all, identifies itself with the Hananiah of i Chron. iii. 19. Not only are the two names of the same significance and derived from the same roots, the only difference being that in the one the Jehovah is placed befof'e, in the other
(as Christ

behind the




this alteration in the position

of Jehovah




names compounded with
and Jeho-iacin

xxiv. 8.


same king

Jecon-iah in Jer. xxiv.




So, also, the


and Jeho-ahaz


same man is Ahaz-iah in Indeed, 17, and xxv. 23.

called even normal in the name, so that there is absolutely no pressing required in identifying Luke's Jo-hanan with the Hanan-iah of the chronicler. (4}. Below Hananiah and Joanan in the respective lists, however, identification becomes impossible, if we are to suppose that the names follow in each,
this variation of the position

of the Jehovah

may be

names compounded with

that divine

generation after generation.

In the face of the known habit of omission, prac-

thus. Zerubbabel. The names being in fact the same. if we adopt the identifications we propose. Hananiah. with 2 Sam. by his brother's sons. it follows that Matt. 24. as a chief of David's house but as not his sons. . . It seems. IVIeshullam. and perhaps somewhat confusing. This very conversion. i But the method by which Hervey makes Jer. Hattush (Neariah). which is quite in accord with his habit elsewhere in his genealogy. i- being j Hebrew £. iii. are given here. With this Luke's list. giving them their ancestors' names. against their historical character.'s Abiud with Hodaiah (Jodas). in any event. xxii. Thus his son. Hodaiah. : . after Hananiah. i Sam. was the nephew of Hananiah and his successor. the very A comparifact that they are possible raises some probability in their favor. xxix. T^n''"''i5< closely cognate with fTi':)ni and the abbreviation of such proper names being far from uncommon (cf. or by his brother himself. . the hue of legal descent being substituted for it. so that Rephaiah. . 4. but we lose all the guidance we have when we cast it into pi and begin its re-composition after our own notions. Luke's Jodas standogy. indeed. Elioenai. Therefore. and Judah in Neh. no ing evidently for Judas or Judah. just as we have assumed that Meshullam was by Hananiah. The genealogy then goes on smoothly. however. like . begins his list after Zorobabel. long as these identifications are possible. The text of this chapter of i Chron. as being himself childless. Hodiah. omissions have been made by Luke in the section iniii. and Matt. 16). 19 and that thus his grandson Elioenai was the contemporary of Hananiah. \\\ all probability the queer phrases of verses 21 and 22 are meant to indicate additional descendants of Hananiah. Matt. (Jodas). Shemaiah. a violent supposition which supposes LuKe's a necessarily complete geneal- Demonstrably. only omitting the links between Hananiah (Joanan) and Hodaiah And if we adopt the identification of Matt. but those of his brother Neariah. be considered as the same name. Of Hattush we read in Ezra viii. Arnan. is wholly indefensible. XXV. with i Chron.NOTES AND NOTICES. this point of view against their identification. names and Hodaiah and Judah being convertible Hananiah and Johanan. omits all the links between Zerubbabel and HoSo daiah. 7. with 2 Chron. 22 is the same as the Shemei of v. Hodaiah next in descent to Hananiah. Shechaniah. under the form of Abiud.'s it Abiud may simply the with small forcing. with the same name. iii. Luke names Hodaiah imder the name of Jodas. Obadiah. ix. raise a presumption . 40 and Judah in iii. 2. T:ini^5^. cluded in . perhaps in all inheritance. 15 2 Kings xviii. viz Shealtiel. xi. that the line of natural descent breaks more than once in this list. it cannot be held that the New Testament lists are hopelessly out of joint with the Old Testament list nay. Shelomith. son with the Old Testament list does not. 9 and again the same man is called Hodaiah in I Chron. This identification of Hodaiah with Jodas is doubtless correct. difficulty can arise from also. just as Shealtiel was by Pedaiah's. and married his sister. iii. iii. is difficult. are to be added to the list of sons of Hananiah. 44. 32 why not here? Hervey proposes to avoid all difficulty by supposing that the Shemaiah of i Chron. runs parallel. Shechaniah. actually occurs in the Old Testament thus the same man is called Hodaiah in Ezra ii. We gain as this legal line the following sequence of names from i Chron. he seems to have been succeeded in that dignity. as the next generation .. ticed for the sake of conciseness is 391 it among the Jewish genealogers. 2. .

Zerubbabel. beyond all question. shown to be correct. ETC. and hence proved genuinely historical. . .c. The history of the Breviarium in which it is contained is soon given. but professing to give in it is course a list of David's descendants. question next arises. p. Mattathias. Resa Mysciolam Johannes ben Resa Zorobabel. that it is a matter of considerable importance to esti- mate correctly the real value of this traditional list. is The there any further evidence in existence by which these probable identifications can be made more certain ? Jewish tradition. a brief abstract of Jewish history of not overits much value. Hananiah Shechaniah. Joanan. Naggai. however. Gra. HI. Josech. therefore. and it is from Zerubbabel. is historical too. thus confirming the view we took of the line in i Chron. falling. . .. . schichte des V. BREVIARIUM. Shealtiel Salathiel . . . Shemaiah Hattush (Neariah) Elioenai Hodaiah tjd p ^ 3_ p' a* Judas Hyrkanus Josephus Primus Jodas. Mattathias. . the Biographic Universelle. giving us a catalogue of what professes to be duces ex domo David down to the times of the Maccabees. and from fessing to be lists it we are able to bring forth two lists Here we turn to of names pro- of Davidic princes subsequent to Zerubbabel. And this list. iii. III. . Israels. Abner Semei Elyh Matathias Asar Maat Nagid Artaxat Agai Helly Maslot Naum Amos Syrach . Naoum. therefore. The other Jewish list is found "Breviarium de Temporibus" of the pseudo-Philo. Etc. but fourteen names of Luke's list supported by independent testimony. who flourished at the end of the fifteenth century. chiefly valuable to us as unlike those of Luke. iv. 3 Maath. . junior Jannseus Hyrkanus It is plain. into the natural mistake of making Hananiah son to Meshullam. If it is historical. Serubabel Berechia Meshullam. iii. Meshullam. Rhesa. is of very great importance. *See Fabricius Bibl. . coinciding in later portion with the list of its names a're wholly making the descent go the Princes of the Captivity. Jannai. first published by Annius of Viterbo. and was represented by him as having been found at Mantua. § 2. Salathiel . lib. in the The following table will exhibit results : I CHRON. Zerubbabel. by which not only are our identifications of Luke with i Chron. Eslei. Semeein. . Mesezebel Salathiel. Matathias Siloa Josephus. 392 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. 170S) Vol. . Etc. Quite naturally. LUKE III. Hananiah Etc. Amoz. Geand for Annius himself the article bv Corniani in . 264 (Hamb. I. One of these is contained in the Seder-olam-sutta. through Meshullam and his son Hananisih. . Luke's list. SEDER. Joseph. Hertzfeld has shown that gives a list drawn up from a Babylonian point of view. 44 Herzfeld. 4.* It was first published by Annius of Viterbo.. and its of Babylonian princes. if at all to be depended on.

This possibility is raised to a strong probability by an examination of the internal character of the list. 3.. and its worth determined by the evidence. represent to him nothing more or less than double names and as such are parallel to Judas Hyrkanus. seeing that it relates to a period so much earlier than his time. though occurring in a forged book. XII. and as plainly full of the torical errors. 3. a theory which was doubtless suggested to the forger by the double names in this very list. then. therefore.* And. that in the Breviarium. therefore. and thus it may be but part of the forgery. nor . and therefore feared to incorporate it without a note such as would save the credit of his work. He may or may not have been a "shameless" or " impudent forger" and yet this list. This statement may have been inserted to lend credit to the list as professedly communicated by Philo. it dently claimed that was forged by Annius himself. But whether fraud or credulity be imputed admitted that the Breviarium is him is of small importance. embodied in the Breviarium. so far as claims to be Philo's. : and is I. It is very evident that Resa Mysciolam. in 1491. Thus we read in the Breviarium. This opinion was held by Apostolo Zeno and Tiraboschi. not Philo's. III. Nagid Artaxat. It is 393 most absurd his- plainly not Philo's Its . as a book. Abner Semei. There is generally some kernel of truth in them that calls out the forgery very often they are attempted in order to gain the countenance of a great name for an otherwise true statement. a possibility at least is raised that the list. taken as a whole. however. Pats. why didn't the forger make out his list down to Philo's time? On the other hand. As to what part of a forged work is true and what part is false. must be examined on its merits. it may have been inserted because the forger drew the list out of an existing document. is older than it.g. NOTES AND NOTICES. attempts to synchronize Jewish and heathen history are simis ply absurd . is worthless as a historical work. it claims to have been derived from an older source (de his septuaginta seniores sic in scriptis reliquerunt). ItJjnj ^'^^ T'tllD' ^''^^^ been misunderstood by the author as names. " ab isto Joash atque deinceps in retathias. Jos. whose very object here is to support what is called the Binomial theory of the genealogies. and Benj. was in my. may rest on a historical basis. . incorporated in one of the books alleged to have been forged by him. is. . fail *Cf. depends on something else than that the book is forged. as a publisher of dubious "Ancients. without its details. and have been so treated. by which it is proved to be Jewish in its ori- have been adopted bodily by the author of the Breviarium. Thus the Jewish titles which occur in it. however. Tests. e. it universally regarded as worthless It has been confiand undoubtedly Annius and. . II. It is worthy of note. it would on noting the character of the Breviarium itself. Elyh Magin. i<'25ni. then. and It is is now to strongly defended by Hertzfeld.. so that the book. then it that occurs in a forged by a constant use of strong epithets in speaking of Annius. and to accurate understanding of . Few forgeries are all forgeries. The it? question What the historical value of this That this is it question settled is names included in not settled by the mere fact list of Note. It is very bad odor. Asar Maat. a transparent forgery. of possibly historic value. and book. This is the way with Pseudepigraphic writers. This list. whether he was not rather dupe than deceiver. But while he was at it. And if there were any doubt of this on the face of the matter." in the sixteenth centvery doubtful.

In other words. had two names. 17. which by a stroke of unconscious genius he uses as a title. Let the critic explain what was to be gained by identifying only two of Matt. which accounted for the discrepancies by asserting that all Christ's ancestors from David downward. who accidentally stumbled in the process of this invention wholly unintentionally and unwittingly on no less than two Hebrew titles. with persons mentioned by Josephus. we can find only two possible cases Joseph II. but adopted by the and the possibility that it is of some historic value list this probability is raised to a very high degree when we once try by the theories which have been invented to account for it on the ground that it is a forgery. Dr. Here we do undoubtedly find the Binomial theory^ swaying the formation of the list. where by this very identification. and' Jann^eus with his son Hyrkanus. besides adopting another from Luke. 4 and i Chron." When we come to look for these last. method. iii. therefore. and really six out of the fourteen to remain undoubled and still more than this. and has identified the unManasseh with Er. and observe the inadequacy of them all. To fit the theory.) and Semei. perhaps. and the other half in Luke. this theory can be twisted into fitting in only six cases and that only by : Amaziah with Levi. iii. who in seeking known names with which to identify Luke's unknown ones. author of the Breviarium raised to a probability. Mill's account of the matter given reconcile Matt. ! deserting its very raison d'etre list ! The object of the alleged forgery is tO' and Luke's. Lord Hervey's account is as follows " By the same convenient process he identifies Rhesa and Meshullam.-^ vey adopts the following theory " The fertile invention of Annius of Viterboy"^ forged a book in Philo's name.) and Mattathias. and that they only called the same double-named man in each case." This IV. account for the origin of the Breviarium. It cannot fit the facts. and Luke. the list ought to be made up of double names. and Salathiel with Meschesabel. Let the critic further explain what kind of a mind this forger must have had. moreover." thus be- comes is well-nigh certain that the . list. . by different names. Hezekiah with Jesus. And the list : theory fit will. as applied to it. with Joseph ben Tobijah..'s list with two of lAike's. for the very reason that the list is not an identification of Luke's unknown names with known names. but will not at If it all means anything. Luke's list. and others in St. though confounding Neh.. onethis half of which each time is found in Matt.) and Maat. this is A mere glance at the list will show that not the case. in making them assign a different father to this composite AbrEr Elyh. sought them in such a variety of sources only to find six at the most. for no other imaginable reason than to keep up the Binomial appearance where pairs did not exist (and yet there lay Matt. EUakim (of Matt. he has identified Zerubbabel with Berechia.'s mine and then again gave this up and allowed three. But belotv Zorobabel that theory utterly fails. ! \ . and that in the midst of the genealogy. was not invented. and Joash with Symeon .'s and Luke's lists by assuming that both were true. Above this list the author of the Breviarium has used this known Nerei of Luke with Jeconias. and then gave up the task and invented new names for the rest. Azor (of Matt. although Luke does not do so This theory beyond all question makes too large demands on our faith. Abner (a name interpolated in the Hebrew Gospel of St. It niemorationeni reges semper binomii atque trinomii fuerunt. a contradiction instead of a harmony was induced between Matt.) 394 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. it means that the forger reconciled Matt.'s ! . Lord Her. in a list of fourteen. Matt.

as to the historical value of this list. Now we may. Now. but Hertzfeld points out that King Ochus. " honoratus a Ptolemseo. . . 2d. very accord with Luke. Hyrkanus. between 360-346 or 343-329 moreover. therefore. each with an appro- priate title. makes these ancestors of Christ rulers in Israel. Daughter. both before and after this list of common names. Nagid). Annius... perhaps. the Breviarium attaches to the name of Joseph II. but who but an CEdipus could ever have guessed that Luke's Naggai hid they necessarily suppose the Breviarium made out of Luke's list. Again. imagine one understanding Rhesa as a Asar. of Viterbo. the fourteen years of Judas Hyrkanus fall. Tobijah of Philcol (on Philistine border of Daughter (sister to Onias II. but by a note inserted after the naming of Manasseh. This is very convincingly argued by Hertzfeld (p. di. consideration all : theories of the forgery of this are shattered on one single list to have been whereas it seems certain that it is independent of lAike. V. to complete the coincidence. . g.. The Breviarium not only lacks names given in Luke. and that of document certainly not the Gospel his- Luke. — Luke and Hertzfeld has shown that these dates bring out interesting combinations Thus it is remarkable that we read so early in the list of Hyrkanus . certainly is represents an older document. The Breviarium preserves the between Er and Nerei by Luke Hebrew titles which Luke has lost or transmuted into proper names (Rhesa.. however. which is identified with Er. given to this Joseph of Josephus with otherwise-known Jewish history. The moral certainty already reached. names have titles. therefore. and (c)^ the names in Luke often do not preserve the very points evidently deemed important in the Breviarium. (b)^ those it does contain in common with it are much too altered to suppose them borrowed from it. who . The only escape from this conclusion would be to claim that . the Breviarium distinctly states that Judas was tlie first [chief man] who bore this name of Hyrkanus. and in two instances preserves the title instead of the name. proves that he is drawing from a source which was absolutely ignorant of the four names inserted and. title. both before and after the common portion. 382) on.. according to the Breviarium.) Judea Solymius.. years during which each prince stood as the Davidic head of the people. according as we count them. Ant. the titular Nagidh Its in its bosom ? The list of the Breviarium. giving the as to its own historical worth." which identifies him with the Josephus ben Tobijah of Jos. contains names not in it . is still further strengthened by observing the internal evidence it bears To each name a number is attached. xii.NOTES AND NOTICES. The following genealogy is. the words. e. . about 350 B. among others. . all It does not list fit the facts only three Moreover. exactly to the proper date. in 895 the words : " That most impudent forger. the following cogent grounds ist... 4 now the dates bring Josephus II. proves both to be torical. was dependent on the Breviarium list but this is plainly impossible for (a) Luke's genealogy. Luke omits the surname Hyrkanus. : Simon the I Just. transported many Jews to the region whence that name was derived. . ?) Joseph. : .C." fails from the out of the fourteen same reason.

not the invention of mythological fancy or tendential forgery. 4. But it seems more probable that the Meshullam of Neh. unless we judge the " filius Resa" of the Breviarium to be an error. that this Breviarium trustworthy document — proved to with it. According to iii. son of Meschazabel (cf LXX. This designation. iii. for the first time explains the notices of Joseph and Hyrkanus in Josephus. ! Meshullam. On comparing I. and so probable that it was interrupted here. 2 he was a man of position. this placing of Joseph II. in so natural a case. Berechia.396 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. iii. and Hyrkanus in a list of Davidic princes. Luke's Joanan cannot be the Hananiah of i Chron. For. 21). Meshidlani^ etc. so that he read : Meschezabel. and then the confusion rectified by the doubling of the names of father and grandfather in accordance with the Binomial theory of the : r : author of the Breviarium (not of the Salathiel I list) . Neh. 18. and so illustrates Luke's use of the title. deserves our credit where they cannot to which it may be added. iii. It is. that since the it Breviarium list so fully stands such tests. and for the remaining five (or. out of which. 4) of a Meshullam. as also appears from vi. it is impossible that the succession should have continued from father to son. Our I provisional identifications of names out of Luke's list with names Chron. a proper document by which to test the historical character of St. and that a confusion arising between the two MeshiiUams produced the omission ? This is very possible. 19. however. since. " filius Resa. and Amos Syrach. beyond all question. 24. counting Christ. Luke's genealogical list. instead of the name.. Meschesabel. therefore. iii. . : list. Aleshiillam^ Hananiah. however. Rhesa. amounting to 177 years. and Johannes). Zerubbabel. six) generations. The omission of names between Joanan and Jodas is also supported by the Breviarium. make a period plainly too large. the actions ascribed to whom there have hitherto seemed remarkably without adequate explanation. Again.uke's list We conclude. For fourteen names it coincides with an independent list of Davidic princes. the very long " reigns " assigned in it to the first three names (Zerubbabel. a historical — (2). and xi. I. that its accuracy is the more striking from the glaring contrast thus made with the historical absurdity of the rest of the Breviarium. Zerubbabel I Berechia." witnesses incidentally also to the fact that Meshullam was called Resa Kar s^ox^jv. list is most assuredly a historically be such by a large number of independent considerations. or about the fit average of 35 years to a generation. 444. and B. ^Vhat is to prevent our supposing that the original list ran Salathiel. iii. Now in the Breviarium to Salathiel is added the name of Mesezebel.C. 17. and opens the way to a conjecture of omitted names. Hertzfeld thinks he finds the missing links thus We read (Neh. Hertzit is feld concludes this examination with the very sensible remark. son of Berechia. and to Zerubbabel that of Berechia. This is abundantly plain of Rhesa and Meshullam. 4 was first confused with that of I Chron. the following results follow lAike's list is. is not difficult. there remains the time between 179 B.C. x. (i).C. are proved correct. from the short dates given in the Breviarium between Joseph I. then. . wherever they can be applied. But this does not militate against this identification. He lived about B. Resa.

began the publication of " The & Co. As in the title indicates. Jlebretc J?ez'ie7a" {Cincinnati: Bloch in The Hebrew Review. Doubtless. The Number is to be an organ organ of the Rabbinical Literary contains an extended account of the . 1880. it also may be safely accepted as vindicated from all doubt.. . Luke.—^\\\\ October. therefore. Hervey. its vindicated in lists historical character. and symmetrical arrangement into tessaro-decades. from Zorobabel to Christ. The questions arising concerning Matthew's arbitrary omissions of names. Why not elsewhere? This being so. from Zorobabel down. tested and proved correct. therefore. History exactly reverses this and it worth remarking that the early tradition preserved by Julius Africanus. the modern methods of harmonizing Luke and Matthew. Abiud is be iden- with Luke's Jodas. however. quoted above. and in which the dates are so given that it cannot be throughout the line of blood dates. — — sage in the Talmud calls Mary the daughter of Eli (Chagigah 77. part at that point. 4). but this shows how impossible it is to claim that throughout Matthew gives the line of heirship. the heir of Solomon. It is only necessary to add that the portion of Luke's list subsequent to Jannai. too.) and a second Number was published January of this year. then Joseph's and Mary's lines meet again in the Saviour of the world. as from our Lord's kindred. on the contrary. iii. Luke that of blood. gives Mary's heirship line up to Zorobabel as appears from the fact that Luke's line harmonizes with one purporting to be a list of princes and not throughout the line of blood descent. (5). every internal evidence of its true historical character. is We fully conclude. that Luke's genealogy. as seems probable. and Ebrard. since His heirship depended on and came through His father . and as given above. Luke's genealogy from Zorobabel to Jesus runs through the line of inso that Mary was the true daughter of the throne. heritors of David's throne . It is 39T in i mucli safer. agrees with the Breviarium in stating that Luke's genealogy preserves the line of heirship. the first Association of America. are fully discussed in the works of Mill. To Jewish view. — give a line of heirs. etc. on the hypothesis that both give the line of Joseph. but. utterly fail. to find the missing links Chron. the real son of one and the legal heir of the other. on the contrary. Read what Josephus has to say about Joseph ben Tobijah and Hyrkanus.. With regard If his to Matthew's. Matthew should (3). There being no reason to suspect Matthew's list of not being historical. and is Luke of blood. as they assume that. seeing that a pas. fact. This is supported by the fact that Luke certainly leaves the blood line for that of heirship in the case of Zorobabel. Warfield. is not wholly without support from Jewish tradition. from Zorobabel to Joseph.NOTES AND NOTICES. to B. as would have been a priori expected (4). A number of Christ's ancestors from the descendants of a line of kings took a prominent part in the history of their times. Matthew gives the natural blood line by which Joseph became an heir to Zorobabel. as to we have no tified with which to compare we are forced to rest in the general con- siderations set forth at the beginning of this paper. Christ's inheritance could not depend on this. this quarterly official of Jewish thought — it is. B. it. It is Christ's heirship line only because He was the heir and not the natural son of Joseph.

conducted well and valuable neglerreriodicals that are really as% periodical. and the Rev. S. and W. Luthardt.). it and cordially wi h a cathoas an international enterprise recommend it to the attention of our ':^s a large amount of valuable a ^^^^^^^^ I is characteustic price of $2 per year. has entered upon its fifth by C Kegan Paul & Co. l!. F symposium on the Lord's Supper by E. Binnie. the lives and teaching you^^h the oi. J.essi. Caldwell. (chronologically su. interesting and valuable are the Bible-which fhin do all the miracle-tales of No wonder that the same writer feels history. by x6 divines.e) phases g post-bibhcal writer recommends the study of same The Judaism. Prophetism. we notice I. Hopps. and published neHomileticalQuarUrly. Exell. the Reform beliefs ''Tronfwhohas been accustomed to think of Jewish Conservatism some is reported sufficiently remarkable. including Section. and Ra^bbinMosaism. Dr. with the full J?evte7V will be that of From both it is evident that the tone of the presented Numbers expound two the in . text of some of the V^V-rsthe^c meeting of the Association. Amedcan editor." Israel's of prototypes as systems Jewish theology. homiletical material at the moderate and this is and periodicals should be multiplied. J. with valuable notes Linleda e.. Modin " Post-bibUcal Judaism. in his essay on the Kuenen conDr. R. Ind rr'tylm.. impression and leave a far deeper greater wonder and interest.^^ory Section. utterances in these pages are must g^e Bible the of God the that to) : have said (at thJ nfeeting referred held up as a Association the of committee place to the God of Science. the thought and life Jewish of present phases Gent I who is inteJ^sted in the depaxtinent b>^a increased much be might Its value will be valuable. American C. and a sermon for children by J. containTkeologual (IL). Ten the to jTdai^m of the through traces the history of Judaism clusbn of the Dutch school." Five out of the nine articles with the Talmud occupied are others The (or non-beliefs). indeed is promised for the future. (HL). No minister can in. ^ MtlecUoX "a ^ . D. P. P.S98 last THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. Thomson Andrew McCheyne Edgar. and well-known " Bible for Learners of Oort n odel for Bible text-books the regulations binding the reduces Law. of our times that newspapers thorough a fields and do their work in feaUhfu where they occupy special of the thought the keep abreast of i^d practkal manner. year with an London.Reform Judaism. The JJomtIn looking over the January outhnes of sermons containing a sermon by E. De Pressense. edited by the Rev. containing agewho is called to labor the fields in which he himself Number for 1881. does not allow us to describe To the like this ought to find support. AD. pubhshers. Kohler adopts the critical Commandments. _ foZ^ : ^ : o2 l^-ehardl> likely ^^The Talmudic articles are mainly translations from the them at length. Bickersteth. Smith. the history of Israel's heroic struggle Tutorsaying excite fax of its great men and women. R. Edmond. Positive modern of system th 'need of a'positive quoted sentiment the produce to arise in^conditions that could One speaker A . Randolph & io.D. H. Wise. and evar^gelical We welcome spirit. periodical a that so count ysncreasing. and J. for book notices-which " F German Our space The number of Jews m this ..




I .


i-¥i .-i^3SK^ ^\\ .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful