Malankara World



By W. Sanday, M.A.



The subject then proposed for our investigation is the extent to which the canonical Gospels are attested by the early Christian writers, or, in other words, the history of the process by which they became canonical. This will involve an enquiry into two things; first, the proof of the existence of the Gospels, and, secondly, the degree of authority attributed to them. Practically this second enquiry must be very subordinate to the first, because the data are much fewer; but it too shall be dealt with, cursorily, as the occasion arises, and we shall be in a position to speak upon it definitely before we conclude.

It will be convenient to follow the example that is set us in 'Supernatural Religion,' and to take the first three, or Synoptic, Gospels separately from the fourth.

At the outset the question will occur to us, On what principle is the enquiry to be conducted? What sort of rule or standard are we to assume? In order to prove either the existence or the authority of the Gospels, it is necessary that we should examine the quotations from them, or what are alleged to be quotations from them, in the early writers. Now these quotations are notoriously lax. It will be necessary then to have some means of judging, what degree and kind of laxity is admissible; what does, and what does not, prevent the reference of a quotation to a given source.

The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' indeed, has not felt the necessity for this preliminary step. He has taken up, as it were, at haphazard, the first standard that came to his hand; and, not unnaturally, this is found to be very much the standard of the present literary age, when both the mechanical and psychological conditions are quite different from those that prevailed at the beginning of the Christian era. He has thus been led to make a number of assertions which will require a great deal of qualification. The only sound and scientific method is to make an induction (if only a rough one) respecting the habit of early quotation generally, and then to apply it to the particular cases.

Here there will be three classes of quotation more or less directly in point:

(1) the quotations from the Old Testament in the New;

(2) the quotations from the Old Testament in the same early writers whose quotations from the New Testament are the point in question;

(3) quotations from the New Testament, and more particularly from the Gospels, in the writers subsequent to these, at a time when the Canon of the Gospels was fixed and we can be quite sure that our present Gospels are being quoted.

This method of procedure however is not by any means so plain and straightforward as it might seem. The whole subject of Old Testament quotations is highly perplexing. Most of the quotations that we meet with are taken from the LXX version; and the text of that version was at this particular time especially uncertain and fluctuating. There is evidence to show that it must have existed in several forms which differed more or less from that of the extant MSS. It would be rash therefore to conclude at once, because we find a quotation differing from the present text of the LXX, that it differed from that which was used by the writer making the quotation. In some cases this can be proved from the same writer making the same quotation more than once and differently each time, or from another writer making it in agreement with our present text. But in other cases it seems probable that the writer had really a different text before him, because he quotes it more than once, or another writer quotes it, with the same variation. This however is again an uncertain criterion; for the second writer may be copying the first, or he may be influenced by an unconscious reminiscence of what the first had written. The early Christian writers copied each other to an extent that we should hardly be prepared for. Thus, for instance, there is a string of quotations in the first Epistle of Clement of Rome (cc. xiv, xv)--Ps. xxxvii. 36-38; Is. xxix. 13; Ps. lxii. 4, lxxviii. 36, 37, xxxi, 19, xii. 3-6; and these very quotations in the same order reappear in the Alexandrine Clement (Strom. iv. 6). Clement of Alexandria is indeed fond of copying his Roman namesake, and does so without acknowledgment. Tertullian and Epiphanius in like manner drew largely from the works of Irenaeus. But this confuses evidence that would otherwise be clear. For instance, in Eph. iv. 8 St. Paul quotes Ps. lxviii. 19, but with a marked variation from all the extant texts of the LXX. Thus:--

Ps. lxviii. 18 (19).

[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaloteusas aichmalosian, elabes domata en anthropon.]

[Greek: Aechmaloteusen ... en anthropon] [Hebrew: alef], perhaps from assimilation to N.T.

Eph. iv. 8.

[Greek: Anabas eis hupsos aechmaltoteusen aichmalosian, kai edoke domata tois anthropois.]

[Greek: kai] om. [Hebrew: alef]'1, A C'2 D'1, &c. It. Vulg. Memph. &c.; ins. B C'3 D'3 [Hebrew: alef]'4, &c.

Now we should naturally think that this was a very free quotation--so free that it substitutes 'giving' for 'receiving.' A free quotation perhaps it may be, but at any rate the very same variation is found in Justin (Dial. 39). And, strange to say, in five other passages which are quoted variantly by St. Paul, Justin also agrees with him, [Endnote 18:1] though cases on the other hand occur where Justin differs from St. Paul or holds a position midway between him and the LXX (e.g. 1 Cor. i. 19 compared with Just. Dial. cc. 123, 32, 78, where will be found some curious variations, agreement with LXX, partial agreement with LXX, partial agreement with St. Paul). Now what are we to say to these phenomena? Have St. Paul and Justin both a variant text of the LXX, or is Justin quoting mediately through St. Paul? Probability indeed seems to be on the side of the latter of these two alternatives, because in one place (Dial. cc. 95, 96) Justin quotes the two passages Deut. xxvii. 26 and Deut. xxi. 23 consecutively, and applies them just as they are applied in Gal. iii. 10, 13 [Endnote 18:2]. On the other hand, it is somewhat strange that Justin nowhere refers to the Epistles of St. Paul by name, and that the allusions to them in the genuine writings, except for these marked resemblances in the Old Testament quotations, are few and uncertain. The same relation is observed between the Pauline Epistles and that of Clement of Rome. In two places at least Clement agrees, or nearly agrees, with St. Paul, where both differ from the LXX; in c. xiii ([Greek: ho kanchomenos en Kurio kanchastho]; compare 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x, 16), and in c. xxxiv ([Greek: ophthalmhos ouk eiden k.t.l.]; compare 1 Cor. ii. 9). Again, in c. xxxvi Clement has the [Greek: puros phloga] of Heb. i. 7 for [Greek: pur phlegon] of the LXX. The rest of the parallelisms in Clement's Epistle are for the most part with Clement of Alexandria, who had evidently made a careful study of his predecessor. In one place, c. liii, there is a remarkable coincidence with Barnabas ([Greek: Mousae Mousae katabaethi to tachos k.t.l.]; compare Barn. cc. iv and xiv). In the Epistle of Barnabas itself there is a combined quotation from Gen. xv. 6, xvii. 5, which has evidently and certainly been affected by Rom. iv. 11. On the whole we may lean somewhat decidedly to the hypothesis of a mutual study of each other by the Christian writers, though the other hypothesis of the existence of different versions (whether oral and traditional or in any shape written) cannot be excluded. Probably both will have to be taken into account to explain all the facts.

Another disturbing influence, which will affect especially the quotations in the Gospels, is the possibility, perhaps even probability, that many of these are made, not directly from either Hebrew or LXX, but from or through Targums. This would seem to be the case especially with the remarkable applications of prophecy in St. Matthew. It must be admitted as possible that the Evangelist has followed some Jewish interpretation that seemed to bear a Christian construction. The quotation in Matt. ii. 6, with its curious insertion of the negative ([Greek: oudamos elachistae] for [Greek: oligostos]), reappears identically in Justin (Dial. c. 78). We shall probably have to touch upon this quotation when we come to consider Justin's relations to the canonical Gospels. It certainly seems upon the face of it the more probable supposition that he has here been influenced by the form of the text in St. Matthew, but he may be quoting from a Targum or from a peculiar text.

Any induction, then, in regard to the quotations from the LXX version will have to be used with caution and reserve. And yet I think it will be well to make such an induction roughly, especially in regard to the Apostolic Fathers whose writings we are to examine.

The quotations from the Old Testament in the New have, as it is well known, been made the subject of a volume by Mr. McCalman Turpie [Endnote 20:1], which, though perhaps not quite reaching a high level of scholarship, has yet evidently been put together with much care and pains, and will be sufficient for our purpose. The summary result of Mr. Turpie's investigation is this. Out of two hundred and seventy-five in all which may be considered to be quotations from the Old Testament, fifty-three agree literally both with the LXX and the Hebrew, ten with the Hebrew and not with the LXX, and thirty-seven with the LXX and not with the Hebrew, making in all just a hundred that are in literal (or nearly literal, for slight variations of order are not taken into account) agreement with some still extant authority. On the other hand, seventy-six passages differ both from the Hebrew and LXX where the two are together, ninety-nine differ from them where they diverge, and besides these, three, though introduced with marks of quotation, have no assignable original in the Old Testament at all. Leaving them for the present out of the question, we have a hundred instances of agreement against a hundred and seventy-five of difference; or, in other words, the proportion of difference to agreement is as seven to four.

This however must be taken with the caution given above; that is to say, it must not at once be inferred that because the quotation differs from extant authority therefore it necessarily differs from all non-extant authority as well. It should be added that the standard of agreement adopted by Mr. Turpie is somewhat higher than would be naturally held to be sufficient to refer a passage to a given source. His lists must therefore be used with these limitations.

Turning to them, we find that most of the possible forms of variation are exemplified within the bounds of the Canon itself. I proceed to give a few classified instances of these.

[Greek: Alpha symbol] Paraphrase. Many of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New are highly paraphrastic. We may take the following as somewhat marked examples: Matt. ii. 6, xii. 18-21, xiii. 35, xxvii. 9, 10; John viii. 17, xii. 40, xiii. 18; 1 Cor. xiv. 21; 2 Cor. ix. 7. Matt. xxvii. 9, 10 would perhaps mark an extreme point in freedom of quotation [Endnote 21:1], as will be seen when it is compared with the original:--

Matt. xxvii. 9. 10.

[Greek: [tote eplaerothae to phaethen dia tou prophaetou Hieremiou legontos] Kai elabon ta triakonta arguria, taen timaen tou tetimaemenou on etimaesanto apo nion Israael, kai edokan auta eis ton argon tou kerameos, katha sunetaxen moi Kurios.]

Zech. xi. 13.

[Greek: Kathes autous eis to choneutaerion, kai schepsomai ei dokimon estin, de tropon edokiamistheaen huper aotuon. Kai elabon tous triakonta argurous kai enebalon autous eis oikon Kuriou eis to choneutaerion.]

It can hardly be possible that the Evangelist has here been influenced by any Targum or version. The form of his text has apparently been determined by the historical event to which the prophecy is applied. The sense of the original has been entirely altered. There the prophet obeys the command to put the thirty pieces of silver, which he had received as his shepherd's hire, into the treasury [Greek: choneutaerion]. Here the hierarchical party refuse to put them into the treasury. The word 'potter' seems to be introduced from the Hebrew.

[Greek: Beta symbol] Quotations from Memory. Among the numerous paraphrastic quotations, there are some that have specially the appearance of having been made from memory, such as Acts vii. 37; Rom. ix. 9, 17, 25, 33, x. 6-8, xi. 3, xii. 19, xiv. 11; 1 Cor. i. 19, ii. 9; Rev. ii. 27. Of course it must always be a matter of guess-work what is quoted from memory and what is not, but in these quotations (and in others which are ranged under different heads) there is just that general identity of sense along with variety of expression which usually characterises such quotations. A simple instance would be--

Rom. ix. 25.

[Greek: [hos kai en to Osaee legei] Kaleso ton out laon mou laon mou kai taen ouk aegapaemenaen haegapaemenaen.]

Hosea ii. 23.

[Greek: Kai agapaeso taen ouk aegapaemenaen, kai ero to ou lao mou Daos mou ei se.]

[Greek: Gamma symbol] Paraphrase with Compression. There are many marked examples of this; such as Matt. xxii. 24 (par.); Mark iv. 12; John xii. 14, 15; Rom. iii. 15-17, x. 15; Heb. xii. 20. Take the first:--

Matt. xxii. 24. [Greek: [Mousaes eipen] Ean tis apothanae mae echon tekna, epigambreusei o adelphos autou taen gunaika autou kai anastaesei sperma to adelpho autou.]

Deut. xxv. 5. [Greek: Ean de katoikosin adelphoi epi to auto, kai apothanae eis ex auton, sperma de mae ae auto, ouk estai ae gunae tou tethnaekotos exo andri mae engizonti o adelphos tou andros autaes eiseleusetai pros autaen kai laepsetai autaen eauto gunaika kai sunoikaesei autae.]

It is highly probable that all the examples given under this head are really quotations from memory.

[Greek: Delta symbol] Paraphrase with Combination of Passages. This again is common; e.g. Luke iv. 19; John xv. 25, xix. 36; Acts xiii. 22; Rom. iii. 11-18, ix. 33, xi. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24. The passage Rom. iii. 11-18 is highly composite, and reminds us of long strings of quotations that are found in some of the Fathers; it is made up of Ps. xiv. 1, 2, v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7, Is. lix. 7, 8, Ps. xxxvi. 1. A shorter example is--

Rom. ix. 33. [Greek: [Kathos gegraptai] Idou tithaemi en Sion lithon proskommatos kai petran skandalou, kai o pisteuon ep auto ou kataischunthaesetai.]

Is. viii. 14. [Greek: kai ouch hos lithou proskammati sunantaesesthe, oude os petras ptomati.]

Is. xxviii. 16. [Greek: Idou ego emballo eis ta themelia Sion lithon..., kai o pisteuon ou mae kataischunthae.]

This fusion of passages is generally an act of 'unconscious celebration.' If we were to apply the standard assumed in 'Supernatural Religion,' it would be pronounced impossible that this and most of the passages above could have the originals to which they are certainly to be referred.

[Greek: Epsilon symbol] Addition. A few cases of addition may be quoted, e.g. [Greek: mae aposteraesaes] inserted in Mark x. 19, [Greek: kai eis thaeran] in Rom. xi. 9.

[Greek: Zeta symbol] Change of Sense and Context. But little regard--or what according to our modern habits would be considered little regard--is paid to the sense and original context of the passage quoted; e.g. in Matt. viii. 17 the idea of healing disease is substituted for that of vicarious suffering, in Matt. xi. 10 the persons are altered ([Greek: sou] for [Greek: mou]), in Acts vii. 43 we find [Greek: Babylonos] for [Greek: Damaskos], in 2 Cor. vi. 17 'I will receive you' is put for 'I will go before you,' in Heb. i. 7 'He maketh His angels spirits' for 'He maketh the winds His messengers.' This constant neglect of the context is a point that should be borne in mind.

[Greek: Eta symbol] Inversion. Sometimes the sense of the original is so far departed from that a seemingly opposite sense is substituted for it. Thus in Matt. ii. 6 [Greek: oudamos elachistae = oligostos] of Mic. v. 2, in Rom. xi. 26 [Greek: ek Sion = heneken Sion] LXX= 'to Sion' Heb. of Is. lix. 20, in Eph. iv. 8 [Greek: hedoken domata = helabes domata] of Ps. lxvii. 19.

[Greek: Theta symbol] Different Form of Sentence. The grammatical form of the sentence is altered in Matt. xxvi. 31 (from aorist to future), in Luke viii. 10 (from oratio recta to oratio obliqua), and in 1 Pet. iii. 10-12 (from the second person to the third). This is a kind of variation that we should naturally look for.

[Greek: Iota symbol] Mistaken Ascriptions or Nomenclature. The following passages are wrongly assigned:--Mal. iii. 1 to Isaiah according to the correct reading of Mark i. 2, and Zech. xi. 13 to Jeremiah in Matt. xxvii. 9, 10; Abiathar is apparently put for Abimelech in Mark ii. 26; in Acts vii. 16 there seems to be a confusion between the purchase of Machpelah near Hebron by Abraham and Jacob's purchase of land from Hamor the father of Shechem. These are obviously lapses of memory.

[Greek: Kappa symbol] Quotations of Doubtful Origin. There are a certain number of quotations, introduced as such, which can be assigned directly to no Old Testament original; Matt. ii. 23 ([Greek: Nazoraios klaethaesetai]), 1 Tim. v. 18 ('the labourer is worthy of his hire'), John vii. 38 ('out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water'), 42 (Christ should be born of Bethlehem where David was), Eph. v. 14 ('Awake thou that sleepest'). [Endnote 25:1]

It will be seen that, in spite of the reservations that we felt compelled to make at the outset, the greater number of the deviations noticed above can only be explained on a theory of free quotation, and remembering the extent to which the Jews relied upon memory and the mechanical difficulties of exact reference and verification, this is just what before the fact we should have expected.

The Old Testament quotations in the canonical books afford us a certain parallel to the object of our enquiry, but one still nearer will of course be presented by the Old Testament quotations in those books the New Testament quotations in which we are to investigate. I have thought it best to draw up tables of these in order to give an idea of the extent and character of the variation. In so tentative an enquiry as this, the standard throughout will hardly be so fixed and accurate as might be desirable; the tabular statement therefore must be taken to be approximate, but still I think it will be found sufficient for our purpose; certain points come out with considerable clearness, and there is always an advantage in drawing data from a wide enough area. The quotations are ranged under heads according to the degree of approximation to the text of the LXX. In cases where the classification has seemed doubtful an indicatory mark (+) has been used, showing by the side of the column on which it occurs to which of the other two classes the instance leans. All cases in which this sign is used to the left of the middle column may be considered as for practical purposes literal quotations. It may be assumed, where the contrary is not stated, that the quotations are direct and not of the nature of allusions; the marks of quotation are generally quite unmistakeable ([Greek: gegraptai, legei, eipen], &c). Brief notes are added in the margin to call attention to the more remarkable points, especially to the repetition of the same quotation in different writers and to the apparent bearing of the passage upon the general habit of quotation.

Taking the Apostolic Fathers in order, we come first to--

Clement of Rome (1 Ep. ad Cor.)

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks.
3 Deut. 32.14,15. also in Justin,
Is. 3.5. al. differently.
Is. 59. 14, al.
3. Wisd. 2.24.
+4. Gen. 4.3-8. Acts 7.27,
Ex. 2.14+ more exactly.
6. Gen. 2.23. 8. Ezek. 33.11 }
Ezek. 18.30 }from Apocryphal
Ps. 103.10,11. } or interpolated
Jer. 3.19,22. } Ezekiel?
Is. 1.18. }
+8. Is. 1.16-20.
10. Gen. 12.1-3.
+Gen. 13.14-16.
Gen. 15.5,6.
12. Josh. 2.3-19. compression and
13. 1 Sam. 2,10. }similarly
Jer. 9.23,24. } St. Paul, 1 Cor.
1.31, 2 Cor.
13. Is. 46.2. 10.17.
14. Prov. 2.21, from memory?
22. v.l. (Ps. 37.
14. Ps. 37.35-38. Matt. 15.8, Mark
15. Is. 29.13.* 7.6, with par-
15.{Ps. 78.36,37.*15. Ps. 62.4.* tial similarity,
{Ps. 31.19.* Clem. Alex.,
{Ps. 12.3-6.* following Clem.
+16. Is. 53.1-12. quoted in full by
16. Ps. 22.6-8. Justin, also by
17. Gen. 18.27. other writers
with text
different from
17. Job 1.1, v.l.
Job 14.4,5, v.l. Clem. Alex.
17. Num. 12.7.
Ex. 3.11; 4-10.
[Greek: ego de Assumptio Mosis,
eimi atmis apo Hilg., Eldad
kuthras.] and Modad, Lft.
18. Ps. 89.21,v.l. }Clem. Alex. as
1 Sam. 13.14. } LXX.
18. Ps. 51.1-17.
20. Job 38.11.
21. Prov. 15.27. Clem. Alex.
similarly; from
memory? [Greek:
22. Ps. 34.11-17. legei gar pou.]
23. [Greek: from an Apo-
palaiporoi eisin cryphal book,
oi dipsuchoi Ass. Mos. or
k.t.l.] Eld. and Mod.
23. Is. 13.22. }composition and
Mal. 3.1. } compression.
26. Ps. 28.7. }composition
Ps. 3-5. } from memory?
[Greek: legei
gar pou.]
27. Wisd. 12.12. }from memory?
Wisd. 11.22. } cp. Eph. 1.19.
P27. Ps. 19.1-3.
28. Ps. 139.7-10. from memory?
[Greek: legei
gar pou.]
29. Deut. 32.8,9.
29. Deut. 4.34. }from memory?
Deut. 14.2. } or from an
Num. 18.27. } Apocryphal
2 Chron. 31. } Book?
14. }
Ezek. 48.12. }
30. Prov. 3.34.
30. Job. 11.2,3. LXX, not Heb.
32. Gen. 15.5
(Gen. 22.17.
Gen. 26.4.)
33. Gen. 1.26-28.(omissions.)
34. Is. 40.10. }composition
Is. 62.11. } from memory?
Prov. 24.12. } Clem. Alex.
after Clem.
34. Dan. 7.10. } curiously
Is. 6.3+. } repeated
see Lightfoot,
ad. loc.
24. Is. 64.4. so in 1 Cor. 2.9.
35. Ps. 50.16-23.
36. Ps.104.4,v.l. Heb. 1.7.
36. Ps. 2.7,8. Heb. 1.5. Acts
Ps. 110.1 13.33.
39. Job 4.16-5.5
(Job 15.15)
42. Is. 60.17. from memory?
[Greek: legei
gar pou.]
46. [Greek: from Apocryphal
Kollasthe tois book, or Ecclus.
agiois hoti oi vi. 34? Clem.
kollomenoi Alex.
46. Ps. 18.26,27. context ignored.
48. Ps. 118,19,20. Clem. Alex.
50. Is. 26.20. }
Ezek. 37.12. }from memory?
50. Ps. 32. 1,2.
52. Ps. 69.31,32.
52. Ps. 50.14,15.+}
Ps. 51.17. }
53. Deut.9.12-14.} Barnabas
Ex. 32.7,8. } similarly.
11,31,32. } Compression.
54. Ps. 241.
56. Ps. 118.18.
Prov. 3.12.
Ps. 141.5.
+56. Job 5.17-26,
+57. Prov. 1.23-

[*Footnote: The quotations in this chapter are continuous, and are also found in Clement of Alexandria.]

It will be observed that the longest passages are among those that are quoted with the greatest accuracy (e.g. Gen. xiii. 14-16; Job v. 17-26; Ps. xix. 1-3, xxii. 6-8, xxxiv. 11-17, li. 1-17; Prov. i. 23-31; Is. i. 16-20, liii. 1-12). Others, such as Gen. xii. 1-3, Deut. ix. 12-14, Job iv. 16-v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 35-38, l. 16-23, have only slight variations. There are only two passages of more than three consecutive verses in length that present wide divergences. These are, Ps. cxxxix. 7-10, which is introduced by a vague reference [Greek: legei gar pou] and is evidently quoted from memory, and the historical narration Josh. ii. 3-19. This is perhaps what we should expect: in longer quotations it would be better worth the writer's while to refer to his cumbrous manuscript. These purely mechanical conditions are too much lost sight of. We must remember that the ancient writer had not a small compact reference Bible at his side, but, when he wished to verify a reference, would have to take an unwieldy roll out of its case, and then would not find it divided into chapter and verse like our modern books but would have only the columns, and those perhaps not numbered, to guide him. We must remember too that the memory was much more practised and relied upon in ancient times, especially among the Jews.

The composition of two or more passages is frequent, and the fusion remarkably complete. Of all the cases in which two passages are compounded, always from different chapters and most commonly from different books, there is not, I believe, one in which there is any mark of division or an indication of any kind that a different source is being quoted from. The same would hold good (with only a slight and apparent exception) of the longer strings of quotations in cc. viii, xxix, and (from [Greek: aegapaesan] to [Greek: en auto]) in c. xv. But here the question is complicated by the possibility, and in the first place at least perhaps probability, that the writer is quoting from some apocryphal work no longer extant. It may be interesting to give one or two short examples of the completeness with which the process of welding has been carried out. Thus in c. xvii, the following reply is put into the mouth of Moses when he receives his commission at the burning bush, [Greek: tis eimi ego hoti me pempeis; ego de eimi ischnophonos kai braduglossos.] The text of Exod. iii. 11 is [Greek: tis eimi ego, oti poreusomai;] the rest of the quotation is taken from Exod. iv. 10. In c. xxxiv Clement introduces 'the Scripture' as saying, [Greek: Muriai muriades pareistaekeisan auto kai chiliai chiliades eleitourgoun auto kai ekekragon agios, agios, agios, Kurios Sabaoth, plaeraes pasa hae ktisis taes doxaes autou.] The first part of this quotation comes from Dan. vii. 10; the second, from [Greek: kai ekekragon], which is part of the quotation, from Is. vi. 3. These examples have been taken almost at random; the others are blended quite as thoroughly.

Some of the cases of combination and some of the divergences of text may be accounted for by the assumption of lost apocryphal books or texts; but it would be wholly impossible, and in fact no one would think of so attempting to account for all. There can be little doubt that Clement quotes from memory, and none that he quotes at times very freely.

We come next to the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the quotations in which I proceed to tabulate in the same way:--


Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks.
+2. Is. 1.11-14. note for exactness.
2. Jer. 7.22,23. } combination
Zec. 8.17. } from memory?
Ps. 51.19. strange addition.
3. Is. 58.4, 5.
Is. 58.6-10.
4. Dan. 7.24 }very
Dan. 7.7, 8. } divergent.
Ex. 34.28. }combination
Ex. 31.18. } from memory?
4. Deut. 9.12. see below.
(Ex. 32.7).
+Is. 5.21.
+5. Is. 54.5,7. text of Cod. A.
5. Prov. 1.17.
Gen. 1.26+.
5. Zech. 13.7. text of A. (Hilg.)
Matt. 26.3.
Ps. 22.21. from memory?
5. Ps. 119.120. paraphrastic
Ps. 22.17. combination
from memory?
Is. 50. 6,7.
(omissions.) ditto.
6. Is. 50.8,9. ditto.
6. Is. 28.16. first clause
exact, second
variant; in N.T.
first variant,
second exact.
Is. 50.7. note repetition,
nearer to LXX.
6. Ps. 118.22. so Matt. 21.42;
1 Pet. 11.7.
6. Ps. 22.17+ 6. Ps. 118.24. from memory?
(order). note repetition,
nearer to LXX.
Ps. 118.12.
Ps. 22.19.
Is. 3.9, 10.
Ex. 33.1. from memory?
Gen. 1.26+. note repetition,
Gen. 1.28. further from LXX.
Ezek. 11.19; paraphrastic.
Ps. 41.3.
Ps. 22.23. different version?
Gen. 1.26, 28. paraphrastic
7. Lev. 23.29. paraphrastic.
Lev. 16.7, sqq. with apocryphal
Lev. 16.7. sqq. addition; cp.
Just. and Tert.
9. Ps. 18.44.
9. Is. 33.13+.
9. Jer. 4.4.
Jer. 7.2.
Ps. 34.13.
Is. 1.2. but with additions.
Is. 1.10+. from memory?
[Greek: archontes
toutou] for [Gr.
a. Zodomon.]
Is. 40.3. addition.
Jer. 4.3 ,4. }repetition,
Jer. 7.26. } nearer to LXX.
Jer. 9.26.
Gen. 17.26, 27; inferred sense
cf. 14.14. merely, but
with marks of
10. Lev. 11, selected examples,
Deut. 14. but with
examples of
Deut. 4.1.
10. Ps. 1.1.
Lev. 11.3.
11. Jer. 2.12, 13.
+Is. 16.1, 2. [Greek: Zina] for
[Greek: Zion].
11. Is. 45. 2, 3. [Greek: gnosae] A.
([Greek: gnosin]
Barn., but in
other points more
+Is. 33.16-18. omissions.
11. Ps. 1.3-6. note for exactness.
11. Zeph. 3.19. markedly diverse.
Ezek. 47.12. ditto.
12. Is. 65.2.
12. Num. 21.9, apparently a
sqq. quotation.
Deut. 27.15. from memory?
Ex. 17.14.
12. Ps. 110.1.
12. Is. 45.1. [Greek: kurio] for
[Greek: kuro].
13. Gen.25.21,23.
13. Gen. 48.11-19. very paraphrastic.
Gen. 15.6; combination; cf.
17.5. Rom. 4.11.
14. Ex. 24.18. note addition of
[Greek: naesteuon.]
Ex. 31.18. note also for
14. Deut. 9.12- repetition with
17+. similar variation.
(Ex. 32.7.) note reading of A.
14. Is. 42.6,7. [Greek:
pepedaemenous] for
[Greek: dedemenous
(kai] om. A.).
Is. 49.6,7.
Is. 61. 1,2. Luke. 4.18,19
15. Ex. 20.8; paraphrastic,
Deut. 5.12. with addition.
Jer. 17.24,25. very paraphrastic.
Gen. 2.2.
Ps. 90.4. [Greek: saemeron]
for [Greek:
15. Is. 1.13.
16. Is. 40.12. omissions.
Is. 66.1.
16. Is. 49.17. completely
Dan. 9.24. ditto.
25, 27.

The same remarks that were made upon Clement will hold also for Barnabas, except that he permits himself still greater licence. The marginal notes will have called attention to his eccentricities. He is carried away by slight resemblances of sound; e.g. he puts [Greek: himatia] for [Greek: iamata] [Endnote 34:1], [Greek: Zina] for [Greek: Zion], [Greek: Kurio] for [Greek: Kuro]. He not only omits clauses, but also adds to the text freely; e.g. in Ps. li. 19 he makes the strange insertion which is given in brackets, [Greek: Thusia to Theo kardia suntetrimmenae, [osmae euodias to kurio kardia doxasousa ton peplakota autaen]]. He has also added words and clauses in several other places. There can be no question that he quotes largely from memory; several of his quotations are repeated more than once (Deu. ix. 12; Is. l. 7; Ps. xxii. 17; Gen. i. 28; Jer. iv. 4); and of these only one, Deut. ix. 12, reappears in the same form. Often he gives only the sense of a passage; sometimes he interprets, as in Is. i. 10, where he paraphrases [Greek: archontes Sodomon] by the simpler [Greek: archontes tou laou toutou]. He has curiously combined the sense of Gen. xvii. 26, 27 with Gen. xiv. l4--in the pursuit of the four kings, it is said that Abraham armed his servants three hundred and eighteen men; Barnabas says that he circumcised his household, in all three hundred and eighteen men. In several cases a resemblance may be noticed between Barnabas and the text of Cod. A, but this does not appear consistently throughout.

It may be well to give a few examples of the extent to which Barnabas can carry his freedom of quotation. Instances from the Book of Daniel should perhaps not be given, as the text of that book is known to have been in a peculiarly corrupt and unsettled state; so much so that, when translation of Theodotion was made towards the end of the second century, it was adopted as the standard text. Barnabas also combines passages, though not quite to such an extent or so elaborately as Clement, and he too inserts no mark of division. We will give an example of this, and at the same time of his paraphrastic method of quotation:--

Barnabas c. ix.

[Greek: [kai ti legei;] Peritmaethaete to sklaeron taes kardias humon, kai ton trachaelon humon ou mae sklaerunaete.]

Jer. iv. 3, 4 and vii. 26.

[Greek: Peritmaethaete to theo humon, kai peritemesthe taen sklaerokardian humon ... kai esklaerunan ton trachaelon auton...]

A similar case of paraphrase and combination, with nothing to mark the transition from one passage to the other, would be in c. xi, Jer. ii. 12, 13 and Is. xvi. 1, 2. For paraphrase we may take this, from the same chapter:--

Barnabas c. xi.

[Greek: [kai palin heteros prophaetaes legei] Kai aen hae gae Iakob epainoumenae para pasan taen gaen.]

Zeph. iii. 19.

[Greek: kai thaesomai autous eis kauchaema kai onomastous en pasae tae gae.]

Barnabas c. xv.

[Greek: [autous de moi marturei legon] Idou saemeron haemera estai hos chilia etae.]

Ps. xc. 4

[Greek: hoti chilia etae en ophthalmois sou hos hae haemera hae echthes haetis diaelthe.]

A very curious instance of freedom is the long narrative of Jacob blessing the two sons of Joseph in c. xiii (compare Gen. xlviii. 11-19). We note here (and elsewhere) a kind of dramatic tendency, a fondness for throwing statements into the form of dialogue rather than narrative. As a narrative this passage may be compared with the history of Rahab and the spies in Clement.

And yet, in spite of all this licence in quotation, there are some rather marked instances of exactness; e.g. Is. i. 11-14 in c. ii, the combined passages from Ps. xxii. 17, cxvii. 12, xxii. 19 in c. vi, and Ps. i. 3-6 in c. xi. It should also be remembered that in one case, Deut. ix. 12 in cc. iv and xiv, the same variation is repeated and is also found in Justin.

It tallies with what we should expect, supposing the writings attributed to Ignatius (the seven Epistles) to be genuine, that the quotations from the Old as well as from the New Testament in them are few and brief. A prisoner, travelling in custody to the place of execution, would naturally not fill his letters with long and elaborate references. The quotations from the Old Testament are as follows:--

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks.
Ad Eph. 5. Prov. 3.34 James. 4.6, 1 Pet. 5.5,
as Ignatius.
Ad Magn. 12. Prov. 18.17.
Ad Trall. 8. Is. 52.5.

The Epistle to the Ephesians is found also in the Syriac version. The last quotation from Isaiah, which is however not introduced with any express marks of reference, is very freely given. The original is, [Greek: tade legei kurios, di' humas dia pantos to onoma mou blasphaemeitai en tois ethnesi], for which Ignatius has, [Greek: ouai gar di' ou epi mataiotaeti to onoma mou epi tinon blasphaemeitai].

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians and the Martyrium S. Ignatii contain the following quotations:--

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks.
Polycarp, 2. Ps. 2.11.
Ad. Phil.
10. Tob. 4.11. }
12. Ps. 4.4; }in Latin
but through } version only.
Eph. 4.26. }
Mart. S. Ign.
2. Lev. 26.12.
6. Prov. 10.24.

The quotation from Leviticus differs widely from the original, [Greek: Kai emperipataeso en humin kai esomai humon theos kai humeis esesthe moi laos], for which we read, [Greek: [gegraptai gar] Enoikaeso en autois kai emperipataeso].

The quotations from the Clementine Homilies may be thus presented:--

Exact. Slightly Variant Variant. Remarks.
Hom. 3. 18. Deut. 32.7.
39. +Gen. 18.21.
Gen. 3.22.
39. Gen 6.6.
Gen. 8.21. omission.
Gen. 22.1.
42. Gen. 3.3.
43. Gen. 6.6.
43. Gen. 22.1. not quite as above.
+Gen. 18.21. as above.
Gen. 15.13-16. v.l. comp. text
of A; note for
44. Gen. 18.21. as LXX.
45. Num. 11.34 [Greek: bounoun
(al.) epithumion] for
[Greek: mnaemata
taes epithumas].
47. Deut. 34.4,5.
49. Gen. 49.10. cf. Credner,
Beit. 2.53.
Hom. 11.
22. Gen. 1.1.
Hom. 16.
6. Gen. 3.22. twice with slightly
different order.
Gen. 3.5.
6. Ex. 22.28.
6. Deut. 4.34. ?mem. [Greek:
allothi tou
Jer. 10.11.
Deut. 13.6. ?mem. [Greek:
allae pou].
Josh. 23.7.
Deut. 10.17.
Ps. 35.10.
Ps. 50.1.
Ps. 82.1.
Deut. 10.14.
Deut. 4.39.
Deut. 10.17. repeated as above.
Deut. 10.17. very paraphrastic.
Hom. 16. 6. Deut. 4.39.
7. Deut. 6.13.
Deut. 6.4.
8. Josh. 23.7. as above.
8. Exod. 22.18 +
Jer. 10.11.
Gen. 1.1.
Ps. 19.2.
8. Ps. 102.26.
Gen. 1.26.
13. Deut. 13.1-3, very free.
9, 5, 3.
Hom. 17. 18. Num. 12.6. }paraphrastic
Ex. 33.11. } combination.
Hom. 18. 17. Is. 40.26,27. free quotation.
Deut. 30.13. ditto.
18. Is. 1.3.
Is. 1.4.

The example of the Clementine Homilies shows conspicuously the extremely deceptive character of the argument from silence. All the quotations from the Old Testament found in them are taken from five Homilies (iii, xi, xvi, xvii, xviii) out of nineteen, although the Homilies are lengthy compositions, filling, with the translation and various readings, four hundred and fourteen large octavo pages of Dressel's edition [Endnote 38:1]. Of the whole number of quotations all but seven are taken from two Homilies, iii and xvi. If Hom. xvi and Hom. xviii had been lost, there would have been no evidence that the author was acquainted with any book of the Old Testament besides the Pentateuch; and, if the five Homilies had been lost, there would have been nothing to show that he was acquainted with the Old Testament at all. Yet the loss of the two Homilies would have left a volume of three hundred and seventy-seven pages, and that of the five a volume of three hundred and fifteen pages. In other words, it is possible to read three hundred and fifteen pages of the Homilies with five breaks and come to no quotation from the Old Testament at all, or three hundred and fifteen pages with only two breaks and come to none outside the Pentateuch. But the reduced volume that we have supposed, containing the fourteen Homilies, would probably exceed in bulk the whole of the extant Christian literature of the second century up to the time of Irenaeus, with the single exception of the works of Justin; it will therefore be seen how precarious must needs be any inference from the silence, not of all these writings, but merely of a portion of them.

For the rest, the quotations in the Homilies may be said to observe a fair standard of exactness, one apparently higher than that in the genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; at the same time it should be remembered that the quotations in the Homilies are much shorter, only two reaching a length of three verses, while the longest quotations in the Epistle are precisely those that are most exact. The most striking instance of accuracy of quotation is perhaps Gen. xv. 13-16 in Hom. iii. 43. On the other hand, there is marked freedom in the quotations from Deut. iv. 34, x. 17, xiii. 1-3, xiii. 6. xxx. 15, Is. xl. 26, 27, and the combined passage, Num. xii. 6 and Ex. xxiii. 11. There are several repetitions, but these occur too near to each other to permit of any inference.

Our examination of the Old Testament quotations in Justin is greatly facilitated by the collection and discussion of them in Credner's Beiträge [Endnote 39:1], a noble example of that true patient work which is indeed the reverse of showy, but forms the solid and well-laid foundation on which alone genuine knowledge can be built. Credner has collected and compared in the most elaborate manner the whole of Justin's quotations with the various readings in the MSS. of the LXX; so that we may state our results with a much greater confidence than in any other case (except perhaps Clement of Rome, where we have the equally accurate and scholarly guidance of Dr. Lightfoot [Endnote 40:1]) that we are not led astray by imperfect materials. I have availed myself freely of Credner's collection of variants, indicating the cases where the existence of documentary (or, in some places, inferential) evidence for Justin's readings has led to the quotation being placed in a different class from that to which it would at first sight seem to belong. I have also, as hitherto, not assumed an absolutely strict standard for admission to the first class of 'exact' quotations. Many of Justin's quotations are very long, and it seemed only right that in these the standard should be somewhat, though very slightly, relaxed. The chief point that we have to determine is the extent to which the writers of the first century were in the habit of freely paraphrasing or quoting from memory, and it may as a rule be assumed that all the instances in the first class and most (not quite all) of those in the second do not admit of such an explanation. I have been glad in every case where a truly scientific and most impartial writer like Credner gives his opinion, to make use of it instead of my own. I have the satisfaction to think that whatever may be the value of the other sections of this enquiry, this at least is thoroughly sound, and based upon a really exhaustive sifting of the data.

The quotations given below are from the undoubted works of Justin, the Dialogue against Tryphon and the First Apology; the Second Apology does not appear to contain any quotations either from the Old or New Testament.

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks.
Apol. 1.59, Gen.
Dial. 62, Gen. 1.
Dial. 102, Gen. free quotation
3.15. (Credner).
D.62, Gen. 3.22.
D.127, Gen.
D.139, Gen. 9.
D.127, Gen. 11.5. free quotation
D.102, Gen. 11.6.
D.92, Gen. 15.6. free quotation
Dial.10, +Gen.
D.127, Gen. 17.22.
D.56, +Gen. 18. ver. 2 repeated
1, 2. similarly.
+Gen. 18. 13, 14. repeated,
slightly more
+Gen. 18. 16-23, divergent.
+Gen. 19. 1, 10,
16-28 (om. 26). marked exactness
in the whole
D.56, Gen. 21.
D.120, Gen. 26.4.
D.58, Gen. 28.
D.58, +(v.l.) Gen.
28. 13-19.
+(v.l.) Gen. 31.
D.59, Gen. 35.1. free quotation
D.58, Gen. 35.
6-10 (v.l.)
D. 52, Gen. 49. repeated
8-12. similarly.
D. 59, Ex. 2. 23.
D. 60, Ex. 3.2-4+. A.1. 62, Ex. 3. 5. from memory
D. 59, Ex. 3. 16.
A. 1.63, Ex. 3.16 ver.16 freely
(ter), 17. quoted (Cr.)
[Greek: eirae-
tai pou.]
D. 126, Ex.6.2-4.
D. 49, Ex. 17.16. free quotation
D. 94, Ex. 20.4. ditto (Cr.)
D. 75, Ex. 23.20, from Lectionary
21. (Cr.)
D.16, Lev. 26.40, D. 20, Ex. 32. 6. free (Cr.)
41 (v.l.)
D. 126, Num. 11.
A.1.60 (or. obl.), free (Cr.)
D. 94, Num. 21.
D. 106, Num. 24. through Targum
17. (Cr.)
D. 16, Deut. 10. from memory
16, 17. (Cr.)
D.96, Deut. 21.23. both precisely
Deut. 27.26. as St. Paul in
Galatians, and
quoted thence
D. 126, Deut. 31.
2, 3 (v.l.)
D. 74, Deut. 31.
16-18 (v.l.)
D. 131, Deut. 32.
7-9 (tr.)
D.20, Deut. 32.15.
D. 119, Deut. 32. Targum (Cr.)
D. 130, Deut. 32.
43 (v.l.)
D. 91, +Deut. 33.
A.1. 40, Ps. 1 and parts repeated.
2 entire.
D.97, Ps. 3. 5, 6. repeated, more
D.114, Ps. 8.4.
D.27, Ps. 14.3.
D.28, Ps.18.44,45.
D. 64, Ps.19.6 perhaps from
(A.1.40, vv.1-5). different
MSS., see
D.97 ff., Ps. 22. quoted as
1-23. whole Psalm
D.133 ff., Ps. 24
D.141, Ps. 32. 2.
D.38, Ps. 45.1-17. parts repeated.
D.37, Ps. 47.6-9.
D.22, Ps. 49
D.34} {from Eph. 4.8,
D.37} Ps. 68.8. { Targum.
D.34, Ps. 72
D. 124, Ps. 82
D.73, Ps. 96 note Christian
entire. interpolation
in ver. 10.
D.37, Ps. 99
entire. D. 83, Ps. 110. from memory
D.32, Ps. 110 1-4. (Cr.)
D.110, Ps. 128.3. from memory
D.85, Ps. 148. (Cr.)
1, 2.
A.1. 37, Is. 1.
3, 4.
A.1. 47, Is. 1.7 sense only
(Jer. 2.15). (Cr.)
D.140 (A.1. 53),
Is. 1.9.
A.1. 37, Is. 1. from memory
11-14. (Cr.)
A.1. 44 (61), Is. omissions.
D.82, Is. 1. 23. from memory
A.1. 39, Is. 2. (Cr.)
D.135, Is. 2. 5,6. Targum (Cr.)
D. 133, Is. 3.
9-15 (v.l.)
D.27, Is. 3.16. free quotation
D.133, Is. 5. 18- repeated.
25 (v.l.)
D.43 (66), Is. 7. repeated, with
10-17 (v.l.) slight
A.1.35, Is. 9.6. free (Cr.)
D.87, Is. 11.1-3. [A.1.32, Is. 11.1; free combination
Num. 24.17. (Cr.)]
D.123, Is. 14.1.
D.123, Is. 19.24,
D.78, Is. 29.13,14. repeated (v.l),
partly from
D.79, Is. 30.1-5.
D.70, Is.33.13-19.
D.69, Is. 35.1-7. A.1.48, Is. 35.5,6. free; cf. Matt.
11.5 (var.)
D.50, Is. 39. 8,
D.125} Is.42.1-4. {cf. Matt. 12.
D.135} { 17-21,
Targum (Cr.)
D.65, Is. 42.6-13
D.122, Is. 42.16. free (Cr.)
D.123, Is. 42.19,
D.122, Is. 43.10.
A.1.52, Is. 45. cf. Rom. 14.11.
24 (v.l.)
D.121, Is. 49.6
D.122, Is. 49.8
D.102, Is. 50.4.
A.1.38, Is. 50. Barn., Tert.,
6-8. Cypr.
D.11, Is. 51.4, 5.
D.17, Is. 52.5
D.12, Is. 5 2,
10-15, 53.1-12,
A.1. 50, Is. 52.
D.138, Is. 54.9. very free.
D.14, Is. 55.3-13. [D.12, Is. 55. 3-5. from memory
D.16, Is.57.1-4. repeated.
D.15, Is.58.1-11 [Greek:
(v.l.) himatia] for
[Greek: iamata];
so Barn., Tert,
Cyp., Amb., Aug.
D.27, Is. 58.
13, 14.
D.26, +Is. 62.10- [Greek:
10-63.6. susseismon] for
D.25, Is. 63.15-
19, 64.1-12.
D.24, Is. 65. 1-3. [A.1.49, Is. 65. from memory
1-3. (Cr.)]
D.136, Is. 65.8.
D.135, Is. 65.9-12
D.81, Is. 65.17-25
D.22, Is. 66.1. from memory
D.85, Is. 66.5-11.
D.44, Is. 66. 24 from memory
(ter). (Cr.)
D.114, Jer. 2.13; as from
Is. 16.1; Jeremiah,
Jer. 3.8. traditional
cf. Barn. 2.
D.28, Jer. 4.3, 4
D.23, Jer. 7.21,22. free quotation
D. 28, Jer. 9.25,26 [A.1.53, Jer. 9.26. quoted freely
as from
D.72, Jer. 11.19. omissions.
D. 78, Jer. 31.15 so Matt. 2.18
(38.15, LXX). through
Targum (Cr.)
D.123, Jer. 31.27 free quotation
(38. 27). (Cr.)
D.11, Jer. 31.31,
32 (38.31, 32).
D.72. a passage quoted
as from
which is not
in our present
D. 82, Ezek. 3. free quotation
17-19. (Cr.)
D.45} Ezek. 14. } repeated
44} 20; cf. 14, } similarly and
140} 16, 18. } equally
} divergent from
} LXX.
D.77, Ezek. 16. 3.
D.21, Ezek. 20.
D.123, Ezek. 36.
A.1.52, Ezek. very free (Cr.)
37. 7.

[Footnote: Justin has in Dial. 31 (also in Apol. 1. 51, ver. 13, from memory) a long quotation from Daniel, Dan. 7. 9-28; his text can only be compared with a single MS. of the LXX, Codex Chisianus; from this it differs considerably, but many of the differences reappear in the version of Theodotion; 7. 10, 13 are also similarly quoted in Rev., Mark, Clem. Rom.]

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks.
D.19, Hos. 1.9.
D.102, Hos.10.6. referred to
trial before
Herod (Cr.)
D.87, Joel 2.28. from memory
D. 22, +Amos
5.18-6. 7 (v.l.)
D. 107, Jonah 4.
10-11 (v.l. Heb.)
D. 109, Micah 4. divergent from
1-7 (Heb.?) LXX.
A.1.34} Micah 5.2. {precisely as
D.78 } { Matt. 2.6.
A.1.52, Zech. 2.6. {free quotations
D. 137, Zech. 2. 8. { (Cr.)
D. 115, Zach. 2. [D. 79, Zech. 3. freely (Cr.)]
10-3. 2 (Heb.?) 1, 2.
D.106, Zach. 6.12.
A.1.52, Zech. 12. repeated di-
11,12,10. versely [note
reading of
Christian ori-
gin (Cr.) in
ver. 10:
so John 19.37;
cp. Rev. 1.7].
D.43, Zech. 13. 7. diversely in
Matt. 26.31,
proof that
Justin is
not dependent
on Matthew
D.28, 41, Mal. 1. D. 117, Mal. 1.
10-12 (v.l.) 10-12.
D.62, +Joshua 5. omissions.
13-15; 6.1, 2
D.118, 2 Sam. 7. from memory
14-16. (Cr.)
D.39, 1 Kings 19. freely (Cr.);
14, 15, 18. cf. Rom. 11.3.
A.1.55, Lam. 4.
20 (v.l.)
D.79, Job 1.6. sense only
D.61, +Prov. 8. coincidence
21-36. with Ire-

[Footnote: D. 72 a passage ostensibly from Ezra, but probably an apocryphal addition, perhaps from Preaching of Peter; same quotation in Lactantius.]

It is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter that Justin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted nine Psalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated) that it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty- three verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given with extraordinary fulness. These longer passages are generally quoted accurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of the LXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority for his reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out these varieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to the relations and comparative value of the different MSS., form perhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more marked divergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (1) quotation from memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in the shorter passages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialogue with Tryphon; (2) in Messianic passages the use of a Targum, not immediately by Justin himself but in some previous document from which he quotes, in order to introduce a more distinctly Christian interpretation; the coincidences between Justin and other Christian writers show that the text of the LXX had been thus modified in a Christian sense, generally through a closer comparison with and nearer return to the Hebrew, before his time. The instances of free quotation are not perhaps quite fully given in the above list, but it will be seen that though they form a marked phenomenon, still more marked is the amount of exactness. Any long, not Messianic, passage, it appears to be the rule with Justin to quote exactly. Among the passages quoted freely there seem to be none of greater length than four verses.

The exactness is especially remarkable in the plain historical narratives of the Pentateuch and the Psalms, though it is also evident that Justin had the MS. before him, and referred to it frequently throughout the quotations from the latter part of Isaiah. Through following the arrangement of Credner we have failed to notice the cases of combination; these however are collected by Dr. Westcott (On the Canon, p. 156). The most remarkable instance is in Apol. i. 52, where six different passages from three separate writers are interwoven together and assigned bodily to Zechariah. There are several more examples of mistaken ascription.

The great advantage of collecting the quotations from the Old Testament is that we are enabled to do so in regard to the very same writers among whom our enquiry is to lie. We can thus form a general idea of their idiosyncracies, and we know what to expect when we come to examine a different class of quotations. There is, however, the element of uncertainty of which I have spoken above. We cannot be quite clear what text the writer had before him. This difficulty also exists, though to a less degree, when we come to consider quotations from the New Testament in writers of an early date whom we know to have used our present Gospels as canonical. The text of these Gospels is so comparatively fixed, and we have such abundant materials for its reconstruction, that we can generally say at once whether the writer is quoting from it freely or not. We have thus a certain gain, though at the cost of the drawback that we can no longer draw an inference as to the practice of individuals, but merely attain to a general conclusion as to the habits of mind current in the age. This too will be subject to a deduction for the individual bent and peculiarities of the writer. We must therefore, on the whole, attach less importance to the examples under this section than under that preceding.

I chose two writers to be the subject of this examination almost, I may say, at random, and chiefly because I had more convenient access to their works at the time. The first of these is Irenaeus, that is to say the portions still extant in the Greek of his Treatise against Heresies, [Endnote 49:1] and the second Epiphanius.

Irenaeus is described by Dr. Tregelles 'as a close and careful quoter in general from the New Testament' [Endnote 49:2]. He may therefore be taken to represent a comparatively high standard of accuracy. In the following table the quotations which are merely allusive are included in brackets:--

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks.
I. Praef. Matt. 10.26.
I.3.2,Matt. 5.18. quoted from
I.3, 3, Mark 5.31. Gnostics.
I.3.5, Luke 14.27. Valentinians.
I.3.5, Mark 10. the same.
I.3.5, Matt. 10.34. 21 (v.l.) the same.
I.3.5, Luke 3.17. the same.
I.4.3, Matt. 10.8.
[I.6.1, Matt. 5.
13, 14, al.] I.7.4, Matt. 8.9.} }the same.
Luke 7.8. } }
I.8.2, Matt. 27.46. Valentinians.
I.8.2. Matt. 26.38. the same.
I.8.2, Matt. the same.
I.8.2, John 12.27. the same.
I.8.3, Luke the same.
I.8.3, Luke the same.
I.8.3, Luke the same.
I.8.3, Luke 19.5. the same.
I.8.4, Luke 15,4. the same.
[I.8.4, Luke the same.
15.8, al.]
I.8.4, Luke 2.28. the same.
[I.8.4., Luke the same.
6.36, al.]
I.8.4, Luke 7.35 the same.
I.8.5, John 1.1,2. the same.
I.8.5, John 1.3 the same.
I.8.5, John 1.4. the same.
I.8.5, John 1.5. the same.
I.8.5, John 1.14. I.8.5, John 1.14. [the same
verse rep-
eated dif-
[I.14.1. Matt. Marcus.
[I.16.1, Luke Marcosians.
[I.16.3, Matt. the same.
I.20.2, Luke the same.
I.20.2, Mark 10.18. ['memoriter'-
Stieren; but
comp. Clem.
Hom. and
and Justin.]
I.20.2, Matt. Marcosians.
I.20.2, Luke 19.42. the same.
I.20.2, Matt. the same.
11.28 (? om.).
I.20.3, Luke 10.21. the same;
(Matt. 11.25 [v.l., comp.
25.) Marcion,
Clem. Hom.,
Justin, &c.]
I.21.2, Luke 12.50. Marcosians.
I.21.2, Mark Marcosians.
III.11.8, John
1.1-3 (?).
III.11.8, Matt.
1.1,18 (v.l.)
III.11.8, Mark omissions.
III.22.2, John 4.6.
III.22.2, Matt. 26.38.
IV.26.1, } Matt.
IV.40.3, } 13.38.
IV.40.3, Matt.
V.17.4, Matt. 3.10.
V.36.2, John 14.2
(or obl.)
Fragm. 14, Matt.

On the whole these quotations of Irenaeus seem fairly to deserve the praise given to them by Dr. Tregelles. Most of the free quotations, it will be seen, belong not so much to Irenaeus himself, as to the writers he is criticising. In some places (e.g. iv. 6. 1, which is found in the Latin only) he expressly notes a difference of text. In this very place, however, he shows that he is quoting from memory, as he speaks of a parallel passage in St. Mark which does not exist. Elsewhere there can be little doubt that either he or the writer before him quoted loosely from memory. Thus Luke xii. 50 is given as [Greek: allo baptisma echo baptisthaenai kai panu epeigomai eis auto] for [Greek: baptisma de echo baptisthaenai kai pos sunechomai heos hotou telesthae]. The quotation from Matt. viii. 9 is represented as [Greek: kai gar ego hupo taen emautou exousian echo stratiotas kai doulous kai ho ean prostaxo poiousi], which is evidently free; those from Matt. xviii. 10, xxvii. 46, Luke ix. 57, 58, 61, 62, xiv. 27, xix. 42, John i. 5, 14 (where however there appears to be some confusion in the text of Irenaeus), xiv. 2, also seem to be best explained as made from memory.

The list given below, of quotations from the Gospels in the Panarium or 'Treatise against Heresies' of Epiphanius [Endnote 52:1], is not intended to be exhaustive. It has been made from the shorter index of Petavius, and being confined to the 'praecipui loci' consists chiefly of passages of substantial length and entirely (I believe) of express quotations. It has been again necessary to distinguish between the quotations made directly by Epiphanius himself and those made by the heretical writers whose works he is reviewing.

Exact. Slightly Variant. Remarks.
426A, Matt. 1.1;
Matt. 1.18,
426BC, Matt. abridged, diver-
1.18-25+. gent in middle.
430B, Matt. 2.13. Porphyry & Celsus.
44C, Matt. 5.34,37
59C, Matt.
180B, Matt. 5.18+. Valentinians.
226A, Matt. 5.45.
72A, Matt. 7.6. Basilidians.
404C, Matt. 7.15.
67C. Matt. 8.11.
650B. Matt.
8.28-34 (par.)
303A, Matt. Marcion.
71B, Matt. 10.33. Basilidians.
274B, Matt.
88A, Matt. 11.7. 143B, Matt. Gnostics.
254B, Matt. Marcosians.
139AB, Matt. Ebionites.
12.48 sqq. (v.l.)
174C, Matt. 10.26.
464B, Matt. Theodotus.
33A, Matt. 23.5.
218D, Matt. 15.4-6 Ptolemaeus.
(or. obl.)
490C, Matt. 15.20.
Mark 7.21,22.
490A, Matt. 18.8. }compression
Mark 9.43. }
679BC, Matt. Manes.
152B, Matt. 5.27.
59CD, Matt.
59D, Matt. 19.6.
81A, Matt. 19.12.
97D, Matt. 22.30.
36BC, Matt. 23. remarkable compo-
23,25; 23.18-20. sition, probably
from memory.
(5.35); Mark
7.11-13; Matt.
226A, Matt. 23.29; composition.
Luke 11.47.
281A, Matt. 23.35.
508C, Matt. 25.34.
146AB, Matt. 26. narrative.
17,18; Mark 14.
12-14; Luke 22.
279D, Matt. 26.24.
390B, Matt. 21.33,
50A, Matt. 28.19.
427B, Mark 1.1,2.
428C, Mark 1.4.
457D, Mark 3.29; singular
Matt. 12.31; composition.
Luke 12.10.
400D, Matt. 19.6;
Mark 10.9.
650C, Matt. 8. narrative.
28-34; Mark 5.
1-20; Luke 8.

[These last five quotations have already been given under Irenaeus, whom Epiphanius is transcribing.]

464D, Luke 12.9; composition.
Matt. 10.33.
181B, Luke 14.27. Valentians.
401A, Luke 21.34.
143C, Luke 24.42.
(v. 1.)
349C, Luke 24. Marcion.
384B, John 1.1-3.
148A, John 1.23.
148B, John
89C, John 3.12. Gnostics.
274A, John 3.14
59C, John 5.46.
162B, John 5.8.
66C, John 5.17.
919A, John 5.18.
117D, John 6.15.
89D, John 6.53. the same.
279D, John 6.70.
279B, John 8.44.
463D, John 8.40. Theodotus.
148B, John 12.41.
153A, John 12.22.
75C, John 14.6.
919C, John 14.10.
921D, John 17.3.
279D, John
119D, John 18.36.

It is impossible here not to notice the very large amount of freedom in the quotations. The exact quotations number only fifteen, the slightly variant thirty-seven, and the markedly variant forty. By far the larger portion of this last class and several instances in the second it seems most reasonable to refer to the habit of quoting from memory. This is strikingly illustrated by the passage 117 D, Where the retreat of Jesus and His disciples to Ephraim is treated as a consequence of the attempt 'to make Him king' (John vi. 15), though in reality it did not take place till after the raising of Lazarus and just before the Last Passover (see John xi. 54). A very remarkable case of combination is found in 36 BC, where a single quotation is made up of a cento of no less than six separate passages taken from all three Synoptic Gospels and in the most broken order. Fusions so complete as this are usually the result of unconscious acts of the mind, i.e. of memory. A curious instance of the way in which the Synoptic parallels are blended together in a compound which differs from each and all of them is presented in 437 D ([Greek: to blasphaemounti eis to pneuma to hagion ouk aphethaesetai auto oute en to nun aioni oute en to mellonti]). Another example of Epiphanius' manner in skipping backwards and forwards from one Synoptic to another may be seen in 218 D, which is made up of Matt. xv. 4-9 and Mark vii. 6-13. A strange mistake is made in 428 D, where [Greek: paraekolouthaekoti] is taken with [Greek: tois autoptais kai hupaeretais tou logou]. Many kinds of variation find examples in these quotations of Epiphanius, to some of which we may have occasion to allude more particularly later on.

It should be remembered that these are not by any means selected examples. Neither Irenaeus nor Epiphanius are notorious for free quotation--Irenaeus indeed is rather the reverse. Probably a much more plentiful harvest of variations would have been obtained e.g. from Clement of Alexandria, from whose writings numerous instances of quotation following the sense only, of false ascription, of the blending of passages, of quotations from memory, are given in the treatise of Bp. Kaye [Endnote 56:1]. Dr. Westcott has recently collected [Endnote 56:2] the quotations from Chrysostom On the Priesthood, with the result that about one half present variations from the Apostolic texts, and some of these variations, which he gives at length, are certainly very much to the point.

I fear we shall have seemed to delay too long upon this first preliminary stage of the enquiry, but it is highly desirable that we should start with a good broad inductive basis to go upon. We have now an instrument in our hands by which to test the alleged quotations in the early writers; and, rough and approximate as that instrument must still be admitted to be, it is at least much better than none at all.


Table of Contents | Previous Chapter | Next Chapter

eBooksHome | Inspirational Articles | General Essays | Sermons | Library - Home | Baselios Church Home

Malankara World
A service of St. Basil's Syriac Orthodox Church, Ohio
Copyright © 2009-2011 - ICBS Group. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer
Website designed, built, and hosted by International Cyber Business Services, Inc., Hudson, Ohio