SCHOLIA

[pg 435]SCHOLIA[pg 437]SCHOLIAIThese words of the Lord Jesus are not indeed found in our Gospels; but they have been handed down by tradition.14Nor have I been able to find in the history of Philochristus any sayings of the Lord Jesus, save such as have been either handed down by tradition or else recorded in our Gospels.Moreover, the writer (as it seemeth to me, having diligently compared this history with the Gospels of the holy Evangelists Matthew and Mark and Luke) maketh mention of all such miracles as are found in all the three Gospels (though the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of the woman with the issue be but briefly mentioned): but if any miracle is found in one or in two Gospels only, concerning that he is silent. And this he seemeth to do not by chance, but of set purpose, as if he were minded to speak of those miracles only which are common to the first three Gospels. But Anchinous the son of Alethes maketh conjecture that Philochristus had in his mind a certain Original Gospel (whether it were a book or tradition) of exceeding antiquity; whence also the holy Evangelists drew that part of their several relations which is common to the first three Gospels.[pg 438]IIHere again the writer of this history addeth nothing to our knowledge: for of all the words that Philo the Alexandrine uttereth to Philochristus, there is scarce one that may not be found in the writings of Philo, such as we now possess.The like observation also is to be made concerning that which Philochristus reporteth of the sayings of the Scribes: whereof there is scarce one but I have found it (or the like of it) among these sayings of the Teachers of Israel which have been handed down to us even to this day.15IIIWhereas Philochristus reporteth that a certain Scribe in his days spake of“eating the Messiah,”I find no such saying current in those days. But true it is that, many years afterwards, Rabbi Hillel (but this is not the same as Hillel the Great, who lived in the generation before Philochristus) said these words:“There is no Messiah for Israel, since they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah.”16Moreover the saying of Moses, how that the nobles of Israel“saw God and did eat and drink,”is, without doubt, explained by some of the Teachers among the Jews to mean that the Shekinah was as meat and drink to the nobles. But whether this saying was current in those days, or whether Philochristus erreth here also (as elsewhere), certain it is that many of the sayings of the Scribes reported by Philochristus were not made known nor published till very long after; and meseemeth he hath perverted the doctrine of the Scribes with intent to cause the reader to have them in derision.[pg 439]But Anchinous the son of Alethes saith that, howsoever the sayings of the Scribes (whereof Philochristus maketh mention) have not been handed down to us as spoken in those times; yet the cause is, saith Anchinous, that few sayings of those times have been preserved. But if they had been preserved, then, saith he, we should have found that Philochristus described the teaching of the Scribes with exactness; even as the Gospels also bear witness that the Scribes in those days strained at gnats but swallowed camels; and overmuch esteemed the tithing of mint and anise and cummin, and the purification of pots and platters; and counted an oath that was sworn by the gold of the Temple, as being weightier than an oath that was sworn by the Temple itself.IVHerein it is marvellous to see with what a persistence Philochristus cleaveth only unto that part of the first three Gospels which is common to all the three; so that one might go near to suppose that Anchinous was right, in that he conjectured that Philochristus doth this not by chance, but of set purpose; having before him, perchance, some book or tradition which contained no more than this. For whereas Philochristus saith that the women heard some mention made of Galilee, but what it was, they agreed not exactly among themselves: I will here set down, in order, the three relations:—1 (Saint Matthew, xxviii. 7)“And beholdhe goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: loI have told you.”2 (Saint Mark, xvi. 7)“He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, ashe saidunto you.”3 (Saint Luke, xxiv. 6)“Remember howhe spakeunto youwhile he was yet in Galilee.”But as to the Gospel of the holy Apostle John, I have not been able to find out whether any part of it were known to Philochristus. Howbeit Anchinous saith that Philochristus, although he make no mention[pg 440]of any of the acts, nor of the long discourses, nor set dialogues of that Gospel, nevertheless useth the doctrine of that Gospel as the foundation of the whole of his history. Notwithstanding, saith Anchinous, Philochristus seemeth not to attribute this doctrine to John the son of Zebedee (who ever speaketh after a different manner, and rather as one of the Sons of Thunder, or as the writer of the book of Revelation, than as the writer of the Fourth Gospel), but to Nathanael and Quartus.VHere Philochristus is unlike himself. For whereas he is wont for the most part to omit miracles, albeit the Gospels relate them, here on the other hand he inserteth one, albeit the Gospels omit it. Howbeit, true it is that the holy Apostle Paul seemeth, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, to make mention of some manifestation of the Lord Jesus to the holy Apostle James. And the same is mentioned in certain traditions.But it is to be noted that, in the whole relation of the Resurrection of Jesus, Philochristus departeth from his usual course. For he reporteth many manifestations whereof mention is not made in all the three Gospels, nor even in two, but in one only; and he speaketh of others also innumerable. Howbeit he maketh no mention of that manifestation wherein the Lord partook of fish and honey with the Disciples.LONDON: R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.Footnotes1.SeeNote II.2.SeeNote I.3.SeeNote I.4.SeeNote I.5.SeeNote I.6.SeeNote I.7.SeeNote I.8.SeeNote III.9.SeeNote I.10.SeeNote I.11.SeeNote IV.12.SeeNote IV.13.SeeNote V.14.They belong to the twenty traditional sayings“which seem to contain, in a more or less altered form, traces of words of our Lord.”—(Westcott’s Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 453).15.“Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,”by C. Taylor, M.A., published by the Cambridge University Press.16.Ibid. p. 74.Transcriber’s NoteVariations in hyphenation (e.g.“winebibber”,“wine-bibber”,“courtyard”,“court-yard”) or spelling have not been changed.Several missing quote marks have been added silently.Other changes, which have been made to the text:page 36,“waived”changed to“waved”page 67,“said, I”changed to“said I,”page 80,“Reedemer”changed to“Redeemer”page 103,“Nathaniel”changed to“Nathanael”page 205,“familar”changed to“familiar”page 374, comma removed after“this”page 378, double“be”removed after“thy will”page 417, period changed to comma after“led”

[pg 435]SCHOLIA[pg 437]SCHOLIAIThese words of the Lord Jesus are not indeed found in our Gospels; but they have been handed down by tradition.14Nor have I been able to find in the history of Philochristus any sayings of the Lord Jesus, save such as have been either handed down by tradition or else recorded in our Gospels.Moreover, the writer (as it seemeth to me, having diligently compared this history with the Gospels of the holy Evangelists Matthew and Mark and Luke) maketh mention of all such miracles as are found in all the three Gospels (though the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of the woman with the issue be but briefly mentioned): but if any miracle is found in one or in two Gospels only, concerning that he is silent. And this he seemeth to do not by chance, but of set purpose, as if he were minded to speak of those miracles only which are common to the first three Gospels. But Anchinous the son of Alethes maketh conjecture that Philochristus had in his mind a certain Original Gospel (whether it were a book or tradition) of exceeding antiquity; whence also the holy Evangelists drew that part of their several relations which is common to the first three Gospels.[pg 438]IIHere again the writer of this history addeth nothing to our knowledge: for of all the words that Philo the Alexandrine uttereth to Philochristus, there is scarce one that may not be found in the writings of Philo, such as we now possess.The like observation also is to be made concerning that which Philochristus reporteth of the sayings of the Scribes: whereof there is scarce one but I have found it (or the like of it) among these sayings of the Teachers of Israel which have been handed down to us even to this day.15IIIWhereas Philochristus reporteth that a certain Scribe in his days spake of“eating the Messiah,”I find no such saying current in those days. But true it is that, many years afterwards, Rabbi Hillel (but this is not the same as Hillel the Great, who lived in the generation before Philochristus) said these words:“There is no Messiah for Israel, since they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah.”16Moreover the saying of Moses, how that the nobles of Israel“saw God and did eat and drink,”is, without doubt, explained by some of the Teachers among the Jews to mean that the Shekinah was as meat and drink to the nobles. But whether this saying was current in those days, or whether Philochristus erreth here also (as elsewhere), certain it is that many of the sayings of the Scribes reported by Philochristus were not made known nor published till very long after; and meseemeth he hath perverted the doctrine of the Scribes with intent to cause the reader to have them in derision.[pg 439]But Anchinous the son of Alethes saith that, howsoever the sayings of the Scribes (whereof Philochristus maketh mention) have not been handed down to us as spoken in those times; yet the cause is, saith Anchinous, that few sayings of those times have been preserved. But if they had been preserved, then, saith he, we should have found that Philochristus described the teaching of the Scribes with exactness; even as the Gospels also bear witness that the Scribes in those days strained at gnats but swallowed camels; and overmuch esteemed the tithing of mint and anise and cummin, and the purification of pots and platters; and counted an oath that was sworn by the gold of the Temple, as being weightier than an oath that was sworn by the Temple itself.IVHerein it is marvellous to see with what a persistence Philochristus cleaveth only unto that part of the first three Gospels which is common to all the three; so that one might go near to suppose that Anchinous was right, in that he conjectured that Philochristus doth this not by chance, but of set purpose; having before him, perchance, some book or tradition which contained no more than this. For whereas Philochristus saith that the women heard some mention made of Galilee, but what it was, they agreed not exactly among themselves: I will here set down, in order, the three relations:—1 (Saint Matthew, xxviii. 7)“And beholdhe goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: loI have told you.”2 (Saint Mark, xvi. 7)“He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, ashe saidunto you.”3 (Saint Luke, xxiv. 6)“Remember howhe spakeunto youwhile he was yet in Galilee.”But as to the Gospel of the holy Apostle John, I have not been able to find out whether any part of it were known to Philochristus. Howbeit Anchinous saith that Philochristus, although he make no mention[pg 440]of any of the acts, nor of the long discourses, nor set dialogues of that Gospel, nevertheless useth the doctrine of that Gospel as the foundation of the whole of his history. Notwithstanding, saith Anchinous, Philochristus seemeth not to attribute this doctrine to John the son of Zebedee (who ever speaketh after a different manner, and rather as one of the Sons of Thunder, or as the writer of the book of Revelation, than as the writer of the Fourth Gospel), but to Nathanael and Quartus.VHere Philochristus is unlike himself. For whereas he is wont for the most part to omit miracles, albeit the Gospels relate them, here on the other hand he inserteth one, albeit the Gospels omit it. Howbeit, true it is that the holy Apostle Paul seemeth, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, to make mention of some manifestation of the Lord Jesus to the holy Apostle James. And the same is mentioned in certain traditions.But it is to be noted that, in the whole relation of the Resurrection of Jesus, Philochristus departeth from his usual course. For he reporteth many manifestations whereof mention is not made in all the three Gospels, nor even in two, but in one only; and he speaketh of others also innumerable. Howbeit he maketh no mention of that manifestation wherein the Lord partook of fish and honey with the Disciples.LONDON: R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.Footnotes1.SeeNote II.2.SeeNote I.3.SeeNote I.4.SeeNote I.5.SeeNote I.6.SeeNote I.7.SeeNote I.8.SeeNote III.9.SeeNote I.10.SeeNote I.11.SeeNote IV.12.SeeNote IV.13.SeeNote V.14.They belong to the twenty traditional sayings“which seem to contain, in a more or less altered form, traces of words of our Lord.”—(Westcott’s Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 453).15.“Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,”by C. Taylor, M.A., published by the Cambridge University Press.16.Ibid. p. 74.Transcriber’s NoteVariations in hyphenation (e.g.“winebibber”,“wine-bibber”,“courtyard”,“court-yard”) or spelling have not been changed.Several missing quote marks have been added silently.Other changes, which have been made to the text:page 36,“waived”changed to“waved”page 67,“said, I”changed to“said I,”page 80,“Reedemer”changed to“Redeemer”page 103,“Nathaniel”changed to“Nathanael”page 205,“familar”changed to“familiar”page 374, comma removed after“this”page 378, double“be”removed after“thy will”page 417, period changed to comma after“led”

[pg 435]SCHOLIA[pg 437]SCHOLIAIThese words of the Lord Jesus are not indeed found in our Gospels; but they have been handed down by tradition.14Nor have I been able to find in the history of Philochristus any sayings of the Lord Jesus, save such as have been either handed down by tradition or else recorded in our Gospels.Moreover, the writer (as it seemeth to me, having diligently compared this history with the Gospels of the holy Evangelists Matthew and Mark and Luke) maketh mention of all such miracles as are found in all the three Gospels (though the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of the woman with the issue be but briefly mentioned): but if any miracle is found in one or in two Gospels only, concerning that he is silent. And this he seemeth to do not by chance, but of set purpose, as if he were minded to speak of those miracles only which are common to the first three Gospels. But Anchinous the son of Alethes maketh conjecture that Philochristus had in his mind a certain Original Gospel (whether it were a book or tradition) of exceeding antiquity; whence also the holy Evangelists drew that part of their several relations which is common to the first three Gospels.[pg 438]IIHere again the writer of this history addeth nothing to our knowledge: for of all the words that Philo the Alexandrine uttereth to Philochristus, there is scarce one that may not be found in the writings of Philo, such as we now possess.The like observation also is to be made concerning that which Philochristus reporteth of the sayings of the Scribes: whereof there is scarce one but I have found it (or the like of it) among these sayings of the Teachers of Israel which have been handed down to us even to this day.15IIIWhereas Philochristus reporteth that a certain Scribe in his days spake of“eating the Messiah,”I find no such saying current in those days. But true it is that, many years afterwards, Rabbi Hillel (but this is not the same as Hillel the Great, who lived in the generation before Philochristus) said these words:“There is no Messiah for Israel, since they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah.”16Moreover the saying of Moses, how that the nobles of Israel“saw God and did eat and drink,”is, without doubt, explained by some of the Teachers among the Jews to mean that the Shekinah was as meat and drink to the nobles. But whether this saying was current in those days, or whether Philochristus erreth here also (as elsewhere), certain it is that many of the sayings of the Scribes reported by Philochristus were not made known nor published till very long after; and meseemeth he hath perverted the doctrine of the Scribes with intent to cause the reader to have them in derision.[pg 439]But Anchinous the son of Alethes saith that, howsoever the sayings of the Scribes (whereof Philochristus maketh mention) have not been handed down to us as spoken in those times; yet the cause is, saith Anchinous, that few sayings of those times have been preserved. But if they had been preserved, then, saith he, we should have found that Philochristus described the teaching of the Scribes with exactness; even as the Gospels also bear witness that the Scribes in those days strained at gnats but swallowed camels; and overmuch esteemed the tithing of mint and anise and cummin, and the purification of pots and platters; and counted an oath that was sworn by the gold of the Temple, as being weightier than an oath that was sworn by the Temple itself.IVHerein it is marvellous to see with what a persistence Philochristus cleaveth only unto that part of the first three Gospels which is common to all the three; so that one might go near to suppose that Anchinous was right, in that he conjectured that Philochristus doth this not by chance, but of set purpose; having before him, perchance, some book or tradition which contained no more than this. For whereas Philochristus saith that the women heard some mention made of Galilee, but what it was, they agreed not exactly among themselves: I will here set down, in order, the three relations:—1 (Saint Matthew, xxviii. 7)“And beholdhe goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: loI have told you.”2 (Saint Mark, xvi. 7)“He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, ashe saidunto you.”3 (Saint Luke, xxiv. 6)“Remember howhe spakeunto youwhile he was yet in Galilee.”But as to the Gospel of the holy Apostle John, I have not been able to find out whether any part of it were known to Philochristus. Howbeit Anchinous saith that Philochristus, although he make no mention[pg 440]of any of the acts, nor of the long discourses, nor set dialogues of that Gospel, nevertheless useth the doctrine of that Gospel as the foundation of the whole of his history. Notwithstanding, saith Anchinous, Philochristus seemeth not to attribute this doctrine to John the son of Zebedee (who ever speaketh after a different manner, and rather as one of the Sons of Thunder, or as the writer of the book of Revelation, than as the writer of the Fourth Gospel), but to Nathanael and Quartus.VHere Philochristus is unlike himself. For whereas he is wont for the most part to omit miracles, albeit the Gospels relate them, here on the other hand he inserteth one, albeit the Gospels omit it. Howbeit, true it is that the holy Apostle Paul seemeth, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, to make mention of some manifestation of the Lord Jesus to the holy Apostle James. And the same is mentioned in certain traditions.But it is to be noted that, in the whole relation of the Resurrection of Jesus, Philochristus departeth from his usual course. For he reporteth many manifestations whereof mention is not made in all the three Gospels, nor even in two, but in one only; and he speaketh of others also innumerable. Howbeit he maketh no mention of that manifestation wherein the Lord partook of fish and honey with the Disciples.LONDON: R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.

SCHOLIA

IThese words of the Lord Jesus are not indeed found in our Gospels; but they have been handed down by tradition.14Nor have I been able to find in the history of Philochristus any sayings of the Lord Jesus, save such as have been either handed down by tradition or else recorded in our Gospels.Moreover, the writer (as it seemeth to me, having diligently compared this history with the Gospels of the holy Evangelists Matthew and Mark and Luke) maketh mention of all such miracles as are found in all the three Gospels (though the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of the woman with the issue be but briefly mentioned): but if any miracle is found in one or in two Gospels only, concerning that he is silent. And this he seemeth to do not by chance, but of set purpose, as if he were minded to speak of those miracles only which are common to the first three Gospels. But Anchinous the son of Alethes maketh conjecture that Philochristus had in his mind a certain Original Gospel (whether it were a book or tradition) of exceeding antiquity; whence also the holy Evangelists drew that part of their several relations which is common to the first three Gospels.

These words of the Lord Jesus are not indeed found in our Gospels; but they have been handed down by tradition.14Nor have I been able to find in the history of Philochristus any sayings of the Lord Jesus, save such as have been either handed down by tradition or else recorded in our Gospels.

Moreover, the writer (as it seemeth to me, having diligently compared this history with the Gospels of the holy Evangelists Matthew and Mark and Luke) maketh mention of all such miracles as are found in all the three Gospels (though the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of the woman with the issue be but briefly mentioned): but if any miracle is found in one or in two Gospels only, concerning that he is silent. And this he seemeth to do not by chance, but of set purpose, as if he were minded to speak of those miracles only which are common to the first three Gospels. But Anchinous the son of Alethes maketh conjecture that Philochristus had in his mind a certain Original Gospel (whether it were a book or tradition) of exceeding antiquity; whence also the holy Evangelists drew that part of their several relations which is common to the first three Gospels.

[pg 438]IIHere again the writer of this history addeth nothing to our knowledge: for of all the words that Philo the Alexandrine uttereth to Philochristus, there is scarce one that may not be found in the writings of Philo, such as we now possess.The like observation also is to be made concerning that which Philochristus reporteth of the sayings of the Scribes: whereof there is scarce one but I have found it (or the like of it) among these sayings of the Teachers of Israel which have been handed down to us even to this day.15

Here again the writer of this history addeth nothing to our knowledge: for of all the words that Philo the Alexandrine uttereth to Philochristus, there is scarce one that may not be found in the writings of Philo, such as we now possess.

The like observation also is to be made concerning that which Philochristus reporteth of the sayings of the Scribes: whereof there is scarce one but I have found it (or the like of it) among these sayings of the Teachers of Israel which have been handed down to us even to this day.15

IIIWhereas Philochristus reporteth that a certain Scribe in his days spake of“eating the Messiah,”I find no such saying current in those days. But true it is that, many years afterwards, Rabbi Hillel (but this is not the same as Hillel the Great, who lived in the generation before Philochristus) said these words:“There is no Messiah for Israel, since they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah.”16Moreover the saying of Moses, how that the nobles of Israel“saw God and did eat and drink,”is, without doubt, explained by some of the Teachers among the Jews to mean that the Shekinah was as meat and drink to the nobles. But whether this saying was current in those days, or whether Philochristus erreth here also (as elsewhere), certain it is that many of the sayings of the Scribes reported by Philochristus were not made known nor published till very long after; and meseemeth he hath perverted the doctrine of the Scribes with intent to cause the reader to have them in derision.[pg 439]But Anchinous the son of Alethes saith that, howsoever the sayings of the Scribes (whereof Philochristus maketh mention) have not been handed down to us as spoken in those times; yet the cause is, saith Anchinous, that few sayings of those times have been preserved. But if they had been preserved, then, saith he, we should have found that Philochristus described the teaching of the Scribes with exactness; even as the Gospels also bear witness that the Scribes in those days strained at gnats but swallowed camels; and overmuch esteemed the tithing of mint and anise and cummin, and the purification of pots and platters; and counted an oath that was sworn by the gold of the Temple, as being weightier than an oath that was sworn by the Temple itself.

Whereas Philochristus reporteth that a certain Scribe in his days spake of“eating the Messiah,”I find no such saying current in those days. But true it is that, many years afterwards, Rabbi Hillel (but this is not the same as Hillel the Great, who lived in the generation before Philochristus) said these words:“There is no Messiah for Israel, since they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah.”16Moreover the saying of Moses, how that the nobles of Israel“saw God and did eat and drink,”is, without doubt, explained by some of the Teachers among the Jews to mean that the Shekinah was as meat and drink to the nobles. But whether this saying was current in those days, or whether Philochristus erreth here also (as elsewhere), certain it is that many of the sayings of the Scribes reported by Philochristus were not made known nor published till very long after; and meseemeth he hath perverted the doctrine of the Scribes with intent to cause the reader to have them in derision.

But Anchinous the son of Alethes saith that, howsoever the sayings of the Scribes (whereof Philochristus maketh mention) have not been handed down to us as spoken in those times; yet the cause is, saith Anchinous, that few sayings of those times have been preserved. But if they had been preserved, then, saith he, we should have found that Philochristus described the teaching of the Scribes with exactness; even as the Gospels also bear witness that the Scribes in those days strained at gnats but swallowed camels; and overmuch esteemed the tithing of mint and anise and cummin, and the purification of pots and platters; and counted an oath that was sworn by the gold of the Temple, as being weightier than an oath that was sworn by the Temple itself.

IVHerein it is marvellous to see with what a persistence Philochristus cleaveth only unto that part of the first three Gospels which is common to all the three; so that one might go near to suppose that Anchinous was right, in that he conjectured that Philochristus doth this not by chance, but of set purpose; having before him, perchance, some book or tradition which contained no more than this. For whereas Philochristus saith that the women heard some mention made of Galilee, but what it was, they agreed not exactly among themselves: I will here set down, in order, the three relations:—1 (Saint Matthew, xxviii. 7)“And beholdhe goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: loI have told you.”2 (Saint Mark, xvi. 7)“He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, ashe saidunto you.”3 (Saint Luke, xxiv. 6)“Remember howhe spakeunto youwhile he was yet in Galilee.”But as to the Gospel of the holy Apostle John, I have not been able to find out whether any part of it were known to Philochristus. Howbeit Anchinous saith that Philochristus, although he make no mention[pg 440]of any of the acts, nor of the long discourses, nor set dialogues of that Gospel, nevertheless useth the doctrine of that Gospel as the foundation of the whole of his history. Notwithstanding, saith Anchinous, Philochristus seemeth not to attribute this doctrine to John the son of Zebedee (who ever speaketh after a different manner, and rather as one of the Sons of Thunder, or as the writer of the book of Revelation, than as the writer of the Fourth Gospel), but to Nathanael and Quartus.

Herein it is marvellous to see with what a persistence Philochristus cleaveth only unto that part of the first three Gospels which is common to all the three; so that one might go near to suppose that Anchinous was right, in that he conjectured that Philochristus doth this not by chance, but of set purpose; having before him, perchance, some book or tradition which contained no more than this. For whereas Philochristus saith that the women heard some mention made of Galilee, but what it was, they agreed not exactly among themselves: I will here set down, in order, the three relations:—

1 (Saint Matthew, xxviii. 7)“And beholdhe goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: loI have told you.”

2 (Saint Mark, xvi. 7)“He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, ashe saidunto you.”

3 (Saint Luke, xxiv. 6)“Remember howhe spakeunto youwhile he was yet in Galilee.”

But as to the Gospel of the holy Apostle John, I have not been able to find out whether any part of it were known to Philochristus. Howbeit Anchinous saith that Philochristus, although he make no mention[pg 440]of any of the acts, nor of the long discourses, nor set dialogues of that Gospel, nevertheless useth the doctrine of that Gospel as the foundation of the whole of his history. Notwithstanding, saith Anchinous, Philochristus seemeth not to attribute this doctrine to John the son of Zebedee (who ever speaketh after a different manner, and rather as one of the Sons of Thunder, or as the writer of the book of Revelation, than as the writer of the Fourth Gospel), but to Nathanael and Quartus.

VHere Philochristus is unlike himself. For whereas he is wont for the most part to omit miracles, albeit the Gospels relate them, here on the other hand he inserteth one, albeit the Gospels omit it. Howbeit, true it is that the holy Apostle Paul seemeth, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, to make mention of some manifestation of the Lord Jesus to the holy Apostle James. And the same is mentioned in certain traditions.But it is to be noted that, in the whole relation of the Resurrection of Jesus, Philochristus departeth from his usual course. For he reporteth many manifestations whereof mention is not made in all the three Gospels, nor even in two, but in one only; and he speaketh of others also innumerable. Howbeit he maketh no mention of that manifestation wherein the Lord partook of fish and honey with the Disciples.LONDON: R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.

Here Philochristus is unlike himself. For whereas he is wont for the most part to omit miracles, albeit the Gospels relate them, here on the other hand he inserteth one, albeit the Gospels omit it. Howbeit, true it is that the holy Apostle Paul seemeth, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, to make mention of some manifestation of the Lord Jesus to the holy Apostle James. And the same is mentioned in certain traditions.

But it is to be noted that, in the whole relation of the Resurrection of Jesus, Philochristus departeth from his usual course. For he reporteth many manifestations whereof mention is not made in all the three Gospels, nor even in two, but in one only; and he speaketh of others also innumerable. Howbeit he maketh no mention of that manifestation wherein the Lord partook of fish and honey with the Disciples.

LONDON: R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.

Footnotes1.SeeNote II.2.SeeNote I.3.SeeNote I.4.SeeNote I.5.SeeNote I.6.SeeNote I.7.SeeNote I.8.SeeNote III.9.SeeNote I.10.SeeNote I.11.SeeNote IV.12.SeeNote IV.13.SeeNote V.14.They belong to the twenty traditional sayings“which seem to contain, in a more or less altered form, traces of words of our Lord.”—(Westcott’s Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 453).15.“Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,”by C. Taylor, M.A., published by the Cambridge University Press.16.Ibid. p. 74.

Footnotes1.SeeNote II.2.SeeNote I.3.SeeNote I.4.SeeNote I.5.SeeNote I.6.SeeNote I.7.SeeNote I.8.SeeNote III.9.SeeNote I.10.SeeNote I.11.SeeNote IV.12.SeeNote IV.13.SeeNote V.14.They belong to the twenty traditional sayings“which seem to contain, in a more or less altered form, traces of words of our Lord.”—(Westcott’s Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 453).15.“Sayings of the Jewish Fathers,”by C. Taylor, M.A., published by the Cambridge University Press.16.Ibid. p. 74.

Transcriber’s NoteVariations in hyphenation (e.g.“winebibber”,“wine-bibber”,“courtyard”,“court-yard”) or spelling have not been changed.Several missing quote marks have been added silently.Other changes, which have been made to the text:page 36,“waived”changed to“waved”page 67,“said, I”changed to“said I,”page 80,“Reedemer”changed to“Redeemer”page 103,“Nathaniel”changed to“Nathanael”page 205,“familar”changed to“familiar”page 374, comma removed after“this”page 378, double“be”removed after“thy will”page 417, period changed to comma after“led”

Variations in hyphenation (e.g.“winebibber”,“wine-bibber”,“courtyard”,“court-yard”) or spelling have not been changed.

Several missing quote marks have been added silently.

Other changes, which have been made to the text:

Back to IndexNext