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:—
Barnabasc. ix.
[Greek: [kai ti legei;] Peritmaethaete to sklaeron taes kardias humon, kai ton trachaelon humon ou mae sklaerunaete.]
Jer.iv. 3, 4andvii. 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:—
Barnabasc. xi.
[Greek: [kai palin heteros prophaetaes legei] Kai aen hae gaeIakob epainoumenae para pasan taen gaen.]
Zeph. iii. 19.
[Greek: kai thaesomai autous eis kauchaema kai onomastous en pasae tae gae.]
Barnabasc. 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.| variant._ | || | |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.| variant._ | || | |Polycarp, | 2. Ps. 2.11. | |Ad. Phil.| | || | |10. Tob. 4.11. | | |}12. Ps. 4.4; | | |}in Latinbut 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.|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| | | exactness.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| | | gegraptai].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 SecondApology does not appear to contain any quotations either from theOld or New Testament.
Exact.| _Slightly |Variant.|Remarks.| variant._ | | | | | |Apol. 1.59, Gen. | | | 1.1-3. | | Dial. 62, Gen. 1. | | | 26-28. | | | |Dial. 102, Gen. | |free quotation | 3.15. | | (Credner). D.62, Gen. 3.22. | | | |D.127, Gen. | | | 7.16. | | |D.139, Gen. 9. | | | 24-27. | | |D.127, Gen. 11.5. | |free quotation | | | (Cr.) D.102, Gen. 11.6. | | | |D.92, Gen. 15.6. | |free quotation | | | (Cr.) | |Dial.10, +Gen. | | | 17.14. | 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. | 33. | | | +Gen. 19. 1, 10, | | | 16-28 (om. 26). | |marked exactness | | | in the whole | | | passage. D.56, Gen. 21. | | | 9-12. | | | D.120, Gen. 26.4. | | | D.58, Gen. 28. | | | 10-12. | | | |D.58, +(v.l.) Gen. | | | 28. 13-19. | | | +(v.l.) Gen. 31. | | | 10-13. | | | |D.59, Gen. 35.1. |free quotation | | | (Cr.) 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 | | | (Cr.) |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 | | | (Cr.) | |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. | | | 23. | | | |A.1.60 (or. obl.), |free (Cr.) | | D. 94, Num. 21. | | | 8,9. | |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 | | | (Cr.) 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.) 16-23. | | | D. 130, Deut. 32. | | | 43 (v.l.) | | | |D. 91, +Deut. 33. | | | 13-17. | | A.1. 40, Ps. 1 and| | |parts repeated. 2 entire. | | | |D.97, Ps. 3. 5, 6. | |repeated, more | | | freely. 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 | | | Credner. D.97 ff., Ps. 22. | | |quoted as 1-23. | | |wholePsalm | | | (bis). D.133 ff., Ps. 24 | | | entire. | | | |D.141, Ps. 32. 2. | | D.38, Ps. 45.1-17.| | |parts repeated. D.37, Ps. 47.6-9. | | | D.22, Ps. 49 | | | entire. | | | | |D.34} |{from Eph. 4.8, | |D.37} Ps. 68.8. |{ Targum. D.34, Ps. 72 | | | entire. | | | D. 124, Ps. 82 | | | entire. | | | 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.) entire. | | | | |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. | 1.16-30. | | | |D.82, Is. 1. 23. |from memory A.1. 39, Is. 2. | | | (Cr.) 3,4. | | | |D.135, Is. 2. 5,6. | |Targum (Cr.) D. 133, Is. 3. | | | 9-15 (v.l.) | | | | |D.27, Is. 3.16. |free quotation | | | (Cr.) |D.133, Is. 5. 18- | |repeated. | 25 (v.l.) | | |D.43 (66), Is. 7. | |repeated, with | 10-17 (v.l.) | | slight | | | variation. | | 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, | | | 25+. | | | |D.78, Is. 29.13,14.| |repeated (v.l), | | | partly from | | | memory. 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, | | | 40.1-17. | | | | |D.125} Is.42.1-4. |{cf. Matt. 12. | |D.135} |{ 17-21, | | | Targum (Cr.) D.65, Is. 42.6-13 | | | (v.l.) | | | | |D.122, Is. 42.16. |free (Cr.) |D.123, Is. 42.19, | | | 20. | | D.122, Is. 43.10. | | | | |A.1.52, Is. 45. |cf. Rom. 14.11. | | 24 (v.l.) | D.121, Is. 49.6 | | | (v.l.) | | | D.122, Is. 49.8 | | | (v.l.) | | | |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 | | | (v.l.) | | | D.12, Is. 5 2, | | | 10-15, 53.1-12, | | | 54.1-6. | | | |A.1. 50, Is. 52. | | | 13-53.12. | | | |D.138, Is. 54.9. |very free. D.14, Is. 55.3-13.| |[D.12, Is. 55. 3-5.|from memory | | | (Cr.)] 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 | | |[Greek: | | | sussaemon]. 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 | | | (Cr.) 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 | | | combination; | | | cf. Barn. 2. |D.28, Jer. 4.3, 4 | | | (v.l.) | | | |D.23, Jer. 7.21,22.|free quotation | | | (Cr.) |D. 28, Jer. 9.25,26|[A.1.53, Jer. 9.26.|quoted freely | | | as from | | | Isaiah.] |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 | | | Jeremiah, | | | which is not | | | recognisable | | | in our present | | | texts. | |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. | | | 19-26. | | | D.123, Ezek. 36. | | | 12. | | | | |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.| variant._ | || |D.19, Hos. 1.9. || |D.102, Hos.10.6. |referred to| | | trial before| | | Herod (Cr.)| |D.87, Joel 2.28. |from memory| | | (Cr.)|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| | | (Cr.)|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 | || (v.l.) | || |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| | | (Cr.)|D.61, +Prov. 8. | |coincidence| 21-36. | | with Ire-| | | naeus.
[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.| variant._ | |I. Praef. Matt. 10.26.| | |I.3.2,Matt. 5.18. | | |quoted from| | | GnosticsI.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.| 26.39. | || |I.8.2, John 12.27. |the same.| |I.8.3, Luke |the same.| | 9.57,58. || |I.8.3, Luke |the same.| | 9.61,62. ||I.8.3, Luke | |the same.| 9.60. | ||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.(v.l.) | | |I.8.5, John 1.1,2. | | |the same.I.8.5, John 1.3 | | |the same.(v.l.) | | |I.8.5, John 1.4. | | |the same.(v.l.) | | || |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-| | | ferently.]| |[I.14.1. Matt. |Marcus.| | 18.10,al.] ||[I.16.1, Luke | |Marcosians.| 15.8,al.]| || |[I.16.3, Matt. |the same.| | 12,43,al.] ||I.20.2, Luke | |the same.| 2.49. | || |I.20.2, Mark 10.18.|['memoriter'-| | | Stieren; but| | | comp. Clem.| | | Hom. and| | | and Justin.]|I.20.2, Matt. | |Marcosians.| 21.23.| || |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.| 10.36. | |III.11.8, John | | |1.1-3 (?). | | |III.11.8, Matt. | | |1.1,18 (v.l.)| | ||III.11.8, Mark | |omissions.| 1.1,2. | |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. | || 13.25. | |V.17.4, Matt. 3.10. | | || |V.36.2, John 14.2 || | (or obl.) || |Fragm. 14, Matt. || | 15.17. |
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.| Variant._ | | 426A, Matt. 1.1; | | | Matt. 1.18, | | | (v.l.) | | | |426BC, Matt. | |abridged, diver- | 1.18-25+.| | gent in middle. | |430B, Matt. 2.13. |Porphyry & Celsus. | |44C, Matt. 5.34,37| |59C, Matt. | | | 5.17,18.| | 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. | 9.17,16.| | |71B, Matt. 10.33.| |Basilidians. |274B, Matt. | | | 10.16.| | 88A, Matt. 11.7. |143B, Matt. | |Gnostics. | 11.18.| | |254B, Matt. | |Marcosians. | 11.28.| | | |139AB, Matt. |Ebionites. | | 12.48 sqq. (v.l.)| 174C, Matt. 10.26.| | | | |464B, Matt. |Theodotus. | | 12.31,32.| |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. | | 13.24-30,37-39.| | |152B, Matt. 5.27. | |59CD, Matt. | | | 19.10-12.| | |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. | | | 23.15. | | |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. | | | 9-11. | | |279D, Matt. 26.24.| | |390B, Matt. 21.33,| | | par. | |50A, Matt. 28.19.| | |427B, Mark 1.1,2.| | | (v.1.)| | |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. | | | 26-39. |
[These last five quotations have already been given under Irenaeus, whomEpiphanius 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.| 38,39| |384B, John 1.1-3. | | |148A, John 1.23. | | ||148B, John | || 2.16,17.| ||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 || | 17.11,12.||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 ChrysostomOn 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.