' ' ©ospeL iSccoRDins GO 5l}e |)gbrgws '^-^ Gowi^RD B. Ric^olson wi86S mdn fS'SO : THE GOSPEL ACCOBDING TO THE HEBREWS THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS ITS FRAGMENTS TRANSLATED AND ANNOTATED CRITICAL ANALYSIS OP THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO IT EY EDWAED BYEON NICHOLSON, M.A. LATE SCHOLAR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD PRINCIPAL LIBRARIAN AND SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LONDON INSTITUTION LONDON 0. KEGAN PAUL & CO., 1 PATERNOSTER SQUARE 1879 (JIhe rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved) TO THE EEV. HENEY HALL-HOUGHTON, M.A. (without knowing HtM OE ASKING HIS LEAVE) AS THE FIEST OUTCOME OF STUDIES TO WHICH I WAS LED BY HIS FOUNDATION, JOINTLY WITH THB LATE BET. JOHN HALL, B.D., OP THB HALL-HOUGHTON PRIZES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFOED EOBEWOEDS. In writing an illustrative commentary (which will be pub lished next January) upon the Gospel according to Matthew, I had to quote those fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews which answer to Matt. vi. 11 and xxiii. 85. This involved some notice of that work, and, as critical opinion about it was by no means unanimous, I resolved to make a full examination of it in an appendix. The appendix, however, soon became very awkwardly long, and was more over entirely out of character with the nature of my com mentary ; so that I determined to put it forth as a separate book. No apologies need be made for doing this. Hilgenfeld's edition shows that even in Germany the subject is far from worked out; while the passage of * twenty-six lines in Professor Westcott's Canon of the New Testament which pur ports to present the opinions of antiquity about this lost Gospel, and which has been reprinted without change twice if not three times since the appearance of Hilgenfeld's edition, shows that in England even Hilgenfeld is all but unknown. I have aimed at accuracy and logical method, and have no excuses to make if I have fallen short of these aims. As regards completeness, I have not indeed spent a lifetime in ransacking the entire body of early Christian literature, or even Syriac literature, in search of undiscovered quotations * See A-pfeiidix A, ' Prof. Westcott's Statement of the External Evidence.' viii Foi^ewords. from and notices of the Gospel according to the Hebrews: nay, I have not tried to acquaint myself with what has been said by every modern, even every German writer upon the subject. I have, indeed, presumed that Hilgenfeld would have gathered from his forerunners whatever was worth gathering in the way of illustr3,tion, and theory I did not want. With these reservations I think I may claim to have studied completeness. For the style of my translations I must ask indulgence. Scrupulous exactness was so important that I have tried t be as literal as might be without being altogether unreadable. One thing I do most earnestly beg, that no one will be prejudiced against the claims of the Fragments to genuine evangelical origin by their look in their English dress. H, however, the Greek is read as well, or the notes containing a verbal analysis, or if the equally literal translations made by me from the canonical Gospels are compared, I have no fear of any such prejudice arising. To any one who may have read and liked a little book in which I expressed certain views about English writing, and in which I tried to carry out those views as far as I dared, I must also excuse the general style of the work : it was written before, though published after the other, and I have had no time to write it over again. It is important to add in what spirit I have written. The subject is one on which it is almost impossible to be without a fore bias. One may be biased against the Gospel according to the Hebrews by its absence from the Canon or by suspicion of the sects who used it. One may be biased for it by hostility to the Canon, by belief in an Aramaic original of the Gospel according to Matthew, by prepossessions in favour of the Nazarenes, by some of the Fragments them selves, and by a wish to recover some genuine part of the lost mass of early evangelic literature. I wish to say that I have been biased by every one of this latter class of influences except the first. But I have done my best to overcome this Forewords. ix bias, and have been painfully anxious to state nothing as probable which was not so, and nothing as certain which was only highly probable. Nor can I see what other deduc tions it was possible to make from the evidence before me. If a copy of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or of either of Jerome's translations of it, should ever be recovered — which, judging from the recoveries of the last forty years, is by no means out of the question^my hypothesis might be blown to the winds. But I do not see how any other hypo thesis was nearly so probable on the evidence presented by the existing Fragments taken in conjunction with the exist ing evidence of ancient writers. I have had much help from the thirty -three pages given to this Gospel by Hilgenfeld in Fasciculus IV. of his Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum (Lips. 1866). His ex amination of the external evidence is, however, but a sketch, while his internal evidence (scattered through the notes) is for the most part, I think, quite destitute of value. He sees almost everywhere a form of narrative earlier than that of the Greek Matthew, but his reasons seem to me in the highest degree fanciful. There is no approach to syste matic verbal analysis, and the impetuosity of judgement which affirms* that the Gospel according to the Hebrews offers to those who are investigating the origin of the canonical Gospels the long sought ' pimctum Archimedis ' is characteristic of the entire work. But I have had from it much help in many ways which I might not have got, at least without great trouble, from other sources, and I record the above criticisms only that those who cannot compare the two works may not suspect me of much greater indebt edness than I like to acknowledge. I must also acknowledge a heavy debt to his sections on the Gospel according to Peter, * ' Hebraeornm evangclium nobis evangeliorum originem in- vestigantibus etiam nunc Archimedis punctum praebet, quod, tot viri docti in evangelic secundum Mai-cum frustra quaesiverunt,' p. 13. X Forewords. the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Traditions of Matthias, and the Preaching of Peter and Paul. I do not know that Supernatural Religion (to the 4th ed. of which I always refer) contained anything of use to me which I did not afterwards find in Hilgenfeld: but 1 consulted it earlier and found it at the time very useful — it is indeed a valuable treasury of quotations from and references to early Christian literature. While making this acknow ledgement I feel bound also to speak very plainly of the manner in which the writer has conducted his attempt to discredit the use of the canonical Gospels before the latter half of the second century. His omission and distor tion of contrary evidence, and his dogmatic assertion of the wildest inferences, are so constant that if he be not alto gether dishonest he must be prejudiced to a degree absolutely insane. I say this not merely from a comparison between his book and books on the other side, but from personal investigation of the sources of his very frequent statements respecting the Gospel according to the Hebrews — the early use of which he exaggerates most unwarrantably. Let no one think that the terms in which I have spoken of him are, in however slight a measure, coloured by odium theologicum. I hold that, whatever a man believes or disbelieves, if his conclusions are based on a full and, according to his own conscience, a fair examination of all the evidence at his command, he is not only none the worse but is far more to be esteemed than if he had sought to keep his own peace of mind or the approval of others by strangling his doubts in their birth. Nor do I wish to stop those who have not read Supernatural Eeligion from reading it : by all means let him do so who wills. But for the love of truth let him afterwards read Bishop Lightfoot's articles in the Contem porary Review for 1875 and Dr. Sanday's Gospels in the Second Century. The Eev. S. Baring- Gould's Lost and Hostile Gospels yielded me some illustrations of Fr. 29. Forewords. xi To M. Nicolas's Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes I owe some facts and references about the Elkesaites. I am much indebted to the abovementioned writings of Bishop Lightfoot and Dr. Sanday: all my debts to them will, I hope, be found duly acknowledged. And, although in Professor Westcott's Canon of the New Testament the wish seems to me too often father to the thought, I am by no means without obligations to it. The chapter on Justin, for example, was of itself enough to convince me that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was not one and the same work with Justin's ' memoirs of the Apostles.' Professor Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels and my friend Mr. J. Theodore Dodd's handy and very cheap collection of Sayings ascribed to our Lord have given me much help in compiling Appendix H, ' Probable or Possible Fragments ' ; and I owe my warmest thanks to the Rev. W. H. Lowe for sending me his Fragment of Talmud Bdbli P'sachim : it has changed my view of Fr. 34 and Fr. 35 in Appendix H, apart from supplying my translation and most of my illustrations of them. I will here add that the only reason why I have not included the saying ascribed to Jesus by Eabbi Eliezer, also quoted by Mr. Lowe (p. 70), is that, although there is to my mind no doubt that the saying is genuine, there is also no evidence, and I think not much likelihood, of its having been reported in any Gospel. I call attention to it here because it gives an interesting glimpse of Jesus the Eabbi, answering strange puzzles suggested out of the words of the law by his scholars. Cureton's notes to the edition of his Syriac Gospels have been most useful in pointing out to me correspondences between their text and that of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The apparatus criticus of the New Testament text which I have used is that of Tischendorf 's last edition ; but the analysis of evidence for and against John vii. 53-viii. 11 is chiefly based on Dr. Scrivener's detailed exposition of it. xii Forewords. For the verbal analysis of the Fragments I have of course used Bruder's Concordance. Not knowing any Aramaic, I have asked of my friend the Eev. Dr. Hermann Adler, the well known Eabbi of the Bayswater Synagogue, such questions as my written autho rities left me in doubt about, and I most gratefully acknow ledge his unvarying readiness to give me every information, and his very kind interest in my work. To my fellow librarians, Mr. E. Harrison of the London Library, the Eev. T. Hunter of Dr. Williams's, and the Eev. W. H. Milman of Sion College I owe thanks for many faci lities accorded me. Lastly, and very far indeed from leastly, I thank with all my heart the subscribers without whom I dared not chance the publication of my work. Specially thankful ought I to be to those many high dignitaries of the Church of England who, in the interests, of critical theology, gave their patronage to a book of whose conclusions and a writer of whose religious opinions they knew nothing^simply trusting in the statement of my prospectus that I entered this field of literature ' in the cause neither of orthodox tradition nor of its impugners.' I hope that they and all others who read the book will find nothing in it to make them suspect the sincerity of that statement, nothing to make them suspect that it has been, even unconsciously, influenced by any religious opinions whatever. London Institution, October, 1879. SYNOPSIS. PAET I. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. PAOE Scope and method of the present work 1 Evidence of Ibenaeus 1 „ Clement of Alexandeia . 3 „ Origen . ... 3 „ EusEBiirs 5 „ „ to the use of thia Gospel by HBGtEaippTrs . . 6 Does Eusebius bear witness to its use by Papias ? .... 7 Evidence of Epiphanius concerning the Nazarene text . . . . 8 „ „ „ Ebionite text . . . .10 Was the Ebionite Gospel written iu Greek or extant in a Greek version ? 10 Explanation of the various beginnings of the Ebionite Gosp el . .15 Evidence of Jeeomb 17 „ „ respecting Oeigen's use of this Gospel . . .19 Julian the Pelagian refers to Jerome and this Gosp el . . . . 22 Theodoee of Mopsuestia accuses Jerome of forging it . . . .22 Evidence of Thbodoebi 22 „ B.aBDA .... 23 „ NiEBPHOEUS ... 23 Sedulius Scotus quotes it 23 Quotations from it in Oodex Tischendorfianus III 24 Not the same as the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles . . 24 Summary, 26 XIV Synopsis. PAET II. THE FRAGMENTS. Arranged in correspondence with the Gospel according to Matthew. Note Fr. 1, Ebionite preface . Fr. 2=Matt, ii. 5 . Fr. 3 = Matt. ii. 15 Fr. 4 = Matt. ii. 23 . Fr. 6 = Matt. iii. 1-7 . Fr. 6 = Matt. iii. Fr. 7 = Matt. iii. 13-17. Fr. 8 = Matt. iii. (end) Fr. 9 = Matt. iv. 6 Fr. 10 = Matt. V. 22? Fr. ll=Matt. V.24? . Fr. 12 = Matt. vi. 11. Fr. 13 = Matt. x. 25 . Fr. 14 = Matt. X.? . Fr. 15 = Matt. xii. 10 . Fr. 16 = Matt. xii. 47-50 Fr. 17 = Matt. XV. 24 . Fr. 18 = Matt. xvi. 17 PAGE PAGE 28 Fr. 19 = Matt. xviii. 22. . . 48 . . 28 Fr. 20 = Matt. xix. 16-24 . 49 . 31 Fr. 21 = Matt. xxi. 9 . 51 . . 31 Fr. 22 = (Matt. xxi. end P) John . 32 vii. 53-viii. 11 52 . . 33 Fr. 23 = Matt, xxiii. 35 . 59 . 36 Fr. 24 = Matt. xxv. 14-30. 59 . . 38 Fr. 25 = Matt. xxvi. 17, 18 . 60 . 43 Fr. 26 = Matt. xxvi. 74 . 61 . . 43 Fr. 27= Matt, xxvii. 16 61 . 44 Fr. 28 = Matt, xxvii. 61 . 62 . . 44 Fr. 29 = Matt, xxviii. (1 Cor. . 44 XV. 7) 62 . . 45 Fr. 30 = (Matt, xxviii.) Liike . 45 xxiv. 39 . . . 68 . . 46 Fr. 31 . 74 . 46 Fr. 32 . 77 . . 47 Fr. 33 . . 77 . 48 PAET III. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Character of this Gospel 7g 0 ontrasts with Apocryphal Gospels 78 Heretical corruptions of Epiphanius's Ebionite copy . . .78 Absence of such evidence against other copies 79 Estimate of the moral nature of Jesus and the extent ofhis knowledge 79 Synopsis. xv PAGE The Holy Spirit as the ' mother ' of Jesus 79 Limited inspiration of the prophets . . . . 81 An ti-Ebionite view of their divine mission . . . . 81 Jerome's doctrinal acceptance of this Gospel 82 Application of similar tests to the canonical Gospels . . . . 82 The Nazarenes as described by Mansel and Neander . . .84 2. Relations to other works . . 86 (a) Uncanonical — ... . . . . 86 The Preaching of Peter ... .86 The Gospel according to Peter . .... 86 (6) Canonical — ... 90 Critical analysis of each fragment 91 Summary of results 98 Not compiled from Matthew and Luke .... 101 Not the basis of Matthew or Luke 103 Writer's theory of identity of authorship with Matthew . 103 Modern parallels 104 Temporary and partial purposes of the canonical Gospels . 104 The note-book theory of Gospel-authorship . . . . 105 Writer's theory of relation to Luke 105 Chronological relation to the canonical Matthew . . . 106 Hai-mony of the writer's theory with the Papiast and Erasmian views 107 General harmony of the external and internal evidence . . . . 108 Position of this Gospel in the second century 110 Note on the methods and results of the author of Supernatural Religion 110 Where other fragments of it may be hid 112 ADDENDA. Comparison of Eusebius with Ikenaeus 113 Nikephoeus Oaulisius 113 Further note on Fr. 21 114 'Marcianus' 115 Length of the Gospel according to the Hebrews 116 xvi Synopsis. APPENDICES. . PAGE A. Professor Westcott's statement of the external evidence . . . 117 B. Papias and Matthew 122 0. The Gospel of Carpoci'ates and Kerinthus ..... 124 D. Tatian's Diatessaron 126 E. Justin's ' memoirs of the Apostles ' 133 F. Analysis of external and internal evidence for and against the genuineness of John vii. 53-viii. 11 . 135 G. Jesus Bar-Abba 141 H. Probable or possible fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews (with preliminary note on the quotations in the ' Second Epistle of Clement ' and the Clementine Homilies) . . . . 143 THE GOSPEL ACCOEDING TO THE HEBREWS. oiOio THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. ' The Gospel according to the Hebrews ' is the name of a Gospel of which only some thirty known fragments have come down to our day. It is my object to gather and examine the statements and opinions of ancient writers about this lost Gospel ; to arrange, translate, and illustrate its frag ments ; lastly, to analyse the internal evidence presented by the fragments, and, comparing it with the external evidence, to see whether it enables us to shape any likely hypothesis as to the character and origin of the work to which they be longed. *Ieenaeus is the first extant writer Avho refers to the Gospel according to the Hebrews. To make his reference intelligible it is needful first to say that the early Church be lieved Matthew to have written his Gospel in ' Hebrew,'! * Bom and educated in Asia about 120-40 a.d., pupil of Poly carp and Papias, made Bishop of Lyon in 177, still living in 197, supposed to have been martyred in 202, t The real Hebrew had long been a dead speech, but the name was commonly given to Syro-Ohaldaic, or Aramaic— as it is now generally termed. Thus, in Acts xxi. 40 and xxii. 2, Paul is said to have spoken to the people ' in the Hebrew tongue,' and Jerome, who speaks of the Gospel according to the Hebrews as ' written indeed in the Chaldee and Syriac language, but with Hebrew letters ' (Dial. adv. Pelag. lib. iii.), elsewhere speaks of it as 'written in the Hebrew language ' (Co-mm. in Isai. lib. iv. — on Is. xi. 2). B 2 Tlu Gospel according to the Hebrews. that is, Aramaic. Papias, who can scarcely have written later, and may have written a good deal earlier, tha.n 140 a.d.,* says that ' Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew speech, and each interpreted them as he was able.' f AU other ancient writers agree with Papias. % ' Of the Greek translator they say nothing, but no one suggests that it was Matthew himself,' says Tregelles (Home's Introduction, iv. 420). Irenaeus, then, writing about 180-90 a.d., says of the Ebionites, a Palestinian sect, that ' they use that Gospel only which is according to Matthew.' § We shall hereafter see that the Gospel of the Ebionites was the Gospel according to the Hebrews, that it was in Aramaic, was attributed to Matthew, and was in existence at the time when Irenaeus wrote. In a second place Irenaeus again speaks of the Ebionites as ' using that Gospel only which is according to Matthew.' 1| It is quite clear, therefor, that he believed * His date will be considered when we come to the evidence of Eusebius. t MarSatos \i.iv ovv 'E/3pat3i SioXek™ ra \dyia avvt-ypa-ipaTO ' ilpfirfyeucre S' aura 6TOs iKTEQiiKE Slo. tovtwv (Hist. Bccl. iii. 39). tt It is equally correct to construe ' some strange parables of the Saviour and teachings of his, and other things of a somewhat fabu lous character.' But, as Eusebius quotes in example Papias's state ments respecting the millennium, and attributes them to his mis understanding the accounts of the Apostles, it seems natural to suppose that he distinguishes the ' fabuloQS ' element from ' the un. known parables and teachings of Jesus.' 8 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. have been already mentioned a tradition which he has published in their name concerning Mark the writer of the Gospel.' Eusebius then gives Papias's very sober accounts of Mark and Matthew, adds that he quoted passages from the First Epistle of John and the First of Peter, and then says ' And he has published also another relation of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains.' * Now he does not say that Papias quoted the story from this Gospel, but only that he told a story which it contains. Still he does not say ' which the Gospel according to the Hebrews also contains,' and at any rate it is clear that a story there found was at- least as old as the time of a mant who can hardly have written later than 140 a.d., and was seemingly told by that man as authentic. It will be seen that in the above passage Eusebius men tions the Gospel according to the Hebrews immediately after four canonical books. He may, however, be only giving a list of the literature, whether scriptural or not, with which Papias appeared to be acquainted, as contrasted with the 'unwritten tradition' from which he drew so largely. Still even in this case we might have expected him to imply some distinction between this Gospel and the canonical books had he looked on it as spurious. But that he did not so look on it is to my mind clear enough from other passages given above. J Epiphanius foUows Eusebius in point of date. Like * 'Etrtflfirat St icat aXXjji' lirropiav -irepl yvvaiKbc eVi TroXXalc auap- TiaiQ Sia/iX-rjOEiaris ettI tuv Kvpiov, fjv ro KaO' 'Ej3paiovQ 'EvayyiXiov -iTEptixEi (Hist. Bed. iii. 39). t Bishop hightioot,m ihe Gont. Bev. for Aug. 1875, shows thatthe compiler of the Chroniaon Pascale who states that Papias was mar tyred A.D. 164 has named him in mistake for Papylus. Prom the facts that Papias was a hearer of Aristion and the Elder John, that he knew the daughters of Philip, that he is called tbe companion of Polycarp, and that Eusebius discusses him before Polycarp, Bishop Lightfoot fairly concludes that he ' was probably born about a.d. 60-70.' + Wrote in 376 AD. Eusebius {Papias). Epiphanius. g Hegesippus he was of Jewish birth, and, like Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, he had spent much time in Pales tine. Epiphanius, then, speaking of the Nazarenes, says, § ' And they have the Gospel according to Matthew, very full, in Hebrew. For assuredly this is still kept among them, as it was at outset written, in Hebrew letters. But I do not know whether, || at the same time, they have taken away the genealogies from Abraham to Christ.' It will be shown by and by from the writings of Jerome that the Nazarenes used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, that this was written in Hebrew letters, and that it was regarded by ' very many ' or ' most ' (plerique) as according to Matthew. Epiphanius fancied that the genealogies might be want ing, because he had found them absent from Ebionite copies, and it is not creditable to him that at his see of Salamis in Cyprus he did not take the trouble of getting information on this point from his friends in Syria. It is clear that, if he had ever seen a Nazarene copy of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, he had not examined it properly, and his evidence must be taken as mere hearsay. Still it is the hearsay of a man who must have heard the Nazarene Gospel many times spoken of in the countries in which his life was spent, and who was so bitter a foe to § "E^outri Si TO Kara M-arOaiov EvayyiXiov TrX-qpiaraTOv 'Efipaiari' -n-ap' avToie yap (rafwc tovto, Kadi>Q i^ apxVC Eypa.(p-ri, 'EfipaiKoie ypa/i- aaaiv 'in (Taiftrai. OuK olSa Se el Kal r'aq yevEaXoyiaq tciq r'nrb 'Ajipahfi a-)(pi XpirTTOv TTEpiElXov (Haer. xxix. 9). II Kat, ' also.' ' They too ' (like the Ebionites) would of course require Kai avrol. I was tempted to render ' And I do not know whether they have even &c.,' but Kal cannot mean ' so much as,' which would be the meaning of ' even ' in this case : Madvig's Qreeic Syntax and Winer's Gra-inmar give no such instance. Bishop Ellicott (quoted in a note by Dr. Moulton on p. 544 of his 1877 edi tion of Winer) does indeed reckon among the uses of Kai in the New Testament a ' descensive ' use — referring to Gal. iii. 4 and Eph. v. 12. But in Gal. iii. 4 this interpretation is needless aud is rejected by (for example) Bishop Lightfoot, while in Eph. v. 12 Kai Xiyeiv, 'even to speak of,' although it can be paraphrased by ' so much as to speak of,' means at its root ' not only to take part in and witness, but ALSO to speak of.' IO The Gospel according to the Hebrews. sectarians that he would not have faUed to remember and record anything which he had heard to its prejudice. He goes on to speak of the Ebionites : ' And these too re ceive the Gospel according to Matthew ; for this they too, as also the Kerinthians and Merinthians, use to the exclusion of the rest. And they call it " according to the Hebrews," to teU the truth because Matthew alone in the New Cove nant set both the exposition and preaching of the Gospel in Hebrew speech and Hebrew characters.' * Presently he goes off at a tangent into a long story of a Jew named Joseph, who found in a library ' the Gospel accord ing to John translated from Greek into Hebrew speech, and the Acts of the Apostles — nevertheless after these reading also that according to Matthew, which was an original Hebrew work. ' t He then observes that he has been led into this digression by the mention of Matthew's Gospel, and comes back to speak of the Ebionites. Epiphanius, therefor, although he knew of two books of the New Testament having been translated into Hebrew, never for a moment had any idea that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was a translation from the Greek. It is in connexion with these two passages that we shall find it most convenient to consider the question of the lan- * Kat Si-xovTai piv Kal avTol ro Kara MarSaioc EuayyeXtoi'' tovtw yap Kal avTol, we Kal ol Kara Krjpitdov Kal ^fipivdov, xpwvrai povw. KaXovOi Si aiiTO ' Kara 'E/3patouc,' w£ to. aXrjBij iarlv eI-keIv otl Mar- BaloQ povoQ 'Eppu'iOTl Kal 'Ejipa"iKoie ypappaipETai on k.t.X. (Haer. xxx. 13). X The Greek is given in a note to Fragment 5. Hilgenfeld re proves Dindorf for editing Kai iyevETO 'Iwanj/e ' "And John began." ' He says that it should be Koi iyivETo 'Iwavvrig ' and — " John began," ' connecting ' and ' with tbe words ' it is contained that' which in troduce the Preface. Bat after so long an intervening quotation as the Preface a longer connecting link would have been used for clearness — such as ' and then it says.' We shall see moreover that this ' and ' seems to have a connexion with Matt. iii. 1. § In the passage which he has just quoted he gives the word as ' oil ' not ' honey.' This variation is explained in a note to Fr. 5. II Ebionaeorum evangelium primitus graece scriptum esse apparet (36). 14 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. aKplSss, ahrides (nom. pi.), in the passage given by Epi phanius it is eyKph, eghris (nom. sing.) : the two are not so very much alike after all, and Epiphanius may merely have meant that one thing was substituted for another thing, and not one word for another word. Yet. I confess to thinking that the latter interpretation is the more likely. But, in a passage quoted in the note to Fr. 25, he accuses the Ebionites of having interpolated in a certain verse not only the word ptj, but the two letters p, and rj. Here at least his meaning is clear, and we must either believe that he was criticizing his own translated quotations as if they were the original, or else that the Ebionite Gospel according to the Hebrews existed in a Greek form. I do not regard the former of these alternatives as alto gether absurd,* but the latter is of course the more likely — especially as we know that the Ebionites put forward lengthy works in Greek two centuries before the time at which Epi phanius wrote. Epiphanius goes on to say : ' And the beginning of their Gospel has it that " It came to pass in the days of Herod the King of Judaea there came John baptizing a baptism of repentance in the Jordan river ; who was said to be of the family of Aaron the priest, son of Zacharias and Elisabet. And all men came out to him." And after much more it adds that " when the people had been baptized " 't — the rest of the quotation will be found under Fr. 7. Epiphanius presently quotes the beginning of the Ebionite * Let the voice of the encyclopaedias be heard. The Bne. Britan nica says that Epiphanius ' was utterly destitute of critical and logical power ' ; the English Bne. that ' as a bitter controversialist, he often resorts to nntrue arguments for the refutation of heretics ' ; and Ghamhers's Bne. that his ' want of honesty ' is ' excessive.' t 'H Si apx') 'TOV Tap' avTo'ig EvayyEXiov e^ei on ''EyivETo iv Talg ripipatg 'llpwSov roi) fiamXiwc rije 'louSatac -/jKBev 'Iwavvrjc pa-irTi^wv fiaTTTtapa fxiTavoias iv rw 'lopSai'j; -irora/ju, bg iXiyETO Elvai tK yivovg 'Aapwv TOV lEpiwg, -iraig Za-x'ipiov Kal 'EXiffapET ' Kal i^rip^ovTO Trpbc ahrbv -rravTEc.' Kai pETO. rb EL-n-tiv iroXXa i-WKpipEi on ' Tou Xaoij jSa-tr- TiaBivTog' k.t.X. (Haer. xxx. 13). Epiphanius: Beginnings to his Ebionite Gospel. 15 Gospel again with some variations : ' " It came to pass in the days of Herod King of Judaea, Caiaphas being high priest, there came one John by name, baptizing a baptism in the river Jordan," and so on.' % As Prof. Westcott says, ' a comparison of the two quota tions illustrates the carelessness of Epiphanius ' [Introduction, 466). Anyone must see moreover that, if there were only one Ebionite version of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the above were the beginning of it, no room is left for the passage before quoted by Epiphanius ' and John began baptizing &c.' It is clear that different copies of the Ebionite Gospel had different beginnings ; but it by no means follows that there were different versions of the body of it. It is indeed easy to give an explanation of these different beginnings. Those of the Nazaraeo-Ebionite body who de nied to Jesus a Divine birth, and rejected the first two chap ters of Matthew, found themselves left with a narrative answering to Matt. iii. 1, ' And § in those days.' This had to be altered, because ' those days ' would have no antece dent. Accordingly, some omitted them altogether — their copies commenced || ' And John began baptizing,' the con junction being retained, apparently, as a link between the IT Preface and the Gospel proper. Others altered ' those days ' into ' the days of Herod the King of Judaea,' wrongly imagin ing the days in question to be those of Herod and Archelaus (Matt. ii. 22), instead of those of the dwelling at Nazareth (Matt. ii. 23) : at the same time, in order to give a more important form to the beginning of the docked Gospel, some added a further specification of time, ' Caiaphas being high priest,' some a fuller notice of John — ' who was said to be of the family of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elisabet.' + ' 'EyivETO EV Ta'ig fipipaig 'llpojSov fiairiXiwg Trjg lovSaiac, i-rrl ap-viEpiwg Kaia(j>a, 7]XBi ng 'Iwavvrjg ovopan, fia-WTil^wv pa-iTTiarpa peravoiag iv TW -worapw 'lopSurrj' Kal ra e67c (Haer. xxx. 14). § The received text omits ' and,' but the best editors insert it. II See above, p. 13. 5[ See above, p. 13. 1 6 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. We have yet to consider a statement of Epiphanius with regard to *Tatian: 'And the "Gospel through Four " is said to have been made by him, which some call " according to the Hebrews." ' t That Tatian can have written the Gospel according to the Hebrews is out of the question. Irenaeus, who mentions Tatian and his doctrines, and was his younger contemporary, is not likely to have been led to believe that the Ebionite Gospel was the Gospel according to Matthew when it was really a compilation made out of four Gospels by Tatian. Nor is it likely that Clement of Alexandria, who quotes Tatian, would have cited one of his works as Scripture, not knowing that it was from the pen of a late heresiarch. But the fact that Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian himself, who lived X ' in the first succession to the Apostles,' and died not * Tatian was a pupil of Justin Martyr, whose death is placed variously between 148 and 167 a.d., the former being the date assigned by the latest investigator. Prof. Hort. After Justin's death, but how long we do not know, he went to Syria, where he became a sectarian leader. t AiyETai Si to Sia TEBtsapwv EvayyEXiov utt' avrov yEyEvrjirdai, OTTEp Kara 'E(ipaiovg Tivig KaXovnL (Haer. xlvi. 1). The printed text reads EhayyEXiwv. On first taming to it (from Hilgenfeld's mere reference) I at once saw that we ought to read EvayyiXiov, and I since find that Prof. Westcott (Ganon, 290 n.) says, ' Some perhaps may be inclined to change tuayytXiwr into evayyiXiov,' and that the author of Supernatural Beligion, and Dr. Sanday (from Credner) so read without remark. Cf . Theodoret, Haer. Fab. i. 20, ' He also put together the so-called " Gospel through Pour" ' — Ouros Kai to Si'a TEfTdapwv KaXovpEvov ovi'TiBEiKEv EvayyiXiov. There can be no doubt that the full title of the work called in short ro Sia TEdpapwv was ro Sih TEcraapwv EvayyiXiov, ' the Gospel through Four,' i.e. the Gospel as published through the mouths of Pour (of. the common phrase in Matthew rb pr/Biy v-rrb tov Rvplov Sia tov -a-poip-rjTov, ' that which was spoken by the Lord theougH the prophet '). I know of no other explanation of the title ' Dia-tessaron ' at once grammatical and rational. Prof. Westcott (Ganon, 290 n,) says ' The term Sta TEorirapwv was used in music to express the concord of the fourth (avXXajSri). This sense may throw some light upon the name.' But a concord of the fourth is not a concord of four notes, but only of two. X See above, p. 7. Epiphanitis {Tatian). fer ome. 17 later than 192 a.d. and possibly as early as 180 a.d.,§ 'ad duced some things' from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, is of itself proof enough that this cannot have been written by Tatian. The learning of Jerome, his long residence in Syria and Palestine, and the fact that he first copied the Gospel accord ing to the Hebrews and afterwards translated it into two languages, render his evidence of paramount importance. I shall take his notices of the Gospel in order of time. || (1) Writing in 387 a.d. upon Ephes. v. 3, he says^ 'As also in the Hebrew Gospel we read of the Lord speaking to his disciples : saith he &c.' (2) Writing before 392 a.d. upon Mic. vii. 6, he says ** ' " And the daughter-in-law riseth up against her mother-in- law." Which seems difficult to be understood metaphorically. But he who has read the Song of Songs and has understood the spouse of the soul to be the Word of God, and has be lieved the Gospel published according to the Hebrews which we have lately translated, in which it is said in the person of the Saviour, " Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs," will not hesitate to say that the Word of God is sprung from the Spirit, and that the soul, which is the spouse of the Word, has for mother-in-law the Holy Spirit, who among the Hebrews is called in the feminine gender Rua.' § See above, p. 6. II I have followed Chnton's chronology of these writings of Jerome. % Ut in Hebraico quoque Evangelio legimus Dominum ad discipulos loquentem : Bt nunquam, inquit, laeti sitis, nisi quum fratrem vestrurn. videritis in carifate (Gomm. in Bphes. lib. iii.). ** Bt nurus consurgit adversus socrum suam. Quod iuxta trop- ologiam intellectu videtur difficile. Sed qui legerit Oanticum Gan- ticorum et sponsum animae Dei Sermonem intellexerit, credideritque Evangelio quod secundum Hebraeos editum nuper transtulimus, in quo ex persona Salvatoris dicitur Modp tulit me mater mea, Sancfus Spiritus, in -uno capillorum meorum, non dubitabit dicere Sermonem Dei ortum esse de Spiritu, et animam, quae sponsa Sermonis est, habere socrum Sanctum Spiritum, qui apud Hebraeos genere dicitur feminine R-Ua (Gomm. in Mich. lib. ii.). c 1 8 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is pretty clear that Jerome thinks people ought to be lieve the Gospel according to the Hebrews. (8) Writing his account of Matthew [Catal. Script. Eccl.) in 392, he says * ' Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a tax-gatherer came to be an Apostle, first of all the Evange lists composed a Gospel o£ Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters, for the benefit of those of the cir cumcision who had believed : who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the martyr PamphUus so diligently collected. 1 1 ^l^o was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it. J In which it is to be remarked that, wherever the Evangelist, either speaking in his own person or in that of our Lord and Saviour, makes use of the testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the Seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew ; of which testimonies are those two, Out of Egypt have I called my Son, and that he .ihall be called Nazarene.' And in his account of James he speaks of it as § ' the Gospel which is called " according to the Hebrews," and was * Matthaeus, qui et Levi, ex publicano Apostolus, primus in Judaea propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant Evangehum Christi Hebraicis htteris verbisque composuit : quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit non satis certum est. Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissime confecit. Mihi quoque a Nazaraeis qui in Beroea urbe Syriae hoe volumine utuntur describendi facultas fuit. In quo animadvertendum quod, ubiquumque Evangelista, sive ex persona sua, sive ex persona Domini Salvatoris, veteris S cripturae testimoniis abutitur, non sequatur Septuaginta translatorum auc- toritatem sed Hebraicam; e quibus ilia duo sunt, B-x Aegypto vocavi filium ineum et Quoniam Nazaraeus vocahitur. t Probably before 379 a.d., after which date he is not known to have been in the neighbourhood of Beroea, X In notes to Pr. 2 and Fr. 3 the question whether the rest of the passage refers to the Nazarene Gospel in particular, or to the Gospel of Matthew at large, is fully discussed. § Evangelium quoque quod appellatur ' secundum Hebraeos ' et a me nuper in Graecum Latinumque sermonem translatum est, quo et Origenes saepe utitur. feromc {Origen). 19 lately translated by me into the Greek language and the Latin, which also Origen often uses.' The statement that Origen frequently quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews is most important. It is quoted by name once only in his Greek text, and once also in a Latin translation of his Homilies on Matthew. Jerome, how ever, who was a devoted student of Origen and had translated his commentaries on the Song of Songs, on Jeremiah, on Ezekiel, and on Luke, can scarcely be mistaken. There is no need to suppose that Origen's quotations from the Gospel were in || books now lost, for his extant works contain several sayings attributed by him to Jesus of which the source is unknown : these will be given among the ' Probable and Possible Fragments ' [Appendix H). (4) Writing his Commentaries on Matthew in 398 A.D., he compares five passages in the Gospel according to the Hebrews with corresponding passages in the Greek Matthew. In these instances he speaks of it (i.) as U ' the actual Hebrew,' Matt. ii. 6 ; (ii.) as ** ' the Gospel which is called " according II It is, however, worth noting that all of Origen's Homilies on Matthe-w previous to c. xiii. 6 is lost. The missing portion may well have contained references to the Gospel according to the Hebrews : as has been said, the Latin translation of the extant part of the Greek text actually does give one quotation from it, though whether the translator found that in his MS. or interpolated it himself is unknown. 1[ Bethleem Itidaeae .... Librariorum hie error est. Putamus enim ab Evangelista primum editum, sicut in ipso Hebraico legimus, ludae — non ludaeae. — ' Bethleem of Judaea .... Here is a mistake of the copyists. Por we think that the Evangelist originally gave, as we read in the actual Hebrew, of Juda — not of Judaea.' I am most anxious not to impress doubtful evidence ; but to me this passage seems most strongly to point to the Hebrew original of Matthew and not merely the Hebrew of the Old Testament. So Prof. Westcott and the author of Supernatural Beligion, with De Wette (doubtingly), Schwegler, and Ewald; against Delitzsch, Credner, Hilgenfeld, and Dr. Sanday. In the notes on Pr. 2 and Pr. 3 I have fully discussed the question whether Matt. i. 18-ii. 23 were present in or absent from Jerome's copy of the Gospel accord ing to the Hebrews, ** In Evangelio quod appellatur 'secundum Hebraeos.' 0 2 20 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. to the Hebrews," ' Matt. vi. 11 ; (iii.) as * 'the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which we lately translated from the Hebrew language into Greek, and which is called by very many \or most, "-plerisque '] the original of Matthew,' Matt. xii. 13; t'the Gospel which the Nazarenes use,' Matt, xxiii. 85 ; J ' the Gospel which is written according to the Hebrews,' Matt, xxvii. 16; § 'the Gospel of which we often make mention,' Matt, xxvii. 51. The third of the above references is important as show ing, first, that the Nazarenes and Ebionites used the same Aramaic Gospel; secondly, that the popular opinion of this Gospel was that it was the original of Matthew. (5) Writing to Hedybia, at some date after 398 a.d., Jerome speaks of || ' the Gospel which is written in Hebrew letters,' referring to it for a variation on the narrative of the Crucifixion. (6) Writing about 410 a.d. upon Is. xi. 2, he calls it t ' the Gospel, written in the Hebrew language, which the Nazarenes read.' He quotes from it the account of the descent of the Spirit and the voice from heaven at the * In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazaraei et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum. t In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni. X In Evangelio quod scribitur iuxta Hebraeos. § In Evangelio cuius saepe facimus mentionem. II In Evangelio autem quod Hebraicis litteris scriptum est (Ep. ad Hedyi. viii.). 1[ Super hunc igi tur florem, qui de trunco et de radice lesse per Mariam Virginem repente consurget, requiescet Spiritus Domini, quia in ipso complacuit omnem plenitudinem divinitatis habitare corporaliter — nequaquam per partes, ut in ceteris Sanctis, sed, iuxta Evangelium quod Hebraeo sermone conscriptum legunt Nazaraei ' Descendet super eum omnis fons Spiritus Sancti' (Gomm. in Is. lib. iv.) — ' Upon this flower therefor, which shall suddenly arise from the trunk and from the root of Jesse through the Virgin Mary, the Spirit of the Lord shall rest, because it hath pleased him that in him the entire fulness of the Godhead should dwfell bodily— in no wise partially, as in the rest of the saints, but, according to the Gospel, composed in the Hebrew language, which the Nazarenes read, " The entire fountain of the Holy Spirit shall descend upon him." ' Jerome. 2 1 baptism of Jesus, in illustration and confirmation of the pro phecy before him. (7) Writing in 418 A.D. on Ezek. xviii. 7, he calls it ** ' the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Nazarenes are wont to read,' and refers to it, immediately after the ' Apos tolic authority ' of Paul, as confirming the moral injunction of Ezekiel. (8) Writing in 416 a.d. against the Pelagians, he says tt ' In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written indeed in the Chaldee and Syriac language, but in Hebrew letters ; which the Nazarenes use to this day — according to the Apostles, or, as very many [or most, ' plerique '1 deem, according to Matthew — which is also contained in the library at Caesarea — the history tells &c.' If the reader will turn to Fr. 1, the Preface to Ebionite copies of this Gospel, he will see that it implies that the Gospel was written either by the Apostles generally or by Matthew — but does not clearly state which. We can un derstand, therefor, how some people, though seemingly not most, fancied it to be the product of common Apostolic authorship. J t After the above passage, Jerome quotes Fr. 6 and Fr. 9, ** Quod autem iuxta Hebraicum dicitur, Bt hominem, non con- tristaverit, Apostolico congruit testimonio, Nolite contristare Spiritum Sanctum qui habitat in vohis. Et in Evangelio quod iuxta Hebraeos Nazaraei legere consueverunt inter maxima ponitur crimina, qui fratris sui spiritum contristaverit (Gomm. in Bzech. lib. vi.) — 'But the reading of the Hebrew text, And hath not grieved a man, agrees with the witness of the Apostle, Grieve not the Holy Spirit that dwelleth in you. And in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which the Nazarenes are wont to read, he who hath grieved the spirit of his brother is put among the greatest criminals.' tt In Bvangelio mxte ffeSraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone sed Hebraicis litteris scriptum est, qao utuntur usque hodie Nazareni — secundum Apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant, iuxta Matthaeum — quod et in Caesariensi habetur bibliotheca — narrat historia &c. (Dial. adv. Pelag. lib. iii.). XX On the theory set up from this passage that Justin's ' Memoirs of the Apostles ' were nothing more nor less than the Gospel according to the Hebrews, see. Appendix B, ' Justin's " Memoirs of the Apostles." ' 2 2 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. adding a statement from Ignatius to the effect that the Apostles when chosen were sinners above all men. He then says, * ' If thou usest not these testimonies for authority, use them at least for antiquity, as to what all churchmen have felt.' The contents of the Fragments in question are so bold that, unless Jerome had had a very firm faith in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it is most unlikely that he would have not only adopted them but stamped them with his approbation in a controversial work. We now pass to two of Jerome's contemporaries and adversaries — Julian the Pelagian, and Theodore of Mop suestia, who both mention him in connexion with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Julian the Pelagian in his controversy with Augustinet uses the last-mentioned passage of Jerome against Augus tine, saying that Jerome ' even tries by the testimony of a [or the) fifth Gospel, which he says has been translated by himself, to show &c.' % Theodore § of Mopsuestia is reported by Photius to have said that Jerome ' had forged an additional fifth Gospel, pre tending that he had found it in the bookcases of Eusebius of Palestine.' || These passages of course only show that their authors knew nothing whatever about the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Next comes Theodoret,^! who states first of the Ebionites * Quibus testimoniis si non uteris ad auctoritatem, utere saltem ad antiquitatem, quid omnes ecclesiastici viri senserint. t Not later than 430 a.d., when Augustine died. X Cum ille in Dialogo illo .... etiam qninti Bvangelii, quod a se translatum dicit, testimonio nitatur ostendere &c. (Augustini Opus Imperfectum contra lulianum, lib. iv. c. 88.) I owe this re ference to Prof. Westcott. § Born about 360 A.D., died 428 or 429 a.d. II TovTOv (i.e. Jerome) Si -nipTrrov EvayyiXiov TrpoaaiaTrXaaai Xiyii (i.e. Theodore), iv Ta~ig EviTEJiiov tov IlaXaicrrtVou fiipXioBriKaig {nro-irXaTTupEvov EvpElv (Bibl. clxxvii.). Photius died about 891 a.d. ^ Writing between 451 and 458 a.d. Jerome. Six other W^Hters. 23 in general that ' they receive only the Gospel according to the Ebionites,'** and afterwards, speaking of particular Ebionites, that 'they use only the Gospel according to Matthew.' tt B^DA,|t at the beginning of the eighth century, does not seem to have known any more of this Gospel than what he learnt from Jerome. After speaking of Apocryphal Gospels, he says ' Here it must be noted that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as it is called, is not to be reckoned among apocryphal but among ecclesiastical histories : for it seemed good even to the very translator of Holy Scripture, Jerome, to use very many evidences from it, and to translate it into the . Latin and Greek language.' §§ The words ecclesiastical and histories are doubtless borrowed from our last passage of Jerome. At the end of the eighth, or beginning of the ninth, cen tury Nikephorus iiii puts the Gospel according to the Hebrews in his list of the disputed books of the New Testament — to gether with the Apocalypse of John, the (lost) Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas. He has a separate list of apocryphal books. Credner, who has given much pains to these lists, argues, not without reason, that they are derived from some very much earlier Syriac authority, of about the fifth century [Geschichte des Kanons, 1847, pp. 100 seqq.). About the same time Sedulius ScotusH refers to the oath ** M.6vov Si T^ Kara EjStwvaiovg EvayyiXiov Si-)(pvTai (Haer. Bah. ii-l)- tt EuayytXtw Si Tti) Kara MarBalov KE-^priVTai povw [ib.). XX Born about 672 a.d., died 735 a.d. §§ Inter quae notandum quod dicitur Evangelium iuxta Hebraeos non inter apocryphas sed inter ecclesiasticas numerandum historias : nam et ipsi Sacrae Scripturae interpreti Hieronymo pleraque ex eo testimonia usurpare, et ipsum in Latinum Graecumque visum est transferre sermonem (In Luc. I. i.). IIII Patriarch of Constantinople, born ahovi 768 A.D., died 828 A.d. f 1[ Flourished about 800 a.d. 24 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. of James (Fr. 29) with the words ' according as it is read in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.'* As the incident is related by Jerome, and Sedulius also wrote Explanations of Jerome's Prefaces to the Gospels, there is little doubt that this reference is only borrowed from him. Finally, Codex Tischendorfianus IIL (A), a Greek MS. of the Gospels, dating from about the beginning of the ninth century, contains in Matthew four marginal quotations of corresponding passages in ' the Jewish (to '\ovha'lKov),' one of which is identical with one of Jerome's quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. We have seen that in one passage Jerome speaks of ' the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Nazarenes use to this day — after the Apostles, or, as t most deem, according to Matthew.' Accordingly Hilgenfeld, the writer of Super natural Religion, and others identify it with the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles spoken of by Origen, Ambrose, Jerome himself, and Theophylact. If this be so, it tends to show that not one of these four believed in the Matthaean origin of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Origen says 'The Church has four Gospels, the heresies very manj', out of which a certain one is written according to the Egyptians, another according to the Twelve Apostles &c. &c.'t Ambrose, writing before 400 a.d., says 'And there is current indeed another Gospel which the Twelve Apostles are said to have written.' § Jerome himself, writ- * Sicut in Bvangelio secundum Hebraeos legitur (In 1 Gor. XV. 7). t In Evangelio iuxta Hebraeos quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni — secundum Apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant, iuxta Matthaeum (Adv. Pelag. iii. 2). Plerique may mean only ' very many.' X Bcclesia quatuor habet Evangelia, haereses plurima, e quibus quoddam scribitur secundum Aegyptios, aliud juxta Duodecim Apostolos &c. &c. (Hom. i. in Buc. — extant in the Latin translation only). § Et aliud quidem fertur Evangelium quod Duodecim Apostolos scripsisse dicuntur (Gomm. in Luc. — prooem.). Not ' The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles! 25 ing 898 A.D., says that many of the Gospels spoken of by Luke remain, 'which, published by diverse authors, have been the starting-points of diverse heresies; as is that according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, of the Twelve Apostles also &c.' || Lastly, Theophylact, writ ing at the beginning of the seventh century, speaks of the Gospel inscribed ' of the Twelve.' f This identification I cannot accept. Jerome does not state that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was called ' after (according to) the Apostles,' he is only giving different views as to its origin, and he expressly states that a common opinion attributed it to Matthew. If anyone should fancy that '¦secundum Apostolos,' as compared with 'iuxta Hebraeos' and ' iuxta Matthaeum,' implies that the title is being given, he will find that Jerome elsewhere [Comm. on Micah vii. 6 and Matt. vi. 11) calls it also '¦secundum Hebraeos,' the object of secundum in the passage before us being therefor only to pre vent the awkwardness of three iuxta' s so close together. Wher ever (four times) he expressly gives the name of the Gospel it is, ' according to the Hebrews ' (Comm. on Micah vii. 6, Matt. vi. 11 and xxvii. 16, Catal. Script. Eccl. under 'lacobus'). That he would speak of the ' Gospel of the Twelve Apostles ' in the preface to his commentary on Matthew, and twice in that Commentary say that this same Gospel was 'called' ' according to the Hebrews,' is most unlikely. Nor is it less unlikely that he would twice in that Commentary (on Matt. ii. 5 and xii. 18) uphold the Matthaean origin of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and yet in the preface to the same Commentary mention it as one of a number of Gospels ' which, having been published by diverse authors, have been the starting-points of diverse heresies.' Of the remaining three authors, neither Ambrose nor Theophylact, nor yet Origen, says a word to lead us to iden tify the two Gospels ; Origen indeed once, if not twice, quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews by its usual name. From the time of Irenaeus, who lived before Origen, II Quae a diversis auctoribus edita diversarum haereseon fuere principia ; ut est illud iuxta Aegyptios, et Thomam, et Matthiam, Duodecim quoque Apostolorum, &c. (Gomm. in Matth. — prooem.). ^ To iTTiypaipopEvwv twv AwSeku (In Luc. — prooem.). 26 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. to that of Jerome, who outlived Ambrose, the authorship of the Gospel according to the Hebrews seems to have been generally assigned to Matthew, and from the time of Clement, Origen's master, to Nikephorus, who lived 200 years after Theophylact, its popular title seems to have been ' the Gospel according to the Hebrews.' It is therefor most unlikely that this should be the work of which, without any further explanation, Origen, Ambrose, and Theophylact speak as the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles. We may now sum up the external evidence regarding this Gospel. We find that there existed among the Nazarenes and Ebionites a Gospel commonly called the 'Gospel accord ing to the Hebrews,' written in Aramaic, but with Hebrew characters. That its authorship was attributed by some to the Apostles in general, but by veiy many or most — including clearly the Nazarenes and Ebionites themselves — to lYlatthew. That it is spoken of as the Gospel according to Matthew by Irenaeus about 190 a.d., and by Epiphanius and its translator Jerome in the fourth century, though Epiphanius mentions that the Ebionite copies were corrupted. That Papias narrated a story found in it, if he did not quote it; that Hegesippus quoted it ; that it was cited as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria; and was quoted by Origen — aU of whom wrote before the middle of the third century. That some people were counting it spurious in the middle of the fourth century, but that we do not know who they were or whether their opinion was merely the result of prejudice against a work circulating almost exclusively amongst sectarians. That at the same time the Apocalypse of John was also counted spurious by some. That in a list of about 800 a.d., but derived, maybe, from one of about the fifth century, the Gospel according to the Hebrews is called a disputed book, but is not called spurious — the Apocalypse of John being again classed with it. It must be said that this Gospel is not found in any list of accepted books : the omission would, however, be natural if it was looked on as a mere Aramaic edition of the Gospel according to Matthew. On the other hand, neither is it found in any list of disputed books, save those of Eusebius Summary of External Evidence. 2 7 and Nikephorus above-mentioned.* Nor were its popular claims to be looked on as an authentic Gospel coming from Matthew challenged by a single ancient writer except Theodore of Mopsuestia, who accused Jerome of ' having forged an additional fifth Gospel, pretending that he had found it in the bookcases of Eusebius of Palestine ' — a state ment which of course shows that he knew nothing whatever of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. I shall now give an annotated rendering of the Fragments, after which, in Part IIL, I shall estimate the internal evidence afforded by them, and shall consider whether the external and internal evidence combine to render likely any conclusion about the origin of this Gospel. * See, however, Adde-iida. 28 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. II. THE FRAGMENTS. Note. — I have arranged those Fragments which have canonical parallels so as to correspond with the order of the Gospel according to Matthew, inserting others at those points where they might be most easily dovetailed into the canonical narrative. I have broken them up into verses for more con venient comparison with the canonical texts. In translating, my aim has been to be as literal as possible, short of being grossly unidiomatical *: otherwise the translation would have been much closer than it is to the phraseology of the Authorized Version. Fragments from Epiphanius are indicated by [Ebionite), those from Jerome by [Nazarene), those from Codex Tischen dorfianus III. — presumably taken from Jerome's translation — by [Nazarene ?) . A quotation of Origen's which seems to have been common to the Gospel according to Matthew and that of the ' Ebionites,' is not indicated as {Ebionite) because in writers before Epiphanius ' Ebionites ' seems to include the Nazarenes, whom he is the first to mention under the latter name. Fragments op the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 1 1- Preface. 1. There was a certain man by name * In two passages I have however kept ' Lord ' as the transla tion of Kupif, where I should have liked ' Master ' or ' Sir,' in order not to weaken the parallelism between those passages and others in the canonical books. t Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13 : (1) 'EyivETo ng avrip ovopuri 'IrjuovQ, Kal avrbg (is irwv TpiaKovra, og i^EXi^aro iipag. (2) Kai iXBwv Eig Kaipapvaovp ElirijXBEV Etc djv oiKiav ^ipwvog tov iTrtKXrjBivTng Hirpov, Kal avoi^ag to ffrbpa aiiTOv flirt (3) ' HapEp-xbpEvog Trapa Tt)v XIpvrjv Ti^EpiaSog i^EXE^apriv 'Iwavvriv Kal 'laKw/iov, vlovg ZE/3£Sat'ou , The Ebionite Preface. 29 Jesus, and he of % about thirty years, who chose us out. 2. And when he had come to §Caphar- naum he || entered into the house of Simon who was surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth, and said 3. ' Passing by the 1" lake of Tiberias T chose out ** John and James, sons of Zebedee, Kai 'Siipwva, Kal 'AvSpiav Kai QaSSalov Kal Hipwva tov ZijXwrj))' Kai 'lovSav rbv 'larhapiwTTiV (4) Kal ai rbv MarflaToi' KaBE'Coptvov en-t roi; teXwvIov EKaXEora Kal -fiKoXovBrja-ag poi. (6) Ypag ovv j3ovXopiii Eivai SsKaSvo cnroiTToXovQ Eig fiapriipiov tov 'ItrpaJjX. X Cf . Luke iii. 23. Hilgenfeld reads wv for wc, ' being of thirty years,' but gives no authority for doing so, and I believe it to be his own ill-advised conjecture : compare the witei of Luke, for which Epiphanius actually read wc, as do D and Hippolytus. § This (=^Gaphar Nahum, ' Nahum's village') is the form of the name adopted in the New Testament by modern editors : of the earliest MSS. N B D (and now and then C) support it against A and (generally) C. II According to Mark iii. 19 Jesus and the Apostles went into a house immediately after the appointment of the Twelve. Prom Matt. viii. 14, Mark i. 29, and Luke iv. 38 we learn that Simon had a house at Capharnahum. % Called ' the sea of Tiberias ' in John xxi. 1 and ' the sea of Galilee of Tiberias ' in John vi. 1. Matthew calls it ' the sea of Galilee,' iv. 18, xv. 29 ; Mark the same, i. 16, vii. 31 ; Luke 'the lake of Gennesaret,' v. 1. Luke always calls it ' the lake,' the others always ' the sea.' John, James, Simon, aud Andrew were called ou the shores of the lake (see Matt. iv. 18-24, Mark i. 16-20, Luke v. 10, 11). As there is a gap after the name of Andrew we do not know whether the Ebionite Gospel assigned the calling of all the other Apostles to the same neighbourhood, but Epiphanius's omission is best accounted for by supposing that he had before him a mere row of names with connecting particles, unbroken by any new turn of the narrative. ** This order is very remarkable. There are four lists of Apostles in the New Testament— Matt. x. 2, Mark iii. 16, Luke vi. 14, Acts i. 13. Matthew gives the order of the first four Apostles as Simon, Andrew, James, and John. Luke iu his Gospel gives the same order, but in Acts alters it to Simon, John, James, aud Andrew. Mark has Simon, James, John, and Andrew. I am unable to suggest any 30 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. and Simon, and Andrew,* . . . and tThad- daeus, and Simon the % Zealot, and Judas § the Iseariot ; 4. ' And thee || Matthew sitting at the receipt of custom I called, and thou didst follow me. 6. ' I will, therefor, that ye be twelve apostles for a testimony to Israel.' reason why Simon should be put only third in the Ebionite Gospel unless it be that, the Apostles linked by the tie of brotherhood being mentioned by pairs, John and James were considered a more important pair than Simon and Andrew. * An example of the carelessness of Epiphanius, who has only given us eight names, though the mention of ' twelve Apostles ' in V. 5 shows that the names of four others were in the original. t The name Thaddaios, ' Thaddaeus,' occurs in Mark iii. 18, where however D aud the Old Latin read Lehlaios, ' Lebbaeus,' whioh name (or Lehes or Levis) was also the reading of MSS. spoken of by Origen. In Matt. x. 3, Thaddaios is also read by X B, by some MSS. of the old Latin, by the Vulgate, and by the Coptic versions: most MSS. also (C is uncertain) read 'Lebbaeus that was surnamed Thaddaeus,' and so the Syriac versions (the Curetonian is deficient here) with the Aethiopic and Armenian ; but D, with MSS. spoken of by Augustine, reads ' Lebbaeus ' alone, and this was the reading of Origen's translator, of Rufinus (about A.D. 400) and Hesychius (6th cent.). X ' The Cananaean ' as he is called by Matt, and Mark (not ' Canaanite,' as tlie A. Y.). ' Cananaean' (from Kanean) was the Aramaic name for that ultra-patriotic faction of Jews whom Jose phus, writing in Greek, calls the Zealots. We find Luke (vi..l5 and Acts i. 13) using the Greek equivalent. § Tov 'liTKapiwrriv, as the weight of MS. authority in Matt. x. 4 John xii. 4, xiv. 22. 'lo-Kapiwrjjc and 'la-KapiwB (Islcarioih) — the latter of which is now the recognised reading in Mark iii. 19, xiv. 10, and Luke vi. 16 — are the Graecized forms of Bh K'rioth, 'man of K'rioth,' a town in the south of the tribe of Judah, possibly the ruins called Kuryetein. II Matthew may just possibly be mentioned last as having been called under different circumstances from the rest ; otherwise the position of his name must be taken to imply that he was the writer of the Gospel, whether its sole author or its editor on behalf of the Apostles collectively. The Ebionite Preface. Matt. ii. e^, i^. 31 f 2. Matt. ii. 5. Bethlehem of Judah. (Naeare-ne.) ** 3. Matt. ii. 15. Out of Egypt have I called my son. {Nazarene.) % Jerome on Matt. ii. 5, Librariorum hie error est. Putamus enim ab Evangelista primum editum, sicut in ipso Hebraico legimus ludae, non ludaeae — ' Here is a mistake of the copyists. For we think that the Evangelist originally gave, as we read in the actual Hebrew, of Judah — not of Judaea.' Hilgenfeld and some others hold that the Hebrew of the Old Testament is referred to. Now (i.) Jerome, who believed in the Matthaean origin of that Gospel, and had published his belief, would hardly have couched a reference to the Hebrew of the Old Testament in words which, as he would have seen, might be naturally taken as a reference to his Aramaic Gospel ; (ii.) it is remarkable that Jerome suggests not 'Bethleem ludA' as the original reading, but 'Bethleem ludAE,' ' OF Judah.' In every passage in the Old Testament where Beth lehem Judah is named, Jerome renders ' Bethleem ludA,' and in the very verse of Matthew which he is commenting on he twice quotes the prophecy of Micah as 'Et tu Bethleem terra ludA.' This solitary use of ' IndAE ' struck me as singular, and on enquiring from the Rev. Dr. Hermann Adler, I learn that, whereas the Hebrew of the Old Testament always has ' Bethlehem Tehudab,' the Aramaic (in which the Gospel according to the Hebrews was written) would probably represent the name as ' Bethlehem di Tehudah,' ' Bethlehem OF Judah,' ' Bethleem ludAB.' Jerome's reason for writing ' ludae ' in this solitary instance seems, therefor, to have been that he was speaking not of the Hebrew of the Old Testament but of the Aramaic Gospel according to the Hebrews. In Matth. ii. 1, 5, Cureton gives ' of Juda ' as the reading of the Curetonian Syriac ' with which the Peshito concurs.' Tischendorf gives ' luda ' (Bethlehem luda) as the reading of both. But a few minutes with a Syriac grammar shows me that Cureton is right at least as regards his own version, which has the preposition di in front of Yuda''. Some MSS. of the Old Latin and Vulgate also give ludae, ' of Judah.' ** Jerome, Catal. Script. Eccles. under 'Matthaeus ' ; the passage is quoted and translated above, p. 18. Hilgenfeld and others, who believe that the Gospel according to the Hebrews did not contain Matt. i. 18-ii. 23, deny that the passage in Jerome proves that this and the next quotation were found in his copy of the Nazarene Gospel. The question hardly admits of argument, and I am quite content to leave its decision to the reader. Those who have no previous acquaintance with Jerome's writings may indeed wonder why he directs special attention to the fact that the 0. T. quotations in the 32 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. * i. Matt. ii. 23. That he shall be caUed Nazarene. (Nazarene.) Nazarene Gospel agree with the Hebrew, seeing that the two iu- stances given occur in the canonical Matthew, where they agree equally with the Hebrew. Jerome, however, never loses an oppor tunity of arguing for the higher authority of the original Hebrew over the Septuagint version, aud his object in the passage in ques tion may very well be to show that not only the Greek translation of Matthew took its quotations from the Hebrew, but that so also did the original Aramaic. Hilgenfeld's ' elaborate review of the question,' as Dr. Sanday calls it (Gospels, 141), consists almost en tirely of refutations to feeble arguments adduced by some of his opponents, whom he has no difiiculty in vanquishing. But the only two which he brings forward on his own side afford them an equally easy victory. One is, that this part of Matthew was rejected by Kerinthus and Carpocrates, which would be a strong argument if we knew that these heresiarchs used the Nazarene edition of the Gospel according to the Hebrews : unhappily there is no evidence that they used any edition of it whatever (see Appendix G, ' The Gospel of Carpocrates and Kerinthus'). The other is that Epi phanius, when he confessed his ignorance ' whether the Nazarenes have at the same time taken away the genealogies from Abraham to Christ,' has assumed that the rest of Matt. i. ii. was wanting from their Gospel. I merely ask the reader to turn to the passage (quoted above, p. 9), and remark in conclusion that, if my last note is well founded, Hilgenfeld's position breaks down altogether. * The Greek of Matt. ii. 23, rendered by Jerome in the same Latin by which he renders the parallel passage in the Gospel accord ing to the Hebrews, needs not mean that there was any particular prophecy ' He shall be called Nazarene.' It is true that the Greek is 'that he shall be called' and not 'that he should be called,' but, if any Greek scholar thinks that the use of the indicative means that the actual words ' he shall be called ' were found in the pro phets, a reference to Madvig's Syntax of the Greeh Language, Browne and Arnold's translation, 1873, p. 110, or to Winer's Treatise on the Grammar of Neio Testament Gi-eelc, Moulton's translation, 1877, p. 376, will yield him plain examples to the con trary. The reference is to the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah respecting the Branch. In the most striking of these. Is. xi. 1, ' And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots,' the Hebrew word used for ' branch ' is NiiTSEE, and the evangelic writer saw in this prophecy and those Matt. ii. 23, iii. 1-7. 33 t5. Matt. iii. 1-7. 1, And [+' in those days ?] John began of Jeremiah and Zechariah (though they use a different Hebrew word) a foreshadowing of the residence at Nazaea, or looked on the residence at Nazara as a predestined coincidence with the pro phecies. It is generally held that there is a real etymological connexion between Nazara and netser. But, if reason to the contrary can be shown, the following words of Parrar (Life of Christ, i. 64-6) will still hold good : ' The Old Testament is full of proofs that the Hebrews — who in philology accepted the views of the Analogists — attached immense aud mystical importance to mere resemblances in the sound of words. To mention but one single instance, the first chapter of the prophet Micah turns almost entirely on such merely external similarities in what, for lack of a better term, I can only call the physiological quantity of sounds. St. Matthew, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, would without any hesitation have seen a prophetic fitness in Christ's residence at this town of Galilee, because its name recalled the title by which he was addressed in the prophecy of Isaiah.' But I am incHned to go still farther and acknowledge in the words of our text a special reference also to Zech. vi. 12. The Greek of our text is ' Nazarene shall he be called ' : since we, or at least the evangelic writer, have connected Nazara with netser, let us substitute ' Brancher ' — ' Brancher shall he be called.' Now com pare with this the literal Hebrew of Zech. vi. 12 — ' Branch [shall be] his name.' Is the parallel accidental ? It is quite true that in Zech. vi. 12 the word is not netser but tsemach. But the evangelic writer would not the less hold this prophecy fulfilled by the residence at Nazara. Hebrew, moreover, was a dead language even then, and that writer, if he knew Hebrew at all, was doubtless far more familiar with the Scriptures in his Targum (Aramaic paraphrase) ; which Targum (unfortunately lost) may have used the same word in Is. xi. 1 and Zech. vi. 12, just as our Authorized Version has done. In that case, if he knew that the original had netser in the former place, he would naturally assume it- to be the word used in the latter as well. t The text outside the brackets represents the passage quoted by Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 13) — (1) Kai iyivETo 'Iwavvrig PaTrri^wv, (2) Kai i^riXBov -wpbg avrbv (^apmaloi Kai ifia-KTicfBqaav, Kai Trdrra 'UpoabXvpa. (3) Kai eIx^v o 'Iwavvrig 'ivOvpa airb Tpixwv Ka/xriXov Kal ^wr-qv SEppaTivrjV iTEpl Trjv birfvv avrov Kal to (ipwpa aVTOv — iprjffi — piXi aypiov, ol rj yEvaig iiv tov pavva, wg iyKpig iv iXaiij). The con- 1 For note see next pa^e. D 34 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. Mark i. 4-6. baptizing [* a baptism of repentance in the '^''mtmUe f ^ovd'^-^ river ? ? ] . ^^'^^•' 2. tAnd there came out unto him Pharisees and were baptized, and all Jeru salem. 3. And John had raiment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his food [was] [§ locusts and?] wUd jeotural insertions in brackets will be explained one by one. Epi phanius also gives two other versions of (1) (quoted above, pp. 14, 15), widely difierent, and bearing strong evidence of corruption. X I have already remarked (p. 15) that the copy from which the other Ebionite versions were altered seems to have contained the words ' in those days ' of Matt. iii. 1. * So the longer Ebionite versions. ' Baptism of repentance ' occurs in Mark i. 4, Luke iii. 3, Acts xiii. 24, xix. 4 But the shorter reading is more likely to be the true one. t Epiphanius (Haer. xxx. 15) charges the Ebionites with rejecting all the prophets after Joshua, and with altering the book called Journeys of Peter (IlEpioSoi HsTpou) so as to suppress all favourable mention of them. Had their Gospel originally some passage answering to Matt. iii. 3, Mark i. 3, Luke iii. 4, and did they for the same reason suppress it ? § The Ebionite Gospel makes no mention of the locusts of Matt. iii. 4. Epiphanius so clearly and so often says tbat the Ebionites kept from animal food that we cannot refuse to believe him. He charges them with introducing two words into Pr. 25 (correspond ing with Luke xxu. 16) so as to fix on Jesus the same antipathy to it. He also says that, among other tamperings with the book called ' Journeys of Peter,' they represented Peter as ' keeping from living things and meats, like themselves also, and from every other food made from flesh, since Ebion himself also and Ebionites keep from these altogether ' (Haer. xxx. 15, ip-^vxwv te rbv avrov a-n-ixEirdai Kal KpEwv, we K'ai avToi, Kal iraTijj a.X\t]g iSwSijg rijg a-irb aapKwv tte- TTOiripivrig Xiyovcriv, iirEiSri-KEp Kal avrbg 'E/iiwv Kal 'EjSiwvlTai -iravTEXwg TOVTWV airixovrai). We have seen that some at least of the Ebionites tampered with this very fragment (see above, p. 15), and also that the absence of the quotation from Isaiah found in the Synoptics is suspicious. There is therefore strong ground for conjecturing that they had ' locusts ' in their Gospel, and designedly struck it out. But of thia it is nevertheless quite impossible to be certain. Matt. iii. 1-7. 35 honey, whereof the taste || was of the manna, Ulike a cake [made] with oil [honey ?] . II The oldest MS. of Epiphanius, Dindorf's V, reads i; for l\v — ' whereof the taste [was] that of manna.' Either reading might arise (through the medium of i)) out of the other, but the simpler hypothesis is that ^ is a mistake for 1\ — such mistakes being fre quent in this MS. I have therefor, though with some doubts, placed in the text the reading of the four later MSS. % Cf . the LXX version of Num. xi. 8, where it is said of manna — Kai i\v j; r\Sovr\ avrov witeI yEvpa iyKpli, O, iXaiov, and the pleasure of it was as it were in taste a cake [made] of oil.' The Hebrew text is uncertain, and the Jerusalem Targum and some other ancient authorities give ' cakes [made] of honey.' Now it is noticeable that Epiphanius in his remarks on the passage (quoted above, p. 13) accuses the Ebionites of substituting ' cakes [made] with honey ' for the ' locusts ' of the canonical Gospel. It is true that honey did enter into the making of the particular kind of cake called iyKplg, still the mention of it does not seem relevant. One is strongly tempted to think that the Ebionite MSS. exhibited the different readings of Num. xi. 8, and that Epiphanius, halting between the two, followed one reading in his text and another in his note. This would be quite in Epiphanius's loose way • we have already seen that he gives two widely different versions of verse (1) of this fragment, and even quotes one of those versions a second time with further variations — seemingly without knowing what he is doing, at any rate without any explanation to his puzzled reader. The common explanation of ' wild honey ' is ' honey made by wild bees.' There have not, however, been wanting those who have explained it as meaning that exudation from the leaves of trees and shrubs, so common in Oriental countries (including the Jordan valley), which is gathered and used as we use butter or honey, and which is called by the Arabs 'manna.' A passage of Diodorus Siculus, who wrote about 8 B.C., seems to give the precise name piXi aypiov, 'wild honey,' to this exudation: writing of the Naba- taean Arabs he says — auroi Si -xpwvrai rpo^jj Kpiaai kuI yaXaKTi, Kal TWV iK TTJg yijg (pvopivwv n~ig i-irirriSEioig' viTai yap -Trap' avTolg rb ¦niiTEpi a-jrb twv SivSpwv, Kal piXi ttoXv to KaXovpEvov aypiov, w xpwvrai iroTw peB' vSarog (xix. 731) — ' And they use for food flesh and milk, and the provisions afforded by what grows from the earth : for the pepper grows among them from the trees, and much honey, the same that is called wild honey, which they use for a drink with water.' Here, even if we render (pvErai ' is produced,' one gets an D 2 2)6 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. *6. Matt. iii. 1- [And?] t' behold the mother of the (Nazarene:) % ' Lord and his brethren said to him ' John impression that a vegetable honey is meant, and the fact that Diodorus does not speak of it as merely ' wild,' but 'the same that is called wild,' tends to show that it was something quite difEerenfc from ordinary wild honey. This is the view also of Wessehng, Diodorus's editor, who moreover identifies the ' wild honey ' of Matthew with that of his author. Suidas (about 1100 A.d.) in his Lexicon writes without any hesitation — ' AKp'ig. EtSoc ^wijipiov. "liirBiE Si ciKplSag b TlpoSpopog, Kal piXi aypiov, OTTEp aTTO twv Sivdpwv i-n-ia-vvayofiEvov Mavva ro'ig TroXXoig wpocrayopEVErai — 'Locust. A kind of tiny animal. The Forerunner also ate locusts aud wild honey, which is gathered together from the trees and is commonly called Manna.' So Reland, the Orientalist, writes iu his Palaestina Illustrata, i. 59, ' Mel copiosum hie provenit, praeter illud quod apes elaborant, in sylvis et manat ex arboribus ' — ' Here honey, besides that which the bees make, is produced in large quantity in the woods and oozes from trees,' and quotes to that effect Dios- corides (i. 37) and Pliny (xv. 7, xxiii. 4) as well as Diodorus, pro ceeding to identify with this vegetable honey that eaten by John the Baptist. The concurrence of the Ebionite Gospel makes it probable that this is the true view. Suppose the crucial words in that Gospel to be a mere forgery of the very year in which Epiphanius copied them, and they would still show the meaning put upon the words ' wild honey ' by natives of Palestine in 376 a.d. The fact that this meaning is not the obvious one is only another point in its favour : it would not have been put forward except on good grounds when there was so much simpler an explanation ready to hand. * Jerome, Adv. Pelag. iii., Ecce mater Domini et fratres eius dicebant ei ' loannes Baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum : eamus et baptizemur ab eo.' Dixit autem eis ' Quid peccavi, ut vadam et baptizer ab eo ? nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi ignorantia est.' A like account was contained in a work entitled the Preaching of Paul, and is thus referred to by the author of the Tractatus de Behaptismate, printed among Cyprian's' works (Venet. 1728, p. 743) : — ' Est autem adulterini huius, immo internecini baptismatis si quis alius auctor, tum etiam quidam ab iisdem ipsis haereticis propter eundem eirorem confictus liber qui inscribitur Pauli Prae- d'ioatio, in quo libro contra omnes Scripturas et de peccato proprio confi tentem invenies Christum, qui solus omnino nihil deliquit, et ad accipiendum loannis baptisma paene invitum a matre sua Maria * For notes see next page. Matt. iii. ¦^^'^ the Baptist baptizeth §for remission of sins : let us go and be baptized by him.' 2. But he said to them || ' 'Wherein esse compulsum ; item cum baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum, quod in Evangelio nullo est scriptum '¦ — ' This counterfeit and actually internecine baptism has been promulgated in particular by a book forged by the same heretics in order to spread the same error : this book is entitled the Preaching of Paul, aud in it, in opposition to all the Scriptures, you will find Christ, the only man who was altogether without fault, both making confession respect ing his own sin, and that he was driven by his mother Mary almost against his will to receive the baptism of John ; also that when he was baptized fire was seen upon the water, which is not written in any Gospel.' We shall see that the incident of the fire at the Bap tism was in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and it is natural to believe that the Preaching took its history from the Gospel rather than the Gospel its history from the Preaching. If so, and if (as in Part III. we shall find cause to think) the latter was the same book also kuown as the Preaching of Peter, we should have a witness for the Nazarene Gospel at least as early as the third quarter of the 2nd cent., when, as we know from Origen (In loann. xiii. 17), Heracleon quoted the Preaching. t A word specially characteristic of Matthew, who has it 62 times, and Luke, who has it 56 or 57 times. Mark has it only 11 or 12 times, John only 4 times. X Matt., Luke, and John very frequently give ' Lord ' (^master, sir) as a form of speech to Jesus : Mark only once. In speaking of him Matthew only uses the word once (i.e. xxi. 3=' the master hath need of them '), except we admit xxviii. 6 (doubtful reading) ; and Mark only once (xi. 3^Matt. xxi. 3), except we admit xvi. 19, 20 (verses of doubtful genuineness). But Luke so uses it 13 times (besides xxiv. 3, doubtful reading), and John 9 times. § Mark i. 4 and Luke iii. 3 speak of John as ' preaching a bap tism of repentance for remission of sins ' (Krjpvirawv ftanncrpa pETa- voiag ei'c a(pEaiv apapnwv), and Matt. iii. 6 says that the people were baptized by John ' confessing their sins.' ' Remission of sins ' is not a common phrase in the N. T. : it occurs only once in Matt. (xxvi. 28 ' for remission of sins ') ; twice in Mark (i. 4 ' for re mission of sins,' iii. 29 ' hath not remission ') ; and three times in Luke (i. 77 ' in remission of their sins,' iii. 3 ' for remission of sins,' xxiv. 47 ' remission of sins '), who however has it five times in Acts ('remission of sins ' — ii. 38, v. 31, x. 43, xiii. 38, xxvi. 18). John never uses it. Paul has it only twice (Eph. i. 7 ' the rerais- ' For note see next page. 38 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him ? * except perchance this very thing that I have said is ignorance.' t7. Matt. iii. 13-17. 1. [And ?], J when the people had been sion of the transgressions,' Col. i. 14 'the remission of the sins'), and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews twice (' remission ' — ix. 22, X. 18). ' To remit sins' is a phrase used several times by each Synoptic and in Acts, once in John (xx. 23) and twice in 1 John (i. 9, ii. 12), but nowhere else in the N. T. II Cf. John viii. 46, ' Which of you convicteth me in respect of sin?' * On the theology of this passage see Part III. Meanwhile, as offering at least a partial analogy to the suggestion of a limited knowledge on the part of Jesus, we may compare Luke ii. 52, ' And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature,' and Mark xiii. 32, 'But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, nbithbe the Son, but the Father.' t Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13, Kai jueto t-o eitteiv ?roXXa i-inipipu on (1) Tou Xaou jia-TtnirBivTog ^X6e Kai 'Ir/ffoue Koi ifia-itTiaBri vvrb tov 'Iwavvov. (2) Kai wg uv^XBev inrb tov vSaTog^rjioiyrjuav ol ovpavol Kal eiSev rb TTVEvpa rb ayiov iv e'iSei -KipKTTEpag KaTEXQovar^g Kal EliTEXBovarrjg Eig aiiTOv. (3) Kai (j)wvrl [^iyivtro, omitted by Codex V] ek tov ovparov Xiyovaa ' Su pov tl 6 utoe o ayaTrrjTog, iv trol evSoKria-a ' ' Kal -TToXiv, ' 'Eyi) aiipEpov yEyivvr^Ko. be.' (4) Kai EvBvg irEpiiXap^E rbv TO-Kov (j>wg piy a. 'O (edd. bv) 'iSwv 6 Iwavvrig XiyEi avT^ Su rig Et, [KuptE, omitted by Codex V] ; (6) Kai TraXti' ipwvii i^ ovpavov Trpbg avTOV, ' OvTog iariv 6 vlbg pov 6 ayaTrrjTog, iip' bv EvSoKrjaa.' (6) Kai VorE ' (j)T]Eg, on ovrwg icrrl ¦KpE-iTov TrXrjpwBrivai iravTa ' — ' And after saying a good many things it adds that when the people &c. . . . (6) And "then" it says "Jolin fell down &c." ' The reader will see that the passage probably began with the conjunction and or now ; he will also see I think that at the beginning of v. 6 the conjunction may belong either to it says or to then John; or that it would even be possible to divide thus — ' And ' (then it says) ' John.' Hilgenfeld prints v. 6 with the con junction and V. 1 without any. The words ' after saying a good many things ' show that there was a considerable interval between this and the last fragment but one. The corresponding interval in Matthew is given to a speech by John, and the Ebionite Gospel may also have contained the last fragment (Nazarene). X Cf. Luke (iii. 21) only — 'EyE'jEro ?e iv r^ (SaTrriadrjvai &-!ravTa (John i. 32, 33.) (Ebionite.) Matt. iii. 13-17. 39 Mark i. 9-11. baptized Jesus also came and was baptized Lxike iii. 21, 22. l, j^j^jj^ 2. § And as he went up the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in shape of a dove descending and IT enter ing into him. TOV Xabv Kal 'Irjaov fia-irnaBivTog, literally ' And it came to pass when all the people had been baptized, Jesus also having been baptized.' § This verse is far nearer to Matt, than to the other accounts, with one very noticeable exception, ' in shape of a dove ' : cf. Luke iii. 22, 'in a bodily shape like a dove.' Hilgenfeld quotes Irenaeus (copied also by Hippolytus), Epiphanius, and Theodoret, all of whom say that Kerinthus and his sect held that the Spirit ' de scended into him in shape of a dove.' We know that the Kerin thians used Matthew, if not the Gospel according to the Hebrews. ^ Prof. Westcott (Introduction, 467) renders 'which came down and came upori him.' But ' entering into him ' is the natural and ahnost necessary rendering of EiaEXdovirrig tic a-vrov ; in the N. T. for instance there is not a single passage in which Etc is used merely of motion to a person. In Matt. iii. 16 D and Eusebius read ipxbpEvov Eig avrov, ' coming into him,' instead of e. e'tt' au'rtiv, ' coming upon him,' while C E and some cursives have Trpbg ' to,' whioh points to tic as the original reading. In Mark i. 10 B D 13. 69. and a few others (followed by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford) read ttc. And in Luke iii. 22 D, the Old Latin, the revised Latin, and the Vulgate all have the same. To my mind this version of the descent of the Holy Spirit is the much more intelligible one. No evangelist says that the dove flew away, and John (i. 32) tells us positively that ' it abode (ifiEivEv, "remained") upon him,' pointing to the Spirit 'as not removing from Jesus ' (Alford). It would thus become, at least in appearance, fused in him. In this way the supernatural cha racter of the dove would be manifest ; but if on the other hand the dove flew away there would be no evidence of its being more than a mere dove. That Luke speaks of the Spirit as descending ' in bodily shape of a dove ' does not in the least militate against such an ex planation of the evangelic tradition : bodily shape does not necessi tate bodily substance. The various MS. readings yield strong reason to believe that ' into ' was the original reading in Matthew, and in Luke we find 2nd cent, authority for it — older than any for ' upon ' (in the parallel passage of Mark this authority is on the other side). But, 40 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. 3. And a voice out of the heaven, say ing, ' Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am weU pleased ' : and again, * ' I have this day begotten thee.' 4. And straightway t ^ great light although Eusebius and Jerome (in the Vulgate of Luke) adopt this reading without suspicion, it was dangerously convenient for those who maintained that the divine Christ entered into the man Jesus at baptism : hence it would be glossed, and the gloss would pass into tbe text, or the pious copyist, fearful of sowing error, might even think it allowable to avoid that danger by changing' a pre position. * Instead of ' Thou art ra.-Y beloved Son ; in thee I am well pleased ' in Luke iii. 22, ' Thou art my Son ; I have this day be gotten thee ' is read by D, the Old Latin, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary, Paustus the Manichaean (quoted by Augustine, Gontra Baust. lib. xxiii.), and once by Augustine without remark (Bnchir. ad Baurent. c. xlix.), who else where (Be Consensu Bvang. lib. ii. c. 14) says that it was found in some MSS., but was said not to be in the older Greek copies. Justin also in his accounts of the Baptism twice gives these as the words spoken by the voice (Bial. cc. 88, 1 03) : the second of these references does not prove that he took them from a Gospel, hut strongly implies it : — Kai yap ouroe 6 Siaf3oXog apa rw avaj3rjvai a-vrbv a-irb tov -irorapov tov 'lopSavov Trjg ijiwvrjg avTS XEyBEiarjg ' Ylog pov El ail' iyw rr-fifjipov yEyivvriKa oe' iv rolg awofjivrjpovEvpaa-L twv 'A-KorrrdXwv yiypa-irrai irpoaEXBiuv avrw Kal -jTEipa^wv pixpi tov Ei-!rt7v avTw ' HporTKvvriaov fxoi ' — ' For this devil, at the same time that he [i.e. Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, after the voice was uttered to him " Thou art my Son ; I have this day begotten thee " is recorded in the memoirs of the Apostles to have come to him and tempted him so far as to say to him " Worship me." ' In Matt. iii. ] 7 D, the Curetonian Syriac, Augustine, and the Old Latin MS. a (Codex Vercellensis) read 'Thou art' for 'This is.' t In Matt. iii. 16 the Old Latin MS. a. Codex Vercellensis, adds ' And when he was being baptized a mighty light shone round about from the water, so that all they were afraid that had come thither,' while g^, Codex Sangermanensis, another MS. of the same version, has ' And when Jesus was being baptized a great light kept shining from the water, so that all they were afraid that had come thither.' The Latin texts are — Et cum baptizaretur (g^ lesus) lumen ingens (g^ magnum) circumfulsit (g^ fulgebat) de Matt. iii. 13-17. 41 shone around the place. And when John aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant (gr' congregati erant). If translated from a lost Greek text, that might run as follows — Kai fiaTrn^Ofiivov avrov (gr' rou 'Irjaov — or iv Si rw jSaitri^EaBai avrbv [gi' rbv 'Ijjo'ouj']) irEpiiXap-tpE (g^ tXa/iTrt) wg piya a-rb mv vSarog, &(TTE tpo^ElaBai -rravrag Tovg wapEXBovTag (gr' avvEXBoiTag). Both the above MSS. are very ancient aud the Codex Vercellensis (4th cent.) is counted the most valuable example of the Old Latin. Justin (Dial. c. 88) mentions the fire at Baptism iu remarkable ' words — Kai TOTE iXBovTOg tov 'Iriaov tiri rbv 'lopSavriv -irorapbv 'ivBa cu;- Iwavvrig ifiaTrn^e, KaTEXBovrog tov 'Irjffov i-rrl rb vSwp Kal Trip avri(j>Bri iv'^\ rj) lopcai'jj Koi avaSvvrog avrov airbTov vSarng wg wEpiarEpav Tb "Aytoi'-/, IIvEUyua i-iri-n-Ttjvai ett' avrbv 'iypaxjyav ol 'AjrooroXot airoiJ tovtov tov 'Xpiffrov lipwv — ' And then when Jesus had come to the Jordan river where John was baptizing, when Jesus had gone down to the water both a fire was' kindled, and when he had gone up from the water the Holy Spirit is recorded by the Apostles of this same our Christ to have lighted upon him as a dove.' Tischendorf conjectures aviifBai for ai-iiwg iKavov, xxii. 6) ' shining around ' him (-iTEpiXafj-^av pi, xxvi. 13). Is the parallel accidental ? But it must be noted that Codex Venetus omits ' Lord.' Matt. iii. 13-17 and end, iv. 5. 43 1 8. Matt. iii. at end. 1, And it came to pass, when the Lord (Nazarene) -^^^ ^^j^g ^p ^^^^ ^^^ water, the entire fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and X rested upon him and said to him 2. ' My § son, in all the prophets did I await thee, that thou mightest come and I might rest in thee ; 3. ' Por thou art my rest ; thou art my firstborn Son that || reignest for ever.' f 9. Matt. iv. s. in [-to?] Jerusalem. Luke iv. 9. (Nazarene T) t Jerome, Gomm,. in Isai. xi. 2, (1) Factum est autem, quum asceudisset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti et requievit super eum et dixit illi (2) 'Fill mi, in omnibus prophetis expectabam te, ut venires et requiescerem in te ; (3) Tu es enim requies mea ; tu es filius mens primogeuitus qui regnas in sempiter- num.' X Is. xi. 2, 'And the Spirit of the Loed shall rest upon him,' i.e. the branch of Jesse. I have already quoted a parallel in 1 Pet. iv. 14. ' Rested upon him ' is the reading of the Curetonian Syriac in Matt. iii. 16. § See note on Fr. 30. II The only passage in the Gospels in which Jesus is spoken of as reigning is Luke i. 33, ' he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.' If Tischendorf's Ood. A, margin. To 'louSaiKov ovk E^tt 'Eie rriv ayiav-KcXiv,' aXX' 'iv iXrijj.' — ' The Jewish has not "into the holy city" but "in Jerusalem." ' On which Hilgenfeld, after his manner, rushes to the conclusion that ' Jesus is not miraculously conveyed out of the desert into the holy city, as the canonical Matthew has reported, but is placed at Jerusalem on the summit of the temple.' Accord ing, then, to Hilgenfeld the Gospel according to the Hebrews either made Jerusalem, instead of the desert, the general scene of the temptation, or else divided the temptation into two — one occurring in the desert, and the other during some after visit of Jesus to Jerusalem. There is, however, no need to draw this startling conclusion from a single preposition whose context is lost. In the first place, for aught we know, ' in Jerusalem ' may have followed the words ' on a pinnacle of the temple.' Secondly, reference to a Greek lexicon or to Bruder's Concordance would have shown numerous instances of the use of iv ' in ' with verbs conveying an 44 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. *10. Matt. V. 22. In the Gospel . . . according to the He- (Nazarene.) hrews he is set down among the greatest criminals who hath grieved the spirit of his t brother. JU.? Matt. V. 24. And be ye never joyful save when ye (Nazarene.) j^^yg looked upon your brother in charity. §12. Matt. vi. 11. [Our bread?] of the morrow [give us Lukexi.s. to-day?]. (Nazare-ne.) idea of motion where we should look for eic ' into.' Thirdly, in Jerome's Greek version of the Gospel, from which we may suppose the quotations to come, the accompanying verb may have been KaranBirai, ' to set down,' or some other verb which might be naturally followed by ' in.' * Jerome, Comm. in Bzech. xviii. 7, In Evangelio quod iuxta Hebraeos Nazaraei legere consueverunt inter maxima ponitur crimina qui fratris sui spiritum contristaverit. Hilgenfeld refers this and the next fragment to Matt, xviii. 6, 7, which must be a clerical error for Matt, xviii. 16, 17 or thereabouts. That passage, however, refers to the sins of a brother against oneself, whereas the parallel in Matt. v. 22 is very remarkable. t Matthew uses 'brother' in. this sense 15 times, Luke 6 times, John twice, Mark never. In Acts and most of the Epistles it is very common indeed. X Jerome, Gomm. in Bphes. v. 4, Ut in Hebraico quoque Evangelio legimus Dominum ad discipulos loquentem : ' Et nun quam,' inquit, ' laeti sitis nisi quum fratrem vestrum videritis in caritate.' If this fragment came anywhere else it might possibly be in Matt, xviii. between vv. 14 and 15. § Jerome, Goirvm. in MaU. vi. 11, In Evangelio quod appellatur ' secundum Hebraeos ' pro ' super suhstantiali pane ' reperi Mahar, quod dicitur crastinum — ut sit sensus ' Panem nostrum crastinum,' id est, futurum, ' da nobis hodie ' — ' In the Gospel which is called " according to the Hebrews " instead of " supersubstantial bread " I found "Mahar," that is to say, "of ihe morrow," making the sense " Our bread of the morrow," that is, of the future, " give us to-day." ' After the exhaustive excursus of Bishop Lightfoot (On a fresh Revision, App. I. 196-234) there ought no longer to be any doubt that i-n-iova-iov (A. V. ' daily ') is an adjective formed from (fi) iniovaa (Jipipa), ' (the) following (day),' 'the morrow.' Matt V. 22, 24 (.^), vi. II, X. 25 and end [f). 45 II 13. Matt. X. 25, Enough for the disciple to be as the (Ebionite.) master. ^ u.' ? Matt. X. after I ^yiU chooso me the good, those good whom my * * Father in the heavens hath given me.tt' In conjecturally filling in the remainder of the sentence I have not imagined that the translation of Jerome, ' Our bread of the morrow give us to-day,' is meant for a rendering of the Aramaic passage. But, seeing that Matt, and Luke both give this order of words, which is also somewhat unusual in Greek, I presume that it represents the original Aramaic order. II Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 26, of the Ebionites, ^acrl Si Kal ov-oi, Kara rbv iKEtvwv XrjpwSr] Xoyov, ''ApKErbv rw /.laBririj Eivai wg 6 SiSaaKaXog ' — ' And they too say according to the silly argument of the Kerinthians "Enough &c." ' He repeats the text in the same form c. 30. He had previously mentioned (Haer. xxviii. 5) that the Kerinthians quoted it 'from the Gospel,' and he then gives it with 'iva yivrirai ' that he be ' in place of Elvai 'to be ' : this agrees verbatim with the Greek Matthew except that the latter adds avrov, ' his ' master. % Twice quoted in the Syriac version of Eusebius's Theophania (of the Greek of which only fragments remain) : see Prof. S. Lee's edition iv. 13, -pp. 234, 235. On p. 234 the Syriac runs as follows : — ¦ which Lee translates ' I will select to myself these things ; very very excellent are those whom my Father who is in heaven has given me.' In the second quotation, on p. 235, ' these things ' ^— i-JOl is omitted, and Lee translates ' I will select to myself the very excellent, those &c.' Ewald's version was 'I choose me the good; the good are they whom my Father in heaven gave me,' but Hilgenfeld calls this inaccurate, and gives on the authority of Merx the rendering I have placed, after him, in the text. The quotation is first brought iu with the words ' The cause, therefor, of the divisions of soul which came to pass in houses Himself taught, as we have found in a place in the Gospel existing among the Jews ia the Hebrew language, in which it is said &c.' Eusebius is commenting on Matt. x. 34, Luke xii. 61. * * ' Heavenly Father,' ' Father iu heaven ' are phrases almost confined to Matt., where they occur 20 times — but in Mark only twice, in Luke only once, and nowhere else in the N. T. ' For note see next page. 46 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. *15. Matt. xii. 10. I was a mason, seeking sustenance by Mark iii. jj^y j^ands : I beseech thee, Jesus, that thou (Nazarene ) rsstore me health, that I may not shame fully beg for food. ti6. Matt. xii. 47-50. 1. . . . ' Behold thy mother and thy Mark iii. 32-5. brethren stand without.' Luke viii. 20, 21. (Ebionite) 1 1 Cf. John xvii. 6, ' the men which thou gavest me out of the world, thine they were, and thou gavest them me,' and ib. 9, ' I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.' * Jerome, Comm. in Matt. xii. 13, In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae .... homo iste qui aridam habet manum caementarius scribitur, istiusmodi vocibus auxilium precans, ' Cae- meutarius eram, mauibus victum quaeritans : precor te, lesu, ut mihi restitues sanitatem, ne turpiter mendicem cibos ' — ' In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use .... that man who has the dry hand is described as a mason, beseeching help in words of this sort, " I was &c." ' t Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 14, IlaXii' Se api'ouvrai ticai avrbv avBpw-irov SrjBEV a-rrb rov Xoyov ov E'lprjKEv 6 ^wrfip iv rw avayyEX-rjvai avrw (edd. auroi') on (1) ' 'ISou ri fjrirrip aov koI ol aSEXipoi aov 'i^w iarriKamv,' on ('2) 'Tig pov ian pvrrip Kal dSsX^ot ; ' (3) Kai EKTEivag rrjv YE'ipa iirl roiig paBrirag 'Er] ' Ovroi Eiaiv ol aSEXipoi pov Kal ij /j-firrip, ol woiovvTEg ra BEXripara rov irarpog fiov' — 'And again they [the Ebionites] deny that he was man, forsooth from the word which the Saviour spoke (when message was brought him " Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without "), " Who is &c." ' Codex V reads in (3) ' my brethren and mother and brethren ' (Kiti olSeX^ol — no o'l), aud this text Hilgenfeld prints, putting a comma after pnrrip but none before oi 7rotoiir-fe. He does not vouchsafe the slightest justification of this splendid audacity, but I suppose he construes ' and brethren [are] they that do the wishes of my Father.' I am strongly prepossessed in favour of the MS. which has revealed to us the true reading ^-iktei bv for ipvrov in Haer. xxx. 6 — to say nothing of its superior antiquity to the other MSS. — but I really cannot accept tbis. Kai LSeX^oI stands either for Kai ol ciSeX^oI ' and brethren ' accidentally repeated, or for Kai ai aSEXfal 'and sisters ' (cf. Mark iii. 35). In (1) the ' desiring to speak with thee ' of Matt, is omitted, but there is no other difference. From Luke (viii. 20) there is a little more difference, and from Mark (iii. 32) much more. Matt. xii. lo, 47-50, xv. 2/\., ^7 2. . . . 'Who is my mother and bre thren ? ' 3. And he stretched out his hand over the disciples, and said ' These are my bre thren and mother, that do the J wishes of my Father.' tt § 17. Matt. XV. 24. I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In (2) Matt, has ' who is my mother (ri prirrip pov) and who are my brethren ? ' Luke omits the clause altogether. Mark has ' Who is my mother (ri p-firrip pov) and my brethren ? ' which is nearer. In (3) Matt., differs widely ' Behold my mother and my brethren : for whosoever doeth the wish (rd BiXrifia) of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother ' — not to dwell on the slight differences betweeu ' the disciples ' and ' his disciples,' t^r; and eIttei', which might be due to Epiphanius. Mark differs much more, but for ' the wish ' (rd BiXripa) B reads ' the wishes' (ra BEXripara). Luke has 'My mother and my brethren are these, that hear and do the word of God ' (Mrirrjp fjov Kal aSEXipoi fXHV ovroi Eiaiv ol rbv Xoyov rov Qeov aKOvoiTEg Kal TfOiovvTEg), and does not represent Jesus as pointing to any oiie. In the so-called 2nd Epistle of Clement, we are told (ix. 11) that ' the Lord said ' (eI-ttev 0 Kipiog) ' My brethren are these, that do the wish of my Father ' ('AOEXipoi pov ovroi Eiaiv ol -iroiovvrEg rb BiXripa rov -irarpog pov). This is far nearer to the Ebionite Gospel. X Cf. Acts xiii. 22 ('my wishes ') and Eph. ii. 3 ('the wishes of the fiesh '), the only places in the N. T. where the pi. BEXripara occurs, except iu the various reading of B on Mark iii. 35. Accord ing to Tischendorf it is common in the LXX version of the Psalms and Isaiah. § Origen, Be Brine, iv. 22, 'E-irav (jiaa-Kri 6 'Zwriip ' Ovk dTrEoraXijj/ El ur) Eig TO. TrpdjSara ra a-rroXwXora o'ikov ItrpaijX, ovk iKXapjSavopEV Tavra wg ol TrruiX""' ry Siavoiq. 'EjSiwvaloi tSiffrc u7roXa/3Etv ETri rovg aapKivovg 'lapariXirag -Kporiyovpivwg rbv Xpiirrbv iiriSESrifiriKivai — ' When the Saviour declares ' I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel ' we do not take this as the poor-witted Ebionites, so as to suppose that the Christ came aud dwelt of fore intent among the Israelites of the flesh.' Origen in calling the Ebionites ' poor-witted ' puns on their name, Ebionim, ' the poor.' The quotation agrees exactly with Matt. xv. 24. 48 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. *18. Matt. xvi. 17. Son of John. (Nazarene 1) ti9. Matt, xviii. 22. 1. He saith 'If thy brother hath sinned Luke xxvii. 3, 4. i^ | word and hath made thee amends, (Nazarene.) ,. . t • t.- 5 ' seven times m a day receive him. 2. § Simon his disciple said unto him ' Seven times in a day ? ' 3. The Lord answered and said unto him ' I tell thee also, unto seventy times seven : for in the prophets likewise, after that they were || anointed by the Holy Spirit, utterance of sin was found.' * Tischendorf's Codex A, margin. To 'louSaiKov • 'Y'li 'Iwavvov' — 'The Jewish: "son of John."' No doubt the Aramaic was Bar Jochanan. There is hardly any question that the name, Jona, of Simon's father is not the same as Jonah, but is a contraction of Jochanan, John. In all other places iu the N. T. where the name of Simon's father occurs (John i. 43, xxi. 15, 16, 17) recent editors rightly read ' sou of John.' t Jerome, Adv. Pelag. iii. 2, Et in eodem volumine ' " Si pec- caverit," inquit, " frater tuus in verbo et satis tibi fecerit, septies in die suscipe eum." Dixit illi Simon discipulus ejus " Septies in die ? " Bespondit Dominus et dixit ei " Etiam ego dico tibi usque septuagies septies ; etenim in prophetis quoque, postquam uncti sunt Spiritu Sancto, inventus est sermo peccati." ' X Matthew and Luke (xvii. 4) do not limit the offense to offense of speech. It is possible that Jerome rendered too literally here, and that the proper rendering would be ' in a thing,' 'in anything.' In Hebrew ' word ' is not seldom used in the sense of a subject of speech, a ' thing,' just as our thing and the Latin res mean a subject of thought. Dr. Hermann Adler tells me that this usage, though rarer in Aramaic, is not unknown to it. § This style occurs again in the next fragment ; it is not found in the Pour Gospels. Peter is spoken of as plain ' Simon ' only once in Matthew aud John, but 7 times iu Mark and 8 times in Luke. The title ' disciple ' is a specially favourite one with John (who uses it some 80 times), next with MattheW (about 80 times), and Mark (45 times) ; whereas Luke has it only about 40 times, or in proportion to his length only twice for every five times that Matthew and Mark have it, and for every 7 times that John has it. He also uses the title ' Apostle ' 6 times, while each of the others has it only once. il Cf Acts X. 38, 'God anointed him with the Holy Spirit.' Matt. xvi. 17, xviii. 22, xix. 16-24. 49 po.Matt. xix. 16-24. (16) 1. ** The Other of the rich men said Mark X. 17-25. to him ' Master, what good thing shaU I Luke xviii. 18-25. t ¦, ,. „ , ,,r N do and live? (Nazarene.) Luke uses the verb ' anoint ' twice more— Gosp. iv. 18, Acts iv. 27 ; it is only found twice again in the N. T. — not at all in the other three Gospels. 1[ Latin trans, of Origen (see above, p. 4), (1) Dixit ad eum alter divitum ' Magister, quid bonum faciens vivam ? ' (2) Dixit ei ' Homo, legem \_Migne has leges, st'o] et prophetas fac' (3) Re- epondit ad eum ' Feci.' (4) Dixit ei ' Vade, vende omnia quae possides et divide pauperibus et veni, sequere me.' (5) Coepit autem dives scalpere caput suum, et non placuit ei. Et dixit ad eum Dominus ' Quomodo diois " Legem feci et prophetas " ? — quoniam scriptum est in lege " Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum," et ecce multi fratres tui, filii Abrahae, amicti sunt stercore, morientes prae fame, et domus tua plena est multis bonis, et non egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea ad eos.' (6) Et conversus dixit Simoni discipulo suo, sedenti apud se, ' Simon, fili lohannae, facilius est camelum intrare per foramen acus quam divitem in regnum caelorum.' ** The three Synoptic Gospels only mention one rich man — indeed, only one man, rich or poor — as asking a question of Jesus at this time. Hilgenfeld conjectures that in the Go.spel according to the Hebrews the entire passage ran somewhat as follows : — 'And behold there came to him two rich men. Theone said " Good master " — But he said " Gall me not good : for he that is good is one, the Bather in the heavens." The other 8fa.' Gall me not good is the reading of the Clementine Homilies (xviii. 3, 17) in Matt. xix. 17, and the Father in ihe heavens is added to the answer of Jesus by them, by Justin (my Bather &c.) once (Dial. 101 — bnt Ood who made all things, Apol. i. 16), and by the Marcosians (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. XX. 2) : these, however, say nothing of two questioners. This number two may be thought to afford a straw's weight of presumption in favour of the Matthaean origin of this version. It occurs in Matthew much more often than in the other Gospels, and in viii. 28 and xx. 30 he has represented Jesus as healing two demoniacs and two blind men where Mark and Luke' only mention one : on the other hand he (with Mark) only speaks of one angel at the sepulchre, where Luke and John mention two. The now (rightly) accepted reading in Matt. xix. 16 is ' Master,' not ' Good Master,' and in xix. 17 ' Why askest thou me of the good ? he that is good is One.' E 50 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. (17) 2, He said unto him *'Man, perform the law andt the prophets.' (20) 3. He answered him ' I have per formed them.' (21) 4. He said unto him J ' Go, seU all that thou hast and divide it to the poor, and come, follow me.' (22) 5. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him ' How sayest thou '• I have performed the law and the prophets " ? seeing that it is written in the law § " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," and behold many of thy brethren, || sons of Abraham, are clad with dung, dying for hunger, and thy house is full of much goods, and there goeth out therefrom nought at all unto them.' (23-4) 6. And he turned and said to Simon his \ disciple, ** sitting by him, * This form of address is only found in Luke xii. 14, xxii. 58, 60. t This conjunction of the prophets, as the base of a code of life, with the law is peculiar to Matthew : cf. vii. 12, ' Therefor, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.' And xxii. 40, ' Ou these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.' X Luke (xviii. 22) omits ' Go,' but otherwise he is a little nearer to the Gospel according to the Hebrews than are Matt, and Mark : cf. his Ttarra 'oaa 'ixEig With their aov ra v-a-apxovra and oaa 'ixEig ; and his SiaSog with their S6g. § Cf. Matt. xix. 19. Mark and Luke omit this injunction. II Cf. Luke xix. 9, ' son of Abraham,' and xiii. 16, ' daughter of Abraham.' John has ' seed of Abraham ' twice and ' children of Abraham' once. ^ See note ou the last fragment. **" It was the custom for the scholars of a Rabbi to sit on the floor or benches, while the Rabbi himself sat a little above them on a raised platform : thus Paul speaks of himself as brought up ' at the feet of Gamaliel ' (Acts xxii. 3). As regards the phrase Matt. xix. 16-24, ^KT^- 9- 51 ' Simon, son of tt John, it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom of the heavens.' 21. tJMatt. xxi. 9. §§ ' Hosanna 1||| ' in the heights. Mark xi. 10. Luke xix. 38. John xii. 13. (Nazarene.) ' sitting BT,' Hilgenfeld quotes Josephus (Bell. lud. i. 6, 5), ^aav Si o'vK oXiyoi -KapESptvovTEg avrw rwv pavBavovrwv ' and there were not a few of the scholars sitting by him' (i.e. Judas the Essaean). Jesus himself certainly liked to teach, as a Rabbi, sitting : see Matt. V. 1, xiii. 1, 2, xv. 29 (xxiv. 3?), xxvi. 55, Mark iv. l,ix. 36, Luke V. 3, John vi. 3. It may be observed that this little bit of Jewish colouring is supplied by Matthew more often than in the other three Evangelists together, and that he alone speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as 'sitting in Moses' seat' (xxiii. 2). tt See note on Fragment 18. ' lohannae ' in Origen's translator points to a Greek 'Iwawa : cf. Iwva. XX Jerome in a letter to Pope Damasus (Martiauay's ed. iv. 148) after explaining the word Osanna proceeds thus : — Finally, Matthew, who composed the Gospel in the Hebrew language, put in these words, Osanna barrama, that is ' Osanna in the heights,' because when the Saviour was born salvation reached as far as heaven, that is even to the heights, peace being made not only in earth but also in heaven (Denique Matthaeus, qui Evangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, ita posuit, Osanna barrama, id est ' Osanna in excelsis,' quod Salvatore nascente salus in coelum usque, id est, etiam ad excelsa pervenerit, pace facta non solum in terra sed et in coelo). The date of the letter is about 380 a.d. It seems to me (as to Anger and Hilgenfeld) almost certain that Jerome is here quoting the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and for three reasons (1) he was not the man to conjecture that Matthew wrote barrama and then state it as a fact ; (2) the introduction of the word is so altogether irrelevant that I suppose him to have introduced it simply as an example of what he believed to be the veritable Aramaic of Matthew ; (3) it is almost certain (see note on p. 18) that he had copied the Nazarene Gospel before he wrote this letter to Damasus, and it is not to be believed that, holding his opinion of it, he should say that Matthew wrote Aramaic words which it did not contain. Tet see Addenda. J. For notes see next page. E 2 52 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. ? 22. ? End of Matt. A story of a woman accused before Jesus ^^1. of many sins (Nazarene ?) Hilgenfeld prints as the original XDia N337tf'1K and says that Anger refers the second word to either the Hebrew np"l3 or the Chaldaic K»"}3. The fragment corresponds verbatim with Matthew and Mark, not so with Luke and John. §§ ' Hosanna,' ' 0 save,' is from Ps. cxviii. 26, one of the Hallel psalms, sung about a week before the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and appointed to be sung again a week later at the Passover. But according to the chronology of Matthew (against Mark) his entry was immediately followed by the purification of the Temple, and if we might trust this chronology and suppose also that he had allowed his intention to become known, another very remarkable explanation of their quoting this psalm would commend itself to our acceptance. At the Feast of Dedication, which commemorated the purification of the Temple by Judas Maccahaeus, ' they bare branches, and fair boughs, and palms also, and sang psalms ' (2 Mace. x. 6, 7), and we know that Ps. cxviii. was among the psalms sung at this feast. It would thus appear as if the crowd hearing of the intention of Jesus repeated the ceremonies of the Feast of Dedication. II II That is ' in heaven.' Hilgenfeld adduces Ecclesiasticus xxvi. 16 (ijXiog avariXXwv iv v-^hroig Kvpiov 'the sun rising in heights of the Lord) and xliii. 9 (where the moon is spoken of as KaXXoe ovpavov, Sb^a aarpwv, Kvapog (pwril^wv, iv v-ipiaroig Kvpiog 'beauty of heaven, glory of stars, a shining ornament, lord in heights,' where I of course prefer the reading of AO, Koapog ipwri^wv iv v-ipiaroig Kvpiov 'a shining ornament in heights of the Lord ') ; and Luke ii. 14 (c^d^a iv vxpiirroig Gtj), A. V. ' Glory to God in the highest ') and particularly xix. 38, the description of this very scene, where the cry of the multitude is given as iv uiipavw Elprivri, Kal So^a iv v\piaroic, A. V. 'peace in heaven and glory in the highest.' The meaning of the entire phrase may be ' Let Hosanna be sung in heaven.' * Eusebius (Hist. Bccl. iii. 39) says that Papias ' has published also another relation of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains' (for the Greek see p. 8, note). The passage I have inserted above, as probably identical in sub stance at least with the narrative mentioned by Eusebius, is the Story of the Woman taken in Adultery printed in our Bibles as John vii. 63-viii. 11, but whose genuineness as a part of the Fourth Gospel is disallowed by an overwhelming preponderance of critical {Matt. xxi. end?) John vii. '^¦^-viii. ii. 53 ^substantially, it would seem, a-ndperha-ps almost verbally, as follows: — opinion. The recent textual editors, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Westcott and Hort, all deny it the same authorship. Of living English writers of note only McClellan opposes, only Farrar hesi tates : BUicott, Hammond, Lightfoot, Sanday, Scrivener, and even Wordsworth, allow that the Story of the Woman taken in Adultery is an interpolation. In Appendix F I have given a minute analysis of the evidence for and against it. Several of the above writers conjecture that the story is the same with that told by Papias. Mr. McClellan (New Test. 721) objects that the woman spoken of by Papias was ' secretly accused ' (SiajiXriBEiarig) of many sins, whereas the Woman taken in Adultery was openly accused, and of one sin only. Now in the fii-st place to translate SiafiXriBEiarig ' secretly accused ' ^is to strain its meaning unwarrantably, and in the second place, as Tischendorf says, the words ' from this time uo longer sin ' seem to indicate that the woman had been a frequent sinner. And it is impossible to escape from the fact that Rufinus, in his translation of Eusebius, para phrased his author's words so as to make him say that Papias pubhshed 'another relation concerning an [or the] adulterous woman who was accused by the Jews before the Lord '' (aliam his torian! de muliere adultera quae accusata est a ludaeis apud Domi num). Now if it can be said confidently of any man but Jerome that he must have read through the Gospel according to the He brews that man is Rufinus. The fellow-student of Jerome at Aquileia, he went with him to the East in 371 a.d., he was in Palestine be tween 377 and 397, up to 393 he was on the most cordial terms with Jerome, and for the last seven years of that time the two were living a little more than an hour's walk from each other, Jerome at Bethlehem, Rufinus at Jerusalem. Now it is almost certain that Jerome had copied the Nazarene Gospel not later than 379 A.D., he began to quote it in his commentaries in 387, and iu 392 he speaks of having lately rendered it into Greek and Latin. Is it to be credited that he should render it into two languages for the reading of all the civilized world, and that neither of these translations should have been read by his intimate friend living some half-a- dozen miles off? Mr. McClellan himself would not say so, and putting together the evidence of Eusebius and Rufinus (who trans lated Eusebius about 408) I must regard it as absolutely certain that the Gospel according to the Hebrews contained a story of an adulteress accused before Jesus. But, asks Mr. McClellan, if contained in the Gospel according 54 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. 1. And they went each to his own to the Hebrews, 'how could it have been (with some trifling ex ceptions) universally transferred to the Oospel of St. John, and never once to the more kindred Gospel of St. Matthew ? ' Farrar seems to feel the same difficulty as to its interpolation into John, and many of those who repudiate the genuineness of the passage must have stumbled over it in their own minds. The question can, I believe, be answered satisfactorily, as follows. If the reader turns to p. 7, he will see that Eusebius says that Papias ' also transfers to his own work other accounts, by the afore said Aristion, of the Lord's discourses, and traditions of the Elder John.' Of course when he repeated one of the Elder John's tradi tions he must have mentioned him by name, or Eusebius would not have known whence they were derived. My theory is that Papias in telling the Story of the Woman taken in Adultery said that it was related by John, meaning the Elder ; that some one else supposed him to mean the Apostle, and added it to his own copy of the Fourth Gospel, perhaps in the place where we now find it, or perhaps as an appendix at the end of the Gospel, whence it may have been transferred by the next copyist. It is easy to see why this particular place was found for it. It seemed to come most naturally _y'!tsi before viii. 15, where Jesus says ' Ye judge after the flesh ; I judge no man ' ; and just after c. vii., where there had been far more mention of ' Moses ' and ' the law ' than in any other part of the Gospel — ¦' Moses ' being named 4 times, and ' the law ' 5 times, against twice in any other chapter — and there being no good opportunity of inserting it before v. 52. Again Jesus is mentioned twice in c. vii. and once in c. viii. as teaching in the Temple, but nowhere else in the Gospel. The story evidently belongs to the Passion- week, when ' in the day-time he was teaching in the Temple ; and at night he went ont, and abode in the mount that is called the Mount of Olives. And all the people came early in the morning to him in the Temple, for to hear him ' (Luke xxi. 37-8). ' Hitzig would find room for this incident between Mark xii. 17 and 18, that is between the question of the Herodians and that of the Sadducees : but this is contradicted by Matt. xxii. 23 whioh says that the Sadducees came to him ' the same day ' as the Herodians. It might be put after Matt, xxii., if that chapter did not end with the statement that ' neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.' But there seems no reason why we should not give it a place in time between Matt. xxi. and xxii., that is between the parables of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Wedding- {Matt. xxi. end?) John vii. 53-z'2V?. ii. 55 house, and * Jesus went to the Mount of the Olives. feast — especially as we are told in Mark xii. 12 that after the former parable ' they left him and went their way.' It would then come before the questions of the Herodians, Sadducees, and Phari sees, immediately after which we find from Mark xii. 35 aud 41 that he was ' teaching in the Temple ' and that he ' sat over against the treasury ' — facts which do not of course prove anything for this theory, but are simply quoted to show its consistency with what we know of the actions of Jesus on this particular day. As to the text of the passage, the number of various readings is so unparalleled, and so many of the most ancient MSS., versions, and Fathers fail us, that its exact determination is hopeless. I subjoin the text which I frame, and which I have rendered as closely as possible. The reader who compares it with the notes to this passage in 'Tischendorf's eighth edition will see that in every case where he has definitely indicated one reading as preferable to the rest I have been able to agree with him. (1) Kai i-iropE-vOriaav EKaarog iig rbv oIkov avrov, 'Iriaovg Si iiropEvBri Eig fb'Opog TWV 'EXaiwv. (2) 'OpBpuv Se TfaXiv wapEyivETO slg rb 'lEpov, Kal wag b Xabg iipxETO -Trpbg avrov, Kal KaBiaag iSiSanKEV a-oroiig. (3) "Ayoufftv ^£ ol ypuppaTE~ig Kal ol <^apiaa1oi yvvalKa ETri poiXEia. KarEiXrifjpivriv. (4) Kai arriaavTEg avrriv iv piaw eWov avTW ' AiSaiTKaXE, avrrj i} yvvri KaTEiXri-TTrai irr' ai/roipwpw poixEvopivri ' (5) ' 'Ev Si rw vopw iip'iv Mwvafjg ivETEiXaro rag roiavrag XiBa^EiV av ovv ri XiyEig ;' (6) Toiiro Si tXtyov -irEipa^ovrEg avrbv, Iva 'ixwai KarrjyopEiv avrov. (7) O Si 'Iriaovg Karw Kv^pag rw SaKrvXip KariypaipEv Etc rfiv yrjv. (8) 'Qg Si iiripEvov ipwrwVTEg avrbv avEKVijjEV Kal ei-jtev avro'tg ' O avafiapTrjTog vpwv wpwrog ett' avrriv rbv XiBov fiaXirW' Kal iraXiv Karw Kv\pag 'iypafev Etc rrjv yfjv. (9) Ot Si aKOvaavTEg i^i'ipxovro - eig KaO' Etg, ap^afiEvoi a-irb rwv TrpEOJovripwv, Kal KarEX£i(j)Bri pbvog 6 'Iriaovg Kal fi yvvfi iv piaio oioa. (10) 'AvaKV-^ag Si b 'Itjaovg eI-kev avrrj 'Tvvai, ?roii Eiaiv; ovSe/c O-E KOTEKpiVEV ', (11) 'H Si EiTTEv ' OuSei'c, KvpiE.' EtTTE Se 6 'lijtTOuc ' OvSi iyw (7E KaraKpivw " TropEvov Kal a-rrb rov vvv priKiri apapravE.' * Matthew (xxi. 17) says that on the evening after the entry into Jerusalem Jesus ' went out of the city to Bethany and lodged there,' and subsequent passages imply that the lodging was not 56 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. 2. *And at dawn he came again into the Temple, t and all the people came to him, and % having sat dovra he taught them. 3. And the § scribes and the Pharisees bring || a woman taken up for adultery: merely temporary. The same with Mark (xi. 11). But Luke (xxi. 37, quoted above, and xxii. 39, ' and went as he was wont to the mount of [the] Olives') is the only evangelist who vaguely mentions this mountain, and not Bethany, as the lodging-place of Jesus at night. * There are two close parallels to this verse in the writings of Luke. The first is Luke xxi. 38, ' And all the people came at dawn [A. V. early in the morning] to him in the Temple, for to hear him ' : came at dawn is expressed in the Greek by a single word &pBpi^E, the verb of bpBpov ' dawn.' The second is Acts v. 21, ' they entered into the Temple toward the dawn [A. V. early in the morning] and taught ' : here the word used is again opBpov. It is remarkable that, puttying aside this fragment, no N. T. writing, except those of Luke, contains the word 'bpBpov or any of its kin: in addition to 'opBpov and dpBpi'CEiv Luke also has opBpivog (xxiv. 22). Matthew, Mark, and John always use Trpw'i or Trpwia, Luke never. t From here to the end of the verse is left out by seven cursives, including several of the best (e.g. Cod. 16 and Cod. 39). But as six of these read at the beginning of the next verse Kal -jrpoafjvEyKav aijrw the omission may arise from the copyist glancing accidentally from one Kai to another two lines below it. D omits ' and having sat down he taught them,' but the copyist may have confounded this sentence (Kai — avroig) with the one before (Kal — avrov). X As the Rabbis taught sitting, so, very often at least, did Jesus. See Matt. v. 1 (' and when he had sat down (A. V. when he was set) his disciples came unto him, and he opened his mouth and taught them ') ; xiii. 1, 2 ; xv. 29 ; (xxiv. 3 ?) ; xxvi. 66 (' I sat daily with you teaching in the Temple ') ; Mark iv. 1 ; ix. 35 ; Luke V. 3 ; John vi. 3. It is Matthew who is most fond of speci fying this attitude. § Matthew has scribes and Pharisees 6 times, Luke 3 times, and Luke and Mark have each Pharisees and scribes once. II D has a very likely-looking reading — ' a woman taken for sin ' (tTri apapriif yvvalKa EiXrippivriv) — which recalls at once Papias's ' woman accused of many sins,' the ' adulterous and sinful generation ' {Matt. xxi. end?) John vii. ^¦^-viii. ii. 57 4. And having placed her in the midst they said to him 1 ' Teacher, this woman hath been taken up in adultery, in the very act ; 6. ' And in the law Moses commanded us ** to stone such : tt what therefor dost thou say ? ' 6. And this they said tt trying him, §§ that they may have whereby to accuse him. 7. But Jesus having bent down kept of Mark viii. 38, and the woman ' which was a sinner ' of Luke vu, 37. It is however without support. U It is a great pity that the A. V. obscures the meaning of the original by invariably giving the ambiguous ' Master ' as its translation of SiS6.aKaXog. ** This particular mode of death is not definitely prescribed in the law for any form of adultery except that in which a woman ' betrothed unto au husband ' is guilty : see Deut. xxii. 23-4. It might however be inferred from Deut. xxii. 22, compared with the foregoing and following verse, that a married woman committing adultery was also to be killed by stoning. It is not likely that they had any thought of really stoning this woman. They might not put to death without leave from the Roman governor, who would hardly give it in such cases as this. tt B reads ' but what dost thou say now ? ' ++ Matthew four times represents the Jews as trying (A. V. always ' tempting ') Jesus (xvi. 1, xix. 3, xxii. 18, 35), Mark thrice (viii. 11, x. 2, xii. 16), Luke twice (x. 25, xi. 16). §§ Cf. Luke vi. 7, 'iva Evpwai KarriyopElv avrov ' that they may find whereby to accuse him,' aud Matt. xii. 10, Mark iii. 2, ' that they may accuse him.' If he answered that they ought to stone her they might accuse him to Pilate of counseling disobedience to his authority, if that they ought not to stone her, they might accuse him to the people of counseling violation of the law. D leaves out this verse, but reads (4) thus, ' And having placed her in the midst the priests say, trying him, that they may have accusation of him (Kartiyopiav avrov). Teacher &c.' D how ever stands alone, except that there is a fair, but still insufficient, amount of authority for the addition of the single word ' trying ' in (4). 5o The Gospel according to the Hebrews. * writing down with his finger upon the ground. 8. But as they continued asking him he unbent and said to them ' Let the t sin less one of you first cast against her the stone.' And having bent down again he kept writing upon the ground. 9. But they having heard went out one by one, beginning from the elder ones, and Jesus was left alone, and the woman in the midst. 10. And Jesus having unbent said to her 't Mistress, where are they? Hath none condemned thee? ' 11. And she said ' ISTone, § sir.' And Jesus said ' Neither || will I condemn thee : go, and from this time no longer sin.'] * Or ' drawing,' another meaning of Karaypa^Eiv. t Perhaps with reference to the special sin in question ; see above. The person to be stoned was thrown down by one of the two chief witnesses from an erection of twice the height of a man. If he was killed by the fall, the actual stoning was omitted. If not, after he had been turned on his back the other chief witness dashed a stone on to his breast, and if this did not kill him the rest of the bystanders stoned him. So this punishment is described in the Talmud, Sanhed. vi. 4. X rival, a term of courtesy, used 5 times by John, twice by Luke, and once by Matthew. § This or ' master ' is of course the natural rendering of KvpiE, the common N. T. form of deferential address, used by servants to their masters (Matt. xiii. 27, xviii. 26, xxv. 20, 22, 24, Luke xiii. 8, xiv. 22, xix. 16, 18, 20, 25), sons to their fathers (Matt. xxi. 30), the Jewish leaders to Pilate (Matt, xxvii. 63), strangers to Philip (John xii. 21), and Mary of Magdala to a gardener (John xx. 16). II The difference in the Greek between ' do I condemn ' and ' will I condemn ' is merely one of accent — KaraKpivw and KaraKpivw — and the great majority of MSS. during the first few centuries were written without accents. But, as far as MSS. and versions are of avail in such a case, half the uncials, a large number of cursives, and the Old Latin and Vulgate favour the future, which, fancying it a little the better, I therefor adopt. Matt, xxiii. 35, xxv. 14-30. 59 % 23. Matt, xxiii. 35. Zacharias son of Joiada. Luke xi. 61. (Nazare-ne.) **24. Matt. xxv. 14- The Gospel which comes to us in Hebrew ^^- characters has directed the threat not against Luke xix. 11-27. ly Jerome, Comm. in Matt, xxiii. 36, In Evangelio quo utuntur Nazareni pro filio Barachiae filium loiadae reperimus scriptum — ' In the Gospel which the Nazarenes use we find " sou of Joiada " written for " son of Barachias." ' No Zacharias son of Barachias is known except the minor prophet of that name. There is uo Jewish tradition that he died a violent death, and there is not the slightest doubt that the person referred to is the ' Zechariah the son of Jehoiada ' of 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21, who actually was stoned in the court of the priests, between the altar of burnt offerings and the Temple itself, and whose death forms the subject of one of the wildest Talmudic legends. As the murder of Abel comes first in the Old Testament so in the Jewish arrangement of the books the murder of the son of Jehoiada came last. The words ' son of Barachias ' in Matt, xxiii. are indeed left out by X and Eusebius, but are kept by VACD, the Latin versions, the Thebaic, the Peshitta, by Irenaeus, and by Origen ; the Curetonian Syriac, which is deficient here, probably contained them also, for it adds them to Luke xi. 61. Thus the testimony both of numbers and antiquity compels us to keep the words, and to account for them as best we can. It is next to impossible that the original reading was simply ' Zacharias.' No authority previous to the 4th cent, omits the words 'son of Barachias.' And the name 'Zacharias' of itself so naturally suggests the minor prophet that a copyist who believed him to be the person intended would scarcely think it needful to indicate him more closely by adding ' son of Barachias.' On the other hand it seems most improbable that this glaring mistake should be due to the Jewish writer himself. I believe that the Gospel according to the Hebrews has kept the original reading, and that the passage passed through three different forms: — (1) Zacharias son of Jehoiada — so the original; (2) Zacharias son of Barachias — so a very early copyist (or the translator if the Greek Matthew le a translation), knowing only the minor prophet, and correcting, as he thought, the mistake ; (3) Zacharias 'bj itself — so some later copyists, correcting the real mistake of No. 2. ** Eusebius, Theophania (the Greek fragments in Migne's 6o The Gospel accdrding to the Hebrews. the hider, but against the * abandoned liver. For it has included three servants, one t which devoured the substance with harlots and flute-women, and one which multiplied, and one which hid the talent : then that one was X accepted, one only blamed, and one shut up in prison. §25. Matt. xxvi. 17, 1. . . . ' Where wilt thou that we pre- _^^' . pare for thee the passover to eat ? ' Luke xxii. 15 2. . . . ' Have I desired with desire to (Ebonite.) eat this flesh the passover with you ? ' edition of Eusebius, iv. 165), To Etc ^/tac fiKov 'EjipdiKolg x^^poii^rrjpaiv EvayyiXiov rfiv a-n-EiXrlv ov Kara rov a-iroKpvT^avrog irrriyEV aXXa Kara 70U aawTwg i^rjKorog. Tpilg yap SovXovg -KEpiiIxE, rbv piv Karaipayovra T-fiv v-irap^iv pETO. -iropvwv Kal avXr)rpiSwv, rbv Si TroXXaTrXaaiaaarra, rbv Si KaraKp-v-ipavra rb raXavroV Eira rbv pEV arroSExS^vai, rbv Si pEpiftBrjva pbvov, rbv Si avyKXEiadrjvai Seapwrripia. * Cf. Luke XV. 14 (of the Prodigal Son), i^wv aawrwg ' in abandoned living.' We cannot tell how far Eusebius is summarizing the parable in language of his own or how far he has kept any of the phrases of the original. t Cf. Luke XV. 30 (of the Prodigal Son), d Karaipaywv aov rbv fiiov pETo. -TTopvwv ' whloh hath devoured thy living with harlots.' X Or 'received' — a phrase common in Matt, and Luke, but particularly Luke. § Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 22, Kai i-Tvo'iriaav rovg paBrjrag /liv Xiyovrag ^ Uov BiXEig iroipaawfJEV aoi to Trair^a 0oytt>''; Kai auroc C^Bev Xiyovra 'M.^ i-jriBvfjtlif i-TTEBvpriaa Kpiag -fvvro rb iratr^o (payElv PeB' vpwv ; ' — 'And they have made tho disciples say " Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover ? " and hirn to say " Have I desired with desire to eat this flesh the passover with you?"' Epiphanius proceeds, 'A^ri rou yap eI-jte'iv ''EmBvpiq. i-KEdvpriaa ' TrpoaiBEvro rb M)) i-rrii',bripa .... Auroi Si imypa-ipavTEg rb Kpiag kavrovg i-nXavrjaav, paSiovpyfiaavreg Kal Ei-irovrEg M)j ett. &C. ' For instead of saying " I have desired with desire " they have added the adverb pi) ... . But they, having introduced the word Flesh, deceived themselves and fraudulently said " Have I desired &c. ? " ' See also Addenda. The flrst question, ' Where wilt thou &c.? ' is the same with that in Matt. xxvi. 17. The second, ' Have I desired &c.? ' is very near to Luke xxii. 15, ' With desire I have desired to eat this passover Matt. xxvi. 17, 18, T\, xxvii. 16. 61 [? originally ' 'With desire I have desired to eat this (omitting flesh the ?) passover with you.'] II 26. Matt. xxvi. 74. And he denied and swore and cursed. Mark xiv. 71. (Nazarene .') 127. Matt. xxvii. 16. ** The SOU of a master [of them? who Mark XV. 7. j^^^ ^een condemned on account of sedition Luke xxui. 18. , ¦, c-, John xviii. 40. and murder?]. (Nazarene.) with you before I suffer' ('EmBvpiif i-n-EBvfiriaa rovro rb waaxa (hayElv JUE0' vpwv -irpb rov fiE ¦jraflEtr). Epiphanius believed that they had tampered with the words reported by Luke in order to make Jesus express the same aversion from eating Qesh which they themselves entertained. We are strongly justified in suspecting that they did BO (see notes on Fr. 6 and Fr. 33), and I have therefor put in brackets what may have been the original reading. I have only to add that the charge however probable cannot be proved. li Tischendorf's Codex A, on the margin of Matt. xxvi. 74, Tb 'IovScHkov • ' Kai fipvr'iaaro Kal wpoaEv Kal Karripaaaro ' — ' The Jewish : "andhe&c."' % Jerome, Gom.m. in Matt, xxvii. 16, ' Iste in Evangelio quod scribitur iuxta Hebraeos filius magistri eorum interpretatur, qui propter seditionem et homicidium fuerat condemnatus ' — ' In the Gospel which is inscribed according to the Hebrews he is interpreted the son of a master of them— who had been condemned on account of sedition and murder.' It is difficult to know how much of this is quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Hilgenfeld excludes ' of them ' but includes 'who — murder.' The words 'of them' seem to be Jerome's own, and that suggests that the following words are his also. Moreover 'interpreted' points to 'the son of a master' (=Bar Babban or Bar Abba) as being the only words quoted from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, nor would Jerome have any need to quote from it a statement that Barabbas ' had been con demned on account of sedition and murder,' when Luke xxiii. 19, says that Barabbas 'for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.' I therefor believe that the words out of brackets represent the limit of Jerome's quotation. ** Taking his name either as Bar Babban ' son of a Rabbi ' or Bar Abba ' son of a Father.' The word ' master ' perhaps favours 62 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. *28. Matt, xxvii. 51. The lintel of the Temple, of immense Mark XV. 38. g^^jg^ yj(f^g brohcn and fell down. Luke xxiii. 45. (Nazarene.) t29. Matt, xxviii. 1. And when the Lord had given his (Nazarene.) the former, but Lightfoot in his Horae Hebraicae quotes from the Talmuds Babbi Nathan Bardbba, Babbi Samuel Bdrabba, and Abba Barabba — the name Abba ' Father ' being used as a title of spiritual reverence (cf. Matt, xxiii. 9, ' caU no man your father upon the earth ') like Padre, Pere, Father, and the son of such a reverend person being sometimes surnamed Bar Abba ' son of the Father.' In the N. T. there is next to no authority for the doubled r, but the Harklean Syriac (6th cent.) has it in Matt. ( ? elsewhere) and it is the form found in the Acta Pilati. Be these things as they may, there is no doubt that the name Barabbas was rightly treated in the Gospel according to the Hebrews as a mere surname, nor have I any doubt that the reading ' Jesus Barabbas ' in Matt, xxvii. 16, 17, supplies his real circum cision-name, and I hope to satisfy those who care to pursue this point iu Appendix G. Does it not seem likely that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, if it explained this mau's surname, also gave his circumcision-name ? * Jerome, Gomm. in Matt, xxvii. 51, In Evangelio cuius saepe fecimns mentionem, superlimiuare Templi infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum legimus — ' In the Gospel of which we have often made mention we read that the lintel of the Temple, of infinite size, was broken and splintered.' Again (Ad Hedyb. viii.). In Evangelio autem quod Hebraicis litteris scriptum est legimus non velum Teniph scissum sed superlimiuare Templi mirae magnitudinis corruisse — ' In the Gospel, however, which is written in Hebrew letters we read not that the veil of the Temple was rent but that the lintel of the Temple of wondrous size fell down.' The only particular words of which we can be absolutely certain are ' lintel of the Temple ' : whether the lintel of the Temple itself or a lintel of one of the gateways of the Temple-courts, but the former is the more natural inference from the expression. t Jerome, Gatal. Script. Eccl. (under 'lacobus'), Evangelium quoque quod appellatur ' secundum Hebraeos "... post resur- rectionem Salvatoris refert (1) Dominus aute-m quum dedisset sin- donem suum servo sacerdotis ivit ad lacobum et apparuit ei. (2) luraverat enim lacobus se non comesturmn panem ab ilia hora qua hiberat calicem Domini donee videret eum resurgentein a. mortuis. Matt, xxvii. 5 1, xxviii. 63 Rursusque post paululum (3) Afferte, ait Dominus, mensam et panem. Statimque additur (4) Tulit paneon et benedixit ao fregit et post dedit lacobo lusto et dixit ei ' Frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit Filius Hominis a dormientibus ' — ' The Gospel also which is called " according to the Hebrews " . . . . after the resur rection of the Saviour relates (1) And— from the dead. And again after a little Bring, saith the Lord, a table and bread. And im mediately it is added He took up — them that sleep.' In the N. T. there is uo mention of an appearance to James except in 1 Cor. xv. 7, where, having already mentioned appearances to Kephas, to ' the Twelve,' and to 500 brethren, Paul says ' Then was he seen by James, then by all the Apostles ' ("ETretra iHxpBq 'loKw^w, 'i-iTEira ro'ig 'A-TroarbXoig iraaiv). There can be no doubt that this James was not the son of Zebedee (whom Paul never mentions and who had been dead many years) but ' James ' (Gal. ii. 9, 13) bishop of Jerusalem, called also 'James the Lord's brother' ((3ral. i. 19). Th« words 'then by all the Apostles ' do not imply that this James was one of the Twelve, but only that he was an Apostle (as he is also styled in Gal. i. 19) — a much wider title, given in the N. T. to Paul, Barnabas, and apparently (Rom. xvi. 7) to Andronicus and Junias : see Bishop Lightfoot's excursus ' The name and office of an Apostle ' (Ep. to the Galatians, 92). The Gospel according to the Hebrews certainly suggests that the appearance to James was earlier than others to which Paul gives the priority : such difference iu the chronological order of incidents is common among the N. T. writers. There is seemingly no other tradition of an appearance to James. M. Nicolas and Mr. Baring Gould give references for the tradi tion to Gregory of Tours (latter part of 6th cent.), to the Historiae Aposlolicae of pseudo-Abdias (Oth cent., but based to some extent at least on legends quite as early as the 4th cent.), and to the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine. Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franoorum i. 21) writes ' James the Apostle is said, when he had seen the Lord now dead on the cross, to have called to witness and sworn that he would never eat bread unless he beheld the Lord rising again. At last on the third day the Lord, returning with triumph from the spoil of Tartarus, show ing himself to James saith " Rise, James, eat, for now I am risen from the dead." This is James the Just, whom they style the brother of the Lord, because he was the son of Joseph, born of another wife' (Fertur lacobus Apostolus, cum Dominum iam mortuum vidisset in cruce, detestatum esse atque iurasse numquam se comesturum panem nisi Dominum cerneret resurgentem. Tertia 64 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. demum die rediens Dominus, spoliato Tartaro cum triumpho, lacobo se osteudens ait ' Surge lacobe, comede, quia iam a mortuis resurrexi.' Hie est lacobus lustus, quem fratrem Domini nuncupant, pro eo quod loseph fuerit filius, ex alia uxore pro- genitus). Mr. Baring Gould (Lost and Hostile Gospels, 150) says that Gregory ' no doubt drew it,' the story, ' from St. Jerome.' This can only be on the supposition that Gregory quoted very roughly from memory, for the words attributed to Jesus differ considerably, while Gregory plainly says that James took this oath after seeing Jesus dead on the cross. The so-called Abdias (Hist. Apost. vi. 1) makes James the brother of Simon the Cananaean and ' Judas of James.' Of these three brothers he says ' James, the younger, was at all times specially dear to Christ the Saviour, and burnt with so great a yearning toward his master in return that when He was crucified he would not take food before that he saw Him rising from the dead, which he minded to have been foretold to him and his brethren by Christ when He was still among the living. Wherefor He chose to appear to him first of all, as also to Mary of Magdala and Peter, that He might strengthen His disciple in faith ; and, that he might not bear long hunger, when a honeycomb was offered Him, He invited James likewise to eat it ' (Quorum minor natu lacobus Christo Salvatori in primis semper dilectus tauto rursus desiderio in magistrum flagrabat ut crucifixo eo cibum capere •noluerit priusquam a mortuis resurgentem videret, quod meminerat sibi et f ratribus a Christo agente in vivis fuisse praedictum. Quare ei primum omnium ut et Mariae Magdalenae et Petro apparere voluit ut discipulum in fide confirmaret : et, ne diutinum ieiunium toler- aret, favo mollis oblato ad comedendum, insuper lacobum in vita vit). Mr. Baring Gould's translation of this passage is very far from accurate, but, as he gives neither the original nor a reference, it may be borrowed. ' Abdias ' agrees with Gregory in dating James's oath ftom the crucifixion, but, unless he is unconsciously blending this story with Luke xxiv. 42, the substitution of the honeycomb shows that he drew his account from some other unknown source. Jacobus de Voragine (Legenda Aurea, Ixvii.) tells the story thus : — ' And on Prepara,tion-day, after the Lord was dead, as saith Josephus and Jerome in the book Of Illustrious Men, James vowed a vow that he would not eat until he saw the Lord to have risen from the dead. But on the very day of the resurrection, when up to that day James had not tasted food, the Lord appeared to the same James and said to them that were with him ' Set a Matt, xxviii. 65 * linen cloth to the t servant of the priest table and bread," then taking the bread he blessed and gave to James the Just, saying " Rise, my brother, eat ; for the Sou of Man is risen from the dead" ' (In Parasceue autem, mortuo Domino, sicut dicit losephus et Hieronymus in libro Be Viris Blustribus, lacobus votum vovit se non comesturum donee videret Dominum a mortuis surrexisse. In ipsa autem die resurrectionis, cum usque in diem illam lacobus non gustasset cibum, eidem Dominus ap paruit ac eis qui cum eo erant dixit ' Ponite meusam et panem,' delude panem accipieus benedixit et dedit lacobo lusto, dicens ' Surge, frater mi, comede ; quia Filius Hominis a mortuis surrexit.' — Graesse's text, 297). Mr. Baring Gould tells us that this story passed into the work of De Voragine from that of Gregory of Tours, But he gives neither original nor translation of Gregory or De Voragine, aud to the latter not even a reference ; it is very doubtful, therefor, whether he had read either account ; certainly he had not read both, or he would have seen that De Voragine cannot possibly have copied Gregory (i.) because his account is fuller and nearer to Jerome, (ii.) because he says that the story is found in the De Viris Ulustribus of Jerome, whom Gregory does not mention. The allusion to ' Josephus ' as one of the authorities for the story is capable of double explanation. The historian Josephus actually does mention the death of James the Just, and this may be simply a ' shot ' on the part of De Voragine. But the person intended may be the 2nd cent. Christiau writer Hegesippus. The name Hegesippus was in his case as in many others merely a Graecized form of his original name Joseph, and the two names were possibly interchanged to some extent, as in the time of De Voragine himself there was current under the name of Egesippus a free version of part of Josephus's Jewish War with additions from his Antiquities and other sources. Now we know that Hegesippus wrote largely about James the Just, aud his Memoirs were still in existence at least as late as the Oth cent. It is the more probable that his account of James did include this story because we have already seen that he used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The concurrence of De Voragine with Gregory in the insertion of the word ' Rise ' seems to point to the existence of some other authority besides Jerome. * The 'linen cloth' (Matt, xxvii. 59) in which the body was wrapped by Joseph of Arimathaea. t ' The servant of the high priest ' — not a servant as the A. V. twice has it — is mentioned in Matt. xxvi. 61, Mark xiv. 47, Luke F C6 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. he went to * James and appeared unto him. 2. Por James had t sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein t he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he saw him rising again from the dead. 3. . . . ' Bring a table and bread.' 4. . . . [And ?] he took up the bread xxii. 50, John xviii. 10. He had helped in the seizure of Jesus, and had had his right ear cut off with a sword by Simon Peter, but touched and healed by Jesus : his name was Malchus, i.e. Maluch. One must guess in the absence of context that he had been entrusted with the setting of the watch (mentioned by Matt, only) over the tomb, had been witness to some of the phaenomena of the resurrection, and had thrown himself at the feet of Jesus. * This mention of James the Lord's brother without anything to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee shows that this passage must have been written after the martyrdom of the latter, A.D. 44. t Cf . the oath of more than 40 men ' neither to eat nor drink till they had killed Paul' (Acts xxiii. 12). X According to this reading James was either one and the same with James the son of Alphaeus or else the Last Supper was not confined to the Twelve. The first supposition accords with the ' Hieronymian ' theory as to the degree of relation between James and Jesus ; but that theory, apart from its extreme improbability, is not known to have been held by any one whomsoever before 382-3 a.d., when Jerome advanced it. Of the second supposition we can only say that it is not ab solutely contradicted by the statement in Matt. xxvi. 20 that Jesus sat down ' with the Twelve,' and in Luke xx. 14 ' the Apostles ' is now recognised as the true reading and not ' the twelve Apostles.' The oath of James reads as if suggested by the declaration of Jesus that he would drink no more of the fruit of the vine till he drank it with them in the kingdom of God. James might not take the same oath because Jesus bade the rest drink the cup : but he might take an oath against eating bread because the bread of the Last Supper had already been eaten. Bishop Lightfoot reads ' wherein the Lord had drunk the cup ' Matt, xxviii. 67 i.e. Dominus for Bomini. He says (Ep. to the Galatians, 266) ' I have adopted the reading " Dominus," as the Greek translation has Kvpiog, and it also suits the context better ; for the point of time which we should naturally expect is not the institution of the eucharist but the Lord's death. Our Lord had more than once spoken of His sufferings under the image of draining the cup (Matt. XX. 22, 23, xxvi. 39, 42, Markx. 38, 39, xiv. 36, Luke xxii. 42 — comp. Mart. Polyc. 14, iv r^ -Korripii^ rov XpiSroii aov) ; aud he is represented as using this metaphor here.' He thinks it probable ' that a transcriber of Jerome carelessly wrote down the familiar phrase " the cup of the Lord." ' It is true that ' the point of time which we should naturally expect is not the institution of the eucharist but the Lord's death,' and it might have been added that the latter is the point of time actually indicated by Gregory and pseudo-Abdias. They however, as we have seen, either wrote roughly from memory, or followed some other authority, and I have above suggested how the oath may be connected with the supper : at the supper Jesus spoke plainly of his approaching death, and at least immediately after it he is represented in Matt. xxvi. 32 as announcing his resur rection. Again we should not expect an historical narrative to speak of the death of Jesus ' under the image of draining the cup ' : this may be the language of prophecy or rapt devotion, it is not natural to history. In the N. T. the metaphor is only used by Jesus himself, and by him only on two occasions. [Of course 'the cup' can hardly mean 'the cup' of the eucharist, if we read Dominus, for Matt. xxvi. 27-9, Mark xiv. 23-5, aud Luke xxii. 18-19 represent Jesus as refraining from it ; nor can it be strained to signify the anodyne mixture offered to him, as to other condemned persons, on the way to execution, since Matt, xxvii. 34 and Mark xv. 23 distinctly state that he refused this mixture.] But it is on textual grounds that I have the most confidence in rejecting Dominus. So far as I can discover, that reading is not known to exist in any Latin MS., and is only supposed by Bishop Lightfoot to have existed at some time in some MS. because the Greek translator has d Kupioc (¦=Dominus) instead of rov Kvpiov (=zBomini). But one need not read much of the Greek transla tion to see that (i.) it must have been made from a very corrupt Latin MS. ; or (ii.) the translator understood Latin very badly ; or (iii.) he never looked twice at the sentences he was translating. Only a few lines before, he actually renders apparuit ei, ' appeared to him ' i.e. James, by rivoi^Ev avrw ' opened to him ' as if the Latin had been aperuit ei. Such a man's translation, opposed, as I F 2 68 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. and * blessed and broke and afterward gave to James the Justt and said to him 'My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from them that sleep.' t30. (Matt, xxviii.) Aild, when he came to §^ those about Luke xxiv. 39, 40. (Nazarens^ presume, to all known MSS. of the original, has next to uo authority' Let me add that Sedulius Scotus, who flourished about the year 800, in a note on 1 Cor. xv. 7 says tbat the James there mentioned was ' the son of Alphaeus who took witness that he would not eat bread from the suppee op the Loed until he saw Christ rising again: AS IS BEAD IN the Gospel accoeding to the .Hebeews.' I have little doubt that Sedulius got this not merely from the Gospel according to the Hebrews (which however would be quite enough), but from Jerome himself, since he wrote Explanations of Jeromes Brefaces to the Gospels, a work still extant. The original of the above passage of Sedulius is Alphaei filio, qui se testa tus est a coena Domini non comesurum panem usquequo videret Christum resurgentem : sicut in Evangelio secundum Hebraeos legitur. * Blessed not it (as our A. V. wrongly supposes in the similar passages Matt. xxvi. 26 and Luke xxiv. 30), but Ood. Graces both before and after meat were enjoined by the oral law : the words of the former varied with the character of the food, those of the latter with the number of those present. In the Mishna, Berachoth, vii. § 3, may be seen many forms of grace after meat : they all begin with the words 'Let us bless' or 'Bless ye.' From the note of Maimonides to Berachoth, vi. § 8, it would seem that the blessing before meat began with the words ' Blessed be thou 0 Lord our God ' : the Mishna itself (Berachoth, vi. § 1) tells us that when the food was bread the words ' who bringest forth bread from the earth ' were inserted. t Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 23) says that he was ' named by all men Just from the times of the Lord even to us ' (o ovopaaBElg vivb -Kavrwv AiKaiog arrb rwv rov Kvpiov xpbvwv ixixpi Kal )]fiC!>v). X Ignatius, Ep. ad Smyrn. C. 3, 'Eytb yap Kai pEra r^v avaaraaiv EV aapKl avrbv oiSa Kal -marEvw 'ovra. Kal, Ste Trpbg rovg xEpi IlErpoc ^XQev, 'ifrj avroig 'AafiETE, xpriXaijjriaari pE, Kal 'ISete on ovk Elpl Saipbviov aawparov.' Kal EvBvg avrov i'l-^avro Kal i-iriarEvaav, Kparri- ' For note see page 73. {Matt, xxviii) Liike xxiv. 39, 40. 69 Peter, he said to them ' Take, feel me, and BEVTEg r^ aapKl avroi) kw tw -wvEvpan. Aia tovto Kat Bavurov Kart- (ppovriaav, EvpiBriaav Si v-rrip Bavarov. MErii Si riiv avaaraaiv avvi- (jiayEV avroig Kcii avvi-n-iEV wg aapKiKog, Kai-irEp irvEvfiariKwg ip-wpivog r^ Uarpi — ' For I both know that he was in the flesh after the resurrection and believe that he is [in it]. And, when he had come to those about Peter, he said to them " Take, feel me, and see that I am not a bodiless devil." And straightway they touched him and believed, being constrained by his flesh and spirit. Because of this they despised even death, and were found superior to death. And after the resurrection he ate and drank with them as one iu the flesh, though spiritually united to the Father.' Eusebius (Hist. Bccl. iii. 36, § 11) says 'And the same [Ignatius] writing to Smyrnaeans has used sayings from a source unknown to me, proceeding in some such words as these respecting Christ : " When — beheved " ' ('O S' avrbg '^ij.vpvaioig ypawg avrov avEKXaXrjTov )))', Kai E,EViapbv irapElxEV rj Katvorrig aiirov. Ta Si Xonrct vavra aarpa apa riXiw Kal asXrivri x^P"^ iyivETO rw aaripi, avrbg Si r'lv v-rrEppaXXwv rb (pwg avrov VTCEp irdvru' rapaxv te ^v ttoBev {j Kaivorrig rj avbpoioQ avroig). This can hardly be our Matthew — even our Matthew heightened — and, though the Protevangelium of James § 21 tells of ' an immense star shining among the stars of the heaven and dulling the other stars so that they were not to be seen ' (aaripa TrafipEyiBri Xap\pavra iv rolg liarpoig rov ovpavov Kal afi/iXivovra rovg clXXouc aaripag &aTE pri (jtaivEaBai avrovg), yet we cannot trace that book back to within a century and a quarter of Ignatius (if so early), nor does it say anything about the amazing behaviour of the other heavenly bodies. 1 do not deny that his account of the star may be mere tradition, and that all of his other Matthaean references may be references to our Matthew, but I say that there is some thing substantial to be said for the idea that, if he did use our Matthew in referring to the baptism of Jesus, he also did use a form of the Matthaean Gospel which was not exactly our Matthew. I may add that it would not be one whit more surprising that Ignatius should quote the Nazarene Gospel once only than that knowing Acts, as he shows that he did, he should never once refer to the Gospel according to Luke. {Matt, xxviii) Luke xxiv. 39, 40. 73 Lastly, if, as I believe and as Zahn also seems to believe, Hil genfeld is right in identifying (see my Part III. ii. a) the Teaching of Peter with the Preaching of Peter and that with the Preaching of Peter and Paul and that again with the Preaching of Paul, we have already (see Fr.-6) seen that it contained evangelic matter in com mon with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the presump tion is that if either borrowed from the other it was the Teaching which borrowed from the Gospel and not vice versa (see Part III. ii. a). In no case would I have agreed to set aside the very precise statement of Jerome that a passage substantially the same as that of Ignatius was iu the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the pre sumption (derived from Irenaeus, from Eusebius's statement about Papias, and from the agreement of our Gospel with certain pecu liarities of Justin) in favour of the chronological priority of the latter over tlw Teaching of Peter. It may be added that Jerome has three variations from the text of Ignatius — ' to Peter and to those who were with Peter ' for ' to those about Peter ' ; ' Behold,' for ' Take ' ; and ' feel and see me.' Of these the first and third look like mere differences of feeling in translating, aud the second may be a mere slip, suggested by 'iSete, ' see ' or ' behold,' a few words later on. It is just possible that Jerome was consciously or unconsciously correcting Ignatius's quo tation by the Gospel according to the Hebrews ; but the use of ' Peter ' and not ' Simon ' (see Fr. 19 and Fr. 20) or ' Kephas ' makes this less likely. From the second of the two passages iu Jerome there can be no reasonable doubt that this is the same appearance of Jesus described in Luke xxiv. 36 seqq., and the parallel in v. 39 of that chapter is a close one — ' handle me and see : for a spirit hath not flesh and bones according as ye behold me having ' [xpriXarpiiaari ps Kal 'iSete, on TTVEvpia aapKag Kal oarEa ovk exei KaOiiig ipi BewpeIte ej^oitu). § The phrase which I thus literally render may also mean ' Peter and those about him.' In Mark iv. 10, Luke xxii. 49, ol -irEpl avrov, ' those about him,' are distinguished from Jesus himself. In Acts xiii. 13 ol TTEpi rbv IlaiiXoc includes Paul, and the same might be said of xxi. 8 but that the words are there rightly left out by editors as spurious. In John xi. 19 Tischendorf reads (with A and the greater number, but much the less weight, of authorities) rae TTtpi MapBav Kal Nlapiap — ' And many of the Jews came to those [feminine, the women] about Martha and Mary ' — and Alford is almost inclined to do the same : the reading certainly seems far less likely than the other to be due to the carelessness or stupidity of a copyist. If the reading be right, then Martha and Mary are 74 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. see that I am not a bodiless * devil.' And straightway they touched him and be lieved. (Of very doubtful connexion.) t3i. Just now my % ' mother the Holy Spirit (Nazarene.) certainly included (see v. 31). And there is no doubt that in the passage before us Peter himself is included. ' Those about Peter ' is not necessarily a synonym for ' the Apostles,' though they are comprised in it. According to Luke the appearance was to ' the Eleven and those with them ' (rovg "EvSEKa Kal rovg avv avroig, v. 33). It is worth noticing that in Mark xvi. Codex L gives an alter native ending to the Gospel, which it says ' is current in some quarters ' (fipErai rrov) , beginning thus, ' And all that had been bidden them they told in short to those about Peter ' (IXarra Si ra TrapriyyEXpiva rolg irEpl rbv Hirpov avvrbpwg i^rjyyEiXav), referring to the message sent in v. 7 to ' his disciples and Peter ' (rote fxaBriralg avrov Kal rw Jlirpa)). So too h of the Old Latin (Codex Bobbiensis, 4th or 6th cent.), the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac, and the Aethiopic. * All other translations of this passage that I have seen render Saipoviov 'spirit,' which is doubtless more elegant, but entirely opposed to the usage of the N. T. and Christian writers. There is nothing at all surprising in the expression ' bodiless devil,' for the Jews believed that the devils which possessed the living were some times the spirits of dead persons. In the Curetonian Syriac .' devils ' is several times given as the translation of -itvEvpara, 'spirits.' t Origen (Gomm. in lohann. iii. § 63), 'Eav Si -irpoaiErai ng rb KaB' 'E[ipaiovg EvayyiXiov, 'ivOa avrbg b^wrrjp (prjaiv '"Apri 'iXafii pE ii prirrip pov rb 'Ayiov IIj'EU/ja iv /jig. rwv rpix<^v fiOV Kal arrivEyKi pE ttc TO bpag TO piya Taj3wp '¦ — ' But if any one admits the Gospel accord ing to the Hebrews, where the Saviour himself says &c.' He quotes it elsewhere (Homil. in ler. xv.) without the words ' by one of my hairs,' but these are given by Jerome, who also quotes the passage thus far (Gomm. in Mic. vii. 6 — in quo ex per sona Salvatoris dicitur ' Modo tulit me mater mea Spiritus Sanctus in uno capillorum meorum'), likewise mentioning that it was put in the mouth of Jesus. Hilgenfeld says (Nov. Test, extra Gan. Becep. iv. 23) that this ' For note see page 76. Uncertain. 75 passage was commonly referred to the Temptation, but that Baur (Manichaisches Beligionssystem, 485) had rightly assigned it to the Transfiguration. On turning to Baur I find that he gets this con nexion by fitting together a bit of the Clementine Homilies, a bit of Manichaeism, and a bit of Valentiuianism, starting from the assump tion that the feminine nature attributed to the Holy Spirit postu lates an identity vrith the Gnostic Sophia. The answer to Baur is not merely that the Fragments contain no trace of sympathy with the Gnosticism of the Clementine Homilies, no Manichaeism, no Valentinianism, but that the words ' my mother, the Holy Spirit ' admit of an ideally simple explanation which is at the same time consistent with the severest orthodoxy — an explanation which I mention in my next note and fully justify in Part. III. i. I may add that Mt. Tabor is in uo way indicated by the canonical Gospels as the scene of the Transfiguration ; in fact their narrative is quite inconsistent with such a supposition, and the mountain undoubtedly owes this traditional honour to its striking physical prominence. Nor do we find it as the Mt. of the Transfiguration even in tradi tion before the middle of the 4th cent. My own impulse first was and still is to connect this fragment with the Temptation, which would appear to have taken place somewhere between the Jordan and Nazareth, for Jesus was return ing (Luke iv. 1), he had come from Nazareth (Mark i. 9), and Nazareth is the first town named (Matt. iv. 13, Luke iv. 16) as visited by him after his return. Aud this suits the position of Tabor, whioh does lie between the Jordan and Nazareth. In the next place it is curious that the arrival of Jesus at the scene of the Temptation is ascribed in Matthew and Luke to the personal action of the Holy Spirit, whom the former represents as 'leading' him 'up ' and the latter as ' leading ' or ' driving ' him. One is very strongly induced to think that where our Matthew says Jesus was ' led up ' another early account may have had it that he was ' borne up ' : indeed this may have been the meaning of an Aramaic original, ambiguous possibly and therefor misconceived, or softened into ' led up ' because by the Spirit was understood the Spirit received into him at the Baptism, and acting from within him. If connected with the Temptation, this passage might possibly have formed part of an account of the speech of Jesus in the syna gogue of Nazareth (Luke iv. 16 seqq.) on his return. Or it may have belonged to his answer to Satan in Matt. iv. 7. Adopting the text of Matthew (A. V.) the request of Satan and answer of Jesus would run thus : — ' And saith unto him " If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, ' He shall give his angels charge concerning thee : and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at 76 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. * took me by one of my hairs and bore me up on to the great mountain t Tabor. any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.' " Jesus saith unto him " It is written again, ' Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.' Just now my mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of my hairs and bore me up on to the great mountain Tabor." ' Or the order of the last two sentences might be reversed. This hypothesis probably seems to the reader utterly fantastic and improbable. But let us look at it more closely. Jesus is asked to throw himself down in reliance on the promise of God, to prove that he is Son of God. He replies that we are forbidden to try God in this manner, and adds that he has already ex perienced the truth of God's promise, since he had just been borne up by a single hair on to Mt. Tabor. The circumstantial evidence however is not strong enough to warrant our assigning to this fragment any definite place in relation either to the text of Matthew or the life of Jesus : I merely suggest in all fearfulness this connexion for it. X In Hebrew riiach ' spirit ' is sometimes masculine, though more commonly feminine ; but in .Aramaic the corresponding word ruoha is feminine. Matt. i. 18 and Luke i. 35 assign to the Holy Spirit the chief, and seemingly the sole, agency in the conception of Jesus by Mary. See my remarks on the theology of this frag ment in Part III, i. * Hilgenfeld notes the following analogous passages : (i.) Ezek. viii. 3 (A. V.) ' And he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head ; and the spirit lifted me up betweeu the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem ' ; (ii.) Bel and the Dragon, 36 (A. V.) ' Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown, and bare him by the hair of his head, and through the vehemency of his spirit set him in Babylon over the den ' ; (iii.) Acts viii. 39, 40 (A, V.) ' The Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more : and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus.' Hilgenfeld rightly observes that the antiquity of this fragment is exalted, rather than (as some thought) detracted from, by the men tion of such an incident. Let me add to the passages compared by him 1 Kings xviii. 12 (A. V.) ' And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee, that the Spirit of the Lord shall carry thee whither I know not,' and 2 Kings ii. 16 (A. V.) 'lest peradventure the Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley.' t About seven miles E. of Nazareth. A mound-shaped height Uncertain. yj § 32. He that hath marveled shall reign, and he that hath reigned shall || rest, 1 33. Luke xiii. 3 ? Unless ye cease from sacrificing [spu- (Ebionite.) riousl the** wrath shall not cease from you. of some 1,000 ft., rising by itself from the plain, and affording a wide and far view. The name seems to mean ' height.' § Clement of Alexandria, after citing Plato and the Traditions of Matthias as testimonies to the value of wonder in stimulating en quiry, says 'just as in the Gospel according to the Hebrews it is written &c.' [Strom, ii. 9 — for the Greek see p. 3, note). Hilgenfeld connects this fragment with Matt. xi. 8, ' Come nnto me &o.' The connexion is just possible, but I do not think likely. II ' Rest ' in this spiritual sense is a term peculiar to Matthew, who uses the noun iu xi. 29 and the corresponding verb active in the verse before. 51 Epiphanius [Haer. xxx. 16), ' vpwv r] (Jpyq — ' And they say that he both came, and (as their so-called Gospel has it) instructed them that he had come, to dissolve the sacrifices, and " Unless &c." ' It is surely impossible that Jesus ever uttered this threat, and we have already (see notes on Fr. 6 and Fr. 26) found grave cause to suspect the Ebionites of adapting their Gospel to suit their own views. But only the word sacrificing needs be spurious. Hilgenfeld would insert these words in that passage of the Ebionite Gospel which answers to the place occupied by Matt. v. 23, 24, in the canonical Gospel ! To me it seems very possible that they were part of a paragraph answering to Luke xiu. 1-3, where Jesus takes for his text the death of ' the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices,' Our fragment would then answer to Luke xiii. 3 ' Nay, I say unto you, but except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner be destroyed.' ** Matthew (iii. 7) and Luke (iii. 7) have each ' the wrath ' once for ' the wrath of God,' and Luke also haa ' there shall be wrath ' (xxi. 23). John has only ' the wrath of God ' (onoe, iii. 36) , which the others do not use. 78 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. IIL THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE, AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. Let us now estimate the internal evidence afforded by the Fragments as to (i,) the character of this Gospel ; (ii,) its relation to other works outside or inside of the canon, (i,) The Gospel according to the Hebrews shows no ap proach to the character of the Apocryphal Gospels. Among their foremost features are Mariolatry, miracle-mongering, imaginative elaboration of incidents briefly sketched in the Canonical Gospels, and a free invention of other incidents out of canonical materials. Of the first two there is no trace in the Fragments, and of the third and fourth only a very slight suspicion. The mason's speech, the speech of Jesus to the rich man, and the appearance of Jesus to James, might at first seem to be mere elaborations of canonical incidents. The mason's speech, however, is very brief, and the plain form of address ' Jesus ' hardly the most likely for a forger to adopt. The story of the rich man seems to be altogether independent of the canonical versions. The ap pearance of Jesus to James is told in language not less brief than beautiful, and the Pauline Epistles are not the source from which a Nazarene would be most likely to draw. There is better cause to regard the Preface as a mere compilation (and a very bald one) from canonical data : but we have to remember that it comes to us from an Ebionite copy and not a Nazarene one, and that, while we have good reason to charge the Ebionites with altering and interpolating, no similar evidence exists against the Nazarenes, And here we come to the question whether the Gospel according to the Hebrews was heretical, or betrays a design to favour any peculiar views. This must be fully admitted of Epiphanius's Ebionite copy. The first two chapters of Matthew were struck out Apocryphal or Heretical? 79 from it because they were not to be reconciled with Ebionite theories of the nature of Jesus, Nor can we doubt that the denunciation of sacrifices put into the mouth of Jesus (Pr, 33) is a pure forgery in support of their anti-sacrificial views. His professed c7isinclination (opposed to Luke xxii, 15) to eat ' this flesh the passover ' with his disciples looks like a wilful perversion to suit their own strict vegetarianism, and the non-mention of locusts as part of the Baptist's food becomes in this light very suspicious. Nothing of this can be charged against Jerome's Naza rene copy, or, indeed, against the copies quoted by other Fathers. I have argued that Jerome's copy contained Matt. ii. 6, 15, 23, There are, however, a few of the Nazarene fragments which call for some remark. In Fr, 6 Jesus, while asserting his sinlessness, is repre sented as qualifying this assertion with the words ' except perchance this very thing that I have said is ignorance,' The question whether Jesus, as man, was able, consciously or unconsciously, to sin is, I believe, one which has rarely been discussed, and never been pronounced on by the Church, That his knowledge, as man, increased with his years is said in Luke ii, 52, and in Mark xiii, 32 a certain limitation is assigned to it, such limitation, I may add, being recognised by so orthodox a doctrinal teacher as Canon Liddon (Bampton Lectures,' 459, seqq.), who quotes on the same side Irenaeus, Cyril, Athanasius, and Gregory Nazianzen, In Fr, 31 Jesus calls the Holy Spirit his mother, and Hilgenfeld remarks that Fr, 8, in which the Holy Spirit addresses him as ' my Son,' is analogous. This is sufficient to prove to M, de Pressense that ' we have here that eternal female element which formed part of the primordial duality of the Elkasaites, and which* they likened to the Holy Spirit' [Heresy and Christian Doctrine, 1873 ed, 155), Mr, Baring Gould has similar observations, and says that ' the words " my mother " are, it can scarcely be doubted, a Gnostic interpolation' [Lost and Hostile Gospels, 130, 131). * Making the Holy Spirit, however, not the mother of Jesus, but his sister : see Epiphanius,. ffaer, Iiii. Kai Etcat rd ' Ayioi' IIvEvpa iiSEXiiv aurou ' and that the Holy Spirit was his sister.' 8o The Gospel according to the Hebrews. Verily he must have a keen eye for heresy who can discover it here. Does not Matt. i. 18 say that Mary ' was found with child of the Holy Spirit,' and Matt, i. 20 that 'that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit'? Does not Luke i, 35 say ' The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee : therefor also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God ' ? Is not the word ' Spirit ' feminine in * Aramaic? And is it then a sign of heresy that Jesus who spoke of the First Person of the Trinity as his Father should be represented as speaking of the Holy Spirit as his Mother? 'We must not think,' says t Jerome (writing without any reference to the Gospel according to the Hebrews), ' that there is sex in the Powers of God, since even the Holy Spirit himself is spoken of according to the peculiarities of the Hebrew language in the feminine gender as Ruha ; in Greek in the neuter, as to Hvsvpa ; in Latin in the masculine, as Spiritus; whence we must understand, when there is discussion about those above, and anything is put in the masculine or feminine, that it is not so much sex that is signified as it is the idiom of the language that is being uttered. Since God himself, invisible and incor ruptible, is spoken of in almost every language in the mas culine gender, although sex does not apply to him,' But since Origen, t who himself encountered and denounced * Bucha. In Hebrew Buach, which is sometimes masculine, but generally feminine. t Ep. ad Damasunn, De Seraphin et Galculo (Martianay's ed. iii. 623), ' Nee putandum sexum esse in Virtutibus Dei, quum etiam ipse Spiritus Sanctus secundum proprietates linguae Hebraeae feminine genere proferatur Buha ; Graece neutro rb UvEvpa ; Latine masculino Spiritus. Ex quo intelligeudum est, quando de superiori- bus disputatur et masculinum aliquid sen femininum ponitur, non tam sexum significari quam idioma sonare linguae. Siquidem ipse Dens invisibilis et incorruptibilis omnibus pene linguis profertur genere masculino, quum in eum non cadat sexus.' By ' Hebrew ' Jerome means Aramaic, as in other places (see p. 1, note). Cf. to the same effect Gomm. in Isai. xl. 11 (lib. xi.), where this fragment is also quoted. X See the extract quoted by Eusebius [Hist. Eccl. vi. 38) from Origen's lost Homily on Ps. 82. Heretical f 8i Elkesaism, adduces this fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews twice, taking the trouble to §justify it at some length, and Jerome also adduces it twice, I need not linger further in its defense. Pr, 19 is decidedly remarkable. It lays down two pro positions respecting the prophets, (1) that they were anointed by the Holy Spirit, (2) that nevertheless ' utterance of sin ' is found in them. To those who find in (2) a proof of heresy let me put three questions. Is the expression of sinful feelings ' utter ance of sin ' ? If so, are feelings sinful which are dia metrically opposed to the moral teaching of Jesus ? If so, has any ingenuity of commentators || explained the ' cursing psalms ' of the prophet David (see particularly Ps. eix, 6-20) into harmony with the precepts of Matt, v, 44, and Luke vi, 27-8? The other proposition, (1) that the prophets were anointed by the Holy Ghost, is important as showing that the Nazarene Gospel was not tinged with that strong aversion to the prophets (later than Joshua) which the Ebionites (Epiphanius, Haer. xxx, § 18) are said to have had. Nor is this the only passage in which the prophets are honourably noticed in the Nazarene Gospel. In Fr, 8 the Holy Spirit is represented as expressing in ' all the prophets ' a yearning for the coming of Jesus, and in Fr, 20 the prophets are joined with the Law as standards of duty. These are all the passages in the Nazarene Gospel against which any but the most finikin criticism can be directed. It would be easy to suggest that even these were inter polations, as M. Nicolas [Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes) and Mr. Baring Gould have already done. But I cannot consent to see an interpolation in everything whicii on first § Hom. in loh. in. § 63, on the ground that even men who do the will of God are called by Jesus his mother and brethren. II ' The Speaker's Commentary,' I observe, practically abandons any such attempt. ' Is a Christian spirit,' it asks, ' to be expected always in the psalms ? Would the words of Christ (Matt. v. 43, 44, &c,) have been uttered if the spirit whioh animated the Jewish people, and was exhibited, not unfrequently, in their annals, had been always that which He came to inculcate ? ' (vol. 4, 424). G 82 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. hearing seems to jar a little with the expressions or tone of thought of the Canonical Gospels. The Fathers of the Church, while the Gospel according to the Hebrews was yet extant in its entirety, referred to it always with respect, often .with reverence : some of them unhesitatingly accepted it as being what tradition affirmed it to be — the work of Matthew — and even those who have not put on record their expression of this opinion have not questioned it. Is such an attitude consistent with the sup- jposition that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was a work of heretical tendencies? This applies with tenfold force to Jerome, After copying it, would he, if he had seen heresy in it, have translated it for public dissemination into both Greek and Latin, and have continued to favour the tradition of its Matthaean authorship ? And Jerome, be it observed, not only quotes all three of these passages without disapprobation ; he actually quotes two of them (Pr, 6 and Fr. 8) with approval. But, although Jerome has never been suspected of lenience to heresy, some of us must needs out-Jerome Jerome and demand uniformity where he tolerated variety. The truth is that in all these cerituries the familiar moulds have sunk so deep into our own minds that we are maybe a little too ready to reject as spurious any fragment of early extra-canonical literature which does not bear the same exact impress. We shall better be able to correct this tendency if we imagine for the moment that only three canonical Gospels had come down to us, that the fourth had only been pre served among the Nazarenes, and that only a few fragments of it were left. Let us suppose that Matthew had been this lost Gospel, and that among the fragments left out of it were ii, 23 ' that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by [through] the prophets He shall [that he should] be called a Nazarene ' ; V, 17 ' Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil ' ; x, 5, 6, ' Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ' ; xv. 24 ' I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel'; xvi, 18, 19 'I say also Heretical? 83 unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,' There is no need to look further through Matthew for passages on which, if they came to us as fragments from a Nazarene Gospel, we should not hesitate ta fasten charges of heretical tendency. In ii, 23 we should at least see the use of an apocryphal boolr, even if we did not also perceive an intention to magnify the name of Nazarene. In v. 17, X, 5, 6, and xv, 24 we should find the extremest Judaizing views. And in xvi. 18, 19 we should see an impudent forgery of the ultra-Petrine school of Ebionites, directed, like other of their forgeries, against Paul and Pauline Christians, Or let us suppose Mark to have been the Nazarene Gospel, From the fact that it began with the Baptism, we should forthwith conclude that it was designed to support the heresy that Jesus was mere man until the divine Christ descended into him in the shape of a dove. And for xiii, 32, ' Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father,' we should have found no sufficient justification. Similarly, if no account of the conception of Jesus had come to us except as a fragment of a Nazarene Gospel, and had such fragment said, as Matthew and Luke say, that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and, as Luke, that this was the reason why he was called the Son of God, should we not denounce this as the wildest heresy ? Should we not ask where Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as his father or mother, whether he did not rather iinply that the Holy Spirit proceeded from himself, whether he was not called the Son of God because he was the Son of God the Father — whether in fine we were not confronted either by rank Elkesaism or by a heresy which confounded the Holy Spirit with God the Father ? I might isolate many more passages from the Canonical Gospels to show in what sort of spirit we should be tempted o 2 84 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. to regard any one of those Gospels if it came to us only in fragments from an out of the way body of Christians not entering into relations with the Church at large and associated in our minds by local, national, and to a great extent ceremonial affinity with the anti-Catholic sect of the Ebionites proper. So little has been written about the Nazarenes, and so few people, I imagine, have had occasion to study their history or doctrines, that I shall here quote what is said of them by two ecclesiastical historians of such eminence and un questioned orthodoxy as Neander and the late Dean Mansel. ' After the destruction of Jerusalem,' writes Mansel [Gnostic Heresies, 125), 'this Jewish- Christian Church con tinued to exist in Pella and the neighbouring region beyond the Jordan, to which it had withdrawn during the siege,* and where it appears to have remained until the reign of Hadrian when, after the revolt and destruction of Bar-Cochab and his followers, the Roman city of .Sjlia Capitolina was founded on the ruins of the ancient Jerusalem, t In that city no Jew was permitted to dwell, and the prohibition would naturally extend to those Christians of Jewish origin who had not re nounced the customs of their forefathers,! This circumstance led to a division iu the Church, the Gentile members of it, together with the less rigid Jewish Christians, establishing * ' Euseb. H. B. iii. 5.' t ' Euseb. H. E. iv. 6. In chapter 6 Eusebius gives a list of fifteen bishops of Jerusalem of Jewish race, down to the time of the revolt iu Hadrian's reign ; but these, though nominally bishops of Jerusalem, could hardly have resided in that city, which remained uninhabited except by a Roman garrison in its towers (Josephus, B. J. vii. 1), till Barcoohab seized it and attempted to rebuild the temple. Neander [Gh. Hist. i. p. 475) says that the Church is said to have returned to Jerusalem, but gives no authority for the state ment, and seems to doubt its truth (see p. 476). It is possible, however, as Milman supposes [Hist, of Jews, ii. p. 431), that some sort of rude town may have grown up on the wreck of the city ; and, if so, it is possible that the Judaizing Christians may have gone back to Pella after the edict of Hadrian. Cf. Neander, I. c. p. 476 ; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 304.' X ' Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 16. Of. Neander, Gh. Hist. i. p. 475 ; Ritschl, Entstehung der AUh. Kirche, p. 257.' The Nazarenes. 85 themselves at Jerusalem under a succession of bishops of Gentile birth, § while the strict Judaizers remained at Pella, where after the departure of their brethren they would naturally enforce their own rites with greater strictness than ever. Under these circumstances the Jewish Christian settlement at Pella, retaining its old appellations of Nazarene and Ebionite, which from terms of reproach had probably become among themselves titles of honour, seems to have gradually relapsed still more into Judaism, retaining a cer tain kind of acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, but ceasing at last to acknowledge His Deity and pre-existence. These heretical views would naturally be developed into more consistency by some than by others, and thus gave rise to the two divisions of the Ebionites, of whom the less heterodox, or Nazarenes, were probably the earlier in point of time,' || Speaking of the Gospel according to the Hebrews he presently says (126) 'In the fourth century, if not earlier, there were two different recensions of it, one of which omitted, while the other retained, the first two chapters of. St, Matthew, The former was used by the Ebionites proper, who denied the supernatural birth of our Lord, The latter was accepted by the more orthodox Nazarenes.' 1 Let us now turn to Neander, the chief of ecclesiastical historians, who, curiously enough, was a Jew by birth and up to his eighteenth year by religion also. After dismissing the Ebionites, he says [History of the Christian Beligion and Church, Eng. trans, ii. 18) ' In Jerome, on the contrary, under the name of Nazarene (the original name given to all Christians by the Jews, see Acts xxiv, 5), we find the des cendants of those Jewish Christians of a ** genuine evangelic disposition, who would not allow the existence of any contra diction between the apostles, the same people of whom we found the last trace in Justin Martyr (see above). They pointedly combated the regulations and the ceremonial § ' Euseb. H. E. iv. 6.' II ' Cf. Dorner, Person of Christ, i. p. 191 (Eng. Tr.) ; Neander, Ch. Hist. i. p. 476.' 51 ' Epiphan. Haer. xxix. 9, xxx. 14. Cf. Bleek, Binl. p. 105 ; Mosheim, Be Bebus Ghr. ante Const. 328.' ** The italics areNeander's or his translator Mr. Rose's — not mine. 86' The Gospel according to the Hebrews. worship of the Pharisees; and, while they themselves observed the ceremonial law, they did not force it on the heathen. They acknowledged the apostle Paul as a teacher of Divine wisdom, whom God had peculiarly chosen for his instrument, for the purpose of bringing the tidings of salvation to the heathen nations. They lamented the un belief of their own people, and longed for the time when they also should be converted to the Lord whom they had crucified, and renounce all their idols. Then nothing would be done by the power of man, but every thing which Satan set up in opposition to the kingdom of God would fall down by the power of God, and all who had hitherto pleased them selves, in the fancy of their own wisdom, would be converted to the Lord, They thought that they found this promise in the prophecies of Isaiah (xxxi, 7, 8*) , The conclusion which we are entitled to draw clearly from all this is, that from the very times of the apostles various sorts of Jewish Christians spread themselves abroad, which people have been led into confusing with each other by the common names which were given to them.' These are the people, heirs of the church of Peter and of James, from whom we have the most relics of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and whose history and character, I venture to think, furnish warrant in its favour rather than against it, (ii.) We have now to inquire into the relations, if any, between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other works (a) uncanonical, or (&) canonical, [a) The uncanonical book with which it has most (two fragments) in common is that which was called t sometimes * ' Hieronymi commentar. in lesaiam, ed. Martianay, t. iii. p. 79, 83, 250, 261.' t The identity of the works cited under the first two names is inferred from the fact that Lactantius (iv. 21) says ' The Master revealed to them aU those things which Peter and Paul preached at Rome, and that preaching, written for remembrance, has survived ' (Magister aperuit illis omnia quae Petrus et Paulus Romae praedi- caverunt, et ea praedicatio in memoriam scripta permansit) ; and that the author of the treatise De Behaptismate, the only person Related to any Uncanonical Books? 87 the Preaching of Peter, sometimes the Preaching of Paul, sometimes the Teaching of Peter, and which professed to give an account of the joint preaching of those two apostles at Eome, It is first quoted by Heracleon, in a fragment of his preserved by Origen, The date of Heracleon has not been exactly determined, but it is fair to put him at 170 a.d, — he may in fact have been a little older or younger, but was at any rate contemporary with Hegesippus, the first writer whom we certainly know to have quoted the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The substance of Fr. 6 and Fr, 30 was, as we have seen, contained in this work, but if either borrowed from the other the author of the Preaching of Peter must have borrowed from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, His book was what its name implies — a didactic work, not an evangelic record, and the overwhelming presumption is that any evangelic incidents which it shares with early Gospels were borrowed from and not by them, t The Gospel according to Peter is said by Theodoret [Haer. Fab. ii. 2 §) to have been used by the Nazarenes, Eusebius [Hist. Eccl. vi, 12) preserves an account of it from who cites a Preaching of Paul, says that it represents Peter and Paul as meeting for the first time in Rome. That the Teaching of Peter was the same as the Preaching of Peter is inferred from the fact that neither Origen (who uses both names) nor any one else has stated that there were two distinct works with these respective titles. If the three titles represent three works, or if the two Preach ings are one work and the Teaching another, any suspicion of bor rowing that attached to the Gospel according to the Hebrews would be further weakened. For in the first place there would no longer be the accumulative evidence of two Fragments agreeing with the same book ; for it was in the Preaching of Paul that the substance of Fr. 6, and in the Teaching of Peter that the substance of Fr. 30 was to be found. And, as regards Fr. 6, if the Preaching of Paul be not the same as that of Peter, there is no evidence for its existence before the 4th cent. : while, as regards Fr. 30, there is no evidence for the existence of a Teaching of Peter, if it be not the same as his Preaching, before about 225 a.d. X Hilgenfeld, N. T extra Can. Bee. iv. 39-41. § Tw KaXovpirw Kara Hirpov ^vayyEXiif KE-xpripivoi. 88 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. the pen of Serapion, Bp. of Antioch 191-213 a.d. Writing to the church of Ehossus in Cilicia, Serapion says * ' Por we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other Apostles t as we do Christ, but the writings falsely inscribed with their name we refuse from experience, knowing that such have not been delivered to us. For I when I was with you supposed that all were inclined to a right faith, and, not having gone through the Gospel produced by them in Peter's name, I said " If this is all that seems to give you discouragement, let it be read," But now, having learnt that their mind began to lurk in a certain heresy % from what I had said, I will hasten to come again to you ; so that, brethren, look for me speedily,' Then follows a very corrupt sentence which m,ay mean § ' And you, brethren, after understanding of what * 'HjUeTc yap, aSEXdjioi, Kai Hirpov Kal roiig aXXovg 'ATroaroXovg a-jro- SExbpEBa wg Xpiarov, ra Se ovopan avrwv -i^iEvSE-wiypaipa wg 'E/j-irEipoi TrapaiTOvpEBa, yivwaKOVTEg 'on ra roiavra oil -jrapEXajSopEV. 'Eytu yap yEvbpivog -irap' vpiv v-ttevoovv rovg -rravrag opBiJ -rriarEi -n-poafipeaBai, Kal pr) SieXOivv rb utt' avrwv -izpoipEpbpEvov ovb^ian Hirpov EvayyiXiov EiTTOV on ' El tovto ioTi pbvov rb Sokovv vpiv -irapixEiv fiiKpo\pvxiav, avayivwaKEaOw.' Nvv Se paBwv on a'lpiaEi rivl b rovg avrwv eve<^wXevev iK TWV XexBevtwv poi a-rrovSaaw iraXiv yEviaOai -rrpbg vpdg, warE, dStX- v vpiv iypcKJir), 'ESwfiBripEV yap Trap' aXXwv rwv aaKriaav- Twv aiirb rovro rb EvayyiXiov, rovrian rwv SiaSbxo)v rwv KarapEapivwv avrov, ovg AoKijrae KaXovpEV — ra yap cj>povripaTa ra TrXtiova iKEivwv iijTi Tyjg SiSaaKaXlag — xpVrapEvoi Trap' avrwv SuXBelv Kal EvpElv ra piv ttXeiovu roil opBov Xoyov rov Hiwrfjpog, rivci Si irpoaSiEaraXpiva, a Kat vwETci^afiEv vpiv. Hilgenfeld makes no remark on the difficulties of this text. t There is no need to change this, but in a passage part of which is certainly corrupt one naturally suspects a peculiar expression like wg Xpia-rbv ' as we do Christ.' Is it possible that we should read either (ic XptoTou 'as Christ's' or tic XP'?'^™' — arroSExbpEBa wg Xpvrroi ' we receive in right-mindedness ' forming an antithesis to wg 'Epfa-Eipoi -JTapaiTovjXEBa ' we refuse from experience ' ? X Does he merely mean that the cheerfulness of his permission le'd them to set greater store by a heretical Gospel, or can it be that they fancied the words rd SokoHv in his answer were intended to convey covert approbation of its Dohetic principles ? § I conjecture 'YpEig for 'HpElg, tig before Kai, and probably iipiv Related to any Uncanonical Books ? 8g heresy Marcianus was, will learn from what has been written. for you {or ? by us] how he contradicted even himself, not knowing what he was saying,' Then Serapion says ' For from others of those who affected this same Gospel, that is from the successors of those who first employed it, whom we call Doketists (for the opinions .are mainly of the school of those men), from them we borrowed it and were able to go through it and to find the larger part of its contents of the right word of the Saviour, but some things superadded, which we have also subjoined for your benefit,' II As to who the otherwise unknown Marcianus was, I can only conjecture, with the utmost diffidence, that the Gospel according to Peter professed to have been taken down from Peter's dictation — or translated from Peter's autograph — by a person of that name, whom Serapion believed to be the real author of the Gospel, The name is curiously like that ofl Mark (Marcus) whom early tradition represents as having been Peter's interpreter and as having written his Gospel from notes of what he had heard Peter say,** for vpiv. All three of the old readings look very like mistakes of the ear made by a person copying from dictation (maybe from the dictation of Eusebius hunself to his clerk). 'YjueTc and 'H/itTc, ripiv and vp^iv, were hardly to be distinguished by ear and are perpetually confounded in N. T. MSS. In modern Greek there is also the only shghtest distinction of sound between o and w, the confusion of which is likewise common in N. T. MSS., and it was easy for a tired copyist to lose the sound of tic in the last syllable -de of the pre ceding word, especially if (as also in modern Greek) the aspirate in wg was not sounded. 1 since find that Rufinus, who translated Eusebius about 408 a.d., renders as if he read tue '''ai. II See however Addenda. 1 As are Lucanus, Lucianus, Leucius — the names of the assumed author or authors of apocryphal books — to Luhe. ** In relation to this subject it is instructive to compare two passages in Supernatural Beligion. In vol. i. 419 (4th ed.) the author aims at showing the antiquity of the Gospel according to Beter and the probability of Justin's having referred to it : he there for says ' We learn from Eusebius that Serapion, who became Bishop of Antioch about a.d. 190, composed a book on the " Gospel according to Peter " (Ttpi rou XEyopivov Kara Hirpov EvayyEXiov) 90 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. Eusebius himself (ffisi, Eccl. iii. 3) mentions the Gospel according to Peter among several works attributed to Peter (including the Preaching) which ' we do not know to have been ever reckoned by tradition among catholic writings, since no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has em ployed their testimony,' * In this, however, he is wrong, for Origen refers to it [Hom. in Matt, x, 17) as asserting that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, a view of which he proceeds to declare himself a supporter. It is unlucky that we have no further information about this Gospel and that no specimen has been preserved of what Serapion considered its Doketic interpolations — especially as we know, from charges of forging certain various readings brought against Marcion (see Prof. Westcott in Smith's Bible Bictionary, ii. 507), that such suspicions might go too far. But, whatever its character, and whether or not it was used by the Nazarenes, there is not the remotest trace of any connexion between it and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, (b) We are now free to examine the relation (if any) of the Gospel according to the Hebrews to books inside the Canon of the New Testament. The only satisfactory way of conducting this examination is to analyse the internal which he found in circulation in his diocese.' But in vol. ii. 167 he writes ' The fact that Serapion in the third century allowed the Gospel of Peter to be used in the church of Rhossus shows at the same time the consideration in which it was held and the incom pleteness of the canonical position of the New Testament writings.' Note that when he wishes to exalt an uncanonical book it is ' Sera pion, who became bishop of Antioch about a.d. 190,' but when his object is to show ' the incompleteness of the canonical position of the New Testament writings ' it is ' Serapion in the third century ' : of course it is likely that the Gospel according to Peter was brought to Serapion at 'his first visitation of the church of Rhossus, and also that this visitation took place at any rate during the first nine years of his bishopric. * Ouo dXtue EV KaBoXiKalg 'lapEV irapaSESopiva, on priTE apxaiwv pfiTE rwv KaB ripcig rt£ iKKXriaiaariKog avyypafEvg ralg il, avrwv avvt- -Xprjaaro paprvpiaig. Relation to Canonical Books. 91 evidence afforded by each fragment in turn, and to tabulate and sum up our results, after which, but not before, we shall be entitled to draw conclusions, Fr, 1 (Ebionite) has no evangelical parallel. It looks, as I have already said, like ' a mere compilation (and a very bald one) from canonical data,' The object of it — to attach to the Gospel the stamp of direct apostolic authority — is in any case suspicious. It agrees with the three Synoptics when it mentions the call of twelve apostles, the fact that Simon had a house at Capharnahum, and, if Levi and Matthew be one (which I greatly doubt), the call of Matthew (otherwise with Matthew only). With Matthew and John alone it calls Iseariot ' the Iseariot ' (unless the article be due to Epiphanius), With Mark alone it says that Jesus entered a house after ordaining the Twelve, and with him alone (probably) or with him and Matthew it gives the name of one of them as Thaddaeus, With Luke alone it states the age of Jesus, calls the sea of Galilee a ' lalce ' and Simon the Cananaean ' the Zealot ' : but in Aramaic one word represents sea and lahe, and Cananaean means Zealot, so that the Aramaic original of the fragment (if it had one) would not show these two peculiarities of Luke's Gospel, Lastly, with John alone it attaches to the sea of Galilee the name of the town ' Tiberias.' It is clear, therefor, that the author of this fragment has not borrowed specially from any one of our Gospels : but he is much to be suspected of having borrowed impartially from at least two, Fr. 2 (Nazarene) is quoted by Jerome as = Matt, ii. 5, exactly as it stands in the Curetonian Syriac and other authorities : Bethlehem is called ' Bethlehem of Judaea ' in Matthew only, and is not mentioned in Mark. Fr, 3 (Nazarene) = Matt, ii, 16, verbatim : there is no parallel in the other Gospels, Fr, 4 (Nazarene) = Matt, ii. 23, verbatim : there is no parallel in the other Gospels, Fr, 5 (Ebionite) agrees generally in substance with the three Synoptics, V, (1) in the shortest version bears a slight trace of connexion with Matt, iii, 1 or its archetype, the two longer versions a much stronger one. The longest version also introduces mention, peculiar to Luke, of the parentage 92 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. of John the Baptist and the priesthood of ' Caiaphas.' Both the longer versions contain the phrase ' baptism of repentance,' found in Mark and Luke once, and twice in Acts, and one of them spea,ks of the ' river ' Jordan, as does Mark i. 5. Again the words '¦began baptizing' [sjsvsto /3a-7rTl^a)v) agree with the reading in Mark i, 4 which, though probably wrong, is that of the great majority of MSS, and versions. V. (2) = Matt. iii. 5, and Mark i. 5 : the mention of ' Pharisees ' = Matt, iii, 7, John i, 24, and ' all Jerusalem ' is peculiar to Matthew, Mark having ' aU they of Jerusalem,' V. (3) = Matt, iii, 4 and Mark i. 6, with the omission, possibly due to Ebionite vegetarianism, of ' locusts,' The prophecy in serted in Matt, iii, 3, Mark iii, 3, Luke iii, 4, John i, 23 is omitted, also possibly out of hostility to the prophets : yet there is no such reason why Matt, iii, 2 should have been left out, except maybe to agree with the form of Mark- -an unwise aim in a professedly Matthaean Gospel, It is difficult to make much out of all this. The outline of the passage according to the shortest copies agrees closely with Mark, vv, (1) (2) (3) exactly corresponding in order with Mark i, 4, 5, 6, V, (2) is much more like Matthew, from whom the beginning of v, (1) also seems to be abridged. Of Luke and John there is no separate trace in the shortest copies. In the longer version v. (1) contains traces of con nexion with Matthew [one), Mark [one), Luke [one), and a phrase found in Mark and Luke's writings only. Altogether we must, I think, take the fragment as allied more nearly to Matthew than to our other Gospels, and must assign its omissions and additions to dogmatic dishonesty on the part of the Ebionites, recognising the certainty that they used Luke or a similar Gospel, and the full possibility that they used Mark, for their purpose, Fr. 6 (Nazarene) has no evangelical parallel. In v, (1) ' behold ' is a word specially characteristic of Matthew and Luke ; the title ' Lord ' used in speaking of Jesus is almost though not quite peculiar to Luke and John; 'for remission of sins ' is applied to John's baptism by Mark and Luke only, though Matthew says that those baptized confessed their sins ; ' remission of sins ' occurs eight times in the writings of Luke against seven times in all the other books of the N. T. Relation to Canonical Books. 93 In V, (2) Jesus disclaiming sin reminds us of John viii, 46, and the admission of a possible limitation of his knowledge recalls Mark xiii, 32. Altogether the verbal analysis ¦ suggests relations to Luke. Fr. 7 (Ebionite) runs parallel to Matt. iii. 13-17, Marki. 9-11, and Luke iii. 21, 22 (John i. 32, 33 being analogous but not parallel). V, (1) agrees very nearly with Luke iii, 21. V, (2) is far nearer to Matt, iii, 16 than to the other accounts, with the noticeable exception of the words ' in shape of a dove,' which recall Luke, The important preposition ' into ' has also the strongest support (D and all the Latin versions) in Luke, but is also read by D and some other authorities in both Mark and Matthew, In v, (3) the words of the voice agree exactly with Luke alone, and the second utterance, ' J have this day begotten thee,' answers to Justin's form ' Thou art my Son : I have this day begotten thee,' which is also read in Luke by D, the Old Latin, Clement of Alexandria, &c, &c, V, (4) gives the story of the light in Jordan which is inserted by two Old Latin MSS, in Matt. iii. 15, and which Justin mentions not only as a fact but, if we accept Tischen dorf's very slight emendation, as a fact related by the Apostles in their memoirs. The question ' 'Who art thou, {Lordl ? ' following a voice from' heaven and a great light, suggests that the language of Luke in his three accounts of the conversion of Paul was influenced by this or some similar account of the Baptism, or else that this account of the Baptism was influenced by Luke's account of the conversion of Paul — which seems less likely, V, (5) in repeating the voice gives the same words as Matthew, Vv, (6) and (7) answer to Matt, iii. 14, 15, but are placed after the Baptism instead of before it. Here we have the most unmistakeable connexion both with Matthew and Luke, and with them only. Moreover, that form of the evangelical text with which the fragment has most in common is one which, whether correct or not, was certainly current as early as the first half of the second century. Are we then to regard this fragment as a compilation from Matthew and Luke ? It does indeed come to us from 94 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. an Ebionite source, and we have seen good reason to doubt the honesty of the Ebionite text ; in Fr, 5, moreover, we detected in some of the Ebionite copies signs that Luke, or at least some kindred work to Luke, had been laid under contribution. But, on the other hand, none of the suspected Ebionite corruptions seem to have been made without an object, whereas it is difficult to see what end the reviser of a Matthaean ground-text had to gain by adopting Luke iii, 21 in preference to Matt, iii, 13, by transposing Matt. iii. 14, 15, or by introducing the question of John and the last voice from heaven. It was indeed necessary to transpose Matt, iii, 14, 15 if John's question and the heavenly answer were inserted, but why insert them ? Fr, 8 (Nazarene) has no evangelic parallel, but the resting of the Spirit (with the supernatural light of Fr, 7) may just possibly be alluded to in 1 Pet. iv, 14, while ' rested upon him' is the reading of the Curetonian Syriac in Matt, iii, 16, A single phrase, ' that reignest for ever,' has its analogy in Luke, Fr. 9 (Nazarene ?) = Matt. iv. 5 and Luke iv, 9, speaking of ' .Jerusalem ' with the latter and not ' the holy city ' with the former, A Nazarene reviser of the canonical Matthew would surely have kept ' the holy city,' Fr, 10 (Nazarene) seems to = Matt. v. 22, and no other passage. The metaphorical use of ' brother ' is specially characteristic of Matthew, as regards the Gospels. Fr, 11 (Nazarene) does not=any passage in the Gospels, The word a'yawrj, which would represent caritas in Greek, is specially characteristic of John's Gospel, which also contains several injunctions to the disciples to love each other, but the tenor of the fragment is far more suggestive of Matthew (particularly) or Luke, Pr, 12 (Nazarene) = Matt, vi. 11, Luke xi. 3, only. Fr. 13 (Ebionite) = Matt. x. 25, only, Fr. 14 is quoted by Eusebius in reference to Matt, x, 34, Luke xii, 51, It has no evangelic parallel, ' Whom my Father in the heavens hath given me ' recalls John xvii, 6, ' the men which thou gavest me out of the world : thine they were, and thou gavest them me,' spoken by Jesus to the ' Father,' and ib. 9, ' I pray not for the world, but for them which Relation to Canonical Books. 95 thou hast given me,' But ' Father in the heavens ' points very strongly to Matthew, who is also more abundant than his fellow Evangelists in precepts of good will to others, Fr, 15 (Nazarene) is an additional detail to a story told in Matt, xii, 9 seqq., Mark iii, 1 seqq., Luke vi, 6 seqq, Victum ' sustenance ' may answer to ySt'oz/, a word used never by Matthew or John, once by Mark, but four times by Luke ; but it may also correspond to rpocp-riv. The simple address ' Jesus ' is only found in Luke xxiii, 42 (best reading) ; Jesus is addressed by name (with additional epithets) twice more in Luke, and thrice in Mark, but not at all in John or Matthew (according to the best reading of Matt, ix. 12), ' Shamefully beg for food ' recalls Luke xvi, 3, ' to beg I am ashamed.' Altogether we have reason to suspect relations with Luke. Fr, 16 (Ebionite) = Matt, xii, 47-50, Mark iii, 32-5, Luke viii, 20, 21, V, (1) agrees most nearly with Matthew, Luke not having the word ' behold,' and Mark introducing the sisters of Jesus, V, (2) is a shade nearer to Mark than to Matthew; Luke omits the question. V, (3) does not point to any, but is a little nearer to Matthew than to the others. Altogether there is most trace of connexion with Matthew, Fr. 17 = Matt, xv, 24 (verbatim), only, Fr. 18 (Nazarene ?) = Matt, xvi, J 7, only, Fr, 19 (Nazarene) = Matt, xviii, 21, 22, Luke xvii, 3, 4, and is much nearer the former. In v, (1) forgiveness is made dependent on the contrition of the offender, as in Luke, In v, (2) Peter is introduced as questioning Jesus on the subject : Luke omits all mention of him. Such a style as ' Simon his disciple ' is not found in our Gospels, but the word ' disciple ' is much more frequent in Matthew than in Luke (most frequent of all in John), while on the other hand Peter is spoken of or to as plain ' Simon ' only once in Matthew, but seven times in Mark and eight times in Luke (once only in John), In Acts (four times) the second name Peter is always added, as in 2 Pet, i, 1, In v, (3) the number ' seventy times seven ' is peculiar to Matthew ; the latter part of the verse is not contained in either evangelist, but ' anointed by the Holy Spirit ' savours of Luke, 96 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. Fr, 20 (Nazarene) = with wide differences Matt. xix. 16-24, Mark x, 17-25, Luke xviii, 18-25, V, (1) shows that a conversation with some other rich man had gone before it, and suggests that the canonical accounts may have blended these two conversations. The two rich men, as Hilgenfeld says, recall Matthew's two demoniacs (viii. 28) and two blind men (xx. 30), where Mark and Luke only mention one; while, on the other hand, he speaks of only one angel at the sepulchre, but Luke and John of two. The absence of the epithet ' Good ' in addressing Jesus agrees with the best reading of Matt, xix, 16, ^ Live' in the sense of 'have eternal life ' is only found in Luke x. 28 among the Synoptics ; there are more instances in John : but ' life ' in the sense of ' eternal life ' never occurs in Luke, but four times in Matthew, twice in Mark, and of course very often in John. ' Man ' in v, (2) is a form of address peculiar to Luke, the conjunction of the prophets with the law as a code of life is equa,lly peculiar to Matthew, V, (4) is a little nearer to Luke, who however omits ' 6ro,' than to the others, V. (5) retains the commandment ' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' omitted by Mark and Luke, ' Sons of Abraham ' = ' son of Abraham ' Luke xix, 9 and ' daughter of Abraham,' xiii, 16, while ' seed of Abraham ' occurs twice in John and ' children of Abraham ' once. On ' Simon his dis ciple,' V, (6), see my remarks on the last fragment; 'sitting by him ' is a detail recalling Matthew, Altogether that part of the fragment which corresponds with the canonical accounts agrees best with Matthew ; so do two peculiarities of matter, but the peculiarities of style recall Luke and John, Fr. 21 (Nazarene) = Matt, xxi. 9 and Mark xi, 10 ver batim ; substantial parallels are also afforded by Luke xix, 38 and John xii, 13, Fr, 22 (Nazarene?) may not be verbally represented by John vii, 53-viii. 11. But, if it is, v, (1) strikingly agrees with Luke xxi, 37 (substantially confirmed by Matthew), while V. (2) offers a still more remarkable parallel to Luke xxi, 38 ; the word ' dawn,' 'opOpov, is also peculiar to Luke ; but ' having sat doivn ' is much more a trait of Matthew, In V. (3) ' the scribes and the Pharisees ' is also rather su'Tgestive of Matthew, ' Teacher,' v, (4), is a little more comnion in Relation to Canonical Books. 97 Mark and Luke. ' Trying him' v, (6), is more frequent in Matthew and Mark than in Luke, but the form of the words ' that they may have wherry to accuse him ' is more like Luke. In V, (10) ' Mistress ' is specially Johannine (five times) ; Luke has it twice to Matthew's once, Fr, 23 (Nazarene) = Matt, xxiii. 35, Luke xi. 51, but the latter passage does not mention Zacharias's father. Here the Greek Matthew contains a palpable error, but the Naza rene Gospel keeps what must almost certainly have been the original reading, Fr. 24 = Matt, xxv. 14-30, Luke xix. 11-27, with wide variation from both. We do not know that Eusebius has kept any part of the original wording ; but with this reserv ation we may observe that ' the abandoned liver ' and ' which devoured the substance with harlots ' are very like phrases in Luke XV, 14, 30 ; and that ' accepted ' or ' received ' is a term common in both Matt, and Luke, but particularly the latter, Fr, 25 (Ebionite) is very remarkable, V, (1) = Matt. xxvi, 17, Mark xiv, 12, and is nearer to the former. Luke does not mention the question, but makes Jesus say to Peter and John ' Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat' (xxii. 8). V. (2) undoubtedly corresponds to Luke xxii. 1 5, ' With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer,' but ' before I suffer ' is omitted, ' this passover ' becomes ' this flesh the passover,' aud the affirm ation of Jesus is turned into a question expecting a negative answer. We have seen strong cause to suspect the verse of having been corrupted by the Ebionites, but the question re mains an open one whether it was borrowed from Luke, Supposing that the verse formed no part of their original Gospel, it is quite easy to understand why the Ebionites should have thus borrowed it. The fact that Jesus ate of the paschal lamb might be turned against Ebionite vege tarianism: they therefor wished to represent that he did so with reluctance. This, however, was contradicted by Luke xxii. 15. What more simple than to introduce into Luke xxii. 15 the slight change needed to produce an entirely opposite sense, and then to incorporate it into their Gospel, retorting upon Luke any charge of corruption which might be brought against them by the orthodox? This is very H 9 8 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. possible, but it is equally possible that the verse in Luke's form may have been contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews before the Ebionites corrupted it. Fr. 26 (Nazarene?) = Matt, xxvi, 74, Mark xiv. 71, with little variation. The incident of which it is a detail is also related by Luke and John, Fr. 27 (Nazarene) is part of a verse corresponding to Matt, xxvii, 16, Mark xv, 7, Luke xxiii, 18, John xviii, 40, As the name ' Barabbas ' is here distinctly treated as a sur name, the circumcision-name may also have been given, in which case there is a probability of connexion with that form of Matthew's text which assigned to Barabbas the circum cision-name 'Jesus,' If the words 'who had been con demned on account of sedition and murder ' are part of Jerome's quotation — which, however, I do not believe — they are closely parallel to Luke xxiii, 19, Fr, 28 (Nazarene) differs from Matt, xxvii, 51, Mark xv. 38, Luke xxiii, 45, but is part of a verse answering to them. Fr. 29 (Nazarene) has no evangelic parallel, but almost undoubtedly represents the story alluded to by Paul in 1 Cor, XV, 7, V, (1) alludes to a fact mentioned by all four evangelists, that the dead body of Jesus was wrapped ia linen : all of them, moreover, speak of ' the ' servant of the high-priest in connexion with the apprehension of Jesus, Fr, 30 (Nazarene) = Luke xxiv, 39, substantially. Fr, 31 (Nazarene) has no evangelic parallel. The re lation assigned to Jesus and the Holy Spirit reminds us somewhat of Matt, i, 18 and Luke i. 36. Fr, 32 has no evangelic parallel. The spiritual use of the word ' rest ' is confined to Matthew, Fr. 33 (Ebionite) has no evangelic parallel, but suggests that the Ebionite Gospel contained a passage corresponding to Luke xiii. 1-3, in which this fragment occupied the place of Luke xiii, 3, ' The wrath ' suggests Luke or Matthew, Now let us tabulate our results : — (i.) Out of 33 Fragments the following 10 are entirelv in dependent of the canonical narratives — nos, 1, 6, 8, 11, 14, 22, 29, 31, 32, 33, Of these 6 come to us from a Nazarene source (6, 8, 11, 29, 31), 2 (both very suspicious) from an Relation to Canonical Books. 99 Ebionite source (1, 33), and 3 from a source undetermined (14, 22, 32) — one of which (22) is probably Nazarene, So large a proportion of peculiarities is remarkable if we compare the Gospel according to the Hebrews with Matthew or Mark, but not if we compare it with Luke, who has about 82 sections in common with them, but 37 peculiar to himself. The fragments above specified do not, taken together, give convincing evidence of a connexion with any of the canonical Gospels, But of the 5 Nazarene Fragments 2 (6, 8) present verbal analogies to 'Luke, and 2 others (11, 31) some little substantial analogies to both Matthew and Luke. Of the 2 Ebionite Fragments 1 suggests relation to Luke (33), but one word at the least is spurious ; the other (1) is almost equally suspicious, and may be a compound from our Gospels, Of the 3 neutral fragments, Fr, 14 seems to have been connected with Matthew and Luke, and is analogous to passages in Matthew and John ; Fr, 22 (if we have the right text) most nearly approaches Luke, and next to him Matthew ; and Fr, 32 suggests Matthew, First Deduction. The Gospel according to the Hebrews contained matter entirely independent of the canonical narratives. The proportion of this matter would be nearly ¦1-, if it were the same throughout the Gospel as in the Fragments, Second Deduction. The independent fragments show parallels of thought and expression to the canonical narra tives, more especially those of Matthew and Luke, (ii,) Out of the remaining 23 Fragments 2 only (Nazarene, 21 and 27) are parallel to passages contained in all four of our Gospels, or to passages contained in John. The former fragment is so very short that we cannot tell to whicii evangelist it came nearest, but there is reason to suspect that it was akin to one form of Matthew's text, and if the words included by Hilgenfeld should be admitted — whicii is most doubtful — a decided parallel to Luke is established. The other fragment agrees verbatim with Matthew and Mark, only partially with Luke and John, Six fragments (5, 7, 15, 16, 20, 28) are parallel to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Of these 5, 7, 16 are Ebionite, H 2 loo The Gospel according to the Hebrews. the other three Nazarene, Fr. 5 in its shortest form is ap parently allied to Matthew : in its longer forms it almost proves that the Ebionites were capable of interpolating from Luke or documents used by or derived from him, and suggests the use of Mark also. Fr. 7 is closely allied to both Matthew and Luke, and especially to second century texts of these Gospels : it also contains an extraordinary parallel to an incident thrice told iu Acts. In Fr, 16 there is most likeness to Matthew, In the Nazarene Fr, 15, which has no corresponding verse in our Gospels, there is a likeness to Luke's phraseology. Fr. 20, where it runs parallel to the canonical accounts, agrees best with Matthew, but in style is nearer to Luke and John. Fr, 28 yields no evidence. Third Deduction. There is no evidence that the Gospel according to the Hebrews contained matter peculiar to or derived from John. Fourth Deduction. It contained matter substantially common to the three Synoptists, the passages including this matter forming about ^ of the Fragments, Fifth Deduction. Such passages taken altogether show special likeness to Matthew and Luke. One fragment (26, Nazarene) is parallel to Matthew and Mark only, and is equally near to each. Half of another fragment (25, Ebionite) is also parallel to these two alone, and is nearer to Matthew. Sixth Deduction. There is no evidence that the Gospel according to the Hebrews contained any matter peculiar to, or derived from, Mark, except, maybe, in the interpolated Ebionite Fr. 5. Five fragments (9, 12, 19, 23, 24) are parallel to Matthew and Luke only. All these are Nazarene, except the last — of which the source is undetermined. Fr. 9 is nearer to Luke, but no stress can be laid on the one word ' Jerusalem.' Fr. 12 is identical with both, Fr, 19 is nearer to Matthew, but with distinct points of resemblance to Luke, Fr, 23 shows greater affinity to Matthew, and is free from the mistake of the Greek, Fr, 24 points decidedly to Luke if Eusebius has kept the wording of his origin al. Seventh Deduction. The Gospel according to the Hebrews contained matter peculiar to Matthew and Luke, the passages Relation to Canonical Books. loi containing such matter forming between ^ and \ of the Frag ments. Eighth Deduction. Such matter, if borrowed at all, was not borrowed from either exclusively. Seven fragments (2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 17, 18) are parallel to Matthew only. Of these 2, 3, 4, 10 are from a Nazarene source; so probably is 18 : 13 is Ebionite; 17 is of undeter mined origin, Fr, 10 agrees substantially with Matthew and has one of his favourite words. The others agree very closely indeed with Matthew, most of them verbatim. Ninth Deduction. The Gospel according to the Hebrews contained matter peculiar to Matthew, the passages contain ing such matter forming a little more than ^ of the Frag ments. One fragment (30, Nazarene) is parallel to Luke only. So is one half (suspicious) of another (25, Ebionite). Tenth Deduction. The Gospel according to the Hebrews contained matter peculiar to Luke, the passages containing such matter forming hardly -^V of the Fragments. We arrive then at a Gospel (a) in great part independent of the extant text of our Gospels, and [b) showing no signs of relationship to Mark or John, "but (c) bearing a very marked affinity to Matthew, and [d) a less constant but still obvious affinity to Luke. We have now to enquire whether the matter allied to Matthew and Luke was derived from the Greek Matthew (or an Aramaic Matthew of which the Greek was only a translation) and Luke. Those who hold this theory are corapelled, by the great preponderance of Matthew in the Fragments, supplemented by the unanimity of tradition with regard to the Mat thaean character of the Gospel, to suppose that our present Matthew formed the groundwork of it, and that the non- Matthaean portions were merely incorporated into that groundwork. We shall, however, find that this theory, which for short ness I call the ' compilation-theory,' fails to explain many of the phaenomena of the Fragments. In Fr. 6, which seems to be allied to Matthew, it does not very well solve the omission of Matt, iii, 2, the transposition of Matt, iii, 5, or I02 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. the alteration of that verse and Matt, iii, 1, In Fr, 7 we fail to see why Matt. iii. 13 was discarded in favour of Luke iii, 21 ; why John's question and the second heavenly voice are brought in ; why the position of Matt, iii, 14, 15 is altered. It Avas, indeed, needful to shift these last verses if John's question and the heavenly answer were inserted, but to what end is this insertion? Again, as regards Luke, the light on Jordan and John's question are so strikingly like the light at Paul's conversion and his question that there seems to be something more than mere coincidence between the accounts. It appears, however, infinitely more prob able that the language of Luke should have been influenced by his recollection of a similar previous incident in the life of Jesus than that the supposed compiler of the Gospel according to the Hebrews should have copied Luke's de scription of a similar subsequent incident in the life of Paul, In Fr, 9 why is Matthew's 'holy city' (which in a Jewish Gospel we should certainly expect to be kept) altered to 'Jerusalem'? If Fr. 10 answer textually, as it does in substance, to Matt, v, 22, why the change of form? if, on the other hand, the Gospel according to the Hebrews con tained another passage corresponding textually to Matt, v, 22, why was Fr. 10, a mere repetition of it in substance, inserted at all? In Fr, 16 we might conjecture that the omission of the words ' desiring to speak with thee ' was due to Epiphanius's compressed relation of the incident, but why the departure from Matthew xii, 50 ? In Fr, 19 why does the conversation on forgiveness begin with a remark from Jesus instead of (as in Matthew) a question from Peter ? And, if Fr. 30 be borrowed from Luke, why is not Luke's text followed ? To these questions the compilation-theory cannot, I think, give answers : I might have asked more, but I have excluded all to which even any sort of answer might be given. Nor does the compilation-theory explain why, as we find from the Stichometry of Nikephorus (see Addenda), the Gospel according to the Hebrews was shorter than Luke or Matthew, We know from the Fragments that our supposed compiler sometimes recounted incidents at greater length than either, and that he incorporated a large amount of The Compilation-theory and its Coimter. 103 independent matter. We should have expected his com pilation to be longer than either; why is it shorter? He must have omitted considerable portions of his groundwork; yet we see that he did not object to miracles, or parables, or other discourses — what are we to suppose that he omitted, and what were his motives for omission ? The compilation-theory must therefor, I think, be dis missed, and we must seek some other explanation of the agreement of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with Matthew and Luke, Some one may possibly think that he finds that explana tion in the counter hypothesis that Matthew and Luke have borrowed from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, But, if so, why have they omitted matter for the most part en tirely unobjectionable and some of it (e.g, Fr, 8, Fr, 11, and Fr, 29) quite equal in beauty to anything which they re tained? Why did they leave out those additional details which the Gospel according to the Hebrews often supplies to their narratives? Why does one evangelist sometimes adopt its version, while the other passes it by for a less minute and picturesque account from another source ? This theory, like the former, must therefor be abandoned. It is -true that by supposing Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews (or at least two of them) to have undergone a long series of alterations and additions, we might manipulate the existing facts so as to suit either of the above theories — or indeed any theory whatsoever. This style of criticism has, moreover, some distinguished precedents in its favour. But for my own part I prefer to wait, if need be, for the solution of a difficulty rather than to evolve from my own consciousness a number of various editions of which absolutely no record can be found, I now come to my own hypothesis. And, since so little is known, so much debated, respecting the sources and com position of the canonical Gospels, let me say beforehand that it requires only one assumption, namely- — that whenever, wherever, and by whomsoever the canonical Gospel according to Matthew was written, however varied may have been the oral or documentary sources from which it was composed or compiled, and whether it was first written in Greek or I04 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. Aramaic, it shows the special handiwork of one particular man. This much, I think, no one will dispute, and if I agree not to assume that he was an Apostle, or that his name really was Matthew, perhaps I may be allowed for con venience's sake to call him ' Matthew,' My hypothesis, then, is that Matthew wrote at different times the canonical Gospel and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or at least that large part of the latter which runs parallel to the former. The hypothesis will not appear absurd to anyone who reads it by the light of everyday facts in authorship. Modern writers put forth new editions of their works, often adding much, omitting much, varying much : sometimes even a book is entirely rewritten. There is no reason why we should refuse to believe that ancient authors exercised the sam6 liberty. Bishop Lightfoot, indeed, suggests (Revision, 29) that Luke wrote two slightly different copies of his Gospel ; and, whether this be so or not, it is at least certain that the Ascension as told in Acts is a complete rewriting of the same event as told in his Gospel, And in the case of Matthew many peculiar considerations render such alterations both possible and probable. If he had dreamt that 1800 years later a very partially Chris tianized world and a very divided Christianity would have no other knowledge of the life of Jesus than what they had gathered from himself and three of his contemporaries, he would have written something more than a sketch which (to compare it with a modern biography) fills only about thirty- five ordinary octavo pages, Matthew expected that in his own lifetime, or at least his own generation, all the tribes of the earth should see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, that angels with a great sound of a trumpet should gather the elect from the four winds, and that heaven and earth should pass away. Meanwhile there were many witnesses of the life of Jesus still living and communicating the history of his life to the converted and the unconverted alike. It was an age too in which ' many took in hand' to put that history in writing; nor were their narratives fantastic apocrypha — they were accounts of ' the things most surely believed ' among Chris- A Gemdne Edition of Matthew? 105 tians, derived from ' eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,' and the other evangelist who tells us this wrote not to supersede but to confirm them. Moreover a mis sionary preacher can nearly always spread what he has to say wider and faster than a writer; and in the days of Aramaic and uncial Greek manuscripts this was stiU more true than it is in these days of printing-presses. And so, probably, Matthew never thought of composing a full biography that should last for all time, but merely wrote a brief sketch, perhaps for the information of some private friend, as did Luke, or at the request of some particular community. By and by, possibly, another friend or another community desired an account from him : perchance he had kept no copy of the former one, or only rough notes— hence omissions, variations, additions : perchance also he purposely varied the contents somewhat, whether of his own fancy, or according to the character of the persons for whom he was writing, or with reference to the contents of other Gospels. But, some one may say, we are told * that Mark's Gospel is a collection of notes of Peter's lectures. May not Matthew have been merely an oral teacher, and may not the Gospel bearing his name be a collection of notes made by one or more of his hearers, t and not actually written by him at all ? Then, I reply, the Gospel according to the Hebrews might be another such collection made by other hearers, and pro bably at another time. The relationship between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and Luke is less hard of definition. We have nothing like the same quantity or quality of coincidence, material or verbal, to account for. Casual agreement of detail might be explained by supposing that either of the two writers was infiuenced by recollections of the other : for we have seen that neither can have written with the other's work actually before him. We have strong reason to suspect such recollection in Luke's accounts of the conversion of Paul, and it is also worth notice that Paul, who seems to * By Papias (Eusebius, Hist. Bed. iii. 39). t Papias expressly refers to Matthew as a source of oral tra dition (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 38). The passage is quoted and translated in Appendvx, B. io6 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. have got his version of the Last Supper from his companion Luke, mentions an appearance of Jesus to James after the Eesurrection. It is, however, quite needless to suppose that either Luke or the writer of the Gospel according to the Hebrews had ever seen the other's work. Each may have derived the corresponding matter from oral tradition or from other of the ' many ' written Gospels in circulation. Coinci dences of vocabulary admit the same easy explanation on either hypothesis. All we can safely say is that many de tails and phrases in the Gospel according to the Hebrews which are not found in the Greek Matthew are at least in their ultimate source coeval with Luke. I have not yet touched the difficult question of priority between the canonical Matthew and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The fact that the latter twice speaks of ' the Lord ' is perhaps a sign of its later date : see note on Fr. 6, If, however, the term ' Lord ' be used in its strict original sense 'master,' that would suggest that the Gospel was written by a personal follower of Jesus, A later date is also possibly indicated by the fresh incidents and additional details which it supplies. It may, indeed, be urged that Matthew's memory would be more complete when he wrote his first work : on the other hand, the longer he lived the more his recollection would be revived, or the fuller inform ation he would gain, by the publication of other men's Gospels, or the communication of their oral tradition. Again the fact that the Greek Gospel does not contain a few words and conspicuous phrases found in the Aramaic Gospel seems to afford a slight additional argument for the priority of the former : yet, if the Gospel according to the Hebrews were recovered entire, we might find peculiarities in the canonical Gospel to balance these. Applying the test of length, we are inclined to regard the Aramaic Gospel as the earlier, it being the shorter. Nevertheless, wherever we can compare its relation of events with that of the Greek we find it fuller and are led to suspect that it was shorter only through the omission of parables or long discourses. In this case its preference for incident would tend to show a later date : the further men got from the days of Jesus the more-they demanded that information about the facts of his life which Relation in Time to our Greek Matthew. 107 was gradually passing out of their reach — I have little doubt that if two lost but genuine Gospels were at this date re covered, the one homiletic, the other narrative, the most devotional Christian would set greater store by the latter. Altogether, then, I think there is a slight amount of presumption in favour of the priority of the canonical Gospel, but some of the counter arguments given above, together with the less stereotyped character of the Aramaic Gospel, disincline me from expressing a decided opinion. The question whether the Greek Gospel is translated from an Aramaic original remains, as far as my theory is concerned. But, if it was first written in Aramaic, then the fact that Matthew did actually compose in that language makes his authorship of the Gospel according to the Hebrews the more probable. And, if the Greek Gospel be not a translation,* may not the Gospel according to the Hebrews * Papias's statement can hardly be a mere guess. But I put the case thus interrogatively because a third theory is possible — that the Greek Matthew had been translated into Aramaic and that Papias mistook this translation for au original. To render this in the least degree probable one must suppose that no other evangelist had at that time been translated into Aramaic. Now in the Cure tonian Syriac, a version in Western Aramaic probably as old as the 2nd cent., ' the Gospel of St. Matthew differs in mode of expression and various other particulars from what we find in the rest ' — according to Tregelles (Smith's Bib. Die. iii. 1634). Again, the title of that particular Gospel, and that only, contains a word which Tregelles and others take to mean ' made clear,' and which they suppose to indicate a rendering from a less popular dialect into the vernacular. If, however, it should denote a rendering into Western Aramaic not from Eastern Aramaic but from Greek, then in the use of the word at the heading of this one Gospel, aud in the idiosyncrasies of the translation, we may see an evidence that Matthew was translated St a different time from the other evangelists, and since he is the most Hebraistic he would naturally be translated first. Cureton and Tregelles insist that the Curetonian Syriac is vir tually a translation of an original Matthew in Eastern Aramaic. If they are right, my conclusions are not affected one whit. But whether they are right or wrong, the Curetonian Syriac does show several approximations to the text of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and thereby lends it evidence, if not of correctness, at io8 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. have been Papias's Aramaic original? — in which case we should have the evidence of a man born in the Apostolic age for the fact, or at least the tradition, of its Matthaean authorship. We must not forget that the above conclusions have been arrived at solely from internal evidence ; we have yet to compare them with the external evidence. That has been summed up already at the end of Part I., but I may with advantage, for our present purpose, abstract it a little further and say that it tends to show (i,) that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Aramaic ; (ii.) that the Greek Matthew is a translation from the Aramaic Matthew; (iii,) that Matthew wrote the Gospel according to the Hebrews ; (iv,) that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the Aramaic original of the Greek Matthew. The conclusions I have deduced from internal evidence agree with (i.) and (iii.), they are equally consistent with the correctness or incorrectness of (ii,) ; they disagree with (iv.) only. But here res ipsa loquitur: the Fragments speak for themselves. The Greek Matthew, as it stands, and as it stood in the second century, is not a translation of the Gospel according to the Hebrews as it stood either in the days of Epiphanius and Jerome or some two centuries earlier. If the opinion of Epiphanius and Jerome be true, either the Greek or the Aramaic work or both must have undergone any number of additions, omissions, and alter ations. To maintain their opinion it was necessary for them to give some evidence as to why, when, or by whom these changes were effected. Their silence shows pretty clearly that they had no such evidence to offer, and I think we may assume without hesitation that, believing in an Aramaic original of the Greek Matthew and finding an Aramaic Gospel (ascribed to him by the tradition of centuries) bear ing much substantial and even verbal agreement with the least of correspondence with an extremely ancient form of the canonical Matthew's text. External Evidence compared. 109 Greek Gospel, they over hastily jumped to the conclusion that the Aramaic must be somehow the original of the Greek, And here I might say farewell to my readers, but that I wish to add a few short remarks as to the position of this Gospel in the second century. In reviewing the external evidence, we only traced the use of it as far back as to Hegesippus, writing perhaps .about 160 a.d., though we also found that Papias narrated a story which he might have borrowed from it. We have since seen that one of the fragments is identical with a quotation in one of the Ig natian epistles, which, taking it for genuine, must be as early as 115 a,d,, and if spurious would scarcely be later than the* middle of the same century. It is true that part of the quotation was certainly to be found in t'the Teaching of Peter,' and, of course, even otherwise we cannot prove that it was made from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Similarly we have found Justin twice out of accord with the established text of the canonical Gospels, but in accord with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Here, however, . iTustin is supported by a few early copies of Matthew and Luke, and even if he were not we cannot prove that he used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Still these things, together with the J story told by Papias, are worth mention ing in arrest of judgement, if any one should allege that our Aramaic Gospel was not used by writers of the earlier half of the second century ; and they at least afford as early con firmation of its credibility. It is further to be remarked that where the Gospel according to the Hebrews differs from, the established text of our Matthew it is often sup ported to some extent by Codex Bezae, the Old Latin, or the Curetonian Syriac, all of them undoubtedly sprung from second century MSS. Now, if the peculiar readings of these three authorities are right, the text of our Aramaic Gospel gains in credibility ; if they are wrong, the question arises * See Bishop Lightfoot's article in the Contemporary Beview for Feb. 1876. t See pp. 71-3, and also p. 87. X The story of the ' woman accused of many sins before the Lord.' 1 1 o The Gospel according to the Hebrews. whether they may not have been introduced from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and in that case whether the persons who introduced them must not have regarded that Gospel as both authoritative and Matthaean. The reader who has not studied the history of the Canon will nevertheless assume that far more ancient witness can be brought for the authority and authorship of the canonical Gospels than for the authority and authorship of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He will make a great mistake. It is true that no writer before Irenaeus (about 180-1 90 a.d.) speaks of our Aramaic Gospel as the work of Matthew, nor does any writer before his older contemporary Hegesippus, who probably wrote a little earlier, mention its existence. But neither is the authorship or the existence of the Gospels according to John and Luke mentioned by any writer* certainly earlier than these.t The same might be said of tbe other two canonical Gospels but that Papias (who can hardly have written later than 140 a.d., and may have written a good deal earlier) affirms that Matthew and Mark wrote Gospels, and, as he says that Matthew's Gospel was first written by him in Hebrew, and as we know him to have told a story which was found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it becomes a question whether he was not also an authority for our Aramaic Gospel. But, some one will say, are there not in writers earlier than Irenaeus % a large number of seeming, though anony- * The other writers in my mind are the author of the Canon Muratorianus and Heracleon. But I regard it as morally certain that Tatian, who was earlier than any of these, compiled his Dia- tessaron from at least three of our Canonical Gospels, with either the Canonical Matthew or the Gospel according to the Hebrews as the fourth. t There is no proof that the mention of Matthew's Gospel by Apollinaris is earlier. The Canon Muratorianus is defective at the beginning, but, as it speaks of Luke's aud John's Gospels as the third and fourth, it is morally certain that the other two which it comprehended were Matthew and Mark. X If any reader should have been misled by the author of Super natural Beligion into denying or doubting this, I beg him to read Bishop Lightfoot's articles in the Contemporary Beview, beginnino- Position in Second Century. 1 1 r mous, quotations from and references to the canonical Gospels? Granting the likelihood (and you barely claim as much) that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is quoted or referred to by Papias, Justin, and the author of a probably genuine Ignatian epistle, you need far more to convince us that your Aramaic Gospel can have been generally looked upon as an Apostolic or even an authoritative writing. To this I might reply by admitting that there are no more quotations from or references to it, but pointing out in Dec. 1874, and Dr. Sanday's Gospels in the Second Century. Those on the other hand who have not read the book may like to know what is the author's way of dealing with such early quota tions. First of all he brands the works containing them as spurious, whenever he can find a good or a bad pretext for so doing : but iu any case he assigns to them the latest conceivable date. With these reservations he proceeds to discuss the supposed quotations. If they are at all free, he carefully abstains from enquiring whether the works containing them show the same looseness in quoting from the Old Testament ; he equally neglects the analogies presented by Old Testament quotations in the New, and by acknowledged loose quotations from the Gospels iu later writers ; and dismissing as absurd the idea of ' quotation from memory ' he pronounces them to have been taken from some lost Gospel. If on the other hand the quotations are exact or very close, he will try to prove either that they are interpolations or that the corresponding texts in our Gospels have been interpolated. Or he will say that as the text occurs in more than one of our Gospels it was evidently part of the common stock of Gospel- writers, and may just as well have been in lost Gospels also. Or he will urge that some apocryphal book quoted elsewhere by the writer who is under consideration may have furnished it. Having got rid of all quotations before Irenaeus (180-190 a.d.) by one or more of these methods, and having pro nounced that the Gospels quoted by earlier writers and read (as we know from Justin) iu the weekly assemblies of Christians were un canonical, he does not explain when, why, or how these old and then canonical Scriptures were degraded aud the present Gospels (before unknown) substituted — so suddenly aud with such general agree ment that from Irenaeus onward, we find them (except among heretical sects) in almost absolute possession of the field, and no other Gospel named in any subsequent list of canonical books. But the writer does not perceive that he has achieved nothing beyond a red-uctio ad absurdum of his own argument. 112 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. that it was written in Aramaic, that there is- not the least proof that it had been translated, that most of the writers alluded to did not know Aramaic, and that in any case they would probably avoid quoting a Gospel which those whom they were addressing had not read and were not able to read. But there is another answer. Had any one of the canonical Gospels been lost, or preserved only to the extent of a few fragments, we should have been unable to detect all these early references to it. In some cases we should have treated what we now recognise to be a distinct reference to that particular Gospel as a loose reference from memory to a parallel passage in one of the three Gospels which alone would have been preserved to us; and where no such parallel existed we should have found ourselves at the end of our tether. Now what might have happened to any one of the canonical Gospels is precisely what has happened to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, There are many yet un- traced quotations and traditions, all of which may, and some of which probably do belong to it. Of course, every one of these may be taken from some other of the many lost Gospels : still, not one of those Gospels held in the estima tion of the Fathers a place approaching that of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, nor are the known quotations from any one of them to be compared in number with the known quotations from our Aramaic Gospel, Again, many. of the apparent references to our Gospels are decidedly loose. This looseness is exactly paralleled by the looseness with which the Old Testament is often quoted by the same writers (and in the New Testament), and with which the New Testament itself is often quoted by later writers.* Still, in some at least cf these cases the reference really may be to * It must be clearly understood that wherever the parallels of thought aud language are fairly near I admit probability to be on the side of the Canonical Gospels against all lost Gospels, but if the quotations in question be not from the Canonical Gospels, pro bability is, I think, in each case in favour of the Gospel according to the Hebrews against all other lost Gospels. I should not have ventured the above suggestion at all if we did not know that the Aramaic Gospel had strong canonical affinities. Possible Quotations from it. 1 1 3 the Gospel according to the Hebrews, especially where the connexion seems to be with Matthew. And now at last, having examined every aspect of my subject which has suggested itself to me, I may close an in vestigation which will not have been undertaken in vain if this Gospel should really be a work coeval with the canonical records of the life of Jesus, If on the other hand my de ductions have been wrong and my conjectures groundless, I shall, at least, have the satisfaction of furnishing to some more sagacious critic that armoury of facts wherewith saving Truth alive he is welcome to kill my theories. ADDENDA, P, 5, The following are the passages of Irenaeus and Eusebius to be compared : — Ikenaeus, Adv, Haer. i, 26 § 2 (extant in the old Latin translation only), Solo autem eo quod est secundum Mat thaeum Evangelio utuntur, et Apostolum Paulum recusant, apostatam eum Legis dicentes — ' They use that Gospel only which is according to Matthew, and refuse the Apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the Law/ EtrsEBiirs, Hist. Eccl. iii. 27, Tov psv ' hjiroaroKov irdaas ras STTiaro'XMS ap-vrjTsas ri'yovvTO elvai Bsiv, airoa-TOLTriv aTTOKoXovvTss TOV N0//.0V. Evay'ysXlip Bs povw to) icaO' '^^patovs 'Xsjopsvq) ¦x^pbopsvot tmv Xoi'ttcov apiKpbv ettoiovvto Xoyov — ' They held that all the epistles of the Apostle ought to be refused, calling him an apostate from the Law : and, using that Gospel alone which is called according to the Hebrews, they took small account of the rest.' P. 26. From p. 243 of Volkmar's edition (1860) of Credner's Kanon, I find that a later Nikephorus, Nikephorus Callistus, a Byzantine monk who wrote about 1330 a.d., puts the Gospel according to the Hebrews among spurious books. His list is, however, a mere paraphrase, with slight variations, of the list of Eusebius. I 114 Gospel according to the Hebrews. The passage referring to the Gospel according to the Hebrews runs thus : ' And nowadays let the Gospel according to the Hebrews also be numbered among these [spurious books] , which they out of the Hebrews who came to Christ loved with joyfulness beyond any other ' ["HSt) S' ev rovrois ical to Kad' ViSpalovs ^vayysXiov dptdfj,sladco, w p,d\i(7Ta oo s^ 'E/Spaioiv ^pccTTcp TrpoaiovTSs s-^aopov dap,svl^ovTss. — Hist. Eccl, ii. 46). The reader who compares this with my first quotation from Eusebius on p. 5 will be amused, and will agree that the opinion of Nikephorus Callistus (who lived about 900 years after Theodoret, the last independent writer who men tions this Gospel, and about 500 years after the copyist of Codex Tischendorfianus IIL, in which is found the last trace of its existence) has not even a feather's weight in the balance of evidence, P. 51, note on Fr, 21. The following considerations make me more doubtful. In the letter to Hedybia, § 4, Jerome writes : ' And the Evangelist Matthew, who composed the Gospel in the Hebrew speech, seems to me to have said [in xxvii. 1] not so much in the evening as late, and he who translated — deceived by the ambiguity of the word — ^to have translated not late but in the evening. Although the custom of men's speech holds, that late signifies not evening but after delay ' (Mihique videtur Evangelistam Matthaeum, qui Evangelium Hebraico sermone conscripsit, non tam vespere dixisse quam sero, et eum qui interpretatus est, verbi ambi- guitate deceptum, non sero interpretatum esse, sed vespere. Quamquam consuetudo humani sermonis teneat, sero non vesperum significare sed tarde). Now, if the Gospel accord ing to the Hebrews had late why did not Jerome quote it ? It seems to me, therefor, that as regards Matt, xxvii. 1 he conjectures that Matthew wrote in Aramaic something which was not in the Nazarene Gospel — perhaps assuming a double Aramaic edition. He may have done so equally as regards Matt, xxi, 9, and barrama may be merely what he thought a safe guess at the original — introduced to show off his learn ing to his patron the Pope, P. 60, 4th note. I have forgotten to fulfil the promise Nikephorus Callistus : Fr. si.-' Marcianus! 115 given on p, 14 to quote the words in which Epiphanius ' accuses the Ebionites of having interpolated in a certain verse not only the word pr], but the two letters p and r\' After the first passage quoted from him on p, 60 he goes on thus : no^sz' Be ov cpoopaO-ga-eTai 17 avTuv paBcovpyla, T-fjs aKo\ov6las Kpa^ov? are tacked on ? ' Pp, 88-9. I should like for yiapKiavos, Kal to read Map- kIwv, d)s Kal. The difference in sound, setting aside accent, would be expressed by Marhiahnoss and Marhiawn[h)awss, which a tired copyist from dictation might easily confound. Marcion was a Doketist ; his orthodox opponents insisted that his opinions were contradicted by his own Gospel ; and he was accused of interpolating Luke as well as mutilating him. The charge of mutilation was, indeed, the chief indict ment ; yet so long as Serapion's flock read the original Luke as well as Marcion's Luke that bishop might think the inter polations alone dangerous. But Marcion's Gospel, which he called only ' the Gospel,' was thoroughly anti-Judaistic, and he almost seems to have repudiated all Apostles but Paul, And, though Eastern Marcionites of a later date might just conceivably supply the unhappy want of an author's name to this Gospel by giving it the name of Peter (although we should have expected that of Paul, whom Marcion declared to have used it), yet a Gospel which, so far as we know, was only a mutilated Luke can hardly have included the statement which Origen seems to attribute to the Gospel according to Peter, StUl it is possible that the Gospel according to Peter was in use among Syriac Marcionites (of whom we hear as late as Theodoret) and that it bote some ascription which con nected it or its transcriber with Marcion, Lardner [History of Heretics, bk, ii, 11, § 6) supposes Lucanus, Lucianus, or Leucius — the asserted forger of Apocrypha — to have Written the Gospel according to Peter, he being a Marcionite, and Lardner taking MapKoavos to mean Marcion, And after twv BiaBo-xmv tmv KaTap^apevcov avTov Lardner wirtes MapKiavov in brackets, construing, I I 2 ii6 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. suppose, ' the succession of teachers who began with him,' But KaTapx^a-daC twos seems to mean only ' to begin,' not ' to begin with ; ' and, though I do not like my own rendering of the passage, Liddell and Scott and Sophocles offer me no alternative, I may add that, if the Gospel according to Peter did contain the statement spoken of by Origen, that statement seems intended to support the theory of Mary's perpetual virginity — a very odd intention in a Doketist book, though we do hear from Irenaeus [Adv. Haer. i, 30, § 3 2) that Doke tist Ophites held Jesus to have been bom of a virgin. P, 102, According to Credner [Kanon, 120) Nikephorus (the earlier) states that the Gospel according to the Hebrews contained ,/3r', i,e, 2,006 o-TtT^ot, And Volkmar [Kanon, 243) says that so Credner has written in the MS. of his work. But all the MSS, of the Latin translation of the ninth century agree in reading 2,200, and so Volkmar is almost certainly right in saying that we ought to read ^ySs', i,e, 2,200. In either case the Gospel according to the Hebrews would be shorter than those according to Matthew and Luke, to the former of which Nikephorus gives 2,500, and to the latter 2,600 cttIxoi. APPENDICES. A. Peof. Westcott's Statement op the External Evidence. I SHALL first copy Prof. Westcott's statement (Canon of the New Testament, ed. 1875, p. 510) and make mj remarks on it as I go. ' One passage which occurred in the Gospel according to the Hebrews is found in a letter of Ignatius, who does not however quote the words as written, but only ou traditional authority.' Any reader might think that Ignatius gave tradition as his authority ; it is, however, only Prof. Westcott's inference that he mmst have quoted from tradition. I will add that it is a very bad inference, for the form of Ignatius's words (see my first note to Pr. 30) makes it all but certain tbat he was quoting a written docu ment — a conclusion strengthened by the fact that he goes on to speak upon the same subject iu words plainly adapted from Acts. ' Papias again related a story " of a woman accused of many crimes before our Lord, which was contained in the Gospel accord ing to the Hebrews," but the words of Eusebius seem to imply that he did not refer to that book as the source of the narrative.' Quite fairly stated. ' The evangelic quotations of Justin Martyr offer no support to the notion that he used it as a coordinate authority with the Canonical Gospels, but on the contrary distinguish a detail which it contained from that which was written in the Apostolic memoirs.' I cannot dispute Prof. Westcott's right to put the case thus — though see my note on Pr. 7 — and it is just to add that he gives a foot-reference to a passage where he deals with the point more fully. ' Hegesippus is the first author who was certainly acquainted 1 1 8 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. with it ; but there is nothing to show that he attributed to it any peculiar authority.' Quite fairly stated. ' Clement of Alexandria and Origen both quote the book, but both distinctly affirm that the four Canonical Gospels stood alone as acknowledged records of the Lord's life.' No notice is taken of Irenaeus. We are not told that Clement quotes it with the words ' it is written.' Prof. Westcott leaves out of sight the fact that it was held by Irenaeus (seemingly), Epiphanius, Jerome, and Theodoret (seem ingly), as well as by popular opinion among those who used it, to be a mere Aramaic edition of a Canonical Gospel. If Clement and Origen thought the same, they of course included it when they spoke of the four Canonical Gospels. ' Epiphanius regarded the " Hebrew Gospel " as a heretical work based on St. Matthew.' No notice is taken of Eusebius, who twice quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews — once directly attributing the quoted words to Jesus himself — and who implies that it was anciently held canonical and that its canonicity was only beginning to be denied. Speaking of the Ebionite ' Hebrew Gospel,' Epiphanius once calls it the Gospel according to Matthew, and once says that it was ' named according to Matthew ' and that they did not use it ' in com plete entirety, but corrupted and mutilated.' Now, is the mean ing of Epiphanius fairly given in the words 'based on St. Matthew ' ? Before speaking of the Ebionite Gospel Epiphanius says of the Nazarenes that ' they have the Gospel according to Matthew most complete in Hebrew. For assuredly this is still kept among them, according as it was at outset written, in Hebrew letters.' ' Jerome has referred to it several times, and he translated it into Latin, but he nowhere attributes to it any peculiar authority, and calls St. John expressly the fourth and last Evangelist.' In a foot-note Prof. Westcott gives references to nine, and speaks of ' the remaining passages.' Still I think for ' several ' he might have written 'thirteen.' Jerome also translated it into Greek. Jerome not only records twice over, without demur, the common belief in its Matthaean authorship, but once distinctly states that it was the original of the Greek Matthew. Prof. Westcott on the Externa.l Evidence. 1 1 9 This being so, it cannot be of the slightest significance that he ' calls St. John expressly the fourth and last Evangelist.' ' Tet the fact that he appealed to that book as giving the testi mony of antiquity furnished occasion for an adversary to charge him with making " a fifth Gospel ; " and at a later time, in deference to Jerome's judgment, Bede reckoned it among the " ecclesiastical " rather than the "Apocryphal writings." ' No notice is taken of Theodoret. Bede, after speaking of Apocryphal Gospels, says ' Here it is to be noted that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as it is called, is not to be counted among apocryphal but among ecclesiastical histories : for it seemed good even to the very translator of Holy Scripture, Jerome, to use many evidences from it, and to translate it into the Latin aud Greek language.' I think Prof. Westcott makes Bede seem more doubtful than do Bede's own words, but I do not press this. No notice is taken of Nikephorus. If I were now to ask Prof. Westcott's most partial friend ' Is not this statement of the external evidence hopelessly unfair ? ' I should expect him to answer ' Well, if he did not know of more evidence for it, how was he to give more evidence ? Remember that while you have professedly made a special study of this Gospel, he has not.' I might simply reply that, if Prof. Westcott had only looked out his own foot-references to Ignatius and Jerome it was impossible for him, judging and writing fairly, to represent their evidence as he has done. But I find that the edition of Prof. West cott's book which I have quoted is not only ' revised,' and might therefor have been expected to derive some benefit from Hilgenfeld's edition of the Gospel according to the Hebrews published no fewer than eight years before, but it is revised, as the author says, partly by the help of the adverse criticism of Supernatural Beligion. Prof. Westcott expresses himself much indebted to this criticism : he seems to have read the book through : he gives nearly 40 pp. of Preface to it : and of this number he gives nearly two pages to criticizing some statements respecting the Gospel according to the Hebrews many of which were indeed quite unfounded. Now, the writer of Supernatural Beligion puts forward the claims of, and his own undue pretensions for, the Gospel according to the Hebrews more fully in vol. i. pp. 420-6 than elsewhere, and a statement about it on one of those pages Prof. Westcott quotes at length. If Prof. Westcott read those pages and either took on trust (which he would hardly do) the statements there made as to the evidence of 120 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. Irenaeus, Clement, Jerome, Theodoret, and Nikephorus, or looked at the passages referred to in the foot-notes in support of those statements, it was impossible for him, judging and writing fairly, to misrepresent some of that evidence and leave out the rest. As regards Nikephorus I may add that Prof. Westcott in his own book prints Nikephorus's canou and stichometry in full. Not even yet, however, are we in a position to pronounce on Prof. Westcott's statement the opinion that ought to be pronounced. 1 invite the reader's careful attention to the following amazing facts : — • The editions of Prof. Westcott's work on the Canon bear date 1865, 1866 (' the whole essay has been carefully revised '), 1870 (' carefully revised throughout '), 1875 ('revised '). The editions of Prof. Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels bear date 1860, 1867, 1872, 1875. The latter work contains an Appendix — Appendix D — ' On some of the Apocryphal Gospels.' The first two sections are given to ' The Gospel according to the Hebrews ' and ' The Gospel of the Ebionites.' These sections fill rather more than five pages, pp. 462-7 of the 1876 edition, and consist chiefly of a translation of Fragments, with notes : in the notes the originals are given. Beyond a few words stating that Papias needs not have used the Gospel according to the Hebrews aud that a certain quotation from Hegesippus and certain words of Jerome are not to be referred to it (in all of which views he is quite right), with 6| lines relating to the witness of Epiphanius, Prof. Westcott says nothing about the external evidence. I have not compared all this word by word with the edition of 1860, and so, though 1 at a general glance see no change, there may be some. 1 pledge myself, however, that all the statements which I am now going to extract from the 1876 edition are word for word in the edition of 1860. The small capitals are mine. (1) On p. 462 we are referred to p. 457 for a Fragment. It is the fragment from the Theophania of Eusebius, aud the important parts are thus rendered by Prof. Westcott : ' [Christ] Himself taught, as we have found in a place in the Gospel existing among the Jews in the Hebrew language, in which it is said.' In a note the reference to Eusebius is given, aud Prof. Westcott, by saying ' this quotation seems to have been unnoticed,' must himself have been the discoverer of it. (2) On p. 463 Prof. Westcott translates thus from Jerome : ' The Gospel entitled according to the Hebrews, which I lately trans lated INTO Greek and Latin.' He gives in a note the reference and the original. Prof Westcott on the External Evidence. isr (3) On p. 464 he translates thus from Jerome : ' In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which I lately translated FROM THE Hebrew into Greek.' In a note he gives the reference and original. (4) On p. 465, in the second section, headed ' The Gospel of the Ebionites,' he says ' Epiphanius speaks of the Nazarenes as " having THE Gospel according to Matthew in a most complete form * in Hebrew," though he immediately adds that he does not know whether f " tbey removed the genealogies from Abraham to Christ." ' In a note he gives the reference and original, including the original of the following sentence, which he does not allude to in his text, 'For assuredly this is still kept among them, according as it was at outset vnitten, in Hebrew letters.' (6) He then adds in his text ' In contrast with this statement he says that the Ebionites had a Gospel called the Gospel according to Matthew, not entire and perfectly complete, but falsified and mutilated, which they call the Hebrew Gospel. ' We see from (1) that in 1860 he knew that Eusebius had quoted words from the Gospel according to the Hebrews as the words of ' [Christ] Himself.' We see from (2) and (3) that in 1860 he knew that Jerome had translated that Gospel into Greek as well as Latin. We see from (4) that in 1860 J he knew the passage in which Epiphanius practically says that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the original of the Greek Matthew. Tet, although these are points of moment — the first and last of the highest moment — iu favour of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, he made no mention of one of them in the connected statement of the external evidence which he published in his other book in 1866, 1870, and 1876. The entire § text of that statement remains exactly as it was printed in 1865, * The I860 ed. has a comma after 'form. f The 1860 ed. has the mark of quotation before 'removed.' t Nay, in 1851. For on p. 240 of his Elements of ihe Gospel Harmony published in that year he says ' Jerome, who translated into Greek and Latin a copy of this Gospel.' § There is one addition in a foot-note. The statement about Bede has, and had in the iirst edition, this note : — ' 'Bede, Comm. i-n Luc. i-nit. quoted on Hieron. adv. Pelag. iii. 2.' Prof. Westcott has himself in a former note quoted ' Hieron. adv. Pelag. iii. 2,' but has not quoted Bede. As the note first stood one would therefor suppose that he was referring to Credner, from whom he confessedly took his references to Jerome. To this note are now added the words ' See I-ntroduction to the Study of ihe 122 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. On the other hand we see from (5) that Prof. Westcott had between 1866 and I860 come to look on the Ebionite Gospel of Epiphanius as distinct from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Tet in the editions of his other book published in 1866, 1870, and 1875 he still (as in 1855) apphes to the latter Gospel the damaging statement made by Epiphanius with reference to the former only. And now what does Prof. Westcott's most partial friend say ? B. Papias and Matthew. I have not discussed whether the Papiasts are right in affirming or the Erasmians in denying an Aramaic original of the Canonical Gospel according to Matthew, and I have admitted that the Aramaic Gospel spoken of by Papias may have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews. But I do not see how we can refuse to believe that Matthew wrote some Aramaic Gospel. Independently of the mere antiquity 6f Papias, Eusebius has preserved another passage from his work which makes it very difficult to suppose that he was mistaken altogether on this point. In the prospectus of this work which I sent out I stated that I had ' amended the translation of an important fragment of Papias bearing on this question,' meaning the passage which I am now going to translate. I have since convinced myself that my correction of the printed text was needless ; but — as at the place in point Prof. Westcott has not translated rightly ; and as he, the writer of Supernatural Beligion, and, to my surprise. Bishop Lightfoot, have all missed the meaning of one interesting expression — I shall still translate the passage and say what I have to say on it : — * ' And I shall not hesitate to range for thee by the side of my Gospels, App. D.' On looking there we find ' Hieron. adv. Pelag. iii. 2 ' again quoted, but no Bede. I presume, therefor, that this addition is a curiously dis guised direction to the reader to see the Appendix in question ou the Gospel according to the Hebrews generally — a very perfect instance of literary suicide. Prof. Westcott in the Appendix in question not only separates the Nazarene and the Ebionite Gospels, but says of ' several passages professedly taken from ' the latter by Epiphanius that ' they present so many inconsistencies that they cannot have belonged originally to the same book.' Let me deal with Prof. West cott's writings as Epiphanius aud time have dealt with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the few fragments that I will leave shall carry overwhelming conviction to Macaulay's New Zealander that the History of the Canon of ihe Ne-m Tesiammt and the Introduciion io the Study of the Gospels cannot have be longed to the same writer. * OuK oKv-fiaa S4 aoi Kal Haa -iroT'e -naph rSiv irpfafivrepuv KoKws ffiaBov Kal Ka\as Papias and Matthew. 123 interpretations all moreover that from time to time I carefully learnt from the elders and carefully committed to memory, and to confirm truth t as their proxy. For I did not take pleasure, as the vulgar do, in those who were full of talk, but in those who taught the truth ; nor in those who repeated the commandments of others, but in those who repeated the commandments which the Lord delivered to faith, and of which the source was truth itself. Aud if per chance there came any one who had been in the following of the elders, I enquired the elders' words — what Andrew, or what Peter had said ; or what Philip, or what Thomas, or James ; or what John or Matthew or any other one of the Lord's disciples ; X ^'Od 4/j.p-rifi6veva-a o-vyKaTard^at Tois epfiT]Vciats, StaPefiaio6fi€Vos v-ivhp avrwv a\-fj6eiav. Ov y^p rois rh. -iroWa Keyovaiv exaipov, Sjff-Trep ot -troWoi, ciAXcfc Tors TaK-qdri StSda-Kovo-tv - ovSe Tois rks aWorpias ivTOK^s flvt)ixoveiovaiv, aWa to7s ras iraph rov Kvpiov ry -triaret SeSofievas, Kal a7r' avTTJs Trapayivofievas rrjs oi\-rideias. Ei 5e -irov Kal -nap-q- KoKovQ-qKv. Here one might conjecture oiov or explain cij %v t6-kov as = rhv r6-irov eis f>v. Madvig {G/c. Syntax, Browne and Arnold's translation, 1873, p. 187) gives ©cjuictokAt)? ippd^ei r^ vavKK-fjptp '6tnis ia-rl Kal 5i' ft tpevyei (Thuc. i. 137), but there one might render ' and the reasons for which' • he also gives At' &s alrias t& -jrepl t^v ^lko^v ^vpi^alvet -Ka6-^p.aTa, \eKTeov (PI., Tim. 67), "but there one might explain 5i' ftj ahlas as = Tis ahias Si' &s. But in Soph. Aj. 1259 {/aaBiiv is el Sm naadpav EvayyiKiOV vir' auToD yiyivriaBai, H-irep Kari 'Z^paiovs Tivks KaKovai {Haer. xlvi. 1). K 130 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. through Pour ' or ascribe it to Tatian, but call it * ' the. Gospel according to the Hebrews,' t ' the Gospel existing among the Jews in the Hebrew language,' X ' the Gospel which has come to us in Hebrew characters,' § 'the Gospel according to Matthew,' ||'the Hebrew Gospel,' t ' the Gospel which is written in Hebrew let- ters,' ^ ' the Gospel according to the Hebrews .... according tothe Apostles, or, as very many [or, most] deem, according to Matthew,'** ' the Gospel which is written in Hebrew and read by the Nazarenes,'tt ' the Gospel which the Nazarenes aud Ebionites use,'JJ 'the Gospel which the Nazarenes use.' Strange that if the Gospel according to the Hebrews were by some ascribed to Tatian and called the Gospel through Pour, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, who so often refer to it, should either not know this fact or omit to men tion it. Strange that Christians of the third and the fourth cen- turies should give the Gospel according to the Hebrews a title and ascribe to it an origin totally diflerent from the title given and the origin ascribed by their own literary leaders. Strange that they should cast about for a canonical relationship for it, when it was already ascribed to Matthew §§ in the previous century, and in doing so should invest a noted heretic with its authorship, while they gave to a work which was apparently only a variant Matthew, with here and there an affinity to Luke, aud|||| which was not as long as either of them, a title implying that it was an amal gamation of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and .John ! The assertion that ' those .... who called the Gospel used by Tatian the Gospel according to the Hebrews must have read the work ' is, of course, purely arbitrary. The statement, too, that it was ' found in wide circulation precisely in the places in which, earlier, the Gospel according to the Hebrews was more particularly current,' seems to have no more ground than is afforded by the fact that ^51 Jerome was allowed to copy the Gospel according to the Hebrews by the Nazarenes in Beroea, who were in the habit of using it. Now Beroea (Aleppo) was forty miles south of Theodoret's ¦* Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius (4 times), Epiphanius, Jerome (5 tiines). t Eusebius. | Eusebius. § Epiphanius (twice). Jerome says, ' which is called by very many [or, most] people the original of Matthew.' II Epiphanius, Jerome. ^ Jerome. ** Jerome. tt Jerome. {J Jerome. §§ By Irenaeus. IIII In the Stichometry of Nikephorus (see p. 116) Luke contained 2,600 (TTixoi, Matthew 2,600, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 2,200. ^^ Catal. Script. Ecclos. under ' Matthaeus.' I have quoted and translated the test on p. 18. Not Tatian! s Diatessaron. 131 cathedral town, and was not included in his diocese, having a bishop of its own. I do not mean to say that the Nazarene Gospel might not also have been used by some people twenty miles or so further north, within the limits of Theodoret's diocese ; but I do very strongly object to the statement that the work mentioned by Theodoret was found ' precisely in the places ' where the Gospel according to the Hebrews had been ' more particularly current.' The fact of Jerome's having copied that Gospel at Beroea does not even prove that it was ' more particularly current ' there ; Beroea may have been only the first town where he had the opportunity of copying it. For immediately after arriving iu the East he retired for four years to the desert of Chalcis, on the north side of which Beroea was situated, at a distance of only twelve miles from Chalcis itself. The explanation of the fact that some people called Tatian's Gospel through Four the Gospel according to the Hebrews is obviously that given by Professor Westcott (Canon, 319, note) : — ' Both books were current in the same countries, and differed from the Canonical Gospels *** by the omission of the genealogies. Few writers out of Palestine could compare the books so as to determine their real differences.' To this let me add that Tatian fff may even have preferred to use the Aramaic ' Matthew,' the Gospel accord ing to the Hebrews, rather than the Greek one, for his compilation, or XXX he may have used MSS. nearer to it than those on which we now base our text. Upon either view the confusion of his work with the Gospel according to the Hebrews becomes still more easy to understand and excuse. Before closing this examination it is necessary just to notice a statement by §§§ Victor of Capua that Tatian called his Gospel ' through Five ' (Biapente) . The passage runs as follows : — 1| || ||' From his [Eusebius's] history, too, I have found that Tatian, a most learned man and orator of that time, compiled one Gospel out of *** I only admit this Of ihe Ebionite edition. ttt Especially if he compiled his work after his migration from Eome to Syria. Hi Even some of our extant MSS., as will be seen in the notes to the Fragments, present one or two striking resemblances to the text of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Tatian, moreover, was the pupil of Jilstin, whose coincidences with that Gospel will also be noticed, and who certainly used our Gospels, although he may have used the Gospel according to the Hebrews as well. See Appendix E, ' Justin's " memoirs of tlie Apostles." ' §§§ Writing about 560 a.d. IIII II Ex historia quoque eius comperi qilod Tatianus, vir eruditissimus et orator illius temporis, unum ex quatuor compaginaverit Evangelium, cui titulum Diapente imposuit {Praef. ad Arum. Harm. Evany,). K Z 132 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. four, to which he put the title Diapente.' Never has so puzzhng an assertion been more recklessly commented on. First, Professor Westcott (Canon, 321, note) says ' If there be no error in his statement that Tatian's Harmony was called Biapente, the fifth Gospel alluded to in the name was probably that according to tbe Hebrews, and the title was given in consequence of the confusion already noticed.' Westcott seems to have seen the original passage of Victor of Capua in Credner's Beitrdge, but he does not quote it, and argues as if he had not seen it. For Victor does not say that Tatian's work ' was called ' Biapente, ' through Five,' but that Tatian himself gave it this title, which quite dis poses of the suggestion that ' the title was given ' by others ' in consequence of the confusion already noticed ' between his work and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Secondly, the writer of Supernatural Beligion (ii. 153) says ' Tatian's Gospel, however, was not only called Diatessaron, but, according to Victor of Capua, it was also called Diapente (Bia Triire) " by five," a complication whioh shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its composition'; and again (ii. 161) 'We have seen that in the sixth century it was described by Victor of Capua as Diapente,," by five,'' instead of " by four." He also does not quote the Latin, makes Victor say merely that it ' was called ' Diapente, and iu the second reference insinuates that it is ' de scribed ' as a compilation of five Gospels, by Victor — who on the contrary says that it was a compilation of four. Thirdly, Dr. Sanday has taken on trust the statement in Super natural Beligion (whioh he gives as his authority)., and boldly tells us (Gospels, 240) that ' Victor of Capua iu the sixth century speaks of Tatian's work as a " Diapente " rather than a " Diatessaron " .... (p. 242) The fifth work, alluded to by Victor of Capua, may possibly have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews.' This is the consequence of not looking out references ; it would be difficult to mislead the reader more completely as to what Victor 1 am surprised that no one has perceived that Victor's title ' Diapente ' ' through Five ' must be a mere slip of the pen. From his own express words we know that he was acquainted with the existence and character of Tatian's work from Eusebius, aud seem ingly (as he gives no other authority) him alone, and from Eu sebius's account he distinctly describes it as a combination of four Gospels. Eusebius says that Tatian called his work ' Dia-tessaron ' ' through Four,' aud Victor, copying him, must have intended to say the same. No doubt * when he took down the words of Eu- * Or, which comes to the same thing, his MS. of Eusebius may have had the fttstins ' -me-moirs of the Apostles.' 133 sebius he wrote Sict I' for Zia reaaapwv, aud when working from his own notes translated S into irivri, as if it were the letter for 5 instead of 4. Every one must be aware of making slips of this kind now and then : 1 can give from my own experience a curiously similar example. In rendering into English verse Odyss. v. 70 — Kprivai 8' e|e(9js ir((rvpes ftiov ifSaTi KsvkQ Fountains four In order ranged with sparkling water flowed — • I inadvertently translated ' Fountains five,' and the mistake not only slipped me in MS. but through the printer's proofs. Had Victor of Capua made this particular blunder, no doubt unsuspect ing critics would point out that his MS. of Homer must have read not -KiavpEQ piov but -ixivr kppeoy . E. Justin's ' memoirs op the Apostles.' The passage of Jerome quoted on p. 21 has been urged in favour of a theory that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the same with Justin's ' memoirs of the Apostles.' I reject this theory, iu the first place because I am convinced that Justin used onr existing Gospels, whether (as has been sug gested) in the form of a harmony or not, and whether (as 1 am inclined to think) he used any further record or not. I would willingly discuss this subject, bnt, as it occupies nearly 150 pp. of Supernatural Beligion, more than 80 in Prof. Westcott's Ganon of the New Testament, and 50 in Dr. Sanday's Gospels in the Second Century, the discussion would seriously delay the present work, besides taking up a most disproportionate amount of its space. I recommend any one who wishes to master the question to read first Supernatural Beligion, then Prof. Westcott, then Supernatural Be ligion again, and lastly Dr. Sanday. But, whether or not Justin used our Gospels, I should hold that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was not the same with (though it might be included in) Justin's 'memoirs of the Apostles.' The crucial proof of this is a passage t in which Justin, after mentioning the ' memoirs of the Apostles,' adds, ' which are called Gospels,' showing that he grouped several evangelio works under this designation. ' This clause,' as Dr. Sanday happily expresses it, ' has met with the usual fate of parenthetic statements which do short form Sia S'. And for that matter the slip of the pen may have been in the MS. itself, which may have given Sio e' for SiA 8'. t Oi yap 'A-mitTTo\oi iv tois yevo/iivois vir' avTwv a-rropivrtixovi'iii.affiv, ft KoAerrai Euoyye'Aio. — Apol. i. 66. 134 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. not quite fall in with preconceived opinions, and is dismissed * as a ' manifest interpolation, a gloss having crept into the text from the margin.' Wheu a MS. is found that does not contain the words ' which are called Gospels,' the gloss-theory will deserve respect : till then it has no't a rag of reason to hide its nakedness. The writer of Supernatural Beligion does indeed argue as follows (i. 294): — 'If Justin really stated that the Memoirs were called Gospels, it seems incomprehensible that he should never call them so himself In no other place in his writings does he apply the plural to them, but, on the contrary, we find Trypho referring to the "so-called Gospel," whioh he states -that he has carefully read, and which, of course, can only be Justin's " Memoirs ;" and again, in another part of the same dialogue Justin quotes passages which are written " in the Gospel " (kv rii evayyekia yiyparrrai). The term " Gospel" is nowhere else used by Justin in reference to a written record.' The explanation is not, however, far to find for any one who will seek it. The entire body of facts known and recorded conceming Jesus was spoken of as ' the Gospel ' ; the particular writings which contained portions of it had only lately come to be called ' the Gos pel according to ' such aud such a writer. Papias, for instance, in speaking of works which he says Mark and Matthew wrote, does not employ the word ; to Mark's book he gives no particular name, but he calls Matthew's book ' oracles.' He himself wrote a book called ' Exposition of Dominical Oracles ' (Aoyiiav KvpiaKoJv 'E^T)y»)T(c), which, with Bishop Lightfoot (Cont. Bev. for Aug. 1875), I believe to mean 'Exposition of sacred books about the Lord.' When people spoke of the body of facts narrated in the sacred records, they called it 'the Gospel,' when of the records themselves they used the word ' Oracles ' as Papias, or ' Memoirs ' as Justin, or some other. But in course of time they got to call tbem by the name of ' Gospels,' and Justin alludes to this growing custom : but for all that he himself preferred to use his own old- fashioned term. There is, I may add, no reason to suppose that the authorship of the Gospel according to the Hebrews was attributed to the Apostles generally in the 2nd or even 3rd cent. Irenaeus calls it simply 'that Gospel which is according to Matthew,' and he vrrote * By the writer of Supernaiural Eeligion : — ' The last expression & KaAeiToi ivayy4\ia, as many scholars have declared, is a manifest interpolation. It is, in all probability, a gloss on the margin of some old MS. which some copyist after wards inserted in the text.' Scholar is an unfortunate substitute for criiio, as it conveys the idea that the words are faulty from the point of view of pure • scholar ship.' Evidence for and against John vii. 5 2)-viii. 11. 135 less than 50 years, perhaps only 40, after Justin. Are we to believe that he would have so described a work which in his boyhood f was read on Sundays in Christian assemblies as ' the Memoirs of the Apostles ' ? There are no proofs tha,t Justin used the Gospel according to the Hebrews at all : in two cases he accords with it in certain peculiarities, but these same peculiarities are also found in MSS. of Matthew and Luke which we know to represent a 2nd cent, type of text. In neither of these cases is his agreement with the Gospel according to the Hebrews exact, while in one he does agree verbatim with the MSS. in question. 1 am not disputing that he may have employed this Gospel among others, but I do say that, with no evidence that he used it at all, it is childish to hold that he used it to their exclusion. F. Analysis op the External and Internal Evidence foe and AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OP JOHN vii. 53-viii. 11. (i.) External Evidence, (a) Text of Extant MSS. John vii. S^-viii. 11 is contained ' without trace of suspicion ' (Scrivener) in 7 uncials, DEGHKUP, and 318 cursives, to which may be added the first hands of 8 and the second hands of 9 cur sives. It is omitted by 8 uncials, NBACTLX$A, and 67 cursives, while 4 other cursives (including Cod. 237, mentioned again below) omit viii. 3-11. It is ' obelized,' i.e. marked as doubtful, in 3 uncials, MSA, and 42 cursives (including Cod. 33 and ev-y), aud by the second hands of 3 other cursives ; while parts of it are so marked in 2 uncials, E (viii. 2-11) and 11 (viii. 3-11), and 2 cursives (viu, 4-11). In one cursive which contains the passage viii. 12 is also written after vii. 52. It is written at the end of the Gospel in Cod. 1 and 11 other cursives (including Cod. 237, mentioned above), and part of it (viii. 3-11) is so appended in 4 cursives (including one which had previously omitted the entire passage). It is inserted after vii. 36 in one cursive, and at the end of Luke x:xi. by 4 cursives (including Cod. 13 and Cod. 69). Thus of 459 later authorities (cursive) no less than 129 omit, t Ta a-iroiJ,vriiioviiiJ.aTa tSiv 'AiroaTiKiDV tj tA a-vyypd/ifiaTa tuv Tlpo^-i]Tuv ova- yiviiffKeTai fiixP^^ iyxwpe''. — Apol. i. 67. I X, however, is said by Dr. Burgon to be a mere commentary (with accom panying text) on the Gospels as publicly read. 136 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. transfer, or obelize the passage, and among these are the 5 exceed ingly important cursives 1, 13, 33, 69 and ev-y. Of the 20 earlier MSS. (uncial) no less than 13 omit or obehze it. Among these are the 6 most ancient ones, KB of the 4th cent., and ACT of the 5th cent. ; D, the oldest MS. which contains it (5th or Oth cent.), is celebrated for curious additions. The next oldest MS,, E (7th or Sth cent.), obelizes part of the passage, and the next, L (Sth cent.), omits all of it. The rest are all of the 9th or 10th cent. (6) Text of Versions. The passage is contained in the Vulgate, the Jerusalem Syriac, the Aethiopic, and later MSS. of the Armenian. The MSS. of the Old Latin are divided, but the evidence for the passage overweighs. It is omitted by the Italian Recension (i.e. /and q), Cureton's Syriac,* the Peshitta, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Thebaic, the Gothic, and earlier MSS, of the Armenian. The earlier (against the later) Memphitic MSS. are said to want it, and Mr. McClellan (New Test., 720) allows this, but I do not know where the state ment is established and prefer to regard the evidence of the Mem phitic as uncertain. The Latin versions, therefor, taken apart from the rest, tell for the passage, the Syriac against it, the Egyptian against it, and the residue against it. The balance of the combined evidence is against. (a) Evidence of Early Writers. Among the Latin Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome support it. Ambrose quotes or refers to it 4 times, clearly without any doubt. Augustine does so 6 times, once mentioning it as a peculiarity of John's Gospel, once expounding it verse by verse in his Commentary on John, and once stating that ' some of little * This version, as published by Cureton, was wanting between John vii. 37 and xiv. 10. But in the autumn of 1870 three more fragments were found, one of which most happily comprises John vii. 37-viii. 19 : it leaves out the entire passage before us. The discovery happened after the publication of Tischendorf's last edition (1869), and, strangely enough, Dr. Scrivener was unaware of it when in 1874 he published the 2nd ed. of his Introduction io the Criticism of ihe New Testament. Mr. Hammond also, in 1876, distinctly states that the Cure tonian is defective here. Let me, therefor, say that the two other fragments found are Luke xv. 22— xvi. 12, xvii. 1-23 ; that in 1 872 Prof. W. Wright of Cam bridge printed, privately, 100 copies of the Syriac text, one of which is in the British Museum; and that a translation into N. T. Greek will be found in Pt. ii. of Mr. Crowfoot's Fragmenta Evangelica. The fact that the Curetonian is not defective here, but nevertheless leaves out the passage, is the more important be cause it is opposed to its allies D and the Old Latin ; we should have supposed a priori that the Curetonian would contain the story. Evidence for and against John vii. 53-otV?. ii. 137 faith, or rather enemies to true faith — I imagine out of fear that impunity of sin was granted to their wives — removed from their MSS. that whioh the Lord did respecting the forgiveness of the adulteress.' And Jerome, besides inserting it in the Vulgate, says that it was found ' in many both Greek and Latin manuscripts.' Of these, however, Augustine, who was a poor Greek scholar, is probably only a witness to the reading of the Latin copies : in which case his words confirm my belief that the Old Latin had the passage but that the Italian Recension had not. And the words of Jerome imply that the passage was wanting in most MSS. Ou the other hand, Juvencus in his metrical paraphrase of the Gospel history omits it. TertuUian does not mention it in his treatise Be Budioitia, where it is said he must have referred to it had he known it as a genuine portion of the text. Tischendorf adds that Cyprian and Hilary had good occasion to allude to it, had they chosen. As for the Greek fathers, not one of them before Euthymius (12th century) mentions these verses, and he says that 'in the accurate copies they are either not found or are marked doubtful, wherefor they seem to be au interpolation and addition.' Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, and Theophylact pass over them in their com mentaries, the first three closely connecting viii. 12 with vii. 53. Nonnius omits the story iu his poem, and Cosmas does not mention it in the list of incidents peculiar to John. The Apostolic Gonsti- tutio-ns do refer to it, but without stating its source. Tischendorf caUs attention to the fact that Basil, who might well have quoted it, has not done so. The evidence of the Latin fathers is therefor doubtfully favour able, that of the Greek fathers overwhelmingly opposed to the genuineness of the passage. (d) Evidence of the Lectionari&s. Ambrose speaks of it as a ' Gospel-lesson.' There is evidence of its use iu the Greek servicebook as early as the beginning of the Oth century ; in no Greek lectionary, however, does it stand as part of the lesson for Pentecost, being always read on the festival of some female saint of doubtful antecedents. The great majority of the Greek lectionaries contain it.f The evidence from lectionaries is therefor decidedly in favour t The Jerusalem Syriac lectionary has already been reckoned among the ver sions. It continues the Pentacostal lesson to viii. 2, but assigns viii. 3-11 to St. Euphemia's day. 13B The Gospel according to the Hebrews. of the genuineness of the passage. But this evidence is much later than that to be derived from MSS. versions and fathers ; and the singular appropriateness of the story to the history of certain female saints easily accounts for its introduction into the services of the Church. (e) Evidence of Scholia. A note in the margin of A (9th or perhaps Sth cent.), and a great many cursives, runs thus : — ' The verses marked doubt ful are not contained in some copies nor in ApoUinarius, but are contained entire in the ancient ones.' Two other scholiasts say the verses ' are found in ancient copies ' and that they ' are not con tained in the majority of copies, but are found in the more ancient.' One scribe (of the 9th cent.) says the passage is ' not con tained in the copies of the present day,' anoth&r that it ' is found in some copies.' Two scholiasts pronounce against it, one because it 'is not found in the more accurate of the copies,' the other because it is ' not contained in the majority of copies, nor mentioned by the divine fathers that have written commentaries — I mean John Chry sostom and Cyril of Alexandria — nor yet by Theodore of Mopsuestia and the rest.' The evidence to be derived from scholia is therefor divided, but may be thought to tell rather in favour of the passage. (ii.) Internal Evidence. I feel bound to admit that the force of the internal evidence has been greatly overrated. The following are Alford's specifications : — (a) That John nowhere else mentions the Mt. of Olives. McClellan (New Testament, 724) answers that each of the Synop tists mentions Gennesaret only once. There is no proof, however, that they had due occasion for naming it more frequently, whereas we should certainly have expected to find the Mt. of Olives named in John xu. or xviii., as Matthew and Mark each mention it 3 times and Luke 4 times. Still it may be thought less unlikely that John should name it here only than that he should never name it at all. (5) That, when John introduces a new place, it is his habit to give explanations. McClellan answers that in xviii. 1 the brook Kedron is introduced without explanation, and that in any case the Mt. of Olives was too well known to need it. McClellan's instance is not conclusive, since ' the winter-torrent Kedron ' is itself merely mentioned to explain the situation of the garden to which Jesus Evidence for and against John vii. ^i-viii. ii. 139 withdrew : and ' the sea of Galilee ' ought not to have needed the addition (vi. 1) of the words ' which is the sea of Tiberias.' (c) That ' -iropevofiai ivith dg is not found elsewhere in John.' This is not the fact : it is so found in vii. 36, only 18 verses before. (d) That opdpov is not found elsewhere in John. . But it is only found once in Luke's Gospel, once in Acts, and nowhere else in the N. T., and is a word which one would not expect to find more than once in so short a book. (e) That wapayivofiai with As is not found elsewhere in John. Imagine one giving as evidence against the genuineness of an English paragraph the fact that it contained the construction ' came into,' whereas in the rest of the author's book no example occurred of ' came into,' but only of ' came ' and ' came to ' ! Cf . Matt., who has this construction only once, and Luke, who has it not once in his Gospel and yet 3 times in Acts. (/) That John uses Xaog elsewhere in a different sense, and would have used cij^Xoc h&re. But, as John only uses \a6g in two other places, it is not just to attribute to him alone among the evangelists an exclusively narrow sense of the word. And in the second place '6-)(\oQ in John never means more than ' crowd,' whereas here he may be describing the united impulse of all the people gathered together at the feast of tabernacles. Lastly, 3 uncials aud 20 cursives actually read o^^-oc and not \q.6g, while 7 cursives omit the entire sentence. (g) That such an expression as Kadlaag tlilaoKtv avroig is not found elsewhere in John. True. But it is found (without avrovg) only once in Luke, and McClellan reasonably asks, supposing that Jesus did on occasions sit down and teach, whether it is ' any more inconsistent with S. John's style than with S. Luke's or with any other writer's once to say so.' Let me add that D and 7 cursives omit the clause. (h) That ' it is not in John's manner to relate that Jesus taught them, without relating what He taught.' But there is a marked instance of his doing so in the previous chapter, vii. 14, ' Jesus went up into the Temple, and taught.' (i) That ' John does not usually connect with ?t.' But McClellan has shown from other parts of John the complete fallacy of this argument, aud has observed that hi occurs 204 times in the Gospel as against o-uv 206 times. (j) That John never mentions ol ypafifiareig elsewhere, hut usually calls the op-ponents of Jesus oi 'lovSaloi or ol apj^ovrtc It certainly is remarkable that the name Scribes occurs nowhere else in this Gospel. McCleUan, who paraphrases it by ' Doctors of the Law,' 140 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. says ' But the question was one of the Baw.' This answer seems at first fairly satisfactory, but becomes less so when we observe (i.) that there was no dispute about the Law at all: the question was not what the Law, but what Jesus prescribed ; (ii.) that in cases where the legality of the acts of Jesus is questioned (v. 10-16, ix. 13-16) the Scribes are not mentioned by John, who speaks of ' the Jews ' and ' the Pharisees.' It is true that three cursives, with Coptic and Armenian MSS., read ' the chief- priests and the Pharisees,' and we cannot prove that this, which admirably suits John's usage, was not the original reading. But the authority for it is slender, and the fact of its being thoroughly Johannine will explain its introduction : that ' chief- priests ' was, on the other hand, corrupted into ' scribes ' is the less likely because in passages of John where the ' chief-priests ' are mentioned ' scribes ' is never found as a various reading. (k) That ' Xiyovaiv avrw Ik-it stpa^ovreg avrov savours m.uch more of the synoptic Gospels than of John.' Clearly, because they con tain more incidents which admit of such an expression. The use of the word -irnpa^o) is not alien to John, who describes Jesus as Treipai^iov, trying, Philip with a question (vi. 6). (I) That ' the very fact of their questioning thus, " Moses commanded, .... b-ut what sayest Thou ? " belongs to the last days of the Bord's ministry, and cannot well be introduced chrono logically where it here stands.' John, however, clothes the figure of Jesus at Jerusalem at this stage of his career with as much public importance as the Synoptists do in the week previous to his death. And would not the same objection apply equally to ui. 13-17, the account of the cleansing of the Temple ? (m) That John nowhere introduces 'these questions between ihe law of Moses and Jesus ; hut the synoptic Gospels often do.' The same might be said of the miracle at Cana (c. u.) and that of the nobleman's son (c. iv.) : miracles which do not serve as the occasion for discourses are quite foreign to the general scope of the Gospel. (n) That ' -n-X-fiv is only found here in John, Gosp. and Epp.' True, but it is also found once, and once only, in Mark. And it is only found once in the Apocalypse^which, if the Apocalypse was written by the writer of the Gospel, is likewise a proof of its being one of his words. (0) That ' KaraKplvo) also is not found elsewhere in John, who uses Kpiru) in its strict sense fur it.' EquaUy true, but here again we have a parallel in Luke, who also uses KaraKpivio in two conse cutive verses (xi. 31, 32) but nowhere else. y estes Bar- A bba. 141 Reviewing these 15 items of the indictment, we find that 3 of them (c h i) must be given up as against fact ; that 5 (d, e g n o) are exactly applicable to other Gospels (e and g are otherwise weak) ; and that 4 if h I m) are untenable for various reasons. Only 3 are left (rt b j). I think that these (particularly the last) do afford a presumption against Johannine authorship, though to each of them there is some sort of answer not altogether beneath notice. To sum up — the external evidence must be held fatal to the genuineness of the passage : the internal evidence, while insuffioient of itself to establish the same conclusion, must be taken to con firm it. G. Jesus Bar-Abba. In Matt, xxvii. 16, 17 five cursive MSS. and the Jerusalem Syriac and Armenian versions exhibit the reading ' Jesus Barabbas ' instead of 'Barabbas.' And 21 MSS. contain the foUowing mar ginal note, variously ascribed to Chrysostom (who, however, is silent on the subject in bis Commentary) and Anastasius of Sinai (who flourished toward the end of the 6th cent.) : — ' In some very ancient MSS. which I came across I found Barabbas himself also called Jesus, so that in these the question of Pilate ran thus — "Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you ? Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ ? " For, as it seems, Barabbas, which is interpreted " teacher's son," was the robber's sire-name — (IlaXaioTs -jraw avrLypafoig evrv^ojv eiipov Kal avrov tov BapafiPdv 'Irjo-ovv Xiyojxtvov. Ovrug yovv i'f)^cv ij tov HtXarou -KEvaiQ eKel — 'Tiva diXere airo ruiv Svo a-rroXva-u) vfiiv, 'Irjo-ovv TOV BapalSfidv fi 'Irjcrovv rov Xtyofxevov '^pLUTOv' ; 'ilg yap 'ioiKEv' -Trarpiovvfila rov Xtjittov i]V 6 Bapa/3/3af, OTrsp tpixrjveverai Si^affKaXov vlog). But the heaviest external evidence in favour of this reading is furnished by the fact that Origen, according to the Latin of a pas sage now lost in the Greek, states that ' In many MSS. it is not contained that Barabbas was also called Jesus, and perhaps rightly, so that the name Jesus would not belong to any sinner ' (In multis exemplaribus non continetur quod Barabbas etiam lesus dicebatur, et forsitau recte, ut ne nomen lesu conveniat alicui iniquorum)— Comm.. to Matt. This of course implies that 'Jesus Barabbas ' was at that time the reading of most MSS. The internal evidence in Matthew is to my mind very decidedly in favour of 'Jesus Barabbas.' If 'Barabbas' alone were the 142 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. original reading, why was ' Jesus ' inserted — a name that would naturally be avoided above all others ? Tregelles thinks that in Matt, xxvii. 17 YMIN was accidentally written YMININ and that another copyist mistook the second IN for IN, i.e. 'Itjo-ovi', ' Jesus.' Now (1) the argument might be retorted on him that the original reading was YMININ, then YMININ, and that finally the second IN was treated as an accidental repetition and left out ; (2) the reading ' Jesus Barabbas ' first occurs in v. 16, where no such mistake as Tregelles supposes was possible ; (3) surely a copyist who had read v. 16 without the word ' Jesus ' would not have changed IN to IN in v. 17 aud then altered v. 16, to suit it, but would have seen at once that the two superfluous letters were au accidental repetition and would have struck them out altogether. There is every reason, on the other hand, why, if ' Jesus Barab bas ' be the true reading, ' Jesus ' should have been omitted. The piety of early Christians — ignorant for the most part how common that name formerly was among the Jews — supposed it impossible for ' a murderer, a revolter, and a robber ' to have had the same circumcision-name as the Saviour : compare the above-quoted words of Origen. In the second place, ' Barabbas ' might itself be mistaken for a circumcision-name by any one ignorant of Aramaic, and then ' Jesus ' would be struck out as a supposed accidental insertion. In the third place, ' Jesus ' might be omitted because absent from other evangelists. It is true that for a moment Matt, xxvii. 20 (' But the chief- priests and the elders persuaded the crowds that they should ask Barabbas but destroy Jesus ') seems to militate against the theory that Barabbas also bore the name ' Jesus.' That verse, however, is not a quotation of words used, but merely the evangelist's account to his readers. " Note too, from vv. 17, 22, that Pilate says 'Jesus whioh is called Christ,' almost as if there were another Jesus from whom it was needful to distinguish him. Lastly, if Bar- Abba was not named ' Jesus,' why do Mark, Luke, and John exhibit so singular an unanimity in withholding his real circumcision-name ? But, if that name was identical with that of their Master, we can well understand why they withheld it. Of course the name ' Jesus ' may have been brought in from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, supposing it to have been found there : but two out of the three allies of that Gospel, namely Codex Bezae and the Old Latin, have no trace of it — the third, Cureton's Syriac, is deficient in this part. Anyhow, if the same man wrote Fr. 27 and Matt, xxvii. 16, 1 7, he would probably write ' Jesus Barabbas ' in both places if at all. Probable or Possible Fragments. 143 H. Probable or Possible Fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. I have here included all such evangelic quotations in early writers as seem to me referable with more or less probability to our lost Gospel. The number of possible quotations might have been enlarged almost indefinitely (see p. 112), but I have excluded all those for which no better presumption can be urged than a slight divergence from the canonical text. I must, however, explain why I have inserted all the evangelic quotations but one m the so- called Second Epistle of Clement of Rome — a work dating about 130-60 A.D. The one quotation which I have not admitted is a very peculiar one, with no canonical affinities whatever, and Clement of Alex andria, who quotes it four times, says that it is found in the Gospel according to the Egyptians. On the strength of this Hilgenfeld has pitchforked into his edition of the supposed fragments of that Gospel all the remaining evangelic quotations in the Second Epistle of Clement of Rome, entirely regardless of these two facts : (1) that each one of those quotations has a canonical parallel, (2) that this is not the case with any fragment of the Gospel according to the Egyptians. Bnt, if all the rest of the evangelic quotations in the Second Clementine Epistle correspond to passages in the canonical Gospels, why have I given them here ? I have been led to do so by the phaenomena which the quotation numbered Br. 43 presents. It is most certainly not taken from any of our Gospels ; at the same time it partly answers to passages in Matthew and Luke, and has certain likenesses to each ; and lastly the correspondence is very far nearer to Matthew than to Luke, because the two passages which both evangelists have in common with it are combined by Matthew into the same discourse of Jesus while Luke separates them into dift'crent discourses. In other words, we find in this quotation the three striking features of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, (1) close affinity with Matthew, (2) less close but still marked affinity with Luke, (3) decided independence of both. Two other of these quotations exhibit unquestionable inde pendence of our canonical Gospels — Br. 41 and Br. 57, the latter of which is also found in Irenaeus, who regarded the Gospel according to the Hebrews as Matthew's, but did not accept, aud consequently would not quote, any other Gospel outside of our four — though he raay have quoted from tradition. I have therefor felt fully justified in placing the rest of the quotations of this author among the pos sible Fragments, but they may equally well be more or less loose 144 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. quotations from memory of our present Gospels. It is curious that every one has a parallel in Matthew (although sometimes the like ness to Luke is greater) and that at the same time he speaks of the nations as* 'hearing from your mouth the Oracles (ra Aoyta) of God,' whioh name 'the Oracles ' (ra Aoyia) is that given by Papias to the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, and that he gives an evangelic quotation as a sample of them. I do not press this, but think it worth mentioning, I must remind the reader that the author of the Epistle quotes words answering to part of Fr. 16 in a form nearer to them than is presented by any other authority. I have read some part of Mr. Cotterill's Beregrinus Broteus, in which he tries to show that a considerable number of Greek writ ings, secular and sacred, the latter including the two Epistles bearing the name of Clement, were the work of a mediaeval forger, or two or more forgers in concert, who went on the plan of using words and phrases picked out of genuine writings but using them in quite difi'erent surroundings — a plan which, because Henri Estienne professedly engaged in it as an amusement, is supposed to have been employed (probably by him) to forge the writings in question ' simply for his own amusement, and for the sake of feeling his own literary power, and from his love of that kind of often in nocent deceit which &c. &c.' That a man should not only forge (from whatever object), but, for the sake of indulging a whim which he might as easily indulge without forging, should wilfully give on every page aud in almost every paragraph clues which would lead to his own exposure and to his everlasting infamy, is hard to believe. That, having forged three MSS. of a lost writer * Ta edvT} ydp, i,KovovTa iK tov o-T6fxaTOS TjpLwv to. A6yta tov ®€ov, ws Ka\a Kal /xeyd\a davpid^et • e-irena, KaTafji.ad6vTa to. epya Tjfjiwv '6ti ovk iffTiv d^ia twv ^rjfJ.d- TWV wv Keyop.^v, ^vdev els P\aa-t]pi.iav Tpi-iroVTai, XeyoVTes elvai pLv66v Tiva Kal -irXdvr)v. "OTar yap a,Koia-a' t-Iiv Probable or Possible Fragments. 149 II 40. Matt. vii. 21. Not every one that saith unto me ' Lord, lord ' shall be saved, but he that *[[ doeth righteousness. **41. Matt. vii. 23. If ye have been gathered with me in my ff ' Luke xiii. 26-7. bosom and do not my commandments, 1 will cast you away and will say unto you ' Depart from me ; I know you not whence ye are, workers of iniquity.' evx^v T^ ©e^' efiade yap a-jrh tov 'l-rjo-ov p.-r]dhv p.iKp'bv, TOVTeaTiv ala-driTdv, QriTelv, aWh pidva Th fieydKa Kal aK-rj9ws 8e7a). This part was quoted before Origen by Clement of Alexandria, Strain, i. 24, 158 — ' For he [i.e. Jesus] saith "Ask great things and little things shall be added to you." ' He also alludes to it elsewhere {Strom, iv. 6, 34). After quoting the latter half of Matt. vi. 32 and the former half of Matt. vi. 33 he says ' for these things are great; but the little things, and appertaining to sustenance, these things shall be added to you ' {TavTa yhp /leydXa ¦ Th Se ptiKph, Kal -irepl Thv $iov, TavTa TrpoffTed-fi- ffeTai vpuv'). Compare Matt. vi. 33, ' But seek first the kingdom [of God ?] and his righteous ness, and all these things shall be added to you ' {-irpoa-TeS-iia-eTai vpuv'). The fact of this traditional saying being found in Origen (who used the Gospel according to the Hebrews often) and Clement (who quoted it as Scripture), coupled with the fact of our having a close parallel to the saying in Matthew, give it the highest claim to be considered a fragment of our lost Gospel. II ' Second Epistle of Clement,' iv. 2 — Ae'yei yap ' Ou irSs & Keywv ptoi Kvpte, Kipie' ffwd-rja-eTat, aAA^ d iroiwv tt^c SiKaioa-^ivrjv, 'For he saith &c.' ^ ' Eighteousness ' is found 7 times in Matthew, never in Mark, twice in John, once in Luke, 4 times in Acts. ' To do righteousness ' is found in Matt. vi. 1 accordipg to the true and now accepted reading, ' to work righteousness ' is also found in Luke x. 35. "¦* ' Second Epistle of Clement,' iv. 5 — ETTrev d Kipios ' 'Ehv ^Te pieT ip.ov avv-qypLevoL iv Ttp K6K-ir(p fJ.ov Kal p.^ -iroirJTe Tas eVTOXds p.ov, a-iro^aKw vp.as Kal epSt " "TirayeTe a-ir iptov - ovk olSa ip-as -tr6Sev inTe, ipydrac avopias," ' ' The Lord said &c.' Matt. vii. 23 has ' And then will I avow to them that " I never knew you : go away from me, ye that work iniquity " ' (Ka! TiJTe dptoAoy-fiaw aiiTo'ts Ktj ' OiiSe- iroTe iyvwv vpLas- a-iroxwpe7T€ hir' ip.ov, oi epya(6pevoi T^iv avofiiav'). Luke xiii. 26-7 has ' Then shall ye begin to say "We have eaten in front of thee and drunk, and thou liast taught in our streets." And he shall say " I say to you, I know you not whence ye are; stand away from me all that work iniquity ' (TiJTe Spleirfle Kiyeiv ' 'Eipdyop.ev ivilnridv aov Kal i-irioptev, Kal iv Ta7s -ir\aT€iais T\p.wv iSiSa^as.' Kal ipe"! ' Aeyw vpuv, oiiK oWa vp.as -ir66ev icrre - h-KdcTriTe a-ir' ipLov irdvTes ipya(6pi.evoi hvop.iav '). Now the words ' If ye have been gathered with me in my bosom ' seem to me to be conceivably derived from a source akin to that of Luke's words ' we have eaten in front of thee and drunk.' -At an Oriental meal the company lay on couches, several on a couch, the head of one in front of the breast of another, ' For note see nest page. 150 The Gospel according to the Hebrews. *42. Matt. ix. 13. I came not \or, am not come] to call just but Mark. ii. 17. sinners. Luke V. 32. t43. Matt. X. 16, 28. (1) + 'Ye shall be as § lambkins in midst of Luke X. 3, xii. 4. .^yolves.' (2) Aud Peter answered him and saith ' If then the wolves rend the lambkins asunder ? ' (3) Jesus said to Peter ' Let not the lambkins after they are dead fear the wolves.' || Aud do ye and this is what is meant by John xiii. 23, the proper rendering of whioh is ' There was lying in the bosom of Jesus one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.' "Viewed in the light of Luke's version one would conjecture that the words ' If ye have been gathered with me in my bosom ' -may mean ' If ye have eaten and drunk in front of me.' It is just worth remarking that the word which I have rendered ' gathered ' is one also applied to drawing close at a dinner-table, for an instance of which the reader may turn to Fr. 52. ff Found 3 times in Luke, twice in John, never in Mark or Matthew. See particularly Luke xvi. 22-3, where Lazarus is in Abraham's bosom. * ' Second Epistle of Clement,' ii. 4 — Kal eTepa 5e ypaii Aeyei 3ti ' Ovk ?iKBov KoKeaai SiKaiovs, aWh ap.apTa\ois,' ' And another Scripture also saith that &c.' The agreement is verbatim with Mark, but in Matthew ' For ' is added, and Luke (who presents not ^x6ov but e\i]Xv6a) adds ' to repentance.' f ' Second Epistle of Clement,' v. 2 — Ae'yei yop i Kvpios (1) '"Effea-Be as apvla iv p.epaTOs tov 0a\e7v eis Teevvav -irvpds,' ' For the Lord saith &c.' J Found in John xxi. 15 and 29 times in the Apocalypse (always rendered ' lamb '), but nowhere else in the N.T. § Matt. X. 16, 'Behold I send you forth as sheep in midst of wolves' ('ISoti aTTOtTTeAAoj ujuos ws -irpd^ara iv pieaip KvKwv), Luke x. 3 the same except that for ' sheep ' we have ' lambs ' {dpvas). II Matt. X. 28, (3) 'And fear not at them that kill the body but cann8t kill the soul. (4) But fear rather him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna ' ((3) Kal p^ (j>o0e'io-8e oTrb twv a-jroKTevv6vTwv Th ffwp.a, t^v Se ^vx-^v p.^ 5vvap.evovs a-iroKTetvai. (4) *0/8eTcr8e Se paWov Thv Svvdpevov Kal ffivx^v Kal awp.a a-rroKeaai iv Teevv-ri). Luke xii. 4, (3) 'And I say to you my friends, fear not at them that kill the body and after that have not anything left to do. (4) But I will show you whom ye may fear — fear him who after having killed hath authority to cast in into the Ge henna ' ((3) Aeyw Se vpivTols tpiKois pov, p)} (po^ridTJTe a-irh twv a-rroKTevv^vTwv Th awpa KoX peTh TavTa p^ ix'ivTwv -7repia-(r6Tep6v ti -iroirjo-ai. (4) 'T-iroSei^w Se vpiv Tiva tl>ol3riBfiTe — (\>o0-liB-i]Te Tb;/ p,eTh Th a-iroKTetvai exovra i^ovaiav ip^aXeTv els tV Yeevvav). ' And can do nought unto you,' ' after ye are dead,' ' hath authority,' and Probable or Possible Fragments. 151 not fear them that kill you and can do nought unto you. (4) But fear him who after ye are dead hath authority over soul and body to cast into % Gehenna of fire. *'*44. Matt. X. 32. Him that confesseth me in face of men, I will confess him in face of my Father. U45. Matt. xi. 29. Ye shaU find rest. §§ 46. Matt. xii. The same day having beholden a mau working on the Sabbath he said to him '|||| Man, if thou knowest what thou dost, blessed art thou : but, if thou knowest not, thou art 5[iy accursed and ***' a transgressor of the law.' fff47.? Matt. xiii. 11. Keep the mysteries for me and for the sons of my house. ' cast into ' are nearer to Luke : ' But fear him who,' ' over soul and body,' to Matthew. \ Matthew uses ' the Gehenna of the fire ' twice, and Mark once. He uses ' the Gehenna ' once, Mark twice, Luke once. He also uses ' Gehenna ' without the article 3 times — the others not at all. ** ' Second Epistle of Clement,' iii. 2 — Aeyci Se /cal AvThs 'Tbi' btJ,oXoy-^ffavTd pe ivfti-iriov TWV hvBpdyirwv, 6po\oy-f}a-w avThv evdnriov tov IlaTptis pov, ' And" Himself too saith &c.' Matthew has ' Every one therefor who shall confess in me before men, I also will confess him before my Father which is in [the] heavens' (Ilaj oSv oiTTis bp.oKoyi\aei iv ipol ep-irpoo-Bev twv avBpdt-irwv, SftoXoy-fjaw Kayiij avThv ep-irpoa-Bej. -rod UaTpds pov tov iv ovpavots). ii ' Second Epistle of Clement,' vi. 7 — ' For doing the will of Christ we shall find rest ' {TlotovvTes yhp Th BeK-qpa tou Xpio-Tov evp^ffo^ev avdiravtriv). §§ D has this after Luke vi. 4. The Greek is T^ avTf vpepa Beacdpevds Tiva ipya^6p.evov t^ aaP^aTtp el-irev avT^ '"AvBpw-tre, el pev otSas Ti -irote7s, paKdptos eJ- ei Se p-i] oldas, i-triKardpaTOS Kal irapa^aTTjs rov vSpov.' It may easily be, or may cor respond with, a fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Its source, the Codex Bezae, and its occurrence in a text of Luke favour the supposition, and we know from Fr. 15 that our Gospel did actually contain a narrative answering to (and in some respects fuller than) Matt. xii. 10-13, the parallel passage to Luke vi. 6-10. IIII This form of address is found in Fr. 20 and thrice in Luke. ^1" The particular Greek word is found only twice in the N. T. — in two quo tations by Paul, in one of which it is borrowed from the Septuagint : but the very similar i-irdpaTos is found once in John. *** ' A transgressor of law' is found in Eom. ii. 25, 27 and James ii. II. fff Clementine Homilies, xix. 20, Mepv-tipeSa toP Kvpiov Jipwv Kal SitaaKdXov iis 4vTeW6pevos ei-irev Tjp7v ' Ta pvaT-lipia ipol Kal to7s vioTs tov oIkov pov T]aiv, i-irl tovto7s koI Kpivw, 'For in such as I find you, he saith, in such will I also judge you.' But he attributes them to God the Father. In the earlier half of the Sth cent. Nilus writes ' " For such as I find thee such will I judge thee" saith the Lord' (' Olov yhp eiipa ae, toiovt6v ae Kpivw' rialv b Kipios) — Anastasius, Quaest. 3, p. 34. Johannes Climakos, in the latter half of the Oth cent., attributes to Ezekiel the words ' " In what I find thee, in it will I also judge thee " said God ' (' 'Ev § evpw ae, iv avTtp Kal Kpivw ae' eTirev b ®e6s) — Scala Paradisi, Grad. vii. p. 159. At the end of the 8th cent. Elias, metropolitan of Crete, writes 'For it hath been said by God through some one of the prophets " In what I find thee, in such soothly will I also judge thee " ' {EtpTiTai yhp inrh tov Oeov Sid tivos twv Trpotp-riTuv ' 'Ev § eSpw ae, iv TovTip S^ Kal Kpivw ae ') — Leunclavius, Jus Graco-Eomanum, 337. Mr. Dodd refers to the fragment on Hades once falsely attributed to Josephus and translated by Whiston among Josephus's works. Whiston also published in 1737 a little treatise on the fragment, and from this treatise I find thatthe text he translated is taken from p. 306 «f David Humphreys's translation of Athena- goras, 1714; and that Humphreys says his text is copied from a MS. left by Grabe. I mention these things because I lost hours in trying to find the Greek — which is ' €(^' oXs hv evpw vp.as i-irl tovtois Kpivw irap' eKaCTo' 0oa Th TeXos airdv- Twv {' " In such as I find you, in such will I judge you in everything '' saith the End of all') — for I found no modern editions containing the tract on Hades at all, and no old ones which did not stop short of the section containing this quota tion. Grabe speaks of ' others ' as quoting these words without naming their source ¦ — of whom he mentions only Auctor Testamenti XL Martyrum Sebastenorum in Lambecius's Comtneni. de Bibl. Vindob. lib. iv. p. 99, who says ' 'Ev ^ yhp evpw ae,' .— Shakspere : a Critical Study of his Mind and Art. Third Edition. Post Svo. price I2J-. Studies in Literature, 17S9-1S77. Large Post Svo. price 12s. DREW {Rev. G. S.) M.A. — Scripture Lands in connection with their History. Second Edition. Svo. price los. 6d. Nazareth : Its Life and Lessons. Third Edition. Crown Svo. price 5^. The Divine Kingdom on Earth as it is in Heaven. Svo. price loj. 6d. The Son of Man : His Life and Ministry. Crown Svo. price '^s. dd. DREWRY {G. O.) M.D. — The Common-Sense Management of the Stomach. Fourth Edition. Fcp. Svo. price 2J. 6d. DREWRY{G. 0.) M.D., and BARTLETT {H. C.) Ph.D., F.C.S. Cup and Platter ; or. Notes on Food and its Effects. Small 8vo.- price 2s. 6d. EDEN {Frederick) — The Nile without a Dragoman. Second Edition. Crown Svo. price "js. 6d. ELSDALE {Henry) — Studies in Tennyson's Idylls. Crown Svo. price 5^. Essays on the Endowment of Research. By Various Writers. List of Cont-ributors. — Mark Pattison, B.D. — James S. Cotton, B.A. — Charles E. Appleton, D.C.L. — Archibald H. Sayce, M.A. — Henry Clifton Sorby, F.R.S.— Thomas K. Cheyne, M.A.— W. T. Thiselton Dyer, M.A.— Henry Nettleship, M.A. Square crown Svo. price 10s. 6d. E VANS {Mark) — The Story of our Father's Love, told to Children. being a New and Cheaper Edition. With Four Illustrations. Fcp. Svo. price IS. 6d. A Book of Common Prayer and Worship for Household Use, compiled exclusively from the Holy Scriptures. Fcp, Svo. price 2s. 6d. The Gospel of Home Life. Crown Svo. cloth, price 4J. dd. EX-CIVILIAN. — Life in the Mofussil.: or Civilian Life in Lower Bengal. 2 vols. Large post Svo. price 14J. FA VRE {Mons. J.) — The Government of the National Defence. From the 30th June to the 31st October, 1S70. Translated by H. Clark. Demy Svo. price ior. 6d. C. Kegan Paul & Co.'s Publications. 9 FINN {The late yames) M.R.A.S. — Stirring Times ; or. Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles of 1853 to 1856. Edited and Compiled by > his Widow ; with a Preface by the Viscountess Strangford. 2 vols. Demy Svo. price 30J. FLEMING {fames) D.D. — Early Christian Witnesses; or. Testimonies of tbe First Centuries to the Truth of Christianity, Small Crown Svo. cloth. Folkestone Ritual Case : the Arguments, Proceedings, Judgment, and Report. Demy Svo. price 25J. FOOTMAN {Rev. H.) M.A. — From Home and Back ; or. Some .Aspects of Sin as seen in the Light of the Parable of the Prodigal. Crown Svo. price 5^. FO WLE {Rev. Edmund) — Latin Primer Rules made Easy. Crown Svo. price 3J-. FOWLE {Rev. T. W.) M.A. — The Reconciliation of Religion and Science. Being Essays on Immortality, Inspiration, Miracles, and the Being of Christ. Demy Svo. price ioj. 6d. FOX-BOURNE (H. R.) — The Life of John Locke, 1632-1704. 2 vols, demy Svo. price 28^. FRASER {Donald) — Exchange Tables of Sterling and Indian Rupee Currency, upon a new and extended system, embracing Values from One Farthing to One Hundred Thousand Pounds, and at rates progressing, in Sixteenths of a Penny, from is. gd. to 2s. ^d. per Rupee. Royal Svo. price 10s. 6d. FRISWELL {J. Hain)— The Better Self. Essays for Home Life. Crown Svo. price 6s. FYTCHE {Lieut.-Gen. Albert) C.S.I, late Chief Commissioner of British Burma. Burma Past and Present, with Personal Reminiscences of the Country. With Steel Portraits, Chromolithographs, Engravings on Wood, and Map. 2 vols. Demy Svo. cloth, price 30^-. GAMBIER {Capt. J. W.) i?.iV.— Servia. Crown Svo. price 5^. GARDNER {J.) M.D. — Longevity : The Means of Prolonging Life after Middle Age. Fourth Edition, revised and enlarged. Small crown Svo. price \s GILBERT {Mrs.) — Autobiography and other Memorials. Edited by Josiah Gilbert. Third and Cheaper Edition. With Steel Portrait and several Wood Engravings. Crown Svo. price "js. 6d. GILL {Rev. W. W.)B.A. — Myths and Songs from the South Pacific. With a Preface by F. Max Muller, M.A., Professor of Comparative Philology at Oxford. Post Svo. price t. A. w«)— Tac tical Deductions from the War OF 1S70-1. Translated by Colonel SirLufailey Graham, Bart., late iSth (Royal Irish) Regiment Third Edi tion, Revised and Corrected.. Demy Svo. price Is. C. Kegan Paul df Co.'s Publications. 23 BRACKENBVRY (Lieut.-Col.) C.B., R.A., A.A.G. Military Hand books FOR Regimental Officers. I. Military Sketching and Recon naissance, by Lieut.-Col. F. J. Hut chison, and Capt. H. G. MacGregor. With 15 Plates. Small Svo. cloth, price OS. II. The Elements of Modem Tactics, by Major Wilkinson Shaw. With numerous Plates.. BRIALMONT (Col. ^.)— Hasty In trenchments. Translated by Lieut Charles A. Empson, R.A. With Nine Plates. . Demy Svo. price 6s. CLERV (C.) Crt/i'.— Minor Tactics. With 26 Maps and Plans. Third and revised Edition. Demy Svo. cloth, price 16s. DU VERNOIS (Col. von Verdy)— Studies in Leading Troops. An authorised and accurate Translation by Lieutenant H. J. T. Hildyard, 71st Foot. Parts I. and II. Demy Svo. price Is. GOETZE (Capt. A. wk)^— Operations of the German Engineers' dur ing THE War of 1S70-1. Published by Authority, and in accordance with Official Documents. Translated from the German by Colonel G. Graham, V.C, C.B., R.E. With 6 large Maps. Demy Svo. price 2 If. HARRISON (Lieut.-Col. R.) — The Officer's Memorandum Book for Peace and War. Second Edition. Oblong 32mo. roan, elastic band and pencil, price -^s. 6d. ; nissia, 5j-. HEL'VIG (Capt. iZ)— The Operations of the. Bavarian Army Corps. Translated by Captain G. S. Schwabe. With Five large Maps, In 2 vols. Demy Svo.. price: 24?. Tactical Examples : Vol. I. The Battalion, price i5j-. Vol. II. The Reginrient and Brigade, price loj. 6d. Translated from the Germain by Col. Sir Lumley Graham. With nearly 300 Diagrams. Demy Svo. cloth. HOFFBAUER (Capt.)— The German Artillery in the Battles near Met?. BasedontheOfficialReportsof the German Artillery. Translated by Captain -E. O. HoUist. . With Map and Plans, J>emy Svo. price 21^, LA yMANN (Capt.) — The Frontal Attack of Infantry. Translated by Colonel Edward Newdigate. Crown Svo. price 2s. 6d. Notes on Cavalry Tactics, Organi sation, &c. By a Cavalry Officer. With Diagrams. Demy Svo. cloth, price 12s. PAGE (Capt. S. .^.)— Discipline and Drill. Cheaper Edition. Crown Svo. price is. Public Schoolboy: the Volunteer, the Militiaman, and the Regular Soldier, Crown Svo. . cloth, price 5^. RUSSELL (Major Frank 3-. )— RUSSIAN Wars with Turkey, Past and Present. With Maps. Second Edition. Crown Svo. price 6s. SCHELL (Maji von) — The Operations OF the First Army under Gen, VON Goeben. Translated by Col, C. H. von Wright. Four Maps. demy Svo. price gs. The Operations of the First Army under Gen. von Steinmetz. Translated by Captain E. O. Hollist, Demy Svo. price loj-. 6d. SCHELLENDORF {Major-Gen. B. von) The Duties of the General Staff. Translated from the German by Lieutenant Hare. Vol. I. Demy Svo. cloth, ioj. 6d. SCHERFF (Maj. W. z/^n)— Studies in the New Infantry Tactics. Parts I. and II, Translated from the German by Colonel Lumley Graham, Demy Svo, price Is. 6d. SHADWELL (Maj.-Gen.) Cff.— Moun tain Warfare. Illustrated by the Campaign of 1799 in Switzerland. Being a Translation of the Swiss Narrative compiled from the Works of the Archduke Charles, Jomini, and others. Also of Notes by General H. Dufour on the Campaign bf the Valtelline in 1635. With Appendix, Maps, and Introductory Remarks. Demy Svo. price 16s. SHERMAN (Gen. W. 7:)— Memoirs of General W. T. Sherman, Com mander of the Federal Forces in the Ameiican Civil War. By Himself. 2 vols. With Map. Demy Svo. price 24?. Copyright English Edition. 24 A List of STUBBS (Lieut.-Col. F. W.) — The Regiment of Bengal Artillery. The History of its Organisation, Equip ment, and War Services. Compiled from Published Works, Official Re cords, and various Private Sources. With numerous Maps and Illustrations. 2 vols, demy Svo. price 32J-. STUMM (Lieut. Hugo), German Military AitachJ to the Khivan Expedition.^- Russia's Advance Eastward. Based on the Official Reports of. Translated by Capt C.E- H.Vincent, With Map. Crown Svo. price 6s. VINCENT (Capt. C. E. .^)— Elemen tary Military Geography, Re connoitring, and Sketching. Compiledfor Non-commissioned Offi cers and Soldiers of all Arms. Square crown Svo. price 2s. 6d. WHITE (Capt. F. B. P.)— The Sub stantive Seniority Army List — Majors and Captains. Svo. sewed, price 2s. 6d. WARTENSLEBEN (Count H. von.)— The Operations of the South Army in January and February, 1 87 1. Compiled from the Official War Documents of the Head-quar ters of the Southern Army. Trans lated by Colonel C. H. von Wright. With Maps. Demy Svo. price 6s. The Operations of the First Army UNDER Gen. von Manteoffel. Translated by Colonel C. H. von Wright. Uniform with the above. Demy Svo. price gs. WICKHAM (Capt. E. H., .ff.^.)— In fluence OF Firearms upon Tac tics : Historical and Critical Investi gations. By an OFFICER OF Supe rior Rank (in the German Army). Translated by Captain E. H. Wick ham, R. A. Demy Svo. price Is. 6d. WOINOVITS (Capt. I.) — Austrian Cavalry Exercise. Translated by Captain W. S, Cooke. Crown Svo, price Is. POETRY. ABBEY (Henry)— 'Bai.labs of Good Deeds, and other Verses. Fcp. Svo. cloth gilt, price $s. ADAMS (W. D. — Lyrics of Love, from Shakespeare to Tennyson. Se lected and arranged by. Fcp. Svo. cloth extra, gilt edges, price y. 6d. Also, a Cheaper Edition, Fcp, Svo. cloth, 2f. 6d. ADAMS (John) M.A.— St. Malo's Quest, and other Poems. Fcp. Svo. price 5^. .r^Z'OA''— Through Storm and Sun shine. Illustrated by M. E. Edwards, A. T. H. Paterson, and the Author. Crown Svo. price Is. 6d. A. y. R. — Told in Twilight ; Stories in Verse, Songs, &c. Fcp. Svo. price 3J. 6d. A UBERTINiJ. 7.)— Camoens' Lusiads. Portuguese Text, with Translation by. Map and Portraits. 2 vols. Demy Svo. price 30J. Aurora : a Volume of Verse. Fcp. Svo, cloth, price 5^ BARING (T. C.) M.A., 71/. 7'.— Pindar in English Rhyme. Being an At tempt to render the Epinikian Odes with the principal remaining Frag ments of Pindar into English Rhymed Verse. Small 4to. price Is. BA YNES (Rev. Canon R. ff.) M.A.— Home Songs for Quiet Hours. Fourth Edition. Fcp. Svo. price 2s.6d. This may also be had handsomely bound in morocco with gilt edges, BENNETT (Dr. W. C.)— Narrative Poems and Ballads, Fcp. Svo, sewed, in Coloured Wrapper, price is. Songs for Sailors, Dedicated by Special Request to H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh. With Steel Portrait and Illustrations. Crown Svo, price 3.<'. 6d. An Edition in Illustrated Paper Covers, price is. Songs of a Song Writer, Crown 8vo. price 6s. BOSWELL (R. B.) M.A. Oxon.— Metrical Translations from the Greek and Latin Poets, and other Poems, Crown Svo, price 5^. C. Kegan Paul df Co.'s Publications. 25 BRYANT (W. C.)— Poems. Red-line Edition. With 24 Illustrations and Portrait of the Author. Crown Svo. cloth extra, price 7^. 6a!'. A Cheap Edition, with Frontis piece. Small crown Svo. price 3J. 6d. £UCHANAN(Roit.)—'POETICALyfORKS. Collected Edition, in 3 vols, with Por trait Crown Svo. price 6^. each. Master-Spirits. PostSvo.price ios.6d. BULKELEY (Rev. H. y.)— Walled in, and other Poems. Crown Svo. price 5J. Calderon's Dramas : the Wonder working Magician — Life is a Dream — the Purgatory of St Patrick. Trans lated by Denis Florence MacCarthy. Post Svo. price loj. CARPENTER (.ff. ) — Narcissus, and other Poems. Fcp. *Svo. price 5^. COLLINS (Mortimer) — iNN OF Strange Meetings, and other Poems. Crown Svo. cloth, price 5^. CORY (Lieut.-Col. Arthur) — \o^% : a Poem in Four Parts. Fcp. Svo. cloth, price 5^. Cosmos : a Poem. Fcp, Svo. price 3J-. 6d. CRESSWELL (Mrs. G.)— The King's Banner : Drama in Four Acts. Five Illustrations. 4to. price lOf. 6d. DENNIS (y.)— English Sonnets. Col lected and Arranged, Elegantly bound, Fcp. Svo. price 3j. 6d. DE VERE (Aubrey) — Alexander the Great : a Dramatic Poem. Small crown Svo. price 5^. The Infant Bridal, and other Poems. A New and Enlarged Edition, Fcp, Svo, price Is. 6d. The Legends of St, Patrick, and other Poems, Small crown Svo. price St. Thomas of Canterbury : a Dra matic Poem. Large fcp. Svo. price Sj. Antar and Zara: an Eastem Romance. Inisfail, and other Poems, Medita tive and Lyrical. Fcp. Svo. price 6s. The Fall of Rora, The Search after Proserpine, and other Poems, Meditative and Lyrical. Fcp. Svo. 6s. DOBSON (Austin) — Vignettes in Rhyme, and Vers de Societe. Third Edition, Fcp. Svo. price ^s. Proverbs in Porcelain. By the Author of ' Vignettes in Rhyme. ' Second Edition. Crown Svo. price 6s. DOWDEN (Ed-ward) ZZ.Z».— Poems. Third Edition. Fcp. Svo. price 5^. DOyVNTON (Rev. H.) 3/.^.— Hymns AND Verses. Original and Trans lated. Small crown Svo. cloth, price 3J-. 6d. DURAND (Lady) — Imitations from the German of Spitta and Ter- STEGEN. Fcp. Svo. price 4r. EDWARDS (Rev. Basil) — Minor Chords ; or. Songs for the Suffering : a Volume of Verse. Fcp. Svo. cloth, price y. 6d. ; paper, price, 2s. 6d. ELLIOT (Lady Charlotte)— U-e-UVSA and other Poems. Crown Svo. cloth, price 6s. ELLIOTT (Ebenezer), The Corn La-w Rhymer. — Poems. Edited by his son, the Rev, Edwin Elliott, of St. John's, Antigua, 2 vols, crown Svo. price l%s. Epic of Hades (The), By the Author of ' Songs of Two Worlds." Fifth and finally revised Edition. Fcp. Svo. price Is. 6d. Eros Agonistes : Poems. By E. B. D. Fcp. Svo. price 3^-. 6d. E YRE (Maj. - Gen. Sir V.)C.B.,K.C. S. L , &)'€. — Lays of a Knight-Errant IN Many Lands. Square crown Svo. with Six Illustrations, price Is. 6d. FERRIS (Henry Weybridge) — 'Poems. Fcp. Svo. price 5^. GARDNER (ZT.)— Sunflowers : a Book of Verses. Fcp. Svo. price 5j-. G. H. T. — Verses, mostly written in India. Crown Svo, cloth, price 6s. GOLDIE (Lieut. M. H. (7.)— Hebe : a Tale. Fcp. Svo. price 5j. HARCOURT (Capt. A. F. P.)— The Shakespeare Argosy. Containing much of the wealth of Shakespeare's Wisdom and Wit, alphabetically ar ranged and classified. Crown Svo, price 6s. _ , 26 A List of HEWLETT (Henry G.)— A Sheaf of Verse. Fcp. Svo, price 3^. 6d. HOLMES (E. G. ^.)— Poems. Fcp. Svo, price 5^, HOWARD (Rev. G. B.)—AnOi.t, Legend of St, Paul's, Fcp. Svo. price 4s. 6d. HOWELL (James)— A Tale of the Sea, Sonnets, and other Poems, Fcp, Svo. price 5J-. HUGHES (Allison) — Penelope, and other Poems._ Fcp. Svo. price 4s. 6d. INCHBOLD (J. rF.)— Annus Amoris : Sonnets, Fcp. Svo. price 4?. 6d. KING (Mrs. Hamilton)— The Disciples: a. New Poem. Third Edition, with some Notes. Crown Svo. price Is. 6d. Aspromonte, and other Poems. Second Edition. Fcp. Svo. price 4r. 6d. KNIGHT (A. F. C.)—FoEUs. Fcp. Svo. price 5J'- Lady of Lipari (The) : a Poem in Three Cantos. Fcp. Svo. price 5j. LOCKER (i?.)— London Lyrics. A New and Revised Edition, with. Addi tions and a Portrait of the Author. Crown Svo. cloth elegant, price 6s. Also, an Edition ¦ for the People, Fcp, Svo. price 2s. 6d. LUCAS (Alice) — Translations from THE Works of German Poets of the iSth and 19TH Centuries. Fcp. Svo. price 5j. MAGNUSSON (Eirikr) M.A., and PALMER (E. H.) M.A.—]oha-s Ludvig Runeberg's Lyrical Songs, Idylls, and Epigrams. Fcp. Svo. cloth, price 5^. MIDDLETON (The Za^)— Ballads. Square l6mo. cloth, price 31. 6d. MILLER (Robert)— The Romance of Love. Fcp. cloth, price ^s. MORICE (Rm. F. D.) M.A.—The Olympian and Pythian Odes of Pindar. A New Translation in Eng lish Verse. Crown Svo. price 7^. 6d. MORSHEAD (E. D. A.)— The Aga memnon of jEschylus. Trans lated into English Verse, With an Introductory Essay. Crown Svo, cloth, price 5^, NEW WRITER (^) -Songs of Two Worlds. Third Edition. Complete in One Volume. With Portrait, Fcp, Svo, price 5-f. The Epic of Hades, Bythe Author of ' Songs of Two Worlds.' . Fourth and finally revised Edition, Fcp. Svo. ' price 7-f, 6d: •¦ NICHOLSON {Ed-ward B.) Librarian oj the London Institution— The Christ Child, . and other Poems, Crown Svo. cloth, price 4s. 6d. NOAKE (Major R. Compton) — The Bivouac ; or. Martial Lyrist, With an App'endix ; Advice to the Soldier,- Fcp. Svo, price 5^, 6d. NORRIS {Rev. Alfred) —This, Inner AND Outer Life Poems, Fcp, Svo, cloth, price 6s. PAUL (C. Kegan)— Goeth-e'sFavst. A New Translation in Rhyme, Crown Svo, price 6s. .PAYNE {john)—SdT^GS OF Life and Death, Crown Svo. cloth,- price 5^. PEACOCKE (Georgiana)— Rays from THE Southern Cross : Poems, Crown Svo, with Sixteen Full-page Illustrations by the Rev, P, Walsh, Crown Svo. cloth elegant, price loj-. 6d. PENNELL (H. Cholmondeley)— ^Vegasvs Resaddled. By the Author of ' Puck on Pegasus, ' &c. &c. With Ten Full- page Illustrations by George Du Maurier. Second Edition, Fcp. 4to, cloth'elegant, 12s. 6d. . PFEIFFER (Emily)— Glas Alarch : His Silence and Song: a Poem, Crown Svo. price 6s. Gerard's Monument and other Poems. Second Edition, Crowji. Svo. cloth, price df. Poems, Crown Svo, cloth, price 6s. POWLETT (Lieut. N.) j?-,^.— Eastern Legends and Stories in English Verse. Crown Svo. price 5^-. RHOADES (7a?«^j)-^TlM0LE0N: a Dra matic Poem, Fcp, Svo. price <,s. ROBINSON (A. Maiy F.)—A Handful of Honeysuckle. Fcp. Svo. cloth, price 3^. 6d, _ C. Kegan Paul df Co.'s Publications. 27 SCOTT (Palrick) — THt^ D^eam and THE Deed, and other Poems. Fcp. Svo. price $s. Songs of Two Worlds. By the Author of 'The Epic of Hades.' Fourth Edition. Complete in one Volume, with Portrait. Fcp. Svo. cloth, price Is. 6d. Songs for Music, By' Four Friends, Containing Songs by Reginald A, Gatty, Stephen H, Gatty, Greville J. Chester, and Juliana Ewing. Square crown Svo. price 5J. SPICER (H.)—OyHo's Death Wager : a Dark Page of History Illustrated. In Five Acts, Fcp. Svo. cloth, price Ss. STAPLETON (John)— T'HE Thames : a Poem. Crown 8vo. price 6s. STONEHEWER (Agnes)— HIo^Aceia^a: a Legend of North Wales. A Poem. Fcp. Svo. cloth, price 3^. 6d. Sweet Silvery Sayings of Shake speare. Crown Svo. cloth gilt, price is. 6d. TAYLOR (Rev. J. W. A.) M.A.— Poems. Fcp. Svo. price 5J-, TA YLOR (Sir //.)— Works Complete in Five Volumes. Crown Svo. cloth, price 30J. TENNYSON (Alfred) — Works Com plete: — The Imperial Library Edition. Complete in 7 vols, demy Svo. price 10s. 6d. each; in Roxburgh binding, I2r. 6d. (Seep. 32.) Author's Edition. In Six Volumes. Post Svo. cloth gilt ; or half-morocco. Roxburgh style. (&«/. 32.) Cabinet Edition. 12 Volumes. Each with Frontispiece, Fcp. Svo. price 2s. 6d. each. (Seep. 32. ) Cabinet Edition. 12 vols. Complete in handsome Ornamental Case. (See p. 32). Pocket Volume Edition, 13 vols, in neat case, price 36^. Ditto, ditto. Extra clotli gilt, in case, price 42J. {See p. 32. ) -The Guinea Edition of the Poetical and Dramatic Works, complete in 12 vols, neatly bound and enclosed in box. Cloth, price 2ls.; French morocco, price 31J. 6d. TENNYSONiAljred)— com. Shilling Edition of the Poetical Works, In 12 vols, pocket size, IJ-. each, sewed. The Crown Edition. Complete in I vol. strongly bound in cloth, price 6s. ; cloth, extra gilt leaves, price 7^. 6d. ; Roxburgh, half-morocco, price Is. 6d. *^* Can also be had in a variety of other bindings. Original Editions : — Poems. Small Svo. price 6s. Maud, and other Poems. Small Svo, price 3J. 6d. The Princess. Small Svo. price 3^.60'. Idylls of the King. Small Svo, price 5^, Idylls of the King. Complete. Small Svo. price 6^. The Holy Grail, and other Poems. Small Svo. price 4s. 6d. Gareth and Lynette. Small Svo. price 3j. Enoch Arden, &c. Small Svo. price y. 6d. In Memoriam. Small Svo. price 4r. Harold : a Drama. New Edition. Crown Svo. price 6s. Queen Mary : a Drama. New Edi tion. Crown Svo. price 6s. Selections from the above Works. Super royal i6mo. price 3^. 6d. ; cloth gilt extra, price 4s. Songs from the above Works. i6mo. cloth, price 2j. 6d.; cloth extra, Zs. 6d. Tennyson!s Idylls of the King, and other Poems. Illustrated by JuUa Margaret Cameron. 2 vols, folio. half-bound morocco, cloth sides, price £6. 6s. each. Tennyson for the Young and for Recitation. Specially arranged. Fcp. Svo. is. 6d. The Tennyson Birthday Book. Edited by Emily Shakespear. 32mo. cloth limp, 2s. ; cloth extra, 3^. 28 A List of THOMPSON (Alice C.)— Preludes : a Volume of Poems. Illustrated by Elizabeth Thompson (Painter of 'The Roll Call'). Svo. price 7^. 6d. Thoughts in Verse. Small crown Svo. price IJ. 6d. THRING (Rev. Godjrey), B.As— Hymns and Sacred Lyrics. Fcp. Svo. price 5^. TODD (Herbert) M.A.— Aryan ; or, the Story of the Sword. A Poem. Crown Svo. price Is. 6d. TODHUNTER (Dr. y)— Laurella, and other Poems. Crown Svo. pirice 6s. 6d. TURNER (Rev. C. Tennyson)— SONN^TSy Lyrics, and Translations. Crown Svo. cloth, price 4s. 6d. WATERFIELD (fT.) — Hymns for Holy Days and Seasons, 32mo, cloth, price is. 6d. WAY (A.) M.A.—Thz Odes of Horace Literally Translated in Metre, Fcp. Svo. price 2s. WILLOUGHBY (The Hon. Mrs.)— On THE North Wind — Thistledown : a Volume of Poems. Elegantly bound, small crown Svo. price 7^. 6d. LIBRARY NOVELS. Blue Roses ; or, Helen Malinofska's Marriage. By the Author of 'Vera.' Fifth Edition. 2 vols, cloth, gilt tops, I2J. CHAPMAN (Hon. Mrs. E. W.) — A Constant Heart : a Story. 2 vols. <;loth, gilt tops, 12s. HOCKLEY (W. .5.)— Tales of the Zenana ; or, a Nuwab's Leisure Hours. By the Author of ' Pandu- rang Hari.' With a Preface by Lord Stanley of Alderley. 2 vols, crown Svo. cloth, price 21s. MASTERMAN (7.)— Worth Waiting For : a New Novel. 3 vols, crown Svo. cloth. MORLEY (5«j