Part 5 The Gospels in the Second Century

Part 5

| 13-15; 6.1, 2 | | | (v.l.) | | | |D.118, 2 Sam. 7. |from memory | | 14-16. | (Cr.) | |D.39, 1 Kings 19. |freely (Cr.); | | 14, 15, 18. | cf. Rom. 11.3.

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

It is impossible not to be struck with the amount of matter that Justin has transferred to his pages bodily. He has quoted nine Psalms entire, and a tenth with the statement (twice repeated) that it is given entire, though really he has only quoted twenty- three verses. The later chapters of Isaiah are also given with extraordinary fulness. These longer pa.s.sages are generally quoted accurately. If Justin's text differs from the received text of the LXX, it is frequently found that he has some extant authority for his reading. The way in which Credner has drawn out these varieties of reading, and the results which he obtained as to the relations and comparative value of the different MSS., form perhaps the most interesting feature of his work. The more marked divergences in Justin may be referred to two causes; (1) quotation from memory, in which he indulges freely, especially in the shorter pa.s.sages, and more in the Apology than in the Dialogue with Tryphon; (2) in Messianic pa.s.sages the use of a Targum, not immediately by Justin himself but in some previous doc.u.ment from which he quotes, in order to introduce a more distinctly Christian interpretation; the coincidences between Justin and other Christian writers show that the text of the LXX had been thus modified in a Christian sense, generally through a closer comparison with and nearer return to the Hebrew, before his time.

The instances of free quotation are not perhaps quite fully given in the above list, but it will be seen that though they form a marked phenomenon, still more marked is the amount of exactness.

Any long, not Messianic, pa.s.sage, it appears to be the rule with Justin to quote exactly. Among the pa.s.sages quoted freely there seem to be none of greater length than four verses.

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

The great advantage of collecting the quotations from the Old Testament is that we are enabled to do so in regard to the very same writers among whom our enquiry is to lie. We can thus form a general idea of their idiosyncracies, and we know what to expect when we come to examine a different cla.s.s of quotations. There is, however, the element of uncertainty of which I have spoken above.

We cannot be quite clear what text the writer had before him. This difficulty also exists, though to a less degree, when we come to consider quotations from the New Testament in writers of an early date whom we know to have used our present Gospels as canonical.

The text of these Gospels is so comparatively fixed, and we have such abundant materials for its reconstruction, that we can generally say at once whether the writer is quoting from it freely or not. We have thus a certain gain, though at the cost of the drawback that we can no longer draw an inference as to the practice of individuals, but merely attain to a general conclusion as to the habits of mind current in the age. This too will be subject to a deduction for the individual bent and peculiarities of the writer. We must therefore, on the whole, attach less importance to the examples under this section than under that preceding.

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

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

| |I.3.5, Luke 14.27. |Valentinians.

|I.3.5, Mark 10. | |the same.

I.3.5, Matt. 10.34. | 21 (v.l.) | |the same.

I.3.5, Luke 3.17. | | |the same.

I.4.3, Matt. 10.8. | | | [I.6.1, Matt. 5. | | | 13, 14, al.] | |I.7.4, Matt. 8.9.} |}the same.

| | Luke 7.8. } |} | |I.8.2, Matt. 27.46.|Valentinians.

I.8.2. Matt. 26.38. | | |the same.

|I.8.2, Matt. | |the same.

| |I.8.3, Luke |the same.

| |I.8.4, Luke 15,4. |the same.

|[I.8.4, Luke | |the same.

[I.8.4., Luke | | |the same.

I.8.5, John 1.3 | | |the same.

| |[I.14.1. Matt. |Marcus.

|I.20.2, Matt. | |Marcosians.

I.20.2, Matt. | | |the same.

| |I.21.2, Luke 12.50.|Marcosians.

|I.21.2, Mark | |Marcosians.

| 10.36. | | III.11.8, John | | | 1.1-3 (?). | | | III.11.8, Matt. | | | 1.1,18 (v.l.)| | | |III.11.8, Mark | |omissions.

| 1.1,2. | | III.22.2, John 4.6. | | | III.22.2, Matt. 26.38.| | | |IV.26.1, } Matt. | | |IV.40.3, } 13.38.| | |IV.40.3, Matt. | | | 13.25. | | V.17.4, Matt. 3.10. | | | | |V.36.2, John 14.2 | | | (or obl.) | | |Fragm. 14, Matt. | | | 15.17. |

On the whole these quotations of Irenaeus seem fairly to deserve the praise given to them by Dr. Tregelles. Most of the free quotations, it will be seen, belong not so much to Irenaeus himself, as to the writers he is criticising. In some places (e.g.

iv. 6. 1, which is found in the Latin only) he expressly notes a difference of text. In this very place, however, he shows that he is quoting from memory, as he speaks of a parallel pa.s.sage in St.

Mark which does not exist. Elsewhere there can be little doubt that either he or the writer before him quoted loosely from memory. Thus Luke xii. 50 is given as [Greek: allo baptisma echo baptisthaenai kai panu epeigomai eis auto] for [Greek: baptisma de echo baptisthaenai kai pos sunechomai heos hotou telesthae]. The quotation from Matt. viii. 9 is represented as [Greek: kai gar ego hupo taen emautou exousian echo stratiotas kai doulous kai ho ean prostaxo poiousi], which is evidently free; those from Matt.

xviii. 10, xxvii. 46, Luke ix. 57, 58, 61, 62, xiv. 27, xix. 42, John i. 5, 14 (where however there appears to be some confusion in the text of Irenaeus), xiv. 2, also seem to be best explained as made from memory.

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

| |430B, Matt. 2.13. |Porphyry & Celsus.

| | (or. obl.)| | |490C, Matt. 15.20.| | | Mark 7.21,22.| | |490A, Matt. 18.8. |}compression | | Mark 9.43. |} | |679BC, Matt. |Manes.

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

|464D, Luke 12.9; | |composition.

< Prev TOC

Add to Library Next