connection with the little child whom he set in the midst (xviii. 6). The parallel passage in Luke has not the opening words of the passage in the Epistle at all, and the portion which it contains (xvii. 2), is separated from the context in which it stands in the first Gospel, and which explains its meaning. If we contrast the parallel passages in the three Synoptics, their differences of context are very suggestive, and without referring to their numerous and important variations in detail, the confusion amongst them is evidence of very varying tradition.1 This alone would make the existence of another form like that quoted in the Epistle before us more than probable. We are not, however, without other indications of such a reading as that of our quotation. Tertullian states that Marcion's Gospel read the parallel passage to the opening of Luke xvii. as follows: "Conversus ibidem ad discipulos, væ dicit auctori scandalorum, expedisse ei, si natus non fuisset, aut si molino saxo ad collum deligato præcipitatus esset in profundum," &c.2 This gives the phrase," it were better for him if he had not been born,” (λυσιτελεῖ αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ἢ μύλος ὀνικὸς περίκειται περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ, κ.τ.λ.) in the same connection as in the Epistle, with some variation only of language, and this reading is met with in several codices.3

Tischendorf in a note to his statement that Clement nowhere refers to the Gospels, quotes the passage we are now considering, the only one to which he alludes, and

1 Cf. Mat. xviii. 1-8; Mark ix. 33-43; Luke ix. 46-48, 49–50, xvii. 1-3.

2 Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv. 35.

3 Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Väter, p. 106, Die Evv. Justins, u. s. w., 1850, p. 423; Hahn, Das Evang. Marcion's, u. s. w., 1823, p. 188; Thilo, Cod. Apocr. Novi Test., 1832, i. p. 456; Volkmar, Das. Ev. Marcion's, 1852, p. 109; Ritschl, Das. Ev. Marcion's, 1846, p. 72.

says: "These words are expressly cited as words of Jesus our Lord;' but they denote much more oral apostolic tradition than a use of the parallel passages in Matthew (xxvi. 24, xviii. 6) and Luke (xvii. 2)."1 It is now, of course, impossible to determine finally whether the passage was actually derived from tradition or from a written source different from our Gospels, but in either case the fact is, that the Epistle not only does not afford the slightest evidence for the existence of any of our Gospels, but from only making use of tradition or an apocryphal work as the source of information regarding words of Jesus, it is decidedly opposed to the pretensions made on behalf of the Synoptics.

Before passing on we may in the briefest way possible refer to one or two other passages, with the view of further illustrating the character of the quotations in this Epistle. There are many passages cited which are not found in the Old Testament, and others which have no parallels in the New. At the beginning of the very chapter in which the words which we have just been considering occur, there is the following quotation: "It is written Cleave to the holy, for they who cleave to them shall be made holy," the source of which is unknown. In a previous chapter the writer says: “And our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention regarding the name, (óvóμatos,

1 Diese Worte werden ausdrücklich als "Worte Jesu unsers Herrn," angeführt; aber sie verrathen weit mehr die mündliche apostolische Ueberlieferung als einen Gebrauch von den vergleichbaren Stellen bei Matthäus (26, 24; 18, 6), und Lukas (17, 2)." Wann wurden, u. s. w. p. 21, anm. 2.

* Γέγραπται γάρ' “ Κολλᾶσθε τοῖς ἁγίοις, ὅτι οἱ κολλώμενοι αὐτοῖς ἁγιασθήσονται. c. xlvi., cf. c. xxx. A similar expression occurs in Clement of Alexandria. Strom. v. 8, § 53.

office, dignity?) of the episcopate."

3

What was the

writer's authority for this statement? We find Justin Martyr quoting, as an express prediction of Jesus: "There shall be schisms and heresies," 2 which is not contained in our gospels, but evidently derived from an uncanonical source, a fact rendered more apparent by the occurrence of a similar passage in the Clementine Homilies, still more closely bearing upon our Epistle : "For there shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, desires for supremacy." Hegesippus also speaks in a similar way: "From these came the false Christs, false prophets, false apostles who divided the unity of the Church.” 5 As Hegesippus, Justin Martyr, and the author of the Clementines made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or to Peter, it is almost certain that these Gospels contained passages to which the words of the Epistle may refer. It may be well to point out that the author also cites a passage from the Fourth Book of Ezra, ii. 167" And I shall remember the good day, and I shall raise you from your tombs." Ezra reads: "Et resuscitabo mortuos de locis suis et de monumentis educam illos," &c.

"8

1 Καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς. C. xliv. cf. xlv., xlvi.

2 "Eσovraι σxioμara Kai aipéσeis. Dial. c. Tryph. 35, cf. 51.

3 Semisch, Die apost. Denkwürdigk. d. Märt. Justinus, 1848, p. 390 f.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justins, p. 232 f., Die ap. Väter, p. 106; Credner, Beiträge, i. p. 246, p. 318 f.

6

4 Εσονται γὰρ, ὡς ὁ κύριος εἶπεν, ψευδαπόστολοι, ψευδεῖς προφῆται, αἱρέσεις, piλapxía Clem. Hom., xvi. 21; cf. Constit. Apost., vi. 13; Clem. Recog. iv. 34.

5 ̓Απὸ τούτων ψευδόχριστοι, ψευδοπροφῆται, ψευδαπόστολοι, οἵτινες ἐμέρισαν τὴν ἕνωσιν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, κ. τ. λ. Eusebius, H. E., iv. 22.

See other instances in Chapters xvii., xxiii., xxvi., xxvii., xxx., xlii., xlvii., &c.

8

7 II. Esdras of the English authorised Apocrypha.

5 καὶ μνησθήσομαι ἡμέρας ἀγαθῆς, καὶ ἀναστήσω ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν θηκῶν ὑμῶν. c. L.

The first part of the quotation in the Epistle, of which we have only given the latter clause above, is taken from Isaiah xxvi. 20, but there can be no doubt that the above is from this apocryphal book,' which, as we shall see, was much used in the early Church,

2.

WE now turn to the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas," another interesting relic of the early Church, many points in whose history have considerable analogy with that of the Epistle of pseudo-Clement. The letter itself bears no author's name, is not dated from any place, and is not addressed to any special community. Towards the end of the second century, however, tradition began to ascribe it to Barnabas the companion of Paul.2 The first writer who mentions it is Clement of Alexandria, who calls its author several times the "Apostle Barnabas ;' and Eusebius says that he gave an account of it in one of his works now no longer extant. Origen also refers to it, calling it a "Catholic Epistle," and quoting it as Scripture. We have already seen in the case of the Epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome, and, as we proceed, we shall become only too familiar with the fact, the singular facility with which, in the total absence of critical discrimination, spurious writings were ascribed

1 Jacobson, Patr. Ap., i. p. 189; Cotelier, Patr. Ap. 1. c.; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., i. p. 147.

2 Acts iv. 36, xi. 22 f.. 30, xii. 25, &c.

3 Stromata ii., 6, § 31, 7, § 35, 20, § 116, v. 10, § 64, cf. 15, § 67, 18, $ 84, v. § 52. 4 H. E., vi. 14, cf. 13.

γέγραπται δὴ ἐν τῇ Βαρνάβα καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ, κ. τ. λ. Contra Cels., i. 63, cf, De Princip., iii. 2, § 4.

by the Fathers to Apostles and their followers. In many cases such writings were deliberately inscribed with names well known in the Church, but both in the case of the two Epistles to the Corinthians, and the letter we are now considering, no such pious fraud was attempted, nor was it necessary. Credulous piety, which attributed writings to every Apostle, and even to Jesus himself, soon found authors for each anonymous work of an edifying character. To Barnabas, the friend of Paul, not only this Epistle was referred, but he was also reported by Tertullian and others to be the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and an apocryphal "Gospel according to Barnabas," said to have had close affinity with our first Synoptic, is condemned along with many others in the decretal of Gelasius.2 Eusebius, however, classes the so-called Epistle of Barnabas" amongst the spurious books (ev Toîs vólois),3 and elsewhere also speaks of it as uncanonical. Jerome mentions it as read amongst apocryphal writings. Had the Epistle been seriously regarded as a work of the "Apostle" Barnabas, it could scarcely have failed to attain canonical rank. That it was highly valued by the early Church is shown by the fact that it stands, along with the Pastor of Hermas, after the Canonical books of the New Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is probably the most ancient

5

1 De Pudic. § 20; Hieron, De vir. ill. 5. Many Modern writers have supported the tradition. Cf. Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 175 ff.; Ritschl, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1865, p. 89; Thiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 199 ff.; Ullmann, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1828, p. 377 ff.; Wieseler, Unters. üb. d. Hebräerbrief, 1861, i. p. 32 ff.

i. P.

2 Decretum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, in Credner, Zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1847, p. 215; cf. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., 341; Grabe, Spicil. Patr., i. p. 303.

3 H. E., iii. 25.

4 H. E., vi. 14 cf. 13.

6 Hieron, De vir. ill. 6, Comment. in Ezech., xliii. 19.