If then it be sufficiently made out that Justin CHAP. II. dealt in this manner with the Old Testament, Application

to Justin's

quotations.

CHAP. II. which was sanctioned in each 'jot and tittle' Evangelic by the authority of Christ Himself, which was already inwrought into the Christian dialect by long and habitual use, which was familiarized to the Christian disputant by continual and minute controversy:-can it be expected that he should use the text of the Gospels with more scrupulous care? that he should in every case refer to

The only passage of any considerable length which caйibits continuous and important variations is Isai. XLii. 1—4. Cf. Credner, ii. 210 sqq.

It will be noticed that the number of texts repeated with verbal accuracy is very small.

his manuscript to ascertain the exact words of CHAP. II. the record? that he should preserve them free from traditional details? that he should keep distinctly separate cognate accounts of the same event, complementary narratives of the same discourse? If he combined the words of Prophets to convey to the heathen a fuller notion of their divine wisdom, and often contented himself with the sense of Scripture even when he argued with a Jew; can it be a matter of surprise, that to heathen and to Jews alike he sets forth rather the substance than the letter of those Christian writings, which had for them no individual authority? In proportion as the idea of a New Testament Canon was less clear in his time, or at least less familiarly realized by ancient usage, than that of the Old Testament

-as the Apostolic writings were invested with less objective worth for those whom he addressed-we may expect to find his quotations from the Evangelists more vague, and imperfect, and inaccurate, than those from the Prophets. So far as it is not so, the fact implies that personal study had supplied the place of traditional knowledge, that what was wanting to the Christian Scriptures in the clearness of defined authority was made up by the sense of their individual value.

To examine in detail the whole of Justin's How far

Justin's quo

the gospelnarrative are

to be examined.

CHAP. II. quotations would be tedious and unnecessary. tations from It will be enough to examine, (1) those which are alleged by him as quotations, and (2) those also which, though anonymous, are yet found repeated with the same variations, either in Justin's own writings, or (3) in heretical books. It is evidently on these quotations that the decision hangs. If they be naturally reconcilable with Justin's use of the Canonical Gospels, the partial inaccuracy of the remainder can be of little moment. But if they be clearly derived from uncanonical sources, the general coincidence of the mass with our Gospels only shows that there was a wide uniformity in the Evangelic tradition.

(a) Express quotations from the Memoirs.

Seven passages only, as far as I can discover1, are alleged by Justin as giving words recorded in the Memoirs; and in these, if there be no reason to the contrary, it is natural to expect that he will preserve the exact language of the Gospels which he used, just as in anonymous quotations we may conclude that he is trusting to memory. The result of a first view of these passages is Their agree striking. Of the seven five agree verbally with the text of St Matthew, or St Luke, exhibiting,

ment.

1 Ap. i. 66 (Luke xx. 19, 20), and Dial. c. 103 (Luke xxii. 42—44) are not merely quotations of words, but concise narratives.

Differences in detail supposed to be derived from Justin's Memoirs will be examined in the next division (3).

indeed, three slight various readings, not else- CHAP. II. where found, but such as are easily explicable':

1 The passages are these:

1. Dial. c. 103: οὗτος ὁ διάβολος .... ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνη μονεύμασι τῶν ἀποστόλων γέγραπται προσελθὼν αὐτῷ καὶ πειράζων μέχρι τοῦ εἰπεῖν αὐτῷ· Προσκύνησόν μοι· καὶ ἀποκρί νασθαι αὐτῷ τὸν Χριστόν· Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις = Matt. iv. [9], 10. The addition ὀπίσω μου is supported by good authority. The form of the quotation explains the omission of γέγραπται γάρ, which Justin, indeed, elsewhere recognizes, c. 125 : ἀποκρίνεται γὰρ αὐτῷ· Γέγραπ ται κύριον τὸν θεόν, κ. τ. λ.

In the Clementine Homilies the answer assumes an entirely different complexion (Hom. viii. 21): ἀποκρινάμενος οὖν ἔφη Γέγραπται Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου φοβηθήσῃ καὶ αὐτῷ λατρεύσεις μόνον.

2. c. 105: ταῦτα εἰρηκέναι ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασι γέγραπο ται· Ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασίλειαν τῶν οὐρανῶν=Matt. v. 20. The transposition ὑμῶν ἡ δικ. is probably correct. For Clement's variations in quoting this verse see Griesbach, Symb. Crit. ii. 251.

3. c. 107 : γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν ὅτι οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ γένους ὑμῶν συζητοῦντες αὐτῷ ἔλεγον, ὅτι Δεῖξον ἡμῖν σημεῖον. Καὶ ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτοῖς Γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλίς σημεῖον ἐπιζητεῖ, καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτοῖς εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ = Matt. xii. [38], 39. The first part, as its form shows, is quoted freely; our Lord's answer differs from the text of St Matthew only in reading αὐτοῖς for αὐτῇ. Such a confusion of relatives with an antecedent like γενεὰ is very common. Cf. Luke x. 13 (καθήμενοι -αι); Acts ii. 3 (ἐκάθισεν -αν). Winer, Ν. Τ. Gramm., § 47.

4. c. 49: ὁ ἡμέτερος Χριστὸς εἰρήκει.... Ἠλίας μὲν ἐλεύσεται καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, ὅτι Ἠλίας ἤδη ἦλθε, καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνωσαν αὐτὸν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐποίη σαν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἠθέλησαν. καὶ γέγραπται ὅτι τότε συνήκαν οἱ μαθηταὶ, ὅτι περὶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ βαπτίστου εἶπεν