The Gospels in the Second Century / An Examination of the Critical Part of a Work Entitled 'Supernatural Religion' - W. Sanday

We are to determine whether this quotation was taken from the Canonical Gospels. Let us try to balance the arguments on both sides as fairly as possible. Dr. Lightfoot writes in his note upon the passage as follows: 'As Clement's quotations are often very loose, we need not go beyond the Canonical Gospels for the source of this passage. The resemblance to the original is much closer here, than it is for instance in his account of Rahab above, § 12. The hypothesis therefore that Clement derived the saying from oral tradition, or from some lost Gospel, is not needed.' (1) No doubt it is true that Clement does often quote loosely. The difference of language, taking the parallel clauses one by one, is not greater than would be found in many of his quotations from the Old Testament. (2) Supposing that the order of St. Luke is followed, there will be no greater dislocation than e.g. in the quotation from Deut. ix. 12-14 and Exod. xxxii. (7, 8), 11, 31, 32 in c. liii, and the backward order of the quotation would have a parallel in Clem. Hom. xvi. 13, where the verses Deut. xiii. 1-3, 5, 9 are quoted in the order Deut. xiii. 1-3, 9, 5, 3,—and elsewhere. The composition of a passage from different places in the same book, or more often from places in different books, such as would be the case if Clement was following Matthew, frequently occurs in his quotations from the Old Testament. (3) We have no positive evidence of the presence of this passage in any non- extant Gospel. (4) Arguments from the manner of quoting the Old Testament to the manner of quoting the New must always be to a certain extent a fortiori, for it is undeniable that the New Testament did not as yet stand upon the same footing of respect and authority as the Old, and the scarcity of MSS. must have made it less accessible. In the case of converts from Judaism, the Old Testament would have been largely committed to memory in youth, while the knowledge of the New would be only recently acquired. These considerations seem to favour the hypothesis that Clement is quoting from our Gospels.

But on the other hand it may be urged, (1) that the parallel adduced by Dr. Lightfoot, the story of Rahab, is not quite in point, because it is narrative, and narrative both in Clement and the other writers of his time is dealt with more freely than discourse. (2) The passage before us is also of greater length than is usual in Clement's free quotations. I doubt whether as long a piece of discourse can be found treated with equal freedom, unless it is the two doubtful cases in c. viii and c. xxix. (3) It will not fail to be noticed that the passage as it stands in Clement has a roundness, a compactness, a balance of style, which give it an individual and independent appearance. Fusions effected by an unconscious process of thought are, it is true, sometimes marked by this completeness; still there is a difficulty in supposing the terse antitheses of the Clementine version to be derived from the fuller, but more lax and disconnected, sayings in our Gospels. (4) It is noticed in 'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 65:1] that the particular phrase [Greek: chraesteusthe] has at least a partial parallel in Justin [Greek: ginesthe chraestoi kai oiktirmones], though it has none in the Canonical Gospels. This may seem to point to a documentary source no longer extant.

Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knew what was the common original of the two Synoptic texts. How do they come to be so like and yet so different as they are? How do they come to be so strangely broken up? The triple synopsis, which has to do more with narrative, presents less difficulty, but the problem raised by these fragmentary parallelisms in discourse is dark and complex in the extreme; yet if it were only solved it would in all probability give us the key to a wide class of phenomena. The differences in these extra-canonical quotations do not exceed the differences between the Synoptic Gospels themselves; yet by far the larger proportion of critics regard the resemblances in the Synoptics as due to a common written source used either by all three or by two of them. The critics have not however, I believe, given any satisfactory explanation of the state of dispersion in which the fragments of this latter class are found. All that can be at present done is to point out that the solution of this problem and that of such quotations as the one discussed in Clement hang together, and that while the one remains open the other must also.

Looking at the arguments on both sides, so far as we can give them, I incline on the whole to the opinion that Clement is not quoting directly from our Gospels, but I am quite aware of the insecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nice balance of probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large that the conclusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional. Anything like confident dogmatism on the subject seems to me entirely out of place.

Very much the same is to be said of the second passage in c. xlvi compared with Matt. xxvi. 24, xviii. 6, or Luke xvii. 1, 2. It hardly seems necessary to give the passage in full, as this is already done in 'Supernatural Religion,' and it does not differ materially from that first quoted, except that it is less complicated and the supposition of a quotation from memory somewhat easier. The critic indeed dismisses the question summarily enough. He says that 'the slightest comparison of the passage with our Gospels is sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that it is neither a combination of texts nor a quotation from memory' [Endnote 66:1]. But this very confident assertion is only the result of the hasty and superficial examination that the author has given to the facts. He has set down the impression that a modern might receive, at the first blush, without having given any more extended study to the method of the patristic quotations. I do not wish to impute blame to him for this, because we are all sure to take up some points superficially; but the misfortune is that he has spent his labour in the wrong place. He has, in a manner, revived the old ecclesiastical argument from authority by heaping together references, not always quite digested and sifted, upon points that often do not need them, and he has neglected that consecutive study of the originals which alone could imbue his mind with their spirit and place him at the proper point of view for his enquiry.

The hypothesis that Clement's quotation is made memoriter from our Gospel is very far from being inadmissible. Were it not that the other passage seems to lean the other way, I should be inclined to regard it as quite the most probable solution. Such a fusion is precisely what would and frequently does take place in quoting from memory. It is important to notice the key phrases in the quotation. The opening phrases [Greek: ouai to anthropo ekeino; kalon aen auto ei ouk egennaethae] are found exactly (though with omissions) in Matt. xxvi. 24. Clement has in common with the Synoptists all the more marked expressions but two, [Greek: skandalisai] ([Greek: -sae] Synoptics), the unusual word [Greek: mulos] (Matt., Mark), [Greek: katapontisthaenai] ([Greek: -thae] Matt.), [Greek: eis taen thalassan] (Mark, Luke), [Greek: hena ton mikron] ([Greek: mou] Clement, [Greek: touton] Synoptics). He differs from them, so far as phraseology is concerned, only in writing once (the second time he agrees with the Synoptics) [Greek: ton eklekton mou] for [Greek: ton mikron touton], by an easy paraphrase, and [Greek: peritethaenai] where Mark and Luke have [Greek: perikeitai] and Matthew [Greek: kremasthae]. But on the other hand, it should be noticed that Matthew has, besides this variation, [Greek: en to pelagei taes thalassaes], where the two companion Gospels have [Greek: eis taen thalassan]; where he has [Greek: katapontisthae], Mark has [Greek: beblaetai] and Luke [Greek: erriptai]; and in the important phrase for 'it were better' all the three Gospels differ, Matthew having [Greek: sumpherei], Mark [Greek: kalon estin], and Luke [Greek: lusitelei]; so that it seems not at all too much to say that Clement does not differ from the Synoptics more than they differ from each other. The remarks that the author makes, in a general way, upon these differences lead us to ask whether he has ever definitely put to himself the question, How did they arise? He must be aware that the mass of German authorities he is so fond of quoting admit of only two alternatives, that the Synoptic writers copied either from the same original or from each other, and that the idea of a merely oral tradition is scouted in Germany. But if this is the case, if so great a freedom has been exercised in transcription, is it strange that Clement (or any other writer) should be equally free in quotation?

The author rightly notices—though he does not seem quite to appreciate its bearing—the fact that Marcion and some codices (of the Old Latin translation) insert, as Clement does, the phrase [Greek: ei ouk egennaethae ae] in the text of St. Luke. Supposing that this were the text of St. Luke's Gospel which Clement had before him, it would surely be so much easier to regard his quotation as directly taken from the Gospel; but the truer view perhaps would be that we have here an instance (and the number of such instances in the older MSS. is legion) of the tendency to interpolate by the insertion of parallel passages from the same or from the other Synoptic Gospels. Clement and Marcion (with the Old Latin) will then confirm each other, as showing that even at this early date the two passages, Matt. xxvi. 24 and Matt. xviii. 6 (Luke xvii. 2), had already begun to be combined.

There is one point more to be noticed before we leave the Epistle of Clement. There is a quotation from Isaiah in this Epistle which is common to it with the first two Synoptics. Of this Volkmar writes as follows, giving the words of Clement, c. xv, 'The Scripture says somewhere, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me,' ([Greek: houtos ho laos tois cheilesin me tima hae de kardia auton porro apestin ap' emou]). 'This "Scripture" the writer found in Mark vii. 6 (followed in Matt. xv. 8), and in that shape he could not at once remember where it stood in the Old Testament. It is indeed Mark's peculiar reproduction of Is. xxix. 13, in opposition to the original and the LXX. A further proof that the Roman Christian has here our Synoptic text in his mind, may be taken from c. xiii, where he quotes Jer. ix. 24 with equal divergence from the LXX, after the precedent of the Apostle (1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17) whose letters he expressly refers to (c. xlvii) [Endnote 69:1]. It is difficult here to avoid the conclusion that Clement is quoting the Old Testament through the medium of our Gospels. The text of the LXX is this, [Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos en to stomati autou kai en tois cheilesin auton timosin me]. Clement has the passage exactly as it is given in Mark ([Greek: ho laos houtos] Matt.), except that he writes [Greek: apestin] where both of the Gospels have [Greek: apechei] with the LXX. The passage is not Messianic, so that the variation cannot be referred to a Targum; and though A. and six other MSS. in Holmes and Parsons omit [Greek: en to stomati autou] (through wrong punctuation— Credner), still there is no MS. authority whatever, and naturally could not be, for the omission of [Greek: engizei moi … kai] and for the change of [Greek: timosin] to [Greek: tima]. There can be little doubt that this was a free quotation in the original of the Synoptic Gospels, and it is in a high degree probable that it has passed through them into Clement of Rome. It might perhaps be suggested that Clement was possibly quoting the earlier document, the original of our Synoptics, but this suggestion seems to be excluded both by his further deviation from the LXX in [Greek: apestin], and also by the phenomena of the last quotation we have been discussing, which are certainly of a secondary character. Altogether I cannot but regard this passage as the strongest evidence we possess for the use of the Synoptic Gospels by Clement; it seems to carry the presumption that he did use them up to a considerable degree of probability.

It is rather singular that Volkmar, whose speculations about the Book of Judith we have seen above, should be so emphatic as he is in asserting the use of all three Synoptics by Clement. We might almost, though not quite, apply with a single change to this critic a sentence originally levelled at Tischendorf, to the intent that 'he systematically adopts the latest (earliest) possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two centuries,' but he is able to admit the use of the first and third Synoptics (the publication of which he places respectively in 100 and 110 A.D.) by throwing forward the date of Clement's Epistle, through the Judith-hypothesis, to A.D. 125. We may however accept the assertion for what it is worth, as coming from a mind something less than impartial, while we reject the concomitant theories. For my own part I do not feel able to speak with quite the same confidence, and yet upon the whole the evidence, which on a single instance might seem to incline the other way, does appear to favour the conclusion that Clement used our present Canonical Gospels.