might be fulfilled by Him," which Tischendorf considers a reminiscence of Matthew iii. 15, "For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."2 The phrase, besides being no quotation, has again all the appearance of being an addition; and when in Ch. iii. of the same Epistle we find a palpable quotation from an apocryphal Gospel, which Jerome states to be the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," to which we shall presently refer, a Gospel which we know to have contained the baptism of Jesus by John, it is not possible, even if the Epistle were genuine, which it is not, to base any such conclusion upon these words. There is not only the alternative of tradition, but the use of the same apocryphal Gospel, elsewhere quoted in the Epistle, as the source of the reminiscence. Tischendorf does not point out any more supposed references to our synoptic Gospels, but we proceed to notice all the other passages which have been indicated by others. In the Epistle to Polycarp, c. ii., the following sentence occurs: "Be thou wise as a serpent in everything, and harmless as the dove." This is, of course, compared with Matth. x. 16, "Be ye, therefore, wise as serpents and innocent as doves." The Greek of both reads as follows: EPISTLE. Φρόνιμος γίνου ὡς ὄφις ἐν ἅπασιν καὶ ἀκέραιος ὡς ἡ περιστερά. MATTH. X. 16. Γίνεσθε οὖν φρόνιμοι ὡς οἱ ὄφεις καὶ ἀκέραιοι ὡς αἱ περιστεραί, In the Syriac version, the passage reads: "Be thou wise as the serpent in everything, and harmless as to those things which are requisite as the dove." It is unneces 1 c. i. βεβαπτισμένον ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου, ἵνα πληρωθῇ πᾶσα δικαιοσύνη ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, κ.τ.λ. 2 οὕτως γὰρ πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην. The Cod. Sin. alone reads ós ó öpis here. Cf. Cureton, The Ancient Syriac Version, &c., p. 5, p. 72. sary to add that no source is indicated for the reminiscence. Ewald assigns this part of our first Gospel originally to the Spruchsammlung,' and even apart from the variations presented in the Epistle there is nothing to warrant exclusive selection of our first Gospel as the source of the saying. The remaining passages we subjoin in parallel columns. None of these passages are quotations, and they generally present such marked linguistic variations from the parallel 1 Die drei ersten Evv. 2 Εἰ γὰρ ἑνὸς καὶ δευτέρου προσευχὴ τοσαύτην ἰσχὺν ἔχει, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἥ τε τοῦ ἐπισκόπου καὶ πάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας ; passages in our first Gospel, that there is not the slightest ground for specially referring them to it. The last words cited are introduced without any appropriate context. In no case are the expressions indicated as quotations from, or references to, any particular source. They may either be traditional, or reminiscences of some of the numerous Gospels current in the early Church, such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That the writer made use of one of these cannot be doubted. In the Epistle to the Smyrnæans, c. iii., there occurs a quotation from an apocryphal Gospel to which we have already, in passing, referred: "For I know that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh, and I believe he is so now. And when he came to those who were with Peter, he said to them: Lay hold, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit, (Sapóviov). And immediately they touched him and believed, being convinced by his flesh and spirit." Eusebius, who quotes this passage, says that he does not know whence it is taken. Origen, however, quotes it from a work well known in the early Church, called "The Doctrine of Peter,” (Aɩdayǹ Пéτpov) ;3 and Jerome found it in the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," in use among the Nazarenes, which he translated, as we shall hereafter see. It was, no doubt, in both of those works. The narrative, Luke xxiv. 39 f., being neglected, and an apocryphal Gospel used here, the inevitable inference is clear and very suggestive. As it is certain that this quotation was taken from a source 1 Ἐγὼ γὰρ καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐν σαρκὶ αὐτὸν οἶδα καὶ πιστεύω ὄντα, Καὶ ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον ἦλθεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς· “ Λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον.” Καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτοῦ ἥψαντο, καὶ ἐπίστευσαν, κρατηθέντες τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ πνεύματι. 2 οὐκ οἶδ ̓ ὁπόθεν ῥητοῖς συγκέχρηται. II. E., iii. 36. 3 De Princip. Præf., § 8. De vir. ill., 16; cf. Comm. in Is. lib. xviii, præf. different from our Gospels, there is reason to suppose that the other passages which we have cited are reminiscences of the same work. The passage on the three mysteries in the Epistle to the Ephesians, c. xix., is evidently another quotation from an uncanonical source.1 We must, however, again point out that, with the single exception of the short passage in the Epistle to Polycarp, c. ii., which is not a quotation, differs from the reading in Matthew, and may well be from any other source, none of these supposed reminiscences of our synoptic Gospels are found in the Syriac version of the three epistles. The evidential value of the seven Greek epistles is clearly stated by an English historian and divine: "My conclusion is, that I should be unwilling to claim historical authority for any passage not contained in Dr. Cureton's Syriac reprint."2 We must, however, go much further, and assert that none of the Epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the third century, if indeed they possess any value at all. The whole of the literature ascribed to Ignatius is, in fact, such a tissue of fraud and imposture, and the successive versions exhibit such undeniable marks of the grossest interpolation, that even if any small original element exist referrible to Ignatius, it is impossible to define it, or to distinguish with the slightest degree of accuracy between what is authentic and what is spurious. The Epistles do not, however, in any case afford evidence even of the existence of our synoptic Gospels. 1 Cf. Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr., vii. p. 318, anm. 1. 2. WE have hitherto deferred all consideration of the so-called Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, from the fact that, instead of proving the existence of the Epistles of Ignatius, with which it is intimately associated, it is itself discredited in proportion as they are shown to be inauthentic. We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is, for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held to be spurious. The Epistle of Polycarp, however, not only refers to the martyr-journey (c. ix.), but to the Ignatian Epistles which are inauthentic (c. xiii.), and the manifest inference is that it also is spurious. 2 Polycarp, who is said by Irenæus' to have been in his youth a disciple of the Apostle John, became Bishop of Smyrna, and suffered martyrdom at a very advanced age. On the authority of Eusebius and Jerome, it has hitherto been generally believed that his death took place in A.D. 166-167. In the account of his martyrdom, which we possess in the shape of a letter from the Church of Smyrna, purporting to have been written by eye-witnesses, which must be pronounced spurious, Polycarp is said to have died under the Proconsul Statius Quadratus.3 If this statement be correct, the date hitherto received can no longer be maintained, for recent investigations have determined that Statius Quadratus was proconsul in A.D. 154-5 or 155-6. Some critics, 1 Adv. Hær., iii. 3, § 4; cf. Eusebius, H. E., v. 20. In the Mart. Polycarpi (c. 9) he is represented as declaring that he had served Christ eighty-six years. 3 Mart. Polycarpi, c. 21. 4 Waddington, Mém. de l'Inst. imp. de France, Acad. des Inscript. et Belles Lettres, T. xxvi., 1 Part., 1867, p. 232 ff.; cf. Fastes des Provinces asiatiques, 1872, 1 Part. p. 219 ff.; Renan, L'Antechrist, 1870, p. 566 f.; |