Thompson - Metanoia in Greek Literature Until 100 N. CHR., in Historical and Linguistic Studies. Bd. 1

BS 2385
.H582 v.l
University of Chicago.
Historical and linguistic
studies in literature
5 er
HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

IN LITERATURE RELATED TO THE
NEW TESTAMENT
ZDc mnivcxQii^
FOUNDED BY JOHN
D.
of Cbtcaao
j^^
(^
ROCKEFELLER
At
Historical and Linguistic Studies

IN
LITERATURE RELATED TO THE
NEW TESTAMENT
DEPARTMENT OF
ISSUED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
GREEK
BIBLICAL AND PATRISTIC
SECOND SERIES
LINGUISTIC AND EXEGETICAL STUDIES
VOLUME
CHICAGO
ttbe 'Onivetsitfi ot Cbicago
1909
Press
-^3
^q^q
CONTENTS
PAGB
I.
The Virgin
Birth
^'.
By Allan Hoben
II.
The Kingdom
of
God
in the
Writings of the Fathers
89
By Henry Martyn Herrick

III.
The
Diatessaron of Tatian and th^ Synoptic Problem
207
By A. Augustus Hobson
IV.
The
Compared
Infinitive in Polybius
in Biblical
with the Infinitive
Greek
280
By Hamilton Ford Allen

V.
McTavoew and
McTa/xe'Aci in
Greek Literature
until 100 a. d.
349
By Effie Freeman Thompson

VI.
Lexicographical and Historical

By Frederick
VII.
The Irenaeus Testimony
S^dy
of AuidrJKr}
379
Owen Norton
to the Fojatth
Gospel
451
Ante-Nicene Period
515
By Frank Grant Lewis

VIII.
The Idea
of the Resurrection in the
By Calvin Klopp Staudt
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
The Department
of
University of Chicago
and
Biblical
proposes to issue, from time to time,
Historical and Linguistic Studies
New
I,
Testament.
Texts
Studies.
Greek of the
Patristic
These Studies
in Literature Eelated to the
will
be grouped in three series
II, Linguistic
and Exegetical Studies
The volumes
in each
series will
III, Historical
be issued in parts.
Ernest D. Burton.
Shailer Mathews.
Clyde W. Votaw.
Edgar
J.
Goodspeed.
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
BY
ALLAN HOBEN,
Ph.D.
CHICAGO
c;be "GlniversltB of Cblcago ipress
1903
Copyright 1903
By The University of Chicago
PREFACE.
This work
is
purely an historical essay.
Virgin Birth as found

tory of
its
in the
of
Taking the story
Testament,
it
of the
aims to trace the
his-
and use throughout the ante-Nicene period.

the study upon the historical criticism of the New Tes-
interpretation
The bearing
tament and theology proper
5]
New
is
not discussed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
I'
PAGE
The New Testament

The Virgin
canonical
Birth has a double attestation.
story to the
Gospel of James.
The
relation
Interpretation
of the
of
the
canonical accounts.
II.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers
17
Ignatius; Aristides; Justin Martyr; Tatian
Melito
Irenseus; Ter-
Clement of Alexandria; Origen Hippolytus; Cyprian;

Malchion Archelaus Arnobius Lactantius Methodius
Victorinus Peter of Alexandria Alexander of Alexandria Conclu-
tullian
Novatian
sion.
III.
The New Testament Apocrypha

Differentiated from the New Testament.
81
Their theological purpose.
Old Testament models.
Index
7]
86
THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.
I.
This essay aims
to trace the
history
and use
of the story of
this, special attention is
paid to the patristic
which has not hitherto
field,
been thoroughly investigated with such a purpose

here offered on the
main body
material
in view.
What
New Testament
stories in the
is
introductory to the
is
of the essay, and, as a prerequisite to tracing the use
effects of the
ture,
New Testament
the
In doing
virgin birth of Jesus in the ante-Nicene Christian literature.
subsequent Christian
and
litera-
aims to determine whether these narratives in reality represent a
double or only a single attestation of the virgin

ascertain what
The
is
birth,
and
also to
their exact meaning.'
question whether the account of the virgin birth has in the
New Testament
a single or a double attestation
the question of the
common
Matthew and Luke.
sections of
is,
broadly speaking,
origin or independence of the infancy
Resch'' holds that
Matthew and Luke
used a pre-canonical child history, which had been translated from
Hebrew
and
we had
it would be a harand third gospels. Conrady'

thinks that the protevangelium of James is that pre-canonical source
which both Matthew and Luke used, and that, moreover, Luke had
Whether the infancy stories are more
access to Matthew's account.
independent than these theories would imply can be ascertained only
mony
into Greek,
that,
if
of the infancy stories of the
that history,
first
by a comparative examination of the material.

The genealogies, Matt. 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, may be
considered in such a comparison.
The generations
prior to
first
Abraham
are peculiar to Luke, and, while favoring the independence of the two
tables, are
probably more significant as indicating Luke's understanding
of the virgin birth, as will
and David the two

'
tables,
The pseudonymous and
period and
is
be pointed out
later.
Between Abraham
having access to the Old Testament material,

fictitious
usually included under the
material which falls within the ante-Nicene

title
of the
New
Testament apocrypha
will
be briefly treated in an appendix, for the purpose of supplementing the study of the
ante-Nicene Fathers.
9J
Kindheihevangelium nach Lucas und Matthaeus.
"^
Die Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu.

.
10
are in
harmony, but between David and Joseph, where one would
expect them to be precise in proving the Davidic descent of Jesus, they

are, with the possible exception of two names,* wholly at variance.
Thus the genealogical
common
Mary
is
source.^
tables as a
whole make against the theory of a

that Luke gives the genealogy of
The explanation
not substantiated or adequate.
Continuing this comparison, the question of the common dependence or the interdependence of the infancy sections can be better
appreciated, perhaps, by a tabulation showing the material in either
account.
MATTHEW.
LUKE.
Birth of John the Baptist
promised,
Annunciation
Annunciation
to Joseph,
to
Mary,
5-25
20-38
:
18-25
Mary's
Elizabeth,
Birth of John the Baptist,
39-56
57-80
2:1-7
Birth of Jesus,
The angels and the shepherds, 2 8-20
2:21
The circumcision,
visit to
Presentation in the temple, 2 22-39

:
2:1-12
The magi,
Flight into Egypt and return
to Nazareth,
Childhood
at Nazareth,
13-23
2
Childhood
23
at Nazareth,
Incident in the temple,
at Nazareth, 2
Eighteen years
39, 40
41-50
51, 52
It will be seen from the foregoing that Matthew and Luke are in
agreement as to the birth-place, the parents' names, a residence in
Nazareth after the birth, the Davidic descent, and the virgin birth.
But all of these facts, except the last, are derivable from the gospels
proper, or, as in the case of the Bethlehem birth, from such information as may easily be supposed to have been common Christian tradi-
and Jerubbabel, Matt. 1:12; Luke 3
Shealtiel
In connection with Matt,
16
it
27.
should be brought to notice that, although
all
Greek uncials and nearly all the minuscules have " Joseph the husband of Mary,
of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ," the Curetonian Syriac, the Armenian,
two Greek minuscules (346 and 556), and most of the old Latin versions have,
"Joseph to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed begat Jesus who is called Christ,"
while the Sinaitic Syriac has, " And Joseph to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed
begat Jesus Christ." The reading of the MS. recently discovered at Oxyrhynchus
agrees with the Greek uncials.
the
10
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

tion (John
as the
home
On
42).*
of Joseph
Matthew represents Bethlehem
the other hand,
and Mary prior
no home
11
to their flight into
Luke knows
of
and
concerning the annunciation to Joseph, the
is
silent
Egypt, while
for the sacred family except that of Nazareth,

star,
the slaughter of the innocents, and the flight into Egypt.
the magi,
Matthew
omits completely the story of John the Baptist, thus causing his gospel
proper to begin with needless abruptness, were he in possession of
the source used by Luke.
Moreover, Matthew says nothing of the
annunciation to Mary, or of Mary's
and
angels
shepherds, the
the
visit to
Elizabeth
circumcision, the
nothing of the
presentation
in
the temple, the incident in the temple at the age of twelve, and the
youth spent
Now,
in Nazareth.
we take a
section from the gospel where Matthew and Luke

dependent upon their common source, Mark, we can the
better determine whether a similar dependence exists here.
Taking
the record of the second northern journey for retirement, beginning
with Matt. 16:13 and Luke 9:18, the order of events is as follows
if
are evidently
1.
...
Peter's confession
2.
Death and resurrection foretold
3.
Transfiguration
4.
The demoniac boy
MATTHEW.
5.
Death and resurrection again foretold
6.
The
7.
Discourse on humility and forgiveness
shekel in the
fish's
mouth
24-27 (Matthaean addition to
common
Comparing the
source)
chap. 18
substantial nature of this
46-50
harmony
of events with
the comparative relation of events in the infancy sections, the evidence

is
against a
common
Having made
source in the latter case.
this survey,
may be well
it
to take
up the two accounts
of the virgin birth in order to ascertain whether there
common
is
evidence of a
This
source in this particular part of the infancy sections.
involves a comparison of Matt,
18-25 with Luke
26-38 and
6, 7
and, at the same time, of both with the parallel material of the gospel
of James, in order to ascertain the value of the theory which
the
common
*
makes
it
source of the canonical stories.
This passage also indicates that the Bethlehem birth was not known in the
time of Jesus, but that
it
was a commonly accepted
fact in the apostolic age.
On
life-
the
other hand, one must admit the possibility that the information presented in John
7
42
7
may
be derived from the infancy story
Vs. 21 expunged as an interpolation.
11
itself.
12
Matthew and Luke are in harmony in their statement of the chief

that Mary was Joseph's betrothed, and prior to any sexual
intercourse on their part conceived a son by the Spirit of God, and
fact,
that such a conception was predictive of the child's future greatness.
But
in
Luke
the angel
the unborn child
who announces this wonderful

Mary in Nazareth, while
sent to
is
and names
Matthew the
fact
in
The
angel comes in a dream to Joseph, presumably in Bethlehem.
one to be born
David forever, and
particular task of the
is
represented in Luke as ruling
in Matthew as saving his people

on the throne of
from their sins. In Luke his manner of birth warrants the epithet
"God's Son," and in Matthew, "Immanuel."
The limits of the present article do not permit the insertion of the
Greek text of these three accounts in such a way as to make clear all
corresponding material, but from such an examination we are convinced that Conrady's thesis is untenable. The following extract from
the gospel of James may be compared with the Lucan and Matthsean
accounts, the verbal correspondence to
by
italics,
that to
Matthew by
Luke being roughly designated

and that to both by spaced
capitals,
type:
II.
And
she took the pitcher and went out to
fill
it
And
with water.
behold a voice saying Hail, thou who hast received grace ; the Lord is with
And she looked around
thee ; blessed art thou among women (Luke i 42).
:
on the right hand and on the left to see whence this voice came. And she
went away trembling to her house, and put down the pitcher and taking the
;
And behold, an angel of

purple she sat down on her seat and drew it out.
the Lord stood before her, saying Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor
:
before the Lord of
all,
and thou
she hearing reasoned with herself, saying

living
I
God ? and
34).
And the
shall
Shall
bring forth as every
aftgel of the
And
shall conceive according to his word.
Lord said: Not
Lord shall overshadow thee : wherefore
conceive by the Lord, the
woman
so,
Mary
brings forth
:
for the
(Luke
power of the
also that holy thing that shall be born
And thou shalt call

name Jesus, FOR HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM
THEIR SINS, And Mary said: Behold the servatit of the Lord before his
oi t\it& shall be called the son of the M.05i High.
his
face
let it be
13.
And
unto
me
according
to
thy word.
she was in her sixth month
and behold,
JOSEPH came
back
from his building, and entering into his house he DISCOVERED that she was
big WITH CHILD. And he smote his face and threw himself upon the
ground upon the sackcloth, and wept bitterly, saying With what face shall
:
look upon the Lord
my
God, and what prayer
shall
make about
this
maiden ? because I received her a virgin out of the temple of the Lord, and
I have not watched over her.
Who is it that has hunted me (her) down?
12
13
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
Who
has done this
evil thing in
Adam
not the history of
my
house and has defiled the virgin ?

For just as Adam was
in me ?
been repeated
Has
in the
hour of his singing praise, and the serpent came and found Eve alone and
And Joseph stood
it has happened to me also.
up from the sackcloth and called Mary and said unto her Oh, thou who
completely deceived her, so
and forgotten the Lord

thy God ? Why hast thou brought low thy soul, thou who wast brought up
in the holy of holies and that didst receive food from the hand of an angel ?
And she wept bitterly, saying I am innocent, and have known no man.
hast been cared for by God,
why
hast thou
done
this
And
Joseph said
she said
As
Whence then is that which is in thy womb ? And

Lord my God liveth, I do not know whence it is to me.
her
to
the
Joseph was greatly afraid, and retired from her, and considered
what he should do in regard to her. And Joseph said If I conceal her sin,
and if I expose her to the
I find myself fighting against the law of the Lord
And
14.
I am afraid lest that which is in her be from an angel, and I

found giving up innocent blood to the doom of death. What then
do with her? I will put her away from me secretly. (Matt, i 19.)
sons of Israel,
shall be
shall
came upon him; and BEHOLD, AN ANGEL OF THE LORD

APPEARS TO HIM IN A DREAM, SAYING BE NOT AFRAID for
this maiden, FOR THAT WHICH IS IN HER IS OF THE HOLY
SPIRIT, AND SHE SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, and thou shalt
call his name Jesus, FOR HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM
And
night
THEIR
God
And
ig.
AND JOSEPH AROSE FROM SLEEP
SINS.
who had given him
of Israel
I
said
am
grace
this
and
and he kept her
seeking a Hebrew midwife.
And
glorified the
she answered
And she
And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave ? * And I said A
woman betrothed to me. And she said to me Is she not thy wife ? And I
said to her: It is Mary who was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I
obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has conceived OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. (Matt, i 18, 25.) And the midwife said
And Joseph said to her Come and see. And the
Is this true ?
to him
midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and
behold, a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said
and said unto me

said
Art thou of Israel
And
said unto her: Yes.
My
mine eyes have seen strange

things
because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. (Luke i 46,
68 ff.) And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave and a great
soul has been magnified this day, because
light
shone
in the
cave so that the eyes could not bear
it.
And
in a little
and went and took

And the midwife cried out and said
that light gradually decreased until the infant appeared
the breast from his mother Mary.'
^The gospel
of
James represents
this
cave as being within three miles of Bethle-
hem.
9
Contrast Luke 2
6, 7.
13
14
And the
is a great day to me because I have seen this strange sight.
And she said
midwife went forth out of the cave and Salome met her.
Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee A virgin
to her
a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said
has brought forth
This
Salome
20.
the Lord
As
the parts,
my God
liveth, unless
will not believe that a virgin
And
the midwife went in and said to
and said Woe is me

have tempted the living God
cried out
my finger and
search
Show
thyself, for
no
put in her finger and
mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because

and behold my hand is dropping off as if
for
burned by
Mary
And Salome
small controversy has arisen about thee.
thrust in
has brought forth.
fire.
Anyone who
is
acquainted with the story-making habit, the extrava-
gant characteristics of the apocryphal literature as a whole, or even

the tendency in New Testament interpolation, cannot hold
Matthew and Luke to be deductions from this gospel of James. The
gospel of James seems rather to be the fanciful working out of the
with
canonical stories
and, while
is
it
difficult
of the birth in a cave near Bethlehem, this
to
account for the placing
may
be a creation of fancy,
the better to set off the miraculous illumination at the time of birth
or the invention
of Isa. 33
may have been
favored by the Septuagint translation
i6.'
Contrast with the above extract such samples of verbal dependence"

Matt. 3:7-10 and
as
II
24-26
Pharisees," Matt. 21
33,
Luke 3:7-9,
or
Matt.
12:43-45 and Luke
or take the threefold account of Jesus' encounter with the

:
23-27,
Mark 11:27ground in the canonical

supposing them to be dependent upon
Luke 20
and judge whether there
stories of the virgin birth for
is
1-8, derived from
sufficient
each other or upon the prolix vulgarity of the gospel of James.

the instances cited, together with such passages as
Indeed,
Mark 12:13-27,
13:5-9, and parallels, serve to indicate the true nature of verbal

dependence, and, taken with the comparison of the narratives as a
whole, to warrant the conclusion that where the virgin-birth story
appears
it is
dependence
"See
attested
of
first
by two witnesses which betray no certain sign of
one upon the other or of both upon
Westcott, Canon of the New
Testament, p. 102, note
common
source.
7.
" See HucK, Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien, p. 17, where out of the 147 words
composing the two accounts 130 are identical and arranged in the same order. For
the second example see HucK, p. 54, where out of the 126 words of the two accounts
104 are identical and in the same order. Also Rushbrook, Synopticon, pp. 136, 159.
"See HuCK, pp. 118 ff., where of some 356 words composing the three accounts
about 200 are identical and in the same order. See also Rushbrook, Synopticon,
p. 81.
14
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
15
It is now necessary, before proceeding to trace the influence of the

narratives of the virgin birth on the subsequent Christian literature, to
get as clear an idea as possible of the

earliest
forms preserved to
meaning
of the story in the
Matthew's thought seems to be that the

wonder-working Spirit of God, exclusive of human agency, caused
Mary to conceive that, by reason of this fact, she was innocent of any
wrong such as that the suspicion of which had troubled Joseph and
us.
same time such a birth, being in accord with the Immanuel

prophecy, marked the child to be born as the Messiah, the Savior of
his people, as the one spoken of in Isa., chaps. 7 and 8, to be the
deliverer of his nation in the impending war.
Thus the application
of the prophetic and symbolic expression " Immanuel " was not for the
that at the
purpose of designating the nature of the child, but rather his work,
which was to be national and messianic. The result of the nation's

sins was always the withdrawal of God
but the Messiah would lead
them in righteousness and save them from that abandoning by God
which was at the same time the result of their sins and the cause of
;
their
impotence and subjection.
The term "Immanuel,"
then,
the
is
prophetic and symbolic designation for Savior; but that it soon came
to be used as designating the divine nature of Christ will appear from
the study of the patristic literature.
The meaning
of Luke's account of the virgin birth
perhaps, but, like Matthew's,
is
not so clear,
any attempt to explain the

divine nature of Jesus upon the basis that God, and not a human
In reply to Mary's question (i 34), the angel
father, was his begetter.
is
destitute of
says
"
Holy
overshadow
Son
of
Spirit shall
thee and power of Highest shall
thee, therefore also the begotten thing shall be called holy,
God."
In other words, the pure Spirit of
to conceive miraculously,
of any
come upon
human
begetter,
and
thus, in contrast to
who would be
in the angel's
annunciation
\\lq.
will
cause
is
pure.
the purity of
Mary
polluted offspring
a sinful descendant of
the child shall he pure as the begetting Spirit
element
God
This
Adam,
one
is
the child through
Holy Spirit and the breaking of the line of sinful

The other is that the creative power of God is to act
creation, as it did in that of Adam, the first man, who
the action of the
Adam's
descent.
directly in this
God
because of his direct creation by

"the son of
Adam,
the son of
God
").
is
called God's son
{c/.
38,
In like manner shall this one,
whose holiness is secured by the breaking of the sinful Adamic descent,

be termed Son of God because directly created by divine power.
This is undoubtedly the dasis for the use of the term " Son of God "
15
16
in this passage
but has the term no larger content than that which
applies equally to Adam ? There are two other possibilities first, that it
is equivalent to " Messiah ;" and, second, that it designates moral like:
In support of the former contention
ness to God.
Luke
out that this passage in
and
and
33,
is
also in the psalms interspersed
can be pointed
it
clearly messianic, as
is
seen in vss. 32
throughout the narrative.
Moreover, the probable use of the term " Son of God " as a messianic
16 (but not in Mark 3:11; 5:7;
title can be appealed to in Matt. 16
:
nor in Luke 3:22; 4

39
designates moral likeness to God
15
For the view that
it
can be shown that the thought
is
3, 9
it
35).
made parallel to the preceding thought of purity and is brought

harmony with the Jewish conception of the original purity of
Adam, avoiding at the same time a use of the term " Son of God " which
thus
into
cannot with certainty be attributed to any part of the

except
its
Adopting any one

there
is
New Testament
latest elements.
of these three possible interpretations, however,
in the passage
no explanation
of the divine nature of Jesus
on
the basis of divine parentage, but at most only a statement and partial
explanation of his purity (in Matthew more specifically an exoneration
and in Luke of the purity of Jesus

and
a prophecy of his greatness as
from the hereditary
accounts
have the national mestheocratic
representative.
Both
the
them
is
there
represented an incarbut
in
neither
of
coloring,
sianic
of the purity of Mary's conception,
Adamic
sin),
nation of a pre-existent being, such as
The
to John's
"Immanuel" and "Son
ture,
of
is
set forth
deductions
natural
gospel.
God"
in
the prologue
made from
the
terms
by the subsequent Christian
litera-
and the embarrassing attempts
to
harmonize the synoptists with
the prologue of the fourth gospel, will be pointed out in the next
section.
Passing from the infancy sections, we find no use of them (unless

possibly John
42) or of the virgin birth prior to Ignatius, in the
The narrative of the virgin

made no impression upon the exponents of
second decade of the second century.

birth,
if
in
existence,
and
Christianity prior to the formation
crystallization of the preaching
New Testament
no trace of it in
and Paul, though it would seem
gospel, or, indeed, within the period in which the
books
most
of
them,
at least
arose.
Peter's preaching, as preserved to us
that he could have
made
serves a significant silence

'3.
g., I
Cor. 15:45
ff.;
occasional
;
There
good use
is
of the teaching," pre-
Matthew's gospel, from
2 Cor.
5:21
16
Rom.
5: 12
f.;
8:3;
on, depending
Phil.
2:6
ff.;
<?/
a/.
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

upon Mark, is also silent and that portion
which, as we judge from i 2 and Acts i 21,
;
the gospel proper,
viz.,
17
What
time of
Luke
him
that which began, like Mark, with the public
any trace of the virgin-birth
silent.'"
of
22, constituted for
ministry of Jesus as inaugurated by John the Baptist,

tute of
gospel
of the
story.
is
The gospel
likewise destiof
John
is
also
these facts signify as to the source of the story and the
not the task of this essay, which passes to consider
its rise is
the history of the thought as traceable in the patristic literature.

II.
THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS.
In entering upon a study of the ante-Nicene Fathers in their treat-
ment
of the virgin birth,
we
are interested to
know what
sources they
upon
becomes discoverable.
used, what was the influence of extra-canonical sources
and the time when
views,
this influence
their
It is
also desirable to ascertain what sources the so-called heretical teachers
and
and what various theories of the virgin birth were

and also to determine what the Fathers understood
the virgin birth to mean, and what theological purpose they made it
With a view to answering these questions, and conscious of the
serve.
fact that in the absence of any New Testament interpretation, save the
meager hints of the infancy sections themselves, the interpretation of
the Fathers became and remained the interpretation of the church at
large, the study of this vast and not always interesting field is underwriters used,
advanced by them
taken.
Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch,'^ martyred between 107 and
I.
is the first and sole apostolic Father to leave us any material

on the miraculous generation of Jesus. Not only so, but all the apostolic Fathers, save Ignatius and Aristides, in the Syriac version of his
Apology, maintain a uniform and notable silence concerning the story
In Clement of Rome, Polycarp,
of the birth and infancy of Jesus.
Epistle
Diognetus, and the Shepherd of
Didache,
the
to
Barnabas, the
either to the miraculous
any
reference
look
in
vain
for
Hermas we
conception itself or to the infancy story of which the miraculous con-
117 A.D.,
ception was the most striking feature.

It is true that in Clement, Epistles, 1:32, there is an obscure reference to the descent of Jesus Christ from Jacob (?) according to the
is
'< That the gospel narratives are quite oblivious to the fact of the virgin birth
most obvious in such passages as Matt. 13 54-58 = Mark 6 1-6; Luke 4:22;
:
same time the infancy section

present an apparently uniform statement, Luke 2 33, 41, 43, 48.
John
45
42
5,
27; while at the
'SEUSEBIUS, Church History, Books
III,
17
XXII, and XXXVI.
itself
does not
18
flesh,
but the obscurity of the passage and
Rom.
probable derivation from
its
5 leave the writings of Clement destitute of any reference to
Moreover,
the infancy sections.
no occasion
it is
not as
if
the apostolic Fathers had
to use the story of the virgin birth of Jesus
for
Polycarp
3, "Whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is Anti-Christ," and in chap.
12 he maintains that Jesus is the Son of God; yet in both these
places, where it would be natural and in keeping with the custom of
in his Epistle, chap. 7, quotes
so
many
John 4
of the ante-Nicene writers to refer to the infancy story, he
is
silent.
Likewise in Barnabas, chap.
6,
while there
is
purpose of the incarnation, a similar silence

of
a
God
therefore
came
sins
The same
statement of how and
is
for
who had persecuted
he might bring to
his (their)
true of Diognetus, chap.
what purpose
God
and
"The Son
maintained.
in the flesh with this view, that
head the sum of their
to the death."
is
a reference to the fact
is
prophets
where there
7,
sent his Son, and in
Word and mention

Son appear, but without reference to the infancy
story.
The Shepherd has no reference to Matthew's gospel prior to
the Sermon on the Mount, and none to Luke's prior to the eleventh
chapter.
Neither has the Didache any reference to Matthew prior to
chap. 5, or to Luke prior to chap. 6.
Ignatius has nothing to
chaps. ID and 11, where John's doctrine of the

of the only-begotten
say about gospels, but mentions only the gospel which

of Jesus Christ,
whom
he accepts in place of
all
that
is
an account
ancient and
is
8), and which, with one exception (Rom.,

John 6:51), seems to coincide with the gospel as we
authoritative {Philad., chap.
chap.
have
7,
it
referring to
in
Matthew.
The Ignatian
controversy,'* extending
from 1495
to the present
time, has succeeded in thoroughly discrediting the longer
Greek recen-
sion with the eight additional epistles, including the three in Latin.
It
has also pointed toward the conclusion that the Syriac version of the
epistles
to
Polycarp,
accepted epistles
itself is
and Romans
Ephesians,
and
but
an
that the genuineness of this shorter
not in every respect beyond question.
the text which
is
imperfect
from the shorter Greek form of the seven usually
series of extracts
The
free
Greek form
tampering with
makes against the high valuation of the later Fathers as

to some degree the patristic
textual evidence, necessarily discounts
'^LiGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers, S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp, Vol. I, pp.

315-414; Theodosius Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien. For bibliography see
ScHAFF, History of Christian Church, Vol.
II, pp. 652, 653.
18
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
19
writings which deal with the supernatural birth.
degree
Ignatius awakens
a later time
little
or
But to
what
just
In the shorter Greek version, however,
difficult to ascertain.
is
no suspicion
of reflecting the thought of
he rather exhibits the pre-theological naivete natural to
and his teaching, if he were a disciple of Paul or Peter or

His reference to the supernatural birth of Christ is that of
unquestioning and unphilosophic statement. In Eph., chap. 7 (I,
his time
John.
he says that Jesus Christ
52),'^
ingenerate
he says
(son) both of
"For our God,"
by Mary, according
"
and
and
In chap. 18
God,
(I,
human form
in chap. 20 the
explain his being Son of
manner
"
And hidden
Mary and her
child-
regarded as "
is
God
for the renewal of eternal
of Christ's generation
man and Son
57)
womb
of the seed of David,
in chap. 19 (I, 57)
world were the virginity of
this
and
of spirit, generate
of God.'"^
to a dispensation of
himself being manifested in

*"
and
flesh
In the same chapter the incarnation
bearing.""-
life,"
"of
Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the
but also of the Holy Spirit
from the prince of
is
Mary and
of God.'^
is
taken to
In Smyrn., chap.
perhaps as full a statement as any: "He was

David according to the flesh, and the Son of God
according to the will and power of God. He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him."^^
From Magnesians, chap. 1 1, we learn that the birth, passion, and resI
(I,
86),
there
is
truly of the seed of
'7
The
American reprint of the Edinburgh ediScribner,

by A. C. CoxE, D.D. New York
citations in parentheses refer to the
tion of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, revised
1899.
'
Ignatius, Ephesians, VII,
Ers larpds iffnv <rapKiK6s re Kal TrveufMTiKbs, yevvi]-
rbi Kal ay^vvtjroi, iv crapKl yfv6fj.vos debs, iv davdrit) ûij d\i]div^, Kal Ik Maplas Kal iK
The
$0v.
longer version amplifies
part of
Maplai
Ephesians, XVIII, 2
Kar'' olKovop.lav OeoO iK
" /did., XIX,

TOKerbs airrjs
Word was made
XIX,
'3 /did.,
XX,
Kal vi^ 6eo0
'0 ykp Oebs

fiiv
quoting
tifiuv 'Itjo-ous 6 Xpiffrbs iKvo<pop-^9ri
Aa^ld, irve^fiaros dk ayiov
Ka2 tXaOev rbv Apxovra rov alQvos To&rov
GeoO dvOpwirlvas
fj
irapdevla
(pavepovfjLivov els Kat-vbriâ dXSlov
iv Irjffov XpiffT^, rip
Maplas Kal 6
Kara ffdpKa iK yivovs
Aa/325,
fw^s*
r^
vl(p
dvdpdwov
k, t. X.
Ignatius, Smyrn.,
$i\-r)IM Kal
avipfMros
flesh."
this,
k. t. X.
'"Ibid.,
**
quoting, " For the
idid., 20,
Ignatius,
inrb
this,
and Trail., 9. The longer version amplifies

the Immanuel prophecy of Isa. 7:14.
*'See also
d\ri0Qs 6vTa iK yivovs Aa^ld Karh irdpKa, vibv 0eov kotA
S^va/Mv deov yeyevrjp.ivov dXij^ws iK Trap0ivov, êâTrurpAvov iirb 'luivvov
ipa ir'Kijpud^ irdaa diKaioaivri vir' avroO
19
20
and an
urrection constitute a trio of vital items in the Christian faith
odd passage in Trail., chap. 9, speaks of " Jesus Christ who was from
;
the race of David,
From
who was
the son of Mary."^^
one may learn something of the
material
spurious
the
trend and extent which the more inventive Christian literature soon
assumed in order to combat Doceticism, Patripassianism, and various

forms of the Gnostic heresy. From the material cited and quoted
above at least the outstanding features of Ignatius's belief touching
the virgin birth
was conceived
composed
may be
of flesh
He
ascertained.
womb
in the
and part
Mary
of
of spirit
believed
(2)
(3) the
(i)
Christ
that
part
that
him was
of
former generate, the
ingenerate; (4) the former derived of Mary, the latter of God

he was of Davidic descent (6) that his mother was a virgin
latter
(5) that
and (7)
that the fact of her as a virgin bearing a child was, with some other
essential Christian truths, hidden from the prince of this world.
;
It will
sophical,
1:
be seen
it
is
of
is
unphilo-
nevertheless not so simple as that contained in Matt.
18-25 and Luke
Power
statement of the matter
that, while this
i:
There the thought
26-38.
God coming upon Mary
apart from any agency; and, while
it is
that the Spirit or
Luke
true that
a consequent characteristic of the son to be born,

so far as to affirm
is
causes her to conceive directly and
the dual nature of Christ
it
i:
35 points out
by no means goes
upon the
basis of the
announced miraculous conception.

In concluding
this
study of Ignatius,
(3)
will
be adhered to in the case of each writer with

I.
important to point out
whom we
have to deal.
In so far as Ignatius reproduces or uses the story of the virgin
birth or of the infancy, he
beyond those contained

in
it is
what are his sources, (2) what was his understanding of them, and
what increment he makes to the study; and this order of summary
(t)
shows no knowledge of any events or facts

Here, as uniformly
in the canonical gospels.
his writings, the facts are
accounted for by his use of a gospel cor-
responding to our Matthew, unless he also
reflects, as shall
be pointed
something of the influence of the Johannine prologue. His

emphasis upon the star in Eph., chap. 19, is only a rhetorical adornout,
ment
2.
of
what
It is
is
in the
Matthaean source.
very clear that Ignatius makes the dual parentage the basis
of the dual nature of Jesus
and
it is
almost as clear that he predicates
pre-existence for the divine element in the nature
representation
*5
Ignatius,
of the matter
Trail.,
IX
is
of Jesus.
His
not thoroughly uniform, however, for
tqv Ik yivov$ Aa^lS, rod iK Mapfas.
20
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

in
Eph., chap. i8
new
(I,
57),
he seems
21
represent the creation of a
to
Matthew and Luke, while over against this must be

placed the thought of Eph., chap. 7 (I, 52) and chap. 19 (I, 57), where
the idea of the divine and increate one being manifested in human
form argues some sort of a pre-existence doctrine, based possibly upon
being, as do
the teaching of the fourth gospel.
This very hint of the presence and influence of teaching similar
3.
and Ignatius's rather artless and unstudied

way which modifies the synoptic accounts of the
virgin birth, constitute a new element in the study, and one which is
no less important than his advance upon the infancy sections themselves, when he makes the dual nature of Jesus dependent upon his
to that of John's prologue,
statement of
it
dual parentage.
in a
Ignatius also gives evidence of an incipient apolo-
getic or polemic cast in such a
passage as Smyrn., chap. 4, where he

ground from under those who would say aught against the
peculiar manner of Jesus' birth and similarly vital doctrines of
Christianity, by saying virtually that these matters have been hidden
from Satan, and consequently from them, his followers. Also in
7>a//., chap. 9, his emphasis upon the fact
that Jesus Christ "was
truly born and did eat and drink" indicates the unwelcomed existence
of some form of Docetic doctrine.
II. Aristides {Apology presented
to Caesar Titus Hadrianus
cuts the
^'^
Antoninus, 138 A. D., or shortly thereafter). The statement in the

previous section that, with the exception of Ignatius, the apostolic
Fathers preserve a uniform silence regarding the virgin birth hardly
needed the qualification there given. In the second chapter of the
Apology (IX, 265) the Syriac, in defining the Christian theology or

philosophy as distinct from that of the Barbarians (Egyptians), Greeks,
and Jews, says " And it is said that God came down from heaven, and
:
from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh and the
Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel,
as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them."''
;
'**0s &\rtdCi%
.
A^V
,-,
V*^XD
'
A..
>o,-05
iyevvi/i6ri, icpa'yiv
re Kal fwiev.
JM^ ^v |ô^^
^csi
_ifio
Uj-ius ,_^^|?oi
: )
*SnA>
.jai^]?
21
,_^ Isi^l
oij^
i-J]
^-*J?
ZJ..SLS
j^jiîoo
iô
*'
.jjJia
22
The
Syriac version gives evidence of being an early and expansive
Although the passage here

in the Greek, it no doubt
In
represents an early second-century and possibly Antiochian belief.
paraphrase of the genuine Greek text.*^

quoted has nothing corresponding to
it
document
tracing the doctrine of the virgin birth, this Syriac
admitted in evidence, but the interrogation point as to
is
to be
exact
date
must be retained. Now, this Syriac interpolation states three things:

(i) that God came down from heaven and took his abode in a Hebrew
virgin from whom he assumed flesh (2) that in this state he is the
Son of God and (3) that this belief is a part of the gospel recently
;
among
preached
the Christians.
1.
It is clear that Aristides
2.
He
used John and Matthew or Luke.

deity of him who was born of
states the pre-existence as
Mary, and who, being born of Mary, is also Son of God but he
nowhere indicates how he relates these two conceptions to each other.
;
The
virgin birth
3.
This
is
is
distinctly an incarnation.
a decided divergence from the two synoptic accounts,
and also an advance upon, and an alteration

which sets forth an incarnation of the Word.
in Ignatius
became
of,
the teaching of John,
What was dimly present

Aristides, who attempted to fuse
clearly defined in
the philosophy of John's prologue with the
a misinterpretation of
story of the miraculous birth
the first and third gospels.

Thus
beyond what is taught in the gospels
in
Aristides denaturalized the birth
or in Ignatius.
III.
rial
Justin Martyr^ (about 110-66 A. D.). The extant matebearing on the virgin birth is found, with one excep-
of Justin
tion, in his first
The genuand the fragment
Apology and in the Dialogue with Trypho.
ineness of these works
is
practically
beyond doubt
on the Resurrection, from which the only other reference is taken,

It has seemed best to deal with
I think, be proved spurious.
this rather voluminous material under five heads: (i) we shall consider those passages which state the fact of the virgin birth, and insepa-
cannot,
rably connected with these
we
shall
find certain phrases or clauses
(2) we shall notice the

Trypho the Jew confronts such a theory (3) the
use of Greek theology or mythology (4) Justin's appeal to and use of
prophecy (5) we shall note some concessions granted by this eminent
champion of the Christian faith.
expressing the purpose of this
kind of birth
problems with which
^^See Texts
and Studies,
Vol.
I,
No.
i.
=9EusEBius, Church History, Books IV, VIII, XII, XVI-XVIII.
22
THE VIRGIN BIETH

The passages which make
1.
178); Dialogue, 23
(I,
the simple statement that he was born
God
of a virgin by the power of
23
are: Apology,
206), 105 (1,251), 113
Those which add some expression
(I,
I,
32
255),
(I,
174), 46
and 127
(I,
(I,
263).
purpose of the virgin birth
as to the
of those who believe on

"serpent" and his angels, to
disdain death, and to finally do away with it; and Dial., 100 (I, 249),
containing an explanation of the term "Son of man," because of
Jesus' birth by Mary or his descent from Adam through Mary; also a
statement of the purpose as follows
ApoL, 1,63
are:
him;"
(I,
184), "for the salvation
Dial., 45 (I, 217), to destroy the
He became man by the Virgin in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in
which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin, and undefiled, having
conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But
Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced the
good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the
power of the Highest would overshadow her; wherefore the holy thing
begotten of her is the Son of God and she replied, Be it unto me according
And by her has he been born to whom we have proved so
to thy word.
many scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those
angels and men who are like him but works deliverance from death to those
who repent of their wickedness and believe upon him.^"
the virgin
work
Mary
to that of Eve is met with

theme with the Fathers, however, and will reappear frequently in more elaborate form.^'
(i) the distinctively
2. The problems raised by Trypho are twofold
Jewish difficulty of how there can be another god besides the maker of
all things, chap. 50 (I, 220), and (2) the difficulty of showing that this
This
antithesis
here for the
first
the
of
time.
It is
of
a favorite
30
Justin Martvr, Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaea, C

5i' fjt 6$o0 ij iirb roO 6<peus vapaKO^
ivdpuiros yeyov^vai, Xva Kal

Tai^TTjj
T^j odov Kal KardXvfftv Xd^rj.
Kol
5ti t^j Uap64vov
dpx^"
ttjv
Xa/3e, Kal 8ia
Hapdivoi yap o5(Ta Eia Kal i(pdopos, rbv \6yov rbv
avh rod 6<pws avWaPovffa, irapaKO^v Kal ddvarov ireKC. Ulariv 5k Kal x^-pdv XaôOaa
Mapla 1) napd^vos, eiiayyeXiôfiivov avr^ Fo/Spt^X dyyôv, Sri Ilvevfia Kvpiov ^tt' avrrjv
ireXeifferai, Kal dvvafus 'T^/ctou iiriffKidaei avr^v.
iffTtvTlhs Oeov, direKplvaro,

vr)Tai oCtos, irepl
Kal
Toiis
"F^voitA
(jloi.
dib Kal
Kara t6 p^nd
o5 tAs TOffaCras Tpa<f>di diredelâp-ev
bfiotudivras dyyiXovs Kal dpdpuirovs KaraXiei.
uerayivdffKovaiv dirb
tQv
<pai\(i)v
Kal TnaTtiovaiv
et'i
rd yevvdipxvov e| avriis &yi6v
troi^."
Kal
eipijiTdai, Si'
did Tavrrji yeyiv-
o5 6 debs rbv re
6(f>iv
'A7raXXa77jv 5^ toO davdrov rots
avrbv ipydêrat.
" Resurrection,"
3' There is a spurious passage,
3 (I, 295), which states from the
ascetic standpoint the purpose of Christ's peculiar birth: "And our Lord Jesus Christ
was born
of a virgin, for
no other reason than that he might destroy the begetting by
lawless desire, and might show to the rulers that the formation of
to
God
without
human
intervention."
23
man was
possible
24
second pre-existent
God
submitted to be born of a virgin, chaps. 50, 63
The Jews expected that when their

and chap. 68 (I, 252).
In answer to these
Christ came he would be " man born of men."
two objections, Justin makes an appeal to the prophecy purporting to
relate to John the Baptist and the two advents of Christ; and, to
establish his pre-existence and divinity, makes use of the account of
how God (who was not God the Father) appeared to Moses and other
Hebrew patriarchs, and of how the plural of the deity is used in the
(I,
228),
Trypho
account of creation.
vinced on the
first
according to Justin's account, con-
is,
point more easily than a
modern reader would
be,
but on the second he maintains his ground in spite of the apologist's

use of Isa. 53:8; Ps.
He
17.
Jesus,
10
3,
and the Immanuel passage,
who,
God upon
if
Christ at
all,
7:10-
Isa.
human
Ebionites of a thoroughly
prefers to think with the
was made so by the descent of the Spirit of
him.
the argument from Greek

3. The passages which make use of
mythology fall into two classes (i) those which favor the virgin birth
on the basis of the Greek parallels; and (2) those which emphasize
the distinction between the Christian story and those of the Greeks,
showing to advantage the chaste and exalted nature of the former.
Passages of the first sort are ApoL, I, 21 and 22 (I, 170)
:
Word who is the first-birth (first-born) of God

was produced without sexual union .... we propound nothing different from
what you believe regarding those whom you esteemed sons of Jupiter. For
you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribe to Jupiter.^* And
if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner,
And when we
say that the
from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary

And if
who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God
we affirm that he was bom of a virgin, accept this in common with what you
different
thing to you,
accept of Perseus.
But
it
should be noted that in chap. 67 Trypho maintains that
Justin should be
propounding a story similar to that of

So that the parallel to Greek
Trypho's estimation a further condemnation of the
ashamed
of
the mythology regarding
mythology
is
in
virgin-birth story.
makes
little
Perseus.
farther on. Dial., chap. 70
(I,
234), Justin
a very ingenious turn of the mythological argument,
assert-
ing that these Greek stories were concocted by Satan, the simulator, on
the basis of the prophecies that foretold the virgin birth.
3' I,
21
T(p 5^ KoX rhv A6701', 6
rifids yeyevTJffOai.
n^cous yap
uioi^s
oi)
iffri
wapa, Toi)s
(fxiaKovai tov At6s oi
.g.
"
And
irpwrov y^vvrj/xa toD deov, dvev iwifiL^las (pdffKeiv
ira/)'
Trap''
vfiiv \fyofjL^vovs vioiis

{ifuv Tip.wiJ.evoi
24
t^ Ad
Kaiv6v ri
avyypa<pus iiriaTaaOe.
(p^pofjiev.
THE VIRGIN BIETH

when
Trypho, said
hear,
understand
I,
that Perseus was begotten of a virgin,
deceiving
the
that
serpent
The outstanding passage which

heathen stories
But
is
ApoL,
I,
33
25
counterfeited
also
from the
differentiates the Christian
(I,
this."^^
174):
some, not understanding the prophecy now cited, should charge

us with the very things we have been laying to the charge of the poets, who
lest
say that Jupiter went in to

words.
women through
"Behold a
This, then,
us try to explain the
lust, let
virgin shall conceive," signifies that a virgin
should conceive without intercourse
for
if
she had had intercourse with any-
one whatever, she was no longer a virgin but the Power of God having
come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to
;
And
conceive.
the angel of
God who was
same time brought her good news,

therefore, to understand the Spirit
who
than the Word,
sent to this
same
and the Power
of
virgin
at the
It is
wrong,
"
saying, " Behold, etc
God
as anything else
also the first-born of God, as the aforesaid prophet
is
Moses declared
and it was
overshadowed her, caused her
this
which, when
to conceive, not
it came upon the virgin and

by intercourse, but by power. ^^
Certainly this passage makes for a high appreciation of Justin's

insight
and
rectly,
rigidly
He
discretion.
excluding
Greek mythology
draws from Luke and interprets him corany idea of intercourse. He repudiates
being in any way his own explanation of the
as
gin birth, although he has used
as
it
silence the inconsistent carpings of his gentile opponents.
the Spirit, the Power, the
Word, and the Son
onymous
this basis
of
and upon
terms,
John and Luke.

is one
vir-
an argumentum ad hominem to
of
God
Moreover,
are for
him syn-
he attempts an ingenious harmony
repudiation of the Greek mythological

most creditable elements in his apology
Whether the Christian conception be right
Justin's
explanation
of the
touching the virgin birth.
or not, Justin has, in so far as he represents the early second-century
thought, freed
'^Dial.:
rovTo
Oraf
Ottojj 5^
fji-^
eveKoX^ffa/jLev ToTi
irapOdvos.
TLvei
iffTi,
cIjj
TT]v irapa
and has
/cat
6(piv ffwitj/xi.
vo^ffavres rr)v deo-qXunivrjv irpO(j>r)Telav, e-yKoKiawcnv rjfuv airep

elTrovaiv
T6
deov iireKdovira
Kal
oSu, 'I5oi>
E/ yap
ttj
i)
irapd^vos iv yacrrpl ^|et,
Trapdivcp
iireffKlaffev
evryYyeKiffaro avTrjv eiTTiiv

vorjirai
Maji}(7^s 6 n-podedrjXu/j.ivos irpocpriT-qs
dXXd
Idov
rrji'
.
ffijiuilvei.
oi
en
T/u
inrb otovoOv, oiiK
i(Tvvov<n.6.ad7)
6 a7ro(TTa\h 8i irpbs avTTjV
tov Oeov ovSiv 8.\\o
Kal iiTLcrKidcrav ov Sia avvovaias,
X^P'-" iXijXvOivai iirl yvvaiKas tov ALa,
d(ppodi(riwi'
napdivov (rvWaêiv.
SvvaiJiLi
stories,
'^pixpwv^ td^r^v. ck waoQivov yeyevvrjadai rbv Ylepcria aKovaoi,
firi
ireiroiTjKe.
Kaipov dyyeXos 6eov,

dtJvafjLiv
tS
irotijTaty
ttjv
dWa
trapdivov oûav
5^,
\6yovs ireipaaw/xeffa.
8ia(Ta(f>i]craL roiis
<rvvov<n,a,ffdeiffa.v
from the grossness of similar heathen
tov irXavov
fiifirjcraffOaL
5''
it
avTijv, koX
Kvo(f>opTJ<rai
irapdivov (car' iKetvo rev
Td
IlveCfjLa
oSv Kal rrjv
^ tov A.(iiyov, $s Kal Tr/jwriro/cos Tip deip

Kai tovto 4\6bv iTrl ttjv vapdivov
ifiiiwae.
0ifj.LS,
5id Si/yd/xews iyKrjfiova /car^cTTT/o-e.
25
26
preserved
his
in
own more
language much of the chaste
explicit
No
quality of the gospel narratives themselves.
more sane than
this, unless,
indeed,
it
part of his apology
be the concessions which,
Trypho and men
the practical purpose of winning
of
his
kind, he
is
for
is
willing to make.
As
4. Justin makes a large and questionable use of prophecy.
would be expected, the chief appeal is to the Immanuel passage in
chap.
Isa.,
7,
generation"
"He
but there
(Isa.,
is
hath washed his
also a
reference to
"Who
shall
declare his
and a peculiar use of Gen. 49:11:

garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of
chap.
53),
grapes."
In ^/^/.,
tion) was
see
its
I,
33
made
fulfilment,
(I,
174), Justin asserts that the prophecy (predicto strengthen the faith of those who should
in order
and
insists that the
term "virgin"
(Trapê'vos)
precludes
the possibility of intercourse in the generation of the child referred to.
In Dial., chaps. 42 (I, 216), 66
(I,
231), 71 (I, 234),
and 84
(I,
241), he
recognizes and denies the Jewish contention that the prophecy refers
TrapOivo's) used in the
Hezekiah and that the term (LXX
y\
prophecy means simply a young woman. He takes up the more constructive part of his argument in chaps. 77 and 78 (I, 237, 238).
to
By
somewhat minute and decidedly parabolic
interpretation, he
attempts to show that the prophecy refers to Christ rather than to Hezekiah.
of his
This predictive scripture called Herod king of Assyria because

Christ, before he was old enough to call
ungodly character.
father or mother, received the
who came
power
Damascus through the magi
of
with their gifts from Arabia
while Samaria represents the
birth of Christ the magi

demon, to whom
Christ
alone the other specific
were in bondage. Thus in the birth of
fulfilled,
and therefore
are
notably
predictions of the prophecy
virgin
birth.
It is pointed
foretold
argument
for
the
strengthen the
it
would
have
(I,
that
been no
chap.
in
Dial.,
out, further,
241),
84
born
ordinary
been
by
generareferred
to
had
the
child
sign at all if
in
keeping
with
birth
is
the
manner
of
the
peculiar
that
tion, and
creative function of the Word of God, who made Eve from Adam's
power
of the
prior to the
and in the beginning created all living beings apart from parentage.
Leaving the Immanuel passage, we may get further light as to
Justin's use of Scripture from the following quotations. Dial., chap.
rib,
54
(I, 222):
That the Scripture mentions the blood of the grape (Gen. 49:11) has
been evidently designed because Christ derives blood, not from the seed of
26
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

man, but from the power
of
God.
27
For as God, and not man, has produced
the blood of the vine, so also (the Scripture) has predicted that the blood of
Christ would be, not of the seed of man, but of the
prophecy,
sirs,
which
repeat, proves that Christ
is
power
not
God.
of
man
of
But this
men, begotten
in the ordinary course of humanity.'^
The passage
"Who
then which Isaiah records,
shall declare his genera-
For his life is taken from the earth," does it not appear to yOu to refer
to one who, not having descent from man, was said to be delivered ov.er to
death by God, for the transgressions of the people ? Of whose blood, Moses,
tion
when speaking
the grape
in parable, said that
he would wash his garments
in the
blood of
since his blood did not spring from the seed of man, but from the
And
then what is said by David (Ps. 110:3): In the splendors

have I begotten thee from the womb, before the morning star.
The Lord hath sworn and will not repent. Thou art a priest forever, after
the order of Melchizedek.
Does this not declare to you that (he was) from
of old, and that the God and Father of all things intended him to be begotten by a human womb ? 3*
will of
God.
of thy holiness
Perhaps no comment need be made upon Justin's use of Scripture.

It is
New Testament
very evident that the
narratives
had not
in
his
time obtained for themselves the standing of the Old Testament writings
therefore he
upon the
the necessity of basing his Apology
felt
ancient, authoritative,
" Scripture.
and " inspired
The
violence of his
interpretation was not violence in those days, but rather ingenuity,

and " spiritual," rather than historical, insight.
The final
ability,
upon the mind of the reader, however, is that of respect

method of Trypho and the Jewish school, and of
regret that the great Greek apologist for the Christian faith should be so
far afield from a just and historical interpretation of the Old Testament.
impression
left
for the interpretative
^^Dial.: Ti Sk
olfM
fikv
fh,p rp&irov rb ttjs dfnrdXov aXp.a
XpttTToO
al/j.a
(3
^^ Dialogue,
7}
chap. 63
irMveiv
aip-aros,
ecpT],
tQv dvdpihvwv
(I,
fw^ auroO," ov
rdj dvonlas rod XaoO
Muaijs TOV
iyivv7]<Tev,
dW
&v8pes, ijv eXeyov, dirobeiKviet.
dvdpdnrwv, /card rb Koivbv
did,
ovk &vdpwiTo$
OVK i^ dvOpwirelov yivovs iffeaOai,
jrpo(p7}Tela avrrj,
dirb TTJS yijs
rbv X^vor, 5ti
alfia ttjs <TTa<l>v\r]s elireiv
o X/jtcrrij ovk i^ dvdptJjirov air^pfiaros, dXX' iK
ex
us
els
228, 229):
doKei
cot,
rod 6eov
aWa,
debs,
dvvd/jLeus.
oCik
*0v
oIjtus Kal rb tov
iK Oeov dwd/xeus, vpoefi'^vvcrev.

&ti
iariv 6 X/Jtoris
'H
5^
ivOpuiros i^
yevvrjdels.
oôO
"T771' 7;'ed'
tCs Siijyi^ffeTai
6ti aiperai
XeX^x^<" ^^ ovk i^ dvOpuiruv exorros rb yivos tov
ddvarov irapaSeSbffOai
irpo4<j)rjt>, aXfiaTi.
ZeSifKoiKev, Sri
rrji rixvi)%
riji
elprjfiivov inrb
tov deov
aTa(pv\ijs, iv irapaôXy elirdiv,
tt]i>
vepl ov Kal
<jto\^v o-vtov
us tov aifxaTos avrov ovk ^| dvdpuirelov ffw4pfxa.T0S yeyevvrjuivov, dXX' ^*c

Kai rd inrb Aa^lS eiprjfiiva, '"E;* rats \anTrp6Tr](ri tuv dyiuv ffov iK
OeX-^naTos Oeov.
yacTTpbs irpb iuffcpSpov iyivvT)<Td

els
ere.
îxotre Ki/ptos koI
Tbv aluva Kard ttjv tA^lv MeXx'ceS^K," ov
crTjualvei.
dvBpuxelas 6 debs Kal IlaTTjp tQv S\uv yevvacOai. airbv
27
ov fierafiiXri
vp.iv
^Tjcrerai.
cii lepei>s
6ti Avudev, Kal 5id yaarpbs
e/tteXXe.
28
if the scriptural argument were the whole of

and represented the sum total of his thought regarding the virgin birth. As has been already indicated, he shows himself
But
5.
not as
it is
Justin's Apology,
perhaps wiser in his concessions than in his assertions. It is true that

these concessions are demanded by Trypho, chaps. 67 (I, 231) and 49
(I,
who
219),
put Justin to shame for upholding a story similar
tries to
to that of the birth of Perseus
from Danae:
ashamed when you make assertions similar to

And if
theirs, and rather should say that this Jesus was born man of men.
you prove from the Scriptures that he is the Christ, and that on account of
having led a life conformed to the law and perfect, he deserved the honor
And you ought
to feel
be Christ, (it is well) but do not venture to tell monstrous

you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks. '^
of being elected to
phenomena,
was probably
It
it
lest
in reply to
such demands as
this that Justin
found
possible to separate the question of the divinity of Christ from that
manner
of the
and to fall back upon the character and

more tenable apologetic ground than that of his
of his birth,
ability of Jesus as a
ApoL,
peculiar generation.
Moreover, the Son
I,
22
[generation], yet on account of his
God
God
for all writers call
In chap. 48
170)
wisdom
the Father of
219) there
(I,
(I,
of God, called Jesus, even
is
is
if
man by
only a
worthy
to
ordinary
be called the Son of
men and gods.*
another very remarkable
passage
of
concession, and one which indicates that in Justin's time there were
Christians who,
if
among
standing
judgment was
his
their
at all representative,
were
in
good
brethren, while denying the miraculous and
asserting the full natural birth of Christ
Now
assuredly, Trypho,
does not
fail,
though
continued, that this
man
is
the Christ of
God
be unable to prove that he existed formerly as Son of
But
of all things, being God, and was born man by the virgin.
have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever he
be, even if I do not prove that he pre-existed, and submitted to be born a
man of like passions with us, having a body according to the Father's will
in this last matter alone it is just to say that I have erred, and not to deny
that he is the Christ, though it should appear that he was born man of man,
the
Maker
since
37
67
KaJ
vfxeh to. aiiTo, iKeivois X^yovres, aidi?(r6ai 60dXere, Kal
e| dvdpuTTicj' yevd/j-evov X^Yeiv rbv Irja-ovv tovtov.
/xdWov &vdpo)Vov
Kal iav drrodelKwre dirb
tQv
Tpa.(f)Cov,
OTL axiTOS ecTTiv 6 XptOT^s, 5td t6 ivvd/xois Kal reX^wj iroXiTevecrdat. avTOv, Karrjîwcrdai rov
iKXeyrjvai
ets
XpicrT6v.
dXXd
jXTi
reparoXoyeTv roKfidre,
fiTrws fxrire
bfxoLws toTs
EWrjci
/jLiapaiveiv eX^7x?jo"^.
3*
22
T:6s 5^ deov 6 Itjctous Xe76/xews,
vibs 6eoO Xiyeffdui.
iraripa
el
Kal kolvios p.6vov dvOpwiros, 5td aotplav
yap dvdpQv re 6eup re

28
irdvTes
avyypacpm rbv
Siîos
6tbv KaXoCffiv.
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

and
it is
friends,
29
proved that he became Christ by election. For there are some, my

said, of our race, who admit that he is Christ, while holding him to
men with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most
who have the same opinions as myself should say so since we were
enjoined by Christ himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but those probe
man
of
of those
claimed by the blessed prophets and taught by himself. 39
To summarize
say that he looked
the teaching of Justin Martyr very briefly,
upon the virgin
birth of the pre-existent
we would
Word
an
as
important factor in securing the salvation of believers and the destruc-
and death.
of Satan, disobedience,
tion
Logos doctrine
the
Justin was acquainted with
of the fourth gospel, but was
thought concerning the
confused
Power, and the Word,
Spirit, the
all
in
his
which
of
were to him terms for the first-born of God, Apol.,

idea
is
He
distinctly that of an incarnation.
some sense the antithesis

The Old Testament narrative proved
I, 33 (I, 174); his

regarded Mary's function
for the race as in
of that of the disobedient
Eve.
the pre-existence of Christ,
Word, and
the
predicted
clearly
his
peculiar
birth.
accepted Greek mythology had no right to hesitate
Those who
at the Christian
foresaw this story in prophecy

and counterfeited it in the Greek mythology, and since the Christian
But, after all,
story is free from all the grossness of the Greek myths.
the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, may be established
by appeal to his ability, character, and his consequent election by God,
as some Christians maintain, rather than upon his miraculous birth
although Justin is by no means willing to accept this opinion for himstory of the virgin birth, since Satan
self.
Justin
I.
{Dial.,
chap.
78)
is
the
to give evidence of
first
The mention
presence and use of an extra-canonical source.

birth of Jesus in a cave
of
near Bethlehem indicates Justin's knowledge
some such material

39"H5t7 fi^vTot,
âv dwoSeiâi
yeyivvrjTaL
iffTiv 6
/xt]
(3
as
is
Tpv(po)v, elirov, ovk
XpiiTTos 6 rod
ttjs
6eov,
dirdWvTai rb toiovtov
'AWd
Uapdivov.
ovtos ecrrat,
8<ttis
protevangelium
contained in the
Svvoijiai 8tl Kal TrpoviTTJpxet' Tidy
dvdpuwos 8ia
icLv
S^
p.ri
iv Toirt^ ireTrXavrjcdai
diroSeiKv6o} 8ti
7^yoi'S
fievoi,
eivai.
dTrodeLKvvrjTai.
Kal yap
bpo\oyovvTes avrbv Kpiffrbv
oh ov
(Twridefxai,
oi)5'
Trpo'vTTTJpxf,
Harpbs
/3ouXrjv
dpvelcrdai 8tl odrbs
p,7]
dvdpwTros e^ dv9p(bir<av yevvrjdeh, Kal iKôyy yevbp^vos
iffTiv 6 Xpicrrbi, ib.v (paLvrjTai cbs
rbv XpLcrrbv
dXXd
p.bvov "Kiyeiv biKaiov,
p.e
Kal
cbv,
dvodeiKw/x^pov, 8ti oIt6s
iravrbs
iK
of
rod Oeov,
eivai "Kpurrbv
tov Hoitjtov rwv 8\o)v, debs
Kal yevvqOijvai dvOpwiros bp.oioirad7]s rjfuv, <rdpKa e'xw;', /card ttjv tov
vwip.ei.vev,
the
of the
dv
rives,
&
(piKot.,
eJvai, dvdpo}irov 8^ ef
TrXeicrrot
dvOpotiireioLS 8Lddyp.a<rL KeKeXeiJcrpeda
fiaKapluv irpocprjrQv K-qpvxdetin Kal
elcrL
wtt'
3i'
ravrd
aiiTov tov
/xot
avrov 5i5ax^<ri.
29
dvdpuiwwv yevb/xevov
Soâffavres
Xpiarov
els
^Xeyov, dirb rov rip,eripov

dTro<f>aivb-
etTroiev.
iireibr]
oiiK
dXXd
rots 5td
ruy
ireideadai,
30
James/" But the remarkable fact is that, if such a gospel were in existence and known to Justin, it should have failed to influence his view of
the virgin birth and should have supplanted or colored in so small a
degree his reflection of the canonical infancy
canonical stories
(I,
is
His use of the
stories.
clearly evidenced in such passages as
174); Dial., chaps. 78 (I, 237, 238) and 100
(I,
249)
ApoL,
;"'
I,
33
while ApoL,
I, 30, indicates that he had a knowledge of both

Matthew and Luke.
That he was acquainted with some extra-canonical source is to be
granted, but, at the same time, the absence of any real or significant
influence of such a source

2.
such a process as
in the heavenly
From
that of the incarnation (by
is
described in Luke) of the Son of God,
is
God and who
indeed
3.
of considerable importance.
is
Justin's idea of the virgin birth
who was
with the Father constituted a sort of ditheism^'
world prior to incarnation.
the foregoing
in the direction of a
that his attempt
is
will
it
be seen that Justin's contribution
is
schematic understanding of the virgin birth, and
harmonistic, not only in the matter of combining,
as far as possible, the
Johannine and the Lucan representations, as a
whole, but in identifying
the "Spirit"
"Word" in John, and all

whom he considers to be none
the
edly that of an incarnation
and "Power"
with
these
of
other than God.
and
this
in
in
"Son
the
Luke with
of God,"
His view
is
decid-
he agrees with Aristides,
but goes beyond him in the attempt to harmonize the facts with this
view.
Tatian (about 110-72 A.
IV.
D.).
largely perished, possibly because of
Tatian's writings have very
the church's disapproval of his
In his address to the Greeks, chap. 21
teaching.
(II, 74),
we have
the nearest approach to a theory of the virgin birth:
We
do not act as
fools,
Greeks, nor utter idle
tales,
when we announce
The statement in the same passage that the magi came from Arabia seems to
embody a tradition more specific than the story of Matthew, or it may be Justin's interpretation of " from the East."
The extant apocryphal gospels make no mention of
such a fact.
*^Coti'S.XT)Y, Quelle
der Kindkeiisgesck. /esu, pp. 126
ff.,
endeavors to magnify
Justin's use of extra-canonical sources, especially his use of the gospel of
upon
the basis of ApoL,
'iT/ffoO
I,
James, and
33, ws ol dirofiv7]iJ.oveiffavTes irdvTa to, irepl toG ffUTTJpos rjfiQv
Xpio-ToO idlSaâv, concludes that, according to his
own
words, Justin used more
than one gospel of the childhood.

*'
On
the other hand, Justin's unequivocal
seen in Dial., cha.ps.
11, 114,
127
also inApol.,
30
statement of Jewish monotheism

I, 12,
61,
and ApoL,
II, 6.
is
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

that God was born in the form of a man.
compare your mythical accounts with our
Although
this
is
call
31
on you who reproach us
to
narration. 3
not exactly to the point,
seems to be an echo of
it
the familiar argument of his teacher Justin.
The
genealogical tables
are omitted"" from his Diatessaron (IX, 44, 45), but the account of the
virgin birth is faithfully reproduced from Matthew and Luke.
Thus, while the evidence from Tatian is very meager, it is perhaps

warrant the conclusion that, at the time of his writing the
sufificient to
address to the Greeks, and also at the time of the compilation of his
harmony, he was
of the gospels,
in accord with the narratives in the infancy sections
and probably shared largely
in the apologetic position
of Justin Martyr.
V.
Melito (bishop
of Sardis, 160-77 A. D.) has four brief refer-
ences to the' virgin birth that are preserved to
These
us.
assert the
pre-existence of Jesus without bodily form, and that, though he was

" arrayed in the nature of his Father," he was carried in the womb of
the virgin and assumed a bodily form from her.

Cross, chap. 3 (VIII, 756), on Faith, chaps. 4
reference in the Discourse on Faith, chap.
and
Discourse on the
(VIII, 757).
The
example of
the attempted harmony of the Johannine prologue with a combination
of the infancy stories of Matthew and Luke.
No extra-canonical
influence is discernible, and the contribution of Melito is without par4, is
a striking
ticular significance.
VI. iRENyEUS (about 120-202 A. D.).

the field of apologetics to that of polemics.
With Irengeus we pass from

Justin Martyr was able to
who believed in
may have been due to the toler-
get along on friendly terms with his fellow-Christians
This
the natural generation of Jesus.
ant spirit of Justin, or to one or both of two other
facts, viz.,
the com-
parative unimportance of the doctrine of the virgin birth in the church
and, what
at large,
who took
those
lished belief.
is
quite probable, the comparative moderation of
occasion to deviate in some respect from the estab-
But
in the
and was thought
rigid
time of Irenseus the doctrine had become so

to
be freighted with so weighty theological
consequences, and, moreover,
become
^3
so strong
its
and so odious
various classes of opponents had

to
Tatian, Oratio adv. Graecos, 21:
XtjpoCs dTrayyfKXofiev, Qebv iv avdpdiirov
Oi) 7dp fj.b)paivo/j.ev, dvdpes "EWtjves, oi 5^

fwp^^ yeyov^vai Karayy^Wovres. Oi Xoidopovvres
ffvyKpivare roiis fiMovs vfiwv rots ijfieT^pois
fj/ias
''This to disprove the descent of Jesus
Fab.,
the orthodox majority, that the
I,
20.
31
Sir)yf)p.a<TL.
from David.
See
Theodoret, Haeret
32
defender of Christianity was forced to direct his energies against them

rather than against the outside world. "^
This Irenaeus did with no sparing hand, and so diligent was he in

meeting the Gnostics at every turn in their mystic and extravagant
and the
and so conscientious in emphasizing the vital
deductions which he thought to rest upon the doctrine of the virgin
birth, that we are indebted to him for both a large amount of material
on the question and almost proportionate light.
vagaries, so persistent in his appeal to the law, the prophets,
New Testament
From an
writings,
inductive study this material finally
falls
into a threefold
division, which, with the ordinary exceptions due to such a method, will
best serve to present the status of the doctrine in the time of Irenaeus.
We
endeavor to give,
shall
we
including, as far as
first,
a statement of the various views held,
are able to interpret
it,
in the third, the
The
I.
more
doctrine
distinctively theological
is
In
that of the Gnostics.
the second division Irenaeus's appeal to Scripture will be presented;
and
argument and deductions.
stated or denied in a great variety of forms, the
most difficult being that of the Gnostics produced in their attempt to

keep Christ utterly free from the pollution of inherently evil flesh, and
also to keep God the Father from dealing directly with that which was
human and therefore sinful. In Against Heresies, I, 7, 2 (I, 325) it
"**
produced by the Demiurge from a psychic

(if/vxtKov) nature, and that this Christ passed through Mary as water
through a tube. Thus he was made in heaven of wholly supra-earthly
substance, and suffered no pollution or alteration in his earthly advent.
The continual aim of the Gnostics is thoroughly to denaturalize the
conception, birth, and appearance of Jesus, in order to preserve the
divinely created Christ from material contamination. In Against Hereis
stated that the Christ was
sies, III,
22,2
(I,
454), Irenaeus meets this theory in the following words:
Superfluous, too, in that case,
is
his descent into
Mary;
for
why
did he
come down into her if he were to take nothing of her ? Still further, if he
had taken nothing of Mary, he would never have availed himself of those
kinds of food which are derived from the earth by which that body which has
been taken from the earth
is
nourished.'"
rather elaborate statement of the mediaries used by
formation and earthly birth of Christ
is
given in
I,
15, 3
God
(I,
in the
339):
EUSEBIUS, Church History, Books V, XX, XXVI.

^*
The
citations in this section, unless otherwise designated, are from this
*' 'Eirei TTepuTO-r]
firjdiv e/jLeWe
dirb yrjs
Kal
\-fi\peff9a.i
eiKrjfxiJ-if'as
r)
eh ttjv Mapiav aiirov
irap'
aiirris;
vpoalero Tpo0ds,
"Ert re
5i' S)v
Ka.6o8os.
rl
el fir]8kv e/\'^0et
rb dirb
32
yap
work.
Kal eU aiirriv Karyei,
vapd, rijs Maplas,
yijs 'Kri<pdkv rpicperai ad/ia,
oiiK
el
avrcis
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
33
The angel Gabriel

the
Power
took the place of Logos, the Holy Spirit that of Zoe,

Highest that of Anthropos, while the Virgin pointed out the
of the
place of Ecclesia,
through Mary that
And thus by a dispensation there was generated by Him

man whom, as he passed through the womb, the Father
of all chose to obtain the
Here, as in
many
knowledge
Himself by means of the Word."*
of
of the Gnostic utterances,
it is
difficult to
discover
any clear and consistent conception running through the passage.

This is due to the studied coining of terms and juggling with the
same for the purpose of making the Christian system more of an awe-
known only
inspiring mystery,
however,
Aoyos,
o-ta,
to
and
^wiy,
From
the initiated.
seems that these aeons of the
it
the context,
tetrad, viz., av^/owTro?, ckkXt;-
produced the pre-existent Christ; and
in
order
to have an exact parallel in God's generation of Jesus through Mary,
these agencies have fitting substitutes which carry out the divine will,
Gabriel for Xdyos, the Holy Spirit for
^w-^, the Power of the Highand the virgin Mary for iKKXrja-La. There is in this
scheme of substitution some show of reason. Gabriel does with some
fitness fill the place of the Word or messenger of God; the Holy Spirit,
the place of the imparted divine life; the Power of the Highest, the
place of the natural generating agency, man and Mary, the place of
the medium, the church, through which God comes among men.
The
scheme is inconsistent where it introduces the Word as imparting to
Jesus in his passage through the womb the knowledge of the Father.
In I, 25, I, Carpocrates'" and his followers "hold that Jesus was the
son of Joseph and was just like other men, with the exception that he
differed from them in this respect, that, inasmuch as his soul was
steadfast and pure, he perfectly remembered those things which he had
witnessed within the sphere of the unbegotten God."^ Here one
cannot escape the inference that Carpocrates and his followers believed
in the pre-existence of the souls of all men.
Further statements are found in four or five other passages which
viz.,
est for avOpwTro<:,
necessary to incorporate in this section
is
*^
Kal
&yu)v IlveOâ, rod di avOpwirov ttjv

Bivos.
nariip
ToO fiiv \6yov dvaTrejrXrjpwK^vai rbv r&irov rbv AyyeKov Ta^pirjX, rijs 8i Zwijs rb
oi/TOJS
re 6
tQv SXuv
/car'
5iivaixi,v
tov
v\}/i(TTOV,
rbv 8^
ttjs
oUovofiiav 5ia rrji "MapLas yeveaiovpyeiTai
BieXdbvra 5ia p.r)Tpas iêXiâro
610.
A6701;
EKKXrjaias t&kov
Trap''
tj
irap-
aiirQ dudpuiros 6v
els iirLyvuariv airrov.
<9EusEBius, Church History, Books IV, VII.

sSee John 17:
Joseph natum,
quod anima
sibi in
et
3.
cum
Irenûs, Contra Haereses,

similis reliquis
eius firma et
hominibus
munda cum
esset.
"(Dicunt) Jesum autem e
Commemorata
ea circumlatione quae fuisset ingenito Deo."
33
I, 25, i
fuerit, distasse a reliquis
fuerit
secundum
id,
quae visa essent
34
1,26,
"He
352):
(I,
been born of a
[CerinthusS'] represented
virgin, but as being the son of
as
Jesus
having not
Joseph and Mary according to
human generation, while he nevertheless was more

and wise than other men." s* Ibid., 1: " Those who are
called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God but their opinions
with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates." 53
I, 27, I (I, 352): " Cerdo .... taught that the God proclaimed by the law and
the prophets was not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the former
was known, but the latter unknown while the one also was righteous, but
the other benevolent." 54 iv, 16, i (L440): " The Valentiniansss again maintain that the dispensational Jesus was the same who passed through Mary,
upon whom the Savior from the more exalted region descended." s* V, 19,
2 (L 547): "Others still despise the advent of the Lord manifest [to the
senses], for they do not admit his incarnation
while others, ignoring the
arrangement that he should be born of a virgin, maintain that he was
begotten by Joseph." 57
the ordinary course of
righteous, prudent,
The standard summary
of heresies
is
found in
to be
I,
22, 31 (I,
347-58), where, beginning with Simon of Samaria, who held that God
appeared among the Jews as Son, to the Samaritans as Father, and to
Holy
other nations as the
Spirit,
he passes on to mention nearly every
calls the
" Lerngean hydra that was generated from
the school of Valentinus."
Saturninus of Antioch in Syria held that
phase of what he
the Savior was without birth, body, or form, and was only by supposition
a visible man.
Basilides thought that
Nous
(i/oCs)
was the first-born of
and from him was born

Aoyos.
Christ appeared upon earth, wrought miracles, transformed
himself as he pleased, was not in any way humiliated, defiled, or crucithe unborn Father.
NoCs
5'EusEBius, Ch. H., Books

5'
" Jesum autem subjecit
autem Joseph
est); fuisse
et
called Christ,
is
XXVIII.
III,
non ex Virgine natum (impossibile enim hoc ei visum

Mariae filium similiter ut reliqui omnes homines, et plus
potuisse justitia et prudentia et sapientia ab hominibus."

53
" Qui autem dicuntur Ebionaei consentiunt quidem
mundum
autem, quae sunt erga Dominum, non similiter ut Cerinthus

S'*
Kipdcav
....
TTOT^pa TOV Kvpiov
Tbv
fiiv diKCLiov
7)ixG}v
'
It/ctoO
Tbv dk dya$bv
55EUSEBIUS,
5*
^5/5a|e rbv virb tov
C. H.,
quem
et
Christum
Deo factum
Kal irpo4>7iTwv KeKrjpvy/iivov de6v,
yap
ea
Carpocrates opinantur."
yvupLêffdai Tbv hk
dyvQTa
fii)
efwcu
elvai, Kal
inrdpxft-v.
Books IV, X, XI.
"Qui autem a Valentino

Mariam transient
esse, qui per
vSfjLov
XpiCTToO TOV fifv
et
sunt,
in
Jesum quidem, qui
quem
sit
ex dispositione, ipsum
ilium de superiori Salvatorem descendisse
dici."
autem manifestum adventum Domini contemnunt, incarnationem eius non

recipientes alii autem rursus ignorantes Virginis dispensationem ex Joseph dicunt
eum generatum."
34
57
"Alii
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
35
Carpocrates believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph and
fied.
Mary as
and many of the followers of Basilides and Carpocrates,

owing to their negation of the worth and salvability of the body and
their belief in salvation and resurrection for the soul only, became
degraded into licentiousness and promiscuity.
Cerinthus and the
Ebionites^^ agreed with Carpocrates as to the birth of Jesus.
Cerdo
emphasized the fact that the father of Jesus Christ was the unknown
God and not he of the law and prophets. Marcion accepted only the
gospel of Luke, expunging therefrom the account of the generation of
Jesus and other material offensive to the Gnostic taste.
He treated
the epistles of Paul and prophecy in the same manner.
The Encratites were a product of the teaching of Saturninus and Marcion, but
above stated
represented
the extremely
opposite
result
of
teaching which,
that
springing from the same or a similar source, culminated in licentiousness; for the Encratites, holding to the inherent evil of flesh and of
human
Of
generation, practiced the most rigorous abstinence.
was Tatian
class
after the
death of Justin Martyr.
that Barbelos, the eternal aeon

light and, anointing
it,
who
The
this
Barbeliotes held
existed as a virgin spirit, created
thus constituted the Christ.
The Ophites and
Sethians, while believing that Jesus was begotten of a virgin through
the agency of God, and was therefore wiser, purer, and
than
all
tuted Christ by the descent of Christ united to Sophia
A
birth
more condensed summary

found in
is
more righteous
other men, held at the same time that Jesus was only consti-
III,
1 1,
(cro<^ta)
of the various beliefs
into him.
touching the
3 (I, 427):
Some, however, make the assertion that this dispensational Jesus did
become incarnate and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through
Mary just as water through a tube but others allege him to be the son of
the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others
again say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary and that the Christ from
But accordabove descended upon him, being without flesh and impassible.
ing to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made
flesh.
For if anyone carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find
that the Word of God is brought in by them all as not having become incarnate {sine came) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others
consider him to have been manifested as a transfigured man, but they main;
tain
him
to
have been neither born nor
others hold that he did not assume
did descend upon that Jesus

58 It
maybe
to
have become incarnate
human form
who was born
of
at all, but that as a
Mary.
whilst
dove he
Therefore the Lord's
that the Ebionites denied the virgin birth of Jesus in order to main-
tain his Davidic descent as Messiah.
35
HISTOBICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
36
them all out as

and dwelt among us.s'
disciple, pointing
made
flesh
In this passage
false witnesses, says,
Word was
the
tolerably distinct views are set forth:
five
body was
in
(i)
That
body and became subject
to suf-
no respect derived from Mary.
This
Jesus, thepre-existent one, took a real
fering, but that his
And
was the view of Valentinus and was elaborated by Apelles, Ptolemy,

Secundus, and Heracleon. (2) That Jesus was the son of the Demiurge
and
that
upon him descended the dispensational
Jesus.
(3)
That Jesus
was the son of Joseph and Mary, and that Christ, spiritual and incaThis view
pable of suffering, descended upon him as a dove at baptism.
is
twice stated, the second statement being in the sentence before the
last
of the reference.
It
was the view of Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the
That Jesus was manifested as a transfigured

This
flesh and not born.
And
the
view
of
was the view of Saturninus, Basilides, and others.
(5)
was
made
flesh.
fourth
gospel,
of
Ireuccus,
that
the
Word
the
and
So much for the various statements of the doctrine. The chief conEbionites, and others.
man,
was a semblance only, without
that he
made
tribution
(4)
to the study
is
the appearance of
Gnosticism in
attempt to entirely rid Jesus Christ of the pollution of the

this
by an ignoring of the
New Testament
flesh,
its
and
account and by a resort to
philosophic theorizing upon the basis of a half-Hebraized and degen-
Greek philosophy. Otherwise the opposing contentions of the

and of the birth from Mary alone by the Power of God
are practically the same as in the writings previously reviewed.
2. Irenseus's appeal to Scripture is noteworthy in that with him first
we meet the use of the New Testament as an authority similar to the
Old.
His use of prophecy is on a par with that of Justin Martyr. *
The quotation of sees. 7 and 8 will suffice to illustrate this
erate
natural birth
S'IreNvEUS, Con. Haer.,

eura, qui ex dispositione
sit,
11,3: " Incarnatum autem etpassum quidam quidem

dicunt Jesum, quern par Mariam dicunt pertransisse, quas
Ill,
aquam per tubum, alii vero Demiurgi

dispositione
sit
alii
filium, in
quern descendisse
rursum Jesum quidem ex Joseph
descendisse Christum, qui de superioribus
sit;
sine
et
eun Jesum,
qui ex
Maria natum dicunt, et
came
et
in
hunc
impassibilem, exsistentem.
Secundum autem nullam sententiam haereticorum, Verbiim Dei caro factum est. Si
enim quis regulas ipsorum omnium perscrutetur, inveniet quoniam sine carne, et impassibilis ab omnibus illis inducitur Dei Verbum, et qui est in superioribus Christus.
Alii enim putant manifestatum eum, quemadmodum hominem transfiguratum neque
autem natum, neque incarnatum dicunt ilium alii vero neque figura meum assumpsisse
;
hominis
Maria.
bum
sed quemadmodum columbam descendisse in eum Jesum, qui natus est ex

Omnes igitur illos falsos testes ostendens discipulus Domini ait Et Ver:
caro factum
^See
est, et
III, 9, 2
inhabitavit in nobis."
and 3;
21,
i,
especially 6, where the Ebionite contention for
36
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

On
this
account also Daniel [Dan. 2
34],
37
foreseeing his advent, said
that a stone cut out without hands came into this world.*'
" without hands " means, that his coming into this world
operation of
cutting
human
that
co-operating
is,
hands, that
is,
of
For this is what

was not by the
those men who are accustomed to stone-
Joseph taking no part with regard
with the prearranged
For
plan.
this
to
but
it,
Mary only
stone from the earth
derives existence from both the power and the wisdom of God.
Wherefore
" Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I deposit in the foundations
also Isaiah says
:
elect, the chief, the corner one, to be had in honor."

So then we understand that his advent in human nature was not by the will of
a man, but by the will of God.*3 (g) Wherefore also Moses, giving a
type, cast his rod *^ upon the earth, in order that it by becoming flesh might
expose and swallow up all the opposition of the Egyptians which was lifting
itself up against the prearranged plan of God
that the Egyptians themselves
might testify that it is the finger of God which works salvation for the people,
and not the son of Joseph. For if he were the son of Joseph, how could he
be greater than Solomon or greater than Jonah or greater than David, when
he was generated from the same seed, and was a descendant of these men ?
And how was it that he also pronounced Peter blessed because he acknowl-
of Zion
a stone, precious,
edged him
to
be the son
of the living
In the following section

veavLi
God
(9) Irenaeus
*5
makes an appeal
Immanuel passage
rather than irapdivos in the
is
refuted
to
prophecy
and
for
pedantic treatment of de fritctu ventris, renutn, lumborum, showing that the use of
ventris in the promise to
David predicted
the virgin birth.
V, 25, 5 (I, 554).

**An easy adaptation of the term "carpenter" (jiKTuiv) oi the canonical and
apocryphal gospels, so as to make it more consonant with the quotation from Daniel.
*'See also
ibid.,
*3Iren/EUS, Con. Haer.,\\\,2i,']: " Propter hoc autem et Daniel praevidens eius
adventum, lapidem sine manibus abscissum advenisse in hunc mundum (hoc enim est
quod " sine manibus " ) significabat quod non operantibus humanis manibus, hoc est,
virorum illorum qui solent lapides caedere, in hunc mundum eius adventus erat, id
Hie enim
est, non operante in eum Joseph, sed sola Maria cooperante disposition^
;
lapis a terra, ex virtute et arte constat Dei.
Propter hoc autem et Isaias
ait
'
:
sic
Dominus Ecce ego mitto in fundamenta Sion lapidem pretiosum, electum,

uti non ex voluntate viri, sed ex voluntate Dei,
summum, angularem, honorificum
adventum eius qui secundum hominem est intelligamus."
*^Note the play upon words in the original,
"5 Irenûs, Con. Haer., Ill, 21,8: " Propter hoc autem et Moyses ostendans typum
dicit
'
projecit virgam in terram, ut ea incarnata omnem Aegyptiorum praevaricationem

quae insurgebat adversus Dei dispositionem, argueret et absorberet ; et ut ipsi Aegyptii
testificarentur, quoniam digitus est Dei, qui salutem operatur populo, et non Joseph
filius.
Si enim Joseph filius esset, quemadmodum plus poterat quam Salomon, aut
plus
quam Jonas
habere, aut plus esse
generatus, et proles existens ipsorum
quod eum cognosceret esse Filium Dei
David, cum
esset
Ut quid autem
vivi ?
37
"
et
ex eadem seminatione
beatum dicebat Petrum,
38
to
show
that,
For
heir."
if
Jesus were the son of Joseph, he could not be " king or
in Matt, i:
12-16
it
is
shown
descended
and 36: 30 ff.
that Joseph was
from Joachim and Jechoniah, but according to

these men were disinherited by God.
Jer. 22:
24
ff.
Those therefore who say that he was begotten of Joseph, and that they
have hope in him, do cause themselves to be disinherited from the kingdom,
falling under the curse and rebuke directed against Jechoniah and his seed.
Because for this reason have these things been spoken against Jechoniah, the
Spirit
foreknowing the doctrines of the
that
teachers
evil
that they
may
learn
from Joseph
he was not to be born, but that,
according to the promise of God, from David's belly the king eternal is
raised up, who sums up all things in himself and gathered into himself the
that from his seed
is,
ancient formation (of man).*'^
The
New
Testament centers very largely about the

3, 4, 12 is used for emphasis of the
John 1:13, "not born by
real humanity of Christ, III, 17, 3 (I, 446).
the will of the fiesh, or by the will of man," is used in III, 19, 2 (I, 449).
But perhaps most significant of all is the use of Gal. 4 4, 5 in III, 16,
" God sent forth his Son, born of a
3 (I, 441), and III, 22, I (I, 454),
of the
use
First Cor. 15
infancy sections.*^
woman."
In fragments 52-4
controversy
"
indicated.
is
(I,
577) the status of the gospels in this

to Christ, the law, the proph-
With regard
born of a virgin."**
on the whole, very much more
reasonable than that of the Old Testament and while the references in
the Pauline epistles do not, in our thinking, contribute anything beyond
a confirmation of the actual humanity of Christ (a point for which
Irenaeus had to contend), still one can readily understand how such a
But now that the gospassage as Gal. 4 4 was irresistibly attractive.
pels had become authoritative, and the infancy sections especially were
so effectually used by the orthodox, it only remained for those who
opposed the virgin birth to repudiate these sections. Hence we read
ets,
and the
The
evangelists have proclaimed that he was
New Testament
use of the
is,
in
I,
28, 2 (I, 352)
'Îrenûs,
ibid.. Ill, 21,
"Qui ergo eum dicunt ex Joseph generatum
eo habere spam, abdicates se faciunt a regno,

decidentes, quae erga Jechoniam et in
haec de Jechonia,
cant,
spiritu praesciente
quoniam ex semine
eius,
id
semen
^T
antiquam plasmationem
E. S;
III, 2, 9, 10
16, 2
Propter hoc enim dicta sunt
in se recapitulatus est."
ff.;
21,4; IV, 23,
8EusEBius, Ck. H., Books V, VIII.
38
uti dis-
secundum
rex aeternus, qui recapitulatur omnia
ex Joseph, non
repromissionem Dei de ventre David suscitatur

in se et
ejus.
ea quae a malis doctoribus dicuntur

est
et in
sub maledictione et increpatione
I.
erit
natus, sed
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
39
Besides this he [Marcion] mutilates the gospel which
removing
all that is
is
according to Luke,
written respecting the generation of the Lord,
aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord
as most clearly confessing that the
Passing
3.
now
maker
to Irenaeus's
ment and deductions, we

birth readily explained
of this universe
more
is
and
is
setting
recorded
his Father.^
distinctively theological argu-
see that according to his thinking the virgin
how
the
Son
of
God became
the
Son
of
man
Son of God, our Lord, being the Word of the Father,

He
and the son of man, since he had a generation as to his human nature from
who was descended from mankind, and who was herself a human
Mary
being
was made the son of man'" (IH, 19, 3 [I, 449]).
therefore, the
Moreover, the
ability
of Jesus
and
his excellence of character are
not admitted as arguments for his messiahship and sonship apart from
the virgin birth, as
is
the case in Justin Martyr, but are regarded as the
consequences of such a birth
The
and the creation and
birth
(I,
superficial parallelism
quotation
III, 21,
30, 12 [I, 357]).
and moral
fall
antithesis
between the virgin
can be best appreciated from direct
10
(I,
454):
And
as the protoplast himself,
stance from untilled and yet virgin soil
''
God had
(for
Adam, had
his sub-
not yet sent rain, and
man had
not yet tilled the ground), and was formed by the hand of God,
by the Word of God, for "all things were made by him," and the Lord
took dust from the earth and formed man so did he who is the Word,
recapitulating Adam in himself, rightly receive a birth enabling him to
gather up Adam into himself from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then,
the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it
were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But
if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in himself, should be
formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects his
origin.
Why, then, did not God take dust, but wrought so that the formation
should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation
called into being, nor any other which should require to be saved, but that
that
is,
" Et super haec id quod est secundum Lucam

*9 Irenûs, Con. Haer., I, 28, 2
Evangelium circumcidens et omnia quae sunt de generatione Domini conscripta
auferens, et de doctrina sermonum Domini multa auferens in quibus manifestissime
conditorem huius universitatis suum Patrem confitens Dominus conscriptus est."
:
7Irenûs,
Verbum
quae
ibid..
Patris et
et ipsa erat
filius
"Hie igitur Filius Dei Dominus noster, existens

Ill, 19,3
hominis quoniam ex Maria, quae ex hominibus habebat genus
:
homo, habuit secundum hominem generationem,
ihominis."
7'
Also
III, 17, 7.
39
factus est filius
40
HISTOKICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
the
same formation should be summed up, the analogy having been
served.
pre-
7-
Here, as in several other similar passages, Irenaeus shows a familiarity
Adam and
with Paul's parallelism between
Jesus, but differs
from
Paul in pushing the parallelism into a region of which Paul was either
wholly ignorant, or with which he was totally unconcerned/^

There is a significant passage in IV, 33, 4 (I, 507):
And how
he [man] escape from the generation subject
shall
new
not by means of a
to death,
if
generation, given in a wonderful and unexpected
I mean that regeneration which

manner, but as a sign of salvation by God
Or how shall they receive adoption from
is from the virgin through faith ? 7<
God, if they remain in this kind of generation, which is naturally possessed
by man in this world ? And how should he [Christ] have been greater than
Solomon or greater than Jonah, or have been the Lord of David, who was of
the same substance as they were ? 'S
Such a statement, taken together with the Paulinisticelaboration in III,

I, makes the foundation for Irenseus's final dogmatic assertion:
19,
Those who
remaining
assert that he
in the
bondage
was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph
of the primal disobedience, are in a state of death
having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving
If the Son shall make
liberty through the Son, as he does himself declare
:
you
ye shall be free indeed
free,
7'IrenÛS, Con. Haer.,
(III, 19 [I, 448)].
"Et quemadmodum
Ill, 21, 10:
protoplastus
operatus terram) habuit substantiam
(omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt)
hominem
erat virgo, recte accipiebat
et
plasmatus est
et
manu
6c6s, fdei Kal

eKelvtfi
Map/as
'lucrr^rp
erat
Dei, id est Verbo Dei
sumpsit Dominus limum a
Adam,
terra, et
plasmavit
ipse
'ASdî ecxf Triripa dvOpwirov Kal i^ dv8pbs cnripixaTos iyevvqdr) eUbs

'ASap. Xiyeip i^
Adam
Verbum existens ex Maria, quae adhuc

generationem Adae recapitulationis. d toIvvv 6 irpCiTos
ita recapitulans in se
ille
homo non
de rudi terra, et de adhuc virgine, (nondum enim pluerat Deus, et
yeyevinjadai
et de iKeivos
iK 7'^s
fjv
Koi rbv Se&repov
nXdcmjs
i\-)'j(pdri.
5^ aiirov 6
tov ava.Ke(pa\aiovp.evov d% avrbv virb toO 6eov TreTr\aap.^vov dvOpwirov, Tr)v avrrjv
TTJs yevvrjcrews
iirqpy-qcre ttjv
ex^"' bp.oi6T7)Ta,
rrXdaiv yeviaOai;
tL o5v TrdXiv ovk eXa/Se
et's
dXX' auTos iKsivos dvaK<paXaiwdri Trjpovp4vr]s

73
See also
74
See
III, 21, 4 (I, 455);
III, 19,
(I, 448);
V,
x^^ o
'iva p-rj fiXXij irXdcris yiv7]TaLi. p.y]5k
19,
IV, 33, II
rrjs 6poi6T7)TOi."
i
(I,
(I,
547);
509); V,
and V,
I, I, 2,
Oebs,
dXX' iK
8.XX0 Tb cw^bjievov
^
21,
(I,
(I,
584).
527)-
"Quemadmodum autem
relinquet mortis generationem, si non

inopinate a Deo, in signum autem salutis, datam,
quae est ex virgine per fidem, regenerationem ? vel quam adoptionem accipient a
iÎbid.,
in
IV, 33, 4
novam generationem mire
et
Deo, permanentes in hac genesi, quae est secundum hominem in hoc mundo ? Quoplus quam Salomon, et plus quam Jonas habebat, et Dominus erat
"
David, qui eiusdem cum ipsis fuit substantiae ?
modo autem
" Rursus autem qui unde tantum hominem eum dicunt ex

^^ Ibid., Ill, 19, I:
Joseph generatum, perseverantes in servitute pristinae inobedientiae moriuntur non:
40
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
We
41
have traced the doctrine in Irenaeus, noticing
statement arising from the conviction of
its
multiform
its
great importance and the
menacing
features of the different forms of Gnosticism.
Scripture
is
seen to be, in the case of prophecy at
The appeal
least,
praiseworthy than that of Justin Martyr, while his appeal to the
Testament
to
no more
New
much more straightforward, and constitutes a new feature

The more distinctly theological argument is based upon
is
in the study.
though somewhat Pauline, analogy whose force is not felt

the virgin birth the basal and essential
factor in constituting Jesus a fit and capable Savior for lost and polluted man, hence those who do not believe in the virgin birth are "in
the bondage of the old disobedience" and "in a state of death."
Of
course, the other and silent premise underlying this conclusion is that
right belief concerning the nature of Christ is necessary to salvation.
a fanciful,
The argument makes
today.
In conclusion
1.
makes
should be pointed out
it
while Irenaeus
that,
a copious use of the canonical infancy stories," he has
no
refer-
ence to the apocryphal accounts, although they would very naturally

have been called for in such a passage as IV, 23, 1.
would appear
cion at least,
needed
Moreover,
it
352]) that, in the case of the heretic Marthere existed no apocryphal source of the kind which he
(I, 27,
[I,
for his denial of the miraculous generation of Jesus, so that
it
him so to mutilate the gospel of Luke that it might

Nor is there evidence that any of the heretics knew
suit his purpose.
of gospels other than the canonical to which to appeal in advancing
was necessary
for
or supporting their variant views.

2.
clear
In his understanding of the virgin birth Irenaeus has passed
away from the thought
the slightest intimation
of a miraculous but real birth (devoid of
of pre-existence),
such
as
the accounts
in
Matthew and Luke teach and Ignatius and Justin clearly, though not
consistently, imply, and in his adoption of the view of the fourth
gospel has converted the virgin birth into an advent or an incarnation
more
in a
and uniform sense than previously prevailed
rigid
Contra Haer.,
e.
g.^
III, 11, 3 (I, 427).
330); III, 9, 3 (I, 423);

But, at the same time, in his thinking the divine sonship and nature of
25,
I,
Jesus were based
(III, 21,
dum
dum
[I,
(I,
upon the
fact that
God, and not man, was
his father
453])-
commisti Verbo Dei Patris, neque per Filium percipientes libertatem, quemadmoipse ait
^^
E.
5 (I, 452)
'
Si Filius vos
g.. Ill, 9, 2
;
IV, 23,
and
(I,
manumiserit vera
(I,
423
ff.)
494); V, 25, 5
liberi eritis.'
III, 16, 2, 3,
(I,
554)-
41
and 4
"
(I,
440
f.)
III, 21, 4
and
42
Thus
3.
in Irenseus
we meet what
Jesus' derivation of divine nature
is
so far the clearest statement of
from the
fact that
but Iren?eus's chief contribution to the study
is
God
is
his father
the theological
in
significance which he attributed to the virgin birth; for in his thinking

it
was only by such a birth that Jesus could be constituted the adequate
and so far as his moral worth being sufficient /(fr
mankind
Savior of
him Messiah and Son
of God, Irenseus, making a bold

advance from the position of the earliest apologists, asserted that the
pre-eminence of Jesus and his unique moral worth were dependent
se to constitute
upon the
virgin birth.
VII. Tertullian (about 150-240 A. D.).
There are
in Tertullian
nearly a score of passages in which a statement of belief regarding the

virgin birth
is
made.
The most simple
of these are
Veiling of Vir-
Monogamy, 8 (IV, 65); Against Praxeas, 2

Other
(III, 598), 26, 27 (III, 622 ff.); and Patience, 3 (III, 708).
passages, which make some significant addition to the bare statement,
are: ApoL, 21 (III, 34), including a repudiation of the Greek myths;
Soul, 26 (III, 207), with a reference to the meeting of Mary and ElizaAgainst Heretics, 36 (III,
beth, and the prenatal testimony of John
V,
(III,
Marcion,
Against
471), each included in the
260), and
19
gins,
IV,
3,
(IV, 27);
church's statement of faith; Resurrection, 20 (III, 559), with emphasis
upon the
real
humanity of Jesus; Against Valentinus, 27
stating the belief of Valentinus
(III, 516),
His position being one which must be decided by prepositions
other
in
words, he was produced by means of {per) a virgin rather than of (ex) a

virgin
On
the ground that, having descended into the Virgin rather in the
passage through her than of a birth by her, he came into existnot experiencing a mother in her,
ence through {per) her, not of {ex) her
but nothing more than a way. Upon this same Christ, therefore, so they say,
manner
of a
the Savior descended in the sacrament of baptism in the likeness of a dove.'^
There are
also two references to the belief of Praxeas
passionists: Against Praxeas, 17 (III, 617), and
and the
Patri-
(III, 597):
He says that the Father himself came down into the Virgin, was himself
born of her, himself suffered, indeed was himself Jesus Christ."
7*Tertullian, Adv. Va/eniinianos,
XXVII
" In praepositionum quaestionibus
positum, id est per virginem, non ex virgine editum, quia delatus in virginem transmeatoris potius quam generatoris more processerit: per ipsam, non ex ipsa; non matrem
earn, sed
viam passus.
Super hunc itaque Christum devolasse tunc
in baptismatis
Sacramento Sotorem per effigiem columbae."

79 Tertullian, ^^f. Praxeam, I
"Ipsum dicit Patrem descendisse
ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum passum, denique ipsum esse Jesum Christum."
:
42
in
Virginem,
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

Of the Statements here
for the
first
The
time.
43
and quoted, that
cited
of Praxeas appears
Patripassion theory undoubtedly arose from
the difficulty of conceiving of a dual or triune God,
and
as a consistent
effort to escape ditheism or tritheism.
Somewhat akin to the superficial argument about terms,*" and yet

showing Tertullian's rather scholastic reasoning in maintenance of the
humanity of Christ, and, secondarily, of the virginity of Mary, is the
passage in Against Marcion, IV, lo (III, 358, 360). The argument is
Christ cannot lie.
He said he was the son of man.
Therefore he had a human parent. But God was his father. Therequite syllogistic:
his mother, was the human parent.

But, if so, she was a
Otherwise he had two fathers, a divine and a human one, the
thought of which is ridiculous, like the stories of Castor and Hercules.
Mary,
fore
virgin.
Moreover, the prophecy of Isaiah

of
If
human
Marcion admits Christ
alone
fulfilled
the
of
by the exclusion
virginity of Mary.
man through
God; if through
be the son of
to
he thereby denies that he
father,
is
and the acceptance
father
son of
is
human
a divine
one also, he makes Christ the Hercules of fable if through a human

mother only, he concedes Tertullian's point if not through a human
;
father or a
human mother, he
See Veiling of Virgins, 6 (IV,
8'
Tertullian,
involves Christ in a
31),
and
treatise
iâr(7ifw, IV, 10:
"De
lie.'
on Prayer, 22
(III, 688).
hominis dyplex est nostra

praescriptio, neque mentiri posse Christum, ut se filium hominis pronuntiaret, si non
vere erat neque filium constitui, qui non sit natus ex homine, vel patre vel matre
^(/z/.
filio
atque
Deo
ita
discutiendum, cujus hominis
patre est, utique non ex homine
Cui enim homo pater non datur, nee

deputabitur, virgo est.
virgo
faciet,
sit
mater.
Deum
tori aut
et
filius
si
accipi debeat, patris an matris.
non ex homine, jam apparet quia ex
vir matri ejus
Si ex
virgine.
deputabitur; porro cui vir non
Caeterum, duo jam patres habebuntur, Deus
Habebit enim virum, ut virgo non
hominem,
et qui et
Dei
et
sit
et
hominis esset
et homo, si non
habendo virum, duos patres
filius.
Talem, si forte, Cas-
Herculi nativitatem tradunt fabulae.
" Si haec ita distinguuntur, id est,
est; ex matre
autem
virgine, quia
si
ex matre
filius est
non ex patre homine
hominis, quia ex patre non
his erit Christus Isaiae, quern
concepturam virginem praedicat. Qua igitur ratione admittas filium hominis, MarSi patris hominis, negas Dei filium
cion, circumspicere non possum.
si et Dei,
Herculem de fabula facis Christum si matris tantum hominis, meum concedis si
;
neque matris hominis, ergo nuUius hominis, est filius, et necesse est mendacium
admiserit, qui se quod non erat dixit. Unum potest angustiis tuis subvenire, si audeas
aut Deum tuum patrem Christi hominem quoque cognominare, quod de Aeone fecit
Valentinus aut virginem hominem negare, quod ne Valentinus quidem fecit
" Nam in illam necesse est amentiam tendat, ut et filium hominis defendat, nee
mendacem eum faciat et ex homine neget natum, ne filium virginis concedat
;
Si natus ex
homine
est, ut filius
hominis, corpus ex corpore est,"
43
etc.
44
Such a
line of reasoning has peculiar interest in that
it
shows how
strenuously Tertullian could defend the real humanity of Christ
for
by an appeal to the virgin birth.

was Tertullian's constant task
Of like interest is his badly stated belief that the part played by God
in the generation of Jesus was such as to utterly exclude human father-
this
hood
that
human
his
God, though
begetter
parentage being
father
is
sense,
divine, because
human, because Mary was
Christ
no gross
in
was the substitute** for a
upon
God, and no man, was his
that the dual nature of Christ depends simply
divine (this
is
his mother.
The premises
are that
not only admitted, but given an unwarranted
emphasis by his heretical opponents); that his nature depends upon

that therefore that humanity which he, who could not
his parentage
;
lie,
claimed for himself could not come from his father
come from
it
must,
mother; but, granting the above, it could

come from her only through the virgin birth.
In The Flesh of Christ, chap. 23 (III, 541), there is a semi-scholastic
attempt to show that the Virgin's conception and parturition are the
sign spoken of by Simeon, and long before by Isaiah and, moreover,
that Mary, though a virgin, was in reality the purely human mother of
The saying, " Every male that openeth the womb
the human Christ.
therefore,
his
shall
be called holy to the Lord,"
is
applicable solely to the
Son of God,
womb.
since only in the case of a virgin birth does a child open the
There
is
down
a principle laid
in
Ad Nationes,
3 (III, 131),
which
explains Tertullian's belief as to the person of Christ, and, as tributary

to that, the virgin birth also
It is
divinity
a settled point that a god

is
born of that which
is
is
born of a god, and that which lacks
not divine.^
son
This very simple philosophy is the clue to the "Son of God
21
(III,
Flesh
Christ,
such
^%
ApoL,
passages
of man"
of
34, 35);
5
and especially 18 (III, 537).

Turning to prophecy, we find Tertullian using it Jn much the same
way as did Justin Martyr and Irenseus. In his Answer to Jews, 9
(III, 161), he resorts to the already familiar argument that, apart from
(III, 525),
the virgin birth, the promise of a sign in the
Immanuel
prophecy*"*
is
meaningless; and in Against Marcion, III, 12 (III, 331), he reiterates

the same contention, and points out, moreover, as did Justin Martyr
8'
As opposed
to this theory, see
^^T'E.^TVLi.iAti,
Origen, De
Ad Nationes, II, 3c.-
non deo non deum."
Also Flesh of Christ, 17
Principiis,
"Scitum, deum
(III, 536).
44
I, 2,
sec. 4 (IV, 247).
e deonasci,
quemadmodum de
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
45
{Dial., 77 ff.), that in the coming of the magi the remainder of the
prophecy, as to receiving the riches of Damascus, etc., was fulfilled.
In h.\s Answer to Jews, 9 (III, 164), he demonstrates that, according
to Isa. II I, 2, Jesus procures his Davidic descent through the virgin
:
Mary.
Chap. 21 of The Flesh of Christ {III, 539) makes a combined

argument from the Immanuel prophecy, the annunciation to Mary,
and Elizabeth's salutation to Mary, to show that she was the actual
human mother of Jesus, through whom he was a descendant of David,*^
and that from her he who was the Word of God derived his flesh.
"flesh"
pre-existent
not synonymous with his use of
is
the important reference in Marcion, IV, 10.
in
used
is
of "flesh" here
use
Tertullian's
"humanity"
in
Word
clothed himself
there the thought of pre-existence
absent, and the dual nature of Christ
The
virgin birth
"Who
chap. 53,
infers that
is
He
of the nativity of Christ at his
LXX
" Before the
no
of Ps.
morning
star did I
making
a womb."
only, without a man's seed,
it
as
in
is
to say,
a condition of a
In the
is,
yao-rpos
beget thee
referring both to the time of Christ's birth and to
body that it should come out of

more distinctive use of the New Testament the
fleshly
('E/c
"'I have begotten thee from the womb;' that
womb
from a
Isa.,
declare his nativity?" from which Tertullian
also interprets the
womb" as
the manner.
is
explained by his generation.
supported by an appeal to the question in
shall
irpo io)(T(f)6pov iyyevrjaa ere)
from the
is
no human being was aware
conception.^*
Here
the literal sense to designate that with which the
chief effort
the foregoing, to emphasize the real humanity and Davidic
descent of Christ rather than to substantiate his virgin birth.
These
three subjects, however, have a natural affinity for each other, and are
often found in combination in Tertullian's mind.
1:1;
Matt.
Rom. 1:3;
instances of this use of the
on The Flesh of Christ
His references*' to
Tim. 2:8; Gal. 3:8, 16, are ordinary
New
The
Testament.
(III, 538) has a
twentieth chapter
long dissertation to prove that
was born of {ex) Mary, partaking of her flesh, as does any

any mother. The Gnostic heretics, denying the reality
of his body, contended that he was begotten in {in) Mary, but not
Christ
child from
of {ex) her, using for their purpose Matt, i 20, to yap iv avrrj yevIk TTvevfiaTo? ecrrtv ayt'ou.
In reply, Tertullian quotes the ii of
:
vtfiev
Matt.
to
good
16
and Gal. 4:4, "made of a
effect,
woman"
but descends to his usually
^5
See also Against Marcion,
^^
Answer to Jews,
III,
20
(yevdjitevov
Ik ywaiKos),
poor exegesis in the use of
(III, 338, 339).

^t
13 (III, 171).
45
Flesh of Christ, 22 (III, 540).
46
Ps.
22:9,
womb."
"Thou
10,
he that didst draw
art
Equally indefensible
is
me
my
out of
mother's
his exegesis of the singular misread-
John 1:13, and tortures into denying

from sexual intercourse, while admitting or afifirming that
ing^* which he maintains in

Jesus' birth
he was born of real
flesh.
The Gnostics were
48 to support their denial

contending that those who announced
also using Matt. 12
of the reality of Jesus' body,^'
the presence of his mother and brethren did so to test him,
determine whether he were actually of a
human
and to
family, which fact,
they claimed, was practically denied by his reply.

readiness
to
interpret
instances, did
him good
Tertullian could have been as ignorant
would appear from what a
of the gospels as
;
viz.,
But Tertullian's
however fatal in most
service in this.
It is difficult to believe that
language implies
language,
figurative
that
all
strict interpretation of his
four of the gospels assert the virgin birth.
John and Matthew first instil faith into us

men, Luke and Mark renew it afterward. These all start
with the same principles of faith, so far as relates to the one only God the
Creator, and his Christ, bom of the Virgin, fulfilling the law and the prophets.
Now, of the authors whom he possesses, Marcion'" seems to have singled out
Luke for his mutilating process. Luke, however, was not an apostle, but
only an apostolic man not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a
at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed
master
Of the
apostles, therefore,
whilst of apostolic
[Paul] was subsequent to the others."
The
possibility that the gospels of
John and Mark, originally or
at
an early date, contained stories of the virgin birth might be entertained

here, were
we
certain that
Tertullian wrote this passage with a full
if we were, furthermore,
meant by "These all start with the same principles
.... (how that he was) born of the Virgin." Does he
consciousness of just what he was saying, and

certain of what he
of faith
mean
that all four gospels
^Flesh of Christ, 19 (111,537).
^ Against Afarcion,
9
The gospel
37, then
9'
make
this fact the
IV, 19 (III, 377, 378).
of Marcion
foundation of faith in
Also \y^y.^m\3S, Against Heresies,\\\, 19,2 (1-449).

Also, Flesh of Christ, 7 (III, 527).
began with Luke 3:1, followed immediately by 4:31-
4:16, with numerous omissions.
Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem,W
2.
"Denique nobis
fidem, nobis fidem ex
et Marcus instaurant,
quantum ad unicum Deum attinet Creatorem, et Christum ejus,
Nam ex iis comnatum ex Virgine, supplementum Legis et Prophetarum
mentatoribus quos habemus, Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse, quem caederet. Porro
Lucas non apostolus sed apostolicus non magister, sed discipulus utque magistro
apostolis Joannes et Matthaeus insinuant
isdem regulis
ex apostolicis, Lucas
exorsi,
minor
certe tanto posterior, quanto posterioris apostoli sectator, Pauli sine dubio," etc.
46
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

Christ
Or does he mean
that
47
each evangelist
which
text,
is
The con-
dealing with actual narratives and attempting to show

value, supports the literal interpretation by
relative
their
begins his
literally
gospel with the account of Jesus' birth from the Virgin
which we
understand Tertullian to say that each of the four gospels begins by

setting forth the fact that Christ was born of the Virgin.
But, since Tertullian
is
wholly unsupported in
by the
this respect
Fathers or versions, we are compelled to reject his statement as being

rather free
and exaggerated,
or, indeed, to explain
his teaching as elsewhere represented.
it
upon the
basis of
This can be done, and
is
per-
haps the true solution of the difficulty. It was seen that, according to
the treatise Against Marcion, IV, lo, a postulation of the divinity of
Jesus
made
the virgin
To
humanity.
birth
assert the
necessary
as
explanation
the
former was to affirm the
latter,
and
of his
it
was by
Now, as
Matthew and
the unique birth of Jesus that his dual nature was explained.
Tertullian looks at the matter, while
Luke
it is
true that only
beginning of their gospels, the actual narratives of

Mark and John clearly assert the
inseparable from the virgin birth, viz., that God is the
give, at the
the peculiar birth of Jesus, both

fact
which
is
Thus,
father of Jesus.
v\ov deov
in
Mark
i,
if
Tertullian accepted the uncertain reading of
which reading Irenseus before him had used,
and erroneous interpreJohn 1:13, which makes God the begetter of Christ, or even
then,
the assertion of the divine sonship as set forth in John i 18
all intents and purposes, and by inevitable deduction, the second
and
resorted, as he usually did, to the singular
tation of
to
to
and fourth gospels do, in

Christ was born of a virgin.
his
opinion, start with the assertion that
interesting to notice, in passing, his comparative valuation of
It is
Mark and Luke, especially of the latter, and

tion of Luke was no doubt for the purpose
position, as was also
gospels.
It
was
as
his
much
if
of
unwarranted assertion regarding the other

" Marcion may do what he likes
as saying
with the gospel of Luke, but he

to reckon with,
His low valuaweakening Marcion's
of Paul.
still
has the other and better gospels
he wishes to discard the true nativity of Christ and
the virgin birth."
An
interesting point noticed in the writers preceding Tertullian
is
that of the analogy between the virgin birth and the Genesis story of
In chap. 17, on The Flesh of Christ
creation, between Mary and Eve.
(III, 536), in
connection with an argument to prove the reality of the

makes an elaborate use of this analogy
flesh of Christ, Tertullian
47
48
Now it
will
be
necessary to show what previous reason there was for
first
He who was going to consecrate a

Accordmust himself be born after a novel fashion
This is the
ingly a virgin did conceive and bear Emmanuel, God with us.
new nativity a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking
the Son of God's being born of a virgin.
new order
of birth
the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed,
in order that he might reform it with a new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner,
and cleanse it by the removal of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this
innovation was prefigured, as was the case in all instances, in ancient type,
the Lord being born as man by a dispensation in which a virgin was the
medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human
labor, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God
made man
out of
from the ground,
it
apostle has told us,
ground
into a living soul.
it is
in other
As, then, the
was formed by God
into a
Adam is thus taken

Adam likewise, as the
first
a just inference that the second
quickening
spirit
out of the
words, out of a flesh which was unstained as yet by any
generation.''
But that I may lose no opportunity of supporting my
argument from the name of Adam, why is Christ called Adam by the apostle,
And even reason
unless it be that, as man, he was of that earthly origin ?
here maintains the same conclusion, because it was by just the contrary operation that God recovered his own image and likeness, of which he had been
robbed by the devil. For it was while Eve was yet a virgin that the ensnaring
word had crept into her ears which was to build the edifice of death. Into a
virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that word of God which was
to raise the fabric of life, so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex
As Eve had believed
might, by the selfsame sex, be recovered to salvation.
the serpent, so Mary believed Gabriel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve
did not at the devil's word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events
conceived for the devil's word afterward became as seed to her that she
should conceive as an outcast and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed, she gave
whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was
birth to a fratricidal devil
one day to secure salvation to Israel, his own brother after the flesh and the
murderer of himself. God, therefore, sent down into the virgin's womb his
Word, as the good brother who should blot out the memory of the evil
Hence it was necessary that Christ should come forth for the salvabrother.
tion of man in that condition of flesh into which man had entered ever since
human
his condemnation.93
9*
tion,
See also Answer
to
Jews, 12
(III,
169); Flesh of Christ, 16 (III, 536); Resurrec-
49 (III, 582).
Came Christi, XVII "Ante omnia autem commendanda

Dei filius de virgine nasceretur. Nove nasci debebat novae
Quod
nativitatis dedicator, de qua signum daturus Dominus ab Isaia praedicabatur.
est istud signum ? Ecce virgo concipiet in utero, et pariet filium (Isa. vii). Concepit
53Tertullian,Z2(5. de
erit ratio
quae praefuit,
ut
48
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

The apparent
his discourse
ultimate dogmatic statement of Tertullian
Againsi Marcion, IV, 36
Whosoever wishes
through the virgin's
him
the salutation, "
to see Jesus the
He who
birth.
Thy
faith
There
man
found
son of David must believe in him
will not believe this will not
And
so he will
hear from
remain blind,
which mutuall}' destroy each other,
down
in
just
into the ditch.'''
not as much, however, in this saying regarding the virgin
is
would
birth as
leads the blind
is
(III, 411):
hath saved thee."
falling into antithesis after antithesis
as the blind
49
at first sight
the point at issue
For the context shows that
be supposed.
not the virgin birth, but rather Jesus' Davidic
is
descent and his possession of an actual body.
In support of these last
two contentions Tertullian appeals to the healing of the blind man

entrance to Jericho, Luke 18
The man
35-43.
at the
persistently cried out:
" Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me "

In response to which,
and thus in recognition of his Davidic descent, Jesus performed the cure.
It must be remembered also that in the writings of Tertullian the
!
term " the virgin"
is,
through the passing over of what was formerly a
descriptive adjective into a proper name, frequently used to designate

igitur virgo
dum homo
Emmanuelem, nobiscum Deum. Haec est nativitatis nova,

Deo in quo homine Deus natus est, carne atque seminis sus-
et peperit
nascitur in
novo semine, id
Sed tota novitas
est spiritaliter
reformaret exclusis
ista, sicut et in
omnibus, de veteri
cepta, sine semine antiquo ut illam

antiquitatis sordibus, expiatam.
Domino
figura est, rationali per virginem dispositione
nascente.
Virgo erat adhuc
nondum opere compressa, nondum sementi subacta ex ea hominem factum

accepimus a Deo in animam vivam. Igitur si primus Adam de terra traditur, merito
sequens, vel novissimus Adam, ut Apostolus dixit, proinde de terra, id est, carne nondum generationi resignata, in spiritum vivificantem a Deo est prolatus. Et tamen, ne
terra
Adam ab Apostolo dictus est, si

Sed et hie ratio defendit, quod Deus imaginem
et similitudinem suam, a diabolo captam, aemula operatione recuperavit. In virginem
enim adhuc Evam irrepserat verbum aedificatorium mortis in virginem aeque introducendum erat Dei Verbum exstructorium vitae ut quod per ejus modi sexum
mihi vacet incursus nominis Adae, unde Christus

terreni
non
fuit
census
homo
ejus
abierat in perditionem, per
serpenti
delevit.
credidit
Sed Eva
eumdem sexum
Quod
Maria Gabrieli.
redigeretur in salutem.
ilia
nihil tunc concepit in utero
credendo
deliquit,
ex diaboli verbo.
Imo
Crediderat
Eva
haec credendo
concepit.
Nam
exinde ut abjecta pareret, et in doloribus pareret, verbum diaboli semen illi fuit.
Enixa est denique diabolum fratricidam. Contra, Maria eum edidit, qui carnalem
fratrem Israel, interemptorem suum, salvum quandoque praestaret. In vulvam ergo
Deus Verbum suum detulit, bonum fratrem, ut memoriam mali fratris eraderet. Inde
prodeundum fuit Christo ad salutem hominis, quo homo jam damnatus intraverat."
" Qui vult videre Jesum, David filium,
Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, IV, 36
Qui non ita credet, non audiet ab illo Fides tua te
salvum fecit. Atque ita caecus remanebit, ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam
antithesim.
Sic enim caecus caecum deducere solet."
s*
credat per Virginis censum.
49
50
Mary.
This
is
quite similar to the
more
familiar transition from Jesus
the Christ to Jesus Christ, and finally to Christ, as the personal proper
Bearing in mind the context and the interchangeable use of
name.
"The Virgin" and "Mary,"

analogy of what took place
this
is taken to mean that, by the

man's confession and request,
passage
at the blind
whoever wishes to see Jesus spiritually (savingly) must believe that he

was actually born into this world with real flesh, being the son of Mary,
David's descendant. To deny this is to remain in spiritual blindness
and to perish.
Evidently Tertullian's
This
that of Irenseus.'^
is
word
final
disbelieve in the virgin birth
is
as to the condition of those
due, however, to a difference in the ends
sought by his polemic, and hence in his emphasis, rather than to
differ-
ent conviction as to the essentialness of belief in the virgin birth.
very clearly,
only by means of the virgin birth that he
it is
him
give what seems to
who
not as specific and unmistakable as
is
For,
able to
humanity and
a consistent explanation of the
the divinity of Jesus.
1.
review of the material presented by Tertullian will show that
for purposes of
Ans.
331)
argument he uses the canonical infancy
stories only
Jews, g (III, 164); Soul, 26 (III, 207); Marcion, III, 12 (III,

ibid., V, 9 (III, 448)
and that, in so far as the apocryphal gos-
to
;
pels taught the perpetual virginity of Mary, he was uninfluenced by
them and
insisted
upon
a real birth {Flesh of Christ, 23 (III, 541)).
On
the other hand, Tertullian does not wholly repudiate the use of other
gospels of the Lord's nativity which he recognizes as in circulation,
but for himself abstains from anything but a very sparing use of them.
{Against Praxeas, 26 [III, 632].) His reference, like that of Irenaeus to

the mutilation of Luke by Marcion, indicates that the heretics also
recognized the canonical gospels as the basis of appeal.

2.
Tertullian
is
divided in his
made
own mind between
the representa-
and the generation

of a new being as given in the first and third gospels.
Both thoughts
are expressed by him, but not harmonized.
tion of pre-existence as
3.
in the fourth gospel
Perhaps Tertullian's increment to the study
fact of his
of Jesus, and, secondarily, in his throwing light
extra-canonical sources
^^
chiefly in the
human
pagan sphere.
Against Heresies,
upon the increasing
while at the same time his
theory of imparted nature as in

in a rather
lies
noteworthy use of the virgin birth to prove the humanity
III, 19 (I, 448, 449).
50
straight-going
generation keeps his argument
THE VIRGIN BIKTH

Clement of Alexandria
VIII.
refers to the virgin birth.
51
(died about 220 A. D.)'* seldom
sentence from The Instructor,
I,
6 (II, 220),
gives very clear evidence of the increasing exaltedness of Mary, however,
and
is
It
of her trend toward deity
and one the universal Word the Holy

one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother.''
The
is
universal Father
true that
is
one,
Clement immediately proceeds
church, and even to identify her with
ing
it
to liken
Mary
Spirit
the
to
in his allegorical cast of think-
but, nevertheless, such an utterance serves as an index
direction in which the current of thought has
More
set.
of the
significant
is
Stromata, VII, 16 (II, 551):
many even down
But, as appears,
to
our
own time regard Mary, on
account of the birth of her child, as having been
the puerperal state,
in
For some say that after she brought forth she was
Now such, to us, are the Scriptures
found, when examined, to be a virgin.
of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin in the concealalthough she was not.
ment
of the mysteries of the truth .^
This
by the rather occult sentiment of the "true

recognize " the son of the Omnipotent, not by his flesh
illustration, colored
Gnostics,"
who
conceived in the womb, but by his Father's own power," serves to
and to indicate the significant presseeming

conflict with the defense of
ence of apocryphal material. Its
physical generation made in Stromata, III, 17 (II, 400), is not to be
wondered at in a treatise that makes no attempt at homogeneity and
verify the tendency already noted,
consistency.
To
we get
we must
the Gnostic the spiritual lesson
is
everything.
and from
Inci-
though
dentally
a few of the underlying facts,
scanty,
reconstruct, as far as possible, Clement's theory of the
these,
virgin birth.
1.
It is
evident that he was acquainted with both the Johannine and
and it is equally clear that he was influenced by

some apocryphal source or sources' similar to the gospel of James.
the synoptic sources
2.
He
believed in the pre-existence
9*EusEBius, Church History, Book V,

97 ets flip
tQv 6\wv
Kal rb aiirb TravraxoO.
IlttTi^p.
fj,la
Si
eh Si Kal
p.bvr}
11,
Strom., VI,
and Book VI,
tQv SXuv A6yos.
15 (II, 508)
as
6, 13.
Kal rb HveOfia rb &yi.ov iv
ycLp fit^rrip irapdivos.
s^Clementis Alexandrini Stromatum, Lib. VII, cap.
xvi
'AW,
ws eoiKcv,
ToTs TToXXots Kal fJ.expt fv" SoKeX riMapia/j, \ex<^ etvai Sia. Trjv roO TraiSlov yivTjjLP ovk o5tra
XeX'^-
'^"^
S' Tj/xTp al
y^P !""* '^ reKeiv
avrrjp p.aiude?crav <pa(ri rives irapdivov evpedrjvai.
Toiavrai
KvpiaKal Tpa(pal ttjp dXrideiav diroTLKTOvffai, Kal p-ivovaai irapd^poi /xerd
iiriKpixpeus ruiv ttjj aKr)deia% p.v(TTr]plwp.
"See mention
of
"Gospel according
to the
51
Hebrews," Strom.,
II, 9.
ttjs

52
also in the real birth of Jesus
much
Strom., Ill, 17 (II, 400); but just how-
of miracle the apocryphal sources
had
instilled into his belief, in
addition to the miraculous conception of the canonical accounts, can-
not be definitely decided. Judging by Strom., VII, 16, he was attracted

toward a belief in the miraculous birth as well as in the miraculous
conception.
3.
he
is
Clement's increment to the study

the
first
is
noteworthy, inasmuch as
upon the
of our contributors to look with decided favor
apocryphal material
and, while he uses
it
for illustration chiefly,
it is
had not
long to wait. In fact, the exaltation toward deity which with Clement
begins to be attributed to Mary is undoubtedly due to the influence of
the apocryphal material and the traditions embodied therein.
nevertheless at the church doors waiting for admission.
IX.
It
Origen' (185-254) gives frequent statements of the docbirth, including the orthodox, the heretical, and
trines of the virgin
what may be called the Gnostic-orthodox. In the first class are such
passages as De Frin., preface (IV, 240) and II, 6 (IV, 281)
Against
Celsiis, I, 7 (IV, 399), and Com. Jno., I, 39, and X, 23 (IX, 315, 403);
and also Against Celsus, II, 25 (IV, 473), where the reality of the body
of Jesus is emphasized in comparison with the mystic entrance of the
spirit of Apollo into the priestess of the Pythian cave.
In the second
class is the belief of Celsus stated in Against Celsus, I, 59 (IV, 427);
and a reference to the common belief of Jesus' contemporaries in Cotn.
;
Mt., X, 20, andy>/<?., VI,

a passage
(IX, 427, 355).

In the third class there is
easily the " true " Gnostic could satisfy
which shows how
himself in the matter of Jesus' parentage through his ready idealizing
and
spiritualizing faculty.
It
serves as an indication of the fact that,
apart from precise historic reality, the semi-Gnostic was able to worship Christ as the supreme spiritual ideal, and his liability to error was
never in the direction of subtracting those things which
made
for the
divinity of Jesus.
If anyone should lend credence to the gospel according to the Hebrews,

where the Savior hinriself says, " My mother the Holy Spirit took me just now
by one of my hairs and carried me oE to the great Mount Tabor," he will have
to face the difficulty of explaining how the Holy Spirit can be the mother of
Christ when it was itself brought into existence through the Word.
But
neither the passage nor this difificulty is hard to explain.
For if he who does
the will of the Father in heaven is Christ's brother and sister and mother,
and if the name of brother of Christ may be applied, not only to the race of
""EUSEBIUS, Church History, VI, 2-4,
8, 16, 19, 23, 30, 32, 36.
52
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
53
men, but to beings of diviner rank than they, then there is nothing absurd in
the Holy Spirit's being his mother, everyone being his mother who does the
{Com. Jno., II, 6 [IX, 329].)
will of the Father in heaven."'
But the statement of the theories with respect to the parentage of

is incomplete without noticing the more distinctively Jewish contentions which cause Origen to pass over more perceptibly into the
Jesus
region of argument and refutation.

sented in Against Celsus,
I,
A common
Jewish story
is
repre-
28 (IV, 408):
For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting him, as he

many points and in the first place he accuses him of having
invented his birth from a virgin, and upbraids him with having been born in
thinks, on
a Jewish village, of a poor
woman
of the country,
who gained her
subsistence
by spinning, and who was turned out-of-doors by her husbund, a carpenter

by trade, because she was convicted of adultery that after being driven
away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave
;
birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who, having hired himself out as a ser-
vant in Egypt, on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some
miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves,
returned to his
own
country, highly elated on account of them, and by
means
of these proclaimed himself a god."'*
An
elaboration of this story and
32 and 33
its
refutation are found in chaps.
But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the
mother of Jesus and saying that when she was pregnant she was turned outof-doors by the carpenter, to whom she had been betrothed, as having been
guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Pan'"Origenis Comment, in Joan.,
'EiayyfKiov, ivda avrbs 6 Zwt^/j
filq.
Twv rpix^v
p-ov,
II,
(p7](Tiv.
Kal awive-yKi
fie els
6:
'Eii* 5^ irpoaUral rti rb Kad'' "E^palovi
"Apri eXa/3^
/ie ij fii/iTTip
rb 6poi rb p.â dapiip.
fiov
t6 Hyiov Hvevp-a iv
iirairopT^ffei.
irui
p.'firrip
Tavra S^ Kal tovto

TO 5ta ToO Abyov yeyevr]p.ivov Hvevp-a dyiov eivai dvvarai.
E/ yap 6 wot.Civ rb 6^\7}p.a tov Ilwpbs tov iv rots oipavots d.8e\XaXe-rrbv eppLTjvevaai.
'KpiffToO
oil
<pbs Kal a8e\<pT]
Kal p-v^VP icrrlv avrov, Kal
(pddvei.
rb d.8\<pbs XpiiXTOv 6vopa
oii
pbvov
iirl
rb tQv avdpthwiav yivos, dXXd Kal iirl to, tovtov deibrepa. ov8î> drowov fjrai pdWov
ovpavoh HaTpbs,
irdffris xPW''''f<"^<'''?5 p.r}rpbs XptffTov 5td rb TroieTv rb dfKrjpa tov iv Toh
t6 Hvevp-a t6 &yiov ehai pijTipa.
'=Origenis Contra Celsum, I, 28: peTa TavTa wpoffuir otto Let 'lovSatov aiirQ 8ia\e'17]<toT Kal iXiyxovTa airrbv irepl tvoWwv p.kv, ws oieTai, irpwTov 8h, ws ir\a<ra-
ybpevov, t($
pivov avTod rrjv ex vapdivov yivecriv.
6vei8lêi 5' avT(p Kal iwl Tip iK Kdiprjs aiiTbv yeyovivat
Kal dirb yvvaiKbs iyx^pl-ov Kal Trej'txpds, Kal xep>'T7Ti56s (prjffi 5' avTrjv Kal virb
TOV yvpavTos, t^ktovos tt)v Tix''V'' ^"tos, iêQxrdai, iXeyxêlffav ws pepoix^vpivr)v. elra
'lovSa'LKTji,
Xe'X, ws iK^XijOeiaa virb tov dvSpbs, Kal irXavupivr] dripus CKbrLOV iyivvrja-e Tbv 'Ii]<rovv.
Kal Htl ovtos 8ia ireviav eh AtyvirTov piadapvqffas KaKeT dvvdpediv tlvuv weipadels, icp'' ah
AiyvTTTLOi aepvvvovTai, iiravijXdev iv rats 8vvdpe<Ti.
dvrfybpevffe.
53
piya
<ppovwv, Kal
ot'
aiirds debv avTbv
54
thera;'3
and
let
who have
us see whether those
blindly concocted these
fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera
and her rejection by
the carpenter did not invent these stories to overturn his miraculous concep-
by the Holy Ghost for

manner, on account of its
admitted, as it were against
human marriage. It was to
tion
they could have falsified the history in a different
extremely miraculous character, and not have

their will, that Jesus
was born
of
no ordinary
be expected, indeed, that those who would not

believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And
their not doing this in a credible manner, but their preserving the fact that it
was not by Joseph
that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood
very palpable to those
who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it

he who dared to do so much for the human
far as in him lay, all the Greeks and barbarians who
at all agreeable to reason that
race in order that, as
were looking for divine condemnation might depart from evil and regulate
their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator of the world, should
not have had a miraculous birth, but one the vilest and most disgraceful of
And
all ?
will
ask of them as Greeks, and particularly of Celsus,
either holds or not the sentiments of
and
who
any rate quotes them,

the bodies of men, degraded him who
Plato,
at
whether he who sends souls down into

was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so
many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful
than any other, and did not rather introduce him into the world through a
lawful marriage.
Or,
is
it
more
not
soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I
conformity with reason that every
in
speak now according
to
the opinions
and Plato and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names),

is introduced into a body and introduced according to its deserts and former
It is probable, therefore, that this soul also which conferred more
actions ?
of Pythagoras
by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice
do not say "all " ), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but
invested with all excellent qualities ? (33) .... By act of adultery between
benefit
I
Panthera and the Virgin ? Why, from such unhallowed intercourse there
must rather have been brought some fool to do injury to mankind a teacher
of licentiousness and wickedness and other evils, and not of temperance and
^
righteousness and the other virtues ^*
'3Celsus's statement of the infidelity of
was a
soldier,
literated
p. 25)
into
by name Panthera, appears also

Pandera.
thinks that this
J.
name
Mary, affirming that the father of Jesus

in the Talmud, where the name is trans-
Armitage Robinson (Tex^ and

is
Studies, Vol.
simply a Greek anagram on the word
" the literary tricks of that time."
" Everything that
we know
of
Nor need we
No.
i,
the dogmatics of
the second century agrees with the belief that at that period the virginity of
a part of the formulated Christian belief.
I,
irapdivoi, similar to
hesitate, in
Mary was
view of the
antiquity of the Panthera fable, to give the doctrine a place in the creed of Aristides."
'-*Origenis Contra Celsum,

7rpo(rcawoirotav, iv
^ dvayiypaTrrai
I,
i]
32: 'AXXa yap ivaviXduifiev

toO
Irjffov
54
iJ-'fjTrip
cbs
els
ttjv tov 'IvSaiov
iôjadetaa i/wb tov iJ-vqarevaa-
THE VIRGIN BIKTH
55
Origen's polemic tactics in this passage are as good as his informa-
and defense are imperfect
tion
in the following
Against Celsus,
I,
37
(IV, 412):
But as a further answer to the Greeks, who do not believe in the birth of
we have to say that the Creator has shown by the generation of several kinds of animals that what he has done in the existence of one
animal he could do if it pleased him in that of others, and also of man himFor it is ascertained that there is a certain female animal which has no
self.
Jesus from a virgin,
intercourse with a male, as writers on animals say
and
the case with vultures,
is
that this animal without sexual intercourse preserves the succession of
if God wished
human race, he caused him to be born in some
manner different from the common way ? Nay, according to the Greeks
For, if the world
themselves, all men were not born of a man and woman.
has been created, as many even of the Greeks are pleased to admit, then the
first men must have been produced, not from sexual intercourse, but from
What
race.
to
incredibility
send a divine teacher
there, therefore, in supposing that,
is
to the
the earth, in which spermatic elements existed
more incredible than
that Jesus
And
the half of his birth.

pi.4vov
there
avTrjv t^ktovos, iXeyx^^^'^"-
ToUvofia- Kal (Sunev el

Iia,vdripa Kal
/jlt]
was born
^""^
M<"X^9
''"^
vouj
rg
rhv riKTOva i^w<rdfj.vov
dvOpuTTOis ydfjLwv 6
dXXd
d/iTOi/eti'
6.vTrjv
ravra irdvra dviirXaaav

iSuvavro yap
dWws
Kal dK6\ov66v ye
'IrjcroOs iyevv-^dr},
pierd rod TTjpfjcraL 6ti ovk
irpdTTuffiv dpe<TKbvT03S
his-
tov
dwb tov
ypevSoTroiTjcrai
ffvyKaraOep.^-
9jv roiis fir)
fii]
ivapyh
iridavwi avroiii tovto
rbv
Irjffovv,
dpa yap eiXoyov
tjv \pevboi.
dwooTCxn,
did rb
ovk airb
Uri.
'Iw(Tt/0 irapdivos ffvv^Xaê
Kpiffip deiav irpoaSoKT^ffavTes
tw twv 6'Xwc
Ka6aipi<TtL rT}%
iirl
dKovalu^ ffvyKaradiffdai
ucnrepel
fir]
Kal iX^yxîv dvair\dffp.aTa. dwap-ivois
^dpâpoi
consider
rlKTOVffa dir6 rivos ffTpicIiTOv TlavO-fipa
rbv TO(ravTa virip tov y^vovs tQv dvdpdjiruiv ToXfi-qcavTa, iva tA

"EXXiji/fj Kol
so far as regards
employing Grecian
vapaS6îfi yev^(rei. rov 'Itjctov ir\d<rai ri êOSoj- rb 5^
iroiijiTai
TOtj
in
men
TV(f>\C)s ol nvdowoiricravTes ttjc fioixelav ttjs irapdivov kclI
irapddoôv ti}v Icropiav Kal
(TVV7fd(i)v
which, however,
no absurdity
is
irapaS6ôv dirb dylov irveij/xaros <fvXK-fi\pews.

a'<f>68pa
like other
6<tov ^tt' oi)t45 irdvTe%
p.kv ttjs
KaKias irdvTa 5k
8rip.L0vpyQ, irapddoôv pL^v p.^ ^(rx^jK^vat yiveaiv iraa-Qv
EWrjvas Kal p,d\i(TTa K^\(toi>,

Td UXdrwi'os- dpa 6 KaTair^p.vup \f/vxds els
dk yev4(Teu)v Trapavop.uTdTr]v Kal a/o'x^CT'v; epQ 8k wj Trpbs

etre (ppovovirra efre
dv6p(I)vu}p fftijoiora
TTJi /card t}jv
p.)],
wX^v
irapaTLd^p-evov
Tbv TocavTa ToXp'^ffovTa Kal TOffovTov^ 8i5dôvTa Kal dirb t^s %y(7ewj
KaKiav pLeraffT-QcrovTa ttoWovs dvdpdnruv iwl
&dei, firi8k Sid ydpcav yviqffluv aiiTbv elcrayayojv els Tbv

Kd(TT7)v
^vxv" Kard
elffKplvecrdai /cat /card
{'iva pT}
alcxpoTipav yive<nv
^Lov;
ij
oi/s
iroWdKis
rd
irpbTepa
wi>6p.acrev 6
ijdT];
KAcros),
TOV irdvTujv KpeiTTovos.
ydp toio6twv dvdyvwv
33:
ov pbvov
dirb
xpvxriv,
twv
iroWQv
dvOpiiiiruv
iv dvOpuTrlvois crupacri 8ia^4povTos
dXXd
Havdripa poixe'ua-avTOS Kal -irapOivov poix^vdelff-qs
pLêojv e8ei
dibdffKaXov dKoXaaias Kal dSiKias Kal
tQv
iis
p.dWov
tuv
Kar'
eicTKpivopi^vrjv ff(i>p.aTi
eUbs ovv Kal TadT-qv Tr)v
avvapirdêiv 8oku), X^yoji/ ivdvTiov) dvdpthirwv (hcpeKip-diTipav Tip /S/y
firi8T]pova-av, Se8e^ff0ai trci/xaros,
8iKaioavvr]s Kal
eiiXoyuTepov
Tivas diro^pi^Tovs Xbyovs (X^7a> 5^ roOra vvv Kara Tlvdaybpav Kal
nXdTwj/a Kal 'Epire8oK\ia,

dîav
tt]v iraffuip
tQv dvdpwTruv
Kal
'Ek
dvbrjTov Tiva, Kal eiri^\a^9j tois dvdpdiirois
"KoiwCjv
Xoittoji' dperwj',
55
KaKuv
Yei/ô-ôi
o6x^ 8i
(Tuxppocrivris Kal
56
tories to
sons
answer Greeks with a view
who have recourse
have thought
showing that we are not the only perFor some
to
miraculous narratives of this kind.
to
not in regard to ancient
fit,
and heroic narratives, but
regard
in
very recent occurrence, to relate as a possible thing that Plato '5
to events of
was the son
of Amphictione, Ariston being prevented
And
pregnant by Apollo.
from having marital
him with whom she was
intercourse with his wife until she had given birth to
yet these are veritable fables, which have led to
man whom
the invention of such stories concerning a
they regarded as pos-
wisdom and power than the multitude, and as having received

the beginning of his corporeal substance from better and diviner elements
than others, because they thought that this was appropriate to persons who
sessing greater
were too great to be human beings. And since Celsus has introduced the
Jew disputing with Jesus and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of
his birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danae,'* and
Melanippe,'' and Auge,' and Antiope,"' our answer is that such language
becomes a buffoon, and not one who is writing in a serious tone."
'5
"*Made pregnant by
427-347 B. C.
Made pregnant by Hippotes, and gave

mare and placed among the stars.
"7
Jupiter by
birth to
means
golden shower.
of a
ôlus, metamorphosed into a
'"'Daughter of Aleus of Tegea, and mother of Telephus by Hercules.

'"'The mother of Anthion by Jupiter.
" Origenis Contra Celsum,
iK irapdivov yevicei toO
8ti ^v
avrf ôvXrjdivTi dvvarbv

eiiplffKirai 54
rCjv dv6pu)Trwv.
irepl
fcfjajf
tQv
TOLS yvvaii}.,
elvat.
KbcTfios,
tov i^
Sltottov TTpbs
So^Q
5^ irphi 'EXX7;i'as \eKT4ov, aTreidovvras
tQv
ry tQv ttolkLXuv
iv
i(p''
ivbs
fyou Kal
î^wv BifKea,
firj
7r'
dWuv
exovra Appevos
Kal
^tt'
&Ww
dvrl (Tirep/xaTiKoO Xbyov, toO iK /x^fews
rpbiru}
yev^crdai
ws Kal TToWoTs 'EXKi^viov

yrjs,
ffTrepnaTiKQv
i]p.lffovs
dWd
HXdruv
dirb rijs
A.p.cj>LKTibvr)s
^pecrev, dvdyKr) tovs Trpurovs
Xbyuv ffvcrdpTuv iv rg yrf
xP'^'^^-'^^'-i
ESoê ydp tktiv
ol
el
fj.7]
oil
''''''
M''?
yap
/car'
yevrj-
iK ffvpovclai
6irep olfxai irapado^boiibep 5'
SoKUfxev ixbvoi
dpxaluv tlvQv
irepl
dppiviav
Kal
ry
irapa-
laTopiQiv koI
bwarbv
8ti Kal
yiyove, KuKvOivros rod 'AplaTcovos avrrj ffweXdeiv,
dXXd TaOra
diroKV^ffeL rbv i^ 'ATrbXXuvos (nrapivra.
rb dvairXdcrat. Toiovrb tc
tQv
rbv \6yov tov rex&V'ôp.ivov
Kal nepi rivuiv x^^s Kal irpwyv yevofiivuv dvaypdrpai ws

'
ws
(ri^êi ttjv
rots "Konrois dvdpihirois yeviadai rbv 'Irjffovv.
bfxoic^s
ravTrj KexpvffdaL.
ijpcjiKtbv
olvtuv
Koivojviav,
tL oSv irapadoôv, ei pov'hrjdels 6 debs delbv riva dLOaffKaXov wip-tpai
EXXijvas Kal 'EWrjviKaTs IffTopiais
IcTToplq,
ry
îfiwv yevâei edeiêv
EXXTjcas ov Trdvres &v9puirot i^ dvdpbs Kal yvvaiKbs iyivovro.
yeyovivat dXX' dirb

repov
iroiTJaai direp
riva
dvdpiiirtav veiroiTjKfv
[irot^(rot]
avToiis 5^ Tobs
t6s iffTLv 6
'En
dvaypdxj/avTes \iyovffi. irepl yvtrdv Kal tovto rb îpov x^pts fxlêws
Siadoxvv tCjv yevdv.

Tip yivei
37
I,
'IiycroO, dirt 6 bijixiovpyhs
irepl dvdpbs,
fikv dX7]6Cis
fivdoi,
$v iv6p,iôv p.eiôva rCiv iroXXQv
?a;i
KivriffavTes eli
ex'"''''''
cro(plav Kal
dijvafuv Kal dirb KpeiTrbvoiv Kal deoripojv cnrepfxaTOiv t7)v dpxi)v rrjs crvffTdaeus tov adifxaTos
elXT]<pevai,
us
tovO'' dpp.bôv rots p.eiô<yiv
eiariyaye biaXeybixevov
tw
I'ljcro?
ij
KaTo, &v6puirov.
vov yeviffeus avTov, (pipovTa Tobs 'EXXriviKobs /xvdovs irepl

Aijyris Kal 'AvTibiTTis XeKriov Sti
iirel
5^ Tbv 'lovda?ov 6 KeXcros
Kal SiaaiipovTa rrjc, ws oferai, irpoairoi'qcnv ttjs iK irapdi-
ravra )3w/ioX6xV
iv TT) dirayyeXlq..
56
Aavdys Kal MeXavLirinjs
eirpeire to,
pyp-aTa Kal
oiJ
Kal
ffirovSdôvTi
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
57
In Against Celsus, I, 39 (IV, 413), mention is made of the sarcastic

inquiry of Celsus as to just why God decided to have intercourse with
this particular
woman, but
question merits no reply.
in the
opinion of Origen such an irreverent
There
is an argument in Against Celsus, II,

69 (IV, 459), based upon the burial of Jesus in the new tomb, to show
that by analogy it was fitting for him to be conceived, not by ordinary
generation, but of a virgin.
As would be expected, Origen's argument in defense of the virgin

him to make the ordinary appeal to prophecy, which he
birth causes
The Imraanuel passage
regards as being minutely predictive."'
used in Against Celsus,
is
410 ff.), where from his linguistic

studies Origen decides that Pl^b?. which the Septuagint translates
Trap6evo<s,
34, 35 (IV,
I,
means technically a
by Deut. 22
virgin, as
is
substantiated, in his opinion,
But by referring to Prov. 30 19 and Cant. 6 8

we are led to believe that his deduction was made upon too narrow a
basis.
Probably the best translation for Isa. 7:14 is "the young
:
23, 24.
spouse."
The distinctive use of the New Testament is found in the relics

which we have of Origen's commentaries on Matthew and John. In
the former. Books VI, 7, and X, 1 7 (IX, 357, 424), treating of the opinion
of Jesus' contemporaries as expressed in Matt.
and the carpenter and

sisters referred to,
his
13:55
where Mary
name and his
ff.,
brothers are mentioned by
he says
But some say, basing it on a tradition in the gospel according to Peter, as

book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of
Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who
say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that
that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said
" The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, etc.," might not know intercourse with,
man after that the Holy Ghost came into her, and the power from on high
overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was
the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary
among women for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the
t is
entitled, or the
first fruit
of virginity.'"
'".g^., Against Celsus,
'"Origenis Com.
iKyeypafifiivov
I,
37 (IV, 412).
Matt., X, 17:
Kark Tl^rpov EvayyeXlov
rijs /3i/3Xoi;
tQ
eiirbvTi Xbyi^.
tAohs ôvXovTai,
Tlvevixa.
&yiov
k. t. X.
iva
yv({}
fir]
Oil
t6 Kpidev eKeivo
vi/'ous.
Kadap6TT]Tos rrji iv dyveiq, d.irapxv" yeyovivai rbv
ydp
ev<pr]fxov,
vioiis
a^lojixa ttjs
ffui/xa
Maplas
di.aKovf)<jaffda.L
Kal oifiai \6yov exeti*,
ItjctoOj',
yvvaiKwv 8^
dvdpQv
ttjv Mapidfi.
d\\T)v Trap' iKelvrjv ttjv dTrapx^jv ttjs irapdevlas iin.yd\pa<Tdai.
57
rov
wporipas
opfidj/xevoi
'Iw(7rj0 iK
Kolrriv dvdpbi /xera t6 iweXdeiv iv dvTrj,
IlveOfia ayiov, Kal rriv iwecTKLaKvia aiirri 5vvafjiiv e|

fi^v
iK TrapaSdffews
'laKuiôv,
01 5e ravra \4yovTs to
yvvaiKbs, avvifiKriKvias a^rc/j Trp6 rrjs Map/as.

iv trapdevlq, T-qpelv p.ixp'-
rives elvai
(f)a<Tl
Q
58
In this passage Origen clearly accepts as agreeable with his own

thinking the tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary given in the
gospel of James, while he differs from those who by their questions
recorded in Matt. 13:55 evidently thought Jesus to be the son of Joseph.

But just what does Origen mean by Jesus' being the first fruit among
men of the purity which

among women ? With
consists in chastity,
and Mary's being the same
regard to Jesus he seems to express
reasonable opinion that he was the
man born
first
in purity,
as a
it
/. e.,
whose
conception and birth were chaste.
Impurity and unchastity entered
into the generation
In the case of Jesus this purity
others.
of all
was the result of the miraculous conception by the spirit of God, and
his miraculous birth as related in the gospel of James, for the birth
there described
is
from pollution such
free
as attended every other
Mary is preserved intact. But does Origen

It is more probable that he
assert a like birth for Mary herself?
intends to give Mary only a somewhat similar place of purity among
women, not asserting a virgin birth for her, but, in accord with the
gospel upon whose representation he has already commented, ascribbirth,
and the virginity
of
ing to her superior chastity in her birth and upbringing.
This
is
the
impression given by the protevangelium, where the most remarkable

child
Mary
born to the aged Joachim and Anna, not of lust, but as

Simiis carefully shielded from all impurity.
is
the child of prayer, and
Old Testament, but

Thus the
influence of the protevangelium of James or of some similar tradition
is very evident in shaping the thought and expression of Origen in
male children are recorded
lar births of
Mary
is
the
first
woman
whom we
of
in the
have such a record.
this passage.
John 2:21 in Com., X, 23 (IX, 403), where

the query is raised as to whether "the temple of his body" means "the
body which he received from the Virgin, or that body of Christ which
There
is
the church
is
of Elizabeth
Having
a reference to
And
said to be."
the leaping of the Baptist in the
womb
taken to attest "his divine conception and birth."
is
and Origen's
and the gospels, we come to
Origen on the question. De
dealt with the statements of the virgin birth
appeal to Scripture, especially prophecy

the
ultimate
Principiis,
theological
I, 2,
position
4 (IV, 247)
For those children
of
of
men which appear among
us, or those
descendants
by whom they were

begotten, or derived from those mothers in whose wombs they are formed
and nourished, whatever that is which they bring into this life and carry
of other living beings, correspond to the seed of those
58
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

when they
with them
pare
God
But
are born.
it is
59
monstrous and unlawful
the Father, in the generation of his only begotten Son,
substance of the same, to any
man
to
and
comin the
or other living thing engaged in such an
we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional and

worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in
act
for
which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by

human mind should be able to apprehend how the
things, but
perception, so that a
God
unbegotten
made
the father of the only begotten Son.

Because his
and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced
from the sun. For it is not by receiving the breath of life that he is made a
son, not by any outward act, but by his own nature. "^
generation
is
is
as eternal
Although Origen
is
not here dealing directly with the virgin birth
problem of the creation of the pre-existent

what he has to say has a double bearing upon the
as such, but rather with the
Son
of
God,
virgin birth
still
first,
in that
it
flatly
repudiates the thesis of Tertullian
and others of the Fathers, that a god is born of a god, and that the
laws which hold in the matter of human generation and offspring
must be normative in the sphere of the divine. On the contrary,
Origen, in a very laudable way, lifts the whole matter out of the realm
of human parallel and says that, as when the sun first existed its rays
went forth, so when God first existed (if such a time can be conceived)
then inevitably the Son existed also. This idea has its bearing upon
the virgin birth in freeing it from any thought of a nature imparted
to Jesus, and in the second place makes the virgin birth an incarnation
purely."*
The
in that
material of Origen
it
is
valuable for this study of the virgin birth
indicates what were the counter-stories in
vogue among the
Jews; that the Greek myths and the story regarding the virgin birth of
Plato were widely discarded, while the virgin birth of Jesus was still
" Quoniam hi qui videntur apud nos hominum
eorum a quibus seminati sunt respondent, vel
earum quarum in utero formantur ac nutriuntur, habent ex his quicquid illud est quod
Infandum autem est et illicitum,
in lucem hanc assumunt ac deferunt processuri.
Deum patrem in generatione unigeniti filii sui atque in subsistentia ejus exaequare
alicui vel hominum vel aliorum animantium generanti
sed necesse est aliquid exceptum esse Deoque dignum cui nulla prorsus comparatio non in rebus solum, sed ne in
"3 Origenis
filii,
De
Principiis,
I, ii,
vel caeterorum animalium, semini
cogitatione quidem,vel sensu invenire potest, ut
quomodo
ingenitus
Deus pater
humana
efficitur unigeniti
filii.
sempiterna generatio sicut splendor generatur ex luce.

spiritus filius
fit
cogitatio possit apprehendere
Est namque
Non enim
ita
aeterna ac
per adoptionem
extrinsecus, sed natura filius est."
"* For the Gnostic refinement of the incarnation see
De
Principiis, II, 6 (IV, 282),
where the union of the pre-existent Son with '^vxh prior to the
a body lessens the difficulty of God's mingling with matter.
59
latter's
assumption of
60
generally maintained
that the resort to
prophecy was similar
to that
former apologists, but with a show of more scholarship; that the
of
mystic and spiritual import of the fact was, as would be natural from
the Gnostic standpoint, of relatively the greatest importance
same
this
spiritual sense freed
the concept from
some
of
and
its
that
former
and placed it beyond the realm of explanation while at the

same time the virgin birth was an important witness to the true nature
of him who, being pre-existent as the Son of God, nevertheless sub" His birth from the Virgin and
mitted to this wonderful incarnation.
his life so admirably lived showed him to be more than a man" {Com.
grossness,
in loannem,
1
I,
34, [IX, 315]).
In the matter of the sources for the virgin-birth story Origen shows
no extra-canonical account to which the Jews in their bitcalumny could appeal, and that therefore they were forced to apply
All of the
their inventive and spiteful genius to the canonical sources.
that there was

ter
apocryphal sources were a heightening rather than a toning
down
or
That the heretics

made use of these apocryphal elaborations is made quite probable from
Against Celsus, I, 28 (IV, 408). In this passage there seems to be a
heretical use of some gospel or gospels that narrated the miraculous
doings of Jesus while in Egypt. (See, ^.^., Pseudo- Matthew, chaps. 19denial of the miraculous in the canonical accounts.
As
24.)
for
Origen himself, his chief appeal
is
to the canonical stories,
but at the same time his references to the Gospel of the Hebrews and of
Peter and of James, and his rather glad acceptance of the material
which they afford, indicate the growing favor which the apocryphal
gospels were receiving.

2.
Origen's belief in the pre-existence of
clearly stated, as
He
is
Christ as the
also the humiliation of the advent as taught
Word
is
by Paul.
believed in the miraculous conception and in the virgin birth as a
and yet he exalted the whole matter above the rightful field
man's investigation and understanding, making it a more profound
fact by far than the straight-going logic of Tertullian had assumed.
real birth,
for
Origen held to a combination, but hardly a harmonization, of the

Johannine Logos philosophy and the simple account of the infancy
and in this combination the Logos
sections of Matthew and Luke
philosophy was the predominant factor.
3. The item of chief importance contributed by Origen is his indication of the growing acceptance of the apocryphal view of the chastity
;
of
Mary
as
emphasized
in
the teaching of her perpetual virginity.
This gradual advance upon the position of Clement of Alexandria

60
is
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
61
what would be expected in the case of so severe an ascetic as Origen,

and we should therefore be guarded against crediting the apocryphal
sources with too wide an influence among Christians who were unaffected by the Gnostic philosophy.
X. HiPPOLYTUS (flourished
98-239). "^
The
extant writings of Hip-
polytus state the theories of the virgin birth with great frequency and
Most
variety.
of the views, however, are those that have already
noticed in other apologists and polemists."*

views
is
that of the Sethians
The Son ....
in the
might be able
that he
Among
shape of a serpent entered into a
to
been
the less familiar
recover that
Mind which
is
womb
in
order
the scintillation from
the light."?
Sethians had formed a threefold philosophy based upon light,
The
and darkness, as the three fundamental elements. Light is that

which is superior and above, darkness is its opposite, and spirit is
between the two. Jesus came into human life to redeem the mind,
which is light, encircled in the darkness of flesh. The Greek sophist
spirit,
Monoimus
The Son
says
of
Man ....
has been generated from the perfect man,
no one knew; every creature who
him
idea of
6[V,
is
as the ofiEspring of a
whom
ignorant of the Son, however, forms an
woman
{^Refutation of All Heresies, VIII,
121]).
Noetus expresses the Patripassian theory which found favor with the
contemporary Roman bishops and served to make them odious to
Hippolytus. The longer statement of this theory is in IX, 5 (V, 127),
but the shorter one in X, 23 (V, 148) gives the gist of the matter
:
And
this heretic also alleges that the
not generated, but begotten
when he
is
Father
is
unbegotten when he
is
born of a virgin.
There is an interesting belief recorded in IX, 9 and 25 (V, 132, 148),

showing how the Pythagorean influence had determined the theory of
a certain heretic Elchasai,
who
"S EusEBius, Church History,
Book VI,
Refutation
22.
X, 29 (V, 123,
"Ôrthodox %'i'aX&rt^t.n\.
Com. on Dan., 111,6 and 93 (V, 179, 188); Homilies,Wl (V, 239); Against
Noetus, IV (V, 225); and Com. Prov. (V, 174). Especially emphasizing the reality
of Jesus' birth, Refutation of All Heresies, VI, 4 (V, 75); Valentinian and Gnostic
of All Heresies, VIII, 10
152);
views
(V, 113);
>?<?/.
VII, 20
All Her., VI, 30,31; VIII, .2 (V, 88,90, 118); Carpocrates
VII, 22 (V, 114);
VII, 21; X, 17 (V, 114, 147); Ebionites
Cerinthus
X, 19 (V, 114, 147); Apelles = VII, 26

Theodotus = VII, 23
Marcus = VI, 46 (V, 97); Docetic = VIII, 3 (V, 120).
;
"T Refutation of All Heresies, V, 14; X, 7 (V, 66, 143).
61
X, 16 (V, 115, 147);
62
was born a man in the same way as common to all, and

was not for the first time on earth when bom of a virgin, but that
both previously and that frequently again he had been born and would be
born.
Christ would thus appear and exist among us from time to time,
undergoing alterations of birth, and having his soul transferred from body to
asserts that Christ
that Christ
body.
Then
finally there is the
Jewish belief
from the stock of David, but not from a virgin

woman and a man, according as it is a rule
be procreated from seed {^Refutation of All Heresies, IX, 25 [V,
that his generation will be
and the Holy

for all to
Spirit,
but from a
138]).
From
variety
the material above cited
and
in
and quoted we may learn with what
connection with what professedly philosophic vagaries
Had more of the writwe should undoubtedly be even

which means that the theological valua-
the doctrine of the virgin birth was set forth.
ings of Hippolytus been preserved,
more impressed with
this fact,
tion of the doctrine steadily increased from what was in apostolic times
a negligible quantity to what was
now conceived
to
be of the most
In the formulation of the church's belief,
serious theological import.
whether that most commonly accepted or that peculiar to the heretical

sects, this doctrine, in
some form or
other, negative or positive, was
sure to appear.
In examining the support which
Hippolytus adduces from the
Scriptures for the orthodox theory of the virgin birth
we must, because
more
of the fragmentary character of his writings, be satisfied with a

superficial defense than
made
was offered by his great predecessors.
No
use
Immanuel prophecy; but Daniel, Proverbs, and Psalms

are the chief Old Testament authorities to which appeal is made. Prov.
9 :i, "Wisdom hath builded her house," is taken to mean that Christ,
the wisdom and power of God, took his covering of flesh from the
Virgin.
A fanciful comment is given on Cant. 4:16, "Awake, O
northwind and come thou, south. Blow upon my garden that the
spices thereof may flow out "
is
of the
As Joseph was delighted with these spices, he is designated the king's

God as the virgin Mary was anointed with them, she conceived the
son by
Word "7^
In the
"7a
(V, 176).
comment on Dan.
26 there
is
Hippolytus, / Canticurn Canticorum,
tus esset Joseph, filius Regis a
Deo
designatur.
ventre suo concepit Verbum."
62
a statement of the pre-existence

4
16:
"His aromatibus cum
His Virgo Maria cum uncta
oblectaesset, in
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
63
and activity of Christ before the virgin birth. There

remark in the Comtnefitary on the Psalms (V, 170)
But the Lord was without
humanity; that
of the
Word
The main
is,
sin,
of the Virgin
made
of imperishable
also an obscure
is
wood
as regards his
and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly
God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold."^
of
show
object here seems to be to
the purity of Jesus' concep-
But what can be meant by Jesus' being made of the Virgin and
the Holy Ghost inwardly and of the Word of God outwardly?
The
reverse statement would have been more easy of apprehension.
Whether there is any serious theological concept at the basis of this
similitude of Jesus to the ark, or whether the similitude is carried out for
its own sake and on this account, the Word, as being the more precious
tion.
and corresponding to the gold of the ark, is given an external place

in the ontogâphy of Jesus, is difficult to say, because at most the passage is only a fragmentary and fanciful comment on a Hebrew poem.
If,
however, the passage be taken
seriously,
at all
it
will
be seen to
teach that the Spirit and the Virgin produced the humanity of Jesus
(/. e.,
the Spirit
the divine element existing in
should be borne
mind
in
union with
this
took place in order that
It
formed
Adam
humanity.
But
that the primary emphasis of the passage
upon the purity and sinlessness of Jesus."'

The theological deductions from the virgin
form.
human
Word is
the cause of the conception of Jesus the
is
being, but does not impart divinity to his nature), and the
birth are clear
God might
create
anew
it
is
and unithe
first-
Dan., VII, 14 (V, 189) Refutation of All Heresies, X,

(V,
Prov.
152);
30:29 (V, 175). In order to do this, the first-born
29
God must be manifested in union with a first-born man
Com. Luke,
;
and VII, 1 (V, 239); Com.

7
Psalm., 109, no (V, 170), "that by uniting his own power with our
mortal body, and by mixing the incorruptible with the corruptible and
the strong with the weak, he might save perishing man." '^ Antichrist,
But the most compre4 (V, 205), and Against Noetus, 17 (V, 230).
2
(V, 194); Homilies, IV,
''
(V, 234),
HiPPOLYTUS, In Psalmum XXII: '0
î\wv t6 Kara,
(LvOpoiwov, toOt' ecrrip iK T17S
5^ Ku/kos dfafidprriTos ^v,
Hapd^vov
f^wdev rod \6yov tov deov, ola KadapuTdTip xp^'^'-V

are gathered from quotations
by Theodoret
/cat
e/c
tQv
d<r'fjirTb3v
roO aylov Uvfifiaros effwdedev, koI
(These comments
and Second Dialogue.)
TfeptKeKaKviJLfi^vos.
in his Iîrsi
"'See also comments on Pss. 109, HO (V, 170), and Prov. 30 29 ff., treating
and second Adam and meager New Testament references (V, 213, 236).
:
first
of the
'^
HiPPOLYTUS,
(rup-a TTj
filâs
T(fi
IV:
Ottws (TvyKepdffas rb dvrjTbv
-rip-wv
dcpddpri^ to (pdaprbv Kal rb dadevis Tip i<rx^pQ,
(TiJiarj
Z)^ Christo et Antichristo,
eavTov Svpdp.i, Kal
Tbv diroW{ip.vov &v6pu}irov,
63
64
hensive single statement
is
given in Fragment 8 of the Treatise against
Beron and Helix (V, 234):

But the pious confession of the believer
is
that,
with a view to our sal-
vation and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with himself a rational soul and a sensible
body from the all-holy Mary, ever virgin by an undefiled conception, without
change, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness the same
was perfect God and the same was perfect man the same was in nature at
once perfect God and man."'
;
In Hippolytus, then, we find the greatest variety of theories of the

virgin birth, a superficial resort to scriptural attestation,
and a
clear
God
conviction that such a birth was necessary for the restoration to
of
and corrupt man. Mary is "all-holy" as well as "ever virgin,"

and her importance in the divine economy may be judged from the
importance and greatness of the redemptive work undertaken by God
fallen
through her sacred instrumentality.

1.
In addition to the canonical accounts Hippolytus used some
such apocryphal sources as the gospel of James or the gospel of
Thomas."^
This
is
evidenced by his expressions of " ever virgin " and
"all-holy," and in general by the exaltedness ascribed to Mary.

2.
In the passages which bear upon the virgin birth Hippolytus
more than a dozen times. He goes

even beyond the philosophy of John when he says that " the Creator of
asserts the pre-existence of Jesus
all
things incorporated with himself a rational soul and a sensible body
from the all-holy Mary, ever virgin,"
etc.
Thus,
as so often, the idea
expressed in the prologue of John, because better calculated to support

the divinity of Jesus, becomes the controlling factor in the representation
of the advent of Christ.
It will
be seen that, while Hippolytus accepts
Origen's trichotomous description of Jesus, he holds that both soul and
body were assumed from Mary, whereas Origen held the soul was supplied as a medium whereby to reduce the harshness of the incarnation
of God, the divine spirit.
"'
Hippolytus, Contra Beronem
Tri<XTeuti3v,
8tl
Sid.
ttjv
ijiJ.Qjv
8T)fiLovpy6s iK ttjs iravayias
ivovffiuffas iavTi^
aWbrpLos.
xj/vx'']*'
et
HeIkone?n, VIII
'AXX'
auT-qpiav, koI rd SrjGai irpbs drpeiplav t6
ofioXoyei
eiiffe^Qs
ttSx',
rwv 8\uv
denrap6ivov Maplas, Kara ffiWrj^piV dxpaiôv, dlxa.
voepav ixera aiad-qTiKov au/xaTos,
8\oi debs 6 avrbs, Kai SXos &vdpuiros 6 ayrfis.
yôvev dvOpuwos
8Xos debs o/xoO
<p\j(Tet.
Tpoirrji,
(piaei
KaKlas
Kal S.i'dpuiros
6 avrbs.
'''That Hippolytus used the gospel of

0w/a2v
iirLypa4>oixivt^ evayyeXlif) irapadiSbacn
iraidloLS dirb irCiu eirTo, eKei
yap
iv
ry
io'
Thomas
see Philos., V, 7
"Kiyovres ovtws.
alQvL Kpv^bfxevos (pavepovfiai.
64
'Ej*
rf
(cara
'E/u^ 6 ^rjTuv evprjcra iv
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
65
showing how the

Clement
as attractive illustration, and appealed to Origen as being in accord
with reason, found unquestioned acceptance and unhesitating use.
XL Cyprian "3 (bishop of Carthage, martyred 258) makes frequent quotation of prophecy and also of the gospel story, but all that
he comments on or uses in any significant way is confined to three
3.
Hippolytus
of
is
significance
apocryphal literature which, in
references.
Two
of these, Epistles, 72,
II (V, 468), contain
chiefly
in
exaltation of Mary, served
its
(V, 380),
and
Treatises, d,
merely the statement of the virgin birth involv-
Word and Son of God, who by

Holy Spirit entered a virgin and mingled with
man in the birth, thus becoming a perfect mediator. The third reference, Treatises, Book II, 9 (V, 515), contains an echo of the Immanuel
argument: "That this should be the sign of his nativity that he should
man and God son of man and of God."
be born of a virgin
I. The material of Cyprian is altogether too meager to warrant
any broad deductions, but such material as we have reflects (i) a use of
canonical sources only; (2) that he believed in the pre-existence and at
the same time accepted the virgin birth, probably seeing in it, as did
ing the pre-existence of Christ, as the
the co-operation of the
Tertullian his predecessor in Carthage, a consistent explanation of the
humanity of the divine

XII. NovATiAN, a
Christ.
Roman
presbyter,
in
his
work De
Trinitate,
chap. 24 (V, 635), written perhaps shortly after 256, makes a reference
to the annunciation story in Luke, making especial use of the implica-
The heretics had not preserved the

35^^.
Son of God " and " Son of man " elements
in Jesus.
By the use of Luke i 35 they had maintained that "man
himself and that bodily flesh, that which is called holy, is itself the son
In reply, Novatian points out that the Scripture does not
of God."
say, "Therefore the holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be
called the Son of God," but it says, " Therefore also,'' and thereby
mplies that the Son of God is in the first place the Word of God
which came into Mary by the Holy Spirit's operation and which
sanctified the substances taken from her body for the formation of
Jesus, perniitting them to be called " holy " and in a consequential
and merely secondary sense the "Son of God."
I. These passages from Novatian reveal his appeal to the infancy
sections of Luke as " the divine Scriptures" and also verify the fact,
before noted, that the heretics seem to have been shut up to the
tive
force of 8to
Ktti
in
distinction between the "
"3 EUSEBIUS, Church History, Books III, VI, VII,
65
XXXI.
66
canonical accounts as their only source of appeal in altering the generally accepted teaching of the virgin birth.
theory
Novatian's
2.
decidedly
is
that
of
an
incarnation,
the
indwelling of the pre-existent Christ, the Word, within Mary, and his
taking from her and hallowing those physical elements necessary to
his
human
The doctrine
self-revelation.
by Novatian gets a
as stated
God's Son, the Word, is

imparted to Mary by the Holy Spirit and from Mary is given to the
natural
setting
world clothed
human
3.
theory.
trinitarian
in
being
in flesh,
still
the
Son
God,
of
but, because of the
nature which he assumed, also Son of man.
Perhaps Novatian's chief contribution to the study
is
in his seri-
ous and hitherto unsurpassed attempt to harmonize John and Luke,
and almost equally
in his clear definition
the incarnation in trini-
of
tarian terms.
XIII.
Malchion
(flourished about
view of the incarnation
in a
270) seems to present a
new
fragment of the epistle of the Antiochian
synod (VI, 171):
He was formed in the

ond instance (Kara Seêpov
tially with the
human
being wedded with the
This
instance as
first
\6ryoi>)
the
(^(xwovaiun^vos
God
tQ
man
also
in the
was
womb, and in the secwomb, united essen-
in the
dvOpwwlvif), that is to say, his
substance
man.'^''
exactly touch the matter of the
statement, however, does not
virgin birth, but leaves the
way open
for a theory of the generation of
by miracle, and subsequent to the

beginning of that process an infusion of a divine element or the Word.
Thus the incoming of the Word would not be the cause of the generathe
body
of Jesus either naturally or
tion, but, the generation
being already under way by miraculous or
and differentiates Christ

would be very unsafe to more than admit
Xht possibility of such a theory from an isolated fragment such as this;
"
and, at any rate, the theory would collapse should " in the first instance
"
and
in the second instance " be shown to be logical rather than
chronological, which is indeed probable.
What Malchion seems to be contending for is the actual union of
the divine and the human in Christ, as distinct from the mere indwellnatural initiative, the deifying element enters
from
all
other men.
But
it
ing of the divine as a spirit inhabiting the body.

I.
ut
Nothing
significant can be determined as to the sources used.
"^Malchion,
homo in ventre
est,
Epistola contra Paulutn

et
Samosatam:
" Formatus est principaliter
secundario Deus erat in ventre crvvovaiwuivos rf
copulata substantia ejus
cum homine."
66
di'0puirlv(p, id
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

2.
Malchion seems
to be
contending for an actual incarnation and
human.
a vital union of the divine with the
There
3.
is
no
67
increment
significant
to the study at this point.
XIV. Archelaus (flourished about 277). In the Disputation ivith

Manes, which is no doubt for the most part genuine, the objections
raised against the virgin birth by the Gnostic dualism of the Manichse-
ans are clearly set forth, and are seen to be objections not so
against the virgin birth as against any birth whatsoever.
inherently
is
evil,
how could
the
Son
of
God submit
much
Since matter
to
be born of a
woman? 5 (VI, 182). Could the Son of God, he who could change
himself into any semblance, and did change himself into the semblance
of the sun, be
as
is
under the necessity of having mother, brethren, or
father,
involved when Archelaus makes Joseph, his father, and Christ to
descend upan him at the baptism? To adopt this belief would be to

make him the Son of God by increase {per pro/ectum) and not because
,
Then,
of his essential nature.
too,
if
he were a real material man,
is
not also necessary to consider the dove that descended as material
it
and how could
it
dwell within
him?
50
Moreover,
(VI, 226, 227).
was possible for him to have brethren

either begotten by the same Holy Spirit, and hence like himself, or
perchance the undefiled Virgin had subsequent intercourse with Joseph
if
Jesus were the son of Mary,
all
which
of
the intruder
is
unthinkable.
who announced
it
The rebuke administered by
Christ to
the approach of his mother and brethren
(Matt. 12 :47), together with his approval of Peter's confession (Matt.
16:16), go to show that Jesus was born of no

ever
human parentage what-
(VI, 223).
47
In reply Archelaus points out the various uses of the term " father,"
showing that it may be used of the begetter or of the guardian of a
child, or
of age
it
may
signify a certain privilege or revered standing because
and position.
of Jesus
In the
first
of these senses,
Joseph could be
was applicable to David s''^
in the second,
third, the title
God was
the father
and in the
Another
(VI,
207).
34
called his father
"5 Archelaus, Cum Manete Haeresiarcha, 34: "Ignorare vos non arbitror,
quoniam pater unum quidem sit nomen, diversos tamen habet intellectus alius enim
:
pater dicitur eorum,
quos naturaliter genuerit
filiorum
alius
vero eorum, quos
unde et
tantummodo enutrierit nonnulli vero temporis atque aetatis privilegio
Dominus noster Jesus plurimos patres habere dicitur; nam et David pater ejus appellatus est, et Joseph ejus pater putatus est, cum nullus horum pater ejus fuerit veritate
:
naturae.
Nam
nutriendi
David pater ejus dicitur aetatis ac temporis privilegio, Joseph vero lege
autem Deus Pater ejus natura est, qui omnia per Verbum suum
solus
velociter nobis manifestare dignatus est."
67
68
argument is advanced from the fact that, the judgment being dependent upon the resurrection, and this upon the passion, and the passion
in turn upon the birth from Mary, the whole Christian system would
be undermined by the denial of such a birth 49 (VI, 225). Archelaus
appeals to Phil. 2 7 to show how Jesus voluntarily humbled himself
and took the form of a servant. He asserts, moreover, that the descending Spirit was only like a dove, and that Jesus' body made of Mary
was the only tabernacle that had ever been equal to sustaining the
Spirit which descended from God
50 (VI, 226).
There is also in the Disputation a noteworthy story of the doings of
an impostor Terebinthus,"* the disciple of one of Scythianus. This
;
Terebinthus made great claims for himself in Babylonia, alleging,

other things, " that he was the son of a certain virgin."
among
He
down from a housetop by a spirit, and so perished.

The incident indicates how this man of great pretensions simulated a
birth like that ascribed to Jesus, but, unlike him, made such a birth a
basis of appeal for establishing his own claims.
1
The material of Archelaus betrays no use of extra-canonical sources,
and the Manichseans seem to have made no pretense at having biblical
was, however, cast
sources for their teaching, but to have evolved their doctrine chiefly
from an extreme Gnostic philosophy.

that
Mary could ever have become
Their abhorrence of the thought
actually married to Joseph reveals
the influence of apocryphal gospels, or of such material as

in
is
embodied
them.
2. Archelaus believed that Jesus was the Son of God (/. e., God)
and that he chose to be made man of Mary, the mother of God, and
that upon the man thus born the Spirit or the Christ descended at
baptism, reconstituting the willingly humiliated one, Christ and divine.
3.
One
contribution of Archelaus to the study
of
God
(if
of
the
dominant
not the touch of a later Latin hand)

rigid
tendency to exalt Mary.
trinitarianism
is
a clear definition
His reference to Mary the mother
of the uses of the term " father."
is
an inevitable result
stimulated by the increasing
third increment to the study
the complete humanizing of
God
is
the idea of
in the incarnation, necessitating a
by the descent of the Spirit at baptism. In this way it

seems that Archelaus is the first of the Fathers to make an actual harrestitution
'^ Archelaus, Cum Manete Haeresiarcka,

52 "Quo cum venisset, talem de
famam pervulgavit ipse Terebinthus, dicens omni se sapientia Aegyptiorum
repletum, et vocari non jam Terebinthum, sed alium Buddam nomine, sibique hoc
nomen impositum ex quadam autem virgine natum esse, simul et ab angelo in
:
sc
montibus enutritum."
68
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
69
monization of John and Luke by representing the complete change of

deity into humanity and the birth as that of a human being not
possessed of a dual nature.
XV. Arnobius
We
(flourished 290-310) says:
worship one who
is
born of
man ....
they (the Greek gods) were born in the
produce
of the earth,
but
womb and
if,
while you
opponent, one who was born a mere
true, as
many
that
you nevertheless upbraid us with the worship of one
You worship, says

Even if that were
born like ourselves, you act with great injustice
my
know
that they lived on the
human
being.
has been already said
liberal gifts
be addressed as
This very
in former passages, yet, in consideration of the

which he has bestowed on us, he ought to be called and
God
(VI, 422)."'
fairly represents the practical sort of
defense that could
be produced from the limited information of Arnobius, and in view of

the immediate issue which confronted him in the gross heathen idola-
from which he had so recently been converted. The statements

that Jesus "was born a man," "born a mere human being," point (in
view of the reference to Greek myth and the implication of "even if
try
that were true," 37), not to the conclusion that Arnobius was ignorant
of the virgin birth or, though informed on the theory, did not deem it
worthy of mention or timely
in the
apology under consideration, but
rather to the fact that his apology was of so primary a nature as to for-
bid emphasis upon the distasteful elements of Christianity or upon
anything but the barest fundamentals of

1.
faith.
material in our possession indicates an acquaintance with
The
the virgin-birth story of Matthew or Luke, but not the slightest influ-
ence of the Johannine philosophy, and an entire absence of apocryphal elements.

2.
These two references do not indicate that Arnobius made any
theological deductions from the virgin birth (assuming that he was

acquainted with the accounts of Matthew and Luke), but that, on the
contrary and for his immediate practical purpose, based the claim of
divinity
3.
upon the
He
is
benefits
which Jesus bestowed upon mankind.
of interest in the course of the study as representing a
reversion to the virgin birth unaffected by the

"7 Arnobius, y4(/z^(?rjjGî/^j, 1,37:
Logos
doctrine.
Sinautem
tamen
"Natumhominemcolimus
scientes uteris esse gestatus, et frugibus eos victitasse terrenis, nihilominus

"
" 42
res agitis satis injustas
nati nobis hominis abjectatis cultum
:
hominem
colitis.
multis, et
tam
Etiam
si
esset id verum, locis ut superioribus dictum est,
liberalibus donis,
quae ac eo profecta
que deberet."
69
in nobis sunt,
Deus
Natum
tamen pro
dici appellari-
70
XVI. Lactantius (about 250-330) regards the virgin birth from

The Son of God, the Word,
was first spirituaily cxtaXtd by God; Institutes, IV, 8 (VII, 106). This
was his first birth and in it no mother participated. His second birth
was physical, of the Virgin's womb, and in it no father participated.
By these two births he was constituted a " middle substance " between
God and man, and was eminently fitted to be man's Savior. He was
"the Son of God through the Spirit and the son of man through the
flesh, that is, both God and man ;" IV, 13 (VII, 112).''^
a decidedly theological point of view.
The
1.
material of Lactantius reflects but slightly the influence
any sources save the canonical accounts
of
the Johannine
Logos
doctrine, but
it is
''
of the virgin birth
and
possible that apocryphal influ-
ence accounts for the epithet "holy " as applied to Mary.
His understanding of the virgin birth
2.
is
schematic
and indeed
he offers a partial rationale of John's Logos doctrine in pointing out

other spiritual beings were merely the breath of God, he
that, while
who was subsequently born
of
does not differentiate the
tius
Mary was pre-eminent among the angels

i. e., the Word.
But LactanWord from "the Holy Spirit of God who
he was the a rticu /ate hrea.th. of God,
in that
descending from heaven chose the holy Virgin that he might enter
into her
The
womb."
virgin birth assured the
him
divine Christ, and constituted

3.
The
of little
as
fit
human
mediator for the
nature of the
lost
human race.
contribution of Lactantius to the history of the thought
interest except to
show how the doctrine
is
of the virgin birth
dominated by the Johannine philosophy was finding
its
place in the
gradually hardening cast of a systematic theology.
XVII. Methodius (martyred about 311) has but one certain'^

reference to the subject in hand
''^Lactantius, Divin.
T<ap fuit,
quia sine
officio
IV, 13
Instil.,
matris a solo
Deo
"In prima enim
Patre generatus
nativitate spiritali
d/xi}-
In secunda vero car-
est.
quoniam sine patris officio virginali utero procreatus est, ut mediam

hominem substantiam gerens, nostram banc fragilem imbecillemque
manu ad immortalitatem posset educere. Factus est et Dei filius per
nali dirdrup fuit,
Deum
inter
et
naturam quasi
spiritum, et bominis per
carnem
id est, et
Deus,
et
See also cbap. 25 and
homo."
Epitome, 43 (VII, 126, 239).
"'For use
of a spurious quotation accredited to
marginal interpolation of the Book of Wisdom, see
Solomon, but being probably a

Institutes,
IV, 12, and Epitome,
44 (VII, no, 239).

'3
mane
His purported
of church festivals
dius
Oration re Simeon
to the virgin birth, is
and Anna, which
contains material ger-
undoubtedly spurious and of much later date.
assumed
in the
and the work gives evidence
work was not
in existence at
The system
the time of Metho-
of being subsequent to the Nestorian controversy.
70
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
71
And thus, when renovating those things which were from the beginning
and forming them again of the Virgin and the Spirit, he frames the same
When the earth was still virgin and untilled, God,
just as at the beginning.
taking mold, formed the reasonable creature from it without seed
(Chap. 5.) For when Adam, having been formed out of clay, was still soft and
moist, and not yet like a tile made hard and incorruptible, sin ruined him,
flowing and dropping down upon him like water, and therefore God, moistening him afresh, and forming anew the same clay to his honor, having first
hardened and fixed it in the Virgin's womb, and united and mixed it with the
Word, brought it forth into life, no longer soft and broken. '3' (Discourse III,
chaps. 4 and 5 [VI, 318J.)
1.
Methodius seems
to be
informed and influenced by the canonical
sources only.
2.
His understanding of the virgin birth
that in
is
upon the basis of a union

impeccable human being, and also the assurance
tion of the dual nature
man
it is
an explana-
Word
of the
with an
of the restoration of
to his primal purity.
3.
The
some degree the

and
our minds by a very striking example
material of Methodius serves to verify in
existence of the theologizing tendency reflected in
perhaps chiefly to
recall
again to
Lactantius
the dominant theological tnethod of the entire ante-Nicene period.
XVIII. ViCTORiNUS (martyred about 311), in commenting on Rev.

ff.), as illumined by Isa. 4:1, refers to Christ as "not
born of seed " and in elaborating 4 7 (VII, 348) says
I
16 (VII, 345
in
alogy of Mary, from
This
man Matthew
the figure of a
from Abraham
And
to
whom
conscious
effort
is
Therefore, in enumerating
Christ took flesh.
David and thence
ascribed to Matthew,
strives to declare to us the gene-
at
to Joseph,
God
representing
as far
gave the genealogy of Mary.
he spoke of him as
wide of the truth
if
of a
man.
human, which
is
as the assertion that
he
found
in
as
rather fanciful passage
is
the discourse on the Creatioti of the World {NW, 343), where he makes
the day of the annunciation to Mary coincident with that on which Eve
was deceived, and the day when " the Holy Spirit overflowed the virgin
'3'
iireidr]
III, 4 : Tai^ri; 7ap dva^tj}ypa<pQv

iK IlapO^vov Kal Hvev/xaros, TeKTalverai tov airrbv,
Methodius, Convivium Decern Virginum,
Ttt i^ inrapxrjs, Kal dvairXdcrcrwv
Kal Kar' dpxds,
ot/cTTjs
atidis
Uapd^vov
yfjs
en
Kal dvTjpSrov,
ws
effTiv eiireiv,
aipdapalq.
ilMfyrla.
t5
Kal ttjktov ovra Koi
KpaTaiwdrjvai,
Aib
5rj
iidwp
Xa^wv
xoCi',
vBapij,
Kal
/ultiSîtu
(bawep KaraXeiôfxevr] Kal
KaraffTdôvffa,
irapOeviKT) Kpareidiaas irpihrov Kal Tri^âs fJ.VTpq., Kal avvevdiaas Kal

els
rbv ^Lov.
71
'
Add/i,
(pddaavra, SIktjv oarpaKOV,
irdXiv dvwffev dvaSeiJwv Kal irrtXoirXaaTQiv rbv avrbv
&Ti}KTOv Kal dOpavarov i^rpâyev
to XoyiKuiraTov
'Ext yap Tr-nXovpyovfievov rbv
iirXda-aro ^wov air' avrijs 6 debs dvev ffwopds
dUXvcrev aiirbv
eis Tifirjv
avyKepdaas
ttj
i}
6 debs, iv
tQ A67V,
72
Mary
" coincident with that
on which God made
Other more
light.
important passages are found in a work Against All Heresies (III, 64954), which is inserted in the text of Tertullian, but which in all probability
comes from the pen
The
of Victorinus.
treatise
is
a hasty review
of the chief heretics from Simon Magus to Praxeas, and deals specifically with " those who have chosen to make the gospel the starting-point
of their heresies^ Among these are Saturninus (prior to Irenaeus and

probably to Justin), who stated that the innascible {innascibilem probably an
adaptation of
innoscibilem
ayvojo-Tos)
God
abides in the
highest regions, and that Christ did not exist in a bodily substance,
but in phantasmal form;

Christ
came
to
this
substance of flesh
world
and Basilides (about 120), asserting that

in a phantasm and was destitute of the
and the Ophites (second century prior
to Irenaeus)
or Serpentarians, also asserting that Christ did not exist in the sub-
stance of flesh
and Carpocrates (about
denying that Christ
130),
was born of a virgin and maintaining that he was a mere human

being born of the seed of Joseph, but superior to all men in the practice of righteousness and in integrity of life, hence only his soul was
received into heaven, and there
is
no resurrection
of the body.
Cerin-
thus (about 100) also maintained that Christ was born of the seed
of Joseph, while Valentinus (about 140) asserted that Christ
was sent
by the First-Father, Bythus, was not of the substance of our flesh,

but, bringing down from heaven some sort of spiritual body, took nothing from Mary, but only passed through her as water through a pipe.
Ptolemy (about
170),
and Secundus (about
170),
170) held the same view as that of Valentinus.
and Heracleon (about

Marcus (about 150)
and Colarbasus (second century prior to Irenaeus) also asserted that

Christ was not in the substance of flesh, but descended upon the
natural Jesus
and there is no bodily resurrection.
Then the author mentions Cerdo (about 135), who believed in two
gods, a superior and an inferior one, and that the Son of the superior
God was not flesh, was not born of a virgin, was not born at all, but
was a mere phantasm. Cerdo denied any bodily resurrection, and
His disciple
received only the gospel of Luke, and that in part.
Marcion of Pontus agreed with him, as did Lucan, Marcion's disciple.
Apelles, another disciple of Marcion, specified
the
body
of Christ, saying that
of
flesh,
which Christ gathered
it
more
particularly as to
was composed of a starry ethereal sort

in his descent
from the upper world,
and the elements of which he restored to space after his resurrection

and during his ascension. As for Tatian (about 140), " he wholly
72
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
73
The
savors of Valentinus."
followers of ^schines affirm Christ to be

Theodotus, the Byzantine (prior to Hippolytus), admitted that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin,
but held that he had no pre-eminence over other men except in
while a second Theodotus held a somewhat similar
righteousness
himself Son and Father.
doctrine, asserting that Christ was inferior to Melchizedek, inasmuch
God and
was a mediator between
as the latter
angels,
Christ likewise in being, not only dTrarwp, but also
The heresy of Praxeas (about 200?)
\oyr]T6<s.
Christ was
God
and surpassed
and ayevea-
afirjroyp
consisted in his belief that
the Father Almighty.
Of the above-stated
Theodotus
beliefs that of
haps the most striking,
in that, while
it
Byzantium
of
admits the virgin birth,
is
per-
denies
it
commonly made therefrom, attributing to Christ only

pre-eminent righteousness, and that not necessarily because of his
unique birth. Theodotus had as a personal and determinative reason
the deductions
for
holding
after all
1.
theory the fact that under persecution he had

was a palliative to his conscience to maintain that
this striking
denied Christ, and
it
he had not denied God, but
From
own thought
the
is
first
man
only.'^^
three references of Victorinus
it is
clear that his
controlled chiefly by the canonical infancy sections,
while at the same time there
is
probably a hint of the influence of the
fourth gospel in the expression that
Christ took flesh from Mary.
The
other references, although not beyond a doubt those of Victorinus,
give
some idea
of the widespread influence of Gnosticism in
its
various
phases, and indicate that Gnosticism had no authoritative evangelical
sources of
its
own
to set over against the canonical gospels, but rather,

fell back upon the canonical
change or curtailment was found
so far as scriptural sanction was needed,

sources,
resorting
to
whatever
necessary.
2.
but
Victorinus's understanding of the virgin birth
it is
a practically safe deduction to credit
doctrine of an incarnation of God, the

3.
Word
is
not clearly stated,
him with the orthodox
or Spirit.
The contribution given by Victorinus
consists chiefly in the
exhaustive survey of the heresies touching the virgin birth and in a

clear verification of the fact that the heretics were always destitute of
any authoritative starting-point save the canonical Scriptures.

XIX. Peter (bishop of Alexandria, martyred about 311) says
Now God
the
Word
easily effects everything,

*3See context and
in
the absence of a man, by the will of God,
was made
flesh
in
the
womb
of the
Schaff, History of Christian Church, Vol.

73
who
virgin, not
II, p. 574.
74
requiring the operation of the presence of a man.
man was
the power of
God overshadowing
For more efficacious than
the Virgin, together with the
Holy Ghost, who came uponher.'^s (Fragment on The Godhead\y\, 280, 283].)
The extravagant nature of two remaining references makes someas " the
Such expressions
most blessed
mother of God and ever-virgin Mary"
{Genuine \Âcts VI, 267])
and " Our Lord and God Jesus Christ being in the end of the age born
according to the flesh of our holy and glorious lady, mother of God
and ever virgin, and of a truth of Mary the mother of God" '^^ (Fragment 5 [VI, 282]) sound somewhat anachronistic, and of a piece with
what against
their genuineness.
'^'
post-Nicene Mariolatry. But, after

extravagant
all,
they are only a
summary
of the
already applied to Mary, with the addition of "glori-
titles
ous lady."
Peter has as sources (Matthew), Luke, and John, but at the same
1.
time he shows the most marked influence of the apocryphal literature.

to Peter, God the pre-existent Word was made flesh
Mary by the power of God overshadowing her and the
coming upon her. Probably the thought of Peter resem-
According
2.
womb
in the
Holy
Spirit
of
bles that of Novatian in regarding the Spirit (or power) as imparting

to
Mary
birth
the
The
3.
Word, who thus became
incarnate.
As
usual, the virgin
described in terms of an incarnation.
is
very pronounced influence of the apocryphal literature
is
perhaps the chief increment which Peter of Alexandria makes to the

study.
XX. Alexander of Alexandria
(died about 326)
states
how
God, the Son, whose creation was beyond the power of the human
mind to grasp, and who reigned with the Father in heaven, descended
to earth and became incarnate in the Virgin's womb, assuming from
her, who was thus constituted the mother of God, an actual body.'^*
I. Alexander shows the influence of the sources which have by this
that
133
/Soi^Xt/o-iv
7}
dvSpbs ivepyeLas
ij
Peter of Alexandria, Ada Sincera:
dv8pbs dirov-
ixrjTpq. ttj^
ILapOivov
Evepyicrrepov yap rod dv8p6s ivevoiri-
Trapovcxlas.
rod deod dvva/MS, iiruTKiAaacra ry Hapdivcî avv
134
ira-pk ttjv
tov Trdrra Swa/xivov Karepydffacrdai 6eov, 7^0J'ev iv
ffdp^, fiifTe derjBels ttjs
aev
Deitate: '0 5^ ê6s A6-yos
Peter of Alexandria, In
Kara
fflav,
t^
iTreKrjkvd&TL aylifi IlveijpLaTi.
" Venerunt in ecclesiam beatissimae Dei
Genetricis semperque virginis Mariae."

13s
Peter of Alexandria, Fragments, V, 7:
Xpterrds,
iirl
ffvvreKelif.
tQv alwvlwv kotA
ilnQv OeorbKov Kal ' Keiirapdivov

'3*
birth
An addition in
"To raise erect
Kal
Kara
the codex,
lost
man,
VI
crdpKa
6 Kipios tj/xuv, Kal 6ebs Irjffovs 6
rexêU iK
rris
ayia's
ivdbôv
deffiroivTji
dXrjdeiav OeorbKov Maplas.
(VI, 302), gives also the reason for the virgin
re-collecting his scattered
74
members."
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

time become
common
to all the writers contributing to the study, viz.,
infancy stories, the Logos teaching of the fourth gos-
the canonical
pel,
75
and the apocryphal literature.

As is clearly the case subsequent
2.
to the time of Ignatius,
and
with the exception of Arnobius, Alexander's thought of the virgin

birth is controlled by the Logos doctrine, becoming on that account an
incarnation in a sense that would never be suggested by the infancy
sections alone.
3. Alexander's contribution, standing, as he does, the last of these
twenty ante-Nicene Fathers to contribute to the study, is that of an
inheritor of the good and evil of his predecessors, in apology, in polemic,
and in constructive theology. His representation is a product of the
whole period, during which the child born in Bethlehem gained his
title to messiahship and divinity and pre-existence, carrying up with him
from her obscurity the humble mother who from "virgin" became
"ever virgin," and from "ever virgin" "all-holy," and from " all-holy "
to what was inevitable in the trinitarian thought
XXL
Conclusion.
"mother of
God."
In making a recapitulation of this survey of the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, we shall endeavor (i) to gather up the facts

which throw light upon the sources used by the defenders and the
opponents of the virgin birth
(2) to exhibit
what theories the suc-
him who was born of the

virgin; (3) to point out the theological and apologetic use made of
the doctrine and (4) to indicate the bearing of the facts adduced
upon the relation existing between the doctrine of Scripture and that
which became the doctrine of the church, and to show the consequent
need of a historical and untraditional interpretation of the canonical
cessive Fathers held as to the
origin of
accounts of the virgin birth.
From
I.
the
first
post-apostolic reference to the virgin birth to
the close of the ante-Nicene period, the modifying influence of
the
Nowhere does
the
doctrine of the pre-existence
is
representation of Matthew and
clearly traceable.
Luke
get a distinctly separate and
independent treatment or interpretation. It is true that the influence

of the Johannine source is not as unmistakably present in Ignatius as
in
all
the other Fathers (Arnobius excepted), but
present in sufficient
upon any other

Lucan material.
power
basis be
If
it is
to give
it
is
nevertheless
an interpretation which cannot
thought to spring from the Matthaean and

objected that Arnobius stands as an excep-
tion to this general statement, in that his interpretation of the virgin

birth
is
uninfluenced by the Johannine material, the objection loses

75
its
76
force from the fact that Arnobius gives absolutely
no interpretation of
the virgin birth, but only a few words of elementary apologetic.
In
one or two passages Justin Martyr {ApoL, I, 21) and possibly Tertullian
{Ânswer to Jews, 13, and Against Marcion, IV, 10) betray the surthe infancy sections
representation in
the
of
vival
yet they
show
almost uniformly the influence of the doctrine of the pre-existence

while none of the other Fathers reflect the thought of the mere birth
of a being generated in the
source
is
Council of
As
womb
of
Mary
dominant from the beginning
so that the Johannine
of the second century to the
Nicsea.'^'
early as Justin there
evidence of extra-canonical tradition
is
concerning the infancy, but this tradition in no wise influences his

Tertullian plainly mentions the existence of other gospels
argument.
of the nativity, but does not accept any such teaching as that of the
perpetual virginity of Mary, thus showing that the teaching of such a
gospel as that of James (the existence of which explains the reference

of Justin,
itself to
and
also those of subsequent Fathers) did
the defenders of the humanity of Christ.
material was
more
Clement
attractive to
commend
not
But the apocryphal
of Alexandria,
who used
the
teaching mentioned above for purposes of illustration merely, while
Origen went so far as to commend the reasonableness of

and Hippolytus accepted it outright. Thus a third source entered
and this
to influence the church's interpretation of the virgin birth
source (in all probability the gospel of James) remained as a potent
his successor
it,
factor at the close of the period.
The remarkable
fact
concerning the
almost numberless heretical attempts to discredit the virgin birth

on the one hand, by a thorough naturalizing of it, and, on the other,
is that the heretics of either sort

bv a thorough Docetic treatment
are shut up to a use of the canonical sources as the authoritative point
There is some
of departure and the only recognized basis of appeal.
evidence'^* that the Jewish heretics were influenced by the infancy
stories of Pseudo-Matthew, and that the Manichaeans were influenced
by the gospel of James, but, on the whole, the defenders of the
Catholic faith were more subject to the infusion of apocryphal thought
than were the heretics while both fell back upon the canonical writ;
ings alone as the standard of authority.

'37
who
The Nicene Creed reads
for us
men and
"
We
for our salvation
believe .... in one Lord Jesus Christ ....

came down and was incarnate and was made
man."
'38
Origen, Against Cehus,
I,
28 (IV, 408).
76
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
77
2. What has been said about the sources has, of course, its direct
bearing upon the theories that were entertained as to the origin of
him who was born of Mary and, with one barely possible exception
;
(that of Arnobius), the theories are uniformly
of the
trine
pre-existence.
from the incarnation theory

as to
renounce
ency
in
dominated by the docand TertuUian may break away

moment, '^^ but never in such a way
Justin
for a
even though
its retention necessitates an inconsistPredominantly, their theory is that of the

incarnation of the Word, the Son, or the Spirit of God.
With
it,
their thinking.
TertuUian and some of the subsequent Fathers, such as Novatian and

Peter of Alexandria, there is an attempt to harmonize the theories of
and the virgin
birth by representing the Spirit or
bearing to Mary
the time of her conception the

from her assumed flesh
while
harmonization by making the pre-
the pre-existence
power
of
God
Word who
as
dwelt
Archelaus goes
existent
Son
virgin birth,
other
still
farther in his
God become
of
and
at
her and
within
utterly devoid of his
divinity in
the
from the miraculous conception, born as

consequently thoroughly human prior to the
to be, apart
men, being
descent of the Spirit upon him at baptism.
But even
in the
ideas, that of the
most elaborate attempt
prologue of John was
in the record of the post-apostolic
a light which
it
quainted with
still
at
the
harmonizing the two

dominant theory, and
thought placed the virgin birth in
could not possibly have assumed to any reader unacthe
Johannine philosophy.
There were then two
one (that of the begetting of a new being by
theories present, but the
the miraculous exercise of divine power
upon Mary causing her
to
conceive apart from intercourse with jnan) always subservient to the

other (that of the incarnation of the inconceivably begotten and eter-
Word, Spirit, or Son of God).

Whenever the virgin birth frees itself for a moment from the
doctrine of a pre-existence and an incarnation, it invariably appears
This is true in Ignatius and
as explaining the dual nature of Jesus.
Irenaeus, where the divine nature is thus explained, and in TertuUian
especially, and Cyprian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Victorinus (probably), where the humanity of the divine Christ is made dependent upon
nally pre-existent
3.
the virgin birth.
The
doctrine of the virgin birth was from the
only one factor in the evolving theology, and
beginning, in so
lend
its
'39
far as
it
could
at all
it
was natural
be kept distinct, that
influence to a substantiation of the divinity of Jesus
Justin Martyr, ApoL,
I,
21
Tertullian, Answer
77
to Jews, 13.
it
;
at
first
the
should
and
this
78
it
But another and more potent factor was very early present to
result, and so effectual was the Logos doctrine in
did.
accomplish the same
securing this end that as early as the time of Tertullian it became

necessary to use the virgin birth for the distinctly opposite purpose
that of insuring the real
humanity
of Jesus.
Several forces were militating against
human
in
Christ.
The profound
all
that was natural
and
conviction of his deity, the high
estimate of asceticism, and the prevalence of various forms of Gnostic

belief,
which ever widened the impassable gulf between God and man,
were not only relegating Jesus into a sphere beyond the reach of the
church, but at the same time constituting the demand for perfect
purity on the part of his mother,
and such purity
as in the
minds
of
the orthodox themselves could be met only by perpetual virginity.

Thus it is probable that the apocryphal inventions which reflected back
upon Mary the purity and exaltedness of the Savior were only devout,
though superficial, attempts to meet the need which a dominant trinitarianism and a profound belief in the sinfulness of human generation
had awakened in the consciousness of the church.
has been pointed out that the church began, not with one, but
with two, opinions concerning the beginning of the earthly life of Jesus,
and these two opinions such as were not easy of harmonization.
It
and sometimes absurdity, into which those inevito be faithful to the irreconcilable and early
tably
accepted interpretations of the two accounts, and the heresy which
became the portion of those who, taking one or the other conception,
pushed to the extreme limit the tendency therein represented. On the
one hand were the Gnostics and the Docetics, true to the philosophic
spirit out of which the Logos doctrine took its rise, but ignoring the
all-important link which John welded in vs. 14 of his prologue, and
consequently holding to an advent that was unaffected by humanity,
or, in the more extreme and Docetic type of thought, was nothing
more than a semblance or an apparition. On the other hand were
Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and others, who, taking the
infancy sections, gladly accepted all that would contribute to the real
Hence
the confusion,
fell
who endeavored
humanity of Jesus, but denied the miraculous conception because used

by others to prove the divinity of his nature. Between these limits
were the great company of the orthodox who accepted literally the
and almost uniformly
infancy sections and the prologue of John
;
adhered
Jesus,
to the virgin birth
first
as the explanation of the dual nature of
(and most nearly in accord with pagan thought) as an

78
THE VIRGIN BIRTH
79
explanation of his divinity, and afterward (for safeguarding the reality

of his body) as an explanation of his humanity.
As has already been
implied, the M/<f/ theological use to which the ante-Nicene Fathers put
the doctrine of the virgin birth, was that of substantiating the doctrine
and such a use is an explanation of the

importance attaching to the theory of the virgin birth
of the dual nature of Jesus

relatively great
throughout that early period.
The
fact of this cardinal use of the
virgin birth cannot be overemphasized,
and should be amplified by a

which the Fathers
deemed deducible from such an understanding and use of the docfurther
definition
of
important
the
corollaries
trine.
In the
place, the virgin birth, being the currently accepted
first
proof of the dual nature of Jesus, was used to prove consequently his
complete
fitness as a
such, but
upon
God and man. His ability to

knowledge nor his character as
secured by a virgin birth.
In the
mediator between
mediate was based neither upon

his dual
his
nature as
second place, the virgin birth served

of the
human
nature of Jesus.
as
an explanation of the sinlessness
human beings from Adam down
All
had been conceived and brought forth in sin. Not only did the taint
of inherited sin rest upon them, but human procreation was in itself
evil.
By the virgin birth, however, Jesus was wholly freed from the
latter, for he was not " stained by human generation " while as to the
former, the sin that might be inherited through Mary, that the early
church blinked at until the devout and well-meaning apocryphal writers
invented for her birth and upbringing such stories as would most
effectually minimize the possibility of lust or impurity (as they conThese
ceived them) in the inception and entire course of her life.
;
came to receive, and, with a miraculous conception

and a birth that did not impair the virginity of Mary (who was chastely
born of very aged and devout parents, and during her whole '^ life
free from all knowledge of men), the purity of the human nature of
Jesus was for all practical purposes, and in what seemed to them a
stories the Fathers
In the third place, the fact that the
practical way, thoroughly assured.
virgin birth constituted
perfection of his
He
humanity.
antithesis
is
him
human
was the
a perfect
mediator and insured the sinless
made him
new Adam, the first
nature,
the only savior of lost

of a
new
race,
and
this
the constant and pertinent refrain throughout the entire
patristic literature.
4.
''*
In concluding the study of the ante-Nicene Fathers, and

Tertullian, Monogamy,
8 (IV, 65), contra.
79
in
80
pointing out the significance of the investigation offered in the fore-
going pages,
the outset,
it is
viz.,
desirable to emphasize the distinction, referred to at
the distinction between the historical criticism of the
Scripture narratives of the virgin birth and the use
by the ante-Nicene Fathers.
ratives
It is
made
of these nar-
with the latter investigation
only that this essay has to do, and for the present purpose questions as
to the historicity or invention of the infancy sections are waived, for
is
it
our present concern to interpret and to trace the history of the
interpretation of these accounts, which, whatever their origin, very
came
early
to
bound
to abide
placed upon the virgin birth
dence
Whether
be important sources for Christian theology.
the church feels
in their ability
the church received
by the interpretation which the Fathers
will, in
and method
its
the long run, depend
as interpreters.
upon
From them
interpretation of the virgin birth.
its
confi-
alone has
Nowhere
out-
do the Scriptures contain any reference to

it, either predictive or argumentative.
If the method and culture out
of which the accepted interpretation sprang have not been improved
upon, if the allegorical method still suffices and a scientific culture
which believed that certain animals, such as the vulture,'*' conceived
without intercourse, or that others conceived by the wind,"*^ and that
if
the Son of God could enter the womb in the form of a serpent''*^
these suffice for a time when there is at least some knowledge of the
inevitable sequences of nature and of the value of historical interpretation, then the understanding and doctrinal import which the Fathers
side of the infancy sections
attached to the virgin birth need no revision.
But
if,
on the other hand, the Fathers were by the very nature
of
things incapable of interpreting correctly either the infancy sections
themselves or the philosophic preface of the fourth gospel,
it
follows,
not only as the privilege, but as the duty, of the interpreter to view
independently and with the most and best light available those por-
New Testament which by tradition alone have been made

what they did not originally contain. It is of some value to
the theologian to know the history of the beliefs which are put into his
tions of the
to carry
hands
for
arrangement and ultimate verification.
If this history of
the
interpretation of the virgin birth has succeeded in revealing the source

^^'Origen, Against
'*^
Celsus, I, 37 (IV, 412).
Lactantius, Divine
histitutes,
IV, 12 (VII, no).
143H1PPOLYTUS, Refutation of All Heresies, X,

of the orthodox, but of the Sethians,
tific
is
7 (V, 143).
This conception, not
nevertheless of value in indicating the scien-
culture of the time.
80
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

and character
of that interpretation,
may
it
81
well leave
results,
its
meager, in the hands of the theologian to whose task
though
this effort
is
but
tributary.
THE NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA.
III.
The New Testament apocrypha
their treatment of
in
the virgin
and the
and
unphilosophical
the patristic productions are more theological and
inferential because of apologetic and polemic necessity; but the
apocryphal writings are gross and prolix in the invention of details and
the fabrication of a more exhaustive story.
Just how impoverished
and palpable these inventions are will best appear from an examination
of those false gospels which in their original form at least belong to
Such an examination of the Gospel
the period under consideration.
of James will suffice to give a correct idea of the more important
birth differentiate themselves very clearly from the canonical
The canonical accounts
writings.
patristic
are chaste,
brief,
apocryphal gospels in their relation to the virgin birth, for the Pseudo-
Matthew and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary are but recasts of the
embodied in the Gospel of James, while the Arabic
Gospel of the Infancy comes from the same source, augmented perhaps
by some elements from the Gospel of Thomas.
tradition earlier
To ascertain exact dates for the New Testament

The Gospel of Jaines.
apocrypha is next to impossible. Comparative and relative dates must sufWe have proof of the presence of some such story as the Gospel of
fice.
James in Justin's Dial., 78, and, while this would not be conclusive for the
existence and influence of the whole gospel in its present form, it would suffice
to
show
that
some
of the elements of such a gospel existed prior to 166.
Tischendorf places the original of the Gospel of James
second century.
The gospel
over, but that the story in
work attributed
able.
An
to
has
it
present form
James and extant

James
ko.1
is
xapa"
in the first half of the
in all probability
is
been worked
essentially the Jewish Christian
time of Justin
in the
expression in Justin's Dial., loi,
original of the Gospel of
Xapdv
its
we have
as
thought
\o.ôvaa.
to
Mapfa
t)
is
more than prob-
be a quotation of the
rrapdivos.
Protevang.:
8k Xa/3o0(ra Mapla.
But these gospels seem to have been for a long time in a more or less
state, seldom condensing into a rigid form, often reappearing in
modified, abbreviated.or lengthened forms, but never securing sufficient recognebulous
nition or esteem
or preservation.
by the church
to
make
Christians jealous of their exactness
So that the Gospel of James as we have
not prior to the latter part of the third century.
'"Harnack,
GuscA. altchrist. Lift,
II,
i,
p. 725-
Jacobus hat erst nach Origenes und vor der Mitte des
81
it
probably dates
Harnack"*-* thinks that
4.
"Das Protevangelium
it is
des
Jahrh. seine jetzige Gestalt
82
a compilation of three stories '^ and that
and before the middle
the time of Origen
assumed
it
its
present form after
of the fourth century
but that the
part treating of the birth of Jesus belongs perhaps to the second century,
the childhood history of
The substance
Mary
and
shortly before the time of Origen.
of the gospel
as follows
is
Joachim, a rich Jew, possessed
of a generosity similar to that of Tobit, wished to offer a double portion in the
temple, but was rebuked because he was the father of no children.
Having
and prayed for forty days, while his wife Anna
mourned over her supposed widowhood and bitter childlessness. But as she
sat in a garden lamenting, an angel came to her and announced '* that she
should conceive. About the same time an angel announced to Joachim the
same fact, and two other angels came to tell Anna that Joachim was returning.
In due time Anna brought forth a girl, and said, "'My soul has been
magnified this day.' And she laid her down. And the days having been
fulfilled Anna was purified and gave the breast to the child and called her
name Mary."
When Mary was six months old she walked seven steps. Her mother
made a little sanctuary for her in her own bedchamber and "allowed nothing
common or unclean to pass through her." When she was a year old her
father made a feast and invited " the priests and the scribes and the elders
and all the people of Israel." The priests blessed the child. At the age of
three her parents took her to the temple to be brought up, " and the priest
received her and kissed her and blessed her, saying The Lord has magnified
thy name in all generations.
In thee, on the last of the days, the Lord will
manifest his redemption to the sons of Israel.'"
"And Mary was in the
temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received
food from the hand of an angel."
When she was twelve years old an angel
directed Zacharias to assemble the widowers of the people, and to whomsoever the Lord should show a sign, his wife should Mary be. The lot fell to
the aged Joseph, out of whose rod there came a dove.
And the priest said
to Joseph, " Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin
of the Lord."
Joseph went away to build a house for his new charge, and
retired to the desert, he fasted
'
erhalten
dem
2.
der Abschnitt iiber die Geburt Jesu (Joseph-Apocryphum) gehort vielleicht
Jahrh., der Abschnitt iiber die Jugendgeschichte der
schnitt des Buches)
kann
abschnitt hat seine jetzige

'*5(i)
The
Form wohl
and therefore
erst
in
an apocryphum of Joseph
the child to be born
ness of Mary's
is
manner
and
life of
Mary up
(2) the story of the birth of Jesus
'^*In the Gospel of the Nativity of
made known
of conception
is
and
(3)
mother
all
of the subsequent history of
in the annunciation,
strongly emphasized.
of the Nativity throws considerable light
upon
Chap,
and the
sinless-
3 of the
Gospel
the objective and subjective sources
out of which these apocryphal traditions took their
82
to the period cov-
narrated by Joseph
an apocryphum of Zacharias.
Mary nearly
to the
der Zacharias-
nach des Zeit der Origenes erhalten."
history of the conception, birth,
ered by the canonical stories;
Maria (der Hauptab-
Origenes entstanden sein;
erst kurz vor
rise.
THE VIKGIN BIRTH
83
He was greatly
had been criminally lax.
Mary
asserted her innocence, and in Joseph's perplexity as to what he should do an
angel appeared to him with substantially the same message as that recorded
The priests discovered Mary's condition, and both Joseph and
in Matthew.
Mary were brought up for trial and acquitted by their own protestations of
innocence and the test of Numb. 5:1 1 ff. " And there was an order from the
emperor Augustus that all in Bethlehem of Judea should be enrolled."
Before reaching Bethlehem Mary's time was fulfilled. Attended by Joseph's
sons she entered a cave Joseph went in search of a midwife and fell into a
A
sort of trance in which he saw all the creatures of the earth awestricken.
midwife coming down from the hill-country met him, and after Mary had
given birth to her son testified to Salome that Mary was a virgin."*' Salome,
disbelieving, examined Mary and found it to be so, whereupon her hand was
stricken with a deadly disease, but by the instruction of an angel she placed
her hand upon the child, who immediately healed it. Then follows the story
when he returned found
that
Mary was six months with child.
distressed, fearing that his guardianship
of the magi, the rage of Herod, Mary's concealment of Jesus in an ox-stall,
the earth's opening to protect Elizabeth and John, Zacharias's refusal to
tell
where John was hidden and his consequent murder. "And I James wrote
this history in Jerusalem, a commotion having arisen when Herod died, withdrew myself to the wilderness until the commotion in Jerusalem ceased,
glorifying the Lord God who had given me the gift and the wisdom to write
this history.
And grace shall be with them that fear our Lord Jesus Christ,
whom
be glory to ages of ages. Amen."

The primary purpose of this religious novel is to assign to Mary such a
manner of birth and upbringing as befits the virgin mother of the Lord, and
to
secondarily to further substantiate, by citing the details of an alleged examination, the fact of Mary's virginity, not only before, but after the birth of
Christ.
The strenuous emphasis upon
the divinity of Jesus had, as
we have
seen, inevitably exalted the standing of his mother, and, as the historical
theologians have pointed out, this overemphasis
became almost equivalent
robbing the church of a Christ capable of sympathy with the merely

human. Hence the turning to Mary. But by what method could the exalted
The fact was that the church saw her, as it
position of Mary be supported ?
were, in midair, half-way between the Christ deified beyond men's grasp and
to
the church on earth largely destitute of a sense of the approachableness of

God. Some visible superstructure must be erected to support Mary in her
serviceable but precarious position
something
falling to the level of the sin-conscious world,
keep her from vanishing

had withdrawn.
into
forsooth to keep her from

and something perhaps to
heaven whither the thoroughly deified Christ
' Pseudo-Matthew (chap. 13) goes even farther, claiming that Mary underwent
of the experiences of parturition but became a mother in a painless and mysteri-
none
ous way.
83
HISTORICAL 4ND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
84
The
material and the details for such an undertaking were not far to seek.
Greatness, even that of Jesus, depended upon lineage

notables of heathen
myth and Old Testament
by extraordinary features attending

myth, but
in the
and most of the

were designated as such
Not only in extra-canonical
;
story
their births.
Jewish Scriptures, giants and heroes were thought to be the
and women, Gen. 6 2-5. Isaac was the son of a barren

by a father a hundred years old. Jacob was the son
of a barren mother, and his strange action at the time of his birth was, so
Yahweh said, prophetic of his assured greatness. The mother of Joseph was
barren until that great patriarch was given in answer to prayer. The babe
Moses had a wonderful deliverance. The birth of the mighty Samson was
announced to the barren wife of Manoah by an angel. Samuel was given to
the barren Hannah in answer to prayer and to take away her shame from the
eyes of the people and John the Baptist came as the child of the barren
Elizabeth advanced in years, and the aged priest who had ceased to hope for
offspring.
Our composer was directed not only by these regulation requirements for the production of a notable character, but he had also the full benefit of a developed angelology such as was contained in the Old Testament
and elaborated in current thought. Angels are always convenient in such
offspring of gods
woman
of ninety years
He
narratives.
was
also possessed the canonical story of the virgin birth.
This
his starting-point.
Accordingly the story
wrought out chiefly upon the model of that of

to emphasize the purity of Mary in her food,
is
Samuel, great care being taken
surroundings, and occupation.''*

the canonical
New Testament
It is
in the
hardly necessary to point out the use of
account of Joachim's retreat into the
desert and his forty days' fast, or in the blending of the
Lucan and Matthaean
visit to the temple

age of three and her utter lack of desire to return home with her parents ( 7).
These, together with many other items and the almost literal
Joachim (
stories in the annunciation to
4), or in
Mary's
at the
use of Matt., chap.
2, in
that the protevangelium
11, 12,
13,
is
22,
prove beyond a doubt
and it is equally clear that the

upon Mary the miraculous circumstances attribJesus as to give her advent a purity and a glory in keep-
elaboration of the canonical infancy sections

author's aim
and
21,
simply a purposeful, though not deeply serious,
is
so to reflect
uted to the birth of
ing with her exalted position.,
different conscience
They, with
made
from that exhibited
slight exceptions
in the patristics is at
work.
subsequent to the time of Clement of Alexandria,
a strenuous and dogmatic use of the canonical material.
Nor did they
even in apologetic and polemic stress. The literary conscience of the apocryphal writers, on the contrary, was not satisfied with the
most advantageous use of the accepted sources, but under false names
attempted to add to the sources just those elements which would best explain
resort to invention
148
For the acme
of this effort, see the Sahidic fragment, Texts
2, p. 15.
84
and
Studies, IV,
THE VIRGIN BIRTH

the religious situation in which
it
found
itself.
85
From such
a conscience, con-
fronted by a practical theological problem, but devoid of the required
and
deep seriousness
also destitute of the
ings,
and
Mary.
of the canonical
sprang the teaching of the perpetual virginity of
skill,
patristic writ-
of Thomas and the History of Joseph the Carpenter differ

from the Gospel of James and its derivatives in that the former adopt the
point of view of the Johannine philosophy and find the idea of an incarnation ''
more in accord with their Docetic purpose. But the Gospel of James is
The Gospel
practically sufficient to indicate the contribution of the so-called
ment apocrypha
to the
study of the virgin birth.
New
Testa-
In a word, they push back
a step or so farther, and hence wholly past the point of credibility, the
remarkable features of the canonical infancy
stories.
''See also Pseudo-Clementina," Tv/o Epistles Concerning Virginity," Ep.
I,
VI
(VIII, 56, 57), and "Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena," chaps. 14, 15 (IX, 209). And for
spurious material purporting to be ante-Nicene see Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,
BookV,
God,
I6(VII', 446); VI, 6; VII, 36,37, 41
VIII.I; Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of
XXV, XXVI, XXVIII, XXIX Apocalypse

Book of John Concerning the Falling-Asleep of Mary (VIII,
(IX, i6g), IV, V, XXIII,
(VIII, 579);
162) and
Vision of Paul,
41 (IX,
dom of Andrew
(VIII, 512)
46
Acts of Philip (VIII, 502)
of Paul
587-91);
Acts and Martyr-
Martyrdom of Bartholomew (VIII, 554)
Gospel of Nico-
Latin version (VIII, 453) Mar Jacob, Homily on Habib

the iWar/j/r (Syriac),(VIII, 712); Liturgy of James, 6 (VII, 538), 29, 35, 44.
demus. Part
II,
chap. 12,
first
85
;;
INDEX.
Adam, compared with Jesus,
Harnack, on protevangelium, 81,
39, 4. 48, 63,
82.
Heracleon, 36, 72.
71of, 73.
^schines, belief
Heretics, destitute of sources, 73, 76.
Alexander of Alexandria,
Hippolytus, 61 f.; use of Scripture, 62; of

significance of, 65
apocrypha, 64
quoted, 6 1 -3.
74, 75.
of, 17, 18.
Ante-Nicene Fathers, treatment
Apocrypha, 9; not used, 41 presence of,

infiuence upon Clement of Alex51
growing
andria, 52 upon Origen, 57
-,
Apelles, belief of, 36.
Huck, Synopse,
14.
Ignatian controversy, 18.
quoted, 19.
favor of, 60, 68, 70, 74 ; entrance into

orthodox theology, 76; general treat-
Ignatius, 17
ment
Immanuel prophecy, appeal
Immanuel,
of, 81.
Apostolic Fathers, silence
of,
16
Archelaus, definition of pater, 67
Incarnation, 16, 19, 22; in Justin, 30; in

Peter,
Novatian, 66 ; Malchion, 67
harmonization with virgin birth,
74
77 apocryphal use of, 85.
quoted,
67, 68.
21; departure from

quoted, 21.
Aristides,
22
15, 26,
to,
44. 57.
f.
f.;
15.
Arnobius, practical
quoted, 69.
gospels,
apologetic
of,
stories, comparison
Testament use of, 84.
Infancy
69
of,
10
f.;
Old
Interpretation, 27, 80.
Barbeliotes, Gnostic theory of, 35.
method of treatIrenseus, polemic of, 31

ment, 32 ; reply to Gnosticism, 32
appeal to Scripture, 36 ; dogmatic con;
Barnabas, Epistle
of, 17, 18.
Basilides, christology of, 34, 35, 36, 72.
Bethlehem, 10,
clusions of, 41, 42; quoted, 32-40.
11, 14.
Carpocrates, teaching
protevangelium, comJames, gospel of

pared with Matthew and Luke, 12 f.;
grossness of, 14 in Justin Martyr, 29,
30; in Clement of Alexandria, 51 in
Origen, 57, 58; estimate of, 81
quoted, 12 f.; abstract
sources of, 84
of, 33, 35, 36, 72.
Celsus, claim of, 53.
Cerdo, 34, 35, 72.

Cerinthus, heresy of, 34, 35, 36, 72.
Church Fathers, reliability of, 80.

Clement of Alexandria, 5li52; quoted,
Clement
8 If.
of,
descent of, 10, 20, 49

not in virgin-birth
stories, 15, 16, 20; based upon parentage, -20, 21, 32, 37, 43, 44, 77, 79;
son of Joseph, 33 f.; pre-existent, 33 f.;
a mediator
not Joseph's son, 38
because of virgin birth, 40, 79 purity
of birth, 58; frequent birth of, 62; not
born at all, 67.
occupation, 37,
Joseph, home of, 10, 11
Jesus,
51-
of
Rome,
dual
17, 18.
Colarbasus, 72.
Conrad, theory
of, 9.
Cyprian, 65.
Davidic
nature
of,
Didache,
17, 18.
Diognetus, Epistle to, 17, 18.

Docetism, early evidence of, 21.
53-
Ebionites, 34
f.
Justin Martyr, 22 f.; his use of mythology,

24 ; of prophecy, 26 ; final apology of,
summary, 29 ; sources, 29, 30
28
Elchasai, 61.
Encratites, 35.
quoted, 23-9.
Genealogies,
9, 10.
Lactantius, theology
Gnosticism, 32, 33, 36, 45, 51, 67, 73, 78.

Gospels, the four teach virgin birth, 46, 47.
of,
70
Logos doctrine dominant,

86
quoted, 70.
75, 76.
INDEX
Luke, gospel of, infancy story compared
with Matthew, lo dependence upon
Mark, 1 1 correspondence to Matthew,
;
14; interpretation of virgin birth,

16; Marcion's mutilation of, 39.
15,
87
57; use of apocrypha, 58; reverence
59 contribution of, 60
quoted,
52-60.
of,
Panthera, story
of, 53, 54.
Patripassionism, 61.
Malchion, 66, 67
Manes,
quoted, 66.
Peter of Alexandria, 73, 74
67.
Manichaeans, 67.
Plato, reputed virgin birth of, 56.
Manuscript testimony,
Marcion, belief
10.
and use
of,
Testament, 35, 39, 46, 72

reply
quoted, 73,
74-
of
the
New
Tertullian's
Polycarp, 17, 18.

Praxeas, heresy of, 73.
Ptolemy, 36, 72.
to, 43.
Marcus, 72.
Mary, contrasted with Eve, 23, 39, 47, 48
exaltation of, 51, 64, 68 Jewish slander
Resch, theory
of, 9.
Rushbrook, Synopticon,
14.
o^
perpetual virginity,
S3> 54
never Joseph's wife, 68.
;
57
Matthew, gospel of, infancy story compared with LuTce, 10 dependence upon
Mark, 1 1
correspondence to Luke,
;
14; interpretation of virgin birth, 15.

Melito, 31.
Messiah, Jewish belief as to birth, 24, 27,

28, 62.
Method,
9, 17.
of, 34, 36, 72,
Scythianus, 68.
Secundus, 36, 72.

Sethians, 35, 61.
Shepherd of Hermas,
17, 18.
Simon of Samaria, theology

Son of God, 15, 16.
of, 34, 72.
Tatian, his appeal to mythology, 30

probable belief of, 31, 72; quoted, 30,
31-
Methodius, typology
Monoimus, teaching
of,
71
quoted, 71.
of, 61.
Mythology, Greek, 24, 28,
55, 56, 69.
New Testament,
silence of, regarding virgin birth, 16, 17; its authority in time of
Justin Martyr, 27
in time of Irenceus,
36; Tertullian's use of, 45.
;
Noetus, 61.
Novatian, 65, 66
Saturninus, theory
Terebinthus, pretension
quoted, 65.
Ophites, 35, 72.
Origen, 52f.; reply to Celsus, 54; scientific argument of, 55

use of Scripture,
'>
68.
50 quoted, 42-9.
Theodotus, 73.
;
Trypho,
;
of,
Tertullian, 42 f.;
his argument as to
Christ's dual nature, 43
defense of his
humanity, 44 ; interpretation of, 45,
46 estimate of the gospels, 47 his
sources, 50
peculiar use of virgin birth,
his
criticism of virgin birth, 23,
24.
Valentinians, 34, 72.

Victorinus, 71 ; summary of heresies, 72,
73 quoted, 71
;
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
The Department
of
Biblical
and Patristic Greek of the
University of Chicago proposes to issue, from time to time,

Historical and Linguistic Studies in Literature Related to the
New
I,
Testament.
Texts
Studies.
from time
These Studies
II, Linguistic
The volumes
will
be grouped in three series
and Exegetical Studies

in each
series
will
III, Historical
be issued in parts
to time,
Ernest D. Burton.
Shailer Mathews.
Clyde W. Votaw.
Edgar J. Goodspeed.
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE

WRITINGS OF THE
FATHERS
HENRY MARTYN HERRICK,
Ph.D.
CHICAGO
Zbc
innlversitg of Cbicago
1903
press
Regiium fulgebit
oramus,
in regno,
et dicirnus:
cum
regno venerit reg?mm, quod nunc
Veniat regnum tuum.
Haec
ergo
domus Dei,
hoc templum Dei, hoc regnum Dei, regnumque coelorum adhuc aedificatur,
adhuc fabricatur, adhuc paratur, adhuc congregatur.

Augustine, Tractate on Joh?i, 68,
Copyright 1903
By The University of Chicago
2.
PREFACE.
This treatise upon the kingdom of
God
is
based upon the
Christian writings of the patristic age, from Clement of
Rome
to
John of Damascus. These writings have been studied exegetically and historically in the standard English translations, with
reference,
when
necessary, to the original text.
The
editions
used are the following:

The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
1.
twenty-four volumes, published by T.
in
&
T. Clark.
2.
Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers, Greek
3.
The Supplementary Volume
and English, one volume.
(Vol. IX) of the reprint of the Clark edi-
published by the Christian Literature Co. of
tion,
New
York,
The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, in twenty-eight volumes; also

published by the Christian Literature Co. (now by the Scribners). Series i
contains fourteen volumes, of which eight are of Augustine and six of Chrys4.
ostom.
These volumes, about

tant writings of
fifty in
number, contain the most impor-
the patristic age.
Of many Fathers
all
the
extant works are given, and of the others, with hardly an exception,
sufficient of their writings to afford a reliable estimate of
their views of the
kingdom.
One supplemental work I have found

the Cate?ia Aurea of Thomas Aquinas, in
eight volumes.
that
Of
this
"under the form
really an exhaustive
of
addition
all
the Oxford edition of

work the Encyclopcedia Britamiica says
a commentary on the gospels, it was
summary
of the theological teaching of the
greatest Fathers of the church."

patristic references
to be of great value
to the
It
not only confirms
many
kingdom, but apparently gathers
in
the important references (which are, of course, not
volumes named above.

A list of the references to the kingdom in these volumes of
the Fathers (3,974 in number, including 1,410 scriptural quotanumerous) not included
tions)
93]
is
in the
given at the end.
CONTENTS.
Chapter
Introduction
PERIOD
Chapter
PERIOD
II
II.
I.
The Apostolic Fathers
15
THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS SUBSEQUENT TO

THE APOSTOLIC.
GREEK.
A.
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus

IV Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Methodius
V The Apocryphal Writings, the Apostolic Consti-
Chapter
VI
III
tutions,
and the Clementines
35
LATIN.
.
III.
IX
38
43
THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS.

A.
The
GREEK.
-...---------
49
Historians:
Eusebius,
Socrates,
Sozomen,
and Theodoret
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
X Athanasius
Ephraem Syrus, and Aphrahat
Cyril
Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and
Gregory of Nyssa
XIII Chrysostom
Damascus
XIV John
XI
XII
Basil,
52
55
61
of
B.
66
LATIN.
---------------
Chapter
XV Hilary
Chapter XVI Ambrose
Chapter XVII Jerome, Rufinus, Sulpitius, and Vincent
Chapter XVIII Augustine
Chapter XIX Cassian
Chapter
XX Leo the Great and Gregory the Great Chapter XXI Additional References from the Ca/â ^z^râ
Chapter XXII Summary and Conclusion
Tables
Index of References
95]
46
of
Chapter
Chapter
30
Tertullian and Cyprian

VIII Lactantius and the Minor Latin Fathers
VII
PERIOD
Chapter
25
The Liturgies and Minor Greek Fathers

B.
Chapter
Chapter
21
68
71
74
78
92
96
98
ico
107
109
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION,
What
was understood by the kingdom of God in the early

?
To what extent was the New Testament
usage followed, and wherein was it departed from ? Did the
Fathers, on the whole, preserve the great idea and hand it down,
Christian centuries
or did they lose

It is a
it ?
notable fact that in the patristic age there seems to
be no separate treatise upon the kingdom of God.
approach to such a treatise
is
The
De
Augustine's great work
nearest
Civitate
which he gives a Christian philosophy of history. To him

the kingdom of God is the divine government as realized in the
church
the church which is ideal and historical, in heaven and
on earth, and consists of angels and of men, of Israel first and
then of the gentiles.
This idea is evidently at a wide remove
Dei, in
from the primary views of the New Testament. The doctrine of

the kingdom, like the kingdom itself, may be said to work like
leaven, rather than to stand forth from the outset as a formal
and
definite article of the Christian faith.
Men.
appears
In his
An
indication of this
of 135 writers he
in Jerome's Illustrious
mentions about 240 subjects upon which they have written
list
(omitting many of those best known to his readers), besides

many commentaries and letters. Gennadius adds 99 men to the
and about 220 titles. Of these 460 treatises not one is upon
But many of the best thoughts of the
the kingdom of God.
early centuries cluster around this theme, scattered throughout
the whole range of the literature, and possibly no other theme
list,
is
more suggestive
as a
key
to patristic views of Christianity.
brief statement of the teaching of Jesus
concerning the kingdom
is
and the apostles

Although
a necessary starting-point.
kingdom the predominant theme of the gospel,

He adopted the word from the current
he did not define it.
Jewish teaching, and gave it a new meaning. "The bond that
unites the Old Testament with the New, the religion of Israel
Jesus
97]
made
the
HISTOEICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
10
with the gospel,
come, and yet
is
it is
the idea of the
a living force in the
it is
kingdom
a present reality.
bosom
earlier prophets, that the nation,
obedient to the will of Jehovah
It is in
of
God.
It is
the souls of
to
men
The dream of the

and then mankind, would become
of society."^
the individualism of Jeremiah,
the visions of Daniel the seer

Ezekiel, and the sages
are all
combined into a splendid ideal in the teaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom. Speaking in parables whose meaning was often
purposely veiled, he emphasized the inner, mysterious nature of
the kingdom more than its obvious features.
The word " kingdom" is abstract in the sense of reign or dominion of power
in the universe, of grace in the soul
and concrete in the sense
of realm, or the subjects reigned over. The word in the abstract
sense occurs but rarely in the New Testament. The kingdom of
God usually means the company of believers, the Christian
It
society. Yet its domain is first of all in the individual soul.
is dynamic before it is static, spiritual rather than formal. Before
the Christian society is possible, souls must be renewed.
;
\''
Meyer, throughout
dom
of
God always
his
commentaries, maintains that the king-
signifies
nothing else than the Messiah's
kingdom, the erection of which begins with the parousia, belonging not to "this world," but to "the world to come" (on Rom.
14:17; cf. on I Cor. 4 20). On Luke 17:21 he defends the
translation "the kingdom of God is among you," and claims that
:
kingdom of God as an ethical condition of the soul is a

modern idea, not historico-biblical. But an idea is not modern
which the Fathers uniformly find in Luke 17:21, translating it
correctly "the kingdom of God is within you," and in several
the
instances applying with exceptional force
its
teaching that the
kingdom of God is in the soul.

The idea of the kingdom as involving eternal life seems traceable in Mark 9 45 and 47 probably, also, in Luke 18 :i8 and 24,
and John 3 3 and 15. The kingdom of God (synonymous with
the kingdom of heaven) and of Christ is one. Matt. 13 :43; John
:
'See Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 23-5;

as the Subject of Redemption, p. 38.
'
Cf. the
Lutheran and Reformed Confessions.
98
Fremantle, The World
INTRODUCTION
11
18:36; Eph. 5:5. As to the relation of the kingdom to the

church, the only passage in the New Testament bearing directly
upon
(Matt. 16:17-19)
it
peculiar to Matthew, but
The
Jesus.
by Jesus
kingdom
in
idea of the
is
is
indeterminate.
This passage
is
evidently an original utterance of
kingdom
is
apparently here embodied
the church as the form whereby or wherein the
is
to reach its goal.
The institution which Jesus
chooses as the distinctive, visible form of the kingdom, to con-
sist of
men
of rock-like faith such as Peter's,
Peter in regard to
is
to continue
unvan-
members. The earthly decrees of

the kingdom, as represented by the church,
quished by the death of
its
shall be valid in heaven.
The disciples thought that they understood the mysteries of

the kingdom (Matt. 13:51), but only after Pentecost did they
Answering their inquiries about the
kingdom (Acts i 6 f ) the Lord said: "Ye shall receive power,
when the Holy Ghost is come upon you and ye shall be my
Led by the Spirit, the disciples directed their enerwitnesses."
gies to proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and the kingdom
begin really to grasp them.
:
increased visibly in the growth of the churches.
Still
looking
speedy return of Jesus, they anticipated with his appearing

the consummation of the kingdom.
Besides the emergence of the church in the days of the apostles, which to some extent overshadowed the thought of the
kingdom, there was a progress of doctrine which in part transferred the center of their thought and preaching from the kingfor the
dom
to the king.
This
is
in the
Fathers frequently carried to
the length of identifying Christ and the kingdom.
The new
manifest in comparing the discourses in Acts

with the parables of Jesus. Three times in Acts " the things
concerning the kingdom " are significantly combined with " the
point of view
is
things concerning Jesus " (8:12; 28:23,31).

cost did a definite Christology
arise;
Only
after Pente-
but from that time
it
began
life
once to reveal the dynamic
of the kingdom in men's souls, and thereby in their relations
with one another promoted the fraternal life of the church.
But as time went on, and Jesus did not return, while members
at
which established the eternal
99
12
new
of the
society were being
removed by death, an adjustment
thought of the kingdom became inevitable. Especially

would the persecutions, as they increased, tend to make trans-
in their
cendental the views of the kingdom, as to
the nature of
conquest of the world, and the time and place of
The general tone
tion.
dom
in
its
realiza-
of the thirty-two references to the king-
New Testament
the
its full
outside the gospels
is
eschatological,
the thought of the kingdom as a present reality being merged

The expectation seemed to be that
in the form of the church.
when
Christ appeared in judgment on the earth the
would be
set
though, at
up
last,
to continue, possibly,
kingdom
on a regenerated
earth,
not under the control of the Christ, but of
God
the Father.
The Apocalypse, with
vivid portrayal of the times of per-
its
secution and of triumph, would give important testimony as to

the changing idea of the kingdom,
we knew
if
its
author and
its
origin.
The millennial ideas of the patristic age seem to have
sifted through the Apocalypse from the Old Testament,
especially Daniel, but met with strong opposition and proved
The
evanescent.
idea of a millennium, however, whether as a
transformation of earth into heaven, or as a representation

or prelude to, the heavenly consummation,
recurs at different epochs
writings
of
Redemption
is
which
one phase of
Fremantle's
The
it
of,
has vitality, and
notably in our day in
World as
the
Subject of
typical.
The following plan exhibits the New Testament usage of the

term "kingdom of God" or its equivalent, with the most
important references, some of which might be otherwise grouped.
reig?i
the abstract idea.
Matt. 6:io, 33; Luke
I. God's
1
(Luke
Rom.
i
Cor.
17:21;
14:17;
4 20)
33
n. God's realm
the coficrete reality: the community of saints,
or the ideal society of men as brothers because sons of a com-
mon
(
Father.
I
As a?i
order of things already preseiit or impending (indefinite
Acts i:6f.; as to place, Luke 17:37): Matt, 3 2

5:3,10; 12:28; 18:23; 19:12; 20:r; 21:43; 22:2;
as to time.
4:23;
25:1; Luke 19:11; Acts
6:QHeb. 12 28.
:
INTRODUCTION
(2) IVi^k special reference
13
personal constituency a7id social
to its
Matt. 5:19,20;
8:12; 11 11, 12; chap. 13; 19:14,

23,24; 21:31; 23 13; Acts 14: 22; I Cor. 15:24. Its origin,
growth, and process, John 18: 36; Matt. 13; Mark4:26f. Conditions of entering and remaining, John 3:3, 5; Matt. 18 i
4;
jiature.
Luke 9
62.
As having bounds
or limits, and thus suggesting organized

16:19 marks the point of attachment for the
idea of the church as the kingdom.
Possibly Matt. 13 :4i is a
(3)
Matt.
form.
point of connection with the millennial idea.

(4) As
Mark 9:1;
9, 10;
Pet. i: 11;
Matt. 16:28;
Luke
(f/45);
23:51.
21; 8
and the last judgLuke 23 42

Cor.
13: 43; 25: 34;
is
Eph. 5:5; i Cor. i 5 50; Col. 4:11;

Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18; Jas. 2 5
:
Rev. 12:10.
kingdom
In certain of
these later
apparently anticipated
heaven after the parousia.
now
9: 47
Gal. 5:21;
Thess. 2:12;
the
Mark
26:29;
Eschatological, associated with the parousia
Matt. 7
ment.
Matt. 20:21;
22: 16, 30;
21 :3i;
( 5 )
future, but not definitely eschatological.
existing in the
The thought
world,
celestial
enters at death, does not appear in
Thus the kingdom
of
as
God
in
references
about to exist
of Christ's
kingdom
in
as
which the believer

Testament times.
into
New
the
New
Testament is a comnow upon another
plex idea, the emphasis falling now upon one,

of
in,
several phases.
its
dom
is
In general
personal and social, and,
usually eschatological.
in the
The
it
may
when
be said that the king-
the idea of time enters
various connotations of the idea
Fathers are usually traceable to Scriptural references as
the points of departure.

In the present
work the Fathers
are considered in chrono-
groups of Greek and Latin in each of

the three periods. There is in general no sharp line of demarcation between the second and third periods, in the current ideas of
the kingdom, and the same may be said of the Greek and Latin
logical order, arranged
churches.
dom
in
Of each writer the references he makes to the kingsomewhat in detail and as a whole, with
are characterized
101
14
quotation of those which seem most important.

references quoted (out of the whole
number
The number
of
of nearly four thou-
and six hundred, representing about fifty

In the
Fathers and over one hundred and seventy-five works.
supplement several tables are given, showing the distribution of
sand)
is
between
references to the
five
kingdom among
their use of Scripture.
102
the
Fathers, together with
PERIOD I. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

CHAPTER
Clement of Rome, in
the
first
II.
certain reference to the
after the apostolic age, says that the apostles
the glad tidings that the

[Epistle to the Corinthians,
went forth with
kingdom of God was about to come

The righteous dead dwell in the
42).
abode of the pious; and they
kingdom
kingdom
shall
be manifest
in
the visitation'^
God
These references regard the king(50).

dom as eschatological. In chap. 54 citizenship in the kingdom
is spoken af proleptically, in the sense given it by Paul in "our
citizenship is in heaven": "This have they done and will do,
who live as citizens of that kingdom of God which bringeth no
of the
of
regrets;"^ but the
The
kingdom
itself is
ancient homily by an
eschatological.
unknown
author,
the so-called
SecoJid Epistle of Clement, has several references to the
place
as
future
of
or
rest
blessedness.
brethren,, that the sojourn of this flesh in this world

for a short time, but the promise of Christ
kingdom
"And ye know,
is
is
mean and
great and mar-
kingdom that shall be and of life

eternal" (5). Twice the word /Sao-t\etoi^, royal palace or seat of
"With what confidence
empire, is used instead of âaCKeia.
shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter
velous, even the rest of the
into
TO
âaCXeiov of
God?"
(6).
"The
unbelievers shall be
amazed when they see the kingdom of the world given to Jesus"
(17). 3
This does
not necessarily involve
the
conversion of
"Let us
kingdom of God betimes in love and
righteousness, since we know not the day of God's appearing.
For the Lord himself, being asked by a certain person when
his kingdom would come, said: 'When the two shall be one, and
In sec. 12 occurs the important passage:
the world.
therefore
await
the
the outside as the inside, etc.

'
the
kingdom
of
* ol iroKirevdiJievoi
îrt<r/co7r^.
t6 /Soo'tXetov ToT Kbcfxov iv
103]
'
rtji
These things if ye do', saith he,

Here the kingdom of
shall come.' "
my father
ttjv diXTa/J,i\r]TOV iroKirelap toZ deov.
Irjaoi.
15
16
Christ
its
identical with the
is
coming, though future,
extent conditioned on
kingdom
and the time of

may be imminent, and is to some
of God,
human conduct.
"If therefore
we
shall
have wrought righteousness in the sight of God, we shall enter

into his kingdom and receive the promises which ear hath not
heard nor eye seen," etc. (9). Whether it shall come in and
with this doing of righteousness, or as a consequent reward,
the ethical relation
is
important.
These passages are clearly
eschatological.
"The Books and the Apostles plainly declare

church exists, not now for the first time, but hath been
In sec. 14:
that the
from the beginning;

fested in the last days
for
it
was
....
in
spiritual,
.... and was
the flesh of Christ."
By
manithese
and other mystical expressions we are reminded of Hilary's

view of the kingdom of Christ in his flesh, and of Augustine's
De Civitate Dei, which is both kingdom and church.
In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, which is variously dated
from 70 to 182 A. D., and so may be earlier than Clement, it is
said that he that doeth righteousness shall be glorified in the
God
"They that desire to see me, and to

(21).
kingdom, must lay hold on me through tribulation and affliction" (7).
If we relax our efforts, and slumber
over our sins, there is danger lest "the prince of evil receive
power against us and thrust us out from the kingdom of the
Lord," apparently from attaining unto it.
It is mystically
declared that "the kingdom of Jesus is on the cross, and they
who set their hope on him shall live forever" (8). It is said in
the same section that "in his kingdom there shall be evil days,
in which we shall be saved," which seems to involve an earthly
experience, perhaps millennial.
There is a temple of God in
renewed human hearts, a spiritual temple built up in his name in
place of the Jewish temple (16).
The church, rather than the
kingdom, is probably here in mind.
kingdom
of
attain unto
In
the
my
Didach^, or
Teaching of the Apostles, the following

"May thy church
prayer, with slight variations, occurs twice
be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy king-
dom, which thou hast prepared
KM
for it" (9
and 10).
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
17
Thus in the earliest patristic reference to the church and the

kingdom together, they are clearly distinguished from each other.
The kingdom is still future and eschatological with implied
reference to Matt. 25
place
of
its
but nothing is indicated as to the

34
manifestation.
The thought may be that the
church as a whole
is
have place
to
in the
kingdom
as Cyprian
speaks of the church as "that which shall reign there."

in quoting the Lord's Prayer the closing words read
thine
is
Twice
" For
the power and the glory," omitting " kingdom."
In the Testaments of the Tivelve Patriarchs, which may possibly

be a Jewish, rather than Christian, writing, two or three general
" The Lord sware to me with an oath that the
references occur
kingdom should never fail from me" {Judah, 23). "His king:
dom
an everlasting
kingdom"
the Lord shall not be
away" {Benjamin, 9).

The Shepherd of Hermas
tive
and involved
{Joseph, 19).
among
is
be
"The kingdom
of
you, for he will forthwith take
it
written in a style so highly figura-
often
The
Visions and
around the building of a tower which is
repeatedly declared to be the church {Vis. 3.3 Sim. g. 13).
But
in the voluminous discussions centering about this idea, the
as
to
obscure.
Similitudes center
kingdom
of
God seems
frequently to be
synonymous with the
church.
The church was
created before
the tower in building
is
all
the church
"But
things {Vis. 2.4).
ye
shall be purified,
and
The white portion is

the coming age, in which the elect of God shall dwell " (4. 3).
Life is for all that keep the commandments of the Lord all the
shall be useful as stones for its building.
righteous and repentant have their dwelling within the tower
The penitent had their dwelling placed within the first

and some of them even ascended into the tower {Sim.
8.
walls,.
8. 7
;;
10; 8.6).
The tower is built upon the rock and upon the gate it ismade a single stone with the rock (9. 15, 13). This rock and gate
is the Son of God
the rock is ancient and the gate recent
being
made recent in the manifestation of Christ, that they who are
to be saved may enter through it into the kingdom of God.
:
105
18
Only the stones which come through the gate go

ing of the tower
to the build-
thus no one shall enter into the
kingdom
of
God, except he receive the name of his Son. The builders of

But
the tower are angels, by whom the Lord is walled about.
there is this one entrance to the
the gate is the Son of God
Lord, to the kingdom of God (9.12). Those who believe
shall become one spirit and one body (9 13).
But some, having been placed in the tower, after a time
were enticed, and were cast away from the house of God.
;
There was therefore a cessation in the building, that, if these

thus God
repent, they may go into the building of the tower
"restored our life" (9.14). The evil shall be cast out and the
church of God purified there shall be one body of them that
are purified, just as the tower when purified became made as it
were of one stone. It is hard for such as go astray to enter into
but, if they repent and do good, they
the kingdom of God
Let them do so speedily, before the tower
shall live unto God.
;
is
The righteous
completed.
dwell, without
doubt, in
the
kingdom
But the other stones, which have remained

of God.
round and have not been fitted into the building, have been
For this world and its vanities must
put back into their place.
they will fit into the kingdom of
them,
and
then
from
off
be cut
God (9.16, 18, 20, 26,29, 31). The last statement is obviously
a reference to the tower, or church, under
kingdom.
There is thus
of the
kingdom
in the
;
but
the
name
of
the
Shepherd no distinct and consistent idea

it
is
significant that
this composition,
which was long treated as a part of Scripture and had large

upon later Fathers, so closely interweaves the idea of
the church with that of the kingdom as to make them pracThe most important note of time as
tically interchangeable.
influence
connected with the kingdom
is
the completion of the tower.
the urgent call to repent before
To
enter into the
kingdom
is
God. The figure of the building

recalls Paul's temple of God, and Peter's living stones built
upon the Rock.
"If any
Ignatius declares in his Epistle to the Philippiaîs, 3
parallel
with
living
unto
106
KINGDOM OF GOD
man foUoweth one

kingdom
ine) he
God."
of
that
19
maketh a schism, he doth not inherit the

Martyrdom of Igjiatius (perhaps genu-
In the
reported as saying
is
THE FATHERS
IN
" the
whose kingdom may I enjoy " (

pians, in sees. 2 and 5, quotes
2).
only-begotten Son of God,

Polycarp, Ep. to the Philip-
Cor. 6:10, and Matt.
and
10 in part both apparently with an eschatological reference.
The Smyrnaeans pray
in The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 20: " May it be

our lot to be found in the kingdom of Jesus Christ;" and in 22:
"That the Lord Jesus Christ may gather me also with his elect
kingdom." Aristides says in the Apology, 16:

way of the truth which leads those who travel
the everlasting kingdom promised through Christ in
into his heavenly
"Verily this
therein to
the
life
the
is
The Epistle
to -come."
to
Diognetus, 9, very beautifully
.... we might now be made deserving by the

goodness of God, and having made clear our inability to enter into
prays
the
of
" that
kingdom
of
God by
God." This of
itself
ourselves, might be enabled
might look
by the
like a reference to the
ability
kingdom
as a present reality, but in the next section (10) the reference to

" For God loved men for
kingdom is plain
whose sake he made the world
to whom he promised the
kingdom which is in heaven, and will give it to those that have
loved him." The references in this paragraph are to the king-
the heavenly
dom
as
place
of
future
reward or
bliss,
either terrestrial
The second reference from the
(eschatological) or celestial.
Martyrdom of Polycarp and the second from the Epistle to Diognetus are clearly celestial (^/. 2 Tim. 4:18): and the probability is
somewhat strong
the group,
it
that this
is
the prevailing reference of
being regarded eschatologically and as even now
existent in heaven.
The
millennial notions of Papias are found in fragments in
other writers.
ments
" of a
Eusebius
{^Ch.
Hist.
somewhat mythical
3.39) refers to the stateamong which he
character,
some (ten) thousand years

and that the kingdom of Christ will be
These ideas I suppose he
set up in material form on this earth.
got through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts,"
etc.
Jerome, in his Illustrious Men, 18, speaks of Papias as
says that there will be a period of
after the resurrection,
107
20
having promulgated the Jewish tradition ot a millennium, teaching that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh
with the saints.

as saying:
Irenaeus also
"The days
will
5.33) quotes Papias

which vines shall grow each
{^Heresies,
come
in
having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand

Maximus Confessor and Photius (Lightfoot, p.
branches," etc.
534) refer to Papias as having mentioned material viands
the anticipated joys of the kingdom.
among
Re liques of the Elders preserved in Irenaeus, 4. 27: "He

Cor. 6 9 f.), not to those who are without, but to us,
lest we be cast out of the kingdom of God," etc.
"Without"
here seems to mean outside the Christian circle, and the kingdom
In the
said this
( i
to be the future state of reward on earth or in heaven.
say that this
the distinction between the habitations of
is
that bring forth a hundred-fold, and of
sixty and thirty
In
the
first
shall be taken
them
5.
36
"The Elders
gradations in the heavenly reward are indicated:
them
that bring forth
up into the heavens, and
the second shall dwell in Paradise, and the third shall inhabit the
city;
and that therefore our Lord
said,
'In
my
Father's house
many mansions.' "

The apostolic Fathers contain fifty-two references to the kingdom, among which are ten quotations from the New Testament.
The phrase "kingdom of God" occurs twenty-seven times, while
"kingdom of heaven" is not used.' In this first period, extendare
ing to about 150 A. D., the view of the
kingdom on the whole
resembles that of the apostles, with notable development as to

definiteness of place
other celestial.
on the one hand millennial on
Indications
of
earth,
on the
possibly non-eschatological
view of the kingdom linger apparently only in the Shepherd,

in which there is that vague intermingling of the ideas of the
kingdom and the church, which,
as
remarked above, was widely
influential in later times.

'In the whole patristic period the phrase "kingdom of heaven" occurs three times
where the phrase "kingdom of God" occurs twice; the relative usage in the Greek and
Latin Fathers being
much
the same.
See Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, Div.
Vol. II, p. 171, and notes.
108
2,
PERIOD II. THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS

SUBSEQUENT TO THE APOSTOLIC.
A. GREEK.
CHAPTER
III.
JUSTIN MARTYR, IRENiEUS, AND HIPPOLYTUS.
Justin
I.
Martyr,
the
great
century, says in his First Apology,
1 1
apologist
:
of
the
"And when you
we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any

we speak of a human kingdom whereas we speak
that
second
hear that
inquiry,
of that
which is with God, as appears also from the confession.' For if

we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ,
But since our thoughts are
that we might not be slain
not on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off."
....
Here the idea of the kingdom is eschatological. The kingdom

"with God," waiting to be manifested in the future. Only
is
regenerate
the
Trypho,
the
shall see it (15.61).

In the Dialogue with
Jew, the kingdom is treated as the millennium.
"Christ is King, and is preached as having the everlasting

kingdom; so I prove from all the Scriptures" (34). In chap.
"You have proved from the Scriptures
39, Trypho says:
that Christ must suffer, and come again with glory, and
receive the eternal kingdom over all the nations, every kingdom
being made subject to him now show us that this man is He."
;
"Christ preached also Himself, saying
In chap. 51, Justin says:

that the
kingdom
of heaven
to the fact that there
is
hand
Moreover, he referred
would be no longer
prophet, and to the fact that

nant, which
at
men
in
your nation any
recognized that the new cove-
God formerly (promised), was then
present,
/.
e.,
Christ himself; and in the following terms: 'The law and the
from that time the kingdom of heaven

The main thought of this involved pas"There will be
king: the kingdom is his.
prophets were until John
suffereth violence,' " etc.
sage
'
109]
is
that Christ
is
Cf. the confession in the
Apos. Constitutions,
21
p. 31.
22
a resurrection of the dead and a thousand years in Jerusalem
the everlasting and imperishable
enjoyed
same
in this
kingdom with Christ
is
to be
land, a future possession for all the saints"
(79. 117, 139).

Justin's idea of the
kingdom
thus eschatological, in the
is
millennial form.
2.
In Iren/EUS, also,
we
find millennial views:
introduce an eternal kingdom, which
Christ shall
the resurrection of the
is
kingdom the righteous man on earth

an inheritance in the kingdom
of the earth, foreseen by John iÂgainst Heresies, Book 5, chaps. 26,
In the peaceful times of the kingdom the Spirit of God
36).
shall vivify and increase mankind (4. 20).
And yet Christ's
kingdom is now existent in heaven, for "he sent on before into
his kingdom the infants slain at Bethlehem" (3. 16).
It is also
here on earth, for the "new treasure" of the kingdom in Matt.
13 ".52, is "the manner of life required by the gospel" (4.9).
Christ by the apostles announced that the kingdom of heaven
had drawn nigh, and that he was dwelling within those that
just.
In the times of the
shall forget to die; there shall be
believe (3. 21).
It is clear
that those
who
disallow his salvation,
and frame an idea of another God beside him who made the
promise to Abraham, are outside the kingdom of God, blaspheming God, who introduces to the kingdom of heaven, through
The
Jesus Christ, Abraham and his seed, the church (4. 8).
"violent" seize the kingdom by strong and earnest striving.
The heavenly kingdom is honorable to those who have known

the earthly one.
The church, fashioned after the image of the
Son, is designed to bring man to perfection (4. 37).
By means
of the earthly kingdom, which is the commencement of incorruptibleness, those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually
to receive God {capere Deutn, 5. 22).
Irenaeus thus recognized at least
"heavenly" and the "earthly."
two kingdoms of
It
Christ, the
not quite clear whether
is
he thinks of the church as the earthly kingdom, or as one phase

or portion of
in
it.
The
earthly
connection with the church
kingdom
or,
after the resurrection as the prelude

110
is
either
perhaps, to be
to
now
existent
first
realized
the eternal heavenly
::
KINGDOM OF GOD
THE FATHERS
IN
23
kingdom. In the references cited from 4. 8 and 4. 9 Irenasus

seems to regard the kingdom as in some sense the state of
salvation.
3.
HiPPOLYTUS,
among men,
nothing stable
end of
all
in the Fragmejits
on Daniel, says:
but only that which
the kingdom of God.
things
birth of Christ the
end
"After the fourth beast
heavenly things begin
is
;
is
In 500 years from the

7: 17,
removed, earthly things

that
There
the appointed
is
Commenting on
shall be."
"
he says
shall end,
and
the indissoluble and everlasting
kingdom of the saints may be brought to view, and the King

" He
coming from heaven as the world's judge ;" and on 22
shall consume all with the eternal fire of punishment.
But to his
servants he will give an everlasting kingdom: i. e.,Xhe.y shall
:
possess the endless enjoyment of good."

afid A?iti- Christ,
5,
In his treatise 0?i Christ
he bids Christians: "Find out from the Scriptures
what the conflagration of the whole world

glorious and heavenly
kingdom
reign together with Christ."
and what the

to be when they
shall be,
of the saints
is
In the Fragme?it
o?i Dattiel, 7:27 f.,

he makes the Sabbath "the true type and emblem of the future
kingdom
of the saints, when Christ shall come from heaven and

they shall reign with him, as John says in the Apocalypse," etc.
In these references we observe that the kingdom is to
ensue on the destruction of the earth.

Heresies,
Book
9,
chap.
7, it is
In the Refutation of all
a future reward: " Thou shalt possess
an immortal body, and receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who,

while thou didst sojourn in
It is significant
life,
didst
know
the Celestial King."
that Hippolytus interprets the parable of the tares
as referring to the church
(Book
9,
chap. 4).
In discussing and refuting the heretical notions of the Ophites
(Book
5,
chaps. 2-4)
the following phrases, which indicate that
kingdom was known among

heretics, occur in obscure connection: "the kingdom of heaven
to be sought for within a man," and "the kingdom of heaven that
the inner, subjective view of the
reposes within us as a treasure, as leaven hid in the meal. " Perhaps

the most curious definition of the
is
in this
kingdom
to be
found anywhere
quotation from the teaching of the sect just
"That which
is
named
nothing, and which consists of nothing, inasmuch

111
24
will become through its own reflecindivisible

a point
power a certain incomprehensible magnitude. This, he says,
is the kingdom of heaven, the grain of mustard seed, the point
which is indivisible in the body; and, he says, no one knows this
as
it is
tive
[point] save the spiritual only."
112
CHAPTER
IV.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, ORIGEN. AND METHODIUS.
Clement of Alexandria.
The views of this church
may be seen from the following quotations. "A stranger
is permitted to enter the kingdom of heaven, when he is enrolled
and made a citizen .... made an heir of God, to share God's
kingdom with the Son. This is the first-born church .... these
are the first-born enrolled in heaven, who hold high festival with
I.
Father
to the Heathe?i, chap. 9).

He promises us
of heaven as a reward for learning (chap. i). He is
angels" {Êxhortation
kingdom
the
greatest
in
in
that the
kingdom
kingdom
shall
do and teach
of
God
this alone
commendable
is
force [Strom.
e.,
4. 2
to
violent that storm the
take
The
in a right
by force. For
from God by
in the kingdom,
it
life
least
"Abandon
greater than John.
is
God
the violent
but by continuance
violence, to take
Dives, 21).
Qtiis
His own disciple,
imitating
It is to
19).
The
belongs.
are not so in disputations
2.
and unceasing prayers are said
life
i.
kingdom who
the
conferring like benefits [Stromata,
the alien
possessions that are in thy soul, that, becoming pure in heart,
thou mayest see God, which

into the
kingdom
of
heaven"
another way of saying
is
[Qiiis Dives, 31
In these references the idea of the
community
is
is
kingdom
of Scripture which refers to the
the future, as
kingdom
conspicuous, while there

Cor. 6:9 and Matt. 25
Enter
and 19).
as the Christian
frequent quotation
as
34.
an inheritance of
He
quotes the
The
kingdom is a reward of the present as well as of the future. By
metonymy there is a notable application of the spiritual qualities
to take the kingdom by force
which characterize the kingdom
two references
in
chaps. 42 and 50 of Clement of
Rome.
is
to take life
from God
to be pure in heart is to enter the king-
dom, which, accordingly, seems
to be regarded as the state of
salvation.
The relation of church to kingdom is suggestively referred to.

"False teachers by a perverse use of the divine words neither
113]
25
26
enter into the
kingdom
of heaven, nor permit those
have deluded to attain the
Not having the
truth.
whom
they
true key, they
do not enter as we do, through the tradition of the Lord, but dig
through the wall of the church, and step over the truth," etc.
[Stromata,
As Clement
17).
7.
has just said that these do not
enter into the kingdom, he seems to distinguish between the
kingdom and the church, while implying that entrance through

the door into the church would bring one also into the kingdom.
The germ of the idea of the invisible church is evident. Connected with this
is
the statement in
4. 2
"The earthly church

may be traced in
the image of the heavenly," whose influence
is
Origen and others.

2.
all
Origen.
In
with God, Christ's words teach, Luke
17:20,21: 'The kingdom of God

2
within you.'
Here
(see below).
The kingdom
God.
in
for the
idea, very frequent in the
God's reign
in
is
7 be understood as applying generally to
have a share
in
he holds "That
his First Pri?iciples, 1.3, 6,
men have communion
the soul.
first
is
in
all
all
And
if
men, then
men
Genesis
all
men
potentially"
time we meet with the abstract
subsequent Fathers, of the kingdom as
But the concrete idea
is
also
clear
"Christ himself instructs his disciples, that when
Origen:
may form them into a kingdom worthy of

to God the Father.
They do in a sense
themselves .... that they may live as citizens of
fully instructed
he
God, and present them

separate
heaven, coming to the living God, and to the city of God, the
heavenly Jerusalem,"
etc. {Âgainst Celsus, 6. 17).
In his Com7nentary on John these two fundamental ideas are
blended.
heaven
"
One
in the
is
a scribe
simpler sense,
made a disciple to the kingdom of

when he comes from Judaism and
receives the teaching of Jesus Christ according to the church,

is a scribe in a deeper sense when, having received elementary knowledge through the letter of the Scriptures, he ascends
to things spiritual, which are called the kingdom of the heavens.
.... He who abounds in knowledge free from error is in this
kingdom. ... So far as Christ, God the Word, has not his home
in the soul, the kingdom of heaven is not in it, but when any one
becomes nigh to admission of the Word, to him the kingdom of
but he
114
KINGDOM OF GOD
nigh (Book
heaven
is
are as
many keys
virtue also
dom of
is
THE FATHERS
Of the kingdom
lo. 14).
as there are virtues.
kingdom
IN
the heavens
of heaven, and
all
27
of
And
heaven there
perhaps each
together are a king-
so that according to this he
already in the
is
kingdom of the heavens who lives according to the virtues.

Then Repent is to be referred not to the time, but to deeds
for Christ, who is all virtue, has come, and
and dispositions
speaks, and on account of this the kingdom of God is within the
disciples" (Book 12. 14). He who beholds the excellency of the
Word, sees the Son of man coming in his kingdom if he beholds
him also representing truth with perfect clearness, then he would
would see in him
behold his glory in addition to his kingdom
the kingdom of God come with power would see this, no longer
under the reign of sin, but of Christ, who is God of all, whose
kingdom is indeed potentially " within us," but actually (as
Mark expresses it, "with power") within the perfect alone (35).
"The kingdom of heaven (in that very mystical parable Matt.
'
'
18:23) is likened to a certain king. Who but the Son of God?

For he is the King of the heavens, and as he is absolute Wisdom
and absolute Righteousness and absolute Truth, is he not also
Kingdom? ....
Theirs is the kingdom of heaven';

you may say that Christ is theirs in so far as he is absolute
Kingdom, reigning in every thought of the man who is no longer
under the reign of sin" (Book 14.7, 14).
The kingdom of the future will be celestial. In First Prins.,
" There will be another earth, which receives
3. 6, sees, 8 and 9
into it all the saints, where they may be prepared for those betFor after his
ter institutions to which no addition can be made.
King
of all, will
is
Christ,
who
Lord
the
agents and servants,
absolute
'
himself assume the kingdom

virtues,
e.,
i.
after instruction in the holy
he will himself instruct those who are capable of receiv-
ing him in respect of his being
Wisdom, reigning
them
in
until
he has subjected them to the Father," etc. In his Com. on John,

Book 10. 11,28, he speaks of what will take place " in the coming
age and in heaven when the kingdom of God appears .... in
;
the
kingdom
mansions."
of heaven, the Father's house, in which are
In First Prins.,
2.
1 1
and 3.7:
115
"
The pure
many
in heart,
'28
by more rapid progress, will quickly ascend to a place in the air,

and reach the kingdom of heaven, through those mansions, following him who hath passed through the heavens," etc.
The
equality of the
members
kingdom
of the
is
emphasized.
judgments of that man

abide sure he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven for binding and loosing for upon such the church of Christ is built"
" We are even in
(Ônjohn, Book 12. 14).
\n First Pri?is i
the present life placed in the church, in which is the form of that
kingdom which is to come" {cf. Clement of Alex.).
Origen's tendency to allegorize is given free play, as above in
"
Every one who confesses
Christ, the
.,
his use of the Hebraistic plural " the
when he says
heaven, but of more
and
kingdom
that Peter received the
as
(Ôn John,
Book
10. 14).
understanding certain of his expressions
doubt as to the original reading.
Com. on Matthew, Book
his
'^
An
instance
"The
Ii. 16:
is
of the heavens,"
keys not of one
The
difficulty in
increased by the
may be cited from
righteous indeed are
prepared for the kingdom of heaven and for the exaltation
kingdom
dom
God and
of
"
God;
of
in
the
yet he says [0?iJoh?i, 10. 14) that the king-
the
kingdom
of
heaven are the same.
regard for knowledge, while profound,

ethical aim, as in his
work Agamst
is
Origen's
ever subservient to the
Celsus, 8. II
"We
desire
not only to understand the nature of the divine kingdom of
which we are continually speaking and writing, but to be

who are under the rule of God alone, that the kingdom
may be ours."
Methodius.
3.
life.
"When
kingdom
This writer defines
the
kingdom
God
as eternal
of God, he does not give a disparaging opinion of the
God, which is eternal

body by the life
{Ôn
the
life, is
little
kingdom
of
not possessed by the body, but the
The kingdom
Resurrection, 13).
whether he regards eternal

can be
of
Paul says that flesh and blood shall not inherit the
resurrection of the flesh, but would teach that the
etc.
of those
life
He
of God, which
does not
is
life,"
expressly say
as a present possession, but there
question that his prevailing conception
is
eschato-
logical.
The
idea of the
kingdom
as a
116
reward
is
prominent, as where
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
29
he distinguishes the church from the kingdom in his Oration o?i

Simeon and Anna, 13: " Hail to thee, Catholic Church, which hast
been planted in all the earth
fear not, little flock, for it
;
is
your Father's good pleasure
BaTiquet, Discourse 7.
3,
to give
you the kingdom."
referring to the Beatitudes
In the
"The Lord
promises different honors; to some, that they shall be numbered

in the
kingdom
of
Heaven
to
others, the
inheritance of the
and to others to see the Father." The language of these

last two quotations does not forbid the kingdom being thought
of as a spiritual reward to be realized in the present life the
eschatological idea, however, is evident in such passages as the
following:
"That which is perfect has not yet come to us,
namely, the kingdom of heaven and the resurrection
let us
strive for a life of blessedness and the kingdom of heaven
come into the temple and city of God." [Banquet, Disc. 9. 2, 5;
earth,
8.4.)
We
"
is
meet
first in
The kingdom
Methodius with the
definite statement that
Holy Ghost
one and their dominion one."
of the Father, of the Son, and of the
one, even as their substance
is
{Ôration on Psalms, 5.)
117
CHAPTER
V.
THE APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS, THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS, AND

THE CLEMENTINES.
The Apocryphal Writings
1.
the kingdom, distributed
covi\.2\v\
among
Acts, and three revelations, or

indefinite; their general tone
come
visions.
They
"
millennial.
is
to reign with his saints a
about thirty references to
three gospels, eleven books of

are frequently
When Christ shall
thousand years the
first
earth will
be dissolved, and this land of promise then revealed" {Vision of

The History of Joseph the Carpenter speaks of the banquet
Paul)
.
of the thousand years; and the Vision ofJohn contains the unique
declaration that " the whole world and Paradise shall be made
one, and the righteous shall be on the face of
my
The prayer
angels, Ps. 37:29."
"When Thou
several times given in the form,

"
all
the earth with
of the thief on the cross
is
shalt reign," or
become king."
Martyrdom of Bartholomew God's kingdom is said to

In one MS. of the Acts of Thomas occur these
exist in heaven.
"I rejoice with you, that you are made partakers
sentences:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to whom
of His kingdom
kingdom
without end." The Gospel of
and
all
glory
is due
"
Of those who have believed on Him, their
Nicodemus says:
kingdom shall endure forever." The two following references
are peculiar: Jesus says in the Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew:
In the
am
"I
Paradise,
of the church,
the
Revelation of Moses
in Paradise:
"
am
the Comforter,
kingdom
God
says to
Adam, who
will set thee in
The Apostolic
same number
ers of
ils ]
the foundation
Co?istitutiofis.
is
lying on the ground
thy kingdom, on the throne of
In
of references to the
these there
kingdom
is
as in the
about the
apocryphal
That ye may become partakimmortality and partners of the kingdom of God," in Book
and " Preserve us unto His heavenly kingdom," 8. 10, per-
writings, mostly eschatological, as "
6. 30;
of the bishops," etc., and in the
him that deceived thee."

2.
....
30
KINGDOM OF GOD
haps
IN
THE FATHERS
31
The kingdom is also intimately connected with

Book 7. 32
"They shall rejoice in the kingdom of
celestial.
Christ, as in
God, which
possession
in
is
Book
in
from them
Jesus Christ."
seems to be viewed as a present
It
The kingdom of God shall be taken

having given the kingdom to you, he expects
16
5.
"
the fruits of your gratitude and piety."
In 7. 25 and 26 the
prayer " Gather together thy church from the ends of the earth "
twice occurs as in the Z'/^^c/^d' followed by, "Let this thy king-
dom come," which may

but
is
any case
in
given
into
dom
of heaven,
In
7:
"Pray
signify God's universal
eschatological.
"I am baptized
in 7. 41:
the flesh, and
8.
is
into the
the remission of sins, and
and into the
life
reign on earth,
The baptismal
of
confession
resurrection
of
into the king-
the world
to
come."
being initiated into the death of
that
they may rise with him, and become partakers of

kingdom, and may be admitted to the communion of his
mysteries: unite them to, number them among, those that are
saved in his holy church." While the reader is, on the whole,
strongly reminded in the CoTistitutioTis of the tone of the apostles,
there seems to be an advance toward a closer relation between the
church and the kingdom.
Christ,
his
The Clementmes.
3.
dom
occur
which
fact
About eighty-five references to the king-
these writings, with only two Scriptural quotations,
in
may
indicate a comparatively early date.
A. The Ho?nilies.
"
The whole business
unto a ship bearing through a violent storm
who
of the church
men
is
like
of many places
" (the so-called
good kingdom
In Homily i. 18, 19: "The key
Epistle of Clemefit to Ja?nes, 14).
of the kingdom, which is knowledge, which alone can open the
If anyone end this life in real ignorance
gate of life
he is rejected from the kingdom of God."
"God gave two kingdoms to two (beings), good and evil; to
desire toinhabitthe city of the
the evil,
the present world alongwith law, to punish, etc.;
to the good, the eternal age to
two kings
9).
ing:
is
come.
The boundary
line of the
the having or not having possessions" [Horn., 15.7,
Here the
" Christ,
ascetic tone
is
noticeable, as also in the follow-
being thought worthy to be king of the world to

119
32
come,
against) him
(fights
kingdom
the
that
now
who by
predestination has usurped
But those who have determined
is
have no right to regard

as their own the things that are here, except such as necessaryTwo kingdoms
food, since they belong to a foreign king
to accept the blessings of the future reign
have been established; the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom

The evil king rejoices
of the present kings of the earth
But the good one, the king

whole nature of man; but not being
able to have boldness in the present world he counsels what is
"
advantageous, like one who tries to conceal what he really is
[Horn., 3. 19; 15. 7; 20. 2).
This peculiar ethical view of expediency is not found elsewhere in the doctrine of the kingdom. In
in the destruction of the
wicked.
of the age to come, loves the
the Homilies the
kingdom
is
always eschatological.
much
B, The Recogjiitioiis also have
to say about the
"two
and present, the other good and of the

future.
The latter seems to be regarded as the kingdom of God,
In 1.24 there seems to
but the idea is not clear and consistent.
kingdoms," the one
be at
first
evil
sight a recognition of the social idea:
"From
the
multitude came the election of the beloved, from whose oneness
mind the peaceful kingdom

this composition of the kingdom
of
now
in
of
progress on earth, for a
is
God
constructed."
is
But
evidently not thought of as
little
farther
on we read:
"He
established two kingdoms, that of the present time and that of
the future, and appointed times to each
and a day of
judgment, in which is to be made a severance of things and of
souls
so that the wicked shall be consigned to eternal fire,
.... but those who have lived according to the will of God,
;
introduced into an eternal abode, shall receive eternal gifts"
5:9: "From the beginning, as we have said,

God instituted two kingdoms, and has given to each man the
power of becoming a portion of that kingdom to which he shall
yield himself to obey.
And since it is decreed by God that no
one man can be a servant of both kingdoms, .... be earnest to
betake yourself to the covenant and laws of the good King."
etc.
Again
in
The kingdom
this
is
eschatological and celestial
"The
condition of
world shall pass away that the sublime condition of the

120
KINGDOM or GOD
shine forth " (3. 28, 29).

"The city is
in which dwells the Almighty Father" (2. 22).
kingdom
"If the soul at death

the light of his
ignorant of God,
is
kingdom
"
"At
(5. 18).
shall take the pious into a share

his
33
may
heavenly kingdom
the
THE FATHERS
IN
it
is
his
driven forth from

second coming he
and association with himself
in
kingdom" (1.49).
But are the righteous while on earth in no sense in God's

There seems to be a wavering on this point, as if
?
the Recognitiotis were reluctant to let this idea merge wholly in
kingdom
the eschatological.
coming
the pious, though
Christ's
to
In
Know
who die before

then that Christ was ever present with
1.51, 52, as to those
secretly, .... especially those who waited

he frequently appeared
Others, transParadise, should be kept for the kingdom
whom
for him, to
lated
"
Blessed are
all
who
shall
attain
to
the kingdom."
In 8.55:
some men would incline to good

assigned those who would choose the good to his own government and his own care, and called them his peculiar inheritance
but the evil to certain angels," etc.
In 9. 3: " God by his Son
"God, foreseeing
that
created the world as a double house, separated by this firmament
which
and appointed angelic powers to dwell

and a multitude of men to be born in this visible
world, from among whom he might choose friends for his Son,
prepared for him as a bride
But even till the time of the
marriage, which is the manifestation of the world to come, he
has appointed a certain power, to choose out and watch over
the good ones of those who are born in this world, and to preserve them for his Son, set apart in a certain place of the world,
which is without sin in which there are already some, who are
there being prepared, as I said, as a bride," etc.
These references suggest the idea of a sort of intermediate state, as it were
a transitional form of the kingdom, perhaps blended with a vague
is
called heaven
in the higher,
notion akin to that of the invisible church.
Certain of Hilary's
ideas have here a point of contact.
In 1.45 occurs a curious blending of the figurative and the

literal,
referring
anoints with
oil
evidently
to
the
future
kingdom:
"Christ
every one of the pious when they come to his

121
34
kingdom,
refreshment after their labors, as having got
over the
for their
of the
difificulties
and being
filled
with the
way so that their light may shine,

Holy Spirit, they may be endowed
;
with immortality."
The kingdom
is
thought of as a reward or treasure, rather
than the Christian society, in the following "The first duty of

all is to inquire into the righteousness of God and his kingdom
:
we may be taught to act rightly

we may know what is the reward appointed
that
his righteousness,
kingdom, that
labor and patience "
to
"seek
first
his
his
for
is
given
righteousness," omitting "kingdom."
God
In 3.41 the exhortation
(2.20).
has concealed the kingdom of heaven, that which
is
profitable to
men, as a secret treasure, reporting it under various names

throughout the ages, that all lovers of good might seek and find
it
in
him.
He who
truly loves this possession of the
of heaven will cast
away
heavenly kingdom
for
evil
it is
practices, or
fail
kingdom
to possess the
foolish to love anything
more than
God, neglecting one's own salvation (3.53). Here the kingdom is the supreme good, the way of salvation, with the emphasis more upon the individual than the social side.
122
CHAPTER
VI.
THE LITURGIES AND MINOR GREEK FATHERS.

The
In
the Liturgies of James, of Mark, and of

the Apostles, the kingdom in the twenty references is usually
I.
Liturgies.
equivalent to heaven.
Three or four are general, as in the
expression " preaching the gospel of the kingdom," and in the
In the Liturgy of James, 44, the Prayer of
Lord's Prayer.
"Keep
Incense at the Last Entrance:

thy wings, and count us worthy
thy holy
till
our
shadow of
us under the
last
breath to partake of
the sanctification of our souls and bodies, for
rites for
kingdom
the inheritance of the
The
of heaven," etc.
Liturgy of
and may it
be unto us ...
for propitiation and forgiveness, .... and
for a grand hope of resurrection from the dead, and for a new
the
Holy
Apostles, 13
"Bless this oblation
life in
the
kingdom
In 20, the Obsignation or Final
of heaven."
"May
Benediction:
Christ himself render us worthy of
splendid glory of his kingdom," etc.

section (20) said on the Lord's
dom
is
himself
probably also
who
Day and on
celestial,
blessed us with
In the prayer of the
feast days, the king-
though ambiguous:
all spiritual
the
same
"May
he
blessings in the heavens,
through Jesus Christ our Lord, and prepared us for his kingdom,
to the desirable good things which neither cease
and called us
nor perish,
as
he
promised,
....
The same may be observed
etc.
bless
of the
the priest begins to break the bread and says
our
tify
lips
through thy grace, that we
glory and praise to thy divinity, with
dom
of his
and in 15
kingdom."
"
The
"Drink ye
all
congregation,"
this
two following: In
may
"
18,
Lord, sanc-
give the fruits of
thy saints
in
thy king-
his chalice with faith in the
house
idea of an intermediate state has a certain bearing upon
the thought of the kingdom, as in the two following: In the
Prayer for the Dead, the Liturgy of Mark, 15: "Give peace to
the souls of all who dwell in the tabernacles of thy saints. Graciously bestow
123]
upon them
in
thy kingdom thy promised blessing,

35
36
which eye hath not seen .... Give peace to their souls, and
deem them worthy of the kingdom of heaven," etc. In the
"Remember, O Lord,
LiUiygy of James, 36:
from righteous Abel unto
this
day
the spirits
unto them do thou give rest
there in the land of the living, in thy kingdom, in the joy of

Paradise, in the
bosom
of
Abraham,"
These prayers
etc.
for
the dead seem to regard them as not yet in the celestial king-
dom.
But they are apparently even now,
at least
some
of them,
"in thy kingdom," "in Paradise," "in the tabernacles of thy

saints."
It
seems probable that
this
ambiguity
owing
and that the
in part
is
to the uncertainty as to the state of the departed,
righteous dead are vaguely thought
of,
even before reaching
heaven, or at least the highest heaven, as "in thy kingdom."
Thus the
expressing the general thought and
Liturgies,
ing in worship, indicate that the
kingdom
eschatologically.
2.
The minor Greek
Fatliers
of
this period.
is
still
feel-
conceived of
Hegesippus
in
The
Relatives of Christ (Euseb. Ch. Hist.
dom
as celestial:
3. 20) understands the king"Being then asked concerning Christ and his
kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to
appear, they answered that it was not of this world, nor of the
earth, but belonged to the sphere of heaven and angels, and
would make its appearance at the end of the world (or age)
when he
shall
come
in
glory to judge living and dead, and ren-
Peter of
new life in
the soul
"They preached not only repentance, but the kingdom
of heaven, which, as we have learned, is within us
for the word
which we believe is near us, in our mouth and in our heart.
DiONYSius OF Alexandria is celebrated for his doubts concerning
der to every one according to his course of
Alexandria, Canon
5,
thinks of the
kingdom
life."
as the
the
authorship of the
Apocalypse, which are candidly and
forcibly expressed, and for his opposition to millennarianism in

its
crude form.
He
says in his work
On
rinthus teaches an earthly reign of Christ
tlie
Promises, 3:
....
"Ce-
he fancied that
kingdom would consist of sensuous pleasures," etc. Caius

combated Cerinthus in similar terms. Of Gregory ThauMATURGUS only the disputed writings refer to the kingdom in the
the
also
124
KINGDOM OF GOD
First
dom
is
THE FATHEES
IN
37
Homily occurs one of the rare personifications of the king"Today, God invites
and the heavenly kingdom
summon
urgent to
Horn.
2,
those
who mind
"By
Ofithe Ammnciation:
things," etc.
celestial
In
her (the Virgin's) means are
we called sons and heirs of the kingdom of Christ." In Horn. 4,

On the Holy Theophany, Christ says
"When thou seest me cast
out demons, then hail my kingdom with adoration." These last
:
two references have the evangelical tone.
Archelaus, in his
kingdom of the good
and has among other
Disputation ivith Manes, speaks often of "the
God," and of "the kingdom of
light,"
curious conceits a reference to the time
when
the devil's father
from the kingdom of heaven (33). Theophilus has an

obscure reference in his work On the Nature of God, which reference may have given a suggestion to Origen
"If I call him
fell
I mention his activity

if Providence, his goodness
if I
him Kingdom, I but mention his glory; if Lord, I mention
his being Judge," etc. Melito, in a Fragment on Faith, has a general reference, beginning:
"He who preached the kingdom."
Athenagoras, in his Plea for the Christians, i8, says: "May you,
by considering yourselves, be able to discover the heavenly
Power,
call
kingdom
also !"
in Persia, sa.ys
Julius Africanus, in his Chronology, OnEvejits
"The Sages
said,
dom which
shall subvert all the
anonymous
Selections
received, as
it
'
the Prophetic Scriptures, 12:
"We have
were, an earnest of the eternal blessings and of
the ancestral riches.

etc.
from
But of Judah has arisen a kingmemorials of the Jews.'" In the
For he said: 'Seek the kingdom of God,'"
In the Syriac Documenis the references are as a rule to the
celestial
kingdom.
There are thus
in the
fragments of these minor Greek Fathers
several conceptions of the kingdom, but the prevailing sense
makes
it
kingdom
in
heaven.
125
B.LA TIN.
CHAPTER
VII.
TERTULLIAN AND CYPRIAN.

I.
Tertullian's i6i references have as a whole the eschato-
logical tone.
The
references in his Catholic, or pre-Montanistic
writings, before 202 A. D., are comparatively few
and unimpor-
and indicate an intermingling of the ideas of the kingdom

and celestial. In \\\q Prescriptioti agai?ist Heresies,
tant,
as terrestrial
"He
chap. 13:
the
kingdom
preached the new law and the new promise of

In the work on Spectacular Shows, sec.
of heaven."
30, he refers to the "fast-approaching
advent of our Lord, the
kingdom of the just thereafter." 0?t

'Thy kingdom come' has reference to that whereto
rising of the saints, the
Prayer,
'Thy
will
"
be done' refers
tation of the Lord's
in us, that
kingdom
is.
And
if
the manifes-
pertains unto the will of
God and
how do some pray for a protrackingdom of God, which we pray may

the consummation of the age ?"
In the treatise
unto our anxious expectation,

tion of the age,
arrive, tends to
when
On Baptis7n, chap.
13,
the
John
3: 5
conception of the kingdom
untempted should
tise
addressed To
is
quoted, possibly with the social
and
chap. 20 he says
in
kingdoms."
attain the celestial

his Wife, 6,
"
No one
In the trea-
occurs the phrase, " the celestial
kingdom," which is, in a parallel passage in Woman's Dress, g,

"the kingdom of God."
On Idolatry, 9: He cannot hope for
the kingdom of heaven who abuses the heaven (as in astrology).
The Montanistic writings are in general millennial and mateAgainst Marcion,
rialistic.
kingdom
only
in
is
Book
3,
chap. 24:
"We
confess that
promised us upon the earth, although before heaven,
another state of existence
....
it
will
be after the
resurrection for one thousand years, in the divinely-built city of

let down from heaven
this Ezekiel knew of,
and John beheld
It is suitable that the saints be rewarded
Of the
on earth, the scene of their suffering for Christ
heavenly kingdom this is the process after its thousand years
Jerusalem,
38
[126
KINGDOM OF GOD
are over, within which period
IN
THE FATHERS
39
completed the resurrection of
is
the saints, will ensue the destruction of the world at the judg-
ment we shall be changed into the substance of angels, ....

and so removed to that kingdom in heaven whereof we treat.
;
.... There
is
thus an earthly and a heavenly dispensation."
chap. 33, Christ is identified with the kingdom: "A

certain limit is placed between the old dispensation and the new,
In
Book
4,
which Judaism ceased and Christianity began, a cessation

(which was fulfilment, not extinction) of the law and the
prophets and the commencement of that gospel in which is the
kingdom of God, Christ himself." In chap. 35, on Luke 17:20,
at
21:
Who
hand," "
will
you" to mean " in your

if you do the commandment of God ?
God lies in his commandment
not interpret "within
withinyour power,"
If, however, the kingdom of

Moses gives the same view
Neither in this place nor
in
in
Deut. 30:11-13.
that
is
the
kingdom
This means,
of
God;
for
own kingdom, for he says that the Son of man must suffer many things
and be rejected, before his coming, at which time his kingdom
will be really {^substantialiter) revealed.
In Book 5, chap. 10:
The substance of the flesh is to be changed at the resurrection,
which is the gate through which the kingdom is entered. On
behold,
it is
within you.
This concerns the Lord's
Flesh and blood are

of the Flesh, 50 and 51
excluded from the kingdom of God in respect of their sin, not
of their substance.
In Christ flesh and blood obtain both heaven
and the kingdom of God. But sin shall be "excluded from the
the Resurrection
kingdom and indeed from the court of heaven itself."

The millennium is thus the prelude of the true kingdom of
God, for "when the world shall pass away, then the kingdom of
heaven shall be opened " [On the Soul, 55). In two passages
the kingdom is equivalent to heaven in a way that reminds us
"For though 3'ou
of Chrysostom.
On the Scorpions Bite, 10
think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter,
and through him to the church, the keys of it, which every one
.... having confessed .... will carry with him." And On Modesty,
i: "Apprehension or desire of the eternal fire or kingdom." The
church is here distinguished from the kingdom, but in his work
:
127
40
Agaifist Marcion,
Book 3, chap.
builds the church, which
and
23,
he says
"
His Holy Spirit, who
indeed the temple, and household,
is
God," which not only reflects a thought of Hermas,

him leaving the relation between church and kingdom
city of
like
indefinite, but
is
clearly a seed-thought for Augustine's
De
Civi-
tate Dei.
Besides holding to the view of Luke 17:21, already given

above, he quotes
Cor. 4: 20, "not in speech but in power," in
the same vein iÔn Modesty,
14)
and
in
his
treatise
On
the
in commenting on John 3:5, says: "cannot enter

kingdom of God
in
other words, he cannot be
The kingdom is, however, at least in words, disholy."
tinguished from eternal life "To them from whom the kingdom
is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is
not permitted either" {Ôn Modesty, 16). The social conception of
the kingdom seems to be in mind when he quotes Rev. i :6 in
his Exhortation to Chastity, 7: "It is written, 'A kingdom also and
priests to his God and Father hath he made us,'" but in view
Soul,
into
39,
the
of his general usage, the expression must be taken in a proleptic
Also in his work Against Praxeas, 26, he refers to Luke

22:29: "He awards the kingdom to his disciples as he says it
had been appointed to himself by the Father."
2. Cyprian is a true connecting link between "the master"
TertuUian and the great Augustine. Even more ardently than
Tertullian he looks toward the manifestation of the kingdom
sense.
in the
time of the Last Things, but not
Like him also he dwells upon

further
its
its
elements as
spiritual
the millennial form.
is
the
impersonation of that which we pray
whom we
emphasizing
still
the substance of character.
Like him he declares that Christ himself

as the
in
ethical nature,
kingdom
of
God,
may come, and
in
and advances toward a closer conception

In all
the
relation
between
the church and the kingdom.
of
these points we may trace his influence on Augustine, who recognized his indebtedness to Cyprian in many germinal thoughts, as
is evident from
his tribute to Cyprian in chap. 26 of his
work on Grace and Free-Will: "I strongly advise you to read
attentively the book of the blessed Cyprian on The Lord's
shall reign
128
KINGDOM OF GOD
So
Prayer.
commit
Vol.
it
far as the
to
Lord
memory."
of his works,
IN
THE FATHERS
41
shall assist you, understand
it,
and
In no less than eleven other places in
Augustine refer to
does
this
treatise
of
Cyprian.
We
'"Thy kingdom come,'
may
be set forth to
us,
ask that the kingdom of
even as also that
his
name may be
God
sancti-
For where does God not reign ? We pray that our

kingdom, which has been promised us by God, may come, which
was acquired by the blood and passion of Christ that we who
fied in us.
first
may
are his subjects in the world,
hereafter reign with Christ
when he
may
reigns, as in Matt. 25:34.

Christ himself, however,
be the kingdom of God, whom we day by day desire to
come
whoê advent we crave
For since he
is
again, so also the
to be quickly manifested to us.
Himself the resurrection, since in him we rise

kingdom of God may be understood to be
him we shall reign. But we do well in seekof God, i. e., the heavenly kingdom, because
There is need of prayer, that
there is also an earthly kingdom.
we fall not away from the heavenly kingdom, as the Jews fell.
The Jews were previously children of the kingdom, so long as
Himself, since
ing the
in
kingdom
God but after the name

among them, the kingdom also
ceased and therefore we Christians, who in our prayer begin to
call God our Father, pray also that God's kingdom may come to
us" ( On the Lord's Prayer, 13). In Epistle 72.2: " From this earth
and from these sufferings you shall speedily come to the kingdom of heaven." On Mortality, 2 "The kingdom of God is now
they continued to be also children of
of father ceased to be recognized

;
beginning to be
at
hand
the reward of
is
not
....
now coming
sion lately lost of Paradise, are
away of the world."

"The kingfdom of God
life,
in
the
wisdom
the posses-
with the passing

of the world, nor
eloquence, but in the faith of the cross and in virtue of conIn 4. 52, in illustrating the
versation" [Agai?isi the Jews, 3.69).
in
theme
that "the liberty of believing or of not believing
in free choice,"
within you," with Deut. 13:18, and Isa.

the Church, 14:
is
he quotes Luke 17:21, "the kingdom of

"
Charity will ever be

129
in the
19.
On
kingdom,
the
will
placed
God
Lhiity
is
of
endure
42
forever in the unity of a brotherhood linked to herself.
Discord
Here there may

the kingdom on its
cannot attain to the kingdom of heaven,"
etc.
be the thought of charity as being always
in
progress from earth to heaven.
The church is to reign in the kingdom. " He cannot be a

he cannot attain unto the
martyr who is not in the church
kingdom who forsakes that which shall reign there" {Unity of
In 6
"The bride of Christ keeps us for God.
the. Church, 14).
;
She appoints the sons whom she has borne for the kingdom." In
Works and Alms, 9 "The Lord says that in the judgment, those
:
who have
labored
in his
church are admitted to receive the
kingdom." These references distinguish between the church and

the kingdom
but a statement in Epistle 72. 1 1 makes the keys
of Matt. 16:19 refer to the church: "The church is founded
upon one who received the keys of it by the Lord's voice."
;
130
CHAPTER
VIII.
LACTANTIUS AND THE MINOR LATIN FATHERS.
Lactantius
I.
God
of
is
the only Father
past but to be restored.

from the universal reign of God.
in the
who
identifies the
kingdom
with the "golden age" of the poets, as something lost
marked
ethical tone,
He distinguishes this kingdom

He is a millennarian, but with
and repeatedly speaks of immortality, or
the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom, the
kingdom
of
God,
as the highest
He
good.
final state
of the
apparently has a
vivid sense of the eschatological view of the kingdom.
"It
is
possible that Mt.
Olympus may have supplied
the poets
with the hint for saying that Jupiter obtained the kingdom of
heaven, because
Olympus
is
the
common name
both of the
mountain and of heaven" (^Divine Institutes, i. ii). "Jupiter

changed the golden age by taking away justice. This is ...
the laying aside of divine religion, which alone effects that man
should esteem man dear, and should know that he is bound to
him by the tie of brotherhood
since God is alike a Father to
all
so as to share the bounties of the common God and Father
to injure no one, to
with those who do not possess them
.
oppress no one, not to close his door against a stranger, nor his
ear
against a suppliant, but to be bountiful, beneficent, and
which Tullius thought to be praises suitable to a king.

This truly is justice, and this is the golden age" (which Jupiter
and his offspring took away).
"But God, when the last time appeared, sent a messenger to
The appearance, therefore,
bring back that former age
was restored to the
justice
of the golden time returned, and
earth, but was assigned to a few only; and this justice is nothing
else than the pious and religious worship of the one God
liberal
In order that the nature of virtue might be evident, he did not
exclude evil;
5,
....
chaps. 6 and 7).
1311
so the golden age

It
is
is
not truly here" (Book
at this point that
43
all
hope
for
the
44
kingdom
the
as
Christian
community, destined
and
win
to
possess the earth, seems to be given up.
The
return of the golden age
as the prelude of the
Book
kingdom
God
"The time
chaps. 7 and 12:
4,
still
is
of
future,
and
it
will
come
as the millennium.
In
for Christ's receiving this
earthly
kingdom has not yet come, but he sways
eternal
kingdom.
a heavenly and
For since God decreed that Christ should
twice come to earth, once to announce to the nations the one
God, then again to reign, why do the Jews who did not believe in
hisfirst advent believe in his second? .... Even now, in one sense,
he has (on earth) an everlasting dominion. And when he shall
come again in glory, to judge every soul, and to restore the
righteous to life, then he shall truly have the government of the
whole earth then, every evil having been removed from the
affairs of men, the golden age, as the poets call it, i. e., a time
of righteousness and peace, will arise."
In the Epitome, 72:
.
Christ shall reign with the saints on earth, and the
righteous shall be for one thousand years.

tion of the nations .... at the
God
kingdom
of the
After the destruc-
end of the one thousand
3'ears,
renew the world, and transform the righteous into the

forms of angels, that, being presented with the garb of immortality, they may serve God forever
and this will be the kingdom
of God, which shall have no end.
Then shall the wicked rise to
punishment, etc.
will
The righteous become

chap. 6
"We
kingdom.
In the
I?isti/i(tcs,
Book 7,
made
are rewarded with immortality, that being
we may serve the Lord for ever, and be to all

kingdom to God," Although, as remarked above, he
like to the angels
eternity a
seems to have lost the conception that the righteous even now
are such a kingdom, still in Book 5, chap. 8, he says:
"Lay
aside every evil thought from your hearts, and the golden age
will at once return to you."
This is the root of the matter. If
this fine
kingdom
sentiment
of
social millennium
prayer
2.
is
individual in application,
God "within;"
;
and
if
collective,
in either case
"Thy kingdom come" may

The minor Latin Fathers.
it
it is
recognizes the
way
to the
an assurance that the
be granted.
Victorinus,
132
it
points the
in his
Commefitary on
KINGDOM OF GOD
the Apocalypse, has several
Jerome
in
is
when
error
IN
THE FATHERS
45
important references to the kingdom.

in
his Illustrious
Men,
he classes
i8,
Victorinus as a follower of the millennial doctrine, for the latter

in his comments on Rev. 21 16 f. says: "Christ is the rock by
:
which and on which the church is founded

The church is
invincible
Therefore they are not to be heard who assure
themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years,
who think with the heretic Cerinthus. For the kingdom of Christ
is now eternal in the saints, although the glory of the saints shall
be manifested after the resurrection."
On
made
church of
us a kingdom.
That
is
to say, a
"And
Rev. 1:6:
all
he
believers
as also the Apostle Peter says, a holy nation, a royal priesthood."
On Rev. 14: 15, he speaks of "the consummation of the world,

and the kingdom of Christ, and the future appearance of the
kingdom
of the
blessed,"
kingdom
Christ's
is
apparently
now preparing
in
with the thought that

the church.
Here
is
manifest approach toward the idea of the church as representing

the
kingdom on earth, which culminates in Augustine,

CoMMODiANUS, in his histruciion i?i favor of Christian Disciplitie,
thinks of the
just,
kingdom
in
connection with the resurrection of the
but without indication as to whether
No
or celestial.
it
shall be terrestrial
references of importance are
made
in
the writ-
names of Pontiaius, AnMinucius Felix and the anonymous

is notable that in the work of Arnobius
ings of the Pseudo-Isidorus under the
TERUS, and Fabian, or

treatise
on Rebaptism.
in
It
Agai)ist the Nations,'^ there
Thus
considerable
representing
all
no reference to the kingdom.
phases of the
eschatological conception
'
is
ante-Nicene period while the Fathers exhibit a

divergence of views concerning the kingdom,
in the
Which
is
Vol.
XIX
of the
is
New
the most
Testament usage,
common.
Ante-Nicene Fathers
1.33
in the
Clark
series.
still
the
PERIOD
THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE
III.
FATHERS.
A. GREEK.
CHAPTER
THE HISTORIANS
The
IX.
EUSEBIUS, SOCRATES, SOZOMEN, AND THEODORET,
writings of Eusebius under consideration contain his
Church History and certain compositions relative to Constantine.
He
He
speaks of history as "a narrative of the government of God."

tells of " soldiers
of Christ's
confessing their faith

of the
Christ,
kingdom
first
and
in
kingdom," meaning Christians,
8.13
how
relates
the
of Christ proclaimed the heavenly
in
"A
vailing thought.'
heaven, equivalent to heavên,
of
{^Martyrs of Palestine,
1 1
.23). In the Oration
Consta?ititie's Accession, 2.4
kingdom
this world."
In 4
is
his pre-
ready way of entrance into the kingdom
of heaven was given Pamphilus," on the day of his
his Father's
martyr
by words, then by deeds.
But the kingdom
versary of
first
kingdom
to those
martyrdom
o?i
the Thirtieth Afini-
" Christ
opens the gates of
whose course
is
thitherward from
"No
occurs the statement:
one has seen
In this Oratiofi
the unseen kingdom, which governs all things."
the terms "celestial " and "heavenly" are constantly applied to
the kingdom.
In his Life of Constantine, describing the banquet
scene after the Council of Nicaea, he says
"One might have
thought that a picture of Christ's kingdom was thus shadowed

This amiable picture
forth, and a dream rather than a reality."
must also be referred to the celestial arena, for Eusebius is an

opponent of millennarianism, and to him we owe the record of
nearly
all
the early writings in opposition to that doctrine.
Socrates has no original references
the kingdom, but
to
reports in his History several forms of creed or confession which

^
"
Cf. the
Catena, Vol. VI,
Some thought
p.
631, where
therefore informs
them
that
this
saying
is
ascribed to Eusebius
kingdom would commence at his first coming he

he should not receive the kingdom before returning to his
that our Savior's
Father," etc.
46
[1.34
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
occasionally refer to the kingdom.
and Euzoius
also in the
in
the
life
in their
THE FATHERS
In
Book
i,
47
chap. 26, Arius
confession to Constantine say
"We believe
Holy Ghost, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and

of the coming age, and in the kingdom of heaven (or,
and in one Catholic church of God, extending

from one end of the earth to the other." About the middle of
the fourth century there was a considerable controversy as to the
duration of Christ's kingdom, to which reference is made by the
of the heavens),
oriental bishops
at Sardica in
A. D.
bounds to the perpetual, eternal, and timeless kingdom of our Lord Christ, saying
that he began to reign four hundred years since, and shall end
at the dissolution of the present world " (note, p. 45 of Vol. II,
About that time four bishops having been sent for to
Ser. 2).
give account of the deposition of Athanasius and Paul, presented
to Constans a declaration of faith, composed by themselves, suppressing the creed which had been promulgated at Antioch, and
"A
their Synodical Letter, 347
certain Marcellus of Galatia,
who
will set
kingdom " being perpetual, shall continue to infinite ages," etc. (Book 2, 18).
The
Makrostich, or Lengthy Creed, sent three years later by the
eastern bishops to those in Italy, has the same declaration set
therein confessed their belief that Christ's
forth at length,
among
its
statements
being
the
following:
"Christ has not attained any new dignity, but we believe that he
Asserting that the Father

was perfect from the beginning
God, and that the Son also is God, we do not acknowledge two
Gods, but one only, on account of the majesty of the Deity, and
the perfect blending and union of the kingdoms the Father
ruling over all things universallv, and even over the Son himself:
is
the Son being subject to the Father, but except him, ruling over
made after him and by him," etc. (2 19).

Mark at Sirmium, in presence of Constantius, the same thought of Christ's kingdom being everlastThe prevailing thought of his
ing is made prominent (30).
kingdom in these confessions seems to be that of his reign with
all
things which were
In the creed set forth by
the Father.
SozoMEN, the contemporary of Socrates, has two references to

the same controversy, and in addition the following indefinite
135
48
"Some
reference in 3.14:
of the disciples
of
Eustathius of
Scbaste denounced the rich as altogether without part
kingdom
of
God."
in
the
See the reference to Marcellus in Athanasius,
below, also Theodoret, History (2.6).

In Theodoret the kingdom is generally equivalent to heaven.
"When
Constantine was about to be transkingdom," etc. He also refers to Christ's

relation to the kingdom, and in 5. II quotes the Co?ifession
of Faith from Pope Damasus to Bishop Paulinus when in Thessalonica: "If any one deny one Godhead and power, one
sovereignty and glory, one lordship, one kingdom, will and
truth of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, let
him be anathema." In the Dialogues, p. 173, Orthodoxus says:
"Though the general resurrection has not yet taken place, though
the kingdom of heaven has not yet been bestowed upon the faithful, the Apostle says
'Hath raised us up,' Eph. 2: 6, to teach that
we too shall attain the resurrection," etc. Onp. 224: "Considcrwhat
belongs to Adam as compared with what belongs to Christ, the
disease with the remedy, hell with the kingdom."
In Epistle 120,
to Lupicius "To receive from our Master alike his kindly care in
this present life and in the life to come the kingdom of heaven."
In his History,
lated to an
2.
eternal
In the
list
reads
"
way to
182 Questio7is on Ge?iesis a?id Exodus, Question 24
of
Why did God
drive out
Adam
plant Paradise, when he intended straightthence ?" The answer is "God condemns
:
And
none of foreknowledge.
saints the
kingdom prepared
the world."
There
is
{^Cf.
in
besides, he wished to
for
them from the foundation
the Dialogues,
" In
this
human
themselves beforehand
reign with him."
'
Cf.
of
Athanasius below.)
p.
224, one reference which recalls
the Pauline view of the relation of the earthly
kingdom
show the
nature they
in the
citizenship of the
Clement of Rome,
54,
life
quoted above.
136
to that of the
who have
exercised
kingdom
shall
CHAPTER
X.
ATHANASIUS.
This great thinker has two distinct conceptions of the kingdom the one abstract or subjective, God's reign, especially in
;
the individual soul; the other the concrete reward of heaven.
He
kingdom as a society on
His celebrated view of the
goodness inherent in human nature appears forcibly in his
thought of the kingdom, which he even declares we have within
seems never
earth,
to think
of the
either present or future.
ourselves and
affinity
Having
from ourselves.
in
this
view a strong
with Origen, he lays less stress than Origen upon the
knowledge and virtue, to make the "potential" kingdom within us a reality.

While in Origen the kingdom
becomes real in us, a part of our character, only by strenuous
effort, to Athanasius it seems more like a part of ourselves at
discipline required, in
In this Origen clearly stands on firmer ground, but
the outset.
Athanasius by no means overlooks the ethical demands.
"The way
and
to
God
is
not afar off or outside ourselves, but
it
from ourselves in the first

instance, as Moses also taught when he said, The word of faith
is within thy heart.'
Which very thing the Savior declared and
is in us,
it is
possible to find
it
'
confirmed,
For having
'The kingdom of God is within you.'

ourselves faith, and the kingdom of God, we shall
when he
in
said,
be able quickly to perceive the King of the universe, the saving
word of the Father" iÂgaitist the Heathen, Part 2. 30). "We need
not depart from home for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,
nor cross the sea for the sake of virtue. For the Lord said, 'The
kingdom
of heaven
willingness, since
the soul has
its
is
it is
within you.'
in us
spiritual
and
is
Therefore virtue needs only
formed from
us.
For when
faculty in a natural state virtue
is
formed" {Life of Antony, 20). And yet we need divine help, for
"The Lord in the flesh becomes our guide to the kingdom of
heaven and to his own Father, saying: 'I am the way, and the
door,' " etc. {Discourses Agaifist the Avians, 2. 61).
137]
49
"
50
The kingdom
is
of the Trinity
"To him
the
kingdom belongs,
even to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now and for ever "
(Ôn
In the First Discourse Agai-nst the Arians,

Luke 10 : 22, sec. 6).
46, on Ps. 45:6: "Christ had the kingdom eternally, ever ruling
The Nicene Creed, and several other
in the Father's kingdom."
But after a time,
symbols, contain no reference to the kingdom.
misinterpretation
of
such passages as Ps. 1 10 i and
owing to the
I Cor. 15
24 by the school of Marcellus, the eternity of Christ's
kingdom was introduced into the creeds we find it, for example,
in the creed propounded by Cyril of Jerusalem in his CatechetiAthanasius defends Marcellus himself from error
cal Lectures.
on that point in these words: "Marcellus had never pretended
that the Word of God had his beginning from Mary, nor that
on the contrary, he had written that
his kingdom had an end
his kingdom was both without beginning and without end
:
{^Defense agaiiist the Aria/is, 3. 47).
The kingdom
is
the reward in heaven.
" If
we exercise
virtue
conquer death, and receive an earnest of the kingdom

"Strangers to
of heaven" [Epistle for Easter, 342 A. D., 14. 5).
difificulties become aliens from the kingdom of heaven.
All
we
shall
present matters are trifling compared with those which are future.
For what can be compared with the kingdom ? or with life

"At the day of judgment .... shall
be received what is laid up for the saints in the kingdom of heaven,
which eye hath not seen," etc. [0?i the hicartiation of the Word,
The church is distinguished from the kingdom: "The
57.3).
heresy of Arius is excluded from the communion of the church,
and alien from the kingdom of heaven" [Epistle 54, to Serapioti).
"Baptized into the Trinity and united to God, we believe that
we have also inherited the kingdom of heaven, in Christ Jesus,"
.
eternal?" (341 A. D., 13. 4).
etc.
In his Stateme ?it of Faith, i,

[To the Bishops of Africa, 11).
"An entrance to Paradise was regained,
43, he says
on Luke 23
from which
Adam
was cast out, into which Paul also entered."

In Epistle 43, for Easter of 371 A. D., on Matt. 25 34: "The
door was shut from the time that Adam was cast out of Paradise;
Christ led into Paradise the thief, and having entered heaven as
forerunner opened the gates to all." This expresses a belief com:
138
KINGDOM OF GOD
mon
in
in the patristic age, that the
Eden was not on

It is
THE FATHERS
abode of the
first
51
human
a fine sentiment of Athanasius that " Paul wished
For virtue
anthropic, Easter of 338
kingdom
is
11
l).
all
men
philanthropic (and sin mis-
10.4), and great
of heaven, for thousands
[Easter oi 339
pair
earth.
should be as he was.
the
IN
is
the
company
of
there serve the Lord."
Here the kingdom stands
for a social
order, but apparently in the heavenly rather than in the earthly

state.
139
CHAPTER XL
EPHRAEM SYRUS AND APHRAHAT.
Most
kingdom by Ephraem the

The
prevailing sense is celestial, there being no millennial idea. "Save
"
by the door of resurrection none can enter into the kingdom
[Hymns for the Feast of Epiphany, lO. lo). His birth, baptism,
I.
Syrian are
of the references to the
in his
Hymtts, as a rule poetical and indefinite.
death, and resurrection form a fourfold bridge unto his king-
dom
and
sheep pass over
his
able to bring a
man
to the
in
his steps (10.9).
Prayer
is
house of the kingdom {On Admo7iitio7i
Our Lord, i "He

in the kingdom,
that he might seek out a path from Sheol which oppresses all,
For our Lord gave his
to the kingdom which requites all.
mortals,
that
he would remove them
resurrection as a pledge to
from Sheol which receives the departed without distinction to
and Repentance,
7).
In the First Homily on
departed from Sheol and took up his abode
the kinsfdom which admits the invited with distinction."
kingdom seems
these references the
in the reference to prayer the idea of
In
mean heaven perhaps

salvation may be in mind.
to
There is also, however, a clear recognition of Christ's kingon earth, as in Hymns for Epiphany, 15. 52, Mary says to the
magi: " May Persia .... and Assyria rejoice: when my Son's
kingdom shall arise, may he plant his standard in your country."
dom
His kingdom
when
all
is
conceived of as universal reign or dominion, as
the magi say to
be obedient."
In
Mary
\he.
in
15.
11:
First Homily,
"To
54:
his
kingdom
"He
shall
received the
kingdom from the house of David, even though Herod held the
place."
On the Nativity, 2, on John 10:9: "The Door for them
that go
in,
by which they go
into the
kingdom."
In sec. 4:
"Herod heard the roaring of the Lion, who came to sit in the
kingdom according to the Scriptures." In 7: "Thou who pavest
Here the wa}^ "into the kingdom''
the way into the kingdom."
may be either of present salvation or of the heavenly reward.
52
[140
KINGDOM OF GOD
The kingdom spoken
of
conception for dominion
THE FATHERS
IN
53
connection with Herod
in
is
a poetic
in general.
2. Aphrahat, the
Persian sage, was a contemporary of
Ephraem, and in some of his views resembles him. The kingdom is to him the Messiah's reign and realm, especially as por-
trayed in Daniel, with its realization still in the future.

His
thought therefore centers chiefly on the Last Things, with
frankly expressed doubt whether the kingdom is to be terrestrial
There is no trace of the social conception

kingdom, nor of the inner view of its existence in the
or celestial.
of the
soul.
"Jesus received the kingdom from
and handed over

him who sent
him" {^Demonstration on Persecution, 21. 13). "The righteous have
not inherited the kingdom, nor have the wicked gone into
torment. The King has gone to receive the kingdom, but as yet
he has not returned the second time " {Dem. on the Resurrection,
Israel,
the keys to Simon, and ascended and returned to
8.
"The
22).
saints shall inherit the
the heaven, Dan. 7
And
27.
place as yet, then (we ask)

to the
is
Son of man
expected
here
is
not
this
is
beneath
has not taken
that shall be given
What answer
"And
proceeds:
world
prosper in the kingdom, he took
it
dren of Esau (the Romans) until
And
that
lo
are sealed, and they have received
sons of Jacob
to the
He
stated.
kingdom
emancipation from
kingdom
kingdom
the
it
to be heavenly or earthly?"
the children of the

their
is
kingdom
they say that
if
he gave the
First,
and when they did not

away and gave it to the chilhe should come whose it is.
.
they will deliver up the deposit to
deal fraudulently with it" {Dem. of Wars,
its
5.
Giver, and will not
23 and 24).
The thought here seems to be that his kingdom which he

entrusted to Simon was within the Roman Empire, an imperium
in imperio ;
but
it is
the sage's mind.
kingdom
"God
is
expressed
has power,
heaven, and
evidently not entirely clear or consistent in
His doubt also as to the future place of the
if
it
in
the Dem. on the Last Things, 22. 24:
he chooses, to give inheritance of life in

Jesus said, 'Blessed
please him, in the earth.
if
are the poor, for theirs
is
the
kingdom
141
of heaven
'
and
to the
54
'Thou shalt be with me today in the Garden of Eden.'

and the firmament which is set to divide the upper
heavens from the earth and this life, shall pass away. And God
will make a new thing for the children of Adam, and they shall
have inheritances in the kingdom of heaven. If he shall give
them inheritance in the earth, it shall be called the kingdom of
And if in heaven, this is easy for him to do. For with
heaven.
the kings of the earth also, although each one of them abides in
his own place, yet every place to which their authority extends
In the Dem. of Mo?iks, 6. i8:
is called their kingdom," etc.
"The spiritual shall inherit the kingdom that was prepared for
The others shall remain on the
them from the beginning.
back
Sheol,"
to
earth and turn
To these DemoTistrations, whose date is 337-344 A. D.,
Aphrahat appends the following statement: " These things I have
written, not according to the thought of one man, but of all the
I will receive
church, and for the persuasion of all faith
any
man
who will speak
instruction without contention from
and demonstrate about any matter." So far as his views represent those of the church of his time, they indicate a wide
degree of uncertainty as to chiliasm and freedom of speculation
about the locality of the kingdom when finally established.
thief:
The
earth,
142
CHAPTER
OF JERUSALEM, GREGORY NAZIANZEN, AND GREGORY

OF NYSSA.
BASIL, CYRIL
I.
XII.
In Basil
the
two chief conceptions of the kingdom,
apart from certain indefinite references, are the celestial, and
He
the inner or subjective.
speaks frequently of "the gospel of
the kingdom," and in Epistle 44, To a Lapsed Monk, he says:
"You were
you
fell
proclaiming to
from
it,"
to Christianity.
To
all the power of the kingdom, and

making the kingdom substantially equivalent
The Trinity share in the kingdom, Epistle 105,
the Deaconesses.
"Through the Holy
Spirit
comes our restoration
to Paradise,
our ascension into the kingdom of heaven, our return to the
adoption of sons,
....
in
world and the world to come
word
into
all
" {Oiithe Spirit,
blessings of this
5.
"
36).
Nothing
can destroy the labors of holiness and truth, for the kingdom of
heaven that awaits them
is
firm
and sure"
(/>. 18,
To Macarius
afidjohfi).
Two
mystical passages in his Eighth Epistle, To the CcEsaream,
treat of the subjective
view of the kingdom.
In sec. 12: "It
is
said,
'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.'"
And,
my
brethren, entertain no other conception of the king-
dom
of
heaven than that
realities.
is
it
the
very contemplation of
This the divine Scripture calls blessedness.
For, the
kingdom of heaven is within you, Luke 17:21. The inner man

The kingdom of heaven,
consists of nothing but contemplation.
Now we behold shadows as in a
then, must be contemplation.
glass; thereafter, their archetypes," etc.
In sec. 7: "All material
kingdom of Christ: while immaknowledge is

terial knowledge, and so to say the knowledge of actual GodBut our Lord himself is the
head, is that of God the Father.
said to be the
ultimate blessedness
knowledge
143]
He calls the transition
to immaterial contemplation
55
from material
a resurrection
56
by little our intelligence becomes strong enough to

This is what is meant by deliverapproach Deity unveiled
Little
ing up the kingdom,
Cor. 15:24, as Christ
is
the
not
first-fruits,
So when the disciples asked

him, 'When wilt thou restore the kingdom?' Acts
6, he replied,
It is not for you to know,' etc.
That is, the knowledge of such a
kingdom is not for them that are bound in flesh and blood.
This contemplation the Father hath put away in his own power."
the end, of this deeper doctrine.
'
We
find a certain affinity to this peculiar
kingdom
Gregory of Nazianzen,
in
may
thought of both
Basil's
conception of the
friend;
and the
possibly have been influenced by Philo
the Jew.'
Cyril of Jerusalem, who has been termed "the orthodox

Arian," in his Catechetical Lectures dwells constantly upon
Christ's kingdom as the reward in heaven of the faithful, and as
2.
being endless
In Lecture
in duration.
10
3.
receive not baptism, he hath not salvation
except only martyrs
who. even without the water, receive the kingdom."

"Christ
coming to reign
is
be sure on this point, for
in a
many
man
"If any
parallel with salvation:
it is
In
heavenly, eternal kingdom
15
4.
.
say Christ's kingdom hath an end."
This created world is to be made

Now is the falling away
How escape the fire ? How enter into the kinganew
dom?" (15. 2, 8, 26). "In this holy Catholic church receiving
"
instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously,
kingdom
of heaven,
and
we
shall attain the
"A
inherit eternal life" (18.28).
pure
soul that has cleansed itself from sin can say with boldness, 'Thy
'SCHURER, in his History of the Jewish People, Div. II, Vol. Ill, p. 380, in summarizing Philo's ethical teaching, says: "As it was by falling away from God that man
was entangled in the
This object
of God.
virtuous
man
is
recognizes Deity
and the
light;
instrument.
life
is
lifted
itself.
Spirit of
He who
of sense, so
must he struggle up from
attainable even in this earthly
life.
above and out of himself, and
in
to the direct vision
truly
dwells in him and
has in his
way
stirs
him
vv'ise
and
such ecstasy beholds and
His own consciousness sinks and disappears
God
in the divine
like the strings of a musical
attained to the vision of the Divine, has reached
the highest degree of earthly happiness.
Beyond
from
its
this
it
For the
body, that return of the soul to
it
lies
only complete deliverance
original incorporeal condition,
bestowed on those who have kept themselves free from attachment

body."
144
to this
which
is
sensuous
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
57
kingdom come' " (23. 13) In Procatachesis, 16, the rhetorical reference to the kingdom has probably the usual meaning in Cyril
.
" Great
is
.... a ransom to captives

anew
.... the delight of Paradise, a welcome into
the baptism,
birth of the soul,
the kingdom, the gift of adoption." Likewise the reference in Lec-
"as the rushing of a mighty wind, signifying the

presence of him who was to grant power unto men to seize with
ture 17, 15
kingdom of heaven." Possibly, however, by "the

kingdom" in these two references he has the present Christian
community in mind. Otherwise the eschatological views of the
kingdom are found in Cyril.
In this versatile and talented
3. Gregory Nazianzen.
Father, surhamed the Theologian, the view of the kingdom
as the community of saints or Christian society seems domiviolence the
viewed as the reign of Christ over all

mankind, and as the heavenly reward, the latter being emphasized on its individual and subjective side.
dying
In the Oratioji on Holy Baptism, 3, "Baptism is
with Christ, .... the bulwark of faith, the key of the kingdom
of heaven, the change of life, .... the loosing of chains, the
remodeling of the whole man." In 22 "Will he not (you say)
take the desire of baptism instead of baptism ? You speak in ridnant, while
it
is
also
you mean that the unenlightened is enlightened in his

and that he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely
desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains
" Do not delay in coming to grace, but
to the kingdom," In 24
hasten, lest the robber outstrip you, the publican, .... or any
dles,
if
sight,
of these violent ones
who
take the
kingdom
For it suffers violence willingly, and

goodness."
In the Second Discourse on the Son, 4
both willing and unwilling he reigns
ducing
willingly
"As Almighty King
in
acknowledging
the former
his
sense there will
sovereignty.
be no end.
of
another sense as pro-
us submission, and placing us
in
of heaven by force.
tyrannized over through
is
under
Of
his kingship as
his
kingdom
in
In the second sense the
be his taking us as his servants, on our entrance into a

What need to work submission in us when
state of salvation.
end
will
145
58
we have already submitted ? .... Then he will judge the earth

and make awards," etc. This seems to point to the expectation
of Christ's earthly kingdom of the saints losing its identity, so to
speak, at the end of the world, in the celestial kingdom.
In
answer to Ep. 14 of Basil

"I admire your
strait and narrow way, leading, I know not whether to the kingdom or to Hades, but for your sake I hope it is the kingdom."
Epistle 4, Div. 2, in
In the Panegyric on Basil, 76, he uses the expression " intrusted
with the keys of heaven," so characteristic of Chrysostom.
"The heavenly reward to those whose mind is purified, will

God seen and known, in proportion to their degree of
purity, which we call the kingdom of heaven
but to those who
be Light,
from blindness of their ruling faculty, darkness, estrangement from God, in proportion to their blindness here" {Ôratio7i
suffer
on Holy Baptism, 45).
"Some
will
be welcomed by the unspeak-
able light and the vision of the holy and royal Trinity, which
now
them with greater brilliancy and purity, and unites

itself wholly to the whole soul, in which alone and beyond all
else I take it that the kingdom of heaven consists" [On His
Father s Silence, 9). According to this, the kingdom is that light
shines upon
wherein
the vision of
is
God
uniting himself with the soul
this
heavenly vision apparently shines with greater brilliancy, with

ever-increasing appropriation of the
from the beginning of the Christian

4.
little
Gregory of Nyssa,
in his
kingdom
of
God
in
the soul,
life.
thought of the kingdom, bears
resemblance to his brother Basil, but has notable
affinity
and Athanasius. He is a brilliant defender of

Nicene orthodoxy, and his conception of the kingdom is many-
with Origen
sided.
He
thinks of the universal reign of Christ, which, of
course, included mankind.
zenship was
Christ into
lost.
human
life,
reward
sin the
men by
right of citi-
the entering of
so that they are no longer outcasts from
the kingdom, but by their

estate.
But through
This was restored to
own
efforts
may
regain their lost
Again, he regards the kingdom of the future as the

in
heaven, a restoration to Paradise.
fundamental difference between the typical Greek theology

and the Augustinian may be illustrated in Gregory: "These
146
KINGDOM OF GOD
glad tidings he proclaims to
become
disciples of the
Word
IN
THE FATHERS
who, up to the present day,

is no longer outlawed,
all
that man
nor cast out of the kingdom of God, but
once more
once more a son,
is
the station assigned to him by his God, inasmuch
in
as along with the
ment once removed, the

again that which
in
ness to the divine
humanity the whole lump
of
first fruits
" {Agaiiist Eunomiiis,
lowed
59
Book
soul's
hal-
earthly envelop-
beauty will again appear, becoming
the beginning
we were
not our work at
is
"The
12. i).
is
God bestowed upon our nature

human efforts can go only so
at the
all
very
far as to
created.
it is
moment
clear
This like-
the great gift of

of our birth
away the
filth
of
and so cause the buried beauty of the soul to shine forth

again
This truth is, I think, taught in the gospel, when our
sin,
who can hear what Wisdom speaks beneath

mystery, The kingdom of God is within you.' The Scripture
Lord
the
says, to those
'
points out that the divine

nature,
will to
and
seek
it
good
is
not something apart from our
not removed far away from those
is
;
it is,
in fact,
who have
the
within each one of us, ignored indeed
and unnoticed while it is stifled beneath the cares and pleasures

of life, but found again whenever we turn our thoughts toward it.
.... This is confirmed by the parable of the lost drachma"
{On Virgifiity, 12).
" Christ showed his universal sovereignty by saying to the
thief, 'Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise' " {Against Euno" Lordship is not a name of his being, but of
mins, Book 2. 1 1).
his being in authority, and the appellation of Christ indicates his
kingdom, while the idea of his kingdom is one, and that of his
nature another.
The establishment
of his
kingdom does not
signify the formation of his essence, but the advance to his dignity" (Book 6.4). "It is with an eye to Christ's humanity,! suppose, that David describes the establishment of His kingdom,
He were not a king, but in the view that the humiliwas taken up and absorbed into the majesty of His king-
not as though
ation
dom
"
(Book II. 3).

The kingdom as
sages
celestial
" Paradise will
may be
be restored.
seen in the following pas-
We
hope not
which now pertain to the necessary uses of

147
life,
for those things
but for another
60
kingdom, of a description that belongs to unspeakable mysteries"

" Now the resurrection promises
iÔn the Making of Ma?i, 21.4).
us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient
state
for the grace
we look
it" (17.2).
"Christ teaches
kingdom comes
to those
matter of exchange.
When
the
for
is
a certain return to the
bringing back again to Paradise him
life,
then
it
is
in
cast out
first
from
the gospels that the acquisition of
who
are
deemed worthy
of
it,
as a
ye have done such and such things,
right that ye get the
may
who was
kingdom
as a reward."
From
the
"Perhaps the kingdom

of God being within us, means that joy which is implanted in
our hearts by the Holy Spirit." And, " 'Thy kingdom come'
according to some means
May thy Holy Spirit come upon us
Catena two references
be added:
'
to purify us.'
"
148
CHAPTER
XIII.
CHRYSOSTOM.
The
great preacher usually
makes the kingdom a synonym
from
his constant antithesis of " hell"
of heaven.
This
is
clear
" the
kingdom," occurring about sixty-three times, including

the use of the phrase " kingdom of heaven" in such connection
six times
the antithesis " heaven and hell " is rare.
This
and
usage
also evident in his quoting Matt.
16:19 nine times,

Remarkable also is his
preference for the phrase "kingdom of heaven," which he uses
about two hundred times; while "the kingdom of
God"
occurs only about sixty times, and of these sixty passages all
but two are Scriptural quotations.
But in his thought of the kingdom he is profoundly evangelical, and the burden of his splendid eloquence from first to last
is,
"Realize the kingdom here!
Make the earth a heaven!"
He has reached the social view of the kingdom, as the redeemed
society on earth, as it were by way of heaven, where Christ
dwells and reigns.
He thinks but little of the return of Christ
to earth, the primitive eschatological view of the kingdom
is
uniformly as "the keys of heaven."
having almost faded from sight.
kingdom
Placing the essence of the
in character, in a life well-pleasing to
God,
his strenu-
ous ethical tone almost obliterates the boundary between things

present and future.
new kind of life. Let us make earth,

heaven
let us hereby show the Greeks of how great blessings
they are deprived.
For, when they behold in us good conversation, they will look upon the very face of the kingdom of heaven.
.... They will say: 'If the Christians are become angels
here, what will they be after their departure hence?' Thus they
"Let us show
forth a
"
too will be reformed" {O71 Matthew, 43.7).

as
we ought.
of heaven
149]
This divine and pure love
this
is
fruition, this
is
61
is
Let us love God
indeed the kingdom
blessedness
For thus
62
we
shall see his
kingdom even from out
of this
life,
and
shall
life of angels, and while we abide on earth we

goodly a condition as they that dwell in heaven"
"To live according to his will, this is the
{Ôn Romans, 2 1).
that by this thou hast the kingdom already
So
thing.
principal
in possession without a probation" [On 2 Cor., 10.4). In 11.6:
" Let us above all things be afraid of sin
for this is punishment,
And let us not only
this is hell, this is ten thousand ills.
be afraid of, but also flee from it, and strive to please God
for this is the kingdom, this is life, this is ten
continually
be living the
shall be in as
So shall we even here obtain the kingdom

and the good things to come whereunto may we all attain," etc.
" He refers to Christ
In his comments upon I Cor. 1 5 24 f.
I mean the salvation of the
the perfecting of his kingdom,
thousand goods.
faithful, the
this
peace of the world, the taking away of evils
kingdom.
to perfect the
is
But what
is
this
for
'When he
up the kingdom ? The Scripture acknowledges two

kingdoms of God, the one by appropriation,' the other by
shall deliver
'
Thus he is King over all in respect of his creation

but he is King of the faithful and willing and subject, in respect
This is the kingdom which is
of his making them his own.
To this he refers in Ps. 2 :8 and
said also to have a beginning.
This kingdom then doth he deliver up, i. e.,
Matt. 28:18.
But some say that he spake this to
bring to a right end
declare the removal of wickedness, as though all would yield
For, when
thenceforth and none would resist nor do iniquity.
creation.
there
is
no
sin,
Matthezv, 19.7:
it
"
is
evident that
He
God
shall be all in all."
hath enjoined each one of
us,
who
On
pray,
upon himself the care of the whole world, 'Thy will

.... everywhere upon earth so that error may be
destroyed, and truth implanted, and all wickedness cast out,
and virtue return, and there be no difference henceforth in this
respect between heaven and earth."
to take
be done,'
In his celebrated Sermo7is on the Statues, 16.17, he gives a

social
tius.
'
program which reminds us of the " golden age " of Lactan" Exercise tender care toward thy neighbor.
For we are
OlKeiuO'LV.
150
KINGDOM OF GOD
placed with one another, inhabit
we may bear one
order that
in
shop carry on a separate
common fund,
man is able to
cities,
C3
and meet
churches,
in
another's burdens, that
And
correct one another's sins.
THE FATHERS
IN
yet put
traffic,
we may
same
just as persons in the
afterwards into a
all
Whatever advantages each

neighbor, let him not grudge,
so also let us act.
confer upon his
nor shrink from doing
commerce and
it,
but let there be a kind of spiritual
order that having deposited

and procured a large treasure, we
may be altogether partakers of the kingdom of heaven through
the grace of our Lord," etc.
The immediate reference of the
closing words is probably to the kingdom above, yet the shading
everything
in a
reciprocity
common
in
store,
kingdom into that of the future is obvious.

"While the kingdom is synonymous with salvation and the
sum of all good, still it is a greater thing than the kingdom
itself to receive it from such a Giver " {Homily 6, on Acts). Hence
the kingdom is frequently spoken of as one among many good
things. On i Cor. 43 6
"We ought not to do anything good for
the hope of the kingdom, but because it pleases God, which is
more than any kingdom." On Romans, 5, as often " Paul would
prefer to fall into hell and be banished from the kingdom, to
losing Christ." On Matthew, 24: 5 and 6
"The centurion went
away having received a kingdom
Judas, too, was a child
of the kingdom, and yet he became a child of hell." On John, 24.
of the present
"It
is
impossible, Christ says, for one not born from above
kingdom
of
God
declaring that there
is
another besides the natural sight, and
to see the
we have need
that
Homily
2,
on
this pointing to
in
of other eyes
Colossiafis
obtains the kingdom."
"No
Of the
to
himself, and
behold Christ."
So
in
own achievements
young man in Mark 12 34, who
one by
his
was not far from the kingdom,' he sa3's that it was because he
overlooked low things and embraced the first principle of virtue
{On Matt., yi. i). This passage of Mark is treated at length in
'
Hilary.
Chrysostom evidently thinks of the church

of Christ in
them.
some
as the
kingdom
instances, but without expressly identifying
To Catechumens,
i, 4,
on
Ps.
151
2:8:
"
Dost thou see how
64
he has made mention of the church of the gentiles, and has

spoken of the kingdom of Christ extended on all sides ? " In
" Ye are not about to be led to an empty dignity, but to
I. I
an actual kingdom and not simply to a kingdom, but to the
Yet thirty days, and the King
kingdom of heaven itself
of heaven shall restore you to the country which is on high, JeruRememto the city which is in heaven.
salem, which is free
ber me, when you come into that kingdom, when you receive
:
On
the royal robe," etc.
kingdom
shines forth in
that land the
camp
Homily
15.
its
In 88.
we ought
\\,on
Now
Egypt Christ's
Everywhere in
in
brightness
that
to
"There ought
make
heaven."
is
In
distinguished from the
of " the priests not purging out from
out of the church,
is,
be choirs of
to
the earth a
the church
Cor.,
kingdom when he speaks

their borders,
8.
of Christ, and the royal flock, and the polity
of the powers above.
angels here, and
Matt.
the covetous
and
On
whatsoever would exclude from the kingdom of heaven."
"
Whereas
Christ
is
tares,
OnMatthezv,
i
the parable of the
47.
the sower, and of his own field and out of his own kingdom he
:
gathers,
it
is
the present world also
clear that
his."'
is
conclusion which Augustine draws from this parable
church
is
the
kingdom
of
God on
is
The
that the
earth.
Chrysostom's thought of the kingdom as spiritual and

requiring the guidance of the Spirit, is manifest in two com-
ments
in
On 1:6:
his Discourses on the Acts.
"It appears to
'In his famous passage on the community of goods, Homily II on Acts, he draws
this enthusiastic picture
all sell their
possessions,
" Let us
now
and bring them
depict this state of things in words, and

into the
common
stock
in words, I
let
mean
How much gold think you would be collected ?

none be excited, rich or poor
nay, twice or thrice as
.... Perhaps one million pounds' weight of gold
much. Shall we say there are in the city a hundred thousand Christians, and the rest
Then to feed
Greeks and Jews ? Of the poor I think not more than 50,000
And yet if the food were received
that number daily, what abundance would there be
in common, all taking their meals together, it would require no such great outlay after
And do you
all.
But, you will ask, what should we do after the money was spent ?
think it ever could be spent ? Would not the grace of God be ten thousand fold
greater ? Would it not be richly poured out ? Nay, should we not make a heaven
upon earth ? If, where the numbers were 3,000 and 5,000, the doing of this thing had
let
such splendid success, and none of them complained of poverty,

ous would this be in so vast a multitude ?"
152
how much more
glori-
KINGDOM OF GOD
me
IN
THE FATHERS
65
had not any clear notion of the nature of that

the Spirit had not yet instructed them."
On
28 31
"The things concerning the kingdom of God. Nothing
of the things of sense, nothing of things present." His spirit is
" I
finely summarized in a remark in Homily 6, on Philippiaiis
that they
kingdom
:
for
could wish the things concerning the kingdom to be ever

discourse,
of
the
rest,
of
the green
pleasure of being with Christ."
153
pastures,
....
of
my
the
CHAPTER
XIV.
JOHN OF DAMASCUS.
more than one respect from Chrysostom

Chrysostom died in 407, and John in or
to John of Damascus.
Between them
near the year 757, as " the last of the Fathers."
there are in the Eastern church only a few names of any importance, and none whose works are considered in the present
In the Western church the succession extends to
investigation.
Gregory the Great (d. 604).
The work of John selected as representive in the list is that
On the Orthodox Faith, which is the third Division of his FounIn this work there are six references to the
tai?i of Knowledge.
"We believe in
kingdom, all general and indefinite, as follows
one God, .... holding a perpetual and immortal kingdom over
Also, " one lordship, one kingall things" (Book i. chap. 8).
dom," which the English version renders "sovereignty." In 2.
" God's original wish was
In 2. 29
1 1 Matt. 6:33 is quoted.
For it was
that all should be saved and come to his kingdom.
not for punishment that he formed us, but to share in his goodIn 4. 15: "John the
ness, inasmuch as he is a good God."
"From
Baptist was the first herald of the kingdom." In 4. 25
the time when he was baptized, and the Holy Spirit appeared to
men, the spiritual worship and polity (or mode of life) and the
kingdom of heaven have been preached."
This extreme meagerness of reference to the kingdom by the
" engrosser of Greek theology " at the close of the patristic age,
significant chiefly as showing that John wholly failed to
is
appreciate the importance of the kingdom.
Not less striking is
It
is
a long leap in
the evidence from his Sacred Parallels, a collection of opinions
upon various points of morality and

religion, alphabetically arranged under Scriptural quotations.
Under the title of "The Kingdom of Heaven," he first quotes
fourteen representative New Testament passages in which the
of
the
early
Fathers
66
[154
KINGDOM OF GOD
kingdom
mentioned
is
IN
THE FATHERS
67
then follow eleven quotations or senti-
ments, to illustrate the subject, of which seven do not mention

the
kingdom
from
at
(Basil, the
all.
Four Fathers are mentioned as quoted
Gregorys, Clement of Alexandria), but several
of the quotations
are of doubtful
source.
Of the four
ences to the kingdom by name, two are indefinite:
"It
referis
the
kingdom that it has no tyranny over it;" and,

" That incorruptible kingdom has no desire, but has the presence
of all good things, whence there is no place for desire."
Another is from Clement's Quis Dives : " The kingdom of God
dignity of the
does not belong to sleepers and sluggards, but the violent take
by force
God by force,"
it
"
origin:
The
for this
The
etc.
is
commendable,
fourth
state of those
who
is
to take life
from
important, and of doubtful
live
according to the divine
kingdom of God." This saying, and

the quotation from Clement, seem to retain something at least
laws
is
to be declared the
of the social idea of the
kingdom.
The tenor of the other seven quotations, supposed to illustrate the kingdom without mentioning it, is of the reward of
virtue, the good things waited for.
The first given reads
"When man is made perfect, he is borne up to the dignity of
angels."
As a rule, however, these quotations are sententious
:
and obscure:
"I must be buried together with
Christ rise again, be an heir wiih Christ,
God
himself."
And,
"
Tribulation
is
become
Christ, with
a son of God,
the flower of ffood thinofs
which we wait for.

Let us therefore pluck the flower on
account of the fruit."
As the Eastern church had already long been dead intellectually
Damascus wrote, we may be grateful that

flame we see even the few referthe kingdom which he gives.
when John
of
in this final flickering of the
ences to
155
B.LA TIN.
CHAPTER
XV.
HILARY.
The
"
Athanasius of the West
" has
many
suggestive thoughts
about the kingdom, even though his views are not always clear
He is represented in the present discussion of
or consistent.
patristic
literature
by
his
On the Trinity, and Oti the

Having at hand the Benedic-
treatises
Synods, or the Faith of the Orientals.
and certain important references being

found apart from the two treatises mentioned, I treat as a whole
his views of the kingdom.
His most distinctive view is indicated by the title of an
tine edition of his works,
De regno Christi a regno Dei Patris distincto, eight pages

by the Benedictine editors in the preface. This essay is
according to its own showing,
of rare interest and value
however, the somewhat uncertain use of terms by Hilary leaves
the distinction between God's kingdom and Christ's vague and
essay
folio,
shadowy.
At the transfiguration the glory of his body coming into the

kingdom was shown the disciples. The Lord shall reign in his
glorified body until the offenses shall be removed from his kingdom at the consummation of the age. Then he will deliver up
the kingdom. He says not" his kingdom," but "a kingdom,"
namely, ourselves made conformable to his glorious body, whom
he will deliver up as a kingdom to God, as in Matt. 25 34. For
the Son will deliver up to God as a kingdom those whom he
:
called into a
kingdom, promising them that the pure in heart

Reigning thus he will remove offenses, and
should see God.
then shall the righteous shine as the sun
in the
kingdom
of their
apostles:
And what kingdom, he himself testified, saying to the

"The kingdom of God is in you " {Ôn the Triinty,
Book
37-9).^
Father.
hi
II.
vobis.
'Cf. the "earthly
kingdom"
68
of Irenreus, 5.32.
[156
KINGDOM OF GOD
Christ's
kingdom
is
THE FATHERS
IN
69
thus a sort of intermediate state, in his
which he keeps the righteous after death until

they enter the kingdom of God at the judgment. On Paul's
saying, "I follow on, if I may apprehend," Hilary seems to
body,
glorified
in
think that the saints, their flesh being laid aside, are joined to
the flesh which Christ assumed for us, to rest in
Christ's
Christ's
corporis
Matt.
they
then, Christ's body, the church, different from
Is,
:34).
until
it
body of their own and this resting of the saints in

body he calls the kingdom of Christ. But the church is
body " For Christ himself is the chnrch, per sacramefitum
siii m se ufiiversam eani co?itine7is" [On Ps. 12^; cf. On
receive a
in which the righteous dead are waiting ? So

comments on the words in Ps. 15, "Who
Hilary's
from
it seems
"The mountain," he says,
shall dwell in his holy mountain ?"
" is the body which Christ took from us. We climb this mountain
There is rest in the Lord's
after we have dwelt in the church.
his glorified
body,
exaltation; there
since
we
we
shall be associated with choirs of angels,
also are a city of
God
"
[Dei civitas)
Here
is
evidently
a mystical blending of ideas; the primary idea of Christ's king-
dom on
earth seems to be lost in the shadows of the spirit-
In his
world.
comment on Matt. 12:32 he
with the kingdom
and
himself the
is
kingdom
of
Christ
identifies
work by the Spirit of God,

heaven, and in him is God recon-
he perfects
all
ciling the world unto himself.
And
yet, in the exposition of
who was
Mark
12
not far from the kingdom, there
nition of the
Why
kingdom
34, of the
is
company of
although such faith makes
as the present
young man
apparently a recogthe saints.
man perdoes he say that,

fect for the kingdom of heaven, this scribe was not in the kingdom, but only not far from it ? In Matt. 25 134 and 5 3, it is
"
given
in absolute possession.
Did
this
young man, whose love
to
God and man was apparently perfect, confess something less than
these confessed ? .... The Lord, praising his confession of faith,
still
says he
is
not far from the kingdom, and did not place him
He was on the
very possession of the blessed hope.
right way, and not far from the gospel sacrament, though still
ignorant that the one thing lacking was to confess Christ as
in the
157
70
Lord."
If
he had also done
considered him as
in the
this,
Hilary would probably have
kingdom.
The kingdom within the
soul
is
also emphasized.
the body, subduing the sin reigning there and
all
"To
rule
incentives to
kingdom of God in us. Let Christ reign in us, since

through him we may reign over ourselves, according to Luke
17:20, 21, The kingdom of God is within you. The kingdom of
vice,
God
the
is
where
is
sin
vanquished, death done away, and no
is
enemy
This will be to us the kingdom of God, when
reigns
all
the stings of our vices being broken, the blemish of bodily infirm-
be removed" [On Ps.
ity will
seems
of
sec. 42).
2,
and
to be a blending of present
Here
also there
future.
The church is distinguished from the kingdom in a passage

The Trinity, Book 6. 37 " This faith [of Peter] is the founda:
tion of the church
this faith has the
keys of the
celestial king-
dom."
But in other passages the two ideas are intermingled
somewhat in the manner of the Shepherd of Hermas, as On Ps.
147:15: "By this swift running of the word the building of
this blessed city has been begun, which, as the abundance of its
resources becomes known, is daily everywhere built up with the
'
living stones of the faithful, to the increase of the city of the
blessed kingdom."
We
have noted above how he makes Christ
Jerome says that Hilary drew largely

on the Psalms we may trace such
influence in his comment On Ps. 51, sec. 17
the Jews being said
to be torn away from Christ's body and kingdom, an assertion
both church and kingdom.
upon Origen
in his
treatise
hardly consonant with his peculiar views, he explains the king-
dom
as
realized
tially in
'
something promised, offered freely to all, but not yet

recalling Origen's thought of the kingdom being potenall men.
The English translation (which appeared in May,

Book 6. 38, runs: "You may have a change of
Trinity,
are changed.
That
faith holds not the
1899) of a passage
faith
keys of the church,"
original text in the Benedictine edition reads
158
if
the keys of
etc.
On
the
heaven
In both cases the
"the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
;;
CHAPTER
XVI.
AMBROSE.
This beautiful and knightly soul, under whose preaching

Augustine was converted, has a thoroughly evangelical view of
the kingdom.
have the divine

unity of the
He
thinks of
life in
kingdom
as the
it
He
the soul.
community
of those
On
of the Trinity, his treatise
who
upon the
lays great stress
the Christian
Faith being in large part a sustained proof, fortified by Scripture,
kingdom
that the
of the
Son
one with that of the Father

But these
is
thus taking the opposite point of view from Hilary.
two Fathers are in striking agreement in their insistence upon

In the Cate7ia
the spiritual and ethical content of the kingdom.
071 Luke there are several valuable additions to the teaching of
Ambrose concerning the kingdom, which will be given with the
other references.
"Christ came into this world to prepare for himself a kingdom
from among us, .... to receive a kingdom from us, to whom

'The kingdom of God is within you.' This is the
kingdom which Christ has received, this the kingdom which he
he says:
He who came
has delivered to the Father
up the kingdom
Each
to the Father.
The kingdom which he delivers up
honor.
We
will
deliver
gives the other unity of
not
is
lost,
but
was said to us. The kingdom

And we are the kingdom, first of Christ,
of God is within you.
then of the Father, John 14:6. When I am on the way, I am
grows.
are the
kingdom,
for
it
Christ's; when I have passed through, I am the Father's; but

everywhere through Christ, and everywhere under him. It is a
good thing to be in the kingdom of Christ, that Christ may be
We are now under Christ's rule in the form of servants
in us.
but when we shall see his glory
we
shall
be
in
the
which are the patriarchs and prophets

of the Son the Father also reigns and
of the Father the Son also reigns" {On the Faith,
God,
159]
But
in
kingdom
71
kingdom
in
5.
the
in
of
the
kingdom
12).
HISTOEIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
72
"To
be with Christ
kingdom
" {^Catena
o?i
life,
is
Ljike,
and where Christ
23
43).
Christ
is
there
is,
our
his
is
Way, which
hath opened the kingdom of heaven to believers iÔn the Faith,

3.
This
7).
is
dom
"Thou
didst open the
In Duties of the Clergy,
believers."
Deum
evidently the source of the line in the Te
the later liturgy
i.
kingdom
49
Cast out of the king-
and
of thy soul the likeness of the devil,
Christ glow brightly in thy kingdom, that
of
of heaven to all
the likeness of
let
thy soul.
is,
God itself is the work of the Holy Spirit,

Rom. 14:17: 'Righteousness and joy and
peace,' etc
The Holy Spirit takes us into his kingdom by
the adoption of holy regeneration. He has made us heirs of the
new birth from above" ( (9/z the Spirit, Book 2, chaps. 20 and 7).
We are all anointed with spiritual grace for a share in the kingdom
" He shows
of God and in the priesthood {On the Mysteries, 6).
that it is a regal power which the Holy Spirit possesses, in whom
is the kingdom of God, and that we in whom the Spirit dwells
"
as
The kingdom
of
written in
is
it
are a royal house
dom
of
If,
God, and
faith
truly the
kingdom
kingdom
of
God
then, the mustard seed
as the grain of
is
of heaven, which
is
is
the king-
mustard seed,
within us "
Catena).
faith
"
is
The
consists in simplicity of faith, not in persuasive
power plainly shown
But faith alone is not

So also Chrysostom)
What, indeed, do we understand by being in the kingdom of
God, if not the having escaped eternal death ? But they who
have escaped eternal death see the Son of man coming into his
kingdom" {^0 71 the Faith, 2. 5, 9 3. 12). He does not say whether
words, but
in
sufificient to
forth.
enter {^0 71 Matt. 7:21.
this takes place before the
of the
kingdom
"And what
which
"How
as celestial (as in Epistle 63,
the
God, where
occasionally speaks
on Prov. 10:15^)
that city but Jerusalem which
is
kingdom
much ought we
is
He
Last Things.
will
of
God?"
In
sec.
is
to raise our hopes to the
be newness of
life
in
heaven, in
97 of the same:
kingdom
of
?"
The
relation of the church to the kingdom is touched upon

few places
To Peter he gave the kingdom, calling him the
rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the church
in a
[071 the Faith, 4. 5).
"The comparison
160
of the leaven
is
suitable,
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
73
for the
kingdom
we
both bad and good, are mingled with the meal of the
all,
church, that
we
of
all
heaven
may
is
enter the
is
sin,
and therefore
be a new lump, not harmed by the sins
of the evil" {Ôn Repe?itaTice,

of the church "
redemption from
i.
15).
Here the phrase "the meal
obscure, but the question
kingdom must one
first
is
suggested
To
enter the church, as the apos-
tles at first supposed that the gentiles must come to Christianity

through Judaism ? The Fathers undoubtedly hold the afifirmative
that the church is not a temporary institution such as Judaism was.
But when the consequences of this view became
:
gradually more apparent, the resulting tendency was inevitable

to distinguish the ideal from the actual church, and to identify
One of the most striking evidences

the expression " the kingdom of the church,"
the ideal with the kingdom.

of this transition
is
occurring in the Catena ofi Luke from Ambrose

own kingdom to be undivided and everlasting
fore the kingdom of the church shall remain
its faith is
undivided
in
one body."
161
"
He shows his
And there-
for ever,
because
CHAPTER
XVII.
JEROME, RUFINUS, SULPITIUS, AND VINCENT.
Jerome usually thinks
I.
of the
abode, frequently also as God's reign
He
kingdom
in
He
tent of the
celestial
the world or in the soul.
does not seem to connect the kingdom
church.
as the
in
thought with the
regards rather the form than the rich spiritual con-
kingdom
as the principle of the Christian
he holds the conception somewhat loosely, retaining

of the primitive meanings,
is
life.
That
little
trace
evident from the various definitions
kingdom which he sets forth, in one passage giving three

The Cateiia supplies a few references.
alternative meanings.
of the
Stephen the deacon, the
would be
less in
the
first
kingdom
to
wear the martyr's crown,
of heaven than
many
bishops,
if
rank determined the reward [Agai7ist Jovia?ius, 1.35). The sheep

which stand on the right hand will be brought into the kingdom
of heaven; the goats will be thrust
down
to hell (2.25).
The
place and the mansions are of course in the Father's house, that
is,
is
in
the
kingdom
of heaven, not on earth, etc. (28).
happier than the Christian, for to him
is
No man
promised the kingdom
i).
Abraham and other rich men in the
Old Testament, though rich, entered the kingdom of heaven, for
they were rich for others {Against the Pelagia?ts, i. 10). He apparently thinks of Paradise in two senses, for in Epistle 51.5 he says
" Paradise was on earth, for Adam and Eve were made to dwell
" Even if Lazarus
over against Paradise " and in Epistle 60. 3
is seen in Abraham's bosom, still the lower regions cannot be
compared with the kingdom of heaven. Before Christ's coming
Abraham is in the lower regions after Christ's coming the robber is in Paradise
This [reward] is promised us in the
resurrection, for as many of us as do not live after the flesh have
our citizenship in heaven, and while still here on earth we are
told that the kingdom of heaven is within us."
In Epistle 51.5
" He teaches that
he has a characteristic reference to Origen
of heaven (Êpistle 125.
74
[162
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
75
the devil will return to his former dignity and rise again to the
kingdom
Apostles and prophets co-heirs of the
heaven.
of
kingdom of heaven!"
"Thy kingdom come" is either a general prayer for the
kingdom of the whole world that the reign of the devil may
cease, or for the kingdom in each of us that God may reign
there, and that sin may not reign in our mortal body {^Catena).
devil in the
In Epistle 46. 10,
Jerusalem
is
We
in speaking of the advantage of pilgrimages to

do not mean to deny that the kingdom of God
within us, or to say that there are no holy
men
elsewhere.
Access to the courts of heaven is as easy from Britain

3
as it is from Jerusalem, for the kingdom of God is within you.
In 118. 4 occurs one of the rare instances in which the kingdom
is personified: "The rich find it hard to enter the kingdom of
heaven, a kingdom which desires for its citizens souls that soar
aloft free from all ties and hindrances."
In this quotation, and
In 58.
in the
two following,
kingdom
is
the nearest approach to the idea of the
as the Christian society
quotes Rev. 1:6:

Epistle 22. 40,
"
Made
4,
he
and
in
Against the Luciferia?is
kingdom,"
us to be a
etc.
on Matt. 11:12, "The kingdom suffereth violence,"
" Still, unless
you use violence you will never seize the

kingdom of heaven."
The following quotations indicate the wide range of ideas
" The kingdom of God
which he groups under the kingdom
he says
denotes either Himself, of
whom
it
is
written in another place,
'The kingdom of God is within you,' and, 'There standeth one

midst of you whom ye know not
or surely that kingdom
which both John and the Lord himself had preached, 'Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' There is also a third kingdom, of holy Scripture, which shall be taken from the Jews," etc.
'
in the
'
{^Catena on Matt. 12.28). Again,
of heaven
is
the Scriptures which leads to

the Jews, 'The
kingdom
'In this passage the Catena
among you;"
from the Catena: "The kingdom
the preaching of the gospel, and the knowledge of
of
is
life,
God
concerning which
shall be taken
erroneously translated,
who
quote the verse.
163
is
"The kingdom
the original reads intra vos as usual, with the
as in all the Fathers
it
said to
....
from you.'
of
God
is
meaning "within you,"
76
His Father's kingdom,' Matt. 26 29,
'
suppose to mean the
faith of believers. When the Jews shall receive his Father's

kingdom, then the Lord will drink of their vine."
2. RuFiNUS seems to regard the kingdom as eschatological,
In his Preface to the Trajislatioii of Origetis
celestial, and eternal.
First Principles: "By our belief in the coming kingdom, by the
assurance of the resurrection from the dead," etc. On the Apostles' Creed, 14
Christ when he came brought three kingdoms at
once into subjection under his sway, referred to in Phil. 2:10,
and conquered all of them by his death. In 34 and 39 he discusses the clause, "Of his kingdom there shall be no end." He
has an interesting comment in sec. 7 on Matt. 13 33, 47, where
the kingdom is likened to leaven and to a net: "Are we to imagine that the kingdom of heaven is in all respects like leaven ?
Obviously the illustration was employed simply for this: to
show how, through the preaching of God's Word, which seems so
small a thing, men's minds could be imbued with the leaven of
faith.
So likewise in 13 47
are we to suppose that the substance of the kingdom of heaven is like twine ? The sole object
of the comparison is to show that, as a net brings fishes to the
shore from the depths of the sea, so by the preaching of the
kingdom of heaven men's souls are liberated from the depth of
the error of this world." In sec. 6
"Jesus conducted the people,
who had been brought forth from the darkness of ignorance,
and recalled from the errors of the world, into the kingdom of
heaven." Here the lack of a note of time makes the reference
:
indefinite.
To SuLPiTius Severus
3.
tial
reward.
God
will
heaven
say
I
the
kingdom
is
ordinarily the celes-
i. 6 (a doubtful letter)
The Son of
the judgment, " I promised you the kingdom of
In Epistle
in
also placed in Paradise the robber as an
escape from punishment,"
etc.
In Epistle
2. 4
example of
he speaks of the
reward and glory to be obtained in the kingdom of heaven,

which no one can obtain who does not deserve eternal life by
keeping the commandments. In the Sacred History, Book 2, chap.
3
The Messiah promised by Daniel
world
in
will
reduce to nothing that
which exist earthly kingdoms, and

164
will establish
another
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
77
kingdom, incorruptible and everlasting, that is, the future world,

which is prepared for the saints. The faith of some still hesitates about this point only, while they do not believe about
things yet to come, though they are convinced of the things that
are past.
In the preface to Desiderius in his Life of St. Martin;
"The kingdom of God consists, not of eloquence, but faith,"

evidently in the sense of the gospel or the Christian life.
4. In ViNCENTius OF Lerins the "children of the kingdom"
are contrasted with those
who
"will have their portion in hell"
(^ Comminitory, 6), and in 26 the expression "the inheritance

of the kingdom of heaven" occurs, both indicating the celestial
conception.
165
CHAPTER
XVIII.
AUGUSTINE.
chief works of Augustine have about 1,300 references
kingdom, nearly one-third of the whole number in the
In the vast range of his
patristic writings under consideration.
kingdom
may be repeatedly met
of
the
phase
every
works nearly
The
to the
with
kingdom as the community

anew through the gospel, is ever dominant. In
view takes its most characteristic form, however,
but the evangelical view, of the
of souls born
Augustine
this
though carefully modified, identification of the

kingdom with the church, which is found in several of his treatises,
but most fully expressed in De Civitate Dei and in his Tractates on
in his explicit,
This view, occasionally traceable in patristic

thought from the time of Hermas, is nevertheless found even in
Augustine in close connection with a clear distinction between
the Gospel ofJohn.
the church and the

neric and the
kingdom
church only
thinks also of the
kingdom
its
showing that the kingdom
as the celestial
place are incidental and uncertain

is
is
to
be
in
the
kingdom
is
distinctive organized form.

;
He
but time and
to be in a state of salvation
The
of God.
abode
ge-
reign of
God
in the soul
always assumed of the members of the kingdom, but the social
idea receives the greater emphasis.
certain progress of his
thought of the kingdom may be traced in his writings, and these

have therefore been arranged in seven groups, as far as possible
with reference to the chronological order of composition of each
treatise.
I.
Early general
zvritings.
In
his earliest Christian
sition, the Soliloquies, the single reference
dom
is
compo-
he makes to the king-
prophetic of the sweep of his vision:
"God, whose
kingdom is that whole world of which sense has no ken God,

from whose kingdom a law is even derived down upon these
lower realms" (i. 3).
In the Co?ifessions, Book ii. 2: Let me
;
confess unto thee whatsoever
78
shall find in
thy books,
....
[166
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
79
even from the beginning, wherein thou madest the heaven and
the earth, unto the everlasting kingdom [or reign] of thy holy
city with thee.
"They
are
From
world
is
dom
peacemakers who, by controlling all the motions

a kingdom of God, .... subject to Christ.
this sort brought to peace, the prince of this
become
kingdom of
of the soul,
Book
cast out " {^Sermon on the Mount,
1.2). In the king-
him who came to fulfil the law, one will bring benevolence to perfection when he loves an enemy (21 ). " Thy kingdom
come," that is, be manifested to men. As a light which is present
of
is
absent to the blind, or to those that close their eyes, so
the kingdom of God, though
who
it
never departs from the earth,
is
But no one will be

allowed to be ignorant of the kingdom of God, when the Son
shall come from heaven visibly to judgment.
The coming of
yet absent to those
his
kingdom
will
are ignorant of
be manifested, not
it.
but
after,
in
the end of the
kingdom may come, whether it be

over ourselves, that we may become meek, or from heaven to
earth in the splendor of the Lord's advent (Book 2. 6, 10, 11).
It is evident that in saying above that the kingdom is invisible to
Let us ask that
world.
his
some, although never departing from the earth, he did not have
the visible church in mind.
In a notable passage in his treatise
On Holy
Virginity, 24,
speaks thus of the present and future of the kingdom
he
"What
[who misinterpret Matt. 19: 12] save to

kingdom of heaven itself pertains unto this temporal life, in which we now are ? For why should not blind presumption advance even to this madness ? And what more full
else remains for these
assert that the
of frenzy than this assertion
even that which now

tainly
it is
is, is
For although
called the
the promise of the present
works it
I Tim. 4
kingdom
so called for this end, because
together for a future and eternal
and
life.
at times the church,
of heaven, cer-
being gathered
Although, therefore, it has
of a future
it is
life,
yet
8)."
"
Why
good
4:18;
in all its
looks not to the things that are seen, etc. (2 Cor.
contend you that the kingdom of heaven
In chap. 9 of the
only ?" (25).
same work occurs a unique designation of the church " Now, out
is
to be
understood
in this life
167
80
of every race
and nation, members of Christ may be gathered
unto the people of God, and city of the kingdom of heaven."

In this first group, generally, the church is distinguished from
the kingdom, and the latter
On
often future or celestial.
is
the
The church, which we discern from

Faith of Things Not Seen, g
the toilsome beginning of faith even unto the eternal blessed:
ness of the kingdom.
In
Christia?i Doctrine,
37:
Christ
the
is
his bodv, destined to be with him
head of the church, which is

On the Work of Monks, 8:
in his eternal kingdom and glory.
Working only spiritual works in the preaching of the kingdom
of heaven and edifying of the peace of the church.
mon
on the
Monnt,
I.
15:
kingdom
In that eternal
In the Serthere are no
In 1.8: He
temporal relationships (as of father and mother).
that is called least in Matt. 5 19 will perhaps not be in the
:
kingdom
at all
In
another conception of the kingdom:
I.
is
the one called great
tudes the one reward, which

ously named.
In
the
first
the soul," etc.
is
the
....
is
kingdom
it is
kingdom.
also in the
"In the
of heaven,
the perfect
beativari-
is
wisdom
of
In this group the kingdom has

2. Against the Ma?iichcBa?is.
two distinct meanings, corresponding to present and future time
" For you are not instructed in the kingdom of heaven, that is, in
the true catholic church of Christ, as the Lord said, Matt. 13 52.
.... In the kingdom of heaven there are those who, that they
may be perfect, sell or leave all, and follow Christ," etc. {^Reply
On the other hand, in 19. 30 I do not
to Faustus, 4. I
5.9).
find in the Old Testament the expression "the kingdom of
:
heaven."
the
New
This expression belongs properly to the revelation of
Testament, because
in the resurrection
our bodies shall
be spiritual bodies, and so heavenly, that thus we
may
possess
kingdom of heaven. In ii, 8 We no longer in New Testament times expect a temporal or carnal kingdom of God and
all things are become new, making the promise of the kingdom
of heaven, where there shall be no death or corruption, the
ground of our confidence. ... In the hope of spiritual things, that
is, of the kingdom of heaven, where the body itself will be, by
the
the change in the resurrection, a spiritual bod}-. In 22.

168
'](i
The
KINGDOM OF GOD
New Testament
doctrine of the
for temporal happiness in this
THE FATHERS
IN
is
that
life,
81
we must serve God, not
but for eternal felicity here-
after.
The church and the kingdom are distinguished from each

On the Nature of Good, 48 The keys of the
kingdom of heaven in thy holy church. In the Reply to Fmistus,
other in the work
22. 67, occurs
one of the rare instances
in
Augustine of the king-
"The kingdom of heaven is within us, Luke

17:21; and we must worship God from our inmost feelings
instead of honoring him with our lips." With this may be placed
his comment on Rom. 14: 17 from the Catena: Wisdom is justi-
dom
in
the soul
her children, for the holy apostles understood that the
fied of
kingdom
of
God was
not
in
meat and drink, but
patient
in
enduring.
3.
Against the Donatists.
The Catholics, says Neander, in their
controversy with the Donatists, distinguished the church on

earth,
in
which
genuine and spurious
members
together, from the purified church of heaven
are
mixed
but, failing to dis-
tinguish the conceptions of the visible and the invisible church,
they gave occasion to the Donatists of charging them with supposing the existence of two churches but they were extremely
;
and would allow of no other distinction than that of two different conditions, mortal and immorThus, although the idea of the
tal, of one and the same church '.
invisible church is at the center of this controversy, it was neither
fully grasped nor consistently carried out, and it was only by
Zwingli in 1531 that the phrase "the invisible church" was first
uneasy under
this accusation,
used.
In the writings of this group the
kingdom
is
regarded as the
inheritance in heaven, of which only those are heirs

really
2,
members
of the church.
who
are
In the Correction of the Donatists,

is to say, the true
he speaks of "the heavenly Jerusalem, that
church of God.
"
From
this
expression
it is
evident
how easy
from the conception of the kingdom to that of

is
In similar vein,
the church, whether on earth or in heaven.
apparently, is the remark Against the Epistles of Petiliafius, Book 2.
the transition
'
See
Neander,
History of the Church, Vol.
169
II, pp.
246
ff.
82
"
55:
kingdom of God who do not cast out

The
words of Christ, "Beginning at
85:
Luke 24 47, show forth the glory which he
Father in the wideness of his kingdom. The
Many belong
Also
devils."
Jerusalem,"
to the
in 2.
etc.,
received from his
trend of the argument
may be
seen
in
the following quotations
"Bad men may have baptism but do not belong to the holy church
Neither does the
of God, though they seem to be within it.
avaricious man, baptized within the church, become the temple
of God, unless he depart from his avarice for they who become
the temple of God certainly inherit the kingdom of God" [Oii Bap"The sacrament of chrism
tism, agai?ist the Do?iatists, 6. 3 4. 4).
;
can exist even
among
the worst of men, wasting their
life
in
the works of the flesh, and destined never to possess the king-
dom
is
of heaven.
Such men are not
in
the
body
of Christ,
which
the church, nor within the constitution of the church, which
God
increases in the increase of
109).
Against the Pelagians.
4.
controversial
chief
In
writings,
members through connec-
[Agairist the Epp. of Petil. 2. 105,
and contact with Christ"
tion
in its
this group,
which contains
his strenuous contention
is
his
that
only through the new birth by water and Spirit can any soul,
He
infant or adult, enter the kingdom of God, that is, be saved.
and 5, referring to the latter verse

meaning perhaps the chief Scriptural
The kingdom is therefore
utterance concerning the kingdom.
the state of salvation, and time and place are secondary, although
constantly quotes John 3
as ^'sententia ilia principalis''
the references are usually cast in the celestial form.
But
in this
group the present existence of the kingdom is made especially

prominent by the repeated quotation of Col. 1:13: "Who delivand translated us into the kingdom of his Son."
ered us ...
We are therefore already in the kingdom, even if this obvious
.
result
in
is
not always consistently adhered
process of cleansing,
dom
is
to
remain
Augustine does not say
in this
The Pelagians held
for sin, but in order to enter the
ever in the king-
connection whether
already in the kingdom, nor further define
kingdom.
The church, now
to.
in purity for
its
it
is
relation to the
that infants were baptized, not
kingdom
170
of heaven, which was
KINGDOM OF GOD
some
either " Paradise " or
house,
not
of
God
God.
of
Father's
Augustine
of God there is no place of salvation.

"Thy kingdom come," that is called the
which
in
happiness and
what
mansions of the
kingdom
kingdom
In the prayer,
dom
the
83
Father's house must not be thus divided; that
insists that the
outside the
of
within the
strictly
THE FATHERS
IN
his
forever.
whole family
He now
shall reign with
reigns over
all.
king-
him
in
Therefore,
"Thy kingdom come" but that we may deserve to

The lost will be under his power, but will they
?
kingdom of God ? It is one thing to be honored with
in
is
reign with him
be
in the
the gifts and privileges of the
kingdom
of God, and another
thing to be restrained and punished by the laws of the same.

is
not necessary
kingdom
the
of
It
now to raise and discuss the question whether

God and the kingdom of heaven have the same
enough to find (John 3:3, 5) that no one can

kingdom of God except he be washed in the laver
regeneration.
Separate not then from the kingdom of God
meaning.
It is
enter into the

of
any mansions that are placed

a?id
its
Origin,
3.
17).
in the
house of God
The kingdom
the
of
{Ôn the Soul
Most High
in
none other than the kingdom of God; otherwise anyone might boldly contend that the kingdom of God is
one thing and the kingdom of heaven another {Âcts of Pelagiiis,
In 28: Between the laver and the kingdom, where the
15).
church will remain forever without any spot or wrinkle, there is
this intermediate time of prayer, during which her cry must of
Daniel
is,
of course,
necessity be, " Forgive us our debts."

cess of cleaning, shall continue in the
ever
in
The church, now in

kingdom of heaven
profor-
a sinless state.
is intended to show that souls were

kingdom of Christ without first beingdelivered from the power of darkness {Ôn Marriage and Concupiscence, 2. 50).
There is a curious circling of ideas in the work
On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, i. 15, where he says that
original sin "not only excludes from the kingdom of God, but
Exsufiflation (at
not
removed
into
baptism)
the
also alienates from salvation
and everlasting
be anything else than the kingdom of God. "

severance,
"'Thy kingdom come,'

171
that
is,
life,
which cannot
In the Gift of Perto us,
which
will
84
come
those
to all saints.
who
common
The kingdom
persevere to the end."
Chrysostom
in
for a beginning, that
is,
"'Thy
of
God
In
chap. 6 occurs a thought
may
angel, the disbeliever the believer.
come only
be done on earth,'"
will
that earth
will
Or,
imitate heaven,
it
may
to
maybe
man
the
be a prayer for
perseverance."
City of God.
As noted in the Introduction, this
sometimes reckoned the greatest monument of the
patristic age, is a philosophy of history, a treatise on the divine
government, with the church as the central fact of both. It
5.
The
work,
God's kingdom
treats of
The
civitas
is
if
The church
the
the
it
kingdom, not merely
embodiment
of the
coming kingdom.
De
In
Dei the great thoughts of the patristic age concerning
kingdom
are focalized.
To
live after the Spirit, to love
rather than self and one's neighbor as himself,
kingdom
Nowhere is the
of the citizen of the

social
in
already, on earth and in heaven,
is
not the essential, part of the kingdom of God.
an important,
is
the
called
is
anticipation, but because
Civitate
form of organization.
two-sided, the two sides being the regnurn and the
The church
ecclesia.
in its distinctive
life."
"for the
social
life
is
God
the character
of the civitas
is
element of the kingdom
more eloquently urged, and the effect is not weakened, even

though the writer's vision is broad and clear enough to compass
both the present life and the life beyond.
We may cite first a sentiment which reminds of Hermas
" A house is being built to the Lord in all the earth, even the
city of God, which is the holy church.
Men through faith are
living stones in the house" (8. 24).
It is good to draw near to
God. And those who have this good in common have, both
with him to whom they draw near, and with one another, a holy
fellowship, and form one city of God
his living sacrifice, and
his living temple.
There are no more than two kinds of human
society, which we may justly call two cities
the one of those
;
who wish
to live after the flesh, the other of those
live after the spirit.
This
guishes the two cities
other of
the ungodly;
is
who wish
to
the great difference which distin-
the one
is
the society of the godly, the
each associated with

172
the
angels
that
KINGDOM OF GOD
adhere to their party
love of
self,
THE FATHERS
85
and the one guided and fashioned by
God (12.9; 14. i,

man must be social. For how could
the other by love of
of the wise
life
God
IN
either take a beginning or be developed or attain
destiny,
if
the
of the saints
life
can enumerate
the
all
were not a social

grievances
great
with
The
13).
the city of
its
life ?
proper
But who
which human
society abounds in the misery of this mortal state
Who
can
weigh them ? The heavenly city, or rather the part of it which

It
sojourns on earth and lives by faith, makes use of peace.
lives like a captive and a stranger in the earthly city, obeying
the laws, calling citizens out of
the peace of earth and makes
In
its
faith
pilgrim state
it
it
it
all
nations.
life
is
of
possesses this peace by faith, and by this
lives righteously
of the city
itself
bear upon the peace of heaven.
when
it
refers to the attainment of the
peace of heaven every good action toward

the
It avails
a social life (19.
Book
5,
God and man
for
17).
some of his most sigWhile the devil is bound,

the saints reign with Christ during the thousand years, which is
the time between his first and second coming. They shall
gather out of his kingdom all offenses (Matt. 13: 41). Can he
mean out of that kingdom in which are no offenses ? Then it
must be out of his present kingdom, the church, that they are
gathered.
In Matt. 5 19 he speaks of both great and least as
being in the kingdom of heaven, and immediately adds,
"Except your righteousness exceed, ye shall not enter." We
must understand in one sense the kingdom of heaven in which
the least and the great exist together, and in another sense the
kingdom of heaven into which shall enter he who does what he
The
nificant
ninth chapter of
31 contains
utterances on the subject.
Consequently,
teaches.
church as
it
now
is,
but
church as
it
therein.
Therefore the
is
Christ and the
destined
where both classes exist it is the

where only the one shall exist it is the
to be when no wicked person shall be
church even now is the kingdom of
of heaven. His saints, but not "the
kingdom
him in a sense even now, who are in his kingway that they are themselves his kingdom.
tares," reign with
dom
in
such a
The following
points are important as bearing upon his view

173
86
of the
future
life
The
souls
dead reign with
the pious
of
Christ and are not separated from the church, though not as
The thousand years is the

yet restored to their bodies (31. g).
whole interval during which the first resurrection is going on.
He
that heareth hath everlasting
the
first
made
21
this
in
with which
passages
tears
come down out
God formed
that
The
6).
and
the
refers to
to life
city of
in
is
Rev.
of heaven, because the grace
There are many obscure
of heaven.
it is
by having part
is,
from death
the Apocalypse, but that he shall wipe
in
plain
is
life
transition
present time (31, 9; 20.
said to
is
by which a
resurrection,
future world
(31.
away
17).
all
This
away by transmutation, not by absolute

destruction; the fashion of this world passeth away (i Cor. 7:
world
In the great conflagration the world
31) (14).
some
pass
shall
better thing, as
we ourselves
On the Psalms.
kingdom entered into
6.
renewed to
is
also (16).
the fiber of
his
way
which the
thought that even his
of the
It is significant
voluminous discourses on the Psalms abound
in
in
references to
it,
containing indeed a larger proportion of references to the king-
dom
than his other writings.
usually the meaning

all
In this
work the kingdom has
the other conceptions occur along with
the soul
into the
is
it
is
but nearly
in
"Translated
This cometh to pass to so much

more inward thing, wherein being
darkness, we are in mind translated
kingdom
God, as God's sheep
of
our faith observable to none, our

it
The kingdom
kingdom. Col. 1:13.
delivered from the power of
Here
it.
thus beautifully described in 78. 29:
the greater good, as
into the
reward
of the future celestial
is
life
evident that to have the
within the kingdom.
In
in spiritual pastures,
hid with Christ in God."
kingdom within
is
to
True Zion or Jerusalem
149. 3:
be
is
the church of the saints, in part a pilgrim, in part abiding in the
heavens.
In
126. 2:
sold under sin he

affairs
How
is
Man was
became a
a citizen
pilgrim.
of
Jerusalem, but
This whole
life
confusion, which belongeth not unto God.
great evils do
we endure, how great
of
human
In 129. 3:
are the scandals that
every day thicken, as the wicked enter into the church and
have to endure them
174
we
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
87
But the kingdom is coming. In 145. 11: "Thy kingdom

For that kingdom which we desire may come, that
kingdom the saints proclaim to be coming." Thus the kingcome.
dom
is
coming kingdom,
"
Restore
one greater
till
Man
and regain the
us,
blissful seat."
"Thy kingdom come.

In 72. 17 occurs a thought from Cyprian
That for which we pray is perhaps concerning Christ himself.
:
For Christ's coming shall make present to believers the kingWe are again reminded of Hernias, and perhaps
of God."
in turn of Zech. 9 12, "Turn ye to the stronghold, ye prisoners
dom
"Christ himself
of hope!'.' in 61. 4:
the rock whereon hath been builded the church.
the tower
mind and go
call to
to the intermediate state
Thou
kingdom.
is
....
the tower,
is
Before thee
into the tower."
found
in 37. 10:
also
Come,
is
reference
inherit the
shalt not be there at once, but laid in that
Luke 16) thou waitest in security

judgment, when thou art to receive again a body
place of rest (as Lazarus in
day of
and be made equal
for the
The following
of heaven.
selves
is
heaven.
parison
people
to an angel.
kingdom
illustrate the use of the
In 69. 2
The passing both
sense
in the
of Christ
and of our-
this world to the kingdom of

The land of promise is nothing in comwith the kingdom of heaven, whereunto the Christian
hence to the Father, from

In 78. 3
is
being
led.
In
104. 36:
lovest the kingdom of God, watch.
walls are
more than
will
be
in
the
If
In
thou fearest
147. 8:
kingdom
hell,
and
Within these
of God,
in
the
heavenly Jerusalem. The kingdom is used for the state of salZaccheus bought the kingdom of heaven for
vation in 112. 3
half his goods and the widow for two mites, each possessing
:
an equal share.
The same kingdom
is
worth treasures to the
man and a cup of cold water to the poor.

The church is probably the same as the kingdom in the two
In 57. 12:
The kingdom of Christ we see: where
following:
The martyrs have
In 45. 12:
is the kingdom of the Jews?
made
much progress
and the kingdom of God has
suffered
from thence, and advanced throughout all nations. The two
rich
175
88
are distinguished in 109.
the keys of the kingdom.
To
the church as a whole he gave
On
Ps.
110:2:
send the rod of thy power out of Zion," he says

is
not speaking of that kingdom of Christ
for ever with his Father, for
who
is in
the beginning with
in
"The Lord shall

" The prophet
:
which he reigneth
when doth not God the Word reign,

God? But that reign of temporal
government, by which, through the mediation of

called us into eternity, beginneth with Christians
there shall be no end."

7.
Later 7niscella7ieous writings.
As already
important of these as bearing on the kingdom
is
his
;
flesh,
he
of his reign
most
stated, the
commentary
Of the more than
the
on the gospel of John, in a series of Tractates.

four hundred references to the kingdom in this last group of
Augustine's works, about two-thirds are in Scriptural quotations.
The general tenor of the group is similar to that of his other writings, with many supplementary thoughts rather than essentially
different ideas.
He frequently recognizes two or more interpretations of a passage of Scripture, notably of
"Thy kingdom
come."
He is in a certain sense preparing the dwellings by preparing

them the dwellers. Ye are God's temple. This is also the
kingdom of God which the Son is to deliver up to the Father.
The kingdom will shine forth in the kingdom when the kingdom
shall have reached the kingdom.
But the realm is not yet
reigning.
Accordingly it is already so far a kingdom that when
"
for
all
offenses shall have been gathered out of
it,
it
shall then
attain to sovereignty, so as to possess, not merely the
name
of
kingdom, but also the power of government. For it is to this

kingdom, standing then at the right hand, that it shall be said
that is, ye who were
in the end, 'Come, receive the kingdom
kingdom,
without
rule,
come
and reign that
a
but
the power to
what you formerly were only in hope, you may now have the
power to be in reality. This house of God, therefore, this
temple of God, this kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven, is
;
'
as yet in the process of building, of construction, of preparation, of
assembling" {Tractate on John, 68. 2).

passage, with its thoroughly evangelical tone,
If this brilliant
176
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
89
and the many similar utterances of Augustine, were not overlooked, it is probable that the modern vogue of belittling the
It
Fathers' view of the kingdom would have less currency.
may readily be granted that Augustine was unduly influenced
both by his view of the visible church and by the somewhat
disheartening spectacle of an empire falling to pieces
but to
blame him too severely for his characteristic views of the kingdom, to charge him with despairing of the renewal of society,
and with " turning away from the task of elaborating an ideal of
a social state influenced by Christian principles," is not only to
do him injustice, but to direct attention to the feebleness of the
attempts to improve upon him. To say that " the great Fathers
at the end of the fourth century had little influence on society"
is to run serious risk of being challenged to produce three men
of any age whose social influence was more direct and pungent
than that of Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustine.
"What
whom
is
his
kingdom save those who
believe in him, to
.... Of
he says, 'Ye are not of this world'?
the world
mankind, created indeed by the true God, but generated

from Adam as a vitiated and condemned stock the regenerated
in Christ are made into a kingdom no longer of the world"
He ever reigns, indeed, with the Father. But the
(115. I, 2).
prophets^ foretold his kingdom according to that wherein he is
are
all
made man, and
Christ
As
what
made
his faithful ones
he had answered the question
if
that
has
I
I
should manifest the kingdom
may manifest"
(25, 2).
The
in
Acts 1:6:
now
first
let
me
Christians.
"You
first
wish
gather
three petitions in the
Lord's Prayer ask for blessings that are to be enjoyed for ever
which are indeed begun
in the
We
in grace [Enchiridion, I15).
we grow
kingdom may
world, and grow in us as
pray that
his
come in us that we may be found in it. We ought to be in his

kingdom always, to do his will always [Sermons o?i New Testament Lessons, 6. 7, 19). In 81. 6: The church at present is an
inn it will be a home whence we shall never remove, when in
;
'See Fremantle, pp. 146
f.,
329
f.
"This indicates that Augustine regarded their prophecies of the kingdom as

spiritual rather than external
and eschatological.
177
90
have reached the kingdom of heaven.

Christ perceived Nathaniel to belong to His
OnJoh?i, 7. 21
While he was still on earth he
In Epistle 130. 2:
church.
brought Zaccheus, though rich, into His kingdom.
we
perfect health
shall
He
the corruption
deplores
in
exist in the church the great evils

tor the impossibility
"For whence
under which we groan, save
the church:
of withstanding the
enormous multitude
which, almost to the entire subversion of discipline, gain an

entrance, with their morals so utterly at variance with the path-
way
of the saints?
.... He
heaven, as the church
dom
is
least
the
in
kingdom of
exists, shall not enter into the king-
of heaven, as the church shall be hereafter. Matt. 5:19, 20"
{Ôn John, 122.
In
now
that
Epistle
7,
91. 3:
Now
throughout the world

tion for morality
But the church
9).
the
are, as
and above
commands, and gives grace
churches
it
itself
not corrupted.
is
which are multiplying
were, seminaries of public instruc-
all
for the
who
worship of God,
by which
the soul of man is furnished and fitted for fellowship with God,
and for dwelling in the eternal heavenly kingdom. In Sermons
on New Testament Lessons, 30. 8 Troublous times such as we are,
such are the times.
But what can we do ? We cannot, it may
be, convert the mass of men to a good life.
But let the few who
do give ear live well, and endure the many who live ill. The
corn in the floor has the chaff, but will not have it in the barn.
Evils abound in the world, in order that the world may not
engage our love. The world itself is good evil men make it
to perform, all those things
When
Winnower comes, there will be

tion, which a spiritual separation now precedes.
will be done' may be understood in many ways.
evil.
the
for our enemies, that they, too,

tians."
It is
may
a bodily separaIn
We
believe and
sometimes forgotten that
this last
7.
is
"
'
Thy
wish well
become
Chris-
a sentiment of
Augustine.
In regard to
some
of the Last Things, he says
All the dead
are sleeping; but the good, in joy; the evil, in torments.
church possesses the faithful dead

49. 122).
angels,
and
The
saints shall
in
The
peaceful sleep {Ofi John^
succeed to the place of the fallen
shall dwell forever in that peaceful

178
abode from which
KINGDOM OF GOD
they
IN
After the resurrection and
fell.
be two kingdoms, Christ's and the

tinct boundaries,
is
all his
Sermons on
will
be to
judgment there
will
own
dis-
each with
both consisting of angels and of
its
men
{Ênchiri-
as to universal restora-
learning, Augustine remained a learner.
all
Testament Lessons, 35. 9, he says: An end there

earthly kingdoms.
If the end be now, God know-
In the Epistle
all
to
Optatiis, 8:
desire to
"I would rather know when
come and when the kingdom of

how my soul came to its earthly abode,
know this."
nations shall
the saints will be, than

as
In the
New
the desire of
much
91
excluded.
With
eth.
final
devil's,
Here Origen's speculation
dion, 30. III.)
tion
THE FATHERS
179
CHAPTER
XIX.
CASSIAN.
monk
of Bethlehem and of Marseilles we meet with

most definite statements concerning the spiritual
He was also a leader of the Semi-Pelanature of the kingdom.
gians, holding that " the good that we do depends partly on
In a tour of seven years with a
grace and partly on free-will."
friend, Germanus, among the monasteries of Egypt he diligently
conferred with their abbots, and many years later wrote his
book of twenty-four Co?ifere?ices, which may be in part ideal comThese display an exceptional
positions of Cassian himself.
In this
some
of the
insight into the
While the
kingdom regarded
stress
is
laid
as
God's rule
upon the individual
in
men's souls.
side, the
primary
view of the kingdom as the company of those who have this

His concrete view, usudivine life within them is recognized.
ally,
however, takes the kingdom as the reward in heaven.
his histitiUes of Mo?tks,
whom
Book
12. 15
"
In
Fixing their gaze on those
they knew to be really free from sin and already
in the
kingdom of heaven." On the

Incarnation, against Nestoriiis, Book 1.3: " The Pelagians say that
men can reach the heavenly kingdom by their own exertions."
In Book 3. 12: "It is clear that none can enter the gate of the
kingdom save one to whom the key bestowed on the churches is
revealed by you (Peter)."
In comparison with the church the
enjoyment of eternal
monastery
Cassian.
the
bliss
in
the
and convent have
As
kingdom
naturally
high
estimate
in
generally in the Fathers whose spiritual view of

is
conspicuous, regarding
force of eternal validity, there
is
it
as an ethical fact
and
an almost imperceptible transi-
and from the idea of reward in a state of bliss. Alternameanings are often recognized. The following references
are from the Cotiferences.
In the First Conference of the Abbot 3foses,
"The end of
our profession is the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven
but the immediate aim or goal is purity of heart."
In chap. 5:
tion to
tive
t,
92
[180
KINGDOM OF GOD
"The end indeed

6.
is
eternal
IN
life
22: but the immediate goal
is
THE FATHERS
93
as the apostle declares,
Rom.
purity of heart, which he calls
In chap. 9 certain notes of a true Christian
sanctification," etc.
The Lord promises the reward of the

kingdom of heaven to these works of mercy, etc., when he says,
'Come, ye blessed, 'in Matt. 25:34. How, then, shall these
works be taken away, which admit the doers of them into
the kingdom of heaven?"
The abbot answers: "Not the
reward, but the doing of these things will come to an end.
For what you call works of religion and mercy are needful
society are well indicated
in
this life,
dition
them
still
"
and differences of coneven here we should not look for
while these inequalities

prevail
but
to be performed, unless such a large proportion
of poor,
and sick folk abounded, which is brought about by

the wickedness of men, viz.: of those who have grasped and kept
for their own use, without however using them, those things
which were granted to all by the Creator of all alike
In
needy,
the
life
to
come
this will give
way
come"
God and conAnd that such a
to the love of
templation, where equality will reign," etc.
seems to follow from

13, on The Ki?igdom of God and the Kingdom of the Devil: " For everything
depends on the inward frame of mind, and when the devil has
been expelled from this, and sins no longer reign in it, it follows
that the kingdom of God is founded in us, as the evangelist says,
Luke 17:20,21.
But nothing else can be 'within you' but
knowledge or ignorance of truth, and delight either in vice or in
virtue, through which we prepare a kingdom for the devil or for
Christ in our heart and of this the apostle describes the character, when he says, Rom. 14: 17, 'The kingdom of God is not
meat and drink,' etc.
And so, if the kingdom is within us, and
actual
the
kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy,
then the man who abides in these is most certainly in the kingdom of God, and, on the contrary, those who live in unrighteousness have their place in the kingdom of the devil, and in hell
and death. For by these tokens the kingdom of God and the
"life to
is
conceivable on earth
such passages as the following, from chap.
kingdom
of the devil are distinguished."

181
94
There follows in the same chapter a shading off of the

thought of the kingdom from this vivid sense of it as a present
reality, first to the celestial view, then to a threefold aspect of
the
kingdom
in
the abstract or formal sense of dominion.
"The
kingdom of God, but

The heavenly
that joy alone which is in the Holy Ghost
powers on high, who are truly in the kingdom of God, are in
In fact the kingdom of heaven must be
perpetual joy
apostle does not say that every joy
taken
that
in a threefold
is,
sense
the
is
either that the heavens shall reign,
the saints over other things subdued, according to
19: 17 and Matt. 19:2^

to be reigned over
by
Luke
or the heavens themselves shall begin
Christ,
when
all
things are subdued unto
him and God begins to be all in all or else that the saints shall
reign in heaven with the Lord."
" Thy kingdom come." The pure heart desires that the kingdom of its Father may come at once, namely either that
whereby Christ reigns day by day in the saints, which comes to
pass when the devil's rule is cast out of our hearts and God
begins to hold sway by virtues or else that which is promised
in due time to all who are perfect, when Christ will say, " Come,
ye blessed of my Father" i^Firsi Conf. of Isaac, 9. 19). Those
cannot see Christ coming in his kingdom who are still in a state
"
of Jewish weakness, not able to say, " Now we know him
(2 Cor. 5:16), but only those who are able to look on him with
pure eyes of the soul (^Second Conf. of Isaac, 6. 10). Those who
show a splendid violence, not to others, but to their own soul,
by a laudable violence seize upon the kingdom of heaven [of
Abrahatn 26. 24). In the First of ChcEremon, 6. 11, the kingdom
is regarded as the reward of virtue, and thus naturally placed
"Three
lower than virtue itself, God's kingdom in the soul.
;
things enable
of the laws
men
(2),
to control their faults:
the hope and desire of the
(i), a fear of hell
kingdom
of
or
heaven
goodness itself and the love of virtue."

A passage of singular beauty and significance, recognizing the
inherent weakness of the monastic idea, is found in Piantun,
" Unless our mind is strengthened by the power of his
16. 18
(3), a liking for
protection
who
says in the gospel,

182
'
The kingdom
of
God
is
KINGDOM OF GOD
within you,' in Vain do
IN
we fancy
our airy foe by the aid of
THE FATHERS
that
men who
we can avoid them by distance
we can defeat the
95
plots of
are living with us, or that
them by the
The kingdom of God is
within you,' so 'A man's foes are they of his own household.'
For no one is more my enemy than my own heart, which is truly
the one of my household closest to me.
Where those of our
own household are not opposed to us, there also the kingdom of
God is secured in peace of heart."
protection of walls
For
of place, or exclude
just as
183
'
CHAPTER XX.
LEO THE GREAT AND GREGORY THE GREAT
The
references of Leo to the kingdom, in the selection of

and sermons here considered, are for the most part celestial.
He does not apparently think of the church as the kingdom. In Epistle 162: "The Catholic faith, that solid rock on
which the city of God is built." In Sermon 3. 3: Peter is the
doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven. In 73. 2
To Peter
beyond the rest the care of the Lord's flock is intrusted, in addition to the keys of the kingdom.
In 33. 5
Whoso lives religiously in the church is like the heavenly light.
Help one
another, that in the kingdom of God, which is reached by right
faith and good works, you may shine as the sons of light.
In
He opens the way to heaven, and by the punishment of
54. 7
the cross prepares for you the steps of ascent to the kingdom.
I.
letters
In 95.
"They
shall inherit the earth."
This
is
not distinct
from our heavenly dwelling, since it is no other than these who

are understood to enter the kingdom of heaven.
The " earth "
is
the flesh of the saints, which will be changed in the resurrec-
tion, so as to
be
in
complete harmony with the
In certain passages the
regarded as a present
reality,
kingdom
soul, etc.
of Christ
but evidently more
and of God
in
is
the sense of
dominion than of the subjects who compose the realm. In

Sermo7i 21.3:
"Thou wert rescued from the power of darkness
and brought out into God's light and kingdom. Do not again
subject thyself to the devil's thraldom."
In 66. 7: "Christ, the
power of darkness and transfers us

into the kingdom of the Son of God (Col. i 13)."
In 90. 3:
" 'Thy kingdom come:' i. e. that God may subdue those whom he
has not subdued, and make men on earth ministers of his will.
In seeking this we love God and also our neighbor
our love
has but one object, that the servant may serve and the Lord
true light, rescues from the
have rule."
96
[184
KINGDOM OF GOD
2.
Generally
IN
THE FATHERS
reckoned as the
last
of
97
the Latin Fathers,
Gregory is a century and a half later than Leo. With him the
kingdom almost uniformly means heaven, the usual designation
being "heavenly kingdom."
"He
In Epistle
20,
5.
on Matt, i6: 19
received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to
is given him
the care and principality of the
committed to him, and yet he is not called the
universal apostle." In the Epistle to Leattder, 1.43
"Keep watch
over King Reccared (a Visigoth in Spain), that he may show by
his works that he is a citizen of the eternal kingdom, to the end
that after a course of many years he may pass from kingdom to
kingdom." A similar thought often recurs in the epistles. In
the Pastoral Rule, Part 3. 15: "In the judgment those who have
not wrought good works will sue in vain for entrance into the
kingdom."
In the Catena, however, occur a number of references which
show that he regarded the kingdom as the present church,
" Or, by the kingusually in alternative interpretation, thus
dom of heaven is to be understood the present church." In
bind and loose
whole church
is
"
another place:
Or
otherwise, the holy church
is
likened to a
by which each man is drawn into the heavenly kingdom out

the reprobate having lost
of the waves of this present world
net,
the light of the inward
The shore
kingdom
are cast forth into the outer
end of the world the shore

shall discover what the net of the church has brought to land."
Here his thought seems to be influenced by Augustine. Perhaps his "inward kingdom" points to God's reign within; but
darkness.
the
meaning
Dominicus:
is
"
We
signifies the
somewhat
uncertain, as
also
in Epistle 47, to
look to the returning of the Master of the
house, after receiving his kingdom, to take account of us."
185
CHAPTER
XXI.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FROM THE CATENA AUREA.

A.
1.
is
Cyril of Alexandria
within you; that
receive
is, it
PATRISTIC.
"The kingdom of God

you and your own hearts to
(d. 444).
rests with
it."
One
Victor of Antioch (early in the fifth century).
"
preach,"
the
other
added
the kingevangelist simply says "to
dom of God," which is Christ himself.
The floor is the church, the barn is
3. Pseudo-Chrysostom.
" Thine is the
the kingdom of heaven, the field is the world.
"
"
Thy
kingdom
that none
reference
to
come;"
has
kingdom
should therefore say, "God has no kingdom on earth."
The kingdom of God is that in which God reigns; it is clear
that the kingdom of God is confined neither by place nor by
2.
time.
Pseudo-Jerome. " The kingdom of God is the church,

which is ruled by God, and herself rules over men, and treads
down the powers which are contrary to her," etc.
" For he must repent, who would keep close to eternal good,
that is, to the kingdom of God."
" For then cometh the kingdom of
5. Pseudo-Augustine.
God, when we have obtained his grace. For he himself says,
4.
'The kingdom of
B.
I.
Bede
kingdom
of
God
is
within you.'
"
POST-PATRISTIC, AS USUALLY RECKONED.
(d. 735).
"Or
else the present
God; and some of the
church built up,"
etc.
(on Mark
church
disciples
is
called the
were to see the
9: i).
"The kingdom of God, that is, the doctrine of the gospel."

"Or the kingdom of God means that he himself is placed in
the midst of them, Luke 17: 21, that is, reigning in their hearts
by faith." (In his Church History Bede constantly speaks
kingdom in the sense of heaven.)
98
of the
[186
KINGDOM OF GOD
2.
IN
THE FATHERS
99
(d. 856).
On Matt. 21:43: "Yet
God may be understood by the gentiles, or of
Rabanus Maurus
kingdom
of
the
the
present church, in which the gentiles go before the Jews, because
they are more ready to believe."

3.
Remigius OF AuxERRE (fl. 88o).

On Matt. 3:2: The
of heaven has a fourfold meaning: (i) It is said of
kingdom
"The kingdom of God is within you;" (2) of Holy

"The kingdom of heaven shall be taken from you,
Christ, as,
Scripture, as,
and given
to a nation," etc.;
kingdom
of heaven
abode above,
kingdom
as, "
is
Many
of heaven."
of the holy church, as,
(3)
"The
likened unto ten virgins;" (4) of the

shall come .... and sit down in the
And
all
these significations
may
be here
understood.
He
Son of God himself the kingdom of heaven, for

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that sowed
calls the
he saith:
good seed."
4. Theophylact
'
From
this
(d. cir. 1107).

"As if he said, Mark 1:15,
time the kingdom of God will work,' that is, a con-
versation according to the gospel, which
kingdom
to the
of heaven.
is
with reason likened
For when you see a man living
according to the gospel, do you not say that he has the kingdom
of heaven, which
(Rom.
14:
"When
is
not meat and drink, but righteousness, etc.
17)?"
they are healed in their soul, the kingdom of
God
comes nigh unto them."

Besides these there are
many
quotations in the Catena which
give the celestial sense to the kingdom.

clear that
in
Together they make
scholastic ages, while the general social force of the term
the identification of the
much
and
in
it
the transition period between the patristic and
kingdom with the church
evidence as the conception of
spiritual.
187
it
as
is
is
rare,
almost as
something inner
CHAPTER
XXII.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION,

In the preceding chapters the Fathers have told the
their views of the
kingdom
of
God.
of
stor}''
we
In the present chapter
may group around the leading conceptions the names of those

who held them, and finally attempt to answer the questions with
which we
set out in the Introduction.
These conceptions may be considered

I.
The conception
of the
kingdom
in
the following order:
as the Christian society
on earth.
The
II.
eschatological conception: the
kingdom
as future, to
be set up at the second coming of Christ: [a) the millennium;

[d) indefinite
The
IV. The
The
V.
VI. The
III.
I.
without the millennial
kingdom
kingdom
kingdom
kingdom
idea.
as celestial,
as the church.
as
God's reign
as the chief
in the soul.
good, or some element of
it.
THE KINGDOM AS THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY ON EARTH.
Irenûs: Unbelievers are outside the kingdom of God. The

heavenly kingdom is honorable to those who have known the
earthly one.
Clement of Alexandria: The "violent" take the kingdom

The least in the kingdom, i.e.,
a good life.
by prayer and
Christ's disciple,
is
greater than John.
Origen: One is made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven

when he becomes a Christian. Christ himself instructs his disciples, and forms them into a kingdom worthy to deliver up to
God.
[The Apostolic Constitutions: Having given
the
kingdom
your gratitude and piety. ]

to you, he expects
The Clementine Recognitions: From the oneness of mind
of the beloved the peaceful kingdom of God is constructed.'
the fruits of
'
in
From
mind.
the context in the Recognitions
See
p.
it is
doubtful whether the social sense
is
32 above.
100
[188
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
101
Tertullian: It is written, "A kingdom also and priests to

God and Father hath he made us." He awards the kingdom
to his disciples as he says it had been appointed to himself
by the Father. There is an earthly and a heavenly dispensahis
tion.
He made us a kingdom,
The kingdom of Christ is now
ViCTORiNUS
believers.
i.
e.,
a church of all
eternal in the saints,
although the glory of the saints shall be manifested after the

resurrection.
Ephraem
Syrus
Mary
Son's kingdom shall arise,
says
may he
magi:
the
to
"When my
plant his standard in your
country."
Gregory Nazianzen
He
heaven.
attain to
of
to
(neglecting baptism, etc.).
it
Gregory of Nyssa: To
man
is
of God, but
is
tidings that
dom
is the key of the kingdom

kingdom who merely desires
Baptism
not within the
is
disciples of the
Word come
the glad
no longer outlawed, nor cast out of the kingonce more a son, etc.
Chrysostom When the heathen behold in us a good life,

they will look upon the very face of the kingdom of heaven,
and they too will be reformed. Thus will the kingdom be perfected earth being transformed into heaven, the kingdom may
:
be already
in
possession here.
John of Damascus
to the divine laws
Hilary
We
is
The
state of
who
kingdom
those
to be declared the
live
according
of God.
kingdom which Christ is to deliver

the Father. The young man was " not far from the king:
are the
up to
dom," not yet within
it,
because he had not confessed Christ as
Lord.
Ambrose:
among
us.
Christ
We
are
came
to earth to prepare a
the kingdom,
first
kingdom from
of Christ, then of the
But they reign together. Where Christ is, there is his

kingdom.
Augustine That kingdom which we desire may come, the
saints proclaim to be coming. We ought to be in his kingdom
always, to do his will always. While the devil is bound, the
saints reign with Christ during the thousand years between
Father.
189
102
and second coming. What is his kingdom, save those

who believe in him ? The kingdom of God, though it never
departs from the earth, is absent to those who are ignorant of it.
The church even now is the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom
the
first
of heaven, in process of being gathered together.
That kingdom whereby Christ reigns day by day

in the saints, when the devil is cast out and God reigns in our
hearts.
If the kingdom of God is within us, and the actual
kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy, then the
man who abides in these is most certainly in the kingdom of
God, etc,
Cassian
[Leo the Great

ness,
II.
Thou wert rescued from
and brought out into God's
light
the power of darkand kingdom.]
THE KINGDOM TO BE SET UP OR INAUGURATED AT THE SECOND COMING

OF CHRIST.
I.
The Mille?i?iium.
Until the middle
of the third century mil-
lennial views prevailed apparently unchallenged, while frequently,
no doubt, existing side by side with the less definite views (see
2 below).
The Apocalypse (see above, p. 12) gave a basis for
this doctrine, which was first treated in detail by Papias, only a
few fragments of his writings having survived.
He taught the
Jewish tradition of a millennium, saying that after the resurrec-
up a material kingdom on earth, and reign

The pleasures of sense were to be
enjoyed, as in the Moslem Paradise, with marvelous vines, each
twig bearing ten thousand clusters, etc. This period was to be
of long duration
Lightfoot, p. 529, reads ten thousand years.
The heretic Cerinthus, who left no writings, taught similar views
tion Christ
would
in the flesh
set
with the saints.
earlier,
We
perhaps, than Papias.

find the millennial expectation in Justin
Martyr, Ire-
NiEus,
HippoLYTUs, the Apocryphal Writings, Tertullian, in
whom
The
the doctrine is most fully given,' and in Lactantius.

opponent of the traditional view of the Apocalypse
Dionysius of Alexandria. He vigorously combated the
lennial views as taught by Cerinthus, as did also Caius and
first
'
Tertullian
makes
the millennium a prelude to heaven.
190
See
p.
38
f.
was
mil-
Vic-
above.
KINGDOM OF GOD
IN
THE FATHERS
103
These views were gradually disavowed by the Fathers,

Augustine threw the case out of court by making
the millennium the period between Christ's first and second
coming.
TORiNus.
and
finally
2.
Indefijiite
without
the mille7inial idea.
we have seen
tological view, which
common among
the apostles, was
to
This general escha-
be the prevailing view of
While the estab-
the Fathers.
lishment or at least the consummation of the kingdom
end of the present dispensation,
for at the
is
looked
often left an open
it is
question whether the kingdom will then continue on earth or be
removed
to another stage.
tional to that
even now existent
This view
is
thus evidently transi-
which makes the kingdom definitely

in
heaven, whither the believer enters at death.
remarkable blending of the two
found
is
"The whole world and
Vision of John:
in
angels, as in Ps. 37
the apocryphal
Paradise shall be
one, and the righteous shall be on the face of
my
celestial, or
all
made
the earth with
29."
Here we find certain utterances of Clement of Alexandria,

Methodius, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Clementines,
Cyprian, Victorinus, Commodianus, Aphrahat and Augustine.
Others of the Fathers without doubt held similar opinions
and, as usual, these views are frequently expressed with others
more
definite or
even
the
them.
THE KINGDOM AS CELESTIAL.
III.
Where
at variance with
kingdom
of
God
is
regarded simply as heaven,
marks a departure from the New

Testament conception, in both the social and eschatological
forms, in that the kingdom is taken away from the earth. But
the present celestial world,
it
the later epistles probably supply a point of departure even for

this view, as 2
monly
Pet.
1 1
Moreover,
Tim. 4:18.
it
the case that several distinct conceptions of the
are held together, so that the view of
only additional or supplementary to
it
the
as celestial
writer's
is comkingdom
may
be
prevailing
view.
is
The thouo^ht of the kino;-dom as the state of bliss in heaven

much more general than any other single opinion about it in
191
104:
the Fathers.
It
occurs with greater or less emphasis
important writers,
and
eral of the apostolic
in
some
them
of
most often quoted
is
the
in all
conspicuous, as
in sev-
Fathers, the Liturgies as a whole, Cyril,
The
Gregory the Great.
EusEBius, and
is
Matt. 25
34,'
scriptural reference
being commonly understood
summons to the righteous to enter and enjoy the felicity of

heaven. As a rule, those who regard most highly the spiritual
as a
and
ethical elements of the kina^dom think the less about
celestial reward.
This
Cyprian, Athanasius,
is
it
as a
Clement of Alexandria,
noticeable in
Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chrysos-
TOM, Augustine, and others.

IV.
THE KINGDOM AS THE CHURCH.
The Shepherd of Hermas, while not expressly identifying the

kingdom of God with the church, seems in some instances to
His influence can be traced
use the terms interchangeably.
in
the patristic age through the Clementine Recognitio?is, Hilary,
and perhaps others, to Augustine himself, by whom the identiIt

fication of church and kingdom is elaborately wrought out.
is well known what a vast influence this conception has exerted,
It has, no doubt, a point of
especially in the church of Rome.
attachment in the great commission to Peter {cf. Introduction,
The
11).
kingdom is very differand in the same writer the
relation of the church to the
ently expressed in different Fathers,
two are sometimes distinguished from each other in one passage and made substantially identical in another. There is no
uniform usage.
few citations will recall the various points of view.

Origen: We are even in the present life placed in the church,
in which is the form of that kingdom which is to come.
Cyprian He cannot be a martyr who is not in the church he

cannot attain unto the kingdom who forsakes that which shall
;
forth in
shall
Cf. tables
Although
on
In
remain forever, because
Augustine
'
brightness.
its
Egypt Christ's kingdom shines

Ambrose The kingdom of the church
Chrysostom
reign there.
at
its
faith
is
undivided
in
one body.
times the church, even that which
p. 107.
192
now
KINGDOM OF GOD
is, is
called the
kingdom
IN
of heaven,
THE KINGDOM AS GOD'S REIGN
This important conception centers
kingdom
of
God
is
within you."
It
is
because
is
it
gathered together for a future and eternal

V.
105
THE FATHERS
in
it
is
being
life.
IN
THE SOUL.
Luke 17:21, "The
thus uniformly rendered
In
and often associated with Deut. 30: 11-13.
king"The
translated,
modern times it has occasionally been
dom of God is among you," partly on the ground that the words
were addressed to the Pharisees partly on the ground that the
in the Fathers,
great thought involved
is
not definitely found elsewhere
in Christ's
But the reference of the words is

the Fathers seem
general,- not applied especially to the Pharisees
rightly to understand them as addressed "to the apostles," "to
Among the Fathers who quote and treat this passage are
us."
Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of
teaching about the kingdom.
Nyssa, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Cassian.

It is of great significance that such marked stress is laid upon
phase of the kingdom. As the kingdom

depends directly upon the divine life in renewed souls, it is
this inner, spiritual
hardly conceivable that a
just,
well-balanced idea of the king-
could have existed without such a word of Christ. That it

has prevented one-sided views of the kingdom as the church, or
dom
as heaven, from
VI.
becoming too prevalent, seems evident.
THE KINGDOM AS THE CHIEF GOOD, OR SOME ELEMENT OF
IT.
Not only has the prayer "Thy kingdom come" been

all blessings and rewards, present and
hardly
a good thing within the gift of God
there
is
future, but
or at least named, with the
identified,
which has failed of being
kingdom. Thus Christ himself is identified with the kingdom
by Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, Victor
Methodius
of Antioch, and essentially by several others.
Ambrose,
love;
Chrysostom,
life;
eternal
calls the kingdom
inter-
preted as a petition for
redemption;
Gregory Nazianzen,
himself with the soul
the vision of
the Clementines,
"
God
God
uniting
has concealed
the kingdom, as a hid treasure"; Pseudo-Jerome, eternal good.

The kingdom is thought of as in a sense the state of salvation,
193
106
by iRENiEus, Clement of Alexandria, the Cleme?iti?ie Recogniand Augustine. Cf. also Cyril. These definitions, it may
be noted, are quite in the spirit of Rom. 14:17 and i Cor. 4 20,
and are as a rule, with many others cited in the preceding pages,
tions,
referable to a Scriptural source.
We may
the
first,
now recur to the questions at the beginning: To

What was understood by the "kingdom of God " in the
early Christian centuries
the Fathers of the church have been
summoned to give answer in their own words. The second. To

what extent was the New Testament usage followed, and wherein
was it departed from ? may be partly answered by referring to
the tables of Scriptural quotations at the end partly by bearing
in mind the general tenor of interpretation on the subject by
Is there not, on the whole, considering the
the Fathers.
extreme complexity of the conception, the kingdom of God, a
There may
surprising conformity to the teaching of Scripture ?
;
be vagaries of a Tertullian, a Lactantius, an Origen,

speculations
but
it
may be
tian doctrine has suffered
age of the Fathers.
their
questioned whether any great Chrisless
in
transmission through the
its
And the impression grows rather than lessNew Testament usage was departed from
where the
by the Fathers on this theme,
ens, that
in
it
was more a development of
doctrine, in the light of Providence and the Spirit's guidance,
than a perversion of the truth.
Did the Fathers on the

it down, or did they lose
it ?
The former of these alternatives seems the correct one.
When we remember that whether Christ himself changed his
view of the kingdom during his ministry, in any case his teaching about it not only varied widely, but emphasized "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven " that the apostles' view already
indicates that distinct progress in the conception had been made;
This leads to the
final
question
whole preserve the great idea and hand
that in the vicissitudes of the centuries following, the Fathers
somewhat remarkable, to the language and

spirit of the New Testament
we can hardly charge them with
having lost the great idea of the kingdom of God.
adhere, to an extent
194
SCRIPTURAL QUOTATIONS.
The
kingdom which are made by the

under consideration are distributed in 26 books,
including three of the Apocrypha, 86 chapters, and 143 verses.
Of the
verses 118 are in the New Testament, 21 in the Old Testament, and 4 in
the Apocrypha.
Of the whole number of quotations, 745, or nearly 53 per
1,410 Scriptural references to the
Fathers
their writings
in
cent, are
from Matthew.
each, as follows
Forty-two verses are quoted ten times or more
Times
Matt. 25:34
John 3:5
Matt. 6:10
Matt. 6:33
I
Cor. 15:50
Cor. 6:10
Cor. 15:24
Matt. 5:3
Col. 1:13
Matt. 5:20
Gal. 5:21
....
....
....
....
....
-
Matt. 19:12
Matt. 8:11
....
....
....
-
Matt. 16:19
Matt. 5:19
Matt. II: 12
Matt. 7:21
Matt. 13:43
Luke 17:21
Ps.
45:6
The
145:11
Dan. 4:3
Dan. 4:25
Dan. 6:26
lEsdr. 4:40
Wisd. 5:17
2 Mace. 7:9
Matt. 4:23
195]
68
Matt. 13:52
54
49
46
Matt. 3:2
41
Matt. 19:24
39
Rom. 14:17
38
38
Matt. 8:12
32
Matt. 13:11
32
Eph. 5:5
31
Luke 1:33
Luke 9:62
23
19
....
----....
Cor. 6:9
Matt. 5:10
....
....
....
Matt. 4:17
27
Dan. 7:14
Ps.
25
Matt. 21:31
24
Acts 1:6
24
Matt. II: II
23
Matt. 12:25
23
Matt. 16:28
23
Matt. 18:3
23
John 3:3
Mark
Mark
Mark
Mark
Luke
Luke
Luke
Luke
Luke
1: 15
4:30
10:24
....
....
.
14
2Pet. i:ii
10:9
Rev. 5 10
Rev. 11:15
107
I
I
Luke 19:11
Luke 22: 16
Acts 8: 12
12
12
14
14
9:11
18:17
15
15
Acts 20: 25
Acts 28 23
10: II
16
15
-
8:
II: 10
ig
17
15
22:28
26
19
16
following twenty-six verses are quoted once each
Numb. 24:7
Ps.
John 18:36
Times
95
108
Ante-Nicene Fathers whose' writings, largely fragmentary, contain no

reference to the kingdom, of God.
Alexander of Cappadocia
Pamphilus
Alexander of Lycopolis
Pantsenus
Anatolius
Phileas
ApoUonius
Pierius
Aristo of Pella
Polycrates of Ephesus
Arnobius
Quadratus of Athens
Asterius Urbanus
Rhodon
Bardesan
Serapion of Antioch
Callistus
Theognostus
Claudius Apollinaris
Theonas
Dionysius of Corinth
Theophilus of Ccesarea
Malchion
Urban
Maximus
of Jerusalem
I.
Zephyrinus
196
INDEX OF REFERENCES* TO THE KINGDOM IN THE WORKS OF

THE FATHERS UNDER CONSIDERATION.
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS,
(Total, 57.)
Clement of Rome: Ep. to the Corinthians, ch. 42, 50, (54) 3.

The "Second Epistle of Clement," ch. 5, 6, 9, 11, 12,^ (17) 7.
Epistle of Barnabas, ch. 4, 7, 8,' 21 5.

The Didache, ch. 8, 9, 10 3.
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Judah,
min, 9
22, 24; Joseph, 19; Benja-
4.
The Shepherd of Hermas,
Similitude, 9, ch. I2,< 13, 15,5 20,' 29, 31'
15.
Ignatius: Ep. to the Ephesians, 16; to the Philippians, 3; Martyrdom, 2; Spurious

Ep. tothe Tarsians, 7; to the Antiochians, 14: to Hero, Introd. 6.
Polycarp: Ep. to the Philippians, 2, 5 2.
Papias, Fragments: In Euseb., Ch. Hist., 3, 39, 12; in Irenreus, Heresies, B. 5, ch.
33; in Photius (Lightfoot, Apos. F., p. 534).

3.
p. 534, and Jerome, Illus. Men, 18
Aristides: Apology, 16
Cf.
Maximus
the Confessor in Lightf.,
I.
Epistle to Diognetus, ch. 9, 10 2.

Martyrdom of Polycarp (Ep. of the Smyrnoeans), ch. 20, 22'
Reliques of the Elders in IreNvus: In B. 4, ch. 27, i 28,
3.
i.
THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS AFTER THE APOSTOLIC.

Martyr Total,
Justin
GREEK.
36.
Apology, ch. 11, 15,3 16, 32, 61. Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 31,^ 32, 34, 38,
39.45.511*56,63,68,76,3(79), 105, 116, 117,118, 120,3 139, 140.* Fragment
from Methodius on the Resurrection, in Photms.
First
Iren>eus
Total, 106.
Against Heresies, B.
I;
B. 3, ch. 6,
I;
ch. 8, I;* ch. 9, I; ch. 13, I; ch. 16,

ch.
ch. 8, 3;* ch. 30, 13; B. 2, ch. 28, 3; ch. 32,
i, ch. 6, sec. 3;
ch. 9, 2; ch. II, 8; ch. 12, 13; ch. 16, 4; ch. 21, 4; ch. 21, 8; B. 4,
22, 2; ch. 24, 2; ch.
I;
ch. 18, 6; ch. 20, 5, io, ii,' 12; ch. 21, i;
25, 3; ch. 27,
ch. 34, 3; ch. 38, 6;' ch. 37, 7;"
2, 4;3 ch.
i,
28, 2; ch. 29, I; ch. 33, il;
ch. 40, 2;* B. 5, ch. 9, l,* 3,' 4;S ch. 10, I, 2;= ch.
II, 1,5 2; ch. 12, 3; ch. 13, 2, 5; ch. I4, I, 4; ch. 25, 3; ch. 26, I*, 2; ch. 27, I; ch.
28, I; ch. 30,
Fragments
4;=^
ch. 32, I; ch. 33,
Frag.
9, 34, 36,' (42,
Clement of Alexandria
Total,
Exhortation to the Heathen, ch.

ch. 1,3 2, 3, II, 13;
19,^
B.
3, ch. 4,
I, 2,
3f
ch. 34, 2, 3; ch. 35,
!,==
2;3 ch. 36, 2. 3.3
repetition of 9), 50, 54, 55.'
78.
i, 9,3 10,=^
7,' ii,*
ii.3
12.
The
Instructor, B.
Miscellanies, B.
i,
i,
20; B. 3, ch. 4," 6,3 7, 18;* B. 4, ch. 2, 6, 8, 17, 18; B. 5, ch.
6, ch. II, 15;
B.
7, ch. 12, 14, 16, 17.
Who
is
the Rich
2, 3. 4,' 5, 16, 17, 18, ig, 21," 24, 26, 29, 30, 31,^ 32,' 42.
Man
ch. S;* B. 2,
ch. ll; B. 2, ch.
that
i, 3,
is
Fragments,
12;*
Saved?
B.
sec.
in Vol. 24,
pp. 156, 169.

*\Vhen not otherwise described, references
Company
197]
to
translations.
109
pages are
to the
Clark and Christian Literature
110
HiPPOLYTUS
Total,
51.
Refutation of All Heresies, B.
On
30.
Against the Greeks,

422,''
5, ch.
and Anti-Christ,
Christ
(On Song
Vol. 6 (in Jerome, Ep. 36).
460, 461,* 467,3 468, 473, 474, 483, sec.
On
4.3
Disputed Writings,
Vol. 9, Pt. 2, p. 90.
Origen
26,
Against Noetus,
i, 3.
B. 8, ch. 3; B. 9, ch. 4; B. 10, ch.
2, 3,* 4;
22,
5,
44,
6.
Against the Jews, 7.

59, 65.
Fragments: On Genesis, p. 415,
On Daniel, 446, 447,

a Homily quoted in Theodoret,
of Sol., 440.)
From
p. 104,
16, 122, 125,' I26,< 127.=
Total, 195.
First Principles, B.
3;* ch.
II,
Lat.).
From
2, 6;
i,
ch. 3, 6;' ch. 6, 2;" ch. 7, 5;3 B. 2, ch. 3,
B. 3 (ch.
I,
i, 3, 7;3
ch. 10,
16, Lat.); ch. 6, 9; B. 4 (ch. i, 2, Lat.), (3),
23(25,
Commentary on John, B. i, ch. 10, 23, 37,* 40,=" 41;

From the Commentary on Matthew, B.
IS, 16,' 28.
the
I,* 8, 9, 10,^ II,
2,* 3,3 4,* 5,' 6,* 7, 8,
12,4 13,
11,3
14," i^,* 16, 23; B. II, ch.
Against Celsus, B.
14, ch. 7,7 8, (12), 13,4 14.
B.
i,
10, ch. i,^
B. 12, ch.
17, 18,3 19,4 25, 31; B.
Ii, 14,' 31,3 32," (33), 34,4 35; B. 13, ch. 9, 14, 15,8 16,
5, 38, 63, 78;'
4,3 16;^
B. 10, ch.
ch. 6, 39, 56,3 (60), 66;3 B. 2, ch.
47, 59; B. 4, ch. 3,3 10, 42;* B. 5, ch. 19, 58; B. 6, ch.
3, ch. 40,
16,^ 17, (31), 46; B. 7, ch. 23;
B. 8, ch. 5, 11,6 13, 38, 41, (68).
Methodius Total, 20.

Banquet
3, 5, 8;
of the
Ten
Virgins, Dis.
I,
Dis. 8, ch. 4; Dis. 9, ch. 2.
mary by
Photius, 5
(63
is
Oration on the Palms, ch.
ch. i; Dis. 2, ch. 7; Dis. 6, ch. 3; Dis. 7, ch.
On
the Resurrection, (ch.
In Sum-
3'), 13.3
Oration on Simeon and Anna, ch.
repetition).
13.^
5.3
The Apocryphal Writings Total,
30.
Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, ch. 9. History of Joseph the Carpenter, ch. 8,
Gospel of Nicodemus, Pt. I. The Acts of Pilate, first Gk. form, ch. 3, 10, 11
26.
(the same three in Lat. form); second Gk. form, ch. 3," (ch. 9," 11, Caesar's King-
dom); Lat. form,
ch.
14, Pt. 2.
The Descent
form, ch. 10 (second Lat. form, ch.
4).
of Christ into
Hades,
first
Lat.
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea, ch.
3,' 5-
Note.
The remainder of
the references in the Apocryphal Writings, being without sectional
divisions, are given according to the pages in Vol. 16 of the
Clark edition of the Fathers.
The Acts of Peter and Paul, (260), 272, 275;

Acts of Philip, 313; Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew, 339;^ Acts of Andrew and
Matthias, 352; Acts of Peter and Andrew, 371 (Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew,
374); Acts of Thomas, 402,' 410; Martyrdom of Bartholomew, 434; Acts of Thad-
The Avenging
of the Savior, 254;
deus, 442; Acts of John, (448), 449; (Revelation of Moses, 465); Revelation of Paul,
479, 492; Revelation of John, 496 (502).
The Apostolic Constitutions Total,

B.
I,
ch.
i;
B. 2, ch.
6,
34.
35, 55; B. 3, ch. I2,= 18;^ B. 5, ch.
i, 4,
14, i6;4 B. 6, ch.
12, 15, 30; B. 7, ch. 24, 25, 26,^ 32,2 35, 38, 41,= 43; B. 8, ch. 7, 10, 12, 15.^
The Clementines Total,

A.
The Homilies
86.
Hom. i, ch. 6; Hom. 2, ch. 19,^ 40; Hom. 3, ch.

Hom. 8, ch. 21, 23; Hom. 9, ch. 3, 4, 6f Hom. 10, ch.
Hom. il.ch. 26; Hom. 13, ch. 8, 14, 20, 21;* Hom. 15, ch. 7; Hom. 18,
The so-called Epistles: To
16, 17;^ Hom. 19, ch. 20; Hom. 20, ch. 2.3
(in Vol. 17):
5, 8, 18,^ 19, 26, 28, (62);
13, 25;
ch.
IS,
James, ch.
11, (13), 14, 17;
On
Virginity (in Vol. 14), ch.
198
i, 2,3 3,^ 4, 9.
KINGDOM OF GOD
The
B.
Recognitions (in Vol.
tgf B,
63,
5, ch. 8, g,' 10,
The
B.
3),
2, ch. 20,3 21,^ 22, 28, 30,
THE FATHERS
IN
ch.
i,
46; B.
111
11, 24,- 42, 45, 49, 51,2 52,= 54,=
6,
ch. 20, 28, 29, 38, 53, 54,= 67; B.
3,
12, 18; B. 6, ch. 9; B. 8, ch. 5; (B. 9, ch. 3); B. 10, ch. 2, 44, 45.
1 1,
Liturgies Total, 20.

Of James, 36, 38, 43, 44,
Mark,
49; of
4, 5,^ 15,^ 17, 18;
of the
Holy Apostles,
13, 16, i8,= 19, 20.3
MINOR ANTE-NICENE GREEK FATHERS.

(Total, 50.)
Melito: Frag, on
Hegesippus
(in
Faith, p. 127.
Eusebius,
Cli. Hist., 3, 20, 6):
Theophilus of Antioch
Caius
Eusebius, Ch. Hist.,
(in
On
Topic
the Promises,
Homiiy,
First
12;=^
the Relatives of Christ.

i,
ch. 3.
3,4; Ep. to Fabius,
i,
5, 10.
Persian Chronology, p. igS.
Gregory Thaumaturgus: Among

Pâith,
On
Autolycus,
Against Proclus.
3, 28, 2):
DiONYSius of Alexandria: On
Julius Africanus:
To
(in Vol. 3):
the dubious writings,
p. 118,
19;
Horn.
Twelve Topics on the

Horn.
2, p. 128;
4, p. 147, 148.
Archelaus: Disputation
with Manes, ch. 13,^ 21, 23,^ 24,^ 25,= 33, 37, 40, 49.
Peter of Alexandria
Canonical Epistle, Canon
Athenagoras
5, 8,* 9.
Plea for the Christians, ch. 18.
"Selections from the Prophetic Scriptures" (Anon.).

Syriac Documents: Teaching of Addceus,
Martyrdom
pp. 116, 120, 125.
of the
(In Vol. 24.)
Holy Confessors,
Sec. 12, p. 120.
Horn, by
Epistle, 132.
p. 30.
Mar
Jacob,
p. 145.
latin.
Tertullian
A.
Total,
Catholic Writings (before 202

On
22.
Prayer,
Patience,
Wife,
B.
161.
11,
On
13.
Prescription Against Heretics, 13,
13, 20.
Idolatry, 9, (12),
18.
On Spectacular Shows, 30. On

On Woman's Dress, g.' To his
6, 8.
Montanistic Writings:
Against Marcion, B.
4, ch. 8, 14,5 iS'^ {v. footnote, p.
B.
{v. footnote, p. 365).
Scorpion's Bite,
Jews,
A. D.):
On Baptism,
5,< 6,= 9.
6,
9,
5,
(10),
249
f.),
ch. 9, io,'5 14.

13.
3, ch.
4, 7,* 20, 21,* 23,
24;? B.
21, 23,' 24,3 25, 26,3 29,3 30,8 33,6 35,7 398
Against Praxeas,
Exhortation to Chastity,
4,^ 13, 26.

7.
Answer
On
the
to
the
On the Soul, 39, 55. On Flight in Persecution, 12. On the Flesh

On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 26,^ 27, 32, 33,* 36, 41, 48, 49,7
4.
On Fasting, 15.* On Monogamy, 3, 7, 8. On Modesty, i, 14, i6,3 17,'
6,' 14.*
of Christ,
50,9 51.3
21."
Cyprian
Total, 142.
(His Life and Passion, by Pontius the Deacon,
p. xxiv,
Vol.
8.)
Epistles:
Ep.
6,
Ep. 25, 3, 4; Ep. 26, i; Ep. 51, 27; Ep. 54, 4; Ep. 55, lO; Ep. 61,
5; Ep. 62, 9,= 14; Ep. 69, 7; Ep. 71, i; Ep. 72, (11), 16, 21, 22; Ep. 73, 9; Ep.
On the Dress of Virgins, 4, 5, 21, 23. On
76, 2, 6,* 7; Ep. 78, 2; Ep. 80, 2, 4.
the Lapsed, 12.
On the Unity of the Church, 4, 6, 14,3 15, 19, 27. On the Lord's
5;
Ep.
Prayer,
7, 7;
I,
7,
12,
I3,''
To Demetrianus,
On Works and Alms, 4, 7, 8, 9,3 13,
16, 19, 21," 24, 30, 36.
Pestilence, 2,' 18,' 22,' 26."
199
20, 25.
On
the
21, 22, 23, 26.
112
On
Advantage
the
of Patience, 8,
Exhortation to Martyrdom,
Topic
23, B.
i,= II,' 16,=^
ViCTORiNUS Total,
Commentary on
dom
and Envy, 12, 15, 18.'

Testimony Against the Jews.
Jealousy
13.'
10, (11'), 15, 26, 29," 30;
B. 3, ch.
16, 18, 22, 24.
On
Chastity,
On
the
Exhortation to Repent-
i, 6.
Seventh Council of Carthage, 256 A. D., pp. 202, 203, 206. Vol.
ance, p. 269.
On
12,*
25, 69; B. 4, ch. 19,' 20, 25,' 32, 44, 52, 60, 64, 65, 69, 96.*
Glory of Martyrdom,
7:2.
On
15.
II,
7,
12, {15*), 23;3 B. 2, ch. 6,
ch.
I,
6,
13.
10.
(On
the Apocalypse:
On
14:15.
On
15:2.
On i:i6. On 5:8, 9. On
On 21:16
(C/I "King-
Oni:6.
1:5.)
On
19:11.
20:8-10.
f.
of Anti-Christ" passim.)
Lactantius Total 28.

The Divine Institutes,
B.
5,
B.
i,
ch. 5, 7, ii; B. 2,
ch. 3, (6, 7, 8); B. 7, ch. 6, 19, 23, 26.
Way
which Persecutors Died,
in
ch. ii; B. 4, ch. 4, 7,
Epitome, 42,
I2,'
13,3 20;3
On
47,= 67, 72.*
the
16.
MINOR ANTE-NICENE LATIN FATHERS.

(Total, 12.)
MiNucius Felix:
CoMMODiANUS:
To the
Octavius, 18.
Instructions in favor of Christian Discipline.
On
NovATiAN:
the Trinity, 10.
Treatise on Rebaptism (Anon.),
By
To
the Gentiles,
33.
Jews. 38, 73.
On
Jewish Meats,
Of Pontianus,
the Pseudo-Isodorus:
5.
3, 9.'
p. 239.
Of Anterus, 246.
Of Fabian, 261.
THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS.

EusEBius
GREEK.
Total,
46.
Church History, B.
(Prolog., p. 72.)
I,
ch. 2, sec. 26;^ ch. 3, 14; B. 2, ch. 14, 6; ch.
22, 5; B. 3, ch. 20, 6; ch. 24, 3; ch. 28, 2, 4, 5; ch. 37,
I;
ch. 39, 12; B. 6, ch. 7,
2; ch. 41, 14; ch. 42, 5; B. 7, ch. 24, 5; ch. 25, 3,* II; B. 8; ch. 4, 3; ch. 13, I, 2.
The Martyrs
sec. 15.
Palestine, ch. 7,
of
i;
The
ch. 11, 23.
Thirtieth Anniversary of Constantine's Reign, ch.

4, i;* ch. 5, 2, 5;*
Athanasius
Life of Constantine, ch.
3,
Oration of Eusebius on the
(Oration of Constantine, ch. 19.)
{Cf. 4, 48.)
6; ch. 2, i,3 4;* ch. 3, 2;' ch.
i,
ch. 6, 18; ch. 12, 4; ch. 17, 13, 18.
Total, 68.
Against the Heathen,
(Prolog. 21, 33, 36, 44, 62, 69, 74.)

37, 4.
On
the Incarnation of the
Faith,
I.)
On Luke
10:22, sec.
Defense of the Nicene Definition,
Word,
ch.
56,
3;
Pt. 2, ch. 30, i, 2; ch.
ch. 57, 3.
(Statement of
Defense Against the Arians, ch.
6.
ch. 4, 17.
On
3,
47.*
the Opinion of Dionysius, 10.
History of the
Life of Antony, 17,* 20,3 45, 94. Defense of his Flight, I.
Arians, 79.
Four Discourses Against the Arians: Dis. i, 12, 46,3 47,^ 48, 49,^ 61
Dis.
2, 13,* 18,
52,^ 61, 70, 76.
(Pref. to Dis. 4.)=
Letter to the Church at Antioch,
Easter of A. D. 330,
Of 335.
14, 5.
7, 8,3 10.
Of 368 (Ep.
Serapion (Ep.
2, 7.
Of 338,
40).*
7.
To
the
On
the Synods, 25,
Bishops of Africa,
11.
Of 333, 5. 3, 6. Of 334, 6,
Of 339, 11, i, 6. Of 341, 13, 4.=
Of 371 (Ep. 43). Second to Lucifer (Ep.
(Of 332,
4, 3.)
10, 4, 5.
54).
200
26,'t
49.=^
Letters,
i,
11, 12.
Of 342,
51).
To
KINGDOM OF GOD
Ephraem Syrus Total,
From
Nativity,
I,
21.
Testament,
his
i, 2, 4,= 7;
8; sec.
5,
On
17, I, 14.
Admonition and Repentance,
Aphrahat Total,
Basil Total,
the Sinful
Lord,
i,'
on the
51,
54.
8, 15.
43.
Of
Demonstrations:
Of Monks,
Death and
On
7.
On our
Woman, 5,
Homilies:
sec. 4, 4.
I;
I,
Hymn
10, 9, lO; sec. 15, 11, 42, 52.
25; sec.
7,
Pearl (of the Faith), sec.
Nisibene Hymns, 36, 15 and 58, 9. On the

Hymns for the Feast of Epiphany, sec.
134.
p.
13, 3;
9; sec.
8,
113
THE FATHERS
IN
Of Wars,
Faith, 20.
On
I,' 6, 18.
6,=
14,^ (16), 2i,3 22,' 23,^ 24.'
10,
On
the Resurrection, 18, 2I, 22.'
Of
Persecution, 2I.=
the Latter Times, 24.3

26.
On the Spirit, ch. 15, 36 {v. notes, pp. 22, 28),

Prolog. (26, 34), 51, 56, 57,3 64.
To the C:esareans, sec. 7,* 8, 12^ (zi. note, p. 122). To
Letters:
ch. 29, 72."
Macarius and John, Ep. 18. To a Lapsed Monk, Ep. 44. To the Deaconesses,
Ep. 105. To the Alexandrians, Ep. 139. To Bishops of the Sea Coast, Ep. 203.
To Amphilochius, Ep. 226, 3. To Bishops of Italy and Gaul, Ep. 243, 3 {v.
notes, pp. 19s, 250).
Cyril of Jerusalem
Total, 53.
Procatachesis, 16.
(Prolog. 16, 22, 32, 33, 47, 48, 60.)

2; 2, 19;=" 3, 4,^
II, i6;= 12,
18,=^
10 (v. note, p. 20);
8,=^
Gregory Nazianzen
Total,
Gospel, 20, 21
Ep. 14 of
On
3,^5;B. 12,
I.
to
Eunomius, B.
2, p.
On
Virginity, 12.
On
On
Pilgrimages, p. 382.'
Baptism of Christ,
the
Making
On
p. 256).
Man,
of
the
(17, 2); 18, 9; 21, 4.
I, i,< 3,
4; 2,
Letter to the Fallen Theodore, Ep.
3, 5.
Young Widow,
I.
3, 7.
On
Homily on
Homily on Eutropius,
17,24;
5,
3,
Ignatius, 4.
Holy
On
the
i, g,*
2,
4.'
On
the
9. 12;' 6, 7; 7,(3), 4;^ 9.
";
Hom.
Paralytic,
Letter to Olympias,
6,' 12, 15,' i6.3
12,* 15, 16,
19
Instructions to Catechu-
Resisting the Temptations of the Devil,
Against Marcionists and Manichasans,
2,
296' {v. note,
the Early Deaths of Infants, p. 374.'
Total, 694.
Letter to a
Hom.
On Holy
16.
Div. 2 (in answer to
4,
p. 519.
On the Priesthood, B.
mens,
the
of the
42; B. 2, il; B. 3, 2; B. 4, 2, 3, 9; B. 6, 4;3 B. 9, 3; B. 11,
I,
Answer
pp. 321, 329.3
Chrysostom
Epistle
Farewell, 14.
Words
the
Total, 28.
Against Eunomius,B.
On
On
Spirit, 28.
Oration on the Holy Lights,
The Last
On
his Father's Silence, 9, 19.
Holy
the
Basil).
Gregory of Nyssa
Spirit,
On
4.*
{v. note, p. 345).
3, 22, 24, 45.
17, 23,
17.
Second on the Son,
Baptism,
i,
note, p. 58);
5' {v.
8,
11,15, 27; 18, 28; 21, 2; 23, 13.*
17,
In Defense of his Flight to Pontus, 70.

Son, 17.
Catechetical Lectures,
7, 16;
15, i^ (v. note, p. 104), 2, 8,
14, 26;
(23), 24;= 13, 30, 31;
26,' 27,5 28, 31, 32,' 33; 16, 20;
4, 15;' 6, 7;
3."
On
3.
3, 2, 3.'
Second
the Statues,
12,17; 15,2,16; 16,13,^7;=
17, 15; 19, 15; 20, 24; 21, 20.
On Matthew: Hom.
3,
5,="
6;
II, 3, 7;
i, (8,
13, 6, 8;
7, io;< 22, 2, 4; 23, 9;
24,
12); 3, 9; 4, 16,
14, 2, 4;
I, 3;3
33, 7;' 35, 7; 37, 3,' 4, 5; 38,
i;
26,
lyf
6, I, (2), 9;
15, 2, S, 7,3 8;
2*
4,' S,s 6;3 27,
8, 6; 9,
8,=^
10; 10, 2,"
16, 5,s 6,3 io,3 17;= 18, 9;3 19,

6;" 28, 6; 30, 6; 32, 2, 3, 6;3
40, 3,' 4, 5; 41, (i^). 2," 4. 6; 43. 3, 7; 45. i.' 3;
201
114
47, 1,7 2, 3,^ 5;' 48, 9; 54i 3.' 9; 55, 8; 56. I,' 3, 9;' 57, 6;3 58, 3,* 4;
I, 2,3 3;
46,
62, 3, 4,= 6; 63, 2,3 4;' 64,
I, 2;
60, 2; 61,
!,=>
4; 65, l, 2,' (3), 5; 66,
3,
2/
3; 24,
3; 25,
I,"
65, 3; 66, 2;" 67,
On Acts:
3; 88, 3.
Horn.
31
3'
139, 140); 27, 6, 7; 30, 9,

I,
8, 4; 9, 2,* 4;
4, 7; 7, 8;
29, 6;'
5;
On
12, 13, 15.3
On
10, II.'
On
2 Tim.:
Hom.
On Hebrews: Hom.
3.
13, 10;
9;
2, 6;
33,
Socrates
SozOMEN
10, ii.s
Titus: Horn. 2,'
3, 2, 3, 6;
On
39,
5, 6,3
ii;S
8,3 9,=
Horn.
I,*
4," 5,
3,
i, 2,* 3, 4,3 6,s 7, 9,
Thess.:
ID,
6,
5, 6.
4, 6;' 6, i, 2, 7, 8;
6;3 19, 4; 23, 3, 4; 24, 9;
5."
15,9; 18,
Horn.
10,
1,'
2,3,5
II, 13,' 15,= 17.
On
On
7,
Philemon:
Hom.
ll; 8, 10; 9, 7;
i,
il,
25, 8; 28, 9; 30, 3; 31, 8; 32,
7.
Hist. (Introd., p. 212), B.
Total,
Church
i, 4;
14,
Cor.: Horn. 3, 4, (5);
Eph.:
Tim.: Horn.
Horn.
10; 12, 5;
I, g."
Total,
Church
On
On
10."
Cor.:
13, 4;3 19, 4;' 23, i, 8; 26, 2, 4;
On
5.3
3, 6;
Introd., 4; Horn.,
2,'3 3, 8,'
2 Thess.: Horn. 2,7 4.

3, 5, 6, 9,3
ll; 7, 2; 9, I,
On
44, 7.
ch.
On
561).
S49,
6,
19, 7; (21, 4); 23, 8; {v. notes, pp.
11, 4, 5, 6;
Philip.:
Horn.
Coloss.:
5,
If
6;
Gal., ch. 2;
8, 13, i6, i8, 20, 21, 24.
S43,
18,
5; 43,
3,
10, 2, 4, 5;
On
4.
30,
i63 {v. note, p. 478), iS," 21, 23,3
note, p. 196); 35, ii; 37,
(z'-
2,3
4; 42,
41,
S;3
539,
4, ii; 5,
II;
II, 15;' 16, 8,5
5;~ 15, 5, 6, 10,
40,
pp.
3, 5,3 9;
On
40, 41,7 43, 44, 45,3 55,4 (v. note, p. 326).
36,="
notes,
{v.
2, g,' (v. note, p. 8); 2, ll;
83, 4;* 84, 1,3 2, 3; 85, i;3 87,
note, p. 46), 9, 13, 15, i6,= 17, 18,^ 19,23,*
(z/.
i, 3,* 5,' 7, 9,* 1 1,' I2, 14,5 15,8
26,5 29, 30,
25,3
l, 2, 5;="
78, 4; 79,
2,94, 6,7
I, <
24,= 29, 30, 31," (v. note, p. 202),
Romans: Horn,
13, 4; 21, i; 23,
7, 2;
3, 6;
3,
51, 3;3 54, 2, 4;' 59, 3, 4; 60, 4, 6; 63, 3;3 64, 4;
i;
70,1; 77,
l;
John: Horn.
5; 67,
26, l; 28, 2; 31, l; 33, 3; 36, 2; 38, 4, 5; 42, 3;' 43, 2;
3;
2; 45, 2, 3; 48, 3; 49,3;
I,
44,
On
88, i, 3; 90, 4.
(3); 86, I; 87, 2;
3,="
79, i,3 2;^ 82, 2,'
3; 68, I, 3, 5; 69, I, (2), 4; 70, 2; 71, l;3 73, i; 76, 5; 78, i,3 4;
I,
ch. 26; B. 2, ch. 18, 19,^ 30.
3.
Hist., B. 2, ch. 27, 33; B. 3, ch. 14.
Theodoret Total,
26.
Church
Prolog., p. 15, 17, (19), 30.
Hist., B.
i,
Dialogues, pp. 170, 171, 173, 179, 202, 224.*
32; B. 2, 2, 6;' B. 4, 8;= B. 5, 11.
Letters,
14,
21,*
60,
74,
91,
120,
(145), 146.^
John of Damascus
On
the
Total,
24.
Orthodox Faith, which
the Trinity, ch. 8*
{c/.
is
Div.3 of
his
Fountain of Knowledge. B.
Additional, from the Sacred Parallels, under the

18 references.
in the
Hilary
On
B.
list
38,5 39;'7 B.
De
title,
The Kingdom
these, 14 are verses cited
of Heaven,
which are not included
from the Fathers given above.

LATIN.
2,
33; B. 4, 35;' B. 6, 20, 33, 37,* 38* {v. original); B. 7, 6;
B. 9, 25,7 26,3 75; B. 10, 33, 34,5 67; B. 11, 21,3 22,
12, 47.
the Psalms, Ps.
i,
On
sec.
the Synods, or,

14.
On
25,'*
29, 32,3 37,=
the Faith of the Orientals, 34, 38.
Additional, see on Matt. 12, 32; on Ps.
2,
note
on Matt. 5, 34, and Ps. 125. See the

Regno Christia Regno Dei Patris DUtincto in the Benedictine Preface,
42; on Ps.
article
On
74.
the Trinity, B.
8, 23, 25;
On
Of
See original.
of Scriptural quotations
Total,
I.
original); B. 2, ch. (il), II, 29; B. 4, ch. 15, (20), 25.
147,
15;
on
Ps.
148;
cf.
also
pp. Ixi-lxviii, ed. Paris, 1693.
202
KINGDOM OF GOD
Ambrose
Holy
Of
the Mysteries, 2,
On
4, 6.
i,
63, sec. II, 93,
109.
97,="
Repentance, B.
the Decease of
the Christian Faith, B.

5, 5,
ConEp.
Letters:
8, 13.'
Total, 102.
Letters: Ep.
12;=^
3, 5;
5, 6, 8;
I,
14,
16, 2; 22, 30,
40;* 43, 3; 45, 6;
32, 35,
46, 10; 48, 14; 51, 5;^ 52, 12; 58, 3; 60, 3;5 66, 8; 69, 6; 71, 3; 79,
122, 3; 123, II, 14; 125; 133. 3; I44>
4f
118,
Perpetual Virginity of Mary,
i, 3, 4, I2,5
To Pammachius
33, 37.
Against the Pelagians (Argument,
25, 34," 36*.
RUFINUS
4.
against John of Jerusalem,
Illustrious
16, 31
Men,
;*
B. 2,
5,
(18).
31; B. 2, 18.*
I,
Total, 23.
Epilogue
to
Pamphilus's Apology for Origen, pp. 423, 427.
Apology
gen's First Prins., 428.

the Apes. Creed,
SuLPiTius Severus
6, 7,^ (14),
Total,
34*
(Introd., 434), B.
(disputed), ch.
Augustine
Total,
Pref. to Trans, of Ori-
sec.
i,
16, 32,
8,
34.
On
{v. note, p. 556), 39, 46.
12.
Life of St. Martin: Pref. to Desiderlus, p.
Ep.
80, 3; 92;
26,^ 35, 37', 40;
p. 448), B. i. 10,*
24, 25 (p. 471); B. 3,(6*), 15, 193 {v. note, p. 497).
Apology,-B.
3;='
Against the Luciferians,
8.
Against Jovianus, B.
6.
28,="
B. 2, 16," 18, 19, 25, 27,*
1.
i, i,3 2, 4,
I2,*s 13, 17,
1$; B. 2, 3, (4), 7, il.
i, 7,'
Concerning Widows,
sec. 6, 7, 11, 12.
On
2, 4, 6,= 7.
On
17,3 20,' 21.
note, p. 258); B. 4, 5;* B,
12==* {v.
II,
7,
cerning Virgins, B.
Jerome
10,=^
51; B. 2, 94, loi,^ 105, 116.
i,
5; B. 2, 9, 12;=' B. 3,
B.
13, 15, i6, 21, 26, 30, 48, (49), 49;
i,
Spirit, B. i, 3, ii; B. 2, 2, 7; B. 3,
Satyrus, B.
On
115
Total, 124.
Duties of the Clergy, B.

the
THE FATHERS
IN
Ep.
2, 6;
Sacred Hist., B.
3.
2, ch. 3.
Letters:
2, ch. 2, 4,* 5, 8.*
1,310.
Early General Writings (174 references):

Soliloquies, B.
Confessions, B.
i, 3.*
Christian Doctrine, B.
12, 21.
Catechising of the Uninstructed,
Catechumens,
12.*
B. I,i,3 2,3,'^4,s6,
On
the
On
9, 20.
On
the
17,
7,
Sermon on
16; B. 2, 2; B. 8,
19, 20,
the
Mount
the
Work
On
Good
B. 11,
2f B.
On
22, 24, 25.
B.
2,
the Creed, to
4 (v. note, p. 38), 6,5
2, 6,3 8,^ 9, 13, 35, 36, 40.
of Marriage, 24,= 35.
13,
On the
the Faith of Things not Seen, 5, 7, 9.
Monks,
of
I, 6;
(in Vol. 6) (v. notes, pp. 3, 5, 6),
8,'3 9,6 10, 12, 15,^ 17, 18,' 19, 21, 23;
7,* 10,^ 11,3 15,4 16,'^ I7,s 25.^
Lying, 36.
I,
19; B. 3, 3, 12, 17, 18, 25, 37; B. 4, 18.
i,
On Holy
Virginity,
On
On
Continence,
7, 9, 13, 14,^ 19,
21, 22,3 23,3 24,5 25,^ 26, 27, 29, 32,' 36,= 38, 47.
2.
Anti-Manicheean
On
(in
references):
Morals of the Catholic Church,
the Profit of Believing, 36.
On Two
10.
Souls, 12.
Against Fortunatus,
Ep. of Manichseus called Fundamental,

22, 48.
Reply
B.
B. 10,
8,
2f
to Faustus, B. 2,
I, 3;3
B. 11,
B. 16, 20, 22, 24,3 29; B.

14=); B. 22, 14,
3.
17,=^
41,
3,
i, 6;
7,=
17, 35.
Morals
Faith and the Creed: In Retractations, ch.
of the Manichseans, (3), 5, 9, 12, 14.
8;3
I,
3,3 7, 17, 19, 21.
g,' 13, 24,* 25.^
B. 4,
i,
2*
3;S
B.
On
5, 9,
Against the
the Nature of
Good,
lO; B. 6, 8;^ B. 7, 2;
B. 12, (12^), 20, 32, 33, 42, 44;3 B. 15,
2f
17, 4;* B. 18, 7; B. 19, 8, 24, 27, 30;* (B. 20, 17;* B. 21,
54,='
67, 76,^ 80; B. 24, l;= B. 28, 5; B. 30, 4; B. 33,
i,^ 2.=
Anti-Donatist (79 references):

(Introd., pp. 383, 385, 392.)
On
Baptism, B.
203
2, 14;=
B.
4,
4,3 5,
g,' 17,= i8,7 19,9
116
21,^ 25; B. 5, 23; B. 6,
B.
23/
2, 8,*
7,
54.
853
Correction of the Donatists,
3, 7, 56.*
4.
12,^ 25, 43; B.
43, 53, 55, 59, 6i,s 63, 72, 73,
Against the Letters of Petilian,

{v. note, p. 584), 97, 105,3 109;
B.
I, (2).
Anti-Pelagian (243 references):

On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, B.
15,' 2I, 24,' 26.* 30,5
I,
Introd., p. 61.
On the Spirit
On Nature and Grace, g," 26. On Man's Perfection in
Righteousness, 15. On the Proceedings of Pelagius, 11, 13,3 14,7 15,7 23,* 24,"
On the Grace of Christ, B. i, ch. 11, 32, 54. On Original Sin,
28,3 57,= 62,3 65.^
On Marriage and Concupiscence, B. i,
B. 2, sec. 5, 12,* 19,3 20, 21,^ 23, 29, 45.
On the Soul and its Origin, B. i, 10,* 13, 33, 34;
22,3 38; B. 2, 5,^ 8, 33,^ 50, 51.
B. 2, 14,8 i6,s I7,'ti8; B. 3, 15,= 16," i?,'^ I9,'3 22;3 B. 4, 16, 38.' Against Two
33,^ 36,* 39, 42, 47, 55,=
and the Letter,
58;" B.
On Rebuke and
I.
41,* 43, 57; B. 3, 6,7 21.
48.
Letters of the Pelagians, B.

215,
!,=>
2,
I,
From
11, 40;" B. 3, 14; B. 4, 21, 22,* 24, 28.*
Grace,
On
5, 14, 18,* 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45.
On
tination of the Saints, 17, 25, 34,^ 40, 42.*
Ep.,
the Predes-
the Gift of Perseverance, 2,
5,^ 6,
11,27, 29, 35, 37,55,58,61.

5.
The City
God
of
{V. note, p.
(105 references):
(F. B.
I.)
i,
(13, 28); B. 15,
1, (8,
B. 4, 7, 28; B. 5, (16), 18, (19), 21,
36; B. 4, 2, et saepe).
II, I; B. 12, 9); B. 13, 7;
(B. 8, 24); B. 9, 21; B. 10, 32; (B.
24;="
16, 24, 34; B. 17,
18, 20, 26); B.
i,^'
3, 4,
t?
B. 14, (i), 2,
7,='
9,3 10, 12,
15, i6,= 17; B. 18, (i), II, (29), 31,* 34," (47), 49, 53; B. 19, (4, 5, I7); B- 20, 4, 7,
9,"
IS,''
B. 21,
(14, 16, 17), 23, 24;
23, 24,= 25,' 26,* 27;" B.
I,* 9,^ 16,
22,
I, 3,3
(6), 12, 19,3 20, 23, 24,3 29, 30.

6.
On
Ch.
the Psalms (169 references):

2, II;
7, 8, 14;
8, 2;
10, 3, 7;
10; 34, I; 37, 10, Pt. 2, 13, Pt. 3,
44,7, 13; 45, 12,

5,^ io, 11;
i,= 9;
15,="
22; 47,1,
il, 6;
12,6; 14,
io;M9,3,
39. 18; 40, 15; 41, II; 43, 4;
Pt- 2,3; 5,
13; 57, 7, 12; 60,
(53, 8); 54, 3; 55,
2,
16, 35; 22, 29;' 33,
18,
8;
6,
10, 13; 38, 12;
5,="
9,''
",
n?
5i, 19; 52,2,3
61, (4), 7; 62, 4,3 {9); 65,
4;
67, 8, io;S 68, 4, 21, (37); 69, 2, 30; 72, 3, II, 17,' (18); 63, 5, 26; 64, 6, 20,
21; 65, II; 76, (I), 11; 77, 6; 78, 2, 3, 28, 29, 33, (37); 79, 2; 81, I9,s 20; 82, 4;
83, 2; 87, 4, 5;" 89,35;=" (91, 13); 92, 14; 94. 19, 23; 98, 8; (99, II); loi, 2; 102,
2f 103,23;^ 104,20,36; 105,6; 106,20,32; 109,1; 110,5; III, 5; 112, 3;3 113,
l; "9, 15, 75, 150, 159; (126,2); 129,6; 142, 5; 143, 8; 144, 9; 145, I, 4, 10, II,"
12,5 18;
7.
146, 8;' 147, 8, 13, 21, 28;
149, 2, (3).
Later Miscellaneous Writings (429 references):

Letters, 29, 5;3 36,8; 43, 27; 44, 4, lO;' 76, i; 78, l; 91, 3; 93, 19, 22, 30, 48;S
102, 15, 19,37; 130, 2,3 21,= 22; (137, 16); 148, 7; 164, II; 166, i; 167, 3; 189,
220,
3, 5;
7,
5," 6,
Sermons on N. T. Lessons,
8.
(l), 2, 4,< 19,3 20,= 25, (33), 36;
(8); 32, 5; 33, i; 35, 2,' 5.'
3; 53, 6; 55,
77,
I,
9,="
13; 78,
2,= II, 14;
If
("), I3; 59,
i,*
6,
24,
I, 2,^ 5;3
36, 4.
i,* 2;
25,
9;="
14, 8;
4, 4, 13;
16, 6;
10; 6, 6," 7,= 9, 19;*
8,3 9,
12, 6,5 7;
27, I3,<
16, 2;5 17, 7;^ 21,
15; 28,
1,5 4;
30,3,
lO; 37, 4, 5; 38, 18, (19), 21; 40, 5; 50,
60,
l, 5;*
62, 5; 63, i; 64, 5; 75, 3; 76,
II; 79, 5; 80, 4; 81, 6; 85, 8; 87, 2, 6,
John: Tractate 3,21;

13,
3,
I2;2 9, 4;5 10, 8, 9,^ 10;^
7, 12, 13,= 8, 3,7 5,
(7, 21); 8, 12;
9, 15;='
7,='
11,
1,="
9.
3,
On
i?
l;
the Gospel of
5, 6, 12;
12,
5,="
8;
19, 18; 21, 7, 13, 25, 2,9 3, 19; 26, 7; 27, 12; 28, 9;
30, 7; 35, 7; 42, 10; 44. 6; 49, 12, 26; 50, 12; 51, 4; 52, l; 55, l;3 63, 2;3 64, I;
67, 2," 3;' 68, 2;'7 73, 4;" 76, 3; 79, 2; 101,4; 102, 3; 107, 2; 109, 4; 113, 2,
204
KINGDOM OF GOD
115,
5;
l,s 2,'S 3;
THE FATHERS
IN
117
On
116, I; 118,4; 122, 2, 4, (7), 9;" 124, 5,7.^
the First Ep.
On
of John, (i, 12); 2, 13; 3, II; 4, 5; 6, 14^ {v. note, p. 500); 9, 2,* 8; 10, 9, 10.
Harmony
the
of the Gospels, B. 1,3, 35; B, 2, 4, 5,* 12,* 17, 19,* 30, (38), 41,45,
56, 6i, 71, 73, 77; B. 3, 3, 8, 22; B. 4, io.3
On
the Trinity (in Vol.
3),
B.
i,
8^
{v. note, p. 26), 9, 10,' II, 12, I3;S B. 2, i8;S B. 9, lo; B. 13, 15; B. 14, 19; B. 15,
Enchiridion, (16), 21, 23, 30, 39,* 67,* 69,* 70, 80, 91,^
18, 19.
On
the
Cassian
Good
of
Widowhood,
24.
Against Lying,
24.'
On
in,
112, 115,' 116.
Patience, 23, 24.
Total, 71.
Institutes, B. 4, 36, 38; B. 7, 15, 27; B.
(F. note, p. 192.)
Abbot Moses,
12, 15.
Conferences:
Of PaphSecond Conf.,
First of Isaac, 19,^29.
Second Conf., 6, 11. First of Chasremon, 6, 12.*
14.
Third Conf., 11. First of Nesteros, g,' (10). Second Conf., 3. Of Piamun, i6;3
of Pinufius, 8,' 10.
First of Theonas, 5, 9.
Third Conf., 15. Of Abraham, 26.*
First of
3, 4," (5), 9,^ 13,'^ 14,* 20.
nutius, 9; of Daniel, 10; of Serapion, 11.^
On
the Incarnation, against Nestorius, B.
Vincent
Total,
2.*
First of Serenus, 5, 6.
i, 3;
B. 3, 12, 14;* B.
5, 7;*
B. 7, 10, 23.
2.
Comminitory,
6, 26.
Leo the Great Total,

{Cf.
Second Conf.,
Epp. 56 and
162.)
29.
Sermons,
3, 2, 3; 9,
33, 5;' 34, 2; 51, 2, 3; 54, 7; 61, 7; 66,
Gregory the Great

Pastoral Rule, Pt.
7;
2;3 10, 3; 19, i; 21, 3; 22, 5;' 31, 2;
70, 3; 73, 2; 82, l; 90, 3; 95,
i, 2,3 5.
Total, 45.
i, 3, 9;
Pt. 2, 3, 4; Pt. 3, 3, 15, 27,' 28.
Letters: B.
i,
43,* 62,
77; B. 2, 27, 36, 47;3 B. 3, 10, 65; B. 5, 18, 20,= 39; B. 6, 58; B. 7, 7, 26,3 30; B.
8, (2), 33;
B. 9, 109, 120; B. II, 29, 45, (46), 6$,' 66; B. 13,
(Total
number
of references, 3,974.)
205
i, 6,
31,' 39,' 42.
THE DIATESSARON OF TATIAN AND THE

SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
HE
The
Diatessaron of Tatian and

the Synoptic Problem
BEING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE DIATESSERON FOR THE LIGHT

WHICH IT THROWS UPON THE SOLUTION OF THE
PROBLEM OF THE ORIGIN OF THE
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
BY
A.
AUGUSTUS HOBSON,
Ph.D.
CHICAGO
trbe TnniversttB of Cbicago press
1904
Copyright, 1904
of Chicago
The University
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
--
Bibliography
Introduction
1.
Review
PAGES
7,
9-32
of the Situation.
2.
Statement of the Problem of
3.
The Text Employed,
its
this Dissertation.
Limitations and Value.
a) General Order.
d)
4.
Detailed Readings.
Notes on Method.
One Source
Chapter
I.
Chapter
II.
Chapter
III.
Alterations in Order
Chapter
IV.
Additions and Omissions
Chapter
V.
Chapter
VI.
Chapter
VII.
Chapter
VIII.
Tatian's Preference for
The Plan
of the Diatessaron
Another
46-49
50-54
55-61
62-67
Rewriting
Incongruities and Repetitions
Comparison
33-40
41-45
-.--...
Conflations
of the
Evangelists
211]
or
Methods
of Tatian
68-74
and the
-
75-8
WORKS AND AUTHORS.
LIST OF
REFERRED TO BY ABBREVIATION.
= Bacon,
W.
Tatian's Rearrangement of the Fourth Gospel, American

Journal of Theology, Vol. IV, pp. 770-95.
Ca. = Cassels, W. R.
Nineteenth Century, April, 1895, pp. 665-81.
Csc. = ClASCA, Agostino
Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae Arabice (Rome, 1888).
" Tatian," in Smith and Wage's Dictionary of Christian
Ful. = Fuller. J. M.
Ba.
B.
Biography.
= Harnack, A.
= H^\RNACK, A.
Hrk.*^ = Harnack, A.
Hrk.^
Hrk.*^
Texte
und Untersuchungen,
Har."^
= Harris,
= Harris,
J.
R.
J.
R.
I,
pp. 2i3-i8(Leipzig, 1883).
Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, Bd.
pp. 485-96 (Leipzig, 1893); Bd. II,

Har.''
Bd.
" Tatian," Encycloptedia Britannica, ninth edition.
l,
I,
pp. 284-89 (Leipzig, 897).
The Diatessaron (London,

Conteynporary Review Vol.
1890).
LXVIII
(August, 1895), pp. 271-78
(also printed in Christian Literature, Vol. XIII, p. 268).

Har.*=
= Harris,
R.
J.
Fragments of the Commentary of Ephraem Syrus on
the
Dia-
tessaron (London, 1895).
= Hill,
H.*
J.
The Earliest Life of
H.:
Christ,
Being
the
Diatessaron of Tatian
(Edinburgh, 1894).
= Hill,
H.''
J.
H.:
Dissertation on the Gospel
Commentary of
St.
Ephraem,
the
Syrian (Edinburgh, 1896).
= HjELT,
Hj.
Arthur: "Die
altsyrische
Evangelieniibersetzungen
und Tatian's
Diatessaron," m7^KH^''?> Forschungen ziir Geschichte desneutestamentlichen
und der
altkirchlichen Litteratur, Theil VII, Heft
^HoGG,
Hg.
H. W.
"The Diatessaron
IX (New York, 1896).
Fathers, Vol.
Lgft.
= LiGHTFOOT,
J.
B.
of Tatian," in
Kanons
(Leipzig, 1903).
Menzies's The Ante-Nicene
Essays on Supernatural Religion (London, 1889), pp.
272-88.
M.
= Moesinger,
G.
Evangelii
Concordantis Expositio
Facta
S.
Ephraemo
(Venetiis, 1876).
Mo.
= Moore,
G. F.
"Tatian's Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch,"
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. IX, Part II, pp. 201-15.

N. = Nestle, E. "Syriac Versions," in Hastings's Dictiotiary of
:
= Ranke, E,
Sel. = Sellin, E.
R.
the Bible.
Codex Fuldensis (Lipsiae, 1868).
"Der Text
des von A. Ciasca (Rom, 1888) herausgegebenen ara-
bischen Diatessarons," in Zahn's Forschungen des neutestamentlichen Kanons
und
der altkirchlichen Litteratur; Theil IV, pp. 225-46 (Erlangen und Leipzig,
1891).
W.
= Wace,
H.:
"Tatian's Diatessaron," Expositor, Series
II,
Vol.11 (1881), pp.
i-ii, 128-37, 193-205.

Z.^
= Zahn,Th.
Forschungen zur Geschichte
des neutestamentlichen /Canons
und der
altkirchlichen Litteratur; Theil I: " Tatian's Diatessaron" (Erlangen, 1881).
213]
8
Z.''
Zahn, Th.
Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft
und kirchliches
Theologisckes Litteraturblalt, January
3,
Leben, 1884,
pp. 6x8-26.
Z."'
= Zahn,
Th.
1896.
TEXTS USED IN VERIFICATION AND QUOTATIONS.
= CURETON,
Cur.
pels in Syriac
Ben.
= Lewis,
Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four
Gos-
(London, 1858).
Bensley, R.
Syriac:
Lew.
William
L.
Harris,
J.
R.;
and Burkitt,
F. C.
The Four
Gospels in
Transcription (Cambridge, 1894).
Agnes Smith
Some Pages of
the
Four
Gospels Retranscribed
together with a Complete Translation (London, 1896).
Pusey
= PusEY,
P. E.,
and Gwilliam,
G. H.
Tetraevangelium Sanctum (Oxford,
1901).
= Tischendorf, C.
Major (Lipsiae, 1872).
Tisch.
Novum
Testamentum
Graece,
Editio Octava,
Critica
is not intended to be exhaustive, but to give the most imporand those which should be used in conjunction with this paper. A number of old and now less important treatises might be added. For additional notices
see the lists of Hill and Nestle.
This bibliography
tant works,
214
INTRODUCTION.
The
I.
concerning Tatian's Diatessaron, so far as they have been

known to scholars. Since Th. Zahn's work (pub-
facts
discovered, are well

lished in
1881) upon Ephraem's Commentary on the Diatessaron, and
especially since Ciasca's publication of the Arabic Diatessaron (1888),
much
labor has been expended
important work of Tatian's.
summary
plete,
upon the problems connected with this

latest, and perhaps the most com-
The
of results in the investigation of the literary notices of
Tatian and his work, and as regards questions arising from such study,
is
be found
to
in Hjelt's
work
Though
(see Hj.).
this
work
is
appar-
ently indebted, to a great degree, to the earlier publication of Zahn,

is
it
and brings the discussion down to the present

This recent statement makes it unnecessary to repeat the facts
briefer than the latter
time.
readily accessible
in
it.
It
will
suffice
to
say that
reached quite general agreement on a
number
we need mention them,
:^
as
far
are
these
scholars
have
of points,' which, so
Tatian wrote a gospel
(probably 173-75 A. D.), called Diatessaron, because compiled from

our four canonical gospels. We have trustworthy remains of his work
Ephraem's Commentary, edited by Moesinger, and in the quotations

some of the Syrian Fathers, especially in those of Aphraates.
Ephraem's Commentary is accessible only in a Latin translation of an
in
of
Armenian version
of
Graffin's splendid
new
it.
Aphraates's quotations
are
consultable
edition of that Syrian Father's Homilies?
in
It is
we have remains of the original Syriac

Both Aphraates and Ephraem wrote in Syriac during
in these quotations alone that
Diatessaron}
the fourth century, the latter about 350 A. D., the former a little
In addition to these fragmentary remains of Tatian's gospel,
earlier.
there
is
the
harmony
of
the gospels
preserved in Codex Fuldensis,
which is really a Latin adaptation of the Diatessaron made by arranging the Vulgate text in the order indicated by Tatian's gospel, but
This Latin harmony was
with considerable modification of that order.
known as early as the first part of the sixth century, and was compiled
'The contention
in
view
2Hrk.c,
above,
of
W. R.
of the reply of J.
cf.
I,
Cassels (Ca.) adverse to the items here mentioned requires little attention,
R. Harris (Har.b).
pp. 486-96; also Hrk.a, pp. 213-18; and, for wider limits of date than are suggested
See also, upon all the facts mentioned, Hill, Hjelt, Zahn, and others, op. cii.
II, p. 289.
Hrk.c,
zPatrologia Syriaca, Pars Prima, Tomus Primus.

4 That the Diatessaron was originally written in Syriac seems now
nack (Hrk.b) followed by W, R. Cassels (Ca.), however, dissents.
215]
to
be generally believed.
Har-
10
probably somewhat earlier {ca. 400, according to Hj., p. 58). Still

further, in the Arabic Diatessaron published by Ciasca we have a quite
and
skilful
faithful eleventh-century translation of Tatian's
work,
made
from a ninth-century Syriac manuscript, by the quite well-known AraThis version is, with
bic writer Abu '1 Faraj 'Abdulla ibn-at-Tayib.^
some
limitations, a
These
facts,
trustworthy representation of
Tatian's
generally assented to by those scholars
them consideration, give
a solid basis
and
gospel.'^
who have given
distinct point of departure
for this dissertation.
The purpose
2.
of
paper
this
is
to investigate
the
relation
of
Tatian's Diatessaron to the four canonical gospels, which indisputably

constitute the chief,
determining how
if
not the only, source of that work, with a view to
far this relation
resembles that which, on a docu-
mentary theory of the origin of the synoptic gospels, is proved to

exist between the resultant gospels and their sources, and whether this
resemblance is such as to support or discredit that theory.' We have
in Tatian's work an attempt, made probably within one hundred, or at
most one hundred and ten, years after the completion of our latest
synoptic gospel, to compile from written sources an account of the life
It would seem, therefore, that we
a gospel, if you please.^
of Jesus
might expect this gospel to show phenomena that are likely to occur
The degree of simin gospels which are based on written sources.
ilarity between these phenomena and those which appear in a compar-
ison
of
the
synoptic
gospels
with
their
alleged
sources
ought,
therefore, to give a helpful basis for determining the probability or
improbability of the documentary theory as a sufficient explanation
phenomena
of the
3.
of the
first
This task necessitates
three gospels.
as a
preliminary matter the finding of sure
For a brief, yet satisfactory, presentation and discussion of available information concerning the
Kx2\i\Q. Diatessaron see Hogg's treatment (Hg.).
S
The whole matter
For a contrary view see Hrk.c,
I,
The documentary' hypothesis
often alleged to be insufficient to account for the supposed deviations
is
p. 495.
is
discussed below.
is stated with commendable

Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible: " It is
said that the oral theory alone will account for the differences between the gospels." This objection,
moreover, is the basis of the entire argument of one of the most recent attempts to support the oral -tradiK. Veit, in the second part of his Die synoptischen ParalleUn, devotes his first chapter
tion theory.
to a review of the present situation in regard to the synoptic problem, and also to an unfavorable criticism
He assumes throughout his discussion in this chapter (see in particof every Konibinationshypothese,
ular pp. 6, 9, 10) that the differences of the several gospels from one another must, each and every one of
them, have some specific explanation; and that, if the explanations which have been made by some on the
basis of the " tendencies" of the several evangelists fail at any point, then some other than a documentary
The results of this investigation will have a direct beartheory must be called in to solve the problem.
ing upon the weight which should be allowed this objection.
of the gospels from their alleged sources.
brevity
by V. H. Stanton
in his article
Syrian church fathers were wont
pp. 30-47.
The import
on the gospels
to refer to the
of this objection
in
Diatessarofi as a gospel.
216
For the notices see Hj.
DIATESSAEON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
The two terms
textual ground.
the relation of the Diatessaron to
to be
its
compared
in
11
order to determine
sources are {a) the text of the gospels
possessed by T' and employed by him in the work of constructing D,
and
the text which from these sources he constructed.
If we posand the other precisely as T

made it, all differences between them would be referable to T and would
But, in fact, neither of them is directly and
illustrate his method.
exactly given in any existing document.
In any comparison between
the original text of the gospels, as this is presumably restored today,
and the text of D, as we have it, allowance must be made, on the one
{p)
sessed these, the one precisely as
side, for the possibility that
that
which
is
T had
it,
used a text of the gospels other than
today accepted as approximately original
and, on the
other, for possible corruption of the text of the Diatessaron in trans-
mission.
The
materials of which account must be taken, because of
our uncertainty respecting the two elements of the comparison, are as

follows
I.
The Gospel Text

Employed by Tatian.
Possible sources
a)
b)
The Greek
gospels
The Original Text of the Diatessaron.
II.
Extant
ranged
witnesses
in the
(ar-
order of
(and their variants).
their respective ages)
The
a)
and
Sinaitic
Curetonian
Syriac
versions.
Possible sources of corruption

:
a)
Later
Syriac
ver-
Quotations in the
Homilies of Aphra-
sions
ates.
Philoxeniana.
7) Harklensiana.
Arabic readings (due
a) Peshitta.
/3)
Quotations in Ephraem's Commentary.

c) The gospel harmony
in Codex Fuldensis.
d) The Arabic version
b')
b)
to):
a)
/3)
Arabic translator.
Arabic versions of
canonical gospels.
7) Errors of scribes
of the Arabic Dia-
of the Diatessaron.
tessaron.
c)
Variants of the text

of the
9The
Greek gospels.
following abbreviations will be used from this point on
A^the Arabic Diatessaron.

E = Ephraem's Commentary.
D ^ the Diatessaron
(without reference to any particular witness).
F= the gospel harmony
in
Codex Fuldensis.
Aph.=
T=
quotations in the Homilies of Aphraates.

Tatian.
M = Moesinger's edition of Ephraem's

P = Peshitta Syriac version.
Ss = Sinaitic Syriac Version.
Sc = Curetonian Syriac version.
8*= Philoxenian Syriac version,
S9
Harklensian Syriac version.
For the symbols for the Syriac versions
Hastings's Dictionary.
Commentary,
am
indebted to
217
Nestle's
article
" Syriac Versions," in
12
From
the nature of these materials
and exact
text of the Diatessaron as
sary.
If
from the
Greek
text
it
of passages in
list
we eliminate
employed by T, or
T's hands; nor
left
is
complete
this neces-
which
passages of
all
impossible to reconstruct
it is
either the precise text of the gospels as
differs from a standard

whose variation from a
may be due to a) or b) of Column I, or

whose phenomena may be due to any of the sources mentioned in
Column II, 2, the remaining peculiarities'" of D may be confidently
The construction of such a list, howascribed to T's literary method.
standard text of the gospels
ever, requires a
We
of D.
comparative evaluation of the several extant witnesses
convenience consider,
for
will
first,
what witness may be
safely used for the determination of the general order of D,
how
a)
may be used
details of the text
The
The
their evidence,
been
Such
used
in
this
as
it is, it
Its
general character
though
help.
In the nature of
all
at points
study, the
us.
but excludes
it
has been taken into account
from E, and since that reconstruc-
been given sufficient consideration by

witness,
little
the quotations in Aphraates's Homilies can give but
in his reconstruction of
has
tion
can be ascertained by a comparison of
other witnesses give but
supplementary testimony.
by Zahn
general order of
and E.
and then,
with certainty.
it
Aph. has
said evidence of
is
the only other witness.
from consideration
serves to corroborate
E and
A.
as a chief
When F
is
compared with E and A, it is clear that its author changed D by omitting

and adding {e. g., the section on the woman taken in adultery) paragraphs and by rearranging its order." The suspicion against F,
aroused by these facts, is enhanced by a comparison of the order in
Not only
the praefatio with that of the actual extant text of F (see R.).
have the chapters of the text been differently numbered, but, if the
praefatio really represents an older order of the text (Z.*, p. 301), additions
(viz.,
chaps. 21, 69 of the text), substitutions (chaps. 106, 107 of
the text in the place of the repetition of chaps. 95 and 96 of
a repetition probably due, however, to the error
i\\Q
praefatio
of a scribe in copy-
ing the praefatio, in which case these chapters 106 and 107 are really
10
The terms "
connote throughout
reference to passages in D,
comparison of such passages with the Greek gospels, unless some
peculiarities," "deviations," "variants," used with

this discussion a
statement to the contrary
is
made.
" For a verification of the
in this paragraph, Appendix I of H.a will be found most

made, and with one exception there is no inaccuracy that
The exception is the attribution of A 6: 23-24 (marginal number in Hg.) to F, chap. 80
affects this study.
(according to the chapter numbers of the text, not those of the fraefatio), whereas F, chap. 80, is parThe first -mentioned passage of A is omitted by F.
allel to A 18 I-20 ff.
useful.
have
statements
made
verified the references there
218
DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

additions),
and changes
order
of
praefatio, chaps. 102-4, with the
(cf.
103-5) have been made.
text, chaps.
Accordingly, both by such a
E and
comparison and by that of F with
13
A,
proved to be, as a
is
whole, untrustworthy for the determination of the general order of D.
Where it agrees with E and A

and this is the case in large part
it
may be used as corroborative of them. If its evidence is opposed by
E and A, combined or independent, it is generally to be rejected.
E and F never, except possibly in one case {cf. pp. 10-14), combine
against A.
There are a few instances in which F corroborates A at
least against the inferences drawn from E by Zahn (see discussion
below).
There are also some cases of differences between A and F,
which have no corroboration
in
for
one or the other, because
generally fragmentary testimony to D.
The
order of F, in contrast to the. almost constant trustworthi-
bility of the
ness of that of A,
is
alone enough to give the preference to
same conclusion. The passages involved are

56"; (2) A6: 46-54 = F, chaps. 20, 49. 5^
;
(4)
A 15
27-32
F which
66
=: F, chap.
passages are examined,

texts of
But there are some other considerations that lead
than to F.
70
of E's
quite invariable unrelia-
it
will
(5)
A44
appear that
A6
(i)
;
all
25-35
to the
F, chap.
A7:47-53 = F,
(s)
10
rather
chap.
F, chap. 155. If these
except the
last are in
con-
also present material in a different order from that of
A, yet for the position of this contextual material
A has
the support of
would accordingly seem reasonable to suppose that, if Ephraem

had seen fit to quote from the passages noted above (1-4), the position
of these in A would have been supported by E just as the position of
E.
It
the material of their contexts
is.
reveals also that the order of
An
is
examination of the passages
less
probably due to a superficial
For example, it is easier to suppose

is in an original position and has been changed to that of
The examination
155, than to explain the reverse process.
worker than that of
passages, therefore,
of
A.
F.
added
A 44
10
F, chap.
of these
to the consideration of the general character
A and F respectively, leads inevitably to the

A similar confidence in A is reached
omitted by both E and F, but retained

be supposed that the silence of both
but the fragmentary character of
is
rejection of
rather than
with regard to passages
in A.'^
E and F
At
is
first
sight,
it
might
evidence against A,
in every case sufficient to account
numbers referring to A are those which appear in the left-hand margin of Hg. On the same
Hg. has printed references to the corresponding pages of Csc. References to F are to the
chapter numbering of the text. The sign = indicates throughout this paper parallel material, though in
some citations the full limits of the parallels are not shown.
"The
side of the page
13
There are but three such passages
cf.
footnote above, p. 12, and H.a, App.
219
I.
14
for
and omission
silence,
its
inclusion of the passages

error, for few scribes
therefore
is
to
Moreover, A's
characteristic of F.
is
explain on the ground of scribal
difficult to
is
would have selected such unexpected positions.
be allowed no independent weight against A, no
matter which of the above classes of passages are considered.
be
true, then,
any further comparison of F with other witnesses
This leaves us
essary.
Aph.
since, as already stated,
taken into account below through our use of Z.*
compared.
In the comparison of these two
is
If this
is
unnec-
practically
with only
E and A
to be
to use
Zahn's reconstruction of
With such
method
is
the remarkable
at
once, especially
of procedure, the
agreement
when
in
will
it
as the
be found inost convenient
summation
E and A
order between
the corroboration of
passages where there
is
disagreement.
fact which
remembered, estabThere are really only
To make
good, however, there must be taken into account,

to
a.
is
lishes the validity of the general order of both.

six
of E's evidence.
that attracts attention
first fact
first,
this
statement
those passages
which Zahn has given, but on inference alone, a different position
from that which they occupy

dence
was led to arrange the passages

stand
Zahn had for his placings no evido not occur in E. He
in A.
in E, since the passages in question
in
as
he did, because
in
our gospels they
connection with other passages which are quoted
in E, but, as
no disagreement with A. Zahn's inference was natural

in the absence of evidence from A, but is now not to be admitted to
have any weight, especially since A is supported by F in its positions
for some of these passages.
There are, in all, seven sections in which
Zahn's order rests solely on the inference referred to. These are:
quoted are
in
A 5: 33-41 = Luke 4 14(^-2 2;=: Zahn, 32 = M., pp. 128-31;''*

A 7:46 = Mark 3:2i = Zahn, 27 = M., pp. ni-13; (3) A
13:36, 37 = Mark 6:12, i3=Zahn, 24 = M., pp. 90-98; (4) A
14:43, 44 = Mark 6:30, 31 = Zahn, 34 = M., pp. 132-36; (5) A
20 12-16 = 12-16 = Luke 11 37-41 = Zahn, 77 = M., pp. 21 1-13
(6) A 27:24, 25 = Luke 12:47, 48 := Zahn, 79 = M., pp. 213-18;
Of
(7) A 28 33-41 = Luke 12 13-21 = Zahn, 54 = M., pp. 174
(i)
(2)
f.
remember, E is entirely
are given the same position by
these passages, concerning which, let us

five
F.
(i), (3), (4), (5),
and
(7)
This agreement without any adverse testimony of E,
against the mere inference of Zahn.

14
For a convincing discussion of
220
A and
conclusive
Of the remaining passages one
this section see H.a,
throughout our investigation refer to his reconstruction of
is
silent,
App. IX. All references to Zahn's sections

in Forsch., I, pp. 112-219.
(2)
by F, and therefore
entirely omitted
is
15
to be classed
is
(6)
great
E and F
where
to be accepted
{cf.
26 43-45 and 27
difference,
is
and
F,
The only
though the difference
But there
is
still
We may, therefore,
another passage, not noted
above, which needs separate treatment, because
more than
80=
This
inference.
M.,pp. 218
From
f.
is
not
But, in so
ff.)
seven of these passages rather than
as to all
the inference of Zahn.'^
is
on slightly
rests
it
36-52 := Luke 19 1 1-27 = Zahn,

that Aphraates brings this passage
31
the fact
into connection with the similar parable of the ten talents, and that
gives the passage in the

fore,
had
it
to
it
may
to be
this position in the
fairly
usual value.
is
silent.
one of the pounds
it is
particular point at which
at the
occurs in A.
it
of all the evidence than that
correctly represents D, while
gave to a part of
it
is
marked.
is
why a scribe should separate the

D, or why he should have put this
difficult to see
more reasonable explanation

that
are derived from such an order as that of A,
therefore, to
is,
in all eight instances, are untrust-
worthy because of the lack of evidence.
There
no reason
is
to sup-
pose that Zahn would have drawn such conclusions as he did,
had had access
to A.
represents the order
I.
We may, accordingly, conclude

of D in the above passages.
may, therefore, proceed to discuss the
above as raising
which Zahn
Aph. and F
and are due to the ten-
The conclusion
dency to associate similar material.

be accepted that Zahn's inferences,
We
In regard to Aphraates
tendency to bring similar material together
they stood together in
if
original Diatessaron.
it would be natural to expect these parables

homilv even more than in a work like F, though,
in a
the other hand,
parables
its
that, there-
be urged that
combined
in the latter, the
On
same connection, Zahn concludes
be given no more than
is
is
rather than F, on the
to be accepted
is
principles determined in the preceding paragraph.
accept the testimony of
other passage
24, 25 with F, chaps. 109
far as there
by
differently placed
is
are silent.
and
disposed of together with the passages discussed above, in which
that
six passages
if
he
correctly
mentioned
real difficulties.
A3: 14 .-JO,
Luke
Zahn, 7/ M., pp. 36-40.^^
40-3
The
+ Matt. 3
1-3
[cf.
respective order of
A3
24-44),
E and A
is
as
follows
15
Zahn has acknowledged
the limitations of his
work done before
the publication of
A.
See Z.b,
pp. 618, 623.

iS
Only those
investigation.
parts of the parallel passages of material are indicated
Cf. footnote, p. 13.
221
which are needed
for
the
16
(l) Matt. 2: 15.
(i) Matt.
(4)
2:1^-23.
Matt, 3:10.
(3)
John
17;
1:14;
1:19-28 (partly).

tion of
( 13, p. 128):
"Der springende Charakter
des
17
Commentars
macht die Wiederherstellung der Ordnung fast unmoglich." On the

other hand, A gives the accounts just where we might expect them,
and, so far as the material mentioned is concerned, is supported by F
in so doing.
This would lead to the conclusion that A is again correct.
III. A 14: g {cf. A 8:47) =Luke 16:17 = Zahu, /; {cf. 26)
M.,p. 6^.
The difference here is not very serious. Zahn recognizes the possibility that Ephraem may have quoted here Luke 16: 17
as a substitute for Matt. 5 :<i8,
which was
in
at this point,
and
is
so
byA(8:47). It is not at all clear even that E represents his

The passage is
quotation of Luke 16: 17 as a part of the text of D.
not quoted to be commented upon, but is introduced as illustrative
material.
It is certainly not violent, therefore, to suppose that Ephraem
used in his lecture this quotation, which came to him more readily than
preserved
Matt. 5: 18, even though he was discussing the context of the
The
probability that this
is
true
on close study,
verses are not greatly, though,

It is still
latter.
strengthened by recalling that the
is
distinctly
different.
further strengthened by the difficulty of supposing that T,
working with written sources, should have made
this substitution
when,
8:47 going either backward or forward, he was relying entirely upon Matthew (except for two
in a considerable part of the context of
small items not occurring at
Aph.
While
all in
significant that, while he has

fifth
Again, F supports
gospel).
some corroboration of A by
first
is
not a settled fact that Aph. used only D,
it is
largely from
that he quoted his gospel texts
the
the
Furthermore, there
this point.
at
it.
It
is,
it is
certain
accordingly,
quoted or made recognizable allusions to
chapter of Matthew fifty-nine times, and has quoted our very
Luke 16: 17 in
Luke 16:17 stood
verse (18) twice, he never quotes nor alludes to
This
homilies. '^
is
somewhat surprising
if
all his
in his
where Matt. 5:18 now stands in A, and if Matt. 5: 18 was

thus entirely omitted from D.
But, whatever conclusion we reach as
to whether A is correct at 8:47 in having Matt. 5:18 rather than
text of
Luke
16: 17, there
giving
is
no evidence
Luke 16:17 at
answered, therefore, is: Did T
in
who made
17
The
The only question to be

Luke 16:17 twice, substituting it
14:9.
use
in the first instance for Matt. 5
in view of the
to raise a question of the validity of
18?
above considerations.
It
negative answer
was
is
probable
in all probability
Ephraem
the substitution, not Tatian.
facts
concerning Aphraates which are used
in this
paper have been ascertained by the present
writer through an investigation of the marginal notes in Graffin's edition.
223
18
IV. A i^: 17-26 {cf. A 12 : 40 ff.) = Luke 10:3-12 = Zahn, 24

The problem in this case is as follows: In the
M., pp. go-g8.
the speech of instructions
midst of a comment on Matthew, chap. 10
Ephraem
to the Twelve as they are about to be sent out by Jesus
quotes what
Luke
at least apparently,
is,
of the text of
(M., p. 92).
10:
and
5,
that, too, as a part
This would suggest that
had
inter-
woven with this speech the similar instructions to the Seventy recorded
This suggestion, adopted by Zahn, is further supin Luke 10:3-12.
ported, according to Hill (Appendix IX), by some traces of conflation still to be found in A itself (viz., "two and two," A 12:43;
Luke 10:1; and " lambs," A 13 i Luke 10:3); and especially by
the fact that F has still more of the interweaving at this point and
omits Luke 10:3-12 at the place where A (15 17-26) includes it. If
:
is
to be preferred
here, this array of evidence,
strong, must be disposed

as
it
may
at first
seem.
of.
not at
is
Luke
of
10
all
and some
of
clear that the quotation in
To
by T.
All of the items of evidence,
separately, are found to have

It
which
Yet the case against
little,
determine
be found
Parallel Accounts of
THE Sending of the
Twelve.
this,
least
at
is
seems
not so strong
when
scrutinized
them no, weight.

really represents a use
the following
columns
will
useful:
(Matt. 10
voi
di
12.)
TTjv
et's
elffepxi/J-e-
oUlav
dcrtrd-
Seventy.
(M., p. 92.) In quaincum-
que
domum
mum
(xaude air'f)v.
Account of Sending the
intraveritis pri-
salutate
domum
(cited
(Luke 10:
ela-^Xd-rjre
yere
5.)
oUlav
elp-^vt) t<?
ek
fjv
d''
npuiToiof/ctj;
Siv
\4-
Toi/ry.
as text of D).
(Luke 9
&v
oMav
4a.)
koi
eis
ijv
elfffKdTjre.
(M., p. 63.)
que
domum
mum
dicite,
(cited as
an
In
quamcum-
intraveritis pri-
pax huic domui

illustration).
we suppose that T
we must conclude that he employed Matt. 10:12;
first
member, under the influence of Luke 9 4a, from a
its
modified
participial to a finite construction added prmum (if E correctly repreused only the parallel accounts of the sending
If
of the Twelve,
sents the text of D), either according to a characteristic of his general

literary
method, or under the influence of the similar saying in Luke

domum for a.vr-t]v. If we suppose T used here
10: 5; and substituted
Luke 10:5, we must note carefully that he changed the position of

the first member, and omitted tovtw and substituted salutate
On neither supposition do we get an
for XeycTc eipiyvi/ in the second.
oiKtav in
224
DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PEOBLEM

Taking the two members
exact quotation.
is
to be noted that the
agrees with
first
19
of the verse separately,
Luke 10:5, excepting
inexplicable change of order (unless appeal to T's literary habits
made);'^ but
it
may
also be assigned to
Luke
4a,
and
i;
the
is
that, too, with
no unexplained element.
The latter assignment is, accordingly,
slightly more probable, because nothing remains to be explained.
As
regards the second member, if we assign it to Matthew, we must suppose either that E's text is unreliable, or that T added primum and
substituted domuin for avriyv.
If we assign it to Luke 10:5, we must
conclude that Tatian was influenced by Matt. 10:12 in substituting
Xeycre dprjvq for do-Tracracrê and in the omission of Torro*.
Accordingly,
but impossible to determine which assignment of the second
it is all
member
beset with
least
is
On
difficulties.
account of
its
greater
general similarity to Matthew, however, the assignment in this direction
more probable. Therefore, both the members, if conmore probably to be assigned to the parallel
the sending of the Twelve (the first column above).
slightly
is
sidered separately, are
accounts of
Really, the only difficult element in such an assignment
which occurs only
Luke 10:5 (account
in
is
pri'mttm,
of the sending out of the
It is certainly precarious to conclude from the presence of

one word that the entire passage Luke 10 3-12 was conflated here
Seventy).
this
in the text of
which
And
used.
word, in this one verse,
this
the only testimony to such interweaving that

tion of
Luke
10:
6,
which Zahn includes
offers
is
for the quota-
in this section, occurs in
such
no indication of the order of Ephraem's exemplar, being quoted (M., p. 105), as Zahn himself says, decidedly ausser
Zusammcnhang. But not only is E's positive evidence precarious; it
is all but entirely negatived by a consideration growing out of the fact
that E quotes Luke 10:5 in another form at a different point (M., p.
a connection as to give
The exact quotation of this verse as illustrative matewhen Ephraem referred to the idea expressed in
was apt to occur to his mind in the form of Luke 10:5.
63;
cf. p.
rial
indicates that
it,
18).
this idea
Therefore,
is
it
enced him
in
not unreasonable to suppose that this verse has influ-
quoting
at
the
point under discussion.
Such
supposition will remove every difficulty in the way of trusting A,

so far as
E awakens
distrust.
/.
a
e.,
The supposition is supported, moreLuke 10:5, but also by
over, not only by this double quotation of
Ephraem's notoriously general looseness

j8No appeal
other, since
on
this
in
quoting
(<:/.
T's literary habits can be made in this discussion either

ground a case could be made out for either.
to
225
H.*",
for
pp. 18-25).
one assignment or the
20
Besides this ground,
gives further evidence for distrusting
itself
as a basis for a reconstruction of
it
Ephraem quotes
at this point.
Matt. io:8^ ("gratis accepistis, gratis date"), both in connection with

his
the sending out of the Twelve (M., p. 91)
comments on
those on the sending out of the Seventy (M., p.

of the quotations
5).
and with
This assignment
Analogously to the position of Zahn,
indisputable.
is
must be granted that this evidence proves a conflation at both points

D. But it is distinctly improbable that T harmonized and conflated
these two sets of instructions, and then used the conflated passage
twice.
But the only other alternative is that E is not to be accepted
Though we have not
as truly representing the text of D at this point.
it
in
been able with entire certainty to determine the source of the quotation
which has been discussed at length, we have nevertheless, by these
shown
considerations,
least, of
that
it
improbable that
is
is
this place
at
In this way, therefore, we have disposed of that part, at
trustworthy.
the array of evidence against
which
is
supposed to be sup-
plied by E.
The testimony
of F,
which
is
held to corroborate E, consists in the
amid the instructions to the Twelve, of Luke 10:7, and

the omission of Luke 10: 3-12 where A presents it as a part of D.
inclusion,
is
to be particularly
discussed above,
On
noted that F does not support
upon which Zahn's reconstruction
the other hand, in one point
Luke 10:16
quotes
it
agrees with
is
as illustrative material
If
chiefly based.
A against E
in
quoting
disagreement alluded
of
spernit"), but rather,
it
E
may
than as a part of the text to be com-
the quotation be held to be from Ephraem's exem-
plar at the point where he
phenomena
me
It
quotation
in its
connection with the instructions to the Seventy.
in
mented upon.
the
(M., p. 94, "qui vos spernit,
be argued,
of
to.
is
expounding, there
The
is
certainly present the
question, therefore, arises as to whether
really corroborate the evidence of E,
if
there be
any, or are only examples of certain characteristics of the compiler of
make
additions and omisdrawn

from the omission
sions of this kind. Moreover, the conclusion
if
entirely
invalidated, by
weakened,
not
of Luke 10:3-12 is greatly
which,
the
view
of Zahn and
verses,
on
the fact that not only these
F.
Hill,
It is certainly characteristic of
him
to
E
ought not to appear, but also verses 13-15, are omitted.
latter were conflated with the instruc-
shows no indication that these
A gives their Matthean parallel after Luke

Now, F agrees with A at this point in the use
from Matthew rather than the Lukan version, though it
tions to the Twelve, but
10:12 (A 15
of the parallel
28-30).
226

has this material from Matthew in a different position.
21
(This position,
no way with that of E.) Therefore,

since the author of F habitually adds and omits, and since at this
particular point he is proved to be altering D, without any possible
agreement with E, in that he omits vss. 13-15, as A does, and gives
the Matthean material in an unacceptable position, the phenomena of
F should probably be reckoned as due to the compiler, and not to his
text of U.
We might conclude, accordingly, without further discusdiffering from that of A, agrees in
sion, that, in view of F's partial support of
evidence of F
F does
therefore
at
But there are two other consid-
order has an intrinsic improbability.
having divided,
as
A, and since the alleged
the critical point of the latter's quotation,
not corroborate E.
First, F's
erations.
sents
fails
if
Zahn and
It
repre-
Hill are correct, the speech
containing the instructions to the Seventy; as having conflated one

part with the similar speech to the Twelve in Matthew; as having
changed another part to a position entirely out of its canonical connection

and as having left the mere end of this discourse (Luke
10 16 f.) at the point where A gives the whole speech.
Such a procedure is inexplicable whether we view it independently or in the light
of Tatian's method.
Considered independently, no further remark is
;
On
needed.
the other hand, Tatian has never elsewhere, so far as can
F would
had done. Second, F cannot be said to have at this point
any thoroughgoing conflation, such as Hill seems to imply, and such
as Tatian very often made, since its conflation consists simply in the
addition of the one verse, Luke 10:7.
Other material from the
instructions to the Seventy might have been used, and, according to
the general methods of T, evidence of which is still preserved in A, is
to be expected in the conflation.
These two considerations
the
clumsiness and incompleteness of the work of the author of F upon
the passages under discussion
strengthen the conclusion already
reached, that the phenomena of F are due to the methods of the compiler of F.
We have, therefore, no evidence with which to support E,
be determined, proceeded so clumsily as the arrangement of
indicate he
even
if
the testimony of the latter be given weight.
There
flation of
still
the
remains the evidence of A, with reference to the con-
two discourses under discussion.
The
force
of
any
allegation based on A, disappears as soon as the supposed testimony is

examined. The use of " lambs " (Luke 10:3) as over against " sheep "
(Matt.
ID
16)
supported by
is
of little significance, since "sheep," not
(M.,
p.
91, oves),
227
"lambs,"
and since the difference
is
is
but
22
any
slight in
lo
The touch
case.
of the sending out of the
therefore,
Taken
and
all,
Twelve (Mark 6
The evidence
absent from F.
is,
" two and two "
as Hill apparently supposed, but to the
of
7).
not due to
is
Markan
Both of these traces are
in favor of the alleged conflation
nil.
singly, the witnesses against the order suggested
may be disposed
of.
may
by A, one
In combination, the evidence amounts
to the united force of several rather
of E, which
Luke
parallel account
remote
possibilities.
The evidence
quite reasonably be explained away by an appeal to
Ephraem's looseness
in
quoting amounts to
little
more, even when
this
appeal be waived, than the presence of one word from Luke, chap. 10.
The testimony
of F,
which
is
derived from the occurrence of
phenomena
very probably due to the compiler of the Latin harmony, does not
corroborate
at the critical point,
may be
though the phenomena upon which
some plausibility to the

There can hardly be said
to be any corroboration by A of any particular point of E or F, and
only the most meager sort in any general way, viz., the possible signiOn the other hand, over against these
ficance of the use of "lambs."
it is
based
interpreted so as to give
conclusion drawn from the testimony of E.
remote
possibilities of corroboration there are the slight
disagreements
and the more pronounced difference between A and F,

which were mentioned above. Therefore, even when we combine the
evidence of the several witnesses, their corroboration is weakened by
mutual disagreement, and the opinion of Zahn and Hill can be regarded
Independently considered, the
as no more than possibly correct.
The probable conclusion of the whole
witnesses fall to the ground.
of
E and
matter
is
D at
F,
this
The general
most this
makes
represent D
of
is
it
excellence of
as a witness for the order
the only passage where
does not correctly
probable, in view of the weakness of the evidence
of the other witnesses here that at this point as well
as
elsewhere
is
to be trusted.
Whatever may be concluded, the extreme limit to be regarded in

any appeal to these sections of A is this We must not draw conclusions
from the presence of Luke 10:3-12 in its present position in A. If
this limitation be observed, we shall be safe in any other use of A.
The only use of the section in this paper is that on p. 60, which is not
invalidated by the above conclusion but would be made even more
valuable, were the view just opposed correct.
V. A, chaps. 2^-27 Matt., chap. 18 Zahn, 45-50 = M., pp.
162-65.
It was impossible for Zahn to reconstruct, from Ephraem's
:
228
23
fragmentary quotations, an order of T's distribution of Matt., chap. i8

which would have been compatible with the order in A. He recognized
when he
the difficulty of his situation
"Die Zusammen-
says {in loco):
are in
Had he
would have seen that the quotations in E, though few,
precisely the order which these texts occupy in A, though that
order
is
setzung dieser Perikope
had access
to A, he
quite remarkable.
gives to
it
is
culty {vide in loco),
Furthermore, so
far as
concerned, with which Zahn had such great
diffi-
have
only to be stated and
VI.
In
Instead, therefore, of conflicting with A,
peculiarly strong corroboration.
Matt. i8: lo, ii
8g.
nicht mit Sicherheit anzugeben."
ist
33
i-iy
it
will
be concluded that
- Mark
11
2.
4.
fig
The
i.
M., pp. 182-
F each give a
F.
cursing of the
fig
2.
tree.
The lesson.
The visit of Nicodemus.
The parable of the un-
i.
The visit of Nicodemus.

The lesson from the tree.
The parable of the un-
2.
3.
4.
just judge.
The
% 6i
A.
cursing of the
tree.
3.
correct here.
is
= Zahn,
facts
E.
The
:ig-26
the arrangement of material here, E, A, and
different order
1.
These
also supports A's arrangement.
The
The
visit of
Nicodemus.
cursing of the
fig
tree.
3.
4.
just judge.
The lesson.
The parable
of the un-
just judge.
three witnesses agree in presenting Tatian as having brought
together passages widely separated in our gospels and, therefore, in a

general way
the
was cursed
tree
fig
is
The
supported as correct.
Nicodemus made
representation of
on a certain day
(i)
his visit
(2).
The next morning,
passed the tree on their way to the city and noticed
drew the lesson
(3)
from
the unjust judge (4).
it.
To
this lesson
This order of events
is
successive
days.
order
A's
impossible in the light of T's sources.

preserve the original order, that of
vations.
of
is
that
the disciples
condition, Jesus
attached the parable of
may
is,
as
its
easily
have been suggested to Tatian by his Markan source,

occur on
the evening of which
in
be supposed to
in
which
and 3
therefore,
by no means
be supposed to
Moreover,
if
E and F may be
There would be the constant temptation
explained as deri-
to
by bringing together the separated elements
change the order

and 3. On the
Mark was used by the author of the first gospel, prechange has been made by him. Ephraemf and the author of
hypothesis that
cisely this
fell
into this temptation.
Ephraem made
rated elements by putting 3 before
before
i.
The temptation
in the case of
229
the combination of sepa-
the author of F, by placing 2
Ephraem was
especially strong,
24
it would be most logical and convenient to conclude

comments on both i and 3 before passing to the remainder of the
In the case of the not over-keen compiler of F the temptation
passage.
since in lecturing
the
was
be yielded to
likely to
Matthew
because of
preserved by A.
at
once
possibly under the influence of

see the superior order which
his inability to
the difficulty of supposing either
is
which the other orders are derived.

E's arrangement, since
in this part of
follow
it
or
and
separates 3
4,
can be explained alone by
is
is
the evidence
groups of two.
in
from
an incongruity in
though the presence of 4

its fitness immediately to
Besides these considerations, there
3.
by combining the several witnesses
to be the original
Indeed, there
is
E and F from
In contrast to this ready derivation of
deduced
E and A
agree
and F agree against E

Thus for each
for the placing of 3 immediately before 4 and after 2.
of the elements of its order, save the separation of i and 3, A has the
support of one of the other witnesses, while these other witnesses disagree as to all elements except 4, as to which all the witnesses agree.
Therefore, since A is shown to be correct by its combinations with now
E, now F, for the just-mentioned relations of items, and since E and F
mutually disagree as well as differ from A as regards i and 3, and since
A's order is intrinsically superior, while at the same time giving rise to
the above-mentioned temptation to alter it, we are forced to conclude in
favor of A in the whole arrangement.'' Whether, therefore, we examine
A on its own merits, or group the witnesses, we are brought to the
against
same
in
giving
result, viz.,
We
some position
after
i.
A's order correctly presents that of D.
have now considered
all
of the six passages wherein the recon-
differs in order from A.

On
thorough investigation, it develops that there are few real differences,
and, with one possible exception (IV, above), A is everywhere to be
structed text of D,
made by Zahn,
trusted as correctly preserving the order of D.

certain
b)
text.
ground
We
have, therefore,
in A's order of sections.
We
may, accordingly, turn our attention to the details of the

Of the extant witnesses to the text of D A is the only one that
can be used as a satisfactory basis for our study. The remains in E

and Aph.^ are too fragmentary for such use. F" is in no sense a
>9For an extended, but not always convincing, discussion of all the differences between A and E see
H.a, App. IX, to which the above examination
20
The quotations
of
D in Syrian
is
much
indebted.
Fathers other than Aphraates have not yet been
made
accessible to
Zahn has made some references in his notes, and these have been considered
herein. J. R. Harris (Har.c) has collected from the writings of Ishodad quotations of E in which there
are some remains of D. These quotations, however, hardly suggest that the results of this investigation
would be appreciably affected by further discoveries in Syrian patristic literature.
any considerable
2'
The view
extent.
of
F now commonly
held
is
that
which was suggested above,
230
viz.,
it
is
a secondary com-

and
translation of T's gospel,
is
The very
of details of text.
25
entirely untrustworthy for the recovery
fact that its
author did not translate the
text of D, but used the corresponding passages of the Vulgate Latin

is enough to deprive this witness of any decisive weight in estimating the value of any particular reading. The additional fact of the
text,
undisputed incompleteness of F, when taken together with the foregoing, makes
leaves
as the
any large omission.
to offer in
from the original
directly
can be determined, without
far as
and complete, there-
which to compare whatever evidence

determining the reliability of any given
In such a comparison, however, Aph. and
passage.
This conclusion
58).
It is sufficiently satisfactory
to serve as a basis with
Aph. and E have
made
a translation
is
language of D, and preserves D, so

fore,
as either a satisfactory or
Hj., p.
{cf.
only remaining extant witness which we can use for this
This witness
purpose.
quite impossible to regard
it
complete basis for investigation
are generally to
There are two reasons for

such an estimate
(i) both Aph. and E are much older than A; (2)
their readings, together and independently, show themselves less influenced than those of A by the known sources of the transmissional corruption of D.
Accordingly, if the testimony of E or Aph. for a given
be regarded as better witnesses than A.
:
contrary to that of A, the latter must be rejected, unless
passage
is
there
some
is
specific reason for setting aside the former.
sons are sometimes to be appealed to
or Aph. should be rejected
influenced
may, therefore, use

sideration to
in
Such
rea-
example, the testimony of
rather than that of A, has been
it,
of transmissional
our basic
as
text,
corruption.
We
but we must give due con-
Aph. and E.
But we must go further

text.
when
by known tendencies
for
if
we
are to have perfect confidence in our
study of the text of D, whether as represented by
or A,"
comparison with the text of Syriac and Arabic versions, and with
variants
of
the
Greek gospels; the consideration of the possible

and the possibility of corrup-
unfaithfulness of the Arabic translator

tion in the transmission of
how
far the text of
pilation
made by arranging
D,
as
itself,
we possess
create the necessity of considering

it,
may be
trusted.
which the
But the work was clumsily done and T's order has not always been
sections of the Vulgate Latin text of the gospels, in the order in
corresponding material stands in D.
Indeed, there are many serious departures. (See H. a, pp. 17-20; Z. a, pp. 298-313.)
Later writers have not agreed with Zahn (p. 310) that " innerhalb einzelner Perikopen ist selbst die
Zahn's
feinere Mosaikarbeit des Originals, wenn auch unvollkommen, in F wiederzuerkennen."
followed with fidelity.
opinion
is
based upon a fragmentary comparison of
E and
could scarcely have been different from that of scholars

(</.
F.
Had
who have
he been able to use A, his conclusions
written since Ciasca's publication of
Hj.,p.58).
22
For an investigation with
as the basis, see Z.a,
231
I,
pp. 220-38; with
A as
the basis, see Sel.
26
Such consideration leads

admittedly later than D.
to
at
once to an estimation of the amount of
D by Syriac versions which are

There has been noted a marked tendency
upon the
influence exerted
text of
harmonize the text of D with these versions, in particular P. It

therefore, that any passage whose phenomena -deviations
follows,
from our gospel text
are
same
the
those of the corresponding
as
passages of these versions must be set aside, so far as our study
is
con-
cerned, since any deviation from the Greek gospels which may appear
in such a passage may be due to the influence of these later versions,
not to Tatian.
and
their variations
have collated
all
the passages used in this paper,
in no case be referred to the

For collation with P, I have used the
comparison with S* is impossible, since there is
from the gospels can
influence under discussion.
Syriac text of Pusey.
no
certainly attested witness for the gospels of this version.
information of such a witness that we possess
may be
The only
stated in two
First, Bernstein (Das Evangelimn des Johannes, 1853,

referred to by Nestle in the article " Syriac Versions" in Hastings's
sentences.
Dictionary of the Bible)
c\a.\xn?,
that the text
of this version exists in
Cod. A of the Bibliotheca Angelica at Rome. Second, Isaac N. Hall

published in 1884 a work, Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian Version,
etc.,
maintaining ^^ that there were manuscripts in this
country that contain the gospels of
Such information, however,
S"*".
furnishes no accessible text of S* for the gospels.
In spite of the con-
sequent impossibility of a comparison with this version, however, no

S* never exerted a large
great uncertainty will attend our results.

influence
Witness
any direction, so
in
far
failure to be preserved,
its
as
gospels are
the
and the
fact that the
concerned.
Harklensian
Moreover, by the sixth cenit entirely usurped its place.

which S* had its origin, and probably its brief life, D had
probably been driven from public use, at least in other than Nestorian
churches {cf. Hj., pp. 2 ^-i,<^ passim) and, since in this case D would be
revision of
tury, in
less often
copied, there would be relatively small chance of any cor-
ruption of D.
of
S*
upon
Still
further improbability of any considerable influence
D may
by analogy from the very small

made below. There is, therefore,
be inferred
influence of S*, of which mention
is
almost no probability, not to say possibility, that S* affected

be
deeply
23C. R.
concerned
at
our
inability
to
Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments,
reference to Hall's view, but implies that he thinks
it is
232
in
We
transmission to any appreciable extent.
need not, accordingly,

With
make use of it.
II, 501-5, does not
plausible.
commit himself with

respect
S^ Sellin
to
detected
(Sel.,
p.
"wenn auch nur
in
237) says that
geringem
its
Grade."
27
In
treatment
his
of the matter, he presents only twenty passages (Tabelle
the whole range of
may be
influence
from
III)
which there may be an influence of S*.^^ None

be found among those which we use below in
in
of these passages will
illustrating T's method.

Our results have been still further guarded
by an examination of all passages in the light of the variants of
Accordingly, in the passages which
S* which are noted in Tisch.^^
we may be sure there are

With regard, therefore, to the har-
are used below to indicate T's literary habits
no
traces of the influence of S*.
monization of
with
all
three of the later Syriac versions, our results
have been safeguarded.
But besides the tendency to harmonize

noted another
the
nally omitted in D,
filling in of
been
in this way, there has
words, phrases, and sentences origi-
and the excising of words, phrases, and sentences

in D to conform in both cases to the Syriac
The knowledge of this, however, can affect our
originally contained
separate gospels.
one direction.
results in only
passages, which
It
we have used,
cannot shake our confidence
in
the
for these passages present, not agree-
ments, but disagreements with the text of the separate gospels.

lead only to the very obvious conclusion that where
It
differs
can
from
the text of the Greek gospels either by omission or addition, and such
they
are
be ascribed
to
tendency of the scribes

then, rather
tendency.
it
than
to
any
for
results
specific textual influit
is
to let such differences remain.
limited, in
We may
can vitiate our
due
to Tatian,
differences cannot be explained as
ence,
our work by
are not invalidated
Indeed, we
may
We
are aided,
knowledge of this
without any fear that
the
pass on, therefore, at least
results.
contrary to the
feel
confident that
our
by any corrupting influences proceeding
from the later Syriac versions.

There is ever present, however, the possibility that A has been
corrupted by influences to which it is liable as an Arabic version of D.
As a translation A is but one remove from the original, for, as noted
above, recent scholars of prominence, with the exception of Harnack,
agree that
T composed D
in
Syriac.^*
Moreover, the faithfulness of
Harklensian version as the Philoxenian, apparently following the suggestion of

the title of White's edition of 89. He nowhere states that he is using White, but seems to reveal it in
this note: " P=Phil. wo die Uebersetzung White's falsch ist " (p. 240).
24 Sellin refers to the
25
Tischendorf designates 89 in the edition of his work which
have used as syrP.,but
cf.
Gregory,
Prolegomena, p. 824, footnote.

26" Es darf hiernach als bewiesen angesehen werden, dass das dem Tatian zugeshriebene Diatessaron von Haus aus ein syrisches Buch war" (Z.a, p. 238; cf. Hj., pp. 22, 23).
233
28
this direct translation
subject thoroughly.
He
faithfulness.
is
by those who have investigated the
attested
Harnack,
be sure, throws suspicion upon
to
this
describes A, along with two other elaborations of
the
and the alleged Greek

(see Hrk.',
pp. 495
without
warrant,
to have been the
but
supposed,
which
are
fragments
f.)
I,
Latin,
Nachtigall's translation
viz.,
F,
as sehr fret.
It
quite impos-
basis
of
sible,
however, to believe that this opinion rests upon
ough investigation
reaching
before
as the great
his
Berlin scholar
How
conclusions.
he could
conclusion as that just stated, when there
which on
his theory
The mere
conceive.
tion
not
to
would be the
fact that
is
original,
he classes
mention the association of
is
is
wont
arrive
no Greek
is
such thorto prosecute

at
such a
witness'''' to
D,
certainly difficult to
A with F without any

A with Nachtigall's
distinc-
work
and estimates their value as translations in the same generalizing

terms, will show at once to anyone who studies the subject that his
statements are based on no thorough digestion of the facts gained by
such
investigation.
Sellin
says
(Sel.,
243) of
p.
the
Arabic trans-
"Der Uebersetzer verfahrt also nicht knechtisch aber treit.'' In

judgment Hjelt concurs (Hj., pp. 65-70). Moreover, in addition
lator:
this
to the opinion of scholars, further confidence
tion
of the
Tayib.
is
given by a considera-
excellent abilities of the well-known
This confidence, and the
fact that
has been examined to determine that
its
translator, Ibn-at-
each passage used below
peculiarities are not
due
to
the exigencies of the Arabic language, free our conclusions from uncertainty with regard to the possibility that the text has been corrupted
But the possibility of a corruption of the text of

under the influence of Arabic versions has still to be considered.
The variant readings of the two manuscripts of A show no marked
tendency to harmonize A with the Arabic versions.^* Indeed, no
by translation.
specific similarity
between the text of
and the peculiar readings of

But whatever the
these versions has been pointed out by scholars.
its effect has been eliminated for us

by a comparison of our passages with Arabic variants noted in Tisch.
As in the comparison with the Syriac versions, the principle has been
possibility of such harmonization,
adopted here
also, that a possible influence of the version is
exclude passages agreeing with
it
in
any of
its
peculiarities.
enough to
As con-
cerns the transmission of A, as affected by other influences than the

27
The
translation
pp. 495, 496).

28
But
cf.
For a
published
scarcely be used as such.

full
of alleged Greek fragments can

by Ottmar Nachtigall (1523)
Harnack himself implies doubt as to the character of this work (see Hrk.c, I,
discussion see Z.a, pp. 313-28.
the adverse, but unsupported statement of Hj., p. 61.
231
DIATESSAEON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM

Arabic versions of the separate gospels,
from any considerable impurity. To be
when compared with each
of A,
it
seems to have been
free
two manuscripts
sure, the
show some
other,
29
different readings,
but these are quite unimportant in character, since they can generally
be explained by appealing to the simplest kinds of scribal error and

affect
Such
only a very few of the passages used below.
as they are,
they are consultable in Csc, and in every passage which we consider
upon our conclusions may be estimated. Whether,

we consider the value of A as a translation, or the transmission of A under the possible influence of Arabic versions and
other sources of corruption, we are able to proceed, with proper
their
bearing
therefore,
limitations, free
any appreciable uncertainty because of the

in A from such influences as might have
from
possibility- of corruptions
been exerted upon
Now
it
an Arabic translation.
as
we have considered Syriac versions and Arabic influences, there remains in Column II, 2, above, (p. 11) but one item
Greek variants. There is always the possibility, though this is often
slight, that any extant variation of the Greek gospelsmay have influenced
This has made
the transmission of D in any or all of its witnesses.
it
necessary to compare ever}' passage with the variants to the text
of the Greek gospels in Tisch., and to exclude all whose peculiarities
that
agree with any of these variants.
we may now draw with reference to the influA

ence of the transmission of the texts of D upon our results is this
upon
it
are
based
has preserved a text which must be limited, if results
to be recived with confidence.
But it is possible to make every limitation that safety demands, and such limitations have been made in this
The conclusion
that
investigation.
all
The
portions of text which have been used below are in
probability absolutely free from every kind of influence which can be
proved or inferred to have corrupted

But
if
the certainty that our text
D
is
in transmission.
pure
is
by a
to be paralleled
similar certainty as to the conclusions derived in our study of that

text,
we must give some consideration
The
larger part of our
text are
due
to T's
work
literary
when we have eliminated
all
is
to
method.
the
to the items of
Column
determine what phenomena

It
above.
in
our
can be accomplished only
phenomena due
to the possible influ-
the variants of the Greek gospels, and of

Curetonian Syriac versions upon the texts which
ence of the other two sources

the Sinaitic and
Tatian used as a source.
comparison of the
responding portions of the Greek gospels

235
text of
will
with the cor-
reveal
how
far
30
deviates from his sources, provided these deviations cannot be attributed

to
some outside
influence such as those discussed above.
In such a
comparison, however, we cannot confine ourselves to any particular
form of the Greek
but must take into
text,
variation of any given passage
account every extant
we cannot be absolutely sure
for
that
any such variant was not in T's exemplars.'' Any deviations that
remain after taking into account these variants must be admitted not
There
be due to T's Greek sources.
to
The
consideration.
makes
one further
nevertheless,
This
fact
impossible to decide in some instances whether certain devia-
it
tions of
is,
four gospels differed from each other.
from the text of a gospel, which
at a
given point
is
his chief
source, are really due to T, or are to be attributed to another of the gospels.
In such a case we cannot
whether
tell
or has simply mixed material from
has changed his one source,
two or more.
It
therefore, to proceed on the basis that every passage in
any one
of the sources
must be assigned
eliminate true examples of T's

of procedure
we
still
method
This
Greek exemplars that we need

there
is
to
is
like
This
may
with our method

but
the
it
is
the last limitation with regard to T's
make.
pass on, then, to consider those passages of
agreement with the text of
is
to that source.
of alteration
necessary,
that
have illustrations of conflation
safest course to pursue.
We may
is
logical relation of these versions to
the S' and S".

is
still
sub judice.^
ever the outcome of the investigation of this relation
in
which
The chronoBut what-
may prove
to be,
we suppose D later than S^ and S",

and that T used them for his work, we m,ust exclude all variations of D
which agree with these versions as not due to T's literary method but
to his exemplars.
Or, if we suppose D to be older than S' and S", we
have to reckon the agreeing passages as at least possibly harmonized
with later versions and so for the sake of certainty exclude them, as
illustrations of T's method.
In other words, these versions must be
viewed, on our second supposition, as bearing the same relation to D
as do P, S
and S ^ and must be treated accordingly. We are thereit
cannot
affect
our discussion.
'^,
under the necessity of excluding these pasD used below have been col-
fore in either supposition

sages.
If
Accordingly, the quotations from
On this ground it makes
no practical difference what edition of the Greek texts is quoted below,

have been used that have no variants for the words affecting the illustration.
Tischendorf's text has as a matter of fact been quoted as the logical accompaniment of the use of his
apparatus.
(See, however, note, p. 60.)
29
since only those passages
that
it
The
latest
statement on this question
originated after S
s,
but before S
c.
is
that of Hjelt,
who concludes
For a summary of opinions see N.
236
that the text of
indicates

lated with S'
and
31
and the necessary exchisions have been made.^'

left in our text only phenomena due to
S,
This limitation made, we have

T's literary method.
The
results of the entire discussion of the text of
D, as regards
may
be summarized in the statement of a few prinIn every

ciples to be applied in the use of each passage cited below.
detailed readings,
case the testimony of

.
natiirlich so
the witnesses
all
save
that of
gut wie nichts zu bieten" (Hj.,
p.
F,
58)
which "hat
must
be
A, however,
considered and the limitations discussed above applied.
corroborative
or
The other documents are to be used as
is the basis.
Where A is supported by E and Aph. we are on quite

The reading is almost equally certain where A is
certain ground.
supported ,by either of the other two when the non-corroborating witas checks.
ness
and
is
silent.
unsupported
is
trustworty
if
E and Aph.
the limitations noted above are diligently applied.
if
are silent,
The com-
A and Aph., and sometimes the independent

on other grounds, cannot be rejected
unquestioned
evidence of A, if
because opposed to E, for Ephraem's looseness in quoting is notoribined testimony of
ous (H.^ pp. 18-25), and because E sometimes shows corrupting

Thus any reading
transmissional influences where the others do not.
may be
or of
confidently accepted
with either
or
if
it
Aph.
has the support of A, Aph., and
the absence of adverse testimony
in
from one or the other or of A alone in the absence of contrary evidence or of A and Aph. against E or sometimes of A against E.
The application of these principles leaves almost no margin for error
;
in the details of the text.
We may
be sure, therefore, that we have
as
great certainty in our use of details as in that of general order.

4.
The method
of procedure to be followed in our discussion has
been, for the most part, already incidentally indicated in the preceding
investigation of our text.
Some
further notes will be useful.
TheGreek
quotations herein used are from Tischendorf's^^. VIIL, Critica Major

{cf.
footnote, p. 30).
No
Arabic or Syriac texts have been printed.

are taken from Hogg's translation, which
The passages quoted from A

is
is
better than either Ciasca's Latin or Hill's English rendering
directly dependent upon Ciasca's and
translation of
is
Hill's
therefore the best existing
in an easily accessible language.
The
translation in
and few
each of the passages quoted has been
may be
texts
Syriac
to
References
changes have been found necessary.
Latin
the
examining
itself,
by
Syriac
tested, by any who do not use the
verified,
31
The texts used
in this collation are (i) Cur., (2) Ben.,
237
and
(3)
and but
Lew.
slight
32
P accompanying the edition of that version, which is

mentioned above in a footnote and in the bibliography the English
rendering of Cureton accompanying his edition of the Old Syriac
and the English translation of S ', which has been made by Mrs. Lewis,
translation of
and which accompanies her retranscription of some of the pages of this

The reference numbers to A have been explained above.
version.
In the right-hand margin of the pages of Hogg's work are printed
the numbers assigning the portions of text to the several gospels,
which numbers appear

tion
is
details.
in the
Arabic text as printed by Ciasca.
Cau-
necessary, however, for these references are not always exact in
Examination
is
in
every case
correctness of the assignment.
238
necessary to determine the
CHAPTER
I.
TATIAN'S PREFERENCE FOR ONE SOURCE OR ANOTHER.
We
now
are
manner
proceed with the investigation of the
in a position to
which
in
treated his sources in
composing D, and on the
basis of such an investigation to determine the degree of similarity
between his method and that which according to the documentary

theory of the relation of the synoptic gospels to one another, was
employed by the authors of the resultant gospels. The bulk of our

work will be concerned with T's method. This must be determined first.
A comparison of it with that ascribed to the synoptists will be reserved
for the last chapter.
The
first
step in our investigation will be to discover whether Tatian
gave primary authority to one of his sources or to another, and
Zahn (Z.*, pp. 260-63)

John most closely, and this opinion
to
which one.
if
so,
favors the view that he followed

is
concurred
in,
but apparently
without independent investigation, by Hill and B. W. Bacon (see H.%

p. 27,
ion
is
and
Ba.).
On
the other hand, G. F.
Moore
claims that this opin-
not correct, but rather Tatian follows Matt, (see Mo.).
Zahn's
view has been overstated by Hill and Bacon, and apparently misappre-
hended by Moore. Zahn says "Er hat seine Schema vom Gang der
offentlichen Wirksamkeit Jesu, wie gezeiglwurde und eigentlich selbstverstandlichist, sowie Jemand den Versuch einer Verarbeitungaller vier
Evangelien macht, hauptsachlich aus Johannes gewonnen " (p. 261).
But the context shows quite clearly that Zahn hardly meant more than
:
that Tatian got from

of his work.
He
John
his chronological data for the construction
implies this quite distinctly by the statement, which
occurs a few lines below the passage quoted above,
Wort das ganze chronologische Fachwerk hat
viz.
"Also mit einem
er aus Johannes."
Out-
no more to
"Aber dem Johannes wie den
side of these data, according to Zahn, preference was given
John than
to the other evangelists.
Synoptikern gegeniiber geht er von der Voraussetzung aus, dass jeder

Evangelist
sei es
aus Unkenntnis des geschichtlichen Sachverhalts,
es in Riicksicht auf sachliche Verwandtschaft,
sigkeit vielfach eine andere
Anordnung
der Ereignisse gewahlt habe."

lar
239]
und
als die
lehrhafte
sei
ZweckmSs-
der zeitlichen Abfolge
Yet these passages (and perhaps simi-
remarks) have been interpreted to

33
mean
that,
not only in the gen-
34
eral chronological
of
arrangement
scheme based on the data
as well,
standing of Zahn
of the feasts, but in details
On
followed John quite rigidly.
under-
this
or rather misunderstanding Bacon has maintained

D
that the apparent changes in the order of Johannine material in
not changes at
contends that
ment
all,
but
in this
reflect the
order there
external evidence for that arrange-
is
of the fourth gospel which,
are
He
order of John in T's exemplar.
on internal evidence, certain modern

Such are the
scholars have proposed as original for the fourth gospel.
views which have been held with respect to Tatian's attitude toward his
several sources.
To
arrive at a correct conclusion as to
source consistently,
it
will
be necessary to
The gospel
it.
on account
of John,
be treated separately.
The synoptic
fall
and
in the light of
connected with
of the views
gospels
preferred one
forth the evidence
the foregoing opinions, or any others, stand or
let
whether
set
may be considered
it,
will
together.
is abundant and clear.

Only
Mark is preferred to Matthew in A
Thus we have Matthew subordinated. Matt. 8:14-17
The evidence regarding

samples of
need be
it
20:17-37.
(= A 6:48-52)
is
these latter
cited.
brought
in
to the
same position which
given
is
Mark and Luke, and the Matthean account

of the healing of the paralytic, who was borne by four, is similarly
subordinated, since it has the same position as in Mark and Luke. On
to the parallel material in
the other hand, Matthew's testimony controls the placing
Matt.
12:32) of
56
+ Luke
since
9: 57fl,
alone
is
59-62
material
all this
parallel.
8:18 9
is
26
(this last
likewise subordinated to
the account of the temptation.
45d!^Luke
one
it is
being introduced
Mark 3:31
(An:
43 = Luke
Matthew
AH
24
8:22-
in a striking way),
:
20 and
its
are subordinated to Matthew.
Lukan
Luke
in the internal structure of
three synoptics are subordinated
his giving to (Matt.
12-16, a position (A 22
Other examples of
be given, but
by
Mark 4:35
given before
Thus Mark and Luke
to T's general plan
8:2-4
= )^^
Mark
:4i-
1-8) quite original with himself.
and subordination could

enough from these that no
this variety of preference
unnecessary.
of the synoptists
is
It is clear
given constant preference.
graphic idea of
T's treatment of the gospels in this respect can be gotten, almost at a
glance from H.*, Appendix

bers referring to
only (especially
if
II,
where he has printed
gospel material which
Appendix
is
be compared).
in italics the
If
some
of the passages
there given be examined along with those presented above,

32
Not used
in T's conflation.
240
num-
represented by parallels
it
will
be

found that T's preferences now
for
one gospel, now
35
for another,
extend
both to details within sections and to the order of the sections.
Since
Matthew as well as of that of Mark

and Luke, G. F. Moore's view must be pronounced incorrect. Tatian
prefers Matthew no more than Mark or Luke as his constantly prethis
is
true of the subordination of
The
eminent source.
is,
result of a consideration of the synoptic gospels
therefore, quite clear.
To determine
T's attitude toward
more detailed investigation
Johannine material, a much

It will be conducive to
necessary.
is
clearness to prosecute the study in two stages, the
first in
regard to
and the second in regard to the inner composition of secWith respect to order, Zahn is correct in saying that T got his
tions.
But such a statement has no more
chronological data from John.
the order,
significance than to say that Tatian accepted the historical validity of
John's statements concerning the
which other of
wanted
his sources
But even
to use them.
feasts.
It
is
difficult to see
would have derived these items

this small
amount
from
if
he
which
of accuracy,
Zahn and those who follow him, must be

As is shown by the analytical outmodification.
attaches to the statements of
granted only with a

line of
given in the next chapter, the scheme of feasts
structed by T.
The Passover
of
in Jesus' career, but the second.
though
one of
John 2:13
is
Accordingly,
not the
it
first
is
recon-
Passover
must be said
that,
does draw the items concerning the feasts from the only
his
sources which contained them, nevertheless he subordi-
nates even these to a plan which he himself has conceived after a study
of the gospel history.
Furthermore, even
in their reconstructed
order
does not use these items as the articulations of the parts of his
gospel.
The language
of
Zahn, therefore, even when interpreted
the least rigid way, conveys an impression, as
it
in
apparently did to Hill
and Bacon, not supported by the evidence of D itself. It is scarcely

true that "das ganze chronologische Fachwerk hat er aus Johannes."
Zahn's opinion, therefore, must be modified, and even when modified,
scarcely approaches an exact expression of the truth concerning T's
attitude toward his sources.
Bacon has used Zahn's statements as the basis

Assuming that he had correctly
view.
understood Zahn's language, and that, so interpreted, it was correct,
he has proceeded without any detailed support of his general ground
This conclusion assumes that T was not
to draw his conclusion.
skilful enough to see the fitness of the order which he gives to the
Yet, in spite of this.
of his
own supplementary
241
36
sections,
several
exemplar.
argument
and therefore the order given must be
that
no other church father ever perceived
specific passage
concerned
will
better than
He may
many.
the satisfaction of everyone any

that he in
it is
It is
it is
{cf.
be
to
He
H.% App.
not have solved his problems to
more than harmonists
usually do, but
who
general perceived the problems, no one
Diatessaron can deny.
the only
to
quite remarkable.
modern harmonists
has succeeded quite as well as most
and
this fitness, is
regard
be discussed below, but here
noted that in many other directions as well
I),
with
acuteness
Tatian's
permissible.
scarcely
that of his
But such an assumption, even when flanked hy Bacon's
reads the
not enough to show, as Bacon thinks he
is here and there

some modern scholars in regard
has done, and as indeed
true,^^ that
as acute as
to this point or that.
procedure does not prove inherent incapacity.
To
Tatian was not
be sure,
Such
was not
omniscient, but does this prove that he was unable to see what, save
arrangement of Johannine material
for Bacon's assumption, the
shows that he did see?
man's acuteness
If a
and
ability to see everything,
if
he
is
to
to be
is
in
judged by
D
his
be condemned without further
modern scholar's acumen

unimpeached under the test? If T was dull, this must be
Such evidence as Bacon produces is insufficient
proved, not assumed.
against that which meets one on nearly every page of D, and which
hearing because he
fails
here and there, what
at a
glance, from the outline in the next chapter.
will stand
can be seen, almost

But, aside
from
of the assumption
to
negation
statements.
Bacon,
his
of
These
lack
this
that
was
of
positive evidence for the
dull, there are difficulties
Bacon's proposition
are
difficulties
support
which lead
which he bases on
entirely overlooked
Zahn's
by Professor
yet, in the light of the evidence, are quite insuperable.
theory to be valid, the
"external
evidence,"
order of Johannine
For
material in D, the
must agree with the reconstructed order of

This
John supported by the internal evidence of the fourth gospel.

agreement must be complete,
ground,
no way of determining where Tatian
changed the order of his exemplar, and where he did not. Admit
that he changed any passages, and you must admit more than the
possibility of his having changed others.
Since this is true, the
difficulties mentioned above show two things
first,
that in one
direction the "external evidence," which Bacon claims, proves too
since,
if it
else the theory will fall to the
be incomplete, there
is
33 Note in particular Tatian's failure to perceive the

Johannine accounts as to the date of the crucifixion.
242
difficulty
which exists between the synoptic and
much; second,
that in another direction
does not prove enough.
it
proves too much, for Tatian's arrangement differs
It
37
many
at
points
from an order which might be expected from the internal evidence of
And
the fourth gospel.
not only does the order presented by
from the modern scholars' reconstructed arrangement of John,

but this order of D has in it phenomena (abruptness and lack of
transition) which, according to modern critical science, would lead
differ
immediately to a reconstruction of
For example, how can we
it.
grant the presence in the original John of such abruptness, such lack
of transition, as, on the hypothesis that D preserves the original
Johannine order, exists between John 6:71 and 4:4?^'' How could
John 4:45^ have connected John 5 147 and John 7:1? How could
we explain the presence of John 5:1 (A 30:31) between John 7 :3i
(A 28:32) and the repetition

presence between the
of this verse at
occurrence of
first
34:48, or even
we were able to satisfy ourselves as to

we eliminate John 5 i by supposing that
verse of A (30:31) is to be assigned to John 2:13,^5 nevertheless
presence of any such statement would raise the same difificulty.
which, however, we cannot
if we could take an additional step
verse (7
its
and the next Johannine
:3i
32) of A, in case
repetition
Or, even
if
rid our text of
any statement such
the
this
the
Or,
and
as this
which implies a journey
from and a return to Jerusalem between the utterances of two closely

connected verses (John 7:31 and 7:32), how could we explain the
still remaining difficulty of the connection of John 7:31 (A 28:32)
and John 2:14 (A 32:1)? As we look at this cumulative pyramid
one point not

we are brought
of impossibilities connected with this
other occurrences of abruptness
to speak of the
face to face with the
insuperableness of the difficulties in the way of Bacon's view.
But
even were we able to give satisfactory explanation to these matters,
we would
how
still
have to face the quite impossible task of explaining
the original order of John in T's exemplar, got into
arrangement
in
Many
our fourth gospel.
modern
present
its
scholar has been
how
staggered by his inability to give explanation of
the material
became disarranged from the order of John

reconstructed by critics, and got into that of our extant gospel.
But
34 D presents Johannine material in the following order.
6 omitted)
John
1-5 + (i
7-28
of the fourth gospel
29-31
32-34+
35-51
this section synoptic material
3i
there
is
1-21
4:
1-11+
3: 22
+4
4-453
conflated)
is
+ 5:i{?)+2: 14-22 + 3
+2
+7
31-52
no difference between T's order and that
of
+5
For a
full
our fourth gospel.
discussion of this matter see chap,
vii,
243
below.
The +
+6
2315-25
note the repetition of vs. 31
synoptic material,
35
+ 4 .-46-54 + 2
1-47 + 4 45^ + 7
3a
+7
).
2-ioa
From
1-71 (with
+7
106-
this point
on
sign indicates intervening
38
change from the order presented by D, the problem is

difficult.
Bacon attempts no explanation. Whether, theremore
far
the existence of the deviations of D's order,
simply
consider
we
fore,
which are not paralleled in that made on the internal evidence of John,
or the nature of these deviations in themselves and in relation to
the present order of the fourth gospel, we reach the irresistible con-
in the case of a
clusion
Bacon's hypothesis
that
The
this true.
lack
proving enough.
transposition
differs
of
In
will
not stand.
the "external" evidence
in
points
the
all
chaps.
John,
involved,
and
not only
save
one,
is
from
it
the
viz.,
order preserved in
the
6,
And
prevents
from that constructed on the internal evidence of the fourth
gospel.
In the face of
which we are opposing

But against
this
cannot be maintained.
constantly, then
transposition
is
it
due to
As
to his exemplar.
admitted, or
is
be argued that
If it
is
certainly
his
probable that in this one place the
conception of the
tion that the agreement of
occasion
significant.
not,
order are
of
no changes
to
as
many
much
do,
different
to
In this matter,
addition to
at
least,
as well.
he antedates
be attributed to T's
is
strengthened by
first is
his clear recogni-
assigned
Matthew
same
the
to
He
connections.
brings
Sermon on the
of the
{^Cf. H.'',
App.
many moderns; and
and
II.)
this
fact
Bacon's general argument against T's acuteness.

this,
not
are to be
of the discourse material in
Such passages
Mount, and much other material

of
The
Matthean and Lukan versions
together the
disposes
fitness of the order,
said above, ex hypothesi,
several examples of Tatian's acuteness.
and Luke was
of
But the validity of this objection

shown that T changed his exemplar
This general argument, moreover,
alterations.
in the transposi-
we have "external" corroboration
scholars.
differences
all
may
it
at least
some modern
the view of
the
before
as
of D's deviations, the view
falls.
conclusion
and 6
tion of chaps. 5
well
fact, therefore, as
this
number and nature
consideration of the
however, Tatian shows himself keenly
In
alert at pre-
when he is determining the position which he will give

The visit to Jerusalem of John, chap. 5, has been deter-
cisely the time
to chap. 5.
to have preceded that of John 2:13.

He therefore
compelled to transpose the clause, John 4 45^5, to a position after
chap. 5, because until this latter has been presented there has been
mined by Tatian
is
given no account of Jesus' being

has done precisely what
it
at
Jerusalem.
we should expect
In placing chap. 6 he
of him.
He
with the parallel synoptic material and, having done

244
has conflated
this,
has given

whole account a position suggested by
to the
his
39
synoptic sources.
Therefore, in the light of his treatment of these two chapters, there

is
no more ground
The
John.
any part of
for Bacon's view than in the case of
transposition just discussed
falls
into line with
the rest
all
and if it did not, it would hardly be sufficient ground

for the theory that Bacon has advanced.
The sum of the whole matter is that Bacon has assumed too much
on the basis of a misunderstanding of Zahn's language. The facts^*
of the evidence,
brought out in our discussion are too considerable and important to
They
allow the acceptance of his theory.
clearly
show
that Tatian
reconstructed his Johannine material, rather than that he persistently
followed the order of the fourth gospel.
This conclusion with reference to general order
which
is
to be
is
paralleled by that
drawn from the evidence concerning T's use
nine material in the inner composition of sections.

of the passages of
A where T
An
of Johan-
investigation
has identified John's accounts with those of
the synoptists will at once reveal the subordination of the former to the
latter.
These passages are
ministry (A 3
37
4 127;
as follows
<r/.
the account of John the Baptist's
28-41 and
4-20); the feeding of
thousand (A 18:21-43); the triumphal entry (A 39: 18-45); the

anointing at Bethany (A 39: 1-17), the Last Supper (and connected
events and speeches, A 44 10
47 44) the arrest of Jesus (A 48 22five
49
43); events immediately following the arrest (A 48 144
trial before Pilate (A 49 43
51 :6) the crucifixion (A 51: 15
:
18)
52
the
13)
and the burial (A 52 21-44). In every case, save one, there is not the
complete preference for John, and in almost all of
:
slightest trace of a
the instances there
is
decisive evidence of a subordination of Johan-
own general plan. The usual

method of procedure was to use one of the synoptics for the framework of a narrative or discourse, to fit other material into this, and to
employ from John in this process only such as is peculiar to the fourth
nine to synoptic material or to T's
gospel.
The evidence
the proposition that
The above
leads us to a conclusion precisely the reverse of
preferred John to the other gospels.
views concerning T's attitude toward his sources, as
regards both the general order and inner composition of sections,
must therefore be pronounced incorrect, or modified according to the

now been presented.
The result of the investigation with which this chapter began has,
for the most part, been incidentally shown in the foregoing refutation
evidence which has
3^
Bacon nowhere presents the
facts,
and that he had them before him
245
is
hard to believe.
40
of current views.
method
in
We may
here notice the specific
of T's
followed no
But, on the basis of a study of
gospel constantly as his primary source.

all
phenomena
choosing material from his several sources.
four gospels, he adopted a general plan to which he subordinated the
This subordination extends
material furnished by each of his sources.

to both the general order
and the inner composition
regards his use of the synoptic gospels,
it is
of sections.
to be said that
As
sometimes
he used a given source without alteration, excepting a few expressions

here and there
in
some other
passages, he added to his preferred
source from his rejected source only such material as was not in the
former;^' and in
the other, with
still
little
other cases he simply substituted one account for

or no change; vide,
account of the temptation (A 4 43

:
e.
3),
g.,
the last two items of the
where Matthew
is
the source
one and Luke for the other or consider the substitution (A 13: 39
14: 14) of Luke 7: 18-35 for Matt. 11:2-19, with almost no Matthean
influence, save in the addition of Matt. 11:12-15, which is peculiar to
for
the
first
gospel.
The gospel
of
John
is
the same way as those of the synoptists.
treated in general in precisely
In both the choice of material
arrangement T is guided by his own historical judgment as to

what is correct. His choice of Johannine material illustrates, for the
most part, the phenomenon of the addition of material peculiar to one
source, which addition is made to that source which is being generally
and
its
Almost any conflation
of John with the

There
is also the
other gospels will illustrate this; e. g., A
from
a single
introducing
long,
unbroken
sections
phenomenon of
followed at any given point.
39: 1-17.
source.
Such are the characteristics of Tatian's preferences
in the use
of his sources.
37
Examples
tists referred to
of this
above
and the other phenomena mentioned
may
be seen in the passages of the synop-
in the discussion of order (p. 34), as well as in almost
246
any conflation
of
A,
CHAPTER
II.
THE PLAN OF THE DIATESSARON.

The
results of the investigation of the
preceding chapter serve as a

Until we had
what Tatian's plan was.
basis for the determination of
reached some conclusion as to what general attitude toward his sources
he assumed, we were in no position to present the scheme of
work,
his
Now, however, we may proceed without fear of

being confronted with conclusions drawn from any of the views preas
itself reveals
sented above.
I.
it.
The apparent plan
of T's gospel
-
Birth and childhood of John the Baptist
3.
Birth
b)
and childhood
Annunciation
3:36
i:i
1:1-5
2.
a)
as follows
is
.-..---.
-------------2:
-----------------
-------
Introductory
1.
The eternal Logos
to
of Jesus
1:6-81
Birth
/3)
Circumcision
7)
Presentation in the temple
Visit of the
Flight into
7)
Life of Nazareth
5)
Visit to
e)
Growth
Nazareth
to
of Jesus
4.
Call of the
Jesus' Public
disciples
37
20
-5: 4-20
5:21
in this section gives
3:37
4:27
4:28-41
4:42
5:3
3: 36
Ministry
(The account
29
30-47
3:1-36
3:1-12
:
3:24
3:25-35
3.
first
3:13-23
Jerusalem
John the Baptist's advent and preaching

Baptism of Jesus
Temptation of Jesus
-
2.
III.
magi
Egypt and return
o)
/3)
Events Introductory to the Career of Jesus

1.
36
2:9-47
9-28
Infancy of Jesus
o)
c) Childhood of Jesus
II.
2:1-8
Joseph
38:47
a series of journeys each of which
and
follows a period of activity at the place from which Jesus starts
to
which he returns.)
I.
Journeys with Cana as headquarters
PERIOD
247]
Cana, and
a)
Jesus' arrival at
b)
His widespread fame
c)
Visit to
Nazareth
5:21
6:35
I.
first
miracle
-
5
-
121-32
:
33, 34
5:35-41
41
42
d) Beginning
(?)
-..--.
------------
preach
to
/) Continuation of tour
in
a)
Return from Judea
b)
Preaching tour
miracle
to
in Galilee
PERIOD
6:20-34
6:35
6:36
27:47
I.
-------------
b)
d)
Return
PERIOD
of miracles, call
6:36-54
7:1-10
II.
Capernaum, and curing
of the paralytic
borne
by four
b)
7:1 1-24
Call of Levi
and
------
feast at his house
Sabbath controversies
d) Withdrawal from Capernaum
c)
Twelve
/) Sermon on the Mount
g) Descent from the mount
e)
7:25-36
7:37-53
8:1-17
8:18-25
8:26 11:2
Call of the
Return
widow
to
PERIOD
a)
11:3
III.
......
------------
Capernaum, the centurion's servant, the
Pressing call for disciples
c)
Departure
to the other side of Galilee,
the tempest
and
PERIOD
IV.
b)
c)
Sending out of the Twelve
Mary and Martha
g) Warnings to scribes and Pharisees

h) Return of the Twelve -
Simon the Pharisee's

j) Widespread belief in Jesus
/)
Jesus at
Sending out
248
13:30-35
-
12:33-39
12:40
13:29
13:36-43
13:44
_
.
12:1-32
14:14
14:15-42
14:43,44
.
.
Seventy
mother and brothers to see him
of the
Effort of Jesus'
-----
e) Visit of John the Baptist's messengers

/) Discourse on John the Baptist
k)
11:31-37
11:38-52
Return from Gadara to Capernaum Blind men and a dumb demoniac cured
d) Visit to
11:24-30
stilling of
d) The Gadarene demoniac
i)
11:4-23
of Nain's son
b)
a)
42-43
II.
Removal to Capernaum, performance

of Matthew
Tour of Galilee
to
5:44
6:4
6:5-19
Cana, and performance of second
Journeys with Capernaum as headquarters
a)
Judea
PERIOD
2.
Call of the four
14:45
15:11
15:12-14
15:15
-
16:12
16:13-18

Tour
of Galilee
i6:
16:22
Parables by the seaside

Rejection at Nazareth
Death
43
17:36-53
18:1-20
John the Baptist

Retreat of Jesus from Herod's power
Feeding of the five thousand of
18:21-24
18:4719:13
-
PERIOD
Return
to
19:14.15
V.
Capernaum and rebuke

unwashed hands
Jesus at dinner,
18:25-46
Jesus' walking on the sea
General healing activity
19-21
17:35
19: 16
of sign-seeking
.
-----------.-...
20:1
20:12-45
Withdrawal toward Tyre and Sidon, the Syro-Phoeni-
Woman
cian
Journey through the Decapolis

Continuation of
Samaritan
journey through Samaria; the
this
woman 3^
Return to Galilee (but not to Capernaum)

Healing of a leper in a Galilean village
Journey
Return
to
man
Jerusalem; the infirm
at
man
at
Bethsaida
transfiguration
22:9-55
23:1-4
------------
Peter's confession at Cassarea-Philippi
The
21:47-49
22:1-8
Bethesda
21:8-46
----------
mountain miracle
to Galilee; a
Feeding of the four thousand

Pharisees and Sadducees demanding a sign
Blind
20:46-58
21:1-7
23:5-12
23: 13-25
23:26-30
23:31
24:1
24:2-24
Descent from the mount, and reception of warning

concerning Herod
Demoniac boy -
Jesus* forecast of his death
The
to
Capernaum
stater in the fish's
and resurrection
PERIOD
Return
24:25-29
24:30-47
24:48-52
VI.
ambition of the Twelve
mouth
25:1-3
25:4-7
Jesus questioned as to the relative greatness of the
Twelve; discourse on humility
^^
question about divorce
Jesus and the children

/:
Parables of Grace
Parable of the Unjust Steward

ents
38Zahn designates
25:8-26
------------------
Journey into Perea
25:27-42
25:43-46
26:1-33
parable of the Tal-
26:34
this thus:
" Raise durch Samarien [nach Jerusalem]"
(Z.a, p. 258).
27:29
But
this is
a journey from the Sidonian region to Galilee.

39
The arrangement
Galilee, while 6)
is
of these sections
is
interesting.
strikingly inserted between a) and c).
249
Item a) brings Jesus and the Twelve back
to
44
h)
Return
to Galilee (not to
Capernaum;
cf.
27:40), and
...
discourses on the slain Galileans and the

i)
3.
The woman healed on
the sabbath
fig tree
Journeys to and fro between Perea and Jerusalem
PERIOD
c)
38:47
28:1-8
-------.--.--.
-....-.
------
28:9-41
28:42
29:43
29:42
30:30
JOURNEY TO ATTEND FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD.
11.
The journey
a) The start
30:31
/3)
Cleansing the lepers
7)
Jesus' forecast of his death
5)
Request of the sons of Zebedee
Consequent anger of the Ten
f)
Jesus and Zaccheus at Jericho
1))
Blind Bartimaeus
d)
b)
d) Jesus at the chief Pharisee's house
a)
28:1
Journey through Perea to feast at Jerusalem discourse on

rich young man
Return to Perea
riches
PERIOD
27: 30-39
27:40-47
JOURNEY TO ATTEND A FEAST.
I.
a) Jesus' colloquy with his brothers

b)
.-..------------
31:52
30:31
30:32-39
30:40-45
30:46-52
31:1-14
31:15-24
31:25-35
31:36-52
Parable of the Ten Shares
At Jerusalem (during and subsequent to the feast)

32:1
37:42
a) First day of the feast
32:1-23
Cleansing of the temple; widow's two mites; parable of
the Pharisee and Publican retirement to Bethany.
Second day
32:24 33:1
/3)
Cursing the fig tree; visit of Nicodemus; retirement to
;
Bethany.
7)
Third day
33:234:45
Lesson of the
reply
5)
e)
plots
fig tree
challenge of Jesus' authority
his
questions of Pharisees and Sadducees.
-------
Teaching of subsequent days its results

34:46-53
35:1
Seventh day
37:24
Attempt to arrest Jesus question of Jesus to Pharisees
discourse on light man born blind discourse on the Good
Shepherd.
;
f)
c)
Discourse of Jesus at the Feast of Dedication
Journey from
Lazarus
Jerusalem
to
Perea
Passion
a)
Week
37:25-42
of
37:4338:41
PERIOD III. THE LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM

IV. Closing Events of Jesus' Career
I.
raising
-------
Anointing at Bethany
38:42-47
39:1
3^:1
55:17
52:44
39:1-17
250
--------------..-.-.--.-------
b)
Triumphal entry
c)
Jesus in the temple
d) Visit of Greeks
Jesus' daily retirement to Bethany

<?)
f) Jesus' arraignment of the Pharisees
g) Beginning of plots
h)
39:18-45
40:1-4
40:5-23
40:24, 25
40:26
-41:15
41:16-26
Saying concerning the destruction of the temple, and

its
i)
45
consequences
Discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem
41:27-32
4i:33
43:58
j) Jesus' prediction of death; plots; Judas's complicity

k)
Washing
/)
Passover supper and farewell discourses
of the feet of the disciples
m) Betrayal and
arrest of Jesus
n)
Flight of the disciples
o)
Peter's
first
44:34
44:1-9
10-33
44:
48:44-48
----------
denial
p) Examination before Annas

g) Peter's second denial
r)
Trials
s)
Judas's remorse
t)
Crucifixion
ti)
v)
2.
-------------------------------------
before Caiaphas,
again
Burial
The guard
Pilate,
Herod, and
Resurrection
b)
Subsequent appearances
c)
Ascension
is
seems
to
all
52:23
52:24-39
52:40-44
55: 17
53:31
53:32 54:48
life
which
55:i-i7
seems to
rearrangement only within the larger
But he deviates from them
After omitting
51:6
51:7-14
have followed his sources for the main stages
of the gospel history, allowing
divisions.
49:19
52:45
the schematic conception of Jesus'
He
49:7-18
Pilate
52:45
a)
Such
48:47-55
49:1-6
5': 15
Life after death
have had.
47:44
^g; 1-43
in
one remarkable instance.
account of a distinct early Judean ministry, he
creates a later one, which consists in a non-canonical
and an implied sojourn

(A 30: 3137:42).
in
Passover week
Jerusalem through the following winter
251
CHAPTER
III.
ALTERATIONS IN ORDER.
PERUSAL of the plan
in the
preceding chapter reveals
at
once the
truth of Zahn's remark, already quoted, but which will bear repetition
"Aber dem Johannes wie den Synoptikern gegeniiber geht er

[T] von der Voraussetzung aus, dass jeder Evangelist, sei es aus
here:
Unkenntnis des geschichtlichen Sachverhalts, sei es in Riicksicht auf

Verwandtschaft und lehrhafte Zweckmassigkeit vielfach
sachliche
einer andere
Anorduung
gewahlt habe" (Z.%
als
die der zeitliche Abfolge der Ereignisse
p. 261).
Indeed, the extent to which T, on the
method
basis of his conception of the evangelists'
material, modified the order of his sources
is
of dealing with their
probably even greater
Zahn supposed.
There may be produced examples of every

changes
the order of paragraphs, of sentences and clauses, and of words and
than
possible kind of deviation from the order of our gospels

in
phrases.
There are numerous alterations in the order of paragraphs. A

most striking example is the distribution of Matt., chap. 18, through
25:8
25
18:
9rt
27:29.
The following
8; Matt. 18: 3
=A
25
18: 10,
11= A
involved here,
=A
29.
partly
indicate this: Matt.
=A
=A
18:1
25: 13-18; Matt.
26:5; Matt. 18 i4 = A 26 7
i5-22 = A 27 16-23; Matt.
The remainder of the sections, which are
made up from
27:1-13; Matt. 18
27:28,
is
will
25: 10; Matt. 18: 6-8
Matt. i8:i3
20;
Matt. i8:23-35
=A
material parallel to the omitted
parts of Matt., chap. 18, but the great mass of remaining narrative
not thus from parallel sources, and
this material
is
gives to the several
parts of Matt., chap. 18, an entirely different setting from that which
they have in the
Another remarkable instance of altera1-7.

Here is put the account of the
healing of a leper just after that of the journey through Samaria (which
ends with John 4 45a) and just before the journey to Jerusalem
recorded in John 5:1. The last synoptic material used by T preceding
this account, which is taken from Mark, chap, i, and Luke, chap. 5, is
Mark 7 31-37, and the next following is Matt. 15 29-38, the last part
of which is parallel to the Markan material immediately following Mark
tion of order
is
first
gospel.
found
in
22
'
3^~37-
This arrangement gives the incident a position different from

46
[252

any of the sources,
that in
the addition of John
(A
tion
between Mark
viz.,
35/
to the
end
47
37 and 8:1.
Again,
of the account of the tempta-
an impression of the sequence of events not gained
4) gives
by the independent consideration of John i 35, 43; 2:1. Another

change is that of the position of the visit of Jesus to Mary and Martha.
From its collocation in D with events transpiring in Galilee, and from
:
the absence of any indication that Jesus

the conclusion
drawn
naturally
is
that
left
make
Galilee to
this visit,
thought of Martha and Mary
as living in Galilee, or, at least, that he failed to see this implication
why T inserted this account here it is diffimuch is quite certain the procedure is in line
subordination of Luke's Perean section to Mark and Matthew,
of his arrangement.
Just
cult to say; but this
with the
As already indicated
generally characteristic of T.
chapter,
made
has
the previous
in
the journey through Samaria (A 21
8ff.) to
be,
not from Judea to Galilee, but from Tyre and Sidon, through the
The
Decapolis.
general direction and the destination of the journey
are not changed, but the point of
Jesus concerning
period (Luke
mount
introduced just after the account of the
is
of transfiguration,
phenomenon now being
referred to,
viz.,
and
illustrated
is
the displacement already
the bringing together of the synoptic and Johannine
accounts of the cleansing of the temple, of the
much
also of
of the material
with the Passion
Week; and
beginning of
this
the
Still
tion,
is
Nicodemus, and
in
connection
making of this combined matter into

and of a long sojourn at Jerusalem
account being connected with
Unleavened Bread, the second

T.*"
visit of
which our gospels present
an account of a week of activity

the
just before that of the
Perhaps the most remarkable instance
healing of the demoniac boy.

of the
departure and the period of
was made are altered.
it
i3:3iff.),
descent from the
its
The warning given

Herod (A 24:27-29), put by Luke in the Perean
which
Jesus' activity in
in the career of Jesus as
Feast
of
conceived by
another illustration, and one almost incapable of explana-
found
in T's position for the
Johannine account of the washing
of the disciples' feet, viz., before the account of the preparation for the
paschal supper (A 44: 10-33).
These
Other examples need not be given.
show the freedom with which

the arrangement of sections.
will suffice to
with respect to
treated his sources
These disarrangements of paragraphs, in the nature of the case,

and as has incidentally appeared, cause differences in the order of
events.
But there are also alterations in the order of events not so
40
See chap,
vii,
the discussion of
30: 31.
253
48
For example, the omission of the first part of Matt. 2 i

and the substitution for it of the simple "And after that,"
give a unique sequence of events.
By this change the visit of the
magi is represented as having taken place after the return to Nazareth
(and yet the visit is paid at Bethlehem). This would seem to imply
that T held the view afterwards maintained by Ephraera and other
caused.
(A
i),
Syrian Fathers, possibly,
passage in D, that the
at least in part,
on the
basis of precisely this
the magi occurred
visit of
when
Jesus was two
Har.% pp. 37-39). Only by attributing to T such a

view can there be explained what otherwise is a very crude and inconyears old (see
gruous collocation of material, one not paralleled for crudity elsewhere

D. Yet, at the same time, there should probably be ascribed to T,
on this hypothesis, the idea that Jesus' parents returned to Bethlehem.
Another alteration in order not to be accounted for merely by the
rearrangement of sections is to be seen in A 6 46. The isolation of
in
this verse
due
is
to T's failure to identify
Matthew and Levi.
The
order of these events, irrespective of changes in the order of sections,
felt free
to rearrange as he
saw
fit
This shows quite clearly that
deviates from that of the gospels.
both sections of material and the
sequence of events.
There
In
is
and
a similar freedom in the treatment of sentences
43 Markan material
is
put into Matthean order.
clauses.
Examine
the
following
Mark
6ri
Kal ^yyiKev
Beoxi-
iv
T(J>
âaiKela tov
e\iayye\l(f.
D.
believe
The time is
fulfilled and the kingdom
of heaven has come near."
in the gospel.
is
p. 112)
i]
Matt. 12:32
after Matt. 12: 37
(= A
=A
14:31) before he mentions (M.,
This transposition also
John 12: 16
p.
113)
Matt. 18: 10, 11 are transposed to a position after
the remaining material of this chapter of the
(= A
^yy iKev yap
PaaiXela tuv ovpavQv.
This transposi14:36).
supported by the testimony of E, for Ephraem quotes (M.,
Matt. 12:22.
29).
fieravoeTre-
comparison of these three columns quickly reveals the alteration

Again, A 14 41, 42 shows Matt. 12 22, 23 to have been trans-
posed to a position
tion
Matt. 4:173.
5:43.
"Repent ye and
Kaipbs
fieTavoetre KolwKTTe'ufTe
A
in
rj
1:15.
TreTrXiJpwTat
(=A
39:25)
is
is
supported by
first
all
gospel (A 27:28,
(see M., pp. 164, 165).
transposed to a position before John 12:12
and John 12:9-11 are put between John 12:2 and 12:3
(=A 39:2-6). The latter transposition is supported by E, in which
John 12:10 precedes 12:5 (M., p. 205). In A 49 9 a part of Matt.
39
34),
254

26:73
(
=A
21-41) and
Matt. 27
26:71 and 26:72. Matt. 26:59-68

and made to follow
inserted between Matt.
is
49
parallels are transposed
its
is used rather than Mark 15

i).
The order of the
Mark 11:12-19, as it appears in D (A 32:1-27),
Mark 11 16 (-[- insertion of Mark 12: 41-44)-!- n: 19^
i3 (which
49
several items of
is
as follows:
-|-
II
2-1 5a.
Definitely attested e.xamples of altered order of words are
Almost
paratively less numerous.
all
com-
the possibilities in the different
orders for words are exhausted by either T's sources, as we possess
them, or by the variants of their transmitted
texts.
The
limitations
which we have placed upon our text for the sake of certainty preclude,
therefore, all but a few instances.
Under
the circumstances, however,
surprising that there are any.
Those
of
it is
which we may be certain
are as follows
j
Luke
Luke 9
50,
51,
18
Note.
yeveas Kal yeveas rots (poôvfiivois avrbv.
fear
him through the ages and the times."
11^, Kal tovs xP^^^^ ^xovrdS depaTrelas
"And he healed
26,
ets
"them who
This
example
is
especially interesting, since
with the order of the Greek
(c/.
Mark
BaprifMios, rvtpXdi
10
46, 6
vlbs Tifiaiov
1S.T0.
those having need of healing."
32
Luke 9:11
is
repeated
23).
irpo(TaLTT]s, iKadrjTo
irapa Tr]v 6S6v.
3-;
A
.
31 :26,
.
"And
there
was a blind man
sitting
by the wayside begging,
Timaeus, son of Timaeus.
Note.
The order of
iLuke
32
18: II, dpirayes,

:
18,
is
supported by
(M., p. 181).
ASikoi, fwixol.
"the unjust, the profligate, the extortioners."
These passages show that Tatian was capable of changing the order
of words, and had we more of the certainly original text of D, there
would in all probability be a great many more such passages.
The foregoing
discussion reveals that there are in the Diatessaron
examples of every kind of change
in order.
has quite freely altered
the order of paragraphs, events, sentences and clauses, and words and
phrases.
255
CHAPTER
IV.
ADDITIONS AND OMISSIONS.

As WE take up the consideration of additions and omissions, we
should remember what was said above concerning the tendency of corruption, in the transmission of D, to delete additions and supply
omissions.
It was concluded that, unless there was some specific
evidence against the passages that present such phenomena, all additions and omissions must a priori be ascribed to T.
The following
examples have been put to the test in every way that was suggested
in our introductory discussion of the text, and they stand approved
Additions of words and phrases are
1.
2.
3.
4.
A
A
A
A
= Mark
6: 53
33,
"of Jesus."
Mark 6 22, "of the company."

20 40 = Mark 7:19," entereth " (second occurrence).
28 45 = Matt. 19 18, "commandments" (after the relative pronominal
i8: 12 =r
adjective).
5.
30
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A
A
A
A
A
11.
A
A
A
50
51
51
52
52
Say
to
him."
in Arabic).
This
is
= Mark
16: 20,
no need
clauses
17
Here, as
in
however, must,
if
is
Matt. 12
some of the other

others
"from thence."
to carry the
list
farther,
though
this
might be
our purpose.
sufficient for
and sentences are:
of each list will be indicated as

still
to."
possibly an interpretation of the Greek article.
The number
examples, and
This addition has fallen away from A.
this (M., p. 240).
4 = John 19 30, "everything."

36 = Mark 15:47, " that was related
Added
lists
said unto them,
first
E supports
is
14
The
There
18, "
italicized constitute the addition.

:
16
41
14
55
done"
I.
Luke
= Matt. 20 5, "And sent them " (one word

= Luke 22 66, " all the servants."
42 = Matt. 27 30, " from his hand."
6 = John 19: 16, "according to their wish."
:9 = Matt. 27 5, "and died."
49
Note.
13.
The words
29: 31
Note.
12.
13
Note.
may
it is
24,
lists,
"which
is
in
him."
no attempt has been made
presented.
The present
to be exhaustive.
The completeness
numerous other
These illustrations,
writer has himself collected
be gotten by the study of Appendices I-III of H.a
they are to be accepted as valid, be sifted by the processes used in this discussion.
which have been printed herein give a
sufficient
number
The
of examples to determine T's literary
methods.
50
[256

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
51
A 16:23 = Matt. 13:2, "and when the press of the people was great
upon him."
A 20: 14 = Luke 11:39, "and ye think ye are cleansed."
A 20 20 = Mark 7 4, "what was bought."
A 20 52 = Matt. 15 25, "have mercy upon me."
A 23 25 = Matt. 16 12, "which he called leaven."
:
Note. -This
7.
25
is
a mere interpretative addition.
= Matt. 17
26,
"Simon
Give thou also unto them
E supports
Note.
8.
26 7
:
this
said unto him, Yea.
Jesus said unto him,
like the stranger."
by direct quotation (M.,
p. 161).
Matt. 18:14, "that have strayed and for
whom
he seeketh
repentance."
Note.
Aph.
(column 354)^^ supports
like the Syriac, except that
it
The Arabic
this.
is,
word
has instead of the Syriac participle a
for
word,
finite
verb
("he seeketh").
9.
Note.
10.
31
11.
13.
A
A
A
48
Luke
16
48
49
= Mark
26
28, " lest they also sin."
Aph. supports
Note.
12.
29 23
this
10
reading (column 907).
46, "his
name was."
This has the support of E (M.,
p. 181).
51 = John 18:17, "I mean Jesus of Nazareth."

55 = Matt. 26 58, "of what would happen."
7 = John 18:25, "when Jesus went out."
:
There might be added here at least ten more examples, but this will
It is plain that T added both words and sentences.
When we pass from these varieties of addition to that of material,
we are on different ground. On the whole, T seems to have regarded
sufifice.
the four gospels as furnishing
Indeed, he
And
life.
the material that should be used.
all
may not have had any
other extensive accounts of Jesus'
yet there are indications that he
sources outside of his four main documents.

nal reading (M., p. 240) than
enced
I
Cor.
518)
is
saying
at this point.
1:33 was used by T,

correct.
at
There
Again,
is
if
51:9, then Acts 1:18 probably influat a
point corresponding to
45
16,
the reading supported by Aph. (column
also evidence that
a point corresponding to
in the addition in
added some items from

E gives a more origi-
If
20
23.
used an apocryphal
The evidence
consists
(M., pp. 137, 138) of these words, "et qui blas-
phemat Deum, crucifigatur." Zahn thinks (Z.^, p. 241) this is apocryphal, and there is no reason for saying that it is not.
The added
words may be an invention of T's, but, if so, they are unlike most of
42 All citations of
Aph.
refer to the
numbers
of the Latin
257
columns
of Graffin's edition.
52
his
may, therefore, be correct.
But
cerning another passage
is
may be
additions/^ which are usually interpretative, or at least
explained as not unnatural expansions of his
in
if
this
view
Zahn's suggestion
text.
not correct, that con-
is
The passage
certainly has probability.
"ex lumine super aquas exorto
et
ex voce de caelo delapsa cogno-
It seems to indicate quite clearly

cf. Z.^, p. 241).
Ephraem's exemplar of D some reference to the
apocryphal story concerning the light which appeared on the waters
The sanction of the story
of the Jordan when Jesus was baptized.*''
for T's mind is suggested and, at the same time, the whole hypothesis
is strengthened by the fact that Justin Martyr, whose pupil T was,
knew and used this story.''^ Hill doubted the correctness of Zahn's
visset" (M., p. 43;

that there was in
suggestion that there was such an item in

Harris (Har.^
p. 43)
Zahn's view, based alone upon E,
ascribes the story to D.

this
unexpected quarter.
of extra-canonical material
we could be sure
section
is
(H.*, pp. 36, 37), but
J.
R.
Ishodad, a Syrian Father, directly
the settlement of the question.
supported from
has produced evidence of quite decisive value for
that
it
To
we might add T's use
of
Mark
But whether the inclusion of
unauthentic.
from Mark be regarded
as
an addition or not,
16
assuming
was not in his exemplar
it
is
thus
example of the use
this
is
9-20,
if
that this
this
material
quite certain that
there are traces of material supplied by other sources than our four
gospels.
But Talian not only added, he also omitted, material.

of
1.
words and phrases occur
A
to
3.
These passages correspond respectively

Luke 1:41,59; 2:1; 3:21; 6:12. In all five of these passages there
is
omitted iyhero.
at
Note.
Luke 2
of
A
A
Omissions
1:42, 60; 2:9; 4:35; 8:9.
I,
It
should perhaps be said that some late manuscripts also omit this
but the chance of such a reading being the source of the
at this point
strictly, this is
2.
as follows
example has been allowed

our usual method of procedure.
so remote that the
contrary to
phenomena
to stand,
though,
= Luke 44,
ydp.
= Matt. 1:18, Maptas.
45
I
is
Note.
But
i5oi>
has this word (M.,
the omission, though this suspicion
p. 20),
may
and
throws suspicion upon

Ephraem's tendency to
this fact
be dispelled.
quote loosely and under the influence of the separate gospels, as well as the textual
43
source.
A 25:6
presents another saying that might on this
" the Gospel

44 FuL. gives the following as containing the story
Paul [or Peter]," "the Pseudo-Cyprianic De Baptismata."
:
of
same ground be assigned
45
to
an apocryphal
C/. p. 51.
See Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 88.
258
of the Ebionites,"
" the Preaching
53
principle stated at the beginning of this chapter, argue strongly for the correctness
E, not A, seems to present at this point a text which has fallen in with the
of A.
general transmissional tendency to

4.
42
Note.
Luke
in omissions.
fill
34, iv t(? 'ItrpaiJX.
The evidence
from
for this omission is derived
comments on
gives a turn to his
(M., p. 23).
passage which would be
this
we to suppose these words stood in his text. This

Some manuscripts omit iv, but none the entire phrase.
stand, were
decisive.
5.
6.
7.
A
A
A
= Matt.
= Luke
y .2)7 Matt.
2
35
Note.
Matthew
9.
21
53
Note.
=
26 =
48
this
edere " (M., p. 61).
John
The omission
2.
AS:
5356
Note.
S^ and
9 30
:
Luke
But, again, this
iropevofM^vuv di airCiv
1 1
tI di Kal
12:57,
both omit
Luke
may
be transmissional corrupthis reading.
t'Soi/.
but none of the remainder.
Idov,
S*^
no
for there is
example by quoting "coeperunt spicas evellere
Omissions of clauses and sentences are

1.
from Luke,
therefore, as mdicated.
ain-bs.
1 1
is,
which Ephraem undoubtedly knew, has
44,
Matt. 28
P omits
quite
Luke 6:ib, inWov.
to rubbing.
tion, particularly since P,

8.
under-
is
avrov.
latter part of this verse is certainly
again throws suspicion upon

et fricare et
6(T<()0v
fact
Kal irpoffevxoixivov.
12:1 and
The
reference in
4, Trtpl rijv
3:21,
Ephraem
difficult to
rl,
a.<p''
eavTwi>
Kplvtre rb 5iKaiov.
01)
but nothing else.
iy^vero iv rip eluai airrbv iv Tbirip tlvI vpoo'evxbfievov
I, Kal
ojt
iirwLxraTO.
Note.
3.
4.
A
A
S^ and
:
30
32
1-27
Note.
= Mark
1 1
This verse
and the distribution of

omission here
18,
32
7.
32
is,
8.
9.
A
A
3 = Mark
26 = Matt.
1
This
53
/coi
Si'qpxeTo
5ia
p.4aov
avroO.
it
through the section of

is
indicated.
It
Mark 11:12-19,
should be noted
used at an entirely different point (A 34:46). The

example of the excision of a verse from the
it
46) relative to other contextual

I
42^,
21:19,
= John
Markan
koI i^-rjpdvdr] irapaxpVP-"- V
14 :8a, 8 ecrxev
16:10,
is
matter.
6 ia-riv Kobpavr-qs.
not signify more than that
= Mark
T regarded Luke 19 47
implied by the position of
can scarcely be shown that
refers to the withering of the
may
39 15, 16
:
46
avrbs
nevertheless, a true
47 (A 34
Note. E
183).
Kal
Indeed, just the opposite conclusion
as parallel.
6.
....
entirely omitted in the rearrangement of
source which was in use, for
19
iyivero
is
that the parallel of the verse
Luke
iv Sb^y.
Kal TaXiKalas.
'Zafxapias
5.
omit h/ivero only.
S"^
= Luke 9:31a, ot bcpd^vres

32 = Luke 17:11^^, c, Kal
24 6
Kal
fig
259
tree,
but does not quote (M., p.
Ephraem knew
eirol7]<xev.
ouKin Bewpeiri
i^^vk^.
fj.
the separate gospels.
54
This
But of the omissions of longer

might be prolonged."^
is only one certain example, viz., the omis-
list
sections of material there
sion
The evidence
the genealogies.
of
originally in
There
conclusive.
is
is
these did not appear
that
testimony of
(i) the express
Theodoret {Ad Her., 1:20, written in 453 A. D.). (2) There is no

comment upon them in E. (3) The genealogies are given in the
Borgian manuscript of A after A 55:17 (the end of D proper) and
title The Book of the Generations of Jesus (H.^, pp. 3-5; Hg.,
Another omission besides this might be claimed, viz., of
SS-i?)the pericope upon the adulterous woman, if it were not for the proba-
with the
'^-
was not
bility that this section
in T's
exemplar
{cf. its
absence from
Syriac versions.
no other long sections than those mentioned which

are omitted entire, yet attention must be called to the mass of unused
parallels.
In this connection, the dropping out of items of material,
not elsewhere included in D, which are due to these omissions of paralExamples of the omission of items due
lels, are of peculiar interest.
to this and other causes are as follows
But
if
there are
1.
13-17.
The
fact that
out through the use of the

2.
Matt. 12:14
Markan
rather than the
14: 44
A
A
24
is
account.
Jesus.
= Luke
9 10. There
Bethsaida that Jesus withdrew.
4.
5.
33
is
neglected here the fact that
26 drops out the entire verse,
52-55 = Luke 20
listening to Jesus
6.
was four men who bore the paralytic drops
used instead of Mark 3 6, and thereby is omitted

the fact that the Pharisees consulted the Herodians in their attempt to do
8
away with
3.
it
Lukan
is
16^.
The
Mark 9
it
was
to
16, the question of Jesus.
reply (and
its
introduction) of those
omitted.
A 39 26-28a omits the reference of Mark

a door in the street.
:
1 1
4 to the colt's
being tied
to
might be lengthened) might have been

They have been separated to
show that, even where parallel material had been used, items of information are involved in T's omissions. We have, therefore, found that
T omitted words and phrases, clauses and sentences, at least one long
section, and a mass of parallel material, in all of which omissions
These examples (the
included in the other
list
lists
of omissions.
neglect of substance was involved.

46
Further examples
text (cf.,
and
e.
may
g., pp. 178, 179).
be found, as suggested above,
The
49:44 (= John 18: 28^).
following
may
in
H.a, App. II and marginal notes
be profitably examined:
See also footnote,
p. 50.
260
45:19-22
(= John
to the
13: 33-36)
CHAPTER
V.
CONFLATIONS.
We may now
phenomena which
take up the consideration of
are
quite inevitable where an author desires to preserve the language of his
sources fully and, at the same time, not to lose any of the differing
items.
has shown himself quite skilful in the intricate interweaving
drawn from
of elements
show
will
12 : 6-10.
to that side,
(Mark
all
following passages
"And when
21a.)''*
a great multitude received him

|
were
The
his several sources.
:'*'
this
And
looking for him.
man named
Jesus had crossed in the ship

(Luke 8:40^, 41^) and they
Jairus, the chief of the syna-
and besought him (Mark 5 23a) much and

said unto him, (Luke 8 42a) I have an only daughter and she is come nigh
unto death
(Matt, g 18^, 19) but come and lay thy hand upon her and she
shall live.'
And Jesus arose, and his disciples and they followed him,
(Mark 5:24;^.) And there joined him a great multitude and they pressed
gogue,
fell
down
at Jesus' feet
'
him."
(Matt.
"And
them another par'To what is the kingdom of God

(Mark 4 T,ob) and in what parable shall I
like and to what shall I liken it
(Luke 13 iga) It is like a grain of mustard seed which a man
set it forth ?
took (Matt. 13 3i(^) and planted in his field (Mark 4 31 (J) and, of the number of things that are sown in the earth, it is smaller than all of the things that
(Matt. 13 321^) but when it is grown it is
are sown, which are upon the earth,
greater than all the herbs (Mark 4:32^) and produceth large branches
"
(Matt. 3 2)"C) so that the birds of heaven make their nests in its branches.'
17:8-18.
(Mark
able,
13:31a)
30a) and said, (Luke 13
he
set forth to
18)
Note.
Attention
should be constantly paid to the bringing over of material
from Luke's Perean sections
II :j8~4^.
to another connection.
(Luke 8:26, 27a)
country of the Gadarenes, which
is
"And
they departed and
on the other
came
side, opposite the
to
the
land of
And when he went out of the ship to the land there met him (Mark
from the tombs a man (Luke 8 2'jc) who had a devil for a long time
and wore no clothes, neither dwelt in a house but among the tombs.
(Mark
Galilee.
2b)
47
All assignments to the gospels have been
made
after
an examination of each passage.
The
refer-
(which are followed by Hill and Hogg) are not always to be trusted. No
detailed consideration has been given to the text of A in the following examples, because the possible corruptions of text could not affect the result aimed at in presenting the illustrations.
difference of reading
ences in Ciasca's edition of
here and there would not have any effect upon the general result.
4S
261]
The assignments
include
all
material that follows until the next reference
55
number
is
reached.
56
And no man was able to bind him with chains, because any time
was bound with chains and fetters, he cut the chains and loosened the
(Luke 8 29-) And he was snatched away of the devil into the
fetters.
And at all times,
desert (Mark
4^, 5a) and no one was able to quiet him.
in the night and in the day, he would be among the tombs and in the moun(Mark
(Matt. 8 i%b) and no one was able to pass by that way
tains
himself
with
stones.
cry
out
and
wound
And
when
he
would
5^-7a)
and
5
he saw Jesus at a distance, he hastened and worshipped him and cried with
a loud voice and said, (Luke 8 2Zb) 'What have we to do with thee, Jesus,
thou Son of the Most High God ? (Mark 5 7^:) I adjure thee by God, torment me not.' (Luke 8 29a) And Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to
come out of the man, etc., etc,"
5
\a)
-^b,
that he
i;
Note.
This passage illustrates the conflation of
all
three synoptic gospels.
show how the text of D

The intricacy is shown also
reads where there is intricate conflation.
by the following arrangement of reference numbers without the actual
The examples
thus far given will suffice to
quotation of the text
A 39 13-15 is made up of material from Matthew, Mark and John,

arranged in the following order: Matt. 26:9; Mark 14:5^/ Matt. 26:
\oa; Mark 14 bb ; John 12 7^; Mark 14:7; Matt. 26 12 Mark 14
:
41:33-41.
Here we
have material from the three synoptics:
Mark 13:3a; Matt. 24 3(^,- Luke 21:7^; Matt. 24 3<r,- Matt. 24:4a/
Luke 17 22b; Matt. 24:4*^, 5a; Luke 21 Zb; Mark 13 6^5 (or Matt.
24:5(5); Luke 21: 8^,- Mark 13 :7a,- Luke 21:9^/ Matt. 24 6^,- Luke
The intricacy here is remarkable. A number of the pas21
\ob, II.
:
sages designated contribute only one or two words.

the unexpected introduction of
Luke
dislocation of this single item
is
compiler
go
will
17
Note, in particular,
(Perean section).
22^5
The
suggestive as to limits to which a
bringing small details from afar to serve in the
in
composition of any section.
43 : 23-28 gives a conflation of material from all four gospels:

31, 32; John 13 36a,- Matt. 26 33a/ Luke 22 33^ (Lord), (or
Matt. 26
John 13 37a)
:
14
:30(5,-
Matt. 26
Luke 22
:
353.
Mark
Mark 14:31a/ Matt. 26 35a/ Mark 14:31;
Here, also, some of the passages referred to contribute
Matt. 26
:
33<5,-
Luke
22
t^t^c;
John 13
34/^,-
37^5, 38a,-
but one or two words.

Sufficient variety
is
given by these examples "' to show that the degree
of intricacy in conflating,
from each other

49
Others
may
and the remoteness
of the conflated elements
in the written sources, are practically unlimited except
easily be
had by examining almost any page
262
of
D,

by T's desire to present a tolerably smooth reading.
is
57
This limit even
removed sometimes by the use of connectives.^"

There are, however, a number of passages which contain scenes very
They
strikingly placed.
will yield additional
may be
one source may
tance from which minute items
show how little

Luke 4 1 4a is inserted (A 5
1:51 and 2:1), and is put
will
good
to
contribute at any given point.

Johannine material (between John
into
service in getting Jesus from
his first miracle at
Judea
Tatian
noteworthy.
Cana, with the return immediately after
Luke, the Galilean
according to
is
Galilee after which, according to John, Jesus
identifies the return to
which,
2 1),
In the light of the sources, this
to Galilee.
performed
evidence as to the dis-
brought, and at the same time
obviates the difficulty which
is
ministry
began,
and
he
thus raised by the consideration of the
Johannine Judean ministry, by postponing the use of all the material

relating to this.
By making this identification, it was possible to use
Luke 4: 14a as an excellent transition from John 1:51 to John 2: i
and the rest of what follows in D. But such use of this verse separates
it
completely from
its
Lukan
In Luke the verse forms the
context.
and temptation of Jesus to

work and fame at the beginning
In D it constitutes the transition from the
of the Galilean ministry.
account of the interview between Jesus, Philip, and Nathaniel to that
of the wedding incident at Cana, and in so doing it raises a difficulty
transition from the accounts of the baptism
the general
in
summary
of his widespread
regard to the point of departure for the reckoning of the chrono-
logical significance of " the third
present
situation
worthy of remark
is,
is
day" (John 2:1).
therefore, quite
6:22-25.
noteworthy.
After giving in
The
verse in
its
Another passage
A 6:20, 21, the
Johannine version of the occasion, and in A 6 22 the statement of the

fact of Jesus' withdrawal from Judea, T omits the last item of John 4 3
:
("and departed again

Jesus' destination.
postponing the information as to
into Galilee^'),
apparently decided to use the synoptic statement
concerning the destination, and
this use all
but compelled the inclusion
of the synoptic introduction to this statement, viz., the synoptic version

of the occasion of the withdrawal.
As
a result,
we have
this
order
the Johannine statement of the occasion and fact of departure, then

the synoptic statement of the occasion,
withdrawal.
This arrangement preserves
rather repetitious.
marginal notes
all
and destination
of the
of the material, but
it is
has gone quite far in his effort to preserve the
items from the several sources.

50 Cf. Hill's
fact,
Another striking sentence
to his text.
263
is
46.
58
His
failure to
Matt. 9
9^^
position unlike that
phenomenon
the
Matthew and Levi probably led T to isolate

done here. In so doing he has given the verse a
which it has in the first gospel. An illustration of
identify
as he has
to
which attention was called
introduction into Matthean and
Perean section,
given in
is
(p.
55), viz., of the
Markan material of items from Luke's

16:38 (Luke 10:23^). John 4:45(5,
which assigns the cause of the reception of Jesus by the

Galileans (John 4 45^;) is postponed not only to a point after the
(A 23
3),
much
addition of
synoptic material, but also to a position after the
introduction of the whole of John chap. 5
This
above, p. 37).
{cf.
postponement, therefore, amounts really to the introduction of a

remotely situated item of one source into material from another,
especially since this verse is connected in D with Matthean matter.
Finally, note the insertion of Mark 16 \2b into the otherwise unbroken
Johannine account (A 54:36). Tatian, accordingly, was wont to
transfer, from one account to another, the smallest of items, and that,
:
no matter how remote these items were, in the orginal sources,

from the material into which they were to be inserted.
The variety of combinations of larger sections of material is as great
There are
as that of the intricate interweaving of smaller items.
instances of every possible combination of the gospels with one another.
The following list includes not only comb: nations of parallel passages,
but also the collocation of passages, one after the other, which concern
too,
different events or contain different discourses.
Combinations of two gospels are

1.
24
2.
3.
Mark
and
Matthew
(A
42-48
Mark
5.
Luke
6.
and
14:43-48;
Combinations of three gospels are
2.
27-43 14 2-30).
Matthew, Mark, and John(A 19
3.
(A 19
14-16
ff.;
1-13).
4.
John
(A
34:46-53; 4i
5:21-41;
:
16-26).
Matthew, Luke, and John (A 4

6
John
and
28:15-41
Matthew, Mark, and Luke (A 7: 1-36;

;
(A
54:25-38).
:i-23; 14:37-42).
Luke
and
32:12-26).
1.
13
Mark
20-24; 25: 27-46).
Matthew and John (A 41:1-15;

28:1-14; 51:1-14).
Matthew and Luke (A 4:45-52;
II
4.
1-26;
25-35).
Mark, Luke, and John (A 44 41-50).

:
There are instances also of the combination of the four gospels

28-52 18 22-50 32 1-2 1). The number of illustrations
(e. ^., A 4
may be increased, for the several kinds of combination, from H.^,
App. I. The variety of combination is sufficiently indicated by those
:
given.
T's
method
in
combining and conflating so variously was generally

261

to identify material in his several
occasion, and then to interweave
if
sources as referring to the same
he thought
it
possible, and,
one another.
to put the passages in juxtaposition to

this
59
procedure, preserving material even
at the cost of
He
if
not,
carried out
repetition
and
contextual inconsistency.
Take, for example, the account of John the

Baptist's ministry (A 3 37
4 27).
The narrative begins with Luke
3:1-6, with which Matt. 3:1^-3^ is interwoven. This carries the
:
account through the announcement of the advent and preaching of John
and the identification of him according to the synoptists. Then is

added John i 7-28, after which the synoptic account is resumed
without any attempt to harmonize A 4:2-11 and 4:24-26. This
failure to harmonize is probably due to the fact that, in the Johannine
account, the Baptist addresses the representatives from Jerusalem, but
in the synoptic narrative his words are directed to the people.
Again,
Matthew's account of the call of the four disciples is followed by that of
Luke without any attempt to harmonize the two narratives (A 5 44 6 4).
Attention may also be called again to A 6 20-25, where T gives both the
Johannine and the synoptic version of Jesus' withdrawal from Judea.
Another striking combination without harmonization is to be found in
A 44 1 1-40 f. Here we have John 13 120 followed by the synoptic
account of the preparation for and of the actual progress of the paschal
supper (the parallel Johannine material is connected with the latter
element).
The result is that we have a partial account of the supper in
the incident of the feet-washing, and then follows the account proper
of the passover meal.^'
This and the preceding examples make T's
method clear. He combined and conflated as he saw fit, attempting to
preserve as much material as possible, even though such preservation
involved lack of harmonization, repetition, and incongruities {cf. chap,
:
vii).
In addition to the above, there
which should be indicated.

in
This
is
is
another characteristic of T's method

the enrichment of discourses found
one source with material occurring
in another.
in
more
distributed connections
Especially important and instructive are the quite numer-
ous cases in which he has enriched Matthean discourses with matter
from Luke's Perean section.
Moreover,
it is
to be
noted that
in
some
instances this enrichment is so extensive that not only the discourses which
appear
51
in the sources
T may
have been
by interpreting "
{e. g.,
Matthew) are greatly lengthened, but new
arrangement by the phrase, "before the Feast of the Passover," and

the feast " to mean the general period rather than the actual time of the
led to this
at the time of
supper.
265
60
ones are created by the combination of

ine the following
1.
26
10
several sources
is
less
Exam-
extended passages.
48,theSer7nononthe Mount.
arranged as follows
Matt.
The material from the
3-10; Luke 6 22a

:
Matt.
Luke 6 24-27 Matt. 5:13-16; Luke 8 17 (or Mark 4 22 ?);

Mark 4:23; Matt. 5: 17-2 5a; Luke 12: 58^5 (Perean) Matt. 5 25^Luke 6 32/^-36 Matt. 5 47,
Matt 5 43-46
Luke 6 30^, 31
42
48; Matt. 6 1-8; Luke i\ \b, 2a (Perean material note this remark5 :ii<5,i2
able introduction of the narrative setting for the Lord's Prayer)
Matt.
Luke 11:35,
36 (Perean material note T's acuteness in these Matthean and Lukan
passages); Matt. 6:24-27; Luke 12:26 (Perean); Matt. 6:28-31;
Luke I 2 29^ (Perean) Matt. 6 32-34 Matt. 7:1; Luke 6 37<5, 38
Mark 4 24^ (note, with reference to the use of Mark here, and also in
6:9-18; Luke
12
33 (Perean); Matt. 6
32,
19-23
respect to the preceding instance of such use, that the material intro-
duced
is
that
which
is
not included in Matthew's version of the parables
Mark 4:25?); Luke 6 39-42 Matt. 7:6;

5-13 (Perean); Matt. 7 1 2-1 6a (note the repetition of the
"golden rule" in the same discourse; r/. A 9 11); Luke 6 44 Matt.
Luke 6 45 Matt. 7 19-23 Luke 6 47, 48 Matt. 7 2517, 18
7
by the
sea);
Luke
II
Luke
18:8/^ (or
added to Matthew is parallel to the rejected

Some
27.
first
gospels,
but most of it is not such.
the
portions of
discourse
:
to the Twelve.
Here there is intro12
: 44
2. A
13 2Q,
from
the
parallels
to
Matthew
in Mark and Luke,
not
only
material,
duced
of the material
but also from Luke's Perean section,

13);
Luke
the view of
12
5a,
<r
Zahn and
(A 13
Hill
is
14);
Luke
viz.,
Luke
12
correct, that
4 (A 13:12,
3*5,
51-53 (A 13
T conflated
the similar instructions to the Seventy (Luke 10

tional
12
Perean material must be reckoned with
20-22).
If
with this discourse
3-12), then this addi-
at this point.
14 : 40, the discourse on John the Baptist. There is

3. A IJ : 44
introduced here, beside parallel material, the following from Luke's
Luke 16 16 (A 14 5); Luke 16 1 7 (A 14

Luke 6: 45<3! (A 14: 34) from Luke's version
Perean section
is
also used
mon on
course
the Mount.
Luke
12
There
is,
moreover, added
54, 55(Perean); Matt. 16
with possibly the conflation of Matt. 16
2b, 2,a;
2>^).^'
at the
Luke
19).
end of the
12
dis-
56(Perean,
Other examples are not
necessary, as an examination of the other discourses taken from

reveals that they have been enriched in the
There
of the Ser-
same way
Matthew
as those discussed.
here on occount of the condition of the Greek text. Our assignIn all of the assignments in this chapter this
edition has been used in conjunction with that of Weiss (in part).
52
The
material
is difficult
ment has been made on
to assign
the basis of Westcott and Hort's text.
266

Examples
of those
of discourses which have been very greatly extended
which have been created almost entirely are
1.
2g: 14-42.
Here
bringing together Luke 16

in addition, that
is
quite an extended discourse

It is to
2g
it
Thus, were
D.
in
introduction of narrative setting of the Lord's Prayer,
riches.
2.
28
60),
p.
42 to
we
29
has gathered a considerable part of Jesus' teaching on
be the case
If this
and
it
tration of the bringing together of
make
it
(only two verses;
12, 13
should have a continuous discourse extending from
made by
be noted,
apparently considered this speech to be a continu-
not for the narrative parenthesis of
42, in which
and
19-31 and Matt. 20: 1-16.
ation of the discourse on riches that precedes
cf.
61
probably
more
is
we have here an
illus-
or less isolated teachings to
a single formal discourse.
2g
4J
chief Pharisees
JO :jo. The
24 with Matt. 22
discourse at the table of one of the
Luke 14:1-
greatly lengthened by the conflation of
is
:
1-14.
A discourse to the disciples is constructed

27 : 2g.
3. A 26 : J4
by adding to Luke 16: 1-12 the following: Matt. 18:23-35; Luke
Matt. 18 15-22
Luke 12 47-50 Matt. 18 10, 11. Note
17 3, 4
the way in which T has manipulated the material of Matt., chap. 18.
Note also that he has broken up this discourse in Matt., chap. 18, and
distributed its material in two of the sections of D (A 25 8-25 and A
26:1
T seems to work both by integration and disinte27:9).
:
gration.
4.
A jj
1-25.
Here T has constructed a discourse on prayer, and
has included, in the following order, these passages
Mark
1 1
19,
20
2\:2ob; Mark 11:21-23; Matt. 2i:2\b, 22; Luke 17:5-10

(Perean); Mark 11 24-26; Luke 18: 1-8.
The above examples are a striking commentary upon the possibilities of conflation of written sources.
Nothing that has been alleged of
our gospels will go beyond the limit here indicated.
Matt.
267
CHAPTER
VI.
REWRITING.
In
chapter we are to take a step farther and consider
this
phenom-
ena which are occasioned by an attitude of mind precisely the opposite
which
of that
as
is
everywhere present
have just been discussed.
ent the desire to preserve as
sources offer
there
of conflations such
is
constantly pres-
of the material as possible just as the
phenomena about
to
be considered
These
a disregard for the exact literary form of the material.
is
phenomena
We
much
In the case of the
it.
making
in the
In the latter case there
are to be described by the term "rewriting."
will first present
two kinds
those
These are
of
the grammatical forms
of
examples of rewritten words.
which show change
in
words, and those which illustrate the substitution of synonymous expres-
The
sions.
following
list
presents examples of the alteration of gram-
matical forms of words
I.
13
Luke 7:21, "Spirit"
41,
Note.
The only evidence which
is
for Trvev/AaTwv
omission in S^ of the diacritical mark for the plural.

ive here,
j
(
and therefore
Mark 10:40,
30 52, "
:
reading of
^
(
j
(
is
is
the
defect-
force can be given to the omission.
My
Father hath prepared."
rp-ol/xaa-Tai
(Matt. 20:23),
inrb
7raTp6s
fj.ov.
The
conflate
has a change of voice.
SfSwyui (Luke 4
6).
mood.
A 5 1 34, " Hath been written."
John 19 22, yiypa<l>a. Change of voice and person,
A 28 28, "Truly this man has been known."
John 7 27, TovTov otSaixev, Voice, number, and person are affected,
51
Change
has a subjunctive clause of purpose for
of
5A446:
I
But the manuscript
used.
39 22, " send them hither " (Arab. 2d pars, dual imperat.).
Matt. 21:3, diroareXet.
Mood, person, and number are affected.
<
little
is
adverse to the use of this example
"that
14,
should be reckoned."
Lulke 22 37, iXoyla-di].

Person and probably the tense
changed, for the Arabic imperfect refers to the future, /.
:
standpoint of the writing of the Scripture referred
may be
to.
have been
from the
This change
e.,
due, however, to a misreading of the equivalent Syriac verb on
the part either of the Arabic translator or
Such a misreading would not be
unlikely.
62
some previous
scribe of D.
Indeed, some scribe has been

[268
63
We
guilty of this confusion in writing his manuscript of P.
A 46 148, "I go."

John 16:5, virdyei.s.
"Give
10: 14,
Luke
can allow
example, therefore, only conditionally.
this
Person
that ye
is
changed.
may be
given."
The mood
6:37(5. SlSore Kal doOrifferai vfuv.
is
changed by subor-
dinating the second verb of the Greek, in a subjunctive clause of purpose.

This instance is noteworthy, for in the preceding clause, "release and
ye shall be released," no such change
17:9,"
Mark
shall
30,
]\joTE.
set
Change
dOi/iev.
made.
is
forth."
it
in
number.
A suggestion of
this change is found in several late MSS. of the Latin

That they could have influenced D in transmission is
version of our gospels.
a possibility almost too remote for notice.

(
II
/
18:26, "healed" (Arab, imperfect of past customary action).

Luke 9:11, io.To (variant idffaro). Whichever reading be adopted for
hardly the same as that of A.
text, the resultant text is
Greek
the
significance of the Arabic reading
rendering of Luke 9:11 at
32
is
enhanced by the
The
fact that in the
23 Ibn-at-Tayib has used the perfect
tense.
This
list
shows the remarkable variety
in
the alterations of gram-
matical forms.
present examples of the substitution of synonymous
We may now
words and phrases

^
Luke 16:28,
29:23, "go."
Note.
Aph.
column 907
bv
Sttws SiafjLapTvpyjTM airoTi.

is
not to be accepted as testimony against
of Aph.), for the quotation in the homilies
It is difficult to
P.
The
Luke
(for
present form.
16
28)
is
enough
to
at this point {cf.
from that of Aph.
similarity of the reading of
Aph.
Aph. reached its

quoting from, or some later scribe in
show how
Either Aphraates himself in
quite clearly influenced
explain the derivation of the reading of
(supposing the latter to be the original).

to that of
is
the text of
copying, the homilies was influenced by P.
"
39:41, "take possession of (=Vat. MSS.), "drag"
Luke 19:44,
]sjoTE.
unless
script,
mark
But
The difference
Hogg
(= Borgian MS.).
i5a<piov(nv.
is
Arabic manuscripts does not
affect the point,
right in his suggestion that the reading of the
Borgian manu-
in the
"drag," could easily have arisen from the change of a single diacritical
Arabic word for "destroy." If this is true, our example is not valid.
does not indicate what Arabic word he refers to, and the only one
could conjecture as possible from the change of the diacritical point
in the
Hogg
which
(chrr) does not
mean
" destroy,"
if
the authorities I have used are correct.
269
"
64
A
3
43:8, "judge."
Matt. 24: 51,
SixoTOfiTjcrei.
Note.
"Eum
reads,
abscindet
medium
el
separabit
eum
(M., p. 218).
This reading can hardly be accepted as original so far as abscindet is concerned,

since the tendency would be to harmonize the reading presented by A with that
The
of the separate gospels.

original, and,
addition of
43 :48, "ye cared for;"
Matt. 25
Note.
separabit
43
eum may
"we
51,
Matt. 25
riXdoLTe;
36,
et
well be accounted
one of T's additions.
so, is
if
39,
The testimony of Aph. (column 902), which
point, cannot be allowed decisive force.
cared for."
rjxeofiev.
is
Either Aphraates
adverse to
is
at this
using the separate
gospel (of P) for his quotation of this passage, or the text of his homily has been
A's reading cannot be derived from that of Aph.
influenced by P.
is
make such
T's habit to
this,
Besides,
it
interpretative changes, not only in such a passage as
but also in others.
Matt 26:31,
Luke
John
I,
"ye
45 123,
shall deal treacherously"
(Hogg renders "desert").
a-KavdaXiffOriffecrde.
1:51, "embraceth,"
f-
Matt.
copula
50, a
be supplied.
to
is
"his place."
8,
TTov fjihei.
39,
"to God."
33, T(?
Kvplifi.
"throughout the ages and times."
:5i,
Luke 1:50,
Note.
eh 7eveas koX
yevea.%.
The Syriac versions are unlike the Greek here, but A's reading could
scarcely have arisen from their influence.
6,
Luke 6
Note.
aov
"
7,
where
is
your superiority
There
is
possibly here a trace of the influence of Matt. 5
Luke
,
A
A
49, "
1
25
4
:
25
not able."
the Nabathaean."
"seduce."
:
9 (or
Mark 9
47), o-Koi/SaXifei.
"hath exposed
38,
l
is
5^ m'Jte-
"Naaman,
20,
Mark o
he
et
27, Nat^dv 6 Si/pos.
Matt, 18
if
32,
17:47,
Luke
,
47 {ri
irepiff-
Such an influence, however, could not be appealed

explain " where," and therefore the change in this word is due to T.
of "superiority" appears.
especially in the form presented by P, where the Syriac equivalent
TToieire),
to, to
33, 34, voLa v/uv xdpts iarlv.
1 1
to adultery,"
/ttotxarat,
270
65
A 4 13 (Matt. 3 4). We know, on the express testimony of Ishodad,

whose statement has influenced that of Bar Salibi and Bar Hebrasus,
that the reading of D was "honey and milk of the mountains," which
15.
is
This
not preserved in A.
seems
have allowed
to
is
a substitute for
d^pfSej Kal fi4\i Aypiov.
him here."
his Encratite views to influence
This list does not exhaust the number of examples, but shows
enough T's literary methods with respect to rewritten words.
Examples of rewritten sentences are
clearly
3:
"After that."
I,
Matt. 2:1, ToO
di 'IrjiroO yewrjd^vTos iv BrjdXek/j. t^s 'lovdaias iv
rj/jLipais
'UpdiSovToO
/SoirtX^tos idov.
Note.
The purpose and
significance of this
change has already been
dis-
cussed (p. 48).
4:51, "which
is
delivered unto
me
that
may
give
it
to
whomsoever
will."
;}
Luke
"-^ 7
31
6, Srt
ifj.ol
"And
37.
irapaSiSoTai koI
sown
fields, his disciples
their
hands and eating."
Matt. 12
oi
I.'Ev
iav diXu) diSufxi avTyjv.
^Ke/i/y rip
among
the
hungered, and they were rubbing the ears with
/cat/xjj i-rropevd-q
8i fiadTfral avroO iirelvaffav
^Luke 6:
<f
while Jesus was walking on the sabbath day
kolI
ijpâvTo
'Ir/croOs
roh cd^Pacnv diarQi/
rlWeiv (mixvas sal
ffiroplfxuu.
iadleiv,
lb, Kal ijcrdiov \{/d>xovTes rais x^P'^^"-
Note.
Tatian has
here both conflated and rewritten his material.
Some,
but not all, of his variations may be due to S*^. Compare S"^ for Matt. 12 i:
" And at that time Jesus was walking on the sabbath among the corn, and his
:
were hungry and began plucking ears and rubbing them in their hands
and eating." If S"^ is later than D in origin, it may have been influenced here
by T's gospel.
disciples
"A
"So shall every man of you consider, that desireth to be a

me ; for, if he renounceth not all that he hath, he can not be
my disciple." (The words italicized may be due to P, but no others.)
15
50,
disciple to
Luke
ffiv
14
33, outojs ahv was i^
ov Svvarai elvai
"And
16: 17,
disciples
Matt. 12
'A 19:9,
and
he beckoned with his hand, stretching
49, Kal iKrelvas rrjv
Mark 6:51
ouk dxoT<i<T<7eTai waaiv rois eavrov virdpxov-
it
out toward his
said,"
"And when
boat, he
v/jlQv 6s
fjLOV p.adrjT-^s.
Jesus
x^'^P"-
^""^ '""'^^
/ladrjTas
avroO elwev.
came near he went up unto them
into
the
and Simon, and immediately the wind ceased."

{cf.
Matt. 14
32), Kal av^^t) rrphs avrobs
els
rd TrXowi' Kal iK6iracrev 6
&vefxos.
S3
For a suggestive discussion of
this passage,
and
17, 18.
271
for the quotation
from Ishodad, see Har.c, pp.
66
E gives a reading
Note.
for this verse of
have been even more recast by

alone
"Cum
Dominus
venisset
according
to
which
seems to
it
than appears from a consideration of A's text
et
cum
Petro
navem
ascendissit, ventus cessavit
et quievit " (M., p. 136).
(A
7^
[the disciples] that the time of his decease
Luke 9:31,
24 6, "And they thought

.... was come."
6Xe7oi' ['HXeias Kai
Mwuc^s]
rriv (ôSov aiirov.
We
seek them for our Lord and straightway send them hither."
39 22, "
Matt. 21 3^,6 Kvpios airruv xpeâK ex eiidiis diroffTeXet aiiToi/s (Mark 11:3) &Se.
"Then
51 :6.
up Jesus
Luke 23
to
Pilate
commanded
grant their request and delivered
:24, Kal IletXaTos iiriKpiveu yev^cr$ai rb
oZv irapiStiiKev avrbv airrois
to
be crucified."
"And
51 :3i,
t'va
atrrtfia airrQi'
Pilate wrote on a tablet the cause of his death
And
on the wood of the cross above his head.
The words
it," etc.
lO^
6) r&re
italicized
may be due
and put it
upon
there was written
to P.
eypa\p{v 5^ Kal tIt\ov 6 IlftXaros Kal tdrjKev
John 19:19,
(John I9
(rravpoiBr).
eirl
toO (rravpoO- ^v 5^
yeypa/j-fxivov
Matt. 27
In
ment
'A
37, Kal
i-n-idr)Kv
iwAvoi
rij? Ke<f)a\ri%
avrov t7]v ahlav
axiroxi
yeypafxfiivqv.
example we have a striking instance of the employboth conflation and rewriting:
this
of
final
(Luke 9 29a) "And while they were praying, Jesus (Matt.

changed (Luke 9 29) and became after the fashion of another
person (Matt. 17 ib), and his face shone like the sun and his raiment
was (Mark 9 3a) very white (Luke 9 26 according to the Syriac
24
3, 4
2fl)
versions) like
snow
|
(Matt. 17:2^) and as the light of the lightning
(Mark 9 3<^) so that nothing on earth can whiten like it." The
passages italicized are without exact equivalents in the Greek, but
:
are
somewhat
like the verses to
which they are assigned.
Luke 9
29, koX iyivero iv rip Trpoêvxeo'dai avrbv rb elSos tov irpocruirov
Irepov Kal 6
Matt. 17:2,
airrov Xeu/cos iâaTpairrwy.
Kal
rb Trpbaoiirov ayroO
Mark
eXtt/u.i/'ei'
9:3, ws t6
No
last
matter
example
Kal fiTeiJ,op<pd)6r] tfiirpoaBev

6 rjXios,
rk
airuv
Si l/MTia airroO eyivero XevKd.
is
Sivarai ovtws XevKavai.
a fitting climax to the others
which precede.
there are
other examples
how many more we should add
they could
T
tbs
Kal ra Ip-dna ainov iyivero ffrlXôvra Xcvkcl \lav, ola
(pus.
yva<l>e{)S itrl ttjs yrjs 01)
This
avrov
ifiaTKTiJjbs.
not show any more clearly than those above
how
freely
rewrote some of his sentences.
There are
in
D,
strictly
speaking, no rewritten paragraphs.
T's
regard for his sources was apparently too great to allow him to reject
272

the literary form of an entire paragraph
new
dress.
The
and
to give
its
nearest approach to a rewritten section
67
substance a
is
found
in
those where the interweaving, conflation, and rewritten sentences (the

last
more
or less scattered) give the sections an entirely different form
from that which the same material had
24: 1-16, and 39: 1-17).
not present precisely the
Yet
it
in any one of the sources {e. g.,

must be said that such sections do
phenomenon
of rewritten paragraphs, such as
are alleged to be present in the synoptic gospels.
We
must, therefore,
be content with noting the near approach just indicated, and with
stating the absence of the real
phenomenon.
273
CHAPTER
VII.
INCONGRUITIES AND REPETITIONS.
A PHENOMENON
which
by
usually given considerable weight
is
determining whether a literary work
critics in
consists in the occurrence in the
work
a compilation or not,
is
of contextual incongruities;
/. e.,
the occurrence of statements which are, to a greater or less degree,
T's gospel offers a
inconsistent with other statements in the context.
good opportunity,
since
phenomenon
such a
reassuring
those
to
is
we possess
expected in compilations.
to be
who have used
critics
number
1.
"This
A
is
be
It will
phenomenon
this
criterion to find that in even so skilful a compilation as
whether
his sources, for testing
as a
there are
of instances of incongruity.
4: 10,
2^.
cf.
In
4:10 John the Baptist is made to

after me and was before me," etc.
say,
No
I said, cometh
he who,
Then
such saying, however, has been given before in D.
presented the saying which
is
apparently referred to in 4
in
:
4:25
is
The
10.
incongruity arises from the juxtaposition of two unharmonized sections from different sources.^''
2.
4:42;
5 :4,
cf.
21.
In
4:42
Jesus
declared
is
have
to
returned from the Jordan, and in 4:43 the account of the temptation
Yet in 5 4 ff. Jesus is still represented as in the company
begins.
:
and
in 5:21 the statement of his return to Galilee is

made. This statement suggests to the reader of D that " the third
day" of 5:22 is not to be reckoned from the baptism. Probably T
had some reason for supposing that Luke 4 i (A 4:42) did not refer
of the Baptist,
to a return to Galilee, as the source
assumption that Jesus was
still
suggested by the sources, and

tive,
since there
is
it
of
5:21
is
Luke 4 14; but the

:
with John, though possible,
produces an incongruity
no statement
of a
movement on
is
hardly
in the narra-
the part of Jesus
from the place of temptation to the Jordan.

The awkwardness of this passage has been
3. A 6:20-2^.
cussed above,
4.
p. 57.
/8:/-j,
cf.
20.
Herod, marveling
at
dis-
what he had heard of
Jesus, joins in the opinion, according to this passage, that John the
Baptist had risen from the dead (18
undecided
54 If
as to
who
Jesus
is
and
T's text of John agreed with that of
W.
1-5).
Yet
in 18
20 Herod
desires to see him.

H.,
68
this incongruity
is
due
to the
is still
comparison
corruption of D,
[274
69
with the sources at once reveals the cause of the incongruity,
viz.,
incompletely harmonized juxtaposition.
5.
ties of
Reference has already been made
44:10-34.
this
passage
(p. 59, above).^^
Jt sufifices
to the peculiari-
here to note that the
account of the Last Supper begins at 44:10, is then diverted immediately to the account of a meal apparently preceding the paschal supper; then the account begun in 44:10
6.
4g:44. Tatian
is
resumed again.
see the chronological incongruity
failed to
between John 18 28 and the synoptic account of Jesus' trial and crucifixion.
The difficulty is made more outstanding by the combination
:
of the two narratives.
A 54:23,
7.
24.
Again T has
erally held to be an
entire
failed to perceive
what
now gen-
is
incongruity in the unified development of the
fourth gospel,
the indication, in
viz.,
John 20:30,
31, of the
close of the book.^*
These incongruities could be discovered, for the most part, even if

possess T's sources, and they, therefore, illustrate exactly
the incongruities usually alleged to be present in works which are supposed to be compilations.
The presence of incongruities in D suggests that there will be found
in it also that other phenomenon so generally found in works alleged
The list below will illustrate the
to be compilations, viz., repetition.
number and variety of the occurrences of this phenomenon
We have in these two passages really the same
1. A 4:10, cf. 23.
saying from different sources, though T has given it a different setting
Indeed, the accounts 4:2-11 and 4:24, 25 seem
in the two passages.
to refer to the same facts, but T is no duller in keeping the narratives
we did not
separated than almost
A 3 33,34;
2.
fame of Jesus
Luke
I
:2S)
this is
3.
is
4:
14(5,
is
not,
is
cf.
all
modern harmonists.
The statement concerning
J :8.
(Luke 4:37 is also similar, though its parallel (Mark

15.
and maybe the source for one of the occurrences, though
not likely.)
6:22;
used twice.
cf.
23.
In the
The
first,
fact of
6:36;
cf.
not identified, as
55
The
now
is
call of
expressed.
is
emphasized; in
Cf. p. 57.
Matthew and
that of Levi are
usual to do.
For a discussion, from a somewhat

list and one other, see pp. 57
sages in this
56
7 :23.
it is
withdrawal from Judea to Galilee
the point of departure
the second, the point of destination

4.
the widespread
twice used, and in both cases seems to be derived from
different standpoint
f.
from that taken here,
above.
For two additional examples of incongruity see footnotes,
275
p. 72
and
p. 73.
of
some
of the pas-
70
5.
7 :g; cf. 25.
The
Luke
:i4 and once from
call of
is
given twice, once from Mark
may
how
possibly a hint as to
is
whose reference
this repetition arose in E,
publicanutn (M., p. 58)
Levi
There
5 127.
Jacobum
to Jesus' choice of
indicate that this was the reading in
at
There is authority (especially the

a point corresponding to A 7:9.
"western" text) for such a reading in Mark 2:14, and it is more than
possible that such a reading was present in T's exemplar of Mark, since
the text of
fact that
author,
its
"western" readings. The

may
be explained by supposing
7:9
reading for Mark 2:14, perceived the
shows a decided
afifinity to
omits the material of
knowing
the better
D was "Levi," the peron the other hand, his exemplar had not
become corrupted, as A has (assuming the correctness of our supposition), and read "Jacob," his Latin text of the separate gospels would
repetition.
the reading of his exemplar of
If
was easy.
ception of this
If,
Yet, over against the whole supposition
correct this reading.
fact that the reference in
may be due
gospel
8:44;
ij :ii
cf.
; cf.
41 :ig.
In these passages the same say-
Mark 4:23; Matt. 10:26, and Luke 12:2,

alleged that Matthew has repeated sayings from two
repeated from
is
It is
different sources, but
goes even farther in thus using the same say-
from three sources.
7.
the
is
reading
its
Ephraem's, not to Tatian's, knowledge of the separate
to
respectively.
insr
not a direct quotation, and
texts.
6.
ing
is
13
12
cf.
indicated.
points
Matt. 10
substituted
41
20b.
has
27^
Luke
at
for
12
Luke
3*5
is
used
at
corresponding to
place
12
3^.
This
both the
13:12
another case
is
where E's text has been influenced by a separate gospel. Either

Ephraem's exemplar had already been influenced or his own knowl;
of the gospel text" suggested this quotation to his
edge
else the text of
has been corrupted.
general harmonizing corruptions

unharmonized text.
the
8.
i8- 2
cf.
5.
In
18
-.2
E
in
mind;
or
gives a reading in line with
D, while
the people are
preserves
made
say
to
an
that
John the Baptist risen from the dead, where Luke 6 7 is the
In 18:5 Herod says the same thing, and here the source
source.
Jesus
is
is
Matt. 14
2.
A 18:3
The expression "others, Jeremiah"

;
cf. 23 .-33.
drawn from Matt. 16 i4<^ is used in both the places indicated.
At both points Luke 9 ii(5 appears.
10. A 18 : 26 ; cf. 32 : 23.
9.
S7
For a discussion of such a knowledge on the part of Ephraem see Z.a, pp. 61-63.
276
II.
material
margin
22 :g
According
JO :ji.
cf.
to
Arabic Diatessaron, which
Ciasca's
in
Hogg and
both
of the text of
assignment
the
of
adopted on the
is
Hill, there
71
a repetition here
is
John 5 i can hardly

be correct. The verse in A agrees with John 2:13, which is nowhere
i in the exact identification of the
else used, and differs from John 5
To be sure, there
feast mentioned as the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
is a variant of John 5 :r which makes this identification, and it might
But the assignment of 30
John 5:1.
of
31 to
was the reading of T's exemplar.
be said that
this
John 5:1
A 22:9
at
a suggestion at
such
without
once, for
it
identification
quite incredible that
is
But the use of
disposes
such
of
should have
two forms from the same exemplar. Besides, had

such a reading been in T's copy of John, it could hardly have failed
and,
to influence his conception of the chronology of Jesus' life
given John
in
how can we
therefore,
5
so as to give
it
think that
would have thus dallied with John
two very distinct forms
In the face of these
close agreement
and since
that
between
than
:3i
(closer
John 5 i
A
between John 2:13 and
30
Moreover,
the
probability.
without
is
assignment
and A), Ciasca's
i)
of
(A
context
of
D
the
John
in
occurrence
32
near
comparatively
2
14, which is the next following Johannine passage, points to John
i.
Still
2
13 as the source of A 30 31 rather than to John 5
further there is no explanation, on Ciasca's assignment, of T's construction of the following narrative, which is concerned with what, at
Such an explafirst sight at least, is an uncanonical Judean ministry.
we have
considerations,
reasonably
nation ^^
To
is
possible
Throughout 28:1
in
if
the assignment herein suggested be accepted.
support our explanation we
which Christ
38:47 T
seems to
may
appeal to the larger context.
deals with
have
made
career
a period of Jesus'
a
number
of
journeys to
Perea and Jerusalem {cf. the outline, chap. ii).

recorded that Jesus returned from Jerusalem, whither
From 28 142 on, T describes
he had gone, according to A 28 9 ff.
and
fro
In 28
42
between
it is
drawing largely upon Matthew and Mark for

In this
his framework, but weaving into his account Lukan material.
30: 30
29 :42 on riches, and 29 :43
account, two discourses (28 142
warnings given at the Pharisee's table )5' were put, when T was
Jesus' Perean activities,
58
So
far as I
have been able to discover, there has been no attempt made to explain T's remarkable
which follows A 30 31 (<r/. the outline above, chap, ii). The explanation
collocation of the material
here given fully satisfies the demands of probability.

59
For the suggestion that the
first
of
these discourses
speech, see above, p. 61.
277
was actually thought
of
by
as a single
72
brought
in the use of his material to
a visit to Jerusalem.
Mark
lo :32.'^ This verse implies
passage (Luke 17
Luke which was being used
11-19) in the section of
in the construction
was naturally connected with
of the narrative here
Mark
journey, and was used before
this
T then
32, because it did not fit well at any subsequent point.
continued his work with his Markan material. He includes Mark
10
10
32
ff.
(interweaving Luke 18
31-34), which distinctly represents
Jesus as referring to his passion, which was
detail,
we may note
the synoptists,
is
that he gives an account of the journey, which, in
to use this material in this position then
of
tion
accounts
the
the
to
brought
cleansing
the
of
The account
introduction
fitting
then
Without going into
The
that which precedes the passion week.
triumphal entry.
He
imminent.*'
continued with Markan and Matthean material.
temple and of the
the
of
decision
to the considera-
of the latter was reserved as the
narrative
the
of
most
Passover, and
last
in
40:4). This reservation may

39 18
have been suggested to T, in the first instance, by the fact that the
particular to
John 12
:i7 (^.
fourth gospel separates the account of the triumphal entry from that
of the cleansing of
be
to
the temple, and this latter account seemed to
with that of the
fittingly identified
cation of the Johannine
The
synoptists.
and synoptic accounts
identifi-
of the cleansing of the
temple thus resulted, on the one hand, in the separation and post-
ponement
at a point
On
of the account of the triumphal entry.
determined
it
for
that
the
corresponding to
whole of
30
the other hand,
beginning
narrative,
his
32 and continuing
down
the
to
harmonization of these two accounts of the cleansing of the temple,
must
2
13
that journey to Jerusalem
refer to
f.,
since
was with
it
of the cleansing.
2:13 before
this
which
recorded in John
is
journey that John connects the account
He, therefore, retraced
his first reference to the
and inserted John
his steps
journey (A 30 32
:
= Luke
He added to John 2 13, as

words" And after that."*^ Then he
which had yet been made.
17
1)
a connective
what preceded, the

co-ordinated
and conflated, at the proper points, the whole Johannine narrative
contained in John 2 13
3 21, except the passage John 2 23-25
which had already been used, with the significant omission of John
to
60
Mark seems
to
be the starting-point for
all
of T's
work
here.
Yet the passion is a year off, according to the indications in D

discussion). This chronological incongruity might be added to the list
61
(cf, the
at the
These are the words which probably led to the assignment of this verse
explanation of them there is no further need to consider that assignment.
62
278
continuation of the above
beginning of
to
John
this chapter.
i.
With
this

2
23^/3 at
15
2-14.
73
then had his co-ordinated and conflated
account connected with a Passover
He
feast.
continued his narrative
by the use of material from the

synoptics, and at one point in this procedure was led to differentiate
the Passover here concerned with that of the passion week.
At the
very beginning of the section of D which we are discussing (A 28:1
38:47), T had used a part of John, chap. 7 (7 2-31), breaking off
with vs. 31 at A 28 32.
He was undoubtedly watching for a good
opportunity to resume the use of Johannine material, and such an
opportunity seemed to him to be offered at the point corresponding
to A 34 48, for John 7 31 joins well here.
Once the Johannine
narrative was resumed, there did not seem to T that there was any
suitable place to break it until the end of John, chap. 11 was reached,
and therefore the entire section (John 7:31
11:5 7) is incorporated,
with the introduction of only one brief passage of synoptic material
(Matt. 21:41
But
46; A 35:17-22), which is inserted in toto.
this long passage from the fourth gospel contained John 10:22,
which refers to Jesus' presence in Jerusalem during the winter. In
view of the development of the preceding narrative, this referred
of the activities of Jesus at this feast
to the winter
Passover
the
after
of
30
compelled to regard the Passover, referred

he came in his study
one year
When
later
this
at the
end
31.
to in
was,
John
12
therefore,
i,
to
which
of John, chap. 11 (included above), as
than the feast to which he has referred in
30:31.
conclusion was reached, the material from Luke 9:51-56
was inserted before John
12:1
as
an
introductory
statement
(A
38:42-47; cf. 39:1),*^ and then the account of the passion week
was compiled.
Such a procedure as this, which has been suggested, is the only
one, so far as the present writer has been able to discover, which will
explain the remarkable arrangement which T has given his material.
The length of our discussion of this one passage (A 30 31), in which a
:
repetition of
John
alleged to be present,
is
is
justified
by the im-
portance of correctly assigning this verse in order to understand T's
arrangement of material
of this chapter
is
John 2:13 rather than

63
in
28
39
The
17.
result for the subject
that there are three reasons for assigning

to
John 5:1.
This statement would have been incongruous
30
31 to
These reasons are (i) the closer

at
15
12, since
the context here does not
represent the scene of Jesus' activities at Jerusalem.

64 This place would seem to be a better one for Mark 10 32 ff., which really creates an incongruity
where it stands (A 30: 40 ff.),on account of the postponement of the fulfilment of Jesus' prediction for a
whole year. This incongruity might be added to the list above.
:
279
74
agreement of
to
30
30 31 with John 2:13;
T's arrangement
12.
13.
14.
We
if
John
and
(3) the possibility of
13 be the
source.
explaining
These reasons seem
30:31 then is to be assigned to John 2:13.

may resume our presentation of doublets in D.
A 28:32 ; cf. 34 : 48. In both places John 7 :3i is used.
conclusive.
We
proximity of John 2:14
(2) the
31 in the context of
A 43
A 34
2j
; cf.
4g
^Here
17.-
Mark
John 20 21^
14
T,ob is
twice employed.
both points.
14 ; cf. 55
have thus thirteen illustrations (deducting No. 11) of T's use
:
.-5.
is
used
at
same material more than once. In one instance, he uses the

same saying three times, and each time it is drawn from a different
On the other hand, he employs passages twice from the same
source.
He also gives double accounts because of incomplete harsource.
monization, and this too where the passages, in their entirety, are
Both the number
identified as referring to the same event or speech.
of the
and variety of our
illustrations are, therefore, great.
280
CHAPTER
VIII.
COMPARISON OF THE METHODS OF TATIAN AND THE SYNOPTISTS.
The
We
greater part of our investigation
has
now been completed.
have discovered the characteristic of T's literary methods.
It still
remains for us to compare these characteristics with the phenomena
which appear
is
is
the
in
comparison of the synoptic gospels with one

This
of similarity is there between the two ?
What degree
another.
We
main question of our problem.
indisputably compiled
every sort of
phenomenon which
works supposed
to
are generally alleged to be present in
be compilations.
Moreover, these phenomena are
just such as are alleged to be present in
worked out
a plan
for
his
gospel, to
gospels.
now from one document,
Likewise the synoptists clearly adopted plans
another.
for their respective gospels,
ment
the synoptic
which he subordinated the
material of his sources, choosing material
now from
have found in D, which
from written sources, examples of almost
of the material
and exercised discretion
in the arrange-
The plan
which they drew from their sources.
T follows the main

by our gospels, but with the striking difference of the omission of an
In
early Judean ministry and the practical creation of a later one.
this respect, accordingly, T was freer in his method than the authors
of Matthew and Luke, who, though adding the infancy sections, follow
adopted by
divisions of Jesus'
the main divisions of
Mark with
is
freer
with his
events,
sources
T made
sentences,
than
as represented
respect to other material.*^
In the working out of his plan
order of paragraphs,
life
the
alterations affecting the
and words.
are
synoptists
Here, too,
with
theirs, save
possibly with reference to the order of words (see below, pp. 77, 78).
of sections and events in Matthew and Luke is much
The order
nearer to that of Mark** than

his sources.
farther
than
T's
arrangement
In the change in the order of

the
synoptists, unless
is
to
any one of
sentences, too,
we except Matthew.
regard to the changed order of words the case
is,
as
goes
But with
intimated above,
Note, however, Luke's lengthening of the Perean journey, which may be considered analogous in
freedom to the arrangement of T just referred to, unless Luke has merely slipped in a document in toto at
65
this place.
66
This statement
Luke, but the validity
is
made on
of the
the supposition that
comparison with
which
is
Mark was
synoptic gospels in a different way, since the general order of
281]
75
used in some form by Matthew and
involved would not be affected

all three is
so similar.
if
we
related the
76
different
slightly
examples of
this
for
there
are
phenomenon
in
fewer
relatively
certainly
attested
This
than in the synoptic gospels.
For the present

point will be further considered below (pp. 69, 70).
all we need state is that there are occurrences of this phenomenon in D
In this fact we have an important
the synoptic gospels.
as well
as in
datum.
It
precisely
such
reference
to
the
minute and,
as
it
in
is
occurrence
gospels
the
in
of
unconscious changes that
were,
the objection mentioned above (footnote, p. 10)
is
most vehemently
document which we know to have

been compiled from written sources. And we may add to such
Yet here are examples
urged.
considerations that of the
They
the synoptists.
number those
in a
of the authors
variety,
in
the
of
additions
T's
similarity of
are parallel
In
gospels.
three
first
those
to
of
and possibly T's out-
some
which are derived from other sources than the four

evangelists we have an exact analogy to those small items which
occur here and there in our first gospel, and whose sources are so
of T's additions
The omissions
hard to discover.
No
nature.
tic
gospels
and
from
of
are
fails to
Words and phrases, sentences

sometimes had a form different
find a parallel in D.
material in rejected parallel
that of the material used), items of
accounts, and
even one long section (or

In
counted, two), are omitted.
conflating,
And
than any of the synoptists.

of
illustrative
method
theirs.
This
is
which attention
to
if
both genealogies are

goes to
much
method
yet his
of
discourse
in this respect
above
(chap, v),
material.
The
illustrations
which have been presented above
interesting to those
who hold
greater
directly
is
particularly true of that phase of his
was called
enrichment and creation of discourses from more or

passages
in
sort of omission which can be pointed out in the synop-
clauses, parallel material (which
limits
numerous and varied
of
the
T's
method
be especially
will
that the authors of the
viz.,
less scattered
first
and third
had a source which is represented, at least in large part,

by the Perean section of Luke, and that this source furnished much of
These illustrathe enrichment in the discourses of the first gospel.
tions are also just as apt for any who should hold that the author
gospels
of
Matthew used Luke
of the author of the
by T.
He
directly.
first
In either case, the enriching process
gospel has been carried one
has continued the process by adding
material to a substantially Matthean basis.
The study
step
of the
farther
Lukan
of T's version
Sermon on the Mount, not to consider any other discourses,

When we pass from the
amply substantiate this statement.
of the
will
more
282
77
more
consideration of conflations to that of rewriting, we find once

in
in
the gospels.
of
paragraphs rewritten
phenomena which
of
illustrations
Every kind of rewriting

In
entire.*'
alleged to be
are
are
number
the
But
phenomenon
Indeed,
synoptic gospels.
the
in
instances in
of
case
there
the
synoptists.
repetitions than
the
first
contextual
synonymous
incongruities,
comparatively greater than in the
is
in
of
be noticed
to
the changes in grammatical forms and the substitution of
words and phrases.
except that
illustrated
is
particular
present
three
few occurrences
are
greater
has, too, a
evangelists
such a
of
of
variety
In
p. 74, supra).
( cf.
whatever direction we turn, therefore, whatever species of deviation
from sources we seek, we find

(saving
first
of
illustrations
Indeed, in some respects
three gospels.
more
in
the
phenomena
paragraphs) which are alleged to occur
rewritten
in
the
handles his sources
Furthermore, the illustrations show
freely than the synoptists.
a similarity between the methods of
and the synoptists, not only
in
including every category of phenomena, but also in that for some of
phenomena
these
may be
explanations
specific
found, while others
can appeal for explanation only to general literary habit.

of
many
of T's characteristics,
But
led to pursue the course adopted.

in order
and the rewriting
coming.
accordingly,
It is,
But over against

tion.
The
order
of
this
all
may be
the difference
in
completeness there
may be
is,
than
in
the
complete absence of rewritten
makes the similarity incomplete. But the

only relative, and cannot be said to constitute
is
at
method.
In
the
case
least to a certain extent,
So
D.
of
The
it
may be
in
real.
the
not to omit any section found in
fact that the latter
See discussion below, pp.
frequently
we can be certain of their sources,

rarely.
They seem to have had almost,
mind was not immovably
the other hand,
omitted paragraphs,
only apparent, not
far as
not quite, as great a desire as
their sources.
67
raised an objec-
said,
our evangelists omit sections
that his
forth-
to those in the synoptic
The phenomenon does not occur much more
if
is
but impossible to avoid the conclusion
words, together with

it
difference in
gospels
the change
paucity of examples of omitted paragraphs and of altered
paucity alluded to
a real
{e. g.,
with the one exception noted, complete.
is,
sections,
others
in
words) no such explanation
of
phenomena
that the similarity of the
gospels
In the case
can be quite clearly seen how he was
it
that
omitted the genealogies shows
set against
such a procedure.
On
altered the order of words less often
78, 79.
283
78
than the authors of the

or even
made
To be
evidence.
phenomenon
three gospels; but this cannot be proved,
first
probable, and
is
the
sure,
rather contrary to the trend of the
is
it
number
actual
small, but the paucity
occurrences
of
due rather
is
of
the
our processes of
to
With such a rigid limitation

we have made, there is relatively but a small area left to
be investigated.
This fact must be remembered when judgment
is rendered upon the number of examples given in any of the lists.
In the area of text which we have traversed the number of illustrations
in almost all the lists is great enough to substantiate our contention.
Judging from the number in this limited sphere, the lists could,
in every case (except omissions of paragraphs and rewriting of paragraphs), be greatly lengthened if we were permitted to use the whole
investigation than to T's literary habits.
of the text as
text of
of
unchallenged.
In
phenomena have had
to
fact,
be
examples of almost every kind

preparation
the
set aside in
of
this
paper, on account of the limits which, for the sake of certainty, have
been determined
almost
all
the
The
the variants of the gospel texts
arrangement of words.
likely to arise in
passages of
parallel
all
possibility of change,
or scribal processes, either the
one anothers' gospels, or scribes

to
the
our gospels and
but exhaust the possibilities in the
Wherever there was a
literary
of the gospel texts, have fallen
then, according
thus true of
is
particularly so with respect to the occurrences of
altered order of words.
in their use of
And what
for the use of the text.
lists is
the altering tendency.
into
limitations
evangelists
in their transmission
for
set
this
Since,
investigation, these
conditions almost exclude the possibility of finding instances of order
not paralleled in one or another of the gospels or in some variant

of their texts,
we should be surprised
find
to
phenomenon rather than complain of

The fact that such do occur, though
any examples of
the
paucity of
few,
is
our text were not so limited and our use of
it
very
this
occurrences.
significant.
so hampered,
If
we might
number to be greater; indeed, instances of difference

between the text of A and the Westcott and Hort Greek text,
well as the instances of other phenomena just referred to, have
expect
the
of order
as
been
set aside in
our application of our principles.
It
would seem,
therefore, that the paucity of occurrences of altered order of words,
no more than the paucity of instances of omitted paragraphs, is a

menace to the acceptability of the conclusion that T's method is
completely similar to that of the synoptists.
On
the other hand, the absence

284
of
entire rewritten paragraphs
from
of the
constitutes a real
first
difference between
Yet
three evangelists.
method and
T's
this difference
79
that
not sufficiently
is
serious to shake appreciably the conclusion already reached.
clearly
did hold the letter of the gospels in sufficiently higher regard than
the synoptists did their sources, to cause
him
Yet
this
paragraphs, as they sometimes did.

general conclusion
the
to refrain
from rewriting
the only exception to
is
regards the similarity of their methods.
as
T's greater fidelity goes no farther than this, and
would be absurd
on the basis
it
to allow this exception to control our conclusion, reached
We
otherwise harmonious, extensive, and complete evidence.
must go no farther adversely to the conclusion than to note and
admit the exception. Yet, on the other hand, there is good ground
T lived and wrote
for holding. that this absence was to be expected.
of
after
the entrance into Christian thought of the idea of the canon.
had reached a considerably advanced stage of

development, and, so far as the supremacy of our four gospels is
Indeed,
this
idea
concerned, had progressed as
had an
far as
upon T's choice
effect
it
This idea certainly
ever did.
of sources,
and
it
could hardly have
failed to bring about precisely that greater fidelity to
occasioned
therefore,
not,
effect,
their
be
On
paragraphs.
no
them which
We
the exception to his otherwise free treatment.
surprised
other
the
or at most but
at
the
absence
hand, the
little,
from
should
rewritten
canon idea had
fact that the
upon the
of
synoptists, at once explains
In
comparative readiness to rewrite even whole paragraphs.
one respect their method was determined without the limitation

which beset T. The difference, therefore, which actually exists can
this
have
little
weight
affecting
in
our estimate of the method of the
synoptists in the light of that of T.

force
it
could claim, were
it
But even
if
we allow
it all
tion of the canon, nevertheless,
it
could not balance,
much
less out-
weigh, the otherwise complete similarity of the two methods.

The attainment of the conclusion with respect to this
similarity puts us in
the
not for the consideration of T's concep-
great
a position to see what bearing the results of our
In the first
study have upon the solution of the synoptic problem.
place, they completely dispose of the objection to the documentary hypothesis to which reference was
The objection
of
the
them
to
sources.
synoptists
make
(2)
for
their
gospel accounts would have forbidden
radical or purposeless
Appeal
made above (footnote, p. lo).

regard
(i) The high
upon two premises:
rests
to
mere
changes
in
the
use of
these
literary habit, without evidence of specif-
285
80
purposed change,
ically
not sufficient to explain such alterations as
is
The
the synoptists are alleged to have made.
premise
first
an
is
unwarranted assumption, since we do not know that these writers
regarded their sources with so high a degree of reverence.
and
eration of the history of the idea of the canon,
consid-
of the fact that T,
under the influence of this growing idea, used his sources with greater
freedom than some today would employ them, clearly shows the direction of tendency, and indicates that our evangelists, since the idea of
canon
the
probably
did
not
them, would
affect
them-
allow
which they neverthetrustworthy and whose historical testimony
selves a large liberty in the use of their sources,
regarded
less
as historically
We may
they endeavored substantially to preserve.

the
first
premise as giving no foundation
second premise
therefore consider
the
for
The
phenomena
objection.
destroyed by the consideration of the
is
presented in this paper and of the conclusion reached in view of them.
Many
of the peculiarities
time
of
can be ascribed only to T's literary
This ascription being thus the only possible one,
habits.
satisfies all
"tendency
nomena
reasonable
" can
demand
or need be made.
of D, there certainly
Since this
is
no good reason
is
at the
same
No
appeal to
true of
the phe-
an explanation.
for
for
holding that
it
cannot be true of the exactly similar phenomena of the synoptic gos-
Both of the premises are therefore destroyed.
pels.
is
convincing and
way of
The evidence
of
which
is
of this objection
some seems the only insuperable obstacle

the acceptance of the documentary theory of the origin
so often made,
in the
final in its disposition
and which
to
of our gospels.
But
this
negative conclusion
is
not the only one which
be drawn from the results of our investigation.

the
first
deduction
is
second which
the similarity between T's
is
fairly
this as
The completeness
positive.
method and
may
Over against
of
that of the synoptists gives
general corroboration of the documentary theory.
There
is
only one
consideration which precludes this corroboration from amounting to an

absolute demonstration.
We
have no means by which to determine
with absolute certainty whether such
phenomena
as
appear in
and
our gospels might or might not arise in a work whose author used
reasonably rigid oral tradition.
tion to the test
as,
e.
g.,
Were
both of which were certainly known

the
same cycle
phenomena
of
it
possible to put this considera-
might be the case

to
if
we possessed two works
be independently based upon
of oral tradition
we could then determine whether the
the synoptic gospels were peculiar to
and those
of
286

compilations from written sources, or were
common
to all
81
works which
we do
and can scarcely hope ever to obtain. It is therefore
out of the question to do more than note the necessary modification of
our conclusion. Aside from this qualification which is incapable of
justification, we are safe, until someone produces evidence to the contrary, in concluding that the almost complete similarity mentioned
above shows that our synoptists used written sources. If T, a hundred
The
use sources either written or oral.
not
now
years
material for such a test
possess,
more or
less after the
at so late a date write a
writing of the synoptic gospels, could
still
gospel from written sources by a method
all
but completely similar to that alleged of the synoptists, certainly there
can be no a priori reason against the documentary theory of the origin

of our gospels, but rather this fact
The sum
is,
total of
our work in
is
its
a strong corroboration of
relation to the synoptic
then, negatively, to dispose of the objection above referred
positively, to corroborate, in
both
its
the documentary hypothesis.
287
it.
problem
to,
and,
general and particular features,
THE INFINITIVE
IN
POLYBIUS
The Department
of Biblical
and Patristic Greek
issues,
from
time to time, Historical and Linguistic Studies in Literature
Related to the
three series:
New
I,
Testament.
These Studies are grouped in
Texts; II, Linguistic and Exegetical Studies;
III, Historical Studies.
The volumes
in each series will be issued
in parts.
Ernest D, Burton.
Shailer Mathews.
Clyde W. Votaw.
Edgar
J.
Goodspeed.
THE INFINITIVE IN POLYBIUS

COMPARED WITH THE INFINITIVE IN BIBLICAL
GREEK
BY
HAMILTON FORD ALLEN,
Ph.D.
CHICAGO
Zbc
Tflntvcrslts of
1907
Cbfcago press
Copyright
1907
Bt
The Univeesity of Chicago

Published August
190T
Composed and Printed By

The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U.
S. A.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
---
Introduction
PAGB
Bibliography
Synopsis of the Uses of the Infinitive in Polybius
Uses
Uses
Uses
IV Tables
Anarthrous
of the
of the
Greek
V Comparison
Biblical
Uses
of
Causes
15
17
29
45
..........
Uses of the
Uses of the
of the
Conclusion
and
in Biblical
and
Infinitive
-
Books
^^
in
51
Found
-
in
of the Peculiarities in the
Biblical
VIII
Greek
the
Polybius
VII
of the Infinitive Characteristic of Polybius
III
VI
of the Articular Infinitive in Polybius
II
Biblical
-
Use
Greek but Not

-
in
-52
of the Infinitive in the
54
59
INTRODUCTION.
The
purpose of this study
is
to
make
a thorough investigation
of Polybius' use of the infinitive and
compare the
obtained with the use of the infinitive
in biblical
results thus
Greek, and yet
not with the whole of biblical Greek as represented in the Old
New
Testament, Apocrypha, and
Testament, but with certain
selected books.
Polybius, a native Greek
who
lived during the
second century
books in the common dialect,

which was then the language, not only of Greece, but of all the
East.
And he wrote, not in a highly refined style, but as an
educated man of affairs might write of events in which he was
B.
c, wrote his history
in forty
interested from personal experience.

It
that
was
it
just
because of the widespread use of Greek
became necessary
to
in the East
have a translation of the Hebrew
sacred writings into Greek for the use of the Hellenistic Jews,
and that new writings were composed in that language and not
in
Hebrew.
The purpose,
Polybius with
then,
its
is
to
compare the use of the
use in two books (Genesis and
infinitive in
Wisdom
of
Sirach) which were translated from Hebrew, and in two books

(II
and IV Maccabees) which were originally written in Greek.

"The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek" has already
been investigated and the results published by Professor Clyde

University of Chicago.
He also very kindly
unpublished material on the same subject.
W. Votaw, of the
provided me with
All of
"The
my work
on Polybius was done before
discovered that
Articular Infinitive in Polybius" had been studied and the
by E. G. W. Hewlett in the eleventh

Americmi Journal of Philology. When the discovery
of this admirable piece of work was made, along with the disappointment there was some satisfaction in the fact that my results
results of the study published
volume
of the
coincided so exactly with those of Hewlett.

295]
The
texts used in this study were, for Polybius the edition of
Hultsch, the
biblical
first
eight books in the second edition, and for
Greek, Swete's edition (Vols.
and
II) in the
second
edition, 1895-96; Vol. Ill, 1894).

I
wish to express
my
great indebtedness to Professor Ernest
D. Burton for his assistance and interest
in the
matter of this
study, but especially for the inspiration received in past years of

association with him.
296
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
LEXICONS, EDITIONS, GRAMMARS, AND SYNTAX.
I.
Lexicon Polybianum ab
Schweighaeuser, Joannes.
olim adumbratim inde ab
Is. et Merico Casaubonis

Aug. Ernesti elaboratum nunc ab Joanne
emendatum plurimisque partibus auctum.
lo.
Schweighaeusero
passim
Oxonii excudebat
W. Baxter, impensis
MDCCCXXII.
et J.
G.
Hultsch, Fridericus Otto.
The Old Testament
Henry Barclay.
gint.
Blass,
W.
Vols.
Polybii Historiae.
92; Vols. Ill, IV, editio prima, 1870-72.
Swete,
et
B. Whittaker, Londini;
Parker, Oxonii,
Vols.
2ded., 1895-96; Vol.
Grammar
Friedrich.
Thackery.
II,
I,
of
I, II,
editio altera,
1888-
Berlin,
in
Greek according
Ill, ist ed.,
New Testament
Greek.
to the
Septua-
Cambridge.
1894.
Transl. by H. S.
London, 1898.
F Chr. Griechische Grammatik. 3te Aufl. Miinchen, 1900.

Buttmatm, Alexander.
A Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Transl.
by J. H. Thayer. Andover, 1895.
Brugynann, K.
Kriiger, K.
W.
Griechische Sprachlehre
fiir
Schulen.
5te Aufl.
Leipzig,
1875-
Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der griech. Sprache.
Kiihner, Raphael.
3te Aufl.
Griech. Grammatik.
Meyer, Gustav.
IVifier,
by
G. B.
W.
4 vols.
Leipzig, 1890-1904.
Treatise on the
Greek.
Transl.
New
Testa-
Vergleichende Syntax der indogerm. Sprachen.
Drei
Syntax of the Moods and Tenses
Burton, Ernest DeWitt.
in
Chicago, 1898.
3d ed.
Delbriick, Berthold.
Leipzig, 1896.
3d ed. Edinburgh, 1882.
F. Moulton.
ment Greek.
3te Aufl.
Grammar of New Testament
Teile.
Strassburg,
Verb,
Boston, 1890,
893-1 900.
Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek
Goodwiti, William Watson,
II.
DISSERTATIONS, PROGRAMMES, MONOGRAPHS AND PERIODICALS.
Albrecht, Carolus.
De
accusativi
cum
infinitive
conjuncti origine et usu
Homerico.
Leipziger Studie7i, Bd. IV, pp. 1-58. Leipzig, 1871.

Amelung, Ricardus, De Polybii enuntiatis finalibus. Diss., Halle, 1901,
Americaji Journal of Philology. Baltimore. (Abbreviated^././'.)

Anz, Henricus. Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graecorum sermonem vulgarem
et
297]
pentateuchi versione Alexandrina repetita.

9
Diss., Halle, 1894.
10
Bellennajtn.
De graeca verborum
van Benten, Jacobus Marie.
limendi structura.
Prg., Berlin, 1833.
Observationes criticae
in
Polybium.
Diss.,
Lugduni-Batavorum, 1878.
Zur Entwickelungsgesch. der Konstruktionen mit
Berdolt, Wendelin.
Si(m.
Eichstatt, 1894.
Birke, Otto.
De
particularum
Straboniano.
\i.i\
usu Polybiano, Dionysiaco, Diodoreo,
et ov
Diss., Lipsiae, 1897.
Schanzs
Birklein, Franz. Entwickelungsgesch. des substantivierten Infinitivs.
Wlirzburg, 1888.
Beitrdge, Heft 7.
De praepositionum apud
Blackert, Augustus.
ones selectae.
Brief,
Siegmund.
oratores Atticos usu quaesti-
Marpurgi Cattorum, 1884.
Diss.,
Die Conjunctionen bei Polybius,
I,
II,
Prg.,
III,
Wien,
1891, 1892, 1894.
Campe,
J.
Quaestionum Polybianarum specimen.
F. C.
1849;
II,
I,
Prt^.,
Neu Ruppin,
Prg., Greiffenberg, 1855.
De
Delbriick, Bertholdus.
De
Diel, Henricus.
infinitivo
Graeco.
enuntiatis finalibus
posterioris aetatis.
Diss.,
Diss., Halle, 1863.
apud Graecarum rerum
Observationum Polybianarum particula.
Eberhard, Alfred.
scriptores
Monachii, 1894.
Diss., Berolini,
1862.
Eichner, t)ber die Partikel
De
Ettglich, Gustavus.
Prg.,
CicrTe.
infinitivo
Prg., Gleiwitz, 1882.
Homerico.
Diss., Vratislaviae, 1867; also
Schrimm, 1868.
Fassbaender,
Ouaestiones grammaticae ad
Franz.
Polybium pertinentes.
Prg., Crefeld, 1889.
De
Fellmann^ Maximilianus.
Grace, poet,
De
Fleischer, C. H.
eius usu
The
The
Am.
earumque
trag.
cum
infinitivo ac peculiari
Diss., Lipsiae, 1870.
De
Bd. VI, Heft
infinitivi
i.
temporum usu Thucydideo.
Leipziger
Leipzig, 1873.
Contributions to the History of the Articular Infinitive.
Gildersleeve, Basil L.
Trans.
particulis consecutivis
primordiis Graeci accusativi
Homerico.
Forrsmattn, Theodorus.
Stiidien,
wj, w<rre
Diss., Vratislaviae, 1883.
vi et usu.
Phil. Ass., 1878.
Articular Inf. in
Xenophon and
Plato.
A.J.P., Vol. Ill, pp. 193-205.
Articular Inf. Again.
Note on Some
A.J.P., Vol. VIII, pp. 329-37.

Various Constructions in the LXX. A.J. P., Vol.
XXVII,
pp. 105, 106.
Encroachments
of
a")
on
ov in
Later Greek.
A.J. P., Vol.
I,
p.
50, n.
i;
p. 53, n. i; p. 54, p. 57-
Glaser, Otto.
De
ratione,
quae intercedit
qui in titulis saeculi III,

Goetzeler, Ludovicus.
Graef,
Hermannus.
II, I
apparet.
inter
sermonem
Polybii et eum,
Diss., Gissae, 1894.
De Polybii elocutione. Diss., Wurzburg, 1887.

De coniunctionis ws origine et usu. Prg., Memel,
298
1874.
THE INFINITIVE
Der
Griinewald, L.
freie formelhafte
Schanz's Beitrdge, Bd.
II,
On
Gulick, Charles Burton.
Harvard
Heft
der Limitation im Griech.
Infinitiv
Wiirzburg, 1888.
3.
Greek
the
11
Verbs
Infinitive after
of Fearing.
Studies in Classical Philol., Vol. XII, igoi.
Der Accusativ cum
Hentze, C.
IN POLYBIUS
Gymtiasium.
Uber
Herbst, Ludwig.
Hertlein, F. K.
infinitivo
Homer.
bei
Hv
beim Futur
Thukydides,
in
Conjecturen zu griech. Prosaikern.
Zu Polybios.
Zeitschr.
fur das
Berlin, 1866.
Hamburg,
Prg.,
Prg.,
1867.
Wertheim, 1873.
CXV (1877) pp. 33-39.

conjunctione quae est m'7
Fleckeisen's Jahrb., Bd.
De
Herivig, G. L. C.
particularum
Marburg, 1875.
Herzog, Ernst. Die Syntax des
Infinitivs.
Fleckeisen's Jahrb.,
o".
Diss.
Bd. CVII
(1873), PP- 1-33.
W.
Hewlett, E, G.
On
A J. P.,
the Articular Inf. in Polybius.
XI,
Vol.
pp. 267-90^440-70.
De
Hoehne, Adolphus.
infinitivi
qui fertur pro imperativo.
apud Graecos
classicae aetatis poetas usu
Diss., Vratislaviae, 1867.
Quaestiones Polybianae.
Hultsch, Fridericus.
Prg., Zwickau, 1858;
I,
II,
Prg., Dresden, 1869.
Anzeige
Bd.
v.
Polybii historia ed. L. Dindorf, Vols.
XCV
Der absolute
pp. 742
Fleckeisen' s Jahrb. ,V>6..CXXîyi{i?)Z\),
genitiv des Infinitivs.
pp. 813
ff.;
Bd.
p. 456;
XCV,
1-210;
II. Teil,
1859, pp. 288-319.
pp. 832
Bd.
ff.;
XCVII,
p.
LXXVII,
392;
Bd.
Bd. CI, pp. 728, 735-36.

Sprache.
Polybius: Ein Beitrag zur Syntax der
Abhatidl.
sdchsischen Gesellsch. d. Wiss., Bd.
Pappus,
LXXV,
pp. 564-66, 624, 676; Bd.
Die erzahlenden Zeitformen bei

gemeingriech.
XIV,
Philologus, Bd.
Fleckeisen's Jahrb., Bd.
Polybios.
XCIX,
Fleckeisen's Jahrb.,
II.
ff.
tJber den Hiatus bei Polybius.
Zu
I,
(1867), pp. 289ff.
des philol.-hist.
XXII, Nos.
u. 4,
Klasse der
I.
kgl.
Teil, 1891, pp.
1892, pp. 350-467.
in indice graecitatis
suae
s.
v. m^,
firjdafiCii, nr)d^, fiTrfre.
Die griechischen historiker der spateren zeit: Polybius. Erster

Philologus, Bd. XLV (1886),
abschnitt. Die litteratur von 1846-1866.
pp. 321-68.
Jerusalem, W. Die Inschrift von Sestos und Polybius. Wiener Studien, Bd.
Jacoby, C.
(1879). pp. 32-58.
Jolly, Julius.
Geschichte des
Infinitivs
im Indogermanischen.
Miinchen,
1873.
Kaelker, Friedrich.
zur
Quaestiones de elocutione Polybiana.
klass. Philol., Bd. Ill, pp.
Kaiser, Bruno.
217-302.
Leipziger Studien
Also Diss., Lipsiae, 1889.
Quaestiones de elocutione Demosthenica, Pars Prior.
sertationes Philologiae Halenses, Bd. XIII, 1897.
299
Dis-
12
Kavipe,
J.
Griechische historiker:
F. C.
pp. 383-54.
Karassek, Joseph.
Der
Zu
Infinitiv bei
De
Kersten, Theobaldus.
Philologus, Jahrg.
Polybius.
Herodot.
II,
Prg., Saaz, 1883.
coniunctis particulis
Diss., Gottingae, 1875.
<"J.
m'?
Hermes, Bd. II, p. 471.

Kobylanski, J.
De enuntiatorum consecutivorum apud tragicos Graecos usu ac
ratione.
Prg. 2, Kolomyi, 1894.
Krapp, Franz. Der substantivierte Infinitiv abhangig von Praepositionen
und Praepositionsadverbien in der historischen Gracitat. Diss., HeidelKirchoff, A.
Polybios.
berg, 1892.
Die Prapositionen bei Polybius.
Krebs, Franz.
Schanz's Beitrdge, Heft
i.
Wiirzburg, 1882.
Die prapositionsartigen Adverbia bei Polybius.

Die Prapositionsadverbien
Teile.
Prg.,
Prg.,
Regensburg, 1882.
Gracitat. Zwei
der spateren historischen
in
Munchen, 1884/85.
Jahresbericht iiber
spateren
die
griech.
Jahresbericht iiber d. Fortschritte d.
Geschichtsschreiber,
class,
1885-93.
Altertumswtss., Erste Abteil.,
pp. 52-70, 1894.
W.
Kuhring,
F. A.
De praepositionum graecarum
quaestiones selectae.
Lammer/, Kdmund.
in chartis
Aegyptis usu
Bonnae, 1906.
Diss.,
Zu Polybius.
F/ecketsen's /a/irb., Vol.
CXXVll
(1888),
pp. 617-32.
Leipziger Studieti
= Studien
zur griech.
u. lutein,
Grammatik, herausgegeb.
von Georg Curtius. Leipzig.

Lutz, Leonhard.
Die Casus-Adverbien bei den attischen Rednern.
Prg.,
Wiirzburg, 1891.
AUgemeine Beobachtungen
Madvig,
iiber die Prapositionen bei
den attischen Red-
Diss., Wiirzburg, 1883.
nern.
J.
N.
lehre.
Bemerkungen
Philologus, ]?thr^.
De
Merguet, Hugo.
iiber einige
accusativi
Punkte
d. griech.
Wortfiigungs-
Supplementheft.
II,
cum
infinitivo
usu syntactic.
Prg., Regi-
monti, 1863.
Meyer,
Der Infinitiv der homerischen Sprache. Diss., Gottingen, 1856.

Uber den accusativ cum infinitivo. Sitzungsber. der philol.Classe d, kais. Akad, d. Wissenschaft, Bd. LX.
Wien, 1868.
'L.&o.
Miklosich, F.
hist,
Schanz's Beitrdge ^= Beitrdge zur historischen Syntax
herausgegeb. von Martin Schanz,

Schenkel, Karl.
Polybius.
Jahresber.
iiber
d,
griech,
Sprache,
Wiirzburg.
die spateren griech. Geschichtsschreiber:
Jahresber, iiber die Fortschritte
d, klass.
Altertumswiss., Jahrg.
XII, Erste Abteil., 1884, pp. 227-50.
Schmidt, Gulielmus.
De
Flavii
Josephi elocutione
Schmidt, Max.
observationes criticae.
N. F., Suppl.-Bd. 20, pp. 341-550.

Uber den Infinitiv. Diss., Ratibor, 1826.
Fleckeisen's Jahrb,
300
THE INFINITIVE
Schomann, Georg Friedrich.
IN POLYBIUS
18
Die Lehre von den Redetheilen nach den Alten.
Berlin, 1862.
Zur Lehre vom
Infinitiv.
Bd.
Jahrb.,
Fleckeisen's
XCIX
(1869),
pp.
209-39.
Anzeige von F. Miklosich

Jahrb., Bd.
Schulze, Ernst.
liber
den Accusativ cum
infinitive.
Fleckeisejt's
(1870), pp. 187-92.
Beitriige zu Poljbius.
Rhein. Mus., N. F. Jahrg. XXIII
(1868), pp. 427-31.
Quaestiunculae grammaticae ad oratores Atticos spec-
Schulze, Ricardus.
tantes.
Prg., Bautzen, 1889.
De
Seume, Hermannus.
sententiis consecutivis Graecis.
Diss., Gottingen,
1883.
Spieker,
Edward H.
The Genitive Absolute
in the Attic Orators.
A.J.P.,
Vol. VI, pp. 310-43.

Stich, Joannes.
De
Polybii dicendi genere.
Diss.,
Erlangen, 1880.
Thiemann, Maximilianus. Quaestiones Polybianae. Diss., Halle, 1882,

Thumb, Albert. Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus:
Strassburg, 1901.
Beitrage zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der K01V17.
Viehoff, Peter.
Uber
die Construction der
dem Infinitiv.
Votaw, Clyde Weber. The Use of
Partikel wo-re mit
Pronomina 0X0% und So-os und dem

Emmerich, 1841/42.
Prg.,
the Infinitive in Biblical Greek.
Diss.,
Chicago, i8g6.
De
Wagner, Richard.
iuncto.
infinitivo
Weiske, G. A.
Der Gebrauch des substantivierten
Fleckeisens Jahrb., Bd.
Uber
Wentzel, Eduard.
griech. Sprache.
De
apud oratores Atticos cum
articulo
con-
Prg., Schwerin, 1885.

Infinitivs
im Griechischen.
CXXVI,
pp. 494-504, 529-42.

die sogenannte absolute Participialconstruction d.
Prg., Glogau, 1857.

Diss., Vratislaviae (without date).
genitivis et dativis absolutis.
ov mit
Nachtrag zu der Lehre uber /utj ov mit dem Participium und uber
dem Infinitiv. Prg., Glogau, 1843.
Wiener Studien, Zeitschrift fur class. Philol. Supplement der Zeitschr. f.
ix.t\
osterreich.
Wilde, Titus.
Gymnasium, Band
De
I,
1879.
particula Sxrre commentatio.
Wunderer, Carolus.
Conjecturae Polybianae.
301
Prg., Gorlitz, 1861.

Diss.,
Erlangen, 1885.
SYNOPSIS OF
POLYBIUS.
THE ANARTHROUS INFINITIVE.
I.
1.
Verbal Subject.
i)
2)
2.
Of Impersonal Verbs in general=a.

Of Impersonal Verbs which take Indirect Discourse=M.
Verbal Object.
i)
2)
3)
Of Verbs in general =b.

Of Verbs introducing Indirect Discourse=î.
Of Verbs of Hindering and the like=:v.
a) Followed by the Simple Infinitive.
6) Followed by the Simple Infinitive with m^}.
3.
Apposition = c.
4.
Result.
i)
Actual or Hypothetical.
a)
d)
c)
2)
5.
With
With
With
wo-Tc (cjs)=f.
Ciffre
(wj) Avî.
wore in Indirect Discourse=7f.
Epexegetic or Explanatory.
a)
Without Attendant Particle=s.
d)
With
&<TTe
(a>s)='s.
Stipulation.
1)
2)
6.
THE USES OF THE INFINITIVE
With
With
a>(rr6='f.
i4>^
V,
i<p'
a)Te=m.
Limiting Nouns, Adjectives, Adverbs, and Pronouns,

i)
Nouns.
a)
d)
Simple Infinitive=h.
ws='h.
Infinitive with
2) Adjectives=g.
3)
4)
Adverbs='g.
Pronouns=q,
7.
Prepositional Object (after ir\riv)=k.
8.
Purpose,
and Specific without Attendant Particle=d.

and Specific with ibixTeQ.
Modified and General without Attendant Particle=o.
i) a) Distinct
d) Distinct
2)
9.
10.
303]
Parenthetic Absolute Infinitive=r.
Predicate Infinitive=u.
15
IN
16
11.
With
12.
Infinitive with Genitive
13.
Infinitive with
irplv, trplv
ij,
irpbrepov
^=x.
Absolute- w.
Accusative Absolute=z.
II.
1.
Verbal Subject.
2.
Verbal Object.
THE ARTICULAR
Infinitive with rb as
INFINITIVE.
Subject=a.
With t6 as Object=^.
With Toxi as 0'b]tct=bb.
c) With TtJJ as Object=i^^^.
With Verbs of Hindering, etc. = 7/,
a) With t6 as Object.
b) With Tov as Object.
c) With Tov
as Object.
i) a)
b)
2)
ix-f}
3.
Appositions^.
a)
b)
^)
With
With
With
t6.
ToO.
T(J5.
4.
Purpose.
5.
Limiting Nouns and Adjectives.
Infinitive with Tov=e.
a) Infinitive with tov Limiting Nouns=/;.

b)
6.
i)
2)
3)
7.
Infinitive with tov
With
With
With
2)
T(j;
T(5
after Prepositions taking the Dative.

after Prepositions taking the Accusative.
Manner, Means, or Instrument=r.
Cause.
b)
Ground
c)
Point of Difference.
of
Emotion.
Means.
Infinitive with tov after
a)
The
b) ws
9.
TOV after Prepositions taking the Genitive.
Infinitive with t^, indicating Cause,

i) a)
8.
Limiting Adjectives =:^.
Prepositional Object=/^.
Comparatives.
Infinitive with Tov=t.
with the Infinitive with toO='/
Infinitive with t6 as Predicate=z^.
10.
Infinitive with tov in Genitive
11.
Infinitive with
Absolute=w.
Accusative Absolutes^-.
Accusative of Relation=.
12.
Infinitive with to as
13.
Infinitive with tov as Genitive of Price=jr.
304
CHAPTER
I.
USES OF THE ANARTHROUS INFINITIVE IN POLYBIUS.

Verbal Subject.
I.
1)
Of impersonal
verbs
general (=:a).^'37*
ill
with or without a subject accusative,
impersonal verb,
finite
or infinite.
is
The
infininitive,
used as the subject of an
Goodwin, Moods and
Tetises,
745; Kiihner, Grammatik, 472, a).'

I.
I.
TrapaXcXciÔai avve/Saive tov iiraLVOV.
I.
1.2.8
i$(TTaU KUTaVOi.lv.
I.
3.
eêt ypd(f)Lv.
I.
3.
8 dvayKoiov VTreAaySo/ACv elvuL cruvraâcrât.
I.
75. 4.
XPV eÂoyeiv.
I-
14- 5
I.
14. 9 CTKOTTtlv TrdpeaTiv.
I.
15. 9 (TvvaSeLV ouSa/Acos Swarat.
I.
30. 3 eSoêv
I.
38. 6
I.
56. II
I.
65. 9 'XprjdLjxov iaTL
I.
62. 8
9.
67. 6;
(SorjOiiv.
Trtorev'trat paStov.
OL'^ olov TC aTToSovvat.
eTTt ToTcrSe
40, 5^
There
irapacrTrjcrai.
<^tAtav efvat Kap;(7;Sovt'ots kuc
Cf. G.
MT.
750;
one case of
is
i^?//i.
this
Pw/xutbts.
474 and
infinitive
3. 2 2. 4, 24. 3;
b.
with av, the infinitive
having the potential force of the corresponding indicative or

optative.
I.
G.
MT.
211.
75- 6 t wv (Tvve(3aLve Tols K.ap)(rj8ovtov<i

l-mâLvtiv, aXXa.
XadeXv
2)
0/
discourse
p-rj^k
p-yj
olov aTpaTOTTiSu) riys
p^to/aas
Tor? kut' IBluv ê'Aovras StaTrecreiv paSt'ws av SvvacrdaL
Toy's VTrvavTLOV<:.
impersonal verbs which take a subject
''[). '"^
The
infiiiitive in iiidirect
infinitive in indirect discourse
is
used as
the subject of passive verbs of saying or thinking, or of such verbs

as (i)aiveraL or hoKei.
of
any other verb.
Polybius uses
G.
MT.
So/cet
almost to the exclusion
751.
* Superior figures indicate the number of instances of each use of the
'Hereafter cited as G.
305]
MT. and
Ktih.
17
infinitive.
18
av 86$aL KaOrjKtiv.
I.
I.
1.
4.
10 vo/xioTcov
2.
14.
BoKi /XOL
2. 2 1.
rjv <^ttTov
)(^prj(rLfx.ov
etvai.
apxrjyoi' yeveaOai.
4 Trdi'TWi 6fxoXoyr]Tiov
30.
3.
lo. 3.
1.
<Jviifia.XXf.a6aL.
vX6yw<;
tov
TreTToXcfxrjKivai.
voXefjiov
TOtis
K.ap)(7]8ovtov^
Verbal Object. The infinitive in Greek is used as the

object of many verbs which require an infinitive to complete their
meaning. The infinitive is the accusative object of the verb, or
is an accusative of kindred meaning.
G. MT. 747; Kuh. 473.
2.
Object of verbs in general
1.
4 TTporjpyjixtda
2.
6 ovS" iiTefidXovTO
3.
6 iOdppiqcrav
=b
) 3533
.
ypd.(J3etv.
ap.<j>L(Tfir]Teiv.
ktlv(.lv.
5. 2
SiaâtVeiv Sipjxrjaav.
g. 2
(3ovX6fXvo^ aTroXtTreiv.
II. 12
tKpLve StaKii'buvet'etv.
ig. 2
irapayytiXas Trpovroptvea-daL.
40.
TrpocTTotâs ^prjO'Bai.
54. 6 CTreicrav
cjivyelv.
43.
Tvapd jXLKpov rjXOov dTroAc'crat ra TrpdyfxaTa;
I.
Trayo'
33.
The
cf. 12. 20.
7.
oAtyoi' tjXOov diroXvaai rous KaT-pTta/xh'Ovs.
infinitive as object of
placed under a separate head
verbs of
commanding has not been

The infinitive after
in this study.
verbs of bidding in salutations does not occur in Polybius, but
does occur
for
T]
in biblical
fidWov
T)
Greek.
after ôvXo/xai, Killi. 540, A.
13. 5. 3 Trav ya.p jSovXrjOrjvai tov ^lXlttttov dvaSiâcrOai

PoSt'ots rrjv iv tovtol?
2)
"The
Object of verbs
infinitive
is
said
2.
r)
KaTa(f>avrj
ytveaOaL
avTOV irpoaipecnv.
ifiiroducing
to
indirect
stand in indirect
discotirse
discotirse,
and
correspond to those of the indicative or optative, when
î).='7'
its
tenses
depends
on a verb implying thought or the expression of thought (one of
the class of verba sentiendi et declarandi), and when also the thought,
as originally conceived, would have been expressed by some
it
tense of the indicative (with or without av) or optative (with

306
THE INFINITIVE
dv), SO that
IN POLYBIUS
can be transferred without change of tense to the
it
MT.
infinitive." 6^.
684.
8 dvayKotov VTreXafÔfxcv
I.
3.
I.
21. 10 OLKovawi Tov aroXov crvveyyvs eivaL.
?vat.
I.
23. 2
7rv66fJievor]
28. 23. 4
I. 4.
KULpov
OVK av
8. 13. 8
19
TTOcycreadat.
etvat.
aitfjiat
Aoyov avTov diroSovvaL.
SvvrfOrjvaL
M T.
G.
K(j}\veLV.
e(f)r] fXT]
6S5.
So/<o{}(rtv t\ 7rda)(îv.
1.
16. II
ouTOS SoKCt aTToAeAavKcVai
2.
17. 12
OS av
irXeia-TOv;
ri}? iSt'as ev/3ovAt'as.
Sok>;.
exêiv
i.
13.
9,
14.
i;
3.
I16. 7;
7. 2,
4. 2. 3.
av TraOeiv
I.
32. 7
^'
59- 3 ^TToAa/XySavovres /xovcos av ovtws Trcpas iTnOeivuL raJ iroXefiw.
TreTreicr/xevovs firj^kv
Future
8 Tous 0
&)?, etc.,
with ay.
infinitive
Infinitive
1 2.
I.
68.
7.
70. 5;
I.
13. 6, 40. 5.
2.
8. 30-
Seivov.
vojU,t'cravTas
/i,ol
oiKT^crctv
208; Kuh. 398.
i,
d).
ovtws apiora Kara tov yp-qapiov.
an indirect-discourse clause introduced by
in
Kuh. 550, A.
three times.
23. 7
av
MT.
(?.
ooKet TTCLa-drjvai
31. 20. 4 virthtLKvvtv
ai'Tto
Tt'/u,aios
StoTt
<1)S,
otl,
3.
fav avTos d^tto^^vat.
KaAAicrrov
eicat
Kaipov
7.
15. 4.
TOts
eirL(}>avrjvaL
Trpay/xacriv.
Also
kaeuser,
15. 2.
8, if
<W9
is
This infinitive also occurs
article
<?.
in relative clauses
indirect quotation which has been introduced

Cf. G.
MT.
5. 67. 6
755; Kiih. 594,

KvptwTaras
t<^r}
Vide Schweig-
retained in the text.
Lexicon Polybianum, under
depending on an
by an infinitive.
5.
eivac koX hLKaiordra'; KTrjaei';, KaO^ as aurots KaO-qKctv
Ta Kara KoiAt^v 2vpiav.

2
1.
31' S
{(-(fir])
(jiipeiv
18. 38, 8
iirl
ei
In 34.
TovTw
oe oiafiaprdvetv
Also
rr/v
crvyKXrjTov,
II, 34. 5;
ev
w t^v
12. 5. 8^, 9. 4;
6pyr]v
18. 3. 8.
T Kol fxiveiv Itl tt^v (Tvp-fxaîav, SeTv avTovs KOfiLîaOai k.t.X.
8.
pends on a
<j>rj(Tlv
iv
tovs ttoAAovs.
the infinitive occurs in a relative clause which de-
oTt-clause:
OTL /SdXavoi
cnTovfJLivovi
etcrt
Tois
ev Trj avToOt
OaXdrrr] 7re<^vreu|avat, wv tov
Ovvvov<; TTLaivecrdat.
307
Kupirov
20
The
with dv occurs twice
infinitive
of comparison:
&)?
10. 38. 2;
Object of verbs of hi?idering, separation,
3)
infinitive
is
contradiction, opposition,
which contain a negative

(^)
in
the infinitive with
{b)
merely repeats the negation inherent

10; Kilh. 514, 2, 3,
2. 7. 5
Simple
in the verbs.
either
which
jxtj,
MT. 807
G.
and notes.
4, 5,
infiinitive.33
ovK av vXa/3r]deir] TOVTOts iy^tipidai iroXtv.
Tt's
etc.
They may take
themselves.
the simple infinitive, or
a)
The
verbs
(=v).''
etc.
used as the object of verbs of hindering, separation,
doubt, mistrust,
denial,
discourse after
in indirect
34. 5. 4.
32. 8;
2.
8.
12.
5; 9- 36. 10.
2.
52. 8 aTreiTrov avro) iropeveauaL.
3. 69.
13' StwKciv Kui aviXTr\Kea6at rots TroAe/Atots eKwAvcre.
and
98. 5
ov yap
1.4
a.TryiV(D(TK
oiSeis av iiricrx^
8. 13. 5
9. 6. 8
3. 79. 7J
3.
others.
ois i^TTiaT-qaav iX^*-^-
4. 18. 8
14.
1 1
o{i;(
oXws
12. 5. 4* ouK
avTov Kopov
o'^'v
aTre/VTrt'ôvres ai/37/o-tv
koI
wKvrjcra
S- 7^- 7)
^X^*-^-
C^-
KaLp<S iroirjaaa-Oai p,Tdf3aaLV.
T^v 'Pwjav^v.
Kut
Ae'yciv
15. 25. 29;
ypaeêtv.
16.
20.
^5- 4-
9.
1.
6.
16. 30. 5.
5;
1 8.
55-
9>
21. 23. 12.

/^)
Infinitive with
^.^
Kiik. 514. E.
8tT;7reiAr;cra TO fxrjOeva (ftepeLV oirXov.
1.
78. 15
2.
55. 9 ov etKorws iâpvovvrat
4. 20. II
apvrfOrjvai Tt
15. 13. 9 eKciXucre
p.r]
18. 47. 2
TTporjyopevov
29. 24. 2
OLireiTraTO
fxrj
p.rj
cfivvat Trapaacj>iaL.
ytvwcrKetv oi>Sev ala^pov rjyovvTaL.
/x.r^
irapaSiâcrOuL.
22. II. 3.
8Laf3uLViv.
/xry
xpetav
^X^''^-
There are thus thirty-three

of the simple infinitive without
cases, after eight different verbs

/xt],
to seven cases, after six verbs,
which has the infinitive sevenbut twice.

Cf. below "Verbs of hindering,"
teen times, has
etc., with the infinitive with rov and rod ixr).
of the infinitive with
fi-q.
kwXvco,
fjt,i]
3,
The infinitive may stand

Apposition (^c).^'
noun or pronoun. G. MT, 745; Kilh. 472,
tion with a
I.
in
apposi-
c.
85. 4 bp-oXoyia^ lirotiqaaTO TOiavras, eêivat lâpxyjôvLOC^ iKXigaauat ofKa,

Tovs 8k AotTTOvs d<îevat.
308
THE INFINITIVE
3. 103. 7
avrw
o-t/aecni'
II^ 109.
TOLavrrjv,
irpovTf.Lvt
Kara
Tois (T(f>Tepoi'i
rr/v
IN POLYBIUS
Kara, /uepos
rj
avTOv TrpoaLpcaiv.
2; 8. 19. lo'^;
4. 15.
12. 25^.
12. 6. 3^;
21
aô^ctv
ff.^;
rj
"^rjaOaL
5. 91. 6*,
104.
etc.
i"";
Result. 4^7
4.
Actual or hypothetical.
I )
a) With preceding ware or
o)? (=:f).3^3
infinitive with wcttg or <u9 implies
In
classical
Greek the
no more than that the action or
state of the principal verb "is of such a nature as to be followed
by another consequence." It seems, however, that in later Greek

the distinction between ware, with the indicative and ware, with
the infinitive was obscured, and that coo-re with the infinitive was
often used when it was intended to state that the result of the
action or state of the principal verb was actually realized.
,
MT. 582
G.
VII, 161
Kiih. 584; Brief
ff.;
XIV, 240
ff.;
\,
43
p.
Gildersleeve A.J.P.
ff.;
Burt07i 369; Blass 69,
ff.;
3.
Actual:
20. 15
I.
vews KaracfypaKTOv
/lAtas
irpoTrecrovar]?
wcrre
CTroKeiAacrav
yevecrdai
ToTs Poj/Aatots VTro\CLpLov.

I.
26. 15
CTTt fjiLav
TrapeKTetvavres vavv
TOUS TTpO eavTwv.
<Ls
virtpTclvuv i$ eKaripov tov p.ipov%
2. 8. 12.
Hypothetical:
TO
5. 24. 5
)((j}pLov
wcttc tov aTparoTreSeuo-avTa ev
eTTtVeSov ecrrt
avTw ôkelv
fxkv iv dacf>aXeX crTpaTOTreoevetv.
6. 52. II
prjOkv LKavbv icrrat
cv Be
TTOtetTat Trepl
crrj/JieLOv
&a-Te with the infinitive with civ
d)
may
with av, not in indirect discourse,
consequence
37.
MT.
etTretv d^t'o)?
5.97.6 Tw
c)
atc^viSt'o) Kttt
aare
G.
ware
is
MT.
The
infinitive
to express a
form, like the potential indicative or
Kal
)(Lp.o}VL
2.
TrjXiKavrai^
crviJL(f)
opals ware fxrja
TrapaSoû) KaTETrAT^âro tovs MeAiTatets, wo'TE paSt'ws
TroAeoJS.
I.
63. 7;
5.
104. II
6. II. II, 12. 9,
15.3; 10. 30. 3; 18.46. 9; 29.24. 14; 32.
(eb?)
used
(^^sf^îs
otWcraat.
av KparrjaaL t^s
12, 46. 10; 8.
cnrov8rj<;, rjv
viTop.ivLV
follow wo-re
592, 211; Kilh. 585,
TrjXiKovTw TrepteVecrov
av
in potential
G.
optative.
I.
tov TroAtTcv/u-aTos
Trj<;
to toiovtovs aTroTeAetv avSpas wcrre irav
five
with infinitive
in
indirect discourse
times with the infinitive
594, 595, 608; Kiih. 584,
309
2,
7.
f.
14.
9; 39. 9. 7-
(=7f^.s
in indirect discourse.
22
15. 3" Tov
I.
'lipwvd
fJ-ev
dXAa
The
cf>povpLa Trdvra
TO.
/jlovov
/at)
is
used with three
avfXTrXoKrjv ovtcds
yevofxivrfv
vuktos
<î;ytv
KaraXnruv.
infinitive in these five cases
av
/A77.
Koi
fxcra t^v
(firjcn
ycvcaOuL tov (ppoveiv ware
3. 47. 9";
is
^<d
Tas ^vpaxovcras
ets
21. 31. lO.
and the negative
aorist
is
infinitives.
2)
Epexegetic or explanatory
a)
Without attendant
i?ifi?iitive.^''
particle
s).''
The
may
infinitive
be
used as an addition explanatory of the action or state of the verb
which
29. 13
II.
Kilh. 472,
limits.
it
T0U9
Se
TT/aos
c.
aKUTaAXaKToj? StuKeifxeOa, KoXaêiv avTOVs
airt'ous
act COS.
36. 3. 6*
dAXa
yevvat'cus
In
17
62.
I.
KaKuiv aipeVew?
KaTaXetTro/AcVi/s,
StSdvut rrjv iiTLTpoTrrjv Trepl

8^;
tov
>;
twv Ka$^
7rdAe/Aov dvaSeêcrât
And
avTOv<;
22. 4; 3. 24. 43 the simple infinitive
3.
explanatory of the preceding demonstrative pronoun,

Cf. infra after
With
b)
G^.
MT.
5.
35. 12 TavTTjv Tr]v iTiô\rjv, wctt'

18.
TOWTO
ets
crui^j^yovTO
Tr]v TroXtopKtav.
ware with
i)
68. 8;
2.
588 end.
iKirep.Tri.LV
wore
avTov
3. 48. 4, 63. 13, 102.
8 6
8'
the infinitive (='*f).'3
AtteAA^s
cfipovTL^CLV
103.
The
infinitive with
MT.
G.
Xvclv
ware
587, 2; Kiih.
Cf.
2)
TovTots
evrt
a vvv
"Epexegetic
;(/3eux.s,
irpoTf.Lvuv
;(ovcrtv.
ideXoKUKeiv
eKctVous
wctt'
avTos 0
i^tupicrêis
infinitive"
correlated with an
principal clause,
kir\
may
ttjv
infiîitive
that, for the
3.
310
in
G.
7n/?oAas.
AtTwAots wot'
apposition."
(=m),'*3
tovtw expressed or
koI
XnA/ctSa
ets
33. 13. 6.
and "Infinitive
take the infinitive.
TOts
tlprjvrjv
21. 30. 2, 3, 4;
w ^/zi/ e^' wTe with the

meaning "on condition
</)'
core,
avvwp.oo'Lav
Lva p.r}8ap.6dV avT<o )ôpr]yia TrapayLvrjTai tt/oos Tas
/ceAevcras
TTOteiTcxt
Tor /SacrtAews
Tas
c;(etv ap.(j>OTpovs
A.
tov
2, e.
XvpAiLvtcrdaL
e<^'
irepl
25. 4. 5.
4'';
express a stipulation, condition, or limitation of the action
584,
5.
p.eTa. )ôpr]yta<i.
TroAAoiKts (iovXevecrOaL
or state expressed in the principal clause.
5. 2.
used
rolaSe.
Stipulation.
5.
may
is
iirl
<p=m.
e<^'
wo-re (='s).8
I.
10
11. 14. 6^.
'E^'
c5
purpose of,"
understood
MT.
in
and
and
the
610; Kiih. 584,
THE INFINITIVE
I.
8e
Troirjcrajxtvoi
6. 9
crvvOr]Ka'
to.
cu
Tov
oiTrooovvai
fxkv atp(jU.aAa)Ta
{SacnXea Pw/Aut'ots, apyvpuov 8e Trpocrêtvut TttAavra Tovro65 e/curdv.
13
9.
7.
(Tvvdr](T6jX(.da,
co
i(f>'
eêivai
ju,t^
apacrdai
aiirois
Trpos
v/i.as
fir]8TroTe ttoAc/xov.
8. 27.
eSoaav Tn'oTCts
(ji6pov<;
ctti
tovtoi?, e<^'
<^'
CTTl
TOVTO),
CTTI
TOVTOtS, ^'
7rt
ToiaSe, e<^'
</>'
w with demonstrative omitted,
re
occurs but twice.

(/)'
W
w
TapavrtVous eAeuêpwcreiv
Kttt
/A>?Te
infinitive.)
7. 9. 4, 13.
67. lO".
5.
(U
<S
(Note the future
Trpd$a6aL.
76.
5.
O"
S. 2^. I.
2''.
7. 4. i, 2.
i.
16. 9';
31.
i.
8,
88.
12;
2.
46.
etc.
3;
62. 8^; 3. 22. 4, 24. 33, the simple infinitive is found after
iirl TolarSe; vide " Epexegetic infinitive
s."
Kiih. 584, A. 4.
In
I.
Infinitive after Nouns, Adjectives, Adverbs, and Pro-
6.
The
nouns.
may
infinitive
be used after
nouns, adjectives,
adverbs, and pronouns denoting ability, fitness, ease, time, need,
and
their opposites; in fact, all such as express the
which take an
Nouns (=h).'^^
Simple infinitive.
tions as verbs
1)
d)
Ae'yetv
I. 13. I
1
I.
15. II
2. 8.
.
tw
Trepl
G.
MT.
rela-
758; Kiih. 473,
3.
TrpoKCt/xevtuv.
dvayKr^ (Tvy^wptZv ras up^âs Kai ras viTo6i(TUpa.
infinitive.
same
13
10
25. II
3. 86. II
p-^0'
eavTov arvcrTpaTvcLV iôvaiav
'Poi/Aat'ots KctAAtcTTOi/ eOo'i
irp69(.(TLV 6)(0VT<; TToAtOp/CetV
TTupayyeAp-a tl SeSo/xcvov
3. 118. 4 /AcyaAus
4. 80. 12
/5)
etôv eATTiSas
rjv irapa.KXr)(Ti<;
8wa/u,ts, Kvpta,
6pp.-)],
Infinitive with
after nouns, there
is
Trj<;
tovs VTroTrtTTTOVTas.
Pwp,7;s avrrj? tcrtadai Kvpioi.
&)?
eyeVerd rts Katpos ws
iv avTols;
cf. i.
2) Adjectives
Oapptiv
/cat p.eviv.
IvToXrj, etc.
(='h)'.
Besides
the simple infinitive
one occurrence of w? with the
the same construction.

3. II. 3
TOVi (Tvp.TTt^cvyoTa'i.
rjv (ftoveveiv
Aa/3dvTe5 Se crvy)(wpr]p.a Troirjaaa-OaL Tr]v oLTroXvaiv.
5. 28. 4 cv ais
Also
8'
eSco/ce.
iarl /jLtTa-rropeveaOai Koi (SorjOeiv.
G.
iirl
MT.
588, 608; Kiih. 585,
Xoyov aÔrjvaL
49. 3.
(=g)."
311
Tr]v
infinitive in
5.
{nroLKOvpovp.evr]V aTOiriav

24
4 iKavov
I. I.
ecrrt
irpoKaXecracrdaL koc TrapopfjurjcraL.
I.
54. 3 CKûyeiv SwaTos wv.
I.
62.
eroi/xot TToAe/Aeti' rjaav.
crw7;^ts TTOTC
/X.6V
74. 9
2.
50. 6 Tovs MeyaXoTToXtra? irpodvfiovi
10
2. 58.
3.
8c
{'7ro;(ojptv TTOTC
1.
7ra\tv CK
/Acra/JoX^s
y;(tpcTv.
etvai <f>ipLV.
/aetôvos ruêiv v^cruv aîot riyaw/Dias.
lOl. 3 7rp6)^Lpo^ wv
orv/JiTrXeKea-OaL.
3. 102. 3 ouTC yap avTeâyetv dîo;(pws ^v ovre TrapafSorjOetv.

3.
112. 9 Seivot yap Pw/x,aiot Kai êov? e^tXacrttcrûi kui di'^paiTrous.
4. 8.
10
KLvSvi'cvcraL Sva)(^pr)(TTOL.
Also
dya^ds, cvo/axo?, etc.
Adverbs (='g).^
3)
9 Ste/CTrXeiv Kat eTTKâtVeo-ât dSi'vdrws ax'"'-
1. 51.
2.
7rtT>;8eios, Kvptos,
50. 4 ot INIeyaXoroXtTut Trpoû/x-ws
4)
Pronouns
(olo<;,
ol6^ re
uVai Kai TrapaKaXetv. 21.
2 2. I.
and 6ao<i (=q).49
I.
26. 2 ov;( otot t' i^crav 7rtrp7retv.
1.
36. 3 oTot t' av a.va<^piv.
10. 23. 7
<rT(ov
eSet OTve^t'êtv ctti TocrotTov
wore
SetvaJ
tw
rd^^ct Trpocrdyetv, ^' ocrov
0"i;^Tjyo{ivTas Kai crvoToi;:ôt'i'Ta? Sta/AcVetv.
39. 14. 5
Siaêpotro Se
evrt
rotrovrov
e</)'
ocrov StSdcTKCiv Kat ireiOeiv
vntp twv
d/A<^t(r^7^rovp.Vwv.
In 10. 29.
i;
29. 8. 4
Hultsch corrects
Prepositional Object (:=k).^
0105 to
nrXr^v,
olds re.
which
is
used six times
as a quasi-preposition with the genitive of the articular infinitive,

is
twice used as an adverb with the anarthrous infinitive.
803 b; Kuh. 479.
G.
MT.
2.
arpaTia^
6. 32-
ot'Sev erepov Set vociv 7rX7)v Svo
8. 37.
Stacraô)!/ oiSev ttXt^v iroLp-ovs eivat Trpos
8.
Purpose. t^
i)
Distinct a7id specific.
crvvrjpfJLOirOaL.
to TrapayyeXXd/xevov.
The infinitive is used

Without attendant particle (=d).'3
to express the distinct and specific purpose of the action or state
of the governing verb. G. MT. 770-75; Kilh. 473, 7 and A. 13.
a)
2. 8.
c. 3.
12 ws 7ra7ro(7retXat Ttvas rov TrapprjaLao'a.p.evov twv 7rpcr/3ewv aTroKTeivai.

c
Toi'S St
MaKeSdvas
7. 17. 9. Tovs 8e Sia
i<f>rJK
aLToXoyciv. 5. 8. 4^; 8. 33. 6.
TTys TTvXf]^ d(/)teis el'pyetv
312
tovs crvveyytôvras.
THE INFINITIVE
ws av otaTeray/xeVot
II
5- 14.
IN POLYBIUS
25
Trpos tov 'AttcAA^v Tracruts
fjikv
ifXTroSuZv rats
C7ri/3oAaT? avTov.
I. 88.
9; 6. 58. 6; 35. 4. 9; 3. 70. 7
(z'/î?
Hultsch; Fleckeisen, 1864,
p. 447;
1884, p. 742).
In Polybius the infinitive
is
always active or middle, never
passive.
With preceding
b)
tive
may
a purpose.
3. 92. 6
G.
MT.
587, 3; Kiih. 584,
o.vTn:apr]y^ Tois
iK-ôiptiv
Twv
4; 8. 9.
wcrre with the infiniis
aimed
at as
2, d.
\x.y]
wore
Tov<i eVtXc/cTous,
10.46.
Ij2';
infinitive
wcTTe
TroAc/xtots,
I,
46. 7; 32.
Modified and ge?ieral
2)
"The
SoKCiv
Tois
uvrdv
<rvixixa.ôi%
viraCO poiv
lâtredTuXc
16. 37. 2
(orw?) (ê).^
ajcrre
be used to express a consequence which
i-n-iTpiêLV tIjv
AaKwviKi]v.
3. 43.
7. 12.
ivitJioiit
attendant particle
(=o).^5
used to express, with diminished purpose force
is
and with a general rather than a
specific bearing, that for which,
or with reference to which, the action or state of the governing
verb
performed or exists."
is
10 ri
3. 8.
a.v
etTretv
_i(ot,
and
Cf. Burton 368.
4. 26. 3;
8. 13. 7;
9.
35. 5;
16.
II. 29. 7;
39- 5; 3- 9- 5; 34- lo- 71.
7.9 ov
fJiYjv
exxov ye Troteiv ov8ev,
21. 7, 81. i; 3. 10.
i.
3;
16.
20.
7;
3- 3- 6.
2. 12.
8 dTreSeâvTO ixerix^LV 'Pw/xatovs. 3. 112. 5; 4. 51. 5, 77. 4; 5. 83.
4, III. 6;
28.3; 12.
ID,
Cf.
Luke 7:40;
9.
Parenthetic
12. 7; 31. 21. 9;
38. 8. 7.
12:4; Acts 4:14.
Absolute
Infinitive
(=r).3'*
This
use
occurs thirty-four times in parenthetic phrases which limit or

qualify the whole statement or only
G.
MT. 776-83;
ws
I. I. 2
3. 6.
Each
^^. 6. 3
8etv.^
fJLLKpOV Seiv.'*
13
4. 2. 3
3.
etTTCiv.
4 TToWov ye
5. 52.
585,
tTTO? etTretv.'^
ws
3. 49. 7
Kii/i.
some word
ws
of the following occurs once.

d/<OT/v et
d)S e/Aot
dô^s
ypd(f>LV.
SoKeiv.
313
in the sentence.
26
I. 2.
l(r)(yw'S elireiv.
1. 4.
ocroi'
ye kol
eioeVai.
ruJLo.'i
8' eiTretv.
TtAos
21. 20. 5
8'
(aTrAws
etTretv
in a quotation
II. 13
8.
from
Theopompus.)
Predicate Infinitive
10.
The
(=û)."^
however,
Polybius,
In
472, b.
MT.
745; Kith.
only as
predicate
G.
used
is
it
may be
infinitive
used as a predicate nominative or accusative.

nominative.
2.
49.
avTuL (evroAas)
5. 99. 2
âav
8'
Tov? x''^'PX^^-
S. iS.
7"";
MT. 626-31, 651-54;
In
with
6''.
is
rj
7.
ddXaTTav
29. 27. 2;
TreiroLrjcrdai,.
fir]
24. 13. 4;
irpoaOtv XvaeLV
rj
2.
58. 6;
i;
occurs
(f)ddvQ)
i;
I.
28. 6. 7;
tyjv iroXLopKiav irplv
rj
with the
4. 31. i, 85. 6;
29. 27. 2; 30.

i.
23. 4';
20. 12; 4. 85. 5;
33. II. 5;
rj
6 (pres.
4. 85.
irplv
infinitive.
14. 2. 6, 7;
17
37.
I.
12.
kXeiv rrjv M.e<xar]vr)v.
rj:
SucfiOeLpt to. ixeipaKia,
follows a positive clause four times;
6. 23. 11; 15.
35. 6;
18. 35.
Twv
verb compounded
with indicative after negative clause.
18. i;
a negative clause twice:
I.
35. 6 Trao-as eêXey;(a)(n

Tivos
31.
In every case, except
12. 6^. 9;
Infinitive with irporepov
2.
(aor. inf.).
afifirmative.
In the leading sentence
30. II. 6 ov irporepov tXrjie irplv
I^
is
negative clause eleven times:
74. I';
5.
Cf. irplv
13.
Infinitive with irpiv:

16. 22. 4
inf.);
Occurrences not cited above are:
I.
60. 9;
6. 49. 2
5.
10. 45. 4;
6. 49. 2;
1.
(pres.
preceded by a verb compounded
used with the aorist
infinitive follows a
I.
rj.
14. 2. 6, 7;
9;
once, 12.
irpo
inf.), irplv
31.
d.
I,
66. 3; irpoa-dev once, 6. 49. 2; irporepov six times, 10. 32.
I.
12.
10;
is
ctti
WITH the Infinitive (=x).3*
Tj^
7r/30K8a7ravaTat irplv iKJSoXrjV eis
Infinitive with Trplv
once,
5;
2i'&.
dvoiVeiv
toiit'
ri,
27. 7. 11.
18. 9. i:
In each the leading sentence
irpo.
0. 43. 2
trrpaTetttS eêXeiv to,? 0r//3as.
dA.Aa kuv ^vprj
Kilh. 568,
2 the 7r/3iV-clause
9. 43.
with
10.
25. 2
ii.
(perf. inf.);
9. 43.
5.
KXiij/uv,
fji.r]Biv
n/oiV,3 7r/3tv ^,^3 Tvporepov
11.
6^.
VTroSeiKVVvaL Kal SrjXovv.
^v avTio t^9
6\r] Trpodecn'i
6 opKOs ecTTtv
6. 33.
yap
rj
ra?
cr</)erepas
dvayKut'cov.
314
cAttc'Sus
rrporepov
r)
wapa)((jip^(TaL
THE INFINITIVE
is
27
the Genitive Absolute (=w),'^
Infinitive with
12.
infinitive
IN POLYBIUS
used as the genitive subject of the neuter impersonal
noun or pro-
participle in the genitive in place of the omitted
noun.
1.
2.
Kilh. 486,
A.
I,
36. 8^ irpodirtaovTO';
avrois
d'
Ittl ttjv
5. 46.
4, 62. 4^;
rov
llâpTve.LV
Goctzeler ^.
f.;
oroAov tovs 'Pw/xatovs Kat
AiySuiyv Troieicrût tov ttXovv.
10. 42.
7. 3. 7;
26.
2. 54.
10;
3.
40. 2;
I.
irpoaayytXdivTO'i avTi^ tous lAAvptovs iropdHv ttjv )(u)pav. 2. 5. 6; 9.
of. 8. 2g. i;
7. 7;
SoâvTOS Sc
2. 26. 7
Cf.
5% 55.
Spieker ^^. 336
2;
fXiWuv au^ts
70.
The
10.
41. 4.
a(jiL(Tt ^/sT/trao-ût
Demosthenes
Cf.
rots Trapovcrti'.
2.
50. Q.
(ed. Baiter Kaiser) 17. 28; 23. 169; 23. 143; 24. 80;
35. 52; 56. 18; 50. 17; 59. 116.
Polybius
has several other ways in which to express the
same thought.
(i) A noun may be the
21. 25. 8 TrpocrtVecre
(2)
The
<f>^p-r]
subject of a finite verb.
irepl Trjs
infinitive clause
Kara
may
Acrtav
rrjv
p.d)(r]<;.
be the subject of an impersonal
verb.
24.8. 10
(3)
TT/aocreTrecre
The
TrapaycvecrOat tovs 7r/DC(r/3VTas. 30. 20. i; 31.
fact that a previous event
27. 6.
was made known could be
expressed by a genitive absolute.

2. 8-
TT/DoaTrecrdi'Tos
13
tov yeyovdros
eis tyjv
Poj/aijv.
i.
62. I.
5. 48. 17 TovToyv TTpocnreaoyToiv.
câyyeAêVros avT(S.
10. 28. 6
14. 8.
wv
(4)
8La(ra(f)rjd^vTii)v
The statement
in
the form of a ort-clause
may
be the
subject of an infinitive.
2.
ajxa TO) Trpoa-rrcacLV auTu) Blotl KaTuXrjfÔaL (XVfiâLVCL tyjv
53. 5
twv Apyeiwv
TToXlV.
(5)
The
oTf-clause
may
be
in apposition
with the noun of the
genitive absolute.
TOV XoyOV
37. 2. 5
10. 49.
/XCTO.
ytvo/AeVr^s
TrpOCTTTt'TTTOVTOS OTt VLKU
8e
Trj<;
irpoa-ayye.Xta<; Stdrt
T^s 8Dva/Aeo)s etvai
tte/di
TaTrouptav.
315
o-u/A/?atvt
tov /xev E{i^v87;/xov
28
The
genitive absolute
duced by a
relative pronoun.
(6)
5.
may
be followed by a clause intro-
61. 3 Trpoa-TTCcrovToiV Trapa eoSorov ypafXfxoLTwv iv ols avTov eKctXei k.t.X,
The
(7)
articular infinitive with tov
may
stand
in
the genitive
absolute.
1.
60.
7rpoo"7re(rovros atrois
(8)
tov TreirXevKevaL aroXw tovs Pco/xaiovs.
clause introduced by otl
may
take the place of the
genitive subject of the participle.

3.
8'
40. 14 Tots
iv rfj 'Pwfirj wpocnrecrovTo^
7Ti.piuXrifxix.ivov VTTO
Twv
Bot'cov TToAtopKeirat
Infinitive with Accusative
13.
ticiple of
impersonal verbs
in
Kuh. 487; Spieker
2. 2.
St'ov
4 irapov TavavTLa
9. 24.
10.
30.
^01/
yap
infinitive.
43. 9
12. 20. 7
TTpoXtjlj/LV
8eov
Si.
The par-
G.
is
MT. 851
7.
16. 7; 23. 10.
13; 32. 13.
5-
ttolclv.
Xa/Seiv.
tov?
ttoXc/aioi's
irouZo'dai
ttjv
TrapecTKevao'avro.
10.
orpaTOTreSov
3. 112. 6.
p. 336.
(conjecture)
4 ws
K/aaros.
the neuter accusative singular
(TTpaTrjyov erepov alpelcrOat,
4. 27.
to rerapTov
Kara
Absolute (=z).^
used as an accusative absolute with an

54;
ot6
iX^'-^ TrdvTUiV
Sum/Acvov ytvcio-KCiv
dSwaTov.
rr^v tcuv iroXeiXLwv irapovo'Lav.
316
avafiaaiv,
oiSrws
CHAPTER
II.
USES OF THE ARTICULAR INFINITIVE IN POLYBIUS.

Verbal Subject
1.
(a).'^
The
with to
infinitive
is
used as
the subject nominative or accusative of a finite verb or infinitive.

It
has
the form of a substantivized infinitive with the
either
article, as to
^rjv (2.
41. 3;
3.
substantivized sentence with
81. 6), to vlkuv (3. 63.
1),
or of a
the whole being used as the sub-
to,
ject of a finite verb or infinitive, as (i. 4. 4) vireXajBov ava'^Koiov

elvai TO
fMT]
TrapaXtTrelv
/jltjS^
idcrac TrapeXOelv av7n(TTdTQ)\i/x(OTaTov eiriTrjhevfxa
more common usage.
far the
I.I.I avayKOLOv
rjv
Tv^y ivapyicrrarov
35. 2 TO Sia7rto"Terv
I.
62. 6 Tov yap avTov vo/xicrTeov
2.
2.
MT.
koXXl-
latter
is
790, 806; Kilk. 478,
by
4, a.
to irpoTpiirtaBai TravTas.
I.
88. 3;
G.
The
Ty)dvr] iracnv.
rjycp.ovo'i etvat
to dvvacrOai fSXtTreiv.
i.
83. 3,
22. II, 26. 8, 29. 5, 50. 6, 51. 6, 63. 5; 3. 21. 9, 32, 10.
Verbal Object. ^^
The
infinitive
with
used as the object of verbs taking an object

genitive, or dative.
G.
MT.
to,
tov, or tu>
is
the accusative,
in
791, 793, 798, 799; Kilk. 478,
4, b,
c, d.
i)
is
TO as the object of a verb (=d).''^
Trepl
irXufTTOv Trotov/Atvot to Kop-iaacrOaL Tr]v
AItwXwv.
10. 28. 5, 37. 4;
23. II. 3;
31. 23. 8; 39. 10. 8.
d)
The
infinitive
used as the object of verbs governing the accusative.
Tois cAo/AeVois TO ^rjv.
3. 63. 6
4. 61.
With
a)
with TO
With TOV
with ToO
is
II. 28. 8;
16. 10,
AfifipaKiav irapa twv

I
as the object of a verb {=bb).^^
conj.; 16. 34. 11;
The
infinitive
used as the object of such verbs as take a genitive
object.
4. 19.
4.
82.
10
8""
orTo;)(aô/Aevot
e/<7r0-tv.
317]
tov Sokciv /aovov.
21. 28. 9.
KaTKp<iTr](7 TOV yivicrdai (TTpaTrjyov 'ETTT^/aaTOV,
28. 13. 13.^
29
tov 8e Tt/xdêvov
30
10 8ta<êpw;
32.
3.
Kparioi;
3.
11.
8 TrpoaSiofxai
66.
5.
23. 10. 10 orepew
The following
6 irpovoio)]
25''.
12.
4;
g. 12.
3 aTraXXao-cro)
30.
23. 3^ opeyto;
6;
100.
5.
9.
32, 2
20.
10.
are found for the
time
first
dvTe;(ct)
10.
23. 9
16 oAiywpeto
23. 16. 13 /uercxw
II
a/o^w;
28. 9. 4
21.
i<l>Lr]fii.
Polybius:
in
45. 14 Trap' ovBev cXôvres tov Tratras aTTOâXetv ras TrapaaKevds.
1.
2. 55. 4'
With these
t) With T&)
I.
30.
5;
dXXa
koI rots oAots
klvov-
I.
33. 3.
cf.
i.
12. 20. 7;
43. 7;
33.
i.
as the object of a verb {^=bbb).^
4.
The
used with such verbs as take an object
TO) is
I.
fxovov CKTrecrfiv
fxr]
10. 12. 11; 18. 19. 6;
OTL Trapa fxiKpov iXOoi tov XaêTv tov AttuXov.
oXtyov ^Xê tov
Trap'
vtvauL.
1 1
71.
e'yyevo/iac;
7"^
13.
7.
23. 9 TTKTTtvovTe'i Sc
2 2. 18. 3'
aWa
TO)
acfiopfjirj p.v
p.778'
CTTi
Ta-^vvavTUV
tw
;^(jijp.vos
Twv crwtyyws
30. 8. 8 7rpocravT;(
tw
2.
OvofxaaTOV,
T07ro)v yeyovtvut.
^^v.
Object of verbs of hmderi?ig, separatioji,
2)
case.
10. 6.
olov rrapaytyovevai tov
p.rj
with
infinitive
in the dative
etc.
= v).^ The
used as the object of verbs of hindering, separation,
infinitive is
denial, doubt, mistrust, contradiction, opposition, omission, etc.
verbs which contain
simple infinitive with or without
fiTj,
these verbs
with to
G.
MT. 807-14;
44.
4 TO
/xt]
Ku/i. 514,
fxkv SiaKioXveLV
3. 21. 6, 74- 5';
13*;
1.
to
2,
ov
does not occur
3, 4,
5,
A.
in
(a)
the
The
firj.
Polybius.
9.
Also
tov liriTrXovv aTriyvoicav.

5- I-
70. 2; 8. 36. 2;
38.
I
i^;
9. 20. 6;
iS. 48. 9;
48. lO;
2.65-
3. 86. 8,
95. 55 6.
31. 17. 3.
TO p.v x^PVy^^^ aiToXiyu.
2.
60. 7
3.
106. 10 TO
b)
10. 39. 7;
I.
14. ID. 10'; 31. 23. 8.
54. 5^ TO irapa/SaXXecrOaL Koi Trpocrdyetv aireSoKLixaae.
2. 63.
take
Infinitive with t6.^*
a)
I.
jxtj,
may
with tov or tov
infinitive with to, or (b) the infinitive

infinitive
Besides the
themselves.
a negative in
OVT(x)<i (.KXlTTtiV
TrXet'co
TO
t,y]V.
ypdcjiSLV Traprjaofxev.
Infinitive with toO.s^
I.
29. 5 TOV p.v 7rapa<f}v\dTTiv tov iTTiirXovv aireyvoxrav.
I.
31. 5
diriaxov tov pitruv Tat? yj/wp,ats.
74. 7; 6. 58. 10; 9. 36. 4;

6. 2;
12.
4^*.
2.
2;
6. 9",
I.
57. 3;
15. 5. 5;
21.
48. I'j 9.
3. 8. Ii;
20. 9;
7- 9-
5. 9. 9,
22. 4. 10,
23. 17. 4=; 24. 10. 9; 24. II. 14; 32. 14. 8, 23. i; 39. 15. 2, 18. 6.
318
THE INFINITIVE
1.
39
dOpoLt,eLV OLTreaTrjarav.
TOi)
68. 3 acê/xevot tov

18. 3. 3;
6 AetTret tov
2. 14.
2.
10 BuTpeijyav tov
21. 25.
SoKwv
This
last
classify
it
3.
TO)
dTToSetXtaoj;
The
10.
12.
12;
17.
16. 3. 12
18.
AetVw
a/i-apravw.
ttoAcoj; Staêcrii'
^X^'^-
/Aias
/xt^
TeXiaiovpyrjaaL rrjv KaTdXrjij/iv
jx-q
-â-ffiaXiadat
kuto.
to.
rrj^
AiTwAi'av
Tr]v
rov
TrdAews.
Swacrât
fx-qhiva
Cf. 18. 3. 3.
example is classified by Hewlett as infinitive of purseems better to explain the sense of the passage to
Apposition
may
lO.
16. 6. 7;
7"";
15. 29.
6;
as a genitive objective infinitive.
it
i';
/at;.''
514, A. 10, o.
or
II. 14.
15. 10. 7 ttTreATTtôj;
KaKOTTOteiv T7JV ytapav avTwv.
pose, but
4; 4. 71.
crvvaTrTeiv avToi.
fjirj
StaAAarretv tov
37. II
5. 4.
II. 4
Infinitive with tou
c)
104. 5;
5-
XP'?"'^"^'-
2 aTTttAAoTptow
13.3.
19.
2. 5,
20. 9. 9; 31. 7. 3.
12 Siaif/evSw, 4.
3. 63.
87. 2; 3.
i.
31
16. 31. 8.
14- 5-5;
IS- 8;
2.
IN POLYBIUS
(^^).'*^
The
infinitive
Vide Kiih. 478,
with the article
4, c;
t6^ tov,
stand in apposition with a preceding noun or pronoun.
may
with ro
infinitive
accusative.
G.
MT,
be
in
apposition with a nominative or
804; Ku/i. 478,
5.
Infinitive with to.
a)
3. 4. g" ov
yap
or]
tovt' etvut
reAos vTToXrjTrreov iv irpayiiacnv, to
viKrjaai.
kol
v^' cavrow's.
iroL'qcraa'OaL Trairas
tout' euTUL TeXecrLOvpyr]fJ.u, to yvoivai tyjv KaTaa-Tacriv Trap' eKaaTOL<;.
3. 4. 12
3. "JO. II
ovto^
CIS T/307ros ecrrtv
aoiTrjpLa'i,
to
o'vvcy(<ji)^
KuivoTroteiv dei ras twi/
(Tvp.iid\o>v cAtti'Sus.
3. 84. 7'
4.
57-
TOVTO
II
TToAtv,
TTOLOVfJievoL,
TO
TO
jxr]
yap
VTroAa/x^ctFOvres
cêvyeiv
yeviadaL rwv irvXwvwv
87- 3; 5- II- 3'i 6.

5. II, 25'. 2,
25\
7;
I.
f,
//.y^Se
Tovro teAos
I. 6,
AetVetv ras rd^î?.

eivat
roi;
3. 20. 4;
ivT6<;.
ii\ 16;
7. 8.
3%
Karacrxeiv
4. 79. 3;
8.
18. 14. 13, ^^. 2, S3- 4'; 21. 22.
9";
9.
f; 27.
dAAorptav
4. 80. 4^,
9;
12.
8. 8;
32.
3.
II. 2"; 37.5. 2.
d)
2.
Infinitive with tov.
35. 8 ovTe dv Tts dirodTair]
Trjs
TcAeuTatas
eATrt'Sos
rov Stayojvtêcrât
Trept
t^s
(7<^Tpas )û)pa<;.
3.
8.
10^ TToTov irpdyfia tovtov StKatoTcpov, tov k8o' vat p.v tov aiTtov
dSiKT^paTcov.
319
twv
32
Infinitive with tw.
c)
4 TO TU)V kXctTTWV
4. 29.
dAArÂot?
TTOtetv
5.
^8.
TOVTW fXaXiCTTa TW
<f>v\0V
CTcfxiWeTaL, T<S
TpOTTOi
fir)
oiKaia.
tw iroulaOai
SLa(f>epwv,
Trjv
Statrav
iv
fxeiôvL
Bca/jt-iDTrfpito.
2. 4'.
30
2.
TOVTW
to.
Towro) /xovu) 8iaX\dTTLV, t<2
37. II
tov avTov irepLfSoXov virdpêiv rots
fxr]
KaTOLKOvaiv avTi]v.
Purpose
4.
purpose.
CXXIX,
= ^).'^ The
MT.
G.
infinitive
798; Kuk. 478,
12. 6 dvaSpajU,ovTs ert rots ;(povo6S tov
2.
34.
5.
102. 6 (TVVVTTOKpidu'i TOV
ecTTreuo-uv
toC
/at;
used to denote
(if ecos
//.t^Scv aTrop-qfJia
KaTaXnreiv.
avy)(wpr]drjvaL ttjv flp-qvqv avTois.
i^- 35- 3' 28. 8. 6;

36.
is
Hultsch, Fleckeisen, Vol.
pp. 742-44.
1.
with tov
4, c;
fXYj
SoKElV Al'aV CTOt/AOS CtVai.
29. 9. 12 (?); 4. 18.
be omitted),
All the above have tov
3. 70. 7
(cf.
11
(if
2. 3I. 3;
Kai
7. 16. 7J
be omitted);
9.
footnote in text).
fiij.
12. 28^. 3" auros yovv T-qXiKuvT-qv VTrofxe/xevrjKevai. Smrdvrjv Kal KUKOTrdOeiav TOV
(Tvvayayctv ra Trap' Acrcrujotwv VTrofXvy]p.aTa Kat TroAvTrpay/AOj/Tycrai
to,
Atyuwv
edrj.
Also
10. 46. 3,
if
be read instead of the
tt/jo?
The
TOV
Infinitive with toO after
(:=//). ^^
The
MT.
798;
infinitive
with
G.
fJiovrjv
otodaKaXov tov SvvaaOai
VTro<f>ipiv.
49. 10 T^5 T TOV VLKaV cAtTiSoS.
1.2 2.
I.
nouns
with tov
used as a limiting genitive after nouns.
is
I. I. 2
I.
infinitive
used as a genitive limiting nouns and adjectives.
Kiih. 478, 4, c.
^)
tov
8, if
to of Htdtsch.
Limiting Nouns and Adjectives.
5.
is
TOV be read with Hultsch; 4. 74.
Trpos wapaa-KcvTjv tov vavfxa^tLv.
62. 6^ Toi/ re
roi) viKav, ofxOLu)^ Se /cat
rov tov XttTrecrOaL Kaipov.
There are are thirty-one nouns used with

(TvvrjOua, 2.
20. 8; airta, 2. 38. 9; dpxqyo'i, 2. 38. 9; /?e/3ata)rT7S, 2. 40.
eôvo-ia, 3. 29. 7;
5;
6.
TcAos, 4.
15.
this limiting genitive:
6"^;
dffiopfxrj, ^.
57. 11; i-m/SoXyj,
eTTi/AcAeta, 6. 35.
vota, II. 2.
2;
69. 8; Trpoâcrts, 3. 108. 5; ;ôvos, 3. II2.
12;
5.
62. 7; 7rapaSeiyp,a, 5. III. 7; Kvpia,
Tretpa, 8. 9. 6;
10^; Tos, 12. 16. 12;
320
avvdrj/Jia, 8.
Trapd-TTTwais, 12. 25''. lo;
27. 3; Trpoevvota,
15,
THE INFINITIVE
I. 12*;
opfjLrj,
33
15. 4. 8; Karapxrj, 15. 33. i; dSvvafJLLa,
32.4; Xoyo?, 18.
16.
IN POLYBIUS
5.
34. 5! irp6\r}^L<;.
15. 15; /A7rd8tov, 18. 22. ^;a.p-)(r], 22.8.
?>; <Jr)fxtiOv,
Tlie
infinitive
23. 13. I.
Infinitive with tov after adjectives (=<^).'^
b)
with TOV
is
used as a limiting genitive after adjectives.
atTto?, I. 40. 16* aiTtos
eSoKCi yeyovivai tov
8waju.eis KOL Kpa-njcrai TU)v viraLOpoiv.
21. 13. 10';
23. 14. 6; 24. II. i';
OVK dWoTpiOS
21. II. 2
r]V
l.
ttoXlv dvaOapprja-ai ra? Tre^tKas
43. 8, 57. 7"; g. 3. q^;
13. 4. 8;
27. 15. r.
TOV KOlVCDVetV.
29. 9. g TOV ivyKLV TavTa Kvpio<; virrjp)êv.
39. 9. 12 ctTretpos TOV veiv.
Of the four adjectives used with this limiting genitive,

and d^/reLpo';^ are each used but once.
6. Prepositional Object (=y^)."38
jê infinitive with the
a\Xo'T/3to9, KVfHo<;,
used, like a noun, as the object of a preposition, the
article
is
article
being
800;
Kii/i.
478,
4, c;
The following
tions used
case required by the preposition.
in the
is
479,
a
list
G.
MT,
2.
of the prepositions and quasi -preposi-
by Polybius:
With the
genitive: y^dpiv^",
irpo'', ea)9^, ttX^v^, '^copi'i^,
Trepi'?, uTre/a^^,
p.-)(^pL^,
eveKev or evcKa^^,
e/c^'s,
eô)^, ayeu'.
With the dative: d/xa^^^, eTri^^, ev^*,'Trp6^^.

With the accusative: hid'='^, 77/309 '5^ et?^'',
iiri^'^,
ytiera^s, irepi^',
number
of the occur-
irapd^.
The
superior numbers refer, not to the
rences of the preposition to which they are attached, but to the
number
of infinitives which are thus used, two or
more
infinitives
sometimes appearing with one preposition.

Three of these prepositions are used with two cases: Trepi with
genitive and accusative, iirt and tt/jo? with the dative and
accusative.
i)
Prepositio7is with the genitive j''^^
')(apiv^
I.
for the sake
39. 8 i^rJKOvTa
Sc
of, is
[xovov
prepositive in Polybius.
iirX-^pwcrav
vavs
X-P'-^
'''^
''"^^
dyopas
Kop.it,LV
Tots (TTpaT07r(8oL<;.
3. 42.
7rXrj9o<;
r/dpoiadr] (3ap/3dpwv X^P'-^ ^^ KwXveiv Tr]V
8idy8u<nv.
321
T(t)V
Kap;^r^8ovta)V
34
By
allowing the infinitive to take a subject accusative Polybius
uses this construction to express purpose.

8. 28. I
7re7ropio-TO
ws d/apaxTTcuv, xapiv toC
crKiji/'tv
Because of the frequent use of
this construction the
comparatively small,
This
Tre/)/.
common
is
classical
usage
necessary.
I.
18. 10
wore TToAXaKis /SovkeveaOai

TOts
24. I. 5
hk
Where
b)
rov Xveiv Tr]V iroXiopKLav
Trept
lirrjyyuXaTo ypdipuv rrpo% tovs
<f)vyd(TLV
KaTfXdtiv arrous
where the preposition
a) After verbs of saying, writing, etc.,

is
number
Fassbaender and Briefs
of cases of tva, etc., to express purpose (see

is
OavfxdêLV aKOvovTWi
fx-q
5. 88. 6; g. 41. 9, k.t.A.
Toiis 'Pw/xtttous.
Aâtous
Trept
tov
oIkcmv.
is tyjv
the genitive without TrepC
is
admissible and
"rrepi is
pleonastic.
10
8. 18.
Aptavov kuI TraAtv aTreXêtv
tov TrapciaeXOeiv tov
8e
Trept
ejcetvov
cKe'Aeve <f>povTiîv.
30. 22. 5 TrapaKOucraires ol 'PoStot Trept tov ras (f>povpa<; eâyayctv.

virep.
Used
Where
a)
43.
18. 6 VTrep
Tvapdirav
way
as irepL
necessary to the sense.
tov to Setvov
8e
avTwv
Where
d)
the same
(ruXAaA7;cravTes aiTots VTrep tov tyjv ttoXlv evSovvat TOts Pajp.atots.
1.
5.
in
virep is
^êtv
Trt
(râs ovtws oêw?
ov8e
StevoetTO
ovSet's.
the genitive without a preposition
is
admissibleand
inrep is pleonastic.
3. 87. 5
eTTOtovvTO (TTTOvBrjv
irpdyixacri.
5. 94.
Kttt
TTporotav VTrep
9 eyeVeTO Tats Te TroAccrtv cAtti? VTrep tov
pats.
Cf.
tov
k-rriKOvptiv
Tots
ej/
I.
49. 10;
I.
p-r]
/Japvvî/creo-ât Tats el(r<j>o-
62. 4.
e'/c.
i)
2. 21. 2
ItoKlo.
Cf. II. 2. 10".
From, of departure.
eK TOV ^rjv
ii\<jt)prj(Tav.
23. 16. 13 Tovrots irriTaie irapaxprjp.a TravTas avTovs e|ayetv ex tov ^^v.
322
THE INFINITIVE
From,
a)
2.
S^Xos
22. 13. 3
14. 2. 7
irplv
rj
(fxivat
tous TrpeVySets /x^ Trporepov diraWayii]-
Aa/êiv ras ciTroKptcreis.
From, of source of advantage or disadvantage.
^)
3. 17.
avTov Tov <nw7rav otl SvcrapecTTeLTai.
o No/Acts iirLa6rj ck toi)
aeadai
35
source of knowledge.
by, of
S)v i$
IN POLYBIUS
4 TToAAa irpoopwfxevo^ cv^pr](TTa Trpos to jxeXXov
k toC
Kara
Kpa.TO'i kXtiv
avTrjv.
3. 63.
(<^7) eivat S'
eVe/cei/
or eW/ca.
CK toC vikSv aÂov, ex Sc tov /xa;(0/u,evovs T6 Traêiv.
Used
like %a/)ii/, /c?r
//^^
.y^/^^
of,
and
like
it,
prepositive in Polybius.
owe yap
10
3. 4.
tois
TroAe/tci
TrcAa?
ovSeis
vovv
)(oiv
eveKev
aviToC
tov
KaraywvLdauOai rovs di'TtTaTTo/xVoD9.

15. 16. 3^ Tovs Ka|o;(7;Soi/tous ^r;K i/Ka TOV
7r/DoecA{)(Tat, d;(/3twcrai,
dvayKao-ai.
evKv is used for eW/ca to avoid hiatus.

Cf. Hidtsch, "Uber
den hiatus bei Polybius," Philologus, Vol. XIV (1859), pp. 288"Aehnlich unterscheiden sich eWa und eveKev, nur dass
319.
letzteres nicht ausschliesslich vor vocalen
consonanten
Hiatus macht evcKa nur
steht.
Benseler zu elidiren ist"

irpo
2.
63. 2
3. 25.
Used
TT/Do
sonden haufig auch vor

36.
2.
i,
wo
es mit
(p, 290).
as a subititute for irpiv.
TOV o"vvetvat
TO. TT/aocTTrCTrTWKOTa Ttts
Swdfiw;.
avvdr]Ka^ TrotovvTai Pco/xatoi, irpo tov (Tva-Trjcraa-OaL tovs K.apxr]Boviov<;
TOV TToAe/xov.
etu9, until,
or
eo)?
so
1.
69. 10
5.
10. 3
p-i--)(pi
8 ovSevos
2. 60.
which was generally expressed by
as,
OvV aVTO TOVTO

dAAa
ttXtjv, except,
8. 9. 5
far
TTC/Ol/i-etVaVTCS 0)5
TOVTOv
ov
same
TOV yVWVai TTOTepOV K.T.X.
TToXcp-Cyv Kol <j)LXovLK<Ji)v, cjs
d<jiopixa.<;
f-Tvyt 8etvov ttA^v tov KaTaTrovTio-^^vat.
ôvAevo-avTO
ttAtî/
TOV \a/3tLV
as %/3i9.
irdcrr)<;
eATrtSos ireXpav
XafX^dvuv
Ktas eAeiv Tas SvpaKOvcras.
Cf.
eta?
with indicative or subjunctive.
with anarthrous infinitive.

323
ttXtjv
tov Sta woXiop-
36
Xcopi^.
Without.
a)
2.
51. 6
xwpl^ Tov KOfxCaaadai
ftorj6rj(TaL
Tov AKpOKoptvdov koI Xaêti/
opfxrj-
TTfpLOV.
1 1
7.
t fikv
X^P'-^
'''^^
Trapa(nrov8rj(raL
Mco'crryvt'ous
Svvrj
Kpareiv tov tottov
TOVTOV.
Besides, apart from.
b)
3. 32.
4 xiapi^ yap TOV TToWaTrXacTiov^ atiras
virapx'î-v
Twv
i^ftCTcpwv
virofivrf-
fxaTwv, ovSk KaTaXu(3tv ii avrSiv /Je/Jat'ws ovhkv oXov T tov<; dvaytvoicrKOVTas.

6. 46.
6 ^wpis Tou Trapa(3\(TreLV ras TTyXt/cavras ota<ôpas, Koi ttoAvv
877
Tiva
KpaTrjaai.
Kai
Xoyoi' ev infx.iTp{u hiar 1.6 (.vrai.

fji-expi', tuitil.
^d^LOi
3. 02. 5
37.
Bk p-^XP'-
6 TrpoTcpov
I.
'''^^
(Tvvd\j/aL TOis To;rois IcrTrevSe.
yap
p.ev
Traai
TrTro\ep.rjKcvat
''"^^
p-^XP^
(Tuy^w/a^crat tovs dvriTaâ/xc'vous.
outojs t^w yevcVâi tov (f>povtv.
ic. ^
TOV
/Ltei/
'le'pwvd
30. 4. 5
^>
tov
<f>povelv y(.v6p.cvoL.
I.
is
e'ô)
<^r;(Tt
used but twice, as cited,
oneself.
avev, without
common
in
the phrase=/'^ ^^ beside
usage which has but one example
in Polybius.
twv
22. 13. 8 dSvvaTov etvat to KivrjfraL tl

Kox ra StKata Kai
With the
2)
afxa^ at the
dative.^
same time
in classical prose,
to
ha
TO.
VTroKLp.vwv avcv tov Trapafirjvai
to, ocrta.
zvith, together with.
rare construction
used very frequently by Polybius, second only
The main verb
is
often modified by a temporal adverb:
evdeco^, 7rapa'Xpr]fMa, irapavTiica.
a)
With the present
infinitive
used thirty-one times,
it
repre-
sents an action which began just before the action expressed by
the main verb, and

1.
23. 5
2.
II.
tw
a/xa Se
may
continue with
TrXrjaidÊLV
it.
cvvêwpovvTCS tovs KO/aaKa?.
8 dp.a Se Tw 7rpoo-^tv eKaripa^ 6p.ov Tas 8vvd/Aeis, irapaxp^p-o-
dvrjx^V^^^
324
7raA.1v
THE INFINITIVE
With the
b)
is
37
IN POLYBIUS
used eighty-four times, the action
aorist infinitive,
represented as taking place immediately before the action
expressed by the main verb.

1.
68. 8 a/xa TiZ avyxwprjcraL
twv
Trepl
to.
oi/'wvt'wv
avTots toSs Kap;)(rySovious
ev^c'ws 7re,5atvov.
2. 57.
CLfia
yap
t<3 Karao-x^^v ttjv ttoAiv
"Aparos irapavTLKa Traprjyyeke, k.t.X.
may
Present and aorist infinitives
c)
be used
in
the same
sentence.
I.
76. 7
8c
OLfia
Tous
T<S
vTroa-njvaL,
iTTTrets
Tr]V
8k XoLnrjv
Syva/XLV
Inayuv,
evêws <f>evyov.
3. 65.
a-fjLa
Se T<3 7r\r}(na.îv avTOis Kol
v6W<; (TVVTa.TTOVTO TT/OOS
eVt.
Used with the
crvviBeLV
tov KOVLOprov iâipofx-evov
[Jl.d)(r]V.
articular infinitive to denote (i) purpose,
but chiefly to denote (2) cause,

Purpose.
(i)
1.
45. II
CTTt
TOVTfo Trap' d/Aôiv ra^^cvTCS, ol fxkv

ot S' ctti
6 ireptxapy]^ ycvo/xevos
2. 27.
tw
tovs
iirl T(S Tpiij/acrOaL
irpoecrOai ravra.
)U,^
Cause, with verbs expressing emotion.
(2)
2. 4.
avTw
ctt'
Twv epywv
7rt
tw
SokcTv AitcdXous veviK^Kvat.
eveXTTts ycvo/ACvos ctti tuJ Sokclv fxi(TOv<i
Kara iropuav
a7ri\.r}cf}evai.
tovs
KcXtovs.
im tw
2. 41. 5
8vaape(TT-q(TavT<;
3. 78. 5
Su(r;(e/3aivovTas CTrt
The
perfect infinitive
o'^'yX"P^^5 ^^'
15' S- ^3
''"4*
jxt]
vop.ifJL<xi<i
apxav.
Tw tov woXefiov Xafx^dveiv

is
Tr]v rpL^rjv.
used sixteen out of fifty-one times.
TTCivTas UTn^KOOus TTCTTOi^crâi Tous irporepov
2o<âKi
TTCtÔ/XCVOt'S.
I.
41.
TTcpiâpeTs ô"av
Tw tous
ov^ ovtcos
7rt
tw Tors ttoXeîovs r/XaTTwauaL
iStous TtBapprjKivai,
iv.
(i)
Local sense.
oirep iv ruJ vav/xaêiv eort TrpaKTi/cwTaTov.
I.
51.0
1.
62. 4 Tracras Tas toS vikSv ev tco
2. 29. 3
(2)
6. 53. 2
airo KKXLixvr]^ 7rao-7;s
7roX/x.etv eXTrtoas.
t^s ev
tu)
XetVeo-ât crwTv/ptas.
Temporal.
Tas CTrtTCTevy/Acvas ev tw
I. 23.
8 ev 8e
3. 79.
jtAtav
^lyv Trpaêis.
T(3 o-vveyyt'êtv êojpouvTes
to
crvp,fie/3r]Ko<i.
7rape;(d/xeva \pi.(.av ev Tto Treo-etv Tots av^pa)7rots.
325
a)S
38
7r/3o'?.
Nine
fyivofxat in
1.
50.
Tw
Vttv/Aa;(etv
irpd.âvTi'i 8e
2. 32. II
iycvero Trpos
3. 7 1.
3. 04.
10 MapKOS
tw
With
or
Trpos
Tu) 8ia/<ti/8ui'utv rjaav.
(TTpaTrjyeiv tous VTrevavrtovs.
Tci)
Trapaf^dWiddaL kuI tw StaKtvSui/evetv
In 12. 28. 12, where the text
3)
el^xC
ovras.
ravra Trpos
weak,
is
t;j/.
used
irpo'i is
ordinary sense, besides: Trpoi t Kare^êvadai
Sid.
tw are with
tt/oo?
the sense of being mtent or determi?ied upon, busy with.
Trpos
of the ten occurrences of
the
in
i/ceivov.
the accusative ^^^
This
is
the preposition used most frequently by Polybius,
The present infinitive

504 infinitives with to occurring after it.
used 339, perfect infinitive 124, aorist infinitive 39 times, and
is
the future infinitive three times.
The
infinitive generally
tion being a
has a subject accusative, the construc-
much-used substitute
other constructions
for the
expressing cause.
Present infinitive:
I.
10. 3
I. 10.
Tijs a\Xr]<i
1.
aXoyiav t^s ôrjOaa's.
rjiroprjaav Sta to Sokciv i^6(fi9aXfJiov elvai rrjv
8 l/AcXAov ras SvpuKovcras iTraveXecrOaL
41. 6 Sia TO
to
ttcio-t^s
cr^jêSov
SecTTrdêiv
StKcXtus.
KaTaXetTrecrât
firfSe/JiLav a.<f>opixr]v
10. 8. 4 av with
cirjcrav eis
Blol
the present
infinitive:
xiXiovs Sia to firjSiva
fi-qhiiroT^
(t<^l(tiv.
aKovwv
on
on
avSpes
p.ev
p,a;(tp.ot
av vivoXafx(ia.vuv
iinvorjdu tis
K.T.X.
Aorist infinitive:
2. 7.
2.
6 lîTTtaov K
18. 6
X-r](f>drjvai
3. 3. 31
Trj<i lhia<i
oiiK iToXfxrjcrav
kol
fxrj
8ta to vapadTrovSrjcrai tovs avToyv oiKet'ovs.
avTe$ayaycLV 'Pw/xaiOL
to.
crTpaToireSa 8ia to irpoKaTa-
KaTaTa\ri(jai Tas 8vvap,is.
av with aorist infinitive:
ei
Sc
firjêl^
av^pwTTOs wv, 8ta to, Kav KaTa to irapov evTvxQ,
av
cATTiSa /xr^SfTTOT' av eiiAoyws fêfâLwcracrOaL /xrjSiva
With the two cases

compare three cases of
'i.
K.
8^
TreTretT/xat p,v
r-qv VTTodtcnv ov8^
tovt'
ToX/Jirja-aL
ttjv
ye
Trept
eiTrctv
tov /acAAovtos
twv voCv côvtwv,
of dv with infinitive present
and
k.t.A.
aorist
Bca to with the future infinitive.
yap, Kav
airoprjareLv
(rvfji^rj irepl t^/aSs
avdpwTTLVOv, ovk
apyqauv
to kuAAovs
ttoAAovs
dv8paiv dîdêcov 8ia
KaTtyyviqdi'](Tt<j9ai koI <Tivovha.(TtLV ivrl Te'Aos
326
dyayetv
ai;T?;v.
THE INFINITIVE
32. 16. 2 /SovAo/xevos
TTt'crriv 7rapacr/<i;aîi/
Trpos TO /Ar/T StaTTOjoeiv tovs aKOvovTa<i
Twv
(Tv/x/SaLvovToiv
fJiCTa.
TavTa
POLYBIUS
IN
39
rots fx^WovcTL XiytaOai vcpl avTOV,
8ta to irapaSo^d tlvu
(jtavqaeadac
avTov.
Trepl
Perfect infinitive:
8ta TO TToWrjv evSeiuv yeyovevai
I. 16. 7
twv
iinTrjBcLOJV
1.
20. 10 Sta TO fxrjSeva Ke^prjcrOai toioijtois (TKacfieaiv.
2.
6g.
8ta TO TTcpt tt}?
avTwv
eAevêpi'as oûveo-Tavat tov oAov dywva.
tt/jo?
to
7r/3o'9.
After verbs,
(i)
and
end of
infinitive signifying the
motion.
I.
i>ipp.y](Tav 7r/3o?
17. 9
4. 32. 6
to o-iToXoyetv.
irpaTrrjcrav Trpos
I.
6g. 3.
to /ÂaTTTCiv aiiTOUs.
32. 14. 10 TrporjXOe Trpos to cîAoSoêiv.
Purpose.
(2)
After adjectives and adverbs
a)
3. 17. II
TrpoOvfioTipov; Trpos to KivSweiJCiv.
3. 64. II
iravTUiv iKdv/xwi i)^6vT(Dv Trpos to KivSwevetv.
3. 109.
TOUS ap)(OVTa<; CTOt/XOUS TTUpe(TKvdKafJl.V
TO fxivUV KOX
7r/309
IXeTi)(iLV
tS>v avTtov dycDvwv.
12. 21. 5
After nouns.
b)
3. 63.
tKaVOV TOTTOV TTpOS TO /A^ TOIS TToAc^t'ot? VTrOTrTrTWKVai.
6 Sia r^v
3. 68. 9 ov
jxrjv
TT/aos
to
^tjv i-mdvixiav.
rjTTopovv ye aKi]{j/e(Dv tt/dos
to
/u,^
Sokciv avTOis ^TTav tivat to
yeyovos.
Seiy/Aa /3ouXoyu,evos eK<j>ipuv Trpos to
3. 69. 3
t)
ju.^
SeSioTas
aTreATrt'êii/.
After verbs.
TrapecTKCvacTfJiivfjJV Tr/aos
I.
48. 5
I.
62. 5 ovSev KaTeAetTTCTo
I.
88. II
tt/jos
to paStws i/XTrprjaOrjvai.
Cf.
I.
88. 9.
to awêtv.
acfivws StaKCc'/Afvot tt/dos to TTCtAtv dvaXa/x/Sdvuv tyjv irpo?
Pw/xatovs
d7re;(êtav.
3. 2.
CTvvs.(id\tT
3. 60. 13 irpaTTUV
ai'Tots 7r/3os
TL Trpos
TO
p-r]
p.6vov dvaKT^cracrOai, iTL
Se TrpocrXafSelv.
to dapprjaat Tous (3ov\op.evovs-
d) In free relation to the whole sentence.

I.
79, 12
rip.it)v
eyKpaTT) yevicrOat (nrovSdôvTa
t^/aSs ayLta TLp-wpyjcraaOaL.
327
tt/jos
to
p-rj
Ttvots
oAAa
Travras

40
3. 46. 3
Tr]v TrXex'pav ^(r<f>aXiôvTO, Trpos
to av^fxivuv kol
firj
TrapwdciaSai, to
oXov tpyov.
With
(3)
et/it
and
yiuofiaL.
Compare
I. 26.
3 ovTtov Se Tuiv /xv Trpos to ko}Xvlv
I. 29.
concerned,
I.
etvtti
SvvafJiLV,
I.
36. 5;
55. 5.
....
is
found but once.
is
67. 4 Trpos fxkv TO
KTOvs
Se Trpos to fiia^taOai.
I.
TO with the meaning, as regards, as far as
7r/309
(4)
twv
cytvoi/TO Trpos to TroAiopKeTv avTyv.
Trpo? to).
Taêu)^ (TVfx<^povrj(TavTa<; aTTuOuv
fxi]
firjSk
SvcTKaTairXi^-
Tots rjyovfjLO'OL'; opOu)^ (TTO)(aôvTaL TrotorvTes ek TroAAoiv yevoiv tyjv
Trpos 8e to
8tSaât Kal
irpavvai,
Kal fj^tTaOtivai tous
r^yvor^KOTa^
6Xo(Txep<i}<i a(TTO)(ov(rLV.
t9.
end of motion.
(i) After verbs of emotion, indicating the

1
41.
2. Co. 5
iTreppwaOrjaav
)8ouA.op,evos
eis
to
CKTrcjU-Tretv.
TrupaaTrjaaaOuL tous aKouovTas
eis
to /xoAAov avTw crwaya-
vaKTctv.
3. 40. 9
TriaTra)/Avou
tov irptafivTipov koX irapaKaXovvTO<i
ts
to crv/XTrpaâi Koi
auTw.
(Tvp-TTepiiroirjcraL ttjv a.p)(r]v
Purpose.
(2)
^) After adjectives and adverbs.

2. 46. 3
Traoâv iKav^v Troioi;yu.vous 7rpo<â(nv is to TroAc/xeiv.
4. 85. 6 fxrjSev TrapaAtTretv ToJv

<^)
SvvaTwv
eis
After nouns.
1.
66. 3 ySovXo/Aevos dvacrTpo<j>r]v StSovai
2.
48. 5 opfxrjv
3. 15. 7
to yvwvat t^v oAT^^ciav.
TrapecrTr]cr
eh to
AaySovTfs T^v iTTLTpoTrrjv
117. 4 T^v
ixeyicTTrjv
xpeiav
ets
TrpecrjSeveiv.
ets
is
to ^davuv. 4. 61.
TO StaAvoâi.
to vtKav.
4. 49. 2
(îXovtiKLav CIS to StaXSo'ai t^v i)(6pav.
5. 49. 5
TTOLTjcrafjievov (T7rov8r]v tts
5. 63. 6
eSoaav
6. 18.
TotavTr^s ovarjs Trjs 8vvap,ea)s ets to Kat jSAaTrTetv
6. 52.
^)
4. 48.
d<ôp)U,a.s ets
9 TrapeêTat
poirrjv ets
I.
36. 8.
5.
to StaXvetv. 5. 67.
2.
to AaySetv. 3. 59. 4.
cai
o^wepyeiv oAAt^Xois.
to vikSv.
After verbs.
10 T^s
4. 60. 4.
Ttov o;(Aa)v
6piJ.rj<;
(Tvvepyoijar)<; ets
to
SidSrjfJia TrtptdicrOai.
o-wec^povTjo-av clAATjAots ets TO /f^ TeAetv, o^ro-TT/crao-ât, do-<âAtê(r5ai.
328
THE INFINITIVE
(fieuov CTTt Ttov aKpoiv,
68. 7
CIS
TO T^v
CIS
tovs tiTrevavTfovs
d/Att
ju-ev
TrpoeSt'Sou roiv )(pr]fj.dTu>v ts
to
/aijSev
fAAetVetv
Result.
13.4
vpovTs Se
fivov<i
to
ei<;
TrpayfjuaTLKWv
The
X^V"^ KaracrKevda-acrOaL iûp^-qSovtov^.
fJirjSk
CVTCTOKaCrt
^ÂOV,
Tvxovaav
rrjv
to (TVVp.fiaCvuv.
ijrl
tS
TO TWV ^V yOlKWV
Kol
iirivouav iroieiadaL.
found after verbs of motion

Compare tt/jo? and et?.
infinitive with eVt to
wpfirj&uv
I. 20. 7
Xoywv
metaphorical sense.
in a
iv Tois efnrpoaOev xpovoL<; Kal irpou-
o-<^ttS liriKi.KOLfx.-qp.evov'i
fjicydkrjv
12. 26. 4 TOtS VeOt5 TOLOVTOV
eVi.
Aa/Jeii/
Tas CTTijôAas.
(3)
used
ws di/corarw CTTrevSovres
eVt ttoAv KaTat^tprj koI Kpiqjxvwhq yeveardai rots TToAe/xtbts.
cfivyrjv
o T 2wo-(7?t09
8. 17. 7
2.
41
Independent, limiting the whole expression.
d)
2.
IN POLYBIUS
is
I.
25.
5,
29,
70. 4, 87. 7; 2. I3.
6,
3> 34- 2.
In the majority of cases eVt to

1
2.
31. 5
35. 10
3. 6.
used after
is
aTrecrxov TOi) piiruv Tats yvci/xais C7rt
II. 20, 7
iiTL
TO
<rvy)(prj(T6aL KaTr]V)(^9r).
eTTt
<ficpofj.evwv
Of the
29. 5. 3.
to //.CTaAAcueiv Kat
(rvyKaTr]V)^dr](Tav iirl
36. 5- 6 iravTwv
/Liera.
opfidco.
twv Acyo/Acvwv.
TO Kptvai TrapayLVO/xeda.
21. 28. 3 KaTrjvT-qaav

33. 18. II
Troietv Tt
to iroLrjaaadaL.
irapojpfxrjB-qv ctti
7rt
to
)(pr](TdaL Tot's opvyfjuicnv vtto
y^s.
to ypd<{)eLV Soy/ju tolovtov.
iin to Treiâpx^^^'
''"oTs
TrapayyeAAo/Acvots.
thirty-three infinitives used with /nera to, twenty-
nine are in the aorist tense, the clause expressing the time after
which something
else occurs.
3. 4. 12
fjiCTOi
Tis rjv
TTOia
Pw/xatwv
TO /caTaAwacrâi Kapx^ôi^-'o^S
3. 10. I
ytACTa
Q. 32. 7
et /u.ev
/iieTa
TO
TO KuTaywvLcrdrjvai
irepi.
oAa Kal
Trco'eiv
ets
T'^v
Tciv
is
'J'^''
Trpoiiprjfievrjv
Tapa^rjv.
lirtyiyovi Ti fxeTo. to diaOai tyjv av/x/jua'^Lav v/aSs.
used, only with the aorist infinitive, as a substitute
for an aorist participle
clause with
to,
eôvo-i'av.
in
genitive absolute or for a temporal
ore.
Used with
yLVOfxac, irepl to
be busied with sometlmig.
Cf.
7r/3o<>
with the infinitive means
/(?
rw.
I.
41. 6 Trept TO ôrjOeiv iyivovTO Koi TrapafiaXXeaOai Kal irav vTro/xeviiv virep t^s
I.
66.
TToAews.
I
eyiVcTO Trept to irtpacovv tovs (XTpaTiwTas eis ttjv Kifixrqv.
329
42
Polybius uses
Cf, TTepl Tou with the infinitive.
except
jivo/xai
after
(6.
52.
22,
Ii;
4.
4)
only
irepl to
and
after o-TrofS?;,
aTTOvSd^co.
irapd.
irapa
and that
ro with the infinitive occurs but once,
in a causal sense.
20. 27. 12
wure
<f)da.(TaL
Kara
TO.
KpiOevra
A\e$a,vopciav Trapo. tovto TraAtv opOwurjvai, irapa. to
tyjv
Kara tov IlepcrEa
to.
Trpayytiara.
Infinitive with t Denoting Cause, Manner, Means,
7.
OR Instrument
{=r).''^
The
with the article tw
infinitive
used
is
to indicate the cause, manner, means, or instrument of the action
G.
or state of the principal verb.

a)
i)
I. 68.
MT,
799; Kiih. 478,
4, d.
Cause,
12 SoKovvres
rjKi<TTa 8t' tKCtvov oXiyiopeiaOai t<2 jxrjTf. Trpeafieveiv Trpos
ov-)(^
avTov<;.
1.
79. 7 T<2 8e TToAAous Kai TToAvv VTrep
avTrj<; TreTTOtrjaOaL
Xoyov ovk dvayKolov
yjy ovp-tO^ tivai TavroAoyeiv.

2.
30. II
OVK iyivCTO
T(o
jxr]
Tw
5. 48. 14 ovSkv ijvvev
8vvacrdai <^Dva6 TrpocTTaTr^v agtov t^S Trpoatpecrews.
<f)6d(Tai,
102. 3; 6. 29. 4; 8. 32. 12;
SokcTj/ avrrjv
9 iêviôvTO Tw TO
4 evOapcrei^ tw
3. 106.
4. 71.
8ir)Tr6povv
tw
I. 27.
97. 6,
dvdXiHTOV
avixfSe/SrjKo'; efvat
So/ceTv.
v-7rdp)(LV.
Trapa tt;v TrpoaSoKiav.
5. 56. 5.
TrcTreicrOaL.
C7. 6 8v(rap(TT0v/>tvat
tw
Sokciv.
Point of difference.
r)
II
Tw
fjikv
See also
2)
I.
Tw
OappovvTa<i
3. 18. 3
c.
5.
2. 5, 4. 2.
9. 2. 4,
After verbs of emotion, indicating the ground of emotion-
(^)
3. 68.
avrr/v irapucnrf.a-ovTa.
Aioyevr^v ets
Ta)(yvavTe1v ttoXv Trept^crav. I. 51. 4.
infinitive
with
ru) in
apposition.
Means.
46. 10 6 Se
PdStos ovTws Karavia-TY) twv
TroXefJiiwv
rrj
re
ToXfJirj
KaL
ro)
Ta)(yvavTeLV.
3. 118.
6.
Trj
TOV TToAtTEV/XXXTOS
tStOTTJTt Kttt
si.V
Also
10. 33. 5;
16. 14. 9.
330
TW
jSovXcvCCrOai
KuAwS
dvCKTT/O-aVTO.
the infinitive
The
MT.
with rov
infinitive
used after comparatives (=/).'7
is
798; Ku/i. 478, 4, c.
2. 7. 10^
ov8ev
4. 66. 2;
tov
TrpovyiMLTepov
iiroLrja-avTO
2. 61. 3
oiKeiOTcpov virdpôv tov iiTLa-qfJUiivecrOaL.

KvpLUiTepov etvat toi' yi/uJvat.
3. III. 2
Tt jaetôv Toi; 8ta/<pi^^vat.
4 ovScv dvayKaioTcpov
18. 53. 3 TO
KaracTTrjaaL.
ivaL
q. 14. 10.
tov
fxr)
avfXTrXeKeLV. 8. 34. 4.
aTTOûmv
KaXois
^^v atcr^pws
tov)
Trept
TrAetovos
7rot770"a/Aevos.
64. 6 conjecture.
2.
30. 7.8. ov yap tXaTTOv
Icttl
tov irapa to KaOrJKOv
The comparative with

d)
kuI
ovoev aicrîov toC SwpoSo/cetirât.
6. 56. 2
occur
efx/SaXtLv
8. 27. 6.
3. 81.
5. 31.
43
Infinitive with tov after Comparatives.^^
8.
a)
G.
in polybius
(J)l\o^wiv.
and tov with the
rj
in
Polybius.
&)9
with the infinitive with tov (=V).'
ouSevos fiaXXov
3. 12. 5
Predicate
9.
ws
<f>povTiûv
without a preceding outws,
tov
= z^).'s Xhe
XavBdveLV
fir]
Xii/i. 540,
A.
infinitive
Tots
does not
Trpoaipcccts,
5.
with the article to
infinitive
is
used as a predicate noun.

2. 43.
8. 2,
8 toC'TO
8. 4. 4 toCto
11.
rjv
TO MaKcSovas
6 Seirrepos av
S'
17.2 toSto
ci'tj
taTt TO VTTO
8' Tjv
p.V CK/SaXciv.
ttXov? to tS)v
TO
/x^ StxKfivyeiv
Genitive Absolute
10.
KUTa Xoyov
;u.xv ap)(r]v
<f>povTLêLV.
dyayeiv.
tov Maârt'Sav.
(:=ze;).9
The
infinitive
with tov
is
used as the genitive subject of the neuter impersonal participle

G. MT.
in the genitive in place of the omitted noun or pronoun.
Kii/i.
798;
I.
60.
478,
4, c.
Trpoo-TTto-ovTOS
auTOis
TOV
TrewXcvKevat
cttoAw
tov?
Pw/x,aiovs
Kat
TraAiv dvTLTrotecardaL t^s OaXaTTr]?.

6. 24.
7^^
dSrÂov
yap ovtos
10. 36. 1 /xeydAov
Kat tov
irotrjcraL
Koi tov iraOeiv T6 tov yjyp.ova.
yap ovTos tov KaTopdovv
iv TrpdyfuiaL koI 7repiytv0"aai
twv
i'^^dpwv iv TuTs CTrtySoAats.
12.
6"^.
15. 30.
4 evAdyov yap ovtos tov

I
18. 34. 7
K.Kpifi.ivov
Trj<;
TrpocnreTroLrjadai.
TOV KaivoTOjxeiv Tots dvopdcrtv.
ScDpoSoKta? eTTiTroAaôvcnys Kai TOv jXfjSiva fxrjSev Swpeav TrpaTTCiv.

.331
44
This construction, which, according to Spieker

"altogether rare
Attic prose,"
in
(p.
326),
found six times (nine
is
is
infini-
tives) in Polybius,
Accusative Absolute {=^z)^
11.
The
sonal verbs in the neuter accusative singular
participle of imperis
sative absolute, with an infinitive with to.
478, 4, b;
487.
Twv
crOai
Twv
MT.
852; Kiih.
3.
ovSe Kara iroabv iTroLrjaaTO
2, 61. 3
used as an accu-
G,
Trpa$a.i'T(DV oiKeioTepov
fxvrjfXTqv,
uxnrep to
to.^ afuipTLas lâpidixti-
virapôv t^? itrroptas tov
to.
KaXa
Kal StKata
t/oywv iTTLarjiMxivea-dai.
The infinitive with to

Accusative of Relation (=n)J
may stand in free relation with a whole sentence. Hewlett p. 278;
12.
G.
MT.
9. 9. 2*
796; Kiih. 479,
TO Treipadrjvui Xvclv
K.T.X.
'P(ji)fxr)v,
5.31. 4 TO
Tepov
13.
8'
Tt's
end; 412,
Trjv
iroXiopKUiv,
ovK av Oav/xdaaL tov
ei'irapaKoXovOrjTOV kol
riyovp.td' cTvai
tov
Genitive of Price
Xa/3(i)v Trap'
29. 8. 5^ o
p.lv
yap
(Tacf>rj
'Pto/âibts TrevraKOCTta TaXai'ra,
to
ctt'
avTy}v
oppSjaaL
Tr)v
dAATÂats Tas Trpdgwi.
{=^x).^
The
infinitive with tov
Cf. Kiih. 418,
avrCJv ^prjpxiTa tov
YivpLvr)<; fjTtL
Kai
Trpoetprjp.evov Ittl roi;rois riyep.6va;
yivcadaL ttjv StriyqaLV ovSkv dvayKaio-
pi] crvp-TrXiKuv
used as the genitive of price.

3. 96. 12
3.
p.r]
is
7, b, /3.
TropOrjauL Tr)v
tov pkv rjav)îav ^x^"'
^wpav.
'^"'-
t^V
crvaTpaTevaat
tov 8e StaACcrai tov ttoAc/aov )^LXLa TrevTaKoaui.
332
CHAPTER
III.
USES OF THE INFINITIVE CHARACTERISTIC OF POLYBIUS.
Simple Infinitive. The simple infinitive is not used by

Polybius in any new ways, nor does he employ any of the established usages to such an
exceptional extent as to
make them
characteristic of his style.
Articular Infinitive.
first,
Polybius uses the
him a noun,
to
î]v,
to vlkuv;
and, second, in placing the article
may
then be governed by a prepo-
new form
of clause to indicate time,
before a whole sentence, which

sition,
articular infinitive,
placing the article before a simple infinitive which gives
in
thus supplying a
cause, purpose, etc.
This substantivized sentence
so involved that an infinitive with the article
may
may become
be used as the
subject of another infinitive with the article.
Polybius uses the articular infinitive very frequently, standing
second only to Demosthenes, whose use per page
is
higher,
if
only the prepositions (not the number of infinitives) be counted.
And
yet he has not used the articular infinitive in
many ways
other than those employed by classical writers.

Polvbius' innovations are [a) the genitive of price; [d) dfia
Tw
like
êra
and [d)
to;
i^c)
7rp6<;
to
and
In regard to frequency of use

of VKa (eVe/cev) tou; Sia to,
and
ttjoo?
tm with
yivo/xai
and
el/xr,
7rpo9 to in final clauses.
fieTa
to
are
very
x^'P'-^
iirl
'^^^
largely takes the place
tm of cause of emotion,
frequently used.
To
7rpo9 to
express purpose
besides tov with the infinitive, Polybius uses %a/Otf rov, eveKa tou^
iirl T(p,
333]
et'?
TO and
tt/oo? to'.
45
CHAPTER
IV.
TABLES OF THE USES OF THE INFINITIVE IN POLYBIUS AND

IN BIBLICAL GREEK.
TABLE
I.
Symbols, Designating the Various Uses of the Anarthrous and the

Articular Infinitive, and Their Equivalents.'
a,
'i
a = subject anarth., artic. with to.

= subject of impersonal verb taking
infinitive of indirect discourse as sub-
anarth.
ject
ob]tCi anarth., artic, with t6^ rov., tw respectively.

= object, after verbs of bidding anarth.
i = object, after verbs introducing indirect discourse anarth.
V, V object of verbs of hindering, etc. anarth., artic.
= object of prepositions anarth., artic.
k,
= purpose, distinct and specific anarth., anarth. with wore,
d, e,
= purpose, modified and general anarth.
b, b, bb, bbb
1
/^
(?
7f^y=
5f,
f,
p,
wore
s,
'
s,
h,
'h,
g,
av,
result, actual
wore
hypothetical
or
anarth.,
artic.
anarth. with
tiicrrf.^
in indirect discourse, artic. with rov.
= epexegetic or explanatory anarth., anarth. with uxm, artic.

= limiting nouns anarth., anarth. with ws, artic.
with rov.
/z
= limiting adjectives anarth.,

= limiting adverbs anarth.
q = limiting pronouns anarth.
artic.
'g
with
anarth.,
tw.
with
anarth. with
r parenthetic absolute anarth. with and without
with tw.
r = cause, manner, means =
with
with toS and
'/-after comparatives
c,
*f,
f=: in apposition
artic.
m=: stipulation
to, tov,
wo-tc,
e<^'
<S,
<^' wre..
ws.
artic.
u,
w,
rov, artic.
artic.
/,
= predicate- anarth.,
artic.
w^ genitive absolute anarth.,
artic.
anarth.,
x=:with
irporepov anarth.
= genitive of price
with
with
= accusative of relation
z,
= accusative
Trpt'v,
absolute
irplv
artic.
r],
Symbols in reman
those in
italics, to
with to.
rov.
artic.
'
with rov.
r)
artic.
.jr
ws.
with ro.
letters refer to the
to.
anarthrous infinitive (abbreviated " anarth.");
the articular infinitive (abbreviated "artic").
the same as those used by
Votaw where
These symbols are
the use of the infinitive in Polybius
same as the use in biblical Greek, other symbols being added

which are found in Polybius, but not in biblical Greek.
46
is
the
for uses of the infinitive
[334
THE INFINITIVE
The second column
IN POLYBIUS
of figures in the following table
47
shows the
average number of infinitives per page, the count being based on

Hultsch's edition of Polybius and Swete's edition of the Septuagint.
Since, however, the pages in these editions are unequal in
length, these figures require correction to

of frequency, the pages of Genesis
and
II
show the actual ratio

Maccabees containing
about one-fourth more words, the pages of the Wisdom of Sirach

about one-fourth fewer, than those of Polybius, and the pages
of
IV Maccabees about
the same as those of Polybius.

The
column gives the figures of the second column corrected
these inequalities and reduced to the basis of a page of the
third
for
length of the Polybius page.
TABLE
Relative Frequency of Infinitives
in
II.
Polybius and in Biblical Greek.
48
TABLE
The Tenses of the
Anarthrous
III.
and Their
Uses.
THE INFINITIVE
IN POLYBIUS
49
50
Again, comparing the uses of the tenses of the infinitive

Polybius and in the whole
New
crypha, and
field of
biblical
in
Greek (LXX, Apo-
Testament), using Votaw's results, we obtain
the following statistics, reckoned absolutely and by percentages:
TABLE
V.
Comparative Statistics of the Infinitive in Polybius and Biblical

Greek, According to Tenses.
Percentage
No. of
"
''
"
'
all
"
"
" fut.
" perf.
"
No. of
all
"
"
"
"
"
infs.
"
"
" pres.
" aor.
"
"
"
"
" perf.
"
"
"
fut.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'*
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
No. of Articular
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'
infs. in
Pol
pres. infs. in Pol

"
" "
aor.
perf.
"
"
"
bib.
Gk
infs. in
pres. infs. in bib.

"
"
"
aor.
fut.
"
"
perf.
"
"
infs.
"
"
pres. infs. in Pol

aor.
"
fut.
"
"
"
"
"
perf.
"
"
"
No. of Articular
"
"
"
'
"
"
"
"
Gk
"
"
"
in Pol
"
"
""....
"
"
"
'*
"
"
"
fut.
"
'
"
"
"
"
Gk
"
"
No. of Anarthrous
"
"
"
726
in bib.
No. of Anarthrous
"
11,265
7,074
2,924
541
Pol
infs. in
" pres.
" aor.
infs. in bib.
Gk
pres. infs. in bib.Gk...

'
" "
"
aor.
"
"
"
" ..
fut.
*
"
" .
perf. "
.
338
.628
.26
.064
.048
CHAPTER
V.
COMPARISON OF THE USES OF THE INFINITIVE

AND IN BIBLICAL GREEK.
IN
POLYBIUS
In looking at the foregoing tables of the average use of the

infinitive
per page in the books under examination, we are struck
with the fact that Polybius has the highest average of

that there
all,
and
a large difference between the averages of the trans-
is
Wisdom
lated books (Genesis and
of Sirach) and the untrans-
IV Maccabees). We also see that the averand IV Maccabees stand much nearer to Polybius than
lated books (II and
ages of
II
they do to Genesis and the
Wisdom
of Sirach.
Considering that Polybius does not use the
infinitive in
any
unusual ways, and that there existed usages which he did not
employ, the question arises: What causes the low averages in

numbers and the comparatively few usages which Genesis and
Wisdom
averages in
number
the
employ, and what
of Sirach
II
is
and IV Maccabees and
the reason for the high
for the large difference in
of occurrences of the infinitive in
Greek?
Looking at the
all
four books of
biblical
tive:
r,
u,
V, c,
M, b,
a,
w, X,
71,
t,
z;
'i,
and
20, viz.:
Wisdom
of Sirach
bb, V, h, g, k, e ;
f, 'f,
we
find 27 uses of the anarthrous infini-
'f, s, 's, *f,
h, 'h, g, 'g, q, k, d, e, o,
e,
r,
7c,
w,
x, z.
Of these 45
a, b, bb, bbb,
uses.
a, b, "i, c, s, h, g, k, d, e, o, bb, v, c, 5,
II
d, e, x, a, b, k, e ;
t,
Genesis
h,g, k, e
v, s, h, g, k, d, o, x,
employs 18, viz.: a, b,
Maccabees employs 14, viz.: a, b, î, f, s, h,
and IV Maccabees employs 16, viz.: a, b, î,
"î,
h, g, d, e, x, a, b, bb, v, h, k.
339]
m,
18 uses of the articular infinitive:
V, h, g, k,
employs
f,
tables,
V, c,
51
a,
g,
v,
CHAPTER
VI.
USES OF THE INFINITIVE FOUND IN BIBLICAL GREEK BUT
NOT
In Genesis
we
Wisdom
Wisdom
Genesis and
in
and
of Sirach
of
Maccabees, the
II
Maccabees, the usage 1; and in IV Maccabees,

rov with the infinitive, none of which is found in Polybius.
usage
ctTTo
p;
in
The
1.
II
usage s;
find the
Sirach, the usage/; in
IN POLYBIUS.
II
Infinitive after Verbs of Bidding
Mace. i:io
ol iv rfj
'lovSat'a
Kut
rj
yepovcTLa
kol
louSa?
1).
ApicrroySouXw
âcjoetv Kat vyiatveLV.
9:19 Tots TouSatots TToWa )(aipeiv KaX vyuiivav kol

11:16 Avcrtas T(2 irXrjOu Twv lovSaLwv )(ULptv.
ev Tr/aarretv /SaaiXev? Avt60ôs.
is merely a sub-class of the object infinitive, the verb

infinitive is the object being omitted.
It is the
which
the
of
stereotyped form of address used in letters, and is not confined
to biblical Greek, but is found in II Maccabees only because
It occurs also in I Esdras and
several letters are there quoted.
If Polybius had quoted letters, the usage would
I Maccabees.
have been found in his history.
2. Result.
This use
i)
Actual or hypothetical.
a) Without attendant particle
Wisdom
of Sirach
and
nor in Attic Greek.

Wis.
Sir.
5: 5
TTcpi
G.
(=p).
This usage, found
Maccabees, does not occur
II
MT.
iîXacTfJiov
in
585, 775; Ku/i. 473, 7; 583,
fjirj
aô/3os
yivov,
TrpoaOuvai
in
Polybius
2.
apupTLav
icft'
apxipTtas.
II
Mace.
3:
24 KaraTrXayevras
ttjv
tov deov 8vvap.LV, eh
e/cXncriv Kat
SaXtav
TpaTrrjvat.
12: 42
TrapeKaXccre to ttXÔo?
awnqpiiv avrovs
In the older language
a.vapxLpTrjrov; e?vat.
(Homer and Hesiod)
the simple infini-
used to express result.' The tendency, however, was to

tive
the use of ware with the infinitive as being more exact, and this
is
use superseded the former in later Greek, especially Attic.

^
fCarassek, p.
fialveaOai; vii.
13;
Herodotus
i.
176 KaUcrdai;
ii.
elvai;
iii.
149
ro^crat;
In
iv.
79
194 diroXiffdai after oCrw.
52
[340
THE INFINITIVE
IN POLYBIUS
53
the use in biblical Greek of the simple infinitive to express result,
we have but
besides the use of oiare with the infinitive,
a partial
may have been
return to the older construction, which
used at
language of daily speech even when the recognized
literary form was ware with the infinitive.
least in the
b)
times
in
The
in
with rod (=/).
infinitive
Genesis and twice
Polybius nor
in
Greek.
in classic
This
Wisdom
usage, found three
of Sirach, does not occur
Blass 71,
Kilh. 478, 4, c;
3.
Actual:
Gen. 16:2
Wis.
tSoi)
Sir. 44: 8
(TWeKAetO-cV
eio-tv
avrw
^VpLO'i TOV
fXi.
ot
KariXiTrov
tlkt^lv.
fir]
6vo[jiaj.
tov eKSLrjyqaacrdai eiraivowi.
Hypothetical:
Gen.
Wis.
ig: 20 tSou
Sir. 42:
rj
Kut
ttoXis avr-q iyyv<;
tov KuTaffyvyeiv
kdl3r)^ Trp6au)Trov
fji.r)
/ac CKei.
tov d/xapraveiv.
infinitives with tov ( s).

The
employed "for epexegesis, where the simple
infinitive with or without wcrre might have been used, and where
the meaning of the genitive has been lost in the mixture of con-
2)
Epexegetic or explanatory
infinitive
with tov
is
sequence and purpose.

the
with
infinitive
[Winer-MouUon,
p.
This
is
"We
410, b).
common
very
denoting both
design
the
in
and
must recognize
LXX,
consequence"
in this
usage an
exaggeration of declining (Hellenistic) Greek, unless we prefer

to resort to unnatural interpretations.
infinitive
with tov had
the representative of
It
would seem that the
come to be regarded by the

the Hebrew infinitive with b
Hellenists as
in its
mani-
fold relations; and, as usually happens in the case of established
formulas, the proper signification of the genitive was no longer
thought of"
{idid., p.
411);
cf.
Gildersleeve,
A J. P.,
Vol.
XXVH,
pp. 105, 106.
Gen. 3:22
19:19
3.
'iSov 'ASa/x, yeyovev
o TTOtets
ctt' i/xk
tov
t,rjv
ws
ets
Prepositional Object
infinitive is
f-k
used once with
6: 7
tov ytviJixTKUv KaXbv koI novrjpov.
3^
'^^'-
20; 47: 29.
'^'^"^ "^^^ XoyLCTjxov.
341
IV Maccabees
the
express source or cause
eV.
koX ttltttwv ets to eSaô?, diro tov
Sovas, opOov tx^^
'
= k). In
airo tov to
where Polybius would have used

IV Mace.
rjfxwv,
ttjv 4''"XV^ /*^-
[jlt]
cftepeiv
to o-wâa ras dXyr]-
CHAPTER
VII.
CAUSES OF THE PECULIARITIES IN THE USE OF THE INFINITIVE IN THE BIBLICAL BOOKS.
We
I.
ask then:
What
are the peculiarities of the use of the infinitive in the
books under discussion?
biblical
What
II.
Each
are the causes of these peculiarities?
books must be examined separately,

them were written by the same person, and differences of style must be taken into consideration, and since two
of the books. Genesis and Wisdom of Sirach, were translations
of the four biblical
since no two of
from Hebrew into Greek. Translations differ according

method and purpose of the translator, and his knowledge
to the
of the
languages with which he has to deal.

If
the purpose
is
to
make an extremely
literal translation,
reproducing each word and construction of the original, the result

will
be a translation which will be worthless from a literary point
of view
one which may even obscure the thought of the original
as a result of this literal

If,
method.
on the other hand, the purpose be to produce a translation
which shall be good from a literary point of view, the translator

may change the thought of the original, because of inability to
reproduce the thought of the original in the translation.
Aside from the purpose of the translator, his knowledge of
either language will play an important part in the result of the
work; for it can be easily seen that, no matter what the translator's ability may be in other directions, if his knowledge of either
language is deficient, the resulting translation will be wanting
in literary value or in the reproduction of the thought of the
original.
It is
well
known
that the
Hebrew people
became necessary
to translate
them
54
it
on
laid great stress
the value of the letter of their sacred writings, so that
was but
natural,
when
it
from their
[342
THE INFINITIVE
IN POLYBIUS
55
point of view, to endeavor to present the original as closely as

possible in the translation.
for Jews, not for Greeks.
Moreover, the translation was made
The Jews
of the Dispersion, for
whom
the translation was made, had so far forgotten the language of

their nation that
gogue,
even the efforts of the interpreter
who turned
of no aid to
them
in
the syna-
the Scriptures into the spoken Aramaic, were
in
understanding the lessons.
The Jews
of the
Dispersion above mentioned were descendants of those Jews
who
had fled or been carried to Egypt and who had grown up under
Greek influence, chiefly in Alexandria, where they had been given
a part of the city to themselves and had been granted civil rights.
The language of these Jews was Greek, and they must have the
Law in Greek if they were to understand it. Their Greek, however, was not the Greek of the educated native Greek, but was
presumably the language of the Alexandrian streets and markets
a composite of the terms of the Egyptian seaport.
Alexandria
was a thriving city, and, situated as it was, with its population
made up of many different peoples, the one language of intercourse between all the inhabitants must certainly feel the effects
of the mixture of races which spoke it.
The speakers would
naturally be affected by their native idiom, and by their manner
of life and thought.
Genesis.
Turning now to the Book of Genesis, fresh from
the reading of Polybius, we feel at once that this is not Greek
such as a Greek would have written or even have spoken in ordinary life.
If it was a spoken or written language, it must have
been that of persons whose manner of life and thought was very
Not to speak of other nondifferent from that of native Greeks.
Greek aspects of the language (for that would lead away from
the study of the infinitive), there is here no balancing of sentences, no subordination of part to part in order to make an
orderly whole.
The narrative is made up of short declarative
Quostatements connected in groups by the simple connective.
tations, instead of being given in the subordinate form of indirect
discourse, are quoted in the words of the speaker.
had written
in
this
style,
If
Polybius
the two great groups of subject and
object infinitives would have been reduced to a

343
minimum, and
56
number
the whole average
have been any higher than
of simple infinitives used

in
would not
Polybius' history would
Genesis.
have become as formless as the Greek of Genesis, and would have

given no pleasure to the reader.
Out of 187 simple infinitives, Genesis has used the simple
infinitive ']'] times to express purpose (d), which Polybius has
In Geneused very sparingly, only 13 times in his whole work.
sis
there are but 4 occurrences of the infinitive with
and
et? to,
but 7 of the infinitive with ajo-re to express purpose, and we look

in vain for the many other ways which Polybius had of expressing
We
it.
see, therefore,
of this infinitive.
why
there
such a large use
is
because the translator has used
It is
it
made
almost
ways of expressing purpose. Very

was the form used most frequently in the dialect which
It certainly was the simplest
he employed in everyday life.
form he could have used.
In comparison with its use of the simple infinitive. Genesis
to the exclusion of the other
likely
it
makes
a very large use of the articular infinitive, but this large
proportion
due rather
is
to
the infrequent use of the simple
than to an abnormally frequent use of the articular
infinitive
Nearly
infinitive.
all
of the uses of the articular infinitive are
with prepositions in clauses to express time, eV
to) while,
irpo
rov
before, jxera to after, eco^ tov witil.
The usage
though
it
has been largely affected by Hebraistic influence,
may
not have been due merely to the effort of the

b with the infinitive, but
may
the speech of the Alexandrian Jews.
In
Hebrew
translator to reproduce
have been used
in
whatever way
it
may be
usage /"(toG
infinitive
c.
viewed,
but an extension of the
= Result).
The epexegetical character

seen in the infinitive with
ceding demonstrative
is
it
of the articular infinitive
t6^ tov,
or
tu> in
in the accusative,
may be
apposition with a pregenitive, or dative, the
when some other case would be

expected being due to the influence of the Hebrew particle b.
Wisdom of Sirach. The average of infinitives in Wisdom of
fact that
it
is
used with
tov,
Sirach
is
almost the same as that
this are the
same.
The
in
Genesis and the causes of
translator has
344
shown
in
his
prologue
THE INFINITIVE
what he might have done
in
the
IN POLYBIUS
way
of writing better Greek,
he had not been hampered by the form

is
57
which
in
if
his translation
In the prologue of only 22 lines there are 13 infinitives,
cast.
used as follows:
a goodly array for so short a

But though the translator could write Greek, he did not
feel at liberty to present the translation in Greek form.
He has
simply turned the writing of his grandfather into Greek words,
a, b,
d, o,
i,
bit.
clinging to the parallelism of the
Of the
Hebrew
original.
31 occurrences of the articular infinitive 24 are with
denoting time while, 4 with fMeTo, to of time after which, 2

with et9 TO to denote purpose, while the one occurrence of tt/jo? to
iv Tu>
is
due to the prologue.

If
the translator of
Wisdom
of Sirach could have brought him-
throw aside the characteristically Hebrew form of the

and clothe it entirely in a Greek dress, he might have
As it
left us a better monument of the Alexandrian dialect.
uses of the infinitive, one of which, /, he
is, he employs two
self to
original
has
II
in
common
with Genesis, the other,
Maccabees.
II
of use of the infinitive

is
large use
is
made
these books have in

infinitives
common
with
We see that the average
prepared for a different state of things.
There
in
Looking at the tables of the uses

when we come to II and IV Maccabees we are
AND IV Maccabees.
of the infinitive,
p,
high, and the tables
tell
us the reason.
of all the uses of the infinitive
common
with Polybius.
occur very frequently, the
which
Subject and object
infinitive of
purpose drops
with the infinitive appears again, the infinitive of

indirect discourse is found more frequently, the uses of the articular infinitive are scattered, and several prepositions are used with
down,
(oare
When we
the articular infinitive.
subordinated to part,
read
The sentences
see the reason for this.
in the effort to
II
and IV Maccabees, we
are balanced, part being
produce a flowing style so
a series of statements strung together like
we shall not have

beads upon a string, but so that the thought shall be expressed
as a united whole, each link in the chain being necessary to the
that
unity of the sentence.

all
its
The frequent
use of the participle in
significations appears again, while subordinate clauses of

345
58
result, time and cause, are used, all of which builds

up the sequence of thought in orderly style.
The only uses of the infinitives in these two books, which are
not also found in Polybius, as has been stated above, are 1, p, and
But each of these might
the use of airo tov with the infinitive.
purpose and
have been used by him and do not show Hebraistic influence.
346
CHAPTER
VIII.
CONCLUSION.
From
the foregoing
we conclude:
That the translators
of the books of the Old Testament

were largely influenced by their desire to keep as close as possible
to the form of the language of their sacred books.
This influ1.
ence was responsible for the style and grammar of the transla-
which they produced. Owing to the simplicity of the

style, which is retained in the translation, the structure
of the Greek is very simple, so that subordinate sentences are
few, and the highly developed and varied syntactical structure of
Still, such grammatical
the Greek language finds no use here.
constructions as are used are in the main Greek, though some are
tions
Hebrew
found which, while Greek

the influence of the
form,
in
Hebrew
owe
their frequency of use to
original.
That the authors of those books which are not translations,
2.
but were originally written in Greek, show a
dom
in the
They
use of the language.
much
are not
effort to preserve as nearly as possible the
greater free-
hampered by the
form of an original,
the very letters of which were sacred, so that, while the thought
which they wish

colors
to e.Kpress
is
foreign to the native Greek and
somewhat the language in which it is expressed, still the

is a living one, Greek at heart, though tinged by ele-
language
ments which it has absorbed in a foreign land. If the reader will

ignore the thought and read the language alone, he will feel and
see that he
is
reading Greek.
That the same is true of the authors of the books of the

New Testament, though true of some more than others. Thought
will color language, and when the thought is foreign to the people
3.
in
whose language the thought
is
expressed, the language will be
new meanings given to words,

not necessarily in new syntactical uses. The syntax depends
upon the ability, purpose, and linguistic knowledge of the author
affected, chiefly, of course, in the
347]
59
60
or translator.
is
Greek.
It
of the infinitive in the New Testament

books of the Apocrypha originally written in
The syntax
like that of the
uses those infinitival constructions
times,/ 3 times,
once) which were found
ment and apocryphal books, but not
in
is
found once (Philippians 3:16).
348
times, p 12
Old Testa-
Polybius; and in addition
the imperative infinitive, a true Greek use [G.

474, a) which
(1
in the four
MT.
784;
Kii/i.
METANOEXl AND METAMEAEI
The Department
to time, Historical
New
II,
Testament.
of Biblical
and
Patristic
and Linguistic Studies
These Studies are grouped
Linguistic and Exegetical Studies;
volumes
in each series will
be issued
Greek
issues,
in Literature
from time
Related to the
in three series:
I,
Texts;
Historical Studies.
III,
The
in parts.
Ernest D. Burton
Shailer Mathews
Clyde W. Votaw
Edgar
J.
Goodspeed
JZ"
AND METAMEAEi IN GREEK LITERATURE UNTIL looA.D., INCLUDING
METANOEfi
DISCUSSION OF THEIR COGNATES

AND OF THEIR HEBREW EQUIVA-
LENTS
BY
EFFIE FREEMAN THOMPSON,
Ph.D.
CHICAGO
^be
Tnnfverdits of Cbfcago press

1908
CoPTEiGHT
1908
By
The Univeesitt of Chicago

Published February 1908

S. A.
PREFATORY NOTE
The purpose of this
is to determine historically the meaning

Testament of Meravoeo) and MerafieXcL and their cognates.
The approximate date, loo A. D., is arbitrarily chosen to mark the
limit of the study, which is meant to include all of the New Testament
in the
investigation
New
instances although
some may be
later
than loo
A. D.,
and
to exclude all
other Christian writings although there are in the latter a few instances
which are several years
earlier
Diligent search has been
than loo A. d.
made
for all the instances of the
words under
consideration, with a view to including all the works of all the
known
authors in each period.
large
number
of lexicons
But
been consulted.
and concordances, general and
in the case of
number
Josephus, and a considerable
works have been perused by the
many
special,
have
authors, as Plutarch, Philo,
of classical writers, all their extant
writer, either because there
were no con-
cordances published or because those existing were found on being tested

to
be incomplete.
All the passages thus
found were translated and studied with enough
of the context to determine the
meaning
and
of the word,
the results thus
reached were compared with a view to determining the range of usage of
each word
The meanings
each period.
in
in the analyses of
meanings, a
full list of
thus ascertained are exhibited
examples being given under each
Spurious passages and meanings based on them are inclosed
meaning.
in brackets.
Considerations of expense prevented, what would otherwise
have been desirable, the printing
in full of all the
each group of cognate words
each period, a few examples are printed
under the
title
in the analyses
"Illustrative
by a
am
passages collected.
After
Examples," each such example being indicated
figure in brackets corresponding to the
the example bears in the
for
in
list
of Illustrative
number which
Examples.
indebted to Dr. Ernest D. Burton for suggesting this subject and
most valuable help in the development of
Sprengling for suggestions
made
it,
and
to
Mr. Martin
in his reading of the proof.
Effie Freeman Thompson

Chicago, June, 1907
353]
CONTENTS
PAGE
Chapter
I.
Etymology:
Significance of the Roots
the Preposition
Chapter
II. Classical
FNO, MEA, and
of
META
Usage of
METANOEft and METAMEAEI and
Their Cognates
lo
Chapter
III.
Usage
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
IV.
The Hebrew Verb DHD
the
in
about ICO
Non-Jewish Post-Aristotelian Writers
A. D.
355]
14
V. Usage in the Canonical Books of the Septuagint
...
18
19
VI. Usage in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Other Jewish
Writings to about 100 A.
Chapter
Chapter
to
VII
New
Testament Usage
VIII. Conclusion
20
24
26
CHAPTER
ETYMOLOGY: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ROOTS

THE PREPOSITION META
The
root of voe'w appears in Sanskrit as
yvo appears with
yvo.
added
in
gna
perceive;
(2)
To
to
AND OF
MEA,
know, and
in
Greek as
stem of Aeolic yvoew and Attic
Later forms drop y of this stem, hence
yvoe'o).
To
TNO,
think, to consider, to have
voe.
d/Ac^t-
(i)
signifies:
voiio
an opinion;
(3)
To
plan,
to purpose, to decide.
fitra
in
appears
in Sanskrit as mithas, with, alternately, turn about,
composition signifies with,
Hence
means,
jncravoew
ixerd
after, reversely, differently.
To
(i)
perceive afterward;
(2)
To
think or
consider afterward, to think differently, to form a different opinion; (3)
To
plan differently, to change one's purpose or decision.
The
as
fitp
root of /acAw appears in Sanskrit as smar, to think,
or
/xcA.
the sound of A.
used
in
Greater force
p
is
and X are almost
both voices:
(i)
jncra/jieAei signifies:
equivalent.
an object of
(i) It is
ward;
(2) It is
nifies:
I think or feel differently.
357]
in
Greek
/neAw,
Med.
fieXofMn, is
In a neuter sense, to be an object of thought or
care; (2) In an active sence, to care for, to take an interest
Hence
and
required to produce the sound of p than
in.
an object of thought or care
different thought or care.
after-
fieTa/xeXopiai sig-
CHAPTER
II
CLASSICAL USAGE OF METANOEQ AND METAMEAEI AND THEIR
COGNATES
Usage
I.
of (itTavoio).
An
shows that
fiTavow occurs
examination of
term and follows closely
intellectual
over again, or
to
all
the instances in which
fieravoiw in the classical period
The usage
think differently.
is
purely an
etymological meaning,
its
in this period
think
to
may
be tabu-
lated as follows:
To
1.
120. 28;
To change
2.
Xen. Hell.
Usage
shows that
it
one's opinion: Xen. Cyr.
fxtTavoLa.
of
i. i.
Investigation
of
3 [2].
the
itself is
of
meaning:
of
These
indi-
is
apparently implied
facts lead to the following classification
1.
Reconsideration: Ant. 120. 29.
2.
change of mind, apparently involving change of thought and

[Horn. Batrach. 70]; Thuc. 3.36.4; [Xen. Ep. 1.7];
feeling:
/Meravoia
and
In the noun, however,
primarily intellectual, there
a change of feeling.
it
instances
follows closely the thought expressed in fieravoew
while the term
Ant.
II. 805.]
cates a thinking again or a thinking differently.
in
[i];
19; Plat. Euthyd. 279 C.
1. 7.
[To change one's decision: Dem. Aristog.

II.
Epich. 131
think over again, or consider afterward:

140. 17;
581; Phil. Frag. 105 [3];
Menand. Gnom. Monost.
Soph. Elec.
91.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES
[i]
The
Epich. 131:
wise
man
should think beforehand and not afterward
(^Heravoeiv).
[2]
Xen. Cyr.
were incHned
to
1.
i.
come
3:
Accordingly,
to this opinion
when we thought
these things over,
about them, that for a mere
man
it is
we
easier
But when we reflected that Cyrus

who had brought very many men vinder his sway and
very many cities and very many nations, in consequence of this, we were forced
to change our mind {neravoeiv)^ and think that it might not prove to be among
the things impossible or difficult to govern men if one should do it skilfully.
[3] Phil. Frag. 105: He who wills to marry is coming to a change of mind
to rule all the other
had
animals than to rule men.
existed, a Persian,
(jierivoicLv)
III.
fiiket
Usage
occurs
of
it is
viz., it is
an
or care.
The
/i.Ta/i,A.et.
In
observed that
considering the passages in which
/nerafieAci retains its
object of care afterward, or
it is
an
object of different
verb has the meaning of causing one

10
fitra.-
etymological meaning
to regret,
which
thought
is
com[358
METANOEn AND METAMEAEI
mon
WTiile this
to all the instances.
is
11
the prevailing
and
radical thought
contained in the verb, the context often implies a change of purpose and
conduct. This implication of the context shows even this early a tendency
to creep into the
Thuc.
e. g.,
meaning of the verb itself; so that in a few passages,

the meaning of regret seems to be shading into change
3. 4. 4,
of purpose.
The
is
feeling rather than the intellect
the potent force
is
and the verb
thus sharply distinguished from /aeravocw, in which the intellect only
is
Various reasons appear to account for this feeling of regret.

antecedent action is felt to be disadvantageous or morally wrong.
operative.
The
to a
Both of these considerations lead

ing change of conduct, but
inherent -in the verb
The
itself.
change of purpose and a correspond-
not clear that in this period either of these
it is
construction
is
and usage may be indicated
as follows:
MeTa/xeXet
The
1.
used
is
in the following
impersonal constructions
nominative and the person
in the
action regretted
is
in the
action regretted
is
expressed by a participle agreeing with the
is
dative.
The
2.
dative of person.
The
3.
The
action regretted
person
The
4.
is
The
action
and the person
The
6.
son
is
is
in the genitive
is
5.
i.
regretted
is
in the dative
action regretted
is
and the person
is
in the dative
22).
expressed by a clause introduced by
(Xen. Cyr.
on
5. 3. 6).
expressed by a neuter participle and the per-
in the dative (Hdt. 6. 63; 9. i).
The
7.
not expressed, the verb being used absolutely.
in the dative.
action regretted
(Lys. 186. 12; Xen. Cyr.

5.
is
action regretted
expressed by
is
with the dative (Plat. Prot.
356 D).
The person is in the dative with Io-ti (Ant. 140. 33).

The meaning of /ACTajneXei is: to cause one to regret antecedent action,
Aesch.
(a) The context implies that the action was not advantageous.
mw. 77i;Hdt. 3. 140 [4]; 4- 203; 6. 63; 9. 89; Ar. Nub. 1114; Pax 1315;
8.
Xen. Anah.
8. 3.
i. 6.
7;
5.
6.
36;
32; Dereeques. 6. 13;
7.
i.
5;
Isocr. 382
7.
i.
34;
Cyr.
5.
1.22;
5. 3.
C; Plat. Phaedo 113 E; [Ep.
6;
II.
314 B]; [Demod. 382 D]; Dem. 358. (b) The context implies that the
was regarded as morally wrong. Ant. 140. i2>bis; Ar. P/w/. 358;
Xen. Hell. i. 7. 27; Mem. i. i. 4; Conv. 4. 48; Anab. 2. 6. 9; Isocr. 383 B.
action
(c)
The context impUes
a change of purpose
and conduct
antecedent action was not advantageous: Hdt.

359
i.
130;
3.
(i)
36;
because the
7.
54; 9. i;
12
Ant. 140.
A;
Thuc.
T,;^;
2.
61. 2 [5]; 3. 4. 4; Lys. 186. 12; Plat. Phaedr. 231
D; Gorg. 471 B; Andoc. Mys.
Prot. 356
[Dem. Arisiog.
149;
II. 803].
because the past action was morally wrong: Lys. 97. 7; Xen. i?e//. i. 7.
35; Isocr.87A; 314 B; 360 D; 375 A; 375 C; 385 B; Plat.^MsSE.
IV. Usage of ixerafiiXofiai. The instances of fierafjieXoiMiL exhibit
(2)
same meanings as those found under
the
/aera/xcXci,
the thought being
expressed in the former verb by the personal and middle or passive form,
and in the latter by the impersonal and

and usage may be indicated as follows:
MeTa/tteXojtAat is
The person
1.
construction
used in the personal construction as follows:

the subject of the verb
is
pressed, the verb being used absolutely;
agreeing with the subject of the verb
by
The
active form.
(c)
and
(b)
the object
is
(a) not ex-
expressed by a participle
expressed by a clause introduced
oTi.
The
2.
verb
is
used in the participial form agreeing with the noun or
pronoun supplied from the context which represents
(a) the
person; or
(b) the object.
The meaning of fitrafiiXoimi is: to regret antecedent action, (a)

The context implies that it was not advantageous: Thuc. 4. 27. 2; Xen.
Mem. 2. 6. 23 [6]. {b) The context implies a change of purpose and subsequent conduct,
Hdt.
3. 36. 5;
3. I.
13;
(2)
Xen. Cyr.
5. 35.
4;
8. 92. 10;
50. 3;
7.
Arist. Eth.
4. 6. 5.
same underlying
is
5. 14. 2;
because the antecedent action was regarded as morally wrong:
V. Usage of
/xera/AtAeia.
past action
In
the
(2)
instances,
is
manifested in two ways:
is
fxtraficXeia
has
the
affected unpleasantly, sorrow

(i)
In regret for one's
In a change of opinion based on either experience of
suffering unforeseen, e.
g.,
Eur. Frag. 1065; or on awakening to the injus-
antecedent action,
tice of the
all
idea, viz., the sensibility
This
experienced.
own
because the antecedent action was not advantageous:
(i)
Thuc.
e. g.,
Thuc.
3. 37. i.
Hence
the following
analysis of meanings:
1.
8. 11;
Eth.
Regret for one's

Cyr.
3. I.
2.
13 bis;
Change
of
own
past action: Thuc.
i.
34. 3;
Xen. Hipparch.
Laws 727 C [7]; 866 E; Rep. 577 E;

3. i. 19; Menand. Frag. 153 bis.
opinion and feeling (exceptional usage): Thuc. 3.
5. 3. 7 bis;
Eur. Frag. 1065 (48)
Plat.
Arist.
37. i;
[8].
[4]
Hdt.
3.
140:
In return for these things, I give you gold and silver
without measure, that you
may
never regret
kindness to Darius, the son of Hystaspes.
360
(fieraixeX-fia-ri)
that you have
done
METANOEn AND METAMEAEI

[5]
Thuc.
2.
And
6i. 2:
13
the Mytileneans, after they had obtained a cessation
of hostilities, sent to Athens one of the
men who had accused them and who now
if they could by any means persuade

them to return their ships.
Remark. MeraM^Xet may mean regret or change of purpose, since the man
had changed to the side of the Mytileneans. The general usage favors the
former. This passage shows the tendency of ixerafi^Xei. to include in itself what
is commonly in this period clearly an implication of the context, viz., change of
regretted
it
{fieTîJi.(\v),
with others to see
purpose.
[6]
lessly,
Xen.
Mem.
2. 6.
23:
And
they are able not only to settle a dispute harm-
but also to be of advantage to one another and to prevent anger from
advancing
which
to that
[7] Plat.
will
be a matter of regret
Laws 727 C: Whenever he
word and approval
{iieTaixKr\(T6fivov).
indulges in pleasures contrary to the
no way honors her

and fills her with evils and regret (ficrafjxXelas)
[8] Eur. Frag. 1065: Old age, thou boldest forth such hope of pleasure
that every man desires to come to thee; but upon making a trial of thee he
experiences a change of feeling (/xeraM^Xeiav), on the ground that there is no worse
of the legislator, in that instance he in
(the soul), but dishonors her
period in mortal
Remark.
life.
Merafi^Xeta here indicates a
past action, which
is
an exceptional usage.
361
change of
feeling,
but not regret for
CHAPTER
III
USAGE IN THE NON-JEWISH POST-ARISTOTELIAN WRITERS TO
ABOUT
Usaê
I.
fxeravoeo)
since there
is
of
fjiTavo(j}.
The
does not hold to

is
passages containing /xeravoew show that
meaning, to change one's opinion,
its classical
no instance
The change
such purely intellectual action.
of
The
that of feeling or will.
reg'-et
loo A. D.
seems the fundamental
instances embrace:
The
idea.
reason of
(i)
it
is
Those
shown
in
which
to
be the
disadvantage of the antecedent action; (2) Those in which change of purThe causes bringing about this
pose seems to be the fundamental idea.
change are either the disadvantage of the antecedent action or the moral
evil of
verb
and
it
(i)
but only implied
sometimes seems
tion of construction
1.
The
The
and usage.
The
action regretted
sometimes includes
(2)
(i)
Hence the following tabula-
to necessitate (2).
action regretted
latter is not inherent in the
in the context;
construction of /xcTavocw
is
as follows:
expressed by an aorist participle agreeing
is
with the subject: Plut. 748. Phoc.

2.
The
or of the antecedent purpose.
itself,
14.
expressed by a perfect participle, agreeing
is
with the subject: Plut. 549. Crass. 11.

3
The
action regretted
expressed by a genitive, modified by a perfect
is
Eumen.
passive participle: Plut. 583.

4.
The
action regretted
is
2.
expressed by a neuter participle in the dative:
Plut. 803 a. Agis. 19 a.

5.
The
the dative:
6.
The
action regretted
Plut. 803
1.
action
expressed by
is
Agis 19
action regretted
Plut. 1055. Gal.
The
b.
is
liri
with neuter participle in
b.
expressed by
ttc/ji
and a neuter
participle:
6.
following presents the usage in respect to meaning:
To
regret
The
an antecedent action.
was not advantageous:
748. Phoc. 14; 803.
Agis 19
context implies that such
Plut. 549. Crass. 11;
915. Demet. 52;
bis;
583.
Eumen.
[9];
1023. Artax. 24. Mor.
10 F.
2.
To
change one's purpose:
hitherto controlled action,
(i)
was not advantageous: Polyb.
(a)
The
To change
a purpose which has
context implies that the past action
23. 12 (24:8); Dio. Sic. i. 67. 5 [10];
1128E.
past action was morally wrong:
Plut. 135. Camill. 12 (also
14
(2)
Plut.
The context implies that
1055. Ga/. 6; Afor. 37 E; 163 F;
under
the
2. (i));
[362
AND METAMEAEI
METANOEfl
Mor. 27 A;
Camill. 29;
147,.
was morally wrong:

Usage
II.
Plut.
The
Mor. 26
The
oj ixtravoia.
1128D.
74 C;
which has not been executed.
(6)
15
To change
a purpose
context implies that the past purpose

[11].
meanings of the noun are closely analo-
gous with those of the verb and
may be
represented by the following ana-
lysis:
Regret for antecedent action,
1.
action
The
(a)
context implies that the
Plut. 157. Per. 10 [12];
238. Tiniol. 6;
Comp. Timol. cum Paul. Em. 2; Mor. 155 C, 961 D, 1092 E. (h) The
context implies that the action was morally wrong: Plut. 428. Cai. Mar. 39.
(a) The context implies that the past action
2. Change of purpose,
was not advantageous: Plut. 149. Camill. 38; 410. Cai. Mar. 10; 670.
277,
Alex. 11; Polyb.
past action
[14],
4. 66. 7 [13];
18. 16. 7.
was morally wrong:
The
(b)
Plut. 926. Ant. 24;
Mor. 56 A, 68 F
712 C.
[9] Plut. 583.
Eumen.
He (Alexander) neither accused Eumenes nor accepted
the money; but ordered his servants to
he wished
to catch
him
make a fire in the tent of Eumenes, for

when his valuables should be taken
in his falsehood,
But before that could be done, the
out.
was consumed, and Alexander
tent
regretted {nerev&ricrt) the destruction of his papers.
[10] Dio. Sic.
I.
67. 5:
And when
they were proceeding along the Nile and
were passing by the borders of Egypt, he entreated them to change their purpose
(iJXTavorjffai)-, and he also reminded them of their temples, their native regions,
and children.
Mor. 26 D: And since he was more vexed by this, he drew his
sword, intending to kill him, which design was not right, either according to
that which is morally beautiful or according to that which is expedient.
Then
their wives
[11] Plut.
afterward changing his purpose

sheath and did not disobey the
yet
his sword into the

which was both right and
put an end to his anger altogether,
of Athena,
because, while he was unable to
virtuous;
he put back
(ixrrayorfiaas)^
command
under the influence of reason, he reduced
before
it
accomplished the
it
and brought
it
under control,
fatal deed.
And there fell all the friends of Cimon without diswho were accused by Pericles of being in the Lacedaemonian interest;
and a strong regret (/xerdwia) and longing for Cimon took possession of the
[12] Plut. 157. Per. 10:
tinction
Athenians.
[13] Polyb. 4. 66. 7:
When the Dardanians heard from someThracian deserters
of the approach of Philip, they were terrified
.... When
and instanUy dismissed the army.

on the part
Philip learned of the change oj purpose (nerdvoiav)
home all the Macedonians.

Mor. 68 F: But when misfortune overthrows and takes away
of the Dardanians, he sent

[14] Plut.
363
their
16
arrogance, there
change
Usage
III.
which
present in these acts that which admonishes and causes a
is
purpose (nerdvoiav).
of
this
oj
fjitrafieXct..
verb occurs,
common
etymological and
a consideration of the passages in
evident that fxtTafi^Xei holds strictly to
meaning as
classical
(i)The context
a past action.
regret
From
is
it
was morally wrong:
IV. Usage oj
verb
it is
meaning,
/xcra/xeXo/Ltai.
evident that
The
(2)
[15].
was not
The
context
Plut. 1020. Artax. 18.
considering the passages under this
many
/xcTa/xcAo/tAai in
This regret
viz., to regret.
that of another.
In
6m
its
cause one to
implies that the action
advantageous: Plut. 320. Aris. 4; Mor. 125

implies that the action
To
follows:
instances retains
either of one's
is
own
its
classical
action or of
There
context often implies a change of purpose.
is
a marked tendency in this period for this contextual implication to be

incorporated into the verb
(i) those in
it is
difi&cult to
giving rise to three classes of passages:
itself,
which only regret
expressed by the verb; (2) those in which
is
determine whether regret or change of purpose
nant force of the verb;
implication in the context but that
usage
is
that there
is
a distinct moral
not inherent in the verb
it is
regret one's
own
past action,
was not advantageous: Dio.
action
the domi-
itself.
The
further exhibited in the following analysis:
To
1.
show
Several passages
prevailing idea.
is
which change of purpose seems the
(3) those in
Coriol. 13;
223. Coriol. 20; 341. Cato
(a)
The
Sic. 15. 9. 4;
Maj. 9
[16];
17. 42. 6;
Plut. 219.
527. Nic. 7; 880. Cic.
Mor. 178 E; 549 C. {h) The context implies that the action was morally
wrong: Plut. 681. ^/ex. 30; Mor. 5 A, iioi D.
{a) The context implies that the past
2. To change one's purpose,
38
Polyb.
50. 6 [17];
24. 9 (25.5) [18];

Dio. Sic. 19. 75
7 [19]; Mor. 196 C.
(6) The context implies that the past action was morally wrong: Plut. 234,
action
Comp.
Alcib.
4.
Plut. 238. Timol. 6; 762. Cato Min.
cum
Coriol. 2;
235.
Comp.
Alcib.
ami
Coriol. 4;
Plut.
Mor.
55 C.
3.
To
regret another's action,
was not advantageous: Dio.
context implies that the action
V. Usage of
show
ixtrafxiXeui..
The
meaning
The
context implies that the action
102; Plut. 855.
was morally WTong:
that while the etymological
cases, this distinctive
(c)
Sic. 19.
is
Dew.
21 [20]; (b) the
Plut. 1019. Artax. 17.
instances of /xera/icAeta in this period
and
classical
meaning appears
in
some
not uniformly retained, but change of
purpose and even one instance of change of opinion appear.
Hence the
following analysis
I.
Regret of past action,
(a)
The
364
context implies that the action was
METANOEO AND METAMEAEI

not advantageous: Plut. 341. Cato Maj. 9;
action
2.
3.
was morally wrong:
Change
Change
Plut. 489.
of opinion: Plut.
Mor. 77
of purpose,
The
(a)
(6)
Cim.
17
the context implies that the
17.
D [21].
context implies that the past action
was not advantageous: Polyb. i. 39. 14; 2. 53. 6 [22]; (b) the context
implies that the past action was morally wrong: Plut. Mor. 592 B.
Mor. 125 D bis: Just as Simonides said that he never regretted

(fjierafxeXTjaai) that he had kept silent but very often that he had spoken, so we
have not regretted {fMeTeix^Xijixev) that we refused a rich dish or that we drank
[15] Plut.
water instead of Falemian.

[16] Plut. 341. Cato
Maj.
woman; another was
his
And he himself regretted (fUTafie\r}07jvai) three

One was his having intrusted a secret to a
9:
occasions of regret during his
life.
having sailed where
it
was
possible to go by land;
a third was his remaining one day without making his

[17] Polyb. 4. 50. 6:
The commander
and
will.
tried the Byzantines
whether they
might possibly change their purpose (MeraM^Xotvro) when they were terrified in
war. (The context shows that he wanted to frighten the Byzantines into stopping
the war.)
[18] Polyb. 24. 9: Those from Pharnaces are at variance in every respect,
and are not holding to the agreements but are always seeking something additional and are changing their minds (fieraneXo/x^puv).
[ig] Plut. 762. Cato Min. 7: When he thought it was time for him to
marry, .... he became engaged to Lepida, who before had been espoused to
Scipio ISIetellus; but Scipio had afterward given her up and the engagement having
been broken, she was free. But Scipio having changed his mind (/xeraMeXiyêis)
again before the marriage, and having made every arrangement, took the maiden
in marriage.
[20] Plut. 855.
honor upon
Dem.
21:
On
their counselor, they
the contrary, by conferring especial respect
showed that they did not
and
regret (fieran^Xea-eai)
what had been planned by him.

[21] Plut. Mor. 77 D: Which gives light to philosophy and clearness from
difficulty and error and change 0} views (fieraneXeiQv) which those who attempt
to philosophize at first encounter.
[22] Polyb. 2. 53. 6:
And
since the Argives zealously
accordance with their change of purpose

Sparta.
365
(fMeraneXeias),
warded him
....
off in
he returned to
CHAPTER
IV
THE HEBREW VERB

The Niphal of Dm3
Septuagint
and
fieravoio)
CHD
the only verb-stem which
is
The
iitrafxiXofuii.
verb
21123
is
,
translated by the
which
is
frequently
used to denote change of purpose, or the turning away of the heart from
evil to
tion,
good,
is
not translated by either of the Greek verbs under considera-
and hence
The
not included in this discussion.
is
etymological meaning of DHD,
more
meaning
often translated
The meanings
1.
To
n Sam.
2.
3.
Niphal
in the
Old Testament.
Hebrew ^verb DHD corresponds to that of

and not etymologically to that of /xcTavoew, we find that it is
WTiile the
(jxTafxiXofiai
appears with greater or
viz., to sigh,
less distinctness in all the instances of the
of
of the
by the
latter
DmD may be
than by the former.
tabulated as follows:
comfort oneself or to
be comforted:
Gen. 24:67;
38:12;
13:39; Jer. 31:14; Ezek. 14:22; 31:16; 32:31; Ps. 77:2 [23].
To
To
tageous:
avenge oneself
Isa.
1:24 [24]; 57:6.
regret a past action, (a) because the past action
Gen. 6:6;
because of compassion
was not advan-
Sam. 15:11 [25]; 15:35; (b)

Judg. 21:6; 21:15; II Sam. 24:16; IChron.21:
6:7;
:
15; Jer. 42:10; Ps. 90:13;
Ex. 13:17;
106:45;
(c)
because the past action
is
viewed
as morally wrong: Jer. 8:6; 31:18; Job 42:6.

4.
To
change a purpose not yet executed,
(a)
from worse
to better
because of compassion: Ex. 32:12, 14; Judg. 2:18; I Sam. 15:29 bis [26];
Joel 2:13, 14;
Amos
7:3, 6;
Jer.
4:28;
15:6; 18:8; 20:16; 26:3, 13,
Ezek. 24:14; Ps. 110:4; Jonah 3:9, 10; 4:2; Zech. 8:14;
better to worse: Jer. 18:10 [27].
19;
(6)
from
[23] Ps. 77:2:
My soul
[24] Isa. 1:24:
I will
refused to be comforted.
avenge myself of
my
enemies.
Sam. 15:11: I regret that I have appointed Saul king.

The Confidence of Israel will not lie neither
[26] I Sam. 15:29 bis:
change his purpose, for he is not a man to change his purpose.
[25] I
[27] Jer. 18; 10:
Then
I will
which I said that I would benefit
change
my
purpose
in regard to the
will
he
good with
it.
18
[366
CHAPTER V
BOOKS OF THE SEPTUAGINT
THE
CANONICAL
USAGE IN
Meravoeaj
I.
logical
Only
may
The
and
in
and
Greek hold
fxerdvoui in Septuagint
meaning,
classical
think over again, or
io
one instance does the verb mean
to regret,
shown by
instances,
is
to their
etymo-
change one's purpose.
and here the meaning
The noun
possibly be to change one's purpose.
usage, as
to
occurs but once.
as follows:
To reconsider: Prov. 24:47 [28] or under 3.

To change a purpose not yet executed: I Kings 15:29 his; Joel 2:
13, 14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jer. 4:28 [29]; 18:8; Prov. 20:19; 24:24; Jonah 3:
From better to worse: Jer. 18:10.
9, 10; 4:2; Zech. 8:14.
3. To change a purpose hitherto controlling action: Isa 46:8; Prov.
1.
2.
24:47 or under
4.
To
i;
38:19 [30] or possibly under
Jer. 8:6;
regret: a possible
meaning
4.
in Jer. 38:19.
II. McTttvoia signifies reconsideration
Prov. 14:15 [31].
Afterward
[28] Prov. 24:47:
changed
my mind
or reconsidered (nereiâ-a)-^
I gave heed to receive instruction.

[29] Jer. 4:28:
(fjxravo'^ffw)^ I
Because
and
I will not turn
Because after
[30] Jer. 38:19:

ffo),
have spoken and
have sworn and
my
I will not
from
captivity, 1
after I understood, I sighed deeply
my
purpose
purpose
{iJêv(>-n-
change
it.
changed
my
on account of the day of shame.
[31] Prov. 14:15: The simple believeth every word, but the wise cometh to
a reconsideration or different opinion (nerdyoiav).
III.
holds to
noun
In the greater number of instances, possibly in
common
its
also
meanings:
classical
meaning,
shows the meaning of
To
to regret.
instance of the
Hence the following
regret.
regret past action: I
all, fieTaixcXofiai
The one
Kings 15:35;
exhibit of
Jer. 20:16; Prov. 5:11;
25:8[32]; I Chron. 21:15; Ezek. 14:22; Zech. 11:5.

mean to regret, or possibly to change one's purpose.
sages
The
following pas-
It is
impossible to
determine which meaning was intended by the translators, as they
have
interpreted
Ps. 105:45;
all
to
mean
to
regret:
Ex. 13:17;
may
Chron. 21:15;
109:4.
IV. Mera/icAcia means regret: Hos. 11:8.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
[32] Prov. 25:8:
regret
367]
it
Do
(MeraAteXij^^j) at
not hastily go to battle, in order that you
the last
when your
19
friend puts
you
to
shame.
may
not
CHAPTER
VI
USAGE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA AND OTHER

JEWISH WRITINGS TO ABOUT loo A. D.
Alexandrian usage, including Philo and Wisdom, of ixtravoio} and
There are a few instances in Philo and Wisdom in which
I.
ixerdvoia.
and ixtTovova. indicate change oj opinion; there are

number of instances in which the meaning is to regret.
fjL^Tavoio)
also in the verb
In the large majority of instances, however, both the verb and the
noun have incorporated in them that ethical idea which in previous periods
and in some contemporary and subsequent writers is often implied in the
context.
The change of purpose which is clearly the meaning in these
instances
shown
is
merely external;
moral;
to be: (i)
(4)
conduct
is
(2)
from worse
to better;
included, but the emphasis
is
inter-
Hence the following analyses. MeTavoo> signifies

the evil purpose which has previously controlled one's
nal change.
To change
1.
conduct, involving a corresponding change of conduct: Philo

561; 569iw[34]; 614;
274 [33];
139;
bis;
not
(3)
on the
405
mean,
to
bis;
406;
436.
Philo
II. 5;
247;
Wisdom 5:3 may
283 and
I.
160;
54;
I.
77;
129;
248;
250
possibly
change one's opinion.
To
regret: Philo II. 107; 441; 590; 595. 42 [3.5]; 595- 43Meravoia signifies change of evil purpose hitherto governing conduct,
2.
involving a corresponding change of conduct
277; 569
597; 614;
ter;
411; 500; 672; 676;
noun
II. 3;
Wisdom
5 [36];
Philo
228;
I.
247;
II. 23; 12. 10; 12. 19.
80; 108; 129; 189;
405; 406 [37]; 410;

In Philo I. 260, the
change 0} opinion, but of an opinion that controls moral
signifies
action.
[33] Philo
I.
274: For we, taking care to have a grateful
toward him, should purify ourselves from

those [sins] that defile
[to say] that
it
is
it
evil acts,
in words, in appearances,
and reverent
attitude
washing away from our
and
in deeds.
For
it is
life
foolish
not lawful to enter into the temple unless one has previously
cleansed his body by washing, but that
it
is
lawful for one to attempt to pray
and to offer sacrifices with his thought still polluted and defiled
anyone endure to come near to God, the most pure, when he himself
in soul and without the intention to change his purpose (/xerawô-eij')
Shall
is
impure
in regard
to these impurities?
20
[368
[34] Philo
569
bis:
with reference to his
sins,
I.
Not
to sin at all
man
has
to
characteristic of
is
good
changed his purpose
(fjieravoeiv)
other respects also;
misery and
loss.
is
{iieravevoT^Kivai)
a lover of virtue seeks a goat
is
for as the oracle points out,
it,
it
expressed figuratively must be examined.
is
God, while
change one's pur-
to repent or to
characteristic of a wise
And
man
in
so that
such a
[36] Philo II. 5:
when he
is still
the
doing wrong.
Moreover, Caius was untrustworthy
[35] Philo II. 595:
and
who
reason who, by speaking falsely of the truth, says that he has
lost his
{iieravoetv)^
the person
but he does not find
But what
has already been burnt.
pose from evil
And
21
AND METAMEAEI
METANOEfi
if
he rendered any
way sought
One ought
to
make
of
it
in his character in
he at once regretted
service,
no avail as
to
it
add greater
not to be ignorant of the fact that change of
purpose (furdvoia) holds the second place to perfection, just as a change from
second to a body always free from disease.
illness to health is
Therefore the
continuous and perfect in virtue stands nearest to divine power; while improve-
ment
some time
after
is
a characteristic good of a naturally excellent soul which
does not continue in childish things but by thoughts more mature and really
manly,
it
seeks a peaceful stability of soul and strives for
it
with a vision of the
things that are excellent.
Remark.
(c)
The change of purpose here
not merely external;
(d)
may
conduct
is (a)
moral;
(b)
from worse to better;
be included but the emphasis
is
on
the internal change.

[37] Philo II. 406:
change
of
purpose
from discord
sively great
to a
And
(fieTdvoiav)
he has prepared also very excellent directions for
by which we are taught
change for the
to alter
For he says that
better.
nor far out of reach, being neither
this
our way of
work
in the highest air
nor
is
living,
not exces-
in the
lowest
making it impossible to attain it; but it is the nearest

possible, being in the three members which dwell within us, viz., in the mouth,
in the heart, and in the hands by symbols, that is, in words and purposes and
deeds; the mouth being the symbol of speech, the heart of purpose, and the
hands of deeds in which happiness is possible. For when the mind accords with
the words and the actions with the purposes, then life is praiseworthy and perfect.
But when these are at variance with one another, life is imperfect and blamable.
.... For which reason this oracle was given with great propriety and in per"Thou hast this day chosen the
fect accordance with what has been said above.
Lord to be thy God and the Lord has this day chosen thee to be his people."
It is a very beautiful exchange and recompense for this choice on the part of man,
thus displaying anxiety to serve God, when God thus without delay takes the
suppliant to himself as his own, and goes forth to meet the intentions of the
man who in a genuine and sincere spirit of piety and truth hastens to do him
parts of the great sea, thereby
service.
Merivoia means
Remark.^
change
is
(a)
moral;
(b)
change of purpose.
from worse
to
369
better;
The
(c)
context shows that this
internal;
(d) necessari^J^
22
accompanied by change of conduct, for 'the conduct follows the giving due honor
to God as a shadow follows a body in the sun,' and the genuine spirit of piety
expresses
itself in
God.
service to
Palestinian usage of /xcravoeo) and fierdvoia.
II.
and
instances, /xeravoeo)
and change
are used to indicate regret
To change
one's purpose,
The
(b)
10. 4. 2;
(a)
6.
4.
10;
26;
I.
5.
War
8. 12. 3; 8. 13. 8;
Meravota
6.
12. 6.
4;
7.
was regarded
5.
(a)
under
10. 7. 5 or
i;
Lije 4.
2;
as morally wrong:
9; 7. 7. 3; 7. 13. i; 9. 8. 3;
2.
The
24; 48. 15 [38].
context implies that
Jos. Ant. 2. 15. i; 4. 8. 3;
not regarded as advantageous.
the context implies that
(b)
Jos. Ant. 6. 13. 6 [39];
it
was
7. 11. 2;
5. 7. 3;
it
was
Life 23.
11. 8. 3;
signifies:
Change
2. 3. i;
of
purpose:
War
Jos.
4. 6. 10;
3. I. 5 [40];
9.
5.
wrong: Jos. Ant.
2. 6. 4;
2. 6. 9;
4. 8. 2;
F5.
2;
.<4p.
Lije 66;
29;
was considered morally
it
5. 2.
i.
Sir. 44. 16.
II. 5. 5;
9. 8. 5;
Regret for antecedent action, because
2.
usage, but
the following
context implies that past action
4. 3. 14; Sir. 17.
regret antecedent action,
regarded as morally wrong.
A/.
The
Jos. Ant. 2. 15. 3 bis;
10. 7. 5; Life 22;
To
1.
Hence
of purpose.
context implies that past action
Jos. Ant. 2. 14. 5;
2.
the Palestinian
classical
Meravoe'co signifies:
analyses.
1.
In
do not follow the
fierdvoLa
12 [41];
7. 2. 2.
48. 15: During all these events, the people did not change
purpose (fierei'driae), and did not withdraw from their sins.
[38] Sir.
[39] Jos. Ant.
And he
6. 13. 6:
will not regret
(fJieravoTfia-ei)
their
that he has given to
David.
[40] Jos. Ant. 3.
tion to stone
I.
5:
He calmed them and
him and turned them
to the things they
were about
[41] Jos. Ant. 5. 2. 12:
to
restrained
them from
a change of purpose
their intenin
regard
them
for the
{^Lerdvoiav)
to do.
And
regret (M-^dmia) took possession of
misfortune of the Benjaminites.
Alexandrian
III.
and
/Mera/ieXeta.
and Palestinian usage
Mcra/ieAei
of
occuTS only in Jos.
/xeTa/u,cXci,
War
1.
15.
fitTafxiXofiai
i
[42],
and
signifies regret.
The
To
instances of fxtTafxikofuu exhibit the following meanings
regret past action.
advantageous.
7. 4.
and Wis.
The
Sir. 30. 28;

19. 2, the
context implies that
35. 19 [43];
verb
may
indicate either
one's purpose.
370
it
was not regarded
I Mace. 11:10.
In Jos. Ant.
to regret
or
to
as
6.
change
METANOEO AND METAME.VEI
consideration of the passages containing fxera/xiKeia shows that
it
War
4.
signifies regret:
3.
14.
23
Philo
66 [44];
II.
Exceptional usage:
248;
Ps. of Sol.
In Philo II. 669
bis,
the
9.
Jos.
15;
noun
clearly
means
change 0} purpose.
[42] Jos.
War
I.
[43] Sir. 35. 19:
do not
regret
Because he had heard that Malchus regretted (nera.
15. i:
Herod.
n4\eiv) his offenses against
Do
nothing without advice, and when you have done
it,
it (fMerafiiXov).
[44] Philo II. 66:
And
the eldest of the brothers
opposed the plot of those who were devising
it
who even
said,
are useless in reference to the deeds which have been done."
371
at the
"Regrets
first
had
{fjxran^Xeiai)
CHAPTER VII
NEW TESTAMENT USAGE
Meravot'o).
I.
verb
(i) the
is
An
examination of the instances of fxtravoiw shows that
always used of a change of purpose which the context clearly
indicates to be moral;
is
or regret;
(4)
merely; (5)
is
(2) this
change
from
is
good purpose;
evil to
(3)
it
never identified with, and sometimes clearly distinguished from sorrow

never used when the reference
is
it
always internal, and while
it is
sometimes distinguished from the
sized;
(6) in
controlled
and
itself
some
all
instances,
all its
expressions,
and
may
so
and
its
conduct
internal nature
it
empha-
and
actions, in short, the life
be called a change of fundamental
some
(7) in
relates to the life as a whole,
change of purpose
change of opinion
to
is
results in external
a change of the purpose which has hitherto
thoughts, desires, volitions,
purpose or primary choice;
which
it is
latter
it
change
instances, the
is
but to special expressions of
in regard to special sins or deficiencies, or
not one
it;
it is
an atomistic
change.
The usage may be

1.
To change
represented by the following analysis:
one's fundamental purpose, involving as a necessary con-
sequent a change in one's
Mark
41;
life:
16:30; Acts 2:38; 3:19;

2.
Luke
To
Matt. 3:2; 4:17 [45];
Luke 10:13;
6:12;
1:15;
17:30;
change one's purpose
17:3;
17:4;
11:32;
26:20;
11:20;
13:3,
5;
11:21;
12:
15:7 [46], 10;
Rev. 2:5 6w.
in regard to special sins or deficiencies:
Acts 8:22 [47];
II Cor. 12:21;
Rev. 2:16;
2:21. bis;
2:22; 3:3; 3:19; 9:20; 9:21; 16:9; 16:11.

II. Meravoia.
The instances of /xeravota reveal a meaning analogous
to that of the verb,

1.
Change
of
and may be expressed by the following
analysis:
primary choice, involving, as a consequence, a change
in
Matt. 3:8; 3:11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; 3:8 [48]; 5:32; 15:7;
24:47; Acts5:3i; 11:18; 13:24; 19:4; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; II Cor.
life:
7:10
2.
[49];
Heb. 6:1; 6:6; 12:17; H Pet. 3:9; II Tim. 2:25.

of purpose toward special sins, i. e., volitional abandonment
Change
of them:
II Cor. 7:9.
[45] Matt. 4:17: Repent, change your fundamental purpose
the kingdom of heaven is here.
[46]
Luke
15:7:
I say unto
one sinner who repents,
i.
e.,
you that thus there
will
changes his primary choice
24
be joy
(fieTavoeTre), for
in
heaven over
{neravooxivri).
372

[47] Acts 8:22:
from
Therefore repent
may be
of,
turn thy will
e.,
i.
and pray the Lord
this thy wickedness,
25
if
away
{neravbuffov)
perhaps the thought of thy heart
forgiven thee.
Remark.
The
use
of
with
iieravoib)
airb
indicates a change
purpose \
of
hitherto controUing action.
Luke
[48]
change
oj
3:8:
Produce, therefore, fruits appropriate to repentance,
fundamental purpose
i.e.,
(fieravolas).
Remark. This example indicates that

outward conduct or reform of life, since this
does not
fj-erdvoia
is
include
strictly
here referred to as the product
of nerdvoia.
[49] II Cor. 7:10:
ance,
e.,
i.
For sorrow which
is
acceptable to
God
produces repent-
a change oj primary choice (nerdvoiav) not to be regretted which results
in salvation.
Remark.
This
fjLerdvoia,
but that
furdvoia,
when
it
it
9,
produces the
It also
latter.
becomes executive,
III. MeTafieXofxai.
The
Matt. 21:30, 32;
follows:
32,
it is
a/jieTafjiikrjTov in
Xi^^/ is
not inherent in
illustrates that
instances of this verb shov^^ that
27:3;
Rom.
fundamental
results in ffurifpLa.
etymological and classical meaning,
the form
shows that
passage, including vs.
Its
viz., to regret.
II Cor. 7:8 bis [50];
11:29;
H Cor.
10.
it
retains
its
occurrences are as
Heb. 7:21; and
In Matt. 21 30 and
quite possible that the verb has the exceptional
meaning
to
change
letter, I
do not
one's purpose.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
[50] II Cor. 7:8 bis:
regret
now
it
{/jxTa/xfXofjLai.),
and
Even
if
if
I caused
was on
you sadness by
the point
rejoice.
373
of
my
regretting
it
(nerne\6ij.r}v),
CHAPTER
VIII
CONCLUSION
Extent
I.
which
to
different periods.
The
the distinction of the two verbs is maintained in
the usage of furavoew
investigation of
and
fxtra-
has shown that the distinction between these two verbs with their
fieXet
shown by
cognates, as
their etymology,
is
maintained
to
the
following
extent:
The
authors in the classical period
mean,
tinction, using /LtcTavoco) to
and
/icTa/neXci, to
make a uniform and
definite dis-
think afterward, or to think differently, y
to
cause regret.
In the non-Jewish post-Aristotelian writers, this distinction
McTavocw and
always maintained.
of purpose
and
meaning.
sical
fteravoia are
McrafiiXei holds to
also regret.
MeTa/AcXo/tat in
is
not
used to indicate change
its
etymological and clas-
the majority of cases indicates regret,
but in a number of instances expresses change of purpose. It should be

noted, however, that of the latter, only two instances are antecedent to the
greater part of the
New Testament
change
and
of purpose,
in
writings.
one case change
books of the Septuagint, both
/AeTavoa>
and
McTa/xeXcia indicates regret,

of opinion.
In the canonical
/xcravoia follow the classical
usage; likewise fj-eraixekofmi and /xcTa/icAcia.
The Alexandrian
usage, including Philo and Wisdom, does not main-
Though
tain the distinction steadfastly.

fi6Tavoui to indicate
and
fiiXofiai
and
regret
in
fxeravoiw
of purpose,
fxerafxiXeLa to indicate regret, these writers
mean
/ACTavocw to
and
and fterasometimes employ
generally using
change of opinion and change
a few cases use fxerafieXeLa to indicate
change of purpose.
The
and
its
Palestinian writers disregard the distinction in the use of fieravoeto
cognates, but preserve
The New Testament

/u.eTavoo)
and
fjLtTavoia to
express regret.
to
in fierafxeXei
and
its
indicate change of purpose
is
(itTavoeto
to
generic choice.
and
and
fxerafxeXofiai to
fierdvoLa in
/xera/tcAo/xai
possible.
Transition under fjuravoew from intellectual
II.
specific
cognates.
In two passages, the exceptional meaning of
change one^s purpose
I.
it
writers maintain the distinction in that they use
There
is
to
volitional
and from
a development in the meaning of
two directions:
Transition from the intellectual to the volitional sense.
In the classical writers, the verb
fieravoca)
26
means
to
consider afterward,
[374
^-^,

or
to
noun
content.
its
In
/xeravoia
thought and
on the
Here the
feeling.
longer consideration
is
purely intellectual in
is
we have two meanings: (i) reconsideration, which

purely intellectual, and (2) a change of mind which involves a change of
the
is
change one's opinion and
27
make
facts as they are held in the attention for
their impress
on the
sensibility,
but the emphasis
intellectual action.
In the non-Jewish post-Aristotelian writers, the emphasis has passed
from the
The
emotional and volitional.
intellectual to the
past action
having been thought of again and thought of differently appears disadvantageous or morally wrong and produces either regret or change of
The
purpose.
and the
intellectual action psychologically antecedent
resultant feeling or willing
is
is
passed over
the point emphasized in this period.
In the canonical books of the Septuagint, there are cases in which the
content shows that the verb

cases, the content
shows
it
is
to
purely intellectual;
but in the majority of
be volitional.
In Alexandrian writers, there are a very few instances in which the term
is
but there are a number
intellectual in its content;
of the feelings
is
in
which the action
emphasized, and by far the greatest number of instances
refer to the action of the will.
In Palestinian writers, there
no instance of the
is
intellectual simply;
but there are abundant instances of both the emotional and volitional action.
The New Testament
writers in no instance
employ the term
to express
the action solely of either the intellect or of the sensibility, but use
sively to indicate the action of the will.
2.
-)^
it
exclu-
^yan^
Transition from specific to generic choice.
As
stated in the preceding topic /xeravotw
trolled action
changed.
is
The
term
in
hitherto 'conis
action from which the will has turned consists of specific
deeds, or the will addresses
reference to both.
is
volitional
changed or the purpose which has not yet been executed

itself to
inhibiting certain impulses.
thought of as made up of impulses and
which
becomes a
The purpose which has
non-Jewish post- Aristotelian Greek.
The term
so radical in
acts during the whole
its
is
acts,
and
fitravoito is
Life
used
is
in
not used to express a change of choice
nature as to
aflfect all
the purposes, impulses, and
life.
In the canonical books of the Septuagint, the term
is
used of
specific
acts or courses of action.
The Palestinian writers use /iTavo<i) in reference to specific acts.

The Alexandrian writers differ in their use.
In Wisdom, fif.Ta.voiu>
refers to specific acts.
choice.
In Philo,
The motive power
of life
/icTavoeo) refers to
and
375
all its
change of primary
expressions are changed.
28
The New Testament
use
wTiters
with
fxeravoiio
The incoming
III.
element
found
is
oj moral sense.
in the classical
The
both to
reference
and generic choice, but prevailingly with reference
specific
to the latter.
earliest intimation of the
period in the case of
/xeravota,
moral
where the
change of mind follows the discovery that the antecedent action was morally
wrong (Thuc. 3. 36. 4). This is, however, a moral implication of the
context and
writers
is
is
not inherent in the term
not volitional.
which throughout the
itself,
classical
So, too, in the case of /icTajneXet, the context
and conduct due
implies a change of purpose
to the fact that the ante-
cedent action was morally wrong.
Greek,
In non-Jewish post-Aristotelian
/ic'Ao/iat,
the change of purpose
in
to the realization that the antecedent action
due
both /Aeravoew and
/lera-
sometimes shown by the context
is
to
be
The
was morally wrong.
verbs are both used also without any moral suggestion.
The
writers of the canonical books of the Septuagint use a modifying
The term has no
phrase to indicate that from which the will has turned.
moral significance; the action mentioned

Josephus and Sirach often employ
to
it
The term
moral significance.
change of
evil
not always wrong.
is
/xeravoca)
where the context imparts
without modifying phrase indicates a
purpose which has hitherto controlled action.
He
however, does not use the term exclusively in this sense.

it
Josephus,
often employs
with modifying phrase where the context indicates that expediency rather
than moral considerations occasioned the change of purpose.

In Philo and Wisdom,
ing phrase to
action, the
is
mean
term
ficravoeoi
and
used without modify-
ixerdvoia are
a change of evil purpose which has hitherto controlled
itself
conveying moral significance.
Mcravoew, however,
often used to signify regret.
In the
moral
New
Testament,
signification,
IV. Specific character 0}
and
/LteTcivoux
in the
these vnritings.
There
is
New
specific
fieTavoia are
Testament usage.
Testament
used always with
but more often of generic choice.
The
use of
exhibits characteristics
these words are
/itTavoeio
peculiar to
never used to indicate merely
Second, they are never used to indicate emotional
intellectual action.
action.
New
First,
and
fxtravoiio
sometimes of
no evidence in the use
the antecedent of the change of purpose,

the act or expressed
by the verb as a part
oj the verb that
of
its
noun, however, shows that sorrow for past sin

but not an element of the act of repentance
used to express volitional action.

the change of purpose
is
less that
still
is
sorrow
it is
meaning.
itself.
376
evil to
even
The
use of the
involved as antecedent to,
Third, they are always
Fourth, they are always moral.
always from
is
an element of
good.
Fifth,
Sixth, they always
METANOEfl
life
as a necessary consequent:
not expressed in the term
29
Seventh, they require change in the outward
express internal change.

expressions of
AND METAMEAEI
but such outward change
is
Eighth, they are both specific and generic,
itself.
the fullest content being found in the generic use, which expresses that
radical change in the primary choice
away from
/tcAo/iai
is
evil
to
good.
which denotes
accepted for
change refers
Ninth,
Or
regret.
ixcTa/xiXoixai
to specific
in
and not
by which the whole soul
//.cTavocto
if
the
is
is
distinguished from
meaning
of
turned
/x-era-
change of purpose
the exceptional cases mentioned, such

to generic choice.
377
A LEXICOGRAPHICAL AND
TORICAL STUDY OF
AIABHKH
HIS-
The Department
of Biblical
and
Patristic Greek, of
The University
of Chicago, proposes to issue, from time to time, Historical
guistic Studies in Literature Related to the
Studies will be grouped in three series:
Exegetical Studies; III, Historical

series will
be issued
in parts
I,
New
and LinThese
Testament.
Texts; II, Linguistic and
Studies.
from time to time.
The volumes
in
each
A LEXICOGRAPHICAL AND
HISTORICAL STUDY OF
AIABHKH
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE END OF
THE CLASSICAL PERIOD
BY
FREDERICK OWEN NORTON,
Ph.D.
CHICAGO
^be
mnivetsitis ot dbicago press

1908
Copyright 1908 By
of Chicago
The Univbrsity
Published July 1908
The
University of Chicago Press
Chicago,
Illinois,
U. S. A.
PREFACE
The term
of special interest from two standpoints

that
Greek law, and that of the student of the New
Testament. Writers on Greek law have discussed the Greek will with
varying degrees of completeness, but have failed to notice and account
for the fact that the word used to designate it was also used to designate what might be called a solemn agreement or compact.
Scholars
have long been divided as to the meaning of this word in the New
8i.aOi^Kr] is
of the student of
Testament, some claiming that
should invariably be translated "will "
it
or "testament," and others that
always means "covenant;" while a

some instances it should be rendered
"covenant." With reference to a passage in
it
third class of writers claim that in
"will" and
in
others
Paul's writings (Gal. 3:15) there
a threefold division
is
among
inter-
preters.'
As no
work has been done on this word

and the need of such work
has been recognized by scholars, no apology is needed for the present
dissertation, the purpose of which is to investigate the use of the term
in Greek literature, from the earliest times in which it can be found, or
in which there are traces of an institution that later came to be designated by it, through the classical period. As the primary object in
undertaking this work was to make a contribution to New Testament
study, it is hoped that it may form a basis for further investigation in
special lexicographical
either in classical or in Hellenistic Greek,
Hellenistic literature.
In the lexicographical study the year 300 b. c. has been arbitrarily

chosen as a limit to the investigation, the aim being simply to carry it
well
through the
of demarkation
classical period.
is
In the historical study no sharp line
observed; but only in a few instances, for obvious
reasons, has the ordinary imaginary boundary-line been overstepped.
In the course of the lexicographical study
English term carries with

its
it
it
was found that no
the exact connotation of
SLadrjKr],
and
that
technical use in Greek law did not correspond with accuracy to our
terms "will" and "testament."
Accordingly, in order to bring out
its
'"Testament:" The Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, Olshausen, etc.; "covenant"

Flatt, Hilgenfeld, Meyer, Lightfoot, etc.; "Determination" or "ordainment" {Bestimmung, Willensfugung): Matthias, Lipsius, Hoffmann,
{Bund): Jerome, Beza, Calvin,
Schott, etc.
383]
u^
essential signification
and the
relation of
its
phases of development,
it
was necessary to investigate the origin and development and essential

character of the institution which it was chiefly used to designate.
From
this necessity arose the
of which
is
second part of the dissertation, the aim
not to give an exhaustive treatment of the Greek
to discuss that institution only in so far as
it is
will,
but
necessary in order to
understand the term from a lexicographical standpoint, and to show
its
essential connotation.
The
sources for this investigation are specifically indicated by the
usual abbreviations, in the notes, which contain
modern
writings which
comparison.
To
and
need
have found helpful
subjoin a
books and
of
also
way
references to
of suggestion or
articles consulted.
Professor Ernest D. Burton, head of the Department of Biblical
Patristic
Greek
in
The University
of this investigation,
tion I
list
in the
am
and
indebted more than
to
I
of Chicago,
whose
can
abiding gratitude.
384
tell, I
who suggested
the
and inspiring instrucwish to express my deep and
faithful
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Bibliography
PART
Chapter
Chapter
I.
II.
1.
THE LEXICOGRAPHICAL STUDY
Derivation and Literal Meaning
....
....
Chronological Concordance; to which
is
appended a
chronological catalogue of authors in whose extant

writings the term does not occur
Chapter
Chapter
AuLTiOrjfiL
25
IV.
Amiî/kt?
30
PART
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
385]
14
III.
II.
THE HISTORICAL STUDY: THE GREEK WILL
V.
Origin and Development
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
Fundamental Character
Making and Safe-keeping
Codicils, Modification, Revocation
39
56
60
Limitation by the Existence of Sons
63
66
Relation to Adoption
69
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Annuaire de I'association pour I'encouragement des Etudes grecques. Paris, 1868-87.
Barilleau, Des sources de droit grec. Paris, 1883.

Beauchet, Histoire du droit privd de la rdpublique athdnienne; 3 vols. Paris, 1897.
Becker, Charikles. Berlin, 1877.
BoECKH, Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum. Berlin, 1828-77.
Bonner, Evidence in Athenian Courts. Chicago, 1905.
Bruns, Die Testamente der griechischen Philosophen. In Zeitzschrift der SavignyStiftung fUr Rechtsgeschichte, Vol.
Bruns UND Sachau, Ein
I,
Romanistische Abtheilung,
dem
syrisch-romisches Rechtsbuch aus
I,
pp. 1-53.
fiinften Jahrhundert.
Leipzig, 1880.
Bucherler UND Zitelmann, Das Recht von Gortyn.

BuNSEN, De iure hereditario Atheniensium. Gottingen,
Frankfurt
am
Main, 1885.
1813.
Bury, A History of Greece, to the Death of Alexander the Great. London, 1890.
Caillemer, Le droit de tester. In Annuaire des Etudes grecques, 1870.
Cauer, Dilectus inscriptionum Graecarum. Leipzig, 1883.
Conrat, Das Erbrecht im Galaterbrief. In Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft, Vol. V, 1904.
Dareste, Les plaidoyers
civiles
de Demosth≠ 2
Nouvelles dtudes d'histoire du droit.
vols.
Paris, 1875.
Paris, 1902.
Dareste, Haussoulier and Reinach, Recueil des
inscriptions juridiques.
Paris,
1891-94 kUG.).
Dittenberger, Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum. Leipzig, 1883-1901.

FouCART, Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs. Paris, 1873.
FusTEL DE Coulanges, La cit^ antique: Paris, 1890.
Nouvelles recherches sur quelques probl^mes d'histoire.
Paris, 1891.
Gans, Das Erbrecht in weltgeschichtlicher Entwickelung; 3 vols. Berlin, 1824.

GiDE, Etude sur la condition privê de la femme. Paris, 1885.
Goligher, Isaeus and Attic Law. In Hermathena, No. XXXII, Dublin, 1906.
Grote, History of Greece; 12 vols.
Gitiraud, La propri^td fonci^re en Grfece jusqu' a
Du
droit de succession chez les
pp. 97
Hatch,
la conqufete romaine.
Studies in Biblical Greek.
Oxford, 1889.
in iure Attico.
Amstelod, 1898.
1870.
institutions sociales et le droit civil a Sparte.
The Attic Orators from Antiphon to

Kennedy, The Orations of Demosthenes;
Kenyon, Hypereides. London, 1893.
Isaeus.
5 vols.
Paris, 1880.
London, 1893.
London, 1863.
London, 1892.
Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens.
LiGHTFOOT, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Gaiatians. London,
LOBECK, Aglaophamus; 2 vols. Konigsberg, 1829.
387]
XVI,
Beitrage zur Geschichte des griechischen und romischen Rechts. Vienna,
Jannet, Les
Jebb,
Paris, 1893.
In Revue de legislation, Vol.
ff.
HiLLE, De testamentis
HoFMANN,
Athdniens.
1890.
10
London, 1891.
Maine, Ancient Law.
Meier and Schomann, Der
attische Process;
new edition by
Berlin, 1883-
Lipsius.
87.
Merriam, Law Code
of
Cretan Gortyna.
In American Journal of Archaeology,
1885, 1886.
Meyer,
Kritisch-exegetischer
die Galater;
new
Kommentar Uber das Neue Testament: Der
edition by Sieffert.
Brief an
Gottingen, 1899.
Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den ostlichen Provinzen des romischen

Leipzig, 1891.
Kaiserreichs.
MoY,
ifctude sur les
Perrot, Essais
public.
plaidoyers d'lsê.
Paris, 1876.
sur le droit public et priv^ de la r^publique ath^nienne:
Le
droit
Paris, 1867,
L'^loquence politique
et judiciaire
k Athfenes.
Paris, 1873.
Platner, Der Process und die Klagen bei den Attikern. Darmstadt, 1824, 1825.
Ramsay, An Historical Commentary on Galatians. New York, 1900.
Ridder, L'idê de la mort en GrSce a I'^poque classique. Paris, 1897.
Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece. Cambridge, 1901.
Roberts, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Cambridge, 1887.
RoBiou, Questions de droit attique politique, administratif et priv^. Paris, 1880.
Roeder, Beitrage zurErklarung und Kritik des Isaios. Jena, 1880.
ROSENMULLER, Dissertatio de vocabulo diad'^K-rj in Commentationes Theologicae,
Vol.
Sandys,
II.
Leipzig, 1795.
Aristotle's Constitution of Athens.
Sandys and Paley,
London, 1893.
Demosthenes
Select Private Orations of
Cambridge,
2 vols.
1896.
Schmiedel, article "Galatea" in Encyclopaedia Biblica. New York,

Schneider, De iure hereditario Atheniensium. Munich, 1851.
Schomann, Isei Orationes xi. Greifswald, 1831.

SCHULIN, Das griechische Testament verglichen mit dem romischen.
Seifert,
De
iure hereditario
Telfy, Corpus
Atheniensum.
juris attici.
Freiburg
Vincent, Word Studies
i.
der griechischen Antiquitaten;
B., 1895.
in the
Basel, 1882.
Greifswald, 1842.
Pesth, 1868.
Thalheim in Hermann, Lehrbuch

thiimer.
1901.
New
Testament.
New
York, 1900.
Wyse, The Speeches of Isaeus. Cambridge, 1904.

ZiEBARTH, article biad-fjKi) in Pauly's Real-Encyclopadie.
388
1903.
II, l:
Rechtsalter-
PART
THE LEXICOGRAPHICAL STUDY

CHAPTER
DERIVATION AND LITERAL MEANING

The noun
BiadajKr) is
derived from the verb
posed of the preposition
Sid
from the root
8v,
Sid is
comp.), /wo;
801-7;,
Si's
doubt;
for
or
8/ri's
8L-)(9a,
8L-)(a,
StaTidrjfiL,
and the verb TidrffMi.

whence also come
Sm's,
8vw,
8vo,
is
8ol-ol,
com-
8l-
(in
twice; 8ev-Tpo<; for SÊ-repos, second;
two;
in
which
St-aaos, double;
8i-Tr\oo<;,
twofold;
Svco-ScKa, Sw-Sexa.
Skt. d?^,
dui-tyas,
^z'/- (in
"second."
comp.), "two;" dvis "twice;"

Zd. dva,
bi-,
^t'a-y<f J,
"twofold;"
two; bi-tya, "second."
Umbr. du-r, "two."

Lat. duo, bi- (for dvi^, bis (for duis),dis-, bi-ni.
The fundamental idea is that of duality. That this is retained in
composition may be seen from a comparison of the following meanings:
to the
1. From one side or end to the other, through, as in Sia/?atvo),end, utterly, as in 8ui.fidxofmi, SuK^dupm, etc.,
nence, as in
2.
In two, asunder, at variance, as
3.
One with
position;
rule;
used with
de-
whence
a proposition ;
dea/xo^,
root of
Bifui,
Bip.i<i,
hired laborer,
Tid-qyn
law
d-qKr),
is
in
8va.ipitii, 8ui<f>u)vto),
8ia<f>pw,
etc.
established
8idyjivuQ<i, Sia;(X<i)pos, etc.
also
come
something
by custom;
êVts,
set
way, condition;" dhd-tr
a placing, deposit,
down
OefiiXiov,
a place for putting anything
Skt. dhd, da-dha-mi, "place, lay,

law,
denote pre-emi-
Ttvt').
Between, in part, as in StoXevKos,
The
to
another, of simple mutual relation, as in Siaycovtô/xat,
StaeiSo), 8(a<îXori/xo/Liai (all
4.
and so
8unrpTr<j), 8La<f>p<D, etc.
in,
or established, a
foundation;
617s,
box, tomb, sheath;
do;" dhd-man, "dwelling-place,
"creator;" dhd-tus,
"stuff."
Zd. da,
"place, make, produce;" dd-tam, "creature;" dd-mi, "creation."
Lat.
facio.
The
radical
meaning
is
to put, place, set;
into a place, or situation, bring about, cause.
389]
11
hence to bring a thing
12
With the
cation of
of Sta;
radical sense of
huhOrjKrj
a going from one side or
Hdt.
the other side,

3.
the literal signifi-
8ia in raind,
e. g.:
Bidfiaa-i'i,
2.
and
TiOrj/xi
can best be seen from a comparison of other compounds
end
to the other, a crossing over to
i86; a ford, Thuc.
i.
7.
74; a bridge, Xen. Anab.
10.
throwing from one
8i.a(36\Tj,
quarrel with someone,
a quarrel between;
ifik
Hdt.
to another, slander,
479 B;
7rpo$ rtva 8., Plut.
17
koL 'Ayddiova, Plat. Sym/>.
66. 73; a
3.
make
Sia/SaAAw, to
cf.
222 C, D;
8.
dAAi;Xois,
Arist. Pol. 5. XI. 8.

ScayyeXos, a
between;
messenger, a go-between, Thuc.
j<?<:r<?/
<f>wvrj^ kol <rLyr}<s,
S.
from
a distinguishing one thing
Stayi/ojo-ts,
StaSsKTwp one
who
Arist. Cael. 2. 9.
diagnosis,
party in a lawsuit, Jo. Chrys.; cf.

SiaSiKovvres, the contending parties, Plut.
ot
Xen.
196 B;
2.
4.
223.
Cy?'. 8. 3.
13.
contend at
StaStKew, to
StaSixos, (?^
law, and
Hipp. 901.
an inheritor, Maneth.
receives from another,
a binding together or around, band, fillet,
SidSrjixa,
73.
7.
another, a distinguishing
SiaStKacr/xds,
a lawsuit.
StaSoKis, a
cross-beam, Hesych.
8ia8oo-t5,
giving from one
2l
succession,
from
a taking
8ta8o;(?;,
aWos
aWov, Aesch.
Trap'
Thuc.
a ^/>^//^,
8taô>/xa,
2l
^ Kara
in order,
tottov
Koi Tovvofxa StjKoI

Tctas, Plat.
I.
ri
^ Kara
8wa/i,ti/
Staêcris,
Laws 922
B;
7. 2.
Lys.,
tt/jos
Plat.
Ti/x-wvtSiyv
hia.riQy\p.i
17
Dem.
Xen. C^-
/%6'<r.
50. i;
^7-
^- 4-
13.
cf. 8taTtî;/x,i.
cf.
^v
;
to another,
Siaêo-ts Aeyerai tov )(ovto^ H-^PV
Kar' etSos
twi/ levt'wv,
= 8ia^?^K77,
cf.
44. 37.
vews,
dicriv
yap
Set
riva eivat, oifnrtp
Aristot. Metaph. 4. 19, p. 1022;
d/xeX7^crat/i,ev,
24;
53;
5.
arrangement,
by will, testament
^(?/.
313;
r(?/aj',
an isthmus, Plut.
6;
Emp.
TOV TCTeXevTi^Koros
Tretcrêts;
A gam.
8.
putting together, placing one thing with reference
and so a placing
Ttt^ts,
Dem.
placing together in a certain order, arrangement of the
Sta^/m, a
stars in one's birth, Sext.

8ta^(7ts,
another, largess,
to
another, of a trierarch;
Tira. 27
8.
t^s ttoXi-
A; transmitting oi property
Laws 922
B;
ttojs
S'av t^s Staêo-ews
BuOcto ov Tra/aavowv ovSc ywaixi
c/cetvos
transferring by sale, Isoc. 224 B, Plut^
also 8iaîy77
= Taîs,
Aristot. Metaph.
I.
48;
2.
SuiOeTr]'i,
an arranger,
collector,
Damasc.
ap.
Suid.,
Hdt.
7.
6; cf.
SlUTt^T^/At.
8iatpo-ts,
division; iv Siapeo-et
ij/rjfjiwv,
StoKovos,
in the reckoning of the votes
Eu?n. 749.
a messenger, Aesch. Prom. 942.
either side, Aesch.
390
<?
13
A STUDY OF AIAGHKH
8idKpLcn<;, decisio/i,
eyes,
Xen. Venai.
iudgment,
Plat.
Laws 765
the space defween the
4. i.
StoAeKTos, discourse, co7iversation. Plat.
Plat. Kep.
A.;
Symp. 203 A;
debate,
argument.
454 A.
dialogue, Plat. ^^///. 293
SifliAoyos,
SiaAAay?;,
E;
zV/.
/'r^/.
commerce; ws StaAAayas
exchange,
335 D.
l;(ot/xev
WvotTo y^, Eur. ^//. 209; reconciliation, truce, Hdt.

8iaAXay/Lux, a substitute, Eur. /^(f/. 586.
a loosing
SiaXvo-is,
from
another,
divorce,
i.
Plut.
oAAt/Xoio-iv
wv
22.
S//.
35;
treaty,
Aristot. Fol. 4. 14. 3.

adv.,
SieivSixa,
opinions, II.
two ways;
hiavhLya
Zr<?<r.
Ujiap.o<i,
29; a
on two
StfioXca, a
fXixrjp(.t,(.Lv,
halt between
to
two
189.
a double pipe, channel,
St'auXos,
flow, Eur-.
i.
strait,
legs,
Eur.
or course, Pind.
6>.
7>-^.
435.
Eur. Rhes. 215.
double-edged lance, Aristoph. Tva^. 401.
391
13. 50;
^<^<^
and
CHAPTER
II
CHRONOLOGICAL CONCORDANCE
Aristophanes'
427.
Ota9llKT|.
5S4: kuv
Vesp.
d7ro^vr;cr/<wv
iraTrjp
tw 8w
KaraAeiTrojv TratS'
iTrLKXrjpov, /cAaetv Ty/xets fxuxpa rrjv KecjiaXrjv etTrovres
OiawT^KTIV.
Av. 440:
htdOoivrai y' oiSe
17V /M^
tJ^
o.
r>}s 8' iiriKXi^pov ttjv 8. d8wcer9 dvaco'y;(uAiaâ)v.
589:
Iês/>.
8. e/Aot
T17
yuvaoct Sie'êro,
rdXavra dpyvpt'ou
7ra/9acaTa07;KT;v.
^VTrep 6 Trtîyxos
400. Lysias^
Oia0T)KT)V.
32. 5:
5ia6l]Kai.
ig. 39:
8.
avTw
8t8(oo-t Kai Trevre
yap Kovwvos ^dvaros Kai
aurov
TC^vewros
19. 3:
SiWero iv KvTrpw.
ISOCRATES^
394.
Oia6T)KT|V.
al 8., as
irupaTai
Trjv T 8.
....
aKvpov
TroirjdaL.
6 Trarrjp tov /caTaXiTrdvTOS
15
6 T^v
47
TOV
SiaBl^KaiS.
/dlW.
34:
44:
50:
8,
Tr)v 8. KaraAtTTOvTa.
19. i: Tats 8. als CKCtvos KaTeAtTTCv.
Oia6l]KaS 19. 12: vtov

/(^^</.
t^v
KaraAtTTciv,
8.
KaTo.
Tas
/u,'
iiroLrjauTO ....
yap tovtov (tov
ouK
/Acv 8.
Tas Twv
8. Trap'
Tas
fioi
Aa/8c Tots 8.
8.
auTot Trpoco/AoAoyoSo'i paauAoôv KaTaAtTrcTv,
/i.v 8.
ws XP^ '^^'* ^- aKvpovs 7rotô"ai.

pao^vAoôv KaTaAiTreiv,
^TjTOvcri, TrtiOtiv v/ias,
Tas
t^v ovcriav eSwKev. Kat
vo/aov) eSet TroLetcrOai
dTTto-Tovcrt,
d^vpovs 1801 yevo/itvas.
7rat8a)v 8.
auTwv
Toiv dvTi8tKa)v
6p,oAoyovp,vas,
390. ISAEUS^
OtaOTlKT).
6.
7:
Kai v/aiv
rj
TC
8.
avTj^ dvayv<DO-6jô"Tat Kat ol TrapayivofxcvoL
pxipTvprjaov(Ti
32:
5ia9TiKT|.
3.
56:
6. 7:
<i)s
2.
ovKeT^
auTw
Ke'otTO
44: or Aoyo) ov8
Tots fxefiapTvprjKocnv
Ktti
lypai/zev
17
8.
8.
T^v
TrotrjCTLV yeyevrj/xevrjv,
ctti T17 8.
outws cvS.,
i p,r/
dAA' epyw"
tov Ilrppou irapaytvicrOai.

yevoiTO
avTw
7rat8t'ov k
t^s ywatKOS,
toStov KXrjpovofjiUv twv lavTOv.

28:
Tois
yap
<t)vcrL
avToi) vU(tlv ov8ets ovSevicv 8. ypd(f)a Socnv ov8efxiav,
'Dunbar, Concordance, 1883.
^Holmes, Index, 1895.

14
Personally examined.
[392
::
15
A STUDY OF AIAeHKH
SiaOTJKTlV.
19: ixaWov
I.
r^v
/Sc/Jaiow
ôvXoixtvov,
8.
rjv
opyiôîcvos
iiroLrjaaTO.
41:
5. 6:
Kara yeVos
Tois
irarrjp,
6. 4:
T^v
17
8.
Troiijcreiv.
Karidero irapa
tuJ Kr)8e(TTr]
Xatpea,
ois eio-7;yaye tov 7rai8a
8., <^'
30:
TTtiOovcn TOV lEiVKTi]p.ova TTjv fjuv 8. dvcAeiv
UvdoSmpw
KaTariOtTai p.tTa tovtwv
Kr]<f)i(TUij irpocrrjKovTi avTO).
31
lAeyev ort (SovXolt' aveXeaOaL tyjv
40:
ov8e/Lttav eKCtVov Trepi tovtojv TrOL-qaafievov o.
/^/'r/.
yap ovK
irat8os
wo-re KuTtt ye
S. d/x<^to-^T/Tovo-i.
Ilpoêvo? 6 AtKaioyevous
TrtcrTevo-avTes ot ^/AeVcpoi Trarepes ivecfiavTO tov KXrjpov.
Kat ypai/'as
10. 10:
Kara
ToTs
8. dir(}>r]V
27:
irapa.
8.
rj
Kai Tr/v 8. aKvpov

Kttt
/tSAAov
il/r](f)L^(T6ai
d7ro6av6vTO<i 8' avTou arraiSos
8.
c^ctTTi 8. yevc'crâf
cKCtvwv, ou8'
8.
ei
Sie'êiTO vpocrrJKev
avTw Tor^wv twv
^rj/JLOLTiOV KXr]povofJ.rjaaL
1 1
/^?V/.
xX^pov FAav/ctDV KaTa t^v
XafifSdvet Se tov
viK-qaacra tovs KUTa t^v
18:
TO
Tot'vvv
Tttvn;|v
'Ap^cVoAiv v
SiadTJKaiV.
16:
dp.<f>OLV 8c
9.27:
I.
13:
fxdXXoV
34:
e<f}a(rav
^v p,v IIpo^cvos
8.
ws ovk
dTrif^-qvf.,
Awcatoyevrys
ttoAAw.ij
8'
dXr}6r]^ arj-
8. dire<f>dvr](Tav,
yf
fxev TraAat
vcTTepov
ws /Acv ovv ouK ei(rtv dATjêis ai 8.
SiaOtlKtOV.
4. 6:
r]v
K6fx.L(rav,
TaTv 8. oKvpotv ytyvo/xe'vaiv,
15: 8va) yap
5.
8.
oiddecrOai.
15: Tauratv Sk Totv
5.
8. diJi(fiL(T(3r]Tr](TavTa<i,
t^v aTTOKpttriv eTcpav
A-tjfjivw
eTretac tous 8iKa(rTas
5ia6l]Kai.
Kara
TrpoveviK-qKevai. TOvL(T/3r)T-qcravTa<;.
ei
ov
17
XPV Oewpeiv avTov
KatToi
K
TWV
tovtmv twv epywv
8.
Kar-qyopuv iôvXovTO twv
TWV
fjiovov TTCpl
Trjv 8iavotav
8.
dAAa
8,
^ tov TcAcuTr^KOTOs,
tov ye'vovs Adyov
Kai Trept
yap twv oAAwv
<rvfxftaXaL(DV ov irdvv
ip.(3el3Xr]Ka(TLV.
y(a.XTT0V
tov? Ta
TTcpi
p.ev
i(/v8^
p,apTvpovvTas eAe'yxeiv. ^wvTas yap Kat TrapovTos tov 7rpat,uvTOs
KaraixapTvpova-L
Trept Si
twv
8.
ttws dv Tts
yvot'?;
tovs
p-r]
TdXrjurj
AeyovTas,
9. 10:
14:
Trept
Fr. 1.2:
SiaBV^KaiS*
18:
ye
8. ovo-i/s
o-Koj/aa-Oe
8. 8e
8e',
TtTTapwv
1.3: ovTot
to-;(vptôvTat
r^S
dfJi(f)Lcrl3r]Tr]ae(a<;
dvSpe?,
vtt'
/cat
avTwv
ck tov
^pdvov ov ovTot
p.v 8. t(T;(vpt^dp.evot Totairrats,
yap Tais
8.
Ae'yovtrt Trept
8-
as CKetvos 8te'êTO.
Ae'yovTes ws KAewvvp,os p.reirep.Trero Trjv
dpxrjV ov Xvaat /8ovAdp.vos avTas dAA' iiravopOuicraL koI

(T<f}iaLV
twv
i(TKV07roir)p.Vwv
avTots t^v 8wpedv.
393
êâtwaat
16
5i(x6t|K011S<
ev Tats vvv yey/m/A/AcVats 8. tSco/cev avroTs ttjv ovcTiav,
24:
I.
2.
14:
/Ae TTOietTai,
3.
60:
ocroi 8e 8.
ovk
ei/ S.,
avSpes, ypd\pa<i, fxeWcDv aTro6vt](TKUv,
avTots etCTTrotowTai, rots viots iiTihiKdt,(.G6anrpo<jriK(.i
twv
8o^Vtcjv.
tov tcî/ccutos
4. 13:
rdi'ai'rta rats
Ibid.:
ouSev ya/D /xaXAov ot jUtapTupes ctcrovrat,
1 7
avrai
d7ro</)at'vovTat.
;^ci)pis
ojv Vi
Kat iâwaTrjdrjvai,,
Towtov Tais
/xv
8.
8. ixTaypa<f>rjvaL-
ais iKXi^drjcrav
ci <^'
8.,
8ta fjiaprvputv Vfxa<; Bel Triorevcrai, v<^'
ov yap eis tovto ye avoias ijKOvcnv ware TncrTev(TavTe<s rais Sif^T^Kats
24:
ovTo) pa8t'a)s TocroT/rwv )(pr}fxdT(ov d^tcTTuvTat.
6 8'
7. 2:
8.
1/
13:
9.
dAAa
aSrjXov;
<T7]firjvdfievo<;
avras
<f>d(TKOVTe<;
dfJiipLcr (SrjTeXv
eiroiiqcTe,
ou8' atcr;)(vv^^vat oiSei'i TrpocrijKei
/u,^v
pApTVpa^ TrapiaTaaOai, vofxov ye ovtos
ctti
rats
cêTvai otoj
8.
ws 7rAet(rT0vs
ôv\olto 8ovvaL
eavTOv.
TO.
18:
ttoAAoi TrcTrXao-ât
8to
diiovcn Trpos tovs TroLrjuevra^.
018'
ovK av i6e\rj(xeLe fxaprvprjaaL ivavTta rats
oTi
als avros
8.
aTTOcâivei.
1 1
8e Tt
Kui
opôfxriTpLio
OlOLyl^KOlS*
I
14:
I.
eiT
10:
aiiT^
eftovXrjOr)
fxrj,
opy^s KAeuivu/xos rainâs
ras
Taigas ras
ovra iStSov,
to.
aSe\<f><S
ovtl
8. iveypail/e.
ii/
K TavTYj'i tt}s
6p6C)<; elre
TXavKUiVL
irdOoi,
Koi Tavr'
TroteiTut
ras
8.,
ravras StWero.
8.
Kat Trpoa-eraê IIo(TeiBi7nrw ttjv dpxf]v
8. dvcActi/
eicrayayetv.
15:
ou;^ rjfxiv
18:
{i/Ats
eyKaXwv dXAa
ecTTt jiovX-qOrjvai
rj
20:
21:
Ibid.
26:
Aetvt'a TroXe/xwi/
rawas ras
8.
SUOero,
/act'
opy^s yevo/xevas iroTepa ctKOS
KAeww/Aoi' dveAetv,
e7rei8^ Trpos ^p.as oiKeL(x)<; e(r)(ev,
8c (TKOTretcrê
(TKOirelv ottws ert
ras
8.
ra;
êfiaiorepov
lyju-as
d7roo-Tp7;oret twi'
avTOv.
^p,as KOKciis TTOtetv T Kat SiaTLOeaOaL ToiavTa<; 8.

1 /Av
yap dveAetv ras
8.
ôvXofJievos p-eTeireixTveTO ti^v dpî^v,
Sixatw; av Syjirov ras TOtai;ras

t
TOivvv Kat TOVTO
8.
dxupous
(Tvy^<Dprj(TaLfjiev,
is
7rot>;cratTe.
KtVos iiTCLVop6S)(Tai Tas 8.
/8ouATO,
Ibid.
01 TLve<; Tai/ras
tos
30:
Sxjtrep ore Ta BiaOefievo),
35
Tt's
(i)S
av
vp.u)v
TavTas tvat
otiK opOSis
Kuptias
Tas
8. if/rfcfytcraiTO
ixovcras aTreBoKiixafrev, ovtoi
i7p.tv laoixoLprjcrai tjJs
oâtas.
394
8'
cpyw
as 6 p,v oiadefxevo^
Auouo'ti'
Âovts
:
:
STUDY OF AIAGHKH
A
oiavTJKaS-
41
I.
42:
Ibid.
ras 8c
8.,
ras h\
8.
ttoWol
8' ySrj
8.
ov yevo/AeVas,
i/êvSeis airii^-qvav,
(TVKO<f>avTov<riv,
TjfjLois
dfiffno'lSrjTOVfieva'i
rifiwy
koI ol filv to Trapd-jrav
ovk 6p6C)^ ISe/SovXevixevwv.
evt'cov 8'
ats ovtol 7rLcrTevovT<;
v^'
17
ovToi
yap to aveXeiv avras
iKCLVOv ôyXo/xevov 8taKciAi;crav.
43:
TToXv Ka\Aiov crTi
to
KaTo. to yeVos
{l/r](f>Lcraa6ai
ifjxuiv 6)U,o\oyov/i,i/ov /iaA,A.ov
/caTo,
17
Tas
Trap"
ou
8. to.?
dfx<l>0T(.puiv
8u<at'a)s
yeyevT^-
/AcWs.
hiiOtTO TavTas Tas
48
13
T(t)v
6 vdydos,
ai'8pes, ovk
Ol
(TKVnTiov
fiTfji.kr]cre,
|8e/?ouXevcrâi Xvcrat Tas 8. jiovXofJLtvov,
dAA' avTov fiovov, Tov KaTaXnrtiv
aAAo, eav ev
Ibid.:
6pOCi}<;
SiaTtOifxiViov ol TToAAot ouSc A.yovcrt Tois
8iaTt'^VTai,
14:
koX ovh\ tcwttotc vcrTtpov avT(S
8.
iKCLvov Tc vofiLêiv
TrapayLyvofx.VOL<; o ti
8.
idv Tis Sia^Tat /xovov, Kvpt'as eivat Tas
8.,
<f>pov(Ji)v.
Srj
vpuv TrpwTov
/xev
iTTOLrjaaTO
Tas
8.,
Ittutu
p-r]
Trapavowv 8U6eTO.
15:
dvTtAeyofTwv
18:
Ot KaTO,
Ibid.
22:
9.
Tas
to Trapdrrav ytviaBai Tas
8' yjp.uiv p-rfSe
8.
p.dXXov eiKos ^v oAiyêis eivat Soêtv Tas
Tas
8.,
dp.<f>L(Tl3r]T0VVT<i.
8. cTKOTreiv,
et
8.
8oKowt yevicrOaf
OVT llTOLljaaTO iKtZvOS vloV aVT(S, OVt' cSwKC
TCI
aUTOli, orTC 8.
KaTcAtTTCV,
8.
ij/ev8ei<;
KaTiiTKevaaav
^r^TOvtriv
/cat
d7roo"Tepô-at /ac
twv toC
d8eA<ô'.
5:
Kol TOVT(oV 8. KaTttAtVoi Trapd 'lepoKXel 'HKJiaiaTidSr),
6:
dTTCKpivaTo
Aey;êtv
ei /x^
/xoi
oti
ij/cv8c'l<;
dvev
Ttiiv
Tas
e^ôi
oiitras
Tas
8.
as iTroLrjcavTO.
8.
oiKeiwv twi/ eauTou Tas
8.
ttoloXto,
1 1
oTe tov vlov tov tovtov CTroieiTO Ao-tv<îAos kol
12:
et /jtv
llTOLUTO
Ibid.:
tois 8. KaTcAetTre,
6 AaTv<^tAos p.-q8iva i/SovXcTO elSivai otl tov KAetoi/os vlov

/A778'
8' cvavTc'ov
OTt 8. KaTaAtTTOl,
papTvpwv âtveTat
8iaê/Aevos,
toutwv
8e
/u.^
twv
p.dXt-
(TTa ^p(oju,evaJv dAAo, Ttiiv evTuî^dvTwv, Trois etKos i(TTLV dAr/êts etvat
Tas
14:
1
8.
Kai oi8' iv /xta toutcov

TTois
toDtov TrwrTov
TeXevTTJcrat
22
dAA'
twv
^87;
i^68<t)v 8. KaTcAtirev.
tcLs
8.
totc
KaTaAtTreiv
Kai
iKirXevaavTa
lepoKXrj<;, OeXos
wcTTe ov yvop.eva<i
8.
wv
kjll
Ikuvh^ koI
^kci <pipo)v, Kat
TauTas KaTaXnretv.
395
ip.oc,
<}}rj(TL
oiJtws
Trap'
eo'Tt
ToXp.r]p6<i
eavTw 'AaTvîAov
18
5ia0T]KClS'
9-
Xiyoiv OTi
24:
'Aarvc^tXa* kol airoâvoirj
6cio<; eit]
eKeivov
8.
KaraXeXoiiroTa
25:
ws Se iirrjyyiWeTo irepuiov
26:
ovSc KA,a)vi TT/JotKa Tas
Kat ScKoiKis 6 'IepokAtJs
31:
ci
32:
iTretra
22:
ov 81^101/
i7/t>iis
to yevo5
ec^v
twv
ov
8'
TrcjTroT'
926 B:
923 E:
<âvi7
922 C:
8.
OS
dv
8.
ypaf^y
Tiiiv vie'wj/
E
/(5/V/.
924 A:
to.
7rt;;((opios
avTOV
//5/V/.
cavTOU,
Trpos
ras Iklvov
r^s
8. yvoju.vos
vorepoi',
Kt/u,evots vo/u-ois,
Suxru aTrXois ovtw Kvpiav uvai

tov
8.,
di/
Tis
yStov reAet.
hia.Ti.difx,ivo<i,
iraihoiv uiv Trarr/p,
Trpwrov jnev
Tc3 KXrjpovofxw
tov
t:^v 8. 8ta^p,eVa)
KaTaXEtTrETco.
ypa<j>eT(i) Koi Trepl t^s TOtauTT/s Tv;(r;s o t^v 8. ypdffxDV.
eav 8eTiS aTrais wv to Trapdirav
45. 11:
1^'
TOV Tis dv
17
8. ypd<f>r],
Demosthenes*
8. ye'ypaTTTai.
rj/K' (f)vyv dvoiyi.iv
TO ypap.fJM.TUOv.
Iv
y]
h. VT] At'a /Lf^
(fyavepa yivoiTO Tots 8ica(rTats.
yeypd<f>daL "8. Ilao'twi'os,"
18:
ypap.pxLTa.ov Xtv e<^'
21:
ei 8' wo-TTfp
22:
^\yxTat KaTC(TKeva(Tp.evr]
29:
oij/ead' oTL irXdap.^
46. 25:
o.
Kkrjpovofjiov ov av diLotar) yi'yveo"ât ypaeêrw.
362.
SiaSl^KT].
Trept tojv
8.
Plato'
Sta^^Tttt oTTwcrovi/ ;(a)V Trpos toI
923 C:
ras
diJ.<f)L(T^r)T7J(TaL
eyxaXwo-t toTs
Tis i$ov(TLav
et
Kvpta<;
Ty^twcra/Acv
xX^pos
edv Tives dpa Trepl
8ia6T]KT|V.
as av eKacrros 8ia^J7Tat
8. ^fi<l>L(TPr]Trjcraixev.
387.
5ia6TJKT|S.
oKvpovi KaOtcrTavai.
o.
8.
twv dXXoTpLwv ov
ov8\ Trpos ras
yiyvovrai,
elcriroLrjToyv
ras Ikuvov
(rTt
8.
irpo(TTLdevTe<;,
8. iroirjcracrOaL
Kvptas cTvat ras
oip.ai Sftv
TTtpi fxevTOL
Ibid.
Jcat
at eicraywyal
0'ii8eT'pa) avTU)!/
Ibid.
.
8.
10:
Ibid.
1 1
Kara
djToSetKvvet,
8. iJ/vSeL'i
vvv d^tcotrovcrt KXrjpovofJielv rwv AaTvcftiKov ov jxovov ra.%
A.eyovTs, dXAo.
10. 9:
8. dTro<f>avtv,
8. airo(f>aiveL,
OKVpO'i p.V
<j)
p.epnpTvpriKv, iirTJv "8. IlacriWos,"
17
oXov
p-kv
IcttXv
rj
8. i<TTLV, TjV (fxKTlV
fj
8.
8.
OVTOl TOV TTaTfipa KaTaXlTTElV,
'Ast, Index, 1855; E. Abbott, Subject Index, 1875.
*Preuss, Index, 1892.
396
A STUDY OF AIAGHKH
5La9l]K1]S.
43:
36. 7
8' el irepl
29. 42: fxaKia-Ta
TO fxicrdovv Tov
OV flOVOV K
34:
OV yap CKCtvo y' tpei, is oaa
KvpC
21
27:
:
T}s 8. IcTTtV iSctV
Ta
icTTL ttJs 8.,
yap
/lev
iirl
iirrjv
" ^ Toiovro
ttXcovcktciv tov8' eypaip' 6 iraTrjp,
/u.v
aKvpa.
TO KaTatremcrnta to t^s
30:
41
KaTe(TKva(TfJivr]<; 8.
oiKOt
"Ilao'twvos âi $op)U,6wvos,"
8.
Trj<;
"^''^5 oKovo-avTes yvtixreadc
8ta t^s 8. avrov liToir](Tt Kvpiov,
)^pr)fJia.T(i}v
/xapTus yeyovois.
/AapTvs ye'yovc
KaTecrxeuacr/xeVT^; 8.
if/vSr]a e7roi7/o"aTO,
t^s Ilacn'wvos"
29. 29: TOV oiKOv ovK ifiLadoicre twv vd/xojv KcAevovTcDV xat tov ira-
Tpos ev
8. ypai/zovTOs,
Tjj
42:
Ta KaTa\ei<f>9VTa
43:
^v
8e Tav^'
tt
36. 52:
evttVTtu rfj 8.
45. 15:
/<
42:
ttolvt^ Iv rrj 8.
ypat/'avTOS,
ytypd(f)6ai <^-qcnv Iv rrj 8.

Tais
Kttt
TOU TTpOKAT^CrtV
EvavTc'a 8',
^v dviyvoiv
tKUvq^ dpats,
citt'
p.apTVpLV.
6/U.OV 8.
27. 13: ouTos yap
Oia9llKT|V.
Vfjuv dprt, p.icrOioaL'i rfjê rrj 8.

i.v6v<i
p.Ta tov toC iraTpos ddvarov wkei t^v
OLKLav (.{(TtXdoiv Kara, rrjv iKCivov
yfVfVâi
42
ovTos
43
ouTOS av Trp fxkv
48
64:
28. 5
8. p,v
8. rjfâvLKora,
ot Kai TT^v 8. r/<âviKa(Ttv
T^v
avT^v h\
Trjv 8. St'
8'
OVK
fir]
i(rr]fJi.rjvavTO,
TTjv p.v 8. y](âviKaT., i$

r]V
Xtôôvtes,
diroâivuv,
^s Kol TovTtov
lytyvovTO KvpiOL, kol tov
29. 31
ws
p,v 8. p.r]Zap.ov ravrrjv
TavT-qv
8.
(f>r)(TL,
8. yevicrOai. (jirjcrL,
Tpos Sf TovTois T^v
10:
<ov iarjfxrjvavTO ypap-jxaroiv
p.i<T6ovv
ovB' avTrjv direBoaav.
^s ^v eiSfvat
7rpt
irdvTwv Tr]v dXrjOeiav,
eXafie Trpoika t^s /MijTpos KaTa tt)v 8. tov TraTpos.
33:
Aa/Sftv T^v irpoiKa tovtov ti)v avT^s KaTa t^v tov TraTpos 8.
T'^V 8.
33;
....
tov oikov t^s aiTtas aTTEXfAwTO,
57:
36. 8:
"Trpos
8.
''"^^ ^-
46. 18:
OtaOTJKT).
t;
Tt,
oTL 8' ouTO) tuCt' ex^''

Tciiv p,i'
8' ttAX'
fJidpTvpa<; TrapecrêTO )/'v8as 8. ovScTrwTroTe "yevo/ncvas.

1
ôpfiLv'
/did.
8. aKOv(riev.
eK t^s 8.
AaySe r^s 8. to avTtypa<f>ov
32:
45. 5:
t^s
oiiKOv r}<f)dvi^v
19
T^v
OVK (iTroSovTa,
p.v
yvvatKa
eToXfJM XeyeLV
A.ap,/3avt
....
KaTa t^v
eva p,v to
S.
Trapdwav
elvai TovTO irXdap-a Koi aKevutprjfJi' oXov,
397
fx-rj
yV<râi
8.
aXX'
:::
;
::
:
20
01Ci6t]KT|V.
Ibid.
35
45. 9
36. 34: oTttv
fJikv
TOLVvv rrjv
Xaf3wv ttjv a-vvoixtav Kara
to t^v
6avp.a.t,uv,
irpeaêM
apvrJTaL, ck TtVos Tpoirov
ipiorar^ avTov.
'''oi^t'
avvoLKtav eXa/Sev Kara
Trpecr/Seid re ttjv
TovTO y' arro
8.
Trjv 8. e^^^'
rrfv 8.
/xv
a.p)(r]v
yuapTuptas etvat
Trj<;
irpoKXrjaLv, ttjv 8e reXevT^v 8.
12:
Ibid.
TOLVVV
1 /XCV
TrpO(TfJiapTVpOVV Tjj TTpOK\r]<Ti.L Tr]V 8. OVTOL,
fir]
Trapei)êv tis avrots ypa/x/xaTeiov ojs 8.
19:
ot
28
Aeye
SiKaarat rawr^v
/iiev
8'
avrots riyv
iircaTevdav tov Trarpos etvat,
rrjv 8.
^v ovtol /iera t^s
8. arT?;v,
Trpo/cAr^crews /xefiapTV-
prjKacTLV
34:
Ibid.
3y:
/^/(/.
38
Ibid.
T^v
Toi)
8. ij/cvSrj Seiâi,
TOVTO TOLVVV TO
ypdixfjia TravTeXois
NikokX^s
iixapTvprjcre fxiv
ip.apTvprj(Jt
87^X01 \l/v8rj
Kara
iirLTpoTrevcrai
Xlacrt/cXi}? iTTLTpotrevO^vaL
ht.
Kara
7riT/307r(rat /xev
ov8' iTTLTpOTrevOrjvaL
8.
oScrav.
Kara t^v
8.
^yetro fULpTvpelv 6 fxapTvpwv,
8. ou8i/ Seivoi/
Kara
t^v 8
Tr]v 8.,
39:
ov8k KaraXtTreti' tov TaTep' auTw eTrtyeypa/A/xeVov ypafxp-aruov
51
Tovs
Ibid.
8.
jxapTvprjaavTCi Si(j)Kwv,
8ta Tous d<êti/at

8.
46. 2
8.
p.(.fJia.pTvpr)K6Ta<; aTroil/rj<j>Laa(T6aL
/xaXXov
7;
8ta tovs
jMLpTvprjaavTas.
a>s ly
8taTi^/Aev(j>
tw
TraTpl
tw
irapeyeveTo ttov uvtos TavTrfv
e/AOi)
TYjV 8.
12:
ouT 8ieêT0 6 iraT-qp
15:
6 TOLVVV iraTYjp
ovhtp-iav,
T^p-oyv 8.
oW
tov
rjixCiv eTTtTroLrjTO vrro
ot vojxol iwaiv.
8-^p.ov ttoXitt^s, a)(rT
ou8
KaTo. TOVTO cc'^v atiTco StaOeaOai 8.
24:
kol tov81 tov vofiov, os KeXeuEt ttjv
8r]
crK{f/acrOc
ovTO)v yvrjCTLoiv 6 iraTrjp
Kvpiav
^(Srjaai,
5lOl6T]Kai.
43. 4:
36. 7
at 8 8.
45. 26:
Tt 8'
46. 16:
El
OiaOT^KCOV.
45. 25:
26:
/"'?
"ei
8. KftVTai.
\l/.v8tLa eivai
eyw dvTLypa<f>a
ov(Tai.
Hao-tWos
tv (fypovovvTO'i dvSpos
KULTTcp d<âvtôvTwv
<l>r}cnv
7rat8es
ot
Etvat.
27. 44: 877x0V
et
^v av TratSwv
as TOTC iTapi<j)(pvT0, e^r}Xiy\drj(rav
8oKo9o"tv
ToaauTa
8.
aTro$dv<ii(TLV
Tas fxapTvpta^ ravTaat, nap' ots at
T^/iAEts
<f>OivT(i)v,
8ia6rjTaL, iav
Ttiiv 8.
twv
Ilao-tcovos
ek
twv KaraXet-
twv
8.
c^
wv
Etvat tu>v 8.," oiJtws "oiv <^r70"t ôpfxitav
nao"twva KaTaXiTTEtv, "' ov " twv Ilao-novos."

46. 3:
fxefiapTvprjKcv
dvTtypa^'
etvat Ttov 8.
fiaTCiOJ yeypafifieva,
398
twv riao-twvos Ta
ev tuJ ypa.fi-
::
A STUDY OF AIAGHKH
Oia6T|Ka>V.
46. 5
rdv
avTLypa<f>a Be
twv
8.
21
riacrt'wvo? /xapTvpeiv elvai to. iv
ypafJifiaTLQ) 6 TrapetAcTO ôpixiuiv,
aîov TOLVVV
28:
ouSets
clBuxTL KOI
Ibid.
TTWs ovv
avSpes SiKacrrat
u)
avTiypa(f>a
TrcoTTOTC
firj
{i/u,ets
/<ai
on
robe ivdvfirjOrjvai,
dAAa
(.iroLrjcraTO,
OLaOrJKrj'i
(jvyypa<f}wv
p.fv,
Zva.
TrapajSaLvuxTL, o. ok ov.
icrTe ort avriypacfxi
ecrrt
twv
twv IlaCTtWos
8.
rot
cv
TU) ypa/Xfiaretw ycypap-fxiva;
Oia6T|KaiS>
TtTTapa rdXavTa koI
28. 3:
....
rptcrp^tAtas
ev
ypacftrjvai t'
rats 8.
Tau^' ovTOt yeypa<}>rjvaL
14:
Kar' d\Ar;A(ov p-aprv-
v rat? 8
t'
povai.
41. 16:
Tovs TO TeAevTaiov tuTs
45, 22:
ovTC ipMLpTvprjaev eKcivos
8. irapaytvop.ivov'i
Trepi Toiv cv rais 8. ivovroyv
d<âtpwv eKarepos to p-apTvptiv
39:
iv Tats
to.
ovSev.
toutov yeypap.-
8. (itto
p.va,
OiayTJKaS*
T6 8'
27. 40:
aKpi/SecTTcpov cyvcDT' av,
1 //.oi
Tas
8.
as 6 irarrjp
KaTcAtTrev, ouTOt tt7ro8o'vat rfdiX-rjaav.
28. 5
ixPWy
^TTCtSr^ toi^îo-t'
TeAuTjô"v 6 iraTrfp, eiCTKaAeaavTas p.aprvpa'i
TToAAous Trapaap-rivacrdaL KcAcvcrat Tas
36. 8:
87;o-t KttTa
Tas
OT yap HoAvEUKTOs 8te^TO TarTa, iraprfv pikv
41. 17:
8Âov oTi Tas ToC TraTpos

43. 4:
5
8.
8e
i}/v8i<;
rjKOv
44. 65:
KaraaKevdaavTes FAavKos T
T6S ap.<f>L(T(Sr)Tiv
y]
TrapaKaTa/SdWeiv jSovKeraL tov
p-v 6 TAvtt7otojs eTTOti/craTO Ttva
fiivat 8'
Tas
as avTot p.ep,apTvpriKa(TLv
TTO)
oiSe 8c
toO
....
awf^wpov/ifv av avTU),
KaTAAot7ri, Kol Tai/rais av evep.eivap.ev,
el 8.
ovhev
1 1
/cAi^pov
8.
jrpoKaKeio'da.i ôpp.LO)v' avoCyeiv
45. 10:
tovtov ywrj, Kal
r)
dvJ^yyeiAev,
8.
'Ayvtbv ^ KaToi yeVos ^ Kara
/(5/^.
8.
8.
8.
8.
dvTiypdôvs
Ae'yw, 0^8' V7rp tou tois 8. dAr^êis
17
EKft'vwv.
i(/ev8eX<i
T77 7rpoK\rj(TeL xpr]crdp.evoL n-apaireTdo'p.aTi, 8.
yap ^v
ctvat 8. p.aprvpe'tv, oirep rjv tovtol^ (3ovXr]p.a,
26:
TOuTo
37:
6 yap eiTLTpoTrevaai. KaTO.
)U.v
tvat,
ipxtpTvprjaav,
8.
pMpTvpwv, 8Âov OTi KaO'
ottoios
av
8Âov oTi Ka6'
OTrot'as
av
l8t77.
/i>ld.
Kal 6 eTTLTpoirevOrjvaL KaTo.
8.
pxipTvplhv,
l8t17.
38:
Tt
39
8.
ow
)U,aôvTS ep.apTvpet$' u/Acts cv 7rp0KA7/0-l 8.
8e pxiprvpeiv, ev
als Xpr]p.dT(DV toctovtwv KXairrj,
....
ouSeis
rjdeXev.
41:
Tas 8c o'vv^T^Kas xat Tas
8.
Ka\ TaAA',
399
....
ae(rr]p.a(rev' cacrat
'
22
SiaGllKaS.
45. 74:
yap avTov oicaO' eh ras
tl
8.
iypdil/ai,
" kol
raAXa,
'
ocra icTTLV, 'ApxtTnTr/ StSwfiL
88
fOLV fiefJxipTvprjKevai
46. 3
Tas
tov
ws 6
irarrfp
ovT^ tiScbs 8. KaraXiTTOvTa tov Trarepa
8:
13:
aTTodavovra
ic:
TOV
Kara
fxkv iTTLTpOTrevOrjvai
S. /XT] ;(i CTrtSetâi fii^d'
8.
8U0e$'
t7/iwv,
yjp.<i)v,
KaToAtTretv, as ov Kvpio<; rjv;
8.
p.v vofiov
ovk ia
OLKrjKoaTe, os
8ui$(T9ai,,
8.
iav 7rat8S
w(tl
yvrjcrioi.
19:
fidpTvpa<; i/'cuSets oiecr^' av Trapacrîadai, Kol 8. ov/c ovcras,
rj
Aristotle'
344.
Oia6T|Kai.
Prob. 950.
Oia6T|KaiS
3:
Ibid.: 8ta Tt
\p-q<^LOvvTaL
6ia6T]KaS.
t).8\ ttoXAoi tj/evStls

8u<a<TTr)piOL<;
cvt'ots
y]8r]
iir]Xey\6r)(rav ovcrai.
tois yevtcri /xoAAov
rais
17
8.
Sent. Fr.
16;
TrXrjCTLa. 7rd<T)^L
Didot IV,
rots
\f.ifiiiiVL
p. 339: 6 Iv vocrw 8. ypd<l><i)v, irapaâXaxTtw evrpeiritûv a.p\op.voL% to. t^s
V7/OS OTrAa.
DiNARCHUS'
324.
Oia6T|KaS>
9: TO pXv
I.
8.
iv ais
yap avviSpiov
Ta T^s TToXews
v.
KvpiaC
OlCLBr\\((aV.
ottou 8c oij8c [ircpt]
fxevov
t
at9
5ia6l^KaS>
6 irtpl Ta)[v]
KAeve[t
ii.
Tciiv
auTOU
18l(ov ai
[eyyuaji Kal at
yap
47. 26:
Kttt
8.
v[o/io]s 7rap[a]7rA>;o'ios TOUTOts
icTTtV
cêlvjat Ta cavTOv [8uijTt'êo'â[t u>s avj Tis fiovXirjTaL,

ttcDs
ovk otottov,
vCTTepov,
1 fxiv Tl
Tairrats Tats
8.
iTraOev to 7rai8tov
^ ycyvo-
IcrxvpLêadaL av avTOvs,
v. iS:
eav fiev Tt[s ei]s 8t[otK]7;o"tv T[a)]v avTOV [yuJvatKt Tretô-
aKvpoi eoro[vTatJ'
'Bonitz, Index in Acad. Reg. Bor., 1870.
'Forman, Index, 1S96.

3Blass, Index, 1894.
<ai e[77iya]i Kat at, Revillout, editio princeps (in
[jut;
ev
....
ftcvos 8ta^7^Ka[s ypa]i/'g,
oX
8.
elcTLV,*
Ibid.
Oia6T)KaiS>
6 <^vAaTTt Tas dvopp-qTovs
HyPEREIDES^
323.
5ia6T)Kai.
....
crwrrjpia KttTat.
SJiKaiai, Blass,
Teubner
ed., 1894.
400
Corpus Papyrorum Aegypti).
A STUDY OF AIAGHKH
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
23
II
It is thought advisable, for the sake of completeness, to append to this concordance a chronological catalogue of authors in whose writings the term does not occur.
I have made a personal examination in all cases where an index is not named in
a footnote. The number preceding each name is the "floruit."
900
B. c.
?,
Homer;' 800
linus Ephesius, Eleg.;
?,
Hesiod;=' 800
693, Simonides Amorginus, Lyr.;
Homeric Hymns;' 730, Cal-
650, Alcman, Lyr.;
647, Pisander Rhodius, Lyr.; 630,
580,
700, Asius, Eleg.;
650, Tyrtaeus, Eleg.;
Mimnermus, Eleg.; 611, Sappho,
611, Stesichorus, Lyr.; 610, Erinna, Lyr.;

594, Solon, Eleg.;
?,
700, Archilochus Parius, lambog.;
Anaximander
Lyr.;
606, Alcaeus Myrtilenaeus, Lyr.;

575, Acusilaus,
Phil.;
Histor.;
570,
Susario, Com.; 560, Ibycus, Lyr.; 546, Hipponax, lambog.; 544, .A.naximenes,
Phil.; 544,
Pherecydes
(of Syros), Phil.; 544,
Theognis, Eleg.; 540, Anacreon,
Lyr.; 540, Ananias, lambog.; 540, Phocylides, Eleg.; 538,
Xenophanes,
Phil.;
531, Pythagoras, Phil.; 525, Simonides CeTus, Lyr.; 523, Choerilus Atticus,
Trag.;3 520, Hecataeus Milesius, Hist.; 513, Heraclitus, Phil.; 510, Telesilla,
Lyr.; 508, Lasus, Dithyr.;
504, Charon, Hist.;
503, Parmenides, Phil.;
Corinna, Lyr.; 500, Lamprocles, Dithyr.; 500, Timocreon, Phil.;

490, Pindar, Lyr.;^
nas, Lyr.;
487, Chionides, Com.;
489, Panyasis, Epic;
500,
499, Prati-
487, Dinolochus, Com.;
484, Aeschylus, Trag.;5 480, Pherecydes, Hist.;
477,
Epicharmus, Com.; 475, Phrynichus, Trag.; 470, Bacchylides, Lyr.; 470, Diodes, Com.;* 468, Sophocles, Trag.;' 466, Hellanicus, Hist.; 464, Zeno Eleaticus; 463, Xanthus, Phil.; 460, Ecphantides, Com.;* 460, Magnes, Com.;
454, Cratinus Major, Com.;* 451, Ion Chius, Trag.; 450, Anaxagoras, Phil.;
450 ?, Melanippides, Dithyr.; 450, Praxilla, Lyr.; 450, Aristias, Trag.; 450,
Sophron, Mimog.;^ 449, Crates, Com.;* 444, Melissus, Phil.; 444, Empedocles, Phil.; 444, Achaeus Eretrieus, Trag.;^ 443, Herodotus, Hist.; 441,
Euripides, Trag.; ' 440, Antiphon, Orat.;" 440, Teleclides, Com.;* 440, ChoeSamius, Epic;" 438, Pherecrates, Com.; 434, Lysippus, Com.;' 432,
rilus
Hermippus, Com.; 432, Amipsias, Com.; 432, Alcidamus, Rhet.; 430, HippoMed.; 430, Democritus, Phil.; 430, Philonides, Com.;* 430, Myrtilus,
Com.; 429, Phrynicus, Com.; 429, Eupolis, Com.; 427, Plato, Com.; 427, Gorgias, Phil.; 425, Aristomenes, Com.; 424, Callias, Com.; 423, Amipsias, Com.;
423, Thucydides, Hist.;" 422, Leucon, Com,; 420, Cantharus, Com.; 420,
crates,
'Dunbar,
=
Concord.,, 1880.
Paulson, /wa'^x, 1890; Capelle, Lex., 1889.
3Nauck,
/M(/^;r,
sWellauer,
1892.
Rumpel,
Schweighaiiser,
ZfJt:.,
Zfjr.,
1830.
*Jacobi, /wf/fjr, 1857.
Z^x., 18553.
'Ellendt,
1824; Sayce, Zwa'fjr Eng., I-III, 1883;
'Beck, Index, 1829.
"Nake, Index,
"Van
'3
401
1872.
Macan, Index
1895.
Cleef, Index, 1895.
/(/fjr,
^Kaibel, /^^jr, 1899.
1817.
Essen, Index, 1887.
Gr.,
24
Aristonymus, Com.;
416,
Agathon, Trag.;
415,
Andocides,
Orat.;'
415,
Archippus, Com.; 413, Hegemon, Com.; 411, Critias, Trag.;= 410, Aristagoras, Com.; 410, Metagenes, Com.; 407, Apollophanes, Com.; 407, Sannyrio,
Com.; 405, Antimachus, Eleg.; 404, Philistus, Hist.;

402, Cephisodorus, Com.; 401, Telestes, Lyr.; 401,
Ctesias, Hist.; 401, Xenophon, Hist.;^ 400 ?, Ocellus Lucanus, Phil.; 400,
Euthycles, Com.; 400, Nicochares, Com.; 400 ?, Clitodemus, Hist.; 400 ?,
Archytas, Phil.; 400, Demetrius, Com.; 400, Polyidus, Lyr.; 399, Cebes, Phil.;''
398, Astydamus, Trag.;' 398, Philoxenus, Lyr.; 398, Timotheus, Dithyr.; 394,
Com.; 407,
Strattis,
402, Polyzelus, Com.;
Epilycus, Com.; 394, Eunicus, Com.; 392, Philyllius.Com.; 390, Theopompus,

Com.; 390, Heraclides Ponticus, Pol.; 390, Autocrates, Com.; 388, Nicophon,
Com 388, Alcaeus, Com.; 387, Antiphanes, Com.; 380, Ophelion, Com.;
380, Philiscus, Com.; 378, Epigenes, Com.; 376, Epicrates, Com.; 376, Anaximandres, Com.;S 375, Araros, Com.; 375, Eubulus, Com.;5 368, Ephippus,
Com.; 366, Eudoxus, Astron.; 363, Diogenes, Cynic; 362, Aeneas Tacitus;
356, Alexis, Com.;5 354, Diodorus, Com.; 353, Chion, Hist.; 350, Aristophon,
Com.; 350, Alexander, Com.; 350, Timotheus, Com; 350, Timocles, Com.;
350, Scylax, Geog.; 350, Philetaerus, Com.; 350, Nicostratus, Com.; 350,
Ephorus, Hist.; 350, Calippus, Astron.; 350, Cratinus Minor, Com.; 350,
Dionysius, Com.; 350, Dromon, Com.; 350 ?, Antidolus, Com.; 350 ?, Nausicrates. Com.; 350 ?, Heniochus, Com.; 350 ?, Eriphus, Com.; 350 ?, Callicrates. Com.; 350 ?, Athenion, Com.; 350 ?, Sophilus, Com.; 350 ?, Eubulides. Com.; 350, Amphis, Com.; 350, Xenarchus, Com.; 349, Demades, Orat.;
;
347, Speusippus, Phil.;
348, Heraclides, Com.;
345, Aeschines, Orat. ;^
345,
Com.; 340, Anaximenes, Rhet.;' 340,

Axionicus, Com.; 340, Hermesianax, Eleg.; 339, Xenocrates Chalcedonius;
333, Theopompus, Hist.; 332, Hecataeus Abderita, Hist.; 332, Stephanus,
Com.; 330, Apollodorus, Com.; 330, Lycurgus, Orat,;' 330, Philemon, Com. ;S
Damoxenus, Com.;
Anaxilas,
340,
330, Theophilus, Com.; 327,
323, Philippides, Com.;
Eudemus of Rhodes,
322,
Theophrastus,
Phil.;
Phil.;
324, Crobylus, Com.;
322,
Menander, Com.;S
322, Phanias, Phil.; 321, Philemon Minor, Com.; 320, Diphilus. Com.;5
320,
Hipparchus, Com.; 320, Dicaearchus, Geog.; 317, Demetrius Phalerius, Rhet.;

306, Epicurus, Phil.; 303, Anaxippus, Com.; 302, Archedicus, Com.; 300,
Euhemerus; 300, Hegesippus, Com.; 300?, Herondas;

Rhodius, Phil.; 300, Lynceus, Com.; 300, Philetas, Eleg.
'
Z(?;r.,
iSoi;
Hieronymus
^Nauck, Index, 1892.
Forman, Index, 1897.
3Sturtz,
300,
â3., Vollbrecht, Z^x., 1886; Hell., Thiemann,
Hist. Gr., Keller, Index, 1890;
Z^:c.,
1883;
Mem., Crusius, Lex., 1844; Oec, Holden, Lex., 1895.
-Praechter, Index, 1893.
*Preuss, Index, 1896.
sjacobi. Index, 1857.
'Bonitz, Index, 1870.
402
CHAPTER
III
AIATieHMI
the
The use of the verb hiaTiOrjyn has an important bearing on that of

noun hiaOrjKtj, its derivative. The verb is often used to include the
meaning
The verb
by authors
or in two
To
I.
Ap.
ôlI3o<s
e. g.,
has a
instead of Start^c/Aat
much wider range
whose writings the noun
in
In the active
I.
to
noun;
of the
haTidcfjiaL.
it
is
not found.
according to
signifies,
places, to place separately,
we find simply
and is employed
StaîJ/cr/v
of use,
its
and so
derivation' to />uf apart
it
comes
mean
to
place in order, distribute, arrange, dispose {L.2X. dispono):
25^4, 294 of laying the foundation of a temple: StWriKe.
Hymn
6e.fj.uXLa
'AttoAAwv tvpia kol fidXa fiaKpa Sh^vckcs.'
where Xerxes orders the son of a man who had offended

and his body to be divided in two, one half to be placed
on the right side of the road and the other on the left, while the army
marched between the parts: avriKa iK^Xeve tolo-l irpoatTiraKTo ravra irprjaHerod.
him
39,
Twv Hvdiov
(TCLV
Ta
7.
to be slain
T]fXLTOfJLa
TratScov
^vpovTas Tov Trpcrl3vTaTov
hiaOuvat to
fxkv iirl Se^ta
p.i(Tov Stara/Aeiv, Starayu-ovras
t^s oSov, to
8' ctt'
apLCTTepd, Kal ravrrj
SieiuvaL TOV (TTpaTov.
Thuc. i. 126. 8, of disposing or stationing troops during a siege:

ôvov Se iiriyiyvofxivov ol 'AdrjvoLOL Tpv\6fx.f.voL rrj irpoat^pua dirrjXdov ol ttoXXol,
CTTtTpeiôvres toTs ivvea dp)(ov(XL Tr]v <f>vXaKr]v kol to ttuv
1]
avTOKpaTopat StadetvaL
av dpLCTTa oiayiyvwaKwcri.
Xen. Mem. 2. i. 27, in the parable of the choice of Hercules, of the

gods disposing or arranging affairs so that blessings are the reward of
virtue:
TO.
ovTa
ovk iâiraTrjirw Se ae
Arist.
pents:
Trpoot/At'ois
17801^5,
dAA'
^Trc/a
ol
deol SuOecrav
hL-qyrj<Top.ai /xer' oAr^êtas.
A.
M.
8. 4, of setting
out wine in earthen vessels to catch ser-
TLva KoX Tovs ^X^'^ ''* ocTTpaKia 8i.a0ivT<; olvov eis ra? at/u,ao"tas.
in Diog. Laert. 8. 67, of a philosopher setting forth the first
OrfpovcTi
Timon
principles or elements;
cf.
Diels, Poet. Phil. Fr., p. 194.

KOX 'Eyu,7re8oKX'^s dyopaiixiv
XrjiTTr]^
iirewv
ocra 8' laOeve. ToacrdSe elXev
apûiv OS SlWtjk' dp)(a<i 7r8eueas dXXwv.

'See chap. i.
'Allen and Sykes, Homeric Hymns (1904), say: "The verb [SiaTidtjui] is not
found in Homer or Hesiod, and does not seem to occur elsewhere in serious poetry,
But see Eurip. Ion. 866. Its use is rare in poetry.
though common in Attic prose."
403]
25
26
To
2.
arrange one's words
dispose or
and
(of rhapsodists, orators,
KaXois 'lAiaSa Kol '08v(T(Teuiv
With an adverb,
3.
/<?
and so
ra eavTOv
^fxeL<;
ot
opyLcrO^vai avTw, Sxnrcp
iroLrjfjuaTa.
arrange
dispose or
to recite
paif/wSov Se,
hiaTiOevTa, Ta-)^ av
'Ho-ioSet'wv
Charm. 162 D:
Id.
VTrOKpiTrj Kcucois StaTiêvrt
7roL-^Trj<;
twv
Ti
rj
yepovTts ^Siorra aKovo-avres.
in discourse,
Plato Legg. 658 D:
actors).
affairs well or
ill,
to
man-
age, handle, treat.
To manage, of State
a)
7roA.ca)S Tr\i.ov
ovK
10. 25:
Kvai,
Lys. 29. 2:
affairs.
kokcos Staêls to, t^s
Of an
rpiaKovra raXavTcov owi'av iKT^craro,
y]
estate,
Isaeus
HcvatveTta) rov 'Api(rTOfXvov<; oTkov KaTaireTraLSepacrTrj-
iKttvov crTi
Kol tovtov oierai 8eTv tov airov rpoirov Oia^ttvat.
aXXa
Of a campaign, Thuc. 6. 1 5 Kpario-ra SiaêVn Ta toC ttoXc/xou.

Of oneself or others, Archytas Moral, i. 3: p.rj /xovov avravrov
:
l>)
cities,
ovroi
etc.
SittTiêt's,
To handle, or treat a person or thing in a certain manner. Of

IsOC. 4. {Paneg^ 113: tois eavruiv TroAeis ovTws dvd/Atos 8ta6ci/TS /cat
T^s i7/xeTpas dStKcos KaTr]yopovvTe<i.
Of persons
KaKcus
dAX^Xous
Of a
ill
treating one another

StaôJcrcv,
soldier
Isoc. Philip. (5).
ill.
who had
own nose and
cut off his
ears,
treated himself, in order to deceive the enemy.
OVK iaTL ovTos dvr;p, otl

Ibid.:
Anad.
c)
Thuc.
<f>a<; Slol
i.
i.
The
4.
p.r]
av, t(S Icttl Swa/iis Tocravrtj
passive
yap
"he was not gently handled."
and so
to
someone or something
tovis
/</.
T)e cor.
(18). 29: ovraa
to be disposed in a certain
manner
to
Trpos tovs 7rpoy6vov<i -^fxwv eu/ACvois
Isoc.
someone
Paneg.
Star edeLcrrj'S ck
Symp. 207 C:
/^
/5^
olKL<ii<;
(o-e) Siare^^vat irpos ly/Aas.
/^z'^, cpwrtKois.
404
or
(4). 29:
twv
43.
Isoc. Epist. 7. 13: Trpo TToXXov av

Plat.
nva. or
ras TroXets irpos oAAiÂas.
Also in passive
yeo-iwv; cf.
(Trpo's
"EAAt^vus, wcnrep 6pa<; Aaxe-
something (Trpos nva, rt).

Of Ceres being kindly disposed toward men.
....
Isoc. Aig.
Dem.
Trpos tous auToiv /Sao-tAcas.
<E>tXt7r7ros
ArjfirjTpos
Xen,
a certain action or sentiment.
to
Isoc. Philip. (5). 80: orav ovrm Sta^jjs
SiadeU 6
Cf.
ovToi kokios SureO-qv.
dispose a person so
re
156:
3.
wSe Sia^ttvai.
also used in this sense, to be handled, treated.
is
give one an inclination or tendency
Saifxoviovs
8r]
and Plat. Legg. 728 B.
6. 57: ov puStws heTcOr],
To
ifik
and otherwise
Herod.
tov^ TroKiopKeofXivov; crtavrov dvr}K(TTw<; SixxdeLvaL.
(19). 29: iyw p.v
Ti), to
38: ctt^v 8c
ouScvos SiaXvovTOS avTot Sieoriyo-av.
euep-
A STUDY OF AIAGHKH
Middle: To make a
II.
to
arrange according
own
or agreement in one's
In general,
1.
Of
own
of one's own,
to dispose
desires, to ffiake
disposition, settlement,
interest.
to dispose of,
Xen. Cyr.
a daughter,
for oneself
disposition
to one's
27
arrange or manage
5.
2.
to suit oneself.
t^v Se dvyarepa ravTrjV CTriTpcVw
7:
^laOiadai, oirws av (tv (SovXrj.
Of beauty and wisdom. Xen. Mem.

Sipav Koi Trjv ao<f>Lav ofiotw; fikv KaXov,
Of hopes;
6. 13:
Trap' lyyaTv vofxiêTai
rrjv
al<T)(p6v hiaridtadaL etvai.
Eurip. Ion. 866:'
the matter of hope.
e.,
i.
i.
6/i.ot'ws
(j>pov8ai
8'
cAttiScs, as Siadicrdai,
Of the treatment
dveôvTat
<f>ovr]v
of bodies or persons. Isoc. Panat/i. (12). 140:
tu>v toi fiev atafJuiTa tol (T(f>iTp'
oru/M/SouXevciv 8k rots
fxrjh'
CTrovetSt'ortos BiaOe/xeviav,
oAAots dîowTwv (" nor endure the voice of those treat-
own bodies
ing their
avTwv
planning to give advice to
shamefully, yet
others").
To
I.
69:
dispose
(r)(o\r]v
To
2.
one's
of
Chilo (656
leisure,
dispose oneself in a certain
way toward,
b.
c.)
Diog.
in
Laert.
v SuidecrOai.
manner toward,
act in a certain
conduct oneself.
Of the way in which we conduct ourselves toward, or the attitude

we assume to beauty and virtue. Isoc. Laud. Hel. (10). 55: yvot?; 8' av
KOKHOiV
TtS
hux^kptl TWl/ OPTOJV, C^
OCTOV
aUTOt SuiTldi/JieOa irpOS KaO"TOV
ojv
avrStv.
their
To display for sale, to dispose of by sale, to sell.

To expose for sale, Herod i. i. i; of the Phoenicians setting out
wares for sale on their arrival at Argos: a.TTUf.op.ivovi 8e tous $otviKas
TO "Apyos TOVTO SiaTiêcrât tov
3.
a)
81)
^)
Ty]v
To
dispose of by sale. Id.
BajSvXwva
8ii.riQe.ro;
Anab.
4.
cf.
7. 3. 5
6;
6.
and
Zc? export.
eKaaroiv,
5.
Isoc.
aXXa ra pkv
7<? dispose
of it,
194:
Xen. Anab.
7.
3.
wv
10; Plat.
Paneg. 42: 'EriSe r^v
cAXetTTOUcrav,
p,v ottov
of
^^
ra
Se TrAeto)
8Ladcr6ai,
aTTiKiavTo.i ttAwoi/tcs
ra ai^/xaXwra
4. 5. 8:
Legg. 849 D; Xen.
ra
\isipav ovKa.vr6.pKt] KCKrrifiivutv
Tciii/
8'
t/cavaiv <fiipov<Tav, kol ttoX-
oTroêv elcrayayeirOai.
make
one's property according to his will, to
to devise, to
bequeath, to
'Bayfield (London, 1889) says:
make a
"The compound
8. 67.
405
disposi-
will.
diaridrnxi is elsewliere
Av. 439." It is very rare in poetry, but it

Ap. 254 and 294, and in Timon Fr. 42. 3 (Diels, Poet, Gr.);
in prose, excepting Ar.
Hymn
CTreav
Xen. Hellen.
7. 4. 2.
A^s aTToptas ovcT^s ra
tions
i.
Siaêwi/rat tov <f>6pTov.
/cai
4.
i.
<j)6pTov.
is
found only
found also
cf.
in
Diog. Laert.
28
To
a)
bequeath, to leave something by
will.
TTtpi Se
Tov KXiqpov fiovov Sia<fiepovTO ovBev av eSet
dero.
Id.
De
Apollod. (7).
T^v outruxv irepio Koi rarr' cv
i:
JVicost{/(). 4:
d\\'
rts reAevTô-etv ii.kXKu>v Sudero,
y/aa/i/xacrt
Kareêro Trapa TKri
(19). 43; Plato 922
also Isoc. ^/^.
De
Isae.
u/u,as (TK\f/acT6aL
ff.;
ei,'
ei
Tt 8tc-
rt iradoi,
See
crjy/xr^va/i.evos.
and "Concordance"
in this
dissertation.
/>)
Kr/v
To make a
Used
will.
with or without 8ia^^-
in this signification
or ZtaOrjKas.
Isaeus
De
Arist. (10). 10: ov^^
^prj/xaTwv K\r]povoix^(Tai.,
"not even
if
SiiOevro TrpoarrJKev avT<2 TovrtMV
they did
make
twv
Lys. 19.
wills," etc.
39: Kovtovos OdvaTO'i Koi at SiaOrJKai^ as Budero iv KrTrpo).
Of dying
OTrats
fjLr)
intestate., Isae.
TeXevTYJcrr) koL
p.r)
De
8ia^jU,evos
Apollod. (7).
;
cf. 8.
19: eav dSeAcôs ofxoTrdTwp
31; Arist. Pol.
2. 9:
rjv
aTTOâVT^
8ta^/xvos.
The
devisor,
testator,
Sia^T^Ktts a.îov(Tiv eivat Kvpia.%
Isaeus
SiaOifievos.
as o/ioXoyouai
See also "Concordance," chap.
)U,>yS'
De
Clean,
avTov tov
(i). 26:
Staac/u.ei'ov
ras
opdSiq
ii.
for one^s own interest, to make an arrangement or

settle?nent for oneself in which another person or persons are necessarily
involved, and to which as a consequence the second party agrees (other6.
71? dispose
wise no settlement could be made); and s6
to settle the /<?rwx <?/ a
dispute
make a covenant; not used, like a-wTidcfjiai, of an

ordinary contract or bargain, but of a more dignified compact,
where usually one party lays down or disposes the terms, and the other
accepts them with all conditions and binds himself, by an oath or
solemn promise, to abide by them.
a) To arrange a settlement with someone, to come to an agreement by
means of a disposition or arrangement of points in dispute, to settle
or quarrel,
etc.,
to
mutually.^
Xen. Mem.
crvfi(f}p6vT0)<;
2. 6.
23:
dXAT/Xots
"beautiful and
Swavrat
Sc /cai
StaTtêVât.
T^v tpiv ov fxovov dXvTrcJS dWa. koX
Socrates
good" among mankind
is
(or, as
speaking of the
here
we
say, the "elite").
These, because of their excellent character and nobility, can lay down
terms which the other party not only accepts without trouble, but
which are advantageous to both sides.

agreement had been meant here, the word
'Cf. the use of dispose in Shakespeare:
bargained or made terms with.
406
If
no more than a simple

would doubtless
(rvvriOeadaL
"She had disposed with Caesar;"
i.e.,

A STUDY OF AIAGHKH
have been used.
Appian
Cf.
Civ.
29
where the word
2. 8,
ing an arrangement with tormenting creditors:
used of mak-
is
Sia^tjaevos 8e rows
Ivo-
^XovvTas ws eSwaro.
834 A:
Cf. Plat. Legg.
ox
Sta^cju.ei'ous
toutwv
Trepl
Cremer
vo/aovs.
says that this phrase does not simply correspond with vo/xovs Tidivai, to
nOeadaL, to give laws for oneself or the state.
institute laws,
or
He
the only recognized passage in classic Greek where
says this
is
vo'âovs
it
and here it means to harmonize laws.

b) To make a covenant; i. e., a solemn compact in which one party
lays down the terms and the other agrees to them and binds himself by
oath.
This agreement is mutual, but in a sense one-sided. It may be
occurs,
used with or without
StaOrjKrjv.
Aristoph. Az>. 440

6
opTîVeS'
fjiocrov
ff.
IIEI. yv
/xr]
Sca^wvrat y' otSe BiaOijKrjv
Ty yvvuLKl SUOcto. 6 /xa;(atp07roids,
iri6rjK0<i
eX/ceiv
vvv TavTo.
f^VT"'
fxoL,
opvTTtiv
XOP.
....
o/AVf//.'
firJTt
XOP.
.
ws
8LaTL0fj.at
Ta<i
ifx.0L
SaKvetv tovtov^
yci.
aTTOvoas ov
^VTrep
ifxe
fx-r^T^
IIEI. kutofxr]
irporepov
7rapa/3(iip.v.
From
a study of the above citations
voice the meanings are

disposition,
own
all
it
will
laying-down, or setting-forth in order of
interests,
and then the idea
of
in the middle
There is always a
something in one's
appear that
very closely allied.
second party being affected or
involved, on whose course often the completion of the act depends;

e. g.,
in the
most
common meaning,
to
dispose of one's property by will,
the one party makes dispositions which affect another party, and which
do not have complete fulfilment without the concurrence of the second

party.
Here the idea of agreement is usually remote, but in some
In No. 3
to dispose of by sale
instances it becomes quite evident.
one party lays down his wares in order, or displays them, and no completion of sale
phase of
is
made without
the concurrence of a second party.
not a mere equivalent of TrwXeu).

the use becomes most evident and essential.
this sense
our word
is
407
In
In No. 6 this
CHAPTER
IV
AIAGHKH
The
noun
significations of the
those of the middle voice of
The
previous chapter.
its
SiaOiJKr)
correspond in the main to
cognate verb
hvaTidrjfXL,
discussed in the
sense of arrangement or disposition
is
always
some idea of mutuality.

212 writers examined only nine
present in a greater or less degree, together with

It
it,
way
is
common
not a
is
use
Out
word.
of
imply the use of
as to
use
8taTtê)u,ai
such a
in
Accordingly we find that
htaOriKYf.
this
term
always used in a dignified sense, referring to a solemn transaction
originally connected with religious rites
Arrangements or
1.
number and
person makes with
specific
dispositions^
It is
we should
This
probably not necessary, but the context of the
is
in these instances.
use,
a general sense, used in the
reference to his property in view of death.
connotation
passages in which the word
its
and obligations.
in
referring to the arrangements or dispositions a
plural
of
who
although there are several others
is
found indicates that
quite probable that,
find
it
if
it
has such reference
we had more
employed with reference
instances
to other things
than distribution of property in view of death.

Isae.
I.
24:
ya/)
817,
dvSpes,
<5)9
8ia^r;Kais eStoKcv avTo'i<; ttjv ovarCav ("if
tions
c^roi
cfyacriv,
iv rats vvv yeypafXfiivais
by means of
t/iese
written disposi-
he gave them his property").
Id. 4. 13:
rov
8e
(Tv\i.âlvovr6rjvai.
refer to the
document
yeypaixfiaTetov dAXay^vai kol
Here
as a whole, but to the
tions contained in the
document.
It
rats 8ta^7^Kats
does not
arrangements or disposi-
cannot be translated here "will"
or "testament."
/d. Q. 5:
iTreiSr] 8'
Kivov, 6 8e vios
TTOL irapa.
2.
avTOv
iireBrifjirjaa
iyio Koi y(r96firjV
TTOtrjOcLr] viro
Kapirofxevovi tovtous to.
'AoTv<^tAov, kol tovtwv 8ia^7^Kas KaraXi-
lepoKXtl.
Arrangements or
dispositions which, a person
makes with reference
to his property to take effect at his death, the terms or provisions of a

will.
In this sense the plural
by "will" or "testament"
'No English word
is
word can be translated

However, the writer has in
used, but the
in the singular.
expresses the exact sense of
dtaOT^Kri.
These words
are used
for lack of a better term.
30
[408
A STUDY OP AIAGHKH
mind
31
the several dispositions or provisions contained in the will, and
not the instrument as a whole in a technical sense.
The
instances in which reference

plural
210 examined) of
fact that in a considerable majority (120 out of
(8iaî7Kai)
to testamentary dispositions, the
used, has led writers on Greek wills to take for
is
granted that there
made
is
no difference
is
of use between the singular
and the
plural of this word.
Lys. 19. 39: 6 yap Kdvwvos
on
(ra<âis i8y]\(iiaav
Isae. 2. 14:
Demos.
ttoAAootov
p. TroieiTai,
^rjixar' aXX'^XoL<;
3.
The
<f>a(Tl
wv
xprjfiaTa
to.
o-tiv ovSkv rjTTOv
tovtwv
(f)$evTwv, Katirep acftavLôvTwv
^v
BiWcro
ttjv ovcrtav
ck
to
T(t>v
iv
Kwpw,
v/ntis Trpoo-eSoKare.
ovk iv 8ta^7;Kais ypai/âs /xiXXiov
toiVw
SrjXov
27. 14:
6a.vaT0<; kol ai SLaOrJKat, as
//.epos
aTro6vT](TKeiv
TrXrj9o<;
Tu>v KaraXcL-
8ta^7/Ka)v,e^
wv Tocravra
8o0^vaL.
disposition or
arrangement which a man makes with reference
The word is here used in the singunumber to denote the instrument as a whole a Greek will or testament in the legal or technical sense. As the Greek testament does not
to his property in view of death.
lar
correspond in
respects to ours,
all
This
characteristics in detail.
will
will
it
be necessary to discuss
its
be done in the second part of this
dissertation.
Aristoph. Vesp. 584:

Kav OLTroOvyjaKOiv 6 TraTrjp
Soi KaTaXeLirtav iraiS' iiriKXrjpov
t<j)
KXd.LV T^/xeis jMiKpa. Tr]V KCfjtaXrjV etTTOVTCS rrj oiaarjKrj
KaL Trj Koy^rj rrj
irdw
aeixvu}^ tois (rrjixeioKTcv iirovcrrj,
ISo/xev ravT-qv oaris av rjfxa^ dvTifioXr](Ta<; avaireLcrrj.
Cf.
I'did.
5 89.
Demos.
KaraXiTrciv,
Plato 923 C:
4.
down
oKupos p.iv
46. 25:
....
rj
hiadrJKrj
avTLypa(f>d i<TTt rrj^

OS av StaOtjKTjv
ypd.cf>r) to.
which the other
party
ment,
is
it
necessarily involved,
becomes
not used, like
more
dignified
and
all
This
is
a "one-sided"
the disposing; but, as another

is
necessary to a settle-
mutual agreement.
and solemn compact or covenant.'
SiadrJKr]
is
equality
and having an equal part
is
more
In the case of
entirely mutual, both parties being
the convention
is
Trarepa
4^. 21.
of an ordinary bargain or contract, but of a
a-vvOrJKrj
'This signification
toi'
8taTtê'/i-vos.
his consent
to a certain extent a
a-wOrJKr],
avTov
accepts.
transaction, in so far as one party does
ovtol
Trj<;Iia(TLoivo^- ci. id.
two parties, where one party lays
disposition of relations between
the conditions
ecTTLV, r]V <f>a(nv
8i.adr]Krj<;
in
fully illustrated
409
on an
arranging the terms.

by the use
of diarlSe/xai (chap
iii,
6).
32
An
a)
agreement, or settlement, arrived at by
means
of a disposition
or arrangement of points in dispute, a mutual settlement.

8'
Isae. 6. 23: eiSoTCS
on
dvayKaiot
01
e^ iKCivov fxiv ovk av Ti ylvoivTO
TraiSes ravTTjv rrjv rjXiKiav t)(OVTO<;, <âv7y(rotvTO 8' dXXiOTLvt
eaOLVTO eTL (Jlclôvs Siacôpat,

ayayeii/ tovtov tov iraiSa
f.tr(.idov,
o)
ols i^yJTti 6 EuKTiy/Awv, )(wptov v Bovra.
i<f>'
tov TraTpos
<J>iAo/<T;/xcuv ai(r;(wo)U.evos /u.V ctti ttj
(TuiTO
TrapovTi
Ta>
tov TratSos
elaa^^divTO'i
ow
kokw
ctti
8'
aTropwv
t^s yvvaiKos 6
tot^tois aTrrjWdyr}
dAA'
dvot'a,
o/xoXoyrjdivTwv
dvTe'Aeyev ovbev.
eSei^ttTO oTt ou 7rai8(uv cVcku iydfjiei,
Tavra Toivvv 6
rponw, koi ek tovtwv
avSpes, tov ^tXoKTrjiiova iaaai
o ti XP^"
toJtcov kui
8e
EiiKT?;)U,a)v,
tovtov etaaydyot
iiâ
Xtov
$tAoKT7^)U.aJV Tpirjpap^Cjv irepl
dTro^VT/o'Kei
Ki.irpayp.iva ypdi/zas
ot
KaTadiddai.
ifxeXXe Tpi.fjpap'^^wv pLera Tip-oOeov,

<'\
Kal
rj
Xatpe'as Trapwv crvvaTrco'TeAAev
Krj8(TTr]<i
Tivas ^Kcv ov i$(i)pp.u
KaTaTLdiTai p,tTa tovtmv irapa
vavs avTw
uvtov
Uvdoowpw
(29) Kct/ivou 8e TOV ypap.pxiTe.Cov

KOTOS, VTroTreTTTcoKOTes otSe
Trj
o-^êSor
avOpwrru),
8u'
(TvvtirLTiOtvTaL.
aveAetv
crcr$aL
(I)S
ov
(30) Kat
')(pr)crLp.r]V
ovaav
TOts Traiar
yeyovoTttS"
et
c^tv avTOvs.
Se dTroSojuevds Tt
(31)
aKowas
8'
Trji
i<f>'
ots eto->;yaye tov Trar8a,
TrpocrrjKOVTL avTiS
Kat tov Xaipc'ov tctcAcvt?^-
ctt;
t7^
avTOts tKav?^
tov EuKT7;/xova t^v
yap
<{>avepd<; ovo"tas
e.vOv<;
aTrrJTeL
Kat wpoaeKaXicruTO
TOV ap)(OVTa, cAeyev oti /SovXolt^ dveAeVât t^v
nv^d8a)pos eKeLVW
TOTC
yj^Lov dveActv, Kat 6
cvavTt'ov
Ovkct'
p.ev koI
ip.<j)av!Ji)v
dp^wv ovtws
Ke'oiTO
i^
oiaOr^KY),
rjv p.La,
BiaBrjKrjv.
iirei8r]
8e
(32)
dvatpetv,
Kvptos KaTaaTacrf.
iyCyvoidKt, hiop.oXoyiqcrdp.i.vo'i 6 Evkti^jU,(ov

iroLrjadp.ivo';
ttoAAovs p.dpTvpaavocrTpdTa) TrapdvTt wôAdyet
TOV dp)(ôvTO^ Kal twv TrapcSpwv Kat
avTw
ovoeva Kvpiov
tov ni;^d8ajpov to
Iklvov
CTretS^ 8' 6
d(ôpp,rj,
p.\v BiaOrjKrjv
twv ovtwv dpyvptov KaTaAtVot tovto
tov 8 Xatpe'ov Tov (TvyKaTa6i.p.ivov OvyaTrjp
Kal 6
Eukti^/awv 7rapttAa/3a)v
Tas dvyaTepas Kal tovs ck toutojv
r]
6 Evktt^/xwv
eis
Trpos
CKTrAcTv
i$(i)pp,L yiovvv)(îaai,
ypap.pjaTa.ov,
Trp6<s
to.
opwvTCS dTroAAv/xevov tov olkov
Kal
irpitiTov p.kv irtiOovcn
TeXevrrjaavTO? Euktt^/aovos dAAov
J'avdcTTpaTOS
6 8'
Kr/^tcret,
y^pa? Kat t^v avotav tov EuKTr^/xovos, oTt
Kat TO
p.ki/
Kal ypdi/'as SiadrjKYfv,
vav<;,
7}
Koi 6
ctt-
/acto,
tcov TroXefiLOiV
6 8' EuKTiy/iwv {'o'Tpov )(p6vô Trpos toijs Kr]0(rTa<; eiTrev oTt JSovXolto
tov rtov
Kat
(27)
iitto
eio"-
(24) Kat
of the context.
Euctemon, a wealthy Athenian, died
hiaBrjKrj in
these passages,
Briefly the story

at the
wife he had had three sons and two daughters.
is
as follows:
age of ninety-six.
One
By
his
of his sons, Philocte-
mon, outlived the other two, but all three died before their father. Both
One was a widow, her husband, Chaereas, having
died seven years before Euctemon, leaving one daughter.
The other was
the wife of Phanostratus and had two sons, the eldest of whom, Chaerestratus,
daughters survived him.
410
A STUDY OF AIAGHKH
put
33
a claim to Euctemon's estate, on the gruund that he had been adopted
in
by Philoctemon
in a will.
age had formed an attachment for a woman of illthat was owned by him.
She
gained such an ascendancy over him that he deserted his family and went to
live with her.
She had two sons, whose reputed father was a freedman
Euctemon
repute named
Alee,
named Dion.
She
in his old
who kept a lodging-house
persuaded the old
finally
of her sons into his (pparpla as his son.
ceeded
in
inducing the
members
temon, enraged, threatened

complications,
to
agree
to
in
this,
and sucEuc-
of the (pparpia to reject the candidate,
marry again, and the
to
introduce the eldest
to
relatives, fearing further
order to restore peace in the familj' persuaded Philoctemon
a compromise on terms proposed by Euctemon
Euctemon
fiuv).
man
Philoctemon resisted
laid
down
(i<p''
oh
i^^rei 6 EOkttJ-
the terms of an arrangement or settlement with
his son Philoctemon, in which,
on condition of obtaining Philoctemon's con-
sent to the admission of Alce's boy into his
(pparpla., he agreed to give the boy

arrangement Philoctemon agreed, and the
boy was presented again and admitted (24).
only one "farm
(xtopôx iv).
Some time
time after
this,
To
this
afterward Philoctemon was slain
Euctemon
and a considerable
in battle,
told his sons-in-law that he wished to put into writ-
ing and deposit for safe-keeping the terms of the arrangement that he had
made
with his son (rd irpbsrbv
vi6v ol ireirpayfiiva);
and when Phanostratus was
on the point of setting out on an expedition as trierarch, and Chaereas was

to see him off, he came to them, bringing some witnesses with him;
and having written out a settlement (ypixfâs SiaO-fiK-riv), according to the terms of
which (^0' oh) he had introduced the boy into his (pparpla, he deposited it, in
concurrence with them,' with Pythodorus, one of his relatives. Thus his
sons-in-law, representing his daughters, became parties to the original compromise or agreement that he had made with Philoctemon.
Two years after this, when Euctemon influenced by Alee and her friends,
demanded the document from Pythodorus, with a view to destroying it, and
summoned him to produce it in court, Pythodorus refused to give it up with-
with him
out the consent of
all
Euctemon
the contracting parties.
said that he wished
back in order to destroy it. The consent of Phanostratus, who was

present, was obtained, and still Pythodorus did not think it right to destroy it
to get
it
without the consent of a legal representative of the deceased Chaereas,
had been one
This instrument served the purpose of a

compact.
This explains the orator's words
Alce's bov were the legitimate son of
been necessary for a
who
of the depositors.*
Kararlderai /xera
BiaO'^Kr] to
ro'lirwv;
cf.
in
will as well as that of a
He
28.
Euctemon,
have been
made
in
argues that,
32. 3, rod 5k Haipôv rov (TvyKaradefiivov.
'rod 8i Xaipôu rod (rvyKarade/jiivov.
411
if
would not have

order that he might
it
34
have the inheritance, as he would receive

succession.'
If
had been a mere
it
would not have been necessary
to
by the laws of
it
The
revocation.^
its
legally a contract explains Pythodorus' refusal to give
consent of
the parties.
all
If
were
it
Isae. 4. 12:
yap
Trepl fxev
Trepl 8e tojv
Tvpovcri-
Id. 10. 10:
SiaOrjKwv
TratSo?
pTjSrjV KO)Xvei TTtttSt
fXT]
suit for
appears that
it
it
was
even to a magistrate.*
it
Trdw
Tcov aXXu>v crvfifioXaioiv oi
fiapTvpovvTa<; eXy)(uv ôivTo?
if/evSrj
it was
up without the
fact that
it
he was liable to a
lost,
damages,^ and from a passage in Demosthenes

not safe to intrust
intestate
the consent of the sons-in-law
will,
irw<;
yap
dv rts yvoiiq
yap ovk iêaTL
In these passages Isaeus classes
tov<:
StadrJKrjv
iêivai (rv/x/SaXXeLV
^^dXeirov tovs to,
TrapdvTos Tov iTpd$ovTO<; Karafxap-
/cat
fJLrjSk
TaXyjOrj
firj
yap
yeve'o-âi-
Xcyovras
,"
vo/xos 8tap-
yvvaiKL irepa p-thlp-vov Kpiduyv.
among
Staî^Kai
o-vp-fioXaia.
In an
evident attempt to avoid the conclusion reached by some early writers^
on Greek testamentary law, that the Athenians considered the

tament to be a "contract,"
later authorities*
interpretations of this word.

tion in
5. ^;}.
Isaeus himself uses
synopsis of the context
Diceogenes and Leochares asked us

on some time ago, and
bringing
it
agreed.
Two
arbitrators
abide by their decision.
by
me
wished
Now, one
opponent
to
it
in
another connec-
as follows:
delay this
to refer the
were appointed by each
trial,
when we were
matter to arbitrators.
side,
We
and we both swore
to
After learning the facts, the two arbitrators appointed
render sentence, but the two appointed by Leochares refused.
them was related
of
to
is
tes-
have given far-fetched
to him,
and was
my
enemy and
personal
^| iripuiv (Xv/iôXaluv.
"Some writers have had difficulty with this document, because they take the
word 8ia6-^Kri here to mean simply "testament," as the orator seems to refer to it as
such in 28. The confusion has arisen from not recognizing the fact that the word
had more meaning to Isaeus than " testament " has to us. The senses of
and "compact " were so closely allied that the same word could be used
In
for both, and the orator could have either or both in mind as suited his argument.
fact, we have no one word that exactly expresses the idea conveyed by Siad-^Kr) to the
BiadriKT)
" testament"
Greeks.
*See Part
II, 4.
Bunsen, De
in weltgeschichtlicher
*Schulin,
p.
364,
^Dem.
33. 17, 38; cf.
Bonner,
p. 66.
Dem.
iure hereditaria Atheniensium (1813), p. 53; Gans,
Entwickelung (1824),
45. 57.
Das Erbrecht
p, 384.
griechische Testament, p. 8, n. 6, " Rechtsgeschaft; " Beauchet II,

acte juridique; " III, p. 671, " acte en gdndral; " Meier-Schomann-
Das
"tout
Lipsius, pp. 564, 595. "Geschaftsurkunde." Schulin
and Beauchet give no authority
for their opinion; Lipsius appeals only to an obscure article in Harpocration

(56<rs:
Tivl dio.
on
56ffts
iStwj Xiyerai irapa rots p-qropai crv/xôXaioi' ypa<p6nevov drav tis to, aiiroO 8id<^
tQv
apxtivTuiv, ws irapa
Aeipdpxv)
412
STUDY OF AIAGHKH
While the signification "contract"

include
uses of the term,
all
is
it
elements of mutuality from
all
transaction"
{Rechtsgeschdft,
{Geschdftsurkunde). In
its
35
doubtless too restricted to
is
certainly a greater error to eliminate

it
and make
tout acte
so general as "legal
it
juridique)
widest signification
it is
"instrument"
or
mean covtrna/zt,
to some relation
used to
engagement, dealings, and undoubtedly always refers

or relations between two parties.'
Cf. Eurip. Ion. 411:
T T(Sv crv/x/?oXata irpocrdtv
Plut. Alex.
30:
TL
irorvta ôi(3ov
yap
fjirjrep, el
tov
es TraiSa
rjv
avBpl veto
evirpeTr<;
yap
aio-t'ws
eXdoi/jiev.
crov, fitrairicroL ^QcXriova.

-rrpos
i)(6pov
yvvalKa
(Tvp.-
jSoX-aiov.
among
Plato also classes StadrJKaL

fJnyiCTTa
Twv
(rvfx.jio\ai.u)v,
6p(f>avLKu)v Kttt T^s
TaiCTai"
TaSra
Be
Twv
oaa
o-vju,j8oAata
tTTtTpoTTaJV n-i/xe\etas
8r] /xeTo.
ra vvv
Tiov St o.pûl TravTwv ai re tC)v
elprj/xeva
Twv
evavrCa TtêlvT' av
Tip
Kvpiav elvai outdrjK-qv,
TrXrjv
rjv
T6iav(i}v,
reXevrav /xeXXovTOiv
TE TWV jXTjOev TO TTapaTTUV 0La6ep.evwv Tvût

BLd(f>opa dXXrjXoiv Kal
Legg. 922 A: ra pkv 8^
d\Xy\ov<; av6p(DTroL av/xfSdXXovaL,
Trp6<;
ttoXXo.
tov-
Suidiaew^ ai
yap eKacrroL Kal
tc vofxot^ Kal toTs
StaTLdeadai [xeXXeiv,
el
twv ^wvrwv
Tts iôvcriav
av Tts biadrJTai ottoxtovv I^wv Trpos
Tov jitov TeXeL.
Plato here uses the term in
its
widest sense of "dealings between
man and man." He has been giving (913-21) regulations with regard
to meum et tuum, disputed ownership, slaves, freedmen, buying and
selling, letting and hiring.
He then says (922 A): "The greater part
of the crv/xj8oXatW which men crv/jb/âXXovcn with one another have been
regulated by us;" and then goes on to give regulations with regard to
SiaBrJKaL.
Cf.
J?e/>.
fxara BrJTa.
word
eral
d)
I.
333 A:
crvix.l36Xaia Be
is
Koivwvrj-
The more gen-
substituted for the sake of extending the analogy."*
disposition or settlement
one party
Xeyeis KOLVwyq/xaTa, rjTi dXXo;
"'By contracts do you mean partnerships.'
lays
down
of relations between two parties,
the conditions, and the other accepts
yfh.trt\Vi
them and
binds himself by an oath or solemn promise to keep them; a settlement,
arrangement, compact, covenant.

trated by the use of
'
Compare
StaTtOefjiat
This signification
(See chap,
iii,
is
quite fully illus-
6).
the verb ffvixâWeiv, which always expresses the idea of duality of
action.
*Jowett III,
p. 19.
413
36
Aristoph. Av. 435-61:

EII. aye
Sr) crv
koX (tv
/u,v
ttoXiv ttjv jravoTrAcav
435
TavTTjv AaySovTC Kptixd(TaTOV Tvâyadrj

S Tov Ittvov ettrw TrXrjacov TOVTrcarTaTOv
(TV 8k Tou(r8' <^' olaTLCTLV
Xoyois ivvske$' iyot
cjipdaov, BtSaôv.
TIE. fxa tov AttoAAo)
yjv fly) Sia.0(j)VTaL y-
oiSe SluOi^kiqv i/xoL
T]VTrep 6 TriOr)KO<; rrj
fMi)(aLpoirOL6<;^ f-V'''^
Toi/S'
SiaTt'^Cjoat 'yo).
XO.
OpVVp!'
aXA'
ilTL
e<^'
440
haKvuv tovtov; ipx
opT^tVeS' e'Axeiv /a^Jt' opwrreii/
XO.
/acv ov,
yvvaiKL Budero,
firjr'
HE.
ouSa/xios.
yw
ol'k,
dAAo,
XO.
ovtl ttov
roxfjOaXfJiii)
TIE. KaTop-ocrov vvv ravTo.
Acyw.
445
(jlol.
TOVTOtSj
0TWTrp TrpdypxtTi
Ae'ye dappi]aa<;, a>s
r]Ku<i ttjv (T7]v yvu)p.r)v dvaTret'cras
Tas (TTrovSas ou
460
/n^ irpoTtpoi Trapa(i(t)p.ev.
(vs. 440) is given by the lexicons and cited by many

meaning "agreement," or "covenant." But as sufificontext has never been given, and a recent writer' has ventured
This reference
writers for the
cient
the assertion that "it
is
not clear,"
have given a
full
quotation.
In
brief, the story is as follows:
and Peisthetaerus, becoming wearied

and lawsuits at home, decide to leave Athens
and try to find a more congenial city where they may enjoy "the simple life."
They have heard a great deal of Epops, king of the birds, who was once a
man and had married an Athenian woman; and they determine to go to his
kingdom and inquire of the birds where they can find such a city as they
They suppose that the birds will know, because of the fact that they
desire.
Two
old
men
of Athens, Euelpides
with the disputes, contentions,
travel
more than any other people.
When
them
tells
kingdom and consult King Epops, he menThen he

all for various reasons.
living in his own kingdom, and they are greatly
they arrive in the bird's
tions several cities;
but they reject them
of the happiness of
pleased with the simple
life
of the birds.
Peisthetaerus,
who
is
a shrewd old
fellow, suggests a scheme to improve it, and to make the birds superior to
men and gods. Epops summons the birds together, that Peisthetaerus may
address them and explain to them his scheme. They assemble in a great
crowd at the call of the nightingale; but, on seeing the men, they become
greatly disturbed, and. supposing that Epops has betrayed them into the
hands of their enemies, they draw themselves up in battle array, and prepare
'
Ramsay,
p. 362.
414
STUDY OP AIAeHKH
A
to
men and
rush upon the
and
and
hastily snatch
spits,
prepare
tear them to
up Epops' kitchen
to
make a
The men are greatly alarmed,

armed with pots, pans,
Hereupon Epops interposes,
pieces.
utensils, and,
stout resistance.
addresses the birds, and pleads for his guests,
He
tives.
tells
37
men
the birds that they are
whom
of great
he
calls his wife's rela-
wisdom and
friendly to
kingdom, and that they have come because they have fallen in love with
the birds' way of life and want to live among them.
The birds assume a
more peaceful attitude, give back a little, and consent to listen to Peisthetaerus.
Epops then addresses the two men: "Come, then, you and you; take this
his
panoply and hang
it up again for good luck in the kitchen beside the caldron;

and do you (motioning to Peisthetaerus) speak to these (pointing to the birds)
and explain to them the reasons why I assembled them." Peisthetaerus
answers: "Not I, by Apollo, unless they make a covenant (SidOuvrai diadi^K-nv)
with me such as that monkey, the sword-maker, made (^diidero) with his wife,
not to bite me nor drag me by the orchipeda nor poke "
Surely not.
?
Chorus of Birds : "You don't mean the
Peisthetaerus : "No, but I mean my eyes."
The Birds : "I covenant" [diarldefiai).
Peisthetaerus
"Swear
it
then."
The Birds : "I swear on these conditions .... So, whatever you have
come to say, speak boldly, for I will not be the first to break the treaty"
(rdj
(TTToi'Sdj).'
This
evidently not a mere bargain or contract, but a solemn
is
Regarding the reference
pact or covenant, ratified by an oath.
swordmaker and
According
and a
'
little
his wife,
Droysen
to the Scholiast,
He had
man.
this
it
up
in prospect of
who
take back
good luck
these
expound,"
'
Pe.
Not
I,
"Good:
CAo.
by B. H.
it."
^yell
Pe. "Accepted."
" But
C/to,
Then by one
f.
j-^^.^
wright made
That they won t bite or worry me,

Won't scratch my eyes out."
Having
if I am faithful
I swear
^y the votes of all the judges here
a^j gH (j,e spectators the first prize be
mine."
..
^/,^
by Apollo,
Unless they make the covenant with me

Which with his wife that ape the swoid'
,
a great simpleton
henpecked him.
Pe. " Then swear
hear
summoned
sorely
subjoin a metrical version of vss. 435
Within the kitchen by the plate-rack's side.

And you, sir, make the statement which to
I
He was
Panaetius.
a large wife,
For the sake of comparison,
And hang
says:
is
Kennedy (London, 1874):

Ep. "Now you and you this panoply
com-
to the
if I
transgress the oath
judge's casting vote

,
win.
ao whatever be the thing you with
lull
con-
in short,
viction bring
Let
I covenant,"
it
now be
will not be
boldly spoken, for our truce
broken."
Frere (London, i885) renders vs, 440: "Unless they agree to an armistice
[in a note he calls it " a formal treaty of peace"], such as the little baboon, our neighJ. il,
bor, concluded with his wife;" vs. 461:
"The
made."
415
birds will adhere to the truce that
we
38
been once caught by him committing adultery, she beat him

the above-mentioned treaty.
The big
wife laid
But, aside from
down
the terms, and the
this reference, the
little
passage
is
till
he concluded
husband agreed to them.
quite clear.
Peisthetaerus
weapons until the birds agree to make a covenant

There is no doubt of the
with him, the terms of which he lays down.
reading SulO-^kyjv here. The MSS give no other word, and no other
word' would suit the context. We cannot say Sta^wi/rat awO-^K-qv. It is
referred to again in the next line by the word hUOcro; and in the next
will not put
line,
when
down
his
the chorus answer, they say
BtaridtixaL.
do not think that it would be possible to find a more definite and

explicit example of the meaning of a word than that of SLad-qKrjv in this
If there were no other occurrence of it in the language, this
passage.
I
would be
sufficient to establish clearly the signification
pact, or covenant.
*
See Ramsay,
p. 362, note.
416
of solemu com-
PART SECOND
THE HISTORICAL STUDY: THE GREEK WILL
CHAPTER V
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT
The
earliest reference in
Homer's Iliad
given (106-8).
Zeus gave
it
Greek
literature to a bequest
is
found
in
Agamemnon's scepter is here

It was made by Hephaestus, who presented it to Zeus.
to Hermes, Hermes to Pelops, and Pelops to Atreus.
W. 106, 107.
The
story of
when dying, left it to Thyestes, and he in turn left it to

Agamemnon.' That this is not simple hereditary succession would seem
Atreus,
who had
to be evident from the fact that Atreus,
brother Thyestes, and Thyestes, who
Agamemnon.
The simple
a right to dispose of
also
narrative reads as
as they pleased,
it
had sons,
if
the
and did
sons, left
it
to his
nephew
question had
left it to his
men
in
so.
Again in book xvii, lines 196, 197, reference is made to a bequest

armor of Peleus to his son Achilles." This is not so clear, and
might be regarded as a donatio mortis causa; but the fact that such
committal is mentioned seems to be an indication that the son was not
looked upon as necessarily a universal heir to his father's property.
In Sophocles Trachiniae Deianeira is made to say that, when Hercules was going from home on his last journey, he left in the house an
old tablet inscribed with awOijfiaTa that he had never explained to her
He had always before gone off as if to conquer, not to die;
before.
of the
''Arpeirs Sk
avTap
The word tdwKe
is
dv-rjcrKuiv eXiirev
aCre Gi/ôr'
'
iroXvapvi QviaT-g,
Ay a fj-i/jivovt.
Xeiire (poprjvai..
used of the transfer between the gods and from Pelops, a demi-
god, to his son Atreus.
Then a form
of Xelirw
is
used.
Xeiiroi
or KaTaXeiirw
the orators as equivalent to diaridefmi.

*
6 5'
yrjpds'
417]
dpa
S)i
iraiSi biranjue
dXX' oiix ^'os iv 'ivrecn Trarpbs iyrjpa.
39
is
used in
40
now
but he
told her what part of his property she was to take for her
among
dowry, and how he wished his land divided
do
his sons.'
not, of course, present this as evidence that Hercules
will,
but
that
which
made
certainly indicates that will-making of such a character as
it
is
exhibited in the citation was not only
known
at the
time
of Sophocles, but was then a matter of history.'
brief
Doric testament engraved on a bronze tessera found near
Petelia (Strongoli), which cannot be of later date than the year

is
preserved in the
museum
Naples.
at
Saotis gives to Sicaenia his house
tune.
1 1
b.
c,
runs as follows: "God. For-
It
and
all his
other property.
Proxenoi: Mincon, Harmoxidamus, Agatharcus,
Demiurge: Paragoras.
Onatas, Epicurus."^
The
beneficiary
is
woman and is made universal heir. The name

may indicate his co-operation or it may
of the magistrate being inserted
There were
have been prt in simply to indicate the year.
five
witnesses
'Soph. Track. 155-63:

oSif 70/3
wpnar'
Xe^Tret
^/xoj
TeKevraiav &va^
Tr\v
olkuv 'llpaKXrji. t6t' iv
d-Tr'
56/iiois
yraXaiav SiXrov iyeypanpL^vrjv
avvdiipxid' , auol wplxjdev ovk frXr] ttot^
TToWoiis dyCopas iîujv,
dXX' ws Ti
vxiv 5'
Xpet'?
kov Bavovixevo^.
er' oiiK C)v eiTre fiiv
ojs
Ai'
oi;7ra> <ppdcrai,
dpacrcxjif flpire
fioipav irarpiâs yrjs 5iaipeTov
'Apropos
of the
X^x"^' ^
meaning
v^/ulol,
of diad'^Ki], the use of the
contents of this testamentary .iocument is interesting.

lent of ffwdriKai in Plat. Gorg. 492 C; Xen. Anab.
6.
121;
4.
12
it
4. 6.
Plut.
is
20, Hell.
2. 13.
8. 16,
denote the
used as the equiva5. 4. 6;
In Hdt.
8. 7
Hdt.
5.
74;
and Thuc.
a 7vatchword, password.
4;
The
p. 59.
ffvvdrjp.ara to
Roehl, Inscr. ant.. No. 544; Cauer, Dilectus, 2d ed. No. 274; Roberts,
304; Schulin, p. 44; Kaibel, No. 636 (with facsimile); JJG., 2d Series I,
^CIG.
Intro., p.
4. 6. 7; 6. 61, etc.;
word
This word
Amil. 19; Hdn.

means a preconcerted signal; in Xen. Anab. i.
Thuc.
''"'
^v riKvois
eXicrdai KTTJffiv, eiTre 5'
text
is
as follows:
Klav Kal
a.
as.
'
Sdorts
rvx":
deb%-
OTt ZtKatfiai
rdv
T&Wa
Aafj-iopybs
5i5-
foi-
wdvT-
Hapay6p-
UpSêvoi. ÎIvkov,
Apfxoîdafxos,
'
Ay ddap-
Xos, 'Ovdras, 'EttLkop

OS.
For the name Sdorts

Hdt.
6.
cf.
C/G.
II.
1247, 2496.
57.
418
Hesychius,
Upoêvot.-
fiaprvpei
cf.
A STUDY OF AIAGHKH
41
whose names are affixed to the instrument. Although from the words
used it might be claimed that this document was a donatio inter vivos,
the universal character of the disposition {jaXKa. Travra) seems to preclude such an interpretation.
bronze slab found
museum
Athens
Tegea
at
(Piali in Arcadia),
and now
in the
engraved on both sides with two independent

inscriptions, each of which is at once a deposit and a will.
One side
at
is
more detailed dispoon the other side. The inscriptions are in the Arcadian dialect
and date from about the beginning of the fifth century. The slab was
probably deposited in the temple of Athena Alea, which was burned in
has been intentionally defaced and replaced by
sitions
The
K. c.
393
Side A.
lives, let
To
inscriptions run as follows:

Xouthias, son of Philachaeus, 200 minas.
him come and take them up; but
he
if
children, five years after they reach the age of puberty.
who have a
children, they shall belong to those

of
Tegea
If
dies, they shall

If
he himself
belong
to his
there shall be no
The people
right to them.
shall decide according to the law.
Side B.
To Xouthias, son of Philachaeus,
a deposit, 400 minas of silver.
him take them up himself. If he does not live, let his legitimate sons take them five years after they come to puberty. If these do not
If
he
lives, let
live, let his
legitimate daughters take them.
gitimate sons take them.
these do not live,
If
the illegitimate sons do not live,
If
collateral relatives take them.
there
If
is
let
let his ille-
the nearest
a dispute, the people of Tegea
shall decide according to the law.'

Roberts, No. 257 and p. 357;
'Roehl, No. 68; Cauer, No. lO;

IJG., II, p. 60.
A. %ovdla.i Toi îKaxo.l'O diaKcLriai /xvaT.

at k' avrbs el, (to aveK^tral d4
6ofj,ev
iirel
/c'
diroOdvei,
rov riKvov
Ka irivn pirea.
al Si Ka fj.^ yiveraTeKva TOP iTTLdiKaTOvJefiev
hejSoj'Tf
l
diaypdnev 5k t6s T7edTa[s]

Ka(T)T6v dedfxSv.
B. Aovdlai TrapaKa0td)iKa toi
TfTpaKaTiai
lo
îXaxa-
fivai dpyvplo.
iv Ka fie, avTbs dve\i<Tdo-
fj.i
foe. Tol viol
ffioi, iirei
a-
el
dveXbaOo toI yv4-
Ka i^dffovTi irivTe piTe-
54 Ka ôvri, Tal Ovyaripes
[d'\ve\b<Tdo Tal
yvicnaf
el
^[ojvTi, Tol vbdoi dve\6(T0ofii
5e Ka
ei
/xk
54 Ka
vbOaL ôvTi, toI (TacncrTa (sic) irSOiK-
es dveXScrdool
el /x-
al 54 k-
el
54 k' av(piK4yovT{L, t-)
TeyaTai. SiayvovTO Ka(T)Tbv
dedfjibv.
419
Schulin, p. 37;
42
Roberts says:
The depositor is in both cases the same, Xouthias, son of Philachaeus.

The documents cannot, therefore, be more than two or three decades apart;
On side A
the similarity of the writing also points to the same conclusion.
the writing seems to have been purposely defaced, and
intended to be canceled by side B, which was thus
we
with this view that
on
find
regularly
and Reinach
Dareste, Haussoullier,
on
al,
it
later.
It is
chiefly
ei.
"Nous avons
say:
was probably
in agreement
un exemple
ici
de revocation ou tout au moins de modification d'un testament par un
These inscriptions seem
acte ult^rieur."
testation.
He
(2) legitimate daughters;
(3) bastards;
the testator was not a native of
Tegea
power of
to indicate a free
minutely regulates the succession:

(4)
(i)
legitimate sons;
That
collateral relatives.
indicated by the last clause of
is
Some authorities think he was a Spartan, and had

and testament here to escape the more stringent laws
own country; others, from philological reasons, judge that he
each document.
made
his deposit
of his
was an Achaean.
Aristotle complains of the liberty of bequest as
Lacedaemonian
the decay of the
state,
making
of holdings of land that existed in his day.
one of the causes of
possible the inequality
He
says that, while the
law stigmatized the purchase or sale of one's patrimony,

liberty to give or
bequeath
it
gave him
it.'
Plutarch agrees with Aristotle in assigning, as one of the chief
He
causes of the decline of Sparta, the freedom of gift and bequest.
says that a certain Epitadeus, an ephor of the fourth century, having
quarreled with his son, had a law adopted "permitting a

his
by
man
to give
house and land to whomsoever he pleased, either during his

will after his death."
Up
to this time the
number
life
or
of houses insti-
tuted by Lycurgus had been maintained, and each father had
left his
estate to his son.^
'
Aristot. Politics
KBLkbv,
6p6Qs
-iroiriffas,
"Plut. Aiîs 5:
'
li.
9:
(Jjveicrdai fx-^v
yap
fj
iro\uv ttjv vwdpxovffav (yrjv) itroi-qaev ov
diddvai 8k Kal KaraXelireiv iôvcriav edwKe tois PovXa/xivois.
ApxV''
A'^''
0^'' Sia4>6opa.s Kal
rod
vocreiv ecrx^ to- irpdy/jLara
daifioviuv (rxe56)' d0' o5 rr/v Adrivaiiov KaraXijaavres 7]yep.ovLav xPV^^^'^^

KaT^TrXrjcrav eavrovs.
ov
p.r]v
dWd
Kal
tQv oIkwv
$v 6 AvKoDpyos
ilipKTe
dpidpjbv if Ta?s SiaSoxats, Kal irarpos Traidl tov kXtjpov dTroXeiirovTOS. dfiQs
a^TT) Kal IcrdrTjs biap-^vovda tt/v Trb\iv iK
twv dWajj"
yevo/ji^vrji
^wirdSev^
twv
'^<*^
ttojs
17
420
rct^ts
i<p6pev<Ta$
6vop.a^ irpbi
rhv vlbv
biacpopds prjTpav eypaipev iêivai rbv oIkov avroO Kal rbv kXtjpov
idd\oi Kal ^Cjvra bovvai Kal KaraXtTretv 8 lar id 4 fxevo v.
Aa/ce-
dpyvplov
(pvXaTrdvTwv
yi
dvi<ppev afiaprrnxdruiv.
64 Tts dvrjp Bwards, avdddrjs dk Kal xaXe7r6s tov rpbirov.

oi;T(fJ
'''*
tii
tls
43
A STUDY OF AIAGHKH
Plato in his
Laws
finds fault with the ancient legislators for
being
too lenient in granting liberty of bequest, and proceeds to suggest

stricter rules.
He makes
the Athenian representative say that "the
ancient legislators passed a law to the effect that a
man should
mitted to bequeath his property
he desired.'"
seems
in all respects as
liberty of bequest
utmost
to indicate that the
be per-
This
was allowed
in
had existed for a long time

Plato's time, and
"ancient"
in his day.
it
as
that
could
speak
of
he
so long
The law of Solon respecting wills, as stated by the orators, was to
the effect that a man might bequeath his property as he pleased, if he
had no legitimate male children, and was not disqualified by old age,
drugs, or disease, influenced by a woman's persuasions, or under
that this state of affairs
duress.''
Plutarch, in his
life
of Solon, says that
Before his time these were not

deceased person were inherited by
his family in all cases.
Solon, however, permitted anyone who had no children to leave his property to whom he would, honoring friendship more than
nearness of kin, and giving a man absolute power to dispose of his inheritance.
by
he gained credit also

permitted, but the
his laws about wills.
money and lands
of a
Yet, on the other hand, he did not permit legacies to be given without restrictions,
but disallowed
were obtained by the
all that
effects of disease or
by the
administration of drugs to the testator, or by imprisonment and violence or
by the
solicitations of his wife.3
The above citations and inscriptions show that will-making was

known in several states of Greece as early as the sixth century. It is
probable that it existed in a rudimentary and oral form for some time
before such legislation as that of Solon gave
evident that
it is
'Plat. Laivs 922
yeyovivai kol
iirl
it
was not known
in
E: AG. fw.\6aKol enoiy\
ff^jiiKpov
tQv avdpunrivLwv
(3
it
formal recognition, but
The
primitive times.''
KXeivla, 8okov<7iv
ol
ancient
irdXai vo/xoOeTovvTei
npa'yiJ.i.Twv ^Xiirovri^ re Kal
diavoovp.evoi
vo/xodeTeiv.
KA.
AG.
irtjj \^yei.s;
Toi'
X670C
TovToi',
tj
eavTov diaTlOecrdai airXQs Sirws

^
iav
Dem.
fj.rj
20. 102: 6
fj-kv
fadi, (poôv/xevoi rbv
SdXwc
TratSes dcri yvri<rioi.
v6/j.ov
irLdiaav rbvSe, iêivai
ri,
rts idi\ri rb irapawav.

edriKeu vbfxov iêXvai doOvai to. eavrov <Z &v rts ôvXrjraL,
Id. 46. 14:
iraiSes wffi yvrjffioi dppeves, cLv

Trn.dbfj.ivos, inrb
'
8.v
p-r]
tovtojv tov irapavowv,
44. 67; Isae. 6. 9; 2. i; 9. 16, 17;
rd eauroO
p-aviCiv
ij
ij litt'
Dem.
yr}pwi
5iad^<Tdai eivai
owws
(papp-dKuiv
vbaov
fj
dvdyKr]s ^ vnb
46. 16; 48. 56;
ij
Sj*
id^Xri,
'dveKa,
5e<rp.ov KaTaKrjcpdeis.
Hyp. Aihenag.,
ij
&v
(jlt]
yvvaid
Cf.
Dem.
col. 8.
3plut. Sol. 21.
Cf. Maine, Anc.

5. P-
Law,
pp. 193
ff.,
and Fuslel de Coulanges, La
87-
421
cite
antique, Vll.
44
Hindoo
legislation,
which especially authorizes adoption when a
man
According to
Plutarch, the law of Lycurgus did not recognize the will, and while
Aristotle intimates that there was a free power of bequest in Sparta in
his time, the fact that he assigns this as one of the chief causes of
Sparta's ruin implies that it did not exist during all the five centuries
of her prosperity that intervened between Lycurgus and his day.
Plutarch tells us that the will was not permitted in Athens before the
time of Solon. Aristotle speaks of a time when it was unknown in Corinth
and Thebes.^ The Cretan code of Gortyn, which dates from about the
has no sons, knows nothing of the will in any form.'
knows nothing
sixth century,
of a highly
We may
from the
although
it
then conclude that, while adoption was
earliest times,
recognized
of the will,
treats extensively
developed form of adoption and intestate succession.^
it is
known
in
Greece
probable that will-making was not formally
about the sixth century.
till
The
sources for tracing the origin and development of the Greek
will are
very inadequate, and as a consequence writers on Greek law
have usually contented themselves with taking
who
Attic orators,
This
ject.
It
is,
true not only of the will, but of
is
from
in this respect, quite different
origin
it
up
at the
time of the
afford a fertile field for the investigation of the sub-
and development
Greek law
Roman
of which the sources are abundant.
that writers on the history of the will usually begin with the
missing the Greek with a few desultory remarks.
in
general.
law, for tracing the
Hence
Roman,
It is difficult,
it is
dis-
owing
to
the paucity of the sources, to trace with exactness the various steps in
Greek law from its earliest rudiments to the comparahad assumed at the time of the orators. But we are
not left wholly to conjecture, for we find traces in the early poets of
institutions and customs of the patriarchial period, and we have a few
the evolution of
tive
complexity
inscriptions
it
that
help
to
bridge
over
although in some
the gulf,
instances the exact significance of the terms used in these sources has
not been determined.
Moreover,
it is
not easy to trace the development of the Greek
although that development took place
we come
to the orators
we have very
will,
in the historical period; for until

little
that
is
tangible outside of a
few scattered, and not always very intelligible, inscriptions."

'See
Laws of Manu,
Law
Cf. Perrot., p.
g.
of Gortyn, X, XI;
liii:
104
cf.
^'Arist. Fo/.
ff.
IV and
"Nous n'avons
ii.
6, 12.
V.
sur la legislation athenienne que des donnês
bien incompletes et bien fragmentaires; c'est done a peine
422
si,
en ressemblant tous
les
A STUDY OF AIAeHKH
If
we were
we
to put implicit trust in the statements of the orators,
should believe that the
Greek law
45
word with reference
final
was spoken by Solon; but
in general,
and
to wills,
this
is
in fact
evidently a
professional device for working on the credulity of ignorant jurors; for
easy to notice that when it suits their purpose they appeal to Solon,
and when it does not they have no hesitation in ignoring his laws or
quoting them to suit their argument.'
Without doubt the laws of
Solon were modified and added to between his time and that of the
it is
orators.""
Solon's laws, and especially those concerning inheritances, are often
may have been
obscure; and this
intentional, with a view to giving
greater power to the people as the interpreters of the law in the courts.^
The
dicasts took oath to give their decisions according to equity in
absence of law/
textes,
de quelque date
I'ensemble.
reflection of the
qu'ils soient,
nous prdtendons
Si
power
of the dicasts
nous n'arrivons a nous
traiter
sdparement I'oeuvre
may be
seen
une juste idde de
faire
l^gislatif
de Solon
et celle
de ces successeurs, nous n'avons plus que des details qui ne s'assemblent et ne se
rejoignent pas, qui souvent meme se contredisent; toute vue g^n^rale nous est a peu
Mieux vaut ne pas
pres interdite.
s'attarder a des distinctions oil
il
est bien difficile
de porter quelque rigueur, a des determinations qui sent presque toujours purement
conjecturales;
mieux vaut
telle qu'elle existait
dans
democratie par Thrasybule

'
yap
Cf. Isae.
6.
v6fi.os KeXei/et
se placer tout d'abord
/xiv
le
rdtablissement de la
guerre lomiaque."
et la
28: oid^ diad^ffOai
rd
en face de legislation athenienne,
dernier si^cle de la rdpublique entre
le
i^ 6t(^ hv
eavrov SiaOiadan
Jjcn
TraiSes yvrjcnoi
Srtf} civ idfXr),
tQv
with
10.
?V/.
2:
5k aXKorpluv ovSiva, Kvpiov
weTTolriKe
In une case the clause " if there are no legitimate sons," suits his argument,
and he misquotes the main clause in order to exaggerate its importance; in the other
case it does not suit him and he omits it altogether. At one time the orators say, "A
man can make any will he likes; " at another they say, " He can't make a will if
"
Cf. Hyp. Athenag. Col. 8; Isae. 10. 22., etc.
''Cf.
Beauchet,
p.
n'avaient point inspire
XII Tables.
neglige, et
il
Leur
xlvi
le
"Les
originaux
textes
des
respect sdculaire qui entoura a
prescriptions
Rome
les regies
soloniennes
de
la loi
des
autorite s'etait affaiblie; le soin de leur conservation avait 6\
est certain qu'ils etaient
deja sensiblement alteres a I'epoque ou
Demo-
sth&ne et orateurs ses rivaux s'en prevalaient en les attribuant a Solon."

3Cf. Aristot. Kd.
dXX' wffvep 6
ttoX.
q: eri 5k Kal rb
irepi tSiv KX-f/puiv
Kal
irdvra ppapeveiv Kal rd Koiva Kal
fj.7]
kiriKX'fipiov,
to,
y4ypa(pdaL
toi)s
avdyK-q TroXXds
fSta rb 5iKatyTripiov.
v6aovs airXus
d/xfpLa^rjTificreLi
Cf. Isae.
3.
fxri 5k
(racpus,
yiveadai Kal
68, 74, ^'id Plut.
So/. 18.
*Dem.
20. 118: wepl
" Solon committed the
&v hv
vd/jioi fiT) tSfft
ry
St/catordTT/ Kpiveiv.
Cf.
Wyse,
by
administration of justice to tribunals appointed
p.
lot
176:
and
invested with powers so ample that they became judges of equity as well as of law."
423
46
in
The Wasps of Aristophanes, where one of them
is
represented as
saying:
If
a father
husband, we
when dying
tell
leaves an heiress daughter, assigning her to
the will and the case that
may go be hanged,
we
for all
and we give her
care,
And
over to his side by his persuasions.
on
so solemnly
sits
it
whoever has won us
to
we do without
this
some
seals that
its
fear of being
called to account.'
The
may be
character of the Greek will at the time of the orators
deduced from
comparatively plentiful;
for such deduction
is
mine what the
was in
back into the
been intimated, the material
their writings, where, as has
will
its
origin,
it
will
but
if
we would deter-
be necessary to look further
past.
While, as has been stated, the direct sources for tracing the origin
and development
Greek
of the
inadequate,
will are
think there
is
point of attack that will yield a clear understanding of the subject.

I
refer to the ancient religious beliefs of the
which are abundant
in their literature,
and out
Greek people, traces of

of which I believe most
of their institutions grew.''

It is
human
society or organiza-
that the earliest form of
government was the
commonly accepted
and
tion was the family,
that the
first
Traces of this have existed up to our own time in the high-
patriarchal.
small
communities consisting of
under the leadership of
This was the case in prehistoric
a grandfather or great-grandfather.
Greece.
Homer, writing of the Cyclops, tells us that "they did not
lands of Scotland and in Russia
several of our
modern
families living together
assemble for deliberation
in
the agora, nor for judicial decisions, but
each had jurisdiction over his children and wives, and they did not
trouble themselves about each other. ^
originally under a patriarchal
the above citation,
and
says:
"This
still
men were
Homer in
Plato asserts that
such as
rule,
is
described by
remains
in
many
places both
'.^ristoph, Vesp. 583-87:
Khv dirodv^ffKiov
waTrfp rep 5w KaraKeiiruv iro?5' iirlKXrjpov,
fxaKpa Tr]v Ke(pa.\T]v etvovres
KXdeiv
ijfxeis
/cat TTj
K6yxv ^V trdw
eSofxev TavTrjv Saris Slv
rrj 5iadi)Kri
ceixvCos rots cr-qneloLcnv iirovcrr],

-q/xSis
dvriô\i}(Ta.s avaweiffri,
Kal ravT^ avvTrevdvvoL bpQiixev.
'Cf.
pp. 13
Maine 190
Ôdys.
ffreliei
ff.,
De Coulanges, La
cite antique, pp.
and
ff.;
Beauchet,
t.
9.
112, 113:
TOiaiv
5' o\i t'
5k ^Kaaros Tralduv ijd d\6x'>'v,
oi55'
dyopal ôv\7)<p6paL 06 re
dXXijXw;' d\dyovffLv.
424
C.
dd/jiKXres
Hdt.
4.
....
106.
OefMi-
A STUDY OF AIAGHKH
among Greeks and
barbarians.'"
47
Aristotle says that the
most ancient
composing
society could be called a family colony, for the individuals

it
were 6/xoyaXaKTes,
TratSe's
re koL TratSwv 7raT3es.'
The most ancient people of Greece believed in the immortality of

the soul.
The soul, however, was not separated from the body at death,
but was buried with it and lived in the tomb underground. ^ After
having buried the body, the mourners before departing called the
deceased by name, and said: " May the soil lie lightly above thee!"*
They had
a great dread of the possibility of lack of burial.
If
the
body was not buried, the soul had no dwelling-place, and became a
phantom restlessly roving over the earth and plaguing those whose
neglect to perform the burial rites had caused its misery .^
The dead thus continuing to exist under ground had need of food,
which it was the duty of their descendants to supply. This was done
with regularity at set periods, and became a religious festival.* These
ceremonies are described by Ovid and Vergil, in whose days they continued to exist, although they had become empty forms; for the most
cursory study of the religious beliefs of mankind will serve to show that
forms and ceremonies continue to be observed long after the beliefs
that gave them birth have become obsolete or mere superstitions.
The
tombs were decorated with flowers; cakes and fruits were placed on
them; milk, wine, and sometimes the blood of a victim were poured on
the ground over the body, and sometimes through a funnel leading to
the mouth of the body.'
Lucian, who, as Suidas tells us, was called
"The Blasphemer,"
says, in ridiculing these old beliefs:
It seems then that they are nourished by the libations and victims offered
by us upon their tombs; accordingly a dead person who has no friend or
relative left above ground is always in a famishing condition.*
'Plat. Legg.
680 C.
iii.
'
Aristot. Politics
Eurip.
rest the soul
/^/f.
i. 2. 6.
163.
{animam)
tVerg. Aen.'n. 644,

Ôd.
xi.
Cf. Vergil describing the funeral of
Aen.
in the grave."
iii.
iii.
66
Polydorus:
68; Iliad xxivi. 221; Eurip. Ale. 463; Pausan.
72; Eurip. Troad. 1085;
Hdt.
"We
put to
f.
ii.
7. 2.
5. 92.
*See Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, pp. 510
ff.;
cf.
Ridder, L'Idee de la morte
en Grice.
7
Verg. Aen.
iii.
66, 67, 301; v, 77
f.;
Ovid
Fast. 535-42;
cf.
Hdt.
536; Iphig.I. T. 162; Aesch. Coeph. 483-87 and Ridgeway, p. 510.
425
2.
40; Eurip. Hec.
48
The
care of the dead being thus obligatory
grew up
there
Electra in
gods.'
I
may come
pray to thee that Orestes
mother and more pious
This
in action.*
It
was ancestor-wor-
word used by the Greeks
indicated by the
is
as
may be
This primitive religion was purely domestic.

ship.
their descendants,
some success and do

far more chaste than
hither with
thou hear me, father; and to myself grant that
my
upon
dead in which they were regarded

her prayer to her dead father says:
a religion of the
to designate
The Laws of Afanu represent the dead as repeatedly expressing

wish that sons may be born of their race who at regular intervals
it.^
the
will give
them
honey and
rice boiled in milk, with
sidered a great crime for a son to
consequence of these
beliefs,
will
it
Isaeus,
"knowing
if
that he
die,
to render
him the worship
that
As
"No man,"
is
says
so careless of himself as to be
is
willing to leave his family without descendants, for there
one
was con-
Celibacy was impious, and the
the wife proved barren. ^
must
It
appear that the perpetuation of the
family was regarded as a sacred duty.
marriage became invalid
ghee.''
to fulfil this obligation.
fail
due
to the dead."*
would be no
This duty could
not be intrusted to a daughter, because when a daughter married she
gave up her own ancestor's worship and adopted that of her husband.
"From the hour of marriage the

mon with the domestic religion
no longer anything
wife had
in
com-
of her fathers; she sacrificed at the
hearth of her husband."'
When
the natural
means
of procuring
a son failed, in order that
succession might remain unbroken the legal fiction of adoption was
This seems to have been practiced as
introduced.
The Hindoo law permitted
have any knowledge.
no son by marriage
Aesch.
'
C/4(7^/i//!.
to
adopt one
475-509; Soph.
/i/2g-.
45
in
far
back as we
man who had
order that the funeral
\u\.. Sol.
21
',
rites
Plat. Z^g-^. 927; Eurip.
Ale, 1004.
"Aesch. Choeph. 138-41.

^
Laws of Manu
3.
274.
^vaTpii.îiv.
"That son through whom
Cf. 9. 106, 107:
pays his debt toward the manes and gains eternity

the others they look
upon
Laws of Mamt
*Isae.
7.
9. 81.
{dja/iati) in
Cf. Hdt. 10. 39;
30.
'Stephanas of Byzantium, irdrpa.
426
her
II. 61.
the father
begotten for the sake of duty;
The pregnant
as born of desire."
because her husband was born again
is
wife
{ibid. 9. 8).
was
called djaha
Cf. Jebb II, p. 316.
Cf. Plut. Sol. 20.
STUDY OF AIAGHKH
49
" Adoption," says Isaeus, "

might not cease."
all men
Greeks and barbarians."'' Again:
'
a right recognized by
is
who
All those
see death approaching think of what will
come
after them,
so as not to leave their house desolate, but to have someone to bring to their
manes
and
the necessary offerings,
Wherefore,
custom.
to give to
them the honors consecrated by
they are about to die childless, they procure a son by
if
And this is not only recognized by the indiby the state, for by law it enjoins upon the archon the care of
seeing that houses do not become desolate.^
adoption to leave behind them.
vidual, but also
In another speech he says:
Read
to
me
giver,
gentlemen of the
And
men,
to
permitted to dispose of his
there be no legitimate children; for the law-
if
made
jury, so
way
there was only this

life for all
man be
the law which orders that a
property however he wishes,
the law on this account, seeing that
escape from desolation,
of
be permitted
to
this
one consolation of
adopt whomever they wish.*
another place:
in
After this Menecles considers
one while living
to take care of
how he may not be childless, but have somewhen he died to bury him and for
him, and
future time to perform the customary rites for him.^
man
If a
another;*
already had a son, the law did not permit him to adopt
for, as
has been seen, the only reason for adoption was to
prevent the family from becoming extinct; but
adopted one, and
after the
not take away the rights of the adopted son.
Now,
in
heir,
an heir
the issue of the body?
man who
The
he had no sons and
to
whom
this
did
Says Isaeus:
what sense was he "childless" who had
adopted son and

born to a
if
adoption a son was born to him,
left his
nephew
as his
the law allows the succession just as to
provision in the law
is
express that
if
a son
has already adopted a son, both sons shall share alike
is
in
the inheritance.^
We
had
have seen that the ancestor-gods which the Greeks worshiped

They did not
abode in the grave where they were buried.
their
have
common
each family
^
Lawi
(ye'vos)
of Manu,
*Isae. 2. 10;
his
manes and
to
had originally
g. 141,
cf. tizd.
its
own
142, 159, 180.
46 and
7.
30:
perform the customary
there
rites for
times, but
burial-ground near the door.^
*Isae. 2. 21.
"That
modern
may
3Isae.
7. 30.
<Isae.
2. 13.
be someone to sacrifice to
him."
Îsae. 6. 63.
Dem. 44 passim; cf. Beauchet II, p. 28.
Êurip. J/el. 1163-68; Dem. 43. 79; id. 57. 28.
Cf. de Coulanges, Cf// ant.,
"Chaque famille avait son tombeau .... Tous
34, and authorities there cited:
*
p.
burial-places by the wayside, as in
Isae. 2. 11-14;
ceux du
meme
sang devaient y
pouvait etre admis."
Cf. also
aucun
etre enterr^s et
Ridder
I,
chap.
427
2.
homme
d'une autre famille n'y
50
It
man should remain on
was thus necessary that a
the place where his
ancestors were buried, in order to perform the sacred
From
rites.
this
grew up the right of family possession of land. The family

gods dwelt there; it was under their protection. A man had therefore
no right to part with his land, for it belonged not to him, but to his
family; and a family was a corporation, and corporations never die.'
Hence we are not surprised to find that the ancient legislators in various states of Greece made laws forbidding the sale of one's patrimony
and enjoining that the original allotments should remain unchangeable.''
From what has been said it will appear that the right to the land
was transmitted in the same way as the right and duty to perform the
A daughter could not inherit
religious rites, through sons only.
naturally
because she could not be intrusted with the celebrating of the family
When
worship.^
man
no sons, the
a daughter, but
left
difficulty
was
obviated by adopting a son and leaving him the estate on condition of

his
In such a case she was called an
marrying the daughter.
one on the
forming a part of
estate,
it,
as
were.
it
cttikXt^/jos
She went with the
estate to the heir.
This adoption was originally a solemn and public ceremony performed with the accompaniment of public assemblies, sacrifices, and
oaths.^
As the primary duty of the adopted son was to continue the
family worship, it was natural that adoption was primarily a religious
institution, and that the adopted son must be introduced into the sacred
rites of the
The
family of the adoptive father. ^
first
formality was his
introduction into the phratry, or brotherhood of families, to which his
This took place
adoptive father belonged.

the
members
The adoptive
of the phratry.
a goat for sacrifice.
at the regular
meeting of
lamb or
father presented a
phratry refused to admit the person pre-
If the
sented for adoption, the victim was removed from the
altar.'
The
adoptive father led to the altar the person he desired to adopt and,
placing his hand upon the
altar,
took oath that
woman who was
this
person was born
The
in lawful
wedlock of a
members
of the phratry then took oath to decide according to the laws,
and,
if
a citizen of the state.
the vote was favorable, the candidate was enrolled.^
'Cf. Maine, pp. i86f.

'Aristot. Politics
<Isae.
s^ttJ
7.
ra
*Isae.
'Dem.
14-17;
tepo
7.
22;
ii.
cf.
i.'iiiv
6, 12;
cf.
ii.
7.
See
p. 48.
Code of Goriyn, X.
(Isae. 7. l).
Dem.
43. 14; cf.
Jebb
II, p. 347, note.
43. 14.
428
A STUDY OF AIAeHKH
51
The religious initiation of the candidate was not complete until he

had also been introduced into the yo/os' of the adoptive father, which
was also a religious ceremony. ^ After this a third enrolment had to
take place in the deme,' in order that he might be admitted to
full
political privileges.''
The son thus adopted was pledged to perform the duties of a son
by marriage, and to fulfil all the obligations of his adoptive father, both
divine and human.^
Of course, he could not be adopted without his
own consent, or, if he were a minor, the consent of his guardian was
The guardian could
required.'
refuse to give his consent.^
Adoption among the Greeks was thus a solemn covenant. It was a

contract, and could not be dissolved without the consent of both parties.
Demosthenes tells us of a man who, having no son by marriage, adopted
one and gave him his daughter with a certain portion. Afterward he
quarreled with his adopted son, and took away the daughter and gave
her to another man.
The adopted son brought an action against him,
and he "was compelled to meet all the demands that the adopted son
brought against him." Then they came to a settlement on certain
terms and "gave mutual releases from all demands."*
It is true that the law of Gortyn seems to show a weakening of the
adopted son's claim. There the adoptive father appears to have had
the right to put him away by making a public declaration before the
assembled people, but even here his claim was recognized, for the
adoptive father had to pay him ten staters by way of compensation.'
good reasons why this public adoption should

probably often happened that a man did not
wish to ofifend his other relatives and friends by the selection of one as
his heir." Anxiety to be on the safe side would lead a man to adopt a
There were
not suit in
"
The
from a
several
all cases.
It
original family,
common
'Isae.
7. 15:
all
whose members were supposed
of
to
have been derived
ancestor.
^707^
fie iirl roiis jSw/ttous els roiis
yevvriTas re Kal (fyparopas,
The demes were political divisions established by Clisthenes (508 b. c.) on a

democratic basis. The divisions were made by districts instead of by families, and
3
aimed at breaking the power of the old aristocracy and admitting aliens to citizenship.
Of course, previous to Clisthenes only the twofold registration in phratry and y^vos
was required.
*Dem. 44. 41, 44; cf. Isae. 7. 26-28, and see Jebb II. 327.
sCf. Code of Gortyn, X.
7
Isae. 2. 21:
Dem.
41
'Cf. Isae.
Cf. id. 3. 72
dXV
*Isae. 7. 14.
oiK Kv avr^ eScjKev, diraiSa avrbv Kadiffrds.
3-5
4. 13;
and
4.
cf. 9. 12:
26; see also
Code of Gortyn
ixr]diva ^ôi/Xero el84vai Sri
Wyse,
p. 357.
429
XI
rbv KX^wcos vibv
iiroieiTO,
52
when
son, sometimes
son born of his body,' especially
in the future a
set out
born
there was a possibility of his having sometime
on a dangerous journey.
to
he were about to
if
he should afterward have a son
If
him, he could not, as we have seen, get rid of the one he had
Again, the position of the adopted son was too sure during
adopted.
the life of the adoptive father to suit all cases.

to be disreputable and unworthy, or
Even
if
he turned out
the adoptive father quarreled with
if
There is no doubt that, in the

would not infrequently happen
that the adopter would give a great deal to undo what he had done.
These considerations led to putting off the adoption of a son as long
in fact, till it was felt that death was imminent [adoptio in
as possible
extremis), or the person was going to set out on a dangerous journey.'
him, he could not revoke his decision.
ordinary course of
human
nature,
^^
it
Now, there was the
serious objection to this course that an adoption
could not be completed in a moment.
The ceremonies required were
too formal and extended, and they could be performed only at certain
fixed times of the year."
tion
and
as little
people of versatile genius, as quick of intui-
bound by formality and
were the Greeks, nat-
set laws as
A man
urally soon arrived at a solution of this problem.
supposing
himself to be in imminent danger of death, with the day for the assemb-
months
ling of the phratry several

of
making
and facing the impossibility
distant,
complete adoption by the usual public ceremonies, called
in his relatives
and
friends,
and declared
to
them
his choice of a
continue his family worship and inherit his patrimony.
person to
The young man,
would be present (and, if there were time, would be initiated

and would engage, either in his own person
or in that of his guardian, to complete the adoption by the public
registration ceremonies in the phratry and the deme after the death of
These dispositions (Sta^^xac) came to be committed to
the de cuius.
writing for greater exactness and to prevent misunderstanding; the
document was called 8ia6-qKrj, and the de cuius was thus said BiaTLOea-Oai
TaiavTov.
This embryonic will-making was thus still public; and, if
the de cuius did not die immediately, it had some of the serious
of course,
into the family worship),
'
on
Isaeus
tells of
a case where a
man adopted
not have been

Isae.
6. 5, 7;
Dem.
made
cf.
infer vivos, for adoption inier vivos
Robiou,
p. 63,
and Beauchet
by will (iv Sta^^/cj;),

Such an adoption could
the son of his sister
the condition that he should not have a son by his wife.
was not revocable
at will.
II, p. 70.
41. 3-5.
3Cf. Isae.
*Isae. 7. 5;
7. 9;
cf.
6, 27;
9. 14,
15; 6. 5;
11. 8.
Meier-Schomann-Lipsius,
430
p. 542;
Beauchet,
II, p. 12;
Schulin, p. 17.
A STUDY OF AIAeHKH
53
disadvantages, already mentioned, of the ordinary adoption inter vivos.
man sometimes desired to make such provision when about to

on a dangerous journey.' The natural desire for secrecy*
caused him sometimes to refrain from communicating his intentions to
the witnesses, and he merely declared to them that they were contained
in a document which he sealed in their presence.^
Thus the StaOrJKri
became secret.*
It is quite probable that Solon's law which permitted a man to dispose of his property as he pleased, if he had no legitimate male children
born of his body, was intended to meet such a case as we have just
The last clause seems to
described, and to make it formally legal.^
indicate that the purpose of the law was to provide a way for the continuance of the family, and this is in accord with what we have seen
Again, a
set out
with respect to the early religious beliefs of the Greeks.
This "testamentary adoption" was not identical with adoption infer

vivos,
Oicrdai
because the
came
elaTroi-qai's^
and the term
Stari-
Suid^Kr] for
was a solemn setting-forth of the intentions of the de
It
(.lcnroLyj(TL<i.
The term
was not legally complete.
in to take the place of dcnroula-dat,
cuius, but the
was not complete until the public ceremonies
eio-Troii/o-is
were gone through with after his death.
This " testamentary adoption,"
became the more popular, and we find

the orators it had almost driven out adoption inter
for the reasons stated above,
that
by the time of
It was not a complete
vivos.
legal contract like
adoption inter
vivos,
but rather like an instrument drawn up and signed by one party and
waiting for the signature of the other.
a party to
it
until
The
heir did not
As
himself enrolled in the phratry and the deme.

usually
known
would consent, and
that he
consulted beforehand,'
Cf. Soph. Track. 155
Isae.
6.
become
legally
he had publicly signified his agreement by having

it
was, of course,
he was most probably
was regarded as a virtual
it
ff.;
in fact
elcnroLrjai^,
and often
Isae. 6. 5, 27; 7. 9; 9. 14, 15; 11, 8.
cf. 9. 12.
27;
'Cf. Isae. 4. 13:
fTi 5i,
<3
dvdpes, Kat tCov SiaTiOefi^vup,
ol
iroWol
oiidi \4yovffi roii
irapayiyvofjL^voii 6 ri Siarldevrai, dXX' avrov fi6vov, toO KaTaXtireiv diaO-^Kas, fidprvpas
iraplffTavrai.
*0n
the relation between adoption and the
"II existe dans
le droit attique,
ne retrouve a un
SCf.
*This word
voUu
tel
Dem. 4^
entre
le
Greek
will, cf.
Dem.
II, p.
19:
degrd dans aucun autre legislation."
passim.
is
used in Isae.
10. 14.
The words
iroi-qcn
or elffiroUu with or without vl6v signifies " to adopt."
'Cf.
Beauchet
testament et I'adoption un lieu ^troit qu'on
41. 17, 18; 27. 43; 28. 14;
and see chap.

431
vi.
and
diffn are also used.
54
at first referred to as such,'
and consequently was,
in the eyes of the
Hence the word

must be rememthe law, and therefore
people of the time, a virtual contract or covenant.

used to designate the act and the document.'
bered that
was not a contract
it
there was nothing to prevent
in the
its
But
eye of
it
the
revocation at
volition
of the
testator.^
Whatever interpretation may have been put upon Solon's law in the
it is evident that soon it was not considered imperative that
the son adopted by will should receive all of the estate.
Isaeus tells of
a case where a man without sons adopted the son of a friend in a will,
beginning,
him only one-third
leaving to
while
it is
So
of his estate.''
mentary adoption other bequests came
in cases of testa-
made
to be
in
the will,
and
probable that Solon's law intended to permit will-making
who had not legitimate natural sons^ and when it suits

them the orators make a point on this interpretation ^
yet we find that
the common interpretation must have been rather that sons could not
be disinherited;' for wills were made by men who had legitimate sons,
and bequests to others sometimes amounting to more than half the
property of the testator.^ Wills dividing up the property between the
sons, giving one more than another, were made.^
It is not likely that it ever occurred to Solon that a man would
want to bequeath his patrimony without adopting a son;' but such a
only to those
restriction
is
not actually expressed in his law which gives a
man
lib-
own," and might easily be interpreted "to disown with full freedom." At any rate, as time went on and
erty "to dispose of his
pose of his
the old religious belief in ancestor-worship began to die out, especially

'Cf. Isae. 3.
3
On
I,
'See chap.
42, 56, 57, 60, 61, 68, 69, 75, etc.
this point see further
chap.
*Isae.
viii.
where the statement is made that,

the law does not permit him to cast them off (iiravUvat).
*Cf. Isae.
7Dem.
Cf.
6. 44,
36. 8; 45. 28; 27. 4-5; Lys. 19. 39-45.
Dem.
ser
11
d^coulait
que jamais
man
See chap.
6. 28,
has legitimate sons,
ix.
36. 34, 35.
9Cf. Robiou, pp. 67, 68:
tumes dont
if
iv.
5Cf. Isae.
5. 6.
si
"Les
principes du droit attique, les doctrines et les cou-
directement, la foi k la religion domestique induisent k pen-
le l^gislateur n'avait
cru qu'il fut seulement possible de poser la ques-
L'abandon de son patrimonie a une famille dtrang^re, sans la faire entrer dans
sienne, c'eut et^ la renonciation a toujours pour soi-meme et pour ses ancetres ceux
tion.
la
libations funfebres qui devaient k la fois les honorer
comme
des hommes, c'eut ^t^
le
comme
les
plus sacril&ge des parricides, et
d'Athfenes a cru impossible le parricide materiel, ni
n'avaient sans doute jamais pr^vu celui-li."
432
lui ni
dieux et les nourir
si le
vieux l^gislateur
aucun de ses contemporains
STUDY OF AIAGHKH
55
b. c), and the consequent weakenby the division of the people according to
locality instead of family, men would naturally chafe under the restric-
after the
reforms of Clisthenes (508
ing of the power of the
There seems
tion.
to
yc'vos
have been a protest against any restriction of
will-making power in Plato's time, and a belief

individual ownership of property.
In the
in the right of absolute
Laws
man about
to die
is
represented as saying:
ye gods
how monstrous
my own
whom
if
am
not allowed to give or not to give
him who has been bad to me, and

him who has been good to me, and whose badness or goodness has
been tested by me in time of sickness or in old age and in every other kind
(bequeath)
more
to
will
less to
to
of fortune.'
As
this
sentiment grew,
interpreted
sons
made
it is
more and more
natural that the laws of Solon would be
We
liberally.
have seen that
men who had
bequests, at the time of the orators, of a greater or less
amount, and men who were childless did not leave all of their property
to adopted sons.
When the religious beliefs grew still weaker and at
last became obsolete toward the end of the fourth century and the
beginning of the
became
entirely
third, we find, as we would expect, that the testament

independent of adoption. Its religious significance
disappeared, and people saw in
it
only a convenient means of regu-
lating the disposal of their property in view of death.
At
the evolution of the will from adoption becomes complete.

Plat. Legg. 922 C,
(Jowett).
433
this point
CHAPTER
VI
FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER
ITS
I have endeavored to trace the origin and

There remain some points connected
Greek will.
that have long been matters of dispute, and so may warrant a
In the previous section
development
with
it
of the
separate treatment.
One of these questions

Some writers, claiming that
for the cases of
is
that of the legal character of the will.
it
was a contract, have labored to account
seeming revocation
concluding from these cases that

such a
at the volition of the testator; others
could not have been looked upon in
light.
The word
in
it
chap,
iv,
or covenant.
The word
(SiaOT^Kr)) used to designate the Greek will, as we have seen

was also used to denote a solemn one-sided compact,
The Greeks themselves
classed StadrjKaL
among dv/xfioXaLa.^
means "contract," but can be used in a

wide sense to denote "dealings between man and man."*
There is
an interesting case in this connection in the speech of Demosthenes
o-v/j,)8oXaiov
He
against Spudias.
When
ordinarily
Polyeuctus
says:
made
this will, the
defendant's wife was present, and of
course she reported to him the will of her father, especially
an equal share, but
it
was
to his
disadvantage
ant himself was invited to attend, so that he cannot say that

transaction and contrived behind their backs.
if
he did not have
and the defendwas a clandestine
in all respects,
When
it
to come, he said
would be sufficient for his wife to be there.
Aristogenes gave him a full report of what had been done, and even then he
made no remark about it; but, though Polyeuctus lived after that five days,
he neither expressed any dissatisfaction when he went to the house nor made
any remonstrance, nor did his wife, who was present at all of it from the
he was engaged himself, but
asked
it
beginning.3
Spudias, the defendant mentioned, was one of two testamentary co-heirs
who had married

'
the two daughters of Polyeuctus.
Isae. 4. 12; 10. 10; Plato
Legg. 913-22.
'For a
fuller discussion of this
'Dem.
41. 17, 18.
word see chap,
56
iv,
pp. 34
f.
[434
57
A STUDY OF AIAOHKH
In his
first
But as
speech against Aphobus Demosthenes says:

legacy which was given to himself [Aphobus], though he
to the
admits that
it
was mentioned
(o/xoXoyô-oi) in order that
These
seem
citations
he says that he did not agree to
in the will,
may appear
he
not to have received
to indicate that
will to consult the prospective heir
it
it.'
was customary on making a
it
and obtain
his consent.
In Isaeus' speech concerning the estate of Philoctenion, as we have

seen,
we have
a clear case of an instrument called
huxOrjK-q
contract or covenant, and also served the purpose of a
Contracts and wills were treated alike,
at the
that was a
will.^
time of the orators,
with respect to the precautions taken to prevent fraud and the means
for
Witnesses were called
proving their authenticity.
both, and their
names were recorded
in the
at the
documents. ^
who were held
both sealed and deposited with persons
making of
They were
responsible for
their safe-keeping."
In a speech of Hypereides we have an illustration of

classified
The speaker
wills.
with Athenogenes
{(TwOriKyj)
is
ence exerted upon him when

Athenogenes
will
that
affirms
He
was made.
the Greeks
agreement
and undue influ-
invalid because of fraud

it
how
written
his
says:
plead that the law declares that
all
agreements between
Righteous (StKaia) agreements, my dear sir.

Unrighteous ones, on the contrary, it declares shall not be binding
One law forbids falsehood in the market-place; yet you have in open market
man and man
are binding.s
made
a contract with
There
is
me
to
my
detriment by means of falsehoods
a second law bearing on this point which relates to bargains between
....
individuals by verbal agreements.*
If
man
shall give a
woman
in
marriage justly and equitably (eVt StKatots), the children of such marriage
shall be legitimate, but not if he betroths her on false representations and
inequitable terms. Thus the law makes equitable marriages valid, but inequitAgain, the law relatmg to wills (twv Sta^r^Kw)
able ones invalid.

similar nature.
enacts that a
It
man may
is
dispose of (Startêo-âi) his
of
own
property as he pleases, provided that he be not disqualified by old age or
'Dem.
27. 43; cf. 28. 14
the testator had
^See chap,
made
iv,
3Isae. 9. 12;
"Isae.
20;
Hyp.
5 (is
6. 7;
I, 2;
5. 8, 9, 18;
that he did not agree to
any
of the arrange-
a document and Therippides saying that
these dispositions."
4,
Dem.
7.
"Says
ff.:
Demophon reading
ments, but only heard
where the citation

35- i3;
Dem.
Diog. L.
Diog. L.
32.
4.
is
given in
5. 57.
16; 33.
74;
full.
IJG
II, p. 62.
15. 35, 36; 34. 6;
44; 5. 57.
See Wyse,
35.
p. 386.
6 vbjxos X^7t Sera Slv Irepos er^ptf) ofioXoyriffrj Kvpia eivai.
^Saoi o/xoXoyovvres dXXijXots ffv/x^dWovcriv.
435
14; 48.
II; Isoc. 17.

58
woman's persuasions, and that he be

bonds or under any other constraint. In circumstances, then, in which
unrighteous wills relating solely to a man's own property are invalidated, how
disease or insanity, or be influenced by a
not
in
can
be right
it
maintain the validity of such an agreement as
to
have
described which was drawn upbyAthenogenes in order to steal property belong-
And
ing to me.'
am
if
anyone under the persuasions
arrangement of
(Sia^77Kas) for the
of a
his property, shall
woman
writes a will
be invalid, while,
it
persuaded by Athenogenes' mistress and entrapped
making
into
if
this
agreement (ravra avvdia-Oat), I must be ruined in spite of the express support

which is given me by law? Can you dare to rely on the contract {a-vvd-qKaL^)
of which you and your mistress secured the signature by fraud?'
In
this
Roman
connection the analogy of the ancient
instructive,
especially
view of the fact that
in
it
will
demonstrated that Greek law was one of the chief sources of

were derived from a
law,3 or that they
similar course
development.^
of
authorities that the
Romans
had
its
ancient
Roman
is
Roman
source and followed a
by several ancient
asserted
sent a delegation to Greece to get materials
famous code of the Twelve Tables.^
for the preparation of the
The
It
common
may be
has been recently
Testameiitum per aes et libram
plebeian will
origin in the niaficipium and required a solemn and intricate
ceremonial.*
was a conveyance inter
It
The
vivos.
heir was called
The
familiae emptor, purchaser of the estate {familia).
transaction
required the presence of a scale-holder {lidripens) with a pair of scales

to
weigh the copper money. This became
We
seen that the adoption
have
later a symbolical
out of
ceremony.^
which the Greek
will
developed was a solemn covenant publicly instituted with religious
Although
ceremonies.
pleted in the will

'
itself
Sttod 5^ ovdk [TepiJ
in case of
not
tGiv
avrov
A0rivoy[^]vei ye Ka[T(x tcjJj' ifiQv
adoption by
until the heir

ISlujv ai
[fj.r]
will the act
in the
dJlKaiai diaOrjKai Kvpial eiciv, ttwi
T]oiavTa 5e? Kvpia
(rvv6efj,4v\ ojv
was not com-
had himself enrolled
elvai.
Kenyon's translation in the

main, taking the liberty of altering it to make it more literal in a few sentences, and
to suit Blass's text, which I have preferred in one instance.
^
Hyp.
By Hofmann,
5.
13
ff.;
Kenyon, pp. 17
Griechisches
und
ff.
have used
romisches Recht, pp.
xxii xxvii; Gide, p. 85; Reinach in Nouvelle revue historigiie
<de Coulanges,
SLivy
....
(iii.
31)
Cite ant., p.
cf.
ff.;
du
Beauchet
I,
pp.
droit, 1893, ? 14-
i.
says that before the code
was drawn up "missi
legati
Athenas
iussique inclitas leges Solonis describere, et aliarum Graeciae civitatum mores
iuraque noscere."
*The ceremony
'
The
is
described by Gaius
ii.
104;
evolution of the will from this source
436
is
cf. iii.
173, 174-
traced at length by Maine, pp. 203
ff.
A STUDY OF AIAeHKH
phratry and the
understood that
that in
deme
after the
it
it
was
among
as a
and used
upon
in the
yet, as
it
it
was
was natural
same
light as
was incipiently taking and whose func-
This accounts for the
fulfilling.
contracts,
it
matter of course,
origin the will should be looked
its
the institution whose place

tions
death of the testator
would follow
this
59
word
fact that the
to designate
it
people classed
which signified a
solemn one-sided covenant.'

'
this
See chap.
word
is
iv.
It is
found uses
a significant fact that the earliest author in whose writings

it
clearly
in
both senses " covenant " and "will."
Aristoph. Av. 440; Vesp. 584, 589.
437
See
CHAPTER
VII
MAKING AND SAFE-KEEPING

The ceremony
of will-making was at
first
no doubt elaborate and
members of
more and more
formal, requiring the presence of the archon as well as of
the yevos, phratry, and deme;' but as the will became
independent of the old religious

with at
beliefs, these formalities
the discretion of the testator.
number
usually a large
were called
of witnesses
testator's relatives, phratores,
At the time
demesmen, and
in,
The
man
father of
Demosthenes
known
it
it.^
was making
that he
a will,
In
fact,
when
man
whom
did not
he could dispense with witis
it
not probable that
was often done.^
this
The names
did not
that the will
were written
of the witnesses
signatures to
affix their
produced
in
been called to witness.'
Isae. 9. 8:
It
tQv
3,vev
jtfJ;
document,* but they
seems not to have been necessary even that
oiKeloiv
p. 36.
tQv iavrov ras
diadriKai Troieicrdai
(xvyyevels irapaKoKiffavTa, eTreira Sk (ppdropes Kai 5r)p.6Tai
Sffovs dvvaiTO TrXeicrrovs
oiirw
could only
had been made by the testator, and not

court was the same as that which they had
'de Coulanges, Nouvelles recherches,

^
in the
for Isaeus says that they
it;
a will
testify to the fact that
&v
In their pres-
and sealed
one besides the three men
called only
nesses altogether, although, for obvious reasons,
fjL^v
will,
desired to avoid publicity, he called in few witnesses-
he appointed guardians of his children/
want
of the orators
consisting of the
friends.^
ence the testator designated a document as his
When
were dispensed
yap
eire
Kara
7^1*05 eire
Kara
twv
dWa
dWwv
irpQirov
iTriTrjdeiuv
docriv diJ.<pia'^r]Toirj tls,
padlws
i\iyxoi-'''o iêv56fjivos.
3 Isae.
7.
i:
diidero ttjv ovcrlav eripif, Kal raOr' iv ypd/xfiaffi Karidero
wapd run
ffTjUTjvifJievos.
tDem.
S
KX^wvos
iv
(pdai
28. 15.
In 12 he says:
Isae. 9. 9-12.
vlbv iwoieiTO.
T(j)
p.rj8'
ypanp-arelif)
ei p,v 6
'
AffrixpiKoi p.r}5iva iôvXtro eid^vai otl rbv
6ti Sta^TjKas KaraXliroi, eUbs
p-dprvpa
ei
5'
Tjv
p^-qSe
dXXov
evavriov fxaprvpicv (palvfTai
p.-q5^va
Cf. Meier-Schomann-Lipsius, p. 695, n. 299; Schulin, p. 8; Caillemer in

p. 173;
Beauchet
111, p. 658;
Diog. Laert.
Isae. 9. 12;
Isae. 4. 12, 14.
He
and Wyse,
5.
iyyeypd-
dLadf/j.evos,
....
Annuaire,
p. 634.
57, 74; cf.
Beauchet
III, p. 659.
overlooks, probably "with malice aforethought," the fact
it by means of the testator's seal, but he would not have been

argument if the witnesses usually had signed the will.
that they could identify
able to use such an
60
[438
A STUDY OF AIAeHKH
61
document be written by the testator himself, or that he should affix

own signature to it.'
This mode of making a will provided no adequate protection against
forgery, as it is evident that the document might be changed altogether
Accordingly, someor in part by anyone who could get access to it.^
times the testator read the document to the witnesses, but, on account
the
his
of the usual desire for secrecy, this
The
to the
seal
means
was the affixing of the testator's
of identification.''
made and
thus
will
was seldom done.
of safeguard
This took the place of his signature, and served
will.^
as a positive
The
method
usual
some
more than one copy were made) for
sealed was usually deposited with
trustworthy person (or persons,
if
This person might be a relative or friend of the testator.
safe-keeping. 5
Isaeus tells us of a will that was deposited with an uncle;* of another
deposited with a brother-in-law;^ of another, with a relative
(7rpoo-i/Kwv).^
Referring to the depositing of wills in general he uses the expression
Demosthenes uses a similar expression.'
"with certain persons."^
Sometimes
safeguard several copies
as a further
made and deposited
were
{dvTiypa<j>a)
There were three copies
with different persons.
Theophrastus "sealed with the ring of Theophrastus."

These were deposited with three different persons, who are named, and
each deposit was made in the presence of four witnesses, whose names
These seem to be private citizens, friends of
are set down in the will.
of the will of
There were three copies
the testator.
also of the will of Arcesilaus,
Theophrastus' pupil and founder of the Middle Academy, which were

deposited in three different
We
find only
with three friends.'"
cities
two instances
which a
in
custody: one mentioned by Isaeus, where
will
was deposited
in official
was deposited with one of
it
the astynomoi;" and one in an inscription from x\morgos, where

'M.-S.-L., p. 595; Beauchet III, 66o; Schulin, pp.
3lsae.
7. I, 2;
Dem.
45. 17; Diog. Laert.
PevTOt, /o^!eense po/iiique,
Isae. 7.
*lsae.
7
(where he
9. 5;
Isae. 6. 7:
cf. 9.
is
6 and
5.
7, 8.
Isae. 4. 12,
57; Aristoph. Vesp. 585
it
was
13.
ff.
p. 372.
speaking of
wills in general): Kar^dero
wapd
tktl.
9. 18.
Kai rrjv diaO-qKrjv Karidero wapa, T(p Kadearr) Xaipâ,
tQ
ttt^v
L.
5. 57;
erepav
airrov d5e\<prjv ex^'^'*
"
Isae. 6. 27.
Dem.
36. 7: Trap'
Isae, 3. 14, 15, 18, 25.
officials
Cf.
taking charge of a will in
thinks this
may have had some
oh
ai SiadrjKaL Keivrai.
" Diog.
4.
44.
No other example is known of State

Wyse, p.
which the State had no interest." Accordingly, he
194: "
connection with State
439
affairs.
62
deposited in three copies "in the temple of Aphrodite, and with the
archon Eumonides, and with the thesmothete Ctesiphon.'
This
will
contained a legacy in favor of the goddess, and this probably accounts

for
its official
There
is
depositing.
no evidence or trace
classic period,
nor of
^CIG 2264 u; IJG

*"The
nn. 11-21)
I.
official
no,
of registration of
wills in the
n. 24.
registration of wills In Ptolmaic
was a consequence
Greek
inspection of their contents.
of the
Egypt (Mahaffy, Flinders Petrie Papyri, I,

Wyse, p. 194; cf.
Egyptian succession duty."
Ramsay, pp. 354 f.
440
CHAPTER
VIII
CODICILS, MODIFICATION, REVOCATION

If at any time after a man had written his will he wished to add
something to it or to correct it, it is obvious that, if he had not deposited it nor communicated its contents to witnesess, he could do so at
pleasure.
If he had deposited it, and could get it back from the
same would be
depositee, the
true.
If,
however, he could not get
back from the depositee in time, he could
additional
write
it
clauses
another document (ypafifxaTdovy He was at liberty also

back from the depositee for the purpose of making cor-
{7rpo(rypdij/ai) in
to
demand
it
rections {iiravopduicraL).^
We
have seen that the adoption from which the Greek
will
was
derived was a legal contract which could not be revoked without the
consent of both parties to

to
its
it.
This, together with the facts with respect

in chap, vi, has
fundamental nature discussed
given rise to the
was also a contract, and consequently irrevocable. But, as

has been shown, since even in its rudimentary stage of testamentary
adoption the d(nroirj(n<; was not completed by the will itself, it was not
idea that
it
a contract in the eye of the law, and consequently, while adoption inter
vivos was irrevocable except
by the consent of both
adoption could be revoked
at the pleasure of the testator.
Obviously,
if
the contents of the will
parties, testamentary
had not been communicated
it in his own possession he

by the substitution of another document, or by simply
and dying intestate. If, however, he had deposited it for
to witnesses, as long as the testator kept
could revoke
destroying
it
it
safe-keeping as indicated above,
demand
it
it
back from the depositee
seems
in
to
have been the custom to

it.
This would
order to destroy
probably be done in the presence of a magistrate and witnesses (prefIsaeus tells of a man who,
erably the original witnesses to the will).
having quarreled with the guardian of his intestate heirs

'Isae.
I.
25:
d TL
his
nephews
irpocrypdil/ai ro&rois iôriXero, SiA rl oiK iv ir^ptfi ypd\j/ai ypa/xfia-
Tet(p KariKiTrev, iTreidii to, ypd/M/jLara irapk
tuv
apxiivrtav oiiK idvv^di] XaêTv;
If codi-
were not permitted, such a question would have been absurd in the mouth of the
most sophistical lawyer and before the most ignorant judges. Continuing he says:
cils
ypdfai S' ^^î' eh 'erepov ef ri iôvXero, Kai fi7]dk rovd'' tj/jlTv diJ.(pi<Tpt}Ti^(Tiixov ig.v. Cf.
Meier-Schbmann-Lipsius, p. 597; Schulin, p. 9; Beauchet III, p. 668; Guiraud, p. 253;
Hille, p. 76.
'Îsae. I.
Ul]
26.
63
64
made a
more
will in favor of several
Just before his
distant relatives.
who had charge of it, but one

The testator became angry and
of the legatees refused to admit him.
ordered the magistrate to be summoned for the next day, but died that
The nephews now claimed that their
night without having seen him.
death he sent for the magistrate (do-rwojaos)
uncle had virtually revoked his
claimed
he
that
(iiravopOwa-ai) in
it
because he had sent for the magis-
aveXdv) it; and the legatees

had sent for him in order to make corrections
and to confirm (ySe/Saiwo-at) the bequest to themselves.
(Xvo-ai,
of these are treated as valid suppositions, whatever
As both
been the
we may conclude that

the manner indicated.'
testator's intentions,
legally revoked or revised in
The only
over a
will,
purpose of revoking
trate for the
instance
8ia$^Kr} at the
we have
demand
may have
a will could be
of the refusal of a depositee to deliver
of the Siadefievoi
is
explained by the fact
document in question was a contract as well as a will.^ The

depositee, when summoned to produce it in court, refused to give it up
that the
for revocation without the

Siaê'jU.ei'os
consent of
obtained the consent of
present, but the depositee
still
all
all
the contracting parties.
the parties to the
refused to give
it
up
hiadrjK-q
The
that were
until a guardian
should be appointed to act for the daughter of one of the depositors who
was now deceased. In this he was sustained by the archon. The Stathen
Oefivo<:
made an agreement
of
some
before the archon and the assessors and

that the
Sia^r^Ki;
kind, which
many
is
not specified,
witnesses, to the effect
was no longer binding upon him.^
This was the regu-
on a will which he made in anger and annulled

(eXi/cre) before his death, having sent Poseidippus for the magistrate.
3jd. 14: When he was suffering from the illness from which he died, he desired
to revoke (dpeXeiv) this will, and charged Poseidippus to bring in the magistrate.
J3ic^. 18: They rely on the will, asserting that Cleonymus sent for the magistrate,
not because he wished to annul (XOcrai) it; but to correct (iTravopdCxrai) it and to confirm
Now it is for you to consider, whether,
(/Seâtwcai) the legacy {dwpedv) to themselves.
when Cleonymus became friendly to us, he desired to revoke (dveXeXv) the will made in
anger, or to take measures how he should more surely deprive us of his property.
/did. 21: If he sent for the magistrate because he wished to revoke (aveXe^v) the
'
Isae.
will, as
we
jfdiJ.
I. 3:
The defendants
rely
word
was not possible
affirm, there is not a
25:
For
it
for
to
them
to say.
revoke {dveXelv) any other document than the
one deposited with the magistrate.

/Sid. 42: The defendants prevented him from revoking {dveXeiv) the will when he
wished to do so.
/did. 43: Cleonymus annulled (eXvcre) the will when in his right mind, but he made
[dUdero)
it
in anger.
/did. 50:
He was
right in determining to annul (XCo-at) the will.
Isae. 6. 31-33.
See chap,
diofj.o\oyT](Tdixevos
evavriov rov dpxovTOs Kai
fidpTvpas
(Iij
ovKir'' aiin^ KioiTO
ij
iv,
4.
8ia67]Kr).
442
tQv Trap^dpwv
Kal
TroL7]<Td/j,ei>os
7roX\oi)i
lar
method
A STUDY OF AIA0HKH
65
man wished
legally to free himself
procedure when a
of
from the obligation of
a contract,
when he had what he considered
In the case just mentioned a settlement seems to have been arrived at before the archon and assessors,
and soon after we find the Siadefx.evo'i acting in such a manner as to
legitimate reasons for so doing.'
mode
indicate that this

It
procedure was regarded
of
example
custom
of this
We find,
Athens. ^
later prevailed at
paivovTOi
(cat
i/jiou
en
et ti aKr]0î 7]v
'
tcj)
wpdyfia
AvdpoKXeidri
irpbs
Tifi
Sjv
crvvdrjKai Trapd tov
Kal rdvavria TrpdrrovTOS eavTi^
TovTifj, Kal
ovdiv i<TTLv
will
by a
however, what appears to be an
an inscription from Tegea referred to above.*
in
'See Dem. 48. 46, 47: ixPV^ l^P o-vTbv,

6vTa. iroWovs fidprvpas dîouv dvaipeio'dai. rds
i/j-oi
as effective ( ^Ti)-'
does not seem that the practice of canceling an earlier
/cat
\iyei.,
....
Av5pOK\eidov,
irapa\aojs
trapa-
ovk4ti Kvplcav oixrwv tG>v ffvvdrjKwv
exovri rds ffwdifiKa^ dia/xapTvpacrdai, 6ri avrt^
rds <Tvvdi)Ka% roi/ras.
'Authorities on Greek law, while generally recognizing the fact that the
diaOi^KT) in
question must have been essentially a contract, have invariably referred to
it
as an
example of the revocation of a " testament," in case the testator could not recover
The reference is not to the point when treating of a " mere
it from the depositee.
Cf. Meir-Schomann-Lipsius,
will," unless regarded as an argument a fortiori.
59^;
PP- 597.
Schulin,
p.
Guiraud,
9;
p.
253; Hille, pp. 76
ff.;
Beauchet
III, pp.
669-72.
3 If
in the
speech of Isaeus concerning the inheritance of Cleonymus the nephews
were right in affirming that the purpose of sending for the will was to revoke it, it
would seem that we might conclude that the Attic law did not permit the liberty of
canceling an earlier will by a
As
not be so evident.
later;
but
if
he wished merely to modify
it,
this
would
the orator produces proof of his being at variance with only one
may have desired to modify his

He may have had still other reasons for its
of the legatees (Pherenicus), he
dispositions with ref-
erence to him only.
recall.
The sentence
generally cited in proof of the opinion that a will could not be revoked without getting
it
back from
i)
rb irapd rj dpxv Kelfxevov)
tlie
depositee (Isae.
I.
....
25: dveXttv
oix
o^^s t' f)v
dWo
ypa/j.p.aTeiov
such a peculiar statement as to awaken suspicion either
is
that the text has been corrupted in transmission, or that the orator
was
intentionally
obscure at this point.
Wyse
asks: "
If
the former dispositions of a testator could be altered in a supple-
ment, what prevented the use of a 'codicil' as an instrument to revoke a prior will?"
It is quite probable that corrections might practically revoke the original will, and to this
there seems to be no serious objection.
The custom
the depositee for the purpose of destroying
it,
of
ably due to the fact that they had not yet caught the
later.
Even
the simplest,
are often slow in
coming
and
to the
Since writing the above,

article in
Herinatkena
XXXII
after they
are
known apparently
self-evident, ideas
mind.
have noticed a good brief discussion of this point in an

(1906), by W. A. Goligher, M.A.: "Isaeus and Attic
Law."
See pp.
demanding the will back from

making a new one, was probidea that came to the Romans
instead of
41, 42.
443
CHAPTER
IX
LIMITATION BY THE EXISTENCE OF SONS
very interesting question with reference to Greek wills, and one
man who had

under what limitaThe answer to this question has already been given in
any.
the chapter on origin and development, but because of the
that has been the source of
tions,
if
brief in
importance
I will
much argument,
make
legitimate sons could
now
discuss
it
Solon's law which says that a

pleases
more
so,
fully.
his property as
he have not legitimate male children" does not mean, as
if
a will.
that,
it is
if
man "can bequeath

man
has been sometimes interpreted, that a
make
whether a
is
a valid will; and,
if
seems to
It
man have
of will he pleases
me
that the
power of
it
with legitimate sons cannot
most that can be deduced from
legitimate sons, he cannot
his
he
testation
is
make whatever kind
restricted,
he must take
his sons into account.

It
wills,
should be noticed also
that,
when quoting Solon's law concerning
the orators do not always put in the clause "
mate sons."
not suit his
if there be no legitiAs has been intimated before, Isaeus omits it when it does
argument. It is still more significant that Hypereides, who
quotes this law with minuteness in

clause altogether
and
all
this in a case in
be detrimental to his argument.'
the other details, omits this
which
would not
when quoting this
insertion
its
Aristotle also,
law in his Athenian Constitution, makes no reference to the clause in

question,
and says that the Thirty "made the
(xaâTral) free to dispose of his
the ancient legislators allowed a

in all respects
testator
absolutely
property as he pleased."^ Plato says that
man
to dispose of his
property by will
"as he pleased," and makes no mention of the limiting
clause in question.^
However
at the
may be explained, it
men with legitimate sons
these citations
time of the orators
is
indisputable that
could and did make
valid wills.
'For the complete citation see pp.
^
KB.
iroX. 35:
Trepi
5^ irpoffoiffas 5v<TKo\ias, iav

3
See
57, 58.
tov doOvai ra eavroO

fir)
fiavioiv
t)
if
dv id^Xy Kvpiov iroiiicavTes Kadiira^ rdi
yrjpujs 'iveKa
rj
yvvaiKi weiddfievos, d<pi\ov.
p. 43.
66
[444
A STUDY OF AIAeHKH
Demosthenes
who made
He
tells
of a banker
67
named Pasion who had two
sons,
and
a will dividing the bulk of his estate unequally between them.'

wife a legacy of two talents, a lodging-house worth two
left to his
hundred minas, and female slaves and household property.^^

Lysias
tells us of a man who had two sons and a daughter, and who left a will
bequeathing one talent and the household stuff to his wife, and one
talent to his daughter, and the remainder to his sons.^ He tells us also
of another man who in his will bequeathed to Apollo and Diana sixteen
talents and forty minas; to a brother, three talents; and to his only son,
the remainder, consisting of seventeen talents, less than half of his
The father of Demosthenes in his will bequeathed to Theripwho was no relation to him, the income from seventy minas till
son should come of age; to Demophon, a nephew, his daughter with
estate."
pides,
his
a portion of two talents;
and
to
Aphobus, another nephew,
his
widow
with a portion of eighty minas, and the use of his house and furniture;
and the
rest of his
property to his only son.^
In an inscription from Erythrae (Ionia) of about the middle of the

third century
his property
At Sparta
of
we
man
with two sons
pleased, even
man was
if
who
left
a will dividing
wife.*
in the fourth century,
Epitadeus a
Polybius
learn of a
between them and his
according to Plutarch, by the law
free to dispose of his property
by
will as
he
he had sons.^
tells us that in
many men who had
Boeotia toward the end of the third century
children bequeathed the greater part of their prop-
maintenance of feasts and convivial entertainments.*

There seems to have been no specified restriction on the part of an
estate that could be bequeathed away from the sons.
It was rather,
like many other things in Greek law, left to custom, and to the decisions
of the courts in cases of dispute.
Demosthenes argues that the fact
that his father had left four and a half talents in doweries and legacies
was a presumption in favor of his reckoning the total value of the estate
erty for the
at about fourteen talents, "for," says he, "it could not be supposed that
he would desire to leave me, his son, in poverty, and to heap riches
upon these men who were

'
Dem.
Dem.
rich
enough
36. 8, 34.
'
Dittenberger 600.
45. 28.
Flnt. Agis. s-
3Lys. 32.
5, 6.
sPolyb. xx.
Lys.
39-41.
9Dem.
sDem.
He
already.'
19.
27. 4, 5.
445
6.
29. 44.
See
seems to argue
p. 42.
68
here only from probability (having already arrived at the total of fourteen
talents in
another manner), and to admit the possibility of a
father's leaving his
We
son in poverty and enriching other men.
have seen that Lysias gives an example of a
than half was bequeathed away from the son; that
will in
which more
among the
Boeotians
" the greater part " could be bequeathed away from the family; and that,
in Sparta, a
man
could disinherit his son altogether by
446
will.
CHAPTER X
RELATION TO ADOPTION
Could a valid Greek
made without adoption?
be
will
Perhaps there
has been more misunderstanding on this question than on any other
point connected with Greek
wills,
the difficulty arising, as in other cases,
development of Greek law in consechanging of the old religious beliefs. The answer depends
on the time to which reference is made. As we have noticed in tracing
the origin and development of the Greek will, the chief stages were first
adoption inter vivos, then testamentary adoption, then wills adopting a
son and making bequests to others, and finally wills entirely divorced
from adoption. It is, of course, impossible to draw strict lines of
demarkation at definite periods.
The text of Solon's law which says that a man "may bequeath his
own as he will if there be no legitimate sons born of his body" {l^tivai
TO. eavTOV SLaOeaOat iav fx-q TraiSes wcri yvrftnoi apptvt<i, /ctA..) would seem tO give
To
absolute liberty of testation to those who had no legitimate sons.
escape this interpretation it is sometimes claimed that SiadeaOai is
from overlooking the
quence
of the
equivalent to
by the
fact of the
or Trouladai.
clcnroieXadai
fact that a
orators include adoption,
made
universal heir.
That the terms
and
In this
inclusive, but the orators
by the
Some
in
is
given to this claim
some instances the person adopted
do not use them
in question are
"How
is
course, the terms are mutually
last case, of
as equivalent.'
not equivalent
fact that SiaTtOea-Oat (also hadrjKrj) is
'Cf. Isae. 6. 53:
color
majority of the cases of will-making mentioned in the
is
shown conclusively
used of wills which do not
do you know that Philoctemon neither made a will nor
adopted Chaerestratus as his son?"
oSre vibv 'Kaipiarparov
(oijre diiOero
iiroi-qffaTo).
Here the terms bUdero and vlhv iironjaaro seem to be mutually exclusive. This is
shown by the use of oi/re .... oUre instead of using a participial construction, or at
least Kal.
or
if
Dem. 44. 65: "If the deceased âd adopted anyone, we would have agreed to it;
he had left a will, we would have stood by it" (ei ix.lv 6 reXeiirij/ctos etroi-qcraTd riva.
ffvvex<^povnev hv airri^,
Isae. 9. 7:
Why
KaToXLireiv).
/did. 9. I:
KariXiirev.
If
unwarranted
fj
el diadi/iKas
ws
to leave a
use this circumlocution,
if
ivefxeivafiev).
son by adoption" {vibv
Siarldea-dai
oijre eiroL-qcare iKeivos vibv eavT<^ oijre
meant
the
superfluity.
Beauchet
III, p. 696;
69
ironâ-dixevov
same thing?
eSoKe to, eavrov, oUre SiadriKai
the terms in question were synonymous, surely the
Cf. 3. 42, 68; 9. 34, 35;
447]
KaTaXeKolvei, Kal ra^rais &v
"If he had intended
VVyse 326.
first
clause
is
an
70
fact no adoption was possible

had legitimate sons; for example, the will of the
father of Demosthenes, of Pasion, of Conon, of Diodotus, and of others
mentioned in the previous chapters.'
These just referred to are examples of valid wills which do not
Wills
include any adoption where the testator had one or more sons.
were made also bequeathing all of the estate without adoption when the
testator was childless.
To this class probably belongs the will of
Cleonymus, mentioned by Isaeus. Cleonymus died childless, and
bequeathed his estate away from the intestate heirs, his nephews, to
several remote kinsmen
Poseidippus, Diodes, and Pherenicus and
contain any adoption, and where in
because the testator
no mention or hint of adoption. The fact that

there are several heirs by the will who seem to share equally, as well as
the word that is used to designate the inheritance,^ speaks against any
idea of adoption.
He would not, of course, adopt them all, and no
one of them seems to be singled out.
Another example from Isaeus of such a will seems to be the case in
which Eupolis claimed to have been made universal heir to the estate
of his brother Mneson,^ in the speech concerning the inheritance of
Apollodorus. There are several other instances in the orators in which
no reference is made to adoption, and it cannot be determined whether
any such thing was included in the will or not.
The wills of the philosophers, Theophrastus," Straton,^ Lycon,* and
Epicurus,^ dating from the third century have been preserved for us
There
his brothers.
In
entire.^
is
whole estate of the testator
of these the
all
is
distributed
in various legacies; details are given with reference to various matters,
such as the burial of the testator, enfranchisement of favorite slaves,
appointment of executors,
etc.;
but none of them
contains
any
adoption.'
'Dem.
'Isae.
27. 4, 5; 36. 8, 34; Lys. 19.

I. 18.
The
39-41
32. 5, &
Cleonymus had sent

Awpei is a bequest. A
beneficiaries under the will claimed that
for his will iiravopdOxTOii koL êâtCxrai a<f>l<n a&rois rrip dwpedv.
son or an adopted son would refer to his inheritance as
Beauchet
Cf. Schulin, p. 22;
kKt\pov.
III, p. 695.
JJsae. 7. 6.
"Diog. Laert.
5.
51.
55.61.
*5. 69.
'lo. 16.
There is no doubt as to the authenticity of these documents. See Dareste in

Annuaire, 1882, p. i.
As Theophrastus was a jurisconsult of ability, the author of
several works on jurisprudence, his testament should be of special importance from a
^
legal standpoint.
9
These
wills
have been edited and annotated by Bruns in the Zeitschrift der
Savigny-Stiftung Jiir Rechtsgeschichte, Vol.

53;
and by Dareste
in
Annuaire
I,
"Romanistische Abtheilung,"
des etudes grecques, Vol.
448
XVI;
cf.
I,
pp. I-
Schulin, pp. 32
ff.
A STUDY OF AIAeHKH
In a Doric inscription will dating from the
woman
adoption, and a
In an inscription
man
century a
leaves
71
century there
fifth
made universal heir.'

from Dodona (in Epirus) dating from
is
no
is
the fourth
his property to a corporation.^
all
In a long and complete inscription will of the second century a
Colydon (Delphi) makes

amount and bequeaths all the
certain Alcesippus of
a testamentary founda-
tion of a definite
rest of his estate to the
city of Delphi,
deducting the expense of his funeral.^
have not found any example of adoption
wills,
nor
any of the inscriptions
in
As has been
in
which
seen, the law of Epitadeus
in
any of the inscription
wills are
made
mentioned.
testation absolutely
free in Sparta in the fourth century.^
that
Aristotle says
bequeath
Adoption was not necessary
Men
century.
gave a
the Thirty
man
absolute
liberty
to
property as he pleased.
his
to will-making in Boeotia in the third
without children often bequeathed
the maintenance of feasts, and
many even
all
of those
their property for
who had
children
bequeathed the greater part of their estates for a like purpose.*

In the time of Isaeus at Athens a woman could not make a valid
will,^ but we find examples of wills made by women, dating from the
end
of the third
We may
and the beginning
of the
second centuries.^
then conclude that at the time of the orators a
man
could
dispose of his property by will without adoption; that wills not includ-
ing adoption were perhaps unusual
more common
until, in
at that time,
but became more and
the third century, the will
divorced from the idea of adoption that had given
CIG
'
See
4.
to be entirely
birth.
p. 40.
'Rhangabe, Archdol. Zeitung

3//<;, 2d ser.
came
it
I, p.
Cauer, Nos. 10
XXXVI.
116; IJG, 2d sen
I,
p. 61.
62.
and 123; Dittenberger 600; Bull. corr. hell. X, 18, p. 381; Collitz
CIG 1850, 2264 , 2448, 2690, 3142, 3394. 3631.
DiaUctinschr. 111. 3380 and 3634;
A 3Q53
3847
with
4303
b,
The ephor had
whom
the law passed for the express purpose of disinheriting his son,
he had quarreled.
^Folyb. XX.
Tuvres
h.
6: ol fikv
yap &tkvol rds

avroh
dir^XeiTTOv, Sirep 9jv e$os Trap''
Kal KOivas Tois (pikois eiroiovv.

riois
rb TrXeiov
ovcrlas ov to?s
irpdrepov, dXX'
iroWol 5^ Kai tGiv
Kara yivos
ei's
ix^''''''^^
i)wx^"5
iinyevofji^vois reXeu'^'*'
/J.4das
7ej'ds airefxepiôv
Sieridevro,
Toh
ffvacri-
/xepos rrjs ovcrias.
7lsae. 10. 10.
(ist
who
'E.g., CIG 2448, the long and complete "testament of Epicteta," and Cauer
Cf. Schulin, pp. 42 ff.
ed.), No. 19, the will of " Agasicrates' daughter Tisias."
edits several wills of this class.
449
THE IRENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE

FOURTH GOSPEL
The Department
of Biblical
and
Patristic Greek, of
The University


series will
be issued
in parts
I,
New
Studies.
These
Testament.
Texts;
from time to time.
and Lin-
II,
Linguistic and
The volumes
in
each
The
Irenaeus Testimony to the
Fourth Gospel
Its
Extent, Meaning, and Value
By
FRANK GRANT LEWIS
CHICAGO
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

1908
PRESS
Copyright igoS By
The University of Chicago

Published July 1908

S. A.
PREFACE
The
It
reader will observe the narrow limits of the following discussion.
makes no claims
with "the Johannine Problem," nor with
to grappling
the general problem of the fourth gospel alone, nor even with the single
question of the authorship of the fourth gospel.
have simply
set
myself
the task of discovering what the testimony of Irenaeus to the fourth gospel
is
and
of estimating
its
My
significance.
essay, therefore, deals with only
one aspect of the problems mentioned above.

however,
will not
an elimination of
Even when
be denied.
from the factors which have
his testimony
the Johannine question, as the study of

as essential
and
That it is an important
aspect,
the study of Irenaeus leads to
Harnack
did, the study
to
is
do with
recognized
significant.
That the question of the significance of the Irenaeus testimony is a

mooted one cannot be evaded. When Ernest F. Scott, one of the latest
and most suggestive writers on the fourth gospel, in the preface of The
Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology, says: "It may be granted that
the external evidence is not sufl&cient to warrant a decisive verdict on either
He was undoubtedly influside," the situation appears to be hopeless.
enced by the immense difference
Bacon, and Zahn,

said.
The
in
it
This
is
common and more
tenable ground
to be done, nevertheless, not
Such an examination
have endeavored
crucial question
is:
to
first
not be dis-
all
of
the data involved.
make.
Did Irenaeus have
tian affairs in Asia at the close of the
may
by a mere combination
these important views, but by a fresh examination of
The
Harnack,
might seem that nothing more can be
very diversity of their conclusions, however, raises the question
whether some more

covered.
in the conclusions of Lightfoot,
view of which
actual knowledge of Chris-
century
r*
If this
essay
makes
any contribution toward answering this question, it is through a more

careful criticism and evaluation of the Irenaeus testimony attributed to
Polycarp and the presbyters, as it bears upon that question, than has been
made
heretofore.
In view of the present condition of the text of Irenaeus, nothing more

practical appeared possible than to use the Stieren text without criticism.
This could be done with the
less hesitation because,
as the discussion
endeavors to show, the meaning and value of the Irenaeus testimony to

the fourth gospel must be found in a more general interpretation than that
which bases
455]
its
conclusions on mere variation of

5
text.
No
theory can be
secure which hinges on uncertain, or conjectural, readings.
Fortunately
there appears opportunity for a theory in which such readings
may
largely
be disregarded.
I
have freely laid under tribute
tance.
This puts
this general
particularly
me under
all
available works which offered assis-
obligation to
many
acknowledgment can be made.
for
whose suggestions only
am
grateful to
all.
am
indebted to Professor Ernest DeWitt Burton and to the
him
researches of a seminar conducted by
during the autumn of 1906,
in
in
which the entire
to the authorship of the fourth gospel
was
The
University of Chicago
field of the
external evidence
patiently examined.
If I
have
here succeeded in going beyond that study and finding what, until now,
has been overlooked in Irenaeus, this
is
largely
due
to the suggestive criti-
cisms of Professor Burton which were received in that seminar and others
which he has given

hardly add that
it
in the preparation of this dissertation itself.
has been a personal pleasure to have
my
need
independent
study work out in accord with his "booklet" theory of the composition of
the gospel.
Frank Grant Lewis

November, 1907
456
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PAGE
The Extent
of the Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel
Table showing extent from point of view of the gospel.

this table.
Table showing extent from point of view
Inferences from this.
Conclusion
Irenaeus' work.
of the progress of
CHAPTER
The Author
Inferences from
II
....
of the Fourth Gospel for Irenaeus
17
John of late apostolic times. Irenaeus knew

only one John, other than John the Baptist and John Mark, of apostolic
The
gospel the
times.
The
work
of
writer of the gospel an apostle.
word "apostle."
The writer
CHAPTER
The Value
Irenaeus'
of the gospel the son of
usage of the
Zebedee
III
....
of the Irenaeus Testimony for Us
Irenaeus' relation to Polycarp. Trustworthiness

to Victor. Trustworthiness
the
to Florinus.
Hereof the
the Polycarp testimony concerning the
3.3. The meaning
the time of PolyJohn of Asia. Concerning the Johannine writings
conclusion to Heresies 3
and to 3
carp. Application of
Irenaeus' relation the presb}êrs and other unnamed men. Conclusions
Lightfoot, Harnack, and Zahn. Further investigation
the
data. The presbyter material was oral
Irenaeus not
of
letter
sies
24
critical.
4.
letter
of
in
this
ic
1 1
ia.
to
of
of
Conclusion
Appendix: Resulting Hypothesis for the Johannine Questions
Index of Names and Subjects
Index of Irenaeus References
Index of New Testament Texts
457]
57
.
61
63
64
64
CHAPTER
THE EXTENT OF THE IRENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL
The
extent of the Irenaeus testimony to the fourth gospel
significant.
What
The
table
first
is
is
may
is
in itself
be seen from the following tables.
an arrangement of the references
to the testimony
show how
what parts were of particular interest
him, and, indirectly, the portions which he did not use.
The second table is an arrangement of the same references from the
from the point
much
to
that extent
of view of the gospel.
It
serves especially to
of the gospel Irenaeus used,
point of view of Irenaeus' work.

attitude
calls attention
It
toward the gospel as that attitude
is
to
particularly to his
be seen
at different stages
of the progress of his discussion.
The
order to
same time, to
which the references direct. In
certain abbreviations and symbols are employed.
tables are intended to present the references and, at the
some
ofifer
interpretation of the testimony to
make such interpretation,
These are of three
classes:
Those which precede the references

No symbol = an exact quotation.
I.
v=a
quotation varying merely verbally from the Westcott and
Hort
s=a
Here
to the gospel.
text,
and so not materially affecting the
quotation varying from the
WH
sense.
text in sense as well as
verbally.
r=any
By an "exact"
looser reference, not a quotation.
quotation
is
meant, where the Greek
WH text; where
seems to represent the WH
ment with the
text.
is
preserved, an agree-
we have only the Latin, a Latin reading which

In some instances indicated as "exact" quota-
however, only a part of the verse, or verses, of the gospel as referred to
tion,
quoted; but the quotation
is
"exact" as far as
it is
passages, words of interpretation are fused with the quotations
may be added
It
that Irenaeus often used language
influence of the gospel but which does not
of the gospel to warrant calling
it
show a
which
sufl&cient
even a "reference."
(e. g.,
is
is
some
used, even when, as in
4.25.36).'
colored by the
number
of the
words
His language received
such coloring from the thought of the prologue especially.
But the prologue was
the part of the gospel which he liked particularly to quote.
In view of
occasion to attempt to include
is less
indicates even a coloring

Still further, it is to
I
459]
among
this>
there
the references every passage which
from the gospel.

be noted that these tables do not include such passages
All references are to the
Adversus Haereses, unless otherwise indicated.

9
10
mention the name of John but mention it without making a quota

from the gospel or a reference to it (e. g., i. 9. ib).
2. The abbreviations between the references to the gospel and those to Ire-
in Irenaeus as
tion
naeus, showing the authorities to which Irenaeus attributed the portions of the
Here
gospel indicated by the references preceding them.
Ap= Apostle
JA=John (apostle, as shown by context)

C = Christ
JD = John the disciple of the Lord
L =Lord
DL = Disciple of the Lord
S = Son of God
G = Gospel
GJ = Gospel according to John Sc = Scripture
= John
=Word of God, or Word
J
References not accompanied by any of these abbreviations indicate passages

of the gospel which are either introduced without any external authority or those
which are introduced with an authority of such
indefinite kind as to
make
it
of
no considerable value.
The John
indicated by the abbreviation
JA
is
not to be understood as distin-
guished from the John indicated by the J alone. Frequently the passage comThe
bines the two in such manner as to leave no doubt that the two are one.
separate indication of those passages of the gospel which are, by the context,
attributed to an apostle
is to
be understood,
is
merely for the convenience of reference in study.
also, that these are
shows, are to be attributed to an apostle

3.
The
(cf.
pp. 18-20).
abbreviations following the references to Irenaeus.
Here
a advises the reader that the passage of the gospel indicated in the
will
be found somewhere within the
in the
It
not the only passages which, as the context
first
first
column
third of the section of Irenaeus indicated
second column.
b refers similarly to the second third of a section.

c refers similarly to the last third of
a section.
This division and notation has been found convenient

the essay.
to
Perhaps
it
will
in the
preparation of
be equally convenient for any reader
who may wish
examine the merits of the discussion for himself.
TABLE
Showing Irenaeus' use of the fourth gospel from the point of view of the gospel.
The numbers in the first column refer to the chapter and verse of the gospel;
those in the second, to the Adversus Haereses,
by another writer, which
is
except one passage preserved only
referred to as "Fr. 35," according to the
of Stieren.
Gospel
Gospel
Irenaeus
2.25.3c
1:1-5
1.8.5a
ri:i-i4
3. II. 86
1:3
3.18.1a
1:3
5.18.26
1:3
460
numbering
IRENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL

Gospel
11
12
Gospe
Irenaeus
Gospel
"3:5
17:24
4.I4.IC
19
ri8:37
114:2
S'^
vi4:2
36.2a
ri4:6
Ap
5.1a
vi4:6-7
L
L
13.2a
ri9:i8
18. I&
JA
II .ga
28.8c
"9:34
"9:34
"9:34
314:7, 9-10
14:11
114:16
14:28
Irenaeus
4.22.10
6 46
.
4.18.3c
ig:ii
C
JD
19:15
4.21.30
2.22.3c
3.22.2c
4-33-2C
4-35
^'^
"5:9
20.2b
S2o:i7
5-3IIC
viS:i5
13-4^
r2o:20
5-7i
15:16
14.16
r2o:20
C
L
5-3I-20
1.18.3c
r2o:24
ri6:7
17.2a
320:31
JD
316. 56
17:5
4.14.1a
v2i:20
JD
3-i.ic
117:12
2.20.56
r2i:20
4. 20.
of special attention as indicating the use which Irenaeus

1.
16
study of the above table offers some considerations which are worthy
The
student can hardly
fail to
made
of the gospel.
be struck with the fact that the pro-
logue possessed an apparently undue place in the thinking of Irenaeus.
More than
made
one-fourth of the use which he
from the prologue or reference to it.

which is to be seen in the mere "coloring"
tion
If
of the gospel
was quota-
the influence of the prologue
of Irenaeus' language
(cf. p.
9)
without any specific "reference" were to be taken into account, this disproportionate attention to the prologue would be increased.
use of the prologue
may
indicate his estimation of
other portions of the gospel.
because he regarded
its
Or, he
it
as
His large
compared with
may have employed
it
so largely
statements as conclusive refutations of the theories
put forth by his Gnostic opponents.

2.
Irenaeus allowed himself a large measure of freedom in making
quotations from the gospel.

outside of the prologue.
It
This
is
particularly true of the quotations
suggests that he usually quoted from
memory
and that most, if not all, of the statements of the gospel to which he appealed
were those which he knew sufficiently well to recall without turning to his
Of the 115 quotations from the gospel, or references to it, which I
text.
have credited
to Irenaeus, thirty-nine or
full third of these, are
loose references, while the exact quotations are limited to
seven different statements, and the inexact ones

462
make up
merely
some twentythe remainder.
lEENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL

If
he did turn
to his text at
all, it
13
could hardly have been more than occa-
he wanted such a statement as that of 3 18-21.

The reader will observe the great diversity of usage on the part of
sionally,
3.
when,
e. g.,
Irenaeus in acknowledging the source of the material which he employed
Even the
from the gospel.
datum
Altogether, his usage
in itself.
acknowledgments which
thirteen classes of
have enumerated do not exhaust the data,

is
for the thirteenth
He
very loose.
is
a varied
did not even take
"John" was the Baptist,

"John" in 3.10.3 are really to
the trouble to advise his readers as to whether his
or the Evangelist, so that the references to
the Baptist, though Irenaeus' general usage would lead one to expect that
they were to the Evangelist.
The words which
the gospel attributes to
Jesus are most often said to be the words of "the Lord," but a variation
from
the
this
way
4.
usage
may
There
occur at any time.
which-a single passage of the gospel
in
A reference
John as the one who leaned on Jesus' breast,

better explained, however, from 21 20 than from
:
No
(e. g., i
made one
in 3
clear reference
from the twenty-first chapter.
and
later,
ic
and
13 25
:
reference to the tenth chapter
Clement of Alexandria, only a few years

times and
considerable variety in
is
quoted
18, or 8 44).
:
The
to the twenty-first chapter is not certain.
to
as a use of 21 20.
is
used
is
and 4
is
to
reference
20.
discoverable.
this
who
partial quotation (Paedag. 1.5. la)
In view of
leaned on Jesus' breast
But
chapter several
this,
it
is
fair to
assume that
Irenaeus' gospel contained the tenth chapter and that the reference to
as the one
16, is
be regarded
is
John
a reference to the twenty-first
chapter.
TABLE
his
II
Showing Irenaeus' use of the gospel from the point of view of the progress of
work. The abbreviations and symbols are the same as in the preceding table.
Irenaeus
14
Irenaeus

Irenaeus
15
16
make
it
probable that the composition extended over some months at
perhaps over a longer period; he
may
least,
even have published the work in
was evidently eager to offset the Gnostic teachings as

the work did thus cover an extended period, he would
feel that the gospel was more directly the product of Jesus
to its writing, but as to its source and authority.
instalments, for he
early as possible.
easily
come
to
himself, not as
From
If
the extent of Irenaeus' use of the fourth gospel, as seen in the
above varied ways, we are warranted
in concluding that
same gospel which has come down to

different
from the one which we read.
was not very
stantially the
466
us,
he possessed sub-
and that
his text
CHAPTER
II
THE AUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL FOR IRENAEUS
The
which Irenaeus made of the fourth gospel leaves no
large use
doubt that he was much interested
in the material
which the gospel gave
This gospel was one of the chief authorities
to
him.
If
he did not think
it
support of his arguments, he at least did not regard

It is
of interest
and
of importance, therefore, to
of the authorship of the fourth gospel.
appeared
to
which he appealed.
superior to other scriptures to which he turned in

as inferior to others.
it
know what
Irenaeus thought
Anticipations of this have already
which the two tables present for Irenaeus' authorities
in the titles
The
in referring to the gospel.
following statements will put the matter
more definite form.

1. For Irenaeus, the fourth gospel was the work
into
of
John
of Asia of late
apostolic times, apostolic times extending, for him, as far as the days of
Trajan (2.22.50- 3.3.40-
The
discuss
evidence for this statement
From
it.
is
so
Reference to the above tables
it.
those
it
is
ample that there

is all
that
is
is little
need to
required to warrant
seen that about one-fourth of the references to the
gospel were attributed, in one form of expression or another, to John.
Sometimes the quotation or reference was attributed

further identification of the person of
whom
to
John without any
he thought.
author of the gospel was John, "the disciple of the Lord."

simply "the disciple of the Lord," but the context makes
the author so designated
Irenaeus
felt in his
was
this
same John.
reference to the gospel
is
Frequently the
Again he was
it
certain that
The very freedom which
an indirect assurance of his
certainty concerning the author.

2.
Aside from John the Baptist and John Mark, Irenaeus recognized
only one John of apostolic times.
John Mark
is
mentioned
in
3.14.1c, but with a clear recognition that
he was a different person from the John of whom Irenaeus thought as the
author of the gospel. John the Baptist is named, or the language which
the gospels attribute to
1. 30. 1 26;
pointed out
3.io.3fl;
(p. 13),
him
is
4.4.36;
quoted as
5.17.46).
his, several
times
(e. g.,
.S-Sb;
In some instances, as already
Irenaeus did not concern himself to inform his readers
whether he was speaking of the Baptist, or the Evangelist.
In 4.4.36 he
chose to say that the John he was introducing was the Baptist, even though
467]
17
18
he had referred
No
to
him simply
as
John only a few

Perhaps
reason for this appears.
sufficient
habit of looseness of expression which
and
is
who examines
was never
in
to
his page.
to the general
At the same time,
the references in their contexts,
doubt as
was due
a characteristic of Irenaeus' style
the outcome of looseness of thought.
is
on
lines earlier
it
it
is
to
anyone
evident that Irenaeus
whether John the Baptist was a different
man from
the author of the gospel.
This
is
an important point.
It limits at
was the one John

John Mark.
3.
This John
of
New
of Asia
once the.'possibilities as to the
For him, the author
author of the fourth gospel for Irenaeus.
ot the gospel
Testament times other than John the Baptist and
who
was, for Irenaeus, the writer of the fourth
was not only "the disciple of the Lord," but also an "apostle."
Those who have discussed the testimony of Irenaeus have sometimes
gospel,
minimized, or even entirely overlooked, this point.

fore, that the
meaning
of Irenaeus' language be
It is
made
important, there-
clear,
and a
passage seems sufficient to put the matter beyond question.

1
It is
single
that in
9 26, where Irenaeus declared that the interpretation of the fourth gospej
.
which
opponents had offered would make John refer
his
to
"the primary
ogdoad, in which there was as yet no Jesus, and no Christ, the teacher of
But that the apostle did not so speak .... he himself has made
'And the word was made flesh and dwelt among
John.
evident; for he declares,

us.'
"
It is true,
of course, that this does not give the phrase for
which some
have asked, "John, the Apostle," or "John, the son of Zebedee." But
the reader of the statement in its context, if not in the quotation, can hardly
find the language less definite.
it
The
expression
is
an incidental one, but
can hardly mean that Irenaeus had in mind any other than the apostle
John, the son of Zebedee.
passage from the third book
is
At the close of
hardly less decisive.
"The church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and

having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan,
is a true witness of the traditions of the apostles."
The obvious meaning
3.3.4, Irenaeus wrote:
of this statement
Taken with
is
that, for Irenaeus, the
the point which has been
John
of Asia
made above
that
was an
apostle.
Irenaeus recog-
nized only one John of apostolic days other than John the Baptist and
John Mark
apostle.
the
statement means that the writer of the gospel was an
The passage
in
2.22.SC contains similar language and gives the
same conclusion.
Again, in 3
the gospel
.5. la,
....
Irenaeus referred to "those apostles
pointing out that our

468
who
Lord Jesus Christ
did also write

is
the truth."

This
is
manifestly a reference to John 14:6, and
19
makes the author
of the
This apostle must have been John, for John was
statement an apostle.
Irenaeus' author of the fourth gospel.
Four other passages
yield essentially the
same evidence, though not
in
In 3. 11 .96 Irenaeus urged that the Valentinian writing

which the Valentinians called "The Gospel of Truth" did not at all agree
so specific form.
with "the gospels of the apostles."
two
apostles,"
the Peter and John
who
said to have returned
him
it
is
"ad
From
differently.
This John, according
to
and Irenaeus could hardly have thought
of
reliquos co-a postal os."
we learn that Irenaeus judged

account "the entire mind of the apostles," which
mind of John as well as of Matthew and others.
the close of 3 16.

.
necessary to take into
Later
"the
are described in the fourth chapter of Acts are
evidently the apostle,
he made
of the plural,
were made apostles, one of whom,

In 3.12.5a
most naturally thought of as the fourth.
for Irenaeus, is
Acts,
Thus, by the use
at least of the evangelists
to include the
he insisted that the
(3 .21 .3^),
traditions of "the apostles;
LXX translation harmonized with the
for Peter,
and John, and Matthew, and Paul,
and the rest successively," followed that translation.
Remembering
that
John the
disciple was, for Irenaeus, the writer of the
gospel, Irenaeus' letter to Victor (Eus.fl". .5.24) gives a specific state-
ment
that the author of the gospel
was an
Irenaeus wrote that
apostle.
Polycarp would not forego his custom of observing Easter because he had
received
it
from John and "other apostles."
indirectly, as
John
is
thus described,
an apostle.
This cumulation of evidence places Irenaeus' opinion beyond doubt.

author of the fourth gospel was as certainly an apostle for him as
The
though he had taken a page,
would have been astonished

ever think otherwise.
in
if
and prove the
to state, argue,
point.
He
he could have known that any reader would
One can
hardly believe that those
who have been
doubt about the matter have read Irenaeus.^

I
E.
g.,
1906, p. 45:
of Swete,
H. L. Jackson, The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism,

"The decisive word 'apostle' is missing." Cf. especially the hesitation
The Apocalypse
oj St.
John, 1906,
p. clxxiv:
"No
second-century testimony,
except that of the Leucian Acts, excludes the hypothesis that the John
who
lived in
Asia and WTOte the Apocalypse [and as certainly, substantially, the gospel, according
to Swete]
Asia.
to
was the Elder, or compels us
Moreover,
him John
it is
of Asia
is
to believe that
John the Apostle ever resided
certainly remarkable that in so

called 'the disciple,'
and
many
in
of the earliest references
not, expressly at least, the Apostle."
C. A. Scott, in reviewing Swete's work for The Expositor (January, 1907, p. 45) bhndly
follows in the same direction, and speaks of "Irenaeus' steady refraining from calling
'John' an apostle."
469
20
Though the conclusion is so evident and convincing, one may still ask
why Irenaeus never used the phrase, "John, the apostle." The answer is
an easy one for those who have so read Irenaeus as to catch his spirit and to
discover the principles which guided
him
Now,
tament.
the
New
without any further designation.
it
is
This
But "disciple"
is
the
New
Testament usage con-
is
mon
it.
From
to get "John, the apostle."
as a
To
for a person,
title
is
New
is
the
Still
New
On
New
not a
In
uncom-
Testament we could not expect
further, "//ê disciple," in the singular?
an expression found
in the fourth gospel only.^
be sure, the expression, "the disciple of the Lord"
gospel.
is
Testament language.
the ordinary word, "apostle" being very
the gospels, "disciple"
compared with
Tes-
distinguished as the brother of James; and
accounts for the usage of Irenaeus, for John, "the apostle,"
as
New
Testament usually introduces a person by name
cerning John, except that he
Testament expression.
Such
in the choice of expressions.
readers discover that the terminology of Irenaeus was that of the
the other hand, Irenaeus did not use the
is
not found in the
name "Jesus"
alone,
but, as has been pointed out above (p. 15), he spoke frequently of "the
Lord."^
It
was a very natural
Irenaeus to retain "the
thing, then, for
change "of Jesus" into "of the Lord." With this slight
change, the gospel itself offered a unique title for its author, while to have
disciple," but to
spoken of him, either as an author or otherwise, as "apostle," would have
which the New Testament gave. When

was only incidentally.
This conclusion naturally raises the question What was Irenaeus' genThe material offered in reply is interesting
eral use of the word "apostle " ?
indeed.
It shows not only his thought of an "apostle," but also his attitude
been
to disregard entirely the usage
he was referred
to as
an apostle,
it
to the apostolic age as a whole.
According
an apostle.
apostoli
to his statement in 3
The Latin
locum
habtierit."
reads:
The
11 .4c, he regarded
John the Baptist as
^'Ipse [John the Baptist] et prophetae et
genitive with
'Hocum" might seem
to
be
a careful method of avoiding the statement that John was an apostle, of
But
saying only that John was a kind of vice-apostle.

to Irenaeus a carefulness of
over, such an interpretation proves too
only a vice-apostle,
'
it
much.
If
it
More-
proves that John was
proves that he was only a vice-prophet, for the con-
See John 18: 15, 16; 19:26,27; 20:2,3,4,8; 21:7,20,23,24; in some of which
the Greek shows the article as the
this is to attribute
language which he never observed.
EngHsh cannot.
See Heresies 2.22 for an extended example of his usage, the more striking
because he
to use the
is
there discussing Jesus' age, which would,
name
Jesus.
470
if
any topic would, lead him

struction
is
the
same
But Irenaeus had
for both words.
mean
had
Accordingly, he
John was an apostle as well as a prophet.

Irenaeus
is even more inclusive.
statement at the close of 3.1 1.9
just discussed, in order, the evidence
.... veniamus
gelium,
Luke
from the four gospels.
He
con-
" Examinata igitur sententia eorutn qui nobis tradiderunt evan-
tinued:
for
apostles,
This makes Mark and
ad reliquos apostolos."
et
evident that Irenaeus had these
is
it
rather than Peter and Paul

for
that
made him
just
prophet by comparing him with "the other prophets."

intended the phrase to
21
whom he had previously
Mark and Luke respectively, of
the second
and
(3
i )
men in mind,
made sources,
because he
third gospels
proceeded at once to discuss Peter as one of the "remaining apostles."

only Peter, but John
latter also are interesting, for they include not
These
(3.12.3a), Philip (3.
2. 8a),
Stephen (3.12.10a), and Barnabas (3.12.15c),
was writing with Acts before him and arranging the

material about these prominent persons who are mentioned in the book.
This accounts for the repetition of testimony from John. And he made
as though Irenaeus
still more definite when he introduced his summary of the entire

argument with the statement: "Sicapostoli .... religiose a gebant." As
though to clinch the point yet to do so never occurred to him he later
the matter
(3.21 .4a) quoted Matt,
18 and
Luke
:35 together as statements which
"ipsi [the apostles] testificaninr."'^
Indeed, the apostles, for Irenaeus, were not limited to such a
list
as that
men
of the
apostolic days, at least all the prominent ones, as essentially apostles.
This
which has
just
He
been given.
thought of
all
the Christian
statement cannot be proved as definitely as the several persons
have been proved
to
have been, for Irenaeus, apostles, but
"This
such expressions as the following:

(2.9.1c);
that Soter
.... from
was the
the apostles
apostles" (3.5.1a);
till
twelfth bishop of
now"
much
the apostles committed the churches
of the
later date
....
when Irenaeus spoke of a man

means merely that the man belonged to the
Monnier, La notion de
le
church"
(4. 33.
8a)
than the bishops to
the sure tradition from
I'apostolat,
as an "apostle," that in
temoignage du
Evangelistes avec les Apotres.
reste
des apotres
Barnabas aussi
471
first
1903, p. 362:
des Douze n'est pas exclusif d'un apostolat plus etendu.

des Evangiles,
the apostles
b).
Accordingly,
Cf.
implied in
"the tradition from the
and the ancient constitution
the apostles" (5.20.1a,
Rome "from
(3.3.3c);
"all these [Irenaeus' opponents] are of
itself
it is
from the apostles"
"the succession from the apostles" (4.26.2a); "the
doctrine of the apostles
whom
tradition
named above
est
century.
The term
"L'apostolat de Paul et
Irenee invoque, a I'appui
(3.11.96).
un apotre."
II
identifie
done
les
22
becomes more
definite only
offers, as e. g., in the
through a Hmitation by other data which he
case of John the author of the gospel, who, in the
manner indicated above, is not only distinguished from John the Baptist
and John Mark (p. 17), but is also found to be clearly an apostle (pp. 18, 19).
"Sacerdotes aulem sunt omnes Domini apostoW^ in 4.8.36 appears to
indicate an even looser use of the word "apostle," as though apostles were
not confined to the first century. But perhaps Irenaeus did not mean that.
The context can hardly be said to make the time of the verb certain. There
is less
reason for pressing the point in either direction because
The Greek which
the Latin.
Irenaeus wrote
may have
we have only
given the passage
a different coloring.
statement of Irenaeus in 3.12.15c further illustrates his attitude to
the apostolic age as a whole.
made
Inasmuch
as
it is
usually misinterpreted
and
to create a prejudice against his testimony to the fourth gospel, its
consideration here will serve a twofold purpose.
statement, "ubique enim simul
lacohus
et
It
is
the parenthetical
eo adsistentes inveniunlur Petrus et
loannes," in which the reference to James, directly after Irenaeus
had been speaking

differentiate
two men.
cum
them,
of
is
James the brother
of Jesus
and without anything
to
usually understood to be a manifest confusion of the
But the language
when
of Irenaeus,
The key
rightly understood, does
is to be found
what has been said above (p. 20) of the way in which Irenaeus
adopted New Testament phraseology. The combination, "Peter, James, and
John," was a New Testament expression of special prominence and signifi-
not involve such a conclusion.
to the
language
in
At this point of his discussion it served Irenaeus admirably. He

was appealing to what he regarded as general Judaeo-Christian custom in
This is seen from the
the apostolic age concerning eating with gentiles.
cance.
of his concluding statement:
form
universae doctrinae
Dominus
testes
^'Sic apostoli, quos universi actus et

fecit
....
seen also in the tenor of the entire section.
religiose agebant."
It
is
Accordingly, he could include
John as proof of his argument and the familiar gospel

without
stopping to consider that, in its context, it could
was
used
phrase
was
not Irenaeus' nature or custom to stop to conIt
misunderstood.
be
James
the brother of
sider such possibilities of misunderstanding.
do Irenaeus much injustice.

Aside from the case of 4.8.36 above,
of
it,
men
To
fail to
therefore,
recognize this
and perhaps
is
to
inclusive
the language of Irenaeus implies that he thought of the apostles as
belonging to the
by themselves.
first
century only and as forming a group of Christians
They occupied
this
unique position, however, not because
they belonged to the circle of the twelve, or of the twelve and Paul, but
472

because they had the privilege of a peculiar relation to Jesus.
them had associated with him.
Others (especially
been honored with the position of writing of his

(e. g.,
life
23
Many
of
Mark and Luke) had

and mission.
Others
Stephen, Philip, and Barnabas) had rendered special service appro-
priate to the period.
One, John, who had been most intimately associated
with Jesus, had lived to remarkably advanced years and preserved the
character of the age.
While he remained, the "apostolic" age continued;
when he died that age passed away. In view of all this, the heritage which
came from the age of the apostles was unique and was worthy of preeminent consideration, whether this heritage came in written form or
through personal tradition. Irenaeus did not think of criticizing it, if it was
That which was assured to have come from the apostles
well attested.
was
authoritative.
therefore, that the word "apostle"

it must be admitted,
by Irenaeus to the John whom he recognized as author of the
gospel would not, of itself, identify him as the son of Zebedee, yet it remains true that "apostle" usually meant for him what it means in the
New Testament. Accordingly, when we take into account that he recognized only one John other than John the Baptist and John Mark and that
4.
While
applied
this
one John, on the basis of Irenaeus' own testimony rightly understood,
was an "apostle," the conditions which his testimony as a whole imposes

are satisfied only by the conclusion that the son of Zebedee was, for
Irenaeus, the author of the fourth gospel.
473
CHAPTER
III
THE VALUE OF THE IRENAEUS TESTIMONY FOR US
We have
seen that Irenaeus thought of the son of Zebedee as the author
His certainty concerning the authorship of the gospel,
of the fourth gospel.
Even
however, cannot be accepted as affording the same certainty for us.

with
may have
assurance, Irenaeus
all his
was not the
been led into
result of critical investigation, at least in the sense in
we cannot accept
we have discovered
think of critical investigation, and
now
statements at their face value, unless
worth
that.
His work
error.
We know
that he
made
gospel preached by
him"
that they are
a mistake concerning the third gospel,
Luke, as "the companion
for he wrote that
which we
his confident
The
(3.1. if).
of Paul, recorded in a
book the
student of the synoptic gospels
at the present time does not ii;nderstand that
Luke gained
the material for
may have made a mistake concerning the

composition of the fourth gospel also. The material which he transmitted
to us must be critically examined, therefore, that we may discover how well
his gospel
from PauLîrenaeus
his assurance was.
founded
This material, as
he wrote
may
it
bears upon the fourth gospel,
consider that concerning Polycarp
These
cant passages from Irenaeus' writings.
bishop of Rome, preserved by Eusebius {H.

also preserved
The
and
by Eusebius {H.
and
20)
His
are:
5
24)
to Papias.
who wrote
letter to Victor,
a letter to Florinus,
and Heresies 3.3.4-
for this study, are as follows: 'Ev
to Victor] koL 6 EipT^vatos Trpoo-WTrov
TaXXiav dSeX^tov
....
CTTiTnpovvTwv, ov vvv ^'
CTriXeytov
Tjfioiv
ycyovvla,
We
extant in three signifi-
significant phrases of Eusebius' introduction to the
of the letter itself,
ones
It is
first.
presented in what
is
of his relation to Polycari^. to the presbyters,
dXXa
Kat
roiavr-q
letter to
oU
Victor
[the different
wv ^ytiro Kara
TroiKiXta
fjikv
Kai iroXv TrpoTcpov
ctti
twv
TTjv
Ttov
tt/oo
rffiwv .... KOL ovSiv iXaTTOV TravTcs ovTOt elprjveva-dv re, kol elprjvevofiev irpos
dAAy/Xovs .... Koi tov paKapiov TloXvKapTrov lin^Tjp.rj(TavToq iv 'Pwfxr) im
'Avtxrjrov .... tv6v<i elpT^vcvaav .... ovre yap 6 AvtKr^ros tov UoXvKap-
TTOV Tretcrai
cSwaro
/at/
Trjptiv
are
fxeTo.
'Iwawov tov
TOV 'AvtKT^Tov
7rcto-e
Trjpdv
fJM.6r]Tov
Kvpiov yp-wv Kol
p.rjv
6 HoXvKapTros
The language warrants
the following
XoLTTUiv dirocrToXoiv, ols crwSteVpn/'ev, act TeTrjprjKOTa
ovTe
statements concerning the source and trustworthiness of the testimony.

I.
The
letter
was
written,
on behalf of the Christians

24
in
Gaul, to Victor
[474

as the bishop of the church in
Rome.
was evidently a
It
to be subject to criticism.
2.
From
enough
to
It
it
became public property and stood the
test of
be regarded as valuable for preservation.
we
the letter
which was
was expected
letter
intended to be of a public nature, an "open letter," so that
criticism well
25
in
Rome
about 154 to 156).
One
was the observance
of Easter.
learn that Polycarp
Rome
Anicetus (who was bishop of
topics of conversation at that time
was
time of
in the
of the leading
In this
discussion Polycarp maintained his position, because he could say that his
custom of observance rested on the custom of "John, the disciple

Lord, and the rest of the apostles," with whom he had observed it.
3.
of
our
In this letter Irenaeus asserted that, in spite of the difference between
Roman
the
there
Christians and those of Asia as to the observance of Easter,

had been fellowship and peace between them at the time of which he
was speaking,
Roman
i.
at
e.,
little
The
know whether
past the middle of the second century.
Christians in the time of Irenaeus were in a position to
such had been the situation in the time of Anicetus, only thirty or forty
The memory
some of the older ones could have bridged

and documents of one kind or another
were almost certainly in existence bearing on a topic which was regarded as
so important as that of Easter and the earlier relations between Asia and
Rome. Irenaeus' appeal to Victor must have been well founded, and we
years before.
of
the time with substantial accuracy,
are led to conclude that the situation at the middle of the second century
was
which Irenaeus described toward the close of the
substantially that
century.
4.
Such a presentation of the question
in
dispute as Irenaeus
made
in
he was independently and directly well informed as

Asia at the time of Anicetus. Otherwise he could not
this letter implies that
to the situation in
have written
to
Rome
merely through Rome,
as
he did.
Rome
he had gotten his information
If
could have replied that his argument had no
value for her, since she was already in possession of as
At most
as he was.
naturally have
his letter could only
made such an appeal on
had received from Rome.

Rather
it
But the
which he was
and the statement implies that he had known
West
I
is
this, of
well
That
what he
contains no such reference.
living,
The
dispute
had not
he said, but long before;
of the entire history of the
He could easily have

communication between the East and the
have been an ordinary event of the times.'
dispute independently of his relations with
known
information
the basis of reference to
letter
proceeds in an independent manner.
arisen within the times in
much
have been an appeal, and he would
Rome.
course, since close
known
to
his letter to Victor did not
accomplish the purpose for which
475
it
was sent
is
26
5.
The
had
fact that the dispute
arisen long before the time of Irenaeus
had been under discussion long enough to bring out all the
As a corollary, the statement
facts in the case and make them well known.
of Irenaeus implies that an error of claim would easily have been recognized
and set aside. There were plenty of well-recognized data, and Irenaeus
impHes that
it
naturally confined himself to them.

6.
Putting
material together,
all this
Irenaeus in this letter
second century.
it
seen that the testimony of
is
not a single testimony from the last part of the
is
Instead,
is
it
the generally accepted understanding of
conditions by the Christians of the middle of the second century, both in
Rome,
7.
in Asia,
But
and
Gaul.
in
much
this takes the testimony, at least as
of
Polycarp, back to his lifetime and activity, and makes
We
testimony.
have
it
came from
as
it
substantially his
a presentation of some of the
in this letter
Asia as Polycarp had been familiar with them during his long
affairs of
in the
life
midst of Asian events.

8.
Inasmuch as Polycarp was a man some
close of the
first
century,
we
fully conversant with events
which we are considering
is
thirty years of age at the
are here given the testimony of a
and opinions
man who was
and the testimony
of that time,
seen to be the testimony of the close of the
first
century.
The
(Eus.H. .5.20) may now be examined in a

some views which Irenaeus regarded
to Florinus
letter
Florinus had renounced
similar way.
as essential to Christian teaching,
and Irenaeus wrote
The
in protest.
portions of the letter which bear on the worth of the testimony and
its signifi-
cance for the fourth gospel are as follows: TaSra
irpo
irpea^vTepoi, ol
yap
/cat
(xe, Trats tuv TI,
iv rrj Kara)
....
pxiKa.pLO<;
wcTTe
BvvacrOaL t7retv
fxe
XIoAvKapTTOS,
TTJpa TOV ^LOV
Actio, irapa
MoAAov yap
cvBoKLfxeLV Trap' avTw.

V(i)v
to.
Boyfrnra
ol
roTs d7roo"ToAots o"u/i.<ôtTÔ"avTes, ov Trape'SwKav
Kttt TT/V
/cat
TOV
to.
tw
Tore
/cat
tov tovov iv
ras tt/dooSovs avTOv
(Tci/AaTOS tSc'ttV Kat
/cat
cS
ras etcroSous
StaAc^ClS
TfltS
Treipuifjievov
twv evayôs
ytvo/Ac-
KaOeô/xevo'i SieXe'ytTO
Itoavvov (Tvva(TTpo<f>r)v ws dinyyyeXXc,
ttXÔo?, Kat Tr]v /ACTa
....
IIoA.VKa/37r<j)
Siafjivrjixovevu)
rifx.iLv
EiSoj/
(rot.
ttS
tov \apaK-
/cat
ItTOuZtO TTpOS TO
/cat ttjv
tC)v
Xonrwv
Toiv eoipaKOTwv tov Kvptov, Kat a>s dTre[xvr]p.ovev tows
Aoyovs auToiv
TOV Ku/Dtou Tiva
twv Suvdêcov auTOv,
r]v
Trap' cKetvcov oKrjKoei, kol
not a serious objection to
by Eusebius,
my
argument, for the entire account of the
had prevailed
did not take sides in the matter,
may
Kat rrept
affair, as
Kat
given
indicates that Victor acted arbitrarily, perhaps for ecclesiastical purposes,
rather than in the spirit which
as
Trepl
it is
in the
time of Anicetus.
evident that he
felt
be seen by his various comments throughout the chapter.
476
Though Eusebius
the strength of the Asian claim,

T^s 8i8ao"KaXtas, ws Trapa Ttov avTOTTTW
TTtpl
^w^s tov Xoyou
ttJs
Tavra
Jlo\vKapTro<; aTTT^yyeXAt Travra (Tvfjiffxova rats ypa<f)a1<;.

,
....
Kai
fJuaKa,pio<;
avTov,
0)1/
....
Treêvyoi av
avTous Kai
Kui
As
to
what
ck
hvvaraL
irpoTptTrop.f.vo'i,
twv
^kouov.
CTriCToXoiv 8c
i-jrtcTTrjpLôiv
a vivid and detailed account of a situation, and
prime importance.
TrapeL\rj(f)0)<;
....
ort eiVi toiovtov aKv/xdet ckcTvos o

.
CTrearciXev ^toi rats yetrvtwcrats iKKXrjatai^
doeA<^ciiv Ttori vou^CToiv

is
....
Svva/Atti 8iap.apTvpacr6aL
Trpea/3vTpo<s
27
t;
is,
Toiv
Xhis
trustworthiness
its
this trustworthiness
avras,
<f>avep(ji)6rjvai,.
is
of
the letter justifies
the following statements
Irenaeus was writing to a
They had both
man who was somewhat older than
lived in Asia in early
Apparently Florinus had remained

Europe.
Whether he had, or had
life
in
know
there.
Asia after Irenaeus had removed to
not,
he had been at
He had
as early as the middle of the second century. '

tion to
himself.
and had known each other

least a
Because of
the situation in Asia at that time.
knowledge which Florinus had, Irenaeus sought
young man
thus been in a posithis personal
to dissuade
him from a
course of thought and action which that early knowledge and the training
from it, according to Irenaeus, fully condemned. The argument of Irenaeus

was based on the intimate relations which had existed between Florinus
and Polycarp and on Irenaeus' knowledge of those relations to a sufficient
extent to be certain of what they were.
The facts must have been substantially as Irenaeus stated them.
Otherwise he would have made himself
ridiculous before Florinus and merely have played into the hand of his
opponent.^
This trustworthy
2.
letter traces
many
of
its
claims to Polycarp.
The
fundamental ones for determining the relation of Irenaeus to the fourth

gospel are of that kind.
not so
much
The
material offered by the
the testimony of Irenaeus as
it is
letter, therefore, is
the testimony of Polycarp,
on the claim that Florinus had received these

and recognized that he had so received them. If
for Irenaeus rested his case
things from Polycarp
had not been
this
been
'
of trifling
I
am
substantially the situation, Irenaeus' letter
worth and probably of only temporary
would have
interest.
assuming the chronology of Harnack, according to which Irenaeus was

may have been born earher.
born probably as early as 135, and
may
must have been such that Florinus could use

it.
But to say that is to overlook the fact that the contents of the letter would be used in other ways. If Florinus
attempted to suppress it, such an action would only lead to a re-writing of the substance
of the letter.
Most probably the letter originally was an open communication, and
we must beheve its presentation of affairs for the middle of the second century to have
=
it
It
be objected that the
letter
against Irenaeus, or Florinus would have suppressed
been essentially correct.
477
28
3.
Here, then, as in the case of the
testimony which
we
and reaches back
letter to Victor,
gain from Irenaeus
is
that
we
discover that the
which comes from Polycarp

Perhaps the early date
to the close of the first century.
somewhat more certain in this case than it was in the

other, for Florinus was in a better position to know Asia and its thought at
the middle of the second century than any of the Roman Christians were.
At least, we do not know that Victor, or any of those in Rome in his time,
of the testimony
had
had
is
lived in Asia at the
middle of the century as Florinus had.
lived there in his early
life,
Victor
If
Irenaeus would have been likely to refer
to the fact in the letter to him, just as
he referred to Florinus'
there.
life
Florinus had been closely associated with Polycarp, and what Florinus
recognized as coming from Polycarp was well authenticated.

4.
There
into the
is
same
one important datum
the connection between Florinus

apostles on the other.
but
it
The
link
It is
which
is
not brought out
the fact that one link
made
and Irenaeus, on the one hand, and the

is
perhaps implicit
in the letter to Victor,
has not the certainty there which appears here.
said that Polycarp
and
in this letter
relief in the letter to Victor.
later
Here it is expressly
and other presbyters were associated with the apostles
were associated with Florinus.
The
significance of this
is
two-
word "presbyter," and thus shows a point of contact

with the other presbyter testimony, which will be considered later; and,
more important, it means that Florinus recognized that the testimony
which he had received from Polycarp he had received at first hand. He
knew whether Polycarp had spoken to him of things which Polycarp had
received from John and other apostles.
Irenaeus and Florinus both knew
whether communication had passed between them concerning the things
which Florinus had received from Polycarp. When Irenaeus appealed to
Florinus, therefore, he did it assuming a background created by such comfold:
it
introduces the
munication.
first
part of
If
it
we had
some
the letter entire,
we should probably
find in the
reference to such communication.
Irenaeus' statements concerning Polycarp in Heresies 3 3 4 do not

.
add
very materially to the data already found in these two
letters,
questions raised by the fourth gospel are concerned.
That they do not is

and genuineness of
as far as the
natural, or even an indirect evidence of the spontaneity
both.
The
discussion here
would not be
in
is
a general one, most of the readers of which
fore Irenaeus did not attempt to enter into details.
ment served his purpose.

There are two phrases
noting.
One
There-
a position to verify details concerning Polycarp.
A comprehensive state-
in the passage, however, that
of these is the statement that Polycarp
478
may
be worth
was bishop
of the

This
church in Smyrna.
some importance because
of
is
it
29
emphasizes
the fact that he occupied an important place in Asia and was therefore in
know
a position to
well of Asian
more important
men and
assertion, perhaps,
naeus wrote were attested by
all
affairs.
is,
that the things of
which
Ire-
and by the (episcopal)

statement like this would
the churches of Asia
successors of Polycarp to Irenaeus'
own
day.
soon be read in Asia, and some of the Christians there would be able to
know whether
edge that
tion.
this
Thus
was
the statement
would occur.
correct.
Irenaeus wrote with the knowl-
He must have had good authority for the
asser-
the statement becomes another assurance that Irenaeus
was
so fully in communication with Asia that he could appeal directly to Asian

conditions.
Altogether, the letter to Victor, the letter to Florinus,

in the Heresies, are in accord, at the
different details to
by
show
and the passage
that they give sufficiently
that they were spontaneous statements, called out
different sets of conditions.
their
same time
Their agreements and,
at the
same
time,
supplementary nature corroborate their trustworthiness which has
They
been assured on independent grounds.
tell
us of the place which
Polycarp and those associated with him occupied at the close of the
century, and they convey an account of
which were then being
some
of the
first
most important things
said.
Especially, these writings
tell
thought of Johannine writings.
us of the Asian John and of what Asia
What
is
thus preserved for us concerning
John and the Johannine writings we are now in a position to see, no longer
on the basis of testimony from the close of the second century alone, but
also on the assurance of that testimony traced back to the close of the first
century and verified as the testimony of that earlier time. The findings
from the testimony may be summed up as follows:
I. John the disciple is now an apostle on the authority of Polycarp, as
the following considerations taken together show.
Both the
letter to
Victor and that to Florinus refer to the
Polycarp used to speak of John the disciple of Jesus.
Polycarp
made
this
John
either of the letters as to
that he
was one
specifically
an apostle.
way
in
which
In the letter to Victor
There
is
no discussion
in
whether the John so mentioned was an apostle;
of the twelve apostles of Jesus appears to
have been taken
Whether he was such an apostle or not Polycarp had been

in a position to know.
The John so mentioned, as Harnack has pointed
out (Chron. I, 656), was a man of marked distinction. At the same time,
as we have already seen (chap, ii), Irenaeus, whose thought in the letters
before us, as we have further seen, was the testimony of Polycarp, knew the
for granted.
479
'
30
celebrated John of Asia only as the son of Zebedee.

are explained,
if
Florinus, the Christians in
Rome,
All these several data
Irenaeus,
and those who
were associated with these men learned from Polycarp that he had been
associated in Asia
him
of
Minor with the son
any other eminent John.
the celebrated
John
of Asia
It is
of
Zebedee and did not learn from
natural to conclude, therefore, that
was the son
of Zebedee.
The argument
of de Boor (Texte und Untersuchungen, V, 2) to the effect that

John the son of Zebedee occurred in Palestine at about the middle of the
first century does not rest upon such early and trustworthy testimony as that of Polycarp
through Irenaeus, which has led to the conclusion that John resided in Asia Minor
Even the fragments of Georgius Hamartolus and
till near the close of the century.
Philippus Sidetes, though they both say that John suffered death at the hands of Jews,
do not agree in the significant parts of the statement; and neither one locates the death
of John in Palestine.
These fragments, therefore, when all the evidence is taken into
At the same
account, are unsatisfactory evidence for the early martyrdom of John.
I
the death of
time, their existence at a later period
may
be readily explained; they are the variant
would seem, which developed during the later decades, variants which
naturally appeared as the tradition became separated from those who had been person-
traditions,
it
ally associated
with apostolic leaders.
The remainder
early date
of the possible evidence for the death of
is still less
Of
convincing.
account in Matthew (20:22) are perhaps the best,
ments
(e. g.,
that of
Bacon on "The Martyr Apostles"
ber, 1907) lack cogency.
In
Mark
sufficient alone to indicate that the
to refer to
martyrdom,
for Jesus
and the baptism with which "I
John
in Palestine at
an
Mark
10:39 and the parallel

but the arguments from the state-
this evidence,
in
The Expositor
for
Septem-
the tenses of the significant verbs are probably
second evangelist did not understand Jesus' language
is
made
am
to speak of the
cup which "I
am
drinking"
being baptized," both verbs being presents and
Accordingly, the cup of which Jesus was thinking

and the one which he predicted for James and John, was one which was to
be drunk by living rather than by dying; if its outcome shotdd prove to be death, that
was merely incidental. The emphatic element in the language of Mark is that James
and John must be prepared to do in the future what Jesus was doing at the time he
was speaking; they must be prepared to live as he was living, whatever might be the
probably progressive presents.

for himself,
In Matthew the verb does appear to indicate that the evangelist put Jesus'
cup beyond the time when Jesus was speaking, though fxiWu does not always have
Let us assume, however, that
the future idea and does not necessarily have it here.
it is future in this case.
Then the Matthew change of the Mark material might give
a considerable probabihty that John became a martyr after the second gospel was
written but before the composition of the first, if, at the same time, we had no other
result.
evidence bearing on the question.

into account,
led by
we
But,
when
the evidence from Polycarp
are under obligation to see whether the
some other motive than the intervening death
of
first
John
is
taken
may have been

modify the Mark mate-
evangelist
to
One such motive may have been that, as he mentioned only a "cup," but not a
"baptism," so he may have concentrated his thought on the death of James and interpreted Jesus* statement accordingly.
Or, he may have been controlled by some other
motive, the evidence of which we do not possess.
Bacon's finding that "the disciple
rial.
480
The
II.
31
testimony from Polycarp offers suggestive material concerning
the Johannine writings as well as concerning the Asian John.
In the letter to Florinus, from which quotation has been

26), there occurs
(p.
irdvTa
avfji<f>iova
whom
The
rais ypa<f>at<;.
were the details of the
irdvTa, as
a reading of the letter shows,

to relate concerning
which Polycarp used
stories
Jesus loved" was Paul {TIte Expositor, October, 1907)
The
of the
highly ingenious,
is
His discussion probably merely carries appreciation of the actual
but not convincing.
symbolism
made above
6 IIoXwapTros dTTT/yyeXXe
the following statement:
New
Testament
omission of John's
an absurdity.
to
name from
by a residence of John in Asia and
the letters of Ignatius
death there.
his natural
most easily explained

John lived in Asia and
is
If
died there a natural death, Ignatius could not have introduced his
name
into the letters
and Peter, for he wrote of both as martyrs (Rom.

Aside from Paul and Peter, he named only living Christians. Peter
4:3; Eph. 12:2).
and Paul were not named in any one of the remaining five of his letters. This might
appear to indicate that, if we did not have his letters to the Romans and to the Ephesians, we should be justified in concluding that he did not know Peter and Paul had
been in Rome; but the mere statement of such a conclusion shows how untrustworthy
Even great men are not mentioned on all occasions and in every letter.
it would be.
Ignatius did not mention John because the nature of the letters he was writing was
names
as he introduced the
of Paul
not such as to lead to such a mention.
In a similar way Polycarp's mention of Paul in his
letter to
the Philippians without
a mention of John is readily accounted for. In one case (9.1, 2), he, like Ignatius,
spoke of Paul as a martyr. In the other two references (3:2 and 11 2, 3) Paul's letter
to the Philippians was the occasion of the mention.
If, then, John lived in Asia for a
.
time, died a natural death,
and did not write a
letter to the Philippians,
We
could not have mentioned John as he mentioned Paul.
from Polycarp
letter
to the Philippians
lack of mention in the letter

die a martyr
and did not
we have
vnrite to
is
must have mentioned John in any case. The

accounted for if we assume that John did not
the Philippians.
Papias' statement preserved by Eusebius (H. E. 3 39

.
the theory that there was only one celebrated
John
probably corroborates
3, 4)
in Asia
and that
this
John was
This often-discussed statement includes the name John twice,
the son of Zebedee.
but in each case
Polycarp
can hardly assume that a
it is
Eusebius, in his unfortunate guess con-
applied to a presbyter.
cerning the authorship of the Apocalypse, had to interpret Papias' language to

that Papias
knew two Johns and
located both of these in Asia.
not say this, and his language does not require such an interpretation.
that the
name John
verbs,
to be
is
is
iKpivov X&yovs
'
KvSpias
Kal 6 irpea-^vrepos 'Iwdvvris
of the
The
found the key to the language.

tL
i.
the
who
....
....
e?7rej'
near the close of the
first
first
\iyov(riv.
somewhat ambiguous language
e.,
significant
is this:
century
^ tI 'Iwdvvr)s
what they had
said,
words are as follows:

tQv irpeff^VT^pojv av-
...
&
re 'Apiffrluv
comparatively simple interpretation
At the time
of
which Papias was writing
Andrew and the other presbyters named in
part of the sentence, except John, were dead,
told Papias of
In the fact
each time given to a presbyter, together with the form of the
5^ irov Kal iraprjKoKovdrjKiIis ris Tois Trpecr/Sur^pou eXdoi, toi)s
E('
mean
Papias certainly did
and
their
younger associates,
spoke of each one in the past tense
481
(elirev).
32
life and teachings, as he had heard them from John and others who
had associated with Jesus. It is of great importance, therefore, to determine what these writings were in harmony with which Polycarp used to
speak of Jesus' deeds and words. For this determination we must be
guided by a consideration of the different possible meanings which raTs
Jesus'
ypa<t>aXs
may have
in
such a connection as that in which the expression here
occurs.
The
presence of the article without any other limitation of the noun
indicates either that these were writings already mentioned in the preceding
context, to which the article restricts them, or that they were the well-
known
writings which required no further description.
mentioned
in the
preceding context,
The
to
is
no doubt,
possible,
intended here;
rather,
it
it
Old Testament ScripOld
for Irenaeus often interpreted the
Testament statements as predictions

context, however, has in
writings are
be the following:
writings referred to were the well-known
This
tures.
As no
are limited to a consideration of
These appear
the possible well-known writings.

I.
we
of the events in Jesus'
The
life.
nothing to indicate that such a reference was
seems
to assure us that Irenaeus' interest here
alive, and the men who reported their teachings used the
These two men were put in a different class, through a
change in the form of the last part of the statement, because they were still alive at the
time referred to. Aristion seems not to have been thought of as a presbyter; at any
Aristion
and John were
still
present tense (Xôvaiv).
rate,
he was not called one.
But, in the case of John, the significantly restrictive
was used, apparently referring back to the fact that John had already
been called a presbyter and intending to indicate directly that this John was the same
one who had been mentioned in the first group and could now be mentioned again
because be belonged also in the same class as Aristion.
The course of events, accordingly, was somewhat as follows: Papias, in his early
life, used to inquire what the personal disciples of Jesus, while several of them were
still alive, used to say.
He inquired also what those still alive in his own time were
saying. John, in view of the advanced age to which he attained, belonged to both
classes.
Papias, when he wrote in later life, preserved this distinction and repeated
the descriptive phrase applied to John to show that it was the same man who was
6 irpe(r/3i5Tfpos
mentioned twice.
Where
this
one
His testimony
is-
a testimony to one John, then, rather than to two.
lived, either in the earlier period or the later,
for he did not locate
any
of the persons
without reference to location.
whom
Probably
it
he named.
was made
their relation to Jesus, as the language indicates.
however, he did not say,
Apparently the
list is
for other reasons alone,
made
namely,
It is left to us, therefore, to locate
which we have from other sources than Papias. This will

naturally lead us to say that, if Papias spoke of only one John and knew of him as one
who had come to advanced age, the John whom he thus knew will almost certainly be
the son of Zebedee, whom the testimony of Polycarp locates in Asia at the time of which
John by means
of evidence
Papias was speaking.
482
lEENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL
33
was in the accounts which he had of New Testament times that he was
appeahng to history rather than to prophecy.
2. The writings referred to were the well-known New Testament writThis, too, appears possible, for, in the days of Irenaeus,
ings as a whole.
New
the
Testament had come
reference, however, seems in
be referred
to
as a whole does not describe the
intended to refer to the
mind more
of
New
of Jesus.
Testament
If
Irenaeus
he could hardly have had
We may
than the gospels.
it
at all,
New
for the
and teachings
life
Testament
Such a
manner.'
to in that
no degree probable,
in
pass, therefore, to consider
the possibility of such a reference, namely,
be resolved into three
The
a.
Irenaeus
the time of Polycarp
or two later.
by the
knew
title
and
this
carelessly referred to
which they did not receive
This theory has the serious
difficulty that
tions of this
phenomenon have been attempted,
no satisfactory solution
h)
of the difficulty
seems
but,
to
This
at
must explain
it
and
yet
Various explana-
70.
up
them
a generation
to the present time,
have been
offered.
Irenaeus thought the four gospels existed in the time of Polycarp
carelessly described
them by the
title
of his
as to the existence of the synoptic gospels, but he
fourth gospel, which,

its
till
the fourth gospel could have existed in the days of Polycarp
have no satisfactory attestation before about the year
and
day.
possibilities:
four gospels existed in the time of Polycarp as they did in the
time of Irenaeus.
how
own
Irenaeus referred to the well-known gospels of his
3.
may
if it
existed at
This theory
present form.
all in
differs
own time. He was right

was wrong concerning the
Polycarp's day, did not exist in
from the preceding
in
that (i)
it
charges Irenaeus with a mistake concerning the date of the publication of

the fourth gospel as well as concerning the
as they were
known
was not published
in Polycarp's
till
day,
title
it
(3)
it
which he gave the gospels
assumes that the fourth gospel
after the time of Polycarp,
explain the late attestation;
and
has to explain
gospel could have been published so
how
(2)
late.
it
does not need to
how
a "Johannine"
so
Hitherto, attempts to explain
a "Johannine" gospel could have only such late attestation have either
failed to give a satisfactory account of all the data involved, especially, per-
Not
so in the days of Polycarp.
Fathers which have come
ment, or
all of it
together,
such an expression
is
There
is
no instance
in the
works
of the Apostolic
where the gospels, or any part of the New Testareferred to as "the wTitings."
The nearest approach to
down
to us
Old Testament had

been quoted, the writer continued: iripa ok ypacpi] Xêt, with a quotation of part of
Matt. 9: 13. Indeed, this is the only place in the Fathers where the gospel is referred
is
in II Clem. 2 4, where, after passages from the

.
to as
ypatp-fj.
483
34
haps, the practical absence of quotations by Justin from the fourth gospel,^
or have largely discredited the idea that the fourth gospel was any very direct
production of the son of Zebedee.

Irenaeus
c)
knew
that the
three gospels were current in Polycarp's
first
knew
time as in his own; he
also that the fourth gospel
was a
work.
later
In referring to the situation in the time of Polycarp, he merely employed the
usage of his
them.
own
Irenaeus from responsibility for giving an
relieves
early date to the publication of the fourth gospel, but
it
sible for error in carrying the title of the gospels in his
the time of Polycarp.
It,
the late appearance of a
Altogether,
knew
time, not taking the trouble to state all the facts as he
This theory
like the preceding,
"Johannine"
we cannot say
makes him responown time back to
must give an explanation of
gospel.
existence in the days of Polycarp,
it
own
day.
If
the four gospels were in
would have been no very serious
error,
perhaps, for him to use the language which we are here considering.
if
we say
that he merely
was
certainly that the reference of Irenaeus
not to the well-known gospels of his
employed the language
of his
involved in one of two serious difficulties: either, (i)
But,
own time, we become

we must explain how
the fourth gospel could have been current in the days of Polycarp, but failed
to get
any satisfactory
attestation
till
considerably
show how a "Johannine" gospel could appear

view of the recognized seriousness of these
culty of securing any
later, or,
(2)
difficulties, especially
common ground between
we must
after Polycarp's time.
the two positions,
the
it is
In
diffi-
worth
while to consider a further possibility, namely,

4.
Irenaeus referred to Johannine writings current and well-known in
the days of Polycarp dealing with the
from which the fourth gospel was
To
this is a real possibility.
writings existed;
if
we
did,
may
some
of the
is
no doubt that
most serious aspects of the Johan-
The
expression which Irenaeus here
indicate that there were such writings.
the expression suggests a possibility;
The
of Jesus, writings
There
be sure, we do not know that such Johannine
nine problem would be removed.

used, however,
work and teachings
later compiled.
we may take
it
and
see
At any
what
it is
rate,
worth.
following points are worthy of notice
a) If there
were such Johannine writings current and well known in
was a natural
them his language is as natural for such writings
the time of Polycarp as the same language had come to be for a reference
the New Testament in his own day.
the days of Polycarp, then the expression which Irenaeus used
one with which

in
to
to refer to
Such references by Justin as that in Apology i. 61, for example, are

if Justin had Johannine material but not the fourth gospel.
explained
484
sufficiently-
IBENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL

This h)rpothesis
b)
35
and
relieves Irenaeus of the charge of carelessness
inaccuracy in making reference to the writings which he here had in mind.
This
a comparatively unimportant matter, to be sure, but
is
We
taking into account.

is
The presumption ought
necessary.
shown
able,
be that he
to
be wrong, and a theory which
to
justifies
him
is
worth
still it is
man more
correct, until
in his usage
is
than
he
is
prefer-
meets other conditions equally well.
if it
This hypothesis
c)
have no occasion to discredit the
accord with what appears to be the more
in
is
obvious meaning of Irenaeus' language, for he seems to say that Polycarp
used to speak in harmony with writings then in existence which were then
known
as
"the"
writings;
if
anyone reads the language without any pre-
possessions as to what writings are referred
to,
he will probably reach this
conclusion.
in
d) If we look at
mind Johannine
the context, that appears to indicate that Irenaeus
had
writings, but not a single gospel nor a gospel together
with our Johannine
epistles.
The
preceding context
tells
of the oral
accounts which Polycarp used to give concerning Jesus as Polycarp had

received
them from John.
The
contents of these oral accounts are indi-
cated by only two specific terms.
These are
and ^
at Swa/Acis
SiBaa-KaXta.
Perhaps no other two terms alone could have been employed which would
so well describe the special characteristics of the contents of the fourth
The
gospel as distinguished from the contents of the synoptic accounts.
point
is
not decisive, to be sure, but
suggests that
John used
to
it
offers
an interesting suggestion.
It
speak especially of Jesus' miracles and teaching,
that Polycarp used to repeat those accounts,
Irenaeus selected to describe those accounts

their contents in our fourth gospel at the
"the writings" instead of "the gospel"
and that the terms which
because these terms best find
same time
are
that Irenaeus spoke of
testimony from the time of
Polycarp to the contents of the fourth gospel as material which came from
the son of Zebedee at the
ings, " as a
to
term
same time
that Irenaeus' selection of "the writ-
to describe the written
form of that material,
Johannine writings as embodying that material.
naeus'
current
letters,
in the
both as
a testimony
that there
work and teaching but not our fourth

time of Polycarp, we explain the language of Ireto his selection of the term "the writings" and the
were Johannine accounts

gospel
is
By supposing
of Jesus'
context which indicates the contents of that term.

e)
If
we suppose
that, in the time of Polycarp, there
writings, rather than a
Johannine gospel, we gain an
problem of the long-recognized "displacements"

This recognition of displacements implies
485
that, at
in
were Johannine
effective
key
to the
our fourth gospel.
some
time,
and
in
one
36
form or another, our gospel existed
in the
Burton has happily named them.
These booklets were produced, we may
shape of "booklets," as Professor
assume, no doubt, with no thought that they would ever form a single work;
the author, or authors, of them had intended a single work, he, or they,
would not have made booklets. Such booklets very naturally included
similar material, or even the same material, presented from different points
if
from apparently
of view, or even
into a
whole
after the usual
different situations.
method
Their compilation
of writing history of the time
would
then result in just such apparent dislocations and inconsistencies as the
may now find in the fourth gospel.' But if we suppose that

was composed as a single work, even from sources, these apparent
dislocations and inconsistencies can hardly be explained as anything less
critical
reader
the gospel
than carelessness or ignorance.
Johannine story of the

at least as far as
it
life
The
supposition, accordingly, that the
and teachings
was wTitten
booklets, enables us most easily
of Jesus in the time of Polycarp,
at that time,
and most
was
in the
form
satisfactorily to
of separate
account for an
The
important element of the internal evidence of the fourth gospel.

of events leading
up
to its compilation, then, will
course
have been somewhat as
John did not write a gospel as a single work. If he himself wrote

all, his writings were only in the form of short disconnected
follows:
of Jesus at
accounts.
Perhaps
it
more probable that the writing was done by one

Such accounts, short sermons as it were,
aspects of Jesus' life and teachings but incidentally
is
of his disciples with his approval.
dealing with different
overlapping one another, received recognition at once, but were not thought
They remained
of as a gospel.
in use, in
Asia Minor, at
least,
during the
time of Polycarp, and were the Johannine writings in accord with which
Polycarp used to speak of the miracles and teachings of Jesus.
Polycarp
recognized the writings, but he was not dependent upon them, for he had
same accounts from John himself and could
received the
Some time
independently.
after this,
relate
them
perhaps about the middle of the
second century, such Johannine writings then current as would best serve
the purpose were compiled into a gospel, and the compilation resulted in the
internal characteristics
which have led scholars
to recognize either dis-
placements or booklets in our fourth gospel.

If
/)
the Johannine writings in the time of Polycarp were merely book-
we can
lets,
readily understand Justin's failure to quote from the fourth
gospel
there
knew
of
E.
was no such gospel
until
about the time he wrote.
If
he
Johannine booklets, he did not honor them as he did the synoptic
g.,
those found by
Vol. IV, under the
title
Bacon
as described in
The American Journal
"Tatian's Rearrangement of the Fourth Gospel."
486
of Theology,

" memoirs."
37
increase in his use of Johannine material in the Dialogue
The
compared with that in the Apology (or the Apologies, if we call them
two) is doubtless due largely to the increase in value for him of the Johannine material during the several years between the composition of the two
as
works.
This view
g)
is
not necessarily out of
harmony with what Irenaeus him-
wrote of the authorship of the gospel.
self
follows (3.I.1): *En-tTa
avTov
avarrtcTOiv,
kol
avTos
Kol
avTo's,
The
StaTpt/8(jDv.
Îwdvvrj'i 6 fxxi6r)TYi<i
as
plus the article with euayycAiov

of the evangelist to
common
This
is
/cat eTrt
E<êcra
an emphatic repetition of
show
Ao-ias
t^s
'Iwdwr)^, kt\.,
to give his individual
usually understood to
mean
as
is
to (TT^ôs
that Irenaeus understood the
have been merely
gospel story.
made John
evayyeXiov, iv
to
i$eB<DK
His definite statement

tov Kuptou, 6
form
work
to the
that Irenaeus
the immediate author of the fourth gospel in the form in which
it.
But the statement itself may mean much less than that.
compared with the immediately preceding statements concerning
Irenaeus had
If
it
is
the authorship of the other gospels, one will see that Irenaeus seems to have
made each
of the other evangelists a writer of a
e^r/veyKcv
ypa<f>r]V
evayyeXiov ;
Mark
completed gospel (Matthew
eyypa^ws
rjfuv
Luke
TrapaBeBwKe ;
John simply i$eS(jiKe TO

evayyeXiov.
Was this Irenaeus' way of saying that John did not prepare
a complete gospel but merely left gospel material ? That may hardly be
Ireasserted, but it is certainly a possibility, and it is truly suggestive.
naeus' language is capable of that meaning, and such a meaning put upon
TO
it
...
emyye'Atov iv
/Si/SXtio
KaToccTo), while
allows a theory of the origin of the gospel which will explain
attestation, its
late
its
Johannine character, and Irenaeus' substantial accuracy
three data which the evidence as a whole has required us to reconcile,
such a reconcilation
Two
may be
if
fairly secured.
objections will doubtless be offered against this interpretation of
Irenaeus' language.
It will
be said that
have freely charged him
with a mistake concerning the authorship of the third gospel, while
(p.
24)
now
attempt to explain away the ordinarily accepted meaning of his accom-
panying statement concerning the fourth gospel.

not at
all parallel.
But the two cases are
Irenaeus' mistake concerning the third gospel has been
who was much farther

removed from the writing of the third gospel than from the writing of the
fourth, and is much more likely not to have had accurate information con-
recognized on grounds independent of Irenaeus,
Moreover, in the case of the fourth gospel, difficulties

which are recognized by scholars on grounds independent of
Irenaeus are best explained by accepting his statement concerning it as an
cerning the third.
concerning
it
487
38
accurate one, the correct interpretation of which

is
have
just indicated.
It
entirely possible, therefore, that Irenaeus' concise statement concerning
the fourth gospel

erations to be
is
the outcome of direct knowledge of
advanced
later, as well as those
view of the questions
this
The
its
Consid-
origin.
already advanced, support
at issue.
other objection will be that Irenaeus often quoted the fourth gospel
as the actual language of John, which he ought not to have done
if
he knew
John himself did not write the gospel or even booklets from which it
was compiled. The natural reply is that, on the theory of the origin of the
gospel which I have proposed, John was sufficiently responsible for the
that
language of the gospel for Irenaeus to have

it
as John's, at least for such purposes as he
freedom
felt entire
had
in
quoting
mind.
in
This discussion of rats ypa<t>aX<; may now be summed up as a whole.

The term was recognized in the time of Irenaeus as a title for the gospels,
and he may have applied it to the gospels in the time of Polycarp, assuming,
correctly or incorrectly, that they did so exist.
however, involves us
difficulty
either (i)
as
it
in serious difl&culty
which hitherto has not been
how our
To
say that he did
satisfactorily met,
any attestation
existed in the days of Irenaeus without getting
how a Johannine
(2)
only after Polycarp's time, in which case

its late
appearance.
ence to "the writings"

but
possible,
namely, to explain
fourth gospel could have existed in the days of Polycarp
about the year 170, or

explained by
this,
concerning the fourth gospel, a
such
an
as
till
gospel could have appeared
its
late
attestation
would be
In short, to interpret Irenaeus' refer-
a reference to the gospels
interpretation
leaves
us
in
is
linguistically
historical
diffi-
culties.
The
expression
is
equally explicable linguistically, however, as a refer-
ence to Johannine writings current in Polycarp's day;

writings, the expression
scribe them.
is
By assuming
there were such
we are
we show due
that there were such writings, therefore,
able to avoid the historical difficulties at the
regard to linguistic usage.
if
the natural one for Irenaeus to have used to de-
Especially,
we
find
same time
that
an explanation for the serious
by the external evidence, namely, an explanation of a

Johannine gospel with only late second-century attestation. At the same
time, we find also a key to the problem of the internal evidence offered by
the so-called displacements, a key which is at once simpler and far less
arbitrary than any other, and one by means of which we avoid depreciating
difficulty offered
the
work
of either author or editor of the gospel.
No
single item of the
evidence warrants the conclusion which has been reached, but the ready
combination, on this theory, of
all
the elements of the evidence in such a

488

manner
as to
seem
to solve the
problem which has been before us
strong probability that the conclusion
This testimony from Polycarp warrants a
As the testimony
and those who received

of prominence in Asia
that Polycarp
The
ings.
and the
above
(p.
further statement con-
still
known
in
Asia in Polycarp's
their information
from him knew
of only
at the close of the first century, so here
rest
knew
30) to the conclusion that Polycarp
of only
one John
it
implies
one author for the Johannine writ-
whom
only Johannine writer of
The
Zebedee.
led
offers
is correct.''
cerning the Johannine writings as they were

time.
39
they
opinion that the Johannine writings
knew was ^^he son of

came from him was a
The very absence of discussion of the question is doubtless

why we do not have any more data bearing on the question. If
uniform one.
one reason
there
had been a
difference of view concerning the authorship of the Johan-
nine writings, such,

it is
e. g.,
as there
natural to suppose that
differences, as
we have
was concerning the observance of Easter,

inherited some accounts of the
we should have
in the case of the differences
The
about Easter.
testimony of the second centiu-y knows no such difference of views, and the
recognition of this fact
1
It
may seem
is
highly important.^
that, in this
interpretation
of
rats ypa<t>aTs, Irenaeus has
credited with an accuracy in the use of language out of
harmony with
been
the looseness
which has been attributed to him earlier in the discussion (pp. 13, 18, 20. 22). But
such an objection probably misses the real significance of the expression. It is hardly
one which would have been chosen with conscious carefulness. Rather, it is an ordinary
Greek usage, under such conditions as this letter seems to involve. If Irenaeus had
written with conscious effort to be accurate, he would probably have employed some
fuller expression, which would have revealed his endeavor to avoid any uncertainty in his
meaning. In his unconsciousness of such effort he embodied accuracy in simplicity
because an ordinary phrase was the one to acif the above interpretation is correct
compHsh
2
that.
The
statement of Epiphanius (51.3) that the Alogi attributed the fourth gospel
Irenaeus wrote two centuries earlier than Epi-
to Cerinthus is not a serious matter.
phanius and was one of Epiphanius' chief sources; but he did not
this Alogi claim.
Instead, he understood (3 11
.
i)
know anything
that the fourth gospel
was
of
v^n-itten
against Cerinthus (which might be true of booklets as well as of a complete gospel, of

course).
Epiphanius did not find in Irenaeus anything concerning the Cerinthian
authorship of the gospel, and his statement certainly cannot weigh against that of
In addition to the fact that Epiphanius was so much later than Irenaeus,
Irenaeus.
one has only to read his language to recognize that he was an intemperate and prejudiced
writer and to discount his statement for that reason as well as for its lateness.
Still
further, and perhaps even more important, Epiphanius lumped the Alogi
i. e., those
whom
he gave the name Alogi, for he says he coined the name all together without
regard to the chronological development of the movement which he had in mind. As
to
far as his statement
is
concerned, the attributing of the fourth gospel to Cerinthus
might have occurred only after the time of Irenaeus.
489
That
is
doubtless the fact.
The
40
This evaluation of the Irenaeus testimony concerning Polycarp, from
which we discover that when Irenaeus spoke of Polycarp and his relations
to John he was speaking on the basis of trustworthy information, brings us
to a position
where we can see the significance of two interesting passages
in the Heresies
which have often been stumbling-blocks
in the
way
of the
student of the fourth gospel.
One
of these
is
the well-known passage at the close of 3.1.1, which
has already been quoted
Taken by
(p. 37).
itself, this
may appear
to
be a
statement without any sufl&cient historical knowledge, and the context does
not give
it
any more
definite support.
But
if it is
read in the light of the
above discussion of the relation between Irenaeus and Polycarp, it, like the
statements of the two letters, may be regarded as substantially the testimony
of Polycarp.
AVhat Irenaeus said concerning John in this case he received
through Polycarp, just as he had received through Polycarp what he put

into the letters.
Putting together the results up to this point,

that the fourth gospel, though
it
came
we
them to mean
some decades later
shall see
into e.xistence
than the synoptic gospels, had a history in some respects similar to

at
any
rate similar to the history of the
first
and
third.
It
came
theirs,
into exis-
tence as a compilation and passed through an editorial stage.
The second
passage in the Heresies on which the above discussion of
Irenaeus' relation to Polycarp throws light,
already referred to in another connection
is
the statement in 3.11.1a,
(p. 39,
footnote 2), according to
which Irenaeus understood that John wrote the fourth gospel ^âujerre eum
qui Cerintho insemininatus erat hominihus errorem, et multo prius ah his
qui dicuntur Nicolaitae."
If
Irenaeus had no trustworthy knowledge con-
cerning the origin of the gospel, then such a statement from
him could be
no more than a conjecture, an after-thought, a theory to account for the

fact that in the prologue of the gospel he found material which served as
excellent apologetic against the Cerinthians.
If,
on the contrary, as the above discussion has endeavored
to
show,
Irenaeus was not theorizing but was writing on the basis of trustworthy
untrustworthiness of his statement as representing a fact of the second century
more
certain in that Epiphanius himself says the Alogi claim
was a pretense
is
made
{irpo<pa<Tl-
avTikiyuv t<^ ayiq) 'Iwdwrj).

This implies a discussuch a discussion occurred as early as the time of Irenaeus,
his statement in 3 11 i, without any reference to such a discussion, is a psychological
impossibility, for he would not have let pass any such occasion to oppose those who
iôvrai
yap
ovtoi. alex"v6fievoi
sion of the matter.
If
.
attacked the views which he held.
whatever there was in

with what he gives
it,
was
We
are quite safe in saying that the Alogi claim,
of later date than Irenaeus
us.
490
and
is
of
no value
in
comparison

information;
had
if
Polycarp had said within his hearing, had told Florinus,
Roman
related to the
against Cerinthus, then
made
Christians, that
we can
John had spoken and written
readily understand
the statement without any attempt to prove
same
related the
Roman
41
why
it.
Irenaeus merely
If
Polycarp had
facts to others as well as to Irenaeus, Florinus,
and the
as
would have been most natural, if he used to tell

the story at all some of these would be younger than himself but older
than Florinus and would easily have met with Irenaeus and recounted the
Christians
Now
facts.
and when
none
of these hypotheses is impossible, or
their probability
is
for the simplicity of Irenaeus' narrative.
generation,
and
it
even improbable,
taken into account, we discover the reason
did not occur to
him
He was
that things
writing for his
own
which were generally
recognized needed any lengthy proof.
He
chose to employ himself in the
discussion of matters over which there
was
division of opinion.'
Thus
far this chapter has
been an examination of the testimony from
Irenaeus as contained in his statements concerning Polycarp.
There
remains an e.xamination of what he wrote concerning the presbyters, for
John and the fourth gospel hinges on what he knew through

what he knew through Polycarp. The relationship is
apparent, perhaps, in the presbyter testimony as it is in that from
his relation to
these as well as on
not so
This absence of statement on the part of Irenaeus concerning matters of which

glad to have his testimony at length is an aspect of his writings by means
They find Irenaeus arguing at length over
of which critics have often been led astray.
the meaning of New Testament language (e. g., 2.22), and it is inferred that similar
I
we should be
arguments ought to appear concerning the authorship of the
For example,
it is
New
Testament
writings.
urged that because Irenaeus did not say anything more about the
know anything more about it. But to urge

was writing an apology for his own times, not
authorship of the fourth gospel he did not

this is to overlook the fact that Irenaeus
New
Testament introduction.
the time
when Irenaeus
wrote.
It reveals
a lack of appreciation of the conditions at
Because Irenaeus wrote without citing
his authorities
and proving that they were trustworthy, he appears often to have written without
authority.
But when his relation to Polycarp and those of Polycarp's time is taken into
account, one discovers that he had such first-hand authority as not to be aware that he
needed to present it, especially in a work which was WTitten for another purpose.
Sometimes the critic not only fails to recognize that Irenaeus was not concerned to
discuss questions of authorship, but makes him concerned primarily in authorship.
The discussion of Bacon in the first volume of The Hihbert Journal is a conspicuous
example of this error. "Irenaeus, passionate advocate of the Johannine authorship"
When, a little later (pp. 516, 517),

is Bacon's language (p. 515).
an explanation for his conclusion, he writes: "Irenaeus literally 'compasses
heaven and earth' to find an argument against those who denied the apostolic authorship.
Because there are four winds, four elements, four zones of the earth, four pillars
of heaven, four cherubim sustaining the throne of God, the folly is manifest of 'those
of the fourth gospel,
he
offers
491
42
Polycarp, but
it is
hardly
worthy
less
of consideration
because not so appar-
we
more
are able to reconstruct the historical situation in which
that from Polycarp.
Accordingly, even though some of the discussion
Through
ent.
it
Irenaeus lived
may
we can through
generally and on a larger scale than
appear to be remote from John and the fourth gospel, such

the case,
really
and
apparent
its
is
not
remoteness must not prejudge the
examination.
This presbyter testimony
made
Irenaeus
to
is
unnamed
contained in twenty-three references which
authorities, as follows (a
more complete
of these references than has heretofore been given, I believe):
1.13.3c;
I. 15. 6;
4. 27. If;
2. 22. sc;
4.27.2c;
i.
list
pref. 2a;
3-i7-4c; 3-23-3; 4-P-2&; 4-4-25; 4.27.1a;

4.30.1a; 4.31.1a; 4.32.1c; 4.41.2a;
4.28.1&;
5.5.1c; 5.17.4^; 5-3o-i; 5-33-3^" 5-36-ic; 5-36-2&; Eus. ff. . 5.20.
meaning
discussion of the
amount
larger
of space than
such a discussion
is
of each of these references
may
well be given to
it
would require a
Indeed,
in this essay.
unnecessary, for the studies of Lightfoot {Biblical
ff.), Harnack {Chron. I, pp. 333 f.), andZahn (ForscJmngen,

VI, pp. 53 ff.) have already covered much of the ground with thoroughness.
I shall merely state their respective conclusions, therefore, that their posi-
Essays, pp. 45
tions
may be
understood, and shall then deal only with what appear to be
wretched
men who wish
reference
is
to set aside that aspect presented
The
to Heresies 3.11.4-9.
which
by John's gospel. "
The
summary
'
reader will observe, even from the
none too just toward Irenaeus' own language that Irenaeus was
were four in number, but was not discussing the question of
Even in the case of the fourth gospel, it was the things presented
gospel authorship.
by the gospel which Irenaeus' opponents were setting aside, not its Johannine authorThe question of authorship is not mentioned. If the reader will examine the
ship.
of
Bacon
is
insisting that the gospels
extended discussion of Irenaeus

discussion of authorship
will
is
itself
he
will
probably conclude that the absence of a
more marked than
my
brief statement
has
made
it.
He
observe that Bacon has mistaken general apologetic for a discussion of authorship.
The important work

oj the
of
Fourth Gospel, 1904)
summing up
Drummond (An
fails to
do
Inquiry into the Character and Authorship
justice to Irenaeus, but in another
the results of a study of the letter to Florinus,
Drummond
way.
In
finds only that
Irenaeus "professes to have the most distinct recollection" of the discourses of Polycarp
and that "one thing appears to be quite certain, that there was some John
Minor who was highly distinguished, and to whom Polycarp was in the habit
appealing as an authority of the first class, one who, if not an apostle, was to be
(p. 208),
in Asia
of
ranked with apostles"

to
do
(p.
justice to Irenaeus
209).
by
In this conclusion. Principal
failing to bring out the
Drummond
has failed
worth of Irenaeus' testimony con-
The conclusion leaves us in uncertainty as to what Irenaeus

meant and admits that the Asian John may have been some other than the son of Zebedee, when a more searching examination of the testimony gives us the son of Zebedee
cerning the Asian John.
alone.
492
which these
pivotal portions of the testimony, especially those portions
seem
scholars
to
have
Lightfoot did not discuss

to
do
failed to
all
justice to.
the twenty-three references.
which he gave attention he found
(3)
five classes as follows:
an apparently written source, represented by 3.23.3a;
written source, represented by 4.41.2a;

ic,
and 5.36.1c and
"present more or
The
those
written
a probably unwritten source, represented by 4.27.102.;
(2)
by 5.5.
Among
(i)
by the references of i.p.2a; 1.13.3c; 3.17.4c; and
source, represented
1. 15. 6;
-43
fifth class
less distinct
26.
Of
(4)
(5) a written source,
a probably
represented
these the second, fourth,
coincidences with
St.
and
John's Gospel"
fifth
(p. 61).
he regarded as a written source because "Irenaeus uses the
present tense 'the elders say,^ and yet the persons referred to belonged
to
a past generation and were no longer living when he wrote"
Lightfoot thought
it
probable that the fourth and the
be united into one, both being thus found

His conclusion
Papias.
is
to
(p. 62).
fifth classes
be references
to the
might
work
of
significant for the following discussion in three
ways:
1.
his
2.
some
recognizes that
It
unnamed
authorities
It finds that
some
of these references
which Irenaeus made
to
have no bearing on the fourth gospel.
of the references
which have a bearing on the fourth
gospel are to oral sources.

3.
accepts the remainder of the references as
It
The
conclusion of Lightfoot
is
made
to
a written source.
shared by Harnack to the extent that he
recognizes the three points just made.
He
disagrees with Lightfoot in
that he divides the references as a whole into three classes only
and reaches
a different conclusion as to those which have a bearing on the fourth gospel.
Zahj
classes
differs
among
from both Lightfoot and Harnack by finding only two
the references as a whole
those which have no bearing on
the fourth gospel, and those which do have a bearing,
all
these latter being
references to oral tradition.
Of
and conclusions, those of Harnack and Zahn

more important. Lightfoot, if he were still living and
studying the Irenaeus testimony, would undoubtedly revise his statements
in view of the studies which have appeared since his time.
I shall assume, T
therefore, that his discussion is superseded and shall confine myself to the
points in which Harnack and Zahn agree, and those in which they differ,
as a means of discovering where their investigations are to be supplemented.
Harnack and Zahn agree that the following references have no particular
bearing on the questions raised by the fourth gospel: i.p.2a; 1.13.3c;
these three discussions
are certainly the
1. 15. 6;
3.17.4c,
3.23.3a; 4-P-2&; 4-4-2&; 4-4I- 2a; 5.17.4c.

493
These
44
we cannot be
references are so uncertain that
Perhaps he referred
here referred.
sure to what sources Irenaeus
none of the material which he attributed
rate,
At any
to several different persons.

to the persons
he so obscurely
referred to appears to throw light on the fourth gospel.
Having thus eliminated nine
make
Irenaeus here
enumer-
of the twenty-three references first
remaining fourteen
ated, the chief question in the study of the
use of oral sources, or of written ones?
Harnack and Zahn again agree
is:
Did
On
this
making the seven citations of

4.27.1a; 4.27.1c; 4.27.2c; 4.28.16; 4.30.1a; 4.31.1a; and 4.32.1a
question
an oral source.
refer to
conclusion
is
Their agreement gives strong probability that the
My
correct.
in
own
study of the passages leads to the same
result.
The
Harnack and
great gulf between the conclusion of
the result of the different interpretations which they
seven remaining passages, namely, 2 22 5c;

.
5 .36
IC,
and
six instances is to
which have
all
of
them
been considered.
just
that of
of
si.x
30 la;
.
Zahn
is
out of the
5.33. 36;
that the reference in each of these
an oral source, and that
class as the seven
5.5. ic;
Zahn concludes
5 .36. 2&.
make
Ijelong to the same

Harnack concludes
that these six references are to a written source, which he takes to be the
work
of Papias.
These
correct as to the
must be thoroughly examined,
references
six
therefore, in order to discover,
possible,
if
whether Harnack or Zahn
is
form of the source which Irenaeus here used.
Before proceeding to that examination, however,
it is
desirable to notice
that the remaining one of the twenty-three references (Eus.
H.E.
5.20;
the letter to Florinus) also properly belongs to the material to be examined,
though both Harnack and Zahn have practically

evaluating the presbyter testimony.^
tion because
same
at the
it
It
left
it
out of account in
must be considered
in the evalua-
not only contains a reference to the presbyters but also,
time, gives us testimony concerning Polycarp, thus furnish-
ing a point of contact between the Irenaeus testimony which has already
been examined and that which

I
Harnack considered
now
is
the letter to
before us.
some extent
Accordingly,
we have
in his discussion of Polycarp, but
only incidentally and meagerly in his discussion of the presbyters, not as having any
important bearing on the question of the significance of the presbyter testimony.
Zahn enumerates (p. 60) "die wirklich hieher gehorigen Stellen, an welchen die
Gewahrsmanner entweder geradezu oder vermoge des Zusammenhangs mit
anderen Anfiihrungen als Apostelschiiler charakterisirt sind," but no part of the letter
citirten
to Florinus appears in the
list.
He,
like
Harnack, appears
to
have regarded the
letter
as of prime significance only for the discussion of Polycarp.
My
largely
evaluation of the presbyter testimony, on the contrary, will be found to hinge
on the element
of
it
which
is
found in the
494
letter to Florinus.

seven passages (2.22.5c;
and Eus. H. E.
whether Irenaeus,
5.5.1c; 5.30.1a; 5.33.3^; 5-36-i^;
them, referred to a written source or to an oral one.
in
With
We
oretn,
01
quam habens Dominus

fxaprvpoxxTiv,
avp.l3ej3\r]K6T<;,
fjLaOrp'fj
man]
[a
Kara,
ravra tov
TrapaSeSwKtVai
ipsis audierunt et testantur de
Aatav
rrjv
et alios
in his reference to
He
wrote that "a
iani in aetatem seni-
evangelium
noster docebat, sicut

ol
autem eonim non solum loannem, sed
eadem ab
is
which he was employing.
qidnquagesimo anno declinat
et
irpecr^TjTcpot
what there
desire merely to discover
indicate the kind of source
qtiadragesimo
method, the
his
argument, or the results at which he arrived, we are not
his
concerned.
S-S^-^b,
20) as those which are pivotal for the study to discover
In 2.22.5 Irenaeus was discussing Jesus' age.

validity of
45
Iwavvrj
t<Z
koI Travres
QuiddM
l(Ddvvr)V
apostolos viderunt,
huiusmodi
Kvptou
tov
The
relatione.'^
et
haec
question
Did Irenaeus here make the presbyters a written source, or an oral

one ? The question must be answered from the material offered by the
quotation, for there is nothing more in the context which gives evidence of
coming from the source quoted.
is:
In favor of the source being written,
appealed to the gospel in the same
The
ters.
gospel
At
the words, "the presbyters."
make
in
it
will
be noticed that Irenaeus
which he appealed
thought such a juxtaposition appears
first
as the gospel source
presbyter source was written.
not inevitable.
was
all
united into a single
general
hardly be called more precise than that

sion as to
weaken
regarded in
itself
the
To be
itself.
p-aprvpovcnv
predicate
can
is
is
the fact that
it is
plural,
is
"the pres-
even two or more presbyters might have united
work
not at
in
all
which
tliey
probable.
indication of the fact than anything
shown
indicates such looseness of expres-
argument from juxtaposition, unless juxtaposition
sure,
the composition of a
But such a thing
make such
That the two substan-
as decisive.
In favor of the source being oral

byters."
as
the data into account
loose writer like Irenaeus might
juxtaposition incidentally rather than significantly.

tives are thus
same
written, so also the
Further consideration of the statement,
however, shows that this conclusion does not take

is
is
Beside the written gospel are juxtaposed
the form of the source in the case of the presbyters the
in the case of the gospel;
and
to the presby-
the written gospel, for, in the context, quotation
is
made from both Luke and John.

to
way
Harnack thinks
If
it
we have
their
in
discussed Jesus' age as a teacher.
had been done, some
better
here would be likely to have
discussion
had been embodied in

work of the
written form by Papias but continued to be referred to as the

presbyters.
This, too,
is
possible, but his conclusion
495
is
not convincing
46
on the basis of
The
passage alone.
this
verb used
frnprvpova-iv
was
Greek which Irenaeus wrote

perhaps points toward the conclusion that the source was oral, but, in
evidently the verb in both sentences of the
the usage of Irenaeus,
cannot be regarded as decisive.
it
Altogether, though the passage
is
an important one,
evidence to determine whether
sufficient
Whether the source was written or
oral
When we
pass to 5.5.
we do
an open question until
The
not find anything more definite.
neither one of the closely associated references
of 5.30.1a; 5.33.3^' 5.36.1C, or 5.36.26
that which
left
taken into account.
not sufficiently different to warrant the space of quotation.
is
more unfortunately,
Still
ic,
is
does not furnish
it
source was written or oral.
must be
the evidence of the other similar passages
language
its
is
Some
given in 2.22.5c.
of
adds anything of significance
them
give
more
to
of the contents
from which Irenaeus drew, but these contents are not material
which can determine the form of the source which he used. The separate
There is the less
discussion of each reference would be largely repetition.
of the source
occasion for such discussion because both Harnack and Zahn regard
of these five references as belonging to the
putting them
all
together as written,
same
class as 2
Zahn making them
22 5c,
.
all oral.
all
Harnack
Undoubt-
edly they will continue to be classed together, but whether the class will
be made written or oral
will
depend,
believe,
on evidence yet
to
be
considered.
The
letter to
Florinus offers that more significant language.
It
has
already been quoted (p. 26), but the portions bearing especially on the
source of the presbyter testimony
are as follows:
Tavra
CTToAoiS (TVp.(l>OLTrj<JaVT^
'Acrt'a
may
OV TTapiSwKaV
Trapa toj IIoXuKapTra)
....
They
appropriately be repeated.
Soy/Aara 01 irpo ^/xwv Trpea/SyrepoL, ol
to.
ElOOV yap
<TOl.
StafJivqixovevo)
(T
....
Tr/v
kcll
.
toTs
V TYj
d-n-o-
KaTW
Iwavvov
pLera.
avvavaar po<f>r}v ws [IIoArKaTrposJ aTTT/yyeXAe
A
show
comparison of
be called
ter? are
this
language with that of 2.22.5c (see
once the similarities between the two narratives.
at
to
some
of the
mentioned
as there, they are
more important
of these similarities:
in the letter just as they
men who had
were
The
may
presby-
in the other passage; here,
seen the apostles and associated with them;^
the teaching which these presbyters
handed down was,
in
which they had received from John; the common place of

The obvious conclusion from the discovery of such
I
45) will
p.
Attention
both cases, that
activity
was Asia.
close similarities
For determining who the apostles here referred to were, the reader should
here, as elsewhere, the discussion of Irenaeus' use of the
essay (pp. 20-23).
496
word "apostle"
recall
early in this

between the two passages
same
of
that the presbyters in the one case are of the
is,
class as the presbyters in the other,
which Irenaeus made
and that the teaching on the basis

is out of the same treasury
his appeal to Florinus
as that on the basis of which he
Heresies.
47
made
appeal to those
who should read
the
the Heresies narrative Irenaeus employed a written source,
If in
then quite certainly the source which he used in the letter to Florinus was
was oral, the latter likewise was doubtless oral.'

The similarities between the two passages appear all the more striking when
it is noted that the letter to Florinus was probably written some years after
the passage in the Heresies and, naturally, without any thought that the
But
written.
the former
if
two would ever be compared.
The
conclusion thus reached involves a similar conclusion for the refer-
5.30.1a;
ences of 5.5.1c;
and 5. 36.26, since these

same class as 2.22.5c.
5.33.36; 5.36.1C,
references have, already (p. 46) been assigned to the
The
seven references together will be found to be alike, either written or
oral, as far as the
But there
is
evidence already considered can indicate.
an interesting difference between the language of the
and the language
to Florinus
of 2 22 5c.
.
In
naeus used to describe the presbyter source
is
povdLv), while in the letter to Florinus the verb
22 5c the verb
.
in the present tense

is
letter
which
Ire-
{fuipTv-
in the past tense (irapeSw-
This difference appears the more significant when one observes
Kav).
5.30.1a; 5.33.36; 5.36.1c,
that the verbs of 5 5 ic;

.
all
presents.
The
difference
is
made more
suggestive
and 5.36.26, are
when we
recognize
that the verbs of 4.27 .la; 4.27.1c; 4.27.2c; 4.28.16; 4.30.1a; 4.31.1a,
and 4.32.1a are

a reference
all in
at the time
The past
men who were no
the past tense.
to oral testimony of
when Irenaeus
longer living, apparently,
wrote, but to use the present tense for such a
The need
reference seems to require explanation.

to
tense appears natural for
of explanation
appears
be increased when we take into account that the presbyter of 4.27.1a;

4.27.2c, and perhaps the presbyters of 4.28.16 to 4.32.1a,
4.27.1c;
were one generation farther from the apostles than Polycarp;^

1 Harnack has led astray the readers
by making significant Irenaeus' choice of
above.
He
thinks that the choice of
crot
for,
though
of his interpretation of the letter to Florinus

troi
at the close of the first sentence
instead of
i]iJ.iv
quoted
indicates that Irenaeus himself
could not look back to such a relationship -with the presb}'ters as Florinus could.
inference certainly appears forced, for
to
which
knew
(Toi,
it
is
chosen evidently to emphasize the fact that the recipient of the
certain things, excluded
/xoi
His
a strange conception of a letter according

letter
on the part of the writer, especially when the writer
proceeds directly to speak of these same things as those which he himself recalled.
2
Irenaeus' descriptive phrase in 4.27.1a
audierat ah his qui apostolos viderant."
497
is:
"Audivi a quodam
preshytero, qui
48
these
men seem
to
have been farther from the apostles, and therefore nearer
which refer
to Irenaeus, the verbs
the apostles are put in the present tense.
though he did not discuss

concluding that 2.22.
who were
Before an answer
given,
is
must be considered.
Is this
imply a written source

Polycarp
is
was correct
letter to
Florinus
one of the presbyters,
which Irenaeus was exhorting Florinus
for the teachings to
in
two other data offered by the
First, in this letter
nearer
an indication that Harnack
element of the testimony
this
5c, etc.,
put in the past
to their testimony are
tense, while the verbs referring to the testimony of those
to return
were
had received from Polycarp as one of the presbythe meaning of the later portion of the letter (see
teachings which Florinus

ters.
This
is
certainly
where Irenaeus reminded Florinus
p. 26),
who had
seen the Lord.
the statement which
it
specifically of the teaching of
had come from John and others

The connective yap after etSov also shows that
Polycarp and of the fact that
this teaching
introduces relating to Polycarp
is
explanatory of
whom, therefore,
is made certain a
the preceding statement concerning the presbyters, one of
Polycarp must have been considered.
This conclusion
when Polycarp is expressly called a presbyter.

The second datum to be taken into account is, that the testimony from
little
later
Polycarp in
this letter to Florinus
and
so the testimony of all of these
presbyters, in view of the conclusion of the above paragraph

oral.
We
are sure of this because Irenaeus insisted that he
from memory the teachings
to
is
was
plainly
recalling
His
which he urged Florinus' attention.
language implies clearly that Florinus, likewise, had received the instruction
in
The
question orally.
and the other presbyters

the close of the
as Florinus
Kai
Toiv
nature of this testimony from Polycarp
oral
further brought out
is
After he
letter.
had spoken
by Irenaeus' language at
and his teaching
of Polycarp
and himself had received information

CTriOToAaiv
Se
avTOV
....
Swarat
orally,
he continued:
<l>avp<ji6rjvai.
The
oral
testimony which Florinus had received might be corroborated by written

statements to the same effect in the letters of Polycarp
time
when Irenaeus
The
still
current at the
wrote.
evidence seems, therefore, to point in two directions.
The
verbs
in the present tense in the references to the presbyter testimony of 2.22.5,

etc.,
favor the conclusion that this testimony was from a written source.
On
the other hand, the striking similarities between the contents of the
testimony of the
letter
which has been found
to
be certainly oral
the contents of the other testimony favor the conclusion that
presbyter testimony was oral.
There seems
to
all
and
of the
Can this apparent discrepancy be explained ?
be no way of minimizing the significance of the

498
common
49
contents of the two statements of Irenaeus except to say that the similarities
are mere chance and to deny
them any determining weight.
not be an explanation and would
the letter to Florinus contains presbyter testimony which
while the same kind of testimony in the Heresies
worth while, therefore,
It is
to inquire
is
handed down from
warrant such an explana-
may be
regarded as historical
which case they are a vivid means of
calling attention to the
The
two ways.
tion in either of
presents, in
to
certainly oral,
may have employed
whether Irenaeus
Grammatical usage appears
earlier time.
is
regarded as written.
the verbs in the present tense to refer to an oral tradition
an
This would
leave unaccounted for the fact that
still
verbs
impressiveness of the testimony which the presbyters gave; or they
be regarded as progressive presents,
in
may
which case Irenaeus conceived of
the testimony from the presbyters as so vital and permanent, through

repetition
by men
The thought
own
of his
which point of
still
its
speaking.
by the adoption
of Irenaeus is not essentially different
of
one
by the adoption of the other. From

view he conceived them as he wrote, we can hardly conclude
what
of these explanations from
with certainty.
ters as still
time, that the presbyters were
think
it
it is
probable, however, that he regarded the presby-
men
speaking through the
own
of his
and that we should
time,
therefore describe the verbs as progressive presents.'
The argument thus presented for

which Irenaeus used
is
the oral form of the presbyter testimony
supplemented by a statement
in the
midst of the
testimony which appears to exclude the conclusion that the testimony was
This statement
written.
ning of 5 33
.
had
TvpcL iv
I
It
4, in
is
a reference to the work of Papias at the begin-
which we read
been attributed
just
aKOvcTTrjs
Tavru [referring back to testimony which
to the presbyters]
Se
koX
XIoAuKapTTOV Sc kraipo'i yeyovws, dp;âios
Tij
may
Tf.Ta.Tri
still
Twv avTov
be asked
why
/3l(3X(i}v.
The
Kttt,
IlaTrtas
a.vrjp,
which
'Iwawou
/xev
yy/3a<^ws l-mjxapis
strengthened by
Irenaeus used the past tense so regularly in some
instances (4.27. 10, etc.) and the present with equal regularity in other cases (2.22.
etc.).
I offer the
following explanation:
If these citations are
The passage
point of view of the composition of his work, they occur at four points.
2.22.5c stands by
The
itself,
That
in
the only one of the references which occurs in the second book.
seven references of 4 27 la,
of the vn-iter.
5c,
considered from the
etc.,
are evidently
from one, or
by
of 5.5.1c, like 2.22.5c, occurs apart
practically one, sitting

itself
The
last
four
references of the fifth book have a contiguity similar to the contiguity of the seven in
the fourth book.
At the
first,
third,
and fourth
of these points Irenaeus thought,
expressed himself, through historical, or progressive, presents.

thought, and expressed himself, through a past tense.
Probably everyone who has
observed himself or other writers has recognized these tense "moods."
enon may be observed in printed books.

I have consciously sought to avoid it.
It will
499
and
In the second, he
The phenom-
doubtless be found in this essay, though
50
the
in composition,
cTTi
in addition to that
shows that Irenaeus had material from Papias
The
which he derived from the presbyters.
iy/pdcfxai
shows that the material from Papias was written and implies that the mateIf Irenaeus had not desired to emphasize
rial from the presbyters was oral.
the written form of the material from Papias as over against the oral from
the presbyters, his
meaning was complete without the
distance of eyypa^ws from the
such a distinction
I
Km
yy/oa</)ws.
likewise indicates that he
The
was keeping
mind.^
in
conclude with Zahn, therefore, that Irenaeus, when he referred to the
presbyters,
however,
is
was employing an
markedly
of 5.5.1C, etc.,
The basis
He noted
oral tradition.
different
from Zahn's.
were referred by Irenaeus
to
of
my
conclusion,
that the citations
"the presbyters," or
to
"the
more critical evaluation

of the reference, concluded (p. 71): "Es ist also ohne Frage derselbe Kreis
von Mannern gemeint wie in den Citaten Nr. i und 2-8" (i.e., 2.22.5
and the seven in 4.27.1-4.32 i; for he had already concluded, p. 62, on
the basis of a more extended discussion, but one no more convincing
presbyters, disciples of the apostles," and, without
because largely irrelevant, that 2.22.5 belongs to the same class as the
tions in
book
four).
It is
vinced by such treatment of

'
The
distinction
between his sources which Irenaeus thus made
the distinction which he
made
cita-
Harnack has not been conimportant material. One wonders how Zahn
not surprising that
in the letter to Florinus (p. 48).
is
similar to
In each case, the oral
first and then confirmed by a reference to a written source.

Harnack has strangely disregarded the f'y'Ypd(pws in his discussion (p. 336), not
even mentioning it; and this enabled him to use the 5^ Kal not only to show that the
Papias testimony was confirmatory, but also that it was of the same form as that of
the presbyters. Harnack thinks it would be strange, if the testimony from the presbyters was oral, that Irenaeus should have found the same testimony in the written work
The objection appears convincing only if we assume a verbatim similarity
of Papias.
between the two sources. But such an assumption is surely not necessary. If Irenaeus
found in Papias' work a statement of substantially the same things as those which
had come to him through the oral tradition of the presbyters, the requirements of his
source was used
language are sufficiently met.
Bacon has obscured Irenaeus'
distinction in a different
the phrase in question as follows {The Hibhert Journal,
way when he
II, p. 330):
translates
"These things
Papias, who was a hearer of John .... witnesses in writing in the fourth of his books."
This translation is clearly a disregard of the significant connectives which Irenaeus
used.
In 4.41.2a Irenaeus
trates his usage in
made a
such matters.
distinction
between authorities which further
illus-
In this passage, for the support of his interpretation
word "films," he added: " Quemadmodum et quidam ante nos dixit." The "et"
shows the additional source, but no further words were used to indicate that the
second source was of a different kind.
of the
500
51
himself, especially after the appearance of Harnack's Chronologie, could
expect that such treatment would
On
suffice.
Harnack that the

was written only after taking into
account important data which he did not use and after subjecting all the
data involved to a more searching and exhaustive examination than he has
the other hand, I have rejected the conclusion of
presbyter testimony of 2.22.5c,
etc.,
offered.
In some ways, at
least,
as already mentioned (p. 42), this extended
exam-
ination of the testimony which Irenaeus attributed to the presbyters appears
be remote from the fourth gospel, perhaps even remote from the question
to
of the significance of the Irenaeus testimony to the fourth gospel.
however, of very great importance, next in importance,
mony from
it is
Polycarp.
It is,
in fact, to the testi-
Indeed, in the letter to Florinus, as
we have
seen,
the testimony of Polycarp and, by virtue of this, connects the two classes
of testimony closely together.
But
it
has a further value,
also, in
we
view of which
By means
ticularly in place in this essay.
of
it
we
its
examination
is
par-
are able to discover, as
otherwise should hardly be able to do, the general situation in which
Irenaeus lived, and the historical and intellectual atmosphere about him.
We
how close Irenaeus felt himself to be to the days of the

we do this, we are in a position to understand his language,
which, for those who demand specific statements from him as to the source
of his information, is by no means as convincing as it might be, but, when his
from
see
it
apostles, and, as
position
is
taken into account,
wrote for the people of his

for the times, extended
is
own
He
such language as might be expected.

time.
and verbose,
to
Even
the Heresies
was only a
tract
be sure, but written to meet existing
In a work thus produced, explanations about his authorities and
need.
means of communication which were employed,

news would have been highly gratuitous. He and
his relation to Asia, the
and the transmission

all his
readers
of
knew who
the presbyters were,
and he took
their
knowledge
for granted.
It is
and
a serious mistake, therefore, to think that Irenaeus, born in Asia
living there
interest in
till
he was at least a youth, should have maintained the
Asia and Asian affairs so manifest in his writings, and yet have
off from his native land.

Some writers proceed as
though Polycarp and Irenaeus were the only men of the second century and
been practically cut
Irenaeus could not have

directly
from Polycarp.
known anything
It is
of Asia except
Asia to Gaul, the removal of Florinus from Asia to

5
20 with 5.15), and the
what he received
forgotten that the removal of Irenaeus from
visit of
Polycarp to
501
Rome
Rome
(cf.
Eus.
H.
E.
are evidently only inci-
52
dental examples of visits and changes which were occurring frequently,
by means
which important information was the
of
common
property of
Christians throughout the empire.
who
Indeed, for those
back
are ready to transport themselves
into Irenaeus' time, to reconstruct the activities
thought
in
which were occurring about
him, to think of his relation to Asia and of his natural communication with
Asian friends, to recognize that there were

Polycarp
who could
to transmit
it
became
means
the
to their
only a
younger companions,
to think of
Polycarp
were only representative
of the
information over the empire but retained
how such men
are willing to restore the
much more
byters and
still
extant in Irenaeus' day
it
fully
life
form rather
in the personal
for
of the second century in such
naming
viduals other than Polycarp, as well as the importance which
He who
Irenaeus, are only the most natural phenomena.
who
times,
is
not only goes back
to
of the indiit
had
for
thus relives the
merely an instance of the historian
is
the documents but back oj the documents, a
process without which no history
What
who
as these,
not content simply to scrutinize the documents grudingly and
accept only what they rigidly require,
who
those
ways
than this outline indicates, the testimony of the pres-
introduction without any explanation or
its
readily
correspondence which carried
than in one which would be called history, or narratives

only
younger than
little
for the distribution of the treasured apostolic information,
to realize that the several letters of

(see p. 27)
men
scarcely have failed to be leavened with his thought or
is
ever truly written.^
has just been said should not be interpreted as a minimizing of
Too much has been made
documents.
such an inference as
may
that.
It is
of
them
in this essay to
intended only to
insist that
warrant
documents
is to the body; we could not get

we decline to accept anything more than
Ireits various bones, we shall never know the body from which it came.
naeus' testimony is only a skeleton on which to restore a body. The presby-
alone
be merely what the skeleton
along without the skeleton, but,
ter portion
if
shows where some of the outlines are
the form which the body will take

torians
if
we
when
cling to the bones only
it is
to
be
filled in'
We
complete.
and refuse
to
make
and indicates
are poor his-
the restoration as
the outlines are given to us.

^
know
modern
instance of similar import
is
in point.
Shall
it
be said that
do not
the substantial facts concerning Johann Oncken's baptism in the River Elbe
in 1834, because I never knew him, nor Barnas Sears, nor heard the story of the baptism
from anyone who heard it from either of them, nor, as far as I know, read of the baptism from the writings of anyone who knew Oncken or Sears, personally ? Yet I
am much more likely to be in error concerning that incident than Irenaeus was to be
in error concerning the
John
of Asia.
502
The outcome
of such a readiness to transfer oneself
century and relive

position to
of the
first
know
conditions
its
back
53
into the second
a recognition that Irenaeus was in a
is
well the important facts of the situation in Asia at the close
He
century.
spread opinion could give
could know, as thoroughly as current and wideit
and any writings which he
Asian thought about the Asian John
to him, the
Though he may never have
left.
seen Polycarp
him in his youth and probably he did not he

would still be able to know of him and his work with fulness and accuracy
through the accounts of men who had associated with Polycarp in his later
years and afterward had met Irenaeus or had otherwise communicated
It is by no means improbable that Pothinus had occupied such
with him.
a place. If he did not, others might easily and naturally have done so.
The failure of Irenaeus to mention the names of any of the presbyters
except Polycarp is not strange when Irenaeus' custom in the use of names
when he
except
is
listened to
taken into account.
make
It
even Polycarp
seems
mentioned
is
Haereses (3.3.4).
quoted once (5 28
.
Papias
.
to
have been an idiosyncrasy of his not to
Perhaps few students have paused
use of names.
4c),
is
but his
to consider that
one passage of the entire Adversus
in only
named
name is
only once (5.33.4a).
Ignatius
He was to
not mentioned.
is
Irenaeus
man of ours." Shall we say in view of this that Irenaeus

name
?
Probably we shall not. But, if he knew Ignatius
did not know his
naming him, is it strange that he did not name
quoted
him
without
and yet
the presbyters, other than Polycarp, to whom he referred ? He may have
known the names of several of them and yet have chosen to omit their
simply "a certain
names,
since, as
he
at least, the addition of their
felt,
enhance the value of his work.
names would not
Harnack's conclusion
(p. 334) that because

Irenaeus did not mention any more of the names of the presbyters he did
not
know any more must
regretfully be regarded as a lack of appreciation
of Irenaeus' personal bearing in the matter of
resulted from
The
names and
of the usage
which
it.
recognition that these presbyters were
felt
by Irenaeus
to
be so
near to him and that the testimony which he had from them was oral
how
and least
was most highly regarded because it had all the freshness
apparent personality. It was least trustworthy because it had suffered
explains
trustworthy.
of
that testimony could be at once most highly regarded

It
the transformation of
The
all
oral tradition.
story of Jesus' age (2 .22 .5)
is
an interesting example of
bination of high regard and untrustworthiness.

story in a written source which dated
century and had
its
If
from the early part
origin in a sub-apostolic circle,
503
this
com-
Irenaeus found that

of the second
no very creditable
54
explanation of
from oral
origin
its
tradition,
But,
available.
is
he got the idea of Jesus' age
if
a comparatively easy matter to understand
is
it
more than three-quarters
tradition, in the course of
have developed into the story which Irenaeus

mission and development accounts for
its
more important
to Irenaeus
he attempted to bring
oral testimony,
which
harmony with
oral form made
its
first to
appear
it
prove that Jesus lived to be
and then, by a forced interpretation

this, his
to
trans-
the early
than the statements of the gospels themselves.
Accordingly, he used the oral tradition

forty or fifty years old,
Its oral
related.
lack of
written records, but the personal element in
how
of a century, should
of
John
8 56, 57,
:
secondary authority, into harmony with the
him was
of
first
importance.'
This use of the oral tradition side by side with the written gospels by
Irenaeus presents what to us may be a strange fusion of authorities, but it
was not such to him. He was absolutely sure there were only four gospels
which were to be recognized (3. 11. 8), of which the gospel according to
John was one; yet, by the side of this and of superior importance, if the
I There can be no doubt that Irenaeus did regard the oral authority of the presbyters
more direct and more important. This is shown by the form in which he introduced
the gospel statement: "Sed et ipsi .... ludaei .... significaverunt," in which
Of
the "et" shows that this statement is confirmatory of the preceding argument.
as
course
possible for a confirmatory statement to be regarded as equal in importance
it is
with the one which

till
it
The more important
confirms.
the last as a climax.
But
statement
may
even be reserved
have no idea that anyone who reads
this
and other
passages of Irenaeus will attribute such logical or rhetorical arrangement to him. He

placed first that which was the important consideration. Afterward that which was
less
important was introduced to corroborate.
The
case here of the age of Jesus
is
where the oral tradition of the presbyters

was placed first and then a reference made to the letters of Poly carp (p. 27), in which
the same material could be found. A still further case is that of the presbyters and
similar to that in the
argument
Papias already discussed
(p.
to Florinus,
51),
where again the oral authority of the presbyters
received the place of importance.
The
recognition of the superiority of the oral presbyter testimony for Irenaeus
important because
to the apostles
and
it
is
more the certainty of Irenaeus' feeling of nearness

teaching and indicates again the way in which we are to under-
enforces once
their
when he wrote of apostolic tradition.

Through the medium of the presbyter tradition, we readily understand why
John 14:2 was so loosely quoted in 5.36.2a. Irenaeus' own direct quotations were
loose enough, as we have seen (p. 12); when he was only quoting from an oral transmission of Jesus' words, the freedom here is what we might expect. Whether the presstand Irenaeus
byters got this statement entirely from oral tradition or from one of the Johannine
"booklets"
[God]
ait:
is
unimportant.
'Omnibus divisum
The
esse
following sentence,
"Quemadmodum
a Patre secundum quod quis
est
Verhuni eius
dignus, aut
erit,
'
" thus
attributed to Jesus, not, however, found in our gospels, but doubtless, as Stieren thought,
belonging "ad dictum Christi, Irenaeo traditum a preshyteris veterihus, quos saepissime
504

two did not agree, was the
to
him
from the presbyters, which came
oral tradition
as personal testimony
still
55
fresh with
its
personal
and vividness.
same time that
life
Such an insistence on four gospels as the only ones, at the
was valued even more highly, may appear to us to be

He did not even become
it was not that to him.
aware that such a use of authorities required any explanation, and this
probably means that such a view of gospel material was the common one
in his day, at least one the appropriateness of which was not disputed.
In
fact, others were more liberal than he, for his insistence on only four
gospels indicates that others would have accepted more than four.
Gospel
accounts, both written and oral, were evidently common possessions; the
apostolic tradition, especially that from John of Asia, was familiar and fully
the oral tradition
an inconsistency, but
When
recognized.
Irenaeus spoke of the writer of the fourth gospel as
"the disciple of the Lord who also leaned upon his breast" (3.1.1c), he
at
once recalled for his readers the rich oral tradition which was current
among
the Christians of his day,
laudat,"
may
We may
be quite certain, at any
and they
form
filled in
For
the outline.
this
John passage was entirely oral.

it, on the occasion
Whether
of his writing tliis passage, as being a quotation from his Johannine gospel.
Irenaeus was thinking directly of the gospel when he wrote 3.19.3c, where the Latin
has the same words as in 5 .36 2a, it is impossible to determine, for there is no reference
given to any authority. In the tables at the beginning of this essay, I have called
indicate that the presbyter
rate, that
of this
Irenaeus did not think of
3.19.3c a "reference" to the gospel but have made 5.36.2a a "quotation," because
ways
of the different
in
which Irenaeus introduced the two
allusions to the gospel.
It
one of Irenaeus' uses of the gospel which illustrate the difficulty of making rules to
describe the different kinds of reference which he employed.
is
The
recognition of the superiority of the oral testimony for Irenaeus
is
highly
important for the understanding of his statement in the recently discovered Armenian
MS,
tor,
according to which Irenaeus wrote (translation of FredC. Conybeare,
July, 1907, p. 43):
"Now
The Exposi-
faith assigns {or guarantees) us this [salvation] just as
the elders, the disciples of the apostles,
handed
(it)
down.
In the
first
place
it
pre-
we have received baptism for the remission of

sin into name of God the Father and into name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God made
As soon as one recognizes that
flesh and dead and risen, and into Holy Spirit of God."
scribes
remembrance
of the fact that
the tradition of the elders was primary for Irenaeus, he vwll not say, vdth Conybeare:
"Why
should Irenaeus,
in the
name
of the elders
of Father,
?
Matt. 28:19."
Matthew
if he had before him the direct precept of the Lord to baptize

Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), thus invoke the tradition
Moreover, the true formula as here given
He becomes aware
that the formula
is
quite unlike that of
which Irenaeus used
is
unlike
was following the tradition of the presbyters,

which, though degenerate, was the authority which he preferred. He had such a formula from tradition, naturally, because a formula for such a service as baptism would
be one of those most likely to be transmitted orally, and to have developed in the Asian
circle of Christians somewhat differently from that of the first gospel.
that of
just because Irenaeus
505
56
tradition Irenaeus himself
often have told to the
was doubtless
many
Christians
ministries such details as those

letter to Florinus, details for
largely responsible, since he
whom
must
he had met in his varied
which are merely touched upon
which he was under obligation
to
in
the
Polycarp
and those who had associated with Polycarp, older than himself but younger
No doubt he had received much of this material from
Florinus himself, who had been more closely associated with Polycarp and
than Polycarp.
apparently had been Irenaeus' close friend for
506
many
years.
CONCLUSION
The
Irenaeus testimony which has been examined
is
ent kinds, but the examination has led to a single result.
of
two quite
differ-
In the case of the
testimony which Irenaeus derived from Polycarp, the study has been chiefly
a critical investigation of the meaning of Irenaeus' language in the two
important
to give
son of
letters
which have come down
to us.
That study has seemed
good evidence for believing that the celebrated John of Asia was the
Zebedee and that he was responsible for Johannine writings which
were current during the
first
half of the second century.
The study
of the
testimony which Irenaeus attributed to the presbyters has been equally

critical,
but
it
has given no direct information concerning John or the
Johannine writings.
self to
It
has shown, however,
be to the apostles of the
first
how near
That
century.
Irenaeus
felt
him-
feeling of nearness to
the apostles was recognized, to be sure, in the letters to Victor and Florinus,
but in the presbyter testimony

this greater
prominence
it
becomes much more prominent, though
much
seen not so
is
in express statement as in the
unexpressed but conscious assurance of that nearness which his language

implies.
He
himself so directly in contact with apostolic teaching,
felt
and so fully assumed the recognition of this on the part of his readers, that
he did not think of explaining why he had this assurance. The conditions
which justified him in this course of thought and method of writing must
not be overlooked,
if
we
are at all correctly to understand the conditions
and the meaning of what he said, especially his meager

statements concerning the authorship of New Testament writings.
If we thus put the testimony of the letters and the testimony from the
under which he
^\T0te
presbyters together, reading both in view of the apologetic purpose with
which Irenaeus wrote, recognizing that he was concerned with authorship
it is
we come to see that the testimony which

more important because it is incidental and that
worth much more than its meager expression appears at first to indicate.
We
are able, in fact, partially to restore the conditions of Irenaeus' time
and
to
only in a most incidental way,

Irenaeus gives us
is all
understand
the
why his language
is
what we
find.
At the same time, however, although this partial restoration has given
us the son of Zebedee as the John of Asia together with actual Johannine
writings, our fourth gospel in its present form has removed from the close
of the
first
century to the middle of the second.
This conclusion, at once
extremely conservative and highly radical, has been reached, however,

507]
57
58
only by a most thorough and painstaking investigation of the data bearing
on the problem.
As compared with the investigation
of Lightfoot, the essay has frankly
opened the question of the "authenticity" of the gospel without regard to

results, and the outcome has been a truly Johannine foundation for the
gospel which Lightfoot did not reach.
haps, of the seriousness of the task of
In
fact,
between the gospel and the son of Zebedee;
and
made
his ecclesiastical position
to another cast of mind, possess
he was hardly aware, per-
showing a closeness of relationship

his personal religious attitude
indubitable for
little
him arguments which,
convincing power.
The discussion
who wrote the
of this essay, without religious or ecclesiastical concern as to
gospel, has
made
it
and the
easier to estimate both Lightfoot's discussion
cogency of such replies as that of Harnack and, with the aid of both, to go
deep erînto the problem than
As over
shown;
either. \
against Harnack's study
(i) that
and conclusion
Irenaeus was in a position to
at least, concerning the
Asian John;
know
specifically,
have
the facts, substantially
(2) that, therefore, Irenaeus' testi-
mony
concerning John and the Johannine writings cannot be lightly set
aside,
and
(3) that,
presbyter material
is all
is
when
all
the testimony bearing on the form of the
taken into account, Irenaeus' source for this testimony
seen to be oral tradition, rather than partially the writings of Papias,
and, thereby, to reveal the near relation in which Irenaeus stood to the
conditions of the
first
century.
relations emerges the son of
Out
of this
more
careful study of those
Zebedee as the only probable author of Johan-
nine writings from which the fourth gospel was later compiled.
In somewhat similar manner, the confident, but unconvincing, argu-
ment
of
Zahn has been supplemented and
of the presbyter testimony has
his finding for the oral character
been put on a stable foundation.
This has
been done by recognizing that his treatment, like that of Lightfoot, is

insufficient, and by taking into account the very important item of presbyter testimony in the letter to Florinus.
Incidentally, the sweeping conclusion of de Boor and particularly that
Bacon and those who agree with these writers, that the son of Zebedee
was an early martyr, has been found to be unwarranted in view of the best
evidence bearing on the question. The symbolic language of the New
Testament and the "silence" of Ignatius and others of his time have been
sufficiently, or even better, explained on the theory that John lived to old age
of
in Asia
The
Minor.
conclusions which have been reached
may
convenience and somewhat more in detail as follows:

508
be summarized for
IKENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL

Irenaeus' quotations from the fourth gospel, or references to
1.
are sufficient to furnish a probability that

the
same form
in
which we have
it
he had the gospel
manner
of attributing
it
it,
in substantially
(pp. 10-16).
His use of the language of the gospel, generally, was quite
2.
his
59
to different persons or sources
was
free,
and
interestingly
These phenomena, together with the fact that he

sometimes placed a higher estimate on oral gospel testimony than on the
diversified (pp. 11-13).
written gospel (pp. 54-56),
prologue
Jesus'
3.
(p. 12), indicate
and
his sparing use of the gospel outside of the
how
highly he regarded the oral accounts of
and teachings which had come down to him.

The testimony which Irenaeus referred to the presbyters
life
throughout
(p. 50)
and corroborates the closeness
of these presbyters
was Polycarp
(p. 48).
One
oral
is
Irenaeus' relation to
but oftener assumed
the apostles, which he sometimes asserted
One
of
of the
(p.
unnamed
57).
pres-
was of the second generation from the apostles (p. 47) and yet
had evidently lived earlier than Irenaeus. Other men, in similar ways,
must have overlapped the period between the chief activities of Polycarp
and the beginning of the manhood of Irenaeus in such a way as to give body
to the traditions which have come down to us chiefly in the name of Polybyters
carp (pp. 51-53). Such men were in an excellent position to know the state
of affairs and the opinions during the first half of the second century and
to
be the means of the transmission of these to the days of Irenaeus.
The testimony
4.
of Irenaeus, therefore,
of the testimony of his predecessors,

of the second century,
is
first
estimate
critical
last
substantially the testimony of Polycarp
associated with him, testimony which these
during the
though not a
and though coming from the
quarter
and men
men were accustomed
to give
half of the second century, or even, in the case of Polycarp's
younger contemporaries, over into the second half of the century (pp. 24
as
man some
He had associated
Polycarp was a
5.
century
John
(p. 26).
(p. 28).
Christian affairs
with other apostolic
men
as well
Accordingly, he was in a position to know accurately of

at the close of the first century, of the men who were then
in Asia, of the accounts of their lives then current,
Out
f.).
thirty years of age at the close of the first
and
of their teachings.
of such a situation developed the Polycarp-Irenaeus testimony con-
This testimony knows only one
cerning John and the Johannine gospel.
John
of
apostolic
(pp. 17, 30).
times
This one John, though he
Zebedee, was certainly the

6.
other than John the Baptist and John

is
man whom we
Irenaeus, Florinus, Polycarp,
Mark
not specifically called the son of
call the
and those
son of Zebedee.
of their time,
i.
e.,
back
to
the beginning of the second century, appear to have been familiar with
509
60
written Johanno-Asian accounts of the
life
and teachings
of Jesus, with
be compared (pp. 31-38), and the

people of those days knew no other author of these than the son of Zebedee
which Polycarp's oral accounts used
(p. 39).
to
This was the only view current
until after Irenaeus' time,
and
unanimity of opinion concerning the authorship of the Johannine gospel
this
helps to explain
why
so
little is
concerning the authorship

7.
extant in the literature of the second century
(p. 39).
While we are warranted, on the basis of the Irenaeus testimony,
in
saying that Irenaeus had the fourth gospel in substantially the same form
in
which
it
has come to us, we are not warranted by that testimony in say-
ing that the gospel

first
century.
As
was
Asian accounts of the
were
in the
form
in existence in its present
far as Irenaeus' testimony

life
and teachings
of separate
and
form
at the close of the
can assure
us, the
Johanno-
of Jesus at the time of Polycarp
brief narratives, or booklets (pp. 35-37).
510
APPENDIX
RESULTING HYPOTHESIS FOR THE JOHANNINE QUESTIONS
Lest this conclusion should leave indefinite the meaning which
for the
Johannine questions as a whole,
Johannine hypothesis
to
which
it
leads.
it
gives
venture to suggest the general
Its
most important elements are
the following:
1.
John did not write a single and complete account

Perhaps he was never inclined to do so.
of the
He
teachings of Jesus.
and
how-
life
did,
ever, in connection with his ministry in Asia, either write short accounts, or,
perhaps
still
more probably, allow some one
of his disciples to write such
accounts of what he used to say to the people.

quently short sermons founded on the
were not intended
to
life
These accounts were
and work
As
of Jesus.
fre-
such, they
be mere history but rather interpretations of Jesus,
people to whom John spoke.

Those written sermons, or booklets, were treasured up even before the
death of John, but, naturally, they came to be prized more highly after his
death.
The apparent references to the fourth gospel in the literature up
to the time of Justin may reflect the existence of these booklets and indicate
the place which they possessed for the Christians who knew them, who
sometimes
in allegorical form, for the
2.
were probably a considerable portion of the Christians of Asia, at
least.
In this form they were not thought of as a gospel.

3.
Somewhere about the middle
Polycarp
of
is
of the second century,
perhaps as naturally thought of as anyone
combining such of these sermons as were suitable
gospel which would present aspects of the
mentary
to the aspects of his life
already in circulation.
This
life
to the
and teaching
purpose into a
of Jesus supple-
and teaching portrayed
editorial
some one
conceived the idea

in the gospels
work was performed and the book
duly published.
4.
This gospel, thus produced out of material which was already recog-
nized as John's and needing no explanation
accepted and soon took
form much
probably find
little
511]
of
place with those which
its
origin,
had received
was
at
once
their current
If we had all the correspondence of the time and notes

news which then passed among the Christians, we should
some reference to such a course of events for the Jol^nnine
earlier.
of all the oral
writings.
its
As conditions were, such material was too unimportant ^nd too

its preservation.
This acceptance and use of
thought of to warrant
61
62
the Johannine gospel naturally occurred
Asia.
first in
In view of Irenaeus'
him promptly, and he accepted

it without hesitation as the connected form of the gospel which he had heard
from Polycarp and the collection of the Johannine writings which he had
known in his youth. If the gospel was published about the time of the
close relationship with Asia, a
copy went
to
who
death of Polycarp, at his suggestion, and, on the part of those
carried
out his wish, as a memorial treasury, perhaps, of the Johannine tradition
which no one
while he was
else so directly preserved,
still
a young man.
possible cause for giving
any special attention
which the gospel arose or

out the Christian world
would have reached Irenaeus
it
In that case, he would have
for hesitating to use

it
felt
to the detailed events

it
as John's gospel.
was soon recognized
the least
through
Through-
as the written form of the
which was already so well known through the oral tradition

of the presbyters and, in Asia at least, through the booklets out of which it
story of Jesus
had been compiled.
Some of the Johannine sermons were on other subjects than the life
of Jesus.
The first Johannine letter is to be explained from such fragments.
The second and third may have ai-isen in this way, but perhaps the probability is against this theory.
They are more likely to be actual letters from
5.
John.
6.
Its
The Apocalypse,
like all other apocalypses, is a
pseudonymous work.
author availed himself of the fame of John in Asia and perhaps
use of some of the Johannine material.
He
made
published his work in Rome,
or at least in the West, about the middle of the second century, perhaps
under cover of the appearance of the gospel. Under these conditions,

together with the hospitable apocalyptic atmosphere of the time, its ready
acceptance in the West but
natural phenomenon.
By
sufficient recognition in the
much
slower acceptance in the East was a
the time Justin wrote his Dialogue
West
to
it
had gained
be referred to as corroborative testimony
(chap. 81).
Irenaeus, like others of his time in the West, accepted the
book without
hesitation.
512
INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

Abbreviations,
Relation Polycarp's testimony,

Communication with Asia,
53
How be understood, 52
lo
9,
to
Alogi, 39
25,
Anicetus, 25
Apostle, Irenaeus' use, 20-22
Jackson, H. L., 19
Jameses, did Irenaeus confuse? 22
Apostolic times, extent, 17
communication with the west,
25, 53
Bacon, B. W., 30, 41, 50
C,
De
Jesus' age, 45, 54

John of Asia, apostle, iS, 23, 29, 30
And Johannine writings,
Cerinthus, 39, 40
Clement of Alexandria, 13
Conybeare, F.
John, gospel
Johannine
55
Boor, 30
31, 39, 58
See Fourth gospel
of.
62
letters,
John Mark, 17
John the Baptist,
17,
20
.^
Justin Martyr, 34, 62
"Disciple," the, 20
Documents and
tradition, 52
Drummond, James, 42
Lightfoot, J. B., 42, 43

Luke, gospel of, 24
iyypdûs, 50
Epiphanius, 39
Monnier, 21
Eusebius, 24, 31
Oncken, Johann, 52
Florinus, letter
Papias, 31, 32, 49

Polycarp, 25, 27, 28, 31, 34, 48
to,
26-29
Fourth gospel
Work
of
John
Presbyter testimony, the, 41-51
of Asia, 17
Superior
Compared
In time of Polycarp, 33-38

Origin for Irenaeus, 37
Compared with presbyter testimony, 54
Date of compilation, 36, 61
to gospels,
with
Presbyters' names,
to Victor
why
27, 42, 43, 47,
and
not given, 53
Prologue, use by Irenaeus, 12
50
Scott, C. A., 19
Heresies, The, a tract for the times, 51
Scott, E. F., 5
Swete, H. B., 19
Ignatius, 31, 53
Irenaeus, use of gospel, 12
Trajan,
Looseness of
39
Theological development, 15
Terminology that New Testament,
17, 18
style,
Victor, letter to, 24
Zahn, T., 41
of
513]
54
letters
Florinus, 55
7po0ats, rats, 3139
Harnack, A.,
40
to
Apocalypse, the, 31, 62
Asia,
26,
29, 51,
63
ff.,
50
INDEX OF PASSAGES IN IRENAEUS

PAGE
p. 2a
3-
42
5^
17
13- 3C
IS.
42
42
20. 12b
2. 9.
22
2.
22. 3
2.
22. 5c
3-
21
IC
2.
20
15
17,
42ff., 53,
56
THE IDEA OF THE RESURRECTION

ANTE-NICENE PERIOD
IN
THE
The Department
of Biblical
and
Patristic Greek, of
The University


series will
be issued
in parts
I,
New
Studies.
These
Testament.
Texts;
from time to time.
and Lin-
II,
Linguistic and
The volumes
in
each
THE IDEA OF THE RESURRECTION

IN THE ANTE-NICENE PERIOD
BY
CALVIN KLOPP STAUDT,
Ph.D.
CHICAGO
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

1909
PRESS
Copyright 1909 By
The University of Chicago
Published April iqog

Chicago,
Illinois,
U.
S.
A.
PREFACE
This
treatise
aims
the resurrection from
to trace historically the

its
origin in the
Christian literature, to the end of the
The
precise
theme
is
ante-Nicene period.
development
first
quarter of the fourth century.
the resurrection of Jesus and of
To
of the idea of
Old Testament, through Jewish and
men
as held in the
discover this, the extant literature of this period
has been carefully studied and investigated. The volumes in the AnteNicene Christian Library have been read, and passages pertaining to the
resurrection studied in critical editions of the Fathers.
grouped and treated that the story

lowed through the various
merely to
stages.
of the resurrection
The aim
The
may
material
is
be readily
of the author has
so
fol-
been not
set forth the different historical strata in the idea of the resurrection,
but also to deal with influences and inferences, in the hope that through
this extensive
study in early Christian literature suggestions
may
have been
given for a more intensive study of the question of the resurrection in the
New
Testament and
The author
of the facts pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus.
wishes to acknowledge special obligation to Professor Ernest
D. Burton, of the University
of Chicago, for
generous help and inspiration.

C.
519]
K.
S.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I.
Jewish and Greek Literature
The New Testament
17
III.
The
Apostolic Fathers
26
IV.
The
Apologists
34
V.
The
Gnostics
47
II.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
521]
The Great
Polemicists
54
The Alexandrian School
68
The Later Writers
73
Conclusion
79
CHAPTER
JEWISH AND GREEK LITERATURE

This essay aims
of
men, as held
both of Jesus and
to trace the idea of the resurrection,
in the ante-Nicene period.
The
literature of the period
has been carefully studied with a view of ascertaining what
men
about the resurrection and what doctrines they held concerning
problem
is
The
confined mainly to a discussion of the precise nature and charac-
The
the resurrection.
ter of
thought
it.
between the resurrection and
distinction
the larger subject of the future
life
to
which belongs the conception of
Hades, judgment, second coming, millennium, future rewards and punishments, and redemption
is
However,
constantly kept in mind.
elements of eschatology are often knit
up with the
all
resurrection;
these
and so
far as they present collateral testimony to the resurrection they are brought
Moreover, in the history of the resurrection-idea,
into the discussion.
especially in the early strata, a constant distinction
made between
is
the
Jews and that of the Gentiles, and between the resurBut this again is not the
rection of the righteous and that of the wicked.
main subject of our study, and is considered only when it throws light and
resurrection of the
shade upon a more

the essay
is
vital
and
intricate
problem.
to set forth the nature of that
The
essential
which was supposed
purpose of
to continue
in the after-life.
A
ture
prerequisite to the study of the resurrection in early Christian literais
a knowledge of the
does not comprise
all
New
the resurrection did not leap into

in the
New
Testament;
of development.
Testament conception.
the necessary antecedent conditions.
it
life
full-grown, having
But even
The
its first
this
idea of
appearance
passed through certain stages and a long period
There are presuppositions
to the
New Testament material
which dare not be overlooked; for the earliest conceptions are genetically
related to the New Testament teachings, and besides, the literature of preChristian times exerted a direct influence on post-apostolic times.
must, therefore, be
writings,
made
into the
Old Testament and
whether Palestinian or Alexandrian.
Inquiry
into later Jewish
Another very important
Graeco-Roman idea of im.mortality, the influence of

which was both positive and negative in early Christian literature. The
Jewish and Greek literature is therefore examined with a view of determinprerequisite
is
the
ing the idea or ideas which were held concerning the after-life before, or
523]
10
contemporaneous with,
New
Testament
is
constantly
is
to rise,
made
to discover
was uniformly
The matter being
literature.
introductory, the results are succinctly stated.
In every document an
effort
of the nature of that
which
whether the idea
held; or whether two, three, or even
more con-
ceptions were current.
The
beginnings of a belief in individual resurrection are found in the
That death
Old Testament
not the end of
existence was, however, the most
the Hebrews.
At death,
in at least
two passages.
it
was thought,
there
is
it
(Job
a trace of the thought of eternal
life
On
but
among
Those who have gone thither

In some psalms
9,10; 10: 21,22).

in
God in the other world (49 15)

"when I
:
awake," does not mean awake from death, but from
Old Testament, for the most

and no hope of a resurrection.
life
In Psalm 17:15, the phrase,
but not of hope for a resurrection.
the
position
the shades pass to Sheol where
they continue in a semi-conscious state.

return no more, and none escape
the end of
is
common
sleep.
part, nothing to look for
There
is
in
beyond the grave
the other hand, there arose, in connection with the messianic hopes,
a belief in the restoration of the nation, in which the dead as well as the
living
Jews were
the dead
is
Many
Israel.
to participate.
logically connected.
this
simplest form
its
of the religious conceptions
to the individual
were in the
first
hope the resurrection from
With
In
which were
it
was a
revival of
later appropriated
place altogether national.
The
resurrec-
was no exception to this general tendency in which the larger unit of

the nation was gradually displaced by the smaller unit of the individual.
This appears in those words of Hosea (6:1, 2) in which, in a dramatic
tion
representation in the form of a soliloquy and of a dialogue between Jehovah

and the people, the people acknowledge their chastisement to be from God,
and express the conviction that in a short time he will deliver them and that
they shall live again under his protection. The same is true of Ezekiel's
vision of the Valley of Dry Bones (37:1-14).
The passage is not a literal
prophecy of the resurrection of the individual persons of the nation,
dead or
slain,
but of a resurrection of the nation, whose condition
tively expressed
and even
the whole house of Israel.

resurrection
is
so
avowed when
The
in Isa. 26:19, in
first
it is
is
figura-
said that these bones are
mention of an unmistakable individual
which a hope
in
a resurrection from Sheol
is clearly expressed through a prayer for the resurrection of individuals.^
The
up of the kingdom in the city of

whose walls and bulwarks are salvation and whose gates will open
writer looks forward to the setting
strength,
that the righteous nation
Cf. 26:14,
and
may
enter (26:1,
see Dillmann-Kittel,
2).
Der Prophet
524
And
since the nation
Jcsaje, ad loc.
was
IDEA OF EESURRECTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD

but few in number the righteous dead shall
Another
of the regenerate nation.

of the
dead
is
is
of the
Maccabean
be a resurrection of wicked
to
the body, are presented before
Turning
to the
These words
revolt
(cf.
11
we
is
more
God
who,
Enoch
literature, first to
The
such as
in
Jewish theology;
Statements concerning the character
and sometimes
satisfactorily discussed.
was the Book

Through it the resurrection became commonplace
and with the early Fathers it had all the weight of a
(Ethiopic).
The
not four parts in the Ethiopic Enoch.
There are
at least
so-called "Similitudes"
(chaps. 37-71), being entirely different from the rest of the book, are
monly assigned
to a
The
subsequent author.
resurrection
is
com-
thus very
and
variously conceived in consequence of these different historical layers;

the naive as well as the
In the
symboUc way
of presentation
makes
part of
Enoch
the resurrection
conceived to be of
is
The well-known "Simihtudes"
mankind or
and the nature of the
give testimony to a resurrection, either of all

to the resurrection act itself
there, too, are naturally
book the righteous are

material prosperity.
marked
to eat of the tree of life (25:46),
its
is
is,
however, differently conceived.
members
is
to
be
its
See Schodde, The Book
Enoch,
0}
Enoch,
possesses
The
The one
p. 139, for the
525
of
on a
members
are
(cf.
25:46; 10:17),
resurrection of the
class
remain
in Sheol
of the other class are simply transferred
p. 139, for the other view.
life
prolific (10:19).
great day of judgment from Sheol to everlasting punishment in
of
body
thought of as having the same
mundane body
being virtually a restoration of the former body.
forever; while the
to be established
center (25:5); where
and where nature
of the righteous is
organs and functions which a
wicked
resurrection
In the oldest section of the
variations.
messianic kingdom
The
body
of Israelites only.'
raised from Sheol in the body, to enjoy a
purified earth with Jerusalem as
resurrection
all Israel
while in a later section the resurrection
of the righteous alone is attested (90:33).
The
interpretation
difficult.
first
save one class of sinners (chap. 22)
As
is
conception bulks larger
canonical book, being sometimes cited as Scripture.
extremely
in
significant as well as the earliest of these writings
of
if
resurrection
developed than in the Old Testament, being bound up
fully
of the resurrection are often explicit
two,
The
ff.).
discover that the idea of the resurrection formed a
with the entire system of eschatology.
The most
32
for judgment.
very vital part of the thought of later Judaism.
and
refer to the faithful
as well as of righteous Israelites,
apocryphal and apocalyptic
of Palestinian origin,
and share the blessedness
prophecy of the resurrection
definite
recorded in Dan. 12:2.
and the apostates
rise
11
on the
Gehenna
one view; R. H. Charles, Book
12
Whether the writer thought
(27:2).
wicked as
of the resurrection of the
that of disembodied spirits (22:10, 11), or spirits united with bodies so that
we
they could be slain (22:13) ^^^ visible to the risen righteous (27 3),
:
unable to surmise.
Quite another conception of the resurrection
in the closing chapters of this Ethiopic
shifted
from the material world
being of short duration
Heaven
is
no longer the goal
The
center of interest
of the
new heaven
judgment
and shine as the
as spirits
92:3)
to them
become companions
be open
will
(104:2) and they shall joy as the angels (94:4) and

of the heavenly hosts (94:6)
is
hopes of the righteous.
righteous dead will be raised (91:10;
only (103:3, 4) and the portals of the
are
presented
and the messianic kingdom
the goal to which the spirits ascend after the final
"The
(93:4).
is
Enoch.
to the spiritual,
is
stars (94:2)."'
The
idea of
the resurrection in this section does not involve the body, but only the
spirit.
In the "Similitudes," however, the resurrection assumes a
firm.er
"In those days the earth also

gives back those who are treasured up within it and Sheol will give back
that which it owes" (51 1-3). The nature of this resurrection body is such
that the risen one can eat and sleep (62:14) in the messianic kingdom in
which the righteous will live forever. The mention of "garments of glory
and light" spoken of in connection with the resurrection body (even if this
is the correct rendering of a variant text) does not revoke, as some are apt
to think, the fleshly and materialistic conception of the body.
There are
thus in the Ethiopic Enoch two ideas concerning the character of the resurform and acquires more universal value.
rection: (i) the resurrection of a material fleshly body; (2) the resurrection
of the spirit only.
There
cabees.
is
a very gross description of a bodily resurrection in Second Mac-
This book surpasses
inence which
it
form in which
all
the earlier writings, not only in the
prom-
gives to the belief in a resurrection, but also in the enlarged

this belief is presented.
as a mere opinion, but as a motive
The
resurrection
and a support
for
is set
forth, not
martyrdom.
The
and their bodies

are raised in exactly the same form in which they were committed to the
earth.
The writer holds the plainest and most hteral conception of the
resurrection of the Israelites
resurrection of the body.
and even blood
46);
in the doctrine of
to everlasting life (7:9),
is
God
vdll restore the mutilated bodies (7:11; 14:
relationships will continue (7: 29).
power
the miraculous exertion of divine
human
I
being in the
womb
is
Quoted from R. H. Charles,
paralleled
op.
cit.,
by
p. 265.
526
There
is
no
belief
Resurrection comes through
a natural resurrection.
(7:14).
its
The formation
of
re-formation after death and
;
;
IDEA OF RESURRECTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD

God's
dissolution (7 22, 23).

:
to believe that
will
and
he will and can do the
ability to
13
do the former gives courage
latter.^
Book
of Jubilees we meet again the doctrine of the resurand the idea of simple immortality, already discerned
in the Ethiopic Enoch.
There is no mention of an intermediate abode,
and surely it cannot be Sheol since that is conceived of as hell (24: 3). The
only statement with reference to the resurrection is in 23:31, in which it is
Turning
to the
rection of the spirit
asserted that the souls of the righteous enjoy a blessed immortality after
Presumably the soul must enter
death.
at death into its final destiny.
and not of the body, is also asserted in the

Assumption of Moses (10:3-10). A most striking view of the resurrection
This book is a composite work,
is recorded in the Apocalypse of Baruch.
contemporaneous with New Testament writers. Baruch is represented
as asking God what the nature of the resurrection body will be (chap. 49)
to which answer is made that the body will be restored in exactly the same
form in which it was buried, with all the defects and deformities, so that
resurrection of the spirit only,
there
may
be a
recognition the
common
body
a more spiritual nature.

the
body
is
After such
recognition after death (chap. 50).
of the righteous w\\\ be transformed
There
adjusted to the
and
assume
will
be a series of successive changes until
will
new environment
(51 13).
The body, however,
become a nonentity; it will remain a body,

even though it is spiritually apprehended. Thus in almost the same
breath the Apocalypse of Baruch presents a material as well as a spiritual
will not
be so attenuated as
to
conception of the risen body.^
The
nature of the resurrection
Palestinian-Jewish
literature.
therefore, variously conceived of in
is,
Three conceptions were current:
(i)
bodily resurrection in the material sense, clearly indicated (Eth. En.) and
taught in the most
literal
Jub.
the
Ass. Mos.)
terms (II
(3)
judgment (Eth. En.
Bar.).
preliminary resume of the Greek doctrine of the future
im.portant prerequisite to the interpretation
In II Mace.
dcdo-rao-iS
occurs for the
first
life is
and presentation
a very
of the idea
Early Christianity, as
of the resurrection in the ante-Nicene period.

1
Bar.); (2) a resurrection
after
a resurrection of a transformed body, different from
mundane body (Apoc.
Mace; Apoc.
an incorporeal immortality
of the spirit only, or
is
time in the Greek Bible in the sense
of resurrection.
2
Though
this
book runs somewhat
parallel to
be declared that Paul was influenced by
it,
section referred to were written after A. d. 70.
fundamentally different from that of Paul.
527
Paul
(I
Cor. 15:35-50),
it
cannot
book and the

Withal the position of Baruch is
since the
main part
of the

14:
known, was developed in the environment of Greek life and thought.

is thus an a-priori probability that in the formation of the doctrine
This influence must
of the resurrection Greek influences were operative.
have been both conscious and unconscious, direct and indirect, positive and
well
There
negative.
At the time
the Greeks
and the Romans the popular beHefs
and
of the Christian era there
And
fact.
beyond the grasp
evident that this must have been the case.
of the after-life is
it
among
of the people as a whole,
Now the
inharmonious and irreconcilable at
the main, however,
current
since
since the philosophies were

it is
still
Homeric conceptions
The sepulchral inscriptions give conclusive

Homer was the bible of the Greeks, and
the ancient mythologies.
evidence of this
were
in the
Homeric doctrine
many
places.
In
presents us with a doctrine which seems similar
Hebrews. The Homeric poems teach that

man,
but that something survives. This something
death is not the end of
man,
but
a kind of "an attenuated edition of man."
is not a full, real
The part which survives death is called the soul ("/'^x'?)? but it is entirely
It has no psychological reladififerent from what we understand as soul.
At death it departs
tion with the rest of man, even while it is in the body.
to the ancient beliefs of the
Hades, where it continues without consciousness (//. xxiii. 103, 104),

and without a possibility of return (//. xxiii. 75, 76). ImmortaUty was
to
vouchsafed only to a few favorites of the gods,
who were
bodily translated
to the Elysian fields.
The philosophic view of the future life is, on the other hand, of greater
moment and more pertinent than the popular thought. There are constant
allusions in Christian writings to the philosophical views and besides, many
of the early Christian writers
were at one time philosophers and were trained
in the philosophic systems.
most
of the cultivated people.
The moral philosophies were the religion of

The foremost of philosophers was Plato
decidedly so on the subject of the

of a future life
on grounds
after-life.
He
established the doctrine
of reason, independent of tradition.
who were
Still
he
by a higher idea of the after-life

than the Homeric conception. The Eleusinian and Orphic mysteries,
Pythagoras, and Pindar contributed the idea that the soul which survives
in the other world is soul itself, and no attenuated dead image; that the
transmigration of souls is necessary; and that the body is a hindrance to
had
his predecessors
controlled
the soul.'
Plato teaches very distinctly the idea of the immortality of the soul, to
which
is
chosis.
I
t6
attached the doctrine of pre-existence and the
The
soul
(j-cDyua ffijfjia
is
incarnated,
in the
and
dogma
after the death of the
of metempsybody a judgment
Orphic mysteries; see Plato, Cratylus 400.
528
15
state where penance and discipline and puriThere it remains for a thousand years, after which
again reincarnated; and so continuing to persist in successive bodies
finally delivered from the body and departs into the realm of pure
awaits
in
it
an intermediate
fication are possible.

it is
it
is
This goal
being.
is,
who have
however, reached only by those
purified
themselves by philosophy and have freed themselves from every taint of

the body.
principles.
tions, not
The idea of a resurrection of the body is contrary to Platonic

The entire scheme is to get rid of the body and all of its functo save it.
"The soul is divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform,
indissoluble, unchangeable," but "the
body
the source of endless trouble,
is
acquisition of knowledge (66); purity
of the soul from the
and the prison

in
body
which the soul
who
heaven
of the soul;
is
free
immortality had reached

writers
(67); the
is
attained only by the separation
is
in a continuous
into Deity,
and
an impediment, a hindrance,
is
reached only in a bodiless condition,

taint of the body.
it is
life
The
and
doctrine of
subsequent
all
followed in his footsteps.
utilized
the world's periodic conflagration.
until
hinders the soul from the
There is
by the Fathers, viz., the concepwho taught that the soul is corporeal and that it survives
one variation, however, and
universe
mortal" (Phaedo 80); the
is
it
highest point in Plato,
dealt with the future
tion of the Stoics,
is
body
from every
its
body
and
flu.x,
They
taught that the entire
that periodically everything
is
reabsorbed
that the soul subsists until the next reabsorption
and
conflagration.
Turning
which
is
with the
the
to the
Romans we
find that there
is
very
little
that
is
Roman
There are only two writers who seriously deal

Cicero and Virgil. Both of these are used in a few of
not also Greek.

after-life
Latin Fathers.
Cicero restates the
that a soul will either have a
(Tusc. Disp.
i.
38).
Platonic
happy future or
Virgil gives
doctrine,
concluding
will perish with the
both the popular view and also his
body
own
view, the latter being a reflection of the Platonic ideas of an antagonism
between body and soul {Aeneid
was confined
vi.
725
ff.).
to the immortality of the soul,
resurrection of the
body was
Thus Graeco-Roman thought

and
logically excluded,
consistently so;
inasmuch as
and the
and
flesh
matter were conceived of as morally weak.

In the Alexandrian Jewish
literature, there is
trine of the immortality of the soul.
a repetition of the doc-
In Alexandria, where the Jewish
and Greek ideas were welded together, the conception of the

fell on the Greek rather than on the Jewish side.
Nowhere is
after-life
Wisdom
of
there an
Solomon
the doctrine of an individual immortality beyond the grave
is
set forth
attestation of the resurrection of the body.
529
In the
16
The psychology
(2:23; 8:17; 15:3).
man
and the body
of the
author
is dualistic.
The
soul
mere receptacle (8 20)

the body is only an "earthly tabernacle" for the soul (9:15) the body falls
to the dust and never rises.
This idea is brought out still more clearly
in Philo, the classic example of Jewish Alexandrian theology.
A personal
of
is
pre-existent,
treated as a
is
immortality
clearly recognized; while a resurrection of the
is
judgment and an intermediate abode

enters into its final state, which at once
find
no
place.
body and a
At death the soul
sets aside the idea of a resurrection.
His conception of matter, likewise, repudiates any conception of a bodily
Thus
resurrection.
matter
incurably
is
that the
body
II); that
it is
the spirit.
is
is
it
stated that the
evil; that life in
the
body is made out of matter and

body is death and death real life;
the "utterly polluted prison" of the soul {De Migr. Abr.
the corpse which the soul drags with
The
writer of Fourth Maccabees,
"a
it,
the clog which hinders
dilettante in philosophies,"
any intibody (13:16; 15:2; 18:23). This is the more

the discourse is founded on II Mace, which takes a very
believing only in a blessed immortality of the soul, thrusts aside
mation
of a resurrection of the
remarkable since
literal
view of the resurrection.
The
Secrets of Enoch, standing in a class
which do not lend themselves
Thus
Slavonic Enoch, or the
by
itself,
Book
of the
uses a collocation of words
to definite interpretation (22:8-10).
Judaism consistently held to a conception of mere

personal immortality, and is a good illustration of the positive effect of
Greek thought on the Jewish idea of the resurrection. This conception
Hellenistic
was confined almost exclusively

rehabilitation
latter
of
the
the restoration
of the
was a common property
was the atmosphere

was born.
former body
in
New
to
Palestinian
soil.
and the common people, as
Testament, and the Talmud.
which the Christian idea
530
This
had gained wide currency and
of the Pharisees
evident from Josephus, the

it
to Alexandria, while the conception of the
body was indigenous
is
Indeed,
of the resurrection
CHAPTER II
THE NEW TESTAMENT
In entering upon a study of the
ested to
know whether there
or whether testimony
as
is
we found through a
were current,
rection,
it is
tion.
New Testament we
are mainly inter-
a single view of the nature of the resurrection
Inasmuch
given to two or even three conceptions.

genetic study of the hterature of
Judaism that there
at least, three possible conceptions of the nature of the resur-
meet
Testament books
and
is
whether there
to inquire
also, or uniformity.
variation of idea in the
is
New
careful study of Jesus, of Paul,
of the writers of the four gospels furnishes us with the desired informa-
on the nature of the resurrection.
In general, Jesus says very
expected
little
less
perhaps than we should have
However, the resurrection
affirmed in his reply to the cavil of the Sadducees, and the account
by the three Synoptists (Mark 12:18-27 and

contains the earlier tradition
is
clusion to which scholarship has
parallels).
evident, not merely
come on
The Sadducees
is
given
That Mark
from the general con-
the Synoptic problem as a whole,
but also from the abrupt and uncouth form in which this
is cast.
is
Markan
narrative
present what was seemingly an imaginary case,
and no doubt one of their standing questions of the effect of levirate

marriage on the after-life. To this question Jesus makes answer; and in
his
answer there are three aspects which bear, either
directly or indirectly,
on the subject.
The
purport of the question of the Sadducees and the import of Jesus'
answer give an implicit testimony.

to him,
Was
Jesus does not answer the question put
but deals with the presumption out of which the question sprang.
that presumption the denial of the resurrection of the body, or rather
the denial of the persistence of
life
after death ?
If
only the former, then the
purpose of the argument of Jesus was simply to indicate

that there
is
to the
a resurrection of the body in the material sense.
the presumption of the question
was a denial
of
Sadducees
If,
however,
a spiritual personality after
death, rather than of a resurrection of the body, then the answer of Jesus has
pertinency only
if
directed to this denial.
of the Sadducees, apart
Now
a knowledge of the tenets
from our immediate passage, reveals the
fact that
they denied not merely the resurrection of the body, but more fundamentally the soul's immortality.
when he
531]
Josephus' representation
is
undoubtedly correct
says that they maintain that the soul perishes with the
17
body
18
{Ant. xviii.
which
it is
War
ii.
from the very history

concerned with
life,
is
harmony with Acts 23:8, in

supermundane spirits. And
also in
Sadducees one infers that they were wholly
of the
m.aterialistic interests, so that spiritual reahties
meaning for them. From

Jesus must have set himself
of
This
8: 14).
asserted that they deny a world of
this
standpoint
it
therefore
is
to the task primarily of
had
showing the continuity
rather than of arguing the resurrection of a material body.
After
all,
Jesus seems to give some hint as to the nature of the resurrec-
tion in this passage
when he
says that in the resurrection "they neither
marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels in heaven."
evident from this that the future
men
life is
It is
not to be one of sense-life, in which
with the same forms of intercourse occasioned by man's sensuous
exist
Jesus repudiates very strongly the idea of the earthly sensuous
nature.
character of the future
ence of
little
evident that
men
is
not,
life.
by
However, the exact nature
of the future exist-
In the analogy
this expression, definitely indicated.
of the heavenly state of angels (dcrlv ws ayyeXot iv toTs
ovpavo'L<;)
there
more tangible, but still nothing absolutely definite.

Angels, Hke demons and spirits, are usually conceived of as immaterial
is
something a
little
beings, having a self-conscious, self-directing individuality.
ably intended the simile to be taken at

give a distinctly spiritual
is
worth noticing that
meaning
this reply of
latter part of Ethiopic
its full
value.
If so,
Furthermore,
to the resurrection.
Jesus
tallies
Enoch, where there
is
Jesus prob-
he intended to
it
with the description in the

to
be a resurrection, but a
resurrection of the spirit alone; in which the risen righteous are to rejoice
"as the angels of heaven" (104:4), being companions of the "heavenly

hosts" (104:6).
Hence it is most probable that Jesus intended to deny
the physical
and affirm only the
The argument which
spiritual nature of the after-hfe.
Jesus draws from Scripture, in his answer, has
reference only to a spiritual resumption of the activities of
(Mark
is
is
inconsistent with the very Scripture to

really the
and
God
life
after death
Jesus shows conclusively that the view of the Sadducees
12 26, 27).
which they hold.
If
God, he argues,
of the patriarchs, then they are in fellowship with him,
by death; it is continuous, and conmust be continuous. Commentators often have made the
argument to hinge on the use of the present instead of the past tense in the
words, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God
that fellowship cannot be broken
sequently
life
of Jacob," thereby
showing that the patriarchs who were buried centuries
Moses must still have been living when God spoke these words to him.
But the argument for the survival of human personaUty strikes deeper,
for it is inferred from the nature of God himself.
Those wiio are morally
before
532
and
religiously
19
bound up with him now are in a life-giving and eternal

who lives for God and with God lives forever. In
fellowship with him; he

this aspect of Jesus'
answer
of a restitution of the
body; but only of a survival of the
of
to the
Sadducees there
The term
a blessed fellowship with God.
is
an awakening
of the soul
spirit after
death and
"resurrection" has acquired,
No room
in the thought of Jesus, the content of immortality.

for
no support of the idea
from an intermediate abode and
its
is
even
left
transference
therefrom to another place, where some kind of a body will be given to
it.
Jesus tacitly assumed that the resurrection begins with death and that the
patriarchs were living the resurrection
no room
be united with
The
life
fully
and completely.
when a
for a point of time in the history of the after-hfe

its
former body and
live
a completer
There
is
soul will
life.
harmony with his answer to

Sadducees. In the Fourth Gospel, in a stratum coming probably from
hand of John himself,' is an expression which is in absolute harmony
the
the
other teachings of Jesus are in perfect
with the Synoptists.

of the resurrection,
"I
Jesus says to
am
Mary who had
the resurrection,
and the
the current conception
life:
he that believeth on
and whosoever Uveth and beheveth on

me shall never die" (John it 25, 26) meaning thereby that he is the source
and embodiment of the resurrection, and that he who gives himself up
to him will survive after death.
The argument is parallel to that of the
me, though he
die, yet shall
he
live;
Synoptics
the only change being a substitution of Jesus for God.
In the
He who lives in God and for God

says. He who lives in me and for me
Synoptics, Jesus says in substance.
lives
forever; in the Gospel of John, he
lives
forever.
On
the other hand, there are a few references, not directly to the
resurrection, but to
some phase
of the after-life
which seem
to
imply a bodily
resurrection; but a critical study of each passage invariably leads to the
foregone conclusion.
kingdom
of
Jesus spoke of eating and drinking in the future
God (Luke
13:29); but the terms are used figuratively "to
express a blissful enjoyment in fellowship with others."
about Lazarus in Abraham's bosom and the rich

a parable, and, being incidental rather than
Our Lord's words

in
Hades occur
vital to the central
the parable, cannot be charged with doctrinal
The
man
in
purpose of
meaning (Luke 16:19-31).

by ideas which
apocalj'ptic passages attributed to Jesus are colored
were current and operative during the period
of
gospel-making.
The
"Great Apocalypse" (Mark, chap. 13 and parallels) is of a composite

character and presents conflicting views.
It may safely be assumed that
this apocalypse was not spoken by Christ in the form in which it appears in
our present gospels; but that it is a Christian adaptation of an original
^
See Wendt, The Gospel according
to St.
533
John, 153-58.
20
Jewish work written during the trouble preceding the
fall of
Jerusalem,
or a report of Jesus' words colored
by Jewish ideas. ^ Furthermore, what

Jesus taught concerning the future state of men, he also predicted concerning
himself.
To rise again after three days was a Hebraistic way of saying in
a short time (cf Hos. 6:2); and by this expression Jesus simply conveyed
the idea that immediately after his death he would continue to Hve as a
.
In short, Jesus read into the Jewish resurrection
self-directing personality.
a term which was forced upon
his lips
nothing more than the survival
and continuance of human personality on its spiritual side.
In turning from the teachings of Jesus to the writings of Paul, we are
confronted with another conception of the resurrection, which

different
though
not vitally so
from
Few
that of Jesus.
is
seemingly
conceptions
received such elaborate treatment at the hands of Paul as that of the resur-
His whole
rection.
Yet
in
interest in eschatology
in spite of all this elaboration
which more room
centered in the resurrection.

is
perhaps no province
The
for the raising of perplexing questions.
is left
passages on the subject of the resurrection are
two
classic
and
II Cor., chap. 5; in the
discussed.
is
and emphasis, there
former of these the subject
I Cor.,
is
chap. 15
systematically
In Corinth the resurrection was questioned and denied by some
The opposition to the idea was undoubtedly due to a Hellenduahsm indigenous to Corinth itself. The portrayal in Acts of the
Christians.
istic
opposition to the resurrection encountered at Athens

applicable
to
The
Corinth.
is
also in a
measure
Corinthians must have misconceived the
nature of the resurrection body, and presumably overemphasized the materialistic
The
conception, which caused certain ones to deny

resurrection of Jesus, in the thought of Paul,
altogether.
it
was
significant in its
and to the resurrection of believers. For him

Jesus was the miracle par excellence, and the proof of
relation both to justification
the resurrection of
his divine mission.
and we are
still
15:16-18).
The
resurrection;
in
If Christ,
our
he says,
sins; Christ
resurrection of Jesus
and the hope
Christ's resurrection.
resurrection of Jesus
of
The
and
is
not raised then
was raised
is
all faith is in
vain
for our justification (I Cor.
also a sure pledge of our ovm.
our resurrection rests on the assured fact of
apostle draws a close analogy between the
that of
men.
The
resurrection of both
is
either
must also be true of the

other.
If men do not rise then Christ did not rise, and vice versa.
There
is also no difference between the resurrection bodies of either, save that
Jesus is the first-fruit. Inasmuch as the first-fruit is Hke the harvest, it
affirmed or denied, so that what
is
true of the one
This view has the support of such authorities as Weizsacker, Wendt, H.
mann, Baldensperger, Bousset, Charles, and
others.
J.
Holtz-
IDEA OF RESURKEOTION IN ANTE-NIOENE PERIOD
21
thus follows that whatever Paul conceived to be the nature of the resurrection of the one, he
The
must
also
have held with reference
nature of the resurrection body of Jesus
nevertheless
its
is
to the other.
not explicitly described,
The empty tomb was
nature can easily be inferred.
Paul a secondary matter and of second-hand information,
knew
of
Christ
at all.
it
had appeared
him
to
is
In the catalogue of appearances
(I
to
indeed, he
form and that
in his risen
appearance gave him the conception which he expressed

"spiritual body."
if,
in the
phrase a
Cor. 15:1-15) there
nothing to give one the impression that the resurrection of Jesus was a
former body; but an opposite impression
revivification of his
and which bore
the
marks
of a crucifixion.
He is
silent
not because he does not like to think about
this,
saw anything
in his
is
rather
Paul says nothing of a body which could be touched and handled,
formed.
of the kind.
The
former earthly body.
risen Jesus
And,
it,
with reference to
all
but because he never
which he saw was not clothed
in addition, Paul's
language describing
the resurrection of Jesus does not contain the phrase "resurrection of the
body," but the expression "resurrection

a resurrection from the under-world.
Paul's conception of the resurrection
of the
body
dead," meaning thereby

brought out more com-
is
prehensively, however, in his general treatment of the future resurrection

of men.
We are interested to know w^hat he thought was both the nature
and the origin of this resurrection body. The two ideas are inseparable and
not systematically stated, and accordingly there has been room for various
and conflicting opinions. In the first place, it is obvious that he teaches
that the resurrection body is to be different from this present earthly body.
The material substance of the mundane life can have no place in the life
beyond the grave. It is distinctly stated that "flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 15:50).
The word "flesh" is not
used in an ethical sense; but, in connection with the word "blood," refers
to an animal body (cf. also I Cor. 15:39).
As we are we cannot inherit
eternal
life;
since
it is
not the material properties of our body which endure
forever; for they are subject to corruption
and
with the present body the resurrection body

"eternal,"
and
and "not made with hands."
different
there
is
one
and another
forms of bodily
flesh of
life.
The
"All
men, and another
is
dissolution.
apostle recognizes variations
flesh is
Then he
meet the Lord, not with
bodies that have been changed
(I
Thess. 4:17;
535
and another
of birds,
continues by asserting that
similar variations run through the heavenly bodies.

at the Parousia will
not the same flesh; but
flesh of beasts,
of fishes" (I Cor. 15 39).
In contrast
"spiritual," "heavenly,"
In addition those living
their earthly bodies, but with

I
Cor. 15:51-54; II Cor. 5:4).

22
Paul's characteristic
"spiritual
body"
way
by the term
Con-
of defining the future state is
(crw/na Trvev/AartKoV)
and
this is original
with him.
sequently in finding the meaning of the expression, no appeal can be

to classical or pre-Pauline literature, but reliance
On
Paul himself.
which
may
ideas.
It
be due to the fact that in the term are crystallized two distinct
or
the two
and also that the organism thus controlled
Spirit
spirit
In contrast with the psychical body which
spirit.
sensuous and perishable
life
as
its
is
ideas being
is
determining element, the spiritual body

life
which the
imparts and sustains.
Spirit
This
he asserts, does not develop out of
spiritual or resurrection body,
the former mundane body, save perhaps in the case of those

at the Parousia
(cf. I
Cor. 15 51-54; II Cor. 5:4).

:
The analogy
is
scientific fact
seed and plant stand in a genetic relationship.
it is
The
As a
seed
He
spiritual biology.
power
(Kadoi<;
living
germ of life when placed in its proper environment produces

But Paul did not use this illustration to set forth a principle of
the
the plant.
ereign
still
of the seed
purely analogical, and must not be unduly pressed.
and the plant

for in
other than
animated by the
be animated by the supersensuous and imperishable
will
on
seems evident that the expression "spiritual body" has reference
interchangeable
pure
made
solely
the surface, the expression seems self-contradictory;
an organism controlled by the
to
must be placed
simply
reflects the
Hebrew
idea respecting the sov-
"God giveth it a body according as he willeth"

"The aorist tense denotes the final act of God's will
God.
of
rjOiXrjcrev).
All changes in history
determining the constitution of nature."
and
life,
according to the Hebrews, were the direct work of God, apart from secondary causes.
No
theory as to the origin of the
this analogy.
Paul did not teach that there
body
the seed, out of which the
old
is itself
is
new body can be found
in
a seed in the old body, or the
new body
genetically grows
and
develops; neither did he teach the metamorphosis of an earthly body into a
heavenly.
The
of
real origin of the resurrection
God, who "willeth"
In II Cor. 5:1-11
it is
to give
body
is
attributed to the direct act
each soul a body at the time of the Parousia.
clearly indicated that
when death ensues
the souls
"naked," that is, bodiless; but that proleptically they already

with which
possess a body in heaven "a house not made with hands"
While the origin
they will be "clothed upon" on the resurrection day.^
will
be
left
There are some scholars
Schmiedel,
interval
etc.)
between
who
I
and
(e. g.,
Reuss,
Hohzmann,
Pfleiderer,
Cone, Clemen,
interpret this passage quite differently, asserting that, in the

II Cor., Paul
changed
536
his view
on the resurrection.

of the resurrection
sometimes spoken
which
work
it
is
controlled
it
by the
will finally
ethical, rather
is
also
in the believer
form a new
in the believer will have the
life
assimilate an organism conforming to the
seems that when Paul
new
power
conditions.
than the eschato-
he prefers to speak of the genesis of the spiritual body in this
logical, side
(cf.
new
God,
fiat of
which dwells
of the Spirit
such elements that
In other words, the
and
to create
way
usually referred to the
is
Spirit gathers to itself
organism.
It
body
of as the
23
also
Rom.
8: ii).'
Since this spiritual body, as
we have seen,
is
mundane
new organism
neither this present
form, nor a metamorphosis or volatilization of
but a
it,
imparted either indirectly by the new
by God,
yet remains to ask
it
It is, after all,
It is perfectly
a body, an organism, and not equivalent merely to a
adapted to the
what we
We may not
call matter.
terms the nature of this
have a term in our

spiritual
a "spiritual body."
call
Does Paul's conception

in
It
scientific nomenwhereby we can designate

resurrection body which Paul chooses to
and things
clature of things material

in exact
spirit.
under the new conditions.
spirit's activity
sublimated, having, probably, some of the properties
is ethereal, subtle,
of
life working in the believer, or directly

what exactly is the nature of this organism.
appearance and at
vital difference
first
body which
creates for itself;
is
to
although
reality.
It does,
There
life
on
both meant, not the rehabilitation of the
this,
flesh,
really
no
soul, or
which the
not be altogether excluded

that they put the
spiritual side.
its
no doubt,
is
Jesus said nothing of a
may
this
Both, however, agree in
his thought.
phasis on the continuity of
from
of Jesus ?
but not in
be given at some time to the
spiritual
from
from that
sight,
between the two conceptions.
new
life
differ
em-
Resurrection to
but the permanent release
it.
In turning to the Gospel writers we meet another idea of the resurrection.

In general, they portray a resurrection of the body in which the former
substance
is
reanimated and the former
life lived.
This seems
prevaiHng conception of the risen body of Jesus as they describe

it
by no means
is
tives, particularly
consistently held.
those
imbedded
In
fact,
it,
to
be the
although
some resurrection narra-
in the earliest strata, imply a spiritual
body such as Paul has described; while
others, especially those appearing
in the later gospels, set forth in bold relief a material conception of the
risen body; and, indeed, in
some
of the
accounts the material and the
spiritual conceptions overlap.

I
Kennedy, Charles, and others interpret also
this view.
537
Cor. 15:42-49 in accordance with
24
Thus
16-19
in the lost conclusion of
there
is
The
pvirely spiritual.
a mount, and
Mark'
preserved
in
Matt. 28:8-10,
described a resurrection appearance of a body which
all at
disciples,
it is
is
narrated, were gathered together on
once Jesus appeared and spoke to them. Like Paul's,

by an absence of the
this description of the risen Christ is characterized
grotesque and the materialistic conceptions of eating and handling. On

the other hand, an unmistakable bodily presence of Jesus is manifested in
the later traditions, especially that which has been preserved in
Here the
John.
risen Jesus
bread and blessing
it,
represented as sitting
is
and giving it to his

fish and ate it in
disciples.
Luke and
down
to meat, taking
It is
even stated that
(Luke 24:42, 43).

The material and fleshly conception of the risen Lord comes out still more
strikingly in the fact that he showed the prints in his hands and feet, and
he took a piece of broiled
that he
bade
20: 27).
The
body,
flesh
is
his disciples
their presence
handle and touch him (Luke 24:39, 40; John

was in his former
risen Jesus, to indicate that his appearance
represented as saying: "Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not

as ye behold me having " (Luke 24:39). In some of the nar-
and bones,
ratives even a third
phenomenon
presents
Here Jesus instantaneously
itself.
transports himself from place to place, passes through closed doors,
impalpable, and yet, withal, displays his wounds

to touch
him (John 20:19-23, 26-29).
manifestly present
spiritual.
the one predicating a
Such incongruity
is
is
and challenges those present
Two
ill-according elements are
material organism, the other a
undoubtedly the result of two traditions,
or two conceptions of the risen body, which were not, and, in fact, could
Hence the overlapping of the two ideas the one represented in its purity by Paul, and the other seen in its final development in
The appendix to the Gospel of John portrays
the extra-canonical gospels.
a material body than the rest of the
consistency
more
with a great deal
a fire, preparing a meal, and sitting
building
as
gospel.
Jesus is described
not be, reconciled.
down
to eat with his disciples
(John 21 :i-i4).
empty sepulcher the conception of a reinstateThe tomb is

of the former body is obvious.
resuscitation,
a
ment, if not
away, and
the
stone
is
rolled
third
day,
the
morning
of
on
the
found empty
grave
longer
in
the
but risen.
no
that
Christ
is
announce
angels
or
an angel
Inharmonious as it is, even Mark and Matthew, who suggest only a spiritual body in the appearances, record the tradition of the open grave. There
is a consistency between an empty tomb and a realistic corporeal risen
body, but an inconsistency between an empty tomb and a spiritual body.
In the narrative of the
I For a discussion of this, see E.

J. Goodspeed, "The Lost Conclusion of Mark,"
American Journal of Theology, Vol. IX, pp. 484-90 (1905).
538
25
IDEA OP RESURRECTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD

In Luke and John the realism
tomb
that the
is
is
brought out
more
still
vividly, in the fact
entered and that the linen clothes in which Jesus was
wrapped are seen. Therefore, even though the gospels give traces of the
two ideas, of a spiritual and a material resurrection of Jesus, nevertheless
the latter remains the predominant and prevailing type, especially so in
John and Luke.
The remaining New Testament books make no

nature of the resurrection thus far discussed.
contribution to the
With the exception
of the
and the Epistle to the Hebrews, a resurrection of the

In the Johannine writings
explicitly
avowed
or tacitly assumed.
body is
spiritual
as well as a mechanical
of
a
attestation
be
an
seems
to
there
and bodily conception; while in Hebrews it is uncertain whether the resurJohannine writings
rection
is
The
a resurrection of the
spirit or
a resurrection of the body.
extra-canonical gospels, which exerted a direct
and
indirect influ-
ence upon the Fathers, adhere consistently to a resuscitation of a
body.
mundane
In the Gospel according to the Hebrews the account of the empty
tomb and the

realistically
post-resurrection
than
it
was
in
any
life
of Jesus is set forth
of the canonical gospels.
true of the Gospel of Peter; only here the
body
more
of Jesus
kind of a transcendental form, reaching from earth
vividly
The same
and
holds
assumes some
to heaven,
and even
beyond heaven.
There
is
thus in the
New
Testament
literature
a confirmation of two
sharply defined conceptions of the nature of the resurrection body: (i) the
one
is
a bodily resurrection in the material sense, most clearly attested in
Luke and John; (2) the other is a purely spiritand a permanent release from the flesh, clearly attested by
the resurrection narratives of

ual resurrection,
Jesus and Paul.
In a further analysis of the
latter
conception of a purely
two ideas are also distinguishable: (a) the one is a

the "naked" soul, which will be clothed upon with a
spiritual resurrection
resurrection of
heavenly body, taught by Paul;

soul
beyond
period in the
(b)
the other
is
the continued
the grave without the addition of a heavenly

after-life,
taught by Jesus.
539
life
body
of the
at
some
CHAPTER
III
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

New
Having described the various Jewish and
now
resurrection, let us
Testament ideas
of the
turn to trace the development of thought in the
ante-Nicene Christian literature.
Here we are
interested to
know how
and used;
was approached; how Scripture was
employed
in
of
the
ideas
that were
substantiation
and what arguments were
held
in each
also
wish
to
know
what
place
the
resurrection
Then we
held.
whether it was a fundamental
particular writer and what purpose it served
or a secondary consideration, and whether it was purely theological and
apologetic.
But especially do we desire to know what the precise character
whether the term "resurrection" was
of the resurrection in each case was
equivalent to personal immortality; whether there was a risen body, and
if so, whether it was the former body, or a different body; and again, whether
a writer held to one idea consistently, or whether two or even more ideas were
interpreted
the resurrection
sometimes overlaid or welded together.
Rome
Clement* of
His
stands out as the
among
first
epistle to the Corinthians is the only Christian
century not included in the

is
aflSrms that
God
God
the very works of nature.

of the
it
is
Day comes
forth
from the grave
hundred
This bird
years, after
which
of the night,
fruit.
is
the only one of
it
enters into a cofl&n,
tion, there is also the
worm
its
is
nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature, and
putteth forth wings;" and so the

years.
But the
is
has built, and dies; and "as the flesh rotteth, a certain
hundred
He
as he has done
has given an assurance of the resurrection from
that of the phoenix.
lives for five
engendered which
five
man
decayed seed comes forth the plant and the
unique analogy
which
of the first
His discussion of the
will effect a resurrection in the case of
in the case of Jesus.
kind and
Testament canon.
very singular, and yet also very simple (chaps. 24-27).
resurrection
and out
New
the apostolic Fathers.
monument
But
new
creature completes a cycle of another
in addition to this
marvelous sign of a resurrec-
testimony from Scripture, in which
God
has given us
the promise of a resurrection (Ps. 3:6; 23:4; Job 19:26).

It is
tion
is
evident that the characteristic argument of Clement for the resurrec-
the
argument from analogy.
For
this
he
is
undoubtedly indebted
part to Paul; for he uses both the illustration of the seed (24:4,
'
No
effort is
made
to
be
strictly
chronological; similar ideas
5),
in
and the
and influences have
been often grouped together.

26
[540
To
expression the "first-fruit. "

reference to day
and
ment
is
in literature before,
uses the story and applies
the
it
is
but Clement
correctly interpreted do
is
the
He
first
This bird
Christian
The second
to the resurrection.
argument from the Old Testament.
argu-
finds the promise of the
Old Testament, which, as a matter
resurrection in two passages in the

fact
he adds two original analogies: one in
night, the other in reference to the phoenix.
had been mentioned
who both
this
27
not, in the least, refer to a resurrection.
of
It
which the writer lays on
also important to observe the constant stress
divine providence and power through which alone the resurrection can be
accomplished
that there
in the
(cf.
24:1, 5; 26:1; 27:1-3).
At the same time he teaches
"who have
a resurrection of those only
is
served him with holiness
assurance of a good faith."
What now
by Clement ?
the precise nature of the resurrection
is
Since he
makes use
letter to the Corinthians,
the risen
body
it
body as conceived
of the fifteenth chapter of Paul's first
might naturally be inferred that he conceived
be a spiritual one; but in spite of Pauline allusions and
to
expressions, he seems to have misunderstood Paul entirely.

of
epistle.
is
body
the material
The analogy
is
consistently maintained
may
of the seed
not be conclusive evidence, but
interesting to note that the purpose of the analogy
In Paul's epistle the illustration of the seed

sovereign power of God; and
is
not that which
is
it is
is
body that is raised

same kind; while in Clement's the
show that out of the decay of the seed
This is also more evident in the repre-
and
dissolving
is
body
exactly like the old
to the character of the resurrection.
my
flesh
new
creature arises out
of the old creature;
a passage from Job, he states more clearly
with
still
flesh
his position with reference
which hath endured
all
still,
the
The
resurrection
and not a
1
is
reads,
after-life.
my
flesh."
"And
Here
It is
More
not, in this passage, occur in the
probable that the change
is
thus a resurrection of the flesh
due
to
Clement himself.
a material organism
resurrection in the Pauline sense.
Clemens Romanus 26:3, quoted,
Tijv ffdpxa
2
word "flesh" does
it is
it
these things."'
not simply "the flesh" of which he speaks but "this
Septuagint;^ and
and singularly
and blood. In
As quoted by Clement
he seems to imply an actual restoration of the flesh in the
significant
it
from Paul's.
buried, nor of the
new body
thou shalt raise this
different
primarily used to show the
sentation of the symbol of the phoenix, wherein the
enough, the
is
distinctly said that the
main purpose of the illustration is to

comes forth the plant and the fruit.
of the decaying
resurrection
throughout Clement's
fjiov
reads
TWUTrjv rrjv dvavrXriffacrav

a-Q/ia.
but
S and B
read
main, from Job 19:26: Kal

ravra irdvTa.
in the
8^pixa..
541
dvaffT-^creis
28
Similarly the resurrection of Jesus
Clement
physical form.
is
suggested as having also been in the
became
refers to the fact that the apostles
fully
assured of the resurrection of Jesus (42:3), but says nothing, in this connection, of the nature of that resurrection.
However, when Christ is called
have been Hke that of the harvest; that
whose resurrection
is
is,
demands
that his
must
like the resurrection of
men,
the "first-fruit" of the resurrection the implication
described.
Ignatius' constantly refers to the resurrection without exhaustively treat-
ing the subject in any particular passage.
His
Smyrneans,
epistle to the
however, presents the most material and the most interesting matter. But the
idea of the resurrection bulks larger in his thought than the space which he
was with him as with Paul the all-important

from Clement who
only with the resurrection of men, deals with the resurrection of
gives to
it
would
indicate.
It
fact in the life of Jesus.
dealt
Ignatius, as distinguished
The importance
Jesus almost exclusively.

is
attached to the resurrection
indicated in Smyr. 1:2, where he asserts that the purpose of the crucifixion
was
to bring
God might
about the resurrection, so that
raise
up an ensign
to gather in all the nations.^
The appeal
historical fact,
if
that fact
is
of Ignatius, in the setting forth of the resurrection,
and
to the
denied.
The
which he has
fact, of course,
resurrection of the actual flesh of Jesus.
to
Docetism, which denied the reality of the

spiritual resurrection,
flesh.
The
mind is the
mind also
in
must be borne
It
that his whole purpose in dealing with the resurrection
deny a
is
consequences and inconsistencies which follow
is
in
to repudiate
Docetists did not
but a corporeal resurrection.
The watch-
word against Docetism was "truly" (aXrjOtos) which is used with reference
to the resurrection in Tral. 9:2, Magn. chap. 11, Smyr. chap. 2.
To the
same category belong those stereotyped phrases describing Christ's career
,
the
birth, the passion, the resurrection
He who
which
later
found
their
way
and resurrection of
the flesh of Christ forfeits his own immortality (Smyr. 5:2), is unreal and
visionary (Smyr. 2), and makes the Eucharist ineffective (Smyr. 6:2).
into the Apostles' Creed.
Indeed, Ignatius
is
the
rection of Christ's flesh

I
'
writer indicating a relation between the resur-
and the Eucharist.
Interpreted from the shorter Greek form.
expansion.
Tral.
first
denies the reality
The
longer
For a characteristic treatment of the resurrection
Greek form
later
9.
Apii
ffiL>ffff7jfj.ov.
Cf. Isa. 49:22;
62:10, where
LXX
reads atpeiv
describe the raising of Jehovah's standard in Jerusalem, about which

rally
is
in this later form, see
from
all
parts of the earth.
542
a-da-a-rj/jLov
men
to
should
29
IDEA OF KESUERECTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD
The
body and the source which influenced

Ignatius is set forth in Smyr., chap. 3; "For I know and beheve that he was
And when he came to Peter
[is] in the flesh even after the resurrection.
and his company, he said to them, Lay hold and handle me, and see that
I
precise character of this risen
am not
demon without body
[incorporeal
.... And
And
spirit].
after his resurrection he ate with
straightway they
and his blood,

them and drank with them
touched him and they believed, being joined unto
his flesh
was united with the Father."^
as one in the flesh, though spiritually he
Ignatius teaches, through the use of the present participle {ovra), that
Jesus while in heaven
and
is
in the flesh,
even at the time of his writing; he knows
Incarnation he held continued to persist, not merely
believes this.
after the resurrection, but also after the ascension.
and the post-ascension body
the pre-ascension
The
same.
body
risen
as
we have
This implies that
of the risen Christ
were the
evangelists give the reader the general impression that the
assumed a
of Christ
spiritual
seen in the former chapter,
is
form at the ascension.
This,
undoubtedly due to incongruous
elements in the narrative: the one a tradition which predicates a spiritual
body, the other a belief in a material body.

is
and
held,
that consistently.
The account
But
in Ignatius only
one idea
of the post-resurrection experi-
ence in Smyr., 3 plainly conveys a reference to the incident in Luke 24 36 fif.

The words, however, by which it is described are so decidedly different
:
that another source

to the
is
Incorporeal spirit
is
subtle substance,
3,
the Gospel according
is
Origen's interpretation
taken by Ignatius to refer to a
Luke 36:40 the wounds are not touched,

they are touched, and the strongest possible expression
In
gross material organism.
but in Smyr., chap.
is
vigorously laid on a fleshly resurrection.
(Sta/Aoviov do-w/xarov), in spite of
some
as referring to
suggested which doubtless
The emphasis
Hebrews.^
That which is
and blood, i. e., the corporeal part of man. Jesus is also
represented as eating and drinking with his disciples as one in the flesh
(ws a-apKiKos).
The drinking is a new feature, and may have been inserted
is
chosen to express the closeness of contact (KpaêVres).
touched
added force
to give
I
is flesh
'"Eydi
irpbs Trepl
yap
Kal
U^rpov
to
what might be characterized as a resuscitated body.
(jLera ttiv
avdcrracnv iv crapKl aiirbv oi8a Kal TrtcTTeuw 6vTa.
TjXdiv, f(pr] avroXs-
Xd/Sere, ip7)\a4>r}ffaTi
pje
Kal 8t
Kal iSere, 6ti ovk elfd diap,6-
VLov dauifj.aTov.
Kal evdirs avrov rixpavTo Kal iwlo'Tevcrai', Kpadivres rrj aapKl avrod Kal t(^
wvevixaTL
/uera 5^ ttjv dvacrraffiv ffvv^cpayev aiirois Kal (Tvvîriev
ws aapKiKbs, Kaiirep
TvevfiaTLKQs Tfvwp.ivos ry warpi.

III. 36: 11) confesses that he does not know from what source
was taken; Jerome {Vir. III. 16), states that it was taken from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews; Origen {De Prin., Preface 8) quotes it as taken from the
3
Eusebius {H. E.
this incident
n^rpov
K-f)pvyixa.
543
30
"he raised himself" (Smyr., chap. 2),

Testament doctrine. In the New
Testament, Christ is always said to be raised by the Father, but in this
However,
epistle he is conceived of as rising by his self-power and will.
this idea is not consistently held;^ for in the same epistle the doctrine is
Ignatius also uses the expression
which
upon
a decided advance
is
New
stated in the scriptural
way (Smyr.
resurrection of Jesus so
is
honorable thing to keep the
and
5:2);
The
cf.
flesh holy, since
the Lord's, then
if it is
7:1;
it
will not
it
men
(Tral. 9:2).
the
is
It is
an
belongs to the Lord (Poly.
be destroyed but
will rise again.
characteristic features of Ignatius' thought about the resurrection
on a resurrection
are: (i) the constant insistence
of the flesh in a gross
material form, even to the extent of asserting that Jesus

after the ascension,
of the Eucharist
if
Again, as
Tral. 9:2).
also the resurrection of
and
the resurrection of the flesh
if
the resurrection
is
is still
that he had been actually touched;
merely spiritual;
is
true,
in the flesh
(2) the validity
but
its
invalidity
(3) the doctrine that Jesus raised
himself; (4) a strenuous opposition to Docetism with reference to the idea

of the flesh
and the
resurrection; (5) the dependence
on the Gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews.
Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians,

to
New
Scripture
is
in Acts
and the
of his thought; nevertheless, the
whosoever
say there
Satan."
spirit,
is
not woven into the texture
epistles, are
New
Testament and
"the oracles of the Lord" (ra Adyta tov
"And
allusions
of the resurrection.
used and quoted in a formal way, and those familiar passages
on the resurrection,
to as
makes not a few
Testament passages bearing on the subject
shall pervêrt the oracles of the
Lord
neither resurrection nor judgment, that
The same
its
truth are referred
Kvptov, 7:1), in the

to his
man
is
own
words:
lust
and
the first-born of
who believe in the resurrection of the

whom Ignatius attacked are here referred
Docetic teachers
but not in that of the body
Hence the expressions in which Polycarp conveys his strong protest

must have reference to the resurrection of some kind of a body, presumably
to.
a material organism.
In the document known as the Martyrdom of Polycarp the resurrection

of the material
body
is
maintained for martyrs, which
"resurrection unto eternal
life
is
described as a
both of soul and body."
Barnabas furnishes us only with fragmentary references on the resurrecIn regard to Jesus he says that he rose, manifested himself, and
tion.
ascended on the same day (15:9):^

1
The change was
substituted
2
aviffT-r)
felt
by
"Wherefore also we keep the eighth
later readers
and
transcribers, so that
for dv^ffrrjaep eavrdv.
The punctuation
of Dressel puts the ascension
5M
on another
da}'.
an interpolater

day
for rejoicing in the
31
which also Jesus arose from the dead, and having

The order of events and the
been manifested ascended into heaven."
ascension on the same day as the resurrection

of Peter, but there
Nothing
ence.
stated that
it is
is
is
no hint that
this gospel
is
in
harmony with
the Gospel
was used or exerted any
said bearing on the nature of the risen body.
"he himself endured
The
incarnation,
and does not
and show
must needs be manifested in
that he might destroy death
forth the resurrection of the dead, for that he
the flesh."
influ-
In 5:6
manifestation of Jesus in the flesh has reference to his

give us
any clue
to his conception of the nature
of the resurrection body.
The Didache,
Papias, and the Elders approach the resurrection more
or less from the standpoint of messianism and the apocalyptic ideas.
In
them there is a very realistic and gross conception of the risen body,
both of Jesus and of men, during a millennium reign. In the Didache
resurrection, judgment, and the second coming are bound together in one
act. The Lord will come in the clouds, the heavens will be rent, the trumpets
The writings of Papias
will blow, and the dead saints will arise (16:6-8).
are no longer extant, and we must rely on fragments of his writings and
scanty notices of his theological opinions in other writers. It is said by
Jerome that he promulgated the Jewish tradition of a millennium, and by
others that he thought that after the resurrection the Lord would reign in
"Viands are among the sources
the flesh with the saints {Vir. III. 18).
of dehght in the resurrection," and "the kingdom of heaven consists in
all of
the enjoyment of certain material foods."

in this
The
millennium enjoy a wealth of food of
all
righteous
who
kinds, which
are to share
described
is
by Irenaeus in the famous passage that speaks of the prolific fruitfulness of the vine and the wheat (Iren. V. 33, 34). Whether Papias also held
fully
another idea of the resurrection
a resurrection
of the spirit or a spiritual
body which would come at the end of this millennium, we have no data to
know. In the Testimony of the Elders, preserved by Irenaeus, there is a
gradation of rewards for the righteous, and, at
two
least,
if
classes enjoy material rewards in the after-life (Iren. V. 36).
inhabit the city, the

life;
those
those
this
who go
again
those
who enjoy
who
all things.
is
to
New
Jerusalem on earth,
not
all
three
Those who
will of course live
an earthly
the delights of Paradise will be bodily translated there;
heaven might be supposed to assume another form, but
not the final goal and final resurrection
for
it is
asserted that
are translated to Paradise merely remain there until the end of
As
to the nature of the final resurrection
which must
logically
conclude the millennium era we can give no definite answer.
In the so-called Second Epistle of Clement, or the

545
earliest homily, the
32
approached from a consideration
resurrection
is
tance of the
flesh.
Although there
is
of the nature
and impor-
only one passage which directly deals
with the resurrection, nevertheless the idea of the fleshly resurrection of
men
more realistic terms than in any of the writers thus far

we read: "And let not any one of you say that this
Understand ye. In what were
flesh is not judged neither riseth again.
ye saved ? In what did ye recover your sight ? if ye were not in this flesh.
We ought therefore to guard the flesh as a temple of God: for in like manner
If Christ
as ye were called in the flesh, ye shall come also in the flesh.
the Lord who saved us, being first spirit, then became flesh, and so called
This
us, in like manner also shall we in this flesh receive our reward."
is an unmistakably clear statement, the argument of which was directed
is set
forth in
examined.
In 9:1-5
who denied a
against those
Gnosticism
kind
{avrr]
rises
has not merely the same
which the earthly body possesses, but
of substance
substance
bodily resurrection, presumably an incipient
The body which
(cf. 8, 14, 16).
rj
There are two arguments
a-dp$).
it is
the very identical
set forth for this
kind
and will receive

recompense in the flesh in the same manner in which he was called. This
idea of the resurrection of the flesh for the purpose of judgment and
of
a resurrection.
person shall be judged in the
flesh
rewards
is
is set
also a temple of
calls
it
Paul
(I
The
flesh
God, and therefore must be guarded and kept pure.
He
forth in this ancient homily for the
the holy flesh
(17
o-dp$ dyv-^)
(8:4).
first
time.
Here may be an
Cor. 6:14, 19); but in the case of Paul the attention
the fact that
we
is
allusion to
directed to
carry in our bodies the Spirit of God, which, becoming a
temple of God, should be kept pure and undefiled.

the reason for keeping the
body pure
is
because
In this homily, however,

it
will rise again.
Christ
had put the emphasis on the inner life, stating that the life which is in God
and for God is eternal. Clement II lays stress on the flesh and states that
We shall rise
the flesh will have an eternal life provided it is kept pure.
in the flesh because of the singular fact that Christ was first spirit, and that
when he came to save us he assumed flesh. These arguments became
dominant
later on;
and
in the passage
quoted
is
expressed the underlying
thought which was taken up by later writers and developed with great
completeness.
The Shepherd
of
Hermas approaches
the resurrection from the
same
and it is not surprising that this should have been the case,
In Sim. V. 7, i f., we
since it came "ex eadem communione ac societateJ^
read as follows: "Keep thy flesh pure and undefiled, that the spirit which
See
dwelleth in it may bear witness to it and thy flesh may be justified.
standpoint,
that
it
never enter into thy heart that this flesh of thine

546
is
perishable
IDEA OF KESUREECTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD

and
so thou abuse
thou shalt
defile the
Flesh
not live."^
unblamably
is
shall
the reward of
its
defilement.
Spirit also,
but
not perishable, and
Hermas
for morality.
some
in
it
Holy
if
[For]
thou
its
if
thou
33
thy
defile
defile the spirit,
flesh,
thou shalt
survival after death
is
a basis
also teaches that the flesh v^hich survives the spirit
have a place of sojourn, in order that
it
may
not lose
service (Sim. V. 6, 7).
In the apostolic Fathers the idea of the resurrection, though meagerly

treated,
is
nevertheless of great significance.
nabas and those
treatises
With
the exception of Bar-
which deal with the millennium, there
is
a decided
uniformity as to what the nature of the resurrection body shall be.
Pauline conception, in spite of Pauline allusions and references,

disfavor;
and a bodily
The
falls into
resurrection in the material sense, with reference
both to Jesus and to men, is either tacitly assumed or avowedly expressed.

In the effort to oppose Docetism the reality of the flesh of Christ both of
his earthly career and, significantly, also of his
heavenly state
is
asserted.
Dependence is shown, in at least one instance, upon an extra-canonical

gospel; and some of the theological and apologetic arguments, so pronounced
in subsequent writers, are set forth in an incipient form.
I
This
is
according to the Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn
5k ixidvjjs rb wvev/xa, ov
reading
to, crdpKa,
fijo"]?.
instead of t6
Lightfoot's text
Trvevfia.
547
is still
text, which reads: â'

more suggestive for our purpose,
CHAPTER
IV
THE APOLOGISTS
is more fully
more comprehensively stated,
In the early apologists the doctrine of the resurrection

developed, and the ideas concerning
are
it
than they were in the apostolic Fathers.

written on the subject,
and many
original
few single
treatises
arguments were used.
were
Justin
Martyr being the foremost, if not the first, among the apologists, largely
leads and pioneers the way.
He deals with the resurrection both of Jesus
and of men, both in the Apologies and in the Dialogue with Trypho. Speaking
first
of the resurrection of Jesus,
it
does not, in his thought, hold the same
place as the second coming, the virgin birth,
though the significance attributed

glory
and makes
to
it
lies in
and the
crucifixion; even
the fact that
it
sets forth his
makes
imbedded in Matt. 28:11-15; viz., that the disciples
Jesus and then declared his resurrection, and adds that the
certain his second coming.
Nevertheless, Justin
reference to the story

stole the
body
of
Jews proclaimed
He
this
"godless doctrine" throughout the world {Dia. 108).
also repeats the tradition of the evangelists in regard to the post-
life of Jesus, and understands it in the same way in which it

was portrayed by John and Luke. Jesus was buried at eventide and rose
again on the third day {Dia. 97, 100)
"the third day" being here
mentioned for the first time outside the gospels.' After the resurrection he
lived with his disciples, assured them that his passion and death were foretold, and sang hymns with them {Dia. 106); in variation from the gospels,
resurrection
he asserts that when the disciples were convinced, by Jesus, of his resurrection,
"they went into
all
the world,
His idea of the resurrection of

his
is
whole conception
knit
up with
of the after-life, since in his thinking the resurrection
his entire eschatology.
his eschatology: the
one
is
is
There are two marked features in

and
the millennium, the other the resurrection;
bound
together.
from the body.
"Man
the two are indissolubly

tion of the soul
and taught these truths" {Dia. 53).

best by presenting
men can be approached
Death he defines as the separalive always, and the soul
does not
not forever conjoined with the body, since, whenever this harmony
must be broken up, the

{Dia. 6).
I
The
soul leaves the body,
soul neither perishes with the
Cf. also Aristides, Apol. II,
buried,
and they say that
and man exists no longer"

body nor suffers dissolution
where the description runs thus: "He died, was

days he arose and ascended to heaven."
after three
34
[548
and
not
not naturally immortal {Dia.
yet, souls are
but has
life,
will that souls
end then
which
should not
may be
life
die,
would be "a piece
it
wicked (Apol.
hell,
life,
I.
The
18).
common
all
but be kept
tion in
the end
it
luck"
{Ipûuov) to all the
an intermediate place,
enters
(Apol.
I.
that
Greek
Dia. 57).
20;
to this fact (Apol.
these souls in
I.
However,
18).
Hades
life,
5).
He
are
still
Hterature,
and goal
of the future
second coming, and
is
not
life.
and
This millennium kingdom
system of thought.
and
this state of sensa-
which the righteous experience joy and the unrighteous pain
Justin accepted the idea of the millennium,

his
death would be the
mortals remain until the resurrection (Dia.
endowed with sensation
God's
If
intact.
of unlooked-for
states, is
it is
soul at death does not directly go to heaven or
repeatedly and emphatically states
mythology point
he
soul,
extinguished; nevertheless
as the heretics teach (Dia. 80); but
where
The
5).
35
inserted
is
bodily into
it
established at Christ's
preceded by the resurrection of dead Christians,

It is known as the first or " holy resurrection"
is
prophets, and pious Jews.

(ayia
dvaorao-i?,
resurrection"
Dia. 113), dififerentiated from
(aioivia
Jerusalem will be
Christ will eat
built;
and there
the general or "eternal
During
Dia. 81).
this
drama
for all
and drink with the members
of his
kingdom.
heaven and the wicked descend into a
81),
is
and
other.
The
made
is
that of the body,
second resurrection
In
is
close
of the
intended
that the just ascend into
hell of fire (Apol. II. i, 2;
differ
Dia. 130).
from each
after the second resurrection is simply a continuance of
the millennium.
life of
the one
life
New
designed primarily for
is
In form and nature the two acts of the resurrection do not
body.
At the
This resurrection
of the resurrection is expected.
men, without exception (Dia.
judgment; through which such recompense
the
time the
be physical enjoyments, in which
will
thousand years of Christ's reign upon the earth the second act
of the
great
di/ao-Tao-ts,
of a spiritual body, while the
is
fact, Justin
that the resurrection
There is no indication that the resurrection of

and the other that of the spirit; nor that the
nowhere desires
body
in the
former was a material
his readers to
millennium state
form the impression
is
different
from that
body
It is to
of the post-millennium state.
What
then
is
the precise nature of this resurrection
noted that the term "resurrection of the flesh"

light here for the first time.
used before, but not
The term
expression,
dvao-Tao-ts)
"rising of the flesh"
"resurrection of the flesh."
comes
be
to
had been
However, the expres-
As a rule he prefers the biblical

"resurrection from the dead."
But at no point is one left in
what kind of a resurrection is meant. The body rises with the
sion occurs only once in Justin (Dia. 80).
doubt as to
(o-apKos
549
36
same form and substance, with the same component parts and mem.bers
from the grave, as
it
"We
possessed while alive.
expect to receive again
our own bodies, though they be dead and cast into the earth, for we main-
God
tain that with
nothing
is
impossible."'
It is asserted,
with reference
and
and with reference to the
identity between the deceased and risen
to the wicked, that their bodies will unite again with their spirits,
undergo everlasting punishment {Apol.

righteous, that there will be a perfect
body
the
8);
I.
only difference being that mutilated bodies will rise with their
limbs restored {Apol.
I. 8).
There
will also
be
body a
in the resurrection
discontinuance of the sexual functions (based on
Luke 20:29-34), and
an exemption from pain {Dia. 69, 121). In Apol. 1. 19, Justin tries to meet
an objection which has been made, or which, at least, he feels might be
made, viz., that it is impossible that the bodies of men which have been
This he
dissolved should rise again with the same form and substance.
answers by referring to the miraculous power of
from a human
The
seed.
analogy of the process of the resurrection, but
power
of
God, and the
life
analogy, however, of the

is
and growth
human
seed
issuing
is
credibility of a bodily resurrection.
The
rection seems incredible to one merely because he has never seen
as the growth of a
it
man
human germ would seem
out of a
not an
used only to indicate the

resurit,
just
incredible were
not a commonplace.
Justin bodily repeats
and formally adheres
his treatment of the resurrection,
He
millennium.
to Christian tradition in
which he indissolubly binds up with the
himself states that the resurrection of the flesh
thousand years' reign belong only to a certain class
and the
those who are thor-
oughly orthodox (opôyvci/xoves Kara Travra Xpto-rtavot, Dia. 80).
He makes
Jesus or Paul on the resurrection, but
no attempt
to
simply
back on Jewish and Christian apocalypses and on Christian

Neither is he carried away by the
falls
interpret either
tradition for his ideas of the resurrection.
He
Platonic conceptions of immortality.

of Plato
and
states
it
{Dia.
i),
thoroughly knows the position
but only to refute
it.
His theology
much colored with the philosophic conceptions, especially

to God and the Logos; and yet, notwithstanding, he sets
and most
the grossest
and which
The
1
ill
I.
in direct opposition to Hellenistic ideas,
18:
ol
"On
the Resurrection,'"'' attributed to Justin, but
Kal TO. veKpovfxeva Kal
eis 7771'
paWS/xeva TrdXiv
ffd/iara TrpoaSoKQfiev, ddvvaTov /xrid^v elvai 6(p Xiyovres.

2
it
and the
accords with his otherwise Platonic conceptions.
treatise entitled
Apol.
is
very
over against
materialistic conception of the after-life
resurrection body, which, in fact,
is
with reference
Hepl dvaaraaebji.
550
airo\ri\peffBai
eavrQv
IDEA OF KESURRECTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD

wrongly
so,
may
be treated in
At
this connection.
least,
37
belongs not
it
This pseudonymous writing is more Platonic and more

far after Justin.^
The entire treatise is devoted
ascetic than the authentic works of Justin.
to an exposition of the resurrection, and is of the highest value for our
purpose.
attempt to
It is the first
set forth the resurrection of the flesh
an orderly manner. It is an apologetic against the heathen denial of

the resurrection, and indirectly a polemic against Gnostic tenets. The
in
arguments
opponents are stated and then refuted one by one.
of the
one passage attention
drawn
is
to the fact that the
argument
In
"secular
is
and physical," not scriptural (5),^ while the reason assigned for adopting
this line of argument is to meet the opponents of the resurrection on their own
ground; and, in fact, this is what the treatise mostly undertakes to do.
The purpose as stated is twofold: first, to solve the things which seem insoluble to those who deny the resurrection of the flesh and secondly, to demon;
an orderly manner, that the
strate, in
The
with
writer shows, in the
all its
first
partake of salvation
flesh will
place, that the
body
former members and organs, which, however,
form the same functions as they performed

are even cases in this
in
life
which that
is
(2).
will rise entire

will not all per-
in the earthly body.
"Let
true; for he writes,
There
not, then,
if in the world to come he do away with

members which even sometimes in this present
those that are unbelieving marvel,

those acts of our fleshly
life
are abolished" (3).
and
entire without
The
any bodily
resurrection body, however, will be perfect
defects.
One
of the purposes for
which Jesus
performed miracles of healing was to induce the belief that in the resurrec" For if on earth he healed the sicknesses of
tion the flesh shall rise entire.
the flesh,
and made the body whole, much more will he do

and entire" (4).
this in the
resurrection, so that the flesh shall rise perfect
Furthermore,
God is competent to raise this earthly body.
believe that all things are possible to their gods,
Christians have
God.
a
much more
Besides, that the
human
seed,
if
The
God
The heathen
they believe so,
reason to believe this with reference to their
man was created,
that
men
are generated from
that cases of resurrection have actually
these are proofs that

rection (5).
first
and
happened
all
has the power to bring about a universal resur-
resurrection
is
also consistent with the opinion of the
who says that all things are made from matter

by God; with Epicurus, who asserts that all things are made from the atom
and the void; and with the Stoics, who declare that all things are made out
philosophers: with Plato,
"Darf somit
fiir
sehr wahrscheinlich resp.
Schrift bereits vor 180 existirte."

2
These references are
Harnack,
fiir
to chaps, in pseudo-Justin,
551
fast gewiss gelten, dass unsere
Gesch, altchrist.
De
Litt., II, i, p.
Resurrectione.
509.
38
"There are some doctrines acknowledged by them
of the four elements.

all in
common, one
what
is
which
of
is
that neither can anything be produced from
not in being, nor anything be destroyed or dissolved into what has
not any being, and that the elements exist indestructible out of which
And
things are generated.
according to
creation (7).
being
regeneration of the flesh
so, the
also a precious possession, as
is
not the flesh alone that sins, as
It is
is
evident from its
is
asserted
by the oppo-
And
nents of the resurrection; but both body and soul sin together.
it
should really be true that flesh
fact that the Savior
came
is sinful,
then there
must be
to save flesh; so that in either case flesh

it
if
undeniable
is this
valuable in God's sight, and being valuable, he must raise
all
will,
The
these philosophies, appear to be possible" (6).
all
God's sight
flesh in
this
(8).
In the concluding chapters, preserved only in fragments, the resurrection of the flesh
is set
forth in
its
This resurrection
clearest light.
own
both from Christ's miracles of raising and his
former
If
is
is
proved
The
resurrection.
manifested in the following passage:
he had no need of the
of
all,
he raised the dead.
be
How
flesh,
why
did he heal
then did he raise the dead

If the resurrection
festly both.
And what
it ?
is
most forcible
Why ? Was it not to show what the resurrection should

Their souls or their bodies
were only
spiritual,
was
it
Mani-
requisite that he, in
show that body lying apart by itself, and the soul lying
But now he did not do so, but raised the body, confirming in it
raising the dead, should
apart by
itself.
the promise of
The
life (9).
latter, that is,
the proof from Christ's
own
resurrection
is
described
in the following words:
Why did he rise in the flesh in which he suffered, unless to show the resurrection
And wishing
of the flesh?
whether
to believe
to confirm this,
he had truly risen
doubting, he said to them,
"Ye have
in the
when
not yet faith; see that
handle him, and showed them the prints of the nails
him
tain that he
to eat with
had
in verity risen bodily;
he had said that our dwelling-place
heaven while they beheld," as he was
is
them
let
And when
body,,
ascer-
And
resurrection of the flesh, wishing

for flesh to ascend into
in heaven),
heaven
"he was taken up
into
in the flesh (9).
In this quotation the bodily resurrection of Jesus
some
and he
it
greater reality than in our canonical gospels.

to accord in
I;"
hands.
them, that they might thus
when he had thus shown them that there is truly a

to show them this also, that it is not impossible
(as
it is
in his
was himself and in the

still more accurately
and he did eat honey-comb and fish.
they were by every kind of proof persuaded that

they asked
know
his disciples did not
body, and were looking upon him and
The
is
portrayed with
description seems
respects with the Gospel according to the
552
Hebrews; for

in that gospel, as in this treatise,
The
touched the risen Lord.
on
whom
ment
may
there
is
it
39
stated that the disciples actually
ascension in the flesh reminds us of Ignatius,
have been a
tacit
The concluding
dependence.
frag-
states the resurrection of the flesh also very realistically.
The
resurrection
dies not; the soul
is
the soul forsakes
it,
the house of the
is
For the
a resurrection of the flesh which died.
is
in the
body, and without a soul
it
cannot
spirit
The body, when
live.
For the body is the house of the soul; and the soul
These three, in all those who cherish a sincere hope and
not.
spirit.
unquestioning faith in God, will be saved.'
Herein
it is
merely of the
In
explicitly stated that the resurrection is a resurrection, not
flesh,
but of the very "flesh which died."
summing up
(i) that there is to
various terms
eration of
by pseudo-Justin,
the views set forth
flesh, salvation of
the flesh, regen-
who
are used
and
ate
in the flesh
of
the
a person capable
ascended into heaven
(3) that
method and content,

are apologetic and theological
the arguments, because they are determined,
by the opponents
to express this idea;
Jesus was of a material body
(2) that the resurrection of
noted:
and accordingly
the flesh, promise of the flesh
of being touched,
may be
it
flesh,
be a real resurrection of the
resurrection,
in
rather than scriptural; (4) that in the use of the post-resurrection narratives
of Jesus there
is
apparently
felt
the influence of an extra-canonical gospel
the Gospel according to the Hebrews;
(5)
that
no use
is
made
of the
Pauline teaching on the resurrection, or of the teachings of Jesus, save

to the effect that in the resurrection
Athenagoras wrote a
treatise
On
body
certain functions are annulled.
the Resurrection of the Dead,^ in
he sets forth the doctrine of the resurrection of the body in a

logical
scheme than pseudo-Justin.
The opponents
still
which
more
against which the
was directed are the heathen. Like pseudo- Justin, Athenagoras

work into two parts: in the first, or negative part, he answers
certain objections offered by those who oppose the doctrine of the resurrection; and in the second, or positive part, he instructs and confirms
treatise
also divides his
In the
Christians in their belief in the doctrine.
part, he
first
objectors have no reason to doubt that the bodies of
He
refutes both underlying objections, viz., that
ing to call the dead back to

^
De
ResurrecHone {10):
^vxv ^v ffiifj-arl
yap rb awna ^yvxv^,
irliTTei.
oIkos
Kpivri Kal irlariv

2 Ile/Jt
life.
And if God,
ov fj ^^
Trvevfj-aros
ddiaKpirov iv t(^
5i
&^vxov
^vxv
'
oIkos,
553
be restored.
neither able nor will-
imrTw koto's ffapKlov

^vxv^
aC)fj.a,
to,
irvevfia
dwoXeiiroijffiji,
yap ov
ovk effriv.
rpia d^ ravra rots iXwlSa ei\i-
0(^ e'xoi'ffti' aojdriaerai.
dvaardaedis veKpwv.
is
shows that the
will
he continues, is unable to accom-
'AvdcrTaffls iffn tov
iffriv,
God
men
40
must be
plish the resurrection, then he
deficient either in
God knows,
knowledge or
in
must know,
"both the members entire and the particles of which they consist, and
whither each of the dissolved particles passes, and what part of the elements
Neither can he be ignorant of
has received that which is dissolved."
Moreover, God's
the method by which bodies may be recalled to life (2).^
But
power.
power
either position
is
absurd; for
also sufficient for the raising of
is
yea, he
The God who
dead bodies.
created them must also be able to restore them; a fact which he maintains
to hold true,
whether we think
human
Even
(3).
Disbelievers object, saying that
absorbed by animals or
human
human
and
that only
what
is
suitable
7,
line of
argument
The
on a higher plane.
and conditions
(cf.
and
To
this
its
has provided suitable
is
unsuitable
of the
is
body through
rejected
(5, 6).
In
introduced, and the objections are met
resurrection
from the present, throwing aside

functions
is
God
becomes a part
the process of digestion, while whatever
new
elements, eaten
beings, cannot be separated (4).
he answers by saying that for each living thing
chap.
their
the parts of
bodies which are taken into animals can be separated and restored
by God
food,
and
of the first formation of bodies
elements, or the formation through pro-generation.
body
will
be somewhat different
corruptibility, its needs,
Apol. 31).
Hence no
and
its
material
foreign element can
become a necessary part of that true body which shall rise. The objectors
to the resurrection draw a conclusion from potters and artificers, who are
unable to renew their work when once destroyed; but Athenagoras points
out that there is no basis for an objection in this analogy, since "what is
That God does not
impossible with man is possible with God" (9).
wish to raise the dead
able.
The
the second underlying objection
resurrection of
men
is
nor do inanimate or irrational beings,

rection, sustain
any wrong; nor
is
not an injustice to angels
is
who do
injustice
likewise unten{vo-qTal (^va-wi);
not share in the
done
to the
same
man who
is
resurraised,
"for he consists of soul and body and he suffers no wrong as to either soul
it is a work unworthy of God to raise up
and bring together again a body which has been dissolved" (10).
In the second part of the discussion four arguments are adduced in
(i) The final cause of man's creation.
support of the resurrection of men:
Man was not created for the sake of another being, but that he might be
or body;" "nor can one say that
a perpetual beholder of divine wisdom.
The
creature
the image of his Creator partakes of an intelligent
life,
who has
a spectator of God's grandeur and wisdom manifested in

I
On
in him.self
and, having become

all things,
con-
All references, unless otherwise indicated, are to the above-mentioned work,
the Resurrection 0} the
Dead.
55i
IDEA OF EESUKEECTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD

tinues always in the contemplation of these;
rection of the
body and
the soul
is
and
41
for this purpose the resur-
established (12, 13).
(2)
Consideration
of man's nature, who is the end of rational hfe, and who consequently must
have a perpetual existence. Man is composed of an immortal soul, and a
body fitted to it in creation. Both are active in life and there is one harmony
and community of experience in this world. Hence the end of these two
must be the same, and since there is one common end of the being thus
compounded
of
man
the resurrection
is
a necessary inference.
does not continue, then everything
is
in vain
If the entire
body and
soul,
nature
under-
standing and insight, righteousness and virtue, everything joyous and beauti-
The necessity of divine judgment, in body and soul, from

and justice of God. Deeds are wrought in union of body
and soul, and it would be unjust to reward or punish only one. If there
is no resurrection then there is no providence, and no reward of good or
evil. It would be unjust to reward or punish the soul alone when the body
was a partaker of good and bad deeds. Again, the virtues and vices of
man cannot be thought of as existing in an unembodied soul. Even the
ful (14-17).
(3)
the providence
ten
commandments
(especially four, six,
and seven) are designed both
for
and the soul alone is not to be held responsible (18-23).

Every(4) The ultimate end of man's being, not to be attained on earth.
thing has its particular end and, in accordance with this principle, man also
has his particular end. Freedom from pain cannot be the final goal for
body and
soul,
man, nor can
it
consist in the
the body, nor in the
enjoyment
abundance
of things
of pleasure,
which nourish or delight
nor in the happiness of soul
separated from. body. Since then man's end cannot be attained on earth,
it must be attained hereafter in a state where body and soul are again united
(24, 25).
As
to
to the nature of the resurrection body,
a few distinguishable,
if
Athenagoras bears testimony
not distinct conceptions.
There
is,
in the first
same souls
the bodies which have moulded
place, the reiterating conception that, in the resurrection, the
same bodies, and that

away and have been dissolved and reduced
are given to the
"The resurrection of
The resurrection body
identical with
it
dissolved
is
to
bodies"^
be exactly
in the material parts
to
is
No
a very
like the
and
common
expression.
mundane body,
particles
has reverted to nature through the natural
again be reinstated.
nothing will be reconstructed.
which compose
absolutely
it.
What
processes of dissolution will
matter where the elements have gone, and into
what they have been converted, they will, at the appointed time, be brought
back by the power and will of God to their former place in the body (2-6),
I ^
TtDc diaXvdevTiov crojfidTwv dvdcrTacns.
555
42
And
it
is
frankly admitted that the elements which constitute the
can be assimilated into animals, but not into the
tissues of
human
body
bodies;
so that there can be no serious objection to the view that our present bodies
can be restored
of
in substance
and form
On
(6).
the other hand, the idea
a body, in the resurrection, different from the present one
is
repeatedly
and unmistakable terms. The resurrection body

will throw aside its corruptibility and also bring about other changes;
It is
so that identity of material between the two bodies is unthinkable.
emphasized
in
clear
stated that neither the blood contributes anything to
life, i.e.,
the resurrec-
tion life; nor does the phlegm, nor the bile, nor the breath (7); that the
constant change of the body proves,
that
first,
it
cannot be determined
what the real body is, and, secondly, that the resurrection is simply one
more link the last in a "hierarchy" of changes. There is a constant
change in the flesh and the fat as well as the humors, in time of health and
more often in time of sickness, a gradual change from a human seed to a
living being, a continual change in age, appearance, and size, and finally,
" For the

and a change for the
better of what still remains in existence at that time" (12). This change is so
radically conceived that in one place the author even compares the risen
body to a heavenly spirit {Apol. 31). That which rises, however, is not
mere spirit, but body or flesh, so changed that the term "heavenly spirit"
It is flesh, not pure spirit; and yet it is not flesh,
is used to describe it.
Such must be the meaning
that is, it is changed and transformed flesh.
another change at the time of the resurrection process (7,12,17).

resurrection
a species of change and the last of
is
all,
of the following passage:
We
live
are persuaded that
another
life,
when we
are
removed from the present
life
we
shall
better than the present one, a heavenly, not earthly (since
we
God, and with God, free from all changes and suffering in the soul,
even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or falling
shall abide near
not as
flesh,
with the
rest,
a worse one and in
fire.'
Athenagoras presents a very interesting phenomenon.
on the one hand, a resurrection

it
forth so literally as to explain
of the
how
reinstated in the risen body; and,

of the resurrection body, in
vova
rj
Apol. 31:
neTreifffxeda
Kara rbv ivddde Kal
body
setting
on the other hand, he depicts the nature
language and description which well-nigh
rov ivravda diraWayî'Tes
'^s
sets forth,
the very dissolved particles will all be
iTrovpdviov, ovk iiriyeiov
Kal aTradfis ttjv ^vxV'', oi)x
He
in the material sense
(cbs
(rdpKes, kSlv exw/uei',
ffvyKaTaTriTTTovTes toIs "Koittois x^'P"'''*
'^'^^
^'^ irvpbs.
556
jS/ou
îov irepov ^twcreffOai,
hv fierd 6fod Kal
dXX' us oi/pdviov
arvv
d/Jiel-
def dxXivets
irvev/xa, /xevov/xev),
43
We
approach the Pauline conception.
between these two conceptions.

lies in his eclecticism.
It
In his theology there
The
labor in vain to find a synthesis
only solution for this incongruity
has been said that he was the
an unmistakable trace
is
combined with Christian elements; so
Peripatetic
the resurrection,
we
of eclectics.
first
and the
of the Platonic
that, with reference to
In
naturally expect to find divergent views.
fact,
he holds to the idea of recollections, one of the Platonic arguments used in
His
substantiation of the soul's immortality.
caused him also
eclectic spirit
employ Pauline conceptions and ideas, which ill accord with the current
and traditional conceptions of the resurrection. He knew Paul and alludes
Fundato the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians in several instances.
to
mentally, however, Athenagoras held to the resurrection of the
because of his eclecticism,
is
often overlaid
by other ideas
flesh,
which,
of a resurrection.
Theophilus of Antioch makes a few references to the resurrection.
He
He
believes in the resurrection of the body, evidently in the material sense.
sion of
His
its
interest is in the fact of the resurrection rather
The
nature.
resurrection, he argues,
and those who do not beheve
in
it
now
resurrection shall have taken place.
Again,
he
is
remake him
also able to
can you not believe that the
The
afterwards."
considerations:
real
first,
if
he
human
out of nothing and since then every
is
in
to the
God
first
mundane
than in a discus-
no wise unreasonable,
will nevertheless believe
a resurrection, evinced by the fact that
life,
body
says nothing of the relation of the resurrection
body.
is
when
the
able to bring about
brought
man
into being
being out of a small seed into
in the resurrection {Autol. 1. 8, 13).
God who made you
is
also able to
ground, however, for the resurrection
"And
make you
is
in
two
the testimony from analogy, and, secondly, the testi-
mony from the Sacred Scripture (Old Testament). The unbelieving

say. Show me one who has been raised from the dead, that seeing I may
believe.
tinued
To
life
this
Theophilus replies that the heathen believe in the con-
of Hercules
and Aesculapius, but
they would be incredulous.
from analogy
seasons,
night, seeds
or of the other grains,
likewise,
is
show
if
raised
when
and
it
is
we should
tell
of
such a case
continues to present his arguments
in proof of the resurrection.
day and
away, then
Then he
fruits:
He
points to the different
a seed of wheat, for example,
cast into the earth first dies
and becomes a
forth a resurrection: there
is
and
rots
The heavenly
bodies,
the "resurrection of the
moon,"
stalk of corn.
which "wanes and dies and rises again." Then there is a resurrection
going on in man himself: it often happens that through sickness one loses
his flesh and his strength, but through God's power he is again restored
Finally, he lays still more stress upon prophetic
to his former state (1. 14).
557
44
which
Scripture, in
all
and among them the
things were foretold
resur-
rection of the body.
The
of all
but
At
resurrection of which Theophilus speaks
The
men.
it is
least,
tacitly
assumed that
that
what the unbelievers
is
it is
analogies seem to point in the
New
whom he wrote understood by it, since

man that they might believe. The
same
direction; so also the expression "raise

(I.
There are no traces
idea of the nature of the

little
reference to the
of the Pauline doctrine
the analogies
may have been
no references
to the resurrection of Jesus.
The
The
7).
taken from Christian tradition, with
Testament.
not described,
is
to
thy flesh immortal with thy soul"

is
a general resurrection
a bodily resurrection in the material sense.
they asked for the restoration of a
resurrection
is
nature and form of the resurrection body
although
and
suggested by his analogy of the seed
extant fragments of Melito, bishop of Sardis, furnish us with
a few rhetorical phrases on the resurrection of Jesus expressing the current

conception.
The
of the dead,"
is
it is
said,
and ascended
to the heights of the heaven,
and
of the
tion,
expression,
common.
very
Father" {On Passion).
"he
rose from the dead," or, "the place
Thus
"he arose from

sitteth
References are also
on the
made
the dead
right
hand
to his resurrec-
descent into Hades, his ascension, and session at the right hand, and
Hades.
to the relief of prisoners in
"He
arose from the place of the dead
and raised up men from the earth from the grave below to the heights
of heaven" {On Faith).
Jesus rose in a bodily form; and his body did
not even suffer dissolution {On Passion). Again, the collocation of words
in regard to the post-resurrection life of Jesus are such as
been associated with a
have always
Melito does not draw his
fleshly resurrection.
conception from any particular portion of Scripture, but adheres rather
He
to Christian tradition.
was necessary
Tatian in
also tries to
show
that the
coming
of Christ
for our resurrection.

his Oration to the Greeks imparts,
a unique conception of the resurrection.
He
more or
less indirectly,
approaches
it
altogether
and indeed
The resurrection doctrine is worked
his doctrine of the soul is anomalous.
out from the existing relation of body, soul, and spirit, and the relation
from a philosophical, or rather a psychological point
sustained by these three to God.

flesh, soul,
and
The
Man, he
flesh is that
says, consists of three parts
which incloses the
soul, is equiv-
the property of men, but not of
God and demons
Spirit is of three grades; first, there is the spirit
pervading matter,
alent to body,
(15).
spirit.
of view;
and
is
secondly, the spirit assimilated to the soul,
apart from
its
works
(4).
There are
in
558
man
and
thirdly, the divine spirit
thus two kinds of
spirits,
the

one which
is
common
Another name
to all matter,
and the divine
man
for the natural spirit in
so that in the trichotomy of
uara vXlko).
Natural
man
soul
is
are spoken of as material creatures (12).
though not
Spirit.
material,
is
spirit in
fire
and
is
Demons
man.
air,
(:rveu-
Soul
fleshly.
Their structure
they are like
spiritual, but, in reality,
Holy
and soul
equivalent to natural spirit
is
spirits are material
nothing else but a label given to the material
nated as
spirit or the
soul,
45
may be
desig-
which are the
Hence the soul or material spirit is an ethereal

But not all spirits are material, or rather not
spiritual is material.
God is a spirit, and he is immaterial;
a spirit but material, since it is created. There is also a spirit
reflections of matter (15).
substance like air or

ever}^thing
the soul
is
fire.
superior to matter, greater than the soul
image, his
spirit (13, 15),
which dwells
might be termed the Holy
Out
ible,
The argument
man
the representative of God, his
can dwell
man, which
in
Spirit.
psychology of Tatian arose his conception of the resur-
of this
rection.
(7),
or, at least,
in
one place runs as follows:
partakes of God, therefore
man
is
God
incorrupt-
is
But, on the
incorruptible (7).
other hand, Tatian teaches môre than simple personal immortality; and
his
argument
exceedingly complex at those points in which he suggests
is
a resurrection of the body as well as the soul.

is
the
bond connecting God's
Now unless the
spirit,
soul or material spirit
Soul, or material spirit,
pure and undefiled, with the

is
in relationship with the
flesh.
immaterial
spirit or Holy Spirit, the soul wiU pass into eternal dissolution, and the
body or the flesh as well; since the soul is the bond between them. If, on
the other hand, the soul or material spirit acquires the knowledge of God
it
dies not, although for a time
that the soul, or material spirit
manifests
by
itself
it
is
be dissolved
"Neither could
through the body.
itself
Again, he teaches
(13).
interwoven with the body or
without the body, nor does the flesh
rise
it
flesh
[the soul]
and
appear
again without the soul " (15).
Tatian has no room for an intermediate place, and yet souls at death
Souls remembering that
abode.
again.
as well as bodies are dissolved, but both
do not immediately pass

they are material
He
to their final
will rise
speaks of a double death for the soul in the case of those
God.
There
who know
a resurrection of bodies after the consummation of
is
not
all things,
not a return of certain cycles as the Stoics teach, but a "resurrection once
for all;"
men
(6).
and
the purpose of this resurrection
The
is
to pass
judgment upon
resurrection of the former physical bodies
is
also vividly
stated in the following passage:
Even though
fire
destroy
all
traces of
my flesh,
the world receives the vaporized
matter; and though dispersed through rivers and seas, or torn in pieces by wild
559
46
beasts, I
am
laid
up
in the storehouses of
poor and the godless know not what
is
pleases, will restore the substance that
is
And, although the
a wealthy Lord.
stored up, yet

visible to
God
the sovereign,
him alone
when he
to its pristine con-
dition (6).
Tatian does not undertake to prove anything from prophecy, neither

does he
New
fall
back on the teachings
Testament books
of either Jesus or
relatively large part to a consideration of
approached through
Paul or any of the
to substantiate the resurrection.

it,
but
his peculiar psychology.
it is
He
He
devotes a
mostly indirectly, and

does not mention the
resurrection of Jesus, neither his second coming, nor a millennium;
and
has no place for Hades.
The
apologists took great pains in setting forth the Christian article
of the resurrection of the flesh,

culture.
Only
in
which was so offensive
to
Graeco-Roman
a few cases did they compromise with their opponents;
as a rule, they were driven to the opposite extreme, and the influence of
Hellenism was purely negative.
With the exception
of Tatian, they all
prove the resurrection of the flesh in about the same manner.

of their labors
is
The
value
twofold: (i) they set forth the resurrection in clear
unmistakable terms;
(2)
and
they brought into existence an array of argumen-
tative material.
560
CHAPTER V
THE GNOSTICS
Gnosticism deserves an important place in a discussion of the resurrection in the ante-Nicene period.
In the
Gnostic tenets concerning the resurrection
place, a
first
is
knowledge of
a necessary introduction to
Irenaeus and TertuUian; and in the second place, Gnosticism
phase of Christian history, and as such

cism
is
it
simply an acute Hellenization of Christianity.
the resurrection Gnostic tenets are most significant.

the resurrection, as
two
into
hostile
characteristic
characteristic
rection of
much
camps.
mark
mark
Gnosti-
With reference
was the idea
It
to
of
as anything else, which divided the early church
The
of the
was a
was a
belief in the resurrection of the flesh
orthodox church; while the denial of
of every Gnostic sect.
body and
itself is
deserves attention, too.
it
The former advocated a
resur-
soul; the latter "disallowed the resurrection affecting
whole man."'
the
In an effort to restate Gnosticism, we are at once confronted with a

serious difficulty.
know
The
writings of
the Gnostics have perished,
who may
their tenets only through their opponents,
and we
often have
misunderstood them and given undue emphasis to certain minor

ments.
Pistis
Sophia
is
monument
practically the only
left
state-
coming from
In it are contained a few valuable hints

the hand of a Gnostic himself.
on the resurrection of Jesus.
References to an incipient Gnosticism denying the resurrection appear
even in the
New
of the Christian
[Christians] that
In II Tim. 2:17,
Paul found such a tendency in the midst
Testament.
"How say some among you

community in Corinth.
there is no resurrection of the dead?" (I Cor. 15:12).
18, Hymenaeus and Philetus are named as persons who
say that "the resurrection
is
past already."^
The
resurrection
is
under-
stood by them not in an eschatological, but in a spiritual, or moral, sense.

Similar traces of a denial of a resurrection
Ignatius, in
Clement
among
II (9:1), Polycarp (7:1),
Christians were found in
and
in
Hermas
{Sim. V.
7).
These early documents give the impression that the denial of a fleshly
resurrection played into the hands of the libertines, and that as a result many
abuses of the flesh ensued. If there is to be no resurrection of the body then
561]
Iren. Contra Haereses V. 31:
TT]v dvdffraffiv
ijSTj
yeyovivai;
"Universam reprobant resurrectionem."
some
MSS
47
omit
riiv.
48
the flesh, in accordance with their logic, can have free rein.
This
is
brought
more strikingly in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. This book was
out
written to show that the resurrection of the flesh is a reward for self-control
and virginity. Demas and Hermogenes, who are represented as being
hostile to this principle and to Paul, reflect the libertine Gnosticism in
still
"We
these words:
shall teach thee that the resurrection of
speaks has taken place, because
which we have."
Herein
this
man
a denial of the resurrection of the flesh in the
is
and an affirmation
eschatological sense
which
has already taken place in the children
it
of
in
it
What
a moral sense.
is
meant, however, by the resurrection continuing in our children cannot be

definitely determined, since this is the only instance in early literature of
such a doctrine.
On
the other hand, there
is
also a denial of the resurrection
on the part
who were not primarily drawn to an indulgence of the flesh, but

whose way of thinking and conception of things in general caused them to
look upon the resurrection as a vulgar and inconceivable doctrine. They
of those
were serious in their denial

of life
and death
of a fleshly resurrection,
This
for them.
the second century;
and
it
is
and
was a matter
it
Gnosticism was a potent force in
classic
thus important to consider these various
Gnostic writers and sects for the purpose of ascertaining what each one
held respecting the
after-life.
Simon Magus, strenuously opposed a bodily

The body, he taught, was the work
Hence it is to be
of an angel, and was not created by the supreme God.
considered evil and is unworthy of a resurrection (Tert., Resur. of Flesh 5).
His disciples, he declares, obtain the resurrection by being baptized into
him whereupon they die no more but remain in the possession of immortal
Menander, a
disciple of
resurrection in the material sense.
youth (Iren.
Saturnius also taught that angels formed
23:5).
I.
and among them man.

of
These angels
tried to
form him
a certain light which flashed over the world; but
ground
like
a worm, until a spark of
and made him
erect posture
life
body
of the flesh, in
is
decomposed
into
its
man
sent forth
This spark
live.
returns to those things which are of the

rest of the
was
of
life,
all things,
after the similitude
wriggled on the
which gave him an

after
same nature with

original elements.
man's death,
itself;
accordance with this method of creation and death,
impossible (Iren.
I.
poreal power,
into
it
is
utterly
24:1).
Basilides alleged that the flesh of Christ possessed no reality
consequently
while the
resurrection
can have no resurrection.
and
that
Jesus, he asserts, was an incor-
and transfigured himself as he pleased, and then ascended
heaven without even being
crucified.
562
Salvation belongs to the soul
49
IDEA OP RESURRECTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD

body
alone, for the
to corruption (Iren.
by nature subject
is
I.
24:4, 5;
Valentinus, another prominent Gnostic, taught
Tert., Resur. of Flesh 2).
with reference to Christ that his flesh had qualities peculiar to

that he conversed with his disciples for eighteen
tion (Tert., Against Valentinus 26; Iren.
This
3:2).
I.
known
edly taken from a spurious writing,
months
itself;
and
after his resurrecfact
was undoubt-
as the Gospel of Truth (Iren.
III. 11:9).
The
On
and the Demiurge moves from

Hebdomad into the chamber vacated by his mother. Human
have to pass through the same stages, until they reach
Valentinian account of the
the last day
the celestial
beings will
their final goal,
Acamoth
except the wicked,
to the
decidedly original.
who
are annihilated.
Though
the
not saved, yet their souls are saved and are con-
flesh of the righteous is
veyed
last things is
enters Pleroma
middle regions, where the Demiurge

admitted.
Pleroma nothing of the animal nature

and the
is
off everything except the intellectual,
now
dwells.
Into the
There the souls put
intellectual spirits alone enter
The
Ophites,
the Pleroma
(Tert., Against Valentinus 31; Iren.
another
taught that at the crucifixion a spirit from above was sent into
sect,
11. 29:3).
body again, but only the physical and spiritual

That which rose was not the
in the earth."
former body, and the disciples were mistaken in imagining that it was
Jesus,
"who
up
raised
mundane
since the
his
parts
lie
(Iren. I. 30:13).
is shown by Tertullian in the
any wise admit the resurrection of
only the salvation of the soul which he promises; con-
Marcion's attitude on the resurrection

following words:
the flesh,
and
"Marcion does not
it is
in
sequently the question which he raises
is
not concerning the sort of body,
but the very substance thereof" {Against Marcion V. 10). There are
two reasons why Marcion figures as such a strong opponent of the resurrection of the flesh.
In the
first
place, he
everything Jewish and to Jewish influences.
Jews
to
was diametrically opposed
He
believed the
God
to
of the
be the Demiurge, and denied the whole Jewish eschatology and

In the second place, his opposition
the reality of the messianic kingdom.
grew out of
his dualism.
Flesh and
spirit,
he held, were antagonistic forces,
created by two different gods: flesh was created by the evil god, spirit
by the good god.

view.
He
Lucan, a
disciple of
asserted that neither the
Marcion,
body
sets forth
again a different
nor the soul rises, but a third
substance precipitated from these thus reducing nature in accordance

with the principle of Aristotle, and substituting something else in lieu of
it
(Tert., Resur. of Flesh 2; pseudo-Tert.).
Apelles, likewise a pupil of
Marcion, also denied the resurrection of the flesh;

Christ, he said that his
body was
and with reference to

which he assumed
of sidereal substance,
563
50
in his descent,
and which was deposited again among the
The
(pseudo-Tert.).
resurrection
and other Gnostics need not be
Carpocratians,
discussed, since they
stars in the
Sethians,
made no
Cainites,
further con-
tribution to the subject, holding merely to the general contention that the
soul will rise, but that the
body
will
spent eleven years with his
instructing
disciples
ascended, and the ascension, which
all
them,
that of the spirit,
until finally the last
during
which
In the twelfth year he
Jesus withdraws to certain realm.s,
and withdraws again,
Thus
is
from the dead, had
rising
time he had only the appearance of a body.
elaborately.
The author
pass to eternal dissolution.
Sophia maintains that Jesus, after
of Pistis
heaven
is
is
very
set forth
and then reappears,

reached.
the Gnostics, although they blankly deny the resurrection of
the flesh, predicate in
some way or other the
man's
soul's immortality.
Now
was variously
conceived.
In general, they denied an intermediate place from which
the soul had to be transferred, at some future day, to another realm; but
taught that immediately after death the soul enters into its final abode
In a resume of Gnostic
(cf. Justin, Dia. 80; Tert., Resur. of Flesh 22).
doctrines, Irenaeus presents us with a helpful summary.
He writes (V.
this persistence of
19:
spiritual nature in the after-life
2):
And
still
receive eternal
this [inner
further,
life,
man]
is
some
affirm that neither their soul nor their
but merely the inner man.

that which
is
Moreover, they
that while the soul
is
body can
have
it
that
the understanding {sensiim) in them, and which
they decree as being the only thing to ascend to "the perfect."
....
will
saved, their
Others [maintain]
body does not participate
in the sal-
vation which comes from God.
Through an
inductive study of the Gnostic tenets as
writings of Irenaeus, TertuUian,
and
the apologists,
it
imbedded
in the
may safely be asserted
that they maintained a spiritual survival after death in about four ways:
the soul in toto survives, and at death immediately passes into
(i)
final place (Basilides
and
others)
{sensus) survives (Valentinus)
world, which
the former
The
is
neither
body nor
mundane body
(2)
(3)
its
only the inner sense or understanding
a third substance passes into the other
soul (Lucan)
(4)
a body survives, but not
(Ophites).
Gnostics did not drop the word "resurrection'
'
out of their vocabu-
would have been an unwise policy for them to disregard altogether

They
the Jewish and Christian expression "resurrection of the dead."
used it in three dififerent senses. In the first place, they employed it eschato-
lary.
It
logically, declaring, in
of the
accordance with their
dead simply means that the soul

564
is
tenets, that the resurrection
immortal, and being immortal,

it
can be thought
having a resurrection (Tert., Resnr. of Flesh i8).
of as
In the second place, they used

the resurrection takes place
edge
"the resurrection
of the
moral or
in a
it
now
that
ethical sense, asserting that
as soon as
is,
(Tert., Resiir. of Flesh 19, 22)
of the truth
is
Then,
past already."
dead" was used
men come
hence
that
it
dead
body
who know
of those
is,
meant an escape out
actually
that the
life,
that
when
detains the soul
to a
knowl-
the expression
in the third place, "resurrection
Some maintained
allegorically.
that
escape out of the world, "since, in their view, the world

of the
51
of the
it
meant an
the habitation
is
not God;" others maintained
body itself, "since they imagine

up in the death of a worldly
shut
it is
as in a grave" (Tert., Resur. of Flesh 19).
While, on the one hand, the Gnostics strenuously held to the survival
of spiritual personality after death;
and repeatedly denied
on the other hand, they emphatically

This was the starting-
the resurrection of the flesh.
who
point of their whole system of theology, according to Tertullian,

that they start from this point,
dogmas and afterward add
and from
it
"sketch the
first
the details" {Resur. of Flesh
4,
states
draft of their
11).
Their
denial of the resurrection of the flesh grew out of presuppositions funda-
mental to their entire system.
and heathen opposition
is
very close analogy between Gnostic
noticeable.
In
separate sharply between specific Gnostic
The
Fathers recognized
this,
fact,
and
and declared
it
is
specific
an impossibility
that there
is
between Gnostic teachings on the resurrection and those
comparison
of the
to
heathen arguments.
no difference
of the heathen.
arguments of the heathen opponents, as
reflected in
pseudo-Justin and Athenagoras, with the Gnostic opponents, as reflected

The Gnostics
in Irenaeus and Tertullian, confirms this observation.
on the ground that the flesh is an ignoble

its origin and casualities, "unclean
the dregs of the ground, unclean afterwards from
denied the resurrection of the
and unclean substance

from
its first
the mire of
guilt,
formation of
its
flesh
ignoble
own semanal
laden with misery,
as to
transmission, worthless, weak, covered with
full
of
They held to a duahsm

The former was created either
trouble."
soul, matter and spirit.

by an angel or angels, or the Demiurge; the latter by the good God.
Redemption was the process of freeing the soul forever from its material
between body and
bondage.
Christ's resurrection
of his spirit.
The
could therefore be only a resurrection
material character of his resurrection
was denied from
were those who denied the reaUty

of his flesh, saying that it was imxpossible for Jesus to assume flesh, since
In this case the resurrection of the flesh is at once excluded.
flesh was evil.
two standpoints.
In the
first
place, there
This position was prominent in the systemis

565
of
Marcion and
Basilides.
52
In the second place, it was asserted by some, especially by Valentinus

and Apelles, that this body was of an entirely different creation from that
of man: it was sidereal and was again deposited among the stars after the
resurrection.
With reference
to the interpretation of Scripture bearing
on the resur-
rection, the Gnostics
have been charged with an allegorical interpretation.
As a matter
some
of fact,
bulk of those referring
of their interpretations are allegorical;
lected in the secondary sources,
truer to a historico-grammatical exegesis
is
They
than the orthodox interpretation of that day.

allegorical interpretations
pretation.
sometimes where there
is
are charged with
no
allegorical inter-
Thus, for instance, TertuUian charges them with torturing
Ezekiel's vision of the Valley of
The
sense.
Dry Bones
into a proof of
an
allegorical
Gnostics interpreted correctly that this vision was simply
an image and not a true prediction
of the resurrection,
and
that
same incident was used
defend a resurrection of the
taught
it
the political restoration of the nation (Tert., Resur. of Flesh 30)

the
but the
to the resurrection, at least, as far as they are col-
while
by the orthodox Christians to

Jesus was interpreted by the Gnostics
incorrectly
flesh.
as having taught, merely and consistently, a resurrection of the soul.
answer
Sadducees was for them an exclusive proof
to the
Aside from Marcion,
resurrection.
of
His
a spiritual
who somewhat changed Luke's
text
to suit his purpose, the Gnostics held that the "likeness to angels" (lo-ayycAot
ctoriv)
They
debarred altogether a bodily resurrection.
of other sayings of Jesus,
which they interpreted
in
made
also
use
conformity with their
and the strongest witness they found in

same passages to substantiate their position that
the Fathers used.
They evidently laid great emphasis on the phrase,
"Therefore we are always confident and fully aware, that while we are
at home in the body we are absent from the Lord" (Tert., Resur. of Flesh
The Pauline term "spiritual body" was for them another proof of
43).
the survival of the soul without the body.
And the term "natural body"
However, the
tenets.
Paul.
They used
they held to be merely a paraphrase of soul {^vxrj), in the
(o-oi/xa xl/vxt-Kov)
expression "it
clearest
the
sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Their

was I Cor. 15:50: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit
God." Flesh and blood were interpreted, not in a spiritual,
sense, and correctly so.
That this was a great proof-text
is
greatest proof-text
the
kingdom
but in a
of
literal
of the Gnostics is evident
{Resur. of Flesh 48-51)

their interpretation of
it.
from the
fact that
TertuUian devotes four chapters
and Irenaeus three
The
(V. 9-1 1) to the refutation of
Gnostics were charged with
first
ing their doctrines and then going to Scripture and interpreting

566
it
formulatin accord

with them.
Yet
in spite of this criticism
we cannot but
feel that
53
they must
have been greatly influenced by Jesus and Paul. Their method of interpretation was not simply an attempt to conform Scripture to their tenets,
but,
on the other hand, Scripture rather contributed to the formulation

Whether, therefore, accidentally or otherwise, they never-
of their system.
theless
came very
close to the results of
of Scripture bearing
modern
historical interpretation
on the resurrection; even though with reference to
other subjects this statement in no wise holds good.
567
CHAPTER
VI
THE GREAT POLEMICISTS

In opposition to the
soul
is
spiritualistic
and TertuUian, dating from the
They
of the third century.
ments
and metaphysical
beliefs
the elaborate treatment of the resurrection of the flesh
second and the beginning
latter part of the
revived,
about the
by Irenaeus
on the resurrection, the ideas and argu-
of the apologists, and, in addition, sought elaborate scriptural proofs
for their position.

at this time,
is
The importance
attached to the resurrection of the
evident also from the Old
The
arose our Apostles' Creed.
Jesus are mentioned in
it;
but
it
The
article,
was with the emphasis upon

itself at
and
session of
greatest significance lies in the article
"the resurrection of
flesh, is
In the Old
against the denial of the salvability of the flesh.
bol this article stood by
flesh,
Symbol' out of which
resurrection, ascension,
its
referring to the resurrection of the flesh.
the flesh, "^ phrased as
Roman
the close of the creed.
It
a clear protest
Roman Symwas evidently
appended to this three-membered creed based upon the threefold baptismal formula. It is an article entirely unrelated to what precedes. All
this simply shows the tremendous importance of the article in the eyes of
Scarcely another article in the creed was considthe author or authors.
ered of such importance as the one which originally read: "I believe in
The import of this article of faith comes
the resurrection of the flesh."
to view more fully in our study of Irenaeus and TertuUian.
Irenaeus undertook a systematic exposition and overthrow of all hereIn this polemic the resurrection holds an important place.
sies.
book
last
things.
The
denial of the reality of the flesh of Christ, involving a denial
of his fleshly resurrection,
and the denial
ing the fleshly resurrection of
men
of the salvation of the flesh,
impossible
all this is
against which his argument on the resurrection
He
also reflects Christian tradition in the
least
In his
of Against Heresies, he deals almost exclusively with the last
three instances.
He
is
form
mak-
part of the thesis
directed (.1:2;
31 :i).
of a primitive creed in at
observes that in the Catholic church
itself
divergent views exist on the nature of the resurrection, especially in

1
Originated between 150-175
riant forms of this

2
A. D.
Symbol are found
(TapKbs dvaffTaffiv.
somewhat obscures the
in
Our English
See McGiffert, The Apostles' Creed.

Iren.
I.
its
Va-
10:1; IV. 33:7; V. 20:1.
translation of
it,
"resurrection of the body,"
original signification of this article.
54
[568
IDEA OF RESURKEGTION IN ANTE-NIOENE PERIOD
55
There can be no question but that
relation to the millennium (V. 31 :i).
he appreciates and defines accurately the generally accepted orthodox
position.
and
noteworthy passage on the nature of the resurrection of Jesus
men, and the relation which the two
of
But the case was, that
sustain,
the
Son of man be
not, for I
i, 2.
And
Lord himself
the
says,
three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall
in the heart of the earth."
Mary, who was the
the third day, he said to
me
recorded in V. 31
he dwelt in the place where the dead
for three days
were, as the prophet says concerning him.
"As Jonas remained
is
have not yet ascended
my
unto them, I ascend unto
.... And
first to
see
and
on his rising again,
to
worship him, "touch
Father; but go to the disciples, and say
to the
Father, and unto your Father."
If,
Lord
then, the
observed the law of the dead, that he might become the first-begotten from the
dead, and tarried until the third day "in the lower parts of the earth;" then after-
ward
rising in the flesh, so that
ciples,
he even showed the print of the nails to his dis-
For as the Lord went away
he thus ascended to the Father
in the
midst of the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead were, yet afterward
arose in the body, and after the resurrection
was taken up
[into heaven],
it
is
manifest that the souls of his disciples also, upon whose account the Lord under-
went these
things, shall go
and there remain
away
into the invisible place allotted to
bodies, and rising in their entirety, that
come thus
shall
them by God
until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their
into the presence of
but every one that
is
is
bodily, just as the
"For no
God.
disciple
perfect shall be as his Master."
did not at once depart, taking flight
[to
Lord
arose, they
above the Master,
is
As our Master,
therefore,
heaven], but awaited the time of his resur-
by the Father, which had been also shown forth through

was taken up [to heaven]; so ought we
also to await the time of our resurrection prescribed by God and foretold by the
prophets, and so, rising, be taken up, as many as the Lord shall account worthy
rection prescribed
Jonas, and rising again after three days
of this [privilege].
The
contention of the entire passage
of the flesh,
is
to establish the resurrection
is deduced from
and dependence is shown on one of those gospels
John^ in which the appearances of a material body are
(i)
The
resurrection of a material organism
the gospel narrative,
the Gospel of
very prominent.
(2)
The
characteristic repetitions
Hades for three days" or "until the

an indirect argument for a fleshly
tinians) taught that the soul of
into heaven.
Jesus;
I
for he
John 20:17,
gospel, in
20, 27.
which reference
in
Cf.
is
Hades
Iren. V.
made
day"
are
resurrection.
man
Irenaeus, however,
remained
third
passes
upon
insists that this
until the
"Jesus
tarrying in
deliberately used as
The
Gnostics (Valen-
his death
immediately
was not the case with
appointed time, after which
7:1 for a similar argument based on this
to the prints in his risen body.
569
56
he arose in the
flesh,
manifested himself to his disciples in the
The
through which men
then ascended into heaven in the

Christ passed are the stages
flesh.
(3)
believers must
men
Jesus was an example of what the resurrection of
They
disciples will not fare better than their Master.
and
flesh,
stages through which

pass.
shall be.
The
will also at
death
go to Hades and there remain until the time of the resurrection, when
they shall arise in their entirety, that
who
did not leave his body
the resurrection
is
one in the
of the passage conveys

to the resurrection
The
upon
flesh
is,
with their bodies, even as Christ
the earth.
and
(4)
The
ascension as well as
The language
in the former body.
no other idea than that the ascension body
body; which
will
be true of men, even as
discussed in other connections, and
is
points of view,
may
reference
of Jesus
his
he tabernacled
and arrived
also be
made
The
same
flesh in
resur-
approached from other
At
at through other arguments.
second coming.
among men
is
this point
to another event in the post-resurrection life
This
in the same flesh in which

came in the flesh, the heavens
flesh, and he "shall also come in
to
is
be
Jesus
(III. 16:8).
were opened and he was received in the

the
similar
of Jesus.
ideas of the resurrection as set forth in the above passage are
in perfect accord with the rest of the teachings of Irenaeus.
rection
is
was
it
which he suffered."
Irenaeus insists more strenuously and consistently than any writer

thus far examined that the risen body
is
the exact reproduction of the
former body, both as to form and as to substance.
same body
of
shall unite again with its
metempsychosis has no place
declares, con-
own and
restored,
stance of
ened"
own
(II.
soul
and
spirit.
The
doctrine
33:1-5), for the very reason that
and judgment pronounced on the soul with

But it is not merely the same bodies that will be
but also the same substances in the bodies. "The same subflesh which has become breathless and dead shall also be quick-
punishment must be
its
God, he
a proper soul on each individual body and in the resurrection the
fers
inflicted
only body.
(V. 12:2).
And
in
one
of the fragments,'
it
is
specifically stated
that the bodies after death decompose, but without perishing;
that the
remains, which are mixed with the earth, are, in the resurrection, recast
and restored to their original form; and that between the mundane and
body there is only one difference, and that is in reference to cor-
the risen
ruption, the former being subject to decay, because of primeval disobedience,
which
as
is
I
is
not true of the risen body.
Deformities also will not continue
evident from Christ's healings, the object of which

Frag,
xii;
this
seems
to
be a quotation from the
the Resurrection.
570
was
to restore
lost treatise of Irenaeus,
On
57
infirm parts to their original condition, so that they would be in a position

to obtain salvation (V. 12:6;
The
13:1).
wicked, on the other hand,
with their deformities and diseases and
will rise
with bodies
sufiferings,
always corruptible.
Irenaeus also proves the resurrection of the flesh from the Eucharist
(IV. 18:5; V.
This
2, 3).
rection of the flesh, though
it
is an original argument in proof of the resurwas slightly alluded to heretofore by Ignatius
Bread and wine, which are both earthly and heavenly, are
man. The
bread and wine through the word of God become the body and blood of
{Eph. 20).
the material through which a seed of immortality enters into
Christ.
And
solution
becomes impossible.
as such the Eucharist so nourishes the flesh that total dis-
"When,
the blood
our
and body
of Christ
flesh is increased
of
made, from which things the substance
of
gift of
thus inferred from
is
are
affirm that the flesh
is
body
body and
true redemption of "the
sacramental union with the
its
Our bodies, like

members of his body,
we are
made one with him by
God."'
blood of Christ.
"for
of
and supported, how can they
incapable of receiving the

of flesh"
is
mingled cup and
therefore, the
word
God, and the Eucharist
the manufactured bread receive the
Christ's, shall
be raised incorruptible;
of his flesh, of his bones."
Believers
sacramentally receiving him, which accordingly
makes the dissolution of the body impossible. Nothing, he concludes

is more natural than the resurrection of the flesh when one has partaken
of Christ's flesh.
The
There
resurrection of the flesh
is
to rise;
but
gift
this
power
it is
it
rises
from
as a
for
God
(IV. 9:2).
to raise the dead.
easier to reinstate the
life
Another proof
if
of
God.
God
body than
God were
to
is
Enoch and Elijah the

and Misael in
;
life
God
proof that
has
assures re-creation;
have created
quickens and sustains the
the lengthened period of
it
(V. 6:2), spoken of sometimes
Then there is ample

The fact of creation
of Ananias, Azarias,
it
originally out of
flesh in this present,
(V. 3:3).
life
granted to the patriarchs;
preservation of Jonah in the whale,

the furnace of
fire (V. 5).
not to raise dead bodies then he would be either
weak
Again,
or power-
or else envious or malignant; but none of these attributes belongs
less,
to
If
God
he will certainly do the same in the eternal
the translation of
and
power
attributed also to the
through the power of
the dust (V. 3:2).
temporal
is
nothing inherent in the substance of the body which will cause
him
(V. 4).
Irenaeus, Contra Haereses V. 2:3: 'Oirbre odv Kal t6 KeKpanivov wor-^piov, Kal 6
yeyovd)s ftpros ^TrtS^x^''"'" '^^'' ^^yov tov 6eov Kal yivfrai i] ei^xap'fTâ awfxa Xpicrrov (et Jit
I
Eucharistia sanguinis
Tlfiuv VTrdjTaffii-
et
corporis Christi) iK rovrtov 8^ affet Kal (Tvvta-TaTai i]

tov 6eov.
fj.rj elvai Xôvffi Tr]v crdpKa ttjs Swpeaj
ttws deKTLKrjv
571
rrjs a-apKbs
58
The most
and
significant
original
approach
chapter of the
this
fifth
book, Irenaeus begins to
set forth
"Man
he had presented a dichotomy.
from
to the resurrection is
the standpoint of psychology and the interpretation of Paul.
In the sixth
a trichotomy.
Before
a mixed organization of
is
make-up of man (cf. IV.

and spirit to which he now
adheres, he undoubtedly derived from Paul; inasmuch as he makes a
soul
and
flesh"
is
his usual designation of the
This division of body,
III. 22:1).
Pref.;
soul,
He
deliberate reference to I Thess. 5:23 at the beginning of this section.
contends that salvation, that

nature of man,
who
the resurrection,
is,
is
bestowed on the whole
a "commingling and union of
is
all
Hence
these."
and the spirit, will persist in a

He calls it blasphemy to assert that "the temple
life beyond the grave.
of God," "the members of Christ" (I Cor. 3:16, 17), which are the flesh,
it
follows that the flesh, as well as the soul
should not partake of salvation, but that they should be reduced to perAgain, he takes up Paul's phrase, "quicken your mortal bodies,"
and shows that "mortal bodies" has reference neither to souls, since
dition.
which are equivalent
souls,
spirits, since spirit is
to the breath of
life,
nor to
are incorporeal;
simple and non-composite, subject to no decomposi-
tion and, in fact, the quickening life itself;
but to the
He comments
can be decomposed and quickened.
alone
flesh, for it
on
Cor., chap. 15,
but reads into the Pauline conception a resurrection of the body in the
material sense.
He
uses the term "spiritual body," and defines
The change from
it
as the
body to
the spiritual is through the Spirit's instrumentality, whereby the body
undergoes no particle of change, save that the source from which it receives
its life is changed.
At great length (V. 9-1 1) does he expound the words
in I Cor. 15:50, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
body
in
which the
Spirit dwells.
the psychical
This phrase was, as we have already seen, the slogan

used
it
hand,
to disprove the resurrection of the body.
insists that "flesh
and blood"
is
of the Gnostics
who
Irenaeus, on the other
not to be taken in the
mean-
literal
ing of the terms; but that the words apply to the carnal deeds which pervert
man
to sin
and deprive him
of
life
(V. 14:4).
The
expression, he main-
simply means that "vtere flesh and blood devoid of the Spirit of
tains,
God" and good works cannot

fleshly
works rather than
inherit the
kingdom
flesh strictly so called.
dwell with, and the Spirit of the Father be in you, and

ously
and
carelessly as
if
ye were this only,
cannot enter the kingdom of God." (V.
This same truth

Spirit is that
is
also
viz.,
God.
of
It refers to
"Unless the word

if
mere
of
God
ye shall live frivol-
flesh
and blood, ye
9).
enforced by his trichotomous psychology.
which preserves and fashions the man;

572
flesh is that
which
IDEA OF RESUREEOTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD

is
united and formed;
sometimes follows the
and blood"
while between these two stands the soul, which
spirit
and
raised
is
up by
and
falls into
the quality of which though not the nature,

indicates that the Spirit of
God
Just as
it is
an appendix
and it does not in the

assumed on the resurrection.
part of the resurrection idea as

the just, or the
first
it
changed by
human
grafting, also
spirit will
not trans-
in the last five chapters of the
to this book, so is
to his thought;
thus far
is
enforcing the
form the substance of flesh.

The millennium receives some treatment
book.
and sometimes sympa-
carnal lusts (V. 9:1).
exist
a neglecter of the
last
it,
Hence, "mere
when the soul has become a sharer of the flesh and
spirit.
The comparison drawn from the wild olive tree,
thizes with the flesh

flesh
59
it
also
least alter the position
The millennium is
The
Justin.
was with
an appendix
which he has
not an integral
resurrection of
resurrection, in this millennium appendix, involves
a resuscitation of dead bodies.
To summarize
(i) his discussion
the teachings of Irenaeus very briefly,
on the resurrection
who denied a
those
sets forth
flesh;"
is
we would
say:
largely polemic, directed against
bodily resurrection in the material sense;
(2)
he
with stern consistency what he terms "the resurrection of the
which, in his mind,
identical with
it
is
a resuscitation of the former body, being
as to both form
between the resurrection body
and substance; (3) there is no difference

and of believing men; (4) literary
of Jesus
is shown on the resurrection narratives of the Gospels of John

and Luke and the present conclusion of Mark; and out of these gospels
He also makes the first real attempt
the crass materialism alone is selected.
to interpret Paul on the resurrection; and yet, at every turn, he interprets
dependence
him as teaching a fleshly resurrection of the body. The term "spiritual

body" is a material body in which the Spirit dwells, and the phrase "flesh
and blood" is devitalized into ethical terms; (5) the arguments in substantiation of a resurrection of the flesh are many and various: they are
Messianism is no longer a
scriptural, psychological, and theological.
appendix.
Apart from scripcontrolling thought, and chiliasm is a mere
belonging
salvation
to the whole man,
of
God,
tural proofs, the competency
possession
of
God's spirit are
and
the
Eucharist,
the nourishment in the
the most significant arguments.
We now
come
to Tertullian,
whose treatment
of the resurrection is
the fullest of any of the ante-Nicene Christian Fathers.

Justin
and Athenagoras, he devoted a
entitled,
I
Like pseudo-
treatise exclusively to the resurrection
On the Resurrection of the Flesh,^
De Resurrectione Carnis.
573
in
which the resurrection received,
60
an orderly manner, a more comprehensive discussion than
in
any
in
of the preceding
many
He
doctrine.
calls
Godhead
of the
The
of his other writings.
resurrection of the flesh,
it is
in the
is
resurrection
had
it
resurrection to which he holds
gamut
of his thinking
He
prime
He
"for
God
shaken;
is
who
he
explicitly states that
professed by Christians,
the resurrection
if
article of the faith] is
if it
be
denies this
not a Christian, but a heretic.
the specific ideas which TertuUian held on the resurrection can
best be presented in following his line of argument as recorded in his
On
the
is
an important
it is
also asserts that the very oneness
closely related to this doctrine;

[that
in
also discussed
is
the Christian trust (Jiducia), "a. truth which
estabhshed."'
doctrine which
Now
is
be denied,
of the flesh
asserted,
it
and
crowd derides."
reveals, but the
The
monographs.
from
order, will be inserted
in
his other works, either to confirm, or to elabo-
This book
rate, or to check.
work
which additional material, when
the Resurrection of the Flesh, to
is
a polemic from beginning to end.
who maintain
It is
was created by the

Demiurge, who was opposed to the supreme God; that the flesh or body
of man is inherently corrupt and worthless; and that, therefore, the body
directed against those
cannot
rise again,
place,
first
is
it
that the world
while the soul alone
In the
capable of immortality.
is
asserted that the world, with
does not ignore
all its errors,
While a few wise men have denied immorthem predicate a future state for the soul. And they
the resurrection of the dead.

tality, yet
most
of
even unconsciously give testimony to the resurrection of the body.
common
people, in their banquets
through
philosophers,
the
doctrine
although they entered not." (1-3
body
metempsychosis,
of
bear
The
and the
indirect
at the door of truth,
Against Marcion V. 9;
real proof of the resurrection of the flesh
first
is
On Nations 1.
19).
the dignity of the
TertuUian lays hold of almost every argument possible to
(4-10).
set forth this truth.
in
;^
sacrifices for the dead,
"They knocked
testimony to the truth of revelation.
The
and
none was
it
Former
writers
had made reference
completely developed.
It
to this fact, but
has a great apologetic value,
and TertuUian was conscious of this, knowing that the disparagement of

If }t<;an be shown,
the flesh was the first "battering-ram of the heretics."
he argued, that the flesh is worthful instead of loathsome, and if it can be
pointed out that Hellenic dualism
is fictitious,
of a belief in the resurrection of the flesh
That the
1
Op.
cit.
flesh is dignified
2:
is
then the
first
and worthful, and not
evil, is
shown
"Sicut enim negata carnis resurrectione concutitur,
stabilitur."
2
Unless otherwise stated,
all
references are to
574
great premise
established.
De
Resur. Carnis.
ita
in various
vindicata con-
IDEA OF RESURRECTION IN ANTE-NIGENE PERIOD

ways.
worthful because
It is
a special creation
was created by God, and,
it
We
at his hand.
in fact,
61
received
it
should not think of the lowliness of
was made, but of the dignity and skill

Olympian Jupiter of ivory is the world's supreme
deity
not because of the bulk of the elephant from which the material was
taken, but on account of the renown of Phidias.
Moreover, the flesh is
not merely a minister and servant of the soul, but it turns out to be also
its associate and coheir.
"And if all this in temporal things, why not
the material out of which the flesh
maker;
of the
just as the
also in things eternal?"
an important
position.
In one's relation to Christianity the
"Flesh
Thus baptism,
hinges."
flesh holds
the very condition on which salvation
is
the sign of the cross, the imposition of hands,
partaking of the Eucharist, as well as virginity, widowhood, and restraint

are
all
done through the
Scripture magnifies the flesh under the
flesh.
God" and "members of Christ." Attached to the

flesh lies the competency of God as a proof of the resurrection
And this is evident from the fact that if God was competent
terms "temple of
dignity of the
of the flesh.
competent
to create, he is also
is
much
which
to recreate,
is
the easier matter.
It
easier to maintain a continuance than to have imparted a beginning.
argument from analogy
Similarly, the
the
change
of
day and night,
the changes in the moon, the changes in the seasons, the transformation
in the plants,
and the symbol
God proclaimed
is
of the
Against
of the flesh (ii, 12; cf.
phoenix
Mar cionV
is
a proof of the resurrection
Through nature
10; Apol. 48).
the resurrection before he wrote
it
in Scripture.
There
also a sufficient cause for the resurrection of the flesh in the future judg-
ment
of
"Now,
man
(14).
This judgment involves the entire human being:
since the entire
man
entirety."
and
it
The
Should
this not
it
is
right that he should be judged in his
flesh participates
will receive
with the soul in
punishment or reward
be
so,
then
soul
He
have
to
be present at the
would be incapable of
in
all
human
accordance with
God would have
but this cannot be attributed to God.

flesh will
union of two natures, he must
consists of the
therefore appear in both, as
to
be either
its
conduct,
deeds
(15).
idle or unjust;
Tertullian does not hold that the
final
judgment, because otherwise the
suffering pain or pleasure being incorporeal.
asserts that the soul per se
is
capable of joy and sorrow in Hades, even
without a body (17) although there is considerable variation in his language

upon this subject. In his Apology (48) and Testimony of the Soul (4),
;
he speaks as
if
the soul could not suffer
when separated from
the body;
but in the Resurrection of the Flesh and in his Treatise on the Soul he mainThis is inferred
tains that the soul is corporeal and capable of sensation.
from the parable
of
Dives and Lazarus,

575
in
which he supposes that souls
62
are corporeal, since they could be imprisoned and seen
Soul
and touched
In Hades souls either undergo punishment for the
7).
evil
(cf.
deeds
that were executed without the flesh, or refreshment for the pious acts so
executed
(cf.
Soul 58).
ceptible to torments
he
Granting, then, that a soul
and
most strenuously that
insists
be somehow and
that full compensation
corporeal and sus-
but that there must
this is not sufficient,
some time a union
at
is
blessings, nevertheless, in spite of this provision,
may be made
former body in order
of soul with its
done through and by
for the deeds
the flesh.
Even though TertuUian

rection of the flesh
presumption
finds a great
in favor of the resur-
from a general consideration apart from Scripture,
nevertheless, he considers all this merely prefatory,
and
falls
back on an
He denounces
exposition of Scripture as the strongest proof of his position.
the Gnostics for an allegorical interpretation in matters pertaining to the

resurrection;
and
sometimes when
yet himself uses
and
suits his purpose.
it
have their foundation in
justifies
He
attempt
is
In his work.
made
On
and
is
not a consistent
form a suitable foundation for
the Resurrection of the Flesh, a systematic
to interpret the
subject of the resurrection.
allegorical interpretation
that "vacuity
literal facts;
basis for a similitude, nor does nonentity
a parable. "
an
also insists that figurative senses
Old as
well as the
Though most
New
Testament on the
of his interpretations are crude
incorrect they are nevertheless significant for this historical study.
He
up the
takes
{resurrectio
scriptural expression,
(18-22).
He
which has
fallen
refers
is
them
to the rising of that
not the soul, but the
by death; and accordingly

cadendo,
with
'falling.'
still
"the resurrection of the dead"
mortuorum), and explains to what substance these terms apply
"
it
derives
flesh.
its
which has
"It
is
fallen,
and
that
the flesh which falls
name, cadaver, 'corpse' from
In Against Marcion, the same idea
is
brought forth
greater completeness.
"To rise," indeed, can be predicated of that which has never fallen down, but
had already been always lying down. But "to rise again" is predicable only of
that which has fallen down; because it is by rising again, in consequence of its
having fallen down, that it is said to have re-risen. For the syllable re- always
implies iteration (or happening again).
TertuUian finds an unquestionable proof of the resurrection of the
flesh in the Christian
apocalypses (24-27).
In his description of the
last
Adv. Marcionem (V. 9): "Surgere enim potest dici et quod omnino non cequod semper retro iacuit. Resurgere autem non est nisi eius quod cecidit; iterum
enim surgendo, quia cecidit, resurgere dicitur.
RE enim syllaba iterationi semper
I
cidit,
adhibetur."
576
63
IDEA OF RESUREECTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD

days and the Lord's coming, a
always assumed.
fleshly resurrection is
Such language, he maintains, could not have been used
much
as these apocalypses project the resurrection into
and imply
death.
that the soul does not attain unto
time,
destiny immediately at
its
many allegorical
God" and "Millennium"
In his use of Old Testament material he makes
The terms "Kingdom
interpretations.
were
of the soul, inas-
some future
This
spiritualized.
of
very significant since
is
the same crass materialism here that
is
we should have expected
adhered to in other instances; but
he explicitly states that those terms which are associated with a millennium
must not be taken
He
literally (26).
finds a doctrine of the resurrection
of Moses (38), in Ezekiel's vision

Dry Bones, and in the preservation of Jonah in the whale (32)
In commenting upon the teachings of Jesus, TertuUian declares that
the bodily character of the resurrection is avowedly assumed wherever
the word resurrection occurs. The words, "The Son of Man came to
seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10), are referred to the
The destruction of the body and
whole man soul and flesh {^t,, 34).
of the flesh in the restoration of the
hand
of the Valley of
soul in hell (Matt. 10:28) also presupposes a resurrection, for, unless the
body were raised again,

in hell" (35).
"it
would be impossible
Christ's refutation of the
vital interest for
He
our purpose (36).
a resurrection both of the soul
and
this verity in the precise sense in
for the flesh to
be killed
is,
however, of more
states that the
Sadducees denied
Sadducees
of the flesh,
and
that Jesus affirmed
which they were denying
affirmed the resurrection of the two natures of man.
that
it;
is,
"Equal unto
he
the
angels" means a transference into an angelic state by the putting on of

the raiment of incorruption
exhibition of
power
for a
(cf.
also 62).
Christ's acts were
temporary kindness, but
no ostentatious
in order to put in safe
keeping {sequestrare) the belief in a future resurrection, and to prove that

that resurrection
He
would be a resurrection
of
refers to the Acts of the Apostles, in
of the flesh
amply
attested.
both natures (substantia)
(38).
which he finds the resurrection
In his preaching before the Sadducees, before
Agrippa, and before the Athenians, Paul,
it
is
alleged, could not
have
taught anything else but a bodily resurrection in a material sense; which,
being an absolutely
new
doctrine,
was thereupon opposed
(39).
The
largest space, however, in his interpretation of Scripture with reference

to the resurrection is devoted to Paul's epistles (40-63).
The
inner
and
man, the figure of baptism, and
the outer man, the old man and the new

various other teachings are marshaled together in support of the resurrection
The passages most potent for his purpose are II Cor., chap. 5,
of the flesh.
and
I Cor.,
chap. 15; and in the interpretation of these the real nature and
577
64
character of the resurrection body are set forth.
In II Cor., chap.
The
finds a distinct reference to a resurrection of a corporeal body.

sion,
5,
he
expres-
"clothed upon," presupposes a resurrection of the flesh which can
However,
be clothed, since clothing can only be put over a material body.

this act of
being clothed upon, with a kind of heavenly supervesture, makes
the bodies incorruptible
and
for their heavenly habitation
fit
Against Marcion (V. 12) this passage in conjunction with

receives
its fullest
In this tabernacle of our earthly body

is
we shall not be found naked;"
we have been
In
exposition as follows:
be clothed upon with the vesture which

unclothed,
(41).
Cor. 15:53
we do
groan, earnestly desiring to
from heaven,
in other
if
so be that, having been
words, shall regain that of which
And again he says: "We that are in this

we were oppressed with an unwillingness to be
divested, even our body.
tabernacle do groan, not as
if
unclothed, but (we wish) to be clothed upon."
he touched but lightly
He
here says expressly, what
(where he wrote):
in his first epistle
"The dead
shall
be raised incorruptible" (meaning those who had undergone mortality), "and
we
shall
shall
be changed" (whom
God
shall find to
be yet in the
come their
moment, and from
renewed one, from which

in the crisis of the last
shall
incorruptibility,
But those
flesh).
be raised incorruptible, because they shall regain their body
and
and these
that a
also shall
their instantaneous death, whilst en-
countering the oppressions of anti-Christ, undergo a change, obtaining therein

not so much a divestiture of the body as a "clothing upon " with the vesture which
is
from heaven.
So that whilst these
shall
put on over their (changed) body this
heavenly raiment, the dead also shall for their part recover their body, over which
they too have a supervesture to put on, even the incorruption of heaven; because
of these
it
was
that he said: "this corruptible
mortal must put on immortality."
when they recover
must put on incorruption, and
The one put on
their bodies; the others put
it
this
this
(heavenly) apparel,
on as a supervesture, when they
indeed hardly lose them (in the suddenness of their change).
Like Irenaeus, he interprets "flesh and blood"
in an ethical sense,
and over that it has reference not to the substance of the
Against Marcion V. 10-15). Paul's
flesh but to the works thereof (48-51
analogy of the seed is to teach, not that, in the resurrection, a different body
is to arise from that which is sown in death, but that "the very same flesh
asserting over
which was once sown
same
in death will
more
another form"
in essence, only
appearing in
full
and
(52).
bear
fruit
in resurrection-life
the
perfect; not another, although re-
Paul does "not deny a community of
substance, but a parity of prerogative" in his iUustration of certain examples

of
animals and heavenly bodies
(52).
denotes a body fully possessed of the

in substance (53; Against
Likewise, the term "spiritual body"
spirit,
Marcion V.
578
and has no reference
10).
to
a change
Thus
far
we have observed
of the flesh as derived
65
Tertullian's arguments for the resurrection
from a consideration
of the nature of the flesh, the
When we turn to his treatand attempt to approach the resurrection from the standpsychology, we come to an anticlimax and an inconsistency.
nature of God, and the teachings of Scripture.
ment
of the soul,
point of his
In his
treatise.
corporeality.
soul
it
is
On the Soul, he sets forth the Stoic conception of the soul's

He asserts that the view of the Stoics with reference to the
correct;
viz.,
that the soul
and even material
corporeal
is
has a body of a quality and kind peculiar to
tion,
and "the
the shape
is
triad of dimensions
length,
itself,
that
(8);
such as form, limita-
breadth,
and height;"
that of the body, the color, transparent light (9)
that
think and feel and exist apart from the body (9; 58); that it
to the flesh, but visible to the spirit (8).
Evidently TertuUian
is
that
it
can
invisible
Stoic as
is
and certainly he does not correlate nor synthesize his

a corporeal, and even material, soul with his fundamental doctrine
well as Christian;
idea of
of the resurrection of the flesh.
What now
is
the precise nature of this resurrection
the resurrection of the flesh
upon the
There
is,
body which he terms
in the first place, a stern insistence
restoration of the former body.
"Souls are
They
resume the same conditions and the same ages (Soul
He
to
back
to receive
the resurrection the self-same bodies in which they died."

56).
at
are also
concludes
work on the resurrection by stating the belief which to him is

the only true and well-founded belief "and so thy flesh shall rise again,
wholly in every man, in its own identity, and in its absolute integrity."' On
the other hand, he speaks of certain changes which will come about in
his special
the resurrection body.
It is significant to
notice that
whenever language
is
used giving the impression of a change in the risen body,
is
either
making use
classic passages
sometimes seems
of Jesus'
answer
on the subject.
to
It
to the
is
it is
while he
Sadducees, or of Paul's two
very evident therefore that what
be an inconsistency in his presentation
is
simply an
attempt to conform to some of the expressions of Jesus and Paul.

all,
the change of which he speaks
stance of the flesh.
Change he
is
After
merely a change in the unaltered sub-
insists
does not destroy.
Incidentally
he mentions (42) a discovery in Carthage which furnishes him with a

proof that death changes but does not destroy our mortal bodies. When
the
men were
laying the foundation of the
Odeum, they
ancient graves, and the horror-stricken people looked

after
I
et
some
De
five
hundred years were
Resur. Carnis 63:
quidem
"Resurget
still
sound, and hair which
igitur caro, et
integra."
579
disturbed some
upon bones which
quidem omnis,
still
et
retained
quidem
ipsa,
66
its
"Changes, conversions, and reformations
perfume.
will necessarily
take place to bring about the resurrection, but the substance of the flesh
be preserved safe"
will still
There
(55).
be no change in form and
will
appearance of the risen body, from the mundane body, save that mutilated
bodies will be restored whole (56), and that some organs will lose their
In short, the only change,
functions.
body
assume
will
reality, this is
not at
from
deflection
is
summed up
in the
all different
it
seems, which the resurrection
word
"incorruptibility;" and, in
from the conception
of Irenaeus.
The
Fundamentally he held
this position is seeming, not real.
same
and that at a certain stage in the resurrection the righteous will be clothed upon by a supervesture from heaven, which will in no wise change the flesh, but only make
it perfect, incorruptible, whole, and fit for heaven.
There is also in his thought a relation between the resurrection of Jesus
and the resurrection of men. The flesh of Christ which came through
that bodies will rise exactly as they were put in the grave, with the
form and with the same component parts and
particles;
the virgin birth rose again in absolute identity.

tion so
is
treatise.
also our resurrection.
On
And
as
is
this resurrec-
TertuUian shows at the conclusion of his
the Flesh of Christ, that there
is
a close connection between
this treatise
and the resurrection of the flesh, and

was introductory to his greater work.
the Flesh.
The
Christ's flesh
resurrection narratives as
set
also states therein that
On
the Resurrection of
forth in the gospels are
harmony with his conception of a bodily resurThus Jesus rose from the dead on the third
He
day, and was received back into heaven (Answer to the Jews 13).
especially
in
comments
on Luke's narrative, and interprets it
none other
than in a material sense, enlarging now and then with additional proofs
to show that that which appeared to the disciples was not a phantom, but a
real body. He says that Jesus offered his hands and his feet for examination,
and asked his disciples for some meat, for the express purpose of showing
them that he had teeth {Against Marcion IV. 43). The Gospel of John
does not state that Thomas touched Jesus when he presented himself to
him in the upper room; but TertuUian, who is so convinced of a material
risen body, asserts that Thomas touched him and that "the touch was
true and real" {Soul 17).
It is also very interesting to notice that there
are imbedded in these writings two traditions concerning the resurrection
referred to
and interpreted
in
rection in the material sense.
of Jesus
which are unique.
his disciples
down
he distinctly
calls
The one
in Galilee,
states that Jesus spent forty
days with
a region of Judea {Apol. 21); the other, which
a tradition, reads that the gardener removed the body in
order that his lettuce might not be spoiled by sight-seers {The Shows 30).
580
IDEA OF RESURKECTION IN ANTE-NICENE PERIOD
The voluminous
material into which Tertullian has
voluminous treatment
his
may
be thus summarized:
drawn us through
(i)
the resurrection
held the foremost place in his writings, and his treatment of

apologetic, being
tion
is
a resurrection of the
own
Gnostic teachings;
directed against
flesh,
which
rises
67
it
was
largely
(2) the resurrec-
again "wholly in every man,
change being in a
an incorruption on the part of those who will
be clothed upon when they enter the kingdom; (3) the resurrection narin its
identity, in its absolute integrity," the only
perfection of the flesh,
ratives of
and
Luke and John
tion of Jesus;
and there
is
in
are adhered to in the references to the resurrec-
not merely a reproduction of the crass material-
ism of these narratives, but the body
more
is
either consciously or unconsciously
the teachings of Jesus and Paul

on the resurrection are comprehensively treated, but misinterpreted; (5)
the approach to the resurrection is from almost every standpoint, and
the arguments of the apologists and Irenaeus are recast and restated in
given a
still
realistic
form;
(4)
the brightest light, together with additional material.
In the two great polemicists

of the resurrection of the flesh
treatment.
The
doctrine
is
Irenaeus
became
established;
the arguments in substantiation of

sively
wrought out by Tertullian.
and from henceforth the subject
it
and Tertullian the doctrine

and reached its fullest
crystallized
it
has currency in the creed, and
are most carefully
The
receives less attention
ment.
581
and comprehen-
battle against the Gnostics
and very
is
little
won,
incre-
CHAPTER
VII
THE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL

Turning
to the
Alexandrian school we are confronted with a different

Alexandria was
and there is an a-priori prethe resurrection was influenced by this atmos-
and another presentation
situation
the fountainhead of Hellenistic speculations,
sumption that the idea of
An
phere.
is
inductive study at once reveals the fact that the resurrection
conceived of in a sense other than
Clement
of
it
was by Irenaeus and TertuUian.
Alexandria has hardly anything to say on the resurrection.
has for him
and
little interest,
He
ception of Christianity.
is
It
not a fundamental doctrine in his con-
promised, however, a treatise on the resur-
composed
rection, but evidently he never
it,
or
if
so, all traces of it
are
lost.
In his extant writings the references to the resurrection are not merely
but also fanciful, so that one can scarcely be confident in the inter-
brief
pretation of certain passages.

in the sense of immortality;
Clement repeatedly speaks of the after-life

and whenever he refers to the future life in
a general way, one receives the impression that in the hereafter
merely that survives.
Scripture
is
never appealed to in an
the resurrection, or in an attempt to set forth
its
it is
the soul
effort to
nature.
prove
In any case
Clement invariably approaches Christian truths from a philosophical

basis rather than on scriptural grounds,
and whenever he uses Scripture
he prefers an allegorical interpretation.
Clement disparaged the body rather than elevated
it
to the dignity
which
had given it. He does not think that the resurrection of the body
is necessary on the ground that it may share in the rewards and punishments.
"The soul of man is confessedly the better part of man, and the body the
others
The body
inferior" {Strom. IV. 26).
though not necessarily

tion
evil.
from the body and
its
Piety
is
passions.
is
for
the source of sinful tendencies,
him
"The
ascetic, a steadfast abstrac-
Gnostic soul must be conse-
crated to the light, stript of the integuments of matter" {Strain. V. 11).
The
elect
man
dwelling-place
dwells in the body simply as a sojourner; for he leaves his
his
sojourn and blessing
body
and
God
turns to heaven, giving thanks for his
for his departure {Strom. IV. 26).
released from their bodies in
Hades
are able to perceive
because they are no longer obstructed by the paltry
Thus
Souls
more
flesh {Strom.
when
clearly,
VI.
in his general attitude to the future, in his conception of piety,
68
6).
and
[582

seemingly in his disparagement of the
of
man's survival
69
Clement teaches a doctrine
flesh,
after death consonant with the
Greek idea
of
immor-
tality.
On
He
resurrection of the flesh.
repeats these stereotyped expressions
In at least two instances he refers to that
without defining their content.
which
body
the other hand, Clement speaks of the resurrection of the
and the
rises as flesh {Paed. II. lo;
But
III. i).
at the
same time
it
is
very evident that he does not endeavor to convey the idea that the resurrection
a fleshly resurrection.
is
resurrection body,
it is
Christ rose "through
present body.
to germination," or as earthly fire
words are
to
If
he teaches anything concerning a
a glorified frame which

fire,
be different from
this
changes wheat into bread.'
If these
seriously, then fire is the agent, not of chastisement,
be taken
but of sublimation, by which an organism

sphere.
is to
as the wheat springs from decay
is fitted
for existence in a
new
Clement also uses a few incidents from the resurrection narratives
of the gospels,
and one from the Preaching
of Peter, but without
comment
something
He
or application.
The
situation in the
mind
of
Clement
is
This
believes in the future existence of the soul.
like this.
is
firmly
in conformity with
body and soul and

from the current
his philosophical tendencies.
Hence,
he
is driven to an
resurrection.
accepted terms applied to the
resurrection
is
of
the flesh, and
time
that
the
saying
at
one
inconsistency,
resurrection
that
that which is
sublimated
in
the
is
so
that
flesh
at another
lends
itself more
This
latter
view
spiritual
body.
kind
of
a
is
some
raised
readily to his philosophical conceptions of Greek immortality and undoubtthe trend of his thought
and
his idea of the relation of
But he cannot
was more
edly
free himself
controlling.
Origen grew up
in the
same atmosphere, but contrary
indifference to the resurrection he discusses
it
to
Clement's
with painstaking care.
The
and necessary place in his system of thought; and

he pieces together with his cunning hand his general views on the subject
and the scriptural proofs in substantiation of it. None of his opinions,
however, were more vehemently assailed than his teachings on the resurEven in his own time many were offended at his doctrine, and
rection.
resurrection has a real
Jerome made a severe attack upon him. Origen wrote a treatise

Resurrection,^ which is unknown to us save by a few fragments.
1
irvpbi
Paed.
I.
6:4: wy
dviffTaiJ.4v7]v drjdev [dia. TTVpdi],
avdcrraTai. Kai p.ivT0i dcd Tvvpbs (TwiffTafx^vrju
veTTTbpxvov.
2
Ilepi dvacrrdijeujs.
583
els
On
the
In his
Kaddirep iK (pdopds Kal ffiropdi 6

V(ppo(Tvvr)v iKKK-qalas
ws (LpTov
70
extant writings, however, the subject
is
treated in extenso.
Greek idea
of the soul's immortality according to the

of pre-eminent importance;"' but
of the resurrection
[souls]
do
by what
exist,
is
is
it
to
still
The
doctrine
him "a doctrine
"If,
on the other hand, they
prove the doctrine of immortality; not only
the Greeks have so well said regarding
and
confutes chiliasm;
it,
but also in a manner
Origen denies the doctrine
agreeable to Holy Scripture" (Celsus III. 22).

of metempsychosis;
for
not the final doctrine: the doctrine
higher and truer.
we have
is
assails
the Gnostic denial
He
is
fully
aware
of the difficulties
urged against the
some
historic
accuracy
empty tomb; and points out
of the four gospels with reference to the
of the contradictory elements in the narrative {Celsus V. 56).
But,
notwithstanding, he emphatically asserts the reality of the resurrection of

Jesus, setting forth scriptural evidences to
after the resurrection {Celsus II. 70).
of Jesus' resurrection the
He
show
that he
was seen by many
declares that without the reality
courage and lasting sincerity of the disciples
would be an enigma. He refutes the cavils of Celsus who asserted either

that Jesus was an impostor {Celsus II. 56); or that his resurrection was
a mere deduction from the predictions of Jesus (11. 54); or that an image
of
what was desired came to Mary (II. 60).

A^ emphatic as he is on the resurrection
on the resurrection
and
of
men.
at (âth passes to
"the mansion
The
soul
is
of Jesus so
emphatic
is
he also
pre-existent, nevertheless created,
Hades, the prison of the imperfect, or to paradise,
of the blessed."
Nevertheless, the soul continues to have
a body in this intermediate state, as
is
shown by
the parable of Dives
and
has a body in the interim between death
That the
Lazarus.
and resurrection is an increment of Origen and peculiar to him. Tatian
and TertuUian had taught that the soul is corporeal, and used this same
soul
parable as proof; but Origen specifically states that the soul
(De Prin.
I.
7).
immaterial soul.
in
life,
is still
body
in his
mind
is
is
incorporeal
an added element that clothes an
This body, though different from that which
it
inhabited
a body, belonging to this world, and must not be identified
with the resurrection body, since the resurrection body belongs to another
world.
What now is this resurrection body ? In his argument against Celsus,

who had ridiculed a bodily resurrection, he says, "Neither we, nor the
Holy
Scriptures, assert that with the
same
bodies, without change to a
higher condition, 'shall those who were long dead arise from the earth
and live again' " (V. 18). The body, which has undergone corruption,
I
rbv TTpofiyoîxevov
rifuv irepl
^vxv^ KarajKevacrTôv \6yov.

584

does not assume
original nature
its
has decayed returns to

rection
same,
but
body
texture
way
of presentation.
quite different.
is
It will
new environment, and be
of the
consequence of
some
this
cannot be
teeth,"
of
wheat which
The
23).
resur-
be the same as the present body and yet by no means the
will
his paradoxical
is
its
any more than a grain
former condition {Celsus V.
its
71
Its features are the
bereft of all superfluous organs.
of the biblical phrases, like the
literally
same,
be adapted to the requirements
understood.
In
"gnashing of
Furthermore, the resurrection
body of the wicked will differ from that of the righteous {De Prin. II. 3.)
Of still greater import is the fact that the body when cast away shall be
transmuted into a condition of glory which renders
5,
He
6).
spiritual
calls
body
is
it
for
He
nor content.
it
spiritual because the material
{De Prin.
III.
entirely changed.
spiritual
is
him not a sublimated thing which has
neither shape
taunts the Gnostics because they spoke of a spiritual
body which could not be described and which had no shape {De Prin.
II. 10).
Heaven and earth will not be annihilated at the consummation
but
simply be changed in quality and transformed in appearance.
will
Likewise, also the bodily nature will not be entirely destroyed, since
cannot conceive that beings so numerous and powerful are able to

without a body.
poreal
life is
Created beings cannot
exist
we
live
without a body; and incor-
conceived to be the prerogative of the Trinity alone {De Prin.
1.6:4).
Origen
feels himself
indebted to Paul for his belief in a resurrection
body which mediates between the

of this flesh.
his
image
He
soul's immortality
On
of the seed (Frag. II.
Resur.;
and a reanimation
Thus he
interprets Paul quite accurately.
dwells on
Celsus V. 18, 19); and finds
that the body is the same, not by any material continuity, but by the permanency of that which gives the law of its constitution. He finds place
for a germinative principle called the "logos,"
body and which
is
not destroyed
(cf.
which
is
implanted in the
In other words, the
Celsus V. 23).
and of adapting it to
and law which produce daily
soul has the vital principle of assimilating matter

its
environment.
The same
changes in the present body
With
principle
will create the spiritual
body.
perfect consistency does he interpret the gospel narratives on the
resurrection of Jesus compatibly with his general view of the resurrection.
Whatever he claims
his
for the resurrection of
men must
view of the resurrection of Jesus, but no other.
was the antitype of the former body.' The mortal

body was changed into one that was ethereal and divine.
that in a body, which
quality of the
'
also be attached to
Jesus was raised and
Contra Celsum
II. 61:
iv ffdipLari avTiri-n-t^ iy^yepdai.
585
72
Commenting upon John 20:26,
27, in
of in a material sense, he interprets

of in
"And
spiritual sense.
a body intermediate, as
which the risen body
is
conceived
body
is
conceived
so that the risen
it
truly, after his resurrection,
he existed in
were, between the grossness of that which he had
it
before his sufferings, and the appearance of a soul uncovered by such a
body"
term
He
(Celsus II. 62).
endeavors at some length to show that the
"incorporeal" in the phrase, "I
do-w/xaToi/
am
not an incorporeal
demon, " taken from an uncanonical book, does not have

as interpreted
by Gentile authors.
According
its
usual meaning
to Origen's interpretation,
was drawn by Jesus to his resurdemons have, which is fine and

neither does it resemble this gross and visible body
body which continues to remain solid and palpable
the phrase discloses the fact that attention

rection body;
as
that
formed out
if
of ours, but
is,
of air,
a spiritual
not a body such as
This is most significant, since the quotation from

8).
document from which it was taken and as used by Ignatius assuming
identity or relationship between the Gospel according to the Hebrews
{De Prin., Pref.
the
and the Doctrine
of Peter
presents
the resurrection in a crassly material
way.
Origen also finds support for the idea of a spiritual body in his theory
of the nature of matter.
for the
There
is
a philosophic ground agreeable to him
change which the body can undergo.
speaking,
is
"Matter, which, properly
without qualities, receives such as the Creator desires to invest
with, and frequently divests itself of those which it formerly possessed

and assumes others of a different and higher kind" (Celsus III. 41). It
is quite natural for this body, "which we style animal," to pass into a
it
spiritual condition
was
so formed
and assume
by the Creator, as
spiritual qualities,
since "bodily nature
to pass easily into
whatever condition he
should wish, or the nature of the case
demand" {De
Prin. III. 6:6,
of.
Transmutation and gradation of matter was, according to his
II. 2:2).
theory of matter, a most simple
affair.
Matter, he held, can exist in a
crude form in lower orders and in a higher form in spiritual bodies.

In the Alexandrian school, especially in Origen, there
is
a thorough-
going and consistent restatement of the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection.

The ground for this view is found not merely in Scripture, but also in the
laws and constitution of matter, in the nature of the soul, and in the germinating principle of the Logos.
with his theological principles.

effort
made
This view
of the resurrection does not clash
Besides, in Origen there
is
the
first
real
to point out that the resurrection narratives in the gospels
do
not consistently teach the resurrection of a material organism, but that

there
is
something
in those narratives
586
which presupposes a
spiritual body.
CHAPTER
VIII
THE LATER WRITERS

The
idea of a bodily resurrection in the material sense received
The remaining monuments
idea prevailed.
within the third centur)' and the

in the footsteps of Irenaeus
With
into disfavor.
falls
and
have trod
witli little
first
of the early church, falling
quarter of the fourth century, follow
Tertullian, while the conception of Origen
the exception of Lactantius, the story of the
resurrection from henceforth
moves along
the path which former writers
increment.
Methodius stands out
most prominently.
He
vehemently assailed
Origen's idea of the resurrection, and this occasioned a special work of
On
been preserved
Virgins,
of
The
the Resurrection.
it
was
is
to
in
work
original
lost,
is
Epiphanius and Photius.
in the
Origen are
body
its
development through Tertullian, while with Origen the Pauline
fullest
form
set forth
Like
his
of a Platonic dialogue, in
and
refuted.
He
his,
but large extracts have
Banquet of the Ten
which the arguments
declares that the resurrection
be identical with the mundane body:
"The body
shall rise with
bones again joined and compacted with flesh" {Banquet of the Ten Virgins IX. 2). The only distinctive marks of the resurrection body are an
absence of dissolution and a freedom from the stains and pollutions of
Through death
the very root of sin
like a restored temple, is raised

(I.
5);'
when
or
is
it
spoiled
(I.
is
torn out of the flesh;
sin.
and the body,
up again with the same parts uninjured

and remodeling of a statue
restored like the recasting

7,
8);
or like the conflagration of the earth which, after
being purified will again exist
Christ, he declares, did not say that
(I. 9).
in the resurrection
men
are to be transformed into the nature of angels;
we
shall
be as angels, but not angels as they are without
he simply said
bodies
(I.
Almost
sors.
10-12).
all his
arguments are manifestly borrowed from
Thus man
and body, and
his predeces-
is composed of soul
body cannot perish. The term "resurrection" is applied
which is not fallen, but to that which has fallen and rises again,
in the survival of
personality the
not to that
not to the soul, which
so that the reference
is,
which dies
The mystery
On
(I.
12).
immortal, but to the
flesh,
All references, unless otherwise stated are to the collected extracts of his lost work,
the Resurrection.
587]
is
of the resurrection has its parallel in the
73
74
generation of
man
(I.
To
14).
Paul's expression, "flesh
given an ethical meaning (III.
He
5).
argument when he makes the Feast

tion.
nacle
sets forth,
and blood,"
is
however, an original
Tabernacles a type of the resurrec-
of
when fallen down is again built, so our taberput up again (I. 14). There is in Methodius
Just as the tabernacle
when
fallen
down
is
the fullest expression on the resurrection subsequent to Origen, but

in direct opposition to Origen's
the creedal
He
views of a spiritual body.
and orthodox position with
and
perfect consistency,
it
is
restates
forces
Jesus and Paul to agree with him.
Hippolytus also declared that the resurrection must be taken to imply
The
a material body.
fullest
and most
the fragments of his writings.
In
it
For the righteous
passes into Hades.
abode, but for the wicked
it
will
significant statement
this will
merely be the temporary
Then,
be the ultimate receptacle.
appointed time, there will be a resurrection of

will unite
one of
in
is
he states that the soul of the departed
all
at the
men, whereupon the soul
with the former body, and will not be transferred to another
body as Plato had taught (Frag. Against the Greeks or Against Plato).
There should be no difficulty, he continues, in believing in this resurrection; for if God, as Plato thought, originated the soul and made it immortal,
then
it
the body.
should be easy for us also to believe that
There
is
makes
it
is
able to raise
The primeval
bodies of the righteous and those of the wicked.

gression
God
a vast difference, however, between the resurrection

trans-
necessary for the body to be committed to the earth.
when
molded anew, giving to it the

"But the unrighteous will receive
their bodies unchanged, and unransomed from suffering and disease, and
unglorified, and still with all the evil in which they died."
The risen body
of Christ is the same body which he had before his resurrection.
He is
the first fruits, and raises that flesh which is common to all humanity.
Hence we have in him, as our Savior, an assurance also of our own resurrection.
From the gospel narratives are selected the story of the empty
tomb and the physical appearances of the risen Christ in John and Luke.
Minucius Felix says nothing of the resurrection of Jesus, and does not
That
of the righteous
raised will be
quahties of purity and incorruptibility.
The query
know whether or no
use Scripture to prove any of his ideas on the resurrection.
and taunt
of Caecilius {Octavius 11),
who
wishes to
Christians rise again without a body, with the
body,
is
answered.
sumed by
fire,
Octavius
is
since everything
made
same body, or with another
to say that the
world
that the ancient philosophers are not averse to a burning
yet
it is
evident that
God
is
to
be con-
which has a beginning has an end, and
will raise
up our former
588
bodies,
up
of
a world;
no matter what
He
the condition after death will be.

that that which
is
was
employs the time-honored argument
formed by God can be re-formed, since the
first
former writers had originated {Octavius 34).

In Commodianus chiliasm again comes to the
literal
Millenarianism was
form.
resurrection of which he speaks
The Lord
will
latter
He also uses many of the analogies from nature which
the easier process.
most
75
appear
is
in a bodily
come and touch all

Commodianus
41-45).
will
still
literal restoration of
form at the end
places, but the
camp
but goes into details with reference to the

the city will descend from heaven;
be incorruptible; then they
The
the former body.
of the ages
and the
first.
and general
In the
fires
resurrection,
resurrection
first
the believers will rise again
will live for
in its
of the faithful (Instructions
as to the final
is silent
and that
some circles.
front,
current in
and
will
a thousand years.
Cj'prian presents us with an incidental reference to the resurrection,
and
that only with reference to Jesus.
He
emphatically asserts that Christ
both "originated the resurrection of the flesh" and also showed himself
to his disciples in his former flesh (Epistles 72:5).
His other reference,
being as striking and singular, reads; "[Jesus] appeared to his disciples

as he had been.
He
gave himself to the recognition of those that saw him,
associated together with him;
and being evident by the substance
of his
bodily existence, he delayed forty days, that they might be instructed
him
in the precepts of life
ises VI.
He
and might learn what they were
14).
Novatian closely connects salvation with the resurrection of the body.

believed that if the body were not to rise then there would be no salva-
tion,
and
if
God were
either unable or unwilling to save
resurrection, for he
"was
which he died;" which

his resurrection body.
own
men.
it
then there would
was a fleshly
same bodily substance in
evident from the wounds which he bore in
be no reason for having created
of
by
to teach " (Treat-
it.
raised again in the
fact is
In Christ's resurrection
is
the assurance of our
resurrection, since he shows the laws of that resurrection
Paul's expression, "flesh
God," has
him reference
for
stance thereof (Trinity 10;
and blood cannot
common
inherit the
to the guilt of the flesh
to
kingdom
and not the sub-
cf. 21).
In addition to stereotyped creedal expressions which occur in his writGregory Thaumaturgus refers to a few post-resurrection incidents
ings,
"Christ, on rising from the

in the life of Jesus taken from the gospels.
dead, showed his disciples the print of the nails and the wound made by
the spear, and a body that could be handled, although he also had entered
among them when
the doors were shut with a view of showing

589
them
at
once
76
the energy of the divinity and the reality of the

is
body" {Faith
Herein
i).
a noteworthy increment in an effort to explain two ill-according ideas in
a resurrection narrative.
Another increment
is
birth to the resurrection.
Jesus was born of
Mary
might be exhibited and
the relation of the virgin

{Homily
eternal instituted in the world
life
II).
Archelaus does scarcely more than assert the reality of the resurrection
of Jesus
Manes
and the consequences accruing therefrom,
{Disputation with
Manes 49).
in his opposition to
Alexander of Alexandria approached
Through the fall

and in death the body is dissolved and returns
of which his resurrection is an integral part,
the resurrection from a truly theological standpoint.
man became subject to
but through Christ,
to dust;
man's body
is
An
capable of being created anew in the future.
of this he finds in
tomb
death,
Matthew's account
at the crucifixion, being released
of those
by
who came
and being the
Christ,
evidence
from the
forth
do
first to
so {Epistle on the Arian Heresy V. 3-6).
Amobius adheres
obscure terms.
He
but in somewhat
to the resurrection of the flesh,
finds
it
symbolized in Plato's myth, where the world
begins and revolves in an opposite direction, and in which a reverse develop-
ment from old age
Heathen
to childhood occurs {Against the
II. 13).
same time they teach
the
is
The
that souls are incorporeal.
neither mortal nor immortal but neutral,
must be made immortal by the
will of
God
and
numbers
of
With reference
he arose "he manifested
to the resurrection of Jesus, he says that after
himself in open day to countless
at
however,
as well as the body,
it,
31-36).
(II.
soul,
He
when
scorns the heathen idea of a punishment in the infernal regions,
men;"
also,
"Lest they should
imagine that they were deceived by unsubstantial fancies he showed himonce, a second time, yea frequently in familiar conversations."
self
In the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles the resurrection
is
described
as follows:
The almighty God
up through our Lord Jesus
himself will raise us
according to his infallible promise, and grant us a resurrection with
have
slept
all
Christ,
those that
from the beginning of the world; and we shall then be such as we now
For we shall rise
are in our present form, without any defect or corruption.

incorruptible: whether
pieces
The
body
we
by wild beasts and
die at sea, or are scattered on the earth, or are torn to
birds,
he
will raise
us up by his
own power
resurrection of Jesus as interpreted from the gospels
(VI.
6,
30; V.
i, 7;
V.
3,
19; VIII.
i, i).
The
is
(V.
i, 7).
in a fleshly
assurance of a fleshly
resurrection he also finds in the symbol of the phoenix, in the examples

of those
who were
raised,
and
in the analogy of procreation.
In the ancient Syrian documents there

590
is
very
little
on the resurrection;

enough, however,
is
used
found
is
whenever the term resurrection
to indicate that
has reference to the revivification of the former body and enough
it
to convince us that this
New
phal
was the
This
may
demus; wherein we
is
In the apocry-
belief of the Syrian church.
Testament books the resurrection
of fantastic shapes.
assumes
all
kinds
especially noticeable in the Gospel of
Nico-
of Jesus
observe that, in addition to the appearances of
those mentioned in the canonical gospels, there
Joseph of Arimathea.
to
77
The
was an appearance
also
writing also shows the importance which
Matthean narrative describing the guarding of the

Mary the resurrection act of Jesus was repeated:
Christ's tomb was empty, his mother was placed in it, her body was raised,
and her ascension observed. In the Revelation of John every human being
was attached
is
to that
In the Passing of
tomb.
spoken
when
of as rising
thirty years old, so that in the hereafter all shall
be of one appearance and one
size, just like bees,
not differing one from
another.
In Lactantius we are confronted with a unique and peculiar situation-
His teaching on the

solution to the
after-life
problem
lies in
Greek and the Christian
the
continued
without perfect reconciliation.

late in life,
is
it
abounds with
The
inconsistencies.
remain formative
to
Because he was converted
in his life
to Christianity
not strange that this should have been the case.
In the
place, he sets forth the simple doctrine of the soul's immortality
first
much more
he devotes
space
only
the fact that the two streams of influence
to this
and
than he does to the doctrine of the
most glorious light. The chief good is found in immortality alone.

The world has been created that we may be born; we are
born that we may acknowledge the Maker God; we acknowledge him
that we may worship him; we worship him that we may receive immorresurrection
in a
tality
as the reward of our labors;
we may
receive the
eternity a
kingdom
Immortality
there
is
Inst. VII. 5).
to Scripture,
are rewarded with immortality that
forever, and may be to all

God {Divine Institutes VII. 6; cf. III. 12, 80).
from God and conditioned on virtue, since otherwise
of
gift
would be no
we
supreme Father and Lord
difference
between the
just
and the unjust {Divine
In proving his doctrine of immortality he does not appeal

but
falls
back on the heathen
writers.
Cicero and Virgil
are especially appealed to.'
On
resurrection.
immortality
I
and seemingly
the other hand, as an appendix to his work,
an appendix
to his real convictions in this matter,
Strange, indeed, that side
we should
by
side with his simple idea of
not merely find references to a
Especially Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes
591
i;
also as
he treats of a bodily
Virgil,
literal
Aeneid
vi.
resurrection

78
of the flesh, but also
an adherence
(Divine Inst. VII. 24).
There
to the millenarian
will
and apocalyptic ideas
be a resurrection of the dead, but how
cannot be explained, and the only ground for a resurrection

body which he presents is the ground that "if from the beginning
God formed man in some unspeakable manner, we may believe that the
old man can be restored by him who made the new man" {Divine Inst.
this is possible
of the
He
VII. 23).
likewise conceived the resurrection of Jesus to be a bodily
resurrection, dwelling in particular
was
left
"save the grave-cloths
IV. 19-21).
He
in
on the empty tomb
which nothing
in
which he was wrapped" {Divine
Inst.
invents a peculiar reason for Christ's bodily resurrection,
maintaining that death on the cross was chosen because
body with the bones uninjured
for the resurrection,
which
it
reserved the
broken would
if
Inst. IV. 26).

As
body there is absolute silence. The only solution to these
incongruous elements to which he holds lies in the fact that the Greek idea
of immortality and the Christian traditional idea of a material organism
have been rendered unsuitable for rising again {Divine
to
spiritual
were loosely held together
in his
system of Christian truth.
With the exception of Methodius, who turned the tide against Origen
and caused the Pauline conception of a spiritual body forever to die out in
Christian history, there
The
is little
significance attached to these later writers.
discussion of the resurrection
is
possibly a
relating salvation to the resurrection of Christ
our own
flesh
than
it
the close of our period,
was
is
in
former wTiters.
little
and
more
theological
to the resurrection of
Lactantius,
who
stands at
interesting because he welded together the
Greek
conception of immortality and the Christian idea of the resurrection, but

this
was neither
significant nor influential.
592
CHAPTER IX
CONCLUSION
In making a recapitulation of this survey, we shall endeavor
(i) to set
forth the current idea concerning the nature of the resurrection body;
to indicate the formative influences
made
it
tion;
(4) to
which
crystallized this doctrine
(2)
and
from this standard concepand apologetic arguments which were

employed; (5) to set forth the use and interpretation made of Scripture
touching the resurrection; (6) to present the bearing of the facts adduced
with reference to the transmission of the gospel material on the resurrecorthodox;
(3) to exhibit all variations
point out the theological
tion of Jesus.
I.
The
current idea of the resurrection in the ante-Nicene period was
that of a bodily resurrection in the material sense, or of this very flesh,
with
all its particles intact
mention
and unchanged.
of the resurrection to the close of
clearly traceable.
is
the
first
this
post-Apostolic
conception
is
monopseudo-Justin, Athenagoras, TertuUian, Methodius
Such
graphs of the period
and such
From
our period
is
the view presented in
all
the surviving
the conception which becamê crystallized in the early creed,
which later on, in an enlarged form, became the common creed of Christendom. Even at the very beginning of our period Paul's conception fell
into disfavor; and the idea of a fleshly resurrection, which subsequent
Fathers more fully developed, with detailed descriptions and accumulated
arguments, prevailed. The latter half of the second century and the opening years of the third, being the time of the labors of the apologists and
the period when the fleshly resurrection was
and most realistic terms. An absolute identity
between the mundane and the heavenly body was maintained. The body
is to rise with the same form, and with the same component parts and
the
great polemicists,
described in
its
is
fullest
members, from the grave, as
it
possessed while alive.
And
not merely
same body be restored, but also ihe same substances in the body.
In fact, the former body will simply be reanimated and reinstated. Many
a wTiter assumed a quasi-scientific attitude in his attempt to set forth, in
detailed description, just exactly how the resurrection body is to reappear
will the
its dissolved parts, and how the new corporeality is to be constituted.

Even the very elements and minutest particles, even if they are dissolved
and mixed up with other elements or assimilated into the tissues of animals,
from
593]
79
80
be recalled and
will
will take their original place in the
body which
is
to
be raised.
The same gross materialism predicated of the future resurrection life

men was also ascribed to the post-resurrection life of Jesus. The fleshly
resurrection of Jesus was attested with much more consistency, and with
of
even a greater realism, than
it
was
set forth in the canonical gospels.
for example, in his post-resurrection

of
which he partook
is
life
Thus,
Jesus not merely ate, but the food
purposely described, and
it is
even said that he ate
expressly for the purpose of showing his teeth; he not merely revealed the
Scriptures to his disciples, as the gospels
tell us,
but he also sang hymns
with them; he not merely showed his crucified body, and challenged his
disciples to touch
wounds were
is
and handle him, as set forth in John and Luke, but his
and he was actually handled; he not merely
actually touched,
described as ascending into heaven, with a silence as to the nature of
body which ascended, but
the
his ascension as well as his session is in "this
very flesh."
A
all
few modifications in the resurrection body were allowed by nearly
writers
who
held to these extreme physical conceptions;
minds these did not

it
is
but in their
in the least contradict a fleshly resurrection.
often asserted (i) that the flesh rises perfect
and
entire,
Thus,
without any
and deformities which may have been acquired through birth or

(2) that the body, rising with its former members and organs,
will, nevertheless, lose some of the functions pertaining to these organs,
especially those of procreation and digestion; (3) that the animalism and
the corruptibility adhering to the earthly tabernacle will find no place in
the resurrection body, since it will be clothed upon with incorruptibility.
These characteristic changes refer only to the resurrection of the righteous;
while the resurrection body of the wicked whenever such a resurrection
persists in all its former defects, diseases, and corruptions.
is predicted
Doubtless in many cases where the resurrection is referred to without
defects
accident;
specifying
its
character,
This materialistic view
it is
is
a fleshly resurrection that
is tacitly
assumed.
unmistakably present in the apostolic Fathers;
and suggested, rather than elaborately argued. In

same idea assumed a more definite form, a firmer ground,
While in the polemicists the same
together with an appeal to reason.
idea was couched in unequivocal terms, and not merely defended through
The most comprehensive prereason, but also supported by Scripture.
but
it is
briefly stated
the apologists the
sentation of this doctrine appears in Tertullian,
who
gathered together
every item of evidence and used every thread of reason which his master
mind could marshal.
Subsequent writers walked

594
in the footsteps
and

under the shadow
and
of this first great Latin theologian, calmly
so that their contribution to the idea of a fleshly resurrection
is
The phrase
subsequent Christian history.
all
flesh"
is
found nowhere
securely,
very small.
Indeed, this latter statement need not be confined to our period;

to
81
it
applies
"resurrection of the
in Christian literature prior to Justin {Dia. 80),
but the belief in the resurrection of the

long before the phrase was coined.
each conveying the same content
In
flesh
was current and widespread

a progression of terms
fact, there is
the resurrection
of the dead, the resur-
rection of the body, the resurrection of the flesh. ^
The
first
is
mainly
the second belongs chiefly to the early Fathers, while the last
biblical,
superseded both and became the universal phrase of Christendom, finding

its
way
into the Apostles' Creed.
Four influences were formative
2.
in creating, establishing,
and stand-
ardizing the idea of a resurrection of the flesh such as has just been described.
Two
were negative Hellenism and Gnosticism; and two were

Jewish messianism and the resurrection narratives the gospels.
of these
positive
of
We
a)
began with an
a-priori
presumption that because Christianity
was very early transported to Graeco-Roman soil, Graeco-Roman influences

would be operative. An inductive study has revealed the truth that the
Christian idea of the resurrection was materially influenced by the Greek
conception of immortality.
Contrary, however, to the usual influence
Greek thought on Christian ideas, the influence in this case was emphatiIt has been correctly pointed out that the tenets of ofiicial
cally negative.
orthodoxy, especially with reference to the idea of God and the person of
of
Christ, are highly colored, in
form and content, with Graeco-Roman thought.
But with respect to the resurrection this statement does not hold good.
There
is
sition to
no compromise with the Greek idea
The
it.
early church set
itself
of immortality,
but an oppo-
so rigorously against the simple
doctrine of the soul's persistence without a
body
after death, that, in
oppo-
and gross conception

The resurrection of a physical body was very abhorrent
to Graeco-Roman culture; because in it the Platonic idea of the body
And, in opposition to Platonic dualism
TO o-w/Att (TTiixa is pronounced.
sition to
it, it
was impelled
a most
to set forth
literal
and the disparagement of the flesh, the apologists not merely undertook
to show its worthfulness, but also took in hand a detailed demonstration
of the resurrection in a quasi-scientific
h)
I
Gnostic influence
The change
is
in the titles of the early
veys some significance: pseudo-Justin,

ffeus veKpGiv
TertuUian,
De
manner.
parallel to Hellenistic influence, and, in reality,
monographs
is
Ilepi avaffTdaeias;
Resurrectione Carnis.
595
scarcely accidental, but con-
Athenagoras, Uepl dvaard-
82
was an
indirect
Christian ideas.
resurrection;
way in which Greek influence operated most strongly on

The Gnostics denied the salvabiHty of the flesh and its
and thereby erecting a hostile camp, they became a negative

and the estabhshment of the orthodox position.
influence in the creation
The church at large set itself most vehemently against Gnostic cosmology,
and the dualism and Docetism accruing therefrom. The idea of the resurGnosticism outlined its whole
rection was the crux of the whole matter.
denial
of a fleshly resurrection.
scheme of redemption by beginning with a
intellectual
combat, every arguTertullian
met,
in
a
great
Irenaeus and
converted
the idea of the
and
in
doing
so
they
ment of their opponents;
conception
into
a
still
more
materialistic
material
body
resurrection of a
into,
allowing
would
have
forced
them
no
room for
alone
Hellenism
than
any variation or shadow
of turning.
Just as the articles of the Apostles'
Creed were called forth by a contra- Gnostic or contra-Marcion tendency

so likewise the
of which the resurrection of the flesh is one expression
bulk of the arguments in proof of the resurrection of the

of the
ences
counter-arguments of the Gnostics.
flesh arose
because
Indeed, these negative influ-
the Hellenic and the Gnostic were important factors
in the deter-
mination of the crystallization of the resurrection conception.

c)
was pointed out
It
in
a former chapter that the Jewish belief in
the resurrection, save in Alexandrian Judaism,
was that
of a bodily resur-
rection in the material sense for the purpose of participation in the messianic
kingdom.
The
resurrection
into that sensuous
kingdom
to
was a preliminary condition
of
entrance
be established at the time of the Messiah's
This eschatological element was all-controlling in the days in

which Christianity had its birth and early development. Messianic and
Salvation was
apocalyptic ideas were bodily transferred to Christianity.
a thing of the future, and it included the enjoyment of a visible and a
coming.
material
kingdom
to
be established at Christ's second coming.
neces-
was a general resurrection in which the dead bodies

were to be reanimated and reinstated. The Jewish apocalypses imbedded
in Christian thought and literature, such as those found in the eschatological discourses of our canonical gospels, and the apocalypses of John
and Peter, were a most potent influence in the creation and the establishment of the idea of a fleshly resurrection. Chiliasm likewise was an elesary corollary to all this
ment which played no small part
who were
in the formation of the resurrection con-
kingdom on earth
was
logical
it
a
sequence to
were represented as rising in the flesh;
When,
project into the second resurrection that which was true of the first.
temporal
kingdom
an
earthly
died
away,
sensuous
view
of
however, the
ception.
The
saints
to share in
and
596
Christ's
83
and when chiliasm was no longer in force, and when the goal of future destiny immediately became heaven, the idea of the resurrection of the flesh
continued to persist in spite of the cessation of the influence that gave
to
Though
it.
the Christian idea of a bodily resurrection
rise
was propped
by other than Jewish influences, it must not be forgotten, however, that it

had received a momentum from Jewish messianism which carried it along
in history beyond the days of chiliasm and apocalyptic ideas.
d) Similarly, the gospel narratives of
the resurrection of Jesus, both
canonical and uncanonical, were formative influences in the creation and
These
crystallization of the orthodox position.
mere
give us a picture of a
narratives, as a whole,
which had
revivification of a fleshly body,
The empty tomb and the

the Gospels of John and Luke
lain
in the tomb.
nature of the appearances as
described in
naturally control the uncritical
student in the formulation of his conception of the resurrection.

narratives are so realistic
and so simple and
so vivid that
These
when once read
or
heard they cannot easily be blotted out of the memory; and the tendency
in every uncritical
tives as to
and Jesus
mind
is
so to interpret all the post-resurrection narra-
accord with the most

in
and also to interpret Paul

Unequipped with critical apparatus,
realistic ones,
consonance with them.
the ante-Nicene Fathers did just this very thing
been done repeatedly
since.
The account
of
which
appearance had been a potent influence ever since
more
more
3.
it
was succeeded by written

these had become canonical.
so after oral tradition

so after
indeed has also
an empty tomb and a bodily
was conceived, but

and still
narratives,
bodily resurrection in the material sense, though
it
was
in the
ante-Nicene period, the prevailing view, was, however, not the exclusive
view.
variety of other views
which
differed considerably
from that
of
the church at large were sometimes held and received currency in some
Naturally
circles.
we
think
first of
the Gnostics,
who
believing only in
the future existence of the soul, denied the salvability of the flesh
claimed
its
dualistic.
resurrection from the grave.
They
dis-
asserted the destruction of the body, but affirmed the
eternal continuity of the soul.

this
and
Their psychology was Platonico-
There was, however, a
slight deviation
elementary psychology on the part of a few Gnostic
such an extent as to alter this fundamental tenet.

rection, not of the soul as such, but
is
from
but not to
Some taught a
resur-
a continuance of something within the
soul, the inner or intellectual life (Valentinus)
sects,
while others maintained
neither of soul nor of body, but of a third substance
(Lucan)
In the second place, there were those
597
who
interpreted the resurrection
84
in
an ethico-religious sense instead
an eschatological
of
in the
new
Such a view
life.
Paul and Thecla.
fully in
found only once
in
is
referred to in II Tim.,
Now
and reappears more
the Pauline view of the resurrection
our period, and that
Origen deliberately denied a
They taught
who has started
sense.
that the resurrection has already taken place in the believer
is
fleshly resurrection
is
Alexandrian school.
in the
and held
consistently to
a conception compatible with Paul's characterization of a spiritual body.

This, in fact,
is
Origen based
teaching,
The ground on which
the only Pauline peak in our period.

his ideas
was twofold: a correct interpretation
and a philosophic conception
of Pauline
of
matter not incongruous to a
of
our period
spiritual body.
As a
in
rule every Christian
monument
holds to the one or the other view
is, it
some
writers, or rather
but there
an overlapping
is
also
is
consistent
that
an inconsistency
one view upon another.
of
Just
by Luke and John the idea of

a spiritual body and of a material body are placed side by side, if not interwoven or even welded together; so likewise in the Fathers personal
immortality (Greek), spiritual body (Paul), and a material body (Lukeas in the resurrection appearances described
John) sometimes overlap, and
this
in
various combinations.
Athena-
goras postulates a resurrection of the flesh in as gross and material a form

as could be imagined,
and yet there are passages which undoubtedly
a Pauline thought, and when read in isolation from the

to the idea of
a spiritual body.
In
fact,
overlapping of the
reflect
come
close
he goes so far as to use the term
"heavenly spirit" for the resurrection body.

of the
rest,
This
the clearest instance
is
Pauline idea upon the fleshy idea.
This
was presumably a conscious overlapping, and we are of the opinion

that the same thing is true in a lesser degree, and unconsciously, in some
Even Irenaeus and Tertullian, the strongest advocates of a fleshly
others.
resurrection, were driven to make some compromises with Jesus and
Paul whom they inteq:)reted. They compromised in so far as they predicated a clothing upon and an incorruptibility and a state of discontinued
organic functions.
In Lactantius, on the other hand, there
between the Greek idea
of immortality, to
which he
is
a syncretism
logically holds,
and
the current conception of a fleshly body, associated with the crudest chiliasm.
And
in
Clement of Alexandria there
is
an eclecticism
of terms, culled
from
three possible conceptions.

4.
of arguments were adduced in support of the fleshly

and various theological implications were attached to this
Gnosticism vilified the flesh and denied its salvability, while the
variety
resurrection,
idea.
Alexandrian school held to
its inferiority;
598
but the church at large
and

this
was often
the
step in the
first
flesh.
argument
The two
of the flesh
became synonymous
Salvation was conceived wholly eschatologically;
terms.
salvation with
ideas were as a rule inseparable,
and resurrection
so that salvation of the flesh
associated
85
it
meant, in
its
and the enjoyment of everlasting felicity in the

presence of God and in company with his saints. Eternal life apart from
the participation of the flesh was conceived impossible. Hence the necessity of proving the religio-ethical worth of the body, which was the second
The flesh was created by God, and not by the
step in the argument.
Demiurge or angels; it had a special creation, was stamped in God's image,
God, it was declared, could not destroy
is the temple of the Holy Ghost.
Hence
his own creatures, much less his image in which his Spirit resides.
Furthermore, the flesh
the flesh cannot be destroyed, but must rise again.
is not the sole source of man's sinfulness, but both soul and flesh act together;
Jewish coloring, eternal
life
wherefore both must again be united after death for judgment.
More
significant
The
connection.
to
show
still is
the use
made
earliest apologetic
of the resurrection of Jesus in this
use of the resurrection of Jesus was
his messiahship, as is clearly indicated in the
New
Testament.
was made an apologetic to substantiate his divinity.

But the chief use to which his resurrection was put, and that very early
The
(cf. Ignatius), was to prove his humanity and the reality of his flesh.
proving of the physical resurrection of Jesus was often for no other reason
Then
his resurrection
than that
it
served as a link in a series of anti-Docetic arguments in which
the reality of the flesh of Jesus

was merely
was at stake. One purpose of adducing

In
to show that he really assumed flesh.
the theological thinking of the early church, the reality of the flesh of Jesus
resurrection of that flesh were indissoluble,
and the
consequence to man's redemption and
salvation.
and
The
of
momentous
reason that Christ
assumed flesh was it was aUeged for the purpose of saving the flesh of
man, which otherwise would have been destined to decay: that is, in Christ's
flesh and in the resurrection of that flesh is the assurance of our own fleshly
resurrection.
It was also asserted that if Christ's resurrection was not a
bodily resurrection in the material sense then the Eucharist is of no effect,
and man
fails to
take the "medicine of immortality."
A few of
the Chris-
tian Fathers also associated the virgin birth with the resurrection, affirming
that through that birth his flesh
again.
The
became
incorruptible so that
it
could
Pauline idea that Jesus was raised for our justification
however, never referred
But there were
rise
is,
to.
also other
tion of the resurrection.
arguments
in support of the current concep-
The arguments
599
thus far considered, from the
86
standpoint of salvation, applied only, in logical consistency, to the righteous.
But the unrighteous souls were also conceived of as coming forth from Hades
on the last day uniting with their former bodies, that they might be judged
and receive punishment. Although the soul, whether spoken of as corporeal or incorporeal, was thought of as being sensible to inflictions and
blessings;
bodied
nevertheless, full
Again,
state.
it
recompense could not be given
was thought unworthy
justice not to allow the flesh to share in the
punishment
in the
rewards of
its
good works, or
Finally, the Fathers
of its evil works.
in the disem-
God's goodness and
of
undertook to
was perfectly natural, and that God

has both the power and the knowledge and the will to bring it about. If
God could create the body in the beginning, he surely can re-create it from
show
that the resurrection of the flesh
The analogy
the dissolved elements at the last day.
of the seed, the plant,
and the seasons, and the symbol
the heavenly bodies,
of the
phoenix were
furnished as collaterally confirming the possibility of the resurrection.
The mystery
of healing,
of life
and the
and growth from procreation, the scriptural miracles

end of man were also used as proofs of a physical
final
resurrection.
Just as there
5.
rection, so there
is
is
also
no uniform conception
no uniform system
Those who adhered
Scripture.
as a rule, followed in a certain
of the nature of the resur-
and
in the use
interpretation of
to the current conception of the resurrection,
line,
and deviated very little from one another;
while the methods of Origen and the Gnostics are at variance with them.
The church
at large,
from the very
first,
endeavored to find authoritative
proof in the Old Testament in support of

of the flesh.
which
The two passages
set forth
doctrine of the resurrection
Old Testament
literature
a resurrection were used a few times as proof-texts:
passage from Isaiah being used at least

three times.
its
in the canonical
However,
the
passage from Daniel,
six times, the
in their search for proof-texts
and
in their
depend-
ence upon the Septuagint, which at times deviates from the original, the
orthodox Christians found a great
many passages
substantiating the resur-
Psalms and Job were freely used in this way.

Elijah and Enoch, the preservation of Jonah in the
rection of the former body.
The
translation of
whale's belly, and the preservation of Ananias and Azarias and Misael in
the
fire
tion.
were also used as proofs
The
classic
vision of the Valley of
on the apocalyptic
As concerns
of the possibility of
a bodily resurrec-
Old Testament for them was Ezekiel's

Dry Bones. There was also a slight dependence
example
in the
literature, especially the
the usage of the
New
Book
of
Enoch.
Testament, there
is,
in the first place,
a dependence on the Christian apocalypses as preserved

600
in our gospels,

in Paul,
and
The
in Revelation.
significant
and far-reaching use
gospel narratives,
of Scripture
Nevertheless, the most
was
in reference to the resur-
Literary dependence
rection narratives of Jesus.

ical
parable of Dives and Lazarus, too, was
used in the interest of the resurrection.
freely
and
87
explicitly
is
shown on
the canon-
all
on one uncanonical gospel
the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, used by Ignatius and Origen,' and

probably by pseudo-Justin.
gospels
and
selects
it
Ignatius places
on a par with the other
it
for his purpose, because a certain passage in
trays the physical resurrection of Jesus in bolder relief
consistency than
this
book
is
striking expression,
which was perpetuated through
cient to suggest that this gospel
must have been
make
use of a certain
This
it.
influential,
fact is suffi-
and
works there
is
such a
and some
that the
It
seems
of the other writers in
whose
resurrection account contained therein exerted a silent influence.

evident, therefore, that pseudo-Justin,
por-
Origen states that
depicted in the canonical gospels.
it is
uncanonical, but yet he feels that he must
it
and with more
realistic description of the
touching and handling of
by
Jesus, were either directly or indirectly influenced
this gospel.
In the use of the canonical gospels the same principle of selection
which controlled Ignatius
persists.
The
literary use of the resurrection nar-
John and Luke exceed those of Mark and Matthew

in the proportion of one to ten, and if we deduct the present conclusion of
Mark, we shall have very little left which is taken from Mark and Matthew.
The account of the watch at the tomb and the report to Pilate received
ratives of the Gospels of
Jesus' appearance to the
some
attention;
times,
and then never
in its
purely
women
is
imbedded
ance in Galilee
was
used)
separately
often
which, of course, was
(not speaking of
save possibly as
it is
principle of selection
John themselves.
spoken of only a few
Matthew-Mark form; while
his appear-
apostolic commission,
the
practically never used,
caricatured in the Gospel of Nicodemus.

is still
more marked within
The two
the Gospels of
The same
Luke and
outstanding accounts in which the fleshly
most pronounced within these gospels, are

These two narratives are repeatedly and incessantly used by the Fathers, in preference to any of the other
And within these narratives two expresnarratives within these gospels.
character of the risen Jesus
is
Luke 24:36-43; and John 20:26-29.
sions of Jesus especially prevail:
that
it
is I
myself:
bones, as ye behold
see
my
I
to the
me
my
the one, "See
handle me, and see; for a
spirit
hands and
my
feet,
hath not flesh and
having;" the other, "Reach hither thy finger, and
hands; and reach hither thy hand and put
it
into
Whatever is the truth concerning the identity or relation

Hebrews and the Doctrine of Peter will not in the least
601
my
of the
side."
More-
Gospel according
affect this deduction.
88
over, these narratives are not merely repeated as they are reported in our
gospels;
but, as a rule, they are highly colored with
The
times misquoted.
fleshly
body.
real touch
The
and a
comments and
at
accounts are elaborated to assert an unmistakable
challenge to be touched
and handled
is
changed
to a
The incongruity of having Jesus pass

next moment standing in his former body,
real handling.
through closed doors and the
was not felt. Once or twice, however, an attempt of reconciliawas made. Irenaeus attempts to solve the difficulty, by trying to
show that Jesus did the same thing before his death when he passed uninGregory Thaujured through the crowd that wished to apprehend him.
maturgus explains the phenomenon by saying that the one act was to show
as a rule,
tion
forth the energy of his divinity

is
and the other the
surprised to find, however, that comparatively
empty tomb.
In harmony with
Jesus
is
reality of his flesh.

little
use was
made
One
of the
this interpretation of the resurrection narratives of
assumed
the attitude
to
the teachings of Jesus
and
of Paul.
The
ante-Nicene Fathers interpreted Jesus as teaching the resurrec-
tion
of
the
spokesman
in
flesh
his
for the current
resurrection of the
discourse
two natures
preted in the same way.
the
to
Sadducees.
TertuUian
is
view when he says that Christ affirmed the

of
man
His conception
flesh
of
and
spirit.
Paul was
inter-
a spiritual body, having found
The term
"spiritual body" meant,

body not devoid of flesh and
"Flesh and blood"
blood, but regenerated and controlled by divine spirit.
was interpreted in an ethical, not in a physical sense. The expression
"being clothed upon" could not apply, it was thought, to disembodied
Paul's illustrations and comparisons were
souls, but to a fleshly body.
always used in the interests of a physical body. But what about incorruptibility, in the angelic state, and the purpose of this supervesture ?
This could not be boiled down in their material crucible. Hence the paradox appearing a few times that human beings undergo a change in their
no acceptance, was explained away.
in accordance with their interpretation, a
unchanged substance
of the flesh.
Origen pointed out contradictory elements in the resurrection narratives

of the gospels,
and
at the
same time made argumentative use of these

nature of the resurrection body is evi-
narratives in which the physical
dently affirmed but he spiritualized the accounts.
Jesus, he maintained,
body intermediate between the grossness of that which he

had before his suffering and a disembodied spirit. He adopted, more or
less, the interpretation current among many theologians today, namely that
there was a difference between the post-resurrection body and the ascen-
existed in a
602
Paul and Jesus are correctly interpreted by him and are made
sion body.
to
conform
to the conception of
appearances
Jesus was
to
never
be
to
non-material,
They found
real.
The
a spiritual body.
the biblical term "resurrection of the dead,"

rection
89
a non-fleshly resurrection.
Gnostics allegorized
and conceived the
asserting
also in Jesus
that
resur-
flesh
of
and Paul a testimony
Although charged with allegorical
some reason or other came nearer
pretation, they for
the
inter-
to the conclusions
which historico-grammatical interpretation reaches respecting the thought

of Jesus and Paul than did the church at large with its dependence on the
Gospel writers, and
6.
and
that
is
its
control of Jesus
and Paul by
the facts investigated will
Finally,
these.
admit of
another deduction,
with reference to the transmission of the gospel material on the
resurrection of Jesus prior to the fixing of that material in our present
Now
gospels.
tary evidence
is
if
certain forces operated of which
and
traceable, then
shows
to
if
direct
documen-
we may suppose
that these forces
which the evidence
have been operative operated further than the records directly
Our study has
prove.
we have
these forces were in existence before such evidence
revealed the fact that certain influences were potent
and establishment of the doctrine of the resurrection, that

they operated from the very beginning, and that they were in existence in
in the creation
the time of oral gospel transmission
Luke and John,
affecting naturally the
later gospels,
or the Judean cycle of resurrection appearances,
than the earlier gospels,
Mark and Matthew,
more
or the Galilean cycle of
appearances.
Thus we have
the flesh
many
much
was a
clearly discerned that the doctrine of the resurrection of
vital question in the
of the other doctrines of the
ante-Nicene period; that even
church were not yet
less systematized, the resurrection of the flesh
when
vitally discussed,
had already reached
Old Roman Symbol

little more than
a hundred years after the death of Jesus the resurrection of the flesh was
appended to a creed; and that in less than a hundred and fifty years after
its
pinnacle,
added
and had become a fourth
to the three of the
article in the
baptismal formula;
that in a
was written this doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh

was fully developed, and almost the last words as to the nature of this
body were spoken together with the apologetic and theological arguments
in support of it.
Moreover, we have also observed that there was a conthe First Gospel
stant tendency in the church at large to define the resurrection of Jesus

in ever
more
realistic terms, the
apocryphal gospels;
crudest realism coming forth out of the
that, in the use of the gospel narratives, the written
records were manifestly changed, through

603
comments and
variations in

90
quotations, in order to teach

of the post-resurrection
life
an ever more undisputed physical conception

Such a tendency appears
of Jesus.
clearly in a comparative study of the records in
resurrection narratives of Jesus has
come down
still
which the tradition
to us
whereby
it is
more
of the
evident
by pushing back through the uncanonical Gospel of Peter and the

Gospel according to the Hebrews, to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew,
that,
we pass from the conception of a material

between these two extremes, that is, in
and
that
body
there
an
overlapping
of both conceptions.
We have
Luke and John,
is
in
Gnosticism,
Gnosticism
was
tremendous
force;
that
noticed
that
a
also
or even to the epistles of Paul,
to a spiritual body,
Docetism was a ruling element; that
in the early apologetic of the
church
was used as a link in a series of arguments

Christ's flesh, and nothing more; and, sigGnosticism with its Docetic tendencies had
the idea of a fleshly resurrection

to substantiate the reality of
nificantly, that this incipient
its
root far
back
in
New
Testament times.
In like manner,
we have
observed that Pharisaic Judaism predicated a restoration of the forme
body
for the purpose of sharing in the messianic
Christianity bodily inserted this into
Therefore, by bringing
that these positive,
all
and these
of the resurrection were
its
kingdom and
these facts together,
still
that early
system of thought.
it
becomes apparent
stronger negative, influences on the idea
operative already in the period of oral gospel
must have been potent and formative on those

imbedded in the later gospels Luke and John
narratives descriptive of actual appearances, which have had a real foundation in experience, but which, in the period of oral transmission, became
highly colored with physical conceptions from an apologetic motive.
transmission,
and
that they
resurrection narratives
604
ri'iiiii?i'iM''iiiM'i';,v,?,!r''''-5'''L.i.r.,,
1012 01093 8019
.1"

Thompson - Metanoia in Greek Literature Until 100 N. CHR., in Historical and Linguistic Studies. Bd. 1

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Thompson - Metanoia in Greek Literature Until 100 N. CHR., in Historical and Linguistic Studies. Bd. 1

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

BS 2385

HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES

Historical and Linguistic Studies

LITERATURE RELATED TO THE

Writings of the Fathers

By Henry Martyn Herrick

Diatessaron of Tatian and th^ Synoptic Problem

with the Infinitive

By Hamilton Ford Allen

By Effie Freeman Thompson

Lexicographical and Historical

The Irenaeus Testimony

By Frank Grant Lewis

of the Resurrection in the

By Calvin Klopp Staudt

THE VIRGIN BIRTH

proposes to issue, from time to time,

Historical and Linguistic Studies

in Literature Eelated to the

be grouped in three series

and Exegetical Studies

THE VIRGIN BIRTH

purely an historical essay.

Virgin Birth as found

Taking the story

aims to trace the

and use throughout the ante-Nicene period.

tament and theology proper

The New Testament

Birth has a double attestation.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers

Ignatius; Aristides; Justin Martyr; Tatian

Clement of Alexandria; Origen Hippolytus; Cyprian;

The New Testament Apocrypha

Their theological purpose.

Old Testament models.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

This essay aims

this, special attention is

paid to the patristic

which has not hitherto

been thoroughly investigated with such a purpose

of the essay, and, as a prerequisite to tracing the use

virgin birth of Jesus in the ante-Nicene Christian literature.

aims to determine whether these narratives in reality represent a

double or only a single attestation of the virgin

their exact meaning.'

question whether the account of the virgin birth has in the

a single or a double attestation

the question of the

Matthew and Luke.

origin or independence of the infancy

Resch'' holds that

Matthew and Luke

used a pre-canonical child history, which had been translated from

it would be a harand third gospels. Conrady'

of the infancy stories of the

by a comparative examination of the material.

probably more significant as indicating Luke's understanding

of the virgin birth, as will

and David the two

The pseudonymous and

having access to the Old Testament material,