THE CHURCH QUARTERLY REVIEW. No LXI. OCTOBER 1890. ART. I. THE UNRECORDED SAYINGS OF 1. Agrapha: aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente in möglicher Vollständigkeit zusammengestellt und quellenkritisch untersucht von ALFRED RESCH. In Gebhardt und Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Band v. Heft 4. (Leipzig, 1889.) 2. Das Hebräer-Evangelium: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Kritik des hebräischen Matthäus. Von RUDULPH HANDMANN. In Texte und Untersuchungen. v. Heft 2. (Leipzig, 1889.) Band WE are expressly told by St. John that besides the things which he has recorded in his Gospel there were many other things which Jesus had said and done (xxi. 25). Even if this Evangelist had not so emphatically stated it, our own common sense would convince us that it was, in the nature of things, impossible that an absolutely complete record should have been given of everything which our Blessed Lord had said and done during the years of His earthly life. We may be assured, then, that the other three Evangelists as well as the fourth aimed at no more than to make a selection of those of our Lord's words and deeds which they judged it most important that the Church should possess. We may be quite sure that they have told us all that it was essential for us to know-quite enough to attain what St. John declares to have been his object, namely, 'that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing we might have life through His name' (xx. 31). Yet the more lively our sense of the inestimable value of what has been given us the more natural it is that we should hunger for more. We ask ourselves, Can nothing be added to that biography of our Lord which has been given us in the Gospels? The harvest no doubt was well reaped by the VOL. XXXI.-NO. LXI. B four Evangelists; but are we forbidden to think that they may have left behind some materials for a gleaning? We have one striking proof that they did not include in their Gospels every saying of our Lord which it had been in their power to record; for St. Luke, in the Acts, has added one which neither he nor any of the other Evangelists had included in his Gospel, and that one of the most precious of the gracious words that proceeded from our Lord's mouth: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive' (xx. 35). It surely seems a thing not to be pronounced impossible that some trustworthy historical tradition might be obtained to supplement what inspired pens have recorded. Our Saviour lived a public life; eager multitudes thronged Him, hoping to benefit by His healing power, or desiring to be instructed by His teaching. For example, St. Matthew tells us in general terms (ix. 35), 'Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.' Is it unlikely that the grateful recollection of some of those on whom these works of healing had been done should preserve the details of their cure, or that among His hearers in the synagogue there should be some who would store up in their memory the words of Him who spoke as never man spake? It would, therefore, be not unnatural if, in addition to those traditions of our Lord's life and teaching, the authenticity of which was guaranteed by inspired Evangelists, we had also others, not so well attested yet by no means to be summarily rejected. The probability of the existence of such uncanonical traditions rises higher when we learn that at a very early period traditions of the kind not only circulated from mouth to mouth, but were committed to writing. So St. Luke tells us in his preface, from which we learn that before he wrote his Gospel, already 'many had taken in hand' to draw up a narrative of the events of the Saviour's life. It is notorious that there are now extant non-canonical Gospels, one at least of which can claim a very early date, amongst which it might have been hoped we should recover a pre-canonical Gospel, or at least some fragments of such a Gospel. But critics of all schools are agreed that nothing valuable of the kind is to be found in these extant Gospels, concerning the character of which the name apocryphal, by which they are generally known, conveys no false impression. They are all later, some of them much later, than the canonical Gospels; and whatever original matter they contain has all the marks of being pure invention. Yet it has been thought not impossible to recover by critical enquiry some fragments at least of predecessors of the canonical Gospels. On comparison of the synoptic Gospels large portions are found common to all three, agreeing so closely, not only in sense but in form of expression, as to suggest that either one Evangelist copied the work of another or that all drew from a common source. Now the current of critical opinion is decidedly adverse to the notion that one Evangelist copied another. Certainly, at least as far as the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke are concerned, if we suppose that either Evangelist was acquainted with the work of the other, we find it almost impossible to explain why he should have omitted so much useful for his purpose, to say nothing of a multitude of variations or even apparent contradictions. The hypothesis has, therefore, found considerable favour that before any of our existing Gospels was composed the apostolical tradition concerning our Lord's life and teaching had already assumed some written form which was made use of independently by our Evangelists. Various attempts have been made by the help of our present Gospels to restore this, which, if the hypothesis be correct, would deserve to be regarded as the earliest of all the Gospels. It is not our purpose in this article to enter into so large a subject as to discuss what measure of success, if any, has been obtained in any of these speculations. It is evident that if they were successful in the highest degree they would do no more than mark out in our existing Gospels some specially ancient part, and would do nothing to supplement the fourfold narrative on which exclusively the investigation rests. We must look, then, for information to uninspired sources; and though these add nothing trustworthy to our knowledge of the incidents of our Lord's life, yet what can be gleaned from them as to His sayings is not hastily to be rejected. We occasionally find in early writers words quoted as having been spoken by our Lord which we cannot identify with any of those recorded in the Gospels. Some of these sayings are pretty generally known to theological students, as, for example, Be ye approved money-changers.' The character of almost all these alleged sayings is such that nothing forbids us to believe that some such words may have been spoken by our Lord if only the evidence as to His having uttered them were good enough. The sayings of our Blessed Lord are so precious that it would be a welcome discovery if it were really possible to make any trustworthy supplement to that selection of them which is included in our Gospels. We feel the fitness of the motto which Bishop Westcott has prefixed to his collection of these extra-canonical sayings-Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.' The collection in question is to be found as Appendix C, ‘On the Apocryphal Traditions of the Lord's Words and Works,' added to Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, and is the fullest and most convenient collection of such traditions that had been made at the time of its publication. It is worth while to copy the little preface which Bishop Westcott prefixes to his collection. 'It is a fact of great significance that traditional accounts of words or works of the Lord which are not noticed in the Gospels are extremely rare. The Gospels are the full measure of what was known in the Apostolic age, and (may we not add?) of what was designed by Providence for the instruction of after ages. There are, however, some fragments which appear to contain true and original traits of the Lord's teaching, and as such are invested with the greatest interest. Some traditional sayings, again, are evidently duplicate recensions of passages contained in the Gospels. Others are so distorted by the admixture of explanation or comment as to present only a very narrow point of connexion with the Evangelic history' (p. 428, 3rd edit.). We have indicated quotations of early writers as a source from which some additions to the inspired narrative may be obtained; we ought not to omit to name another-namely, various readings of early manuscripts. It is notorious that Codex D, for example, is full of additions to the canonical text. One of the best known examples, resting solely on the authority of that manuscript, is the story of the man working on the Sabbath, to whom our Lord is reported to have said, 'O man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and art a transgressor of the law.' Though Codex D is but a sixth-century manuscript yet its type of text is recognized as of much greater antiquity; and its uncanonical additions deserve attention as traditions concerning the Gospel history which circulated, in all probability, as early as the second century. Moreover the severity of modern criticism tends to transfer some few passages from the received text of the Gospels to the category of uninspired additions. Thus the story of the woman taken in adultery is now by common consent of critics rejected as being no part of the Gospel of St. John; yet, considered as an uncanonical addition, is recognized as having very high claims to respectful attention. Still more does this remark apply to some verses rejected by Westcott and Hort. Thus if the words, |