Volkmar strikes into a new vein [Endnote 60:1].  The Epistle of Clement presupposes the Book of Judith; but the Book of Judith must be dated A.D. 117-118; and therefore the Epistle of Clement will fall about A.D. 125.  What is the ground for this reasoning?  It consists in a theory, which Volkmar adopted and developed from Hitzig, as to the origin of the Book of Judith.  That book is an allegorical or symbolical representation of events in the early part of the rising of the Jews under Barcochba; Judith is Judaea, Nebuchadnezzar Trajan; Assyria stands for Syria, Nineveh for Antioch, Arphaxad for a Parthian king Arsaces, Ecbatana for Nisibis or perhaps Batnae; Bagoas is the eunuch-service in general; Holofernes is the Moor Lucius Quietus.  Out of these elements an elaborate historical theory is constructed, which Ewald and Fritzsche have taken the trouble to refute on historical grounds.  To us it is very much as if Ivanhoe were made out to be an allegory of incidents in the French Revolution; or as if the ‘tale of Troy divine’ were, not a nature-myth or Euemeristic legend of long past ages, but a symbolical representation of events under the Pisistratidae.

Examples such as this are apt to draw from the English reader a sweeping condemnation of German criticism, and yet they are really only the sports or freaks of an exuberant activity.  The long list given in ‘Supernatural Religion’ [Endnote 61:1] of those who maintain the middle date of Clement’s Epistle (A.D. 95-100) includes apparently all the English writers, and among a number of Germans the weighty names of Bleek, Ewald, Gieseler, Hilgenfeld, Koestlin, Lipsius, Laurent, Reuss, and Ritschl.  From the point of view either of authority or of argument there can be little doubt which is the soundest and most judicious decision.

Now what is the bearing of the Epistle of Clement upon the question of the currency and authority of the Synoptic Gospels?  There are two passages of some length which are without doubt evangelical quotations, though whether they are derived from the Canonical Gospels or not may be doubted.

The first passage occurs in c. xiii.  It will be necessary to give it in full with the Synoptic parallels, in order to appreciate the exact amount of difference and resemblance which it presents.

Matt. v. 7, vi. 14, |_Clem. ad Cor._ c. xiii. |_Luke_ vi. 36, 37, 31, vii. 12,2. | | vi. 38, 37, 38.
                      | [Especially re- |
                      | membering the word |
                      | of the Lord Jesus |
                      | which he spake ... |
                      | For thus he said:] |
v. 7.  Blessed are | Pity ye, that ye may | vi. 36.  Be ye mer-
the pitiful, for they | be pitied:  forgive, | ciful, etc. vi. 37.  Ac-
shall be pitied. vi. | that it may be for- | quit, and ye shall be