Sanday opens by acknowledging that his book was commissioned by the Christian Evidence Society and thus falls under apologetics, a label he admits is not altogether a recommendation in his own eyes. He insists that ideally, apologetics should not exist apart from the general search for truth, and that any consideration put in place of truth stands aside from the path of science. This frank admission sets a tone of scholarly caution rather than polemic, and it immediately signals that the work will engage closely with textual evidence rather than mere assertion.

The Preface as Methodological Statement

Sanday’s preface is more than a courtesy; it is a compact statement of method. He explains that the mind cannot become a blank sheet, but must have its praejudicia—judgments formed on grounds extrinsic to the immediate inquiry. By using the Latin term and glossing it, he acknowledges bias while aiming to keep it in check. He also notes that the work was written at the request of the Christian Evidence Society, which might make it suspect to some readers. Yet he does not hide this; instead, he uses it to frame his approach: the search for truth must override any partisan aim. This preface prepares the reader for a work that will be both defensive and rigorously analytical.

Quotation Analysis: The Basilides Example

Sanday devotes considerable space to examining quotations attributed to the Gnostic teacher Basilides and his school. He argues that a passage found only in one canonical Gospel—such as a saying from Matthew—is probably drawn from that Gospel, not from a lost apocryphal source. He points to the small number of additional facts gleaned from writers who supposedly used apocryphal Gospels as evidence that the canonical Gospels were the fullest and most comprehensive of their kind. He then analyzes a specific quotation from Epiphanius, noting a transposition of clauses in Matthew 7:6. Sanday compares this to known manuscript variations in the Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer, arguing that such transpositions are common in quotations made from memory. He concludes that the verbal resemblance is very close and that the quotation was likely derived from Matthew, possibly by Basilides himself.

The Role of Manuscript Variation

Sanday frequently appeals to manuscript evidence to support his arguments. In discussing the Basilidian quotation, he cites the Alexandrine cursive I and other witnesses for a variant reading. He also provides a detailed list of authorities for the order of the Beatitudes in Matthew 5, showing a broad division between the received order and a reversed order found in Western manuscripts. He notes that such variations are common even in manuscripts that profess to be exact transcripts, and that they are even more likely in quotations made from memory. This attention to textual criticism is central to Sanday’s method: he uses the instability of the manuscript tradition to argue that minor discrepancies in patristic quotations do not undermine their dependence on canonical Gospels.

The Fourth Gospel and the Hippolytean Quotations

Sanday signals that the Hippolytean quotations, whose ascription to Basilides or his school he leaves open, will become important when treating the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel. He notes that these quotations include an allusion to the star of the Magi and an exact verbal quotation of Luke 1:35. By linking these to the Synoptic Gospels, he builds a cumulative case for the early circulation of the canonical texts. The reader should watch for how Sanday uses such quotations to argue for the authenticity and early date of the Gospels, especially John, which is the subject of a later chapter. His method is to amass small, precise observations rather than to make sweeping claims.

Sanday’s work is best read as a detailed response to a specific critical text, but its value extends beyond that polemical context. The reader will benefit from attending to his handling of quotations, his use of manuscript evidence, and his careful distinction between probability and certainty. The book rewards those who follow its technical arguments, as Sanday consistently grounds his conclusions in the particulars of wording and transmission rather than in general principles.