{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37232/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37232","id":"gutenberg_37232","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37232","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Miracles","Supernatural"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSUPERNATURAL RELIGION:\n\nAN INQUIRY INTO THE REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION.\n\nBy Walter Richard Cassels\n\n\nIn Three Volumes: Vol. II.\n\nComplete Edition.\n\nCarefully Revised.\n\nLondon:\n\nLongmans, Greenland Co.,\n\n1879.\n\n\n\nPG EDITOR'S NOTE: This file has been provided with an image of the\noriginal scan for each page which is linked to the page number in the\nhtml file. Nearly every page in the text has many Greek passages which\nhave been indicated where they occur by [------] as have many complex\ntables; these passages may be viewed in the page images. Some of the\npages have only a few lines of text and then the rest of the page is\ntaken up with complex footnotes in English, Greek and Hebrew. The reader\nmay click on the page numbers in the html file to see the entire page\nwith the footnotes. --DW\n\n\n\n\nAN INQUIRY INTO THE REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. THE CLEMENTINES--THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS\n\nWe must now as briefly as possible examine the evidence furnished by\nthe apocryphal religious romance generally known by the name of \"The\nClementines,\" and assuming, falsely of course,(1) to be the composition\nof the Roman Clement. The Clementines are composed of three principal\nworks, the Homilies, Recognitions, and a so-called Epitome. The\nHomilies, again, are prefaced by a pretended epistle addressed by the\nApostle Peter to James, and another from Clement. These Homilies were\nonly known in an imperfect form till 1853, when Dressel(2) published\na complete Greek text. Of the Recognitions we only possess a Latin\ntranslation by Rufinus (a.d. 402).\n\n{2}\n\nAlthough there is much difference of opinion regarding the claims to\npriority of the Homilies and Recognitions, many critics assigning that\nplace to the Homilies,(1) whilst others assert the earlier origin of the\nRecognitions,(2) all are agreed that the one is merely a version of the\nother, the former being embodied almost word for word in the latter,\nwhilst the Epitome is a blending of the other two, probably intended\nto purge them from heretical doctrine. These works, however, which are\ngenerally admitted to have emanated from the Ebionitic party of the\nearly Church,(3) are supposed to be based upon older Petrine writings,\nsuch as the \"Preaching of Peter\" [------], and the \"Travels of Peter\"\n[------].(4)\n\n{3}\n\nIt is not necessary for our purpose to go into any analysis of the\ncharacter of the Clementines. It will suffice to say that they almost\nentirely consist of discussions between the Apostle Peter and Simon\nthe Magician regarding the identity of the true Mosaic and Christian\nreligions. Peter follows the Magician from city to city for the purpose\nof exposing and refuting him, the one, in fact, representing Apostolic\ndoctrine and the other heresy, and in the course of these discussions\noccur the very numerous quotations of sayings of Jesus and of Christian\nhistory which we have to examine.\n\nThe Clementine Recognitions, as we have already remarked, are only known\nto us through the Latin translation of Rufinus; and from a comparison of\nthe evangelical quotations occurring in that work with the same in the\nHomilies, it is evident that Rufinus has assimilated them in the course\nof translation to the parallel passages of our Gospels. It is admitted,\ntherefore, that no argument regarding the source of the quotations can\nrightly be based upon the Recognitions, and that work may, consequently,\nbe entirely set aside,(1) and the Clementine Homilies alone need occupy\nour attention.\n\nWe need scarcely remark that, unless the date at which these Homilies\nwere composed can be ascertained, their value as testimony for the\nexistence of our Synoptic Gospels is seriously affected. The difficulty\nof arriving at a correct conclusion regarding this point, great under\nalmost any circumstances, is of course increased by the fact that the\nwork is altogether apocryphal, and most certainly not held by any one to\nhave\n\n{4}\n\nbeen written by the person whose name it bears. There is in fact nothing\nbut internal evidence by which to fix the date, and that internal\nevidence is of a character which admits of very wide extension down the\ncourse of time, although a sharp limit is set beyond which it cannot\nmount upwards. Of external evidence there is almost none, and what\nlittle exists does not warrant an early date. Origen, it is true,\nmentions [------],(1) which, it is conjectured, may either be the same\nwork as the [------], or Recognitions, translated by Rufinus, or\nrelated to it, and Epiphanius and others refer to [------];(2) but\nour Clementine Homilies are not mentioned by any writer before\npseudo-Athanasius.(3) The work, therefore, can at the best afford no\nsubstantial testimony to the antiquity and apostolic origin of our\nGospels. Hilgenfeld, following in the steps of Baur, arrives at the\nconclusion that the Homilies are directed against the Gnosticism of\nMarcion (and also, as we shall hereafter see, against the Apostle Paul),\nand he, therefore, necessarily assigns to them a date subsequent to a.d.\n160. As Reuss, however, inquires: upon this ground, why should a still\nlater date not be named, since even Tertullian wrote vehemently against\nthe same Gnosis.(4) There can be little doubt that the author was a\nrepresentative of Ebionitic Gnosticism, which had once been the purest\nform of primitive Christianity, but later, through its own development,\nthough still more through the rapid growth around it of Paulinian\ndoctrine, had\n\n{5}\n\nassumed a position closely verging upon heresy. It is not necessary\nfor us, however, to enter upon any exhaustive discussion of the date at\nwhich the Clementines were written; it is sufficient to show that there\nis no certain ground upon which a decision can be based, and that even\nan approximate conjecture can scarcely be reasonably advanced. Critics\nvariously date the composition of the original Recognitions from about\nthe middle of the second century to the end of the third, though the\nmajority are agreed in placing them at least in the latter century.(1)\nThey assign to the Homilies an origin at different dates within a period\ncommencing about the middle of the second century, and extending to a\ncentury later.2\n\nIn the Homilies there are very numerous quotations\n\n{6}\n\nof sayings of Jesus and of Gospel history, which are generally placed\nin the mouth of Peter, or introduced with such formulae as: \"The teacher\nsaid,\" \"Jesus said,\" \"He said,\" \"The prophet said,\" but in no case does\nthe author name the source from which these sayings and quotations are\nderived. That he does, however, quote from a written source, and not\nfrom tradition, is clear from the use of such expressions as \"in another\nplace [------](1) he has said,\" which refer not to other localities or\ncircumstances, but another part of a written history.(2) There are in\nthe Clementine Homilies upwards of a hundred quotations of sayings of\nJesus or references to his history, too many by far for us to examine\nin detail here; but, notwithstanding the number of these passages, so\nsystematically do they vary, more or less, from the parallels in our\ncanonical Gospels, that, as in the case of Justin, Apologists are\nobliged to have recourse to the elastic explanation, already worn so\nthreadbare, of \"free quotation from memory\" and \"blending of passages\"\nto account for the remarkable phenomena presented. It must, however,\nbe evident that the necessity for such an apology at all shows the\ninsufficiency of the evidence furnished by these quotations. De\nWette says: \"The quotations of evangelical works and histories in the\npseudo-Clementine writings, from their nature free and inaccurate,\npermit only an uncertain conclusion to be\n\n{7}\n\ndrawn as to their written source.\"(1) Critics have maintained very\ndifferent and conflicting views regarding that source. Apologists, of\ncourse, assert that the quotations in the Homilies are taken from\nour Gospels only.(2) Others ascribe them to our Gospels, with a\nsupplementary apocryphal work: the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or\nthe Gospel according to Peter.(3) Some, whilst admitting a subsidiary\nuse of some of our Gospels, assert that the author of the Homilies\nemploys, in preference, the Gospel according to Peter;(4) whilst others,\nrecognizing also the similarity of the phenomena presented by these\nquotations with those of Justin's, conclude that the author does not\nquote our Gospels at all, but makes use of the Gospel according to\nPeter, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(5) Evidence permitting of\nsuch divergent conclusions manifestly cannot be of a decided character.\nWe may affirm, however, that few of those who are\n\n{8}\n\nwilling to admit the use of our Synoptics by the author of the Homilies\nalong with other sources, make that concession on the strength of the\nabsolute isolated evidence of the Homilies themselves, but they are\ngenerally moved by antecedent views on the point. In an inquiry like\nthat which we have undertaken, however, such easy and indifferent\njudgment would obviously be out of place, and the point we have to\ndetermine is not whether an author may have been acquainted with our\nGospels, but whether he furnishes testimony that he actually was in\npossession of our present Gospels and regarded them as authoritative.\n\nWe have already mentioned that the author of the Clementine Homilies\nnever names the source from which his quotations are derived. Of these\nvery numerous quotations we must again distinctly state that only two or\nthree, of a very brief and fragmentary character, literally agree with\nour Synoptics, whilst all the rest differ more or less widely from\nthe parallel passages in those Gospels. Some of these quotations are\nrepeated more than once with the same persistent and characteristic\nvariations, and in several cases, as we have already seen, they agree\nmore or less closely with quotations of Justin from the Memoirs of the\nApostles. Others, again, have no parallels at all in our Gospels, and\neven Apologists are consequently compelled to admit the collateral\nuse of an apocryphal Gospel. As in the case of Justin, therefore, the\nsingular phenomenon is presented of a vast number of quotations of which\nonly one or two brief phrases, too fragmentary to avail as evidence,\nperfectly agree with our Gospels; whilst of the rest, which all vary\nmore or less, some merely resemble combined passages of two Gospels,\nothers merely contain the sense, some\n\n{9}\n\npresent variations likewise found in other writers or in various parts\nof the Homilies are repeatedly quoted with the same variations, and\nothers are not found in our Gospels at all. Such phenomena cannot\nbe fairly accounted for by any mere theory of imperfect memory or\nnegligence. The systematic variation from our Synoptics, variation\nproved by repetition not to be accidental, coupled with quotations which\nhave no parallels at all in our Gospels, more naturally point to the\nuse of a different Gospel. In no case can the Homilies be accepted as\nfurnishing evidence even of the existence of our Gospels.\n\nAs it is impossible here to examine in detail all of the quotations in\nthe Clementine Homilies, we must content ourselves with this distinct\nstatement of their character, and merely illustrate briefly the\ndifferent classes of quotations, exhausting, however, those which\nliterally agree with passages in the Gospels. The most determined\nof recent Apologists do not afford us an opportunity of testing\nthe passages upon which they base their assertion of the use of our\nSynoptics, for they simply assume that the author used them without\nproducing instances.(1)\n\nThe first quotation agreeing with a passage in our Synoptics occurs\nin Hom. iii. 52: \"And he cried, saying: Come unto me all ye that are\nweary,\" which agrees with the opening words of Matt. xi. 28, but the\nphrase does\n\n     1 Teschendorf only devotes a dozen linos, with a note, to\n     the Clemontinos, and only in connection with our fourth\n     Gospel, which shall hero-after have our attention. Wann\n     wurden u. s. w., p. 90. In the same way Canon Westcott\n     passes them over in a short paragraph, merely asserting the\n     allusions to our Gospels to be \"generally admitted,\" and\n     only directly referring to one supposed quotation from Mark\n     which we shall presently examine, and one which he affirms\n     to be from the fourth Gospel. On the Canon, p. 251 f. [In\n     the 4th edition he has enlarged his remarks, p. 282 ff.]\n\n{10}\n\nnot continue, and is followed by the explanation: \"that is, who are\nseeking the truth and not finding it.\"(1) It is evident, that so short\nand fragmentary a phrase cannot prove anything.(2)\n\nThe next passage occurs in Hom. xviii. 15: \"For Isaiah said: I will open\nmy mouth in parables, and I will utter things that have been kept secret\nfrom the foundation of the world.\"(3) Now this passage, with a slightly\ndifferent order of words, is found in Matt. xiii. 35. After giving a\nseries of parables, the author of the Gospel says (v. 34), \"All these\nthings spake Jesus unto the multitudes in parables; and without a\nparable spake he not unto them; (v. 35) That it might be fulfilled which\nwas spoken by the prophet (Isaiah), saying: I will open my mouth in\nparables, &c.\" There are two peculiarities which must be pointed out in\nthis passage. It is not found in Isaiah, but in Psalm lxxviii. 2,(4) and\nit presents a variation from the version of the lxx. Both the variation\nand the erroneous reference to Isaiah, therefore, occur also in the\nHomily. The first part of the sentence agrees with, but the latter part\nis quite different from, the Greek of the lxx., which reads: \"I will\nutter problems from the beginning,\" [------].(5)\n\nThe Psalm from which the quotation is really taken is, by its\nsuperscription, ascribed to Asaph, who, in the Septuagint version of II.\nChronicles xxix. 30, is called a\n\n{11}\n\nprophet.(1) It was, therefore, early asserted that the original reading\nof Matthew was \"Asaph,\" instead of \"Isaiah.\" Porphyry, in the third\ncentury, twitted Christians with this erroneous ascription by their\ninspired evangelist to Isaiah of a passage from a Psalm, and reduced the\nFathers to great straits. Eusebius, in his commentary on this verse\nof the Psalm, attributes the insertion of the words, \"by the prophet\nIsaiah,\" to unintelligent copyists, and asserts that in accurate MSS.\nthe name is not added to the word prophet. Jerome likewise ascribes the\ninsertion of the name Isaiah for that of Asaph, which was originally\nwritten, to an ignorant scribe,(2) and in the commentary on the Psalms,\ngenerally, though probably falsely, ascribed to him, the remark is made\nthat many copies of the Gospel to that day had the name \"Isaiah,\" for\nwhich Porphyry had reproached Christians,(3) and the writer of the same\ncommentary actually allows himself to make the assertion that Asaph was\nfound in all the old codices, but ignorant men had removed it.(4) The\nfact is, that the reading \"Asaph\" for \"Isaiah\" is not found in any\nextant MS., and, although \"Isaiah\" has disappeared from all but a few\nobscure codices, it cannot be denied that the name anciently stood in\nthe text.(5) In the Sinaitic Codex, which is probably the earliest\nMS. extant, and which is assigned to the fourth century, \"the prophet\n_Isaiah_\" stands in the text by the first hand, but is erased by the\nsecond (b).\n\n{12}\n\nThe quotation in the Homily, however, is clearly not from our Gospel.\nIt is introduced by the words \"For Isaiah says:\" and the context is so\ndifferent from that in Matthew, that it seems most improbable that the\nauthor of the Homily could have had the passage suggested to him by the\nGospel. It occurs in a discussion between Simon the Magician and Peter.\nThe former undertakes to prove that the Maker of the world is not the\nhighest God, and amongst other arguments he advances the passage:\n\"No man knew the Father, &c.,\" to show that the Father had remained\nconcealed from the Patriarchs, &c., until revealed by the Son, and in\nreply to Peter he retorts, that if the supposition that the Patriarchs\nwere not deemed worthy to know the Father was unjust, the Christian\nteacher was himself to blame, who said: \"I thank thee, Lord of heaven\nand earth, that what was concealed from the wise thou hast revealed to\nsuckling babes.\" Peter argues that in the statement of Jesus: \"No man\nknew the Father, &c.,\" he cannot be considered to indicate another\nGod and Father from him who made the world, and he continues: \"For the\nconcealed things of which he spoke may be those of the Creator himself;\nfor Isaiah says: 'I will open my mouth, &c.' Do you admit, therefore,\nthat the prophet was not ignorant of the things concealed,\"(1) and so\non. There is absolutely nothing in this argument to indicate that the\npassage was suggested by the Gospel, but, on the contrary, it is used in\na totally different way, and is quoted not as an evangelical text, but\nas a saying from the Old Testament, and treated in connection with the\nprophet himself, and not with its supposed fulfilment in Jesus. It may\nbe remarked, that in the corresponding part of\n\n{13}\n\nthe Recognitions, whether that work be of older or more recent date, the\npassage does not occur at all. Now, although it is impossible to say\nhow and where this erroneous reference to a passage of the Old Testament\nfirst occurred, there is no reason for affirming that it originated in\nour first Synoptic, and as little for asserting that its occurrence\nin the Clementine Homilies, with so different a context and object,\ninvolves the conclusion that their author derived it from the Gospel,\nand not from the Old Testament or some other source. On the contrary,\nthe peculiar argument based upon it in the Homilies suggests a different\norigin, and it is very probable that the passage, with its erroneous\nreference, was derived by both from another and common source.\n\nAnother passage is a phrase from the \"Lord's Prayer,\" which occurs in\nHom. xix. 2: \"But also in the prayer which he commended to us, we have\nit said: Deliver us from the evil one\" [------]. It need scarcely be\nsaid, however, that few Gospels can have been composed without including\nthis prayer, and the occurrence of this short phrase demonstrates\nnothing more than the mere fact, that the author of the Homilies was\nacquainted with one of the most universally known lessons of Jesus, or\nmade use of a Gospel which contained it. There would have been cause for\nwonder had he been ignorant of it.\n\nThe only other passage which agrees literally with our Gospels is also\na mere fragment from the parable of the Talents, and when the other\nreferences to the same parable are added, it is evident that the\nquotation is not from our Gospels. In Hom. iii. 65, the address to\nthe good servant is introduced: \"Well done, good and faithful servant\"\n[------], which agrees\n\n{14}\n\nwith the words in Matt. xxv. 21. The allusion to the parable of the\ntalents in the context is perfectly clear, and the passage occurs in\nan address of the Apostle Peter to overcome the modest scruples of\nZaccheus, the former publican, who has been selected by Peter as his\nsuccessor in the Church of Caesarea when he is about to leave in pursuit\nof Simon the Magician. Anticipating the possibility of his hesitating\nto accept the office, Peter, in an earlier part of his address, however,\nmakes fuller allusions to the same parable of the talents, which we must\ncontrast with the parallel in the first Synoptic. \"But if any of those\npresent, having the ability to instruct the ignorance of men, shrink\nback from it, considering only his own ease, then let him expect to\nhear:\"\n\n[--Table--]\n\n{15}\n\nThe Homily does not end here, however, but continues in words not found\nin our Gospels at all: \"And reasonably: 'For,' he says, 'it is thine,\nO man, to put my words as silver with exchangers, and to prove them as\nmoney/\"(1) This passage is very analogous to another saying of Jesus,\nfrequently quoted from an apocryphal Gospel, by the author of the\nHomilies, to which we shall hereafter more particularly refer, but\nhere merely point out: \"Be ye approved money-changers\" [------].(2) The\nvariations from the parallel passages in the first and third Gospels,\nthe peculiar application of the parable to the _words_ of Jesus, and\nthe addition of a saying not found in our Gospels, warrant us in denying\nthat the quotations we are considering can be appropriated by our\ncanonical Gospels, and, on the contrary, give good reason for the\nconclusion, that the author derived his knowledge of the parable from\nanother source.\n\nThere is no other quotation in the Clementine Homilies which literally\nagrees with our Gospels, and it is difficult, without incurring the\ncharge of partial selection, to illustrate the systematic variation\nin such very numerous passages as occur in these writings. It would be\ntedious and unnecessary to repeat the test applied to the quotations\nof Justin, and give in detail the passages from the Sermon on the Mount\nwhich are found in the Homilies. Some of these will come before us\npresently, but with regard to the whole, which are not less than fifty,\nwe may broadly and positively state that they all more or less differ\nfrom our Gospels. To take the\n\n{16}\n\nseverest test, however, we shall compare those further passages which\nare specially adduced as most closely following our Gospels, and neglect\nthe vast majority which most widely differ from them. In addition to\nthe passages which we have already examined, Credner(1) points out the\nfollowing. The first is from Hom. xix. 2.(2) \"If Satan cast out Satan\nhe is divided against himself: how then can his kingdom stand?\" In the\nfirst part of this sentence, the Homily reads, [------] for the [------]\nof the first Gospel, and the last phrase in each is as follows:--\n\n[------]\n\nThe third Gospel differs from the first as the Homily does from both.\nThe next passage is from Hom. xix. 7.s \"For thus, said our Father, who\nwas without deceit: out of abundance of heart mouth speaketh.\" The Greek\ncompared with that of Matt. xii. 34.\n\n[------]\n\nThe form of the homily is much more proverbial. The next passage occurs\nin Hom. iii. 52: \"Every plant which the heavenly Father did not plant\nshall be rooted up.\" This agrees with the parallel in Matt. xv. 13, with\nthe important exception, that although in the mouth of Jesus, \"_the_\nheavenly Father\" is substituted for the \"_my_ heavenly Father\" of the\nGospel. The last passage pointed out by Credner, is from Hom. viii.\n4: \"But also 'many,' he said, 'called, but few chosen;'\" which may be\ncompared with Matt. xx. 16, &c.\n\n[------]\n\n{17}\n\nWe have already fully discussed this passage of the Gospel in connection\nwith the \"Epistle of Barnabas,\"[1] and need not say more here.\n\nThe variations in these passages, it may be argued, are not very\nimportant. Certainly, if they were the exceptional variations amongst a\nmass of quotations perfectly agreeing with parallels in our Gospels, it\nmight be exaggeration to base upon such divergences a conclusion that\nthey were derived from a different source. When it is considered,\nhowever, that the very reverse is the case, and that these are passages\nselected for their closer agreement out of a multitude of others either\nmore decidedly differing from our Gospels or not found in them at all,\nthe case entirely changes, and variations being the rule instead of the\nexception, these, however slight, become evidence of the use of a Gospel\ndifferent from ours. As an illustration of the importance of slight\nvariations in connection with the question as to the source from which\nquotations are derived, the following may at random be pointed out. The\npassage \"See thou say nothing to any man, but go thy way, show thyself\nto the priest\" [------] occurring in a work like the Homilies would,\nsupposing our second Gospel no longer extant, be referred to Matt viii.\n4, with which it entirely agrees with the exception of its containing\nthe one extra word [------]. It is however actually taken from Mark i.\n44, and not from the first Gospel. Then again, supposing that our first\nGospel had shared the fate of so many others of the [------] of Luke,\nand in some early work the following passage were found: \"A prophet is\nnot without honour except in his own country\n\n{18}\n\nand in his own house\" [------]t this passage would undoubtedly be\nclaimed by apologists as a quotation from Mark vi. 4, and as proving the\nexistence and use of that Gospel. The omission of the words \"and among\nhis own kin\" [------] would at first be explained as mere abbreviation,\nor defect of memory, but on the discovery that part or all of these\nwords are omitted from some MSS., that for instance the phrase is erased\nfrom the oldest manuscript known, the Cod. Sinaiticus, the derivation\nfrom the second Gospel would be considered as established. The author\nnotwithstanding might never have seen that Gospel, for the quotation is\ntaken from Matt. xiii. 57.(2)\n\nWe have already quoted the opinion of De Wette as to the inconclusive\nnature of the deductions to be drawn from the quotations in the\npseudo-Clementine writings regarding their source, but in pursuance\nof the plan we have adopted we shall now examine the passages which he\ncites as most nearly agreeing with our Gospels.(3) The first of these\noccurs in Hom. iii. 18: \"The Scribes and the Pharisees sit upon Moses'\nseat; all things therefore, whatsoever they speak to you, hear them,\"\nwhich is compared with Matt, xxiii. 2, 3: \"The Scribes and the Pharisees\nsit upon Moses' seat; all things therefore, whatsoever they say to\nyou, do and observe.\" We subjoin the Greek of the latter half of these\npassages.\n\n                                 {19}\n\nThat the variation in the Homily is deliberate and derived from the\nGospel used by the author is clear from the continuation: \"Hear _them_\n[------], he said, as entrusted with the key of the kingdom, which is\nknowledge, which alone is able to open the gate of life, through which\nalone is the entrance to eternal life. But verily, he says: They possess\nthe key indeed, but to those who wish to enter in they do not grant\nit.\"(1) The [------] is here emphatically repeated, and the further\nquotation and reference to the denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees\ncontinues to differ distinctly from the account both in our first and\nthird Gospels. The passage in Matt, xxiii. 13, reads: \"But woe unto you,\nScribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut the kingdom of heaven\nagainst men; for ye go not in yourselves neither suffer ye them that are\nentering to go in.\"(2) The parallel in Luke xi. 52 is not closer. There\nthe passage regarding Moses' seat is altogether wanting, and in ver.\n52, where the greatest similarity exists, the \"lawyers\" instead of the\n\"Scribes and Pharisees\" are addressed. The verse reads: \"Woe unto you,\nLawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in\nyourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.\"(3) The first\nGospel has not the direct image of the key at all: the Scribes and\nPharisees \"shut the kingdom of\n\n{20}\n\nheaven;\" the third has \"the key of knowledge\" [------] taken away by the\nlawyers, and not by the Scribes and Pharisees, whilst the Gospel of the\nHomilies has the key of the kingdom [------], and explains that this\nkey is knowledge [------]. It is apparent that the first Gospel uses an\nexpression more direct than the others, whilst the third Gospel explains\nit, but the Gospel of the Homilies has in all probability the simpler\noriginal words: the \"key of the kingdom,\" which both of the others have\naltered for the purpose of more immediate clearness. In any case it is\ncertain that the passage does not agree with our Gospel.(1)\n\nThe next quotation referred to by De Wette is in Hom. iii. 51: \"And also\nthat he said: 'I am not come to destroy the law.... the heaven and the\nearth will pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass\nfrom the law.'\" This is compared with Matt. v. 17, 18:(2) \"Think not\nthat I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to\ndestroy but to fulfil, (v. 18) For verily I say unto you: Till heaven\nand earth pass away one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from\nthe law, till all be fulfilled.\" The Greek of both passages reads as\nfollows:--\n\n[------]\n\n{21}\n\nThat the omissions and variations in this passage are not accidental is\nproved by the fact that the same quotation occurs again literally in\nthe Epistle from Peter(1) which is prefixed to the Homilies in which the\n[------] is\n\nrepeated, and the sentence closes at the same point The author in\nthat place adds: \"This he said that all might be fulfilled\" [------].\nHilgenfeld\n\nconsiders this Epistle of much more early date than the Homilies, and\nthat this agreement bespeaks a particular text.(2) The quotation does\nnot agree with our Gospels, and must be assigned to another source.\n\nThe next passage pointed out by De Wette is the erroneous quotation from\nIsaiah which we have already examined.(3) That which follows is found\nin Hom. viii. 7: \"For on this account our Jesus himself said to one who\nfrequently called him Lord, yet did nothing which he commanded: Why dost\nthou say to me Lord, Lord, and doest not the things which I say?\" This\nis compared with Luke vi. 46:(4) \"But why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do\nnot the things which I say?\"\n\n[------]\n\nThis passage differs from our Gospels in having the second person\nsingular instead of the plural, and in substituting [------] for\n[------] in the first phrase. The Homily, moreover, in accordance with\nthe use of the second person singular, distinctly states that the saying\nwas addressed to a person who frequently called Jesus \"Lord,\" whereas\nin the Gospels it forms part of the Sermon on the Mount with a totally\nimpersonal application to the multitude.\n\n{22}\n\nThe next passage referred to by De Wette is in Hom. xix. 2: \"And he\ndeclared that he saw the evil one as lightning fall from heaven.\" This\nis compared with Luke x. 18, which has no parallel in the other Gospels:\n\"And he said to them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.\"\n\n[------]\n\nThe substitution of [-------] for [-------], had he found the latter\nin his Gospel, would be all the more remarkable from the fact that the\nauthor of the Homilies has just before quoted the saying \"If Satan cast\nout Satan,\"(1) &c. and he continues in the above words to show\nthat Satan had been cast out, so that the evidence would have been\nstrengthened by the retention of the word in Luke had he quoted that\nGospel. The variations, however, indicate that he quoted from another\nsource.(2)\n\nThe next passage pointed out by De Wette likewise finds a parallel only\nin the third Gospel. It occurs in Hom. ix. 22: \"Nevertheless, though all\ndemons with all the diseases flee before you, in this only is not to\nbe your rejoicing, but in that, through grace, your names, as of the\never-living, are recorded in heaven.\" This is compared with Luke x. 20:\n\"Notwithstanding, in this rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto\nyou, but rejoice that your names are written in the heavens.\"\n\n[------]\n\n{23}\n\nThe differences between these two passages are too great and the\npeculiarities of the Homily too marked to require any argument to\ndemonstrate that the quotation cannot be successfully claimed by\nour third Gospel. On the contrary, as one of so many other passages\nsystematically varying from the canonical Gospels, it must rather be\nassigned to another source.\n\nDe Wette says: \"A few others (quotations) presuppose (voraussetzen) the\nGospel of Mark,\"(1) and he gives them. The first occurs in Hom. ii. 19:\n\"There is a certain Justa(2) amongst us, a Syrophoenician, a Canaantte\nby race, whose daughter was affected by a sore disease, and who came to\nour Lord crying out and supplicating that he would heal her daughter.\nBut he being also asked by us, said: 'It is not meet to heal the\nGentiles who are like dogs from their using different meats and\npractices, whilst the table in the kingdom has been granted to the sons\nof Israel.' But she, hearing this and exchanging her former manner of\nlife for that of the sons of the kingdom, in order that she might, like\na dog, partake of the crumbs falling from that same table, obtained, as\nshe desired, healing for her daughter.\"(3) This is compared with\nMark vii. 24--30,(4) as it is the only Gospel which calls the woman\na Syrophoenician. The Homily, however, not only calls her so, a very\nunimportant point, but gives her name as \"Justa.\"\n\n{24}\n\nIf, therefore, it be argued that the mention of her nationality supposes\nthat the author found the fact in his Gospel, and that as we know\nno other but Mark(1) which gives that information, that he therefore\nderived it from our second Gospel, the additional mention of the name\nof \"Justa\" on the same grounds necessarily points to the use of a Gospel\nwhich likewise contained it, which our Gospel does not. Nothing can\nbe more decided than the variation in language throughout this whole\npassage from the account in Mark, and the reply of Jesus is quite\nforeign to our Gospels. In Mark (vii. 25) the daughter has \"an unclean\nspirit\" [------]; in Matthew (xv. 22) she is \"grievously possessed by a\ndevil\" [------], but in the Homily she is \"affected by a sore disease\"\n[------]. The second Gospel knows nothing of any intercession on the\npart of the disciples, but Matthew has: \"And the disciples came and\nbesought him [------] saying: 'Send her away, for she crieth after\nus,'\"(2) whilst the Homily has merely \"being also asked by us,\" [------]\nin the sense of intercession in her favour. The second Gospel gives the\nreply of Jesus as follows: \"Let the children first be filled: for it is\nnot meet to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs.\nAnd she answered and said unto him: 'Yea, Lord, for the dogs also eat\nunder the table of the crumbs of the children. And he said unto her: For\nthis saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.\"(3) The\nnature of the reply of the woman is,\n\n{25}\n\nin the Gospels, the reason given for granting her request; but in\nthe Homily the woman's conversion to Judaism,(1) that is to say\nJudeo-Christianity, is prominently advanced as the cause of her\nsuccessful pleading. It is certain from the whole character of this\npassage, the variation of the language, and the reply of Jesus which is\nnot in our Gospels at all, that the narrative cannot rightly be assigned\nto them, but the more reasonable inference is that it was derived from\nanother source.(2)\n\nThe last of De Wette's(3) passages is from Hom. iii. 57: \"Hear, O\nIsrael; the Lord thy(4) God is one Lord.\" This is a quotation from\nDeuteronomy vi. 4, which is likewise quoted in the second Gospel, xii.\n29, in reply to the question, \"Which is the first Commandment of all?\nJesus answered: The first is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one\nLord, and thou shalt love the Lord thy God,\" &c. &c. In the Homily,\nhowever, the quotation is made in a totally different connection, for\nthere is no question of commandments at all, but a clear statement of\nthe circumstances under which the passage was used, which excludes the\nidea that this quotation was derived from Mark xii. 29. The context in\nthe Homily is as follows: \"But to those who were beguiled to imagine\nmany gods as the Scriptures say, he said: Hear, O Israel,\" &c, &c.(5)\nThere is no hint of the assertion of many gods in the Gospels; but, on\nthe contrary, the question is put by one of the scribes in Mark to whom\nJesus says: \"Thou art not far from the Kingdom of God.\"6 The quotation,\n\n{26}\n\ntherefore, beyond doubt, cannot be legitimately appropriated by the\nsecond Synoptic, but may with much greater probability be assigned to a\ndifferent Gospel.\n\nWe may here refer to the passage, the only one pointed out by him in\nconnection with the Synoptics, the discovery of which Canon Westcott\naffirms, \"has removed the doubts which had long been raised about those\n(allusions) to St. Mark.\"(1) The discovery referred to is that of the\nCodex Ottobonianus by Dressel, which contains the concluding part of the\nHomilies, and which was first published by him in 1853. Canon Westcott\nsays: \"Though St Mark has few peculiar phrases, one of these is repeated\nverbally in the concluding part of the 19th Homily.\"(2) The passage is\nas follows: Hom. xix. 20: \"Wherefore also he explained to his disciples\nprivately the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens.\" This is compared\nwith Mark iv. 34.... \"and privately to his own disciples, he explained\nall things.\"\n\n[------]\n\nWe have only a few words to add to complete the whole of Dr. Westcott's\nremarks upon the subject. He adds after the quotation: \"This is the only\nplace where [------] occurs in the Gospels.\"(4) We may, however, point\nout that it occurs also in Acts xix. 39 and 2 Peter i. 20. It is upon\nthe coincidence of this word that\n\n{27}\n\nCanon Westcott rests his argument that this passage is a reference to\nMark. Nothing, however, could be more untenable than such a conclusion\nfrom such an indication. The phrase in the Homily presents a very marked\nvariation from the passage in Mark. The \"all things\" [------] of the\nGospel, reads: \"The mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens\" [------] in\nthe Homily. The passage in Mark iv. 11, to which Dr. Westcott does not\nrefer, reads [------]. There is one very important matter, however,\nwhich our Apologist has omitted to point out, and which, it seems to us,\ndecides the case--the context in the Homily. The chapter commences thus:\n\"And Peter said: We remember that our Lord and Teacher, as commanding,\nsaid to us: 'Guard the mysteries for me, and the sons of my house.'\nWherefore also he explained to his disciples privately,\" &c.:(l) and\nthen comes our passage. Now, here is a command of Jesus, in immediate\nconnection with which the phrase before us is quoted, which does not\nappear in our Gospels at all, and which clearly establishes the use of a\ndifferent source. The phrase itself which differs from Mark, as we have\nseen, may with all right be referred to the same unknown Gospel.\n\nIt must be borne in mind that all the quotations which we have\nhitherto examined are those which have been selected as most closely\napproximating to passages in our Gospels. Space forbids our giving\nillustrations of the vast number which so much more widely differ from\nparallel texts in the Synoptics. We shall confine\n\n{28}\n\nourselves to pointing out in the briefest possible manner some of the\npassages which are persistent in their variations or recall similar\npassages in the Memoirs of Justin. The first of these is the injunction\nin Hom. iii. 55: \"Let your yea be yea, your nay nay, for whatsoever is\nmore than these cometh of the evil one.\" The same saying is repeated\nin Hom. xix. with the sole addition of \"and.\" We subjoin the Greek\nof these, together with that of the Gospel and Justin with which the\nHomilies agree.\n\n[------]\n\nAs we have already discussed this passage(1) we need not repeat our\nremarks here. That this passage comes from a source different from our\nGospels is rendered still more probable by the quotation in Hom. xix. 2\nbeing preceded by another which has no parallel at all in our Gospels.\n\"And elsewhere he said, 'He who sowed the bad seed is the devil'\n[------](2): and again: 'Give no pretext to the evil one.'(2) [------].\nBut in exhorting he prescribes: 'Let your yea be yea.'\" &c. The first\nof these phrases differs markedly from our Gospels; the second is not in\nthem at all; the third, which we are considering, differs likewise in an\nimportant degree in common with Justin's quotation, and there is every\nreason for supposing that the whole were derived from the same unknown\nsource.(3) In the same Homily, xix. 2, there occurs also the passage\nwhich exhibits variations likewise found in Justin, which we have\nalready examined,(4) and now\n\n{29}\n\nmerely point out: \"Begone into the darkness without, which the Father\nhath prepared for the devil and his angels.\"(1) The quotation in Justin\n(Dial. 76) agrees exactly with this, with the exception that Justin\nhas [------] instead of [------], which is not important, whilst the\nagreement in the marked variation from the parallel in the first Gospel\nestablishes the probability of a common source different from ours.(2)\n\nWe have also already(3) referred to the passage in Hom. xvii. 4. \"No one\nknew [------] the Father but the Son, even as no one knoweth the Son\nbut the Father and those to whom the Son is minded to reveal him.\"\nThis quotation differs from Matt. xi. 27 in form, in language, and in\nmeaning, but agrees with Justin's reading of the same text, and as we\nhave shown the use of the aorist here, and the transposition of the\norder, were characteristics of Gospels used by Gnostics and other\nparties in the early Church, and the passage with these variations was\nregarded by them as the basis of some of their leading doctrines.(4)\nThat the variation is not accidental, but a deliberate quotation from\na written source, is proved by this, and by the circumstance that the\nauthor of the Homilies repeatedly quotes it elsewhere in the same\nform.(5) It is unreasonable to suppose that the quotations in these\nHomilies are so systematically and consistently erroneous, and not only\ncan they not, from their actual variations, be legitimately referred to\nthe Synoptics exclusively, but, considering all the circumstances, the\n\n{30}\n\nonly natural conclusion is that they are derived from a source different\nfrom our Gospels.(1)\n\nAnother passage occurs in Hom. iii. 50: \"Wherefore ye do err, not\nknowing the true things of the Scriptures; and on this account ye are\nignorant of the power of God.\" This is compared with Mark xii. 24:(2)\n\"Do ye not therefore err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of\nGod?\"\n\nThe very same quotation is made both in Hom. ii. 51 and xviii. 20, and\nin each case in which the passage is introduced it is in connection\nwith the assertion that there are true and false Scriptures, and that as\nthere are in the Scriptures some true sayings and some false, Jesus by\nthis saying showed to those who erred by reason of the false the cause\nof their error. There can scarcely be a doubt that the author of the\nHomilies quotes this passage from a Gospel different from ours, and this\nis demonstrated both by the important variation from our text and also\nby its consistent repetition, and by the context in which it stands.(3)\n\nUpon each occasion, also, that the author of the Homilies quotes the\nforegoing passage he likewise quotes another saying of Jesus which is\nforeign to our Gospels: \"Be ye approved money-changers,\" [------].(4)4\n\nThe saying is thrice quoted without\n\n{31}\n\nvariation, and each time, together with the preceding passage, it refers\nto the necessity of discrimination between true and false sayings in\nthe Scriptures, as for instance: \"And Peter said: If, therefore, of the\nScriptures some are true and some are false, our Teacher rightly said:\n'Be ye approved money-changers,' as in the Scriptures there are some\napproved sayings and some spurious.\"(1) This is one of the best known\nof the apocryphal sayings of Jesus, and it is quoted by nearly all the\nFathers,(2) by many as from Holy Scripture, and by some ascribed to the\nGospel of the Nazarenes, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There\ncan be no question here that the author quotes an apocryphal Gospel.(3)\n\nThere is, in immediate connection with both the preceding passages,\nanother saying of Jesus quoted which is not found in our Gospels: \"Why\ndo ye not discern the good reason of the Scriptures?\" \"[------]; \"(4)\n\nThis passage also comes from a Gospel different from ours,(5) and the\nconnection and sequence of these quotations is very significant.\n\nOne further illustration, and we have done. We find the following in\nHom. iii. 55: \"And to those who\n\n(32)\n\nthink that God tempts, as the Scriptures say, he said: 'The evil one\nis the tempter,' who also tempted himself. \"l This short saying is not\nfound in our Gospels. It probably occurred in the Gospel of the Homilies\nin connection with the temptation of Jesus. It is not improbable that\nthe writer of the Epistle of James, who shows acquaintance with a Gospel\ndifferent from ours,(2) also knew this saying.(3) We are here again\ndirected to the Ebionite Gospel. Certainly the quotation is derived from\na source different from our Gospels.(4)\n\nThese illustrations of the evangelical quotations in the Clementine\nHomilies give but an imperfect impression of the character of the\nextremely numerous passages which occur in the work. We have selected\nfor our examination the quotations which have been specially cited by\ncritics as closest to parallels in our Gospels, and have thus submitted\nthe question to the test which is most favourable to the claims of\nour Synoptics. Space forbids our adequately showing the much wider\ndivergence which exists in the great majority of cases between them and\nthe quotations in the Homilies. To sum up the case: Out of more than\na hundred of these quotations only four brief and fragmentary phrases\nreally agree with parallels in our Synoptics, and these, we have shown,\nare either not used in the same context as in our Gospels or are of\na nature far from special to them. Of the rest, all without exception\nsystematically vary more or less from our Gospels, and many in their\nvariations agree with similar quotations in other writers,\n\n{33}\n\nor on repeated quotation always present the same peculiarities, whilst\nothers, professed to be direct quotations of sayings of Jesus, have no\nparallels in our Gospels at all. Upon the hypothesis that the author\nmade use of our Gospels, such systematic divergence would be perfectly\nunintelligible and astounding. On the other hand, it must be remembered\nthat the agreement of a few passages with parallels in our Gospels\ncannot prove anything. The only extraordinary circumstance is that, even\nusing a totally different source, there should not have been a greater\nagreement with our Synoptics. But for the universal inaccuracy of the\nhuman mind, every important historical saying, having obviously only\none distinct original form, would in all truthful histories have been\nreported in that one unvarying form. The nature of the quotations in the\nClementine Homilies leads to the inevitable conclusion that their author\nderived them from a Gospel different from ours; at least, since the\nsource of these quotations is never named throughout the work, and there\nis not the faintest direct indication of our Gospels, the Clementine\nHomilies cannot be considered witnesses of any value as to the origin\nand authenticity of the canonical Gospels. That this can be said of\na work written a century and a half after the establishment of\nChristianity, and abounding with quotations of the discourses of Jesus,\nis in itself singularly suggestive.\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to add that the author of the Homilies has no\nidea whatever of any canonical writings but those of the Old Testament,\nthough even with regard to these some of our quotations have shown\nthat he held peculiar views, and believed that they contained spurious\nelements. There is no reference in the\n\n{34}\n\nHomilies to any of the Epistles of the New Testament.(1)\n\nOne of the most striking points in this work, on the other hand, is\nits determined animosity against the Apostle Paul. We have seen that a\nstrong anti-Pauline tendency was exhibited by many of the Fathers, who,\nlike the author of the Homilies, made use of Judeo-Christian Gospels\ndifferent from ours. In this work, however, the antagonism against the\n\"Apostle of the Gentiles\" assumes a tone of peculiar virulence. There\ncannot be a doubt that the Apostle Paul is attacked in it, as the great\nenemy of the true faith, under the hated name of Simon the Magician,(2)\nwhom Peter follows everywhere for the purpose of unmasking and confuting\nhim. He is robbed of his title of \"Apostle of the Gentiles,\" which,\ntogether with the honour of founding the Church of Antioch, of Laodicaae,\nand of Rome, is ascribed to Peter. All that opposition to Paul which\nis implied in the Epistle to the Galatians and elsewhere(3) is here\nrealized and exaggerated, and\n\n{35}\n\nthe personal difference with Peter to which Paul refers(1) is widened\ninto the most bitter animosity. In the Epistle of Peter to James which\nis prefixed to the Homilies, Peter says, in allusion to Paul: \"For\nsome among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and accepted\ncertain lawless and foolish teaching of the hostile man.\"(2) First\nexpounding a doctrine of duality, as heaven and earth, day and night,\nlife and death,(3) Peter asserts that in nature the greater things come\nfirst, but amongst men the opposite is the case, and the first is\nworse and the second better.(4) He then says to Clement that it is easy\naccording to this order to discern to what class Simon (Paul) belongs,\n\"who came before me to the Gentiles, and to which I belong who have come\nafter him, and have followed him as light upon darkness, as knowledge\nupon ignorance, as health upon disease.\"(5) He continues: \"If he had\nbeen known he would not have been believed, but now, not being known, he\nis wrongly believed; and though by his acts he is a hater, he has been\nloved; and although an enemy, he has been welcomed as a friend; and\nthough he is death, he has been desired as a saviour; and though fire,\nesteemed as light; and though a deceiver, he is listened to as speaking\nthe truth.\"(6) There is much more of this acrimonious abuse put into\nthe mouth of Peter.(7) The indications that it is Paul who is really\nattacked under the name of Simon are much too clear to admit of doubt.\nIn Hom. xi. 35, Peter, warning the Church against false\n\n{36}\n\nteachers, says: \"He who hath sent us, our Lord and Prophet, declared to\nus that the evil one.... announced that he would send from amongst his\nfollowers apostles(1) to deceive. Therefore, above all remember to avoid\nevery apostle, or teacher, or prophet, who first does not accurately\ncompare his teaching with that of James called the brother of my Lord,\nand to whom was confided the ordering of the Church of the Hebrews in\nJerusalem,\" &c., lest this evil one should send a false preacher to\nthem, \"as he has sent to us Simon preaching a counterfeit of truth in\nthe name of our Lord and disseminating error.\"(2) Further on he speaks\nmore plainly still. Simon maintains that he has a truer appreciation\nof the doctrines and teaching of Jesus because he has received his\ninspiration by supernatural vision, and not merely by the common\nexperience of the senses,(3) and Peter replies: \"If, therefore, our\nJesus indeed was seen in a vision, was known by thee, and conversed with\nthee, it was only as one angry with an adversary.... But can any one\nthrough a vision be made wise to teach? And if thou sayest: 'It is\npossible,' then wherefore did the Teacher remain and discourse for a\nwhole year to us who were awake? And how can we believe thy story that\nhe was seen by thee? And how could he have been seen by thee when thy\nthoughts are contrary to his teaching? But if seen and taught by him for\na single hour thou becamest an apostle:(4) preach his words, interpret\nhis sayings, love his\n\n{37}\n\napostles, oppose not me who consorted with him. For thou hast directly\nwithstood me who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church. If thou\nhadst not been an adversary thou wouldst not have calumniated me, thou\nwouldst not have reviled my teaching in order that, when declaring what\nI have myself heard from the Lord.\n\nI might not be believed, as though I were condemned.... But if thou\ncallest me condemned, thou speakest against God who revealed Christ to\nme,'\"(1) &c. This last phrase: \"If thou callest me condemned\" [------]\nis an evident allusion to Galat. ii. II: \"I withstood him to the face,\nbecause he was condemned\" [------].\n\nWe have digressed to a greater extent than we intended, but it is not\nunimportant to show the general character and tendency of the work we\nhave been examining. The Clementine Homilies,--written perhaps about the\nend of the second century, which never name nor indicate any Gospel\nas the source of the author's knowledge of evangelical history, whose\nquotations of sayings of Jesus, numerous as they are, systematically\ndiffer from the parallel passages of our Synoptics, or are altogether\nforeign to them, which denounce the Apostle Paul as an impostor,\nenemy of the faith, and disseminator of false doctrine, and therefore\nrepudiate his Epistles, at the same time equally ignoring all the other\nwritings of the New Testament,--can scarcely be considered as giving\nmuch support to any theory of the early formation of the New Testament\nCanon, or as affording evidence even of the existence of its separate\nbooks.\n\n{38}\n\n2.\n\nAmong the writings which used formerly to be ascribed to Justin\nMartyr, and to be published along with his genuine works, is the short\ncomposition commonly known as the \"Epistle to Diognetus.\" The ascription\nof this composition to Justin arose solely from the fact that in the\nonly known MS. of the letter there is an inscription [------] which,\nfrom its connection, was referred to Justin.(1) The style and contents\nof the work, however, soon convinced critics that it could not possibly\nbe written by Justin,(2) and although it has been ascribed by various\nisolated writers to Apollos, Clement, Marcion, Quadratus, and others,\nnone of these guesses have been seriously supported, and critics are\nalmost universally agreed in confessing that the author of the Epistle\nis entirely unknown.\n\nSuch being the case, it need scarcely be said that the difficulty of\nassigning a date to the work with any degree of certainty is extreme, if\nit be not absolutely impossible to do so. This difficulty, however,\nis increased by several circumstances. The first and most important of\nthese is the fact that the Epistle to Diognetus is neither quoted nor\nmentioned by any ancient\n\n{39}\n\nwriter, and consequently there is no external evidence whatever to\nindicate the period of its composition.(1) Moreover, it is not only\nanonymous but incomplete, or, at least, as we have it, not the work of\na single writer. At the end of Chapter x. a break is indicated, and\nthe two concluding chapters are unmistakably by a different and later\nhand.(2) It is not singular, therefore, that there exists a wide\ndifference of opinion as to the date of the first ten chapters, although\nall agree regarding the later composition of the concluding portion. It\nis assigned by critics to various periods ranging from about the end of\nthe first quarter of the second century to the end of the third century\nor later,(3) whilst some denounce it as a mere modern forgery.(4)\nNothing can be more insecure in one\n\n{40}\n\ndirection than the date of a work derived alone from internal evidence.\nAllusions to actual occurrences may with certainty prove that a work\ncould only have been written after they had taken place. The mere\nabsence of later indications in an anonymous Epistle only found in a\nsingle MS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, however, and which\nmay have been, and probably was, written expressly in imitation of early\nChristian feeling, cannot furnish any solid basis for an early date.\nIt must be evident that the determination of the date of this Epistle\ncannot therefore be regarded as otherwise than doubtful and arbitrary.\nIt is certain that the purity of its Greek and the elegance of its style\ndistinguish it from all other Christian works of the period to which so\nmany assign it.(1)\n\nThe Epistle to Diognetus, however, does not furnish any evidence even\nof the existence of our Synoptics, for it is admitted that it does not\ncontain a single direct quotation from any evangelical work.(2)We shall\nhereafter have to refer to this Epistle in connection with the fourth\nGospel, but in the meantime it may be well to add that in Chapter xii.,\none of those, it will be remembered, which are admitted to be of later\ndate, a brief quotation is made from 1 Cor. viii. 1, introduced merely\nby the words, [------].\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. BASILIDES--VALENTINUS.\n\nWe must now turn back to an earlier period, and consider any evidence\nregarding the Synoptic Gospels which may be furnished by the so-called\nheretical writers of the second century. The first of these who claims\nour attention is Basilides, the founder of a system of Gnosticism, who\nlived in Alexandria about the year 125 of our era.(1) With the exception\nof a very few brief fragments,(2) none of the writings of this Gnostic\nhave been preserved, and all our information regarding them is,\ntherefore, derived at second-hand from ecclesiastical writers opposed\nto him and his doctrines; and their statements, especially where\nacquaintance with, and the use of, the New Testament Scriptures are\nassumed, must be received with very great caution. The uncritical and\ninaccurate character of the Fathers rendered them peculiarly liable to\nbe misled by foregone devout conclusions.\n\nEusebius states that Agrippa Castor, who had written a refutation of\nthe doctrines of Basilides: \"says that he had composed twenty-four books\nupon the Gospel.\"(3)\n\n{42}\n\nThis is interpreted by Tischendorf, without argument, and in a most\narbitrary and erroneous manner, to imply that the work was a commentary\nupon our four canonical Gospels;(1) a conclusion the audacity of which\ncan scarcely be exceeded. This is, however, almost surpassed by the\ntreatment of Canon Westcott, who writes regarding Basilides: \"It\nappears, moreover, that he himself published a Gospel--a 'Life of\nChrist' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or 'The Philosophy\nof Christianity,(2)--but he admitted the historic truth of all the facts\ncontained in the canonical Gospels, and used them as Scripture. For,\nin spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony, of Basilides to our\n'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear. In the few pages of his\nwritings which remain there are certain references to the Gospels of\nSt. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John,\"(3) &c. Now in making, in such\na manner, these assertions: in totally ignoring the whole of the\ndiscussion with regard to the supposed quotations of Basilides in the\nwork commonly ascribed to Hippolytus and the adverse results of learned\ncriticism: in the unqualified assertions thus made and the absence\neither of explanation of the facts or the reasons for the conclusion:\nthis statement must be condemned as only calculated to mislead readers\nwho must generally be ignorant of the actual facts of the case. We know\nfrom the evidence of antiquity that Basilides made use of a Gospel,\nwritten by himself it is said, but certainly called after his own\nname.(4) An attempt has\n\n     2  These names are pure inventions of Dr. Westcott's fancy,\n     of course.\n\n     3  On the Canon, p. 255 f. [Since these remarks were first\n     made, Dr. Westcott has somewhat enlarged his account of\n     Basilides, but we still consider that his treatment of the\n     subject is deceptive and incomplete.]\n\n{43}\n\nbeen made to explain this by suggesting that perhaps the work mentioned\nby Agrippa Castor may have been mistaken for a Gospel;(1) but the\nfragments of that work which are still extant(2) are of a character\nwhich precludes the possibility that any writing of which they formed a\npart could have been considered a Gospel.(3) Various opinions have been\nexpressed as to the exact nature of the Gospel of Basilides. Neander\naffirmed it to be the Gospel according to the Hebrews which he brought\nfrom Syria to Egypt;(4) whilst Schneckenburger held it to be the Gospel\naccording to the Egyptians.(5) Others believe it to have at least been\nbased upon one or other of these Gospels.(6) There seems most reason\nfor the hypothesis that it was a form of the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, which was so generally in use.\n\nReturning to the passage already quoted, in which Eusebius states, on\nthe authority of Agrippa Castor, whose works are no longer extant, that\nBasilides had composed a work in twenty-four books on the Gospel\n\n{44}\n\n[------], and to the unwarrantable inference that this must have been\na work on our four Gospels, we must add that, so far from deriving\nhis doctrines from our Gospels or other New Testament writings, or\nacknowledging their authority, Basilides professed that he received his\nknowledge of the truth from Glaucias, \"the interpreter of Peter,\" whose\ndisciple he claimed to be,(1) and thus practically sets Gospels aside\nand prefers tradition.(2) Basilides also claimed to have received from\na certain Matthias the report of private discourses which he had heard\nfrom the Saviour for his special instruction.(3) Agrippa Castor further\nstated, according to Eusebius, that in his [------] Basilides named for\nhimself, as prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor(4)), as well as\ninvented others who never existed, and claimed their authority for his\ndoctrines.(5) With regard to all this Canon Westcott writes: \"Since\nBasilides lived on the verge of the apostolic times, it is not\nsurprising that he made use of other sources of Christian doctrine\nbesides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration was still\nfresh and real,\"(6) &c. It is apparent, however, that Basilides, in\nbasing his doctrines upon tradition and\n\n{45}\n\nupon these Apocryphal books as inspired, and in having a special Gospel\ncalled after his own name, which, therefore, he clearly adopts as\nthe exponent of his ideas of Christian truth, completely ignores the\ncanonical Gospels, and not only does not offer any evidence for their\nexistence, but proves, on the contrary, that he did not recognize\nany such works as of authority. There is no ground, therefore, for\nTischendorfs assumption that the commentary of Basilides \"on the\nGospel\" was written upon our Gospels, but that idea is negatived in\nthe strongest way by all the facts of the case.(1) The perfectly\nsimple interpretation of the statement is that long ago suggested by\nValesius,(2) that the Commentary of Basilides was composed upon his own\nGospel,(3) whether it was the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the\nEgyptians.\n\nMoreover, it must be borne in mind that Basilides used the word \"Gospel\"\nin a peculiar sense. Hippolytus, in the work usually ascribed to him,\nwriting of the Basilidians and describing their doctrines, says: \"When\ntherefore it was necessary, he (?) says, that we, the children of God,\nshould be revealed, in expectation of whose revelation, he says, the\ncreation groaned and travailed, the Gospel came into the world, and\npassed through every principality and power and dominion, and every name\nthat is named.\"(4) \"The Gospel, therefore,\n\n{46}\n\ncame first from the Sonship, he says, through the Son, sitting by the\nArchon, to the Archon, and the Archon learnt that he was not the God of\nall things but begotten,\"(1) &c. \"The Gospel, according to them, is\nthe knowledge of supramundane matters,\"(2) &c. This may not be very\nintelligible, but it is sufficient to show that \"the Gospel\" in a\ntechnical sense(3) formed a very important part of the system of\nBasilides. Now there is nothing whatever to show that the twenty-four\nbooks which he composed \"on the Gospel\" were not in elucidation of the\nGospel as technically understood by him, illustrated by extracts from\nhis own special Gospel and from the tradition handed down to him by\nGlaucias and Matthias. The emphatic assertion of Canon Westcott that\nBasilides \"admitted the historic truth of all the facts contained in the\ncanonical Gospels,\" is based solely upon the following sentence of the\nwork attributed to Hippolytus; Jesus, however, was generated according\nto these (followers of Basilides) as we have already said.(4) But when\nthe generation which has already been declared had taken place, all\nthings regarding the Saviour, according to them, occurred in like manner\nas they have been written in the Gospel.\"(5) There are, however, several\nimportant points to be borne in mind in reference to this passage. The\nstatement in question is not made in\n\n{47}\n\nconnection with Basilides himself, but distinctly in reference to his\nfollowers, of whom there were many in the time of Hippolytus and long\nafter him. It is, moreover, a general observation the accuracy of which\nwe have no means of testing, and upon the correctness of which there\nis no special reason to rely. The remark, made at the beginning of the\nthird century, however, that the followers of Basilides believed that\nthe actual events of the life of Jesus occurred in the way in which they\nhave been written in the Gospels, is no proof whatever that either\nthey or Basilides used or admitted the authority of our Gospels. The\nexclusive use by any one of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for\ninstance, would be perfectly consistent with the statement. No one who\nconsiders what is known of that Gospel, or who thinks of the use made\nof it in the first half of the second century by perfectly orthodox\nFathers, can doubt this. The passage is, therefore, of no weight as\nevidence for the use of our Gospels. Canon Westcott himself admits that\nin the extant fragments of Isidorus, the son and disciple of Basilides,\nwho \"maintained the doctrines of his father,\" he has \"noticed nothing\nbearing on the books of the New Testament..\"(1) On the supposition that\nBasilides actually wrote a Commentary on our Gospels, and used them as\nScripture, it is indeed passing strange that we have so little evidence\non the point.\n\nWe must now, however, examine in detail all of the quotations, and they\nare few, alleged to show the use of our Gospels, and we shall commence\nwith those of Tischendorf. The first passage which he points out is\nfound in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria. Tischendorf guards\nhimself, in reference to these quotations,\n\n{48}\n\nby merely speaking of them as \"Basilidian\" (Basilidianisch),(1) but\nit might have been more frank to have stated clearly that Clement\ndistinctly assigns the quotation to the followers of Basilides\n[------],(2) and not to Basilides himself.(3) The supposed quotation,\ntherefore, however surely traced to our Gospels, could really not prove\nanything in regard to Basilides. The passage itself compared with the\nparallel in Matt. xix. 11, 12, is as follows:--\n\n[------]\n\nNow this passage in its affinity to, and material variation from, our\nfirst Gospel might be quoted as evidence for the use of another Gospel,\nbut it cannot reasonably be cited as evidence for the use of Matthew.\nApologists in their anxiety to grasp at the faintest analogies as\ntestimony seem altogether to ignore the history of the creation of\nwritten Gospels, and to forget the very existence of the [------] of\nLuke.(4)\n\nThe next passage referred to by Tischendorf(5) is one\n\n{49}\n\nquoted by Epiphanius(1) which we subjoin in contrast with the parallel\nin Matt. vii. 6:--\n\n[------]\n\nHere, again, the variation in order is just what one might have expected\nfrom the use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews or a similar work,\nand there is no indication whatever that the passage did not end here,\nwithout the continuation of our first Synoptic. What is still more\nimportant, although Teschendorf does not mention the fact, nor otherwise\nhint a doubt than by the use, again, of an unexplained description of\nthis quotation as \"Basilidianisch\" instead of a more direct ascription\nof it to Basilides himself, this passage is by no means attributed by\nEpiphanius to that heretic. It is introduced into the section of his\nwork directed against the Basilidians, but he uses, like Clement, the\nindefinite [------], and as in dealing with all these heresies there is\ncontinual interchange of reference to the head and the later followers,\nthere is no certainty who is referred to in these quotations and, in\nthis instance, nothing to indicate that this passage is ascribed to\nBasilides himself, His name is mentioned in the first line of the first\nchapter of this \"heresy,\" but not again before this [------] occurs in\nchapter v. Teschendorf does not claim any other quotations.\n\n{50}\n\nCanon Westcott states: \"In the few pages of his (Basilides') writings\nwhich remain there are certain references to the Gospels of St. Matthew,\nSt. Luke,\"(1) &c. One might suppose from this that the \"certain\"\nreferences occurred in actual extracts made from his works, and that\nthe quotations, therefore, appeared sc(5) (sp.) in a context of his own\nwords. This impression is strengthened when we read as an introduction\nto the instances: \"The following examples will be sufficient to show his\nmethod of quotation.\"(2) The fact is, however, that these examples\nare found in the work of Hippolytus, in an epitome of the views of\nthe school by that writer himself, with nothing more definite than a\nsubjectless [------] to indicate who is referred to. The only examples\nCanon Westcott can give of these \"certain references\" to our first\nand third Synoptics, do not show his \"method of quotation\" to much\nadvantage. The first is not a quotation at all, but a mere reference to\nthe Magi and the Star. \"But that every thing, he says [------], has its\nown seasons, the Saviour sufficiently teaches when he says:... and\nthe Magi having seen the star,\"(3) &c. This of course Canon Westcott\nconsiders a reference to Matt. ii. 1, 2, but we need scarcely point out\nthat this falls to the ground instantly, if it be admitted, as it must\nbe, that the Star and the Magi may have been mentioned in other Gospels\nthan the first Synoptic. We have already seen, when examining the\nevidence of Justin, that this is the case. The only quotation asserted\nto be taken from Luke is the phrase: \"The Holy Spirit shall come upon\nthee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow\n\n{51}\n\nthee,\"(1) which agrees with Luke i. 35. This again is introduced by\nHippolytus with another subjectless \"he says,\" and apart from the\nuncertainty as to who \"he\" is, this is very unsatisfactory evidence as\nto the form of the quotation in the original text, for it may easily\nhave been corrected by Hippolytus, consciously or unconsciously, in the\ncourse of transfer to his pages. We have already met with this passage\nas quoted by Justin from a Gospel different from ours.\n\nAs we have already stated, however, none of the quotations which we have\nconsidered are directly referred to Basilides himself, but they are all\nintroduced by the utterly vague expression, \"he says,\" [------] without\nany subject accompanying the verb. Now it is admitted that writers of\nthe time of Hippolytus, and notably Hippolytus himself, made use of the\nname of the founder of a sect to represent the whole of his school,\nand applied to him, apparently, quotations taken from unknown and later\nfollowers.(2) The passages which he cites, therefore, and which appear\nto indicate the use of Gospels, instead of being extracted from the\nworks of the founder himself, in all probability were taken from\nwritings of Gnostics of his own time. Canon Westcott himself admits the\npossibility of this, in writing of other early heretics. He says: \"The\nevidence that has been collected from\n\n{52}\n\nthe documents of these primitive sects is necessarily somewhat vague. It\nwould be more satisfactory to know the exact position of their authors,\nand the precise date of their being composed. It is just possible that\nHippolytus made use of writings which were current in his own time\nwithout further examination, and transferred to the apostolic age forms\nof thought and expression which had been the growth of two, or even of\nthree generations.\"(1) So much as to the reliance to be placed on\nthe work ascribed to Hippolytus. It is certain, for instance, that\nin writing of the sect of Naaseni and Ophites, Hippolytus perpetually\nquotes passages from the writings of the school, with the indefinite\n[------],(2) as he likewise does in dealing with the Peratici,(3) and\nDocetae,(4) no individual author being named; yet he evidently quotes\nvarious writers, passing from one to another without explanation, and\nmaking use of the same unvarying [------] In one place,(5) where he\nhas \"the Greeks say,\" [------] he gives, without further indication,\na quotation from Pindar.(6) A still more apt instance of his method is\nthat pointed out by Volkmar,(7) where Hippolytus, writing of \"Marcion,\nor some one of his hounds,\" uses, without further explanation, the\nsubjectless [------] to introduce matter from the later followers of\nMarcion.(8) Now, with regard to\n\n{53}\n\nBasilides, Hippolytus directly refers not only to the heretic chief, but\nalso to his disciple Isidorus and all their followers,(1) [------]\nand then proceeds to use the indefinite \"he says,\" interspersed with\nreferences in the plural to these heretics, exhibiting the same careless\nmethod of quotation, and leaving the same complete uncertainty as to\nthe speaker's identity as in the other cases mentioned.(2) On the\nother hand, it has been demonstrated by Hilgenfeld, that the gnosticism\nascribed to Basilides by Hippolytus, in connection with these\nquotations, is of a much later and more developed type than that which\nBasilides himself held,(3) as shown in the actual fragments of his own\nwritings which are still extant, and as reported by Irenaeus,(4) Clement\nof Alexandria,(5) and the work \"Adversus omnes Haereses,\" annexed to the\n\"Praescriptio haereticorum\" of Tertullian, which is\n\n{54}\n\nconsidered to be the epitome of an earlier work of Hippolytus. The\nfact probably is that Hippolytus derived his views of the doctrines of\nBasilides from the writings of his later followers, and from them made\nthe quotations which are attributed to the founder of the school.(1)\nIn any case there is no ground for referring these quotations with an\nindefinite [------] to Basilides himself.\n\nOf all this there is not a word from Canon Westcott,(2) but he ventures\nto speak of \"the testimony of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books,\" as\n\"comprehensive and clear.\"(3) We have seen, however, that the passages\nreferred to have no weight whatever as evidence for the use of our\nSynoptics. The formulae (as [------] to that compared with Luke i. 35,\nand [------] with references compared with some of the Epistles) which\naccompany these quotations, and to which Canon Westcott points as an\nindication that the New Testament writings were already recognized as\nHoly Scripture,(4) need no special attention, because, as it cannot be\nshown that the expressions were used by Basilides himself at all,\nthey do not come into question. If anything, however, were required to\ncomplete the evidence that these quotations are not from the works of\nBasilides himself, but from later writings by his followers, it would\nbe the use of such formulae, for as the writings of pseudo-Ignatius,\nPolycarp, Justin Martyr, Papias, Hegesippus,\n\n{55}\n\nand others of the Fathers in several ways positively demonstrate, the\nNew Testament writings were not admitted, even amongst orthodox Fathers,\nto the rank of Holy Scripture, until a very much later period.(1)\n\n2.\n\nMuch of what has been said with regard to the claim which is laid to\nBasilides, by some apologists, as a witness for the Gospels and the\nexistence of a New Testament Canon, and the manner in which that claim\nis advanced, likewise applies to Valentinus, another Gnostic leader,\nwho, about the year 140, came from Alexandria to Rome and flourished\ntill about a.d. 160.(2) Very little remains of the writings of this\nGnostic, and we gain our only knowledge of them from a few short\nquotations in the works of Clement of Alexandria, and some doubtful\nfragments preserved by others. We shall presently have occasion to refer\nmore directly to these, and need not here more particularly mention\nthem.\n\nTischendorf, the self-constituted modern Defensor fidei,(3) asserts,\nwith an assurance which can scarcely be characterized otherwise than\nas an unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his readers, that\nValentinus used\n\n{56}\n\nthe whole of our four Canonical Gospels. To do him full justice, we\nshall as much as possible give his own words; and, although we set aside\nsystematically all discussion regarding the fourth Gospel for separate\ntreatment hereafter, we must, in order to convey the full sense of\nDr. Tischendorf s proceeding, commence with a sentence regarding that\nGospel. Referring to a statement of Irenaeus, that the followers of\nValentinus made use of the fourth Gospel, Tischendorf continues:\n\"Hippolytus confirms and completes the statement of Irenaeus, for he\nquotes several expressions of John, which Valentinus employed. This most\nclearly occurs in the case of John x. 8; for Hippolytus writes: 'Because\nthe prophets and the law, according to the doctrine of Valentinus, were\nonly filled with a subordinate and foolish spirit, Valentinus says: On\naccount of this, the Saviour says: All who came before me were thieves\nand robbers.'\"(l) Now this, to begin with, is a practical falsification\nof the text of the Philosophumena, which reads: \"Therefore all the\nProphets and the Law spoke under the influence of the Demiurge, a\nfoolish God, he says, (they themselves being) foolish, knowing nothing.\nOn this account, he says, the Saviour saith: All who came before me,\"\n&c. &c.(2) There is no mention whatever of the name of Valentinus in the\npassage, and, as we shall presently\n\n{57}\n\nshow, there is no direct reference in the whole chapter to Valentinus\nhimself. The introduction of his name in this manner into the text,\nwithout a word of explanation, is highly reprehensible. It is true\nthat in a note Tischendorf gives a closer translation of the passage,\nwithout, however, any explanation; and here again he adds, in\nparenthesis to the \"says he,\" \"namely, Valentinus.\" Such a note,\nhowever, which would probably be unread by a majority of readers, does\nnot rectify the impression conveyed by so positive and emphatic an\nassertion as is conveyed by the alteration in the text.\n\nTischendorf continues: \"And as the Gospel of John, so also were the\nother Gospels used by Valentinus. According to the statement of Irenaeus\n(I. 7, Sec. 4), he found the said subordinate spirit, which he calls\nDemiurge, Masterworker, emblematically represented by the Centurion of\nCapernaum (Matt. viii. 9, Luke vii. 8); in the dead and resuscitated\ndaughter of Jairus, when twelve years old, (Luke viii. 41), he\nrecognized a symbol of his 'Wisdom' (Achamoth), the mother of the\nMasterworker (I. 8, Sec. 2); in like manner, he saw represented in the\nhistory of the woman who had suffered twelve years from the bloody\nissue, and was cured by the Lord (Matt. ix. 20), the sufferings and\nsalvation of his twelfth primitive spirit (Aeon) (I. 3, Sec. 3); the\nexpression of the Lord (Matt. v. 18) on the numerical value of the iota\n('the smallest letter') he applied to his ten aeons in repose.\"l Now,\nin every instance where Tischendorf here speaks of Valentinus by the\nsingular \"he,\" Irenaeus uses the plural \"they,\" referring not to the\noriginal founder of the sect, but to his followers in his own day, and\nthe\n\n{58}\n\ntext is thus again in every instance falsified by the pious zeal of the\napologist. In the case of the Centurions \"they say\" [------] that he is\nthe Demiurge;(1) \"they declare\" [------] that the daughter of Jairus is\nthe type of Achamoth;(2) \"they say\" [------] that the apostasy of Judas\npoints to the passion in connection with the twelfth aeon, and also the\nfact that Jesus suffered in the twelfth month after his baptism; for\nthey will have it [------] that he only preached for one year. The case\nof the woman with the bloody issue for twelve years, and the power\nwhich went forth from the Son to heal her, \"they will have to be Horos\"\n[------]{3} In like manner they assert that the ten aeons are indicated\n[------] by the letter \"Iota,\" mentioned in the Saviour's expression,\nMatt v. 18.(4) At the end of these and numerous other similar references\nin this chapter to New Testament expressions and passages, Irenaeus says:\n\"Thus they interpret,\" &c. [------].(5) The plural \"they\" is employed\nthroughout.\n\nTischendorf proceeds to give the answer to his statement which is\nsupposed to be made by objectors.: \"They say: all that has reference to\nthe Gospel of John was not advanced by Valentinus himself, but by his\ndisciples. And in fact, in Irenaeus, 'they--the Valen-tinians--say,'\noccurs much oftener than 'he--Valentinus--says.' But who is there so\nsapient as to draw the line between what the master alone says, and that\nwhich the disciples state without in the least repeating the\n\n{59}\n\nmaster?\"(1) Tischendorf solves the difficulty by referring everything\nindiscriminately to the master. Now, in reply to these observations,\nwe must remark in the first place that the admission here made by\nTischendorf, that Irenaeus much more often uses \"they say\" than \"he\nsays\" is still quite disingenuous, inasmuch as invariably, and without\nexception, Irenaeus uses the plural in connection with the texts in\nquestion. Secondly, it is quite obvious that a Gnostic, writing about\na.d. 185-195, was likely to use arguments which were never thought of by\na Gnostic, writing at the middle of the second century At the end of the\ncentury, the writings of the New Testament had acquired consideration\nand authority, and Gnostic writers had therefore a reason to refer to\nthem, and to endeavour to show that they supported their peculiar views,\nwhich did not exist at all at the time when Valentinus propounded his\nsystem. Tischendorf, however, cannot be allowed the benefit even of such\na doubt as he insinuates, as to what belongs to the master, and what to\nthe followers. Such doubtful testimony could not establish anything, but\nit is in point of fact also totally excluded by the statement of Irenaeus\nhimself.\n\nIn the preface to the first book of his great work, Irenaeus clearly\nstates the motives and objects for which he writes. He says: \"I\nconsidered it necessary, having read the commentaries [------] _of\nthe disciples of Valentinus_, as they call themselves, and having had\npersonal intercourse with some of them and acquired full knowledge of\ntheir opinions, to unfold to thee,\" &c., and he goes on to say that\nhe intends to set forth \"the opinions of those who are _now_ teaching\nheresy; I speak\n\n{60}\n\nparticularly of the followers of Ptolemaeus, whose system is an offshoot\nof the school of Valentinus.\"(1) Nothing could be more explicit than\nthis statement that Irenaeus neither intended nor pretended to write\nupon the works of Valentinus himself, but upon the commentaries of\nhis followers of his own time, with some of whom he had had personal\nintercourse, and that the system which he intended to attack was that\nactually being taught in his day by Ptolemaeus and his school, the\noffshoot from Valentinus. All the quotations to which Tischendorf refers\nare made within a few pages of this explicit declaration. Immediately\nafter the passage about the Centurion, he says: \"such is their system\"\n[------, and three lines below he states that they derive their views\nfrom unwritten sources [------].(2) The first direct reference to\nValentinus does not occur until after these quotations, and is for the\npurpose of showing the variation of opinion of his followers. He says:\n\"Let us now see the uncertain opinions of these heretics, for there are\ntwo or three of them, how they do not speak alike of the same things,\nbut contradicted one another in facts and names.\" Then he continues:\n\"For the first of them, Valentinus, having derived his principles from\nthe so-called Gnostic heresy, and adapted them to the peculiar character\nof his school declared this:\" &c., &c.3 And\n\n{61}\n\nafter a brief description of his system, in which no Scriptural allusion\noccurs, he goes on to compare the views of the rest, and in chap. xii.\nhe returns to Ptolemaeus and his followers [------].\n\nIn the preface to Book ii, he again says that he has been exposing the\nfalsity of the followers of Valentinus (qui sunt a Valentino) and will\nproceed to establish what he has advanced; and everywhere he uses the\nplural \"they,\" with occasional direct references to the followers of\nValentinus (qui sunt a Valentino).(1) The same course is adopted in\nBook iii., the plural being systematically used, and the same distinct\ndefinition introduced at intervals.(2) And again, in the preface to Book\niv. he recapitulates that the preceding books had been written against\nthese, \"qui sunt a Valentino\" (Sec. 2). In fact, it would almost be\nimpossible for any writer more frequently and emphatically to show that\nhe is not, as he began by declaring, dealing with the founder of the\nschool himself, but with his followers living and teaching at the time\nat which he wrote.\n\nCanon Westcott, with whose system of positively enunciating unsupported\nand controverted statements we are already acquainted, is only slightly\noutstripped by the German apologist in his misrepresentation of the\nevidence of Valentinus. It must be stated, however, that, acknowledging,\nas no doubt he does, that Irenaeus never refers to Valentinus himself,\nCanon Westcott passes over in complete silence the supposed references\nupon\n\n{62}\n\nwhich Teschendorf relies as his only evidence for the use of\nthe Synoptics by that Gnostic. He, however, makes the following\nextraordinary statement regarding Valentinus:\n\n\"The fragments of his writings which remain show the same natural and\ntrustful use of Scripture as other Christian works of the same period;\nand there is no diversity of character in this respect between the\nquotations given in Hippolytus and those found in Clement of Alexandria.\nHe cites the Epistle to the Ephesians as 'Scripture,' and refers clearly\nto the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, to the Epistles\nto the Romans,\"(1) &c.\n\nWe shall now give the passages which he points out in support of these\nassertions.(2) The first two are said to occur in the Stromata of the\nAlexandrian Clement, who professes to quote the very words of a letter\nof Valentinus to certain people regarding the passions, which are\ncalled by the followers of Basilides \"the appendages of the soul.\" The\npassage is as follows: \"But one only is good, whose presence is the\nmanifestation through the Son, and\n\n1 On the Canon, p. 259 f. [In the 4th ed. of his work, published since\nthe above remarks were made, Dr. Westcott has modified or withdrawn\nhis assertions regarding Valentinus. As we cannot well omit the above\npassage, it is right to state that the lines quoted now read: \"The few\nunquestionable fragments of Valentinus contain but little which points\nto passages of Scripture. If it were clear that the anonymous quotations\nin Hippolytus were derived from Valentinus himself, the list would be\nmuch enlarged, and include a citation of the Epistle to the Ephesians\nas 'Scripture,' and clear references to the Gospels of St. Luke and St.\nJohn, to 1 Corinthians, perhaps also to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and\nthe first Epistle of St. John,\" (p. 295 f.). In a note he adds: \"But a\nfresh and careful examination of the whole section of Hippolytus makes\nme feel that the evidence is so uncertain, that I cannot be sure in this\ncase, as in the case of Basilides, that Hippolytus is quoting the words\nof the Founder\" (p. 295, n. 5). Under these circumstances the statements\neven in the amended edition present many curious features.]\n\n{63}\n\nthrough Him alone will the heart be enabled to become pure, by the\nexpulsion of every evil spirit from the heart. For many spirits dwelling\nin it do not allow it to be pure, but each of them, while in divers\nparts they riot there in unseemly lusts, performs its own works. And, it\nseems to me, the heart is somewhat like an inn. For that, also, is both\nbored and dug into, and often filled with the ordure of men, who abide\nthere in revelry, and bestow not one single thought upon the place,\nseeing it is the property of another. And in such wise is it with the\nheart, so long as no thought is given to it, being impure, and the\ndwelling-place of many demons, but as soon as the alone good Father\nhas visited it, it is sanctified and shines through with light, and the\npossessor of such a heart becomes so blessed, that he shall see God.\"(1)\nAccording to Canon Westcott this passage contains two of the \"clear\nreferences\" to our Gospels upon which he bases his statement, namely to\nMatt. v. 8, and to Matt. xix. 17.\n\nNow it is clear that there is no actual quotation from any evangelical\nwork in this passage from the Epistle of Valentinus, and the utmost\nfor which the most zealous apologist could contend is, that there is a\nslight similarity with some words in the Gospel, and Canon\n\n{64}\n\nWestcott himself does not venture to call them more than \"references.\"\nThat such distant coincidences should be quoted as evidence for the\nuse of the first Gospel shows how weak is his case. At best such vague\nallusions could not prove anything, but when the passages to which\nreference is supposed to be made are examined, it will be apparent that\nnothing could be more unfounded or arbitrary than the claim of reference\nspecially to our Gospel, to the exclusion of the other Gospels then\nexisting, which to our knowledge contained both passages. We may,\nindeed, go still further, and affirm that if these coincidences are\nreferences to any Gospel at all, that Gospel is not the canonical, but\none different from it.\n\nThe first reference alluded to consists of the following two phrases:\n\"But one only is good [------]..... the alone good Father\" [------].\nThis is compared with Matt. xix. 17:{1} \"Why askest thou me concerning\ngood? there is one that is good\" [------].(2) Now the passage in the\nepistle, if a reference to any parallel episode, such as Matt. xix. 17,\nindicates with certainty the reading: \"One is good the Father\" [------].\nThere is no such reading in any of our Gospels. But although this\nreading does not exist in any of the Canonical Gospels, it is well known\nthat it did exist in uncanonical Gospels no longer extant, and that\nthe passage was one upon which various sects of so-called heretics laid\ngreat stress. Irenseus quotes it as one of\n\n{65}\n\nthe texts to which the Marcosians, who made use of apocryphal\nGospels,(1) and notably of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, gave a\ndifferent colouring: [------](2) Epiphanius also quotes this reading as\none of the variations of the Marcionites: [------].(3) Origen, likewise,\nremarks that this passage is misused by some Heretics: \"Velut proprie\nsibi datum scutum putant (haeretici) quod dixit Dominus in Evangelio:\nNemo bonus nisi unus Deus pater.\"(4) Justin Martyr quotes the same\nreading from a source different from our Gospels,(5) [------](6) and in\nagreement with the repeated similar readings of the Clementine Homilies,\nwhich likewise derived it from an extra canonical source,(7) [------.8\nThe use of a similar expression by Clement of Alexandria,9 as well as\nby Origen, only serves to prove the existence of the reading in extinct\nGospels, although it is not found in any MS. of any of our Gospels.\n\nThe second of the supposed references is more diffuse: \"One is good and\nthrough him alone will the heart be enabled to become pure [------]...\nbut when the alone good Father has visited it, it is sanctified and\nshines through with light, and the possessor of such a heart becomes so\nblessed, that he shall see God\" [------]\n\n{66}\n\n[------]. This is compared(1) with Matthew v. 8: \"Blessed are the pure\nin heart, for they shall see God\" [------]. It might be argued that this\nis quite as much a reference to Psalm xxiv. 3-6 as to Matt. v. 8, but\neven if treated as a reference to the Sermon on the Mount, nothing is\nmore certain than the fact that this discourse had its place in much\nolder forms of the Gospel than our present Canonical Gospels,(2) and\nthat it formed part of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other\nevangelical writings in circulation in the early Church. Such a\nreference as this is absolutely worthless as evidence of special\nacquaintance with our first Synoptic.(3)\n\nTischendorf does not appeal at all to these supposed references\ncontained in the passages preserved by Clement, but both the German\nand the English apologist join in relying upon the testimony of\nHippolytus,(4) with regard to the use of the Gospels by Valentinus,\nalthough it must be admitted that the former does so with greater\nfairness of treatment than Canon Westcott. Tischendorf does refer to,\nand admit, some of the difficulties of the case, as we shall presently\nsee, whilst Canon Westcott, as in the case of Basilides, boldly makes\nhis assertion, and totally ignores all adverse facts. The only Gospel\n\n{67}\n\nreference which can be adduced even in the Philosophumena, exclusive\nof one asserted to be to the fourth Gospel, which will be separately\nconsidered hereafter, is advanced by Canon Westcott, for Teschendorf\ndoes not refer to it, but confines himself solely to the supposed\nreference to the fourth Gospel. The passage is the same as one also\nimputed to Basilides: \"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the\npower of the Highest shall overshadow thee;\" which happens to agree with\nthe words in Luke i. 35; but, as we have seen in connection with Justin,\nthere is good reason for concluding that the narrative to which it\nbelongs was contained in other Gospels.(1) In this instance, however,\nthe quotation is carried further and presents an important variation\nfrom the text of Luke. \"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the\npower of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore the thing begotten\nof thee shall be called holy\"(2) [------]. The reading of Luke is:\n\"Therefore also the holy thing begotten shall be called the Son of God\"\n[------]. It is probable that the passage referred to in connection with\nthe followers of Basilides may have ended in the same way as this, and\nbeen derived from the same source. Nothing, however, can be clearer than\nthe fact that this quotation, by whoever made, is not taken from our\nthird Synoptic, inasmuch as there does not exist a single MS. which\ncontains such a passage.\n\nWe again, however, come to the question: Who really made the quotations\nwhich Hippolytus introduces so indefinitely? We have already, in\nspeaking of Basilides,\n\n{68}\n\npointed out the loose manner in which Hippolytus and other early\nwriters, in dealing with different schools of heretics, indifferently\nquote the founder or his followers without indicating the precise person\nquoted. This practice is particularly apparent in the work of Hippolytus\nwhen the followers of Valentinus are in question. Tischendorf himself\nis obliged to admit this. He asks: \"Even though it be also incontestable\nthat the author (Hippolytus) does not always sharply distinguish between\nthe sect and the founder of the sect, does this apply to the present\ncase\"?(1) He denies that it does in the instance to which he refers,\nbut he admits the general fact. In the same way another apologist of\nthe fourth Gospel (and as the use of that Gospel is maintained in\nconsequence of a quotation in the very same chapter as we are now\nconsidering, only a few lines higher up, both the third and fourth are\nin the same position) is forced to admit: \"The use of the Gospel of John\nby Valentinus cannot so certainly be proved from our refutation-writing\n(the work of Hippolytus). Certainly in the statement of these doctrines\nit gives abstracts, which contain an expression of John (x. 8), and\nthere cannot be any doubt that this is taken from some writing of the\nsect. But the apologist, in his expressions regarding the Valentinian\ndoctrines, does not seem to confine himself to one and the same work,\nbut to have alternately made use of different writings of the school,\nfor which reason we cannot say anything as to the age of this quotation,\nand from this testimony, therefore, we merely have further confirmation\nthat the Gospel was early(2) (?) used in the\n\n     2 Why \"early\"? since Hippolytus writes about a.d. 225.\n\n{69}\n\nSchool of the Valentinians,\"(1) &c. Of all this not a word from Canon\nWestcott, who adheres to his system of bare assertion.\n\nNow we have already quoted(2) the opening sentence of Book vi. 35, of\nthe work ascribed to Hippolytus, in which the quotation from John x.\n8, referred to above occurs, and ten line3 further on, with another\nintermediate and equally indefinite \"he says\" [------], occurs the\nsupposed quotation from Luke i. 35, which, equally with that from\nthe fourth Gospel, must, according to Weizsaecker, be abandoned as a\nquotation which can fairly be ascribed to Valentinus himself, whose\nname is not once mentioned in the whole chapter. A few lines below the\nquotation, however, a passage occurs which throws much light upou the\nquestion. After explaining the views of the Valentinians regarding\nthe verse: \"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,\" &c., the writer thus\nproceeds: \"Regarding this there is among them [------] a great question,\na cause both of schism and dissension. And hence their [------] teaching\nhas become divided, and the one teaching according to them [------] is\ncalled Eastern ['------] and the other Italian. They from Italy, of\nwhom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say [------] that the body of Jesus was\nanimal, and on account of this, on the occasion of the baptism, the Holy\nSpirit like a dove came down--that is, the Logos from the Mother above,\nSophia--and became joined to the animal, and raised him from the dead.\nThis, _he says_ [------] is the declaration [------],\"--and here be it\nobserved we come to another of the \"clear\n\n{70}\n\nreferences\" which Canon Westcott ventures, deliberately and without a\nword of doubt, to attribute to Valentinus himself,(1)--\"This, he says,\nis the declaration: 'He who raised Christ from the dead shall also\nquicken your mortal bodies,'(3) that is animal. For the earth has come\nunder a curse: 'For dust, he says [------] thou art and unto dust shalt\nthou return.'(3) On the other hand, those from the East [------], of\nwhom is Axionicus and Bardesanes, say [------] that the body of the\nSaviour was spiritual, for the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, that is the\nSophia and the power of the Highest.\"(4) &c.\n\nIn this passage we have a good illustration of the mode in which the\nwriter introduces his quotations with the subjectless \"he says.\" Here he\nis conveying the divergent opinions of the two parties of Valentinians,\nand explaining the peculiar doctrines of the Italian school \"of whom is\nHeracleon and Ptolemaeus,\" and he suddenly departs from the plural \"they\"\nto quote the passage from Romans viii. 11, in support of their views\nwith the singular \"he says.\" Nothing can be more obvious than that \"he\"\ncannot possibly be Valentinus himself, for the schism is represented as\ntaking place\n\n{71}\n\namongst his followers, and the quotation is evidently made by one\nof them to support the views of his party in the schism, but whether\nHippolytus is quoting from Heraclcon or Ptolemaeus or some other of the\nItalian(1) school, there is no means of knowing. Of all this, again,\nnothing is said by Canon Westcott, who quietly asserts without\nhesitation or argument, that Valentinus himself is the person who here\nmakes the quotation.\n\nWe have already said that the name of Valentinus does not occur once in\nthe whole chapter (vi. 35) which we have been examining, and if we turn\nback we find that the preceding context confirms the result at which we\nhave arrived, that the [------] has no reference to the Founder himself,\nbut is applicable only to some later member of his school, most probably\ncontemporary with Hippolytus. In vi. 21, Hippolytus discusses the heresy\nof Valentinus, which he traces to Pythagoras and Plato, but in Ch. 29\nhe passes from direct reference to the Founder to deal entirely with\nhis school. This is so manifest, that the learned editors of the work\nof Hippolytus, Professors Duncker and Schneidewin, alter the preceding\nheading at that part from \"Valentinus\" to \"Valentiniani.\" At the\nbeginning of Ch. 29 Hippolytus writes: \"Valentinus, therefore, and\nHeracleon and Ptolemaeus and the whole school of these (heretics)...\nhave laid down as the fundamental principle of their teaching the\narithmetical system. For according to these,\" &c. And a few lines\nlower down: \"There is discernible amongst them, however, considerable\ndifference of opinion. For many of them, in order that\n\n     1 The quotation from an Epistle to the Romans by the Italian\n     school is appropriate.\n\n{72}\n\nthe Pythagorean doctrine of Valentinus may be wholly pure, suppose, &c.,\nbut others,\" &c. He shortly after says that he will proceed to state\ntheir doctrines as they themselves teach them [------]. He then\ncontinues: \"There is, he says [------]\" &c. &c., quoting evidently one\nof these followers who want to keep the doctrine of Valentinus pure, or\nof the \"others,\" although without naming him, and three lines further\non again, without any preparation, returning to the plural \"they say\"\n[------] and so on through the following chapters, \"he says\" alternating\nwith the plural, as the author apparently has in view something said\nby individuals or merely expresses general views. In the Chapter (34)\npreceding that which we have principally been examining, Hippolytus\nbegins by referring to \"the Quaternion according to Valentinus,\"\nbut after five lines on it, he continues: \"This is what they say:\n[------]\"(1) and then goes on to speak of \"their whole teaching\"\n[------], and lower down he distinctly sets himself to discuss the\nopinions of the school in the plural: \"Thus these (Valentinians)\nsubdivide the contents of the Pleroma,\" &c. [------], and continues with\nan occasional \"according to them \"[------] until, without any name being\nmentioned, he makes use of the indefinite \"he says\" to introduce the\nquotation referred to by Canon Westcott as a citation by Valentinus\nhimself of \"the Epistle to the Ephesians as Scripture.\"(2) \"This is,\nhe says, what is written in Scripture,\" and there follows a quotation\nwhich, it may merely be mentioned as Canon Westcott says nothing of it,\ndiffers considerably from the passage in the Epistle\n\n                                     {73}\n\niii. 14--18. Immediately after, another of Canon West-cott's quotations\nfrom 1 Cor. ii. 14, is given, with the same indefinite \"he says,\" and in\nthe same way, without further mention of names, the quotations in Ch. 35\ncompared with John x. 8, and Luke i. 35. There is, therefore, absolutely\nno ground whatever for referring these [------] to Valentinus himself;\nbut, on the contrary, Hippolytus shows in the clearest way that he is\ndiscussing the views of the later writers of the sect, and it is one of\nthese, and not the Founder himself, whom in his usual indefinite way he\nthus quotes.\n\nWe have been forced by these bald and unsupported assertions of\napologists to go at such length into these questions at the risk of\nbeing very wearisome to our readers, but it has been our aim as much\nas possible to make no statements without placing before those who are\ninterested the materials for forming an intelligent opinion. Any other\ncourse would be to meet mere assertion by simple denial, and it is only\nby bold and unsubstantiated statements which have been simply and in\ngood faith accepted by ordinary readers who have not the opportunity, if\nthey have even the will, to test their veracity, that apologists have so\nlong held their ground. Our results regarding Valentinus so far may be\nstated as follows: the quotations which without any explanation are\nso positively imputed to Valentinus are not made by him, but by\nlater writers of his school;(1) and, moreover, the passages which are\nindicated by the English apologist as references to our two Synoptic\nGospels not only do\n\n(74)\n\nnot emanate from Valentinus, but do not agree with our Gospels, and are\napparently derived from other sources.(1)\n\nThe remarks of Canon Westcott with regard, to the connection of\nValentinus with our New Testament are on a par with the rest of his\nassertions. He says: \"There is no reason to suppose that Valentinus\ndiffered from Catholic writers on the Canon of the New Testament.\"(2) We\nmight ironically adopt this sentence, for as no writer whatever of the\ntime of Valentinus, as we have seen, recognized any New Testament Canon\nat all, he certainly did not in this respect differ from the other\nwriters of that period. Canon Westcott relies upon the statement of\nTertullian, but even here, although he quotes the Latin passage in a\nnote, he does not fully give its real sense in his text. He writes in\nimmediate continuation of the quotation given above: \"Tertullian says\nthat in this he differed from Marcion, that he at least professed to\naccept 'the whole instrument,' perverting the interpretation, where\nMarcion mutilated the text.\" Now the assertion of Tertullian has a\nvery important modification, which, to any one acquainted with the very\nunscrupulous boldness of the \"Great African\" in dealing with religious\ncontroversy, is extremely significant. He does not make the assertion\npositively and of his own knowledge, but modifies it by saying: \"Nor,\nindeed, if Valentinus seems to use the\n\n     2  On the Canon, p. 259. [Dr. Westcott omits these words\n     from his 4th ed., but he uses others here and elsewhere\n     which imply very nearly the same assertion.]\n\n{75}\n\nwhole instrument, (neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento uti\nvidetur),\"(1) &c. Tertullian evidently knew very little of Valentinus\nhimself, and had probably not read his writings at all.(2) His treatise\nagainst the Valentinians is avowedly not original, but, as he himself\nadmits, is compiled from the writings of Justin, Miltiades, Irenaeus, and\nProclus.(3) Tertullian would not have hesitated to affirm anything\nof this kind positively, had there been any ground for it, but his\nassertion is at once too uncertain, and the value of his statements\nof this nature much too small, for such a remark to have any weight as\nevidence.(4) Besides, by his own showing Valentinus altered Scripture\n(sine dubio emen-dans),(5) which he could not have done had he\nrecognized it as of canonical authority.(6) We cannot, however, place\nany reliance upon criticism emanating from Tertullian.\n\nAll that Origen seems to know on this subject is that the followers of\nValentinus [------] have altered the form of the Gospel [------].(7)\nClement of Alexandria, however, informs us that Valentinus, like\nBasilides, professed to have direct traditions from the Apostles, his\nteacher being Theodas, a disciple of the Apostle Paul.(8) If he had\nknown any Gospels which he believed to have apostolic authority, there\nwould clearly not have been any need of such tradition. Hippolytus\ndistinctly affirms that Valentinus derived his system from Pythagoras\nand Plato,\n\n{76}\n\nand \"not from the Gospels\" [-----], and that consequently he might more\nproperly be considered a Pythagorean and Platonist than a Christian.(1)\nIrenaeus, in like manner, asserts that the Valentinians derive their\nviews from unwritten sources [------],(2) and he accuses them of\nrejecting the Gospels, for after enumerating them,(3) he continues:\n\"When, indeed, they are refuted out of the Scriptures, they turn round\nin accusation of these same Scriptures, as though they were not correct,\nnor of authority....\n\nFor (they say) that it (the truth) was not conveyed by written records\nbut by the living voice.\"(4) In the same chapter he goes on to show that\nthe Valen-tinians not only reject the authority of Scripture, but also\nreject ecclesiastical tradition. He says: \"But, again, when we refer\nthem to that tradition which is from the Apostles, which has been\npreserved through a succession of Presbyters in the Churches, they\nare opposed to tradition, affirming themselves wiser not only than\nPresbyters, but even than the Apostles, in that they have discovered the\nuncorrupted truth. For (they say) the Apostles mixed up matters which\nare of the law with the words of the Saviour, &c.... It comes to this,\nthey neither consent to Scripture nor to tradition. (Evenit itaque,\nneque Scripturis jam, neque Traditioni consentire eos.)\"(6) We find,\ntherefore, that even in the time of Irenaeus the Valentinians rejected\nthe writings\n\n{77}\n\nof the New Testament as authoritative documents, which they certainly\nwould not have done had the Founder of their sect himself acknowledged\nthem. So far from this being the case, there was absolutely no New\nTestament Canon for Valentinus himself to deal with,(1) and his\nperfectly orthodox contemporaries recognized no other Holy Scriptures\nthan those of the Old Testament.\n\nIrenaeus, however, goes still further, and states that the Valentinians\nof his time not only had many Gospels, but that they possessed one\npeculiar to themselves. \"Those indeed who are followers of Valentinus,\"\nhe says, \"again passing beyond all fear, and putting forth their own\ncompositions, boast that they have more Gospels than there actually are.\nIndeed they have proceeded so far in audacity that they entitle their\nnot long written work, agreeing in nothing with the Gospels of the\nApostles, the Gospel of Truth, so that there cannot be any Gospel among\nthem without blasphemy.\"(2) It follows clearly, from the very name of\nthe Valentinian Gospel, that they did not consider that others contained\nthe truth,(3) and indeed Irenaeus himself perceived this, for he\ncontinues: \"For if what is published by them be the Gospel of Truth,\nyet is dissimilar from those which have been delivered to us by the\nApostles, any may perceive who please, as is demonstrated by these very\nScriptures, that that which has been handed down from the Apostles is\nnot the Gospel of Truth.\"(4) These passages speak for\n\n{78}\n\nthemselves. It has been suggested that the \"Gospel of Truth\" was a\nharmony of the four Gospels.(1) This, however, cannot by any possibility\nhave been the case, inasmuch as Irenaeus distinctly says that it did\nnot agree in anything with the Gospels of the Apostles. We have been\ncompelled to devote too much space to Valentinus, and we now leave him\nwith the certainty that in nothing does he afford any evidence even of\nthe existence of our Synoptic Gospels.\n\n{79}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. MARCION\n\nWe must now turn to the great Heresiarch of the second century, Marcion,\nand consider the evidence regarding our Gospels which may be derived\nfrom what we know of him. The importance, and at the same time the\ndifficulty, of arriving at a just conclusion from the materials within\nour reach have rendered Marcion's Gospel the object of very elaborate\ncriticism, and the discussion of its actual character has continued with\nfluctuating results for nearly a century.\n\nMarcion was born at Sinope, in Pontus, of which place his father was\nBishop,(1) and although it is said that he aspired to the first place in\nthe Church of Rome,(2) the Presbyters refused him communion on account\nof his peculiar views of Christianity. We shall presently more fully\nrefer to his opinions, but here it will be sufficient to say that he\nobjected to what he considered the debasement of true Christianity by\nJewish elements, and he upheld the teaching of Paul alone, in opposition\nto that of all the other Apostles, whom he accused of mixing\n\n{80}\n\nup matters of the law with the Gospel of Christ, and falsifying\nChristianity,(1) as Paul himself had protested.(9) He came to Rome about\na.d. 139--142,(3) and continued teaching for some twenty years.(4) His\nhigh personal character and elevated views produced a powerful effect\nupon his time,(5) and, although during his own lifetime and long\nafterwards vehemently and with every opprobrious epithet denounced by\necclesiastical writers, his opinions were so widely adopted that in the\ntime of Epiphanius his followers were to be found throughout the whole\nworld.(6)\n\nMarcion is said to have recognized as his sources of Christian doctrine,\nbesides tradition, a single Gospel and ten Epistles of Paul, which in\nhis collection stood in the following order;--Epistle to Galatians,\nCorinthians (2), Romans, Thessalonians (2), Ephesians (which he had with\n\n{81}\n\nthe superscription \"to the Laodiceans\"),(1) Colossians, Philippians,\nand Philemon.(2) None of the other books which now form part of\nthe canonical New Testament were either mentioned or recognized by\nMarcion.(3) This is the oldest collection of Apostolic writings of\nwhich there is any trace,(4) but there was at that time no other \"Holy\nScripture\" than the Old Testament, and no New Testament Canon had yet\nbeen imagined. Marcion neither claimed canonical authority for\nthese writings,(5) nor did he associate with them any idea of divine\ninspiration.(6) We have already seen the animosity expressed by\ncontemporaries of Marcion against the Apostle Paul.\n\nThe principal interest in connection with the collection of Marcion,\nhowever, centres in his single Gospel, the nature, origin, and identity\nof which have long been actively and minutely discussed by learned men\nof all shades of opinion with very varying results. The work itself is\nunfortunately no longer extant, and our only knowledge of it is derived\nfrom the bitter and very inaccurate opponents of Marcion. It seems to\nhave borne much the same analogy to our third Canonical Gospel which\nexisted between the Gospel according to\n\n{82}\n\nthe Hebrews and our first Synoptic.(1) The Fathers, whose uncritical\nand, in such matters, prejudiced character led them to denounce every\nvariation from their actual texts as a mere falsification, and without\nargument to assume the exclusive authenticity and originality of our\nGospels, which towards the beginning of the third century had acquired\nwide circulation in the Church, vehemently stigmatized Marcion as an\naudacious adulterator of the Gospel, and affirmed his evangelical work\nto be merely a mutilated and falsified version of the \"Gospel according\nto Luke.\"(2)\n\nThis view continued to prevail, almost without question or examination,\ntill towards the end of the eighteenth century, when Biblical criticism\nbegan to exhibit the earnestness and activity which have ever since\nmore or less characterized it. Semler first abandoned the prevalent\ntradition, and, after analyzing the evidence, he concluded that\nMarcion's Gospel and Luke's were different versions of an earlier\nwork,(3) and that the so-called heretical Gospel was one of the numerous\nGospels from amongst which the Canonical had been selected by the\nChurch.(4) Griesbach about the same time also rejected the ruling\nopinion, and denied the close relationship usually asserted to exist\nbetween the two Gospels.(5) Loffler(6) and Corrodi(7) strongly supported\nSender's\n\n{83}\n\nconclusion, that Marcion was no mere falsifier of Luke's Gospel, and J.\nE. C. Schmidt(1) went still further, and asserted that Marcion's Gospel\nwas the genuine Luke, and our actual Gospel a later version of it\nwith alterations and additions. Eichhorn,(2) after a fuller and more\nexhaustive examination, adopted similar views; he repudiated the\nstatements of Tertullian regarding Marcion's Gospel as utterly\nuntrustworthy, asserting that he had not that work itself before him at\nall, and he maintained that Marcion's Gospel was the more original\ntext and one of the sources of Luke. Bolten,(3) Bertholdt,(4)\nSchleiermacher,(5) and D. Schulz(6) likewise maintained that Marcion's\nGospel was by no means a mutilated version of Luke, but, on the\ncontrary, an independent original Gospel A similar conclusion was\narrived at by Gieseler,(7) but later, after Hahn's criticism, he\nabandoned it, and adopted the opinion that Marcion's Gospel was\nconstructed out of Luke.(8)\n\nOn the other hand, the traditional view was maintained by Storr,(9)\nArneth,(10) Hug,(11) Neander,(12) and Gratz,(13) although with little\noriginality of investigation or argument; and\n\n{84}\n\nPaulus(1) sought to reconcile both views by admitting that Marcion had\nbefore him the Gospel of Luke, but denying that he mutilated it, arguing\nthat Tertullian did not base his arguments on the actual Gospel\nof Marcion, but upon his work, the \"Antitheses.\" Hahn,(2) however,\nundertook a more exhaustive examination of the problem, attempting\nto reconstruct the text of Marcion's Gospel(3) from the statements of\nTertullian and Epiphanius, and he came to the conclusion that the\nwork was a mere version, with omissions and alterations made by the\nHeresiarch in the interest of his system, of the third Canonical Gospel.\nOlshausen(4) arrived at the same result, and with more or less of\nmodification but no detailed argument, similar opinions were expressed\nby Credner,(5) De Wette,(6) and others.(7)\n\nNot satisfied, however, with the method and results of\n\n{85}\n\nHahn and Olshausen, whose examination, although more minute than any\npreviously undertaken, still left much to be desired, Ritschl(l) made a\nfurther thorough investigation of the character of Mansion's Gospel, and\ndecided that it was in no case a mutilated version of Luke, but, on the\ncontrary, an original and independent work, from which the Canonical\nGospel was produced by the introduction of anti-Marcionitish passages\nand readings. Baur(2) strongly enunciated similar views, and maintained\nthat the whole error lay in the mistake of the Fathers, who had, with\ncharacteristic assumption, asserted the earlier and shorter Gospel of\nMarcion to be an abbreviation of the later Canonical Gospel, instead of\nrecognizing the latter as a mere extension of the former. Schwegler(3)\nhad already, in a remarkable criticism of Marcion's Gospel declared\nit to be an independent and original work, and in no sense a mutilated\nLuke, but, on the contrary, probably the source of that Gospel.\nKostlin,(4) while stating that the theory that Marcion's Gospel was\nan earlier work and the basis of that ascribed to Luke was not very\nprobable, affirmed that much of the Marcionitish text was more original\nthan the Canonical, and that both Gospels must be considered versions of\nthe same original, although Luke's was the later and more corrupt.\n\nThese results, however, did not satisfy Volkmar,(5) who entered afresh\nupon a searching examination of the whole subject, and concluded that\nwhilst, on the one hand, the\n\n{86}\n\nGospel of Marcion was not a mere falsified and mutilated form of the\nCanonical Gospel, neither was it, on the other, an earlier work, and\nstill less the original Gospel of Luke, but merely a Gnostic compilation\nfrom what, so far as we are concerned, may be called the oldest codex\nof Luke's Gospel, which itself is nothing more than a similar Pauline\nedition of the original Gospel. Volkmar's analysis, together with\nthe arguments of Hilgenfeld, succeeded in convincing Ritschl,{1} who\nwithdrew from his previous opinions, and, with those critics, merely\nmaintained some of Marcion's readings to be more original than those\nof Luke,{2} and generally defended Marcion from the aspersions of the\nFathers, on the ground that his procedure with regard to Luke's Gospel\nwas precisely that of the Canonical Evangelists to each other;{3} Luke\nhimself being clearly dependent both on Mark and Matthew.{4} Baur was\nlikewise induced by Volkmar's and Hilgenfeld's arguments to modify his\nviews;{5} but although for the first time he admitted that Marcion had\naltered the original of his Gospel frequently for dogmatic reasons, he\nstill maintained that there was an older form of the Gospel without the\nearlier chapters, from which both Marcion and Luke directly constructed\ntheir Gospels;--both of them stood in the same line in regard to the\noriginal; both altered it; the one abbreviated, the other extended\nit.{6} Encouraged by this success, but not yet satisfied, Volkmar\nimmediately undertook a further and more exhaustive examination of the\ntext of Marcion, in the hope of finally settling the\n\n{87}\n\ndiscussion, and he again, but with greater emphasis, confirmed his\nprevious results.(1) In the meantime Hilgenfeld(2) had seriously\nattacked the problem, and, like Hahn and Volkmar, had sought to\nreconstruct the text of Marcion, and, whilst admitting many more\noriginal and genuine readings in the text of Marcion, he had also\ndecided that his Gospel was dependent on Luke, although he further\nconcluded that the text of Luke had subsequently gone through another,\nthough slight, manipulation before it assumed its present form. These\nconclusions he again fully confirmed after a renewed investigation of\nthe subject.(3)\n\nThis brief sketch of the controversy which has so long occupied the\nattention of critics will at least show the uncertainty of the data upon\nwhich any decision is to be based. We have not attempted to give more\nthan the barest outlines, but it will appear as we go on that most of\nthose who decide against the general independence of Mansion's Gospel,\nat the same time admit his partial originality and the superiority of\nsome of his readings over those of the third Synoptic, and justify\nhis treatment of Luke as a procedure common to the Evangelists, and\nwarranted not only by their example but by the fact that no Gospels had\nin his time emerged from the position of private documents in limited\ncirculation.\n\nMarcion's Gospel not being any longer extant, it is important to\nestablish clearly the nature of our knowledge regarding it, and the\nexact value of the data from which various attempts have been made to\nreconstruct the text. It is manifest that the evidential force of any\ndeductions from a reconstructed text is almost wholly\n\n{88}\n\ndependent on the accuracy and sufficiency of the materials from which\nthat text is derived.\n\nThe principal sources of our information regarding Marcion's Gospel are\nthe works of his most bitter denouncers Tertullian and Epiphanius, who,\nhowever, it must be borne in mind, wrote long after his time,--the work\nof Tertullian against Marcion having been composed about A.D. 208,(1)\nand that of Epiphanius a century later. We may likewise merely mention\nhere the \"_Dialogus de recta in deum fide_,\" commonly attributed to\nOrigen, although it cannot have been composed earlier than the middle of\nthe fourth century.(3) The first three sections are directed against the\nMarcionites, but only deal with a late form of their doctrines.(3) As\nVolkmar admits that the author clearly had only a general acquaintance\nwith the \"Antitheses,\" and principal proof passages of the Marcionites,\nbut, although he certainly possessed the Epistles, had not the Gospel of\nMarcion itself,(4) we need not now more particularly consider it.\n\nWe are, therefore, dependent upon the \"dogmatic and partly blind and\nunjust adversaries\"(5) of Marcion for our only knowledge of the text\nthey stigmatize; and when the character of polemical discussion in\nthe early centuries of our era is considered, it is certain that great\ncaution must be exercised, and not too much weight attached to the\nstatements of opponents who regarded a heretic with abhorrence, and\nattacked him with an acrimony which carried them far beyond the limits\nof fairness and truth. Their religious controversy bristles with\n\n{89}\n\nmisstatements, and is turbid with pious abuse. Tertullian was a master\nof this style, and the vehement vituperation with which he opens(1) and\noften interlards his work against \"the impious and sacrilegious Marcion\"\noffers anything but a guarantee of fair and legitimate criticism.\nEpiphanius was, if possible, still more passionate and exaggerated\nin his representations against him.(2) Undue importance must not,\ntherefore, be attributed to their statements.(3)\n\nNot only should there be caution exercised in receiving the\nrepresentations of one side in a religious discussion, but more\nparticularly is such caution necessary in the case of Tertullian,\nwhose trustworthiness is very far from being above suspicion, and whose\ninaccuracy is often apparent.(4) \"Son christianisme,\" says Reuss, \"est\nardent, sincere, profondement ancre dans son ame. L'on voit qu'il en\nvit. Mais ce christianisme est apre, insolent, brutal, ferrailleur. II\nest sans onction et sans charite, quelquefois merae sans loyaute, des\nqu'il se trouve en face d'une opposition quelconque. C'est un soldat\nqui ne sait que se battre et qui oublie, tout en se battant, qu'il faut\naussi respecter son ennemi. Dialecticien subtil et ruse, il excelle\nh, ridiculiser ses adversaires. L'injure, le sarcasme, un langage\nqui rappelle parfois en verite le genre de Rabelais, une effronterie\nd'affirmation dans les moments de faiblesse qui frise et atteint meme\nla mauvaise foi, voila ses armes. Je sais ce qu'il faut en cela mettre\nsurde compte de l'epoque.... Si, au second siecle,\n\n{90}\n\ntous les partis, sauf quelques gnostiques, sont intolerants, Tertullian\nTest plus que tout le monde.\"(1)\n\nThe charge of mutilating and interpolating the Gospel of Luke is first\nbrought against Marcion by Irenaeus,(2) and it is repeated with still\ngreater vehemence and fulness by Tertullian,(3) and Epiphanius;(4) but\nthe mere assertion by Fathers at the end of the second and in the\nthird centuries, that a Gospel different from their own was one of the\nCanonical Gospels falsified and mutilated, can have no weight whatever\nin itself in the inquiry as to the real nature of that work.(5) Their\narbitrary assumption of exclusive originality and priority for the four\nGospels of the Church led them, without any attempt at argument, to\ntreat every other evangelical work as an offshoot or falsification of\nthese. The arguments by which Tertullian endeavours to establish that\nthe Gospels of Luke and the other Canonical Evangelists were more\nancient than that of Marcion(6) show that he had no idea of historical\nor critical evidence.(7) We are, however, driven back upon such actual\ndata regarding the text and contents of Marcion's Gospel as are given\nby the Fathers, as the only basis, in the absence of the Gospel itself,\nupon which any hypothesis as to its real character can be built. The\nquestion therefore is: Are these data sufficiently ample and trustworthy\nfor a decisive judgment\n\n{91}\n\nfrom internal evidence? if indeed internal evidence in such a case can\nbe decisive at all.\n\nAll that we know, then, of Marcion's Gospel is simply what Tertullian\nand Epiphanius have stated with regard to it. It is, however,\nundeniable, and indeed is universally admitted, that their object in\ndealing with it at all was entirely dogmatic, and not in the least\ndegree critical(1). The spirit of that age was indeed so essentially\nuncritical(2) that not even the canonical text could waken it into\nactivity. Tertullian very clearly states what his object was in\nattacking Marcion's Gospel. After asserting that the whole aim of the\nHeresiarch was to prove a disagreement between the Old Testament and the\nNew, and that for this purpose he had erased from the Gospel all that\nwas contrary to his opinion, and retained all that he had considered\nfavourable, Tertullian proceeds to examine the passages retained,(3)\nwith the view of proving that the Heretic has shown the same \"blindness\nof heresy\" both in that which he has erased and in that which he has\nretained, inasmuch as the passages which Marcion has allowed to remain\nare as opposed to his system, as those which he has omitted. He conducts\nthe controversy in a free and discursive manner, and whilst he appears\nto go through Marcion's Gospel with some regularity, it will be\napparent, as we proceed, that\n\n{92}\n\nmere conjecture has to play a large part in any attempt to reconstruct,\nfrom his data, the actual text of Marcion. Epiphanius explains his\naim with equal clearness. He had made a number of extracts from the\nso-called Gospel of Marcion which seemed to him to refute the heretic,\nand after giving a detailed and numbered list of these passages, which\nhe calls [------], he takes them consecutively and to each adds his\n\"Refutation.\" His intention is to show how wickedly and disgracefully\nMarcion has mutilated and falsified the Gospel, and how fruitlessly he\nhas done so, inasmuch as he has stupidly, or by oversight, allowed much\nto remain in his Gospel by which he may be completely refuted.(1)\n\nAs it is impossible within our limits fully to illustrate the procedure\nof the Fathers with regard to Marcion's Gospel, and the nature and value\nof the materials they supply, we shall as far as possible quote the\ndeclarations of critics, and more especially of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld,\nwho, in the true and enlightened spirit of criticism, impartially state\nthe character of the data available for the understanding of the text.\nAs these two critics have, by their able and learned investigations,\ndone more than any others to educe and render possible a decision of the\nproblem, their own estimate of the materials upon which a judgment has\nto be formed is of double value.\n\nWith regard to Tertullian, Volkmar explains that his desire is totally\nto annihilate the most dangerous heretic of his time,--first (Books\ni.--iii.), to overthrow Marcion's system in general as expounded in\nhis \"Antitheses,\"--and then (Book iv.) to show that even the Gospel of\nMarcion\n\n{93}\n\nonly contains Catholic doctrine (he concludes, \"_Christus Jesus in\nEvangelio tuo mens est_\" c. 43); and therefore he examines the Gospel\nonly so far as may serve to establish his own view and refute that\nof Marcion. \"To show,\" Volkmar continues, \"wherein this Gospel was\nfalsified or mutilated, _i.e._, varied from his own, on the contrary,\nis in no way his design, for he perceives that Marcion could retort the\nreproach of interpolation, and in his time proof from internal grounds\nwas hardly possible, so that only exceptionally, where a variation seems\nto him remarkable, does he specially mention it.\"(1) On the other hand\nVolkmar remarks that Tertullian's Latin rendering of the text of Marcion\nwhich lay before him,--which, although certainly free and having\nchiefly the substance in view, is still in weightier passages verbally\naccurate,--directly indicates important variations in that text. He goes\non to argue that the silence of Tertullian may be weighty testimony\nfor the fact that passages which exist in Luke, but which he does\nnot mention, were missing in Marcion's Gospel, but he does so with\nconsiderable reservation. \"But his silence _alone_,\" he says, \"can only\nunder certain conditions represent with diplomatic certainty an omission\nin Marcion. It is indeed probable that he would not lightly have passed\nover a passage in the Gospel of Marcion which might in any way be\ncontradictory to its system, if one altogether similar had not preceded\nit, all the more as he frequently drags in by force such proof passages\nfrom Marcion's text, and often plainly with but a certain sophistry\ntries to refute his adversary out of the words of his own Gospel. But it\nremains always possible that in his eagerness he has\n\n{94}\n\noverlooked much; and besides, he believes that by his replies to\nparticular passages he has already sufficiently dealt with many others\nof a similar kind; indeed, avowedly, he will not willingly repeat\nhimself. A certain conclusion, therefore, can only be deduced from the\nsilence of Tertullian when special circumstances enter.\"(l) Volkmar,\nhowever, deduces with certainty from the statements of Tertullian\nthat, whilst he wrote, he had not before him the Gospel of Luke, but\nintentionally laid it aside, and merely referred to the Marcionitish\ntext, and further that, like all the Fathers of the third Century, he\npreferred the Gospel according to Matthew to the other Synoptics, and\nwas well acquainted with it alone, so that in speaking of the Gospel\ngenerally he only has in his memory the sense, and the sense alone of\nLuke except in so far as it agrees or seems to agree with Matthew.(2)\n\nWith regard to the manner in which Tertullian performed the work he had\nundertaken, Hilgenfeld remarks: \"As Tertullian, in going through the\nMarcionitish Gospel, has only the object of refutation in view, he very\nrarely states explicitly what is missing in it; and as, on the one hand,\nwe can only venture to conclude from the silence of Tertullian that a\npassage is wanting, when it is altogether inexplicable that he should\nnot have made use of it for the purpose of refutation; so, on the other,\nwe must also know how Marcion used and interpreted the Gospel, and\nshould never lose sight of Tertullian's refutation and defence.\"(3)\n\nHahn substantially expresses the same opinions. He\n\n{95}\n\nsays: \"Inasmuch as Tertullian goes through the Mar-cionitish text with\nthe view of refuting the heretic out of that which he accepts, and not\nof critically pointing out all variations, falsifications, and passages\nrejected, he frequently quotes the falsified or altered Marcionitish\ntext without expressly mentioning the variations.(1)... Yet he cannot\nrefrain--although this was not his object--occasionally, from noticing\namongst other things any falsifications and omissions which, when he\nperhaps examined the text of Luke or had a lively recollection of it,\nstruck and too grievously offended him.\"(2)\n\nVolkmar's opinion of the procedure of Epiphanius is still more\nunfavourable. Contrasting it with that of Tertullian, he characterizes\nit as \"more superficial,\" and he considers that its only merit is its\npresenting an independent view of Marcion's Gospel. Further than this,\nhowever, he says: \"How far we can build upon his statements, whether\nas regards their completeness or their trustworthiness is not yet made\naltogether clear.\"(3) Volk-mar goes on to show how thoroughly Epiphanius\nintended to do his work, and yet that, although from what he himself\nleads us to expect, we might hope to find a complete statement of\nMarcion's sins, the Father himself disappoints such an expectation by\nhis own admission of incompleteness. He complains generally of his\nfree and misleading method of quotation, such, for instance, as his\nalteration of the text without explanation; alteration of the same\npassage on different occasions in more than one way; abbreviations, and\nomissions of parts of quotations; the sudden breaking off of passages\njust commenced with\n\n{96}\n\nthe indefinite [------], without any indication how much this may\ninclude.(1)\n\nVolkmar, indeed, explains that Epiphanius is only thoroughly trustworthy\nwhere, and _so far as_, he wishes to state in his Scholia an omission or\nvariation in Marcion's text from his own Canonical Gospel, in which\ncase he minutely registers the smallest point, but this is to be clearly\ndistinguished from any charge of falsification brought against Marcion\nin his Refutations; for only while earlier drawing up his Scholia had\nhe the Mar-cionitish Gospel before him and compared it with Luke; but in\nthe case of the Refutations, on the contrary, which he wrote later,\nhe did not at least again compare the Gospel of Luke. \"It is, however,\naltogether different,\" continues Volkmar, \"as regards the statements of\nEpiphanius concerning the part of the Gospel of Luke which is preserved\nin Marcion. Whilst he desires to be _strictly literal_ in the account of\nthe _variations_, and also with two exceptions _is_ so, he so generally\nadheres _only to the purport_ of the passages retained by Marcion,\nthat altogether literal quotations are quite exceptional; _throughout_,\nhowever, where passages of greater extent are referred to, these are\nnot merely abbreviated, but also are quoted in _very free_ fashion,\nand nowhere can we reckon that the passage in Marcion ran verbally as\nEpiphanius quotes it.\"(2) And to this we may add a remark made further\non: \"We cannot in general rely upon the accuracy of his statements in\nregard to that which Marcion had in common with Luke.\"(3) On the other\nhand Volkmar had previously\n\n{97}\n\nsaid: \"Absolute completeness in regard to that which Marcion's Gospel\ndid not contain is not to be reckoned upon in his Scholia. He has\ncertainly not intended to pass over anything, but in the eagerness which\nso easily renders men superficial and blind much has escaped him.\"(l)\n\nHahn bears similar testimony to the incompleteness of Epiphanius. \"It\nwas not his purpose,\" he says, \"fully to notice all falsifications,\nvariations, and omissions, although he does mark most of them, but\nmerely to extract from the Gospel of Marcion, as well as from\nhis collection of Epistles, what seemed to him well suited for\nrefutation.\"(2) But he immediately adds: \"When he quotes a passage\nfrom Marcion's text, however, in which such falsifications occur, he\ngenerally,--but not always,--notes them more or less precisely, and\nhe had himself laid it down as a subsidiary object of his work to pay\nattention to such falsifications.\"(3) A little further on he says: \"In\nthe quotations of the remaining passages which Epiphanius did not find\ndifferent from the Gospel of Luke, and where he therefore says nothing\nof falsification or omission, he is often very free, neither adhering\nstrictly to the particular words, nor to their arrangement, but his\nfavourite practice is to give their substance and sense for the purpose\nof refuting his opponent. He presupposes the words known from the Gospel\nof Luke.\"(4)\n\nIt must be stated, however, that both Volkmar(5) and Hilgenfeld(6)\nconsider that the representations of\n\n{98}\n\nTertullian and Epiphanius supplement each other and enable the contents\nof Marcion's Gospel to be ascertained with tolerable certainty. Yet\na few pages earlier Volkmar had pointed out that: \"The ground for a\ncertain fixture of the text of the Marcionitish Gospel, however, seems\ncompletely taken away by the fact that Tertullian and Epiphanius, in\ntheir statements regarding its state, not merely repeatedly seem to, but\nin part actually do, directly contradict each other.\"(1) Hahn endeavours\nto explain some of these contradictions by imagining that later\nMarcionites had altered the text of their Gospel, and that Epiphanius\nhad the one form and Tertullian another;(2) but such a doubt only\nrenders the whole of the statements regarding the work more uncertain\nand insecure. That it is not without some reason, however, appears from\nthe charge which Tertullian brings against the disciples of Marcion:\n\"for they daily alter it (their Gospel) as they are daily refuted by\nus.\"(3) In fact, we have no assurance whatever that the work upon\nwhich Tertullian and Epiphanius base their charge against Marcion of\nfalsification and mutilation of Luke was Marcion's original Gospel at\nall, and we certainly have no historical evidence on the point.(4)\n\nThe question even arises, whether Tertullian, and indeed Epiphanius, had\nMarcion's Gospel in any shape before them when they wrote, or merely his\nwork the\n\n{99}\n\n\"Antitheses.\"(1) In commencing his onslaught on Marcion's Gospel,\nTerlullian says: \"Marcion seems (videtur) to have selected Luke,\nto mutilate it.\"(2) This is the first serious introduction of his\n\"mutilation hypothesis,\" which he thenceforward presses with so much\nassurance, but the expression is very uncertain for so decided a\ncontroversialist, if he had been able to speak more positively.(3)\nWe have seen that it is admitted that Epiphanius wrote without again\ncomparing the Gospel of Marcion with Luke, and it is also conceded that\nTertullian at least had not the Canonical Gospel, but in professing to\nquote Luke evidently does so from memory, and approximates his text\nto Matthew, with which Gospel, like most of the Fathers, he was better\nacquainted. This may be illustrated by the fact that both Tertullian\nand Epiphanius reproach Marcion with erasing passages from the Gospel of\nLuke, which never were in Luke at all.(4) In one place Tertullian says:\n\"Marcion, you must also remove this from the Gospel: 'I am not sent but\nunto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,'(3) and: 'It is not meet\nto take the children's bread, and give it to dogs,'(6) in order, be\nit known, that Christ may not seem to be an Israelite.\"(7) The \"Great\nAfrican\"\n\n{100}\n\nthus taunts his opponent, evidently under the impression that the two\npassages were in Luke, immediately after he had accused Marcion of\nhaving actually expunged from that Gospel, \"as an interpolation,\"(1) the\nsaying that Christ had not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but\nto fulfil them,(2) which likewise never formed part of it. He repeats\na similar charge on several other occasions.(3) Epiphanius commits the\nsame mistake of reproaching Marcion with omitting from Luke what is\nonly found in Matthew.(4) We have, in fact, no certain guarantee of the\naccuracy or trustworthiness of their statements.\n\nWe have said enough, we trust, to show that the sources for the\nreconstruction of a text of Marcion's Gospel are most unsatisfactory,\nand no one who attentively studies the analysis of Hahn, Ritschl,\nVolkmar, Hilgenfeld, and others, who have examined and systematized\nthe data of the Fathers, can fail to be struck by the uncertainty which\nprevails throughout, the almost continuous vagueness and consequent\nopening, nay, necessity, for conjecture, and the absence of really sure\nindications. The Fathers had no intention of showing what Marcion's text\nactually was, and their object being solely dogmatic and not critical,\ntheir statements are very insufficient for the purpose.(5) The materials\nhave had to be ingeniously collected and sifted from polemical writings\nwhose authors, so far from professing to furnish them, were only bent\nupon seeking in Marcion's Gospel such points as could legitimately, or\nby sophistical skill, be used against him. Passing observations, general\n\n{101}\n\nremarks, as well as direct statements, have too often been the only\nindications guiding the patient explorers and, in the absence of certain\ninformation, the silence of the angry Fathers has been made the basis\nfor important conclusions. It is evident that not only is such a\nprocedure necessarily uncertain and insecure, but that it rests upon\nassumptions with regard to the intelligence, care and accuracy of\nTertullian and Epiphanius, which are not sufficiently justified by\nthat part of their treatment of Marcion's text which we can examine and\nappreciate. And when all these doubtful landmarks have failed, too many\npassages have been left to the mere judgment of critics, as to whether\nthey were too opposed to Marcion's system to have been retained by him,\nor too favourable to have been omitted. The reconstructed texts, as\nmight be expected, differ from each other, and one Editor finds the\nresults of his predecessors incomplete or unsatisfactory,1 although\nnaturally at each successive attempt, the materials previously collected\nand adopted have contributed to an apparently more complete result.\nAfter complaining of the incompleteness and uncertainty of the\nstatements of Tertullian and Epiphanius, Ritschl affirms that they\nfurnish so little solid material on which to base a hypothesis, that\nrather by means of a hypothesis must we determine the remains of the\nGospel from Tertullian.(3) Hilgenfeld quotes this with approval, and\nadds, that at least Ritschl's opinion is so far right, that all the\nfacts of the case can no longer be settled from external data, and that\nthe general view regarding the\n\n{102}\n\nGospel only can decide many points.(1) This means of course that\nhypothesis is to supply that which is wanting in the Fathers. Volkmar,\nin the introduction to his last comprehensive work on Marcion's Gospel,\nsays: \"And, in fact, it is no wonder that critics have for so long, and\nsubstantially to so little effect, fought over the protean question,\nfor there has been so much uncertainty as to the very basis (Fundament)\nitself,--the precise text of the remarkable document,--that Baur has\nfound full ground for rejecting, as unfounded, the supposition on which\nthat finally-attained decision (his previous one) rested.\"(2) Critics\nof all shades of opinion are forced to admit the incompleteness of\nthe materials for any certain reconstruction of Marcion's text and,\nconsequently, for an absolute settlement of the question from internal\nevidence,(3) although the labours of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld have\nmaterially increased our knowledge of the contents of his Gospel.\nWe must contend, however, that, desirable and important as it is to\nascertain as perfectly as possible the precise nature of Marcion's text,\nthe question of its origin and relation to Luke would not by any means\nbe settled even by its final reconstruction. There would, as we shall\npresently show, remain unsolved the problem of its place in that\nsuccessive manipulation of materials by which a few Gospels gradually\nabsorbed and displaced the rest. Our own synoptics\n\n{103}\n\nexhibit unmistakable traces of the process, and clearly forbid our\nlightly setting aside the claim of Marcion's Gospel to be considered a\ngenuine work, and no mere falsification and abbreviation of Luke.\n\nBefore proceeding to a closer examination of Marcion's Gospel and the\ngeneral evidence bearing upon it, it may be well here briefly to refer\nto the system of the Heresiarch whose high personal character exerted so\npowerful an influence upon his own time,(1) and whose views continued\nto prevail widely for a couple of centuries after his death. It was the\nmisfortune of Marcion to live in an age when Christianity had passed\nout of the pure morality of its infancy, when, untroubled by complicated\nquestions of dogma, simple faith and pious enthusiasm had been the one\ngreat bond of Christian brotherhood, into a phase of ecclesiastical\ndevelopment in which religion was fast degenerating into theology, and\ncomplicated doctrines were rapidly assuming that rampant attitude which\nled to so much bitterness, persecution, and schism. In later times\nMarcion might have been honoured as a reformer, in his own he was\ndenounced as a heretic.(2) Austere and ascetic in his opinions, he aimed\nat superhuman purity, and although his clerical adversaries might scoff\nat his impracticable doctrines regarding marriage and the subjugation of\nthe flesh, they have had their parallels amongst those whom the Church\nhas since most delighted to honour; and at least the whole tendency\nof his system was markedly towards the side of virtue.(3) It would of\ncourse be foreign to our\n\n{104}\n\npurpose to enter upon any detailed statement of its principles, and we\nmust confine ourselves to such particulars only as are necessary to an\nunderstanding of the question before us.\n\nAs we have already frequently had occasion to mention, there were\ntwo broad parties in the primitive Church, and the very existence of\nChristianity was in one sense endangered by the national exclusiveness\nof the people amongst whom it originated. The one party considered\nChristianity a mere continuation of the Law, and dwarfed it into an\nIsrealitish institution, a narrow sect of Judaism; the other represented\nthe glad tidings as the introduction of a new system applicable to\nall and supplanting the Mosaic dispensation of the Law by a universal\ndispensation of grace. These two parties were popularly represented in\nthe early Church by the Apostles Peter and Paul, and their antagonism\nis faintly revealed in the Epistle to the Galatians. Marcion, a gentile\nChristian, appreciating the true character of the new religion and its\nelevated spirituality, and profoundly impressed by the comparatively\ndegraded and anthropomorphic features of Judaism, drew a very sharp line\nof demarcation between them, and represented Christianity as an entirely\nnew and separate system abrogating the old and having absolutely no\nconnection with it. Jesus was not to him the Messiah of the Jews, the\nson of David come permanently to establish the Law and the Prophets, but\na divine being sent to reveal to man a wholly new spiritual religion,\nand a hitherto unknown God of goodness and grace. The Creator [------],\n\n{105}\n\nthe God of the Old Testament, was different from the God of grace\nwho had sent Jesus to reveal the Truth, to bring reconciliation and\nsalvation to all, and to abrogate the Jewish God of the World and of the\nLaw, who was opposed to the God and Father of Jesus Christ as Matter is\nto Spirit, impurity to purity. Christianity was in distinct antagonism\nto Judaism, the Spiritual God of heaven, whose goodness and love were\nfor the Universe, to the God of the World, whose chosen and peculiar\npeople were the Jews, the Gospel of Grace to the dispensation of the Old\nTestament. Christianity, therefore, must be kept pure from the Judaistic\nelements humanly thrust into it, which were so essentially opposed to\nits whole spirit.\n\nMarcion wrote a work called \"Antitheses\" [------], in which he\ncontrasted the old system with the new, the God of the one with the\nGod of the other, the Law with the Gospel, and in this he maintained\nopinions which anticipated many held in our own time. Tertullian attacks\nthis work in the first three books of his treatise against Marcion,\nand he enters upon the discussion of its details with true theological\nvigour: \"Now, then, ye hounds, yelping at the God of truth, whom the\nApostle casts out,(1) to all your questions! These are the bones of\ncontention which ye gnaw!\"(2) The poverty of the \"Great African's\"\narguments keeps pace with his abuse. Marcion objected: If the God of the\nOld Testament be good, prescient of the future, and able to avert evil,\nwhy did he allow man, made in his own image, to be deceived\n\n{106}\n\nby the devil, and to fall from obedience of the Law into sin and\ndeath?(1) How came the devil, the origin of lying and deceit, to be made\nat all?(2) After the fall, God became a judge both severe and cruel;\nwoman is at once condemned to bring forth in sorrow and to serve her\nhusband, changed from a help into a slave; the earth is cursed which\nbefore was blessed, and man is doomed to labour and to death.(3) The law\nwas one of retaliation and not of justice,--lex talionis--eye for eye,\ntooth for tooth, stripe for stripe.(4) And it was not consistent, for in\ncontravention of the Decalogue, God is made to instigate the Israelites\nto spoil the Egyptians, and fraudulently rob them of their gold and\nsilver;(5) to incite them to work on the Sabbath by ordering them to\ncarry the ark for eight days round Jericho;(6) to break the second\ncommandment by making and setting up the brazen serpent and the golden\ncherubim.(7) Then God is inconstant, electing men, as Saul and Solomon,\nwhom he subsequently rejects;(8) repenting that he had set up Saul, and\nthat he had doomed the Ninevites,(9) and so on. God calls out: Adam,\nwhere art thou? inquires whether he had eaten the forbidden fruit; asks\nof Cain where his brother was, as if he had not yet heard the blood\nof Abel crying from the ground, and did not already know all these\nthings.(10) Anticipating the results of modem criticism, Marcion denies\nthe applicability to Jesus of the so-called Messianic prophecies. The\nEmmanuel of\n\n{107}\n\nIsaiah (vii. 14, cf. viii. 4) is not Christ;(1) the \"Virgin\" his mother\nis simply a \"young woman\" according to Jewish phraseology;(2) and the\nsufferings of the Servant of God (Isaiah lii. 13--liii. 9) are not\npredictions of the death of Jesus.(3) There is a complete severance\nbetween the Law and the Gospel, and the God of the latter is the\nAntithesis of that of the former.(4) \"The one was perfect, pure,\nbeneficent, passionless; the other, though not unjust by nature,\ninfected by matter,--subject to all the passions of man,--cruel,\nchangeable; the New Testament, especially as remodelled by Marcion,(5)\nwas holy, wise, amiable; the Old Testament, the Law, barbarous, inhuman,\ncontradictory, and detestable.\"(6)\n\nMarcion ardently maintained the doctrine of the impurity of matter,\nand he carried it to its logical conclusion, both in speculation and\npractice. He, therefore, asserting the incredibility of an incarnate\nGod, denied the corporeal reality of the flesh of Christ. His body was\na mere semblance and not of human substance, was not born of a human\nmother, and the divine nature was not degraded by contact with the\nflesh.(7) Marcion finds in Paul the purest promulgator of the truth as\nhe understands it, and emboldened by the Epistle to the Galatians, in\nwhich that Apostle rebukes even Apostles for \"not walking uprightly\naccording to the truth of the Gospel,\" he accuses the other Apostles of\nhaving depraved the pure form of the Gospel doctrines delivered to them\nby\n\n     5 We give this quotation as a resume by an English historian\n     and divine, but the idea of the \"New Testament remodelled by\n     Marcion,\" is a mere ecclesiastical imagination.\n\n{108}\n\nJesus,(1) \"mixing up matters of the Law with the words of the\nSaviour.\"(2)\n\nTertullian reproaches Marcion with having written the work in which he\ndetails the contrasts between Judaism and Christianity, of which we\nhave given the briefest sketch, as an introduction and encouragement to\nbelief in his Gospel, which he ironically calls \"the Gospel according\nto the Antitheses;\"(3) and the charge which the Fathers bring against\nMarcion is that he laid violent hands on the Canonical Gospel of Luke,\nand manipulated it to suit his own views. \"For certainly the whole\nobject at which he laboured in drawing up the 'Antitheses.'\" says\nTertullian, \"amounts to this: that he may prove a disagreement between\nthe Old and New Testament, so that his own Christ may be separated from\nthe Creator, as of another God, as alien from the Law and the Prophets.\nFor this purpose it is certain that he has erased whatever was contrary\nto his own opinion and in harmony with the Creator, as if interpolated\nby his partisans, but has retained everything consistent with his own\nopinion.\"(4) The whole hypothesis that Marcion's Gospel is a mutilated\nversion of our third Synoptic in fact rested upon this accusation. It\nis obvious that if it cannot be shown that Marcion's Gospel was our\nCanonical Gospel merely garbled by the Heresiarch for dogmatic reasons\nin the interest of his system,--for there could not be any other\nconceivable\n\n{109}\n\nreason for tampering with it,--the claim of Marcion's Gospel to the rank\nof a more original and authentic work than Luke's acquires double force.\nWe must, therefore, inquire into the character of the variations between\nthe so-called heretical, and the Canonical Gospels, and see how far the\nhypothesis of the Fathers accord with the contents of Marcion's Gospel\nso far as we are acquainted with it.\n\nAt the very outset we are met by the singular phenomenon, that both\nTertullian and Epiphanius, who accuse Marcion of omitting everything\nwhich was unfavourable, and retaining only what was favourable to\nhis views, undertake to refute him out of what remains in his Gospel.\nTertullian says: \"It will then be proved that he has shown the same\ndefect of blindness of heresy both in that which he has erased and that\nwhich he has retained.\"(1) Epiphanius also confidently states that, out\nof that which Marcion has allowed to remain of the Gospel, he can prove\nhis fraud and imposture, and thoroughly refute him.(2) Now if Marcion\nmutilated Luke to so little purpose as this, what was the use of his\ntouching it at all? He is known as an able man, the most influential and\ndistinguished of all the heretical leaders of the second century, and\nit seems unreasonable to suppose that, on the theory of his erasing or\naltering all that contradicted his system, he should have done his work\nso imperfectly.(3) The Fathers say that he endeavours to get rid of the\ncontradictory passages which remain by a system of false interpretation;\nbut surely he would not have allowed himself to be driven\n\n{110}\n\nto this extremity, leaving weapons in the hands of his opponents, when\nhe might so easily have excised the obnoxious texts along with the rest?\nIt is admitted by critics, moreover, that passages said to have been\nomitted by Marcion are often not opposed to his system at all, and\nsometimes, indeed, even in favour of it;(1) and on the other hand, that\npassages which were retained are contradictory to his views.(2) This is\nnot intelligible upon any theory of arbitrary garbling of a Gospel in\nthe interest of a system.\n\nIt may be well to give a few instances of the anomalies presented, upon\nthis hypothesis, by Marcion's text. Some critics believe that the verses\nLuke vii. 29--35, were wanting in Marcion's Gospel.(3) Hahn accounts for\nthe omission of verses 29, 30, regarding the baptism of John, because\nthey represented the relation of the Baptist to Jesus in a way which\nMarcion did not admit.(4) But as he allowed the preceding verses to\nremain, such a proceeding was absurd. In verse 26 he calls John a\nprophet, and much more than a prophet, and in the next verse (27) quotes\nrespecting him the words of\n\n{111}\n\nMalachi iii. 1: \"This is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my\nmessenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.\" It\nis impossible on any reasonable ground to account for the retention of\nsuch honourable mention of the Baptist, if verses 29, 30 were erased\nfor such dogmatic reasons.(1) Still more incomprehensible on such a\nhypothesis is the omission of Luke vii. 31--35, where that generation\nis likened unto children playing in the market-place and calling to each\nother: \"We piped unto you and ye danced not,\" and Jesus continues: \"For\nJohn is come neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath\na devil (34). The Son of Man is come, eating and drinking; and ye say:\nBehold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and\nsinners.\" Hahn attributes the omission of these verses to the sensuous\nrepresentation they give of Jesus as eating and drinking.(2) What was\nthe use of eliminating these verses when he allowed to remain unaltered\nverse 36 of the same chapter,(3) in which Jesus is invited to eat with\nthe Pharisee, and goes into his house and sits down to meat? or v.\n29--35,(4) in which Jesus accepts the feast of Levi, and defends his\ndisciples for eating and drinking against the murmurs of the Scribes and\nPharisees? or xv. 2,(5)\n\n{112}\n\nwhere the Pharisees say of him: \"This man receiveth sinners and eateth\nwith them?\" How absurdly futile the omission of the one passage\nfor dogmatic reasons, while so many others were allowed to remain\nunaltered.(1)\n\nThe next passage to which we must refer is one of the most important in\nconnection with Marcion's Docetic doctrine of the person of Jesus. It is\nsaid that he omitted viii. 19: \"And his mother and his brethren came to\nhim and could not come at him for the crowd,\" and that he inserted in\nverse 21, [------]; making the whole episode in his Gospel read (20):\n\"And it was told him by certain which said: Thy mother and thy brethren\nstand without desiring to see thee: 21. But he answered and said unto\nthem: Who are my mother and brethren? My mother and my brethren are\nthese,\" &c. The omission of verse 19 is said to have been made because,\naccording to Marcion, Christ was not born like an ordinary man, and\nconsequently had neither mother nor brethren.(3) The mere fact, however,\nthat Marcion retains verse 20, in which the crowd simply state as a\nmatter fully recognized, the relationship of those who were seeking\nJesus, renders the omission of the preceding verse useless,(4) except on\nthe ground of mere redundancy.\n\nMarcion is reported not to have had the word [------] in x. 25,(5) \"so\nthat the question of the lawyer simply ran:\n\n{113}\n\n\"Master, what shall I do to inherit life?\" The omission of this word is\nsupposed to have been made in order to make the passage refer back to\nthe God of the Old Testament, who promises merely long life on earth for\nkeeping the commandments, whilst it is only in the Gospel that _eternal_\nlife is promised.(1) But in the corresponding passage, xviii. 18,(2) the\n[------] is retained, and the question of the ruler is: \"Good master,\nwhat shall I do to inherit eternal life?\" It has been argued that the\nintroduction of the one thing still lacking (verse 22) after the keeping\nof the law and the injunction to sell all and give to the poor, changes\nthe context, and justifies the use there of _eternal_ life as the reward\nfor fulfilment of the higher commandment.(3) This reasoning, however,\nseems to us without grounds, and merely an ingenious attempt to account\nfor an embarrassing fact. In reality the very same context occurs in the\nother passage, for, explaining the meaning of the word \"neighbour,\"\nlove to whom is enjoined as part of the way to obtain \"life,\" Jesus\ninculcates the very same duty as in xviii. 22, of distributing to the\npoor (cf. x. 28--37). There seems, therefore, no reasonable motive\nfor omitting the word from the one passage whilst retaining it in the\nother.(4)\n\nThe passage in Luke xi. 29--32, from the concluding words of verse 29,\n\"but the sign of the prophet Jonah\"\n\n{114}\n\nwas not found in Marcion's Gospel.(1) This omission is accounted for\non the ground that such a respectful reference to the Old Testament was\nquite contrary to the system of Marcion.(2) Verses 49--51 of the same\nchapter, containing the saying of the \"Wisdom of God,\" regarding the\nsending of the prophets that the Jews might slay them, and their blood\nbe required of that generation, were also omitted.(3) The reason given\nfor this omission is, that the words of the God of the Old Testament are\ntoo respectfully quoted and adopted to suit the views of the Heretic.(4)\nThe words in verses 31--32, \"And a greater than Solomon--than Jonah\nis here,\" might well have been allowed to remain in the text, for the\nsuperiority of Christ over the kings and prophets of the Old Testament\nwhich is asserted directly suits and supports the system of Marcion. How\nmuch less, however, is the omission of these passages to be explained\nupon any intelligent dogmatic principle, when we find in Marcion's text\nthe passage in which Jesus justifies his conduct on the Sabbath by\nthe example of David (vi. 3--4),(5) and that in which he assures\nthe disciples of the greatness of their reward in heaven for the\npersecutions they were to endure:\n\n{115}\n\n\"For behold your reward is great in heaven: for after the same manner\ndid their fathers unto the prophets\" (vi. 23).(1) As we have seen,\nJesus is also allowed to quote an Old Testament prophecy (vii. 27) as\nfulfilled in the coming of John to prepare the way for himself. The\nquestions which Jesus puts to the Scribes (xx. 41--44) regarding the\nChrist being David's son, with the quotation from Ps. ex. 1, which\nMarcion is stated to have retained,(2) equally refute the supposition as\nto his motive for \"omitting\" xi. 29 ff. It has been argued with\nregard to the last passage that Jesus merely uses the words of the Old\nTestament to meet his own theory,(3) but the dilemma in which Jesus\nplaces the Scribes is clearly not the real object of his question: its\naim is a suggestion of the true character of the Christ. But amongst\nhis other sins with regard to Luke's Gospel, Marcion is also accused of\ninterpolating it. And in what way? Why the Heresiarch, who is so averse\nto all references to the Old Testament that he is supposed to erase\nthem, actually, amongst his few interpolations, adds a reference to the\nOld Testament. Between xvii. 14 and 15 (some critics say in verse 18)\nMarcion introduced the verse which is found in Luke iv. 27: \"And many\nlepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of\nthem was cleansed saving Naaman, the Syrian.\"(4) Now is it conceivable\nthat a man who inserts, as it is said, references to the\n\n{116}\n\nOld Testament into his text so gratuitously, can have been so\ninconsistent as to have omitted these passages because they contain\nsimilar references? We must say that the whole of the reasoning\nregarding these passages omitted and retained, and the fine distinctions\nwhich are drawn between them, are anything but convincing. A general\ntheory being adopted, nothing is more easy than to harmonise everything\nwith it in this way; nothing is more easy than to assign some reason,\ngood or bad, apparently in accordance with the foregone conclusion, why\none passage was retained, and why another was omitted, but in almost\nevery case the reasoning might with equal propriety be reversed if the\npassages were so, and the retention of the omitted passage as well as\nthe omission of that retained be quite as reasonably justified. The\ncritics who have examined Marcion's Gospel do not trouble themselves to\ninquire if the general connection of the text be improved by the absence\nof passages supposed to be omitted, but simply try whether the supposed\nomissions are explainable on the ground of a dogmatic tendency in\nMarcion. In fact, the argument throughout is based upon foregone\nconclusions, and rarely upon any solid grounds whatever. The retention\nof such passages as we have quoted above renders the omission of the\nother for dogmatic reasons quite purposeless.(1)\n\nThe passage, xii. 6, 7, which argues that as the sparrows are not\nforgotten before God, and the hairs of our head are numbered, the\ndisciples need not fear, was not found in Mansion's Gospel.(2) The\nsupposed omission\n\n{117}\n\nis explained on the ground that, according to Marcion's system, God does\nnot interest himself about such trifles as sparrows and the hairs of\nour head, but merely about souls.(1) That such reasoning is arbitrary,\nhowever, is apparent from the fact, that Marcion's text had verse 24 of\nthe same chapter:(2) \"Consider the ravens,\" &c., &c., and \"God feedeth\nthem:\" &c., and also v. 28,(3) \"But if God so clothe the grass,\" &c.,\n&c., \"how much more will he clothe you, O! ye of little faith?\" As no\none ventures to argue that Marcion limited the providence of God to the\nravens, and to the grass, but excluded the sparrows and the hair, no\ndogmatic reason can be assigned for the omission of the one, whilst the\nother is retained.(4)\n\nThe first nine verses of ch. xiii. were likewise absent from Marcion's\ntext,(5) wherein Jesus declares that like the Galilaeans, whose blood\nPilate had mixed with their sacrifices (v. 1, 2), and the eighteen upon\nwhom the tower in Siloam fell (v. 4), \"except ye repent, ye shall all\nlikewise perish,\" (v. 3 and 5), and then recites the parable of the\nunfruitful fig-tree (v. 6--9), which the master of the vineyard orders\nto be cut down (v. 7), but then spares for a season (v. 8, 9). The\ntheory advanced to account for the asserted \"omission\" of these\n\n{118}\n\nverses is that they could not be reconciled with Marcion's system,\naccording to which the good God never positively punishes the wicked,\nbut merely leaves them to punish themselves in that, by not accepting\nthe proffered grace, they have no part in the blessedness of\nChristians.(1) In his earlier work, Volkmar distinctly admitted that the\nwhole of this passage might be omitted without prejudice to the text\nof Luke, and that he could not state any ground, in connection with\nMarcion's system, which rendered its omission either necessary or even\nconceivable. He then decided that the passage was not contained at all\nin the version of Luke, which Marcion possessed, but was inserted at\na later period in our Codices.(2) It was only on his second attempt to\naccount for all omissions on dogmatic grounds that he argued as above.\nIn like manner Hilgenfeld also, with Rettig, considered that the passage\ndid not form part of the original Luke, so that here again Marcion's\ntext was free from a very abrupt passage, not belonging to the more\npure and primitive Gospel.(3) Baur recognizes not only that there is no\ndogmatic ground to explain the omission, but on the contrary, that\nthe passage fully agrees with the system of Marcion.(4) The total\ninsufficiency of the argument to explain the omission, however, is\napparent from the numerous passages, which were allowed to remain in the\ntext, which still more clearly outraged this part of Marcion's system.\nIn the parable of the great supper, xiv. 15--24, the Lord is angry (v.\n21), and declares that none of those who were\n\n{119}\n\nbidden should taste of his supper (v. 24). In xii. 5, Jesus warns his\nown disciples: \"Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast\ninto hell; yea, I say unto you: fear him.\" It is not permissible to\nargue that Marcion here understands the God of the Old Testament, the\nCreator, for he would thus represent his Christ as forewarning his own\ndisciples to fear the power of that very Demiurge, whose reign he had\ncome to terminate. Then again, in the parable of the wise steward, and\nthe foolish servants, xii. 41 ff, he declares (v. 46), that the lord of\nthe foolish servant \"will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his\nportion with the unbelievers,\" and (vs. 47, 48) that the servants shall\nbe beaten with stripes, in proportion to their fault. In the parable of\nthe nobleman who goes to a far country and leaves the ten pounds with\nhis servants, xix. 11 ff, the lord orders his enemies, who would not\nthat he should reign over them, to be brought and slain before him (v.\n27). Then, how very much there was in the Epistles of Paul, which he\nupheld, of a still more contradictory character. There is no dogmatic\nreason for such inconsistency.(1)\n\nMarcion is accused of having falsified xiii. 28 in the following manner:\n\"There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see _all\nthe just_ [------] in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves being\nthrust, _and bound_ [------] without.\" The substitution of \"all the\njust\" for \"Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets,\" is one of\nthose variations which the supporter of the dogmatic theory\ngreedily lays hold of, as bearing evident tokens of falsification in\nanti-judaistic interest.(2) But Marcion had in his Gospel\n\n{120}\n\nthe parable of the rich man and Lazarus, xvi. 19--31, where the beggar\nis carried up into Abraham's bosom.(1) And again, there was the account\nof the Transfiguration, ix. 28--36, in which Moses and Elias are seen in\nconverse with Jesus.(2) The alteration of the one passage for dogmatic\nreasons, whilst the parable of Lazarus is retained, would have been\nuseless. Hilgenfeld, however, in agreement with Baur and Ritschl, has\nshown that Marcion's reading [------] is evidently the contrast to\nthe [------] of the preceding verse, and is superior to the canonical\nversion, which was either altered after Matth. viii. 12, or with the\nanti-Marcionitish object of bringing the rejected Patriarchs into\nrecognition.(3) The whole theory in this case again goes into thin air,\nand it is consequently weakened in every other.\n\nMarcion's Gospel did not contain the parable of the Prodigal Son, xv.\n11--23.(4) The omission of this passage,\n\n{121}\n\nwhich is universally recognized as in the purest Paulinian spirit, is\naccounted for partly on the ground that a portion of it (v. 22--32) was\nrepugnant to the ascetic discipline of Marcion, to whom the killing of\nthe fatted calf, the feasting, dancing and merry-making, must have been\nobnoxious, and, partly because, understanding under the similitude\nof the elder son the Jews, and of the younger son the Gentiles,\nthe identity of the God of the Jews and of the Christians would be\nrecognized.(1) There is, however, the very greatest doubt admitted as\nto the interpretation which Marcion would be likely to put upon\nthis parable, and certainly the representation which it gives of the\nGentiles, not only as received completely on a par with the Jews, but\nas only having been lost for a time, and found again, is thoroughly in\nharmony with the teaching of Paul, who was held by Marcion to be the\nonly true Apostle. It could not, therefore, have been repugnant to him.\nAny points of disagreement could very easily have been explained away,\nas his critics are so fond of asserting to be his practice in other\npassages.(3) As to the supposed dislike of Marcion for the festive\ncharacter of the parable, what object could he have had for omitting\nthis, when he retained the parable of the\n\n{122}\n\ngreat supper, xiv. 15--24; the feast in the house of Levi, v. 27--32;\nthe statements of Jesus eating with the Pharisees, vii. 36, xv. 2?\nIf Marcion had any objection to such matters, he had still greater to\nmarriage, and yet Jesus justifies his disciples for eating and drinking\nby the similitude of a marriage feast, himself being the bridegroom:\nv. 34, 35, \"Can ye make the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the\nbridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom\nshall be taken away from them: then will they fast in those days.\" And\nhe bids his disciples to be ready \"like men that wait for their lord,\nwhen he shall return from the wedding,\" (xii. 36), and makes another\nparable on a wedding feast (xiv. 7--10). Leaving these passages, it is\nimpossible to see any dogmatic reason for excluding the others.(1)\n\nThe omission of a passage in every way so suitable to Marcion's system\nas the parable of the vineyard, xx. 9--16, is equally unintelligible\nupon the dogmatic theory.\n\nMarcion is accused of falsifying xvi. 17, by altering [------],(2)\nmaking the passage read: \"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,\nthan for one tittle of my words to fail.\" The words in the canonical\nGospel, it is argued, were too repugnant to him to be allowed to remain\nunaltered, representing as they do the permanency of \"the Law\" to which\nhe was opposed.(3) Upon this hypothesis, why did he leave\n\n{123}\n\nx. 25 f. (especially v. 26) and xviii. 18 ff, in which the keeping of\nthe law is made essential to life? or xvii. 14, where Jesus bids the\nlepers conform to the requirements of the law? or xvi. 29, where the\nanswer is given to the rich man pleading for his relatives: \"They have\nMoses and the prophets, let them hear them\"?(l) Hilgenfeld, however,\nwith others, points out that it has been fully proved that the reading\nin Marcion's text is not an arbitrary alteration at all, but the\noriginal expression, and that the version in Luke xvi. 17, on the\ncontrary, is a variation of the original introduced to give the passage\nan anti-Marcionitish tendency.(2) Here, again, it is clear that the\nsupposed falsification is rather a falsification on the part of the\neditor of the third canonical Gospel.(3)\n\nOne more illustration may be given. Marcion is accused of omitting from\nxix. 9 the words: \"forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham,\" [------]\nleaving merely:\n\n\"And Jesus said unto him: This day is salvation come to this house.\"4\nMarcion's system, it is said, could not tolerate the phrase which was\nerased.(5) It was one, however, eminently in the spirit of his Apostle\nPaul, and in his favourite Epistle to the Galatians he retained the very\nparallel\n\n{124}\n\npassage iii. 7, \"Ye know, therefore, that they which are of faith,\nthese are the sons of Abraham.\"(1) How could he, therefore, find any\ndifficulty in such words addressed to the repentant Zacchaeus, who had\njust believed in the mission of Christ? Moreover, why should he have\nerased the words here, and left them standing in xiii. 16, in regard\nto the woman healed of the \"spirit of infirmity:\" \"and ought not this\nwoman, _being a daughter of Abraham_, whom Satan hath bound, lo! these\neighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?\" No\nreasoning can explain away the substantial identity of the two phrases.\nUpon what principle of dogmatic interest, then, can Marcion have erased\nthe one while he retained the other?(2)\n\nWe have taken a very few passages for illustration, and treated them\nvery briefly, but it may roundly be said that there is scarcely a single\nvariation of Marcion's text regarding which similar reasons are not\ngiven, and which do not present similar anomalies in consequence of what\nhas elsewhere been retained.(3) As we have already stated, much that is\nreally contradictory to Marcion's system was found in his text, and much\nwhich either is not opposed or is favourable to it is omitted\n\n{125}\n\nand cannot be set down to arbitrary alteration. Moreover, it has\nnever been shown that the supposed alterations were made by Marcion\nhimself,(1) and till this is done the pith of the whole theory is\nwanting. There is no principle of intelligent motive which can account\nfor the anomalies presented by Marcion's Gospel, considered as a version\nof Luke mutilated and falsified in the interest of his system. The\ncontrast of what is retained with that which is omitted reduces the\nhypothesis _ad absurdum_. Marcion was too able a man to do his work so\nimperfectly, if he had proposed to assimilate the Gospel of Luke to\nhis own views. As it is avowedly necessary to explain away by false and\nforced interpretations requiring intricate definitions(2) very much\nof what was allowed to remain in his text, it is inconceivable that he\nshould not have cut the Gordian knot with the same unscrupulous knife\nwith which it is asserted he excised the rest The ingenuity of most able\nand learned critics endeavouring to discover whether a motive in the\ninterest of his system cannot be conceived for every alteration is,\nnotwithstanding the evident scope afforded by the procedure, often\nfoiled. Yet a more elastic hypothesis could not possibly have been\nadvanced, and that the text obstinately refuses to fit into it, is even\nmore than could have been expected. Marcion is like a prisoner at the\nbar without witnesses, who is treated from the first as guilty, attacked\nby able and passionate adversaries who warp every possible circumstance\nagainst him, and yet who cannot be convicted. The foregone conclusion\nby which every supposed omission from his Gospel is explained, is, as we\nhave shown, almost in\n\n{126}\n\nevery case contradicted by passages which have been allowed to remain,\nand this is rendered more significant by the fact, which is generally\nadmitted, that Marcion's text contains many readings which are\nmanifestly superior to, and more original than, the form in which the\npassages stand in our third Synoptic.(1) The only one of these to which\nwe shall refer is the interesting variation from the passage in Luke xi.\n2, in the substitution of a prayer for the Holy Spirit for the \"hallowed\nbe thy name,\"--[------]. The former is recognized to be the true\noriginal reading. This phrase is evidently referred to in v. 13. We are,\ntherefore, indebted to Marcion for the correct version of \"the Lord's\nPrayer.\"(2)\n\nThere can be no doubt that Marcion's Gospelbore great analogy to\nour Luke, although it was very considerably shorter. It is, however,\nunnecessary to repeat that there were many Gospels in the second century\nwhich, although nearly related to those which have become canonical,\nwere independent works, and the most favourable interpretation which\ncan be given of the relationship between our three Synoptics leaves\nthem very much in a line with Marcion's work. His Gospel was chiefly\ndistinguished\n\n{127}\n\nby a shorter text,(1) but besides large and important omissions there\nare a few additions,(2) and very many variations of text. The whole of\nthe first two chapters of Luke, as well as all the third, was wanting,\nwith the exception of part of the first verse of the third chapter,\nwhich, joined to iv. 31, formed the commencement of the Gospel. Of\nchapter iv. verses 1--13, 17--20 and 24 were likewise probably absent.\nSome of the other more important omissions are xi. 29--32, 49--51, xiii.\n1--9, 29--35, xv. 11--32, xvii. 5--10 (probably), xviii. 31--34, xix.\n29--48, xx. 9--19, 37--38, xxi. 1--4, 18, 21--22> xxii. 16--18, 28--30,\n35--38, 49--51, and there is great doubt about the concluding verses of\nxxiv. from 44 to the end, but it may have terminated with v. 49. It is\nnot certain whether the order was the same as Luke,(3) but there are\ninstances of decided variation, especially at the opening. As the\npeculiarities of the opening variations have had an important effect\nin inclining some critics towards the acceptance of the mutilation\nhypothesis,(4) it may be well for us briefly to examine the more\nimportant amongst them.\n\nMarcion's Gospel is generally said to have commenced thus: \"In the\nfifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Jesus came down to\nCapernaum, a city of Galilee.\"(5)\n\n{128}\n\nThere are various slightly differing readings of this. Epiphanius\ngives the opening words, [------].1 Tertullian has: Anno quintodecimo\nprincipatus Tiberiani.... de-scendisse in civitatem Galilsaeae\nCapharnaum.\"(2) The [-------]s of Epiphanius has permitted the\nconjecture that there might have been an additional indication of the\ntime, such as \"Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea,\"(3) but this has\nnot been generally adopted.(4) It is not necessary for us to discuss the\nsense in which the \"came down\" [------] was interpreted, since it is\nthe word used in Luke. Marcion's Gospel then proceeds with iv. 31: \"and\ntaught them on the sabbath days, (v. 32), and they were exceedingly\nastonished at his teaching, for his word was power.\" Then follow vs.\n33--39 containing the healing of the man with an unclean spirit,(5) and\nof Simon's wife's mother, with the important omission of the expression\n\"of Nazareth\" (Najapipc)6 after \"Jesus\" in the cry of the possessed (v.\n34). The vs. 16--307 immediately _follow_ iv. 39, with important\n\n{129}\n\nomissions and variations. In iv. 16, where Jesus comes to Nazareth,\nthe words \"where he had been brought up\" are omitted, as is also the\nconcluding phrase \"and stood up to read.\"(1) Verses 17--19, in which\nJesus reads from Isaiah, are altogether wanting.(2) Volkmar omits the\nwhole of v. 20, Hilgenfeld only the first half down to the sitting down,\nretaining the rest; Hahn retains from \"and he sat down\" to the end.(3)\nOf v. 21 only: \"He began to speak to them\" is retained.(4) From v.\n22 the concluding phrase: \"And said: Is not this Joseph's son\" is\nomitted,(5) as are also the words \"in thy country\" from v. 23.(6)\nVerse 24, containing the proverb: \"A prophet has no honour\" is wholly\nomitted,(7) but the best critics differ regarding the two following\nverses 25--26; they are omitted according to Hahn, Ritschl and De\nWette,(8) but retained by Volkmar and Hilgenfeld.(9) Verse 27,\n\n{130}\n\nreferring to the leprosy of Naaman, which, it will be remembered, is\ninterpolated at xvii. 14, is omitted here by most critics, but retained\nby Vojkmar.(1) Verses 28--30 come next,(2) and the four verses iv.\n40--44, which then immediately follow, complete the chapter. This brief\nanalysis, with the accompanying notes, illustrates the uncertainty of\nthe text, and, throughout the whole Gospel, conjecture similarly plays\nthe larger part. We do not propose to criticise minutely the\nvarious conclusions arrived at as to the state of the text, but must\nemphatically remark that where there is so little certainty there\ncannot be any safe ground for delicate deductions regarding motives and\nsequences of matter. Nothing is more certain than that, if we criticise\nand compare the Synoptics on the same principle, we meet with the most\nstartling results and the most irreconcileable difficulties.(3) The\nopening of Marcion's Gospel is more free from abruptness and crudity\nthan that of Luke.\n\nIt is not necessary to show that the first three chapters of Luke\npresent very many differences from the other Synoptics. Mark omits them\naltogether, and they do not even agree with the account in Matthew. Some\nof the oldest Gospels of which we have any knowledge, such as the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews, are said not to have had the narrative of the\nfirst two chapters at all,(4) and there is much more than doubt as to\ntheir originality. The mere omission of the history of\n\n{131}\n\nthe infancy, &c., from Mark, however, renders it unnecessary to show\nthat the absence of these chapters from Marcion's Gospel has the\nstrongest support and justification. Now Luke's account of the early\nevents and geography of the Gospel history is briefly as follows:\nNazareth is the permanent dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary,(1) but on\naccount of the census they travel to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born;(2)\nand after visiting Jerusalem to present him at the Temple,(3) they\nreturn \"to their own city Nazareth.\"(4) After the baptism and temptation\nJesus comes to Nazareth \"where he had been brought up,\"(5) and in the\ncourse of his address to the people he says: \"Ye will surely say unto me\nthis proverb: Physician heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done\nin Capernaum do also here in thy country.\"(6) No mention, however, has\nbefore this been made of Capernaum, and no account has been given of any\nworks done there; but, on the contrary, after escaping from the angry\nmob at Nazareth, Jesus goes for the first time to Capernaum, which, on\nbeing thus first mentioned, is particularized as \"a city of Galilee,\"(7)\nwhere he heals a man who had an unclean spirit, in the synagogue,\nwho addresses him as \"Jesus of Nazareth;\"(8) and the fame of him goes\nthroughout the country.(9) He cures Simon's wife's mother of a fever(10)\nand when the sun is set they bring the sick and he heals them.(11)\n\nThe account in Matthew contradicts this in many points, some of which\nhad better be indicated here. Jesus is born in Bethlehem, which is the\nordinary\n\n{132}\n\ndwelling-place of the family;(1) his parents fly thence with him into\nEgypt,(2) and on their return, they dwell \"in a city called Nazareth;\nthat it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets: He shall be\ncalled a Nazarene.\"(3) After John's imprisonment, Jesus leaves\nNazareth, and goes to dwell in Capernaum.(4) From that time he begins to\npreach.(5) Here then, he commences his public career in Capernaum.\n\nIn Mark, Jesus comes from Nazareth to be baptized,(6) and after the\nimprisonment of John, he comes into Galilee preaching.(7) In Capernaum,\nhe heals the man of the unclean spirit, and Simon's wife's mother,(8)\nand then retires to a solitary place,(9) returns after some days to\nCapernaum(10) without going to Nazareth at all, and it is only at a\nlater period that he comes to his own country, and quotes the proverb\nregarding a prophet.(11)\n\nIt is evident from this comparison, that there is very considerable\ndifference between the three Synoptics, regarding the outset of the\ncareer of Jesus, and that there must have been decided elasticity in the\ntradition, and variety in the early written accounts of this part of the\nGospel narrative. Luke alone commits the error of making Jesus appear\nin the synagogue at Nazareth, and refer to works wrought at Capernaum,\nbefore any mention had been made of his having preached or worked\nwonders there to justify the allusions\n\n     3  ii. 33. We need not pause here to point out that there\n     is no such prophecy known in the Old Testament. The\n     reference may very probably bo a singularly mistaken\n     application of the word in Isaiah xi. 1, the Hebrew word for\n     branch being [----] Nazer.\n\n{133}\n\nand the consequent agitation. It is obvious that there has been\nconfusion in the arrangement of the third Synoptic and a transposition\nof the episodes, clearly pointing to a combination of passages from\nother sources.(1) Now Marcion's Gospel did not contain these anomalies.\nIt represented Jesus as first appearing in Capernaum, teaching in\nthe synagogue, and performing mighty works there, and _then_ going to\nNazareth, and addressing the people with the natural reference to\nthe previous events at Capernaum, and in this it is not only more\nconsecutive, but also adheres more closely to the other two Synoptics.\nThat Luke happens to be the only one of our canonical Gospels, which has\nthe words with which Marcion's Gospel commences, is no proof that\nthese words were original in that work, and not found in several of the\nwritings which existed before the third Synoptic was compiled. Indeed,\nthe close relationship between the first three Gospels is standing\ntestimony to the fact that one Gospel was built upon the basis of others\npreviously existing. This which has been called \"the chief prop of the\nmutilation hypothesis,\"(2) has really no solid ground to stand on beyond\nthe accident that only one of three Gospels survives out of many which\nmay have had the phrase. The fact that Marcion's Gospel really had the\nwords of Luke, moreover, is mere conjecture, inasmuch as Epiphanius, who\nalone gives the Greek, shows a distinct variation of reading. He has:\n[------]\n\n     1 Cf. Luke iv. 23; Matt. viii. 54; Mark vi. 1--6. We do not\n     go into the question as to the sufficiency of the motives\n     ascribed for the agitation at Nazareth, or the contradiction\n     between the facts narrated as to the attempt to kill Jesus,\n     and the statement of their wonder at his gracious words, v.\n     22, &o. There is no evidence where the various discrepancies\n     arose, and no certain conclusions can be based upon such\n     arguments.\n\n{134}\n\n[------].(1) Luke reads: [------]. We do not of course lay much stress\nupon this, but the fact that there is a variation should be noticed.\nCritics quietly assume, because there is a difference, that Epiphanius\nhas abbreviated, but that is by no means sure. In any case, instances\ncould be multiplied to show that if one of our Synoptic Gospels were\nlost, one of the survivors would in this manner have credit for passages\nwhich it had in reality either derived from the lost Gospel, or with it\ndrawn from a common original source.\n\nNow starting from the undeniable fact that the Synoptic Gospels are\nin no case purely original independent works, but are based upon older\nwritings, or upon each other, each Gospel remodelling and adding to\nalready existing materials, as the author of the third Gospel, indeed,\nvery frankly and distinctly indicates,(2) it seems a bold thing to\naffirm that Marcion's Gospel must necessarily have been derived from the\nlatter. Ewald has made a minute analysis of the Synoptics assigning the\nmaterials of each to what he considers their original source. We do not\nof course attach any very specific importance to such results, for it\nis clear that they must to a great extent be arbitrary and incapable of\nproof, but being effected without any reference to the question before\nus, it may be interesting to compare Ewald's conclusions regarding the\nparallel part of Luke, with the first chapter of Marcion's Gospel. Ewald\ndetails the materials from which our Synoptic Gospels\n\n     2  Luke i. 1--4. He professes to write in order the things\n     in which Theophilus had already been instructed, not to tell\n     something new, but merely that he might know the certainty\n     thereof.\n\n{135}\n\nwere derived, and the order of their composition as follows, each\nSynoptic of course making use of the earlier materials: I. the oldest\nGospel. II. the collection of Discourses (Spruchsammlung). III. Mark.\nIV. the Book of earlier History. V. our present Matthew. VI. the sixth\nrecognizable book. VII. the seventh book. VIII. the eighth book; and IX.\nLuke.(1) Now the only part of our third canonical Gospel corresponding\nwith any part of the first chapter of Marcion's Gospel which Ewald\nascribes to the author of our actual Luke is the opening date.(2) The\npassage to which the few opening words are joined, and which constitute\nthe commencement of Marcion's Gospel, Luke iv. 31--39, is a section\ncommencing with verse 31, and extending to the end of the chapter,\nthereby including verses 40--44, which Ewald assigns to Mark.(3) Verses\n16--24, which immediately follow, also form a complete and isolated\npassage assigned by Ewald, to the \"sixth recognizable book.\"(4) Verses\n25--27, also are the whole\n\n     2 The verses iv. 14--15, which. Volkmar wished to include,\n     but which all other critics reject (see p. 128, note 7),\n     from Marcion's text, Ewald likewise identifies as an\n     isolated couple of verses by the author of our Luke inserted\n     between episodes derived from other written sources. Cf.\n     Ewald, 1. c.\n\n{136}\n\nof another isolated section attributed by Ewald, to the \"Book of earlier\nhistory,\" whilst 28--30, in like manner form another complete and\nisolated episode, assigned by him to the \"eighth recognizable book.\"(1)\nAccording to Ewald, therefore, Luke's Gospel at this place is a mere\npatchwork of older writings, and if this be in any degree accepted, as\nin the abstract, indeed, it is by the great mass of critics, then\nthe Gospel of Marcion might be an arrangement different from Luke of\nmaterials not his, but previously existing, and of which, therefore,\nthere is no warrant to limit the use and reproduction to the canonical\nGospel.\n\nThe course pursued by critics, with regard to Marcion's Gospel,\nis necessarily very unsatisfactory. They commence with a definite\nhypothesis, and try whether all the peculiarities of the text may not\nbe more or less well explained by it. On the other hand, the attempt\nto settle the question by a comparison of the reconstructed text\nwith Luke's is equally inconclusive. The determination of priority of\ncomposition from internal evidence, where there are no chronological\nreferences, must as a general rule be arbitrary, and can rarely be\naccepted as final. Internal evidence would, indeed, decidedly favour the\npriority of Marcion's Gospel. The great uncertainty of the whole system,\neven when applied under the most favourable circumstances, is well\nillustrated by the contradictory results at which critics have arrived\nas to the order of production and dependence on each other of our three\nSynoptics. Without going into details, we may say that critics who are\nall agreed upon the mutual dependence of those Gospels have variously\narranged them in the following order: I. Matthew--\n\n{137}\n\nMark--Luke.(1) II. Matthew--Luke--Mark.(3) III. Mark--Matthew--Luke.(3)\nIV. Mark--Luke--Matthew.(4) V. Luke--Matthew--Mark.(5) VI. All three\nout of common written sources.(6) Were we to state the various\ntheories still more in detail, we might largely increase the variety of\nconclusions. These, however, suffice to show the uncertainty of results\nderived from internal evidence. It is always assumed that Marcion\naltered a Gospel to suit his own particular system, but as one of his\nmost orthodox critics, while asserting that Luke's narrative lay at\nthe basis of his Gospel, admits: \"it is not equally clear that all the\nchanges were due to Marcion himself;\"(7) and, although he considers that\n\"some of the omissions can be explained by his peculiar doctrines,\"\nhe continues: \"others are unlike arbitrary corrections, and must be\nconsidered as various readings of the greatest interest, dating as they\ndo from a time anterior to all\n\n     1 Of course we only pretend to indicate a few of the critics\n     who adopt each order. So Bengel, Bolton, Ebrard, Grotius,\n     Hengstenberg, Hug, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Mill, Seiler,\n     Townson, Wetstein.\n\n     2 So Ammon, Baur, Bleek, Delitzsch, Fritzsche, Gfrorer,\n     Griesbach, Kern, Eostlin, Neudecker, Saunier, Schwarz,\n     Schwegler, Sieffert, Stroth, Theilo, Owon, Paulus, De Wette.\n\n     3 So Credner, Ewald, Hitzig, Lachmann, (?) Xteuss, Bitschl,\n     Meyer, Storr, Thiersch.\n\n     4 B. Bauer, Hitzig (?) Schnockonburger, Volkmar, Weisse,\n     Wilke.\n\n     5 Busching, Eyanson.\n\n     6  Bortholdt, Le Clerc, Corrodi, Eichhorn, Gratz, Hanlein,\n     Koppe, Kuinoel, Leasing, Marsh, Michaelis, Niemeyer, Semler,\n     Schleiermacher, Schmidt, Weber. This view was partly shared\n     by many of those mentioned under other orders.\n\n{138}\n\nother authorities in our possession.\"(1) Now, undoubtedly, the more\ndeveloped forms of the Gospel narrative were the result of additions,\nmaterially influenced by dogmatic and other reasons, made to earlier\nand more fragmentary works, but it is an argument contrary to general\ncritical experience to affirm that a Gospel, the distinguishing\ncharacteristic of which is greater brevity, was produced by omissions in\nthe interest of a system from a longer work.\n\nIn the earlier editions of this work, we contended that the theory that\nMarcion's Gospel was a mutilated form of our third Synoptic had not been\nestablished, and that more probably it was an earlier work, from which\nour Gospel might have been elaborated. We leave the statement of the\ncase, so far, nearly in its former shape, in order that the true nature\nof the problem and the varying results and gradual development of\ncritical opinion may be better understood. Since the sixth edition of\nthis work was completed, however, a very able examination of Marcion's\nGospel has been made by Dr. Sanday,(2) which has convinced us that our\nearlier hypothesis is untenable, that the portions of our third Synoptic\nexcluded from Marcion's Gospel were really written by the same pen which\ncomposed the mass of the work and, consequently, that our third Synoptic\nexisted in his time, and was substantially in the hands of Marcion. This\nconviction is mainly the result of the linguistic analysis, sufficiently\nindicated by Dr. Sanday and, since, exhaustively carried out for\nourselves. We still consider the argument based upon the mere dogmatic\nviews of Marcion, which has hitherto been almost\n\n{139}\n\nexclusively relied on, quite inconclusive by itself, but the linguistic\ntest, applied practically for the first time in this controversy by Dr.\nSanday, must, we think, prove irresistible to all who are familiar\nwith the comparatively limited vocabulary of New Testament writers.\nThroughout the omitted sections, peculiarities of language and\nexpression abound which clearly distinguish the general composer of\nthe third Gospel, and it is, consequently, not possible reasonably\nto maintain that these sections are additions subsequently made by a\ndifferent hand, which seems to be the only legitimate course open to\nthose who would deny that Marcion's Gospel originally contained them.\n\nHere, then, we find evidence of the existence of our third Synoptic\nabout the year 140, and it may of course be inferred that it must have\nbeen composed at least some time before that date. It is important,\nhowever, to estimate aright the facts actually before us and the\ndeductions which may be drawn from them. The testimony of Marcion does\nnot throw any light upon the authorship or origin of the Gospel of\nwhich he made use. Its superscription was simply: \"The Gospel,\" or, \"The\nGospel of the Lord\" [------],(1) and no author's name was attached to\nit. The Heresiarch did not pretend to have written it himself, nor did\nhe ascribe it to any other person. Tertullian, in fact, reproaches him\nwith its anonymity. \"And here\n\n{110}\n\nalready I might make a stand,\" he says at the very opening of his attack\non Marcion's Gospel, \"contending that a work should not be recognized\nwhich does not hold its front erect... which does not give a pledge of\nits trustworthiness by the fulness of its title, and the due declaration\nof its author.\"(1) Not only did Marcion himself not in any way connect\nthe name of Luke with his Gospel, but his followers repudiated the idea\nthat Luke was its author.(2) In establishing the substantial identity of\nMarcion's Gospel and our third Synoptic, therefore, no advance is\nmade towards establishing the authorship of Luke. The Gospel remains\nanonymous still. On the other hand we ascertain the important fact that,\nso far from its having any authoritative or infallible character at\nthat time, Marcion regarded our Synoptic as a work perverted by Jewish\ninfluences, and requiring to be freely expurgated in the interests\nof truth.(3) Amended by very considerable omissions and alterations,\nMarcion certainly held it in high respect as a record of the teaching of\nJesus, but beyond this circumstance, and the mere fact of its existence\nin his day, we learn nothing from the evidence of Marcion. It can\nscarcely be maintained that this does much to authenticate the third\nSynoptic as a record of miracles and a witness for the reality of Divine\nRevelation.\n\n{141}\n\nThere is no evidence whatever that Marcion had any knowledge of the\nother canonical Gospels in any form.(1) None of his writings are extant,\nand no direct assertion is made even by the Fathers that he knew them,\nalthough from their dogmatic point of view they assume that these\nGospels existed from the very first, and therefore insinuate that as he\nonly recognized one Gospel, he rejected the rest.(2) When Irenaeus says:\n\"He persuaded his disciples that he himself was more veracious than were\nthe apostles who handed down the Gospel, though he delivered to them not\nthe Gospel, but part of the Gospel,\"(3) it is quite clear that he speaks\nof the Gospel--the good tidings--Christianity--and not of specific\nwritten Gospels. In another passage which is referred to by Apologists,\nIrenaeus says of the Marcionites that they have asserted: \"That even\nthe apostles proclaimed the Gospel still under the influence of Jewish\nsentiments; but that they themselves are more sound and more judicious\nthan the apostles. Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have had\nrecourse to mutilating the Scriptures, not recognizing some books at\nall, but curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of\nPaul; these they say are alone authentic which they themselves have\nabbreviated.\"(4)\n\n{142}\n\nThese remarks chiefly refer to the followers of Marcion, and as we have\nshown, when treating of Valentinus, Irenaeus is expressly writing against\nmembers of heretical sects living in his own day and not of the founders\nof those sects.(1) The Marcionites of the time of Irenaeus no doubt\ndeliberately rejected the Gospels, but it does, not by any means follow\nthat Marcion himself knew anything of them. As yet we have not met with\nany evidence even of their existence.\n\nThe evidence of Tertullian is not a whit more valuable. In the passage\nusually cited, he says: \"But Marcion, lighting upon the Epistle of Paul\nto the Gaia-tians, in which he reproaches even Apostles for not walking\nuprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, as well as accuses\ncertain false Apostles of perverting the Gospel of Christ, tries with\nall his might to destroy the status of those Gospels which are put forth\nas genuine and under the name of Apostles or at least of contemporaries\nof the Apostles, in order, be it known, to confer upon his own the\ncredit which he takes from them.\"(2) Now here again it is clear that\nTertullian is simply applying, by inference, Marcion's views with\nregard to the preaching of the Gospel by the two parties in the Church,\nrepresented by the Apostle Paul and the \"pillar\" Apostles whose leaning\nto Jewish doctrines he condemned, to the written Gospels recognized\nin his day though not in Marcion's. \"It is uncertain,\" says even Canon\nWestcott,\n\n{143}\n\n\"whether Tertullian in the passage quoted speaks from a knowledge of\nwhat Marcion may have written on the subject, or simply from his own\npoint of sight.\"(1) Any doubt is, however, removed on examining the\ncontext, for Tertullian proceeds to argue that if Paul censured Peter,\nJohn and James, it was for changing their company from respect of\npersons, and similarly, \"if false apostles crept in,\" they betrayed\ntheir character by insisting on Jewish observances. \"So that it was _not\non account of their preaching_, but of their conversation that they were\npointed out by Paul,\"(2) and he goes on to argue that if Marcion thus\naccuses Apostles of having depraved the Gospel by their dissimulation,\nhe accuses Christ in accusing those whom Christ selected.(3) It is\npalpable, therefore, that Marcion, in whatever he may have written,\nreferred to the preaching of the Gospel, or Christianity, by Apostles\nwho retained their Jewish prejudices in favour of circumcision and legal\nobservances, and not to written Gospels. Tertullian merely assumes, with\nhis usual audacity, that the Church had the four Gospels from the very\nfirst, and therefore that Marcion, who had only one Gospel, knew the\nothers and deliberately rejected them.\n\n{144}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH\n\nFrom Marcion we now turn to Tatian, another so-called heretic leader.\nTatian, an Assyrian by birth,(1) embraced Christianity and became a\ndisciple of Justin Martyr(2) in Rome, sharing with him, as it seems,\nthe persecution excited by Crescens the Cynic(3) to which Justin fell a\nvictim. After the death of Justin, Tatian, who till then had continued\nthoroughly orthodox, left Rome, and joined the sect of the Encratites,\nof which, however, he was not the founder,(4) and became the leading\nexponent of their austere and ascetic doctrines.(5)\n\nThe only one of his writings which is still extant is his \"Oration to\nthe Greeks\"[------]. This work was written after the death of Justin,\nfor in it he refers to that event,(6) and it is generally dated between\n\n{145}\n\na. d. 170-175. (l) Teschendorf does not assert that there is any\nquotation in this address taken from the Synoptic Gospels;(2) and Canon\nWestcott only affirms that it contains a clear reference\" to \"a parable\nrecorded by St. Matthew,\" and he excuses the slightness of this evidence\nby adding: \"The absence of more explicit testimony to the books of the\nNew Testament is to be accounted for by the style of his writing, and\nnot by his unworthy estimate of their importance.\"(3) This remark is\nwithout foundation, as we know nothing whatever with regard to Tatian's\nestimate of any such books.\n\nThe supposed \"clear reference\" is as follows: \"For by means of a certain\nhidden treasure [------] he made himself lord of all that we possess, in\ndigging for which though we were covered with dust, yet we give it the\noccasion of falling into our hands and abiding with us.\"(4) This is\nclaimed as a reference to Matt. xiii. 44: \"The kingdom of heaven is like\nunto treasure hidden [------] in the field, which a man found and hid,\nand for his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath and buyeth that\nfield.\" So faint a similarity could not prove anything, but it is\nevident that there are decided differences here. Were the probability\nfifty times greater than it is that Tatian had in his mind the\nparable, which is reported in our first Gospel, nothing could be more\nunwarrantable than the deduction that he must have derived it from our\nMatthew, and not from any other of the numerous Gospels which we know\nto have early been in circulation. Ewald ascribes the parable in Matthew\noriginally to the \"Spruchsammlung\" or collection of Discourses, the\nsecond of the four works out of which he considers our first Synoptic to\nhave been compiled.(1) As evidence even for the existence of our first\ncanonical Gospel, no such anonymous allusion could have the slightest\nvalue.\n\nAlthough neither Tischendorf nor Canon Westcott think it worth while to\nrefer to it, some apologists claim another passage in the Oration as\na reference to our third Synoptic. \"Laugh ye: nevertheless you shall\nweep.\"(2) This is compared with Luke vi. 25: \"Woe unto you that laugh\nnow: for ye shall mourn and weep,\"(3) Here again, it is impossible to\ntrace a reference in the words of Tatian specially to our third Gospel,\nand manifestly nothing could be more foolish than to build upon such\nvague similarity any hypothesis of Tatian's acquaintance with Luke. If\nthere be one part of the Gospel which was more known than another in the\nfirst ages of Christianity, it was the Sermon on the Mount, and there\ncan be no doubt that many evangelical works now lost contained versions\nof it. Ewald likewise assigns this passage of Luke originally to the\nSpruchsammlung,4 and no one can doubt that the saying was recorded long\nbefore the writer of the third Gospel\n\n{147}\n\nundertook to compile evangelical history, as so many had done before\nhim.\n\nFurther on, however, Canon Westcott says: \"it can be gathered from\nClement of Alexandria... that he (Tatian) endeavoured to derive\nauthority for his peculiar opinions from the Epistles to the Corinthians\nand Galatians, and probably from the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the\nGospel of St. Matthew.\"(1) The allusion here is to a passage in the\nStromata of Clement, in which reference is supposed by the apologist\nto be made to Tatian. No writer, however, is named, and Clement merely\nintroduces his remark by the words: \"a certain person,\" [------] and\nthen proceeds to give his application of the Saviour's words \"not\nto treasure upon earth where moth and rust corrupt\" [------].(2) The\nparallel passage in Matthew vi. 19, reads: \"Lay not up for yourselves\ntreasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt,\" [------].\nCanon Westcott, it is true, merely suggests that \"probably\" this may be\nascribed to Tatian, but it is almost absolutely certain that it was not\nattributed to him by Clement. Tatian is several times referred to in the\ncourse of the same chapter, and his words are continued by the use of\n[------] or [------], and it is in the highest degree improbable that\nClement should introduce another quotation from him in such immediate\ncontext by the vague and distant reference \"a certain person\" [------].\nOn the other hand reference is made in the chapter to\n\n     1 On the Canon, p. 279. [In the 4th edition Dr. Westcott has\n     altered the \"probably\" of the above sentence to \"perhaps,\"\n     and in a note has added: \"These two last references are from\n     an anonymous citation [------] which has been commonly\n     assigned to Tatian.\"   P. 318, n. 1.]\n\n{148}\n\nother writers and sects, to one of whom with infinitely greater\npropriety this expression applies. No weight, therefore, could be\nattached to any such passage in connection with Tatian. Moreover the\nquotation not only does not agree with our Synoptic, but may much more\nprobably have been derived from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(1)\nIt will be remembered that Justin Martyr quotes the same passage,\nwith the same omission of \"[------],\" from a Gospel different from our\nSynoptics.(2)\n\nTatian, however, is claimed by apologists as a witness for the existence\nof our Gospels--more than this he could not possibly be--principally on\nthe ground that his Gospel was called by some Diatessaron [------] or\n\"by four,\" and it is assumed to have been a harmony of four Gospels. The\nwork is no longer extant and, as we shall see, our information regarding\nit is of the scantiest and most unsatisfactory description. Critics have\narrived at very various conclusions with regard to the composition\nof the work. Some of course affirm, with more or less of hesitation\nnevertheless, that it was nothing else than a harmony of our four\ncanonical Gospels;(3) many of these, however, are constrained to\nadmit that it was also partly based upon the Gospel according to the\nHebrews.(4) Some maintain that it was\n\n{149}\n\na harmony of our three Synoptics together with the Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews;(1) whilst many deny that it was composed of our Gospels\nat all,(2) and either declare it to have been a harmony of the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews with three other Gospels whose identity cannot\nbe determined, or that it was simply the Gospel according to the Hebrews\nitself,(3) by which name, as Epiphanius states, it was called by some in\nhis day.(4)\n\nTatian's Gospel, however, was not only called Diatessaron, but,\naccording to Victor of Capua, it was also called Diapente [------]\n\"by five,\"(5) a complication which shows the incorrectness of the\necclesiastical theory of its composition.\n\nTischendorf, anxious to date Tatian's Gospel as early as possible, says\nthat in all probability it was composed earlier than the address to the\nGreeks.(6) Of this, however, he does not offer any evidence, and upon\n\n{150}\n\nexamination it is very evident that the work was, on the contrary,\ncomposed or adopted after the Oration and his avowal of heretical\nopinions. Theodoret states that Tatian had in it omitted the genealogies\nand all other passages showing that Christ was born of David according\nto the flesh, and he condemned the work, and caused it to be abandoned,\non account of its evil design.(1) If the assumption be correct,\ntherefore, as Tischendorf maintains, that Tatian altered our Gospels,\nand did not merely from the first, like his master Justin, make use of\nGospels different from those which afterwards became canonical, he must\nhave composed the work after the death of Justin, up to which time he\nis stated to have remained quite orthodox.(2) The date may with much\ngreater probability be set between a.d. 170--180.(3)\n\nThe earliest writer who mentions Tatian's Gospel is Eusebius,(4) who\nwrote some century and a half after its supposed composition, without,\nhowever, having himself seen the work at all, or being really acquainted\nwith its nature and contents.(5) Eusebius says: \"Tatian, however, their\nformer chief, having put together a certain amalgamation and collection,\nI know not how, of the Gospels, named this the Diatessaron, which even\nnow is current with some.\"(6)\n\n{151}\n\nIt is clear that such hearsay information is not to be relied on.\n\nNeither Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, nor Jerome, who refer to other\nworks of Tatian, make any mention of this one. Epiphanius, however, does\nso, but, like Eusebius, evidently without having himself seen it.(1)\nThis second reference to Tatian's Gospel is made upwards of two\ncenturies after its supposed composition. Epiphanius says: \"It is said\nthat he (Tatian) composed the Diatessaron, which is called by some the\nGospel according to the Hebrews.\"(2) It must be observed that it is not\nsaid that Tatian himself gave this Gospel the name of Diates-saron,(3)\nbut on the contrary the expression of Epiphanius implies that he did\nnot do so,(4) and the fact that it was also called by some the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews, and Diapente, shows that the work had no\nsuperscription from Tatian of a contradictory character. Theodoret,\nBishop of Cyrus (+457), is the next writer who mentions Tatian's Gospel,\nand he is the only one who had personally seen it He says: \"He (Tatian)\nalso composed the Gospel which is called _Diatessaron_, excising the\ngenealogies and all the other parts which declare that the Lord was born\nof the seed of David according to the flesh. This was used not only\nby those of his own sect, but also by those who held the apostolic\ndoctrines, who did not perceive the evil of the composition, but made\nuse of the book in simplicity on account of its conciseness. I myself\nfound upwards of two hundred such books held in honour among our\nchurches, and collecting them all together, I had them put aside and,\ninstead, introduced the Gospels of the four Evangelists.\" Again it must\nbe observed that Theodoret does not say that the Gospel of Tatian _was_\na Diatessaron, but merely that it was called so [------].(1)\n\nAfter quoting this passage, and that from Epiphanius, Canon Westcott\nsays with an assurance which, considering the nature of the evidence,\nis singular:--\"Not only then was the Diatessaron grounded on the four\ncanonical Gospels, but in its general form it was so orthodox as to\nenjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity. The heretical character of the\nbook was not evident upon the surface of it, and consisted rather in\nfaults of defect than in erroneous teaching. Theodoret had certainly\nexamined it, and he, like earlier writers, regarded it as a compilation\nfrom the four Gospels. He speaks of omissions which were at least in\npart natural in a Harmony, but notices no such apocryphal additions\nas would have found place in any Gospel not derived from canonical\nsources.\"(2) Now it must be remembered that the evidence regarding\nTatian's Gospel is of the very vaguest description. It is not mentioned\nby any writer until a century and a half after the date of its supposed\n\n     2  On the Canon, p. 281. [In the 4th edition, the first\n     sentence in the above passage is altered to: \"From this\n     statement it is clear that the Diatessaron was so orthodox\n     as to enjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity.\" P. 320.]\n\n{153}\n\ncomposition, and then only referred to by Eusebius, who had not seen the\nwork, and candidly confesses his ignorance with regard to it, so that a\ncritic who is almost as orthodox as Canon Westcott himself acknowledges:\n\"For the truth is that we know no more about Tatian's work than what\nEusebius, who never saw it, knew.\"(1) The only other writer who refers\nto it, Epiphanius, had not seen it either, and while showing that the\ntitle of Diatessaron had not been given to it by Tatian himself, he\nstates the important fact that some called it the Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews. Theodoret, the last writer who mentions it, and of whom\nDr. Donaldson also says: \"Theodoret's information cannot be depended\nupon,\"(2) not only does not say that it is based upon our four Gospels,\nbut, on the contrary, points out that Tatian's Gospel did not contain\nthe genealogies and passages tracing the descent of Jesus through the\nrace of David, which our Synoptics possess, and he so much condemned\nthe mischievous design of the work that he confiscated the copies in\ncirculation in his diocese as heretical. Canon Westcott's assertion\nthat Theodoret regarded it as a compilation of our four Gospels is\nmost arbitrary. Omissions, as he himself points out, are natural to a\nHarmony, and conciseness certainly would be the last quality for which\nit could have been so highly prized, if every part of the four Gospels\nhad been retained. The omission of the parts referred to, which are\nequally omitted from the canonical fourth Gospel, could not have been\nsufficient to merit the condemnation of the work as heretical, and had\nTatian's Gospel not been different in various respects from our four\nGospels, such summary treatment would have been totally\n\n{154}\n\nunwarrantable. The statement, moreover, that in place of Tatian's\nGospel, Theodoret \"introduced the Gospels of the four Evangelists,\"\nseems to indicate that the displaced Gospel was not a compilation from\nthem, but a substantially different work. Had this not been the case,\nTheodoret would naturally have qualified such an expression.\n\nSpeaking of the difficulty of distinguishing Tatian's Harmony from\nothers which must, the writer supposes, have been composed in his time,\nDr. Donaldson points out: \"And then we must remember that the Harmony of\nTatian was confounded with the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and it\nis not beyond the reach of possibility that Theodoret should have made\nsome such mistake.\"(1) That is to say, that the only writer who refers\nto Tatian's Gospel who professes to have seen the work is not only \"not\nto be depended on,\" but may actually have mistaken for it the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews. There is, therefore, no authority for saying\nthat Tatian's Gospel was a harmony of four Gospels at all, and the name\nDiatessaron was not only not given by Tatian himself to the work, but\nwas probably the usual foregone conclusion of the Christians of the\nthird and fourth centuries, that everything in the shape of evangelical\nliterature must be dependent on the Gospels adopted by the Church.\nThose, however, who called the Gospel used by Tatian the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews must apparently have read the work, and all\nthat we know confirms their conclusion. The Gospel was, in point of\nfact, found in wide circulation precisely in the places in which,\nearlier, the Gospel according to the Hebrews was more particularly\ncurrent.(2) The singular\n\n{155}\n\nfact that the earliest reference to Tatian's \"Harmony,\" is made a\ncentury and a half after its supposed composition, and that no writer\nbefore the fifth century had seen the work itself, indeed that only\ntwo writers before that period mention it at all, receives its natural\nexplanation in the conclusion that Tatian did not compose any Harmony at\nall, but simply made use of the same Gospel as his master Justin Martyr,\nnamely, the Gospel according to the Hebrews,(1) by which name his Gospel\nhad been actually called by those best informed.\n\nAlthough Theodoret, writing in the fifth century, says in the usual\narbitrary manner of early Christian writers, that Tatian \"excised\" from\nhis Gospel the genealogies and certain passages found in the Synoptics,\nhe offers no explanation or proof of his assertion, and the utmost that\ncan be received is that Tatian's Gospel did not contain them.(3) Did he\nomit them or merely use a Gospel which never included them? The latter\nis the more probable conclusion. Neither Justin's Gospel nor the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews contained the genealogies or references to the\nSon of David, and why, as Credner suggests, should Tatian have taken the\ntrouble to prepare a Harmony with these omissions when he already found\none such as he desired in Justin's Gospel? Tatian's Gospel, like that of\nhis master Justin, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews, was different\nfrom, yet nearly related to, our canonical Gospels, and as we have\nalready seen, Justin's Gospel, like Tatian's, was considered by many to\nbe a harmony of our Gospels.(3) No\n\n{156}\n\none seems to have seen Tatian's \"Harmony,\" probably for the very simple\nreason that there was no such work, and the real Gospel used by him was\nthat according to the Hebrews, as some distinctly and correctly called\nit. The name Diatessaron is first heard of in a work of the fourth\ncentury, when it is naturally given by people accustomed to trace every\nsuch work to our four Gospels, but as we have clearly seen, there is not\nup to the time of Tatian any evidence even of the existence of three of\nour Gospels, and much less of the four in a collected form. Here is an\nattempt to identify a supposed, but not demonstrated, harmony of Gospels\nwhose separate existence has not been heard of. Even Dr. Westcott states\nthat Tatian's Diatessaron \"is apparently the first recognition of a\nfourfold Gospel,\"(1) but, as we have seen, that recognition emanates\nonly from a writer of the fourth century who had not seen the work\nof which he speaks. No such modern ideas, based upon mere foregone\nconclusions, can be allowed to enter into a discussion regarding a work\ndating from the time of Tatian.(2)\n\nThe fact that the work found by Theodoret in his diocese was used by\northodox Christians without\n\n     2 Dr. Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., 1876-77, p. 1137) refers to\n     an apocryphal work, \"The Doctrine of Addai,\" recently edited\n     and published by Dr. Phillips, in which it is stated that a\n     large multitude assembled daily at Edessa for prayer and the\n     reading of the Old Testament, \"and the new of the\n     Diatessaron.\" Dr. Lightfoot assumes that this is Tatian's\n     Gospel. Even if it were so, however, we cannot discover in\n     this any addition to our information regarding the\n     composition of the work. We have already the fuller\n     statement of Theodoret respecting the use of Tatian's work\n     in the churches of his diocese, so that beyond an\n     interesting reference, no fresh light is thrown upon the\n     question by the phrase quoted. But we cannot see any ground\n     for asserting that the Diatessaron here spoken of was\n     Tatian's Gospel. On the contrary, it seems perfectly clear\n     that the writer speaks only of the four Gospels of the New\n     Testament.\n\n{157}\n\nconsciousness of its supposed heterodoxy, is quite consistent with the\nfact that it was the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which at one\ntime was in very general use, but later gradually became an object of\nsuspicion and jealousy in the Church as our canonical Gospels took its\nplace. The manner in which Theodoret dealt with Tatian's Gospel, or that\n\"according to the Hebrews,\" recalls the treatment by Serapion of another\nform of the same work: the Gospel according to Peter. He found that work\nin circulation and greatly valued amongst the Christians of Rhossus, and\nallowed them peaceably to retain it for a time, until, alarmed at the\nDocetic heresy, he more closely examined the Gospel, and discovered in\nit what he considered heretical matter.(1) The Gospel according to the\nHebrews, which narrowly missed a permanent place in the Canon of the\nChurch, might well seem orthodox to the simple Christians of Cyrus, yet\nas different from, though closely related to, the Canonical Gospels, it\nwould seem heretical to their Bishop. As different from the Gospels\nof the four evangelists, it was doubtless suppressed by Theodoret with\nperfect indifference as to whether it were called Tatian's Gospel or the\nGospel according to the Hebrews. It is obvious that there is no evidence\nof any value connecting Tatian's Gospel with those in our Canon. We\nknow so little about the work in question, indeed, that as Dr. Donaldson\nfrankly admits, \"we should not be able to identify it, even if it did\ncome down to us, unless it told us something reliable about itself.\"(2)\nIts earlier history is enveloped in obscurity, and as Canon Westcott\nobserves: \"The later history of the Diatessaron is\n\n{158}\n\ninvolved in confusion.\"(1) We have seen that in the sixth century it\nwas described by Victor of Capua as Diapente, \"by five,\" instead of \"by\nfour.\" It was also confounded with another Harmony written, not\nlong after Tatian's day, by Ammonius of Alexandria (+243). Dionysius\nBar-Salibi,(2) a writer of the latter half of the twelfth century,\nmentions that the Syrian Ephrem, about the middle of the fourth century,\nwrote a commentary on the Diatessaron of Tatian, which Diatessaron\ncommenced with the opening words of the fourth Gospel: \"In the beginning\nwas the word.\" The statement of Bar-Salibi, however, is contradicted by\nGregory Bar-Hebraeus,\n\nBishop of Tagrit, who says that Ephrem Syrus wrote his Commentary on the\nDiatessaron of Ammonius, and that this Diatessaron commenced with the\nwords of the fourth Gospel: \"In the beginning was the word.\"(3) The\nSyrian Ebed-Jesu (+l308) held Tatian and Ammonius to be one and the\nsame person; and it is probable that Dionysius mistook the Harmony of\nAmmonius for that of Tatian. It is not necessary further to follow this\ndiscussion, for it in no way affects our question, and no important\ndeduction can be derived from it.(4) We allude to the point for the mere\nsake of showing that, up to the last, we have no certain information\nthrowing light on the composition of Tatian's Gospel. All that we\ndo know of it,--what it did not contain--the places where it largely\ncirculated, and the name by which it was\n\n{159}\n\ncalled, tends to identify it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.\n\nFor the rest, Tatian had no idea of a New Testament Canon, and evidently\ndid not recognize as inspired, any Scriptures except those of the Old\nTestament.(1) It is well known that the sect of the Encratites made\nuse of apocryphal Gospels until a much later period, and rejected\nthe authority of the Apostle Paul, and Tatian himself is accused of\nrepudiating some of the Pauline Epistles, and of altering and mutilating\nothers.(2)\n\n2.\n\nDionysius of Corinth need not detain us long. Eusebius informs us\nthat he was the author of seven Epistles addressed to various Christian\ncommunities, and also of a letter to Chrysophora, \"a most faithful\nsister.\" Eusebius speaks of these writings as Catholic Epistles, and\nbriefly characterizes each, but with the exception of a few short\nfragments preserved by him, none of these fruits of the \"inspired\nindustry\" [------] of Dionysius are now extant.(3) These fragments are\nall from an Epistle said to have been addressed to Soter, Bishop of\nRome, and give us a clue to the time at which they were written. The\nBishopric of Soter is generally dated between a.d. 168--176,(4) during\nwhich years the Epistle must have been composed. It could not have\n\n{160}\n\nbeen written, however, until after Dionysius became Bishop of Corinth in\na.d. 170,(1) and it was probably written some years after.(2)\n\nNo quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New Testament\noccurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles still extant; nor does\nEusebius make mention of any such reference in the Epistles which have\nperished. As testimony for our Gospels, therefore, Dionysius is an\nabsolute blank. Some expressions and statements, however, are put\nforward by apologists which we must examine. In the few lines which\nTischendorf accords to Dionysius he refers to two of these. The first\nis an expression used, not by Dionysius himself, but by Eusebius, in\nspeaking of the Epistles to the Churches at Amastris and at Pontus.\nEusebius says that Dionysius adds some \"expositions of Divine\nScriptures\" [------].(3) There can be no doubt, we think, that this\nrefers to the Old Testament only, and Tischendorf himself does not deny\nit.(4)\n\nThe second passage which Tischendorf(5) points out, and which he claims\nwith some other apologists as evidence of the actual existence of a\nNew Testament Canon when Dionysius wrote, occurs in a fragment from the\nEpistle\n\n{161}\n\nto Soter and the Romans which is preserved by Eusebius. It is as\nfollows: \"For the brethren having requested me to write Epistles, I\nwrote them. And the Apostles of the devil have filled these with tares,\nboth taking away parts and adding others; for whom the woe is destined.\nIt is not surprising then if some have recklessly ventured to adulterate\nthe Scriptures of the Lord [------] when they have formed designs\nagainst these which are not of such importance.\"(1) Regarding this\npassage, Canon Westcott, with his usual boldness, says: \"It is\nevident that the 'Scriptures of the Lord'--the writings of the New\nTestament--were at this time collected, that they were distinguished\nfrom other books, that they were jealously guarded, that they had been\ncorrupted for heretical purposes.\"(2) We have seen, however, that there\nhas not been a trace of any New Testament Canon in the writings of the\nFathers before and during this age, and it is not permissible to put\nsuch an interpretation upon the remark of Dionysius. Dr. Donaldson, with\ngreater critical justice and reserve, remarks regarding the expression\n\"Scriptures of the\n\n     2 On the Canon, p. 166. Dr. Westcott, in the first instance,\n     translates the expression: [------] \"the Scriptures of the\n     New Testament.\" In a note to his fourth edition, however, he\n     is kind enough to explain: \"Of course it is not affirmed\n     that the collection here called [------] was identical with\n     our 'New Testament,' but simply that the phrase shows that a\n     collection of writings belonging to the New Testament\n     existed,\" p. 188, n. 2. Such a translation, in such a work,\n     assuming as it does the whole question, and concealing what\n     is doubtful, is most unwarrantable. The fact is that not\n     only is there no mention of the New Testament at all, but\n     the words as little necessarily imply a \"collection\" of\n     writings as they do a \"collection\" of the Epistles of\n     Dionyaius.\n\n{162}\n\nLord:\" \"It is not easy to settle what this term means,\" although he adds\nhis own personal opinion, \"but most probably it refers to the Gospels\nas containing the sayings and doings of the Lord. It is not likely, as\nLardner supposes, that such a term would be applied to the whole of the\nNew Testament\"(1) The idea of our collected New Testament being referred\nto is of course quite untenable, and although it is open to argument\nthat Dionysius may have referred to evangelical works, it is obvious\nthat there are no means of proving the fact, and much less that he\nreferred specially to our Gospels. In fact, the fragments of Dionysius\npresent no evidence whatever of the existence of our Synoptics.\n\nIn order further to illustrate the inconclusiveness of the arguments\nbased upon so vague an expression, we may add that it does not of\nnecessity apply to any Gospels or works of Christian history at all,\nand may with perfect propriety have indicated the Scriptures of the\nOld Testament. We find Justin Martyr complaining in the same spirit as\nDionysius, through several chapters, that the Old Testament Scriptures,\nand more especially those relating to the Lord, had been adulterated,\nthat parts had been taken away, and others added, with the intention\nof destroying or weakening their application to Christ.(2) Justin's\nargument throughout is, that the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures\nrefer to Christ, and Tryphon, his antagonist, the representative of\nJewish opinion, is made to avow that the Jews not only wait for Christ,\nbut, he adds: \"We admit that all the Scriptures which you have cited\nrefer to him.\"(3) Not only, therefore, were the Scriptures of the Old\nTestament\n\n{163}\n\nclosely connected with their Lord by the Fathers and, at the date of\nwhich we are treating, were the only \"Holy Scriptures\" recognised, but\nthey made the same complaints which we meet with in Dionysius that these\nScriptures were adulterated by omissions and interpolations.(1) The\nexpression of Eusebius regarding \"expositions of Divine Scriptures\"\n[------] added by Dionysius, which applied to the Old Testament, tends\nto connect the Old Testament also with this term \"Scriptures of the\nLord.\"\n\nIf the term \"Scriptures of the Lord,\" however, be referred to Gospels,\nthe difficulty of using it as evidence continues undiminished. We have\nno indication of the particular evangelical works which were in the\nBishop's mind. We have seen that other Gospels were used by the Fathers,\nand in exclusive circulation amongst various communities, and even until\nmuch later times many works were regarded by them as divinely inspired\nwhich have no place in our Canon. The Gospel according to the Hebrews\nfor instance was probably used by some at least of the Apostolic\nFathers,(2) by pseudo-Ignatius,(3) Polycarp,(4) Papias,(5)\nHegesippus,(6) Justin Martyr,(7) and at least employed along with our\nGospels by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome.(8) The fact that\nSerapion, in the third century allowed the Gospel of Peter to be used\nin the church of Rhossus(9) shows at the same time the consideration in\nwhich it was held, and the incompleteness of the Canonical position of\nthe New Testament writings. So does the circumstance\n\n     1 This charge is made with insistance  throughout the\n     Clementine Homilies.\n\n{164}\n\nthat in the fifth century Theodoret found the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, or Tatians Gospel, widely circulated and held in honour amongst\northodox churches in his diocese.(1) The Pastor of Hermas, which was\nread in the Churches and nearly secured a permanent place in the Canon,\nwas quoted as inspired by Irenaeus.(2) The Epistle of Barnabas was held\nin similar honour, and quoted as inspired by Clement of Alexandria(3)\nand by Origen,(4) as was likewise the Epistle of the Roman Clement. The\nApocalypse of Peter was included by Clement of Alexandria in his account\nof the Canonical Scriptures and those which are disputed, such as the\nEpistle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles,(5) and it stands side\nby side with the Apocalypse of John in the Canon of Muratori, being long\nafter publicly read in the Churches of Palestine.(6) Tischendorf indeed\nconjectures that a blank in the Codex Sinaiticus after the New Testament\nwas formerly filled by it. Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Lactantius\nquote the Sibylline books as the Word of God, and pay similar honour to\nthe Book of Hystaspes.(7) So great indeed was the consideration and use\nof the Sibylline Books in the Church of the second and third centuries,\nthat Christians from that fact were nicknamed Sibyllists.(8) It is\nunnecessary to multiply, as\n\n     7 Justin, Apol., i. 20, 44; Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 5, Sec.Sec. 42,\n     43; Ladantius, Instit. Div., i. 6, 7, vii. 15, 19. Clement\n     of Alexandria quotes with perfect faith and seriousness some\n     apocryphal book, in which, he says, the Apostle Paul\n     recommends the Hellenic books, the Sibyl and the books of\n     Hystaspes, as giving notably clear prophetic descriptions of\n     the Son of God.    Strom., vi. 5, Sec. 42, 43.\n\n{165}\n\nmight so easily be done, these illustrations; it is too well known that\na vast number of Gospels and similar works, which have been excluded\nfrom the Canon, were held in the deepest veneration by the Church in the\nsecond century, to which the words of Dionysius may apply. So vague\nand indefinite an expression at any rate is useless as evidence for the\nexistence of our Canonical Gospels.\n\nCanon Westcott's deduction from the words of Dionysius, that not only\nwere the writings of the New Testament already collected, but that they\nwere \"jealously guarded,\" is imaginative indeed. It is much and devoutly\nto be wished that they had been as carefully guarded as he supposes,\nbut it is well known that this was not the case, and that numerous\ninterpolations have been introduced into the text. The whole history of\nthe Canon and of Christian literature in the second and third centuries\ndisplays the most deplorable carelessness and want of critical judgment\non the part of the Fathers. \"Whatever was considered as conducive to\nChristian edification was blindly adopted by them, and a vast number of\nworks were launched into circulation and falsely ascribed to Apostles\nand others likely to secure for them greater consideration. Such pious\nfraud was rarely suspected, still more rarely detected in the early ages\nof Christianity, and several of such pseudographs have secured a place\nin our New Testament. The words of Dionysius need not receive any wider\nsignification than a reference to well-known Epistles. It is clear from\nthe words attributed to the Apostle Paul in 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17,\nthat his Epistles were falsified, and setting aside some of those which\nbear his name in our Canon, spurious Epistles were long\n\n{166}\n\nascribed to him, such as the Epistle to the Laodiceans and a third\nEpistle to the Corinthians. We need not do more than allude to the\nsecond Epistle falsely bearing the name of Clement of Rome, as well as\nthe Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, the Apostolical Constitutions,\nand the spurious letters of Ignatius, the letters and legend of Abgarus\nquoted by Eusebius, and the Epistles, of Paul and Seneca, in addition to\nothers already pointed out, as instances of the wholesale falsification\nof that period, many of which gross forgeries were at once accepted\nas genuine by the Fathers, so slight was their critical faculty and so\nready their credulity.(1) In one case the Church punished the author\nwho, from mistaken zeal for the honour of the Apostle Paul, fabricated\nthe _Acta Pauli et Theclae_ in his name,(2) but the forged production was\nnot the less made use of in the Church. There was, therefore, no lack\nof falsification and adulteration of works of Apostles and others of\ngreater note than himself to warrant the remark of Dionysius, without\nany forced application of it to our Gospels or to a New Testament Canon,\nthe existence of which there is nothing to substantiate, but on the\ncontrary every reason to discredit.\n\nBefore leaving this passage we may add that although even Tischendorf\ndoes not, Canon Westcott does find in it references to our first\nSynoptic, and to the Apocalypse. \"The short fragment just quoted,\" he\nsays, \"contains two obvious allusions, one to the Gospel of St Matthew,\nand one to the Apocalypse.\"(3) The words: \"the Apostles of the devil\nhave filled these with tares,\" are, he supposes,\n\n     1 The Epistle of Jude quotes as genuine the Assumption of\n     Moses, and also the Book of Enoch, and the defence of the\n     authenticity of the latter by Tertullian (de Cultu fem., i.\n     3) will not be forgotten.\n\n{167}\n\nan allusion to Matt. xiii. 24 ff. But even if the expression were an\necho of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, it is not permissible to\nrefer it in this arbitrary way to our first Gospel, to the exclusion\nof the numerous other works which existed, many of which doubtless\ncontained it Obviously the words have no evidential value.\n\nContinuing his previous assertions, however, Canon Westcott affirms with\nequal boldness: \"The allusion in the last clause\"--to the \"Scriptures of\nthe Lord\"--\"will be clear when it is remembered that Dionysius 'warred\nagainst the heresy of Marcion and defended the rule of truth '\"\n[------].(1) Tischendorf, who is ready enough to strain every\nexpression into evidence, recognizes too well that this is not capable\nof such an interpretation. Dr. Westcott omits to mention that the words,\nmoreover, are not used by Dionysius at all, but simply proceed from\nEusebius.(2) Dr. Donaldson distinctly states the fact that, \"there is no\nreference to the Bible in the words of Eusebius: he defends the rule of\nthe truth \"(3) [------].\n\nThere is only one other point to mention. Canon Westcott refers to the\npassage in the Epistle of Dionysius, which has already been quoted\nin this work regarding the reading of Christian writings in churches.\n\"Today,\" he writes to Soter, \"we have kept the Lord's holy day, in\nwhich we have read your Epistle, from the reading of which we shall\never derive admonition, as we do from the former one written to us by\nClement.\"(4) It is evident that there was no idea, in selecting the\nworks to be read at the weekly assembly of Christians, of any\n\n{168}\n\nCanon of a New Testament. We here learn that the Epistles of Clement\nand of Soter were habitually read, and while we hear of this, and of the\nsimilar reading of Justin's \"Memoirs of the Apostles,\"(1) of the Pastor\nof Hermas,(2) of the Apocalypse of Peter,(3) and other apocryphal works,\nwe do not at the same time hear of the public reading of our Gospels.\n\n{169}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS.\n\nWe might here altogether have passed over Melito, Bishop of Sardis in\nLydia, had it not been for the use of certain fragments of his writings\nmade by Canon Westcott. Melito, naturally, is not cited by Tischendorf\nat all, but the English Apologist, with greater zeal, we think, than\ncritical discretion, forces him into service as evidence for the Gospels\nand a New Testament Canon. The date of Melito, it is generally agreed,\nfalls after a.d. 176, a phrase in his apology presented to Marcus\nAntoninus preserved in Eusebius(l) [------] indicating that Commodus had\nalready been admitted to a share of the Government.(3)\n\nCanon Westcott affirms that, in a fragment preserved by Eusebius, Melito\nspeaks of the books of the New Testament in a collected form. He says:\n\"The words of Melito on the other hand are simple and casual, and\nyet their meaning can scarcely be mistaken. He writes to Onesimus, a\nfellow-Christian who had urged him 'to\n\n{170}\n\nmake selections for him from the Law and the Prophets concerning the\nSaviour and the faith generally, and furthermore desired to learn the\naccurate account of the Old [------] Books;' 'having gone therefore to\nthe East,' Melito says, 'and reached the spot where [each thing] was\npreached and done, and having learned accurately the Books of the\nOld Testament, I have sent a list of them.' The mention of 'the Old\nBooks'--'the Books of the Old Testament,' naturally implies a definite\nNew Testament, a written antitype to the Old; and the form of language\nimplies a familiar recognition of its contents.\"(1) This is truly\nastonishing! The \"form of language\" can only refer to the words:\n\"concerning the Saviour and the faith generally,\" which must have an\namazing fulness of meaning to convey to Canon West-cott the implication\nof a \"familiar recognition\" of the contents of a supposed already\ncollected New Testament, seeing that a simple Christian, not to say a\nBishop, might at least know of a Saviour and the faith generally from\nthe oral preaching of the Gospel, from a single Epistle of Paul, or from\nany of the [------] of Luke. This reasoning forms a worthy pendant\nto his argument that because Melito speaks of the books of the\nOld Testament he implies the existence of a definite collected New\nTestament. Such an assertion is calculated to mislead a large class of\nreaders.(2)\n\nThe fragment of Melito is as follows: \"Melito to his\n\n     1 On the Canon, p. 193. [In the fourth edition Dr. Westcott\n     omits the last phrase, making a full stop at \"Old.\" p. 218.]\n\n     2 It must be said, however, that Canon Westcott merely\n     follows and exaggerates Lardner, here, who says: \"From this\n     passage I would conclude that there was then also a volume\n     or collection of books called the New Testament, containing\n     the writings of Apostles and Apostolical men, but we cannot\n     from hence infer the names or the exact number of those\n     books.\"   Credibility, &c., Works, ii. p. 148.\n\n{171}\n\nbrother Onesimus, greeting. As thou hast frequently desired in thy zeal\nfor the word [------] to have extracts made for thee, both from the law\nand the prophets concerning the Saviour and our whole faith; nay, more,\nhast wished to learn the exact statement of the old books [------], how\nmany they are and what is their order, I have earnestly endeavoured to\naccomplish this, knowing thy zeal concerning the faith, and thy desire\nto be informed concerning the word [------], and especially that thou\npreferrest these matters to all others from love towards God, striving\nto gain eternal salvation. Having, therefore, gone to the East,\nand reached the place where this was preached and done, and having\naccurately ascertained the books of the Old Testament [------], I\nhave, subjoined, sent a list of them unto thee, of which these are the\nnames\"--then follows a list of the books of the Old Testament, omitting,\nhowever, Esther. He then concludes with the words: \"Of these I have made\nthe extracts dividing them into six books.\"(1)\n\nCanon Westcott's assertion that the expression \"Old Books,\" \"Books of\nthe Old Testament,\" involves here by antithesis a definite _written_ New\nTestament, requires us to say a few words as to the name of \"Testament\"\nas applied to both divisions of the Bible. It is of course well known\nthat this word came into use originally from the translation of the\nHebrew word \"covenant\" [------], or compact made between God and the\nIsraelites,(2) in the Septuagint version, by the Greek word [------],\nwhich in a legal sense also means a will or Testament,(3) and that word\nis adopted throughout the New\n\n     2  The legal sense of [------] as a Will or Testament is\n     distinctly intended in Heb. ix. 16. \"For where a Testament\n     [------] is, there must also of necessity be the death of\n     the testator\" [------]. The same word [------] is employed\n     throughout the whole passage. Heb. ix. 15--20.\n\n{172}\n\nTestament.(l) The Vulgate translation, instead of retaining the original\nHebrew signification, translated the word in the Gospels and Epistles,\n\"Testamentum\" and [------] became \"Vetus Testamentum\" instead of \"Vetus\nFoedus\" and whenever the word occurs in the English version it is almost\ninvariably rendered \"Testament\" instead of covenant. The expression\n\"Book of the Covenant,\" or \"Testament,\" [------], frequently occurs\nin the LXX version of the Old Testament and its Apocrypha,(2) and in\nJeremiah xxxi. 31-34,(3) the prophet speaks of making a \"new covenant\"\n[------] with the house of Israel, which is indeed quoted in Hebrews\nviii. 8. It is the doctrinal idea of the new covenant, through Christ\nconfirming the former one made to the Israelites, which has led to the\ndistinction of the Old and New Testaments. Generally the Old Testament\nwas, in the first ages of Christianity, indicated by the simple\nexpressions \"The Books\" [------], \"Holy Scriptures\" [------],(5) or \"The\nScriptures\" [------,(6) but the preparation for the distinction of \"Old\nTestament\" began very early in the development of the doctrinal idea\nof the New Testament of Christ, before there was any part of the New\nTestament books written at all. The expression \"New Testament,\" derived\nthus\n\n{173}\n\nantithetically from the \"Old Testament,\" occurs constantly throughout\nthe second part of the Bible. In the Epistle to the Hebrews viii. 6-13,\nthe Mosaic dispensation is contrasted with the Christian, and Jesus\nis called the Mediator of a better Testament [------].(1) The first\nTestament not being faultless, is replaced by the second, and the writer\nquotes the passage from Jeremiah to which we have referred regarding a\nNew Testament, winding up his argument with the words, v. 13: \"In that\nhe saith a new (Testament) he hath made the first old.\" Again, in our\nfirst Gospel, during the Last Supper, Jesus is represented as saying:\n\"This is my blood of the New Testament\" [------];(2) and in Luke he\nsays: \"This cup is the New Testament [------] in my blood.\"(3) There is,\ntherefore, a very distinct reference made to the two Testaments as \"New\"\nand \"Old,\" and in speaking of the books of the Law and the Prophets\nas the \"Old Books\" and \"Books of the old Testament,\" after the general\nacceptance of the Gospel of Jesus as the New Testament or Covenant,\nthere was no antithetical implication whatever of a written New\nTestament, but a mere reference to the doctrinal idea. We might multiply\nillustrations showing how ever-present to the mind of the early Church\nwas the contrast of the Mosaic and Christian Covenants as Old and New.\nTwo more we may venture to point out. In Romans ix. 4, and Gal. iv.\n24, the two Testaments or Covenants [------], typified by Sinai and the\nheavenly Jerusalem, are discussed, and the superiority of the latter\nasserted. There is, however, a passage, still more clear and decisive.\nPaul says in 2 Corinthians iii. 6: \"Who also (God) made us sufficient to\nbe ministers of the New\n\n{174}\n\nTestament [------] not of the letter, but of the spirit\" [------]. Why\ndoes not Canon Westcott boldly claim this as evidence of a definite\nwritten New Testament, when not only is there reference to the name, but\na distinction drawn between the letter and the spirit of it, from which\nan apologist might make a telling argument? But proceeding to contrast\nthe glory of the New with the Old dispensation, the Apostle, in\nreference to the veil with which Moses covered his face, says: \"But\ntheir understandings were hardened: for until this very day remaineth\nthe same veil in the reading of the Old Testament\" [------];(l ) and as\nif to make the matter still clearer he repeats in the next verse: \"But\neven unto this day when Moses is read, the veil lieth upon their\nheart.\" Now here the actual reading of the _Old_ Testament [------]\nis distinctly mentioned, and the expression quite as aptly as that of\nMelito, \"implies a definite New Testament, a written antitype to the\nOld,\" but even Canon Westcott would not dare to suggest that, when the\nsecond Epistle to the Corinthians was composed, there was a \"definite\nwritten New Testament\" in existence. This conclusively shows that the\nwhole argument from Melito's mention of the books of the Old Testament\nis absolutely groundless.\n\nOn the contrary, Canon Westcott should know very well that the first\ngeneral designation for the New Testament collection was \"The Gospel\"\n[------] and \"The Apostle\" [------], for the two portions of the\ncollection, in contrast with the divisions of the Old Testament, the Law\nand the Prophets [------]\n\n{175}\n\n[------],(1) and the name New Testament occurs for the very first time\nin the third century, when Tertullian called the collection of Christian\nScriptures _Novum Instrumentum and Novum Testamentum._(2) The term\n[------] is not, so far as we are aware, applied in the Greek to\nthe \"New Testament\" collection in any earlier work than Origen's _De\nPrincipiis_, iv. 1. It was only in the second half of the third century\nthat the double designation [------] was generally abandoned.(3)\n\nAs to the evidence for a New Testament Canon, which Dr. Westcott\nsupposes he gains by his unfounded inference from Melito's expression,\nwe may judge of its value from the fact that he himself, like Lardner,\nadmits: \"But there is little evidence in the fragment of Melito to show\nwhat writings he would have included in the new collection.\"(4) Little\nevidence? There is none at all.\n\nThere is, however, one singular and instructive point in this fragment\nto which Canon Westcott does not in any way refer, but which well merits\nattention as\n\n{176}\n\nillustrating the state of religious knowledge at that time, and,\nby analogy, giving a glimpse of the difficulties which beset early\nChristian literature. We are told by Melito that Onesimus had frequently\nurged him to give him exact information as to the number and order of\nthe books of the Old Testament, and to have extracts made for him from\nthem concerning the Saviour and the faith. Now it is apparent that\nMelito, though a Bishop, was not able to give the desired information\nregarding the number and order of the books of the Old Testament\nhimself, but that he had to make a journey to collect it. If this was\nthe extent of knowledge possessed by the Bishop of Sardis of what was\nto the Fathers the only Holy Scripture, how ignorant his flock must have\nbeen, and how unfitted, both, to form any critical judgment as to the\nconnection of Christianity with the Mosaic dispensation. The formation\nof a Christian Canon at a period when such ignorance was not only\npossible but generally prevailed, and when the zeal of believers led to\nthe composition of such a mass of pseudonymic and other literature, in\nwhich every consideration of correctness and truth was subordinated to\na childish desire for edification, must have been slow indeed and\nuncertain; and in such an age fortuitous circumstances must have mainly\nled to the canonization or actual loss of many a work. So far from\naffording any evidence of the existence of a New Testament Canon, the\nfragment of Melito only shows the ignorance of the Bishop of Sardis as\nto the Canon even of the Old Testament.\n\nWe have not yet finished with Melito in connection with Canon Westcott,\nhowever, and it is necessary to follow him further in order fully to\nappreciate the nature of the evidence for the New Testament Canon,\nwhich, in default\n\n{177}\n\nof better, he is obliged to offer. Eusebius gives a list of the works of\nMelito which have come to his knowledge, and in addition to the fragment\nalready quoted, he extracts a brief passage from Melito's work on the\nPassover, and some much longer quotations from his Apology, to which\nwe have in passing referred.(1) With these exceptions, none of Melito's\nwritings are now extant. Dr. Cureton, however, has published a Syriac\nversion, with translation, of a so-called \"Oration of Meliton, the\nPhilosopher, who was in the presence of Antoninus Caesar,\" together with\nfive other fragments attributed to Melito.(2) With regard to this Syriac\nOration, Canon Westcott says: \"Though if it be entire, it is not the\nApology with which Eusebius was acquainted, the general character of\nthe writing leads to the belief that it is a genuine book of Melito\nof Sardis;\"(3) and he proceeds to treat it as authentic. In the first\nplace, we have so little of Melito's genuine compositions extant,\nthat it is hazardous indeed to draw any positive deduction from the\n\"character of the writing.\" Cureton, Bunsen, and others maintain that\nthis Apology is not a fragment, and it cannot be the work mentioned\nby Eusebius, for it does not contain the quotations from the authentic\nOrations which he has preserved, and which are considerable. It is,\nhowever, clear from the substance of the composition that it cannot have\nbeen spoken before the Emperor,(4) and, moreover, it has in no way the\ncharacter of an \"Apology,\" for there is not a single word in it about\neither Christianity or Christians. There is\n\n{178}\n\nevery reason to believe that it is not a genuine work of Melito.(1)\nThere is no ground whatever for supposing that he wrote two Apologies,\nnor is this ascribed to him upon any other ground than the inscription\nof an unknown Syriac writer. This, however, is not the only spurious\nwork attributed to Melito. Of this work Canon Westcott says: \"Like\nother Apologies, this oration contains only indirect references to the\nChristian Scriptures. The allusions in it to the Gospels are extremely\nrare, and except so far as they show the influence of St. John's\nwritings, of no special interest.\"(2) It would have been more correct to\nhave said that there are no allusions in it to the Gospels at all.\n\nCanon Westcott is somewhat enthusiastic in speaking of Melito and his\nliterary activity as evinced in the titles of his works recorded by\nEusebius, and he quotes a fragment, said to be from a treatise \"On\nFaith,\" amongst these Syriac remains, and which he considers to be \"a\nvery striking expansion of the early historic creed of the Church.\"(3)\nAs usual, we shall give the entire fragment: \"We have made collections\nfrom the Law and the Prophets relative to those things which have been\ndeclared respecting our Lord Jesus Christ, that we may prove to your\nlove that he is perfect Reason, the Word of God; who was begotten\nbefore the light; who was Creator together with the Father; who was\nthe Fashioner of man; who was all in all; who among the Patriarchs was\nPatriarch; who in the Law was the Law; among the Priests chief Priest;\namong Kings Governor; among the Prophets the Prophet;\n\n{179}\n\namong the Angels Archangel; in the voice the Word; among Spirits Spirit;\nin the Father the Son; in God God the King for ever and ever. For this\nwas he who was Pilot to Noah; who conducted Abraham; who was bound with\nIsaac; who was in exile with Jacob; who was sold with Joseph; who was\ncaptain with Moses; who was the Divider of the inheritance with\nJesus the son of Nun; who in David and the Prophets foretold his own\nsufferings; who was incarnate in the Virgin; who was born at Bethlehem;\nwho was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger; who was seen of\nshepherds; who was glorified of angels; who was worshipped by the Magi;\nwho was pointed out by John; who assembled the Apostles; who preached\nthe kingdom; who healed the maimed; who gave light to the blind; who\nraised the dead; who appeared in the Temple; who was not believed by the\npeople; who was betrayed by Judas; who was laid hold of by the Priests;\nwho was condemned by Pilate; who was pierced in the flesh; who was\nhanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the\ndead; who appeared to the Apostles; who ascended to heaven; who sitteth\non the right hand of the Father; who is the Rest of those who are\ndeparted; the Recoverer of those who are lost; the Light of those who\nare in darkness; the Deliverer of those who are captives; the Finder of\nthose who have gone astray; the Refuge of the afflicted; the Bridegroom\nof the Church; the Charioteer of the Cherubim; the Captain of the\nAngels; God who is of God; the Son who is of the Father; Jesus Christ,\nthe King for ever and ever. Amen.\"(l)\n\n{180}\n\nCanon Westcott commences his commentary upon this passage with the\nremark: \"No writer could state the fundamental truths of Christianity\nmore unhesitatingly, or quote the Scriptures of the Old and New\nTestaments with more perfect confidence.\"(1) We need not do more than\nremark that there is not a single quotation in the fragment, and that\nthere is not a single one of the references to Gospel history or\nto ecclesiastical dogmas which might not have been derived from the\nEpistles of Paul, from any of the forms of the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, the Protevangelium of James, or from many another apocryphal\nGospel, or the oral teaching of the Church. It is singular, however,\nthat the only hint which Canon Westcott gives of the more than doubtful\nauthenticity of this fragment consists of the introductory remark, after\nalluding to the titles of his genuine and supposititious writings: \"Of\nthese multifarious writings very few fragments remain in the original\nGreek, but the general tone of them is so decided in its theological\ncharacter as to go far to establish the genuineness of those which are\npreserved in the Syriac translation.\"(2)\n\nNow, the fragment \"On Faith\" which has just been quoted is one of the\nfive Syriac pieces of Dr. Cureton to which we have referred, and which\neven Apologists agree \"cannot be regarded as genuine.\"(3) It is well\nknown that there were other writers in the early Church bearing the\nnames of Melito and Miletius or Meletius,(4)\n\n{181}\n\nwhich were frequently confounded.\n\nOf these five Syriac fragments one bears the superscription: \"Of\nMeliton, Bishop of the city of Attica,\" and another, \"Of the holy\nMeliton, Bishop of Utica,\" and Cureton himself evidently leant to the\nopinion that they are not by our Melito, but by a Meletius or Melitius,\nBishop of Sebastopolis in Pontus.(1) The third fragment is said to be\ntaken from a discourse \"On the Cross,\" which was unknown to Eusebius,\nand from its doctrinal peculiarities was probably written after his\ntime.(2) Another fragment purports to be from a work on the \"Soul and\nBody;\" and the last one from the treatise \"On Faith,\" which we are\ndiscussing. The last two works are mentioned by Eusebius, but these\nfragments, besides coming in such suspicious company, must for other\nreasons be pronounced spurious.(3) They have in fact no attestation\nwhatever except that of the Syriac translator, who is unknown, and which\ntherefore is worthless, and, on the other hand, the whole style and\nthought of the fragments are unlike anything else of Melito's time, and\nclearly indicate a later stage of theological development.(4) Moreover,\nin the Mechitarist Library at Venice there is a shorter version of the\nsame passage in a Syriac MS., and an Armenian version of the extract as\ngiven above, with some variation of the opening lines, in both of which\nthe passage is distinctly ascribed to Irenaeus.(5) Besides the Oration\nand the five Syriac fragments, we have other two works extant falsely\nattributed to Melito, one, \"De Transitu Virginis Mariae,\" describing the\nmiraculous presence of the Apostles at the\n\n{182}\n\ndeath of Mary;(1) and the other, \"De Actibus Joannis Apostoli,\"\nrelates the history of miracles performed by the Apostle John. Both are\nuniversally admitted to be spurious,(2) as are a few other fragments\nalso bearing his name. Melito did not escape from the falsification to\nwhich many of his more distinguished predecessors and contemporaries\nwere victims, through the literary activity and unscrupulous religious\nzeal of the first three or four centuries of our era.\n\n2.\n\nVery little is known regarding Claudius Apollinaris to whom we must\nnow for a moment turn. Eusebius informs us that he was Bishop of\nHierapolis,(3) and in this he is supported by the fragment of a letter\nof Serapion Bishop of Antioch preserved to us by him, which refers to\nApollinaris as the \"most blessed.\"(4) Tischendorf, without any precise\ndate, sets him down as contemporary with Tatian and Theophilus (the\nlatter of whom, he thinks, wrote his work addressed to Autolycus about\nA.D. 180--181 ).(5) Eusebius(6) mentions that, like his somewhat earlier\ncontemporary Melito of Sardis, Apollinaris presented an \"Apology\" to\nthe Emperor Marcus Antoninus, and he gives us further materials for a\ndate(7) by stating that Claudius Apollinaris, probably in his Apology,\nrefers to\n\n     1 It is worthy of remark that the Virgin is introduced into\n     all these fragments in a manner quite foreign to the period\n     at which Melito lived.\n\n     7 Eusebius himself sets him down in his Chronicle as\n     flourishing in the eleventh year of Marcus, or a.d. 171, a\n     year later than he dates Melito.\n\n{183}\n\nthe miracle of the \"Thundering Legion,\" which is said to have occurred\nduring the war of Marcus Antoninus against the Marcomanni in a.d.\n174.(1) The date of his writings may, therefore, with moderation be\nfixed between a.d. 177--180.(2)\n\nEusebius and others mention various works composed by him,(3) none of\nwhich, however, are extant; and we have only to deal with two brief\nfragments in connection with the Paschal controversy, which are ascribed\nto Apollinaris in the Paschal Chronicle of Alexandria. This controversy,\nas to the day upon which the Christian Passover should be celebrated,\nbroke out about a.d. 170, and long continued to divide the Church.(4) In\nthe preface to the Paschal Chronicle, a work of the seventh century, the\nunknown chronicler says: \"Now even Apollinaris, the most holy Bishop of\nHiera-polis, in Asia, who lived near apostolic times, taught the like\nthings in his work on the Passover, saying thus: 'There are some,\nhowever, who through ignorance raise contentions regarding these matters\nin a way which\n\n     1 Eusebius, H. E., v. 5; Mosheim, Inst. Hist. Ecclee., Book\n     i. cent. ii. part. i. ch. i. Sec. 9. Apollinaris states that in\n     consequence of this miracle, the Emperor had bestowed upon\n     the Legion the name of the \"Thundering Legion.\" We cannot\n     here discuss this subject, but the whole story illustrates\n     the rapidity with which a fiction is magnified into truth by\n     religious zeal, and is surrounded by false circumstantial\n     evidence. Cf. Tertullian, Apol. 5, ad Scapulam, 4; Dion\n     Cassius, lib. 55; Scaliyer, Animadv. in Euseb., p. 223 f.;\n     cf. Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 241 f.\n\n{184}\n\nshould be pardoned, for ignorance does not admit of accusation, but\nrequires instruction. And they say that the Lord, together with his\ndisciples, ate the sheep [------] on the 14th Nisan, but himself\nsuffered on the great day of unleavened bread. And they state [------]\nthat Matthew says precisely what they have understood; hence their\nunderstanding of it is at variance with the law, and according to them\nthe Gospels seem to contradict each other.'\"(1) The last sentence is\ninterpreted as pointing out that the first synoptic Gospel is supposed\nto be at variance with our fourth Gospel. This fragment is claimed by\nTeschendorf(2) and others as evidence of the general acceptance at that\ntime both of the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. Canon Westcott, with\nobvious exaggeration, says: \"The Gospels are evidently quoted as books\ncertainly known and recognized; their authority is placed on the same\nfooting as the Old Testament.:(3) The Gospels are referred to merely for\nthe settlement of the historical fact as to the day on which the last\nPassover had been eaten, a narrative of which they contained.\n\nThere are, however, very grave reasons for doubting the authenticity of\nthe two fragments ascribed to\n\n{185}\n\nApollinaris, and we must mention that these doubts are much less those\nof German critics, who, on the whole, either do not raise the question\nat all, or hastily dispose of it, than doubts entertained by orthodox\nApologists, who see little ground for accepting them as genuine.(1)\nEusebius, who gives a catalogue of the works of Apol-linaris which had\nreached him,(2) was evidently not acquainted with any writing of his on\nthe Passover. It is argued, however, that \"there is not any sufficient\nground for doubting the genuineness of these fragments 'On Easter,' in\nthe fact that Eusebius mentions no such book by Apollinaris.\"(3) It is\nquite true that Eusebius does not pretend to give a complete list of\nthese works, but merely says that there are many preserved by many,\nand that he mentions those with which he had met.(4) At the same time,\nentering with great interest, as he does, into the Paschal Controversy,\nand acquainted with the principal writings on the subject,(5) it would\nindeed have been strange had he not met with the work itself, or at\nleast with some notice of it in the works of others. Eusebius gives\nan account of the writings of Melito and Apollinaris together. He was\nacquainted with the work of Melito on the Passover, and quotes it,(6)\nand it is extremely improbable that he could have been ignorant of a\ntreatise by his distinguished contemporary\n\n     3  Westcott, On the Canon, p. 198, note 3; cf. Baur,\n     Unters. kan. Evv., p. 340 f. This is the only remark which\n     Dr. Westcott makes as to any doubt of the authenticity of\n     these fragments. Tischendorf does not mention a doubt at\n     all.\n\n{186}\n\non the same subject, had he actually written one. Not only, however,\ndoes Eusebius seem to know nothing of his having composed such a work,\nbut neither do Theodoret,(1) Jerome,(2) nor Photius,(3) who refer to his\nwritings, mention it; and we cannot suppose that it was referred to\nin the lost works of Irenaeus or Clement of Alexandria on the Passover.\nEusebius, who quotes from them,(4) would in that case have probably\nmentioned the fact, as he does the statement by Clement regarding\nMelito's work, or at least would have been aware of the existence\nof such a writing, and alluded to it when speaking of the works of\nApollinaris.\n\nThis silence is equally significant whether we regard Apollinaris as a\nQuartodeciman or as a supporter of the views of Victor and the Church\nof Rome. On the one hand, Eusebius states that \"all the churches of\nAsia\"(5) kept the 14th Nisan, and it is difficult to believe that, had\nApollinaris differed from this practice and, more especially, had he\nwritten against it, the name of so eminent an exception would not have\nbeen mentioned. The views of the Bishop of Hierapolis, as a prominent\nrepresentative of the Asiatic Church, must have been quoted in many\ncontroversial works on the subject, and even if the writing itself had\nnot come into their hands, Eusebius and others could scarcely fail\nto become indirectly acquainted with it. On the other hand, supposing\nApollinaris to have been a Quartodeciman, whilst the ignorance of\nEusebius and others regarding any contribution by him to the discussion\nis scarcely less remarkable, it is still more surprising that no\nallusion is made to\n\n                           {187}\n\nhim by Polycrates(1) when he names so many less distinguished men of\nAsia, then passed away, who kept the 14th Nisan, such as Thaseas of\nEumenia, Sagoris of Laodicea, Papirius of Sardis, and the seven Bishops\nof his kindred, not to mention Polycarp of Smyrna and the Apostles\nPhilip and John. He also cites Melito of Sardis: why does he not refer\nto Apollinaris of Hierapolis? If it be argued that he was still living,\nthen why does Eusebius not mention him amongst those who protested\nagainst the measures of Victor of Rome?(2)\n\nThere has been much discussion as to the view taken by the writer of\nthese fragments, Hilgenfeld and others(3) maintaining that he is opposed\nto the Quartodeciman party. Into this it is not necessary for us to\nenter, as our contention simply is that in no case can the authenticity\nof the fragments be established. Supposing them, however, to be directed\nagainst those who kept the 14th Nisan, how can it be credited that this\nisolated convert to the views of Victor and the Roman Church, could\nwrite of so vast and distinguished a majority of the Churches of Asia,\nincluding Polycarp and Melito, as \"some who through ignorance raised\ncontentions\" on the point, when they really raised no new contention at\nall, but, as Polycrates represented, followed the tradition handed\ndown to them from their Fathers, and authorized by the practice of the\nApostle John himself?\n\nNone of his contemporaries nor writers about his own time seem to have\nknown that Apollinaris wrote any work from which these fragments can\nhave been taken, and there is absolutely no independent evidence that he\n\n{188}\n\never took any part in the Paschal controversy at all. The only ground\nwe have for attributing these fragments to him is the Preface to the\nPaschal Chronicle of Alexandria, written by an unknown author of the\nseventh century, some five hundred years after the time of Apollinaris,\nwhose testimony has rightly been described as \"worth almost nothing.\"(1)\nMost certainly many passages preserved by him are inauthentic,\n\nand generally allowed to be so.(2) The two fragments have by some been\nconjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria,(3) a writer of the\nthird century, who composed a work on Easter, but there is no evidence\non the point In any case, there is such exceedingly slight reason for\nattributing these fragments to Claudius Apollinaris, and so many strong\ngrounds for believing that he cannot have written them, that they have\nno material value as evidence for the antiquity of the Gospels.\n\n3.\n\nWe know little or nothing of Athenagoras. He is not mentioned by\nEusebius, and our only information regarding him is derived from\na fragment of Philip Sidetes, a writer of the fifth century, first\npublished by\n\n     2  Dr. Donaldson rightly calls a fragment in the Chronicle\n     ascribed to Melito, \"unquestionably spurious.\" Hist. Chr.\n     Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 231.\n\n{189}\n\nDodwell.(1) Philip states that he was the first leader of the school of\nAlexandria during the time of Hadrian and Antoninus, to the latter\nof whom he addressed his Apology, and he further says that Clement of\nAlexandria was his disciple, and that Pantsenus was the disciple\nof Clement. Part of this statement we know to be erroneous, and the\nChristian History of Philip, from which the fragment is taken, is very\nslightingly spoken of both by Socrates(2) and Photius.(3) No reliance\ncan be placed upon this information.(4)\n\nThe only works ascribed to Athenagoras are an Apology--called an\nEmbassy, [------]--bearing the inscription: \"The Embassy of Athenagoras\nthe Athenian, a philosopher and a Christian, concerning Christians, to\nthe Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus,\nArmeniaci Sarmatici and, above all, philosophers\"; and further, a\nTreatise: \"On the Resurrection of the Dead,\" A quotation from the\nApology by Methodius in his work on the Resurrection of the Body, is\npreserved by Epiphanius(5) and Photius,(6) and this, the mention by\nPhilip Sidetes, and the inscription by an unknown hand, just quoted, are\nall the evidence we possess regarding the Apology. We have no\nevidence at all regarding the treatise on the Resurrection, beyond the\ninscription. The authenticity of neither, therefore, stands on very sure\ngrounds.(7) The address of the Apology and internal evidence furnished\nby it, into which we need not go, show that it could not\n\n{190}\n\nhave been written before a.d. 176--177, the date assigned to it by most\ncritics,(1) although there are many reasons for dating it some years\nlater.\n\nIn the six lines which Tischendorf devotes to Athenagoras, he says that\nthe Apology contains \"several quotations from Matthew and Luke,\"(2)\nwithout, however, indicating them. In the very few sentences which Canon\nWestcott vouchsafes to him, he says: \"Athenagoras quotes the words of\nour Lord as they stand in St. Matthew four times, and appears to allude\nto passages in St. Mark and St. John, But he nowhere mentions the name\nof an Evangelist.\"(3) Here the third Synoptic is not mentioned. In\nanother place he says: \"Athenagoras at Athens, and Theophilus at\nAntioch, make use of the same books generally, and treat them with the\nsame respect;\" and in a note: \"Athenagoras quotes the Gospels of St\nMatthew and St. John.\"(4) Here it will be observed that also the Gospel\nof Mark is quietly dropped out of sight, but still the positive manner\nin which it is asserted that Athenagoras quotes from \"the Gospel of\nSt. Matthew,\" without further explanation, is calculated to mislead. We\nshall refer to each of the supposed quotations.\n\nAthenagoras not only does not mention any Gospel, but singularly enough\nhe never once introduces the\n\n{191}\n\nname of \"Christ\" into the works ascribed to him, and all the \"words of\nthe Lord\" referred to are introduced simply by the indefinite \"he says,\"\n[------], and without any indication whatever of a written source.(1)\nThe only exception to this is an occasion on which he puts into the\nmouth of \"the Logos\" a saying which is not found in any of our Gospels.\nThe first passage to which Canon Westcott alludes is the following,\nwhich we contrast with the supposed parallel in the Gospel:--\n\n[------]\n\nIt is scarcely possible to imagine a greater difference in language\nconveying a similar idea than that which exists between Athenagoras and\nthe first Gospel, and the parallel passage in Luke is in many respects\nstill more distant. No echo of the words in Matthew has lingered in\nthe ear of the writer, for he employs utterly different phraseology\nthroughout, and nothing can be more certain\n\n{192}\n\nthan the fact that there is not a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance\nwith our Synoptics.\n\nThe next passage which is referred to is as follows:\n\n[------]\n\nThe same idea is continued in the next chapter, in which the following\npassage occurs:\n\n[------]\n\nThere is no parallel at all in the first Gospel to the phrase \"and lend\nto them that lend to you,\" and in Luke vi. 34, the passage reads: \"and\nif ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye?\"\n\n{193}\n\n[------]; It is evident, therefore, that there are decided variations\nhere, and that the passage of Athenagoras does not agree with either of\nthe Synoptics. We have seen the persistent variation in the quotations\nfrom the \"Sermon on the Mount\" which occur in Justin,(1) and there is no\npart of the discourses of Jesus more certain to have been preserved by\nliving Christian tradition, or to have been recorded in every form of\nGospel. The differences in these passages from our Synoptic present the\nsame features as mark the several versions of the same discourse in\nour first and third Gospels, and indicate a distinct source. The same\nremarks also apply to the next passage:\n\n[------]\n\nThe omission of [------], \"with her,\" is not accidental, but is an\nimportant variation in the sense, which we have already met with in the\nGospel used by Justin Martyr.(4) There is another passage, in the next\nchapter, the parallel to which follows closely on this in the great\nSermon as reported in our first Gospel, to which Canon Westcott does not\nrefer, but which we must point out:\n\n[------]\n\n{104}\n\n[------]\n\nIt is evident that the passage in the Apology is quite different from\nthat in the \"Sermon on the Mount\" in the first Synoptic. If we compare\nit with Matt. xix. 9, there still remains the express limitation\n[------], which Athenagoras does not admit, his own express doctrine\nbeing in accordance with the positive declaration in his text. In the\nimmediate context, indeed, he insists that even to marry another wife\nafter the death of the first is cloaked adultery. We find in Luke\nxvi. 18, the reading of Athenagoras,(3) but with important linguistic\nvariations:\n\n[------]\n\nIt cannot, obviously, be rightly affirmed that Athenagoras must have\nderived this from Luke, and the sense of the passage in that Gospel,\ncompared with the passage in Matthew xix. 9, on the contrary, rather\nmakes it certain that the reading of Athenagoras was derived from a\nsource combining the language of the one and the thought of the other.\nIn Mark x. 11, the reading is nearer that of Athenagoras and confirms\nthis conclusion; and the addition there of [------] \"against her\" after\n\n{195}\n\n[------], further tends to prove that his source was not that Gospel.\n\nWe may at once give the last passage which is supposed to be a quotation\nfrom our Synoptics, and it is that which is affirmed to be a reference\nto Mark. Athenagoras states in almost immediate context with the above:\n\"for in the beginning God formed one man and one woman.\"(1) This is\ncompared with Mark x. 6: \"But from the beginning of the creation God\nmade them male and female\":\n\n[------]\n\nNow this passage differs materially in every way from the second\nSynoptic. The reference to \"one man\" and \"one woman\" is used in a\ntotally different sense, and enforces the previous assertion that a man\nmay only marry one wife. Such an argument directly derived from the Old\nTestament is perfectly natural to one who, like Athenagoras, derived\nall his authority from it alone. It is not permissible to claim it as\nevidence of the use of Mark.\n\nNow we must repeat that Athenagoras does not name any source from which\nhe derives his knowledge of the sayings of Jesus. These sayings are\nall from the Sermon on the Mount, and are introduced by the indefinite\nphrase [------], and it is remarkable that all differ distinctly from\nthe parallels in our Gospels. The whole must be taken together as coming\nfrom one source, and while the decided variation excludes the inference\nthat they must have been taken from our Gospels, there is reasonable\nground for assigning them to a different\n\n{196}\n\nsource. Dr. Donaldson states the case with great fairness: \"Athenagoras\nmakes no allusion to the inspiration of any of the New Testament\nwriters. He does not mention one of them by name, and one cannot be sure\nthat he quotes from any except Paul. All the passages taken from the\nGospels are parts of our Lord's discourses, and may have come down to\nAthenagoras by tradition.\"(1) He might have added that they might also\nhave been derived from the gospel according to the Hebrews or many\nanother collection now unhappily lost. One circumstance strongly\nconfirming this conclusion is the fact already mentioned, that\nAthenagoras, in the same chapter in which one of these quotations\noccurs, introduces an apocryphal saying of the Logos, and connects it\nwith previous sayings by the expression \"The Logos again [------] saying\nto us.\" This can only refer to the sayings previously introduced by\nthe indefinite [------]. The sentence, which is in reference to the\nChristian salutation of peace, is as follows: \"The Logos again saying\nto us: 'If any one for this reason kiss a second time because it pleased\nhim (he sins);' and adding: 'Thus the kiss or rather the salutation must\nbe used with caution, as, if it be defiled even a little by thought, it\nexcludes us from the life eternal.'\"(2) This saying, which is directly\nattributed to the Logos, is not found in our Gospels. The only natural\ndeduction is that it comes from the same source as the other sayings,\nand that source was not our synoptic Gospels.\n\n{197}\n\nThe total absence of any allusion to New Testament Scriptures in\nAthenagoras, however, is rendered more striking and significant by\nthe marked expression of his belief in the inspiration of the Old\nTestament.(1) He appeals to the prophets for testimony as to the\ntruth of the opinions of Christians: men, he says, who spoke by the\ninspiration of God, whose Spirit moved their mouths to express God's\nwill as musical instruments are played upon:(2) \"But since the voices of\nthe prophets support our arguments, I think that you, being most learned\nand wise, cannot be ignorant of the writings of Moses, or of those\nof Isaiah and Jeremiah and of the other prophets, who being raised in\necstasy above the reasoning that was in themselves, uttered the things\nwhich were wrought in them, when the Divine Spirit moved them, the\nSpirit using them as a flute player would blow into the flute.\"(3) He\nthus enunciates the theory of the mechanical inspiration of the writers\nof the Old Testament, in the clearest manner,(4) and it would indeed\nhave been strange, on the supposition that he extended his views of\ninspiration to any of the Scriptures of the New Testament, that he never\nnames a single one of them, nor indicates to the Emperors in the same\nway, as worthy of their attention, any of these Scriptures along with\nthe Law and the Prophets. There can be no doubt that he nowhere gives\nreason for supposing that he regarded any other writings than the Old\nTestament as inspired or \"Holy Scripture.\"(5)\n\n     5  In the treatise on the Resurrection there are no\n     arguments derived from Scripture.\n\n{198}\n\n4.\n\nIn the 17th year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, between the 7th March,\n177-178, a fierce persecution was, it is said,(1) commenced against the\nChristians in Gaul, and more especially at Vienne and Lyons, during the\ncourse of which the aged Bishop Pothinus, the predecessor of Irenaeus,\nsuffered martyrdom for the faith. The two communities some time after\naddressed an Epistle to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, and also to\nEleutherus, Bishop of Rome,(2) relating the events which had occurred,\nand the noble testimony which had been borne to Christ by the numerous\nmartyrs who had been cruelly put to death. The Epistle has in great part\nbeen preserved by Eusebius,(3) and critics generally agree in dating it\nabout a.d. 177,(4) although it was most probably not written until the\nfollowing year.(5)\n\nNo writing of the New Testament is mentioned in this Epistle,(6) but\nit is asserted that there are \"unequivocal coincidences of language\"(7)\nwith the Gospel of Luke, and others of its books. The passage which is\nreferred to as\n\n{199}\n\nshowing knowledge of our Synoptic, is as follows. The letter speaks of\none of the sufferers, a certain Vettius Epagathus, whose life was\nso austere that, although a young man, \"he was thought worthy of the\ntestimony [------] borne by the elder [------] Zacharias. He had\nwalked, of a truth, in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord\nblameless, and was untiring in every kind office towards his neighbour;\nhaving much zeal for God and being fervent in spirit.\"(1) This is\ncompared with the description of Zacharias and Elizabeth in Luke i.\n6: \"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the\ncommandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.\"(2) A little further\non in the Epistle it is said of the same person: \"Having in himself the\nadvocate [------], the spirit [------], more abundantly than Zacharias,\"\n&c.(3) which again is referred to Luke i. 67, \"And his father Zacharias\nwas filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying,\" &c.(4)\n\nA few words must be said regarding the phrase [------], \"the testimony\nof the presbyter Zacharias.\" This, of course, may either be rendered:\n\"the testimony borne to Zacharias,\" that is to say, borne by others to\nhis holy life; or, \"the\n\n{200}\n\ntestimony borne by Zacharias,\" his own testimony to the Faith: his\nmartyrdom. We adopt the latter rendering for various reasons. The\nEpistle is an account of the persecution of the Christian community of\nVienne and Lyons, and Vettius Epagathus is the first of the martyrs who\nis named in it: [------] was at that time the term used to express the\nsupreme testimony of Christians--martyrdom, and the Epistle seems here\nsimply to refer to the martyrdom, the honour of which he shared\nwith Zacharias. It is, we think, very improbable that, under such\ncircumstances, the word [------] would have been used to express a mere\ndescription of the character of Zacharias given by some other writer.\nThe interpretation which we prefer is that adopted by Tischendorf.1 We\nmust add that the Zacharias here spoken of is generally understood to\nbe the father of John the Baptist, and no critic, so far as we can\nremember, has suggested that the reference in Luke xi. 51, applies\nto him.(2) Since the Epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of\nZacharias, the father of John the Baptist, when using the expressions\nwhich are supposed to be taken from our third Synoptic, is it not\nreasonable to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work\nwhich likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found\nin the Synoptic? When we examine the matter more closely, we find that,\nalthough none of the Canonical Gospels, except the third, gives any\nnarrative of the birth of John the Baptist, that portion of the Gospel,\nin which are the words we are discussing, cannot be considered an\noriginal\n\n     2  The great majority of critics consider it a reference to\n     2 Chron. xxiv., 21, though some apply it to a later\n     Zacharias.\n\n{201}\n\nproduction by the third Synoptist, but like the rest of his work is\nmerely a composition based upon earlier written narratives.(1) Ewald,\nfor instance, assigns the whole of the first chapters of Luke (i. 5--ii.\n40) to what he terms \"the eighth recognizable book.\"(2)\n\nHowever this may be, the fact that other works existed at an earlier\nperiod in which the history of Zacharias the father of the Baptist was\ngiven, and in which not only the words used in the Epistle were found\nbut also the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far\nas the history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the\nProtevangclium Jacobi which contains it. Tischendorf, who does not make\nuse of this Epistle at all as evidence for the Scriptures of the New\nTestament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in it to the\nmartyrdom of Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and use of the\nProtevangelium Jacobi, a work whose origin he dates so far back as the\nfirst three decades of the second century,(3) and which he considers was\nalso used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already observed.(4) Tischendorf\nand Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming that the reference to\nZacharias which we have quoted, indicates acquaintance with a different\nGospel from our third Synoptic. Hilgenfeld rightly maintains that the\nProtevangelium Jacobi in its present shape is merely an\n\n{202}\n\naltered form of an older work,(1) which he conjectures to have been the\nGospel according to Peter, or the Gnostic work [------],(2) and both he\nand Tischendorf show that many of the Fathers(3) were either acquainted\nwith the Protevangelium itself or the works on which it was based.\n\nThe state of the case, then, is as follows: We find a coincidence in a\nfew words in connection with Zacharias between the Epistle and our third\nGospel, but so far from the Gospel being in any way indicated as their\nsource, the words in question are connected with a reference to events\nunknown to our Gospel, but which were indubitably chronicled elsewhere.\nAs part of the passage in the epistle, therefore, could not have been\nderived from our third Synoptic, the natural inference is that the whole\nemanates from a Gospel, different from ours, which likewise contained\nthat part In any case, the agreement of these few words, without the\nslightest mention of the third Synoptic in the epistle, cannot be\nadmitted as proof that they must necessarily have been derived from it\nand from no other source.\n\n{203}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE CANON OF\nMURATORI--RESULTS.\n\nWe have now reached the extreme limit of time within which we think\nit in any degree worth while to seek for evidence as to the date and\nauthorship of the synoptic Gospels, and we might now proceed to the\nfourth Gospel; but before doing so it may be well to examine one or two\nother witnesses whose support has been claimed by apologists, although\nour attention may be chiefly confined to an inquiry into the date of\nsuch testimony, upon which its value, even if real, mainly depends so\nfar as we are concerned. The first of these whom we must notice are the\ntwo Gnostic leaders, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon.\n\nEpiphanius has preserved a certain \"Epistle to Flora\" ascribed to\nPtolemseus, in which, it is contended, there are \"several quotations\nfrom Matthew, and one from the first chapter of John.\"(1) What date must\nbe assigned to this Epistle? In reply to those who date it about the end\nof the second century, Tischendorf produces the evidence for an earlier\nperiod to which he assigns it. He says: \"He (Ptolemaeus) appears in all\nthe oldest sources\n\n     1 Tischendorf Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 46. Canon Westcott\n     with greater caution says: \"He quoted words of our Lord\n     recorded by St. Matthew, the prologue of St. John's Gospel,\n     &c.\" On the Canon, p. 267.\n\n{204}\n\nas one of the most important, most influential of the disciples of\nValentinus. As the period at which the latter himself flourished falls\nabout 140, do we say too much when we represent Ptolemaeus as working at\nthe latest about 160? Irenaeus (in the 2nd Book) and Hippolytus name him\ntogether with Heracleon; likewise pseudo-Tertullian (in the appendix to\nDe Praescriptionibus Haereticorum) and Philastrius make him appear\nimmediately after Valentinus. Irenaeus wrote the first and second books\nof his great work most probably (hochst warscheinlich) before 180, and\nin both he occupies himself much with Ptolemaeus.\"(1) Canon Westcott,\nbeyond calling Ptolemaeus and Heracleon disciples of Valentinus, does not\nassign any date to either, and does not of course offer any further\nevidence on the point, although, in regard to Heracleon, he admits the\nignorance in which we are as to all points of his history,(2) and states\ngenerally, in treating of him, that \"the exact chronology of the early\nheretics is very uncertain.\"(3)\n\nLet us, however, examine the evidence upon which Tischendorf relies\nfor the date he assigns to Ptolemaeus. He states in vague terms that\nPtolemaeus appears \"in all the oldest sources\" (in alien den altesten\nQuellen) as one of the most important disciples of Valentinus. We shall\npresently see what these sources are, but must now follow the argument:\n\"As the date of Valentinus falls about 140, do we say too much when we\nrepresent Ptolemaeus as working at the latest about 160?\" It is obvious\nthat there is no evidence here, but merely assumption, and the manner in\nwhich the period \"about 160\" is begged, is a clear admission that there\nare no certain data. The year\n\n{205}\n\nmight with equal propriety upon those grounds have been put ten years\nearlier or ten years later. The deceptive and arbitrary character of the\nconclusion, however, will be more apparent when we examine the grounds\nupon which the relative dates 140 and 160 rest. Tischendorf here states\nthat the time at which Valentinus flourished falls about a.d. 140, but\nthe fact is that, as all critics are agreed,(1) and as even Tischendorf\nhimself elsewhere states,(2) Valentinus came out of Egypt to Rome\nin that year, when his public career practically commenced, and he\ncontinued to flourish for at least twenty years after.(3) Tischendorf\ns pretended moderation, therefore, consists in dating the period when\nValentinus flourished from the very year of his first appearance, and\nin assigning the active career of Ptolemseus to 160 when Valentinus was\nstill alive and teaching. He might on the same principle be dated 180,\nand even in that case there could be no reason for ascribing the Epistle\nto Flora to so early a period of his career. Tischendorf never even\npretends to state any ground upon which Ptolemaeus must be connected with\nany precise part of the public life of Valentinus, and still less\nfor discriminating the period of the career of Ptolemaeus at which the\nEpistle may have been composed. It is obvious that a wide limit for date\nthus exists.\n\nAfter these general statements Tischendorf details the only evidence\nwhich is available. (1) \"Irenaeus (in the 2nd Book) and Hippolytus name\nhim together with Heracleon; likewise (2) pseudo-Tertullian (in the\n\n{206}\n\nappendix to _De Praescriptionibus Haereticorum_) and Philastrius make him\nappear immediately after Valentinus,\" &c. We must first examine these\ntwo points a little more closely in order to ascertain the value of such\nstatements. With regard to the first (1st) of these points, we shall\npresently see that the mention of the name of Ptolemseus along with that\nof Heracleon throws no light upon the matter from any point of view,\ninasmuch as Tischendorf has as little authority for the date he assigns\nto the latter, and is in as complete ignorance concerning him, as in the\ncase of Ptolemseus. It is amusing, moreover, that Tischendorf employs\nthe very same argument, which sounds well although it means nothing,\ninversely to establish the date of Heracleon. Here, he argues: \"Irenaeus\nand Hippolytus name him (Ptolemaeus) together with Heracleon;\"(l) there,\nhe reasons: \"Irenaeus names Heracleon together with Ptolemaeus,\"(2) &c. As\nneither the date assigned to the one nor to the other can stand alone,\nhe tries to get them into something like an upright position by propping\nthe one against the other, an expedient which, naturally, meets with\nlittle success. We shall in dealing with the case of Heracleon show how\nuntenable is the argument from the mere order in which such names are\nmentioned by these writers; meantime we may simply say that Irenaeus only\nonce mentions the name of Heracleon in his works, and that the occasion\non which he does so, and to which reference is here made, is merely an\nallusion to the AEons \"of Ptolemseus himself, and of Heracleon, and all\nthe rest who hold these views.\"(3) This phrase might have been used,\nexactly as it stands, with\n\n{207}\n\nperfect propriety even if Ptolemaeus and Heracleon had been separated by\na century. The only point which can be deduced from this mere coupling\nof names is that, in using the present tense, Irenaeus is speaking of his\nown contemporaries. We may make the same remark regarding Hippolytus,\nfor, if his mention of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon has any weight at all,\nit is to prove that they were flourishing in his time: \"Those who are of\nItaly, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say...\"(1) &c. We shall have\nto go further into this point presently. As to (2) pseudo-Tertullian and\nPhilastrius we need only say that even if the fact of the names of the\ntwo Gnostics being coupled together could prove anything in regard to\nthe date, the repetition by these writers could have no importance\nfor us, their works being altogether based on those of Irenaeus\nand Hippolytus,(2) and scarcely, if at all, conveying independent\ninformation.(3) We have merely indicated the weakness of these arguments\nin passing, but shall again take them up further on. The next and final\nconsideration advanced by Tischendorf is the only one which merits\nserious attention. \"Irenaeus wrote the first and second book of his great\nwork most probably before 180, and in both he occupies himself much with\nPtolemaeus.\" Before proceeding to examine the accuracy of this statement\nregarding the time at which Irenaeus wrote, we may ask what conclusion\nwould be involved if Irenaeus really did compose the two books in a.d.\n180 in which he mentions\n\n     3 Indeed the direct and avowed dependence of Hippolytus\n     himself upon the work of Irenaeus deprives the\n     Philosophumena, in many parts, of all separate authority.\n\n{208}\n\nour Gnostics in the present tense? Nothing more than the simple fact\nthat Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were promulgating their doctrines at that\ntime. There is not a single word to show that they did not continue to\nflourish long after; and as to the \"Epistle to Flora\" Irenaeus apparently\nknows nothing of it, nor has any attempt been made to assign it to\nan early part of the Gnostic's career. Tischendorf, in fact, does not\nproduce a single passage nor the slightest argument to show that\nIrenaeus treats our two Gnostics as men of the past, or otherwise than as\nheretics then actively disseminating their heterodox opinions, and, even\ntaken literally, the argument of Tischendorf would simply go to prove\nthat about a.d. 180 Irenseus wrote part of a work in which he attacks\nPtolemaeus and mentions Heracleon.\n\nWhen did Irenaeus, however, really write his work against Heresies?\nAlthough our sources of credible information regarding him are\nexceedingly limited, we are not without materials for forming a judgment\non the point Irenaeus was probably born about a.d. 140-145, and is\ngenerally supposed to have died at the beginning of the third century\n(a.d. 202).(1) We know that he was deputed by the Church of Lyons to\nbear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of Rome, the Epistle of that Christian\ncommunity describing their sufferings during the persecution commenced\nagainst them in the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius\nAntoninus (7th March, 177--178).(2) It is very improbable that this\njourney was undertaken, in any case, before the spring of a.d. 178 at\nthe earliest, and, indeed, in accordance with the given data, the\n\n{209}\n\npersecution itself may not have commenced earlier than the beginning of\nthat year, so that his journey need not have been undertaken before the\nclose of 178 or the spring of 179, to which epoch other circumstances\nmight lead us.(1) There is reason to believe that he remained some time\nin Rome. Baronius states that Irenaeus was not appointed Bishop of Lyons\ntill a.d. 180, for he says that the see remained vacant for that period\nafter the death of Pothinus in consequence of the persecution. Now\ncertain expressions in his work show that Irenaeus did not write it until\nhe became Bishop.(2) It is not known how long Irenaeus remained in\nRome, but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat\nprotracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the\nvarious tenets of Gnostic and other heretics then being actively taught,\nand the preface to the first Book refers to the pains he took. He wrote\nhis work in Gaul, however, after his return from this visit to Rome.\nThis is apparent from what he himself states in the Preface to the first\nBook: \"I have thought it necessary,\" he says, \"after having read the\nMemoirs [------] of the disciples of Valentinus as they call themselves,\nand _having had personal intercourse with some of them_ and acquired\nfull knowledge of their opinions, to unfold to thee,\"(3) &c. A little\nfurther on, he claims from the friend to whom he addresses his work\nindulgence for any defects of style on the score of his being resident\namongst the Keltae.(4) Irenaeus no doubt during his stay in Rome came in\n\n{210}\n\ncontact with the school of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, if not with the\nGnostic leaders themselves, and shocked as he describes himself as being\nat the doctrines which they insidiously taught, he undertook, on his\nreturn to Lyons, to explain them that others might be exhorted to avoid\nsuch an \"abyss of madness and blasphemy against Christ.\"(1) Irenaeus\ngives us other materials for assigning a date to his work. In the third\nBook he enumerates the bishops who had filled the Episcopal Chair of\nRome, and the last whom he names is Eleutherus (a.d. 177--190), who, he\nsays, \"now in the twelfth place from the apostles, holds the inheritance\nof the episcopate.\"(2) There is, however, another clue which, taken\nalong with this, leads us to a close approximation to the actual date.\nIn the same Book, Irenaeus mentions Theodotion's version of the Old\nTestament: \"But not as some of those say,\" he writes, \"who now [------]\npresume to alter the interpretation of the Scripture: 'Behold the\nyoung woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,' as Theodotion,\nthe Ephesian, translated it, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish\nproselytes.\"(3) Now we are informed by Epiphanius that Theodotion\npublished his translation during the reign of the Emperor Commodus(4)\n(a.d. 180--192). The Chronicon Paschale adds that it was during the\nConsulship of Marcellus, or as Massuet(5) proposes to read Marullus,\nwho, jointly with AElianus, assumed office a.d. 184. These dates\ndecidedly agree with the passage of Irenaeus and with the other data, all\nof which lead\n\n{211}\n\nus to about the same period within the episcopate of Eleutherus (+ c.\n190).(1) We have here, therefore, a clue to the date at which Irenaeus\nwrote. It must be remembered that at that period the multiplication and\ndissemination of books was a very slow process. A work published about\n184 or 185 could scarcely have come into the possession of Irenaeus in\nGaul till some years later, and we are, therefore, brought towards the\nend of the episcopate of Eleutherus as the earliest date at which\nthe first three books of his work against Heresies can well have been\nwritten, and the rest must be assigned to a later period under the\nepiscopate of Victor (+ 198--199).(2)\n\nAt this point we must pause and turn to the evidence which Tischendorf\noffers regarding the date to be assigned to Heracleon.(3) As in the case\nof Ptolemaeus, we shall give it entire and then examine it in detail. To\nthe all-important question: \"How old is Heracleon?\" Tischendorf replies:\n\"Irenaeus names Heracleon, together\n\n     3 Canon Westcott adds no separate testimony. He admits that:\n     \"The history of Heracleon, the great Valentinian\n     Commentator, is full of uncertainty. Nothing is known of his\n     country or parentage.\" On the Canon, p. 263, and in a note:\n     \"The exact chronology of the early heretics is very\n     uncertain,\" p. 264, note 2. p 2\n\n{212}\n\nwith Ptolemaeus II. 4, Sec. 1, in a way which makes them appear\nas well-known representatives of the Valentinian school. This\ninterpretation of his words is all the more authorized because he never\nagain mentions Heracleon. Clement, in the 4th Book of his Stromata,\nwritten shortly after the death of Commodus (193), recalls an\nexplanation by Heracleon of Luke xii. 8, when he calls him the most\nnoted, man of the Valentinian school [------] is Clement's expression).\nOrigen, at the beginning of his quotation from Heracleon, says that he\nwas held to be a friend of Valentinus [------]. Hippolytus mentions\nhim, for instance, in the following way: (vi. 29); 'Valentinus, and\nHeracleon, and Ptolemaeus, and the whole school of these, disciples of\nPythagoras and Plato....' Epiphanius says (Hser. 41): 'Cerdo (the same\nwho, according to Irenaeus III. 4, Sec. 3, was in Rome under Bishop Hyginus\nwith Valentinus) follows these (the Ophites, Kainites, Sethiani), and\nHeracleon.' After all this Heracleon certainly cannot be placed later\nthan 150 to 160. The expression which Origen uses regarding his relation\nto Valentinus must, according to linguistic usage, be understood of a\npersonal relation.\"(1)\n\nWe have already pointed out that the fact that the names of Ptolemaeus\nand Heracleon are thus coupled together affords no clue in itself to the\ndate of either, and their being mentioned as leading representatives of\nthe school of Valentinus does not in any way involve the inference that\nthey were not contemporaries of Irenaeus, living and working at the\ntime he wrote. The way in which Irenaeus mentions them in this the only\npassage throughout his whole work in which he names\n\n{213}\n\nHeracleon, and to which Tischendorf pointedly refers, is as follows:\n\"But if it was not produced, but was generated by itself, then that\nwhich is void is both like, and brother to, and of the same honour\nwith, that Father who has before been mentioned by Valentinus; but it\nis really more ancient, having existed long before, and is more exalted\nthan the rest of the AEons of Ptolemseus himself, and of Heracleon, and\nall the rest who hold these views.\"(1) We fail to recognize anything\nspecial, here, of the kind inferred by Tischendorf, in the way in which\nmention is made of the two later Gnostics. If anything be clear, on\nthe contrary, it is that a distinction is drawn between Valentinus and\nPtolemaeus and Heracleon, and that Irenaeus points out inconsistencies\nbetween the doctrines of the founder and those of his later followers.\nIt is quite irrelevant to insist merely, as Tischendorf does, that\nIrenaeus and subsequent writers represent Ptolemaeus and Heracleon\nand other Gnostics of his time as of \"the school\" of Valentinus. The\nquestion simply is, whether in doing so they at all imply that these men\nwere not contemporaries of Irenaeus, or necessarily assign their period\nof independent activity to the lifetime of Valentinus, as Tischendorf\nappears to argue? Most certainly they do not, and Tischendorf does\nnot attempt to offer any evidence that they do so. We may perceive how\nutterly worthless such a fact is for the purpose of affixing an early\ndate by merely considering the quotation which Tischendorf himself makes\nfrom Hippolytus: \"Valentinus, therefore, and Heracleon and Ptolemaeus,\nand\n\n{214}\n\nthe whole school of these, disciples of Pythagoras and Plato.... \"(l) If\nthe statement that men are of a certain school involves the supposition\nof coincidence of time, the three Gnostic leaders must be considered\ncontemporaries of Pythagoras or Plato, whose disciples they are said\nto be. Again, if the order in which names are mentioned, as Teschendorf\ncontends by inference throughout his whole argument, is to involve\nstrict similar sequence of date, the principle applied to the whole\nof the early writers would lead to the most ridiculous confusion.\nTeschendorf quotes Epiphanius: \"Cerdo follows these (the Ophites,\nKainites, Sethiani), and Heracleon.\"\n\nWhy he does so it is difficult to understand, unless it be to give the\nappearance of multiplying testimonies, for two sentences further on he\nis obliged to admit: \"Epiphanius has certainly made a mistake, as in\nsuch things not unfrequently happens to him, when he makes Cerdo, who,\nhowever, is to be placed about 140, follow Heracleon.\"(2) This kind of\nmistake is, indeed, common to all the writers quoted, and when it\nis remembered that such an error is committed where a distinct and\ndeliberate affirmation of the point is concerned, it will easily be\nconceived how little dependence is to be placed on the mere mention of\nnames in the course of argument. We find Irenaeus saying that \"neither\nValentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides\" possesses\ncertain knowledge,(3) and elsewhere: \"of such an one as Valentinus, or\nPtolemaeus, or Basilides.\"(4) To base\n\n{215}\n\nan argument as to date on the order in which names appear in such\nwriters is preposterous.\n\nTischendorf draws an inference from the statement that Heracleon was\nsaid to be a [------] of Valentinus, that Origen declares him to have\nbeen his friend, holding personal intercourse with him. Origen, however,\nevidently knew nothing individually on the point, and speaks from mere\nhearsay, guardedly using the expression \"said to be\" [------]. But\naccording to the later and patristic use of the word, [------] meant\nnothing more than a \"disciple,\" and it cannot here be necessarily\ninterpreted into a \"contemporary.\"(1) Under no circumstances could such\na phrase, avowedly limited to hearsay, have any weight. The loose manner\nin which the Fathers repeat each other, even in serious matters, is too\nwell known to every one acquainted with their writings to require any\nremark. Their inaccuracy keeps pace with their want of critical judgment\nWe have seen one of the mistakes of Epiphanius, admitted by Tischendorf\nto be only too common with him, which illustrates how little such data\nare to be relied on. We may point out another of the same kind committed\nby him in common with Hippolytus, pseudo-Tertullian and Philastrius.\nMistaking a passage of Irenaeus,(2) regarding the sacred Tetrad\n(Kol-Arbas) of the Valentinian Gnosis, Hippolytus supposes Irenaeus to\nrefer to another heretic leader. He at once treats the Tetrad as such a\nleader named \"Kolarbasus,\" and after dealing (vi. 4) with the doctrines\nof Secundud, and Ptolemaeus, and Heracleon, he proposes, Sec. 5, to show\n\"what are the opinions held by Marcus and\n\n{216}\n\nKolarbasus.\"(1) At the end of the same book he declares that Irenaeus, to\nwhom he states that he is indebted for a knowledge of their inventions,\nhas completely refuted the opinions of these heretics, and he proceeds\nto treat of Basilides, considering that it has been sufficiently\ndemonstrated \"whose disciples are Marcus and Kolarbasus, the successors\nof the school of Valentinus.\"(2) At an earlier part of the work he\nhad spoken in a more independent way in reference to certain who had\npromulgated great heresies: \"Of these,\" he says, \"one is Kolarbasus,\nwho endeavours to explain religion by measures and numbers.\"(3) The same\nmistake is committed by pseudo-Tertullian,(4) and Philastrius,(5) each\nof whom devotes a chapter to this supposed heretic. Epiphanius, as\nmight have been expected, fell into the same error, and he proceeds\nelaborately to refute the heresy of the Kolarbasians, \"which is Heresy\nXV.\" He states that Kolarbasus follows Marcus and Ptolemaeus,(6) and\nafter discussing the opinions of this mythical heretic he devotes the\nnext chapter, \"which is Heresy XVI.,\" to the Heracleonites, commencing\nit with the information that: \"A certain Heracleon follows after\nKolarbasus.\"(7) This absurd mistake(8) shows how little these writers\n\n{217}\n\nknew of the Gnostics of whom they wrote, and how the one ignorantly\nfollows the other.\n\nThe order, moreover, in which they set the heretic leaders varies\nconsiderably. It will be sufficient for us merely to remark here that\nwhile pseudo-Tertullian(1) and Philastrius(2) adopt the following order\nafter the Valentinians: Ptolemaeus, Secundus, Heracleon, Marcus, and\nKolarbasus, Epiphanius(3) places them: Secundus, Ptolemaeus, Marcosians,\nKolarbasus, and Heracleon; and Hippolytus(4) again: Secundus, Ptolemaeus,\nHeracleon, Marcus, and Kolarbasus. The vagueness of Irenaeus had left\nsome latitude here, and his followers were uncertain. The somewhat\nsingular fact that Irenaeus only once mentions Heracleon whilst he so\nconstantly refers to Ptolemaeus, taken in connection with this order, in\nwhich Heracleon is always placed after Ptolemaeus,(5) and by Epiphanius\nafter Marcus, may be reasonably explained by the fact that whilst\nPtolemaeus had already gained considerable notoriety when Irenaeus wrote,\nHeracleon may only have begun to come into notice. Since Tischendorf\nlays so much stress upon pseudo-Tertullian and Philastrius making\nPtolemaeus appear immediately after Valentinus, this explanation is\nafter his own principle.\n\nWe have already pointed out that there is not a single passage in\nIrenaeus, or any other early writer, assigning Ptolemaeus and Heracleon\nto a period anterior to the time when Irenaeus undertook to refute their\nopinions. Indeed, Tischendorf has not attempted to show that\n\n{218}\n\nthey do, and he has merely, on the strength of the general expression\nthat these Gnostics were of the school of Valentinus, boldly assigned\nto them an early date. Now, as we have stated, he himself admits that\nValentinus only came from Egypt to Rome in a.d. 140, and continued\nteaching till 160,(1) and these dates are most clearly given by Irenaeus\nhimself.(2) Why then should Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, to take an extreme\ncase, not have known Valentinus in their youth, and yet have flourished\nchiefly during the last two decades of the second century? Irenaeus\nhimself may be cited as a parallel case, which Tischendorf at least\ncannot gainsay. He is never tired of telling us that Irenaeus was the\ndisciple of Polycarp,(3) whose martyrdom he sets about A.D. 165, and\nhe considers that the intercourse of Irenaeus with the aged Father must\nproperly be put about a.d. 150,(4) yet he himself dates the death of\nIrenaeus, a.d. 202,(5) and nothing is more certain than that the period\nof his greatest activity and influence falls precisely in the last\ntwenty years of the second century. Upon his own data, therefore, that\nValentinus may have taught for twenty years after his first appearance\nin Rome in a.d. 140--and there is no ground whatever for asserting that\nhe did not teach for even a much longer period--Ptolemaeus and Heracleon\nmight well have personally sat at the feet of Valentinus in their youth,\nas Irenseus is said to have done about the very same period at those of\nPolycarp, and yet, like him, have flourished chiefly towards the end of\nthe century.\n\n{219}\n\nAlthough there is not the slightest ground for asserting that Ptolemaeus\nand Heraclcon were not contemporaries with Irenaeus, flourishing like\nhim towards the end of the second century, there are, on the other hand,\nmany circumstances which altogether establish, the conclusion that they\nwere. \"We have already shown, in treating of Valentinus,(1) that Irenaeus\nprincipally directs his work against the followers of Valentinus living\nat the time he wrote, and notably of Ptolemaeus and his school.(2) In the\npreface to the first book, having stated that he writes after personal\nintercourse with some of the disciples of Valentinus,(3) he more\ndefinitely declares his purpose: \"We will, then, to the best of our\nability, clearly and concisely set forth the opinions of those who are\nnow [------] teaching heresy, _I speak particularly of the disciples\nof Ptolemaeus_ [------] whose system is an offshoot from the school of\nValentinus.\"(4) Nothing could be more explicit. Irenaeus in this passage\ndistinctly represents Ptolemaeus as teaching at the time he is writing,\nand this statement alone is decisive, more especially as there is not a\nsingle known fact which is either directly or indirectly opposed to it.\n\nTischendorf lays much stress on the evidence of Hippolytus in coupling\ntogether the names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon with that of Valentinus;\nsimilar testimony of the same writer, fully confirming the above\nstatement of Irenaeus, will, therefore, have the greater force.\nHippolytus says that the Valentinians differed materially among\nthemselves regarding certain points which led to divisions, one party\nbeing called the\n\n{220}\n\nOriental and the other the Italian. \"They of the Italian party, of whom\nis Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say, &c.... They, however, who are of the\nOriental party, of whom is Axionicus and Bardesanes, maintain,\" &c.(1)\nNow, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon are here quite clearly represented as\nbeing contemporary with Axionicus and Bardesanes, and without discussing\nwhether Hippolytus does not, in continuation, describe them as all\nliving at the time he wrote,(2) there can be no doubt that some of them\nwere, and that this evidence confirms again the statement of Irenaeus.\nHippolytus, in a subsequent part of his work, states that a certain\nPrepon, a Marcionite, has introduced something new, and \"now in our\nown time [------] has written a work regarding the heresy in reply to\nBardesanes.\"(3) The researches of Hilgenfeld have proved that Bardesanes\nlived at least over the reign of Heliogabalus (218--222), and the\nstatement of Hippolytus is thus confirmed.(4) Axionicus again was still\nflourishing when Tertullian wrote his work against the Valentinians\n\n{221}\n\n(201--226). Tertullian says: \"Axionicus of Antioch alone to the present\nday (ad hodiernum) respects the memory of Valentinus, by keeping\nfully the rules of his system.\"(1) Although on the whole they may be\nconsidered to have flourished somewhat earlier, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon\nare thus shown to have been for a time at least contemporaries of\nAxionicus and Bardesanes.(2)\n\nMoreover, it is evident that the doctrines of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon\nrepresent a much later form of Gnosticism than that of Valentinus. It\nis generally admitted that Ptolemaeus reduced the system of Valentinus to\nconsistency,(3) and the inconsistencies which existed between the views\nof the Master and these later followers, and which indicate a much more\nadvanced stage of development, are constantly pointed out by Irenaeus and\nthe Fathers who wrote in refutation of heresy. Origen also represents\nHeracleon as amongst those who held opinions sanctioned by the\nChurch,(4) and both he and Ptolemaeus must indubitably be classed amongst\nthe latest Gnostics.(5) It is clear, therefore, that Ptolemaeus and\nHeracleon were contemporaries of Irenaeus(6) at the time he composed his\nwork against Heresies (185--195), both, and especially\n\n{222}\n\nthe latter, flourishing and writing towards the end of the second\ncentury.(1)\n\nWe mentioned, in first speaking of these Gnostics, that Epiphanius has\npreserved an Epistle, attributed to Ptolemaeus, which is addressed to\nFlora, one of his disciples.(2) This Epistle is neither mentioned by\nIrenaeus nor by any other writer before Epiphanius. There is nothing\nin the Epistle itself to show that it was really written by Ptolemaeus\nhimself. Assuming it to be by him, however, the Epistle was in all\nprobability written towards the end of the second century, and it does\nnot, therefore, come within the scope of our inquiry. We may, however,\nbriefly notice the supposed references to our Gospels which it contains.\nThe writer of the Epistle, without any indication whatever of a written\nsource from which he derived them, quotes sayings of Jesus for which\nparallels are found in our first Gospel. These sayings are introduced\nby such expressions as \"he said,\" \"our Saviour declared,\" but never as\nquotations from any Scripture. Now, in affirming that they are taken\nfrom the Gospel according to Matthew, Apologists exhibit their usual\narbitrary haste, for we must clearly and decidedly state that there\nis not a single one of the passages which does not present decided\nvariations from the parallel passages in our first Synoptic. We subjoin\nfor comparison in parallel columns the passages from the Epistle and\nGospel:--\n\n[------]\n\n[------]\n\n{223}\n\nIt must not be forgotten that Iraeneus makes very explicit statements\nas to the recognition of other sources of evangelical truth than our\nGospels by the Valentinians, regarding which we have fully written when\ndiscussing the founder of that sect.(5) We know that they professed to\nhave direct traditions from the Apostles through Theodas, a disciple of\nthe Apostle Paul;(6) and in the\n\n{224}\n\nEpistle to Flora allusion is made to the succession of doctrine\nreceived by direct tradition from the Apostles.(1) Irenaeus says that the\nValentinians profess to derive their views from unwritten sources,(2)\nand he accuses them of rejecting the Gospels of the Church,(3) but, on\nthe other hand, he states that they had many Gospels different from what\nhe calls the Gospels of the Apostles.(4)\n\nWith regard to Heracleon, it is said that he wrote Commentaries on\nthe third and fourth Gospels. The authority for this statement is very\ninsufficient. The assertion with reference to the third Gospel is\nbased solely upon a passage in the Stromata of the Alexandrian Clement.\nClement quotes a passage found in Luke xii. 8, 11, 12, and says:\n\"Expounding this passage, Heracleon, the most distinguished of the\nSchool of Valentinus, says as follows,\" &c.(5) This is immediately\ninterpreted into a quotation from a Commentary on Luke.(6) We merely\npoint out that from Clement's remark it by no means follows that\nHeracleon wrote a Commentary at all, and further there is no evidence\nthat the passage commented upon was actually from our third Gospel.(7)\nThe Stromata of Clement were not written until after a.d. 193, and in\nthem we find the first and only reference to this supposed Commentary.\n\"We need not here refer to the Commentary on the fourth Gospel, which is\nmerely\n\n{225}\n\ninferred from references in Origen (c. a.d. 225), but of which we have\nneither earlier nor fuller information.(1) We must, however, before\nleaving this subject, mention that Origen informs us that Heracleon\nquotes from the Preaching of Peter [------], Pesedicatio Petri), a work\nwhich, as we have already several times mentioned, was cited by Clement\nof Alexandria as authentic and inspired Holy Scripture.(2)\n\nThe epoch at which Ptolemaeus and Heracleon flourished would in any\ncase render testimony regarding our Gospels of little value. The actual\nevidence which they furnish, however, is not of a character to prove\neven the existence of our Synoptics, and much less does it in any way\nbear upon their character or authenticity.\n\n2.\n\nA similar question of date arises regarding Celsus, who wrote a work,\nentitled [------], True Doctrine, which is no longer extant, of which\nOrigen composed an elaborate refutation. The Christian writer takes the\narguments of Celsus in detail, presenting to us, therefore, its general\nfeatures, and giving many extracts; and as Celsus professes to base much\nof his accusation upon the writings in use amongst Christians, although\nhe does not name a single one of them, it becomes desirable to ascertain\nwhat those works were, and the date at which\n\n{226}\n\nCelsus wrote. As usual, we shall state the case by giving the reasons\nassigned for an early date.\n\nArguing against Volkmar and others, who maintain, from a passage at the\nclose of his work, that Oligen, writing about the second quarter of the\nthird century, represents Celsus as his contemporary,(1) Tischendorf,\nreferring to the passage, which we shall give in its place, proceeds to\nassign an earlier date upon the following grounds: \"But indeed, even\nin the first book, at the commencement of the whole work, Origen says:\n'Therefore, I cannot compliment a Christian whose faith is in danger of\nbeing shaken by Celsus, who yet does not even [------] still [------]\nlive the common life among men, but already and long since [------] is\ndead.'... In the\n\nsame first book Origen says: 'We have heard that there were two men of\nthe name of Celsus, Epicureans, the first under Nero; this one' (that\nis to say, ours) 'under Hadrian and later.' It is not impossible that\nOrigen mistakes when he identified his Celsus with the Epicurean living\n'under Hadrian and later;' but it is impossible to convert the same\nCelsus of whom Origen says this into a contemporary of Origen. Or would\nOrigen himself in the first book really have set his Celsus 'under\nHadrian (117--138) and later,' yet in the eighth have said: 'We will\nwait (about 225), to see whether he will still accomplish this design of\nmaking another work follow?' Now, until some better discovery regarding\nCelsus is attained, it will be well to hold to the old opinion that\nCelsus wrote his book about the middle of the second century, probably\nbetween 150--160,\" &c.(2)\n\n{227}\n\nIt is scarcely necessary to point out that the only argument advanced\nby Tischendorf bears solely against the assertion that Celsus was a\ncontemporary of Origen, \"about 225,\" and leaves the actual date entirely\nunsettled. He not only admits that the statement of Origen regarding the\nidentity of his opponent with the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian\n\"and later,\" may be erroneous, but he tacitly rejects it, and having\nabandoned the conjecture of Origen as groundless and untenable, he\nsubstitutes a conjecture of his own, equally unsupported by reasons,\nthat Celsus probably wrote between 150-160. Indeed, he does not attempt\nto justify this date, but arbitrarily decides to hold by it until a\nbetter can be demonstrated. He is forced to admit the ignorance of\nOrigen on the point, and he does not conceal his own.\n\nNow it is clear that the statement of Origen in the preface to his\nwork, quoted above, that Celsus, against whom he writes, is long since\ndead,(1) is made in the belief that this Celsus was the Epicurean who\nlived under Hadrian,(2)\n\n{228}\n\nwhich Tischendorf, although he avoids explanation of the reason, rightly\nrecognizes to be a mistake. Origen undoubtedly knew nothing of his\nadversary, and it obviously follows that, his impression that he is\nCelsus the Epicurean being erroneous, his statement that he was long\nsince dead, which is based upon that impression, loses all its value.\nOrigen certainly at one time conjectured his Celsus to be the Epicurean\nof the reign of Hadrian, for he not only says so directly in the passage\nquoted, but on the strength of his belief in the fact, he accuses him\nof inconsistency: \"But Celsus,\" he says, \"must be convicted of\ncontradicting himself; for he is discovered from other of his works to\nhave been an Epicurean, but here, because he considered that he could\nattack the Word more effectively by not avowing the views of Epicurus,\nhe pretends, &c.... Remark, therefore, the falseness of his mind,\"\n&c.(1) And from time to time he continues to refer to him as an\nEpicurean,(2) although it is evident that in the writing before him\nhe constantly finds evidence that he is of a wholly different school.\nBeyond this belief, founded avowedly on mere hearsay, Origen absolutely\nknows nothing whatever as to the personality of Celsus, or the time\nat which he wrote,(3) and he sometimes very naively expresses his\nuncertainty regarding him. Referring in one place to certain passages\nwhich seem to imply a belief in magic on the part of Celsus, Origen\nadds: \"I do not know whether he is the same who has written several\nbooks\n\n{229}\n\nagainst magic.\"(1) Elsewhere he says: \"... the Epicurean Celsus (if he\nbe the same who composed two other books against Christians),\" &c.(2)\n\nNot only is it apparent that Origen knows nothing of the Celsus with\nwhom he is dealing, however, but it is almost impossible to avoid\nthe conviction that during the time he was composing his work his\nimpressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became\nconsiderably modified. In the earlier portion of the first book(3) he\nhas heard that his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian, but\na little further on,(4) he confesses his ignorance as to whether he\nis the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean\nactually did. In the fourth book(5) he expresses uncertainty as to\nwhether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians\nwhich he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he seems to\ntreat him as a contemporary. He writes to his friend Ambrosius, at whose\nrequest the refutation of Celsus was undertaken: \"Know, however, that\nCelsus has promised to write another treatise after this one.... If,\ntherefore, he has not fulfilled his promise to write a second book, we\nmay well be satisfied with the eight books in reply to his Discourse.\nIf,\n\n{230}\n\nhowever, he has commenced and finished this work also, seek it and \"send\nit in order that we may answer it also, and confute the false teaching\nin it,\" &C.(1) From this passage, and supported by other considerations,\nVolkmar and others assert that Celsus was really a contemporary of\nOrigen.(2) To this, as we have seen, Tischendorf merely replies by\npointing out that Origen in the preface says that Celsus was already\ndead, and that he was identical with the Epicurean Celsus who flourished\nunder Hadrian and later. The former of these statements, however, was\nmade under the impression that the latter was correct, and as it is\ngenerally agreed that Origen was mistaken in supposing that Celsus the\nEpicurean was the author of the [------],(3) and Tischendorf himself\nadmits the fact, the two earlier statements, that Celsus flourished\nunder Hadrian and consequently that he had long been dead, fall\ntogether, whilst the subsequent doubts regarding his identity not only\nstand, but\n\n{231}\n\nrise into assurance at the close of the work in the final request to\nAmbrosius.(1) There can be no doubt that the first statements and the\nclosing paragraphs are contradictory, and whilst almost all critics\npronounce against the accuracy of the former, the inferences from the\nlatter retain full force, confirmed as they are by the intermediate\ndoubts expressed by Origen himself.\n\nEven those who, like Tischendorf, in an arbitrary manner assign an early\ndate to Celsus, although they do not support their conjectures by\nany satisfactory reasons of their own, all tacitly set aside these\nof Origen.(2) It is generally admitted by these, with Lardner(3) and\nMichaelis,(4) that the Epicurean Celsus to \"whom Origen was at one time\ndisposed to refer the work against Christianity, was the writer of\nthat name to whom Lucian, his friend and contemporary, addressed his\nAlexander or Pseudomantis, and who really wrote against magic,(5) as\nOrigen mentions.(6) But although on this account Lardner assigns to\nhim the date of a.d. 176, the fact is that Lucian did not write his\nPseudomantis, as Lardner is obliged to admit,(7) until the reign of the\n\n{232}\n\nEmperor Commodus (180--193), and even upon the supposition that this\nCelsus wrote against Christianity, of which there is not the slightest\nevidence, there would be no ground whatever for dating the work before\na.d. 180. On the contrary, as Lucian does not in any way refer to such\na writing by his friend, there would be strong reason for assigning the\nwork, if it be supposed to be written by him, to a date subsequent to\nthe Pseudo-mantis. It need not be remarked that the references of Celsus\nto the Marcionites,(1) and to the followers of Marcellina,(2) only so\nfar bear upon the matter as to exclude an early date.(3)\n\nIt requires very slight examination of the numerous extracts from,\nand references to, the work which Origen seeks to refute, however, to\nconvince any impartial mind that the doubts of Origen were well founded\nas to whether Celsus the Epicurean were really the author of the\n[------]. As many critics of all shades of opinion have long since\ndetermined, so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus attacked by\nOrigen, as the philosophical opinions which he everywhere expresses\nclearly show, was a Neo-Platonist.(4) Indeed, although Origen seems to\nretain some impression that his antagonist must be an Epicurean, as he\nhad heard, and frequently refers to him as such, he does not point out\nEpicurean\n\n{233}\n\nsentiments in his writings, but on the contrary, not only calls upon him\nno longer to conceal the school to which he belongs and avow himself\nan Epicurean,(1) which Celsus evidently does not, but accuses him\nof expressing views inconsistent with that philosophy,(2) or of so\nconcealing his Epicurean opinions that it might be said that he is\nan Epicurean only in name.(3) On the other hand, Origen is clearly\nsurprised to find that he quotes so largely from the writings, and shows\nsuch marked leaning towards the teaching, of Plato, in which Celsus\nindeed finds the original and purer form of many Christian doctrines,(4)\nand Origen is constantly forced to discuss Plato in meeting the\narguments of Celsus.\n\nThe author of the work which Origen refuted, therefore, instead of\nbeing an Epicurean, as Origen supposed merely from there having been an\nEpicurean of the same name, was undoubtedly a Neo-Platonist, as Mosheim\nlong ago demonstrated, of the School of Ammonius, who founded the sect\nat the close of the second century.(5) The promise of Celsus to write\na second book with practical rules for living in accordance with the\nphilosophy he promulgates, to which Origen refers at the close of his\nwork, confirms this conclusion, and indicates a new and recent system\nof philosophy.(6) An Epicurean would not have thought of such a work--it\nwould have been both appropriate and necessary in connection with\nNeo-Platonism.\n\nWe are, therefore, constrained to assign the work of\n\n{231}\n\nCelsus to at least the early part of the third century, and to the reign\nof Septimius Severus. Celsus repeatedly accuses Christians, in it, of\nteaching their doctrines secretly and against the law, which seeks them\nout and punishes them with death,(1) and this indicates a period of\npersecution. Lardner, assuming the writer to be the Epicurean friend of\nLucian, from this clue supposes that the persecution referred to must\nhave been that under Marcus Aurelius (f 180), and practically rejecting\nthe data of Origen himself, without advancing sufficient reasons of his\nown, dates Celsus a.d. 176.(2) As a Neo-Platonist, however, we are more\naccurately led to the period of persecution which, from embers never\nwholly extinct since the time of Marcus Aurelius, burst into fierce\nflame more especially in the tenth year of the reign of Severus(3) (a.d.\n202), and continued for many years to afflict Christians.\n\nIt is evident that the dates assigned by apologists are wholly\narbitrary, and even if our argument for the later epoch were very much\nless conclusive than it is, the total absence of evidence for an earlier\ndate would completely nullify any testimony derived from Celsus. It is\nsufficient for us to add that, whilst he refers to incidents of Gospel\nhistory and quotes some sayings which have pandlels, with more or less\nof variation, in our Gospels, Celsus nowhere mentions the name of any\nChristian book, unless we except the Book of Enoch;(4) and he accuses\nChristians, not without reason, of interpolating the books of the Sibyl,\nwhose authority, he states, some of them acknowledged.(5)\n\n{235}\n\n3.\n\nThe last document which we need examine in connection with the synoptic\nGospels is the list of New Testament and other writings held in\nconsideration by the Church, which is generally called, after its\ndiscoverer and first editor, the Canon of Muratori. This interesting\nfragment, which was published in 1740 by Muratori in his collection of\nItalian antiquities,(1) at one time belonged to the monastery of Bobbio,\nfounded by the Irish monk Columban, and was found by Muratori in the\nAmbrosian Library at Milan in a MS. containing extracts of little\ninterest from writings of Eucherius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others.\nMuratori estimated the age of the MS. at about a thousand years, but so\nfar as we are aware no thoroughly competent judge has since expressed\nany opinion upon the point. The fragment, which is defective both at\nthe commencement and at the end, is written in an apologetic tone, and\nprofesses to give a list of the writings which are recognised by the\nChristian Church. It is a document which has no official character,(2)\nbut which merely conveys the private views and information of the\nanonymous writer, regarding whom nothing whatever is known. From any\npoint of view, the composition is of a nature permitting the widest\ndifferences of opinion. It is by some affirmed to be a complete treatise\non the books received by the Church, from which fragments have been\nlost;(3) whilst\n\n{236}\n\nothers consider it a mere fragment in itself.(1) It is written in Latin\nwhich by some is represented as most corrupt,(2) whilst others uphold it\nas most correct.(3) The text is further rendered almost unintelligible\nby every possible inaccuracy of orthography and grammar, which is\nascribed diversely to the transcriber, to the translator, and to\nboth.(4) Indeed such is the elastic condition of the text, resulting\nfrom errors and obscurity of every imaginable description, that by means\nof ingenious conjectures critics are able to find in it almost any sense\nthey desire.(5) Considerable difference of opinion exists as to the\noriginal language of the fragment, the greater number of critics\nmaintaining that the composition is a translation from the Greek,(6)\nwhilst others assert it to\n\n{237}\n\nhave been originally written in Latin.(1) Its composition is variously\nattributed to the Church of Africa(2) and to a member of the Church in\nRome.(3)\n\nThe fragment commences with the concluding portion of a sentence....\n\"quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit\"--\"at which nevertheless he was\npresent, and thus he placed it.\" The MS. then proceeds: \"Third book of\nthe Gospel according to Luke. Luke, that physician, after the ascension\nof Christ when Paul took him with him..., wrote it in his name as he\ndeemed best (ex opinione)--nevertheless he had not himself seen the Lord\nin the flesh,--and he too, as far as he could obtain information, also\nbegins to speak from the nativity of John.\" The text, at the sense of\nwhich this is a closely approximate guess, though several other\n\n{238}\n\ninterpretations might be maintained, is as follows: Tertio evangelii\nlibrum secundo Lucan Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi cum eo\nPaulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum adsumsisset numeni suo ex\nopinione concribset dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne et idem prout\nasequi potuit ita et ad nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.\n\nThe MS. goes on to speak in more intelligible language \"of the fourth\nof the Gospels of John, one of the disciples.\" (Quarti evangeliorum\nJohannis ex decipolis) regarding the composition of which the writer\nrelates a legend, which we shall quote when we come to deal with\nthat Gospel The fragment then proceeds to mention the Acts of the\nApostles,--which is ascribed to Luke--thirteen epistles of Paul in\npeculiar order, and it then refers to an Epistle to the Laodiceans and\nanother to the Alexandrians, forged, in the name of Paul, after the\nheresy of Marcion, \"and many others which cannot be received by the\nCatholic Church, as gall must not be mixed with vinegar.\" The Epistle to\nthe Ephesians bore the name of Epistle to the Laodiceans in the list\nof Marcion, and this may be a reference to it.(1) The Epistle to the\nAlexandrians is generally identified with the Epistle to the Hebrews,(2)\nalthough some critics think this doubtful, or deny the fact, and\nconsider both Epistles referred to pseudographs\n\n{239}\n\nattributed to the Apostle Paul.1 The Epistle of Jude, and two (the\nsecond and third) Epistles of John are, with some tone of doubt,\nmentioned amongst the received books, and so is the Book of Wisdom. The\nApocalypses of John and of Peter only are received, but some object to\nthe latter being read in church.\n\nThe Epistle of James, both Epistles of Peter, the Epistle to the\nHebrews (which is, however, probably indicated as the Epistle to the\nAlexandrians), and the first Epistle of John are omitted altogether,\nwith the exception of a quotation which is supposed to be from the\nlast-named Epistle, to which we shall hereafter refer. Special reference\nis made to the Pastor of Hermas, which we shall presently discuss,\nregarding which the writer expresses his opinion that it should be\nread privately but not publicly in church, as it can neither be classed\namongst the books of the prophets nor of the apostles. The fragment\nconcludes with the rejection of the writings of several heretics.(2)\n\nIt is inferred that, in the missing commencement of the fragment, the\nfirst two Synoptics must have been mentioned. This, however, though\nof course most probable, cannot actually be ascertained, and so far as\nthese Gospels are concerned, therefore, the \"Canon of Muratori\" only\nfurnishes conjectural evidence. The statement regarding the third\nSynoptic merely proves the existence of that Gospel at the time the\nfragment\n\n{240}\n\nwas composed, and we shall presently endeavour to form some idea of that\ndate, but beyond this fact the information given anything but tends\nto establish the unusual credibility claimed for the Gospels. It is\ndeclared by the fragment, as we have seen, that the third Synoptic was\nwritten by Luke, who had not himself seen the Lord, but narrated the\nhistory as best he was able. It is worthy of remark, moreover, that even\nthe Apostle Paul, who took Luke with him after the Ascension, had not\nbeen a follower of Jesus either, nor had seen him in the flesh, and\ncertainly he did not, by the showing of his own Epistles, associate\nmuch with the other Apostles, so that Luke could not have had much\nopportunity while with him of acquiring from them any intimate knowledge\nof the events of Gospel history. It is undeniable that the third\nSynoptic is not the narrative of an eye-witness, and the occurrences\nwhich it records did not take place in the presence, or within the\npersonal knowledge, of the writer, but were derived from tradition, or\nfrom written sources. Such testimony, therefore, could not in any case\nbe of much service to our third Synoptic; but when we consider the\nuncertainty of the date at which the fragment was composed, and the\ncertainty that it could not have been written at an early period, it\nwill become apparent that the value of its evidence is reduced to a\nminimum.\n\nWe have already incidentally mentioned that the writer of this fragment\nis totally unknown, nor does there exist any clue by which he can be\nidentified. All the critics who have assigned an early date to the\ncomposition of the fragment have based their conclusion, almost solely,\nupon a statement made by the Author regarding the Pastor of Hennas. He\nsays: \"Hermas in\n\n{241}\n\ntruth composed the Pastor very recently in our times in the city of\nRome, the Bishop Pius his brother, sitting in the chair of the church\nof the city of Rome. And, therefore, it should indeed be read, but it\ncannot be published in the church to the people, neither being among\nthe prophets, whose number is complete, nor amongst the apostles in the\nlatter days.\"\n\n\"Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma\nconscripsit sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopus fratre\nejus et ideo legi eum quidem oportet se publicare vero in ecclesia\npopulo neque inter prophetas completum numero neque inter apostolos in\nfine temporum potest.\"(1)\n\nMuratori, the discoverer of the MS., conjectured for various reasons,\nwhich need not be here detailed, that the fragment was written by Caius\nthe Roman Presbyter, who flourished at the end of the second (c. a.d.\n196) and beginning of the third century, and in this he was followed by\na few others.(2) The great mass of critics, however, have rejected this\nconjecture, as they have likewise negatived the fanciful ascription of\nthe composition by Simon de Magistris to Papias of Hierapolis,(3) and\nby Bunsen to Hegesippus.(4) Such attempts to identify the unknown author\nare obviously mere speculation, and it is impossible to suppose that,\nhad Papias, Hegesippus, or any other well-known writer of the same\nperiod composed such a list, Eusebius could have failed to refer to\n\n{242}\n\nit, as so immediately relevant to the purpose of his work. Thiersch even\nexpressed a suspicion that the fragment was a literary mystification on\nthe part of Muratori himself.(1)\n\nThe mass of critics, with very little independent consideration, have\ntaken literally the statement of the author regarding the composition of\nthe Pastor \"very recently in our times\" (nuperrime temporibus nostris),\nduring the Episcopate of Pius (a.d. 142--157), and have concluded the\nfragment to have been written towards the end of the second century,\nthough we need scarcely say that a few writers would date it even\nearlier.(2) On the other hand, and we consider with reason, many\ncritics,\n\n{243}\n\nincluding men who will not be accused of opposition to an early Canon,\nassign the composition to a later period, between the end of the second\nor beginning of the third century and the fourth century.(1)\n\nWhen we examine the ground upon which alone an early date can be\nsupported, it becomes apparent how slight the foundation is. The only\nargument of any weight is the statement with regard to the composition\nof the Pastor, but with the exception of the few apologists who do not\nhesitate to assign a date totally inconsistent with the state of the\nCanon described in the fragment, the great majority of critics feel that\nthey are forced to place the composition at least towards the end of the\nsecond century, at a period when the statement in the composition may\nagree with the actual opinions in the Church, and yet in a sufficient\ndegree accord with the expression \"very recently in our times,\" as\napplied to the period of Pius of Rome, 142--157. It must be evident\nthat, taken literally, a very arbitrary interpretation is given to this\nindication, and in supposing that the writer may have appropriately used\nthe phrase thirty or forty years after the time of Pius, so much licence\nis taken that there is absolutely no reason why a still greater interval\nmay not be allowed. With this sole exception, there is not a single word\nor statement in the fragment which would oppose our assigning the\n\n{244}\n\ncomposition to a late period of the third century. Volkmar has very\njustly pointed out, however, that in saying \"very recently in our times\"\nthe writer merely intended to distinguish the Pastor of Hermas from the\nwritings of the Prophets and Apostles: It cannot be classed amongst the\nProphets whose number is complete, nor amongst the Apostles, inasmuch\nas it was only written in our post-apostolic time. This is an accurate\ninterpretation of the expression,(1) which might with perfect propriety\nbe used a century after the time of Pius. We have seen that there has\nnot appeared a single trace of any Canon in the writings of any of the\nFathers whom we have examined, and that the Old Testament has been the\nonly Holy Scripture they have acknowledged; and it is therefore unsafe,\nupon the mere interpretation of a phrase which would be applicable even\na century later, to date this anonymous fragment, regarding which we\nknow nothing, earlier than the very end of the second or beginning of\nthe third century, and it is still more probable that it was not written\nuntil an advanced period of the third century. The expression used\nwith regard to Pius: \"Sitting in the chair of the church,\" is quite\nunprecedented in the second century or until a very much later date.(2)\nIt is argued that the fragment is imperfect, and that sentences have\nfallen out; and in regard to this, and to the assertion that it is a\ntranslation from the Greek, it has been well remarked by a writer whose\njudgment on the point will scarcely be called prejudiced: \"If it is\nthus mutilated, why might it not also be interpolated? If moreover the\ntranslator\n\n{245}\n\nwas so ignorant of Latin, can we trust his translation? and what\nguarantee have we that he has not paraphrased and expanded the original?\nThe force of these remarks is peculiarly felt in dealing with the\nparagraph which gives the date. The Pastor of Hermas was not well known\nto the Western Church, and it was not highly esteemed. It was regarded\nas inspired by the Eastern, and read in the Eastern Churches. We have\nseen, moreover, that it was extremely unlikely that Hermas was a real\npersonage. It would be, therefore, far more probable that we have\nhere an interpolation, or addition by a member of the Roman or African\nChurch, probably by the translator, made expressly for the purpose\nof serving as proof that the Pastor of Hennas was not inspired. The\nparagraph itself bears unquestionable mark of tampering,\"(1) &c. It\nwould take us too far were we to discuss the various statements of the\nfragment as indications of date, and the matter is not of sufficient\nimportance. It contains nothing involving an earlier date than the third\ncentury.\n\nThe facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows, so far as\nour object is concerned. The third Synoptic is mentioned by a totally\nunknown writer, at an unknown, but certainly not early, date, in all\nprobability during the third century, in a fragment which we possess\nin a very corrupt version very far from free from suspicion of\ninterpolation in the precise part from which the early date is inferred.\nThe Gospel is attributed to Luke, who was not one of the followers of\nJesus, and of whom it is expressly said that \"he himself had not seen\nthe Lord in the flesh,\" but wrote \"as he deemed best (ex opinione),\" and\nfollowed his history as he was able (et\n\n{246}\n\nidem prout assequi potuit).(1) If the fragment of Muratori, therefore,\neven came within our limits as to date, its evidence would be of no\nvalue, for, instead of establishing the trustworthiness and absolute\naccuracy of the narrative of the third Synoptic, it distinctly tends to\ndiscredit it, inasmuch as it declares it to be the composition of one\nwho undeniably was not an eye-witness of the miracles reported, but\ncollected his materials, long after, as best he could.(2)\n\n4.\n\nWe may now briefly sum up the results of our examination of the evidence\nfor the synoptic Gospels. After having exhausted the literature and\nthe testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct\ntrace of any of those Gospels, with the exception of the third, during\nthe first century and a half after the death of Jesus. Only once during\nthe whole of that period do we find even a tradition that any of our\nEvangelists composed a Gospel at all, and that tradition, so far from\nfavouring our Synoptics, is fatal to the claims of the first and second.\nPapias, about the middle of\n\n     1  The passage is freely rendered thus by Canon Westcott:\n     \"The Gospel of St. Luke, it is then said, stands third in\n     order [in the Canon], having been written by 'Luke the\n     physician,' the companion of St. Paul, who, not being\n     himself an eye-witness, based his narrative on such\n     information as he could obtain, beginning from tho birth of\n     John.\" On the Canon, p. 187.\n\n     2  We do not propose, to consider the Ophites and Peratici,\n     obscure Gnostic sects towards the end of the second century.\n     There is no direct evidence regarding them, and the\n     testimony of writers in the third century, like Hippolytus,\n     is of no value for the Gospels.\n\n{247}\n\nthe second century, on the occasion to which we refer, records that\nMatthew composed the Discourses of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue,\na statement which totally excludes the claim of our Greek Gospel to\napostolic origin. Mark, he said, wrote down from the casual preaching of\nPeter the sayings and doings of Jesus, but without orderly arrangement,\nas he was not himself a follower of the Master, and merely recorded what\nfell from the Apostle. This description, likewise, shows that our actual\nsecond Gospel could not, in its present form, have been the work of\nMark. There is no other reference during the period to any writing of\nMatthew or Mark, and no mention at all of any work ascribed to Luke. The\nidentification of Marcion's Gospel with our third Synoptic proves the\nexistence of that work before A.D. 140, but no evidence is thus obtained\neither as to the author or the character of his work, but on the\ncontrary the testimony of the great heresiarch is so far unfavourable to\nthat Gospel, as it involves a charge against it, of being interpolated\nand debased by Jewish elements. The freedom with which Marcion\nexpurgated and altered it clearly shows that he did not regard it either\nas a sacred or canonical work. Any argument for the mere existence of\nour Synoptics based upou their supposed rejection by heretical leaders\nand sects has the inevitable disadvantage, that the very testimony which\nwould show their existence would oppose their authenticity. There is\nno evidence of their use by heretical leaders, however, and no direct\nreference to them by any writer, heretical or orthodox, whom we have\nexamined. It is unnecessary to add that no reason whatever has been\nshown for accepting the testimony of these Gospels as sufficient to\nestablish the reality of\n\n{248}\n\nmiracles and of a direct Divine Revelation.(1) It is not pretended that\nmore than one of the synoptic Gospels was written by an eye-witness of\nthe miraculous occurrences reported, and whilst no evidence has been, or\ncan be, produced even of the historical accuracy of the narratives,\nno testimony as to the correctness of the inferences from the external\nphenomena exists, or is now even conceivable. The discrepancy between\nthe amount of evidence required and that which is forthcoming, however,\nis greater than under the circumstances could have been thought\npossible.\n\n     1 A comparison of the contents of the three Synoptics would\n     have confirmed this conclusion, but this is not at present\n     necessary, and we must hasten on.\n\n{249}\n\n\n\n\nPART III. THE FOURTH GOSPEL\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE\n\n\"We shall now examine, in the same order, the witnesses already cited in\nconnection with the Synoptics, and ascertain what evidence they furnish\nfor the date and authenticity of the fourth Gospel\n\nApologists do not even allege that there is any reference to the\nfourth Gospel in the so-called Epistle of Clement of Rome to the\nCorinthians.(1)\n\nA few critics(2) pretend to find a trace of it in the Epistle of\nBarnabas, in the reference to the brazen Serpent as a type of Jesus.\nTischendorf states the case as follows:--\n\n{250}\n\n\"And when in the same chapter xii. it is shown how Moses in the brazen\nserpent made a type of Jesus 'who should suffer (die) and yet himself\nmake alive,' the natural inference is that Barnabas connected therewith\nJohn iii. 14, f. even if the use of this passage in particular cannot be\nproved. Although this connection cannot be affirmed, since the author of\nthe Epistle, in this passage as in many others, may be independent, yet\nit is justifiable to ascribe the greatest probability to its dependence\non the passage in John, as the tendency of the Epistle in no\nway required a particular leaning to the expression of John. The\ndisproportionately more abundant use of express quotations from the Old\nTestament in Barnabas is, on the contrary, connected most intimately\nwith the tendency of his whole composition.\"(1)\n\nIt will be observed that the suggestion of reference to the fourth\nGospel is here advanced in a very hesitating way, and does not indeed go\nbeyond an assertion of probability. We might, therefore, well leave the\nmatter without further notice, as the reference in no case could be of\nany weight as evidence. On examination of the context, however, we find\nthat there is every reason to conclude that the reference to the brazen\nserpent is made direct to the Old Testament. The author who delights in\ntypology is bent upon showing that the cross is prefigured in the Old\nTestament. He gives a number of instances, involving the necessity for a\ndisplay of ridiculous ingenuity of explanation, which should prepare us\nto find the comparatively simple type of the brazen serpent naturally\nselected. After pointing out that Moses, with his arms stretched out in\nprayer that the Israelites might prevail in the fight, was a type of the\n\n{251}\n\ncross, he goes on to say: \"Again Moses makes a type of Jesus, that he\nmust suffer and himself make alive [------], whom they will appear\nto have destroyed, in a figure, while Israel was falling;\"(l) and\nconnecting the circumstance that the people were bit by serpents and\ndied with the transgression of Eve by means of the serpent, he goes on\nto narrate minutely the story of Moses and the brazen serpent, and then\nwinds up with the words: \"Thou hast in this the glory of Jesus; that in\nhim are all things and for him.\"(2) No one can read the whole passage\ncarefully without seeing that the reference is direct to the Old\nTestament.(3) There is no ground for supposing that the author was\nacquainted with the fourth Gospel.\n\nTo the Pastor of Hermas Tischendorf devotes only two lines, in which\nhe states that \"it has neither quotations from the Old nor from the New\nTestament.\"(4) Canon\n\n{252}\n\nWestcott makes the same statement,(1) but, unlike the German apologist,\nhe proceeds subsequently to affirm that Hermas makes \"clear allusions\nto St. John;\" which few or no apologists support. This assertion he\nelaborates and illustrates as follows:--\n\n\"The view which Hermas gives of Christ's nature and work is no less\nharmonious with apostolic doctrine, and it offers striking analogies to\nthe Gospel of St. John. Not only did the Son 'appoint angels to preserve\neach of those whom the Father gave to him;' but 'He himself toiled\nvery much and suffered very much to cleanse our sins.... And so when he\nhimself had cleansed the sins of the people, he showed them the paths of\nlife by giving them the Law which he received from his. Father.'(2)\nHe is 'a Rock higher than the mountains, able to hold the whole world,\nancient, and yet having a new gate.'(3) 'His name is great and infinite,\nand the whole world is supported by him.'(4) 'He is older than Creation,\nso that he took counsel with the Father about the\n\n{253}\n\ncreation which he made.'(1) 'He is the sole way of access to the Lord;\nand no one shall enter in unto him otherwise than by his Son.'\"(2)\n\nThis is all Canon Westcott says on the subject.(3) He does not attempt\nto point out any precise portions of the fourth Gospel with which to\ncompare these \"striking analogies,\" nor does he produce any instances\nof similarity of language, or of the use of the same terminology as the\nGospel in this apocalyptic allegory. It is evident that such evidence\ncould in no case be of any value for the fourth Gospel.\n\nWhen we examine more closely, however, it becomes certain that these\npassages possess no real analogy with the fourth Gospel, and were not\nderived from it. There is no part of them that has not close parallels\nin writings antecedent to our Gospel, and there is no use of terminology\npeculiar to it. The author does not even once use the term Logos. Canon\nWestcott makes no mention of the fact that the doctrine of the Logos and\nof the pre-existence of Jesus was enunciated long before the composition\nof the fourth Gospel, with almost equal clearness and fulness, and that\nits development can be traced through the Septuagint translation,\nthe \"Proverbs of Solomon,\" some of the Apocryphal works of the Old\nTestament, the writings of Philo, and in the Apocalypse, Epistle to the\nHebrews, as well as the Pauline Epistles. To any one who examines the\npassages cited from the works of Hennas, and still more to any one\nacquainted with the history of the Logos doctrine, it will, we fear,\n\n{254}\n\nseem wasted time to enter upon any minute refutation of such imaginary\n\"analogies.\" We shall, however, as briefly as possible refer to each\npassage quoted.\n\nThe first is taken from an elaborate similitude with regard to true\nfasting, in which the world is likened to a vineyard and, in explaining\nhis parable, the Shepherd says: \"God planted the vineyard, that is, he\ncreated the people and gave them to his Son: and the Son appointed\nhis angels over them to keep them: and he himself cleansed their sins,\nhaving suffered many things and endured many labours.... He himself,\ntherefore, having cleansed the sins of the people, showed them the paths\nof life by giving them the Law which he received from his Father.\"(1)\n\nIt is difficult indeed to find anything in this passage which is in the\nslightest degree peculiar to the fourth Gospel, or apart from the\nwhole course of what is taught in the Epistles, and more especially the\nEpistle to the Hebrews. We may point out a few passages for comparison:\nHeb. i. 2-4; ii. 10-11; v. 8-9; vii. 12, 17-19; viii. 6-10; x. 10-16;\nRomans viii. 24-17; Matt. xxi. 33; Mark xii. 1; Isaiah v. 7, liii.\n\nThe second passage is taken from an elaborate parable on the building\nof the Church: [------] \"And in the middle of the plain he showed me\na great white rock which had risen out of the plain, and the rock was\nhigher than the mountains, rectangular so as to be able to hold the\nwhole world, but that rock was old having a gate [------] hewn out\nof it, and the hewing out of the gate [------] seemed to me to be\nrecent.\"(2) Upon this rock the tower of the Church is built. Further on\nan explanation is given of the similitude, in which occurs another of\nthe\n\n{255}\n\npassages referred to.[------] \"This rock [------] and this gate [------]\nare the Son of God. 'How, Lord,' I said, 'is the rock old and the gate\nnew?' 'Listen,' he said, 'and understand, thou ignorant man. [------]\nThe Son of God is older than all of his creation [------], so that he\nwas a councillor with the Father in his work of creation; and for this\nis he old.' [------] 'And why is the gate new, Lord?' I said; 'Because,'\nhe replied, 'he was manifested at the last days [------] of the\ndispensation; for this cause the gate was made new, in order that they\nwho shall be saved might enter by it into the kingdom of God.'\"(1)\n\nAnd a few lines lower down the Shepherd further explains, referring\nto entrance through the gate, and introducing another of the passages\ncited: [------] \"'In this way,' he said, 'no one shall enter into the\nkingdom of God unless he receive his holy name. If, therefore, you\ncannot enter into the City unless through its gate, so also,' he said,\n'a man cannot enter in any other way into the kingdom of God than by the\nname of his Son beloved by him'... 'and the gate [------] is the Son of\nGod. This is the one entrance to the Lord.' In no other way, therefore,\nshall any one enter in to him, except through his Son.\"(2)\n\nNow with regard to the similitude of a rock we need scarcely say that\nthe Old Testament teems with it; and we need not point to the parable\nof the house built upon a rock in the first Gospel.(3) A more apt\nillustration is the famous saying with regard to Peter: \"And upon this\nrock [------] I will build my Church,\" upon which\n\n{256}\n\nindeed the whole similitude of Hermas turns; and in 1 Cor. x. 4, we\nread: \"For they drank of the Spiritual Rock accompanying them; but the\nRock was Christ\" [------]. There is no such similitude in the fourth\nGospel at all.\n\nWe then have the \"gate,\" on which we presume Canon Westcott chiefly\nrelies. The parable in John x. 1--9 is quite different from that of\nHermas,(1) and there is a persistent use of different terminology. The\ndoor into the sheepfold is always [------], the gate in the rock always\n[------]. \"I am the door,\"(2) [------] is twice repeated in the fourth\nGospel. \"The gate is the Son of God\" [------] is the declaration of\nHermas. On the other hand, there are numerous passages, elsewhere,\nanalogous to that in the Pastor of Hermas. Every one will remember the\ninjunction in the Sermon on the Mount: Matth. vii. 13, 14. \"Enter in\nthrough the strait gate [------], for wide is the gate [------], &c.,\n14. Because narrow is the gate [------] and straitened is the way which\nleadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.\"(3) The limitation\nto the one way of entrance into the kingdom of God: \"by the name of his\nSon,\" is also found everywhere throughout the Epistles, and likewise in\nthe Acts of the Apostles; as for instance: Acts iv. 12, \"And there is no\nsalvation in any other: for neither is there any other name under heaven\ngiven among men whereby we must be saved.\"\n\nThe reasons given why the rock is old and the gate new [------] have\nanything but special analogy with\n\n     3 Compare the account of the new Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 12\n     ff.; cf. xxii. 4, 14. In Simil. ix. 13, it is insisted that,\n     to enter into the kingdom, not only \"his name\" must be\n     borne, but that we must put on certain clothing.\n\n{257}\n\nthe fourth Gospel. We are, on the contrary, taken directly to\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews in which the pre-existence of Jesus is\nprominently asserted, and between which and the Pastor, as in a former\npassage, we find singular linguistic analogies. For instance, take the\nwhole opening portion of Heb. i. 1: \"God having at many times and in\nmany manners spoken in times past to the fathers by the prophets, 2. At\nthe end of these days [------] spake to us in the Son whom he appointed\nheir [------](1) of all things, by whom he also made the worlds, 3.\nWho being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his\nsubstance, upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had\nmade by himself a cleansing of our sins sat down at the right hand of\nMajesty on high, 4. Having become so much better than the angels,\"(2)\n&c., &c; and if we take the different clauses we may also find them\nelsewhere constantly repeated, as for instance: [------] The son older\nthan all his creation: compare 2 Tim. i. 9, Colossiansi. 15 (\"who is...\nthe first born of all creation\"--[------], 16, 17, 18, Rev. iii. 14, x.\n6. The works of Philo are full of this representation of the Logos. For\nexample: \"For the Word of God is over all the universe, and the oldest\nand most universal of all things created\" [------]\n\n{258}\n\n[------].(1) Again, as to the second clause, that he assisted the Father\nin the work of creation, compare Heb. ii. 10, i. 2, xi. 3, Rom. xi. 36,\n1 Cor. viii. 6, Coloss. i. 15, 16.(2)\n\nThe only remaining passage is the following: \"The name of the Son of\nGod is great and infinite and supports the whole world.\" For the first\nphrase, compare 2 Tim. iv. 18, Heb. i. 8; and for the second part of\nthe sentence, Heb. i. 3, Coloss. i. 17, and many other passages quoted\nabove.(3)\n\nThe whole assertion(4) is devoid of foundation, and might well have been\nleft unnoticed. The attention called to it, however, may not be wasted\nin observing the kind of evidence with which apologists are compelled to\nbe content.\n\nTischendorf points out two passages in the Epistles of pseudo-Ignatius\nwhich, he considers, show the use of the fourth Gospel.(5) They are as\nfollows--Epistle to the Romans vii.: \"I desire the bread of God, the\nbread of\n\n{259}\n\nheaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the son of\nGod, who was born at a later time of the seed of David and Abraham; and\nI desire the drink of God [------], that is his blood, which is love\nincorruptible, and eternal life\" [------].(1) This is compared with John\nvi. 41: \"I am the bread which came down from heaven\" 48.... \"I am the\nbread of life,\" 51.... \"And the bread that I will give is my flesh;\"\n54. \"He who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life\"\n[------]. Scholten has pointed out that the reference to Jesus as \"born\nof the seed of David and Abraham\" is not in the spirit of the fourth\nGospel; and the use of [------] for the [------] of vi. 55, and\n[------]; instead of [------] are also opposed to the connection with\nthat Gospel.(3) On the other hand, in the institution of the Supper, the\nbread is described as the body of Jesus, and the wine as his blood; and\nreference is made there, and elsewhere, to eating bread and drinking\nwine in the kingdom of God,(3) and the passage seems to be nothing but\na development of this teaching.(4) Nothing could be proved by such an\nanalogy.(5)\n\nThe second passage referred to by Tischendorf is in the Epistle to the\nPhiladelphians vii.: \"For if some\n\n{260}\n\nwould have led me astray according to the flesh, yet the Spirit is not\nled astray, being from God, for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither\nit goeth, and detecteth the things that are hidden.\"(1) Teschendorf\nconsiders that these words are based upon John iii. 6--8, and the last\nphrase: \"And detecteth the hidden things,\" upon verse 20. The sense of\nthe Epistle, however, is precisely the reverse of that of the Gospel,\nwhich reads: \"The wind bloweth where it listeth; and thou hearest the\nsound thereof but _knowest not_ whence it cometh and whither it goeth;\nso is every one that is born of the Spirit;\"(3) whilst the Epistle does\nnot refer to the wind at all, but affirms that the Spirit of God does\nknow whence it cometh, &c. The analogy in verse 20 is still more remote:\n\"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the\nlight, lest his deeds should be detected.\"(3) In 1 Cor. ii. 10, the\nsense is found more closely: \"For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea,\neven the deep things of God.\"(4) It is evidently unreasonable to assert\nfrom such a passage the use of the fourth Gospel.(5) Even Tischendorf\nrecognizes that in themselves the phrases which he points out in\npseudo-Ignatius could not, unsupported by other corroboration, possess\nmuch weight as testimony for the use of our Gospels. He says: \"Were\nthese allusions of Ignatius to Matthew and John a wholly isolated\nphenomenon, and one which perhaps other undoubted results\n\n{261}\n\nof inquiry wholly contradicted, they would hardly have any conclusive\nweight. But--.\"(1) Canon Westcott says: \"The Ignatian writings, as might\nbe expected, are not without traces of the influence of St. John. The\ncircumstances in which he was placed required a special enunciation\nof Pauline doctrine; but this is not so expressed as to exclude\nthe parallel lines of Christian thought. Love is 'the stamp of the\nChristian.' (Ad Magn. v.) 'Faith is the beginning and love the end of\nlife.' (Ad Ephes. xiv.) 'Faith is our guide upward' [------], but love\nis the road that 'leads to God.' (Ad Eph. ix.) 'The Eternal [------]\nWord is the manifestation of God' (Ad Magn. viii.), 'the door by which\nwe come to the Father' (Ad Philad. ix., cf. John x. 7), 'and without Him\nwe have not the principle of true life' (Ad Trail, ix.: [------]. cf.\nAd Eph. iii.: [------]. The true meat of the Christian is the 'bread of\nGod, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus\nChrist,' and his drink is 'Christ's blood, which is love incorruptible'\n(Ad Rom. vii., cf. John vi. 32, 51, 53). He has no love of this life;\n'his love has been crucified, and he has in him no burning passion\nfor the world, but living water (as the spring of a new life) speaking\nwithin him, and bidding him come to his Father' (Ad Rom. 1. c).\nMeanwhile his enemy is the enemy of his Master, even the 'ruler of this\nage.' (Ad Rom. 1. c, [------]. Cf. John xii. 31, xvi. 11: [------] and\nsee 1 Cor. ii. 6, 8.(2))\"\n\nPart of these references we have already considered;\n\n{262}\n\nothers of them really do not require any notice whatever, and the only\none to which we need to direct our attention for a moment may be the\npassage from the Epistle to the Philadelphians ix., which reads: \"He is\nthe door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and\nthe prophets, and the apostles, and the Church.\"(l) This is compared\nwith John x. 7. \"Therefore said Jesus again: Verily, verily, I say unto\nyou, I am the door of the Sheep\" [------]. We have already referred, a\nfew pages back,(2) to the image of the door. Here again it is obvious\nthat there is a marked difference in the sense of the Epistle from\nthat of the Gospel. In the latter Jesus is said to be the door into the\nSheepfold;(3) whilst in the Epistle, he is the door into the Father,\nthrough which not only the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles enter,\nbut also the Church itself. Such distant analogy cannot warrant the\nconclusion that the passage shows any acquaintance with the fourth\nGospel.(4) As for the other phrases, they are not only without special\nbearing upon the fourth Gospel, but they are everywhere found in the\ncanonical Epistles, as well as elsewhere. Regarding love and faith, for\ninstance, compare Gal. v. 6, 14, 22; Rom. xii. 9, 10, viii. 39, xiii. 9;\n1 Cor. ii. 9, viii. 3; Ephea iii. 17, v. 1, 2, vi. 23; Philip, i. 9, ii.\n2; 2 Thess. iii. 5; 1 Tim. i. 14, vi. 11; 2 Tim. i. 13; Heb. x. 38 f.,\nxi., &c., &c.\n\nWe might point out many equally close analogies in\n\n{263}\n\nthe works of Philo,(1) but it is unnecessary to do so, although we may\nindicate one or two which first present themselves. Philo equally has\n\"the Eternal Logos\" [------],(2) whom he represents as the manifestation\nof God in every way. \"The Word is the likeness of God, by whom the\nuniverse was created\" [------].(3) He is \"the vicegerent\" [------]\nof God,(4) \"the heavenly incorruptible food of the soul,\" \"the bread\n[------] from heaven.\" In one place he says: \"and they who inquired what\nis the food of the soul... learnt at last that it is the Word of God,\nand the Divine Logos.... This is the heavenly nourishment, and it is\nmentioned in the holy Scriptures... saying, 'Lo! I rain upon you bread\n[------] from heaven.' (Exod. xvi. 4.) 'This is the bread [------] which\nthe Lord has given them to eat'\" (Exod. xvi. 15).(5) And again: \"For the\none indeed raises his eyes towards the sky, contemplating the manna, the\ndivine Word, the heavenly incorruptible food of the longing soul.\"(6)\nElsewhere: \"... but it is\n\n{264}\n\ntaught by the Hierophant and Prophet Moses, who will say: 'This is the\nbread [------], the nourishment which God gave to the soul'--that he\noffered his own Word and his own Logos; for this is bread [------] which\nhe has given us to eat, this is the Word [------].\"(1) He also says:\n\"Therefore he exhorts him that can run swiftly to strive with breathless\neagerness towards the Divine Word who is above all things, the fountain\nof Wisdom, in order that by drinking of the stream, instead of death he\nmay for his reward obtain eternal life\"(2) It is the Logos who guides\nus to the Father, God \"by the same Logos both creating all things\nand leading up [------] the perfect man from the things of earth to\nhimself.\"(3) These are very imperfect examples, but it may be asserted\nthat there is not a representation of the Logos in the fourth Gospel\nwhich has not close parallels in the works of Philo.\n\nWe have given these passages of the pseudo-Ignatian Epistles which are\npointed out as indicating acquaintance with the fourth Gospel, in order\nthat the whole case might be stated and appreciated. The analogies are\ntoo distant to prove anything, but were they fifty times more close,\nthey could do little or nothing to establish an early origin for the\nfourth Gospel, and nothing at all to elucidate the question as to its\ncharacter and authorship.(4)\n\n     4 In general the Epistles follow the Synoptic narratives,\n     and not the account of the fourth Gospel.   See for instance\n     the reference to the anointing of Jesus, Ad Eph. xvii., cf.\n     Matt. xxvi. 7 ff.; Mark ziy. 3 flf.; cf. John xii. 1 ff.\n\n{265}\n\nThe Epistles in which the passages occur are spurious and of no value as\nevidence for the fourth Gospel. Only-one of them is found in the three\nSyriac Epistles. We have already stated the facts connected with the\nso-called Epistles of Ignatius,(1) and no one who has attentively\nexamined them can fail to see that the testimony of such documents\ncannot be considered of any historic weight, except for a period\nwhen evidence of the use of the fourth Gospel ceases to be of any\nsignificance.\n\nThere are fifteen Epistles ascribed to Ignatius--of these eight are\nuniversally recognized to be spurious. Of the remaining seven, there are\ntwo Greek and Latin versions, the one much longer than the other. The\nlonger version is almost unanimously rejected as interpolated. The\ndiscovery of a still shorter Syriac version of \"the three Epistles of\nIgnatius,\" convinced the majority of critics that even the shorter Greek\nversion of seven Epistles must be condemned, and that whatever matter\ncould be ascribed to Ignatius himself, if any, must be looked for in\nthese three Epistles alone. The three martyrologies of Ignatius are\nlikewise universally repudiated as mere fictions. From such a mass of\nforgery, in which it is impossible to identify even a kernel of truth,\nno testimony could be produced which could in any degree establish the\napostolic origin and authenticity of our Gospels.\n\nIt is not pretended that the so-called Epistle of Polycarp to the\nPhilippians contains any references to the fourth Gospel. Tischendorf,\nhowever, affirms that it is weighty testimony for that Gospel, inasmuch\nas he discovers in it a certain trace of the first \"Epistle of\n\n{266}\n\nJohn,\" and as he maintains that the Epistle and the Gospel are the\nworks of the same author, any evidence for the one is at the same time\nevidence for the other.(1) We shall hereafter consider the point of the\ncommon authorship of the Epistles and fourth Gospel, and here confine\nourselves chiefly to the alleged fact of the reference.\n\nThe passage to which Teschendorf alludes we subjoin, with the supposed\nparallel in the Epistle.[------]\n\n{267}\n\nThis passage does not occur as a quotation, and the utmost that can\nbe said of the few words with which it opens is that a phrase somewhat\nresembling, but at the same time materially differing from, the Epistle\nof John is interwoven with the text of the Epistle to the Philippians.\nIf this were really a quotation from the canonical Epistle, it would\nindeed be singular that, considering the supposed relations of Polycarp\nand John, the name of the apostle should not have been mentioned, and a\nquotation have been distinctly and correctly made.(1) On the other hand,\nthere is no earlier trace of the canonical Epistle, and, as Volkmar\nargues, it may well be doubted whether it may not rather be dependent\non the Epistle to the Philippians, than the latter upon the Epistle of\nJohn.(2)\n\nWe believe with Scholten that neither is dependent on the other, but\nthat both adopted a formula in use in the early Church against various\nheresies,3 the superficial coincidence of which is without any weight\nas evidence for the use of either Epistle by the writer of the other.\nMoreover, it is clear that the writers refer to different classes of\nheretics. Polycarp attacks the Docetae who deny that Jesus Christ has\ncome in the flesh, that is with a human body of flesh and blood; whilst\nthe Epistle of John is directed against those who deny that Jesus who\nhas come in the flesh is the\n\n{268}\n\nChrist the Son of God.(1) Volkmar points out that in Polycarp the word\n\"Antichrist\" is made a proper name, whilst in the Epistle the expression\nused is the abstract \"Spirit of Antichrist.\" Polycarp in fact says that\nwhoever denies the flesh of Christ is no Christian but Antichrist, and\nVolkmar finds this direct assertion more original than the assertion of\nthe Epistle; \"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in\nthe flesh is of God,\"(2) &c. In any case it seems to us clear that in\nboth writings we have only the independent enunciation, with decided\ndifference of language and sense, of a formula current in the Church,\nand that neither writer can be held to have originated the condemnation,\nin these words, of heresies which the Church had begun vehemently to\noppose, and which were merely an application of ideas already well\nknown, as we see from the expression of the Epistle in reference to the\n\"Spirit of Antichrist, of which ye have heard that it cometh.\"\nWhether this phrase be an allusion to the Apocalypse xiii., or to 2\nThessalonians ii., or to traditions current in the Church, we need not\ninquire; it is sufficient that the Epistle of John avowedly applies a\nprophecy regarding Antichrist already known amongst Christians, which\nwas equally open to the other writer and probably familiar in the\nChurch. This cannot under any circumstances be admitted as evidence of\nweight for the use of the 1st Epistle of John. There is no testimony\nwhatever of the existence of the Epistles ascribed to John previous to\nthis date, and that fact would have to\n\n{269}\n\nbe established on sure grounds before the argument we are considering\ncan have any value.\n\nOn the other hand, we have already seen(1) that there is strong reason\nto doubt the authenticity of the Epistle attributed to Polycarp, and\na certainty that in any case it is, in its present form, considerably\ninterpolated. Even if genuine in any part, the use of the 1st Epistle\nof John, if established, could not be of much value as evidence for the\nfourth Gospel, of which the writing does not show a trace. So far from\nthere being any evidence that Polycarp knew the fourth Gospel, however,\neverything points to the opposite conclusion. About A.D. 154-155 we\nfind him taking part in the Paschal controversy,(2) contradicting the\nstatements of the fourth Gospel,(3) and supporting the Synoptic view,\ncontending that the Christian festival should be celebrated on the 14th\nNisan, the day on which he affirmed that the Apostle John himself had\nobserved it.(4) Irenaeus, who represents Polycarp as the disciple of\nJohn, says of him: \"For neither was Anicetus able to persuade Polycarp\nnot to observe it (on the 14th) because he had always observed it with\nJohn the disciple of our Lord, and with the rest of the apostles with\nwhom he consorted.\"(5) Not only, therefore, does Polycarp not refer to\nthe fourth Gospel, but he is on the\n\n     2  The date has, hitherto, generally been fixed at A.D. 160,\n     but the recent investigations referred to in vol. i. p. 274\n     f. have led to the adoption of this earlier date, and the\n     visit to Rome must, therefore, probably have taken place\n     just after the accession of Anicetus to the Roman bishopric.\n     Cf. Lipsius, Zeitschr. w. Theol. 1874, p. 205 f.\n\n{270}\n\ncontrary an important witness against it as the work of John, for he\nrepresents that apostle as practically contradicting the Gospel of which\nhe is said to be the author.\n\nThe fulness with which we have discussed the character of the\nevangelical quotations of Justin Martyr renders the task of ascertaining\nwhether his works indicate any acquaintance with the fourth Gospel\ncomparatively easy. The detailed statements already made enable us\nwithout preliminary explanation directly to attack the problem, and\nwe are freed from the necessity of making extensive quotations to\nillustrate the facts of the case.\n\nWhilst apologists assert with some boldness that Justin made use of our\nSynoptics, they are evidently, and with good reason, less confident\nin maintaining his acquaintance with the fourth Gospel. Canon Westcott\nstates: \"His references to St John are uncertain; but this, as has been\nalready remarked, follows from the character of the fourth Gospel. It\nwas unlikely that he should quote its peculiar teaching in apologetic\nwritings addressed to Jews and heathens; and at the same time he\nexhibits types of language and doctrine which, if not immediately\ndrawn from St. John, yet mark the presence of his influence and the\nrecognition of his authority.\"(1) This apology for the neglect of the\nfourth Gospel\n\n{271}\n\nillustrates the obvious scantiness of the evidence furnished by Justin.\n\nTischendorf, however, with his usual temerity, claims Justin as a\npowerful witness for the fourth Gospel. He says: \"According to our\njudgment there are convincing grounds of proof for the fact that\nJohn also was known and used by Justin, provided that an unprejudiced\nconsideration be not made to give way to the antagonistic predilection\nagainst the Johannine Gospel.\" In order fully and fairly to state the\ncase which he puts forward, we shall quote his own words, but to avoid\nrepetition we shall permit ourselves to interrupt him by remarks and\nby parallel passages from other writings for comparison with Justin.\nTischendorf says: \"The representation of the person of Christ altogether\npeculiar to John as it is given particularly in his Prologue i. 1 (\" In\nthe beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was\nGod\"), and verse 14 (\"and the word became flesh\"), in the designation\nof him as Logos, as the Word of God, unmistakably re-echoes in not a\nfew passages in Justin; for instance:(1) 'And Jesus Christ is alone\nthe special Son begotten by God, being his Word and first-begotten and\npower.'\"(2)\n\nWith this we may compare another passage of Justin from the second\nApology. \"But his son, who alone is rightly called Son, the Word before\nthe works of creation,\n\n     1 Tischendorf uses great liberty in translating some of\n     these passages, abbreviating and otherwise altering them as\n     it suits him. We shall therefore give his German translation\n     below, and we add the Greek which Tischendorf does not\n     quote--indeed he does not, in most cases, even state where\n     the passages are to be found.\n\n{272}\n\nwho was both with him and begotten when in the beginning he created and\nordered all things by him,\"(1) &c.\n\nNow the same words and ideas are to be found throughout the Canonical\nEpistles and other writings, as well as in earlier works. In the\nApocalypse,(2) the only book of the New Testament mentioned by Justin,\nand which is directly ascribed by him to John,(3) the term Logos is\napplied to Jesus \"the Lamb,\" (xix. 13): \"and his name is called the Word\nof God\" [------]. Elsewhere (iii. 14) he is called \"the Beginning of the\nCreation of God\" [------]; and again in the same book (i. 5) he is \"the\nfirst-begotten of the dead\" [------]. In Heb. i 6 he is the \"first-born\"\n[------], as in Coloss. i. 15 he is \"the first-born of every creature\"\n[------]; and in 1 Cor. i. 24 we have: \"Christ the Power of God and the\nWisdom of God\"[------], and it will be remembered that \"Wisdom\" was\nthe earlier term which became an alternative with \"Word\" for the\nintermediate Being. In Heb. i. 2, God is represented as speaking to us\n\"in the Son.... by whom he also made the worlds\" [------]. In 2 Tim. i.\n9, he is \"before all worlds\" [------], cf. Heb. L 10, ii. 10, Kom. xi.\n36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Ephes. iii. 9.\n\nThe works of Philo are filled with similar representations of the Logos,\nbut we must restrict ourselves to a very\n\n{273}\n\nfew. God as a Shepherd and King governs the universe \"having appointed\nhis true Logos, his first begotten Son, to have the care of this sacred\nflock, as the Vicegerent of-a great King.\"(1) In another place Philo\nexhorts men to strive to become like God's \"first begotten Word\"\n[------],(2) and he adds, a few lines further on: \"for the most ancient\nWord is the image of God\" [------]. The high priest of God in the world\nis \"the divine Word, his first-begotten son\" [------].(3) Speaking of\nthe creation of the world Philo says: \"The instrument by which it was\nformed is the Word of God\" [------].(4) Elsewhere: \"For the Word is the\nimage of God by which the whole world was created\" [------].(5) These\npassages might be indefinitely multiplied.\n\nTischendorf's next passage is: \"The first power [------] after the\nFather of all and God the Lord, and Son, is the Word [------]; in what\nmanner having been made flesh [------] he became man, we shall in what\nfollows relate.\"(6)\n\n{274}\n\nWe find everywhere parallels for this passage without seeking them in\nthe fourth Gospel. In 1 Cor. i. 24, \"Christ the Power [------] of God\nand the Wisdom of God;\" cf. Heb. i. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8; ii. 8. In Heb. ii.\n14--18, there is a distinct account of his becoming flesh; cf. verse 7.\nIn Phil. ii. 6--8: \"Who (Jesus Christ) being in the form of God, deemed\nit not grasping to be equal with God, (7) But gave himself up, taking\nthe form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men,\" &c. In Rom.\nviii. 3 we have: \"God sending his own Son in the likeness of the flesh\nof sin,\" &c. [------] It must be borne in mind that the terminology of\nJohn i. 14, \"and the word became flesh\" [------] is different from that\nof Justin, who uses the word [------]. The sense and language here is,\ntherefore, quite as close as that of the fourth Gospel We have also\nanother parallel in 1 Tim. iii. 16, \"Who (God) was manifested in the\nflesh\" [------], cf. 1 Cor. xv. 4, 47.\n\nIn like manner we find many similar passages in the Works of Philo. He\nsays in one place that man was not made in the likeness of the most high\nGod the Father of the universe, but in that of the \"Second God who is\nhis Word\" [------].(1) In another place the Logos is said to be the\ninterpreter of the highest God, and he continues: \"that must be God of\nus imperfect beings\" [------].(2)\n\nElsewhere he says: \"But the\n\n{275}\n\ndivine Word which is above these (the Winged Cherubim).... but being\nitself the image of God, at once the most ancient of all conceivable\nthings, and the one placed nearest to the only true and absolute\nexistence without any separation or distance between them \";(1) and a\nfew lines further on he explains the cities of refuge to be: \"The Word\nof the Governor (of all things) and his creative and kingly power, for\nof these are the heavens and the whole world.\"(2) \"The Logos of God\nis above all things in the world, and is the most ancient and the most\nuniversal of all things which are.\"(3) The Word is also the \"Ambassador\nsent by the Governor (of the universe) to his subject (man)\"\n[------].(4) Such views of the Logos are everywhere met with in the\npages of Philo.\n\nTischendorf continues: \"The Word (Logos) of God is his Son.\"(5) We\nhave already in the preceding paragraphs abundantly illustrated this\nsentence, and may proceed to the next: \"But since they did not know\nall things concerning the Logos, which is Christ, they have frequently\ncontradicted each other.\"(6) These words are\n\n{276}\n\nused with reference to Lawgivers and philosophers. Justin, who frankly\nadmits the delight he took in the writings of Plato(1) and other Greek\nphilosophers, held the view that Socrates and Plato had in an elementary\nform enunciated the doctrine of the Logos,(2) although he contends that\nthey borrowed it from the writings of Moses, and with a largeness of\nmind very uncommon in the early Church, and indeed, we might add, in any\nage, he believed Socrates and such philosophers to have been Christians,\neven although they had been considered Atheists.(3) As they did not of\ncourse know Christ to be the Logos, he makes the assertion just\nquoted. Now the only point in the passage which requires notice is the\nidentification of the Logos with Jesus, which has already been dealt\nwith, and as this was asserted in the Apocalypse xix. 13, before the\nfourth Gospel was written, no evidence in its favour is deducible from\nthe statement. We shall have more to say regarding this presently.\n\nTischendorf continues: \"But in what manner through the Word of God,\nJesus Christ our Saviour having been made flesh,\"(4) &c.\n\nIt must be apparent that the doctrine here is not that of the fourth\nGospel which makes \"the word become flesh\" simply, whilst Justin,\nrepresenting a less advanced form, and more uncertain stage, of its\ndevelopment, draws a distinction between the Logos and Jesus, and\ndescribes Jesus Christ as being made flesh by the power\n\n{277}\n\nof the Logos. This is no accidental use of words, for he repeatedly\nstates the same fact, as for instance: \"But why through the power of the\nWord, according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, he was\nborn a man of a Virgin,\"(1) &c.\n\nTischendorf continues: \"To these passages out of the short second\nApology we extract from the first (cap. 33).(2) By the Spirit,\ntherefore, and power of God (in reference to Luke i. 35: 'The Holy\nSpirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall\novershadow thee') we have nothing else to understand but the Logos,\nwhich is the first-born of God.\"(3)\n\nHere again we have the same difference from the doctrine of the fourth\nGospel which we have just pointed out, which is, however, so completely\nin agreement with the views of Philo,(4) and characteristic of a less\ndeveloped form of the idea. We shall further refer to the terminology\nhereafter, and meantime we proceed to the last illustration given by\nTischendorf.\n\n\"Out of the Dialogue (c. 105): 'For that he was the only-begotten of\nthe Father of all, in peculiar wise begotten of him as Word and Power\n[------], and afterwards became man through the Virgin, as we have\nlearnt from the Memoirs, I have already stated.'\"(5)\n\n{278}\n\nThe allusion here is to the preceding chapters of the Dialogue, wherein,\nwith special reference (c. 100) to the passage which has a parallel in\nLuke i. 35, quoted by Tischendorf in the preceding illustration, Justin\nnarrates the birth of Jesus.\n\nThis reference very appropriately leads us to a more general discussion\nof the real source of the terminology and Logos doctrine of Justin. We\ndo not propose, in this work, to enter fully into the history of the\nLogos doctrine, and we must confine ourselves strictly to showing, in\nthe most simple manner possible, that not only is there no evidence\nwhatever that Justin derived his ideas regarding it from the fourth\nGospel, but that, on the contrary, his terminology and doctrine may be\ntraced to another source. Now, in the very chapter (100) from which this\nlast illustration is taken, Justin shows clearly whence he derives the\nexpression: \"only-begotten.\"\n\nIn chap. 97 he refers to the Ps. xxii. (Sept. xxi.) as a prophecy\napplying to Jesus, quotes the whole Psalm, and comments upon it in the\nfollowing chapters; refers to Ps. ii. 7: \"Thou art my Son, this day have\nI begotten thee,\" uttered by the voice at the baptism, in ch. 103, in\nillustration of it; and in ch. 105 he arrives, in his exposition of it,\nat Verse 20: \"Deliver my soul from the sword, and my(1) only-begotten\n[------] from the hand of the dog.\" Then follows the passage we are\ndiscussing, in which Justin affirms that\n\n     1 This should probably be \"thy.\"\n\n{279}\n\nhe has proved that he was the only-begotten [------] of the Father, and\nat the close he again quotes the verse as indicative of his sufferings.\nThe Memoirs are referred to in regard to the fulfilment of this\nprophecy, and his birth as man through the Virgin. The phrase in Justin\nis quite different from that in the fourth Gospel, i. 14: \"And the\nWord became flesh [------] and tabernacled among us, find we beheld his\nglory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father\" [------], &c.\n\nIn Justin he is \"the only-begotten of the Father of all\" [------],\nand he \"became man [------] through the Virgin,\" and Justin never once\nemploys the peculiar terminology of the fourth Gospel, [------], in any\npart of his writings.\n\nThere can be no doubt that, however the Christian doctrine of the Logos\nmay at one period of its development have been influenced by Greek\nphilosophy, it was in its central idea mainly of Jewish origin, and the\nmere application to an individual of a theory which had long occupied\nthe Hebrew mind. After the original simplicity which represented God as\nholding personal intercourse with the Patriarchs, and communing face to\nface with the great leaders of Israel, had been outgrown, an increasing\ntendency set in to shroud the Divinity in impenetrable mystery, and to\nregard him as unapproachable and undiscernible by man. This led to the\nrecognition of a Divine representative and substitute of the Highest God\nand Father, who communicated with his creatures, and through whom alone\nhe revealed himself. A new system of interpretation of the ancient\ntraditions of the nation was rendered necessary, and in the Septuagint\ntranslation of the Bible we are fortunately able to trace\n\n{280}\n\nthe progress of the theory which culminated in the Christian doctrine\nof the Logos. Wherever in the sacred records God had been represented\nas holding intercourse with man, the translators either symbolized the\nappearance or interposed an angel, who was afterwards understood to\nbe the Divine Word. The first name under which the Divine Mediator\nwas known in the Old Testament was Wisdom [------], although in its\nApocrypha the term Logos was not unknown. The personification of the\nidea was very rapidly effected, and in the Book of Proverbs, as well\nas in the later Apocrypha based upon it: the Wisdom of Solomon, and\nthe Wisdom of Sirach, \"Ecclesiasticus:\" we find it in ever increasing\nclearness and concretion. In the School of Alexandria the active Jewish\nintellect eagerly occupied itself with the speculation, and in the\nwritings of Philo especially we find the doctrine of the Logos--the\nterm which by that time had almost entirely supplanted that of\nWisdom--elaborated to almost its final point, and wanting little or\nnothing but its application in an incarnate form to an individual man\nto represent the doctrine of the earlier Canonical writings of the\nNew Testament, and notably the Epistle to the Hebrews,--the work of\na Christian Philo,(1)--the Pauline Epistles, and lastly the fourth\nGospel(2)\n\n{281}\n\nIn Proverbs viii. 22 ff., we have a representation of Wisdom\ncorresponding closely with the prelude to the fourth Gospel, and still\nmore so with the doctrine enunciated by Justin: 22. \"The Lord created\nme the Beginning of his ways for his works. 23. Before the ages he\nestablished me, in the beginning before he made the earth. 24. And\nbefore he made the abysses, before the springs of the waters issued\nforth. 25. Before the mountains were settled, and before all the\nhills he begets me. 26. The Lord made the lands, both those which are\nuninhabited and the inhabited heights of the earth beneath the sky. 27.\nWhen he prepared the heavens I was present with him, and when he set\nhis throne upon the winds, 28, and made strong the high clouds, and the\ndeeps under the heaven made secure, 29, and made strong the foundations\nof the earth, 30, I was with him adjusting, I was that in which he\ndelighted; daily I rejoiced in his presence at all times.\"(1) In the\n\"Wisdom of Solomon\" we find the writer addressing God: ix. 1... \"Who\nmadest all things by thy Word\" [------]; and further on in the same\nchapter, v. 9, \"And Wisdom was with thee who knoweth thy works, and was\npresent when thou madest the world, and knew what was acceptable\n\n{282}\n\nin thy sight, and right in thy commandments. \"(1) In verse 4, the writer\nprays: \"Give me Wisdom that sitteth by thy thrones\" [-----].(2) In a\nsimilar way the son of Sirach makes Wisdom say (Ecclesiast. xxiv. 9):\n\"He (the Most High) created me from the beginning before the world, and\nas long as the world I shall not fail.\"(3) We have already incidentally\nseen how these thoughts grew into an elaborate doctrine of the Logos in\nthe works of Philo.\n\nNow Justin, whilst he nowhere adopts the terminology of the fourth\nGospel, and nowhere refers to its introductory condensed statement of\nthe Logos doctrine, closely follows Philo and, like him, traces it\nback to the Old Testament in the most direct way, accounting for the\ninterposition of the divine Mediator in precisely the same manner as\nPhilo, and expressing the views which had led the Seventy to modify the\nstatement of the Hebrew original in their Greek translation. He is, in\nfact, thoroughly acquainted with the history of the Logos doctrine and\nits earlier enunciation under the symbol of Wisdom, and his knowledge of\nit is clearly independent of, and antecedent to, the statements of the\nfourth Gospel.\n\nReferring to various episodes of the Old Testament in which God is\nrepresented as appearing to Moses and the Patriarchs, and in which it\nis said that \"God went up from Abraham,\"(4) or \"The Lord spake to\nMoses,\"(5) or \"The Lord came down to behold the town,\" &c.,(6) or \"God\n\n{283}\n\nshut Noah into the ark,\"(1) and so on, Justin warns his antagonist that\nhe is not to suppose that \"the unbegotten God\" [------] did any of these\nthings, for he has neither to come to any place, nor walks, but from his\nown place, wherever it may be, knows everything although he has neither\neyes nor ears. Therefore he. could not talk with anyone, nor be seen by\nanyone, and none of the Patriarchs saw the Father at all, but they saw\n\"him who was according to his will both his Son (being God) and the\nAngel, in that he ministered to his purpose, whom also he willed to be\nborn man by the Virgin, who became fire when he spoke with Moses\nfrom the bush.\"(2) He refers throughout his writings to the various\nappearances of God to the Patriarchs, all of which he ascribes to the\npre-existent Jesus, the Word,(3) and in the very next chapter, after\nalluding to some of these, he says: \"he is called Angel because he came\nto men, since by him the decrees of the Father are announced to men...\nAt other times he is also called Man and human being, because he appears\nclothed in these forms as the Father wills, and they call him Logos\nbecause\n\n{284}\n\nhe bears the communications of the Father to mankind.\"(1)\n\nJustin, moreover, repeatedly refers to the fact that he was called\nWisdom by Solomon, and quotes the passage we have indicated in Proverbs.\nIn one place he says, in proof of his assertion that the God who\nappeared to Moses and the Patriarchs was distinguished from the Father,\nand was in fact the Word (ch. 66--70): \"Another testimony I will give\nyou, my friends, I said, from the Scriptures that God begat before all\nof the creatures [------] a Beginning [------],(2) a certain rational\nPower [------] out of himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the\nGlory of the Lord, then the Son, again Wisdom, again Angel, again God,\nand again Lord and Logos;\" &c., and a little further on: \"The Word\nof Wisdom will testify to me, who is himself this God begotten of the\nFather of the universe, being Word, and Wisdom, and Power [------], and\nthe Glory of the Begetter,\" &c.,(3) and he quotes, from the Septuagint\nversion, Proverbs viii. 22--36, part of which we have given above, and\nindeed, elsewhere (ch. 129), he quotes the passage a second time as\nevidence, with a similar context. Justin refers to it\n\n{285}\n\nagain in the next chapter, and the peculiarity of his terminology in all\nthese passages, so markedly different from, and indeed opposed to,\nthat of the fourth Gospel, will naturally strike the reader: \"But this\noffspring [------] being truly brought forth by the Father was with the\nFather before all created beings [------], and the Father communes\nwith him, as the Logos declared through Solomon, that this same, who is\ncalled Wisdom by Solomon, had been begotten of God before all created\nbeings [------], both Beginning [------] and Offspring [------],\" &C.(1)\nIn another place after quoting the words: \"No man knoweth the Father\nbut the Son, nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will\nreveal him,\" Justin continues: \"Therefore he revealed to us all that we\nhave by his grace understood out of the Scriptures, recognizing him to\nbe indeed the first-begotten [------] of God, and before all creatures\n[------].... and calling him Son, we have understood that he proceeded\nfrom the Father by his power and will before all created beings\n[------], for in one form or another he is spoken of in the writings\nof the prophets as Wisdom,\" &c.;(2) and again, in two other places he\nrefers to the same fact.(3) On further examination, we find on every\nside still\n\n{286}\n\nstronger confirmation of the conclusion that Justin derived his Logos\ndoctrine from the Old Testament and Philo, together with early New\nTestament writings. We have quoted several passages in which Justin\ndetails the various names of the Logos, and we may add one more.\nReferring to Ps. lxxii., which the Jews apply to Solomon, but which\nJustin maintains to be applicable to Christ, he says: \"For Christ is\nKing, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and Angel, and Man, and Captain,\nand Stone, and a Son born [------], &c. &c., as I prove by all of the\nScriptures.\"(1) Now these representations, which are constantly repeated\nthroughout Justin's writings, are quite opposed to the Spirit of the\nfourth Gospel, but are on the other hand equally common in the works of\nPhilo, and many of them also to be found in the Philonian Epistle to the\nHebrews. Taking the chief amongst them we may briefly illustrate them.\nThe Logos as King, Justin avowedly derives from Ps. lxxii., in which he\nfinds that reference is made to the \"Everlasting King, that is to say\nChrist.\"(2) We find this representation of the Logos throughout the\nwritings of Philo. In one place already briefly referred to,(3) but\nwhich we shall now more fully quote, he says: \"For God as Shepherd and\nKing governs according to Law and justice like a flock of sheep, the\nearth, and water, and air, and fire, and all the plants and living\nthings that are in them, whether they be mortal or divine, as well\nas the course of heaven, and the periods of sun and moon, and the\nvariations and harmonious revolutions of the other stars; having\nappointed his true Word [------]\n\n{287}\n\n[------] his first-begotten Son [------] to have the care of this sacred\nflock as the Vicegerent of a great King;\"(1) and a little further on,\nhe says: \"very reasonably, therefore, he will assume the name of a King,\nbeing addressed as a Shepherd.\"(2) In another place, Philo speaks of the\n\"Logos of the Governor, and his creative and kingly power, for of these\nis the heaven and the whole world.\"(3)\n\nThen if we take the second epithet, the Logos as Priest [------], which\nis quite foreign to the fourth Gospel, we find it repeated by Justin,\nas for instance: \"Christ the eternal Priest\" [------],(4) and it is not\nonly a favourite representation of Philo, but is almost the leading\nidea of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in connection with the episode of\nMelchisedec, in whom also both Philo,(5) and Justin,(6) recognize the\nLogos. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, vii. 3, speaking of Melchisedec:\n\"but likened to the Son of God, abideth a Priest for ever:\"(7) again\nin iv. 14: \"Seeing then that we have a great High Priest that is passed\nthrough the heavens, Jesus the Son\n\n{288}\n\nof God,\" &c.;(1) ix. 11: \"Christ having appeared a High Priest of the\ngood things to come;\"(2) xii. 21: \"Thou art a Priest for ever.\"(3)\nThe passages are indeed far too numerous to quote.(4) They are equally\nnumerous in the writings of Philo. In one place already quoted,(5) he\nsays: \"For there are as it seems two temples of God, one of which\nis this world, in which the High Priest is the divine Word, his\nfirst-begotten Son\" [------].(6) Elsewhere, speaking of the period\nfor the return of fugitives, the death of the high priest, which taken\nliterally would embarrass him in his allegory, Philo says: \"For we\nmaintain the High Priest not to be a man, but the divine Word, who is\nwithout participation not only in voluntary but also in involuntary\nsins;\"(7) and he goes on to speak of this priest as \"the most sacred\nWord\" [------].(8) Indeed, in many long passages he descants upon the\n\"high priest Word\" [------].(9) Proceeding to the next representations\nof the Logos\n\n{289}\n\nas \"God and Lord,\" we meet with the idea everywhere. In Hebrews i. 8:\n\"But regarding the Son he saith: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and\never\" [------], and again in the Epistle to the Philippians, ii. 6, \"Who\n(Jesus Christ) being in the form of God, deemed it not grasping to\nbe equal with God\" [------].(1) Philo, in the fragment preserved by\nEusebius, to which we have already referred,(2) calls the Logos the\n\"Second God\" [------].(3) In another passage he has: \"But he calls\nthe most ancient God his present Logos,\" &c. [------];(4) and a little\nfurther on, speaking of the inability of men to look on the Father\nhimself: \"thus they regard the image of God, his Angel Word, as himself\"\n[------].(5) Elsewhere discussing the possibility of God's swearing by\nhimself, which he applies to the Logos, he says: \"For in regard to us\nimperfect beings he will be a God, but in regard to wise and perfect\nbeings the first. And yet Moses, in awe of the superiority of the\nunbegotten [------] God, says: 'And thou shalt swear by his name,' not\nby himself; for it is sufficient for the creature to receive assurance\nand testimony by the divine Word.\"(6)\n\nIt must be remarked, however, that both Justin and\n\n{290}\n\nPhilo place the Logos in a position more clearly secondary to God the\nFather, than the prelude to the fourth Gospel i. 1. Both Justin and\nPhilo apply the term [------] to the Logos without the article. Justin\ndistinctly says that Christians worship Jesus Christ as the Son of\nthe true God, holding him in the second place [------],(1) and this\nsecondary position is systematically defined through Justin's writings\nin a very decided way, as it is in the works of Philo by the contrast of\nthe begotten Logos with the unbegotten God. Justin speaks of the Word as\n\"the first-born of the unbegotten God\" [------],(2) and the distinctive\nappellation of the \"unbegotten God\" applied to the Father is most common\nthroughout his writings.(3) We may in continuation of this remark point\nout another phrase of Justin which is continually repeated, but is\nthoroughly opposed both to the spirit and to the terminology of the\nfourth Gospel, and which likewise indicates the secondary consideration\nin which he held the Logos. He calls the Word constantly \"the first-born\nof all created beings\" [------] \"the first-born of all creation,\"\nechoing the expression of Col. i. 15. (The Son) \"who is the image of the\ninvisible God, the first-born of all creation\" [------].\n\nThis is a totally different view from that of the fourth Gospel, which\nin so emphatic a manner\n\n{291}\n\nenunciates the doctrine: \"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was\nwith God, and the Word was God,\" a statement which Justin, with Philo,\nonly makes in a very modified sense.\n\nTo return, however, the next representation of the Logos by Justin is\nas \"Angel.\" This perpetually recurs in his writings.(1) In one place, to\nwhich we have already referred, he says: \"The Word of God is his Son,\nas we have already stated, and he is also called Messenger [------] and\nApostle, for he brings the message of all we need to know, and is sent\nan Apostle to declare all the message contains.\"(2) In the same chapter\nreference is again made to passages quoted for the sake of proving:\n\"that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Apostle, being aforetime\nthe Word and having appeared now in the form of fire, and now in the\nlikeness of incorporeal beings;\"(3) and he gives many illustrations.(4)\nThe passages, however, in which the Logos is called Angel, are too\nnumerous to be more fully dealt with here. It is scarcely necessary to\npoint out that this representation of the Logos as Angel, is not only\nforeign to, but opposed to the spirit of, the fourth Gospel, although it\nis thoroughly in harmony with the writings of Philo. Before illustrating\nthis, however, we may incidentally remark that the ascription to the\nLogos of the name \"Apostle\" which occurs in the two passages just quoted\nabove, as well as in other parts of the writings of Justin,(5)\n\n{292}\n\nis likewise opposed to the fourth Gospel, although it is found in\nearlier writings, exhibiting a less developed form of the Logos\ndoctrine; for the Epistle to the Hebrews iii. 1, has: \"Consider the\nApostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus,\" &c. [------]. We are,\nin fact, constantly directed by the remarks of Justin to other sources\nof the Logos doctrine, and never to the fourth Gospel, with which his\ntone and terminology do not agree. Everywhere in the writings of Philo\nwe meet with the Logos as Angel. He speaks \"of the Angel Word of God\"\nin a sentence already quoted,(1) and elsewhere in a passage, one of many\nothers, upon which the lines of Justin which we are now considering (as\nwell as several similar passages)(2) are in all probability moulded.\nPhilo calls upon men to \"strive earnestly to be fashioned according\nto God's first-begotten Word, the eldest Angel, who is the Archangel\nbearing many names, for he is called\n\n{293}\n\nthe Beginning [------], and Name of God, and Logos, and the Man\naccording to his image, and the Seer of Israel.\"(1) Elsewhere, in a\nremarkable passage, he says: \"To his Archangel and eldest Word, the\nFather, who created the universe, gave the supreme gift that having\nstood on the confine he may separate the creature from the Creator.\nThe same is an intercessor on behalf of the ever wasting mortal to the\nimmortal; he is also the ambassador of the Ruler to his subjects. And he\nrejoices in the gift, and the majesty of it he describes, saying: 'And\nI stood in the midst between the Lord and you' (Numbers xvi 48); being\nneither unbegotten like God, nor begotten like you, but between the two\nextremes,\" &c.(2) We have been tempted to give more of this passage than\nis necessary for our immediate purpose, because it affords the reader\nanother glimpse of Philo's doctrine of the Logos, and generally\nillustrates its position in connection with the Christian doctrine.\n\nThe last of Justin's names which we shall here notice is the Logos\nas \"Man\" as well as God. In another place Justin explains that he is\nsometimes called a Man and human being, because he appears in these\nforms as the Father wills.(3) But here confining ourselves merely\n\n{294}\n\nto the concrete idea, we find a striking representation of it in 1 Tim.\nii. 5: \"For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the\nMan Christ Jesus; [------]; and again in Rom. v. 15: \"... by the grace\nof the one man Jesus Christ\" [------], as well as other passages.(1) We\nhave already seen in the passage quoted above from \"De Confus. Ling.\" Sec.\n28, that Philo mentions, among the many names of the Logos, that of \"the\nMan according to (God's) image\" [------],(2) or \"the typical man\"). If,\nhowever, we pass to the application of the Logos doctrine to Jesus, we\nhave the strongest reason for inferring Justin's total independence of\nthe fourth Gospel. We have already pointed out that the title of Logos\nis given to Jesus in New Testament writings earlier than the fourth\nGospel. We have remarked that, although the passages are innumerable in\nwhich Justin speaks of the Word having become man through the Virgin, he\nnever once throughout his writings makes use of the peculiar expression\nof the fourth Gospel: \"the Word became flesh\" [------].\n\nOn the few occasions on which he speaks of the Word having been _made_\nflesh, he uses the term [------].(3) In one instance he has [------],(4)\nand speaking of the Eucharist Justin once explains that it is in memory\nof Christ's having made himself _body_, [------]5 Justin's most common\nphrase,\n\n{295}\n\nhowever, and he repeats it in numberless instances, is that the Logos\nsubmitted to be born, and become man [------], by a Virgin, or he uses\nvariously the expressions: [------].(1) In several places he speaks\nof him as the first production or offspring [------] of God before\nall created beings, as, for instance: \"The Logos... who is the first\noffspring of God\" [------];(2) and again, \"and that this offspring was\nbegotten of the Father absolutely before all creatures the Word was\ndeclaring\" [------].(3) We need not say more of the expressions:\n\"first-born\" [------], \"first-begotten\" [------], so constantly applied\nto the Logos by Justin, in agreement with Philo; nor to \"only begotten\"\n[------], directly derived from Ps. xxii*. 20 (Ps. xxi. 20, Sept.).\n\nIt must be apparent to everyone who seriously examines the subject, that\nJustin's terminology is markedly different from, and in spirit\nsometimes opposed to, that of the fourth Gospel, and in fact that\nthe peculiarities of the Gospel are not found in Justin's writings at\nall.(4) On the\n\n{296}\n\nother hand, his doctrine of the Logos is precisely that of Philo,(1) and\nof writings long antecedent to the fourth Gospel, and there can be no\ndoubt, we think, that it was derived from them.(2)\n\n{ 297}\n\nWe may now proceed to consider other passages adduced by Tischendorf\nto support his assertion that Justin made use of the fourth Gospel. He\nsays: \"Passages of the Johannine Gospel, however, are also not wanting\nto which passages in Justin refer back. In the Dialogue, ch. 88, he\nwrites of John the Baptist: 'The people believed that he was the Christ,\nbut he cried to them: I am not the Christ, but the voice of a preacher.'\nThis is connected with John i. 20 and 23; for no other Evangelist has\nreported the first words in the Baptist's reply.\"(1) Now the passage in\nJustin, with its context, reads as follows: \"For John sat by the Jordan\n[------] and preached the Baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern\ngirdle and raiment of camel's hair, and eating nothing but locusts and\nwild honey; men supposed [------] him to be the Christ, wherefore\nhe himself cried to them: 'I am not the Christ, but the voice of one\ncrying: For he shall come [------] who is stronger than I, whose shoes\nI am not meet [------] to bear.'\"(2) Now the only ground upon which this\npassage can be compared with the fourth Gospel is the reply: \"I am not\nthe Christ\" [------], which in John i. 20 reads:[------]\n\n{298}\n\n[------]: and it is perfectly clear that, if the direct negation\noccurred in any other Gospel, the difference of the whole passage in the\nDialogue would prevent even an apologist from advancing any claim to its\ndependence on that Gospel. In order to appreciate the nature of the two\npassages, it may be well to collect the nearest parallels in the Gospel,\nand compare them with Justin's narrative. [------]\n\n{299}\n\nThe introductory description of John's dress and habits is quite\ncontrary to the fourth Gospel, but corresponds to some extent with Matt.\niii. 4. It is difficult to conceive two accounts more fundamentally\ndifferent, and the discrepancy becomes more apparent when we consider\nthe scene and actors in the episode. In Justin, it is evident that the\nhearers of John had received the impression that he was the Christ, and\nthe Baptist becoming aware of it voluntarily disabused their minds of\nthis idea. In the fourth Gospel the words of John are extracted from him\n(\"he confessed and denied not\") by emissaries sent by the Pharisees\nof Jerusalem specially to question him on the subject. The account\nof Justin betrays no knowledge of any such interrogation. The utter\ndifference is brought to a climax by the concluding statement of the\nfourth Gospel:-- [------]\n\nIn fact the scene in the two narratives is as little the same as their\ndetails. One can scarcely avoid the conclusion, in reading the fourth\nGospel, that it quotes some other account and does not pretend to report\nthe scene direct. For instance, i. 15, \"John beareth witness of him, and\ncried, saying: 'This was he _of whom I said_: He that cometh after me\nis become before me, because he was before me,'\" &c. V. 19: \"And this\nis the testimony of John, _when the Jews sent priests and Levites from\nJerusalem to ask him: Who art thou?_ and he confessed and denied not,\nand confessed that I am not the Christ,\" &c. Now, as usual, the Gospel\nwhich Justin uses more nearly approximates to our first Synoptic\n\n{300}\n\nthan the other Gospels, although it differs in very important points\nfrom that also--still, taken in connection with the third Synoptic, and\nActs xiii. 25, this indicates the great probability of the existence of\nother writings combining the particulars as they occur in Justin. Luke\niii. 15, reads: \"And as the people were in expectation, and all mused\nin their hearts concerning John whether he were the Christ, 16. John\nanswered, saying to them all: I indeed baptize you with water, but he\nthat is stronger than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not\nworthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with\nfire,\" &c.\n\nWhilst, however, with the sole exception of the simple statement of the\nBaptist that he was not the Christ, which in all the accounts is clearly\ninvolved in the rest of the reply, there is no analogy whatever between\nthe parallel in the fourth Gospel and the passage in Justin, many\nimportant circumstances render it certain that Justin did not derive\nhis narrative from that source. We have already(1) fully discussed the\npeculiarities of Justin's account of the Baptist, and in the context\nto the very passage before us there are details quite foreign to our\nGospels which show that Justin made use of another and different work.\nWhen Jesus stepped into the water to be baptized a fire was kindled in\nthe Jordan, and the voice from heaven makes use of words not found in\nour Gospels; but both the incident and the words are known to have been\ncontained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other works. Justin\nlikewise states, in immediate continuation of the passage before us,\nthat Jesus was considered the son of\n\n{301}\n\nJoseph the carpenter, and himself was a carpenter and accustomed to make\nploughs and yokes.(1) The Evangelical work of which Justin made use\nwas obviously different from our Gospels, therefore, and the evident\nconclusion to which any impartial mind must arrive is, that there is\nnot only not the slightest ground for affirming that Justin quoted the\npassage before us from the fourth Gospel, from which he so fundamentally\ndiffers, but every reason on the contrary to believe that he derived it\nfrom a Gospel different from ours.(2)\n\nThe next point advanced by Tischendorf is, that on two occasions he\nspeaks of the restoration of sight to persons born blind,3 the only\ninstance of which in our Gospels is that recorded, John ix. 1. The\nreferences in Justin are very vague and general. In the first place he\nis speaking of the analogies in the life of Jesus with events believed\nin connection with mythological deities, and he says that he would\nappear to relate acts very similar to those attributed to AEsculapius\nwhen he says that Jesus \"healed the lame and paralytic, and the maimed\nfrom birth [------], and raised the dead.\"(4) In the Dialogue, again\nreferring to AEsculapius, he says that Christ \"healed those who were from\nbirth and according to the flesh blind [------], and deaf, and lame.\"(5)\nIn the fourth Gospel\n\n{302}\n\nthe born-blind is described as [------]. There is a variation it will be\nobserved in the term employed by Justin, and that such a remark should\nbe seized upon as an argument for the use of the fourth Gospel serves to\nshow the poverty of the evidence for the existence of that work. Without\nseeking any further, we might at once reply that such general references\nas those of Justin might well be referred to the common tradition of\nthe Church, which certainly ascribed all kinds of marvellous cures and\nmiracles to Jesus. It is moreover unreasonable to suppose that the only\nGospel in which the cure of one born blind was narrated was that which\nis the fourth in our Canon. Such a miracle may have formed part of a\ndozen similar collections extant at the time of Justin, and in no case\ncould such an allusion be recognized as evidence of the use of the\nfourth Gospel. But in the Dialogue, along with this remark, Justin\ncouples the statement that although the people saw such cures: \"They\nasserted them to be magical illusion; for they also ventured to call\nhim a magician and deceiver of the people.\"(1) This is not found in our\nGospels, but traces of the same tradition are met with elsewhere, as we\nhave already mentioned;(2) and it is probable that Justin either found\nall these particulars in the Gospel of which he made use, or that he\nrefers to traditions familiar amongst the early Christians.\n\nTischendorfs next point is that Justin quotes the words of Zechariah\nxii. 10, with the same variation from the text of the Septuagint as John\nxix. 37--\"They shall look on him whom they pierced\" [------]\n\n{303}\n\n[------] instead of [------], arising out of an emendation of the\ntranslation of the Hebrew original. Tischendorf says: \"Nothing can be\nmore opposed to probability, than the supposition that John and Justin\nhave here, independently of each other, followed a translation of the\nHebrew text which elsewhere has remained unknown to us.\"(2) The fact is,\nhowever, that the translation which has been followed is not elsewhere\nunknown. We meet with the same variation, much earlier, in the only book\nof the New Testament which Justin mentions, and with which, therefore,\nhe was beyond any doubt well acquainted, Rev. i. 7: \"Behold he cometh\nwith clouds, and every eye shall see him [------], and they which\npierced [------] him, and all the tribes of the earth shall bewail him.\nYea, Amen.\" This is a direct reference to the passage in Zech. xii. 10.\nIt will be remembered that the quotation in the Gospel: \"They shall look\nupon him whom they pierced,\" is made solely in reference to the thrust\nof the lance in the side of Jesus, while that of the Apocalypse is a\nconnection of the prophecy with the second coming of Christ, which,\nexcept in a spiritual sense, is opposed to the fourth Gospel. Now,\nJustin upon each occasion quotes the whole passage also in reference\nto the second coming of Christ as the Apocalypse does, and this alone\nsettles the point so far as these two sources are concerned. If Justin\nderived his variation from either of the Canonical works,\n\n{304}\n\ntherefore, we should be bound to conclude that it must have been from\nthe Apocalypse. The correction of the Septuagint version, which has thus\nbeen traced back as far as a.d. 68 when the Apocalypse was composed,\nwas noticed by Jerome in his Commentary on the text;(1) and Aquila, a\ncontemporary of Irenaeus, and later Symmachus and Theodotion, as well\nas others, similarly adopted [------]. Ten important MSS., of the\nSeptuagint, at least, have the reading of Justin and of the Apocalypse,\nand these MSS. likewise frequently agree with the other peculiarities of\nJustin's text. In all probability, as Credner, who long ago pointed out\nall these circumstances, conjectured, an emendation of the rendering of\nthe LXX. had early been made, partly in Christian interest and partly\nfor the critical improvement of the text,(2) and this amended version\nwas used by Justin and earlier Christian writers. Ewald(3)3 and some\nothers suggest that probably [------] originally stood in the Septuagint\ntext. Every consideration is opposed to the dependence of Justin upon\nthe fourth Gospel for the variation.(4)\n\nThe next and last point advanced by Tischendorf is a passage in Apol. i.\n61, which is compared with John iii.\n\n{305}\n\n3--5, and in order to show the exact character of the two passages, we\nshall at once place them in parallel columns:--[------]\n\nThis is the most important passage by which apologists endeavour to\nestablish the use by Justin of the\n\n{306}\n\nfourth Gospel, and it is that upon which the whole claim may be said\nto rest. We shall be able to appreciate the nature of the case by the\nweakness of its strongest evidence. The first point which must have\nstruck any attentive reader, must have been the singular difference\nof the language of Justin, and the absence of the characteristic\npeculiarities of the Johannine Gospel. The double \"verily, verily,\"\nwhich occurs twice even in these three verses, and constantly throughout\nthe Gospel(1), is absent in Justin; and apart from the total difference\nof the form in which the whole passage is given (the episode of\nNicodemus being entirely ignored), and omitting minor differences, the\nfollowing linguistic variations occur: Justin has: [------]\n\nIndeed it is almost impossible to imagine a more complete difference,\nboth in form and language, and it seems to us that there does not\nexist a single linguistic trace by which the passage in Justin can be\nconnected with the fourth Gospel. The fact that Justin knows nothing\nof the expression [------] (\"born from above\"), upon which the whole\nstatement in the fourth Gospel turns, but uses a totally different word,\n[------] (born again),\n\n{307}\n\nis of great significance. Tischendorf wishes to translate [------]\n\"anew\" (or again), as the version of Luther and the authorised English\ntranslation read, and thus render the [------] of Justin a fair\nequivalent for it; but even this would not alter the fact that so little\ndoes Justin quote the fourth Gospel, that he has not even the test word\nof the passage. The word [------], however, certainly cannot here\nbe taken to signify anything but \"from above\"(l)--from God, from\nheaven,--and this is not only its natural meaning, but the term is\nseveral times used in other parts of the fourth Gospel, always with\nthis same sense,(2) and there is nothing which warrants a different\ninterpretation in this place. On the contrary, the same signification\nis manifestly indicated by the context, and forms the point of the whole\nlesson. \"Except a man be born of water and _of Spirit_(3) he cannot\nenter into the kingdom of God. 6. That which hath been born of the flesh\nis flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is Spirit. 7.\nMarvel not that I said unto thee: ye must be born from above\" [------].\n\nThe explanation of [------] is given in verse 6. The birth \"of the\nSpirit\" is the birth \"from above,\" which is essential to entrance into\nthe kingdom of God.(4)\n\n{308}\n\nThe sense of the passage in Justin is different and much more simple.\nHe is speaking of regeneration through baptism, and the manner in which\nconverts are consecrated to God when they are made new [------] through\nChrist. After they are taught to fast and pray for the remission of\ntheir sins, he says: \"They are then taken by us where there is water,\nthat they may be regenerated (\"born again,\" [------]), by the same\nmanner of regeneration (being born again, [------]) by which we also\nwere regenerated (born again, [------]. For in the name of the Father of\nthe Universe the Lord God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the\nHoly Spirit they then make the washing with the water. For the Christ\nalso said, 'unless ye be born again [------], ye shall not enter into\nthe kingdom of heaven., Now that it is impossible for those who have\nonce been born to go into the matrices of the parents is evident to\nall.\" And then he quotes Isaiah i. 16--20, \"Wash you, make you clean,\n&c.,\" and then proceeds: \"And regarding this (Baptism) we have been\ntaught this reason. Since at our first birth we were born without our\nknowledge, and perforce, &c., and brought up in evil habits and wicked\nways, therefore in order that we should not continue children of\nnecessity and ignorance, but become children of election and knowledge,\nand obtain in the water remission of sins which we had previously\ncommitted, the name of the Father of the Universe and Lord God is\npronounced over him who desires to be born again [------], and has\nrepented of his sins, &c.\"(1) Now it is clear that whereas Justin speaks\nsimply of regeneration by baptism, the fourth Gospel indicates a later\ndevelopment of the doctrine by spiritualizing the idea,\n\n{309}\n\nand requiring not only regeneration through the water (\"Except a man be\nborn of water\"), but that a man should be born from above (\"and of the\nSpirit\"), not merely [------], but [------]. The word used by Justin\nis that which was commonly employed in the Church for regeneration, and\nother instances of it occur in the New Testament.(1)\n\nThe idea of regeneration or being born again, as essential to\nconversion, was quite familiar to the Jews themselves, and Lightfoot\ngives instances of this from Talmudic writings: \"If any one become a\nproselyte he is like a child 'new born.' The Gentile that is made a\nproselyte and the servant that is made free he is like a child\nnew born.\"(2) This is, of course, based upon the belief in special\nprivileges granted to the Jews, and the Gentile convert admitted to\na share in the benefits of the Messiah became a Jew by spiritual new\nbirth. Justin in giving the words of Jesus clearly professed to make an\nexact quotation:(3) \"For Christ also said: Unless ye be born again,\n&c.\" It must be remembered, however, that Justin is addressing the Roman\nemperors, who would not understand the expression that it was necessary\nto be \"born again\" in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. He,\ntherefore, explains that he does not mean a physical new birth by men\nalready born; and this explanation may be regarded as natural, under the\ncircumstances, and independent of any written source. In any case, the\nstriking difference of his language from that of the fourth Gospel at\nleast forbids the inference that it must necessarily have been derived\nfrom that Gospel.\n\n{310}\n\nTo argue otherwise would be to assume the utterly untenable premiss that\nsayings of Jesus which are maintained to be historical were not recorded\nin more than four Gospels, and indeed in this instance were limited\nto one. This is not only in itself inadmissible, but historically\nuntrue,(1) and a moment of consideration must convince every impartial\nmind that it cannot legitimately be asserted that an express quotation\nof a supposed historical saying must have been taken from a parallel in\none of our Gospels, from which it differs so materially in language and\ncircumstance, simply because that Gospel happens to be the only one\nnow surviving which contains particulars somewhat similar. The express\nquotation fundamentally differs from the fourth Gospel, and the natural\nexplanation of Justin which follows is not a quotation at all, and\nlikewise fundamentally differs from the Johannine parallel. Justin not\nonly ignores the peculiar episode in the fourth Gospel in which the\npassage occurs, but neither here nor anywhere throughout his writings\nmakes any mention of Nicodemus. The accident of survival is almost the\nonly justification of the affirmation that the fourth Gospel is the\nsource of Justin's quotation. On the other hand, we have many strong\nindications of another source. In our first Synoptic (xviii. 3), we\nfind traces of another version of the saying of Jesus, much more nearly\ncorresponding with the quotation of Justin: \"And he said, verily I say\nunto you: Except ye be turned and become as the little children ye shall\nnot enter into the kingdom of heaven.\"(2) The last phrase of this saying\nis literally the same as the quotation of Justin,\n\n{311}\n\nand gives his expression, \"kingdom of heaven,\" so characteristic of\nhis Gospel, and so foreign to the Johannine. We meet with a similar\nquotation in connection with baptism, still more closely agreeing with\nJustin, in the Clementine Homilies, xi. 26: \"Verily I say unto you:\nExcept ye be born again [------] by living water in the name of Father,\nSon, and Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.\"(1)\nHere again we have both the [------], and the [------] as well as the\nreference only to water in the baptism, and this is strong confirmation\nof the existence of a version of the passage, different from the\nJohannine, from which Justin quotes. As both the author of the\nClementines and Justin probably made use of the Gospel according to\nthe Hebrews, some most competent critics have, with reason, adopted the\nconclusion that the passage we are discussing was probably derived from\nthat Gospel; at any rate it cannot be maintained as a quotation from our\nfourth Gospel,(2) and it is, therefore, of no value as evidence even\n\n{312}\n\nfor its existence. \"Were it successfully traced to that work, however,\nthe passage would throw no light on the authorship and character of the\nfourth Gospel.\n\nIf we turn for a moment from this last of the points of evidence adduced\nby Tischendorf for the use of the fourth Gospel by Justin, to consider\nhow far the circumstances of the history of Jesus narrated by Justin\nbear upon this quotation, we have a striking confirmation of the results\nwe have otherwise attained. Not only is there a total absence from his\nwritings of the peculiar terminology and characteristic expressions of\nthe fourth Gospel, but there is not an allusion made to any one of the\noccurrences exclusively narrated by that Gospel, although many of these,\nand many parts of the Johannine discourses of Jesus, would have been\npeculiarly suitable for his purpose. We have already pointed out the\nremarkable absence of any use of the expressions by which the Logos\ndoctrine is stated in the prologue. We may now point out that Justin\nmakes no reference whatever to any of the special miracles of the fourth\nGospel. He is apparently quite ignorant even of the raising of Lazarus:\non the other hand, he gives representations of the birth, life, and\ndeath of Jesus, which are ignored by the Johannine Gospel, and are\nindeed opposed to its whole conception of Jesus as the Logos; and when\nhe refers to circumstances which are also narrated in that Gospel, his\naccount is different from that which it gives. Justin perpetually\nrefers to the birth of Jesus by the Virgin of the race of David and the\nPatriarchs; his Logos thus becomes man,(1) (not \"flesh\"--[------],not\n[------]); he is born in a cave in Bethlehem;(2) he grows in stature and\nintellect by the use of ordinary means like other men; he is accounted\n\n{ 313}\n\nthe son of Joseph the carpenter and Mary: he himself works as a\ncarpenter, and makes ploughs and yokes.(1) When Jesus is baptized by\nJohn, a fire is kindled in Jordan; and Justin evidently knows nothing\nof John's express declaration in the fourth Gospel, that Jesus is the\nMessiah, the Son of God.(2) Justin refers to the change of name of Simon\nin connection with his recognition of the Master as \"Christ the Son of\nGod,\"(3) which is narrated quite differently in the fourth Gospel (i.\n40--42), where, indeed, such a declaration is put into the mouth\nof Nathaniel (i. 49), which Justin ignores. Justin does not mention\nNicodemus either in connection with the statement regarding the\nnecessity of being \"born from above,\" or with the entombment (xix. 39).\nHe has the prayer and agony in the garden,(4) which the fourth Gospel\nexcludes, as well as the cries on the cross, which that Gospel ignores.\nThen, according to Justin, the last supper takes place on the 14th\nNisan,(5) whilst the fourth Gospel, ignoring the Passover and last\nsupper, represents the last meal as eaten on the 13th Nisan (John xiii.\n1 f., cf. xviii. 28). He likewise contradicts the fourth Gospel, in\nlimiting the work of Jesus to one year. In fact, it is impossible for\nwritings, so full of quotations of the words of Jesus and of allusions\nto the events of his life, more completely to ignore or vary from the\nfourth Gospel throughout; and if it could be shown that Justin was\nacquainted with such a work, it would follow certainly that he did not\nconsider it an Apostolical or authoritative composition.\n\n     5  \"And it is written that on the day of the Passover you\n     seized him, and likewise during the Passover you crucified\n     him.\" Dial., Ill; cf. Dial. 70; Matt, xxvi. 2, 17 ff., 30,\n     57.\n\n{314}\n\nWe may add that, as Justin so distinctly and directly refers to the\nApostle John as the author of the Apocalypse,(1) there is confirmation\nof the conclusion, otherwise arrived at, that he did not, and could not,\nknow the Gospel and also ascribe it to him. Finally, the description\nwhich Justin gives of the manner of teaching of Jesus excludes the idea\nthat he knew the fourth Gospel. \"Brief and concise were the sentences\nuttered by him: for he was no Sophist, but his word was the power of\nGod.\"(2) No one could for a moment assert that this description applies\nto the long and artificial discourses of the fourth Gospel, whilst,\non the other hand, it eminently describes the style of teaching in the\nSynoptics, with which the numerous Gospels in circulation amongst early\nChristians were, of course, more nearly allied.\n\nThe inevitable conclusion at which we must arrive is that, so far from\nindicating any acquaintance with the fourth Gospel, the writings of\nJustin not only do not furnish the slightest evidence of its existence,\nbut offer presumptive testimony against its Apostolical origin.\n\nTischendorf only devotes a short note to Hegesippus,(3) and does not\npretend to find in the fragments of his writings, preserved to us by\nEusebius, or the details of his life which he has recorded, any evidence\nfor our Gospels. Apologists generally admit that this source, at least,\nis barren of all testimony for the fourth Gospel, but Canon Westcott\ncannot renounce so important a witness without an effort, and he\ntherefore boldly says: \"When he, (Hegesippus) speaks of 'the door of\nJesus' in his account of the death of St. James, there can be little\n\n{315}\n\ndoubt that he alludes to the language of our Lord recorded by St.\nJohn.\"(1) The passage to which Canon Westcott refers, but which he does\nnot quote, is as follows:--\"Certain, therefore, of the seven heretical\nparties amongst the people, already described by me in the Memoirs,\ninquired of him, what was the door of Jesus; and he declared this\n([------]--Jesus) to be the Saviour. From which some believed that Jesus\nis the Christ. But the aforementioned heretics did not believe either a\nresurrection, or that he shall come to render to every one according\nto his works. As many as believed, however, did so, through James.\" The\nrulers fearing that the people would cause a tumult, from considering\nJesus to be the Messiah [------], entreat James to persuade them\nconcerning Jesus, and prevent their being deceived by him; and in order\nthat he may be heard by the multitude, they place James upon a wing\nof the temple, and cry to him: \"O just man, whom we all are bound\nto believe, inasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the\ncrucified, declare plainly to us what is the door of Jesus.\"(2) To\nfind in this a reference to the fourth Gospel, requires a good deal of\napologetic ingenuity. It is perfectly clear that, as an allusion to John\nx. 7, 9: \"I am the door,\" the question: \"What is the door of Jesus?\"\nis mere nonsense, and the reply of James totally irrelevant. Such a\nquestion in reference to the discourse\n\n{316}\n\nin the fourth Gospel, moreover, in the mouths of the antagonistic\nScribes and Pharisees, is quite inconceivable, and it is unreasonable to\nsuppose that it has any connection with it. Various emendations of the\ntext have been proposed to obviate the difficulty of the question, but\nnone of these have been adopted, and it has now been generally accepted,\nthat [------] is used in an idiomatic sense. The word is very frequently\nemployed in such a manner, or symbolically, in the New Testament,(1) and\nby the Fathers. The Jews were well acquainted with a similar use of\nthe word in the Old Testament, in some of the Messianic Psalms, as for\ninstance: Ps. cxviii. 19, 20 (cxvii. 19, 20 Sept.). 19,\" Open to me the\ngates [------] of righteousness; entering into them, I will give praise\nto the Lord;\" 20, \"This is the gate [------] of the Lord, the righteous\nshall enter into it\"(2) Quoting this passage, Clement of Alexandria\nremarks: \"But explaining the saying of the prophet, Barnabas adds: Many\ngates [------] being open, that which is in righteousness is in Christ,\nin which all those who enter are blessed.\"(3) Grabe explains the passage\nof Hegesippus, by a reference to the frequent allusions in Scripture to\nthe two ways: one of light, the other of darkness; the one leading to\nlife, the other to death; as well as the simile of two gates which is\ncoupled with them, as in Matt. viL 13 ff. He, therefore, explains the\nquestion of the rulers: \"What is the door of Jesus?\" as an inquiry into\nthe judgment of James concerning him:\n\n{317}\n\nwhether he was a teacher of truth or a deceiver of the people; whether\nbelief in him was the way and gate of life and salvation, or of death\nand perdition.(1) He refers as an illustration to the Epistle of\nBarnabas, xviii.: \"There are two ways of teaching and of power: one of\nlight, the other of darkness. But there is a great difference between\nthe two ways.\"(2) The Epistle, under the symbol of the two ways,\nclassifies the whole of the moral law.(3) In the Clementine Homilies,\nxviii. 17, there is a version of the saying, Matt. vii. 13f, derived\nfrom another source, in which \"way\" is more decidedly even than in our\nfirst Synoptic made the equivalent of \"gate:\" \"Enter ye through the\nnarrow and straitened way [------] through which ye shall enter into\nlife.\" Eusebius himself, who has preserved the fragment, evidently\nunderstood it distinctly in the same sense, and he gave its true meaning\nin another of his works, where he paraphrases the question into\nan enquiry, as to the opinion which Jamas held concerning Jesus\n[------].(4)\n\nThis view is supported by many learned men, and Routh has pointed out\nthat Ernesti considered he would have been right in making [------],\ndoctrine, teaching, the equivalent of [------], although he admits\nthat Eusebius does not once use it in his history, in connection with\nChristian doctrine.(5)\n\n{318}\n\nHe might, however, have instanced this passage, in which it is clearly\nused in this sense, and so explained by Eusebius. In any other sense the\nquestion is simple nonsense. There is evidently no intention on the part\nof the Scribes and Pharisees here to ridicule, in asking: \"What is the\ndoor of Jesus?\" but they desire James to declare plainly to the people,\nwhat is the teaching of Jesus, and his personal pretension. To suppose\nthat the rulers of the Jews set James upon a wing of the temple,\nin order that they might ask him a question, for the benefit of the\nmultitude, based upon a discourse in the fourth Gospel, unknown to the\nSynoptics, and even in relation to which such an inquiry as: \"What is\nthe door of Jesus?\" becomes mere ironical nonsense, surpasses all that\nwe could have imagined even of apologetic zeal.\n\nWe have already(1) said all that is necessary with regard to Hegesippus,\nin connection with the Synoptics, and need not add more here. It is\ncertain that had he said anything interesting about our Gospels and,\nwe may say, particularly about the fourth, the fact would have been\nrecorded by Eusebius.\n\nNor need we add much to our remarks regarding Papias of Hierapolis.(2)\nIt is perfectly clear that the works of Matthew and Mark,(3) regarding\nwhich he records\n\n     3 It is evident that Papias did not regard the works by\n     \"Matthew\" and \"Mark\" which he mentions, as of any authority.\n     Indeed, all that he reports regarding the latter is merely\n     apologetic, and in deprecation of criticism.\n\n{319}\n\nsuch important particulars, are not the Gospels in our Canon, which pass\nunder their names; he does not seem to have known anything of the third\nSynoptic; and there is no reason to suppose that he referred to the\nfourth Gospel or made use of it. He is, therefore, at least, a total\nblank so far as the Johannine Gospel and our third Synoptic are\nconcerned, but he is more than this, and it may, we think, be concluded\nthat Papias was not acquainted with any such Gospels which he regarded\nas Apostolic compositions, or authoritative documents. Had he said\nanything regarding the composition or authorship of the fourth Gospel,\nEusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact, and this silence of\nPapias is strong presumptive evidence against the Johannine Gospel.(1)\nTischendorfs argument in regard to the Phrygian Bishop is mainly\ndirected to this point, and he maintains that the silence of Eusebius\ndoes not make Papias a witness against the fourth Gospel, and does not\ninvolve the conclusion that he did not know it, inasmuch as it was not,\nhe affirms, the purpose of Eusebius to record the mention or use of\nthe books of the New Testament which were not disputed.(2) It might be\ncontended that this reasoning is opposed to the practice and express\ndeclaration of Eusebius himself, who says: \"But in the course of the\nhistory I shall, with the successions (from the Apostles), carefully\nintimate what ecclesiastical writers of the various periods made use of\n\n{320}\n\nthe Antilegomena (or disputed writings), and which of them, and what\nhas been stated by these as well regarding the collected [------] and\nHomologumena (or accepted writings), as regarding those which are not of\nthis kind.\"(1) It is not worth while, however, to dwell upon this, here.\nThe argument in the case of Papias stands upon a broader basis. It is\nadmitted that Eusebius engages carefully to record what ecclesiastical\nwriters state regarding the Homologumena, and that he actually does\nso. Now Papias has himself expressed the high value he attached to\ntradition, and his eagerness in seeking information from the Presbyters.\nThe statements regarding the Gospels composed by Matthew and Mark,\nquoted by Eusebius, are illustrative at once both of the information\ncollected by Papias and of that cited by Eusebius. How comes it,\nthen, that nothing whatever is said about the fourth Gospel, a work so\npeculiar and of such exceptional importance, said to be composed by the\nApostle whom Jesus loved? Is it possible to suppose that when Papias\ncollected from the Presbyter the facts which he has recorded concerning\nMatthew and Mark he would not also have inquired about a Gospel by\nJohn had he known of it? Is it possible that he could have had nothing\ninteresting to tell about a work presenting so many striking and\ndistinctive features? Had he collected any information on the subject he\nwould certainly have recorded it, and as certainly Eusebius would have\nquoted what he said,(2) as he did the account of the other two Gospels,\nfor he even mentions that Papias\n\n{321}\n\nmade use of the 1st Epistle of John, and 1st Epistle of Peter, two\nequally accepted writings. The legitimate presumption, therefore, is\nthat, as Eusebius did not mention the fact, he did not find anything\nregarding the fourth Gospel in the work of Papias, and that Papias\nwas not acquainted with it. This presumption is confirmed by the\ncircumstance that when Eusebius writes, elsewhere (H. E. iii. 24), of\nthe order of the Gospels, and the composition of John's Gospel, he has\nno greater authority to give for his account than mere tradition: \"they\nsay\" [------].\n\nProceeding from this merely negative argument, Tischendorf endeavours\nto show that not only is Papias not a witness against the fourth Gospel,\nbut that he presents testimony in its favour. The first reason he\nadvances is that Eusebius states: \"The same (Papias) made use of\ntestimonies out of the first Epistle of John, and likewise out of that\nof Peter.\"(l) On the supposed identity of the authorship of the Epistle\nand Gospel, Tischendorf, as in the case of Polycarp, claims this as\nevidence for the fourth Gospel. Eusebius, however, does not quote the\npassages upon which he bases this statement, and knowing his inaccuracy\nand the hasty and uncritical manner in which he and the Fathers\ngenerally jump at such conclusions, we must reject this as sufficient\nevidence that Papias really did use the Epistle, and that Eusebius did\nnot adopt his opinion from a mere superficial analogy of passages.(2)\nBut if it were certain that Papias actually quoted from the Epistle, it\ndoes not in the least follow that he\n\n{322}\n\nascribed it to the Apostle John, and the use of the Epistle would\nscarcely affect the question as to the character and authorship of the\nfourth Gospel\n\nThe next testimony advanced by Tischendorf is indeed of an extraordinary\ncharacter. There is a Latin MS. (Vat. Alex. 14) in the Vatican, which\nTischendorf assigns to the ninth century, in which there is a preface\nby an unknown hand to the Gospel according to John, which commences as\nfollows: \"Evangelium iohannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab\niohannc ad hue in corpore constituto, sicut papias nomine hicrapolitanus\ndiscipulus iohannis carus in exotericis id est in extremis quinque\nlibris retulit.\" \"The Gospel of John was published and given to the\nchurches by John whilst he was still in the flesh, as Papias, named of\nHierapolis, an esteemed disciple of John, related in his 'Exoterics'\nthat is his last five books.\" Tischendorf says: \"There can, therefore,\nbe no more decided declaration made of the testimony of Papias for the\nJohannine Gospel.\"(1) He wishes to end the quotation here, and\nonly refers to the continuation, which he is obliged to admit to be\nuntenable, in a note. The passage proceeds: \"Disscripsit vero evangelium\ndictante iohanne recte.\" \"He (Papias) indeed wrote out the Gospel,\nJohn duly dictating;\" then follows another passage regarding Marcion,\nrepresenting him also as a contemporary of John, which Tischendorf\nlikewise confesses to be untrue.(2) Now Tischendorf admits that the\nwriter desires it to be understood that he derived the information that\nPapias wrote the fourth Gospel at the dictation of John likewise from\nthe work of Papias, and as it is perfectly impossible, by his own\nadmissions, that Papias, who was not a\n\n{323}\n\ncontemporary of the Apostle, could have stated this, the whole passage\nis clearly fabulous and written by a person who never saw the book at\nall. This extraordinary piece of evidence is so obviously absurd that\nit is passed over in silence by other critics, even of the strongest\napologetic tendency, and it stands here a pitiable instance of the\narguments to which destitute criticism can be reduced.\n\nIn order to do full justice to the last of the arguments of Tischendorf,\nwe shall give it in his own words: \"Before we separate from Papias,\nwe have still to consider one testimony for the Gospel of John which\nIrenaeus, v. 36, Sec. 2, quotes out of the very mouth of the Presbyters,\nthose high authorities of Papias: 'And therefore, say they, the Lord\ndeclared: In my Father's house are many mansions(1) (John xiv. 2). As\nthe Presbyters set this declaration in connection with the blessedness\nof the righteous in the City of God, in Paradise, in Heaven, according\nas they bear thirty, sixty, or one hundred-fold fruit, nothing is\nmore probable than that Irenaeus takes this whole declaration of the\nPresbyters, which he gives, Sec.Sec. 1-2, like the preceding description of\nthe thousand years' reign, from the work of Papias. But whether this be\nits origin or not, the authority of the Presbyters is in any case higher\nthan that of Papias,\" &c.(1) Now in the quotation from Irenseus given in\nthis\n\n{324}\n\npassage, Tischendorf renders the oblique construction of the text by\ninserting \"say they,\" referring to the Presbyters of Papias, and, as he\ndoes not give the original, he should at least have indicated that these\nwords are supplementary. We shall endeavour as briefly as possible to\nstate the facts of the case.\n\nIrenaeus, with many quotations from Scripture, is arguing that our bodies\nare preserved, and that the Saints who have suffered so much in the\nflesh shall in that flesh receive the fruits of their labours. In v. 33,\nSec. 2, he refers to the saying given in Matt. xix. 29 (Luke xviii. 29, 30)\nthat whosoever has left lands, &c., because of Christ shall receive a\nhundred-fold in this world, and in the next, eternal life; and then,\nenlarging on the abundance of the blessings in the Millennial kingdom,\nhe affirms that Creation will be renovated, and the Earth acquire\nwonderful fertility, and he adds: Sec. 3, \"As the Presbyters who saw John\nthe disciple of the Lord, remember that they heard from him, how\nthe Lord taught concerning those times and said:\" &c. (\"Quemadmodum\npres-byteri meminerunt, qui Joannem discipulum Domini viderunt, audisse\nse ab eo, quemadmodum de temporibus illis docebat Dominus, et dicebat,\"\n&c.), and then he quotes the passage: \"The days will come in which vines\nwill grow each having ten thousand Branches,\" &c.; and \"In like manner\nthat a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears,\" &c. With regard\nto these he says, at the beginning of the next paragraph, v. 33, Sec. 4,\n\"These things are testified in writing by Papias, a hearer of John and\nassociate of Polycarp, an ancient\n\n{323}\n\nman, in the fourth of his books: for there were five books composed\nby him.(1) And he added saying: 'But these things are credible to\nbelievers. And Judas the traitor not believing, and asking how shall\nsuch growths be effected by the Lord, the Lord said: They who shall come\nto them shall see.' Prophesying of these times, therefore, Isaiah says:\n'The Wolf also shall feed with the Lamb,' &c. &c. (quoting Isaiah xi.\n6--9), and again he says, recapitulating: 'Wolves and lambs shall then\nfeed together,'\" &c. (quoting Isaiah lxv. 25), and so on, continuing his\nargument. It is clear that Irenaeus introduces the quotation from Papias,\nand ending his reference at: \"They who shall come to them shall see,\" he\ncontinues, with a quotation from Isaiah, his own train of reasoning. We\ngive this passage to show the manner in which Irenaeus proceeds. He then\ncontinues with the same subject, quoting (v. 34,35) Isaiah, Ezekiel,\nJeremiah, Daniel, the Apocalypse, and sayings found in the New Testament\nbearing upon the Millennium. In c. 35 he argues that the prophecies he\nquotes of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Apocalypse must not be allegorized\naway, but that they literally describe the blessings to be enjoyed,\nafter the coming of Antichrist and the resurrection, in the New\nJerusalem on earth, and he quotes Isaiah vi. 12, lx. 5, 21, and a long\npassage from Baruch iv. 36, v. 9 (which he ascribes to Jeremiah), Isaiah\nxlix. 16, Gala-tians iv. 26, Rev. xxi. 2, xx. 2--15, xxi. 1--6, all\ndescriptive, as he maintains, of the Millennial kingdom prepared for the\nSaints; and then in v. 36, the last chapter of his work on Heresies, as\nif resuming his\n\n     1 Eusebius has preserved the Greek of this passage (H. E.,\n     iii. 39), and goes on to contradict the statement of Irenaeus\n     that Papias was a hearer and contemporary of the Apostles.\n     Eusebius states that Papias in his prefaco by no means\n     asserts that he was.\n\n{326}\n\nprevious argument, he proceeds:(1) Sec. 1. \"And that these things shall\never remain without end Isaiah says: 'For like as the new heaven and the\nnew earth which I make remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your\nseed and your name continue,'(2) and as the Presbyters say, then those\nwho have been deemed worthy of living in heaven shall go thither, and\nothers shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess\nthe glory of the City; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen as those\nwho see him shall be worthy. Sec. 2. But that there is this distinction of\ndwelling [------] of those bearing fruit the hundred fold, and of the\n(bearers) of the sixty fold, and of the (bearers of) the thirty fold: of\nwhom some indeed shall be taken up into the heavens, some shall live\nin Paradise, and some shall inhabit the City, and that for this reason\n[------] propter hoc) the Lord declared: In the... (plural) of my Father\nare many mansions [------].(3) For all things are of God, who prepares\nfor all the fitting habitation, as his Word says, that distribution is\nmade to all by the Father according\n\n{327}\n\nas each is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch upon which they\nrecline who are invited to banquet at the Wedding. The Presbyters\ndisciples of the Apostles state that this is the order and arrangement\nof those who are saved, and that by such steps they advance,\"(1) &c. &c.\n\nNow it is impossible for any one who attentively considers the whole of\nthis passage, and who makes himself acquainted with the manner in which\nIrenaeus conducts his argument, and interweaves it with quotations, to\nassert that the phrase we are considering must have been taken from\na book referred to three chapters earlier, and was not introduced by\nIrenaeus from some other source. In the passage from the commencement of\nthe second paragraph Irenaeus enlarges upon, and illustrates, what \"the\nPresbyters say\" regarding the blessedness of the saints, by quoting the\nview held as to the distinction between those bearing fruit thirty fold,\nsixty fold, and one hundred fold,(2) and the interpretation given of the\n\n{328}\n\nsaying regarding \"many mansions,\" but the source of his quotation is\nquite indefinite, and may simply be the exegesis of his own day. That\nthis is probably the case is shown by the continuation: \"And this is\nthe Couch upon which they recline who are invited to banquet at the\nWedding\"--an allusion to the marriage supper upon which Irenaeus had\npreviously enlarged;(1) immediately after which phrase, introduced\nby Irenaeus himself, he says: \"The Presbyters, the disciples of the\napostles, state that this is the order and arrangement of those who are\nsaved,\" &c. Now, if the preceding passages had been a mere quotation\nfrom the Presbyters of Papias, such a remark would have been out of\nplace and useless, but being the exposition of the prevailing views,\nIrenaeus confirms it and prepares to wind up the whole subject by the\ngeneral statement that the Presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles,\naffirm that this is the order and arrangement of those who are saved,\nand that by such steps they advance and ascend through the Spirit to the\nSon, and through the Son to the Father, &c., and a few sentences after\nhe closes his work.\n\nIn no case, however, can it be legitimately affirmed that the citation\nof \"the Presbyters,\" and the \"Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles,\" is\na reference to the work of Papias. When quoting \"the Presbyters who\nsaw John the disciple of the Lord,\" three chapters before, Irenaeus\ndistinctly states that Papias testifies what he quotes in writing in the\nfourth of his books, but there is nothing whatever to indicate that\n\"the Presbyters,\" and \"the Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles,\"\nsubsequently referred to, after a complete change of context, have\nanything to do with Papias. The references to Presbyters in this\n\n{329}\n\nwork of Irenaeus are very numerous, and when we remember the importance\nwhich the Bishop of Lyons attached to \"that tradition which comes from\nthe Apostles, which is preserved in the churches by a succession\nof Presbyters,\"(1) the reference before us assumes a very different\ncomplexion. In one place, Irenaeus quotes \"the divine Presbyter\"\n[------], \"the God-loving Presbyter\" [------],(2) who wrote verses\nagainst the heretic Marcus. Elsewhere he supports his extraordinary\nstatement that the public career of Jesus, instead of being limited to\na single year, extended over a period of twenty years, and that he was\nnearly fifty when he suffered,(3) by the appeal: \"As the gospel and all\nthe Presbyters testify, who in Asia met with John the disciple of the\nLord (stating) that these things were transmitted to them by John.\nFor he continued among them till the times of Trajan.\"(4) That these\nPresbyters are not quoted from the work of Papias may be inferred\nfrom the fact that Eusebius, who had his work, quotes the passage from\nIrenseus without allusion to Papias, and as he adduces two witnesses\nonly, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, to prove the assertion\nregarding John, he would certainly have referred to the earlier\nauthority, had the work of Papias contained the statement, as he does\nfor the stories regarding the\n\n{330}\n\ndaughters of the Apostle Philip; the miracle in favour of Justus, and\nother matters.(1) We need not refer to Clement, nor to Polycarp, who had\nbeen \"taught by Apostles,\" and the latter of whom Irenaeus knew in his\nyouth.(2) Irenaeus in one place also gives a long account of the teaching\nof some one upon the sins of David and other men of old, which he\nintroduces: \"As I have heard from a certain Presbyter, who had heard\nit from those who had seen the Apostles, and from those who learnt from\nthem.\"(3) &c. Further on, speaking evidently of a different person,\nhe says: \"In this manner also a Presbyter disciple of the Apostles,\nreasoned regarding the two Testaments:\"(4) and quotes fully. In another\nplace Irenaeus, after quoting Gen. ii. 8, \"And God planted a Paradise\neastward in Eden,\" &c., states: \"Wherefore the Presbyters who are\ndisciples of the Apostles [------], say that those who were translated\nhad been translated thither,\" there to remain till the consummation of\nall things awaiting immortality, and Irenaeus explains that it was into\nthis Paradise that Paul was caught up (2 Cor. xii. 4).(5) It seems\nhighly probable that these \"Presbyters the disciples of the Apostles\"\nwho are quoted on Paradise, are the same \"Presbyters the disciples of\nthe Apostles\" referred to on the same subject (v. 36, Sec.Sec. 1,2) whom we\n\n{331}\n\nare discussing, but there is nothing whatever to connect them with\nPapias. He also speaks of the Scptuagint translation of the Bible as the\nversion of the \"Presbyters,\"(1) and on several occasions he calls Luke\n\"the follower and disciple of the Apostles\" (Sectator et discipulus\napostolorum)(2), and characterizes Mark as \"the interpreter and follower\nof Peter\" (interpres et sectator Petri)(3), and refers to both as having\nlearnt from the words of the Apostles.(4) Here is, therefore, a wide\nchoice of Presbyters, including even Evangelists, to whom the\nreference of Irenaeus may with equal right be ascribed,(5) so that it\nis unreasonable to claim it as an allusion to the work of Papias.(6) In\nfact, Dr. Tischendorf and Canon Westcott(7) stand almost alone in\n\n     5   In the New Testament the term Presbyter is even used in\n     reference to Patriarchs and Prophets.   Heb. xi. 2; cf.\n     Matt xv. 2; Mark vii. 3, 5.\n\n     6  With regard to the Presbyters quoted by Irenaeus\n     generally. Cf. Routh, Reliq. Sacrse, i. p. 47 ff.\n\n{332}\n\nadvancing this passage as evidence that either Papias or his\nPresbyters(1) were acquainted with the fourth Gospel, and this renders\nthe statement which is made by them without any discussion all the more\nindefensible. Scarcely a single writer, however apologetic, seriously\ncites it amongst the external testimonies for the early existence of the\nGospel, and the few who do refer to the passage merely mention, in\norder to abandon, it.(2) So far as the question as to whether the fourth\nGospel was mentioned in the work of Papias is concerned, the passage has\npractically never entered into the controversy at all, the great mass\nof critics having recognized that it is of no evidential value whatever,\nand, by common consent, tacitly excluded it.(3) It is\n\n{333}\n\nadmitted that the Bishop of Hierapolis cannot be shown to have known\nthe fourth Gospel, and the majority affirm that he actually was not\nacquainted with it. Being, therefore, so completely detached from\nPapias, it is obvious that the passage does not in any way assist the\nfourth Gospel, but becomes assignable to vague tradition, and subject to\nthe cumulative force of objections, which prohibit an early date being\nascribed to so indefinite a reference.\n\nBefore passing on there is one other point to mention: Andrew of\nCaesarea, in the preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions\nthat Papias maintained \"the credibility\" [------] of that book, or in\nother words, its apostolic origin.(1) His strong millenarian opinions\nwould naturally make such a composition stand high in his esteem, if\nindeed it did not materially contribute to the formation of his views,\nwhich is still more probable. Apologists admit the genuineness of this\nstatement, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the acquaintance of\nPapias with the Apocalypse.(2) Canon Westcott, for instance, says: \"He\nmaintained, moreover, 'the divine inspiration' of the Apocalypse, and\ncommented, at least, upon part of it.\"(3) Now, he must, therefore,\nhave recognized the book as the work of the Apostle John, and we shall,\nhereafter, show that it is impossible that the author of the Apocalypse\nis the author of the Gospel; therefore, in this way also, Papias\n\n{334}\n\nis a witness against the Apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel.\n\nWe must now turn to the Clementine Homilies, although, as we have\nshown,(1) the uncertainty as to the date of this spurious work, and\nthe late period which must undoubtedly he assigned to its composition,\nrender its evidence of very little value for the canonical Gospels. The\npassages pointed out in the Homilies as indicating acquaintance with\nthe fourth Gospel were long advanced with hesitation, and were generally\nfelt to be inconclusive, but on the discovery of the concluding portion\nof the work and its publication by Dressel in 1853, it was found to\ncontain a passage which apologists now claim as decisive evidence of\nthe use of the Gospel, and which even succeeded in converting some\nindependent critics.(2) Tischendorf(3) and Canon Westcott,(4) in the\nfew lines devoted to the Clementines, do not refer to the earlier proof\npassages, but rely entirely upon that last discovered. With a view,\nhowever, to making the whole of the evidence clear, we shall give all of\nthe supposed allusions to the fourth Gospel, confronting them with the\ntext. The first is as follows:-- [------]\n\n{335}\n\n[------]\n\nThe first point which is apparent here is that there is a total\ndifference both in the language and real meaning of these two passages.\nThe Homily uses the word [------] instead of the [------] of the Gospel,\nand speaks of the gate of life, instead of the door of the Sheepfold. We\nhave already(1) discussed the passage in the Pastor of Hernias in which\nsimilar reference is made to the gate [------] into the kingdom of God,\nand need not here repeat our argument. In Matt. vii. 13, 14, we have the\ndirect description of the gate [------] which leads to life [------],\nand we have elsewhere quoted the Messianic Psalm cxviii. 19, 20: \"This\nis the gate of the Lord [------],(2) the righteous shall enter into it.\"\nIn another place, the author of the Homilies, referring to a passage\nparallel to, but differing from, Matt. xxiii. 2, which we have elsewhere\nconsidered,(3) and which is derived from a Gospel different from ours,\nsays: \"Hear _them_ (Scribes and Pharisees who sit upon Moses' seat), he\nsaid, as entrusted with the key of the kingdom which is knowledge, which\nalone is able to open the gate of life [------], through which alone is\nthe entrance to Eternal life.\"(4) Now in the very next chapter to that\nin which the saying which we are discussing occurs, a very few lines\nafter it indeed, we have the following passage: \"Indeed he said further:\n'I am he\n\n{336}\n\nconcerning whom Moses prophesied, saying: 'a prophet shall the Lord our\nGod raise up to you from among your brethren as also (he raised) me;\nhear ye him regarding all things, but whosoever will not hear that\nprophet he shall die.'\"(1) There is no such saying in the canonical\nGospels or other books of the New Testament attributed to Jesus, but a\nquotation from Deuteronomy xviii. 15 f., materially different from this,\noccurs twice in the Acts of the Apostles, once being put into the mouth\nof Peter applied to Jesus,(2) and the second time also applied to him,\nbeing quoted by Stephen.(3) It is quite clear that the writer is quoting\nfrom uncanonical sources, and here is another express declaration\nregarding himself: \"I am he,\" &c., which is quite in the spirit of the\npreceding passage which we are discussing, and probably derived from the\nsame source. In another place we find the following argument: \"But the\nway is the manner of life, as also Moses says: 'Behold I have set before\nthy face the way of life, and the way of death'(4) and in agreement the\nteacher said: 'Enter ye through the narrow and straitened way through\nwhich ye shall enter into life,' and in another place a certain person\ninquiring: 'What shall I do to inherit eternal life?' he intimated the\nCommandments of the Law.\"(5) It has to be observed that the Homilies\nteach the doctrine\n\n{337}\n\nthat the spirit in Jesus Christ had already appeared in Adam, and by a\nspecies of transmigration passed through Moses and the Patriarchs and\nprophets: \"who from the beginning of the world, changing names and\nforms, passes through Time [------] until, attaining his own seasons,\nbeing on account of his labours anointed by the mercy of God, he shall\nhave rest for ever.\"(1) Just in the same way, therefore, as the Homilies\nrepresent Jesus as quoting a prophecy of Moses, and altering it to a\npersonal declaration: \"I am the prophet,\" &c., so here again they make\nhim adopt this saying of Moses and, \"being the true prophet,\" declare:\n\"I am the gate or the way of life,\"--inculcating the same commandments\nof the law which the Gospel of the Homilies represents Jesus as coming\nto confirm and not to abolish. The whole system of doctrine of the\nClementines, as we shall presently see, indicated here even by the\ndefinition of \"the true prophet,\" is so fundamentally opposed to that of\nthe fourth Gospel that there is no reasonable ground for supposing that\nthe author made use of it, and this brief saying, varying as it does\nin language and sense from the parallel in that work, cannot prove\nacquaintance with it. There is good reason to believe that the author\nof the fourth Gospel, who most undeniably derived materials from earlier\nEvangelical works, may have drawn from a source likewise used by the\nGospel according to the Hebrews, and thence many analogies might well\nbe presented with quotations from that or kindred Gospels.(2) We find,\nfurther, this community of source in the fact,\n\n{338}\n\nthat in the fourth Gospel, without actual quotation, there is a\nreference to Moses, and, no doubt, to the very passage (Deut. xviii.\n15), which the Gospel of the Clementines puts into the mouth of Jesus,\nJohn v. 46: \"For had ye believed Moses ye would believe me, for he wrote\nof me.\" Whilst the Ebionite Gospel gave prominence to this view of the\ncase, the dogmatic system of the Logos Gospel did not permit of more\nthan mere reference to it.\n\nThe next passage pointed out as derived from the Johannine Gospel occurs\nin the same chapter: \"My sheep hear my voice.\" [------]\n\nThere was no more common representation amongst the Jews of the relation\nbetween God and his people than that of a Shepherd and his Sheep,(1)\nnor any more current expression than: hearing his voice. This brief\nanonymous saying was in all probability derived from the same source\nas the preceding,(2) which cannot be identified with the fourth Gospel.\nTradition, and the acknowledged existence of other written records of\nthe teaching of Jesus oppose any exclusive claim to this fragmentary\nsaying.\n\nWe have already discussed the third passage regarding the new birth in\nconnection with Justin,(3) and may therefore pass on to the last and\nmost important passage, to which we have referred as contained in the\nconcluding portion of the Homilies first published by Dressel in\n\n{339}\n\n1853. We subjoin it in contrast with the parallel in the fourth Gospel\n[------]\n\nIt is necessary that we should consider the context of this passage in\nthe Homily, the characteristics of which are markedly opposed to the\ntheory that it was derived from the fourth Gospel We must mention that,\nin the Clementines, the Apostle Peter is represented as maintaining that\nthe Scriptures are not all true, but are mixed up with what is false,\nand that on this account, and in order to inculcate the necessity\nof distinguishing between the true and the false, Jesus taught his\ndisciples, \"Be ye approved money changers,\"(1) an injunction not found\nin our Gospels. One of the points which Peter denies is the fall\nof Adam, a doctrine which, as Neander remarked, \"he must combat as\nblasphemy.\"(2) At the part we are\n\n{340}\n\nconsidering he is discussing with Simon,--under whose detested\npersonality, as we have elsewhere shown, the Apostle Paul is really\nattacked,--and refuting the charges he brings forward regarding the\norigin and continuance of evil. The Apostle Peter in the course of the\ndiscussion asserts that evil is the same as pain and death, but that\nevil does not exist eternally and, indeed, does not really exist at all,\nfor pain and death are only accidents without permanent force--pain is\nmerely the disturbance of harmony, and death nothing but the separation\nof soul from body.(1) The passions also must be classed amongst the\nthings which are accidental, and are not always to exist; but these,\nalthough capable of abuse, are in reality beneficial to the soul when\nproperly restrained, and carry out the will of God. The man who gives\nthem unbridled course ensures his own punishment.(2) Simon inquires why\nmen die prematurely and periodical diseases come, and also visitations\nof demons and of madness and other afflictions; in reply to which Peter\nexplains that parents by following their own pleasure in all things and\nneglecting proper sanitary considerations, produce a multitude of evils\nfor their children, and this either through\n\n{341}\n\ncarelessness or ignorance.(1) And then follows the passage we are\ndiscussing: \"Wherefore also our Teacher,\" &c., and at the end of the\nquotation, he continues: \"and truly such sufferings ensue in consequence\nof ignorance,\" and giving an instance,(2) he proceeds: \"Now the\nsufferings which you before mentioned are the consequence of ignorance,\nand certainly not of an evil act, which has been committed,\"(3) &c. Now\nit is quite apparent that the peculiar variation from the parallel in\nthe fourth Gospel in the latter part of the quotation is not accidental,\nbut is the point upon which the whole propriety of the quotation\ndepends. In the Gospel of the Clementines the man is not blind from\nhis birth, \"that the works of God might be made manifest in him,\"--a\ndoctrine which would be revolting to the author of the Homilies,--but\nthe calamity has befallen him in consequence of some error of ignorance\non the part of his parents which brings its punishment; but \"the power\nof God\" is made manifest in healing the sins of ignorance. The reply of\nJesus is a professed quotation, and it varies very substantially from\nthe parallel in the Gospel, presenting evidently a distinctly different\nversion of the episode. The substitution of [------] for [------] in the\nopening is also significant, more especially as Justin likewise in his\ngeneral remark, which we have discussed, uses the same word. Assuming\nthe passage in the fourth Gospel to be the account of a historical\nepisode, as apologists, of course, maintain, the case stands thus:--The\nauthor of the Homilies introduces a narrative of a historical\n\n{342}\n\nincident in the life of Jesus, which may have been, and probably was,\nreported in many early gospels in language which, though analogous\nto, is at the same time decidedly different, in the part which is\na professed quotation, from that of the fourth Gospel, and presents\nanother and natural comment upon the central event. The reference to the\nhistorical incident is, of course, no evidence whatever of dependence\non the fourth Gospel, which, although it may be the only accidentally\nsurviving work which contains the narrative, had no prescriptive and\nexclusive property in it, and so far from the partial agreement in the\nnarrative proving the use of the fourth Gospel, the only remarkable\npoint is, that all narratives of the same event and reports of words\nactually spoken do not more perfectly agree, while, on the other hand,\nthe very decided variation in the reply of Jesus, according to the\nHomily, from that given in the fourth Gospel leads to the distinct\npresumption that it is not the source of the quotation.\n\nIt is perfectly unreasonable to assert that such a reference, without\nthe slightest indication of the source from which the author derived his\ninformation, must be dependent on one particular work, more especially\nwhen the part which is given as distinct quotation substantially differs\nfrom the record in that work. We have already illustrated this on\nseveral occasions, and may once more offer an instance. If the first\nSynoptic had unfortunately perished, like so many other gospels of the\nearly Church, and in the Clementines we met with the quotation: \"Blessed\nare the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven\" [------],\napologists would certainly assert, according to the principle upon which\nthey act in\n\n{343}\n\nthe present case, that this quotation was clear evidence of the use of\nLuke vi. 20: \"Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.\"\n[------], more especially as a few codices actually insert [------], the\nslight variations being merely ascribed to free quotation from memory.\nIn point of fact, however, the third Synoptic might not at the time have\nbeen in existence, and the quotation might have been derived, as it is,\nfrom Matt. v. 3. Nothing is more certain and undeniable than the fact\nthat the author of the fourth Gospel made use of materials derived from\noral tradition and earlier records for its composition.(1) It is equally\nundeniable that other gospels had access to the same materials, and\nmade use of them; and a comparison of our three Synoptics renders very\nevident the community of materials, including the use of the one by\nthe other, as well as the diversity of literary handling to which those\nmaterials were subjected. It is impossible with reason to deny that the\nGospel according to the Hebrews, for instance, as well as other earlier\nevangelical works now lost, may have drawn from the same sources as the\nfourth Gospel, and that narratives derived from the one may, therefore,\npresent analogies with the other whilst still perfectly independent of\nit.(2) Whatever private opinion, therefore, any one may form as to the\nsource of the anonymous quotations which we have been considering, it is\nevident that they are totally insufficient to prove that the Author of\n\n{344}\n\nthe Clementine Homilies must have made use of the fourth Gospel, and\nconsequently they do not establish even the contemporary existence of\nthat work. If such quotations, moreover, could be traced with fifty\ntimes greater probability to the fourth Gospel, it is obvious that\nthey could do nothing towards establishing its historical character and\napostolic origin.\n\nLeaving, however, the few and feeble analogies by which apologists\nvainly seek to establish the existence of the fourth Gospel and its use\nby the author of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, and considering the\nquestion for a moment from a wider point of view, the results already\nattained are more than confirmed. The doctrines held and strongly\nenunciated in the Clementines seem to us to exclude the supposition that\nthe author can have made use of a work so fundamentally at variance\nwith all his views as the fourth Gospel, and it is certain that, holding\nthose opinions, he could hardly have regarded such a Gospel as an\napostolic and authoritative document. Space will not permit our entering\nadequately into this argument, and we must refer our readers to works\nmore immediately devoted to the examination of the Homilies for a close\nanalysis of their dogmatic teaching,(1) but we may in the briefest\nmanner point out some of their more prominent doctrines in contrast with\nthose of the Johannine Gospel.\n\n{345}\n\nOne of the leading and most characteristic ideas of the Clementine\nHomilies is the essential identity of Judaism and Christianity. Christ\nrevealed nothing new with regard to God, but promulgated the very same\ntruth concerning him as Adam, Moses, and the Patriarchs, and in fact\nthe right belief is that Moses and Jesus were essentially one and the\nsame.(1) Indeed, it may be said that the teaching of the Homilies is\nmore Jewish than Christian.(2) In the preliminary Epistle of the Apostle\nPeter to the Apostle James, when sending the book, Peter entreats\nthat James will not give it to any of the Gentiles,(3) and James says:\n\"Necessarily and rightly our Peter reminded us to take precautions for\nthe security of the truth, that we should not communicate the books of\nhis preachings, sent to us, indiscriminately to all, but to him who\nis good and discreet and chosen to teach, and who is _circumcised_,(4)\nbeing faithful.\"(5) &c. Clement also is represented as describing his\nconversion to Christianity in the following terms: \"For this cause I\nfled for refuge to the Holy God and Law of the Jews, with faith in the\ncertain conclusion that, by the righteous judgment of God, both the Law\nis prescribed, and the soul beyond doubt everywhere receives\n\n{346}\n\nthe desert of its actions.\"(1) Peter recommends the inhabitants of Tyre\nto follow what are really Jewish rites, and to hear \"as the God-fearing\nJews have heard \"(2) The Jew has the same truth as the Christian: \"For\nas there is one teaching by both (Moses and Jesus), God accepts him who\nbelieves either of these.\"(3) The Law was in fact given by Adam as a\ntrue prophet knowing all things, and it is called \"Eternal,\" and neither\nto be abrogated by enemies nor falsified by the impious.(4) The author,\ntherefore, protests against the idea that Christianity is any new thing,\nand insists that Jesus came to confirm, not abrogate, the Mosaic\nLaw.(5) On the other hand the author of the fourth Gospel represents\nChristianity in strong contrast and antagonism to Judaism.(6) In his\nantithetical system, the religion of Jesus is opposed to Judaism as well\nas all other belief, as Light to Darkness and Life to Death.(7) The Law\nwhich Moses gave is treated as merely national, and neither of\n\n{347}\n\ngeneral application nor intended to be permanent, being only addressed\nto the Jews. It is perpetually referred to as the \"Law of the Jews,\"\n\"your Law,\"--and the Jewish festivals as Feasts of the Jews, and Jesus\nneither held the one in any consideration nor did he scruple to shew his\nindifference to the other.(1) The very name of \"the Jews\" indeed is used\nas an equivalent for the enemies of Christ.(2) The religion of Jesus is\nnot only absolute, but it communicates knowledge of the Father which\nthe Jews did not previously possess.(3) The inferiority of Mosaism is\neverywhere represented: \"and out of his fulness all we received, and\ngrace for grace. Because the Law was given through Moses; _grace and\ntruth_ came through Jesus Christ.\"(4) \"Verily verily I say unto you:\nMoses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father giveth\nyou the true bread from heaven.\"(6) The fundamental difference of\nChristianity from Judaism will further appear as we proceed.\n\nThe most essential principle of the Clementines, again, is\nMonotheism,--the absolute oneness of God,--which the author vehemently\nmaintains as well against the ascription of divinity to Christ as\nagainst heathen Polytheism and the Gnostic theory of the Demiurge as\ndistinguished from the Supreme God.(6) Christ not only is not God,\n\n{348}\n\nbut he never asserted himself to be so.(1) He wholly ignores the\ndoctrine of the Logos, and his speculation is confined to the [------],\nthe Wisdom of Proverbs viii., &c., and is, as we shall see, at the\nsame time a less developed and very different doctrine from that of the\nfourth Gospel.(2) The idea of a hypostatic Trinity seems to be quite\nunknown to him, and would have been utterly abhorrent to his mind as\nsheer Polytheism. On the other hand, the fourth Gospel proclaims the\ndoctrine of a hypostatic Trinity in a more advanced form than any other\nwriting of the New Testament. It is, indeed, the fundamental principle\nof the work,(3) as the doctrine of the Logos is its most characteristic\nfeature. In the beginning the \"Word not only was with God, but \"the Word\nwas God\" [------].(4)\n\nHe is the \"only begotten God\" [------],(5) equivalent to the \"Second\nGod\" [------] of Philo, and, throughout, his absolutely divine nature is\nasserted both by the Evangelist, and in express terms in the discourses\nof Jesus.(6) Nothing could be more opposed to the principles of the\nClementines.\n\n{349}\n\nAccording to the Homilies, the same Spirit, the [------], appeared in\nAdam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and finally in Jesus,\nwho are the only \"true prophets\" and are called the seven Pillars\n[------] of the world.(1) These seven(2) persons, therefore, are\nidentical, the same true Prophet and Spirit\" who from the beginning of\nthe world, changing names and forms, passes through Time,\"(3) and these\nmen were thus essentially the same as Jesus.(4) As Neander rightly\nobserves, the author of the Homilies \"saw in Jesus a new appearance of\nthat Adam whom he had ever venerated as the source of all the true and\ndivine in man.\"(5) We need not point out how different these views are\nfrom the Logos doctrine of the fourth Gospel.(6) In other points there\nis an equally wide gulf between the Clementines and the fourth Gospel.\nAccording to the author of the Homilies, the chief dogma of\n\n     6 It is very uncertain by what means the author of the\n     Homilies considered this periodical reappearance to be\n     effected, whether by a kind of transmigration or otherwise.\n     Critics consider it very doubtful whether he admitted the\n     supernatural birth of Jesus (though some hold it to be\n     probable), but at any rate he does not explain the matter:\n     Uhlhorn, Die Homilien, p. 209 f.; Neander, K. G., ii. p.\n     618, anm. 1; Credner thought that he did not admit it, 1. c.\n     p. 253; Schliemann, whilst thinking that he did admit it,\n     considers that in that case he equally attributed a\n     supernatural birth to the other seven prophets: Die\n     Clementinen, p. 207 ff.\n\n{350}\n\ntrue Religion is Monotheism. Belief in Christ, in the specific Johannine\nsense, is nowhere inculcated, and where belief is spoken of, it is\nmerely belief in God. No dogmatic importance whatever is attached to\nfaith in Christ or to his sufferings, death, and resurrection, and\nof the doctrines of Atonement and Redemption there is nothing in the\nHomilies,(1)--everyone must make his own reconciliation with God,\nand bear the punishment of his own sins.(2) On the other hand, the\nrepresentation of Jesus as the Lamb of God taking away the sins of\nthe world,(3) is the very basis of the fourth Gospel. The passages are\ninnumerable in which belief in Jesus is insisted upon as essential. \"He\nthat believeth in the Son hath eternal life, but he that believeth\nnot the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him\n\"(4)....\"for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your\nsins.\"(5) In fact, the \"whole of Christianity according to the author\nof the fourth Gospel is concentrated in the possession of faith in\nChrist.(6) Belief in God alone is never held to be sufficient; belief\nin Christ is necessary for salvation; he died for the sins of the world,\nand is the object of faith, by which alone forgiveness and justification\nbefore God can be secured.(7) The same discrepancy is apparent in\nsmaller details. In the Clementines the Apostle Peter\n\n{351}\n\nis the principal actor, and is represented as the chief amongst the\nApostles. In the Epistle of Clement to James, which precedes the\nHomilies, Peter is described in the following terms: \"Simon, who, on\naccount of his true faith and of the principles of his doctrine, which\nwere most sure, was appointed to be the foundation of the Church, and\nfor this reason his name was by the unerring voice of Jesus himself\nchanged to Peter; the first-fruit of our Lord; the first of the Apostles\nto whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ deservedly\npronounced blessed; the called and chosen and companion and\nfellow-traveller (of Jesus); the admirable and approved disciple, who as\nfittest of all was commanded to enlighten the West, the darker part\nof the world, and was enabled to guide it aright,\" &C.(1) He is here\nrepresented as the Apostle to the Heathen, the hated Apostle Paul\nbeing robbed of that honourable title, and he is, in the spirit of\nthis introduction, made to play, throughout, the first part amongst the\nApostles.(2) In the fourth Gospel, however, he is assigned a place quite\nsecondary to John,(3) who is the disciple whom Jesus loved and who leans\non his bosom.(4) We shall only mention one \"other point The Homilist,\nwhen attacking the Apostle Paul, under the\n\n{352}\n\nname of Simon the Magician, for his boast that he had not been taught by\nman, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ,(1) whom he had only seen in\na vision, inquires: Why, then, did the Teacher remain and discourse\na whole year to us who were awake, if you became his Apostle after a\nsingle hour of instruction?(2) As Neander aptly remarks: \"But if the\nauthor had known from the Johannine Gospel that the teaching of\nChrist had continued for _several years_, he would certainly have had\nparticularly good reason instead of one year to set _several_.\"(3) It is\nobvious that an author with so vehement an animosity against Paul\nwould assuredly have strengthened his argument, by adopting the more\nfavourable statement of the fourth Gospel as to the duration of the\nministry of Jesus, had he been acquainted with that work.\n\nOur attention must now be turned to the anonymous composition, known as\nthe \"Epistle to Diognetus,\" general particulars regarding which we have\nelsewhere given.(4) This epistle, it is admitted, does not contain\nany quotation from any evangelical work, but on the strength of some\nsupposed references it is claimed by apologists as evidence for the\nexistence of the fourth Gospel. Tischendorf, who only devotes a dozen\nlines to this work, states his case as follows: \"Although this short\napologetic epistle contains no precise quotation from any gospel, yet\nit contains repeated references to evangelical, and particularly to\nJohannine, passages. For when the author writes, ch. 6: 'Christians\ndwell in the world, but they are not of the world;' and in\n\n{353}\n\nch. 10: 'For God has loved men, for whose sakes he made the world....\nto whom he sent his only begotten Son,' the reference to John xvii. 11\n('But they are in the world'); 14 ('The world hateth them, for they are\nnot of the world'); 16 ('They are not of the world as I am not of the\nworld'); and to John iii. 16 ('God so loved the world that he gave his\nonly begotten Son'), is hardly to be mistaken.\"(1)\n\nDr. Westcott still more emphatically claims the epistle as evidence for\nthe fourth Gospel, and we shall, in order impartially to consider the\nquestion, likewise quote his remarks in full upon the point, but as he\nintroduces his own paraphrase of the context in a manner which does\nnot properly convey its true nature to a reader who has not the epistle\nbefore him, we shall take the liberty of putting the actual quotations\nin italics, and the rest must be taken as purely the language of Canon\nWestcott. We shall hereafter show also the exact separation which\nexists between phrases which are here, with the mere indication of some\nomission, brought together to form the supposed references to the fourth\nGospel. Canon Westcott says: \"In one respect the two parts of the\nbook are united,(2) inasmuch as they both exhibit a combination of the\nteaching of St. Paul and St. John. The love of God, it is said in the\nletter to Diognetus, is the source of love in the Christian, who\nmust needs 'love God who thus first loved him' [------], and find an\nexpression for this love by loving his neighbour,\n\n{354}\n\nwhereby he will be '_an imitator of God!_' For God loved men, for whose\nsakes He made the world, to whom He subjected all things that are in\nthe earth.... unto whom [------] He sent His only begotten Son, to whom He\npromised the kingdom in heaven [------], _and will give it to those who\nlove Him._' God's will is mercy; '_He sent His Son as wishing to save\n[------].... and not to condemn'_ and as witnesses of this, '_Christians\ndwell in the world, though they are not of the world!_(1) At the close\nof the paragraph he proceeds: \"The presence of the teaching of St.\nJohn is here placed beyond all doubt. There are, however, no direct\nreferences to the Gospels throughout the letter, nor indeed any\nallusions to our Lord's discourses.\"(2)\n\nIt is clear that as there is no direct reference to any Gospel in the\nEpistle to Diognetus, even if it were ascertained to be a composition\ndating from the middle of the second century, which it is not, and even\nif the indirect allusions were ten times more probable than they are,\nthis anonymous work could do nothing towards establishing the apostolic\norigin and historical character\n\n{355}\n\nof the fourth Gospel. Written, however, as we believe it to have been,\nat a much later period, it scarcely requires any consideration here.\n\nWe shall, however, for those who may be interested in more minutely\ndiscussing the point, at once proceed to examine whether the composition\neven indicates the existence of the Gospel, and for this purpose we\nshall take each of the passages in question and place them with their\ncontext before the reader; and we only regret that the examination of\na document which, neither from its date nor evidence can be of any real\nweight, should detain us so long. The first passage is: \"Christians\ndwell in the world but are not of the world\" [------]. Dr. Westcott,\nwho reverses the order of all the passages indicated, introduces this\nsentence (which occurs in chapter vi.) as the consequence of a passage\nfollowing it in chapter vii. by the words \"and as witnesses of this:\nChristians,\" &c.... The first parallel which is pointed out in the\nGospel reads, John xvii. 11: \"And I am no more in the world, and\nthese are in the world [------], and I come to thee, Holy Father keep\nthem,\"&c. Now it must be evident that in mere direct point of language\nand sense there is no parallel here at all. In the Gospel, the disciples\nare referred to as being left behind in the world by Jesus who goes to\nthe Father, whilst, in the Epistle, the object is the antithesis that\nwhile Christians _dwell_ in the world they are not of the world. In the\nsecond parallel, which is supposed to complete the analogy, the Gospel\nreads: v. 14, \"I have given them thy word: and the world hated them\nbecause they are not of the world, [------] even as I am not of the\nworld.\" Here, again, the parallel words are merely introduced as a\nreason why the world hated them, and not antithetically, and from this\nvery connection we shall see that the resemblance between the Epistle\nand the Gospel is merely superficial.\n\nIn order to form a correct judgment regarding the nature of the passage\nin the Epistle, we must carefully examine the context. In chapter v. the\nauthor is speaking of the manners of Christians, and he says that they\nare not distinguished from others either\n\n{356}\n\nby country or language or by their customs, for they have neither cities\nnor speech of their own, nor do they lead a singular life. They dwell in\ntheir native countries, but only as sojourners [------], and the writer\nproceeds by a long sequence of antithetical sentences to depict their\nhabits. \"Every foreign land is as their native country, yet the land of\ntheir birth is a foreign land\" [------], and so on. Now this epistle\nis in great part a mere plagiarism of the Pauline and other canonical\nepistles, whilst professing to describe the actual life of Christians,\nand the fifth and sixth chapters, particularly, are based upon the\nepistles of Paul and notably the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, from\nwhich even the antithetical style is derived. We may give a specimen\nof this in referring to the context of the passage before us, and it is\nimportant that we should do so. After a few sentences like the above\nthe fifth chapter continues: \"They are in the flesh, but do not live\naccording to the flesh. They continue on earth, but are citizens of\nheaven \"[------].(1)\n\nIt is very evident here, and throughout the Epistle, that the Epistles\nof Paul chiefly, together with the other canonical Epistles, are the\nsources of the writer's inspiration. The next chapter (vi) begins and\nproceeds as follows: \"To say all in a word: what the soul is in the\nbody, that Christians are in the world. The soul is dispersed throughout\nall the members of the body, and Christians throughout all the cities\nof the world. The soul dwells in the body but is not of the body, and\nChristians dwell in the world, but are not of the world. [------]. The\ninvisible soul is kept in the visible body, and Christians are known,\nindeed, to be in the world, but their worship of God remains invisible.\nThe flesh hates the soul and wages war against it, although in no way\nwronged by it, because it is restrained from indulgence in sensual\npleasures, and the world hates Christians,\n\n{358}\n\nalthough in no way wronged by them, because they are opposed to sensual\npleasures [------]. The soul loves the flesh that hates it, and the\nmembers, and Christians love those who hate them \"[------]. And so on\nwith three or four similar sentences, one of which, at least, is taken\nfrom the Epistle to the Corinthians,(1) to the end of the chapter.\n\nNow the passages pointed out as references to the fourth Gospel, it will\nbe remembered, distinctly differ from the parallels in the Gospel, and\nit seems to us clear that they arise naturally out of the antithetical\nmanner which the writer adopts from the Epistles of Paul, and are based\nupon passages in those Epistles closely allied to them in sense and\nalso in language. The simile in connection with which the words occur\nis commenced at the beginning of the preceding chapter, where Christians\nare represented as living as strangers even in their native land,\nand the very essence of the passage in dispute is given in the two\nsentences: \"They are in the flesh, but do not live according to the\nflesh\" [------], which is based upon 2 Cor. x. 3, \"For we walk in the\nflesh, but do not war(2) according to the flesh\" [------], and similar\npassages abound; as for instance, Rom. viii. 4... \"in us who walk not\naccording to the flesh, but according to the Spirit; 9. But ye are not\nin the flesh but in the Spirit [------]: 12...\n\nSo then, brethren, we are debtors not to the flesh, that we should live\nafter the flesh\" [------] &c., &c. (Cf. 4, 14.). And the second: \"They\ncontinue on earth but are citizens of heaven\" [------], which recall\nPhilip, iii. 20: \"For our country (our citizenship) is in heaven\"\n[------].(3) The sense of the passage is everywhere found, and nothing\nis more natural than\n\n{359}\n\nthe use of the words arising both out of the previous reference to\nthe position of Christians as mere sojourners in the world, and as the\nantithesis to the preceding part of the sentence: \"The soul dwells in\nthe body, but is not of the body,\" and: \"Christians dwell in the world\nbut are not of the world.\" Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 12; vii. 31; 2 Cor. L 12. Gal.\niv. 29, v. 16 ff. 24, 25, vi. 14. Rom. viii. 3 ff. Ephes. ii. 2, 3, 11\nff. Coloss. iii. 2 ff: Titus ii. 12. James i. 27. There is one point,\nhowever, which we think shows that the words were not derived from the\nfourth Gospel. The parallel with the Epistle can only be made by taking\na few words out of xvii. 11 and adding to them a few words in verse 14,\nwhere they stand in the following connection \"And the world hated\nthem, because they are not of the world\" [------]. In the Epistle, in a\npassage quoted above, we have: \"The flesh hates the soul, and wages war\nagainst it, although unjustly, because it is restrained from indulgence\nin sensual pleasures, and the world hates Christians, _although in no\nway wronged by them, because they are opposed to sensual pleasures_.\"\n[------].Now nothing could more clearly show that these analogies are\nmere accidental coincidence, and not derived from the fourth Gospel,\nthan this passage. If the writer had really had the passage in the\nGospel in his mind, it is impossible that he could in this manner have\ncompletely broken it up and changed its whole context and language. The\nphrase: \"they are not of the world\" would have been introduced here as\nthe reason for the hatred, instead of being used with quite different\ncontext elsewhere in the passage. In fact, in the only place in which\nthe words would have presented a true parallel with the Gospel, they are\nnot used. Not the slightest reference is made throughout the Epistle to\nDiognetus to any of the discourses of Jesus. On the other hand, we\nhave seen that the whole of the passage in the Epistle in which\nthese sentences occur is based both in matter, and in its peculiar\nantithetical form, upon the Epistles of Paul, and in these and other\ncanonical Epistles again, we find the source of the sentence just\nquoted: Gal. iv. 29. \"But as then, he that was born after the flesh\n\n{360}\n\npersecuted him (that was born) after the Spirit, even so it is now.\"(1)\nv. 16. \"Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the\nflesh. 17. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit\nagainst the flesh: for these are contrary the one to the other, that ye\nmay not do the things that ye would.\"(2) There are innumerable passages\nin the Pauline Epistles to the same effect.\n\nWe pass on now to the next passage in the order of the Epistle. It is\nnot mentioned at all by Tischendorf: Dr. West-cott introduces it with\nthe words: \"God's will is mercy,\" by which we presume that he means to\nparaphrase the context \"He sent his Son as wishing to save [------]....\nand not to condemn.\"(3) This sentence, however, which is given as\nquotation without any explanation, is purely a composition by Canon\nWestcott himself out of different materials which he finds in the\nEpistle, and is not a quotation at all. The actual passage in\nthe Epistle, with its immediate context, is as follows: \"This\n(Messenger--the Truth, the holy Word) he sent to them; now, was it,\nas one of men might reason, for tyranny and to cause fear and\nconsternation? Not so, but in clemency and gentleness, as a King sending\nhis Son [------] a king, he sent [------]; as God he sent (him); as\ntowards men he sent; as saving he sent[------] (him); as persuading\n[------],\n\nnot forcing, for violence has no place with God. He sent as inviting,\nnot vindictively pursuing; he sent as loving, not condemning [------].\nFor he will send him to judge, and who shall abide his presence?\"(4) The\nsupposed parallel in the Gospel is as follows (John iii. 17): \"For God\nsent not his Son into the world that he might condemn the\n\n{361}\n\nworld, but that the world through him might be saved\"(1) [------].\n\nNow, it is obvious at a glance that the passage in the Epistle is\ncompletely different from that in the Gospel in every material point of\nconstruction and language, and the only similarity consists in the idea\nthat God's intention in sending his Son was to save and not to condemn,\nand it is important to notice that the letter does not, either here\nor elsewhere, refer to the condition attached to salvation so clearly\nenunciated in the preceding verse: \"That whosoever believeth in him\nmight not perish.\" The doctrine enunciated in this passage is the\nfundamental principle of much of the New Testament, and it is expressed\nwith more especial clearness and force, and close analogy with the\nlanguage of the letter, in the Epistles of Paul, to which the letter\nmore particularly leads us, as well as in other canonical Epistles, and\nin these we find analogies with the context quoted above, which\nconfirm our belief that they, and not the Gospel, are the source of the\npassage--Rom. v. 8: \"But God proveth his own love towards us, in that\nwhile we were yet sinners Christ died for us. 9. Much more then.......\nshall we be saved [------] through him from the wrath (to come).'\" Cf.\n16,17. Rom. viii. 1: \"There is, therefore, now no condemnation [------]\nto them which are in Christ Jesus.(2) 3.... God sending his own Son\"\n[------] &c. And coming to the very 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, from\nwhich we find the writer borrowing wholesale, we meet with the different\nmembers of the passage we have quoted: v. 19.... \"God was reconciling\nthe world unto himself in Christ, not reckoning unto them their\ntrespasses..... 20. On Christ's behalf, then, we are ambassadors,\nas though God were entreating by us; we pray on Christ's behalf: Be\nreconciled to God. v. 10. For we must all appear before the judgment\nseat of Christ, &c. 11. Knowing, then, the fear of\n\n{362}\n\nthe Lord, we persuade [------] men,\" &c. Galatians iv. 4: \"But when the\nfulness of time came, God sent out his Son [------], 5. That he might\nredeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption\nof sons,\"(1) &c. Ephes. ii. 4. \"But God being rich in mercy because of\nhis great love wherewith he loved us, 5. Even when we were dead in our\ntrespasses, quickened us together with Christ--by grace ye have been\nsaved\"--cf. verses 7,8. 1 Thess. v. 9. \"For God appointed us not to\nwrath, but to the obtaining salvation [------] through our Lord Jesus\nChrist.\" 1 Tim. i. 15. \"This is a faithful saying.... that Christ Jesus\ncame into the world to save sinners\" [------]. 1 Tim. ii. 3. \"For this\nis good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour [------]. 4. Who\nwilleth all men to be saved \"[------]. Cf. v. 5, 6. 2 Tim. i. 9. \"Who\nsaved us [------], and called us with a holy calling, not according to\nour works, but according to his own purpose, and the grace which was\ngiven to us in Christ Jesus before time began; 10. But hath been made\nmanifest by the appearing of our Saviour [------] Jesus Christ\"3 These\npassages might be indefinitely multiplied; and they contain the sense\nof the passage, and in many cases the language, more closely than the\nfourth Gospel, with which the construction and form of the sentence has\nno analogy. Now, with regard to the Logos doctrine of the Epistle to\n\n{363}\n\nDiognetus, to which we may appropriately here refer, although we\nmust deal with it in the briefest manner possible, so far is it from\nconnecting the Epistle with the fourth Gospel, that it much more proves\nthe writer's ignorance of that Gospel. The peculiar terminology of the\nprologue to the Gospel is nowhere found in the Epistle, and we have\nalready seen that the term Logos was applied to Jesus in works of the\nNew Testament, acknowledged by all to have been written long before the\nfourth Gospel. Indeed, it is quite certain, not only historically, but\nalso from the abrupt enunciation of the doctrine in the prologue, that\nthe theory of the Logos was well known and already applied to Jesus\nbefore the Gospel was composed. The author knew that his statement would\nbe understood without explanation. Although the writer of the Epistle\nmakes use of the designation \"Logos,\" he shows his Greek culture by\ngiving the precedence to the term Truth or Reason. It has indeed been\nremarked(1) that the name Jesus or Christ does not occur anywhere in the\nEpistle. By way of showing the manner in which \"the Word\" is spoken\nof, we will give the entire passage, part of which is quoted above; the\nfirst and only one in the first ten chapters in which the term is used:\n\"For, as I said, this was not an earthly invention which was delivered\nto them (Christians), neither is it a mortal system which they deem\nit right to maintain so carefully; nor is an administration of human\nmysteries entrusted to them, but the Almighty and invisible God himself,\nthe Creator of all things [------] has implanted in men, and established\nin their hearts from heaven, the Truth and the Word, the holy and\nincomprehensible [------], not as one might suppose, sending to men some\nservant or angel or ruler [------], or one of those ordering earthly\naffairs, or one of those entrusted with the government of heavenly\nthings, but the artificer and creator of the universe [------] himself,\nby whom he created the heavens [------];(3) by\n\n{364}\n\nwhom he confined the sea within its own bounds; whose commands [------]\nall the stars [------]--elements) faithfully observe; from whom (the\nsun) has received the measure of the daily course to observe; whom\nthe moon obeys, being bidden to shine at night; whom the stars obey,\nfollowing in the course of the moon; by whom all things have been\narranged and limited and subjected, the heavens and the things in the\nheavens, the earth and the things in the earth, the sea and the things\nin the sea [------], fire, air, abyss, the things in the heights,\nthe things in the depths, the things in the space between. This\n(Messenger--the truth, the Word) he sent to them. Now, was it, as one of\nmen might reason, for tyranny and to cause fear and consternation? Not\nso, but in clemency and gentleness, as a King sending his Son, a king,\nhe sent; as God he sent (him); as towards men he sent, as saving he sent\n(him); as persuading,\" &c., &c.(1) The description here given, how\nGod in fact by Reason or Wisdom created the Universe, has much closer\nanalogy with earlier representations of the doctrine than with that in\nthe fourth Gospel, and if the writer does also represent the Reason in\na hypostatic form, it is by no means with the concreteness of the Gospel\ndoctrine of the Logos, with which linguistically, moreover, as we\nhave observed, it has no similarity. There can be no doubt that his\nChristology presents differences from that of the fourth Gospel.(2)\n\nWe have already seen how Jesus is called the Word in works of the New\nTestament earlier than the fourth Gospel,(3) and how the doctrine is\nconstantly referred to in the Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the\nHebrews, and it is to these, and not to the fourth Gospel, that the\naccount in the Epistle to Diognetus may be more properly traced. Heb. L\n2. \"The Son of God by whom also he made the worlds. 10. The heavens are\nworks of thy hands\" [------]. xi. 3. \"By faith we understand that the\nworlds were framed [------], by the word of God\" [------]. 1 Cor. viii.\n6. \"Jesus Christ by whom are all things\" [------]. Coloss. i. 13. \"...\nThe\n\n{365}\n\nSon of his love: 15. Who is the image of the invisible God [------] the\nfirst-born of all creation; 16. Because in him were all things created,\nthe things in the heavens, and the things in the earth, the things\nvisible and the things invisible [------] whether they be thrones or\ndominions, or principalities, or powers; All things have been created\nby him and for him [------]. 17. And he is before all things, and in him\nall things subsist. 18. And he is the head of the body, the Church, who\nis the Beginning(1) [------]; the first-born from the dead; that in all\nthings he might be the first. 19. Because he was well pleased that in\nhim should all the fulness dwell. 20. And through him to reconcile\nall things unto himself,\" &c., &c. These passages might be greatly\nmultiplied, but it is unnecessary, for the matter of the letter is\nsubstantially here. As to the titles of King and God they are everywhere\nto be found. In the Apocalypse, the Lamb whose name is \"The Word of God\"\n[------], (xix. 18) has also his name written (xix. 16), \"King of kings\nand Lord of lords\" [------].(2) We have already quoted the views of\nPhilo regarding the Logos, which also merit comparison with the passage\nof the Epistle, but we cannot repeat them here.\n\nThe last passage to which we have to refer is the following: \"For God\nloved men, for whose sakes He made the world, to whom He subjected\nall things that are in the earth... Unto whom [------] He sent his\nonly-begotten Son, to whom He promised the kingdom in heaven [------]\nand will give it to those who love Him.\"(3) The context is as follows:\n\"For God loved men [------] for whose sake he made the world, to whom\nhe subjected all things that are in it, to whom he gave reason and\nintelligence, to whom alone he granted the right of looking towards him,\nwhom he formed after his own image, to whom he sent his only begotten\nson [------], to whom he has promised the kingdom in heaven, and will\ngive it to those who have loved him. And when you know this, with what\n\n{366}\n\ngladness, think you, you will be filled? Or how will you love him,\nwho beforehand so loved you? [------]. But if you love, you will be\nan _imitator of his kindness_,\" &c. [------].(1) This is claimed as a\nreference to John iii. 16 f. \"For God so loved the world [------] that\nhe gave his only begotten son [------] that whosoever believeth in him\nmight not perish,\" &c. 17. \"For God sent not his son into the world\nthat he might judge the world,\" &c. [------]. Here, again, a sentence is\npatched together by taking fragments from the beginning and middle of a\npassage, and finding in them a superficial resemblance to words in the\nGospel. We find parallels for the passage, however, in the Epistles from\nwhich the unknown writer obviously derives so much of his matter. Rom.\nv. 8: \"But God giveth proof of his love towards us, in that while we\nwere yet sinners Christ died for us. 10.... through the death of his\nson.\" Chap. viii. 8, \"God sending his son, &c. 29.... Them he also\nforeordained to bear the likeness of the image of his son, &c. 32. He\nthat spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all,\" &c. 39.\n(Nothing can separate us) \"from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus\nour Lord.\" Gal. ii. 20.... \"by the faith of the Son of God who loved me\nand gave himself for me.\" Chap. iv. 4. \"God sent out his son [------]\n.... that he might redeem,\" &c. Ephes. ii. 4. \"But God being rich in\nmercy because of his great love wherewith he loved us. 5. Even when we\nwere dead in our trespasses hath quickened us together with Christ. 7.\nThat he might show forth the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness\n[------] towards us in Christ Jesus.\" Chap. iv. 32. \"Be ye kind [------]\none to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God also\nin Christ forgave you.\"* Chap. v. 1. \"Beye therefore imitators [------]\nof God as beloved children. 2. And walk\n\n{367}\n\nin love [------] even as Christ also loved you [------], and gave\nhimself for us,\" &c., &c. Titus iii. 4. \"But when the kindness [------]\nand love towards men [------] of our Saviour God was manifested. 5...\naccording to his mercy he saved us.... 6.... through Jesus Christ our\nSaviour. 7. That being justified by his grace, we should become heirs\naccording to the hope of Eternal life.\"\n\nThe words: \"Or how will you love him who so beforehand loved you?\"\n[------], Canon Westcott refers to 1 John iv. 19, \"We love God(2)\nbecause he first loved us\" [------]. The linguistic differences,\nhowever, and specially the substitution of [------], distinctly oppose\nthe claim. The words are a perfectly natural comment upon the words in\nEphesians, from which it is obvious the writer derived other parts\nof the sentence, as the striking word \"kindness\" [------], which is\ncommonly used in the Pauline Epistles, but nowhere else in the New\nTestament,(3) shows.\n\nDr. Westcott \"cannot call to mind, a parallel to the phrase 'the kingdom\nin heaven'\"(4) which occurs above in the phrase \"to whom he has promised\nthe kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved\nhim\" [------]. This also we find in the Epistles to which the writer\nexclusively refers in this letter: James il 5, \"heirs of the kingdom\nwhich he promised to them that love him\" [------] i. 12. \"... he shall\nreceive the crown of life which he promised to them that love him\"\n[------]. In 2 Tim. iv. 18, we have: \"The Lord... shall preserve me safe\nunto his heavenly kingdom\" [------](5)\n\nThe very fact that there is no exact parallel to the phrase \"kingdom in\nheaven\" in our Gospels is unfavourable to the argument that they were\nused by the author. Whatever evangelical works he may have read,\n\n{368}\n\nit is indisputable that the writer of this Epistle does not quote any of\nthem, and he uses no expressions and no terminology which warrants the\ninference that he must have been acquainted with the fourth Gospel.\n\nAs we have already stated, the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus is\nunknown; Diognetus, the friend to whom it is addressed, is equally\nunknown; the letter is neither mentioned nor quoted by any of the\nFathers, nor by any ancient writer, and there is no external evidence as\nto the date of the composition. It existed only in one codex, destroyed\nat Strasburg during the Franco-German war, the handwriting of which was\nreferred to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, but it is far from\ncertain that it was so old. The last two chapters are a falsification\nby a later writer than the author of the first ten. There is no internal\nevidence whatever in this brief didactic composition requiring or even\nsuggesting its assignment to the second or third centuries, but on the\ncontrary, we venture to assert that there is evidence, both internal and\nexternal, justifying the belief that it was written at a comparatively\nrecent date. Apart from the uncertainty of date, however, there is no\nallusion in it to any Gospel. Even if there were, the testimony of a\nletter by an unknown writer at an unknown period could not have any\nweight, but under the actual circumstances the Epistle to Diognetus\nfurnishes absolutely no testimony at all for the apostolical origin and\nhistorical character of the fourth Gospel.(1)\n\nThe fulness with which we have discussed the supposed testimony of\nBasilides(2) renders it unnecessary for us to re-enter at any\nlength into the argument as to his knowledge of the fourth Gospel.\nTischendorf(3) and\n\n{369}\n\nCanon Westcott(l) assert that two passages, namely: \"The true light\nwhich lighteth every man came into the world,\" corresponding with John\ni. 9, and: \"mine hour is not yet come,\" agreeing with John ii. 4, which\nare introduced by Hippolytus in his work against Heresies(2) with a\nsubjectless [------]\" he says,\"are quotations made in some lost work by\nBasilides. We have shown that Hippolytus and other writers of his time\nwere in the habit of quoting passages from works by the founders of\nsects and by their later followers without any distinction, an utterly\nvague [------] doing service equally for all. This is the case in the\npresent instance, and there is no legitimate reason for assigning\nthese passages to Basilides himself,(3) but on the contrary many\nconsiderations which forbid our doing so, which we have elsewhere\ndetailed.\n\nThese remarks most fully apply to Valentinus, whose supposed quotations\nwe have exhaustively discussed,(4) as well as the one passage given by\nHippolytus containing a sentence found in John x. 8,(5) the only one\nwhich can be pointed out. \"We have distinctly proved that the quotations\nin question are not assignable to Valentinus himself, a fact which\neven apologists admit. There is no just ground for asserting that his\nterminology was derived from the fourth Gospel, the whole having been in\ncurrent use long before that Gospel was composed.\n\n{370}\n\nThere is no evidence whatever that Valentin us was acquainted with such\na work.(1)\n\nWe must generally remark, however, with regard to Basilides, Valentinus\nand all such Heresiarchs and writers, that, even if it could be shown,\nas actually it cannot, that they were acquainted with the fourth Gospel,\nthe fact would only prove the existence of the work at a late period in\nthe second century, but would furnish no evidence of the slightest value\nregarding its apostolic origin, or towards establishing its historical\nvalue. On the other hand, if, as apologists assert, these heretics\npossessed the fourth Gospel, their deliberate and total rejection of\nthe work furnishes evidence positively antagonistic to its claims. It\nis difficult to decide whether their rejection of the Gospel, or their\nignorance of its existence is the more unfavourable alternative.\n\nThe dilemma is the very same in the case of Marcion. We have already\nfully discussed his knowledge of our Gospels,(2) and need not add\nanything here. It is not pretended that he made any use of the fourth\nGospel, and the only ground upon which it is argued that he supplies\nevidence even of its existence is the vague general statement of\nTertullian, that Marcion rejected the Gospels \"which are put forth as\ngenuine, and under the name of Apostles or at least of contemporaries\nof the Apostles,\" denying their truth and integrity, and maintaining the\nsole\n\n{371}\n\nauthority of his own Gospel.(1) We have shown(2) how unwarrantable it is\nto affirm from such data that Marcion knew, and deliberately repudiated,\nthe four canonical Gospels. The Fathers, with uncritical haste and\nzeal, assumed that the Gospels adopted by the Church at the close of\nthe second and beginning of the third centuries must equally have been\ninvested with canonical authority from the first, and Tertullian took\nit for granted that Marcion, of whom he knew very little, must have\nactually rejected the four Gospels of his own Canon. Even Canon Westcott\nadmits that: \"it is uncertain whether Tertullian in the passage quoted\nspeaks from a knowledge of what Marcion may have written on the subject,\nor simply from his own point of sight.\"(3) There is not the slightest\nevidence that Marcion knew the fourth Gospel,(4) and if he did, it is\nperfectly inexplicable that he did not adopt it as peculiarly\nfavourable to his own views.(5) If he was acquainted with the work and,\nnevertheless, rejected it as false and adulterated, his testimony is\nobviously opposed to the Apostolic origin and historical accuracy of\nthe fourth Gospel, and the critical acumen which he exhibited in his\nselection of the Pauline Epistles renders his judgment of greater weight\nthan that of most of the Fathers.\n\nWe have now reached an epoch when no evidence regarding the fourth\nGospel can have much weight,\n\n{372}\n\nand the remaining witnesses need not detain us long. \"We have discussed\nat length the Diatessaron of Tatian,(1) and shown that whilst there is\nno evidence that it was based upon our four Gospels, there is reason to\nbelieve that it may have been identical with the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, by which name, as Epiphanius(2) states, it was actually called.\nWe have only now briefly to refer to the address to the Greeks [------],\nand\n\nto ascertain what testimony it bears regarding the fourth Gospel. It was\ncomposed after the death of Justin, and scarcely dates earlier than the\nbeginning of the last quarter of the second century. No Gospel and\nno work of the New Testament is mentioned in this composition, but\nTischendorf(3) and others point out one or two supposed references\nto passages in the fourth Gospel. The first of these in order, is one\nindicated by Canon Westcott,(4) but to which Tischendorf does not call\nattention: \"God was in the beginning, but we have learned that the\nbeginning is the power of Reason [------]. For the Lord of the Universe\n[------] being himself the substance [------] of all, in that creation\nhad not been accomplished was alone, but inasmuch as he was all power,\nand himself the substance of things visible and invisible, all things\nwere with him [------].\n\nWith him by means of rational power the Reason [------] itself also\nwhich was in him subsisted. But by the will of his simplicity, Reason\n[------] springs forth; but the Reason [------] not\n\n{373}\n\nproceeding in vain, because the first-born work [------] of the Father.\nHim we know to be the Beginning of the world [------]. But he came into\nexistence by division, not by cutting off, for that which is cut off\nis separated from the first: but that which is divided, receiving the\nchoice of administration, did not render him defective from whom it was\ntaken, &c., &c. And as the Logos (Reason), in the beginning begotten,\nbegat again our creation, himself for himself creating the matter\n[------], so I,\" &c., &C.(1)\n\nIt is quite evident that this doctrine of the Logos is not that of the\nfourth Gospel, from which it cannot have been derived. Tatian himself(2)\nseems to assert that he derived it from the Old Testament. We have\nquoted the passage at length that it might be clearly\n\n{374}\n\nunderstood; and with the opening words, we presume, for he does not\nquote at all but merely indicates the chapter, Canon Westcott compares\nJohn i. 1: \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with\nGod, and the Word was God\" [------]. The statement of Tatian is quite\ndifferent; _God_ was in the beginning\" [------], and he certainly did\nnot identify the Word with God, so as to transform the statement of the\nGospel into this simple affirmation. In all probability his formula\nwas merely based upon Genesis i. 1: \"In the beginning God created the\nheavens and the earth\" [------].(1)1 The expressions: \"But we have\nlearned that the Beginning [------] was the power of Reason,\" &c., \"but\nthe Reason [------] not proceeding in vain became the first-born work\n[------] of the Father. Him we know to be the Beginning [------] of the\nworld,\" recall many early representations of the Logos, to which we have\nalready, referred: Pro v. viii. 22: \"The Lord created me the Beginning\n[------] of ways for his works [------], 23. Before the ages he\nestablished me, in the beginning [------] before he made the earth,\"\n&c., &c. In the Apocalypse also the Word is called \"the Beginning\n[------] of the creation of God,\" and it will be remembered that Justin\ngives testimony from Prov. viii. 21 if. \"that God begat before all the\ncreatures a Beginning [------] a certain rational Power [------], out\nof himself,\" 2 &c., &c., and elsewhere: \"As the Logos declared through\nSolomon, that this same.... had been begotten of God, before all created\nbeings, both Beginning [------]\" &c.(3) We need not, however, refer to\n\n{375}\n\nthe numerous passages in Philo and in Justin, not derived from the\nfourth Gospel, which point to a different source for Tatian's doctrine.\nIt is sufficient that both his opinions and his terminology differ\ndistinctly from that Gospel.(1)\n\nThe next passage we at once subjoin in contrast with the parallel in the\nfourth Gospel: [------]\n\nThe context to this passage in the Oration is as follows: Tatian is\narguing about the immortality of the soul, and he states that the\nsoul is not in itself immortal but mortal, but that nevertheless it is\npossible for it not to die. If it do not know the truth it dies, but\nrises again at the end of the world, receiving eternal death as a\npunishment. \"Again, however, it does not die, though it be for a time\ndissolved, if it has acquired knowledge of God; for in itself it is\ndarkness, and there is nothing luminous in it, and this, therefore, is\n(the meaning of) the saying: The darkness comprehends not the light. For\nthe soul [------] did not itself save the spirit [------], but was saved\nby it, and the light comprehended the darkness. The Logos (Reason) truly\nis the light of God, but the ignorant soul is darkness [------]. For\nthis reason, if it remain\n\n     1 We have already mentioned that the Gospel according to\n     Peter contained the doctrine of the Logos.\n\n{376}\n\nalone, it tends downwards to matter, dying with the flesh,\" &c., &c.(1)\nThe source of \"the saying\" is not mentioned, and it is evident that,\neven if it were taken to be a reference to the fourth Gospel, nothing\nwould thereby be proved but the mere existence of the Gospel. \"The\nsaying,\" however, is distinctly different in language from the parallel\nin the Gospel, and it may be from a different Gospel. We have already\nremarked that Philo calls the Logos \"the Light,\"(2) and quoting in a\npeculiar form Ps. xxvi. 1: \"For the Lord is my light [------] and my\nSaviour,\" he goes on to say that, as the sun divides day and night, so,\nMoses says, \"God divides light and darkness\" [------].(3) When we turn\naway to things of sense we use \"another light,\" which is in no way\ndifferent from \"darkness.\"(4) The constant use of the same similitude of\nLight and darkness in the Canonical Epistles(5) shows how current it\nwas in the Church; and nothing is more certain than the fact that it was\nneither originated by, nor confined to, the fourth Gospel.\n\nThe third and last passage is as follows:\n\n[------]\n\n{377}\n\nTatian here speaks of God, and not of the Logos, and in this respect,\nas well as in language and context, the passage differs from the fourth\nGospel. The phrase is not introduced as a quotation, and no reference\nis made to any Gospel. The purpose for which the words are used, again,\nrather points to the first chapters of Genesis than to the dogmatic\nprologue enunciating the doctrine of the Logos.(1) Under all these\ncircumstances, the source from which the expression may have been\nderived cannot with certainty be ascertained and, as in the preceding\ninstance, even if it be assumed that the words show acquaintance with\nthe fourth Gospel, nothing could be proved but the mere existence of the\nwork about a century and a half after the events which it records. It is\nobvious that in no case does Tatian afford the slightest evidence of the\nApostolic origin or historical veracity of the fourth Gospel.\n\nDr. Lightfoot points out another passage, Sec. 4, [------], which he\ncompares with John iv. 24, where the same words occur. It is right to\nadd that he himself remarks: \"If it had stood alone I should certainly\nnot have regarded it as decisive. But the epigrammatic form is\nremarkable, and it is a characteristic passage of the fourth Gospel.(2)\nNeither Tischendorf nor Dr. Westcott refer to it. The fact is, however,\nthat the epigrammatic form only exists when the phrase is quoted without\nits context. \"God is a spirit, not pervading matter, but the creator of\nmaterial spirits, and of the forms that are in it. He is invisible and\nimpalpable,\" &c. &c. Further on, Tatian says (Sec.15), \"For the perfect God\nis without flesh, but man is flesh.\" &c. A large\n\n{378}\n\npart of the oration is devoted to discussing the nature of God, and\nthe distinction between spirit [------] and soul [------], and it\nis unreasonable to assert that a man like Tatian could not make the\ndeclaration that God is a spirit without quoting the fourth Gospel.\n\nWe have generally discussed the testimony of Dionysius of Corinth,(1)\nMelito of Sardis,(2) and Claudius Apol-linaris,(3) and need not say more\nhere. The fragments attributed to them neither mention nor quote\nthe fourth Gospel, but in no case could they furnish evidence to\nauthenticate the work. The same remarks apply to Athenagoras.(4) Canon\nWestcott only ventures to say that he \"appears to allude to passages in\nSt. Mark and St. John, but they are all anonymous.\"(5) The passages\nin which he speaks of the Logos, which are those referred to here,\nare certainly not taken from the fourth Gospel, and his doctrine is\nexpressed in terminology which is different from that of the Gospel,\nand is deeply tinged with Platonism.(6) He appeals to Proverbs viii. 22,\nalready so frequently quoted by us, for confirmation by the Prophetic\nSpirit of his exposition of the Logos doctrine.(7) He nowhere identifies\nthe Logos with Jesus;(8) indeed he does not once make use of the name\nof Christ in his works. He does not show the slightest knowledge of the\ndoctrine of salvation so constantly enunciated in the fourth Gospel.\nThere can be no doubt, as we have already shown,(9) that he considered\nthe Old Testament to\n\n{379}\n\nbe the only inspired Holy Scriptures. Not only does he not mention nor\nquote any of our Gospels, but the only instance in which he makes any\nreference to sayings of Jesus, otherwise than by the indefinite [------]\n\"he says,\" is one in which he introduces a saying which is not found in\nour Gospels by the words: \"The Logos again saying to us:\" [------], &c.\nFrom the same source, which was obviously not our Canonical Gospels,\nwe have, therefore, reason to conclude that Athenagoras derived all\nhis knowledge of Gospel history and doctrine. We need not add that this\nwriter affords no testimony whatever as to the origin or character of\nthe fourth Gospel.\n\nIt is scarcely worth while to refer to the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons,\na composition dating at the earliest a.d. 177-178, in which no direct\nreference is made to any writing of the New Testament.(1) Acquaintance\nwith the fourth Gospel is argued from the following passage: [------]\n\nNow such a passage cannot prove the use of the fourth Gospel. No source\nis indicated in the Epistle from which the saying of Jesus, which of\ncourse apologists assert to be historical, was derived. It presents\ndecided variations from the parallel in the fourth Gospel; and in the\n\n{380}\n\nSynoptics we find sufficient indications of similar discourses l to\nrender it very probable that other Gospels may have contained the\npassage quoted in the Epistle. In no case could an anonymous reference\nlike this be of any weight as evidence for the Apostolic origin of the\nfourth Gospel.\n\nWe need not further discuss Ptolemoeus and Heracleon. We have shown(2)\nthat the date at which these heretics flourished places them beyond\nthe limits within which we propose to confine ourselves. In regard to\nPtolemaeus\n\nall that is affirmed is that, in the Epistle to Flora ascribed to him,\nexpressions found in John i. 3 are used. The passage as it is given by\nEpiphanius is as follows: \"Besides, that the world was created by the\nsame, the Apostle states (saying all things have been made [------] by\nhim and without him nothing was made).\" [------].(3) Now the supposed\nquotation is introduced here in a parenthesis interrupting the sense,\nand there is every probability that it was added as an illustration by\nEpiphanius, and was not in the Epistle to Flora at all. Omitting the\nparenthesis, the sentence is a very palpable reference to the Apostle\nPaul, and Coloss. i. 16.(4) In regard to Heraclcon, it is asserted from\nthe unsupported references of Origen(5) that he wrote a commentary on\nthe fourth Gospel. Even if this be a fact, there is not a single word\nof it preserved by Origen which in the least degree bears upon the\nApostolic origin\n\n{381}\n\nand trustworthiness of the Gospel. Neither of these heresiarchs,\ntherefore, is of any value as a witness for the authenticity of the\nfourth Gospel.\n\nThe heathen Celsus, as we have shown,(1) wrote at a period when no\nevidence which he could well give of his own could have been of much\nvalue in supporting our Gospels. He is pressed into service,(2) however,\nbecause after alluding to various circumstances of Gospel history he\nsays: \"These things, therefore, being taken out of your own writings, we\nhave no need of other testimony, for you fall upon your own swords,\"(3)\nand in another place he says that certain Christians \"alter the Gospel\nfrom its first written form in three-fold, four-fold, and many-fold\nways, and re-mould it in order to have the means of contradicting the\narguments (of opponents).\" (4) This is supposed to refer to the four\nCanonical Gospels. Apart from the fact that Origen replies to the first\nof these passages, that Celsus has brought forward much concerning Jesus\nwhich is not in accordance with the narratives of the Gospels, it is\nunreasonable to limit the accusation of \"many-fold\" corruption to\nfour Gospels, when it is undeniable that the Gospels and writings long\ncurrent in the Church were very numerous. In any case, what could such\na statement as this do towards establishing the Apostolic origin and\ncredibility of the fourth Gospel?\n\nWe might pass over the _Canon of Muratori_ entirely,\n\n{382}\n\nas being beyond the limit of time to which we confine ourselves,(1) but\nthe unknown writer of the fragment gives a legend with regard to the\ncomposition of the fourth Gospel which we may quote here, although\nits obviously mythical character renders it of no value as evidence\nregarding the authorship of the Gospel. The writer says:\n\nQuarti euangeliorum Iohannis ex decipolis Cohortantibus condescipulis et\nepiscopis suis dixit conieiunate mihi hodie triduo et quid cuique fuerit\nreuelatum alterutrum nobis ennarremus eadem nocte reue latum Andrew\nex apostolis ut recognis centibus cunctis Iohannis suo nomine cuncta\ndescriberet et ideo (2) licit uaria sin culis euangeliorum libris\nprincipia docoantur nihil tamen diffort creden tium fidei cum uno ac\nprincipali spiritu de clarata sint in omnibus omnia de natiui tate de\npassione de resurrectione de conuersatione cum decipulis suis ac de\ngemino eius aduentu primo in humilitate dispectus quod fo... .u (3)\nsecundum potestate regali... pre clarum quod futurum est (4) quid\nergo minim si Iohannes tarn constanter sincula etiam in epistulis suis\nproferat dicens in semeipsu quae uidimus oculis nostris et auribus\naudiuimus et manus nostra palpauerunt heec scripsimus nobis sic enim\nnon solum uisurem sed et auditorem sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium\ndomini per ordi nem profetetur\n\n{383}\n\n\"The fourth of the Gospels, of John, one of the disciples. To his\nfellow-disciples and bishops (Episcopis) urging him he said: 'Fast with\nme to-day for three days, and let us relate to each other that which\nshall be revealed to each.' On the same night it was revealed to Andrew,\none of the Apostles, that, with the supervision of all, John should\nrelate all things in his own name. And, therefore, though various\nprinciples (principia) are taught by each book of the Gospels,\nnevertheless it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since,\nin all, all things are declared by one ruling Spirit concerning\nthe nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection,\nconcerning the intercourse with the disciples, and concerning his double\nadvent; the first in lowliness of estate, which has taken place, the\nsecond in regal power and splendour, which is still future. What\nwonder, therefore, if John should so constantly bring forward each thing\n(singula) also in his Epistles, saying in regard to himself: The things\nwhich we have seen with our eyes, and have heard with our ears, and our\nhands have handled, these things have we written unto you. For thus he\nprofesses himself not only an eye-witness and hearer, but also a writer\nof all the wonders of the Lord in order.\"\n\nIt is obvious that in this passage we have an apologetic defence of the\nfourth Gospel,(1) which unmistakably implies antecedent denial of its\nauthority and apostolic origin. The writer not only ascribes it to John,\nbut he clothes it with the united authority of the rest of the Apostles,\nin\n\n{384}\n\na manner which very possibly aims at explaining the supplementary\nchapter xxi., with its testimony to the truth of the preceding\nnarrative. In his zeal, the writer goes so far as to falsify a passage\nof the Epistle, and convert it into a declaration by the author of the\nletter himself that he had written the Gospel. \"'The things which we\nhave seen, &c., these things have we written unto you' (haec scripsi-mus\nvobis).(1) For thus he professes himself not only an eye-witness and\nhearer, but also a writer of all the wonders of the Lord in order.\"\nCredner argues that in speaking of John as \"one of the disciples\" (ex\ndiscipulis), and of Andrew as \"one of the Apostles,\" the writer intends\nto distinguish between John the disciple, who wrote the Gospel and\nEpistle, and John the Apostle, who wrote the Apocalypse, and that it was\nfor this reason that he sought to dignify him by a special revelation,\nthrough the Apostle Andrew, selecting him to write the Gospel. Credner,\ntherefore, concludes that here we have an ancient ecclesiastical\ntradition ascribing the Gospel and first Epistle to one of the disciples\nof Jesus different from the Apostle John.(2) Into this, however, we need\nnot enter, nor is it necessary for us to demonstrate the mythical nature\nof this narrative regarding the origin of the Gospel. We have merely\ngiven this extract from the fragment to make our statement regarding it\ncomplete. Not only is the evidence of the fragment of no value, from the\nlateness of its date and the uncritical character of its author, but a\nvague and fabulous tradition recorded by an unknown writer could not, in\nany case, furnish testimony calculated to establish the Apostolic origin\nand trustworthiness of the fourth Gospel.\n\n{385}\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL\n\nThe result of our inquiry into the evidence for the fourth Gospel is\nsufficiently decided to render further examination unnecessary. We have\nseen that, for some century and a half after the events recorded in\nthe work, there is not only no testimony whatever connecting the fourth\nGospel with the Apostle John, but no certain trace even of the existence\nof the Gospel. There has not been the slightest evidence in any of the\nwritings of the Fathers which we have examined even of a tradition that\nthe Apostle John had composed any evangelical work at all, and the claim\nadvanced in favour of the Christian miracles to contemporaneous evidence\nof extraordinary force and veracity by undoubted eye-witnesses so\ncompletely falls to the ground, that we might here well bring this\npart of our inquiry to a close. There are, however, so many peculiar\ncircumstances connected with the fourth Gospel, both in regard to its\nauthorship and to its relationship with the three Synoptics, which\ninvite further attention, that we propose briefly to review some of\nthem. We must, however, carefully restrict ourselves to the limits\nof our inquiry, and resist any temptation to enter upon an exhaustive\ndiscussion of the problem presented by the fourth Gospel from a more\ngeneral literary point of view.\n\n{386}\n\nThe endeavour to obtain some positive, or at least negative, information\nregarding the author of the fourth Gospel is facilitated by the fact\nthat several other works in the New Testament Canon are ascribed to him.\nThese works present such marked and distinct characteristics that, apart\nfrom the fact that their number extends the range of evidence, they\nafford an unusual opportunity of testing the tradition which assigns\nthem all to the Apostle John, by comparing the clear indications which\nthey give of the idiosyncrasies of their author with the independent\ndata which we possess regarding the history and character of the\nApostle. It is asserted by the Church that John the son of Zebedee, one\nof the disciples of Jesus, is the composer of no less than five of our\ncanonical writings, and it would be impossible to select any books of\nour New Testament presenting more distinct features, or more widely\ndivergent views, than are to be found in the Apocalypse on the one hand,\nand the Gospel and three Epistles on the other. Whilst a strong family\nlikeness exists between the Epistles and the Gospel, and they exhibit\nclose analogies both in thought and language, the Apocalypse, on the\ncontrary, is so different from them in language, in style, in religious\nviews and terminology, that it is almost impossible to believe that the\nwriter of the one could be the author of the other. The translators of\nour New Testament have laboured, and not in vain, to eliminate as far\nas possible all individuality of style and language, and to reduce\nthe various books of which it is composed to one uniform smoothness of\ndiction. It is, therefore, impossible for the mere English reader to\nappreciate the immense difference which exists between the harsh and\nHebraistic Greek of the Apocalypse and the polished\n\n{387}\n\nelegance of the fourth Gospel, and it is to be feared that the rarity\nof critical study has prevented any general recognition of the almost\nequally striking contrast of thought between the two works. The\nremarkable peculiarities which distinguish the Apocalypse and Gospel\nof John, however, were very early appreciated, and almost the first\napplication of critical judgment to the Canonical books of the New\nTestament is the argument of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, about the\nmiddle of the third century, that the author of the fourth Gospel\ncould not be the writer of the Book of Revelation.(1) The dogmatic\npredilections which at that time had begun to turn against the\nApocalypse, the nonfulfilment of the prophecies of which disappointed\nand puzzled the early Church, led Dionysius to solve the difficulty by\ndeciding in favour of the authenticity of the Gospel, but at least he\nrecognized the dilemma which has since occupied so much of biblical\ncriticism.\n\nIt is not necessary to enter upon any exhaustive analysis of the\nApocalypse and Gospel to demonstrate anew that both works cannot have\nemanated from the same mind. This has already been conclusively done by\nothers. Some apologetic writers,--greatly influenced, no doubt, by the\nexpress declaration of the Church, and satisfied by analogies which\ncould scarcely fail to exist between two works dealing with a similar\ntheme,--together with a very few independent critics, have asserted the\nauthenticity of both works.(2) The great majority of\n\n{388}\n\ncritics, however, have fully admitted the impossibility of recognizing\na common source for the fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse of John.(1) The\ncritical question regarding the two works has, in fact, reduced itself\nto the dilemma which may be expressed as follows, in the words of\nLlicke: \"Either the Gospel and the first Epistle are genuine writings of\nthe Apostle John, and in that case the Apocalypse is no genuine work of\nthat Apostle, or the inverse.\"(2) After an elaborate comparison of the\ntwo writings, the same writer, who certainly will not be suspected of\nwilfully subversive criticism, resumes: \"The difference between the\nlanguage, way\n\n{389}\n\nof expression, and mode of thought and doctrine of the Apocalypse and\nthe rest of the Johannine writings, is so comprehensive and intense, so\nindividual and so radical; the affinity and agreement, on the\ncontrary, are so general, and in details so fragmentary and uncertain\n(zuruckweichend), that the Apostle John, if he really he the author\nof the Gospel and of the Epistle--which we here assume--cannot have\ncomposed the Apocalypse either before or after the Gospel and the\nEpistle. If all critical experience and rules in such literary questions\nare not deceptive, it is certain that the Evangelist and Apocalyptist\nare two different persons of the name of John,\"(l) &c.\n\nDe Wette, another conservative critic, speaks with equal decision. After\nan able comparison of the two works, he says: \"From all this it follows\n(and in New Testament criticism no result is more certain), that the\nApostle John, if he be the author of the fourth Gospel and of the\nJohannine Epistles, did not write the Apocalypse, or, if the Apocalypse\nbe his work, that he is not the author of the other writings.\"(2) Ewald\nis equally positive: \"Above all,\" he says, \"we should err in tracing\nthis work (the Gospel) to the Apostle, if the Apocalypse of the New\nTestament were by him. That this much earlier writing cannot have been\ncomposed by the author of the later is an axiom which I consider I have\nalready, (in 1826-28) so convincingly demonstrated, that it would be\nsuperfluous now to return to it, especially as, since then, all men\ncapable of forming a judgment are of the same opinion, and what has been\nbrought forward by a few writers against it too clearly depends upon\n\n{390}\n\ninfluences foreign to science.\"(1) We may, therefore, consider the point\ngenerally admitted, and proceed very briefly to discuss the question\nupon this basis.\n\nThe external evidence that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse is more\nancient than that for the authorship of any book of the New Testament,\nexcepting some of the Epistles of Paul, and this is admitted even by\ncritics who ultimately deny the authenticity of the work.(2) Passing\nover the very probable statement of Andrew of Caesarea,(3) that Papias\nrecognized the Apocalypse as an inspired work, and the inference drawn\nfrom this fact that he referred it to the Apostle, we at once proceed to\nJustin Martyr, who affirms in the clearest and most positive manner the\nApostolic origin of the work. He speaks to Tryphon of \"a certain man\nwhose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied by\na revelation made to him,\" of the Millennium, and subsequent general\nresurrection and judgment.(4) The statement of Justin is all the more\nimportant from the fact that he does not name any other writing of the\nNew Testament, and that the Old Testament was still for him the only\nHoly Scripture. The genuineness of this\n\n{391}\n\ntestimony is not called in question by any one. Eusebius states that\nMelito of Sardis wrote a work on the Apocalypse of John,(1) and Jerome\nmentions the treatise.(2) There can be no doubt that had Melito thrown\nthe slightest doubt on the Apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, Eusebius,\nwhose dogmatic views led him to depreciate that writing, would have\nreferred to the fact. Eusebius also mentions that Apollonius, a\nPresbyter of Ephesus, quoted the Apocalypse against the Montanists,\nand there is reason to suppose that he did so as an Apostolic work.(3)\nEusebius further states that Theophilus of Antioch made use of testimony\nfrom the Apocalypse of John;(4) but although, as Eusebius does not\nmention anything to the contrary, it is probable that Theophilus really\nrecognized the book to be by John the Apostle, the uncritical haste of\nEusebius renders his vague statement of little value. We do not think\nit worth while to quote the evidence of later writers. Although Irenaeus,\nwho repeatedly assigns the Apocalypse to John, the disciple of the\nLord,(5) is cited by Apologists as a very important witness, more\nespecially from his intercourse with Polycarp, we do not attribute any\nvalue to his testimony, both from the late date at which he wrote, and\nfrom the uncritical and credulous character of his mind. Although he\nappeals to the testimony of those \"who saw John face to face\" with\nregard to the number of the name of the Beast, his own utter ignorance\nof the interpretation shows how little information he can have derived\nfrom Polycarp.(6) The same remarks apply still more strongly to\nTertullian, who, however, most\n\n{392}\n\nunhesitatingly assigns the Apocalypse to the Apostle John.(1) It would\nbe useless more particularly to refer to later evidence, however,\nor quote even the decided testimony in its favour of Clement of\nAlexandria,(2) or Origen.(3)\n\nThe first doubt cast upon the authenticity of the Apocalypse occurs in\nthe argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, one of the disciples of Origen,\nin the middle of the third century. He mentions that some had objected\nto the whole work as without sense or reason, and as displaying such\ndense ignorance, that it was impossible that an Apostle or even one in\nthe Church, could have written it, and they assigned it to Cerinthus,\nwho held the doctrine of the reign of Christ on earth.(4) These\nobjections, it is obvious, are merely dogmatic, and do not affect to be\nhistorical. They are in fact a good illustration of the method by\nwhich the Canon was formed. If the doctrine of any writing met with the\napproval of the early Church, it was accepted with unhesitating faith,\nand its pretension to Apostolic origin was admitted as a natural\nconsequence; but if, on the other hand, the doctrine of the writing\nwas not clearly that of the community, it was rejected without further\nexamination. It is an undeniable fact, that not a single trace exists of\nthe application of historical criticism to any book of the New Testament\nin the early ages of Christianity. The case of the Apocalypse is most\nintelligible:--so long as the expectation and hope of a second advent\nand of a personal reign of the risen and glorified Christ, of the\nprevalence of which we have abundant testimony in the Pauline Epistles\nand other early works, continued to animate the Church, the\n\n{393}\n\nApocalypse which excited and fostered them was a popular volume: but as\nyears passed away and the general longing of Christians, eagerly marking\nthe signs of the times, was again and again disappointed, and the hope\nof a Millennium began either to be abandoned or indefinitely postponed,\nthe Apocalypse proportionately lost favour, or was regarded as an\nincomprehensible book misleading the world by illusory promises. Its\nhistory is that of a highly dogmatic treatise esteemed or contemned in\nproportion to the ebb and flow of opinion regarding the doctrines which\nit expresses.\n\nThe objections of Dionysius, resting first upon dogmatic grounds and his\ninability to understand the Apocalyptic utterances of the book, took the\nshape we have mentioned of a critical dilemma:--The author of the Gospel\ncould not at the same time be the author of the Apocalypse. Dogmatic\npredilection decided the question in favour of the apostolic origin of\nthe fourth Gospel, and the reasoning by which that decision is arrived\nat has, therefore, no critical force or value. The fact still remains\nthat Justin Martyr distinctly refers to the Apocalypse as the work of\nthe Apostle John and, as we have seen, no similar testimony exists in\nsupport of the claims of the fourth Gospel.\n\nAs another most important point, we may mention that there is\nprobably not another work of the New Testament the precise date of the\ncomposition of which, within a very few weeks, can so positively be\naffirmed. No result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis and is\nnow more universally accepted by all competent critics than the fact\nthat the Apocalypse was written in A.D. 68-69.(1) The writer distinctly\nand repeatedly mentions his name: i. 1, \"The revelation of Jesus\nChrist....\n\n{394}\n\nunto his servant John;\"(1) i. 4, \"John to the seven churches which are\nin Asia;\"(2) and he states that the work was written in the island of\nPatmos where he was \"on account of the Word of God and the testimony of\nJesus.\"(3) Ewald, who decides in the most arbitrary manner against the\nauthenticity of the Apocalypse and in favour of the Johannine authorship\nof the Gospel, objects that the author, although he certainly calls\nhimself John, does not assume to be an Apostle, but merely terms\nhimself the servant [------] of Christ like other true Christians, and\ndistinctly classes himself amongst the Prophets(4) and not amongst the\nApostles.(5) We find, however, that Paul, who was not apt to waive his\nclaims to the Apostolate, was content to call himself: \"Paul a servant\n[------] of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle,\" in writing to the\nRomans; (i. 1) and the superscription of the Epistle to the Philippians\nis: \"Paul and Timothy servants [------] of Christ Jesus.\"(6) There was,\nmoreover, reason why\n\n{395}\n\nthe author of the Book of Revelation, a work the form of which was\ndecidedly based upon that of Daniel and other Jewish Apocalyptic\nwritings, should rather adopt the character of Prophet than the less\nsuitable designation of Apostle upon such an occasion. It is clear that\nhe counted fully upon being generally known under the simple designation\nof \"John,\" and when we consider the unmistakeable terms of authority\nwith which he addresses the Seven Churches, it is scarcely possible to\ndeny that the writer either was the Apostle, or distinctly desired to\nassume his personality. It is not necessary for us here to enter into\nany discussion regarding the \"Presbyter John,\" for it is generally\nadmitted that even he could not have had at that time any position\nin Asia Minor which could have warranted such a tone. If the name of\nApostle, therefore, be not directly assumed--and it was not necessary to\nassume it--the authority of one is undeniably inferred.\n\nEwald, however, argues that, on the contrary, the author could not more\nclearly express that he was not one of the Twelve, than when he imagines\n(Apoc. xxi. 14) the names of the 'twelve apostles of the Lamb' shining\nupon the twelve foundation stones of the wall of the future heavenly\nJerusalem. He considers that no intelligent person could thus publicly\nglorify himself or anticipate the honour which God alone can bestow.\n\"And can any one seriously believe,\" he indignantly inquires, \"that one\nof the Twelve, yea, that even he whom we know as the most delicate and\nrefined amongst them could have written this of himself?\"(1) Now, in the\nfirst place, we must remark that in this discussion\n\n{396}\n\nit is not permissible to speak of our knowing John the Apostle as\ndistinguished above all the rest of the Twelve for such qualities.\nNowhere do we find such a representation of him except in the fourth\nGospel, if even there, but, as we shall presently see, rather the\ncontrary, and the fourth Gospel cannot here be received as evidence. We\nmight, by way of retort, point out to those who assert the inspiration\nof the Apocalypse, that the symbolical representation of the heavenly\nJerusalem is held to be practically objective, a revelation of things\nthat \"must shortly come to pass,\" and not a mere subjective sketch\ncoloured according to the phantasy of the writer. Passing on, however,\nit must be apparent that the whole account of the heavenly city is\ntypical, and that in basing its walls upon the Twelve, he does not\nglorify himself personally, but simply gives its place to the idea which\nwas symbolised when Jesus is represented as selecting twelve disciples,\nthe number of the twelve tribes, upon whose preaching the spiritual city\nwas to be built up. The Jewish belief in a special preference of the\nJews before all nations doubtless suggested this, and it forms a leading\nfeature in the strong Hebraistic form of the writer's Christianity.\nThe heavenly city is simply a glorified Jerusalem; the twelve Apostles,\nrepresentatives of the twelve tribes, set apart for the regeneration of\nIsrael, are the foundation-stones of the New City with its twelve gates,\non which are written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel(1) for\nwhom the city is more particularly provided. For 144,000 of Israel\nare first sealed, 12,000 of each of the twelve tribes before the Seer\nbeholds the great multitude of all nations and tribes and peoples.(2)\nThe whole description is a\n\n{397}\n\nmere allegory characterized by the strongest Jewish dogmatism, and it is\nof singular value for the purpose of identifying the author.\n\nMoreover, the apparent glorification of the Twelve is more than\njustified by the promise which Jesus is represented by the Synoptics(l)\nas making to them in person. When Peter, in the name of the Twelve, asks\nwhat is reserved for those who have forsaken all and followed him, Jesus\nreplies: \"Verily I say unto you that ye which have followed me, in the\nregeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory,\nye also shall be set upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of\nIsrael.\"(2) Ewald himself, in his distribution of the materials of our\nexisting first Synoptic to the supposed original sources, assigns this\npassage to the very oldest Gospel.(3) What impropriety is there, and\nwhat improbability, therefore, that an Apostle, in an apocalyptic\nallegory, should represent the names of the twelve Apostles as inscribed\nupon the twelve foundation stones of the spiritual Jerusalem, as the\nnames of the twelve tribes of Israel were inscribed upon the twelve\ngates of the city? On the contrary, we submit that it is probable under\nthe circumstances that an Apostle should make such a representation, and\nin view of the facts regarding the Apostle John himself which we have\nfrom the Synoptics, it is particularly in harmony with his character,\nand these characteristics directly tend to establish his identity with\nthe author.\n\n\"How much less is it credible of the Apostle John,\" says Ewald,\nelsewhere, pursuing the same argument, \"who, as a writer, is so\nincomparably modest and\n\n{398}\n\ndelicate in feeling, and does not in a single one of the writings really\nemanating from him name himself as the author, or even proclaim his own\npraise.\"(l) This is merely sentimental assumption of facts to which we\nshall hereafter allude, but if the \"incomparable modesty\" of which he\nspeaks really existed, nothing could more conclusively separate the\nauthor of the fourth Gospel from the son of Zebedee whom we know in the\nSynoptics, or more support the claims of the Apocalypse. In the first\nplace, we must assert that, in writing a serious history of the life and\nteaching of Jesus, full of marvellous events and astounding doctrines,\nthe omission of his name by an Apostle can not only not be recognized\nas genuine modesty, but must be condemned as culpable neglect. It is\nperfectly incredible that an Apostle could have written such a work\nwithout attaching his name as the guarantee of his intimate acquaintance\nwith the events and statements he records. What would be thought of\na historian who published a history without a single reference to\nrecognized authorities, and yet who did not declare even his own name\nas some evidence of his truth? The fact is, that the first two Synoptics\nbear no author's name because they are not the work of any one man, but\nthe collected materials of many; the third Synoptic only pretends to\nbe a compilation for private use; and the fourth Gospel bears no simple\nsignature because it is neither the work of an Apostle, nor of an\neye-witness of the events and hearer of the teaching it records.\n\nIf it be considered incredible, however, that an Apostle could, even\nin an Allegory, represent the names of the Twelve as written on the\nfoundation stones of the New Jerusalem, and the incomparable modesty and\ndelicacy\n\n{399}\n\nof feeling of the assumed author of the fourth Gospel be contrasted with\nit so much to the disadvantage of the writer of the Apocalypse, we ask\nwhether this reference to the collective Twelve can be considered at\nall on a par with the self-glorification of the disguised author of the\nGospel, who, not content with the simple indication of himself as John\na servant of Jesus Christ, and with sharing distinction equally with\nthe rest of the Twelve, assumes to himself alone a pre-eminence in the\nfavour and affection of his Master, as well as a distinction amongst\nhis fellow disciples, of which we first hear from himself, and which is\nanything but corroborated by the three Synoptics? The supposed author of\nthe fourth Gospel, it is true, does not plainly mention his name, but he\ndistinguishes himself as \"the disciple whom Jesus loved,\" and represents\nhimself as \"leaning on Jesus' breast at supper.\"(1) This distinction\nassumed to himself, and this preference over the other disciples in\nthe love of him whom he represents as God, is much greater\nself-glorification than that of the author of the Apocalypse. We shall\npresently see how far Ewald is right in saying, moreover, that the\nauthor does not clearly indicate the person for whom at least he desires\nto be mistaken.\n\nWe must conclude that these objections have no weight, and that there\nis no internal evidence whatever against the supposition that the \"John\"\nwho announces himself as the author of the Apocalypse was the Apostle.\nOn the contrary, the tone of authority adopted throughout, and the\nevident certainty that his identity would everywhere be recognized,\ndenote a position in the Church which no other person of the name of\nJohn could well have held at the time when the Apocalypse was written.\n\n{400}\n\nThe external evidence, therefore, which indicates the Apostle John\nas the author of the Apocalypse is quite in harmony with the internal\ntestimony of the book itself. We have already pointed out the strong\ncolouring of Judaism in the views of the writer. Its imagery is\nthoroughly Jewish, and its allegorical representations are entirely\nbased upon Jewish traditions, and hopes. The heavenly City is a New\nJerusalem; its twelve gates are dedicated to the twelve tribes of\nIsrael; God and the Lamb are the Temple of it; and the sealed of the\ntwelve tribes have the precedence over the nations, and stand with the\nLamb on Mount Zion (xiv. 1) having his name and his Father's written on\ntheir foreheads. The language in which the book is written is the most\nHebraistic Greek of the New Testament, as its contents are the most\ndeeply tinged with Judaism. If, finally, we seek for some traces of\nthe character of the writer, we see in every page the impress of an\nimpetuous fiery spirit, whose symbol is the Eagle, breathing forth\nvengeance against the enemies of the Messiah and impatient till it be\naccomplished, and the whole of the visions of the Apocalypse proceed to\nthe accompaniment of the rolling thunders of God's wrath.\n\nWe may now turn to examine such historical data as exist regarding John\nthe son of Zebedee, and to inquire whether they accord better with\nthe character and opinions of the author of the Apocalypse or of the\nEvangelist. John and his brother James are represented by the Synoptics\nas being the sons of Zebedee and Salome. They were fishermen on the\nsea of Galilee, and at the call of Jesus they left their ship and their\nfather and followed him.(1) Their fiery and impetuous character led\n\n{401}\n\nJesus to give them the surname of [------]: \"Sons of thunder,\"(1) an\nepithet justified by several incidents which are related regarding them.\nUpon one occasion, John sees one casting out devils in his master's\nname, and in an intolerant spirit forbids him because he did not follow\nthem, for which he is rebuked by Jesus.(2) Another time, when the\ninhabitants of a Samaritan village would not receive them, John and\nJames angrily turn to Jesus and say: \"Lord, wilt thou that we command\nfire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did?\"(3)\nA remarkable episode will have presented itself already to the mind of\nevery reader, which the second Synoptic Gospel narrates as follows: Mark\nx. 35, \"And James and John the sons of Zebedee come unto him saying unto\nhim: Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall\nask thee. 36. And he said unto them: What would ye that I should do for\nyou? 37. They said unto him: Grant that we may sit, one on thy right\nhand, and the other on thy left hand in thy glory. 38. But Jesus said to\nthem: Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink the cup that I drink? or\nbe baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? 39. And they said\nunto him: We can. And Jesus said unto them: The cup that I drink ye\nshall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be\nbaptized: 40. But to sit on my right hand or on my left hand is not mine\nto give, but for whom it has been prepared. 41. And when the ten\nheard it they began to be much displeased with James and John.\" It is\ndifficult to say whether the\n\n{402}\n\neffrontery and selfishness of the request, or the assurance with which\nthe brethren assert their power to emulate the Master is more striking\nin this scene. Apparently, the grossness of the proceeding already\nbegan to be felt when our first Gospel was edited, for it represents\nthe request as made by the mother of James and John; but that is a very\nslight decrease of the offence, inasmuch as the brethren are obviously\nconsenting, if not inciting, parties to the prayer, and utter their\n\"We can,\" with the same absence of \"incomparable modesty.\"(1) After the\ndeath of Jesus, John remained in Jerusalem,(2) and chiefly confined\nhis ministry to the city and its neighbourhood.(3) The account which\nHegesippus gives of James the brother of Jesus who was appointed\noverseer of the Church in Jerusalem will not be forgotten,(4) and we\nrefer to it merely in illustration of primitive Christianity. However\nmythical elements are worked up into the narrative, one point is\nundoubted fact, that the Christians of that community were but a sect\nof Judaism, merely superadding to Mosaic doctrines belief in the actual\nadvent of the Messiah whom Moses and the prophets had foretold; and we\nfind, in the Acts of the Apostles, Peter and John represented as \"going\nup into the Temple at the hour of prayer,\"(6) like other Jews. In the\nEpistle of Paul to the Galatians, we have most valuable evidence with\nregard to the Apostle John. Paul found him still in Jerusalem on the\noccasion of the visit referred to in that letter, about a.d. 50--53. We\nneed not quote at length the important passage Gal. ii. 1 ff., but the\nfact\n\n{403}\n\nis undeniable, and stands upon stronger evidence than almost any other\nparticular regarding the early Church, being distinctly and directly\nstated by Paul himself: that the three \"pillar\" Apostles representing\nthe Church there were James, Peter, and John. Peter is markedly termed\nthe Apostle of the circumcision, and the differences between him and\nPaul are evidence of the opposition of their views. James and John\nare clearly represented as sharing the views of Peter, and whilst Paul\nfinally agrees with them that he is to go to the Gentiles, the three\n[------] elect to continue their ministry to the circumcision.(1)\nHere is John, therefore, clearly devoted to the Apostleship of the\ncircumcision as opposed to Paul, whose views, as we gather from\nthe whole of Paul's account, were little more than tolerated by the\n[------]. Before leaving New Testament data, we may here point out the\nstatement in the Acts of the Apostles that Peter and John were known to\nbe \"unlettered and ignorant men\"(2) [------]. Later tradition mentions\none or two circumstances regarding John to which we may briefly refer.\nIrenaeus states: \"There are those who heard him (Polycarp) say that\nJohn, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus and perceiving\nCerinthus within, rushed forth from the bath-house without bathing, but\ncrying out: 'Let us fly lest the bath-house fall down: Cerinthus, the\nenemy of the truth, being within it.'... So great was the care which the\nApostles and their disciples took not to hold even verbal intercourse\nwith any of the corrupters of the truth,\"(3) &c. Polycrates, who was\nBishop of Ephesus\n\n{404}\n\nabout the beginning of the third century, states that the Apostle John\nwore the mitre and petalon of the high priest [------],(1) a tradition\nwhich agrees with the Jewish tendencies of the Apostle of the\ncircumcision as Paul describes him.(2)\n\nNow if we compare these data regarding John the son of Zebedee with the\ncharacter of John the author of the Apocalypse, as we trace it in\nthe work itself, it is impossible not to be struck by the singular\nagreement. The Hebraistic Greek and abrupt inelegant diction are natural\nto the unlettered fisherman of Galilee, and the fierce and intolerant\nspirit which pervades the book is precisely that which formerly forbade\nthe working of miracles, even in the name of the Master, by any not\nof the immediate circle of Jesus, and which desired to consume an\ninhospitable village with fire from heaven.(3) The Judaistic form of\nChristianity which is represented throughout the Apocalypse, and the\nJewish elements which enter so largely into its whole composition, are\nprecisely those\n\n     2 We need not refer to any of the other legends regarding\n     John, but it may be well to mention the tradition common\n     amongst the Fathers which assigned to him the cognomen of\n     \"the Virgin.\" One Codex gives as the superscription of the\n     Apocalypse: \"t[------]\" and we know that it is reported in\n     early writings that, of all the Apostles, only John and the\n     Apostle Paul remained unmarried, whence probably, in part,\n     this title. In connection with this we may point to the\n     importance attached to virginity in the Apocalypse, xiv. 4;\n     cf. Schwegler, Das naohap. Zeit, ii. p. 264; Lilcke, Comm.\n     lib. d. Br. Joh., 1836, p. 32 f.; Craftier, Einl. N. T., i.\n     p. 21.\n\n     3 The very objection of Ewald regarding the glorification of\n     the Twelve, if true, would be singularly in keeping with the\n     audacious request of John and his brother, to sit on the\n     right and left hand of the glorified Jesus, for we find none\n     of the  \"incomparable modesty\" which the imaginative critic\n     attributes to the author of the fourth Gospel in the John of\n     the Synoptics.\n\n{405}\n\nwhich we might expect from John the Apostle of the circumcision and the\nassociate of James and of Peter in the very centre of Judaism. Parts of\nthe Apocalypse, indeed, derive a new significance when we remember the\nopposition which the Apostle of the Gentiles met with from the Apostles\nof the circumcision, as plainly declared by Paul in his Epistle to the\nGalatians ii. 1. ff., and apparent in other parts of his writings.\n\nWe have already seen the scarcely disguised attack which is made on Paul\nin the Clementine Homilies under the name of Simon the Magician,\nthe Apostle Peter following him from city to city for the purpose of\ndenouncing and refuting his teaching. There can be no doubt that the\nanimosity against Paul which was felt by the Ebionitic party, to which\nJohn as well as Peter belonged, was extreme, and when the novelty of the\ndoctrine of justification by faith alone, taught by him, is considered,\nit is very comprehensible. In the Apocalypse, we find undeniable traces\nof it which accord with what Paul himself says, and with the undoubted\ntradition of the early Church. Not only is Paul silently excluded from\nthe number of the Apostles, which might be intelligible when the typical\nnature of the number twelve is considered, but allusion is undoubtedly\nmade to him, in the Epistles to the Churches. It is clear that Paul is\nreferred to in the address to the Church of Ephesus: \"And thou didst try\nthem which say that they are Apostles and are not, and didst find them\nfalse;\"(1) and also in the words to the Church of Smyrna: \"But I have\na few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the\nteaching of Balaam, who taught\n\n{406}\n\nBalak to cast a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat\nthings sacrificed unto idols,\"(1) &c., as well as elsewhere.(2) Without\ndwelling on this point, however, we think it must be apparent to every\nunprejudiced person that the Apocalypse singularly corresponds in every\nrespect--language, construction, and thought--with what we are told\nof the character of the Apostle John by the Synoptic Gospels and by\ntradition, and that the internal evidence, therefore, accords with\nthe external in attributing the composition of the Apocalypse to that\nApostle.3\n\n407}\n\nWe may without hesitation affirm, at least, that with the exception of\none or two of the Epistles of Paul there is\n\n{408}\n\nno work of the New Testament which is supported by such close evidence.\n\nWe need not discuss the tradition as to the residence of the Apostle\nJohn in Asia Minor, regarding which much might be said. Those who accept\nthe authenticity of the Apocalypse of course admit its composition in\nthe neighbourhood of Ephesus,(1) and see in this the confirmation of the\nwide-spread tradition that the Apostle spent a considerable period of\nthe latter part of his life in that city. We may merely mention, in\npassing, that a historical basis for the tradition has occasionally been\ndisputed, and has latterly again been denied by some able critics.(2)\nThe evidence for this, as for everything else connected with the early\nages of Christianity, is extremely unsatisfactory. Nor need we trouble\nourselves with the dispute as to the Presbyter John, to whom many\nascribe the composition, on the one hand, of the Apocalypse and, on the\nother, of the Gospel, according as they finally accept the one or the\nother alternative of the critical dilemma which we have explained. We\nhave only to do with the Apostle John and his connection with either of\nthe two writings.\n\nIf we proceed to compare the character of the Apostle John, as we\nhave it depicted in the Synoptics and other writings to which we have\nreferred, with that of the author of the fourth Gospel, and to contrast\nthe peculiarities of both, we have a very different result. Instead of\nthe Hebraistic Greek and harsh diction which might\n\n{409}\n\nbe expected from the unlettered and ignorant fisherman of Galilee, we\nfind, in the fourth Gospel, the purest and least Hebraistic Greek of\nany of the Gospels (some parts of the third Synoptic, perhaps, alone\nexcepted), and a refinement and beauty of composition whose charm has\ncaptivated the world, and in too many cases prevented the calm exercise\nof judgment Instead of the fierce and intolerant temper of the Son of\nthunder, we find a spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness\nand love. Instead of the Judaistic Christianity of the Apostle of\nCircumcision who merely tolerates Paul, we find a mind which has so\ncompletely detached itself from Judaism that the writer makes the very\nappellation of \"Jew\" equivalent to that of an enemy of the truth. Not\nonly are the customs and feasts of the Jews disregarded and spoken of\nas observances of a people with whom the writer has no concern, but he\nanticipates the day when neither on Mount Gerizim nor yet at Jerusalem\nmen shall worship the Father, but when it shall be recognized that the\nonly true worship is that which is offered in spirit and in truth. Faith\nin Jesus Christ and the merits of his death is the only way by which man\ncan attain to eternal life, and the Mosaic Law is practically abolished.\nWe venture to assert that, taking the portrait of John the son of\nZebedee, which is drawn in the Synoptics and the Epistle of Paul to the\nGalatians, supplemented by later tradition, to which we have referred,\nand comparing it with that of the writer of the fourth Gospel, no\nunprejudiced mind can fail to recognize that there are not two features\nalike.\n\nIt is the misfortune of this case, that the beauty of the Gospel under\ntrial has too frequently influenced the decision of the judges, and men\nwho have, in other\n\n{410}\n\nmatters, exhibited sound critical judgment, in this abandon themselves\nto sheer sentimentality, and indulge in rhapsodies when reasons would\nbe more appropriate. Bearing in mind that we have given the whole of\nthe data regarding John the son of Zebedee furnished by New Testament\nwritings,--excluding merely the fourth Gospel itself, which, of\ncourse, cannot at present be received in evidence,--as well as the only\ntraditional information possessing, from its date and character, any\nappreciable value, it will become apparent that every argument which\nproceeds on the assumption that John was the beloved disciple, and\npossessed of characteristics quite different from those we meet with in\nthe writings to which we have referred, is worthless and a mere petitio\nprincipii. We can, therefore, appreciate the state of the case when, for\ninstance, we find an able man like Credner commencing his inquiry as\nto who was the author of the fourth Gospel, with such words as the\nfollowing: \"Were we entirely without historical data regarding the\nauthor of the fourth Gospel, who is not named in the writing itself,\nwe should still, from internal grounds in the Gospel itself--from the\nnature of the language, from the freshness and perspicacity of the\nnarrative, from the exactness and precision of the statements, from\nthe peculiar.manner of the mention of the Baptist and of the sons of\nZebedee, from the love and fervour rising to ecstacy which the writer\nmanifests towards Jesus, from the irresistible charm which is poured\nout over the whole ideally-composed evangelical history, from the\nphilosophical considerations with which the Gospel begins--be led to\nthe result: that the author of such a Gospel can only be a native of\nPalestine, can only be a direct eye-witness, can only be an Apostle, can\n\n{411}\n\nonly be a favourite of Jesus, can only be that John whom Jesus held\ncaptivated to himself by the whole heavenly spell of his teaching, that\nJohn who rested on the bosom of Jesus, stood beneath his cross, and\nwhose later residence in a city like Ephesus proves that philosophical\nspeculation not merely attracted him, but that he also knew how to\nmaintain his place amongst philosophically cultivated Greeks.\"(1) It is\nalmost impossible to proceed further in building up theory upon baseless\nassumption; but we shall hereafter see that he is kept in countenance\nby Ewald, who outstrips him in the boldness and minuteness of his\nconjectures. We must now more carefully examine the details of the case.\n\nThe language in which the Gospel is written, as we have already\nmentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other Gospels, with the\nexception of parts of the Gospel according to Luke, and its Hebraisms\nare not on the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with\nHellenistic Greek, but its composition is distinguished by peculiar\nsmoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this respect it is assigned the\nfirst rank amongst the Gospels. It may be remarked that the connection\nwhich Credner finds between the language and the Apostle John arises out\nof the supposition, that long residence in Ephesus had enabled him to\nacquire that fecility of composition in the Greek language which is one\nof its characteristics. Ewald, who exaggerates the Hebraism of the work,\nresorts nevertheless to the conjecture, which we shall hereafter more\nfully consider, that the Gospel was written from dictation by young\nfriends of John in Ephesus, who put the aged Apostle's thoughts, in many\nplaces, into purer Greek as they\n\n{412}\n\nwrote them down.(1) The arbitrary nature of such an explanation, adopted\nin one shape or another by many apologists, requires no remark, but we\nshall at every turn meet with similar assumptions advanced to overcome\ndifficulties. Now, although there is no certain information as to the\ntime when, if ever, the Apostle removed into Asia Minor, it is at least\npretty certain that he did not leave Palestine before a.d. 60.(2) We\nfind him still at Jerusalem about a.d. 50--53, when Paul went thither,\nand he had not at that time any intention of leaving, but, on the\ncontrary, his dedication of himself to the ministry of the circumcision\nis distinctly mentioned by the Apostle.(3) The \"unlettered and ignorant\"\nfisherman of Galilee, therefore, had obviously attained an age when\nhabits of thought and expression have become fixed, and when a new\nlanguage cannot without great difficulty be acquired. If we consider the\nApocalypse to be his work, we find positive evidence of such markedly\ndifferent thought and language actually existing when the Apostle must\nhave been between sixty and seventy years of age, that it is quite\nimpossible to conceive that he could have subsequently acquired the\nlanguage and mental characteristics of the fourth Gospel.(4) It would be\nperfectly absurd, so far as language goes, to find in the fourth Gospel\nthe slightest indication of the Apostle John, of whose language we have\nno information whatever except from the Apocalypse, a composition\n\n{413}\n\nwhich, if accepted as written by the Apostle, would at once exclude all\nconsideration of the Gospel as his work. There are many circumstances,\nhowever, which seem clearly to indicate that the author of the fourth\nGospel was neither a native of Palestine nor a Jew, and to some of\nthese we must briefly refer. The philosophical statements with which the\nGospel commences, it will be admitted, are anything but characteristic\nof the Son of thunder, the ignorant and unlearned fisherman of Galilee\nwho, to a comparatively advanced period of life, continued preaching in\nhis native country to his brethren of the circumcision. Attempts have\nbeen made to trace the Logos doctrine of the fourth Gospel to the purely\nHebraic source of the Old Testament, but every impartial mind must\nperceive that here there is no direct and simple transformation of the\ntheory of Wisdom of the Proverbs and Old Testament Apocrypha, and no\nmere development of the later Memra of the Targums, but a very advanced\napplication to Christianity of Alexandrian philosophy, with which we\nhave become familiar through the writings of Philo, to which reference\nhas so frequently been made. It is quite true that a decided step beyond\nthe doctrine of Philo is made when the Logos is represented as [------]\nin the person of Jesus, but this argument is equally applicable to the\nJewish doctrine of Wisdom, and that step had already been taken before\nthe composition of the Gospel. In the Alexandrian philosophy everything\nwas prepared for the final application of the doctrine, and nothing is\nmore clear than the fact that the writer of the fourth Gospel was well\nacquainted with the teaching of the Alexandrian school, from which he\nderived his philosophy, and its elaborate and systematic application to\nJesus alone indicates a late\n\n{414}\n\ndevelopment of Christian doctrine, which we maintain could not have been\nattained by the Judaistic son of Zebedec.(1)\n\nWe have already on several occasions referred to the attitude which the\nwriter of the fourth Gospel assumes towards the Jews. Apart from the\nfact that he places Christianity generally in strong antagonism to\nJudaism, as light to darkness, truth to a lie, and presents the doctrine\nof a hypostatic Trinity in the most developed form to be found in the\nNew Testament, in striking contrast to the three Synoptics, and in\ncontradiction to Hebrew Monotheism, he writes at all times as one who\nnot only is not a Jew himself, but has nothing to do with their laws and\ncustoms. He speaks everywhere of the feasts \"of the Jews,\" \"the passover\nof the Jews,\" \"the manner of the purifying of the Jews,\" \"the Jews'\nfeast of tabernacles,\" \"as the manner of the Jews is to bury,\" \"the\nJews' preparation day,\" and so on.(2) The Law of Moses is spoken of as\n\"your law,\" \"their law,\" as of a people with which the writer was not\nconnected.(3) Moreover, the Jews are represented as continually in\nvirulent opposition to Jesus, and seeking to kill him; and the word\n\"Jew\" is the unfailing indication of the enemies of the truth, and the\npersecutors of the Christ.(4) The Jews are not once spoken of as the\nfavoured people of God, but they are denounced as \"children of\nthe devil,\" who is \"the father of lies and a murderer from the\nbeginning.\"(5) The author makes Caiaphas and the chief\n\n     1  Most critics agree that the characteristics of the fourth\n     Gospel render the supposition that it was the work of an old\n     man untenable.\n\n{415}\n\npriests and Pharisees speak of the Jewish people not as [------], but as\n[------], the term employed by the Jews to designate the Gentiles.(1) We\nneed scarcely point out that the Jesus of the fourth Gospel is no longer\nof the race of David, but the Son of God. The expectation of the Jews\nthat the Messiah should be of the seed of David is entirely set aside,\nand the genealogies of the first and third Synoptics tracing his descent\nare not only ignored, but the whole idea absolutely excluded.\n\nThen the writer calls Annas the high priest, although at the same time\nCaiaphas is represented as holding that office.(2) The expression which\nhe uses is: \"Caiaphas being the high priest that year\"[------]. This\nstatement, made more than once, indicates the belief that the office\nwas merely annual, which is erroneous. Josephus states with regard to\nCaiaphas, that he was high priest for ten years from A.D. 25--36.(3)\nEwald and others argue that the expression \"that year\" refers to the\nyear in which the\n\n{416}\n\ndeath of Jesus, so memorable to the writer, took place, and that it\ndoes not exclude the possibility of his having been high priest for\nsuccessive years also.(1) This explanation, however, is quite arbitrary\nand insufficient, and this is shown by the additional error in\nrepresenting Annas as also high priest at,the same time. The Synoptists\nknow nothing of the preliminary examination before Annas, and the reason\ngiven by the writer of the fourth Gospel why the soldiers first took\nJesus to Annas: \"for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high\npriest that same year,\"(2) is inadmissible. The assertion is a clear\nmistake, and it probably originated in a stranger, writing of facts and\ninstitutions with which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an\nerror equally committed by the author of the third Gospel and of the\nActs of the Apostles. In Luke iii. 2, the word of God is said to come\nto John the Baptist: \"in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas\"\n[------], and again, in Acts iv. 6, Annas is spoken of as the high\npriest when Peter and John healed the lame man at the gate of the Temple\nwhich was called \"Beautiful,\" and Caiaphas is mentioned immediately\nafter: \"and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and\nAlexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest.\" Such\nstatements, erroneous in themselves and not understood by the author of\nthe fourth Gospel, may have led to the confusion in the narrative.\nAnnas had previously been high priest, as we know from Josephus,(3) but\nnothing is more certain than the fact that the title was not continued\nafter the office was resigned; aud Ishmael\n\n{417}\n\nEleazar, and Simon, who succeeded Annas and separated his term of\noffice from that of Caiaphas, did not subsequently bear the title. The\nnarrative is a mistake, and such an error could not have been committed\nby a native of Palestine,(1) and much less by an acquaintance of the\nhigh priest.(2)\n\nThere are also several geographical errors committed which denote a\nforeigner. In i. 28, the writer speaks of a \"Bethany beyond Jordan,\nwhere John was baptizing.\" The substitution of \"Bethabara,\" mentioned by\nOrigen, which has erroneously crept into the vulgar text, is of course\nrepudiated by critics, \"Bethany\" standing in all the older codices. The\nalteration was evidently proposed to obviate the difficulty that, even\nin Origen's time, there did not exist any trace of a Bethany beyond\nJordan in Peraea. The place could not be the Bethany near\n\n{418}\n\nJerusalem, and it is supposed that the writer either mistook its\nposition or, inventing a second Bethany, which he described as \"beyond\nJordan,\" displayed an ignorance of the locality improbable either in a\nJew or a Palestinian.(1) Again, in iii. 23, the writer says that \"John\nwas baptizing in AEnon, near to Salim, because there was much water\nthere.\" This AEnon near to Salim was in Judaea, as is clearly stated in\nthe previous verse. The place, however, was quite unknown even in the\nthird century, and the nearest locality which could be indicated as\npossible was in the north of Samaria and, therefore, differing from the\nstatements in iii. 22, iv. 3.(2) AEnon, however, signifies \"springs,\" and\nthe question arises whether the writer of the fourth Gospel, not knowing\nthe real meaning of the word, did not simply mistake it for the name of\na place.(3) In any case, there seems to be here another error into which\nthe author of the fourth Gospel, had he been the Apostle John, could not\nhave fallen.(4)\n\n{419}\n\nThe account of the miracle of the pool of Bethesda is a remarkable one\nfor many reasons. The words which most pointedly relate the miraculous\nphenomena characterizing the pool, are rejected by many critics as\nan interpolation. In the following extract we put them in italics:\nv. 3.--\"In these (five porches) lay a multitude of the sick, halt,\nwithered, _waiting for the moving of the water. 4. For an angel went\ndown at certain seasons into the pool and was troubling the water: he,\ntherefore, who first went in after the troubling of the water was made\nwhole of whatsoever disease he had_.\" We maintain, however, that the\nobnoxious passage is no spurious interpolation, but that there is ample\nevidence, external and internal, to substantiate its claim to a place in\nthe text. It is true that the whole passage is omitted by the Sinaitic\nand Vatican Codices, and by C: that A(1), L, 18, and others omit the\nlast phrase of verse 3, and that D, 33, which contain that phrase, omit\nthe whole of verse 4, together with 157, 314 and some other MSS.:\nthat in many codices in which the passage is found it is marked by\nan asterisk or obelus, and that it presents considerable variation in\nreadings. It is also true that it is omitted by Cureton's Syriac, by the\nThebaic, and by most of the Memphitic versions. But, on the other hand,\nit exists in the Alexandrian Codex, C3, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, IT,\nV, r, A and other MSS(1), and it forms part of the Peschito, Jerusalem\nSyriac, Vulgate, Watkin's Memphitic, AEthiopic and Armenian versions.(2)\n\n{420}\n\nMore important still is the fact that it existed in the ancient Latin\nversion of Tertillian, who refers to the passage;(1) and it is quoted by\nDidymus, Chrysostom, Cyril, Ambrose, Theophylact, Euthymius, and\nother Fathers. Its presence in the Alexandrian Codex alone might not\ncompensate for the omission of the passage by the Sinaitic and Vatican\nCodices and C, D, but when the Alexandrian MS. is supported by the\nversion used by Tertullian, which is a couple of centuries older than\nany of the other authorities, as well as by the Peschito, not to mention\nother codices, the balance of external evidence is distinctly in its\nfavour.\n\nThe internal evidence is altogether on the side of the authenticity of\nthe passage. It is true that there are a considerable number of\n[------] in the few lines: [------] and perhaps [------]; but it must\nbe remembered that the phenomena described are exceptional, and may\nwell explain exceptional phraseology. On the other hand, [------] is\nspecially a Johannine word, used v. 4 and six times more in the fourth\nGospel, but only five times in the rest of the New Testament; and\n[------] with [------] occurs in v. 4, 6, 9, 14, and with [------] in\nv. 11, 15, vii. 23 and nowhere else. [------] also may be indicated as\nemployed in v. 4, 7 and five times more in other parts of the Gospel,\nand only eleven times in the rest of the New Testament, and the use of\n[------] in v. 4 is thus perhaps naturally\n\n{421}\n\naccounted for. The context, however, forbids the removal of this\npassage. It is in the highest degree improbable that verse 3 could have\nended with \"withered\" [------], and although many critics wish to retain\nthe last phrase in verse 3, in order to explain verse 7, this only shows\nthe necessity, without justifying the arbitrary maintenance, of these\nwords, whilst verse 4, which is still better attested, is excluded to\nget rid of the inconvenient angel. It is evident, however, that the\nexpression: \"when the water was troubled\" [------] of the undoubted\nverse 7 is unintelligible without the explanation that the angel \"was\ntroubling the water,\" [------] of verse 4, and also that the statement\nof the verse 7, \"but while I am coming, another goeth down before me\"\n[------] absolutely requires the account: \"he, therefore, who first went\nin &c.\" [------] of verse 4. The argument that the interpolation\nwas made to explain the statement in verse 7 is untenable, for that\nstatement necessarily presupposes the account in the verses under\ndiscussion, and cannot be severed from it. Even if the information\nthat the water was \"troubled\" at certain seasons only could have been\ndispensed with, it is obvious that the explanation of the condition of\nhealing, given in verse 4, is indispensable to the appreciation of the\nlame man's complaint in verse 7, for without knowing that priority was\nessential, the reason for the protracted waiting is inconceivable. It is\nalso argued, that the passage about the angel may have been interpolated\nto bring out^the presence of supernatural agency, but it is much more\nreasonable to believe that attempts have been made to omit these verses,\nof which there is such ancient attestation, in order to eliminate an\nembarrassing excess of\n\n{422}\n\nsupernatural agency, and get rid of the difficulty presented by the\nfact, for which even Tertullian(1) endeavoured to account, that the\nsupposed pool had ceased to exhibit any miraculous phenomena. This\nnatural explanation is illustrated by the alacrity with which apologists\nat the present day abandon the obnoxious passage.(2) The combined force\nof the external and internal evidence, however, cannot, we think, be\nfairly resisted.(3)\n\nNow, not only is the pool of Bethesda totally unknown at the present\nday, but although possessed of such miraculous properties, it was\nnot known even to Josephus, or any other writer of that time. It is\ninconceivable that, were the narrative genuine, the phenomena could have\nbeen unknown and unmentioned by the Jewish historian.(4) There is here\nevidently neither the narrative of an Apostle nor of an eye-witness.\n\nAnother very significant mistake occurs in the account of the\nconversation with the Samaritan woman, which is said to have taken place\n(iv. 5) near \"a city of Samaria\n\n     2  \"The Biblical critic is glad that he can remove these\n     words from the record, and cannot be called upon to explain\n     them.\"--Rev. H. W. Watkins, M.A., in \"A New Test. Commentary\n     for English Readers,\" edited by Charles John Ellicott, D.D.,\n     Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, i. p. 416.\n\n{423}\n\nwhich is called Sychar.\" It is evident that there was no such place--and\napologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty. The\ncommon conjecture has been that the town of Sichem is intended, but\nthis is rightly rejected by Delitzsch,(1) and Ewald.(2) Credner,(3)\nnot unsupported by others, and borne out in particular by the theory\nof Ewald, conjectures that Sychar is a corruption of Sichem, introduced\ninto the Gospel by a Greek secretary to whom this part of the Gospel\nwas dictated, and who mistook the Apostle's pronunciation of the\nfinal syllable. We constantly meet with this elastic explanation of\ndifficulties in the Gospel, but its mere enunciation displays at\nonce the reality of the difficulties and the imaginary nature of the\nexplanation. Hengstenberg adopts the view, and presses it with pious\nearnestness, that the term is a mere nickname for the city of Sichem,\nand that, by so slight a change in the pronunciation, the Apostle called\nthe place a city of Lies [------] a lie), a play upon words which he\ndoes not consider unworthy.(4) The only support which this latter theory\ncan secure from internal evidence is to be derived from the fact that\nthe whole discourse with the woman is ideal. Hengstenberg(5) conjectures\nthat the five husbands of the woman are typical of the Gods of the five\nnations with which the King of Assyria peopled Samaria, II. Kings, xvii.\n24--41, and which they worshipped instead of the God of Israel, and as\nthe actual God of the Samaritans was not recognized as the true God by\nthe Jews, nor their\n\n{424}\n\nworship of him on Mount Gerizim held to be valid, he considers that\nunder the name of the City of Sychar, their whole religion, past and\npresent, was denounced as a lie. There can be little doubt that the\nepisode is allegorical, but such a defence of the geographical error,\nthe reality of which is everywhere felt, whilst it is quite insufficient\non the one hand, effectually destroys the historical character of\nthe Gospel on the other.(1) The inferences from all of the foregoing\nexamples are strengthened by the fact that, in the quotations from the\nOld Testament, the fourth Gospel in the main follows the Septuagint\nversion, or shows its influence, and nowhere can be shown directly to\ntranslate from the Hebrew.\n\nThese instances might be multiplied, but we must proceed to examine more\nclosely the indications given in the Gospel as to the identity of its\nauthor. We need not point out that the writer nowhere clearly states who\nhe is, nor mentions his name, but expressions are frequently used which\nevidently show the desire that a particular person should be understood.\nHe generally calls himself \"the other disciple,\" or \"the disciple whom\nJesus loved.\"(2) It is universally understood that he\n\n{425}\n\nrepresents himself as having previously been a disciple of John the\nBaptist (i. 35 ff.),(1) and also that he is \"the other disciple\" who\nwas acquainted with the high priest (xviii. 15, 16),(2) if not an actual\nrelative as Ewald and others assert.(3) The assumption that the disciple\nthus indicated is John, rests principally on the fact that whilst\nthe author mentions the other Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid\ndirectly naming John, and also that he never distinguishes John the\nBaptist by the appellation [------], whilst he carefully distinguishes\nthe two disciples of the name of Judas, and always speaks of the Apostle\nPeter as \"Simon Peter,\" or \"Peter,\" but rarely as \"Simon\" only.(4)\nWithout pausing to consider the slightness of this evidence, it is\nobvious that, supposing the disciple indicated to be John the son of\nZebedee, the fourth Gospel gives a representation of him quite different\nfrom the Synoptics and other writings. In the fourth Gospel (i. 35 ff.)\nthe calling of the Apostle is described in a peculiar manner. John (the\nBaptist) is standing with two of his disciples, and points out Jesus to\nthem as \"the Lamb of God,\" whereupon the two disciples follow Jesus and,\nfinding out where he lives,\n\n{426}\n\nabide with him that day and subsequently attach themselves to his\nperson. In verse 40 it is stated: \"One of the two which heard John\nspeak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.\" We are left\nto imagine who was the other, and the answer of critics is: John. Now,\nthe \"calling\" of John is related in a totally different manner in the\nSynoptics--Jesus, walking by the Sea of Galilee, sees \"two brethren,\nSimon called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea,\nfor they were fishers, and he saith unto them: Follow me, and I will\nmake you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets and\nfollowed him. And when he had gone from thence, he saw other two\nbrethren, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the ship\nwith Zebedee their father mending their nets; and he called them. And\nthey immediately left the ship and their father and followed him.\"(1)\nThese accounts are in complete contradiction to each other, and both\ncannot be true. We see, from the first introduction of \"the other\ndisciple\" on the scene, in the fourth Gospel, the evident design to give\nhim the precedence before Peter and the rest of the Apostles. We have\nabove given the account of the first two Synoptists of the calling\nof Peter, according to which he is the first of the disciples who is\nselected, and he is directly invited by Jesus to follow him and become,\nwith his brother Andrew, \"fishers of men.\" James and John are not called\ntill later in the day, and without the record of any special address.\nIn the third Gospel, the calling of Peter is introduced with still more\nimportant details. Jesus enters the boat of Simon and bids him push out\ninto the Lake and let down his net, and the miraculous draught of fishes\nis taken: \"When Simon Peter\n\n{427}\n\nsaw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am\na sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that were with him,\nat the draught of fishes which they had taken.\" The calling of the sons\nof Zebedee becomes even less important here, for the account simply\ncontinues: \"And so was also James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who\nwere partners with Simon.\" Jesus then addresses his invitation to Simon,\nand the account concludes: \"And when they had brought their boats to\nland, they forsook all, and followed him.\"(1) In the fourth Gospel, the\ncalling of the two disciples of John is first narrated, as we have seen\nand the first call of Peter is from his brother Andrew, and not from\nJesus himself. \"He (Andrew) first findeth his own brother Simon, and\nsaith unto him: We have found the Messias (which is, being interpreted,\nChrist), and he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked on him and said: Thou\nart Simon, the son of Jonas;(2) thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by\ninterpretation, Peter).\"(3) This explanation of the manner in which\nthe cognomen Peter is given, we need not point out, is likewise\ncontradictory to the Synoptics, and betrays the same purpose of\nsuppressing the prominence of Peter.\n\nThe fourth Gospel states that \"the other disciple,\" who is declared to\nbe John, the author of the Gospel, was known to the high priest, another\ntrait amongst many others elevating him above the son of Zebedee as he\nis depicted elsewhere in the New Testament. The\n\n{428}\n\naccount which the fourth Gospel gives of the trial of Jesus is in very\nmany important particulars at variance with that of the Synoptics. We\nneed only mention here the point that the latter know nothing of the\npreliminary examination by Annas. We shall not discuss the question\nas to where the denial of Peter is represented as taking place in the\nfourth Gospel, but may merely say that no other disciple but Peter is\nmentioned in the Synoptics as having followed Jesus; and Peter enters\nwithout difficulty into the high priest's palace.(1) In the fourth\nGospel, Peter is made to wait without at the door until John, who is\na friend of the high priest and freely enters, obtains permission\nfor Peter to go in, another instance of the precedence which is\nsystematically given to John. The Synoptics do not in this particular\ncase give any support to the statement in the fourth Gospel, and\ncertainly in nothing that is said of John elsewhere do they render his\nacquaintance with the high priest in the least degree probable. It is,\non the contrary, improbable in the extreme that the young fisherman of\nGalilee, who shows very little enlightenment in the anecdotes told\nof him in the Synoptics, and who is described as an \"unlettered and\nignorant\" man in the Acts of the Apostles, could have any acquaintance\nwith the high priest. Ewald, who, on the strength of the word\n[------],(2) at once elevates him into a relation of the high priest,\nsees in the statement of Polycrates that late in life he wore the\npriestly [------], a confirmation of the supposition that he was of the\nhigh priest's race and family.(3) The\n\n{429}\n\nevident Judaistic tendency, however, which made John wear the priestly\nmitre may distinguish him as author of the Apocalypse, but it is fatal\nto the theory which makes him author of the fourth Gospel, in which\nthere is so complete a severance from Judaism.\n\nA much more important point, however, is the designation of the author\nof the fourth Gospel, who is identified with the Apostle John, as \"the\ndisciple whom Jesus loved.\" It is scarcely too much to say, that this\nsuggestive appellation alone has done more than any arguments to\nensure the recognition of the work, and to overcome doubts as to its\nauthenticity. Religious sentimentality, evoked by the influence of this\ntender epithet, has been blind to historical incongruities, and has been\nwilling to accept with little question from the \"beloved disciple\" a\nportrait of Jesus totally unlike that of the Synoptics, and to elevate\nthe dogmatic mysticism and artificial discourses of the one over the\nsublime morality and simple eloquence of the other. It is impossible to\nreflect seriously upon this representation of the relations between one\nof the disciples and Jesus without the conviction that every record of\nthe life of the great Teacher must have borne distinct traces of the\npreference, and that the disciple so honoured must have attracted the\nnotice of every early writer acquainted with the facts. If we seek for\nany evidence, however, that John was distinguished with such special\naffection,--that he lay on the breast of Jesus at supper--that even the\nApostle Peter recognised his superior intimacy and influence(1)--and\nthat he received at the foot of the cross the care of his mother from\nthe dying Jesus,(2)--we seek in vain. The Synoptic Gospels, which\nminutely record the details\n\n{430}\n\nof the last supper and of the crucifixion, so far from reporting any\nsuch circumstances or such distinction of John, do not even mention his\nname, and Peter everywhere has precedence before the sons of Zebedee.\nAlmost the only occasions upon which any prominence is given to them are\nepisodes in which they incur the Master's displeasure, and the cognomen\nof \"Sons of thunder\" has certainly no suggestion in it of special\naffection, nor of personal qualities likely to attract the great\nTeacher. The selfish ambition of the brothers who desire to sit on\nthrones on his right and on his left, and the intolerant temper which\nwould have called down fire from heaven to consume a Samaritan village,\nmuch rather contradict than support the representation of the fourth\nGospel. Upon one occasion, indeed, Jesus in rebuking them, adds: \"Ye\nknow not what manner of spirit ye are of.\"(1) It is perfectly undeniable\nthat John nowhere has any such position accorded to him in the Synoptics\nas this designation in the fourth Gospel implies. In the lists of the\ndisciples he is always put in the fourth place,(3) and in the first two\nGospels his only distinguishing designation is that of \"the brother of\nJames,\" or one of the sons of Zebedee. The Apostle Peter in all of\nthe Synoptics is the leader of the disciples. He it is who alone is\nrepresented as the mouth-piece of the twelve or as holding conversation\nwith Jesus; and the only occasions on which the sons of Zebedee address\nJesus are those to which we have referred, upon which\n\n1 Luke ix. 55. These words are omitted from some of the oldest MSS., but\nthey are in Cod. D (Bezae) and many other very important texts, as well\nas in some of the oldest Torsions, besides being quoted by the Fathers.\nThey were probably omitted after the claim of John to be the \"beloved\ndisciple\" became admitted.\n\n{431}\n\nhis displeasure was incurred. The angel who appears to the women after\nthe resurrection desires them to tell his disciples \"and Peter\" that\nJesus will meet them in Galilee,(1) but there is no message for any\n\"disciple whom he loved.\" If Peter, James, and John accompany the Master\nto the mount of transfiguration, and are witnesses of his agony in the\ngarden, regarding which, however, the fourth Gospel is totally silent,\nthe two brethren remain in the back ground, and Peter alone acts a\nprominent part. If we turn to the Epistles of Paul, we do not find a\nsingle trace of acquaintance with the fact that Jesus honoured John\nwith any special affection, and the opportunity of referring to such a\ndistinction was not wanting when he writes to the Galatians of his visit\nto the \"Pillar\" Apostles in Jerusalem. Here again, however, we find\nno prominence given to John, but the contrary, his name still being\nmentioned last and without any special comment. In none of the Pauline\nor other Epistles is there any allusion, however distant, to any\ndisciple whom Jesus specially loved. The Apocalypse, which, if any\nbook of the New Testament can be traced to him, must be ascribed to the\nApostle John, makes no claim whatever to such a distinction. In none of\nthe Apocryphal Gospels is there the slightest indication of knowledge\nof the fact, and if we come to the Fathers even, it is a striking\ncircumstance that there is not a trace of it in any early work, and\nnot the most remote indication of any independent tradition that Jesus\ndistinguished John or any other individual disciple with peculiar\nfriendship. The Roman Clement, in referring to the example of the\nApostles, only mentions Peter and Paul.(2) Polycarp, who is described as\na disciple of the\n\n{432}\n\nApostle John, apparently knows nothing of his having been especially\nloved by Jesus. Pseudo-Ignatius does not refer to him at all in the\nSyriac Epistles, or in either version of the seven Epistles.(1) Papias,\nin describing his interest in hearing what the Apostles said, gives John\nno prominence: \"I inquired minutely after the words of the Presbyters:\nWhat Andrew, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James,\nor what John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the Lord,\nand what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord,\nsay,\"(2) &c.\n\nAs a fact, it is undenied and undeniable that the representation of\nJohn, or of any other disciple, as specially beloved by Jesus, is\nlimited solely and entirely to the fourth Gospel, and that there is not\neven a trace of independent tradition to support the claim, whilst on\nthe other hand the total silence of the earlier Gospels and of the other\nNew Testament writings on the point, and indeed their data of a positive\nand unmistakeable character, oppose rather than support the correctness\nof the later and mere personal assertion. Those who abandon sober\ncriticism, and indulge in mere sentimental rhapsodies on the\nimpossibility of the author of the fourth Gospel being any other than\n\"the disciple whom Jesus loved,\" strangely ignore the fact that we\nhave no reason whatever, except the assurance of the author himself, to\nbelieve that Jesus specially loved any disciple, and much less John the\nSon of Zebedee. Indeed, the statements of the fourth Gospel itself on\nthe subject are\n\n     1  Indeed in the universally repudiated Epistles, beyond the\n     fact that two are addressed to John, in which he is not\n     called \"the disciple whom Jesus loved,\" the only mention of\n     him is the statement, \"John was banished to Patmos.\"   Ad\n     Tars., iii.\n\n{433}\n\nso indirect and intentionally vague that it is not absolutely clear what\ndisciple is indicated as \"the beloved,\" and it has even been maintained\nthat not John the son of Zebedee, but Andrew the brother of Simon Peter\nwas \"the disciple whom Jesus loved,\" and consequently the supposed\nauthor of the fourth Gospel.(1)\n\nWe have hitherto refrained from referring to one of the most singular\nfeatures of the fourth Gospel, the chapter xxi., which is by many cited\nas the most ancient testimony for the authenticity of the work, and\nwhich requires particular consideration. It is obvious that the Gospel\nis brought to a conclusion by verses 30, 31 of chapter xx., and critics\nare universally agreed at least that, whoever may be its author, chapter\nxxi. is a supplement only added after an interval. By whom was it\nwritten? As may be supposed, critics have given very different replies\nto this important question. Many affirm, and with much probability,\nthat chapter xxi. was subsequently added to the Gospel by the author\nhimself.(2) A few, however, exclude the last two verses, which they\nconsider to have been added by another hand.(3) A much larger number\nassert that the whole\n\n{434}\n\nchapter is an ancient appendix to the Gospel by a writer who was not the\nauthor of the Gospel.(1) A few likewise reject the last two verses of\nthe preceding chapter. In this supplement (v. 20), \"the disciple whom\nJesus loved, who also leaned on his breast at the supper and said: Lord,\nwhich is he that betrayeth thee?\" is (v. 24) identified with the author\nof the Gospel.\n\nWe may here state the theory of Ewald with regard to the composition\nof the fourth Gospel, which is largely deduced from considerations\nconnected with the last chapter, and which, although more audaciously\nminute in its positive and arbitrary statement of details than any other\nwith which we are acquainted, introduces more or less the explanations\ngenerally given regarding the composition of chapter xxi. Out of all the\nindications in the work, Ewald decides:\n\n\"1. That the Gospel, completed at the end of chapter xx., was composed\nby the Apostle about the year 80, with the free help of friends, not to\nbe immediately circulated\n\n{435}\n\nthroughout the world, but to remain limited to the narrower circle of\nfriends until his death, and only then to be published as his legacy\nto the whole of Christendom. In this position it remained ten years, or\neven longer.\n\n2. As the preconceived opinion regarding the life or death of the\nApostle (xxi. 23) had perniciously spread itself throughout the whole\nof Christendom, the Apostle himself decided, even before his death,\nto counteract it in the right way by giving a correct statement of the\ncircumstances. The same friends, therefore, assisted him to design the\nvery important supplement, chapter xxi., and this could still be very\neasily added, as the book was not yet published. His friends proceeded,\nnevertheless, somewhat more freely in its composition than previously\nin writing the book itself, and allowed their own hand more clearly to\ngleam through, although here, as in the rest of the work, they conformed\nto the will of the Apostle, and did not, even in the supplement, openly\ndeclare his name as the author. As the supplement, however, was to form\na closely connected part of the whole work, they gave at its end (verses\n24 f.), as it now seemed to them suitable, a new conclusion to the\naugmented work.\n\n3. As the Apostle himself desired that the preconceived opinion\nregarding him, which had been spread abroad to the prejudice of\nChristendom, should be contradicted as soon as possible, and even\nbefore his death, he now so far departed from his earlier wish, that he\npermitted the circulation of his Gospel before his death. We can\naccept this with all certainty, and have therein trustworthy testimony\nregarding the whole original history of our book.\n\n4. When the Gospel was thus published it was for\n\n{436}\n\nthe first time gradually named after our Apostle, even in its external\nsuperscription: a nomination which had then become all the more\nnecessary and permanent for the purpose of distinction, as it was united\nin one whole with the other Gospels. The world, however, has at all\ntimes known it only under this wholly right title, and could in no way\notherwise know it and otherwise name it.\"(1)\n\nIn addressing ourselves to each of these points in detail, we shall\nbe able to discuss the principal questions connected with the fourth\nGospel.\n\nThe theory of Ewald, that the fourth Gospel was written down with the\nassistance of friends in Ephesus, has been imagined solely to conciliate\ncertain phenomena presented throughout the Gospel, and notably in the\nlast chapter, with the foregone conclusion that it was written by the\nApostle John. It is apparent that there is not a single word in the work\nitself explaining such a mode of composition, and that the hypothesis\nproceeds purely from the ingenious imagination of the critic. The\ncharacter of the language, the manner in which the writer is indirectly\nindicated in the third person, and the reference, even in the body of\nthe work (xix. 35), to the testimony of a third person, combined with\nthe similarity of the style of the supplementary chapter, which is an\nobvious addition intended, however, to be understood as written by a\ndifferent hand, have rendered these conjectures necessary to reconcile\nsuch obvious incongruities with the ascription of the work to the\nApostle. The substantial identity of the style and vocabulary of chapter\nxxi. with the rest of the Gospel is asserted by a multitude of the most\ncompetent critics. Ewald, whilst he recognizes the great\n\n{437}\n\nsimilarity, maintains at the same time a real dissimilarity, for which\nhe accounts in the manner just quoted. The language, Ewald admits,\nagrees fully in many rare _nuances_ with that of the rest of the Gospel,\nbut he does not take the trouble to prove the decided dissimilarities\nwhich, he asserts, likewise exist. A less difference than that which he\nfinds might, he thinks, be explained by the interval which had elapsed\nbetween the writing of the work and of the supplement, but \"the\nwonderful similarity, in the midst of even greater dissimilarity, of\nthe whole tone and particularly of the style of the composition is not\nthereby accounted for. This, therefore, leads us,\" he continues, \"to the\nopinion: The Apostle made use, for writing down his words, of the\nhand and even of the skill of a trusted friend who later, on his own\nauthority (fur sich allein), wrote the supplement. The great similarity,\nas well as dissimilarity, of the style of both parts in this way becomes\nintelligible: the trusted friend (probably a Presbyter in Ephesus)\nadopted much of the language and mode of expression of the youthful old\nApostle, without, however, where he wrote more in his own person, being\ncarefully solicitous of imitating them. But even through this contrast,\nand the definite declaration in v. 24, the Apostolical origin of\nthe book itself becomes all the more clearly apparent; and thus the\nsupplement proves from the most diverse sides how certainly this Gospel\nwas written by the trusted disciple.\"(1) Elsewhere, Ewald more clearly\nexplains the share in the work which he assigns to the Apostle's\ndisciple: \"The proposition that the Apostle composed in a unique way our\nlikewise unique Gospel is to be understood only with the\n\n{438}\n\nimportant limitation upon which I have always laid so much stress: for\nJohn himself did not compose this work quite so directly as Paul did\nmost of his Epistles, but the young friend who wrote it down from his\nlips, and who, in the later appendix, chapter xxi., comes forward in the\nmost open way, without desiring in the slightest to conceal his separate\nidentity, does his work at other times somewhat freely, in that he never\nintroduces the narrator speaking of himself and his participation in the\nevents with 'I' or 'we' but only indirectly indicates his presence at\nsuch events and, towards the end, in preference refers to him, from his\naltogether peculiar relation to Christ, as 'the disciple whom the Lord\nloved,' so that, in one passage, in regard to an important historical\ntestimony (xix. 35), he even speaks of him as of a third person.\" Ewald\nthen maintains that the agreement between the Gospel and the Epistles,\nand more especially the first, which he affirms, without vouchsafing a\nword of evidence, to have been written down by a different hand, proves\nthat we have substantially only the Apostle's very peculiar composition,\nand that his friend as much as possible gave his own words.(1)\n\nIt is obvious from this elaborate explanation, which we need scarcely\nsay is composed of mere assumptions, that, in order to connect the\nApostle John with the Gospel, Ewald is obliged to assign him a very\npeculiar position in regard to it: he recognizes that some of the\ncharacteristics of the work exclude the supposition that the Apostle\ncould himself have written the Gospel, so he represents him as dictating\nit, and his Secretary as taking considerable liberties with the\ncomposition as he writes it\n\n{439}\n\ndown, and even as introducing references of his own; as, for instance,\nin the passage to which he refers, where, in regard to the statement\nthat at the Crucifixion a soldier pierced the side of the already dead\nJesus and that forthwith there came out blood and water (xix. 35), it is\nsaid: \"And he that saw it hath borne witness, and his witness is true;\nand he knoweth that he saith true, that ye may believe.\"(1) It is\nperfectly clear that the writer refers to the testimony of another\nperson(2)--the friend who is writing down the narrative, says Herr\nEwald, refers to the Apostle who is actually dictating it. Again, in the\nlast chapter, as elsewhere throughout the work, \"the disciple whom Jesus\nloved,\" who is the author, is spoken of in the third person, and also\nin verse 24: \"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,\nand wrote these things\" [------]. This, according to Ewald, is the same\nsecretary, now writing in his own person. The similarity between this\ndeclaration and the appeal to the testimony of another person in xix.\n35, is certainly complete, and there can be no doubt that both proceed\nfrom the same pen; but beyond the assertion of Herr Ewald there is\nnot the slightest evidence that a secretary wrote the Gospel from the\ndictation of another, and ventured to interrupt the narrative by such a\nreference to testimony, which, upon the supposition that the\n\n{440}\n\nApostle John was known as the actual author, is singularly out of place.\nIf John wrote the Gospel, why should he appeal in utterly vague terms\nto his own testimony, and upon such a point, when the mere fact that he\nhimself wrote the statement was the most direct testimony in itself? An\nauthor who composed a work which he desired to ascribe to a \"disciple\nwhom Jesus loved\" might have made such a reference as xix. 35, in his\nanxiety to support such an affirmation, without supposing that he had\nreally compromised his design, and might have naturally added such a\nstatement as that in the last two verses, but nothing but the foregone\nconclusion that the Apostle John was the real author could have\nsuggested such an explanation of these passages. It is throughout\nassumed by Ewald and others, that John wrote in the first instance, at\nleast, specially for a narrow circle of friends, and the proof of\nthis is considered to be the statement of the object with which it was\nwritten: \"that ye may believe,\"(l) &c., a phrase, we may remark, which\nis identical with that of the very verse (xix. 35) with which the\nsecretary is supposed to have had so much to do. It is very remarkable,\nupon this hypothesis, that in xix. 35, it is considered necessary even\nfor this narrow circle, who knew the Apostle so well, to make such an\nappeal, as well as to attach at its close (xxi. 24), for the benefit\nof the world in general as Ewald will have it, a certificate of the\ntrustworthiness of the GospeL\n\nUpon no hypothesis which supposes the Apostle John the author of the\nfourth Gospel is such an explanation credible. That the Apostle himself\ncould have written of himself the words in xix. 35 is impossible. After\n\n{441}\n\nhaving stated so much that is much more surprising and contradictory to\nall experience without reference to any witness, it would indeed\nhave been strange had he here appealed to himself as to a separate\nindividual, and on the other hand it is quite inadmissible to assume\nthat a Mend to whom he is dictating should interrupt the narrative to\nintroduce a passage so inappropriate to the work, and so unnecessary for\nany circle acquainted with the Apostolic author. If, as Ewald argues,\nthe peculiarities of his style of composition were so well known that it\nwas unnecessary for the writer more clearly to designate himself either\nfor the first readers or for the Christian world, the passages we are\ndiscussing are all the more inappropriate. That any guarantee of the\ntruth of the Gospel should have been thought desirable for readers who\nknew the work is to be composed by the Apostle John, and who believed\nhim to be \"the disciple whom Jesus loved,\" is inconceivable, and that\nany anonymous and quite indirect testimony to its genuineness should\neither have been considered necessary or of any value is still more\nincredible. It is impossible that nameless Presbyters of Ephesus could\nventure to accredit a Gospel written by the Apostle John; and any\nintended attestation must have taken the simple and direct course\nof stating that the work had been composed by the Apostle. The\npeculiarities we are discussing seem to us explicable only upon the\nsupposition that the unknown writer of the Gospel desired that it should\nbe understood to be written by a certain disciple whom Jesus loved,\nbut did not choose distinctly to name him or directly to make such an\naffirmation.\n\nIt is, we assert, impossible that an Apostle who composed a history of\nthe life and teaching of Jesus could\n\n{412}\n\nhave failed to attach his name, naturally and simply, as testimony\nof the trustworthiness of his statements, and of his fitness as an\neye-witness to compose such a record. As the writer of the fourth\nGospel does not state his name, Herr Ewald ascribes the omission to the\n\"incomparable modesty and delicacy of feeling\" of the Apostle John. We\nmust further briefly examine the validity of this explanation. It is\nuniversally admitted, and by Ewald himself, that although the writer\ndoes not directly name himself, he very clearly indicates that he is\n\"the other disciple\" and \"the disciple whom Jesus loved.\" We must affirm\nthat such a mode of indicating himself is incomparably less modest than\nthe simple statement of his name, and it is indeed a glorification\nof himself beyond anything in the Apocalypse. But not only is the\nexplanation thus discredited but, in comparing the details of the Gospel\nwith those of the Synoptics, we find still more certainly how little\nmodesty had to do with the suppression of his name. In the Synoptics a\nvery marked precedence of the rest of the disciples is ascribed to the\nApostle Peter; and the sons of Zebedee are represented in all of them\nas holding a subordinate place. This representation is confirmed by\nthe Pauline Epistles and by tradition. In the fourth Gospel, a very\ndifferent account is given, and the author studiously elevates the\nApostle John,--that is to say, according to the theory that he is the\nwriter of the Gospel, himself,--in every way above the Apostle Peter.\nApart from the general pre-eminence claimed for himself in the very name\nof \"the disciple whom Jesus loved,\" we have seen that he deprives Peter\nin his own favour of the honour of being the first of the disciples who\nwas called; he suppresses the account of the circumstances under which\n\n{443}\n\nthat Apostle was named Peter, and gives another and trifling version of\nthe incident, reporting elsewhere indeed in a very subdued and modified\nform, and without the commendation of the Master, the recognition of the\ndivinity of Jesus, which in the first Gospel is the cause of his change\nof name.(1) He is the intimate friend of the Master, and even Peter\nhas to beg him to ask at the Supper who was the betrayer. He describes\nhimself as the friend of the High Priest, and while Peter is excluded,\nhe not only is able to enter into his palace, but he is the means of\nintroducing Peter. The denial of Peter is given without mitigation, but\nhis bitter repentance is not mentioned. He it is who is singled out by\nthe dying Jesus and entrusted with the charge of his mother. He outruns\nPeter in their race to the Sepulchre, and in the final appearance of\nJesus (xxi. 15) the more important position is assigned to the disciple\nwhom Jesus loved. It is, therefore, absurd to speak of the incomparable\nmodesty of the writer, who, if he does not give his name, not only\nclearly indicates himself, but throughout assumes a pre-eminence which\nis not supported by the authority of the Synoptics and other writings,\nbut is heard of alone from his own narrative.\n\nEwald argues that chapter xxi. must have been written, and the Gospel\nas we have it, therefore, have been completed, before the death of the\nApostle John. He considers the supplement to have been added specially\nto contradict the report regarding John (xxi. 23). \"The supplement must\nhave been written whilst John still lived,\" he asserts, \"for only before\nhis death was it worth while to contradict such a false hope; and if his\ndeath had actually taken place, the result itself would\n\n{444}\n\nhave already refuted so erroneous an interpretation of the words of\nChrist, and it would then have been much more appropriate to explain\nafresh the sense of the words 'till I come.' Moreover, there is no\nreference here to the death as having already occurred, although a small\naddition to that effect in ver. 24 would have been so easy. But if we\nwere to suppose that John had long been dead when this was written, the\nwhole rectification as it is given would be utterly without sense.\"(1)\nOn the contrary, we affirm that the whole history of the first two\ncenturies renders it certain that the Apostle was already dead, and\nthat the explanation was not a rectification of false hopes during his\nlifetime, but an explanation of the failure of expectations which had\nalready taken place, and probably excited some scandal. We know how the\nearly Church looked for the immediate coming of the glorified Christ,\nand how such hopes sustained persecuted Christians in their sorrow and\nsuffering. This is very clearly expressed in 1 Thess. iv. 15--18, where\nthe expectation of the second coming within the lifetime of the writer\nand readers of the Epistle is confidently stated, and elsewhere, and\neven in 1 John ii. 18, the belief that the \"last times\" had arrived\nis expressed. The history of the Apocalypse in relation to the Canon\nillustrates the case. So long as the belief in the early consummation of\nall things continued strong, the Apocalypse was the favourite writing of\nthe early Church, but when time went on, and the second coming of\nChrist did not take place, the opinion of Christendom regarding the\nwork changed, and disappointment, as well as the desire to explain the\nnon-fulfilment of prophecies upon which so much hope had been based, led\nmany to reject the Apocalypse\n\n{445}\n\nas an unintelligible and fallacious book. We venture to conjecture that\nthe tradition that John should not die until the second coming of Jesus\nmay have originated with the Apocalypse, where that event is announced\nto John as immediately to take place, xxii. 7, 10, 12, and the words\nwith which the book ends are of this nature, and express the expectation\nof the writer, 20: \"He which testifieth these things saith: Surely I\ncome quickly. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.\" It was not in the spirit of the\nage to hesitate about such anticipations, and so long as the Apostle\nlived, such a tradition would scarcely have required or received\ncontradiction from any one, the belief being universal that the coming\nof Jesus might take place any day, and assuredly would not be long\ndelayed. When the Apostle was dead, however, and the tradition that\nit had been foretold that he should live until the coming of the\nLord exercised men's minds, and doubt and disappointment at the\nnon-fulfilment of what may have been regarded as prophecy produced a\nprejudicial effect upon Christendom, it seemed to the writer of this\nGospel a desirable thing to point out that too much stress had been laid\nupon the tradition, and that the words which had been relied upon in the\nfirst instance did not justify the expectations which had been formed\nfrom them. This also contradicts the hypothesis that the Apostle John\nwas the author of the Gospel.\n\nSuch a passage as xix. 35, received in any natural sense, or interpreted\nin any way which can be supported by evidence, shows that the writer of\nthe Gospel was not an eye-witness of the events recorded, but appeals to\nthe testimony of others. It is generally admitted that the expressions\nin ch. i. 14 are of universal application, and capable of being adopted\nby all Christians, and,\n\n{446}\n\nconsequently, that they do not imply any direct claim on the part of the\nwriter to personal knowledge of Jesus. We must now examine whether\nthe Gospel itself bears special marks of having been written by an\neye-witness, and how far in this respect it bears out the assertion that\nit was written by the Apostle John. It is constantly asserted that the\nminuteness of the details in the fourth Gospel indicates that it must\nhave been written by one who was present at the scenes he records. With\nregard to this point we need only generally remark, that in the works of\nimagination of which the world is full, and the singular realism of\nmany of which is recognized by all, we have the most minute and natural\ndetails of scenes which never occurred, and of conversations which never\ntook place, the actors in which never actually existed. Ewald admits\nthat it is undeniable that the fourth Gospel was written with a fixed\npurpose, and with artistic design and, indeed, he goes further and\nrecognizes that the Apostle could not possibly so long have recollected\nthe discourses of Jesus and verbally reproduced them, so that, in fact,\nwe have only, at best, a substantial report of the matter of those\ndiscourses coloured by the mind of the author himself.(1) Details\nof scenes at which we were not present may be admirably supplied by\nimagination, and as we cannot compare what is here described as taking\nplace with what actually took place, the argument that the author\nmust have been an eyewitness because he gives such details is without\nvalidity. Moreover, the details of the fourth Gospel in many cases do\nnot agree with those of the three Synoptics, and it is an undoubted\nfact that the author of the fourth Gospel gives the details of scenes at\nwhich the Apostle John was not\n\n{447}\n\npresent, and reports the discourses and conversations on such occasions,\nwith the very same minuteness as those at which he is said to have been\npresent; as, for instance, the interview between Jesus and the woman of\nSamaria. It is perfectly undeniable that the writer had other Gospels\nbefore him when he composed his work, and that he made use of other\nmaterials than his own.(1)\n\nIt is by no means difficult, however, to point out very clear\nindications that the author was not an eye-witness, but constructed\nhis scenes and discourses artistically and for effect. We shall not, at\npresent, dwell upon the almost uniform artifice adopted in most of the\ndialogues, in which the listeners either misunderstand altogether the\nwords of Jesus, or interpret them in a foolish and material way,\nand thus afford him an opportunity of enlarging upon the theme. For\ninstance, Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, misunderstands the expression\nof Jesus, that in order to see the kingdom of God a man must be born\nfrom above, and asks: \"How can a man be born when he is old? can he\nenter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?\"(2) Now, as it is\nwell known, and as we have already shown, the common expression used\nin regard to a proselyte to Judaism was that of being born again, with\nwhich every Jew, and more especially every \"ruler of the Jews,\" must\nhave been well acquainted. The stupidity which he displays\n\n{448}\n\nin his conversation with Jesus, and with which the author endowed all\nwho came in contact with him, in order, by the contrast, to mark more\nstrongly the superiority of the Master, even draws from Jesus the\nremark: \"Art thou the teacher of Israel and understandest not these\nthings?\"(l) There can be no doubt that the scene was ideal, and it is\nscarcely possible that a Jew could have written it. In the Synoptics,\nJesus is reported as quoting against the people of his own city,\nNazareth, who rejected him, the proverb: \"A prophet has no honour in his\nown country.\"(2) The appropriateness of the remark here is obvious. The\nauthor of the fourth Gospel, however, shows clearly that he was neither\nan eye-witness nor acquainted with the subject or country when he\nintroduces this proverb in a different place. Jesus is represented as\nstaying two days at Sychar after his conversation with the Samaritan\nwoman. \"Now after the two days he departed thence into Galilee. For\n[------] Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in\nhis own country. When, therefore [------], he came into Galilee, the\nGalilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did in\nJerusalem, at the feast--for they also went unto the feast.\"(3) Now it\nis manifest that the quotation here is quite out of place, and none\nof the ingenious but untenable explanations of apologists can make\nit appropriate. He is made to go into Galilee, which was his country,\nbecause a prophet has no honour in his country, and the Galilaeans are\nrepresented as receiving him, which is a contradiction of the proverb.\nThe writer evidently misunderstood the facts of the case or\n\n{449}\n\ndeliberately desired to deny the connection of Jesus with Nazareth and\nGalilee, in accordance with his evident intention of associating the\nLogos only with the Holy City. We must not pause to show that the\nauthor is generally unjust to the Galilaeans, and displays an ignorance\nregarding them very unlike what we should expect from the fisherman of\nGalilee.(1) We have already alluded to the artificial character of the\nconversation with the woman of Samaria, which, although given with so\nmuch detail, occurred at a place totally unknown (perhaps allegorically\ncalled the \"City of Lies\"), at which the Apostle John was not present,\nand the substance of which was typical of Samaria and its five nations\nand false gods. The continuation in the Gospel is as unreal as the\nconversation.\n\nAnother instance displaying personal ignorance is the insertion into\na discourse at the Last Supper, and without any appropriate connection\nwith the context, the passage \"Verily, verily, I say unto you: he that\nreceiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me\nreceiveth him that sent me.\"(2) In the Synoptics, this sentence is\nnaturally represented as part of the address to the disciples who are\nto be sent forth to preach the Gospel;(3) but it is clear that its\ninsertion here is a mistake.(4) Again, a very obvious slip, which\nbetrays that what was intended for realistic detail is nothing but a\nreminiscence of some earlier Gospel misapplied, occurs in a later part\n\n{450}\n\nof the discourses very inappropriately introduced as being delivered on\nthe same occasion. At the end of xiv. 31, Jesus is represented, after\nsaying that he would no more talk much with the disciples, as suddenly\nbreaking off with the words: \"Arise, let us go hence\" [------]. They\n\ndo not, however, arise and go thence, but, on the contrary, Jesus at\nonce commences another long discourse: \"I am the true vine,\" &c. The\nexpression is merely introduced artistically to close one discourse,\nand enable the writer to begin another, and the idea is taken from some\nearlier work. For instance, in our first Synoptic, at the close of the\nAgony in the Garden which the fourth Gospel ignores altogether, Jesus\nsays to the awakened disciples: \"Rise, let us go\" [------].(1) We need\nnot go on with these illustrations, but the fact that the author is not\nan eyewitness recording scenes which he beheld and discourses which\nhe heard, but a writer composing an ideal Gospel on a fixed plan, will\nbecome more palpable as we proceed.\n\nIt is not necessary to enter upon any argument to prove the fundamental\ndifference which exists in every respect between the Synoptics and the\nfourth Gospel. This is admitted even by apologists, whose efforts to\nreconcile the discordant elements are totally unsuccessful. \"It is\nimpossible to pass from the Synoptic Gospels to that of St John,\"\nsays Canon Westcott, \"without feeling that the transition involves the\npassage from one world of thought to another. No familiarity with the\ngeneral teaching of the Gospels, no wide conception of the character of\nthe Saviour is sufficient to destroy the\n\n{451}\n\ncontrast which exists in form and spirit between the earlier and\nlater narratives.\"(l) The difference between the fourth Gospel and the\nSynoptics, not only as regards the teaching of Jesus but also the facts\nof the narrative, is so great that it is impossible to harmonize them,\nand no one who seriously considers the matter can fail to see that both\ncannot be accepted as correct. If we believe that the Synoptics give a\ntruthful representation of the life and teaching of Jesus, it follows of\nnecessity that, in whatever category we may decide to place the fourth\nGospel, it must be rejected as a historical work. The theories which are\nmost in favour as regards it may place the Gospel in a high position as\nan ideal composition, but sober criticism must infallibly pronounce that\nthey exclude it altogether from the province of history. There is no\noption but to accept it as the only genuine report of the sayings and\ndoings of Jesus, rejecting the Synoptics, or to remove it at once to\nanother department of literature. The Synoptics certainly contradict\neach other in many minor details, but they are not in fundamental\ndisagreement with each other and evidently present the same portrait of\nJesus, and the same view of his teaching derived from the same sources.\n\nThe vast difference which exists between the representation of Jesus in\nthe fourth Gospel and in the Synoptics is too well recognized to\nrequire minute demonstration. We must, however, point out some of the\ndistinctive features. We need not do more here than refer to the fact\nthat, whilst the Synoptics relate the circumstances of the birth of\nJesus, two of them at least, and give some history of his family and\norigin, the fourth Gospel, ignoring all this, introduces the great\n\n{452}\n\nTeacher at once as the Logos who from the beginning was with God and\nwas himself God. The key-note is struck from the first, and in the\nphilosophical prelude to the Gospel we have the announcement to those\nwho have ears to hear, that here we need expect no simple history, but\nan artistic demonstration of the philosophical postulate. According\nto the Synoptics, Jesus is baptized by John, and as he goes out of the\nwater the Holy Ghost descends upon him like a dove. The fourth Gospel\nsays nothing of the baptism, and makes John the Baptist narrate vaguely\nthat he saw the Holy Ghost descend like a dove and rest upon Jesus, as\na sign previously indicated to him by God by which to recognize the Lamb\nof God.(1) From the very first, John the Baptist, in the fourth Gospel,\nrecognizes and declares Jesus to be \"the Christ,\"(2) \"the Lamb of God\nwhich taketh away the sins of the world.\"(3) According to the Synoptics,\nJohn comes preaching the baptism of repentance, and so far is he from\nmaking such declarations, or forming such distinct opinions concerning\nJesus, that even after he has been cast into prison and just before his\ndeath,--when in fact his preaching was at an end,--he is represented as\nsending disciples to Jesus, on hearing in prison of his works, to ask\nhim: \"Art thou he that should come, or look we for another?\" (4) Jesus\ncarries on his ministry and baptizes simultaneously with John, according\nto the fourth Gospel, but his public career, according to the Synoptics,\ndoes not begin until after the Baptist's has concluded, and John is cast\ninto prison.(5) The Synoptics clearly\n\n{453}\n\nrepresent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single\nyear,(1) and his preaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem,\nwhere his career culminates at the fatal Passover. The fourth Gospel\ndistributes the teaching of Jesus-between Galilee, Samaria, and\nJerusalem, makes it extend at least over three years, and refers to\nthree Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.(2) The Fathers felt this\ndifficulty and expended a good deal of apologetic ingenuity upon it;\nbut no one is now content with the explanation of Eusebius, that the\nSynoptics merely intended to write the history of Jesus during the one\nyear after the imprisonment of the Baptist, whilst the fourth Evangelist\nrecounted the events of the time not recorded by the others, a theory\nwhich is totally contradicted by the four Gospels themselves.(3)\n\nThe fourth Gospel represents the expulsion of the money-changers by\nJesus as taking place at the very outset of his career,(4) when he could\nnot have been known, and when such a proceeding is incredible; whilst\nthe Synoptics place it at the very close of his ministry, after his\ntriumphal entry into Jerusalem, when, if ever, such an act, which might\nhave contributed to the final catastrophe, becomes conceivable.(5) The\nvariation from the parallels in the Synoptics, moreover, is exceedingly\ninstructive, and further indicates the amplification of a later writer\nimperfectly acquainted with the circumstances. The\n\n{454}\n\nfirst and second Synoptists, in addition to the general expression\n\"those buying and selling in the Temple,\" mention only that Jesus\noverthrew the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those\nselling doves. The third Synoptist does not even give these particulars.\nThe author of the fourth Gospel, however, not only-makes Jesus expel the\nsellers of doves and the moneychangers, but adds: \"those selling oxen\nand sheep.\" Now, not only is there not the slightest evidence that sheep\nand oxen were bought and sold in the Temple, but it is obvious that\nthere was no room there to do so. On the contrary, it is known that the\nmarket for cattle was not only distant from the Temple, but even from\nthe city.(1) The author himself betrays the foreign element in his\naccount by making Jesus address his words, when driving them all out,\nonly \"to them selling doves.\" Why single these out and seem to exclude\nthe sellers of sheep and oxen? He has apparently forgotten his own\ninterpolation. In the first Gospel, the connection of the words of Jesus\nwith the narrative suggests an explanation: xxi. 12 \"... and overthrew\nthe tables of the moneychangers, and the seats _of those selling doves,\nand saith to them_, &c.\" Upon the occasion of this episode, the fourth\nGospel represents Jesus as replying to the demand of the Jews for a sign\nwhy he did such things: \"Destroy this temple, and within three days I\nwill raise it up,\" which the Jews understand very naturally only in\na material sense, and which even the disciples only comprehended and\nbelieved \"after the resurrection.\" The Synoptists not only know nothing\nof this, but represent the saying as the false testimony which the false\nwitnesses bare\n\n{455}\n\nagainst Jesus.(1) No such charge is brought against Jesus at all in the\nfourth Gospel. So little do the Synoptists know of the conversation of\nJesus with the Samaritan woman, and his sojourn for two days at Sychar,\nthat in his instructions to his disciples, in the first Gospel, Jesus\npositively forbids them either to go to the Gentiles or to enter into\nany city of the Samaritans.(2) The fourth Gospel has very few miracles\nin common with the Synoptics, and those few present notable variations.\nAfter the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus, according to the\nSynoptics, constrains his disciples to enter a ship and to go to the\nother side of the Lake of Gennesaret, whilst he himself goes up a\nmountain apart to pray. A storm arises, and Jesus appears walking to\nthem over the sea, whereat the disciples are troubled, but Peter says to\nhim: \"Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee over the water,\" and\non his going out of the ship over the water, and beginning to sink, he\ncries: \"Lord save me;\" Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and\nwhen they had come into the ship, the wind ceased, and they that were in\nthe ship came and worshipped him, saying: \"Of a truth thou art the\nSon of God.\" (3) The fourth Gospel, instead of representing Jesus as\nretiring to the mountain to pray, which would have been opposed to\nthe authors idea of the Logos, makes the motive for going thither the\nknowledge of Jesus that the people \"would come and take him by force\nthat they might make him a king.\"(4) The writer altogether ignores the\nepisode of Peter walking on the sea, and adds a new miracle by stating\nthat, as soon as Jesus was received on\n\n{456}\n\nboard, \"the ship was at the land whither they were going.\"(1) The\nSynoptics go on to describe the devout excitement and faith of all\nthe country round, but the fourth Gospel, limiting the effect on the\nmultitude in the first instance to curiosity as to how Jesus had crossed\nthe lake, represents Jesus as upbraiding them for following him, not\nbecause they saw miracles, but because they had eaten of the loaves\nand been filled,(2) and makes him deliver one of those long dogmatic\ndiscourses, interrupted by, and based upon, the remarks of the crowd,\nwhich so peculiarly distinguish the fourth Gospel.\n\nWithout dwelling upon such details of miracles, however, we proceed\nwith our slight comparison. Whilst the fourth Gospel from the very\ncommencement asserts the foreknowledge of Jesus as to who should betray\nhim, and makes him inform the Twelve that one of them is a devil,\nalluding to Judas Iscariot,(3) the Synoptists represent Jesus as having\nso little foreknowledge that Judas should betray him that, shortly\nbefore the end and, indeed, according to the third Gospel, only at the\nlast supper, Jesus promises that the disciples shall sit upon twelve\nthrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,(4) and it is only at the\nlast supper, after Judas has actually arranged with the chief priests,\nand apparently from knowledge of the fact, that Jesus for the first\ntime speaks of his betrayal by him.(5) On his way to Jerusalem, two days\nbefore the Passover,(6) Jesus comes to Bethany where,\n\n{457}\n\naccording to the Synoptics, being in the house of Simon the leper, a\nwoman with an alabaster box of very precious ointment came and poured\nthe ointment upon his head, much to the indignation of the disciples,\nwho say: \"To what purpose is this waste? For this might have been sold\nfor much, and given to the poor.\"(1) In the fourth Gospel the episode\ntakes place six days before the Passover,(2) in the house of Lazarus,\nand it is his sister Mary who takes a pound of very costly ointment, but\nshe anoints the feet of Jesus and wipes his feet with her hair. It\nis Judas Iscariot, and not the disciples, who says: \"Why was not this\nointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?\" And Jesus\nmakes a similar reply to that in the Synoptics, showing the identity of\nthe occurrence described so differently.(3)\n\nThe Synoptics represent most clearly that Jesus on the evening of the\n14th Nisan, after the custom of the Jews, ate the Passover with his\ndisciples,(4) and that he was arrested in the first hours of the\n15th Nisan, the day on which he was put to death. Nothing can be more\ndistinct than the statement that the last supper was the Paschal feast.\n\"They made ready the Passover [------], and when the hour was come, he\nsat down and the apostles with him, and he said to them: With desire I\ndesired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer\" [------].(5)\nThe fourth Gospel, however, in accordance with the principle which is\ndominant throughout, represents the last repast\n\n{458}\n\nwhich Jesus eats with his disciples as a common supper [------], which\ntakes place, not on the 14th, but on the 13th Nisan, the day \"before\nthe feast of the Passover\" [------],(1) and his death takes place on the\n14th, the day on which the Paschal lamb was slain. Jesus is delivered\nby Pilate to the Jews to be crucified about the sixth hour of \"the\npreparation of the Passover\" [------],(2) and because it was \"the\npreparation,\" the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus were broken,\nthat the bodies might not remain on the cross on the great day of the\nfeast.(3) The fourth Gospel totally ignores the institution of the\nChristian festival at the last supper, but, instead, represents Jesus\nas washing the feet of the disciples, enjoining them also to wash each\nother's feet: \"For I gave you an example that ye should do according\nas I did to you.\"(4) The Synoptics have no knowledge of this incident.\nImmediately after the warning to Peter of his future denial, Jesus goes\nout with the disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane\n\nand, taking Peter and the two sons of Zebedee apart, began to be\nsorrowful and very depressed and, as he prayed in his agony that if\npossible the cup might pass from him, an angel comforts him. Instead\nof this, the fourth Gospel represents Jesus as delivering, after the\nwarning to Peter, the longest discourses in the Gospel: \"Let not your\nheart be troubled,\" &c; \"I am the true vine,\"(5) &c; and, although said\nto be written by one of the sons of Zebedee who were with Jesus on the\noccasion, the fourth Gospel does not mention the agony in the garden\nbut, on the contrary, makes Jesus utter the long\n\n{459}\n\nprayer xvii. 1--26, in a calm and even exulting spirit very far removed\nfrom the sorrow and depression of the more natural scene in Gethsemane.\nThe prayer, like the rest of the prayers in the Gospel, is a mere\ndidactic and dogmatic address for the benefit of the hearers.\n\nThe arrest of Jesus presents a similar contrast. In the Synoptics, Judas\ncomes with a multitude from the chief priests and elders of the people\narmed with swords and staves, and, indicating his Master by a kiss,\nJesus is simply arrested and, after the slight resistance of one of\nthe disciples, is led away.(1) In the fourth Gospel, the case is very\ndifferent. Judas comes with a band of men from the chief priests and\nPharisees, with lanterns and torches and weapons, and Jesus--\"knowing\nall things which were coming to pass\"--himself goes towards them and\nasks: \"Whom seek ye?\" Judas plays no active part, and no kiss is given.\nThe fourth Evangelist is, as ever, bent on showing that all which\nhappens to the Logos is predetermined by himself and voluntarily\nencountered. As soon as Jesus replies: \"I am he,\" the whole band of\nsoldiers go backwards and fall to the ground, an incident thoroughly\nin the spirit of the early apocryphal Gospels still extant, and of an\nevidently legendary character. He is then led away first to Annas, who\nsends him to Caiaphas, whilst the Synoptics naturally know nothing of\nAnnas, who was not the high priest and had no authority. We need not\nfollow the trial, which is fundamentally different in the Synoptics and\nfourth Gospel; and we have already pointed out that, in the Synoptics,\nJesus is crucified on the 15th Nisan, whereas in the fourth Gospel he is\nput to death--the spiritual Paschal lamb--on the 14th Nisan. According\n\n{460}\n\nto the fourth Gospel, Jesus bears his own cross to Calvary,(1) but the\nSynoptics represent it as being borne by Simon of Cyrene.(2) As a very\nsingular illustration of the inaccuracy of all the Gospels, we may point\nto the circumstance that no two of them agree even about so simple a\nmatter of fact as the inscription on the cross, assuming that there was\none at all. They give it respectively as follows: \"This is Jesus the\nKing of the Jews;\" \"The King of the Jews;\" \"This (is) the King of\nthe Jews;\" and the fourth Gospel: \"Jesus the Nazarene the King of\nthe Jews.\"(3) The occurrences during the Crucifixion are profoundly\ndifferent in the fourth Gospel from those narrated in the Synoptics. In\nthe latter, only the women are represented as beholding afar off,(4)\nbut \"the beloved disciple\" is added in the fourth Gospel, and instead\nof being far off, they are close to the cross; and for the last cries\nof Jesus reported in the Synoptics we have the episode in which Jesus\nconfides his mother to the disciple's care. We need not at present\ncompare the other details of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, which are\ndifferently reported by each of the Gospels.\n\nWe have only indicated a few of the more salient differences between the\nfourth Gospel and the Synoptics, which are rendered much more striking,\nin the Gospels themselves, by the profound dissimilarity of the\nsentiments uttered by Jesus. We merely point out, in passing, the\nomission of important episodes from the fourth\n\n{461}\n\nGospel, such as the Temptation in the wilderness; the Transfiguration,\nat which, according to the Synoptics, the sons of Zebedee were present;\nthe last Supper; the agony in the garden; the mournful cries on the\ncross; and, we may add, the Ascension; and if we turn to the miracles\nof Jesus, we find that almost all of those narrated by the Synoptics are\nignored, whilst an almost entirely new series is introduced. There is\nnot a single instance of the cure of demoniacal possession in any form\nrecorded in the fourth Gospel. Indeed the number of miracles is reduced\nin that Gospel to a few typical cases; and although at the close it is\ngenerally said that Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his\ndisciples, these alone are written with the declared purpose: \"that ye\nmight believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.\"(1)\n\nWe may briefly refer in detail to one miracle of the fourth Gospel--the\nraising of Lazarus. The extraordinary fact that the Synoptists are\nutterly ignorant of this the greatest of the miracles attributed to\nJesus has been too frequently discussed to require much comment here.\nIt will be remembered that, as the case of the daughter of Jairus is,\nby the express declaration of Jesus, one of mere suspension of\nconsciousness,(2) the only instance in which a dead person is distinctly\nsaid, in any of the Synoptics, to have been restored to life by Jesus\nis that of the son of the widow of Nain.(3) It is, therefore, quite\nimpossible to suppose that the Synoptists could have known of the\nraising of Lazarus and wilfully omitted it. It is equally impossible to\nbelieve that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, from whatever sources\nthey may have drawn their materials,\n\n{462}\n\ncould have been ignorant of such a miracle had it really-taken place.\nThis astounding miracle, according to the fourth Gospel, created such\ngeneral excitement that it was one of the leading events which led to\nthe arrest and crucifixion of Jesus.(1) If, therefore, the Synoptics had\nany connection with the writers to whom they are referred, the raising\nof Lazarus must have been personally known to their reputed authors\neither directly or through the Apostles who are supposed to have\ninspired them, or even if they have any claim to contemporary origin\nthe tradition of the greatest miracle of Jesus must have been fresh\nthroughout the Church, if such a wonder had ever been performed.(2) The\ntotal ignorance of such a miracle displayed by the whole of the works of\nthe New Testament, therefore, forms the strongest presumptive evidence\nthat the narrative in the fourth Gospel is a mere imaginary scene,\nillustrative of the dogma: \"I am the resurrection and the life,\" upon\nwhich it is based. This conclusion is confirmed by the peculiarities of\nthe narrative itself. When Jesus first hears, from the message of the\nsisters, that Lazarus whom he loved was sick, he declares, xi. 4: \"This\nsickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of\nGod may be glorified thereby;\" and v. 6: \"When, therefore [------], he\nheard that he was sick, at that time he continued two days in the\nplace where he was.\" After that time he proposes to go into Judaea, and\nexplains to the disciples, v. 11: \"Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep;\nbut I go that I may awake him out of sleep.\" The disciples reply, with\nthe stupidity with which the fourth Evangelist endows all those who hold\ncolloquy with Jesus,\n\n{463}\n\nv. 12: \"Lord, if he is fallen asleep, he will recover. Howbeit, Jesus\nspake of his death; but they thought that he was speaking of the taking\nof rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly: Lazarus is dead,\nand I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent that ye\nmay believe.\" The artificial nature of all this introductory matter will\nnot have escaped the reader, and it is further illustrated by that which\nfollows. Arrived at Bethany, they find that Lazarus has lain in the\ngrave already four days. Martha says to Jesus (v. 21 L): \"Lord, if\nthou hadst been here, my brother had not died. And I know that even now\nwhatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee. Jesus saith\nunto her: They brother shall rise again.\" Martha, of course, as usual,\nmisunderstands this saying as applying to \"the resurrection at the last\nday,\" in order to introduce the reply: \"I am the resurrection and the\nlife,\" &c. When they come to the house, and Jesus sees Mary and the Jews\nweeping, \"he groaned in spirit and troubled himself,\" and on reaching\nthe grave itself (v. 35. f.), \"Jesus wept: Then said the Jews: Behold\nhow he loved him!\" Now this representation, which has ever since been\nthe admiration of Christendom, presents the very strongest marks of\nunreality. Jesus, who loves Lazarus so much, disregards the urgent\nmessage of the sisters and, whilst openly declaring that his sickness\nis not unto death, intentionally lingers until his friend dies. When\nhe does go to Bethany, and is on the very point of restoring Lazarus\nto life and dissipating the grief of his family and friends he actually\nweeps and groans in his spirit. There is so total an absence of reason\nfor such grief at such a moment that these tears, to any sober reader,\nare unmistakably mere theatrical adjuncts of a scene\n\n{464}\n\nelaborated out of the imagination of the writer. The suggestion of the\nbystanders (v. 37), that he might have prevented the death, is not\nmore probable than the continuation (v. 38): \"Jesus, therefore, again\ngroaning in himself cometh to the grave.\" There, having ordered the\nstone to be removed, he delivers a prayer avowedly intended merely\nfor the bystanders (v. 41 ff): \"And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said,\nFather, I thank thee that thou hast heard me, and I knew that thou\nhearest me always: but for the sake of the multitude which stand around\nI said this, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.\" This prayer\nis as evidently artificial as the rest of the details of the miracle\nbut, as in other elaborately arranged scenic representations, the charm\nis altogether dispelled when closer examination shows the character of\nthe dramatic elements. A careful consideration of the narrative and of\nall the facts of the case must, we think, lead to the conclusion that\nthis miracle is not even a historical tradition of the life of Jesus,\nbut is wholly an ideal composition by the author of the fourth Gospel.\nThis being the case, the other miracles of the Gospel need not detain\nus.\n\nIf the historical part of the fourth Gospel be in irreconcilable\ncontradiction to the Synoptics, the didactic is infinitely more so. The\nteaching of the one is totally different from that of the others, in\nspirit, form, and terminology; and although there are undoubtedly fine\nsayings throughout the work, in the prolix discourses of the fourth\nGospel there is not a single characteristic of the simple eloquence of\nthe Sermon on the Mount. In the diffuse mysticism of the Logos, we can\nscarcely recognise a trace of the terse practical wisdom of Jesus of\nNazareth. It must, of course, be apparent even to the most superficial\n\n{465}\n\nobserver that, in the fourth Gospel, we are introduced to a perfectly\nnew system of instruction, and to an order of ideas of which there is\nnot a vestige in the Synoptics. Instead of short and concise lessons\nfull of striking truth and point, we find nothing but long and involved\ndogmatic discourses of little practical utility. The limpid spontaneity\nof that earlier teaching, with its fresh illustrations and profound\nsentences uttered without effort and untinged by art, is exchanged for\ndiffuse addresses and artificial dialogues, in which labour and design\nare everywhere apparent. From pure and living morality couched in brief\nincisive sayings, which enter the heart and dwell upon the ear, we turn\nto elaborate philosophical orations without clearness or order, and to\ndoctrinal announcements unknown to the Synoptics. To the inquiry: \"What\nshall I do to inherit eternal life?\" Jesus replies, in the Synoptics:\n\"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy\nsoul, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself,... this do,\nand thou shalt live.\"(1) In the fourth Gospel, to the question: \"What\nmust we do, that we may work the works of God?\" Jesus answers, \"This\nis the work of God, that ye should believe in him whom he sent.\"(2) The\nteaching of Jesus, in the Synoptics, is almost wholly moral and, in the\nfourth Gospel, it is almost wholly dogmatic. If Christianity consist of\nthe doctrines preached in the fourth Gospel, it is not too much to say\nthat the Synoptics do not teach Christianity at all. The extraordinary\nphenomenon is presented of three Gospels, each professing to be complete\nin itself and to convey the good tidings of salvation to man,\n\n{466}\n\nwhich have actually omitted the doctrines which are the condition of\nthat salvation. The fourth Gospel practically expounds a new religion.\nIt is undeniable that morality and precepts of love and charity for\nthe conduct of life are the staple of the teaching of Jesus in the\nSynoptics, and that dogma occupies so small a place that it is regarded\nas a subordinate and secondary consideration. In the fourth Gospel,\nhowever, dogma is the one thing needful, and forms the whole substance\nof the preaching of the Logos. The burden of his teaching is: \"He that\nbelieveth on the Son, hath eternal life, but he that believeth not the\nSon, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.\"(1) It\nis scarcely possible to put the contrast between the Synoptics and\nthe fourth Gospel in too strong a light If we possessed the Synoptics\nwithout the fourth Gospel, we should have the exposition of pure\nmorality based on perfect love to God and man. If we had the fourth\nGospel without the Synoptics, we should have little more than a system\nof dogmatic theology without morality. Not only is the doctrine and the\nterminology of the Jesus of the fourth Gospel quite different from\nthat of the Jesus of the Synoptics, but so is the teaching of John\nthe Baptist. In the Synoptics, he comes preaching the Baptism\nof repentance(2) and, like the Master, inculcating principles of\nmorality;(3) but in the fourth Gospel he has adopted the peculiar views\nof the author, proclaims \"the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of\nthe world,\"(4) and bears witness that he is \"the Son of God.\"(5) We\nhear of the Paraclete for the first time in the fourth Gospel It is so\nimpossible to ignore the distinct individuality\n\n{467}\n\nof the Jesus of the fourth Gospel, and of his teaching, that even\napologists are obliged to admit that the peculiarities of the author\nhave coloured the portrait, and introduced an element of subjectivity\ninto the discourses. It was impossible, they confess, that the Apostle\ncould remember verbally such long orations for half a century, and at\nbest that they can only be accepted as substantially correct reports of\nthe teaching of Jesus.(1) \"Above all,\" says Ewald, \"the discourses of\nChrist and of others in this Gospel are clothed as by an entirely new\ncolour: on this account also scepticism has desired to conclude that the\nApostle cannot have composed the Gospel; and yet no conclusion is more\nunfounded. When the Apostle at so late a period determined to compose\nthe work, it was certainly impossible for him to reproduce all the words\nexactly as they were spoken, if he did not perhaps desire not merely\nto recall a few memorable sentences but, in longer discussions of more\nweighty subjects, to charm back all the animation with which they\nwere once given. So he availed himself of that freedom in their\nrevivification which is both quite intelligible in itself, and\nsufficiently warranted by the precedent of so many great examples of\nantiquity: and where the discourses extend to greater length, there\nentered involuntarily into the structure much of that fundamental\nconception and language regarding the\n\n{468}\n\nmanifestation of Christ, which had long become deeply rooted in the\nApostle's soul. But as certainly as these discourses bear upon them the\ncolouring of the Apostle's mind, so certainly do they agree in\ntheir substantial contents with his best recollections--because the\nSpruchsammlung proves that the discourses of Christ in certain moments\nreally could rise to the full elevation, which in John only surprises us\nthroughout more than in Matthew. To deny the apostolical authorship\nof the Gospel for such reasons, therefore, were pure folly, and in the\nhighest degree unjust. Moreover, the circumstance that, in the drawing\nup of such discourses, we sometimes see him reproduce or further develop\nsayings which had already been recorded in the older Gospels, can prove\nnothing against the apostolical origin of the Gospel, as he was indeed\nat perfect liberty, if he pleased, to make use of the contents of such\nolder writings when he considered it desirable, and when they came to\nthe help of his own memory of those long passed days: for he certainly\nretained many or all of such expressions also in his own memory.\"(1)\nElsewhere, he describes the work as \"glorified Gospel history,\" composed\nout of \"glorified recollection.\"(2)\n\nAnother strenuous defender of the authenticity of the fourth Gospel\nwrote of it as follows: \"Nevertheless, everything is reconcilable,\" says\nGfroerer, \"if one accepts that testimony of the elders as true. For as\nJohn must have written the Gospel as an old man, that is to say not\nbefore the year 90--95 of our era, there is an interval of more than\nhalf a century between the time\n\n{469}\n\nwhen the events which he relates really happened, and the time of the\ncomposition of his book,--space enough certainly to make a few mistakes\nconceivable, even presupposing a good memory and unshaken love of truth.\nLet us imagine, for instance, that to-day (in 1841) an old man of\neighty to ninety years of age should write down from mere memory the\noccurrences of the American War (of Independence), in which he himself\nin his early youth played a part. Certainly in his narrative, even\nthough it might otherwise be true, many traits would be found which\nwould not agree with the original event. Moreover, another particular\ncircumstance must be added in connection with the fourth Gospel.\nTwo-thirds of it consist of discourses, which John places in the mouth\nof Jesus Christ. Now every day's experience proves that oral impressions\nare much more fleeting than those of sight. The happiest memory scarcely\nretains long orations after three or four years: how, then, could John\nwith verbal accuracy report the discourses of Jesus after fifty or sixty\nyears! We must be content if he truly render the chief contents and\nspirit of them, and that he does this, as a rule, can be proved. It has\nbeen shown above that already, before Christ, a very peculiar philosophy\nof religion had been formed among the Egyptian Jews, which found its way\ninto Palestine through the Essenes, and also numbered numerous adherents\namongst the Jews of the adjacent countries of Syria and Asia Minor. The\nApostle Paul professed this: not less the Evangelist John. Undoubtedly,\nthe latter allowed this Theosophy to exercise a strong influence upon\nhis representation of the life-history of Jesus,\"(1) &c.\n\n{470}\n\nNow all such admissions, whilst they are absolutely requisite to\nexplain the undeniable phenomena of the fourth Gospel, have one obvious\nconsequence: The fourth Gospel, by whomsoever written,--even if it could\nbe traced to the Apostle John himself,--has no real historical value,\nbeing at best the \"glorified recollections\" of an old man, written\ndown half a century after the events recorded. The absolute difference\nbetween the teaching of this Gospel and of the Synoptics becomes\nperfectly intelligible, when the long discourses are recognized to\nbe the result of Alexandrian Philosophy artistically interwoven with\ndeveloped Pauline Christianity, and put into the mouth of Jesus. It will\nhave been remarked that along with the admission of great subjectivity\nin the report of the discourses, and the plea that nothing beyond the\nmere substance of the original teaching can reasonably be looked\nfor, there is, in the extracts we have given, an assertion that there\nactually is a faithful reproduction in this Gospel of the original\nsubstance. There is not a shadow of proof of this, but on the contrary\nthe strongest reason for denying the fact; for, unless it be admitted\nthat the Synoptics have so completely omitted the whole doctrinal part\nof the teaching of Jesus, have so carefully avoided the very peculiar\nterminology of the Logos Gospel, and have conveyed so unhistorical and\nerroneous an impression of the life and religious system of Jesus that,\nwithout the fourth Gospel, we should not actually have had an idea of\nhis fundamental doctrines, we must inevitably recognize that the fourth\nGospel cannot possibly be a true reproduction of his teaching. It\nis impossible that Jesus can have had two such diametrically opposed\nsystems of teaching,--one purely moral, the other wholly dogmatic; one\nexpressed in\n\n{471}\n\nwonderfully terse, clear, brief sayings and parables, the other in long,\ninvolved, and diffuse discourses; one clothed in the great language of\nhumanity, the other concealed in obscure philosophic terminology;--and\nthat these should have been kept so distinct as they are in the\nSynoptics, on the one hand, and the fourth Gospel, on the other.\nThe tradition of Justin Martin applies solely to the system of the\nSynoptics: \"Brief and concise were the sentences uttered by him: for he\nwas no Sophist, but his word was the power of God.\"(1)\n\nWe have already pointed out the evident traces of artificial\nconstruction in the discourses and dialogues of the fourth Gospel, and\nthe more closely these are examined, the more clear does it become that\nthey are not genuine reports of the teaching of Jesus, but mere ideal\ncompositions by the author of the fourth Gospel. The speeches of\nJohn the Baptist, the discourses of Jesus, and the reflections of the\nEvangelist himself,(2) are marked by the same peculiarity of style and\nproceed from the same mind. It is scarcely possible to determine where\nthe one begins and the other ends.(3) It is quite clear, for instance,\nthat the author himself, without a break, continues the words which he\nputs into the mouth of Jesus, in the colloquy with Nicodemus, but it\nis not easy to determine where. The whole dialogue is artificial in the\nextreme, and is certainly not genuine, and this is apparent not only\nfrom the replies attributed to the \"teacher of Israel,\" but to the\nirrelevant manner in which the reflections loosely ramble from the new\nbirth to the dogmatic statements in the thirteenth and following verses,\nwhich are the never-failing resource of the\n\n{472}\n\nEvangelist when other subjects are exhausted. The sentiments and almost\nthe words either attributed to Jesus, or added by the writer, to which\nwe are now referring, iii. 12 ff., we find again in the very same\nchapter, either put into the mouth of John the Baptist, or as\nreflections of the author, verses 31--36, for again we add that it\nis difficult anywhere to discriminate the speaker. Indeed, while the\nSynoptics are rich in the abundance of practical counsel and profound\nmoral insight, as well as in variety of illustrative parables, it is\nremarkable how much sameness there is in all the discourses of the\nfourth Gospel, a very few ideas being constantly reproduced. Whilst\nthe teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics is singularly universal and\nimpersonal, in the fourth Gospel it is purely personal, and rarely\npasses beyond the declaration of his own dignity, and the inculcation of\nbelief in him as the only means of salvation. There are certainly some\nsayings of rare beauty which tradition or earlier records may have\npreserved, but these may easily be distinguished from the mass of the\nwork. A very distinct trace of ideal composition is found in xvii. 3:\n\"And this is eternal life, to know thee the only true God, and him whom\nthou didst send, even Jesus Christ.\" Even apologists admit that it is\nimpossible that Jesus could speak of himself as \"Jesus Christ.\" We need\nnot, however, proceed further with such analysis. We believe that no\none can calmly and impartially examine the fourth Gospel without being\nconvinced of its artificial character. If some portions possess real\ncharm, it is of a purely ideal kind, and their attraction consists\nchiefly in the presence of a certain vague but suggestive mysticism. The\nnatural longing of humanity for any revelation regarding a future state\nhas not been\n\n{473}\n\nappealed to in vain. That the diffuse and often monotonous discourses\nof this Gospel, however, should ever have been preferred to the grand\nsimplicity of the teaching of the Synoptics, illustrated by such\nparables as the wise and foolish virgins, the sower, and the Prodigal\nSon, and culminating in the Sermon on the Mount, each sentence of which\nis so full of profound truth and beauty, is little to the credit of\ncritical sense and judgment.\n\nThe elaborate explanations by which the phenomena of the fourth Gospel\nare reconciled with the assumption that it was composed by the Apostle\nJohn are in vain, and there is not a single item of evidence within the\nfirst century and a half which does not agree with internal testimony in\nopposing the supposition. To one point, however, we must briefly refer\nin connection with this statement. It is asserted that the Gospel and\nEpistles--or at least the first Epistle--of the Canon ascribed to\nthe Apostle John are by one author, although this is not without\ncontradiction,(1) and very many of those who agree as to the identity of\nauthorship by no means admit the author to have been the Apostle John.\nIt is argued, therefore, that the use of the Epistle by Polycarp and\nPapias is evidence of the apostolic origin of the Gospel. We have,\nhowever, seen, that not only is it very uncertain that Polycarp made\nuse of the Epistle at all, but that he does not in any case mention its\nauthor's name. There is not a particle of evidence that he ascribed the\nEpistle, even supposing he knew it, to the\n\n{474}\n\nApostle John. With regard to Papias, the only authority for the\nassertion that he knew the Epistle is the statement of Eusebius already\nquoted and discussed, that: \"He used testimonies out of John's first\nEpistle,\"(1) There is no evidence, however, even supposing the\nstatement of Eusebius to be correct, that he ascribed it to the Apostle.\nThe earliest undoubted references to the Epistle, in fact, are by\nIrenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, so that this evidence is of little\navail for the Gospel. There is no name attached to the first Epistle,\nand the second and third have the superscription of \"the Presbyter,\"\nwhich, applying the argument of Ewald regarding the author of the\nApocalypse, ought to be conclusive against their being written by an\nApostle. As all three are evidently by the same writer, and intended to\nbe understood as by the author of the Gospel, and that writer does not\npretend to be an Apostle, but calls himself a simple Presbyter, the\nEpistles likewise give presumptive evidence against the apostolic\nauthorship of the Gospel.\n\nThere is another important testimony against the Johannine origin of the\nfourth Gospel to which we must briefly refer. We have pointed out that,\naccording to the fourth Gospel, Jesus did not eat the Paschal Supper\nwith his disciples, but that being arrested on the 13th Nisan, he was\nput to death on the 14th, the actual day upon which the Paschal lamb was\nsacrificed. The Synoptics, on the contrary, represent that Jesus ate\nthe Passover with his disciples on the evening of the 14th, and was\ncrucified on the 15th Nisan. The difference of opinion indicated by\nthese contradictory accounts actually prevailed in various Churches, and\nin the\n\n{475}\n\nsecond half of the second century a violent discussion arose as to the\nday upon which \"the true Passover of the Lord\" should be celebrated, the\nChurch in Asia Minor maintaining that it should be observed on the 14th\nNisan,--the day on which, according to the Synoptics, Jesus himself\ncelebrated the Passover and instituted the Christian festival,--whilst\nthe Roman Church as well as most other Christians,--following the fourth\nGospel, which represents Jesus as not celebrating the last Passover,\nbut being himself slain upon the 14th Nisan, the true Paschal lamb,--had\nabandoned the day of the Jewish feast altogether, and celebrated the\nChristian festival on Easter Sunday, upon which the Resurrection was\nsupposed to have taken place. Polycarp, who went to Rome to represent\nthe Churches of Asia Minor in the discussions upon the subject, could\nnot be induced to give up the celebration on the 14th Nisan, the day\nwhich, according to tradition, had always been observed, and he appealed\nto the practice of the Apostle John himself in support of that date.\nEusebius quotes from Irenaeus the statement of the case: \"For neither\ncould Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it (the 14th Nisan),\nbecause he had ever observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and\nwith the rest of the Apostles with whom he consorted.\"(1) Towards the\nend of the century, Polycrates, the Bishop of Ephesus, likewise appeals\nto the practice of \"John who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord,\" as\nwell as of the Apostle Philip and his daughters, and of Polycarp and\nothers in support of the same day: \"All these observed\n\n{476}\n\nthe 14th day of the Passover, according to the Gospel, deviating from it\nin no respect, but following according to the rule of the faith.\"(l) Now\nit is evident that, according to this undoubted testimony, the Apostle\nJohn by his own practice, ratified the account of the Synoptics, and\ncontradicted the data of the fourth Gospel, and upon the supposition\nthat he so long lived in Asia Minor it is probable that his authority\nlargely contributed to establish the observance of the 14th Nisan there.\nWe must, therefore, either admit that the Apostle John by his practice\nreversed the statement of his own Gospel, or that he was not its author,\nwhich of course is the natural conclusion. Without going further into\nthe discussion, which would detain us too long, it is clear that the\nPaschal controversy is opposed to the supposition that the Apostle John\nwas the author of the fourth Gospel.(2)\n\nWe have seen that, whilst there is not one particle of evidence during\na century and a half after the events recorded in the fourth Gospel that\nit was composed by the son of Zebedee, there is, on the contrary, the\nstrongest reason for believing that he did not write it. The first\nwriter who quotes a passage of the Gospel with the mention of his name\nis Theophilus of Antioch, who gives the few words: \"In the beginning\nwas the Word and the Word was with God,\" as spoken by \"John,\" whom he\nconsiders amongst the divinely inspired [------]\n\n{477}\n\n[------],(1) though even he does not distinguish. him as the Apostle.\nWe have seen the legendary nature of the late traditions regarding the\ncomposition of the Gospel, of which a specimen was given in the defence\nof it in the Canon of Muratori, and we must not further quote them.\nThe first writer who distinctly classes the four Gospels together is\nIrenaeus; and the reasons which he gives for the existence of precisely\nthat number in the Canon of the Church illustrate the thoroughly\nuncritical character of the Fathers, and the slight dependence which can\nbe placed upon their judgments. \"But neither can the Gospels be more in\nnumber than they are,\" says Irenaeus, \"nor, on the other hand, can they\nbe fewer. For as there are four quarters of the world in which we\nare, and four general winds [------], and the Church is disseminated\nthroughout all the world, and the Gospel is the pillar and prop of the\nChurch and the spirit of life, it is right that she should have four\npillars, on all sides breathing out immortality and revivifying men.\nFrom which it is manifest that the Word, the maker of all, he who\nsitteth upon the Cherubim and containeth all things, who was manifested\nto man, has given to us the Gospel, four-formed but possessed by one\nspirit; as David also says, supplicating his advent: 'Thou that\nsittest between the Cherubim, shine forth.' For the Cherubim also are\nfour-faced, and their faces are symbols of the working of the Son of\nGod.... and the Gospels, therefore, are in harmony with these amongst\nwhich Christ is seated. For the Gospel according to John relates his\nfirst effectual and glorious generation from the Father, saying: 'In the\n\n     1 Ad Autolyc, ii. 22.    Tischendorf dates this work about\n     a.d. 180. Wann wurden, a. s. w., p. 16, anm. 1.\n\n{478}\n\nbeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was\nGod,' and 'all things were made by him, and without him nothing was\nmade.' On this account also this Gospel is full of all trustworthiness,\nfor such is his person.(1) But the Gospel according to Luke, being as it\nwere of priestly character, opened with Zacharias the priest sacrificing\nto God.... But Matthew narrates his generation as a man, saying: 'The\nbook of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of\nAbraham,' and 'the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise,' This Gospel,\ntherefore, is anthropomorphic, and on this account a man, humble and\nmild in character, is presented throughout the Gospel. But Mark makes\nhis commencement after a prophetic Spirit coming down from on high unto\nmen, saying: 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is\nwritten in Isaiah the prophet;' indicating the winged form of the\nGospel; and for this reason he makes a compendious and precursory\ndeclaration, for this is the prophetic character....\n\nSuch, therefore, as was the course of the Son of God, such also is the\nform of the living creatures; and such as is the form of the living\ncreatures, such also is the character of the Gospel. For quadriform\nare the living creatures, quadriform is the Gospel, and quadriform the\ncourse of the Lord. And on this account four covenants were given to the\nhuman race.... These things being thus: vain and ignorant and, moreover,\naudacious are those who set aside the form of the Gospel, and declare\nthe aspects of the Gospels as either more or less than has been\nsaid.\"(2) As such principles of criticism presided\n\n     1 The Greek of this rather unintelligible sentence is not\n     preserved. The Latin version reads as follows: Propter hoc\n     et omni fiducia plenum est Evangelium istud; talis est enim\n     persona ejus.\n\n{479}\n\nover the formation of the Canon, it is not singular that so many of the\ndecisions of the Fathers have been reversed. Irenaeus himself mentioned\nthe existence of heretics who rejected the fourth Gospel,(1) and\nEpiphanius(2) refers to the Alogi, who equally denied its authenticity,\nbut it is not needful for us further to discuss this point. Enough has\nbeen said to show that the testimony of the fourth Gospel is of no value\ntowards establishing the truth of miracles and the reality of Divine\nRevelation.\n\n\nEND OF VOL. II.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Supernatural Religion, Vol. 2 (of 3): An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":117374}