Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
[Transcriber's Note: Footnotes have been relocated to the end of the
text, and footnote anchors have been labeled with the original page and
footnote numbers. Inconsistent hyphenations by the author (including
co-extensive/coextensive, foot-notes/footnotes, hundred-fold/hundredfold,
mis-statement/misstatement, re-written/rewritten, two-fold/twofold)
have been retained as printed.]
ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION"
Reprinted from _The Contemporary Review_.
BY
J.B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.
LATE BISHOP OF DURHAM.
LONDON:
MACMILLAN AND CO.
AND NEW YORK.
1893
_First Edition_, 1889.
_Second Edition_, 1893.
PREFACE.
This republication of Essays which were written several years ago has
no reference to any present controversies. Its justification is the
fact that strangers and friends in England and America alike had urged
me from time to time to gather them together, that they might be had in
a more convenient form, believing that they contained some elements of
permanent value which deserved to be rescued from the past numbers of
a Review not easily procurable, and thus rendered more accessible to
students. I had long resisted these solicitations for reasons which
I shall explain presently; but a few months ago, when I was prostrated
by sickness and my life was hanging on a slender thread, it became
necessary to give a final answer to the advice tendered to me. This
volume is the result. The kind offices of my chaplain the Rev. J.R.
Harmer, who undertook the troublesome task of verifying the references,
correcting the press, and adding the indices, when I was far too ill to
attend to such matters myself, have enabled me to bring it out sooner
than I had hoped.
When I first took up the book entitled 'Supernatural Religion,' I felt,
whether rightly or wrongly, that its criticisms were too loose and
pretentious, and too full of errors, to produce any permanent effect;
and for the most part attacks of this kind on the records of the Divine
Life are best left alone. But I found that a cruel and unjustifiable
assault was made on a very dear friend to whom I was attached by the
most sacred personal and theological ties; and that the book which
contained this attack was from causes which need not be specified
obtaining a notoriety unforeseen by me. Thus I was forced to break
silence; and, as I advanced with my work, I seemed to see that, though
undertaken to redress a personal injustice, it might be made subservient
to the wider interests of the truth.
Paper succeeded upon paper, and I had hoped ultimately to cover the
whole ground, so far as regards the testimony of the first two centuries
to the New Testament Scriptures. But my time was not my own, as I was
necessarily interrupted by other literary and professional duties which
claimed the first place; and meanwhile I was transferred to another and
more arduous sphere of practical work, being thus obliged to postpone
indefinitely my intention of giving something like completeness to the
work.
In republishing these papers then, the only course open to me, in
justice to my adversary as well as to myself, was to reprint them in
succession word for word as they appeared, correcting obvious misprints;
though in many cases my argument might have been strengthened
considerably. Recently discovered documents for instance have
established the certainty of the main conclusions respecting Tatian's
_Diatessaron_, to which the criticism of the available evidence had led
me. Again I have since treated the Ignatian question more fully
elsewhere, and satisfied myself on points about which I had expressed
indecision in these Essays. On the other hand on one or two minor
questions I might have used less confident language.
What shocked me in the book was not the extravagance of the opinions or
the divergence from my own views; though I cannot pretend to be
indifferent about the veracity of the records which profess to reveal
Him, whom I believe to be not only the very Truth, but the very Life. I
have often learnt very much even from extreme critics, and have freely
acknowledged my obligations; but here was a writer who (to judge from
his method) seemed to me, and not to me only [Footnote: See Salmon's
_Introduction to the New Testament_ p. 9.], where it was a question of
weighing probabilities, as is the case in most historical
investigations, to choose invariably that alternative, even though the
least probable, which would enable him to score a point against his
adversary. For the rest I disclaim any personal bias, as against any
personal opponent. The author of 'Supernatural Religion,' as distinct
from the work, is a mere blank to me. I do not even know his name, nor
have I attempted to discover it. Whether he is living or dead, I know
not. He preferred to write anonymously, and so far as I am concerned, I
am glad that it was so; though, speaking for myself, I prefer taking the
responsibility of my opinions and statements on important subjects.
In several instances the author either vouchsafed an answer to my
criticisms, or altered the form of his statements in a subsequent
edition. In all such cases references are scrupulously given in this
volume to his later utterances. In most cases my assailant had the last
word. He is welcome to it. I am quite willing that careful and impartial
critics shall read my statements and his side by side, and judge between
us. It is my sole desire, in great things and in small, to be found
[Greek: sunergos tê alêtheia].
BOURNEMOUTH,
_May_ 2, 1889.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1--31
II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS 32--58
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES 59--88
IV. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA 89--141
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS I. 142--177
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS II. 178--216
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN 217--250
VIII. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL 251--271
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON 272--288
DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 291--302
INDICES 303--324
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.
I. INTRODUCTION.
[DECEMBER, 1874]
If the author of _Supernatural Religion_ [Footnote 1:1] designed, by
withholding his name, to stimulate public curiosity and thus to extend
the circulation of his work, he has certainly not been disappointed in
his hope. When the rumour once got abroad, that it proceeded from the
pen of a learned and venerable prelate, the success of the book was
secured. For this rumour indeed there was no foundation in fact. It was
promptly and emphatically denied, when accidentally it reached the ears
of the supposed author. But meanwhile the report had been efficacious.
The reviewers had taken the work in hand and (with one exception)
lavished their praises on the critical portions of it. The first edition
was exhausted in a few months.
No words can be too strong to condemn the heartless cruelty of this
imputation. The venerable prelate, on whom the authorship of this
anonymous work was thrust, deserved least of all men to be exposed to
such an insult. As an academic teacher and as an ecclesiastical ruler
alike, he had distinguished himself by a courageous avowal of his
opinions at all costs. For more than a quarter of a century he had lived
in the full blaze of publicity, and on his fearless integrity no breath
of suspicion had ever rested. Yet now, when increasing infirmities
obliged him to lay down his office, he was told that his life for years
past had been one gigantic lie. The insinuation involved nothing less
than this. Throughout those many years, during which the anonymous
author, as he himself tells us, had been preparing for the publication
of an elaborate and systematic attack upon Christianity, the bishop was
preaching Christian doctrine, confirming Christian children, ordaining
Christian ministers, without breathing a hint to the world that he felt
any misgiving of the truths which he thus avowed and taught. Yet men
talked as if, somehow or other, the cause of 'freethinking' had gained
great moral support from the conversion of a bishop, though, if the
rumour had been true, their new convert had for years past been guilty
of the basest fraud of which a man is capable.
And all the while there was absolutely nothing to recommend this
identification of the unknown author. The intellectual characteristics
of the work present a trenchant contrast to the refined scholarship and
cautious logic of this accomplished prelate. Only one point of
resemblance could be named. The author shows an acquaintance with the
theological critics of the modern Dutch school; and a knowledge of Dutch
writers was known, or believed, to have a place among the acquisitions
of this omniscient scholar. Truly no reputation is safe, when such a
reputation is traduced on these grounds.
I have been assuming however that the work entitled _Supernatural
Religion_, which lies before me, is the same work which the reviewers
have applauded under this name. But, when I remember that the St Mark of
Papias cannot possibly be our St Mark, I feel bound to throw upon this
assumption the full light of modern critical principles; and, so tested,
it proves to be not only hasty and unwarrantable, but altogether absurd.
It is only necessary to compare the statements of highly intellectual
reviewers with the work itself; and every unprejudiced mind must be
convinced that 'the evidence is fatal to the claims' involved in this
identification. Out of five reviews or notices of the work which I have
read, only one seems to refer to our _Supernatural Religion_. The other
four are plainly dealing with some apocryphal work, bearing the same
name and often using the same language, but in its main characteristics
quite different from and much more authentic than the volumes before me.
1. It must be observed in the first place, that the reviewers agree in
attributing to the work scholarship and criticism of the highest order.
'The author,' writes one, 'is a scientifically trained critic. He has
learned to argue and to weigh evidence.' 'The book,' adds a second,
'proceeds from a man of ability, a scholar and a reasoner.' 'His
scholarship,' says this same reviewer again, 'is apparent throughout.'
'Along with a wide and minute scholarship,' he writes in yet another
place, 'the unknown writer shows great acuteness.' Again a third
reviewer, of whose general tone, as well as of his criticisms on the
first part of the work, I should wish to speak with the highest respect,
praises the writer's 'searching and scholarly criticism.' Lastly a
fourth reviewer attributes to the author 'careful and acute
scholarship.' This testimony is explicit, and it comes from four
different quarters. It is moreover confirmed by the rumour already
mentioned, which assigned the work to a bishop who has few rivals among
his contemporaries as a scholar and a critic.
Now, since the documents which our author has undertaken to discuss are
written almost wholly in the Greek and Latin languages, it may safely be
assumed that under the term 'scholarship' the reviewers included an
adequate knowledge of these languages. Starting from this as an axiom
which will not be disputed, I proceed to inquire what we find in the
work itself, which will throw any light on this point.
The example, which I shall take first, relates to a highly important
passage of Irenæus [3:1], containing a reference in some earlier
authority, whom this father quotes, to a saying of our Lord recorded
only in St John's Gospel. The passage begins thus:--
'As the elders say, then also shall those deemed worthy of the
abode in heaven depart thither; and others shall enjoy the delights
of paradise; and others shall possess the splendour of the city;
for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they that see
Him shall be worthy.'
Then follows the important paragraph which is translated differently by
our author [4:1] and by Dr Westcott [4:2]. For reasons which will appear
immediately, I place the two renderings side by side:--
WESTCOTT. | SUPERNATURAL RELIGION.
|
'This distinction of dwelling, | 'But there is to be this
they taught, exists between | distinction [4:4] of dwelling
those who brought forth a | ([Greek: einai de tên diastolên
hundred-fold, and those who | tautên tês oikêseôs]) of those bearing
brought forth sixty-fold, and | fruit the hundred-fold, and of the
those who brought forth | (bearers of) the sixty-fold, and of
twenty-fold (Matt. xiii. 8)... | the (bearers of) the thirty-fold: of
| whom some indeed shall be taken up
| into the heavens, some shall live
And it was for this reason | in Paradise, and some shall
the Lord said that _in His | inhabit the City, and for that
Father's House_ ([Greek: en | reason ([Greek: dia touto]--
tois tou patros]) _are many | _propter hoc_) the Lord declared
mansions_ (John xiv. 2).' | many mansions to be in the (heavens)
[4:3] | of my Father ([Greek: en tois tou
| patros mou monas einai pollas]), etc.'
On this extract our author remarks that 'it is impossible for any one
who attentively considers the whole of this passage and who makes
himself acquainted with the manner in which Irenæus conducts his
argument, and interweaves it with texts of Scripture, to doubt that the
phrase we are considering is introduced by Irenæus himself, and is in
no case a quotation from the work of Papias [5:1].' As regards the
relation of this quotation from the Fourth Gospel to Papias any remarks,
which I have to make, must be deferred for the present [5:2]; but on the
other point I venture to say that any fairly trained schoolboy will feel
himself constrained by the rules of Greek grammar to deny what our
author considers it 'impossible' even 'to doubt.' He himself is quite
unconscious of the difference between the infinitive and the indicative,
or in other words between the oblique and the direct narrative; and so
he boldly translates [Greek: einai tên diastolên] as though it were
[Greek: estai] (or [Greek: mellei einai]) [Greek: hê diastolê], and
[Greek: eirêkenai ton Kurion] as though it were [Greek: eirêken ho
Kurios]. This is just as if a translator from a German original were to
persist in ignoring the difference between 'es sey' and 'es ist' and
between 'der Herr sage' and 'der Herr sagt.' Yet so unconscious is our
author of the real point at issue, that he proceeds to support his view
by several other passages in which Irenæus 'interweaves' his own
remarks, because they happen to contain the words [Greek: dia touto],
though in every instance the indicative and _not the infinitive_ is
used. To complete this feat of scholarship he proceeds to charge Dr
Westcott with what 'amounts to a falsification of the text [5:3],'
because this scholarly writer has inserted the words 'they taught' to
show that in the original the sentence containing the reference to St
John is in the oblique narrative and therefore reports the words of
others [5:4]. I shall not retort this charge of 'falsification,' because
I do not think that the cause of truth is served by imputing immoral
motives to those from whom we differ; and indeed the context shows that
our author is altogether blind to the grammatical necessity. But I would
venture to ask whether it would not have been more prudent, as well as
more seemly, if he had paused before venturing, under the shelter of an
anonymous publication, to throw out this imputation of dishonesty
against a writer of singular candour and moderation, who has at least
given to the world the hostage and the credential of an honoured name.
It is necessary to add that our author persists in riveting this
grammatical error on himself. He returns to the charge again in two
later footnotes [6:1] and declares himself to have shown 'that it [the
reference to the Fourth Gospel] must be referred to Irenæus himself,
and that there is no ground for attributing it to the Presbyters at
all.' 'Most critics,' he continues, 'admit the uncertainty [6:2].' As it
will be my misfortune hereafter to dispute not a few propositions which
'most critics' are agreed in maintaining, it is somewhat reassuring to
find that they are quite indifferent to the most elementary demands of
grammar [6:3].
The passage just discussed has a vital bearing on the main question at
issue, the date of the Fourth Gospel. The second example which I shall
take, though less important, is not without its value. As in the former
instance our author showed his indifference to moods, so here he is
equally regardless of tenses. He is discussing the heathen Celsus, who
shows an acquaintance with the Evangelical narratives, and whose date
therefore it is not a matter of indifference to ascertain. Origen, in
the preface to his refutation of Celsus, distinctly states that this
person had been long dead ([Greek: êdê kai palai nekron]). In his first
book again he confesses his ignorance who this Celsus was, but is
disposed to identify him with a person of the name known to have
flourished about a century before his own time [7:1]. But at the close
of the last book [7:2], addressing his friend Ambrosius who had sent him
the work, and at whose instance he had undertaken the refutation, he
writes (or rather, he is represented by our author as writing) as
follows:--
'Know, however, that Celsus has promised to write another treatise
after this one.... If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise
to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with the eight
books in reply to his Discourse. If however, he has commenced and
finished this work also, seek it and send it in order that we may
answer it also, and confute the false teaching in it etc.' [7:3]
On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes that
Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile been
'considerably modified', and remarks that he now 'treats him as a
contemporary'. Unfortunately however, the tenses, on which everything
depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen does not say,
'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_' ([Greek:
epangellomenon]), _i.e._ in the treatise before him, for Origen's
knowledge was plainly derived from the book itself. And again, he does
not say 'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write', but 'If he
_did not write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: egrapsen
huposchomenos]); nor 'if he _has commenced and finished_', but 'if he
_commenced and finished_' ([Greek: arxamenos sunetelese]) [7:4]. Thus
Origen's language itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict
accordance with the earlier passages in his work.
These two examples have been chosen, not because they are by any means
the worst specimens of our author's Greek, but because in both cases an
elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar. If any reader is
curious to see how he can drive his ploughshare through a Greek
sentence, he may refer for instance to the translations of Basilides
(II. p. 46) [8:1], or of Valentinus (II. p. 63) [8:2], or of Philo (II.
p. 265 sq) [8:3]. Or he may draw his inferences from such renderings as
[Greek; ho logos edêlou], 'Scripture declares,' [8:4] or [Greek: kata
korrês propêlakizein], [8:5] 'to inflict a blow on one side'; or from
such perversions of meaning as 'did no wrong,' twice repeated [8:6] as a
translation of [Greek: ouden hêmarte] in an important passage of Papias
relating to St Mark, where this Father really means that the Evangelist,
though his narrative was not complete, yet 'made no mistake' in what he
did record.
Nor does our author's Latin fare any better than his Greek, as may be
inferred from the fact that he can translate 'nihil tamen differt
credentium fidei,' 'nothing nevertheless differs in the faith of
believers,' [8:7] instead of 'it makes no difference to the faith of
believers,' thus sacrificing sense and grammar alike [8:8]. Or it is
still better illustrated by the following example:--
'Nam ex iis commentatoribus | 'For of the Commentators
quos habemus, Lucam videtur | whom we possess, Marcion seems
Marcion elegisse quem caederet.' | (_videtur_) to have selected Luke,
Tertull. _adv. Marc._ iv. 2. | which he mutilates.' _S.R._
| II. p. 99. [8:9]
Here again tenses and moods are quite indifferent, an imperfect
subjunctive being treated as a present indicative; while at the same
time our author fails to perceive that the "commentatores" are the
Evangelists themselves. His mind seems to be running on the Commentaries
of De Wette and Alford, and he has forgotten the Commentaries of Cæsar
[9:1].
Having shown that the author does not possess the elementary knowledge
which is indispensable in a critical scholar, I shall not stop to
inquire how far he exhibits those higher qualifications of a critic,
which are far more rare--whether for instance he has the discriminating
tact and nice balance of judgment necessary for such a work, or whether
again he realizes how men in actual life do speak and write now, and
might be expected to speak and write sixteen or seventeen centuries
ago--without which qualifications the most painful study and
reproduction of German and Dutch criticism is valueless. These
qualifications cannot be weighed or measured, and I must trust to my
subsequent investigations to put the reader in possession of data for
forming a judgment on these points. At present it will be sufficient to
remark that a scholarly writer might at least be expected not to
contradict himself on a highly important question of Biblical criticism.
Yet this is what our author does. Speaking of the descent of the angel
at the pool of Bethesda (John v. 3, 4) in his first part, he writes:
'The passage is not found in the older MSS of the Fourth Gospel, and it
was probably a later interpolation.' [9:2] But, having occasion towards
the end of his work to refer again to this same passage, he entirely
forgets his previously expressed opinion, and is very positive on the
other side. 'We must believe,' he writes, 'that this passage did
originally belong to the text, and has from an early period been omitted
from the MSS on account of the difficulty it presents.' [10:1] And, to
make the contradiction more flagrant, he proceeds to give a reason why
the disputed words must have formed part of the original text.
It must be evident by this time to any 'impartial mind,' that the
_Supernatural Religion_ of the reviewers cannot be our _Supernatural
Religion_. The higher criticism has taught me that poor foolish Papias,
an extreme specimen of 'the most deplorable carelessness and want of
critical judgment' displayed by the Fathers on all occasions, cannot
possibly have had our St Mark's Gospel before him [10:2], because he
says that his St Mark recorded only 'some' of our Lord's sayings and
doings, and did not record them in order (though by the way no one
maintains that everything said and done by Christ is recorded in our
Second Gospel, or that the events follow in strict chronological
sequence); and how then is it possible to resist the conclusion, which
is forced upon the mind by the concurrent testimony of so many able
reviewers, the leaders of intellectual thought in this critical
nineteenth century, to the consummate scholarship of the writer, that
they must be referring to a different recension, probably more authentic
and certainly far more satisfactory than the book which lies before me?
2. And the difficulty of the popular identification will be found to
increase as the investigation proceeds. There is a second point, also,
on which our critics are unanimous. Our first reviewer describes the
author as 'scrupulously exact in stating the arguments of adversaries.'
Our fourth reviewer uses still stronger language: 'The author with
excellent candour places before us the materials on which a judgment
must rest, with great fulness and perfect impartiality.' The testimony
of the other two, though not quite so explicit, tends in the same
direction. 'An earnest seeker after truth,' says the second reviewer,
'looking around at all particulars pertaining to his inquiries.' 'The
account given in the volume we are noticing,' writes the third, 'is a
perfect mine of information on this subject, alloyed indeed with no
small prejudice, yet so wonderfully faithful and comprehensive that an
error may be detected by the light of the writer's own searching and
scholarly criticism.'
Now this is not the characteristic of the book before me. The author
does indeed single out from time to time the weaker arguments of
'apologetic' writers, and on these he dwells at great length; but their
weightier facts and lines of reasoning are altogether ignored by him,
though they often occur in the same books and even in the same contexts
which he quotes. This charge will, I believe, be abundantly
substantiated as I proceed. At present I shall do no more than give a
few samples.
Our author charges the Epistle ascribed to Polycarp with an anachronism
[11:1], because, though in an earlier passage St Ignatius is assumed to
be dead, 'in chap. xiii he is spoken of as living, and information is
requested regarding him "and those who are with him."' Why then does he
not notice the answer which he might have found in any common source of
information, that when the Latin version (the Greek is wanting here) 'de
his qui cum eo sunt' is retranslated into the original language, [Greek:
tois sun autô], the 'anachronism' altogether disappears? [11:2] Again,
when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion of Papias
[11:3], why does he not even mention the view maintained by Dr Westcott
and others (and certainly suggested by a strict interpretation of
Papias' own words), that this father's object in his 'Exposition' was
not to construct a new evangelical narrative, but to interpret and
illustrate by oral tradition one already lying before him in written
documents? [11:4] This view, if correct, entirely alters the relation of
Papias to the written Gospels; and its discussion was a matter of
essential importance to the main question at issue. Again, when he
reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the strong prejudice' of
Hegesippus against St Paul [12:1], and quotes the often-quoted passage
from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer refers to the language of
Hegesippus condemning the use of the words, 'Eye hath not seen, etc.',
why does he not state that these words were employed by heretical
teachers to justify their rites of initiation, and consequently
'apologetic' writers contend that Hegesippus refers to the words, not as
used by St Paul, but as misapplied by these heretics? Since, according
to the Tübingen interpretation, this single notice contradicts
everything else which we know of the opinions of Hegesippus [12:2], the
view of 'apologists' might perhaps have been worth a moment's
consideration. And again, in the elaborate examination of Justin
Martyr's evangelical quotations [12:3], in which he had Credner's
careful analysis to guide him, and which therefore is quite the most
favourable specimen of his critical work, our author frequently refers
to Dr Westcott's book to censure it, and many comparatively
insignificant points are discussed at great length. Why then does he not
once mention Dr Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin
Martyr's quotations from the Old Testament, as throwing some light on
the degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the
Gospels? [12:4] The former Justin supposed to be (as one of the
reviewers expresses it) 'almost automatically inspired,' whereas he took
a much larger view of the inspiration of the evangelical narratives. A
reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_ will have his
eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind, when he turns to Dr
Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves, mis-names, and
mis-quotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot be said that these
are unimportant points. In every instance which I have selected these
omitted considerations vitally affect the main question at issue.
Our fourth reviewer however uses the words which I have already quoted,
'excellent candour,' 'great fulness,' 'perfect impartiality,' with
special reference to the part of the work relating to the authorship and
character of the Fourth Gospel, which he describes as 'a piece of keen
and solid reasoning.' This is quite decisive. Our author might have had
his own grounds for ignoring the arguments of 'apologetic' writers, or
he may have been ignorant of them. For reasons which will appear
presently, the latter alternative ought probably to be adopted as
explaining some omissions. But however this may be, the language of the
reviewer is quite inapplicable to the work lying before me. It may be
candid in the sense of being honestly meant, but it is not candid in any
other sense; and it is the very reverse of full and impartial. The
arguments of 'apologetic' writers are systematically ignored in this
part of the work. Once or twice indeed he fastens on passages from such
writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main arguments
remain wholly unnoticed. Why, for instance, when he says of the Fourth
Gospel that 'instead of the fierce and intolerant temper of the Son of
Thunder, we find a spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness and
love,' [13:1] does he forget to add that 'apologists' have pointed to
such passages as 'Ye are of your father the devil,' as a refutation of
this statement--passages far more 'intolerant' than anything recorded in
the Synoptic Gospels? [13:2] Why again, when he asserts that 'allusion
is undoubtedly made to' St Paul in the words of the Apocalypse, 'them
that hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
to idols [14:1],' does he forget to mention that St Paul himself uses
this same chapter in Jewish history as a warning to those free-thinkers
and free-livers, who eat things sacrificed to idols, regardless of the
scandal which their conduct might create, and thus, so far from a direct
antagonism, there is a substantial agreement between the two Apostles on
this point? [14:2] Why, when he is endeavouring to minimize, if not to
deny, the Hebraic [14:3] character of the Fourth Gospel, does he wholly
ignore the investigations of Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists'
venture to think) show that the whole texture of the language in the
Fourth Gospel is Hebraic? Why again, when he alludes to 'the minuteness
of details' [14:4] in this Gospel as alleged in defence of its
authenticity, is he satisfied with this mere caricature of the
'apologetic' argument? Having set up a man of straw, he has no
difficulty in knocking him down. He has only to declare that 'the
identification of an eye-witness by details is absurd.' It would have
been more to the purpose if he had boldly grappled with such arguments
as he might have found in Mr Sanday's book for instance [15:1];
arguments founded not on the minuteness of details, but on the thorough
naturalness with which the incidents develop themselves, on the subtle
and inobtrusive traits of character which appear in the speakers, on the
local colouring which is inseparably interwoven with the narrative, on
the presence of strictly Jewish (as distinguished from Christian) ideas,
more especially Messianic ideas, which saturate the speeches, and the
like. And, if he could have brought forward any parallel to all this in
the literature of the time, or could even have shown a reasonable
probability that such a fiction might have been produced in an age which
(as we are constantly reminded) was singularly inappreciative and
uncritical in such matters, and which certainly has not left any
evidence of a genius for realism, for its highest conception of
romance-writing does not rise above the stiffness of the Clementines or
the extravagance of the Protevangelium--if he could have done this, he
would at least have advanced his argument a step [15:2]. Why again, when
he is emphasizing the differences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth
Gospel, does he content himself with stating 'that some apologetic
writers' are 'satisfied by the analogies which could scarcely fail to
exist between two works dealing with a similar (!) theme,' [15:3]
without mentioning for the benefit of the reader some of these
analogies, as for instance, that our Lord is styled the Word of God in
these two writings, and these alone, of the New Testament? He recurs
more than once to the doctrine of the Logos, as exhibited in the Gospel,
but again he is silent about the presence of this nomenclature in the
Apocalypse [15:4]. Why, when he contrasts the Christology of the
Synoptic Gospels with the Christology of St John [15:5], does he not
mention that 'apologists' quote in reply our Lord's words in Matt. xi.
27 sq, 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man
knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save
the Son, and he to whom soever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me,
all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest'? This
one passage, they assert, covers the characteristic teaching of the
Fourth Gospel, and hitherto they have not been answered. Again, our
author says very positively that the Synoptics clearly represent the
ministry of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, and his
preaching is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career
culminates at the fatal Passover;' thus contrasting with the Fourth
Gospel, which 'distributes the teaching of Jesus between Galilee,
Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend at least over three years, and
refers to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem.' [16:1] Why then
does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as
Matt. xxiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O, Jerusalem, Jerusalem,...
_how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the
expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate other
visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not recorded in
the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested also that the
twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St Luke, 'I do cures
_to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall be perfected,' 'I must
walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day following_,' points to the very
duration of our Lord's ministry, as indicated by the Fourth Gospel
[16:2]. If so, the coincidence is the more remarkable, because it does
not appear that St Luke himself, while recording these prophetic words,
was aware of their full historical import. But whatever may be thought
of this last point, the contention of 'apologetic' writers is that here,
as elsewhere, the Fourth Gospel supplies the key to historical
difficulties in the Synoptic narratives, which are not unlocked in the
course of those narratives themselves, and this fact increases their
confidence in its value as an authentic record [16:3].
Again: he refers several times to the Paschal controversy of the second
century as bearing on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. On one
occasion he devotes two whole pages to it. [17:1] Why then does he not
mention that 'apologetic' writers altogether deny what he states to be
absolutely certain; maintaining on the contrary that the Christian
Passover, celebrated by the Asiatic Churches on the 14th Nisan,
commemorated not the Institution of the Lord's Supper, but, as it
naturally would, the Sacrifice on the Cross, and asserting that the main
dispute between the Asiatic and Roman Churches had reference to the
question whether the commemoration should take place always on the 14th
Nisan (irrespective of the day of the week) or always on a Friday? Thus,
they claim the Paschal controversy as a witness on their own side. This
view may be right or wrong; but inasmuch as any person might read the
unusually full account of the controversy in Eusebius from beginning to
end, without a suspicion that the alternative of the 14th or 15th Nisan,
as the day of the Crucifixion, entered into the dispute at all, the
_onus probandi_ rests with our author, and his stout assertions were
certainly needed to supply the place of arguments. [17:2]
The same reticence or ignorance respecting the arguments of 'apologetic'
writers is noticeable also when he deals with the historical and
geographical allusions in the Fourth Gospel. If by any chance he
condescends to discuss a question, he takes care to fasten on the least
likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._ the identification of Sychar and
Shechem), [17:3] omitting altogether to notice others [18:1]. But as a
rule, he betrays no knowledge whatever of his adversaries' arguments.
One instance will suffice to illustrate his mode of procedure. Referring
to the interpretation of Siloam as 'sent,' in John ix. 7, he stigmatizes
this as 'a distinct error,' because the word signifies 'a spring, a
fountain, a flow of water;' and he adds that 'a foreigner with a slight
knowledge of the language is misled by the superficial analogy of sound
[18:2].' Does he not know (his Gesenius will teach him this) that Siloam
signifies a fountain, or rather, an aqueduct, a conduit, like the Latin
_emissarium_, because it is derived from the Hebrew _shalach_ 'to send'?
and if he does know it, why has he left his readers entirely in the dark
on this subject? As the word is much disguised in its Greek dress
(_Siloam_ for _Shiloach_), the knowledge of its derivation is not
unimportant, and 'apologists' claim to have this item of evidence
transferred to their side of the account. Any one disposed to retaliate
upon our author for his habitual reticence would find in these volumes,
ready made for his purpose, a large assortment of convenient phrases
ranging from 'discreet reserve' to 'wilful and deliberate evasion.' I do
not intend to yield to this temptation. But the reader will have drawn
his own conclusions from this recklessness of assault in one whose own
armour is gaping at every joint.
But indeed, when he does stoop to notice the arguments of 'apologetic'
writers, he is not always successful in apprehending their meaning.
Thus he writes of the unnamed disciple, the assumed author of the Fourth
Gospel:--
'The assumption that the disciple thus indicated is John, rests
principally on the fact that whilst the author mentions the other
Apostles, he seems studiously to avoid directly naming John, and
also that he only once [18:3] distinguishes John the Baptist by the
appellation [Greek: ho baptistês], whilst he carefully
distinguishes the two disciples of the name of Judas, and always
speaks of the Apostle Peter as 'Simon Peter,' or 'Peter,' or but
rarely as 'Simon' only. Without pausing to consider the slightness
of this evidence, etc.' [19:1]
Now the fact is, that the Fourth Evangelist never once distinguishes
this John as 'the Baptist,' though such is his common designation in the
other Gospels; and the only person, in whom the omission would be
natural, is his namesake John the son of Zebedee. Hence 'apologists' lay
great stress on this fact, as an evidence all the more valuable, because
it lies below the surface, and they urge with force, that this subtle
indication of authorship is inconceivable as the literary device of a
forger in the second century. We cannot wonder, however, if our author
considers this evidence so slight that he will not even pause upon it,
when he has altogether distorted it by a mis-statement of fact. But it
is instructive to trace his error to its source. Turning to Credner, to
whom the author gives a reference in a footnote, I find this writer
stating that the Fourth Evangelist
'Has not found it necessary to distinguish John the Baptist from
the Apostle John his namesake _even so much as once_ (auch nur ein
einziges Mal) by the addition [Greek: ho baptistês].' [19:2]
So then our author has stumbled over that little word 'nur,' and his
German has gone the way of his Greek and his Latin [19:3]. But the error
is instructive from another point of view. This argument happens to be a
commonplace of 'apologists.' How comes it then, that he was not set
right by one or other of these many writers, even if he could not
construe Credner's German? Clearly this cannot be the work which the
reviewers credit with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature of the
subject. I may be asked indeed to explain how, on this theory of
mistaken identity which I here put forward, the work reviewed by the
critics came to be displaced by the work before me, so that no traces of
the original remain. But this I altogether decline to do, and I plead
authority for refusing. 'The merely negative evidence that our actual
[_Supernatural Religion_] is not the work described by [the Reviewers]
is sufficient for our purpose.' [20:1]
3. But the argument is strengthened when we come to consider a third
point. 'The author's discussions,' writes our first reviewer, 'are
conducted in a judicial method.' 'He has the critical faculty in union
with a calm spirit.' 'Calm and judicial in tone,' is the verdict of our
second reviewer. The opinion of our third and fourth reviewers on this
part may be gathered not so much from what they say as from what they
leave unsaid. A fifth reviewer however, who seems certainly to have had
our _Supernatural Religion_ before him, holds different language. He
rebukes the author--with wonderful gentleness, considering the gravity
of the offence--for 'now and then losing patience.'
Now whether calmness of tone can be said to distinguish a work which
bristles with such epithets as 'monstrous,' 'impossible,' 'audacious,'
'preposterous,' 'absurd;' whether the habit of reiterating as axiomatic
truths what at the very best are highly precarious hypotheses--as, for
instance, that Papias did not refer to our St Mark's Gospel--does not
savour more of the vehemence of the advocate than of the impartiality of
the judge, I must ask the reader to decide for himself. But of the
highly discreditable practice of imputing corrupt motives to those who
differ from us there cannot be two opinions. We have already seen how a
righteous nemesis has overtaken our author, and he has covered himself
with confusion, while recklessly flinging a charge of 'falsification' at
another. Unfortunately however that passage does not stand alone. I will
not take up the reader's time with illustrations of a practice, of which
we have seen more than enough already. But there is one example which is
sufficiently instructive to deserve quoting. Dr Westcott writes of
Basilides as follows:--
'At the same time, he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who,
as well as St Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' [21:1]
The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr Westcott's book.
It need hardly be said that Dr Westcott is simply illustrating the
statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of St Peter by
the similar statement of Papias and others that St Mark was an
interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of information,
one would suppose. On this passage however our author remarks:--
'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading
system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to,
in the introduction after 'Glaucias' of the words '_who as well as
St Mark was_ an interpreter of St Peter.' The words in italics are
the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only
have been inserted for one of two purposes: (I) to assert the fact
that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition
represented Mark to be; or (II) to insinuate to unlearned readers
that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the
interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been
the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and
infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal
of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the
allusion to Mark, was [unconsciously, no doubt] too strong for the
apologist.' [21:2]
Dr Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself. It
stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these. I only
call attention to the fact that our author has removed Dr Westcott's
inverted commas [22:1], and then founded on the passage so manipulated a
charge of unfair dealing, which could only be sustained in their
absence, and which even then no one but himself would have thought of.
I will not retort upon our author the charge of 'deliberate
falsification,' which he so freely levels at others, for I do not
believe that he had any such intention. The lesson suggested by this
highly characteristic passage is of another kind. It exemplifies the
elaborate looseness which pervades the critical portion of this book. It
illustrates the author's inability to look at things in a
straightforward way. It emphasizes more especially the suspicious temper
of the work, which makes it, as even a favourable reviewer has said,
'painfully sceptical'--a temper which must necessarily vitiate all the
processes of criticism, and which, if freely humoured elsewhere, would
render life intolerable and history impossible [22:2].
It is difficult to see what end the author proposed to attain by all
this literary browbeating. In the course of my examination I shall be
constrained to adopt many a view which has been denounced beforehand as
impossible and absurd; and I shall give my reasons for doing so. If by
an 'apologist' [22:3] is meant one who knows that he owes everything
which is best and truest in himself to the teaching of Christianity--not
the Christless Christianity which alone our author would spare, the
works with the mainspring broken, but the Christianity of the Apostles
and Evangelists--who believes that its doctrines, its sanctions, and its
hopes, are truths of the highest moment to the wellbeing of mankind, and
who, knowing and believing all this, is ready to use in its defence such
abilities as he has, then a man may be proud to take even the lowest
place among the ranks of 'apologists,' and to brave any insinuations of
dishonesty which an anonymous critic may fling at him.
There is however another more subtle mode of intimidation which plays an
important part in these volumes. Long lists of references are given in
the notes, to modern critics who (as the reader would infer from the
mode of reference) support the views mentioned or adopted by the author
in the text. I have verified these references in one or two cases, and
have found that several writers, at all events, do not hold the opinions
to which their names are attached [23:1]. But, under any circumstances,
these lists will not fetter the judgment of any thoughtful mind. It is
strange indeed, that a writer who denounces so strongly the influence of
authority as represented by tradition, should be anxious to impose on
his readers another less honourable yoke. There is at least a
presumption (though in individual cases it may prove false on
examination) that the historical sense of seventeen or eighteen
centuries is larger and truer than the critical insight of a section of
men in one late half century. The idols of our cave never present
themselves in a more alluring form than when they appear as the 'spirit
of the age.' It is comparatively easy to resist the fallacies of past
times, but it is most difficult to escape the infection of the
intellectual atmosphere in which we live. I ask myself, for instance,
whether one who lived in the age of the rabbis would have been
altogether right in resigning himself to the immediate current of
intellectual thought, because he saw, or seemed to see, that it was
setting strongly in one direction.