Eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how Polycarp
'has employed certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of
Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which he refers, contains a
reference to the First Epistle of St John, which has been alleged by
modern writers, but is not alleged by Eusebius. This same chapter, it is
true, contains the words 'Watch unto prayer,' which present a
coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this
one expression: the strong and unquestionable coincidences are
elsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,'
whereas the quotations from I Peter in Polycarp are numerous. Thus in c.
1 we have 'In whom, not having seen, ye believe, and believing ye
rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 8: in c.
2, 'Girding up your loins,' from 1 Pet. i. 13 (comp. Ephes. vi. 14);
'Having believed on Him that raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the
dead and gave Him glory,' from 1 Pet. i. 21; 'Not rendering evil for
evil, or railing for railing,' from 1 Pet. iii. 9: in c. 5, 'Every lust
warreth against the Spirit,' from 1 Pet. ii. 11: in c. 8, 'Who bore our
sins with His own body ([Greek: to idiô sômati]) on the tree,' from 1
Pet. ii. 24; 'Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,'
from 1 Pet. ii. 22: in c. 10, 'Lovers of the brotherhood,' from 1 Pet.
ii. 17; 'Be ye all subject one to another,' from 1 Pet. v. 5; 'Having
your conversation unblamable among the Gentiles, that from your good
works both ye may receive praise, and the Lord may not be evil spoken of
in you,' from 1 Pet. ii. 12 (comp. iv. 14 in the received text). I am
quite at a loss to conceive how any one can speak of these numerous and
close coincidences as 'very insufficient grounds.' And though our author
elsewhere, as, for instance, in the quotations from the Fourth Gospel in
Tatian and in the Clementine Homilies [50:1], has resisted evidence
which (I venture to think) would satisfy any jury of competent critics,
yet I cannot suppose that he would hold out against such an array of
passages as we have here, and I must therefore believe that he has
overlooked the facts. I venture to say again that, in these references
to early writers relating to the Canon, Eusebius (where we are able to
test him) _never overstates the case_. I emphasize this assertion,
because I trust some one will point out my error if I am wrong. If I am
not shown to be wrong, I shall make use of the fact hereafter [50:2].
This investigation will have thrown some light upon the author's
sweeping assertions with respect to the arbitrary action which he
supposes to have presided over the formation of the Canon, and still
more on his unqualified denunciations of the uncritical spirit of
Eusebius. But such was not my immediate purpose.
_Hypotheses non fingimus._ We have built no airy castles of criticism on
arbitrary _à priori_ assumptions as to what the silence of Eusebius must
mean. We have put the man himself in the witness-box; we have confronted
him with facts, and cross-examined him; thus we have elicited from him
his principles and mode of action. I may perhaps have fallen into some
errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but the main
conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable. If they are not, I shall be
obliged to any one who will point out the fallacy in my reasoning; and I
pledge myself to make open retractation, when I resume these papers in a
subsequent number. If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how
large a part of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to
pieces.
Our author is quite alive to the value of a system of 'positively
enunciating.' [51:1] 'A good strong assertion,' he says, 'becomes a
powerful argument, since few readers have the means of verifying its
correctness.' [51:2] His own assertions, which I quoted at the outset of
this investigation, are certainly not wanting in strength, and I have
taken the liberty of verifying them. Any English reader may do the same.
Eusebius is translated, and so are the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
I now venture on a statement which might have seemed a paradox if it had
preceded this investigation, but which, coming at its close, will, if I
mistake not, commend itself as a sober deduction from facts. _The
silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is
an evidence in its favour._ Its Apostolic authorship had never been
questioned by any Church writer from the beginning, so far as Eusebius
was aware, and therefore it was superfluous to call witnesses. It was
not excused, because it had not been accused. In short, the silence of
Eusebius here means the very opposite to that which our author assumes
it to mean.
If any one demurs to this inference, let him try, on any other
hypothesis, to answer the following questions:--
(1) How is it that, while Eusebius alleges repeated testimonies to the
Epistle to the Hebrews, he is silent from first to last about the
universally acknowledged Epistles of St Paul, such as Romans, 1, 2
Corinthians, and Galatians?
(2) How is it that he does not mention the precise and direct testimony
in Theophilus to the Gospel of St John, while he does mention a
reference in this same author to the Apocalypse?
And this explanation of the silence of Eusebius, while it is demanded by
his own language and practice, alone accords with the known facts
relating to the reception of the Fourth Gospel in the second century.
Its theology is stamped on the teaching of orthodox apologists; its
authority is quoted for the speculative tenets of the manifold Gnostic
sects, Basilideans, Valentinians, Ophites; its narrative is employed
even by a Judaising writer like the author of the Clementines. The
phenomena which confront us in the last quarter of the second century
are inexplicable, except on the supposition that the Gospel had had a
long previous history. How else are we to account for such facts as that
the text already exhibits a number of various readings, such as the
alternative of 'only begotten God' for 'the only begotten Son' in i. 18,
and 'six' for 'five' in iv. 18, or the interpolation of the descent of
the angel in v. 3, 4; that legends and traditions have grown up
respecting its origin, such as we find in Clement of Alexandria and in
the Muratorian fragment [52:1]; that perverse mystical interpretations,
wholly foreign to the simple meaning of the text, have already encrusted
it, such as we meet with in the commentary of Heracleon? How is it that
ecclesiastical writers far and wide receive it without misgiving at this
epoch--Irenæus in Gaul, Tertullian in Africa, Clement in Alexandria,
Theophilus at Antioch, the anonymous Muratorian writer perhaps in Rome?
that they not only receive it, but assume its reception from the
beginning? that they never betray a consciousness that any Church or
Churchman had ever questioned it? The history of the first
three-quarters of the second century is necessarily obscure owing to the
paucity of remains. A flood of light is suddenly poured in during the
remaining years of the century. Our author is content to grope in the
obscurity: any phantoms may be conjured up here; but the moment the
light is let in, he closes his eyes and can see nothing. He refuses
altogether to discuss Irenæus, though Irenæus was a disciple of
Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Even if it be granted
that the opinion of Irenæus, as an isolated individual, is not worth
much, yet the wide-spread and traditional belief which underlies his
whole language and thoughts is a consideration of the highest moment:
and Irenæus is only one among many witnesses. The author's treatment of
the external evidences to the Fourth Gospel is wholly vitiated by his
ignoring the combined force of such facts as these. A man might with
just as much reason assert that a sturdy oak sapling must have sprung up
overnight, because circumstances had prevented him from witnessing its
continuous growth.
The author of _Supernatural Religion_ was kind enough to send me an
early copy of his fourth edition, and I sincerely thank him for his
courtesy. Unfortunately it arrived too late for me to make any use of it
in my previous article. With one exception however, I have not noticed
that my criticisms are affected by any changes which may have been made.
But this single exception is highly important. A reader, with only the
fourth edition before him, would be wholly at a loss to understand my
criticism, and therefore some explanation is necessary.
In my former article [53:1] I pointed out that the author had founded a
charge of 'falsification' against Dr Westcott on a grammatical error of
his own. He had treated the infinitive and indicative moods as the same
for practical purposes; he had confused the oblique with the direct
narrative; he had maintained that the passage in question (containing a
reference to St John) was Irenæus' own, whereas the grammar showed that
Irenæus was repeating the words of others; and consequently, he had
wrongly accused Dr Tischendorf and Dr Westcott, because in their
translations they had brought out the fact that the words did not belong
to Irenæus himself.
I place the new note relating to Dr Westcott side by side with the old
[54:1]:--
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'Having just observed that a note | 'Canon Westcott, who quotes
in this place, in previous | this passage in a note (_On the
editions, has been understood as | Canon_ p. 61, note 2), translates
an accusation against Dr Westcott | here, "This distinction of dwelling,
of deliberate falsification of | they taught, exists" etc.
the text of Irenæus, we at once | The introduction of "they taught"
withdraw it with unfeigned regret | here is most unwarrantable; and
that the expressions used could | being inserted, without a word
bear an interpretation so far | of explanation or mark showing
from our intention. _We desired | its addition by the translator, in
simply to object to the insertion | a passage _upon whose interpretation
of "they taught"_ (_On the Canon_ | there is difference of opinion_,
p. 61, note 2), without some | and whose origin is in dispute, it
indication, in the absence of the | amounts to a falsification of the
original text, that these words | text. Dr Westcott neither gives
were merely supplementary and | the Greek nor the ancient Latin
conjectural. The source _of the | version for comparison.'
indirect passage_ is, of course, |
matter of argument, and we make |
it so; but it seems to us that |
the introduction of specific |
words like these, without |
explanation of any kind, conveys |
to the general reader too |
positive a view of the case. We |
may perhaps be permitted to say |
that we fully recognise Dr |
Westcott's sincere love of truth, |
and feel the most genuine respect |
for his character.' |
Considering the gravity of his accusation, I think that our author might
have been more explicit in his retractation. He might have stated that
he not only retracted his charge against Dr Westcott, but also withdrew
his own interpretation of the passage. He might have confessed that,
having in his earlier editions assumed the words to be Irenæus' own, he
had found out his mistake [55:1]; that accordingly he acknowledged the
passage to be oblique; that therefore, after all, Dr Westcott was right
and he was wrong; and that the only question with him now was how best
to break the force of the true interpretation, in its bearing on the
authenticity of the fourth Gospel.
The reader will not find in this fourth edition, from beginning to end,
the slightest intimation of all this. He is left with the impression
that the author regrets having used a strong expression respecting Dr
Westcott, but that otherwise his opinion is unchanged. Whether I have or
have not rightly interpreted the facts, will be seen from a
juxtaposition of passages from the fourth and earlier editions.
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'Now, in the quotation from | 'Now in the quotation from
Irenæus given in this passage, | Irenæus given in this passage,
_Tischendorf renders the oblique | _Tischendorf deliberately falsifies
construction_ by inserting "say | the text_ by inserting "say they;"
they," referring to the Presbyters | and, as he does not give the
of Papias; and, as he does not | original, the great majority of
give the original, he should at | readers could never detect how
least have indicated that these | he thus adroitly contrives to
words are supplementary. We | strengthen his argument. As
shall endeavour' [55:2] etc. | regards the whole statement of
| the case we must affirm that it
| misrepresents the facts. We
| shall endeavour' etc.
Lower down he mentions how Irenæus 'continues with a quotation from
Isaiah his own train of reasoning,' adding in the early editions--'and
it might just as well be affirmed that Irenæus found the quotation from
the Prophet in Papias as that which we are considering.' [56:1] As the
reference to Isaiah is in the indicative, whereas the clause under
consideration is in the infinitive, this was equivalent to saying that
the one mood is just as good as the other, where it is a question of the
direct or oblique narrative. This last sentence is tacitly removed in
the fourth edition.
In the translation of the infinitive [Greek: einai de tên diastolên] we
notice this difference:--
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
But ... there is this distinction.' | 'But there is to be this
| distinction.'
The translation of the passage containing these oblique infinitives is
followed by the author's comment, which is altered thus:--
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'Now it is impossible for anyone | 'Now it is impossible for anyone
who attentively considers the whole | who attentively considers the whole
of this passage, and who makes | of this passage, and who makes
himself acquainted with the manner | himself acquainted with the manner
in which Irenæus conducts his | in which Irenæus conducts his
argument, and interweaves it _with | argument, and interweaves it _with
quotations, to assert that the | texts of Scripture, to doubt that
phrase we are considering_ must | the phrase we are considering is
have been taken from a book | introduced by Irenæus himself_,
referred to three chapters earlier, | and is in no case a quotation
and _was not introduced by Irenæus | from the work of Papias.'
from some other source_.' |
Here the author has tacitly withdrawn an interpretation which a few
weeks before he declared to be beyond the reach of doubt, and has
substituted a wholly different one for it. He then proceeds:--
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'In the passage from the | 'The passage from the commencement
commencement of the second | of the second paragraph (§ 2) is
paragraph Irenæus enlarges upon, | an enlargement or comment on what
and illustrates, what "the | the Presbyters say regarding the
Presbyters say" regarding the | blessedness of the Saints, and
blessedness of the Saints, _by | Irenæus illustrates the distinction
quoting the view held_ as to the | between those bearing fruit
distinction between those bearing | thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one
fruit thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and | hundred-fold, so often represented
one hundred-fold, and _the | in the Gospel, _by the saying_
interpretation given of the saying_ | regarding "many mansions" being
regarding "many mansions."' | prepared in Heaven.'
After this our author, in the earlier editions, quotes a number of
passages from Irenæus to support his view that the words in question
are direct and not oblique, because they happen to begin with [Greek:
dia touto]. It is unfortunate that not one of them is in the infinitive
mood, and therefore they afford no illustration of the point at issue.
'These,' he there adds, 'are _all direct quotations by Irenæus_,
as is _most certainly_ that which we are considering, which is
introduced in precisely the same way. That this is the case is
further _shown_ etc.... and it is rendered _quite certain_ by the
fact that' etc.
All these false parallels are withdrawn in the fourth edition and the
sentence is rewritten. We are now told that '_the source of his_
(Irenæus') _quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the
exegesis of his own day_ [57:1].' So then it was a quotation after all,
and the old interpretation, though declared to be 'most certain' and
'quite certain' in two consecutive sentences, silently vanishes to make
room for the new. But why does the author allow himself to spend nine
octavo pages over the discussion of this one passage, freely altering
sentence after sentence to obliterate all traces of his error, without
any intimation to the reader? Had not the public a right to expect more
distinctness of statement, considering that the author had been led by
this error to libel the character of more than one writer? Must not
anyone reading the apology to Dr Westcott, contained in the note quoted
above, necessarily carry off a wholly false impression of the facts?
I add one other passage for comparison:--
FOURTH EDITION. | EARLIER EDITIONS.
|
'We have disposed of his alternative | 'We have disposed of his
that the quotation being by "the | alternative that the quotation,
Presbyters" was more ancient even | being by "the Presbyters," was
than Papias, by showing that it | more ancient even than Papias,
_may be referred to Irenæus himself | by showing that it _must be
quoting probably from | attributed to Irenæus himself_,
contemporaries_, and that there is | and that there is no ground for
no ground for attributing it to the | attributing it to the Presbyters
Presbyters at all.' [58:1] | at all.'
Surely this writer might have paused before indulging so freely in
charges of 'discreet reserve,' of 'disingenuousness,' of 'wilful and
deliberate evasion,' and the like.
III. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
[FEBRUARY, 1875.]
The letters bearing the name of Ignatius [59:1], with which we are
immediately concerned, profess to have been written by the saint as he
was passing through Asia Minor on his way to martyrdom. If their
representations be true, he was condemned at Antioch, and sent to Rome
to stiffer death in the amphitheatre by exposure to the wild beasts. The
exact year of the martyrdom is uncertain, but the limits of possibility
are not very wide. The earlier date assigned is about A.D. 107, and the
later about A.D. 116. These letters, with a single exception, are
written to different Churches of Asia Minor (including one addressed
more especially to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna). The exceptional letter
is sent to the Roman Church, apprising the Christians of the metropolis
that his arrival among them may soon be expected, declaring his
eagerness for martyrdom, and intreating them not to interpose and rescue
him from his fate. His language supposes that there were at this time
members of the Roman Church sufficiently influential to obtain either a
pardon or a commutation of his sentence. The letters to the Asiatic
Churches have a more general reference. They contain exhortations,
friendly greetings, warnings against internal divisions and against
heretical doctrines. With some of these Churches he had been brought in
personal contact; with others he was acquainted only through their
delegates.
Of the three forms in which the Ignatian letters have been handed down
to us, one may be dismissed from our consideration at once. The Long
Recension, preserved both in the Greek original and in a Latin
translation, may be regarded as universally condemned. In the early part
of the last century an eccentric critic, whose Arian sympathies it
seemed to favour, endeavoured to resuscitate its credit, and one or two
others, at long intervals, have followed in his wake; but practically it
may be regarded as dead. It abounds in anachronisms of fact or diction;
its language diverges widely from the Ignatian quotations in the writers
of the first five centuries. Our author places its date in the sixth
century, with Ussher; I should myself ascribe it to the latter half of
the fourth century. This however is a matter of little consequence.
Only, before passing on, I would enter a protest against the argument of
our author that, because the Ignatian letters were thus interpolated 'in
the sixth century,' therefore 'this very fact increases the probability
of much earlier interpolation also.' [60:1] I am unable to follow this
reasoning. I venture to think that we cannot argue back from the sixth,
or even the fourth century, to the second, that this later forgery must
not be allowed to throw any shadow of suspicion on the earlier Ignatian
letters; and that the question of a prior interpolation must be decided
by independent evidence.
The two other forms of the Ignatian letters may be described briefly as
follows:--
(1) The first comprises the seven letters which Eusebius had before him,
and in the same form in which he read them--to the Ephesians,
Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnæans, and Polycarp.
It is true that other Epistles confessedly spurious are attached to them
in the MSS; but these (as will appear presently) do not properly belong
to this collection, and were added subsequently. This collection is
preserved not only in the original Greek, but also in Latin and Armenian
versions. Fragments also are extant of Coptic and Syriac versions, from
which last, and not from the original Greek, the Armenian was
translated. The discovery of these epistles, first of all by Ussher in
the Latin translation, and then by Isaac Voss in the Greek original,
about the middle of the seventeenth century, was the death-blow to the
Long Recension. Ussher's dissertations had the honour of giving it the
happy despatch. It is usual to call this recension, which thus
superseded the other, the Short Greek; but this term is for obvious
reasons objectionable, and I shall designate these Epistles the
_Vossian._
(2) The second is extant only in a Syriac dress, and contains three of
the Epistles alone--to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans--in
a still shorter form. These Syriac Epistles were discovered among the
Nitrian MSS in the British Museum, and published by Cureton in 1845. I
shall therefore call these the _Curetonian_ Epistles.
Cureton's discovery stirred up the Ignatian dispute anew. It was soon
fanned into flames by the controversy between Bunsen and Baur, and is
raging still. The two questions are these: (1) Whether the Vossian or
the Curetonian Epistles are prior in time; in other words, whether the
Vossian Epistles were expanded from the Curetonian by interpolation, or
whether the Curetonian were reduced from the Vossian by excision and
abridgment; and (2) when this question has been disposed of, whether the
prior of these two recensions can be regarded as genuine or not.
The question respecting the Ignatian letters has, from the nature of the
case, never been discussed exclusively on its own merits. The pure light
of criticism has been crossed by the shadows of controversial
prepossession on both sides. From the era of the Reformation onward, the
dispute between Episcopacy and Presbyterianism has darkened the
investigation; in our own age the controversies respecting the Canon of
Scripture and the early history of Christianity have interfered with
equally injurious effects. Besides these two main questions which are
affected by the Ignatian letters, other subjects indirectly involved
have aided the strife and confusion. The antagonism between Papal and
Protestant writers materially affected the discussion in the sixteenth
century, and the antagonism between Arianism and Catholicity in the
eighteenth. But the disturbing influence of these indirect questions,
though not inconsiderable at the time, has not been lasting.
In the present paper I shall not attempt to treat of the Ignatian
question as a whole. It will simply be my business to analyse the
statements and discuss the arguments of the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ relating to this subject. I propose, when I resume these
papers again, to say something of the Apostolic Fathers in reference to
early Christian belief and to the New Testament Canon; and this cannot
be done with any effect until the way has been so far cleared as to
indicate the extent to which we can employ the Ignatian letters as valid
testimony.
The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the student
of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the
considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate.
A writer therefore may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of
familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally
expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with
some diffidence.