The matter indeed might be summarily dismissed with the remark that they
afford no testimony to the Gospels whatever. But so much stress is laid
upon them in this respect by orthodox writers (and necessarily so, for
if the so-called Apostolical Fathers testify not of the Gospels, there
is no evidence of their existence until the latter half of the second
century) that we must pause and examine how far they bear the burden
that is laid upon them.
We have already seen that both the age and the authorship of every one
of these works is of a most doubtful character. The names of every
one of the twelve apostles, of Paul, of Ignatius, of Polycarp, of the
Diognetus mentioned in Acts xvii, 34, of Clement, of Linus, and of other
early Christians of repute, have been appended to the most unblushing
forgeries. Among these so-called genuine remains, as found in Archbishop
Wake's version and the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, those attributed
to Barnabas and Hermas are almost as certainly forged. Of the epistles
assigned to Ignatius, Professor Andrews Norton says: "There is, as
it seems to me, no reasonable doubt that the seven shorter epistles
ascribed to Ignatius are, equally with all the rest, fabrications of a
date long subsequent to his time" ("The Evidence of the Genuineness
of the Gospels," p. 350, vol. i., 2nd ed., 1847). The second of the
epistles attributed to Clement is recognised by most scholars as
spurious. The only remaining documents which we can at all allow to
be genuine are the first epistle of Clement and that of Polycarp. Even
these have not been undisputed. The former has been challenged as a
forgery by Mr. J. M. Cotterill, in a curious work, entitled "Peregrinus
Proteus," published by T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1879; and the
latter by Blondel, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld, Tayler, and others, and it is
generally allowed to be interpolated.
Dr. Giles ("Christian Records," p. 109, 1877,) says: "The writings
of the Apostolical Fathers labor under a more heavy load of doubt and
suspicion than any other ancient compositions either sacred or profane.
In former times, when the art of criticism was in its infancy, these
writings were ten times as extensive as they are now, and they were
circulated without the slightest doubt of their authenticity. But,
as the spirit of inquiry grew, and the records of past time were
investigated, the mists which obscured the subject were gradually
dispersed, and the light of truth began to shine where there had
previously been nothing but darkness. Things which had chained and
enslaved the mind for ages, dissolved and faded into nothing at the
dawn of day, and objects that once held the most unbounded sway over the
belief, proved to be unreal beings, creatures of superstition, if not
of fraud, placed like the lions in the path of the pilgrim, to deter him
from proceeding on the way that leads to the heavenly city of truth."
In another place Dr. Giles remarks in regard to the question of the age
and authorship of the these Fathers: "The works which have been written
on this question are almost as numerous as those which concern the age,
authorship, and authenticity of the Gospels themselves, but the general
issue of the inquiries which have been instituted, has been unfavorable
to the antiquity of these works as remains of writers who were
contemporary with the Apostles, but favorable to the theory that they
are productions of the latter half of the second century. That was the
time when so many Christian writings came into existence, and all the
records of our religion were sedulously sought out, because tradition
was then becoming faint, original and even secondary witnesses had gone
off the stage, and the great increase of the Christian community gave
birth to extended curiosity about its early history, whilst it furnished
greater safety to those who employed themselves in its service"
("Christian Records," chap, xi., p. 89).
If the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses of the miracles, and these
so-called Apostolic Fathers had conversed with them, it is scarcely
credible that they would have omitted to name the actual books
themselves which possessed such high authority. This is the only way
in which their evidence could be of real service to support the
authenticity of the New Testament writings as being the work of
Apostles. But this they fail to supply. There is not a single sentence
in all their remaining works in which an unmistakeable allusion to the
Gospels, as we have them, is to be found. It is in vain that Christian
evidence-mongers appeal to their citations of certain sayings of Jesus
or certain doctrines of Christianity. No one disputes that these were in
general vogue early in the second century. But the point to be proved to
the Rationalist is that the supernatural events of the four Gospels were
testified to by eye-witnesses, who published their accounts at the time
and in the place where the alleged supernatural occurrences took place.
And of this the Apostolic Fathers afford no scrap of evidence. Of the
supernatural history of Jesus they know no more than Paul. They neither
mention his immaculate conception nor his miracles; nor do they refer
to any of the circumstances connected with his alleged material
resurrection. This especially applies to the possibly genuine writings
of Clement and Polycarp. Hermas, as we have mentioned, has no reference
to any of the acts of Jesus. Barnabas has an allusion to "great signs
and wonders which were wrought in Israel," but he does not say what
they were nor when they happened. Ignatius alone, in a probably spurious
epistle to the Ephesians, chap, xix, alludes to the virginity of Mary,
her offspring, and the death of the Lord as "three mysteries of renown;"
but the details he gives concerning the brilliant star which appeared,
and how all the rest of the stars and the sun and moon formed a chorus
to this star, and its light was exceedingly "great above them all,"
and how "every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness
disappeared," show that the writer referred to other sources of
information than those found in Matthew and Luke. In the full part of
the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Trallians,' he gives almost the
whole of the Apostles creed. This in itself would be sufficient evidence
of its spuriousness.
Stress is laid by all writers on the external evidences upon certain
alleged quotations from our gospels, which are said to be found in the
early Fathers. But the question naturally arises, if they considered
them to be of Apostolic authority why did they not mention them by name?
They say Moses says, but they never say Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John
says. They cite the words of Jesus, but not of his Evangelists. They
also say "The Lord _said_" rather than saith, which indicates they were
rather indebted to tradition than to written accounts. Irenaeus says he
heard Polycarp repeat the oral relations of John and of other hearers
of the Lord, and Clement may have received his knowledge in the same
manner. We shall see from the testimony of Papias that he at least
preferred tradition to the books with which he was acquainted. Moreover,
such quotations of the sayings of Jesus as occur are never given in the
same words nor in the same order. Attempts are made to account for this
by saying that they quoted loosely from memory. But is it likely they
would quote loosely words which they believed to be written by the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost? This does not say much for their
intellectual ability. Clement and Polycarp, for instance, both give, "Be
pitiful that ye may be pitied," word for word; while the Gospel shews,
"Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy." Clement says,
"Forgive that it may be forgiven you;" Polycarp, "Forgive and it shall
be forgiven you." The nearest to which is, "For if ye forgive men their
trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you."
Such facts have constrained Mr. Sanday to admit in his work on the
Gospels in the Second Century that "The author of Supernatural Religion
is not without reason when he says they may be derived from other
collections than our actual Gospels" (p. 87, 1876.) Canon Westcott
himself in summing up the results says:-- "(1) No Evangelic reference in
the Apostolic Fathers can be referred certainly to a written record. (2)
It appears most probable from the form of the quotations that they were
derived from oral tradition" (p. 63, 1881.) We shall see, however, that
whether they went to other collections or relied upon oral traditions,
their Evangelic references are never exactly the same as in our gospels.
They manifestly had other sources of information. Moreover it must be
borne in mind that the Christian sayings very frequently crept into the
text by way of gloss. An illustration of this kind of interpolation is
found in the "Epistle of Barnabas," chap, xix., p. 133, where we read,
"Thou shalt not hesitate to give, nor murmur when thou givest." "_Give
to everyone that asketh thee_, and thou shalt know who is the good
Recompenser of the reward." But for this supposed quotation being
omitted in the oldest MS., the "Codex Seaiticus," it would be considered
evidence that the writer of the epistle was quoting from Luke vi.,
30. In copying manuscripts there was no such strictness as in a modern
printing-office, where "follow your copy" is the compositor's rule. If
a transcriber at the time when our Gospels were in vogue (and be it
remembered we have no manuscripts either of the Fathers or of the New
Testament older than the fourth or fifth century after Jesus) saw a
quotation different from the way in which he had been accustomed to
see it, he would not hesitate to alter it So that many of the alleged
literal quotations from our Gospels may be only emendations of the
scribes who found the quotations were wrong and put them right. Dr.
Donaldson, in the introduction to his Apostolical Fathers, chap, iii.,
p. 27, tells us how "Each transcriber, as he copied, inserted the notes
of previous readers into the text, and often from his heated imagination
added something himself." He also informs us (p. 28) "That we know
for certain that even in the second and third centuries the letters of
bishops and others were excised and interpolated in their lifetime." So
pure is the stream through which our Gospels have descended!
The able and learned author of "Supernatural Religion" well puts the
argument: "When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with quotations
closely resembling, or we may add, even identical with passages
which are found in our Gospels, the source of which, however, is not
mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, the similarity or even
identity cannot by any means be admitted as proof that the quotation is
necessarily from our Gospels, and not from some other similar work now
no longer extant, and more especially not when, in the same writings,
there are other quotations from sources different from our Gospels"
(vol. i., pp. 213, 214, 1879.) That citations similar to those found in
our Gospels are not necessarily taken therefrom may be instanced from
Ignatius, or the writer who used his name who in his Epistle to the
Smyrnaeans, chap, iii., p. 242, says: "When, for instance, He came to
those who were with Peter He said to them: 'Lay hold, handle me and see
that I am not an incorporeal spirit.'" According to Jerome (Vir. Illust.
16) this quotation is from the Gospel of the Nazarenes. But for
this direct statement, it would of course be assigned by orthodox
traditionalists to a quotation from memory of Luke xxiv., 39. Origen,
however, quoted this self-same passage from another work well known in
the early Church, but since lost or destroyed, the "Preaching of Peter."
But whilst similarity would not prove their use, variation from the
Gospels is the best proof that they were not used. Such passages abound.
Clement, for instance, says: "Our Apostles also knew, through the Lord
Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the episcopate"
(chap, xliv., p. 38.) He says "it is written cleave to the holy, for
those that cleave to them shall themselves be made holy" (chap, xlvi.,
p. 40.) He also quotes (chap. 1., p. 43) "I will remember a propitious
day, and will raise you up out of your tombs," which is probably from
the apocryphal fourth book of Ezra. Barnabas declares: "The Lord says
'He has accomplished a second fashioning in these last days. The Lord
says I will make the last like the first'" (chap, vi., p. 3, Sinaitic.)
He quotes as a saying of Jesus: "Those who wish to behold me, and lay
hold of my kingdom, must through tribulation and suffering obtain me"
(chap, vii., p. 114.) And again: "For the Scripture saith, 'And it shall
come to pass in the last days that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of
His pasture and their sheepfold and tower to destruction" (chap, xvi.,
p. 129.) Other instances might be given. In the second Epistle of
Clement there are at least five such passages, but these suffice to show
that other documents than the Gospels were referred to, and that even
where the sentiment is similar the expression is different It must
be borne in mind also that we have it on the authority of Luke in his
preface that already in his time _many_ had taken in hand to set forth
in order a declaration of those things which were most surely believed
among Christians.
Mosheim, in his "Ecclesiastical History" (pt. ii., chap. ii., sec. 17,
p. 65, Stubbs' ed., 1863) speaks of "A variety of commentaries, filled
with impostures and fables, on our Savior's life and sentiments composed
soon after his ascent into heaven, by men who without being bad,
perhaps were superstitious, simple, and piously deceitful. To these
were afterwards added other writings, falsely ascribed to the most holy
apostles by fraudulent individuals." But these fraudulent individuals
were Christians, and the purpose of their frauds was to subserve the
interests of the Church. We have record of many other Gospels, not to
mention Acts of Apostles and Revelations. Some of these were certainly
anterior to our own. Such were probably the Gospel of Paul, whence
Marcion's Gospel and Luke's were derived, the Gospel of Peter from
which possibly Mark was compiled. The Oracles or Sayings of Jesus which
probably entered into the construction of Matthew together with the
Gospel to the Hebrews. The Gospel of the Egyptians, which we have
already seen as quoted by Clement, the original of which C. B. Waite
thinks "may have been in use among the Therapeutae of Egypt a long time
before the introduction of Christianity, the passages relating to Christ
being afterwards added" ("History of the Christian Religion to the
year 200," p. 77, Chicago, 1881.) According to Origen, Theophylact and
Jerome, this Gospel was written before the Gospel of Luke, and many
learned moderns have deemed it earlier than any of the Canonical
Gospels. At least contemporary with these were the Gospel of James
or Protevangelion, the Gospel of Thomas or Infancy, and the Gospel of
Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate, all of which remain, although the Christian
Church has lost the doubtless equally respectable Gospels of Matthias,
of Philip, of Bartholomew, of Andrew, and even of Judas Iscariot.