As we have already remarked, the Syriac version of the three epistles

is very much shorter than the shorter Greek version, the Epistle to the

Ephesians, for instance, being only about one-third of the length of the

Greek text. Those who still maintain the superior authenticity of the

Greek shorter version argue that the Syriac is an epitome of the Greek.

This does not, however, seem tenable when the matter is carefully

examined. Although so much is absent from the Syriac version, not only

is there no interruption of the sense and no obscurity or undue curtness

in the style, but the epistles read more consecutively, without faults

of construction or grammar, and passages which in the Greek text were

confused and almost unintelligible have become quite clear in the

Syriac. The interpolations of the text, in fact, had been so clumsily

made, that they had obscured the meaning, and their mere omission,

without any other alteration of grammatical construction, has restored

the epistles to clear and simple order.(2) It is, moreover, a remarkable

fact that the passages which, long before the discovery of the Syriac

epistles, were pointed out as chiefly determining that the epistles were

spurious, are not found in the Syriac version at all.3 Archbishop Usher,

who only admitted the authenticity of six epistles, showed that much

interpolation of these letters took place in the

{261}

sixth century,(1) but this very fact increases the probability of much

earlier interpolation also, at which the various existing versions

most clearly point. The interpolations can be explained upon the most

palpable dogmatic grounds, but not so the omissions upon the hypothesis

that the Syriac version is an abridgment made upon any distinct dogmatic

principle, for that which is allowed to remain renders the omissions

ineffectual for dogmatic reasons. There is no ground of interest upon

which the portions omitted and retained by the Syriac version can be

intelligently explained.(2) Finally, here, we may mention that the MSS.

of the three Syriac epistles are more ancient by some centuries than

those of any of the Greek versions of the Seven epistles.(3) The

strongest internal, as well as other evidence, into which space forbids

our going in detail, has led the majority of critics to recognize the

Syriac version as the most ancient form of the letters of Ignatius

extant, and this is admitted by many of those who nevertheless deny the

authenticity of any of the epistles.(4)

Seven epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all equally

purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that number was

mentioned by Eusebius, from whom for the first time, in the fourth

century,--except the general reference in the so-called Epistle of

Poly-carp, to which we shall presently refer,--we hear of them. Now

neither the silence of Eusebius regarding the eight epistles, nor his

mention of the seven, can have much weight in deciding the question of

their authenticity. The only point which is settled by the reference

{262}

of Eusebius is that, at the date at which he wrote, seven epistles were

known to him which were ascribed to Ignatius. He evidently knew little

or nothing regarding the man or the Epistles, beyond what he had learnt

from themselves,(1) and he mentions the martyr-journey to Rome as a mere

report: "It is said that he was conducted from Syria to Rome to be cast

to wild beasts on account of his testimony to Christ."(2) It would be

unreasonable to argue that no other epistles existed simply because

Eusebius did not mention them; and on the other hand it would be still

more unreasonable to affirm that the seven epistles are authentic merely

because Eusebius, in the fourth century,--that is to say, some two

centuries after they are supposed to have been written,--had met with

them. Does any one believe the letter of Jesus to Abgarus Prince of

Edessa to be genuine, because Eusebius inserts it in his history(3) as

an authentic document out of the public records of the city of Edessa \

There is, in fact, no evidence that the brief quotations of Irenaeus

and Origen are taken from either of the extant Greek versions of the

epistles; for, as we have mentioned, they exist in the Syriac epistles,

and there is nothing to show the original state of the letters from

which they were derived. Nothing is more certain than the fact that, if

any writer wished to circulate letters in the name of Ignatius, he

would insert such passages as were said to have been quoted from genuine

epistles of Ignatius, and supposing those quotations to be real, all

that could be said on finding such passages would be that at least so

much might be genuine.(4) It is a total

{263}

mistake to suppose that the seven epistles mentioned by Eusebius have

been transmitted to us in any special way. These epistles are mixed

up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient Latin MSS. with the

other eight epistles, universally pronounced to be spurious, without

distinction of any kind, and all have equal honour.(1) The recognition

of the number seven may, therefore, be ascribed simply to the reference

to them by Eusebius, and his silence regarding the rest.

What, then, is the position of the so-called Ignatian Epistles? Towards

the end of the second century, Irenaeus makes a very short quotation from

a source unnamed, which Eusebius, in the fourth century, finds in an

epistle attributed to Ignatius. Origen, in the third century, quotes a

very few words which he ascribes to Ignatius, although without definite

reference to any particular epistle; and, in the fourth century

Eusebius mentions seven epistles ascribed to Ignatius. There is no other

evidence. There are, however, fifteen epistles extant, all of which are

attributed to Ignatius, of all of which, with the exception of three

which are only known in a Latin version, we possess both Greek and Latin

versions. Of seven of these epistles--and they are those mentioned by

Eusebius--we have two Greek versions, one of which is very much shorter

than the other; and finally we now possess a Syriac version of three

epistles only(2) in a form still shorter than the shorter Greek version,

in which are found all the quotations of the Fathers, without exception,

up to the fourth century. Eight of the fifteen

2 It is worthy of remark that at the end of the Syriac

version the subscription is: "Here end the three Epistles of

Ignatius, Bishop and Martyr;" cf. Cureton, The Ancient

Syriac Version, &c, p. 25.

{264}

epistles are universally rejected as spurious. The longer Greek version

of the remaining seven epistles is almost unanimously condemned as

grossly interpolated; and the great majority of critics recognize that

the shorter Greek version is also much interpolated; whilst the Syriac

version, which so far as MSS. are concerned is by far the most ancient

text of any of the letters which we posses, reduces their number to

three, and their contents to a very small compass indeed. It is not

surprising that the vast majority of critics have expressed doubt more

or less strong regarding the authenticity of all of these epistles, and

that so large a number have repudiated them altogether. One thing is

quite evident,--that amidst such a mass of falsification, interpolation,

and fraud, the Ignatian Epistles cannot in any form be considered

evidence on any important point.(1)

We have not, however, finished. All of these epistles, including the

three of the Syriac recension, profess to have been written by Ignatius

during his journey from Antioch to Rome, in the custody of Roman

soldiers, in order to be exposed to wild beasts, the form of martyrdom

to which he had been condemned. The writer describes the circumstances

of his journey as follows: "From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild

beasts, by sea and by land, by night and day; being bound amongst ten

leopards, which are the band of soldiers: who even receiving benefits

become worse."(2) Now if this account be in the least degree true, how

is it possible to suppose that the martyr could have found means to

write

{265}

so many long epistles, entering minutely into dogmatic teaching,

and expressing the most deliberate and advanced views regarding

ecclesiastical government? Indeed it may be asked why Ignatius should

have considered it necessary in such a journey, even if the possibility

be for a moment conceded, to address such epistles to communities and

individuals to whom, by the showing of the letters themselves, he had

just had opportunities of addressing his counsels in person.(1) The

epistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such

circumstances, and it is impossible to suppose that soldiers such as

the quotation above describes would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild

beasts for professing Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles

at every stage of his journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which

he was condemned. And not only this, but on his way to martyrdom, he

has, according to the epistles,(2) perfect freedom to see his friends.

He receives the bishops, deacons, and members of various Christian

communities, who come with greetings to him, and devoted followers

accompany him on his journey. All this without hindrance from the "ten

leopards," of whose cruelty he complains, and without persecution or

harm to those who so openly declare themselves his friends and fellow

believers. The whole story is absolutely incredible.(3) This conclusion,

irresistible in itself, is, however, confirmed by facte arrived at from

a totally different point of view.

{266}

It has been demonstrated that, most probably, Ignatius was not sent to

Rome at all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself(l) on the 20th

December, a.d. 115,(2) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts

in the amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced

by the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(3) There

are no less than three martyrologies of Ignatius,(4) giving an

account of the martyr's journey from Antioch to Rome, but they are all

recognised to be mere idle legends, of whose existence we do not hear

till a very late period.(5) In fact the whole of the Ignatian literature

is a mass of falsification and fraud.

We might well spare our readers the trouble of examining further the

contents of the epistles of pseudo-Ignatius, for it is manifest that

they cannot afford testimony

{267}

of any value on the subject of our inquiry. We shall, however, briefly

point out all the passages contained in the seven Greek Epistles which

have any bearing upon our synoptic Gospels, in order that their exact

position may be more fully appreciated. Teschendorf(1) refers to a

passage in the Epistle to the Romans, c. vi., as a verbal quotation of

Matthew xvi. 26, but he neither gives the context nor states the facts

of the case. The passage reads as follows: "The pleasures of the world

shall profit me nothing, nor the kingdoms of this time; it is better for

me to die for Jesus Christ, than to reign over the ends of the earth.

For what is a man profited if he gain the whole world, but lose his

soul."(2) Now this quotation not only is not found in the Syriac version

of the Epistle, but it is also omitted from the ancient Latin version,

and is absent from the passage in the work of Timotheus of Alexandria

against the Council of Chalcedon, and from other authorities. It

is evidently a later addition, and is recognized as such by most

critics.(3) It was probably a gloss, which subsequently was inserted in

the text. Of these facts, however, Tischendorf does not say a word.(4)

The next passage to which he refers is in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans,

c. i., where the writer says of Jesus: "He was baptized by John in order

that all righteousness

{268}

might be fulfilled by Him,"(1)--which Teschendorf considers a

reminiscence of Matthew iii. 15, "For thus it becometh us to fulfil all

righteousness."(2) The phrase, besides being no quotation, has again all

the appearance of being an addition; and when in Ch. iii. of the same

Epistle we find a palpable quotation from an apocryphal Gospel, which

Jerome states to be the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," to which

we shall presently refer, a Gospel which we know to have contained the

baptism of Jesus by John, it is not possible, even if the Epistle were

genuine, which it is not, to base any such conclusion upon these words.

There is not only the alternative of tradition, but the use of the same

apocryphal Gospel, elsewhere quoted in the Epistle, as the source of

the reminiscence. Tischendorf does not point out any more supposed

references to our synoptic Gospels, but we proceed to notice all the

other passages which have been indicated by others. In the Epistle to

Polycarp, c. ii., the following sentence occurs: "Be thou wise as a

serpent in everything, and harmless as the dove." This is, of course,

compared with Matth. x. 16, "Be ye, therefore, wise as serpents and

innocent as doves." The Greek of both reads as follows: [--Greek--]

In the Syriac version, the passage reads: "Be thou wise as the serpent

in everything, and harmless as to those things which are requisite as

the dove."(4) It is unnecessary

{269}

to add that no source is indicated for the reminiscence. Ewald assigns

this part of our first Gospel originally to the Spruchsammlung,(1) and

even apart from the variations presented in the Epistle there is nothing

to warrant exclusive selection of our first Gospel as the source of the

saying. The remaining passages we subjoin in parallel columns.

None of these passages are quotations, and they generally present such

marked linguistic variations from the parallel

{270}

passages in our first Gospel, that there is not the slightest ground

for specially referring them to it. The last words cited are introduced

without any appropriate context. In no case are the expressions

indicated as quotations from, or references to, any particular source.

They may either be traditional, or reminiscences of some of the numerous

Gospels current in the early Church, such as the Gospel according to the

Hebrews. That the writer made use of one of these cannot be doubted. In

the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. iii., there occurs a quotation from an

apocryphal Gospel to which we have already, in passing, referred: "For I

know that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh, and I believe

he is so now. And when 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,

[--Greek--]. And immediately they touched him and believed, being convinced

by his flesh and spirit." Eusebius, who quotes this passage, says that

he does not know whence it is taken.(2) Origen, however, quotes it from

a work well known in the early Church, called "The Doctrine of Peter,"

[--Greek--];(3) and Jerome found it in the "Gospel according to the

Hebrews," in use among the Nazarenes,(4) which he translated, as we

shall hereafter sec. It was, no doubt, in both of those works. The

narrative, Luke xxiv. 39 f., being neglected, and an apocryphal Gospel

used here, the inevitable inference is clear and very suggestive. As it

is certain that this quotation was taken from a source

{271}

different from our Gospels, there is reason to suppose that the other

passages which we have cited are reminiscences of the same work. The

passage on the three mysteries in the Epistle to the Ephesians, c. xix.,

is evidently another quotation from an uncanonical source.(1)

We must, however, again point out that, with the single exception of

the short passage in the Epistle to Polycarp, c. ii., which is not a

quotation, differs from the reading in Matthew, and may well be from

any other source, none of these supposed reminiscences of our synoptic

Gospels are found in the Syriac version of the three epistles. The

evidential value of the seven Greek epistles is clearly stated by

an English historian and divine: "My conclusion is, that I should be

unwilling to claim historical authority for any passage not contained in

Dr. Cureton's Syriac reprint."(3) We must, however, go much further,

and assert that none of the Epistles have any value as evidence for

an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the third

century, if indeed they possess any value at all. The whole of the

literature ascribed to Ignatius is, in fact, such a tissue of fraud and

imposture, and the successive versions exhibit such undeniable marks

of the grossest interpolation, that even if any small original element

exist referrible to Ignatius, it is impossible to define it, or to

distinguish with the slightest degree of accuracy between what is

authentic and what is spurious. The Epistles do not, however, in any

case afford evidence even of the existence of our synoptic Gospels.

{272}

2.

We have hitherto deferred all consideration of the so-called Epistle of

Polycarp to the Philippians, from the fact that, instead of proving

the existence of the Epistles of Ignatius, with which it is intimately

associated, it is itself discredited in proportion as they are shown to

be in authentic. We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius

to Rome is, for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the

epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held to

be spurious. The Epistle of Polycarp, however, not only refers to the

martyr-journey (c. ix.), but to the Ignatian Epistles which are

inauthentic (c. xiii.), and the manifest inference is that it also is

spurious.

Polycarp, who is said by Irenaeus(1) to have been in his youth a disciple

of the Apostle John, became Bishop of Smyrna, and suffered martyrdom at

a very advanced age.(2) On the authority of Eusebius and Jerome, it

has hitherto been generally believed that his death took place in a.d.

166-167. In the account of his martyrdom, which we possess in the shape

of a letter from the Church of Smyrna, purporting to have been written

by eye-witnesses, which must be pronounced spurious, Polycarp is said to

have died under the Proconsul Statius Quadratus.(3) If this statement

be correct, the date hitherto received can no longer be maintained,

for recent investigations have determined that Statius Quadratus was

proconsul in a.d. 154-5 or 155-6.(4) Some critics,

{273}

who affirm the authenticity of the Epistle attributed to Polycarp, date

the Epistle before a.d. 120,(1) but the preponderance of opinion assigns

it to a much later period.(2) Doubts of its authenticity, and of the

integrity of the text, were very early expressed,(3) and the close

scrutiny to which later and more competent criticism has subjected it,

has led very many to the conclusion that the Epistle is either largely

interpolated,(4) or altogether spurious.(5) The principal argument in

favour

{274}

of its authenticity is the fact that the Epistle is mentioned by

Irenaeus,(1) who in his extreme youth was acquainted with Polycarp.(2)

We have no very precise information regarding the age of Irenaeus, but

Jerome states that he flourished under Commodus (180-192), and we may,

as a favourable conjecture, suppose that he was then about 35-37. In

that case his birth must be dated about a.d. 145. There is reason to

believe that he fell a victim to persecution under Septimius Severus,

and it is only doubtful whether he suffered during the first outbreak

in a.d. 202, or later. According to this calculation, the martyrdom of

Polycarp, in a.d. 155-156, took place when he was ten or eleven years

of age. Even if a further concession be made in regard to his age, it is

evident that the intercourse of Irenaeus with the Bishop of Smyrna

must have been confined to his very earliest years,(3) a fact which is

confirmed by the almost total absence of any record in his writings of

the communications of Polycarp. This certainly does not entitle Irenaeus

to speak more authoritatively of an epistle ascribed to Polycarp, than

any one else of his day.(4)

In the Epistle itself, there are several anachronisms. In ch. ix. the

blessed Ignatius" is referred to as already dead, and he is held up with

Zosimus and Rufus, and also with Paul and the rest of the Apostles, as

examples of patience: men who have not run in vain, but are with the

Lord; but in ch. xiii. he is spoken of as living, and information is

requested regarding him,

{275}

"and those who are with him."(1) Yet, although thus spoken of as alive,

the writer already knows of his Epistles, and refers, in the plural, to

those written by him "to us, and all the rest which we have by us."(2)

The reference here, it will be observed, is not only to the Epistles to

the Smyrnaeans, and to Polycarp himself, but to other spurious epistles

which are not included in the Syriac version. Dallseus(3) pointed out

long ago, that ch. xiii. abruptly interrupts the conclusion of the

Epistle, and most critics, including those who assert the authenticity

of the rest of the Epistle, reject it at least, although many of these

likewise repudiate ch. ix. as interpolated.(4) Others, however, consider

that the latter chapter is quite consistent with the later date, which,

according to internal evidence, must be assigned to the Epistle. The

writer vehemently denounces,(5) as already widely spread, the Gnostic

heresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not exist until

the time of Marcion, to whom and to whose followers he refers in

unmistakable terms. An expression is used in ch. vii. in speaking of

these heretics, which Polycarp is reported by Irenseus to have actually

applied to Marcion in person, during his visit to Home. He is said to

have called Marcion the "first-born of Satan," [--Greek--](6) and the same

term

{276}

is employed in this epistle with regard to every one who holds such

false doctrines. The development of these heresies, therefore, implies

a date for the composition of the Epistle, at earliest, after the

middle of the second century, a date which is further confirmed by other

circumstances.(1) The writer of such a letter must have held a position

in the Church, to which Polycarp could only have attained in the

latter part of his life, when he was deputed to Rome for the Paschal

discussion, and the Epistle depicts the developed ecclesiastical

organization of a later time.(2) The earlier date which has now been

adopted for the martyrdom of Polycarp, by limiting the period during

which it is possible that he himself could have written any portion

of it, only renders the inauthenticity of the Epistle more apparent.

Hilgenfeld has pointed out, as another indication of the same date, the

injunction "Pray for the kings" (Orate pro regibus), which, in 1 Peter

ii. 17, is "Honour the king" [--Greek--], which, he argues, accords with

the period after Antoninus Pius had elevated Marcus Aurelius

{277}

to joint sovereignty (a.d. 147), or better still, with that in which

Marcus Aurelius appointed Lucius Verus his colleague, a.d. 161, for

to rulers outside of the Roman empire there can be no reference. If

authentic, however, the Epistle must have been written, at latest,

shortly after the martyrdom of Ignatius in a.d. 115, but, as we have

seen, there are strong internal characteristics excluding such a

supposition. The reference to the martyr-journey of Ignatius and to

the epistles falsely ascribed to him, is alone sufficient to betray the

spurious nature of the composition, and to class the Epistle with the

rest of the pseudo-Ignatian literature.

We shall now examine all the passages in this epistle which are pointed

out as indicating any acquaintance with our synoptic Gospels.(1) The

first occurs in ch. ii., and we subjoin it in contrast with the nearest

parallel passages of the Gospels, but although we break it up into

paragraphs, it will, of course, be understood that the quotation is

continuous in the Epistle.

[---Greek---]

{278}

It will be remembered that an almost similar direct quotation of words

of Jesus occurs in the so-called Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,

c. xiii., which we have already examined.(1) There, the passage is

introduced by the same words, and in the midst of brief phrases which

have parallels in our Gospel there occurs in both Epistles the same

expression, "Be pitiful that ye may be pitied," which is not found in

any of our Gospels. In order to find any parallels for the quotation,

upon the hypothesis of a combination of texts, we have to add together

portions of the following verses in the following order: Matthew vii. 1,

vi. 14 (although, with complete linguistic variations, the sense of

Luke vi. 37 is much closer), v. 7, vii. 2, v. 3, v. 10. Such fragmentary

compilation is in itself scarcely conceivable in an epistle of this

kind, but when in the midst we find a passage foreign to our Gospels,

but which occurs in another work in connection with so similar a

quotation, it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is derived from

tradition or from a Gospel different from ours.(2) In no case can such

{279}

a passage be considered material evidence of the existence of any one of

our Gospels.

Another expression which is pointed out occurs in ch. vii., "beseeching

in our prayers the all-searching God not to lead us into temptation, as

the Lord said: The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."(1)

This is compared with the phrase in "the Lord's Prayer" (Matthew vi.

13), or the passage (xxvi. 41): "Watch and pray that ye enter not into

temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."(2) The

second Gospel, however, equally has the phrase (xiv. 38), and shows how

unreasonable it is to limit these historical sayings to a single Gospel.

The next passage is of a similar nature (c. vi.): "If, therefore,

we pray the Lord that he may forgive us, we ought also ourselves

to forgive."(3) The thought but not the language of this passage

corresponds with Matthew vi. 12--14, but equally so with Luke xi. 4. Now

we must repeat that all such sayings of Jesus were the common property

of the early Christians--were no doubt orally current amongst them, and

still more certainly were recorded by many of the numerous Gospels then

in circulation, as they are by several of our own. In no case is there

any written source indicated from which these passages are derived; they

are simply quoted as words of Jesus, and being all connected either with

the "Sermon on the Mount" or the "Lord's Prayer," the two portions of

the teaching of Jesus which were most

{280}

popular, widely known, and characteristic, there can be no doubt that

they were familiar throughout the whole of the early Church, and must

have formed a part of most or all of the many collections of the words

of the Master. To limit them to our actual Gospels, which alone

survive, would be quite unwarrantable, and no reference to them, without

specification of the source, can be received as evidence even of the

existence of our Synoptics. We may here briefly illustrate the point

from the Synoptics themselves. Assuming the parable of the Sower to be

a genuine example of the teaching of Jesus, as there is every reason

to believe, it may with certainty be asserted that it must have been

included in many of the records circulating among early Christians, to

which reference is made in the prologue to the third Gospel. It would

not be permissible to affirm that no part of that parable could

be referred to by an early writer without that reference being an

indication of acquaintance with our synoptic Gospels. The parable is

reported in closely similar words in each of those three Gospels,(1) and

it may have been, and probably was, recorded similarly in a dozen more.

Confining ourselves, however, for a moment to the three Synoptics: what

could a general allusion to the parable of the Sower prove regarding

their existence and use, no mention of a particular source being made?

Would it prove that all the three were extant, and that the writer knew

them all, for each of them containing the parable would possess an equal

claim to the reference? Could it with any reason be affirmed that he

was acquainted with Matthew and not with Mark? or with Mark and not with

Matthew and Luke? or with the third Gospel and

{281}

not with either of the other two? The case is the very same if we extend

the illustration, and along with the Synoptics include the numerous

other records of the early Church. The anonymous quotation of historical

expressions of Jesus cannot prove the existence of one special document

among many to which we may choose to trace it. This is more especially

to be insisted on from the fact, that hitherto we have not met with

any mention of any one of our Gospels, and have no right even to assume

their existence from any evidence which has been furnished.

CHAPTER III. JUSTIN MARTYR

We shall now consider the evidence furnished by the works of Justin

Martyr, regarding the existence of our synoptic Gospels at the middle

of the second century, and we may remark, in anticipation, that whatever

differences of opinion may finally exist regarding the solution of

the problem which we have to examine, at least it is clear that the

testimony of Justin Martyr is not of a nature to establish the date,

authenticity, and character of Gospels professing to communicate such

momentous and astounding doctrines. The determination of the source from

which Justin derived his facts of Christian history has for a century

attracted more attention, and excited more controversy, than almost any

other similar question in connection with patristic literature, and upon

none have more divergent opinions been expressed.

Justin, who suffered martyrdom about a.d. 166--167,(1) under Marcus

Aurelius, probably at the instigation of the cynical philosopher,

Crescens, was born in the Greek-Roman colony, Flavia Neapolis,(2)

established during the

{283}

reign of Vespasian, near the ancient Sichem in Samaria. By descent he

was a Greek, and during the earlier part of his life a heathen, but

after long and disappointed study of Greek philosophy, he became a

convert to Christianity(l) strongly tinged with Judaism. It is not

necessary to enter into any discussion as to the authenticity of the

writings which have come down to us bearing Justin's name, many of which

are undoubtedly spurious, for the two Apologies and the Dialogue with

Trypho, with which we have almost exclusively to do, are generally

admitted to be genuine. It is true that there has been a singular

controversy regarding the precise relation to each other of the two

Apologies now extant, the following contradictory views having been

maintained: that they are the two Apologies mentioned by Eusebius, and

in their original order; that they are Justin's two Apologies, but that

Eusebius was wrong in affirming that the second was addressed to Marcus

Aurelius; that our second Apology was the preface or appendix to

the first, and that the original second is lost. The shorter Apology

contains nothing of interest connected with our inquiry.

There has been much controversy as to the date of the two Apologies,

and much difference of opinion still exists on the point. Many critics

assign the larger to about a.d. 138--140, and the shorter to a.d.

160--161.(2) A passage, however, occurs in the longer Apology, which

{284}

indicates that it must have been written about a century and a half

after the commencement of the Christian era, or, according to accurate

reckoning, about a.d. 147. Justin speaks, in one part of it, of

perverted deductions being drawn from his teaching "that Christ was born

150 years ago under Cyrenius."(l) Those who contend for the earlier date

have no stronger argument against this statement than the unsupported

assertion, that in this passage Justin merely speaks "in round numbers,"

but many important circumstances confirm the date which Justin thus

gives us. In the superscription of the Apology, Antoninus is called

"Pius," a title which was first bestowed upon him in the year 139.

Moreover, Justin directly refers to Marcion, as a man "now living and

teaching his disciples.... and who has by the aid of demons caused

many of all nations to utter blasphemies," &c.(2) Now the fact has been

established that Marcion did not come to Rome, where Justin himself was,

until a.d. 139--142,(3) when his prominent public career commenced,

and it is apparent that the words of Justin indicate a period when his

doctrines had already

{285}

become widely diffused. For these and many other strong reasons, which

need not here be detailed, the majority of competent critics agree in

more correctly assigning the first Apology to about a.d. 147.(1) The

Dialogue with Trypho, as internal evidence shows,(2) was written after

the longer Apology, and it is therefore generally dated some time within

the first decade of the second half of the second century.(3)

In these writings Justin quotes very copiously from the Old Testament,

and he also very frequently refers to facts of Christian history and to

sayings of Jesus. Of these references, for instance, some fifty occur in

the first Apology, and upwards of seventy in the Dialogue with Trypho,

a goodly number, it will be admitted, by means of which to identify the

source from which he quotes. Justin himself frequently and distinctly

says that his information and quotations are derived from the "Memoirs

of the Apostles" [--Greek--], but except upon one occasion, which we

shall hereafter consider, when he indicates Peter, he never mentions an

author's name. Upon examination it is found that, with only one or two

brief exceptions, the

{286}

numerous quotations from these Memoirs differ more or less widely from

parallel passages in our synoptic Gospels, and in many cases differ in

the same respects as similar quotations found in other writings of

the second century, the writers of which are known to have made use of

uncanonical Gospels, and further, that these passages are quoted several

times, at intervals, by Justin with the same variations. Moreover,

sayings of Jesus are quoted from these Memoirs which are not found in

our Gospels at all, and facts in the life of Jesus and circumstances of

Christian history derived from the same source, not only are not found

in our Gospels, but are in contradiction with them.

These peculiarities have, as might have been expected, created much

diversity of opinion regarding the nature of the "Memoirs of the

Apostles." In the earlier days of New Testament criticism more

especially, many of course at once identified the Memoirs with our

Gospels exclusively, and the variations were explained by conveniently

elastic theories of free quotation from memory, imperfect and varying

MSS., combination, condensation and transposition of passages, with

slight additions from tradition, or even from some other written source,

and so on.(1) Others endeavoured to explain

{287}

away difficulties by the supposition that they were a simple harmony of

our Gospels,(1) or a harmony of the Gospels, with passages added from

some apocryphal work.(2) A much greater number of critics, however,

adopt the conclusion that, along with our Gospels, Justin made use

of one or more apocryphal Gospels, and more especially of the Gospel

according to the Hebrews, or according to Peter, and also perhaps

of tradition.(3) Others assert that he made use of a special unknown

Gospel, or of the Gospel according to the Hebrews or according to Peter,

with a subsidiary use of a version of one or two of our Gospels to

which, however, he did not attach much importance, preferring the

apocryphal work;(4) whilst

{288}

others have concluded that Justin did not make use of our Gospels at

all, and that his quotations are either from the Gospel according to the

Hebrews, or according to Peter, or from some other special apocryphal

Gospel now no longer extant.(1)

Evidence permitting of such wide diversity of results to serious and

laborious investigation of the identity of Justin's Memoirs of the

Apostles, cannot be of much value towards establishing the authenticity

of our Gospels, and in the absence of any specific mention of our

Synoptics any very elaborate examination of the Memoirs might be

considered unnecessary, more especially as it is admitted almost

universally by competent critics, that Justin did not himself consider

the Memoirs of the Apostles inspired, or of any dogmatic authority, and

had no idea of attributing canonical rank to them.(2) In pursuance of

the system which we desire invariably to adopt of

{289}

enabling every reader to form his own opinion, we shall as briefly as

possible state the facts of the case, and furnish materials for a full

comprehension of the subject. Justin himself, as we have already

stated, frequently and distinctly states that his information regarding

Christian history and his quotations are derived from the Memoirs of the

Apostles [--Greek--], to adopt the usual translation, although the word

might more correctly be rendered "Recollections," or "Memorabilia." It

has frequently been surmised that this name was suggested by the

[--Greek--] of Xenophon, but, as Credner has pointed out, the similarity is

purely accidental, and to constitute a parallel the title should have

been "Memoirs of Jesus."(1) The word [--Greek--] is here evidently used

merely in the sense of records written from memory, and it is so

employed by Papias in the passage preserved by Eusebius regarding Mark,

who, although he had not himself followed the Lord, yet recorded his

words from what he heard from Peter, and who, having done so without

order, is still defended for "thus writing some things as he remembered

them" [--Greek--].(2) In the same way Irenseus refers to the "Memoirs of a

certain Presbyter of apostolic times" [--Greek--](3) whose name he does not

mention; and Origen still more closely approximates to Justin's use of

the word when, expressing his theory regarding, the Epistle to the

Hebrews, he says that the thoughts are the Apostle's, but the

phraseology and the composition are of one recording from memory

{290}

what the Apostle said [--Greek--], and as of one writing at leisure the

dictation of his master.(1) Justin himself speaks of the authors of

the Memoirs as [--Greek--],(2) and the expression was then and afterwards

constantly in use amongst ecclesiastical and other writers.(3)

This title, "Memoirs of the Apostles," however, although most

appropriate to mere recollections of the life and teaching of Jesus,

evidently could not be applied to works ranking as canonical Gospels,

but in fact excludes such an idea; and the whole of Justin's views

regarding Holy Scripture, prove that he saw in the Memoirs merely

records from memory to assist memory.(4) He does not call them [--Greek--],

but adheres always to the familiar name of [--Greek--], and whilst his

constant appeals to a written source show very clearly his abandonment

of oral tradition, there is nothing in the name of his records which can

identify them with our Gospels.

Justin designates the source of his quotations ten times, the "Memoirs

of the Apostles,"(5) and five times he calls it simply the "Memoirs."(6)

He says, upon one occasion, that these Memoirs were composed "by his

Apostles and their followers,"(7) but except in one place,

{291}

to which we have already referred, and which we shall hereafter fully

examine, he never mentions the author's name, nor does he ever give any

more precise information regarding their composition. It has been argued

that, in saying that these Memoirs were recorded by the Apostles and

their followers, Justin intentionally and literally described the

four canonical Gospels, the first and fourth of which are ascribed

to Apostles, and the other two to Mark and Luke, the followers of

Apostles;(1) but such an inference is equally forced and unfounded.

The language itself forbids this explanation, for Justin does not speak

indefinitely of Memoirs of Apostles and their followers, but of Memoirs

of the Apostles, invariably using the article, which refers the Memoirs

to the collective body of the Apostles.(2) Moreover, the incorrectness

of such an inference is manifest from the fact that circumstances are

stated by Justin as derived from these Memoirs, which do not exist in

our Gospels at all, and which, indeed, are contradictory to them. Vast

numbers of spurious writings, moreover, bearing the names of Apostles

and their followers, and claiming more or less direct apostolic

authority, were in circulation in the early Church: Gospels according to

Peter,(3) to Thomas,(4) to James,(5) to Judas,(6) according to the

{292}

Apostles, or according to the Twelve,(1) to Barnabas,(2) to Matthias,(3)

to Nicodemus,(4) &c., and ecclesiastical writers bear abundant testimony

to the early and rapid growth of apocryphal literature.(5) The very

names of most of such apocryphal Gospels are lost, whilst of others we

possess considerable information; but nothing is more certain than

the fact, that there existed many works bearing names which render the

attempt to interpret the title of Justin's Gospel as a description of

the four in our canon quite unwarrantable. The words of Justin evidently

imply simply that the source of his quotations is the collective

recollections of the Apostles, and those who followed them, regarding

the life and teaching of Jesus.

The title: "Memoirs of the Apostles" by no means indicates a plurality

of Gospels.(6) A single passage has been pointed out, in which the

Memoirs are said to have been called [--Greek--] in the plural: "For the

Apostles in the Memoirs composed by them, which are called

{293}

Gospels,"(1) &c. The last expression, a [--Greek--], as many scholars have

declared, is probably an interpolation. It is, in all likelihood,

a gloss on the margin of some old MS. which some copyist afterwards

inserted in the text.(2) If Justin really stated that the Memoirs were

called Gospels, it seems incomprehensible that he should never call them

so himself. In no other place in his writings does he apply the

plural to them, but, on the contrary, we find Trypho referring to the

"so-called Gospel," which he states that he has carefully read,(3) and

which, of course, can only be Justin's "Memoirs;" and again, in another

part of the same dialogue, Justin quotes passages which are written

"in the Gospel"(4) [--Greek--]. The term "Gospel" is nowhere else used

by Justin in reference to a written record.(5) In no case, however,

considering the numerous Gospels then in circulation, and the fact that

many of these, different from the canonical Gospels, are known to have

been exclusively used by distinguished contemporaries of Justin, and by

various communities of Christians in that day, could such an expression

be taken as a special indication of the canonical Gospels.(6)

{294}

Describing the religious practices amongst Christians, in another place,

Justin states that, at their assemblies on Sundays, "the Memoirs of

the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time

permits."(1( This, however, by no means identifies the Memoirs with the

canonical Gospels, for it is well known that many writings which have

been excluded from the canon were publicly read in the Churches, until

very long after Justin's day.(2) We have already met with several

instances of this. Eusebius mentions that the Epistle of the Roman

Clement was publicly read in Churches in his time,(3) and he quotes

an Epistle of Dionysius of Corinth to Soter, the Bishop of Rome, which

states that fact for the purpose of "showing that it was the custom to

read it in the Churches, even from the earliest times."(4) Dionysius

likewise mentions the public reading of the Epistle of Soter to the

Corinthians. Epiphanius refers to the reading in the Churches of the

Epistle of Clement,(5) and it continued to be so read in Jerome's

day.(6) In like manner, the "Pastor" of Hermas,(7) the "Apocalypse of

Peter,"(8) and other works excluded from the canon were publicly read in

the Church in early days.(9) It is certain that Gospels which

{295}

did not permanently secure a place in the canon, such as the Gospel

according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to Peter, the Gospel

of the Ebionites, and many kindred Gospels, which in early times were

exclusively used by various communities,(1) must have been read at their

public assemblies. The public reading of Justin's Memoirs, therefore,

does not prove anything, for this practice was by no means limited to

the works now in our canon.

The idea of attributing inspiration to the Memoirs, or to any other work

of the Apostles, with the single exception, as we shall presently see,

of the Apocalypse of John,(2) which, as prophecy, entered within his

limits, was quite foreign to Justin, who recognized the Old Testament

alone as the inspired word of God.(3) Indeed, as we

{296}

have already said, the very name "Memoirs" in itself excludes the

thought of inspiration,(1) which Justin attributed only to prophetic

writings; and he could not in any way regard as inspired the written

tradition of the Apostles and their followers, or a mere record of the

words of Jesus. On the contrary, he held the accounts of the Apostles to

be credible solely from their being authenticated by the Old Testament,

and he clearly states that he believes the facts recorded in the Memoirs

because the spirit of prophecy had already foretold them.(2) According

to Justin, the Old Testament contained all that was necessary for

salvation, and its prophecies are the sole criterion of truth, the

Memoirs, and even Christ himself, being merely its interpreters.(3) He

says that Christ commanded us not to put faith in human doctrines, but

in those proclaimed by the holy prophets, and taught by himself.(4)

Prophecy and the words of Christ himself are alone of dogmatic value,

all else is human teaching.(5) Indeed, from a passage quoted with

approval by Irenaeus, Justin, in his lost work against Marcion, said: "I

would not have believed the Lord himself, if he had proclaimed any other

God than the Creator;" that is to say, the God of the Old Testament.(6)

{297}

That Justin does not mention the name of the author of the Memoirs would

in any case render any argument as to their identity with our canonical

Gospels inconclusive; but the total omission to do so is the more

remarkable from the circumstance that the names of Old Testament writers

constantly occur in his writings. Semisch counts 197 quotations of the

Old Testament, in which Justin refers to the author by name, or to the

book, and only 117 in which he omits to do so,(1) and the latter number

might be reduced by considering the nature of the passages cited, and

the inutility of repeating the reference.(2) When it is considered,

therefore, that notwithstanding the extremely numerous quotations, and

references to facts of Christian history, all purporting to be derived

from the "Memoirs," he absolutely never, except in the one instance

referred to, mentions an author's name, or specifies more clearly the

nature of the source, the inference must not only be that he attached

small importance to the Memoirs, but also that he was actually

ignorant of the author's name, and that his Gospel had no more definite

superscription. Upon the theory that the Memoirs of the Apostles were

simply our

{298}

four canonical Gospels, the singularity of the omission is increased by

the diversity of contents and of authors, and the consequently greater

necessity and probability that he should, upon certain occasions,

distinguish between them. The fact is that the only writing of the

New Testament to which Justin refers by name is, as we have already

mentioned, the Apocalypse, which he attributes to "a certain man whose

name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a

revelation made to him," &c.(1) The manner in which John is here

mentioned, after the Memoirs had been so constantly indefinitely

referred to, clearly shows that Justin did not possess any Gospel also

attributed to John. That he does name John, however, as author of the

Apocalypse and so frequently refers to Old Testament writers by name,

yet never identifies the author of the Memoirs, is quite irreconcilable

with the idea that they were the canonical Gospels.(2)

It is perfectly clear, however, and this is a point of very great

importance upon which critics of otherwise widely diverging views

are agreed, that Justin quotes from a _written_ source, and that oral

tradition is excluded from his system.(3) He not only does not, like

Papias, attach value to tradition, but, on the contrary, he affirms that

in the Memoirs is recorded "everything that concerns our "Saviour Jesus

Christ.,,(4) He constantly refers to them

{299}

directly, as the source of his information regarding the history of

Jesus, and distinctly states that he has derived his quotations from

them. There is no reasonable ground whatever for affirming that Justin

supplemented or modified the contents of the Memoirs by oral tradition.

It must, therefore, be remembered, in considering the nature of these

Memoirs, that the facts of Christian history and the sayings of Jesus

are derived from a determinate written source, and are quoted as Justin

found them there.(1) Those who attempt to explain the divergences

of Justin's quotations from the canonical Gospels, which they still

maintain to have been his Memoirs, on the plea of oral tradition, defend

the identity at the expense of the authority of the Gospels. For nothing

could more forcibly show Justin's disregard and disrespect for the

Gospels, than would the fact that, possessing them, he not only never

names their authors, but considers himself at liberty continually to

contradict, modify, and revise their statements.

As we have already remarked, when we examine the contents of the Memoirs

of the Apostles, through Justin's numerous quotations, we find that many

parts of the Gospel narratives are apparently quite unknown, whilst,

on the other hand, we meet with facts of evangelical history, which are

foreign to the canonical Gospels, and others which are contradictory of

Gospel statements. Justin's quotations, almost without exception, vary

more or less from the parallels in the canonical text, and often these

variations are consistently repeated by himself, and are found in other

works about his time. Moreover, Justin quotes expressions of Jesus,

which are not found in our Gospels at all. The omissions, though often

very

{300}

singular, supposing the canonical Gospels before him, and almost

inexplicable when it is considered how important they would often have

been to his argument, need not, as merely negative evidence, be dwelt

on here, but we shall briefly illustrate the other peculiarities of

Justin's quotations.

The only genealogy of Jesus which is recognized by Justin is traced

through the Virgin Mary. She it is who is descended from Abraham, Isaac,

and Jacob, and from the house of David, and Joseph is completely set

aside.(1) Jesus "was born of a virgin of the lineage of Abraham and

tribe of Judah and of David, Christ the Son of God."(2) "Jesus Christ

the Son of God has been born without sin of a virgin sprung from the

lineage of Abraham."(3) "For of the virgin of the seed of Jacob, who was

the father of Judah, who, as we have shown, was the father of the Jews,

by the power of God was he conceived; and Jesse was his forefather

according to the prophecy, and he (Jesus) was the son of Jacob and

Judah according to successive descent."(4) The genealogy of Jesus in the

canonical Gospels, on the contrary, is traced solely through Joseph,

who alone is stated to be of the lineage of David.(5) The genealogies of

Matthew and Luke, though differing in several important points, at least

agree in excluding Mary. That of the third Gospel commences with Joseph,

{301}

and that of the first ends with him: "And Jacob begat Joseph, the

husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."(1)

The angel who warns Joseph not to put away his wife, addresses him as

"Joseph, thou son of David,"(2) and the angel Gabriel, who, according to

the third Gospel, announces to Mary the supernatural conception, is sent

"to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of

David."(3) So persistent, however, is Justin in ignoring this Davidic

descent through Joseph, that not only does he at least eleven times

trace it through Mary, but his Gospel materially differs from the

canonical, where the descent of Joseph from David is mentioned by the

latter. In the third Gospel, Joseph goes to Judaea "unto the city

of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and

lineage of David."(4) Justin, however, simply states that he went

"to Bethlehem... for his descent was from the tribe of Judah, which

inhabited that region."(5) There can be no doubt that Justin not only

did not derive his genealogies from the canonical Gospels, but that on

the contrary the Memoirs, from which he did learn the Davidic descent

through Mary only, differed persistently and materially from them.(6)

Many traces still exist to show that the view of Justin's Memoirs of the

Apostles of the Davidic descent of Jesus through Mary instead of through

Joseph, as the canonical Gospels represent it, was anciently held in the

Church. Apocryphal Gospels of early date, based without doubt upon more

ancient evangelical works, are still extant, in which the genealogy of

Jesus is traced, as in

{302}

Justin's Memoirs, through Mary. One of these is the Gospel of

James, commonly called the _Protevangelium_, a work referred to by

ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries,(1) and which

Tischendorf even ascribes to the first three decades of the second

century,(2) in which Mary is stated to be of the lineage of David.(3)

She is also described as of the royal race and family of David in the

Gospel of the Nativity of Mary,(4) and in the Gospel of pseudo-Matthew

her Davidic descent is prominently mentioned.(5) There can be no doubt

that all of these works are based upon earlier originals,(6) and there

is no reason why they may not have been drawn from the same source from

which Justin derived his version of the genealogy in contradiction to

the Synoptics.(7)

In the narrative of the events which preceded the

{303}

birth of Jesus, the first Gospel describes the angel as appearing only

to Joseph and explaining the supernatural conception,(1) and the author

seems to know nothing of any announcement to Mary.(2) The third Gospel,

on the contrary, does not mention any such angelic appearance to Joseph,

but represents the angel as announcing the conception to Mary herself

alone.(3) Justin's Memoirs know of the appearances both to Joseph and

to Mary, but the words spoken by the angel on each occasion differ

materially from those of both Gospels.(4) In this place, only one point,

however, can be noticed. Justin describes the angel as saying to Mary:

"'Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a son,

and he shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call

his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins,' as

they taught who recorded everything that concerns our Saviour Jesus

Christ."(5) Now this is a clear and direct quotation, but besides

distinctly differing in form from our Gospels, it presents the important

peculiarity that the words, "for he shall save his people from

{304}

their sins," are not, in Luke, addressed to Mary at all, but that they

occur in the first Gospel in the address of the angel to Joseph.(1)

These words, however, are not accidentally inserted in this place, for

we find that they are joined in the same manner to the address of the

angel to Mary in the Protevangelium of James: "For the power of the Lord

will overshadow thee; wherefore also that holy thing which is born of

thee shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call

his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins."(2)

Tischendorf states his own opinion that this passage is a recollection

of the Protevangelium unconsciously added by Justin to the account in

Luke,(3) but the arbitrary nature of the limitation "unconsciously"

(ohne dass er sich dessen bewusst war) here is evident. There is a point

in connection with this which merits a moment's attention. In the text

of the Protevangelium, edited by Tischendorf, the angel commences his

address to Mary by saying: "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour

before the Lord, and thou shalt conceive of his Word" [--Greek--].(4) Now

Justin,

after quoting the passage above, continues to argue that the Spirit and

the power of God must not be misunderstood to mean anything else

than the Word, who is also the first born of God as the prophet Moses

declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the Virgin and

overshadowed her, caused

{305}

her to conceive.(1) The occurrence of the singular expression in

the Protovangelium and the similar explanation of Justin immediately

accompanying a variation from our Gospels, which is equally shared

by the apocryphal work, strengthens the suspicion of a similarity

of origin. Justin's divergences from the Protevangelium prevent our

supposing that, in its present state, it could have been the actual

source of his quotations, but the wide differences which exist between

the extant MSS. of the Protevangelium show that even the most ancient

does not present it in its original form. It is much more probable

that Justin had before him a still older work, to which both the

Protevangelium and the third Gospel were indebted.(2)

Justin's account of the removal of Joseph to Bethlehem is peculiar, and

evidently is derived from a distinct un-canonical source. It may be well

to present his account and that of Luke side by side:

{306}

Attention has already been drawn to the systematic manner in which the

Davidic descent of Jesus is traced by Justin through Mary, and to the

suppression in this passage of all that might seem to indicate a

claim of descent through Joseph. As the continuation of a peculiar

representation of the history of the infancy of Jesus, differing

materially from that of the Synoptics, it is impossible to regard this,

with its remarkable variations, as an arbitrary correction by Justin of

the canonical text, and we must hold it to be derived from a different

source, perhaps, indeed, one of those from which Luke's Gospel itself

first drew the elements of the narrative, and this persuasion

increases as further variations in the earlier history, presently to be

considered, are taken into account. It is not necessary to enter into

the question of the correctness of the date of this census, but it

is evident that Justin's Memoirs clearly and deliberately modify the

canonical narrative. The limitation of the census to Judaea, instead of

extending it to the whole Roman Empire; the designation of Cyrenius

as [--Greek--] of Judaea instead of [--Greek--] of Syria; and the careful

suppression of the Davidic element in connection with Joseph indicate a

peculiar written source different from the Synoptics.(1)

Had Justin departed from the account in Luke with the view of correcting

inaccurate statements, the matter might have seemed more consistent with

the use of the third Gospel, although at the same time it might have

evinced but little reverence for it as a canonical

{307}

work. On the contrary, however, the statements of Justin are still more

inconsistent with history than those in Luke, inasmuch as, so far from

being the first procurator of Judsea, as Justin's narrative states in

opposition to the third Gospel, Cyrenius never held that office, but

was really, later, the imperial proconsul over Syria, and as such, when

Judaea became a Roman province after the banishment of Archelaus, had

the power to enrol the inhabitants, and instituted Coponius as first

Procurator of Judaea. Justin's statement involves the position that

at one and the same time Herod was the King, and Cyrenius the Roman

Procurator of Judsea.(1) In the same spirit, and departing from the

usual narrative of the Synoptics, which couples the birth of Jesus with

"the days of Herod the King," Justin in another place states that Christ

was born "under Cyrenius."(2) Justin evidently adopts without criticism

a narrative which he found in his Memoirs, and does not merely correct

and remodel a passage of the third Gospel, but, on the contrary, seems

altogether ignorant of it.(3)

The genealogies of Jesus in the first and third Gospels differ

irreconcileably from each other. Justin differs from both. In this

passage another discrepancy arises. While Luke seems to represent

Nazareth as the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary, and Bethlehem as the

city to which they went solely on account of the census,(4)

{308}

Matthew, who seems to know nothing of the census, makes Bethlehem, on

the contrary, the place of residence of Joseph,(1) and on coming back

from Egypt, with the evident intention of returning to Bethlehem, Joseph

is warned by a dream to turn aside into Galilee, and he goes and dwells,

apparently for the first time, "in a city called Nazareth, that it might

be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets: He shall be called a

Nazarene."(2) Justin, however, goes still further than the third Gospel

in his departure from the data of Matthew, and where Luke merely infers,

Justin distinctly asserts Nazareth to have been the dwelling-place of

Joseph [--Greek--], and Bethlehem, in contradistinction, the place from

which he derived his origin [--Greek--].3

The same view is to be found in several apocryphal Gospels still extant.

In the Protevangelium of James again, we find Joseph journeying to

Bethlehem with Mary before the birth of Jesus.(4) The census here is

ordered by Augustus, who commands: "That all who were in Bethlehem

_of Judeae_, should be enrolled."(5) a limitation worthy of notice

in comparison with that of Justin. In like manner the Gospel of the

Nativity. This Gospel represents the parents of Mary as living in

Nazareth, in

{309}

which place she was born,(1) and it is here that the Angel Gabriel

announces to her the supernatural conception.(2) Joseph goes to

Bethlehem to set his house in order and prepare what is necessary for

the marriage, but then returns to Nazareth, where he remains with Mary

until her time was nearly accomplished,(3) "when Joseph having taken

his wife with whatever else was necessary went to the city of Bethlehem,

whence he was."(4) The phrase "_unde ipse erat_" recalls the [--Greek--]

of Justin.(6) As we continue the narrative of the birth and infancy of

Jesus, we meet with further variations from the account in the canonical

Gospels for which the preceding have prepared us, and which indicate

that Justin's Memorials certainly differed from them:

{310}

At least it is clear that these particulars of the birth of Jesus,--not

taking place in Bethlehem itself but in a cave [--Greek--] near the

village, because Joseph could not find a lodging there,--are not derived

from our Gospels, and here even Scmisch(1) is forced to abandon his

theory that Justin's variations arise merely from imperfectly quoting

from memory, and to conjecture that he must have adopted tradition.

It has, however, been shown that Justin himself distinctly excludes

tradition, and in this case, moreover, there are many special reasons

for believing that he quotes from a written source. Ewald rightly points

out that here, and in other passages where, in common with ancient

ecclesiastical writers, Justin departs from our Gospels, the variation

can in no way be referred to oral tradition;(2) and, moreover, that when

Justin proves(3) from Isaiah xxxiii. 16, that Christ _must_ be born in

a cave, he thereby shows how certainly he found the fact of the cave in

his written Gospel.(4) The whole argument of Justin excludes the

idea that he could avail himself of mere tradition. He maintains that

everything which the prophets had foretold of Christ had actually been

fulfilled, and he perpetually refers to the Memoirs and other written

documents for the verification of his assertions. He either refers to

the prophets for the confirmation of the Memoirs, or shows in the

{311}

Memoirs the narrative of facts which are the accomplishment of

prophecies, but in both cases it is manifest that there must have been

a record of the facts which he mentions. There can be no doubt that

the circumstances we have just quoted, and which are not found in the

canonical Gospels, must have been narrated in Justin's Memoirs.

We find, again, the same variations as in Justin in several extant

apocryphal Gospels. The Protevangelium of James represents the birth

of Jesus as taking place in a cave;(1) so also the Arabic Gospel of

the Infancy,(2) and several others.(3) This uncanonical detail is also

mentioned by several of the Fathers, Origen and Eusebius both stating

that the cave and the manger were still shown in their day.(4)

Teschendorf does not hesitate to affirm that Justin derived this

circumstance from the Protevangelium.(5) Justin, however, does not

distinguish such a source; and the mere fact that we have a form of that

Gospel, in which it occurs, still extant, by no means justifies such

a specific conclusion, when so many other works, now lost, may equally

have contained

{312}

it. If the fact be derived from the Protevangelium, that work, or

whatever other apocryphal Gospel may have supplied it, must be admitted

to have at least formed part of the Memoirs of the Apostles, and with

that necessary admission ends all special identification of the Memoirs

with our canonical Gospels. Much more probably, however, Justin quotes

from the more ancient source from which the Protevangelium and, perhaps,

Luke drew their narrative.(1) There can be very little doubt that the

Gospel according to the Hebrews contained an account of the birth in

Bethlehem, and as it is, at least, certain that Justin quotes other

particulars known to have been in it, there is fair reason to suppose

that he likewise found this fact in that work.(2) In any case it

is indisputable that he derived it from a source different from our

canonical Gospels.(3)

Justin does not apparently know anything of the episode of the shepherds

of the plain, and the angelic appearance to them, narrated in the third

Gospel.(4)

To the cave in which the infant Jesus is born came the Magi, but

instead of employing the phrase used by the first Gospel, "Magi from the

East,"(5) [--Greek--] Justin always describes them as "Magi from Arabia,"

[--Greek--]. Justin is so punctilious that he

{313}

never speaks of these Magi without adding "from Arabia," except twice,

where, however, he immediately mentions Arabia as the point of the

argument for which they are introduced; and in the same chapter in which

this occurs he four times calls them directly Magi from Arabia.(1)

He uses this expression not less than nine times.(2) That he had no

objection to the term "the East," and that with a different context it

was common to his vocabulary, is proved by his use of it elsewhere.(3)

It is impossible to resist the conviction that Justin's Memoirs

contained the phrase "Magi from Arabia," which is foreign to our

Gospels.(4)

Again, according to Justin, the Magi see the star "in heaven"

[--Greek--],(5) and not "in the East" [--Greek--] as the first Gospel has

it:(6) "When a star rose in heaven [--Greek--] at the time of his birth

as is recorded in the Memoirs of the Apostle."(7) He apparently knows

nothing of the star guiding them to the place where the young child

was.(8) Herod, moreover, questions the elders [--Greek--](9) as to the

place where the Christ should be born, and not the "chief priests

and scribes of the people" [--Greek--].(10) These divergences, taken in

connection with those which are interwoven with the whole narrative

of the birth, can only proceed from the fact that Justin quotes from a

source different from ours.(11)

Justin relates that when Jesus came to Jordan he was

{314}

believed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and he appeared without

comeliness, as the Scriptures announced; "and being considered a

carpenter,--for, when he was amongst men, he made carpenter's works,

ploughs and yokes [--Greek--]; by these both teaching the symbols of

righteousness and an active life."(1) These details are foreign to the

canonical Gospels. Mark has the expression: "Is not this the carpenter,

the son of Mary? "(2) but Luke omits it altogether.(3) The idea that the

Son of God should do carpenter's work on earth was very displeasing to

many Christians, and attempts to get rid of the obnoxious phrase are

evident in Mark. Apparently the copy which Origen used had omitted

even the modified phrase, for he declares that Jesus himself is nowhere

called a carpenter in the Gospels current in the Church.(4) A few

MSS. still extant are without it, although it is found in all the more

ancient Codices.

Traces of these details are found in several apocryphal works,

especially in the Gospel of Thomas, where it is said: "Now his father

was a carpenter and made at that time ploughs and yokes" [--Greek--](5), an

account which, from the similarity of language, was in all

{315}

probability derived from the same source as that of Justin. The

explanation which Justin adds: "by which he taught the symbols of

righteousness and an active life," seems to indicate that he refers to a

written narrative containing the detail, already, perhaps, falling into

sufficient disfavour to require the aid of symbolical interpretation.

In the narrative of the baptism there are many peculiarities which prove

that Justin did not derive it from our Gospels. Thrice he speaks of

John sitting by the river Jordan: "He cried as he sat by the river

Jordan;"(1( "While he still sat by the river Jordan;"(2) and "For when

John sat by the Jordan."(3) This peculiar expression so frequently

repeated must have been derived from a written Gospel.(4) Then Justin,

in proving that Jesus predicted his second coming and the re-appearance

of Elijah, states: "And therefore our Lord in his teaching announced

that this should take place, saying Elias also should come" [--Greek--].

A little lower down he again expressly quotes the words of Jesus: "For

which reason our Christ declared on earth to those who asserted

that Elias must come before Christ: Elias, indeed, shall come," &c.

[--Greek--].(5)

Matthew, however, reads: "Elias indeed cometh," [--Greek--].(6) Now there

is no version in which [--Greek--] is substituted for [--Greek--] as Justin

does, but, as Credner has pointed out,(7) the whole weight of Justin's

argument lies in the use of the future tense. As there are so many other

variations

{316}

in Justin's context, this likewise appears to be derived from a source

different from our Gospels.(1)

When Jesus goes to be baptized by John many-striking peculiarities occur

in Justin's narrative: "As Jesus went down to the water, a fire also

was kindled in the Jordan; and when he came up from the water, the Holy

Spirit like a dove fell upon him, as the apostles of this very Christ of

ours wrote... and at the same time a voice came from the heavens... Thou

art my son, this day have I begotten thee."(2)

The incident of the fire in Jordan is of course quite foreign to our

Gospels, and further the words spoken by the heavenly voice differ from

those reported by them, for instead of the passage from Psalm ii. 7, the

Gospels have: "Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased."(3)

Justin repeats his version a second time in the same chapter, and again

elsewhere he says regarding the temptation: "For this devil also at

the time when he (Jesus) went up from the river Jordan, when the voice

declared to him: 'Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee,' it

is written in the Memoirs of the Apostles, came to him and tempted him,"

&c.(4)

In both of these passages, it will be perceived that Justin directly

refers to the Memoirs of the Apostles as the source of his statements.

Some have argued that

{317}

Justin only appeals to them for the fact of the descent of the Holy

Ghost, and not for the rest of the narrative.(1) It has of course been

felt that, if it can be shown that Justin quotes from the Memoirs words

and circumstances which are not to be found in our canonical Gospels,

the identity of the two can no longer be maintained. It is, however, in

the highest degree arbitrary to affirm that Justin intends to limit his

appeal to the testimony of the apostles to one-half of his sentence.

To quote authority for one assertion and to leave another in the same

sentence, closely connected with it and part indeed of the very

same narrative, not only unsupported, but indeed weakened by direct

exclusion, would indeed be singular, for Justin affirms with equal

directness and confidence the fact of the fire in Jordan, the descent

of the Holy Ghost, and the words spoken by the heavenly voice. If in

the strictest grammatical accuracy there may be no absolute necessity

to include in that which the Apostles wrote more than the phrase

immediately preceding, there is not, on the other hand, anything which

requires or warrants the exclusion of the former part of the sentence.

The matter must therefore be decided according to fair inference and

reasonable probability, and not to suit any foregone conclusion, and

these as well as all the evidence concerning Justin's use of the Memoirs

irresistibly point to the conclusion that the whole passage is derived

from one source. In the second extract given above, it is perfectly

clear that the words spoken by the heavenly voice, which Justin again

quotes, and which are not in our Gospels, were recorded in the Memoirs,

for Justin could

{318}

not have referred to them for an account of the temptation at the time

when Jesus went up from Jordan and the voice said to him: "Thou art my

son; this day have I begotten thee," if these facts and words were not

recorded in them at all.(1) It is impossible to doubt, after impartial

consideration, that the incident of the fire in Jordan, the words spoken

by the voice from heaven, and the temptation were taken from the same

source: they must collectively be referred to the Memoirs.(2)

Of one thing we may be sure: had Justin known the form of words used by

the voice from heaven according to our Gospels, he would certainly have

made use of it in preference to that which he actually found in his

Memoirs. He is arguing that Christ is preexisting God, become incarnate

by God's will through the Virgin Mary, and Trypho demands how he can be

demonstrated to have been pre-existent, who is said to be filled with

the power of the Holy Ghost, as though he had required this, Justin

replies that these powers of the Spirit have come upon him not because

he had need of them, but because they would accomplish Scripture, which

declared that after him there should be no prophet.(3) The proof of

this, he continues, is that, as soon as the child was born, the Magi

from Arabia came to worship him, because even at his birth he was in

possession of his power,(4) and after he had grown up like other men by

the use of suitable means, he came to

{319}

the river Jordan where John was baptizing, and as he went into the water

a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and the Holy Ghost descended like a

dove. He did not go to the river because he had any need of baptism or

of the descent of the Spirit, but because of the human race which had

fallen under the power of death. Now if, instead of the passage actually

cited, Justin could have quoted the words addressed to Jesus by the

voice from heaven according to the Gospels: "Thou art my beloved son;

in thee I am well pleased," his argument would have been greatly

strengthened by such direct recognition of an already existing, and, as

he affirmed, pre-existent divinity in Jesus. Not having these words in

his Memoirs of the Apostles, however, he was obliged to be content with

those which he found there: "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten

thee;"--words which, in fact, in themselves destroyed the argument for

pre-existence, and dated the divine begetting of Jesus as the son of

God that very day. The passage, indeed, supported those who actually

asserted that the Holy Ghost first entered into Jesus at his baptism.

These considerations, and the repeated quotation of the same words in

the same form, make it clear that Justin quotes from a source different

from our Gospel.(1)

In the scanty fragments of the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" which

have been preserved, we find both the incident of the fire kindled in

Jordan and the words

{320}

of the heavenly voice as quoted by Justin. "And as he went up from the

water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit of God in the

form of a dove which came down and entered into him. And a voice

came from heaven saying: 'Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well

pleased;' and again: 'This day have I begotten thee.' And immediately

a great light shone round about the place."(1) Epiphanius extracts this

passage from the version in use amongst the Ebionites, but it is well

known that there were many other varying forms of the same Gospel; and

Hilgenfeld,(2) with all probability, conjectures that the version known

to Epiphanius was no longer in the same purity as that used by Justin,

but represents the transition stage to the Canonical Gospels,--adopting

the words of the voice which they give without yet discarding the older

form. Jerome gives another form of the words from the version in use

amongst the Nazarenes: "Factum est autem cum ascendisset Dominus de

aqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti et requievit super eum, et

dixit illi: Fili mi, in omnibus Prophetis expectabam te ut venires

et requiescerem in te, tu es enim requies mea, tu es filius meus

primo-genitus qui regnas in sempiternum."(3) This supports Justin's

reading. Regarding the Gospel according to the Hebrews more must be said

hereafter, but when it is remembered that Justin, a native of Samaria,

probably first knew Christianity through believers in Syria to whose

Jewish view of Christianity he all his

{321}

life adhered, and that these Christians almost exclusively used this

Gospel(1) under various forms and names, it is reasonable to suppose

that he also like them knew and made use of it, a supposition increased

almost to certainty when it is found that Justin quotes words and facts

foreign to the Canonical Gospels which are known to have been contained

in it. The argument of Justin that Jesus did not need baptism may also

be compared to another passage of the Gospel according to the Hebrews

preserved by Jerome, and which preceded the circumstances narrated

above, in which the mother and brethren of Jesus say to him that John

the Baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins, and propose that

they should go to be baptized by him. Jesus replies, "In what way have

I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him?"(2) The most competent

critics agree that Justin derived the incidents of the fire in Jordan

and the words spoken by the heavenly voice from the Gospel according to

the Hebrews or some kindred work,(3) and there is every probability that

the numerous other quotations in his works differing from our Gospels

are taken from the same source.

The incident of the fire in Jordan likewise occurs in the ancient work

"Praedicatio Pauli,"(4) coupled with a

{322}

context which forcibly recalls the passage of the Gospel according to

the Hebrews, which has just been quoted, and apparent allusions to it

are found in the Sibylline Books and early Christian literature.(1)

Credner has pointed out that the marked use which was made of fire or

lights at Baptism by the Church, during early times, probably rose out

of this tradition regarding the fire which appeared in Jordan at the

baptism of Jesus.(2) The peculiar form of words used by the heavenly

voice according to Justin and to the Gospel according to the Hebrews was

also known to several of the Fathers.(3) Augustine mentions that some

MSS. in his time contained that reading in Luke iii. 22, although

without the confirmation of more ancient Greek codices.(4) It is still

extant in the Codex Bezae (D). The Itala version adds to Matthew iii. 15:

"and when he was baptized a great light shone round from the water, so

that all who had come were afraid" (et cum baptizaretur, lumen ingens

circumfulsit de aqua, ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant); and again

at Luke iii. 22 it gives the words of the voice in a form agreeing

at least in sense with those which Justin found in his Memoirs of the

Apostles.

{323}

These circumstances point with certainty to an earlier original

corresponding with Justin, in all probability the Gospel according to

the Hebrews, and to the subsequent gradual elimination of the passage

from the Gospels finally adopted by the Church for dogmatic reasons, as

various sects based on the words doctrines which were at variance with

the ever-enlarging belief of the majority.(1)

Then Justin states that the men of his time asserted that the miracles

of Jesus were performed by magical art [--Greek--], "for they ventured

to call him a magician and deceiver of the people."(2) This cannot be

accepted as a mere version of the charge that Jesus cast out demons by

Beelzebub, but must have been found by Justin in his Memoirs.(3) In the

Gospel of Nicodemus or Acta Pilati, the Jews accuse Jesus before Pilate

of being a magician,(4) coupled with the assertion that he casts out

demons through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and again they simply

say: "Did we not tell thee that he is a magician?"(5) We shall presently

see that Justin actually refers to certain acts of Pontius Pilate in

justification of other assertions regarding the trial of Jesus.(6) In

the Clementine Recognitions, moreover, the same charge is made by one

of the Scribes, who says that Jesus did not perform his miracles as a

prophet, but as a magician.(7)

{324}

Oelsus makes a similar charge,(1) and Lactantius refers to such an

opinion as prevalent among the Jews at the time of Jesus,(2) which we

find confirmed by many passages in Talmudic literature.(3) There was

indeed a book called "Magia Jesu Christi," of which Jesus himself, it

was pretended, was the author.(4)

In speaking of the trial of Jesus, Justin says: "For also as the prophet

saith, they reviled him and set him on the judgment seat and said: Judge

for us,"(5) a peculiarity which is not found in the Canonical Gospels.

Justin had just quoted the words of Isaiah (lxv. 2, lviii. 2)... "They

now ask of me judgment and dare to draw nigh to God," and then he cites

Psalm xxii. 16, 22: "They pierced my hands and my feet, and upon my

vesture they cast lots." He says that this did not happen to David, but

was fulfilled in Christ, and the expression regarding the piercing the

hands and feet referred to the nails of the cross which were driven

through his hands and feet. And after he was crucified they cast lots

upon his vesture. "And that these things occurred," he continues, "you

may learn from the Acts drawn up under Pontius Pilate."(6) He likewise

upon another occasion refers to the same Acta for confirmation of

statements.(7) The Gospel of Nicodemus or Gesta

{325}

Pilati, now extant, does not contain the circumstance to which we are

now referring, but in contradiction to the statement in the fourth

Gospel (xviii. 28, 29) the Jews in this apocryphal work freely go into

the very judgment seat of Pilate.(1) Teschendorf maintains that the

first part of the Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acta Pilati, still extant,

is the work, with more or less of interpolation, which, existing in the

second century, is referred to by Justin.(2) A few reasons may here be

given against such a conclusion. The fact of Jesus being set upon the

judgment seat is not contained in the extant Acta Pilati at all, and

therefore this work does not correspond with Justin's statement. It

seems most unreasonable to suppose that Justin should seriously refer

Roman Emperors to a work of this description, so manifestly composed

by a Christian, and the Acta to which he directs them must have been a

presumed official document, to which they had access, as of course no

other evidence could be of any weight with them.(3) The extant work

neither pretends to be, nor has in the slightest degree the form of, an

official report. Moreover, the prologue attached to it distinctly states

that Ananias, a provincial warden in the reign of Flavius Theodosius

(towards the middle of the fifth century), found these Acts written in

Hebrew by Nicodemus, and that he translated them into Greek.(4) The work

itself, therefore, only pretends to be a private composition in Hebrew,

and does not claim any relation to Pontius Pilate. The Greek is very

corrupt and

{326}

degraded, and considerations of style alone would assign it to the fifth

century, as would still more imperatively the anachronisms with which it

abounds.1 Tischendorf considers that Tertullian refers to the same work

as Justin, but it is evident that he infers an official report, for he

says distinctly, after narrating the circumstances of the crucifixion

and resurrection: "All these facts regarding Christ, Pilate.... reported

to the reigning Emperor Tiberius."(3) It is extremely probable that

in saying this Tertullian merely extended the statement of Justin. He

nowhere states that he himself had seen this report, nor does Justin,

and as is the case with the latter, some of the facts which Tertullian

supposes to be reported by Pilate are not contained in the apocryphal

work.(3) There are still extant some apocryphal writings in the form

of official reports made by Pilate of the trial, crucifixion, and

resurrection of Jesus,(4) but none are of very ancient date. It is

certain that, on the supposition that Pilate may have made an official

report of events so important in their estimation, Christian writers;

with greater zeal than conscience, composed fictitious reports in his

name, in the supposed interest of their religion, and there was in that

day little or no critical sense to detect and discredit such forgeries.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that Justin was acquainted with

any official report of Pilate to the Roman Emperor, nor indeed is it

easy to understand how he could possibly have been, even if such a

document existed, and it is most probable, as

{327}

Scholten conjectures, that Justin merely referred to documents which

tradition supposed to have been written, but of which he himself had no

personal knowledge.(1) Be this as it may, as he considered the incident

of the judgment seat a fulfilment of prophecy, there can be little or

no doubt that it was narrated in the Memoirs which contained "everything

relating to Jesus Christ," and finding it there he all the more

naturally assumed that it must have been mentioned in any official

report.

In narrating the agony in the Garden, there are further variations.

Justin says: "And the passage: 'All my bones are poured out and

dispersed like water; my heart has become like wax melting in the midst

of my belly,' was a prediction of that which occurred to him that night

when they came out against him to the Mount of Olives to seize him. For

in the Memoirs composed, I say, by his Apostles and their followers, it

is recorded that his sweat fell down like drops while he prayed, saying:

'If possible, let this cup pass.'"(2) It will be observed that this is

a direct quotation from the Memoirs, but there is a material difference

from our Gospels. Luke is the only Gospel which mentions the bloody

sweat, and there the account reads (xxii. 44), "as it were drops of

blood falling down to the ground."

[--Greek--]

[--Greek--]

In addition to the other linguistic differences Justin omits the

emphatic [--Greek--] which gives the whole point to Luke's account, and

which evidently could not have been in the text of the Memoirs. Semisch

argues that [--Greek--] alone, especially in medical phraseology, meant

{328}

"drops of blood," without the addition of [--Greek--];(l) but the author of

the third Gospel did not think so, and undeniably makes use of both, and

Justin does not. Moreover, Luke introduces the expression [--Greek--] to

show the intensity of the agony, whereas Justin evidently did not mean

to express "drops of blood" at all, his intention in referring to the

sweat being to show that the prophecy: "All my bones are poured out, &c,

like water," had been fulfilled, with which the reading in his Memoirs

more closely corresponded. The prayer also so directly quoted decidedly

varies from Luke xxii. 42, which reads: "Father, if thou be willing to

remove this cup from me ":

[--Greek--]

[--Greek--]

In Matthew xxvi. 39 this part of the prayer is more like the reading of

Justin: "Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me "--[--Greek--]

but that Gospel has nothing of the sweat of agony, which excludes it

from consideration. In another place Justin also quotes the prayer in

the Garden as follows: "He prayed, saying: 'Father, if it be possible,

let this cup pass from me;' and besides this, praying, he said: 'Not as

I wish, but as thou willest.'"(2) The first phrase in this place, apart

from some transposition of words, agrees with Matthew; but even if this

reading be preferred of the two, the absence of the incident of the

sweat of agony from the first Gospel renders it impossible to regard it

as the source; and, further, the second part of the prayer which is here

{329}

given differs materially both from the first and third Gospels.

[--Greek--]

The two parts of this prayer, moreover, seem to have been separate in

the Memoirs, for not only does Justin not quote the latter portion

at all in Dial. 103, but here he markedly divides it from the former.

Justin knows nothing of the episode of the Angel who strengthens Jesus,

which is related in Luke xxii. 43. There is, however, a still more

important point to mention: that although verses 43, 44 with the

incidents of the angel and the bloody sweat are certainly in a great

number of MSS., they are omitted by some of the oldest Codices, as for

instance by the Alexandrian and Vatican MSS.(1) It is evident that in

this part Justin's Memoirs differed from our first and third Gospels

much in the same way that they do from each other.

In the same chapter Justin states that when the Jews went out to the

Mount of Olives to take Jesus, "there was not even a single man to run

to his help as a guiltless person."(2) This is in direct contradiction

to all the Gospels,(3) and Justin not only completely ignores the

episode of the ear of Malchus, but in this passage

1 In the Sinaitic Codex they are marked for omission by a

later hand. Lachmann brackets, and Drs. Westcott and Hort

double-bracket them. The MS. evidence may bo found in detail

in Scrivener's Int. to Crit. N. T. 2nd ed. p. 521, stated in

the way which is most favourable for the authenticity.

{330}

excludes it, and his Gospel could not have contained it.(1) Luke is

specially marked in generalizing the resistance of those about Jesus to

his capture: "When they which were about him saw what would follow, they

said unto him: Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And a certain one of

them smote the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear."(2)

As this episode follows immediately after the incident of the bloody

sweat and prayer in the Garden, and the statement of Justin occurs in

the very same chapter in which he refers to them, this contradiction

further tends to confirm the conclusion that Justin employed a different

Gospel.

It is quite in harmony with the same peculiar account that Justin states

that, "after he (Jesus) was crucified, all his friends (the Apostles)

stood aloof from him, having denied him(3).... (who, after he rose

from the dead, and after they were convinced by himself that before his

passion he had told them that he must suffer these things, and that they

were foretold by the prophets, repented of their flight from him when he

was crucified), and while remaining among them he sang praises to

God, as is made evident in the Memoirs of the Apostles."(4) Justin,

therefore, repeatedly asserts that _after_ the crucifixion all the

Apostles forsook him, and he extends the denial of Peter

{331}

to the whole of the twelve. It is impossible to consider this distinct

and reiterated affirmation a mere extension of the passage: "they

all forsook him and fled "[--Greek--],(1) when Jesus was arrested, which

proceeded mainly from momentary fear.(2) Justin seems to indicate

that the disciples withdrew from and denied Jesus when they saw him

crucified, from doubts which consequently arose as to his Messianic

character. Now, on the contrary, the Canonical Gospels represent the

disciples as being together after the Crucifixion.(3) Justin does not

exhibit any knowledge of the explanation given by the angels at the

sepulchre as to Christ's having foretold all that had happened,(4) but

makes this proceed from Jesus himself. Indeed, he makes no mention of

these angels at all.

There are some traces elsewhere of the view that the disciples were

offended after the Crucifixion.(5) Hilgenfeld points out the appearance

of special Petrine tendency in this passage, in the fact that it is not

Peter alone, but all the Apostles, who are said to deny their master;

and he suggests that an indication of the source from which Justin

quoted may be obtained from the kindred quotation in the Epistle to the

Smyrnaeans (iii.) by pseudo-Ignatius:

"For I know that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh, and

I believe that he is so now. And when he came to those that were with

Peter, he said to them: Lay hold, handle me, and see that I am

{332}

not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched him and

believed, being convinced by his flesh and spirit." Jerome, it will be

remembered, found this in the Gospel according to the Hebrews used by

the Nazarenes, which he translated,(1) from which we have seen that

Justin in all probability derived other particulars differing from the

Canonical Gospels, and with which we shall constantly meet, in a similar

way, in examining Justin's quotations. Origen also found it in a work

called the "Doctrine of Peter" [--Greek--],(2) which must have been akin to

the "Preaching of Peter" [--Greek--].(3) Hilgenfeld suggests that, in the

absence of more certain information, there is no more probable source

from which Justin may have derived his statement than the Gospel

according to Peter, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is

known to have contained so much in the same spirit.(4)

It may well be expected that, at least in touching such serious matters

as the Crucifixion and last words of Jesus, Justin must adhere with care

to authentic records, and not fall into the faults of loose quotation

from memory, free handling of texts, and careless omissions and

additions, by which those who maintain the identity of the Memoirs

with the Canonical Gospels seek to explain the systematic variations of

Justin's quotations from the text of the latter. It will, however, be

found that here also marked discrepancies occur. Justin says, after

referring to numerous prophecies regarding the treatment of Christ: "And

again, when he says: 'They spake with their lips, they wagged the head,

saying: Let him

{333}

deliver himself.' That all these things happened to the Christ from the

Jews, you can ascertain. For when he was being crucified they shot out

the lips, and wagged their heads, saying: 'Let him who raised the dead

deliver himself.'"(1) And in another place, referring to the same Psalm

(xxii.) as a prediction of what was to happen to Jesus, Justin says:

"For they who saw him crucified also wagged their heads, each one of

them, and distorted [--Greek--] their lips, and sneeringly and in scornful

irony repeated among themselves those words which are also written in

the Memoirs of his Apostles: He declared himself the Son of God; (let

him) come down, let him walk about; let God save him."(2) In both

of these passages Justin directly appeals to written authority. The

[--Greek--] may leave the source of the first uncertain,(3) but the second

is distinctly stated to contain the actual words "written in the Memoirs

of his Apostles," and it seems reasonable to suppose that the former

passage is also derived from them. It is scarcely necessary to add that

both differ very materially from the Canonical Gospels.(4) The taunt

4 Canon Westcott admits that in the latter passage Justin

does profess to give the exact words which were recorded in

the Memoirs, and that they are not to be found in our

Gospels; "but," he apologetically adds, "we do find these

others so closely connected with them that few readers would

feel the difference"! This is a specimen of apologetic

criticism. Dr. Westcott goes on to say that as no MS. or

Father known to him has preserved any reading more closely

resembling Justin's, "if it appear not to be deducible from

our Gospels, due allowance being made for the object which

he had in view, its source) must remain concealed." On the

Canon, p. 114 f. Cf. Matt, xxvii. 39--43; Mark xv. 29--32;

Luke xxiii. 34--37.

{334}

contained in the first of these passages is altogether peculiar to

Justin: "Let him who raised the dead deliver himself" [--Greek--];(1) and

even if Justin did not himself indicate a written source, it would

not be reasonable to suppose that he should himself for the first time

record words to which he refers as the fulfilment of prophecy.(2) It

would be still more ineffectual to endeavour to remove the difficulty

presented by such a variation by attributing the words to tradition, at

the same time that it is asserted that Justin's Memoirs were actually

identical with the Gospels. No aberration of memory could account

for such a variation, and it is impossible that Justin should prefer

tradition regarding a form of words, so liable to error and alteration,

with written Gospels within his reach. Besides, to argue that Justin

affirmed that the truth of his statement could be ascertained [--Greek--],

whilst the words which he states to have been spoken were not actually

recorded, would be against all reason.

The second of the mocking speeches (3) of the lookers-on is referred

distinctly to the Memoirs of the Apostles, but is also, with the

accompanying description, foreign

1 The nearest parallel in our Gospels is in Luke xxiii. 35.

"He saved others, let him save himself if this man be the

Christ of God, his chosen." [--Greek--]

3 Semisch argues that both forms are quotations of the same

sentence, and that there is consequently a contradiction in

the very quotations themselves; but there can be no doubt

whatever that the two phrases are distinct parts of the

mockery, and the very same separation and variation occur in

each of the Canonical Gospels. Die ap. Denkw. Mart. Just.,

p. 282; cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 244.

{335}

to our Gospels. The nearest approach to it occurs in our first Gospel,

and we subjoin both passages for comparison:

[--Greek--]

It is evident that Justin's version is quite distinct from this, and

cannot have been taken from our Gospels,(2) although professedly derived

from the Memoirs of the Apostles.