witnesses, and, although students must study the details of the
controversy in larger works, we will endeavour to put briefly before
them the main reasons why Freethinkers reject Justin Martyr as bearing
evidence to the authenticity of the present Gospels, and in this
_résumé_ we begin by condensing chapter iii. of "Supernatural Religion",
vol. i., pp. 288-433, so far as it bears on our present position. Justin
Martyr is supposed to have died about A.D. 166, having been put to death
in the reign of Marcus Aurelius; he was by descent a Greek, but became a
convert to Christianity, strongly tinged with Judaism. The longer
Apology, and the Dialogue with Trypho, are the works chiefly relied upon
to prove the authenticity. The date of the first Apology is probably
about A.D. 147; the Dialogue was written later, perhaps between A.D. 150
and 160. 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," 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 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 the "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. Various theories have been put forward by
Christian apologists to lessen the force of these objections. It has
been suggested that Justin quoted from memory, condensed or combined to
suit his immediate purpose; that the "Memoirs" were a harmony of the
Gospels, with additions from some apocryphal work; that along with our
Gospels Justin used apocryphal Gospels; that he made use of our Gospels,
preferring, however, to rely chiefly on an apocryphal one. Results so
diverse show how dubious must be the value of the witness of Justin
Martyr. Competent critics almost universally admit that Justin had no
idea of ranking the "Memoirs of the Apostles" among canonical writings.
The word translated "Memoirs" would be more correctly rendered
"Recollections," or "Memorabilia," and none of these three terms is an
appropriate title for works ranking as canonical Gospels. Great numbers
of spurious writings, under the names of apostles, were current in the
early Church, and Justin names no authors for the "Recollections" he
quotes from, only saying that they were composed "by his Apostles and
their followers," clearly indicating that he was using some collective
recollections of the Apostles and those who followed them. The word
"Gospels," in the plural, is only once applied to these "Recollections;"
"For the Apostles, in the 'Memoirs' composed by them, which are called
Gospels." "The last expression [Greek: kaleitai euaggelai], as many
scholars have declared, is a manifest interpolation. It is, in all
probability, a gloss on the margin of some old MS. which some copyist
afterwards inserted in the text. 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 had carefully read,
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.' The term 'Gospel' is nowhere else used by
Justin in reference to a written record." The public reading of the
Recollections, mentioned by Justin, proves nothing, since many works,
now acknowledged as spurious, were thus read (see ante, pp. 248, 249).
Justin does not regard the Recollections as inspired, attributing
inspiration only to prophetic writings, and he accepts them as authentic
solely because the events they narrate are prophesied of in the Old
Testament. The omission of any author's name is remarkable, since, in
quoting from the Old Testament, he constantly refers to the author by
name, or to the book used; but in the very numerous quotations, supposed
to be from the Gospels, he never does this, save in one single instance,
mentioned below, when he quotes Peter. On the theory that he had our
four Gospels before him, this is the more singular, since he would
naturally have distinguished one from the other. The only writing in the
New Testament referred to by name is the Apocalypse, by "a certain man
whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ," and it is
impossible that John should be thus mentioned, if Justin had already
been quoting from a Gospel bearing his name under the general title of
Recollections. Justin clearly quotes from a _written_ source and
excludes oral tradition, saying that in the Recollections is recorded
"_everything_ that concerns our Saviour Christ." (The proofs that Justin
quotes from records other than the Gospels will be classed under
position _h_, and are here omitted.) Justin knows nothing of the
shepherds of the plain, and the angelic appearance to them, nor of the
star guiding the wise men to the place where Jesus was, although he
relates the story of the birth, and the visit of the wise men. Two short
passages in Justin are identical with parallel passages in Matthew, but
"it cannot be too often repeated, that the mere coincidence of short
historical sayings in two works by no means warrants the conclusion that
the one is dependent on the other." In the first Apology, chaps, xv.,
xvi., and xvii. are composed almost entirely of examples of Christ's
teaching, and with the exception of these two brief passages, not one
quotation agrees verbally with the canonical Gospels. We have referred
to one instance wherein the name of Peter is mentioned in connection
with the Recollections. Justin says: "The statement also that he (Jesus)
changed the name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that this is also
written in _his_ 'Memoirs,'" etc. This refers the "Memoirs" to Peter,
and it is suggested that it is, therefore, a reference to the Gospel of
Mark, Mark having been supposed to have written his Gospel under the
direction of Peter. There was a "Gospel according to Peter" current in
the early Church, probably a variation from the Gospel of the Hebrews,
so highly respected and so widely used by the primitive writers. It is
very probable that this is the work to which Justin so often refers, and
that it originally bore the simple title of "The Gospel," or the
"Recollections of Peter." A version of this Gospel was also known as the
"Gospel According to the Apostles," a title singularly like the
"Recollections of the Apostles" by Justin. Seeing that in Justin's works
his quotations, although so copious, do not agree with parallel passages
in our Gospels, we may reasonably conclude that "there is no evidence
that he made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore, even
be cited to prove their very existence, and much less the authenticity
and character of records whose authors he does not once name." Passing
from this case, ably worked out by this learned and clever writer (and
we earnestly recommend our readers, if possible, to study his careful
analysis for themselves, since he makes the whole question thoroughly
intelligible to _English_ readers, and gives them evidence whereby they
can form their own judgments, instead of accepting ready-made
conclusions), we will examine Canon Westcott's contention. He admits
that the difficulties perplexing the evidence of Justin are "great;"
that there are "additions to the received narrative, and remarkable
variations from its text, which, in some cases, are both repeated by
Justin and found also in other writings" ("On the Canon," p. 98). We
regret to say that Dr. Westcott, in laying the case before his readers,
somewhat misleads them, although, doubtless, unintentionally. He speaks
of Justin telling us that "Christ was descended from Abraham through
Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David," and omits the fact that Justin
traces the descent to Mary alone, and knows nothing as to a descent
traced to Joseph, as in both Matthew and Luke (see below, under _h_). He
speaks of Justin mentioning wise men "guided by a star," forgetting that
Justin says nothing of the guidance, but only writes: "That he should
arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed beforehand....
Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of his birth, as is
recorded in the 'Memoirs' of his Apostles, the Magi from Arabia,
recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped him" ("Dial.," ch.
cvi.). He speaks of Justin recording "the singing of the Psalm
afterwards" (after the last supper), omitting that Justin only says
generally ("Dial.," ch. cvi., to which Dr. Westcott refers us) that
"when living with them (Christ) sang praises to God." But as we
hereafter deal with these discrepancies, we need not dwell on them now,
only warning our readers that since even such a man as Dr. Westcott thus
misrepresents facts, it will be well never to accept any inferences
drawn from such references as these without comparing them with the
original. One of the chief difficulties to the English reader is to get
a reliable translation. To give but a single instance. In the version of
Justin here used (that published by T. Clark, Edinburgh), we find in the
"Dialogue," ch. ciii., the following passage: "His sweat fell down like
drops of blood while he was praying." And this is referred to by Canon
Westcott (p. 104) as a record of the "bloody sweat." Yet, in the
original, there is no word analogous to "of blood;" the passage runs:
"sweat as drops fell down," and it is recorded by Justin as a proof that
the prophecy, "my bones are poured out _like water_" was fulfilled in
Christ. The clumsy endeavour to create a likeness to Luke xxii. 44
destroys Justin's argument. Further on (p. 113) Dr. Westcott admits that
the words "of blood" are not found in Justin; but it is surely
misleading, under these circumstances, to say that Justin mentions "the
bloody sweat." Westcott only maintains seven passages in the whole of
Justin's writings, wherein he distinctly quotes from the "Memoirs;"
_i.e.,_ only seven that can be maintained as quotations from the
canonical Gospels--the contention being that the "Memoirs" _are_ the
Gospels. He says truly, if naively, "The result of a first view of these
passages is striking." Very striking, indeed; for, "of the seven, five
agree verbally with the text of St. Matthew or St. Luke, _exhibiting,
indeed, three slight various readings not elsewhere found_, but such as
are easily explicable. The sixth is a condensed summary of words related
by St. Matthew; the seventh alone presents an important variation in the
text of a verse, which is, however, otherwise very uncertain" (pp. 130,
131. The italics are our own). That is, there are only seven distinct
quotations, and all of these, save two, are different from our Gospels.
The whole of Dr. Westcott's analysis of these passages is severely
criticised in "Supernatural Religion," and in the edition of 1875 of Dr.
Westcott's book, from which we quote, some of the expressions he
previously used are a little modified. The author of "Supernatural
Religion" justly says: "The striking result, to summarise Canon
Westcott's own words, is this. Out of seven professed quotations from
the 'Memoirs,' in which he admits we may expect to find the exact
language preserved, five present three variations; one is a compressed
summary, and does not agree verbally at all; and the seventh presents an
important variation" (vol. i., p. 394).
Dr. Giles speaks very strongly against Paley's distortion of Justin
Martyr's testimony, complaining: "The works of Justin Martyr do not fall
in the way of one in a hundred thousand of our countrymen. How is it,
then, to be deprecated that erroneous statements should be current about
him! How is it to be censured that his testimony should be changed, and
he should be made to speak a falsehood!" ("Christian Records," p. 71).
Dr. Giles then argues that Justin would have certainly named the books
and their authors had they been current and reverenced in his time; that
there were numberless Gospels current at that date; that Justin mentions
occurrences that are only found related in such apocryphal Gospels. He
then compares seventeen passages in Justin Martyr with parallel passages
in the Gospels, and concludes that Justin "gives us Christ's sayings in
their traditionary forms, and not in the words which are found in our
four Gospels." We will select two, to show his method of criticising,
translating the Greek, instead of giving it, as he does, in the
original. In the Apology, ch. xv., Justin writes: "If thy right eye
offend thee, cut it out, for it is profitable for thee to enter into the
kingdom of heaven with one eye, than having two to be thrust into the
everlasting fire." "This passage is very like Matt. v. 29: 'If thy right
eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is
profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that
thy whole body should be cast into hell.' But it is also like Matt,
xviii. 9: 'And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from
thee; it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than
having two eyes to be cast into hell-fire.' And it bears an equal
likeness to Mark ix. 47: 'And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it
is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than,
having two eyes, to be cast into hell-fire.' Yet, strange to say, it is
not identical in words with either of the three" (pp. 83, 84). "I came
not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." "In this only
instance is there a perfect agreement between the words of Justin and
the canonical Gospels, three of which, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, give the
same saying of Christ in the same words. A variety of thoughts here rush
upon the mind. Are these three Gospels based upon a common document? If
so, is not Justin Martyr's citation drawn from the same anonymous
document, rather than from the three Gospels, seeing he does not name
them? If, on the other hand, Justin has cited them accurately in this
instance, why has he failed to do so in the others? For no other reason
than that traditionary sayings are generally thus irregularly exact or
inexact, and Justin, citing from them, has been as irregularly exact as
they were" (Ibid, p. 85). "The result to which a perusal of his works
will lead is of the gravest character. He will be found to quote nearly
two hundred sentiments or sayings of Christ; but makes hardly a single
clear allusion to all those circumstances of time or place which give so
much interest to Christ's teaching, as recorded in the four Gospels. The
inference is that he quotes Christ's sayings as delivered by tradition
or taken down in writing before the four Gospels were compiled" (Ibid,
pp. 89, 90). Paley and Lardner both deal with Justin somewhat briefly,
calling every passage in his works resembling slightly any passage in
the Gospels a "quotation;" in both cases only ignorance of Justin's
writings can lead any reader to assent to the inferences they draw.
HEGESIPPUS was a Jewish Christian, who, according to Eusebius,
flourished about A.D. 166. Soter is said to have succeeded Anicetus in
the bishopric of Rome in that year, and Hegesippus appears to have been
in Rome during the episcopacy of both. He travelled about from place to
place, and his testimony to the Gospels is that "in every city the
doctrine prevails according to what is declared by the law, and the
prophets, and the Lord" ("Eccles. Hist," bk. iv., ch. 22). Further,
Eusebius quotes the story of the death of James, the Apostle, written by
Hegesippus, and in this James is reported to have said to the Jews: "Why
do ye now ask me respecting Jesus, the Son of Man? He is now sitting in
the heavens, on the right hand of great power, and is about to come on
the clouds of heaven." And when he is being murdered, he prays, "O Lord
God and Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" (see
"Eccles. Hist.," bk. ii., ch. 23). The full absurdity of regarding this
as a testimony to the Gospels will be seen when it is remembered that it
is implied thereby that James, the brother and apostle of Christ, knew
nothing of his words until he read them in the Gospels, and that he was
murdered before the Gospel of Luke, from which alone he could quote the
prayer of Jesus, is thought, by most Christians, to have been written.
One other fragment of Hegesippus is preserved by Stephanus Gobarus,
wherein Hegesippus, speaking against Paul's assertion "that eye hath not
seen, nor ear heard," opposes to it the saying of the Lord, "Blessed are
your eyes, for they see, and your ears that hear." This is paralleled by
Matt. xiii. 16 and Luke x. 23. "We need not point out that the saying
referred to by Hegesippus, whilst conveying the same sense as that in
the two Gospels, differs as materially from them as they do from each
other, and as we might expect a quotation taken from a different, though
kindred, source, like the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to do" ("Sup.
Rel.," vol. i., p. 447). Why does not Paley tell us that Eusebius writes
of him, not that he quoted from the Gospels, but that "he also states
some particulars from the Gospel of the Hebrews and from the Syriac, and
particularly from the Hebrew language, showing that he himself was a
convert from the Hebrews. Other matters he also records as taken from
the unwritten tradition of the Jews" ("Eccles. Hist.," bk. iv., ch 22).
Here, then, we have the source of the quotations in Hegesippus, and yet
Paley conceals this, and deliberately speaks of him as referring to our
Gospel of Matthew!
EPISTLE OF THE CHURCHES OF LYONS AND VIENNE.--Paley quietly dates this
A.D. 170, although the persecution it describes occurred in A.D. 177
(see ante, pp. 257, 258). The "exact references to the Gospels of Luke
and John and to the Acts of the Apostles," spoken of by Paley
("Evidences," p. 125), are not easy to find. Westcott says: "It contains
no reference by name to any book of the New Testament, but its
coincidences of language with the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, with
the Acts of the Apostles, with the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans,
Corinthians (?), Ephesians, Philippians, and the First to Timothy, with
the first Catholic Epistles of St. Peter and St. John, and with the
Apocalypse, are indisputable" ("On the Canon," p. 336). Unfortunately,
neither Paley nor Dr. Westcott refer us to the passages in question,
Paley quoting only one. We will, therefore, give one of these at full
length, leaving our readers to judge of it as an "exact reference:"
"Vattius Epagathus, one of the brethren who abounded in the fulness of
the love of God and man, and whose walk and conversation had been so
unexceptionable, though he was only young, shared in the same testimony
with the elder Zacharias. He walked in all the commandments and
righteousness of the Lord blameless, full of love to God and his
neighbour" ("Eusebius," bk. v., chap. i). This is, it appears, an "exact
reference" to Luke i. 6, and we own we should not have known it unless
it had been noted in "Supernatural Religion." Tischendorf, on the other
hand, refers the allusion to Zacharias to the Protevangelium of James
("Sup. Rel.," vol. ii., p. 202).
The second "exact reference" is, that Vattius had "the Spirit more
abundantly than Zacharias;" "such an unnecessary and insidious
comparison would scarcely have been made had the writer known our Gospel
and regarded it as inspired Scripture" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. ii., p. 204).
The quotation "that the day would come when everyone that slayeth you
will think he is doing God a service," is one of those isolated sayings
referred to Christ which might be found in any account of his works, or
might have been handed down by tradition. This epistle is the last
witness called by Paley, prior to Irenæus, and might, indeed, fairly be
regarded as contemporary with him.
Although Paley does not allude to the "Clementines," books falsely
ascribed to Clement of Rome, these are sometimes brought to prove the
existence of the Gospels in the second century. But they are useless as
witnesses, from the fact that the date at which they were themselves
written is a matter of dispute. "Critics variously date the composition
of the original Recognitions from about the middle of the second century
to the end of the third, though the majority are agreed in placing them,
at least, in the latter century" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. ii., p. 5). "It is
unfortunate that there are not sufficient materials for determining the
date of the Clementine Homilies" ("Gospels in the Second Century," Rev.
W. Sanday, p. 161). Part of the Clementines, called the "Recognitions,"
is useless as a basis for argument, for these "are only extant in a
Latin translation by Rufinus, in which the quotations from the Gospels
have evidently been assimilated to the canonical text which Rufinus
himself uses" (Ibid). Of the rest, "we are struck at once by the small
amount of exact coincidence, which is considerably less than that which
is found in the quotations from the Old Testament" (Ibid, p. 168). "In
the Homilies there are very numerous quotations of expressions of Jesus,
and of Gospel History, which are generally placed in the mouth of Peter,
or introduced with such formula as 'The teacher said,' 'Jesus said,' 'He
said,' 'The prophet said,' but in no case does the author name the
source from which these sayings and quotations are derived.... De Wette
says, 'The quotations of evangelical works and histories in the
pseudo-Clementine writings, from their free and unsatisfactory nature,
permit only uncertain conclusions as to their written source.' Critics
have maintained very free and conflicting views regarding that source.
Apologists, of course, assert that the quotations in the Homilies are
taken from our Gospels only. Others ascribe them to our Gospels, with a
supplementary apocryphal work, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or
the Gospel according to Peter. Some, whilst admitting a subsidiary use
of some of our Gospels, assert that the author of the Homilies employs,
in preference, the Gospel according to Peter; whilst others, recognising
also the similarity of the phenomena presented by these quotations with
those of Justin's, conclude that the author does not quote our Gospels
at all, but makes use of the Gospel according to Peter, or the Gospel
according to the Hebrews. Evidence permitting of such divergent
conclusions manifestly cannot be of a decided character" ("Sup. Rel.,"
vol. ii., pp. 6, 7).
On Basilides (teaching c. A.D. 135) and Valentinus (A.D. 140), two of
the early Gnostic teachers, we need not delay, for there is scarcely
anything left of their writings, and all we know of them is drawn from
the writings of their antagonists; it is claimed that they knew and made
use of the canonical Gospels, and Canon Westcott urges this view of
Basilides, but the writer of "Supernatural Religion" characterises this
plea "as unworthy of a scholar, and only calculated to mislead readers
who must generally be ignorant of the actual facts of the case" (vol.
ii., p. 42). Basilides says that he received his doctrine from Glaucias,
the "interpreter of Peter," and "it is apparent, however, that
Basilides, in basing his doctrines on these apocryphal books as
inspired, and upon tradition, and in having a special Gospel called
after his own name, which, therefore, he clearly adopts as the exponent
of his ideas of Christian truth, absolutely ignores the canonical
Gospels altogether, and not only does not offer any evidence for their
existence, but proves that he did not recognise any such works as of
authority. Therefore, there is no ground whatever for Tischendorf's
assumption that the Commentary of Basilides 'On the Gospel' was written
upon our Gospels, but that idea is, on the contrary, negatived in the
strongest way by all the facts of the case" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. ii., pp.
45, 46). Both with this ancient heretic, as with Valentinus, it is
impossible to distinguish what is ascribed to him from what is ascribed
to his followers, and thus evidence drawn from either of them is weaker
even than usual.
Marcion, the greatest heretic of the second century, ought to prove a
useful witness to the Christians if the present Gospels had been
accepted in his time as canonical. He was the son of the Christian
Bishop of Sinope, in Pontus, and taught in Rome for some twenty years,
dating from about A.D. 140. Only one Gospel was acknowledged by him, and
fierce has been the controversy as to what this Gospel was. It is only
known to us through his antagonists, who generally assert that the
Gospel used by him was the third Synoptic, changed and adapted to suit
his heretical views. Paley says, "This rash and wild controversialist
published a recension or chastised edition of St. Luke's Gospel"
("Evidences," p. 167), but does not condescend to give us the smallest
reason for so broad an assertion. This question has, however, been
thoroughly debated among German critics, the one side maintaining that
Marcion mutilated Luke's Gospel, the other that Marcion's Gospel was
earlier than Luke's, and that Luke's was made from it; while some,
again, maintained that both were versions of an older original. From
this controversy we may conclude that there was a strong likeness
between Marcion's Gospel and the third Synoptic, and that it is
impossible to know which is the earlier of the two. The resolution of
the question is made hopeless by the fact that "the principal sources of
our information regarding Marcion's Gospel are the works of his most
bitter denouncers Tertullian and Epiphanius" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. ii., p.
88). "At the very best, even if the hypothesis that Marcion's Gospel was
a mutilated Luke were established, Marcion affords no evidence in favour
of the authenticity or trustworthy character of our third Synoptic. His
Gospel was nameless, and his followers repudiated the idea of its having
been written by Luke; and regarded even as the earliest testimony for
the existence of Luke's Gospel, that testimony is not in confirmation of
its genuineness and reliability, but, on the contrary, condemns it as
garbled and interpolated" (Ibid, pp. 146, 147).
It is scarcely worth while to refer to the supposed evidence of the
"Canon of Muratori," since the date of this fragment is utterly unknown.
In the year 1740 Muratori published this document in a collection of
Italian antiquities, stating that he had found it in the Ambrosian
library at Milan, and that he believed that the MS. from which he took
it had been in existence about 1000 years. It is not known by whom the
original was written, and it bears no date: it is but a fragment,
commencing: "at which, nevertheless, he was present, and thus he placed
it. Third book of the Gospel according to Luke." Further on it speaks of
"the fourth of the Gospels of John." The value of the evidence of an
anonymous fragment of unknown date is simply _nil_. "It is by some
affirmed to be a complete treatise on the books received by the Church,
from which fragments have been lost; while others consider it a mere
fragment itself. It is written in Latin, which by some is represented as
most corrupt, whilst others uphold it as most correct. The text is
further rendered almost unintelligible by every possible inaccuracy of
orthography and grammar, which is ascribed diversely to the transcriber,
to the translator, and to both. Indeed, such is the elastic condition of
the text, resulting from errors and obscurity of every imaginable
description, that, by means of ingenious conjectures, critics are able
to find in it almost any sense they desire. Considerable difference of
opinion exists as to the original language of the fragment, the greater
number of critics maintaining that the composition is a translation from
the Greek, while others assert it to have been originally written in
Latin. Its composition is variously attributed to the Church of Africa,
and to a member of the Church in Rome" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. ii., pp. 238,
239). On a disputable scrap of this kind no argument can be based; there
is no evidence even to show that the thing was in existence at all until
Muratori published it; it is never referred to by any early writer, nor
is there a scintilla of evidence that it was known to the early Church.
After a full and searching analysis of all the documents, orthodox and
heretical, supposed to have been written in the first two centuries
after Christ, the author of "Supernatural Religion" thus sums
up:--"After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on
the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any one of those
Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus....
Any argument for the mere existence of our Synoptics based upon their
supposed rejection by heretical leaders and sects has the inevitable
disadvantage, that the very testimony which would show their existence
would oppose their authenticity. There is no evidence of their use by
heretical leaders, however, and no direct reference to them by any
writer, heretical or orthodox, whom we have examined" (vol. ii., pp,
248, 249). Nor is the fact of this blank absence of evidence of identity
all that can be brought to bear in support of our proposition, for there
is another fact that tells very heavily against the identity of the now
accepted Gospels with those that were current in earlier days, namely,
the noteworthy charge brought against the Christians that they changed
and altered their sacred books; the orthodox accused the unorthodox of
varying the Scriptures, and the heretics retorted the charge with equal
pertinacity. The Ebionites maintained that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
was the only authentic Gospel, and regarded the four Greek Gospels as
unreliable. The Marcionites admitted only the Gospel resembling that of
Luke, and were accused by the orthodox of having altered that to suit
themselves. Celsus, writing against Christianity, formulates the charge:
"Some believers, like men driven by drunkenness to commit violence on
themselves, have altered the Gospel history, since its first
composition, three times, four times, and oftener, and have re-fashioned
it, so as to be able to deny the objections made against it" ("Origen
Cont. Celsus," bk. ii., chap. 27, as quoted by Norton, p. 63). Origen
admits "that there are those who have altered the Gospels," but pleads
that it has been done by heretics, and that this "is no reproach against
true Christianity" (Ibid). Only, most reverend Father of the Church, if
heretics accuse orthodox, and orthodox accuse heretics, of altering the
Gospels, how are we to be sure that they have come down unaltered to us?
Clement of Alexandria notes alterations that had been made. Dionysius,
of Corinth, complaining of the changes made in his own writings, bears
witness to this same fact: "It is not, therefore, matter of wonder if
some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord,
since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be
compared with these" ("Eusebius," bk. iv., ch. 23). Faustus, the
Manichæan, the great opponent of Augustine, writes: "For many things
have been inserted by your ancestors in the speeches of our Lord, which,
though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially
since--as already it has been often proved by us--that these things were
not written by Christ, nor his Apostles, but a long while after their
assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with
themselves, who made up their tale out of report and opinions merely;
and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the Apostles of the Lord,
or on those who were supposed to have followed the Apostles; they
mendaciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits
_according to_ them" (Lib. 33, ch. 3, as quoted and translated in
"Diegesis," pp. 61, 62).
The truth is, that in those days, when books were only written, the
widest door was opened to alterations, additions, and omissions;
incidents or remarks written, perhaps, in the margin of the text by one
transcriber, were transferred into the text itself by the next copyist,
and were thereafter indistinguishable from the original matter. In this
way the celebrated text of the three witnesses (1 John, v. 7) is
supposed to have crept into the text. Dealing with this, in reference to
the New Testament, Eichhorn points out that it was easy to alter a
manuscript in transcribing it, and that, as manuscripts were written for
individual use, such alterations were considered allowable, and that the
altered manuscript, being copied in its turn, such changes passed into
circulation unnoticed. Owners of manuscripts added to them incidents of
the life of Christ, or any of his sayings, which they had heard of, and
which were not recorded in their own copies, and thus the story grew and
grew, and additional legends were incorporated with it, until the
historical basis became overlaid with myth. The vast number of readings
in the New Testament, no less--according to Dr. Angus, one of the
present Revision Committee--than 100,000, prove the facility with which
variations were introduced into MSS. by those who had charge of them. In
heated and angry controversy between different schools of monks appeals
were naturally made to the authority of the Scriptures, and what more
likely--indeed more certain--than that these monks should introduce
variations into their MS. copies favouring the positions for which they
were severally contending?
The most likely way in which the Gospels grew into their present forms
is, that the various traditions relating to Christ were written down in
different places for the instruction of catechumens, and that these,
passing from hand to hand, and mouth to mouth, grew into a large mass of
disjointed stories, common to many churches. This mass was gradually
sifted, arranged, moulded into historical shape, which should fit into
the preconceived notions of the Messiah, and thus the four Gospels
gradually grew into their present form, and were accepted on all hands
as the legacy of the apostolic age. No careful reader can avoid noticing
the many coincidences of expression between the three synoptics, and
deducing from these coincidences the conclusion that one narrative
formed the basis of the three histories. Ewald supposes the existence of
a _Spruchsammlung_--collected sayings of Christ--but such a collection
is not enough to explain the phenomena we refer to. Dr. Davidson says:
"The rudiments of an original oral Gospel were formed in Jerusalem, in
the bosom of the first Christian Church; and the language of it must
have been Aramæan, since the members consisted of Galileans, to whom
that tongue was vernacular. It is natural to suppose that they were
accustomed to converse with one another on the life, actions, and
doctrines of their departed Lord, dwelling on the particulars that
interested them most, and rectifying the accounts given by one another,
where such accounts were erroneous, or seriously defective. The
Apostles, who were eye-witnesses of the public life of Christ, could
impart correctness to the narratives, giving them a fixed character in
regard to authenticity and form. In this manner an original oral Gospel
in Aramæan was formed. We must not, however, conceive of it as put into
the shape of any of our present Gospels, or as being of like extent; but
as consisting of leading particulars in the life of Christ, probably the
most striking and the most affecting, such as would leave the best
impression on the minds of the disciples. The incidents and sayings
connected with their Divine Master naturally assumed a particular shape
from repetition, though it was simply a rudimental one. They were not
compactly linked in regular or systematic sequence. They were the oral
germ and essence of a Gospel, rather than a proper Gospel itself, at
least, according to our modern ideas of it. But the Aramæan language was
soon laid aside. When Hellenists evinced a disposition to receive
Christianity, and associated themselves with the small number of
Palestinian converts, Greek was necessarily adopted. As the
Greek-speaking members far out-numbered the Aramæan-speaking brethren,
the oral Gospel was put into Greek. Henceforward Greek, the language of
the Hellenists, became the medium of instruction. The truths and facts,
before repeated in Hebrew, were now generally promulgated in Greek by
the apostles and their converts. The historical cyclus, which had been
forming in the Church at Jerusalem, assumed a determinate character in
the Greek tongue" ("Introduction to the New Testament," by S. Davidson,
LL.D., p. 405. Ed. 1848). Thus we find learned Christians obliged to
admit an uninspired collection as the basis of the inspired Gospel, and
laying down a theory which is entirely incompatible with the idea that
the Synoptic Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Our
Gospels are degraded into versions of an older Gospel, instead of being
the inspired record of contemporaries, speaking "that we do know."
Canon Westcott writes of the three Synoptic Gospels, that "they
represent, as is shown by their structure, a common basis, common
materials, treated in special ways. They evidently contain only a very
small selection from the words and works of Christ, and yet their
contents are included broadly in one outline. Their substance is
evidently much older than their form.... The only explanation of the
narrow and definite limit within which the evangelic history (exclusive
of St. John's Gospel) is confined, seems to be that a collection of
representative words and works was made by an authoritative body, such
as the Twelve, at a very early date, and that this, which formed the
basis of popular teaching, gained exclusive currency, receiving only
subordinate additions and modifications. This Apostolic Gospel--the oral
basis, as I have endeavoured to show elsewhere, of the Synoptic
narratives--dates unquestionably from the very beginning of the
Christian society" ("On the Canon," preface, pp. xxxviii., xxxix). Mr.
Sanday speaks of the "original documents out of which our Gospel was
composed" ("Gospels in the Second Century," page 78), and he writes:
"Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we only knew what
was the common original of the two Synoptic texts" (Ibid, p. 65). "The
first three Gospels of our Canon are remarkably alike, their writers
agree in relating the same thing, not only in the same manner, but
likewise in the very words, as must be evident to every common reader
who has paid the slightest attention to the subject.... [Here follow a
number of parallel passages from the three synoptics.] The agreement
between the three evangelists in these extracts is remarkable, and leads
to the question how such coincidences could arise between works which,
from the first years of Christianity until the beginning of the
seventeenth century, were understood to be perfectly independent, and to
have had each a separate and independent origin. The answer to this
question may at last, after more than a hundred years of discussion, be
given with tolerable certainty, if we are allowed to judge of this
subject according to the rules of reason and common sense, by which all
other such difficulties are resolved. 'The most eminent critics'--we
quote from 'Marsh's Michaelis,' vol. iii., part 2, page 170--'are at
present decidedly of opinion that one of the two suppositions must
necessarily be adopted--either that the three evangelists copied from
each other, or that all the three drew from _a common source_, and that
the notion of an absolute independence, in respect to the composition of
our three first Gospels, is no longer tenable'.... The alternative
between _a common source_ and _copying from each other_, is now no
longer in the same position as in the days of Michaelis or Bishop Marsh.
To decide between the two is no longer difficult. No one will now admit
that either of the four evangelists has copied from the other three, 1.
Because in neither of the four is there the slightest notice of the
others. 2. Because, if either of the evangelists may be thought, from
the remarkable similarity of any particular part of his narrative, to
have copied out of either of the other Gospels, we immediately light
upon so many other passages, wholly inconsistent with what the other
three have related on the same subject, that we immediately ask why he
has not copied from the others on those points also. It only remains,
therefore, for us to infer that there was a common source, first
traditional and then written--the [Greek: Apomnemoneumata], in short, or
'Memorials,' etc., of Justin Martyr, and that from this source the four
canonical Gospels, together with thirty or forty others, many of which
are still in existence, were, at various periods of early Christianity,
compiled by various writers" ("Christian Records," Dr. Giles, pp. 266,
270, 271). Dean Alford puts forward a somewhat similar theory; he
considers that the oral teaching of the apostles to catechumens and
others, the simple narrative of facts relating to Christ, gradually grew
into form and was written down, and that this accounts for the marked
similarity of some passages in the different Gospels. He says:--"I
believe, then, that the Apostles, in virtue not merely of their having
been eye-and-ear witnesses of the Evangelic history, but especially of
_their office_, gave to the various Churches their testimony in _a
narrative of facts_, such narrative being modified in each case by the
individual mind of the Apostle himself, and his sense of what was
requisite for the particular community to which he was ministering....
It would be easy and interesting to follow the probable origin and
growth of this cycle of narratives of the words and deeds of our Lord in
the Church at Jerusalem, for both the Jews and the Hellenists--the
latter under such teachers as Philip and Stephen--commissioned and
authenticated by the Apostles. In the course of such a process some
portions would naturally be written down by private believers for their
own use, or that of friends. And as the Church spread to Samaria,
Caesarea, and Antioch, the want would be felt in each of those places of
similar cycles of oral teaching, which, when supplied, would
thenceforward belong to, and be current in, those respective Churches.
And these portions of the Evangelic history, oral or partially
documentary, would be adopted under the sanction of the Apostles, who
were as in all things, so especially in this, the appointed and
divinely-guided overseers of the whole Church. This _common substratum
of Apostolic teachings_--never formally adopted by all, but subject to
all the varieties of diction and arrangement, addition and omission,
incident to transmission through many individual minds, and into many
different localities--_I believe to have been the original source of the
common part of our three Gospels_" ("Greek Test.," Dean Alford, vol. i.,
Prolegomena, ch. i., sec. 3, par. 6; ed. 1859. The italics are Dean
Alford's).
Eichhorn's theory of the growth of the Gospels is one very generally
accepted; he considers that the present Gospels were not in common
circulation before the end of the second century, and that before that
time other Gospels were in common use, differing considerably from each
other, but resting on a common foundation of historical fact; all these,
he thinks, were versions of an "original Gospel," a kind of rough
outline of Christ's life and discourses, put together without method or
plan, and one of these would be the "Memoirs of the Apostles," of which
Justin Martyr speaks. The Gospels, as we have them, are careful
compilations made from these earlier histories, and we notice that, at
the end of the second, and the beginning of the third, centuries, the
leaders of the Church endeavour to establish the authority of the four
more methodically arranged Gospels, so as to check the reception of
other Gospels, which were relied upon by heretics in their
controversies.
Strauss gives a careful _resume_ of the various theories of the
formation of the Gospels held by learned men, and shows how the mythic
theory was gradually developed and strengthened; "according to George,
_mythus_ is the creation of a fact out of an idea" ("Life of Jesus,"
Strauss, vol. i., p. 42; ed. 1846), and the mythic theory supposes that
the ideas of the Messiah were already in existence, and that the story
of the Gospels grew up by the translation of these ideas into facts:
"Many of the legends respecting him [Jesus] had not to be newly
invented; they already existed in the popular hope of the Messiah,
having been mostly derived, with various modifications, from the Old
Testament, and had merely to be transferred to Jesus, and accommodated
to his character and doctrines. In no case could it be easier for the
person who first added any new feature to the description of Jesus, to
believe himself its genuineness, since his argument would be: Such and
such things must have happened to the Messiah; Jesus was the Messiah;
therefore, such and such things happened to him" (Ibid, pp. 81, 82). "It
is not, however, to be imagined that any one individual seated himself
at his table to invent them out of his own head, and write them down as
he would a poem; on the contrary, these narratives, like all other
legends, were fashioned by degrees, by steps which can no longer be
traced; gradually acquired consistency, and at length received a fixed
form in our written Gospels" (Ibid, p. 35). From the considerations here
adduced--the lack of quotations from our Gospels in the earliest
Christian writers, both orthodox and heretical; the accusations against
each made by the other of introducing chants and modifications in the
Gospels; the facility with which MSS. were altered before the
introduction of printing; the coincidences between the Gospels, showing
that they are drawn from a common source; from all these facts we
finally conclude _that there is no evidence that the Four Gospels
mentioned about that date_ (A.D. 180) _were the same as those we have
now._
G. _That there is evidence that two of them were not the same._ "The
testimony of Papias is of great interest and importance in connection
with our inquiry, inasmuch as he is the first ecclesiastical writer who
mentions the tradition that Matthew and Mark composed written records of
the life and teaching of Jesus; but no question has been more
continuously contested than that of the identity of the works to which
he refers with our actual Canonical Gospels. Papias was Bishop of
Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first half of the second century, and is
said to have suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius about A.D.
164-167. About the middle of the second century he wrote a work in five
books, entitled 'Exposition of the Lord's Oracles,' which, with the
exception of a few fragments preserved to us chiefly by Eusebius and
Irenæus, is unfortunately no longer extant. This work was less based on
written records of the teaching of Jesus than on that which Papias had
been able to collect from tradition, which he considered more authentic,
for, like his contemporary, Hegesippus, Papias avowedly prefers
tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted" ("Sup.
Rel.," vol. i., pp. 449, 450). Before giving the testimony attributed to
Papias, we must remark two or three points which will influence our
judgment concerning him. Paley speaks of him, on the authority of
Irenæus, as "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp" ("Evidences,"
p. 121); but Paley omits to tell us that Eusebius points out that
Irenæus was mistaken in this statement, and that Papias "by no means
asserts that he was a hearer and an eye-witness of the holy Apostles,
but informs us that he received the doctrines of faith from their
intimate friends" ("Eccles. Hist.", bk. iii., ch. 39). Eusebius subjoins
the passage from Papias, which states that "if I met with any one who
had been a follower of the elders anywhere, I made it a point to inquire
what were the declarations of the elders: what was said by Andrew,
Peter, or Philip; what by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of
the disciples of our Lord; what was said by Aristion, and the Presbyter
John, disciples of the Lord" (Ibid). Seeing that Papias died between
A.D. 164 and 167, and that the disciples of Jesus were Jesus' own
contemporaries, any disciple that Papias heard, when a boy, would have
reached a portentous age, and, between the age of the disciple and the
youth of Papias, the reminiscences would probably be of a somewhat hazy
character. It is to Papias that we owe the wonderful account of the
vines (ante, p. 234) of the kingdom of God, given by Irenæus, who states
that "these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer
of John, and a companion of Polycarp.... And he says, in addition, 'Now
these things are credible to believers.' And he says that 'when the
traitor, Judas, did not give credit to them, and put the question, How
then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the
Lord? the Lord declared, They who shall come to these (times) shall
see'" ("Irenæus Against Heresies," bk. v., ch. 33, sec. 4). The
recollections of Papias scarcely seem valuable as to quality. Next we
note that Papias could scarcely put a very high value on the Apostolic
writings, since he states that "I do not think that I derived so much
benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still
surviving" ("Eccles. Hist," bk. iii., ch. 39), i.e., of those who had
been followers of the Apostles. How this remark of Papias tallies with
the supposed respect shown to the Canonical Gospels by primitive
writers, it is for Christian apologists to explain. We then mark that we
have no writing of Papias to refer to that pretends to be original. We
have only passages, said to be taken from his writings, preserved in the
works of Irenæus and Eusebius, and neither of these ecclesiastical
penmen inspire the student with full confidence; even Eusebius mentions
him in doubtful fashion; "there are said to be five books of Papias;" he
gives "certain strange parables of our Lord and of his doctrine, and
some other matters rather too fabulous;" "he was very limited in his
comprehension, as is evident from his discourses" ("Eccles. Hist.," bk.
iii., ch. 39). We thus see that the evidence of Papias is discredited at
the very outset, perhaps to the advantage of the Christians, however,
for his testimony is fatal to the Canonical Gospels. Papias is said to
have written: "And John the Presbyter also said this: Mark being the
interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great
accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done
by our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave
him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our
Lord's discourses; wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writing
some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to
one thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything
falsely in these accounts" ("Eccles. Hist.," bk iii., ch. 39). How far
does this account apply to the Gospel now known as "according to St.
Mark?" Far from showing traces of Petrine influence, such traces are
conspicuous by their absence. "Not only are some of the most important
episodes in which Peter is represented by the other Gospels _as_ a
principal actor altogether omitted, but throughout the Gospel there is
the total absence of anything which is specially characteristic of
Petrine influence and teaching. The argument that these omissions are
due to the modesty of Peter is quite untenable, for not only does
Irenæus, the most ancient authority on the point, state that this Gospel
was only written after the death of Peter, but also there is no modesty
in omitting passages of importance in the history of Jesus, simply
because Peter himself was in some way concerned in them, or, for
instance, in decreasing his penitence for such a denial of his master,
which could not but have filled a sad place in the Apostle's memory. On
the other hand, there is no adequate record of special matter which the
intimate knowledge of the doings and sayings of Jesus possessed by Peter
might have supplied to counterbalance the singular omissions. There is
infinitely more of the spirit of Peter in the first Gospel than there is
in the second. The whole internal evidence, therefore, shows that this
part of the tradition of the Presbyter John transmitted by Papias does
not apply to our Gospel" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. i., pp. 459, 460). But a far
stronger objection to the identity of the work spoken of by Papias with
the present Gospel of Mark, is drawn from the description of the
document as given by him. "The discrepancy, however, is still more
marked when we compare with our actual second Gospel the account of the
work of Mark, which Papias received from the Presbyter. Mark wrote down
from memory some parts [Greek: enia] of the teaching of Peter regarding
the life of Jesus, but as Peter adapted his instructions to the actual
circumstances [Greek: pros tas chreias] and did not give a consecutive
report [Greek: suntaxis] of the discourses or doings of Jesus, Mark was
only careful to be accurate, and did not trouble himself to arrange in
historical order [Greek: taxis] his narrative of the things which were
said or done by Jesus, but merely wrote down facts as he remembered
them. This description would lead us to expect a work composed of
fragmentary reminiscences of the teaching of Peter, without orderly
sequence or connection. The absence of orderly arrangement is the most
prominent feature in the description, and forms the burden of the whole.
Mark writes 'what he remembered;' 'he did not arrange in order the
things that were either said or done by Christ;' and then follow the
apologetic expressions of explanation--he was not himself a hearer or
follower of the Lord, but derived his information from the occasional
preaching of Peter, who did not attempt to give a consecutive narrative,
and, therefore, Mark was not wrong in merely writing things without
order as he happened to hear or remember them. Now it is impossible in
the work of Mark here described to recognise our present second Gospel,
which does not depart in any important degree from the order of the
other two Synoptics, and which, throughout, has the most evident
character of orderly arrangement.... The great majority of critics,
therefore, are agreed in concluding that the account of the Presbyter
John recorded by Papias does not apply to our second Canonical Gospel at
all" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. 1, pp. 460, 461). "This document, also, is
mentioned by Papias, as quoted by Eusebius; the account which they give
of it is not applicable to the work which we now have. For the 'Gospel
according to St. Mark' professes to give a continuous history of
Christ's life, as regularly as the other three Gospels, but the work
noticed by Papias is expressly stated to have been memoranda, taken down
from time to time as Peter delivered them, and it is not said that Mark
ever reduced these notes into the form of a more perfect history"
("Christian Records," Rev. Dr. Giles, pp. 94, 95). "It is difficult to
see in what respects Mark's Gospel is more loose and disjointed than
those of Matthew and Luke.... We are inclined to agree with those who
consider the expression [Greek: ou taxei] unsuitable to the present
Gospel of Mark. As far as we are able to understand the entire fragment,
it is most natural to consider John the Presbyter or Papias assigning a
sense to [Greek: ou taxei] which does not agree with the character of
the canonical document" ("Introduction to the New Testament," Dr.
Davidson, p. 158). This Christian commentator is so disgusted with the
conviction he honestly expresses as to the unsuitability of the phrase
in question as applied to Mark, that he exclaims: "We presume that John
the Presbyter was not infallible.... In the present instance, he appears
to have been mistaken in his opinion. His power of perception was
feeble, else he would have seen that the Gospel which he describes as
being written [Greek: ou taxei], does not differ materially in
arrangement from that of Luke. Like Papias, the Presbyter was apparently
destitute of critical ability and good judgment, else he could not have
entertained an idea so much at variance with fact" (Ibid, p. 159). We
may add, for what it is worth, that "according to the unanimous belief
of the early Church this Gospel was written at _Rome._ Hence the
conclusion was drawn that it must have been composed in _the language of
the Romans_; that is, Latin. Even in the old Syriac version, a remark is
annexed, stating that the writer preached the Gospel in Roman (Latin) at
Rome; and the Philoxenian version has a marginal annotation to the same
effect. The Syrian Churches seem to have entertained this opinion
generally, as may be inferred not only from these versions, but from
some of their most distinguished ecclesiastical writers, such as
Ebedjesu. Many Greek Manuscripts, too, have a similar remark regarding
the language of our Gospel, originally taken, perhaps from the Syriac"
(Ibid, pp. 154, 155). We conclude, then, that the document alluded to by
the Presbyter John, as reported by Papias through Eusebius, cannot be
identical with the present canonical Gospel of Mark. Nor is the
testimony regarding Matthew less conclusive: "Of Matthew he has stated
as follows: 'Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and
every one translated it as he was able'" ("Eccles. Hist," Eusebius, bk.
iii., ch. 39). The word here translated "history" is [Greek: ta logia]
and would be more correctly rendered by "oracles" or "discourses," and
much controversy has arisen over this term, it being contended that
[Greek: logia] could not rightly be extended so as to include any
records of the life of Christ: "It is impossible upon any but arbitrary
grounds, and from a foregone conclusion, to maintain that a work
commencing with a detailed history of the birth and infancy of Jesus,
his genealogy, and the preaching of John the Baptist, and concluding
with an equally minute history of his betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and
resurrection, and which relates all the miracles, and has for its
evident aim throughout the demonstration that Messianic prophecy was
fulfilled in Jesus, could be entitled [Greek: ta logia] the oracles or
discourses of the Lord. For these and other reasons ... the majority of
critics deny that the work described by Papias can be the same as the
Gospel in our Canon bearing the name of Matthew" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. i.,
pp. 471, 472). But the fact which puts the difference between the
present "Matthew" and that spoken of by Papias beyond dispute is that
Matthew, according to Papias, "wrote in the Hebrew dialect," i.e., the
Syro-Chaldaic, or Aramæan, while the canonical Matthew is written in
Greek. "There is no point, however, on which the testimony of the
Fathers is more invariable and complete than that the work of Matthew
was written in Hebrew or Aramaic" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. i., p. 475). This
industrious author quotes Papias, Irenæus, Pantænus in Eusebius,
Eusebius, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, in support of
his assertion, and remarks that "the same tradition is repeated by
Chrysostom, Augustine and others" (Ibid, pp. 475-477). "We believe that
Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, meaning by that term the common
language of the Jews of his time, because such is the uniform statement
of all ancient writers who advert to the subject. To pass over others
whose authority is of less weight, he is affirmed to have written in
Hebrew by Papias, Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. Nor does any
ancient author advance a contrary opinion" ("Genuineness of the
Gospels," Norton, vol. i., pp. 196, 197). "Ancient historical testimony
is unanimous in declaring that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, i.e.,
in the Aramæan or Syro-Chaldaic language, at that time the vernacular
tongue of the Jews in Palestine" (Davidson's "Introduction to the New
Testament," p. 3). After a most elaborate presentation of the evidences,
the learned doctor says: "Let us now pause to consider this account of
the original Gospel of Matthew. It runs through all antiquity. None
doubted of its truth, as far as we can judge from their writings. There
is not the least trace of an opposite tradition" (Ibid, p. 37). The
difficulty of Christian apologists is, then, to prove that the Gospel
written by Matthew in Hebrew is the same as the Gospel according to
Matthew in Greek, and sore have been the shifts to which they have been
driven in the effort. Dean Alford, unable to deny that all the testimony
which could be relied upon to prove that Matthew wrote at all, also
proved that he wrote in Hebrew, and aware that an unauthorised
translation, which could not be identified with the original, could
never claim canonicity, fell back on the remarkable notion that he
himself translated his Hebrew Gospel into Greek; in the edition of his
Greek Testament published in 1859, however, he gives up this notion in
favour of the idea that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in
Greek.
Of his earlier theory of translation by Matthew, Davidson justly says:
"It is easy to perceive its gratuitous character. It is a clumsy
expedient, devised for the purpose of uniting two conflicting
opinions--for saving the credit of ancient testimony, which is on the
side of a Hebrew original, and of meeting, at the same time, the
difficulties supposed to arise from the early circulation of the
Greek.... The advocates of the double hypothesis go in the face of
ancient testimony. Besides, they believe that Matthew wrote in Hebrew,
for the use of Jewish converts. Do they also suppose his Greek Gospel to
have been intended for the same class? If so, the latter was plainly
unnecessary: one Gospel was sufficient for the same persons. Or do they
believe that the second edition of it was designed for Gentile
Christians? if so, the notion is contradicted by internal evidence,
which proves that it was written specially for Jews. In short, the
hypothesis is wholly untenable, and we are surprised that it should have
found so many advocates" ("Introduction to the New Testament," p. 52).
The fact is, that no one knows who was the translator--or, rather, the
writer--of the Greek Gospel. Jerome honestly says that it is not known
who translated it into Greek. Dr. Davidson has the following strange
remarks: "The author indeed must ever remain unknown; but whether he
were an apostle or not, he must have had the highest sanction in his
proceeding. His work was performed with the cognisance, and under the
eye of Apostolic men. The reception it met with proved the general
belief of his calling, and competency to the task. Divine
superintendence was exercised over him" (Ibid, pp. 72, 73). It is
difficult to understand how Dr. Davidson knows that divine
superintendence was exercised over an unknown individual. Dr. Giles
argues against the hypothesis that our Greek Gospel is a translation:
"If St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, why has the original
perished? The existing Greek text is either a translation of the Hebrew,
or it is a separate work. But it cannot be a translation, for many
reasons, 1. Because there is not the slightest evidence on record of its
being a translation. 2. Because it is unreasonable to believe that an
authentic work--written by inspiration--would perish, or be superseded
by, an unauthenticated translation--for all translations are less
authentic than their originals. 3. Because there are many features in
our present Gospel according to St. Matthew, which are common to the
Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke; which would lead to the inference that
the latter are translations also. Besides, there is nothing in the
Gospel of St. Matthew, as regards its style or construction, that would
lead to the inference of its being a translation, any more than all the
other books contained in the New Testament. For these reasons we
conclude that the 'Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew,' which perhaps no one
has seen since Pantænus, who brought it from India, and the 'Greek
Gospel according to St. Matthew,' are separate and independent works"
("Christian Records." Rev. Dr. Giles, pp. 93, 94). It must not be
forgotten that there was in existence in the early Church a Hebrew
Gospel which was widely spread, and much used. It was regarded by the
Ebionites, or Jewish Christians, later known as Nazarenes, as the only
authentic Gospel, and Epiphanius, writing in the fourth century, says:
"They have the Gospel of Matthew very complete; for it is well known
that this is preserved among them as it was first written in Hebrew"
("Opp.," i. 124, as quoted by Norton). But this Gospel, known as the
"Gospel according to the Hebrews," was not the same as the Greek "Gospel
according to St. Matthew." If it had been the same, Jerome would not
have thought it worth while to translate it; the quotations that he
makes from it are enough to prove to demonstration that the present
Gospel of Matthew is not that spoken of in the earliest days. "The
following positions are deducible from St. Jerome's writings: 1. The
authentic Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew. 2. The Gospel
according to the Hebrews was used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites. 3.
This Gospel was identical with the Aramæan original of Matthew"
(Davidson's "Introduction to the New Testament," p. 12). To these
arguments may be added the significant fact that the quotations in
Matthew from the Old Testament are taken from the Septuagint, and not
from the Hebrew version. The original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew would
surely not have contained quotations from the Greek translation, rather
than from the Hebrew original, of the Jewish Scriptures. If our present
Gospel is an accurate translation of the original Matthew, we must
believe that the Jewish Matthew, writing for Jews, did not use the
Hebrew Scriptures, with which his readers would be familiar, but went
out of his way to find the hated Septuagint, and re-translated it into
Hebrew. Thus we find that the boasted testimony said to be recorded by
Papias to the effect that Matthew and Mark wrote our two first
synoptical Gospels breaks down completely under examination, and that
instead of proving the authenticity of the present Gospels, it proves
directly the reverse, since the description there given of the writings
ascribed to Matthew and Mark is not applicable to the writings that now
bear their names, so that we find that in Papias _there is evidence that
two of the Gospels were not the same_.
H. _That there is evidence that the earlier records were not the Gospels
now esteemed Canonical._ This position is based on the undisputed fact
that the "Evangelical quotations" in early Christian writings differ
very widely from sentences of somewhat similar character in the
Canonical Gospels, and also from the circumstance that quotations not to
be found in the Canonical Gospels are found in the writings referred to.
Various theories are put forward, as we have already seen, to account
for the differences of expression and arrangement: the Fathers are said
to have quoted loosely, to have quoted from memory, to have combined,
expanded, condensed, at pleasure. To prove this general laxity of
quotation, Christian apologists rely much on what they assert is a
similar laxity shown in quoting from the Old Testament; and Mr. Sanday
has used this argument with considerable skill. But it does not follow
that variations in quotations from the Old Testament spring from laxity
and carelessness; they are generally quite as likely to spring from
multiplicity of versions, for we find Mr. Sanday himself saying that
"most of the quotations that we meet with are taken from the LXX.
Version; and the text of that version was, at this particular time
especially, uncertain and fluctuating. There is evidence to show that it
must have existed in several forms, which differed more or less from
that of the extant MSS. It would be rash, therefore, to conclude at
once, because we find a quotation differing from the present text of the
LXX., that it differed from that which was used by the writer making the
quotation" ("Gospels in the Second Century," pp. 16, 17). Besides, it
must not be forgotten that the variation is sometimes too persistent to
spring from looseness of quotation, and that the same variation is not
always confined to one author. The position for which we contend will be
most clearly appreciated by giving, at full length, one of the passages
most relied upon by Christian apologists; and we will take, as an
example of supposed quotation, the long passage in Clement, chap.
xiii.:--
MATTHEW. CLEMENT. LUKE.
Especially remembering
the word of the Lord Jesus
when he spake, teaching
gentleness and
long-suffering.
For this he said:
v. 7. Blessed are Pity he, that he may be vi. 36. Be ye,
the pitiful, for they pitied: forgive, that it therefore,
shall be pitied. may be forgiven unto merciful, as
vi. 14. For if ye you. your Father also
forgive men their As ye do, so shall it is merciful.
trespasses, your heavenly be done unto you; vi. 37. Acquit,
Father will as ye give, so shall it and ye shall be
also forgive you. be given unto you; as acquitted.
vii. 12. All things, ye judge, so shall it vi. 31. And as ye
therefore, whatsoever be judged unto you; would that they
ye would that as ye are kind, so should do unto
men should do unto shall kindness be you, do ye also
you, even so do ye shown unto you; with unto them
unto them. that measure ye mete, likewise.
vii. 2. For with with it shall it be vi. 18. Give, and
what judgment ye measured unto you. it shall be given
judge, ye shall be unto you.
judged, and with vi. 37. And judge
what measure ye not, and ye shall
mete it shall be not be judged. For
measured unto you. with what measure
ye mete, it shall
be measured unto
you again.
The English, as here given, represents as closely as possible both the
resemblances and the differences of the Greek text. What reader, in
reading this, can believe that Clement picked out a bit here and a bit
there from the Canonical Gospels, and then wove them into one connected
whole, which he forthwith represented as said thus by Christ? To the
unprejudiced student the hypothesis will, at once, suggest itself--there
must have been some other document current in Clement's time, which
contained the sayings of Christ, from which this quotation was made.
Only the exigencies of Christian apologetic work forbid the general
adoption of so simple and so natural a solution of the question. Mr.
Sanday says: "Doubtless light would be thrown upon the question if we
only knew what was the common original of the two Synoptic texts ... The
differences in these extra-Canonical quotations do not exceed the
differences between the Synoptic Gospels themselves; yet by far the
larger proportion of critics regard the resemblances in the Synoptics as
due to a common written source used either by all three or by two of
them" ("Gospels in the Second Century," p. 65). It is clear that Jesus
could not have said these passages in the words given by Matthew,
Clement, and Luke, repeating himself in three different forms, now
connectedly, now in fragments; two, at least, out of the three must give
an imperfect report. Mr. Sanday, by speaking of "the common original of
the two Synoptic texts," clearly shows that he does not regard the
Synoptic version as original, and thereby helps to buttress our
contention, that the Gospels we have now are not the only ones that were
current in the early Church, and that they had no exclusive
authority--in fact, that they were not "Canonical." Further on, Mr.
Sanday, referring to Polycarp, says: "I cannot but think that there has
been somewhere a written version different from our Gospels to which he
and Clement have had access ... It will be observed that all the
quotations refer either to the double or treble Synoptics, where we have
already proof of the existence of the saying in question in more than a
single form, and not to those portions that are peculiar to the
individual Evangelists. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' is,
therefore, not without reason when he says that they may be derived from
other collections than our actual Gospels. The possibility cannot be
excluded" ("Gospels in the Second Century," pp. 86, 87). The other
passage from Clement is yet more unlike anything in the Canonical
Gospels: in chap. xlvi. we read:--
MATTHEW. CLEMENT. LUKE. MARK.
xxvi. 24. He said: xvii. 1. xiv. 21. Woe to
Woe to that Woe to that man; Woe through that man by whom
man by whom well for him whom they the Son of man is
the Son of man that he had not (offences) delivered up, well
is delivered been born, than come. for him if that
up; well for that he should 2. It were man had not been
him if that offend one of my advantageous for born.
man had not elect; better him that a great ix. 42. And
been born. for him a millstone were whosoever shall
xviii. 6. But millstone should hanged around offend one of
whoso shall be attached (to his neck, and he these little ones
offend one of him), and he cast in the sea, which believe in
these little should be than that he me, it is well for
ones which drowned in the should offend him rather that a
believe in me, it sea, than that one of these great millstone
were profitable he should offend little ones. were hanged about
for him that a one of my little his neck, and he
great millstone ones. thrown in the sea.
were suspended
upon his
neck, and that
he were drowned
in the depth
of the sea.
"This quotation is clearly not from our Gospels, but is derived from a
different written source.... The slightest comparison of the passage
with our Gospels is sufficient to convince any unprejudiced mind that it
is neither a combination of texts, nor a quotation from memory. The
language throughout is markedly different, and, to present even a
superficial parallel, it is necessary to take a fragment of the
discourse of Jesus at the Last Supper, regarding the traitor who should
deliver him up (Matt. xxvi. 24), and join it to a fragment of his
remarks in connection with the little child whom he set in the midst
(xviii. 6)" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. i., pp. 233, 234).
In Polycarp a passage is found much resembling that given from Clement,
chap, xiii., but not exactly reproducing it, which is open to the same
criticism as that passed on Clement.
If we desire to prove that Gospels other than the Canonical were in use,
the proof lies ready to our hands. In chap. xlvi. of Clement we read:
"It is written, cleave to the holy, for they who cleave to them shall be
made holy." In chap. xliv.: "And our Apostles knew, through our Lord
Jesus Christ, that there would be contention regarding the office of the
episcopate." The author of "Supernatural Religion" gives us passages
somewhat resembling this. He said: "There shall be schisms and
heresies," from Justin Martyr ("Trypho," chap. xxxv): "There shall be,
as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, desires for
supremacy," from the "Clementine Homilies": "From these came the false
Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the
Church," from Hegesippus (vol. i. p. 236).
In Barnabas we read, chap. vi.: "The Lord saith, He maketh a new
creation in the last times. The Lord saith, Behold I make the first as
the last." Chap. vii.: Jesus says: "Those who desire to behold me, and
to enter into my kingdom, must, through tribulation and suffering, lay
hold upon me."
In Ignatius we find: Ep. Phil., chap, vii.: "But the Spirit proclaimed,
saying these words: Do ye nothing without the Bishop." "There is,
however, one quotation, introduced as such, in this same Epistle, the
source of which Eusebius did not know, but which Origen refers to 'the
Preaching of Peter,' and Jerome seems to have found in the Nazarene
version of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews.' This phrase is
attributed to our Lord when he appeared 'to those about Peter and said
to them, Handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.' But
for the statement of Origen, that these words occurred in the 'Preaching
of Peter,' they might have been referred without much difficulty to Luke
xxiv. 39" ("Gospels in the Second Century," p. 81). And they most
certainly would have been so referred, and dire would have been
Christian wrath against those who refused to admit these words as a
proof of the canonicity of Luke's Gospel in the time of Ignatius.
If, turning to Justin Martyr, we take one or two passages resembling
other passages to be found in the Canonical, we shall then see the same
type of differences as we have already remarked in Clement. In the
fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the first "Apology" we find a
collection of the sayings of Christ, most of which are to be read in the
Sermon on the Mount; in giving these Justin mentions no written work
from which he quotes. He says: "We consider it right, before giving you
the promised explanation, to cite a few precepts given by Christ
himself" ("Apology," chap. xiv). If these had been taken from Gospels
written by Apostles, is it conceivable that Justin would not have used
their authority to support himself?
MATTHEW. JUSTIN.
v. 46. For if ye should love And of our love to all, he
them which love you, what reward taught this: If ye love them
have ye? do not even the that love ye, what new things
publicans the same? do ye? for even fornicators do
this; but I say unto you: Pray
v. 44. But I say unto you, for your enemies, and love them
love your enemies, bless them which hate you, and bless them
which curse you, do good to which curse you, and offer
them which hate you, and pray prayer for them which
for them which despitefully use despitefully use you.
you and persecute you.
The corresponding passage in Luke is still further from Justin (Luke vi.
32-35). "It will be observed that here again Justin's Gospel reverses
the order in which the parallel passage is found in our synoptics. It
does so indeed, with a clearness of design which, even without the
actual peculiarities of diction and construction, would indicate a
special and different source. The passage varies throughout from our
Gospels, but Justin repeats the same phrases in the same order
elsewhere" ("Sup. Rel," v. i. p. 353, note 2).
MATTHEW. JUSTIN.
v. 42. Give thou to him that He said: Give ye to every one
asketh thee, and from him that that asketh, and from him that
would borrow of thee turn not desireth to borrow turn not ye
thou away. away: for if ye lend to them
from whom ye hope to receive,
Luke vi. 34. And if you lend what new thing do ye? for even
to them from whom ye hope to the publicans do this.
receive, what thank have ye; for
sinners also lend to sinners to But ye, lay not up for yourselves
receive as much again. upon the earth, where moth and
rust do corrupt, and robbers
Matt. vi. 19, 20. Lay not up for break through, but lay up for
yourselves treasures upon earth, yourselves in the heavens, where
where moth and rust doth corrupt, neither moth nor rust doth
and where thieves break corrupt.
through and steal. But lay up
for yourselves treasures in heaven, For what is a man profited, is he
where neither moth nor shall gain the whole world, but
rust doth corrupt, and where destroy his soul? or what shall he
thieves do not break through give in exchange for it? Lay up,
nor steal. therefore, in the heavens, where
neither most nor rust doth corrupt.
xvi. 26. For what shall a
man be profited if he shall gain
the whole world, but lose his
soul? or what shall a man give in
exchange for his soul?
This passage is clearly unbroken in Justin, and forms one connected
whole; to parallel it from the Synoptics we must go from Matthew v., 42,
to Luke vi., 34, then to Matthew vi., 19, 20, off to Matthew xvi. 26,
and back again to Matthew vi. 19; is such a method of quotation likely,
especially when we notice that Justin, in quoting passages on a given
subject (as at the beginning of chap. xv. on chastity), separates the
quotations by an emphatic "And," marking the quotation taken from
another place? These passages will show the student how necessary it is
that he should not accept a few words as proof of a quotation from a
synoptic, without reading the whole passage in which they occur. The
coincidence of half a dozen words is no quotation when the context is
different, and there is no break between the context and the words
relied upon. "It is absurd and most arbitrary to dissect a passage,
quoted by Justin as a consecutive and harmonious whole, and finding
parallels more or less approximate to its various phrases scattered up
and down distant parts of our Gospels, scarcely one of which is not
materially different from the reading of Justin, to assert that he is
quoting these Gospels freely from memory, altering, excising, combining,
and inter-weaving texts, and introverting their order, but nevertheless
making use of them and not of others. It is perfectly obvious that such
an assertion is nothing but the merest assumption" ("Sup. Rel.," vol.
i., p. 364). Mr. Sanday's conclusion as to Justin is: "The _à priori_
probabilities of the case, as well as the actual phenomena of Justin's
Gospel, alike tend to show that he did make use either mediately or
immediately of our Gospels, but that he did not assign to them an
exclusive authority, and that he probably made use along with them of
other documents no longer extant" ("Gospels in the Second Century," p.
117). It is needless to multiply analyses of quotations, as the system
applied to the two given above can be carried out for himself by the
student in other cases. But a far weightier proof remains that Justin's
"Memoirs of the Apostles" were not the Canonical Gospels; and that is,
that Justin used expressions, and mentions incidents which are _not_ to
be found in our Gospels, and some of which _are_ to be found in
Apocryphal Gospels. For instance, in the first "Apology," chap. xiii.,
we read: "We have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of him
is not to consume by fire what he has brought into being for our
sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with
gratitude to him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns for our
creation, and for all the means of health, and for the various qualities
of the different kinds of things, and for the changes of the seasons;
and to present before him petitions for our existing again in
incorruption through faith in him. Our teacher of these things is Jesus
Christ, who also was born for this purpose." "He has exhorted us to lead
all men, by patience and gentleness, from shame and the love of evil"
(Ibid, chap. xvi.). "For the foal of an ass stood _bound to a vine_"
(Ibid, chap. xxxii.). "The angel said to the _Virgin_, Thou shalt call
his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins" (chap.
xxxiii.). "They tormented him, and set him on the judgment seat, and
said, Judge us" (chap. xxxv.). "Our Lord Jesus Christ said, In
whatsoever things I shall take you, in these I shall judge you"
("Trypho," chapter xlviii.). These are only some out of the many
passages of which no resemblance is to be found in the Canonical
Gospels.
The best way to show the truth of Paley's contention--that "from
Justin's works, which are still extant, might be collected a tolerably
complete account of Christ's life, in all points agreeing with that
which is delivered in our Scriptures; taken indeed, in a great measure,
from those Scriptures, but still proving that this account and no other,
was the account known and extant in that age" ("Evidences," p. 77)--will
be to give the story from Justin, mentioning every notice of Christ in
his works, which gives anything of his supposed life, only omitting
passages relating solely to his teaching, such as those given above. The
large majority of these are taken from the "Dialogue with Trypho," a
wearisome production, in which Justin endeavours to convince a Jew that
Christ is the Messiah, by quotations from the Jewish Scriptures (which,
by the way, include Esdras, thus placing that book on a level with the
other inspired volumes). A noticeable peculiarity of this Dialogue is,
that any alleged incident in Christ's life is taken as true, not because
it is authenticated as historical, but simply because it was prophesied
of; Justin's Christ is, in fact, an ideal, composed out of the
prophecies of the Jews, and fitted on to a Jew named Jesus.
Christ was the offspring truly brought forth from the Father,
before the creation of anything else, the Word begotten of God,
before all his works, and he appeared before his birth,
sometimes as a flame of fire, sometimes as an angel, as at
Sodom, to Moses, to Joshua. He was called by Solomon, Wisdom;
and by the Prophets and by Christians, the King, the Eternal
Priest, God, Lord, Angel, Man, the Flower, the Stone, the
Cornerstone, the Rod, the Day, the East, the Glory, the Rock,
the Sword, Jacob, Israel, the Captain, the Son, the Helper, the
Redeemer. He was born into the World by the over-shadowing of
God the Holy Ghost, who is none other than the Word himself, and
produced without sexual union by a virgin of the seed of Jacob,
Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David, his birth being announced by an
angel, who told the Virgin to call his name Jesus, for he should
save his people from their sins. Joseph, the spouse of Mary,
desired to put her away, but was commanded in a vision not to
put away his wife, the angel telling him that what was in her
womb was of the Holy Ghost. At the first census taken in Judæa,
under Cyrenius, the first Roman Procurator, he left Nazareth
where he lived, and went to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, his
family being of the tribe of Judah, and then was ordered to
proceed to Egypt with Mary and the child, and remain there until
another revelation warned them to return to Judæa. At Bethlehem
Joseph could find no lodging in the village, so took up his
quarters in a cave near, where Christ was born and placed in a
manger. Here he was found by the Magi from Arabia, who had been
to Jerusalem inquiring what king was born there, they having
seen a star rise in heaven. They worshipped the child and gave
him gold, frankincense, and myrrh, and warned by a revelation,
went home without telling Herod where they had found the child.
So Herod, when Joseph, Mary, and the child had gone into Egypt,
as they were commanded, ordered the whole of the children then
in Bethlehem to be massacred. Archelaus succeeded Herod, and was
succeeded himself by another Herod. The child grew up like all
other men, and was a man without comeliness, and inglorious,
working as a carpenter, making ploughs and yokes, and when he
was thirty years of age, more or less, he went to Jordan to be
baptised by John, who was the herald of his approach. When he
stepped into the water a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and
when he came out of the water the Holy Ghost lighted on him like
a dove, and at the same instant a voice came from the heavens:
"Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." He was tempted
by Satan, and of like passions with men; he was spotless and
sinless, and the blameless and righteous man; he made whole the
lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, and he raised the
dead; he was called, because of his mighty works, a magician,
and a deceiver of the people. He stood in the midst of his
brethren the Apostles, and when living with them sang praises
unto God. He changed the names of the sons of Zebedee to
Boanerges, and of another of the Apostles to Peter. He ordered
his acquaintance to bring him an ass, and the foal of an ass
which stood bound to a vine, and he mounted and rode into
Jerusalem. He overthrew the tables of the money-changers in the
temple. He gave us bread and wine in remembrance of his taking
our flesh and of shedding his blood. He took upon him the curses
of all, and by his stripes the human race is healed. On the day
in which he was to be crucified (elsewhere called the night
before) he took three disciples to the hill called Olivet, and
prayed; his sweat fell to the ground like drops, his heart and
also his bones trembling; men went to the Mount of Olives to
seize him; he was seized on the day of the Passover, and
crucified during the Passover; Pilate sent Jesus bound to Herod;
before Pilate he kept silence; they set Christ on the judgment
seat, and said: "Judge us;" he was crucified under Pontius
Pilate; his hands and feet were pierced; they cast lots for his
vesture, and divided it; they that saw him crucified, shook
their heads and mocked him, saying: "Let him who raised the dead
save himself." "He said he was the Son of God; let him come
down; let God save him." He gave up his spirit to the Father,
and after he was crucified all his acquaintance forsook him,
having denied him. He rose on the third day; he was crucified on
Friday, and rose on "the day of the Sun," and appeared to the
Apostles and taught them to read the prophecies, and they
repented of their flight, after they were persuaded by himself
that he had beforehand warned them of his sufferings, and that
these sufferings were prophesied of. They saw him ascend. The
rulers in heaven were commanded to admit the King of Glory, but
seeing him uncomely and dishonoured they asked, "Who is this
King of Glory?" God will keep Christ in heaven until he has
subdued his enemies the devils. He will return in glory, raise
the bodies of the dead, clothe the good with immortality, and
send the bad, endued with eternal sensibility into everlasting
fire. He has the everlasting kingdom.
These references to Jesus are scattered up and down through Justin's
writings, without any chronological order, a phrase here, a phrase
there; only in one or two instances are two or three things related even
in the same chapter. They are arranged here connectedly, as nearly as
possible in the usually accepted order, and the greatest care has been
taken not to omit any. It will be worth while to note the differences
between this and our Gospels, and also the allusions to other Gospels
which it contains. Christ is clearly subsequent in time to the Father,
being brought forth from him; he conceives himself, he being here
identified with the Holy Ghost; it is the _virgin_ who descends from
David, a fact of which there is no hint given in our Gospels; the reason
of the name Jesus is told to the Virgin instead of to Joseph; we hear
nothing of the shepherds and the glory of the Lord round the chanting
angels; Jesus is uncomely, and works making ploughs and yokes, of which,
we hear nothing in the Gospels; the fire at the baptism is not mentioned
in the Gospels, and the voice from heaven speaks in words not found in
them; he is called a magician, of which accusation we know nothing from
the four; the colt of the ass is tied to a vine, a circumstance omitted
in the canonical writings; it is no where said in the New Testament that
the bread at the Lord's supper is given in remembrance of _the
incarnation_, but, on the contrary, it is in remembrance of _the death_
of Christ; the crucifixion is not stated to have taken place during the
Passover, but on the contrary the Fourth Gospel places it before, the
others after, the Passover; we hear nothing of Christ set on the
judgment seat in the Gospels: the _vesture_ is not divided according to
John, who draws a distinction between the _vesture_ and the _raiment_
which is not recognised by Justin; the taunts of the crowd are
different; the denial of Christ by all the Apostles is uncanonical, as
is also their forsaking him _after_ the crucifixion; we do not hear of
the "day of the Sun" in our Gospels, nor of the rulers of heaven and
their reception of Christ. In fact, there are more points of divergence
than of coincidence between the details of the story of Jesus given by
Justin and that given in the Four Gospels, and yet Paley says that: "all
the references in Justin are made without mentioning the author; which
proves that these books were perfectly notorious, and that there were no
other accounts of Christ then extant, or, at least, no others so
received and credited, as to make it necessary to distinguish these from
the rest" ("Evidences," p. 123). And Paley has actually the hardihood to
state that what "seems extremely to be observed is, that in all Justin's
works, from which might be extracted almost a complete life of Christ,
there are but two instances in which he refers to anything as said or
done by Christ, which is not related concerning him in our present
Gospels; which shows that these Gospels, and these, we may say, alone,
were the authorities from which the Christians of that day drew the
information upon which they depended" (Ibid pp. 122, 123). Paley,
probably, never intended that a life of Christ should "be extracted"
from "all Justin's works." It is done above, and the reader may judge
for himself of Paley's truthfulness. One of the "two instances" is given
as follows: "The other, of a circumstance in Christ's baptism, namely, a
fiery or luminous appearance upon the water, which, according to
Epiphanius, is noticed in the Gospel of the Hebrews; and which might be
true; but which, whether true or false, is mentioned by Justin with a
plain mark of diminution when compared with what he quotes as resting
upon Scripture authority. The reader will advert to this distinction.
'And then, when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John was
baptising, as Jesus descended into the water, a fire also was kindled in
Jordan; and when he came up out of the water, _the apostles of this our
Christ have written_, that the Holy Ghost lighted upon him as a dove'"
(Ibid, p. 123). The italics here are Paley's own. Now let the reader
turn to the passage itself, and he will find that Paley has deliberately
altered the construction of the phrases, in order to make a
"distinction" that Justin does not make, inserting the reference to the
apostles in a different place to that which it holds in Justin. Is it
credible that such duplicity passes to-day for argument? one can only
hope that the large majority of Christians who quote Paley are ignorant,
and are, therefore, unconscious of the untruthfulness of the apologist;
the passage quoted is taken from the "Dialogue with Trypho," chap. 88,
and runs as follows: "Then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan,
where John was baptising, and when he had stepped into the water, a fire
was kindled in the Jordan; and when he came out of the water, the Holy
Ghost lighted on him like a dove; the apostles of this very Christ of
ours wrote" [thus]. The phrase italicised by Paley concludes the
account, and if it refers to one part of the story, it refers to all;
thus the reader can see for himself that Justin makes no "mark of
diminution" of any kind, but gives the whole story, fire, Holy Ghost,
and all, as from the "Memoirs." The mockery of Christ on the cross is
worded differently in Justin and in the Gospels, and he distinctly says
that he quotes from the "Memoirs." "They spoke in mockery the words
which are recorded in the memoirs of his Apostles: 'He said he was the
Son of God; let him come down: let God save him'" ("Dial." chap. ci.).
If we turn to the Clementines, we find, in the same way, passages not to
be found in the Canonical Gospels. "And Peter said: We remember that our
Lord and Teacher, as commanding us, said: Keep the mysteries for me, and
the sons of my house" ("Hom." xix. chap. 20). "And Peter said: If,
therefore, of the Scriptures some are true and some are false, our
Teacher rightly said: 'Be ye good money-changers,' as in the Scriptures
there are some true sayings and some spurious" ("Hom." ii. chap. 51; see
also iii. chap. 50. and xviii. chap. 20). This saying of Christ is found
in many of the Fathers. "To those who think that God tempts, as the
Scriptures say he [Jesus] said: 'The tempter is the wicked one, who also
tempted himself'" ("Hom." iii. chap. 55).
Of the Clementine "Homilies" Mr. Sanday remarks, "several apocryphal
sayings, and some apocryphal details, are added. Thus the Clementine
writer calls John a 'Hemerobaptist,' _i.e.,_ member of a sect which
practised daily baptism. He talks about a rumour which became current in
the reign of Tiberius, about the 'vernal equinox,' that at the same time
a King should arise in Judæa who should work miracles, making the blind
to see, the lame to walk, healing every disease, including leprosy, and
raising the dead; in the incident of the Canaanite woman (whom, with
Mark, he calls a Syrophoenician) he adds her name, 'Justa,' and that of
her daughter 'Bernice.' He also limits the ministry of our Lord to one
year" ("Gospels in the Second Century," pp. 167, 168). But it is
needless to multiply such passages; three or four would be enough to
prove our position: whence were they drawn, if not from records
differing from the Gospels now received? We, therefore, conclude that in
the numerous Evangelical passages quoted by the Fathers, which are not
in the Canonical Gospels, we find _evidence that the earlier records
were not the Gospels now esteemed Canonical._
I. _That the books themselves show marks of their later origin._ We
should draw this conclusion from phrases scattered throughout the
Gospels, which show that the writers were ignorant of local customs,
habits, and laws, and therefore could not have been Jews contemporary
with Jesus at the date when he is alleged to have lived. We find a clear
instance of this ignorance in the mention made by Luke of the census
which is supposed to have brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem
immediately before the birth of Jesus. If Jesus was born at the time
alleged "the Roman census in question must have been made either under
Herod the Great, or at the commencement of the reign of Archelaus. This
is in the highest degree improbable, for in those countries which were
not reduced _in formam provinciæ_, but were governed by _regibus
sociis_, the taxes were levied by these princes, who paid a tribute to
the Romans; and this was the state of things in Judæa prior to the
deposition of Archelaus.... The Evangelist relieves us from a further
inquiry into this more or less historical or arbitrary combination by
adding that this taxing was first made when Cyrenius (Quirinus) _was
Governor of_ Syria [Greek: haegemoneuontos taes Surias Kuraeniou] for it
is an authenticated point that the assessment of Quirinus did not take
place either under Herod or early in the reign of Archelaus, the period
at which, according to Luke, Jesus was born. Quirinus was not at that
time Governor of Syria, a situation held during the last years of Herod
by Lentius Saturninus, and after him by Quintilius Varus; and it was not
till long after the death of Herod that Quirinus was appointed Governor
of Syria. That Quirinus undertook a census of Judæa we know certainly
from Josephus, who, however, remarks that he was sent to execute this
measure when Archelaus' country was laid to the province of Syria
(compare "Ant.," bk. xvii. ch. 13, sec. 5; bk. xviii. ch. 1, sec. 1;
"Wars of the Jews," bk. ii. ch. 8, sec. 1; and ch. 9, sec. 1) thus,
about ten years after the time at which, according to Matthew and Luke,
Jesus must have been born" (Strauss's "Life of Jesus," vol. i., pp.
202-204).
The confusion of dates, as given in Luke, proves that the writer was
ignorant of the internal history of Judæa and the neighbouring
provinces. The birth of Jesus, according to Luke, must have taken place
six months after the birth of John Baptist, and as John was born during
the reign of Herod, Jesus must also have been born under the same King,
or else at the commencement of the reign of Archelaus. Yet Luke says
that he was born during the census in Judæa, which, as we have seen just
above, took place ten years later. "The Evangelist, therefore, in order
to get a census, must have conceived the condition of things such as
they were after the deposition of Archelaus; but in order to get a
census extending to Galilee, he must have imagined the kingdom to have
continued undivided, as in the time of Herod the Great. [Strauss had
explained that the reduction of the kingdom of Archelaus into a Roman
province did not affect Galilee, which was still ruled by Herod Antipas
as an allied prince, and that a census taken by the Roman Governor
would, therefore, not extend to Galilee, and could not affect Joseph,
who, living at Nazareth, would be the subject of Herod. See, as
illustrative of this, Luke xxiii. 6, 7.] Thus he deals in manifest
contradictions; or, rather, he has an exceedingly sorry acquaintance
with the political relations of that period; for he extends the census
not only to the whole of Palestine, but also (which we must not forget)
to the whole Roman world" (Strauss's "Life of Jesus," vol. i., p. 206).
After quoting one of the passages of Josephus referred to above, Dr.
Giles says: "There can be little doubt that this is the mission of
Cyrenius which the Evangelist supposed to be the occasion of the visit
of Christ's parents to Bethlehem. But such an error betrays on the part
of the writer a great ignorance of the Jewish history, and of Jewish
politics; for, if Christ was born in the reign of Herod the Great, no
Roman census or enrolment could have taken place in the dominions of an
independent King. If, however, Christ was born in the year of the
census, not only Herod the Great, but Archelaus, also, his son, was
dead. Nay, by no possibility can the two events be brought together; for
even after the death of Archelaus, Judæa alone became a Roman province;
Galilee was still governed by Herod Antipas as an independent prince,
and Christ's parents would not have been required to go out of their own
country to Jerusalem, for the purpose of a census which did not comprise
their own country, Galilee. Besides which, it is notorious that the
Roman census was taken from house to house, at the residence of each,
and not at the birth-place or family rendezvous of each tribe"
("Christian Records," pp. 120, 121). Another "striking witness to the
late composition of the Gospels is furnished by expressions, denoting
ideas that could not have had any being in the time of Christ and his
disciples, but must have been developed afterwards, at a time when the
Christian religion was established on a broader and still increasing
basis" (Ibid, p. 169). Dr. Giles has collected many of these, and we
take them from his pages. In John i. 15, 16, we read: "John bare witness
of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh
after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his
fulness have all we received, and grace for grace." At that time none
had received of the "fulness of Christ," and the saying in the mouth of
John Baptist is an anachronism. The word "cross" is several times used
symbolically by Christ, as expressing patience and self-denial; but
before his own crucifixion the expression would be incomprehensible, and
he would surely not select a phraseology his disciples could not
understand; "Bearing the cross" is a later phrase, common among
Christians. Matthew xi. 12, Jesus, speaking while John the Baptist is
still living, says: "From the days of John the Baptist until now"--an
expression that implies a lapse of time. The word "gospel" was not in
use among Christians before the end of the second century; yet we find
it in Matthew iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13; Mark i. 14, viii. 35,
x. 29, xiii. 10, xiv. 9; Luke ix. 6. The unclean spirit, or rather
spirits, who were sent into the swine (Mark v. 9, Luke viii. 30),
answered to the question, "What is thy name?" that his name was Legion.
"The Four Gospels are written in Greek, and the word 'legion' is Latin;
but in Galilee and Peraea the people spoke neither Latin nor Greek, but
Hebrew, or a dialect of it. The word 'legion' would be perfectly
unintelligible to the disciples of Christ, and to almost everybody in
the country" (Ibid, p. 197). The account of Matthew, that Jesus rode on
the ass _and_ the colt, to fulfil the prophecy, "Behold thy king cometh
unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass"
(xxi. 5. 7), shows that Matthew did not understand the Hebrew idiom,
which should be rendered "sitting upon an ass, even upon a colt, the
foal of an ass," and related an impossible riding feat to fulfil the
misunderstood prophecy. The whole trial scene shows ignorance of Roman
customs: the judge running in and out between accused and people,
offering to scourge him _and_ let him go--a course not consistent with
Roman justice; then presenting him to the people with a crown of thorns
and purple robe. The Roman administration would not condescend to a
procedure so unjust and so undignified. The mass of contradictions in
the Gospels, noticed under _k_, show that they could not have been
written by disciples possessing personal knowledge of the events
narrated; while the fact that they are written in Greek, as we shall see
below, under _j_, proves that they were not written by "unlearned and
ignorant" Jews, and were not contemporary records, penned by the
immediate followers of Jesus. From these facts we draw the conclusion.
_that the books themselves show marks of their later origin._
J. _That the language in which they are written is presumptive evidence
against their authenticity._ We are here dealing with the supposed
history of a Jewish prophet written by Jews, and yet we find it written
in Greek, a language not commonly known among the Jews, as we learn from
the testimony of Josephus: "I have so completely perfected the work I
proposed to myself to do, that no other person, whether he were a Jew or
a foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so
accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these
books. For those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed
them in the learning belonging to the Jews. I have also taken a great
deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the
elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed
myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with
sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn
the languages of many nations ... on which account, as there have been
many who have done their endeavours with great patience to obtain this
learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have
succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains"
("Ant." bk. xx. ch. 11, sec 2). He further tells us that "I grew weary,
and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to
translate our history into a foreign and, to us, unaccustomed language"
(Ibid, Preface). The chief reason, perhaps, for this general ignorance
of Greek was the barbarous aversion of the Rabbis to foreign literature.
"No one will be partaker of eternal life who reads foreign literature.
Execrable is he, as the swineherd, execrable alike, who teaches his son
the wisdom of the Greeks" (translated from Latin translation of Rabbi
Akiba, as given in note in Keim's "Jesus of Nazara," vol. i. p, 295). It
is noteworthy, also, that the Evangelists quote generally from the
Septuagint, and that loyal Jews would have avoided doing so, since "the
translation of the Bible into Greek had already been the cause of grief,
and even of hatred, in Jerusalem" (Ibid, p. 294). In the face of this we
are asked to believe that a Galilean fisherman, by the testimony of Acts
iv. 13, unlearned and ignorant, outstripped his whole nation, save the
"two or three that have succeeded" in learning Greek, and wrote a
philosophical and historical treatise in that language. Also that
Matthew, a publican, a member of the most degraded class of the Jews,
was equally learned, and published a history in the same tongue. Yet
these two marvels of erudition were unknown to Josephus, who expressly
states that the two or three who had learned Greek, were "immediately
well rewarded for their pains." The argument does not tell against Mark
and Luke, as no one knows anything about these two writers, and they may
have been Greeks, for anything we know to the contrary. If Mark,
however, is to be identified with John Mark, sister's son to Barnabas,
then it will lie also against him. Leaving aside the main difficulty,
pointed out above, it is grossly improbable, on the face of it, that
these Jewish writers should employ Greek, even if they knew it, instead
of their own tongue. They were writing the story of a Jew; why should
they translate all his sayings instead of writing them down as they fell
from his lips? Their work lay among the Jews. Eight years after the
death of Jesus they rebuked one of their number, Peter, who eat with
"men uncircumcised" (Acts xi. 3); nineteen years afterwards they still
went only "unto the circumcision" (Gal. ii. 9); twenty-seven years
afterwards they were still in Jerusalem, teaching Jews, and carefully
fulfilling the law (Acts xxi. 18-24); after this, we hear no more of
them, and they must all have been old men, not likely to then change the
Jewish habits of their lives. Besides, why should they do so? their
whole sphere of work was entirely Jewish, and, if they were educated
enough to write at all, they would surely write for the benefit of those
amongst whom they worked. The only parallel for so curious a phenomenon
as these Greek Gospels, written by ignorant Jews, would be found if a
Cornish fisherman and a low London attorney, both perfectly ignorant of
German, wrote in German the sayings and doings of a Middlesex carpenter,
and as their work was entirely confined to the lower classes of the
people, who knew nothing of German, and they desired to place within
their reach full knowledge of the carpenter's life, they circulated it
among them in German only, and never wrote anything about him in
English. The Greek text of the Gospels proves that they were written in
later times, when Christianity found its adherents among the Gentile
populations. It might, indeed, be fairly urged that the Greek text is a
suggestion that the creed did not originate in Judæa at all, but was the
offshoot of Gentile thought rather than of Jewish. However that may be,
the Greek text forbids us to believe that these Gospels were written by
the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, and we conclude _that the language
in which they are written is presumptive evidence against their
authenticity_.
K. _That they are in themselves utterly unworthy of credit from (1) the
miracles with which they abound. (2) The numerous contradictions of each
by the others. (3) The fact that the story of the hero, the doctrines,
the miracles, were current long before the supposed dates of the
Gospels, so that these Gospels are simply a patchwork composed of older
materials._