NO OTHERS PROVED.
The latest work in this country which denies the genuineness of our
Gospels, is “The History of the Christian religion to the year two
hundred.” (Chicago, 1881.) The author says it is the result of an
investigation extending through several years, two of which were spent
in the library of congress, “which is peculiarly rich in the department
of biblical literature.” He claims that his volume “will be found to
be the most complete record of the events connected with the Christian
religion during the first two centuries, which has ever been presented
to the public.” He shows no lack of ability or disposition to make as
strong a case as possible against our Gospels. And he understands the
issue. For, he says, the question what Gospels were used by Justin, “is
of the highest importance.” In this work, then, if anywhere, should
there be proof of _other_ writings than our Gospels, that will meet the
requirements of the case. But what do we find? It gives a list of “_forty
Gospels_,” before the decree of Pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. The only marvel
is that the list is not longer. The greater portion are the now extant
Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, which may be found in Vol.
XVI., of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Much confusion, says[1]
Dr. Ezra Abbot, has arisen from the fact that the term “Gospel” was
in ancient times applied to speculative works which gave the writer’s
view of the Gospel, _i. e._, of the doctrine of Christ, or among the
Gnostics, which set forth their _gnosis_; _e. g._, among the followers
of Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, “The Gospel is the knowledge of
supermundane things.” Of all the Apocryphal Gospels, Samuel Ives Curtiss,
the well-known German professor in the Chicago Theological Seminary,
writes:[2]—
“I shall not waste any ink or paper to prove that the
Protevangelium, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Acts of Pilate,
etc., in their present forms as known to us and as quoted
by Judge Waite, arose at a later period than our canonical
Gospels.” ... “A knowledge of the original sources and the
literature of the subject would have saved him from this
pitiful blunder. I simply refer to Professor Lipsius’ article
on the Apocryphal Gospels, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of
Christian Biography, London, 1880, Vol. II., pp. 700, _seq._;
and Holtzmann’s Apocryphon des Neuen Testaments, in Schenkel’s
Bible Lexicon, Leipzig, 1869, Vol. I., pp. 170 _seq._ As
neither of these articles are by orthodox men, or by those who
have the slightest bias toward orthodoxy, they are calculated
to inspire confidence in persons of every shade of belief or
disbelief. Both are authorities; Meyer’s Conversations-Lexikon
says of Professor Lipsius, of Jena, that he is one of the most
eminent scholars in Germany.” (See note 2.)
With this concurring judgment of the most eminent scholars, not much
time should be spent upon these Apocryphal books. But a single quotation
is given by Judge Waite that is claimed by him to have been made by
Justin from either of them. And this (although not to be found in any
_single_ passage in our Gospels) may be gathered from different passages,
which would be in keeping with Justin’s mode. It corresponds quite
nearly, though not precisely, with a _part_[3] of the description in the
Protevangelium of the announcement to Mary. But this no more proves the
use of the Protevangelium by Justin than it proves the use of Justin’s
Apology by the writer of the Protevangelium. Aside from this quotation,
there are a few facts stated by Justin that are claimed, by some persons,
to have been taken from the Apocryphal Gospels. _One_ is, that Jesus made
ploughs and yokes, which Justin of course would infer, from the fact that
it was a part of the business of a carpenter to make ploughs and yokes.
_Another_ is, that Jesus was born in a cave. Dr. Thompson, says[4], “It
is not impossible, to say the least, but that the apartment in which our
Saviour was born was in part a cave. I have seen many such, consisting
of one or more rooms in front of and including a cavern, where the cattle
were kept.” Justin, who was a native of Judea, added a circumstance
well known from tradition, which Luke did not think it of consequence
to mention, that the manger was in a cave, _i. e._, that the stable in
which was the manger was in a cave. He had no occasion to resort to books
for such a fact. _Another_ is, that Justin refers the Roman Emperor to
“Acts of Pilate” as affording evidence of what he had stated concerning
Christ’s crucifixion, and the miracles which he had performed. According
to the usual course, Pilate should have made a report of the crucifixion.
It is supposed that he did, and that it was lost or destroyed. Justin
appeals to it, as if then in the archives of the government. Whether
he was well or ill informed upon the subject, the document to which he
appeals, clearly was not understood by him to be one of the “Memoirs”
of Christ, “drawn up” by an Apostle, or a “companion” of an Apostle.
Nothing purporting to be Pilate’s report is extant. The Apocryphal book,
known as the Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate, does not purport to
contain[5] any such report. _Another_ is, that Justin says that Christ
was of the House of David; a fact which Jesus himself had declared[6]
and which is also referred to, in Acts. The only remaining fact, in
respect to the alleged use of the Protevangelium, is in relation to the
_census_. It is claimed that Justin and the Protevangelium agree that it
was only to be taken in Judea.[7] But Justin does not so state. It also
happens, that while Justin makes mention of Cyrenius, the Protevangelium
only says, “And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus that all
in Bethlehem of Judea should be enrolled,” saying nothing of Cyrenius.
This is followed by an absurd and worthless story of occurrences, by the
way. Justin has two references to the census, which will be found in the
note.[8] Justin, in stating that there was a census in Judea, does not
exclude the idea that it was more general.
Judge Waite, following the anonymous author of “The Supernatural,” and
others, also claims that Justin’s statement that at the baptism of Jesus
“a _fire_ was kindled in the Jordan,” must have been taken either from
the “Gospel of the Hebrews,” or the “Preaching of Paul.” As to the former
(as he gives the translation from a fragment from Jerome) it is, that,
“certainly there shone around the place a great _light_,” which is not
what Justin said. There is no evidence from any quarter that this “Gospel
of the Hebrews” was in existence (other than as Matthew’s Gospel was in
existence), when Justin wrote. Nor is there any evidence that it was
in use, at _any_ period, except among the Nazarenes (a small Judaizing
sect of Christians), and the Cerinthians, and Ebionites, two heretical
sects. The very authorities quoted to prove its existence, clearly
show that it was never in _general_ use, or accepted by the churches
generally. Neither the work itself, nor Jerome’s translation of it, has
been in existence _for centuries_. From what is known of it, it seems
to have been[9] the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, “not entire and perfect,
but corrupted and curtailed.” It omitted the first two chapters. Some
of the corruptions show its true character[10] so far as it varied from
Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel; for as Papias wrote, and the Fathers generally
believed, Matthew first composed his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect.
“The Preaching of Paul” was less known, and even of less account,
than the other. Judge Waite says (p. 229) that it “was referred to by
Lactantius and others, and was generally known in the second century.”
But he furnishes no evidence of it, and Lactantius died about A.D. 325.
As to its contents, Judge Waite only says that “It contained references
to the Sybilline writings; also to the fire in Jordan at the time of
the baptism of Jesus.” There is no good reason to suppose that it was
_extant_ when Justin wrote; and most certainly, it was never received by
the churches generally. Eusebius does not seem to have known anything of
it, unless to reject it as spurious. He says (Book III., c. 25): “Among
the spurious, must be numbered both the books called ‘The Acts of Paul,’
and that called ‘Pastor,’ and ‘The Revelation of Peter.’”
Eusebius also is equally pronounced against the production called the
“Gospel according to Peter.” That this “Gospel” was referred to by
Justin in the passage before considered (_vide_ c. 4), is the fact _to
be proved_. The first _mention_ of it, was by Serapion[11], who became
Bishop of Antioch A.D. 191, fifty years after Justin wrote. He found
a few copies of it among his flock, which he replaced, substituting
Mark’s Gospel for it, for the reason that he found in it “many things
superadded to the sound faith of our Saviour; and some also attached,
that are foreign to it.” This _bishop_ seems to have had no knowledge of
its existence till that time. It favored the Docetæ, from some of whom it
had come into his parish. The pretence that Tertullian referred to it,
and intended to assert that in his day the Gospel of Mark was understood
to have this Gospel of Peter for its original, has nothing to rest upon
but another perversion of Tertullian’s meaning. The passage relied upon
is here given with such words in italics as must be _supplied_ to warrant
the use which has been attempted to be made of it: “The Gospel which
Mark published is affirmed to be” _what is known as_ “Peter’s” _Gospel_,
“whose interpreter Mark was.” This forced construction, would make Mark
the interpreter, _not_ of Peter, but of the heretical work at some time
known by some as _Peter’s Gospel_. Not Strauss himself, nor even the
author of “The Supernatural,” so interpreted Tertullian. What Tertullian
wrote was, that “The Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be
Peter’s; whose interpreter Mark was.” Marcion mutilated Luke’s Gospel,
and Judge Waite says, “Tertullian called him _a hound_.” If any one in
his day had perverted his language as to Mark’s Gospel, so as to make it
endorse the work which Serapion (who was a cotemporary of Tertullian)
suppressed as heretical, Tertullian would not have been likely to have
used a _less_ expressive word than that which he applied to Marcion.
Tertullian simply meant, as Papias had written, and the church believed,
that Mark was Peter’s _interpreter_, and in _that_ sense Mark’s Gospel
was Peter’s Gospel.
The next writer referred to for “Peter’s Gospel” is Origen, A.D. 230.
Origen says: “There are some who say the brethren of Christ were the
children of Joseph by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary;
and they are induced to this opinion by some passages in that _which
is entitled_ (the italics are ours) ‘The Gospel of Peter, or the Book
of James.’” When it is considered that Origen, in most explicit terms,
declares that our four Gospels “are the only undisputed ones in the whole
Church of God throughout the world,” and that of these, “the second is
according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained it to him, whom he
also acknowledges as his son in his General Epistle,” the perversion of
his language is apparent. Mr. Norton, whose opinion, it is conceded, “is
entitled to great weight,” upon a careful examination of the subject,
believes that this “Gospel” was not a history or biography of Christ’s
ministry at all, but only a _doctrinal_[12] treatise. _Not a single
fragment of it has come down to us._ There is no evidence from any
quarter that it was _generally_ received in the churches _at any_ period;
on the contrary, the evidence, so far as it goes, proves that it was not
so received. It was the Gospel exclusively used by the Ebionites,[13] and
neither Justin nor the majority of Christians in his time were Ebionites.
Its very suppression by Serapion is conclusive; and there is nothing to
impeach Eusebius’ judgment against it. There is no evidence that it was
even in existence when Justin wrote, for the mere fact of its being found
by Serapion forty or fifty years after is too remote. _Hence_, if Justin,
in the paragraph before quoted in chapter four, by “_him_” meant Peter,
instead of Christ (which we do not accept),[14] the Gospel of Mark, which
in a sense was understood to be Peter’s, was the one intended; and the
true construction of the words in question is of minor importance.
Judge Waite has succeeded as well as any one, in his attempt to find
_other_ writings than our Gospels, that will meet the necessities of the
case. Professor Lipsius, one of the most eminent scholars in Germany,
says,[15] “The attempt to prove that Justin Martyr and the Clementine
Homilies had one extra-canonical authority common to them both, either
in the Gospel to the Hebrews or in the Gospel of St. Peter, has
altogether failed.” Of recent writers this side of the ocean, Dr. Ezra
Abbot of Harvard College (who has already “a distinguished Continental
reputation”), states,[16] after a thorough examination of the whole
subject, as some of the results: “We have seen that there is no _direct_
evidence of any weight that Justin used either the ‘Gospel according to
the Hebrews’ (so far as this was distinguished from the Gospel according
to Matthew) or the ‘Gospel according to Peter.’ That he should have
taken either of these as the source of his quotations, or that either of
these constituted the ‘Memoirs’ read generally at public worship in the
Christian churches of his time, is in the highest degree improbable.”...
“Still less can be said in behalf of the hypothesis that any other
Apocryphal ‘Gospel’ of which we know anything, constituted the ‘Memoirs,’
which he cites, if they were one book, or was included among them, if
they were several.”
Mr. Rowe’s[17] judgment is, that the facts referred to by Justin, but
not recorded in the Gospels, stand to those which _are_ recorded, in the
proportion of only four, to one hundred and ninety-six. In other words,
that all but four out of about two hundred references, appear in the
Gospels. “It is marvellous,” he says, “when we consider the nearness
of the time when Justin lived to our Lord’s ministry, that he should
have preserved so few incidents respecting it which vary from those in
our Gospels, rather than that those to which he has referred should
present the slight variations they do; for it is an interval within which
traditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.”
[1] P. 16 of “Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,” etc. (1880).
[2] The _Daily Inter-Ocean_ of Feb. 12, 1881. To the same effect, “The
Authorship,” p. 98, note 6; The Supernatural Origin of Christianity, by
George P. Fisher, D.D., Professor of Christian History in Yale College
(1870), p. 191-2; Origin, etc., by Prof. C. E. Stowe (1867), p. 185, c. 7.
[3] “And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time,
brought her the good news, saying, ‘Behold thou shalt conceive of the
Holy Ghost and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the
Highest, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people
from their sins.’” After a dozen lines, the last clause is repeated as
follows: “Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, ‘Thou shalt
call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’”
The last clause seems to have been transferred from Matthew by Justin.
The Protevangelium (c. 11) reads as follows: “And she hearing, reasoned
with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? And
shall I bring forth, as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the
Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow
thee; wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall
be called the Son of the Most High. And thou shalt call his name Jesus,
for he shall save his people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold the
servant of the Lord before his face; let it be unto me according to
thy word. And she made the purple and the scarlet and took them to the
priest,” etc. The account is preceded by the story that it had fallen to
her lot to spin purple and scarlet for the veil of the temple, and that
when the angel spake to her she was going with a pitcher to fill it with
water. It is not easy to believe that Justin’s simple narrative came from
such a source.
[4] The Land and the Book, by W. M. Thompson, D.D., twenty-five years a
missionary of the A. B. C. F. M., in Syria and Palestine, Vol. II, p. 503.
[5] The first part contains a graphic account of the trial and
crucifixion. At the trial witnesses are represented as appearing before
Pilate and narrating different miracles which had been performed. Judge
Waite devotes considerable space in comparing these accounts with the
Gospel narratives. He argues that the Apocryphal account must have been
the earlier one, _because_ of its brevity, and because it does not
include _all_ the miracles. This is as if one should infer that the plea
of the advocate, or the charge of the judge, preceded the testimony, or
the compendium, the history.
[6] Matt. ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; Mark x. 47; xii. 35-7; Luke xx. 30-1;
xl. 6; xviii. 38-9; John vii. 42; Acts xiii. 23; Ro. i. 3.
[7] Protevangelium, p. 17; vol. 16, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, pp.
18-19.
[8] Apology, c. 34. “Now there is a village in the land of the Jews,
thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you
can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius,
your first procurator in Judea.” Dial. c. 78. “Then he was afraid and
did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was
taken in Judea under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth where he lived to
Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of
the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region.” Joseph was both
of the tribe of Judah, and of the house and lineage of David, and there
is no contradiction. It is to be noticed that the census is spoken of as
the _first_ census that was taken. Cyrenius, called then procurator, was
afterward governor.
[9] See authorities in Note 2.
[10] “Now my mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my hairs, and
brought me to the great mountain even Tabor.” “Jesus said unto him, go
sell all which thou possessest and divide among the poor, and come follow
me. But the rich man _began to scratch his head_, and it did not please
him.” Origin, _etc._, by Professor Stowe, p. 22.
[11] Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, p. 78; Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12; b. 3, c. 25.
[12] Abbott, etc., p. 79; Waite’s History, p. 11.
[13] Abbott, etc., p. 104, Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12.
[14] The entire passage is as follows: “And when it is said that he
changed the name of one of the Apostles to Peter; and when it is written
in the Memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed
the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which
means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was
he by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua) under
whose name the people who survived of those who came from Egypt were
conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.” The controversy
is, whether the personal pronouns “He” and “Him” refer to Jesus, or
whether “Him” refers to Peter. Judge Waite says that Justin has ten times
“Memoirs of the Apostles,” and five times, “Memoirs,” and not once,
“Memoirs of Christ.” It is true we do not find “Memoirs of Christ.” But
confessedly the Memoirs intended were of or concerning Christ, and not of
or concerning the Apostles, or either of them. Justin used the expression
Memoirs of the Apostles just as we say the Gospel of John. They were
concerning Christ; he is the grand subject of discourse in all Justin’s
writings. And in Ap. c. 33, Justin speaks of those “who have written
Memoirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ.” In the proper
and highest sense they should only be spoken of as “Memoirs of Christ.”
Judge Waite, after the author of “The Supernatural” (p. 337), says, to
refer to the more distant antecedent is contrary to the rule. The rule is
of but slight importance as compared to the whole scope. And to apply the
rule here, Peter would be the one who changed the names of the sons of
Zebedee; for Peter, and not Christ, would be the last antecedent.
[15] As quoted by Dr. Ezra Abbot, pp. 98, 99; see, also, _Inter-Ocean_ of
February 12, 1881.
[16] Abbot, etc., p. 103, 104; _Inter-Ocean_ of February 12.
[17] Bampton Lectures for 1877, pp. 279, 281.