PTOLEMAEUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT.
We are now very near emerging into open daylight; but there are
three items in the evidence which lie upon the border of the
debateable ground, and as questions have been raised about these
it may be well for us to discuss them.
We have already had occasion to speak of the two Gnostics
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon. It is necessary, in the first place, to
define the date of their evidence with greater precision, and, in
the second, to consider its bearing.
Let us then, in attempting to do this, dismiss all secondary and
precarious matter; such as (1) the argument drawn by Tischendorf
[Endnote 254:1] from the order in which the names of the disciples
of Valentinus are mentioned and from an impossible statement of
Epiphanius which seems to make Heracleon older than Cerdon, and
(2) the argument that we find in Volkmar and 'Supernatural
Religion' [Endnote 254:2] from the use of the present tense by
Hippolytus, as if the two writers, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, were
contemporaries of his own in 225-235 A.D. Hippolytus does indeed
say, speaking of a division in the school of Valentinus, 'Those
who are of Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say' &c.
But there is no reason why there should not be a kind of historic
present, just as we might say, 'The Atomists, of whom are
Leucippus and Democritus, hold' &c., or 'St. Peter says this, St.
Paul says that.' The account of such presents would seem to be
that the writer speaks as if quoting from a book that he has
actually before him. It is not impossible that Heracleon and
Ptolemaeus may have been still living at the time when Hippolytus
wrote, but this cannot be inferred simply from the tense of the
verb. Surer data are supplied by Irenaeus.
Irenaeus mentions Ptolemaeus several times in his first and second
books, and on one occasion he couples with his the name of
Heracleon. But to what date does this evidence of Irenaeus refer?
At what time was Irenaeus himself writing. We have seen that the
_terminus ad quem_, at least for the first three books, is
supplied by the death of Eleutherus (c. A.D. 190). On the other
hand, the third book at least was written after the publication of
the Greek version of the Old Testament by Theodotion, which
Epiphanius tells us appeared in the reign of Commodus (180-190
A.D.). A still more precise date is given to Theodotion's work in
the Paschal Chronicle, which places it under the Consuls Marcellus
(Massuet would read 'Marullus') and Aelian in the year 184 A.D.
[Endnote 255:1] This last statement is worth very little, and it
is indeed disputed whether Theodotion's version can have appeared
so late as this. At any rate we must assume that it was in the
hands of Irenaeus about 185 A.D., and it will be not before this
that the third book of the work 'Against Heresies' was written. It
will perhaps sufficiently satisfy all parties if we suppose that
Irenaeus was engaged in writing his first three books between the
years 182-188 A.D. But the name of Ptolemaeus is mentioned very
near the beginning of the Preface; so that Irenaeus would be
committing to paper the statement of his acquaintance with
Ptolemaeus as early as 182 A.D.
This is however the last link in the chain. Let us trace it a
little further backwards. Irenaeus' acquaintance with Ptolemaeus
can hardly have been a fact of yesterday at the time when he
wrote. Ptolemaeus represented the 'Italian' branch of the
Valentinian school, and therefore it seems a fair supposition that
Irenaeus would come in contact with him during his visit to Rome
in 178 A.D.; and the four years from that date to 182 A.D. can
hardly be otherwise than a short period to allow for the necessary
intimacy with his teaching to have been formed.
But we are carried back one step further still. It is not only
Ptolemaeus but Ptolemaeus _and his party_ ([Greek: hoi peri
Ptolemaion]) [Endnote 256:1]. There has been time for Ptolemaeus
to found a school within a school of his own; and his school has
already begun to express its opinions, either collectively or
through its individual members.
In this way the real date of Ptolemaeus seems still to recede, but
I will not endeavour any further to put a numerical value upon it
which might be thought to be prejudiced. It will be best for the
reader to fill up the blank according to his own judgment.
Heracleon will to a certain extent go with Ptolemaeus, with whom
he is persistently coupled, though, as he is only mentioned once
by Irenaeus, the data concerning him are less precise. They are
however supplemented by an allusion in the fourth book of the
Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria (which appears to have been
written in the last decade of the century) to Heracleon as one of
the chief of the school of Valentinus [Endnote 257:1], and perhaps
also by a statement of Origen to the effect that Heracleon was said
to be a [Greek: gnorimos] of Valentinus himself [Endnote 257:2].
The meaning of the latter term is questioned, and it is certainly
true that it may stand for pupil or scholar, as Elisha was to Elijah
or as the Apostles were to their Master; but that it could possibly
be applied to two persons who never came into personal contact must
be, I cannot but think, very doubtful. This then, if true, would
throw back Heracleon some little way even beyond 160 A.D.
From the passage in the Stromateis we gather that Heracleon, if he
did not (as is usually inferred) write a commentary, yet wrote an
isolated exposition of a portion of St. Luke's Gospel. In the same
way we learn from Origen that he wrote a commentary upon St. John.
We shall probably not be wrong in referring many of the
Valentinian quotations given by Irenaeus to Ptolemaeus and
Heracleon. By the first writer we also have extant an Epistle to a
disciple called Flora, which has been preserved by Epiphanius.
This Epistle, which there is no reason to doubt, contains
unequivocal references to our first Gospel.
_Epistle to Flora. Epiph. Haer._ 217 A.
[Greek: oikia gar ae polis meristheisa eph' heautaen hoti mae
dunatai staenai [ho sotaer haemon apephaenato].]
_Ibid._ 217 D.
[Greek: [ephae autois hoti] Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humon
epetrepse to apoluein taen gunaika autou. Ap' archaes gar ou
gegonen houtos. Theos gar (phaesi) sunezeuxe tautaen taen suzugian
kai ho sunezeuxen ho kurios, anthropos (ephae) mae chorizeto.]
_Ibid. 218 D.
[Greek: ho gar Theos (phaesin) eipe tima ton patera sou kai taen
maetera sou, hina eu soi genaetai; humeis de (phaesin) eiraekate
(tois presbuterois legon), doron to Theo ho ean ophelaethaes ex
emou, kai aekurosate ton nomon tou Theou, dia taen paradosin humon
ton presbuteron. Touto de Haesaias exephonaesen eipon; ho laos
houtos tois cheilesi me tima hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap'
emou. Mataen de sebontai me, didaskontes didaskalias, entalmata
anthropon.]
_Ibid._ 220 D, 221 A.
[Greek: to gar, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai odonta anti odontos ...
ego gar lego humin mae antistaenai holos to ponaero alla ean tis
se rhapisae strepson auto kai taen allaen siagona.]
_Matt._ xii. 25 (_Mark_ iii. 25, _Luke_ xi. 17).
[Greek: pasa polis ae oikia meristheisa kath' heautaes ou
stathaesetai.]
_Matt._ xix. 8, 6 (_Mark_ x. 5, 6, 9).
[Greek: legei autois; Hoti Mousaes pros taen sklaerokardian humon
epetrepsen humin apolusai tas gunaikas humon' ap' archaes de ou
gegonen houtos. ... ho oun ho theos sunezeuxen anthropos mae
chorizeto.]
_Matt._ xv. 4-8 (_Mark_ vii. 10, 11, 6, 9).
[Greek: ho gar theos eneteilato legon, Tima ton patera kai taen
maetera ... humeis de legete; hos an eipae to patri ae tae maetri;
Doron ho ean ex emou ophelaethaes,... kai aekurosate ton nomon tou
Theou dia taen paradosin humon. Hupokritai, kalos eprophaeteusen
peri humon Haesaias legon; Ho laos houtos tois cheilesin me tima,
hae de kardia auton porro apechei ap' emou; mataen de sebontai me
didaskontes didaskalias entalmata anthropon.]
_Matt_. v. 38, 39 (_Luke_ vi. 29).
[Greek: aekousate oti erraethae, Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou kai
odonta anti odontos ego de lego hymin mae antistaenai to ponaero
all hostis se rapizei eis taen dexian siagona sou, strephon auto
kai taen allaen.]
Some doubt indeed appears to be entertained by the author of
'Supernatural Religion' [Endnote 259:1] as to whether these
quotations are really taken from the first Synoptic; but it would
hardly have arisen if he had made a more special study of the
phenomena of patristic quotation. If he had done this, I do not
think there would have been any question on the subject. A
comparison of the other Synoptic parallels, and of the Septuagint
in the case of the quotation from Isaiah, will make the agreement
with the Matthaean text still more conspicuous. It is instructive
to notice the reproduction of the most characteristic features of
this text--[Greek: polis, meristheisa] ([Greek: ean meristhae]
Mark, [Greek: diameristheisa] Luke), [Greek: hoti Mousaes,
epetrepsen apolu[sai] t[as] gunaik[as], ou gegonen oitos,
aekurosate .. dia taen p., ophthalmon ... odontos, antistaenai to
ponaero, strepson], and the order and cast of sentence in all the
quotations. The first quotation, with [Greek: eph eautaen] and
[Greek: dunatai staenai], which may be compared (though, from the
context, somewhat doubtfully) with Mark, presents, I believe, the
only trace of the influence of any other text.
To what period in the life of Ptolemaeus this Epistle to Flora may
have belonged we have no means of knowing; but it is unlikely that
the writer should have used one set of documents at one part of
his life and another set at another. Viewed along with so much
confirmatory matter in the account of the Valentinians by
Irenaeus, the evidence may be taken as that of Ptolemaeus himself
rather than of this single letter.
2.
The question in regard to Celsus, whose attacks upon Christianity
called forth such an elaborate reply from Origen, is chiefly one
of date. To go into this at once adequately and independently
would need a much longer investigation than can be admitted into
the present work. The subject has quite recently been treated in a
monograph by the well-known writer Dr. Keim [Endnote 260:1], and,
as there will be in this case no suspicion of partiality, I shall
content myself with stating Dr. Keim's conclusions.
Origen himself, Dr. Keim thinks, was writing under the Emperor
Philip about A.D. 248. But he regards his opponent Celsus, not as
a contemporary, but as belonging to a past age (Contra Celsum, i.
8, vii. 11), and his work as nothing recent, but rather as having
obtained a certain celebrity in heathen literature (v. 3). For all
this it had to be disinterred, as it were, and that not without
difficulty, by a Christian (viii. 76).
Exact and certain knowledge however about Celsus Origen did not
possess. He leans to the opinion that his opponent was an
Epicurean of that name who lived 'under Hadrian and later' (i. 8).
This Epicurean had also written several books against Magic (i.
68). Now it is known that there was a Celsus, a friend of Lucian,
who had also written against Magic, and to whom Lucian dedicated
his 'Pseudomantis, or Alexander of Abonoteichos.'
It was clearly obvious to identify the two persons, and there was
much to be said in favour of the identification. But there was
this difficulty. Origen indeed speaks of the Celsus to whom he is
replying as an Epicurean, and here and there Epicurean opinions
are expressed in the fragments of the original work that Origen
has preserved. But Origen himself was somewhat puzzled to find
that the main principles of the author were rather Platonic or
Neo-platonic than Epicurean, and this observation has been
confirmed by modern enquiry. The Celsus of Origen is in reality a
Platonist.
It still being acknowledged that the friend of Lucian was an
Epicurean, this discovery seemed fatal to the supposition that he
was the author of the work against the Christians. Accordingly
there was a tendency among critics, though not quite a unanimous
tendency, to separate again the two personalities which had been
united. At this point Dr. Keim comes upon the scene, and he asks
the question, Was Lucian's friend really an Epicurean? Lucian
nowhere says so in plain words, but it was taken as a _primâ
facie_ inference from some of the language used by him. For
instance, he describes the Platonists as being on good terms with
this very Alexander of Abonoteichos whom he is ridiculing and
exposing. He appeals to Celsus to say whether a certain work of
Epicurus is not his finest. He says that his friend will be
pleased to know that one of his objects in writing is to see
justice done to Epicurus. All these expressions Dr. Keim thinks
may be explained as the quiet playful irony that was natural to
Lucian, and from other indications in the work he concludes that
Lucian's Celsus may well have been a Platonist, though not a
bigoted one, just as Lucian himself was not in any strict and
narrow sense an Epicurean.
When once the possibility of the identification is conceded, there
are, as Dr. Keim urges, strong reasons for its adoption. The
characters of the two owners of the name Celsus, so far as they
can be judged from the work of Origen on the one hand and Lucian
on the other, are the same. Both are distinguished for their
opposition to magical arts. The Celsus of the Pseudomantis is a
friend of Lucian, and it is precisely from a friend of Lucian that
the 'Word of Truth' replied to by Origen might be supposed to have
come. Lastly, time and place both support the identification. The
Celsus of Lucian lived under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and
Dr. Keim decides, after an elaborate examination of the internal
evidence, that the Celsus of Origen wrote his work in the year 178
A.D., towards the close of the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
Such is Dr. Keim's view. In the date assigned to the [Greek: Logos
alaethaes] it does not differ materially from that of the large
majority of critics. Grätz alone goes as far back as to the time
of Hadrian. Hagenbach, Hasse, Tischendorf, and Friedländer fix
upon the middle, Mosheim, Gieseler, Baur, and Engelhardt upon the
second half, of the second century; while the following writers
assume either generally the reign of Marcus Aurelius, or specially
with Dr. Keim one of the two great persecutions--Spencer,
Tillemont, Neander, Tzschirner, Jachmann, Bindemann, Lommatzsch,
Hase, Redepenning, Zeller. The only two writers mentioned by Dr.
Keim as contending for a later date are Ueberweg and Volkmar, 'who
strangely misunderstands both Origen and Baur' [Endnote 263:1].
Volkmar is followed by the author of 'Supernatural Religion.'
At whatever date Celsus wrote, it appears to be sufficiently clear
that he knew and used all the four canonical Gospels [Endnote 263:2].
3.
The last document that need be discussed by us at present is the
remarkable fragment which, from its discoverer and from its
contents, bears the name of the Canon of Muratori [Endnote 263:3].
Whatever was the original title and whatever may have been the
extent of the work from which it is taken, the portion of it that
has come down to us is by far the most important of all the direct
evidence for the Canon both of the Gospels and of the New
Testament in general with which we have yet had to deal. It is
indeed the first in which the conception of a Canon is quite
unequivocally put forward. We have for the first time a definite
list of the books received by the Church and a distinct separation
made between these and those that are rejected.
The fragment begins abruptly with the end of a sentence apparently
relating to the composition of the Gospel according to St. Mark.
Then follows 'in the third place the Gospel according to St.
Luke,' of which some account is given. 'The fourth of the Gospels'
is that of John, 'one of the disciples of the Lord.' A legend is
related as to the origin of this Gospel. Then mention is made of
the Acts, which are attributed to Luke. Then follow thirteen
Epistles of St. Paul by name. Two Epistles professing to be
addressed to the Laodiceans and Alexandrines are dismissed as
forged in the interests of the heresy of Marcion. The Epistle of
Jude and two that bear the superscription of John are admitted.
Likewise the two Apocalypses of John and Peter. [No mention is
made, it will be seen, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of that of
James, of I and II Peter, and of III John.] [Endnote 264:1]
The Pastor of Hermas, a work of recent date, may be read but not
published in the Church before the people, and cannot be included
either in the number of the prophets or apostles.
On the other hand nothing at all can be received of Arsinous,
Valentinus, or Miltiades; neither the new Marcionite book of
Psalms, which with Basilides and the Asian founder of the
Cataphryges (or the founder of the Asian Cataphryges, i.e.
Montanus) is rejected.
The importance of this will be seen at a glance. The chief
question is here again in regard to the date, which must be
determined from the document itself. A sufficiently clear
indication seems to be given in the language used respecting the
Pastor of Hermas. This work is said to have been composed 'very
lately in our times, Pius the brother of the writer occupying the
episcopal chair of the Roman Church.' The episcopate of Pius is
dated from 142-157 A.D., so that 157 A.D. may be taken as the
starting-point from which we have to reckon the interval implied
by the words 'very recently in our times' (nuperrime temporibus
nostris). Taking these words in their natural sense, I should
think that the furthest limit they would fairly admit of would be
a generation, or say thirty years, after the death of Pius (for
even in taking a date such as this we are obliged to assume that
the Pastor was published only just before the death of that
bishop). The most probable construction seems to be that the
unknown author meant that the Pastor of Hermas was composed within
his own memory. Volkmar is doubtless right in saying [Endnote
265:1] that he meant to distinguish the work in question from the
writings of the Prophets and Apostles, but still the double use of
the words 'nuperrime' and 'temporibus nostris' plainly indicate
something more definite than merely 'our post-apostolic time.' If
this had been the sense we should have had some such word as
'recentius' instead of 'nuperrime.' The argument of 'Supernatural
Religion' [Endnote 265:2], that 'in supposing that the writer may
have appropriately used the phrase thirty or forty years after the
time of Pius so much licence is taken that there is absolutely no
reason why a still greater interval may not be allowed,' is
clearly playing fast and loose with language, and doing so for no
good reason; for the only ground for assigning a later date is
that the earlier one is inconvenient for the critic's theory. The
other indications tally quite sufficiently with the date 170-190
A.D. Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, the Marcionites, we know were
active long before this period. The Montanists (who appear under
the name by which they were generally known in the earlier
writings, 'Cataphryges') were beginning to be notorious, and are
mentioned in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons.
Miltiades was a contemporary of Claudius Apollinaris who wrote
against him [Endnote 266:1]. All the circumstances point to such a
date as that of Irenaeus, and the conception of the Canon is very
similar to that which we should gather from the great work
'Against Heresies.' If this does not agree with preconceived
opinions as to what the state of the Canon ought to have been, it
is the opinion that ought to be rectified accordingly, and not
plain words explained away.
I can see no sound objection to the date 170-180 A.D., but by
adding ten years to this we shall reach the extreme limit
admissible.
I do not know whether it is necessary to refer to the objection
from the absence of any mention of the first two Synoptic Gospels,
through the mutilated state of the document. It is true that the
inference that they were originally mentioned rests only 'upon
conjecture' [Endnote 266:2], but it is the kind of conjecture
that, taking all things into consideration--the extent to which
the evidence of the fragment in other respects corresponds with
the Catholic tradition, the state of the Canon in Irenaeus, the
relation of the evidence for the first Gospel in particular to
that for the others--can be reckoned at very little less than
ninety-nine chances out of a hundred.
To the same class belongs Dr. Donaldson's suggestion [Endnote 267:1]
that the passage which contains the indication of date may be an
interpolation. It is always possible that the particular passage
that happens to be important in any document of this date may be
an interpolation, but the chances that it really is so must be in
any case very slight, and here there is no valid reason for suspecting
interpolation. It does not at all follow, as Dr. Donaldson seems
to think, that because a document is mutilated therefore it is more
likely to be interpolated; for interpolation is the result of quite
a different series of accidents. The interpolation, if it were such,
could not well be accidental because it has no appearance of being
a gloss; on the other hand, only far-fetched and improbable motives
can be alleged for it as intentional.
The full statement of the fragment in regard to St. Luke's Gospel
is as follows. 'Luke the physician after the Ascension of Christ,
having been taken into his company by Paul, wrote in his own name
to the best of his judgment (ex opinione), and, though he had not
himself seen the Lord in the flesh, so far as he could ascertain;
accordingly he begins his narrative with the birth of John.' The
greater part of this account appears to be taken simply from the
Preface to the Gospel, which is supplemented by the tradition that
St. Luke was a physician and also the author of the Acts. As
evidence to those facts a document dating some hundred years after
the composition of the Gospel is not of course very weighty; its
real importance is as showing the authority which the Gospel at
this date possessed in the Church. That authority cannot have been
acquired in a day, but represents the culmination of a long and
gradual movement. What we have to note is that the movement, some
of the stages of which we have been tracing, has now definitely
reached its culmination.
In regard to the fourth Gospel the Muratorian fragment has a
longer story to tell, but before we touch upon this, and before we
proceed to draw together the threads of the previous enquiry, it
will be well for us first to bring up the evidence for the fourth
Gospel to the same date and position as that for the other three.
This then will be the subject of the next chapter.