MURATORI--RESULTS.
We have now reached the extreme limit of time within which we think
it in any degree worth while to seek for evidence as to the date and
authorship of the synoptic Gospels, and we might now proceed to the
fourth Gospel; but before doing so it may be well to examine one or two
other witnesses whose support has been claimed by apologists, although
our attention may be chiefly confined to an inquiry into the date of
such testimony, upon which its value, even if real, mainly depends so
far as we are concerned. The first of these whom we must notice are the
two Gnostic leaders, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon.
Epiphanius has preserved a certain "Epistle to Flora" ascribed to
Ptolemseus, in which, it is contended, there are "several quotations
from Matthew, and one from the first chapter of John."(1) What date must
be assigned to this Epistle? In reply to those who date it about the end
of the second century, Tischendorf produces the evidence for an earlier
period to which he assigns it. He says: "He (Ptolemaeus) appears in all
the oldest sources
1 Tischendorf Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 46. Canon Westcott
with greater caution says: "He quoted words of our Lord
recorded by St. Matthew, the prologue of St. John's Gospel,
&c." On the Canon, p. 267.
{204}
as one of the most important, most influential of the disciples of
Valentinus. As the period at which the latter himself flourished falls
about 140, do we say too much when we represent Ptolemaeus as working at
the latest about 160? Irenaeus (in the 2nd Book) and Hippolytus name him
together with Heracleon; likewise pseudo-Tertullian (in the appendix to
De Praescriptionibus Haereticorum) and Philastrius make him appear
immediately after Valentinus. Irenaeus wrote the first and second books
of his great work most probably (hochst warscheinlich) before 180, and
in both he occupies himself much with Ptolemaeus."(1) Canon Westcott,
beyond calling Ptolemaeus and Heracleon disciples of Valentinus, does not
assign any date to either, and does not of course offer any further
evidence on the point, although, in regard to Heracleon, he admits the
ignorance in which we are as to all points of his history,(2) and states
generally, in treating of him, that "the exact chronology of the early
heretics is very uncertain."(3)
Let us, however, examine the evidence upon which Tischendorf relies
for the date he assigns to Ptolemaeus. He states in vague terms that
Ptolemaeus appears "in all the oldest sources" (in alien den altesten
Quellen) as one of the most important disciples of Valentinus. We shall
presently see what these sources are, but must now follow the argument:
"As the date of Valentinus falls about 140, do we say too much when we
represent Ptolemaeus as working at the latest about 160?" It is obvious
that there is no evidence here, but merely assumption, and the manner in
which the period "about 160" is begged, is a clear admission that there
are no certain data. The year
{205}
might with equal propriety upon those grounds have been put ten years
earlier or ten years later. The deceptive and arbitrary character of the
conclusion, however, will be more apparent when we examine the grounds
upon which the relative dates 140 and 160 rest. Tischendorf here states
that the time at which Valentinus flourished falls about a.d. 140, but
the fact is that, as all critics are agreed,(1) and as even Tischendorf
himself elsewhere states,(2) Valentinus came out of Egypt to Rome
in that year, when his public career practically commenced, and he
continued to flourish for at least twenty years after.(3) Tischendorf
s pretended moderation, therefore, consists in dating the period when
Valentinus flourished from the very year of his first appearance, and
in assigning the active career of Ptolemseus to 160 when Valentinus was
still alive and teaching. He might on the same principle be dated 180,
and even in that case there could be no reason for ascribing the Epistle
to Flora to so early a period of his career. Tischendorf never even
pretends to state any ground upon which Ptolemaeus must be connected with
any precise part of the public life of Valentinus, and still less
for discriminating the period of the career of Ptolemaeus at which the
Epistle may have been composed. It is obvious that a wide limit for date
thus exists.
After these general statements Tischendorf details the only evidence
which is available. (1) "Irenaeus (in the 2nd Book) and Hippolytus name
him together with Heracleon; likewise (2) pseudo-Tertullian (in the
{206}
appendix to _De Praescriptionibus Haereticorum_) and Philastrius make him
appear immediately after Valentinus," &c. We must first examine these
two points a little more closely in order to ascertain the value of such
statements. With regard to the first (1st) of these points, we shall
presently see that the mention of the name of Ptolemseus along with that
of Heracleon throws no light upon the matter from any point of view,
inasmuch as Tischendorf has as little authority for the date he assigns
to the latter, and is in as complete ignorance concerning him, as in the
case of Ptolemseus. It is amusing, moreover, that Tischendorf employs
the very same argument, which sounds well although it means nothing,
inversely to establish the date of Heracleon. Here, he argues: "Irenaeus
and Hippolytus name him (Ptolemaeus) together with Heracleon;"(l) there,
he reasons: "Irenaeus names Heracleon together with Ptolemaeus,"(2) &c. As
neither the date assigned to the one nor to the other can stand alone,
he tries to get them into something like an upright position by propping
the one against the other, an expedient which, naturally, meets with
little success. We shall in dealing with the case of Heracleon show how
untenable is the argument from the mere order in which such names are
mentioned by these writers; meantime we may simply say that Irenaeus only
once mentions the name of Heracleon in his works, and that the occasion
on which he does so, and to which reference is here made, is merely an
allusion to the AEons "of Ptolemseus himself, and of Heracleon, and all
the rest who hold these views."(3) This phrase might have been used,
exactly as it stands, with
{207}
perfect propriety even if Ptolemaeus and Heracleon had been separated by
a century. The only point which can be deduced from this mere coupling
of names is that, in using the present tense, Irenaeus is speaking of his
own contemporaries. We may make the same remark regarding Hippolytus,
for, if his mention of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon has any weight at all,
it is to prove that they were flourishing in his time: "Those who are of
Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say..."(1) &c. We shall have
to go further into this point presently. As to (2) pseudo-Tertullian and
Philastrius we need only say that even if the fact of the names of the
two Gnostics being coupled together could prove anything in regard to
the date, the repetition by these writers could have no importance
for us, their works being altogether based on those of Irenaeus
and Hippolytus,(2) and scarcely, if at all, conveying independent
information.(3) We have merely indicated the weakness of these arguments
in passing, but shall again take them up further on. The next and final
consideration advanced by Tischendorf is the only one which merits
serious attention. "Irenaeus wrote the first and second book of his great
work most probably before 180, and in both he occupies himself much with
Ptolemaeus." Before proceeding to examine the accuracy of this statement
regarding the time at which Irenaeus wrote, we may ask what conclusion
would be involved if Irenaeus really did compose the two books in a.d.
180 in which he mentions
3 Indeed the direct and avowed dependence of Hippolytus
himself upon the work of Irenaeus deprives the
Philosophumena, in many parts, of all separate authority.
{208}
our Gnostics in the present tense? Nothing more than the simple fact
that Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were promulgating their doctrines at that
time. There is not a single word to show that they did not continue to
flourish long after; and as to the "Epistle to Flora" Irenaeus apparently
knows nothing of it, nor has any attempt been made to assign it to
an early part of the Gnostic's career. Tischendorf, in fact, does not
produce a single passage nor the slightest argument to show that
Irenaeus treats our two Gnostics as men of the past, or otherwise than as
heretics then actively disseminating their heterodox opinions, and, even
taken literally, the argument of Tischendorf would simply go to prove
that about a.d. 180 Irenseus wrote part of a work in which he attacks
Ptolemaeus and mentions Heracleon.
When did Irenaeus, however, really write his work against Heresies?
Although our sources of credible information regarding him are
exceedingly limited, we are not without materials for forming a judgment
on the point Irenaeus was probably born about a.d. 140-145, and is
generally supposed to have died at the beginning of the third century
(a.d. 202).(1) We know that he was deputed by the Church of Lyons to
bear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of Rome, the Epistle of that Christian
community describing their sufferings during the persecution commenced
against them in the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus (7th March, 177--178).(2) It is very improbable that this
journey was undertaken, in any case, before the spring of a.d. 178 at
the earliest, and, indeed, in accordance with the given data, the
{209}
persecution itself may not have commenced earlier than the beginning of
that year, so that his journey need not have been undertaken before the
close of 178 or the spring of 179, to which epoch other circumstances
might lead us.(1) There is reason to believe that he remained some time
in Rome. Baronius states that Irenaeus was not appointed Bishop of Lyons
till a.d. 180, for he says that the see remained vacant for that period
after the death of Pothinus in consequence of the persecution. Now
certain expressions in his work show that Irenaeus did not write it until
he became Bishop.(2) It is not known how long Irenaeus remained in
Rome, but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat
protracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the
various tenets of Gnostic and other heretics then being actively taught,
and the preface to the first Book refers to the pains he took. He wrote
his work in Gaul, however, after his return from this visit to Rome.
This is apparent from what he himself states in the Preface to the first
Book: "I have thought it necessary," he says, "after having read the
Memoirs [------] of the disciples of Valentinus as they call themselves,
and _having had personal intercourse with some of them_ and acquired
full knowledge of their opinions, to unfold to thee,"(3) &c. A little
further on, he claims from the friend to whom he addresses his work
indulgence for any defects of style on the score of his being resident
amongst the Keltae.(4) Irenaeus no doubt during his stay in Rome came in
{210}
contact with the school of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, if not with the
Gnostic leaders themselves, and shocked as he describes himself as being
at the doctrines which they insidiously taught, he undertook, on his
return to Lyons, to explain them that others might be exhorted to avoid
such an "abyss of madness and blasphemy against Christ."(1) Irenaeus
gives us other materials for assigning a date to his work. In the third
Book he enumerates the bishops who had filled the Episcopal Chair of
Rome, and the last whom he names is Eleutherus (a.d. 177--190), who, he
says, "now in the twelfth place from the apostles, holds the inheritance
of the episcopate."(2) There is, however, another clue which, taken
along with this, leads us to a close approximation to the actual date.
In the same Book, Irenaeus mentions Theodotion's version of the Old
Testament: "But not as some of those say," he writes, "who now [------]
presume to alter the interpretation of the Scripture: 'Behold the
young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,' as Theodotion,
the Ephesian, translated it, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish
proselytes."(3) Now we are informed by Epiphanius that Theodotion
published his translation during the reign of the Emperor Commodus(4)
(a.d. 180--192). The Chronicon Paschale adds that it was during the
Consulship of Marcellus, or as Massuet(5) proposes to read Marullus,
who, jointly with AElianus, assumed office a.d. 184. These dates
decidedly agree with the passage of Irenaeus and with the other data, all
of which lead
{211}
us to about the same period within the episcopate of Eleutherus (+ c.
190).(1) We have here, therefore, a clue to the date at which Irenaeus
wrote. It must be remembered that at that period the multiplication and
dissemination of books was a very slow process. A work published about
184 or 185 could scarcely have come into the possession of Irenaeus in
Gaul till some years later, and we are, therefore, brought towards the
end of the episcopate of Eleutherus as the earliest date at which
the first three books of his work against Heresies can well have been
written, and the rest must be assigned to a later period under the
episcopate of Victor (+ 198--199).(2)
At this point we must pause and turn to the evidence which Tischendorf
offers regarding the date to be assigned to Heracleon.(3) As in the case
of Ptolemaeus, we shall give it entire and then examine it in detail. To
the all-important question: "How old is Heracleon?" Tischendorf replies:
"Irenaeus names Heracleon, together
3 Canon Westcott adds no separate testimony. He admits that:
"The history of Heracleon, the great Valentinian
Commentator, is full of uncertainty. Nothing is known of his
country or parentage." On the Canon, p. 263, and in a note:
"The exact chronology of the early heretics is very
uncertain," p. 264, note 2. p 2
{212}
with Ptolemaeus II. 4, Sec. 1, in a way which makes them appear
as well-known representatives of the Valentinian school. This
interpretation of his words is all the more authorized because he never
again mentions Heracleon. Clement, in the 4th Book of his Stromata,
written shortly after the death of Commodus (193), recalls an
explanation by Heracleon of Luke xii. 8, when he calls him the most
noted, man of the Valentinian school [------] is Clement's expression).
Origen, at the beginning of his quotation from Heracleon, says that he
was held to be a friend of Valentinus [------]. Hippolytus mentions
him, for instance, in the following way: (vi. 29); 'Valentinus, and
Heracleon, and Ptolemaeus, and the whole school of these, disciples of
Pythagoras and Plato....' Epiphanius says (Hser. 41): 'Cerdo (the same
who, according to Irenaeus III. 4, Sec. 3, was in Rome under Bishop Hyginus
with Valentinus) follows these (the Ophites, Kainites, Sethiani), and
Heracleon.' After all this Heracleon certainly cannot be placed later
than 150 to 160. The expression which Origen uses regarding his relation
to Valentinus must, according to linguistic usage, be understood of a
personal relation."(1)
We have already pointed out that the fact that the names of Ptolemaeus
and Heracleon are thus coupled together affords no clue in itself to the
date of either, and their being mentioned as leading representatives of
the school of Valentinus does not in any way involve the inference that
they were not contemporaries of Irenaeus, living and working at the
time he wrote. The way in which Irenaeus mentions them in this the only
passage throughout his whole work in which he names
{213}
Heracleon, and to which Tischendorf pointedly refers, is as follows:
"But if it was not produced, but was generated by itself, then that
which is void is both like, and brother to, and of the same honour
with, that Father who has before been mentioned by Valentinus; but it
is really more ancient, having existed long before, and is more exalted
than the rest of the AEons of Ptolemseus himself, and of Heracleon, and
all the rest who hold these views."(1) We fail to recognize anything
special, here, of the kind inferred by Tischendorf, in the way in which
mention is made of the two later Gnostics. If anything be clear, on
the contrary, it is that a distinction is drawn between Valentinus and
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, and that Irenaeus points out inconsistencies
between the doctrines of the founder and those of his later followers.
It is quite irrelevant to insist merely, as Tischendorf does, that
Irenaeus and subsequent writers represent Ptolemaeus and Heracleon
and other Gnostics of his time as of "the school" of Valentinus. The
question simply is, whether in doing so they at all imply that these men
were not contemporaries of Irenaeus, or necessarily assign their period
of independent activity to the lifetime of Valentinus, as Tischendorf
appears to argue? Most certainly they do not, and Tischendorf does
not attempt to offer any evidence that they do so. We may perceive how
utterly worthless such a fact is for the purpose of affixing an early
date by merely considering the quotation which Tischendorf himself makes
from Hippolytus: "Valentinus, therefore, and Heracleon and Ptolemaeus,
and
{214}
the whole school of these, disciples of Pythagoras and Plato.... "(l) If
the statement that men are of a certain school involves the supposition
of coincidence of time, the three Gnostic leaders must be considered
contemporaries of Pythagoras or Plato, whose disciples they are said
to be. Again, if the order in which names are mentioned, as Teschendorf
contends by inference throughout his whole argument, is to involve
strict similar sequence of date, the principle applied to the whole
of the early writers would lead to the most ridiculous confusion.
Teschendorf quotes Epiphanius: "Cerdo follows these (the Ophites,
Kainites, Sethiani), and Heracleon."
Why he does so it is difficult to understand, unless it be to give the
appearance of multiplying testimonies, for two sentences further on he
is obliged to admit: "Epiphanius has certainly made a mistake, as in
such things not unfrequently happens to him, when he makes Cerdo, who,
however, is to be placed about 140, follow Heracleon."(2) This kind of
mistake is, indeed, common to all the writers quoted, and when it
is remembered that such an error is committed where a distinct and
deliberate affirmation of the point is concerned, it will easily be
conceived how little dependence is to be placed on the mere mention of
names in the course of argument. We find Irenaeus saying that "neither
Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides" possesses
certain knowledge,(3) and elsewhere: "of such an one as Valentinus, or
Ptolemaeus, or Basilides."(4) To base
{215}
an argument as to date on the order in which names appear in such
writers is preposterous.
Tischendorf draws an inference from the statement that Heracleon was
said to be a [------] of Valentinus, that Origen declares him to have
been his friend, holding personal intercourse with him. Origen, however,
evidently knew nothing individually on the point, and speaks from mere
hearsay, guardedly using the expression "said to be" [------]. But
according to the later and patristic use of the word, [------] meant
nothing more than a "disciple," and it cannot here be necessarily
interpreted into a "contemporary."(1) Under no circumstances could such
a phrase, avowedly limited to hearsay, have any weight. The loose manner
in which the Fathers repeat each other, even in serious matters, is too
well known to every one acquainted with their writings to require any
remark. Their inaccuracy keeps pace with their want of critical judgment
We have seen one of the mistakes of Epiphanius, admitted by Tischendorf
to be only too common with him, which illustrates how little such data
are to be relied on. We may point out another of the same kind committed
by him in common with Hippolytus, pseudo-Tertullian and Philastrius.
Mistaking a passage of Irenaeus,(2) regarding the sacred Tetrad
(Kol-Arbas) of the Valentinian Gnosis, Hippolytus supposes Irenaeus to
refer to another heretic leader. He at once treats the Tetrad as such a
leader named "Kolarbasus," and after dealing (vi. 4) with the doctrines
of Secundud, and Ptolemaeus, and Heracleon, he proposes, Sec. 5, to show
"what are the opinions held by Marcus and
{216}
Kolarbasus."(1) At the end of the same book he declares that Irenaeus, to
whom he states that he is indebted for a knowledge of their inventions,
has completely refuted the opinions of these heretics, and he proceeds
to treat of Basilides, considering that it has been sufficiently
demonstrated "whose disciples are Marcus and Kolarbasus, the successors
of the school of Valentinus."(2) At an earlier part of the work he
had spoken in a more independent way in reference to certain who had
promulgated great heresies: "Of these," he says, "one is Kolarbasus,
who endeavours to explain religion by measures and numbers."(3) The same
mistake is committed by pseudo-Tertullian,(4) and Philastrius,(5) each
of whom devotes a chapter to this supposed heretic. Epiphanius, as
might have been expected, fell into the same error, and he proceeds
elaborately to refute the heresy of the Kolarbasians, "which is Heresy
XV." He states that Kolarbasus follows Marcus and Ptolemaeus,(6) and
after discussing the opinions of this mythical heretic he devotes the
next chapter, "which is Heresy XVI.," to the Heracleonites, commencing
it with the information that: "A certain Heracleon follows after
Kolarbasus."(7) This absurd mistake(8) shows how little these writers
{217}
knew of the Gnostics of whom they wrote, and how the one ignorantly
follows the other.
The order, moreover, in which they set the heretic leaders varies
considerably. It will be sufficient for us merely to remark here that
while pseudo-Tertullian(1) and Philastrius(2) adopt the following order
after the Valentinians: Ptolemaeus, Secundus, Heracleon, Marcus, and
Kolarbasus, Epiphanius(3) places them: Secundus, Ptolemaeus, Marcosians,
Kolarbasus, and Heracleon; and Hippolytus(4) again: Secundus, Ptolemaeus,
Heracleon, Marcus, and Kolarbasus. The vagueness of Irenaeus had left
some latitude here, and his followers were uncertain. The somewhat
singular fact that Irenaeus only once mentions Heracleon whilst he so
constantly refers to Ptolemaeus, taken in connection with this order, in
which Heracleon is always placed after Ptolemaeus,(5) and by Epiphanius
after Marcus, may be reasonably explained by the fact that whilst
Ptolemaeus had already gained considerable notoriety when Irenaeus wrote,
Heracleon may only have begun to come into notice. Since Tischendorf
lays so much stress upon pseudo-Tertullian and Philastrius making
Ptolemaeus appear immediately after Valentinus, this explanation is
after his own principle.
We have already pointed out that there is not a single passage in
Irenaeus, or any other early writer, assigning Ptolemaeus and Heracleon
to a period anterior to the time when Irenaeus undertook to refute their
opinions. Indeed, Tischendorf has not attempted to show that
{218}
they do, and he has merely, on the strength of the general expression
that these Gnostics were of the school of Valentinus, boldly assigned
to them an early date. Now, as we have stated, he himself admits that
Valentinus only came from Egypt to Rome in a.d. 140, and continued
teaching till 160,(1) and these dates are most clearly given by Irenaeus
himself.(2) Why then should Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, to take an extreme
case, not have known Valentinus in their youth, and yet have flourished
chiefly during the last two decades of the second century? Irenaeus
himself may be cited as a parallel case, which Tischendorf at least
cannot gainsay. He is never tired of telling us that Irenaeus was the
disciple of Polycarp,(3) whose martyrdom he sets about A.D. 165, and
he considers that the intercourse of Irenaeus with the aged Father must
properly be put about a.d. 150,(4) yet he himself dates the death of
Irenaeus, a.d. 202,(5) and nothing is more certain than that the period
of his greatest activity and influence falls precisely in the last
twenty years of the second century. Upon his own data, therefore, that
Valentinus may have taught for twenty years after his first appearance
in Rome in a.d. 140--and there is no ground whatever for asserting that
he did not teach for even a much longer period--Ptolemaeus and Heracleon
might well have personally sat at the feet of Valentinus in their youth,
as Irenseus is said to have done about the very same period at those of
Polycarp, and yet, like him, have flourished chiefly towards the end of
the century.
{219}
Although there is not the slightest ground for asserting that Ptolemaeus
and Heraclcon were not contemporaries with Irenaeus, flourishing like
him towards the end of the second century, there are, on the other hand,
many circumstances which altogether establish, the conclusion that they
were. "We have already shown, in treating of Valentinus,(1) that Irenaeus
principally directs his work against the followers of Valentinus living
at the time he wrote, and notably of Ptolemaeus and his school.(2) In the
preface to the first book, having stated that he writes after personal
intercourse with some of the disciples of Valentinus,(3) he more
definitely declares his purpose: "We will, then, to the best of our
ability, clearly and concisely set forth the opinions of those who are
now [------] teaching heresy, _I speak particularly of the disciples
of Ptolemaeus_ [------] whose system is an offshoot from the school of
Valentinus."(4) Nothing could be more explicit. Irenaeus in this passage
distinctly represents Ptolemaeus as teaching at the time he is writing,
and this statement alone is decisive, more especially as there is not a
single known fact which is either directly or indirectly opposed to it.
Tischendorf lays much stress on the evidence of Hippolytus in coupling
together the names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon with that of Valentinus;
similar testimony of the same writer, fully confirming the above
statement of Irenaeus, will, therefore, have the greater force.
Hippolytus says that the Valentinians differed materially among
themselves regarding certain points which led to divisions, one party
being called the
{220}
Oriental and the other the Italian. "They of the Italian party, of whom
is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say, &c.... They, however, who are of the
Oriental party, of whom is Axionicus and Bardesanes, maintain," &c.(1)
Now, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon are here quite clearly represented as
being contemporary with Axionicus and Bardesanes, and without discussing
whether Hippolytus does not, in continuation, describe them as all
living at the time he wrote,(2) there can be no doubt that some of them
were, and that this evidence confirms again the statement of Irenaeus.
Hippolytus, in a subsequent part of his work, states that a certain
Prepon, a Marcionite, has introduced something new, and "now in our
own time [------] has written a work regarding the heresy in reply to
Bardesanes."(3) The researches of Hilgenfeld have proved that Bardesanes
lived at least over the reign of Heliogabalus (218--222), and the
statement of Hippolytus is thus confirmed.(4) Axionicus again was still
flourishing when Tertullian wrote his work against the Valentinians
{221}
(201--226). Tertullian says: "Axionicus of Antioch alone to the present
day (ad hodiernum) respects the memory of Valentinus, by keeping
fully the rules of his system."(1) Although on the whole they may be
considered to have flourished somewhat earlier, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon
are thus shown to have been for a time at least contemporaries of
Axionicus and Bardesanes.(2)
Moreover, it is evident that the doctrines of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon
represent a much later form of Gnosticism than that of Valentinus. It
is generally admitted that Ptolemaeus reduced the system of Valentinus to
consistency,(3) and the inconsistencies which existed between the views
of the Master and these later followers, and which indicate a much more
advanced stage of development, are constantly pointed out by Irenaeus and
the Fathers who wrote in refutation of heresy. Origen also represents
Heracleon as amongst those who held opinions sanctioned by the
Church,(4) and both he and Ptolemaeus must indubitably be classed amongst
the latest Gnostics.(5) It is clear, therefore, that Ptolemaeus and
Heracleon were contemporaries of Irenaeus(6) at the time he composed his
work against Heresies (185--195), both, and especially
{222}
the latter, flourishing and writing towards the end of the second
century.(1)
We mentioned, in first speaking of these Gnostics, that Epiphanius has
preserved an Epistle, attributed to Ptolemaeus, which is addressed to
Flora, one of his disciples.(2) This Epistle is neither mentioned by
Irenaeus nor by any other writer before Epiphanius. There is nothing
in the Epistle itself to show that it was really written by Ptolemaeus
himself. Assuming it to be by him, however, the Epistle was in all
probability written towards the end of the second century, and it does
not, therefore, come within the scope of our inquiry. We may, however,
briefly notice the supposed references to our Gospels which it contains.
The writer of the Epistle, without any indication whatever of a written
source from which he derived them, quotes sayings of Jesus for which
parallels are found in our first Gospel. These sayings are introduced
by such expressions as "he said," "our Saviour declared," but never as
quotations from any Scripture. Now, in affirming that they are taken
from the Gospel according to Matthew, Apologists exhibit their usual
arbitrary haste, for we must clearly and decidedly state that there
is not a single one of the passages which does not present decided
variations from the parallel passages in our first Synoptic. We subjoin
for comparison in parallel columns the passages from the Epistle and
Gospel:--
[------]
[------]
{223}
It must not be forgotten that Iraeneus makes very explicit statements
as to the recognition of other sources of evangelical truth than our
Gospels by the Valentinians, regarding which we have fully written when
discussing the founder of that sect.(5) We know that they professed to
have direct traditions from the Apostles through Theodas, a disciple of
the Apostle Paul;(6) and in the
{224}
Epistle to Flora allusion is made to the succession of doctrine
received by direct tradition from the Apostles.(1) Irenaeus says that the
Valentinians profess to derive their views from unwritten sources,(2)
and he accuses them of rejecting the Gospels of the Church,(3) but, on
the other hand, he states that they had many Gospels different from what
he calls the Gospels of the Apostles.(4)
With regard to Heracleon, it is said that he wrote Commentaries on
the third and fourth Gospels. The authority for this statement is very
insufficient. The assertion with reference to the third Gospel is
based solely upon a passage in the Stromata of the Alexandrian Clement.
Clement quotes a passage found in Luke xii. 8, 11, 12, and says:
"Expounding this passage, Heracleon, the most distinguished of the
School of Valentinus, says as follows," &c.(5) This is immediately
interpreted into a quotation from a Commentary on Luke.(6) We merely
point out that from Clement's remark it by no means follows that
Heracleon wrote a Commentary at all, and further there is no evidence
that the passage commented upon was actually from our third Gospel.(7)
The Stromata of Clement were not written until after a.d. 193, and in
them we find the first and only reference to this supposed Commentary.
"We need not here refer to the Commentary on the fourth Gospel, which is
merely
{225}
inferred from references in Origen (c. a.d. 225), but of which we have
neither earlier nor fuller information.(1) We must, however, before
leaving this subject, mention that Origen informs us that Heracleon
quotes from the Preaching of Peter [------], Pesedicatio Petri), a work
which, as we have already several times mentioned, was cited by Clement
of Alexandria as authentic and inspired Holy Scripture.(2)
The epoch at which Ptolemaeus and Heracleon flourished would in any
case render testimony regarding our Gospels of little value. The actual
evidence which they furnish, however, is not of a character to prove
even the existence of our Synoptics, and much less does it in any way
bear upon their character or authenticity.
2.
A similar question of date arises regarding Celsus, who wrote a work,
entitled [------], True Doctrine, which is no longer extant, of which
Origen composed an elaborate refutation. The Christian writer takes the
arguments of Celsus in detail, presenting to us, therefore, its general
features, and giving many extracts; and as Celsus professes to base much
of his accusation upon the writings in use amongst Christians, although
he does not name a single one of them, it becomes desirable to ascertain
what those works were, and the date at which
{226}
Celsus wrote. As usual, we shall state the case by giving the reasons
assigned for an early date.
Arguing against Volkmar and others, who maintain, from a passage at the
close of his work, that Oligen, writing about the second quarter of the
third century, represents Celsus as his contemporary,(1) Tischendorf,
referring to the passage, which we shall give in its place, proceeds to
assign an earlier date upon the following grounds: "But indeed, even
in the first book, at the commencement of the whole work, Origen says:
'Therefore, I cannot compliment a Christian whose faith is in danger of
being shaken by Celsus, who yet does not even [------] still [------]
live the common life among men, but already and long since [------] is
dead.'... In the
same first book Origen says: 'We have heard that there were two men of
the name of Celsus, Epicureans, the first under Nero; this one' (that
is to say, ours) 'under Hadrian and later.' It is not impossible that
Origen mistakes when he identified his Celsus with the Epicurean living
'under Hadrian and later;' but it is impossible to convert the same
Celsus of whom Origen says this into a contemporary of Origen. Or would
Origen himself in the first book really have set his Celsus 'under
Hadrian (117--138) and later,' yet in the eighth have said: 'We will
wait (about 225), to see whether he will still accomplish this design of
making another work follow?' Now, until some better discovery regarding
Celsus is attained, it will be well to hold to the old opinion that
Celsus wrote his book about the middle of the second century, probably
between 150--160," &c.(2)
{227}
It is scarcely necessary to point out that the only argument advanced
by Tischendorf bears solely against the assertion that Celsus was a
contemporary of Origen, "about 225," and leaves the actual date entirely
unsettled. He not only admits that the statement of Origen regarding the
identity of his opponent with the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian
"and later," may be erroneous, but he tacitly rejects it, and having
abandoned the conjecture of Origen as groundless and untenable, he
substitutes a conjecture of his own, equally unsupported by reasons,
that Celsus probably wrote between 150-160. Indeed, he does not attempt
to justify this date, but arbitrarily decides to hold by it until a
better can be demonstrated. He is forced to admit the ignorance of
Origen on the point, and he does not conceal his own.
Now it is clear that the statement of Origen in the preface to his
work, quoted above, that Celsus, against whom he writes, is long since
dead,(1) is made in the belief that this Celsus was the Epicurean who
lived under Hadrian,(2)
{228}
which Tischendorf, although he avoids explanation of the reason, rightly
recognizes to be a mistake. Origen undoubtedly knew nothing of his
adversary, and it obviously follows that, his impression that he is
Celsus the Epicurean being erroneous, his statement that he was long
since dead, which is based upon that impression, loses all its value.
Origen certainly at one time conjectured his Celsus to be the Epicurean
of the reign of Hadrian, for he not only says so directly in the passage
quoted, but on the strength of his belief in the fact, he accuses him
of inconsistency: "But Celsus," he says, "must be convicted of
contradicting himself; for he is discovered from other of his works to
have been an Epicurean, but here, because he considered that he could
attack the Word more effectively by not avowing the views of Epicurus,
he pretends, &c.... Remark, therefore, the falseness of his mind,"
&c.(1) And from time to time he continues to refer to him as an
Epicurean,(2) although it is evident that in the writing before him
he constantly finds evidence that he is of a wholly different school.
Beyond this belief, founded avowedly on mere hearsay, Origen absolutely
knows nothing whatever as to the personality of Celsus, or the time
at which he wrote,(3) and he sometimes very naively expresses his
uncertainty regarding him. Referring in one place to certain passages
which seem to imply a belief in magic on the part of Celsus, Origen
adds: "I do not know whether he is the same who has written several
books
{229}
against magic."(1) Elsewhere he says: "... the Epicurean Celsus (if he
be the same who composed two other books against Christians)," &c.(2)
Not only is it apparent that Origen knows nothing of the Celsus with
whom he is dealing, however, but it is almost impossible to avoid
the conviction that during the time he was composing his work his
impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became
considerably modified. In the earlier portion of the first book(3) he
has heard that his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian, but
a little further on,(4) he confesses his ignorance as to whether he
is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean
actually did. In the fourth book(5) he expresses uncertainty as to
whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians
which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he seems to
treat him as a contemporary. He writes to his friend Ambrosius, at whose
request the refutation of Celsus was undertaken: "Know, however, that
Celsus has promised to write another treatise after this one.... If,
therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise to write a second book, we
may well be satisfied with the eight books in reply to his Discourse.
If,
{230}
however, he has commenced and finished this work also, seek it and "send
it in order that we may answer it also, and confute the false teaching
in it," &C.(1) From this passage, and supported by other considerations,
Volkmar and others assert that Celsus was really a contemporary of
Origen.(2) To this, as we have seen, Tischendorf merely replies by
pointing out that Origen in the preface says that Celsus was already
dead, and that he was identical with the Epicurean Celsus who flourished
under Hadrian and later. The former of these statements, however, was
made under the impression that the latter was correct, and as it is
generally agreed that Origen was mistaken in supposing that Celsus the
Epicurean was the author of the [------],(3) and Tischendorf himself
admits the fact, the two earlier statements, that Celsus flourished
under Hadrian and consequently that he had long been dead, fall
together, whilst the subsequent doubts regarding his identity not only
stand, but
{231}
rise into assurance at the close of the work in the final request to
Ambrosius.(1) There can be no doubt that the first statements and the
closing paragraphs are contradictory, and whilst almost all critics
pronounce against the accuracy of the former, the inferences from the
latter retain full force, confirmed as they are by the intermediate
doubts expressed by Origen himself.
Even those who, like Tischendorf, in an arbitrary manner assign an early
date to Celsus, although they do not support their conjectures by
any satisfactory reasons of their own, all tacitly set aside these
of Origen.(2) It is generally admitted by these, with Lardner(3) and
Michaelis,(4) that the Epicurean Celsus to "whom Origen was at one time
disposed to refer the work against Christianity, was the writer of
that name to whom Lucian, his friend and contemporary, addressed his
Alexander or Pseudomantis, and who really wrote against magic,(5) as
Origen mentions.(6) But although on this account Lardner assigns to
him the date of a.d. 176, the fact is that Lucian did not write his
Pseudomantis, as Lardner is obliged to admit,(7) until the reign of the
{232}
Emperor Commodus (180--193), and even upon the supposition that this
Celsus wrote against Christianity, of which there is not the slightest
evidence, there would be no ground whatever for dating the work before
a.d. 180. On the contrary, as Lucian does not in any way refer to such
a writing by his friend, there would be strong reason for assigning the
work, if it be supposed to be written by him, to a date subsequent to
the Pseudo-mantis. It need not be remarked that the references of Celsus
to the Marcionites,(1) and to the followers of Marcellina,(2) only so
far bear upon the matter as to exclude an early date.(3)
It requires very slight examination of the numerous extracts from,
and references to, the work which Origen seeks to refute, however, to
convince any impartial mind that the doubts of Origen were well founded
as to whether Celsus the Epicurean were really the author of the
[------]. As many critics of all shades of opinion have long since
determined, so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus attacked by
Origen, as the philosophical opinions which he everywhere expresses
clearly show, was a Neo-Platonist.(4) Indeed, although Origen seems to
retain some impression that his antagonist must be an Epicurean, as he
had heard, and frequently refers to him as such, he does not point out
Epicurean
{233}
sentiments in his writings, but on the contrary, not only calls upon him
no longer to conceal the school to which he belongs and avow himself
an Epicurean,(1) which Celsus evidently does not, but accuses him
of expressing views inconsistent with that philosophy,(2) or of so
concealing his Epicurean opinions that it might be said that he is
an Epicurean only in name.(3) On the other hand, Origen is clearly
surprised to find that he quotes so largely from the writings, and shows
such marked leaning towards the teaching, of Plato, in which Celsus
indeed finds the original and purer form of many Christian doctrines,(4)
and Origen is constantly forced to discuss Plato in meeting the
arguments of Celsus.
The author of the work which Origen refuted, therefore, instead of
being an Epicurean, as Origen supposed merely from there having been an
Epicurean of the same name, was undoubtedly a Neo-Platonist, as Mosheim
long ago demonstrated, of the School of Ammonius, who founded the sect
at the close of the second century.(5) The promise of Celsus to write
a second book with practical rules for living in accordance with the
philosophy he promulgates, to which Origen refers at the close of his
work, confirms this conclusion, and indicates a new and recent system
of philosophy.(6) An Epicurean would not have thought of such a work--it
would have been both appropriate and necessary in connection with
Neo-Platonism.
We are, therefore, constrained to assign the work of
{231}
Celsus to at least the early part of the third century, and to the reign
of Septimius Severus. Celsus repeatedly accuses Christians, in it, of
teaching their doctrines secretly and against the law, which seeks them
out and punishes them with death,(1) and this indicates a period of
persecution. Lardner, assuming the writer to be the Epicurean friend of
Lucian, from this clue supposes that the persecution referred to must
have been that under Marcus Aurelius (f 180), and practically rejecting
the data of Origen himself, without advancing sufficient reasons of his
own, dates Celsus a.d. 176.(2) As a Neo-Platonist, however, we are more
accurately led to the period of persecution which, from embers never
wholly extinct since the time of Marcus Aurelius, burst into fierce
flame more especially in the tenth year of the reign of Severus(3) (a.d.
202), and continued for many years to afflict Christians.
It is evident that the dates assigned by apologists are wholly
arbitrary, and even if our argument for the later epoch were very much
less conclusive than it is, the total absence of evidence for an earlier
date would completely nullify any testimony derived from Celsus. It is
sufficient for us to add that, whilst he refers to incidents of Gospel
history and quotes some sayings which have pandlels, with more or less
of variation, in our Gospels, Celsus nowhere mentions the name of any
Christian book, unless we except the Book of Enoch;(4) and he accuses
Christians, not without reason, of interpolating the books of the Sibyl,
whose authority, he states, some of them acknowledged.(5)
{235}
3.
The last document which we need examine in connection with the synoptic
Gospels is the list of New Testament and other writings held in
consideration by the Church, which is generally called, after its
discoverer and first editor, the Canon of Muratori. This interesting
fragment, which was published in 1740 by Muratori in his collection of
Italian antiquities,(1) at one time belonged to the monastery of Bobbio,
founded by the Irish monk Columban, and was found by Muratori in the
Ambrosian Library at Milan in a MS. containing extracts of little
interest from writings of Eucherius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others.
Muratori estimated the age of the MS. at about a thousand years, but so
far as we are aware no thoroughly competent judge has since expressed
any opinion upon the point. The fragment, which is defective both at
the commencement and at the end, is written in an apologetic tone, and
professes to give a list of the writings which are recognised by the
Christian Church. It is a document which has no official character,(2)
but which merely conveys the private views and information of the
anonymous writer, regarding whom nothing whatever is known. From any
point of view, the composition is of a nature permitting the widest
differences of opinion. It is by some affirmed to be a complete treatise
on the books received by the Church, from which fragments have been
lost;(3) whilst
{236}
others consider it a mere fragment in itself.(1) It is written in Latin
which by some is represented as most corrupt,(2) whilst others uphold it
as most correct.(3) 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.(4) 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.(5) 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,(6)
whilst others assert it to
{237}
have been originally written in Latin.(1) Its composition is variously
attributed to the Church of Africa(2) and to a member of the Church in
Rome.(3)
The fragment commences with the concluding portion of a sentence....
"quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit"--"at which nevertheless he was
present, and thus he placed it." The MS. then proceeds: "Third book of
the Gospel according to Luke. Luke, that physician, after the ascension
of Christ when Paul took him with him..., wrote it in his name as he
deemed best (ex opinione)--nevertheless he had not himself seen the Lord
in the flesh,--and he too, as far as he could obtain information, also
begins to speak from the nativity of John." The text, at the sense of
which this is a closely approximate guess, though several other
{238}
interpretations might be maintained, is as follows: Tertio evangelii
librum secundo Lucan Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi cum eo
Paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum adsumsisset numeni suo ex
opinione concribset dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne et idem prout
asequi potuit ita et ad nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.
The MS. goes on to speak in more intelligible language "of the fourth
of the Gospels of John, one of the disciples." (Quarti evangeliorum
Johannis ex decipolis) regarding the composition of which the writer
relates a legend, which we shall quote when we come to deal with
that Gospel The fragment then proceeds to mention the Acts of the
Apostles,--which is ascribed to Luke--thirteen epistles of Paul in
peculiar order, and it then refers to an Epistle to the Laodiceans and
another to the Alexandrians, forged, in the name of Paul, after the
heresy of Marcion, "and many others which cannot be received by the
Catholic Church, as gall must not be mixed with vinegar." The Epistle to
the Ephesians bore the name of Epistle to the Laodiceans in the list
of Marcion, and this may be a reference to it.(1) The Epistle to the
Alexandrians is generally identified with the Epistle to the Hebrews,(2)
although some critics think this doubtful, or deny the fact, and
consider both Epistles referred to pseudographs
{239}
attributed to the Apostle Paul.1 The Epistle of Jude, and two (the
second and third) Epistles of John are, with some tone of doubt,
mentioned amongst the received books, and so is the Book of Wisdom. The
Apocalypses of John and of Peter only are received, but some object to
the latter being read in church.
The Epistle of James, both Epistles of Peter, the Epistle to the
Hebrews (which is, however, probably indicated as the Epistle to the
Alexandrians), and the first Epistle of John are omitted altogether,
with the exception of a quotation which is supposed to be from the
last-named Epistle, to which we shall hereafter refer. Special reference
is made to the Pastor of Hermas, which we shall presently discuss,
regarding which the writer expresses his opinion that it should be
read privately but not publicly in church, as it can neither be classed
amongst the books of the prophets nor of the apostles. The fragment
concludes with the rejection of the writings of several heretics.(2)
It is inferred that, in the missing commencement of the fragment, the
first two Synoptics must have been mentioned. This, however, though
of course most probable, cannot actually be ascertained, and so far as
these Gospels are concerned, therefore, the "Canon of Muratori" only
furnishes conjectural evidence. The statement regarding the third
Synoptic merely proves the existence of that Gospel at the time the
fragment
{240}
was composed, and we shall presently endeavour to form some idea of that
date, but beyond this fact the information given anything but tends
to establish the unusual credibility claimed for the Gospels. It is
declared by the fragment, as we have seen, that the third Synoptic was
written by Luke, who had not himself seen the Lord, but narrated the
history as best he was able. It is worthy of remark, moreover, that even
the Apostle Paul, who took Luke with him after the Ascension, had not
been a follower of Jesus either, nor had seen him in the flesh, and
certainly he did not, by the showing of his own Epistles, associate
much with the other Apostles, so that Luke could not have had much
opportunity while with him of acquiring from them any intimate knowledge
of the events of Gospel history. It is undeniable that the third
Synoptic is not the narrative of an eye-witness, and the occurrences
which it records did not take place in the presence, or within the
personal knowledge, of the writer, but were derived from tradition, or
from written sources. Such testimony, therefore, could not in any case
be of much service to our third Synoptic; but when we consider the
uncertainty of the date at which the fragment was composed, and the
certainty that it could not have been written at an early period, it
will become apparent that the value of its evidence is reduced to a
minimum.
We have already incidentally mentioned that the writer of this fragment
is totally unknown, nor does there exist any clue by which he can be
identified. All the critics who have assigned an early date to the
composition of the fragment have based their conclusion, almost solely,
upon a statement made by the Author regarding the Pastor of Hennas. He
says: "Hermas in
{241}
truth composed the Pastor very recently in our times in the city of
Rome, the Bishop Pius his brother, sitting in the chair of the church
of the city of Rome. And, therefore, it should indeed be read, but it
cannot be published in the church to the people, neither being among
the prophets, whose number is complete, nor amongst the apostles in the
latter days."
"Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma
conscripsit sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopus fratre
ejus et ideo legi eum quidem oportet se publicare vero in ecclesia
populo neque inter prophetas completum numero neque inter apostolos in
fine temporum potest."(1)
Muratori, the discoverer of the MS., conjectured for various reasons,
which need not be here detailed, that the fragment was written by Caius
the Roman Presbyter, who flourished at the end of the second (c. a.d.
196) and beginning of the third century, and in this he was followed by
a few others.(2) The great mass of critics, however, have rejected this
conjecture, as they have likewise negatived the fanciful ascription of
the composition by Simon de Magistris to Papias of Hierapolis,(3) and
by Bunsen to Hegesippus.(4) Such attempts to identify the unknown author
are obviously mere speculation, and it is impossible to suppose that,
had Papias, Hegesippus, or any other well-known writer of the same
period composed such a list, Eusebius could have failed to refer to
{242}
it, as so immediately relevant to the purpose of his work. Thiersch even
expressed a suspicion that the fragment was a literary mystification on
the part of Muratori himself.(1)
The mass of critics, with very little independent consideration, have
taken literally the statement of the author regarding the composition of
the Pastor "very recently in our times" (nuperrime temporibus nostris),
during the Episcopate of Pius (a.d. 142--157), and have concluded the
fragment to have been written towards the end of the second century,
though we need scarcely say that a few writers would date it even
earlier.(2) On the other hand, and we consider with reason, many
critics,
{243}
including men who will not be accused of opposition to an early Canon,
assign the composition to a later period, between the end of the second
or beginning of the third century and the fourth century.(1)
When we examine the ground upon which alone an early date can be
supported, it becomes apparent how slight the foundation is. The only
argument of any weight is the statement with regard to the composition
of the Pastor, but with the exception of the few apologists who do not
hesitate to assign a date totally inconsistent with the state of the
Canon described in the fragment, the great majority of critics feel that
they are forced to place the composition at least towards the end of the
second century, at a period when the statement in the composition may
agree with the actual opinions in the Church, and yet in a sufficient
degree accord with the expression "very recently in our times," as
applied to the period of Pius of Rome, 142--157. It must be evident
that, taken literally, a very arbitrary interpretation is given to this
indication, and 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. With this sole exception, there is not a single word
or statement in the fragment which would oppose our assigning the
{244}
composition to a late period of the third century. Volkmar has very
justly pointed out, however, that in saying "very recently in our times"
the writer merely intended to distinguish the Pastor of Hermas from the
writings of the Prophets and Apostles: It cannot be classed amongst the
Prophets whose number is complete, nor amongst the Apostles, inasmuch
as it was only written in our post-apostolic time. This is an accurate
interpretation of the expression,(1) which might with perfect propriety
be used a century after the time of Pius. We have seen that there has
not appeared a single trace of any Canon in the writings of any of the
Fathers whom we have examined, and that the Old Testament has been the
only Holy Scripture they have acknowledged; and it is therefore unsafe,
upon the mere interpretation of a phrase which would be applicable even
a century later, to date this anonymous fragment, regarding which we
know nothing, earlier than the very end of the second or beginning of
the third century, and it is still more probable that it was not written
until an advanced period of the third century. The expression used
with regard to Pius: "Sitting in the chair of the church," is quite
unprecedented in the second century or until a very much later date.(2)
It is argued that the fragment is imperfect, and that sentences have
fallen out; and in regard to this, and to the assertion that it is a
translation from the Greek, it has been well remarked by a writer whose
judgment on the point will scarcely be called prejudiced: "If it is
thus mutilated, why might it not also be interpolated? If moreover the
translator
{245}
was so ignorant of Latin, can we trust his translation? and what
guarantee have we that he has not paraphrased and expanded the original?
The force of these remarks is peculiarly felt in dealing with the
paragraph which gives the date. The Pastor of Hermas was not well known
to the Western Church, and it was not highly esteemed. It was regarded
as inspired by the Eastern, and read in the Eastern Churches. We have
seen, moreover, that it was extremely unlikely that Hermas was a real
personage. It would be, therefore, far more probable that we have
here an interpolation, or addition by a member of the Roman or African
Church, probably by the translator, made expressly for the purpose
of serving as proof that the Pastor of Hennas was not inspired. The
paragraph itself bears unquestionable mark of tampering,"(1) &c. It
would take us too far were we to discuss the various statements of the
fragment as indications of date, and the matter is not of sufficient
importance. It contains nothing involving an earlier date than the third
century.
The facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows, so far as
our object is concerned. The third Synoptic is mentioned by a totally
unknown writer, at an unknown, but certainly not early, date, in all
probability during the third century, in a fragment which we possess
in a very corrupt version very far from free from suspicion of
interpolation in the precise part from which the early date is inferred.
The Gospel is attributed to Luke, who was not one of the followers of
Jesus, and of whom it is expressly said that "he himself had not seen
the Lord in the flesh," but wrote "as he deemed best (ex opinione)," and
followed his history as he was able (et
{246}
idem prout assequi potuit).(1) If the fragment of Muratori, therefore,
even came within our limits as to date, its evidence would be of no
value, for, instead of establishing the trustworthiness and absolute
accuracy of the narrative of the third Synoptic, it distinctly tends to
discredit it, inasmuch as it declares it to be the composition of one
who undeniably was not an eye-witness of the miracles reported, but
collected his materials, long after, as best he could.(2)
4.
We may now briefly sum up the results of our examination of the evidence
for the synoptic Gospels. After having exhausted the literature and
the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct
trace of any of those Gospels, with the exception of the third, during
the first century and a half after the death of Jesus. Only once during
the whole of that period do we find even a tradition that any of our
Evangelists composed a Gospel at all, and that tradition, so far from
favouring our Synoptics, is fatal to the claims of the first and second.
Papias, about the middle of
1 The passage is freely rendered thus by Canon Westcott:
"The Gospel of St. Luke, it is then said, stands third in
order [in the Canon], having been written by 'Luke the
physician,' the companion of St. Paul, who, not being
himself an eye-witness, based his narrative on such
information as he could obtain, beginning from tho birth of
John." On the Canon, p. 187.
2 We do not propose, to consider the Ophites and Peratici,
obscure Gnostic sects towards the end of the second century.
There is no direct evidence regarding them, and the
testimony of writers in the third century, like Hippolytus,
is of no value for the Gospels.
{247}
the second century, on the occasion to which we refer, records that
Matthew composed the Discourses of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue,
a statement which totally excludes the claim of our Greek Gospel to
apostolic origin. Mark, he said, wrote down from the casual preaching of
Peter the sayings and doings of Jesus, but without orderly arrangement,
as he was not himself a follower of the Master, and merely recorded what
fell from the Apostle. This description, likewise, shows that our actual
second Gospel could not, in its present form, have been the work of
Mark. There is no other reference during the period to any writing of
Matthew or Mark, and no mention at all of any work ascribed to Luke. The
identification of Marcion's Gospel with our third Synoptic proves the
existence of that work before A.D. 140, but no evidence is thus obtained
either as to the author or the character of his work, but on the
contrary the testimony of the great heresiarch is so far unfavourable to
that Gospel, as it involves a charge against it, of being interpolated
and debased by Jewish elements. The freedom with which Marcion
expurgated and altered it clearly shows that he did not regard it either
as a sacred or canonical work. Any argument for the mere existence of
our Synoptics based upou 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. It is unnecessary to add that no reason whatever has been
shown for accepting the testimony of these Gospels as sufficient to
establish the reality of
{248}
miracles and of a direct Divine Revelation.(1) It is not pretended that
more than one of the synoptic Gospels was written by an eye-witness of
the miraculous occurrences reported, and whilst no evidence has been, or
can be, produced even of the historical accuracy of the narratives,
no testimony as to the correctness of the inferences from the external
phenomena exists, or is now even conceivable. The discrepancy between
the amount of evidence required and that which is forthcoming, however,
is greater than under the circumstances could have been thought
possible.
1 A comparison of the contents of the three Synoptics would
have confirmed this conclusion, but this is not at present
necessary, and we must hasten on.
{249}
PART III. THE FOURTH GOSPEL
CHAPTER I. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
"We shall now examine, in the same order, the witnesses already cited in
connection with the Synoptics, and ascertain what evidence they furnish
for the date and authenticity of the fourth Gospel
Apologists do not even allege that there is any reference to the
fourth Gospel in the so-called Epistle of Clement of Rome to the
Corinthians.(1)
A few critics(2) pretend to find a trace of it in the Epistle of
Barnabas, in the reference to the brazen Serpent as a type of Jesus.
Tischendorf states the case as follows:--
{250}
"And when in the same chapter xii. it is shown how Moses in the brazen
serpent made a type of Jesus 'who should suffer (die) and yet himself
make alive,' the natural inference is that Barnabas connected therewith
John iii. 14, f. even if the use of this passage in particular cannot be
proved. Although this connection cannot be affirmed, since the author of
the Epistle, in this passage as in many others, may be independent, yet
it is justifiable to ascribe the greatest probability to its dependence
on the passage in John, as the tendency of the Epistle in no
way required a particular leaning to the expression of John. The
disproportionately more abundant use of express quotations from the Old
Testament in Barnabas is, on the contrary, connected most intimately
with the tendency of his whole composition."(1)
It will be observed that the suggestion of reference to the fourth
Gospel is here advanced in a very hesitating way, and does not indeed go
beyond an assertion of probability. We might, therefore, well leave the
matter without further notice, as the reference in no case could be of
any weight as evidence. On examination of the context, however, we find
that there is every reason to conclude that the reference to the brazen
serpent is made direct to the Old Testament. The author who delights in
typology is bent upon showing that the cross is prefigured in the Old
Testament. He gives a number of instances, involving the necessity for a
display of ridiculous ingenuity of explanation, which should prepare us
to find the comparatively simple type of the brazen serpent naturally
selected. After pointing out that Moses, with his arms stretched out in
prayer that the Israelites might prevail in the fight, was a type of the
{251}
cross, he goes on to say: "Again Moses makes a type of Jesus, that he
must suffer and himself make alive [------], whom they will appear
to have destroyed, in a figure, while Israel was falling;"(l) and
connecting the circumstance that the people were bit by serpents and
died with the transgression of Eve by means of the serpent, he goes on
to narrate minutely the story of Moses and the brazen serpent, and then
winds up with the words: "Thou hast in this the glory of Jesus; that in
him are all things and for him."(2) No one can read the whole passage
carefully without seeing that the reference is direct to the Old
Testament.(3) There is no ground for supposing that the author was
acquainted with the fourth Gospel.
To the Pastor of Hermas Tischendorf devotes only two lines, in which
he states that "it has neither quotations from the Old nor from the New
Testament."(4) Canon
{252}
Westcott makes the same statement,(1) but, unlike the German apologist,
he proceeds subsequently to affirm that Hermas makes "clear allusions
to St. John;" which few or no apologists support. This assertion he
elaborates and illustrates as follows:--
"The view which Hermas gives of Christ's nature and work is no less
harmonious with apostolic doctrine, and it offers striking analogies to
the Gospel of St. John. Not only did the Son 'appoint angels to preserve
each of those whom the Father gave to him;' but 'He himself toiled
very much and suffered very much to cleanse our sins.... And so when he
himself had cleansed the sins of the people, he showed them the paths of
life by giving them the Law which he received from his. Father.'(2)
He is 'a Rock higher than the mountains, able to hold the whole world,
ancient, and yet having a new gate.'(3) 'His name is great and infinite,
and the whole world is supported by him.'(4) 'He is older than Creation,
so that he took counsel with the Father about the
{253}
creation which he made.'(1) 'He is the sole way of access to the Lord;
and no one shall enter in unto him otherwise than by his Son.'"(2)
This is all Canon Westcott says on the subject.(3) He does not attempt
to point out any precise portions of the fourth Gospel with which to
compare these "striking analogies," nor does he produce any instances
of similarity of language, or of the use of the same terminology as the
Gospel in this apocalyptic allegory. It is evident that such evidence
could in no case be of any value for the fourth Gospel.
When we examine more closely, however, it becomes certain that these
passages possess no real analogy with the fourth Gospel, and were not
derived from it. There is no part of them that has not close parallels
in writings antecedent to our Gospel, and there is no use of terminology
peculiar to it. The author does not even once use the term Logos. Canon
Westcott makes no mention of the fact that the doctrine of the Logos and
of the pre-existence of Jesus was enunciated long before the composition
of the fourth Gospel, with almost equal clearness and fulness, and that
its development can be traced through the Septuagint translation,
the "Proverbs of Solomon," some of the Apocryphal works of the Old
Testament, the writings of Philo, and in the Apocalypse, Epistle to the
Hebrews, as well as the Pauline Epistles. To any one who examines the
passages cited from the works of Hennas, and still more to any one
acquainted with the history of the Logos doctrine, it will, we fear,
{254}
seem wasted time to enter upon any minute refutation of such imaginary
"analogies." We shall, however, as briefly as possible refer to each
passage quoted.
The first is taken from an elaborate similitude with regard to true
fasting, in which the world is likened to a vineyard and, in explaining
his parable, the Shepherd says: "God planted the vineyard, that is, he
created the people and gave them to his Son: and the Son appointed
his angels over them to keep them: and he himself cleansed their sins,
having suffered many things and endured many labours.... He himself,
therefore, having cleansed the sins of the people, showed them the paths
of life by giving them the Law which he received from his Father."(1)
It is difficult indeed to find anything in this passage which is in the
slightest degree peculiar to the fourth Gospel, or apart from the
whole course of what is taught in the Epistles, and more especially the
Epistle to the Hebrews. We may point out a few passages for comparison:
Heb. i. 2-4; ii. 10-11; v. 8-9; vii. 12, 17-19; viii. 6-10; x. 10-16;
Romans viii. 24-17; Matt. xxi. 33; Mark xii. 1; Isaiah v. 7, liii.
The second passage is taken from an elaborate parable on the building
of the Church: [------] "And in the middle of the plain he showed me
a great white rock which had risen out of the plain, and the rock was
higher than the mountains, rectangular so as to be able to hold the
whole world, but that rock was old having a gate [------] hewn out
of it, and the hewing out of the gate [------] seemed to me to be
recent."(2) Upon this rock the tower of the Church is built. Further on
an explanation is given of the similitude, in which occurs another of
the
{255}
passages referred to.[------] "This rock [------] and this gate [------]
are the Son of God. 'How, Lord,' I said, 'is the rock old and the gate
new?' 'Listen,' he said, 'and understand, thou ignorant man. [------]
The Son of God is older than all of his creation [------], so that he
was a councillor with the Father in his work of creation; and for this
is he old.' [------] 'And why is the gate new, Lord?' I said; 'Because,'
he replied, 'he was manifested at the last days [------] of the
dispensation; for this cause the gate was made new, in order that they
who shall be saved might enter by it into the kingdom of God.'"(1)
And a few lines lower down the Shepherd further explains, referring
to entrance through the gate, and introducing another of the passages
cited: [------] "'In this way,' he said, 'no one shall enter into the
kingdom of God unless he receive his holy name. If, therefore, you
cannot enter into the City unless through its gate, so also,' he said,
'a man cannot enter in any other way into the kingdom of God than by the
name of his Son beloved by him'... 'and the gate [------] is the Son of
God. This is the one entrance to the Lord.' In no other way, therefore,
shall any one enter in to him, except through his Son."(2)
Now with regard to the similitude of a rock we need scarcely say that
the Old Testament teems with it; and we need not point to the parable
of the house built upon a rock in the first Gospel.(3) A more apt
illustration is the famous saying with regard to Peter: "And upon this
rock [------] I will build my Church," upon which
{256}
indeed the whole similitude of Hermas turns; and in 1 Cor. x. 4, we
read: "For they drank of the Spiritual Rock accompanying them; but the
Rock was Christ" [------]. There is no such similitude in the fourth
Gospel at all.
We then have the "gate," on which we presume Canon Westcott chiefly
relies. The parable in John x. 1--9 is quite different from that of
Hermas,(1) and there is a persistent use of different terminology. The
door into the sheepfold is always [------], the gate in the rock always
[------]. "I am the door,"(2) [------] is twice repeated in the fourth
Gospel. "The gate is the Son of God" [------] is the declaration of
Hermas. On the other hand, there are numerous passages, elsewhere,
analogous to that in the Pastor of Hermas. Every one will remember the
injunction in the Sermon on the Mount: Matth. vii. 13, 14. "Enter in
through the strait gate [------], for wide is the gate [------], &c.,
14. Because narrow is the gate [------] and straitened is the way which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."(3) The limitation
to the one way of entrance into the kingdom of God: "by the name of his
Son," is also found everywhere throughout the Epistles, and likewise in
the Acts of the Apostles; as for instance: Acts iv. 12, "And there is no
salvation in any other: for neither is there any other name under heaven
given among men whereby we must be saved."
The reasons given why the rock is old and the gate new [------] have
anything but special analogy with
3 Compare the account of the new Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 12
ff.; cf. xxii. 4, 14. In Simil. ix. 13, it is insisted that,
to enter into the kingdom, not only "his name" must be
borne, but that we must put on certain clothing.
{257}
the fourth Gospel. We are, on the contrary, taken directly to
the Epistle to the Hebrews in which the pre-existence of Jesus is
prominently asserted, and between which and the Pastor, as in a former
passage, we find singular linguistic analogies. For instance, take the
whole opening portion of Heb. i. 1: "God having at many times and in
many manners spoken in times past to the fathers by the prophets, 2. At
the end of these days [------] spake to us in the Son whom he appointed
heir [------](1) of all things, by whom he also made the worlds, 3.
Who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his
substance, upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had
made by himself a cleansing of our sins sat down at the right hand of
Majesty on high, 4. Having become so much better than the angels,"(2)
&c., &c; and if we take the different clauses we may also find them
elsewhere constantly repeated, as for instance: [------] The son older
than all his creation: compare 2 Tim. i. 9, Colossiansi. 15 ("who is...
the first born of all creation"--[------], 16, 17, 18, Rev. iii. 14, x.
6. The works of Philo are full of this representation of the Logos. For
example: "For the Word of God is over all the universe, and the oldest
and most universal of all things created" [------]
{258}
[------].(1) Again, as to the second clause, that he assisted the Father
in the work of creation, compare Heb. ii. 10, i. 2, xi. 3, Rom. xi. 36,
1 Cor. viii. 6, Coloss. i. 15, 16.(2)
The only remaining passage is the following: "The name of the Son of
God is great and infinite and supports the whole world." For the first
phrase, compare 2 Tim. iv. 18, Heb. i. 8; and for the second part of
the sentence, Heb. i. 3, Coloss. i. 17, and many other passages quoted
above.(3)
The whole assertion(4) is devoid of foundation, and might well have been
left unnoticed. The attention called to it, however, may not be wasted
in observing the kind of evidence with which apologists are compelled to
be content.
Tischendorf points out two passages in the Epistles of pseudo-Ignatius
which, he considers, show the use of the fourth Gospel.(5) They are as
follows--Epistle to the Romans vii.: "I desire the bread of God, the
bread of
{259}
heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the son of
God, who was born at a later time of the seed of David and Abraham; and
I desire the drink of God [------], that is his blood, which is love
incorruptible, and eternal life" [------].(1) This is compared with John
vi. 41: "I am the bread which came down from heaven" 48.... "I am the
bread of life," 51.... "And the bread that I will give is my flesh;"
54. "He who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life"
[------]. Scholten has pointed out that the reference to Jesus as "born
of the seed of David and Abraham" is not in the spirit of the fourth
Gospel; and the use of [------] for the [------] of vi. 55, and
[------]; instead of [------] are also opposed to the connection with
that Gospel.(3) On the other hand, in the institution of the Supper, the
bread is described as the body of Jesus, and the wine as his blood; and
reference is made there, and elsewhere, to eating bread and drinking
wine in the kingdom of God,(3) and the passage seems to be nothing but
a development of this teaching.(4) Nothing could be proved by such an
analogy.(5)
The second passage referred to by Tischendorf is in the Epistle to the
Philadelphians vii.: "For if some
{260}
would have led me astray according to the flesh, yet the Spirit is not
led astray, being from God, for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither
it goeth, and detecteth the things that are hidden."(1) Teschendorf
considers that these words are based upon John iii. 6--8, and the last
phrase: "And detecteth the hidden things," upon verse 20. The sense of
the Epistle, however, is precisely the reverse of that of the Gospel,
which reads: "The wind bloweth where it listeth; and thou hearest the
sound thereof but _knowest not_ whence it cometh and whither it goeth;
so is every one that is born of the Spirit;"(3) whilst the Epistle does
not refer to the wind at all, but affirms that the Spirit of God does
know whence it cometh, &c. The analogy in verse 20 is still more remote:
"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the
light, lest his deeds should be detected."(3) In 1 Cor. ii. 10, the
sense is found more closely: "For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea,
even the deep things of God."(4) It is evidently unreasonable to assert
from such a passage the use of the fourth Gospel.(5) Even Tischendorf
recognizes that in themselves the phrases which he points out in
pseudo-Ignatius could not, unsupported by other corroboration, possess
much weight as testimony for the use of our Gospels. He says: "Were
these allusions of Ignatius to Matthew and John a wholly isolated
phenomenon, and one which perhaps other undoubted results
{261}
of inquiry wholly contradicted, they would hardly have any conclusive
weight. But--."(1) Canon Westcott says: "The Ignatian writings, as might
be expected, are not without traces of the influence of St. John. The
circumstances in which he was placed required a special enunciation
of Pauline doctrine; but this is not so expressed as to exclude
the parallel lines of Christian thought. Love is 'the stamp of the
Christian.' (Ad Magn. v.) 'Faith is the beginning and love the end of
life.' (Ad Ephes. xiv.) 'Faith is our guide upward' [------], but love
is the road that 'leads to God.' (Ad Eph. ix.) 'The Eternal [------]
Word is the manifestation of God' (Ad Magn. viii.), 'the door by which
we come to the Father' (Ad Philad. ix., cf. John x. 7), 'and without Him
we have not the principle of true life' (Ad Trail, ix.: [------]. cf.
Ad Eph. iii.: [------]. The true meat of the Christian is the 'bread of
God, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus
Christ,' and his drink is 'Christ's blood, which is love incorruptible'
(Ad Rom. vii., cf. John vi. 32, 51, 53). He has no love of this life;
'his love has been crucified, and he has in him no burning passion
for the world, but living water (as the spring of a new life) speaking
within him, and bidding him come to his Father' (Ad Rom. 1. c).
Meanwhile his enemy is the enemy of his Master, even the 'ruler of this
age.' (Ad Rom. 1. c, [------]. Cf. John xii. 31, xvi. 11: [------] and
see 1 Cor. ii. 6, 8.(2))"
Part of these references we have already considered;
{262}
others of them really do not require any notice whatever, and the only
one to which we need to direct our attention for a moment may be the
passage from the Epistle to the Philadelphians ix., which reads: "He is
the door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and
the prophets, and the apostles, and the Church."(l) This is compared
with John x. 7. "Therefore said Jesus again: Verily, verily, I say unto
you, I am the door of the Sheep" [------]. We have already referred, a
few pages back,(2) to the image of the door. Here again it is obvious
that there is a marked difference in the sense of the Epistle from
that of the Gospel. In the latter Jesus is said to be the door into the
Sheepfold;(3) whilst in the Epistle, he is the door into the Father,
through which not only the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles enter,
but also the Church itself. Such distant analogy cannot warrant the
conclusion that the passage shows any acquaintance with the fourth
Gospel.(4) As for the other phrases, they are not only without special
bearing upon the fourth Gospel, but they are everywhere found in the
canonical Epistles, as well as elsewhere. Regarding love and faith, for
instance, compare Gal. v. 6, 14, 22; Rom. xii. 9, 10, viii. 39, xiii. 9;
1 Cor. ii. 9, viii. 3; Ephea iii. 17, v. 1, 2, vi. 23; Philip, i. 9, ii.
2; 2 Thess. iii. 5; 1 Tim. i. 14, vi. 11; 2 Tim. i. 13; Heb. x. 38 f.,
xi., &c., &c.
We might point out many equally close analogies in
{263}
the works of Philo,(1) but it is unnecessary to do so, although we may
indicate one or two which first present themselves. Philo equally has
"the Eternal Logos" [------],(2) whom he represents as the manifestation
of God in every way. "The Word is the likeness of God, by whom the
universe was created" [------].(3) He is "the vicegerent" [------]
of God,(4) "the heavenly incorruptible food of the soul," "the bread
[------] from heaven." In one place he says: "and they who inquired what
is the food of the soul... learnt at last that it is the Word of God,
and the Divine Logos.... This is the heavenly nourishment, and it is
mentioned in the holy Scriptures... saying, 'Lo! I rain upon you bread
[------] from heaven.' (Exod. xvi. 4.) 'This is the bread [------] which
the Lord has given them to eat'" (Exod. xvi. 15).(5) And again: "For the
one indeed raises his eyes towards the sky, contemplating the manna, the
divine Word, the heavenly incorruptible food of the longing soul."(6)
Elsewhere: "... but it is
{264}
taught by the Hierophant and Prophet Moses, who will say: 'This is the
bread [------], the nourishment which God gave to the soul'--that he
offered his own Word and his own Logos; for this is bread [------] which
he has given us to eat, this is the Word [------]."(1) He also says:
"Therefore he exhorts him that can run swiftly to strive with breathless
eagerness towards the Divine Word who is above all things, the fountain
of Wisdom, in order that by drinking of the stream, instead of death he
may for his reward obtain eternal life"(2) It is the Logos who guides
us to the Father, God "by the same Logos both creating all things
and leading up [------] the perfect man from the things of earth to
himself."(3) These are very imperfect examples, but it may be asserted
that there is not a representation of the Logos in the fourth Gospel
which has not close parallels in the works of Philo.
We have given these passages of the pseudo-Ignatian Epistles which are
pointed out as indicating acquaintance with the fourth Gospel, in order
that the whole case might be stated and appreciated. The analogies are
too distant to prove anything, but were they fifty times more close,
they could do little or nothing to establish an early origin for the
fourth Gospel, and nothing at all to elucidate the question as to its
character and authorship.(4)
4 In general the Epistles follow the Synoptic narratives,
and not the account of the fourth Gospel. See for instance
the reference to the anointing of Jesus, Ad Eph. xvii., cf.
Matt. xxvi. 7 ff.; Mark ziy. 3 flf.; cf. John xii. 1 ff.
{265}
The Epistles in which the passages occur are spurious and of no value as
evidence for the fourth Gospel. Only-one of them is found in the three
Syriac Epistles. We have already stated the facts connected with the
so-called Epistles of Ignatius,(1) and no one who has attentively
examined them can fail to see that the testimony of such documents
cannot be considered of any historic weight, except for a period
when evidence of the use of the fourth Gospel ceases to be of any
significance.
There are fifteen Epistles ascribed to Ignatius--of these eight are
universally recognized to be spurious. Of the remaining seven, there are
two Greek and Latin versions, the one much longer than the other. The
longer version is almost unanimously rejected as interpolated. The
discovery of a still shorter Syriac version of "the three Epistles of
Ignatius," convinced the majority of critics that even the shorter Greek
version of seven Epistles must be condemned, and that whatever matter
could be ascribed to Ignatius himself, if any, must be looked for in
these three Epistles alone. The three martyrologies of Ignatius are
likewise universally repudiated as mere fictions. From such a mass of
forgery, in which it is impossible to identify even a kernel of truth,
no testimony could be produced which could in any degree establish the
apostolic origin and authenticity of our Gospels.
It is not pretended that the so-called Epistle of Polycarp to the
Philippians contains any references to the fourth Gospel. Tischendorf,
however, affirms that it is weighty testimony for that Gospel, inasmuch
as he discovers in it a certain trace of the first "Epistle of
{266}
John," and as he maintains that the Epistle and the Gospel are the
works of the same author, any evidence for the one is at the same time
evidence for the other.(1) We shall hereafter consider the point of the
common authorship of the Epistles and fourth Gospel, and here confine
ourselves chiefly to the alleged fact of the reference.
The passage to which Teschendorf alludes we subjoin, with the supposed
parallel in the Epistle.[------]
{267}
This passage does not occur as a quotation, and the utmost that can
be said of the few words with which it opens is that a phrase somewhat
resembling, but at the same time materially differing from, the Epistle
of John is interwoven with the text of the Epistle to the Philippians.
If this were really a quotation from the canonical Epistle, it would
indeed be singular that, considering the supposed relations of Polycarp
and John, the name of the apostle should not have been mentioned, and a
quotation have been distinctly and correctly made.(1) On the other hand,
there is no earlier trace of the canonical Epistle, and, as Volkmar
argues, it may well be doubted whether it may not rather be dependent
on the Epistle to the Philippians, than the latter upon the Epistle of
John.(2)
We believe with Scholten that neither is dependent on the other, but
that both adopted a formula in use in the early Church against various
heresies,3 the superficial coincidence of which is without any weight
as evidence for the use of either Epistle by the writer of the other.
Moreover, it is clear that the writers refer to different classes of
heretics. Polycarp attacks the Docetae who deny that Jesus Christ has
come in the flesh, that is with a human body of flesh and blood; whilst
the Epistle of John is directed against those who deny that Jesus who
has come in the flesh is the
{268}
Christ the Son of God.(1) Volkmar points out that in Polycarp the word
"Antichrist" is made a proper name, whilst in the Epistle the expression
used is the abstract "Spirit of Antichrist." Polycarp in fact says that
whoever denies the flesh of Christ is no Christian but Antichrist, and
Volkmar finds this direct assertion more original than the assertion of
the Epistle; "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh is of God,"(2) &c. In any case it seems to us clear that in
both writings we have only the independent enunciation, with decided
difference of language and sense, of a formula current in the Church,
and that neither writer can be held to have originated the condemnation,
in these words, of heresies which the Church had begun vehemently to
oppose, and which were merely an application of ideas already well
known, as we see from the expression of the Epistle in reference to the
"Spirit of Antichrist, of which ye have heard that it cometh."
Whether this phrase be an allusion to the Apocalypse xiii., or to 2
Thessalonians ii., or to traditions current in the Church, we need not
inquire; it is sufficient that the Epistle of John avowedly applies a
prophecy regarding Antichrist already known amongst Christians, which
was equally open to the other writer and probably familiar in the
Church. This cannot under any circumstances be admitted as evidence of
weight for the use of the 1st Epistle of John. There is no testimony
whatever of the existence of the Epistles ascribed to John previous to
this date, and that fact would have to
{269}
be established on sure grounds before the argument we are considering
can have any value.
On the other hand, we have already seen(1) that there is strong reason
to doubt the authenticity of the Epistle attributed to Polycarp, and
a certainty that in any case it is, in its present form, considerably
interpolated. Even if genuine in any part, the use of the 1st Epistle
of John, if established, could not be of much value as evidence for the
fourth Gospel, of which the writing does not show a trace. So far from
there being any evidence that Polycarp knew the fourth Gospel, however,
everything points to the opposite conclusion. About A.D. 154-155 we
find him taking part in the Paschal controversy,(2) contradicting the
statements of the fourth Gospel,(3) and supporting the Synoptic view,
contending that the Christian festival should be celebrated on the 14th
Nisan, the day on which he affirmed that the Apostle John himself had
observed it.(4) Irenaeus, who represents Polycarp as the disciple of
John, says of him: "For neither was Anicetus able to persuade Polycarp
not to observe it (on the 14th) because he had always observed it with
John the disciple of our Lord, and with the rest of the apostles with
whom he consorted."(5) Not only, therefore, does Polycarp not refer to
the fourth Gospel, but he is on the
2 The date has, hitherto, generally been fixed at A.D. 160,
but the recent investigations referred to in vol. i. p. 274
f. have led to the adoption of this earlier date, and the
visit to Rome must, therefore, probably have taken place
just after the accession of Anicetus to the Roman bishopric.
Cf. Lipsius, Zeitschr. w. Theol. 1874, p. 205 f.
{270}
contrary an important witness against it as the work of John, for he
represents that apostle as practically contradicting the Gospel of which
he is said to be the author.
The fulness with which we have discussed the character of the
evangelical quotations of Justin Martyr renders the task of ascertaining
whether his works indicate any acquaintance with the fourth Gospel
comparatively easy. The detailed statements already made enable us
without preliminary explanation directly to attack the problem, and
we are freed from the necessity of making extensive quotations to
illustrate the facts of the case.
Whilst apologists assert with some boldness that Justin made use of our
Synoptics, they are evidently, and with good reason, less confident
in maintaining his acquaintance with the fourth Gospel. Canon Westcott
states: "His references to St John are uncertain; but this, as has been
already remarked, follows from the character of the fourth Gospel. It
was unlikely that he should quote its peculiar teaching in apologetic
writings addressed to Jews and heathens; and at the same time he
exhibits types of language and doctrine which, if not immediately
drawn from St. John, yet mark the presence of his influence and the
recognition of his authority."(1) This apology for the neglect of the
fourth Gospel
{271}
illustrates the obvious scantiness of the evidence furnished by Justin.
Tischendorf, however, with his usual temerity, claims Justin as a
powerful witness for the fourth Gospel. He says: "According to our
judgment there are convincing grounds of proof for the fact that
John also was known and used by Justin, provided that an unprejudiced
consideration be not made to give way to the antagonistic predilection
against the Johannine Gospel." In order fully and fairly to state the
case which he puts forward, we shall quote his own words, but to avoid
repetition we shall permit ourselves to interrupt him by remarks and
by parallel passages from other writings for comparison with Justin.
Tischendorf says: "The representation of the person of Christ altogether
peculiar to John as it is given particularly in his Prologue i. 1 (" In
the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God"), and verse 14 ("and the word became flesh"), in the designation
of him as Logos, as the Word of God, unmistakably re-echoes in not a
few passages in Justin; for instance:(1) 'And Jesus Christ is alone
the special Son begotten by God, being his Word and first-begotten and
power.'"(2)
With this we may compare another passage of Justin from the second
Apology. "But his son, who alone is rightly called Son, the Word before
the works of creation,
1 Tischendorf uses great liberty in translating some of
these passages, abbreviating and otherwise altering them as
it suits him. We shall therefore give his German translation
below, and we add the Greek which Tischendorf does not
quote--indeed he does not, in most cases, even state where
the passages are to be found.
{272}
who was both with him and begotten when in the beginning he created and
ordered all things by him,"(1) &c.
Now the same words and ideas are to be found throughout the Canonical
Epistles and other writings, as well as in earlier works. In the
Apocalypse,(2) the only book of the New Testament mentioned by Justin,
and which is directly ascribed by him to John,(3) the term Logos is
applied to Jesus "the Lamb," (xix. 13): "and his name is called the Word
of God" [------]. Elsewhere (iii. 14) he is called "the Beginning of the
Creation of God" [------]; and again in the same book (i. 5) he is "the
first-begotten of the dead" [------]. In Heb. i 6 he is the "first-born"
[------], as in Coloss. i. 15 he is "the first-born of every creature"
[------]; and in 1 Cor. i. 24 we have: "Christ the Power of God and the
Wisdom of God"[------], and it will be remembered that "Wisdom" was
the earlier term which became an alternative with "Word" for the
intermediate Being. In Heb. i. 2, God is represented as speaking to us
"in the Son.... by whom he also made the worlds" [------]. In 2 Tim. i.
9, he is "before all worlds" [------], cf. Heb. L 10, ii. 10, Kom. xi.
36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Ephes. iii. 9.
The works of Philo are filled with similar representations of the Logos,
but we must restrict ourselves to a very
{273}