This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http: //books .google .com/I
|
SarftarU College Eilirarg rnOK i |
||
|
1 |
iki
0
The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel
AND OTHER
CRITICAL ESSAYS
SELECTED FROM THE PUBLISHED PAPERS
OF THE LATE
EZRA ABBOT
BOSTON GEO. H. ELLIS. 141 FRANKLIN STREET
188S
H^rt^
)\ 00, n> '^
l^
/ V
• iviAR 22 IBbO
(^
/^a
i>..tf c
7
COPYRIGHT BY CEO. H. ELLIS.
1 888.
Press of Geo. H. Eliis, 141 Franklin Street.
Ezra Abbot, eldest child of Ezra and Phebe (Abbot) Abbot, was bom in Jackson, Waldo County, Maine, April 28, 1819; was fitted for college at Phillips (Exeter) Academy ; graduated at Bowdoin College in 1840, and received its degree of A.M. in 1843; removed to Cambridge in 1847; after some time spent in teaching, in pursuing private studies, and in rendering service in the libraries of Harvard College and the Boston Athenaeum, was appointed in 18^6 Assistant Librarian of Har- vard College; and in 1872 Bussey Professor of New Testament Criti- cism and Interpretation in the Divinity School.
He was elected in 1852 a member of the American Oriental Society, and from 1853 its Recording Secretary; in 1861, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; in 1871 appointed University Lecturer on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament ; in the same year chosen a member of the New Testament Company for the revision of our English Bible. He was also a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, and of the Harvard Biblical Club.
In 1 861, he received from Harvard College the honorary degree of A.M.; in 1869 that of LL.D. from Yale College, and the same from Bowdoin College in 1878; in 1872 from Harvard College that of S.T.D. ; and he was tendered the degree of D.D. by the University of Edin- burgh at its recent tercentenary, but passed away before the date of the celebration.
He died at his home in Cambridge at 5.30 p.m., on Friday, March 21, 1884.
PREFACE.
The present volume is issued in compliance with suggestions coming from both sides of the Atlantic. Several of the essays it contains appeared originally in publications not easily accessible, yet embody results of the highest value to students of the New Testament, whether in its textual or its historical aspects. Some of them will be found to have received from the author, since their first appearance, not a few minute perfecting touches, character- istic of his punctilious and vigilant scholarship. In reading them, it is important to note the date of composition (given at the beginning of each), since it has not been found practicable always to mention such supplementary or qualifying facts as the progress of time has brought. Indeed, by far the larger portion of the present volume was printed nearly two years ago ; and its publica- tion has been delayed by causes over which the editor has had little control. The chief infelicitous result of the delay, however, appears in the fact that one or two additions — made somewhat inconsistently, it must be confessed — have come in their turn to need supplementing (see, for example, p. i66, note). All the editor's annotations have been carefully distinguished from the work of the author by being enclosed in square brackets ; but it should be observed that matter thus enclosed in the midst of quotations or translations is from the pen of Dr. Abbot himself.
Besides the elaborate discussions of debatable textual questions, which render the volume indispensable to the professional student, room has been found for a few of those papers in which Dr. Abbot addresses general readers in a style alike lucid, attractive, and authoritative. But, after all, to those privileged to know the variety and extent of his learning, the retentiveness and accuracy
4 PREFACE
of his memory, the penetration and fairness of his judgment, this volume will seem but an inadequate and fragmentary memorial.
The compass and special character of the essay upon the Fourth Gospel have made the editor glad to avail himself of the separate index to that part of the book courteously placed at his disposal by Professor Huidekoper, of Meadville. This index, accordingly, is not incorporated with that at the end of the volume.
In conclusion, special thanks are due, and are here publicly
given, to the several editors or proprietors of the publications in
which the essays were first printed, for the kind permission to
reproduce them in their present form.
J. H. Thayer.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, July, 1888.
CONTENTS.
Page.
I. The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 9
II. The Distinction between airlu and fpwraw, 107 ■'
III. Ancient Papyrus and the Mode of making Paper from it, 137
IV. The Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican
Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, 140
V. The late Professor Tischendorf, 155
VI. The late Dr. Tregelles, 175
VII. Gerhard von Mastricht, 184
VIII. Buttmann's Greek Testament, 188
IX. Westcott and Hort*s Edition of the Greek Testament, 197
X. The New Testament Greek Text, 204
XI. The Gospels in the New Revision (three articles), . . . 215
XII. The Reading "only-begotten God," in John i. 18,. . . 241
XIII. The Reading "an only-begotten God," or "God only-
begotten," John i. 18, 272
XIV. The Text of John viii. 44, 286
XV. The Reading "Church OF God," Acts XX. 28, 294
XVI. The Construction of Romans ix. 5 332
XVII. Recent Discussions of Romans ix. 5, 411
XVIII. Titus ii 13 439
XIX. I John v. 7, and Luther's German Bible, 458
XX. The Verse-divisions in the New Testament, 464
PREFATORY NOTE TO THE FIRST ESSAY.
The following essay was read, in part, before the " Ministers' Insti- tute," at its public meeting last October, in Providence, R.I. In con- sidering the external evidences of the genuineness of the Gospel as- cribed to John, it was out of the question, under the circumstances, to undertake anything more than the discussion of a few important points ; and even these could not be properly treated within the time allowed.
In revising the paper for the Unitarian Review (Februar)*, March, June, 1880), and, with additions and corrections, for the volume of "In stitute Essays," I have greatly enlarged some parts of it, particularly that relating to the evidence that the Fourth Gospel was used by Justin Martyr. The consideration of his quotations and of the hypotheses con- nected with them has given occasion to the long Notes appended to the essay, in which will be found the results of some original investigation. But the circumstances under which the essay is printed have compelled me to treat other parts of the evidence for the genuineness of this Gospel less thoroughly than I wished, and on certain points to content myself with mere references. It has also been necessary to give in a translation many quotations which scholars would have preferred to see in the original *, but the translation has been made as literal as the Eng- lish idiom would permit, and precise references to the passages cited are
always given for the benefit of the critical student.
E. A.
Cambridge, Mass., May 21, 188a
I.
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL:
EXTERNAL EVIDENCES.
The problem of the Fourth Gospel — that is, the question of its authorship and historical value — requires for its complete solution a consideration of many collateral questions which are still in debate. Until these are gradually disposed of by thorough investigation and discussion, we can hardly hope for a general agreement on the main question at issue. Such an agreement among scholars certainly does not at present exist. Since the "epoch-making" essay (to borrow a favorite phrase of the Germans) of Ferdinand Christian Baur, in the Theologische Jahrbilcher for 1844, there has indeed been much shifting of ground on the part of the opponents of the genuineness of the Gospel ; but among schol- ars of equal learning and ability, as Hilgenfeld, Keim, Schol- ten, Hausrath, Renan, on the one hand, and Godet, Beyschlag, Luthardt, Weiss, Lightfoot, on the other, opinions are yet divided, with a tendency, at least in Germany, toward the denial of its genuineness. Still, some of these collateral questions of which I have spoken seem to be approaching a settlement. I may notice first one of the most important, the question whether the relation of the Apostle John to Jewish Christianity was not such that it is impossible to suppose the Fourth Gospel to have proceeded from him, even at a late period of his life. This is a fundamental postulate of the theory of the Tiibingen School, in regard to
lO CRITICAL ESSAYS
the opposition of Paul to the three great Apostles, Peter, James, and John. The Apostle John, they say, wrote the Apocalypse, the most Jewish of all the books of the New Testament ; but he could not have written the anti-Judaic Gospel. Recognizing most fully the great service which Baur and his followers have rendered to the history of primi- tive Christianity by their bold and searching investigations, I think it may be said that there is a wide-spread and deep- ening conviction among fair-minded scholars that the theory of the Tiibingen School, in the form in which it has been presented by the coryphaei of the party, as Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, is an extreme view, resting largely on a false interpre- tation of many passages of the New Testament, and a false view of many early Christian writings. Matthew Arnold's protest against the excessive "vigour and rigour" of the Tiibingen theories brings a good deal of plain English com- monrsense to bear on the subject, and exposes well some of the extravagances of Baur and others.* Still more weight is to be attached to the emphatic dissent of such an able and thoroughly independent scholar as Dr. James Donaldson, the author of the Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine^ a work unhappily unfinished. But very significant is the remarkable article of Keim on the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, in his latest work, Aus dent Urchristenthum ("Studies in the History of Early Christianity"), published in 1878. a short time before his lamented death. In this able essay, he demolishes the foundation of the Tiibingen theory, vindicating in the main the historical character of the account in the Acts, and exposing the misinterpretation of the passage in the Epistle to the Galatians, on which Baur and his followers found their view of the absolute contradic- tion between the Acts and the Epistle. Holtzmann, Lipsius, Pfleiderer, and especially Weizsacker had already gone far in modifying the extreme view of Baur ; but this essay of Keim's is a re-examination of the whole question with reference to all the recent discussions. The still later work of Schenkel,
* See his God and the BibUt Preface, and chaps, v.. vi.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL II
published during the present year (1879), Das Christusbild der Apostel und der nachapostolischen Zeit (" The Picture of Christ presented by the Apostles and by the Post-Apostolic Time")* is another conspicuous example of the same reac- tion. Schenkel remarks in the Preface to this volume : —
Having never been able to convince myself of the sheer opposition between Petrinism and Paulinism, it has also never been possible for me to get a credible conception of a reconciliation effected by means of a literature sailing between the contending parties under false colors. In respect to the Acts of the Aposdes, in particular, I have been led in part to different results from those represented by the modem critical school I have been forced to the conviction that it is a far more trust- worthy source of information than is commonly allowed on the part of the modem criticism ; that older documents worthy of credit, besides the well-known ^^f-source, are contained in it ; and that the Paulinist who composed it has not intentionally distorted (entstellt) the facts, but only placed them in the light in which they appeared to him and mu&t have appeared to him from the time and circumstances under which he wrote. He has not, in my opinion, artificially brought upon the stage either a Paulinized Peter, or a Petrinized Paul, in order to mislead his readers, but has portrayed the two apostles just as he actually conceived of them on the basis of his incomplete information. (Preface, pp. x., xi.)
It would be hard to find two writers more thoroughly inde- pendent, whatever else may be said of them, than Keim and Schenkel. Considering their well-known position, they will hardly be stigmatized as "apologists** in the contemptuous sense in which that term is used by some recent writers, who seem to imagine that they display their freedom from par- tisan bias by giving their opponents bad names. On this subject of the one-sidedness of the Tiibingen School, I might also refer to the very valuable remarks of Professor Fisher in his recent work on The Beginnings of Christianity, and in his earlier volume on The Supernatural Origin of Chris- tianity. One of 'the ablest discussions of the question will also be found in the Essay on ** St. Paul and the Three," appended to the commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, by Professor Lightfoot, now Bishop of Durham, a scholar who has no superior among the Germans in breadth of learning And thoroughness of research. The dissertation of Professor
12 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Jowett on "St. Paul and the Twelve," though not very defi- nite in its conclusions, likewise deserves perusal.*
In regard to this collateral question, then, I conceive that decided progress has been made in a direction favorable to the possibility (to put it mildly) of the Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gospel. We do not know anything concern- ing the theological position of the Apostle John, which justi- fies us in assuming that twenty years after the destruction of Jerusalem he could not have written such a work.
Another of these collateral questions, on which a vast amount has been written, and on which very confident and very untenable assertions have been made, may now, I believe, be regarded as set at rest, so far as concerns our present subject, the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. I refer to the history of the Paschal controversies of the second century. The thorough discussion of this subject by Schiirer, formerly Professor Extraordinarius at Leipzig, and now Professor at Giessen, the editor of the Theologischc Literaturzeitung, and author of the excellent Neutcstament liche Zeitgeschichte^ has clearly shown, I believe, that nci argument against the Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gospel can be drawn from the entangled history of these controversies. His essay, in which the whole previous litera- ture of the subject is carefully reviewed, and all the original sources critically examined, was published in Latin at Leipzig in 1869 under the title De Controversiis Pasctialibus secundo post Christum fiatum Saeculo exortis, and afterwards in a German translation in Kahnis*s Zeitschrift fiir die historische TJuologie for 1870, pp. 182-284. There is, accord- ing to him, absolutely no evidence that the Apostle John celebrated Easter with the Quartodccimans on the 14th of Nisan in commemoration, as is so often assumed, of the day of the Lord's Supper, The choice of the day had no reference
• In his work on Tfu EpixtUs qfSt. Paul to the Tktssalonians, Galatians, Romans, 2d cd. (London, 1859), i. 417-477; reprinted in a less complete form from the first edition in Noyes's Tkgol. Essays (1856), p. 357 ff. The very judicious remarks of Mr. Norton in the Christian Examiner for May, 1829, vol. vi. p. 200 ff., are still worth reading. See the valuable article of Dr. Wil.bald Grimm, " Der Apostelconvent," in the Stud. u. Krit.^ iSSo, pp. 405-432 ; also, Dr. H. H. Wendt's Ntuboarbtitung of Meyer's Kommentar on the Aas, 5© Aufl., Giittingcn, 1880. See also Reuss, Hist, apostoliqut (1876), and Lts Efttrts pauliniennts (1878), in his La BibU^ trad, noMwlUt etc. Contra, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr.^ 1879, p. xooff ; x88o, p. x ff.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 1 3
to that event, nor on the other hand, as Weitzel and Steitz maintain, to the supposed day of Christ's death, but was determined by the fact that the 14th was the day of the Jewish Passover, for which the Christian festival was substi- tuted. The celebration was Christian, but the day adopted by John and the Christians of Asia Minor generally was the day of the Jewish Passover, the 14th of Nisan, on whatever day of the week it might fall, while the Western Christians generally, without regard to the day of the month, celebrated Easter on Sunday, in commemoration of the day of the resurrection. This is the view essentially of Liicke, Gieseler, Bleek, De Wette, Hase, and Riggenbach, with differences on subordinate points ; but Schiirer has made the case clearer than any other writer. Schiirer is remarkable among Ger- man scholars for a calm, judicial spirit, and for thoroughness of investigation; and his judgment in this matter is the more worthy of regard, as he does not receive the Gospel of John as genuine. A good exposition of the subject, founded on Schiirer*s discussion, may be found in Luthardt's work on the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, of which an English translation has been published, with an Appendix by Dr. Gregory of Leipzig, giving the literature of the whole con- troversy on the authorship of the Gospel far more completely than it has ever before been presented.
Another point may be mentioned, as to which there has come to be a general agreement ; namely, that the very late date assigned to the Gospel by Baur and Schwegler, namely, somewhere between the years 160 and 170 a.d., cannot be maintained. Zeller and Scholten retreat to 150; Hilgenfeld, who is at last constrained to admit its use by Justin Martyr, goes back to between 130 and 140; Renan now says 125 or 130; Keim in the first volume of his History of yesus of Nazara placed it with great confidence between the years 1 10 and 115, or more loosely, a.d. ioo-i 17.* The fatal consequences of such an admission as that were, how- ever, soon perceived ; and in the last volume of his History
* Getckickte Jfsu von ^azara^ i. 155, comp. 14O (Eng. trans, i. an, cump. 199).
14 CRITICAL ESSAYS
of yesuSy and in the last edition of his abridgment of that work, he goes back to the year 130.* Schenkel assigns it to A.D. 115-120.1
This enforced shifting of the date of the Gospel to the earlier part of the second century (which I may remark inci- dentally is fatal to the theory that its author borrowed from Justin Martyr instead of Justin from John) at once pre- sents very serious difficulties on the supposition of the spuriousness of the Gospel. It is the uniform tradition, supported by great weight of testimony, that the Evangelist John lived to a very advanced age, spending the latter por- tion of his life in Asia Minor, and dying there in the reign of Trajan, not far from a.d. 100. How could a spurious Gos- pel of a character so peculiar, so different from the earlier Synoptic Gospels, so utterly unhistorical as it is affirmed to be, gain currency as the work of the Apostle both among Christians and the Gnostic heretics, if it originated only twenty-five or thirty years after his death, when so many who must have known whether he wrote such a work or not were still living ?
The feeling of this difficulty seems to have revived the theory, put forward, to be sure, as long ago as 1840 by a very wild German writer, Liitzelberger, but which Baur and Strauss deemed unworthy of notice, that the Apostle John was never in Asia Minor at all. This view has recently found strenuous advocates in Keim, Scholten, and others, though it is rejected and, I believe, fully refuted by critics of the same school, as Hilgenfeld. The historical evidence against it seems to me decisive ; and to attempt to support it, as Scholten does, by purely arbitrary conjectures, such as the denial of the genuineness of the letter of Irenxus to Florinus, can only give one the impression that the writer has a desperate cause.J
*Gesckichte Jesu . , ./Ur nueitere Kreise^ 3« Bearbeitung, 2* Aufl. (1875), p. 40.
\Das Charakierbild Jesu^ 4« Aufl. (1873), p. 370.
tSee HUgenfeld, Hist. Krit. Eifeeitung in d. N, T. (1875), p. 394 ff. ; Bleck, Einl. ind. N. T.f 3» Aufl. (1875), P' ^67 £E., with Mangold's note; Fisher, The Beginnings of CkrisiianHpf (1877), p. 327 ff. Compare Renan, V Anieckristt p. 557 ff.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 15
Thus far we have noticed a few points connected with the controversy about the authorship of the Fourth Gospel in respect to which some progress may seem to have been made since the time of Baur. Others will be remarked upon inci- dentally, as we proceed. But to survey the whole field of discussion in an hour's discourse is impossible. To treat the question of the historical evidence with any thoroughness would require a volume ; to discuss the internal character of the Gospel in its bearings on the question of its genuineness and historical value would require a much larger one. All therefore which I shall now attempt will be to consider some points of the historical evidence for the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, as follows: —
1. The general reception of the Four Gospels as genuine among Christians in the last quarter of the second century.
2. The inclusion of the Fourth Gospel in the Apostolical Memoirs of Christ appealed to by Justin Martyr.
3. Its use by the various Gnostic sects.
4. The attestation appended to the book itself.
I. I BEGIN with the statement, which cannot be questioned, that our present four Gospels, and no others, were received by the great body of Christians as genuine and sacred books during the last quarter of the second century. This appears most clearly from the writings of Irenaeus, born not far from A.D. 125-130,* whose youth was spent in Asia Minor, and who became Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, a.d. 178 ; of Clement, the head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria about the year 190, who had travelled in Greece, Italy, Syria, and Pal- estine, seeking religious instruction.; and of TertuUian, in North Africa, who flourished toward the close of the century. The four Gospels are found in the ancient Syriac version of the New Testament, the Peshito, made in the second century, the authority of which has the more weight as it omits the Second and Third Epistles of John, Second Peter, Jude, and the Apocalypse, books whose authorship was disputed in the early Church. Their existence in the Old Latin version also
* About A D. 115, according to Zahn in Herzog, ad ed., vii. 135 sq. ; see Smith and Wace'a Dict» if Christ. Biogr. iii. 253.
1 6 CRITICAL ESSAYS
attests their currency in North Africa, where that version originated some time in the second century. They appear, moreover, in the Muratorian Canon, written probably about A.D. 170, the oldest list of canonical books which has come down to us.
Mr. Norton in his work on the Genuineness of the Gospels argues with great force that, when we take into considera- tion the peculiar character of the Gospels, and the character and circumstances of the community by which they were received, the fact of their universal reception at this period admits of no reasonable explanation except on the supposi- tion that they are genuine. I do not here contend for so broad an inference : I only maintain that this fact proves that our four Gospels could not have originated at this period, but must have been in existence long before; and that some very powerful influence must have been at work to effect their universal reception. I shall not recapitulate Mr. Norton's arguments ; but I would call attention to one point on which he justly lays great stress, though it is often overlooked ; namely, that the main evidence for the genuine- ness of the Gospels is of an altogether different kind from that which can be adduced for the genuineness of any classi- cal work. It is not the testimony of a few eminent Christian writers to their private opinion, but it is the evidence which they afford of the belief of the whole body of Christians; and this, not in respect to ordinary books, whose titles they might easily take on trust, but respecting books in which they were most deeply interested ; books which were the very foundation of that faith which separated them from the world around them, exposed them to hatred, scorn, and per- secution, and often demanded the sacrifice of life itself.
I would add that the greater the differences between the Gospels, real or apparent, the more difficult it must have been for them to gain this universal reception, except on the supposition that they had been handed down from the begin- ning as genuine. This remark applies particularly to the Fourth Gospel when compared with the first three.
The remains of Christian literature in the first three quar-
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 1 7
ters of the second century are scanty, and are of such a char- acter that, assuming the genuineness of the Gospels, we have really no reason to expect more definite references to their writers, and more numerous quotations from or allusions to them than we actually do find or seem to find. A few letters, as the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, now made complete by the discovery of a new MS. and of a Syriac version of it ; the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, now complete in the original ; the short Epistle of Polycarp to the Philip- pians, and the Epistles (of very doubtful genuineness) attrib- uted to Ignatius; an allegorical work, the Shepherd ol Her- mas, which nowhere quotes either the Old Testament or the New ; a curious romance, the Clementine Homilies ; and the writings of the Christian Apologists, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Hermias, who, in addressing heathens, could not be expected to talk about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which would be to them names without significance, — these few documents constitute nearly all the literature of the period. As we should not expect the Gospels to be quoted by name in the writings of the Apologists, though we do find John expressly mentioned by Theophilus, so in such a discussion as that of Justin Martyr with Trypho the Jew, Justin could not cite in direct proof of his doctrines works the authority of which the Jew would not recognize, though he might use them, as he does, in attestation of historic facts which he regarded as fulfilling prophecies of the Old Testament.
The author of Supernatural Religion^ in discussing the evidence of the use of our present Gospels in the first three quarters of the second century, proceeds on two assumptions : one, that in the first half of this century vast numbers of spurious Gospels and other writings bearing the names of Apostles and their followers were in circulation in the early Church ; and the other, that we have a right to expect great accuracy of quotation from the Christian Fathers, especially when they introduce the words of Christ with such a formula as "he said'* or "he taught." Now this last assumption admits of being thoroughly tested, and it
1 8 CRITICAL ESSAYS
contradicts the most unquestionable facts. Instead of such accuracy of quotation as is assumed as the basis of his argument, it is beyond all dispute that the Fathers often quote very loosely, from memory, abridging, transposing, paraphrasing, amplifying, substituting synonymous words or equivalent expressions, combining different passages together, and occasionally mingling their own inferences with their citations. In regard to the first assumption, a careful sifting of the evidence will show, I believe, that there is really no /n?^that in the time of Justin Martyr (with the possible exception of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which in its primitive form may have been the Hebrew original from which our present Greek Gospel ascribed to Matthew was mainly derived) there was a single work, bearing the title of a Gospel, which as a history of Chrisfs ministry came into competition with our present four Gospels, or which took the place among Christians which our Gospels certainly held in the last quarter of the second century. Much confusion has arisen from the fact that the term ** Gospel " was in ancient times applied to speculative works which gave the writer's view of the Gospel, i.e.^ of the doctrine of Christ, or among the Gnostics, which set forth their ^^j^; e.g.^ among the followers of Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, " the Gospel " is V Tdv vTrepKoofiiuv ^-vtMji^, " the knowledge of supermundane things*' {Ref. Hcer. vii. 27). Again, the apocryphal Gos- pels of the Nativity and the Infancy, or such works as the so-called Gospel of Nicodemus, describing the descent of Christ into Hades, have given popular currency to the idea that there were floating about in the middle of the second century a great number of Gospels, rival histories of Christ's ministry; which these apocryphal Gospels, however, are not and do not pretend to be. Other sources of confusion, as the blunders of writers like Epiphanius, I pass over. To enter into a discussion and elucidation of this subject here is of course impossible : I will only recommend the read- ing of Mr. Norton's full examination of it in the third vol- ume of his Genuineness of the Gospels, which needs, to be sure, a little supplementing, but the main positions of which I believe to be impregnable.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 19
Resting on these untenable assumptions, the author of Supernatural Religion subjects this early fragmentary litera- ture to a minute examination, and explains away what seem to be quotations from or references to our present Gospels in these different works as borrowed from some of the multi- tudinous Gospels which he assumes to have been current among the early Christians, especially if these quotations and references do not present a perfect verbal correspond- ence with our present Gospels, as is the case with the great majority of them. Even if the correspondence is verbally exact, this proves nothing, in his view ; for the quotations of the words of Jesus might be borrowed from other current Gospels which resembled ours as much as Matthew, Mark, and Luke resemble each other. But, if the verbal agreement is not exact, we have in his judgment a strong proof that the quotations are derived from some apocryphal book. So he comes to the conclusion that there is no certain trace of the existence of our present Gospels for about one hundred and fifty years after the death of Christ ; />., we will say, till about A.D. 180.
But here a question naturally arises : How is it, if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, that our four Gospels are suddenly found toward the end of the second century to be received as sacred books throughout the whole Christian world } His reply is, " It is totally unnecessary for me to account for this/'* He stops his investigation of the subject just at the point where we have solid facts, not con- jectures, to build upon. When he comes out of the twilight into the full blaze of day, he shuts his eyes, and refuses to see anything. Such a procedure cannot be satisfactory to a sincere inquirer after the truth. The fallacy of this mode of reasoning is so well illustrated by Mr. Norton, that I must quote a few sentences. He says : —
About the end of the second century the Gospels were reverenced as sacred books by a community dispersed over the world, composed of men of different nations and languages. There were, to say the least, sixty thousand copies of them in existence ; f they were read in the
^Sm^rnrntwrtd Rtligwn, 6th edition (1875), and 7th edition (1879X vol. i. p. ix. (Preface.) tS«e Norton's Ggmtm4ntt$ ^tht Gos^ls, ad ed., i. 45-54*
20 CRITICAL ESSAYS
churches of Christians ; they were continually quoted, and appealed to, as of the highest authority ; their reputation was as well established among believers from one end of the Christian community to the other, as it is at the present day among Christians in any country. But it is asserted that before that period we find no trace of their existence ; and it is, therefore, inferred that they were not in common use, and but little known, even if extant in their present form. This reasoning is of the same kind as if one were to say that the first mention of £g3rptian Thebes is in the time of Homer. He, indeed, describes it as a city which poured a hundred armies from its hundred gates ; but his is the first mention of it, and therefore we have no reason to suppose that, before his time, it was a place of any considerable note.*
As regards the general reception of the four Gospels in the last quarter of the second century, however, a slight qualification is to be made. Some time in the latter half of the second century, the genuineness of the Gospel of John was denied by a few eccentric individuals (we have no ground for supposing that they formed a sect), whom Epiph- anius {Hmr, li., comp. liv.) calls Alogi ('AP^yo/), a nickname which has the double meaning of " deniers of the doctrine of the Logos," and "men without reason.'* They are probably the same persons as those of whom Irenaeus speaks in one passage {Hcer, iii. ii. § 9), but to whom he gives no name. But the fact that their difficulty with the Gospel was a doctrinal one, and that they appealed to no tradition in favor of their view ; that they denied the Johannean authorship of the Apocalypse likewise, and absurdly ascribed both books to Cerinthus, who, unless all our information about him is false, could not possibly have written the Fourth Gospel, shows that they were persons of no critical judgment. Zeller admits {Theol. yahrb, 1845, P- 645) that their opposition does not prove that the Gospel was not generally regarded in their time as of Apostolic origin. The fact that they ascribed the Fourth Gospel to Cerinthus, a heretic of the first century, contemporary with the Apostle John, shows that they could not pretend that this Gospel was a recent work.
Further, while the Gnostics generally agreed with the
* EvitUneti c/tht Gtnninenets iiftht Gos/elst uscond edition, vol. i. pp. 195, 1961
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 21
Catholic Christians in receiving the four Gospels, and espe- cially the Gospel of John, which the Valentinians, as Irenaeus tells us, used plenissinte {Hcer, iii. ii. § 7), the Marcionites are an exception. They did not, however, question the genuineness of the Gospels, but regarded their authors as under the influence of Jewish prejudices. Marcion therefore rejected all but Luke, the Pauline Gospel, and cut out from this whatever he deemed objectionable. We may note here, incidentally, that the author of Supernatural Religion^ in the first six editions of his work, contended, in opposition to the strongest evidence, that Marcion's Gospel, instead of being, as all ancient testimony represents it, a mutilated Luke, was the earlier, original Gospel, of which Luke's was a later amplification. This theory was started by Semler, that varium, mutabile et mirabile capitulum, as he is called by a German writer (Matthaei, N. T, Gr,, i. 687) ; and after having been adopted by Eichhom and many German critics was so thoroughly refuted by Hilgenfeld in 1850, and especially by Volkmar in 1852, that it was abandoned by the most eminent of its former supporters, as Ritschl, Zeller, and partially by Baur. But individuals differ widely in their power of resist- ing evidence opposed to their prejudices, and the author of Supernatural Religion has few equals in this capacity. We may therefore feel that something in these interminable discussions is settled, when we note the fact that he has at last surrendered. His conversion is due to Dr. Sanday, who in an article in the Fortnightly Review (June, 1875, P- SSS» ff-)> reproduced in substance in his work on The Gospels in the Second Century ^ introduced the linguistic argument, showing that the very numerous and remarkable peculiarities of lan- guage and style which characterize the parts of Luke which Marcion retained are found so fully and completely in those which he rejected as to render diversity of authorship utterly incredible.
But to return to our first point, — the unquestioned recep- tion of our present Gospels throughout the Christian world in the last quarter of the second century, and that, I add, without the least trace of any previous controversy on the
22 CRITICAL ESSAYS
subject, with the insignificant exception of the Alogi whom I have mentioned. This fact has a most important bearing on the next question in order ; namely, whether the Apostolical Memoirs to which Justin Martyr appeals about the middle of the second century were or were not our four Gospels. To discuss this question fully would require a volume. All that I propose now is to place the subject in the light of acknowl- edged facts, and to illustrate the falsity of the premises from which the author of Supernatural Religion reasons.
II. The writings of Justin consist of two Apologies or Defences of Christians and Christianity addressed to the Roman Emperor and Senate, the first written most probably about the year 146 or 147 (though many place it in the year 138),* and a Dialogue in defence of Christianity with Trypho the Jew, written somewhat later {Dial, c. 120, comp. ApoL i. c. 26).t
In these writings, addressed, it is to be observed, to unbe- lievers, he quotes, not in proof of doctrines, but as authority for his account of the teaching of Christ and the facts in his life, certain works of which he commonly speaks as the "Memoirs*' or "Memorabilia" of Christ, using the Greek word, *A7rofjLVTffwv£VfiaTa, with which we are familiar as the desig- nation of the Memorabilia of Socrates by Xenophon. Of these books he commonly speaks as the " Memoirs \>y the Apostles," using this expression eight times ; J four times he calls them " the Memoirs '* simply ; || once, " Memoirs made by the Apostles which are called Gospels '* (Apol i. 66) ; once, when he cites a passage apparently from the Gospel of Luke, " Memoirs composed by the Apostles of Christ and their companions," — literally, "those who followed with them" (Dial c. 103) ; once again {Dial c. 106), when he speaks of our Saviour as changing the name of Peter, and of his giving to James and John the name Boanerges, a fact only mentioned
•So Waddington, Affm. dt PAcad. da inscr. tt beUet-Uttrts, t. xxvi.,pt. i., p. 264(7.; Hamack in Th^ol. Literatu^zeitMng^ 1876, col. 14, andCaspari, as there referred lu; [Light- foot, Apottolic Father St pt. ii., vol. i. p. 46a].
tSce Engelhardt, Das Christenthum yustim des Afdrtyrers (1878), p. 71 ff. ; Renan, L'Eglise ckritunnt (1879), p. 367, n. 4.
XApol. i. 67; Died. cc. 103, loi, 102, 103, 104, 106 bis: ra anofivi^iJxyvevfAaTa tChv ano' aT6hjv (rcjy arrtHjr. a vrov , «c. Xjjiorov, 5 times).
H DiaL cc. los ieTf Z07.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 2$
SO far as we know in the Gospel of Mark, he designates as his authority " Peter's Memoirs," which, supposing him to have used our Gospels, is readily explained by the fact that Peter was regarded by the ancients as furnishing the mate- rials for the Gospel of Mark, his travelling companion and interpreter.* Once more, Justin speaks in the plural of "those who have written Memoirs {ol airofivTffioveijaavTeg) of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ, whom (ok) we believe " {Apol, i. 33) ; and, again, " the Apostles wrote " so and so, referring to an incident mentioned in all four of the Gospels {Dial, c. ^^),
But the most important fact mentioned in Justin's writings respecting these Memoirs, which he describes as " composed by Apostles of Christ and their companions," appears in his account of Christian worship, in the sixty-seventh chapter of his First Apology. " On the day called Sunday," he says, " all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the Memoirs by the Apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read, as long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president admonishes and exhorts to the imitation of these good things." It appears, then, that, at the time when he wrote, these books, whatever they were, on which he relied for his knowledge of Christ's teaching and life, were held in at least as high reverence as the writ- ings of the Prophets, were read in the churches just as our Gospels were in the last quarter of the second century, and formed the basis of the hortatory discourse that followed. The writings of the Prophets might alternate with them in this use ; but Justin mentions the Memoirs first.
These "Memoirs," then, were well-known books, distin-
* I adopt with most scholars {versus Semisch and Grimm) the construction which refers the avTov in this passage not to Christ, but to Peter, in accordance with the use of the genitive after aTOfiv/fUOvevfiara everywhere else in Justin. (See a note on the question in the ChrisiiaH Exasmsner lor July, 1854, Ivi. laS f.) For the statement in the text, see Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IT. 5. : Licet et Marcus quod edidit[evangelium] Petri affirmetur,cujusinterpres Marcus. Jerome, De Vir. ill. c. i. : Sed et Evangelium juxta Marcum, qui auditor ejus [sc. Petri] et interpres fuit, hQJus didtur. Comp. ibid, c. 8, and Ep. 120 (al. 150) ad Hedib. c 11. See also Papias, ap. Euaeb. Hist. EccL ilL 39; Ireueus, Hatr. iii. i, § z (ap. Euseb. v. 8); 10, $6; Clement of Alex- andria ap. Euaeb. iL 15 ; vL 14; Origen ap. Euseb. vi. 25; and the striking passage of Eusebiua^ JDlMS. Ev€tmg. iiL 3, pp. laod-iaa*, quoted by Lardner, IV^rks iv. 91 ff. (Lood. 1809).
24 CRITICAL ESSAYS
guished from others as the authoritative source of instruc- tion concerning the doctrine and life of Christ.
There is one other coincidence between the language which Justin uses in describing these books and that which we find in the generation following. The four Gospels as a collection might indifferently be called, and were indifferently cited as, " the Gospels " or ** the Gospel." We find this use of the expression " the Gospel " in Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, the Apostolical Constitutions, Tertullian, and later writers gen- erally.* Now Justin represents Trypho as saying, "I know that your precepts in what is called the Gospel {h r^ Xeyofihifi eifayyeXiif)) are SO wonderful and great as to cause a suspicion that no one may be able to observe them." {Dial c. lo.) In another place, he quotes, apparently. Matt. xi. 27 (comp. Luke X. 22) as being "written in the Gospel."t No plausi- ble explanation can be given of this language except that which recognizes in it the same usage that we constantly find in later Christian writers. The books which in one place Justin calls "Gospels," books composed by Apostles and their companions, were in reference to what gave them their distinctive value one. They were the record of the Gospel of Christ in different forms. No one of our present Gospels, if these were in circulation in the time of Justin^ and certainly no one of that great number of Gospels which
*Sec Justin or Pseudo- Justin, De Res.c lo. — Ignat. or Pseudo-Ignat. Ad PhUad. cc 5» 8; Smyrn. cc. 5(?), 7. — Pscudo-CIem. 2 E^. ad Cor. c. 8. — Theophil. iii. 14. — Iren. Hitr. i. 7. §4; 8. §4; 20. §2; 27. %%. ii. 22. §5; 26. §2. iii. 5. §1; 9. §2; 10. §§2, 6; 11. §§8 {TeTf}dfiop(l>ov ru £vayyi?uov),9 » »6. § 5. iv. 20. $§6, 9 ; 3a. § » ; 34- § i.— Clem. Al. Pad. i. c. 5, pp. 104, 105, ^ii ed. Potter; c. 9, pp. i43i US ^u, 148. ii. i, p. 169; c. 10, p. 235; c. 12, p. 246. Strom, ii. 16, p. 467. iii. 6, p. 537; c. 11, p. 544. iv. i, p. 564; c. 4, p. 5^0. v. 5, p. 664. ▼L 6, p. 764; c. II, p. 7S4 6is; c. 14, p. 797. vii.3,p.836. Eel. proph. cc. 50, 57. — Origen, Cont. CoU. i. 51. ii. 13. a4, 27. 34, 36, 37» 61, 63 (Opp. I. 367, 398, 409, 411, 415, 416 bis, 433, 434 ed. Delarue). In Joan. torn. i. §§4, $. v. §4. (Opp. IV. 4, 98.) Pseudo-Orig. Dial, de recta in Deum, ^de, sect, i (Opp. I. 807). — Hippol. No'it. c. 6.— Const. Ap. i. 1, 2 bis, 5, 6. ii. 1 bis^ 5 bis,t bist 8, 13, 16, 17, 35,39. iii. 7. v. 14. vi. 23 bis, 28. vii. 24. — Tertull. Cast. c. 4. Pudie. c. 2. Adv. Marc. iv. 7. Hermog.c. 20. Resurr. c 27. Projc. cc. 20,21. — Plural., Muratorian Canon(alsothe8ing.).— Theophilus, ..4 </.«4 «/<?/. iii. 12, ra rfov TrfX)0ijT(Jv Kai ruv eva}ye?uuv. — Qem. Al. Strom, iv. 6. p. 582. HippoL Re/i Har. vii. 38, p. 259, ra»v 6k evayy€?Jcjv y rait aTToardTiOV, and later writers everywhere. — Piurai used where the passage quoted is found in only Ofu ol the Gospels, Basilides ap. Hippol. Re/. Har. vii. 22, 27. — Const. Ap. ii. 53. — Cyril of Jerusalem, Procat. c. 3; Cat. ii. 4; x. i; xvi. 16. — Theodoret, Qtuest. in Nuvt. c. xix. q. 35^ Migne Ixxx. 385; In Ps. xlv. 16, M. Ixxx. 1197; In i Thess. v. 15, M. Ixxxii. 649, and so often.
t On this important passage see Note A at the end of this es.viy.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 25
the writer of Supernatural Religion imagines to have been current at that period, could have been so distinguished from the rest as to be called " the Gospel"
It has been maintained by the author of Supernatural Re- ligion and others that Justin's description of the Gospels as " Memoirs composed by the Apostles and those who followed with them " (to render the Greek verbally) cannot apply to works composed by two Apostles and two companions of Apostles : " the Apostles " must mean all the Apostles, " the collective body of the Apostles." (5. R, i. 291.) Well, if it must, then the connected expression, "those that followed with them" (rov kiuivoiq napaKo?jovdTf<jdvTuv), whcrc the definite article is used in just the same way in Greek, must mean "all those that followed with them." We have, then, a truly mar- vellous book, if we take the view of Supernatural Religion that the *' Memoirs " of Justin was a single work ; a Gospel, namely, composed by " the collective body of the Apostles " and the collective body of those who accompanied them. If the " Memoirs " consist of several different books thus com- posed, the marvel is not lessened. Now Justin is not respon- sible for this absurdity. The simple fact is that the definite article in Greek in this case distinguishes the two classes to which the writers of the Gospels belonged.*
To state in full detail and with precision all the features of the problem presented by Justin's quotations, and his refer- ences to facts in the life of Christ, is here, of course, impos- sible. But what is the obvious aspect of the case ?
It will not be disputed that there is a very close cor- respondence between the history of Christ sketched by Justin, embracing numerous details, and that found in our Gospels : the few statements not authorized by them, such as that Christ was born in a cave, that the Magi came from Arabia, that Christ as a carpenter made ploughs and yokes,
*For iUastntions of this nte of the article, see Norton's EvuUnces of ih* Gtnmtumuof tkg G^^tbt ist ed. (1837), vol. i. p. 190, note. Comp. z Thess. ii. 14 and Jude 17, where it woald be idl« to RqipoM that the writer means that eUl the Apostles had given the particular warning referred ta See also Origen, C^mt. CtU, i. 51, p. 367, fiera rrjv avayeypafifiivrfv kv Toic evayyeXiotf vtrb r « v 'Irjavif fjuiBr^Cnf iaropiav ; and ii ij, irapan}.i^ta Toi^ imb top
fia&^uv Tov *lffaov ypa^lmv. Add CotU. Cels. ii. 16 init. See, furthei Note B at the end ot tme eseajr.
26 . CRITICAL ESSAYS
present little or no objection to the supposition that they were his main authority. These details may be easily ex- plained as founded on oral tradition, or as examples of that substitution of inferences from facts for the facts themselves, which we find in so many ancient and modern writers, and observe in every-day life.* Again, there is a substantial cor- respondence between the teaching of Christ as reported by Justin and that found in the Gospels. Only one or two sayings are ascribed to Christ by Justin which are not con- tained in the Gospels, and these may naturally be referred, like others which we find in writers who received our four Gospels as alone authoritative, to oral tradition, or may have been taken from some writing or writings now lost which contained such traditions.! That Justin actually used all our present Gospels is admitted by Hilgenfeld and Keim. But that they were not his main authority is argued chiefly from the want of exact verbal correspondence between his citations of the words of Christ and the language of our Gospels, where the meaning is essentially the same. The untenableness of this argument has been demonstrated, I conceive, by Norton, Semisch, Westcott, and Sanday, versus Hilgenfeld and Supeniatural Religion, Its weakness is illus- trated in a Note at the end of this essay, and will be further illustrated presently by the full discussion of a passage of special interest and importance. Justin nowhere expressly
* Several of Justin's additions in the way of detail seem to have proceeded from his assum^ tioH of the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies, or what he regarded as such. See Semisch, DU apost. Denk^vxirdigkeiteH des MUrtyrers Justinu$ (1S48), p. 377 ff. ; Volkmar, Der Ursprung ututrer Evangelien (1866), p. 124 f . ; Westcott, Canon 0/ tJie N. 7"., p. 16a, 4th ed. (187s), and Dr. E. A. Abbott, art. Go$peU in the ninth ed. of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (p. 817), who remarks: " Justin never quotes any rival Gospel, nor alleges any words or facts which make It probable he used a rival Gospel ; such non-canonical sayings and facts as he mentions are readily explicable as the results of lapse of memory, general looseness and inaccuracy, extending to the use of the Old as well as the New Testament, and the desire to adapt the facts of the New Scriptures to the prophecies of the Old." (p. 818).
t See Westcott, "On the Apocryphal Traditions of the Lord's Words and Works," appended to his Inirod. to tJit Study of tke Gospth^ 5th ed. (1875), pp. 453-461, and the little volume of J. T. Dodd, Sayin^x ascribed to our Lord by tfu Father s^^xc^ Oxford, 1874. Compare Norton, Genuineness o/ihe Gospels^ 2d ed. , i. 2 ao ff. The stress which the author of Supernatural Religian lays on the word iravra in the passage {Apol. i 33) where Justin speaks of "those who have written memoirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ " shows an extraordinary <iisregard of the common use of such expressions. It is enough to compare, as Westcott does, Acts i. I. For illustrations from Justin {Apol. ii. 6; i. 45 ; Dial. cc. 44, lai) see Semisch, Di§ e^it. DenkwikrdigkeiUn u. s. w., p. 404 f.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 2J
quotes the "Memoirs" for anything which is not substan- tially found in our Gospels; and there is nothing in his deviations from exact correspondence with them, as regards matters of fact, or the report of the words of Christ, which may not be abundantly paralleled in the writings of the Christian Fathers who used our four Gospels as alone authoritative.
With this view of the state of the case, and of the char- acter of the books used and described by Justin though without naming their authors, let us now consider the bearing of the indisputable fact (with which the author of Supernatural Religion thinks he has no concern) of the gen- eral reception of our four Gospels as genuine in the last quarter of the second century. As I cannot state the argu- ment more clearly or more forcibly than it has been done by Mr. Norton, I borrow his language. Mr. Norton says : —
The manner in which Justin speaks of the character and authority of the books to which he appeals, of their reception among Christians, and of the use which was made of them, proves these books to have been the Gospels. They carried with them the authority of the Apostles. They were those writings from which he and other Christians derived their knowledge of the history and doctrines of Christ They were relied upon by him as primary and decisive evidence in his explanations of the character of Christianity. They were regarded as sacred books. They were read in the assemblies of Christians on the Lord's day, in connection with the Prophets of the Old Testament Let us now consider the manner in which the Gospels were regarded by the contemporaries of Justin. Irenaeus was in the vigor of life before Justin's death ; and the same was true of very many thousands of Christians living when Irenaeus wrote. But he tells us that the four Gospels are the four p liars of the Church, the foundation of Christian faith, written by those who had first orally preached the Gospel, by two Apostles and two companions of Apostles. It is incredible that Irenxus and Justin should have spoken of difEerent books. We cannot suppose that writings, such as the Memoirs of which Justin speaks, believed to be the works of Apostles and companions of Apostles, read in Christian Churches, and received a< sacred books, of the highest authority, should, immediately after he wrote, have fallen into neglect and oblivion, and been superseded by another set of books. The strong sentiment of their value could not so silently, and so unaccountably, have changed into entire disregard, and have been transferred to other writings. The copies of them spread over the world could not so suddenly and mysteriously have disappeared.
28 CRITICAL ESSAYS
that no subsequent trace of their existence should be clearly discoverable. When, there- fore, we find Irenaeus, the contemporary of Justin, ascribing to the four Gospels the same character, the same authority, and the same authors, as are ascribed by Justin to the Memoirs quoted by him, which were called Gospels, there can be no reasonable doubt that the Memoirs of Justin were the Gospels of Irenxus.*
It may be objected to Mr. Norton's argument, that **many writings which have been excluded from the canon were publicly read in the churches, until very long after Justin's day." {S,R, i. 294.) The author of Supernatural Religion mentions particularly the Epistle of the Roman Clement to the Corinthians, the Epistle of Soter, the Bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians, the " Pastor " or " Shepherd " of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter. To these may be added the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas.
To give the objection any force, the argument must run thus: The writings above named were at one time gener- ally regarded by Christians as sacred books, of the highest authority and importance, and placed at least on a level with the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. They were afterwards excluded from the canon: therefore a similar change might take place among Christians in their estimate of the writings which Justin has described under the name of "Memoirs by the Apostles." In the course of thirty years, a different set of books might silently supersede them in the whole Christian world.
The premises are false. There is no proof that any one of these writings was ever regarded as possessing the same authority and value as Justin's " Memoirs," or anything like it. From the very nature of the case, books received as au- thentic records of the life and teaching of Christ must have had an importance which could belong to no others. On the character of the teaching and the facts of the life of Christ as recorded in the ** Memoirs," Justin's whole argu- ment rests. Whether he regarded the Apostolic writings as " inspired " or not, he unquestionably regarded Christ as inspired, or rather as the divine, inspiring Logos {Apol, i.
* Evideneet of th4 Gtmmmtntts of tht Got^h^ ad ed. , vol. i. pp. 237-239.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 29
33» 36; ii. 10) ; and his teaching as "the new law/' universal, everlasting, which superseded "the old covenant." (See DiaL cc. II, 12, etc.) The books that contained this were to the Christians of Justin's time the very foundation of their faith.
As to the works mentioned by Supernatural Religion, not only is there no evidence that any one of them ever held a place in the Christian Church to be compared for a moment with that of the Gospels, but there is abundant evidence to the contrary. They were read in some churches for a time as edifying books, — the Epistle of Clement of Rome "in very many churches '* according to Eusebius (Hist, Eccl, iii. 16),* — and a part of them were regarded by a few Chris- tian writers as having apostolic or semi-apostolic authority, or as divinely inspired. One of the most definite statements about them is that of Dionysius of Corinth (fir, a.d. 175-180), who, in a letter to the church at Rome (Euseb. Hist, Eccl, iv. 23), tells us that the Epistle of Soter (d. 176?) to the Christians at Corinth was read in their church for edification or "admonition" (yox/dtrtioBai is the word used) on a certain Sunday, and would continue to be so read from time to time, as the Epistle of Clement had been. This shows how far the occasional public reading of such a writing in the church was from implying its canonical authority. — Clement of Alexandria repeatedly quotes the Epistle ascribed to Barna- bas as the work of " Barnabas the Apostle," but criticises and condemns one of his interpretations {Strom, ii. 15, p. 464), and in another place, as Mr. Norton remarks, rejects a fiction found in the work {Peed, ii. 10, p. 220, £f.). — "The Shepherd" of Hermas in lis form claims to be a divine vision; its allegorical character suited the taste of many; and the Muratorian Canon {cir, a.d. 170) says that it ought to be read in the churches, but not as belonging to the writ- ings of the prophets or apostles. (See Credncr, Gcsch, d. neutest, Kanon^ p. 165.) This was the general view of those who did not reject it as altogether apocryphal. It appears in the Sinaitic MS. as an appendix to the New Testament. — The Apocalypse of Peter appears to have imposed upon some
*Comp. esp. Lightfoot, CUmeut of Romt^ p. a 73 ff.
30 CRITICAL ESSAYS
as the work of the Apostle. The Muratorian Canon says, " Some among us are unwilling that it should be read in the church." It seems to have been received as genuine by Clement of Alexandria {Ed, proph, cc. 41, 48, 49) and Meth- odius {Conv. ii. 6). Besides these, the principal writers who speak of it are Eusebius {Hist. EccL iii. 3. §2; 25. §4; vi. 14. § i), who rejects it as uncanonical or spurious, Jerome {De Vir. ill, c. i), who puts it among apocryphal writings, and Sozomen {Hist. Reel, vii. 19), who mentions that, though rejected by the ancients as spurious, it was read once a year in some churches of Palestine.*
It appears sufficiently from what has been said that there is nothing in the limited ecclesiastical use of these books, or in the over-estimate of their authority and value by some individuals, to detract from the force of Mr. Norton's argu- ment. Supernatural Religion here confounds things that differ very widely.f
At this stage of the argument, we are entitled, I think, to come to the examination of the apparent use of the Gospel of John by Justin Martyr with a strong presumption in favor of the view that this apparent use is real. In other words, there is a very strong presumption that the ** Memoirs" used by Justin and called by him " Gospels *' and collectively " the Gospel,'* and described as " composed by Apostles of Christ and their companions," were actually our present Gospels, composed by two Apostles and two conjpanions of Apostles. This presumption is, I believe, greatly strengthened by the evidence of the use of the Fourth Gospel by writers between the time of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and also by the evidences of its use before the time of Justin by the Gnostic sects. But, leaving those topics for the present, we will con- sider the direct evidence of its use by Justin.
The first passage noticed will be examined pretty thor- oughly : both because the discussion of it will serve to illus- trate the false reasoning of the author of Supernatural Relig-
* See, on this book, Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test, txtra canonem reee^um (1866), iv. 74, if.
t On this whole subject, see Semisch, Dit apettoU DenkwVkrdigktittn eUs Jidrt. yustimu, p. 61, ff.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 3 1
ion and other writers respecting the quotations of Justin Martyr which agree in substance with passages in our Gospels while differing in the form of expression ; and because it is of special importance in its bearing on the question whether Justin made use of the Fourth Gospel, and seems to me, when carefully examined, to be in itself almost decisive.
The passage is that in which Justin gives an account of Christian baptism, in the sixty-first chapter of his First Apology. Those who are ready to make a Christian pro- fession, he says, "are brought by us to a place where there is water, and in the manner of being born again [or regen- erated] in which we ourselves also were born again, they are born again ; for in the name of the Father of the universe and sovereign God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the bath in the water. For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven ( Av //jy avaytwrfifjTe,
ov iiri ciaiWrrrt eif rfp^ PaaiXeiav rijif ovfmvdv). But that it is impossible
for those who have once been born to enter into the wombs of those who brought them forth is manifest to all."
The passage in the Gospel of John of which this reminds us is found in chap. iii. 3-5 : "Jesus answered and said to him [Nicodemus], Verily, verily I say unto thee. Except a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God (Eav fiy n^
ytwrfiff ivudev^ ov dhvarcu ideiv t^ PaaiXetav tov Beov). NicodcmUS Saith
to him. How can a man be born when he is old ? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born.^ Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee. Except a man be bom of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God ('Edv fi^ ng yewj^ij e^ vdarog Kal nvevfioTog, ov (]vvarai
eiffeMiv tie T^ I3aat?^iav TOV Oeov), Compare verse 7, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew " (^a vfiac yewriOyvai avufftv); and Matt, xviii. 3, "Verily I say unto you. Except ye be changed, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise
enter into the kingdom of heaven" (ov fii^ elai^Brrre elg ryv paat?Mav r6» oifpavuv).
I have rendered the Greek as literally as possible ; but it
32 CRITICAL ESSAYS
should be observed that the word translated " anew," ivudev^ might also be rendered "from above.*' This point will be considered hereafter. .
Notwithstanding the want of verbal correspondence, I believe that we have here in Justin a free quotation from the Gospel of John, modified a little by a reminiscence of Matt, xviii. 3.
The first thing that strikes us in Justin's quotation is the fact that the remark with which it concludes, introduced by Justin as if it were a grave observation of his own, is simply silly in the connection in which it stands. In John, on the other hand, where it is not to be understood as a serious question, it admits, as we shall see, of a natural explanation as the language of Nicodemus. This shows, as everything else shows, the weakness (to use no stronger term) of Volk- mar's hypothesis, that John has here borrowed from Justin, not Justin from John. The observation affords also, by its very remarkable peculiarity, strong evidence that Justin derived it, together with the declaration which accompanies it, from the Fourth Gospel.
It will be well, before proceeding to our immediate task, to consider the meaning of the passage in John, and what the real difficulty of Nicodemus was. He could not have been perplexed by the figurative use of the expression " to be born anew " : that phraseology was familiar to the Jews to denote the change which took place in a Gentile when he became a proselyte to Judaism.* But the unqualified lan- guage of our Saviour, expressing a universal necessity, implied that even the Jewish Pharisee, with all his pride of sanctity and superior knowledge, must experience a radical change, like that which a Gentile proselyte to Judaism under- went, before he could enjoy the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom. This was what amazed Nicodemus. Pretending therefore to take the words in their literal meaning, he asks, " How can a man be born when he is old ? Can he enter," etc. He imposes an absurd and ridiculous sense on the
*See Lightfoot and Wetstein, or T. Robinson or WUnsche, on John uL 3 or 5.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 33
words, to lead Jesus to explain himself further.* Thus viewed, the question is to some purpose in John; while the language in Justin, as a serious proposition, is idle, and betrays its non-originality.
The great difference in the form of expression between Justin's citation and the Gospel of John is urged as decisive against the supposition that he has here used this Gospel. It is observed further that all the deviations of Justin from the language of the Fourth Gospel are also found in a quotation of the words of Christ in the Clementine Homilies ; and hence it has been argued that Justin and the writer of the Clementines quoted from the same apocryphal Gospel, perhaps the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Gospel according to Peter. In the Clementine Homilies (xi. 26), the quotation runs as follows : " For thus the prophet swore unto us, saying. Verily I say unto you, except ye be born again by living water into the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." But it will be seen at once that the author of the Clementines differs as widely from Justin as Justin from the Fourth Gospel, and that there is no plausibility in the suppo- sition that he and Justin quoted from the same apocryphal book. The quotation in the Clementines is probably only a free combination of the language in John iii. 3-5 with Matt xxviii. 19, modified somewhat in form by the influence of Matt, xviii. 3.! Such combinations of different passages, and such quotations of the words of Christ according to the sense rather than the letter, are not uncommon in the Fathers. Or, the Clementines may have used Justin, t
I now propose to show in detail that the differences in form between Justin's quotation and the phraseology of the Fourth Gospel, marked as they are, all admit of an easy and natural explanation on the supposition that he really borrowed from it, and that they are paralleled by similar variations in the
•See Norton, A Nexit Trans, of the GosptU^ tvith Notes, vol. ii. p. 507.
tOn the qootationt from the Gospel of John as well as from the other Gospels in the Qemewtine Homilies, see Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 388-295 \ comp. pp. i6s'iS7. See also Westoott, Canon of the //. T., pp. 382-288 ; and oomp. pp. i $9-156.
tSo Bleek, Be&rS£e,p, asi; Anger, Synopsis, p. 373; De Wette, End, § b^«, note g. Comp. Kdm, UrchriU.t p. 225, note, who asserts, in general, that Justin Martyr is " besonders bcnotzt " by the aathor of the Clementine Homilies.
34 CRITICAL ESSAYS
quotations of the same passage by Christian writers who used our four Gospels as their exclusive authority. If this is made clear, the fallacy of the assumption on which the author of Supernatural Religion reasons in his remarks on this passage, and throughout his discussion of Justin's quota- tions, will be apparent. He has argued on an assumption of verbal accuracy in the quotations of the Christian Fathers which is baseless, and which there were peculiar reasons for not expecting from Justin in such works as his Apologies.* Let us take up the differences point by point : — I. The solemn introduction, "Verily, verily I say unto thee," is omitted. But this would be very naturally omitted : (i) because it is of no importance for the sense; and (2) because the Hebrew words used, 'Ap/v d^vv, would be unintel- ligible to the Roman Emperor, without a particular explana- tion (compare Apol. i. 65). (3) It is usually omitted by Christian writers in quoting the passage : so, for example, by the DocETiST in Hippolytus {Ref. Har, viii. 10, p. 267), Ire- NiEUS (Frag. 35, ed. Stieren, 33 Harvey), Origen, in a Latin version {In Ex. Horn. v. i, Opp. ii. 144, ed. Delarue ; In Ep, ad Rom, lib. V. c. 8, Opp. iv. 560), the Apostolical Constitu- tions (vi. 15), EusEBius twice (In Isa, i. 16, 17, and iii. i, 2 ; Migne xxiv. 96, 109), Athanasjus {De Incam. c. 14, Opp. '. S9f ed. Montf.), Cyril of Jerusalem twice (Cat. iii. 4; jcvii. 1 1), Basil the Great (Adv, Eunotn, lib. v. Opp. i. 308 (437), ed. Benedict.), Pseudo-Basil three times (De Bapt, i. 2. §§ 2, 6; ii. i. § i ; Opp. ii. 630 (896), 633 (899), 653 (925) ), Gregory Nysscn (De Christi Bapt. Opp. iii. 369), Ephraem Syrus (De Pomit. Opp. iii. 183), Macarius ^Egyp-
*On the whole subject of Justin Martyr's quotations, I would refer to the admirably clear, forcible, and accurate statement of the case in Norton's Evidences of the Genuipteness of the Gospels^ ad ed., vol. i. pp. 200-239, and Addit. Note E, pp. ccxiv.-ccxxxviii. His account is less detailed than that of Semisch, Hilgenfeld, and Super natureU Religion^ but is thoroughly trustworthy. On one point there may be a doubt : Mr. Norton says that " Justin twice gives the words, Thou art my ton ; this day have I begotten thee^ as those uttered at otir Saviour's baptism; and in one place says expressly that the wortls were found in the Memoirs by the Apostles." This last statement seems to me incorrea. The quotations referred to will be found in Dial. c. Try ph. cc. 88, 103 ; but in neither case does Justin say^ according to the grammatical construction of his language, that the words in question were found in the Memoirs, though it is probable that they were. (See below, p. loi f.) The discui^sion of Justin's quotations by Prof, Westcott and Dr. Sanday in the works referred to in note t on the preceding page is also Valuable, espedally in reference to the early variations in the text of the Gospels.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 35
Tius (Horn. XXX. 3), Chrysostom {De consubst. vii. 3, Opp. i. 505 (618), ed. Montf. ; In Gen, Serm. vii. 5, Opp. iv. 681 (789), and elsewhere repeatedly), Theodoret {QucbsL in Num. 35, Migne Ixxx. 385), Basil of Seleucia {Orat, xxviii. 3, Migne Ixxxv. 321), and a host of other writers, both Greek and Latin, — I could name forty, if necessary.
2. The change of the indefinite r/f, in the singular, to the second person plural: "Except a man be born anew" to "Except ye be bom anew." This also is unimportant. This is shown, and the origin of the change is partially explained (i) by the fact, not usually noticed, that it is made by the speaker himself in the Gospel, in professedly repeating in the seventh verse the words used in the third; the indefi- nite sing^ar involving, and being equivalent to, the plural. Verse 7 reads : " Marvel not that I said unto thee. Ye must be bom anew." (2) The second person plural would also be suggested by the similar passage in Matt, xviii. 3, " Except ye be changed and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." Nothing was more natural than that in a quotation from memory the language of these two kindred passages should be somewhat mixed; and such a confusion of similar passages is frequent in the writings of the Fathers. This affords an easy explanation also of Justin's substituting, in agreement with Matthew, "shall in no wise enter" for "cannot enter," and "kingdom of heaven" for "kingdom of God." The two passages of John and Matthew are actually mixed together in a some- what similar way in a free quotation by Clement of Alex- andria, a writer who unquestionably used our Gospels alone as authoritative, — "the four Gospels, which," as he says, *'have been handed down to us" {Strom, iii. 13, p. 553).* (3) This declaration of Christ would often be quoted in the early Christian preaching, in reference to the importance of baptism ; and the second person plural would thus be natu-
• Cement {Cohort, ad Gentes, c. 9, p. 69) blends Matt, xviii. 3 and John iii. 3 as follows: '* Except ye again become as little children, and h« horn again {avayEwridfjr€)^ as the Scripture oidk, jre will in no wise receive him who is truly your Father, and will in no wise ever enter into At kingdom ol heaven.*'
36 CRITICAL ESSAYS
rally substituted for the indefinite singular, to give greater directness to the exhortation. So in the Clementine Homi- lies (xi. 26), and in both forms of the Clementine Epitome (c. 18, pp. 16, 134, ed. Dressel, Lips. 1859). (4) That this change of number and person does not imply the use of an apocryphal Gospel is further shown by the fact that it is made twice in quoting the passage by Jeremy Taylor, who in a third quotation also substitutes the plural for the singu- lar in a somewhat different way.* (See below, p. 42.)
3. The change of eav fiy ug yewTjdij aiHjdev, verSC 3 (or yewj^
merely, verse 5), " Except a man be born anew," or " over again," into av ^;) dvayewrr^f/re, " Except yc be born again," or " regenerated " ; in other words, the substitution of avayewdtrdat for yewda^ai avu^ev, or for the simple verb in verse 5, presents no real difficulty, though much has been made of it. (i) It is said that ycwacr&at &v<ji»ev caunot mean "to be bom anew/' but must mean " to be born /fvm above^ But we have the clearest philological evidence that avi^?v has the meaning of "anew," "over again," as well as "from above." In the only passage in a classical author where the precise phrase, yz\^a(ydai, hvu^tv, has been pointed out, namely, Artemidorus on Dreams, i. 13, ed. ReifiE (al. 14), it cannot possibly have any other meaning. Meyer, who rejects this sense, has fallen into a strange mistake about the passage in Artemidorus, showing that he cannot have looked at it. Meaning "from above" or "from the top'* (Matt, xxvii. 51), then "from the beginning" (Luke i. 3), hvu^tv is used, with 7ra;uv to strengthen
* Professor James Dnimmond well remarks : " How easily such a change might be made, when verbal accuracy was not studied* is instructively shewn in Theophylact's p>araphrase [I translate the Greek ] : ' But I say unto thee, that both thou and every other man whatsoever, unless having been bom from above \or anew] and of God, ye receive the true faith [//'/. the worthy opinion] concerning me, are outside of the kingdom."* Chrysostom (also cited by Prof. Drummond) observes that Christ's words are equivalent to Mv 01' /^v yewjp^y k.t,?,.^ " Except M*« be bom," etc., but are put in the indefinite form in order to make the discourse less offensive. Photius, in quoting John iiL 5, substitutes lyi/p for aoi. (See below, p. 36.) I gladly take this opportunity to call attention to the valuable article by Prof. Dmmmond in the TAsolofica/ RevUw for October, 1875, vol. vii. pp. 471-488, "On the adleged Quotation from the Fourth Gospel relating to the New Birth, in Justin Martyr, Apol. i. c 61.'* He has treated the ques- tion with the ability, candor, and cautious accuracy of statement which distingtiish his writings generally. For the quotation given above, see p. 476 of the Review. I am indebted to him for several valuable suggestions ; but, to prevent misapprehension as to the extent of this indebt* edness, I may be permitted to refer to my note on the subject in the American edition of Smith's Dictionary 0/ th€ Bible, vol. ii. p. 1433, published in 1869, six years before the appearance of Prof. Drummond's article.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 37
it, to signify "again from the beginning," "all over again" (Gal. iv. 9, where see the passages from Galen and Hippo- crates cited by Wetstein, and Wisd. of Sol. xix. 6, where see Grimm's note), like ^rdP^v kK devripov or Mrepw (Matt. xxvi. 42,
John Xxi. 16), and in the classics tt&Tjv av^Trakiv av'dLq,7:a>jve^apx^.':.
Thus it gets the meaning "anew," "over again"; see the passages cited by McClellan in his note on John iii. 3.* (2) 'Avwi^rv was here understood as meaning "again" by the translators of many of the ancient versions ; namely, the Old Latin, "denuo," the Vulgate, Coptic, Peshito Syriac {Sup. ReLy 6th edit, is mistaken about this), iEthiopic, Georgian (see Malan's The Gospel according to St, Johriy etc.). (3) The Christian Fathers who prefer the other interpretation, as Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theophylact, recognize the^ fact that the word may have either meaning. The ambi- guity is also noticed by Chrysostom. (4) 'Kvaytwaa^ai was the common word in Christian literature to describe the change referred to. So already in i Pet. i. 3, 23 ; comp. i Pet. ii. 2; and see the context in Justin. (5) This meaning best suits the connection. Verse 4 represents it as so understood by Nicodemus : " Can he enter a second timel^ etc. The fact that John has used the word av(j^Ev in two other passages in a totally different connection (viz. iii. 31, xix. 11) in the sense of " from above " is of little weight. He has nowhere else used it in reference to the new birth to denote that it is a birth from above : to express that idea, he has used a differ-
*The passages are: Joseph. /(»/. L i8, §3; Socrates in Stobxus, Flor. cxxiv. 41, iv. 135 Meaneke; Harpocration, Lex. 9, y, ava6iKdoa(r3^at ] Pseudo-Basil, Dt Bapt. i. a. $7; Can. i^KMt. 46, aL 47, al. 39; to which add Origen, In Joan. torn. xx. c. 11, Opp. iv. 322, who gives the words of Christ to Peter in the legend found in the Acts of Paul : av<^ev ///AA6) trravpcrf^^vai =s** ii^^ftft crudfigi." I have verified McClellan 's references ( T'^ N.T. etc voL I. p. aS4, Lond. 1875), and given them in a form in which they may be more easily foimd.
Though many of the best commentators take avw&evhere in the sense of "from above,*' as Boigel, LCIcke, De Wette, Meyer, Clausen, and so the lexicographers Wahl, Bretschneider, Robinson, the rendering " anew ** is supported by Chrysostom, Nonnus, Euthymius, Budxus, Haory Stephen (Tk^s, s. v.), Lnther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Kypke, Krebs, Knapp {Seri/ia vmr. Arg. \. z88, ed. ada), Kuinoel, Credner {BeUrdget i* 353)> Olshausen, Tholuck, Neander, Norton, Noyes, Alford, Ewald, Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Luthardt, Weiss, Godet, Farrar, Watkins, Westoott, and the recent lexicographers, Grimm and Cremer. The word is not to be nndentood as merely equivalent to "again," *'a second time," but implies an entire change. Cooipare the use of ei^ tIXo^ in the sense of " completely," and the Ep. of Barnabas, C i6» § 8 (dted by Bretschneider) : " Having received the forgiveness of our sins, and having phoed oar hope in the Name, we became new men, created again from the beginning" {w6Xn> k^ apx^).
38 CRITICAL ESSAYS
ent expression, yewrr&vv<u u ^ew or U rotn^ew, "to be bom [or begotten] of God," which occurs once in the Gospel (i. 13) and nine times in the First Epistle, so that the presumption is that, if he had wished to convey that meaning here, he would have used here also that unambiguous expression. But what is decisive as to the main point is the fact that
Justin's word avayEwrr^y is actually substituted for yewrn^Tjui'or&ev
in verse 3, or for the simple jnioTi^y in verse 5, by a large number of Christian writers who unquestionably quote from John ; so, besides the Clementine Homilies (xi. 26) and the Clementine Epitome in both forms (c. 18), to which excep- tion has been taken with no sufficient reason, Iren^eus (Frag. 35, ed. Stieren, i. 846), Eusebius {/n Isa. i. 16, 17; Migne xxiv. 96), Athanasius ij)e Incani. c. 14), Basil (Adv, Eunom, lib. v. Opp. i. 308 (437)), Ephraem Syrus {De Pcmit, Opp.
iii. 183 {avaytwrrdl) avwt^ev)), ChRYSOSTOM (/« 1 Ep, od Cov. XV. 2g,
Opp. X. 378 (440)),* Cyril of Alexandria (In Joan, iii. 5,,
cfavoyrwTi^y J/' i}Jarof /c.r.X., SO PuSCy's Critical cd., Vol. i. p. 2I9;
Aubert has ycw^i^yf^vcJ.) ; Procopius GAZiEUS, Cotnm, in Is, i.
20 (Migne IxXXvii. 1849'*') : kav fiij nq avayewrfdy k^ vdaro^ Ka\ rrveifxart)^ ov fi^ e'ttrrXdif e'tg Ttjv ^fwi?Mav t<jv ovpavuv; PHOTIUS, Ad
Amphiloch, Q. 49 (al. 48) (Migne ci. 369*") : oauniip . . . iXeyev
'A/i3^, afiijv ?Jy(j vfiiv ' iav y.rj rig avayevvrfOij 6C vdarog koI irveifiarogj oifK e I (TeTiel a era I elg ri/v paaiXeiav rijv ovpavuv^ and SO, probably,
Anastasius Sinaita preserved in a Latin version {Anagog\ Contcmp, in Hcxa'em, lib. iv., Migne Ixxxix. 906, regeneratns ; contra, col. ^yo^ gcnitusy 916, gencratus)^ and Hesychius of Jerusalem in a Latin version (/;/ LeviL xx. 9, Migne xciii. 1044, regeneratns ; but col. 974, renaiiis). In the Old Latin version or versions and the Vulgate, the MSS. are divided in John iii. 3 between natus and renains, and so in verse 4, 2d clause, between ftasei and renasci; but in verse 5 renatus f tier it is the unquestionable reading of the Latin versions, presupposing, apparently, avayewrr^y in the Greek. (See Tischendorfs 8th critical edition of the Greek Test. /// /oc.) The Latin Fathers, with the exception of Tertullian and Cyprian, who have both readings, and of the author Dc- Rebaptismate (c. 3), in quoting the passage, almost invariably have renatus,
•Comp. Chrysostom, De Sacerdot. iii. 5, Opp. i. 3*^;/' Ci'j), ci'.rd by Westcotl, Canon cj the N. T., sth ed., 1881, p. xxx., note i, § 3.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEI 39
We occasionally find avayewTjdffvai, "to be bom again," for ftwn&mxu^ " to be born," in the first clause of verse 4 ; so Ephraem Syrus {De Pcenit. Opp. iii. 183), and Cyril of Alexandria {Glaph, in Exod. lib. iii., Opp. i. a. 341).
From all that has been said, it will be seen that the use of avayewrjd^t here by Justin is easily explained. Whether avudev in John really means '* from above *' or " anew " is of little importance. in its bearing on our question : there can be no doubt that Justin may have understood it in the latter sense; • and, even if he did not, the use of the term avayewaaSai here was very natural, as is shown by the way in which the pas- sage is quoted by Irenaeus, Eusebius, and many other writers.
4. The next variation, the change of " cannot see " or "enter into " {ov dhvarat \6eiv or eloe7Mv eif, Lat, non potcst vidcre, or intrare or introire in) into ** shall not'' or ^^ sliall in no wise see " or " enter into *' (o\> /^^ M?/, once Wo«, or ov 11^ £iai?MTf or elaiWjire "f, twice ovK elaeXtvaerai fif, Lat, non vidcbit, or intrabit or intro- ibit in), is both so natural (comp. Matt, xviii. 3) and so trivial as hardly to deserve mention. It is perhaps enough to say that I have noted seventy-one examples of it in the quotations of this passage by forty-foitr different writers among the Greek and Latin Fathers. It is to be observed that in most of the quotations of the passage by th^ Fathers, verses 3 and 5 are mixed in different ways, as might be expected.
5. The change of "kingdom of God'' into "kingdom of heaven " is perfectly natural, as they are synonymous expres- sions, and as the phrase " kingdom of heaven *' is used in the passage of Matthew already referred to, the language of which was likely to be more or less confounded in recollec- tion with that of this passage in John. The change is actually made in several Greek MSS. in the 5th verse of John, including the Sinaitic, and is even received by Tisch- endorf into the text, though, I believe, on insufficient grounds. But a great number of Christian writers in quoting from John make just the same change; so the Docetist in Hippoly- Tus {Ref, Har, viii. 10, p. 267), the Clementine Homilies (xi. 26), the Recognitions (i. 69; vi. 9), the Clementine Epitome (c. 18) in both forms, iRENiEUS (Frag. 35, ed. Stieren), Origen in a Latin version twice {Opp, iii. 948 ; iv. 483), the Apostolical Constitutions (vi. 15). Eusebius
40 CRITICAL ESSAYS
twice (In Isa, i. i6, 17; iii. i, 2; Migne xxiv. 96, 109), Pseud-Athanasius {Quccst. ad Antioch, loi, Opp. ii. 291), Ephraem Syrus {Dc Pccnit, Opp. iii. 183), Chrysostom five or six times {Opp. iv. 681 (789) ; viii. 143'*'' (165), 144^ (165). 144'* (166) ), Theodoret {QucBSt, in Num, 35, Migne Ixxx. 385), Basil of Seleucia {Orat. xxviii. 3), Procopius, Pho- Tius, Anastasius Sixaita in a Latin version three times (Migne Ixxxix. 870, 906, 916), Hesychius of Jerusalem in a Latin version twice (Migne xciii. 974, 1044), Theodorus Abucara (Opuscc, c. 17, Migne xcvii. 1541), Terxullian (Dc BapU c. 13), Anon. De Rcbaptismate (c. 3), Philastrius {Hcer, 120 and 148, ed. Oehler), Chromatius (/;/ Matt. iii. 14, Migne xx. 329), Jerome twice {Ep. 69, al. 83, and In Isa. i. 16 ; Migne xxii. 660, xxv. 35), Augustine seven times (Opp. ii. 1360, 1361 ; V. 1745 ; vi. 327; vii. 52S; ix. 630; x. 207, ed. Bened. 2da), and a host of other Latin Fathers.
It should be observed that many of the writers whom I have cited combine three or four of these variations from John. It may be well to give, further, some additional illus- trations of the freedom with which this passage is sometimes quoted and combined with others. One example has already been given from Clement of Alexandria. (See No. 2.) Ter- TULLiAN (De Bapt. 12) quotes it thus: "The Lord says, Except a man shall be born of water, he hath not life,'' — Nisi natus ex aqua quis erit, non habet vitam. Similarly Odo Cluniacensis (Mar. in yob. iii. 4, Migne cxxxiii. 135): "Ve- ritas autem dicit. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sanctOy non habet vitam cetemamJ* Anastasius Sinai ta, as preserved in a Latin version (Anagog. Contempt, in Hexaem. lib. v., Migne Ixxxix. 916), quotes the passage as follows: "dicens. Nisi quis fuerit generatus ex aqua et Spiritu qui fertur super aquam, non intrabit in regnum ccelorum'' The Apostolical Constitutions (vi. 15) as edited by Cotelier and Ueltzen read : " For the Lord saith. Except a man be baptized with ((SanTia^ k^) water and the Spirit, he sha/l in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven!* Here, indeed, Lagarde, with two MSS., edits yewrr^rj for fSaTTTur^y, but the more difficult reading may well be genuine. Compare Euthymius Zigabenus (Panopl, pars ii. tit. 23, Adv. Bogo- milos, c 16, in the Latin version in Max. Bibl. Patrum, xix.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 41
224), ** Nisi quis baptisatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum Dei," and see Jeremy Taylor, as quoted below. Didymus of Alexandria gives as the words of Christ (tlictv 6i), "Ye must be born of water'' {De Trin, ii. 12, p. 250, Migne xxxix. 672). It will be seen that all these examples purport to be express quotations.
My principal object in this long discussion has been to show how false is the assumption on which the author of Supernatural Religion proceeds in his treatment of Justin's quotations, and those of other early Christian writers. But the fallacy of his procedure may, perhaps, be made more striking by some illustrations of the way in which the very passage of John which we have been considering is quoted by a modem English writer. I have noted nine quotations of the passage by Jeremy Taylor, who is not generally sup- posed to have used many apocryphal Gospels. All of these differ from the common English version, and only two of them are alike. They exemplify all the peculiarities of vari- ation from the common text upon which the writers of the Tiibingen school and others have laid such stress as proving that Justin cannot have here quoted John. I will number these quotations, with a reference to the volume and page in which they occur in Heber's edition of Jeremy Taylor's Works, London, 1828, 15 vols. 8vo, giving also such specifi- cations as may enable one to find the passages in any other edition of his complete Works ; and, without copying them all in full, will state their peculiarities. No. i. Life of Christ, Part L Sect. IX. Disc. VI. Of Baptism, part i. § 12. Heber, vol. ii. p. 240. — No. 2. Ibid, Disc. VI. Of baptizing Infants, part ii. § 26. Heber, ii. 288. — No. 3. Ibid, § 32. Heber, ii. 292. — No. 4. Liberty of Prophesying, Sect. XVIII. § 7. Heber, viii. 153. — No. 5. Ibid. Ad 7. Heber, viii. 190. — No. 6. Ibid, Ad 18. Heber, viii. 191. — No. 7. Ibid, Ad 18. Heber, viii. 193. — No. 8. Disc, of Confirm. Sect. I. Heber, 3d. 238. — No. 9. Ibid, Heber, xi. 244.
We may notice the following points : —
I. He has "unless" for "except," uniformly. This is a trifling variation ; but, reasoning after the fashion of Super-
42 CRITICAL ESSAYS
natural Religion, we should say that this uniformity of vari- ation could not be referred to accident, but proved that he quoted from a different text from that of the authorized version.
2. He has "kingdom of heaven** for "kingdom of God^* six times ; viz., Nos. i, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.
3. *^ Heaven'* simply for "kingdom of God" once; No. 6.
4. " Shall not enter " for " cannot enter " four times ; Nos. 4» S> 7» 8; comp. also No. 6.
5. The second person plural, ^^, for the third person sin- gular, twice ; Nos. 3, 7.
6. ''Baptized with water'* for ** bom of water" once; No. 7.
7. "Born again by water" for "born of water" once; No. 6.
8. ''Both ^ water and the Spirit " for " ^ water and ofth^ Spirit" once; No. 9.
9. "Of" is omitted before "the Spirit" six times; Nos. I, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8.
10. "Holy" is inserted before "Spirit" twice ; Nos. i, 8. No. I reads, for example, " Unless a man be born of water
and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven!*
Stipematural Religion insists that, when Justin uses such an expression as " Christ said," we may expect a verbally accurate quotation.* Now nothing is more certain than that the Christian Fathers frequently use such a formula when they mean to give merely the substance of what Christ said, and not the exact words ; but let us apply our author's prin- ciple to Jeremy Taylor. No. 3 of his quotations reads thus:
"Therefore our Lord hath defined it, Unless ye be born of water and the Spirit, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven!*
No. 6 reads, " Though Christ said, None but those that are bom again by water and the Spirit shall enter into heaven!*
No. 7 reads, " For Christ never said, Unless ye be baptized
* *' Justin, in giving the words of Jesus, clearly professed to make an exact quotation." — Sw f^rnaiurai Rtligicn^ ii. 309, 7ih ed.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 43
Ttnth fire and the Spirit, ye shall not, enter into the kingdom of heaveUy but of water and the Spirit he did say it!'
I will add one quotation from the Book of Common Prayer, which certainly must be quoting from another apocryphal Gospel, different from those used by Jeremy Taylor (he evi- dently had several), inasmuch as it professes to give the very words of Christ, and gives them twice in precisely the same form : —
"Our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost^ (Public Baptism of Infants^ and Baptism of those of Riper Years!)
It has been shown, I trust, that in this quotation of the language of Christ respecting regeneration the verbal dififer- ences between Justin and John are not such as to render it improbable that the former borrowed from the latter. The variations of phraseology are easily accounted for, and are matched by similar variations in writers who unquestionably used the Gospel of John.
The positive reasons for believing that Justin derived his quotation from this source are, (i) the fact that in no other report of the teaching of Christ except that of John do we find this figure of the new birth ; (2) the insistence in both Justin and John on the necessity of the new birth to an en- trance into the kingdom of heaven ; (3) its mention in both in connection with baptism ; (4) and last and most important of all, the fact that Justin's remark on the impossibility of a second natural birth is such a platitude in the form in which he presents it, that we cannot regard it as original. We can only explain its introduction by supposing that the language of Christ which he quotes was strongly associated in his memory with the question of Nicodemus as recorded by John.* Other evidences of the use of the Fourth Gospel by Justin are the following : —
{a) While Justin's conceptions in regard to the Logos were undoubtedly greatly affected by Philo and the Alexandrian
*EngeIhardt in his recent work on Justin observes: **This remark sets aside all doubt of the to the foarth Gospel." — Das CkrisUntkum Jusiins des Miirtyrtrsy Erlangen, 1878.
44 CRITICAL ESSAYS
philosophy, the doctrine gi the incarnation of the Logos was utterly foreign to that philosophy, and could only have been derived, it would seem, from the Gospel of John.* He ac- cordingly speaks very often in language similar to that of John (i. 14) of the Logos as "made flesh," f or as "having become man." J That in the last phrase he should prefer the term "man" to the Hebraistic "flesh "can excite no surprise. With reference to the deity of the Logos and his instrumental agency in creation, compare also especially Apol. ii. 6, " through him God created all things " {dc avrw Tzdvra iKTiae), Dial, c. 56, and ApoL i. 63, with John i. 1-3. Since the Fathers who immediately followed Justin, as Theophilus, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, unquestionably founded their doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos on the Gospel of John, the presumption is that Justin did the same. He pro- fesses to hold his view, in which he owns that some Chris-
p. 350. Weiis&cker is equally strong. — Unteriuchungtn ilSer dU tvang. Gtschichte, Gotha, 1864, pp. 228, 229.
Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, in the very interesting article Gospel* in vol. x. of the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, objects that Justin cannot have quoted the Fourth Gospel here, because "he is arguing for baptism by tvo/^r," and "it is inconceivable that . . . he should not only quote inaccurately, but omit the very words [John iii. 5] that were best adapted to support his argument." (p. 821.) But Justin is not addressing an " argument *' to the Roman Emperor and Senate for the necessity of baptism by water, but simply giving an account of Christian rites and Christian worship. And it is not the mere rite of baptism by water as such, but the necessity of the new birth through repentance and a voluntary change of life on the part of him who dedi- cates himself to God by this rite, on which Justin lays the main stress, — "the baptism of the soul from wrath and covetcrasness, envy and hatred." (Comp. Dial, cc 13, 14, 18.) Moreover, the nmple word avayswijdfjrr ^ as he uses it in the immediate context, and as it was often nsed, includes the idea of baptism. This fact alone answers the objection. A perusal of the chapter in which Justin treats the subject {Apol. i. 61) will show that it was not at all necessary to his pur- pose in quoting the words of Christ to introduce the r^ v^aro^. It would almost seem as if Dr. Abbott must have been thinking of the Clementine Homilies (xL 24-37; xiii. ai), where excessive importance it attached to the mere element of water.
•See Delitzsch, Mtssianic Propfuci*$ (Edin. 1880), p. 115. See Philo, Do Prof. c. 19, prol. L p. 561, ed. M.
\ ac^}K07roi^ei^ ; e.g^., ApoL c 12^ 6 ^yo?, flf Tiva rp&rrov aapKOTToiffSel^ ivOpuiroc ^'kyovev. So c 66 bit; Dial. cc. 45, 84, 87, 100. Comp. Dial. cc. 48 ("was bom a man of like nature with us, having flesh "), 70 (" became embodied ").
XhvQfHjno^ yev6fJLevo^\ Apol. i. cc. 5 ("the Logos himself whe took form and became man"), 23 to, 32. 4*. 5°. 53. H ^" ! ^M- "• c. 13; Dial. cc. 48, 57, 64, 67, 6S3«, 76, 8$, 100, 101, 125 bit. I have availed myself in this and the preceding note of the references given by Pro- fessor Dmnunond in his article "Justin Martyr an^ the Fourth Gospel," in the TAtol. Revirw tor April and July, 1877; see vol. xiv., p. 172. To tnis valuable essay I am much indebted, and shall have occasion to refer to it repeatedly. Professor Drummond compares at length Justin's doctrine of the Logos with that of the proem to the Fourth Gospel, and decides rightly, I think, that the statement of the former " is, beyond all question, in a more developed form" than that of the latter. In John it is important to observe that ?.6yo<; is used with a meaning derived from the sense of "word" rather than "reason," as in Philo and Justin. The subject is too large to be entered upon here.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 45
tians do not agree with him, " because we have been com- manded by Christ himself not to follow the doctrines of men, but those which were proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by him." {Dial, c. 48.) Now, as Canon Westcott observes, " the Synoptists do not anywhere declare Christ's pre-exist ence." * And where could Justin suppose himself to have found this doctrine taught by Christ except in the Fourth Gospel ? Compare Apol. i. 46 : " That Christ is the first-bom of God, being the Logos [the divine Reason] of which every race of men have been partakers [comp. John i. 4» S» 9]> we have been taught and have declared before. And those who have lived according to Reason are Christians, even though they were deemed atheists ; as, for example, Socrates and Heraclitus and those like them among the Greeks."
ip) But more may be said. In one place (DiaL c. 105) Justin, according to the natural construction of his language and the course of his argument, appears to refer to the " Memoirs '* as the source from which he and other Chris- tians had learnt that Christ as the Logos was the "only- begotten " jSon of God, a title applied to him by John alone among the New Testament writers ; see John i. 14, 18 ; iii. 16, 18. The passage reads, "For that he was the only- begotten of the Father of the universe, having been begotten by him in a peculiar manner as his Logos and Power, and having afterwards become man through the virgin, as we have learned from the Memoirs, I showed before." It is possible that the clause, "as we have learned from the Memoirs," refers not to the main proposition of the sentence, but only to the fact of the birth from a virgin ; but the context as well as the natural construction leads to a different view,
•
as Professor Drummond has ably shown in the article in the Theological Review (xiv. 178-182) already referred to in a note. He observes : —
" The passage is part of a very'tong comparison, which Justin insti- tutes between the twenty-second Psalm and the recorded events of
•" Introd. to the Gospel of St. John," in Tht Holy Biblt . . . with . . . Commtniary, etc, ed. by F. a Cook, A^ T. vol. ii. (1880), p. Ixxxiv.
46 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Christ's life. For the purposes of this comparison he refers to or quotes " the Gospel " once, and " the Memoirs " ten times, and further refers to the latter three times in the observations which immediately follow. . . . They are appealed to here because they furnish the succes- sive steps of the proof by which the Psalm is shown to be prophetic."
In this case the words in the Psalm (xxii. 20, 21) which have to be illustrated are, " Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten [Justin perhaps read '^ thy only- begotten '*] from the power of the dog. Save me from the mouth of the lion, and my humiliation from the horns of unicorns." "These words,*' Justin remarks, "are again in a similar manner a teaching and prophecy of the things that belonged to him [rwv hvn^v avri^ and that were going to hap- pen. For that he was the only-begotten,*' etc., as quoted above. Professor Drummond well observes : —
"There is here no ground of comparison whatever except in the word fiovoyevij^ [ " only-begotten '']. ... It is evident that Justin understood this as referring to Christ ; and accordingly he places the same word emphatically at the beginning of the sentence in which he proves the reference of this part of the Psalm to Jesus. For the same reason he refers not only to events, but to ra bvra avT<ft [" the things that belonged to him "]. These are taken up first in the nature and title of fwvoyevijcj which immediately suggests ?.6}'og and <Jtmj"/f [** Logos " and "power"], while the events are introduced and discussed afterwards. The allusion here to the birth through the virgin has nothing to do with the quotation from the Old Testament, and is probably introduced simply to show how Christ, although the only-begotten Logos, was nevertheless a man. If the argument were, — These words allude to Christ, because the Me moirs tell us that he was bom from a virgin, — it would be utterly inco- herent. If it were, — These words allude to Christ, because the Me- moirs say that he was the only-begotten, — it would be perfectly valid from Justin's point of view. It would not, however, be suitable for a Jew, for whom the fact that Christ was ftovnyevr/g, not being an historical event, had to rest upon other authority ; and therefore Justin changing his usual form, says that he had already explained to him a doctrine which the Christians learned from the Memoirs. It appears to me, then, most probable, that the peculiar Johannine title //ovoyrrvc existed in the Gos- pels used by Justin. *
In what follows, Prof. Drummond answers Thoma's ob-
• Justin also designates Christ as " the only-begotten Son " in a fragment of his work again* Marcion, preserved by Irenasus, //or. iv. 6. § 2. Comp. Justin, j4/i0/. i. c. 23 ; ii. c. 6 Dia/. c. 48-
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 47
jections * to this view of the passage, correcting some mis- translations. In the expression, " as I showed before,** the reference may be, not to c. lOO, but to c. 6i and similar pas- sages, where it is argued that the Logos was " begotten by God before all creatures," which implies a unique generation.
(c) In the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 88), Justin cites as the words of John the Baptist : " I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying ** ; ovk eifii 6 Xpiard^^ aX?M <}>uv^ potjvTDc- This declaration, " I am not the Christ," and this application to himself of the language of Isaiah, are attriouted to the Baptist only in the Gospel of John (i. 20, 23 ; comp. iii. 28). Hilgenfeld recognizes here the use of this Gospel.
(if) Justin says of the Jews, ** They are justly upbraided . . . by Christ himself as knowing neither the Father nor the Son" (Apol i. 63). Comp. John viii. 19, "Ye neither know me nor my Father " ; and xvi. 3, " They have not known the Father nor me." It is true that Justin quotes in this con- nection Matt. xi. 27 ; but his language seems to be in- fluenced by the passages in John above cited, in which alone the Jews are directly addressed.
(e) Justin says that " Christ healed those who were blind from their birth," rwf U yever^g wnpovq {Dial, c. 49 ; comp. ApoL i. 22, kK yivtT^q TTovTipoi)!:, whcre several editors, though not Otto, would substitute rrnpov^ by conjecture). There seems to be a reference here to John ix. i, where we have Tv^yjbviK ynferrj^, the phrase f'/c ynrrr/c, "from birth," being pecu- liar to John among the Evangelists, and 7r;7/w>f being a com- mon synonyme of tv^p^c ; comp. the Apostolical Constitutions V. 7. § I7> where we have 6 u yeverTjq nvp6^ in a clear reference
•In Hilgenfeld's ZeiUchrifl fXr wtss. Theol, 1875, xviii. 551 ff. For other discussions of tins passage, ona may see Semisch, Dig apost. Denha^rdigkeiten u.s.w., p. 188 f. ; Hilgenfeld, Krit. UniersnckMngen u.8.w., p. 300 f. {versus Semisch); Riggenbach, DU Zeugnisief. d. Ev. j0kanmiay Basel, 1866, p. 163 £.; Tischendorf, Wann wureUn unscre EvangelUn ver/asst? p. $3, 4e Aufl. But Professor Dnimmond's treatment of the question is the most thorough.
Grimm iTfuol, Stud. u. ICri/., 1851, p. 687 ff.) agrees with Semisch that it is *' in the highest degree aibitrary " to refer Justin's expression, " as we have learned from the Memoirs," merely to the participial clause which mentions the birth from a virgin ; but like Thoma, who agrees with him that the reference is to the designation " only-begotten," he thinks that Justin has in mind merely the confession of Peter (Matt. xvi. 16), referred to in Dial c. 100. This rests on the false assumption that Justin can only be referring back to c. 100, and makes him argue that "the Son " merely is equivalent to "the only-begotten Son "
48 CRITICAL ESSAYS
to this passage of John, and the Clementine Homilies xix. 22, where irepi rov CK yever^g Trrjpdv occurs also in a similar reference.* John is the only Evangelist who mentions the healing of any congenital infirmity.
(/) The exact coincidence between Justin {Apol. i. 52; comp. Dial, cc. 14 (quoted as from Hosed) ^ 32, 64, 118) and John (xix. 37) in citing Zechariah xii. 10 in a form dififercnt from the Septuagint, h-^vrai t\g w k^EKhnnaav^ "they shall look on him^whom they pierced," instead of empxhinvrat irpbg fd avd' Civ KOTupx^oavTo^ is remarkable, and not sufficiently ex- plained by supposing both to have borrowed from Rev. i. 7, "every eye shall see him, and they who pierced him." Much stress has been laid on this coincidence by Semisch (p. 200 ff.) and Tischendorf (p. 34) ; but it is possible, if not rather probable, that Justin and John have independently followed a reading of the Septuagint which had alread) attained currency in the first century as a correction of tht; text in conformity with the Hebrew.f
(g) Compare Apo/. i. 13 (cited by Prof. Drummond, p. 323), "Jesus Christ who became our teacher of these things and was bom to this end ("c rovro yewr^ivra)^ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate," with Christ's answer to Pilate (John xviii. 37), "To this end have I been born, elg tovto yeyhnnifjuu^ . . . that I might bear witness to the truth."
(//) Justin says (Dial. c. 56, p. 2;^6 D), " I affirm that he never did or spake any thing but what he that made the world, above whom there is no other God, willed that he should both do and speak " ; J comp. John viii. 28, 29 : " As
•The context in Justin, as Otto justly remarks, proves that TZTfpoitg must here rignify *' blind," not " maimed " ; comp. the quotation from Isa. xxxv. 5, which precedes, and the " causing this one to see," which follows. Keim's exclamation — " not a blind man at all I *' — would have been spared, if he had attended to this. (See his Gtsck. Jesu von NoMora, i. 139, note; i. 189, Eng. trans.)
t See Credncr, Btitrdge u.s.w., ii. 293 ff. See further on this quotation, p. 66, infra.
t Dr. Davidson {Introd. to the Study 0/ the N. T.y London, 1868, ii. 376) translates the last clause, '' intended that he should do and to aisociato with^* (sic). Though the meaning "to converse with," and then "to speak," " to say," is not assigned to dfti?j:tv in Liddell and Scott, or Rost and Palm's edition of Passow, Justin in the very next sentence uses Xa/^lv as an equiva- lent substitute, and this meaning is common in the later Greek. See Sophocles, Grtek Lex. s.v. otu/.ku. Of Dr. Davidson's translation 1 must confess my inability to make either grammar or sense.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 49
the Father taught me, I speak these things; and ... I always do the things that please him " ; also John iv. 34; v. I9» 30; vii. 16; xii. 49, 50. In the language of Trypho which immediately follows (p. 277 A), " We do not suppose that you represent him to have said or done or spoken any- thing contrary to the will of the Creator of the universe," we are particularly reminded of John xii. 49, — *'The Father who sent me hath himself given me a commandment, what I should say and what I should speaks
(/) Referring to a passage of the Old Testament as signi- fying that Christ " was to rise from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion," Justin subjoins (Dial. c. icx)), which he received from his Father," or more literally, which [thing] he has, having received it from his Father," GOTO TW) Trarpdc ?Miiuv ix^^. A reference here to John x. 18 seems probable, where Jesus says respecting his life, "I have authority (k^ovaiav) to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again {it&>uv Tia^eiv avrrrv) ; this charge I received
from my Father " (iXa^ Trapd rw irarpSg //ot').
(i) Justin says, "We were taught that the bread and wine were the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." (Apo/, i. c. 66.) This use of the term "flesh " instead of "body" in describing the bread of the Eucharist suggests John vi. 51-56.
(/) Professor Drummond notes that Justin, like John (iii. 14, 15), regards the elevation of the brazen serpent in the wilderness as typical of the crucifixion (Apol, i. c. 60 ; Dial, cc. 91, 94, 131), and in speaking of it says that it denoted " salvation to those who flee for refuge to him who sent his crucified Son into the world" (Dial, c. 91).* "Now this idea of God's sending his Son into the world occurs in the same connection in John iii. 17, and strange as it may ap- pear, it is an idea which in the New Testament is peculiar to John." Prof. Drummond further observes that "in the four instances in which John speaks of Christ as being sent into the world, he prefers cTroaraP^, so that Justin's phrase is
* Or, as it U expressed in Dia/. c. 94, " salvation to those who believt in him who was to die •ffwigh thb sign, the cross,*' which comes nearer to John iii. 15.
50 CRITICAL ESSAYS
not entirely coincident with the Johannine. But the use of Tf//T<j ["to send"] itself is curious. Except by John, it is applied to Christ in the New Testament only twice, whereas John uses it [thus] twenty-five times. Justin's language, therefore, in the thought which it expresses, in the selec- tion of words, and in its connection, is closely related to John's, and has no other parallel in the New Testament." (TheoL Rev, xiv. 324.) Compare also DiaL c. 140, "accord- ing to the will of the Father who sent him," etc., and DiaL c. 17, "the only blameless and righteous Light sent from God to men." (Prof. Drummond seems to have overlooked Gal. iv. 4.)
(w) Liicke, Otto, Semisch, Keim, Mangold, and Drum- mond are disposed to find a reminiscence of John i. 13 in Justin's language where, after quoting from Genesis xlix. 11, he says, " since his blood was not begotten of human seed, but by the will of God" {DiaL c. 63; comp. the similar language Apol, i. 32; DiaL cc. 54, "by the power of God"; j6). They suppose that Justin referred John i. 13 to Christ, following an early reading of the passage, namely, 6f . . . iytwi]^, "who was bom " \or "begotten"] instead of "who were born." We find this reading in Irenaeus {Hcer. iii. 16. § 2; 19. § 2), Tertullian {De Came Christi cc. 19, 24), Ambrose once, Augustine once, also in Codex Veronensis (b) of the Old Latin, and some other authorities. Tertullian indeed boldly charges the Valentinians with corrupting the text by changing the singular to the plural. Ronsch, whom no one will call an "apologist," remarks, "The citation of these words . . . certainly belongs to the proofs that Justin Martyr knew the Gospel of John." * I have noticed this, in deference to these authorities, but am not confident that there is any reference in Justin's language to John i. 13.
(«) Justin says (Dial. c. %^)^ " The Apostles have written " that at the baptism of Jesus " as he came up from the water the Holy Spirit as a dove lighted upon him." The descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove is mentioned by the Apostles Matthew and John (Matt. iii. 16; John i. 32, 33). This is
*D<u neue Testament TertuUians^ Leipz. iS/z, p. 654.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 5 1
the only place in which Justin uses the expression "the Apostles have written."
{0) Justin says {Dial, c. 103) that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod bound. The binding is not mentioned by Luke ; but if Justin used the Gospel of John, the mistake is easily explained through a confusion in memory of Luke xxiii. 7 with John xviii. 24 (comp. ver. 1 2) ; and this seems the most natural explanation ; see however Matt, xxvii. 2 ; Mark xv. i. Examples of such a confusion of different passages repeatedly occur in Justin's quotations from the Old Testament, as also of his citing the Old Testament for facts which it does not contain.*
{p) The remark of Justin that the Jews dared to call Jesus a magician (comp. Matt. ix. 34 ; xii. 24) and a deceiver vf the people (P^orr^vov) reminds one strongly of John vii. 12 ; see however also Matt, xxvii. 63. — "Through his stripes,*' says Justin (DiaL c. 17), "there is healing to those who through him come to the Father," which suggests John xiv. 6, " No man cometh to the Father but through me " ; but the reference is uncertain; comp. Eph. ii. 18, ^nd Heb. vii. 25 with the similar expression in DiaL c. 43. — So also
it is not clear that in the TpooKwovfiev, ?.d}v kqI aktjdetg, nfiovreg
{Apol. i. 6) there is any allusion to John iv. 24. f — I pass over sundry passages where Bindemann, Otto, Semisch, Thoma, Drummond and others have found resemblances more or less striking between the language of Justin and
*See, for example, A/ol. i. 44, where the words in Deut. xxx. 15, 19, are represented as addreaaed to Adam (comp. Gen. u. 16, 17); and A/o!. i. 60, where Justin refers to Num. xxi. 8, 9 for various particulars found only in his own imagination. The extraordinary looseness with which he quotes Plato here (as elsewhere) may also be noted (see the Titrueus c. 12, p. 36 B, C). On Justin's quotations from the Old Testament, which are largely marked by the same character- istics as his quotations from the Gospels, see Credner, Beitrlige u.s.w,, vol. ii. (1838); Norton, Gtnumeneu^\.c.^\. 213 ff.,andAddit. Notes, p.ccxviii. ff.,2ded., i846(ist ed. 1S37); Semisch, Z>2^ t^ost. DenknMrdigkeiUn u.s.w. (1848), p. 239 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, /fr/^. U titer sue hutifren (1850), p. 46£r. ; Westoott, CanoHy p. 121 if., 172 if., 4th ed, (1875) ; Sanday, The Gospels in tht Second Century (1876), pp. 40 ff., iii ff.
t Grimm, howerer, finds here "an unmistakable reminiscence" of John iv. 24. He thinks Justin used A<Jy^ for Trvei'fiari and rifiuvrec ^o^ TzpoaKwoxrvret^ because irvrvfia and vpooKWOVfiev immediately precede. {Tktol. Stud. u. Krit.y 1851, p. 691.) But P^yo> Koi a)u^i^ seem to mean simply, " in accordance with reason and truth " ; comp. Apol. i. 6i3, cited by Otto, also c 13, fura "kdyov Tifjiofiev.
52 CRITICAL ESSAYS
John, leaving them to the not very tender mercies of Zeller *' and Hilgenfeld. f
(^) Justin's vindication of Christians for not keeping the Jewish Sabbath on the ground that ** God has carried on the same administration of the universe during that day as during all others " (Dial. c. 29, comp. c. 23) is, as Mr. Norton observes, **a thought so remarkable, that there can be little doubt that he borrowed it from what was said by our Saviour when the Jews were enraged at his having performed a miracle on the Sabbath: — *My Father has been workihg hitherto as I am working.*" — His argument also against the observance of the Jewish Sabbath from the fact that circum- cision was permitted on that day may (Dial. c. 27) have been borrowed from John vii. 22, 23.
(r) I will notice particularly only one more passage, in which Professor Drummond proposes an original and very plausible explanation of a difficulty. In the larger Apology (c. 35), as he observes, the following words are quoted from Isaiah (Iviii. 2), aWwai fie vvv Kphiv, ** they now ask of me judgment " ; and in evidence that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, Justin asserts, " they mocked him, and set him on the judgment-seat (jKddianv t:rt fi/'/fiarnc)^ and said. Judge for us." This proceeding is nowhere recorded in our Gospels, but in John xix. 13 we read, "Pilate therefore brought Jesus out, and sat on the judgment-seat" (mi kKaOtaev iTri /if/fiarog). But the words just quoted in the Greek, the correspondence of which with those of Justin will be noticed, admit in them- selves the rendering, "and set hivi on the judgment-seat"; % and what was more natural, as Prof. Drummond remarks, than that Justin, in his eagerness to find a fulfilment of the prophecy, should take them in this sense } " He might then add the statement that the people said Kpnw i)mv ['judge for us'] as an obvious inference from the fact of Christ's having been placed on the tribunal, just as in an earlier chapter (c. 32) he appends to the synoptic account the circum-
*DU Husseren Ztugnisse . . . des vierten Evang.^ in the Theol. yahrb\icher (TUbingen) 1845, P* ^<^ ff*
t Kritiukt UntersuckuHgtn u.s.w., p. 302 f.
X Dr. Hort has pointed out to me that Justin uses the word transitively in DitU. 33, Kodl^ovra ivritv } V fie^ig airroi', comp. Eph. i. 20, though in the New Testament it is commonly intran- sitive. S^e a!so its use with reference to judges, I. Cor. vi. 4.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 53
Stance that the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem was bound to a vine, in order to bring the event into connection with Genesis xlix. ii." {TheoL RevieWy xiv. 328.)
These evidences of Justin*s use of the Gospel of John are strengthened somewhat by an indication, which has been generally overlooked, of his use of the First Epistle of John. In I John iii. i we read, according to the text now adopted by the best critics, as Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, " Behold what love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children
of God ; and we are so " ; Iva rkKva dmv K?jjOu}pev, koI la/ih.
This addition to the common text, Kal hfiiv, "and we are," is supported by a great preponderance of external evidence. Compare now Justin (Dial. c. 123) : "We are both called true children of God, and we are so " ; kqI Beqv r(Ki>a ah^iva Ka/Mfieea ml hfdv. The coincidence seems too remarkable to be acci- dental. Hilgenfeld takes the same view {Einleit. in d. N. 7"., p. 69), and so Ewald (Die johan. Schriften, ii. 395, Anm. 4).
It also deserves to be considered that, as Justin wrote a work "Against all Heresies" {ApoL i. 26), among which he certainly included those of Valentinus and Basilides {Dial. c. 35 ; cf. Tertull. Adv. Valentiniafios, c. 5), he could hardly have been ignorant of a book which, according to Irenaeus, the Valentinians used plenissime, and to which the Basilidians and apparently Basilides himself also appealed (Hippol. Rcf. Hcer, vii. 22, 27). Credner recognizes the weight of this argument.* It can only be met by maintaining what is altogether improbable, that merely the later Valentinians and Basilidians made use of the Gospel, — a point which we shall examine hereafter.
In judging of the indications of Justin's use of the Fourth Gospel, the passages cited in addition to those which relate to his Logos doctrine will strike different persons differently. There will be few, however, I think, who will not feel that the one first discussed (that relating to the new birth) is in itself almost a decisive proof of such a use, and that the one relating to John the Baptist (c) is also strong. In regard to
* Geschichtt dts nguiest. Kanon (i860), p. 15 f. ; comp. pp. 9, 12.
54 CRITICAL ESSAYS
not a few others, while the possibility of accidental agree- ment must be conceded, the probability is decidedly against this, and the accumulated probabilities form an argument of no little weight. It is not then, I believe, too much to say, that the strong presumption from the universal reception of our four Gospels as sacred books in the time of Irenaeus that Justin's " Memoirs of Christ composed by Apostles and their companions " were the same books, is decidedly confirmed by these evidences of his use of the Fourth Gospel. We will next consider the further confirmation of this fact afforded by writers who flourished between the time of Justin and Irenaeus, and then notice some objections to the view which has been presented.
The most weighty testimony is that of Tatian, the Assyr- ian, a disciple of Justin. His literary activity may be placed at about a.d. 155-170 (Lightfoot). In his ** Address to the Greeks " he repeatedly quotes the Fourth Gospel, though without naming the author, in one case using the expression (rb elpT/fuvov) which is scvcral times employed in the New Testament (e.g-. Acts ii. 16; Rom. iv. 18) in introducing a quotation from the Scriptures ; see his Orat. ad Grcec, c. 13, " And this then is that which hath been said. The darkness comprehendeth \or overcometh] not the light " (John i. 5) ; see also c. 19 (John i. 3) ; c. 4 (John iv. 24).* Still more important is the fact that he composed a Harmony of our Four Gospels which he called the Diatessaron {i.e. "the Gospel made out of Four "). This fact is attested by Euse- bius {Hist. EccL iv. 29),! Epiphanius {Hcer, xlvi. i), who, however, writes from hearsay, and Theodoret, who in his work on Heresies {Hcer. Fab. i. 20) says that he found more than two hundred copies of the book held in esteem in his diocese, and substituted for it copies of our Four Gospels.
• Even Zellcr does not dispute that Tatian quotes the Fourth Gospel, and ascribed it to the- Apostle John. {Theol. Jahrb. 1847, p. 158.) Cf. Volkmar, Urzprutfg, u.s.w., p. 35.
t An expression used by Euscbius (oiV o/M' oTwf, literally, " I know not how") has been misunderstood by many as implying that he had not seen the work ; but Lightfoot has shown conclusively that this inference is wholly unwarranted. It only implies that the plan of the work seemed strange to him. See Contemf>orary Review for May, 1877, p. 1136, where Lightfoot dtes 26 examples of this use of the phrase from the work of Ohgen against Celsus.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 55
He tells us that Tatian, who is supposed to have prepared the Harmony after he became %, Gnostic Encratite, had " cut away the genealogies and such other passages as show the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh/* But notwithstanding this mutilation, the work seems to have been very popular in the orthodox churches of Syria as a convenient compendium. The celebrated Syrian Father, Ephraem, the deacon of Edessa, who died a.d. 373, wrote a commentary on it, according to Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last part of the twelfth century. Bar-Salibi was well acquainted with the work, citing it in his own Commentary on the Gospels, and distinguishing it from the Diatessaron of Ammonius, and from a later work by Elias Salamensis, also called Aphthonius. He mentions that it began with John i. i — "In the beginning was the Word." (See Assemani, Biblioth, Orient, ii. 158 ff.) Besides Eph- raem, Aphraates, an earlier Syrian Father (a.d. 337) appears to have used it {Horn, i. p. 13 ed. Wright) ; and in the Doc- trine of Addaiy an apocryphal Syriac work, written probably not far from the middle of the third century, which purports to give an account of the early history of Christianity at Edessa, the people are represented as coming together " to the prayers of the service, and to [the reading of] the Old Testament and the New of the Diatessaron." * The Doc- trine of Addai does not name the author of the Diatessaron thus read ; but the facts already mentioned make the pre- sumption strong that it was Tatian's. A scholion on Cod. 72 of the Gospels cites "Tatian's Gospel" for a remarkable reading of Matt, xxvii. 49 found in many ancient MSS. ; and
*In Cureton's Ancient Syriac Documents {Lond. 1864) the text, published from a MS. in the British Museum, is here corrupt, reading Ditonron, a word without meaning; comp. Pratten's Sjriac Documents {i%ji), p. 35, note, in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. xx. Cureton coDJectnred that the true reading was Z?/a//jfar^« (see his note, p. 158), and his conjecture is confirmed by the St. Petersburg MS. published by Dr. George Phillips, T/u Doctrine 0/ Addai, London, 1876; see his note, p. 34 f. Cureton*s Syriac text (p. 15), as well as his translation (p. 15), reads Ditonron, not Ditornon, as Lightfoot, Pratten, and Phillips erroneously state, being misled by a misprint in Cureton*s note. Phillips gives the reading correctly in the note to his Syriac text (p. 36). Moesinger, in the work described below, is also misled, spelling the word DiathMmnn (Praef. p. iv). The difference between Ditonron and Diatessaron in the Syriac is very di^it, affecting only a single letter.
56 CRITICAL ESSAYS
it is also cited for a peculiar reading of Luke vii. 42.* So far the evidence is clear, consistent, and conclusive ; but on the ground of a confusion between Tatian's Harmony and that of Ammonius on the part of a Syrian writer of the thirteenth century (Gregorius Abulpharagius or Bar-He- braeus), and of the two persons by a still later writer, Ebed- Jesu, both of which confusions can be traced to a misunder- standing of the language of Bar-Salibi, and for other reasons equally weak, f the fact that Tatian's work was a Harmony of our Four Gospels has been questioned by some German critics, and of course by Supernatural Religion. But the whole subject has been so thoroughly discussed and its ob- scurities so well cleared up by Bishop Lightfoot, in an article in the Conte^nporary Review for May, 1877, ^^at the question may be regarded as settled. % Lightfoot's view is confirmed by the recent publication of Ephraem's Commentary on the
•See Tischendorf, N.T. Gr. ed. 8va, on Matt, xxvii. 49, and Scholz, N.T. Gr., vol. i, p. cxlix., and p. 343, note x.
t Such as that Victor of Capua (a.d. 545) savs that it was called Diapenlt (i.e., " made out of Ave "). But this is clearly a slip of the pen of Victor himself, or a mistake of some scribe ; for, as Hilgenfeld {^EinUii. p. 70, note) and Lightfoot remark, Victor is simply reporting Eusebim^s account of it, and not only does Eusebius say that Tatian called it the DiaUisaron^ but Victor himself has just described it as " unum ex quatuorV The strange mistake, for it can be nothing else, may possibly be accounted for by the fact that Diatessaron and Diafiente being both musical terms (cf. Plut. Quetst. Conviv. iii. 9, § i ; De Mus. cc. 22, 23; Macrob. in Somn. Scifi.i. 6, §§ 43> 44; ii' i» §§ 15-35; Vitruv. v. 4, §§ 7, 8; Martian. Capella, ix., §§ 950 ff ; Censorinus, X. 6; Philo, De Opif. Afundi, c. 15, and Miiller's note, p. 214 ff)i one might naturally recall the other, and lead to an unconscious substitution on the part of the author or of some absent-minded copyist. Such slii>s o( the pen, or heterographies, 2a^ not uncommon. To take examples from two books Mvhich I have ju!>l been using : ^ Zacagni, ColUctartea Mon. V.et. p. ss^i note ^, says "Anno Christi guin/tentesimo quinquagesimo octavo" when he means ** quaJriM^eMtestmo*^ \ Charteris, CanonicUy (Edin. 1S80), p. xlv., note, no. 4, says " Eusebius" for " Papus,'* and, in quoting Lardner (U>id. p. 42, note 1, end), substitutes ** New Testament " loT**Old Testament ". Under no circumstances can any inference about the composition of the work be drawn from this Diapente^ for Victor derives his information from Eubehuis, and not only do all the Greek MSS. in the passage referred to read Diatessaron^ but this reading is confirmed by the very ancient, probably contemi>orary, Syriac version of Eusebiu&, preserved in a MS. of the sixth century, and by the Latin version of Rufinus, made a century and a half before Victor wrote. (See Lightfoot, p. 1x43.) The mistake ascribed to the Syriac lexicographer Bar-Bahlul is proved to be due to an interpolator. (Sec Lightfoot, p. 1 139, note.) The statement of Epiphanius, the most untrustworthy and blundering of the Fathers, that " it is called by some the Gospel according to the Hebrews" {Hter. xlvi. i), if it had any foundation beyond a mere guess of the writer, may have originated from the omission of the genealogies, which were omitted also in one form of the Gospel accord- ing to the Hebrews (Epiph. Har. xxx. 13, 14). The supposition that it was that Gospel con- tradicts all our information about the two works except the circumstance just mentioned; and that it had additions from that Gospel is a conjecture for ^^hich we have not a particle of evidence. (See Lightfoot, p. 1141 ; Lipsius in Smith and \V ace's Diet, of Christian Biog. ii. 714.)
tTo Lightfoot's article I am much indebted. The other writers who treat of the subject most fully are Credner, Beitrdge, u.s.w., i. 437-451, who has throv^-n more darkness upon it than anyoody else; Daniel, Tatianus der Apologet (Halle, 1837), PP* 87-111, who has refuted Credner's arguments; Semisch, Tatiani Diatessaron^ Vratisl. 1856; Hilgenfeld, Einleit. in d. M.T. (1875), pp. 75-79; SupematMrai Religion^ vol. ii., pp. 148-150, 7th ed. ; and E. B. Nicholson, Th* Gos^l according to tfu f/ebrews ihondon^ 1879), p. 16 (., and pp. 126-133, who does not appear to nave seen Lightfoot's article, but exposes independently many of the errors and fallacies of Supernatural Religion. See also Norton, Genuineness o/t/ie Gospeis, iii. 39a S.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 57
Diatessaron, to which I have already had occasion to refer. * This exists only in an Armenian version of the Syriac, made, it is supposed, in the fifth century. The Armenian text was published in the second volume of the collected Works of St. Ephraem in Armenian, printed at Venice in 1836 (4 vols. 8vo) ; but Aucher's Latin translation of the Commentary, revised and edited by G. Moesinger, who compared it with another Armenian manuscript, first appeared at Venice in 1876, and the work has hitherto been almost unnoticed by scholars.! It should be observed that Ephraem's commen- tary is only on select passages of the Harmony, unless the work which has come down to us is merely an abridgment. But there seems to be no ground for questioning the gen- uineness of the work ascribed to Ephraem ; and little or no ground for doubting that the Harmony on which he is com- menting is Tatian's, in accordance with the account of Dionysius Bar-Salibi. % It agrees with what we know of Tatian's in omitting the genealogies and in beginning with the first verse of the Gospel of John. Further, the character of the text, so far as we can judge of it from a translation of a translation, is such as to lend confirmation to the view that it is Tatian's. It presents some very ancient various read- ings which accord remarkably with those of Justin Martyr and other early writers, and with the Curetonian Syriac where it differs from the later Peshito. ||
* See Note A, no. 4.
t The yolume is entitled : Evangtlii coneordantis Exposiiio facta a Sancto Ephratm0 Dpciort Syro, In LatmutH translata a R. P. Joannt Baptista A ucker Mechitarista cujus Vtrtwtumt emtndavii, Adttotationibus Ulustravit tt edidU Dr. Georgiut Motsingtr. Venetiis, Libraria PP. Mechitaristarum in Monasterio S. Lazari. 1876. 8vo. pp. xii., 293. Lipsins, art. Gospels, Apocryphal^ in Smith and Wace's Diet. 0/ Christian Bicg.., vol. ii. (London, 18S0), p. 7x3, is not even aware that the Armenian translation has been published.
tSee Moesinger, nbisuprat Praef. p. ii. ff.
I We find, for example, the very ancient punctuation or construction which ends the sentence in John i. 3 witliot>c5e h>^ "not even one thing," connecting 0 yeyovtv with ver. 4. (See Moesinger's edition, p. 5.) This accords with the citation of the passage by Tatian {Or at. ad Grme. c 19). In Matt. i. 25, we reaid " sancte {or in sanctitate) habitabat cum ea" (Moesinger, pp. as, 25, a6); so the Curetonian Sjrriac. In Matt. viii. xo (p. 74), it reads, " Non in aliqno in Israffl tantam fidem inveni,** with Cod. Vaticanus (B), several of the best cursives, the MSS. a gi. k q of the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, Sahidic, Coptic, and /Ethiopic versions, the Hardean Syriac in the margin, Augustine once, and ih^ "Opus I mper/ectum^^ on Matt. In Matt. xL 27 (Moesinger, pp. xr 7, 216), it agrees with Justin, the Clementine Homilies, and the in Ireiueas, in the transposition. of the clauses relating to the Father and the Son. (See
58 CRITICAL ESSAYS
We may regard it then, I conceive, as an established fact that Tatian's Diatessaron was a Harmony of our four Gospels. So difficult and laborious a work would hardly have been un- dertaken, except to meet a want which had been widely felt. It implies that the four books used were recognized by those for whom it was intended as authoritative, and as possessing equal authority. Can we then believe that Tatiah's Harmony represented a difEerent set of books from the " Memoirs called Gospels " of his master Justin, which were read at the meet- ings for public worship in churches all over the Christian world as the authentic records of the life and teaching of Christ, the production of Apostles and their companions } Does not Tatian*s unquestionable use of the Gospel of John in particular confirm the strong presumption from other facts that this Gospel was included in the " Memoirs " used by his master and by Christians generally twenty years before ?
This presumption receives further confirmation from other testimonies to the existence and use of the Fourth Gospel between the time of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.
The treatise or fragment On the Resurrection^ which Otto with many others ascribes to Justin, if not genuine, probably belongs to this period. In c. i we read, " The Logos of God, who was \or became] his Son, came to us clothed in flesh, revealing both himself and the Father, giving to us in him- self the resurrection from the dead and the eternal life which follows." The allusions here to John i. i, 14; xiv. 9; xi. 25, 26, seem unmistakable. So in c. 9, " He permitted them to handle him, and showed in his hands the marks of the nails," we have a reference to John xx. 25, 27, as well as to Luke xxiv. 39.
Melito, bishop of Sardis (cir. a.d. 165), in a fragment from
Note A, under no. 4.) In Matt. xix. 17, the text is given in Ephraem's commentary in dififerent forms, but it seems to be, substantially, " Unus tantum est bonus, Pater {or Deus Pater) qui in cac'lis" (Moesinger, pp. 169, 170, 173); similarly, Justin Martyr once {Dial. c. loi), the Naassenes in Hippolytus {Adv. liter, v. 7, p. 103), the Marcosians in Irenxus {Jleer. \. 20. §a), and the Clementine Homilies (xviii. 1, 3); sec, for the numerous variations of reading here, Tischendorfs N.T. Gr. ed. Sva, in he. Notice also the reading of John vii. 8 ("-VV;« asceudo," Moesinger, p. 167); John iii. 13, quoted >\'ithout the last clause of text, reccpt. (pp. 187, 1S9, comp. x68); John X. 8 {ante tne, p. 200) ; Luke xxii. 44 (" et factus est sudor ejus ut guttae sanguinis,'' p. 235; comp. Justin, Dial. c. 103).
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 59
his work on the Incarnation preserved by Anastasius Sinaita, speaks of Christ as " giving proof to us of his deity by signs [wrought] in the three years after his baptism, and of his humanity in the thirty years before his baptism." * This assignment of a duration of three years to his ministry must have been founded on the Gospel of John, which mentions three Passovers (ii. 13; vi. 4; xi. 55) besides the "feast of the Jews" referred to in John v. i.
Claudius ApoUinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia {cir. A.D. 166), in a treatise on the Paschal Festival, refers to the apparent difference between John and the Synoptic Gospels as to the time of the death of Jesus. ApoUinaris, relying on the Gospel of John, held that it was on the day on which the paschal lamb was killed, the 14th of Nisan ; his oppo- nents, appealing to the Gospel of Matthew, maintained that it was on the day following. Both Gospels were evidently received as authoritative by both parties.f He also refers in the same work to the piercing of the side of Jesus and the effusion of water and blood, mentioned only by John (xix. 34).t
The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul to those of Asia and Phrygia, giving an account of their per- secutions (a.d. 177), quotes the following as the words of the Lord : " There shall come a time in which whosoever killeth you shall think that he is offering a religious service to God," Xarpeiav -rpoat^pttv rift Oeu. The expression in the last clause is the same which is inadequately rendered in the common version "doeth God service" (John xvi. 2).|| The use of the word irapdKhrro^ a little before in the Epistle, "having the
•See Anast. Sinait. Hodtg. or Via Dux^ c. 13, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. Ixxxix. col. 229, or Mefito, Frag. vi. in Otto, C»rp. Apol. Christy vol. ix. (1872), p. 416.
iCAroMicoH PaseAaief yo\. i.,pp. 13, Mi ed. Dindorf; ApoUinaris in Routh's ^*//. M<:r<r, ed. alt. (1846), i 160; or Otto, Cor/. Apol. Christ., ix. 486 f.
Xlbid. p. 14, cd. Dindorf; Routh, ibid. p. 161; Otto, ubi supra. For a full view of the evidence of Melito and ApoUinaris, and of the considerations which give it weight, see Lightfoot's artide, "The Later Sdiool of St. John," in the Contemporary Revirw for February, 1876, zzvii. 471 €f.
BThe letter is preserved in large part by Eusebius, Hist. Ecd. v. cc. 1-4. It may be con- sulted conveniently in Rooth, Rell. sacra, i. 29s ff-. cd. alt. For the quotation, see Epist. c. 4; Routh, p. 300; Eoseb. v. x. § 15.
6o CRITICAL ESSAYS
Paraclete within him/* also suggests the Gospel of John; comp. John xiv. i6, ly*
Athenagoras the Athenian («>. a.d. 176), in his Plea for Christians addressed to M. Aurelius and Commodus, speak- ing of "the Logos of God the Father," says that "through him all things were made " (pc airrov ndvra eyivrro), the Father and the Son being one ; and the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son " ; language which seems evidently founded on John i. 3 ; x. 30, 38; xiv. 10, 11 ; xvii. 21, 22.t
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch a.d. 169-181, in his work in defence of Christianity addressed to Autolycus (a.d. 180), says, "The Holy Scriptures teach us, and all who were moved by the Spirit, among whom John says, * In the begin- ning was the word [or Logos], and the Word was with God.' " He proceeds to quote John i. 3. J
The Muratorian Canon (cir. a.d. 170), as has already«been mentioned, ascribes the Gospel to the Apostle John, and gives an account of the circumstances under which it was written, fabulous doubtless in some of its details, but having probably a basis of truth. ||
Celsus, the celebrated heathen adversary of Christianity (a.d. 178, Keim), professedly founds his statements concern- ing the history of Christ on "the writings of his disciples ";** and his accounts are manifestly based on our four Gospels,tt
*Episi. c. 3; Routh, p. 29S; Euseb. v. i. § 10. In the same section we have other expres- sions apparently borrowed from John xv. 13 and i John iii. 16. See, further, Lightfoot's article, "The Churches of Gaul,'' in the ConUmp. Review for August, 1876, xxviii. 405 ff. An English translation of the Fragments of Melito and Apollinaris, and of the Epistle of the Churches ol Vienne and Lyons, will be found appended to vol. ii. of Lactantius, in vol. xxii. of the Ante- Nicene Christian Library.
t Suppl. pro Christ, c. 10, p. 46, ed. Otto.
tAdAuioL ii. 22, pp. 1 18-120, ed. Otto.
n See on this subject Lightfoot in the ConUmp. Review for October, 1S75, ^^^cvL 835 ff.; Matthew Arnold, God and the Bible^ p. 248 (Eng. ed.); and Westcott, ** Introd. to the Gospel of St. John," in The Holy Bible . . . with . . . Commentary, etc, ed. by F. C. Cook, N. T., vol E. p. XXXV. ; als<i his Canon of the N. T.^ 5th ed., p. 214 ff.
••Origen, Cels. ii. 13, 74; comp. 32, 53. He quotes these writings as possessing among Christians unquestioned authority : "We need," sap he, "no other witness; for you fetU upon your own swords " (ii. 74).
Tt See fully in Lardner, Testimonies 0/ Ancient Heathens y cY\. xviii., W-w^ty, vii. 210-278; Kirchhofer, Qnellensammlung- Mur Gesch. des netUest, Canons (1844), PP- 330-349; Keim, Celstuf M^ahres Wort (1873), pp. 323-230. Comp. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospdtt L 14s ff. ; E. A. Abbott, art. Gospels^ in the Encye. Britannica^ 9th ed., x. 818.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 6 1
though he does not name their authors. He refers to sev- eral circumstances peculiar to the narrative of John, as the blood which flowed from the body of Jesus at his crucifixion,* and the fact that Christ " after his death arose, and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands had been pierced." f He says that "some relate that one, and some that two angels came to the sepulchre, to announce that Jesus was risen." J Matthew and Mark speak of but one angel, Luke and John mention two. He says that the Jews " challenged Jesus in the temple to produce some clear proof that he was the Son of God." || He appears also to allude to the cry of Jesus, " I thirst," recorded only by John.** Re- ferring to a declaration of Jesus, he satirically exclaims, " O Light and Truth ! " designations of Christ characteristic of John's Gospel. tt He says that Jesus "after rising from the dead showed himself secretly .to one woman only, and to his boon companions."JJ Here the first part of the statement seems to refer to John's account of the appear- ance of Christ to Mary Magdalene.
The heretical writings of this period clearly recognize the Fourth Gospel. Notwithstanding several apparent quotations or allusions, it was formerly maintained that the author of the Clementine Homilies could not possibly have used this Gospel, it being in such opposition to his opinions. But since the discovery of the Codex Ottobonianus, containing the missing portion of the book (first published by Dressel in his edition of the Homilies in 1853), there has been a change of view. That portion contains so clear a quotation of John ix. 1-3 (Horn, xix. 22) that Hilgenfeld has handsomely retracted his denial ;|||| and, though Scholten and Supematu-
*Origen, CtU. U. 36, also i. 66; comp. John xix. 34.
tOrigen, Celt. ii. 55, 59; John xx 35, 27.
t Origin, Celx. ▼. 52, 56; John xx 12; comp. Luke xxiv. 4, 23.
lOrigen, Cti$. i. 67; John ii. 18; comp. x. 23, 24. (Matt. xxi. 23.)
^'^Origen, CrZr. iL 37; John xix. 28.
tt Origen, Celt, iL 49; John viii. 12; ix. 5 ; xii. 46; xiv. 6.
t$Oi%en, CtU, ii.70; John xx. 14-18. Compare, however, the Addition to Mark, xri. 9.
WRimUiL in d. N.T.^ p. 43 {., note; comp. Matthew Arnold, God and th* BibU^ p. 277. Volkmtf alao recognises the use of the Fourth Goepel here, but only as " an unapostolic novum ^
62 CRITICAL ESSAYS
ral Religion still resist the evidence, there can be little doubt about the final verdict of impartial criticism. Besides this passage and that about the new birth,* the Gospel of John seems to be used twice in Horn, iii. 52, once in a free quota- tion : " I am the gate of life ; he that entereth in through me entereth into life, for there is no other teaching that can save " (comp. John x. 9, 10) ; and again, " My sheep hear my voice" (comp. John x. 27).
More important, and beyond any dispute, is the evidence of the use of the Fourth Gospel as the work of the Apostle John by the Gnostics of this period. Ptolemy, the disciple of Valentinus, in his Epistle to Flora, preserved by Epipha- nius {Hcer, xxxiii. 3), quotes John i. 3 as what " the Apostle says " ; t and, in the exposition of the Ptolemaeo-Valentinian system given by Irenaeus, a long passage is quoted from Ptolemy or one of his school in which he is represented as saying that "John, the disciple of the Lord, supposes a certain Beginning," etc., citing and commenting on John i. 1-5, 14, 18, in support of the Valentinian doctrine of the Ogdoad. X The Valentinians, indeed, as we are told by Irenaeus elsewhere, used the Gospel of John most abundantly {Hcer. iii. 11. § 7). Heracleon, another disciple of Valen- tinus, wrote a commentary on it, large extracts from which are preserved by Origen. || The book commonly cited as Excerpta Tluodoti or Doctrina Orientalis, a compilation (with criticisms) from the writings of Theodotus and other Gnostics of the second century, ascribed to Clement of Alexandria and
{Ursprung uns. Ew., 1866, p. 62 f., 134 ^O- The question is well treated by Sanday, TJU Gcxpeh in tJu Second Century, pp. 293 ff. It is to be observed that the incident of ** the man blind from his birth " is introduced in the Homilies (xix. 22) as it is in the Apostolical Constitu- tions (v. 7. § 17) with the use of the definite article, as something well-known to the readers of the book. How does this happen, if the writer is taking it from "an unapostolic novum " f Drum- mond and Sanday have properly called attention to this use of the article.
* Horn. xi. a'^i; see ab«»ve, pp. 29, 31.
1 1 follow the text of Dindorf in his edition of Epiphanius, vol. ii., pp. 199, 200, who read« TO, re navra for an: Tzavra and yf^ nvtrni wJu'for ytyovev ovStv.
tiren. //ar. i. 8. §5. The old Latin version of Irenaeus, which is often more trustworthy than the Greek as preserved by Epiphanius, ends the section referred to with the words: £i PtolenuBus quidem ita. For the Greek, generally, see Epiphanius, Heer. xxxi. a7, in DindorTs edition, which gives the best text.
B These are collected in Grabe's Spicilegium SS, Pairunt, etc., ii. 85-117,237, ed. alt. (1714), and in Stieren's Irenaeus, i. 938-971.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 63
commonly printed with his works, contains many extracts from one or more writers of the Valentinian school, in which the Gospel of John is quoted and commented upon as the work of the Apostle. (See particularly cc. 6-8, also 3, 9, 13, 17-19, 26, 41, 45, 61, 62, 65, 73.)
The literature of the third quarter of the second century is fragmentary, but we have seen that it attests the use of the Fourth Gospel in the most widely separated regions of the Christian world, and by parties diametrically opposed in sentiment. The fact that this Gospel was used by those to whose opinions it was or seemed to be adverse — by the author of the Clementine Homilies, by Quartodecimans and their opponents, and especially by the Gnostics, who were obliged to wrest its language so violently to accommodate it to their systems — shows that to have won such a reception at that time it must have come down from an earlier period with commanding authority. Its use in Tatian's Diatessaron also makes this evident. It must have belonged to those " Memoirs " to which Justin appealed fifteen or twenty years before, and which were recognized by the Christians gen- erally of his day as the authentic sources of information respecting the life and teaching of Christ. The particular evidence we have been examining, limited as it is by the scantiness of the literature, strengthens the general conclu- sion before drawn from the universal reception of our four Gospels in the time of Irenaeus, and from the direct indica- tions of the use of the Fourth Gospel by Justin. The evi- dence that this Gospel was one of his " Memoirs " is thus cumulative, and, unless it is countervailed by some very strong objections, must be regarded as decisive. Let us then consider the main objections which have been urged against this conclusion.
The first is that, according to Supernatural Religion, **The description which Justin gives of the manner of the teaching of Jesus excludes the idea that he knew the Fourth Gospel. ' Brief and concise were the sentences uttered by him : for he was no Sophist, but his word was the power of God.'
64 CRITICAL ESSAYS
No one could for a moment assert that this applies to the long and artificial discourses of the Fourth Gospel." *
Here we may observe, in the first place, that Justin's Greek is not quite accurately translated, f The word rendered " sentences " is without the article ; and Prof. Drummond translates the clause more correctly, ** Brief and concise say- ings have proceeded from him," remarking that "Justin is describing not the universal, but only the prevailing and prominent character of his teaching." J And it is not a description of the teaching in the Fourth Gospel in particu- lar, but a general statement, not inconsistent with the fact that the character of the discourses in the Fourth Gospel is in some respects peculiar. But, as to " brief and concise sayings" of Jesus, Professor Drummond, in glancing over the first thirteen chapters of John, finds no less than fifty- three to which this description would apply. He observes that "the book contains in reality very little connected argumentation ; and even the longest discourses consist rather of successive pearls of thought strung on a thread of association than of consecutive discussion and proof." || But it may be greatly doubted whether Justin means here by ppaxeig Uyoi^ as Taylcr supposes, simply " short, aphoristic maxims." The reference to the Sophists, that is, rhetori- cians, leads one rather to suppose that Justin is contrasting the A<5>o/, "discourses," of Christ in general with the long, artificial, argumentative, and rhetorical u^oi of the Sophists among his earlier or later contemporaries, such as Dion Chrysostomus, Herodes Atticus, Polemo and Aristides, whom Philostratus describes in his biographies. As for brevity, the discourses in the Fourth Gospel are generally short : the longest continuous discourse there recorded
•Suf. Rtl.t ii. 3x4; similarly J. J. Tayler, An Attempt to ascertain the Character 0/ the Fourth Gospel (1867), p. 64; Davidson, Introd. to the Study 0/ the .V.T. (1868), ii. 386, and many others.
^Apol. i. 14: Ppax^'ic S^ Kal ai'VTOfWL nap* aifTOv Tioyot yeydvaaiv. It may be thought, perhaps, that oi has dropped out after avvTOfiot, which might easily have happened. But, even if the article had been used, the argiunent would be worthless. Such general proposi- tions are seldom to be taxen without qualification.
t Theol. Review, July, 1877, xiv. 330.
llbid. pp. 330, 331.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 65
would hardly occupy five minutes in the reading. The Sermon on the Mount as given by Matthew is much longer than any unbroken discourse in John. But what charac- terizes the teaching of Christ in the Gospels, as Justin inti- mates, is the divine authority and spiritual power with which he speaks ; and this is not less striking in the Fourth Gospel than in the Synoptists. (Comp. Matt. vii. 29 ; Luke iv. 32 ; John vii. 26, 46.)
A more plausible objection is this. If Justin knew and used the Fourth Gospel at all, why has he not used it more } Why has he never appealed to it in proof of his doctrine of the Logos and of the pre-existence of Christ ? He has ex- pressly quoted but one saying of Christ recorded in it, and one of John the Baptist, and has referred to but one incident peculiar to it, unless we adopt the view of Professor Drum- mond respecting his reference to John xix. 13. (See above, p. 52.) His account of Christ's life and teaching cor- responds substantially with that given in the Synoptic Gos- pels, which he follows (so it is affirmed) where they differ, or seem to differ, from John. Albrecht Thoma, in an article in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift, comes to the conclusion, after a minute examination of the subject, that Justin "knows and uses almost every chapter of the Logos-Gospel, and in part very fully." But such considerations as I have mentioned convince him, notwithstanding, that he did not regard it as apostolic, or historically authentic. He finds Justin's rela- tion to the Apostle Paul very similar. Justin shows himself well acquainted with Paul's writings, he often follows him in his citations from the Old Testament where they differ from the Septuagint, he borrows largely his thoughts and illustra- tions and language, but never quotes him expressly and by name ; and so Mr. Thoma thinks he cannot have regarded him as an Apostle.*
This argument forgets the nature of Justin's writings. Were he addressing a Christian community in defence of his
* See the article, " Jusdns literarisches Verhftltniss zu Paulus und zum Johannes-Evan> ** m HOgenfeld's Zeiisckri/t /^ wuunsck, Tke<flogit^ 1875, xviii. 383 ff., 490 ff- The IB Uu test is from p^ 5S3«
66 CRITICAL ESSAYS
doctrine of the pre-existence and subordinate deity of Christ in opposition to the Ebionites, these objections would be valid. But he was writing for unbelievers. In his Apolo- gies addressed to the Emperor and Senate and people of Rome, he cannot quote the Christian writings in direct proof of the truth of Christian doctrines, and makes no attempt to do so. In giving the account which he does of the teaching of Christ, he draws mainly from the Sermon on the Mount, and in his sketch of the Gospel history follows mainly the guidance of Matthew, though also using Luke, and in two or three instances Mark. That is exactly what was to be expected. Justin's chief argument is derived from the fulfil- ment of Old Testament prophecies, and in this he natu- rally follows the Gospel of Matthew, which is distinguished from the others by its reference to them. Where Matthew's citations differ from the Alexandrine version of the Old Testament, Justin often appears to borrow from Matthew rather than from the Septuagint.* The discourses of Christ as they are given in the Synoptic Gospels were obviously much better fitted for his purpose of presenting to heathens a general view of Christ's teaching than those in the Gospel of John. Similar remarks apply to the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Here Dr. Davidson thinks it strange that Justin should not have quoted the prologue of the Fourth Gospel, and such a passage as "Before Abraham was, I am," in proof of Christ's divinity and pre-existence. f But the Jew with whom Justin was arguing would not have accepted an assertion of John or a declaration of Christ as a proof of its truth. So in the case of Paul's writings. Paul was not so popular among the Jews that his name would recommend the arguments or illustrations which Justin borrows from him ; still less could Justin quote his Epistles in proof of doctrine in a discussion with a Jew, or in a defence of Chris- tianity addressed to heathens.
*See Semisch, DU apost. DeptktoVkrdigktiUn u.s.w., pp. x 10-120; examples are also given by Norton, Genuitutuxs^ etc., vol. i. Addit. Notes, pp. ccxx., ccxxii., cccxxxiL f.
t Davidson's Intrcd. to the Study of the N. T. (1868), ii. 385. Compare Volkmar, Utber Justin den M^rtyrtr u.s.w. (Zlirich, 1853), p. ao f. ; Ur$prMng $uu. Evang: (1866), p. 107 f. Thoma, udint/ra, p. 556.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 67
The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by an indisputable fact. Justin certainly believed that the Apostle John was the author of the Apocalypse ; Supernatural Relig- ion (i. 295) thinks that this was the only book of the New Testament which he regarded as "inspired"; Thoma (p. 563, note i) even supposes that it was read in the churches in Justin's time together with the ** Memoirs" and the Prophets of the Old Testament. How, then, does it happen that he has not a single quotation from this book, which calls Christ "the Word [Logos] of God " (Rev. xix. 13), " the beginning of the creation of God " (iii. 14), " the first and the last and the living one" (i. 17, comp. ii. 8), "the searcher of the reins and hearts " (ii. 23), and, apparently (though according to Alford and Westcott not really), "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end " (xxii. 13).^ In speaking of the different opinions among Christians about the resurrection, Justin once refers to the book as agreeing with the prophets in predicting the Millennium, and mentions the name of the author {Dial, c. 81 ; the passage will be cited below) ; but, as I have said, he nowhere quotes this work, which he regarded as inspired, apostolic, prophetic, though it contains so much which might seem to favor his view of the person of Christ. Were it not for that almost accidental reference to it, it might be plausibly argued that he was ignorant of its exist- ence. In one place in the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 18), Justin half apologizes for subjoining "some brief sayings" of the Saviour to the words of the Prophets, on the ground that Trypho had acknowledged that he had read the precepts of Christ "in the so-called Gospel" {Dial c. 10). But he does not introduce them there as arguments.
It should be observed, further, that the course pursued by Justin in abstaining from quoting the Gospels in proof of doctrines, and in not mentioning the Evangelists by name, in writings addressed to unbelievers, is simply that which was followed, with slight exceptions, by a long line of Chris- tian Apologists from his time down to that of Eusebius.*
•See Norton, Gtn, of tlu GospeU, I ai8 ff.; Westcott, Canon of the N.T., p. ii6 ff . ; E. S. Ffbolkes, art. FaiJurs, in Smith and Wace*s Diet, of Christian Biog., ii. 45^ ^*
68 CRITICAL ESSAYS
It may still be said that this applies only to quotations made in proof of doctrines. It may be asked, and there is some force in the question, Why has not Justin used John as he has used the Synoptic Gospels, as an authority for his- torical facts, for facts which he supposed to be predicted in the Old Testament ? To take one example which has been urged : Justin has quoted from the Old Testament, in pre- cisely the same form as John (differing from the established text of the Septuagint), the words, ** They shall look on me whom they pierced '* : * but instead of referring to the inci- dent which led John to quote it, — the thrusting of a spear into our Saviour's side by a Roman soldier, — he seems to apply it to the crucifixion generally. How could he do this, if he accepted the Gospel of John ? t
This case presents little difficulty. The verbs in the quotation, it will be observed, are in the plural. If Justin regarded the prophecy as including the act of the Roman soldier, he could not have restricted it to that : he must have regarded the language of the Old Testament as refer- ring also to the piercing of the hands and the feet of Jesus on the part of the soldiers who nailed him to the cross. It is not strange^ therefore, that he should quote the passage without referring to the particular act mentioned by John. He applies the prophecy, moreover, to the Jews, who caused the death of Jesus, and not to the Roman soldiers, who were the immediate agents in the crucifixion. J
But there is a stronger case than this. Justin, who speaks of Christ as **the passover'* or paschal lamb, symbolizing the deliverance of Christian believers from death, **as the blood of the passover saved those who were in Egypt" {Dial, c. Ill, comp. 40), has not noticed the fact recorded by John alone, that the legs of Christ were not broken by the Roman soldiers at the crucifixion. This the Evangelist regards as a fulfilment of the scripture, ** A bone of him shall not be
•Zech. xii. xo; John xix. 37; Justin, Apol. i. 52. See above, p. 48.
t Thoma, pp. 542 f., 556; comp. Engelhardt, Das Christenthum Justins des 3IU^fyrers (1878), p. 350-
X AfoL \. 52 ; Ditil. cc. 14, 32, 64, 118; comp. DUil. cc. 85, 93, etc. ; Acts ii. 23 ; x. 39.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 69
broken " ; and this quotation is commonly referred to the direction respecting the paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 46; Num. ix. 12). How, it may be asked, could Justin, with his fond- ness for types, have neglected such a fulfilment as this, when the Evangelist had already pointed it out ? This argument is plausible, and has some weight. Let us consider it.
In the first place, I must venture to doubt whether there is any reference to the paschal lamb in John xix. 36. The Evangelist says nothing whatever to indicate such a refer- ence, though some explanation would seem to be needed of the transformation of a precept into a prediction. The lan- guage of Ps. xxxiv. 20 (Sept. xxxiii. 21) corresponds more closely with the citation ; and, considering the free way in which passages of the Old Testament are applied in the New, the fact that in the connection in which the words stand in the Psalm protection of life is referred to does not seem a very serious objection to the supposition that the Evangelist had this passage in mind. He may well have regarded the part of the Psalm which he quotes as fulfilled in the case of "Jesus Christ the righteous " in the incident which he records, and the preceding verse as fulfilled in the resurrection. And some eminent scholars take this view of his meaning ; so, ^.^., Grotius, Wetstein, Bishop Kidder, Hammond, Whitby, Briickner, Baumlein, Weiss ; * others, as Lenfant and Le Clerc, leave the matter doubtful ; and some, as Vitringa and Bengel, suppose the Et^angelist to have had both passages in mind. But, waiving this question, I would say, once for all, that very little importance is to be attached to this sort of a priori reasoning. We may be surprised that Justin should not have been led by the Fourth Gospel to find here a fulfilment of prophecy of some sort, and to use it in his argument ; but a hundred cases equally surprising might be cited of the neglect of a writer to use an argument or to recognize a fact which we should have confidently ex- pected that he would use or recognize. To take the first that lies at hand. I have before me the work of Dr. Sanday,
*BihL Tk0«l. des N.T., je Aufl. (1880), p. 638; comp. his Der Jokanneische Lehrbegriff (1862), p. 114, note. SoR. H. Hutton, Essays^ Theol. and Literary ^ 2d ed. (1880), i. 195.
70 CRITICAL ESSAYS
The Gospels in the Second Century, a learned, elaborate, and valuable treatise in reply to Supernatural Religion. He ad- duces from all sources the evidence of the use of the Gospels, by writers who flourished in the period from Clement of Rome to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, including those whose references to the Gospel are very slight and doubtful, or of whom mere fragments remain. Appended to the work is a chronological and analytical table of these authors. But, on looking it over, we find no mention of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch a.d. 169-181 ; and Dr. Sanday has nowhere presented the testimony of this writer, though we have from him an elaborate *' Apology" or defence of Christianity in three books, in which he quotes several pas- sages from the Gospel of Matthew with the introduction, "The evangelic voice teaches" so and so, or "the Gospel says," * and though, as we have seen, he quotes the Gospel of John (ch. i. i, 3), naming the Evangelist, and describing him as one moved by the Spirit of God (see above, p. 58). He is in fact the earliest writer who does thus expressly quote the Fourth Gospel as the work of John. Now sup- pose Dr. Sanday was a Father of the third or fourth century who had composed a treatise with the purpose of collecting the evidences of the use of the Gospels by early Christian writers. What would the author of Supernatural Religion say to the facts in this case } Would he not argue that Sandaeus could not possibly have been acquainted with this work of Theophilus, and that the pretended "Apology " was probably spurious ? And, if he found in Sandceus (p. 303) a single apparent allusion to that writer, would he not main- tain that this must be an interpolation ? — Or to take another example. Sanda^us is examining the question about Justin Martyr's use of the Gospels, and observes that "he says emphatically that all the children {-avruq aT?.wf roiV Toi^a^ in Bethlehem were slain, without mentioning the limitation of age given in St. Matthew" (p. 106; comp. Justin, Dial. c. ^%). Now in our present texts of Justin there is another
* Ad Auiol. lib. iii. cc. 13, 14, ed. Otto; comp. Matt. v. 28, 44, 46; vi. 3.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 71
reference to the slaughter of the innocents, in which Herod is represented as " destroying all the children born in Beth- lehem at that timer * But here Supernatural Religion might argue, It is certain that this qualifying phrase could not have been in the copy used by Sandaeus, who takes no notice of the passage, though his aim is to meet the objections to the genuineness of our Gospels. Is it not clear that the words were interpolated by some one who wished to bring Justin into harmony with Matthew? Would Justin be so incon- sistent with himself as that addition would make him ?
A multitude of questions may be asked, to which no par- ticular answer can be given, in reference to the use which Justin and writers in all ages have made of our Gospels. We cannot say why he has quoted this saying of Jesus and not that, or referred to this incident in the history and not that ; why, for example, in his account of Christ's teaching in his First Apology, he makes no allusion to any of the parables which form so remarkable a feature of it, and quotes from them in but one place in his Dialogue with Trypho (Dial, c. 125). We can only say that he had to stop some- where;! that he has used the Gospels much more freely than any other of the many Christian Apologists whose writings have come down to us from his day to that of Lactantius and Eusebius ; that his selection of the sayings of Christ seems on the whole judicious and natural, though many pearls of great price are missing ; that the historical incidents by which he supports his special argument from the fulfilment of prophecy are for the most part what might be expected ; and that it was natural that in general he should follow the Synoptic Gospels rather than that of John.J But one needs only to try experiments on partic- ular works by almost any writer to find that great caution
is required in drawing inferences from what he has not done.
*
*Dial. c 103 : avOJnnoq TrdvraQ rove €V 'BrfiT^kfi e k£ iv ov r ov Katpov
tCotnp. A^, i. SI* "Here we conclude, though we have many other prophecies to pfodoce."
tSee on this p<Mnt Meyer, Komm, USer d. Ev. Joh.y 5« Aufl. (1869), p. 8 f., note (Eng. trans^ p. 8 £., note 3); comp. Weizsftcker, Untersuchungen ii^er d. evang. GtKhiekU^ p. 329.
72 CRITICAL ESSAYS
As to the case before us, Justin may not have thought of the incident peculiar to the Fourth Gospel, or he may have considered, and very reasonably too, that an argument for the typical character of the paschal lamb founded on the direction given in the Pentateuch about the bones, or an argument assuming the Messianic reference of the passage in the Psalms, was not well adapted to convince unbelievers. Perhaps he had urged this argument in the actual dialogue with Trypho, and had encountered objections to its validity which he did not find it easy to answer. This may seem more probable than the supposition of forgetfulness. But will you say that such a failure of memory as has been sug- gested is incredible } Let us compare a case. One of the most distinguished scholars of this country, in an article published in the American Biblical Repository, remarks, in the course of an elaborate argument : —
The particulars inserted or omitted by different Evangelists vary ex- ceedingly from each other, some inserting what others omit, and some narrating at length what others briefly touch. E,g,, compare the history of the temptation by Mark, and even by Matthew and Luke ; and where is the history of the transfiguration to be found, except in Matthew?*
Could anything be a priori more incredible than that an eminent Biblical scholar, who when this was written had held the office oi Professor of Sacred Literature in the Andover Theological Seminary for nearly thirty years, should have forgotten that both Mark and Luke have given full accounts of the transfiguration, the latter especially mentioning a num- ber of important particulars not found in Matthew .^f If Professor Stuart was occasionally guilty of oversights, — as who is not ? — he certainly had a clearer head and a better memory than Justin Martyr, who in quoting and referring to the Old Testament makes not a few extraordinary mistakes. J
I admit that some weight should 'be allowed to the argu-
** American Biblical Repository^ October, 183S, xii. 341.
t Compare Mark ix. 2-8 and Luke ix. 28-36 with Matt. xvii. 1-8.
tSee the references already given, p. 49, note*; also Somt Account of the IVritings and Opinions 0/ Justin Martyr^ by John [Kaye], Bishop of Lincoln, 3d cd. (1853), pp. 139! 1 48; comp. p. 129 f.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 73
ment we have been examining, so far as reference to the history in the Gospel of John is concerned ; but it does not seem to me that much importance should be attached to it. The tradition in the Synoptic Gospels represents without doubt the substance of the apostolic preaching; it was earlier committed to writing than that contained in the Fourth Gospel ; the incidents of the threefold narrative were more familiar ; and the discourses, especially, as has already been remarked, were far better fitted for illustrating the general character of Christ's teaching than those of the Fourth Gospel. It would have been very strange, there- fore, if in such works as those of Justin the Synoptic Gos- pels had not been mainly used.
Engelhardt, the most recent writer on Justin, is impressed by the facts which Thoma presents respecting Justin's rela- tion to John, but comes to a different conclusion. He thinks Justin could never have made the use of John's Gospel which he has done, if he had not regarded it as genuine. It pur- ports to be a work of the beloved disciple. The conjecture that by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" Andrew was in- tended (Liitzelberger), or Nathanael (Spaeth), or a person- ified ideal conception (Scholten), was reserved for the sagacity of critics of the nineteenth century : there is no trace that in Christian antiquity this title ever suggested any one but John. The Gospel must have been received as his work, or rejected as fictitious. Engelhardt believes that Justin received it, and included it in his ** Memoirs " ; but he conjectures that with it there was commonly read in the churches and used by Justin a Harmony of the first three Gospels, or at least of Matthew and Luke, while the Fourth Gospel, not yet incorporated into the Harmony, stood in the background.* I do not feel the need of this hypothesis ; but it may deserve consideration.
It is objected further that Justin's statements repeatedly contradict the Fourth Gospel, and that he cannot therefore have regarded it as apostolic or authentic. For example, he follows the Synoptic Gospels, so Hilgenfeld and David-
*Sce Engdhardt, Das ChrUtenthum Justin* des MUrtyrtrs^ pp. 345-352.
74 CRITICAL ESSAYS
son and Supernatural Religion affirm, in placing, in opposi- tion to John, the death of Christ on the isth of Nisan, the day after the paschal lamb was killed.
The argument that Justin cannot have accepted the Gospel of John because he has followed the Synoptists in respect to the day of Christ's death hardly needs an answer. If the discrepancy referred to, whether real or not, did not prevent the whole Christian world from accepting John and the Synoptic Gospels alike in the last quarter of the second century, it need not have hindered Justin from doing so at an earlier date. But it is far from certain that Hilgenfeld and Davidson have correctly interpreted the language of Justin : " It is written that you seized him on the day of the passover, and in like manner crucified him at \or during] the passover (cv rq irdaxa).^^* Meyer understands this as plac- ing the death of Jesus on the day of the passover ; f Otto in an elaborate note on the passage in his /Aird edition of Justin's Works maintains the same view ; J Thoma regards the language as ambiguous. || I will not undertake to pro- nounce an opinion upon so difficult a question, as the objec- tion is futile on any supposition.
Again, Supernatural Religion asserts that " Justin contra- dicts the Fourth Gospel, in limiting the work of Jesus to one year." (S. R. ii. 313.) Dr. Davidson makes the same state- ment ; ** but neither he nor S. R. adduces any proof of it. I know of no passage in Justin which affirms or implies this limitation. But, if such a passage should be found, the argu- ment against Justin's reception of the Fourth Gospel would
*Dial. cm. See Hilgenfeld, Dfr Puschastreit dcr alten Kircht (i860), pp. 205-209; Davidson, Introd. to the Study of tJtt N. T. (1868), ii. 384; Sup. Rfl., ii. 313 ; comp. Wieseler, Beitrdffe (1869), p. 240. — Note here the use of yiypaTTdi.
^ /Comf/UHt. ilb. d. Ev. des Joh., 5c Aufl. p. 24 f. (Eng. trans, i. 24 f) Steitz, who formerly aj^eed with Hilgenfeld, afterwards adopted the view of Meyer; see the art. Pascha in Herzog's Real-Encyk. /. Prot. u. Kirche, xi. 151, note *.
Xlvstini . . . Martyr is Opera, torn. i. pars ii., ed. tert. (1877), p. 395 f. Otto cites Z>iVt/. c. 99, where the agony in Gethsemane is referred to as taking place ** on the day on which Jesus was to be crucified," as showing that Justin followed the Jewish reckoning of the day from sunset to sunset. Davidson takes no notice of this. H Meyer and Otto are right, wc have here a strong argument for Justin's use of the Fourth Gospel.
II Ubi supra, p S"?? f.
— Ititrod. to the Study of the .V. T . ii. ^^7.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 75
be worthless. The opinion that Christ's ministry lasted but one year, or little more, was held by many in the early Church who received the Gospel of John without question. It was maintained by the Basilidians, the Valentinians, and the author of the Clementine Homilies, by Clement of Alexan- dria, Tertullian, Origen, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Cyprian, Archelaus, Lactantius, Ephraem Syrus apparently, Philas- trius, Gaudentius, Q. Julius Hilarianus, Augustine apparently, Evagrius the presbyter, and others among the Fathers, and has been held by modern scholars, as Bentley, Mann, Priestley (Harmony), Lant Carpenter (Harmony), and Henry Browne (Ordo S(Bclorum)* The Fathers were much influenced by their interpretation of Isa. Ixi. 2, — **to preach the acceptable year of the Lord," — quoted in Luke iv. 19. It is true that John vi. 4 is against this view ; but its defenders find means, satisfactory to themselves, of getting over the difficulty.
Other objections urged by Dr. Davidson and Supernatural Religion seem to me too weak to need an answer. I will, however, notice one which is brought forward with great confidence by Thoma, who says "Justin directly contradicts the Fourth Gospel" (p. 556), and after him by F. C. J. van Goens, who introduces it with the words enfin et surtout.\
•The Basilidians, see Qera. Alex. Strom, i. 21, p. 408. — Valentinians, see Iren. Har. i. 3. (ad. 5), §3 ; ii. 20. (aL 36), § i ; 22. (al. 38-40), §§ 1-6. — Clem. Horn. xvii. 19. — Clem. Alex. Strom. L 21, p. 407; vi. II, p. 783, 1. 40; comp. V. 6, p. 668; vii. 17, p. 898. — Tertull. Adv. Jud. c 8; Marc. \. 15 (but here are different readings). — Origen, De Princip. iv. 5, 0pp. i. 160; In Levii. Hem, ix. c 5, Opp. ii. 239; In Luc. Horn, xxxii., Opp. iii. 970; contra, In Matt. Comm. Ser., c. 40, Opp. iii. 859, "fere ires annos*'; comp. Cels. ii. 12, Opp. i. 397, ovAe rpia Ittj. — Jul. Africani Chron. frag. 1. ap. Routh, RelL Sacrie^ ii. 301 f., ed. alt.— Pseudo-Cyprian, De PaschdB Com/, {a.d. 243), c. 22.— Archelai et Manetis Disp.,c. 34. — Lactant. Inst. iv. 10. (De Morte Per sec. c 2.) — Ephraem, Serm. xiii. in Nat. Dom.^ Opp. Syr. ii. 432. — Philastr. Hter. 106. — Gaodent. Serm.m.^ Migne, Patrol, Lat. xx, S6$. — Hilarianus, Z>r Mundi Dur. (a.d. 397) c. 16; De Die Pascfue^ c. 15; Mignc, xiii. 1104, 1114, or Gallandi, Bibl. Pair. viii. 23S, 748. — Augustine, De Civ. Dei^ xviii. 54, Opp. vii. 866; Ad Hesych. Epist. i«>9 (al. 80), §20, Opp. il 1122; contra, De Doct. Christ, ii. 42 (al. 28), Opp. iii. 66. — Evagrius presbyter (f/r. a.d. 423), AUerc. inter Theoph. Christ, et Sim. Jud.^ Migne xx. 1176, or Gallandi, ix. 254.— So also the author of the treatise De Promissis et Preedictionibus Z?// (published with the works of Prosper Aquitanus), pan i. c. 7 ; pars v. c. a ; Migne, H. 739 c, 855 b. — Browne, Ordo Seeclorum (Cor- rections and Additions), also cites Cyril of Alexandria, In Isa. xxxii. 10, Opp. ii. 44^ d e, but this rests on a false inference; see, contra^ Cyril, In Isa. xxix. i, Opp. ii. 408 b. Besides the works of Nicholas Mann, De veris Annis Jesu Christi natali et emortuttli, Lond. 1752, p. 158 ff., Greswell, Dissertations, etc., i. 438 ff., 2d ed. (1837), and Henry Browne, Ordo Satclorum, Loud. 1844, p. 80 ff.,one may consult especially F. X. Patritius (i.e. V^\Tiz\\ De Evangeliit (Friborg. Brisgov. 1853), lib. iii., diss, xix., p. 171 ff.
\Remt* de thiplog^ et de philosophie, Lausanne, 1878, xi. 92 f.
J 6 CRITICAL ESSAYS
Justin speaks of Christ as "keeping silence and refusing any longer to make any answer to any one before Pilate, as has been declared in the Memoirs by the Apostles " (Dial, c. 102). M. van Goens remarks, "No one who had ever read the Fourth Gospel could speak in this way." What does M. van Goens think of Tertullian, who says,* "Velut agnus coram tondente se sine voce, sic non aperuit as suum. Hie enim Pilato interrogante nihil locutus est'' f If Justin had even said that Christ made no answer when Pilate ques- tioned him, this would be sufficiently explained by John xix. 9, to which Tertullian perhaps refers. But the expres- sions "no longer** and '^before Pilate" lead rather to the supposition that Justin refers to Matt, xxvii. 11-14 and Mark xv. 2-5 (ovKtri ov6ev areKpien, " hc no longer made any answer"), which certainly there is nothing in John to con- tradict.
Finally, the author of Supernatural Religion urges, gener- ally, that in citing the Old Testament Justin, according to Semisch's count, refers to the author by name or by book one hundred and ninety-seven times, and omits to do this only one hundred and seventeen times. On the other hand, in referring to the words of Christ or the facts of Christian history for which he relied on the " Memoirs," he never cites the book (5. R, regards the " Memoirs " as one book) by the name of the author, except in a single instance, where he refers to "Peter's Memoirs" {Dial c. 106). f "The infer- ence," he says, " must not only be that he attached small importance to the Memoirs, but was actually ignorant of the author's name " (5. R. i. 297). That Justin attached small importance to the " Memoirs by the Apostles " on which he professedly relied for the teaching and life of Christ, and this, as S, R. contends, to the exclusion of oral tradition (S. R. i. 298), is an " inference " and a proposition which would surprise us in almost any other writer. The infer- ence, moreover, that Justin "was actually ignorant of the author's name," when in one instance, according to 5. R.,
*Adv. Jud. c. 13, Opp. ii. 737* ed. Oehler. tSee above, p. 22 L
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 77
"he indicates Peter" as the author (5. R. i. 285), and when, as 5. R, maintains, "the Gospel according to Peter," or "the Gospel according to the Hebrews " (which he represents as substantially the same work), was in all probability the source from which the numerous quotations in his works differing from our Gospels are taken,* is another specimen of singular logic. So much for generalities. But a particular objection to the conclusion that the Gospel of John was one of Justin's "Memoirs" is founded on the fact that he has never quoted or referred to it under the name of the author, though he has named the Apostle John as the author of the Apocalypse. (5. R. i. 298.) Great stress is laid on this contrast by many writers. ~
Let us see to what these objections amount. In the first place, the way in which Justin has mentioned John as the author of the Apocalypse is in itself enough to explain why he should not have named him in citing the "Memoirs." In his Dialogue with Trypho, after having quoted prophecies of the Old Testament in proof of his doctrine of the Millen- nium, — a doctrine in which he confesses some Christians did not agree with him, — he wishes to state that his belief is supported by a Christian writing which he regards as in- spired and prophetic. He accordingly refers to the work as follows : " And afterwards also a certain man among us, whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a revelation made by him prophesied that the believers in our Christ should spend a thousand years in Jerusalem," etc. {Dial. c. 81.) The Apostle John was certainly as well known outside of the Christian body as any other of the Evangelists ; but we see that he is here introduced to Trypho as a stranger. Still more would he and the other Evangelists be strangers to the Roman Emperor and Senate, to whom the Apologies were addressed. That Justin under such circumstances should quote the Evangelists by name, assigning this saying or incident to " the Gospel according to Matthew," that to "Luke," and the other to "the Gospel according to John,"
RtUgion^ i. jai ; comp. pp. 313, 333, 332, 398, 416, 418-437; ii. 311, 7th ed.
jS CRITICAL ESSAYS
as if he were addressing a Christian community familiar with the books, would have been preposterous. Justin has de- scribed the books in his First Apology as Memoirs of Christ, resting on the authority of the Apostles, and received by the Christians of his time as authentic records. That was all that his purpose required : the names of four unknown persons would have added no weight to his citations. In the Dialogue, he is even more specific in his description of the "Memoirs'* than in the Apology. But to suppose that he would quote them as he quotes the books of the Old Tes- tament with which Trypho was familiar is to ignore all the proprieties and congruities of the case.
This view is confirmed and the whole argument of Super- natural Religion is nullified by the fact that the general practice of Christian Apologists down to the time of Euse- bius corresponds with that of Justin, as we have before had occasion to remark. (See above, p. 6j.) It may be added that, while in writings addressed to Christian readers by the earlier Fathers the Old Testament is often, or usually, cited with reference to the author or book, the cases are com- paratively very rare in which the Evangelists are named. For example, Clement of Alexandria, according to Semisch, quotes the Old Testament writers or books far oftener than otherwise by name, while in his very numerous citations from the Gospels he names John but three times, Matthew twice, Luke twice, and Mark once ; in the countless cita- tions of the Gospels in the Apostolical Constitutions, the Evangelists are never named ; and so in the numerous quotations of the Gospels in Cyprian's writings, with the exception of a single treatise (the Tcstimonia or Ad Quiri- num), the names of the Evangelists are never mentioned. Hut it cannot be necessary to expose further the utter futil- ity of this objection, which has so often been inconsiderately urged.*
In this view of the objections to the supposition that Justin used the Gospel of John and included it in his
•Sec Semisch, />/> apostol. DenkwMrdigkeiUny u. s. w., p. 84 £E. ; and compare Norton, Gemtuutuss, etc, i. 205 ff., 2d ed.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 79
"Memoirs," I have either cited them in the precise lan- guage of their authors, or have endeavored to state them in their most plausible form. When fairly examined, only one of them appears, to have weight, and that not much. I refer to the objection that, if Justin used the Fourth Gospel at all, we should expect him to have used it more. It seems to me, therefore, that there is nothing of importance to countervail the very strong presumption from different lines of evidence that the "Memoirs" of Justin Martyr, "com- posed by Apostles and their companions," were our four Gospels.
A word should perhaps be added in reference to the view of Dr. E. A. Abbott, in the valuable article Gospels con- tributed to the new edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. He holds that Justin's " Memoirs " included the first three Gospels, and these only. These alone were received by the Christian community of his time as the authentic records of the life and teaching of Christ. If so, how can we explain the fact that a pretended Gospel so different in character from these, and so inconsistent with them as it is supposed to be, should have found universal acceptance in the next generation on the part of Christians of the most opposite opinions, without trace of controversy, with the slight excep- tion of the Alogi previously mentioned } *
I have not attempted in the present paper a thorough dis- cussion of Justin Martyr's quotations, but only to illustrate by some decisive examples the false assumptions on which the reasoning of Supernatural Religion is founded. In a full treatment of the subject, it would be necessary to consider the question of Justin's use of apocryphal Gospels, and in particular the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" and the "Gospel according to Peter," which figure so prominently in what calls itself "criticism" (die Kritik) as the pretended source of Justin's quotations. This subject has already been
*See above, p. 20. The work of Hippolytus, of which we know only the title found on the cathedra of his statue at Rome, " On \or ** In defence of ** {virkp) ] the Gospel accorduig to John and the Apocalypse," may have been written in answer to their objections. See BoBmn*» /fi/^Xius, ad ed. (1854)* >• 460. On the Alogi see also Weizs&cker, Uniersuchmgtn UifT d. ewmmg, GMckiekUt p. »6 i, note.
8o CRITICAL ESSAYS
referred to ; * but it is impossible to treat it here in detail. In respect to " the Qpspel according to the Hebrews " I will give in a Note some quotations from the article Gospels^ Apocryphaly by Professor R. A. Lipsius, of Jena, in the second volume of Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, published in the present year, with extracts from other recent writers, which will sufficiently show how ground- less is the supposition that Justin's quotations were mainly derived from this Gospel, f Lipsius certainly will not be suspected of any " apologetic ** tendency. Credner's hypoth- esis that the " Gospel according to Peter," which he regards as the Gospel used by the Jewish Christians generally, and strangely identifies with the Diatessaron of Tatian, was the chief source of Justin's quotations, was thoroughly refuted by Mr. Norton as long ago as the year 1834 in the Select Journal of Foreign Periodical Literature, and afterwards in a Note to the first edition of his work on the Genuineness of the Gospels. % It is exposed on every side to overwhelming objections, and has hardly a shadow of evidence to support it. Almost our whole knowledge of this Gospel is derived from the account of it by Serapion, bishop of Antioch near the end of the second century (a.d. 191-213), who is the first writer by whom it is mentioned. || He "found it for the most part in accordance with the right doctrine of the Saviour," but containing passages favoring the opinions of the Docetae, by whom it was used. According to Origen, it represented the " brethren " of Jesus as sons of Joseph by a former wife.** It was evidently a book of very little note. Though it plays a conspicuous part in the speculations of modern German scholars and of Supernatural Religion about
• Sec above, p. 1 7 f .
t See Note C, at the end of this essay.
X Select Journal^ etc. (Boston), April, 1834, vol iii., part ii., pp. 234-242; Evidences 0/ the Gennineness 0/ the GospeU^ vol. 1. (1837), Addit. Notes, pp. ccxxxii.-cclv. Sec also Bindemann, who disctisses ably the whole question about Justin Martyr's Gospels, in the Theoi. Sttidien «. Kritiken^ 1842, pp. 355-483 ; Semisch, Die apostoh DenkvAirdigkeiten u. s. w., pp. 43-59; on the other side, Credner, Beitrdge u. s. w., vol. i. (1832); Mayerhoff, Hist.-crit. EinUit-ung in di§ PttrinUchen Sckriften (1835), p. 234 flf. ; Hilgenfeld, Krit. Untersuchungen u. s. w., p. 259 £E.
D Serapion's account of it is preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 12.
••Origen, Comm. in Matt. t. x. § 17, Opp. iii. 462 L
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 8 1
the origin of the Gospels and the quotations of Justin Martyr, not a single fragment of it has come down to us. This nominis umbra has therefore proved wonderfully con- venient for those who have had occasion, in support of their hypotheses, "to draw unlimited cheques," as Lightfoot somewhere expresses it, "on the bank of the unknown." Mr. Norton has shown, by an acute analysis of Serapion's account of it, that in all probability it was not an historical, but a doctrinal work.* Lipsius remarks: "The statement of Theodoret (Hcer. Fab, ii. 2) that the Nazarenes had made use of this Gospel rested probably on a misunderstanding. The passage moreover in Justin Martyr (DiaL c, Tryph, 106) in which some have thought to find mention of the Memorials of Peter is very doubtful. . . . Herewith fall to the ground all those hypotheses which make the Gospel of Peter into an original work made use of by Justin Martyr, nigh related to the Gospel of the Hebrews^ and either the Jewish Christian basis of our canonical St. Mark [so Hilgenfeld], or, at any rate, the Gospel of the Gnosticizing Ebionites " [Volkmar]. f To this I would only add that almost the only fact of which we are directly informed respecting the contents of the so-called " Gospel of Peter " is that it favored the opinions of the Docetae, to which Justin Martyr, who wrote a book against the Marcionites (Euseb. Hist, EccL iv. 11. § 8), was diametrically opposed.
Glancing back now over the ground we have traversed, we find (i) that the general reception of our four Gospels as sacred books throughout the Christian world in the time of Irenaeus makes it almost certain that the " Memoirs called Gospels," "composed by Apostles and their companions," which were used by his early contemporary Justin Martyr, and were read in the Christian churches of his day as the authoritative records of Christ's life and teaching, were the same books ; (2) that this presumption is confirmed by the actual use which Justin has made of all our Gospels, though
*GemtiM4mtst of ikt Gospth^ ad ed., voL iii. (1848), pp. 255-360; abridged edition (1867), pp. 361-366.
t Smith and Wace^s Diet, 0/ Christian Biog.^ ii. 712.
82 CRITICAL ESSAYS
he has mainly followed, as was natural, the Gospel of Matthew, and his direct citations from the Gospel of John, and references to it, are few ; (3) that it is still further strengthened, in respect to the Gospel of John, by the evidences of its use between the time of Justin and that of Irenaeus, both by the Catholic Christians and the Gnostics, and especially by its inclusion in Tatian's Diatessaron ; (4) that, of the two principal assumptions on which the counter- argument is founded, one is demonstrably false and the other baseless ; and (5) that the particular objections to the view that Justin included the Gospel of John in his " Me- moirs " are of very little weight. We are authorized then, I believe, to regard it as in the highest degree probable, if not morally certain, that in the time of Justin Martyr the Fourth Gospel was generally received as the work of the Apostle John.
III. We pass now to our third point, the use of the Fourth Gospel by the various Gnostic sects. The length to which the preceding discussion has extended makes it necessary to treat this part of the subject in a very summary manner.
The Gnostic sects with which we are concerned became conspicuous in the second quarter of the second century, under the reigns of Hadrian (a.d. 117-138) and Antoninus Pius (a.d. 1 38-161). The most prominent among them were those founded by Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides. To these may be added the Ophites or Naassenes.
Marcion has already been referred to.* He prepared a Gospel for his followers by striking from the Gospel of Luke what was inconsistent with his system, and treated in a sim- ilar manner ten of the Epistles of Paul. He rejected the other Gospels, not on the ground that they were spurious, but because he believed their authors were under the influ- ence of Jewish prejudices.! In proof pf this, he appealed to the passage in the Epistle to the Galatians on which Baur
•See above, p. ai.
t See Irenaeus, Har. iii. 12. § 12.
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 83
and his school lay so much stress. "Marcion," says Ter- tullian, "having got the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, who reproves even the Apostles themselves for not walking straight, according to the truth of the Gospel, . . . endeavors to destroy the reputation of those Gospels which are truly such, and are published under the name of Apostles, or also of apostolic men, in order that he may give to his own the credit which he takes away from them." * In another place, Tertullian says, addressing Marcion: "If you had not re- jected some and corrupted others of the Scriptures which contradict your opinion, the Gospel of John would have con- futed you."f Again: "Of those historians whom we pos- sess, it appears that Marcion selected Luke for his mutila- tions." X The fact that Marcion placed his rejection of the Gospels on this ground, that the Apostles were but imper- fectly enlightened, shows that he could not question their apostolic authorship.jl His reference to the Epistle to the Galatians indicates also that the "pillar-apostles" (Gal. ii. 9), Peter and John, were particularly in his mind. Peter, it will be remembered, was regarded as having sanctioned the Gospel of Mark. (See above, p. 23.)
It has been asserted by many modern critics, as Hilgen- feld, Volkmar, Scholten, Davidson, and others, that, if Mar- cion had been acquainted with the Gospel of John, he would have chosen that, rather than Luke, for expurgation, on account of its marked anti-Judaic character. But a careful comparison of John's Gospel with Marcion's doctrines will show that it contradicts them in so many places and so
*Ado. Marc. iv. 3. Comp. Prater, cc. 22-24. See also Norton, Genuifuruss of the G^sf^, ad ed., in. '306 ff., 303 fif. ; or abridged edition, pp. 332 fif., 392 ff.
^Dg Carn4 Christ i^ c. 3.
XAdv. Mdrc. iv. 3. '*Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quern caederet." On account of the ase of videtttr here, Dr. Davidson, following some German critics, says, " Even in speaking abont Mardo«i*s treatment of Luke, Tertullian puts it forth as a conjecture." {Jntrod. to the Study t/ Uu AT. 7*., ii 305.) A canjtctnre^ when Tertullian has devoted a whole book to the refutation of Marcion from those passages of Luke which he retained! The context and all the facts of the case show that no doubt can possibly have been intended ; and Tertullian often uses videri^ not in the sense of "to seem,'* but of " to be seen," "to be apparent." See Apol. c tqi De Orat. c. 21 ; Adv. Prax. cc. 26, 29; Adv. Jud. c. 5, from Isa. i. 12 ; and De Pretscr, c 38, which has Ukewiae been misinterpreted.
I Apdles, the disciple of Marcion, appears to have used the Fourth Compel as an authoi ity for facts; lee HippoL Ref. Nttr. vii. 38, p a6o, 1. 20; comp. John xx. 25, 27. Hippol)-tus say : r«v Se evaryyeXujv ij rov aTCoord'kov ra aptOKovra avT<^ aipEtrm. Comp. Origcn, £"/. md ckarM *m0S in Rufina% Lider de adtditratione Ubromm Origenis, appende-:' u* Origen, Opp. IV. cad, ed DeUme.
84 CRITICAL ESSAYS
absolutely that it would have been utterly unsuitable for his purpose. *
The theosophic or speculative Gnostics, as the Ophites, Valentinians, and Basilidians, found more in John which, by ingenious interpretation, they could use in support of their
systems.!
It is moreover to be observed, in regard to the Marcionites, as Mr. Norton remarks, '* that their having recourse to the mutilation of Luke's Gospel shows that no other history of Christ's ministry existed more favorable to their doctrines ; that, in the first half of the second century, when Marcion lived, there was no Gnostic Gospel in being to which he could appeal." J
We come now to Valentinus. It has already appeared that the later Valentinians, represented by Ptolemy, Heracleon, and the Excerpta Theodotiy received the Gospel of John without question. || The presumption is therefore obviously very strong that it was so received by the founder of the sect. ** That this was so is the representation of Tertullian. He contrasts the course pursued by Marcion and Valentinus. **One man,'* he says, "perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another by his exposition of their meaning. For, if it appears that Valentinus uses the entire document, — si Valentinus integro instrumcnto uti videtur, — he has yet done violence to the truth more artfully than Marcion." For Marcion, he goes on to say, openly used the knife, not the pen ; Valentinus has spared the Scriptures, but explains them away, or thrusts false meanings into them.ft
• See on this point Bleek, Eml. in d. N. y., 3d ed. (1875), p. 158, flf., with Mangold's note, who remarks that ** it was simply impoi«ible for Marcion to choose the fourth Gospel" for this pur- pose ; also WeizsUcker, Untersuchungen ^Xber d. evang. Gtschickte (1864), p. 230, ff. ; Luthardt, Diejohan. Ursprung dts vierten Ev. (1874), p. 92, or Eng. trans., p. 108 f. ; Godet, Comm, sur Vivangile de Si. Jean, 2d ed., tom. 1. (1876), p. 270 f.,or Eng. trans., i. 222 f.
t On the use of the N.T. by the Valentinians, see particularly G. Heinrici, Die valentinians ische Gnosis und die Heilige Schrifty Berlin, 1871.
X Genuineness 0/ the Gospels^ 2d ed., iii. 304 ; abridged ed., p. 39a £.
II Sec above, p. 62 f.
••On this point, see Norton, Genuineness^ etc., 2d ed., iii. 321 f. ; abridged ed., p. 403 £.
ft Tertullian, Prtescr. c. 38. On the use of the word videiur^ sec above, p. 83, notet* The context shows that no doubt is intended. If, however, the word should be taken in the sense
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 85
The testimony of Tertullian is apparently confirmed by Hippolytus, who, in a professed account of the doctrines of Valentinus (Ref. HcBr, vi. 21-37, or 16-32, Eng. trans.; comp. the introduction, §3), says: "All the prophets, there- fore, and the Law spoke from the Demiurgus, a foolish God, he says, [and spoke] as fools, knowing nothing. Therefore, says he, the Saviour says, ' All who have come before me are thieves and robbers ' (John x. 8) ; and the Apostle, * The mystery which was not made known to former generations' " (Eph. iii. 4, 5). Here, however, it is urged that Hippolytus, in his account of Valentinus, mixes up references to Valen- tinus and his followers in such a manner that we cannot be sure that, in the use of the ^z, "he says," he is not quoting from some one of his school, and not the master. A full ex- hibition of the facts and discussion of the question cannot be given here. I believe there is a strong presumption that Hippolytus is quoting from a work of Valentinus :* the reg- ular exposition of the opinions of his disciples, Secundus, Ptolemy, and Heracleon, does not begin till afterwards, in c. 38, or c. 33 of the English translation ; but it is true that, in the present text, i^rjai is used vaguely toward the end of c. 35, where the opinions of the Italian and Oriental schools are distinguished in reference to a certain point. I there- fore do not press this quotation as direct proof of the use of the Fourth Gospel by Valentinus himself.
Next to Marcion and Valentinus, the most eminent among the founders of early Gnostic sects was Basilides, of Alexandria. He flourished about a.d. 125. In the Homi- lies on Luke generally ascribed to Origen, though some have questioned their genuineness, we are told, in an ac- count of apocryphal Gospels, that "Basilides had the au- dacity to write a Gospel according to Basilides.'' f Ambrose and Jerome copy this account in the prefaces to their re-
of "seems," the contrast must be betveeen the ostensible use of the Scriptures by Valentinus and his virtual rejection of them by imposing upon thera a sense contrary to their teaching. Comp. Iraueus, Nttr. Ui. la. % 12 : "acriptanu quidem confitentes, interpretationes vero convertunt." -So Hitr. L 3. $ 6; iii. 14. § 4.
*See esp. Lightfnot, C0iossians, p. 366, note i ; p. 269, note i.
t So the Greek: Oiii»-n, f/om. i. in Luc, 0pp. iii 932, note; the Latin in Jerome's transla^ tkm reads, " Ausus fuit et l^nilides acribere evangehum, et suo illud nomine titulare."
86 CRITICAL ESSAYS
spective commentaries on Luke and Matthew ; but there is no other notice of such a Gospel, or evidence of its existence, in all Christian antiquity, so far as is known. The work referred to could not have been a history of Christ's minis- try, set up by Basilides and his followers in opposition to the Gospels received by the catholic Christians. In that case, we should certainly ha\e heard of it from those who wrote in opposition to his heresy ; but he and his followers are, on the contrarj', represented as appealing to our Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John;* and Hippolytus states ex- pressly that the Basilidian account of all things concerning the Saviour subsequent to the birth of Jesus agreed with that given "in the Gospels." f The origin of the error is easily explained : a work in which Basilides set forth his view of the Gospel, i.e. of the teaching of Christ, might naturally be spoken of as "the Gospel according to Basil- ides." X We have an account of such a work. Agrippa Castor, a contemporary of Basilides, and who, according to- Eusebius, wrote a very able refutation of him, tells us that Basilides "composed twenty-four books on the Gospel," fie rit rvajjihor.\\ Clement of Alexandria, who is one of our prin- cipal authorities for his opinions, cites his ■E^rn'n'"i, "Exposi- tions," or "Interpretations," quoting a long passage from "the twenty-third book."** In the "Dispute between Archeiaus and Manes," the "thirteenth treatise" of Basi- lides is cited, containing an explanation of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.+f I agree with Dr. Hort in thinking it e,"(ceedingly probable that the work of Basilides which Hippolytus cites so often in his account of his opin- ions is the same which is quoted by Clement and Archeiaus, and mentioned by Agrippa Castor. JJ Lipsius remarks: —
•nnidei Ihc work of Hipp>ilyiu>, la bt tunhct r leiaodruand Epiphuiu* ill KinAtialrT'i O'^'""'"' fXi/. Har. c jj, ore. i6, Eng. Inni. JOn Ihis ukdI the Wm "G<nptl,"Me Norton,
AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL 87
In any case, the work must have been an exposition of some Gospel by whose authority Basilides endeavored to establish his Gnostic doc- trine. And it is anyhow most unlikely that he would have written a commentary on a Grospel of his own composition. Of our canonical Gospels, those of Matthew, Luke, and John, were used in his school; and from the fragments just referred to we may reasonably conclude that it was the Gospel of Luke on which he wrote his commentary.*
On this it may be observed, that the phrase of Agrippa Castor, "twenty-four books on the Gospel," excludes the idea that any particular Gospel, like that of Luke, could be intended. Such a Gospel would have been named or other- wise defined. The expression to tvayyiXiov, if it refers to any book, must signify, in accordance with that use of the term which has before been illustrated,! "the Gospels" collec- tively. It is so understood by Norton, J Tischendorf, Lu- thardt, Godet, and others. It would not in itself necessarily denote precisely our four Gospels, though their use by Justin Martyr, and the fact that Luke and John are com- mented on by Basilides, and Matthew apparently referred to by him, would make it probable that they were meant.
There is, however, another sense of the word ** Gospel" as used by Basilides, — namely, "the knowledge {gnosis) of su- permundane things " (Hippol. Ref, Hcer, vii. 27) ; and " the Gospel " in this sense plays a prominent part in his system as set forth by Hippolytus. The "twenty-four books on the Gospel" mentioned by Agrippa Castor, the "Exposi- tions" or "Interpretations" of Clement, may perhaps have related to "the Gospel" in this sense. We cannot there- fore, I think, argue confidently from this title that Basilides wrote a Commentary on our Four Gospels, though it natu- rally suggests this. It is evident, at any rate, that he supported his gnosis by far-fetched interpretations of the sayings of Christ as recorded in our Gospels ; and that the supposition that he had a Gospel of his own composition, in the sense of a history of Christ's life and teaching, has not only no positive support of any strength, but is on various
* See the art. Go$p*U in the work just cited, ii. 715. Corap. Hilgenfeld, Einl. p. 47.
t See above, p. 34.
ISee Norton's Gettuiruneu o/th* Gospels^ ad ed., iii. 235-239, pr abridged edition, p. 351 £F.
88 CRITICAL ESSAYS
accounts utterly improbable. That he used an apocryphal Gospel not of his own composition is a supposition for which there is not a particle of evidence of any kind whatever.
I have spoken of Basilides as quoting the Gospel of John in the citations from him by Hippolytus. The passages are the following: "And this, he says, is what is said in the Gospels : * The true light, which enlighteneth every man, was coming into the world.*" (R^f- Hcer.vii. 22, ore. 10, Eng. trans.) The words quoted agree exactly with John i. 9 in the Greek, though I have adopted a different con- struction from that of the common