^ /^\i-*'5'^f ^i^^^p}^'^^^^^' /f-^^ ''^'^ "" ^ ^^v^4l-^j«' M^^hmii<^''^^-J's-. /ft .^//- ^ .^-< /- y,-- / X- y- ../'"' M€z735 g80g The AuthoisMp of the Fouitli Gospel: EXTERNAL EVIDENCES. BV EZRA ABBOT, D.D., LL.D., Bussey Professor of New Testatnent Criticism and Interpretation in the Divinity School of Harvard University. BOSTON: Geo. H. Ellis, ioi Milk Street. 1880. PREFATORY NOTE. 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 Unitariatt Review (February, 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, 1880. 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 sldl 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 JahrbiXcher 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 leaming 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 il 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 the opposition of Paul lo 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 lo 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 forra in which il has been presented by the coryphaei of the party, as Baur, Schwegler, Zeher, 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 mon-sense to bear on the subject, and exposes well some of the extravagances of Baur and others.* Still more weight is to be attached lo 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 dein 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 Acls 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 sldl later work of Schenkel, * See his God and the Bible, Preface, and chaps. v.» vi. published during the present year (1879), Das Chrtstusbild 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 Apostles, in particular, I have been led in part to different results from those represented by the modern 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 modern criticism ; that older documents worthy of credit, besides the well-known J^^-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 must 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 Tubingen 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 lo the Galatians, by Professor Lighlfoot, 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 IO 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 mddly) 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 al Leipzig, and now Professor at Giessen, the editor of the Theologische Literaturzeitung, and author of the excellent Neutestament- liche Zeitgeschichte, has clearly shown, I believe, that no 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 Paschalibus secundo post Christum natum Saeculo exortis, and afterwards in a German translation in Kahnis's Zeltschrift fiir die historische Theologie for 1 870, pp. 182-284. There is, accord ing to him, absolutely no evidence that the Apostle John celebrated Easter with the Quartodecimans on the I4lh 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 The Epistles qf St. Paul to the Thessaloniajts, Galatiafts, Romans. 2d ed. (London, 1859),!. 417-477; reprinted in a less complete forra from the first edition in Noyes's Theol. Essays (1856), p. 357 if. The very judicious remarks of Mr. Norton on the difference between Paul and the other Apostles, and between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, in his article on the "Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews," in the Christian Examiner for May, 1829, vol. vi. p. 200 £E., are still worth reading. II 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 Chrisiian, but the day adopted by John and the Christians of Asia Minor generally was the day of the Jewish Passover, the I4lh 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 essentiaUy 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 mailer 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 lo 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 al 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 Jesus of Nazara placed it with great confidence between the years no and 115, or more loosely, a.d. 100-117.* The fatal consequences of such an admission as that were, how ever, soon perceived ; and in the last volume of his History * Gesehichte Jesu von N'azara, i. 155, comp. 146 (Eng. trans, i. 211, comp. 199). 12 of Jesus, and in the last edition of his abridgment of that work, he goes back to the year 130.* Schenkel assigns il to A.D. 1 15-120. t This enforced shifting of the dale 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. ioo. 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 slill 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 \'iew has recently found strenuous advocates in Keim, Scholten, and others, though it is rejected and, I believe, fully refuted by critics of the sarae school, as Hilgenfeld. The historical evidence against it seems to me decisive ; and to attempt to support il, as Scholten does, by purely arbitrary conjectures, such as tbe denial of the genuineness of the letter of Ireuaeus to Florinus, can only give one the impression that the writer has a desperate cause. J * Gesehichte Jesu . . ./ur weitere Kreise, 30 Eearbeitung, 26 Aufl. (1875), p. 40. ^ Das Charakierbild Jesu, 46 Aufl. (1S73), p. 370. tSee Hilgenfeld, Hist. Krit. Einleitimg in d. N. T. (1875), p. 394 ff. ; Bleek, £!«/. ind. N. T.f 38 Aufl. (r875), p. 167 ff., with Mangold's note ; Fisher, T/te Begittni7igs 0/ Christianity (1877), p. 327 ff. Compare Renan, UA ntechrist, p. 557 ff. 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 ils 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: — I. The general reception of the Four Gospels as genuine among Christians in the last quarter of the second century. 2. The question respecting the inclusion of the Fourth Gospel in the Apostolical Memoirs of Christ appealed lo by Justin Martyr. 3. Its use by the various Gnostic sects. 4. The attestation to this Gospel which has come down to us appended to the book itself. 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 Ireuaeus, 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 Pales tine, 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 Pesbito, made in the second century, the authorily 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 14 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 Genuineiiess 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 frora 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 wbich 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 lo 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- IS 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 lo expect more definite references to their writers, and more numerous quotations from or allusions to them than we actuaUy 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 PhUip pians, and the Epistles (of very doubtful genuineness) attrib uted lo Ignatius ; an allegorical work, the Shepherd of Her- mas, which nowhere quotes either the Old Testament or the New; a curious romance, the Clementine Homilies ; andthe writings of the Chrisiian Apologists, Justin Martyr, Talian, Tbeophilus, Alhenagoras, 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 Tbeophilus, 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 quarlers 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 Chrisiian 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 i6 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 wUl show, I believe, that there is really no proof t\\2X in the time of Justin Martyr (with the possible exception of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which in ils 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 Christ's 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 lo 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 X}a.€vc gtiosis ; e.g., araong the followers of Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, " the Gospel " is -l] Tciv vTrepKoa/iiuv yviJaiQ, " the knowledge of superraundane 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 Chrisi 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 lo be impregnable. 17 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 araong 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 olher 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 ; i.e., we will say, till about A.D. 1 80. 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 tbe 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 lo see anything. Such a procedure cannol 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 tlie 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 * Super-natural Religion^ 6th edition (1875), and 7th edition (1879), vol. i. p. ix. (Preface.) tSee Norton's Genuineness ofthe Gospels, 2d ed., i. 45-54. i8 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 Egyptian 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 {Hcer. li., comp. liv.) calls Alogi (^K%oyoi), 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 Irenseus speaks in one passage {Hcbt. iii. n. § 9), but to whom he gives no narae. 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 Cerlnthus, who, unless all our information about hira is false, could not possibly have written tbe Fourth Gospel, shows that they were persons of no critical judgment. Zeller adraits {Theol. Jahrb. 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 Cerlnthus, 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 * Evidences ofthe Genuineness of the Gospels, second edition, vol. i. pp. 195, 196. 19 Catholic Christians in receiving the four Gospels, and espe cially the Gospel of John, which the Valentinians, as Ireuaeus tells us, used plcnissime {Har. iii. ii. § 7), the Marcionites are an exception. They did not, however, question the genuineness of tbe 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 m.irabile capitulum, as he is called by a German writer (Matthaei, N. T. Gr., I. 687) ; and after having been adopted by Elchhorn 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 lo Dr. Sanday, who in an article in the Fortnightly Review (June, 1875, p. 855, 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 reiurn 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 20 subject, with the insignificant exception of the Alogi whora I have mentioned. This fact has a raost iraportant bearing on the next question in order ; naraely, 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 Ulustrate the falsity of the premises frora which the author of Supernatural Religion reasons. The writings of Justin consist of two Apologies or De fences of Christians and Christianity addressed to the Roraan 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, corap. Apol. i. c. 26).* 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, cerlain works of which he commonly speaks as the "Meraoirs" or " Meraorabilia " of Christ, using the Greek word, 'Airo/ivrifiovEv/jaTa, with which WC are familiar as the desig nation of the Memorabilia of Socrates by Xenophon. Of these books he commonly speaks as the " Meraoirs by the Apostles," using this expression eight times ;f four times he calls them "the Memoirs" simply ; J once, "Memoirs made by the Apostles which are called Gospels " {Apol i. 66) ; once, when he cites a passage apparently from tbe 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 be speaks of our Saviour as changing the name of Peter, and of his giving to Jaraes and John the name Boanerges, a fact only mentioned * See Engclhardt, Zlas Christenthum fustins des jMilrtyrcrs (1878), p. 71 £f. ; Kenan, L^ Eglise chr&tienne (1879), p. 367, 11. 4. ^ Apol. i. 67; Dial. cc. 100, loi, 102, 103, 104, io5 bis: to. airo/j,v7!/j.ovEv/iaTa Tav aito- aT6?MV (tojv a-KOGT. avrov, sc. Xpiaroh, S times). t Dial. cc. IOS ter, 107. 21 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 readUy 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 Meraoirs," ol cnro/ivTifiovsvaavTs^, " of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Chrisi, whora we believe " {Apol. i. 33) ; and, again, " the Apostles wrote " so and so, referring to an incident raentioned in all four of the Gospels {Dial. c. 88). But the raost iraportant fact mentioned in Justin's writings respecting these Memoirs, which he describes as " composed by Apostles of Chrisi and their companions," appears in his account of Chrisiian 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 tirae 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 forraed 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 Seraisch and Grimm) the construction which refers the avrov in this passage not to Christ, but to Peter, in accordance with the use of the genitive after aTroLivr^llovevLLara everywhere else in Justin. (See a note on the question in the Christian Examiner for July, 1854, Ivi. 128 f.) For the statement in the text, see Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iv. 5. : Licet et Marcus quod edidit [evangelium] Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Jerome, De Vir. ill. c. i. : Sed et Evangelium juxta Marcum, qui auditor ejus [sc. Petri] et interpres fuit, hujus dicitur. Comp. ibid. i;. 8, and Ep. 120 (al. 150) ad Hedib. c. 11. See also Papias, ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 ; Irenseus, Heer. iii. i, § i (ap. Euseb. v. 8) ; 10, § 6 ; Clement of Alex andria ap. Euseb. ii. 15; vi. 14; Origen ap. Euseb. vi. 25; and the striking passage of Eusebius, Dent. Evang. iii. 3, pp. i2od-i22a, quoted by Lardner, Works iv. gi ff. (Lond. 1829). 22 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 Tbeophilus of Antioch, Ireuaeus, 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 ™ y^oiikvu eva-)'je?uu) 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."-|- 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 lo what gave thera their distinctive value one. They were the record of the Gospel of Christ in different forras. 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 * See Justin or Pseudo- Justin, De Res.c. lo. — Ignat. or Pseudo-Ignat. Ad Philad. cc 5, 8; Smyrn. cc. 5(?), 7. — Pseudo-Clem. 2 Ep. ad Cor. c. 8. — Theophil. iii. 14. — Iren. Htsr. i- 7- §4; 8. §4; 20. §2; 27. §2. ii. 22. §5; 26. §2. iii. 5, §1; 9. §2; 10. §§2, 6; n. §§8 [rerpdfiopijiov rb £ua-)'-y£?uov),9i '6. §5. iv. 20. §§ 6, 9 -, 32. § i ; 34.f1. — Clem. Al. i^tz^f. i. c. 5, pp. 104, 105, bis ed. Potter; c. 9, pp. 143, 145 bis, 148. ii. i, p. 169; c. 10, p. 235; »,. 12, p. 246. Strom, ii. 16, p. 467. iii. 6, p. 537; c. ii, p. 544. iv. i, p. 564; c. 4, p. 570. v. 5, p. 664. vi. 6, p. 764; c. II, p. 784 &V; c. 14, p. 797. vii. 3, p. 836. Eel. proph. cc. 50, 57. — Origen, Cont. Cels. i. 51. ii. 13, 24, 27, 34, 36, 37, 61, 63 (Opp. I. 367, 398, 409, 411, 415, 4i5 bis, 433, 434 ed. Delarue). In Joan. tom. i. §§4, 5. v. §4. (Opp. IV. 4, 98.) Pseudo-Orig. Dial, de recta in Dewn fide, sect, i (Opp. I. 807). — Hippol. NoM. c. 6.— Const. Ap. i. i, 2 bis, 5, 6. ii. i bis, 5 bis, 6 bis, 8, 13, 16, 17, 3Si 39- "'• 7- v. 14. vi. 23 bis, 28. vii. 24. —Tertull. Cast. c. 4. Pudic. c. 2. Adv.Marc.'vi. -J. Hermog.c.10. Resurr.c.2-j. Prfijc. cc. 20,21.— Plural, Muratorian Canon(aIsothe sing.),— Tbeophilus, /«. a.d. 175-180), who, in a letter to the church at Rome (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 23), tells us that the Epistle of Soler (d. 176!") to the Christians at Corinth was read in their church for edification or "admonition" {vovdere'taBai is the word used) on a certain Sunday, and would continue to be so read from lime to time, as the Epistle of Cleraent had been. This shows bow far the occasional public reading of such a writing in the church was from implying its canonical authorily. — 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, ff.). — "The Shepherd" of Hermas in its 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 Credner, Gesch. d. neutest. Kano7i, 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 lo have imposed upon some 28 as the work of the Apostle. The Muratorian Canon says, " Some araong us are unwilling that it should be read in the church." It seems to have been received as genuine by Clement of Alexandria {Eel. 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. Eccl. vii. 19), who raentions 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 liraited ecclesiastical use of these books, or in the over-estimate of their authorily 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 companions of Apostles. This presumption is, I believe, greatly strengthened by the evidence of the use of the Fourth Gospel by writers between the lime of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and also by the evidences of ils use before the tirae of Justin by tbe 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 exarained 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, extra cananeni receptum (1866), iv. 74, ff. t On this whole subject, see Semisch, Die apostol. DenkllMrdigkeiten des MUrt. Justinus, p. 61, ff. 29 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 alraost 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 Faiher 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 jifi hvayewnSfirt, oil fii) eXatWriTe Af TTjv paailEiavrHvoiipavdi?). But that it is Impossible for those who have once been born to enter into the wombs of those who brought them forth is raanifest to all" The passage in the Gospel of John of which this rerainds us is found in chap. iii. 3-5 : " Jesus answered and said to him [Nicodemus], Verily, verily I say unto thee. Except a raan be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God ('Bav /^^ nf ¦yewrfiij avudeni, ov Siivarac Idelv rrjv paaiMav rov Beovj. NicodemUS Saith to him. How can a raan be born when he is old .? Can he enter a second tirae into his mother's womb and be born.' Jesus answered. Verily, verily I say unto thee. Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom ot God ('Edv p.ij n^ yewT/dri E^ vdaroc Kol TTveiijiarog, ov diivarac elaeWeiv ek ryv jiamlciav rov deov). Compare vcrsc 7, " Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew " {Sei ¦bfzag yevvnSrjvai. avuBev); and Matt, xviii. 3, "Verily I say unto you. Except ye be changed, and becorae as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven" {ov /ifj eMWrire ek t^v I3a(7i2.eiav TOV ovpavmi). I have rendered the Greek as literaUy as possible ; but it 30 should be observed that the word translated " anew," avudev, raight also be rendered "from above." This point wiU be considered hereafter. Notwithstanding the want of verbal correspondence, I beUeve 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 sUly 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, frora the Fourth Gospel. It wUl be well, before proceeding to our iraraediate task, to consider the raeaning 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, iraplied that even the Jewish Pharisee, with all his pride of sanctity and superior knowledge, raust experience a radical change, like that which a GentUe 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 Wlinsche, on John iii. 3 or 5. 31 words, to lead Jesus to explain hiraself further.* Thus viewed, the question is lo 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 bas 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 Chrisi in the Clementine Homilies ; and hence it has been argued that Justin and the writer of the Clementines quoted from the sarae apocryphal Gospel, perhaps the Gospel according lo 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 Faiher, Son,- Holy Spirit, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." But it will be seen al 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 suppoA sition that he and Justin quoted from the sarae 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.f Such combinations of different passages, and such quotations of the words of Christ according to the sense rather than the letter, are not uncomraon in the Fathers. Or, the Clementines may have used Justin. I now propose to show in detail that the differences in forra 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 sirailar variations in the * See Norton, A Neiv Trans, o/the Gospels, -with Notes, vol. ii. p. 507. t On the quotations from the Gospel of J ohn as well as from the other Gospels in the Clementine HomiUes, see Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 288-295 i comp. pp. 161-187. See also Westcott, Canon 0/ the N. T., pp. 282-288 ; and comp. pp. 150-156. 32 quotations of the sarae passage by Christian writers who used our four Gospels as their exclusive authority. If this is raade clear, the fallacy of the assuraption 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, "VerUy, verily I say unto thee," is omitted. But this would be very naturally omitted : (i) because il is of no importance for the sense; and (2) because the Hebrew words used, 'A/^r/v hfi-rp, would be unintel ligible lo 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. Hcer. viii. 10, p. 267), Ire naeus (Frag. 35, ,ed. Stieren, 33 Harvey), Origen, in a Latin version {In Ex. Hom. 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), Athanasius {De Incarn. c. 14, Opp. i. 59, ed. Montf.), Cyril of Jerusalem twice {Cat. iii. 4; xvii. 1 1), Basil the Great {Adv. Eunom. 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 Pcenit. Opp. iii. 183), Macarius .^gyp- *0n 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 o/ the Genuinertess o/tlte Gospels, 2d 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 juttural Religioji, but is thoroughly trustworthy. On one point there may be a doubt: Mr. Norton says that *' Justin twice gives the words, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee, as those littered at our Saviour's baptism; and in one place says expressly that the words were found in the Memoirs by the Apostles." This last stateraent seems to me incorrect. The quotations referred to will be found in Dial. c. Tryph. 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 iu the Memoirs, though it is probable that they were. The discussion of Justin's quotations by Professor Westcott and Dr. Sanday in the works referred to in the preceding note is also valuable, especially in reference to the early variations in the text of the Gospels. 33 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 {Qucest. 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 -i^vayEvvda-&at was the comraon word in Christian literature to describe the change referred to. So already in i Pet. i. 3, 23 ; corap. 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 time," etc. The fact that John has used the word avMsv in two other passages in a lotaUy different connection (viz. iii. 31, xi.x. 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. j4 «/, i. iS, §3; Socrates in Stoba;us, Elor. cxxiv. 41, iv. 135 Melneke; Harpocration, Lex. s. v. dvadtKaaau^ai ; Pseudo-Basil, De Bapt. i. 2. §7; Can. Apost. 46, al. 47, al. 39; to which add Origen, In Joan. tom. xx. c. 12, Opp. iv. 322, who gives the words of Christ to Peter in the legend found in the Acts of Paul: dvu^ev ij.^?i?i(j oravpu^ijliai =" iterunt crucifigi." I have verified McCleUan's references (The N.T. etc. vol. I. p. 284, Lond. 1875), and given them in a form in which they may be more easily found. Though many of the best commentators take dvu^&EV here in the sense of "from above," as Bengel, Lucke, De Wette, Meyer, Clausen, and so the lexicographers Wahl, Bretschneider, Robinson, the rendering "anew" is supported by Chrysostom, Nonnus, Euthymius, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Kypke, Krebs, Knapp (Scripta var. Arg. i. 188, ed. 2da), Kuinoel, Credner (Beitrdgc, i. 253), Olshausen, Tholuck, Neander, Norton, Noyes, Alford, Ewald, Hofmann, Luthardt, Weiss, Godet, Farrar, Watkins, Westcott, and the recent lexico graphers, Grimm and Creraer. The word is not to be understood as merely equivalent to "again," "a second time," but implies an entire change. Compare the use of fj(; rfAof in the sense of " completely," and the Ep. of Barnabas, c. 16. § 8 (cited by Bretschneider): "Having received the forgiveness of our sins, and having placed our hope in the Name, we became new men, created again from the beginning" [tt&Xiv if apxf/c). 36 ent expression, yEwtr&fivai in -Qeov or In roil ¦&E0V, " to be born [-&Ev)), Chrysostom {Ifi I Ep. ad Cor. xv. 29, Opp. X. 378 (440) ), Cyril of Alexandria {In Joan. iu. 5, E^avayEvvtrSy di' ijdarog k.t.7.., SO Pusey's Critical ed., vol. i. p. 219; Aubert has yemri&y £f vS.) ; and so, probably, Anastasius SiNAiTA preserved in a Latin version {Anagog. Contemp. in Hexaem. lib. iv., Migne Ixxxix. 906, regeneratus ; contra, col. 870 genitus, 916 generatus), and Hesychius of Jerusalem in a Latin version {In Levit. xx. 9, Migne xciii. in/]/], regen eratus ; but col. 974, renatus). In the Old Latin version or versions and the Vulgate, the MSS. are divided in John iii. 3 between natus and renatus, and so in verse 4, 2d clause, between nasci z.i\d. renasci ; but in verse 5 renatus fuerit is the unquestionable reading of the Latin versions, presupposing, apparently, dvayEvvTi-Sy in tbe Greek. (See Tischendorf's Sth critical edition of the Greek Test, in loe.) The Latin Fathers, with the exception of Tertullian and Cyprian, who have both readings, and of the author De Rebaptismate (c. 3), in quoting the passage, almost invariably have renatus. We occasionally find dvayewtiByvai, "to be born again," for yswjjeijvai, " to be bom," 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). Frora aU that has been said, it will be seen that the use of 37 dvayEvi'i^r/rE here by Justin is easily explained. Whether avudEv in John really raeans "frora above" or "anew" is of little iraportance in ils bearing on our question : there can be no doubt that Justin jnay have understood it in the latter sense ; and, even if he did not, the use of the term dvayEwdGBai here was very natural, as is shown by the way in which the pas sage is quoted by Irenseus, Eusebius, and raany other writers cited above. 4. The next variation, the change of "cannot see " or "enter into " {oil Siivarai \6eIv OX eIoe/BeIv tif, Lat. non polcsl videre, or intrare or introire in), into "shall not" or "shall in no wise see " or "enter into " (ov fiy iSy^ once Uol, or ov jifj Elamy or eIceWt/te Eig, once oiiK eiaeTieivErai eif, Lat. nou videbit, or inlrabil or intro- ibit in), is both so natural (corap. Malt, xviii. 3) and so trivial as hardly to deserve raention. It is perhaps enough to say that I have noted sixty-nine examples of it in the quotations of this passage by forty-two different writers araong the Greek and Latin Fathers. It is to be observed that in most of the quotations of the passage by the Fathers, verses 3 and 5 are mixed in different ways, as might be expected. 5. The change of "kingdom of God" into "kingdora of heaven '' is perfectly nalural, as they are synonymous expres sions, and as the phrase "kingdom of heaven" is used in the passage of Matthew already referred lo, 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 actuaUy 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 nuraber of Christian writers in quoting from John make just the same change; so the Docetist in Hippoly tus {Ref. Hczr. viii. 10, p. 26"]), the Clementine Homilies (xi. 26), the Recognitions (i. 69; vi. 9), the Clementine Epitome (c. 18) in both forras, Iren^us (Frag. 35, ed. Stieren), Origen in a Latin version twice {Opp. iii. 948 ; iv. 483), the Apostolical Constitutions (vi. 15), Eusebius twice {In Isa. i. 16, 17; iii. i, 2; Migne xxiv. 96, 109), Pseud-Athanasius {QucBst. ad Antioch. loi, Opp. ii. 291), 38 Ephraem Syrus {De Pcenit. Opp. hi. 183), Chrysostom five times {Opp. iv. 681 (789); vin. 143 -^pt^^- c- 32, 6 Xdyog^ bg riva rpSirov capKOTrotj^Belg uvOpto-og yeyovEV. So c. 66 5is ; Dial. cc. 45, 84, 87, 100. Comp. Dial. cc. 48("wasboni a man of like nature with us, having fiesh "), 70 ('* became embodied "). t(7v/?pw7rof yev6fj.Evoc ] Apol. i. cc. 5 ("the Logos himself who took form and became raan"), 23 ^/i, 32, 42, 5°* 53> ^3 -^w; ApoL\\. c. 13; Dial. cc. 48,57, 64, 67, 63 ^/.s, 76, 85, 100, IOI, 125 bis. I have availed myself in this and the preceding note of the references given by Pro fessor Drummond in his article "Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel," in the TJieol. Review for April and July, 1S77; see vol. xiv., p. 172. To this 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 X^yoq 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. 43 tians do not agree with him, "because we have been com manded by Chrisi 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, "tbe Synoptists do not anywhere declare Christ's pre-existence." * And where could Justin suppose hiraself to have found this doctrine taught by Christ except in the Fourth Gospel >. Compare Apol. I. 46 : " That Chrisi is the first-born of God, being the Logos [the divine Reason] of which every race of raen have been partakers [comp. John i. 4' 5) 9]) we have been taught and have declared before. And those who have lived according lo Reason are Christians, even though they were deemed atheists ; as, for example, Socrates and Heraclitus and those like them among the Greeks." {b) 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 frora which he and other Chris tians had learnt that Christ as the Logos was the "only- begotten " Son 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 raan through the virgin, as we have learned from the Meraoirs, I showed before." It is possible that the clause, "as we have learned frora the Memoirs," refers not to the main proposition of the sentence, but only to the fact of the birth frora 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 long comparison, which Justin insti tutes between the twenty-second Psalm and the recorded events of * " Introd. to the Gospel of .St. John," in The Holy Bible . . . with . . . Comvientary, etc., cd. by F. C. Cook, N. T. vol. ii. (1880), p. Ixxxiv. 44 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 Ulustrated are, " Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten [Justin perhaps read "thy only- begotten "] frora the power of the dog. Save me from the mouth of the lion, and my humiliation frora the horns of unicorns." "These words," Justin reraarks, "are again in a sirailar raanner a teaching and prophecy of the things that belonged to him \rav ovruv airu] and that were going lo 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 fiovoyevfig [ " 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 ™ ivra avrij [" the things that belonged to him "]. These are taken up first in the nature and title of fiovoyEvr/g, which immediately suggests Myog and (Jwa/zif [" 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 born 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 /xovoysvyg, 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 /j.ovoyEvf/g existed in the Gos pels used by Justin. * In what follows. Prof. Drummond answers Thoraa's ob- * Justin also designates Christ as " the only-begotten Son " in a fragment of his work against Marcion, preserved by Irenasus, Heer. iv. 6. § 2. Comp. Justin, Apol. i. v.. 23 ; ii. c. 6; Dial. c. 48. 45 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 simUar pas sages, where it is argued that the Logos was " begotten by God before all creatures," which implies a unique generation. (.;) In the Dialogue with Trypho (c. 88), Justin cites as the words of John the Baptist : " I ara not the Christ, but the voice of one crying " ; ovk Elfil 6 Xpiardg, dXU ^uv^ ^oavrog. This declaration, " I ara not the Christ," and this application to himself of the language of Isaiah, are attributed to the Baptist only in the Gospel of John (i. 20, 23 ; comp. iii. 28). HUgenfeld recognizes here the use of this Gospel. {d) Justin says of tbe Jews, "They are justly upbraided . . . by Chrisi himself as knowing neither the Father nor the Son" {Apol i. 63). Corap. John viii. 19, "Ye neither know rae nor ray Faiher " ; and xvi. 3, " They have not known the Faiher nor me." It is true that Justin quotes in this con nection Matt. xi. 27; but his language seems lo 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, rovg ek. yEVEryg ¦Kijpoiig {Dial. c. 49 ; corap. Apol. i. 22, EK. yEVETijg novypoig, where Several editors, though not Otto, would substitute T^ypovg by conjecture). There seeras to be a reference here to John ix. i, where we have rvipTStv EK ysvErijg, the phrasc ek yEVErrjg, "frora birth," being pecu liar to John araong the Evangelists, and ¦wypSg being a cora raon synonyme of rvifilog; corap. the Apostolical Constitutions v. 7. § 17, where we have 6 Ik yeverijg wrip6g in a clear reference *In Hilgenfeld's Z eitschri/t /iir wiss. TJieol., 1875, xviii. 551 ff. For other discussions of this passage, one raay see Semisch, Die apost. Denkw^rdigkeiien u.s.w., p. 188 f. ; Hilgenfeld, Krit. Untersuchungen u.s.w., p. 300 f. (versus Semisch); Riggenbach, Die Zeugnisse/. d. Ev. Johannis, Base], 1866, p. 163 f ; Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien ver/asst? p. 32, 46 Aufl. But Professor Drummond's treatment of the question is the most thorough. Grimm (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1851, p. SS/ff.) agrees with Semisch that it is ** in the highest degree arbitrary " 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 " 46 to this passage of John, and the Clementine HomUies xix. 22 where irept tov ek yEVETijg rzypov occurs also in a sirailar 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 Hosea), 32, 64, 118) and John (xix. 37) in citing Zechariah xii. 10 in a forra different from the Septuagint, dtpovrai Elg bv i^eKEvrriaav, "they shall look on hira whora they pierced," instead of t-miST^ipovTac npbg fii avB' av Karapxvaavro, is rcraarkablc, and not sufficiently ex plained by supposing both to have borrowed from Rev. i. 7, "every eye shaU 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 foUowed a reading of the Septuagint which had already attained currency in the first century as a correction of the text in conformity with the Hebrew. f {g) Compare Apol i. 13 (cited by Prof. Drumraond, p. 323), " Jesus Christ who became our teacher of these things and was born to this end (e'f Tobro yEwyBevra), who was crucified under Pontius Pilate," with Christ's answer to PUate (John xviii. 37), "To this end have I been born, Elg rovro yEyiwrifuu, . . . that I might bear witness to the truth." {h) Justin says {Dial c. 56, p. 276 D), "I affirm that he never did or spake any thing but what he thai raade the world, above whora there is no olher 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 .jrTjpovg must here signify " bhnd," 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 aU! " — would have been spared, if he had attended to this. (See his Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, i. 139, note ; i. 189, Eng. trans.) t See Credner, Beitrage u.s.w., ii. 293 ff. tDr. Davidson (Introd. to the Study 0/ the N.T., London, 1868, ii. 370) translates the last clause, " intended that he should do and io associate with^^ (%icj. Though the meaning "to converse with," and then "to speak," " to say," is not assigned to 6u.iXeIv in Liddell and Scott, or Host and Palm's edition of Passow, Justin in the very next sentence uses 2.a2£lv as an equiva lent substitute, and this meaning is common in the later Greek. See Sophocles, Greek Lex. s.v. blLlXki^, Of Dr. Davidson's translation I must confess my inability to make either grammar or 47 the Father taught rae, I speak these things; and ... I always do the things that please him " ; also John iv. 34; v. 19, 30; vii. 16; xii. 49, 50. In the language of Trypho which immediately foUows (p. 277 A), " We do not suppose that you represent him to have said or done or spoken any thing contrary to the wUl of the Creator of the universe," we are particularly reminded of John xii. 49, — "The Father who sent me hath himself given rae a commandraent, what I should say and what I should speak!' {i) Referring to a passage of the Old Testaraent as signi fying that Christ " was to rise frora the dead on the third day after his crucifixion," Justin subjoins {Dial. c. 100), "which be received frora his Faiher," or more literally, "which [thing] he has, having received it from his Faiher," 0 aivb TOV -aarpog T.M.jiav exei. A reference here to John x. 18 seems probable, where Jesus says respecting his life, "I have authority {i^ovciav) to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again {vdiw la^Eiv avryv) ; this charge I received frora my Father " {llafiov Trapd rov narp6g fiov). {k) Justin says, "We were taught that the bread and wine were the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was raade flesh." {Apol i. c. 66.) This use of the terra "flesh " instead of " body " in describing the bread of the Eucharist suggests John vi. 51-56. (/) Professor Druramond 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. Drumraond further observes that "in the four instances in which John speaks of Christ as being sent into the world, he prefers a-KocrkXku, so that Justin's phrase is * Or, as it is expressed m Dial. c. 94, " salvation to those who believe in him who was to die through this sign, the cross," which comes nearer to John iii. 15. not entirely coincident with the Johannine. But the use of ¦KEjiTTu ["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 ils 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 Faiher who senl him," etc., and Dial c. 17, "the only blameless and righteous Light sent from God to men." {m) 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 xiix. 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. 1. 32; Dial cc. 54, "by the power of God"; 76). They suppose that Justin referred John i. 13 to Christ, following an early reading of the passage, namely, bg . . . EyEwf/Bri, "who was born" [or "begotten"] instead of "who were born." We find this reading in Irenaeus {Hcer. iii. 16. § 2; 19. § 2), Tertullian {De Carne Christi cc. 19, 24), Ambrose once, Augustine once, also in Codex Veronensis (b) of the Old Latin, and some other authorities. TertuUian indeed boldly charges the Valentinians with corrupting the text by changing the singular lo the plural. Rbnsch, whom no one will call an "apologist," reraarks, "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. {fi) Justin says {Dial. c. 88), " The Apostles have written " that al 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 (Malt. iii. 16 ; John i. 32, 33). This is *Dasneue Testament TertiUlians, Leipz. 1871, p. 654. 49 the only place in which Justin uses the expression "the Apostles have written." {o) 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. 12) ; 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 frora 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. Mall. ix. 34 ; xii. 24) and a deceiver of the people i^M.a-K'havm) reminds one strongly of John vii. 12 ; see however also Matt, xxvii. 63. — "Through his stripes," says Justin {Dial. c. 17), "there is healing lo those who through him come to the Father," which suggests John xiv. 6, "No man cometh lo the Father but through me"; but the reference is uncertain; comp. Eph. ii. 18, and Heb. vii. 25 with the similar expression in Dial. c. 43. — So also il is not clear that in the izpocKwovjiEV^ ?.6yo> Kai dXyBeia rtfiavTEg {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 raore or less striking between the language of Justin and *See, for example, Apol. i. 44, where the words in Deut. xxx. 15, 19, are represented as addressed to Ada-m (comp. Gen. ii. 16, 17) ; and Apol. 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 Tiimeus c. 12, p. 36 B, C). On Justin's quotations frora the Old Testament, which are largely marked by the same character istics as his quotations from the Gospels, see Credner, Beitrage u.s.w., vol. ii. (1S3S); Norton, Genuineness etc. , i. 213 ff., and Addit. Notes, p. ccxviii. ff., 2ded., 1846 (ist ed. 1S37); Semisch, Die apost. Denkwurdigkeiten u.s.w. (1848), p. 239 ff . ; Hilgenfeld, .^,-z^. Untersuchungen (1S50), p. 46 ff. ; Westcott, Canon, p. 121 ff., 172 ff., 4th ed. (1875) ; Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century (1876), pp. 40 ff., in ff. t Grimm, however, finds here "an unmistakable reminiscence" of John iv. 24. He thinks Justin used Adycj for -^vEvfiari and rifioivreg for TtpoGKVvovvrEg because nvEVfia and -irpoUKin'OV/iEV immediately precede. (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1851, p. 691.) But Aoyu KOl aA^fel'o seem to mean simply, " in accordance with reason and truth"; comp. yj><>/. i. 68, cited by Otto, also c. 13, jxErd Myov nfia/j.EV. 50 John, leaving thera lo the not very tender mercies of Zeller * and Hilgenfeld. f {q) 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 aU 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 il frora what was said by our Saviour when the Jews were enraged at his having performed a miracle on the Sabbath : — 'My Father has been working 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 raay {Dial c. 27) have been borrowed frora John vii. 22, 23. {r) I wiU 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), aWovm ,ue riv Kpi.av, " they now ask of me judgment" ; and in evidence that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, Justin asserts, " tbey mocked him, and set hira on the judgment-seal {hdBioav etvI ^¦fifiarog), 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" {koI EKaBiasv ettI jSyfiarog). 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 him on tbe judgment-seal"; and what was more nalural, as Prof. Drummond remarks, than that Justin, in his eagerness lo find a fulfilraent of the prophecy, should take them in this sense .? " He might then add the statement that the people said Kpivom yfCm ['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- *'Die llusscren Zeugnisse . . . des vierten Evang., in the Theol. Jahrbucher (Tubingen) 1845, p. 600 ff. ^ Kritische Uydersuchungen u.s.w., p. 302 f. 51 stance that the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem was bound to a vine, in order lo bring the event into connection with Genesis xiix. ii." '{Theol. Review, 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 riKva Btov Khrfii^jiEv, Km eojiev. This addition lo the common text, Kai ia^v, "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 " ; koi Beov riKva aXyBwd Kaioh/iEBa Kai h/uv. The coincidence seems loo remarkable lo be acci dental. HUgenfeld takes the same view {Einleit. in d. N. T, p. 69), and so Ewald {Die johan. Schriften, ii. 395, Anm. 4). It also deserves lo be considered that, as Justin wrote a work "Against all Heresies" {Apol. i. 26), among which he certainly included those of Valenlinus and Basilides {Dial. c. 35), 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. Ref. Hcer. vii. 22, 27). Credner recognizes the weight of this argument.* It can only be raet 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 (.:) is also strong. In regard to * Gesehichte des neutest. Kanon (i860), p. 15 f. ; comp. pp. 9, 12. 52 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 frora the universal reception of our four Gospels as sacred books in the tirae of Irenasus that Justin's " Memoirs of Christ coraposed by Apostles and their companions " were the same books, is decidedly confirmed by these evidences of bis 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 Irenasus, and then notice some objections lo the view which has been presented. The raost weighty testlraony is that of Talian, the Assyr ian, a disciple of Justin. His literary activity may be placed at about a.d. 155-170 (Lighlfoot). In his "Address to the Greeks " he repeatedly quotes the Fourth Gospel, though without naming the author, in one case using the expression (ro EipyfiEvov) whlch is Several 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 GrcBc. z. 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).* Slill 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 {HcBr. xlvi. i), who, however, writes frora hearsay, and Theodoret, who in his work on Heresies {Hcer. Fab. i. 20) says that he found raore than two hundred copies of the book held in esteera in his diocese, and subsliluted for it copies of our Four Gospels. * Even Zeller does not dispute that Tatian quotes the Fourth Gospel, and ascribed it to the Apostle John. (Theol. Jahrb. 1847, P- ^SS.) t An expression used by Eusebius (oj'K oW birug, 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 Contemporary Review for May, 1877, p. 1136, where Lightfoot cites 26 examples of this use of the phrase from the work of Origen against Celsus. S3 He tells us that Tatian, who is supposed to have prepared the Harmony after he becarae a Gnostic Encratlle, had " cut away the genealogies and such olher passages as show the Lord lo 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 il, 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 il from the Diatessaron of Ammonius, and from a later work by Elias Salamensis, also called Aphlhonius. 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 il {Hom. i. p. 13 ed. Wright) ; and in the Doc trine of Addai, an apocryphal Syriac work, written probably not far frora 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 "lo tbe prayers of the service, and lo [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 CLonA. 1864) the text, published from a MS. in the British Museum, is here corrupt, reading Ditonron, a word without meaning ; comp. Pratten's Syriac Docuynents (1871), p. 25, note, in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. xx. Cureton conjectured that the true re-^&xri^'w^^ Diatessaron (^ee his note, p. 158), and his conjecture is confirmed by the St. Petersburg MS. published by Dr. George Phillips, The 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 Ditor?ton, 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 Diathurnun (Prxf. p. iv). The difference between Ditonron and Diatessaron in the Syriac is very slight, affecting only a single letter. 54 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- brseus), 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 Siipeimatnral 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 Contemporary Review for May, 1877, that the question may be regarded as settled. % Lightfoot's view is confirmed by the recent publication of Ephraem's Commentary on the *See Tischendorf, iV. T'. Gr. ed. Sva, on Matt, xxvii. 49, and Scholz, iV. 2". Gr., vol. i., p. cxlix., and p. 243, note x. t Such as that Victor of Capua{A.D. 545) says that it was called ZJ/a/^w/e (z'.^., "made out of five "). Eut this is clearly a slip of the pen of Victor himself, or a mistake of some scribe; for, as Hilgenfeld {Einleit. p. 79, note) and Lightfoot remark, Victor is simply reporting Eusebius^s account of it, and not only does Eusebius say that Tatian called it the Diatessaron, but Victor himself has just described it as " jmuin ex quatuor.'''' The strange mistake, for it can be nothing else, may possibly be accounted for by the fact that Diatessaron and Diapente being both musical terms, one might naturally recall the other, and lead to an unconscious substitution on the part of some absent-minded copyist. Under no circumstances can any inference about the com position of the work be drawn from this Diapente, for Victor derives his information from Eusebius, and not only do all the Greek MSS. in the passage referred Xor^z.^ Diatessaron,\i^xt this reading is confirmed hy the very ancient, probably contemporary, Syriac version of Eusebius, 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. 1143.) The mistake ascribed to the Syriac lexicog rapher Bar-Bahlul is proved to be due to an interpolator. (See Lightfoot, p. 1139, 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 " (//^csr. xlvi. i), if it had any foundation beyond a mere guess of the writer, may have originated from the omission of the genealogies, whichwere omitted also in one fornj of the Gospel according tothe Hebrews (Epiph. .^z> apostol. Denkwurdigkeiten, u.s.w., p. 84 ff. ; and compare Norton, Genuineness, etc., i. 205 ff., 2d ed. 77 " Memoirs," I have either cited them in the precise lan guage of their authors, or have endeavored to stale thera in their raost plausible forra. When fairly exarained, only one of thera 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 lo have used it more. It seeras 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 corapanions," 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 tbe new edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. He holds that Justin's " Meraoirs " included the first three Gospels, and these only. These alone were received by the Christian community of his lime 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 il is supposed to be, should have found universal acceptance in the next generation on the part of Christians of the raost opposite opinions, without trace of controversy, with the slight excep tion of the Alogi previously raentioned .? * I have not attempted in the present paper a thorough dis cussion of Justin Martyr's quotations, but only to illustrate by some decisive exaraples the false assuraptions on which the reasoning of Supernatural Religion is founded. In a full treatraent 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 lo 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. i8. The work of Hippolytus, of which we know only the title found on the cathedra of his statue at Rome, "On ior *'In defence of" (^liTrEp) ] the Gospel according to John and the Apocalypse," may have been written in answer to their objections. See Bunsen's Hippolytus, 2d ed. (1854), i. 460. On the Alogi see also Weizsacker, Untersuchungen uber d. evang. Gesehichte, p. 226 f., note. 78 referred lo ; * but il is impossible to treat il here in detail. In respect to "the Gospel according lo the Hebrews " I will give in a Note some quotations from the article Gospels, ApocrypJtal, by Professor R. A. Lipsius, of Jena, in the second volumic 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. ! 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 bas 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 whora it is raentioned. || He "found it for the raost part in accordance with the right doctrine of the Saviour," but containing passages favoring the opinions of the Docelse, by whora it was used. According to Origen, it represented the "brethren " of Jesus as sons of Joseph by a forraer wife.** It was evidently a book of very little note. Though il plays a conspicuous part in the speculations of modern German scholars and of Supernatural Religion about *See above, p. 15 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/ ih^ Genuineness 0/ the Gospels, vol. i. (1837), Addit. Notes, pp. ccxxxii.-cclv. See also Bindemann, who discusses ably the whole question about Justin Martyr's Gospels, in the Tlieol. Studienu. Kritiken, 1842, pp. 355-482 ; Semisch, Die apostol. Denkwilrdigkeiien u. s. w., pp. 43-59 ; on the other side, Credner, Beitrage u. s. w., vol. i. (1832); Mayerhoff, Hist.-crii. Einleitung in die petrinischen Schri/ten (1835), p. 234 ff.; Hilgenfeld, A"rzV. UjitersuchungenM. a. -Vl.f^p. 2^q^ II Serapion's account of it is preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 12. **Origen, Cotnm. in Matt. t. x. § 17, Opp. iii. 462 f. 79 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, "lo draw unliraited 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 il, 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 raade use of this Gospel rested probably on a misunderstanding. The passage moreover in Justin Martyr {Dial c. Tryph. 106) in which sorae have thought lo find raention of the Memorials of Peter is very doubtful. . . . Herewith fall lo the ground all those hypotheses which raake 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]. ! To this I would only add that almost the only fact of which we are directly informed respecting the contenis of the so-called " Gospel of Peter " is that it favored the opinions of the Docetse, to which Justin Martyr, who wrote a book against tbe Marcionites (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 11. § 8), was diametrically opposed. Glancing back now over the ground we bave traversed, we find (i) that the general reception of our four Gospels as sacred books throughout the Christian world in the tirae of Irenasus raakes it almost cerlain that the " Meraoirs called Gospels," "coraposed 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 confirraed by the actual use which Justin has made of all our Gospels, though * Genuineness o/the Gospels, 2& ed., vol. iii. (1S4S), pp. 255-260; abridged edition (1867), pp. 362-366. t Smith and Wace's Diet. 0/ Christian Biog., ii. 712. 8o he has mainly followed, as was natural, the Gospel of Matthew, and his direct citations frora 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 Irenseus, 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 tirae of Justin Martyr the Fourth Gospel was generally received as the work of the Apostle John. 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 raakes it necessary to treat this part of the subject in a very suraraary raanner. 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. 138-161). The most prorainent araong them were those founded by Marcion, Valenlinus, and Basilides. To these raay be added the Ophites or Naassenes. Marcion has already been referred to.* He prepared a Gospel for his followers by striking from tbe Gospel of Luke what was inconsistent with his system, and treated in a sim ilar raanner ten of tbe 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 of this, he appealed to the passage in the Epistle to the Galatians on which Baur * See above, p. 19. t See Irenasus, Har. iii. 12. § 12. and his school lay so much stress. "Marcion," says Ter tuUian, " 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 bave con futed you." ! Again : " Of those historians whora we pos sess, it appears that Marcion selected Luke for his rautila- tions." % 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. 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 remerabered, was regarded as having sanctioned the Gospel of Mark. (See above, p. 21.) It has been asserted by many modern critics, as Hilgen feld, Volkraar, 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 raarked anti-Judaic character. But a careful coraparison of John's Gospel with Marcion's doctrines will show that it contradicts them in so many places and so *Adv. Marc. iv. 3. Comp. Prtescr. cc. 22-24. See also Norton, Genuineness 0/ the Gospels, 2d ed., iii. 206 ff., 303 ff. ; or abridged edition, pp. 332 ff., 392 ff. XDe Carne Christi, c. 3. XAdv. Marc.'vt. -2. "Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem csederet." On account of the use of videtur here. Dr. Davidson, following some German critics, says, " Even in speaking about Marcion's treatment of Luke, Tertullian puts it forth as a conjecture." (Introd. to the Study 0/ the N. T., ii. 305.) A conjecture, when TertulHan 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. i;. 19 ; De Orat. c. 21; Adv. Frax. cc. 26, 29; Adv. Jud. c. 5, from Isa. i. 12 ; and De Preescr. c. 38, which has likewise been misinterpreted. 82 absolutely that it would have been utterly unsuitable for his purpose. * The Ibeosophlc or speculative Gnostics, as the Ophites, Valentinians, and BasUIdians, 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 tbe Marcionites, as Mr. Norton remarks, " that their having recourse to the mulUalion 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 lo which he could appeal." ^ We come now to Valenlinus. It has already appeared that the later Valentinians, represented by Ptolemy, Heracleon, and the Excerpta Theodoti, 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 TertuUian. 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 raeaning. For, if il appears that Valentinus uses the entire docuraent, — si Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur, — he has yet done violence to the truth more artfully than Marcion." For Marcion, he goes on lo say, openly used the knife, not the pen ; Valenlinus has spared the Scriptures, but explains thera away, or thrusts false raeanings into them.!! *See on this point Bleek, Eitil. in d. N. T., 3d ed. (1875), p. 158, ff., with Mangold's note, who remarks that " it was simply impossible for Marcion to choose the fourth Gospel" for this pur pose ; also Weizsacker, Untersuchungen uber d. evang. Gesehichte (1864), p. 230, ff. ; Luthardt, Die johan. Ursprung des vierten Ev. (1874), p. 92, or Eng. trans., p. 108 f. ; Godet, Comm. sur V^vangile de St. Jean, 2d ed., tom. i. (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 valentinian,. ische Gnosis und die Heilige Schri/t, Berlin, 1871. X Genuineness 0/ the Gospels, 2d ed., iii. 304 ; abridged ed., p. 392 f. I] See above, p. 60 f. **0n this point, see Norton, Genuineness, etc., 2d ed., iii. 321 f. ; abridged ed., p. 403 f. tt Tertullian, Praiscr. c. 38. On the use of the word videtur, see above, p. 81, notet. The context shows that no doubt is intended. If, however, the word should be taken in the sense 83 The testlraony of Tertullian is apparently confirmed by Hippolytus, who, in a professed account of the doctrines of Valentinus {Ref. Har. vi. 21-37, or 16-32, Eng. trans.; comp. tbe introduction, §3), says: "AU 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 rae 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 Valenlinus, mixes up references to Valen tinus and his followers in such a manner that we cannot be sure that, in the use of the ^^o/, " 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 frora 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. "^l) of the English translation ; but it is true that, in the present text, i^riai is used vaguely toward the end of c. 35, where the opinions of the Italian and Oriental schools are distinguished in reference lo a cerlain 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 raost erainent 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 sorae 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."* Ambrose and Jerorae copy this account in the prefaces to their re- of "seems," the contrast must be between the ostensible use of the Scriptures by Valentinus and his virtual rejection of them by imposing upon them a sense contrary to their teaching. Comp. Ireuxus, Heer. iii. 12. § 12: "scripturas quidera confitentes, interpretationes vero convertunt." So Har. i. 3. § 6; iii. 14. § 4. * So the Greek : Origen, Hom. i. in Luc, Opp. iii. 932, note ; the Latin in Jerome's transla tion reads, " Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere evangelium, et suo illud nomine titulare." 84 spective comraentaries 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 bistory 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 have heard of it from those who wrote in opposition to his heresy ; but he and his followers are, on the contrary, 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."! 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." % We have an account of such a work. Agrippa Castor, a conteraporary of Basilides, and who, according to Eusebius, wrote a very able refutation of hira, tells us that Basilides "composed twenty-four books on the Gospel," Elgro evayyE)Mv.\ Clement of Alexandria, who is one of our prin cipal authorities for his opinions, cites bis 'Mt/^i-i^'>-i "Exposi tions," or "Interpretations," quoting a long passage frora "the twenty-third book."** In the "Dispute between Archelaus and Manes," the "thirteenth treatise" of Basi lides is cited, containing an explanation of the parable of tbe Rich Man and Lazarus.!! I agree with Dr. Hort in thinking it exceedingly probable that the work of Basilides which Hippolytus cites so often in bis account of his opin ions is the sarae which is quoted by Cleraent and Archelaus, and raentioned by Agrippa Castor. $$ Lipsius remarks : — * Besides the work of Hippolytus, to be further noticed, see the passages frora Qeraent of Alexandria and Epiphanius in Kirchhofer's Quellensainmlung, p. 415 f. X Re/. Hcer. c. 27, or c. 16, Eng. trans. X On this use of the term " Gospel," see Norton, Getiuineness, etc., iii. 224 ff., or abridged edhion, p. 343 f. II Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 7. §§ 6, 7. ^* Strom, iv. 12, p. 599 f. tt A rchelai et Manetis Disputatio, c. 55, in Routll, Rell. sacra, ed. alt., v. 197. tt See the art. B.isilidcs'm Smith and Wace's Diet. 0/ Christiau Biog., vol. i . (1877), p. 271. 85 In any case, the work must have been an exposition of some Gospel by whose authority Basihdes endeavored to establish his Gnostic doc trine. And it is anyhow most unlikely that he would have written a commentary on a Gospel 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 raay 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 rh Evay-ykimv, if it refers to any book, must signify, in accordance with that use of the terra which bas before been illustrated,! "the Gospels" collec tively. It is so understood by Norlon,| 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 perraundane 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, raay perhaps have related lo "the Gospel" in this sense. We cannot there fore, I think, argue confidently frora 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 leaching, has not only no positive support of any strength, but is on various * See the art. Gospels in the work just cited, ii. 715. /See above, p. 22. iSee Norton's Genuineness o/the Gospels, 2d ed., iii. 235-239, or abridged edition, p. 351 ff. 86 accounts utterly iraprobable. 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 hira 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.'" {Ref. Hczr. 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 frora that of the common version in translating. Again, "And that each thing, he says, has its own seasons, the Saviour is a sufficient witness, when be says, ' My hour is not yet come.' " {Ref. Hczr. vii. 27, al. 15 ; John ii. 4.) Here two objections are raised: first, that we cannot infer frora the iv6aKEi, " knoweth any one," in the second clause, if we compare Matthew, or the substitution of "the Father " and "the Son" for "who the Father is" and "who the Son is," if we compare Luke; (6) the use of the plural {olg dv), " ttiey to whomsoever," instead of the singular (u dv), "he to whomsoever " ; and (7) the substitution of " may reveal " (a7ro/ca/l{)i/^) for "may will to reveal" (/3oiA^Tai dTroKokvi^ai). The author of Supernatural Religion devotes more than ten pages to this pas- 92 sage (vol. i. pp. 401-412, 7th ed.), which he regards as of great importance, and insists, on the ground of these variations, that Justin could not have taken it from our Gospels. To follow him step by step would be tedious. His fundamental error is the assertion that " the peculiar form of the quotation in Justin" .(here he refers especially to the variations numbered 3 and 4, above) " occurred in what came to be considered heretical Gospels, and constituted the basis of important Gnostic doctrines " (p. 403). Again, " Here we have the exact quotation twice made by Justin, with the syva and the same order, set forth as the reading of the Gospels o£ the Marcosians and other sects, and the highest testimony to their system " (pp. 406, 407). Yet again, "Irenaeus states with equal distinctness that Gospels used by Gnostic sects had the reading of Justin" (p. 411). Now Irenasus nowhere states any such thing. Ireneeus nowhere speaks, nor does any other ancient writer, of a Gospel of the Marcosians. If this sect had set up a Gospel {i.e., a history of Christ's ministry) of its own, in opposition to the Four Gospels received by the whole Christian Church in the time of Irenaeus, we should have had unequivocal evidence of the fact. The denunciations of Marcion for mutilating the Gospel of Luke show how such a work would have been treated. Irenasus is indignant that the Valentinians should give to " a recent work of their own composition " the name of " The Gospel of the Truth" or "The True Gospel" [Jleer. iii. 11. §9); but this was in all prob ability a doctrinal or speculative, not an historical work. * The Valentinians received our four Gospels without controversy, and argued from them in sup port of their doctrines as best they could. (See Irenaeus, Uisr. i. cc. 7, S, for numerous examples of their arguments from the Gospels; and compare iii. 11. § 7 ; 12. § 12 ; and Tertull. Freescr. c. 38.) Correcting this fundamental error of the author of Supernatural Heligion, the facts which he himself states respecting the various forms in which this passage is quoted by writers who unquestionably used our four Gospels as their sole or main authority, are sufficient to show the groundlessness of his conclusion. But for the sake of illustrating the freedom of the Christian Fathers in quotation, and the falsity of the premises on which this writer reasons, I will exhibit the facts somewhat more fully than they have been presented elsewhere, though the quotations of this passage have been elaborately discussed by Credner,t Semisch,} Hilgenfeld,]! Volckmar,** and Westcott.tt Of these discussions those by Semisch and Volckmar are particularly valuable. I will now notice all the variations of Justin from the text of our Gospels in this passage (see above), comparing them with those found in other writers. The two most iraportant (Nos. 3 and 4) will be examined last. 1. TrapadEthrai for TrapEidBtj is wholly unimportant. It is found in Luke x. 22 * See Norton, Genuineness o/the Gospels, iii. 227 f. ; Westcott, Canon o/tJte N. T., 4th ed., p. 297 f. ; Lipsius, art. Gospels, ApocrypJtal, in Smith and Wace's Diet. 0/ Christian Biog., vol. ii. (1880), p. 717. t Beitrdge zur Einl. in die biblischen Schri/ten (1832), i. pp. 248-251. X Die apostol. Denkiu/urdigkeiten des Mdrt. Justinus (1848), pp. 364-370. II Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Evangelien Justinus, u. s. w. (1850), pp. 201-206. **Das Evang. Marcions C1852), pp. 75-80. I follow the title in spelling "Volckmar.'' XX Canon o/the N. T., 4th ed. (1875), pp. 133-135. See also Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, pp. 132, 133, and chaps, ii., iv., vi. 93 inthe uncial MSS. K and II, the cursives 60, 253, ps", w=", three of Colbert's MSS. (see Wetstein in loe. and his Prolegom. p. 48), and in Hippolytus (Noet. c 6), not heretofore noticed. 2. "Tke Father "for "?«>- Father,'' /iou being omitted, is equally trivial; so in the Sinaitic MS. and the cursive 71 in Matthew, and in Luke the Codex Bezas (D), with some of the best MSS. of the Old Latin and Vulgate versions, and other authorities (see Tischendorf), also Hippolytus as above. 5. The omission of ng ETriyivuaKEt or its equivalent in the second clause is found in the citation of the Marcosians in Irenasus (i. 20. § 3), other Gnostics in Irenaeus (iv. 6. § i), and in Iren^us himself three times (ii. 6. § i ; iv. 6. §§3, 7, but not § i). It occurs twice in Clement of Alexandria (Peed. i. 9, p. 150 ed. Potter; Strom, i. 28, p. 425), once in Origen (Cels. vi. 17, p. 643), once in Athanasius (Orat. cont. Arian. iii. i,. 46, p. 596), 6 times in Epiphanius (Ancor. c. 67, p. 71, repeated //<-/-. Ixxiv. 4, p. 891 ; c. 73, p. 78, repeated Har. Ixxiv. 10, p. 898; 2ir\A Hcer. Ixiv. 9, p. 643; Ixxvi. 7, 29, 32, pp. 943,977,981); once in Chrysostom (In Joan. Horn. Ix. §1, Opp. viii. 353 (404) A, ed. Montf.), once in Pseudo-Cyril (De Trin. ,.. 1), once in Maximus Confessor (Schol. in Dion. Areop. de div. Nom. c. i. § 2, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. iv. 189), once in Joannes Damascenus (De Fide Ortk. i. i) and twice in Georgius Pachy- MERES (Faraphr. in Dion. Areop. de div. Nojn. c. 1, §1, and de myst. Theol. c. 5; Migne, iii. 613, 1061). It is noticeable that the Clementine Homilies (xvii. 4; xviii. 4, 13 iis, 20) do not here agree with Justin. 6. There is no difference between oig dv, "they to whomsoever," and i> dv (or iav), "ke to whomsoever," so far as the sense is concerned. The plural, which Justin uses, is found in the Clementine Homilies 5 times (xvii. 4 ; xviii. 4, 13 bis, 20), and Irenaeus 5 times (Hcer. ii. 6. § i; iv. 6.§§ 3, 4, 7, and so the Syriac ; 7. §3). The singular is used in the citations given by Irenaeus from the Marcosians (i. 20. §3) and "those who would be wiser than the Apostles," as well as in his own express quotation from Matthew (Hcer. iv. 6. § i) ; and so by the Christian Fathers generally. 7. The next variation (oig dv 6 viog) aTroKoXv^^ri for ^ov7ct]Tat drroKakv^^ac is a natural shortening of the expression, which we find in the citation of the Mar cosians (Iren. i. 20. § 3) and in Iren^us himself 5 times (ii. 6. § i ; iv. 6. §§ 3, 4, 7, and so the Syriac; 7. § 3) ; in Tertullian twice (Marc. iv. 25 ; Preescr. c. 21), and perhaps in Marcion's mutilated Luke; in Clement of Alexandria 5 times (Cokort. i. 10, p. 10 ; Pad. X. 5, p. 109; Strom, i. 28, p. 425; v. 13, p. 697 ; vii. 18, p. 901 ; — Quis dives, etc., c. 8, p. 939, is a mere allusion) ; Origen 4 times (Cels. vi. 17, p. 643 ; vii. 44, p. 726 ; in Joan. tom. i. c. 42, p. 45 ; tom. xxxii. c. 18, p. 450) ; the Synod of Antioch against Paul of Samosata (Routh, Rell. sacm, ed. alt. iii. 290) ; Eusebius or Marcellus in Eusebius 3 times (Eccl. Theol. 1. 15, 16, pp. 76°, 77 *, d-TroKaAii/ifi; Eel. propk. i. 12 [Migne, Patrol. Gr. xxii. col. 1065], dTroKakvT\nj) ; ATHANASIUS 4 or 5 times (Decret. Nie. Syn. c. 12, Opp. i. 218 ed. Bened.; Orat. cont. Arian. i. c. 12, p. 416; c. 39, p. 443 ; iii. c. 46, p. .596, in the best MSS.; Serm. -maj. de Fide, i.. 27, in Montf. Coll. nova, ii. 14); Cyril of Jerusalem twice (Cat. vi. 6; x. i); Epiphanius 4 times (Ancor. c. 67, p. 71, repeated Har. Ixxiv. 4, p. 891, but here d7rofcaA{i7rr« or -r-rj; Har. Ixv. 6, p. 613; and without i> vwg, Har. Ixxvi. 7, p. 943; c. 29, p. 977) ; Basil the Great (Adv. Eunom. v. Opp. i. 311 (441) A); Cyril of Alexandria 3 times Tkes. Opp. V. 131, 149; Cont. Julian, viii. Opp. vi. b. p. 270). 94 AU of these variations are obviously unimportant, and natural in quoting from memory, and the extent to which they occur in writers who unquestionably used our Gospels as their sole or main authority shows that their occurrence in Justin affords no ground for supposing that he did not also so use them. We will then turn our attention to the two variations on which the main stress is laid by the author of Supernatural Religion. He greatly exaggerates their importance, and neglects an obvious explanation of their origin. 3. We flnd iyvu, "knew," or "hath known," for ywuaKEi or ETriyivaaKSC, in the Clementine Homilies 6 times (xvii. 4; xviii. 4, 11, 13 iis, 20), and once appar ently in the Recognitions (ii. 47, novit) ; twice in Tertullian (Adv. Marc. ii. 27 ; Prascr. c. 21) ; in Clement of Alexandria 6 times (Cokort. i. 10, p. 10; Fad. i. 5, p. 109; i. 8, p. 142 ; i. 9, p. 150 ; Strom, i. 28, p. 425; v. 13, p. 697 ; — once the present, yivuBKEi, Strom, vii. 18, p. 901 ; and once, in a mere allusion, ETTtyiviiaKEi, Quis dives, etc., c. 8, p. 939) ; Origen uniformly, 10 times (Opp. i. 440, 643, 726; ii. 537; iv. 45, 234, 284, 315, 450 bis), and in the Latin version of his writings of which the Greek is lost novit is used 10 times, including Opp. iii. 58, where novit is used for Matthew and scit for Luke ; scit occurs also Opp. iv. 515. The Synod of Antioch versus Paul of Samosata has it once (Routh, Rell. sacra, iii. 290) ; Alexander of Alexandria once (Epist. ad Alex. c. 5, Migne, Fair. Gr. xviii. 556); Eusebius 6 times (Eccl. Tkeol. i. 12, 16, pp. 72°, 77'*; Dem. Evang. iv. 3, v. I, pp. 149", 216 'i; Eel. proph. i. 12, Migne xxii. 1065; Hist. Eccl. i. 2. §2) ; Didymus of Alexandria once (De Trin. ii. 5, p. 142); Epipha nius twice (Har. Ixv. 6, p. 613; Ixxiv. 10, p. 898). — Of these writers, Alexander has ol&E once ; Eusebius yivaoKsi or ETrLyivaanei 3 times, Didymus yivaaKEL fol lowed by ETrcycvciOKEc 3 times, Epiphanius has olds 9 or 10 times, and it is found also in Basil, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. Marcellus in Eusebius (Eccl. Theol. i. 15, 16, pp. 76'', 781^) wavers between oI&e (twice) and yivarsKEL or E-iriyiviioKEi (once), and perhaps hyvij (c. 16, p. 77*). 4. We find the transposition of the clauses, " No one knoweth \or knewj the Father " coming first, in one MS. in Matthew (Matthaei's d) and two in Luke (the uncial U and i '"'), in the Diatessaron of Tatian as its text is given in the Armenian version of Ephraem's Commentary upon it, translated into Latin by Aucher, and published by G. Moesinger (Evangelii concordantis Expositio, etc., Venet. 1876),* the Clementine Homilies 5 times (xvii. 4; xviii. 4, 13 bis, 20), the Marcosians in Irensus (i. 20. § 3), other Gnostics in Irenaeus (iv. 6. § i), and Iren^us himself (ii. 6. § i ; iv. 6. § 3, versus § i and § 7, Lat, but here a Syriac version represented by a MS. of the 6th century, gives the transposed form; see Harvey's Irenasus, ii. 443), Tertullian once (Adv. Marc. iv. 25), Origen once (De Princip. ii. 6. § i, Opp. i. 89, in a Latin version), the Synod of Antioch against Paul of Samosata (as cited above), the Marcionite in Pseudo-Orig. Dial, de recta in Deum fide, sect. i. Opp. i. 817) ; Eusebius 4 times (Eccl. Tkeol. i. 12; Dem. Evang. iv. 3, v. 1 ; Hist. Eccl. i. 2. §2), Alexan der of Alexandria once (Epist. ad Alex. c. 12, Migne xviii. 565) ; Athanasius twice (In illud, Omnia -miki tradita sunt, i.. 5, Opp. i. 107 ; Serm. maj. de Fide, c. 27, in Montf. Coll. nova, ii. 14), Didymus once (De Trin. i. 26, p. 72), Epipha nius 7 times, or 9 times if the passages transferred from the Ancoratiis are reck oned (Opp. i. 766, 891, 898, 977, 981 ; ii. 16, ig, 67, 73), Chrysostom once (In * This reads (pp. 117, 216), " Nemo novit Patrem nisi Filius, et nemo novit Filium nisi Pater." 95 Ascens., etc., c. 14, Opp. iii. 771 (931) ed. Montf.), Pseudo-Cyril of Alexan dria once (De Trin. c. I, Opp. vi. c. p. i), Pseudo-Caesarius twice (Dial. i. resp. 3 and 20, in Migne xxxviii. 861, 877), Maximus Confessor once (Schol. in Dion. Areop. de div. Nom. c. i. §3, in Migne iv. 189), Joannes Damas cenus once (De Fide Orth. i. i), and Georgius Pachymeres once (Farapkr. in Dion. Areop. de div. Nom. c. i. §1, in Migne iii. 613). This transposition is found in MS. b of the Old Latin, and some of the Latin Fathers, e.g., Phaebadius (Cont. Aruin. c. 10); and most MSS. of the Old Latin, and the Vulgate, read novit in Matthew instead of scit or cognoscit, which they have in Luke ; but it is not worth while to explore this territory here. It is manifest from this presentation of the facts that the variations to which the author of Supernatural Religicm attaches so much importance, — the trans position of the clauses, and the use of the past tense for the present, — being not peculiar to Justin and the heretics, but found in a multitude of the Christian Fathers, can afford no proof or presumption that the source of his quotation was not our present Gospels — that he does not use in making it (Dial. c. 100) the term " the Gospel " in the same sense in which it is used by his later con temporaries. It indeed seems probable that the reading iyvu, though not in the !MSS. which have come down to us, had already found its way into some MSS. of the second century, particularly in Matthew. Its almost uniform occurrence in the numerous citations of the passage by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and the reading of the Old Latin MSS. and of the Vulgate, favor this view. The transposition of the clauses may also have been found in some MSS. of that date, as we even now find its existence in several manuscripts. But it is not necessary to suppose this ; the Fathers, in quoting, make such transpositions with great freedom. The stress laid on the transposition in Supernatural Relig ion is very extravagant. It did not affect the sense, but merely made more prominent the knowledge and the revelation of the Father by Christ. The importance of the change frora the present tense to the past is also preposter ously exaggerated. It merely expressed more distinctly what the present implied. Further, these variations adrait of an easy explanation. In preaching Chris tianity to unbelievers, special emphasis would be laid on the fact that Christ had come to give men a true knowledge of God, of God in his paternal char acter. The transposition of the clauses in quoting this striking passage, which must have been often quoted, would thus be very natural ; and so would be the change from the present tense to the past. The Gnostics, moreover, regarding the God of the Old Testament as an inferior and imperfect being, maintained that the true God, the Supreme, had been wholly unknown to men before he was revealed by Christ. They would, therefore, naturally quote the passage in the same way ; and the variation at an early period would become wide-spread. That Irenaeus should notice a difference between the forra in which the Gnostics quoted the text and that which he found in his own copy of the Gospels is not strange ; but there is nothing in what he says which implies that it was anything more than a various reading or corruption of the text of Matthew or Luke ; he nowhere charges the Gnostics with taking it from Gospels peculiar to them selves. It is their interpretation of the passage rather than their text which he combats. The change of order further occurs frequently in writers who are treating of the divinity of Christ, as Athanasius, Didymus, Epiphanius. Here the occasion seems to have been that the fact that Christ alone fully knew the 96 Father was regarded as proving his deity, and the transposition of the clauses gave special prominence to that fact. Another occasion was the circumstance that when the Father and the Son are mentioned together in the New Testament, the name of the Father commonly stands first ; and the transposition was the more natural in the present case, because, as Semisch remarks, the word " Father " immediately precedes. In this stateraent, I have only exhibited those variations in the quotation of this text by the Fathers which correspond with those of Justin. These give a very inadequate idea of the extraordinary variety of forms in which the passage appears. I will simply observe, by way of specimen, that, whUe Eusebius quotes the passage at least eleven times, none of his quotations verbally agree. (See Cont. Marcel, i. i, p. 6"; Eccl. Theol. i. 12, 15, 16 bis, 20, pp. 72=, 76"=. 77'!, 78°, 88*; Dem. Evang. iv. 3, v. i, pp. 149°, 216*; Comm. in Fs. ex.; Eel. proph. i. 12 ; Hist. Eccl. i. 2. § 2.) The two quotations which he introduces from Marcellus (Eccl. Theol. i. 15 and 16) present a still different form. In three of Eusebius's quotations for el iir; i rraryp he reads eI //^ 6 fidvog yEwi/aag avrbv Trari/p (Eccl. Tkeol. i. 12, p. 72"; Dem. Evang. iv. 3, p. 149=; and Hist. Eccl. i. 2. § 2). If this were found in Justin Martyr, it would be insisted that it must have come from some apocryphal Gospel, and the triple recurrence would be thought to prove it.* The variations in Epiphanius, who also quotes the passage eleven times (not counting the transfers from the Ancoratus), are perhaps equally remarkable. Pseudo-C^sarius quotes it thus (Dial. i. resp. 3) : Oidrif ydp oISe rbv TTOTEpa ei /i^ d viog, ov6e rbv vldv ng ETriararai e'l fii) d Trarr/p. But the false premises from which the author of Supernatural Religion reasons have been sufficiently illustrated. This Note is too long to allow the discussion of some points which need a fuller treatraent. I will only call attention to the fact that in the list of passages in our Gospels which Irensus (i. 20. § 2) represents the Marcosians as pervert ing, there is one which presents a difficulty, and which sorae have supposed to be taken from an apocryphal Gospel. As it stands, the text is corrupt, and the passage makes no sense. Mr. Norton in thefirst edition of his Genuineness of tke Gospels (1837), vol. i. Addit. Notes, p. ccxlii., has given a plausible conjectural emendation of the text in Irenxus, which serves to clear up the difficulty. For the iro^iAdKif ETrEB'uiiriaa of Irenasus he would read rro'hXoX km ETrsBv/iyaav, for Seiv, Eivai (so the old Latin version), and for did rov Ev6g, dia rov ipovvrog. The passage then becomes a modification of Matt. xiii. 17. Dr. Westcott (Canon of the N. T., 4th ed., p. 306) proposes ETrsBbfiijaav for iirEBv/i^aa, without being aware that his conjecture had been anticipated. But that change alone does not restore sense to the passage. The masterly review of Credner's hypothesis that Justin's Meraoirs were the so-called " Gospel according to Peter," which contains Mr. Norton's eraendation to which I have referred, was not reprinted in the second edition of his work. It seemed to me, therefore, worth while to notice it here. * Compare Supernatural Religion, i. 341. 97 NOTE B. (See p. 23.) on the title, "memoirs by the apostles." In regard to the use of the article here, it may be well to notice the points made by Hilgenfeld, perhaps the ablest and the fairest of the Gerraan critics who regard some apocryphal Gospel or Gospels as the chief source of Justin's quotations. His book is certainly the most valuable which has appeared on that side of the question.* In the important passage (Dial. c. 103), in which Justin says, " In the Memoirs which I affirm to have been composed by the Apostles of Christ and their companions (d 97//// v~b riiv drroaro/uv avrov Kai ribv EKEivoig TrapaKoAovB/j- crar-ur mvrerdxBai), it is written that sweat, like drops of blood [or "clots," 0pd/iPoi\, flowed from him while he was praying " (comp. Luke xxii. 44), and which Seraisch very naturally compares, as regards its description of the Gospels, with a striking passage of Tertullian,! Hilgenfeld insists — (i) That the article denotes "the collective body" [die Gesammtheit) of the Apostles and their corapanions. (2) "The Memoirs by the Apostles "is the phrase generally used by Justin. This might indeed be justified by the fact that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were regarded as founded on the direct communications of Apostles or sanc tioned by thera ; but this, Hilgenfeld says, is giving up the sharp distinction between the Gospels as written two ot them by Apostles and two by Apostolic men. (3) The fact that Justin appeals to the " Memoirs by the Apostles " for inci dents, like the visit of the Magi, which are recorded by only one apostle, "shows clearly the utter indefiniteness of this forra of expression." J "Mani festly, that single passage,'' namely, the one quoted above (Dial, c 103), " must be explained in accordance with Justin's general use of language." Let us examine these points. As to (i), the supposition that Justin con ceived of his " Memoirs " as " composed " or " written " — these are the words he uses — bv "the collective body" of the Apostles of Christ and "the col lective body" of their companions is a simple absurdity. (2) and (3). For Justin's purpose, it was important, and it was sufficient, to represent the " Memoirs " to which he appealed as resting on the authority of the Apostles. But in one place he has described them more particularly ; and it is simply reasonable to say that the more general expression should be interpreted in accordance with the precise description, and not, as Hilgenfeld strangely contends, the reverse. * See his Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Evangelien Justin!s, der cletnenlinischen Hamilien und Marciorl s (HaUe, 1850), p. 13 ff. XA dv. Marc. iv. 2 : Constituimus inprimis evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere. . . . Si et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis et post apostolos. . . . IDenique nobis fidem ex apostolis loannes et Matth^us insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant. X Hilgenfeld also refers to Justin (Dial. c. loi, p. 328, comp. Apol. L 38) for a passage relating to the mocking of Christ at the crucifixion, which Justin, referring to the "Memoirs," describes " in a form," as he conceives, " essentially differing from all our canonical Gospels." To me it appears that the agreement is essential, and the difference of slight importance and easily explained ; but to discuss the matter here would be out of place, and would carry us too far. 98 (3) The fact that Justin appeals to the " Memoirs by the Apostles " for an incident which is related by only one Apostle is readily explained by the fact that he gives this title to the Gospels considered collectively, just as he once designates them as Eva^y-^'iMa, "Gospels," and twice as rb eiia^yyE/.cov, "the Gospel." The usage of the Christian Fathers in quoting is entirely analogous. They constantly cite passages as contained " in the Gospels " which are found only in one Gospel, simply because "the Gospels " was a term used interchange- abry with "the Gospel," to denote the four Gospels conceived of as one book. For examples of this use of the plural, see the note to p. 22. To the instances there given, many might easily be added. Hilgenfeld, in support of his view of the article here, cites the language of Justin where, in speaking of the new birth, he says, "And the reason for this we have learned from tke Apostles" (Apol. i. 6i). Here it seems to me not improbable that Justin had in mind the language of Christ as recorded by the Apostles John and Matthew in John iii. 6, 7, and Matt, xviii. 3, 4. That he had no particular Apostles or apostolic writings in view— that by "the Apostles" he meant vaguely "the collective body ofthe Apostles" does not appear likely. The statement must have been founded on something which he had read sofnewhere. NOTE C. (See p. 78.) JUSTIN martyr and THE " GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS." After remarking that the " Gospel according to the Hebrews " was " almost universally regarded in the first centuries as the Hebrew original of our canon ical Gospel of St. Matthew," that Greek versions of it "must have existed at a very early date," and that " at various times and in different circles it took very different shapes," Lipsius observes : " The fragments preserved in the Greek by Epiphanius betray very clearly their dependence on our canonical Gospels. . . . The Aramaic fragments also contain much that can be explained and under stood only on the hypothesis that it is a. recasting of the canonical text . . . The narrative of our Lord's baptism (Epiphan. Har. xxx. 13), with its threefold voice from heaven, is evidently a more recent combination of older texts, of which the first is found in the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke; the second in the text of the Cambridge Cod. Beza at St. Luke iii. 22, in Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Trypho7i. 88, 103), and Clemens Alexandrinus (Padag. j. 6, p. 113, Potter); the third in our canonical Gospel of St. Matthew. And this very narrative may suffice to prove that the so-called ' Hebrew ' text preserved by St. Jerome is by no means preferable to that of our canonical Gospel of St. Matthew, and even less original than the Greek text quoted by Epiphanius."* "The attempt to prove that Justin Martyr and the Clementine Homilies had one extra-canonical * Smith and Wace's Diet. 0/ Christian Biog., vol. ii. (1880), p. 710. Many illustratioDS are here given of the fact that most of the quotations which have come down to us from the " Gospel of the Hebrews " belong to a later period, and represent a later stage of theological develop ment, than our canonical Gospels. Mangold agrees with Lipsius. See the note iu his edition of Bleek's Einleitung in das N. T., 36 Aufl. (1875), p. 132 f. Dr. E. A. Abbott, art. Gospels in the ninth ed. of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (x. 81S, note), takes the same view. He finds no evidence that Justin Martyr made any use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 99 authority common to them both, either in the Gospel of tke Il-bre-ws or in the Gospel of St. Peter, . . . has altogether failed. It is only in the rarest cases that they literally agree in their deviations from the text of our Gospels ; they differ in their citations as rauch, for the most part, one from the other as they do from the text of the synoptical evangelists, even in such cases when one or the other repeatedly quotes the same passage, and each time in the same words. Only in very few cases is the deri\'ation from the Gospel of the Hebrews probable, as in the saying concerning the new birth (Justin M. Apol. i. 6i; Clera. Homilies, xi. 26; Recogn. vi. 9); ... in raost cases ... it is quite enough to assurae that the quotations were made from memory, and so account for the involuntary con fusion of evangelic texts." (Ibid. p. 712.) Mr. E. B. Nicholson, in his elaborate work on the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Lond. 1S79), comes to the conclusion that "there are no proofs that Justin used the Gospel according to the Hebrews at all " (p. 135). He also observes, "There is no reason to suppose that the authorship of the Gospel according to the Hebrews was attributed to the Apostles generally in the 2d or even the 3d cent. Irenaeus calls it simply ' that Gospel which is according to Matthew '" (p. 134). Holtzmann in the eighth volume of Bunsen's Pibel-werk {1866) discusses at length the subject of apocryphal Gospels. He comes to the conclusion that the "Gospel of the Hebrews" or "of the Nazarenes" was an Aramaic redac tion (Eearbeitung) of our Matthew, executed in an exclusively Jewish-Christian spirit, making some use of Jewish-Christian traditions, but presupposing the Synoptic and the Pauline literature. It was probably made in Palestine for the Jewish-Christian churches some time in the second century (p. 547). The Gospel of the Ebionites, for our knowledge of which we have to depend almost wholly on Epiphanius, a very untrustworthy writer, Holtzmann regards as " a Greek recasting (Ueberarbci lung) of the Synoptic Gospels, with peculiar Jewish- Christian traditions and theosophic additions " (p. 553). Professor Drummond, using Kirchhofer's Quellcnsainnilnng, has compared the twenty-two fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews there col lected (including those of the Gospel of the Ebionites) with Justin's citations frora or references to the Gospels, of which he finds about one hundred and seventy. I give his result : — " With an apparent exception to be noticed presently, not one of the twenty- .two quotations from the lost Gospel is found among these one hundred and seventy. But this is not all. While thirteen deal with matters not referred to in Justin, nine admit of comparison ; and in these nine instances not only does Justin omit everything that is characteristic of the Hebrew Gospel, but in some points he distinctly differs from it, and agrees with the canonical Gospels. There is an apparent exception. Justin quotes the voice from heaven at the baptism in this form, ' Thou art my son ; this day have I begotten thee.' 'This day have I begotten thee' is also in the Ebionite Gospel;* but there it is awkwardly appended to a second saying, thus : ' Thou art ray beloved Son ; in thee was I well pleased; and again, This day have I begotten thee'; — so that the passage is quite different from Justin's, and has the appearance of being a later patchwork. Justin's form ot quotation is still the reading of the Codex * See Epiphanius, Har. xxx. 13 ; Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 40 ff.— E. A. IOO BezK in Luke, and, according to Augustine, was found in good MSS., though it was said not to be in the older ones. (See Tischend. in loco.) * One other passage is appealed to. Justin says that, when Jesus went down upon the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan,— Trip dw/^*)? iv rii 'lop&dvi). The Ebionite Gospel relates that, when Jesus came up from tke water, immediately a great light shone round the place, — Ev-Bvg TrEpiEXafv^E rbv r(nron> (^Z>g fiiya. This fact is, I believe, the main proof that Justin used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and that we may therefore have recourse to it, whenever he differs verbally from the exisring Gospels. Considering that the events recorded are not the same, that they are said to have happened at different tiraes, and that the two quotations do not agree with one another in a single word, this argu ment cannot be considered very convincing, even by those who do not require perfect verbal accuracy in order to identify a quotation. But, further, the author of the anonymous Liber de Rebaptismate says that this event was related in an heretical work entitled Pauli Praedicatio, and that it was not found in any Gospel : ' Item cum baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum; quod in evangelio nuUo est scriptum.' (Routh, Rei. Sac. v. pp. 325, 326 [c 14, Routh; c. 17, Hartel.]) Of course the latter statement may refer only to the canonical Gospels."t To this it may be added that a comparison of the fuller collection of fragments of "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" given by Hilgenfeld or Nicholson (the latter raakes out a list of thirty-three frag ments) would be stUl less favorable to the supposition that Justin made use of this Gospel. In the quotations which I have given from these independent writers, I have not attempted to set forth in full their views of the relation of the original Hebrew Gospel to our Greek Matthew, still less my own ; but enough has been said to show how little evidence there is that the "Gospel of the Hebrews'' in one form or another either constituted Justin's " Memoirs," or was the principal source from which he drew his knowledge of the life of Christ. While I find nothing like //-(jo^ that Justin made use of any apocryphal Gospel, the question whether he may in a few instances have done so is wholly unimportant. Such a use would not in his case, any more than in that of the later Fathers, as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, iraply that he placed such a work on a level with our four Gospels. The notion that Justin used mainly the " Gospel according to Peter," which is assumed, absolutely without evidence, to have been a form of the " Gospel according to the Hebrews," rests almost wholly on the hypothesis, for which there is also not a particle of evidence, that this Gospel was mainly used by the * It is the reading also (in Luke iii. 22) of the best MSS. of the old Latin version or versions, of Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, Hilary of Poitiers in several places, Hilary the deacon (if he is the author of Quiestiorus Vet. et Nov. Test.), and Faustus the Manichsean ; and Augustine quotes it once without remark. It seems to be presupposed in the Apostolical Constitutions (ii. 32); see the note of Cotelier in loe. It is altogether probable therefore that Justin found it in his MS-, of Luke. The words (from Ps. ii. 7) heing repeatedly applied to Christ in the N.T. (Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5; v. 5), the substitution might easily occur through confusion of memory, or from the words having been noted in the margin of MSS. — E. A. t Theol. Review, October, 1875, xii. 482 f., note. The Liber de Rebaptismateis usuallypub- ished with the works of Cyprian. IOI author of the Clementine Homilies. The agreement between certain quotations of Justin and those found in the Clementine Homilies in their variations from the text of our Gospels is supposed to prove that Justin and Clement drew from a common source ; namely, this " Gospel according to Peter," from which they are then imagined to have derived the great body of their citations. The facts stated in the quotation I have given above from Lipsius, who has expressed himself none too strongly, are enough to show the baselessness of this hypothesis ; but it may be well to say a few words about the alleged agree ment in five quotations between Justin and the Clementines in their variations from the text of our Gospels. These are all that have been or can be adduced in argument with the least plausibility. The two most remarkable of them, namely. Matt. .xi. 27 (par. with Luke x. 23) and John iii. 3-5, have already been fully discussed.* In two of the three remaining cases, an examination of the various readings in Tischendorf's last critical edition of the Greek Testament (1S69-72), and of the parallels in the Christian Fathers cited by Semisch and others, will show at once the utter worthlessness of the arguraent. f The last example alone requires remark. This is JIatt. .x.xv. 41, "Depart from me, accursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels." This is quoted by Justin as follows : " Go ye into the outer darkness, which the Father prepared for Satan and his angels." (Dial. c. 76.) The Clementine Homilies (xix. 2) agrees with Justin, except that it reads "the devil" for " Satan." Let us examine the variations from the text of Matthew, and see whether they justify the conclusion that the quotations were taken from a different Gospel. The first is the substitution of vrrdycrE^ which I have rendered "Go ye," for -opri'ffffle, translated in the common version "depart." The two words, how ever, differ much less, as they are used in Greek, than go and depart in English. The common rendering of both is "go." We have here merely the substitu tion of one synonymous word for another, which is very frequent in quotations from memory. Tischendorf cites for the reading v-^rdyErE here the Sinaitic MS. and Hippolytus (De Antickr. c 65) ; so Origen on Rom. viii. 38 in Cramer's Catena (p. 156) referred to in the Addenda to Tregelles's Greek Test.; to which maybe added Didymus (Adv. Manich. c. 13, Migne .xxxix. 1104), Asterius (Orat. ii. in Ps. v., Migne xl. 412), Theodoret (In Ps. \x\. 13, M. l.x-xx. 1336), and Basil of Seleucia (Orat. xl. § 2, M. Lxxxv. 461). Chrysostom in quoting the passage substitutes aTriWETE ior TropEVEoOE eight tiraes (Opp. 1. 27'' ed. Montf.; 285=; V. 256=; xi. 29=; 674f; 695'!; xii. 29ih; 727^); and so Epiphanius once (Hcer. Ixvi. 80, p. 700), and Pseudo-Caesarius (Dial. iii. resp. 140, Migne xxxviii. 1061). In the Latin Fathers we fimd discedite, ite, abite, and recedite. * See, for the former, Note .K ; for the latter, p. 29 ff. tThe two cases are (a) Matt. xix. 16-18 (par. Mark k. 17 ff.; Luke xviii. i8 ff.) compared with Justin, Dial. c. loi, and Apol. i. 16, and Clem. Hom. xviii. ., 3 (comp. iii. 57; x^-ii. 4)- Here Justin's two quotations differ widely from each other, and neither agrees closely with the Clementines. (S) Matt. ». 34, 37, compared with Justin, Apol. i. 16; Clem. Hom. iii. 55; xix. 2; also James v. 12, where see Tischendorf's note. Here the variation is natural, of slight impor tance, and paralleled in Clement of Ale.xandria and Epiphanius. On (a) see Semisch, p. 371 ff. ; HUgenfeld, p. 220 ff. ; Westcott, Canon, p. 153 f. ; on (b) Semisch, p. 375 f. ; HUgenfeld, p. 175 f. ; Westcott, p. 152 f. ; Sanday, p. 122 f. I02 The second variation consists in the omission of aTr^i/iov, " from me," and (ol) Karr/pafiivoi, " (ye) accursed." This is of no account whatever, being a natural abridgment of the quotation, and very coramon in the citations of the passage by the Fathers; Chrysostom, for example, omits the "from me " fifteen times, the "accursed" thirteen times, and both together ten times (Opp. i. 103'*; v. 191°; 473''; Yii. 296"; 571'i; viii. 356a; ix. 679"; 709=; X. i38»'). The omission is still more frequent in the very numerous quotations of Augustine. The third and most remarkable variation is the substitution of rb CKdrog rb iiuTEpov, "the outer darkness," or "the darkness without," for to Trvp rb aluvwv, " the eternal fire." The critical editors give no various reading here in addition to the quotations of Justin and the Clementines, except that of the cursive MS. No. 40 (collated by Wetstein), which has, as first written, rb Trip rb i^urspov, " the outer fire," for " the eternal fire." It has not been observed, I believe, that this singular reading appears in a quotation of the passage by Chrysostom (Ad Tkeodor. lapsum, i. 9), according to the text of Morel's edition, supported by at least two MSS. (See Montfaucon's note in his edition of Chrysost. Opp. i. 11.) This, as the more difficult reading, may be the true one, though Savile and Montfaucon adopt instead aluviov, " eternal," on the authority of four MSS.* But it does not appear to have been noticed that Chrysostom in two quotations of this passage substitutes the "outer darkness" for "the eternal fire.'' So De Virg. c. 24, Opp. i. 285 (349)", aTriWETE ydp, ipr/aiv, ott' e/iov elg rb CKorog to i^/jTEpov rb i]roniaa)iEvov k. r. A. Again, De Pcenit. vii. 6, Opp. ii. 339 (399)''> r^opEvEoBE, ol icarijpa/iEvoi, Eig rb CKbrog rb k^urepov k. t. ^. We find the same reading in Basil the Great, Hom. in Luc. xii. 18, Opp. ii. 50 (70)'*; in Theodore of Mopsuestia in a Syriac translation (Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. E. Sachau, Lips. 1S69, p. 12, or p. 19 of the Syriac), "discedite a rae in tenebras exterior es quae paratae sunt diabolo ejusque angelis " ; in Theodoret (In Fs. Ixi. 13, Migne Ixxx. 1336), who quotes the passage in connection with vv. 32-34 as follows : " Go ye (vixdyETE) into the outer darkness, where is the loud crying and gnashing of teeth"; t in Basil of Seleucia substantially (Orat. xl. § 2, M. lxxxv. 461), VTrdyeTE elg rb CKdrog rb i ^ a, rb rjroifiaafiivov k. t. 2., and in "Simeon Cionita," i.e. Symeon Stylites the younger (Serm. xxi. c. 2, in Mai's Nova Patrum Biiliotk. tom. viii. (187 1), pars iii. p. 104), "Depart, ye accursed, into the outer darkness ; there shall be the wailing and gnashing of teeth." { Compare Sulpicius Severus, Epist. i. ad Sororem, c. 7: "Ite in tenebras exteriores, ubi erit fletus et stridor dentium " (Migne xx. 227"). See also Antonius Magnus, Abbas, Epist. xx. (Migne, Patrol. Gr. xl. 1058), "Recedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, ubi est fletus et stridor dentium." The use of the e-xpression "the outer darkness" in Matt. viii. 12, xxii. 13, and especially xxv. 30, in connection with " the wailing and gnashing of teeth," and the combination of the latter also with " the furnace of fire " in Matt. xiii. 42, 50, would naturally lead to such a confusion and intermixture of different passages in quoting from memory, or quoting freely, as we see in these * Since the above was written, I have noticed this reading in PhUippus Solitarius, Diopira Rei ChristiantE, iv. 20 (Migne, Patrol. Gr. cxxvii. 875, b c) : " Abite a me procul, longe, maledicti, in ignem. exteriorem, qui praeparatus est diabolo et angelis ejus." t The last clause reads oTrov 6 Ppvyfibg Kai 6 bTio^Try/ibg rHiv odovrav, but the words ^pvy/idg and b?io?ivy/i6g seem to have been transposed through the mistake of a scribe. t Simeon Cionita uses the expression rb i^uTEpov Trip, " the outer fire." Serm. xxi. c. ,. I03 examples. Semisch quotes a passage from Clement of Alexandria (Quis Jives, etc., c. 13, p. 942), in which Jesus is represented as threatening " fire and tke outer darkness " to those who should not feed the hungry, etc. Cyril of Alex andria associates the two thus: " What darkness shall fall upon them . . . when he shall say, Depart from me, ye accurseu. into tke eteriml fire," etc (Hom. div. Opp. v. pars ii. b, p. 40S f.) The fire was conceived of as burning without light. In the case of Justin there was a particular reason for the confusion of the "fire" and the "outer darkness" from the fact that he had just before quoted Matt. viii. 12, as well as the fact that " the outer darkness " is mentioned likewise in the same chapter of Matthew (xxv. 30) from which his quotation is derived (Dial. c. 76). Justin's substitution of " Satan " for " the devil " is obviously unimportant. It occurs in thejerusalem SjTiac and .Ethiopic versions, and was natural in the dialogue with Trypho the Jra.'. The remaining coincidence between Justin and the Clementines in their variation from Matthew consists in the substitution of 6 i)roiiiaaEv d -arrjp^ " which tke Fatker prepared " (comp. ver. 34), for ro firoifiac^vov, " which is \pr hath been] prepared." This is of no weight, as it is merely an early various reading which Justin doubtless found in his text of Matthew. It still appears, usually as "ray Father" for " 2'/5f Father," in important ancient authorities, as the Codex Beza (D), the valuable cursives i. and 22., the principal ilsS. of the Old Latin version or versions (second centirry), in Iren.eus four or five times ("pater," Hcer. ii. 7. § 3; "pater meus," iii. 23. § 3: iv. 33. § ii ; 40. § 3; v. 27. § I, alius.), Origen in an old Latin version four times (Opp. i. 87I), allusion; ii. 177*; 298*; iii. 885^), Cypri.\n three times, Juvencus, Hilary three times, Gaudentius once, Augusti XE, Leo Magnus, and the author of De Fromissis, — for the references to these, see Sabatier; also in Philastrius (Har. 114), Sulpicius Severus (Ep. ii. ad Sorore?n, c. 7, Migne xx. 231c), Fastidius (De Vit. Ckr. cc 10, 13, M. 1. 393, 399), Evagrius presbyter (Co7i- sult. etc iii. 9, M. xx. 1164), Salvia.n (Adv. Avar. ii. 11 ; x. 4; M. liii. 201, 251), and other Latin Fathers — but the reader shall be spared. — Cleraent of Alex andria in an allusion to this passage ( Cokort. c. 9, p. 69) has " which the Lord prepared"; Origen (Lat^ reads six tiraes "which Gi;;/ prepared " (Opp. ii. i6i=; 346»; 416*; 431'i; 466''; and iv. b. p. 4S1, ap. Pamphili Apol) ; and we find the same reading in Tertullian, Gaudentius, Jerome (In Isa. 1. 11), and Paulinus Nolanus. Alcimus Avitus has Deus Pater. — Hippolytus (De Antickr. c. 65) adds " which my Fatker prepared " to the ordinary text. It is clear, I think, from the facts which 'have been presented, that there is no ground for the conclusion that Justin has here quoted an apocryphal Gospel. His variations from the common te.xt of Matthew are easily explained, and we find them all in the quotations of the later Christian Fathers. In the exhibition of the various readings of this passage, I have ventured to go a little beyond what was absolutely necessary for my immediate purpose, partly because the critical editions of the Greek Testament represent the patristic authorities so incompletely, but principally because it seemed desirable to expose stiU more fidly the false assumption of Supernatural Religion and other writers in their reasoning about the quotations of Justin. But to return to our main topic We have seen that there is no direct evi- I04 dence of any weight that Justin used either the " Gospel according to the Hebrews " (so far as this was distinguished from the Gospel according to Matthew) or the "Gospel according to Peter." That he should have taken either of these as the source of his quotations, or that either of these constituted the " Memoirs " read generally in public worship in the Christian churches of his time, is in the highest degree iraprobable. The " Gospel according to the Hebrews " was the Gospel exclusively used by the Ebionites or Jewish Chris tians; and neither Justin nor the majority of Christians in his time were Ebionites. The " Gospel according to Peter " favored the opinions of the Docetae ; but neither Justin nor the generality of Christians were Docetists. Still less can be said in behalf of the hypothesis that any other apocryphal " Gospel " of which we know anything constituted the " Memoirs " which he cites, if they were one book, or was included among them, if they were several. We must, then, either admit that Justin's " Memoirs '' were our four Gospels, a supposition which, I believe, fully explains all the phenomena, or resort to Thoma's hypothesis of an "X-Gospel," i.e., a Gospel of which we know nothing. The only conditions which this " X-Gospel " will then have to fulfil will be : It must have contained an account of the life and teaching of Christ which Justin and the Christians of his time believed to have been "coraposed by the Apostles and their companions " ; it must have been received accord ingly as a sacred book, of the highest authority, read in churches on the Lord's day with the writings of the Old Testament prophets ; and, almost immediately after he wrote, it must have mysteriously disappeared and fallen into oblivion, leaving no trace behind.* * Compare Norton, Genuineness o/ the Gospels, ist ed. (1837), vol. i. pp. 225-230 ; 2d ed., i. 231 f. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 08837 5093 r\^