For what is a man profited if he gain the whole world, but lose his soul."(2) Now this quotation not only is not found in the Syriac version of the Epistle, but it is also omitted from the ancient Latin version, and is absent from the pa.s.sage in the work of Timotheus of Alexandria against the Council of Chalcedon, and from other authorities. It is evidently a later addition, and is recognized as such by most critics.(3) It was probably a gloss, which subsequently was inserted in the text. Of these facts, however, Tischendorf does not say a word.(4)
The next pa.s.sage to which he refers is in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. i., where the writer says of Jesus: "He was baptized by John in order that all righteousness
{268}
might be fulfilled by Him,"(1)--which Teschendorf considers a reminiscence of Matthew iii. 15, "For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."(2) The phrase, besides being no quotation, has again all the appearance of being an addition; and when in Ch. iii. of the same Epistle we find a palpable quotation from an apocryphal Gospel, which Jerome states to be the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," to which we shall presently refer, a Gospel which we know to have contained the baptism of Jesus by John, it is not possible, even if the Epistle were genuine, which it is not, to base any such conclusion upon these words.
There is not only the alternative of tradition, but the use of the same apocryphal Gospel, elsewhere quoted in the Epistle, as the source of the reminiscence. Tischendorf does not point out any more supposed references to our synoptic Gospels, but we proceed to notice all the other pa.s.sages which have been indicated by others. In the Epistle to Polycarp, c. ii., the following sentence occurs: "Be thou wise as a serpent in everything, and harmless as the dove." This is, of course, compared with Matth. x. 16, "Be ye, therefore, wise as serpents and innocent as doves." The Greek of both reads as follows: [--Greek--]
In the Syriac version, the pa.s.sage reads: "Be thou wise as the serpent in everything, and harmless as to those things which are requisite as the dove."(4) It is unnecessary
{269}
to add that no source is indicated for the reminiscence. Ewald a.s.signs this part of our first Gospel originally to the Spruchsammlung,(1) and even apart from the variations presented in the Epistle there is nothing to warrant exclusive selection of our first Gospel as the source of the saying. The remaining pa.s.sages we subjoin in parallel columns.
None of these pa.s.sages are quotations, and they generally present such marked linguistic variations from the parallel
{270}
pa.s.sages in our first Gospel, that there is not the slightest ground for specially referring them to it. The last words cited are introduced without any appropriate context. In no case are the expressions indicated as quotations from, or references to, any particular source.
They may either be traditional, or reminiscences of some of the numerous Gospels current in the early Church, such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That the writer made use of one of these cannot be doubted. In the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. iii., there occurs a quotation from an apocryphal Gospel to which we have already, in pa.s.sing, referred: "For I know that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh, and I believe he is so now. And when he came to those who were with Peter, he said to them: Lay hold, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit, [--Greek--]. And immediately they touched him and believed, being convinced by his flesh and spirit." Eusebius, who quotes this pa.s.sage, says that he does not know whence it is taken.(2) Origen, however, quotes it from a work well known in the early Church, called "The Doctrine of Peter,"
[--Greek--];(3) and Jerome found it in the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," in use among the Nazarenes,(4) which he translated, as we shall hereafter sec. It was, no doubt, in both of those works. The narrative, Luke xxiv. 39 f., being neglected, and an apocryphal Gospel used here, the inevitable inference is clear and very suggestive. As it is certain that this quotation was taken from a source
{271}
different from our Gospels, there is reason to suppose that the other pa.s.sages which we have cited are reminiscences of the same work. The pa.s.sage on the three mysteries in the Epistle to the Ephesians, c. xix., is evidently another quotation from an uncanonical source.(1)
We must, however, again point out that, with the single exception of the short pa.s.sage in the Epistle to Polycarp, c. ii., which is not a quotation, differs from the reading in Matthew, and may well be from any other source, none of these supposed reminiscences of our synoptic Gospels are found in the Syriac version of the three epistles. The evidential value of the seven Greek epistles is clearly stated by an English historian and divine: "My conclusion is, that I should be unwilling to claim historical authority for any pa.s.sage not contained in Dr. Cureton"s Syriac reprint."(3) We must, however, go much further, and a.s.sert that none of the Epistles have any value as evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning of the third century, if indeed they possess any value at all. The whole of the literature ascribed to Ignatius is, in fact, such a tissue of fraud and imposture, and the successive versions exhibit such undeniable marks of the grossest interpolation, that even if any small original element exist referrible to Ignatius, it is impossible to define it, or to distinguish with the slightest degree of accuracy between what is authentic and what is spurious. The Epistles do not, however, in any case afford evidence even of the existence of our synoptic Gospels.
{272}
2.
We have hitherto deferred all consideration of the so-called Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, from the fact that, instead of proving the existence of the Epistles of Ignatius, with which it is intimately a.s.sociated, it is itself discredited in proportion as they are shown to be in authentic. We have just seen that the martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is, for cogent reasons, declared to be wholly fabulous, and the epistles purporting to be written during that journey must be held to be spurious. The Epistle of Polycarp, however, not only refers to the martyr-journey (c. ix.), but to the Ignatian Epistles which are inauthentic (c. xiii.), and the manifest inference is that it also is spurious.
Polycarp, who is said by Irenaeus(1) to have been in his youth a disciple of the Apostle John, became Bishop of Smyrna, and suffered martyrdom at a very advanced age.(2) On the authority of Eusebius and Jerome, it has. .h.i.therto been generally believed that his death took place in a.d.
166-167. In the account of his martyrdom, which we possess in the shape of a letter from the Church of Smyrna, purporting to have been written by eye-witnesses, which must be p.r.o.nounced spurious, Polycarp is said to have died under the Proconsul Statius Quadratus.(3) If this statement be correct, the date hitherto received can no longer be maintained, for recent investigations have determined that Statius Quadratus was proconsul in a.d. 154-5 or 155-6.(4) Some critics,
{273}
who affirm the authenticity of the Epistle attributed to Polycarp, date the Epistle before a.d. 120,(1) but the preponderance of opinion a.s.signs it to a much later period.(2) Doubts of its authenticity, and of the integrity of the text, were very early expressed,(3) and the close scrutiny to which later and more competent criticism has subjected it, has led very many to the conclusion that the Epistle is either largely interpolated,(4) or altogether spurious.(5) The princ.i.p.al argument in favour
{274}
of its authenticity is the fact that the Epistle is mentioned by Irenaeus,(1) who in his extreme youth was acquainted with Polycarp.(2) We have no very precise information regarding the age of Irenaeus, but Jerome states that he flourished under Commodus (180-192), and we may, as a favourable conjecture, suppose that he was then about 35-37. In that case his birth must be dated about a.d. 145. There is reason to believe that he fell a victim to persecution under Septimius Severus, and it is only doubtful whether he suffered during the first outbreak in a.d. 202, or later. According to this calculation, the martyrdom of Polycarp, in a.d. 155-156, took place when he was ten or eleven years of age. Even if a further concession be made in regard to his age, it is evident that the intercourse of Irenaeus with the Bishop of Smyrna must have been confined to his very earliest years,(3) a fact which is confirmed by the almost total absence of any record in his writings of the communications of Polycarp. This certainly does not ent.i.tle Irenaeus to speak more authoritatively of an epistle ascribed to Polycarp, than any one else of his day.(4)
In the Epistle itself, there are several anachronisms. In ch. ix. the blessed Ignatius" is referred to as already dead, and he is held up with Zosimus and Rufus, and also with Paul and the rest of the Apostles, as examples of patience: men who have not run in vain, but are with the Lord; but in ch. xiii. he is spoken of as living, and information is requested regarding him,
{275}
"and those who are with him."(1) Yet, although thus spoken of as alive, the writer already knows of his Epistles, and refers, in the plural, to those written by him "to us, and all the rest which we have by us."(2) The reference here, it will be observed, is not only to the Epistles to the Smyrnaeans, and to Polycarp himself, but to other spurious epistles which are not included in the Syriac version. Dallseus(3) pointed out long ago, that ch. xiii. abruptly interrupts the conclusion of the Epistle, and most critics, including those who a.s.sert the authenticity of the rest of the Epistle, reject it at least, although many of these likewise repudiate ch. ix. as interpolated.(4) Others, however, consider that the latter chapter is quite consistent with the later date, which, according to internal evidence, must be a.s.signed to the Epistle. The writer vehemently denounces,(5) as already widely spread, the Gnostic heresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not exist until the time of Marcion, to whom and to whose followers he refers in unmistakable terms. An expression is used in ch. vii. in speaking of these heretics, which Polycarp is reported by Irenseus to have actually applied to Marcion in person, during his visit to Home. He is said to have called Marcion the "first-born of Satan," [--Greek--](6) and the same term
{276}
is employed in this epistle with regard to every one who holds such false doctrines. The development of these heresies, therefore, implies a date for the composition of the Epistle, at earliest, after the middle of the second century, a date which is further confirmed by other circ.u.mstances.(1) The writer of such a letter must have held a position in the Church, to which Polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life, when he was deputed to Rome for the Paschal discussion, and the Epistle depicts the developed ecclesiastical organization of a later time.(2) The earlier date which has now been adopted for the martyrdom of Polycarp, by limiting the period during which it is possible that he himself could have written any portion of it, only renders the inauthenticity of the Epistle more apparent.
Hilgenfeld has pointed out, as another indication of the same date, the injunction "Pray for the kings" (Orate pro regibus), which, in 1 Peter ii. 17, is "Honour the king" [--Greek--], which, he argues, accords with the period after Antoninus Pius had elevated Marcus Aurelius
{277}
to joint sovereignty (a.d. 147), or better still, with that in which Marcus Aurelius appointed Lucius Verus his colleague, a.d. 161, for to rulers outside of the Roman empire there can be no reference. If authentic, however, the Epistle must have been written, at latest, shortly after the martyrdom of Ignatius in a.d. 115, but, as we have seen, there are strong internal characteristics excluding such a supposition. The reference to the martyr-journey of Ignatius and to the epistles falsely ascribed to him, is alone sufficient to betray the spurious nature of the composition, and to cla.s.s the Epistle with the rest of the pseudo-Ignatian literature.
We shall now examine all the pa.s.sages in this epistle which are pointed out as indicating any acquaintance with our synoptic Gospels.(1) The first occurs in ch. ii., and we subjoin it in contrast with the nearest parallel pa.s.sages of the Gospels, but although we break it up into paragraphs, it will, of course, be understood that the quotation is continuous in the Epistle.
[---Greek---]
{278}
It will be remembered that an almost similar direct quotation of words of Jesus occurs in the so-called Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, c. xiii., which we have already examined.(1) There, the pa.s.sage is introduced by the same words, and in the midst of brief phrases which have parallels in our Gospel there occurs in both Epistles the same expression, "Be pitiful that ye may be pitied," which is not found in any of our Gospels. In order to find any parallels for the quotation, upon the hypothesis of a combination of texts, we have to add together portions of the following verses in the following order: Matthew vii. 1, vi. 14 (although, with complete linguistic variations, the sense of Luke vi. 37 is much closer), v. 7, vii. 2, v. 3, v. 10. Such fragmentary compilation is in itself scarcely conceivable in an epistle of this kind, but when in the midst we find a pa.s.sage foreign to our Gospels, but which occurs in another work in connection with so similar a quotation, it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is derived from tradition or from a Gospel different from ours.(2) In no case can such
{279}
a pa.s.sage be considered material evidence of the existence of any one of our Gospels.
Another expression which is pointed out occurs in ch. vii., "beseeching in our prayers the all-searching G.o.d not to lead us into temptation, as the Lord said: The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."(1) This is compared with the phrase in "the Lord"s Prayer" (Matthew vi.
13), or the pa.s.sage (xxvi. 41): "Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."(2) The second Gospel, however, equally has the phrase (xiv. 38), and shows how unreasonable it is to limit these historical sayings to a single Gospel.
The next pa.s.sage is of a similar nature (c. vi.): "If, therefore, we pray the Lord that he may forgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive."(3) The thought but not the language of this pa.s.sage corresponds with Matthew vi. 12--14, but equally so with Luke xi. 4. Now we must repeat that all such sayings of Jesus were the common property of the early Christians--were no doubt orally current amongst them, and still more certainly were recorded by many of the numerous Gospels then in circulation, as they are by several of our own. In no case is there any written source indicated from which these pa.s.sages are derived; they are simply quoted as words of Jesus, and being all connected either with the "Sermon on the Mount" or the "Lord"s Prayer," the two portions of the teaching of Jesus which were most
{280}
popular, widely known, and characteristic, there can be no doubt that they were familiar throughout the whole of the early Church, and must have formed a part of most or all of the many collections of the words of the Master. To limit them to our actual Gospels, which alone survive, would be quite unwarrantable, and no reference to them, without specification of the source, can be received as evidence even of the existence of our Synoptics. We may here briefly ill.u.s.trate the point from the Synoptics themselves. a.s.suming the parable of the Sower to be a genuine example of the teaching of Jesus, as there is every reason to believe, it may with certainty be a.s.serted that it must have been included in many of the records circulating among early Christians, to which reference is made in the prologue to the third Gospel. It would not be permissible to affirm that no part of that parable could be referred to by an early writer without that reference being an indication of acquaintance with our synoptic Gospels. The parable is reported in closely similar words in each of those three Gospels,(1) and it may have been, and probably was, recorded similarly in a dozen more.
Confining ourselves, however, for a moment to the three Synoptics: what could a general allusion to the parable of the Sower prove regarding their existence and use, no mention of a particular source being made?
Would it prove that all the three were extant, and that the writer knew them all, for each of them containing the parable would possess an equal claim to the reference? Could it with any reason be affirmed that he was acquainted with Matthew and not with Mark? or with Mark and not with Matthew and Luke? or with the third Gospel and
{281}
not with either of the other two? The case is the very same if we extend the ill.u.s.tration, and along with the Synoptics include the numerous other records of the early Church. The anonymous quotation of historical expressions of Jesus cannot prove the existence of one special doc.u.ment among many to which we may choose to trace it. This is more especially to be insisted on from the fact, that hitherto we have not met with any mention of any one of our Gospels, and have no right even to a.s.sume their existence from any evidence which has been furnished.
CHAPTER III. JUSTIN MARTYR
We shall now consider the evidence furnished by the works of Justin Martyr, regarding the existence of our synoptic Gospels at the middle of the second century, and we may remark, in antic.i.p.ation, that whatever differences of opinion may finally exist regarding the solution of the problem which we have to examine, at least it is clear that the testimony of Justin Martyr is not of a nature to establish the date, authenticity, and character of Gospels professing to communicate such momentous and astounding doctrines. The determination of the source from which Justin derived his facts of Christian history has for a century attracted more attention, and excited more controversy, than almost any other similar question in connection with patristic literature, and upon none have more divergent opinions been expressed.
Justin, who suffered martyrdom about a.d. 166--167,(1) under Marcus Aurelius, probably at the instigation of the cynical philosopher, Crescens, was born in the Greek-Roman colony, Flavia Neapolis,(2) established during the
{283}
reign of Vespasian, near the ancient Sichem in Samaria. By descent he was a Greek, and during the earlier part of his life a heathen, but after long and disappointed study of Greek philosophy, he became a convert to Christianity(l) strongly tinged with Judaism. It is not necessary to enter into any discussion as to the authenticity of the writings which have come down to us bearing Justin"s name, many of which are undoubtedly spurious, for the two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho, with which we have almost exclusively to do, are generally admitted to be genuine. It is true that there has been a singular controversy regarding the precise relation to each other of the two Apologies now extant, the following contradictory views having been maintained: that they are the two Apologies mentioned by Eusebius, and in their original order; that they are Justin"s two Apologies, but that Eusebius was wrong in affirming that the second was addressed to Marcus Aurelius; that our second Apology was the preface or appendix to the first, and that the original second is lost. The shorter Apology contains nothing of interest connected with our inquiry.