Such being the case, it need scarcely be said that the difficulty of a.s.signing a date to the work with any degree of certainty is extreme, if it be not absolutely impossible to do so. This difficulty, however, is increased by several circ.u.mstances. The first and most important of these is the fact that the Epistle to Diognetus is neither quoted nor mentioned by any ancient
{39}
writer, and consequently there is no external evidence whatever to indicate the period of its composition.(1) Moreover, it is not only anonymous but incomplete, or, at least, as we have it, not the work of a single writer. At the end of Chapter x. a break is indicated, and the two concluding chapters are unmistakably by a different and later hand.(2) It is not singular, therefore, that there exists a wide difference of opinion as to the date of the first ten chapters, although all agree regarding the later composition of the concluding portion. It is a.s.signed by critics to various periods ranging from about the end of the first quarter of the second century to the end of the third century or later,(3) whilst some denounce it as a mere modern forgery.(4) Nothing can be more insecure in one
{40}
direction than the date of a work derived alone from internal evidence.
Allusions to actual occurrences may with certainty prove that a work could only have been written after they had taken place. The mere absence of later indications in an anonymous Epistle only found in a single MS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, however, and which may have been, and probably was, written expressly in imitation of early Christian feeling, cannot furnish any solid basis for an early date.
It must be evident that the determination of the date of this Epistle cannot therefore be regarded as otherwise than doubtful and arbitrary.
It is certain that the purity of its Greek and the elegance of its style distinguish it from all other Christian works of the period to which so many a.s.sign it.(1)
The Epistle to Diognetus, however, does not furnish any evidence even of the existence of our Synoptics, for it is admitted that it does not contain a single direct quotation from any evangelical work.(2)We shall hereafter have to refer to this Epistle in connection with the fourth Gospel, but in the meantime it may be well to add that in Chapter xii., one of those, it will be remembered, which are admitted to be of later date, a brief quotation is made from 1 Cor. viii. 1, introduced merely by the words, [------].
CHAPTER VI. BASILIDES--VALENTINUS.
We must now turn back to an earlier period, and consider any evidence regarding the Synoptic Gospels which may be furnished by the so-called heretical writers of the second century. The first of these who claims our attention is Basilides, the founder of a system of Gnosticism, who lived in Alexandria about the year 125 of our era.(1) With the exception of a very few brief fragments,(2) none of the writings of this Gnostic have been preserved, and all our information regarding them is, therefore, derived at second-hand from ecclesiastical writers opposed to him and his doctrines; and their statements, especially where acquaintance with, and the use of, the New Testament Scriptures are a.s.sumed, must be received with very great caution. The uncritical and inaccurate character of the Fathers rendered them peculiarly liable to be misled by foregone devout conclusions.
Eusebius states that Agrippa Castor, who had written a refutation of the doctrines of Basilides: "says that he had composed twenty-four books upon the Gospel."(3)
{42}
This is interpreted by Tischendorf, without argument, and in a most arbitrary and erroneous manner, to imply that the work was a commentary upon our four canonical Gospels;(1) a conclusion the audacity of which can scarcely be exceeded. This is, however, almost surpa.s.sed by the treatment of Canon Westcott, who writes regarding Basilides: "It appears, moreover, that he himself published a Gospel--a "Life of Christ" as it would perhaps be called in our days, or "The Philosophy of Christianity,(2)--but he admitted the historic truth of all the facts contained in the canonical Gospels, and used them as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony, of Basilides to our "acknowledged" books is comprehensive and clear. In the few pages of his writings which remain there are certain references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John,"(3) &c. Now in making, in such a manner, these a.s.sertions: in totally ignoring the whole of the discussion with regard to the supposed quotations of Basilides in the work commonly ascribed to Hippolytus and the adverse results of learned criticism: in the unqualified a.s.sertions thus made and the absence either of explanation of the facts or the reasons for the conclusion: this statement must be condemned as only calculated to mislead readers who must generally be ignorant of the actual facts of the case. We know from the evidence of antiquity that Basilides made use of a Gospel, written by himself it is said, but certainly called after his own name.(4) An attempt has
2 These names are pure inventions of Dr. Westcott"s fancy, of course.
3 On the Canon, p. 255 f. [Since these remarks were first made, Dr. Westcott has somewhat enlarged his account of Basilides, but we still consider that his treatment of the subject is deceptive and incomplete.]
{43}
been made to explain this by suggesting that perhaps the work mentioned by Agrippa Castor may have been mistaken for a Gospel;(1) but the fragments of that work which are still extant(2) are of a character which precludes the possibility that any writing of which they formed a part could have been considered a Gospel.(3) Various opinions have been expressed as to the exact nature of the Gospel of Basilides. Neander affirmed it to be the Gospel according to the Hebrews which he brought from Syria to Egypt;(4) whilst Schneckenburger held it to be the Gospel according to the Egyptians.(5) Others believe it to have at least been based upon one or other of these Gospels.(6) There seems most reason for the hypothesis that it was a form of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was so generally in use.
Returning to the pa.s.sage already quoted, in which Eusebius states, on the authority of Agrippa Castor, whose works are no longer extant, that Basilides had composed a work in twenty-four books on the Gospel
{44}
[------], and to the unwarrantable inference that this must have been a work on our four Gospels, we must add that, so far from deriving his doctrines from our Gospels or other New Testament writings, or acknowledging their authority, Basilides professed that he received his knowledge of the truth from Glaucias, "the interpreter of Peter," whose disciple he claimed to be,(1) and thus practically sets Gospels aside and prefers tradition.(2) Basilides also claimed to have received from a certain Matthias the report of private discourses which he had heard from the Saviour for his special instruction.(3) Agrippa Castor further stated, according to Eusebius, that in his [------] Basilides named for himself, as prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor(4)), as well as invented others who never existed, and claimed their authority for his doctrines.(5) With regard to all this Canon Westcott writes: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the apostolic times, it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration was still fresh and real,"(6) &c. It is apparent, however, that Basilides, in basing his doctrines upon tradition and
{45}
upon these Apocryphal books as inspired, and in having a special Gospel called after his own name, which, therefore, he clearly adopts as the exponent of his ideas of Christian truth, completely ignores the canonical Gospels, and not only does not offer any evidence for their existence, but proves, on the contrary, that he did not recognize any such works as of authority. There is no ground, therefore, for Tischendorfs a.s.sumption that the commentary of Basilides "on the Gospel" was written upon our Gospels, but that idea is negatived in the strongest way by all the facts of the case.(1) The perfectly simple interpretation of the statement is that long ago suggested by Valesius,(2) that the Commentary of Basilides was composed upon his own Gospel,(3) whether it was the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Egyptians.
Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Basilides used the word "Gospel"
in a peculiar sense. Hippolytus, in the work usually ascribed to him, writing of the Basilidians and describing their doctrines, says: "When therefore it was necessary, he (?) says, that we, the children of G.o.d, should be revealed, in expectation of whose revelation, he says, the creation groaned and travailed, the Gospel came into the world, and pa.s.sed through every princ.i.p.ality and power and dominion, and every name that is named."(4) "The Gospel, therefore,
{46}
came first from the Sonship, he says, through the Son, sitting by the Archon, to the Archon, and the Archon learnt that he was not the G.o.d of all things but begotten,"(1) &c. "The Gospel, according to them, is the knowledge of supramundane matters,"(2) &c. This may not be very intelligible, but it is sufficient to show that "the Gospel" in a technical sense(3) formed a very important part of the system of Basilides. Now there is nothing whatever to show that the twenty-four books which he composed "on the Gospel" were not in elucidation of the Gospel as technically understood by him, ill.u.s.trated by extracts from his own special Gospel and from the tradition handed down to him by Glaucias and Matthias. The emphatic a.s.sertion of Canon Westcott that Basilides "admitted the historic truth of all the facts contained in the canonical Gospels," is based solely upon the following sentence of the work attributed to Hippolytus; Jesus, however, was generated according to these (followers of Basilides) as we have already said.(4) But when the generation which has already been declared had taken place, all things regarding the Saviour, according to them, occurred in like manner as they have been written in the Gospel."(5) There are, however, several important points to be borne in mind in reference to this pa.s.sage. The statement in question is not made in
{47}
connection with Basilides himself, but distinctly in reference to his followers, of whom there were many in the time of Hippolytus and long after him. It is, moreover, a general observation the accuracy of which we have no means of testing, and upon the correctness of which there is no special reason to rely. The remark, made at the beginning of the third century, however, that the followers of Basilides believed that the actual events of the life of Jesus occurred in the way in which they have been written in the Gospels, is no proof whatever that either they or Basilides used or admitted the authority of our Gospels. The exclusive use by any one of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, for instance, would be perfectly consistent with the statement. No one who considers what is known of that Gospel, or who thinks of the use made of it in the first half of the second century by perfectly orthodox Fathers, can doubt this. The pa.s.sage is, therefore, of no weight as evidence for the use of our Gospels. Canon Westcott himself admits that in the extant fragments of Isidorus, the son and disciple of Basilides, who "maintained the doctrines of his father," he has "noticed nothing bearing on the books of the New Testament.."(1) On the supposition that Basilides actually wrote a Commentary on our Gospels, and used them as Scripture, it is indeed pa.s.sing strange that we have so little evidence on the point.
We must now, however, examine in detail all of the quotations, and they are few, alleged to show the use of our Gospels, and we shall commence with those of Tischendorf. The first pa.s.sage which he points out is found in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria. Tischendorf guards himself, in reference to these quotations,
{48}
by merely speaking of them as "Basilidian" (Basilidianisch),(1) but it might have been more frank to have stated clearly that Clement distinctly a.s.signs the quotation to the followers of Basilides [------],(2) and not to Basilides himself.(3) The supposed quotation, therefore, however surely traced to our Gospels, could really not prove anything in regard to Basilides. The pa.s.sage itself compared with the parallel in Matt. xix. 11, 12, is as follows:--
Now this pa.s.sage in its affinity to, and material variation from, our first Gospel might be quoted as evidence for the use of another Gospel, but it cannot reasonably be cited as evidence for the use of Matthew.
Apologists in their anxiety to grasp at the faintest a.n.a.logies as testimony seem altogether to ignore the history of the creation of written Gospels, and to forget the very existence of the [------] of Luke.(4)
The next pa.s.sage referred to by Tischendorf(5) is one
{49}
quoted by Epiphanius(1) which we subjoin in contrast with the parallel in Matt. vii. 6:--
Here, again, the variation in order is just what one might have expected from the use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews or a similar work, and there is no indication whatever that the pa.s.sage did not end here, without the continuation of our first Synoptic. What is still more important, although Teschendorf does not mention the fact, nor otherwise hint a doubt than by the use, again, of an unexplained description of this quotation as "Basilidianisch" instead of a more direct ascription of it to Basilides himself, this pa.s.sage is by no means attributed by Epiphanius to that heretic. It is introduced into the section of his work directed against the Basilidians, but he uses, like Clement, the indefinite [------], and as in dealing with all these heresies there is continual interchange of reference to the head and the later followers, there is no certainty who is referred to in these quotations and, in this instance, nothing to indicate that this pa.s.sage is ascribed to Basilides himself, His name is mentioned in the first line of the first chapter of this "heresy," but not again before this [------] occurs in chapter v. Teschendorf does not claim any other quotations.
{50}
Canon Westcott states: "In the few pages of his (Basilides") writings which remain there are certain references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke,"(1) &c. One might suppose from this that the "certain"
references occurred in actual extracts made from his works, and that the quotations, therefore, appeared sc(5) (sp.) in a context of his own words. This impression is strengthened when we read as an introduction to the instances: "The following examples will be sufficient to show his method of quotation."(2) The fact is, however, that these examples are found in the work of Hippolytus, in an epitome of the views of the school by that writer himself, with nothing more definite than a subjectless [------] to indicate who is referred to. The only examples Canon Westcott can give of these "certain references" to our first and third Synoptics, do not show his "method of quotation" to much advantage. The first is not a quotation at all, but a mere reference to the Magi and the Star. "But that every thing, he says [------], has its own seasons, the Saviour sufficiently teaches when he says:... and the Magi having seen the star,"(3) &c. This of course Canon Westcott considers a reference to Matt. ii. 1, 2, but we need scarcely point out that this falls to the ground instantly, if it be admitted, as it must be, that the Star and the Magi may have been mentioned in other Gospels than the first Synoptic. We have already seen, when examining the evidence of Justin, that this is the case. The only quotation a.s.serted to be taken from Luke is the phrase: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
{51}
thee,"(1) which agrees with Luke i. 35. This again is introduced by Hippolytus with another subjectless "he says," and apart from the uncertainty as to who "he" is, this is very unsatisfactory evidence as to the form of the quotation in the original text, for it may easily have been corrected by Hippolytus, consciously or unconsciously, in the course of transfer to his pages. We have already met with this pa.s.sage as quoted by Justin from a Gospel different from ours.
As we have already stated, however, none of the quotations which we have considered are directly referred to Basilides himself, but they are all introduced by the utterly vague expression, "he says," [------] without any subject accompanying the verb. Now it is admitted that writers of the time of Hippolytus, and notably Hippolytus himself, made use of the name of the founder of a sect to represent the whole of his school, and applied to him, apparently, quotations taken from unknown and later followers.(2) The pa.s.sages which he cites, therefore, and which appear to indicate the use of Gospels, instead of being extracted from the works of the founder himself, in all probability were taken from writings of Gnostics of his own time. Canon Westcott himself admits the possibility of this, in writing of other early heretics. He says: "The evidence that has been collected from
{52}
the doc.u.ments of these primitive sects is necessarily somewhat vague. It would be more satisfactory to know the exact position of their authors, and the precise date of their being composed. It is just possible that Hippolytus made use of writings which were current in his own time without further examination, and transferred to the apostolic age forms of thought and expression which had been the growth of two, or even of three generations."(1) So much as to the reliance to be placed on the work ascribed to Hippolytus. It is certain, for instance, that in writing of the sect of Naaseni and Ophites, Hippolytus perpetually quotes pa.s.sages from the writings of the school, with the indefinite [------],(2) as he likewise does in dealing with the Peratici,(3) and Docetae,(4) no individual author being named; yet he evidently quotes various writers, pa.s.sing from one to another without explanation, and making use of the same unvarying [------] In one place,(5) where he has "the Greeks say," [------] he gives, without further indication, a quotation from Pindar.(6) A still more apt instance of his method is that pointed out by Volkmar,(7) where Hippolytus, writing of "Marcion, or some one of his hounds," uses, without further explanation, the subjectless [------] to introduce matter from the later followers of Marcion.(8) Now, with regard to
{53}
Basilides, Hippolytus directly refers not only to the heretic chief, but also to his disciple Isidorus and all their followers,(1) [------]
and then proceeds to use the indefinite "he says," interspersed with references in the plural to these heretics, exhibiting the same careless method of quotation, and leaving the same complete uncertainty as to the speaker"s ident.i.ty as in the other cases mentioned.(2) On the other hand, it has been demonstrated by Hilgenfeld, that the gnosticism ascribed to Basilides by Hippolytus, in connection with these quotations, is of a much later and more developed type than that which Basilides himself held,(3) as shown in the actual fragments of his own writings which are still extant, and as reported by Irenaeus,(4) Clement of Alexandria,(5) and the work "Adversus omnes Haereses," annexed to the "Praescriptio haereticorum" of Tertullian, which is
{54}