Epistle to Flora allusion is made to the succession of doctrine received by direct tradition from the Apostles.(1) Irenaeus says that the Valentinians profess to derive their views from unwritten sources,(2) and he accuses them of rejecting the Gospels of the Church,(3) but, on the other hand, he states that they had many Gospels different from what he calls the Gospels of the Apostles.(4)
With regard to Heracleon, it is said that he wrote Commentaries on the third and fourth Gospels. The authority for this statement is very insufficient. The a.s.sertion with reference to the third Gospel is based solely upon a pa.s.sage in the Stromata of the Alexandrian Clement.
Clement quotes a pa.s.sage found in Luke xii. 8, 11, 12, and says: "Expounding this pa.s.sage, Heracleon, the most distinguished of the School of Valentinus, says as follows," &c.(5) This is immediately interpreted into a quotation from a Commentary on Luke.(6) We merely point out that from Clement"s remark it by no means follows that Heracleon wrote a Commentary at all, and further there is no evidence that the pa.s.sage commented upon was actually from our third Gospel.(7) The Stromata of Clement were not written until after a.d. 193, and in them we find the first and only reference to this supposed Commentary.
"We need not here refer to the Commentary on the fourth Gospel, which is merely
{225}
inferred from references in Origen (c. a.d. 225), but of which we have neither earlier nor fuller information.(1) We must, however, before leaving this subject, mention that Origen informs us that Heracleon quotes from the Preaching of Peter [------], Pesedicatio Petri), a work which, as we have already several times mentioned, was cited by Clement of Alexandria as authentic and inspired Holy Scripture.(2)
The epoch at which Ptolemaeus and Heracleon flourished would in any case render testimony regarding our Gospels of little value. The actual evidence which they furnish, however, is not of a character to prove even the existence of our Synoptics, and much less does it in any way bear upon their character or authenticity.
2.
A similar question of date arises regarding Celsus, who wrote a work, ent.i.tled [------], True Doctrine, which is no longer extant, of which Origen composed an elaborate refutation. The Christian writer takes the arguments of Celsus in detail, presenting to us, therefore, its general features, and giving many extracts; and as Celsus professes to base much of his accusation upon the writings in use amongst Christians, although he does not name a single one of them, it becomes desirable to ascertain what those works were, and the date at which
{226}
Celsus wrote. As usual, we shall state the case by giving the reasons a.s.signed for an early date.
Arguing against Volkmar and others, who maintain, from a pa.s.sage at the close of his work, that Oligen, writing about the second quarter of the third century, represents Celsus as his contemporary,(1) Tischendorf, referring to the pa.s.sage, which we shall give in its place, proceeds to a.s.sign an earlier date upon the following grounds: "But indeed, even in the first book, at the commencement of the whole work, Origen says: "Therefore, I cannot compliment a Christian whose faith is in danger of being shaken by Celsus, who yet does not even [------] still [------]
live the common life among men, but already and long since [------] is dead."... In the
same first book Origen says: "We have heard that there were two men of the name of Celsus, Epicureans, the first under Nero; this one" (that is to say, ours) "under Hadrian and later." It is not impossible that Origen mistakes when he identified his Celsus with the Epicurean living "under Hadrian and later;" but it is impossible to convert the same Celsus of whom Origen says this into a contemporary of Origen. Or would Origen himself in the first book really have set his Celsus "under Hadrian (117--138) and later," yet in the eighth have said: "We will wait (about 225), to see whether he will still accomplish this design of making another work follow?" Now, until some better discovery regarding Celsus is attained, it will be well to hold to the old opinion that Celsus wrote his book about the middle of the second century, probably between 150--160," &c.(2)
{227}
It is scarcely necessary to point out that the only argument advanced by Tischendorf bears solely against the a.s.sertion that Celsus was a contemporary of Origen, "about 225," and leaves the actual date entirely unsettled. He not only admits that the statement of Origen regarding the ident.i.ty of his opponent with the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian "and later," may be erroneous, but he tacitly rejects it, and having abandoned the conjecture of Origen as groundless and untenable, he subst.i.tutes a conjecture of his own, equally unsupported by reasons, that Celsus probably wrote between 150-160. Indeed, he does not attempt to justify this date, but arbitrarily decides to hold by it until a better can be demonstrated. He is forced to admit the ignorance of Origen on the point, and he does not conceal his own.
Now it is clear that the statement of Origen in the preface to his work, quoted above, that Celsus, against whom he writes, is long since dead,(1) is made in the belief that this Celsus was the Epicurean who lived under Hadrian,(2)
{228}
which Tischendorf, although he avoids explanation of the reason, rightly recognizes to be a mistake. Origen undoubtedly knew nothing of his adversary, and it obviously follows that, his impression that he is Celsus the Epicurean being erroneous, his statement that he was long since dead, which is based upon that impression, loses all its value.
Origen certainly at one time conjectured his Celsus to be the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian, for he not only says so directly in the pa.s.sage quoted, but on the strength of his belief in the fact, he accuses him of inconsistency: "But Celsus," he says, "must be convicted of contradicting himself; for he is discovered from other of his works to have been an Epicurean, but here, because he considered that he could attack the Word more effectively by not avowing the views of Epicurus, he pretends, &c.... Remark, therefore, the falseness of his mind,"
&c.(1) And from time to time he continues to refer to him as an Epicurean,(2) although it is evident that in the writing before him he constantly finds evidence that he is of a wholly different school.
Beyond this belief, founded avowedly on mere hearsay, Origen absolutely knows nothing whatever as to the personality of Celsus, or the time at which he wrote,(3) and he sometimes very naively expresses his uncertainty regarding him. Referring in one place to certain pa.s.sages which seem to imply a belief in magic on the part of Celsus, Origen adds: "I do not know whether he is the same who has written several books
{229}
against magic."(1) Elsewhere he says: "... the Epicurean Celsus (if he be the same who composed two other books against Christians)," &c.(2)
Not only is it apparent that Origen knows nothing of the Celsus with whom he is dealing, however, but it is almost impossible to avoid the conviction that during the time he was composing his work his impressions concerning the date and ident.i.ty of his opponent became considerably modified. In the earlier portion of the first book(3) he has heard that his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian, but a little further on,(4) he confesses his ignorance as to whether he is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean actually did. In the fourth book(5) he expresses uncertainty as to whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he seems to treat him as a contemporary. He writes to his friend Ambrosius, at whose request the refutation of Celsus was undertaken: "Know, however, that Celsus has promised to write another treatise after this one.... If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with the eight books in reply to his Discourse.
If,
{230}
however, he has commenced and finished this work also, seek it and "send it in order that we may answer it also, and confute the false teaching in it," &C.(1) From this pa.s.sage, and supported by other considerations, Volkmar and others a.s.sert that Celsus was really a contemporary of Origen.(2) To this, as we have seen, Tischendorf merely replies by pointing out that Origen in the preface says that Celsus was already dead, and that he was identical with the Epicurean Celsus who flourished under Hadrian and later. The former of these statements, however, was made under the impression that the latter was correct, and as it is generally agreed that Origen was mistaken in supposing that Celsus the Epicurean was the author of the [------],(3) and Tischendorf himself admits the fact, the two earlier statements, that Celsus flourished under Hadrian and consequently that he had long been dead, fall together, whilst the subsequent doubts regarding his ident.i.ty not only stand, but
{231}
rise into a.s.surance at the close of the work in the final request to Ambrosius.(1) There can be no doubt that the first statements and the closing paragraphs are contradictory, and whilst almost all critics p.r.o.nounce against the accuracy of the former, the inferences from the latter retain full force, confirmed as they are by the intermediate doubts expressed by Origen himself.
Even those who, like Tischendorf, in an arbitrary manner a.s.sign an early date to Celsus, although they do not support their conjectures by any satisfactory reasons of their own, all tacitly set aside these of Origen.(2) It is generally admitted by these, with Lardner(3) and Michaelis,(4) that the Epicurean Celsus to "whom Origen was at one time disposed to refer the work against Christianity, was the writer of that name to whom Lucian, his friend and contemporary, addressed his Alexander or Pseudomantis, and who really wrote against magic,(5) as Origen mentions.(6) But although on this account Lardner a.s.signs to him the date of a.d. 176, the fact is that Lucian did not write his Pseudomantis, as Lardner is obliged to admit,(7) until the reign of the
{232}
Emperor Commodus (180--193), and even upon the supposition that this Celsus wrote against Christianity, of which there is not the slightest evidence, there would be no ground whatever for dating the work before a.d. 180. On the contrary, as Lucian does not in any way refer to such a writing by his friend, there would be strong reason for a.s.signing the work, if it be supposed to be written by him, to a date subsequent to the Pseudo-mantis. It need not be remarked that the references of Celsus to the Marcionites,(1) and to the followers of Marcellina,(2) only so far bear upon the matter as to exclude an early date.(3)
It requires very slight examination of the numerous extracts from, and references to, the work which Origen seeks to refute, however, to convince any impartial mind that the doubts of Origen were well founded as to whether Celsus the Epicurean were really the author of the [------]. As many critics of all shades of opinion have long since determined, so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus attacked by Origen, as the philosophical opinions which he everywhere expresses clearly show, was a Neo-Platonist.(4) Indeed, although Origen seems to retain some impression that his antagonist must be an Epicurean, as he had heard, and frequently refers to him as such, he does not point out Epicurean
{233}
sentiments in his writings, but on the contrary, not only calls upon him no longer to conceal the school to which he belongs and avow himself an Epicurean,(1) which Celsus evidently does not, but accuses him of expressing views inconsistent with that philosophy,(2) or of so concealing his Epicurean opinions that it might be said that he is an Epicurean only in name.(3) On the other hand, Origen is clearly surprised to find that he quotes so largely from the writings, and shows such marked leaning towards the teaching, of Plato, in which Celsus indeed finds the original and purer form of many Christian doctrines,(4) and Origen is constantly forced to discuss Plato in meeting the arguments of Celsus.
The author of the work which Origen refuted, therefore, instead of being an Epicurean, as Origen supposed merely from there having been an Epicurean of the same name, was undoubtedly a Neo-Platonist, as Mosheim long ago demonstrated, of the School of Ammonius, who founded the sect at the close of the second century.(5) The promise of Celsus to write a second book with practical rules for living in accordance with the philosophy he promulgates, to which Origen refers at the close of his work, confirms this conclusion, and indicates a new and recent system of philosophy.(6) An Epicurean would not have thought of such a work--it would have been both appropriate and necessary in connection with Neo-Platonism.
We are, therefore, constrained to a.s.sign the work of
{231}
Celsus to at least the early part of the third century, and to the reign of Septimius Severus. Celsus repeatedly accuses Christians, in it, of teaching their doctrines secretly and against the law, which seeks them out and punishes them with death,(1) and this indicates a period of persecution. Lardner, a.s.suming the writer to be the Epicurean friend of Lucian, from this clue supposes that the persecution referred to must have been that under Marcus Aurelius (f 180), and practically rejecting the data of Origen himself, without advancing sufficient reasons of his own, dates Celsus a.d. 176.(2) As a Neo-Platonist, however, we are more accurately led to the period of persecution which, from embers never wholly extinct since the time of Marcus Aurelius, burst into fierce flame more especially in the tenth year of the reign of Severus(3) (a.d.
202), and continued for many years to afflict Christians.
It is evident that the dates a.s.signed by apologists are wholly arbitrary, and even if our argument for the later epoch were very much less conclusive than it is, the total absence of evidence for an earlier date would completely nullify any testimony derived from Celsus. It is sufficient for us to add that, whilst he refers to incidents of Gospel history and quotes some sayings which have pandlels, with more or less of variation, in our Gospels, Celsus nowhere mentions the name of any Christian book, unless we except the Book of Enoch;(4) and he accuses Christians, not without reason, of interpolating the books of the Sibyl, whose authority, he states, some of them acknowledged.(5)
{235}
3.
The last doc.u.ment which we need examine in connection with the synoptic Gospels is the list of New Testament and other writings held in consideration by the Church, which is generally called, after its discoverer and first editor, the Canon of Muratori. This interesting fragment, which was published in 1740 by Muratori in his collection of Italian antiquities,(1) at one time belonged to the monastery of Bobbio, founded by the Irish monk Columban, and was found by Muratori in the Ambrosian Library at Milan in a MS. containing extracts of little interest from writings of Eucherius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others.
Muratori estimated the age of the MS. at about a thousand years, but so far as we are aware no thoroughly competent judge has since expressed any opinion upon the point. The fragment, which is defective both at the commencement and at the end, is written in an apologetic tone, and professes to give a list of the writings which are recognised by the Christian Church. It is a doc.u.ment which has no official character,(2) but which merely conveys the private views and information of the anonymous writer, regarding whom nothing whatever is known. From any point of view, the composition is of a nature permitting the widest differences of opinion. It is by some affirmed to be a complete treatise on the books received by the Church, from which fragments have been lost;(3) whilst
{236}
others consider it a mere fragment in itself.(1) It is written in Latin which by some is represented as most corrupt,(2) whilst others uphold it as most correct.(3) The text is further rendered almost unintelligible by every possible inaccuracy of orthography and grammar, which is ascribed diversely to the transcriber, to the translator, and to both.(4) Indeed such is the elastic condition of the text, resulting from errors and obscurity of every imaginable description, that by means of ingenious conjectures critics are able to find in it almost any sense they desire.(5) Considerable difference of opinion exists as to the original language of the fragment, the greater number of critics maintaining that the composition is a translation from the Greek,(6) whilst others a.s.sert it to
{237}
have been originally written in Latin.(1) Its composition is variously attributed to the Church of Africa(2) and to a member of the Church in Rome.(3)
The fragment commences with the concluding portion of a sentence....
"quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit"--"at which nevertheless he was present, and thus he placed it." The MS. then proceeds: "Third book of the Gospel according to Luke. Luke, that physician, after the ascension of Christ when Paul took him with him..., wrote it in his name as he deemed best (ex opinione)--nevertheless he had not himself seen the Lord in the flesh,--and he too, as far as he could obtain information, also begins to speak from the nativity of John." The text, at the sense of which this is a closely approximate guess, though several other
{238}
interpretations might be maintained, is as follows: Tertio evangelii librum secundo Lucan Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi c.u.m eo Paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum adsumsisset numeni suo ex opinione concribset dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne et idem prout asequi potuit ita et ad nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.
The MS. goes on to speak in more intelligible language "of the fourth of the Gospels of John, one of the disciples." (Quarti evangeliorum Johannis ex decipolis) regarding the composition of which the writer relates a legend, which we shall quote when we come to deal with that Gospel The fragment then proceeds to mention the Acts of the Apostles,--which is ascribed to Luke--thirteen epistles of Paul in peculiar order, and it then refers to an Epistle to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged, in the name of Paul, after the heresy of Marcion, "and many others which cannot be received by the Catholic Church, as gall must not be mixed with vinegar." The Epistle to the Ephesians bore the name of Epistle to the Laodiceans in the list of Marcion, and this may be a reference to it.(1) The Epistle to the Alexandrians is generally identified with the Epistle to the Hebrews,(2) although some critics think this doubtful, or deny the fact, and consider both Epistles referred to pseudographs