{239}
attributed to the Apostle Paul.1 The Epistle of Jude, and two (the second and third) Epistles of John are, with some tone of doubt, mentioned amongst the received books, and so is the Book of Wisdom. The Apocalypses of John and of Peter only are received, but some object to the latter being read in church.
The Epistle of James, both Epistles of Peter, the Epistle to the Hebrews (which is, however, probably indicated as the Epistle to the Alexandrians), and the first Epistle of John are omitted altogether, with the exception of a quotation which is supposed to be from the last-named Epistle, to which we shall hereafter refer. Special reference is made to the Pastor of Hermas, which we shall presently discuss, regarding which the writer expresses his opinion that it should be read privately but not publicly in church, as it can neither be cla.s.sed amongst the books of the prophets nor of the apostles. The fragment concludes with the rejection of the writings of several heretics.(2)
It is inferred that, in the missing commencement of the fragment, the first two Synoptics must have been mentioned. This, however, though of course most probable, cannot actually be ascertained, and so far as these Gospels are concerned, therefore, the "Canon of Muratori" only furnishes conjectural evidence. The statement regarding the third Synoptic merely proves the existence of that Gospel at the time the fragment
{240}
was composed, and we shall presently endeavour to form some idea of that date, but beyond this fact the information given anything but tends to establish the unusual credibility claimed for the Gospels. It is declared by the fragment, as we have seen, that the third Synoptic was written by Luke, who had not himself seen the Lord, but narrated the history as best he was able. It is worthy of remark, moreover, that even the Apostle Paul, who took Luke with him after the Ascension, had not been a follower of Jesus either, nor had seen him in the flesh, and certainly he did not, by the showing of his own Epistles, a.s.sociate much with the other Apostles, so that Luke could not have had much opportunity while with him of acquiring from them any intimate knowledge of the events of Gospel history. It is undeniable that the third Synoptic is not the narrative of an eye-witness, and the occurrences which it records did not take place in the presence, or within the personal knowledge, of the writer, but were derived from tradition, or from written sources. Such testimony, therefore, could not in any case be of much service to our third Synoptic; but when we consider the uncertainty of the date at which the fragment was composed, and the certainty that it could not have been written at an early period, it will become apparent that the value of its evidence is reduced to a minimum.
We have already incidentally mentioned that the writer of this fragment is totally unknown, nor does there exist any clue by which he can be identified. All the critics who have a.s.signed an early date to the composition of the fragment have based their conclusion, almost solely, upon a statement made by the Author regarding the Pastor of Hennas. He says: "Hermas in
{241}
truth composed the Pastor very recently in our times in the city of Rome, the Bishop Pius his brother, sitting in the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And, therefore, it should indeed be read, but it cannot be published in the church to the people, neither being among the prophets, whose number is complete, nor amongst the apostles in the latter days."
"Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma conscripsit sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopus fratre ejus et ideo legi eum quidem oportet se publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas completum numero neque inter apostolos in fine temporum potest."(1)
Muratori, the discoverer of the MS., conjectured for various reasons, which need not be here detailed, that the fragment was written by Caius the Roman Presbyter, who flourished at the end of the second (c. a.d.
196) and beginning of the third century, and in this he was followed by a few others.(2) The great ma.s.s of critics, however, have rejected this conjecture, as they have likewise negatived the fanciful ascription of the composition by Simon de Magistris to Papias of Hierapolis,(3) and by Bunsen to Hegesippus.(4) Such attempts to identify the unknown author are obviously mere speculation, and it is impossible to suppose that, had Papias, Hegesippus, or any other well-known writer of the same period composed such a list, Eusebius could have failed to refer to
{242}
it, as so immediately relevant to the purpose of his work. Thiersch even expressed a suspicion that the fragment was a literary mystification on the part of Muratori himself.(1)
The ma.s.s of critics, with very little independent consideration, have taken literally the statement of the author regarding the composition of the Pastor "very recently in our times" (nuperrime temporibus nostris), during the Episcopate of Pius (a.d. 142--157), and have concluded the fragment to have been written towards the end of the second century, though we need scarcely say that a few writers would date it even earlier.(2) On the other hand, and we consider with reason, many critics,
{243}
including men who will not be accused of opposition to an early Canon, a.s.sign the composition to a later period, between the end of the second or beginning of the third century and the fourth century.(1)
When we examine the ground upon which alone an early date can be supported, it becomes apparent how slight the foundation is. The only argument of any weight is the statement with regard to the composition of the Pastor, but with the exception of the few apologists who do not hesitate to a.s.sign a date totally inconsistent with the state of the Canon described in the fragment, the great majority of critics feel that they are forced to place the composition at least towards the end of the second century, at a period when the statement in the composition may agree with the actual opinions in the Church, and yet in a sufficient degree accord with the expression "very recently in our times," as applied to the period of Pius of Rome, 142--157. It must be evident that, taken literally, a very arbitrary interpretation is given to this indication, and in supposing that the writer may have appropriately used the phrase thirty or forty years after the time of Pius, so much licence is taken that there is absolutely no reason why a still greater interval may not be allowed. With this sole exception, there is not a single word or statement in the fragment which would oppose our a.s.signing the
{244}
composition to a late period of the third century. Volkmar has very justly pointed out, however, that in saying "very recently in our times"
the writer merely intended to distinguish the Pastor of Hermas from the writings of the Prophets and Apostles: It cannot be cla.s.sed amongst the Prophets whose number is complete, nor amongst the Apostles, inasmuch as it was only written in our post-apostolic time. This is an accurate interpretation of the expression,(1) which might with perfect propriety be used a century after the time of Pius. We have seen that there has not appeared a single trace of any Canon in the writings of any of the Fathers whom we have examined, and that the Old Testament has been the only Holy Scripture they have acknowledged; and it is therefore unsafe, upon the mere interpretation of a phrase which would be applicable even a century later, to date this anonymous fragment, regarding which we know nothing, earlier than the very end of the second or beginning of the third century, and it is still more probable that it was not written until an advanced period of the third century. The expression used with regard to Pius: "Sitting in the chair of the church," is quite unprecedented in the second century or until a very much later date.(2) It is argued that the fragment is imperfect, and that sentences have fallen out; and in regard to this, and to the a.s.sertion that it is a translation from the Greek, it has been well remarked by a writer whose judgment on the point will scarcely be called prejudiced: "If it is thus mutilated, why might it not also be interpolated? If moreover the translator
{245}
was so ignorant of Latin, can we trust his translation? and what guarantee have we that he has not paraphrased and expanded the original?
The force of these remarks is peculiarly felt in dealing with the paragraph which gives the date. The Pastor of Hermas was not well known to the Western Church, and it was not highly esteemed. It was regarded as inspired by the Eastern, and read in the Eastern Churches. We have seen, moreover, that it was extremely unlikely that Hermas was a real personage. It would be, therefore, far more probable that we have here an interpolation, or addition by a member of the Roman or African Church, probably by the translator, made expressly for the purpose of serving as proof that the Pastor of Hennas was not inspired. The paragraph itself bears unquestionable mark of tampering,"(1) &c. It would take us too far were we to discuss the various statements of the fragment as indications of date, and the matter is not of sufficient importance. It contains nothing involving an earlier date than the third century.
The facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows, so far as our object is concerned. The third Synoptic is mentioned by a totally unknown writer, at an unknown, but certainly not early, date, in all probability during the third century, in a fragment which we possess in a very corrupt version very far from free from suspicion of interpolation in the precise part from which the early date is inferred.
The Gospel is attributed to Luke, who was not one of the followers of Jesus, and of whom it is expressly said that "he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh," but wrote "as he deemed best (ex opinione)," and followed his history as he was able (et
{246}
idem prout a.s.sequi potuit).(1) If the fragment of Muratori, therefore, even came within our limits as to date, its evidence would be of no value, for, instead of establishing the trustworthiness and absolute accuracy of the narrative of the third Synoptic, it distinctly tends to discredit it, inasmuch as it declares it to be the composition of one who undeniably was not an eye-witness of the miracles reported, but collected his materials, long after, as best he could.(2)
4.
We may now briefly sum up the results of our examination of the evidence for the synoptic Gospels. After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels, with the exception of the third, during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus. Only once during the whole of that period do we find even a tradition that any of our Evangelists composed a Gospel at all, and that tradition, so far from favouring our Synoptics, is fatal to the claims of the first and second.
Papias, about the middle of
1 The pa.s.sage is freely rendered thus by Canon Westcott: "The Gospel of St. Luke, it is then said, stands third in order [in the Canon], having been written by "Luke the physician," the companion of St. Paul, who, not being himself an eye-witness, based his narrative on such information as he could obtain, beginning from tho birth of John." On the Canon, p. 187.
2 We do not propose, to consider the Ophites and Peratici, obscure Gnostic sects towards the end of the second century.
There is no direct evidence regarding them, and the testimony of writers in the third century, like Hippolytus, is of no value for the Gospels.
{247}
the second century, on the occasion to which we refer, records that Matthew composed the Discourses of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue, a statement which totally excludes the claim of our Greek Gospel to apostolic origin. Mark, he said, wrote down from the casual preaching of Peter the sayings and doings of Jesus, but without orderly arrangement, as he was not himself a follower of the Master, and merely recorded what fell from the Apostle. This description, likewise, shows that our actual second Gospel could not, in its present form, have been the work of Mark. There is no other reference during the period to any writing of Matthew or Mark, and no mention at all of any work ascribed to Luke. The identification of Marcion"s Gospel with our third Synoptic proves the existence of that work before A.D. 140, but no evidence is thus obtained either as to the author or the character of his work, but on the contrary the testimony of the great heresiarch is so far unfavourable to that Gospel, as it involves a charge against it, of being interpolated and debased by Jewish elements. The freedom with which Marcion expurgated and altered it clearly shows that he did not regard it either as a sacred or canonical work. Any argument for the mere existence of our Synoptics based upou their supposed rejection by heretical leaders and sects has the inevitable disadvantage, that the very testimony which would show their existence would oppose their authenticity. There is no evidence of their use by heretical leaders, however, and no direct reference to them by any writer, heretical or orthodox, whom we have examined. It is unnecessary to add that no reason whatever has been shown for accepting the testimony of these Gospels as sufficient to establish the reality of
{248}
miracles and of a direct Divine Revelation.(1) It is not pretended that more than one of the synoptic Gospels was written by an eye-witness of the miraculous occurrences reported, and whilst no evidence has been, or can be, produced even of the historical accuracy of the narratives, no testimony as to the correctness of the inferences from the external phenomena exists, or is now even conceivable. The discrepancy between the amount of evidence required and that which is forthcoming, however, is greater than under the circ.u.mstances could have been thought possible.
1 A comparison of the contents of the three Synoptics would have confirmed this conclusion, but this is not at present necessary, and we must hasten on.
{249}
PART III. THE FOURTH GOSPEL
CHAPTER I. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
"We shall now examine, in the same order, the witnesses already cited in connection with the Synoptics, and ascertain what evidence they furnish for the date and authenticity of the fourth Gospel
Apologists do not even allege that there is any reference to the fourth Gospel in the so-called Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians.(1)
A few critics(2) pretend to find a trace of it in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the reference to the brazen Serpent as a type of Jesus.
Tischendorf states the case as follows:--
{250}
"And when in the same chapter xii. it is shown how Moses in the brazen serpent made a type of Jesus "who should suffer (die) and yet himself make alive," the natural inference is that Barnabas connected therewith John iii. 14, f. even if the use of this pa.s.sage in particular cannot be proved. Although this connection cannot be affirmed, since the author of the Epistle, in this pa.s.sage as in many others, may be independent, yet it is justifiable to ascribe the greatest probability to its dependence on the pa.s.sage in John, as the tendency of the Epistle in no way required a particular leaning to the expression of John. The disproportionately more abundant use of express quotations from the Old Testament in Barnabas is, on the contrary, connected most intimately with the tendency of his whole composition."(1)
It will be observed that the suggestion of reference to the fourth Gospel is here advanced in a very hesitating way, and does not indeed go beyond an a.s.sertion of probability. We might, therefore, well leave the matter without further notice, as the reference in no case could be of any weight as evidence. On examination of the context, however, we find that there is every reason to conclude that the reference to the brazen serpent is made direct to the Old Testament. The author who delights in typology is bent upon showing that the cross is prefigured in the Old Testament. He gives a number of instances, involving the necessity for a display of ridiculous ingenuity of explanation, which should prepare us to find the comparatively simple type of the brazen serpent naturally selected. After pointing out that Moses, with his arms stretched out in prayer that the Israelites might prevail in the fight, was a type of the
{251}