{369}
Canon Westcott(l) a.s.sert that two pa.s.sages, namely: "The true light which lighteth every man came into the world," corresponding with John i. 9, and: "mine hour is not yet come," agreeing with John ii. 4, which are introduced by Hippolytus in his work against Heresies(2) with a subjectless [------]" he says,"are quotations made in some lost work by Basilides. We have shown that Hippolytus and other writers of his time were in the habit of quoting pa.s.sages from works by the founders of sects and by their later followers without any distinction, an utterly vague [------] doing service equally for all. This is the case in the present instance, and there is no legitimate reason for a.s.signing these pa.s.sages to Basilides himself,(3) but on the contrary many considerations which forbid our doing so, which we have elsewhere detailed.
These remarks most fully apply to Valentinus, whose supposed quotations we have exhaustively discussed,(4) as well as the one pa.s.sage given by Hippolytus containing a sentence found in John x. 8,(5) the only one which can be pointed out. "We have distinctly proved that the quotations in question are not a.s.signable to Valentinus himself, a fact which even apologists admit. There is no just ground for a.s.serting that his terminology was derived from the fourth Gospel, the whole having been in current use long before that Gospel was composed.
{370}
There is no evidence whatever that Valentin us was acquainted with such a work.(1)
We must generally remark, however, with regard to Basilides, Valentinus and all such Heresiarchs and writers, that, even if it could be shown, as actually it cannot, that they were acquainted with the fourth Gospel, the fact would only prove the existence of the work at a late period in the second century, but would furnish no evidence of the slightest value regarding its apostolic origin, or towards establishing its historical value. On the other hand, if, as apologists a.s.sert, these heretics possessed the fourth Gospel, their deliberate and total rejection of the work furnishes evidence positively antagonistic to its claims. It is difficult to decide whether their rejection of the Gospel, or their ignorance of its existence is the more unfavourable alternative.
The dilemma is the very same in the case of Marcion. We have already fully discussed his knowledge of our Gospels,(2) and need not add anything here. It is not pretended that he made any use of the fourth Gospel, and the only ground upon which it is argued that he supplies evidence even of its existence is the vague general statement of Tertullian, that Marcion rejected the Gospels "which are put forth as genuine, and under the name of Apostles or at least of contemporaries of the Apostles," denying their truth and integrity, and maintaining the sole
{371}
authority of his own Gospel.(1) We have shown(2) how unwarrantable it is to affirm from such data that Marcion knew, and deliberately repudiated, the four canonical Gospels. The Fathers, with uncritical haste and zeal, a.s.sumed that the Gospels adopted by the Church at the close of the second and beginning of the third centuries must equally have been invested with canonical authority from the first, and Tertullian took it for granted that Marcion, of whom he knew very little, must have actually rejected the four Gospels of his own Canon. Even Canon Westcott admits that: "it is uncertain whether Tertullian in the pa.s.sage quoted speaks from a knowledge of what Marcion may have written on the subject, or simply from his own point of sight."(3) There is not the slightest evidence that Marcion knew the fourth Gospel,(4) and if he did, it is perfectly inexplicable that he did not adopt it as peculiarly favourable to his own views.(5) If he was acquainted with the work and, nevertheless, rejected it as false and adulterated, his testimony is obviously opposed to the Apostolic origin and historical accuracy of the fourth Gospel, and the critical ac.u.men which he exhibited in his selection of the Pauline Epistles renders his judgment of greater weight than that of most of the Fathers.
We have now reached an epoch when no evidence regarding the fourth Gospel can have much weight,
{372}
and the remaining witnesses need not detain us long. "We have discussed at length the Diatessaron of Tatian,(1) and shown that whilst there is no evidence that it was based upon our four Gospels, there is reason to believe that it may have been identical with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, by which name, as Epiphanius(2) states, it was actually called.
We have only now briefly to refer to the address to the Greeks [------], and
to ascertain what testimony it bears regarding the fourth Gospel. It was composed after the death of Justin, and scarcely dates earlier than the beginning of the last quarter of the second century. No Gospel and no work of the New Testament is mentioned in this composition, but Tischendorf(3) and others point out one or two supposed references to pa.s.sages in the fourth Gospel. The first of these in order, is one indicated by Canon Westcott,(4) but to which Tischendorf does not call attention: "G.o.d was in the beginning, but we have learned that the beginning is the power of Reason [------]. For the Lord of the Universe [------] being himself the substance [------] of all, in that creation had not been accomplished was alone, but inasmuch as he was all power, and himself the substance of things visible and invisible, all things were with him [------].
With him by means of rational power the Reason [------] itself also which was in him subsisted. But by the will of his simplicity, Reason [------] springs forth; but the Reason [------] not
{373}
proceeding in vain, because the first-born work [------] of the Father.
Him we know to be the Beginning of the world [------]. But he came into existence by division, not by cutting off, for that which is cut off is separated from the first: but that which is divided, receiving the choice of administration, did not render him defective from whom it was taken, &c., &c. And as the Logos (Reason), in the beginning begotten, begat again our creation, himself for himself creating the matter [------], so I," &c., &C.(1)
It is quite evident that this doctrine of the Logos is not that of the fourth Gospel, from which it cannot have been derived. Tatian himself(2) seems to a.s.sert that he derived it from the Old Testament. We have quoted the pa.s.sage at length that it might be clearly
{374}
understood; and with the opening words, we presume, for he does not quote at all but merely indicates the chapter, Canon Westcott compares John i. 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G.o.d, and the Word was G.o.d" [------]. The statement of Tatian is quite different; _G.o.d_ was in the beginning" [------], and he certainly did not identify the Word with G.o.d, so as to transform the statement of the Gospel into this simple affirmation. In all probability his formula was merely based upon Genesis i. 1: "In the beginning G.o.d created the heavens and the earth" [------].(1)1 The expressions: "But we have learned that the Beginning [------] was the power of Reason," &c., "but the Reason [------] not proceeding in vain became the first-born work [------] of the Father. Him we know to be the Beginning [------] of the world," recall many early representations of the Logos, to which we have already, referred: Pro v. viii. 22: "The Lord created me the Beginning [------] of ways for his works [------], 23. Before the ages he established me, in the beginning [------] before he made the earth,"
&c., &c. In the Apocalypse also the Word is called "the Beginning [------] of the creation of G.o.d," and it will be remembered that Justin gives testimony from Prov. viii. 21 if. "that G.o.d begat before all the creatures a Beginning [------] a certain rational Power [------], out of himself," 2 &c., &c., and elsewhere: "As the Logos declared through Solomon, that this same.... had been begotten of G.o.d, before all created beings, both Beginning [------]" &c.(3) We need not, however, refer to
{375}
the numerous pa.s.sages in Philo and in Justin, not derived from the fourth Gospel, which point to a different source for Tatian"s doctrine.
It is sufficient that both his opinions and his terminology differ distinctly from that Gospel.(1)
The next pa.s.sage we at once subjoin in contrast with the parallel in the fourth Gospel: [------]
The context to this pa.s.sage in the Oration is as follows: Tatian is arguing about the immortality of the soul, and he states that the soul is not in itself immortal but mortal, but that nevertheless it is possible for it not to die. If it do not know the truth it dies, but rises again at the end of the world, receiving eternal death as a punishment. "Again, however, it does not die, though it be for a time dissolved, if it has acquired knowledge of G.o.d; for in itself it is darkness, and there is nothing luminous in it, and this, therefore, is (the meaning of) the saying: The darkness comprehends not the light. For the soul [------] did not itself save the spirit [------], but was saved by it, and the light comprehended the darkness. The Logos (Reason) truly is the light of G.o.d, but the ignorant soul is darkness [------]. For this reason, if it remain
1 We have already mentioned that the Gospel according to Peter contained the doctrine of the Logos.
{376}
alone, it tends downwards to matter, dying with the flesh," &c., &c.(1) The source of "the saying" is not mentioned, and it is evident that, even if it were taken to be a reference to the fourth Gospel, nothing would thereby be proved but the mere existence of the Gospel. "The saying," however, is distinctly different in language from the parallel in the Gospel, and it may be from a different Gospel. We have already remarked that Philo calls the Logos "the Light,"(2) and quoting in a peculiar form Ps. xxvi. 1: "For the Lord is my light [------] and my Saviour," he goes on to say that, as the sun divides day and night, so, Moses says, "G.o.d divides light and darkness" [------].(3) When we turn away to things of sense we use "another light," which is in no way different from "darkness."(4) The constant use of the same similitude of Light and darkness in the Canonical Epistles(5) shows how current it was in the Church; and nothing is more certain than the fact that it was neither originated by, nor confined to, the fourth Gospel.
The third and last pa.s.sage is as follows:
{377}
Tatian here speaks of G.o.d, and not of the Logos, and in this respect, as well as in language and context, the pa.s.sage differs from the fourth Gospel. The phrase is not introduced as a quotation, and no reference is made to any Gospel. The purpose for which the words are used, again, rather points to the first chapters of Genesis than to the dogmatic prologue enunciating the doctrine of the Logos.(1) Under all these circ.u.mstances, the source from which the expression may have been derived cannot with certainty be ascertained and, as in the preceding instance, even if it be a.s.sumed that the words show acquaintance with the fourth Gospel, nothing could be proved but the mere existence of the work about a century and a half after the events which it records. It is obvious that in no case does Tatian afford the slightest evidence of the Apostolic origin or historical veracity of the fourth Gospel.
Dr. Lightfoot points out another pa.s.sage, -- 4, [------], which he compares with John iv. 24, where the same words occur. It is right to add that he himself remarks: "If it had stood alone I should certainly not have regarded it as decisive. But the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it is a characteristic pa.s.sage of the fourth Gospel.(2) Neither Tischendorf nor Dr. Westcott refer to it. The fact is, however, that the epigrammatic form only exists when the phrase is quoted without its context. "G.o.d is a spirit, not pervading matter, but the creator of material spirits, and of the forms that are in it. He is invisible and impalpable," &c. &c. Further on, Tatian says (--15), "For the perfect G.o.d is without flesh, but man is flesh." &c. A large
{378}
part of the oration is devoted to discussing the nature of G.o.d, and the distinction between spirit [------] and soul [------], and it is unreasonable to a.s.sert that a man like Tatian could not make the declaration that G.o.d is a spirit without quoting the fourth Gospel.
We have generally discussed the testimony of Dionysius of Corinth,(1) Melito of Sardis,(2) and Claudius Apol-linaris,(3) and need not say more here. The fragments attributed to them neither mention nor quote the fourth Gospel, but in no case could they furnish evidence to authenticate the work. The same remarks apply to Athenagoras.(4) Canon Westcott only ventures to say that he "appears to allude to pa.s.sages in St. Mark and St. John, but they are all anonymous."(5) The pa.s.sages in which he speaks of the Logos, which are those referred to here, are certainly not taken from the fourth Gospel, and his doctrine is expressed in terminology which is different from that of the Gospel, and is deeply tinged with Platonism.(6) He appeals to Proverbs viii. 22, already so frequently quoted by us, for confirmation by the Prophetic Spirit of his exposition of the Logos doctrine.(7) He nowhere identifies the Logos with Jesus;(8) indeed he does not once make use of the name of Christ in his works. He does not show the slightest knowledge of the doctrine of salvation so constantly enunciated in the fourth Gospel.
There can be no doubt, as we have already shown,(9) that he considered the Old Testament to
{379}
be the only inspired Holy Scriptures. Not only does he not mention nor quote any of our Gospels, but the only instance in which he makes any reference to sayings of Jesus, otherwise than by the indefinite [------]
"he says," is one in which he introduces a saying which is not found in our Gospels by the words: "The Logos again saying to us:" [------], &c.
From the same source, which was obviously not our Canonical Gospels, we have, therefore, reason to conclude that Athenagoras derived all his knowledge of Gospel history and doctrine. We need not add that this writer affords no testimony whatever as to the origin or character of the fourth Gospel.
It is scarcely worth while to refer to the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, a composition dating at the earliest a.d. 177-178, in which no direct reference is made to any writing of the New Testament.(1) Acquaintance with the fourth Gospel is argued from the following pa.s.sage: [------]
Now such a pa.s.sage cannot prove the use of the fourth Gospel. No source is indicated in the Epistle from which the saying of Jesus, which of course apologists a.s.sert to be historical, was derived. It presents decided variations from the parallel in the fourth Gospel; and in the
{380}
Synoptics we find sufficient indications of similar discourses l to render it very probable that other Gospels may have contained the pa.s.sage quoted in the Epistle. In no case could an anonymous reference like this be of any weight as evidence for the Apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel.
We need not further discuss Ptolemoeus and Heracleon. We have shown(2) that the date at which these heretics flourished places them beyond the limits within which we propose to confine ourselves. In regard to Ptolemaeus
all that is affirmed is that, in the Epistle to Flora ascribed to him, expressions found in John i. 3 are used. The pa.s.sage as it is given by Epiphanius is as follows: "Besides, that the world was created by the same, the Apostle states (saying all things have been made [------] by him and without him nothing was made)." [------].(3) Now the supposed quotation is introduced here in a parenthesis interrupting the sense, and there is every probability that it was added as an ill.u.s.tration by Epiphanius, and was not in the Epistle to Flora at all. Omitting the parenthesis, the sentence is a very palpable reference to the Apostle Paul, and Coloss. i. 16.(4) In regard to Heraclcon, it is a.s.serted from the unsupported references of Origen(5) that he wrote a commentary on the fourth Gospel. Even if this be a fact, there is not a single word of it preserved by Origen which in the least degree bears upon the Apostolic origin
{381}
and trustworthiness of the Gospel. Neither of these heresiarchs, therefore, is of any value as a witness for the authenticity of the fourth Gospel.
The heathen Celsus, as we have shown,(1) wrote at a period when no evidence which he could well give of his own could have been of much value in supporting our Gospels. He is pressed into service,(2) however, because after alluding to various circ.u.mstances of Gospel history he says: "These things, therefore, being taken out of your own writings, we have no need of other testimony, for you fall upon your own swords,"(3) and in another place he says that certain Christians "alter the Gospel from its first written form in three-fold, four-fold, and many-fold ways, and re-mould it in order to have the means of contradicting the arguments (of opponents)." (4) This is supposed to refer to the four Canonical Gospels. Apart from the fact that Origen replies to the first of these pa.s.sages, that Celsus has brought forward much concerning Jesus which is not in accordance with the narratives of the Gospels, it is unreasonable to limit the accusation of "many-fold" corruption to four Gospels, when it is undeniable that the Gospels and writings long current in the Church were very numerous. In any case, what could such a statement as this do towards establishing the Apostolic origin and credibility of the fourth Gospel?
We might pa.s.s over the _Canon of Muratori_ entirely,