There has been much controversy as to the date of the two Apologies, and much difference of opinion still exists on the point. Many critics a.s.sign the larger to about a.d. 138--140, and the shorter to a.d.
160--161.(2) A pa.s.sage, however, occurs in the longer Apology, which
{284}
indicates that it must have been written about a century and a half after the commencement of the Christian era, or, according to accurate reckoning, about a.d. 147. Justin speaks, in one part of it, of perverted deductions being drawn from his teaching "that Christ was born 150 years ago under Cyrenius."(l) Those who contend for the earlier date have no stronger argument against this statement than the unsupported a.s.sertion, that in this pa.s.sage Justin merely speaks "in round numbers,"
but many important circ.u.mstances confirm the date which Justin thus gives us. In the superscription of the Apology, Antoninus is called "Pius," a t.i.tle which was first bestowed upon him in the year 139.
Moreover, Justin directly refers to Marcion, as a man "now living and teaching his disciples.... and who has by the aid of demons caused many of all nations to utter blasphemies," &c.(2) Now the fact has been established that Marcion did not come to Rome, where Justin himself was, until a.d. 139--142,(3) when his prominent public career commenced, and it is apparent that the words of Justin indicate a period when his doctrines had already
{285}
become widely diffused. For these and many other strong reasons, which need not here be detailed, the majority of competent critics agree in more correctly a.s.signing the first Apology to about a.d. 147.(1) The Dialogue with Trypho, as internal evidence shows,(2) was written after the longer Apology, and it is therefore generally dated some time within the first decade of the second half of the second century.(3)
In these writings Justin quotes very copiously from the Old Testament, and he also very frequently refers to facts of Christian history and to sayings of Jesus. Of these references, for instance, some fifty occur in the first Apology, and upwards of seventy in the Dialogue with Trypho, a goodly number, it will be admitted, by means of which to identify the source from which he quotes. Justin himself frequently and distinctly says that his information and quotations are derived from the "Memoirs of the Apostles" [--Greek--], but except upon one occasion, which we shall hereafter consider, when he indicates Peter, he never mentions an author"s name. Upon examination it is found that, with only one or two brief exceptions, the
{286}
numerous quotations from these Memoirs differ more or less widely from parallel pa.s.sages in our synoptic Gospels, and in many cases differ in the same respects as similar quotations found in other writings of the second century, the writers of which are known to have made use of uncanonical Gospels, and further, that these pa.s.sages are quoted several times, at intervals, by Justin with the same variations. Moreover, sayings of Jesus are quoted from these Memoirs which are not found in our Gospels at all, and facts in the life of Jesus and circ.u.mstances of Christian history derived from the same source, not only are not found in our Gospels, but are in contradiction with them.
These peculiarities have, as might have been expected, created much diversity of opinion regarding the nature of the "Memoirs of the Apostles." In the earlier days of New Testament criticism more especially, many of course at once identified the Memoirs with our Gospels exclusively, and the variations were explained by conveniently elastic theories of free quotation from memory, imperfect and varying MSS., combination, condensation and transposition of pa.s.sages, with slight additions from tradition, or even from some other written source, and so on.(1) Others endeavoured to explain
{287}
away difficulties by the supposition that they were a simple harmony of our Gospels,(1) or a harmony of the Gospels, with pa.s.sages added from some apocryphal work.(2) A much greater number of critics, however, adopt the conclusion that, along with our Gospels, Justin made use of one or more apocryphal Gospels, and more especially of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or according to Peter, and also perhaps of tradition.(3) Others a.s.sert that he made use of a special unknown Gospel, or of the Gospel according to the Hebrews or according to Peter, with a subsidiary use of a version of one or two of our Gospels to which, however, he did not attach much importance, preferring the apocryphal work;(4) whilst
{288}
others have concluded that Justin did not make use of our Gospels at all, and that his quotations are either from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or according to Peter, or from some other special apocryphal Gospel now no longer extant.(1)
Evidence permitting of such wide diversity of results to serious and laborious investigation of the ident.i.ty of Justin"s Memoirs of the Apostles, cannot be of much value towards establishing the authenticity of our Gospels, and in the absence of any specific mention of our Synoptics any very elaborate examination of the Memoirs might be considered unnecessary, more especially as it is admitted almost universally by competent critics, that Justin did not himself consider the Memoirs of the Apostles inspired, or of any dogmatic authority, and had no idea of attributing canonical rank to them.(2) In pursuance of the system which we desire invariably to adopt of
{289}
enabling every reader to form his own opinion, we shall as briefly as possible state the facts of the case, and furnish materials for a full comprehension of the subject. Justin himself, as we have already stated, frequently and distinctly states that his information regarding Christian history and his quotations are derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles [--Greek--], to adopt the usual translation, although the word might more correctly be rendered "Recollections," or "Memorabilia." It has frequently been surmised that this name was suggested by the [--Greek--] of Xenophon, but, as Credner has pointed out, the similarity is purely accidental, and to const.i.tute a parallel the t.i.tle should have been "Memoirs of Jesus."(1) The word [--Greek--] is here evidently used merely in the sense of records written from memory, and it is so employed by Papias in the pa.s.sage preserved by Eusebius regarding Mark, who, although he had not himself followed the Lord, yet recorded his words from what he heard from Peter, and who, having done so without order, is still defended for "thus writing some things as he remembered them" [--Greek--].(2) In the same way Irenseus refers to the "Memoirs of a certain Presbyter of apostolic times" [--Greek--](3) whose name he does not mention; and Origen still more closely approximates to Justin"s use of the word when, expressing his theory regarding, the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says that the thoughts are the Apostle"s, but the phraseology and the composition are of one recording from memory
{290}
what the Apostle said [--Greek--], and as of one writing at leisure the dictation of his master.(1) Justin himself speaks of the authors of the Memoirs as [--Greek--],(2) and the expression was then and afterwards constantly in use amongst ecclesiastical and other writers.(3)
This t.i.tle, "Memoirs of the Apostles," however, although most appropriate to mere recollections of the life and teaching of Jesus, evidently could not be applied to works ranking as canonical Gospels, but in fact excludes such an idea; and the whole of Justin"s views regarding Holy Scripture, prove that he saw in the Memoirs merely records from memory to a.s.sist memory.(4) He does not call them [--Greek--], but adheres always to the familiar name of [--Greek--], and whilst his constant appeals to a written source show very clearly his abandonment of oral tradition, there is nothing in the name of his records which can identify them with our Gospels.
Justin designates the source of his quotations ten times, the "Memoirs of the Apostles,"(5) and five times he calls it simply the "Memoirs."(6) He says, upon one occasion, that these Memoirs were composed "by his Apostles and their followers,"(7) but except in one place,
{291}
to which we have already referred, and which we shall hereafter fully examine, he never mentions the author"s name, nor does he ever give any more precise information regarding their composition. It has been argued that, in saying that these Memoirs were recorded by the Apostles and their followers, Justin intentionally and literally described the four canonical Gospels, the first and fourth of which are ascribed to Apostles, and the other two to Mark and Luke, the followers of Apostles;(1) but such an inference is equally forced and unfounded.
The language itself forbids this explanation, for Justin does not speak indefinitely of Memoirs of Apostles and their followers, but of Memoirs of the Apostles, invariably using the article, which refers the Memoirs to the collective body of the Apostles.(2) Moreover, the incorrectness of such an inference is manifest from the fact that circ.u.mstances are stated by Justin as derived from these Memoirs, which do not exist in our Gospels at all, and which, indeed, are contradictory to them. Vast numbers of spurious writings, moreover, bearing the names of Apostles and their followers, and claiming more or less direct apostolic authority, were in circulation in the early Church: Gospels according to Peter,(3) to Thomas,(4) to James,(5) to Judas,(6) according to the
{292}
Apostles, or according to the Twelve,(1) to Barnabas,(2) to Matthias,(3) to Nicodemus,(4) &c., and ecclesiastical writers bear abundant testimony to the early and rapid growth of apocryphal literature.(5) The very names of most of such apocryphal Gospels are lost, whilst of others we possess considerable information; but nothing is more certain than the fact, that there existed many works bearing names which render the attempt to interpret the t.i.tle of Justin"s Gospel as a description of the four in our canon quite unwarrantable. The words of Justin evidently imply simply that the source of his quotations is the collective recollections of the Apostles, and those who followed them, regarding the life and teaching of Jesus.
The t.i.tle: "Memoirs of the Apostles" by no means indicates a plurality of Gospels.(6) A single pa.s.sage has been pointed out, in which the Memoirs are said to have been called [--Greek--] in the plural: "For the Apostles in the Memoirs composed by them, which are called
{293}
Gospels,"(1) &c. The last expression, a [--Greek--], as many scholars have declared, is probably an interpolation. It is, in all likelihood, a gloss on the margin of some old MS. which some copyist afterwards inserted in the text.(2) If Justin really stated that the Memoirs were called Gospels, it seems incomprehensible that he should never call them so himself. In no other place in his writings does he apply the plural to them, but, on the contrary, we find Trypho referring to the "so-called Gospel," which he states that he has carefully read,(3) and which, of course, can only be Justin"s "Memoirs;" and again, in another part of the same dialogue, Justin quotes pa.s.sages which are written "in the Gospel"(4) [--Greek--]. The term "Gospel" is nowhere else used by Justin in reference to a written record.(5) In no case, however, considering the numerous Gospels then in circulation, and the fact that many of these, different from the canonical Gospels, are known to have been exclusively used by distinguished contemporaries of Justin, and by various communities of Christians in that day, could such an expression be taken as a special indication of the canonical Gospels.(6)
{294}
Describing the religious practices amongst Christians, in another place, Justin states that, at their a.s.semblies on Sundays, "the Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits."(1( This, however, by no means identifies the Memoirs with the canonical Gospels, for it is well known that many writings which have been excluded from the canon were publicly read in the Churches, until very long after Justin"s day.(2) We have already met with several instances of this. Eusebius mentions that the Epistle of the Roman Clement was publicly read in Churches in his time,(3) and he quotes an Epistle of Dionysius of Corinth to Soter, the Bishop of Rome, which states that fact for the purpose of "showing that it was the custom to read it in the Churches, even from the earliest times."(4) Dionysius likewise mentions the public reading of the Epistle of Soter to the Corinthians. Epiphanius refers to the reading in the Churches of the Epistle of Clement,(5) and it continued to be so read in Jerome"s day.(6) In like manner, the "Pastor" of Hermas,(7) the "Apocalypse of Peter,"(8) and other works excluded from the canon were publicly read in the Church in early days.(9) It is certain that Gospels which
{295}
did not permanently secure a place in the canon, such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to Peter, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and many kindred Gospels, which in early times were exclusively used by various communities,(1) must have been read at their public a.s.semblies. The public reading of Justin"s Memoirs, therefore, does not prove anything, for this practice was by no means limited to the works now in our canon.
The idea of attributing inspiration to the Memoirs, or to any other work of the Apostles, with the single exception, as we shall presently see, of the Apocalypse of John,(2) which, as prophecy, entered within his limits, was quite foreign to Justin, who recognized the Old Testament alone as the inspired word of G.o.d.(3) Indeed, as we
{296}
have already said, the very name "Memoirs" in itself excludes the thought of inspiration,(1) which Justin attributed only to prophetic writings; and he could not in any way regard as inspired the written tradition of the Apostles and their followers, or a mere record of the words of Jesus. On the contrary, he held the accounts of the Apostles to be credible solely from their being authenticated by the Old Testament, and he clearly states that he believes the facts recorded in the Memoirs because the spirit of prophecy had already foretold them.(2) According to Justin, the Old Testament contained all that was necessary for salvation, and its prophecies are the sole criterion of truth, the Memoirs, and even Christ himself, being merely its interpreters.(3) He says that Christ commanded us not to put faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the holy prophets, and taught by himself.(4) Prophecy and the words of Christ himself are alone of dogmatic value, all else is human teaching.(5) Indeed, from a pa.s.sage quoted with approval by Irenaeus, Justin, in his lost work against Marcion, said: "I would not have believed the Lord himself, if he had proclaimed any other G.o.d than the Creator;" that is to say, the G.o.d of the Old Testament.(6)
{297}
That Justin does not mention the name of the author of the Memoirs would in any case render any argument as to their ident.i.ty with our canonical Gospels inconclusive; but the total omission to do so is the more remarkable from the circ.u.mstance that the names of Old Testament writers constantly occur in his writings. Semisch counts 197 quotations of the Old Testament, in which Justin refers to the author by name, or to the book, and only 117 in which he omits to do so,(1) and the latter number might be reduced by considering the nature of the pa.s.sages cited, and the inutility of repeating the reference.(2) When it is considered, therefore, that notwithstanding the extremely numerous quotations, and references to facts of Christian history, all purporting to be derived from the "Memoirs," he absolutely never, except in the one instance referred to, mentions an author"s name, or specifies more clearly the nature of the source, the inference must not only be that he attached small importance to the Memoirs, but also that he was actually ignorant of the author"s name, and that his Gospel had no more definite superscription. Upon the theory that the Memoirs of the Apostles were simply our
{298}
four canonical Gospels, the singularity of the omission is increased by the diversity of contents and of authors, and the consequently greater necessity and probability that he should, upon certain occasions, distinguish between them. The fact is that the only writing of the New Testament to which Justin refers by name is, as we have already mentioned, the Apocalypse, which he attributes to "a certain man whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation made to him," &c.(1) The manner in which John is here mentioned, after the Memoirs had been so constantly indefinitely referred to, clearly shows that Justin did not possess any Gospel also attributed to John. That he does name John, however, as author of the Apocalypse and so frequently refers to Old Testament writers by name, yet never identifies the author of the Memoirs, is quite irreconcilable with the idea that they were the canonical Gospels.(2)
It is perfectly clear, however, and this is a point of very great importance upon which critics of otherwise widely diverging views are agreed, that Justin quotes from a _written_ source, and that oral tradition is excluded from his system.(3) He not only does not, like Papias, attach value to tradition, but, on the contrary, he affirms that in the Memoirs is recorded "everything that concerns our "Saviour Jesus Christ.,,(4) He constantly refers to them
{299}
directly, as the source of his information regarding the history of Jesus, and distinctly states that he has derived his quotations from them. There is no reasonable ground whatever for affirming that Justin supplemented or modified the contents of the Memoirs by oral tradition.
It must, therefore, be remembered, in considering the nature of these Memoirs, that the facts of Christian history and the sayings of Jesus are derived from a determinate written source, and are quoted as Justin found them there.(1) Those who attempt to explain the divergences of Justin"s quotations from the canonical Gospels, which they still maintain to have been his Memoirs, on the plea of oral tradition, defend the ident.i.ty at the expense of the authority of the Gospels. For nothing could more forcibly show Justin"s disregard and disrespect for the Gospels, than would the fact that, possessing them, he not only never names their authors, but considers himself at liberty continually to contradict, modify, and revise their statements.
As we have already remarked, when we examine the contents of the Memoirs of the Apostles, through Justin"s numerous quotations, we find that many parts of the Gospel narratives are apparently quite unknown, whilst, on the other hand, we meet with facts of evangelical history, which are foreign to the canonical Gospels, and others which are contradictory of Gospel statements. Justin"s quotations, almost without exception, vary more or less from the parallels in the canonical text, and often these variations are consistently repeated by himself, and are found in other works about his time. Moreover, Justin quotes expressions of Jesus, which are not found in our Gospels at all. The omissions, though often very
{300}
singular, supposing the canonical Gospels before him, and almost inexplicable when it is considered how important they would often have been to his argument, need not, as merely negative evidence, be dwelt on here, but we shall briefly ill.u.s.trate the other peculiarities of Justin"s quotations.
The only genealogy of Jesus which is recognized by Justin is traced through the Virgin Mary. She it is who is descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and from the house of David, and Joseph is completely set aside.(1) Jesus "was born of a virgin of the lineage of Abraham and tribe of Judah and of David, Christ the Son of G.o.d."(2) "Jesus Christ the Son of G.o.d has been born without sin of a virgin sprung from the lineage of Abraham."(3) "For of the virgin of the seed of Jacob, who was the father of Judah, who, as we have shown, was the father of the Jews, by the power of G.o.d was he conceived; and Jesse was his forefather according to the prophecy, and he (Jesus) was the son of Jacob and Judah according to successive descent."(4) The genealogy of Jesus in the canonical Gospels, on the contrary, is traced solely through Joseph, who alone is stated to be of the lineage of David.(5) The genealogies of Matthew and Luke, though differing in several important points, at least agree in excluding Mary. That of the third Gospel commences with Joseph,
{301}
and that of the first ends with him: "And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."(1) The angel who warns Joseph not to put away his wife, addresses him as "Joseph, thou son of David,"(2) and the angel Gabriel, who, according to the third Gospel, announces to Mary the supernatural conception, is sent "to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David."(3) So persistent, however, is Justin in ignoring this Davidic descent through Joseph, that not only does he at least eleven times trace it through Mary, but his Gospel materially differs from the canonical, where the descent of Joseph from David is mentioned by the latter. In the third Gospel, Joseph goes to Judaea "unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David."(4) Justin, however, simply states that he went "to Bethlehem... for his descent was from the tribe of Judah, which inhabited that region."(5) There can be no doubt that Justin not only did not derive his genealogies from the canonical Gospels, but that on the contrary the Memoirs, from which he did learn the Davidic descent through Mary only, differed persistently and materially from them.(6)
Many traces still exist to show that the view of Justin"s Memoirs of the Apostles of the Davidic descent of Jesus through Mary instead of through Joseph, as the canonical Gospels represent it, was anciently held in the Church. Apocryphal Gospels of early date, based without doubt upon more ancient evangelical works, are still extant, in which the genealogy of Jesus is traced, as in