{302}
Justin"s Memoirs, through Mary. One of these is the Gospel of James, commonly called the _Protevangelium_, a work referred to by ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth centuries,(1) and which Tischendorf even ascribes to the first three decades of the second century,(2) in which Mary is stated to be of the lineage of David.(3) She is also described as of the royal race and family of David in the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary,(4) and in the Gospel of pseudo-Matthew her Davidic descent is prominently mentioned.(5) There can be no doubt that all of these works are based upon earlier originals,(6) and there is no reason why they may not have been drawn from the same source from which Justin derived his version of the genealogy in contradiction to the Synoptics.(7)
In the narrative of the events which preceded the
{303}
birth of Jesus, the first Gospel describes the angel as appearing only to Joseph and explaining the supernatural conception,(1) and the author seems to know nothing of any announcement to Mary.(2) The third Gospel, on the contrary, does not mention any such angelic appearance to Joseph, but represents the angel as announcing the conception to Mary herself alone.(3) Justin"s Memoirs know of the appearances both to Joseph and to Mary, but the words spoken by the angel on each occasion differ materially from those of both Gospels.(4) In this place, only one point, however, can be noticed. Justin describes the angel as saying to Mary: ""Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins," as they taught who recorded everything that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ."(5) Now this is a clear and direct quotation, but besides distinctly differing in form from our Gospels, it presents the important peculiarity that the words, "for he shall save his people from
{304}
their sins," are not, in Luke, addressed to Mary at all, but that they occur in the first Gospel in the address of the angel to Joseph.(1)
These words, however, are not accidentally inserted in this place, for we find that they are joined in the same manner to the address of the angel to Mary in the Protevangelium of James: "For the power of the Lord will overshadow thee; wherefore also that holy thing which is born of thee shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins."(2) Tischendorf states his own opinion that this pa.s.sage is a recollection of the Protevangelium unconsciously added by Justin to the account in Luke,(3) but the arbitrary nature of the limitation "unconsciously"
(ohne da.s.s er sich dessen bewusst war) here is evident. There is a point in connection with this which merits a moment"s attention. In the text of the Protevangelium, edited by Tischendorf, the angel commences his address to Mary by saying: "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour before the Lord, and thou shalt conceive of his Word" [--Greek--].(4) Now Justin,
after quoting the pa.s.sage above, continues to argue that the Spirit and the power of G.o.d must not be misunderstood to mean anything else than the Word, who is also the first born of G.o.d as the prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the Virgin and overshadowed her, caused
{305}
her to conceive.(1) The occurrence of the singular expression in the Protovangelium and the similar explanation of Justin immediately accompanying a variation from our Gospels, which is equally shared by the apocryphal work, strengthens the suspicion of a similarity of origin. Justin"s divergences from the Protevangelium prevent our supposing that, in its present state, it could have been the actual source of his quotations, but the wide differences which exist between the extant MSS. of the Protevangelium show that even the most ancient does not present it in its original form. It is much more probable that Justin had before him a still older work, to which both the Protevangelium and the third Gospel were indebted.(2)
Justin"s account of the removal of Joseph to Bethlehem is peculiar, and evidently is derived from a distinct un-canonical source. It may be well to present his account and that of Luke side by side:
{306}
Attention has already been drawn to the systematic manner in which the Davidic descent of Jesus is traced by Justin through Mary, and to the suppression in this pa.s.sage of all that might seem to indicate a claim of descent through Joseph. As the continuation of a peculiar representation of the history of the infancy of Jesus, differing materially from that of the Synoptics, it is impossible to regard this, with its remarkable variations, as an arbitrary correction by Justin of the canonical text, and we must hold it to be derived from a different source, perhaps, indeed, one of those from which Luke"s Gospel itself first drew the elements of the narrative, and this persuasion increases as further variations in the earlier history, presently to be considered, are taken into account. It is not necessary to enter into the question of the correctness of the date of this census, but it is evident that Justin"s Memoirs clearly and deliberately modify the canonical narrative. The limitation of the census to Judaea, instead of extending it to the whole Roman Empire; the designation of Cyrenius as [--Greek--] of Judaea instead of [--Greek--] of Syria; and the careful suppression of the Davidic element in connection with Joseph indicate a peculiar written source different from the Synoptics.(1)
Had Justin departed from the account in Luke with the view of correcting inaccurate statements, the matter might have seemed more consistent with the use of the third Gospel, although at the same time it might have evinced but little reverence for it as a canonical
{307}
work. On the contrary, however, the statements of Justin are still more inconsistent with history than those in Luke, inasmuch as, so far from being the first procurator of Judsea, as Justin"s narrative states in opposition to the third Gospel, Cyrenius never held that office, but was really, later, the imperial proconsul over Syria, and as such, when Judaea became a Roman province after the banishment of Archelaus, had the power to enrol the inhabitants, and inst.i.tuted Coponius as first Procurator of Judaea. Justin"s statement involves the position that at one and the same time Herod was the King, and Cyrenius the Roman Procurator of Judsea.(1) In the same spirit, and departing from the usual narrative of the Synoptics, which couples the birth of Jesus with "the days of Herod the King," Justin in another place states that Christ was born "under Cyrenius."(2) Justin evidently adopts without criticism a narrative which he found in his Memoirs, and does not merely correct and remodel a pa.s.sage of the third Gospel, but, on the contrary, seems altogether ignorant of it.(3)
The genealogies of Jesus in the first and third Gospels differ irreconcileably from each other. Justin differs from both. In this pa.s.sage another discrepancy arises. While Luke seems to represent Nazareth as the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary, and Bethlehem as the city to which they went solely on account of the census,(4)
{308}
Matthew, who seems to know nothing of the census, makes Bethlehem, on the contrary, the place of residence of Joseph,(1) and on coming back from Egypt, with the evident intention of returning to Bethlehem, Joseph is warned by a dream to turn aside into Galilee, and he goes and dwells, apparently for the first time, "in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets: He shall be called a Nazarene."(2) Justin, however, goes still further than the third Gospel in his departure from the data of Matthew, and where Luke merely infers, Justin distinctly a.s.serts Nazareth to have been the dwelling-place of Joseph [--Greek--], and Bethlehem, in contradistinction, the place from which he derived his origin [--Greek--].3
The same view is to be found in several apocryphal Gospels still extant.
In the Protevangelium of James again, we find Joseph journeying to Bethlehem with Mary before the birth of Jesus.(4) The census here is ordered by Augustus, who commands: "That all who were in Bethlehem _of Judeae_, should be enrolled."(5) a limitation worthy of notice in comparison with that of Justin. In like manner the Gospel of the Nativity. This Gospel represents the parents of Mary as living in Nazareth, in
{309}
which place she was born,(1) and it is here that the Angel Gabriel announces to her the supernatural conception.(2) Joseph goes to Bethlehem to set his house in order and prepare what is necessary for the marriage, but then returns to Nazareth, where he remains with Mary until her time was nearly accomplished,(3) "when Joseph having taken his wife with whatever else was necessary went to the city of Bethlehem, whence he was."(4) The phrase "_unde ipse erat_" recalls the [--Greek--]
of Justin.(6) As we continue the narrative of the birth and infancy of Jesus, we meet with further variations from the account in the canonical Gospels for which the preceding have prepared us, and which indicate that Justin"s Memorials certainly differed from them:
{310}
At least it is clear that these particulars of the birth of Jesus,--not taking place in Bethlehem itself but in a cave [--Greek--] near the village, because Joseph could not find a lodging there,--are not derived from our Gospels, and here even Scmisch(1) is forced to abandon his theory that Justin"s variations arise merely from imperfectly quoting from memory, and to conjecture that he must have adopted tradition.
It has, however, been shown that Justin himself distinctly excludes tradition, and in this case, moreover, there are many special reasons for believing that he quotes from a written source. Ewald rightly points out that here, and in other pa.s.sages where, in common with ancient ecclesiastical writers, Justin departs from our Gospels, the variation can in no way be referred to oral tradition;(2) and, moreover, that when Justin proves(3) from Isaiah x.x.xiii. 16, that Christ _must_ be born in a cave, he thereby shows how certainly he found the fact of the cave in his written Gospel.(4) The whole argument of Justin excludes the idea that he could avail himself of mere tradition. He maintains that everything which the prophets had foretold of Christ had actually been fulfilled, and he perpetually refers to the Memoirs and other written doc.u.ments for the verification of his a.s.sertions. He either refers to the prophets for the confirmation of the Memoirs, or shows in the
{311}
Memoirs the narrative of facts which are the accomplishment of prophecies, but in both cases it is manifest that there must have been a record of the facts which he mentions. There can be no doubt that the circ.u.mstances we have just quoted, and which are not found in the canonical Gospels, must have been narrated in Justin"s Memoirs.
We find, again, the same variations as in Justin in several extant apocryphal Gospels. The Protevangelium of James represents the birth of Jesus as taking place in a cave;(1) so also the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy,(2) and several others.(3) This uncanonical detail is also mentioned by several of the Fathers, Origen and Eusebius both stating that the cave and the manger were still shown in their day.(4) Teschendorf does not hesitate to affirm that Justin derived this circ.u.mstance from the Protevangelium.(5) Justin, however, does not distinguish such a source; and the mere fact that we have a form of that Gospel, in which it occurs, still extant, by no means justifies such a specific conclusion, when so many other works, now lost, may equally have contained
{312}
it. If the fact be derived from the Protevangelium, that work, or whatever other apocryphal Gospel may have supplied it, must be admitted to have at least formed part of the Memoirs of the Apostles, and with that necessary admission ends all special identification of the Memoirs with our canonical Gospels. Much more probably, however, Justin quotes from the more ancient source from which the Protevangelium and, perhaps, Luke drew their narrative.(1) There can be very little doubt that the Gospel according to the Hebrews contained an account of the birth in Bethlehem, and as it is, at least, certain that Justin quotes other particulars known to have been in it, there is fair reason to suppose that he likewise found this fact in that work.(2) In any case it is indisputable that he derived it from a source different from our canonical Gospels.(3)
Justin does not apparently know anything of the episode of the shepherds of the plain, and the angelic appearance to them, narrated in the third Gospel.(4)
To the cave in which the infant Jesus is born came the Magi, but instead of employing the phrase used by the first Gospel, "Magi from the East,"(5) [--Greek--] Justin always describes them as "Magi from Arabia,"
[--Greek--]. Justin is so punctilious that he
{313}
never speaks of these Magi without adding "from Arabia," except twice, where, however, he immediately mentions Arabia as the point of the argument for which they are introduced; and in the same chapter in which this occurs he four times calls them directly Magi from Arabia.(1) He uses this expression not less than nine times.(2) That he had no objection to the term "the East," and that with a different context it was common to his vocabulary, is proved by his use of it elsewhere.(3) It is impossible to resist the conviction that Justin"s Memoirs contained the phrase "Magi from Arabia," which is foreign to our Gospels.(4)
Again, according to Justin, the Magi see the star "in heaven"
[--Greek--],(5) and not "in the East" [--Greek--] as the first Gospel has it:(6) "When a star rose in heaven [--Greek--] at the time of his birth as is recorded in the Memoirs of the Apostle."(7) He apparently knows nothing of the star guiding them to the place where the young child was.(8) Herod, moreover, questions the elders [--Greek--](9) as to the place where the Christ should be born, and not the "chief priests and scribes of the people" [--Greek--].(10) These divergences, taken in connection with those which are interwoven with the whole narrative of the birth, can only proceed from the fact that Justin quotes from a source different from ours.(11)
Justin relates that when Jesus came to Jordan he was
{314}
believed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and he appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures announced; "and being considered a carpenter,--for, when he was amongst men, he made carpenter"s works, ploughs and yokes [--Greek--]; by these both teaching the symbols of righteousness and an active life."(1) These details are foreign to the canonical Gospels. Mark has the expression: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary? "(2) but Luke omits it altogether.(3) The idea that the Son of G.o.d should do carpenter"s work on earth was very displeasing to many Christians, and attempts to get rid of the obnoxious phrase are evident in Mark. Apparently the copy which Origen used had omitted even the modified phrase, for he declares that Jesus himself is nowhere called a carpenter in the Gospels current in the Church.(4) A few MSS. still extant are without it, although it is found in all the more ancient Codices.
Traces of these details are found in several apocryphal works, especially in the Gospel of Thomas, where it is said: "Now his father was a carpenter and made at that time ploughs and yokes" [--Greek--](5), an account which, from the similarity of language, was in all
{315}
probability derived from the same source as that of Justin. The explanation which Justin adds: "by which he taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life," seems to indicate that he refers to a written narrative containing the detail, already, perhaps, falling into sufficient disfavour to require the aid of symbolical interpretation.
In the narrative of the baptism there are many peculiarities which prove that Justin did not derive it from our Gospels. Thrice he speaks of John sitting by the river Jordan: "He cried as he sat by the river Jordan;"(1( "While he still sat by the river Jordan;"(2) and "For when John sat by the Jordan."(3) This peculiar expression so frequently repeated must have been derived from a written Gospel.(4) Then Justin, in proving that Jesus predicted his second coming and the re-appearance of Elijah, states: "And therefore our Lord in his teaching announced that this should take place, saying Elias also should come" [--Greek--].
A little lower down he again expressly quotes the words of Jesus: "For which reason our Christ declared on earth to those who a.s.serted that Elias must come before Christ: Elias, indeed, shall come," &c.
[--Greek--].(5)
Matthew, however, reads: "Elias indeed cometh," [--Greek--].(6) Now there is no version in which [--Greek--] is subst.i.tuted for [--Greek--] as Justin does, but, as Credner has pointed out,(7) the whole weight of Justin"s argument lies in the use of the future tense. As there are so many other variations
{316}
in Justin"s context, this likewise appears to be derived from a source different from our Gospels.(1)
When Jesus goes to be baptized by John many-striking peculiarities occur in Justin"s narrative: "As Jesus went down to the water, a fire also was kindled in the Jordan; and when he came up from the water, the Holy Spirit like a dove fell upon him, as the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote... and at the same time a voice came from the heavens... Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee."(2)