The incident of the fire in Jordan is of course quite foreign to our Gospels, and further the words spoken by the heavenly voice differ from those reported by them, for instead of the pa.s.sage from Psalm ii. 7, the Gospels have: "Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased."(3) Justin repeats his version a second time in the same chapter, and again elsewhere he says regarding the temptation: "For this devil also at the time when he (Jesus) went up from the river Jordan, when the voice declared to him: "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee," it is written in the Memoirs of the Apostles, came to him and tempted him,"
&c.(4)
In both of these pa.s.sages, it will be perceived that Justin directly refers to the Memoirs of the Apostles as the source of his statements.
Some have argued that
{317}
Justin only appeals to them for the fact of the descent of the Holy Ghost, and not for the rest of the narrative.(1) It has of course been felt that, if it can be shown that Justin quotes from the Memoirs words and circ.u.mstances which are not to be found in our canonical Gospels, the ident.i.ty of the two can no longer be maintained. It is, however, in the highest degree arbitrary to affirm that Justin intends to limit his appeal to the testimony of the apostles to one-half of his sentence.
To quote authority for one a.s.sertion and to leave another in the same sentence, closely connected with it and part indeed of the very same narrative, not only unsupported, but indeed weakened by direct exclusion, would indeed be singular, for Justin affirms with equal directness and confidence the fact of the fire in Jordan, the descent of the Holy Ghost, and the words spoken by the heavenly voice. If in the strictest grammatical accuracy there may be no absolute necessity to include in that which the Apostles wrote more than the phrase immediately preceding, there is not, on the other hand, anything which requires or warrants the exclusion of the former part of the sentence.
The matter must therefore be decided according to fair inference and reasonable probability, and not to suit any foregone conclusion, and these as well as all the evidence concerning Justin"s use of the Memoirs irresistibly point to the conclusion that the whole pa.s.sage is derived from one source. In the second extract given above, it is perfectly clear that the words spoken by the heavenly voice, which Justin again quotes, and which are not in our Gospels, were recorded in the Memoirs, for Justin could
{318}
not have referred to them for an account of the temptation at the time when Jesus went up from Jordan and the voice said to him: "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee," if these facts and words were not recorded in them at all.(1) It is impossible to doubt, after impartial consideration, that the incident of the fire in Jordan, the words spoken by the voice from heaven, and the temptation were taken from the same source: they must collectively be referred to the Memoirs.(2)
Of one thing we may be sure: had Justin known the form of words used by the voice from heaven according to our Gospels, he would certainly have made use of it in preference to that which he actually found in his Memoirs. He is arguing that Christ is preexisting G.o.d, become incarnate by G.o.d"s will through the Virgin Mary, and Trypho demands how he can be demonstrated to have been pre-existent, who is said to be filled with the power of the Holy Ghost, as though he had required this, Justin replies that these powers of the Spirit have come upon him not because he had need of them, but because they would accomplish Scripture, which declared that after him there should be no prophet.(3) The proof of this, he continues, is that, as soon as the child was born, the Magi from Arabia came to worship him, because even at his birth he was in possession of his power,(4) and after he had grown up like other men by the use of suitable means, he came to
{319}
the river Jordan where John was baptizing, and as he went into the water a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and the Holy Ghost descended like a dove. He did not go to the river because he had any need of baptism or of the descent of the Spirit, but because of the human race which had fallen under the power of death. Now if, instead of the pa.s.sage actually cited, Justin could have quoted the words addressed to Jesus by the voice from heaven according to the Gospels: "Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased," his argument would have been greatly strengthened by such direct recognition of an already existing, and, as he affirmed, pre-existent divinity in Jesus. Not having these words in his Memoirs of the Apostles, however, he was obliged to be content with those which he found there: "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee;"--words which, in fact, in themselves destroyed the argument for pre-existence, and dated the divine begetting of Jesus as the son of G.o.d that very day. The pa.s.sage, indeed, supported those who actually a.s.serted that the Holy Ghost first entered into Jesus at his baptism.
These considerations, and the repeated quotation of the same words in the same form, make it clear that Justin quotes from a source different from our Gospel.(1)
In the scanty fragments of the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" which have been preserved, we find both the incident of the fire kindled in Jordan and the words
{320}
of the heavenly voice as quoted by Justin. "And as he went up from the water, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit of G.o.d in the form of a dove which came down and entered into him. And a voice came from heaven saying: "Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased;" and again: "This day have I begotten thee." And immediately a great light shone round about the place."(1) Epiphanius extracts this pa.s.sage from the version in use amongst the Ebionites, but it is well known that there were many other varying forms of the same Gospel; and Hilgenfeld,(2) with all probability, conjectures that the version known to Epiphanius was no longer in the same purity as that used by Justin, but represents the transition stage to the Canonical Gospels,--adopting the words of the voice which they give without yet discarding the older form. Jerome gives another form of the words from the version in use amongst the Nazarenes: "Factum est autem c.u.m ascendisset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti et requievit super eum, et dixit illi: Fili mi, in omnibus Prophetis expectabam te ut venires et requiescerem in te, tu es enim requies mea, tu es filius meus primo-genitus qui regnas in sempiternum."(3) This supports Justin"s reading. Regarding the Gospel according to the Hebrews more must be said hereafter, but when it is remembered that Justin, a native of Samaria, probably first knew Christianity through believers in Syria to whose Jewish view of Christianity he all his
{321}
life adhered, and that these Christians almost exclusively used this Gospel(1) under various forms and names, it is reasonable to suppose that he also like them knew and made use of it, a supposition increased almost to certainty when it is found that Justin quotes words and facts foreign to the Canonical Gospels which are known to have been contained in it. The argument of Justin that Jesus did not need baptism may also be compared to another pa.s.sage of the Gospel according to the Hebrews preserved by Jerome, and which preceded the circ.u.mstances narrated above, in which the mother and brethren of Jesus say to him that John the Baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins, and propose that they should go to be baptized by him. Jesus replies, "In what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him?"(2) The most competent critics agree that Justin derived the incidents of the fire in Jordan and the words spoken by the heavenly voice from the Gospel according to the Hebrews or some kindred work,(3) and there is every probability that the numerous other quotations in his works differing from our Gospels are taken from the same source.
The incident of the fire in Jordan likewise occurs in the ancient work "Praedicatio Pauli,"(4) coupled with a
{322}
context which forcibly recalls the pa.s.sage of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which has just been quoted, and apparent allusions to it are found in the Sibylline Books and early Christian literature.(1) Credner has pointed out that the marked use which was made of fire or lights at Baptism by the Church, during early times, probably rose out of this tradition regarding the fire which appeared in Jordan at the baptism of Jesus.(2) The peculiar form of words used by the heavenly voice according to Justin and to the Gospel according to the Hebrews was also known to several of the Fathers.(3) Augustine mentions that some MSS. in his time contained that reading in Luke iii. 22, although without the confirmation of more ancient Greek codices.(4) It is still extant in the Codex Bezae (D). The Itala version adds to Matthew iii. 15: "and when he was baptized a great light shone round from the water, so that all who had come were afraid" (et c.u.m baptizaretur, lumen ingens circ.u.mfulsit de aqua, ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant); and again at Luke iii. 22 it gives the words of the voice in a form agreeing at least in sense with those which Justin found in his Memoirs of the Apostles.
{323}
These circ.u.mstances point with certainty to an earlier original corresponding with Justin, in all probability the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and to the subsequent gradual elimination of the pa.s.sage from the Gospels finally adopted by the Church for dogmatic reasons, as various sects based on the words doctrines which were at variance with the ever-enlarging belief of the majority.(1)
Then Justin states that the men of his time a.s.serted that the miracles of Jesus were performed by magical art [--Greek--], "for they ventured to call him a magician and deceiver of the people."(2) This cannot be accepted as a mere version of the charge that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub, but must have been found by Justin in his Memoirs.(3) In the Gospel of Nicodemus or Acta Pilati, the Jews accuse Jesus before Pilate of being a magician,(4) coupled with the a.s.sertion that he casts out demons through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and again they simply say: "Did we not tell thee that he is a magician?"(5) We shall presently see that Justin actually refers to certain acts of Pontius Pilate in justification of other a.s.sertions regarding the trial of Jesus.(6) In the Clementine Recognitions, moreover, the same charge is made by one of the Scribes, who says that Jesus did not perform his miracles as a prophet, but as a magician.(7)
{324}
Oelsus makes a similar charge,(1) and Lactantius refers to such an opinion as prevalent among the Jews at the time of Jesus,(2) which we find confirmed by many pa.s.sages in Talmudic literature.(3) There was indeed a book called "Magia Jesu Christi," of which Jesus himself, it was pretended, was the author.(4)
In speaking of the trial of Jesus, Justin says: "For also as the prophet saith, they reviled him and set him on the judgment seat and said: Judge for us,"(5) a peculiarity which is not found in the Canonical Gospels.
Justin had just quoted the words of Isaiah (lxv. 2, lviii. 2)... "They now ask of me judgment and dare to draw nigh to G.o.d," and then he cites Psalm xxii. 16, 22: "They pierced my hands and my feet, and upon my vesture they cast lots." He says that this did not happen to David, but was fulfilled in Christ, and the expression regarding the piercing the hands and feet referred to the nails of the cross which were driven through his hands and feet. And after he was crucified they cast lots upon his vesture. "And that these things occurred," he continues, "you may learn from the Acts drawn up under Pontius Pilate."(6) He likewise upon another occasion refers to the same Acta for confirmation of statements.(7) The Gospel of Nicodemus or Gesta
{325}
Pilati, now extant, does not contain the circ.u.mstance to which we are now referring, but in contradiction to the statement in the fourth Gospel (xviii. 28, 29) the Jews in this apocryphal work freely go into the very judgment seat of Pilate.(1) Teschendorf maintains that the first part of the Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acta Pilati, still extant, is the work, with more or less of interpolation, which, existing in the second century, is referred to by Justin.(2) A few reasons may here be given against such a conclusion. The fact of Jesus being set upon the judgment seat is not contained in the extant Acta Pilati at all, and therefore this work does not correspond with Justin"s statement. It seems most unreasonable to suppose that Justin should seriously refer Roman Emperors to a work of this description, so manifestly composed by a Christian, and the Acta to which he directs them must have been a presumed official doc.u.ment, to which they had access, as of course no other evidence could be of any weight with them.(3) The extant work neither pretends to be, nor has in the slightest degree the form of, an official report. Moreover, the prologue attached to it distinctly states that Ananias, a provincial warden in the reign of Flavius Theodosius (towards the middle of the fifth century), found these Acts written in Hebrew by Nicodemus, and that he translated them into Greek.(4) The work itself, therefore, only pretends to be a private composition in Hebrew, and does not claim any relation to Pontius Pilate. The Greek is very corrupt and
{326}
degraded, and considerations of style alone would a.s.sign it to the fifth century, as would still more imperatively the anachronisms with which it abounds.1 Tischendorf considers that Tertullian refers to the same work as Justin, but it is evident that he infers an official report, for he says distinctly, after narrating the circ.u.mstances of the crucifixion and resurrection: "All these facts regarding Christ, Pilate.... reported to the reigning Emperor Tiberius."(3) It is extremely probable that in saying this Tertullian merely extended the statement of Justin. He nowhere states that he himself had seen this report, nor does Justin, and as is the case with the latter, some of the facts which Tertullian supposes to be reported by Pilate are not contained in the apocryphal work.(3) There are still extant some apocryphal writings in the form of official reports made by Pilate of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus,(4) but none are of very ancient date. It is certain that, on the supposition that Pilate may have made an official report of events so important in their estimation, Christian writers; with greater zeal than conscience, composed fict.i.tious reports in his name, in the supposed interest of their religion, and there was in that day little or no critical sense to detect and discredit such forgeries.
There is absolutely no evidence to show that Justin was acquainted with any official report of Pilate to the Roman Emperor, nor indeed is it easy to understand how he could possibly have been, even if such a doc.u.ment existed, and it is most probable, as
{327}
Scholten conjectures, that Justin merely referred to doc.u.ments which tradition supposed to have been written, but of which he himself had no personal knowledge.(1) Be this as it may, as he considered the incident of the judgment seat a fulfilment of prophecy, there can be little or no doubt that it was narrated in the Memoirs which contained "everything relating to Jesus Christ," and finding it there he all the more naturally a.s.sumed that it must have been mentioned in any official report.
In narrating the agony in the Garden, there are further variations.
Justin says: "And the pa.s.sage: "All my bones are poured out and dispersed like water; my heart has become like wax melting in the midst of my belly," was a prediction of that which occurred to him that night when they came out against him to the Mount of Olives to seize him. For in the Memoirs composed, I say, by his Apostles and their followers, it is recorded that his sweat fell down like drops while he prayed, saying: "If possible, let this cup pa.s.s.""(2) It will be observed that this is a direct quotation from the Memoirs, but there is a material difference from our Gospels. Luke is the only Gospel which mentions the b.l.o.o.d.y sweat, and there the account reads (xxii. 44), "as it were drops of blood falling down to the ground."
[--Greek--]
[--Greek--]
In addition to the other linguistic differences Justin omits the emphatic [--Greek--] which gives the whole point to Luke"s account, and which evidently could not have been in the text of the Memoirs. Semisch argues that [--Greek--] alone, especially in medical phraseology, meant
{328}
"drops of blood," without the addition of [--Greek--];(l) but the author of the third Gospel did not think so, and undeniably makes use of both, and Justin does not. Moreover, Luke introduces the expression [--Greek--] to show the intensity of the agony, whereas Justin evidently did not mean to express "drops of blood" at all, his intention in referring to the sweat being to show that the prophecy: "All my bones are poured out, &c, like water," had been fulfilled, with which the reading in his Memoirs more closely corresponded. The prayer also so directly quoted decidedly varies from Luke xxii. 42, which reads: "Father, if thou be willing to remove this cup from me ":
[--Greek--]
[--Greek--]
In Matthew xxvi. 39 this part of the prayer is more like the reading of Justin: "Father, if it be possible let this cup pa.s.s from me "--[--Greek--]
but that Gospel has nothing of the sweat of agony, which excludes it from consideration. In another place Justin also quotes the prayer in the Garden as follows: "He prayed, saying: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pa.s.s from me;" and besides this, praying, he said: "Not as I wish, but as thou willest.""(2) The first phrase in this place, apart from some transposition of words, agrees with Matthew; but even if this reading be preferred of the two, the absence of the incident of the sweat of agony from the first Gospel renders it impossible to regard it as the source; and, further, the second part of the prayer which is here
{329}
given differs materially both from the first and third Gospels.
[--Greek--]
The two parts of this prayer, moreover, seem to have been separate in the Memoirs, for not only does Justin not quote the latter portion at all in Dial. 103, but here he markedly divides it from the former.
Justin knows nothing of the episode of the Angel who strengthens Jesus, which is related in Luke xxii. 43. There is, however, a still more important point to mention: that although verses 43, 44 with the incidents of the angel and the b.l.o.o.d.y sweat are certainly in a great number of MSS., they are omitted by some of the oldest Codices, as for instance by the Alexandrian and Vatican MSS.(1) It is evident that in this part Justin"s Memoirs differed from our first and third Gospels much in the same way that they do from each other.
In the same chapter Justin states that when the Jews went out to the Mount of Olives to take Jesus, "there was not even a single man to run to his help as a guiltless person."(2) This is in direct contradiction to all the Gospels,(3) and Justin not only completely ignores the episode of the ear of Malchus, but in this pa.s.sage
1 In the Sinaitic Codex they are marked for omission by a later hand. Lachmann brackets, and Drs. Westcott and Hort double-bracket them. The MS. evidence may bo found in detail in Scrivener"s Int. to Crit. N. T. 2nd ed. p. 521, stated in the way which is most favourable for the authenticity.
{330}