Again, still supposing the third Gospel no longer extant, we might find the following quotation in a work of the Fathers: "Take heed to yourselves [--Greek--] of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy [--Greek--].
For there is nothing covered up [--Greek--] which shall not be revealed, and hid which shall not be known." It would of course be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of our first Gospel quoted almost literally, with merely a few very immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory words "which is hypocrisy" introduced by the Father, and not a part of the quotation at all. The two verses are Matt. xvi. 6: "Beware and [--Greek--] take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" [--Greek--] and Matt. x. 26
.... "For [--Greek--] there is nothing covered [--Greek--] that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known." The sentence would in fact be divided as in the case of Justin, and each part would have its parallel pointed out in separate portions of the Gospel. How wrong such a system is--and it is precisely that which is adopted with regard to Justin--is clearly established by the fact that the quotation,
{361}
instead of being such a combination, is simply taken from the Gospel according to Luke xii. 1, 2, as it stands. To give one more example, and such might easily be multiplied, if our second Gospel had been lost, and the following pa.s.sage were met with in one of the Fathers without its source being indicated, what would be the argument of those who insist that Justin"s quotations, though differing from our Gospels, were yet taken from them? "If any one have [--Greek--] ears to hear let him hear.
And he said unto them: Take heed what [--Greek--] ye hear: with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you: and more shall be given unto you. For he [--Greek--] that hath to him shall be given, and he [--Greek--] that hath not from him shall be taken even that which he hath."
Upon the principle on which Justin"s quotations are treated, it would certainly be affirmed positively that this pa.s.sage was a quotation from our first and third Gospels combined and made from memory. The exigencies of the occasion might probably cause the a.s.sertion to be made that the words: "And he said to them," really indicated a separation of the latter part of the quotation from the preceding, and that the Father thus showed that the pa.s.sage was not consecutive; and as to the phrase: "and more shall be given unto you," that it was evidently an addition of the Father. The pa.s.sage would be dissected, and its different members compared with scattered sentences, and declared almost literal quotations from the Canonical Gospels: Matt. xiii. 0. He that hath [--Greek--] ears to hear let him hear."(l) Luke viii. 18, "Take heed therefore how [--Greek--] ye hear." Matt. vii. 2... "with what measure ye
{362}
mete it shall be measured to you."(1) Matt. xiii. 12: "For whosoever [--Greek--] hath, to him shall be given (and he shall have abundance); but whosoever [--Greek--] hath not from him shall be taken even that which he hath." a In spite of these ingenious a.s.sertions, however, the quotation in reality is literally and consecutively taken from Mark iv. 23--25.
These examples may suffice to show that any argument which commences by the a.s.sumption that the order of a pa.s.sage quoted may be entirely disregarded, and that it is sufficient to find parallels scattered irregularly up and down the Gospels to warrant the conclusion that the pa.s.sage is compiled from them, and is not a consecutive quotation from some other source, is utterly unfounded and untenable. The supposition of a lost Gospel which has just been made to ill.u.s.trate this argument is, however, not a mere supposition as applied to Justin but a fact, for we no longer have the Gospel according to Peter nor that according to the Hebrews, not to mention the numerous other works in use in the early Church. The instances we have given show the importance of the order as well as the language of Justin"s quotations, and while they prove the impossibility of demonstrating that a consecutive pa.s.sage which differs not only in language but in order from the parallels in our Gospels must be derived from them, they likewise prove the probability that such pa.s.sages are actually quoted from a different source.
If we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion. Supposing the third Gospel to be lost, what would be the source a.s.signed to the
{363}
following quotation from an unnamed Gospel in the work of one of the Fathers? "No servant [--Greek--] can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve G.o.d and Mammon." Of course the pa.s.sage would be claimed as a quotation from memory of Matt. vi. 24, with which it perfectly corresponds with the exception of the addition of the second word [--Greek--], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident and very natural amplification of the simple [--Greek--] of the first Gospel. Yet this pa.s.sage, only differing by the single word from Matthew, is a literal quotation from the Gospel according to Luke xvi.
13. Or, to take another instance, supposing the third Gospel to be lost, and the following pa.s.sage quoted, from an unnamed source, by one of the Fathers: "Beware [--Greek--] of the Scribes which desire to walk in long robes, and love [--Greek--] greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the synagogues and uppermost places at feasts; which devour widows(1) houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater d.a.m.nation." This would without hesitation be declared a quotation from memory of Mark xii..38-40 ".... Beware [--Greek--] of the Scribes which desire to walk in long robes and greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the synagogues and uppermost places at feasts: which devour widows" houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive," &c. It is however a literal quotation of Luke xx. 46, 47; yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic critics that possibly, not to say probably, the pa.s.sage was not derived from Mark but from a lost Gospel. To quote one more instance, let us
{364}
suppose the "Gospel according to Mark" no longer extant, and that in some early work there existed the following quotation: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye [--Greek--] of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of G.o.d." This would of course be claimed as a quotation from memory of Matt. xix. 24,(1) with which it agrees with the exception of the subst.i.tution of [--Greek--] for the [--Greek--]. It would not the less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25.(2)
We have repeatedly pointed out that the actual agreement of any saying of Jesus, quoted by one of the early Fathers from an unnamed source, with a pa.s.sage in our Gospels is by no means conclusive evidence that the quotation was actually derived from that Gospel. It must be apparent that literal agreement in reporting short and important sayings is not in itself so surprising as to const.i.tute proof that, occurring in two histories, the one must have copied from the other. The only thing which is surprising is that such frequent inaccuracy should occur. When we add, however, the fact that most of the larger early evangelical works, including our Synoptic Gospels, must have been compiled out of the same original sources, and have been largely indebted to each other, the common possession of such sayings becomes
{365}
a matter of natural occurrence. Moreover, it must be admitted even by apologetic critics that, in a case of such vast importance as the report of sayings of Jesus, upon the verbal accuracy of which the most essential doctrines of Christianity depend, it cannot be considered strange if various Gospels report the same saying in the same words.
Practically, the Synoptic Gospels differ in their reports a great deal more than is right or desirable; but we may take them as an ill.u.s.tration of the fact, that ident.i.ty of pa.s.sages, where the source is unnamed, by no means proves that such pa.s.sages in a work of the early Fathers were derived from one Gospel, and not from any other. Let us suppose our first Gospel to have been lost, and the following quotation from an unnamed source to be found in an early work: "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." This being in literal agreement with Luke iii. 9, would certainly be declared by modern apologists conclusive proof that the Father was acquainted with that Gospel, and although the context in the work of the Father might for instance be: "Ye shall know them from their works, and every tree,"
&c, &c, and yet in the third Gospel, the context is: "And now also, the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: and every tree," &c, that would by no means give them pause. The explanation of combination of texts, and quotation from memory, is sufficiently elastic for every emergency.
Now the words in question might in reality be a quotation from the lost Gospel according to Matthew, in which they twice occur, so that here is a pa.s.sage which is literally repeated three times, Matthew iii. 10, vii.
19, and Luke iii 9. In Matthew iii. 10, and in the third Gospel, the words are part of a saying of John the
{366}
Baptist; whilst in Matthew vii. 19, they are given as part of the Sermon on the Mount, with a different context, This pa.s.sage is actually quoted by Justin (k 8), with the context: "Ye shall know them from their works," which is different from that in any of the three places in which the words occur in our synoptics and, on the grounds we have clearly established, it cannot be considered in any case as necessarily a quotation from our Gospels, but, on the contrary, there are good reasons for the very opposite conclusion.
Another ill.u.s.tration of this may be given, by supposing the Gospel of Luke to be no longer extant, and the following sentence in one of the Fathers: "And ye shall be hated by all men, for my name"s sake." These very words occur both in Matthew x. 22, and Mark xiii. 13, in both of which places there follow the words: "but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." There might here have been a doubt, as to whether the Father derived the words from the first or second Gospel, but they would have been ascribed either to the one or to the other, whilst in reality they were taken from a different work altogether, Luke xxi. 17. Here again, we have the same words in three Gospels. In how many more may not the same pa.s.sage have been found? One more instance to conclude. The following pa.s.sage might be quoted from an unnamed source by one of the Fathers: "Heaven and earth shall pa.s.s away, but my words shall not pa.s.s away." If the Gospel according to Mark were no longer extant, this would be claimed as a quotation either from Matthew xxiv.
35, or Luke xxi. 33, in both of which it occurs, but, notwithstanding, the Father might not have been acquainted with either of them, and simply have quoted from Mark
{367}
xiii. 31.1 And here again, the three Gospels contain the same pa.s.sage without variation.
Now in all these cases, not only is the selection of the Gospel from which the quotation was actually taken completely an open question, since they all have it, but still more is the point uncertain, when it is considered that many other works may also have contained it, historical sayings being naturally common property. Does the agreement of the quotation with a pa.s.sage which is equally found in the three Gospels prove the existence of all of them? and if not, how is the Gospel from which it was actually taken to be distinguished? If it be difficult to do so, how much more when the possibility and probability, demonstrated by the agreement of the three extant, that it might have formed part of a dozen other works is taken into account In the case of Justin, it is simply absurd and unreasonable, in the face of his persistent variation from our Gospels, to a.s.sert positively that his quotations are derived from them.
It must have been apparent to all that, throughout his quotation from the "Sermon on the Mount," Justin follows an order which is quite different from that in our Synoptic Gospels, and as might have been expected, the inference of a different source, which is naturally suggested by this variation in order, is more than confirmed by persistent and continuous variation in language. If it be true, that examples of confusion of quotation are to be found in the works of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and other Fathers, it must at the same time be remembered, that these are quite exceptional, and we are
{368}
scarcely in a position to judge how far confusion of memory may not have arisen from reminiscences of other forms of evangelical expressions occurring in apocryphal works, with which we know the Fathers to have been well acquainted. The most vehement a.s.serter of the ident.i.ty of the Memoirs with our Gospels, however, must absolutely admit as a fact, explain it as he may, that variation from our Gospel readings is the general rule in Justin"s quotations, and agreement with them the very rare exception.1 Now, such a phenomenon is elsewhere unparalleled in those times, when memory was more cultivated than with us in these days of cheap printed books, and it is unreasonable to charge Justin with such universal want of memory and carelessness about matters which he held so sacred, merely to support a foregone conclusion, when the recognition of a difference of source, indicated in every direction, is so much more simple, natural, and justifiable. It is argued that Justin"s quotations from the Old Testament likewise present constant variation from the text. This is true to a considerable extent, but they are not so persistently inaccurate as the quotations we are examining, supposing them to be derived from our Gospels. This pica, however, is of no avail, for it is obvious that the employment of the Old Testament is not established merely by inaccurate citations; and it is quite undeniable that the use of certain historical doc.u.ments out of many of closely similar, and in many parts probably identical, character cannot be proved by anonymous quotations differing from anything actually in these doc.u.ments.
There are very many of the quotations of Justin which bear unmistakable marks of exactness and verbal
{369}
accuracy, but which yet differ materially from our Gospels, and most of his quotations from the Sermon on the Mount are of this kind. For instance, Justin introduces the pa.s.sages which we have marked a, b, c, with the words: "He (Jesus) spoke thus of Chast.i.ty,"(l) and after giving the quotations, a, b, and c, the first two of which, although finding a parallel in two consecutive verses, Matthew v. 28, 29, are divided by the separating [--Greek--], and therefore do not appear to have been united in his Gospel, Justin continues: "Just as even those who with the sanction of human law contract a second marriage are sinners in the eye of our Master, so also are those who look upon a woman to l.u.s.t after her. For not only he who actually commits adultery is rejected by him, but also he who desires to commit adultery, since not our acts alone are open before G.o.d, but also our thoughts."(2) Now it is perfectly clear that Justin here professes to give the actual words of Jesus, and then moralizes upon them; and both the quotation and his own subsequent paraphrase of it lose all their significance, if we suppose that Justin did not correctly quote in the first instance, but actually commences by altering the text.(3) These pa.s.sages a, b, and c, however, have all marked and characteristic variations from the Gospel text, but as we have already shown, there is no reason for a.s.serting that they are not accurate verbal quotations from another Gospel.
{370}
The pa.s.sage 8 is likewise a professed quotation,(1) but not only does it differ in language, but it presents deliberate transpositions in order which clearly indicate that Justin"s source was not our Gospels. The nearest parallels in our Gospels are found in Matthew v. 46, followed by 44. The same remarks apply to the next pa.s.sage ?, which is introduced as a distinct quotation,(2) but which, like the rest, differs materially, linguistically and in order, from the canonical Gospels. The whole of the pa.s.sage is consecutive, and excludes the explanation of a mere patchwork of pa.s.sages loosely put together, and very imperfectly quoted from memory. Justin states that Jesus taught that we should communicate to those who need, and do nothing for vain glory, and he then gives the very words of Jesus in an unbroken and clearly continuous discourse.
Christians are to give to all who ask, and not merely to those from whom they hope to receive again, which would be no new thing--even the publicans do that; but Christians must do more. They are not to lay up riches on earth, but in heaven, for it would not profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his soul; therefore, the Teacher a second time repeats the injunction that Christians should lay up treasures in heaven. If the unity of thought which binds this pa.s.sage so closely together were not sufficient to prove that it stood in Justin"s Gospel in the form and order in which he quotes it, the requisite evidence would be supplied by the repet.i.tion at its close of the injunction: "Lay up, therefore, in the heavens," &c. It is impossible that Justin should, through defect of memory, quote a second time in so short a pa.s.sage the same injunction, if the pa.s.sage were not thus appropriately terminated in
{371}
his Gospel. The common sense of the reader must at once perceive that it is impossible that Justin, professedly quoting words of Jesus, should thus deliberately fabricate a discourse rounded off by the repet.i.tion of one of its opening admonitions, with the addition of an argumentative "therefore." He must have found it so in the Gospel from which he quotes. Nothing indeed but the difficulty of explaining the marked variations presented by this pa.s.sage, on the supposition that Justin must quote from our Gospels, could lead apologists to insinuate such a process of compilation, or question the consecutive character of this pa.s.sage. The nearest parallels to the dismembered parts of this quotation, presenting everywhere serious variations, however, can only be found in the following pa.s.sages in the order in which we cite them, Matthew v. 42, Luke vi. 34, Matthew vi. 19, 20, xvi. 26, and a repet.i.tion of part of vi. 20, with variations. Moreover, the expression: "What new thing do ye?" is quite peculiar to Justin. We have already met with it in the preceding section 8. "If ye love them which love you, what _new_ thing do ye? for even," &c. Here, in the same verse, we have: "If ye lend to them from whom ye hope to receive, what _new_ thing do ye? for even," &c. It is evident, both from its repet.i.tion and its distinct dogmatic view of Christianity as a new teaching in contrast to the old, that this variation cannot have been the result of defective memory, but must have been the reading of the Memoirs, and, in all probability, it was the original form of the teaching. Such ant.i.thetical treatment is clearly indicated in many parts of the Sermon on the Mount: for instance, Matthew v. 21, "Ye have heard that it hath been said _by them of old_.... but _I_ say unto you," &c, cf. v. 33, 38, 43. It is certain that
{372}
the whole of the quotation E differs very materially from our Gospels, and there is every reason to believe that not only was the pa.s.sage not derived from them, but that it was contained in the Memoirs of the Apostles substantially in the form and order in which Justin quotes it.(1)
The next pa.s.sage (f)(2) is separated from the preceding merely by the usual [--Greek--] and it moves on to its close with the same continuity of thought and the same peculiarities of construction which characterize that which we have just considered. Christians are to be kind and merciful [--Greek--] to all as their Father is, who makes his sun to shine alike on the good and evil, and they need not be anxious about their own temporal necessities: what they shall eat and what put on; are they not better than the birds and beasts whom G.o.d feedeth? therefore, they are not to be careful about what they are to eat and what put on, for their heavenly Father knows they have need of these things; but they are to seek the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added: for where the treasure is--the thing he seeks and is careful about--there will also be the mind of the man. In fact, the pa.s.sage is a suitable continuation of c, inculcating, like it, abstraction from worldly cares and thoughts in reliance on the heavenly Father, and the mere fact that a separation is made where it is between the two pa.s.sages c and shows further that each of those pa.s.sages was complete in itself. There is absolutely no reason for the separating /cat, if these pa.s.sages were a mere combination of scattered verses. This quotation, however, which is so consecutive in Justin, can only find distant parallels in pa.s.sages widely divided throughout the Synoptic
{373}
Gospels, which have to be arranged in the following order: Luke vi. 36, Matt. v. 45, vi. 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, vi. 21, the whole of which present striking differences from Justin"s quotation. The repet.i.tion of the injunction "be not careful" again with the illative "therefore" is quite in the spirit of E. This admonition: "Therefore, be not careful," &c, is reiterated no less than three times in the first Gospel (vi 25, 31, 34), and confirms the characteristic repet.i.tion of Justin"s Gospel, which seems to have held a middle course between Matthew and Luke, the latter of which does not repeat the phrase, although the injunction is made a second time in more direct terms. The repet.i.tion of the pa.s.sage: "Be ye kind and merciful," &c, in Dial. 96, with the same context and peculiarities, is a remarkable confirmation of the natural conclusion that Justin quotes the pa.s.sage from a Gospel different from ours. The expression [--Greek--] thrice repeated by Justin himself, and supported by a similar duplication in the Clementine Homilies (iii. 57)(1) cannot possibly be an accidental departure from our Gospels.(2) For the rest it is undeniable that the whole pa.s.sage differs materially both in order and language from our Gospels, from which it cannot without unwarrantable a.s.sumption be maintained to have been taken either collectively or in detail, and strong internal reasons lead us to conclude that it is quoted substantially as it stands from Justin"s
{374}
Gospel, which must have been different from our Synoptics.(1)
In 6 again, we have an express quotation introduced by the words: "And regarding our being patient under injuries and ready to help all, and free from anger, this is what he said;" and then he proceeds to give the actual words.(2) At the close of the quotation he continues: "For we ought not to strive, neither would he have us be imitators of the wicked, but he has exhorted us by patience and gentleness to lead men from shame and the love of evil," &c., &c.(3) It is evident that these observations, which are a mere paraphrase of the text, indicate that the quotation itself is deliberate and precise. Justin professes first to quote the actual teaching of Jesus, and then makes his own comments; but if it be a.s.sumed that he began by concocting out of stray texts, altered to suit his purpose, a continuous discourse, the subsequent observations seem singularly useless and out of place. Although the pa.s.sage forms a consecutive and harmonious discourse, the nearest parallels in our Gospels can only be found by uniting parts of the following scattered verses: Matthew v. 39, 40, 22, 41, 16. The Christian who is struck on one cheek is to turn the other, and not to resist those who would take away his cloak or coat; but if, on the contrary, he be angry, he is in danger of fire; if, then, he be compelled to go one mile, let him show his gentleness by going two, and thus let his good works shine before men that, seeing them, they may adore his Father which is in heaven. It is evident that the last two sentences, which find their parallels in Matt by putting v. 16 after 41, the former verse having
{375}
quite a different context in the Gospel, must have so followed each other in Justin"s text. His purpose is to quote the teaching of Jesus, "regarding our being patient under injuries, and ready to help all and free from anger," but his quotation of "Let your good works shine before men," &c, has no direct reference to his subject, and it cannot reasonably be supposed that Justin would have selected it from a separate part of the Gospel. Coming as it no doubt did in his Memoirs in the order in which he quotes it, it is quite appropriate to his purpose.
It is difficult, for instance, to imagine why Justin further omitted the injunction in the parallel pa.s.sage, Matthew v. 39, "that ye resist not evil," when supposed to quote the rest of the verse, since his express object is to show that "we ought not to strive," &c. The whole quotation presents the same characteristics as those which we have already examined, and in its continuity of thought and wide variation from the parallels in our Gospels, both in order and language, we must recognize a different and peculiar source.(1)
The pa.s.sage i, again, is professedly a literal quotation, for Justin prefaces it with the words: "And regarding our not swearing at all, but ever speaking the truth, he taught thus;" and having in these words actually stated what Jesus did teach, he proceeds to quote his very words.(2) In the quotation there is a clear departure from our Gospel, arising, not from accidental failure-of memory, but from difference of source. The parallel pa.s.sages in our Gospels, so far as they exist at all, can only be found by taking part of Matthew v. 34 and joining it to v. 37, omitting the intermediate verses. The quotation in the
{376}
Epistle of James v. 12, which is evidently derived from a source different from Matthew, supports the reading of Justin. This, with the pa.s.sage twice repeated in the Clementine Homilies in agreement with Justin, and, it may be added, the peculiar version found in early ecclesiastical writings,(1) all tend to confirm the belief that there existed a more ancient form of the injunction which Justin no doubt found in his Memoirs.(2) The precept, terse, simple, and direct, as it is here, is much more in accordance with Justin"s own description of the teaching of Jesus, as he evidently found it in his Gospel, than the diffused version contained in the first Gospel, v. 33--37. Another remarkable and characteristic ill.u.s.tration of the peculiarity of Justin"s Memoirs is presented by the long pa.s.sage k, which is also throughout consecutive and bound together by clear unity of thought.(3) It is presented with the context: "For not those who merely make professions but those who do the works, as he (Jesus) said, shall be saved. For he spake thus." It does not, therefore, seem possible to indicate more clearly the deliberate intention to quote the exact expressions of Jesus, and yet not only do we find material difference from the language in the parallel pa.s.sages in our Gospels, but those parallels, such as they are, can only be made by patching together the following verses in the order in