{424}
that, later, Jerome became doubtful of this view, but it seems to us that this is not the case, and certainly Jerome in his subsequent writings states that it was generally held to be the original of Matthew.(1) That this Gospel was not identical with the Greek Matthew is evident both from the quotations of Jerome and others, and also from the fact that Jerome considered it worth while to translate it twice. If the Greek Gospel had been an accurate translation of it, of course there could not have been inducement to make another.(2) As we shall hereafter see, the belief was universal in the early Church that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Attempts have been made to argue that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was first written in Greek and then translated into Hebrew,(3) but the reasons advanced seem quite insufficient and arbitrary,(4) and it is contradicted by the whole tradition of the Fathers.
{425}
It is not necessary for our purpose to enter fully here into the question of the exact relation of our canonical Gospel according to Matthew to the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is sufficient for us to point out that we meet with the latter before Matthew"s Gospel, and that the general opinion of the early church was that it was the original of the canonical Gospel This opinion, as Schwegler(1) remarks, is supported by the fact that tradition a.s.signs the origin of both Gospels to Palestine, and that both were intended for Jewish Christians and exclusively used by them. That the two works, however originally related, had by subsequent manipulation become distinct, although still amidst much variation preserving some substantial affinity, cannot be doubted, and in addition to evidence already cited we may point out that in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, the Gospel according to Matthew is said to have 2500 [--Greek--], whilst that according to the Hebrews has only 2200.(2)
Whether this Gospel formed one of the writings of the [--Greek--] of Luke it is not our purpose to inquire, but enough has been said to prove that it was one of the most ancient(3)
{426}
and most valued evangelical works, and to show the probability that Justin Martyr, a Jewish Christian living amongst those who are known to have made exclusive use of this Gospel, may well, like his contemporary Hegesippus, have used the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and this probability is, as we have seen, greatly strengthened by the fact that many of his quotations agree with pa.s.sages which we know to have been contained in it; whilst, on the other hand, almost all differ from our Gospels, presenting generally, however, a greater affinity to the Gospel according to Matthew, as we might expect, than to the other two. It is clear that the t.i.tle "Gospel according to the Hebrews" cannot have been its actual superscription, but merely was a name descriptive of the readers for whom it was prepared or amongst whom it chiefly circulated, and it is most probable that it originally bore no other t.i.tle than "The Gospel" [--Greek--], to which were added the different designations under which we find it known amongst different communities.(1) We have already seen that Justin speaks of "The Gospel" and seems to refer to the "Memoirs of Peter," both distinguishing appellations of this Gospel, but there is another of the names borne by the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," which singularly recalls the "Memoirs of the Apostles," by which Justin prefers to call his evangelical work. It was called the "Gospel according to the Apostles"(2)
{427}
[--Greek--], and, in short, comparing Justin"s Memoirs with this Gospel, we find at once similarity of contents and even of name.(1)
It is not necessary, however, for) the purposes of this examination to dwell more fully upon the question as to what specific Gospel now no longer extant Justin employed. We have shown that there is no evidence that he made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore, be cited even to prove their existence, and much less to attest the authenticity and character of records whose authors he does not once name. On the other hand it has been made evident that there were other Gospels, now lost but which then enjoyed the highest consideration, from which his quotations might have been, and probably were, taken. We have seen that Justin"s Memoirs of the Apostles contained facts of Gospel history unknown to our Gospels, which were contained in apocryphal works and notably in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; that they further contained matter contradictory to our Gospels, and sayings of Jesus not contained in them; and that his quotations, although so numerous, systematically vary from similar pa.s.sages in our Gospels. No theory of quotation from memory can satisfactorily account for these phenomena, and the reasonable conclusion is that Justin did not make use of our Gospels, but quoted from another source. In no case can the testimony of Justin afford the requisite support to the Gospels as records of miracles and of a Divine Revelation.
{429}
CHAPTER IV. HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.
We now turn to Hegesippus, one of the contemporaries of Justin, and, like him, a Palestinian Jewish Christian. Most of our information regarding him is derived from Eusebius, who fortunately gives rather copious extracts from his writings. Hegesippus was born in Palestine, of Jewish parents,(l) and in all probability belonged to the primitive community of Jerusalem.(2) In order to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the state of the Church, he travelled widely and came to Rome when Anicetus was Bishop. Subsequently he wrote a work of historical Memoirs, [--Greek--], in five books, and thus became the first ecclesiastical historian of Christianity. This work is lost, but portions have been preserved to us by Eusebius, and one other fragment is also extant. It must have been, in part at least, written after the succession of Eleutherus to the Roman bishopric (a.d. 177-193), as that event is mentioned in the book itself, and his testimony is allowed by all critics to date from an advanced period of the second half of the second century.(3)
{430}
The testimony of Hegesippus is of great value, not only as that of a man born near the primitive Christian tradition, but also as that of an intelligent traveller amongst many Christian communities. Eusebius evidently held him in high estimation as recording the unerring tradition of the Apostolic preaching in the most simple style of composition,(1) and as a writer of authority who was "contemporary with the first successors of the Apostles"(2) [--Greek--]. Any indications, therefore, which we may derive from information regarding him, and from the fragments of his writings which survive, must be of peculiar importance for our inquiry.
As might have been expected from a convert from Judaism(3) [--Greek--], we find in Hegesippus manifest evidences of general tendency to the Jewish side of Christianity. For him, "James, the brother of the Lord," was the chief of the Apostles, and he states that he had received the government of the Church after the death of Jesus.(4) The account which he gives of him is remarkable. "He was holy from his mothers womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, nor ate he any living thing. A razor never went upon his head, he anointed not himself with
{431}
oil, and did not use a bath. He alone was allowed to enter into the Holies. For he did not wear woollen garments, but linen. And he alone entered into the Sanctuary and was wont to be found upon his knees seeking forgiveness on behalf of the people; so that his knees became hard like a camel"s, through his constant kneeling in supplication to G.o.d, and asking for forgiveness for the people. In consequence of his exceeding great righteousness he was called Righteous and "Oblias," that is, Protector of the people and Righteousness, as the prophets declare concerning him,"(1) and so on. Throughout the whole of his account of James, Hegesippus describes him as a mere Jew, and as frequenting the temple, and even entering the Holy of Holies as a Jewish High Priest.
Whether the account be apocryphal or not is of little consequence here; it is clear that Hegesippus sees no incongruity in it, and that the difference between the Jew and the Christian was extremely small. The head of the Christian community could a.s.sume all the duties of the Jewish High-Priest,(2) and his Christian doctrines did not offend more than a small party amongst the Jews.(3)
We are not, therefore, surprised to find that his rule [--Greek--] of orthodoxy in the Christian communities
{432}
which he visited, was "the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord." Speaking of the result of his observations during his travels, and of the succession of Bishops in Rome, he says: "The Corinthian Church has continued in the true faith until Primus, now Bishop of Corinth. I conversed with him on my voyage to Rome, and stayed many days with the Corinthians, during which time we were refreshed together with true doctrine. Arrived in Rome I composed the succession until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. After Anicetus succeeded Soter, and afterwards Eleutherus.
But with every succession, and in every city, that prevails which the Law, and the Prophets, and the Lord enjoin."(1) The test of true doctrine [--Greek--] with Hegesippus as with Justin, therefore, is no New Testament Canon, which does not yet exist for him, but the Old Testament, the only Holy Scriptures which he acknowledges, and the words of the Lord himself,(3) which, as in the case of Jewish Christians like Justin, were held to be established by, and in direct conformity with, the Old Testament. He carefully transmits the unerring tradition of apostolic preaching [--Greek--], but he apparently knows nothing of any canonical series even of apostolic epistles.
The care with which Eusebius searches for information regarding the books of the New Testament in early writers, and his anxiety to produce any evidence concerning their composition and authenticity, render his silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct
{433}
utterance when speaking of such a man as Hegesippus.(1) Now, while Eusebius does not mention that Hegesippus refers to any of our Canonical Gospels or Epistles, he very distinctly states that he made use in his writings of the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" [--Greek--]. It may be well, however, to give his remarks in a consecutive form. "He sets forth some matters from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Syriac, and particularly from the Hebrew language, showing that he was a convert from among the Hebrews, and other things he records as from unwritten Jewish tradition. And not only he, but also Irenaeus, and the whole body of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon: all-virtuous Wisdom.
And regarding the so-called Apocrypha, he states that some of them had been forged in his own time by certain heretics."(2)
It is certain that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the testimony of Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly, regarding the composition of the first two Gospels, would not have neglected to have availed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus, for whom he has so much respect, had that writer furnished him with any opportunity, and there can be no doubt that he found no facts concerning the origin and authorship of our Gospels in his writings. It is, on the other hand, reasonable to infer that Hegesippus exclusively made use of the
{434}
Gospel according to the Hebrews, together with unwritten tradition.(1) In the pa.s.sage regarding the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as even Lardner(2) conjectures, the text of Eusebius is in all probability confused, and he doubtless said what Jerome later found to be the fact, that "the Gospel according to the Hebrews is written in the Chaldaic and Syriac (or Syro-Chaldaic) language, but with Hebrew characters."(3) It is in this sense that Rufinus translates it. It may not be inappropriate to point out that fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which have been preserved, show the same tendency to give some pre-eminence to James amongst the Apostles which we observe in Hegesippus.(4) It has been argued by a few that the words, "and regarding the so-called Apocrypha, he states that some of them had been forged in his own times by certain heretics," are contradictory to his attributing authority to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or at least that they indicate some distinction amongst Christians between recognized and apocryphal works. The apocryphal works referred to, however, are clearly Old Testament Apocrypha.(5) The words are introduced by the statement that Hegesippus records matters "as from unwritten Jewish tradition," and then proceeds, "and
{435}
not only he, but also Irenaeus and the whole body of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon: all-virtuous Wisdom." Then follow the words, "And with regard to the _so-called_ Apocrypha," &c, &c, evidently pa.s.sing from the work just mentioned to the Old Testament Apocrypha, several of which stand also in the name of Solomon, and it is not improbable that amongst these were included the _Ascensio Esaiae_ and the _Apocalypsis Eliae_, to which is referred a pa.s.sage which Hegesippus, in a fragment preserved by Photius,(1) strongly repudiates. As Hegesippus does not, so far as we know, mention any canonical work of the New Testament, but takes as his rule of faith the Law, the Prophets, and the words of the Lord, probably as he finds them in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, quotes also Jewish tradition and discusses the Proverbs of Solomon, the only possible conclusion at which we can reasonably arrive is that he spoke of Old Testament Apocrypha. There cannot be a doubt that Eusebius would have recorded his repudiation of New Testament "Apocrypha," regarding which he so carefully collects information, and his consequent recognition of New Testament Canonical works implied in such a distinction.
We must now see how far in the fragments of the works of Hegesippus which have been preserved to us there are references to a.s.sist our inquiry. In his account of certain surviving members of the family of Jesus, who were brought before Domitian, Hegesippus says: "For Domitian feared the appearing of the Christ as much as Herod."(2) It has been argued that this
{436}
may be an allusion to the ma.s.sacre of the children by Herod related in Matt ii., more especially as it is doubtful that the parallel account to that contained in the first two chapters of the first Gospel existed in the oldest forms of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(1) But the tradition which has been preserved in our first Synoptic may have formed part of many other evangelical works, in one shape or another, and certainly cannot be claimed with reason exclusively for that Gospel.
This argument, therefore, has no weight whatever, and it obviously rests upon the vaguest conjecture. The princ.i.p.al pa.s.sages which apologists(2) adduce as references to our Gospels occur in the account which Hegesippus gives of the martyrdom of James the Just. The first of these is the reply which James is said to have given to the Scribes and Pharisees: "Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He sits in heaven on the right hand of great power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven."(3) This is compared with Matt. xxvi. 64: "From this time ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven."(4) It is not necessary to point out the variations between these two pa.s.sages, which are obvious. If we had not the direct intimation that Hegesippus made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which no doubt contained this pa.s.sage, it would be apparent that a man who valued tradition
{437}
so highly might well have derived this and other pa.s.sages from that source. This is precisely one of those sayings which were most current in the early Church, whose hope and courage were sustained amid persecution and suffering by such Chiliastic expectations, with which according to the apostolic injunction they comforted each other.(1) In any case the words do not agree with the pa.s.sage in the first Gospel, and as we have already established, even perfect agreement would not under the circ.u.mstances be sufficient evidence that the quotation is from that Gospel, and not from another; but with such discrepancy, without any evidence whatever that Hegesippus knew anything of our Gospels, but, on the contrary, with the knowledge that he made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, we must decide that any such pa.s.sages must rather be derived from it than from our Gospels.
It is scarcely necessary to say anything regarding the phrase: "for we and all the people testify to thee that thou art just and that thou respectest not persons."(2) Canon Westcott points out that [--Greek--] only occurs in Luke xx. 21, and Galatians ii. 6;(3) but the similarity of this single phrase, which is not given as a quotation, but in a historical form put into the mouth of those who are addressing James, cannot for a moment be accepted as evidence of a knowledge of Luke. The episode of the tribute money is generally ascribed to the oldest form of the Gospel history, and although the other two Synoptics(4) read [--Greek--] for [--Greek--], there is
{438}
no ground for a.s.serting that some of the [--Greek--] who preceded Luke did not use the latter form, and as little for a.s.serting that it did not so stand, for instance, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The employment of the same expression in the Epistle, moreover, at once deprives the Gospel of any individuality in its use.
Hegesippus represents the dying James as kneeling down and praying for those who were stoning him: "I beseech (thee), Lord G.o.d Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" [--Greek--].(1) This is compared with the prayer which Luke(2) puts into the mouth of Jesus on the cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" [--Greek--], and it is a.s.sumed from this partial coincidence that Hegesippus was acquainted with the third of our canonical Gospels. We are surprised to see an able and accomplished critic like Hilgenfeld adopting such a conclusion without either examination or argument of any kind.(3) Such a deduction is totally unwarranted by the facts of the case, and if the partial agreement of a pa.s.sage in such a Father with a historical expression in a Gospel which, alone out of many previously existent, has come down to us can be considered evidence of the acquaintance of the Father with that particular Gospel, the function of criticism is at an end.
It may here be observed that the above pa.s.sage of Luke xxiii. 34 is omitted altogether from the Vatican MS. and Codex D (Bezse), and in the Codex Sinaiticus
{439}
its position is of a very doubtful character.(1) The Codex Alexandrinus which contains it omits the word [--Greek--].(2) Luke"s Gospel was avowedly composed after many other similar works were already in existence, and we know from our Synoptics how closely such writings often followed each other, and drew from the same sources.(3) If any historical character is conceded to this prayer of Jesus it is natural to suppose that it must have been given in at least some of these numerous Gospels which have unfortunately perished. No one could reasonably a.s.sert that our third Gospel is the only one which ever contained the pa.s.sage. It would be preposterous to affirm, for instance, that it did not exist in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which Hegesippus employed. On the supposition that the pa.s.sage is historical, which apologists at least will not dispute, what could be more natural or probable than that such a prayer, "emanating from the innermost soul of Jesus,"(4) should have been adopted under similar circ.u.mstances by James his brother and successor, who certainly could not have derived it from Luke. The tradition of such words, expressing so much of the original spirit of Christianity, setting aside for the moment written
{440}
Gospels, could scarcely fail to have remained fresh in the mind of the early Church, and more especially in the primitive community amongst whom they were uttered, and of which Hegesippus was himself a later member; and they would certainly have been treasured by one who was so careful a collector and transmitter of "the unerring tradition of the apostolic preaching." No saying is more likely to have been preserved by tradition, both from its own character, brevity, and origin, and from the circ.u.mstances under which it was uttered, and there can be no reason for limiting it amongst written records to Luke"s Gospel. The omission of the prayer from very important codices of Luke further weakens the claim of that Gospel to the pa.s.sage. Beyond these general considerations, however, there is the important and undoubted fact that the prayer which Hegesippus represents James as uttering does not actually agree with the prayer of Jesus in the third Gospel. So far from proving the use of Luke, therefore, this merely fragmentary and partial agreement, on the contrary, rather proves that he did not know that Gospel, for on the supposition of his making use of the third Synoptic at all for such a purpose, and not simply giving the prayer which James may in reality have uttered, why did he not quote the prayer as he actually found it in Luke?
We have still to consider a fragment of Hegesippus preserved to us by Stepha.n.u.s Gobarus, a learned monophysite
of the sixth century, which reads as follows: "That the good things prepared for the righteous neither eye saw, nor ear heard, nor entered they into the heart of man. Hegesippus, however, an ancient and apostolic man, how moved I know not, says in the fifth book of his Memoirs that these words are vainly
{441}
spoken, and that those who say these things give the lie to the divine writings and to the Lord saying: "Blessed are your eyes that see, and your cars that hear,"" &c. [--Greek--].(1) We believe that we have here an expression of the strong prejudice against the Apostle Paul and his teaching which continued for so long to prevail amongst Jewish Christians, and which is apparent in many writings of that period.(2) The quotation of Paul, 1 Corinthians ii. 9, differs materially from the Septuagint version of the pa.s.sage in Isaiah lxiv. 4, and, as we have seen, the same pa.s.sage quoted by "Clement of Rome,"(3) differs both from the version of the LXX". and from the Epistle, although closer to the former. Jerome however found the pa.s.sage in the apocryphal work called "Ascensio Isaiae,"(4) and Origen, Jerome, and others likewise ascribe it to the "Apocalypsis Eliae."(5) This, however, does not concern us here, and we have merely to examine the "saying of the Lord," which Hegesippus opposes to the pa.s.sage: "Blessed are your eyes that see and your ears that hear." This is compared with Matt. xiii. 16, "But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear" [--Greek--], and also with Luke x. 23, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see," &c. We need not point out that the saying referred to by Hegesippus, whilst conveying the