All things were made through him; and without him was nothing made [that hath been made].
[Greek: Panta di" autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen [ho gegonen]]. "The early Fathers, no less than the early heretics," placed the full stop at [Greek: oude hen], connecting the words that follow with the next sentence. See M"Clellan and Tregelles _ad loc_.
"Tatian here speaks of G.o.d and not of the Logos, and in this respect, as well as language and context, the pa.s.sage differs from the fourth Gospel" [Endnote 306:1], &c. Nevertheless it may safely be left to the reader to say whether or not it was taken from it.
The Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons contains the following:--
_Ep. Vienne. et Lugd_. -- iv.
Thus too was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord; that a time shall come in which every one that killeth you shall think that he offereth G.o.d service.
[Greek: Eleusetai kairos en o pas ho apokteinas humas doxei latreian prospherein to Theo.]
_John_ xvi. 2.
Yea, the hour cometh, that every one that killeth you will think he offereth G.o.d service.
[Greek: All" erchetai hora hina pas ho apokteinas humas, doxae latreian prospherein to Theo.]
It is true that there are "indications of similar discourses" in the Synoptics, but of none containing a trait at all closely resembling this. The chances that precisely the same combination of words ([Greek: ho apokteinas humas doxei latreian prospherein to Theo]) occurred in a lost Gospel must be necessarily very small indeed, especially when we remember that the original saying was probably spoken in Aramaic and not in Greek [Endnote 307:1].
Dr. Keim, in the elaborate monograph mentioned above, decides that Celsus made use of the fourth Gospel. He remarks upon it as curious, that more traces should indeed be found "both in Celsus and his contemporary Tatian of John than of his two nearest predecessors" [Endnote 307:2]. Of the instances given by Dr. Keim, the first (i. 41, the sign seen by the Baptist) depends on a somewhat doubtful reading ([Greek: para to Ioannae], which should be perhaps [Greek: para to Iordanae]); the second, the demand for a sign localised specially in the temple (i. 67; of. John x. 23, 24), seems fairly to hold good. "The destination of Jesus alike for good and evil" (iv. 7, "that those who received it, having been good, should be saved; while those who received it not, having been shown to be bad, should be punished") is indeed an idea peculiarly Johannean and creates a _presumption_ of the use of the Gospel; we ought not perhaps to say more. I can hardly consider the simple allusions to "flight" ([Greek: pheugein], ii.
9; [Greek: taede kakeise apodedrakenai], i. 62) as necessarily references to the retreat to Ephraim in John xi. 54. So too the expression "bound" in ii. 9, and the "conflict with Satan" in vi.
42, ii. 47, seem too vague to be used as proof. Still Volkmar too declares it to be "notorious" that Celsus was acquainted with the fourth Gospel, alleging i. 67 (as above), ii. 31 (an allusion to the Logos), ii. 36 (a satirical allusion to the issue of blood and water), which pa.s.sages really seem on the whole to justify the a.s.sertion, though not in a quite unqualified form.
We ought not to omit to mention that there is a second fragment by Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, besides that to which we have already alluded, and preserved like it in the Paschal Chronicle, which confirms unequivocally the conclusion that he knew and used the fourth Gospel. Amongst other t.i.tles that are applied to the crucified Saviour, he is spoken of as "having been pierced in His sacred side," as "having poured out of His side those two cleansing streams, water and blood, word and spirit"
[Endnote 308:1]. This incident is recorded only in the fourth Gospel.
In like manner when Athenagoras says "The Father and the Son being one" ([Greek: henos ontos tou Patros kai tou Uiou]), it is probable that he is alluding to John x. 30, "I and my Father are one," not to mention an alleged, but perhaps somewhat more doubtful, reference to John xvii. 3 [Endnote 308:2].
But the most decisive witness before we come to Irenaeus is the Muratorian Canon. Here we have the fourth Gospel definitely a.s.signed to its author, and finally established in its place amongst the canonical or authoritative books. It is true that the account of the way in which the Gospel came to be composed is mixed up with legendary matter. According to it the Gospel was written in obedience to a dream sent to Andrew the Apostle, after he and his fellow disciples and bishops had fasted for three days at the request of John. In this dream it was revealed that John should write the narrative subject to the revision of the rest. So the Gospel is the work of an eyewitness, and, though it and the other Gospels differ in the objects of their teaching, all are inspired by the same Spirit.
There may perhaps in this be some kernel of historical fact, as the sort of joint authorship or revision to which it points seems to find some support in the concluding verses of the Gospel ("we know that his witness is true"). However this may be, the evidence of the fragment is of more real importance and value, as showing the estimation in which at this date the Gospel was held. It corresponds very much to what is now implied in the word "canonical," and indeed the Muratorian fragment presents us with a tentative or provisional Canon, which was later to be amended, completed, and ratified. So far as the Gospels were concerned, it had already reached its final shape. It included the same four which now stand in our Bibles, and the opposition that they met with was so slight, and so little serious, that Eusebius could cla.s.s them all among the h.o.m.ologoumena or books that were universally acknowledged.
CHAPTER XIII.
ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY.
I should not be very much surprised if the general reader who may have followed our enquiry so far should experience at this point a certain feeling of disappointment. If he did not know beforehand something of the subject-matter that was to be enquired into, he might not unnaturally be led to expect round a.s.sertions, and plain, pointblank, decisive evidence. Such evidence has not been offered to him for the simple reason that it does not exist. In its stead we have collected a great number of inferences of very various degrees of cogency, from the possible and hypothetical, up to strong and very strong probability. Most of our time has been taken up in weighing and testing these details, and in the endeavour to a.s.sign to each as nearly as possible its just value.
It could not be thought strange if some minds were impatient of such minutiae; and where this objection was not felt, it would still be very pardonable to complain that the evidence was at best inferential and probable.
An inference in which there are two or three steps may be often quite as strong as that in which there is only one, and probabilities may mount up to a high degree of what is called moral or practical certainty. I cannot but think that many of those which have been already obtained are of this character. I cannot but regard it as morally or practically certain that Marcion used our third Gospel; as morally or practically certain that all four Gospels were used in the Clementine Homilies; as morally or practically certain that the existence of three at least out of our four Gospels is implied in the writings of Justin; as probable in a lower degree that the four were used by Basilides; as not really disputable (apart from the presumption afforded by earlier writers) that they were widely used in the interval which separates the writings of Justin from those of Irenaeus.
All of these seem to me to be tolerably clear propositions. But outside these there seems to be a considerable amount of convergent evidence, the separate items of which are less convincing, but which yet derive a certain force from the mere fact that they are convergent. In the Apostolic Fathers, for example, there are instances of various kinds, some stronger and some weaker; but the important point to notice is that they confirm each other. Every new case adds to the total weight of the evidence, and helps to determine the bearing of those which seem ambiguous.
It cannot be too much borne in mind that the evidence with which we have been dealing is c.u.mulative; and as in all other cases of c.u.mulative evidence the subtraction of any single item is of less importance than the addition of a new one. Supposing it to be shown that some of the allusions which are thought to be taken from our Gospels were merely accidental coincidences of language, this would not materially affect the part of the evidence which could not be so explained. Supposing even that some of these allusions could be definitely referred to an apocryphal source, the possibility would be somewhat, but not so very much, increased that other instances which bear resemblance to our Gospels were also in their origin apocryphal. But on the other hand, if a single instance of the use of a canonical Gospel really holds good, it is proof of the existence of that Gospel, and every new instance renders the conclusion more probable, and makes it more and more difficult to account for the phenomena in any other way.
The author of "Supernatural Religion" seems to have overlooked this. He does not seem to have considered the mutual support which the different instances taken together lend to each other. He summons them up one by one, and if any sort of possibility can be shown of accounting for them in any other way than by the use of our Gospels he dismisses them altogether. He makes no allowance for any residual weight they may have. He does not ask which is the more probable hypothesis. If the authentication of a doc.u.ment is incomplete, if the reference of a pa.s.sage is not certain, he treats it as if it did not exist. He forgets the old story of the f.a.ggots, which, weak singly, become strong when combined. His scales will not admit of any evidence short of the highest.
Fractional quant.i.ties find no place in his reckoning. If there is any flaw, if there is any possible loophole for escape, he does not make the due deduction and accept the evidence with that deduction, but he ignores it entirely, and goes on to the next item just as if he were leaving nothing behind him.
This is really part and parcel of what was pointed out at the outset as the fundamental mistake of his method. It is much too forensic. It takes as its model, not the proper canons of historical enquiry, but the procedure of English law. Yet the inappropriateness of such a method is seen as soon as we consider its object and origin. The rules of evidence current in our law courts were constructed specially with a view to the protection of the accused, and upon the a.s.sumption that it is better nine guilty persons should escape, than that one innocent person should be condemned. Clearly such rules will be inapplicable to the historical question which of two hypotheses is most likely to be true. The author forgets that the negative hypothesis is just as much a hypothesis as the positive, and needs to be defended in precisely the same manner. Either the Gospels were used, or they were not used. In order to prove the second side of this alternative, it is necessary to show not merely that it is _possible_ that they were not used, but that the theory is the _more probable_ of the two, and accounts better for the facts. But the author of "Supernatural Religion" hardly professes or attempts to do this. If he comes across a quotation apparently taken from our Gospels he is at once ready with his reply, "But it may be taken from a lost Gospel." Granted; it may. But the extant Gospel is there, and the quotation referable to it; the lost Gospel is an unknown ent.i.ty which may contain anything or nothing.
If we admit that the possibility of quotation from a lost Gospel impairs the certainty of the reference to an extant Gospel, it is still quite another thing to argue that it is the more probable explanation and an explanation that the critic ought to accept. In very few cases, I believe, has the author so much as attempted to do this.
We might then take a stand here, and on the strength of what can be satisfactorily proved, as well as of what can be probably inferred, claim to have sufficiently established the use and antiquity of the Gospels. This is, I think, quite a necessary conclusion from the data hitherto collected.
But there is a further objection to be made to the procedure in "Supernatural Religion." If the object were to obtain clear and simple and universally appreciable evidence, I do not hesitate to say that the enquiry ends just where it ought to have begun.
Through the faulty method that he has employed the author forgets that he has a hypothesis to make good and to carry through. He forgets that he has to account on the negative theory, just as we account on the positive, for a definite state of things. It may sound paradoxical, but there is really no great boldness in the paradox, when we affirm that at least the high antiquity of the Gospels could be proved, even if not one jot or t.i.ttle of the evidence that we have been discussing had existed. Supposing that all those fragmentary remains of the primitive Christian literature that we have been ransacking so minutely had been swept away, supposing that the causes that have handed it down to us in such a mutilated and impaired condition had done their work still more effectually, and that for the first eighty years of the second century there was no Christian literature extant at all; still I maintain that, in order to explain the phenomena that we find after that date, we should have to recur to the same a.s.sumptions that our previous enquiry would seem to have established for us.
Hitherto we have had to grope our way with difficulty and care; but from this date onwards all ambiguity and uncertainty disappears. It is like emerging out of twilight into the broad blaze of day. There is really a greater disproportion than we might expect between the evidence of the end of the century and that which leads up to it. From Justin to Irenaeus the Christian writings are fragmentary and few, but with Irenaeus a whole body of literature seems suddenly to start into being. Irenaeus is succeeded closely by Clement of Alexandria, Clement by Tertullian, Tertullian by Hippolytus and Origen, and the testimony which these writers bear to the Gospel is marvellously abundant and unanimous.
I calculate roughly that Irenaeus quotes directly 193 verses of the first Gospel and 73 of the fourth. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian must have quoted considerably more, while in the extant writings of Origen the greater part of the New Testament is actually quoted [Endnote 315:1].
But more than this; by the time of Irenaeus the canon of the four Gospels, as we understand the word now, was practically formed. We have already seen that this was the case in the fragment of Muratori. Irenaeus is still more explicit. In the famous pa.s.sage [Endnote 315:2] which is so often quoted as an instance of the weak-mindedness of the Fathers, he lays it down as a necessity of things that the Gospels should be four in number, neither less nor more:--
"For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, as there are also four universal winds, and as the Church is scattered over all the earth, and the Gospel is the pillar and base of the Church and the breath (or spirit) of life, it is likely that it should have four pillars breathing immortality on every side and kindling afresh the life of men. Whence it is evident that the Word, the architect of all things, who sitteth upon the cherubim and holdeth all things together, having been made manifest unto men, gave to us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit. As David, entreating for His presence, saith: Thou that sittest upon the Cherubim show thyself.
For the Cherubim are of fourfold visage, and their visages are symbols of the economy of the Son of man.... And the Gospels therefore agree with them over which presideth Jesus Christ. That which is according to John declares His generation from the Father sovereign and glorious, saying thus: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G.o.d, and the Word was G.o.d. And, All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made....
But the Gospel according to Luke, as having a sacerdotal character, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense unto G.o.d.... But Matthew records His human generation, saying, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.... Mark took his beginning from the prophetic Spirit coming down as it were from on high among men. The beginning, he says, of the Gospel according as it is written in Esaias the prophet, &c."
Irenaeus also makes mention of the origin of the Gospels, claiming for their authors the gift of Divine inspiration [Endnote 316:1]:--
"For after that our Lord rose from the dead and they were endowed with the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon them from on high, they were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge: they went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the Gospel of those good things that G.o.d hath given to us and proclaiming heavenly peace to men, having indeed both all in equal measure and each one singly the Gospel of G.o.d. So then Matthew among the Jews put forth a written Gospel in their own tongue while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church. After their decease (or "departure"), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself too has handed down to us in writing the subjects of Peter"s preaching. And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him.
Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon His breast, likewise published his Gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia."
We have not now to determine the exact value of these traditions; what we have rather to notice is the fact that the Gospels are at this time definitely a.s.signed to their reputed authors, and that they are already regarded as containing a special knowledge divinely imparted. It is evident that Irenaeus would not for a moment think of cla.s.sing any other Gospel by the side of the now strictly canonical four.
Clement of Alexandria, who, Eusebius says, "was ill.u.s.trious for his writings," in the year 194 gives a somewhat similar, but not quite identical, account of the composition of the second Gospel [Endnote 317:1]. He differs from Irenaeus in making St. Peter cognisant of the work of his follower. Neither is he quite consistent with himself; in one place he makes St. Peter "authorise the Gospel to be read in the churches;" in another he says that the Apostle "neither forbade nor encouraged it" [Endnote 317:2]. These statements have both of them been preserved for us by Eusebius, who also alleges, upon the authority of Clement, that the "Gospels containing the genealogies were written first."
"John," he says, "who came last, observing that the natural details had been set forth clearly in the Gospels, at the instance of his friends and with the inspiration of the Spirit ([Greek: pneumati theophoraethenta]), wrote a spiritual Gospel" [Endnote 317:3].
Clement draws a distinct line between the canonical and uncanonical Gospels. In quoting an apocryphal saying supposed to have been given in answer to Salome, he says, expressly: "We do not find this saying in the four Gospels that have been handed down to us, but in that according to the Egyptians" [Endnote 317:4].
Tertullian is still more exclusive. He not only regards the four Gospels as inspired and authoritative, but he makes no use of any extra-canonical Gospel. The Gospels indeed held for him precisely the same position that they do with orthodox Christians now. He says respecting the Gospels: "In the first place we lay it down that the evangelical doc.u.ment (evangelic.u.m instrumentum [Endnote 318:1]) has for its authors the Apostles, to whom this office of preaching the Gospel was committed by the Lord Himself. If it has also Apostolic men, yet not these alone but in company with Apostles and after Apostles. For the preaching of disciples might have been suspected of a desire for notoriety if it were not supported by the authority of Masters, nay of Christ, who made the Apostles Masters. In fine, of the Apostles, John and Matthew first implant in us faith, Luke and Mark renew it, starting from the same principles, so far as relates to the one G.o.d the Creator and His Christ born of the virgin, to fulfil the law and the prophets"
[Endnote 318:2]. He grounds the authority of the Gospels upon the fact that they proceed either from Apostles or from those who held close relation to Apostles, like Mark, "the interpreter of Peter,"
and Luke, the companion of Paul [Endnote 318:3]. In another pa.s.sage he expressly a.s.serts their authenticity [Endnote 318:4], and he claimed to use them and them alone as his weapons in the conflict with heresy [Endnote 318:5].
No less decided is the a.s.sertion of Origen, who writes: "As I have learnt from tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are undisputed in the Church of G.o.d under heaven, that the first in order of the scripture is that according to Matthew, who was once a publican but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... The second is that according to Mark, who wrote as Peter suggested to him ... The third is that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul ... Last of all that according to John" [Endnote 319:1].
And again in his commentary upon the Preface to St. Luke"s Gospel he expressly guards against the possibility that it might be thought to have reference to the other (Canonical) Gospels: "In this word of Luke"s "_have taken in hand_" there is a latent accusation of those who without the grace of the Holy Spirit have rushed to the composing of Gospels. Matthew, indeed, and Mark, and John, and Luke, have not "_taken in hand_" to write, but _have written_ Gospels, being full of the Holy Spirit ... The Church has four Gospels; the Heresies have many" [Endnote 319:2].
But besides the Fathers, and without going beyond the bounds of the second century, there is other evidence of the most distinct and important kind for the existence of a canon of the Gospels.
Among the various translations of the New Testament one certainly, two very probably, and three perhaps probably, were made in the course of the second century.