It should perhaps be added that Lardner and Dr. Westcott both refer to a quotation of Zech. xiii. 7 which appears in the common text of the Epistle in a form closely resembling that in which the quotation is given in Matt. xxvi. 31 and diverging from the LXX, but here again the Sinaitic Codex varies, and the text is too uncertain to lay stress upon, though perhaps the addition [Greek: taes poimnaes] may incline the balance to the view that the text of the Gospel has influenced the form of the quotation [Endnote 76:1].
The general result of our examination of the Epistle of Barnabas may perhaps be stated thus, that while not supplying by itself certain and conclusive proof of the use of our Gospels, still the phenomena accord better with the hypothesis of such a use. This Epistle stands in the second line of the evidence, and as a witness is rather confirmatory than princ.i.p.al.
3.
After Dr. Lightfoot"s masterly exposition there is probably nothing more to be said about the genuineness, date, and origin of the Ignatian Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot has done in the most lucid and admirable manner just that which is so difficult to do, and which "Supernatural Religion" has so signally failed in doing; he has succeeded in conveying to the reader a true and just sense of the exact weight and proportion of the different parts of the evidence. He has avoided such phrases as "absurd," "impossible,"
"preposterous," that his opponent has dealt in so freely, but he has weighed and balanced the evidence piece by piece; he has carefully guarded his language so as never to let the positiveness of his conclusion exceed what the premises will warrant; he has dealt with the subject judicially and with a full consciousness of the responsibility of his position [Endnote 77:1].
We cannot therefore, I think, do better than adopt Dr. Lightfoot"s conclusion as the basis of our investigation, and treat the Curetonian (i.e. the three short Syriac) letters as (probably) "the work of the genuine Ignatius, while the Vossian letters (i.e. the shorter Greek recension of seven Epistles) are accepted as valid testimony at all events for the middle of the second century--the question of the genuineness of the letters being waived."
The Curetonian Epistles will then be dated either in 107 or in 115 A.D., the two alternative years a.s.signed to the martyrdom of Ignatius. In the Epistle to Polycarp which is given in this version there is a parallel to Matt. x. 16, "Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves." The two pa.s.sages may be compared thus:--
_Ign. ad Pol._ ii.
[Greek: Psronimos ginou hos ophis en apasin kai akeaios osei perisetera.]
_Matt._ x. 16.
[Greek: Ginesthe oun psronimoi hos oi opheis kai akeaioi hos ai peristerai.]
We should naturally place this quotation in the second column of our cla.s.sified arrangement, as presenting a slight variation. At the same time we should have little hesitation in referring it to the pa.s.sage in our Canonical Gospel. All the marked expressions are identical, especially the precise and selected words [Greek: phronimos] and [Greek: akeraios]. It is however possible that Ignatius may be quoting, not directly from our Gospel, but from one of the original doc.u.ments (such as Ewald"s hypothetical "Spruch-sammlung") out of which our Gospel was composed--though it is somewhat remarkable that this particular sentence is wanting in the parallel pa.s.sage in St. Luke (cf. Luke x. 3). This may be so or not; we have no means of judging. But it should at any rate be remembered that this original doc.u.ment, supposing it to have had a substantive existence, most probably contained repeated references to miracles. The critics who refer Matt. x. 16 to the doc.u.ment in question, also agree in referring to it Matt. vii. 22, x. 8, xi.
5, xii. 24 foll., &c., which speak distinctly of miracles, and precisely in that indirect manner which is the best kind of evidence. Therefore if we accept the hypothesis suggested in "Supernatural Religion"--and it is a mere hypothesis, quite unverifiable--the evidence for miracles would not be materially weakened. The author would, I suppose, admit that it is at least equally probable that the saying was quoted from our present Gospel.
This probability would be considerably heightened if the allusion to "the star" in the Syriac of Eph. xix has, as it appears to have, reference to the narrative of Matt. ii. In the Greek or Vossian version of the Epistle it is expanded, "How then was He manifested to the ages? A star shone in heaven above all the stars, and the light thereof was unspeakable, and the strangeness thereof caused astonishment" ([Greek: Pos oun ephanerothae tois aoisin; Astaer en ourano elampsen huper pantas tous asteras, kai to phos autou aneklalaeton aen, kai xenismon pareichen hae kainotaes autou]). This is precisely, one would suppose, the kind of pa.s.sage that might be taken as internal evidence of the genuineness of the Curetonian and later character of the Vossian version. The Syriac ([Greek: hatina en haesouchia Theou to asteri]
[or [Greek: apo tou asteros]] [Greek: eprachthae]), abrupt and difficult as it is, does not look like an epitome of the Greek, and the Greek has exactly that exaggerated and apocryphal character which would seem to point to a later date. It corresponds indeed somewhat nearly to the language of the Protevangelium of James, --21, [Greek: eidomen astera pammegethae lampsanta en tois astrois tou ouranou kai amblunonta tous allous asteras hoste mae phainesthai autous]. Both in the Protevangelium and in the Vossian Ignatius we see what is clearly a developement of the narrative in St. Matthew. If the Vossian Epistles are genuine, then by showing the existence of such a developement at so early a date they will tend to throw back still further the composition of the Canonical Gospel. If the Syriac version, on the other hand, is the genuine one, it will be probable that Ignatius is directly alluding to the narrative which is peculiar to the first Evangelist.
These are (so far as I am aware) the only coincidences that are found in the Curetonian version. Their paucity cannot surprise us, as in the same Curetonian text there is not a single quotation from the Old Testament. One Old Testament quotation and two Evangelical allusions occur in the Epistle to the Ephesians, which is one of the three contained in Cureton"s MS.; the fifth and sixth chapters, however, in which they are found, are wanting in the Syriac. The allusions are, in Eph. v, "For if the prayer of one or two have such power, how much more that of the bishop and of the whole Church," which appears to have some relation to Matt.
xviii. 19 ("If two of you shall agree" &c.), and in Eph. vi, "For all whom the master of the house sends to be over his own household we ought to receive as we should him that sent him,"
which may be compared with Matt. x. 40 ("He that receiveth you"
&c.). Both these allusions have some probability, though neither can be regarded as at all certain. The Epistle to the Trallians has one coincidence in c. xi, "These are not plants of the Father"
([Greek: phyteia Patros]), which recalls the striking expression of Matt. xv. 13, "Every plant ([Greek: pasa phyteia]) that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." This is a marked metaphor, and it is not found in the other Synoptics; it is therefore at least more probable that it is taken from St.
Matthew. The same must be said of another remarkable phrase in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. vi, [Greek: ho choron ch.o.r.eito]
([Greek: ho dynamenos ch.o.r.ein ch.o.r.eito], Matt. xix. 12), and also of the statement in c. i. of the same Epistle that Jesus was baptized by John "that He might fulfil all righteousness" ([Greek: hina plaerothae pasa dikaiosynae hup" autou]). This corresponds with the language of Matt. iii. 15 ([Greek: houtos gar prepon estin haemin plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen]), which also has no parallel in the other Gospels. The use of the phrase [Greek: plaerosai pasan dikaiosynaen] is so peculiar, and falls in so entirely with the characteristic Christian Judaizing of our first Evangelist, that it seems especially unreasonable to refer it to any one else. There is not the smallest particle of evidence to connect it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews to which our author seems to hint that it may belong; indeed all that we know of that Gospel may be said almost positively to exclude it. In this Gospel our Lord is represented as saying, when His mother and His brethren urge that He should accept baptism from John, "What have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him?" and it is almost by compulsion that He is at last induced to accompany them.
It will be seen that this is really an _opposite_ version of the event to that of Ignatius and the first Gospel, where the objection comes from _John_ and is overruled by our Lord Himself [Endnote 81:1].
There is however one quotation, introduced as such, in this same Epistle, the source of which Eusebius did not know, but which Origen refers to the "Preaching of Peter" and Jerome seems to have found in the Nazarene version of the "Gospel according to the Hebrews." This phrase is attributed to our Lord when He appeared "to those about Peter and said to them, Handle Me and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit" ([Greek: psaelaphaesate me, kai idete, hoti ouk eimi daimonion asomaton]). But for the statement of Origen that these words occurred in the "Preaching of Peter"
they might have been referred without much difficulty to Luke xxiv. 39. The Preaching of Peter seems to have begun with the Resurrection, and to have been an offshoot rather in the direction of the Acts than the Gospels [Endnote 81:2]. It would not therefore follow from the use of it by Ignatius here, that the other quotations could also be referred to it. And, supposing it to be taken from the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," this would not annul what has been said above as to the reason for thinking that Ignatius (or the writer who bears his name) cannot have used that Gospel systematically and alone.
4.
Is the Epistle which purports to have been written by Polycarp to the Philippians to be accepted as genuine? It is mentioned in the most express terms by Irenaeus, who declares himself to have been a disciple of Polycarp in his early youth, and speaks enthusiastically of the teaching which he then received. Irenaeus was writing between the years 180-190 A.D., and Polycarp is generally allowed to have suffered martyrdom about 167 or 168 [Endnote 82:1]. But the way in which Irenaeus speaks of the Epistle is such as to imply, not only that it had been for some time in existence, but also that it had been copied and disseminated and had attained a somewhat wide circulation. He is appealing to the Catholic tradition in opposition to heretical teaching such as that of Valentinus and Marcion, and he says, "There is an Epistle written by Polycarp to the Philippians of great excellence [Greek: hikanotatae], from which those who wish to do so and who care for their own salvation may learn both the character of his faith and the preaching of the truth" [Endnote 82:2]. He would hardly have used such language if he had not had reason to think that the Epistle was at least fairly accessible to the Christians for whom he is writing. But allowing for the somewhat slow (not too slow) multiplication and dissemination of writings among the Christians, this will throw back the composition of the letter well into the lifetime of Polycarp himself. In any case it must have been current in circles immediately connected with Polycarp"s person.
Against external evidence such as this the objections that are brought are really of very slight weight. That which is reproduced in "Supernatural Religion" from an apparent contradiction between c. ix and c. xiii, is dismissed even by writers such as Ritschl who believe that one or both chapters are interpolated. In c. ix the martyrdom of Ignatius is upheld as an example, in c. xiii Polycarp asks for information about Ignatius "et de his qui c.u.m eo sunt," apparently as if he were still living. But, apart from the easy and obvious solution which is accepted by Ritschl, following Hefele and others, [Endnote 83:1] that the sentence is extant only in the Latin translation and that the phrase "qui c.u.m eo sunt" is merely a paraphrase for [Greek: ton met" autou]; apart from this, even supposing the objection were valid, it would prove nothing against the genuineness of the Epistle. It might be taken to prove that the second pa.s.sage is an interpolation; but a contradiction between two pa.s.sages in the same writing in no way tends to show that that writing is not by its ostensible author. But surely either interpolator or forger must have had more sense than to place two such gross and absurd contradictions within about sixty lines of each other.
An argument brought by Dr. Hilgenfeld against the date dissolves away entirely on examination. He thinks that the exhortation Orate pro regibus (et potestatibus et principibus) in c. xii must needs refer to the double rule of Antoninus Pius (147 A.D.) or Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161 A.D.). But the writer of the Epistle is only reproducing the words of St. Paul in 1 Tim. ii. 2 ([Greek: parakalo ... poieisthai deaeseis ... hyper basileon kai panton ton en hyperochae onton]). The pa.s.sage is wrongly referred in "Supernatural Religion" to 1 Pet. ii. 17 [Endnote 84:1]. It is very clear that the language of Polycarp, like that of St. Paul, is quite general. In order to limit it to the two Caesars we should have had to read [Greek: hyper ton basileon].
The allusions which Schwegler finds to the Gnostic heresies are explained when that critic at the end of his argument objects to the Epistle that it makes use of a number of writings "the origin of which must be placed in the second century, such as the Acts, 1 Peter, the Epistles to the Philippians and to the Ephesians, and 1 Timothy." The objection belongs to the gigantic confusion of fact and hypothesis which makes up the so-called Tubingen theory, and falls to the ground with it.
It should be noticed that those who regard the Epistle as interpolated yet maintain the genuineness of those portions which are thought to contain allusions to the Gospels. Ritschl states this [Endnote 84:2]; Dr. Donaldson confines the interpolation to c. xiii [Endnote 84:3]; and Volkmar not only affirms with his usual energy the genuineness of these portions of the Epistle, but he also a.s.serts that the allusions are really to our Gospels [Endnote 84:4].
The first that meets us is in c. ii, "Remembering what the Lord said teaching, judge not that ye be not judged; forgive and it shall be forgiven unto you; pity that ye may be pitied; with what measure ye mete it shall be measured unto you again; and that blessed are the poor and those who are persecuted for righteousness" sake, for theirs is the kingdom of G.o.d" [Endnote 85:1]. This pa.s.sage (if taken from our Gospels) is not a continuous quotation, but is made up from Luke vi.
36-38, 20, Matt. v. 10, or of still more _disjecta membra_ of St.
Matthew. It will be seen that it covers very similar ground with the quotation in Clement, and there is also a somewhat striking point of similarity with that writer in the phrase [Greek: eleeite hina eleaetheate]. There is moreover a closer resemblance than to our Gospels in the clause [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin]. But the order of the clauses is entirely different from that in Clement, and the first clause [Greek: mae krinete hina mae krithaete] is identical with St. Matthew and more nearly resembles the parallel in St. Luke than in Clement. These are perplexing phenomena, and seem to forbid a positive judgment. It would be natural to suppose, and all that we know of the type of doctrine in the early Church would lead us to believe, that the Sermon on the Mount would be one of the most familiar parts of Christian teaching, that it would be largely committed to memory and quoted from memory. There would be no difficulty in employing that hypothesis here if the pa.s.sage stood alone. The breaking up of the order too would not surprise us when we compare the way in which the same discourse appears in St. Luke and in St. Matthew. But then comes in the strange coincidence in the single clause with Clement; and there is also another curious phenomenon, the phrase [Greek: aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin] compared with Luke"s [Greek: apoluete kai apoluthaesesthe] has very much the appearance of a parallel translation from the same Aramaic original, which may perhaps be the famous "Spruch-sammlung." This might however be explained as the subst.i.tution of synonymous terms by the memory. There is I believe nothing in the shape of direct evidence to show the presence of a different version of the Sermon on the Mount in any of the lost Gospels, and, on the other hand, there are considerable traces of disturbance in the Canonical text (compare e.g. the various readings on Matt. v. 44). It seems on the whole difficult to construct a theory that shall meet all the facts. Perhaps a mixed hypothesis would be best. It is probable that memory has been to some extent at work (the form of the quotation naturally suggests this) and is to account for some of Polycarp"s variations; at the same time I cannot but think that there has been somewhere a written version different from our Gospels to which he and Clement have had access.
There are several other sayings which seem to belong to the Sermon on the Mount; thus in c. vi, "If we pray the Lord to forgive us we also ought to forgive" (cf. Matt. vi. 14 sq.); in c. viii, "And if we suffer for His name let us glorify Him" (cf. Matt. v. 11 sq.); in c. xii, "Pray for them that persecute you and hate you, and for the enemies of the cross; that your fruit may be manifest in all things, that ye may be therein perfect" (cf. Matt. v. 44, 48). All these pa.s.sages give the sense, but only the sense, of the first (and partly also of the third) Gospel. There is however one quotation which coincides verbally with two of the Synoptics [Praying the all-seeing G.o.d not to lead us into temptation, as the Lord said], The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak ([Greek: to men pneuma prothumon, hae de sarx asthenaes], Matt., Mark, Polycarp; with the introductory clause compare, not Matt.
vi. 13, but xxvi. 41). In the cases where the sense alone is given there is no reason to think that the writer intends to give more.
At the same time it will be observed that all the quotations refer either to the double or triple synopsis where we have already proof of the existence of the saying in question in more than a single form, and not to those portions that are peculiar to the individual Evangelists. The author of "Supernatural Religion" is therefore not without reason when he says that they may be derived from other collections than our actual Gospels. The possibility cannot be excluded. It ought however to be borne in mind that if such collections did exist, and if Polycarp"s allusions or quotations are to be referred to them, they are to the same extent evidence that these hypothetical collections did not materially differ from our present Gospels, but rather bore to them very much the same relation that they bear to each other. And I do not know that we can better sum up the case in regard to the Apostolic Fathers than thus; we have two alternatives to choose between, either they made use of our present Gospels, or else of writings so closely resembling our Gospels and so nearly akin to them that their existence only proves the essential unity and h.o.m.ogeneity of the evangelical tradition.
CHAPTER IV.
JUSTIN MARTYR.
Hitherto the extant remains of Christian literature have been scanty and the stream of evangelical quotation has been equally so, but as we approach the middle of the second century it becomes much more abundant. We have copious quotations from a Gospel used about the year 140 by Marcion; the Clementine Homilies, the date of which however is more uncertain, also contain numerous quotations; and there are still more in the undoubted works of Justin Martyr. When I speak of quotations, I do not wish to beg the question by implying that they are necessarily taken from our present Gospels, I merely mean quotations from an evangelical doc.u.ment of some sort. This reservation has to be made especially in regard to Justin.
Strictly according to the chronological order we should not have to deal with Justin until somewhat later, but it will perhaps be best to follow the order of "Supernatural Religion," the principle of which appears to be to discuss the orthodox writers first and heretical writings afterwards. Modern critics seem pretty generally to place the two Apologies in the years 147-150 A.D. and the Dialogue against Tryphon a little later. Dr. Keim indeed would throw forward the date of Justin"s writings as far as from 155-160 on account of the mention of Marcion [Endnote 89:1], but this is decided by both Hilgenfeld [Endnote 89:2] and Lipsius to be too late. I see that Mr. Hort, whose opinion on such matters deserves high respect, comes to the conclusion "that we may without fear of considerable error set down Justin"s First Apology to 145, or better still to 146, and his death to 148. The Second Apology, if really separate from the First, will then fall in 146 or 147, and the Dialogue with Tryphon about the same time" [Endnote 89:3]
No definite conclusion can be drawn from the t.i.tle given by Justin to the work or works he used, that of the "Memoirs" or "Recollections" of the Apostles, and it will be best to leave our further enquiry quite unfettered by any a.s.sumption in respect to them. The t.i.tle certainly does not of necessity imply a single work composed by the Apostles collectively [Endnote 89:4], any more than the parallel phrase "the writings of the Prophets" [Endnote 89:5] ([Greek: ta sungrammata ton prophaeton]), which Justin couples with the "Memoirs" as read together in the public services of the Church, implies a single and joint production on the part of the Prophets. This hypothesis too is open to the very great objection that so authoritative a work, if it existed, should have left absolutely no other trace behind it. So far as the t.i.tle is concerned, the "Memoirs of the Apostles" may be either a single work or an almost indefinite number. In one place Justin says that the Memoirs were composed "by His Apostles and their followers"
[Endnote 90:1], which seems to agree remarkably, though not exactly, with the statement in the prologue to St. Luke. In another he says expressly that the Memoirs are called Gospels ([Greek: ha kaleitai euangelia]) [Endnote 90:2]. This clause has met with the usual fate of parenthetic statements which do not quite fall in with preconceived opinions, and is dismissed as a "manifest interpolation," a gloss having crept into the text from the margin. It would be difficult to estimate the exact amount of probability for or against this theory, but possible at any rate it must be allowed to be; and though the _prima facie_ view of the genuineness of the words is supported by another place in which a quotation is referred directly "to the Gospel," still too much ought not perhaps to be built on this clause alone.
A convenient distinction may be drawn between the material and formal use of the Gospels; and the most satisfactory method perhaps will be, to run rapidly through Justin"s quotations, first with a view to ascertain their relation to the Canonical Gospels in respect to their general historical tenor, and secondly to examine the amount of verbal agreement. I will try to bring out as clearly as possible the double phenomena both of agreement and difference; the former (in regard to which condensation will be necessary) will be indicated both by touching in the briefest manner the salient points and by the references in the margin; the latter, which I have endeavoured to give as exhaustively as possible, are brought out by italics in the text. The thread of the narrative then, so far as it can be extracted from the genuine writings of Justin, will be much as follows [Endnote 91:1].
According to Justin the Messiah was born, without sin, of a [SIDENOTES] virgin _who_ was descended from [SIDENOTES]
[Matt. 1.2-6.] David, Jesse, Phares, Judah, [Luke 3.31-34.]
Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, if not (the reading here is doubtful) from Adam himself. [Justin therefore, it may be inferred, had before him a genealogy, though not apparently, as the Canonical Gospels, that of Joseph but of Mary.] To Mary it was announced by the angel Gabriel [Luke 1.26.]
that, while yet a virgin, the power of G.o.d, or of the Highest, [Luke 1.35.]
should overshadow her and she should conceive and bear a Son [Luke 1.31.]
[Matt. 1.21.] whose name she should call Jesus, because He should save His people from their sins. Joseph observing that Mary, his espoused, was with child was [Matt. 1.18-25.] warned in a dream not to put her away, because that which was in her womb was of the Holy Ghost. Thus the prophecy, [Matt. 1.23.] Is. vii. 14 (Behold the virgin &c.), was fulfilled. The mother of John the Baptist was [Luke 1.57.]
Elizabeth. The birth-place of the Messiah had been indicated [Matt. 2.5, 6.] by the prophecy of Micah (v. 2, Bethlehem not the least among the princes of Judah). There He was born, as the Romans might learn from the census taken by Cyrenius the first _procurator_ [Greek: [Luke 2.1, 2.]
epitropou] _of Judaea_.
His life extended from Cyrenius to Pontius Pilate. So, in consequence of this the first census in Judaea, Joseph went up from Nazareth where he dwelt to [Luke 2.4.]
Bethlehem _whence he was_, as a member of the tribe of Judah.
The parents of Jesus could find no lodging in Bethlehem, so it [Luke 2.7.]
came to pa.s.s that He was born _in a cave near the village_ and laid in a manger. At His birth [_ibid._]
[Matt. 2.1.] there came Magi _from Arabia_, who knew by a star that had appeared in the _heaven_ that a [Matt. 2.2.] king had been born in Judaea.
Having paid Him their homage [Matt. 2.11.] and offered gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, they were [Matt. 2.12.] warned not to return to Herod [Matt. 2. 1-7.] whom they had consulted on the way. He however not willing that the Child should escape, [Matt. 2.16.] ordered a ma.s.sacre of _all_ the children in Bethlehem, fulfilling [Matt. 2.17, 18.] the prophecy of Jer. x.x.xi. 15 (Rachel weeping for her children &c.).
Joseph and his wife meanwhile [Matt. 2.13-15.] with the Babe had fled to Egypt, for the Father resolved that He to whom He had given birth should not die before He had preached His word as a man. There they stayed [Matt. 2.22] until Archelaus succeeded Herod, and then returned.
By process of nature He grew to the age of thirty years or [Luke 3.23.]
more, _not comely of aspect_ (_as had been prophesied_), practising [Mark 6.3.] the trade of a carpenter, _making ploughs and yokes, emblems of righteousness_. He remained hidden till John, the herald of his coming, came forward, the [Matt 17.12, 13.] spirit of Elias being in him, and [Matt. 3.2.] as he _sat_ by the river Jordan [Luke 3.3.]
cried to men to repent. As he [Matt. 3.4.] preached in his wild garb he declared that he was not the [John 1.19 ff.]