Matthew. He alludes to details in the humble occupation of Jesus who practised the trade of a carpenter. Speaking of the ministry of John, he three times repeats the phrase _"as he sat"_ by the river Jordan. At the baptism of Jesus he says that "fire was kindled on" or rather "in the Jordan," and that a voice was heard saying, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." He adds to the notice of the miracles that the Jews thought they were the effect of magic. Twice he refers, as evidence for what he is saying, to the Acts of Pontius Pilate. In two places Justin sees a fulfilment of Ps. xxii, where none is pointed out by the Synoptics. He says that _all_ the disciples forsook their Master, which seems to overlook Peter"s attack on the high priest"s servant. In the account of the Crucifixion he somewhat amplifies the Synoptic version of the mocking gestures of the crowd. And besides these matters of fact he has two sayings, "In whatsoever I find you, therein will I also judge you," and "There shall be schisms and heresies," which are without parallel, or have no exact parallel, in our Gospels.
Some of these points are not of any great importance. The reference to the Acts of Pilate should in all probability be taken along with the parallel reference to the census of Cyrenius, in which Justin a.s.serts that the birth of Jesus would be found registered. Both appear to be based, not upon any actual doc.u.ment that Justin had seen, but upon the bold a.s.sumption that the official doc.u.ments must contain a record of facts which he knew from other sources [Endnote 107:1]. In regard to Cyrenius he evidently has the Lucan version in his mind, though he seems to have confused this with his knowledge that Cyrenius was the first to exercise the Roman sovereignty in Judaea, which was matter of history. Justin seems to be mistaken in regarding Cyrenius as "procurator" [Greek: epitropou] of Judaea. He inst.i.tuted the census not in this capacity, but as proconsul of Syria. The first procurator of Judaea was Coponius. Some of Justin"s peculiarities may quite fairly be explained as unintentional. General statements without the due qualifications, such as those in regard to the ma.s.sacre of the children and the conduct of the disciples in Gethsemane, are met with frequently enough to this day, and in works of a more professedly critical character than Justin"s. The description of the carpenter"s trade and of the crowd at the Crucifixion may be merely rhetorical amplifications in the one case of the general Synoptic statement, in the other of the special statement in St. Mark. A certain fulness of style is characteristic of Justin. That he attributes the genealogy to Mary may be a natural instance of reflection; the inconsistency in the Synoptic Gospels would not be at first perceived, and the simplest way of removing it would be that which Justin has adopted. It should be noticed however that he too distinctly says that Joseph was of the tribe of Judah (Dial. 78) and that his family came from Bethlehem, which looks very much like an un.o.bliterated trace of the same inconsistency. It is also noticeable that in the narrative of the Baptism one of the best MSS. of the Old Latin (a, Codex Vercellensis) has, in the form of an addition to Matt. iii.
15, "et c.u.m baptizaretur lumen ingens circ.u.mfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant," and there is a very similar addition in g1 (Codex San-Germanensis). Again, in Luke iii. 22 the reading [Greek: ego saemeron gegennaeka se] for [Greek: en soi eudokaesa] is shared with Justin by the most important Graeco- Latin MS. D (Codex Bezae), and a, b, c, ff, l of the Old Version; Augustine expressly states that the reading was found "in several respectable copies (aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus), though not in the older Greek Codices."
There will then remain the specifying of Arabia as the home of the Magi, the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos] used of John on the banks of the Jordan, the two unparallelled sentences, and the cave of the Nativity. Of these the phrase [Greek: kathezomenos], which occurs in three places, Dial. 49, 51, 88, but always in Justin"s own narrative and not in quotation, _may_ be an accidental recurrence; and it is not impossible that the other items may be derived from an unwritten tradition.
Still, on the whole, I incline to think that though there is not conclusive proof that Justin used a lost Gospel besides the present Canonical Gospels, it is the more probable hypothesis of the two that he did. The explanations given above seem to me reasonable and possible; they are enough, I think, to remove the _necessity_ for a.s.suming a lost doc.u.ment, but perhaps not quite enough to destroy the greater probability. This conclusion, we shall find, will be confirmed when we pa.s.s from considering the substance of Justin"s Gospel to its form.
But now if we ask ourselves _what_ was this hypothetical lost doc.u.ment, all we can say is, I believe, that the suggestions. .h.i.therto offered are insufficient. The Gospels according to the Hebrews or according to Peter and the Protevangelium of James have been most in favour. The Gospel according to the Hebrews in the form in which it was used by the Nazarenes contained the fire upon Jordan, and as used by the Ebionites it had also the voice, "This day have I begotten Thee." Credner [Endnote 110:1], and after him Hilgenfeld [Endnote 110:2], thought that the Gospel according to Peter was used. But we know next to nothing about this Gospel, except that it was nearly related to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, that it made the "brethren of the Lord" sons of Joseph by a former wife, that it was found by Serapion in the churches of his diocese, Rhossus in Cilicia, that its use was at first permitted but afterwards forbidden, as it was found to favour Docetism, and that its contents were in the main orthodox though in some respects perverted [Endnote 110:3]. Obviously these facts and the name (which falls in with the theory--itself also somewhat unsubstantial--that Justin"s Gospel must have a "Petrine"
character) are quite insufficient to build upon. The Protevangelium of James, which it is thought might have been used in an earlier form than that which has come down to us, contains the legend of the cave, and has apparently a similar view to the Gospel last mentioned as to the perpetual virginity of Mary. The kindred Evangelium Thomae has the "ploughs and yokes." And there are some similarities of language between the Protevangelium and Justin"s Gospel, which will come under review later [Endnote 110:4].
It does not, however, appear to have been noticed that these Gospels satisfy most imperfectly the conditions of the problem. We know that the Gospel according to the Hebrews in its Nazarene form omitted the whole section Matt. i. 18--ii. 23, containing the conception, the nativity, the visit of the Magi, and the flight into Egypt, all of which were found in Justin"s Gospel; while in its Ebionite form it left out the first two chapters altogether.
There is not a t.i.ttle of evidence to show that the Gospel according to Peter was any more complete; in proportion as it resembled the Gospel according to the Hebrews the presumption is that it was not. And the Protevangelium of James makes no mention of Arabia, while it expressly says that the star appeared "in the East" (instead of "in the heaven" as Justin); it also omits, and rather seems to exclude, the flight into Egypt.
It is therefore clear that whether Justin used these Gospels or not, he cannot in any case have confined himself to them; unless indeed this is possible in regard to the Gospel that bears the name of Peter, though the possibility is drawn so entirely from our ignorance that it can hardly be taken account of. We thus seem to be reduced to the conclusion that Justin"s Gospel or Gospels was an unknown ent.i.ty of which no historical evidence survives, and this would almost be enough, according to the logical Law of Parsimony, to drive us back upon the a.s.sumption that our present Gospels only had been used. This a.s.sumption however still does not appear to me wholly satisfactory, for reasons which will come out more clearly when from considering the matter of the doc.u.ments which Justin used we pa.s.s to their form.
The reader already has before him a collection of Justin"s quotations from the Old Testament, the results of which may be stated thus. From the Pentateuch eighteen pa.s.sages are quoted exactly, nineteen with slight variations, and eleven with marked divergence. From the Psalms sixteen exactly, including nine (or ten) whole Psalms, two with slight and three with decided variation. From Isaiah twenty-five exactly, twelve slightly variant, and sixteen decidedly. From the other Major Prophets Justin has only three exact quotations, four slightly divergent, and eleven diverging more widely. From the Minor Prophets and other books he has two exact quotations, seven in which the variation is slight, and thirteen in which it is marked. Of the distinctly free quotations in the Pentateuch (eleven in all), three may be thought to have a Messianic character (the burning bush, the brazen serpent, the curse of the cross), but in none of these does the variation appear to be due to this. Of the three free quotations from the Psalms two are Messianic, and one of these has probably been influenced by the Messianic application.
In the free quotations from Isaiah it is not quite easy to say what are Messianic and what are not; but the only clear case in which the Messianic application seems to have caused a marked divergence is xlii. 1-4. Other pa.s.sages, such as ii. 5, 6, vii.
10-17, lii. l3-liii. 12 (as quoted in A. i. 50), appear under the head of slight variation. The long quotation lii. 10-liv. 6, in Dial. 12, is given with substantial exactness. Turning to the other Major Prophets, one pa.s.sage, Jer. x.x.xi. 15, has probably derived its shape from the Messianic application. And in the Minor Prophets three pa.s.sages (Hos. x. 6, Zech. xii. 10-12, and Micah v.
2) appear to have been thus affected. The rest of the free quotations and some of the variations in those which are less free may be set down to defect of memory or similar accidental causes.
Let us now draw up a table of Justin"s quotations from the Gospels arranged as nearly as may be on the same standard and scale as that of the quotations from the Old Testament. Such a table will stand thus. [Those only which appear to be direct quotations are given.]
_Exact._ |_Slightly variant._ | _Variant._ | _Remarks._ | | | |+D.49, Matt. 3.11, | |repeated in part | 12 (v.l.) | | similarly.
|D. 51, Matt. 11. | |compounded with | 12-15; Luke 16. | | omissions but | 16+. | | striking resem- | | | blances.
D. 49, Matt. 17. | | | 11-13. | | | |A.1.15, Matt. 5.28. | | | |A.1.15, Matt. 5. |from memory?
| | 29; Mark 9.47. | |A.1.15, Matt. 5.32. | |confusion of read- | | | ings.
| |+A.1.15, Matt. |from memory?
| | 19.12. | | |A.1.15, Matt. 5. |compounded.
| | 42; Luke 6.30, | | | 34. | Continuous.{ |A.1.15, Matt. 6. | | { |19, 20; 16.26; 6.20.| | | | | |Continuous.{ |A.1.15 (D.96), |from memory(Cr.), | { | Luke 6.36; | but prob. diff- | { | Matt. 5.45; 6. | erent doc.u.ment; | { | 25-27; Luke 12.| rather marked | { | 22-24; Matt. 6.| ident.i.ty in | { | 32, 33; 6.21. | phrase.
|A.1.15, Matt. 6.1. | | A.1.15, Matt. 9. | | | do the last 13(?). | | | words belong | | | to the | |C | quotation?
| |o { A.1.15, Luke| | |n { 6.32; Matt.| | |t { 5.46. | | |i { A.1.15, (D. |repeated in part | |n { 128), Luke | similarly, in | |u { 6.27, 28; | part diversely; | |o { Matt. 5.44. | confusion in | |u | MSS.
| |s | | |s | Continuous. { |A.1.16, Luke 6.29 | | { | (Matt. 5.39, 40.) | | { | |A.1.16, Matt. 5. | { | | 22 (v.l.) | { | |A.1.16, Matt. 5 |[Greek: { | | 41. | angaeusei.]
{ |A.1.16, Matt. 5.16. | | | |D.93, A,1.16, | | | Matt. 22.40,37,| | | 38. | | |A.1.16, D.101, |repeated | | Matt. 19.16, | diversely.
| | 17 (v.l.); Luke| | | 18.18,19 (v.l.)| |A.1.16, Matt. 5. | | | 34,37. | | {A.1.16, Matt. | | | { 7.21. | | | C { |A.1.16 (A.1.62), | |repeated in part o { | Luke 10.16 (v.l.) | | similarly, in n { | | | part diversely.
t { | |+A.1.16 (D.76), | i { | | Matt. 7.22, 23 | n { | | (v.l.); Luke | u { | | 13.26,27 (v.l.)| o { |A.1.16, Matt. 13. | |addition.
u { | 42, 43 (v.l.) | | s { | |A.1.16 (D.35), | { | | Matt. 7.15. | { |A.1.16, Matt. 7. | | { | 16, 19. | | D.76, Matt. 8.11.| | | 12+. | | | | |D.35, [Greek: | | | esontai schi- | | | smata kai hai- | | | reseis.] | |D.76, Matt. 25.41 | | | (v.l.) | | |D.35, Matt. 7.15. | |repeated with | | | nearer | | | approach to | | | Matthew, perh.
| | | v.l.
| |D.35, 82, Matt. |repeated with | |24.24 (Mark 13. | similarity and | | 22). | divergence.
| |D.82, Matt. 10. |freely.
| | 22, par. | A.1.19, Luke 18. | | | 27+. | | | | |A.1.19, Luke 12. |compounded.
| | 4, 5; Matt. | | | 10.28. | | |A.1.17, Luke 12. | | | 48 (v.l.) | |D.76, Luke 10.19+ | |ins. [Greek: | | | skolopendron.]
D.105, Matt. 5. | | | 20. | | | | |D.125, Matt. 13. |condensed narra- | | 3 sqq. | tive.
| |+D.17, Luke 11. | | | 52. | |D.17, Matt. 23.23; | |compounded.
| Luke 11.42. | | |D.17, 112, Matt. | |repeated simi- | 23.27; 23.24. | | larly.
| |D.47, [Greek: en | | | ois an humas | | | katalabo en | | | toutois kai | | | krino.] | |D.81, Luke 20. | |marked resem- | 35, 36. | | blance with | | | difference.
D.107, Matt.16.4.| | | |D. 122, Matt. 23. | | | 15. | | |+D.17, Matt. 21. | | | 13, 12. | | | |+A.1.17, Luke 20.|narrative portion | | 22-25 (v.l.) | free.
|D.100, A.1.63, | |repeated not | Matt. 11.27 (v.l.)| | identically.
|D.76, 100, Luke | |repeated diverse- | 9.22. | | diversely; | | | free (Credner).
A.1.36, Matt. 21.| |D.53, Matt. 21.5.|(Zech. 9.9).
5 (addition). | | | | |A.1.66, Luke 22. | | | 19, 20. | |D.99, Matt. 26. | | | 39 (v.l.) | | | |D.103, Luke 22. | | | 42-44. | | |D.101, Matt. 27. | | | 43. | | |A.1.38, [Greek: | | | ho nekrous | | | anegeiras rhu- | | | sastho eauton.]| D.99, Matt. 27. | | |compounded.
46; Mark 15.34.| | | D.105, Luke 23. | | | 46.
The total result may be taken to be that ten pa.s.sages are substantially exact, while twenty-five present slight and thirty- two marked variations [Endnote 116:1]. This is only rough and approximate, because of the pa.s.sages that are put down as exact two, or possibly three, can only be said to be so with a qualification; though, on the other hand, there are pa.s.sages entered under the second cla.s.s as "slightly variant" which have a leaning towards the first, and pa.s.sages entered under the third which have a perceptible leaning towards the second. We can therefore afford to disregard these doubtful cases and accept the cla.s.sification very much as it stands. Comparing it then with the parallel cla.s.sification that has been made of the quotations from the Old Testament, we find that in the latter sixty-four were ranked as exact, forty-four as slightly variant, and fifty-four as decidedly variant. If we reduce these roughly to a common standard of comparison the proportion of variation may be represented thus:-- | Exact. | Slightly | Variant.
| | variant. | | | | Quotations from the Old Testament | 10 | 7 | 9 Quotations from the Synoptic Gospels | 10 | 25 | 32
It will be seen from this at once how largely the proportion of variation rises; it is indeed more than three times as high for the quotations from the Gospels as for those from the Old Testament.
The amount of combination too is decidedly in excess of that which is found in the Old Testament quotations.
There is, it is true, something to be said on the other side.
Justin quotes the Old Testament rather as Scripture, the New Testament rather as history. I think it will be felt that he has permitted his own style a freer play in regard to the latter than the former. The New Testament record had not yet acquired the same degree of fixity as the Old. The "many" compositions of which St. Luke speaks in his preface were still in circulation, and were only gradually dying out. One important step had been taken in the regular reading of the "Memoirs of the Apostles" at the Christian a.s.semblies. We have not indeed proof that these were confined to the Canonical Gospels. Probably as yet they were not. But it should be remembered that Irenaeus was now a boy, and that by the time he had reached manhood the Canon of the Gospels had received its definite form.
Taking all these points into consideration I think we shall find the various indications converge upon very much the same conclusion as that at which we have already arrived. The _a priori_ probabilities of the case, as well as the actual phenomena of Justin"s Gospel, alike tend to show that he did make use either mediately or immediately of our Gospels, but that he did not a.s.sign to them an exclusive authority, and that he probably made use along with them of other doc.u.ments no longer extant.
The proof that Justin made use of each of our three Synoptics individually is perhaps more striking from the point of view of substance than of form, because his direct quotations are mostly taken from the discourses rather than from the narrative, and these discourses are usually found in more than a single Gospel, while in proportion as they bear the stamp of originality and authenticity it is difficult to a.s.sign them to any particular reporter. There is however some strong and remarkable evidence of this kind.
At least one case of parallelism seems to prove almost decisively the use of the first Gospel. It is necessary to give the quotation and the original with the parallel from St. Mark side by side.
_Justin, Dial._ c.49.
[Greek: Aelias men eleusetai kai apokatastaesei panta, lego de humin, hoti Aelias aedae aelthe kai ouk epegnosan auton all"
epoiaesan auto hosa aethelaesan. Kai gegraptai hoti tote sunaekan oi mathaetai, hoti peri Ioannon tou Baptistou eipen autois.]
_Matt._ xvii. 11-13.
[Greek: Aelias men erchetai apokatastaesei panta, lego de humin hoti Aelias aedae aelthen kai ouk epegnosan auton, alla epoiaesan auto hosa aethelaesan, [outos kai ho uios tou anthropou mellei paschein hup" auton.] Tote sunaekan oi mathaetai hoti peri Ioannou tou Baptistou eipen autois.] The clause in brackets is placed at the end of ver. 13 by D. and the Old Latin.
_Mark._ ix. 12, 13.
[Greek: Ho de ephae autois, Aelias [men] elthon proton apokathistanei panta, kai pos gegraptai epi ton uion tou anthropou, hina polla pathae kai exoudenaethae. Alla lego humin hoti kai Aelias elaeluthen kai epoiaesan auto hosa aethelon, kathos gegraptai ep" auton.]
We notice here, first, an important point, that Justin reproduces at the end of his quotation what appears to be not so much a part of the object-matter of the narrative as a _comment or reflection of the Evangelist_ ("Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist"). This was thought by Credner, who as a rule is inclined to press the use of an apocryphal Gospel by Justin, to be sufficient proof that the quotation is taken from our present Matthew [Endnote 119:1]. On this point, however, there is an able and on the whole a sound argument in "Supernatural Religion" [Endnote 119:2].
There are certainly cases in which a similar comment or reflection is found either in all three Synoptic Gospels or in two of them (e.g.
Matt. vii. 28, 29 = Mark i. 22 = Luke iv. 32; Matt. xiii. 34 = Mark iv. 33, 34; Matt. xxvi. 43 = Mark xiv. 40; Matt. xix. 22 = Mark x.
22). The author consequently maintains that these were found in the original doc.u.ment from which all three, or two Synoptics at least, borrowed; and he notes that this very pa.s.sage is a.s.signed by Ewald to the "oldest Gospel."
The observation in itself is a fine and true one, and has an important bearing upon the question as to the way in which our Synoptic Gospels were composed. We may indeed remark in pa.s.sing that the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, when once this principle of a common written basis or bases for the Synoptic Gospels is accepted, nine-tenths of his own argument is overthrown; for there are no divergences in the text of the patristic quotations from the Gospels that may not be amply paralleled by the differences which exist in the text of the several Gospels themselves, showing that the Evangelists took liberties with their ground doc.u.ments to an extent that is really greater than that of any subsequent misquotation. But putting aside for the present this _argumentum ad hominem_ which seems to follow from the admission here made, there is, I think, the strongest reason to conclude that in the present case the first Evangelist is not merely reproducing his ground doc.u.ment. There is one element in the question which the author has omitted to notice; that is, the _parallel pa.s.sage in St. Mark._ This differs so widely from the text of St. Matthew as to show that that text cannot accurately represent the original; it also wants the reflective comment altogether. Accordingly, if the author will turn to p. 275 of Ewald"s book [Endnote 120:1] he will find that that writer, though roughly a.s.signing the pa.s.sage as it appears in both Synoptics to the "oldest Gospel," yet in reconstructing the text of this Gospel does so, not by taking that of either of the Synoptics pure and simple, but by mixing the two.
All the other critics who have dealt with this point, so far as I am aware, have done the same. Holtzmann [Endnote 120:2] follows Ewald, and Weiss [Endnote 120:3] accepts Mark"s as more nearly the original text.
The very extent of the divergence in St. Mark throws out into striking relief the close agreement of Justin"s quotation with St. Matthew.
Here we have three verses word for word the same, even to the finest shades of expression. To the single exception [Greek: eleusetai]
for [Greek: erchetai] I cannot, as Credner does [Endnote 120:4], attach any importance. The present tense in the Gospel has undoubtedly a future signification [Endnote 120:5], and Justin was very naturally led to give it also a future form by [Greek: apokatastaesei] which follows. For the rest, the order, particles, tenses are so absolutely identical, where the text of St. Mark shows how inevitably they must have differed in another Gospel or even in the original, that I can see no alternative but to refer the quotation directly to our present St. Matthew.
If this pa.s.sage had stood alone, taken in connection with the coincidence of matter between Justin and the first Gospel, great weight must have attached to it. But it does not by any means stand alone. There is an exact verbal agreement in the verses Matt. v. 20 ("Except your righteousness" &c.) and Matt. vii. 21 ("Not every one that saith unto me," &c.) which are peculiar to the first Gospel.