[Greek: Apekrithae Iaesous kai eipen auto Amaen amaen lego soi, ean mae tis gennaethae anothen ou dunatai idein taen Basilaian tou Theou. Legei pros aouton ho Nikodaemos, Pos dunatai anthropos gennaethaenai geron on; mae dunatai eis taen koilian taes maertros autou deuteron eiselthein kai gennaethaenai; k.t.l.]
Here we have first to determine the meaning of the word [Greek: anothen]
in the phrase [Greek: gennaethae anothen] of John iii. 3 on which the extent of the parallelism to some degree turns. Does it mean "be born _over again_," like Justin"s [Greek: anagennaethaete]?
Or does it mean "be born _from above_," i.e. by a heavenly, divine, regeneration? To express an opinion in favour of the first of these views would naturally be to incur the charge of taking it up merely to suit the occasion. It is not however necessary; for it is sufficient to know that whether or not this meaning was originally intended by the Evangelist, it is a meaning that Justin might certainly put upon the words. That this is the case is sufficiently proved by the fact that the Syriac version (which is quoted in "Supernatural Religion," by a pardonable mistake, on the other side [Endnote 283:1]) actually translates the words thus. So also does the Vulgate; with Tertullian ("renatus"), Augustine, Chrysostom (partly), Luther, Calvin, Maldonatus, &c. For the sense "from above" are the Gothic version, Origen, Cyril, Theophylact, Bengel, &c.; on the whole a fairly equal division of opinion. The question has been of late elaborately re-argued by Mr. McClellan [Endnote 283:2], who decides in favour of "again." But, without taking sides either way, it is clear that Justin would have had abundant support, in particular that of his own national version, if he intended [Greek: anagennaethaete] to be a paraphrase of [Greek: gennaethae anothen].
It is obvious that if he is quoting St. John the quotation is throughout paraphrastic. And yet it is equally noticeable that he does not use the exact Johannean phrase, he uses others that are in each case almost precisely equivalent. He does not say [Greek: our dunatai idein--taen basileian ton ouranon], but he says [Greek: ou mae eiselthaete eis--taen basileian ton ouranon], the latter pair phrases which the Synoptics have already taught us to regard as convertible. He does not say [Greek: mae dunatai eis taen koilian taes maetros autou deuteron eiselthein kai gennaethaenai], but he says [Greek: adunaton eis tas maetras ton tekouson tous hapax gennomenous embaebai]. And the scale seems decisively turned by the very remarkable combination in Justin and St. John of the saying respecting spiritual regeneration with the same strangely gross physical misconception. It is all but impossible that two minds without concert or connection should have thought of introducing anything of the kind. Nicodemus makes an objection, and Justin by repeating the same objection, and in a form that savours so strongly of plat.i.tude, has shown, I think we must say, conclusively, that he was aware that the objection had been made.
Such are some of the chief literary coincidences between Justin and the fourth Gospel; but there are others more profound. Justin undoubtedly has the one cardinal doctrine of the fourth Gospel-- the doctrine of the Logos.
Thus he writes. "Jesus Christ is in the proper sense [Greek: idios] the only Son begotten of G.o.d, being His Word [Greek: logos]
and Firstborn Power" [Endnote 284:1]. Again, "But His Son who alone is rightly [Greek: kurios] called Son, who before all created things was with Him and begotten of Him as His Word, when in the beginning He created and ordered all things through Him,"
&c. Again, "Now the next Power to G.o.d the Father and Lord of all, and Son [Endnote 284:2], is the Word, of whom we shall relate in what follows how He was made flesh and became Man." Again, "The Word of G.o.d is His Son." Again, speaking of the Gentile philosophers and lawgivers, "Since they did not know all things respecting the Word, who is Christ, they have also frequently contradicted each other." These pa.s.sages are given by Tischendorf, and they might be added to without difficulty; but it is not questioned that the term Logos is found frequently in Justin"s writings, and in the same sense in which it is used in the Prologue of the fourth Gospel of the eternal Son of G.o.d, who is at the same time the historical person Jesus Christ.
The natural inference that Justin was acquainted with the fourth Gospel is met by suggesting other sources for the doctrine. These sources are of two kinds, Jewish or Alexandrine.
It is no doubt true that a vivid personification of the Wisdom of G.o.d is found both in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha. Thus in the book of Proverbs we have an elaborate ode upon Wisdom as the eternal a.s.sessor in the counsels of G.o.d: "The Lord possessed me in" the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains of water ... When He prepared the heavens, I was there: when He set a compa.s.s upon the face of the deep ... Then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him" [Endnote 285:1]. The ideas of which this is perhaps the clearest expression are found more vaguely in other parts of the same book, in the Psalms, and in the book of Job, but they are further expanded and developed in the two Apocryphal books of Wisdom. There [Endnote 285:2] Wisdom is represented as the "breath of the power of G.o.d, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty," as "the brightness [Greek: apaugasma] of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of G.o.d, and the image of His goodness." Wisdom "sitteth by the throne" of G.o.d. She reacheth from one end to another mightily: and sweetly doth she order all things." "She is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of G.o.d and a lover of His works." G.o.d "created her before the world"
[Endnote 286:1]. We also get by the side of this, but in quite a subordinate place and in a much less advanced stage of personification, the idea of the Word or Logos: "O G.o.d of my fathers ... who hast made all things with thy word, and ordained man through thy wisdom"
[Endnote 286:2]. "It was neither herb nor mollifying plaister that restored them to health: but thy word, O Lord, which healeth all things."
It was "the Almighty word" ([Greek: ho pantodunamos logos]) "that leaped down from heaven" to slay the Egyptians.
But still it will be seen that there is a distinct gap between these conceptions and that which we find in Justin. The leading idea is that of Wisdom, not of the Word. The Word is not even personified separately; it is merely the emitted power or energy of G.o.d. And the personification of Wisdom is still to a large extent poetical, it does not attain to separate metaphysical hypostasis; it is not thought of as being really personal.
The Philonian conception, on the other hand, is metaphysical, but it contains many elements that are quite discordant and inconsistent with that which we find in Justin. That it must have been so will be seen at once when we think of the sources from which Philo"s doctrine was derived. It included in itself the Platonic theory of Ideas, the diffused Logos or _anima mundi_ of the Stoics, and the Oriental angelology or doctrine of intermediate beings between G.o.d and man. On its Platonic side the Logos is the Idea of Ideas summing up the world of high abstractions which themselves are also regarded as possessing a separate individuality; they are Logoi by the side of the Logos.
On its Stoic side it becomes a Pantheistic Essence pervading the life of things; it is "the law," "the bond" which holds the world together; the world is its "garment." On its Eastern side, the Logos is the "Archangel," the "Captain of the hosts of heaven,"
the "Mother-city" from which they issue as colonists, the "Vice- gerent" of the Great King [Endnote 287:1].
It needed a more powerful mind than Justin"s to reduce all this to its simple Christian expression, to take the poetry of Judaea and the philosophy of Alexandria and to interpret and realise both in the light of the historical events of the birth and life of Christ. "The Word became flesh" is the key by which Justin is made intelligible, and that key is supplied by the fourth Gospel. No other Christian writer had combined these two ideas before--the divine Logos, with the historical personality of Jesus. When therefore we find the ideas combined as in Justin, we are necessarily referred to the fourth Gospel for them; for the strangely inverted suggestion of Volkmar, that the author of the fourth Gospel borrowed from Justin, is on chronological, if not on other grounds, certainly untenable. We shall see that the fourth Gospel was without doubt in existence at the date which Volkmar a.s.signs to Justin"s Apology, 150 A. D.
The history of the discussion as to the relation of the Clementine Homilies to the fourth Gospel is highly instructive, not only in itself, but also for the light which it throws upon the general character of our enquiry and the doc.u.ments with which it is concerned. It has been already mentioned that up to the year 1853 the Clementine Homilies were only extant in a mutilated form, ending abruptly in the middle of Hom. xix. 14. In that year a complete edition was at last published by Dressel from a ma.n.u.script in the Vatican containing the rest of the nineteenth and the twentieth Homily. The older portion occupies in all, with the translation and critical apparatus, 381 large octavo pages in Dressel"s edition; the portion added by Dressel occupies 34. And yet up to 1853, though the Clementine Homilies had been carefully studied with reference to the use of the fourth Gospel, only a few indications had been found, and those were disputed. In fact, the controversy was very much at such a point as others with which we have been dealing; there was a certain probability in favour of the conclusion that the Gospel had been used, but still considerably short of the highest. Since the publication of the conclusion of the Homilies the question has been set at rest.
Hilgenfeld, who had hitherto been a determined advocate of the negative theory, at once gave up his ground [Endnote 288:1]; and Volkmar, who had somewhat less to retract, admitted and admits [Endnote 288:2] that the fact of the use of the Gospel must be considered as proved. The author of "Supernatural Religion" stands alone in still resisting this conviction [Endnote 288:3], but the result I suspect will be only to show in stronger relief the one- sidedness of his critical method.
We will follow the example that is set us in presenting the whole of the pa.s.sages alleged to contain allusions to the fourth Gospel; and it is the more interesting to do so with the key that the recent discovery has put into Our hands. The first runs thus:--
_Hom._ iii. 52.
Therefore he, being a true prophet, said: I am the gate of life; he that entereth in through me entereth into life: for the teaching that can save is none other [than mine].
[Greek: Dia touto autos alaethaes on prophaetaes elegen; Ego eimi hae pulae taes zoaes; ho di" emou eiserchomenos eiserchetai eis taen zoaen; hos ouk ousaes heteras taes sozein dunamenaes didaskalias.]
_John_ x. 9.
I am the door: by me if any one enter in, he shall be saved, and shall come in and go out, and shall find pasture.
[Greek: Ego eimi hae thura; di" emou ean tis eiselthae sothaesetai kai eiseleusetai kai exeleusetai kai nomaen heuraesei.]
Apart from other evidence it would have been somewhat precarious to allege this as proof of the use of the fourth Gospel, and yet I believe there would have been a distinct probability that it was taken from that work. The parallel is much closer--in spite of [Greek: thura] for [Greek: pulae]--than is Matt. vii. 13, 14 (the "narrow gate") which is adduced in "Supernatural Religion," and the interval is very insufficiently bridged over by Ps. cxviii.
19, 20 ("This is the gate of the Lord"). The key-note of the pa.s.sage is given in the identification of the gate with the person of the Saviour ("_I_ am the door") and in the remarkable expression "he that entereth in _through me_," which is retained in the Homily. It is curious to notice the way in which the [Greek: sothaesetai] of the Gospel has been expanded exegetically.
Less doubtful--and indeed we should have thought almost beyond a doubt--is the next reference; "My sheep hear my voice."
_Hom._ iii. 52.
[Greek: ta ema probata akouei taes emaes phonaes.]
_John_ x. 27. [Greek: ta probata ta ema taes phonaes mou akouei.]
"There was no more common representation amongst the Jews of the relation of G.o.d and his people than that of Shepherd and his sheep" [Endnote 290:1]. That is to say, it occurs of Jehovah or of the Messiah some twelve or fifteen times in the Old and New Testament together, but never with anything at all closely approaching to the precise and particular feature given here. Let the reader try to estimate the chances that another source than the fourth Gospel is being quoted. Criticism is made null and void when such seemingly plain indications as this are discarded in favour of entirely unknown quant.i.ties like the "Gospel according to the Hebrews." If the author of "Supernatural Religion" were to turn his own powers of derisive statement against his own hypotheses they would present a very strange appearance.
The reference that follows has in some respects a rather marked resemblance to that which we were discussing in Justin, and for the relation between them to be fully appreciated should be given along with it:--
_Justin, Apol._ i. 61.
Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
[Greek: An mae anagennaethaete ou mae eiselthaete eis taen basileian ton ouranon.]
_Clem. Hom._ xi. 26.
Verily I say unto you, Except ye be born again with living water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
[Greek: Amaen humin lego, ean mae anagennaethaete hudati zonti eis onoma patros, uhiou, hagiou pneumatos, ou mae eiselthaete eis taen basileian ton ouranon.]
_John_ iii. 3, 5. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born over again (or "from above") he cannot see the kingdom of G.o.d ... Except any one be born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of G.o.d.
[Greek: Amaen amaen lego soi, ean mae tis gennaethae anothen, ou dunatai idein taen basileian tou Theou ... ean mae tis gennaethae ex hudatos kai pneumatos, ou dunatai eiselthein eis taen basileian tou Theou.]
[Greek: pneum]. add. [Greek: hagiou] Vulg. (Clementine edition), a, ff, m, Aeth., Orig. (Latin translator).
Here it will be noticed that Justin and the Clementines have four points in common, [Greek: anagennaethaete] for [Greek: gennaethae anothen], the second person plural (twice over) for [Greek: tis]
and the singular, [Greek: ou mae] and the subjunctive for [Greek: ou dunatai] and infinitive, and [Greek: taen basileian ton ouranon], for [Greek: taen basileian tou Theou]. To the last of these points much importance could not be attached in itself, as it represents a persistent difference between the first and the other Synoptists even where they had the same original. As both the Clementines and Justin used the first Gospel more than the others, it is only natural that they should fall into the habit of using its characteristic phrase. Neither would the other points have had very much importance taken separately, but their importance increases considerably when they come to be taken together.
On the other hand, we observe in the Clementines (where it is however connected with Matt. xxviii. 19) the sufficiently near equivalent for the striking Johannean phrase [Greek: ex hudatos kai pneumatos] which is omitted entirely by Justin.
The most probable view of the case seems to be that both the Clementines and Justin are quoting from memory. Both have in their memory the pa.s.sage of St. John, but both have also distinctly before them (so much the more distinctly as it is the Gospel which they habitually used) the parallel pa.s.sage in Matt. xviii. 3-- where _all the last three_ out of the four common variations are found, besides, along with the Clementines, the omission of the second [Greek: amaen],--"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" ([Greek: on mae eiseathaete eis taen basileian ton ouranon]). It is out of the question that this _only_ should have been present to the mind of the writers; and, in view of the repet.i.tion of Nicodemus" misunderstanding by Justin and of the baptism by water and Spirit in the Clementine Homilies, it seems equally difficult to exclude the reference to St. John. It is in fact a Johannean saying in a Matthaean framework.
There is the more reason to accept this solution, that neither Justin nor the Clementines can in any case represent the original form of the pa.s.sages quoted. If Justin"s version were correct, whence did the Clementines get the [Greek: hudati zonti k.t.l.]? if the Clementine, then whence did Justin get the misconception of Nicodemus? But the Clementine version is in any case too eccentric to stand.
The last pa.s.sage is the one that is usually considered to be decisive as to the use of the fourth Gospel.
_Hom_. xix. 22.
Hence too our Teacher, when explaining to those who asked of him respecting the man who was blind from his birth and recovered his sight, whether this man sinned or his parents that he should be born blind, replied: Neither this man sinned, nor his parents; but that through him the power of G.o.d might be manifested healing the sins of ignorance.