[Greek: Hothen kai didaskalos haemon peri tou [Endnote 293:1] ek genetaes paerou kai anablepsantos par" autou exetazon erotaesasin, ei ohutos haemarten ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae [Endnote 293:1] apekrinato oute ohutos ti haemarten, oute oi goneis autou, all" hina di autou phanerothae hae dunamis tou Theou taes agnoias iomenae ta hamartaemata.]
_John_ ix. 1-3.
And as he pa.s.sed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of G.o.d should be manifested in him.
[Greek: Kai paragon eiden anthropon tuphlon ek genetaes. Kai aerotaesan auton oi mathaetai autou legontes, Rhabbei, tis haemarten, ohutos ae oi goneis autou, hina tuphlos gennaethae; apekrithae Iaesous, Oute ohutos haemarten oute oi goneis autou, all" hina phanerothae ta erga tou Theou en auto.]
The author of "Supernatural Religion" undertakes to show "that the context of this pa.s.sage in the Homily bears positive characteristics which render it impossible that it can have been taken from the fourth Gospel" [Endnote 293:2]. I think we may venture to say that he does indeed show somewhat conspicuously the way in which he uses the word "impossible" and the kind of grounds on which that and such like terms are employed throughout his work.
It is a notorious fact, abundantly established by certain quotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere, that the last thing regarded by the early patristic writers was context. But in this case the context is perfectly in keeping, and to a clear and unprejudiced eye it presents no difficulty. The Clementine writer is speaking of the origin of physical infirmities, and he says that these are frequently due, not to moral error, but to mere ignorance on the part of parents. As an instance of this he gives the case of the man who was born blind, of whom our Lord expressly said that neither he nor his parents had sinned--morally or in such a way as to deserve punishment. On the contrary they had erred simply through ignorance, and the object of the miracle was to make a display of the Divine mercy removing the consequences of such error. "And in reality," he proceeds, "things of this kind are the result of ignorance. The misfortunes of which you spoke, proceed from ignorance and not from any wicked action." This is perfectly compatible with every word of the Johannean narrative.
The concluding clause of the quotation is merely a paraphrase of the original (no part of the quotation professes to be exact), bringing out a little more prominently the special point of the argument. There is ample room for this. The predetermined object of the miracle, says St. John, was to display the works of G.o.d, and the Clementine writer specifies the particular work of G.o.d displayed--the mercy which heals the evil consequences of ignorance. If there is anything here at all inconsistent with the Gospel it would be interesting to know (and we are not told) what was the kind of original that the author of the Homily really had before him.
A further discussion of this pa.s.sage I should hardly suppose to be necessary. Nothing could be more wanton than to a.s.sign this pa.s.sage to an imaginary Gospel merely on the ground alleged. The hypothesis was less violent in regard to the Synoptic Gospels, which clearly contain a large amount of common matter that might also have found its way into other hands. We have evidence of the existence of other Gospels presenting a certain amount of affinity to the first Gospel, but the fourth is stamped with an idiosyncracy which makes it unique in its kind. If there is to be this freedom in inventing unknown doc.u.ments, reproducing almost verbatim the features of known ones, sober criticism is at an end.
That the Clementine Homilies imply the use of the fourth Gospel may be considered to be, not indeed certain in a strict sense of the word, but as probable as most human affairs can be. The real element or doubt is in regard to their date, and their evidence must be taken subject to this uncertainty.
It is perhaps hardly worth while to delay over the Epistle to Diognetus: not that I do not believe the instances alleged by Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott [Endnote 295:1] to be in themselves sound, but because there exists too little evidence to determine the date of the Epistle, and because it may be doubted whether the argument for the use of the fourth Gospel in the Epistle can be expressed strongly in an objective form. The allusions in question are not direct quotations, but are rather reminiscences of language. The author of "Supernatural Religion" has treated them as if they were the former [Endnote 296:1]; he has enquired into the context &c., not very successfully. But such enquiry is really out of place. When the writer of the Epistle says, "Christians dwell in the world but are not of the world" [Greek: ouk xisi de ek tou kosmou] = exactly John xvii. 14; note peculiar use of the preposition); "For G.o.d loved men for whose sakes He made the world ... unto whom He sent His only begotten Son" (= John iii. 16, "G.o.d so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son"); "How will you love Him who so beforehand loved you" [Greek: proagapaesanta]; cf. i John iv. 19, [Greek: protos aegapaesen] "He sent His Son as wishing to save ... and not to condemn" ([Greek: sozon ... krinon]
of. John iii. 16),--the probability is about as great that he had in his mind St. John"s language as it would be if the same phrases were to occur in a modern sermon. It is a real probability; but not one that can be urged very strongly.
Of more importance--indeed of high importance--is the evidence drawn from the remains of earlier writers preserved by Irenaeus and Hippolytus. There is a clear reference to the fourth Gospel in a pa.s.sage for which Irenaeus alleges the authority of certain "Presbyters," who at the least belonged to an elder generation than his own. There can be little doubt indeed that they are the same as those whom he describes three sentences later and with only a momentary break in the oblique narration into which the pa.s.sage is thrown, as "the Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles."
It may be well to give the language of Irenaeus in full as it has been the subject of some controversy. Speaking of the rewards of the just in the next world, he says [Endnote 297:1]:--
"For Esaias says, "Like as the new heaven and new earth which I create remain before me, saith the Lord, so your seed and your name shall stand." And as the Presbyters say, then too those who are thought worthy to have their abode in Heaven shall go thither, and some shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, while others shall possess the splendour of the City; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they shall be worthy who look upon Him.
[So far the sentence has been in oratio recta, but here it becomes oblique.] And [they say] that there is this distinction in dwelling between those who bear fruit an hundred fold and those who bear sixty and those who bear thirty, some of whom shall be carried off into the Heavens, some shall stay in Paradise, and some shall dwell in the City. And for this reason, [they say that]
the Lord declared ([Greek: eipaekenai]) that _in my Father"s_ [realm] _are many mansions;_ for all things [are] of G.o.d, who gives to all the fitting habitation: even as His Word saith (_ait_), that to all is allotted by the Father as each is or shall be worthy. And this is (_est_) the couch upon which they shall recline who are bidden to His marriage supper. That this is (_esse_) the order and disposition of the saved, the Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles, say," etc.
That Irenaeus is here merely giving the "exegesis of his own day,"
as the author of "Supernatural Religion" suggests [Endnote 297:2], is not for a moment tenable. Irenaeus does indeed interpose for two sentences (Omnia enim... ad nuptias) to give his own comment on the saying of the Presbyters; but these are sharply cut off from the rest by the use of the present indicative instead of the infinitive. There can be no question at all that the quotation "in My Father"s realm are many mansions" [Greek: en tois ton Patros mon monas einai pollas] belongs to the Presbyters, and there can be but little doubt that these Presbyters are the same as those spoken of as "disciples of the Apostles."
Whether they were also "the Presbyters" referred to as his authority by Papias is quite a secondary and subordinate question.
Considering the Chiliastic character of the pa.s.sage, the conjecture [Endnote 298:1] that they were does not seem to me unreasonable. This however we cannot determine positively. It is quite enough that Irenaeus evidently attributes to them an antiquity considerably beyond his own; that, in fact, he looks upon them as supplying the intermediate link between his age and that of the Apostles.
Two quotations from the fourth Gospel are attributed to Basilides, both of them quite indisputable as quotations. The first is found in the twenty-second chapter of the seventh book of the "Refutation," "That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world [Endnote 298:2] ([Greek: aen to phos to alaethinon, o photizei panta anthropon erchomenon eis ton kosmon]
= John i. 9), and the second in the twenty-seventh chapter, "My hour is not yet come" ([Greek: oupo aekei aeora mon] = John ii.
4). Both of these pa.s.sages are instances of the exegesis by which the Basilidian doctrines were defended.
The real question is here, as in regard to the Synoptics, whether the quotations were made by Basilides himself or by his disciples, "Isidore and his crew." The second instance I am disposed to think may possibly be due to the later representatives of this school, because, though the quotation is introduced by [Greek: phaesi] in the singular, and though Basilides himself can in no case be excluded, still there is nothing in the chapter to identify the subject of [Greek: phaesi] specially with him, and in the next sentence Hippolytus writes, "This is that which they understand ([Greek: ho kat" autous nenoaemenos]) by the inner spiritual man,"
&c. But the earlier instance is different. There Basilides himself does seem to be specially singled out.
He is mentioned by name only two sentences above that in which the quotation occurs. Hippolytus is referring to the Basilidian doctrine of the origin of things. He says, "Now since it was not allowable to say that something non-existent had come into being as a projection from a non-existent Deity--for Basilides avoids and shuns the existences of things brought into being by projection [Endnote 299:1]--for what need is there of projection, or why should matter be presupposed in order that G.o.d should make a world, just as a spider its web or as mortal man in making things takes bra.s.s or wood or any other portion of matter? But He spake--so he says--and it was done, and this is, as these men say, that which is said by Moses: "Let there be light, and there was light." Whence, he says, came the light? Out of nothing; for we are not told--he says--whence it came, but only that it was at the voice of Him that spake. Now He that spake--he says--was not, and that which was made, was not. Out of that which was not--he says-- was made the seed of the world, the word which was spoken, "Let there be light;" and this--he says--is that which is spoken in the Gospels; "That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."" We must not indeed overlook the fact that the plural occurs once in the middle of this pa.s.sage as introducing the words of Moses; "as these men say." And yet, though this decidedly modifies, I do not think that it removes the probability that Basilides himself is being quoted. It seems a fair inference that at the beginning of the pa.s.sage Hippolytus had the work of Basilides actually before him; and the single digression in [Greek: legousin houtoi] does not seem enough to show that it was laid aside. This is confirmed when we look back two chapters at the terms in which the whole account of the Basilidian system is introduced. "Let us see," Hippolytus says, "how flagrantly Basilides as well as (B. [Greek: h.o.m.ou kai]) Isidore and all their crew contradict not only Matthias but the Saviour himself." Stress is laid upon the name of Basilides, as if to say, "It is not merely a new-fangled heresy, but dates back to the head and founder of the school." When in the very next sentence Hippolytus begins with [Greek: phaesi], the natural construction certainly seems to be that he is quoting some work of Basilides which he takes as typical of the doctrine of the whole school. A later work would not suit his purpose or prove his point. Basilides includes Isidore, but Isidore does not include Basilides.
We conclude then that there is a probability--not an overwhelming, but quite a substantial, probability--that Basilides himself used the fourth Gospel, and used it as an authoritative record of the life of Christ. But Basilides began to teach in 125 A.D., so that his evidence, supposing it to be valid, dates from a very early period indeed: and it should be remembered that this is the only uncertainty to which it is subject. That the quotation is really from St. John cannot be doubted.
The account which Hippolytus gives of the Valentinians also contains an allusion to the fourth Gospel; "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers" (cf. John x. 8). But here the master and the disciples are more confused. Less equivocal evidence is afforded by the statements of Irenaeus respecting the Valentinians.
He says that the Valentinians used the fourth Gospel very freely (plenissime) [Endnote 301:1]. This applies to a date that cannot be in any case later than 180 A.D., and that may extend almost indefinitely backwards. There is no reason to say that it does not include Valentinus himself. Positive evidence is wanting, but negative evidence still more. Apart from evidence to the contrary, there must be a presumption against the introduction of a new work which becomes at once a frequently quoted authority midway in the history of a school.
But to keep to facts apart from presumptions. Irenaeus represents Ptolemaeus as quoting largely from the Prologue to the Gospel. But Ptolemaeus, as we have seen, had already gathered a school about him when Irenaeus became acquainted with him. His evidence therefore may fairly be said to cover the period from 165-175 A.D.
The author of "Supernatural Religion" seems to be somewhat beside the mark when he says that "in regard to Ptolemaeus all that is affirmed is that in the Epistle to Flora ascribed to him expressions found in John i. 3 are used." True it is that such expressions are found, and before we accept the theory in "Supernatural Religion" that the parenthesis in which they occur is due to Epiphanius who quotes the letter in full himself [Endnote 302:1], it is only right that some other instance should be given of such parenthetic interruption. The form in which the letter is quoted, not in fragments interspersed with comments but complete and at full length, with a formal heading and close, really excludes such a hypothesis. But, a century and a half before Epiphanius, Irenaeus had given a string of Valentinian comments on the Prologue, ending with the words, "Et Ptolemaeus quidem ita" [Endnote 302:2]. Heracleon, too, is coupled with Ptolemaeus by Irenaeus [Endnote 302:3], and according to the view of the author of "Supernatural Religion," had a school around him at the time of Irenaeus" visit to Rome in 178 A.D. But this Heracleon was the author of a Commentary on St. John"s Gospel to which Origen in his own parallel work frequently alludes. These are indeed dismissed in "Supernatural Religion" as "unsupported references." But we may well ask, what support they need. The references are made in evident good faith. He says, for instance [Endnote 302:4], that Heracleon"s exegesis of John i. 3, "All things were made by Him," excluding from this the world and its contents, is very forced and without authority. Again, he has misinterpreted John i. 4, making "in Him was life" mean not "in Him" but "in spiritual men." Again, he wrongly attributes John i.
18 not to the Evangelist, but to the Baptist. And so on. The allusions are all made in this incidental manner; and the life of Origen, if he was born, as is supposed, about 185 A.D., would overlap that of Heracleon. What evidence could be more sufficient?
or if such evidence is to be discarded, what evidence are we to accept? Is it to be of the kind that is relied upon for referring quotations to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospel according to Peter, or the [Greek: Genna Marias]? There are sometimes no doubt reasonable grounds for scepticism as to the patristic statements, but none such are visible here. On the contrary, that Heracleon should have written a commentary on the fourth Gospel falls in entirely with what Irenaeus says as to the large use that was made of that Gospel by the Valentinians.
As we approach the end of the third and beginning of the fourth quarter of the second century the evidence for the fourth Gospel becomes widespread and abundant. At this date we have attention called to the discrepancy between the Gospels as to the date of the Crucifixion by Claudius Apollinaris. We have also Tatian, the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, the heathen Celsus and the Muratorian Canon, and then a very few years later Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus.
I imagine that there can be really no doubt about Tatian. Whatever may have been the nature of the Diatessaron, the "Address to the Greeks" contains references which it is mere paradox to dispute. I will not press the first of these which is given by Dr. Westcott, not because I do not believe that it is ultimately based upon the fourth Gospel, still less that there is the slightest contradiction to St. John"s doctrine, but because Tatian"s is a philosophical comment perhaps a degree too far removed from the original to be quite producible as evidence. It is one of the earliest speculations as to the ontological relation between the Father and the Son. In the beginning G.o.d was alone--though all things were with Him potentially.
By the mere act of volition He gave birth to the Logos, who was the real originative cause of things. Yet the existence of the Logos was not such as to involve a separation of ident.i.ty in the G.o.dhead; it involved no diminution in Him from whom the Logos issued. Having been thus first begotten, the Logos in turn begat our creation, &c. The Logos is thus represented as being at once prior to creation (the Johannean [Greek: en archae]) and the efficient cause of it--which is precisely the doctrine of the Prologue.
The other two pa.s.sages are however quite unequivocal.
_Orat. ad Graecos_, c. xiii.
And this is therefore that saying: The darkness comprehends not the light.
[Greek: Kai touto estin ara to eiraemenon Hae skotia to phos ou katalambanei.]
_John_ i. 5.
And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
[Greek: Kai to phos en tae skotia phainei, kai hae skotia auto ou katelaben.]
On this there is the following comment in "Supernatural Religion"
[Endnote 305:1]: ""The saying" is distinctly different in language from the parallel in the Gospel, and it may be from a different Gospel. We have already remarked that Philo called the Logos "the Light," and quoting in a peculiar form, Ps. xxvi. 1: "For the Lord is my light ([Greek: phos]) and my Saviour," he goes on to say that as the sun divides day and night, so Moses says, "G.o.d divides light and darkness" ([Greek: Theon phos kai skotos diateichisai]), when we turn away to things of sense we use "another light" which is in no way different from "darkness." The constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness in the Canonical Epistles shows how current it was in the Church; and nothing is more certain than the fact that it was neither originated by, nor confined to, the fourth Gospel." Such criticism refutes itself, and it is far too characteristic of the whole book. Nothing is adduced that even remotely corresponds to the very remarkable phrase [Greek: hae skotia to phos katalambanei], and yet for these imaginary parallels one that is perfectly plain and direct is rejected.
The use of the phrase [Greek: to eiraemenon] should be noticed. It is the formula used, especially by St. Luke, in quotation from the Old Testament Scriptures.
The other pa.s.sage is:--
_Orat. ad Graecos_, c. xix.
All things were by him, and without him hath been made nothing.
[Greek: Panta hup" autou kai choris autou gegonen oude hen.]
_John_ i. 3.